Kenneth Drew

I actually remember Tex Watson, if you're referring to the Western singer back in the 40's-50's, Saw a live performance by him. But since it was Bugliosi, I guess it was Manson's buddy you were referring to.

Paul, where I'm leaning now, and have been for some time is: The CIA planned the assassination at the direction of 'some high government officials', The plan was to blame it on a Lone Nut if they could pull that off. The killing itself was set up so that if they were not able to sell the Lone Nut, that they had at least one alternative. So the kill teams were set up, likely one of Cuban exiles, one of Mafia, and one of Communists, and maybe one of Pro Castro. So if Lone nut didn't sell, then whoever 'got caught' was the back up. LHO was set up as the Lone Nut. The FBI was to handle the coverup, of course with heavy assistance from the US Military and CIA and perhaps others. LHO was likely informed that the FBI/SS were planning an "attempted assassination" for security reasons and that he was to leave the TSBD and go directly to the Texas Theatre to meet his contact there. From there he would likely be removed from the country, and disposed of. The simplest plan worked out for the conspirators.

I'll go you one better, Kenneth. The Warren Commission was only loosely constructed as a court trial -- there was no trial in the usual sense -- there were no witnesses in the usual sense. The proof is that there was never any cross-examination. Further, if a witness wanted to talk "off the record" he or she only needed to say so, and that was allowed. (As I recall, "off the record" conversations would tend to come up whenever testimony began to delve more deeply into Ex-General Edwin Walker.) Anyway, Kenneth, you're probably being sarcastic today -- but just in case you're not, here's what Silvia Odio told Martin Phillips in January 1976 about her 22 July 1964 Warren Commission testimony. This is the account, as I recall, as told by Martin Philips: She said that after Liebeler questioned her for the second time that day (first at 9 am; second at 6:30 pm) he asked her out to dinner...Odio said: "We went out with someone who was supposed to be Marina Oswald's lawyer...We went to the Sheraton to eat dinner...I wasn't sure if they wanted me to hear their conversation...But one thing he said, and this has always bothered me, he said to this other gentleman...'Well, you know if we do find out that this is a conspiracy you know that we have orders from Chief Justice Warren to cover this thing up.'" This is what bothered Silvia Odio from the start -- her story about "Leopoldo" and "Angelo" wasn't being investigated properly -- but only to ensure that it would never see the light of day. If "Leopoldo" or "Angelo" just happened to assassinate Silvia Odio -- oh, well. At least the "Lone Nut" theory was safe! Regards, --Paul Trejo Thanks Paul, yes my statement was supposed to be sarcastic. The Warren Report was not a serious attempt at anything but cover up. No attempt was made to find the conspirators.

Okay. Tip. Double names are tricky. Some are always referred to by the full double. Others are almost universally known by just the single. Wagga is one of those. Also - no one voluntarily lives in Wagga. That would be the same as someone claiming they moved to Canberra for the ambience and nightlife. And --- it is a defense town. Just a few clicks away is Kapooka - the recruit training base. But your stay there had nothing to do with the military? I will agree that the city was called Wagga by the locals, but you asked where and I gave you the correct name of the city. No. Canberra was ok, nice place to visit.

Thanks very much for your answer and yes it does answer it. It doesn't really explain 'the why' it seems that more Australians are interested than Americans, but it seems so to me. It is not objectionable to me, just curious. I've always wondered about the death of Harold Holt and what was really behind it. The timing fits in the same general time frame as JFK's assassination, so I've always wondered. I know that the investigation said it was an accident, but we all know that investigations are sometimes predetermined. I'm convinced JFK was killed primarily to insure that the US entered the war, but there were other reasons also. Americans that look into the situation generally all come up with the same conclusions as to who was involved, but there is a strong core of people that seem to have a strong interest in not knowing the truth as if it would be harmful, or something. Just a point of interest, I lived in Australia for 6 months at one time and loved it. Got along with the locals very well. Which branch of the Imperial forces were you serving with at the time? I'm not sure what you mean by 'Imperial forces" but I was not 'serving' with anyone. I just chose to live there for 6 months. Can I ask where you lived? Wagga Wagga, NSW

