Introduction - New Guy

[Kenneth Drew]

Welcome to the forum, Curtis.

I have always wondered this, and perhaps you could clue me in. You say that you used to favor a conspiracy, but now you cannot find "one scintilla of credible evidence." Well, what evidence made you feel like there was a conspiracy in the first place? Is that evidence all void now? My point is that I feel like LNers always overcompensate and unfairly assert there to be no credible evidence. I believe there was a conspiracy and concede that there is indeed damning evidence against Oswald.

I feel like I say this weekly, but there are great researchers and authors on this forum whose work you should familiarize yourself. IMO, Check out patspeer.com: it's a good starting point to dispel myths that there is no evidence of a conspiracy.

Brian - thank you very much for the welcome.

I was a most reluctant concert, I assure you. I think that my belief in a conspiracy was the culmination of many things, chief of which, was that I simply wanted to believe that a conspiracy existed. In fact, albeit at the risk of painting with a too-broad brush, I think that is the central and necessary element of every conspiracy theorist - to want to believe it. From my own experience, I then spent considerable time and effort looking to support that desired conclusion. I only read what agreed with my opinion, and rejected anyone or anything which might challenge or otherwise fail to support it. Ultimately, I should have begun by challenging my own need to believe it, instead and first.

As information became more widely available, and I allowed myself to explore and give it honest consideration, the actual, provable, tangible, credible and empirical facts simply became impossible to ignore. Over time, I could not continue to reconcile my belief in a conspiracy theory, and at the expense of my own intellectual honesty. And so, I chose the latter.

I do not believe that there is one scintilla of evidence which has been produced or provided (admittedly, perhaps I have missed or misunderstood it), in any regard, which would allow a reasonable person's mind to conclude that there was any form of a conspiracy, whatsoever.

I do not make this claim to be either sensationalistic or inflammatory, to anyone or anything, but because I have fully and completely satisfied myself that the mere absence of any credible evidence is more than sufficient means to conclude that it's absence is, by definition, the result of it never having existed, at all.

As I've said - I am perfectly willing to admit my error, and would sincerely welcome it - but only at the presentment of empirically credible and independently verifiable proof and evidences. One of the best things about being on this side, is that it is the CT's who are making the claim, and are burdened with producing it's support and defense.

And therein lies the rather cyclic rub, it can be produced because it simply doesn't exist. And somewhere, I always knew that in the years before my "conversion", and maybe others have felt the same.

Have their been oddities? Curiosities? Coincidences? Any number of seemingly plausible theories, in whole or in part? Are there questions about particularities of often secondary (or tertiary) importance to the singular questikn of conspiracy. Certainly.

But evidence? None. Not one.

And this absence of proof necessarily prevents any definitive linking between Oswald and any of the dozens or so groups and people who probably rejoiced in Kennedy's death, in my opinion.

I will say this, and easily; I am certain that my level of knowledge and the amount of time I have researched the matter, sizable and long-standing as it has been - is dwarfed and comparitively insignificant to a great many of the regular posters, here. And I am happy to be educated by them all.

Curt, I'll bet that you can't give me one scintilla of evidence that LHO shot JFK. I'll bet that for a shot being fired from the snipers nest. I'll bet that for one bullet being fired into the limo from C2766. You want to prove LHO guilty, beyond a reasonable doubt, the floor is open.

[Curtis Berkley]

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.

What's the aim here, Kenneth, or the point which you're attempting to make?

That I should not be open to any evidence?

How's that working for you, thus far?

[Kenneth Drew]

Tell me something, Dave. Wesley Frazier testified that the package LHO was carrying was a mere 2 feet long, far too short to conceal a disassembled M91/38 short rifle, and at least a foot shorter than the paper bag in evidence.

Do you think Frazier was lying when he testified about the length of the bag and, if you believe he was lying, why would he lie about the length of the bag?

No, of course Frazier wasn't lying. He truly thinks that the 38-inch bag he saw Oswald carrying was only about 24 to 27 inches in length. He was simply wrong about his estimate. He wasn't lying. He was just---wrong.

Here's what I said about it six years ago, in October of 2009.....

-----------------

Wesley Frazier and Linnie Mae Randle were obviously "mistaken" as to the precise length of Oswald's paper bag.

To believe otherwise is to believe that the brown paper bag Frazier and Randle saw Oswald carrying on 11/22/63 was a different brown paper bag from the EMPTY brown paper bag that was found in the TSBD which had OSWALD'S PRINTS ON IT.

