Can We Agree On A Consensus Statement Regarding Conspiracy?

[Ken Davies]

Don's statement is logical. I agree with it.

It appears that to many the JFK assassination is an historical murder mystery which can only be solved by their unique analytical

abilities. This can lead to conflict with others, who essentially have the same goal as they do, namely solving the mystery.

Others know the macro "solution" to the mystery in general terms, but seek to ascertain the "micro" details. Others hope for

justice, and that the "historical record" will be corrected.

This is probably the final opportunity to gather public support to move ahead on the case. Think about this - how many people

cared about the Lincoln assassination in 1916? In 1926? (Yes, Bill O'Reilly in 2012!)

[John Dolva]

I disagree. I think the available evidence shows there was a conspiracy to assassinate JFK. I don't think the JFK assassination the most significant political assassination of the 20'th Century.

[Don Jeffries]

Okay, John- well, I guess that shows we all really can't agree on anything. Would you really reject that statement because you think JFK's assassination was less important than some other one? Btw, what 20th century assassination was more important?

I appreciate the replies here, but would like to know how many others would stand behind this kind of consensus statement. I'd especially like to hear from those who have been involved in many heated debates on this forum, with other members who dispute the official story.

[John Dolva]

Of course we can't agree on everything. What do you expect. I think we can agree that there is evidence that shows there was a conspiracy.

The statement re most significant assassination is irrelevant to that. It's a point of disagreement. If someone starts a topic about that point I may contribute there on that matter, unless you insist on dealing with it here.

[Michael Griffin]

Don,

I wholeheartedly agree with your statement.

Mike

[Robert Prudhomme]

...the available evidence shows conclusively that Lee Harvey Oswald was not the assassin, and was framed by others for the crime.

The "available evidence" in the JFK murder case, of course, shows conclusively the exact opposite to that of what Don Jeffries has stated above.

There is not one single piece of physical evidence in the whole case that even suggests the existence of an assassin other than Lee Harvey Oswald. And that includes the so-called "Malcolm Wallace fingerprint", which has never been proven to be Wallace's and, more importantly, is a print that has never ever been proven to have been lifted off of a box that was located in the Sniper's Nest on the sixth floor of the Book Depository. And the verbiage that can be found in Commission Exhibit No. 3131 provides additional information to indicate that the "Wallace print" is nothing but a hoax.

So for a conspiracy theorist to say that "the available evidence shows conclusively that Lee Harvey Oswald was not the assassin" is pretty much akin to saying that the available evidence regarding a study of the sun conclusively proves that the sun is not hot, or that a study of water conclusively proves that it isn't wet at all.

And regarding the JFK case, I want to know if Mr. Jeffries is really suggesting that it is truly more reasonable to think that all of the evidence is fake and phony, vs. believing that ANY of it is legitimate and non-phony? (After all, if even a tiny percentage of that evidence IS legit, then Lee Oswald is almost assuredly guilty. Wouldn't you agree with that assessment, Don?)

Furthermore, from Don Jeffries' point-of-view, would it even be possible to fake so much evidence after the assassination (or before) and make it all come together in the perfect "It Was Oswald" pile that even Don must admit is where all of the evidence falls in this double-murder case (including J.D. Tippit's murder)?

If Don answers "Yes, it was possible" to my last inquiry, I'd sure like to hear Don's theory about HOW all that fakery was accomplished in a short period of time after the assassination? (Or was it all faked and planted before the assassintion?)

In other words, is there any chance that a conspiracy theorist, just for once, can actually put his money where his mouth is, and PROVE beyond a reasonable doubt that ALL of the evidence against Lee Oswald was faked and/or manufactured in order to frame an innocent Oswald for the murder of JFK?

I agree wholeheartedly and would add that the evidence proves that he was also framed for the Tippit murder.

Which means ALL of that evidence is fake and phony too, right Raymond? From the four bullet shells that littered Tenth Street and Patton Avenue...to the dozen witnesses who fingered Oswald as either the lone gunman of Tippit or fingered him as the person they saw fleeing the immediate scene of Officer Tippit's slaying.

An all-encompassing "Let's Frame Oswald For TWO Murders (Not Just The One On Elm)" plot.

And yet the conspiracy theorists say that it's lone-assassin believers like me who are rewriting the history of the JFK assassination.

