Jump to content
The Education Forum

A Beginner's Guide to the Conspiracy Game


Guest
 Share

Recommended Posts

15 hours ago, Robert Card said:

Lance............This is he problem I have with a lot of LNer's.   Best evidence?   What evidence?

I've studied J Edgar "Mafia Doesn't Exist" Hoover since the 80's.   In my view, Hoover was criminally insane, with multiple Congressional efforts to remove his name from the FBI building.  I'm always finding new evidence of his misdeeds and crimes.   Just yesterday, I found that Hoover went on a vendetta against Jesse Curry which was probably a prime factor in his resignation due to stress.

The burglary at the Media, PA FBI office clearly shows that there were two FBI's, one the good guys, and the other a criminal thug organization.   Agent Provocateurs, like in the 16th St Baptist Church bombing.  Wiretapping Congressmen.   There's really too much too list.

I can even show you an example of FBI criminality right here in Colombia.  I want to report the crime of this federal officer, but I'm told the FBI will do everythng they can to harass me.  So I've decided to pull a Howard Brennan, and keep my mouth shut to protect my famlly.

Being that Hoover was running the federal investigation, why would you call the WC report evidence?   I get into trouble with the CTer's too, as a lot of them like the FBI.  

Why would you call anything the FBI touched, Dallas PD touched, the CIA touched, Dallas Sheriffs Dept touched, evidence??

There is no evidence, and the case should be re-opened.  

OK, let’s consider old Jedgar just for illustrative purposes.

I’m no Hoover scholar, but let’s say for the sake of argument that he was essentially the founder of the FBI and had headed the operation (including the predecessor agency) for 39 years at the time of the assassination; he was fiercely, almost obsessively, protective of his own image and that of the FBI; under his leadership, such as it was, the FBI became a widely admired crime-fighting organization and Hoover himself a venerated public figure, almost bigger than life; he had extremely strong and antiquated ideas of the way America “ought to be” in regard to things like civil rights; he was sincerely patriotic and virulently anti-Communist; he was quite a weird guy with his own skeletons in the closet; he accumulated enough dirt on public officials to sink a fleet of battleships (including JFK, a simple task); he would have stopped at pretty much nothing to protect his own image and that of the FBI; he was hell-bent to preserve and expand the FBI’s jurisdiction and influence, even to the extent of bending or violating the law; he thoroughly despised RFK (not entirely without reason) and the fact that RFK had unprecedented influence with JFK since he was his brother; at the time of the assassination, he was an old man facing mandatory retirement, which he would have perceived as an ignominious end to his career and as allowing RFK to run roughshod over his reputation and his beloved FBI.

Is that close enough for argument?  A deeply flawed character, but by no means a wholly flawed one.  Someone who may well have shed nothing but crocodile tears over the assassination of JFK – or who may have been genuinely distressed that his beloved country had come to this.

If I were to dive into this, I would spend at least a couple of weeks with the most serious mainstream biographies of Hoover and such other mainstream historical sources as I could find.  No conspiracy literature at this point, thank you.  I would arrive at the best real-world understanding of the man and his life that I could.  Perhaps you have done this and have indeed discovered shocking things.

I would then formulate some sort of tentative hypothesis:

1.  Is it believable that this man would knowingly participate in, or at least tacitly approve, the assassination of the President of the United States and all the risks to his legacy and the legacy of the FBI that this would entail?  Would his motives have been that strong?  Would his underlings have lived in such fear of him that they would play along in both pre-assassination and post-assassination skullduggery rather than incur his wrath?

2.  Or is it more believable that following an assassination by Lee Harvey Oswald, a known defector engaged in pro-Communist activities who had definitely been on the radar of the FBI in the past as well as in recent weeks,  this man would have filled his britches (figuratively speaking) and done everything in his power to preserve the image and reputation of himself and his agency and conceal everything that made them look like the Keystone Cops?

When I look at the record as a whole – the types of “mistakes” and “fudging” in the FBI reports, Hosty’s destruction of Oswald’s note at the direction of his supervisor, the Wrath of Hoover that many FBI employees did indeed suffer, the testimony of the FBI employees – it pretty much screams to me “Number 2 is the more believable hypothesis.”  Some of the skullduggery may well have been at the direction of Hoover, but I suspect that most of it was because the FBI employees well-understood “Oh, Jesus, the Old Man is going to go completely ballistic over this.”

Armed with my tentative hypothesis, I would then dive into the conspiracy literature.  I have done this to a limited extent with Hoover and the FBI, and what I see is the Conspiracy Game.

If and when something surfaces that actually ties Hoover into the assassination in any convincing way, shape or form, I will cheerfully concede as much.  But what I mostly see now is “Hoover” as one of those Conspiracy Game mantras that I described, often chanted by those who really know nothing about the man except what they have read in the conspiracy literature (which is, for the reasons set forth in my original post, the functional equivalent of knowing nothing about the man).

