Your Best Big Fact of a Conspiracy

[Dan Rice]

The one biggest factor as to why I believe the assassination was a conspiracy is the fact (in my mind, at least) that the single bullet theory trajectory does not work with the existing evidence (hole in JFK's jacket, autopsy photo of back).

Honorable mention reason is the fact that Oswald was impersonated in Mexico City and the official story claims that he was a 'lone nut'.

[James DiEugenio]

Can you believe that almost all of the first generation of critics overlooked just how important this was?

I mean Weisberg actually thought the WC did a nice job on this episode.

It was not until Garrison in 1968 that anyone looked at it suspiciously.

To me today, its central to the plot.

[Robert Prudhomme]

Can you believe that almost all of the first generation of critics overlooked just how important this was?

I mean Weisberg actually thought the WC did a nice job on this episode.

It was not until Garrison in 1968 that anyone looked at it suspiciously.

To me today, its central to the plot.

One look at the diagram prepared of the relationship of the Sniper's Nest to the limo at z224, showing the SN to be removed 9° laterally from a centre line running lengthwise through the limo, was enough to tell me the SBT was impossible; unless, of course, the bullet went through JFK's cervical vertebrae.

In order for the bullet to miss the right side of the cervical vertebrae, and still pass through the right side of JFK's trachea, it would have to be travelling a right to left path through JFK's neck of at least 26-28°. Even allowing for JFK's head being turned to the right 5°, this still required a right to left path of 21-23° through his neck.

This right to left path through JFK would have placed the bullet on a trajectory to the left of Connally, and it would have gone nowhere near Connally's right armpit.

P.S.

The trachea, at the level just below the Adam's apple, does not turn when the head turns.

Edited December 23, 2015 by Robert Prudhomme

[Curtis Berkley]

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.

Oftentimes, the trouble with conspiracists is that they sometimes see a conspiracy in everything.

I assure you that the introductory post that I wrote was my own, and is true.

Yes, in my opinion, there is not one scintilla - not a shred - of evidence which proves a conspiracy to assassinate JFK. I've been open and honest about holding that belief from the outset, and neither recant it now, nor make any apologies for it, whatsoever.

I am both willing and wanting to read, learn, study, discuss and debate the merits of any and all positions of belief and fact, notably, even those in stark contrast to my own. I will keep an open mind on anything, so long as reason and intellectual honesty allows it.

That's why I am here, to learn more, enjoy the discussion, and to make up my own mind. I'm not looking to ruffle feathers, to alienate myself, or anyone else, so I mainly lurk. But even so, a conspiracy, this does not make.

The "man behind this Curtis" - is just me. Always has been. Sorry?

[Curtis Berkley]

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.

As someone who does not believe there was a conspiracy to kill JFK, I don't place much stock in the ramblings of Jim Garrison.

None, actually.

[Curtis Berkley]

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....

What are your assertions on the shadows, exactly? And even if they have significance and merit - which, I honestly doubt, but will reserve that argument - first, walk me through it's meaning, to the point where it leads to conspiracy.

[Curtis Berkley]

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. Theres 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!

I can understand how some would dogmatically cling to any theory, however thoroughly disproven. I try not to do the same, but respect that others may.

As to the WC, I think that if most people actually read it, or Bugliosi's Reclaiming History, they'd find any suggestion of a conspiracy to be laughably misguided.

[Curtis Berkley]

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.

Jon - I disagree that "conspiracy" is the next logically valid position that must stem from a disagreement of the facts.

Perhaps simple human error would suffice, or incompetence, mixed intentions, inattention.

[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. Theres 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!

I can understand how some would dogmatically cling to any theory, however thoroughly disproven. I try not to do the same, but respect that others may.

As to the WC, I think that if most people actually read it, or Bugliosi's Reclaiming History, they'd find any suggestion of a conspiracy to be laughably misguided.

And I happen to agree with you on the WC.

But then when you read and review the evidence they used, the "laughably misguided" become those who fail to read all of that material and base their decision on the report alone.

It's kind of like raw intelligence on whether a particular country has stockpiles of WMD -- as opposed to what was actually reported to the people.

No doubt you never bothered checking any sources in all of those CT books you read when you were a "true believer" either.

It appears that the real 2,000 (millennium) bug was that that those whose computers were affected, were hypnotically programmed to read the WC and swallow every word.

Nothing to see here, folks. Chris is just your run-of-mill-logic-free "convert" who felt compelled to open his account here with the full "I Was once a CT just like YOU until I saw the light" spiel which is from a template for similar spiels you can read in numerous places on the web under numerous names.

Edited December 24, 2015 by Greg Parker

[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.

