Dealing with deniers

[Tom Wilson]

All "fake" stuff, eh Tom?

Sad.

I suppose it it would make you happy sir if I were to respond to your rediculous postings. Then we would be off on a "my dogs bigger than your gog" rant. So let me simply say that you have to take the so called eveidence and weigh it entirely. You chose not to. That is certainly your right. For 48 years the American public in poll after poll, agrees with me. The vast majority of work done in the research of the assassination supports me. You have Bugliosi and Posner.

Sad

[David Von Pein]

The vast majority of work done in the research of the assassination supports me. You have Bugliosi and Posner.

The work done by the many, many people who actually investigated (in depth) the murders of JFK and Officer Tippit supports me.

You have no choice but to believe that EVERY official investigative team that looked into the JFK assassination totally botched up everything -- from the DPD, to the FBI, to the Warren Commission, to the HSCA, to the Clark Panel, to the Rockefeller panel.

I've got all of the above. You've got Stone, Garrison, Armstrong, Fetzer, Lane, and Lifton.

Sad.

And pathetic.

And btw, according to the 1,031 people polled by ABC News in Nov. 2003, only 7% of those people think that Oswald did not fire any shots at President Kennedy. Not exactly an overwhelming majority, is it?

http://www.pollingreport.com/news3.htm#Kennedy

Edited June 17, 2011 by David Von Pein

[Tom Wilson]

The vast majority of work done in the research of the assassination supports me. You have Bugliosi and Posner.

The work done by the many, many people who actually investigated (in depth) the murders of JFK and Officer Tippit supports me.

You have no choice but to believe that EVERY official investigative team that looked into the JFK assassination totally botched up everything -- from the DPD, to the FBI, to the Warren Commission, to the HSCA, to the Clark Panel, to the Rockefeller panel.

I've got all of the above. You've got Stone, Garrison, Armstrong, Fetzer, Lane, and Lifton.

Sad.

And pathetic.

And btw, according to the 1,031 people polled by ABC News in Nov. 2003, only 7% of those people think that Oswald did not fire any shots at President Kennedy. Not exactly an overwhelming majority, is it?

http://www.pollingreport.com/news3.htm#Kennedy

David,

I don't know you so I assume your beliefs are heartfelt. I truly do not mean anything personal.

My original comment concerned Means, Motive, and Opportunity. These are the bars to be reached in any criminal case. In THIS case,, had Oswald lived, there would be in my opinion, a very hard uphill climb for the prosecution of Oswald based on the evidence purportidly found by the DPD. There is no evidence in that sense. Once LHO was murdered the evidence for evidentary value, no longer existed. So here we are all these many years later stuck with, what ifs, shoulda' been's, and oh darns! The evidence that points to Oswald is countered, as I'm sure you know, by many other pieces of evidence. Unfortunately it is a parlor dance because it will never see the flourescent lights of a court room. So you and I arguing the viability of evidence that is clearly of debate, does no good. Those who believe the basic story of the WC, are OK with me. It's like politics, left and right rarely agree. The actions by those who tear down the adversary is the issue. I do not desire to change your mind, not at all. What I care about, what I seek, is the truth about who killed my President.

[Pat Speer]

There's CE637 (never proven to be planted there); and there are the oft-overlooked trigger guard fingerprints which were positively Oswald's, per print expert Vincent Scalice. He's a xxxx too?

While I agree with your overall point, David, in that I don't think one can ignore ALL the evidence against Oswald, there are MASSIVE problems with the rifle prints which one citing them as evidence should acknowledge.

Problem 1 is that, while the barrel print was reportedly matched to Oswald's print, there was supposedly no sign of it on the barrel after it was lifted. This led the Warren Commission--at the last second--to ask the FBI if there was any way to determine if the print came from Oswald's rifle. Hoover responded in a letter telling them yes, with a nearly illegible exhibit purportedly matching the defects in the background of the barrel print with the defects on Oswald's barrel.

