Jump to content
The Education Forum
Fred Litwin

I Was a Teenage JFK Conspiracy Freak

Recommended Posts

17 minutes ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

He was already famous and standing before the news cameras.

He'd been on the radio and in the newspapers before. Why carry out an assassination if handing out left-wing leaflets could have the same effect WITHOUT risking your life? If you and Lance are right about Oswald, now would've been the time for him to tell the world about his great thoughts, how his "Athenian" system would change the world and all that stuff. But he didn't do that. Why?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Mathias Baumann said:

He'd been on the radio and in the newspapers before. Why carry out an assassination if handing out left-wing leaflets could have the same effect WITHOUT risking your life? If you and Lance are right about Oswald, now would've been the time for him to tell the world about his great thoughts, how his "Athenian" system would change the world and all that stuff. But he didn't do that. Why?

He couldn't do that without some admission of guilt. In other words, he had to maintain his innocence in order to stay alive and spouting off about his political beliefs would not be consistent with that. He would have also wanted to obtain counsel and see where he stood before saying anything. As I said, I think he would have hoped for a deal, but that was doubtful. But all of this is just my speculation based on his personality as I understand it and we'll never know for sure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
16 hours ago, David Von Pein said:

~sigh~ (It's always about "the clothes". Nothing else matters to Cliff Varnell.)

Reprise #2....

JFK's "bunched up" clothing....

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2014/12/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-862.html

Quote

And, to reiterate -- Why on Earth do CTers think it would be an impossible feat to have somebody's shirt and jacket bunched up IN UNISON on a person's back?

Most people tuck their shirts in, but not their jackets.

Quote

That seems to be about right when looking at the autopsy photo.

The autopsy photo is worthless. Kennedy was not shot lying flat on his stomach.

Quote
  •  

I did a little experiment. My wife - she's a physiotherapist - marked  the location of T3 on my back. She measured it to be about 22 cm down form the hairline.

back1.jpg

Then we did the same thing while I was lying on my stomach. Due to the contraction of the skin it now appeared to have moved about 5 cm upwards.

back2.jpg

Now if we look at Kennedy's autopsy photo we'll notice that not only is he lying face down, but it also appears that the doctors are even pulling the skin on his back up toward the neck. At least that's what the hand on his shoulder seems to be doing (notice the wrinkles in the nape of the neck).

00e.+JFK+Autopsy+Photo.jpg

It appears the photo was staged to conceal the real location of the entrance wound.

You can try this at home.

Edited by Mathias Baumann

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Mathias Baumann said:

That would make sense if he was part of a conspiracy and maybe still expected to be rewarded if released from custody. But if he did it to become a hero, as Lance suggests, why would he then not openly boast about it? Wasn't that supposedly the whole point? To become famous?

If I may….
I suggest that you watch the great-quality documentary "Oswald's ghost". Listen to what Norman Mailer says at the very end. That will answer your question.
Oswald wanted to assassinate the President and he would have boasted about it. But things didn't turn out as he had imagined. Him killing a policeman (namely Tippit) changed the situation and he could no longer admit he was guilty. Please listen to Normam Mailer. What he says is very powerful !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Quote

And, to reiterate -- Why on Earth do CTers think it would be an impossible feat to have somebody's shirt and jacket bunched up IN UNISON on a person's back?

<quote off>

You can't get your shirt to move more than a fraction of an inch with casual movement, David.

That is the most readily observable phenomenon on the planet.

It's right under your nose but your true belief has robbed you of your ability to see obvious physical facts.

You can't get someone to see an obvious fact when their pet theories depend on not seeing it.

 

Edited by Cliff Varnell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
5 hours ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

I guess I am dense because I don't understand how the "power elite" can continue to control the media in this age of Internet blogging. Your argument makes some sense, at least, in the sixties when the outlets were limited. But not today. BTW, presumably this evil "power elite" is on the political right? If so, it is surprising that they cannot control the left-wing slant from the current mainstream media. Nor do they seem to be able to control the thousands of bloggers working for the left. So, yes I am having trouble following your argument. I think it would be a simple matter to get the message out to the masses that a conspiracy in the JFK has been "proven." Perhaps the reality is people just don't believe you.

Do you believe this?  It existed in the sixties but not now.

Alec Baldwin could not get a JFK special on the air at the fiftieth, because we know what happened at that time: Tom Brokaw etc.

So he goes to the president of NBC.  He pitches his idea.  The guy replies with words to the effect, Alec, thanks, but we have come to terms  with the official story on that subject.

This is Alec Baldwin, one of the biggest TV stars there is at the time.

