Bush not in Dallas- He is dead

[Paul Brancato]

Why are the WC apologists even here on this site? 

[W. Tracy Parnell]

6 minutes ago, Paul Brancato said:

Why are the WC apologists even here on this site? 

I Look at it this way Paul. I consider myself a watchdog who helps to weed out the worst stuff (like H&L). I think that is needed and several CTs (who wish to remain nameless no doubt) have thanked me over the years.

[Guest]

21 minutes ago, Paul Brancato said:

Why are the WC apologists even here on this site? 

Paul, you asked me that once before.  I don't believe any of us are "WC apologists."  I know that I have arrived at a provisional acceptance of the Lone Assassin position through a long and arduous process.  Does the fact that my views largely square with the views of the WC make me a "WC apologist"?  Peter Vronsky went to Minsk and did a tremendous amount of work on a documentary that he expected to expose Oswald's intelligence connections but came back saying "I'll be damned - the WC basically got it right."  Is he a WC apologist?  What is a WC apologist anyway - anyone and everyone who doesn't dive headfirst into conspiracy mania?  Perhaps someone who considers it his patriotic duty to defend the WC - are there really people like that?

Your post is yet one more example of what I have recently been saying - with others assuring me I'm wrong.  Those who accept the Lone Assassin position are loathed.  This forum is little more than the Church of Conspiracy, and we are the atheists and intruders you wish would just go away.  Do you ever ask a fellow member of the Conspiracy Club, "What are you even doing here with the embarrassing nonsense you're spouting?"  No, because even the true loons are at least fellow believers.

Hey, convince the administrators to admit this place is a church and do what the religious sites do - adopt a statement of faith, make acceptance of it a condition of participation, and ban anyone who attempts to promote heresy or atheism.

[David Von Pein]

5 hours ago, Ron Ecker said:

Where's the hole that all those medical professionals saw and documented? But then why even show a photo of the back of JFK's head unless the purpose was to show that what was there wasn't there, because - well, because it would very inconvenient for it to still be there. So see, it isn't there!

And the vicious circle continues. And 'round and 'round we go! You say po-ta-toe...

 

Quote

Oh, but how could anyone dare think that the U.S. government or military would fake something. There was a time in my life when I wouldn't dare think such a thing. It would be so unpatriotic! But over the years the U.S. government has opened my eyes to many things about itself, and guess what, it continues to do so.

And "The Government" perfectly faked the Zapruder Film too (and within about an hour of the shooting too, before the three extra copies were made), eh Ron? Is "fakery" the reason for the Z-Film fully supporting the autopsy photos and the "No Wound At All In The Back Of The Head" scenario?

If you conspiracy guys cram any more "fake" stuff into your theories, pretty soon we're going to have a JFK murder case that is composed of nothing BUT "fake" evidence. (Oh, wait! We already do have that, don't we? Just ask Education Forum members David Josephs and Jon G. Tidd....)

"Because - oh, deaf one - the EVIDENCE IS NOT AUTHENTIC." -- David Josephs

"I believe the whole of the official record is a fake. Why? If you're going to kill the President of the United States and try to cover it up, you're in a position and willing to fake whatever's necessary." -- Jon G. Tidd

 

Edited December 16, 2018 by David Von Pein

[James DiEugenio]

Boy, did this thread go to Hades once I left for San Fran.

I was piling up record after record which the WC had ignored, did not know about or never satisfactorily made a credible conclusion on e.g. Odio, the Kostin letter, Nagell, Cheramie, Ferrie's FBI provable perjury, Phillips and the anti FPCC crusade at CIA, the FBI taking Banister's address off the Oswald flyers etc etc etc.  

The Arizona lawyer called it mind numbing.  I call it a disgrace.  So bad he could not do his usual tag team act with Davey and FC.  In his usual unintentionally funny way, Davey says he archived it at his site.

HA HA HA HA 

If you look at what he did with the exchange on the Kostin letter, you will see he is still up to his old tricks. He left out the facts that 1.) There is no evidence Oswald could have known Azcue was transferred after the alleged MC visit, and 2.) Azcue denied meeting Oswald in MC.

DVP should have a self disclosure statement on his site:

"Please note that in all of my archived exchanges with WC critics, e.g. DiEugenio, I censor the conversations in order to make myself look better because if i did not, I would end up looking pretty silly."

Edited December 17, 2018 by James DiEugenio

[Sandy Larsen]

23 hours ago, François Carlier said:

On 12/16/2018 at 11:15 AM, Sandy Larsen said:

1. The BOH photo was altered or faked.

 

You are so wrong !
These documents were authenticated by the HSCA.

PART III. CONCLUSIONS

     (179)  From the reports of the experts' analyses of the
autopsy photographs and X-rays, the evidence indicates that the
autopsy photographs and X-rays were taken of President Kennedy at
the time of his autopsy and that they had not been altered in any
manner.