I'm not casting aspersions at you.  You surely know far more about Hoover than I do, and perhaps your suspicions are well-founded.  If you can convincingly tie him into the assassination with something more than speculation, innuendo and cui bono, go for it.

Edited by Guest
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 131
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

6 hours ago, Cliff Varnell said:

It's a murder case. 

Look for the physical evidence found with the body, properly prepared contemporaneous official documents, contemporaneous written (or mental) notes by witnesses in a position of authority, consensus witness statements.

The bullet holes in JFK's clothes are too low to associate with the throat wound. 

Burkley's death certificate, Boswell's autopsy face sheet, and the FBI report on the autopsy put the back wound  T3. 

2 Parkland doctors wrote contemporaneous notes describing the throat wound as an entrance. 

2 FBI special agents and 2 Secret Service agents made contemporaneous notes locating the back wound consistent with the holes in the clothes. 

A total of 15 eye-witness statements describe the throat wound as an entrance, another 15 eye witnesses describe the back wound as consistent with T3, the location of the holes in the clothes.

There was a wound of entrance in JFK's back at T3, no exit, no round found at the autopsy.  &A wound of entrance in his throat, no exit, no round found during the autopsy.

Those are the root facts of the case.

This is a good summary, and with your permission, I'd to copy this comment and use it on an LN site, (if that's allowable.)   Even though I was sick of DVP 20 years ago, I'm sorry to see that his comments are gone, I was working on something with his comments.

I have no problem with this evidence above, it's perfectly understandable and acceptable.   Lawyers make the best CTers that we have, they are the only types of students trained in the Socratic method because they have to be able to get to the truth.  Question everything.   The Nutwork structures public school education to be a regurgitation of information, and not critical thinking.

In my view, the T3 wound was possibly made by a mercury bullet that was popular with French assassins at that time.   Autopsy notes with blood all over them were destroyed, so we don't have them to analyze for mercury.

So now we arrive at Lance Payette, a true legal genius from my research, and a critical thinker extrordinaire.  So why doesn't his critical thinking skills apply to the FBI?   I've asked him twice now, why does he call the FBI's devious behavior, 'best evidence'.

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Robert Card said:

So now we arrive at Lance Payette, a true legal genius from my research, and a critical thinker extrordinaire.  So why doesn't his critical thinking skills apply to the FBI?   I've asked him twice now, why does he call the FBI's devious behavior, 'best evidence'.

Ha!  I'm actually more like "a pretty bright guy and a massive under-achiever because I always regarded the practice of law as a Monty Python skit and completely secondary to my real interests."  But anyway, my response to your FBI challenge crossed with this latest post of yours.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Lance Payette said:

Ha!  I'm actually more like "a pretty bright guy and a massive under-achiever because I always regarded the practice of law as a Monty Python skit and completely secondary to my real interests."  But anyway, my response to your FBI challenge crossed with this latest post of yours.

When your comment came in, I then quickly sent mine in, as I knew you were responding.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anyway, I think LBJ, Hoover, Dulles, the CIA, the Mafia, etc., exemplify what I'm talking about.  It's so simple to hypothesize plausible conspiracies involving some or all of these individuals, agencies and organizations that it's almost irresistible.  The sort of Deep Politics stuff that people like John Newman, Jim DiEugenio and John Armstrong churn out is child's play - lots of time and very hard work, I don't mean to disparage that, but absolutely child's play.  It's the Lone Assassin explanation that is actually counterintuitive and psychologically unsatisfying.  This is why I think it's absolutely critical to make sure that (1) you have the best possible understanding of who Oswald actually was and what his life was actually all about, and (2) not to fall into the trap of (i) inferring that  there simply "had" to be a conspiracy because so many "bad guys" either hated JFK or stood to benefit from his death and (ii) force-fitting a largely fictional "Oswald" into that scenario simply because you have to do something with him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Robert Card said:

This is a good summary,

Well, no, that is a good summary of a fanatical conspiracy enthusiast's perspective on one small portion of the evidence.  The WC, the HSCA and umpteen other medical and forensic experts had the same evidence - and reached the Lone Assassin conclusion (ignoring the HSCA's discredited Dictabelt tangent).  And they weren't all hell-bent Lone Nutters, for crying out loud.  Precisely because Cliff is a fanatical conspiracy enthusiast, he is blind to the facts that (1) there is other evidence that casts doubt on "his" evidence; (2) there are alternative explanations for "his" evidence; and (3) "his" evidence must be viewed in the context of the evidence as a whole, which may (and generally does) make the Single Bullet Theory seem the most plausible explanation even if, in the abstract, it seems implausible.

Cliff's "weaponizing" is actually the Conspiracy Game at its worst.  All that "his" evidence does is present a very legitimate issue that must be addressed by any explanation of the assassination.  No more and no less.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Karl Hilliard said:

 " I truly don't care in any deep sense who killed JFK."

