Jump to content
The Education Forum

JFK Conspiracy for Younger Generations


Recommended Posts

  • 1 month later...
  • Replies 119
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

On 2/25/2019 at 8:45 AM, Cliff Varnell said:

Denny, this is terrific work, congratulations!

Let's add the consensus witness testimony of the T3 back wound:

1) Dr. Admiral George Burkley, JFK's personal physician observed the body at Parkland and Bethesda, wrote on the Death Certificate that the back wound was "about the level of the third thoracic vertebra."

 

2) The autopsy face sheet diagram prepared under the supervision of Dr. J. Thornton Boswell shows a wound location consistent with the holes in the clothes (4 inches below the bottom of the collars).

 

 

 

The diagram was filled out in pencil and signed off as "verified," also in pencil, also in accordance to proper autopsy protocol. The "14cm from the mastoid" notation was made in pen, which is a violation of proper autopsy protocol.

 

3) Dr. John Ebersole attended the autopsy and told David Mantik in a 1992 interview that the back wound was at T4. (Harrison Livingstone's KILLING THE TRUTH pg 721)

 

4) James Curtis Jenkins was a lab tech at the autopsy and made this statement to David Lifton:

 

 (quote on)

 

I remember looking inside the chest cavity and I could see the probe...through the pleura [the lining of the chest cavity]...You could actually see where it was making an indentation...where it was pushing the skin up...There was no entry into the chest cavity...it would have been no way that that could have exited in the front because it was then low in the chest cavity...somewhere around the junction of the descending aorta [the main artery carrying blood from the heart] or the bronchus in the lungs.

 

(quote off)

 

5) Chester H. Boyers was the chief Petty Officer in charge of the Pathology Department at Bethesda November 1963. This is from Boyers signed affidavit:

 

 (quote on)

 

Another wound was located near the right shoulder blade, more specifically just under the scapula and next to it.

 

(quote off)

 

The location just below the upper margin of the scapula is consistent with T3:

 

 

 

6) SSA Will Greer in his WC testimony (Vol 2 pg 127) placed the back wound “in the soft part of that shoulder,” consistent with the testimony of Boyers.

 

7) SSA Roy Kellerman testified before the WC (Vol. 2 pg 93) that the wound in the back was “the hole that was in his shoulder.” Kellerman expanded on this for the HSCA witha diagram which placed the back wound in the vicinity of T-3.

 

8 )  FBI SA  Francis O'Neill said that the first location for the back wound that Humes gave was "below the shoulder." Here's O'Neill's HSCA wound diagram:

 

http://www.jfklancer.../md/oneill1.gif

 

9) FBI SA James Sibert also diagrammed a lower back wound:

 

http://www.jfklancer.../md/oneill1.gif

 

10) Autopsy photographer Floyd Reibe stated that the back wound was a lower marking on the Fox 5 autopsy photo (Harrison Livingstone's Killing the Truth, pg 721).

 

11) Parkland nurse Diana Bowron stated the same thing to Livingstone: the back wound was lower than the "official" wound in the autopsy photo (KTT, pg 183).

 

12) Bethesda lab assistant Jan Gail Rudnicki told Livingstone that he saw "what appeared to be an entry wound several inches down on the back." (Livingstone's High Treason 2, pg  206). This consistent with T3.

 

13) Bethesda x-ray tech Edward Reed reported seeing a back wound "right between the scapula and the thoracic column," although he thought it was an exit (KTT, pg 720). This location is also consistent with T3.

 

14) Secret Service Agent Glen Bennett wrote in a note the afternoon of 11/22/63:

 

(quote on)

 

I saw a shot hit the Boss about four inches down from the right shoulder.

 

(quote off)

 

4 inches below the right shoulder. Fact: the bullet hole in JFK's shirt is 4" below the bottom of the collar. Glen Bennett nailed the back wound.

 

15) Secret Service Agent Clint Hill, tasked with bearing witness to the location of JFK's wounds, testified before the Warren Commission:

 

(quote on)

 

...I saw an opening in the back, about 6 inches below the neckline to the right-hand side of the spinal column.

 

(quote off)

 

6 inches below the neckline. Fact: the bullet hole in JFK's shirt is 5 & 3/4" below the top of the collar. Clint Hill nailed the back wound.

 

16) In his notes mortician Tom Robinson wrote: "And wound 5-6 inches below the shoulder".