Is a reasonable and sensible person supposed to actually believe that Oswald took a large-ish bag with him into work on November 22 that was 27 inches long, with that bag then disappearing without a trace between 8:00 AM and early- to mid-afternoon on the same day (November 22)?

And then are we supposed to believe that a similar-looking BROWN PAPER BAG (EMPTY!) turned up in the exact place from which a gunman fired shots at JFK, with this coincidence occurring (incredibly) on the very same day that Oswald carried a 27-inch BROWN PAPER BAG into the very same building where a 38-inch BROWN PAPER BAG was discovered WITH OSWALD'S PALMPRINT AND FINGERPRINT on it?

A reasonable person can arrive at only one reasonable conclusion here:

The bag that Buell Wesley Frazier and Linnie Mae Randle saw Lee Harvey Oswald carrying on the morning of the assassination was the very same paper bag that was seen lying (empty!) in the Sniper's Nest by Lt. Carl Day and Robert Studebaker of the DPD on November 22, 1963.

Accepting any other scenario other than the scenario I just mentioned in the above paragraph is to accept a scenario that lacks all fundamental logic and common sense.

Plus, any alternate "two bags" scenario raises more questions than it answers, e.g.:

1.) Where did this so-called 27-inch brown paper bag disappear to? Where is it? If Oswald really took some innocuous, innocent object(s) into the Book Depository that Friday, then why wasn't this innocuous item (curtain rods?) ever discovered by anybody after the assassination? (And if some conspiracists want to speculate that the DPD or the FBI deep-sixed the curtain rods, it would be nice to see some proof to back up such a vile allegation. To date, no such evidence has emerged from the speculation-ridden CT brigade.)

2.) How did Lee Harvey Oswald's palmprint and fingerprint manage to get on the 38-inch paper bag that is now in evidence in the National Archives (CE142)? Are we really to believe that the DPD "planted" two of Oswald's prints on that paper bag sometime after the assassination? (That's an extraordinary accusation that requires an equally extraordinary amount of proof to substantiate it, don't you agree?)

3.) If the bag that Oswald carried into the building had really merely contained curtain rods (or some other item that wasn't a gun), then why did Oswald deny ever taking such an innocent item into work on November 22nd? Did Oswald think that CURTAIN RODS could be considered a suspicious or dangerous item? Maybe he thought that the cops would accuse him of plotting to kill the President by the odd method of stabbing him to death with his curtain rods, eh?

Of course, conspiracy theorist James DiEugenio has decided to create a different scenario altogether (although this silly theory has probably been postulated by other CTers in the past as well, but I personally don't know of anyone else besides Jim D. who has gone on record as being this idiotic and paranoid):

DiEugenio has decided that Lee Oswald carried NO LARGE-ISH BAG INTO THE DEPOSITORY AT ALL on November 22nd. No bag at all!*

* DiEugenio might have suggested in the past that Oswald had a small lunch sack with him that Friday, but Jim is now pretty sure that Wesley Frazier AND Linnie Randle were part of Jim's almost-endless list of scheming liars and cover-up operatives who were attempting to frame and railroad poor schnook Oswald in November of '63, because DiEugenio thinks that Oswald carried NO BIG BAG into work at all on the morning of the President's murder.

So, Jim D. thinks that these two ordinary Irving, Texas, citizens (housewife Linnie Mae Randle and 19-year-old stock boy Buell Wesley Frazier) were lying when they each repeatedly claimed that Lee Oswald was carrying a large-ish brown bag with him on November 22.

Mr. DiEugenio evidently has never asked himself the following logical question regarding these two supposed liars:

If Frazier and Randle were really telling lies about Oswald having a large bag, then why on Earth did those two liars contend that the bag that each of them just MADE UP FROM WHOLE CLOTH was too short to hold Oswald's Mannlicher-Carcano rifle?!

If Frazier and Randle were liars (as Jim DiEugenio now claims), they were pretty crappy liars, weren't they? Because if they were really telling falsehoods about LHO carrying a large bag, then those two liars would certainly have wanted to continue the deception by saying to the authorities that the bag they created out of thin air was big enough to hold the weapon that was obviously supposed to be inside that make-believe paper bag.

So many (stupid) conspiracy theories.

So little (common) sense do any of them make.

David Von Pein

October 16, 2009

-----------------

More....

jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/07/frazier-randle-and-paper-bag.html

It's just that no one noticed it but LHO had this really really long arm, about 36 inches or so that the package would fit between his hand and under arm. I know most people don't have an arm that long, but old LHO, well, he did. At least 36 inches, maybe even a little more....really,, he did.....

[Curtis Berkley]

Welcome to the forum, Curtis.

