Embarrassing questions

[François Carlier]

There is a major problem with conspiracy theorists, which is very well illustrated by this little story :

A psychiatrist was consulted by a patient with a very peculiar delusion. He was convinced that he was dead, and nothing could be done to dissuade him of this. The psychiatrist tried to reason with him. "Tell me", he said, "do dead men bleed ? " "No, of course not ! " cried the patient. "That is a stupid question ! " The psychiatrist pricked the man’s finger with a needle, and a drop of blood appeared. "And what do you conclude from that ? " asked the psychiatrist. The patient paused for a few seconds to examine the wound. "Obviously I was wrong", he murmured quietly. "Dead men do bleed…"

Just like the patient in this story, conspiracy theorists are so enclosed in their world of make-believe, that there is absolutely nothing a reasonable person can say to help them see things differently.

That's very sad.

But even sadder is the fact that conspiracy theorists would stop at nothing to claim their beliefs. They dare DENY anything. They deny reality, and that doesn't bother them.

Jack White denies that Americans went to the moon in 1969.

Jim Fetzer denies that an American Airlines plane crashed into the Pentagon in 2001.

And yesterday, Jim DiEugenio tried to deny that Lee Harvey Oswald ever owned a rifle !!!

It's so easy : denying the obvious facts will allow you to display any belief. Indeed if you deny reality, then you have an open field, and you are free to tell whatever story pleases your own beliefs.

That's bad !

And my experience in this forum showed me that conspiracy theorists NEVER answer the simplest questions.

When I asked if anybody had read the critical-thinking books I listed, NOBODY answered, because NOBODY had read them, but they were ashamed to admit it.

Nonetheless, that is a very serious matter. How can they hope to sort things out if they do not have the tools for that ?

I can think of an analogy.

Conspiracy theorists have bricks. Some one them have lots and lots of bricks. But they don't have the mortar to build a wall, so they end up standing in front of a huge pile of bricks, but they are still outside in the cold.

A reasonable person has as many bricks, but like a mason or bricklayer, he has the mortar, so he can build a wall, so he'll be able to build a house and spend the winter in the warmth of his home.

That's a good image.

Here, bricks are books, and mortar is critical thinking.

Without critical-thinking skills, conspiracy theorists are unable to sort things out, they do not know what to do with the evidence. They fly to hundreds of directions. It's a mess.

Some of them say the body was altered, when others say no, some of them say the Zapruder film was altered, when others say no, some of them say the Cubans did it, when others say no, some of them say Johnson did it, when others say no, etc., etc., etc., etc.

Anybody can say anything. Everybody is right.

Boy, John Kennedy must have been assassinated a hundred times !! It must have been very painful to him !

But as I said more than ten years ago, conspiracy theorists are in the business of ASKING questions, not ANSWERING them. I can understand : it is way easier….

(They are also in the business of ACCUSING people. When Jim Fetzer accuses some members the New York Fire Department of having something to do with 09/11, or when others accuse President Johnson, I want to vomit.)

For instance, these are very embarrassing questions for them (among many others) :

Why is it that Robert Groden, a very well-known conspiracy theorist doesn't believe that the Zapruder film was altered ? Is he dumb ? Does he work for the CIA ? Has he been paid to tell a false story ? Or is the Zapruder film authentic after all ? In that case, is Jim Fetzer wrong ? But if he is wrong, how come he has published anthologies that he claims "prove beyond any doubt" that the Zapruder film was altered ? Is Fetzer stupid ? Is Mantik wrong too ? Then is he wrong in his claims about the medical evidence ? How come Fetzer and his friends have managed to "prove" something that never existed in the first place (an alteration of the film) ? Can it be that some people can write conspiracy books that lead nowhere ?

Who is right ?

And why can't James DiEugenio give us a clear-cut answer as to whether the Zapruder film was altered ? Hasn't he read Fetzer's books ? Or has he read them but was unable to understand the evidence shown before his eyes ? Or he is paid by the CIA ?

Well, as long as conspiracy theorists will believe in as many theories as there are members of that community, refusing to debate reasonable people, afraid of being shown they had been wrong all along, they'll continue to spread their lies.

That's very sad !

/F.C./

Edited August 16, 2010 by François Carlier

[Dean Hagerman]

Awesome come back post Frank!