Then why are you here? Or is it just to be sensibly shallow? "Conspiracy game" and "cartoon" doesn't reflect a very serious position but from many, that is to be expected. I have no theories. I have a few ideas about what happened and BTW I saw that motorcade in Dallas just minutes before the ambush in 1963.

It doesn't take much research to see that the authorities... from the police department on up and from LBJ/Hoover on down...using the media as a footstool---lied? ---That is no theory.

 The Warren Commission claimed that truth was their only client but in honesty it actually existed to show the public that Oswald was the only assassin... so stated by their own documents.

 

 

 

I recall once hearing someone else say something very close to these same words " I truly don't care in any deep sense who killed JFK."

It was William F. Buckley during his December 1st, 1966 "Firing Line" interview of Mark Lane.

Access the link below to hear Buckley's exact words at the 36:20 mark of the interview:

 
I always like to hear or read comments by anyone who was right there in the JFK Dallas motorcade crowd on 11,22,1963, especially if their location was in or even nearby Dealey Plaza as member Karl Hilliard was.
 
I will be interested to know more about your "right there" experience Karl.
 
The initial thread here is a worthy one. 
 
Let us honestly examine ourselves in this light for our own sense of facts and logic versus biased emotion validity regards the LN/Conspiracy debate to see which side is more rational and credible.
 
I can't come close to the erudite discussion between the main posters here but in my own way I would like to throw in my two cents.  The back-and-forth exchanges here are stimulating in an intellectual way and also kind of fun to read. Kind of like watching William F. Buckley's "Firing Line' interviews.
 
Especially the Mark Lane one which in my view was a huge win for Lane in the debate realm.
Lane often had Buckley stumbling for credible responses to Lane's well researched assertions about the JFK event and his belief it was the result of a conspiracy. I highly recommend to our members here to view the "Firing Line" interview in its entirety.
 
When one reads more about the JFK event besides the National Enquirer and actually reads the testimonies of the Warren Commission report and reads or listens to hundreds of other testimonies outside of the WC by people who were in some way witnesses to many things connected to the event and the main characters involved, you feel you have no choice but to believe there is so much more to the public record account of the event and this attention seeking lone nut who just got lucky conclusion.
 
In the "Firing Line" debate between William F. Buckley and Mark Lane, Lane puts much weight on Jack Ruby and his improbable access into the Dallas PD building basement to whack Oswald.
 
This action by Ruby and the ability to carry it out ( which ruined any chance at finding out the truth behind Oswald's guilt and possible motives or innocence and who else might have been the guilty parties ) is obviously a "key stone" in Mark Lane's proposition of conspiracy as it should be.
 
Buckley was by and large shut down by Lane when it came to Jack Ruby and Ruby's easy access to do what he did, which was to destroy the most important piece of evidence in the entire JFK event investigation...Lee Harvey Oswald himself.
 
I have off-and-on through the years done self-reflection evaluations on myself regards whether I am an emotionally insecure Payette type person prone to conspiracy thinking to an irrational degree.
 
Sometimes I do think I spend more time on the JFK event than is healthy and actually just drop out for some period of time just to take a mental break from the heaviness of it.
 
However, like Payette, I can't help my curious interest in things besides the most "right in front of your eyes" matters.  
 
I have seen, heard and experienced enough in my 67 years to at least keep an "open mind" to things not always being what they seem on their face in this world of 8 billion humans all doing whatever it takes to survive and meet their basic and often extra-curricular physical, emotional, and ego and monetary needs and desires.
 
The world is and has always been one filled with secrets. You don't have to be a conspiracy nut to know this reality.
 
I unlocked a major secret in my own life after 60 years of suspicion and yet most often pushing this suspicion aside as too conspiracy crazy.
 
My older brother agreed to so a "sibling" DNA test 7 years ago where he and I submitted swabbed samples of our saliva individually to a reputable lab.
 
One and a half months later I learned my "conspiracy" belief was true.
My birth father was different than his and all my six older brothers.
 
A secret my mother kept from me until her death at 86 years of age right in front of me in her rest home room.
 
She could never tell me this conspiracy truth, for whatever reasons.
 
I can't tell you how effecting this new reality was in my thoughts. My whole perspective on my life changed to different degrees.
 
Of course I wondered about who my actual birth father was and had some angst about this being someone ... well ... less than upstanding?
 
My mother once had an elevator operator job very briefly in her younger days before I was born and her most bragged about experience was that a famous actor named "Billy Barty" once climbed in and he flirted heavily with her?
Could this had led to a one night stand?
 
 Barty was a midget. And even though I am 6 ft. tall certain parts of my body are much smaller than normal in size.
 
But the point of my personal story is that millions of people do keep secrets to their grave. 
 
It seems reasonable that this human trait isn't totally absent in regards to most other conspiracy secrets, including the JFK event.
 