When I heard that, I understood the concept of institutional memory.  And it also explained why Rachel Maddow is a stooge on the JFK case.  How big a stooge, click here https://kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/rachel-maddow-jfk-and-easy-money

 

FInally, the MSM has a leftwing slant? :help  This guy should look up what happened to Phil Donahue when he wanted to have an open debate on the invasion of Iraq.

Or else, he is from Breitbart and thinks that HRC is a liberal.  And her husband.  That is how bad the USA has gotten.

Edited by James DiEugenio

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, François Carlier said:

Thank you for your demonstration. I'm convinced, now.

You are most welcome. I am glad it only took this much to "convince" you.

This thread has become a pissing contest of gigantic proportions. 

The CTers bombarding the deluded LNers who can only answer partially as the amount of evidence that destroys their pet theory (!!!) is too much to bear and droop off as they do not have the answers. DVP has been doing this for at least a decade. A re-occurring joke that has grown old.

And this will become a new "Prayer Man" style thread at which the admins/mods feel the need to jump in and lock it.

It is not going anywhere and the LNer scum will deny, like David Irving would until the cows come home.

 

LOCK THIS THREAD AND SEND IT TO THE PITS OF THE EF!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, François Carlier said:

Thank you very much, Sir.
Indeed, Lance Payette wrote two magnificent posts about conspiracy theorists, but it was only a good description. We needed a live example. That's when you decided to step into play. We only have to look at you to see a live example of a conspiracy theorist living in a world of make-believe. Thank you for showing us. On top of that you seem to be arrogant, but that's fine by me, don't worry.
Again, thank you very much !

Eww name calling (arrogant lol), how elitist of you!  Yes what you call arrogant, I call informed and confident.  I know this might be difficult for you to comprehend.  Usually those who are scared to admit the truth, such as you, do so because it is scary and then resort to name calling.  I note you answered none of my questions which were asked above.  I suppose it is scary when someone such as you relies on other peoples work to support your world view (you keep citing to other videos and websites and writers).  If you did the research yourself, you would then have to open your eyes to broader questions.  However, it is nicer to live in your world where everything is nice and neat without conspiracies.  Tell me, were there conspiracies to kill Charles De Gaulle?  Castro?  Lincoln?  No, of course not.  Why would you answer these questions?  The only thing you proved to all of us with your less than academic quasi psychological statement is that you have no ability to look at life without blinders on (I note and concede some conspiracists also wear these blinders).  It is unfortunate on both sides.  Perhaps one day you can learn to deal with the world without blinders on.  Cheers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On ‎10‎/‎6‎/‎2018 at 11:05 PM, James DiEugenio said:

In Carlier's whole mishmash above, he somehow cannot bring himself to write the words: Sgt. Don Flusche. 

Maybe because his name just happens to negate everything he wrote there about how Vaughn could have missed Ruby.

Francois, get this through your head:  Flusche was parked right across the street.  He had a view of not just the entryway, but the street leading into it.  He knew Ruby.  Therefore if he says that Ruby never came down the street or the ramp, then he did not.  And this is why the totally corrupt DPD kept him away from the WC.  

If this is a sample of your critical thinking skills?  

But further, there is the matter of Dean and his polygraph.  How on earth can you fail  a polygraph when you write your own questions?  Well he did. And the fact the FBI rigged Ruby's polygraph tells us something does it not?

Plus Dean lied about the rear door being secured which looks out at Western Union.  Do you also fail to comprehend that point?  I mean how many lies will your side put up with?

What about the horn noises that were later edited out of the NBC feed?  Which happen to coincide with Oswald arriving in the foyer and Ruby jumping forward to kill him. I mean when you see the unedited version of this, its positively eerie.  I am not saying that they mean anything, but I am saying its something people should be allowed to watch. Apparently someone thought otherwise.

 