"Guys like DVP are committed to a false reality. .... I really do believe he's

just a garden variety xxxx." -- David S. Lifton; July 2011

Incredible, isn't it?

It is actually quite rude, in my estimation, for you to attempt to derail this thread with your personal attacks, and probably even ruder for me to respond to your post. However, I am new here and can likely be forgiven a few transgressions at this point.

To answer your statement "There is not one single piece of physical evidence in the whole case that even suggests the existence of an assassin other than Lee Harvey Oswald", allow me to present an excerpt from the Warren Commission testimony of Dr. Charles J. Carrico, March 25, 1964, 9:30 A.M. :

"Mr. SPECTER - What did you observe as to the President's condition upon his arrival?

Dr. CARRICO - He was lying on a carriage, his respirations were slow, spasmodic, described as agonal.

Mr. SPECTER - What do you mean by "agonal" if I may interrupt you for just a moment there, Doctor?

Dr. CARRICO - These are respirations seen in one who has lost the normal coordinated central control of respiration. These are spasmodic and usually reflect a terminal patient.

Mr. SPECTER - Would you continue to describe your observations of the President?

Dr. CARRICO - His-- the President's color--I don't believe I said--he was an ashen, bluish, grey, cyanotic, he was making no spontaneous movements, I mean, no voluntary movements at all. We opened his shirt and coat and tie and observed a small wound in the anterior lower third of the neck, listened very briefly, heard a few cardiac beats, felt the President's back, and detected no large or sucking chest wounds, and then proceeded to the examination of his head. The large skull and scalp wound had been previously observed and was inspected a little more closely. There seemed to be a 4-5 cm. area of avulsion of the scalp and the skull was fragmented and bleeding cerebral and cerebellar tissue. The pupils were inspected and seemed to be bilaterally dilated and fixed. No pulse was present, and at that time, because of the inadequate respirations and the apparent airway injury, a cuffed endotracheal tube was introduced, employing a larynzo scope. Through the larynzo scope there seemed to be some hematoma around the larynx and immediately below the larynx was seen the ragged tracheal injury. The endotracheal tube was inserted past this injury, the cuff inflated, and the tube was connected to a respirator to assist the inadequate respiration. At about this point the nurse reported that no blood pressure was obtained."

Further testimony by Dr. Carrico on March 25, 1964:

"Mr. SPECTER - Would you describe as precisely for me as possible the nature of the head wound which you observed on the President?

Dr. CARRICO - The wound that I saw was a large gaping wound, located in the right occipitoparietal area. I would estimate to be about 5 to 7 cm. in size, more or less circular, with avulsions of the calvarium and scalp tissue. As I stated before, I believe there was shredded macerated cerebral and cerebellar tissues both in the wounds and on the fragments of the skull attached to the dura.

Mr. SPECTER - Did you notice any other opening in the head besides the one you have just described?

Dr. CARRICO - No, sir; I did not."

So, Dr. Carrico, who examined the head wound prior to attempting to save JFK's life, testified to seeing a large wound in the right rear of JFK's head in the occipito-parietal region of his skull and no other wound anywhere on JFK's head and you have the unmitigated gall to even suggest there was no evidence suggesting the existence of an assassin other than Lee Harvey Oswald???

Edited May 6, 2013 by Robert Prudhomme

[David Von Pein]

So, Dr. Carrico, who examined the head wound prior to attempting to save JFK's life, testified to seeing a large wound in the right rear of JFK's head in the occipito-parietal region of his skull and no other wound anywhere on JFK's head and you have the unmitigated gall to even suggest there was no evidence suggesting the existence of an assassin other than Lee Harvey Oswald???

Yes, of course I do. Because the two pictures shown below (plus the Zapruder Film) totally trump (for all time) Dr. Carrico's initial observations concerning the location of JFK's head wound. (And, btw, Dr. Carrico totally reversed himself in later years, placing the head wound toward the front, above the right ear; but that's another discussion entirely.)

But the two pictures below tell the world that the "Back Of Head" Parkland witnesses were wrong. And excuse me if I decide to not believe these articles are forgeries. Because that notion is too silly to even begin to discuss (as we can see at 7 HSCA 41)--especially since a PRE-autopsy piece of photographic proof also exists that corroborates the autopsy photos and X-rays (that pre-autopsy item being: Mr. Zapruder's 26-second home movie):

Edited May 7, 2013 by David Von Pein

[Guest Robert Morrow]

So, Dr. Carrico, who examined the head wound prior to attempting to save JFK's life, testified to seeing a large wound in the right rear of JFK's head in the occipito-parietal region of his skull and no other wound anywhere on JFK's head and you have the unmitigated gall to even suggest there was no evidence suggesting the existence of an assassin other than Lee Harvey Oswald???