Thanks very much for your answer and yes it does answer it. It doesn't really explain 'the why' it seems that more Australians are interested than Americans, but it seems so to me. It is not objectionable to me, just curious. I've always wondered about the death of Harold Holt and what was really behind it. The timing fits in the same general time frame as JFK's assassination, so I've always wondered. I know that the investigation said it was an accident, but we all know that investigations are sometimes predetermined. I'm convinced JFK was killed primarily to insure that the US entered the war, but there were other reasons also. Americans that look into the situation generally all come up with the same conclusions as to who was involved, but there is a strong core of people that seem to have a strong interest in not knowing the truth as if it would be harmful, or something. Just a point of interest, I lived in Australia for 6 months at one time and loved it. Got along with the locals very well. Which branch of the Imperial forces were you serving with at the time? I'm not sure what you mean by 'Imperial forces" but I was not 'serving' with anyone. I just chose to live there for 6 months.

Racism? I believe most Australians are of the same general racial mix as Americans. Don't understand the use of the word 'racism' here. He characterized an entire nation with broad-brush insults. You seem to want to only couch it in terms of racial distinctions. Here are two definitions: the belief that all members of each race possess characteristics, abilities, or qualities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races. prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior. You are on a slippery slope trying to bring a distinction between race and nationality in order to claim "no racism" on Josephs part. It's like saying "all Irish are stupid" and trying to argue it's not a racist comment. You are on a slippery slope trying to bring a distinction between race and nationality in order to claim "no racism" on Josephs part. It's like saying "all Irish are stupid" and trying to argue it's not a racist comment. That's rather humorous. Racism has to do with race, nationality has to do with nationality. Throwing the word 'racism' down is just a provocation. An attempt to belittle. Now if you were to say that equating the Irish to a 'race' were possible then you might could make that argument, but so far as I know Irish includes more than one race. Australians are many more than a 'race'. Just curious, what 'race' do you consider Australians to be? So while "all Irish are stupid" is inappropriate, it's not racial in any way.

Well, Jon, your questions here presume that the JFK Kill-Team and the JFK Cover-up Team were one and the same. That is perhaps the most common error of CT's in the past 50 years. Jim Garrison, Mark Lane, Harold Weisberg, Edward Epstein, Jim Marrs, Robert Groden, Anthony Summers, Peter Dale Scott and John Newman, are all of this mindset -- and all mistaken, IMHO. Here's how to distinguish the Teams: the JFK Kill-Team strongly promoted a "Communist" Oswald. The JFK Coverup-Team strongly promoted a "Lone Nut" Oswald. The two groups were savagely at each other's throats. It's a wonder to me that from Jim Garrison forward, fifty years of American readers never noticed this dichotomy. Regards, --Paul Trejo Here's how to distinguish the Teams: the JFK Kill-Team strongly promoted a "Communist" Oswald. The JFK Coverup-Team strongly promoted a "Lone Nut" Oswald. I think the Planning Team planned the Kill so that the Cover Up team could cover it the easiest way, which was Lone Nut, but had put enough elements into place that it could be shown to be conspiracy if it had to be.

Racism? I believe most Australians are of the same general racial mix as Americans. Don't understand the use of the word 'racism' here.

Thanks very much for your answer and yes it does answer it. It doesn't really explain 'the why' it seems that more Australians are interested than Americans, but it seems so to me. It is not objectionable to me, just curious. I've always wondered about the death of Harold Holt and what was really behind it. The timing fits in the same general time frame as JFK's assassination, so I've always wondered. I know that the investigation said it was an accident, but we all know that investigations are sometimes predetermined. I'm convinced JFK was killed primarily to insure that the US entered the war, but there were other reasons also. Americans that look into the situation generally all come up with the same conclusions as to who was involved, but there is a strong core of people that seem to have a strong interest in not knowing the truth as if it would be harmful, or something. Just a point of interest, I lived in Australia for 6 months at one time and loved it. Got along with the locals very well.