I have always wondered this, and perhaps you could clue me in. You say that you used to favor a conspiracy, but now you cannot find "one scintilla of credible evidence." Well, what evidence made you feel like there was a conspiracy in the first place? Is that evidence all void now? My point is that I feel like LNers always overcompensate and unfairly assert there to be no credible evidence. I believe there was a conspiracy and concede that there is indeed damning evidence against Oswald.

I feel like I say this weekly, but there are great researchers and authors on this forum whose work you should familiarize yourself. IMO, Check out patspeer.com: it's a good starting point to dispel myths that there is no evidence of a conspiracy.

Brian - thank you very much for the welcome.

I was a most reluctant concert, I assure you. I think that my belief in a conspiracy was the culmination of many things, chief of which, was that I simply wanted to believe that a conspiracy existed. In fact, albeit at the risk of painting with a too-broad brush, I think that is the central and necessary element of every conspiracy theorist - to want to believe it. From my own experience, I then spent considerable time and effort looking to support that desired conclusion. I only read what agreed with my opinion, and rejected anyone or anything which might challenge or otherwise fail to support it. Ultimately, I should have begun by challenging my own need to believe it, instead and first.

As information became more widely available, and I allowed myself to explore and give it honest consideration, the actual, provable, tangible, credible and empirical facts simply became impossible to ignore. Over time, I could not continue to reconcile my belief in a conspiracy theory, and at the expense of my own intellectual honesty. And so, I chose the latter.

I do not believe that there is one scintilla of evidence which has been produced or provided (admittedly, perhaps I have missed or misunderstood it), in any regard, which would allow a reasonable person's mind to conclude that there was any form of a conspiracy, whatsoever.

I do not make this claim to be either sensationalistic or inflammatory, to anyone or anything, but because I have fully and completely satisfied myself that the mere absence of any credible evidence is more than sufficient means to conclude that it's absence is, by definition, the result of it never having existed, at all.

As I've said - I am perfectly willing to admit my error, and would sincerely welcome it - but only at the presentment of empirically credible and independently verifiable proof and evidences. One of the best things about being on this side, is that it is the CT's who are making the claim, and are burdened with producing it's support and defense.

And therein lies the rather cyclic rub, it can be produced because it simply doesn't exist. And somewhere, I always knew that in the years before my "conversion", and maybe others have felt the same.

Have their been oddities? Curiosities? Coincidences? Any number of seemingly plausible theories, in whole or in part? Are there questions about particularities of often secondary (or tertiary) importance to the singular questikn of conspiracy. Certainly.

But evidence? None. Not one.

And this absence of proof necessarily prevents any definitive linking between Oswald and any of the dozens or so groups and people who probably rejoiced in Kennedy's death, in my opinion.

I will say this, and easily; I am certain that my level of knowledge and the amount of time I have researched the matter, sizable and long-standing as it has been - is dwarfed and comparitively insignificant to a great many of the regular posters, here. And I am happy to be educated by them all.

Curt, I'll bet that you can't give me one scintilla of evidence that LHO shot JFK. I'll bet that for a shot being fired from the snipers nest. I'll bet that for one bullet being fired into the limo from C2766. You want to prove LHO guilty, beyond a reasonable doubt, the floor is open.

I don't know if you're unfamiliar with how this works, or I am.

I was operating on the understanding that the official version of events was that LHO acted alone, and that no conspiracy exists.

You're claiming that LHO did not act alone? That a conspiracy did exist? Both?

The difference in our positions is that I am on the side of the truth, as best we know it. You claim to have proof of an alternative. But you need my proof, and my truth, so as to even substantiate the very means of your having an alternative and opposite position?

In other words, if my position was unproven, what then are you objecting to, exactly?

[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.

Ron -

I've done some checking, and I'd like your thoughts (or anyone else's) on the following, in regards to the placement of the head wound:

Dr. Michael Baden of the HSCA told me that X-rays and autopsy photos show that although there was damage to the cerebrum, the cerebellum was intact. Any doctors at Parkland, none of whom were pathologists, who said they saw damage to the cerebellum were wrong. They saw some brain tissue on Kennedys hair and they incorrectly assumed it was cerebellum tissue.

Indeed, with the entry wound to the presidents head being as high up as it was, it would have been virtually impossible for the cerebellum, in the lower part of the brain, to have been damaged, at least by the bullet.

The relevance of this issue, of course, is that since the cerebellum is located near the back of the head, finding pieces of cerebellum on the stretcher would be consistent with there being a large exit wound to the rear or right rear of the presidents head, where conspiracy theorists claim the head exit wound was.

