Can We Agree On A Consensus Statement Regarding Conspiracy?

[James R Gordon]

Don,

You are right, there ought to be common ground within the critical JFK research community. At the moment I am focused on a singular area of study and it would be unfair to offer that as an area of common agreement.

That said, there are three areas that readily spring to mind. I would have thought the SBT is an issue that we agree is untenable.

I would also add that there might be agreement that the Warren Commission played fast and loose with the evidence and its interpretation.

And finally, there ought to be ready agreement that Commission was reluctant to investigate awkward aspects. E.g. Oswald's connection to the FBI.

On the issue of petty disputes, I too would like to see that disappear from this site. On another site it appears to be the staple fare of that forum. Such noise distracts from the possibility of serious debate. Whatever the opinions of fellow members here, this site has a collection of serious and literate members whose understanding of the case is quite awesome. It would be a positive step forward to converse and debate in a less negative frame of mind.

James

Addition:-

I am sorry, I omitted to look at your initial statement. I would agree with the following:-

1. The WC, the DPD and the HSCA did not investigate the case properly. In the case of the WC and the HSCA, they had an agenda of their own. In the case of the DPD, they had the case removed from them, so we will never know how good their investigation might have been.

2. That Oswald was not the shooter. He was such a strange character and had so many fingers in so many pies, it is difficult to see him as totally innocent. That he was not the gunman I can agree on, but whether he had knowledge of what was going down - that I am not sure about.

Edited May 7, 2013 by James R Gordon

[David Von Pein]

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

Yeah, right, Bob. That must be why those SAME "hacks" (the HSCA as a whole, that is) came to a conclusion that a conspiracy did exist to assassinate JFK.

I'll bet you love that decision about "conspiracy" that the HSCA made, don't you Robert? But when it comes to anything suggesting Oswald shot anybody on 11/22/63, that same committee is "full of hacks" who were "bribed" and "blackmailed". Lovely.

Edited May 7, 2013 by David Von Pein

[Cliff Varnell]

Since CLiff did not jump on, I will jump on for him.

Thanks for taking care of my light work, Jim. I was busy with my battlin' Golden State Warriors taking a brutal loss in game 1 to the SA Spurs so I was in no mood for Nutter foolishness.

DVP...You've admitted JFK's clothing wasn't significantly elevated in Dealey Plaza so there's nothing to argue about anymore.

Edited May 7, 2013 by Cliff Varnell

[Robert Prudhomme]

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

Yeah, right, Bob. That must be why those SAME "hacks" (the HSCA as a whole, that is) came to a conclusion that a conspiracy did exist to assassinate JFK.

I'll bet you love that decision about "conspiracy" that the HSCA made, don't you Robert? But when it comes to anything suggesting Oswald shot anybody on 11/22/63, that same committee is "full of hacks" who were "bribed" and "blackmailed". Lovely.

Rather odd, wouldn't you say, that the HSCA pointed to a conspiracy in the assassination of JFK, and no investigative body followed up on this revelation?

Edited May 7, 2013 by Robert Prudhomme

[Robert Prudhomme]

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

Yeah, right, Bob. That must be why those SAME "hacks" (the HSCA as a whole, that is) came to a conclusion that a conspiracy did exist to assassinate JFK.

I'll bet you love that decision about "conspiracy" that the HSCA made, don't you Robert? But when it comes to anything suggesting Oswald shot anybody on 11/22/63, that same committee is "full of hacks" who were "bribed" and "blackmailed". Lovely.

Your convoluted sense of logic can also be applied to the autopsy of JFK. On one hand, we are supposed to believe the autopsy doctors, led by Commander Humes, were so grossly incompetent they misplaced the entry wound on JFK's skull; erroneously locating it at the external occipital protruberance instead of near the top of the head in the cowlick area. On the other hand, the entry wound in JFK's back was located by the same autopsy doctors as being 14 cm. below the tip of JFK's right mastoid process and 14 cm. to the left of JFK's right acromion process, and this is held as Gospel by the true believers of the Warren Commission.

If the autopsy doctors were so incompetent as to place the entry wound in JFK's head at the back of the head, instead of near to the top of the head, should we not be questioning all of their findings?

You can't have it both ways, Mr. Von Pein; it's either one way or the other.

Edited May 7, 2013 by Robert Prudhomme

[Robert Prudhomme]

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.

My aopolgies, Mr. Jeffries. We certainly have strayed somewhat from the original theme of this thread.

I can possibly agree with about 95% of the proposed joint statement you laid out for perusal at the beginning of this thread. My 5% of uncertainty stems from the simple fact that, just as no one can place LHO in the sniper's nest at 12:30 PM 22/11/63, no one can place him anywhere else at that moment; or within fifteen minutes prior to that time. It is, and will remain, a mystery for all time.