How is anyone supposed to know all that? What a typical LN tactic. I got the same thing from Paul Baker when I said I think Connally was not shot with the same bullet that hit JFK. So Baker wants me to tell him where the other shooter was. How am I supposed to know? Why don't you just ask who killed JFK? Since I and others here believe there was a conspiracy, surely we must know who did it! Ron, I'm not using any "tactic", at all. Instead, I'm simply asking what are entirely reasonable questions, and which only require a simple and straight-forward answer.What? Here's what you "simply" asked: "Walk me through exactly who 'doctored' the evidence later, keeping a close count on the number of people that such a decision and action would have been required to complete, and specifically how this was accomplished, and for what specific purpose." And you think that would "only require a simple and straight-forward answer"? Who are you trying to kid? Again, is it plausible that the attending physicians at Parkland were simply wrong about the placement of the head wound? No, I don't think it's plausible. I respect them as doctors, and they wrote down what they saw. They could have written something like "I think there was a large wound in the occipital, but I can't be sure because we were all in a hurry." But they didn't. They did not equivocate, they made plain statements about what they saw. Period. Of the two sets of physicians, which do you think was most likely to have mistaken the location of the head wound - those at Parkland, or Bethesda? As I recall, the eyewitnesses to the large wound in the back of the head at Bethesda were not physicians, they were various medical personnel or technicians. They stated what they saw, and I will remind you that the HSCA Report flat-out lied about it. Why do you think it lied? That would "only require a simple and straightforward answer."l How are you supposed to know all of what, Ron? How you believe that the existence of some variation between the respective accounts of two wholly separate groups of doctors, in two completely different settings, means that medical evidence must have been changed / hidden, and that such arose from a conspiracy? I guess you must be talking about the variation between what the Parkland doctors saw and what Humes said what was seen at the autopsy. I put little credence in statements by the conductors of a sham autopsy. The Parkland doctors had no reason to lie or otherwise adhere to a dictated scenario for fear of losing a military pension. I don't know how I can support your claim, on your behalf, Ron, well, because it's yours. I'm asking how this leads in any way leads to a conspiracy - even if you're right about the reason of the various accounts - and you can't do so. If you can't explain how this leads to a conspiracy....maybe it's because it doesn't, and you shouldn't believe that it does. I've explained how it leads to a conspiracy. A gaping wound in back of the head means a shot from the front. But belittle or dismiss the Parkland doctors (their statements corroborated by personnel at Bethesda as well as by Clint Hill) all you want. What else can you do? I've stated before you joined the forum that I don't argue with LNers and young-Earth creationists. So consider this my final word to you. The Parkland doctors are given immediate credibility and respect in their findings, but the Bethesda physicians are not? That's rather convenient. And the docs at Bethesda went along so as to protect their pensions. That's a big statement. Could you cite your source on this? If you have no source, could you withdraw it as nothing more than simple conjecture on your part, so that we don't further muddy the already murky water? And the HSCA lied? Where, exactly? I'd like to look into that. A "gaping wound in the back of the head means a shot from in front"...says who? And of course, even that question is predicated on your correct in believing the Parkland doctors, and dismissing those at Bethesda (which seems, well, a little more than self-serving). Finally, I appreciate your stance on "young earth creationists" and as much as it would help you to villify and dismiss me, you should know that I am neither. "And the HSCA lied? Where, exactly? I'd like to look into that." Gee Curtis, you know EVERYTHING and you don't know where they lied? Simple just read it, you'll know them when you see them. They're everywhere.... Again, Kenneth, I think you're confused as to how it works. It's the person who advances the claim who is required, by definition, to support it - and is not nor cannot be done by the person who did not make the claim. Here's a very quick example, and see if you can spot the trouble in your logic. 1. I claim that you dress up as Mary Poppins and engage goats in an intimate way. 2. I now ask YOU to provide ME with proof that this statement is untrue, and failing that, insist that we should simply accept it as being the truth. So now, Kenneth, you prove to me that assertion of your dressing as Mary Poppins and becoming intimate with goats is untrue. And.....GO! Okay, you claim that LHO did it all by himself. Prove it......And .....GO!

