Eleven Easy Questions for the Conspiracy Community

[Jack White]

Having served one's country honorably does not excuse one from being wrong.

Being elderly does not excuse one from insulting others.

I too served in the military. I observed how participants are brainwashed...er...

"trained" to believe "my country right or wrong", which is helpful in combat.

But some, when returning to "real life" as a civilians, cannot distinguish when

their country is "wrong". I have many friends who are blindly patriotic in that

way. If our country attacks Iraq, I am a "traitor" if I say those who made that

decision are wrong. One friend actually told me I ought to be arrested for

sedition for saying the president was wrong. "This is wartime," he told me.

He was an airforce officer in WWII, piloting a desk. He admires Bush as a

leader who "has guts".

Jack

[John Dolva]

Anyone who is of the opinion that LHO was not engaged in conspiratorial activities may not be "nuts", however they certainly have not demonstrated the capabilities of separate and independent thought process.

The primary problem being in defining the exact scope and nature of the "conspiracy", and whether it was always targeted at JFK (which does not appear so), or else was the conspiracy more in line with the initial target being Castro.

Then, for whatever reason, the target was changed to JFK.

Therefore, the pertinent questions would appear to be:

1. Was the conspiratorial nature of the activities of LHO always target to JFK?

2. Were the conspiratorial nature of the activites of LHO initially targeted at someone like Castro, and then changed to JFK?

3. If #2 above is the actual case, did JFK become the target by direction, or did LHO decide to take it upon himself (for whatever reason) to make JFK the target.

Prior to LHO's trip to Mexico, there is little to indicate that he had any "plans" which encompassed the assassination of JFK.

In fact, his activities appeared to be more directed at getting him closer to Cuba and therefore "Castro".

Only after the return from Mexico and the failed attempt to get to Cuba, did the activities of LHO take on the activities which indicated that JFK had become the target.

Thus, from available information, the return from Mexico is what signalled the "shift" for LHO.

This does not mean that whoever was directing the activities of LHO did not have "alternative" plans for his actions.

Merely that LHO did not begin those activities which indicate that JFK became the primary target until after his return from Mexico (& New Orleans)

The nice thing about being a "paid assassin" is that one truly does not nave to worry about who the target may be until such time as it is designated by those who make the payments.

Then and only then does one actually begin to stalk their prey.

Tom, for all the various 'disagreements', or whatever, to date, whether based on ignorance on my part, or lack of proper understanding or whatever.

This post is quite thought provoking.

"This does not mean that whoever was directing the activities of LHO did not have "alternative" plans for his actions.

Merely that LHO did not begin those activities which indicate that JFK became the primary target until after his return from Mexico (& New Orleans)"

............

"Anyone who is of the opinion that LHO was not engaged in conspiratorial activities...have not demonstrated the capabilities of separate and independent thought process."

As someone (myself) who has no problem with being regarded as a nut or even an uninformed nut, deluded fruitcake, or whatever, (still lots to learn and research) I see a clear statement on your part that the evidence as researched by you indicates a conspiracy.

The exact nature of the conspiracy continues to elude me. Nevertheless, much gratitude for all the info posted to date. At least I think I'm sitting on the same branch, though, for reasons resulting from my own stream of research, not quite that far from the trunk as yet.

The comments about truly understanding New Orleans (and the Southern States) of the time are importnat IMO. Therein persons, as yourself, have been, and can continue to be a valued source of info.

Keep it coming...

Edited July 5, 2007 by John Dolva

[David G. Healy]

How many participants in the LBH fight have you interviewed?

How many assassins of Caesar did Gibbon interview?

How many times did Sandburg interview Lincoln?

I have been cautioned more than once on this Forum that you are an elderly gentleman who served his country with bravery and honor, but who today has little to do but fulminate against the unfairness of it all. "Go easy," is the message.

(I'm reminded of the "Playboy" cartoon of some years back in which a wizened Hitler sits in a rocking chair on the veranda of a jungle plantation. His cheeks are flushed, his fists are clenched, drool spills from the sides of his mouth.

Behind him is a massive SS bodyguard, his eyebrows raised in frustration as he says, "Please ... it's all been over and done with for years.")

Mindful, then, of your age and national service and the ravages of each, I state gently that, as far as the JFK murder is concerned, you appear to me to be just another in a long line of disinformationalists (intentional or not I cannot say) -- sort of the Fred Leuchter of the JFK set.