 
 
 

 

Edited by Joe Bauer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting and thoughtful post, Joe!  Buckley was no great hero of mine, but his "pompously erudite" delivery was always enjoyable to me.  I'm sure he sounded the same way ordering a Whopper at Burger King (not that he ever did).  Sure, lots of weird things happen in the world and lots of secrets are kept.  On the other hand, with something like the Roswell event of 1947 or the JFK assassination the problem is that too many "secrets" weren't kept - the field is so plagued with wannabes, frauds and phonies that distinguishing the real secrets from the bogus ones is no small task.  Roswell is fascinating because some of those who talked, or at least are reported by family members and associates to have talked, were higher up the chain than those associated with the assassination.  The notion of an alien craft crashing at all strikes me as highly unlikely, but then the other explanations for what was unquestionably a serious event are quite weak and you have to wonder "Why would all of these disparate people tell this wild 'alien bodies' tale?"  Roswell is one event where, after decades of pondering it, I simply throw up my hands and say I don't know.  A "conspiracy of silence" (but about what???)  is certainly more likely than "nothing important happened," and you can reach that conclusion without resorting to Conspiracy Game methodology.

Ruby is one aspect of the assassination on which I am very well-versed.  As Tink Thompson suggested with Umbrella Man, I think this is one of those events just wildly improbable enough to be exactly what it seems on the surface to have been:  Ruby got incredibly lucky on the timing, walked down the ramp, and snapped when he saw Oswald.  Precisely because it was wildly improbable, hypothesizing a more sinister explanation is child's play.  I've always loved Santos Trafficante's response when one of the HSCA folks asked him "What would you say if I told you Ruby was an employee of the Mafia?"  Trafficante:  "I'd say the Mafia needs a new personnel director."

One last thought relative to Karl and then I'll shut up:  It's pure happenstance that we don't have a much better photographic record than we do.  The route had been published some 72 hours before the assassination, yet most of the TSBD employees who testified were unaware until the morning of the assassination that JFK would be passing right in front of their building.  It's pure happenstance that there weren't ten Zapruders and 100 more people with still cameras in windows and spread throughout the Plaza.  This seems to me to make it fantastically less likely that Oswald was standing on the TSBD steps, shooters were positioned behind the grassy knoll fence or on the overpass, or that various other nuggets of Conspiracy Gospel could be true.  You're almost forced to the position Sandy advocated in regard to Prayer Man:  "They were sending a message.  They were so brazen they didn't even care if 15 people saw Oswald standing on the TSBD steps."  Well ….

Edited by Guest
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Robert Card said:

This is a good summary, and with your permission, I'd to copy this comment and use it on an LN site, (if that's allowable.)   Even though I was sick of DVP 20 years ago, I'm sorry to see that his comments are gone, I was working on something with his comments.

I have no problem with this evidence above, it's perfectly understandable and acceptable.  

Robert, by all means quote my summary but if you use it on an LNer site I guarantee the nutters will attack the messenger.

They can't deal with real evidence, so that's all they have.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Lance Payette said:

Well, no, that is a good summary of a fanatical conspiracy enthusiast's perspective on one small portion of the evidence. 

Case in point.  Lance cannot process information outside his nutter bubble so he attacks the messenger.

This is what he calls "one small portion of the evidence":

1)  The physical evidence found with the body -- bullet holes in the clothes 4" below the bottom of the collars.

2)  Admiral George Burkley's death certificate, which cited a back wound at T3.  This document followed proper autopsy protocol by using a point on the spine as a landmark.  It was signed off as "verified".

3)  The portion of the autopsy face sheet filled out in pencil also followed proper autopsy protocol and depicted a back wound location consistent with the holes in the clothes.  This document was signed off -- in pencil -- as "verified".

4)  The contemporaneous notes of Parkland Doctors Charles Carrico and Ronald Coy Jones describing the throat wound as an entrance.

5)  The contemporaneous notes of 4 Federal agents depicting the back wound in a location consistent with T3.

6)   Here's a list of eye-witness statements depicting the throat wound as an entrance, compiled by Denny Zartman:

On 2/24/2019 at 6:27 AM, Denny Zartman said:

Dr. Baxter is quoted in the WC as saying the wound "could well represent either exit or entry wound" but completely contradicts himself in an interview taped in 1979, where he reportedly said it was an entrance wound.

Other than Dr. Baxter, I haven't found any medical professional from Parkland on record as saying JFK's anterior neck wound was possibly one of exit.

I also have not yet found a medical professional at Parkland that opined JFK's anterior neck wound was definitely one of exit.

Using Vincent Palamara's 2015 book "JFK: From Parkland To Bethesda" as my master source, I find that, in addition to Dr. Malcolm Perry and Nurse Audrey Bell, the following persons at Parkland also characterized JFK's anterior neck wound as one of entrance.