[Ian Kingsbury]

There is a major problem with conspiracy theorists, which is very well illustrated by this little story :

A psychiatrist was consulted by a patient with a very peculiar delusion. He was convinced that he was dead, and nothing could be done to dissuade him of this. The psychiatrist tried to reason with him. "Tell me", he said, "do dead men bleed ? " "No, of course not ! " cried the patient. "That is a stupid question ! " The psychiatrist pricked the man’s finger with a needle, and a drop of blood appeared. "And what do you conclude from that ? " asked the psychiatrist. The patient paused for a few seconds to examine the wound. "Obviously I was wrong", he murmured quietly. "Dead men do bleed…"

Just like the patient in this story, conspiracy theorists are so enclosed in their world of make-believe, that there is absolutely nothing a reasonable person can say to help them see things differently.

That's very sad.

But even sadder is the fact that conspiracy theorists would stop at nothing to claim their beliefs. They dare DENY anything. They deny reality, and that doesn't bother them.

Jack White denies that Americans went to the moon in 1969.

Jim Fetzer denies that an American Airlines plane crashed into the Pentagon in 2001.

And yesterday, Jim DiEugenio tried to deny that Lee Harvey Oswald ever owned a rifle !!!

It's so easy : denying the obvious facts will allow you to display any belief. Indeed if you deny reality, then you have an open field, and you are free to tell whatever story pleases your own beliefs.

That's bad !

And my experience in this forum showed me that conspiracy theorists NEVER answer the simplest questions.

When I asked if anybody had read the critical-thinking books I listed, NOBODY answered, because NOBODY had read them, but they were ashamed to admit it.

Nonetheless, that is a very serious matter. How can they hope to sort things out if they do not have the tools for that ?

I can think of an analogy.

Conspiracy theorists have bricks. Some one them have lots and lots of bricks. But they don't have the mortar to build a wall, so they end up standing in front of a huge pile of bricks, but they are still outside in the cold.

A reasonable person has as many bricks, but like a mason or bricklayer, he has the mortar, so he can build a wall, so he'll be able to build a house and spend the winter in the warmth of his home.

That's a good image.

Here, bricks are books, and mortar is critical thinking.

Without critical-thinking skills, conspiracy theorists are unable to sort things out, they do not know what to do with the evidence. They fly to hundreds of directions. It's a mess.

Some of them say the body was altered, when others say no, some of them say the Zapruder film was altered, when others say no, some of them say the Cubans did it, when others say no, some of them say Johnson did it, when others say no, etc., etc., etc., etc.

Anybody can say anything. Everybody is right.

Boy, John Kennedy must have been assassinated a hundred times !! It must have been very painful to him !

But as I said more than ten years ago, conspiracy theorists are in the business of ASKING questions, not ANSWERING them. I can understand : it is way easier….

(They are also in the business of ACCUSING people. When Jim Fetzer accuses some members the New York Fire Department of having something to do with 09/11, or when others accuse President Johnson, I want to vomit.)

For instance, these are very embarrassing questions for them (among many others) :

Why is it that Robert Groden, a very well-known conspiracy theorist doesn't believe that the Zapruder film was altered ? Is he dumb ? Does he work for the CIA ? Has he been paid to tell a false story ? Or is the Zapruder film authentic after all ? In that case, is Jim Fetzer wrong ? But if he is wrong, how come he has published anthologies that he claims "prove beyond any doubt" that the Zapruder film was altered ? Is Fetzer stupid ? Is Mantik wrong too ? Then is he wrong in his claims about the medical evidence ? How come Fetzer and his friends have managed to "prove" something that never existed in the first place (an alteration of the film) ? Can it be that some people can write conspiracy books that lead nowhere ?

Who is right ?

And why can't James DiEugenio give us a clear-cut answer as to whether the Zapruder film was altered ? Hasn't he read Fetzer's books ? Or has he read them but was unable to understand the evidence shown before his eyes ? Or he is paid by the CIA ?

Well, as long as conspiracy theorists will believe in as many theories as there are members of that community, refusing to debate reasonable people, afraid of being shown they had been wrong all along, they'll continue to spread their lies.

That's very sad !

/F.C./

Jesus, Francois. You couldn't keep your pledge for five minutes, could you?

Reading your posts is a total waste of time and unless you start discussing the evidence in the JFK assassination sometime soon instead of attacking people for their beliefs I'll urge other members here to ignore you in the hope you'll go away. Because that's what I intend to do.

Francois

I was going to ask how the dead guy thought he got to the psychiatrist. And I am going to be Critical of your thinking

you put too much faith in others the only enthusiasm you have shown in any thread is when referring to your critical thinking authors.Stick with them and you will be ok .Otherwise its a Frenchman having a dull day (see Mark Twain).

