Introduction - New Guy

[Jon G. Tidd]

Ron Ecker,

I've read that the two principal authors of the HSCA report have denied making the written misrepresentation to which you refer. The suggestion I've read is that some third party is responsible for the misrepresentation. From what I've read, the party who misrepresented the doctors' opinions was a CIA-related individual.

[Ron Ecker]

Ron Ecker,

I've read that the two principal authors of the HSCA report have denied making the written misrepresentation to which you refer. The suggestion I've read is that some third party is responsible for the misrepresentation. From what I've read, the party who misrepresented the doctors' opinions was a CIA-related individual.

So they just let this CIA-related individual do it? And where have you read this?

Of course the identity of whoever told the lie, and the fact that the lie was told, does not alter the fact that what the Parkland doctors said they saw was corroborated to the HSCA by several eyewitnesses at Bethesda. That is what is important.

Edited June 6, 2015 by Ron Ecker

[Cliff Varnell]

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

There is no question in relation to the extant physical evidence in the case.

None.

There are endlessly repeated conclusions to the contrary, but no actual challenge to the facts:

The bullet hole in JFK's shirt is 4" below the bottom of the collar.

The bullet hole in the jacket is 4.125" below the bottom of the collar.

That location is too low to have been associated with the throat wound.

Now, there will be any number of contentless claims to the contrary....

Edited June 6, 2015 by Cliff Varnell

[Ron Ecker]

With the clothes evidence and the gaping wound in back of the head seen at both Parkland and Bethesda, aren't we getting awfully close to more than one shooter? What else does it take?

[Greg Burnham]

The only thing left to discount a conspiracy would be something almost beyond belief. I mean, you'd almost need a magic bullet!

[Curtis Berkley]

"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.

Robert, you also believe that the Parkland docs were correct, and couldn't have possibly just been wrong?

What causes me some difficulty is that we're picking and choosing - one set of doctors (Parkland) is infallible, and the others (Bethesda) are rejected outright. Why the disparity, if not simply because it reenforces a belief in a conspiracy?

And finally, why do the tasks of each respective group not weigh more strongly on behalf of the Bethesda physicians, instead. Of the two, the Parkland doctors singular focus was on saving the life of the President - they had no need to figure out the how / why / where of it all, and as such, seem to be the less likely of the two to be unilaterally supported in their recollection.

Conversely, the Bethesda physician's singular goal was exactly to figure out the how / why / where of the wounds, so as to determine what happened, and had the significant benefit of their examination conducted post mortem, when the President's life had already been lost (eg no life-saving techniques were required, and as a result, they simply had more time to give a closer examination).

[Curtis Berkley]

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.

I thought that a recent show on the assassination showed that the bullet holes in JFK's clothing perfectly aligned with the entrance wounds, and that earlier theories had erred in failing to account for his raised arms, which would have also raised his shirt, and thus, refuting the claim.

Do I not recall this correctly? Or is there other and additional information which serves to overturn this refutation? If so, what is it?

[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.

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.

So, you don't welcome me here, as a person who believes that Oswald acted alone, and that no conspiracy exists?

Why would myself, or anyone who shared my opinion be unwelcome here?

What about those who are uncertain as to what occurred? Are they given a probationary welcome?

Edited June 7, 2015 by Curtis Berkley

[Curtis Berkley]

Ron Ecker,

I've read that the two principal authors of the HSCA report have denied making the written misrepresentation to which you refer. The suggestion I've read is that some third party is responsible for the misrepresentation. From what I've read, the party who misrepresented the doctors' opinions was a CIA-related individual.

Could you cite this source, so that I can also read it?

[Curtis Berkley]

The only thing left to discount a conspiracy would be something almost beyond belief. I mean, you'd almost need a magic bullet!

As someone who espouses the dual belief of Oswald acting alone, and "science" - there's nothing "magic" about the bullet, at all.

[Ron Ecker]

What causes me some difficulty is that we're picking and choosing - one set of doctors (Parkland) is infallible, and the others (Bethesda) are rejected outright. Why the disparity, if not simply because it reenforces a belief in a conspiracy?

And finally, why do the tasks of each respective group not weigh more strongly on behalf of the Bethesda physicians, instead. Of the two, the Parkland doctors singular focus was on saving the life of the President - they had no need to figure out the how / why / where of it all, and as such, seem to be the less likely of the two to be unilaterally supported in their recollection.

Conversely, the Bethesda physician's singular goal was exactly to figure out the how / why / where of the wounds, so as to determine what happened, and had the significant benefit of their examination conducted post mortem, when the President's life had already been lost (eg no life-saving techniques were required, and as a result, they simply had more time to give a closer examination).

Notice how he continues to talk about two sets of physicians, meaning the Parkland doctors and the military officers who conducted the autopsy, and asks why we don't side with the military officers, while the whole group of Bethesda eyewitnesses who corroborated what the Parkland doctors said is ignored. I wonder why.

[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.

Robert, you also believe that the Parkland docs were correct, and couldn't have possibly just been wrong?

What causes me some difficulty is that we're picking and choosing - one set of doctors (Parkland) is infallible, and the others (Bethesda) are rejected outright. Why the disparity, if not simply because it reenforces a belief in a conspiracy?

And finally, why do the tasks of each respective group not weigh more strongly on behalf of the Bethesda physicians, instead. Of the two, the Parkland doctors singular focus was on saving the life of the President - they had no need to figure out the how / why / where of it all, and as such, seem to be the less likely of the two to be unilaterally supported in their recollection.

