Jump to content
The Education Forum

Your Best Big Fact of a Conspiracy


Recommended Posts

A couple of pages back, I made a post regarding Dr. Robert Shaw's press conference after operating on John Connally and him saying a bullet was still lodged in his thigh and would be removed at a later date. Anyway, that discussion seems to have been lost amongst anagrams, song lyrics and pointless back and forth.

So back to Shaw's comments. Do they negate the SBT? Yes. Is Shaw wrong? No. Given he has just come from the operating room, he would know what was going on there. Regardless of what was to later happen, Shaw's comments at that moment are powerful, telling and proof that evidence was conspiratorially manipulated to frame LHO as a lone gunman.

James - didn't the same doctor also admit that he had not closely examined the wound when he made that statement, and later recanted it?

If so, doesn't that put it to rest?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 145
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Sorry, David. I'll go with Shaw's immediate comments after leaving the operating theatre, not something said months later when agendas had been established.

Should I also add Dr. Shaw to the list of conspirators?

If so, please cite the requisite proof that supports your claim that he only later changed his story, and once "agendas had been established". Absent some compelling evidence, it's a baseless claim, and you appear to simply be unwilling to abandon it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

CB: LHO would be convicted in any court in America, and neither Daniel Webster nor Alan Dershowitz could save him.

:help

So Curtis, you know better than the following lawyers who have studied the case closely and in an official status;

Jeremy Gunn (ARRB)

Bob Tanenbaum (HSCA)

Dick Sprague (HSCA)

Dave Marston (Church Committee)

​Now I am sure you are aware that even in Dallas during the 50th, a jury would not convict Oswald. And that was with the old evidence.

​So now today, with every link in the chain of the ballistics evidence broken--that is the rifle, CE 399, the shells, and NAA proven a hoax--you are saying that the case against Oswald would be a slam dunk?

​But let us not stop there: what about the medical evidence? Would you want to put someone like McClelland on the stand? How about Jenkins?

Would you want to test the photographs and x rays with witness testimony?

​What about what we know about Oswald today?

​Give us a ll a break will you? YOU have not come up with one good reply to any of this stuff that we have submitted, just like I knew you would. And you jettison Shaw just like all the Krazy Kid Oswald sycophants do, by relying on later testimony rather than on first day testimony. And you have no problem doing that.

Yeah sure. Keep on reading that WR, you are making converts by the hour.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BTW, don't you just love this one by Curtis:

Should I also add Dr. Shaw to the list of conspirators?

All the Krazy Kid Oswald zealots have that one memorized.

My reply is:

​OK Curtis, go back to the evidentiary record and please note all the twists and turns in both the evidence and the testimony in a complete and comprehensive way, and in every aspect of the case. And this includes everything: physical evidence, medical evidence, witness testimony. Everything.

Why don't you start off with S. M. Holland and how he told Thompson that the WC edited his testimony.

​How about what the WC and Dallas Police did to Vickie Adams?

What about what Alyea said the DPD did with the shells at the scene?

How about Sylvia Meagher's landmark article about Givens?

What about what John Newman wrote in Oswald and the CIA, that the FBI excised the evidence that showed Oswald's flyers with the address 544 Camp Street?

What about the FBI lying about Hall, Seymour and Howard being at Sylvia Odio's to deliberately discredit her?

​What about the particle trail that disappeared on the X rays, which Humes was so befuddled by in front of the ARRB?

How about Malcolm Perry's first day testimony about the neck entry wound?

Now this list could go on and on and on, ad infinitum, because that is how extensive the distortions and alterations are. Only someone as discredited as John McAdams--who still cannot figure out what he did wrong with Cheryl Abbate--would ignore it. But you seem intent on becoming the latest WC advocate with no credibility and even less respect for the record.

​And so what you do is say, "Well, were they all in on it?" No one has ever said that.

​What this case is is an object lesson of what happens in a homicide when you have a runaway prosecution, and none of the rules of legal procedure or evidence admittance are followed. See, that is why the rules of evidence have evolved over time as they have. Because lawyers and judges know just how intent prosecutors are on convicting at any cost. Which is why we have things like Gideon, Miranda, Escobedo etc. Which were all way overdue. Its why we have Daubert, the scientific test, which is the rule that finally demolished the phony NAA standard.