How is anyone supposed to know all that? What a typical LN tactic. I got the same thing from Paul Baker when I said I think Connally was not shot with the same bullet that hit JFK. So Baker wants me to tell him where the other shooter was. How am I supposed to know? Why don't you just ask who killed JFK? Since I and others here believe there was a conspiracy, surely we must know who did it! Ron, I'm not using any "tactic", at all. Instead, I'm simply asking what are entirely reasonable questions, and which only require a simple and straight-forward answer.What? Here's what you "simply" asked: "Walk me through exactly who 'doctored' the evidence later, keeping a close count on the number of people that such a decision and action would have been required to complete, and specifically how this was accomplished, and for what specific purpose." And you think that would "only require a simple and straight-forward answer"? Who are you trying to kid? Again, is it plausible that the attending physicians at Parkland were simply wrong about the placement of the head wound? No, I don't think it's plausible. I respect them as doctors, and they wrote down what they saw. They could have written something like "I think there was a large wound in the occipital, but I can't be sure because we were all in a hurry." But they didn't. They did not equivocate, they made plain statements about what they saw. Period. Of the two sets of physicians, which do you think was most likely to have mistaken the location of the head wound - those at Parkland, or Bethesda? As I recall, the eyewitnesses to the large wound in the back of the head at Bethesda were not physicians, they were various medical personnel or technicians. They stated what they saw, and I will remind you that the HSCA Report flat-out lied about it. Why do you think it lied? That would "only require a simple and straightforward answer."l How are you supposed to know all of what, Ron? How you believe that the existence of some variation between the respective accounts of two wholly separate groups of doctors, in two completely different settings, means that medical evidence must have been changed / hidden, and that such arose from a conspiracy? I guess you must be talking about the variation between what the Parkland doctors saw and what Humes said what was seen at the autopsy. I put little credence in statements by the conductors of a sham autopsy. The Parkland doctors had no reason to lie or otherwise adhere to a dictated scenario for fear of losing a military pension. I don't know how I can support your claim, on your behalf, Ron, well, because it's yours. I'm asking how this leads in any way leads to a conspiracy - even if you're right about the reason of the various accounts - and you can't do so. If you can't explain how this leads to a conspiracy....maybe it's because it doesn't, and you shouldn't believe that it does. I've explained how it leads to a conspiracy. A gaping wound in back of the head means a shot from the front. But belittle or dismiss the Parkland doctors (their statements corroborated by personnel at Bethesda as well as by Clint Hill) all you want. What else can you do? I've stated before you joined the forum that I don't argue with LNers and young-Earth creationists. So consider this my final word to you. The Parkland doctors are given immediate credibility and respect in their findings, but the Bethesda physicians are not? That's rather convenient. And the docs at Bethesda went along so as to protect their pensions. That's a big statement. Could you cite your source on this? If you have no source, could you withdraw it as nothing more than simple conjecture on your part, so that we don't further muddy the already murky water? And the HSCA lied? Where, exactly? I'd like to look into that. A "gaping wound in the back of the head means a shot from in front"...says who? And of course, even that question is predicated on your correct in believing the Parkland doctors, and dismissing those at Bethesda (which seems, well, a little more than self-serving). Finally, I appreciate your stance on "young earth creationists" and as much as it would help you to villify and dismiss me, you should know that I am neither. "And the HSCA lied? Where, exactly? I'd like to look into that." Gee Curtis, you know EVERYTHING and you don't know where they lied? Simple just read it, you'll know them when you see them. They're everywhere.... Again, Kenneth, I think you're confused as to how it works. It's the person who advances the claim who is required, by definition, to support it - and is not nor cannot be done by the person who did not make the claim. Here's a very quick example, and see if you can spot the trouble in your logic. 1. I claim that you dress up as Mary Poppins and engage goats in an intimate way. 2. I now ask YOU to provide ME with proof that this statement is untrue, and failing that, insist that we should simply accept it as being the truth. So now, Kenneth, you prove to me that assertion of your dressing as Mary Poppins and becoming intimate with goats is untrue. And.....GO! And you mention 'silliness' in your comments to me?

