Jump to content
The Education Forum
Fred Litwin

I Was a Teenage JFK Conspiracy Freak

Recommended Posts

13 minutes ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

I am not talking about simply making facts public, but about proving a conspiracy through scientific and legal means and reversing the history books. I am working on a blog article about this now. 

Tracy,

in case you haven't noticed that's already happening.

Quote

Since 2000, five tenured academic historians have published books on JFK's assassination. Four of the five concluded that a conspiracy was behind the 35th president's murder.

David Kaiser, a diplomatic historian at the Naval War College, and the author of a 2008 book, The Road to Dallas: The Assassination of John F. Kennedy, concluded that Kennedy was killed in plot involving disgruntled CIA operatives and organized crime figures. Michael Kurtz of Southeastern Louisiana University came to the same conclusion in his 2006 book, The JFK Assassination Debates: Lone Gunman Versus Conspiracy.

https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2010/11/the-kennedy-assassination-47-years-later-what-do-we-really-know/66722/

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Emphasis added...

http://www.practicalhomicide.com/articles/LegalCS.htm

PRACTICAL CRIME SCENE INVESTIGATION:
Legal Considerations

By
Vernon J. Geberth, M.S., M.P.S.
Author of Practical Homicide Investigation, Copyright 2003
REPRINT: LAW and ORDER Vol. 51, No. 5, May, 2003

The search of the crime scene is the most important phase of the investigation conducted at the scene. Decisions of the courts restricting admissibility of testimonial evidence have significantly increased the value of physical evidence in homicide investigations. Therefore, law enforcement personnel involved in the crime scene search must arrange for the proper and effective collection of evidence at the scene.

Physical evidence, which is often referred to as the "unimpeachable witness," cannot be clouded by a faulty memory, prejudice, poor eyesight, or a desire "not to get involved." However, before a forensic laboratory can effectively examine physical evidence, it must be recognized as evidence. 
<quote off>

Lone Nutters are psychologically incapable of recognizing physical evidence found at the scene of the crime.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is the quote from Hathcock:

http://www.leatherneck.com/forums/showthread.php?50970-Kennedy-assassination-Gunny-Hathcock-s-take

The only way anyone has ever done this is by cheating.  The Warren Commission cheated (wrong height and stationary targets); the HSCA never even really tried to duplicate it, they only did timing tests; and CBS cheated by enlarging the target.  This was exposed by Roger Feinman's internal CBS documents. In spite of all this, Jerry Posner, a lawyer, said all three had done it.  Where were the lawyers who should have condemned this declaration made during his debate with Roger Stone down in Coral Gables, Florida.

Someone should do something about Carlier, he is becoming kind of embarrassing.  All those instances, he talks about, like Cold Case Nova, have been discredited so much that they are humorous.  I mean Gary Aguilar and Cyril Wecht humiliated the Haags. To the point that they would not debate in public.  And Gary even offered to pay their plane fare and their hotel room!!

https://kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-reviews/nova-s-cold-case-jfk-junk-science-pbs

Talk about a Profile in Courage..

I mean please Francois, I don't know how much time you spend on this, but you really should check on things before you write them up. These days we have something called the Web and its easy.

 

As per Parnell.  Steve Barber made a mistake. Don Thomas showed him where he was wrong in his so called cross talk.  There were two tracks and they were voice activated, not running continually.  Here is Don Thomas defending his thesis:

 

Edited by James DiEugenio

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The acoustic evidence is a fraud perpetrated by the HSCA.

In orer to inflate the significance of his work, Don Thomas must deny the root fact that JFK was shot in the throat from the front.

The case for conspiracy is prima facie -- the acoustics "debate" is moot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't divide the world into LNers and CTs  -- I divide the world into Conspiracy Factualists and T3 Deniers.

Both Jim DiEugenio and Francolis Carlier are T3 Deniers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Lance Payette said:

 Can you truly not see that this is lunatic fringe stuff?  (To answer my own question:  No, you can't, if you have the conspiracy mindset.  This is why, to me, the more interesting question is "Why do some sane and intelligent people think this way?")

Lance,

there's nothing "lunatic" about believing in a criminal conspiracy. As I've pointed out several tenured historians have come to believe that the mob ordererd JFK killed by exile Cubans and rogue CIA officers. A consensus seems to be emerging that John Roselli and David Morales were involved. And that makes a lot of sense. Both were involved in assassination plots against Castro. Roselli was brutally killed when he started talking about the Kennedy assassination. Morales was a close friend of David Attlee Phillips. And Phillips was involved in more than one way with Oswald (Mexico City, FPCC, the Cuban Students Council.) Morales admitted to a friend that he "had taken care of that son of a bitch" (Kennedy). Phillips once stated to a journalist he thought that rogue CIA officers may have killed Kennedy. (An astonishing statement from a man who'd formed an organization whose primary goal was to protect the agency's reputation.)