Your fatally flawed arguments from false authority and the infrequent nuggets of truth around which they are based and on which they depend for support -- key elements in all disinformation -- thus are tolerated.

That's all.

Have a wonderful day. Be careful on the stairs. And don't go getting all exercised, especially just before you eat.

Charles

I'm not blinded by the possibility that LHO was a willing (or non-willing) shooter in Dealey Plaza, that day. Someone pulled the trigger, and probably someone. Tom Purvis's argument says Oswald could of and probably did the deed, by him self -- I disagree for multiple reasons, non-evidence related.

Back to Tom: the question becomes (if one follows TomP logic), why was the the Elm Street Zapruder film sequence altered/changed? Clearly, Surveyor West data shows a shot further west on Elm St. yet the film does not portray that, WHY?

It's also been alleged (for many years) shots came from another (other than the TSBD) building to JFK's rear, if that is the case, that clears LHO. Afterall, he can't be on a TSBD inside-stairway or in the TSBD lunchroom the same time he's shooting from another building or from the grassy knoll now can he! BUT, he could of been ONE of multiple shooters, eh?

Back to TomP, whether southern factions wanted JFK dead is one theory, wanting JFK simply out of office (not elected much let alone RElelected) is another... it appears TomP has laid groundwork for both

Edited July 5, 2007 by David G. Healy

[Thomas H. Purvis]

The WC is, and has always been a lie and misrepresentation as to the shots/sequence of shots fired in Dealy Plaza.

Big Deal!-------Anyone with even half a brain can/could/should figure this one out.

However, one can rest assured that it takes a some effort to resolve the primary motive of the WC lie.

Creating mythological beings, etc; is something which children can do, and requires little if any thought process effort.

Therefore, if I wanted non-researched and non-factual answers and resolutions, why go to adults when there are numerous children who can make up the same tale.

Since it would appear that no one hear was aware of the "written word" that escaped detection and thereafter got into the WC as regards the impact location of the third shot, then I must assume that the same lack of research is why the answer to the WHY? of the WC LIE, has not been revealed.

Furthermore, being creatures of habit, it is not that difficult to recognize the "habitual" element of the WC which just may serve to answer the question WHY as well.

Tom

P.S. As was long ago stated, I highly recommend that one NOT BELIEVE anything which Tom has to say.

Rather, I would recommend that one research it for themselves.

[Russ Connelly]

Anyone who is of the opinion that LHO was not engaged in conspiratorial activities may not be "nuts", however they certainly have not demonstrated the capabilities of separate and independent thought process.

The primary problem being in defining the exact scope and nature of the "conspiracy", and whether it was always targeted at JFK (which does not appear so), or else was the conspiracy more in line with the initial target being Castro.

Then, for whatever reason, the target was changed to JFK.

Therefore, the pertinent questions would appear to be:

1. Was the conspiratorial nature of the activities of LHO always target to JFK?

2. Were the conspiratorial nature of the activites of LHO initially targeted at someone like Castro, and then changed to JFK?

3. If #2 above is the actual case, did JFK become the target by direction, or did LHO decide to take it upon himself (for whatever reason) to make JFK the target.

Prior to LHO's trip to Mexico, there is little to indicate that he had any "plans" which encompassed the assassination of JFK.

In fact, his activities appeared to be more directed at getting him closer to Cuba and therefore "Castro".

Only after the return from Mexico and the failed attempt to get to Cuba, did the activities of LHO take on the activities which indicated that JFK had become the target.

Thus, from available information, the return from Mexico is what signalled the "shift" for LHO.

This does not mean that whoever was directing the activities of LHO did not have "alternative" plans for his actions.

Merely that LHO did not begin those activities which indicate that JFK became the primary target until after his return from Mexico (& New Orleans)

The nice thing about being a "paid assassin" is that one truly does not nave to worry about who the target may be until such time as it is designated by those who make the payments.

Then and only then does one actually begin to stalk their prey.

Tom, for all the various 'disagreements', or whatever, to date, whether based on ignorance on my part, or lack of proper understanding or whatever.

This post is quite thought provoking.

"This does not mean that whoever was directing the activities of LHO did not have "alternative" plans for his actions.

Merely that LHO did not begin those activities which indicate that JFK became the primary target until after his return from Mexico (& New Orleans)"

............

"Anyone who is of the opinion that LHO was not engaged in conspiratorial activities...have not demonstrated the capabilities of separate and independent thought process."