Cerebellum certainly wouldnt likely have been expelled from any defect in the right front of the presidents head, where the Warren Commission and the autopsy surgeons concluded the exit wound was.

Yet several Parkland doctors claim they saw damaged and exposed cerebellum tissue (e.g., Dr. Charles Carrico, Dr. William Kemp Clark, Dr. Charles Baxter, Dr. Malcolm Perry, and Dr. Marion Jenkins). In his hospital report dated November 22, 1963, Dr. Jenkins wrote that the cerebellum had protruded from the [head] wound, and later testified to the Warren Commission in 1964 that the cerebellumwas herniated from the wound.

However, Jenkins changed his mind after seeing autopsy photographs in 1988, telling author Gerald Posner that the photos showed the Presidents brain was crenelated from the trauma, and it resembled cerebellum, but it was not cerebellar tissue. I think it has thrown off a lot of people that saw it.

And after interviewing Jenkins in 1992, Dennis Breo reported in JAMA that when Jenkins wrote in his 1963 report that the cerebellum had been blown out, he meant cerebrum.

When I spoke to Dr. Carrico, one of the doctors who testified he had seen damaged cerebellar tissue, I asked him if there was any possibility that the Parkland doctors were confused about the cerebellum being damaged.

Oh, absolutely, he immediately replied.

Why? I asked.

Looking at the shredded pieces of brain on the gurney, it looked like some of it had the characteristics of cerebellum, which kind of has a wavy surface. But because these brain pieces were shredded, this could easily have led to confusion as to whether it was all cerebrumwhich has broader bands across the surfaceor some cerebellum.

And in a telephone conversation in 1994, Dr. Boswell, in response to Parkland doctor Kemp Clarks claiming to have seen exposedcerebellar tissue, told Dr. Gary Aguilar, He was wrong. The right side of the cerebrum was so fragmented. I think what he saw and misinterpreted as cerebellum was that. Parkland doctor Robert Grossman, who said he was present in Trauma Room One during the effort to resuscitate the president, would later write that the autopsy demonstrated that the cerebellum was intact and that the physicians, including myself, who had thought hought that they had observed cerebellar tissue must have mistaken macerated brain for cerebellar folia

McClelland, who believes the shot to the head came from the grassy knoll, said he believed the president was struck around the hairline near the middle of his forehead. If that was so, I asked, how was it that seventeen pathologists, including Dr. Wecht, all agreed that the president was only struck twice, both times from the rear, and none of themfrom photographs, X-rays, and personal observation (by the three autopsy surgeons)saw any entrance wound to the presidents forehead? Again, McClelland, who acknowledged, Im not a pathologist and Ive never conducted an autopsy, said, I dont know the answer to your question.

Excerpt From: Bugliosi, Vincent. Reclaiming History: The Assassination of President John F. Kennedy. Harlequin, 2007.

So, if you don't believe me in claiming that the Parkland doctors were in error as to the location of the head wound...will you believe the same Parkland doctors in quwstion, where they have admitted to doing just that.

Edited June 8, 2015 by Curtis Berkley

[Kenneth Drew]

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.

"1. Is it possible that the attending physicians were simply wrong," let's see if I've got this right. You're a died in the wool, certified CTer, but then I see this absolutely convincing evidence such as "1. Is it possible that the attending physicians were simply wrong," and that wrapped it up for me, I converted to Lone Nutterism immediately because I was absolutely certain that is is possible that the attending physicians might be wrong. Talk about 'convincing proof', that sure sold me. No more conspiracy, all Lone Nutter all the way.......yeah, Hi yo silver,,,,,,,,,,awaaaaaaayy.

[Kenneth Drew]

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?

Any chance that any Nutter will ever prove that LHO ever owned a rifle, fired a shot, killed anyone? Nope, not a chance.

[Kenneth Drew]

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.

What's the difference? Every JFK conspiracy theorist everywhere in the world has been doing nothing BUT wasting his or her time since Kennedy was killed 52 years ago. And that's because they keep focusing on all the same wrong things--year after year. Nothing ever changes. CTers in 2015 are still pushing the very same myths that were being pushed in the 1960s by Mark Lane and Jim Garrison. Same crap, different decade. That's all.

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

Yeah, and I can see why. And so can other LNers at other forums around the Web. Such as one of the all-time best at putting forth so much truth and trouncing so many CTers (all with a bare minimum of verbiage) --- Bud at aaj....

BUD SAID [HERE AND HERE]:

"Just read this and saw that DVP had his posting privileges returned.