 

 

 

 

 

I think I have another T3 quote for your repertoire.

 

From the Baltimore Sun, 11/25/1966:

On the autopsy sketch drawn by Dr. Boswell are computations to locate the neck wound by measurement.

Dr. Boswell used, as places of reference, the right acronmion process - the highest point on the shoulder bone that can be felt near the joint of the shoulder and collar bone - and the mastoid prominence - the base of the bone just behind the ear.

He said these were standard reference points used in an such cases. He placed the wound at the intersection of 14 inch arcs described from these reference points.

He said yesterday that he thought he had used a vertebra as a third reference point, but that this did not appear in the autopsy report or in the sketch.

The sketch itself would normaly have been thrown away, he said, in any case but this one.

"We didn’t anticipate this would have become as important as it did," he said.

 

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=62495#relPageId=18&tab=page

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
5 hours ago, Cliff Varnell said:

I posted an expanded "official" version of "JFK Conspiracy for Younger Generations" over on the Deep Politics Forum.

https://deeppoliticsforum.com/forums/showthread.php?17105-JFK-Conspiracy-for-Younger-Generations#.XNku3UhlDIU

Great work Cliff. But what is ‘the central question of the assassination’? What you have spent your life proving is ‘what is the proof of conspiracy’. The central questions are who did it, why, and why the coverup? I know you have strongly held opinions on who did it. You’ve expressed them on this forum. It seems to me that our younger generations will be much more interested in solving the crime of the century than in proving it was a conspiracy. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Paul Brancato said:

Great work Cliff. But what is ‘the central question of the assassination’? What you have spent your life proving is ‘what is the proof of conspiracy’. The central questions are who did it, why, and why the coverup? I know you have strongly held opinions on who did it. You’ve expressed them on this forum. It seems to me that our younger generations will be much more interested in solving the crime of the century than in proving it was a conspiracy. 

Paul, the question -- What happened to the bullets causing the back and throat wounds? -- leads to a strong possibility JFK was struck with high tech rounds developed for the CIA program MKNAOMI.

That's not a theory, it's right there in the historical record as I laid out in my piece.

For a brief moment on the night of the autopsy the FBI men in attendance pursued the best lead in the case.  That lead was dropped quickly, and established researchers haven't picked up the ball in 55+ years.

"What happened to the bullets causing the back and throat wounds?"

How many times has that question been asked at a Lancer Conference?  Or at a COPA/CAPA Conference?  Or at a Wecht Conference?  Or on Black Op Radio?  Or at Kennedys and King?

Has that question ever been posed by the JFKA Critical Master Class?

Maybe younger researchers will be made of "sterner stuff".

Edited by Cliff Varnell
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, Paul Brancato said:

 It seems to me that our younger generations will be much more interested in solving the crime of the century than in proving it was a conspiracy. 

Proving conspiracy is no big deal.  Follow the evidence. 

It's all there in the case file, Clarice, everything you need to catch them, those men you seek.

The 3-part Official Version of...

JFK Conspiracy for Younger Generations

[Education Forum 01/31/19] Best-selling author David Lifton wrote of the following "Maddow" script:

Cliff: Very nice summary. Brief, cogent, etc...[T]hanks for your cogent summary, which makes clear why the official version cannot possibly be true. DSL

Rachel Maddow Show November 22, 2019 (an exercise in wishful thinking -- the dialogue is fictional but the information is accurate)

Maddow

Our special guest tonight -- on the 56th anniversary of the assassination of President John F. Kennedy -- is one of our favorite friends of the show, Alec Baldwin. Welcome, Alec.

Baldwin

Thanks for having me on tonight, Rachel. I’d like to take the opportunity to take a fresh approach to the murder of John F. Kennedy – no theories, just facts. Approach the case like any cop would approach any murder.

Maddow
Loved you as Captain Ellerby in The Departed!

Baldwin
Hold that thought – I may get brutally honest soon enough.

Maddow (laughing)
I can’t wait!

Baldwin
Fact #1: There is a bullet hole in JFK’s shirt 4 inches below the bottom of the collar.

Fact #2: Kennedy’s personal physician filled out the official, verified Death Certificate and listed a wound in his back at the level of the 3rd thoracic vertebra, consistent with the location of the hole in the shirt.

Fact #3: The x-ray of Kennedy’s neck reveals a hairline fracture of the right T1 transverse process, that wing thing on your vertebra.