So, the best experts in the country are unanimously adamant that the x-rays are authentic,
but Sandy Larsen, who has no credentials, claims that they are fake.

What can I say ?

I understand why he has decided to leave. That's the only thing he can do, flee.

 

Let's recap:

1.  I proved to Francois that the back-of-head photo was faked. (Here's my proof.)

2.  In reply Francois says that I'm wrong because the autopsy x-rays were authenticated.

Do I need to explain to anybody the flaw in Francois' reasoning? This is just one example of why LNers can't figure out the truth for themselves, and instead decide what they want to believe first and then endorse any author who supports their belief.

 

 

Quote

So, the best experts in the country are unanimously adamant that the x-rays are authentic,
but Sandy Larsen, who has no credentials, claims that they are fake.

I made no such claim. I specifically said that I couldn't speak of the x-rays' authenticity because I'm not a radiologist.
 

Edited December 17, 2018 by Sandy Larsen

[James DiEugenio]

Maybe FC should start studying alien abductions like Lancie Boy.

[François Carlier]

2 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

Let's recap:

1.  I proved to Francois that the back-of-head photo was faked. (Here's my proof.)

2.  In reply Francois says that I'm wrong because the autopsy x-rays were authenticated.

Do I need to explain to anybody the flaw in Francois' reasoning? This is just one example of why LNers can't figure out the truth for themselves, and instead decide what they want to believe first and then endorse any author who supports their belief.

 

 

I made no such claim. I specifically said that I couldn't speak of the x-rays' authenticity because I'm not a radiologist.
 

Ok. Fine.
Please read carefully :
 

PART III. CONCLUSIONS

     (179)  From the reports of the experts' analyses of the
autopsy photographs and X-rays, the evidence indicates that the
autopsy photographs and X-rays were taken of President Kennedy at
the time of his autopsy and that they had not been altered in any
manner.

It says that the photographs, as well as the x-rays, are authentic.
So please, stop playing with the wording.
I'll say it again, then, so that you can't escape the debate.
=> The best experts in the country are unanimously adamant that the photographs are authentic,
but Sandy Larsen, who has no credentials, claims that they are fake.
Are you satisfied, now ?
This time I got it right, wouldn't you agree ?
And that is the crux of the matter.
You deny what has been established.
And what do you have as evidence ? Nothing.
Well, apart from your hubris, that is...
Let's be serious, and I am really trying to debate with an open mind and logic, so that we keep this conversation interesting. When a group of experts study documents and authenticate them, and then, out of the blue, a guy with an empty bag (no credentials, not a speck of evidence, no real study, not even access to the documents) comes along and claims that those documents are fake, you can bet your sweet life what reasonable people will conclude !
It stands to reason that sane people will take the group of experts over you any day !
Especially since you really have NOTHING to offer.
You should really be more modest.
I am modest and I listen to the views of the group of experts.
And let me continue the argument to the conclusion.
Since the group of experts (which you are not) have authenticated the x-rays and photographs, and since the photographs don't show any wound at the back of the head, and since it is confirmed by the Zapruder film, and since it is also confirmed by the autopsy doctors, -- I mean, whatever else do you need, for Heaven's sake, ? -- then it follows that there was no wound there.
Unless, of course, all those people were liars. And since you and James DiEugenio like to claim that documents were forged or faked and people are/were lying, then, by using such low tactics, you are able to pretend that you are right and I am gullible or credulous or whatever suits you. What do you gain ? A round of applause by Ron Ecker ?
Frankly, you should be honest and admit that you had been wrong. No big deal.
But  trying to deny the overwhelming evidence, you are wasting your time and everybody's time, if you ask me.

Edited December 17, 2018 by François Carlier

[François Carlier]

2 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

1.  I proved to Francois that the back-of-head photo was faked. (Here's my proof.)

 

Proof ? Where ? Wherever ? Where on earth ? Where ?

[Sandy Larsen]

38 minutes ago, François Carlier said:

2 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

1.  I proved to Francois that the back-of-head photo was faked. (Here's my proof.)

 

Proof ? Where ? Wherever ? Where on earth ? Where ? 

I link to the proof in the message you are replying to.

 

[François Carlier]

29 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

I link to the proof in the message you are replying to.

 

Precisely !
Again : Proof ? Where ? Wherever ? Where on earth ? Where ?
(In case you still don't understand, I'll explain : you link to an empty post that had zero proof, absolutely none, not even a shadow of the beginning of a proof. What is mindboggling is that you dare call it a proof, when there is absolutely nothing ! You definitely need to look up the word "proof" in the dictionary.)
 

[Sandy Larsen]

44 minutes ago, François Carlier said:

Let's be serious, and I am really trying to debate with an open mind and logic, so that we keep this conversation interesting.

