Get Serious

[Paul Troglia]

Come on everyone, let's shuck down to the cob:

Why would a conspiracy, any conspiracy, "The Conspiracy," produce so much fake evidence that so obviously reveals itself? Phony x-rays, phony autopsy photos, phony Oswalds, phony guns, phony witnesses---please.

What is going on? Why this avalanche of non-sensical opinion, distorted fact, and outright BS to elevate the Kennedy assassination into such a fantasy? Has there been a 40-year mass hypnosis?

I'd really like to know.

Faithfully yours,

Paul Troglia

PS: While this message sounds like a blow-off, I do respect your opinions, as convoluted as they may seem.

[Jim Root]

Paul

Why would the government withhold the truth about what was known about Oswald from the American people? How much more is there to discover? When will it be discovered and by whom?

I agree there is alot of misinformation out there that is misleading but a great deal of misleading information is contained in the Warren Report. Why? For example, as Chris Mills points out, Warren Commission CE 946 implies "There was only one flight direct from London Airport (now Heathrow) to Helsinki on that date, this was a FinnAir flight which departed London at 14.20 and arrived in Helsinki at 23.35 local time. It has been established, by the Warren Commission, that it would have been impossible for Oswald to have cleared customs and arrive at the "Hotel Torni" in downtown Helsinki before midnight. Herein lies the controversy, the hotel register states that Oswald checked in before midnight on the 10th. We then find years later that there was indeed a choice of two flight that Oswald could have taken to arrive in Helsinki in time to check into the Torni Hotel. But we find this out after information about passenger lists have been distroyed. Why did the CIA keep this information from the American people?

The Warren Commission let us down. It is sort of like a cheating spouse. Once you discover that you have been deceived it is difficult to believe the deceiver again. Perhaps you are different in this respect and feel that your "spouse" may have a good reason for cheating.

I suggest you read, "What Jane Roman Said." The story is generated from government documents and an eye whitness account, not from "fake evidence that so obviously reveals itself? Phony x-rays, phony autopsy photos, phony Oswalds, phony guns, phony witnesses..."

http://history-matters.com/essays/frameup/...RomanSaid_1.htm

Paul, why did the government withhold information about Oswald from the American public? "i'd really like to know."

Jim Root

[Nic Martin]

You have to remember that in 1963, we trusted the government much more than today, and we weren't as advanced as we are today. Now, I could edit an autopsy photo myself with Adobe Photoshop 7, but in 1963 - not even the government had completely mastered photo editing.

It wasn't until Watergate & the revelations that we had tried to kill Castro that doubt in the government appeared.

In 1963, it was not a federal crime to murder a President. I think that says a lot. How naive were we to think that couldn't happen again - whether it was a lone nut or a conspiracy?

[George Bollschweiler]

You have to remember that in 1963, we trusted the government much more than today, and we weren't as advanced as we are today.

After the McCarthy aera I would rather call it fear than trust! That's why LHO

was a good choice for the public. It worked perfectly and even today the supporters of the exil-cubans theory have a great community although IMO

they are not involved at all, because no bird befouls it's own nest.

PS: Cuba itself is a good example of how advanced we are today.

[Paul Troglia]

Paul

Why would the government withhold the truth about what was known about Oswald from the American people?  How much more is there to discover?  When will it be discovered and by whom?

I agree there is alot of misinformation out there that is misleading but a great deal of misleading information is contained in the Warren Report.  Why?  For example, as Chris Mills points out, Warren Commission CE 946 implies "There was only one flight direct from London Airport (now Heathrow) to Helsinki on that date, this was a FinnAir flight  which departed London at 14.20 and arrived in Helsinki at 23.35 local time. It has been established, by the Warren Commission, that it would have been impossible for Oswald to have cleared customs and arrive at the "Hotel Torni" in downtown Helsinki before midnight. Herein lies the controversy, the hotel register states that Oswald checked in before midnight on the 10th.  We then find years later that there was indeed a choice of two flight that Oswald could have taken to arrive in Helsinki in time to check into the Torni Hotel.  But we find this out after information about passenger lists have been distroyed.  Why did the CIA keep this information from the American people?