It was great to read DVP forcing those dolts to shove their heads up their own asses to avoid acknowledging the clear indications of the SBT.

[...]

[James Gordon] got angry because DVP was challenging his core beliefs. [Gordon] needs the SBT to be false because he needs Oswald to be a patsy.

Actually DVP was hammering these clowns with facts. They were getting destroyed in the debate so they had to make it into something DVP is doing wrong.

These conspiracy hobbyists can't wrap their heads around the notion that their ideas are not worthy of respect.

And you can go to the discussion on the SBT on Education Forum and see the number of snide remarks and put downs DVP had to endure. The difference being he didn't cry about it. He made his bones in the nuthouse, and you'll develop a tough skin in that place.

See, this hobbyist [James Gordon] is completely out of touch with reality. DVP was not parroting the WC or just throwing out unsupported opinions. He was backing up his contentions using the evidence. He was showing why he was right and these folks were wrong. And man did they hate that.

[...]

Some [...]clown named Robert Prudhomme keeps threatening to provide a "thrashing" on the issue but never seems to have anything to contribute. James Gordon is desperately trying to find justifications to ignore the clear indications that Connally was shot, and some other mental midget keeps popping in to say he doesn't bother arguing with LNers (and it's clear to see why not, he might be forced to think and defend his cherished fantasies). But they will never give in on this point as it would take them one step closer to the truth, and that is where they fear to tread." -- Bud; May 2015

Wow, I'm impressed.

[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.

"1. Is it possible that the attending physicians were simply wrong," let's see if I've got this right. You're a died in the wool, certified CTer, but then I see this absolutely convincing evidence such as "1. Is it possible that the attending physicians were simply wrong," and that wrapped it up for me, I converted to Lone Nutterism immediately because I was absolutely certain that is is possible that the attending physicians might be wrong. Talk about 'convincing proof', that sure sold me. No more conspiracy, all Lone Nutter all the way.......yeah, Hi yo silver,,,,,,,,,,awaaaaaaayy.

Kenneth -

Where did I say that this singular issue swayed me? Can you cite the post, or withdraw it?

Would you like to discuss this, or are you content to just make baseless assumptions that fit your personally preferred narrative?

I think that you have a lot to contribute, and are obviously passionate about your beliefs...why dilute that sizable ability with silliness like this?

I expected more from you, but understand that personal objectivity may be a bridge too far for you. No hard feelings, and thanks for chiming in.

[Kenneth Drew]

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.

"And the HSCA lied? Where, exactly? I'd like to look into that." Gee Curtis, you know EVERYTHING and you don't know where they lied? Simple just read it, you'll know them when you see them. They're everywhere....

[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.

"And the HSCA lied? Where, exactly? I'd like to look into that." Gee Curtis, you know EVERYTHING and you don't know where they lied? Simple just read it, you'll know them when you see them. They're everywhere....

Again, Kenneth, I think you're confused as to how it works.

It's the person who advances the claim who is required, by definition, to support it - and is not nor cannot be done by the person who did not make the claim.

Here's a very quick example, and see if you can spot the trouble in your logic.

1. I claim that you dress up as Mary Poppins and engage goats in an intimate way.

2. I now ask YOU to provide ME with proof that this statement is untrue, and failing that, insist that we should simply accept it as being the truth.

So now, Kenneth, you prove to me that assertion of your dressing as Mary Poppins and becoming intimate with goats is untrue.

And.....GO!

[Kenneth Drew]

"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).

and you're neutral, but all the Parkland doctors were 'mistaken' but all the Bethesda doctors had a noble goal to determine 'what really happened'. Need any water front property?

[Kenneth Drew]

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?

No you do not recall it correctly and NO that's not the only thing you do not recall correctly.

[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).

and you're neutral, but all the Parkland doctors were 'mistaken' but all the Bethesda doctors had a noble goal to determine 'what really happened'. Need any water front property?

I'll try to pick this up tomorrow. I've appreciated the back and forth, sans the silliness.

[Kenneth Drew]

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?

Because you're all the same. You were CTer's but you saw the light and now even though it took absolutely no evidence to prove to you that LHO was a Lone nut, you now want all CTer's to drop everything and provide absolute proof to you of every subject that can come up. That is the Nutter's game. Smoke screens and mirrors, distract from facts, ask useless, stupid questions. JFK was killed by more than one person, none of those were LHO. Prove otherwise. Cite me the facts that prove absolutely that LHO owned a rifle, that he had ever fired a rifle, that he ever even was in Dallas, that he ever heard of JFK. Seems like everyone would love to be welcomed that plays that game every day, every subject. Praise the Lord, another nutter...