As someone (myself) who has no problem with being regarded as a nut or even an uninformed nut, deluded fruitcake, or whatever, (still lots to learn and research) I see a clear statement on your part that the evidence as researched by you indicates a conspiracy.

The exact nature of the conspiracy continues to elude me. Nevertheless, much gratitude for all the info posted to date. At least I think I'm sitting on the same branch, though, for reasons resulting from my own stream of research, not quite that far from the trunk as yet.

The comments about truly understanding New Orleans (and the Southern States) of the time are importnat IMO. Therein persons, as yourself, have been, and can continue to be a valued source of info.

Keep it coming...

My thoughts exactly John...your post sums up my feelings to a tee. I am very grateful for Tom's input and will take his advice to try and come to a conclusion myself, based on the evidence available....even if it does take some considerable time and effort...

[Thomas H. Purvis]

Tom, for all the various 'disagreements', or whatever, to date, whether based on ignorance on my part, or lack of proper understanding or whatever.

This post is quite thought provoking.

We all enter this world "ignorant".

That however does not mean that we are requilred to "exit" this world in the same mode.

Few persons are willing to take the time and effort necessary to understand the assassination of JFK.

Thus, we have those who, rather than actually study the facts and apply the learning process, chose to sit back and support the WC version of the assassination.

The "Lone Nutter's" if you will.

Then, there are those who make an attempt to study the facts, yet they are out of their league in the many realms of specialty which are often required to evaluate and verify exactly what the facts are.

And in this regards, there appears to be absolutely no shortage of persons out there who are more than willing to inform as to what the "Facts" are, even though they themselves do not understand the facts.

This ultimately leads to the "CTer" train of thought.

Unravelling the actual events in Dallas on 11/22/63 is much like entering a maze or attempting to resolve the "Rubik's cube".

One incorrect turn and one has entered into a non-solvable solution.

How many have entered this maze with the misconception that LHO was a poor shot?

Which of course also lead to the misconception that other assassins had to be involved!

Factually, LHO was an excellent shot. However, the WC was most certainly not so misguided as to expound on exactly how good of a shot LHO was, and then attempt to "sell" everyone the story that of the three shots fired, one completely missed everything.

Factually, the third/last/final shot was fired down in front of James Altgens Position, some 30 feet farther down the road than the Z313 impact which we see.

However, the WC (almost) completely made this shot disappear, and thereafter told us that Z313 was the last shot fired!

Which by the way, until I came down the pike, most of you believed.

WHY???????

Better yet, exactly why would one believe the WC on anything, unless they were of the Bugliosi/Posner/McAdams/etc; persuasion.

Anyway!

Many, who seriously are attempting to resolve the "exact" solution to the actual assassination, have been lead to far too many erroneous and completely dead end "solutions" to the puzzle.

And, in many cases, those persons have attempted to co-mingle the problems into a single solution when in fact there is no single answer/solution.

The primary resolution to the WC lie has absolutely nothing to do with the actual assassination event.

Yet, many have assumed that they know the answer, even before they have been presented with the question, which of course has added to the misdirection and confusion.

Most of the absolute "facts" are out there, and to a great majority they have been discovered and presented by those who for whatever reason decided that these facts represent ONLY multiple assassins, body snatch and alteration specialist, and giant conspiracies which encompass half of the persons surrounding the event.

If one choses to accept these multitudes of explanations for the "facts", then most likely in another 100 years, the subject matter will be only more confused.

However!

Failure to understand the facts has no bearing on the validity of these facts.

It merely means that one does not understand the facts!

Which by the way, is not prima facie evidence capable of supporting either a multiple assassin approach or a body snatch & wound alteration solultion to the assassination.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prima_facie

Do I need to paint the "roadsigns" with fluorescent paint in order that one may also follow in the dark?

THERE IS NO MAGIC!

However!

"Politicians, not unlike Magicians, can make things disappear!

[Guest Mark Valenti]

Most of the absolute "facts" are out there, and to a great majority they have been discovered and presented by those who for whatever reason decided that these facts represent ONLY multiple assassins, body snatch and alteration specialist, and giant conspiracies which encompass half of the persons surrounding the event.

If one choses to accept these multitudes of explanations for the "facts", then most likely in another 100 years, the subject matter will be only more confused.

I have to agree. It's hard to imagine any new "facts" coming forth at this time - only more elderly men claiming involvement, or sons (or $$ partners) of same.