The Warren Commission let us down.  It is sort of like a cheating spouse.  Once you discover that you have been deceived it is difficult to believe the deceiver again.  Perhaps you are different in this respect and feel that your "spouse" may have a good reason for cheating.

I suggest you read, "What Jane Roman Said."  The story is generated from government documents and an eye whitness account, not from "fake evidence that so obviously reveals itself? Phony x-rays, phony autopsy photos, phony Oswalds, phony guns, phony witnesses..."

http://history-matters.com/essays/frameup/...RomanSaid_1.htm

Paul, why did the government withhold information about Oswald from the American public?  "i'd really like to know."

Jim Root

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Hi Jim,

You know as well as I that Oswald's connection to the government was no secret, not even in 1963. All of it is explained in the 26 volumes and in the Warren Report itself. Even when he went to Russia, he wanted to work for the KGB, but they didn't want anything to do with him because he was such a loose cannon.

Another thing, and this is just my intuition now, but Oswald was only 24, a kid, really. What kind of sophisticatiuon could he bring to such intricate underground networks?

Paul

[Richard J. Smith]

Come on everyone, let's shuck down to the cob:

Why would a conspiracy, any conspiracy, "The Conspiracy," produce so much fake evidence that so obviously reveals itself?  Phony x-rays, phony autopsy photos, phony Oswalds, phony guns, phony witnesses---please.

What is going on?  Why this avalanche of non-sensical opinion, distorted fact, and outright BS to elevate the Kennedy assassination into such a fantasy?  Has there been a 40-year mass hypnosis?

I'd really like to know.

Faithfully yours,

Paul Troglia

PS: While this message sounds like a blow-off, I do respect your opinions, as convoluted as they may seem.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Paul,

It's rather obvious you don't respect our opinions, calling them nonsensical, nor do you see the facts that have been posted here. You've ask questions in other threads, and we have responded. Now you've started yet ANOTHER thread calling our research BS. You, like most other LNs, choose to ignore the evidence presented. Try reading through some of the on-line seminars before you start another thread. If you did some of your own research instead of believing the LN tripe fed to you, you would at least be heading in the right direction. Explain why the autopsy photos show no large gaping wound in the back of the head as described by over 30 witnesses. Explain how a single bullet could have entered JFK's back, dropped 4 inches, bruised the upper lobe of the lung, then rose to exit the throat, striking John Connally 3 times, leaving the bullet nearly undamaged. Explain how this lone nut Lee Oswald had documented contacts with Cuban exiles, the CIA...forget it Paul, you don't really want to know. Looking forward to your next thread.

RJS

[Frank Agbat]

Paul,

I generally classify myself as "undecided" in the great debate of "Lone Nut" vs. "Conspiracy Theory," however I clearly have "CT" leanings.

Why?

I've read the Warren Commission Report, Gerald Posner's various writings, and viewed numerous LN/Warrenati sites. The bottom line is: "that dog don't hunt." The Warren conclusion doesn't sit well with me because it balances on the thinnest of edges. If ANY aspect of it is challenged, the entire house of cards crumbles. The chain of evidence is poor, the chain of custody of much of the evidence is poor, the overall handling of the crime scene and the aftermath thereof are shaky at best. Ballistic analysis is flawed, the timing of the shots is still very much in question (with the obvious exception of Z313), and I won't even get into the whole magic bullet debate. Eyewitness testimony is selectively ignored or discounted. Even the selection of the WC members is often in question, and there is nearly unanimous agreement that various agencies (notably the CIA) did not cooperate with the commission. Perhaps the WC felt forced to arrive at a conclusion, who knows. It certainly wouldn't have sat well with the public for them to conclude that "the case was handled so poorly that we really can't arrive at a solid conclusion."