Also, LHO's actions in the few years leading up to the assassination are so bizarre, one cannot help but believe LHO was somehow involved with the intelligence community. Whether or not this makes him a conspirator in the assassination, regardless of whether or not he actually fired a rifle, is another mystery. As one learned gentleman hypothesized, he may very well have been gathering intelligence on a group he was led to believe were the real conspirators. This would make him the perfect patsy when the time came to spring the double cross on him, as he would maintain silence on his involvement both out of a sense of duty and a conviction that he, as an intelligence agent, would surely be exonerated of the crime of assassinating JFK in the due course of time.

[Thomas Graves]

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.

[...] just as no one can place LHO in the sniper's nest at 12:30 PM 22/11/63, no one can place him anywhere else at that moment; or within fifteen minutes prior to that time. It is, and will remain, a mystery for all time.

Also, LHO's actions in the few years leading up to the assassination are so bizarre, one cannot help but believe LHO was somehow involved with the intelligence community. Whether or not this makes him a conspirator in the assassination, regardless of whether or not he actually fired a rifle, is another mystery. As one learned gentleman hypothesized, he may very well have been gathering intelligence on a group he was led to believe were the real conspirators. This would make him the perfect patsy when the time came to spring the double cross on him, as he would maintain silence on his involvement both out of a sense of duty and a conviction that he, as an intelligence agent, would surely be exonerated of the crime of assassinating JFK in the due course of time.

Robert,

I agree. Well stated and makes perfect sense. I tried to say something along the same lines earlier in this thread when I said in so many words that it's impossible to make a declarative "position statement" that includes the contradictory positions that Oswald was either totally innocent or was somehow involved. The beauty about the way you put it it that it actually reconciles the two: Oswald was possibly involved in an innocent sort of way!

Sincerely,

--Tommy

Edited May 7, 2013 by Thomas Graves

[David Von Pein]

Your convoluted sense of logic can also be applied to the autopsy of JFK. On one hand, we are supposed to believe the autopsy doctors, led by Commander Humes, were so grossly incompetent they misplaced the entry wound on JFK's skull; erroneously locating it at the external occipital protruberance instead of near the top of the head in the cowlick area. On the other hand, the entry wound in JFK's back was located by the same autopsy doctors as being 14 cm. below the tip of JFK's right mastoid process and 14 cm. to the left of JFK's right acromion process, and this is held as Gospel by the true believers of the Warren Commission.

If the autopsy doctors were so incompetent as to place the entry wound in JFK's head at the back of the head, instead of near to the top of the head, should we not be questioning all of their findings?

You can't have it both ways, Mr. Von Pein; it's either one way or the other.

I disagree. Because there's a big difference:

We have the autopsy photos to guide us (which were all deemed unaltered in 1978).

So we have a good solid PHOTOGRAPHIC reason to know that Dr. Humes was, indeed, incorrect when he placed the entry wound very low on JFK's head.

But, in actuality, common sense (coupled with the verbiage we find in the autopsy report itself) will tell any reasonable person that the entry wound was definitely HIGHER than where Humes placed it in his interviews and testimony (except for his 1978 HSCA testimony, when he regained his rational thinking for a few minutes and reversed himself after looking squarely at the autopsy pictures)....because in the autopsy report ITSELF, it says that the entry wound was "slightly above" the EOP.

Now, yes, we can argue all day about how many inches can be included via a word like "slightly", but it's also quite clear from the autopsy report that the wound WAS "above" the EOP. And there is also another place in that same autopsy report where the word "slightly" is not included, and it says just "above and to the right of the external occipital protuberance". That's on page 6 of the AR.

And how could anybody think this white splotch at JFK's hairline is located ABOVE (or "slightly above") the EOP? It's ridiculous. That white speck is obviously well BELOW the EOP:

Rather odd, wouldn't you say, that the HSCA pointed to a conspiracy in the assassination of JFK, and no investigative body followed up on this revelation?

You're wrong. The National Academy of Sciences (National Research Council / Committee on Ballistic Acoustics) followed up the HSCA. And the NAS said this:

"The previously analyzed sounds were recorded about one minute after the assassination and, therefore, too late to be attributed to assassination shots." -- NAS/CBA Final Report; May 14, 1982

Do you now want to call the NAS people liars and "hacks" too, Robert?

How many committees and commissions and panels would it take to get the conspiracy theorists to admit that there just might be something to this "Oswald did it" stuff after all? Ten commissions? Twenty?