Mister DiEugenio,
Here is my input :
- 1. There is a big difference between a witness saying "I didn't see" and a witness saying "I saw". If, say, I tell you that I saw Pat Speer at the JFK-Lancer conference, well, you can conclude that Pat Speer was there. But if I tell you that I didn't see Josiah Thompson, well, you cannot conclude that he wasn't there. You can only conclude that he may or may not have been there, since he could very well have been there without me noticing him. In other words, if anybody tells you that he didn't see Jack Ruby going down the main Street ramp, it doesn't necessarily mean -- and it certainly doesn't prove -- that Jack Ruby wasn't there.
- 2. At any rate, as I have told you, it is NOT of crucial importance. I mean, if someone proves to me that Jack Ruby came to the DPD through a back door (and I don't believe that as of today), that would not be too disturbing. That wouldn't change the basic facts. I know that "
The Committee found that Ruby could have got into the basement by slipping down an alleyway at the side of the police station." Whatever path he found to get to the basement, I still say that he shot Lee Oswald on an impulse. And you'll never be able to prove otherwise.
- 3. The car horns ? There were multiple of them and we can hear them in the footage, audio documents and video documents. It can't have been a signal, since there were several of them, even when Oswald had not arrived yet. It doesn't mean anything. I don't know if they have been edited out of some audio file that you may have, but since they can be heard anywhere else, it isn't that important. We all have heard the car horns and we all know that they were numerous. Nobody at NBC or the FBI can prevent us from knowing that.
- 4. As to your claim that the FBI rigged Ruby's polygraph ("rigged" ? No, I don't subscribe to that idea), again, what does it prove ? I mean, we all know what Ruby had to say and actually said. He was allowed to talk to so many people over the years ! Nothing was/is hidden. And, I'm sorry to say, there is no "smoking gun" in anything that Ruby had to say.
In short, you're making a mountain out of a molehill.
You don't have anything of substance. Only innuendo.
I'm serious, I'm not impressed by your empty posts.
I wish I were...

Edited by François Carlier

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
2 minutes ago, François Carlier said:

 

 

Edited by François Carlier

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

Do you believe this?  It existed in the sixties but not now.

Alec Baldwin could not get a JFK special on the air at the fiftieth, because we know what happened at that time: Tom Brokaw etc.

So he goes to the president of NBC.  He pitches his idea.  The guy replies with words to the effect, Alec, thanks, but we have come to terms  with the official story on that subject.

This is Alec Baldwin, one of the biggest TV stars there is at the time.

When I heard that, I understood the concept of institutional memory.  And it also explained why Rachel Maddow is a stooge on the JFK case.  How big a stooge, click here https://kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/rachel-maddow-jfk-and-easy-money

 

FInally, the MSM has a leftwing slant? :help  This guy should look up what happened to Phil Donahue when he wanted to have an open debate on the invasion of Iraq.

Or else, he is from Breitbart and thinks that HRC is a liberal.  And her husband.  That is how bad the USA has gotten.

Jim, and another thing,

for historical accuracy, the Oswald did it alone group needs to answer this question.

Was there a conspiracy to cover up relevant facts to the assassination and mislead the Warren Ommission?  Yes or no?

If yes, good, they can finally agree with what is a historical fact.

See

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/10/jfk-assassination-john-mccone-warren-commission-cia-213197

 

If they answer no, those blinders will never let them see anything even when the government admits something.

The above admission read in concert with the Katzenbach memo all confirm that the Warren conclusions are rightfully criticized as the investigation was guided and not a search for the truth.

Will they concede the above?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
4 hours ago, Cliff Varnell said:

You can't get your shirt to move more than a fraction of an inch with casual movement, David.

And just HOW do you KNOW the exact position that JFK's shirt was in at the moment he was shot?

I'll answer that one ---- You don't know.

So maybe you should stop pretending that you do know things that you cannot possibly know for certain.

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
30 minutes ago, David Von Pein said:

And just HOW do you KNOW the exact position that JFK's shirt was in at the moment he was shot?

I know the exact position of YOUR shirt right now, David, unless you're performing a maneuver where you slide down in your seat while the back of your shirt sticks to the back of the chair.

What, you think guys wear their shirts in "different" positions?

In the words of men's clothing designer Alan Flusser, the tailored shirt is like "a second skin."

Quote

I'll answer that one ---- You don't know.

Unless your mama dresses you funny, shirts are worn in the "same position."

Quote

So maybe you should stop pretending that you do know things that you cannot possibly know for certain.

There is nothing in the world more certain than how a man wears a shirt.

Again, your True Belief in the LN renders you incapable of making simple observations of physical reality.

Edited by Cliff Varnell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Michael Clark said:

I recall when the full implications  of the JFKA conspiracy hit me. It was before reading Garrisons book or seeing Stone’s movie based on that book. I was stunned. I was quaking and shuddering. For some time it was all I could think or talk about. I passed, slightly, in and out of denial. Eventually I just moved on.

i can understand the denial. Thinking, caring and responsible can be ruined just by believing the truth and understanding it’s implications. For many, accepting the false tale of the WC is the only way to go on.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
39 minutes ago, Cliff Varnell said:

Again, your True Belief in the LN renders you incapable of making simple observations of physical reality.

Keep pretending you know the answers to impossible-to-answer questions, Cliff. After all, it's the thing that CTers do best.

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

×