  1. Dr. William Clark: "Dr. Kemp Clark...said that there were two wounds, a traumatic wound in the back of the head and a small entrance wound below the Adam's apple..." Pg. 1
  2. Dr. Robert McClelland.: "this [the neck wound] did appear to be an entrance wound." ... "Dr. Robert Mc Clelland ... told me afterward that they still believed it [the neck wound] to be an entry wound." Pgs. 7-8
  3. Dr. Marion Jenkins: saw an entry wound on JFK's neck; would let their 1963 observations stand. Pg. 13
  4. Dr. Charles Carrico: "small penetrating wound of ent. neck" Pg. 14
  5. Dr. Ronald Jones: "The hole [in the throat] was very small and relatively clean cut, as you would see in a bullet that is entering rather than exiting from a patient." ... "compatible with an entrance wound ... I would stand by my original impression." Pgs. 15-16
  6. Dr. Gene Akin: "this [the neck wound] must have been an entrance wound..." Pg. 17
  7. Dr. Paul Peters: "...we saw the wound of entry in the throat..." Pg. 19
  8. Dr. Charles Crenshaw: "There were two wounds to the President that we observed at parkland. The first was a small and neat entrance wound to the throat..." Pg. 22
  9. Dr. Charles Baxter: The wound in the neck was "no more than a pinpoint. It was made by a small caliber weapon. And it was an entry wound." Pg. 24
  10. Dr. Joe Goldstritch: "...I realized how impossible it would have been for the neck wound I saw to have been an exit wound..." Pg. 44
  11. Nurse Diana Bowron: "...the entry wound in his throat...looked like an entry wound." Pg. 33
  12. Nurse Margaret Hinchliffe: "...a little hole in the middle of his neck ... About as big as the end of my little finger...An entrance bullet hole---it looked to me like...I have never seen an exit bullet hole---I don't remember seeing one that looked like that."; "...it was just a small wound and wasn't jagged like most of the exit bullet wounds that I have seen." ... "She also insisted the President had an "entry" wound in his throat." ... "Throat wound---Definitely an entrance wound. Resented Arlen Specter trying to get her to say it might be an exit wound..." Pgs 35-36

In summary,

Adding Dr. Perry and Nurse Bell, that seems to total 11 Parkland doctors and 3 nurses characterizing JFK's anterior neck wound as an entrance wound, with only one (Dr. Baxter) once saying that it could have either been entrance or exit, and then later contradicting himself and claiming that he believed it was one of entrance.

On the opposite end of this, there seems to be not one medical professional at Parkland who saw JFK's neck wound and consistently said that they believed it could have been either one of entrance or exit, or that they believed it was one of exit.

7)  Here's a list of back wound witnesses:

a) 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."

b) 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.

c) 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)

d) 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. </q>

e) 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.  </q>

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

f) 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.

g) 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.

h)  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

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

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

j) 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).

k) 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).

m) 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.

n) 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.

o) 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. </q>

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.

p) 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. </q>

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.

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

Quote

 

The WC, the HSCA and umpteen other medical and forensic experts had the same evidence - and reached the Lone Assassin conclusion (ignoring the HSCA's discredited Dictabelt tangent).  And they weren't all hell-bent Lone Nutters, for crying out loud. 

Both the WC and the HSCA were hell-bent on covering up the phony medical evidence ginned up after the autopsy. 

This bogus "evidence" is easy to spot because it doesn't follow proper autopsy protocol.

Quote

Precisely because Cliff is a fanatical conspiracy enthusiast, he is blind to the facts that (1) there is other evidence that casts doubt on "his" evidence;

Note how Lance is trying to make me the issue not the evidence itself. 

There is a pernicious tendency in the JFKA Research Community to ascribe proprietary interests to various fields of study.  Don Thomas "owns" the acoustics evidence, Stu Wexler "owns" the NAA debunking, David Lifton "owns" body alteration, Vince Palamara "owns" the Secret Service study, Doug Weldon "owned" the t&t windshield hole, Jim DiEugenio "owns" the provenance of CE399, etc., etc.

As a student in the Vincent Salandria School of Research into the Obvious, I don't own the historical record.  That's all I'm citing -- the historical record.

The "evidence" to which Lance refers above:

1) The measurements recorded in pen on the autopsy face sheet.  Using a pen is a violation of autopsy protocol.  These notations used a cranial landmark for a thoracic wound -- a violation of autopsy protocol.  Two moveable landmarks were used -- a double violation of autopsy protocol which calls for a fixed landmark, specifically the spine.

2)  The Fox 5 "back of the head autopsy photo.  Here's what the HSCA medical panel wrote about that:

<quote on>

HSCA Vol. 7 (emphasis added)

Among the JFK assassination materials in the National Archives is a series of negatives and prints of photographs taken during autopsy. The  deficiencies of these photographs as scientific documentation of a forensic autopsy have been described elsewhere. Here it is sufficient to note that:

1. They are generally of rather poor photographic quality.

2. Some, particularly close-ups, were taken in such a manner that it is nearly impossible to anatomically orient the direction of view.

