Charles Drago

You go first. Age before beauty. We're still waiting ... Promises, promises ... I might add, on an equally serious note, that the key word in Tom Not-So-Terrific's bleating is "value." Simply typing sections of the Warren Commission Report ad nauseam may indeed be described as "posting evidence." But then definitions are begged. Then of course we are left with Lone Nut in the Green Beret's "conclusion" regarding wound locations and shot sequence. Again, I'm reminded of the "scientist" who trained a flea to obey commands. He'd say, "Fly, flea," and the flea flew. Then one day he removed the flea's wings before he said, "Fly, flea." But the flea wouldn't fly. The "scientist" quickly made an entry in his lab book: "I conclude that when one removes the wings from a flea, it becomes deaf." You are the laughing stock of this Forum, Mr. Purvis.

Shouldn't that be From the Cognitively Impaired? You should hit the sack. Don't you have early appointments tomorrow?

That's what the seamstress saw. A hem. Then there was the nearsighted seamstress who couldn't mend straight.

Shouldn't that be From the Cognitively Impaired?

Let's take full advantage of our hard-earned education in this subject. Cui bono? Who benefits from this easily discoverd threat to Obama? Who benefits from the notion that Obama has been targeted? Deep breath, everybody. If they wanted him dead, he'd be dead. Have we learned nothing?

I had a Volskwagen bus. And it sucked. Close as I've ever come.

And valid questions they are -- for all thinking and honorable folk. I thought you said you were done with "Colby"?

David, I fear I haven't sufficiently explained the basis for my reasoning. As a public relations strategy for us, "keep it simple" cannot be improved upon. I cannot remember a discussion about the JFK case with a civilian that did not immediately prompt his or her "whodunit" question and my careful, nuanced response. In almost every instance, the civilian was sufficiently disappointed by my reluctance to provide facile answers to cast doubt on my overriding "howdunit" declaration (conspiracy ... in case you couldn't guess). Accordingly, and given that the fruition of our work -- the attainment of truth and justice -- cannot take place absent the support of an enlightened and enraged citizenry, our primary tactic must be to eliminate ALL doubt regarding the LN/conspiracy "question." Our success will be measured in direct proportion to our ability to narrow our initial focus to what I continue to term (Ron's thoughtful objection notwithstanding) the "how" question. Another KEY tactic in the struggle to enlighten and fire up the citizenry regarding the answer (see above) to that question -- along with offering the proof we have at hand -- is to disrespect the LN lie and excoriate its proponents, who, if they enjoy reasonable access to the evidence yet maintain the LN position, are cognitively impaired and/or complicit in the crime. So it isn't about the questions that you or I need answered. The ultimate goal of the killers in terms of the cover-up is to keep the guessing game alive: LN or conspiracy? To the degree that they can create a level playing field for both solutions to that false mystery -- in other words, CHARACTERIZE FALSELY EITHER SOLUTION AS A MATTER OF BLOODY OPINION -- the killers succeed. The cover-up continues. Truth and justice are denied. Conspiracy in the death of JFK is historical truth. Period. To argue otherwise is to endorse the flat earth theory. No more debate on this relatively narrow "how" issue can be tolerated. And if anyone persists in describing what I'm demanding as an attack on freedom of expression ... then my response can be only this: seek psychiatric help, and/or charge the killers of JFK a higher rate for your services. Please share your thoughts, my friend. Charles

Quoting the Warren Commission Report in the effort to discover the truth about the Kennedy assassination is like quoting David Irving to discover the truth about the Holocaust. Heil be seeing you.

In early 1964, Lenny Bruce spoke about how, in his opinion, falsely depicting a heroic Mrs. Kennedy risking her life to assist a Secret Service agent into the car (this is pre-skull retrieval theory) set an unrealistic standard for all of us. Lenny's take: She was "hauling ass to save ass." FYI, on one prior occasion I attempted to reference this important and, in terms of our discussions on this Forum, highly relevant piece of satire by quoting verbatim the line above. But the Forum's oooooooooh so precious moderati would have none of it. Rig for heavy rolls!

How about the minuet? How about the men you ... ?

"Other"???

Clifford, The bad guys win when you dignify their nonsense with direct and polite response. Expose them for what they are.

