Curtis Berkley

I am somewhat familiar with criminal prosecution, and yes, I can tell you that LHO would have been found guilty, and easily. You can look at it anecdotally when compared to other successful murder convictions, or specifically as to this particular instance, and the result is the same. Marcia Clark could convict LHO in San Francisco, and if juror instructions were given in the AM, they'd likely be home by supper. There are hundreds (thousands?) of murderers who are sitting in prison right now, and who had a fraction of the evidence stacked against them, as Oswald would have. You don't have to like it, or even agree with it, and I'm not even saying that it's "right" - but it's the truth. A second year law student could achieve a conviction. As to your other comments: 1. I'm not sure how name-calling and ad hominem attacks advance the issue, or specifically, your argument. 2. Who jettisoned Dr. Shaw? I merely asked the question which the posted comments begged - should he too be added to the list of conspirators? That you seemingly dislike the fact that those who do not believe in a conspiracy often ask it is immaterial, save this: Why do you think it is that we feel compelled to continually ask it - and who's fault is that? Just something to think about, and to ask yourself. 3. I believe the accounts which I find to be most credible, and which can be supported and/or corroborated by other evidence and fact, wherever possible. Do I think that Dr. Shaw's initial comments, in the excruciating glare of that first day, must be true - simply because it was his first utterance? No. Do I think that later, after some reflection, that Dr. Shaw could have remembered it more clearly, or had been made aware of better information that he did not possess at the time of his initial comments, and this is the simple and understandable reason for his later recanting his story? Yes. Do I believe that his opinion was changed later, as the certain result of a conspiracy and "once the story was straight" - as you claimed in an earlier post? Absolutely not, and in fact, that is not only a preposterous claim which lacks any fact, or even a basis in reality, and which you have simply contrived from your own personal opinion, alone. If I am wrong - please cite the source which supports your claim that Dr. Shaw was later compelled, urged, required, ordered or otherwise made to later change his story. Once provided, and if credible, I will gladly look at it, and admit if I am in error. But if you cannot, and it merely is simply your own opinion, and nothing else, then admit that, and withdraw it. 4. I am not trying to "convert" anyone. We all have different opinions, and I respect them all. Some are just more correct than others, but then, I cannot save anyone from that.

Curtis, I'm astonished by the lack of critical acumen you've shown here. But I sure do admire your writing skills. Don't mistake articulated verbosity for intelligence.

