Your Best Big Fact of a Conspiracy

[Curtis Berkley]

What's your single biggest fact, the one which you believe to be most incontrovertible, and which you think best proves the case for a conspiracy in the assassination of JFK?

And I'd ask the same of those who do not suspect a conspiracy, at all, and who believe LHO acted entirely alone.

And to both sides, and all, what one piece of evidence could be produced that would automatically change your view - from conspiracy theorist to no conspiracy, and vice versa - if anything?

I read this forum from time to time, and quite enjoy it. I am often amazed, awe-struck even, at the depth and breadth of knowledge assembled here, and the expert-level attention to the faintest or most minutest detail. But, I often get lost in those weeds, and I fear that I (and perhaps others) often miss the larger picture. And it is that desire, to understand where it all begins for each of you, which prefaces my question.

Edited a typo.

Edited December 23, 2015 by Curtis Berkley

[Thomas Graves]

What's your single biggest fact, the one which you believe to be most incontrovertible, and which you think best proves the case for a conspiracy in the assassination of JFK?

And I'd ask the same of those who do not suspect a conspiracy, at all, and who believe LHO acted entirely alone.

And to both sides, and all, what one piece of evidence could be produced that would automatically change your view - from conspiracy theorist to no conspiracy, and vice versa - if anything?

I read this forum from time to time, and quite enjoy it. I am often amazed, awe-struck even, at the depth and breadth of knowledge assembled here, and the expert-level attention to the faintest or most minus detail. But, I often get lost in those weeds, and I fear that I (and perhaps others) often miss the larger picture. And it is that desire, to understand where it all begins for each of you, which prefaces my question.

Curtis,

And all the unintentional misinformation you'll find here, too (oftentimes naively imported here from the sloppy research or illogical leaps of paranoiac faith of highly-respected "experts" like John Armstrong, for example).

Welcome to The Forum.

--Tommy

PS Keep up the flattery. It goes a long way here.

Edited December 23, 2015 by Thomas Graves

[Curtis Berkley]

What's your single biggest fact, the one which you believe to be most incontrovertible, and which you think best proves the case for a conspiracy in the assassination of JFK?

And I'd ask the same of those who do not suspect a conspiracy, at all, and who believe LHO acted entirely alone.

And to both sides, and all, what one piece of evidence could be produced that would automatically change your view - from conspiracy theorist to no conspiracy, and vice versa - if anything?

I read this forum from time to time, and quite enjoy it. I am often amazed, awe-struck even, at the depth and breadth of knowledge assembled here, and the expert-level attention to the faintest or most minus detail. But, I often get lost in those weeds, and I fear that I (and perhaps others) often miss the larger picture. And it is that desire, to understand where it all begins for each of you, which prefaces my question.

Curtis,

And all the unintentional misinformation you'll find here, too (oftentimes naively imported here from the sloppy research or illogical leaps of paranoiac faith of highly-respected "experts" like John Armstrong, for example).

Welcome to The Forum.

--Tommy

PS Keep up the flattery. It goes a long way here.

Thanks. I'm an infrequent poster, but lurk and read when I can.

The compliment was sincere, and is quite true - this is just an entirely different level of discourse, from all "sides", and which I've yet to see replicated, elsewhere.

[Pat Speer]

What's your single biggest fact, the one which you believe to be most incontrovertible, and which you think best proves the case for a conspiracy in the assassination of JFK?

And I'd ask the same of those who do not suspect a conspiracy, at all, and who believe LHO acted entirely alone.

And to both sides, and all, what one piece of evidence could be produced that would automatically change your view - from conspiracy theorist to no conspiracy, and vice versa - if anything?

I read this forum from time to time, and quite enjoy it. I am often amazed, awe-struck even, at the depth and breadth of knowledge assembled here, and the expert-level attention to the faintest or most minutest detail. But, I often get lost in those weeds, and I fear that I (and perhaps others) often miss the larger picture. And it is that desire, to understand where it all begins for each of you, which prefaces my question.

Edited a typo.