Yes, of course I do. Because the two pictures shown below (plus the Zapruder Film) totally trump (for all time) Dr. Carrico's initial observations concerning the location of JFK's head wound. (And, btw, Dr. Carrico totally reversed himself in later years, placing the head wound toward the front, above the right ear; but that's another discussion entirely.)

But the two pictures below tell the world that the "Back Of Head" Parkland witnesses were wrong. And excuse me if I decide to not believe these articles are forgeries. Because that notion is too silly to even begin to discuss (as we can see at 7 HSCA 41)--especially since a PRE-autopsy piece of photographic proof also exists that corroborates the autopsy photos and X-rays (that pre-autopsy item being: Mr. Zapruder's 26-second home movie):

The odds are very high that both that x-ray and the photo of the back of JFK's head are forgeries. When it is the case of 1 or 2 people against a head x-ray or a back of head photo, perhaps go with the x-ray or head photo as being more credible.

Once 20-30 people have stepped in and described a gaping wound to the back of the JFK's head it is time to strongly suspect both the x-ray and back head photo are utter forgeries created by the murderers of JFK (LBJ, Hoover, CIA, military) who were running the non-investigation into Kennedy's death. Non-investigation, I say, because they were the ones who murdered him and, of course, they would corrupt the X-rays (someone else's head, just like it is someone else's brain that was weighed at 1,500 grams) and the autopsy photos (and throw away the real ones).

The tragic flaw that many lone nutters make is to trust the evidentiary record of the JFK assassination which is about as credible as trusting John Gotti to investigate a mafia murder case.

Edited May 7, 2013 by Robert Morrow

[David Von Pein]

"The evidence indicates that the autopsy photographs and X-rays were taken of President Kennedy at the time of his autopsy and that they had not been altered in any manner." -- HSCA Vol. 7, Pg. 41

More lies and more (HSCA) liars, right Robert?

And the above declaration about the autopsy photos is coming from a committee that DID say a "conspiracy" likely existed in the murder of JFK. (Go figure that irony.)

Does the lying (and the liars) ever stop in your CT world?

Edited May 7, 2013 by David Von Pein

[David Von Pein]

Notice how DiEugenio, as usual, totally ignores the BEST EVIDENCE in the case: the autopsy photographs and X-rays (and the Zapruder Film too, which ALSO shows NO BIG "BOH" wound in JFK's head--so it's got to be fake too, per CTers).

Jimbo will just brush the authenticated photos & X-rays into the trash, claiming that the fakery of those items would be a piece of cake for the conspirators to accomplish, and the 20 members of the HSCA's Photographic Panel were just DUPED.

IOW--those 20 guys were TOTAL BOOBS and wouldn't be able to tell if a photo was authentic if their lives hung in the balance.

To that type of argument, I'd ask -- Why even bother having ANY "experts" testify about anything then? What's the point? Because they COULD all have been duped. ALL twenty of them!

Same basic question for DiEugenio:

Does the fakery ever end in your fantasy world? Ever?

Edited May 7, 2013 by David Von Pein

[Michael Griffin]

"The evidence indicates that the autopsy photographs and X-rays were taken of President Kennedy at the time of his autopsy and that they had not been altered in any manner." -- HSCA Vol. 7, Pg. 41

David does a nice job taking us up to the publishing of the HSCA report in 1979, but unfortunately for him, much has been learned since then.

"...the Warren Commission...relied on an autopsy report description of a 'largely irregular defect' and a drawing which showed the large wound to be on the right side of the head...

...The HSCA...for the first time interviewed many of those present at the autopsy who had witnessed the wounds, and elicited drawings from several of them. The HSCA then declared that 'All of those interviewed who attended the autopsy corroborated the general location of the wounds as depicted in the [autopsy] photographs; none had differing accounts.' The interviews themselves were not published.

