Your Best Big Fact of a Conspiracy

[Greg Parker]

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

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?

Gee, Curtis, I've supplied 3 people. How many more do you want? All I did was point out a fact. All of you cited reading the WCR off the internet in 2000 as the reason for your "conversion". Not only is this a coincidence in itself, but so is the fact that all of you all felt the need to provide the full details of your "conversion" online without being asked or prompted. What anyone makes of this is up to them. I'm just the messenger.

I will say that anyone who claims to believe the Warren Commission Report has either not read the underlying evidence, OR did, but didn't understand it, OR refuses to believe the truth of it as a matter of blind faith, OR is being paid to support it online. You're in one of those categories, Curtis. I have no idea which one, nor do I care.

Edited December 28, 2015 by Greg Parker

[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?

Curtis Berkley still won't respond.

[Curtis Berkley]

Greg, surely you understand that the WC report was not widely available, or readily accessible, to a great many people, prior to the internet, right? Wouldn't it make sense, and should even be expected, that some would change their minds, after having read it?

And, again, I'll simply say that I introduced myself as mannered nicety, and to be transparently honest about my personal belief on the subject we are discussing. I thought that this would be most preferred and appreciated, but perhaps not, by some.

I think that I understand you much better, after having read your final paragraph. Anyone who believes in the accuracy of the WC report is either willfully ignorant, dumb, operating on faith alone, getting "paid to support it online" (my personal favorite) or some combination, thereof. If that is your belief, and I trust that it is, then I don't see how meaningful discussion is possible or any reason for me to continue to engage you.

But, one last question - a favor, actually - if you could PM with a link to that agency which will pay me to be online in support of LHO's having acted alone, I'd very much appreciate it. No sense in giving away the milk for free, and all.

Thanks, in advance.

[Curtis Berkley]

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?

Curtis Berkley still won't respond.

Sorry, I was defending my personhood from Greg's allegations. Apparently, I am one of four people who changed their mind in 2000, and that set some alarm bells to ringing, somewhere.

Send me whatever sources you've got to support each claim, I'd love to see all of them, and will be glad to respond, once I've looked them over.

[Brian Schmidt]

No problem. I'll PM you, Curtis.

[James DiEugenio]

CB: Greg, surely you understand that the WC report was not widely available, or readily accessible, to a great many people, prior to the internet, right?

Are you serious?

What do you mean, prior to the internet? About 2000?

When Olvier Stone's movie came out,, the WR was everywhere. This was back in late 1991, and early 1992.

​But prior to that, almost every library of any medium sized town had the report. .And many of them had the 26 volumes. Further, you could go to almost any large used book store and find it.

The 26 volumes is a different story. But the WR was easily available to anyone who wanted to read it.

Edited December 28, 2015 by James DiEugenio

[Greg Parker]

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?

Curtis Berkley still won't respond.

Sorry, I was defending my personhood from Greg's allegations. Apparently, I am one of four people who changed their mind in 2000, and that set some alarm bells to ringing, somewhere.

Send me whatever sources you've got to support each claim, I'd love to see all of them, and will be glad to respond, once I've looked them over.

Not quite that simple, Curtis. One of 4 noted here-- but only one of many more seen over the years. All the same MO. A big song and dance about what dedicated CTers they were - until reading the WCR, Case Closed or the Bugs book - take your pick. All baring their souls unsolicited like good members of CT Anonymous standing up to confess.

Maybe the similarities are due solely because of shared psychopathy?

Heck Curtis, that could be it. I mean, you never see it the other way around. When was the last time someone made any unsolicited post about how the used to be a died-in-the-wool LN but converted after reading CTKA online in 2000! I'd say it was somewhere around the 12th of never. Are we to believe from that, that no one ever changes from being LN - that once LN, always LN, or is there something else at play that makes former CTs confess online, risking the wrath of people like me, but never former LN's- even though they would be greeted with open arms?

Psychopathy! That must be it, After all, you've poured poo-poo over every other suggestion.

Edited December 28, 2015 by Greg Parker

[Robert Prudhomme]

Hank Williams – I Saw The Light

I wandered so aimless life filed with sin
I wouldn't let my dear savior in
Then Jesus came like a stranger in the night
Praise the lord I saw the light.

[Chorus]
I saw the light I saw the light
No more darkness no more night
Now I'm so happy no sorrow in sight
Praise the lord I saw the light.

Just like a blind man I wandered along
Worries and fears I claimed for my own
Then like the blind man that god gave back his sight
Praise the lord I saw the light.

[Chorus]

I was a fool to wander and astray
Straight is the gate and narrow the way
Now I have traded the wrong for the right
Praise the lord I saw the light.

[Curtis Berkley]

CB: Greg, surely you understand that the WC report was not widely available, or readily accessible, to a great many people, prior to the internet, right?

Are you serious?

What do you mean, prior to the internet? About 2000?

