I Was a Teenage JFK Conspiracy Freak

[François Carlier]

On ‎10‎/‎21‎/‎2018 at 4:17 PM, Lance Payette said:

Yes, that is the salient point.  When I say the SBT is "problematical" and neither side can be dogmatic, I'm mostly talking about "when we view the SBT in isolation."  It's a theory that has some problematical aspects, from the location of the holes in the clothing to the condition of the bullet.  BUT, as those charged with investigating the assassination have repeatedly concluded, the SBT is the "least problematical" of the alternatives.  This is true when the SBT is viewed in isolation and certainly when it is viewed in the context of the assassination as a whole.  In the latter context, we can speak with a level of confidence about the SBT while acknowledging (and dealing with) the discrepancies and problematical aspects.  This is precisely why someone like Cliff wants to view the SBT only in isolation (and, indeed, to restrict the view to only the evidence he likes).  With the theories that obviously are more problematical than the SBT, both in isolation and in the context of the assassination as a whole, the Conspiracy Game is to keep "solving" those problems with conspiracy speculation for which there is no factual basis and to keep moving the goalposts until the supposed conspiracy involves so many persons and so many facets and stages that it becomes comical.

Notwithstanding that Cliff and Cory think they're scoring points with open-minded readers, I'm confident the reality is otherwise.  Although Clint claims that responding to my posts is "fun," like shooting fish in a barrel, I'm confident the reality is otherwise.  Ad hominem attacks are seldom the tactic of debaters who are confident they're scoring points.  Sure, the conspiracy community is a brotherhood, and I don't expect to be any more popular than a psychiatrist at a Scientology convention, but I'm confident that those who have not yet drunk the conspiracy Kool Aid can see who is simply a one-dimensional conspiracy cultist.

As previously stated, it isn't utterly inconceivable to me that Lee Harvey Oswald might have been involved in a "conspiracy" with another person or two - who were perhaps in Dealey Plaza or perhaps not.  (I put "conspiracy" in quotation marks because this could mean almost anything.)  I don't believe this fits the facts because I don't believe Oswald's actions in the 24 hours before and the 12 hours after the assassination match any sort of conspiracy scenario.  But I'm not unalterably opposed to such a notion if facts come to light that can be reasonably explained in no other way.  However, any such "conspiracy" would have to fit who Oswald actually was.  It would, I believe, have to be a pro-Castro "conspiracy" with Oswald front and center.  If I thought Cliff's "irrefutable evidence" were ANYWHERE NEAR as irrefutable as he claims, that's the direction I'd be looking.

But I guarantee you that such a "conspiracy" would be opposed as vehemently as the Lone Nut explanation by MUCH of the JFK conspiracy community.  They would hate it as much as they hate the Lone Nut explanation.  Why?  Because the issue for them really isn't "Who killed JFK?"  This very large segment of JFK assassination research is essentially a religion driven by liberal ideology.  The goal is to invest JFK's death with meaning equal to the greatness of his Presidency and the near-worship in which his memory is held.  The goal is to read back into JFK's death all that we have learned since about corruption in government and business.  The goal is to explain the current state of America by the fact that we lost JFK and the same dark forces are still at work today.  I'm not saying these are conscious goals, or even that there is anything wrong with them, but I am convinced they're the psychological underpinnings of a great deal of what might otherwise seem to be inexplicable quasi-religious conspiracy thinking.

 

Well said !
Sir, again, I must say that you are very articulate and eloquent.
I'm glad we share the same conclusions. I wouldn't want to have to debate against you ! 😉

[Micah Mileto]

12 hours ago, David Von Pein said:

There's no possible way that could have happened, and this X-ray below (which the HSCA said "had not been altered in any manner" [7 HSCA 41]) proves it. There's not even the tiniest piece of the BACK of President Kennedy's head missing....

 

Why can't the x-rays be compatible with a small hole in the scalp and skull next to the EOP?