I'm digesting the other and recent posts in this thread - all great stuff - and will try to respond in detail when I have a free moment to do so. But the genuine sentimentality of Kathy's posting "my President" struck me as being particularly poignant, and I wanted to quickly comment on it.It's far too easy to forget the tragedy of that day, and to become lost amidst the wash of agendas, debates, facts, and all manners of secondary minutiae, and with myself being notably - perhaps, chiefly - included. I believe that a part of our national psyche died that day, and that we've suffered with it, since. No, JFK's death did not cause the many and real problems that we have faced since then, nor those we wrestle with today. But, as with most tragedies, it forever changed us as a people, and we see its rippling effect continue, today. I don't desire that the person(s) responsible for forcing that change upon us to go unknown, unaccounted for and unpunished. They should be zealously pursued, if not for justice in a court of law, then to be damned certain that their names are known - and cursed - throughout the annals of our national and ever-growing history. JFK deserves that, for sure, but even more importantly, we deserve it, as a People. Despite whatever disagreements we may have, however sincere, heated, and on any number of things of secondary or tertiary importance, I think that we all must share a desire for justice, as best it can be found and known, regardless of who it implicates, direction it takes, or where it concludes - or else, what's the point of it all? I neither possess the knowledge nor time to explain every anamolous sliver of every fragmented piece of this story. I wish I did - I love reading, thinking and discussing it - but I don't. That's why I appreciate this forum, and frankly, why I took the time to register and desire to participate. But I truly and personally believe, after years of reading, debate, layman research and objectively contemplative thought (as best I am capable to produce, paltry as it may be) that the overwhelming preponderance of the evidence before us says that LHO assassinated JFK, and acted alone. My disbelief in a conspiracy does not result from some personal desire - I want the truth, whatever it may be - but because I have never seen any credible, disprovable, empirical or otherwise valid proof that such has ever existed. And frankly, I don't think I've ever seen it, for the simple fact that it doesn't exist. But, using tens of thousands of past experiences as proof (many painful and/or expensive), I can be wrong, and where I am, I will admit it. And so, I am willing - wanting, even - to see what evidence that other, (likely) smarter and more dedicated people than I, have come up, instead, and to give it every consideration, both carefully and critically. But I don't think I'm wrong, here. At all. I understand that this is an unpopular position here, and one that is easily attacked and mocked. As long as it doesn't turn personal, or becomes needlessly annoying or is simply intended to bait me into violating the forum rules or proper decorum, it is to be expected, and causes me no harm. If I wasn't willing to consider an alterative view, however starkly oppositional to my own, I wouldn't be here. But I am here, and do. Take that for whatever it's worth, I guess. However, I'd ask you to consider this: When you guys see my championing the sincerely held belief that LHO acted alone, as allowing the "conspirators" to escape - I see and feel the exact same of your position, believing that any assertion of an unproven conspiracy, however well-intended, merely serves to exonerate, diminish, subdue or restrain the full and complete guilt, from being squarely and rightfully upon Oswald, alone. You see my allowing the "conspirators" to escape. I see you allowing Oswald to escape, or at best, lessening the acknowledgment of his full, complete and total guilt. Simply - JFK was "my President", too. I'm on mobile, and apologize for rambling a bit. methinks the latter-day lone nuts are getting really desperate. Even Craigster is trolling this thread. I don't know what lead you to believe this, but I respect that you do.

I'm digesting the other and recent posts in this thread - all great stuff - and will try to respond in detail when I have a free moment to do so. But the genuine sentimentality of Kathy's posting "my President" struck me as being particularly poignant, and I wanted to quickly comment on it. It's far too easy to forget the tragedy of that day, and to become lost amidst the wash of agendas, debates, facts, and all manners of secondary minutiae, and with myself being notably - perhaps, chiefly - included. I believe that a part of our national psyche died that day, and that we've suffered with it, since. No, JFK's death did not cause the many and real problems that we have faced since then, nor those we wrestle with today. But, as with most tragedies, it forever changed us as a people, and we see its rippling effect continue, today. I don't desire that the person(s) responsible for forcing that change upon us to go unknown, unaccounted for and unpunished. They should be zealously pursued, if not for justice in a court of law, then to be damned certain that their names are known - and cursed - throughout the annals of our national and ever-growing history. JFK deserves that, for sure, but even more importantly, we deserve it, as a People. Despite whatever disagreements we may have, however sincere, heated, and on any number of things of secondary or tertiary importance, I think that we all must share a desire for justice, as best it can be found and known, regardless of who it implicates, direction it takes, or where it concludes - or else, what's the point of it all? I neither possess the knowledge nor time to explain every anamolous sliver of every fragmented piece of this story. I wish I did - I love reading, thinking and discussing it - but I don't. That's why I appreciate this forum, and frankly, why I took the time to register and desire to participate. But I truly and personally believe, after years of reading, debate, layman research and objectively contemplative thought (as best I am capable to produce, paltry as it may be) that the overwhelming preponderance of the evidence before us says that LHO assassinated JFK, and acted alone. My disbelief in a conspiracy does not result from some personal desire - I want the truth, whatever it may be - but because I have never seen any credible, disprovable, empirical or otherwise valid proof that such has ever existed. And frankly, I don't think I've ever seen it, for the simple fact that it doesn't exist. But, using tens of thousands of past experiences as proof (many painful and/or expensive), I can be wrong, and where I am, I will admit it. And so, I am willing - wanting, even - to see what evidence that other, (likely) smarter and more dedicated people than I, have come up, instead, and to give it every consideration, both carefully and critically. But I don't think I'm wrong, here. At all. I understand that this is an unpopular position here, and one that is easily attacked and mocked. As long as it doesn't turn personal, or becomes needlessly annoying or is simply intended to bait me into violating the forum rules or proper decorum, it is to be expected, and causes me no harm. If I wasn't willing to consider an alterative view, however starkly oppositional to my own, I wouldn't be here. But I am here, and do. Take that for whatever it's worth, I guess. However, I'd ask you to consider this: When you guys see my championing the sincerely held belief that LHO acted alone, as allowing the "conspirators" to escape - I see and feel the exact same of your position, believing that any assertion of an unproven conspiracy, however well-intended, merely serves to exonerate, diminish, subdue or restrain the full and complete guilt, from being squarely and rightfully upon Oswald, alone. You see my allowing the "conspirators" to escape. I see you allowing Oswald to escape, or at best, lessening the acknowledgment of his full, complete and total guilt. Simply - JFK was "my President", too. I'm on mobile, and apologize for rambling a bit.