And we really don't even need the NAS/CBA report at all, because the HSCA's acoustics evidence can be proven wrong by just taking one quick look at the Hughes Film:

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/07/debunking-hsca-acoustics-evidence.html

Edited May 9, 2013 by David Von Pein

[Robert Prudhomme]

Your convoluted sense of logic can also be applied to the autopsy of JFK. On one hand, we are supposed to believe the autopsy doctors, led by Commander Humes, were so grossly incompetent they misplaced the entry wound on JFK's skull; erroneously locating it at the external occipital protruberance instead of near the top of the head in the cowlick area. On the other hand, the entry wound in JFK's back was located by the same autopsy doctors as being 14 cm. below the tip of JFK's right mastoid process and 14 cm. to the left of JFK's right acromion process, and this is held as Gospel by the true believers of the Warren Commission.

If the autopsy doctors were so incompetent as to place the entry wound in JFK's head at the back of the head, instead of near to the top of the head, should we not be questioning all of their findings?

You can't have it both ways, Mr. Von Pein; it's either one way or the other.

I disagree. Because there's a big difference:

We have the autopsy photos to guide us (which were all deemed unaltered in 1978).

So we have a good solid PHOTOGRAPHIC reason to know that Dr. Humes was, indeed, incorrect when he placed the entry wound very low on JFK's head.

But, in actuality, common sense (coupled with the verbiage we find in the autopsy report itself) will tell any reasonable person that the entry wound was definitely HIGHER than where Humes placed it in his interviews and testimony (except for his 1978 HSCA testimony, when he regained his rational thinking for a few minutes and reversed himself after looking squarely at the autopsy pictures)....because in the autopsy report ITSELF, it says that the entry wound was "slightly above" the EOP.

Now, yes, we can argue all day about how many inches can be included via a word like "slightly", but it's also quite clear from the autopsy report that the wound WAS "above" the EOP. And how could anybody think this white splotch at JFK's hairline is located ABOVE (or "slightly above") the EOP? It's ridiculous. That white speck is obviously well BELOW the EOP:

Rather odd, wouldn't you say, that the HSCA pointed to a conspiracy in the assassination of JFK, and no investigative body followed up on this revelation?

You're wrong. The NAS followed up the HSCA. And the NAS said this:

"The previously analyzed sounds were recorded about one minute after the assassination and, therefore, too late to be attributed to assassination shots." -- CBA/NAS Final Report; May 14, 1982

Do you now want to call the NAS people liars and "hacks" too, Robert?

How many committees and commissions and panels would it take to get to admit that maybe there just might be something to this "Oswald did it" stuff?

And we really don't even need the NAS/CBA report at all, because the HSCA's acoustics evidence can be proven wrong by just taking one quick look at the Hughes Film:

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/07/debunking-hsca-acoustics-evidence.html

Footnote---

My apologies, too, for derailing this thread. I'm done now. Proceed with your "Let's Band Together To Make LHO Something He Wasn't--An Innocent Patsy" meeting.

You, sir, are not worthy of consideration.

[Robert Prudhomme]

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.

[...] just as no one can place LHO in the sniper's nest at 12:30 PM 22/11/63, no one can place him anywhere else at that moment; or within fifteen minutes prior to that time. It is, and will remain, a mystery for all time.

Also, LHO's actions in the few years leading up to the assassination are so bizarre, one cannot help but believe LHO was somehow involved with the intelligence community. Whether or not this makes him a conspirator in the assassination, regardless of whether or not he actually fired a rifle, is another mystery. As one learned gentleman hypothesized, he may very well have been gathering intelligence on a group he was led to believe were the real conspirators. This would make him the perfect patsy when the time came to spring the double cross on him, as he would maintain silence on his involvement both out of a sense of duty and a conviction that he, as an intelligence agent, would surely be exonerated of the crime of assassinating JFK in the due course of time.

Robert,

I agree. Well stated and makes perfect sense. I tried to say something along the same lines earlier in this thread when I said in so many words that it's impossible to make a declarative "position statement" that includes the contradictory positions that Oswald was either totally innocent or was somehow involved. The beauty about the way you put it it that it actually reconciles the two: Oswald was possibly involved in an innocent sort of way!

Sincerely,

--Tommy

I would dearly love to take credit for the idea of the innocent intelligence agent double crossed into taking the blame for an assassination but, as I said, it was another gentleman who put the idea into my head. And, if I'm not mistaken, his inspiration came from the part played by Warren Beatty in "The Parallax View".

[David Von Pein]

That photo that DVP and others, like Baden, like to display about the so-called wound in the cowlick area is actually touched up.

Oh, goodie! MORE fake stuff! A FAKED version of an already FAKED autopsy photo. Is that what you're saying, Jimbo? Great! I love it.

Maybe DiEugenio would like to chew on the following animated GIF image for a few moments, which is a moving GIF montage which merges two different autopsy photographs into one "moving" image. One of the pictures within this animated GIF is the color "red spot" picture, and the other one is a B&W autopsy picture of the back of JFK's head. They are identical. They are stereoscopic:

Photo/GIF credit to: John Mytton.