 3. In many, scalar references are entirely lacking, or when present, were positioned in such a manner to make it difficult or impossible to obtain accurate measurements of critical features (such as the wound in the upper back) from anatomical landmarks.

4. None of the photographs contain information identifying the victim;such as his name, the autopsy case number, the date and place of the examination.

In the main, these shortcomings bespeak of haste, inexperience and unfamiliarity with the understandably rigorous standards generally expected in photographs to be used as scientific evidence. In fact, under ordinary circumstances, the defense could raise some reasonable and, perhaps, sustainable objections to an attempt to introduce such poorly made and documented photographs as evidence in a murder trial.  Furthermore, even the prosecution might have second thoughts about using certain of these photographs since they are more confusing than informative. Unfortunately, they are the only photographic record of the autopsy.

 Not all the critics of the Warren Commission have been content to point out the obvious deficiencies of the autopsy photographs as scientific evidence. Some have questioned their very authenticity.  These theorists suggest that the body shown in at least some of the photographs is not President Kennedy, but another decedent deliberately mutilated to simulate a pattern of wounds supportive of the Warren Commissions' interpretation of their nature and significance.  As outlandish as such a macabre proposition might appear, it is one that, had the case gone to trial,might have been effectively raised by an astute defense anxious to block the introduction of the photographs as evidence. In any event, the onus of establishing the authenticity of these photographs would have rested with the prosecution. </q>

Not only are the autopsy photos of dismally poor quality, there is no chain of possession for them.

Saundra Kay Spencer is on record as having developed the extant autopsy photos.

One problem...in her 6/4/97 ARRB testimony she stated:

<quote on>

Q: Did you ever see any other photographic material related to the autopsy in addition to what you have already described?

A: Just, you know, when they came out with some books and stuff later that showed autopsy pictures and stuff, and I assumed that they were done in—you know, down in Dallas or something, because they were not the ones that I had worked on. </q>

So the woman on record as having developed the autopsy photos denies having developed them.

The autopsy photos are worthless.

Quote

(2) there are alternative explanations for "his" evidence;

Here Lance once again insinuates that I am claiming the historical record as my own.  The disingenuousness of such a tactic is obvious.

This is his "alternative explanation", the Chad Zimmerman sequence in Beyond the Magic Bullet:

At 41:03 of this video we can clearly see that the jacket collar rode up over the top of the shirt collar.

All the Elm St. photos show a normal amount of shirt collar above the top of the jacket collar, ergo there was no significant elevation of the clothing.

Quote

and (3) "his" evidence must be viewed in the context of the evidence as a whole, which may (and generally does) make the Single Bullet Theory seem the most plausible explanation even if, in the abstract, it seems implausible.

Again, Lance conflates me with the evidence.  He uses circular logic by insisting the SBT is the most "plausible" explanation even though the evidence of its' impossibility is overwhelming.

Quote

Cliff's "weaponizing" is actually the Conspiracy Game at its worst.  All that "his" evidence does is present a very legitimate issue that must be addressed by any explanation of the assassination.  No more and no less.

Lance makes a good case study for the debilitating effects of confirmation bias.

Edited by Cliff Varnell
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let’s play the Lone Nut Game.  This is where hard evidence is called ‘innuendo and speculation.’  It’s a mechanism used to discredit conspiracy reality.

 

Lance, there are plenty of facts and hard evidence that show the FBI under J Edgar “Mafia Doesn’t Exist” Hoover was a criminal.   Every book written about him, and especially books by his employees, assassinate his character.   In my view, he was a psychopath as he was enraged by slights made against him and his FBI.

 

There’s more than speculation here:

 

In the Urschel kidnapping, handwriting analysis in the hands of the FBI, proving the woman who was accused of writing the ransom note was never revealed until years later, and she did 26 years in prison as an innocent person.   So we know that he’s capable of framing a patsy.

 

Five men, and Lewis Rosenstiel’s fourth wife claim that Hoover was a cross dresser, and us CTers are wackos?  Google the Martin Luther King letter from the FBI.   Hoover stated in 1960 that he thought LHO was being impersonated.

 

Three FBI agents were severely punished for helping the U.S. Attorney in a prosecution of Hoovers’ friend, Roy Cohn.   FBI agents are paid to help the U. S. Attorney, that’s their job.

 

Chief FBI Polygraph Examiner Bell Herndon freely admits in his own Warren Commission testimony that his examination of Jack Ruby was a fraud.

 

FBI agent Regis Kennedy who was to testify before the HSCA on the ‘lost’ home movies of the assassination suddenly dies on the day of his testimony.  Where are those movies, Lance?

 

Johnny and Clyde go to the track on Saturday during the biggest case of their career.  They would not have known that fast if there was any Russian involvement in the assassination, especially since the day before, they didn’t even know who they had as LHO was using the Hidell ID.

 

On Sunday, Hoover declares that the Oswald investigation is dead, and the American people must be made to believe that LHO was the assassin.   This is a cover-up Lance, and you know better.  FBI solves the case in two hours?