What is incredible about this case is that, the guys perpetrating the fraud were not police investigators or detectives. They were lawyers. But they still went ahead and did it anyway. Knowing, just as Stringer said to Jeremy Gunn, in a hierarchy, those who refuse to sign on to a falsity do not last long.

​Today of course, with Talbot's book, we know the real story about the men who deliberately concealed the facts about Kennedy's murder: Hoover, McCloy, Ford and Dulles. If those are the kinds of people you look up to and admire, then no one can help you.

Edited by James DiEugenio
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hello Curtis

Given the relative position of the Sniper's Nest, on the SE corner of the 6th floor of the TSBD, to the position of JFK in the limo at z222-224, do you believe it possible for a bullet to enter the back of JFK's neck and then pass through the right side of his trachea (windpipe) without passing through and severely damaging his cervical vertebrae?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's my take on believing a conspiracy killed my President. Childhood: the Back Yard photos. It's so obvious how unnatural the man is. Nobody is built like that. It's a joke. I don't understand how people believed those pictures. And the other thing is Ruby shooting Oswald, which my father and I watched live as it happened. Surrounded by police with no escape, Ruby shoots Oswald. Something's going on.

Kathy C

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kathleen - I have the same memory of watching Ruby shoot Oswald and my dad and I coming to the same conclusion immediately. That seminal moment explains why the world still believes there was a conspiracy. When the Zapruder film was finally shown publicly it reinforced that belief.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's my take on believing a conspiracy killed my President. Childhood: the Back Yard photos. It's so obvious how unnatural the man is. Nobody is built like that. It's a joke. I don't understand how people believed those pictures. And the other thing is Ruby shooting Oswald, which my father and I watched live as it happened. Surrounded by police with no escape, Ruby shoots Oswald. Something's going on.

Kathy C

Wouldn't be interesting if Oswald had faked those photos, himself. and intentionally made them obviously fake so he could point to them later, if necessary, and say, "Look! They're fake!"

--Tommy, the Serious :sun

Edited by Thomas Graves
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have the same memory of watching Ruby shoot Oswald and my dad and I coming to the same conclusion immediately. That seminal moment explains why the world still believes there was a conspiracy.

I too remember watching Ruby shoot Oswald, and as I recall my thought was that somebody gave him what he deserved. Didn't everybody want to shoot him?

I was really on the ball in those days.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have the same memory of watching Ruby shoot Oswald and my dad and I coming to the same conclusion immediately. That seminal moment explains why the world still believes there was a conspiracy.

I too remember watching Ruby shoot Oswald, and as I recall my thought was that somebody gave him what he deserved. Didn't everybody want to shoot him?

I was really on the ball in those days.

The dirty rat.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hello Curtis

Given the relative position of the Sniper's Nest, on the SE corner of the 6th floor of the TSBD, to the position of JFK in the limo at z222-224, do you believe it possible for a bullet to enter the back of JFK's neck and then pass through the right side of his trachea (windpipe) without passing through and severely damaging his cervical vertebrae?

bump

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you think Shaw was lying? The man had just been standing over Connally operating, how could he not have the facts regarding his injuries?

I think Gregory said what he had to say, as did a lot of people.

While I would rather not jump in on the same side as DVP, on this issue I think he's correct. When one studies Connally's wounds, one is struck by a fact that is not readily apparent to most people studying the case. He had three different surgeons operate on him, one after the other, with none of the three fully knowing what was going on with the other two. Shaw operated on his chest. Gregory then took over and operated on his wrist. And then Shires came in and operated on his thigh. This, according to everyone involved in the surgery, including the radiologist who took x-rays of the thigh in order to locate the fragment contained within, turned out to be a minor wound. It follows, then, that when Shaw mentioned a bullet in the thigh, he was thinking of the small hole in the thigh apparent when he was working on the chest, and not the hole as inspected and treated by Dr. Shires, hours later.

That this wound turned out to be so minor, for that matter, turned out to be one of the smoking guns of the WC cover-up. The lack of damage to the thigh proved that the bullet striking Kennedy was nearly spent after fracturing the wrist. Well, Dr. Olivier tested the wrist damage by firing into cadavers and found that it could only have been made by CE 399 if the bullet was traveling at a low velocity, and then lost very little velocity in the wrist. Their tests replicating the chest damage similarly suggested the bullet would have lost minimal velocity while traveling through the chest. In sum, then, Connally's wounds proved for a scientific fact that the bullet striking Connally was traveling at a greatly reduced velocity, and that it was not a fully-charged M/C bullet, which had failed to strike bone while traveling through Kennedy.