At the same time, conspiratorial behavior within the US Government -- or any Government, for that matter -- is nothing new (it wasn't invented with Watergate by any sense of the imagination). Cover-ups, covert operations, meddling, eavesdropping, spying, and the like is common modus operandi. The incentive for such actions is typically very simple -- power (with a side-dish of money, typically). Those that have it tend to want to keep it. The US Constitution recognized that and tried to put into place mechanisms to limit and balance this basic human desire. Those that desire power will circumvent that, if necessary, to satiate this.

To further complicate the WC waters, many, MANY political assassinations are carried out in a much different manner than sniping from a distance. John Wilkes Booth was CLEARLY involved in a conspiracy to kill Lincoln yet STILL found the need to have his say.

At the same time, though, I've read through plenty of CT sites that offer explanations from the sublime to the simply unbelievable. The list of possible suspects goes on and on, and there are sites dedicated to each. Many of these dogs don't hunt either, in my opinion.

So for me, the jury is still out. I just don't think we have the whole story yet.

Regards,

Frank

[Nic Martin]

Paul,

It's rather obvious you don't respect our opinions, calling them nonsensical, nor do you see the facts that have been posted here. You've ask questions in other threads, and we have responded. Now you've started yet ANOTHER thread calling our research BS. You, like most other LNs, choose to ignore the evidence presented. Try reading through some of the on-line seminars before you start another thread. If you did some of your own research instead of believing the LN tripe fed to you, you would at least be heading in the right direction. Explain why the autopsy photos show no large gaping wound in the back of the head as described by over 30 witnesses. Explain how a single bullet could have entered JFK's back, dropped 4 inches, bruised the upper lobe of the lung, then rose to exit the throat, striking John Connally 3 times, leaving the bullet nearly undamaged. Explain how this lone nut Lee Oswald had documented contacts with Cuban exiles, the CIA...forget it Paul, you don't really want to know. Looking forward to your next thread.

RJS

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

With every post you make, I adore you more and more.

[Dawn Meredith]

Paul,

It's rather obvious you don't respect our opinions, calling them nonsensical, nor do you see the facts that have been posted here. You've ask questions in other threads, and we have responded. Now you've started yet ANOTHER thread calling our research BS. You, like most other LNs, choose to ignore the evidence presented. Try reading through some of the on-line seminars before you start another thread. If you did some of your own research instead of believing the LN tripe fed to you, you would at least be heading in the right direction. Explain why the autopsy photos show no large gaping wound in the back of the head as described by over 30 witnesses. Explain how a single bullet could have entered JFK's back, dropped 4 inches, bruised the upper lobe of the lung, then rose to exit the throat, striking John Connally 3 times, leaving the bullet nearly undamaged. Explain how this lone nut Lee Oswald had documented contacts with Cuban exiles, the CIA...forget it Paul, you don't really want to know. Looking forward to your next thread.

RJS

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

With every post you make, I adore you more and more.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

___________________________________________

Great posts all, I hope Paul, that you are taking this seriously. I too have noted that you just keep starting threads, do you read the replies you receive? If so why do you ask the same questions repeatedly? I know you are a Geroge Bush guy from your bio, but you are not stupid. So what is it? Are you here to really learn, or just to try to turn John's forum into yet one more LN forum?

Dawn

[Richard J. Smith]

Paul,

It's rather obvious you don't respect our opinions, calling them nonsensical, nor do you see the facts that have been posted here. You've asked questions in other threads, and we have responded. Now you've started yet ANOTHER thread calling our research BS. You, like most other LNs, choose to ignore the evidence presented. Try reading through some of the on-line seminars before you start another thread. If you did some of your own research instead of believing the LN tripe fed to you, you would at least be heading in the right direction. Explain why the autopsy photos show no large gaping wound in the back of the head as described by over 30 witnesses. Explain how a single bullet could have entered JFK's back, dropped 4 inches, bruised the upper lobe of the lung, then rose to exit the throat, striking John Connally 3 times, leaving the bullet nearly undamaged. Explain how this lone nut Lee Oswald had documented contacts with Cuban exiles, the CIA...forget it Paul, you don't really want to know. Looking forward to your next thread.