Brian - thank you very much for the welcome.I was a most reluctant concert, I assure you. I think that my belief in a conspiracy was the culmination of many things, chief of which, was that I simply wanted to believe that a conspiracy existed. In fact, albeit at the risk of painting with a too-broad brush, I think that is the central and necessary element of every conspiracy theorist - to want to believe it. From my own experience, I then spent considerable time and effort looking to support that desired conclusion. I only read what agreed with my opinion, and rejected anyone or anything which might challenge or otherwise fail to support it. Ultimately, I should have begun by challenging my own need to believe it, instead and first. As information became more widely available, and I allowed myself to explore and give it honest consideration, the actual, provable, tangible, credible and empirical facts simply became impossible to ignore. Over time, I could not continue to reconcile my belief in a conspiracy theory, and at the expense of my own intellectual honesty. And so, I chose the latter. I do not believe that there is one scintilla of evidence which has been produced or provided (admittedly, perhaps I have missed or misunderstood it), in any regard, which would allow a reasonable person's mind to conclude that there was any form of a conspiracy, whatsoever. I do not make this claim to be either sensationalistic or inflammatory, to anyone or anything, but because I have fully and completely satisfied myself that the mere absence of any credible evidence is more than sufficient means to conclude that it's absence is, by definition, the result of it never having existed, at all. As I've said - I am perfectly willing to admit my error, and would sincerely welcome it - but only at the presentment of empirically credible and independently verifiable proof and evidences. One of the best things about being on this side, is that it is the CT's who are making the claim, and are burdened with producing it's support and defense. And therein lies the rather cyclic rub, it can be produced because it simply doesn't exist. And somewhere, I always knew that in the years before my "conversion", and maybe others have felt the same. Have their been oddities? Curiosities? Coincidences? Any number of seemingly plausible theories, in whole or in part? Are there questions about particularities of often secondary (or tertiary) importance to the singular questikn of conspiracy. Certainly. But evidence? None. Not one. And this absence of proof necessarily prevents any definitive linking between Oswald and any of the dozens or so groups and people who probably rejoiced in Kennedy's death, in my opinion. I will say this, and easily; I am certain that my level of knowledge and the amount of time I have researched the matter, sizable and long-standing as it has been - is dwarfed and comparitively insignificant to a great many of the regular posters, here. And I am happy to be educated by them all. Curt, I'll bet that you can't give me one scintilla of evidence that LHO shot JFK. I'll bet that for a shot being fired from the snipers nest. I'll bet that for one bullet being fired into the limo from C2766. You want to prove LHO guilty, beyond a reasonable doubt, the floor is open. I don't know if you're unfamiliar with how this works, or I am. I was operating on the understanding that the official version of events was that LHO acted alone, and that no conspiracy exists. You're claiming that LHO did not act alone? That a conspiracy did exist? Both? The difference in our positions is that I am on the side of the truth, as best we know it. You claim to have proof of an alternative. But you need my proof, and my truth, so as to even substantiate the very means of your having an alternative and opposite position? In other words, if my position was unproven, what then are you objecting to, exactly? "I was operating on the understanding that the official version of events was that LHO acted alone," well see, that's where you went wrong. There is no "official version" There is only a "Directed Warren Commission Cover-up" that did not reach a conclusion. It started out with the conclusion and only put together a report excluding contrary evidence and witnesses that stated what their Directed Opinions were. If you adopt that official Nutter position you can't go astray.

Wow a born again Lone Nutter.... how original. Every Lone Nutter I know was a CTer to begin with but got baptised and are born again. Now they're all going to Heaven. and All.....I mean 100% + All of them are open to ANY evidence that will open their minds to the REAL truth. Well Curtis, you don't get too many points for originality but I will give you one for BS. What's the aim here, Kenneth, or the point which you're attempting to make? That I should not be open to any evidence? How's that working for you, thus far? "That I should not be open to any evidence?" You will not be open to any evidence, your mind is made up. How's that working for you thus far?

As someone who espouses the dual belief of Oswald acting alone, and "science" - there's nothing "magic" about the bullet, at all. Is that why it's called the single bullet 'theory'? It did have pixie dust on it when tested, but I don't think I can cite the source for that.

Could you cite this source, so that I can also read it? Curtis could you cite me a source that says this is not true, so that I can also read it?

FOR THE REORD:In all due respect, nothing in my post should be construed as me "welcoming a LN" to the forum. I was responding to the post in which you stated that you wanted to create a website to list 10 to 15 of what you consider to be the strongest evidence of conspiracy. In the "50 Reasons for 50 Years" program we have evidence not only of conspiracy to commit murder, but also evidence of conspiracy to obstruct justice. So, you don't welcome me here, as a person who believes that Oswald acted alone, and that no conspiracy exists?Why would myself, or anyone who shared my opinion be unwelcome here? What about those who are uncertain as to what occurred? Are they given a probationary welcome? Because you're all the same. You were CTer's but you saw the light and now even though it took absolutely no evidence to prove to you that LHO was a Lone nut, you now want all CTer's to drop everything and provide absolute proof to you of every subject that can come up. That is the Nutter's game. Smoke screens and mirrors, distract from facts, ask useless, stupid questions. JFK was killed by more than one person, none of those were LHO. Prove otherwise. Cite me the facts that prove absolutely that LHO owned a rifle, that he had ever fired a rifle, that he ever even was in Dallas, that he ever heard of JFK. Seems like everyone would love to be welcomed that plays that game every day, every subject. Praise the Lord, another nutter...