[Joe Bauer]

23 hours ago, François Carlier said:

On 10/21/2018 at 7:17 AM, Lance Payette said:

 

But I guarantee you that such a "conspiracy" would be opposed as vehemently as the Lone Nut explanation by MUCH of the JFK conspiracy community.  They would hate it as much as they hate the Lone Nut explanation.  Why?  Because the issue for them really isn't "Who killed JFK?"  This very large segment of JFK assassination research is essentially a religion driven by liberal ideology.  The goal is to invest JFK's death with meaning equal to the greatness of his Presidency and the near-worship in which his memory is held.  The goal is to read back into JFK's death all that we have learned since about corruption in government and business.  The goal is to explain the current state of America by the fact that we lost JFK and the same dark forces are still at work today.  I'm not saying these are conscious goals, or even that there is anything wrong with them, but I am convinced they're the psychological underpinnings of a great deal of what might otherwise seem to be inexplicable quasi-religious conspiracy thinking.

Some points in the above post I would like to counter.

Regarding what L. Payette stated that:

( for ) "MUCH of the J.F.K. community ... the issue for them really isn't who killed J.F.K. This very large segment of JFK assassination research is essentially a religion driven by liberal ideology." 

I really had to stop and think about this assessment.

I went back and recounted where my personal interest in the JFK assassination first began and how. And whether I may have unconsciously become part of this JFK assassination research religious cult Payette describes. And if I have...what insecure emotional personal need motivated me to become part of this cult?

I went back to the beginning - 11,22,1963.

At 12 years old and never having any conspiracy thoughts about anything, in one day and hour I was instantly shocked into reality questioning confusion by the first big society changing historical event of my life.

I had never seen a dozen teachers all crying at once during school hours before. I had never seen an entire school shut down and all the kids in it quickly sent home because of a tragic national event.

I had never seen such quietness on the streets of our little town as I walked the mile and 1/2 home. Upon arriving, I had never seen my mother sitting down and so speechless as she watched TV and putting off household work she normally seemed to always be doing.

Filled with shocked curiosity like everyone else, I went upstairs to watch the super old and grainy black and white TV my brother and I inherited when our stepfather finally broke down and bought himself a color TV.

I was glued to the TV myself for the next three days. Who wasn't? Even my JFK hating step-father was a little subdued by this event. He didn't rant about JFK for those first few days except to say "Man, they blew that SOB away."

The first time in my life that I ever thought about reality not being what I assumed ( a conspiracy )  was watching Lee Harvey Oswald being brought around that corner and into the DPD basement area on the morning of 11,24,1963 (almost IN FRONT of his two side security handlers) and seeing Jack Ruby lunge forward and shooting him.

The second that happened, without any forethought, I leaped off my bed and shouted to no one..."No Way! "No Way!" ... over and over again.

Even as a 12 year old, I had read and heard dozens of times through newspaper and TV news reports that Oswald was "the most threatened individual in the world" that weekend. 10's of thousands of threats a day!

I also knew how important he was in regards to what he had to say about his role in the JFK assassination. Even a half-way intelligent 12 year old in this country at that time knew how important it was to protect Oswald.

And to see Oswald shot in the gut at close range and live on National TV ( while he was in police custody and in their own building ) instantly sparked suspicion in my mind, as it would logically do in anyone's mind.

Such as Mark Lane salt of the Earth rail road worker assassination witness interview subject Richard C. Dodd said soon after the Oswald killing ... "a man walk up and shoot a man handcuffed to a couple of policemans and get away with it...why, I figure there's somethin a goin on besides what should be."

My thoughts exactly Mr. Dodd!

And coherently to the common sense point as any Walter Cronkite commentary.

Still, like most people however, you have to get on with your life and my overwhelming priority in this endeavor from my teens through twenties was to simply get on my feet without hardly any JFK conspiracy thinking, speculating, talking or even reading that I can recall.

It wasn't until I happened to catch some of our hometown researcher Mae Brussel's radio broadcasts that I thought about the JFK assassination again. And even then I  had to work full time doing heavy manual labor and I was always just dogged tired after work. Still not obsessed with this event at all.

When Oliver Stone's film "JFK" came out,  my interest in the JFK killing took on more curiosity and reading effort.