Should I also add Dr. Shaw to the list of conspirators? If so, please cite the requisite proof that supports your claim that he only later changed his story, and once "agendas had been established". Absent some compelling evidence, it's a baseless claim, and you appear to simply be unwilling to abandon it.

James - didn't the same doctor also admit that he had not closely examined the wound when he made that statement, and later recanted it? If so, doesn't that put it to rest?

LHO would be convicted in any court in America, and neither Daniel Webster nor Alan Dershowitz could save him. It would make the Clay Shaw deliberations look near epic, in comparison. I understand that many may disagree with this, but that's my opinion.

Lusty Bickerer sounds like the lead character in an adult-themed re-do of Stone's JFK.I'll take it. regardless, Stone's JFK-the movie set back WCR supporters and the report 25 years.... they've never recovered, and never will. I couldn't agree more. If there was a worse face for the CTers than Jim Garrison, which is difficult to even imagine, it was topped when Oliver Stone took the mantle.

But the hole in the shirt does not match up with the "wound" depicted in the autopsy photo. There is a 2+ inch discrepancy. The clothing evidence, for which there is a chain of possession, trumps the autopsy photo -- for which there is no chain of possession. Admittedly, it's been awhile since I saw the NOVA documentary, but do I correctly recall that they explained the disparity between the wounds location and the clothing, by how JFK's arm was raised, resting on the ledge of the window? Is that explanation somehow insufficient, and if so, on what grounds? No, you missed it. Some SBT defenders--taking their cue from Specter and Humes--have made the claim the clothing was lifted when JFK's arm was raised, but the NOVA program side-stepped the issue by claiming the SBT is all about what happens after the bullet leaves Kennedy's throat. This was a convenient lie. This site (just Googled it) seems to show several photos of JFK in the limousine, with his arm on the side of the door, and a clearly definitive bunching of his coat at the base of his neck. Just using the non-scientific eye-balling, it seems to be about 2" of bunched fabric, if not more. Am I missing something as to the validity of these photos, or otherwise? Link: http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/bunched3.htm Yes, you are missing the fact that JFK's shirt collar is visible in all the Elm St photos. The only way we could see his shirt collar in the back is because the jacket collar rested in a normal position at the upper margin of the base of the neck. How could multiple inches of shirt and jacket fabric bunch up above the base of the neck without pushing up on the jacket collar at the base of the neck? David Von Pein acknowledges that this fact -- the visible shirt collar in the Elm St. photos -- means the jacket was only bunched up "a little bit." This picture clearly shows an easily visible bunching of fabric at the base of the neck, as does the drawing which someone else linked in the last few posts. As to the visible collar, the collar of a suit jacket is often pulled straight and lies flag with the tension of the lapel, and especially if buttoned. So, it's entirely possible (highly likely, IMO) that the collar of his jacket stayed put, and the back section of the jacket is what bunched. Simply, a visible collar is no evidence that any bunching occurred, and in fact, just the opposite is more often true than not. And just as your picture shows.