As someone who does not believe there was a conspiracy to kill JFK, I don't place much stock in the ramblings of Jim Garrison.

None, actually.

This completely misses my point.

If you read Garrison honestly, without calling his writing "ramblings", you will see the same reaction to the WR that both Bob Tanenbaum and Richard Sprague had when they ran the HSCA. See those men had not just the report, but the 26 volumes. (Garrison actually had three sets, one for his home, one for the office, and one for his car.) And they were professional prosecutors. Tanenbaum never lost a felony trial in New York. Sprague lost one. Garrison completely transformed the conviction rate of the New Orleans DA office. (See, if you read the right books you would not have to be clued in all of this.)

Therefore, when they read the evidence that allegedly backed up the WR assertions, they were shocked. I mean, Howard Brennan? (Tanenbaum is especially good on him.) Helen Markham? Marina Oswald with her, "That is the fateful rifle of Lee Harvey Oswald." After she said she never saw a rifle with a scope in her life.

These are the things that a professional prosecutor looks for. Because even though the WR was a prosecutors' brief, when you have to use these kinds of witnesses, the prosecution is not very strong. For example, without Brennan, how could the WC put Oswald in the so called "sniper's nest"? These were terrible witnesses, and a significant minority on the WC knew it e.g. Wesley Liebeler and Joe Ball.

As Tanenbaum also said, if that is not bad enough, when you start to add in the exculpatory evidence that was either minimized or left out, well to him, that was almost sick.

For example, what inquiry did Slawson and Coleman make into Mexico City? I have read their report, have you? Did you find it compelling in light of the Lopez Report? Do you prefer the former to the latter?

What inquiry did Specter make into the medical evidence? Have you read his examination of the doctors? Do you not find it weird that Specter never asked any of them why they did not dissect Kennedy's back wound? This is a homicide case by gunfire, why was that not done? That "rambling" Jim Garrison did ask Finck that at the trial of Clay Shaw. Have you read his answer? The Justice Dept. monitoring Shaw's trial went nuts when he said it. Do you not think that would have been important information for the public to read in the WR? Why is it not there then?

Why is Kennedy's reaction to the fatal shot in the Z film not described in the WR? Was that not important information for the public to have in 1964? We saw what happened when they got it in 1975, right?

Is there any description in the Warren Report about the many witnesses who saw a hole in the back of JFK's skull? Or those who saw cerebellum?

Do you also approve of the Rydberg drawings of the wound trajectories in the WC? Even though they are blatantly false?

Did the WR ever describe the damage done to Kennedy's brain? Did they ever explain why the brain was not sectioned in order to trace the path of the bullet(s) through it? Again this is a homicide case, death by gunshot, and this is how Kennedy was killed. Its normally SOP in any hearing or trial. Why is this one different?

Does the WR ever point out the fact that the rifle in evidence, is not the rifle they say Oswald ordered? Is that not important in a homicide case?

Does the WC note the fact that the Magic Bullet, CE 399, does not have Elmer Lee Todd's initials on it? It does not. In fact ithe WC says the opposite, that it does.

That is important because he was the guy who was supposed to have given the bullet to Frazier at FBi HQ at around 9:20 or later that night.

Except Curtis, Frazier already had the bullet by then. In fact he entered it into evidence a good hour and a half before that time. Did the WC note this anywhere in the 26 volumes? Please show me where they did.

Finally, in about 18,000 pages of testimony and evidence, do you see the name of David Phillips, or his aliases, anywhere? Yet, Belin said he saw every CIA document on the case, right? Yet the WC did not know that Phillips was running the CIA's anti FPCC campaign? How could that be if they saw everything?

Belin was either lying later, when he said that, or he was lying for them when he did not include it.

These are the kinds of people you find credible? After all, it was only the murder of a president, right?

Not one scintilla of evidence? You are correct. There is a mountain of it.

Edited December 24, 2015 by James DiEugenio

[Thomas Graves]

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.

As someone who does not believe there was a conspiracy to kill JFK, I don't place much stock in the ramblings of Jim Garrison.

None, actually.

This completely misses my point.

IF you read Garrison honestly, without calling his writing "ramblings" you will see the same reaction to the WR that both Bob Tanenbaum and Richard Sprague had when they ran the HSCA. See those men had not just the report but the 26 volumes. (Garrison actually had three sets, one for his home, one for the office, and one for his car.) And they were professional prosecutors. Tanenbaum never lost a felony trial in New York. Sprague lost one. Garrison completely transformed the conviction rate of the New Orleans DA office. (See, if you read the right books you would not have to be clued in all of this.)