Ian ( the stupid stonemason)

[Ron Ecker]

Reading your posts is a total waste of time

Responding to them is also a total waste of time. I'm responding to the responders just to ask why they're responding. What's the point? Shouldn't CTs be totally immune to this kind of ad hominem garbage (we're all just a bunch of irrational idiots) by now?

[Ian Kingsbury]

Reading your posts is a total waste of time

Responding to them is also a total waste of time. I'm responding to the responders just to ask why they're responding. What's the point? Shouldn't CTs be totally immune to this kind of ad hominem garbage (we're all just a bunch of irrational idiots) by now?

Ron

I agree some targets are just too easy .Perhaps I look for the humanity in people and do not like to leave topics with a bad taste .But point taken.

Ian

[Pat Speer]

There is a major problem with conspiracy theorists, which is very well illustrated by this little story :

A psychiatrist was consulted by a patient with a very peculiar delusion. He was convinced that he was dead, and nothing could be done to dissuade him of this. The psychiatrist tried to reason with him. "Tell me", he said, "do dead men bleed ? " "No, of course not ! " cried the patient. "That is a stupid question ! " The psychiatrist pricked the man’s finger with a needle, and a drop of blood appeared. "And what do you conclude from that ? " asked the psychiatrist. The patient paused for a few seconds to examine the wound. "Obviously I was wrong", he murmured quietly. "Dead men do bleed…"

Just like the patient in this story, conspiracy theorists are so enclosed in their world of make-believe, that there is absolutely nothing a reasonable person can say to help them see things differently.

That's very sad.

But even sadder is the fact that conspiracy theorists would stop at nothing to claim their beliefs. They dare DENY anything. They deny reality, and that doesn't bother them.

Jack White denies that Americans went to the moon in 1969.

Jim Fetzer denies that an American Airlines plane crashed into the Pentagon in 2001.

And yesterday, Jim DiEugenio tried to deny that Lee Harvey Oswald ever owned a rifle !!!

It's so easy : denying the obvious facts will allow you to display any belief. Indeed if you deny reality, then you have an open field, and you are free to tell whatever story pleases your own beliefs.

That's bad !

And my experience in this forum showed me that conspiracy theorists NEVER answer the simplest questions.

When I asked if anybody had read the critical-thinking books I listed, NOBODY answered, because NOBODY had read them, but they were ashamed to admit it.

Nonetheless, that is a very serious matter. How can they hope to sort things out if they do not have the tools for that ?

I can think of an analogy.

Conspiracy theorists have bricks. Some one them have lots and lots of bricks. But they don't have the mortar to build a wall, so they end up standing in front of a huge pile of bricks, but they are still outside in the cold.

A reasonable person has as many bricks, but like a mason or bricklayer, he has the mortar, so he can build a wall, so he'll be able to build a house and spend the winter in the warmth of his home.

That's a good image.

Here, bricks are books, and mortar is critical thinking.

Without critical-thinking skills, conspiracy theorists are unable to sort things out, they do not know what to do with the evidence. They fly to hundreds of directions. It's a mess.

Some of them say the body was altered, when others say no, some of them say the Zapruder film was altered, when others say no, some of them say the Cubans did it, when others say no, some of them say Johnson did it, when others say no, etc., etc., etc., etc.

Anybody can say anything. Everybody is right.

Boy, John Kennedy must have been assassinated a hundred times !! It must have been very painful to him !

But as I said more than ten years ago, conspiracy theorists are in the business of ASKING questions, not ANSWERING them. I can understand : it is way easier….

(They are also in the business of ACCUSING people. When Jim Fetzer accuses some members the New York Fire Department of having something to do with 09/11, or when others accuse President Johnson, I want to vomit.)

For instance, these are very embarrassing questions for them (among many others) :

Why is it that Robert Groden, a very well-known conspiracy theorist doesn't believe that the Zapruder film was altered ? Is he dumb ? Does he work for the CIA ? Has he been paid to tell a false story ? Or is the Zapruder film authentic after all ? In that case, is Jim Fetzer wrong ? But if he is wrong, how come he has published anthologies that he claims "prove beyond any doubt" that the Zapruder film was altered ? Is Fetzer stupid ? Is Mantik wrong too ? Then is he wrong in his claims about the medical evidence ? How come Fetzer and his friends have managed to "prove" something that never existed in the first place (an alteration of the film) ? Can it be that some people can write conspiracy books that lead nowhere ?