So what's the problem? Well, the Warren Commission, despite their claims of receiving all important evidence under oath, failed to take the testimony of the FBI examiner--presumably Latona--claiming the match. This is a massive mistake, IMO. And not only that, there is no record of the examination in the FBI's files (at least that I have been able to find). To be clear, most all the examinations conducted by the FBI's crime lab have a corresponding Jevons to Conrad memo detailing what examination was made, why it was made, and the results, and there isn't one for the barrel match. So, what's one to think? Did it really match? Well then PROVE it--without citing Hoover's letter!

Problem 2 relates to the trigger guard prints. While you are correct to claim that Scalice, after inspecting the superior copies of the prints released with First Day Evidence, claimed that, through mixing and matching the various photos, he could get a match, you ignore that standard identification protocol disallows a match under these circumstances, and that other examiners, including long-time FBI expert George Bonebrake, rejected Scalice's match. This brings up Scalice's credibility. Well, it's beyond interesting, at least to me, that, years after his performance as the HSCA's fingerprint expert, Scalice re-emerged as a questioned documents expert--a different area of expertise--to claim Vince Foster's death note was a fake.

And that's not the only problem with the trigger guard prints. The photos released in recent years by the Dallas Archives do not depict the smudged prints one would assume based upon the FBI's testimony--in fact, the prints are quite clear. James Olmstead has, in fact, shown these prints to Henry Lee, and Lee has confirmed the prints should be readily identifiable! So why the heck did the FBI, in 1963, claim the prints were smudged and unintelligible and enter not their own photos of these prints into evidence, but blurry COPIES of the DPD's photos into evidence?

What were they hiding? Are one or more of the trigger guard prints the prints of someone other than Oswald?

[David Von Pein]

What I care about, what I seek, is the truth about who killed my President.

But, Tom, don't Oswald's own incriminating actions lead you down the path to that truth you seek?

You surely must admit that Oswald shot Officer Tippit, right? That fact is even more obvious than his guilt in JFK's murder.

And Oswald's other actions on Nov. 21 and 22 certainly add up to his guilt too (and his planning to commit some kind of illegal act on the 22nd, based on the provable lie he told Buell Frazier about the "curtain rods").

Lee Harvey Oswald, on both Nov. 21 and 22, signed his name to the murders of John Kennedy and J.D. Tippit. Conspiracy theorists are treating this double-murder case as some kind of unknowable, unsolvable game of "Clue". But the evidence is quite clear: It was Oswald with C2766 from the Depository. No other scenario comes close to matching the evidence, coupled with (again) Oswald's own very incriminating actions and movements on both Nov. 21 and 22.

And if Oswald's own actions were somehow "fake", then we might as well be living in some alternate universe where Topsy-Turvy is the norm.

http://Oswald-Is-Guilty.blogspot.com

[Pat Speer]

The vast majority of work done in the research of the assassination supports me. You have Bugliosi and Posner.

The work done by the many, many people who actually investigated (in depth) the murders of JFK and Officer Tippit supports me.

You have no choice but to believe that EVERY official investigative team that looked into the JFK assassination totally botched up everything -- from the DPD, to the FBI, to the Warren Commission, to the HSCA, to the Clark Panel, to the Rockefeller panel.

I've got all of the above. You've got Stone, Garrison, Armstrong, Fetzer, Lane, and Lifton.

Sad.

And pathetic.

And btw, according to the 1,031 people polled by ABC News in Nov. 2003, only 7% of those people think that Oswald did not fire any shots at President Kennedy. Not exactly an overwhelming majority, is it?

http://www.pollingreport.com/news3.htm#Kennedy

David, please stop citing that stupid and deceptive poll, as it only makes you look silly. You have admitted in our previous discussions of that poll that you feel YOU HAVE TO believe that poll, because you can't accept that a size-able percentage of the country rejects Oswald's guilt.

To be clear, this is where you embarrass yourself. You acknowledge that 70-75% of the public thinks Kennedy was killed by a conspiracy, correct? You also acknowledge that 34% or so of the public thinks the CIA was behind the assassination. This means that 34% or so of the public believes Kennedy was killed by the CIA. IF only 7% of the public thinks Oswald failed to fire any shots, then, that means that at least 27 percent--roughly 4 times as many people--think Oswald fired shots on behalf the CIA.