I would say that the piece of evidence most damaging to the WC's conclusions is the autopsy photo showing Kennedy's back wound. Whether you think this wound is at T-1, as the HSCA Forensic Pathology Panel, claimed, or T-3, as Kennedy's doctor George Burkley initially reported, the fact remains that the wound in this photo is too low to support the single-bullet theory. Well, this in turn, shines a light on the clearly inaccurate drawings prepared for the WC, and the statements supporting the accuracy of these drawings by the likes of the autopsy doctors and Arlen Specter. As demonstrated in this video, it's clear they lied.

[James DiEugenio]

Curtis is not new, as evidenced by the note under his picture that he has 37 previous posts. And as I recall, he is a Krazy Kid Oswald advocate.

I never like this question. Because it reminds me of the whole Paul Hoch/Luis Alvarez charade.

The story goes like this: Alvarez asked Hoch for the most popular evidence of conspiracy in the JFK case. Hoch says, the Z film.

Then Hoch and Alvarez arrange the infamous experiment, which I do not have to reiterate here. Except they kept the outtakes secret for something like 40 years.

Finally when TInk Thompson got them from Hoch, we learned that Alvarez had--let us say--not been candid about the circumstances of the experiment. Which reduced its meaning to about zero. (BTW, in the nineties, Hoch wrote me a letter criticizing my first book in which he actually used this phony experiment to score my book.)

So I imagine that is what will happen here. People will trot out things, and Curtis will try and say they are faulty in some way.

But, since Speer had the chutzpah to try, I will also.

My old standby: CE 399 is faux.

http://www.ctka.net/2010/journeyCE399.html

Edited December 23, 2015 by James DiEugenio

[Cliff Varnell]

The prima facie case for conspiracy: the bullet holes in the clothes are too low to have been associated with the throat wound.

Everything else on this topic is pure equine offal.

A five year old could figure this out -- but so many want to pursue complicated arguments that serve nothing but the on-going cover-up.

[Cliff Varnell]

Whether you think this wound is at T-1, as the HSCA Forensic Pathology Panel, claimed, or T-3, as Kennedy's doctor George Burkley initially reported,

Job #1 of the JFK murder cover up -- suppression of the physical evidence.

Job #1 of JFK Pet Theorists -- suppression of the physical evidence and the T3 back wound.

[Robert Prudhomme]

Whether you think this wound is at T-1, as the HSCA Forensic Pathology Panel, claimed, or T-3, as Kennedy's doctor George Burkley initially reported,

Job #1 of the JFK murder cover up -- suppression of the physical evidence.

Job #1 of JFK Pet Theorists -- suppression of the physical evidence and the T3 back wound.

You'll never see me disagree with you on this one, Cliff. Entrance wound at T3, straight into the top of the right lung where the bullet disintegrated into powder.

[Greg Parker]

Curtis is not new, as evidenced by the note under his picture that he has 37 previous posts. And as I recall, he is a Krazy Kid Oswald advocate.

I never like this question. Because it reminds me of the whole Paul Hoch/Luis Alvarez charade.

The story goes like this: Alvarez asked Hoch for the most popular evidence of conspiracy in the JFK case. Hoch says, the Z film.

Then Hoch and Alvarez arrange the infamous experiment, which I do not have to reiterate here. Except they kept the outtakes secret for something like 40 years.

Finally when TInk Thompson got them from Hoch, we learned that Alvarez had--let us say--not been candid about the circumstances of the experiment. Which reduced its meaning to about zero. (BTW, in the nineties, Hoch wrote me a letter criticizing my first book in which he actually used this phony experiment to score my book.)

So I imagine that is what will happen here. People will trot out things, and Curtis will try and say they are faulty in some way.

But, since Speer had the chutzpah to try, I will also.

My old standby: CE 399 is faux.

http://www.ctka.net/2010/journeyCE399.html

Curtis was a dyed-in-the wool CT, until he finally read the Warren Report and converted.