Who is right ?

And why can't James DiEugenio give us a clear-cut answer as to whether the Zapruder film was altered ? Hasn't he read Fetzer's books ? Or has he read them but was unable to understand the evidence shown before his eyes ? Or he is paid by the CIA ?

Well, as long as conspiracy theorists will believe in as many theories as there are members of that community, refusing to debate reasonable people, afraid of being shown they had been wrong all along, they'll continue to spread their lies.

That's very sad !

/F.C./

Your critical thinking argument is worse than critical; it's dead on arrival. Did you forget that Fetzer taught critical thinking for decades? If reading books on critical thinking helps one learn how to interpret evidence, and build reasonable theories based on that evidence, then you should recognize that he is your better, and defer to his judgment. Your failing to do so will only reveal what we already know--you are a typical single assassin theorist, kneeling before the "experts"...until they tell you something you don't want to hear.

Which reminds me...on another thread I asked you to prove your integrity and independence by answering two simple questions.

1. Did McAdams tell the truth when he claimed the JFK head on the left of this image better-matched the HSCA drawing on the right?

http://www.patspeer.com/thenutterprof2.jpg

2. Did Dale Myers honestly depict the location of the jump seat in his animation?

http://www.patspeer.com/Atale.jpg

If you're here to share your insights on the case, and not just blow smoke, you should be able to answer THESE embarrassing questions.

Edited August 16, 2010 by Pat Speer

[Bernie Laverick]

All my instincts tell me I shouldn't do this, but hey, you only live once.

Francois, could you please tell us all whether in your opinion there has EVER been ANY conspiracy involving the American government at any point in the history of the USA?

If so which?

As if he'll answer anyway....

No insults please.

[François Carlier]

My answer, in all honesty :

Not that I know of.

-> P.S. (1): I certainly never said that conspiracies don't exist. There have been some very well known in history. I just say that it seems to me that there is NO credible evidence of a conspiracy in the JFK assassination case.

-> P.S. (2): I will die saying the Zapruder film was never altered :-)

/F.C./

[Dean Hagerman]

Not that I know of.

You dont know much of anything do you?

Was the Lincoln assassination a conspiracy Frank?

Watch Frank say No

/D.H./

Edited August 16, 2010 by Dean Hagerman

[Bernie Laverick]

My answer, in all honesty :

Not that I know of.

-> P.S. (1): I certainly never said that conspiracies don't exist. There have been some very well known in history. I just say that it seems to me that there is NO credible evidence of a conspiracy in the JFK assassination case.

-> P.S. (2): I will die saying the Zapruder film was never altered :-)

/F.C./

Not that I know of.

So as far as you know, there has never once been an occasion where two or more people have planned an illegal act in order to benefit form it? THAT IS A CONSPIRACY!

And then ONE SECOND later he writes

There have been some very well known in history

Then name one!

[John Bevilaqua]

You know what I think about faux reseachers like Jack White, Jim Fetzer, Philip J. Corso, Joan Mellen, Peter Whitmey, Gordie Whineslow, Sarah McClendon, John Armstrong and the like don't you?

It is the use of fabricated and deliberate "smokescreen" theories as a carefully crafted subterfuge in order to obfuscate, in advance, whatever portion of the truth is finally revealed.

This intermixing of preposterous claims (like those of Jack White regarding allegedly fabricated moon walks, Sarah McClendon on the cause of death of Vince Foster, and Philip J. Corso regarding alleged Alien Autopsies he swears he witnessed in Roswell) tends to create a generalized atmosphere of mistrust and doubt populated by naysayers and nattering nabobs of negativism who soon categorize all legitimate researchers as total nut jobs and loons. White, Corso, McClendon, Jeffries, Kelly, Armstrong and others by supporting each other in deflecting accurate theories and embellishing knowingly inaccurate theories create an amalgam of confusion and misdirected theories designed to obfuscate the facts. In this manner McClendon is always ready to defend her friend Charles Willoughby, Armstrong stands ready to support Philip J. Corso right until the point he goes over the top with Roswell theories, Kelly defends McClendon to the death as a real seeker of the truth, Joan Mellen protects Otto Otepka despite his obvious role in building the Oswald legend, Aguilar defends his parent's meetings held in his home for The John Birch Society but attacks everyone who ever held an important U.S. Government position, and Armstrong, a Ukrainian defends Anastase Vonsiatsky and Yaroslaw Stetsko, while Whitmey, a right wing Canadian is hired to defend and protect Patrick J. Walsh and Ronald A. Gostick who attended The Giesbrecht Incident and Whineslow defends the anti-Castro Cubans. What a country!