And that's absolutely wacky--wackier than ANYTHING claimed by the CTs on this forum.

I mean, if you could study this case and honestly come to believe that FAR more people think Oswald was a hit man for the CIA than think he was innocent, then you need to start from scratch, as you have failed Kennedy Assassination 101.

[Thomas Kroger]

>>>I asked whether it was “more probable” that fourteen eyewitness were “mistaken” (as S V Anderson put it) in their location of Kennedy’s fatal head wound, OR that there has been, and continues to be, an ongoing and concerted effort, to discredit these witnesses. They are: McClelland, Crenshaw, Jones, Carrico, Dulany, Peters, Salyer, Bell, Ward, Rike, O’Connor, Riebe, Custer, and O’Neill. TGK <<<

Over on the Amazon boards, both little Stevie Anderson and his toady Shaboo2 denied that there was a list of such witnesses. Well, I produced it here, just as I had once done there, and I feel convinced that it will receive little notice or acknowledgement there. Moreover, the two Bethesda orderlies denied that the official photographs bore any resemblance to what they'd seen, and David Lifton documents their statements to that effect.

What does all that suggest? To me, it is fully consistent with the meaning and definition of a coup d'etat. In such an event, the usurping party is in control of the physical evidence. That being the case, it can restrict access to only friendly, or sympathetic parties, or factions, while denying access to critical, hostile, or independent individuals, groups, or factions. The uniform, untainted nature of the earlier, damning testimony suggests to me, and to any thinking person, I believe, that later testimony was revisionist, and hostile to the notion of a conspiracy. To refuse to entertain these possibilities indicates that one doesn't comprehend what the term coup d'etat means. There is ample historic precedent for this sort of thing: for decades, we were lied to about the nature of the Lusitania incident. We went to war in Europe, not to make the world "safe for democracy," but to protect J P Morgan's investments in Britain, which was losing the Great War at the time. Legitimacy is the fundamental concern of an existing government. Without it, or its trappings, revolutionary sentiment can spread like wildfire, even if it has enjoyed the perks and prerogatives of office for decades. That is the case here. In fact, no other explanation makes any sense to me. If this revisionist testimony that little Stevie Anderson loves to cite were not bogus, then why the continued secrecy? Why have not ALL the records, photographs, and documents, been released? When young Stevie can answer that question to my satisfaction, he will convince me. But not until then.

As a final reflection, I'd invite any reader to contemplate the nature and character of "our" government since the events in Dallas. Has it grown more representative, honest, or dedicated to preserving the Bill of Rights? Or less? What about our fraudulent money system, our fiat currency, and current economic woes? How about proposals for a North American Union, with its "Amero" currency? What about the abominable and propagandistically-named "Patriot Act," for that matter? Do you feel sovereign when TSA goons feel you up, or more like a chunk of meat? Do these ideas, or schemes sound like representative government to you? Or do they strike you as the schemes of megalomanic Oligarchs, Hell-bent on changing our system and way of life beyond recognition? Why is our history not being taught in our public schools? Are all those parents who home-school their children deluded?

I don't think so.

Edited June 19, 2011 by Thomas Kroger

[David Von Pein]

David, please stop citing that stupid and deceptive poll, as it only makes you look silly. You have admitted in our previous discussions of that poll that you feel YOU HAVE TO believe that poll, because you can't accept that a size-able percentage of the country rejects Oswald's guilt.

To be clear, this is where you embarrass yourself. You acknowledge that 70-75% of the public thinks Kennedy was killed by a conspiracy, correct? You also acknowledge that 34% or so of the public thinks the CIA was behind the assassination. This means that 34% or so of the public believes Kennedy was killed by the CIA. IF only 7% of the public thinks Oswald failed to fire any shots, then, that means that at least 27 percent--roughly 4 times as many people--think Oswald fired shots on behalf the CIA.