I thought that a recent show on the assassination showed that the bullet holes in JFK's clothing perfectly aligned with the entrance wounds, and that earlier theories had erred in failing to account for his raised arms, which would have also raised his shirt, and thus, refuting the claim. Do I not recall this correctly? Or is there other and additional information which serves to overturn this refutation? If so, what is it? No you do not recall it correctly and NO that's not the only thing you do not recall correctly.

Robert, you also believe that the Parkland docs were correct, and couldn't have possibly just been wrong? What causes me some difficulty is that we're picking and choosing - one set of doctors (Parkland) is infallible, and the others (Bethesda) are rejected outright. Why the disparity, if not simply because it reenforces a belief in a conspiracy? And finally, why do the tasks of each respective group not weigh more strongly on behalf of the Bethesda physicians, instead. Of the two, the Parkland doctors singular focus was on saving the life of the President - they had no need to figure out the how / why / where of it all, and as such, seem to be the less likely of the two to be unilaterally supported in their recollection. Conversely, the Bethesda physician's singular goal was exactly to figure out the how / why / where of the wounds, so as to determine what happened, and had the significant benefit of their examination conducted post mortem, when the President's life had already been lost (eg no life-saving techniques were required, and as a result, they simply had more time to give a closer examination). and you're neutral, but all the Parkland doctors were 'mistaken' but all the Bethesda doctors had a noble goal to determine 'what really happened'. Need any water front property?

How is anyone supposed to know all that? What a typical LN tactic. I got the same thing from Paul Baker when I said I think Connally was not shot with the same bullet that hit JFK. So Baker wants me to tell him where the other shooter was. How am I supposed to know? Why don't you just ask who killed JFK? Since I and others here believe there was a conspiracy, surely we must know who did it! Ron, I'm not using any "tactic", at all. Instead, I'm simply asking what are entirely reasonable questions, and which only require a simple and straight-forward answer.What? Here's what you "simply" asked: "Walk me through exactly who 'doctored' the evidence later, keeping a close count on the number of people that such a decision and action would have been required to complete, and specifically how this was accomplished, and for what specific purpose." And you think that would "only require a simple and straight-forward answer"? Who are you trying to kid? Again, is it plausible that the attending physicians at Parkland were simply wrong about the placement of the head wound? No, I don't think it's plausible. I respect them as doctors, and they wrote down what they saw. They could have written something like "I think there was a large wound in the occipital, but I can't be sure because we were all in a hurry." But they didn't. They did not equivocate, they made plain statements about what they saw. Period. Of the two sets of physicians, which do you think was most likely to have mistaken the location of the head wound - those at Parkland, or Bethesda? As I recall, the eyewitnesses to the large wound in the back of the head at Bethesda were not physicians, they were various medical personnel or technicians. They stated what they saw, and I will remind you that the HSCA Report flat-out lied about it. Why do you think it lied? That would "only require a simple and straightforward answer."l How are you supposed to know all of what, Ron? How you believe that the existence of some variation between the respective accounts of two wholly separate groups of doctors, in two completely different settings, means that medical evidence must have been changed / hidden, and that such arose from a conspiracy? I guess you must be talking about the variation between what the Parkland doctors saw and what Humes said what was seen at the autopsy. I put little credence in statements by the conductors of a sham autopsy. The Parkland doctors had no reason to lie or otherwise adhere to a dictated scenario for fear of losing a military pension. I don't know how I can support your claim, on your behalf, Ron, well, because it's yours. I'm asking how this leads in any way leads to a conspiracy - even if you're right about the reason of the various accounts - and you can't do so. If you can't explain how this leads to a conspiracy....maybe it's because it doesn't, and you shouldn't believe that it does. I've explained how it leads to a conspiracy. A gaping wound in back of the head means a shot from the front. But belittle or dismiss the Parkland doctors (their statements corroborated by personnel at Bethesda as well as by Clint Hill) all you want. What else can you do? I've stated before you joined the forum that I don't argue with LNers and young-Earth creationists. So consider this my final word to you. The Parkland doctors are given immediate credibility and respect in their findings, but the Bethesda physicians are not? That's rather convenient. And the docs at Bethesda went along so as to protect their pensions. That's a big statement. Could you cite your source on this? If you have no source, could you withdraw it as nothing more than simple conjecture on your part, so that we don't further muddy the already murky water? And the HSCA lied? Where, exactly? I'd like to look into that. A "gaping wound in the back of the head means a shot from in front"...says who? And of course, even that question is predicated on your correct in believing the Parkland doctors, and dismissing those at Bethesda (which seems, well, a little more than self-serving). Finally, I appreciate your stance on "young earth creationists" and as much as it would help you to villify and dismiss me, you should know that I am neither. "And the HSCA lied? Where, exactly? I'd like to look into that." Gee Curtis, you know EVERYTHING and you don't know where they lied? Simple just read it, you'll know them when you see them. They're everywhere....