When Olvier Stone's movie came out,, the WR was everywhere. This was back in late 1991, and early 1992.

​But prior to that, almost every library of any medium sized town had the report. .And many of them had the 26 volumes. Further, you could go to almost any large used book store and find it.

The 26 volumes is a different story. But the WR was easily available to anyone who wanted to read it.

James -

I'm not saying that the WC was unavailable prior to 2000. I guess my point was that it became exponentially more widely, readily and easily accessible with the proliferation of the Internet, both for myself and millions of others. Hence, I don't think it should be particularly surprising that a great many people used that increased opportunity of access, read it (or some portion, thereof), perhaps even for the first time, and found it to be compelling, in some regard. In my opinion, and given that, it seems entirely unremarkable that several people shared that experience, and in and around that time, as such seems so reasonable as to be expected.

I'm not sure how we've arrived at the point that I need to explain and recuse myself of being amongst that millennial group, but then, I'm learning that you can never fail to be too vigilant in the hunt for conspirators, plants and moles, and if not real, then the imagined.

But that's my answer. Hope it helps.

[Curtis Berkley]

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?

Curtis Berkley still won't respond.

Sorry, I was defending my personhood from Greg's allegations. Apparently, I am one of four people who changed their mind in 2000, and that set some alarm bells to ringing, somewhere.

Send me whatever sources you've got to support each claim, I'd love to see all of them, and will be glad to respond, once I've looked them over.

Not quite that simple, Curtis. One of 4 noted here-- but only one of many more seen over the years. All the same MO. A big song and dance about what dedicated CTers they were - until reading the WCR, Case Closed or the Bugs book - take your pick. All baring their souls unsolicited like good members of CT Anonymous standing up to confess.

Maybe the similarities are due solely because of shared psychopathy?

Heck Curtis, that could be it. I mean, you never see it the other way around. When was the last time someone made any unsolicited post about how the used to be a died-in-the-wool LN but converted after reading CTKA online in 2000! I'd say it was somewhere around the 12th of never. Are we to believe from that, that no one ever changes from being LN - that once LN, always LN, or is there something else at play that makes former CTs confess online, risking the wrath of people like me, but never former LN's- even though they would be greeted with open arms?

Psychopathy! That must be it, After all, you've poured poo-poo over every other suggestion.

Perhaps you err in assuming that I have given any consideration to the potentiality of your "wrath", or anyone else's, whatsoever. I assure you that I have not and will not, trusting that this forum is beyond such silliness as that.

I'm struggling to even conceive of what that looks like, actually, and am not sure that I could identify when and where the "wrath" of a message board poster might be unleashed upon me. Will it appear in all caps? A different font? Bold? Perhaps it will include a tell-tale sign, like a frown-faced emoji?

Absent your guided help in that, I will simply continue to assume that such "wrath" is present in any post which innately compels me to hum the faint strains of circus music, while reading it. And while maybe not the most accurate method of discernment, the music will at least, and perhaps appropriately, conjure up good feelings for me, nonetheless, as I will be reminded of my favorite part of any circus, which is the sending in of the clowns

Ironically enough, this word also begins with a "c" - which I understand your predilection for words such as those, from your recent and previous posts. So, perhaps we've found some common ground, after all. And I'm most glad for it, friend.

[Curtis Berkley]

Hank Williams I Saw The Light

I wandered so aimless life filed with sin

I wouldn't let my dear savior in

Then Jesus came like a stranger in the night

Praise the lord I saw the light.

[Chorus]

I saw the light I saw the light

No more darkness no more night

Now I'm so happy no sorrow in sight

Praise the lord I saw the light.

Just like a blind man I wandered along

Worries and fears I claimed for my own

Then like the blind man that god gave back his sight

Praise the lord I saw the light.

[Chorus]

I was a fool to wander and astray

Straight is the gate and narrow the way

Now I have traded the wrong for the right

Praise the lord I saw the light.

I love this song, particularly when sung by Hank Williams.

But I'm entirely unsure as to what you intend in posting it, Robert. It seems a curiously disconnected addition to the topic, so much so that one could assume that you may have intended it merely to chide (mock?) me.

I'm sure that's not the case, but an explanation of its inclusion might be helpful, if only to best ensure that no one else might mistakenly read it in such a negative light, and think you some sort of sophomorically-challenged scofflaw.

[Robert Prudhomme]

"Sarcasm is lost on fools and little children." ~~ author unknown ~~

[Curtis Berkley]

"Sarcasm is lost on fools and little children." ~~ author unknown ~~

"It is better to debate a question without settling it than to settle a question without debating it."

-Joseph Joubert

[Curtis Berkley]

Or, if anyone may perhaps most prefer:

"When you resort to attacking the messenger and not the message, you have lost the debate.

- Addison Whithecomb

[Robert Prudhomme]

"The lady doth protest too much, methinks" ~~ William Shakespeare ~~