Introduction - New Guy

[Curtis Berkley]

Gentleman,

Let's not allow our worst qualities to come out in a thread welcoming a new member. We should save the petty arguments for when (if) he actually challenges some of this stuff.

Brian, et al

I take no exception to how some may either address me or speak to my thoughts and opinions. People feel strongly about the matter, on both sides, and it is understandable that any discussion turns most contentious, when passions run high. But sincerely, thank you for thinking of me, and speaking up.

I don't know if I will "challenge" anything or anyone, but I do have some questions for several points in this thread. I'm camping this weekend, and don't have great coverage except for when I'm in town, such as I now am, and having just skimmed the thread.

[Curtis Berkley]

We can start wherever any of you would most prefer, but "let us begin".

I'll play this game once, as I have previously stated my own personal rule against arguing with LNers and young-Earth creationists.

To me perhaps the most important "circumstantial" evidence is the gaping wound in the back of JFK's head, seen by medical personnel at both Parkland and Bethesda as well as by Clint Hill. This wound has been covered up from start to finish, first by the Warren Commission (it wants you to ignore its own exhibits, i.e. eyewitness doctors' statements), the HSCA (by simply lying in its report about eyewitness statements), and to this very moment by the mainstream media, which simply ignores it. I know that LNers and even Pat Speer try their best to get around this. So be it.

Important and valid questions, every one.

Without looking back at specific testimony, I'd start by asking the first two questions that leap to mind:

1. Is it possible that the attending physicians were simply wrong, or couldn't accurately recall the location of the head wounds? Recall, they had been caught completely unaware of the President's arrival until moments before he entered the hospital, and they were attending him. Once he arrived in Trauma Room 1, amidst that horror and bedlam, as these same men spent considerable time and desperate effort trying to save the life of the most powerful man in the planet...is it at least plausible that they did not closely examine the exact location of the head wound, and certainly did not have the same luxury of time and comparitive tranquility as the attending physicians in Washington had enjoyed?

2. Suppose I simply relent and say that the Parkland Hospital doctors were correct in their identification of the head wound. Walk me through exactly who "doctored" the evidence later, keeping a close count on the number of people that such a decision and action would have been required to complete, and specifically how this was accomplished, and for what specific purpose.

[Ron Ecker]

Suppose I simply relent and say that the Parkland Hospital doctors were correct in their identification of the head wound. Walk me through exactly who "doctored" the evidence later, keeping a close count on the number of people that such a decision and action would have been required to complete, and specifically how this was accomplished, and for what specific purpose.

How is anyone supposed to know all that? What a typical LN tactic. I got the same thing from Paul Baker when I said I think Connally was not shot with the same bullet that hit JFK. So Baker wants me to tell him where the other shooter was. How am I supposed to know?

Why don't you just ask who killed JFK? Since I and others here believe there was a conspiracy, surely we must know who did it!

Edited June 6, 2015 by Ron Ecker

[David Von Pein]

Why don't you just ask who killed JFK? Since I and others here believe there was a conspiracy, surely we must know who did it!

Yes, that would be mighty helpful, Ron.

Any chance that any CTer--some day or some year--will ever prove that somebody besides Lee Harvey Oswald murdered the 35th U.S. Chief Executive?

Is it really asking too much to expect an answer to the above inquiry, Ron?

[Ron Ecker]

Why don't you just ask who killed JFK? Since I and others here believe there was a conspiracy, surely we must know who did it!

Yes, that would be mighty helpful, Ron.

Any chance that any CTer--some day or some year--will ever prove that somebody besides Lee Harvey Oswald murdered the 35th U.S. Chief Executive?

There's already proof enough that Oswald didn't do it alone. It's questionable whether we'll ever know for sure who else was involved. Such things require real investigations. What we have are strong suspicions based on the facts.

Is it really asking too much to expect an answer to the above inquiry, Ron?

Oh, I'm sure someone might try to map it all out in detail as best they can conjecture. That's the whole idea, isn't it? To get CTs to waste as much of their time as possible.

See, I keep forgetting that I'm not going to argue with you. Bye.

[Curtis Berkley]

Suppose I simply relent and say that the Parkland Hospital doctors were correct in their identification of the head wound. Walk me through exactly who "doctored" the evidence later, keeping a close count on the number of people that such a decision and action would have been required to complete, and specifically how this was accomplished, and for what specific purpose.