And in this reading and learning many proven background facts about the main JFK story characters and those who they had interacted with, and seeing clear discrepancies in the Warren Report and seeing hundreds of interviews of people connected in some way to this event and the characters involved, all common sense eventually compelled me to believe there was no way that L.H. Harvey Oswald took on and performed this shooting task without someone assisting him ( he may not have been the shooter at all ) or in the least knowing about it in advance.

It isn't a religious experience for me to engage with others in this regards. It is a stimulating discussion one mixed with a life long belief that I shared with Dealey Plaza eye witness Dallas railroad man Richard C. Todd...

Whys "a man walk up and shoot a man handcuffed to a couple of policemans and get away with it...why, I figure there's somethin a goin on besides what should be."

Mr. Dodd and I didn't reach this belief through some super natural religious experience...we saw it on the news!

And it doesn't take a religious need or conversion to continue being interested in an historical event and subject that changed every person's life in this country on some levels as much as Lincoln's assassination, Pearl Harbor, VJ Day and 9-11.

A thought about Castro perhaps being behind the JFK assassination.

In a span of 5 years, we had the killings of 3 of the most influential leaders in this country that were a threat to the real wealth, power and control status quo in this country. These three were beginning to effect mass public opinion and even action that was contrary to the interests of these competing interests.

I believe that it was these groups who felt more threatened by the Kennedy's and King than Castro.

Some one for sure other than Castro would have taken out RFK and MLK.

What interest would RFK and MLK's assassination serve Castro?

So, to some Castro did JFK. But who did RFK and MLK?  The answer to that question is as important as who did JFK.

The elimination of RFK and MLK was just as bloody and barbaric as JFK's. Whoever made these killings happen were that ruthless and because they got away with this...that powerful. And yes, I do believe that those who were responsible for RFK's and MLK's murders, were still in charge for decades after and in some ways, that control never really gave it up. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited October 23, 2018 by Joe Bauer

[Cliff Varnell]

3 hours ago, François Carlier said:

Well said !
Sir, again, I must say that you are very articulate and eloquent.
I'm glad we share the same conclusions. I wouldn't want to have to debate against you ! 😉

SBFrauds of a feather stick together.

When are you guys going to post a visual record of your clothing claims?

[Sandy Larsen]

14 hours ago, David Von Pein said:

19 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

BTW, the second link above shows Boswell's (inadvertent) HSCA testimony that a back-of-head skull fragment was brought to the autopsy room AFTER the body had arrived. Which, of course, corroborates all the other rear blowout evidence -- both the Harper Fragment evidence and the back-of-head blowout testim

There's no possible way that could have happened, and this X-ray below (which the HSCA said "had not been altered in any manner" [7 HSCA 41]) proves it. There's not even the tiniest piece of the BACK of President Kennedy's head missing....

You trust the HSCA too much. Remember, they were the ones who raised the location of the EOP wound to the crown of the skull.

The >20 witnesses to the missing back-of-head fragment and the multiple witnesses and testimony of the fragment being brought in late is the inescapable preponderance of evidence. The BOH photo and skull x-ray have obviously been faked or altered in order to counter that evidence.

 

[Cory Santos]

7 hours ago, François Carlier said:

Well said !
Sir, again, I must say that you are very articulate and eloquent.
I'm glad we share the same conclusions. I wouldn't want to have to debate against you ! 😉

yes, truly amazing sir!  Cheerios!

[Ron Bulman]

The closer we get to Halloween the freakier this thread gets.  I think I may go this year as a Old JFK assassination freak.  What does one look like?  Frank,  Fred, or DVP?  

Edited October 24, 2018 by Ron Bulman

[David Von Pein]

12 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

The BOH photo and skull x-ray have obviously been faked or altered...

Which means you have to think that the Z-Film has been "faked or altered" as well, right? Because Mr. Zapruder's motion picture most certainly does NOT show any of the BACK of JFK's head being blown out by the force of the head-shot bullet....

http://drive.google.com / video / The Zapruder Film / Version Created By DVP Utilizing Each Of The Film's 486 Individual Frames

You can surely see how silly the "faked or altered" policy becomes when more and more items keep having to be added to a CTer's list of faked things. (And we've discussed this very thing before at this forum, of course. See link below. The merry-go-round never stops.)