[Cliff Varnell]

Most of the absolute "facts" are out there, and to a great majority they have been discovered and presented by those who for whatever reason decided that these facts represent ONLY multiple assassins, body snatch and alteration specialist, and giant conspiracies which encompass half of the persons surrounding the event.

If one choses to accept these multitudes of explanations for the "facts", then most likely in another 100 years, the subject matter will be only more confused.

I have to agree. It's hard to imagine any new "facts" coming forth at this time - only more elderly men claiming involvement, or sons (or $$ partners) of same.

Apparently, Richard Nixon thought that "elderly man" lead back to

"the Bay of Pigs thing," which, according to Nixon chief-of-staff

H. R. Haldeman in The Ends of Power, was a code-name for

the Kennedy assassination.

I think E. Howard Hunt's pre-mature death bed confession in 2004

should not be summarily dismissed.

http://prisonplanet.com/audio/300407jfktape.mp3

[Guest Mark Valenti]

Apparently, Richard Nixon thought that "elderly man" lead back to

"the Bay of Pigs thing," which, according to Nixon chief-of-staff

H. R. Haldeman in The Ends of Power, was a code-name for

the Kennedy assassination.

Haldeman was a lifelong xxxx in the service of arch-conservatism and Richard Nixon. He got his start way back in California, performing illegal services in the cause of near-Nazi beliefs. He was Rove, pre-Rove. What makes you believe anything Haldeman said? For all we know, he was having a good laugh at the expense of conspiracy theorists. That would be more in character for him, not some latter-day truth telling conversion.

Only Nixon knew what he meant by "the whole Bay of Pigs thing" - and it's a stretch to think that Haldeman's bruised ego would make him spill those kind of beans.

Hunt was another lifelong xxxx. It's amazing to me that his words carry weight with anyone - but then again the love of golf is a mystery to me too.

[Cliff Varnell]

Apparently, Richard Nixon thought that "elderly man" lead back to

"the Bay of Pigs thing," which, according to Nixon chief-of-staff

H. R. Haldeman in The Ends of Power, was a code-name for

the Kennedy assassination.

Haldeman was a lifelong xxxx in the service of arch-conservatism and Richard Nixon.

Nice condemnation of a book you've never read.

If The Ends of Power was written "in the service of arch-conservatism

and Richard Nixon" -- Mark Valenti is a golfer.

He got his start way back in California, performing illegal services in the cause of near-Nazi beliefs. He was Rove, pre-Rove. What makes you believe anything Haldeman said? For all we know, he was having a good laugh at the expense of conspiracy theorists. That would be more in character for him, not some latter-day truth telling conversion.

Only Nixon knew what he meant by "the whole Bay of Pigs thing" - and it's a stretch to think that Haldeman's bruised ego would make him spill those kind of beans.

Hunt was another lifelong xxxx. It's amazing to me that his words carry weight with anyone - but then again the love of golf is a mystery to me too.

Your hyper-self-righteousness is admirable, no doubt.

[Guest Mark Valenti]

Of course any careful reader will know that I didn't say Haldeman wrote "The Ends of Power" in the service of anything. I never mentioned that book - which I have read by the way. You seem to have a hard time digesting what you read. I suggest you try to go slower. Or have someone read to you. Okay, that's two things you've gotten wrong in a short space of time. A logical leap would be that your powers of interpersonal discernment suffer equally. Self-righteous? Kettle, meet pot.

[Cliff Varnell]

Of course any careful reader will know that I didn't say Haldeman wrote "The Ends of Power" in the service of anything. I never mentioned that book - which I have read by the way.

Well, if you were reading carefully, Mark, you'd notice that I mentioned the book.

In direct response to what I wrote about the book, you condemned Haldeman as

a xxxx and a man "in service of arch conservatism and Richard Nixon."

Since the book, The Ends of Power, was the context at hand -- and since

you've read the book -- please point out where in TEOP Haldeman was "in service

to arch conservatism and Richard Nixon."

If you cannot, your point is moot.

Post-incarceration Haldeman possibly had a different agenda than

pre-incarceration Haldeman, ya think?

You seem to have a hard time digesting what you read.

You seem to have a hard time digesting what I wrote.

Let's try another view of TEOP...

The Ends of Power reads like a guy getting even.

Is Haldeman a xxxx? Of course! But he wrote TEOP right after

he got out of prison, and the possibility he wrote TEOP to "come

to Jesus" and set the record straight cannot be categorically dismissed.

What's interesting about Haldeman is that years after the publication

of TEOP Chris Matthews asked him about "the Bay of Pigs thing".