Fact #4: Two doctors who attended to Kennedy at Parkland Hospital wrote in their contemporaneous notes that JFK had a wound of entrance in his throat.

Fact #5: A Secret Service agent who rode in the car right behind Kennedy’s wrote in his contemporaneous notes that he saw JFK hit in the back four inches down the shoulder.

Fact #6: Two FBI agents who were assigned to make a report on the autopsy cabled FBI HQ and said there was a shallow wound in Kennedy’s back, and no bullet was found in the autopsy.

Those 6 facts encompass the strongest evidence in the case – physical evidence, documentary evidence, and the contemporaneous written accounts of 5 men in position of authority.

We know from this fact pattern that JFK was shot in the back at T3, the round didn’t exit, and no round was found during the autopsy. There was a wound of entrance in the throat, no exit, and no round found during the autopsy.

Draw what conclusions you may, those are the facts.

Maddow
Wound in the back, no exit, no bullet found. Wound in the throat, no exit, no bullet found. What could have happened to those bullets, Alec?

Baldwin
I dunno. I don’t do theories. Maybe folks in your profession could look into it – after all 56 years isn’t too late to do your jobs.

Maddow
And so… the Captain Ellerby treatment after all! Thanks for comin’ on, Alec.

Baldwin
Thanks for having me, Rachel.

[/q]

***

2 Millennials 1 Kennedy Assassination

I tell this anecdote all the time. It's finally in the proper thread!

True story:

I once pointed out to a millennial friend of mine that her generation didn't appear all that interested in the Kennedy assassination.

"That's because they make it so boring," she said, and the subject dropped.

A couple weeks later she asked me what I'd been up to and I said --"Giving people hell about the central question of the JFK assassination." This was in the late summer of 2013.

"What is the central question of the JFK assassination?"

"You don't want to know--"

"No, tell me."

"JFK was shot in the back, there was no exit wound and no bullet found in the autopsy; he was shot in the throat, no exit, no bullet found in the autopsy. The central question is --what happened to the bullets that caused the back and throat wounds?"

She thought for a second, then said -- "But was it a real autopsy?"

"A lot of problems with the autopsy, but that was the situation...Some people think the bullets were removed prior to the autopsy."

"Or it was some government xxxx that dissolved!" she said with an air of triumph.

About a year later I told this story to another millennial friend of mine and when I got to the line "--some government xxxx that dissolved--" she blurted:
"That's what I was gonna say!"

***

The Prosectors' Scenario: JFK Hit with Government xxxx that Dissolved


Two FBI men attended the JFK autopsy to take notes.

From autopsy-attendee FBI SA Francis O'Neill's sworn affidavit for the House Select Committee on Assassinations, 1978:

<quote on>

Some discussion did occur concerning the disintegration of the bullet. A general
feeling existed that a soft-nosed bullet struck JFK. There was discussion concerning
the back wound that the bullet could have been a "plastic" type or an "Ice" [sic]
bullet, one which dissolves after contact.

<quote off>


From autopsy-attendee FBI SA James Sibert's sworn affidavit for the HSCA:

<quote on>

The doctors also discussed a possible deflection of the bullet in the body caused
by striking bone. Consideration was also given to a type of bullet which fragments
completely....Following discussion among the doctors relating to the back injury, I
left the autopsy room to call the FBI Laboratory and spoke with Agent Chuch [sic]
Killion. I asked if he could furnish any information regarding a type of bullet that
would almost completely fragmentize (sic).

<quote off>

With the body in front of them the autopsists speculated JFK was struck with a high tech round that wouldn't show up on x-ray or in the body: government xxxx that dissolves.

Greg Burnham compiled this:

<quote on>

From the Church Committee testimony of CIA Director Colby:

TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 16, 1975.
Testimony of William E. Colby, director of the Central Intelligence Agency. The Committee met at 10 A.M. in the Russell Building.

Present: Senators Church, Tower, Mondale, Huddleston, Morgan, Hart of Colorado Baker, Goldwater, Mathias, and Schweiker. Also present: William G. Miller, staff director, Frederick A. 0. Schwarz, chief counsel, Curtis Smothers and Paul Michel, Committee staff members.

Chairman Church:
The particular case under examination today involves the illegal possession of deadly biological poisons which were retained within the CIA for five years after their destruction was ordered by the President. . . . The main questions before the Committee are why the poisons were developed in such quantities in the first place: why the Presidential order was disobeyed; and why such a serious act of insubordination could remain undetected for so many years.