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/12/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-1072.html#There Is No Large Wound In The Back Of JFK's Head

Edited October 23, 2018 by David Von Pein

[David Von Pein]

8 hours ago, Ron Bulman said:

The closer we get to Halloween[,] the freakier this thread gets. I think I may go this year as [an] Old JFK assassination freak. What does one look like? Frank or Fred, DVP?  

Aren't I even in the running? (I'm crushed.)

Edited October 23, 2018 by David Von Pein

[Ray Mitcham]

2 hours ago, David Von Pein said:

Aren't I even in the running? (I'm crushed.)

I think Ron included you in the threesome, Dave.

[David Von Pein]

1 hour ago, Ray Mitcham said:

I think Ron included you in the threesome, Dave.

Yeah, you're probably right. But the way it's phrased, it looks like Mr. Bulman is asking me to pick between two "Old JFK assassination freaks". 😜

Edited October 23, 2018 by David Von Pein

[Sandy Larsen]

15 hours ago, David Von Pein said:

On 10/22/2018 at 3:42 PM, Sandy Larsen said:

The BOH photo and skull x-ray have obviously been faked or altered...

Which means you have to think that the Z-Film has been "faked or altered" as well, right?

That's right.

I've faked many things myself... it's not hard to do in many cases.

 

Quote

You can surely see how silly the "faked or altered" policy becomes when more and more items keep having to be added to a CTer's list of faked things.

It's easy to fake things.

What's not easy to do is to get twenty or thirty witnesses to testify to exactly the same thing that isn't true. Not to mention the spontaneous appearance of somebody's BOH skull fragment in Dealey Plaza, followed by its spontaneous disappearance. Which is what people who believe the Warren Commission have to accept.

Now, I've explained how the photo, x-ray, and Z-film could be wrong. (And I can be more specific as to how it was done if you like.) How do *you* explain all the witnesses to the BOH blowout wound being wrong? And the Harper fragment appearing after the autopsy, being identified as occipital by more than one doctor,  and then (conveniently) disappearing?

 

Edited October 24, 2018 by Sandy Larsen

[François Carlier]

4 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

o
That's right.

I've faked many things myself... it's not hard to do in many cases.

 

It's easy to fake things.

What's not easy to do is to get twenty or thirty witnesses to testify to exactly the same thing that isn't true. Not to mention the spontaneous appearance of somebody's BOH skull fragment in Dealey Plaza, followed by its spontaneous disappearance. Which is what people who believe the Warren Commission have to accept.

Now, I've explained how the photo, x-ray, and Z-film could be wrong. (And I can be more specific as to how it was done if you like.) How do *you* explain all the witnesses to the BOH blowout wound being wrong? And the Harper fragment appearing after the autopsy, being identified as occipital by more than one doctor,  and then (conveniently) disappearing?

 

The Harper fragment is parietal bone, not occipital.
And the Zapruder film is genuine and has never been faked by anyone.
That's the truth, pure and simple.
I wonder why some people keep pretending they don't know that and coming back with already-discarded theories ?

Edited October 24, 2018 by François Carlier

[Cliff Varnell]

7 hours ago, François Carlier said:

The Harper fragment is parietal bone, not occipital.
And the Zapruder film is genuine and has never been faked by anyone.
That's the truth, pure and simple.
I wonder why some people keep pretending they don't know that and coming back with already-discarded theories ?

The Single Bullet Fraud is "an already discarded theory" but you keep coming back to it.

Post a visual record of your clothing claims.  You wouldn't want folks to think you're a l-i-a-r, would you?

Edited October 24, 2018 by Cliff Varnell

[Rick McTague]

14 hours ago, François Carlier said:

The Harper fragment is parietal bone, not occipital.
And the Zapruder film is genuine and has never been faked by anyone.
That's the truth, pure and simple.
I wonder why some people keep pretending they don't know that and coming back with already-discarded theories ?

Francois,

Can you please provide your explanation of how a multitude of medical professionals describe the same back of the head blowout that is not seen on the "genuine and has never been faked by anyone" Z film?  They can't both be true.

Thanks