And I also totally agree with Mr. Mytton's remarks concerning the above GIF imagery:

"Faking these pairs of stereoscopic photos in 2013 would require a decent amount of computer skill, in 1963--forget it!" -- John Mytton; May 6, 2013

http://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,8295.msg242382.html#msg242382

Edited May 8, 2013 by David Von Pein

[Don Jeffries]

You'll note that my statement says nothing about Oswald's possible role in any conspiracy. Jim Garrison was the first, I believe, to postulate that LHO was some kind of intelligence operative, and had been assigned to infiltrate a group he was told might be plotting to kill the President. I happen to personally think this is the most likely explanation of Oswald's role as unwitting patsy. I don't think it's likely that he was a witting conspirator, but my statement doesn't address that.

Any way we look at it, Oswald was framed for the assassination of JFK.

[David Von Pein]

Was this GIF made from the original photos? Have you seen those photos?

Have you?

No, of course you haven't.

Which means you have no case (as usual).

When the four major investigations all disagree with each other, then something is rotten in Denmark, correct?

How many of those investigations concluded that Lee Harvey Oswald was an innocent patsy, Jimbo?

I'll answer that one for you -- None.

Any more gripes, Jimmy?

Edited May 8, 2013 by David Von Pein

[Pat Speer]

That photo that DVP and others, like Baden, like to display about the so-called wound in the cowlick area is actually touched up.

Oh, goodie! MORE fake stuff! A FAKED version of an already FAKED autopsy photo. Is that what you're saying, Jimbo? Great! I love it.

Maybe DiEugenio would like to chew on the following animated GIF image for a few moments, which is a moving GIF montage which merges two different autopsy photographs into one "moving" image. One of the pictures within this animated GIF is the color "red spot" picture, and the other one is a B&W autopsy picture of the back of JFK's head. They are identical. They are stereoscopic:

Photo/GIF credit to: John Mytton.

And I also totally agree with Mr. Mytton's remarks concerning the above GIF imagery:

"Faking these pairs of stereoscopic photos in 2013 would require a decent amount of computer skill, in 1963--forget it!" -- John Mytton; May 6, 2013

http://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,8295.msg242382.html#msg242382

I'm glad you posted this, David. Look at the piece of brain matter down by the hairline. Now, look just above it, at the 1 o'clock position if the brain matter was at the center of a clock. There's the EOP entrance wound, EXACTLY where Humes--and everyone else noting an entrance wound at the autopsy--said it was.

Now, why was this entrance wound erased from history by the Clark Panel? That's right. The Clark Panel was asked to debunk the stuff in Tink's book--including that the bullet supposedly traveled low to high within the skull, without destroying the brain in between. So they moved the entrance wound to someplace more compatible with the single-assassin conclusion--like the dried blood in the cowlick--where NO ONE at the autopsy saw such a wound.

[David Von Pein]

I'm glad you posted this, David. Look at the piece of brain matter down by the hairline. Now, look just above it, at the 1 o'clock position if the brain matter was at the center of a clock. There's the EOP entrance wound, EXACTLY where Humes--and everyone else noting an entrance wound at the autopsy--said it was.

Now, why was this entrance wound erased from history by the Clark Panel? That's right. The Clark Panel was asked to debunk the stuff in Tink's book--including that the bullet supposedly traveled low to high within the skull, without destroying the brain in between. So they moved the entrance wound to someplace more compatible with the single-assassin conclusion--like the dried blood in the cowlick--where NO ONE at the autopsy saw such a wound.

There's no entry wound at the "1 o'clock" position above the white splotch, Pat. You're seeing things that you WANT to be there--but aren't.

In addition, as I mentioned previously, neither the white splotch or your make-believe "1 o'clock" entry wound are located "above" or even "slightly above" the EOP. And the autopsy report (twice!) clearly indicates that the entry wound on the back of JFK's head was located "above" the EOP.

Also -- Isn't it remarkable, Pat, that the thing in the "red spot" photo that you claim is merely "dried blood" can look so much like an entry hole for a 6.5-mm. bullet? Amazing coincidence, huh? (Or did the Clark boys just draw in the red spot themselves?)

Plus -- Isn't it also remarkable that the red spot just happens to PERFECTLY LAY OVER THE TOP of the entry hole in the underlying skull of the President, per the Clark Panel? (More Clark lies here, Pat?).....

"On one of the lateral films [X-rays] of the skull (#2), a hole measuring approximately 8 mm. in diameter on the outer surface of the skull and as much as 20 mm. on the internal surface can be seen in profile approximately 100 mm. above the external occipital protuberance." -- Clark Panel Report

Also hear the HSCA talk to Dr. Finck about how the red spot in the photo perfectly lines up with the entry in the underlying skull (just a co-inky, I guess) --- 1978 Interview With Pierre Finck.

Edited May 8, 2013 by David Von Pein