Jump to content
The Education Forum

Your Best Big Fact of a Conspiracy


Recommended Posts

Okay, here is my theory, on behalf of the LN community. (I want to take credit for this theory before the LNs come up with it themselves.) The bullet that fell out of Connally's thigh hit the floor and bounced out the door onto a passing gurney, where it was later found (CE399). The bullet that the nurse picked up, thinking it had just fallen to the floor, was actually a bullet inadvertently left on the floor from a previous multiple- gunshot case. (Hopefully such a case before Connally's can be verified.)

I will call this new version of the SBT the BSBT (the Bouncing Single Bullet Theory).

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 145
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

off the top o me head, a few "smoking guns" (what a lovely American expression) in no special order:

1. blowout right rear of JFK's head, seen by 68 at Parkland.

2. hole in JFK's shirt and jacket at T4 level between spine and scapula, moved to shoulder by G Ford, A Specter and WARren COmmissioN.

3. hole in JFK's LEFT temple, seen at Parkland by Father Huber, Dr. Jenkins, and at Gawler's by the morticians; ignored of course by War Con.

4. evidence that disappeared or was messed with-- 1.Harper fragment; 2. bullet that fell from JBC's left thigh; 3. bullet that rolled out of JFK's clothing at Bethesda, seen by Adm. Osborne, FBI Sibert and O'Neill (thanks again, Ron Ecker, for helping me remember that), and many others; 4. original Darrell Tomlinson bullet (planted by our old pal Jack Ruby, there can be no doubt), which was pointy and about .30-30 caliber, AND was found on the stretcher of a two year old boy (Thanks, Josiah Thompson); 5. curb beside James Tague (well actually that was patched as soon as FBI saw they could ignore it no longer); 6. Stemmons Freeway sign (long story).

5. films that disappeared -- 1. Beverly Oliver's; 2. Gordon Arnold's; 3-8. time and space prevent...

6. films and photos, both at the crime scene and at the autopsy, that were messed with -- just about every stinking one of them that was not shown to a wide audience post haste.

7. limo damage ignored, suppressed, or downplayed -- 1. BIG dent in chrome windscreen trim, the hardest material known to man at the time; 2. damage to back of rear-view mirror*** 3. windshield glass hole or mark (?) not documented as which. Why not?/ 4. dent in chrome ashtray on back of front seat, caused by fragment of the SECOND shot to JBC that went through wrist. This ashtray dent is maybe the most suppressed piece of evidence in the assass.

8. bullet marks outside the limo --1 N Elm sidewalk; 2. S lane of Elm at Jean Hill's feet; 3. Stemmons sign; 4. S curb of Main beside James Tague; 5. manhole cover beyond Jean Hill, though that could have been the same bullet that ricocheted in front of her. Probably came from Braden/Brading in Dal-Tex or Harry Weatherstone atop Dallas County Records Bldg with his fancy new customized hunting iron w/suppressor.

9. Jack Ruby, who "had no significant connections to organized crime" y'know, according to War Con. Problem is he had nothing but significant connections to organized crime, practically from the Mother's Milk.

10. LHO lookalikes/impersonators Larry Crafard and William Seymour and probably others. I lost track of how many times Lee Oswald was impersonated.

11 through 1,000,000,000,000 take your pick.

Here's a question for the Nutters: Which of these Top Ten Conspiracy Proofs do you think is NOT evidence of an obvious plot? PLEASE do not start a new topic with that question. Just put your answers down in this thread, O Thersiteses.

The whole rest of the world knows it was a massive, obvious plot. Only certain Americans...nuff said.

***Was it Phil Dragoo who recently reminded us of that Kierkegaard observation, something like, "You had to have lived it, but it only becomes clear in the rear view."?

Edited by Roy Wieselquist
Link to post
Share on other sites

Best big fact - LHO being shot in police custody on the Sunday.(Darren Hastings #66) AMEN.

Dead scapegoats tell no tales.

And the looks on the mugs of DPD -- priceless. They're looking off into space, planned ignorance. Slower reaction time than a turtle. Jim Leavelle especially. He had been cuffed to Oswald for almost an hour (Marrs, new Crossfire, p 402). They were waiting to get word that JR finished his "errand" at Western Union.

All of Europe knew "the fix was in" when Ruby gunned down Lee Oswald. Vince Salandria said he told his brother and friends on 11-23 that if LHO was assassinated like JFK, then it was an obvious conspiracy, a coup d'etat. So 11-24 started his life-long research into the Military Fascist Takeover that still rules us.

Edited by Roy Wieselquist
Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

For me, just the opposite was true - I believed the many CT books that I read, almost universally, and without either much scrutiny or independent verification. Of course, as a mainstay of any CT book, this included my whole-cloth belief in their damning assertions as to the WC's incompetence, insidious motives, etc. It wasn't until years later, when I actually read it for myself (frankly, the CT books had convinced me that I needn't waste any time in reading it....and therein lied the hook), that my opinion began to change.