Conversely, the Bethesda physician's singular goal was exactly to figure out the how / why / where of the wounds, so as to determine what happened, and had the significant benefit of their examination conducted post mortem, when the President's life had already been lost (eg no life-saving techniques were required, and as a result, they simply had more time to give a closer examination).

Twenty-six Bethesda witnesses were interviewed by the HSCA and all agreed with the doctors at Parkland that a large exit wound existed on the back of JFK's head. The precise location they described may not have been exactly where the Parkland doctors stated however, their observations certainly contradicted the Back of Head autopsy photo.

Can you explain why the observations of these twenty-six witnesses were repressed, and why the HSCA in fact lied about their interviews, and, in fact, falsely stated the witnesses agreed with the autopsy photos? Was the HSCA, in fact, covering up the contents of the interviews?

[Cliff Varnell]

The only thing left to discount a conspiracy would be something almost beyond belief. I mean, you'd almost need a magic bullet!

As someone who espouses the dual belief of Oswald acting alone, and "science" - there's nothing "magic" about the bullet, at all.

Nothing personal Curtis but you're playing a golden oldie that everyone here has heard a million times and is sick of it.

The bullet holes in the clothes are a good 3 inches too low for your magic bullet -- a fact you have no choice but to ignore or misrepresent.

Edited June 9, 2015 by Cliff Varnell

[David Josephs]

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

There is no question in relation to the extant physical evidence in the case.

None.

There are endlessly repeated conclusions to the contrary, but no actual challenge to the facts:

The bullet hole in JFK's shirt is 4" below the bottom of the collar.

The bullet hole in the jacket is 4.125" below the bottom of the collar.

That location is too low to have been associated with the throat wound.

Now, there will be any number of contentless claims to the contrary....

Spot on Cliff... and here's the visual proof

Edited June 7, 2015 by David Josephs

[Kenneth Drew]

I have held an undamped and near life-long fascination with JFK. While it's inception was purely assassination-focused, and as a fervent proponent any number of conspiracy theories, it has long-since morphed into my being predominantly focused on everything but the assassination - the man, his ideals, family, friends, administration, the good, the bad, the significant and trivial, alike.

My earliest memory of having anything more than a passing interest of JFK occurred when I was app. 11 years old, when I happened across a thick paperback book entitled, "High Treason". Standing in the middle of a Kmart, flipping through it's pages, I discovered the book to include several and rather disturbing post-mortem photos of the late President. As if I needed further incentive, other pages contained several rather sensational statements of "conspiracy", "murder", "cover-up" and the like. If it was meant to grab the casual reader, young as I was, it succeeded. I was both intrigued and curiously anxious to read the book, so as to answer the simple question of, "What happened?". I do not know how I convinced my mother to purchase the book for me, but she did, and I poured over it as soon as I got home, ultimately, reading it several times throughout those early years, and referencing it often.

Later, I caught a glimpse of Gerald Posner on the Today show one morning, before going off to school, and overheard his discussion about his new book, "Case Closed". I immediately scoffed and dismissed the very existence of any notion that Oswald acted alone, and that no conspiracy existed. Later, I got a copy of his book, read it, and recall having grave and pervasive doubts about my many, and to that point sincerely held, conspiratorial beliefs.

The issue remained in some fluctuation in my mind's eye over the next several years I wasn't sure what I believed, to be honest, and worse, it could not only change by the last article or book that I had read, but at times, even by the moment. For years, I held off on reading the Warren Commission Report. In my younger years, before we held the internet in our pockets, it was all-too-easy to avoid. In fact, I don't know how I could have gotten a copy of it, even had I wanted to, prior to the internet. Later, and after the internet became a staple of our lives (sometime around 2000-01, maybe?), and it was readily available, I still felt a pang of honest hesitation in reading it. For reasons unknown at the time, but which become clearer with the dual benefit of both age and hindsight, I now know that I put it off for so long, simply because I was afraid of what I might find, and worse, that it would all make sense, and that my own intellectual honesty would force me to sacrifice even the last vestiges of any possibility of my conspiratorial beliefs.

Now, unsurprisingly with the aid of hindsight, this is precisely what occurred.

I do not now believe that there has been one scintilla of any credible or empirical evidence of a conspiracy of any kind, in any direction, or which in any way sheds even a faint or whispered doubt on the singular and ultimate truth - that Lee Harvey Oswald acted entirely alone in the planning, execution, and assassination of JFK.

Despite my certainty, I remain sincerely open to the possibility of being wrong, and have neither qualms nor trouble in admitting where my own ignorance or mistaken beliefs have lead to an erroneous conclusion, when necessary. In fact, I would not only accept but welcome - any information which could effectively prove that some element of a conspiracy was involved, even to me, and in my own mind's eye.

But I do not believe that it does, and hence, do not hold my breath in waiting for it.

Having been a long-time lurker, I can say that I am impressed, oftentimes bordering on amazed, at both the depth and quality of your discussions, and the level of cumulative knowledge which so many members seem to share, and from either side of the debate, and all points in-between.

I will try to keep up, and hopefully contribute in some small way. Where I cannot, I will try to stay out of the way.

Thank you for allowing me to participate.

Wow a born again Lone Nutter.... how original. Every Lone Nutter I know was a CTer to begin with but got baptised and are born again. Now they're all going to Heaven. and All.....I mean 100% + All of them are open to ANY evidence that will open their minds to the REAL truth. Well Curtis, you don't get too many points for originality but I will give you one for BS.