The conspirators were NOT involved in the cover-up. They didn't have to be. With trails leading to Moscow Lyndon Johnson would make sure there would be no honest investigation.

About Oswald: Yes, I agree he aspired to make history in one way or another. But I don't agree that Marxism was what drove him. He didn't even know the difference between Stalinism and Trotskyism. No, Oswald lived in a phantasy world playing James Bond. And that's the reason it was so easy to set him up, because he was a big child.

Edited by Mathias Baumann

Share this post


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

in case you haven't noticed that's already happening.

I await the press conference announcing they have cracked the case. BTW Mathias, if you believe people like the ones you mention have reversed the WC and HSCA findings that LHO did it alone, how do you account for the fact that the mainstream media and the history book publishers have not picked up on this? Wouldn't this be the story of the century? Or could it be that the books are merely speculative in nature rather than scientific or legal proofs?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Mathias Baumann said:

Roselli was brutally killed when he started talking about the Kennedy assassination.

Mathias, you don't believe the silly "mystery deaths" stuff do you? Mark Lane was one of the original conspiracy theorists and he died of old age. Jean Hill was a Dealey Plaza witness who told her story to anyone and everyone who would listen and wrote a book. She died of natural causes (undisputed as far as I know). I could go on and on. Why didn't "they" wipe out everyone?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Cliff Varnell said:

I don't divide the world into LNers and CTs  -- I divide the world into Conspiracy Factualists and T3 Deniers.

Both Jim DiEugenio and Francolis Carlier are T3 Deniers

Sorry, Mister DiEugenio, someone put both of us in the same basket…
😁

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

The only way anyone has ever done this is by cheating.  The Warren Commission cheated (wrong height and stationary targets); the HSCA never even really tried to duplicate it, they only did timing tests; and CBS cheated by enlarging the target.  

Ever hear of Michael Yardley? He did it easily. Now, I will grant you that he was an expert and LHO was not. But what LHO accomplished (2 out of 3 hits in 8 or so seconds) was very possible given his ability.

http://www.positiveshooting.com/kennedyassassinationlatest.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, François Carlier said:

Sorry, Mister DiEugenio, someone put both of us in the same basket…
😁

"It's not personal, Sonny.  It's strictly business."  The Godfather

"The prevailing wind happens to be from Vichy." Casablanca

Edited by Cliff Varnell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

I await the press conference announcing they have cracked the case. BTW Mathias, if you believe people like the ones you mention have reversed the WC and HSCA findings that LHO did it alone, how do you account for the fact that the mainstream media and the history book publishers have not picked up on this?

Due to a group-think imposed on the publishing industry in 1967 by J. Edgar Hoover who leaned on all the publishers who inquired to him privately about all this conspiracy stuff.

Check out Max Holland's The Kennedy Tapes.

Quote

 

Wouldn't this be the story of the century? Or could it be that the books are merely speculative in nature rather than scientific or legal proofs?

The JFK Assassination Scam is the untold story of the last 55 years. 

95% of everything said or written about the case is bullshed.

Edited by Cliff Varnell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, François Carlier said:

Sorry, Mister DiEugenio, someone put both of us in the same basket…
😁

Two sides of the same Fake Debate coin.

JDi denies JFK was shot in the back at T3, denies JFK was shot in the throat from the front.

Ditto Francois C.

I call it "academic malpractice."

Edited by Cliff Varnell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Mathias Baumann said:

The involvement of other gunmen is NOT speculation.

Yes, it most certainly is "speculation". No CTer has, to date, unearthed a single piece of physical evidence to suggest that more than one Carcano-wielding gunman was firing bullets at President Kennedy on 11/22/63. And that's a fact. Like it or not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, David Von Pein said:

Yes, it most certainly is "speculation". No CTer has, to date, unearthed a single piece of physical evidence to suggest that more than one Carcano-wielding gunman was firing bullets at President Kennedy on 11/22/63. And that's a fact. Like it or not.

We have you, David!

You correctly described "a little bit" of JFK's jacket bunched up on Elm St.

And you're right!

There's a 1/8" discrepancy between the bullet defect in the jacket and the bullet defect in the shirt -- 1/8" is the very definition of "a little bit."

Thank you for your contribution, David.

No further questions.

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

×
×
  • Create New...