His story reads like a form letter. I've read it at least a half a dozen times only written by others - all eerily similar in style and content. Occasionally, you can replace the Warren Report for Case Closed or Reclaiming History -- but the story is essentially the same. Even down to claiming now that CTs don't have a scintilla of convincing evidence to support them - and then being unable to adequately explain if CT's are so lacking, why were they a believer in the first place.

The man behind the Curtis needs to show his face.

[James DiEugenio]

Curtis was a dyed-in-the wool CT, until he finally read the Warren Report and converted.

LOL ROTF

The irony in this is rich. Because as everyone recalls, this is the reverse of what Garrison presented in his book.

[Guest]

Steel doesn't melt at 750 degrees F so they say......

Care to explain the shadows on JFK's back of his head when looking at it from 3 angles. Make that 4, I will throw in an autopsy pic as well, you'd think that mediacal pix would show extreme detail yet we have a large black patch now I wonder what would have caused that.......

Thrill me with your answer Curtis!

Moorman Polaroid, compare JFK's hair with Jacky's which shows no darkness at all, her hair was of a darker tone than John. Yet he has a massive black blob there, that section should have been illuminated instead of shadowed.

Zapruder shot from the opposite side....this doesn't bode well does it, shadow wise....you see what a nifty paint job this has become already......

Muchmore film , another crappy paint job to boot, compare it to Jacky's hair again and it doesn't make any sense. The spectators could have had a little dab as well just for consistency purposes.

The autopsy, love that jagged masked edge, no wonder the HSCA called in Ida Dox as no one would dare to lie through his/her teeth about the poor masking job on this one, must have been some hole there....

Edited December 23, 2015 by Bart Kamp

[Greg Parker]

Curtis was a dyed-in-the wool CT, until he finally read the Warren Report and converted.

LOL ROTF

The irony in this is rich. Because as everyone recalls, this is the reverse of what Garrison presented in his book.

Curtis' voluntarily shared epiphany http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=21956 " Later, and after the internet became a staple of our lives (sometime around 2000-01, maybe?), and it [the Warren Report] 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." Curtis Berkley

A former Mountie shares his moment of conversion while selling his aptly named book, "The JFK Assassination for Dummies" http://dyingwords.net/jfk-assassination-dummies/#sthash.DJ5fTTZn.dpbs

In 2000, I got the Internet and downloaded the Warren Report. After reading the narrative and a good chunk of the Appendices, including witness testimonies, my response was Holy XXXX! They investigated the XXXX out of this thing! Okay. There’s way more to this than CT bullXXXX .Garry Rodgers

Go ahead and explain how these guys are channeling each other. But ya gotta love how everything is flipped. The internet is supposed to have caused the explosion in conspiracy theories - but not for these two - no sireee, for these two it was a chance to read the Warren Report and shed their CT skins! and Hallelujah, Brother, they're gonna spread the word!

Edited December 23, 2015 by Greg Parker

[Ray Mitcham]

Filtered part of Moorman by Tom Wilson, showing the hole in the back of KFK's head.

(Photo is screen grab on Kindle.)

[Jon G. Tidd]

The single most important fact is that there is deep, widespread disagreement as to the facts. There shouldn't be. Wound locations, wound dissections, measurements based on fixed landmarks -- all should be crystal clear and not disputable. Photographic and x-ray records should not be disputable. It goes on and on. The factual record is a mess. That fact screams conspiracy.

[Brian Schmidt]

My top four non-medical or ballistic pieces of evidence, in no particular order:

1. Oswald was impersonated in Mexico City.

2. The confession of John Martino, who had foreknowledge of the assassination, and was demonstrably linked to at least two CIA assets who would also confess later in life--both of whom he shouldn't have known about their agency connections at the time if he were making it up. His knowledge of tactical details can also be independently corroborated.

3. On the 50th anniversary of the assassination, former French president Valéry Giscard d'Estaing went public saying that Gerald Ford had told him there was indeed a plot to kill Kennedy and the Warren Commission knew it but couldn't figure out who was behind it.

4. The striking similarities between Lee Harvey Oswald and Thomas Arthur Vallee, who was taken into custody following the thwarted Chicago plot to assassinate Kennedy on November 2, 1963.