Actually, pre WW II observations date to pre-history. Ezekial's machine, for example. These "things" take on the appearance of the most sophisticated possible imaginings of observers.

I have to quibble with your choice of words. IMO you have the right answer but the wrong question. "Who" killed JFK? That's the question you've answered. Criminal conspirators. We just aren't sure who they were and how many make a bunch. "How" was JFK killed? The correct answer is "with bullets." But we don't know using what guns, how many shooters, from what positions, and with whose help. "Why" was JFK killed? We aren't sure about that either. All we positively know in detail after 44 years is when and where. Thanks, Ron. I appreciate your perspective on this. We clearly have an argument over semantics -- nothing more profound. If I ask what I currently term the "HOW" question as "WHO killed JFK?" and if your answer, "criminal conspirators," is to stand, then it prematurely enlarges the argument by focusing on individuals rather than method, and begs the logical demand that, in terms of our new strategy, must be put off for just a bit longer: "Okay, then, IDENTIFY the 'who' if you're so smart!" I haven't answered the "who" question. Yet. A proper answer requires the presentation of proper names. And then we move on inevitably to discussion of what, to my mind, is the three-tiered structure of the conspiracy: sponsors, facilitators, and mechanics (from the top down), with sub-strata in each category. And God knows we're not at the point where we can attain ultimate truth and effect justice by laying THAT BUSINESS on the public. My point is to narrow the focus in order to present a basic reality to the people of world. Let us establish for all time the METHOD of JFK's removal. HOW was JFK killed? AS THE RESULT OF A CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY Because we cannot hope to move from our current position until conspiracy is accepted as historical fact. Such is my goal. Toward that narrow but ultimately significant (at this point in time) end, the "who" question remains irrelevant. Charles

Bring it on big guy! The evidence that is.... Sorry for the confusion: The answer to the question posed as the title of this thread: Yes.

David, The quick answer to your question: Yes.

If your access to the JFK evidence is reasonable and you do not conclude that he was killed by conspirators, then there remain two -- and only two -- possible explanations for your alternative conclusion. Either you cannot fathom the truth, or you can, but instead choose to embrace and espouse what you know to be untrue. All other aspects of the case remain open to honest differences of opinion. But NOT the "how" of the case. "How" was JFK killed? By criminal conspirators. No other "opinion" held by someone in a position to know the truth and capable of knowing the truth is to be respected. What's your opinion on the flat earth question? My teeth are starting to hurt.

Sonny, I have had it up to HERE with your misrepresentations of my position -- not to mention with your martyr complex. Pay attention: Anyone with reasonable access to the JFK evidence who does not conclude that conspiracy is fact is cognitively impaired and/or complicit in the crime. Therein may be found the beginning and ending of my sense of certitude in this case. I could not care less if you agree with me on this issue. I have no interest whatsoever in your cognitive abilities or your criminal status in terms of this case. I could not care less if you do not understand that we are at war with the killerS of JFK. I would defend to the death (not necessarily my own, but that's another story) your right to your personal opinions. You have no right to your personal facts. So de-nail yourself, jump down from the cross, and either join the fight or skulk away. Point out who you are charging with an attack on freedom of expression. But if you level such a charge at me, you'd best be prepared either to prove it, or to be drawn and quartered. Rhetorically speaking, of course. Charles

As one of the torch-bearers, I'll take my share of the heat. So to speak. To borrow a lyric: I'm laughing with tears in my eyes, too. ... So: There is NO hard evidence -- sustainable-in-the-face-of-challenge evidence -- pointing to Oswald. Unless "hard evidence" is defined as "evidence promoted by the state." I truly pray, Robert, that you and I live long enough to witness so long-anticipated an epiphany. Does Canada have an equivalent of the AARP? Thanks for making sense -- again. Best, Charles

I wouldn't have it any other way.

There are few of us willing to fight, Cliff, but we're righteous and strong. Even in the face of yahoos who play semantic games or who state we should keep an open mind on the "question" of conspiracy. On it goes.

Now Thomas, All you're managing to do here is to further explain the nature of America's military failure in Vietnam. You probably shot the VC as effectively as you're shooting this messenger. Run along now and play with your maps.