William Colby:
The specific subject today concerns the CIA's involvement in the development of bacteriological warfare materials with the Army's Biological Laboratory at Fort Detrick, CIA's retention of an amount of shellfish toxin, and CIA's use and investigation of various chemicals and drugs. . . . Information provided by him [a CIA officer not directly associated with the project] and by two other officers aware of the project indicated that the project at Fort Detrick involved the development of bacteriological warfare agents--some lethal--and
associated delivery systems suitable for clandestine use
[emphasis added]. The CIA relationship with the Special Operations Division at Fort Detrick was formally established in May 1952.

The need for such capabilities was tied to earlier Office of Strategic Services World War II experience, which included the development of two different types of agent suicide pills to be used in the event of capture and a successful operation using biological warfare materials to incapacitate a Nazi leader temporarily.

The primary Agency interest was in the development of dissemination devices to be used with standard chemicals off the shelf. Various dissemination devices such as a fountain pen dart launcher appeared to be peculiarly suited for clandestine use. . . . A large amount of Agency attention was given to the problem of incapacitating guard dogs. Though most of the dart launchers were developed for the Army, the Agency did request the development of a small, hand-held dart launcher for its peculiar needs for this purpose. Work was also done on temporary human incapacitation techniques. These related to a desire to incapacitate captives before they could render themselves incapable of talking, or terrorists before they could take retaliatory action. [Or to prevent guard dogs from barking.]

One such operation involved the penetration of a facility abroad for intelligence collection. The compound was guarded by watchdogs which made entry difficult even when it was empty. Darts were delivered for the operation, but were not used.

Church:
Have you brought with you some of those devices which would have enabled the CIA to use this poison for killing people?

Colby:
We have indeed.

Church:
Does this pistol fire the dart?

Colby:
Yes it does, Mr. Chairman. The round thing at the top is obviously the sight; the rest of it is what is practically a normal .45, although it is a special. However, it works by electricity. There is a battery in the handle, and it fires a small dart. [self-propelled, like a rocket.]

Church:
So that when it fires, it fires silently?

Colby:
Almost silently; yes.

Church:
What range does it have?

Colby:
One hundred meters, I believe; about 100 yards, 100 meters.

Church:
About 100 meters range?

Colby:
Yes.

Church:
And the dart itself, when it strikes the target, does the target know that he has been hit and [is] about to die?

Colby:
That depends, Mr. Chairman, on the particular dart used. There are different kinds of these flechettes that were used in various weapons systems, and a special one was developed which potentially would be able to enter the target without perception.

Church:
Is it not true, too, that the effort not only involved designing a gun that could strike at a human target without knowledge of the person who had been struck, but also the toxin itself would not appear in the autopsy?

Colby:
Well there was an attempt--

Church:
Or the dart?

Colby:
Yes; so there was no way of perceiving that the target was hit.

WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 17, 1975
. Richard Helms' testimony:

Huddleston:
Mr. Helms, you said you were surprised, or that you had never seen the dart gun that was displayed here yesterday. Would you be surprised or shocked to learn that that gun, or one like it, had been used by agents against either watchdogs or human beings?

Helms:
I would be surprised if it had been used against human beings, but I'm not surprised it would have been used against watchdogs. I believe there were various experiments conducted in an effort to find out how one could either tranquilize or kill guard dogs in foreign countries. That does not surprise me at all.

Huddleston:
Do you know whether or not it was used, in fact, against watchdogs?

Helms:
I believe there were experiments conducted against dogs. Whether it was ever used in a live operational situation against dogs, I do not recall.

THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 18, 1975
. Testimony of Charles A. Senseney:

Senseney:
I worked in the Biological Warfare Section of Fort Detrick from 1953. . . . I was the project engineer of the M-1 dart launcher and following on microorganism projectiles and so forth.

Smothers:
Is this a device that looks roughly like a .45 caliber pistol with a sight mount at the top?

Senseney:
This was a follow-on. It was to replace the M-1 projectile to go into the Army stockpile. It did look like a .45.

Smothers:
Did the CIA have, Mr. Senseney, the wherewithal to utilize this dart launcher against humans?