But the hole in the shirt does not match up with the "wound" depicted in the autopsy photo. There is a 2+ inch discrepancy. The clothing evidence, for which there is a chain of possession, trumps the autopsy photo -- for which there is no chain of possession. Admittedly, it's been awhile since I saw the NOVA documentary, but do I correctly recall that they explained the disparity between the wounds location and the clothing, by how JFK's arm was raised, resting on the ledge of the window?Is that explanation somehow insufficient, and if so, on what grounds? Curtis, glance down upon your right shoulder. Now, while keeping your eye on your shirt atop your right shoulder, casually raise your right arm and wave ala JFK in the motorcade. You will observe the shirt fabric indent along your shoulder-line. Every time you imitate this movement, your shirt indents. This occurs hundreds of billions of times a day on this planet. The claim that the opposite occurs -- indeed, that multiple inches of clothing will elevate-- is readily falsifiable. Raised right arm. indentation in the shoulder... Completely fair point, but the experiment fails to account for my sitting in car, with a high(er) back seat, while wearing a suit jacket, as JFK was. And that's not to mention how exacerbated the bunching could have become with his waving, raising and lowering his arm, resting it in an elevated position, and the normal jostling of a moving car. I routinely pull the back of my suit jacket (or otherwise) down in the back, so as to prevent the common bunching around my neck. I believe that quite a few news anchors actually sit on the bottom hem of their suit jacket, so as to practically pin it down, and for the same reason. When I look at the pics I linked earlier, it seems to be clear evidence of a bunching of his jacket at the base of his neck, and it not only explains any disparity between the hole in his jacket and back wound, but rather easily. If I'm missing something, tell me, but this seems obvious.

Lusty Bickerer sounds like the lead character in an adult-themed re-do of Stone's JFK. I'll take it.

Asked and answered on my time in the Navy. Nothing coy about it, gave a relatively thorough description. You were a CryptoTech? If so, then so much has come snapping into focus, and I now have a much better prism by which to read your posts, Greg. Thanks for that.

But the hole in the shirt does not match up with the "wound" depicted in the autopsy photo. There is a 2+ inch discrepancy. The clothing evidence, for which there is a chain of possession, trumps the autopsy photo -- for which there is no chain of possession. Admittedly, it's been awhile since I saw the NOVA documentary, but do I correctly recall that they explained the disparity between the wounds location and the clothing, by how JFK's arm was raised, resting on the ledge of the window? Is that explanation somehow insufficient, and if so, on what grounds? No, you missed it. Some SBT defenders--taking their cue from Specter and Humes--have made the claim the clothing was lifted when JFK's arm was raised, but the NOVA program side-stepped the issue by claiming the SBT is all about what happens after the bullet leaves Kennedy's throat. This was a convenient lie. This site (just Googled it) seems to show several photos of JFK in the limousine, with his arm on the side of the door, and a clearly definitive bunching of his coat at the base of his neck. Just using the non-scientific eye-balling, it seems to be about 2" of bunched fabric, if not more. Am I missing something as to the validity of these photos, or otherwise? Link: http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/bunched3.htm

Or, if anyone may perhaps most prefer: "When you resort to attacking the messenger and not the message, you have lost the debate. - Addison Whithecomb

"It is better to debate a question without settling it than to settle a question without debating it." -Joseph Joubert

I love this song, particularly when sung by Hank Williams. But I'm entirely unsure as to what you intend in posting it, Robert. It seems a curiously disconnected addition to the topic, so much so that one could assume that you may have intended it merely to chide (mock?) me. I'm sure that's not the case, but an explanation of its inclusion might be helpful, if only to best ensure that no one else might mistakenly read it in such a negative light, and think you some sort of sophomorically-challenged scofflaw.