Haldeman insisted his ghost writer Joe DiMona wrote it!

Haldeman denied the entire JFK-assassination subtext of the book, which

is a substantial running thread throughout!

DiMona doused that claim, saying he was writing down what Haldeman

told him.

Apparently, Haldeman felt he'd told too much..

When Haldeman's Diaries were published, TEOP and everything in it

was noticably absent.

I suggest you try to go slower. Or have someone read to you. Okay, that's

two things you've gotten wrong in a short space of time.

This is hysterical. Literally.

A logical leap would be that your powers of interpersonal discernment

suffer equally.

I gave up my powers of interpersonal discernment years ago.

Traded 'em for a bleacher seat at Pac Bell Park for game 5 of

the 2002 World Series.

It was almost worth it.

Self-righteous? Kettle, meet pot.

No, I was sincerely applauding your hyper-self-righteousness.

I think that hyper-self-righteousness is the only proper response to

the Karl Roves and Richard Nixons, those lying sacks of puke-maggot

scum who have done so much damage to our country and to the world.

I have nothing but contempt and ridicule for those who equate

lying about a blow job to lying about a national security breach.

I have nothing but contempt and ridicule for those who say the

president has a right to obstruct justice.

IHNBCAR for those who say the Holocaust never happened.

IHNBCAR for those who deny the fact that the JFK autopsy

report was fixed to conform to the pre-determined "3-shot"

scenario.

IHNBCAR for those who say JFK's shirt collar isn't visible in

these two photo images taken at roughly the same time on

Elm St.

[Charles Drago]

Well said, Cliff.

Expanding upon your theme:

IHNBCAR for all who would continue ad infinitum the "howdunit" aspect of this case by, among other means, treating with collegiality those who, like Bugliosi, Posner, and their ilk deny the truth.

Conspiracy in the murder of JFK is as knowable and provable an historical truth as is the Holocaust. Those in a position to know the truth and who choose to deny it are morally, intellectually, and spiritually akin to Holocaust deniers.

Charles Drago

[Guest Mark Valenti]

Since the book, The Ends of Power, was the context at hand -- and since

you've read the book -- please point out where in TEOP Haldeman was "in service

to arch conservatism and Richard Nixon." If you cannot, your point is moot.

Well gosh, Cliff, I guess it's up to you to tell everyone what they mean, isn't it? That's a presumptuous little habit, dude.

Post-incarceration Haldeman possibly had a different agenda than pre-incarceration Haldeman, ya think?

Haldeman started out and remained a slavish devotee to the stormtroopers. His agenda may have devolved into self-pity or vengeance but he was the same SOB at the end.

Is Haldeman a xxxx? Of course! But he wrote TEOP right after he got out of prison, and the possibility he wrote TEOP to "come to Jesus" and set the record straight cannot be categorically dismissed. What's interesting about Haldeman is that years after the publication of TEOP Chris Matthews asked him about "the Bay of Pigs thing". Haldeman insisted his ghost writer Joe DiMona wrote it!

Haldeman denied the entire JFK-assassination subtext of the book, which is a substantial running thread throughout! DiMona doused that claim, saying he was writing down what Haldeman told him. Apparently, Haldeman felt he'd told too much.. When Haldeman's Diaries were published, TEOP and everything in it

was noticably absent.

Believe Haldeman, Erlichman, Thompson, Rumsfeld, whomever, at your own peril. I don't.

I think that hyper-self-righteousness is the only proper response to

the Karl Roves and Richard Nixons, those lying sacks of puke-maggot

scum who have done so much damage to our country and to the world.

Seconded.

I have nothing but contempt and ridicule for those who equate lying about a blow job to lying about a national security breach.

Agreed.

I have nothing but contempt and ridicule for those who say the president has a right to obstruct justice.

Amen.

IHNBCAR for those who say the Holocaust never happened.

Indeed.

IHNBCAR for those who deny the fact that the JFK autopsy report was fixed to conform to the pre-determined "3-shot"

scenario.

Something vichy...em...fishy does seem to have taken place with official records.

IHNBCAR for those who say JFK's shirt collar isn't visible in these two photo images taken at roughly the same time on Elm St.

(sigh) Yes, we know. To-mah-to.

[Guest Mark Valenti]

Conspiracy in the murder of JFK is as knowable and provable an historical truth as is the Holocaust. Those in a position to know the truth and who choose to deny it are morally, intellectually, and spiritually akin to Holocaust deniers.

Oy vey.