I do not claim that the WC report is infallible, and in fact, would not even claim to be so intimately familiar with such a voluminous work as to know where every error occurred, or to have accurately discerned what intention - however innocent or insidious - it belies, if any. However, I certainly have neither seen nor heard of a compelling argument to suggest that the work resulted from, or was intended to, cover-up and explain away a conspiracy. The mere fact that the POTUS appointed a multi-member Commission to investigate the assassination of President Kennedy seems to be an inauspicious point along the conspiratorial continuum, to say the very least. But in fairness, even that pales in comparison to the inconceivable notion that the same group of conspirators could be so powerful as to orchestrate the assassination of the President of the US, brilliant enough to stifle any credible evidence of its existence (and for well over 50 years), on one hand, but were so bumblingly inept as to hatch a plan whereby the "alleged"(?) assassin / patsy / sympathetic figure / second gunman / right-wing wacko / left-wing nutjob (insert the title of your choice, here) would flee the area of assassination via a public bus, on the other hand.

I think that the WC took on a monumental task, in both scope and importance, with a genuine sincerity to uncover the truth of what occurred, and that their arrived conclusion comes as close to the truth as anything I had read before, or have since seen. I believe that history will treat the WC report much more favorably, and with infinitely greater credibility, than the legions of other, lesser, unproven and speculative conspiratorial poppycock that others have for so long and vociferously clambered on about. And such will simply and quietly occur, with the mere passage of time. The truth, if nothing else, endures.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

moormanXdS.jpg

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......vlcsnap-2015-05-15-12h10m08s240.png

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.

Picture_57.jpg

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....

a3.jpg

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.

There's no point explaining this if you do not understand the physical implications of these so called shadows, seriously!

Steel doesn't melt at 750 degrees F either.

Any way best for you not to touch this subject then.

I'll concern myself with what I am capable to comprehend, and the subjects I touch or forego.

If you can explain and support your position, please do so.

Link to post
Share on other sites
The "man behind this Curtis" - is just me. Always has been. Sorry?

It was a joke, Curtis.

But it is still a fact that there is an eerie similarity between the non-required, non requested history of your metamorphosis and numerous others I have read over the years. In fact, being non-required and non-requested is another similarity with those others in itself. It's just an observation, Curtis. One based on... well.... fact. Others can make of it what they will. All I will say is that the points of commonality with those others is quite uncanny.

What did you do in the navy, Curtis? Just curious...

I appreciate that you intended it in jest.

I gave the history of my metamorphosis for two reasons, first as a mere introduction (I thought it mannerly), and second, out of a respectful desire to be completely transparent with my position on the matter, and right from the outset (I thought it honest).

I served in the US Navy for 5.5 years (my ship was about to go to dry dock and I was granted an early discharge, so as to begin college) and worked as a Hull Technician, in the NDT Lab. Don't mind answering at all, I am keenly proud of my service, even as largely non-descript as it was.

Link to post
Share on other sites
The "man behind this Curtis" - is just me. Always has been. Sorry?

It was a joke, Curtis.

But it is still a fact that there is an eerie similarity between the non-required, non requested history of your metamorphosis and numerous others I have read over the years. In fact, being non-required and non-requested is another similarity with those others in itself. It's just an observation, Curtis. One based on... well.... fact. Others can make of it what they will. All I will say is that the points of commonality with those others is quite uncanny.

What did you do in the navy, Curtis? Just curious...

Nice subtle smear job, Greg.

(I just linked your new 2-volume book to my FB page today, and wrote, "Greg Parker is an excellent researcher."

Pretty devious of me, eh?)

--Tommy, the Droll :sun

Subtle? Smear Job? Could all be coincidental, Tommy. That however does nothing to alter the facts of that very similarity.

I've already given one example. Here's another: "In around 2000-2001, my thinking on conspiracy theories changed dramatically. Every time I subjected a claim to logical scrutiny, it fell apart. I read the entire Warren Commission report. " http://conspiracies.skepticproject.com/blog/93/jfk-100-days-of-debunking-on-twitter-an-analysis-of-jfk-conspiracies/

There is no truth at all to the rumor that if you name the Devil, he disappears.

Thanks for the plug!

I'm replying to Greg, here, but anyone can answer this, as they may know or feel so inclined:

Who is it that I am supposedly so likened to, exactly? Or, is Greg just saying that I am like any other "LN", instead of just one in particular?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Gee, where'd Curtis go?

The last time he left was after someone here (I forget who, was it me?) brought up the Bethesda witnesses to the large wound in back of the head whose statements were suppressed by the lying HSCA. I was kind of surprised to see him pop up again, but maybe he thinks we have short memories.

I've been here the entire time, reading from time to time, but generally busy with several things unrelated to this board. I didn't think that constituted my having "left", and certainly, anyone who perceived my absence (in my posting) as having anything to do with any discussion, is in error.

I know that I disagree with a great many here, but I enjoy learning about and discussing it, and so I remain. To be honest in stating my own beliefs while not alienating anyone for theirs is a fine line to walk, and perhaps I am not doing a very good job of it, despite my best and sincere efforts.