And that's absolutely wacky--wackier than ANYTHING claimed by the CTs on this forum.

I mean, if you could study this case and honestly come to believe that FAR more people think Oswald was a hit man for the CIA than think he was innocent, then you need to start from scratch, as you have failed Kennedy Assassination 101.

Oh, come now, Pat. You know darn well that many, many people think the CIA was involved in JFK's death. In fact, as you point out above, the Gallup Poll of 2003 indicates that 34% of the people polled thought the CIA was involved (second only to the Mafia, at 37%).

So, yes, a lot of people must, indeed, believe that Oswald was a triggerman for the CIA. And many people also think Oswald was WORKING FOR THE CIA. So, what's so spectacular about my thinking that a lot of conspiracy theorists believe that LHO pulled the trigger for the CIA?

In fact, I'd have to be loopy to NOT believe that many CTers feel that way. Let's do the simple math:

1. Oswald was a CIA agent (per many conspiracy believers).

2. 34% of the people (per Gallup) think the CIA had Kennedy killed.

3. Ergo, Oswald likely was a triggerman for the CIA.

What's the strain here?

Now, if the 1,000+ people who answered that ABC News question about Oswald being a "gunman" were just too dumb to know HOW to answer that question, well I cannot help that. You must actually think that a large number of those people WERE too stupid to answer the question according to their own personal beliefs. I'm sorry, but I'll have to differ with you on that one.

I was simply providing the raw data from that poll. If you think it was ABC's way to deceive the public, fine. I don't.

Edited June 17, 2011 by David Von Pein

[Glenn Viklund]

The vast majority of work done in the research of the assassination supports me. You have Bugliosi and Posner.

The work done by the many, many people who actually investigated (in depth) the murders of JFK and Officer Tippit supports me.

You have no choice but to believe that EVERY official investigative team that looked into the JFK assassination totally botched up everything -- from the DPD, to the FBI, to the Warren Commission, to the HSCA, to the Clark Panel, to the Rockefeller panel.

I've got all of the above. You've got Stone, Garrison, Armstrong, Fetzer, Lane, and Lifton.

Sad.

And pathetic.

And btw, according to the 1,031 people polled by ABC News in Nov. 2003, only 7% of those people think that Oswald did not fire any shots at President Kennedy. Not exactly an overwhelming majority, is it?

http://www.pollingreport.com/news3.htm#Kennedy

David, please stop citing that stupid and deceptive poll, as it only makes you look silly. You have admitted in our previous discussions of that poll that you feel YOU HAVE TO believe that poll, because you can't accept that a size-able percentage of the country rejects Oswald's guilt.

To be clear, this is where you embarrass yourself. You acknowledge that 70-75% of the public thinks Kennedy was killed by a conspiracy, correct? You also acknowledge that 34% or so of the public thinks the CIA was behind the assassination. This means that 34% or so of the public believes Kennedy was killed by the CIA. IF only 7% of the public thinks Oswald failed to fire any shots, then, that means that at least 27 percent--roughly 4 times as many people--think Oswald fired shots on behalf the CIA.

And that's absolutely wacky--wackier than ANYTHING claimed by the CTs on this forum.

I mean, if you could study this case and honestly come to believe that FAR more people think Oswald was a hit man for the CIA than think he was innocent, then you need to start from scratch, as you have failed Kennedy Assassination 101.

Pat, You are one, of few, balanced individuals, discussing the JFK assassination. Having read much of your research, I'm still not clear about you present position on all of this. Your CT views are (mostly) quite clear, but please, summarize your position?

//Glenn V.

[Thomas Kroger]

There is a problem with the autopsy photographs of President Kennedy at Bethesda, and the depictions of the wound, notably in the back of the skull.

They’re inconsistent.

None of this is rocket science, or esoteric. The inconsistency is evident, to anyone who looks at the images with a clear and unbiased eye.

The HCSA Artist’s Copy of Autopsy Photo No. 42/43 (Ida Dox) shows a small entry wound in the rear of the skull, along with the “flap” of tissue on the right top of the skull. That would vindicate the “lone-nut” camp – a fatal shot from the rear, exiting from the top-right of the President’s skull. The wound in the back of the head is small, and the only severe visible damage is situated at the right top of the President’s head. End of story.