What's the difference? Every JFK conspiracy theorist everywhere in the world has been doing nothing BUT wasting his or her time since Kennedy was killed 52 years ago. And that's because they keep focusing on all the same wrong things--year after year. Nothing ever changes. CTers in 2015 are still pushing the very same myths that were being pushed in the 1960s by Mark Lane and Jim Garrison. Same crap, different decade. That's all. Yeah, and I can see why. And so can other LNers at other forums around the Web. Such as one of the all-time best at putting forth so much truth and trouncing so many CTers (all with a bare minimum of verbiage) --- Bud at aaj.... BUD SAID [HERE AND HERE]: "Just read this and saw that DVP had his posting privileges returned. It was great to read DVP forcing those dolts to shove their heads up their own asses to avoid acknowledging the clear indications of the SBT. [...] [James Gordon] got angry because DVP was challenging his core beliefs. [Gordon] needs the SBT to be false because he needs Oswald to be a patsy. Actually DVP was hammering these clowns with facts. They were getting destroyed in the debate so they had to make it into something DVP is doing wrong. These conspiracy hobbyists can't wrap their heads around the notion that their ideas are not worthy of respect. And you can go to the discussion on the SBT on Education Forum and see the number of snide remarks and put downs DVP had to endure. The difference being he didn't cry about it. He made his bones in the nuthouse, and you'll develop a tough skin in that place. See, this hobbyist [James Gordon] is completely out of touch with reality. DVP was not parroting the WC or just throwing out unsupported opinions. He was backing up his contentions using the evidence. He was showing why he was right and these folks were wrong. And man did they hate that. [...] Some [...]clown named Robert Prudhomme keeps threatening to provide a "thrashing" on the issue but never seems to have anything to contribute. James Gordon is desperately trying to find justifications to ignore the clear indications that Connally was shot, and some other mental midget keeps popping in to say he doesn't bother arguing with LNers (and it's clear to see why not, he might be forced to think and defend his cherished fantasies). But they will never give in on this point as it would take them one step closer to the truth, and that is where they fear to tread." -- Bud; May 2015 Wow, I'm impressed.

Yes, that would be mighty helpful, Ron. Any chance that any CTer--some day or some year--will ever prove that somebody besides Lee Harvey Oswald murdered the 35th U.S. Chief Executive? Is it really asking too much to expect an answer to the above inquiry, Ron? Any chance that any Nutter will ever prove that LHO ever owned a rifle, fired a shot, killed anyone? Nope, not a chance.