Link to post
Share on other sites

For me, just the opposite was true - I believed the many CT books that I read, almost universally, and without either much scrutiny or independent verification. Of course, as a mainstay of any CT book, this included my whole-cloth belief in their damning assertions as to the WC's incompetence, insidious motives, etc. It wasn't until years later, when I actually read it for myself (frankly, the CT books had convinced me that I needn't waste any time in reading it....and therein lied the hook), that my opinion began to change.

I do not claim that the WC report is infallible, and in fact, would not even claim to be so intimately familiar with such a voluminous work as to know where every error occurred, or to have accurately discerned what intention - however innocent or insidious - it belies, if any. However, I certainly have neither seen nor heard of a compelling argument to suggest that the work resulted from, or was intended to, cover-up and explain away a conspiracy. The mere fact that the POTUS appointed a multi-member Commission to investigate the assassination of President Kennedy seems to be an inauspicious point along the conspiratorial continuum, to say the very least. But in fairness, even that pales in comparison to the inconceivable notion that the same group of conspirators could be so powerful as to orchestrate the assassination of the President of the US, brilliant enough to stifle any credible evidence of its existence (and for well over 50 years), on one hand, but were so bumblingly inept as to hatch a plan whereby the "alleged"(?) assassin / patsy / sympathetic figure / second gunman / right-wing wacko / left-wing nutjob (insert the title of your choice, here) would flee the area of assassination via a public bus, on the other hand.

I think that the WC took on a monumental task, in both scope and importance, with a genuine sincerity to uncover the truth of what occurred, and that their arrived conclusion comes as close to the truth as anything I had read before, or have since seen. I believe that history will treat the WC report much more favorably, and with infinitely greater credibility, than the legions of other, lesser, unproven and speculative conspiratorial poppycock that others have for so long and vociferously clambered on about. And such will simply and quietly occur, with the mere passage of time. The truth, if nothing else, endures.

" I believed the many CT books that I read, almost universally, and without either much scrutiny or independent verification" Which is exactly what I said, Curtis."No doubt you never bothered checking any sources in all of those CT books you read when you were a "true believer" either."

It is a problem on both sides of the Great Divide. Too few check sources for accuracy.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The single bullet theory itself is ludicrous enough, but during Dr. Robert Shaw's press conference immediately after operating on John Connally, he states very clearly that the bullet is still in his thigh and will be removed when his condition is stabilized.

I think the man would know what he was talking about so there goes the future SBT right there. The fact that it was proposed in the first place is proof the WC was dishonest and had an agenda in making Oswald guilty; and the only reason to have this agenda is to conceal a conspiracy.

.

Perhaps the good doctor, having later admitted to not closely examining the wound, was not aware that the bullet was not in Connally's thigh, when he made this initial statement?

But this one error - seemingly, which he later explained and recanted - is enough to throw out the SBT, to indict the WC, to charge Fritz, etc.

I cannot understand such bounding leaps of logic, from those facts.

Link to post
Share on other sites

For me, just the opposite was true - I believed the many CT books that I read, almost universally, and without either much scrutiny or independent verification. Of course, as a mainstay of any CT book, this included my whole-cloth belief in their damning assertions as to the WC's incompetence, insidious motives, etc. It wasn't until years later, when I actually read it for myself (frankly, the CT books had convinced me that I needn't waste any time in reading it....and therein lied the hook), that my opinion began to change.

I do not claim that the WC report is infallible, and in fact, would not even claim to be so intimately familiar with such a voluminous work as to know where every error occurred, or to have accurately discerned what intention - however innocent or insidious - it belies, if any. However, I certainly have neither seen nor heard of a compelling argument to suggest that the work resulted from, or was intended to, cover-up and explain away a conspiracy. The mere fact that the POTUS appointed a multi-member Commission to investigate the assassination of President Kennedy seems to be an inauspicious point along the conspiratorial continuum, to say the very least. But in fairness, even that pales in comparison to the inconceivable notion that the same group of conspirators could be so powerful as to orchestrate the assassination of the President of the US, brilliant enough to stifle any credible evidence of its existence (and for well over 50 years), on one hand, but were so bumblingly inept as to hatch a plan whereby the "alleged"(?) assassin / patsy / sympathetic figure / second gunman / right-wing wacko / left-wing nutjob (insert the title of your choice, here) would flee the area of assassination via a public bus, on the other hand.

I think that the WC took on a monumental task, in both scope and importance, with a genuine sincerity to uncover the truth of what occurred, and that their arrived conclusion comes as close to the truth as anything I had read before, or have since seen. I believe that history will treat the WC report much more favorably, and with infinitely greater credibility, than the legions of other, lesser, unproven and speculative conspiratorial poppycock that others have for so long and vociferously clambered on about. And such will simply and quietly occur, with the mere passage of time. The truth, if nothing else, endures.

" I believed the many CT books that I read, almost universally, and without either much scrutiny or independent verification" Which is exactly what I said, Curtis."No doubt you never bothered checking any sources in all of those CT books you read when you were a "true believer" either."

It is a problem on both sides of the Great Divide. Too few check sources for accuracy.

And I agreed with you, and remain to do so.

I was merely pointing out that I would have likely kept a much more open mind, and from very early on, had I more closely scrutinized what I was reading.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...