You asked for the most incontrovertible fact, so I intentionally stayed away from the medical evidence or how many shots were fired, etc. because these are open to interpretation and CTers and LNers are set in their ways and find the other side foolish and fall into the same trap of passé arguments. Now, I understand a lot of conspiracy books, say Crossfire, are a laundry list of odd incongruities and legacy stories. A lot of what's in them is false, so it may not be hard for a LNer to look at them and think everything in them is false. But, how would you respond to my four points? Curtis Berkley still won't respond. Sorry, I was defending my personhood from Greg's allegations. Apparently, I am one of four people who changed their mind in 2000, and that set some alarm bells to ringing, somewhere. Send me whatever sources you've got to support each claim, I'd love to see all of them, and will be glad to respond, once I've looked them over. Not quite that simple, Curtis. One of 4 noted here-- but only one of many more seen over the years. All the same MO. A big song and dance about what dedicated CTers they were - until reading the WCR, Case Closed or the Bugs book - take your pick. All baring their souls unsolicited like good members of CT Anonymous standing up to confess. Maybe the similarities are due solely because of shared psychopathy? Heck Curtis, that could be it. I mean, you never see it the other way around. When was the last time someone made any unsolicited post about how the used to be a died-in-the-wool LN but converted after reading CTKA online in 2000! I'd say it was somewhere around the 12th of never. Are we to believe from that, that no one ever changes from being LN - that once LN, always LN, or is there something else at play that makes former CTs confess online, risking the wrath of people like me, but never former LN's- even though they would be greeted with open arms? Psychopathy! That must be it, After all, you've poured poo-poo over every other suggestion. Perhaps you err in assuming that I have given any consideration to the potentiality of your "wrath", or anyone else's, whatsoever. I assure you that I have not and will not, trusting that this forum is beyond such silliness as that. I'm struggling to even conceive of what that looks like, actually, and am not sure that I could identify when and where the "wrath" of a message board poster might be unleashed upon me. Will it appear in all caps? A different font? Bold? Perhaps it will include a tell-tale sign, like a frown-faced emoji? Absent your guided help in that, I will simply continue to assume that such "wrath" is present in any post which innately compels me to hum the faint strains of circus music, while reading it. And while maybe not the most accurate method of discernment, the music will at least, and perhaps appropriately, conjure up good feelings for me, nonetheless, as I will be reminded of my favorite part of any circus, which is the sending in of the clowns Ironically enough, this word also begins with a "c" - which I understand your predilection for words such as those, from your recent and previous posts. So, perhaps we've found some common ground, after all. And I'm most glad for it, friend.

James - I'm not saying that the WC was unavailable prior to 2000. I guess my point was that it became exponentially more widely, readily and easily accessible with the proliferation of the Internet, both for myself and millions of others. Hence, I don't think it should be particularly surprising that a great many people used that increased opportunity of access, read it (or some portion, thereof), perhaps even for the first time, and found it to be compelling, in some regard. In my opinion, and given that, it seems entirely unremarkable that several people shared that experience, and in and around that time, as such seems so reasonable as to be expected. I'm not sure how we've arrived at the point that I need to explain and recuse myself of being amongst that millennial group, but then, I'm learning that you can never fail to be too vigilant in the hunt for conspirators, plants and moles, and if not real, then the imagined. But that's my answer. Hope it helps.

Of course. Why do you believe that Ruby killed Oswald as the result of a conspiracy?

You asked for the most incontrovertible fact, so I intentionally stayed away from the medical evidence or how many shots were fired, etc. because these are open to interpretation and CTers and LNers are set in their ways and find the other side foolish and fall into the same trap of passé arguments. Now, I understand a lot of conspiracy books, say Crossfire, are a laundry list of odd incongruities and legacy stories. A lot of what's in them is false, so it may not be hard for a LNer to look at them and think everything in them is false. But, how would you respond to my four points? Curtis Berkley still won't respond. Sorry, I was defending my personhood from Greg's allegations. Apparently, I am one of four people who changed their mind in 2000, and that set some alarm bells to ringing, somewhere. Send me whatever sources you've got to support each claim, I'd love to see all of them, and will be glad to respond, once I've looked them over.