In this manner when a legitimately accurate all-encompassing theory comes along, pointing out the actual perpetrator's identities, the true nut jobs like White and Corso and McClendon,

and their legion of supporters on this forum and elsewhere, can jump in unison to attack the published facts and the publisher of those facts, which are almost perfectly accurate by postulating their versions of fabricated alternative realities.

Those gifted with superior powers of analytical abilities see right through this subterfuge and cut to the quick. While the others flounder, cringe and go along either wittingly or unwittingly looking only where the light is the brightest and where like minded befuddled cohorts can be found, huddling together in their confusion. And life goes on.

[François Carlier]

My answer, in all honesty :

Not that I know of.

-> P.S. (1): I certainly never said that conspiracies don't exist. There have been some very well known in history. I just say that it seems to me that there is NO credible evidence of a conspiracy in the JFK assassination case.

-> P.S. (2): I will die saying the Zapruder film was never altered :-)

/F.C./

Not that I know of.

So as far as you know, there has never once been an occasion where two or more people have planned an illegal act in order to benefit form it? THAT IS A CONSPIRACY!

And then ONE SECOND later he writes

There have been some very well known in history

Then name one!

Vocabulary is very important, here, and we have to agree on the meaning we give to the words, if we want to understand each other and be able to have a discussion.

If you mean to say : "a conspiracy = an occasion where two or more people plan an illegal act in order to benefit form it", then I would say that conspiracies occur everyday, and everywhere.

There was a bank robbery in a town nearby, last week, so, according to your definition, it was a conspiracy, since more than two people were involved and what they did was illegal.

We have to agree on that.

And in that case, suppose all the Warren Commission report said is true, but then we find out that it turned out that Marina knew of her husband's plan (he told her on the eve of the assassination) and she helped him wrap the rifle in the brown paper bag, then, according to your definition, it was a conspiracy, although you would agree, the official version of events would still stand.

But I venture to suggest that when we say "conspiracy", in this forum, we mean something else. We mean a huge conspiracy involving at the very least a dozen people with money, power, and the backing of one or more official organizations, and a very intricate plot needing to set up a "patsy", organizing different locations for shooters, etc. At least there was one or more pre-assassination meetings to organize all of that.

Isn't that what the majority of members think when they say 'conspiracy" here ?

I'll answer your question :

1. There was a conspiracy to assassinate Julius Caesar, and Brutus was among the conspirators.

2. There was a July-1944 conspiracy to assassinate Hitler, and some Wehrmacht generals such as Stauffenberg were among the conspirators.

That is very well known and documented. Who could deny that ? I don't.

But the "Kennedy assassination conspiracy" is something else. Not at all obvious. Not at all "well-known". Not yet proven, to my mind (and far from it).

Now, it's my turn to ask you a question :

David Lifton claims that there was a conspiracy involving the highest echelons of the US government, and most likely the Secret Service (his sentence : "I don't know who altered the body but I know who had the body" ...) to kill President Kennedy and thus remove him from power. The scenario involved killing him from the front, then take the body unnoticed, then alter the wounds so that autopsy doctors would conclude he had been shot from behind. I repeat (it's so incredible !) : kill him from the front and change the wounds to make it appear he had been shot from behind. (And I can think of the conspirators having a meeting beforehand and preparing THAT plan !!! Wasn't there anybody to defer ?)

My question : do you know of any occasion, in history, at any time, anywhere in the world, in any country, when such a conspiracy, such a plot, such an assassination existed ?

Give me one example in history where conspirators decided to shoot a public figure from the front, then change the wounds, then pretend he had been shot from behind ?

/F.C./

Edited August 17, 2010 by François Carlier

[François Carlier]

All my instincts tell me I shouldn't do this, but hey, you only live once.

Francois, could you please tell us all whether in your opinion there has EVER been ANY conspiracy involving the American government at any point in the history of the USA?

If so which?

As if he'll answer anyway....

No insults please.

To answer you fully :

Has there EVER been ANY conspiracy involving the American government at any point in the history of the USA?

I don't know.