So, how did the WC get around this? Word games. Dr. Olivier agreed that if the bullet striking Connally had been traveling sideways upon impact with Connally's back--something rejected by Dr. Shaw, by the way--the bullet would have lost more velocity than suggested by his tests, whereby the WC's staff (no doubt, Specter) deliberately mis-quoted his "more" as "substantially more", and then pretended this "substantially more" could mean four times as much.

FWIW, I discussed this lie during my presentation at the Bethesda Conference. If I recall, moreover, it was during my discussion of this lie that WC counsel Burt Griffin stood up in the audience and quickly left the room. He just couldn't bear to hear it, IMO. We later exchanged e-mails and he confirmed in this exchange that he refuses to believe any of his co-counsel lied, and that he has no interest in hearing anything suggesting as much.

Edited by Pat Speer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's my take on believing a conspiracy killed my President. Childhood: the Back Yard photos. It's so obvious how unnatural the man is. Nobody is built like that. It's a joke. I don't understand how people believed those pictures. And the other thing is Ruby shooting Oswald, which my father and I watched live as it happened. Surrounded by police with no escape, Ruby shoots Oswald. Something's going on.

Kathy C

I'm digesting the other and recent posts in this thread - all great stuff - and will try to respond in detail when I have a free moment to do so. But the genuine sentimentality of Kathy's posting "my President" struck me as being particularly poignant, and I wanted to quickly comment on it.

It's far too easy to forget the tragedy of that day, and to become lost amidst the wash of agendas, debates, facts, and all manners of secondary minutiae, and with myself being notably - perhaps, chiefly - included.

I believe that a part of our national psyche died that day, and that we've suffered with it, since. No, JFK's death did not cause the many and real problems that we have faced since then, nor those we wrestle with today. But, as with most tragedies, it forever changed us as a people, and we see its rippling effect continue, today.

I don't desire that the person(s) responsible for forcing that change upon us to go unknown, unaccounted for and unpunished. They should be zealously pursued, if not for justice in a court of law, then to be damned certain that their names are known - and cursed - throughout the annals of our national and ever-growing history. JFK deserves that, for sure, but even more importantly, we deserve it, as a People.

Despite whatever disagreements we may have, however sincere, heated, and on any number of things of secondary or tertiary importance, I think that we all must share a desire for justice, as best it can be found and known, regardless of who it implicates, direction it takes, or where it concludes - or else, what's the point of it all?

I neither possess the knowledge nor time to explain every anamolous sliver of every fragmented piece of this story. I wish I did - I love reading, thinking and discussing it - but I don't. That's why I appreciate this forum, and frankly, why I took the time to register and desire to participate. But I truly and personally believe, after years of reading, debate, layman research and objectively contemplative thought (as best I am capable to produce, paltry as it may be) that the overwhelming preponderance of the evidence before us says that LHO assassinated JFK, and acted alone. My disbelief in a conspiracy does not result from some personal desire - I want the truth, whatever it may be - but because I have never seen any credible, disprovable, empirical or otherwise valid proof that such has ever existed. And frankly, I don't think I've ever seen it, for the simple fact that it doesn't exist. But, using tens of thousands of past experiences as proof (many painful and/or expensive), I can be wrong, and where I am, I will admit it. And so, I am willing - wanting, even - to see what evidence that other, (likely) smarter and more dedicated people than I, have come up, instead, and to give it every consideration, both carefully and critically.

But I don't think I'm wrong, here. At all.

I understand that this is an unpopular position here, and one that is easily attacked and mocked. As long as it doesn't turn personal, or becomes needlessly annoying or is simply intended to bait me into violating the forum rules or proper decorum, it is to be expected, and causes me no harm. If I wasn't willing to consider an alterative view, however starkly oppositional to my own, I wouldn't be here.

But I am here, and do. Take that for whatever it's worth, I guess.