Greg, surely you understand that the WC report was not widely available, or readily accessible, to a great many people, prior to the internet, right? Wouldn't it make sense, and should even be expected, that some would change their minds, after having read it? And, again, I'll simply say that I introduced myself as mannered nicety, and to be transparently honest about my personal belief on the subject we are discussing. I thought that this would be most preferred and appreciated, but perhaps not, by some. I think that I understand you much better, after having read your final paragraph. Anyone who believes in the accuracy of the WC report is either willfully ignorant, dumb, operating on faith alone, getting "paid to support it online" (my personal favorite) or some combination, thereof. If that is your belief, and I trust that it is, then I don't see how meaningful discussion is possible or any reason for me to continue to engage you. But, one last question - a favor, actually - if you could PM with a link to that agency which will pay me to be online in support of LHO's having acted alone, I'd very much appreciate it. No sense in giving away the milk for free, and all. Thanks, in advance.

" I believed the many CT books that I read, almost universally, and without either much scrutiny or independent verification" Which is exactly what I said, Curtis."No doubt you never bothered checking any sources in all of those CT books you read when you were a "true believer" either." It is a problem on both sides of the Great Divide. Too few check sources for accuracy. And I agreed with you, and remain to do so. I was merely pointing out that I would have likely kept a much more open mind, and from very early on, had I more closely scrutinized what I was reading.

Perhaps the good doctor, having later admitted to not closely examining the wound, was not aware that the bullet was not in Connally's thigh, when he made this initial statement? But this one error - seemingly, which he later explained and recanted - is enough to throw out the SBT, to indict the WC, to charge Fritz, etc. I cannot understand such bounding leaps of logic, from those facts.

The last time he left was after someone here (I forget who, was it me?) brought up the Bethesda witnesses to the large wound in back of the head whose statements were suppressed by the lying HSCA. I was kind of surprised to see him pop up again, but maybe he thinks we have short memories. I've been here the entire time, reading from time to time, but generally busy with several things unrelated to this board. I didn't think that constituted my having "left", and certainly, anyone who perceived my absence (in my posting) as having anything to do with any discussion, is in error. I know that I disagree with a great many here, but I enjoy learning about and discussing it, and so I remain. To be honest in stating my own beliefs while not alienating anyone for theirs is a fine line to walk, and perhaps I am not doing a very good job of it, despite my best and sincere efforts.

It was a joke, Curtis. But it is still a fact that there is an eerie similarity between the non-required, non requested history of your metamorphosis and numerous others I have read over the years. In fact, being non-required and non-requested is another similarity with those others in itself. It's just an observation, Curtis. One based on... well.... fact. Others can make of it what they will. All I will say is that the points of commonality with those others is quite uncanny. What did you do in the navy, Curtis? Just curious... Nice subtle smear job, Greg. (I just linked your new 2-volume book to my FB page today, and wrote, "Greg Parker is an excellent researcher." Pretty devious of me, eh?) --Tommy, the Droll Subtle? Smear Job? Could all be coincidental, Tommy. That however does nothing to alter the facts of that very similarity. I've already given one example. Here's another: "In around 2000-2001, my thinking on conspiracy theories changed dramatically. Every time I subjected a claim to logical scrutiny, it fell apart. I read the entire Warren Commission report. " http://conspiracies.skepticproject.com/blog/93/jfk-100-days-of-debunking-on-twitter-an-analysis-of-jfk-conspiracies/ There is no truth at all to the rumor that if you name the Devil, he disappears. Thanks for the plug! I'm replying to Greg, here, but anyone can answer this, as they may know or feel so inclined: Who is it that I am supposedly so likened to, exactly? Or, is Greg just saying that I am like any other "LN", instead of just one in particular?