I NEVER claimed to be an expert on American History (although I studied it at University). I have several books on US institutions, the Vietnam war, the civil war, American civilization, the US political system, etc. But I am not an expert. (By the way, I spent six months at Penn State University in 1990 studying American politics, and came back to France and studied American civilization, so I am not totally ignorant).

If the US government was once involved in a conspiracy (and we would have to agree on the meaning of "conspiracy" here), I am not aware of it, but I have no preconceptions. Whatever happened happened. Just show me the evidence.

I have nothing to defend either way.

/F.C./

[John Dolva]

Francois, when you say ''we'', I think a number may prefer not to be included.

''A huge'' - Why? Accomplices after the fact? etc. I think it's a bad mistake to continue this notion of absolutely no conspiracy. How can you possibly know that? imo the indicators of A conspiracy are multiple. AFAIK a vast number of people see that.

What form the conspiracy took is really the point, it varies from the outlandish, rightly disnissed, to very well knit hypothesis, proposed by a number of persons including in the Presidential Commission staff, a number of whom took the side of conspiracy but no concrete details. Similarly the aborted HSCA investigation found multiple reasons to consider conspiracy a valid consideration.

It strikes me you believe just as much as you deride others for believing.

Ultimately, the attempt here, afaik, is to seek concrete indicators. Naturally there must be speculation, brainstorming, evaluation etc. There is no reason to conclude there was NO conspiracy of ANY kind re JFK's assassination.

edit typo

Edited August 17, 2010 by John Dolva

[Steve Duffy]

My answer, in all honesty :

Not that I know of.

-> P.S. (1): I certainly never said that conspiracies don't exist. There have been some very well known in history. I just say that it seems to me that there is NO credible evidence of a conspiracy in the JFK assassination case.

-> P.S. (2): I will die saying the Zapruder film was never altered :-)

/F.C./

Not that I know of.

So as far as you know, there has never once been an occasion where two or more people have planned an illegal act in order to benefit form it? THAT IS A CONSPIRACY!

And then ONE SECOND later he writes

There have been some very well known in history

Then name one!

Vocabulary is very important, here, and we have to agree on the meaning we give to the words, if we want to understand each other and be able to have a discussion.

If you mean to say : "a conspiracy = an occasion where two or more people plan an illegal act in order to benefit form it", then I would say that conspiracies occur everyday, and everywhere.

There was a bank robbery in a town nearby, last week, so, according to your definition, it was a conspiracy, since more than two people were involved and what they did was illegal.

We have to agree on that.

And in that case, suppose all the Warren Commission report said is true, but then we find out that it turned out that Marina knew of her husband's plan (he told her on the eve of the assassination) and she helped him wrap the rifle in the brown paper bag, then, according to your definition, it was a conspiracy, although you would agree, the official version of events would still stand.

But I venture to suggest that when we say "conspiracy", in this forum, we mean something else. We mean a huge conspiracy involving at the very least a dozen people with money, power, and the backing of one or more official organizations, and a very intricate plot needing to set up a "patsy", organizing different locations for shooters, etc. At least there was one or more pre-assassination meetings to organize all of that.

Isn't that what the majority of members think when they say 'conspiracy" here ?

I'll answer your question :

1. There was a conspiracy to assassinate Julius Caesar, and Brutus was among the conspirators.

2. There was a July-1944 conspiracy to assassinate Hitler, and some Wehrmacht generals such as Stauffenberg were among the conspirators.

That is very well known and documented. Who could deny that ? I don't.

But the "Kennedy assassination conspiracy" is something else. Not at all obvious. Not at all "well-known". Not yet proven, to my mind (and far from it).

Now, it's my turn to ask you a question :

David Lifton claims that there was a conspiracy involving the highest echelons of the US government, and most likely the Secret Service (his sentence : "I don't know who altered the body but I know who had the body" ...) to kill President Kennedy and thus remove him from power. The scenario involved killing him from the front, then take the body unnoticed, then alter the wounds so that autopsy doctors would conclude he had been shot from behind. I repeat (it's so incredible !) : kill him from the front and change the wounds to make it appear he had been shot from behind. (And I can think of the conspirators having a meeting beforehand and preparing THAT plan !!! Wasn't there anybody to defer ?)

My question : do you know of any occasion, in history, at any time, anywhere in the world, in any country, when such a conspiracy, such a plot, such an assassination existed ?

Give me one example in history where conspirators decided to shoot a public figure from the front, then change the wounds, then pretend he had been shot from behind ?

/F.C./

Ummm, Robert Kennedy?