However, I'd ask you to consider this: When you guys see my championing the sincerely held belief that LHO acted alone, as allowing the "conspirators" to escape - I see and feel the exact same of your position, believing that any assertion of an unproven conspiracy, however well-intended, merely serves to exonerate, diminish, subdue or restrain the full and complete guilt, from being squarely and rightfully upon Oswald, alone.

You see my allowing the "conspirators" to escape.

I see you allowing Oswald to escape, or at best, lessening the acknowledgment of his full, complete and total guilt.

Simply - JFK was "my President", too.

I'm on mobile, and apologize for rambling a bit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's my take on believing a conspiracy killed my President. Childhood: the Back Yard photos. It's so obvious how unnatural the man is. Nobody is built like that. It's a joke. I don't understand how people believed those pictures. And the other thing is Ruby shooting Oswald, which my father and I watched live as it happened. Surrounded by police with no escape, Ruby shoots Oswald. Something's going on.

Kathy C

I'm digesting the other and recent posts in this thread - all great stuff - and will try to respond in detail when I have a free moment to do so. But the genuine sentimentality of Kathy's posting "my President" struck me as being particularly poignant, and I wanted to quickly comment on it.

It's far too easy to forget the tragedy of that day, and to become lost amidst the wash of agendas, debates, facts, and all manners of secondary minutiae, and with myself being notably - perhaps, chiefly - included.

I believe that a part of our national psyche died that day, and that we've suffered with it, since. No, JFK's death did not cause the many and real problems that we have faced since then, nor those we wrestle with today. But, as with most tragedies, it forever changed us as a people, and we see its rippling effect continue, today.

I don't desire that the person(s) responsible for forcing that change upon us to go unknown, unaccounted for and unpunished. They should be zealously pursued, if not for justice in a court of law, then to be damned certain that their names are known - and cursed - throughout the annals of our national and ever-growing history. JFK deserves that, for sure, but even more importantly, we deserve it, as a People.

Despite whatever disagreements we may have, however sincere, heated, and on any number of things of secondary or tertiary importance, I think that we all must share a desire for justice, as best it can be found and known, regardless of who it implicates, direction it takes, or where it concludes - or else, what's the point of it all?

I neither possess the knowledge nor time to explain every anamolous sliver of every fragmented piece of this story. I wish I did - I love reading, thinking and discussing it - but I don't. That's why I appreciate this forum, and frankly, why I took the time to register and desire to participate. But I truly and personally believe, after years of reading, debate, layman research and objectively contemplative thought (as best I am capable to produce, paltry as it may be) that the overwhelming preponderance of the evidence before us says that LHO assassinated JFK, and acted alone. My disbelief in a conspiracy does not result from some personal desire - I want the truth, whatever it may be - but because I have never seen any credible, disprovable, empirical or otherwise valid proof that such has ever existed. And frankly, I don't think I've ever seen it, for the simple fact that it doesn't exist. But, using tens of thousands of past experiences as proof (many painful and/or expensive), I can be wrong, and where I am, I will admit it. And so, I am willing - wanting, even - to see what evidence that other, (likely) smarter and more dedicated people than I, have come up, instead, and to give it every consideration, both carefully and critically.

But I don't think I'm wrong, here. At all.

I understand that this is an unpopular position here, and one that is easily attacked and mocked. As long as it doesn't turn personal, or becomes needlessly annoying or is simply intended to bait me into violating the forum rules or proper decorum, it is to be expected, and causes me no harm. If I wasn't willing to consider an alterative view, however starkly oppositional to my own, I wouldn't be here.

But I am here, and do. Take that for whatever it's worth, I guess.

However, I'd ask you to consider this: When you guys see my championing the sincerely held belief that LHO acted alone, as allowing the "conspirators" to escape - I see and feel the exact same of your position, believing that any assertion of an unproven conspiracy, however well-intended, merely serves to exonerate, diminish, subdue or restrain the full and complete guilt, from being squarely and rightfully upon Oswald, alone.

You see my allowing the "conspirators" to escape.

I see you allowing Oswald to escape, or at best, lessening the acknowledgment of his full, complete and total guilt.

Simply - JFK was "my President", too.

I'm on mobile, and apologize for rambling a bit.

methinks the latter-day lone nuts are getting really desperate. Even Craigster is trolling this thread. :)

Link to comment
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...