How is anyone supposed to know all that? What a typical LN tactic. I got the same thing from Paul Baker when I said I think Connally was not shot with the same bullet that hit JFK. So Baker wants me to tell him where the other shooter was. How am I supposed to know?

Why don't you just ask who killed JFK? Since I and others here believe there was a conspiracy, surely we must know who did it!

Ron, I'm not using any "tactic", at all. Instead, I'm simply asking what are entirely reasonable questions, and which only require a simple and straight-forward answer.

Again, is it plausible that the attending physicians at Parkland were simply wrong about the placement of the head wound?

Of the two sets of physicians, which do you think was most likely to have mistaken the location of the head wound - those at Parkland, or Bethesda?

How are you supposed to know all of what, Ron? How you believe that the existence of some variation between the respective accounts of two wholly separate groups of doctors, in two completely different settings, means that medical evidence must have been changed / hidden, and that such arose from a conspiracy?

I don't know how I can support your claim, on your behalf, Ron, well, because it's yours.

I'm asking how this leads in any way leads to a conspiracy - even if you're right about the reason of the various accounts - and you can't do so.

If you can't explain how this leads to a conspiracy....maybe it's because it doesn't, and you shouldn't believe that it does.

[Ron Ecker]

Suppose I simply relent and say that the Parkland Hospital doctors were correct in their identification of the head wound. Walk me through exactly who "doctored" the evidence later, keeping a close count on the number of people that such a decision and action would have been required to complete, and specifically how this was accomplished, and for what specific purpose.

How is anyone supposed to know all that? What a typical LN tactic. I got the same thing from Paul Baker when I said I think Connally was not shot with the same bullet that hit JFK. So Baker wants me to tell him where the other shooter was. How am I supposed to know?

Why don't you just ask who killed JFK? Since I and others here believe there was a conspiracy, surely we must know who did it!

Ron, I'm not using any "tactic", at all. Instead, I'm simply asking what are entirely reasonable questions, and which only require a simple and straight-forward answer.

What? Here's what you "simply" asked: "Walk me through exactly who 'doctored' the evidence later, keeping a close count on the number of people that such a decision and action would have been required to complete, and specifically how this was accomplished, and for what specific purpose." And you think that would "only require a simple and straight-forward answer"? Who are you trying to kid?

Again, is it plausible that the attending physicians at Parkland were simply wrong about the placement of the head wound?

No, I don't think it's plausible. I respect them as doctors, and they wrote down what they saw. They could have written something like "I think there was a large wound in the occipital, but I can't be sure because we were all in a hurry." But they didn't. They did not equivocate, they made plain statements about what they saw. Period.

Of the two sets of physicians, which do you think was most likely to have mistaken the location of the head wound - those at Parkland, or Bethesda?

As I recall, the eyewitnesses to the large wound in the back of the head at Bethesda were not physicians, they were various medical personnel or technicians. They stated what they saw, and I will remind you that the HSCA Report flat-out lied about it. Why do you think it lied? That would "only require a simple and straightforward answer."l

How are you supposed to know all of what, Ron? How you believe that the existence of some variation between the respective accounts of two wholly separate groups of doctors, in two completely different settings, means that medical evidence must have been changed / hidden, and that such arose from a conspiracy?

I guess you must be talking about the variation between what the Parkland doctors saw and what Humes said what was seen at the autopsy. I put little credence in statements by the conductors of a sham autopsy. The Parkland doctors had no reason to lie or otherwise adhere to a dictated scenario for fear of losing a military pension.

I don't know how I can support your claim, on your behalf, Ron, well, because it's yours.

I'm asking how this leads in any way leads to a conspiracy - even if you're right about the reason of the various accounts - and you can't do so.

If you can't explain how this leads to a conspiracy....maybe it's because it doesn't, and you shouldn't believe that it does.

I've explained how it leads to a conspiracy. A gaping wound in back of the head means a shot from the front. But belittle or dismiss the Parkland doctors (their statements corroborated by personnel at Bethesda as well as by Clint Hill) all you want. What else can you do?

I've stated before you joined the forum that I don't argue with LNers and young-Earth creationists. So consider this my final word to you.

[Curtis Berkley]

Suppose I simply relent and say that the Parkland Hospital doctors were correct in their identification of the head wound. Walk me through exactly who "doctored" the evidence later, keeping a close count on the number of people that such a decision and action would have been required to complete, and specifically how this was accomplished, and for what specific purpose.