When the HSCA's witness interviews and drawings were released in the early 1990s, they told a dramatically different story. Many of the autopsy witnesses had described a large rear head wound; in some accounts the wound also extended into the right side. The Assassination Records Review Board conducted its own interviews with a similar result." (http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/index.php/The_Moving_Head_Wounds)

Mike

Edited May 7, 2013 by Michael Griffin

[Robert Prudhomme]

Best Evidence Schmevidence! Is that all you have? A panel full of hacks either blackmailed or bribed to come up with the conclusions demanded of them?

Do you not find it odd that the vast majority of Parkland doctors testified to a wound in the right rear of JFK's head to the Warren Commission, yet almost unanimously made a complete reversal on this testimony, almost simultaneously, in the early 1990's?

What do you think is more accurate, notes written by young doctors the day of the assassination, testimony by those doctors a few months later or their "improved" recollections conveyed to Gerald Posner almost thirty years later?

What a remarkable coincidence! They all see the same thing the day of the assassination, and almost all make identical denials thirty years later! What are the odds, Mr. Von Pein?

[Guest Robert Morrow]

"The evidence indicates that the autopsy photographs and X-rays were taken of President Kennedy at the time of his autopsy and that they had not been altered in any manner." -- HSCA Vol. 7, Pg. 41

More lies and more (HSCA) liars, right Robert?

And the above declaration about the autopsy photos is coming from a committee that DID say a "conspiracy" likely existed in the murder of JFK. (Go figure that irony.)

Does the lying (and the liars) ever stop in your CT world?

The HSCA was yet another cover up, manipulated to make sure that the CIA (or Lyndon Johnson or both) did not take the rap for the JFK assassination. The HSCA said there was a conspiracy (and, hilariously, a *missed shot from the Grassy Knoll) and their boss Robert Blakey gave his personal opinion that the mafia did.

In no way at all did the HSCA conclude that the JFK assassination was an "inside job" and that the murderers of JFK were running the non-investigation into his death. And, am I correct in saying the HSCA buried the testimony of the Parkland doctors, making their testimony classified so that it would take decades later and the ARRB for folks to find out that many of them were describing a large wound in the back of JFK's head? Very possibly a blowout wound in the back from a frontal head shot.

Am I correct on that?

Edited May 7, 2013 by Robert Morrow

[Don Jeffries]

Well, DVP has predictably derailed this thread, turning it into an argument about the head wound.

Getting back to the topic here, I would love to hear more of you chiming in. And I'm serious about the research community trying to finally come together in some kind of unified force. I can't believe any one who has studied the evidence and realized the official story was impossible could not agree to the statement I wrote. I'd love to know if David Lifton could support it, or Josiah Thompson. Or the posters here who regularly find themselves in fierce squabbles with others who doubt the official story.

We continue to eat our own. I was just made aware that Joe Backes headlined a recent post on his blog, "Why Don Jeffries Is An .....(expletive deleted)." From what I've read, Joe and I seem to agree on the main issues in this case. I expect this stuff from LNers like Paul May- whom I also recently discovered has termed me "an incompetent moderator" on another forum, but not from those who agree there was a conspiracy to kill JFK.

We all need to put aside these petty personality disputes, and reign in our egos. We ought to be able to rally behind a simple point of agreement, if exposing the truth about the assassination of JFK is really what we desire.

[Pat Speer]

Don's original statement:

"The Warren Commission, FBI and Dallas Police did not solve the mystery of who assassinated President John F. Kennedy on November 22, 1963. The House Assassinations Committee of the late 1970s left more questions than answers behind them. Despite the fact a real investigation has never been conducted, the available evidence shows conclusively that Lee Harvey Oswald was not the assassin, and was framed by others for the crime. On the verge of the 50th anniversary of the most significant political assassination of the 20th century, it is more important than ever for there to be an open and independent inquiry into the matter for the very first time."

I'm sorry, Don, but I can't agree to this. I think your wording is too strong. I don't believe the available evidence "shows conclusively that Lee Harvey Oswald was not the assassin, and was framed by others for the crime." I think the evidence suggests as much, but that it's not conclusive.

What I do think "conclusive," however, goes unmentioned. To me, it is a 100% pure major fact that the Warren Commission and HSCA bent over backwards to present Oswald as the shooter, twisting evidence, etc, in order to deceive the public. They didn't frame him, per se, but failed to honestly explore the evidence. I feel that something should be added to reflect that fact.