Great! I'm glad that you are keeping an open mind. So am I.

I do see from your HSCA report quote that a group of experts authenticated the photos.

I, on the other hand,  proved here that the BOH photo has been faked. Until somebody finds a flaw in my proof, the conclusion stands. Same thing with HSCA expert's conclusion, it stands.

So my conclusion irreconcilably contradicts the conclusion of the HSCA. Let's again use reasoning to explain how this can be. For now, assume that both my and the HSCA's conclusions are correct.

Following is a list of possible reasons our conclusion don't match. (Anybody, please let me know if I missed any other possibility.)

1. The photo in the public domain (i.e.  the one I used) is not the same as the photo the HSCA experts evaluated.
2. The experts found the photo to be faked, but the HSCA changed that conclusion in their report.

Note that the HSCA is guilty of fraud in either case.

The only other possibility is that either I or the HSCA experts made a mistake in our respective evaluations. If anybody can find a flaw in my proof, I will admit I am wrong. Otherwise, either the HSCA committed fraud or a mistake was made by the HSCA experts group.

 

[Sandy Larsen]

18 minutes ago, François Carlier said:

What is mindboggling is that you dare call it a proof, when there is absolutely nothing !

 

If you're an honest person, you can't say that my proof is wrong unless you can point out a flaw in it.

What is the flaw in my proof, Francois?  (Here it is again, for your convenience.)

 

[David Von Pein]

51 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

If you're an honest person, you can't say that my proof is wrong unless you can point out a flaw in it.

What is the flaw in my proof, Francois?  (Here it is again, for your convenience.)

Francois is right. You didn't PROVE anything. You merely laid out the two basic options---either the 20 Parkland "BOH" witnesses are right or the autopsy photos/X-rays are right---and you then declared the Parkland witnesses to be the victors.

How does that type of judgement actually "prove" that YOU are correct?

I have a different opinion. So does Francois. And I will maintain that THIS PAGE of HSCA Volume 7 provides much more of an authoritative and solid foundation for "proving" the Lone Assassin side of this debate than does your "proof" (which, as mentioned, isn't really PROOF at all ---- it's merely your OPINION). But the LN side of this debate has the professional "opinion" of 20 experts in the field of photography, and those 20 people said the autopsy photos and X-rays had "not been altered in any manner".

You, Sandy, don't like (or agree with) that conclusion by those 20 photo experts. So, I guess you're going to have to call all 20 of those people "wrong" or "liars". Which term have you chosen to use?

Edited December 17, 2018 by David Von Pein

[James DiEugenio]

Sandy, this is the typical three blind mice--Lancie Boy, FC and DVP--and their appeal to authority.  That is, if the HSCA or the WC says something is true, then ipso facto its true. 

They then discount or forget matters when the HSCA was honest enough to say something fatal to the WC:  like the HSCA found that Ruby lied during his polygraph test. And further, the FBI rigged the test in advance.  To any normal person that would carry the impact of a harpoon through the chest.  Somehow, it just runs off their backs like water in a shower:  What me worry?

Now FC, and DVP, like to quote the HSCA report on this matter right?  But yet they do not use the declassified record of the HSCA as produced by the ARRB.  None of these guys do.  Lancie boy thinks its the dark side of the moon.  

But its not.  It is available and its  been written about. And it directly impacts the HSCA report as written.  See, the HSCA knew about what you quote: the doctors at Parkland saying they saw that hole in the rear of the skull.  But they said, no these witnesses were mistaken since it disappeared at Bethesda.  Well, it did not.  And Gary Aguilar found the documents released by the ARRB which showed  they knew about these other exhibits they had saying that witnesses at Bethedsa saw this hole also.  In other words the HSCA lied in its report. And when Gary  confronted them with this, none of them would accept the blame for writing that prevaricating statement. Not Purdy, not Baden not Blakey. Real profiles in courage eh? (The Assassinations, edited by Jim DIEugenio and Lisa Pease, pp. 273-77)

But its actually worse.  See, the HSCA said they used certain photo  techniques to recognize patterns in the photos and then claimed they were real.  They said that unfortunately they could not find the original camera and lens at the DOD to do an actual comparison test.

Well, guess what FC?  That was not really true either. The ARRB found evidence that the DOD had given the HSCA the camera that was used originally. But the HSCA said that this camera was not the right one since their experts said they could not produce a match. As Gary writes, it may be that the lens had been switched out in the intervening years. But no one can be certain because of the simple matter that the HSCA test results on the camera are gone. So there may be an innocent explanation, and there may not be.(ibid, pp. 279-80)  Hard to trust a body in which no one somehow remembers who wrote a rather deceptive description of about 20 witnesses' testimony about the back of JFK's head.

None of these guys does this kind of work.  And they do not even read the books where the info can be found. That is why I call them the three blind mice.

Edited December 17, 2018 by James DiEugenio