Autopsy Photos 5,6 (B & W) are very different. A brace appears below the skull cavity, which ought NOT to be visible from the angle at which the photograph was taken, assuming that Photo 42/43 was genuine. It was clearly placed beneath the late President’s head to stabilize it as he lay on the slab. It is OBVIOUS that the rear of the President’s skull is missing; otherwise this metallic object – the brace - would be blocked from view. As it is, the right-rear portion of the skull is missing, and one can clearly see a jagged piece of bone tissue – at about a 10 o’clock position from the ear, perhaps 1-2 inches away. Nothing else is present – ALL the rest of the underlying skull, bone, and brain tissue is gone - certainly from the right-rear portion of the skull. Only the most dogmatic and/or mendacious lone-nut quack could, or would, pretend that these facts don’t exist, or attempt to explain them away. Understandably, they won’t address them. If they did so, the lone-nut camp would need to acknowledge the embarrassing fact that Photos 5 and 6 flatly contradict the artist's depictions (42/43) showing the rear of Kennedy’s skull to be present and largely intact.

Now, to my way of thinking, all of this represents a problem. An insuperable problem, in fact. One that continues to be ignored, and swept under the rug by the so-called “lone-nut” theorists. Continued official silence regarding it doesn’t come as a surprise.

The photographs referenced herein are all available for viewing in Douglas Horne's work.

Edited June 18, 2011 by Thomas Kroger

[Michael Hogan]

Pat, You are one, of few, balanced individuals, discussing the JFK assassination. Having read much of your research, I'm still not clear about you present position on all of this. Your CT views are (mostly) quite clear, but please, summarize your position?

//Glenn V.

Glenn, Pat's research is available online and at no cost. He spells it out for you here:

Chapter 20: Conclusions and Confusions: Summing it all up and acknowledging some unanswered questions

http://www.patspeer.com/chapter20%3Aconclusionsandconfusions%3A

[Daniel Meyer]

[edit...]

You have no choice but to believe that EVERY official investigative team that looked into the JFK assassination totally botched up everything -- from the DPD, to the FBI, to the Warren Commission, to the HSCA, to the Clark Panel, to the Rockefeller panel.

No. One only has to entertain the possibility that an "official investigation" might have a goal other than complete uncovering and disclosure of the full truth.

[David Von Pein]

One only has to entertain the possibility that an "official investigation" might have a goal other than complete uncovering and disclosure of the full truth.

ALL FOUR of them, Daniel?

Come now.

That would be an especially silly notion given the fact that the HSCA was looking desperately for ANY conspiracy they could get ahold of (and they found a bogus one--via the Dictabelt nonsense). But even they had the sense to say that Oswald killed Kennedy and Tippit.

Edited June 18, 2011 by David Von Pein

[Pat Speer]

One only has to entertain the possibility that an "official investigation" might have a goal other than complete uncovering and disclosure of the full truth.

ALL FOUR of them, Daniel?

Come now.

That would be an especially silly notion given the fact that the HSCA was looking desperately for ANY conspiracy they could get ahold of (and they found a bogus one--via the Dictabelt nonsense). But even they had the sense to say that Oswald killed Kennedy and Tippit.

Where do you get this stuff, David? Most of those working with the committee, like Groden, Fonzi, Tannenbaum, and Lopez, said the exact opposite: that the committee was looking for reasons to reject a conspiracy. The only thing I can think of is Baden's claim that, once the dictabelt evidence suggested a conspiracy, Blakey--who had always suspected a conspiracy--reversed course and asked his experts if they could offer anything more in support.

Is that what you're thinking of?

Inquiring minds want to know.

Edited June 18, 2011 by Pat Speer

[David Von Pein]

Pat, I was thinking mainly of Blakey and his pet Mafia theory.

And with Groden as a consultant--need more be said there?

Edited June 18, 2011 by David Von Pein