More from George Michael Evica on LHO and CE 139 Did Oswald Take Any Rifle to the Depository? The Warren Commission did establish (or seemed to have established) that a folded blanket had once rested on the floor of Ruth and Michael Paine’s garage (at least Marina and the Paines thought so, and the police allegedly found such a blanket). The Commission was unable to place a rifle in that blanket except for Marina’s testimony about seeing the stock (or the barrel) of a rifle when she peeked – but then Marina was an incredible witness and admittedly could not recognize a rifle. Mrs. Paine testified she did not “see” the blanket in her crowded garage any earlier than October 7th, 1963. Ruth Paine also testified that the rifle she allegedly saw in Oswald’s possession had a sling unlike the one on the CE 139 rifle. Michael Paine tried to help; he testified that on some unspecified date before November 22nd, 1963, he remembered “moving about this package [in his garage] which, let’s say, was a rifle, anyway it was a package wrapped in a blanket.” But Paine didn’t help Marina’s credibility much: “I have read … that Marina looked in the end of this [garage] package and saw the butt end of a rifle. Now I didn’t remember that it was something easy to look into like that. I thought it was well wrapped up.” (italics added) The Warren Commission seemed to have discovered an ill-identified “rifle” (which could not be placed in the Oswald’s possession during their various moves) in an alleged package/blanket allegedly in the Paine garage – but not before October 7th, 1963. The Commission did establish that Lee Harvey Oswald was present at the Paine’s residence, Thursday evening, November 21st, but could not place him in the Paine garage. It also could not establish whether he left the Paine residence on Friday morning, November 22nd, with a paper bag, a rifle, or anything in his hands. To suggest that Oswald might have taken a rifle in a paper bag, the Commission took testimony from four witnesses. The Commission’s intention was to suggest that Oswald might have (1) stolen the paper-bag materials from the Depository; (2)constructed the paper gun-case at the Paine house on Thursday night; (3) dismantled the rifle (thereby saving himself only a few inches in length but increasing the time necessary to prepare for the assassination when he would be forced to re-assemble the rifle; (4) placed the rifle in his home-made bag; (5)transported it to the Depository, and (6) carried it to the sixth floor of that building. The Commission was unable to establish as fact any one of these six sequential speculations. (emphasis added by Drago) Had the Commission been able to establish Oswald’s possession of the CE 139 Mannlicher-Carcano through the evening of November 21st, or the fact of that possession any time on the 22nd, its “reconstruction” of possibilities could have been accepted as circumstantial evidence for the transportation of the Mannlicher-Carcano to and into the Depository on November 22nd. In fact, the Commission neither established Oswald’s possession of any rifle through November 22nd nor his transportation of any rifle on November 22nd. Its four paper bag/rifle transportation witnesses offered abundant material for the counter argument that Lee Harvey Oswald did not transport the rifle to or into the building, could not have borrowed the paper bag materials, and did not take those materials to the Paine house. Two of those witnesses testified on March 11th, 1964 – the only two alleged to have seen Oswald with his “bulky” package – that it was too short for even a disassembled Carcano. The difference in lengths given was significant: the CE 139 rifle (dismantled, according to F.B.I. agent Frazier), 35 inches; Oswald’s alleged package, about 28 inches. The Warren Commission was unable to place any rifle in Oswald’s possession and was even unable to argue persuasively that Oswald might have transported a package containing a rifle to (or into) the Depository. Did Oswald Possess a Rifle Inside the Depository? Was Lee Harvey Oswald in possession of a rifle or a short or long package inside the Depository on November 22nd, 1963? No testimony was elicited, either by the Commission or by its investigators and staff members, in answer to that question; it was not, it seems, asked. The Commission tried neither to establish how Oswald got any rifle from the Depository’s first floor to the sixth floor nor to determine whether it was possible to transport a weapon. The Commission could have asked the Depository’s first-floor workers, but it seems to have avoided asking them any questions about Oswald’s possible rifle-carrying trip. Why? The Warren Commission was unable to prove that Lee Harvey Oswald (1) took delivery of a rifle; (2) possessed a rifle; (3) practiced with a rifle; (4) transported a rifle to the Depository; and (5) carried a rifle to the Depository’s sixth floor. And, of course, it was unable to prove that Lee Harvey Oswald ever fired a rifle on November 22nd, 1963. (emphasis added by Drago)

From JFK Lancer.