I'll play this game once, as I have previously stated my own personal rule against arguing with LNers and young-Earth creationists. To me perhaps the most important "circumstantial" evidence is the gaping wound in the back of JFK's head, seen by medical personnel at both Parkland and Bethesda as well as by Clint Hill. This wound has been covered up from start to finish, first by the Warren Commission (it wants you to ignore its own exhibits, i.e. eyewitness doctors' statements), the HSCA (by simply lying in its report about eyewitness statements), and to this very moment by the mainstream media, which simply ignores it. I know that LNers and even Pat Speer try their best to get around this. So be it. Important and valid questions, every one. Without looking back at specific testimony, I'd start by asking the first two questions that leap to mind: 1. Is it possible that the attending physicians were simply wrong, or couldn't accurately recall the location of the head wounds? Recall, they had been caught completely unaware of the President's arrival until moments before he entered the hospital, and they were attending him. Once he arrived in Trauma Room 1, amidst that horror and bedlam, as these same men spent considerable time and desperate effort trying to save the life of the most powerful man in the planet...is it at least plausible that they did not closely examine the exact location of the head wound, and certainly did not have the same luxury of time and comparitive tranquility as the attending physicians in Washington had enjoyed? 2. Suppose I simply relent and say that the Parkland Hospital doctors were correct in their identification of the head wound. Walk me through exactly who "doctored" the evidence later, keeping a close count on the number of people that such a decision and action would have been required to complete, and specifically how this was accomplished, and for what specific purpose. "1. Is it possible that the attending physicians were simply wrong," let's see if I've got this right. You're a died in the wool, certified CTer, but then I see this absolutely convincing evidence such as "1. Is it possible that the attending physicians were simply wrong," and that wrapped it up for me, I converted to Lone Nutterism immediately because I was absolutely certain that is is possible that the attending physicians might be wrong. Talk about 'convincing proof', that sure sold me. No more conspiracy, all Lone Nutter all the way.......yeah, Hi yo silver,,,,,,,,,,awaaaaaaayy.

No, of course Frazier wasn't lying. He truly thinks that the 38-inch bag he saw Oswald carrying was only about 24 to 27 inches in length. He was simply wrong about his estimate. He wasn't lying. He was just---wrong. Here's what I said about it six years ago, in October of 2009..... ----------------- It's just that no one noticed it but LHO had this really really long arm, about 36 inches or so that the package would fit between his hand and under arm. I know most people don't have an arm that long, but old LHO, well, he did. At least 36 inches, maybe even a little more....really,, he did.....

Brian - thank you very much for the welcome.I was a most reluctant concert, I assure you. I think that my belief in a conspiracy was the culmination of many things, chief of which, was that I simply wanted to believe that a conspiracy existed. In fact, albeit at the risk of painting with a too-broad brush, I think that is the central and necessary element of every conspiracy theorist - to want to believe it. From my own experience, I then spent considerable time and effort looking to support that desired conclusion. I only read what agreed with my opinion, and rejected anyone or anything which might challenge or otherwise fail to support it. Ultimately, I should have begun by challenging my own need to believe it, instead and first. As information became more widely available, and I allowed myself to explore and give it honest consideration, the actual, provable, tangible, credible and empirical facts simply became impossible to ignore. Over time, I could not continue to reconcile my belief in a conspiracy theory, and at the expense of my own intellectual honesty. And so, I chose the latter. I do not believe that there is one scintilla of evidence which has been produced or provided (admittedly, perhaps I have missed or misunderstood it), in any regard, which would allow a reasonable person's mind to conclude that there was any form of a conspiracy, whatsoever. I do not make this claim to be either sensationalistic or inflammatory, to anyone or anything, but because I have fully and completely satisfied myself that the mere absence of any credible evidence is more than sufficient means to conclude that it's absence is, by definition, the result of it never having existed, at all. As I've said - I am perfectly willing to admit my error, and would sincerely welcome it - but only at the presentment of empirically credible and independently verifiable proof and evidences. One of the best things about being on this side, is that it is the CT's who are making the claim, and are burdened with producing it's support and defense. And therein lies the rather cyclic rub, it can be produced because it simply doesn't exist. And somewhere, I always knew that in the years before my "conversion", and maybe others have felt the same. Have their been oddities? Curiosities? Coincidences? Any number of seemingly plausible theories, in whole or in part? Are there questions about particularities of often secondary (or tertiary) importance to the singular questikn of conspiracy. Certainly. But evidence? None. Not one. And this absence of proof necessarily prevents any definitive linking between Oswald and any of the dozens or so groups and people who probably rejoiced in Kennedy's death, in my opinion. I will say this, and easily; I am certain that my level of knowledge and the amount of time I have researched the matter, sizable and long-standing as it has been - is dwarfed and comparitively insignificant to a great many of the regular posters, here. And I am happy to be educated by them all. Curt, I'll bet that you can't give me one scintilla of evidence that LHO shot JFK. I'll bet that for a shot being fired from the snipers nest. I'll bet that for one bullet being fired into the limo from C2766. You want to prove LHO guilty, beyond a reasonable doubt, the floor is open.