RJS

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

With every post you make, I adore you more and more.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Thanks Nic. I do, however, need to correct something I said in my post. There was steam coming out of my ears when I wrote it, so I wasn't as clear headed as I should have been.

"Explain how a single bullet could have entered JFK's back, dropped 4 inches, bruised the upper lobe of the lung, then rose to exit the throat"

The bullet wouldn't have DROPPED 4 inches. Considering the downward angle, and the lung bruise, the bullet would have to have RISEN about 4 inches to exit the throat where it did. The back wound and the lung bruise align pretty well.

From the autopsy report:

"There is contusion of the parietal pleura and of the extreme

apical portion of the right upper lobe of the lung. In both instances

the diameter of contusion and ecchymosis at the point of maximal

involvement measures 5 cm. Both the visceral and parietal pleura are

intact overlying these areas of trauma."

So what does this mean? There was a bruise and discoloration under the lining of the upper right lung lobe. The lining(pleura) was not perforated. You can get an idea of contusion and ecchymosis after you whack yourself on the fingernail with a hammer(don't try this at home kids). It bruises, and blood seeps under the nail causing discoloration.

In my opinion based on the back wound location and the bruised lung, the bullet entered JFK's back and acted like a hammer striking the fingernail. Either that bullet continued on into the chest cavity passing close enough to the lung to bruise it, or it was a relatively low power hit, and entirely possible that the bullet did indeed get pressed out of the wound during cardio resusitation. I would also like to note that an autopsy photo was taken of the right upper lobe of the lung, and it is missing(ref telecon between Ramsey Clark and LBJ. If anyone would like to read this, I'll find it and post it).

So how in the world(unless you truly have a magic bullet) did this bullet enter the back, bruise the lung, rise at least 4 inches and exit the throat. The answer? It couldn't have.

RJS

[Nic Martin]

Posting these for Richard. :]

[Shanet Clark]

Skeptical critical thinking is what is called for, and some

people have a hard time seriously considering malfeasance

and fraud on the part of national authorities.

Most of here are willing to engage that possibility, if the evidence supports it.

One example, comparing two government evidence photos-

The picture of JFK with a bullet hole in his back, and a full head of hair.

Compare this to the other autopsy photo where Kennedy's

brains are hanging out like gutted bowels.

The evidence of one photo forgery leads us to consider others,

like the bright white XRAY of Kennedy's occiput (or back of the head)...

(see Dr. Minken's Seminar on the Xrays and Photos...)

I welcome Troglia's conventional and standard defenses,

they are an important part of the debate....

Edited January 25, 2005 by Shanet Clark

[Nic Martin]

I welcome Troglia's conventional and standard defenses,

they are an important part of the debate....

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

What debate? You prove LN's wrong, they state the same "point" again - just louder.

[Antti Hynonen]

Richard J. Smith Posted Yesterday, 04:29 PM

QUOTE(Nic Martin @ Jan 25 2005, 03:42 AM)

QUOTE(Richard J. Smith @ Jan 25 2005, 01:24 AM)

Paul,

It's rather obvious you don't respect our opinions, calling them nonsensical, nor do you see the facts that have been posted here. You've asked questions in other threads, and we have responded. Now you've started yet ANOTHER thread calling our research BS. You, like most other LNs, choose to ignore the evidence presented. Try reading through some of the on-line seminars before you start another thread. If you did some of your own research instead of believing the LN tripe fed to you, you would at least be heading in the right direction. Explain why the autopsy photos show no large gaping wound in the back of the head as described by over 30 witnesses. Explain how a single bullet could have entered JFK's back, dropped 4 inches, bruised the upper lobe of the lung, then rose to exit the throat, striking John Connally 3 times, leaving the bullet nearly undamaged. Explain how this lone nut Lee Oswald had documented contacts with Cuban exiles, the CIA...forget it Paul, you don't really want to know. Looking forward to your next thread.