Therefore, when they read the evidence that allegedly backed up the assertions, they were shocked. I mean , Howard Brennan? (Tanenbaum is especially good on him.) Helen Markham? Marina Oswald with her, "That is the fateful rifle of Lee Harvey Oswald." After she said she never saw a rifle with a scope in he life.

These are the things that a professional prosecutor looks for. Because even though the WR was a prosecutors' brief, when you have to use these kinds of witnesses, the prosecution is not very strong. For example, without Brennan, how could the WC put Oswald in the so called "sniper's nest"? These were terrinel witnesses, and a signifyscant minority on the WC knew it e.g. Wesley Liebeler and Joe Ball.

As Tanenbaum also said, if that is not bad enough, when you start to add in the exculpatory evidence that was either minimized or left out, well to him, that was almost sick.

For example, what inquiry did Slawson and Coleman make into Mexico City? I have read their report, have you? Did you find it compelling in light of the Lopez Report? Do you prefer the former to the latter?

What inquiry did Specter make into the medical evidence? Have you read his examination of the doctors? Do you not find it weird that Specter never asked any of them why they did not dissect Kennedy's back wound? This is a homicide case by gunfire, why was that not done? That "rambling" Jim Garrison did ask Finck that at the trial of Clay Shaw. Have you read his answer? Do you no think that would have been important information for the public to read in the WR? Why is it not there then?

Why is Kennedy's reaction to the fatal shot in the Z film not described in the WR? Was that not important information for the public to have in 1964? WE saw what happened when they got it in 1975, right?

Is there any description in the Warren Report about the many witnesses who saw a hole in the back of JFK's skull? Or those who saw cerebellum?

Do you also approve of the Rydberg drawings of the wound trajectories in the WC? Even though they are blatantly false?

Did the WR ever describe the damage done to Kennedy's brain? Did they ever explain why the brain was not sectioned in order to trace the path of the bullet(s) through it? Again this is a homicide case, death by gunshot, and this is how Kennedy was killed. Its normally SOP in any hearing or trial. Why is this one different?

Does the WR ever point out the fact that the rifle in evidence, is not the rifle they say Oswald ordered? Is that not important in a homicide case?

Does the WC note the fact that the Magic Bullet, CE 399, does not have Elmer Lee Todd's initials on it? It does not. In fact it says the opposite, that it does.

That is important because he was the guy who was supposed to have given the bullet to Frazier at FBi HQ at around 9:20 or later that night.

Except Curtis, that Frazier already had the bullet by then. In fact he entered it into evidence a good hour and a half before that time. Did the WC note this anywhere in the 26 volumes? Please show me where they did?

Finally, in about 18,000 pages of testimony and evidence, do you see the name of David Phillips, or his aliases, anywhere? Yet, Belin said he saw every CIA document on the case, right? Yet the WC did not know that Phillips was running the CIA's anti FPCC campaign? How could that be if he saw everything?

He was either lying later, when he said that, or he was lying for them when he did not include it.

These are the kinds of people you find credible? After all, it was only the murder of a president, right?

Sic 'em, Mr. DiEugenio!

--Tommy, the Droll

[Cliff Varnell]

E. Martin Schotz:

http://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/COPA1998EMS.html#s5

<quote on>

The Malignant Nature of Pseudo-Debate

Perhaps many people think that engaging in pseudo-debate is a benign activity. That it simply means that people are debating something that is irrelevant. This is not the case. I say this because every debate rests on a premise to which the debaters must agree, or there is no debate. In the case of pseudo-debate the premise is a lie. So in the pseudo-debate we have the parties to the debate agreeing to purvey a lie to the public. And it is all the more malignant because it is subtle. The unsuspecting person who is witness to the pseudo-debate does not understand that he is being passed a lie. He is not even aware that he is being passed a premise. It is so subtle that the premise just passes into the person as if it were reality. This premise – that there is uncertainly to be resolved – seems so benign. It is as easy as drinking a glass of treated water.

But the fact remains that there is no mystery except in the minds of those who are willing to drink this premise. The premise is a lie, and a society which agrees to drink such a lie ceases to perceive reality. This is what we mean by mass denial.

That the entire establishment has been willing to join in this process of cover-up by confusion creates an extreme form of problem for anyone who would seek to utter the truth. For these civilian institutions – the media, the universities and the government – once they begin engaging in denial of knowledge of the identity of the assassins, once they are drawn into the cover-up, a secondary motivation develops for them. Now they are not only protecting the state, they are now protecting themselves, because to expose the obviousness of the assassination and the false debate would be to reveal the corrupt role of all these institutions. And there is no question that these institutions are masters in self protection. Thus anyone who would attempt to confront the true cover-up must be prepared to confront virtually the entire society. And in doing this, one is inevitably going to be marginalized.