How is anyone supposed to know all that? What a typical LN tactic. I got the same thing from Paul Baker when I said I think Connally was not shot with the same bullet that hit JFK. So Baker wants me to tell him where the other shooter was. How am I supposed to know?

Why don't you just ask who killed JFK? Since I and others here believe there was a conspiracy, surely we must know who did it!

Ron, I'm not using any "tactic", at all. Instead, I'm simply asking what are entirely reasonable questions, and which only require a simple and straight-forward answer.

What? Here's what you "simply" asked: "Walk me through exactly who 'doctored' the evidence later, keeping a close count on the number of people that such a decision and action would have been required to complete, and specifically how this was accomplished, and for what specific purpose." And you think that would "only require a simple and straight-forward answer"? Who are you trying to kid?

Again, is it plausible that the attending physicians at Parkland were simply wrong about the placement of the head wound?

No, I don't think it's plausible. I respect them as doctors, and they wrote down what they saw. They could have written something like "I think there was a large wound in the occipital, but I can't be sure because we were all in a hurry." But they didn't. They did not equivocate, they made plain statements about what they saw. Period.

Of the two sets of physicians, which do you think was most likely to have mistaken the location of the head wound - those at Parkland, or Bethesda?

As I recall, the eyewitnesses to the large wound in the back of the head at Bethesda were not physicians, they were various medical personnel or technicians. They stated what they saw, and I will remind you that the HSCA Report flat-out lied about it. Why do you think it lied? That would "only require a simple and straightforward answer."l

How are you supposed to know all of what, Ron? How you believe that the existence of some variation between the respective accounts of two wholly separate groups of doctors, in two completely different settings, means that medical evidence must have been changed / hidden, and that such arose from a conspiracy?

I guess you must be talking about the variation between what the Parkland doctors saw and what Humes said what was seen at the autopsy. I put little credence in statements by the conductors of a sham autopsy. The Parkland doctors had no reason to lie or otherwise adhere to a dictated scenario for fear of losing a military pension.

I don't know how I can support your claim, on your behalf, Ron, well, because it's yours.

I'm asking how this leads in any way leads to a conspiracy - even if you're right about the reason of the various accounts - and you can't do so.

If you can't explain how this leads to a conspiracy....maybe it's because it doesn't, and you shouldn't believe that it does.

I've explained how it leads to a conspiracy. A gaping wound in back of the head means a shot from the front. But belittle or dismiss the Parkland doctors (their statements corroborated by personnel at Bethesda as well as by Clint Hill) all you want. What else can you do?

I've stated before you joined the forum that I don't argue with LNers and young-Earth creationists. So consider this my final word to you.

The Parkland doctors are given immediate credibility and respect in their findings, but the Bethesda physicians are not?

That's rather convenient.

And the docs at Bethesda went along so as to protect their pensions. That's a big statement. Could you cite your source on this? If you have no source, could you withdraw it as nothing more than simple conjecture on your part, so that we don't further muddy the already murky water?

And the HSCA lied? Where, exactly? I'd like to look into that.

A "gaping wound in the back of the head means a shot from in front"...says who? And of course, even that question is predicated on your correct in believing the Parkland doctors, and dismissing those at Bethesda (which seems, well, a little more than self-serving).

Finally, I appreciate your stance on "young earth creationists" and as much as it would help you to villify and dismiss me, you should know that I am neither.

[Robert Prudhomme]

"A "gaping wound in the back of the head means a shot from in front"...says who?"

A gaping wound in the back of the head means the autopsy photos are fake.

[Ron Ecker]

And the HSCA lied? Where, exactly? I'd like to look into that.

A legitimate question so I’ll answer it, as others may also not be aware of this complete HSCA lie. That is, I’ll let Dr. Aguilar answer it, since he does it well. From the link below:

The House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) wrote, "Critics of the Warren Commission's medical evidence findings have found (sic) on the observations recorded by the Parkland Hospital doctors They believe it is unlikely that trained medical personnel could be so consistently in error regarding the nature of the wound, even though their recollections were not based on careful examinations of the wounds ... In disagreement with the observations of the Parkland doctors are the 26 people present at the autopsy. All of those interviewed who attended the autopsy corroborated the general location of the wound as depicted in the photographs; none had different accounts... it appears more probable that the observations of the Parkland doctors are incorrect." (HSCA, Vol. 7, p. 37-39) The statement is supported by reference to "Staff interviews with persons present at the autopsy." Recently released documents reveal for the first time that the HSCA misrepresented the statements of virtually all of its own Bethesda "staff interviews" on the location of JFK's skull defect. Rather than contradicting Parkland witnesses that there was a rear defect in JFK's skull, Bethesda witnesses corroborated them. Bethesda witnesses not only described a rear defect to HSCA, they also drew diagrams that overwhelmingly showed a defect at the rear, or right rear of JFK's skull. By falsely representing its own data, HSCA writers inaccurately portrayed Bethesda witnesses as contesting the observations of Parkland witnesses who in fact they supported. They apparently also sought to quell the controversy regarding the autopsy images which show no defect where Parkland, and now incontestably Bethesda, witnesses all saw it. Discouragingly, public access to these inconvenient interviews and diagrams, which were of no national security value whatsoever, was to have been restricted for 50 years.

http://www.assassinationweb.com/ag5.htm

[Cliff Varnell]

This is an exercise in "fake debate."

Any murder case on the planet will start with the physical evidence.

The only extant physical evidence relating to the murder of JFK is his clothing.

At four inches below the bottoms of the collars, the bullet defects are too low to allow for a single shooter.

But due to the mass denial generated by the initial cover-up of this murder the physical evidence is routinely ignored/misrepresented.

In the words of JFK Assassination Critical Community leading light Jim DiEugenio -- "Most researchers respect the clothing evidence."

Most?

Jim has bragged about how he ignores the physical evidence in the JFK murder.

The LN/CT paradigm is a false dichotomy.

[Greg Burnham]

Gentleman,

Let's not allow our worst qualities to come out in a thread welcoming a new member. We should save the petty arguments for when (if) he actually challenges some of this stuff.

FOR THE REORD:

In all due respect, nothing in my post should be construed as me "welcoming a LN" to the forum. I was responding to the post in which you stated that you wanted to create a website to list 10 to 15 of what you consider to be the strongest evidence of conspiracy.

In the "50 Reasons for 50 Years" program we have evidence not only of conspiracy to commit murder, but also evidence of conspiracy to obstruct justice.

[Gayle Nix Jackson]

Thank you Brian for the French President's article. Sharing it with others!

[Mark Knight]

It's hard to "prove" a conspiracy when the facts of what actually occurred during the assassination are in question.

WHAT WE KNOW FOR AN ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY:

1. JFK was shot while riding in the right rear seat of the presidential limousine at approximately 12:30 pm on November 22, 1963.

2. Kennedy had wounds to the throat, the back, and the head.

3. Oswald worked in the building directly behind the section of Elm Street where the shooting occurred.

WHAT WE DO NOT KNOW FOR AN ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY:

1. If Oswald was the man in the southeast window of the 6th floor of the Texas School Book Depository.

There is no agreement from CTers on how many gunmen there were, where the shots came from, what weapons were used.

I was a fan of JFK as a 9-year-old 4th grader. I read the newspaper every day, and tried to keep up with where he traveled and what was going on in his administration. I kept a scrapbook of editorial cartoons by Louisville Courier-Journal artist Hugh Haynie on nearly every drawing he made concerning JFK. [Over the ensuing years, that scrapbook has come up missing...likely through my own actions or inactions over the years.] Originally, I began thinking there must have been a conspiracy the moment I saw Oswald "silenced" on live TV.

But now, after reading nearly every available book on the subject that I could get my hands on, I cannot say with any conviction that JFK was killed as the result of a conspiracy. BUT I CANNOT SAY WITH ANY CERTAINTY THAT HE WAS NOT KILLED AS THE RESULT OF A CONSPIRACY. When the only facts that everyone can agree upon are the ones I listed above, anyone who says that they have THE answer is likely fooling himself/herself.

[Ron Ecker]

But now, after reading nearly every available book on the subject that I could get my hands on, I cannot say with any conviction that JFK was killed as the result of a conspiracy. BUT I CANNOT SAY WITH ANY CERTAINTY THAT HE WAS NOT KILLED AS THE RESULT OF A CONSPIRACY. When the only facts that everyone can agree upon are the ones I listed above, anyone who says that they have THE answer is likely fooling himself/herself.

Why do you think the HSCA lied about its own interviews that supported the Parkland doctors? Just more cover-up for the sake of cover-up, since we don't know that there was any conspiracy to cover up? Your answer might be of help to the LNers here, since they probably need it.