Senseney:
No, they asked for a modification to use against a dog. Now, these were actually given to them, and they were actually expended, because we got all of the hardware back. For a dog, the projectile had to be made many times bigger. It was almost the size of a .22 cartridge, but it carried a chemical compound known as 46-40.

Smothers:
And their interest was in dog incapacitation?

Senseney:
Right

Baker:
Your principle job with the DOD, I take it, was to develop new or exotic devices and weapons: is that correct?

Senseney:
I was a project engineer for the E-1, which was type classified and became the M-1. They were done for the Army.

Baker:
Did you have any other customers?

Senseney:
To my knowledge, our only customer was Special Forces and the CIA, I guess.

Baker:
Special Forces meaning Special Forces of the Army?

Senseney:
That is correct.

Baker:
And the FBI?

Senseney:
The FBI never used anything.

Baker:
Looking at your previous executive session testimony, apparently you developed for them a fountain pen. What did the fountain pen do?

Senseney:
The fountain pen was a variation of an M-1. An M-1 in itself was a system, and it could be fired
from anything
[emphasis added]. It could be put into--

Baker:
Could it fire a dart or an aerosol or what?

Senseney:
It was a dart.

Baker:
It fired a dart . . . a starter, were you talking about a fluorescent light starter?

Senseney:
That is correct.

Baker:
What did it do?

Senseney:
It put out an aerosol in the room when you put the switch on.

Baker:
What about a cane, a walking cane?

Senseney:
Yes, an M-1 projectile could be fired from a cane; also an umbrella.

Baker:
Also an umbrella. What about a straight pin?

Senseney:
Straight pin?

Baker:
Yes, sir.

Senseney:
We made a straight pin, out at the Branch. I did not make it, but I know it was made, and it was used by one Mr. Powers on his U-2 mission.

Huddleston:
Were there frequent transfers of material between Dr. Gordon's [a researcher at Fort Detrick] office and your office, either the hardware or the toxin?

Senseney:
The only frequent thing that changed hands was the dog projectile and its loaders 46-40. This was done maybe five or six in one quantity. And maybe six weeks to six months later, they would bring those back and ask for five or six more. They would bring them back expended, that is, they bring all of the hardware except the projectile, okay?

Huddleston:
Indicating that they have been used?

Senseney:
Correct.

Huddleston:
But it could have been used on a human being?

Senseney:
There is no reason why it could not, I guess.

Schweiker:
Mr. Senseney, I would like to read into the record [from a CIA document] at this point a quote from paragraph nine [exhibit 6, document 67]: "When funds permit, adaptation and testing will be conducted of a new, highly effective disseminating system which has been demonstrated to be capable of introducing materials through light clothing, subcutaneously, intramuscularly, and silently, without pain."

Now, I just have a little trouble, Mr. Senseney, reconciling your answers in conjunction with this project, when the CIA document makes clear that one of the very specific purposes of the funding and the operation was to find a weapon that could penetrate light clothing subcutaneously, which obviously means through the skin, and intramuscularly, which obviously means through the muscles of a person. And are you saying that you have absolutely no recollection at all that tests or programs were designed to use any of these devices to permeate clothing on people and not dogs?

Senseney:
We put them on mannequins.

Schweiker:
What's that?

Senseney:
We put clothing on mannequins to see whether we could penetrate it. These were the requirements. You almost read the exact requirements that the SDR quoted from the Special Forces there.

Schweiker:
I would not expect you to test them on live human beings. I would hope that you did use mannequins, Mr. Senseney. Wouldn't that be directed toward people-usage, though? That is the point we're trying to establish.

Senseney:
That is what the Special Forces direction was. You have to look at it this way. The Army program wanted this device. That is the only thing that was delivered to them. It was a spin-off, of course, from the M-1. The M- 1 was a lethal weapon, meant to kill a person, for the Army. It was to be used in Vietnam. It never got there, because we were not fast enough getting it into the logistics system.

Schweiker:
What was the most-utilized device of the ones with which you worked and supervised?

Senseney:
The only thing I know that was really used was the dog projectile. The other things were in the stockpiles. I don't think anyone ever requested them.

Schweiker:
How do you know for certain it was for dogs?

Senseney:
Well that is what they asked us to test them against. They wanted to see whether they could put a dog to sleep, and whether sometime later the dog would come back and be on its own and look normal.

Schweiker:
Of the devices that came through you, which of these were utilized in any capacity other than for testing?