 

Mysterious death of William C Sullivan, 3rd in command after Johnny and Clyde.   Robert Novak said that Sullivan had warned him that if he dies, it wouldn’t be an accident.  If true, then that’s murder, Lance.  It was the FBI that investigated Sullivan’s death.  Nice.   Sullivan had his doubts about LHO being the shooter in his posthumous bio.  Kellerman had his doubts about there being one shooter.

 

The law stated that all JFK documents were to be released in Oct 2017, so why are they still hidden?  Where’s the file on George Joannides after a federal judge ordered it to be released?  If something is being covered up, then it means there is something to hide, and you know that Lance.

 

But like I say, this comment is not about the evidence in the assassination, it’s about playing the Lone Nut Game, and why you refuse to be a critical thinker in this matter when you are probably one of the best critical thinkers we have.

 

_______________________________________________________________________________

 

That’s why I side tracked with the Roman Catholic route, or maybe the Masonic, or some Secret Society route.  No one can be that dumb as to think that there’s not some kind of a conspiracy reality in the JFK assasination.  There must be something else.

 

J. Edgar Hoover was Jesuit trained and educated at multiple Jesuit institutions, he was personally given by the Jesuits, a Sword of Ignatius Loyola, the highest award a Jesuit can be bestowed . . . Besides already being a devout Roman Catholic, and lay-Jesuit Temporal Coadjutor, he was indeed, a fourth-vow Jesuit himself, and 33rd degree Shriner Freemason.

 

Francis Spellman, Jesuit Cardinal,…. Spelly’s War, the main reason for JFK’s death.

 

Gerald Ford, 33rd degree Shriner Freemason

 

George H Bush, Jesuit controlled Skull and Bones

 

Charles Bonaparte, Jesuit Knight of Malta, created forerunner of the FBI

 

Joe Kennedy Sr, Jesuit Knight of Malta, had disobedient son.

 

Fidel Castro, Fourth Vow Jesuit Coadjutor…..big communist, died a billionaire.

 

John McAdams from Jesuit Marquette Univ.

 

Gerald Posner from Jesuit Loyola Univ

 

James Jesus Angleton, Jesuit Knight of Malta

 

Allen Dulles, Jesuit Knight of Malta,

 

John Foster Dulles, Jesuit Knight of Malta, Son Avery was a Jesuit Cardinal

 

John McCloy, Jesuit Knight of Malta

 

David Rockefeller, Jesuit Knight of Malta

 

Nelson Rockefeller, Jesuit Knight of Malta

 

G Gordon Liddy, Jesuit Fordham Univ, ...ghostwriter for J Edgar Hoover

 

LBJ, screened at Georgetown Univ  (Jesuit Political Headquarters, Americas)

 

John McCone, Jesuit Knight of Malta

 

Cartha DeLoach, Jesuit Knight of Malta, LBJ’s man in the FBI

 

Lee Iacocca, Jesuit Knight of Malta, Ford exec took control of SS-100-X after the FBI

 

Francis Flanagan, Jesuit Knight of Malta, ITT exec, phones cutoff in Washington after murder

 

James M Moroney, Jesuit Knight of Malta, , Dallas Morning News, controlled the news in Dallas that weekend

 

Thomas Gorman, Jesuit Priest and Bishop, Knight of Malta, Cardinal Spelly’s  right hand man in Dallas.

 

Henry Luce, Jesuit Knight of Malta, Time-Life, media

 

Robert Maheu, Jesuit Georgetown, Holy Cross

 

Harry Connick Jr, Loyola, Jesuit Temporal Coadjutor, Garrison opponent, escorted Fincke to witness stand

 

Dr James C Humes, Jesuit St Josephs Prep, Jesuit St Josephs Univ

 

Lee Harvey Oswald, lecturer at Jesuit Spring Hill College, didn’t shoot anybody

 

Eugene Murret, cousin of LHO, and student at Jesuit House of Studies

 

G Robert Blakey, Jesuit Univ of Notre Dame

 

Henry B Gonzalez, St Marys

 

George Joannides, St Johns

 

Richard McSorley, JFK’s Jesuit, Georgetown Univ

 

Kenneth O’Donnell, Jesuit Boston College, Appt Secy, booked Dallas, drank himself to death

 

Tip O’Neill, Jesuit Boston College, conflicting testimony about shots fired

 

Joseph Califano, Jesuit Holy Cross

 

Alexander Haig, Multiple Jesuit Institutions, Knight of Malta, ‘he really was in charge’

 

Henry Wade, former boss was J Edgar Hoover

 

Hugh Aynesworth, worked for Knight of Malta, James Moroney at Dallas Morning News.  Garrison, Lane critic

 

Univ of Pennsylvania is a Jesuit front, study it.   many in attendance there, Arlen Spector.  others

 

Donald Trump, Jesuit Fordham, Jesuit Univ of Penn, covered up the release of JFK documents in 2017…son, two daughters, Jesuit Georgetown Univ

 

Obama, Clinton, Jesuit Georgetown.