<quote off>

Edited December 24, 2015 by Cliff Varnell

[Pat Speer]

FWIW, Curtis, I briefly leaned LN after reading the WR and Posner. I still had some questions, though, and kept digging. I ended up realizing that the FBI report and subsequent WR were yessirree prosecutor's briefs designed to conceal the mountain of contradictory and/or exculpatory evidence re Oswald. Here's a little known example.

On 11-29-63, FBI agent James Anderton contacted Buell Frazier to see if he would budge as to the paper bag's being the bag he saw in Oswald's possession. Here is the relevant part of Anderton's report: "Mr. Frazier stated that between 11:00 PM and midnight, November 22, 1963, he was in the polygraph room of the Dallas Police Department and before taking the polygraph examination a police officer, name unknown to him, brought in a large paper sack, approximately three to four feet in length and the type a grocery store receives their five-pound bags of sugar in, specifically that the paper in the sack was very thick and stiff. He stated that this sack shown to him appeared to actually have been made by someone cutting down a larger sack. He said he told the police officer that this sack had never been seen by him before. He also said that this sack was definitely not the one he had observed in possession of Oswald the morning of November 22, 1963."

Note that Frazier is clear on this point. Not only did Frazier think the bag shown him was much larger than the bag he saw in Oswald's possession, but that it was the wrong kind of paper. Well, guess what? This report never made it to FBI headquarters. I don't think it even made it to NARA. The only reason we know about it is because Harold Weisberg brought a lawsuit against the FBI seeking access to the Dallas office's assassination file.

http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg%20Subject%20Index%20Files/F%20Disk/Frazier%20Buell%20Wesley/Item%2001.pdf

Now note that two days later, on 12-1-63, the FBI sent agents Bardwell Odum and Gibbon McNeeley out to see Frazier, to show him a replica sack made from paper from the building. According to their report, which was, not coincidentally, sent to headquarters and then the commission, Frazier "now realizes that his conclusion that the sack was thin, crinkly paper, of the type used in Five and Ten Cent stores, was based to a considerable extent upon the fact that the color of the sack was a very light brown as compared with the type of dark brown paper used for heavier grocery sacks. He noted that the color of the replica sack was the same color as the package which he had seen in possession of Oswald on the morning of November 22, 1963."

Odum then showed Frazier the original sack. He reported: "Frazier examined the original found by the sixth floor window of the TSBD Building on November 22,1963, and stated that if that sack was originally the color of the replica sack, it could have been the sack or package which he saw in the possession of Oswald on the morning of November 22, 1963, but that he does not feel he is in a position to definitely state that this original is or is not the sack."

The FBI then told the President, along with the Warren Commission, that Frazier "could not definitely state whether the bag was the one observed by him in Oswald's possession." Well, heck, this is a disgusting lie. It not only hid that Frazier had told the Dallas PD on 11-22-63 that it was not the bag, and that he was quite clear about this when speaking about this to the FBI on 11-29-63, but that he only wavered, if in fact he did waver, after being shown a replica bag made from paper---WHICH DID NOT MATCH THE PAPER IN THE ORIGINAL BAG. And that's but the half of it. It also hid that Frazier claimed the bag he saw was about 27 by 6 (162 square inches) and that the bag they were claiming it was was at least 38 by 8 1/2 (323 square inches)...nearly twice as big. So, NO, the truth was not that he could not state whether the bag he saw was the one, but that he DID state, repeatedly, that it was not the one.

Now, they could have been honest about this, and just said "Frazier doesn't recognize the bag, but we think he is mistaken." But they chose not to. They chose to lie. And leave Anderton's report in Dallas.

When one looks closely one will find a similar pattern when looking at the crime scene evidence, the gsr evidence, the medical evidence regarding the back wound, the tests performed at Edgewood Arsenal, the testimony regarding Oswald's shooting ability, etc. It's all lies and spin, designed to snow suckers. Now, I'm perfectly willing to believe some of the commission and their staff failed to understand how bad it was, and that some if not most of the HSCA staff were similarly unaware of the organized deception in their midst. But not all.

Edited December 24, 2015 by Pat Speer

[Greg Parker]

This completely misses my point

Curtis is always going to answer the question not asked if the questioned asked has any relevance or importance.

[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.

You asked for the most incontrovertible fact, so I intentionally stayed away from the medical evidence or how many shots were fired, etc. because these are open to interpretation and CTers and LNers are set in their ways and find the other side foolish and fall into the same trap of passé arguments.

Now, I understand a lot of conspiracy books, say Crossfire, are a laundry list of odd incongruities and legacy stories. A lot of what's in them is false, so it may not be hard for a LNer to look at them and think everything in them is false. But, how would you respond to my four points?