Senseney:
That was the only one that I know of--the dog projectile. I call it a dog projectile. We were developing it because the scenario read that they wanted to be able to make entrance into an area which was patrolled by dogs, leave, the dog come back, and then no one would ever know they were in the area. So that was the reason for the dog projectile.

Church:
Thank you Senator Schweiker. I think it is clear that the CIA was interested in the development of a delivery system that could reach human beings, since not many dogs wear clothing. And you would agree with that, wouldn't you?

Senseney:
Yes.

Church:
Okay.

Schwarz:
Along the same line, I assume you must agree that spending money in order to make darts of such a character that they cannot be detected in an autopsy does not have much to do with dogs?

Senseney:
No, that would not have anything to do with dogs.
TUM5.gif
</q>

Edited by Cliff Varnell
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not a fan of the fictionalized transcript of the Rachel Maddow Show. At first glance, people might wonder if it's real, and then when it's revealed not to be real, they might wonder why conspiracy theorists have to start their essays with a piece of fiction. I then look at the other transcripts in the piece, and I have to then wonder if those are real or fictionalized as well. I just don't think it's a good way to introduce this subject to young people who know little or nothing about it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Denny Zartman said:

I'm not a fan of the fictionalized transcript of the Rachel Maddow Show. At first glance, people might wonder if it's real, and then when it's revealed not to be real, they might wonder why conspiracy theorists have to start their essays with a piece of fiction. I then look at the other transcripts in the piece, and I have to then wonder if those are real or fictionalized as well. I just don't think it's a good way to introduce this subject to young people who know little or nothing about it.

Good point. I wondered about that, and how I missed that episode. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Denny Zartman said:

I'm not a fan of the fictionalized transcript of the Rachel Maddow Show. At first glance, people might wonder if it's real, and then when it's revealed not to be real, they might wonder why conspiracy theorists have to start their essays with a piece of fiction. I then look at the other transcripts in the piece, and I have to then wonder if those are real or fictionalized as well. I just don't think it's a good way to introduce this subject to young people who know little or nothing about it.

I trust younger people can figure out that November 22, 2019 hasn't happened yet.

...Point taken.  I'll add something to the introduction.

(an exercise in wishful thinking -- the dialogue is fictional but the information is accurate)

I wrote "True story" into the introduction of the second part.

I appreciate the constructive criticism, Denny.

Edited by Cliff Varnell
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Paul Brancato said:

Good point. I wondered about that, and how I missed that episode. 

November 22, 2019...yeah, I missed the entire news that day...I give younger folks more credit than others...

The movie JFK has fictional elements, yes?

Edited by Cliff Varnell
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Paul Brancato said:

Points well taken. 

So who did it? Why? What is still hidden?

Now we're in the realm of theory. 

Since the evidence indicates the possibility JFK was hit with a high tech round, I start looking at folks associated with the MKNAOMI program.

There were some mobbed up Federal Bureau of Narcotics guys working in MKNAOMI, like Charles Siragusa.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes theory. Why else are we here? I knew there was a conspiracy on Nov 24, 1963. I’ll bet you did too. You quote Salandria on your Forum page. What more can I say? I want to hear your theory. After all, you conclusively proved conspiracy beyond a doubt, and strong evidence that some of the shots came from rarified high technology, probably military. Good start. 

As you may remember I suspect the military. I’ve laid out my theory many times. It always lands with a dud. Well, whatever. I’m just sick of parsing the proofs of conspiracy. I only care about who and why. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
On 5/13/2019 at 7:08 AM, Paul Brancato said:

What you have spent your life proving is ‘what is the proof of conspiracy’.

Paul, I've been misunderstood and I have to take responsibility for the misunderstanding.

All I've been pointing out for a couple decades plus is the fact that conspiracy in the murder of JFK is obvious, and was proven decades back ala Salandria.

The push-back from LNers would be expected but I never expected the hostility my posts have garnered from so-called "CTs".

The idea was to destroy the "Question of Conspiracy Parlor Game" -- not win it.

The JFKA Critical Master Class maintains a no-fly zone over the T3 back wound because so many "experts" hope to take credit for winning the Parlor Game.

 

 

Edited by Cliff Varnell
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes - I was sure of that. Who are the T 3 deniers and what is their objection? 

I encourage you to give the entire history as you see it, maybe starting a thread. Maybe this is old territory. Still .....

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
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...