RJS

With every post you make, I adore you more and more.

Thanks Nic. I do, however, need to correct something I said in my post. There was steam coming out of my ears when I wrote it, so I wasn't as clear headed as I should have been.

"Explain how a single bullet could have entered JFK's back, dropped 4 inches, bruised the upper lobe of the lung, then rose to exit the throat"

The bullet wouldn't have DROPPED 4 inches. Considering the downward angle, and the lung bruise, the bullet would have to have RISEN about 4 inches to exit the throat where it did. The back wound and the lung bruise align pretty well.

From the autopsy report:

"There is contusion of the parietal pleura and of the extreme

apical portion of the right upper lobe of the lung. In both instances

the diameter of contusion and ecchymosis at the point of maximal

involvement measures 5 cm. Both the visceral and parietal pleura are

intact overlying these areas of trauma."

So what does this mean? There was a bruise and discoloration under the lining of the upper right lung lobe. The lining(pleura) was not perforated. You can get an idea of contusion and ecchymosis after you whack yourself on the fingernail with a hammer(don't try this at home kids). It bruises, and blood seeps under the nail causing discoloration.

In my opinion based on the back wound location and the bruised lung, the bullet entered JFK's back and acted like a hammer striking the fingernail. Either that bullet continued on into the chest cavity passing close enough to the lung to bruise it, or it was a relatively low power hit, and entirely possible that the bullet did indeed get pressed out of the wound during cardio resusitation. I would also like to note that an autopsy photo was taken of the right upper lobe of the lung, and it is missing(ref telecon between Ramsey Clark and LBJ. If anyone would like to read this, I'll find it and post it).

So how in the world(unless you truly have a magic bullet) did this bullet enter the back, bruise the lung, rise at least 4 inches and exit the throat. The answer? It couldn't have.

RJS

RJS:

An alternative which IMO makes a good argument is if one was to consider the frontal throat wound an entry wound (as Parkland Dr's initially speculated), and the back wound about 5 inches lower (on the right side) an exit wound, it would give us an indication of the path of the missile. This path would also strike the right upper lobe of the lung, right?

I believe, the path of the bullet would also support the theory of a railway overpass or south knoll shooter, and the hole in the windshield.

The above relates directly to what has been discussed on this Forum previously, in several threads.

[Richard J. Smith]

RJS:

An alternative which IMO makes a good argument is if one was to consider the frontal throat wound an entry wound (as Parkland Dr's initially speculated), and the back wound about 5 inches lower (on the right side) an exit wound, it would give us an indication of the path of the missile. This path would also strike the right upper lobe of the lung, right?

I believe, the path of the bullet would also support the theory of a railway overpass or south knoll shooter, and the hole in the windshield.

The above relates directly to what has been discussed on this Forum previously, in several threads.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Antti,

The problem with your theory is that there was no traceable bullet path through the body, front to back or back to front. There is a back wound, with a lung contusion, and there is a throat wound with damage in the surrounding neck muscles. There was no path between them. Either way, it presents a problem for us. If we as CTs say there's no way the bullet entering the back could have exited the throat because there was no bullet path found, we have the same problem with the reverse. It was said by the WC that the bullet passed between layers of muscle, which caused no damage. I find that an unrealistic view, as I think many others do, but that darn throat wound is and always has been extremely hard to reconcile. To be truthful Antti, I just don't know. Just for the sake of argument though, I would say if the throat wound was an entrance, and the back wound the exit, a shot from the South Knoll probably lines up better than a shot from the 6th floor of the TSBD. Also, just for the sake of argument, if the back wound was an entrance and the throat wound the exit, a shot fired from the 2nd floor of the Dal Tex building also lines up better than a shot fired from the TSBD's 6th floor, if it were unobstructed. All that said, the back wound apparently had a downward angle. Quite the dilemma isn't it?

RJS