 

“To see what is in front of one’s nose requires a constant struggle.” —George Orwell

 

 

Disclaimer:   I see we have more than one person on this site being a graduate of a Jesuit institution.  Just because a person went to a Jesuit school doesn’t mean they’re part of some cabal of insiders running the world.  They may just want a Catholic education, and know nothing about anything.

 

BTW, there’s no way to change anything.  The Nutwork is so strong that it’s basically impossible to stop them.  We have television to thank for that.  The only thing you can do is make the best deal for yourself.   I tell the rebellious youth of today to not do anything stupid, as you can’t win, the greatest President we ever had, JFK, found that out the hard way.

 

So Lance, I guess you’re off the hook about being a Catholic, but I still don’t know about any other secret society connections you may have.  I know, I’m playing straight man here.

 

Lance, what’s so hard to believe about a coup d’etat?   Jesuits almost got Jackson, they did poison Harrison, and Taylor,  nearly poisoned Buchanan, but he was able to quickly tell his doctors that he was given arsenic so was saved, but sadly, they got Lincoln, and he predicted who was going to get him.   Cardinal Spelly’s war killed JFK.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Lance Payette said:

   So this thread has been valuable to me in at least a couple of respects, which is what I'd hoped for when I used it as a beta-test. I have many interests in the areas of weirdness, each of which has consumed hundreds or thousands of hours in my years ....

So..it looks like you have become quite a legend in your own mind.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Joe Bauer said:

 

 
I will be interested to know more about your "right there" experience Karl.
 

I don't wish to hijack this most nostalgic thread..However somewhat related to what Mr Payette mentioned  -- "The route had been published some 72 hours before the assassination, yet most of the TSBD employees who testified were unaware until the morning of the assassination that JFK would be passing right in front of their building."

Impulsively, I skipped school to ride downtown to see the parade. What is seldom described is the racket that surrounded the motorcade --all the motorcycle cops [dozens] revving their bikes with really loud sirens going and people screaming like at a football game.

The Wilson  building-- HL Green cafeteria window above the word Green--that's where I was.

 HL_Green_(Wilson_Bldg)_1940s.jpg

 Hundreds of open windows all over the streets...Kennedy was a sitting duck. Pops of rifles would have hardly been heard.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Robert Card said:

Let’s play the Lone Nut Game.  This is where hard evidence is called ‘innuendo and speculation.’  It’s a mechanism used to discredit conspiracy reality.

 

Lance, there are plenty of facts and hard evidence that show the FBI under J Edgar “Mafia Doesn’t Exist” Hoover was a criminal.   Every book written about him, and especially books by his employees, assassinate his character.   In my view, he was a psychopath as he was enraged by slights made against him and his FBI.

 

There’s more than speculation here:

 

In the Urschel kidnapping, handwriting analysis in the hands of the FBI, proving the woman who was accused of writing the ransom note was never revealed until years later, and she did 26 years in prison as an innocent person.   So we know that he’s capable of framing a patsy.

 

Five men, and Lewis Rosenstiel’s fourth wife claim that Hoover was a cross dresser, and us CTers are wackos?  Google the Martin Luther King letter from the FBI.   Hoover stated in 1960 that he thought LHO was being impersonated.

 

Three FBI agents were severely punished for helping the U.S. Attorney in a prosecution of Hoovers’ friend, Roy Cohn.   FBI agents are paid to help the U. S. Attorney, that’s their job.

 

Chief FBI Polygraph Examiner Bell Herndon freely admits in his own Warren Commission testimony that his examination of Jack Ruby was a fraud.

 

FBI agent Regis Kennedy who was to testify before the HSCA on the ‘lost’ home movies of the assassination suddenly dies on the day of his testimony.  Where are those movies, Lance?

 

Johnny and Clyde go to the track on Saturday during the biggest case of their career.  They would not have known that fast if there was any Russian involvement in the assassination, especially since the day before, they didn’t even know who they had as LHO was using the Hidell ID.

 

On Sunday, Hoover declares that the Oswald investigation is dead, and the American people must be made to believe that LHO was the assassin.   This is a cover-up Lance, and you know better.  FBI solves the case in two hours?

 

Mysterious death of William C Sullivan, 3rd in command after Johnny and Clyde.   Robert Novak said that Sullivan had warned him that if he dies, it wouldn’t be an accident.  If true, then that’s murder, Lance.  It was the FBI that investigated Sullivan’s death.  Nice.   Sullivan had his doubts about LHO being the shooter in his posthumous bio.  Kellerman had his doubts about there being one shooter.

 

The law stated that all JFK documents were to be released in Oct 2017, so why are they still hidden?  Where’s the file on George Joannides after a federal judge ordered it to be released?  If something is being covered up, then it means there is something to hide, and you know that Lance.

 

But like I say, this comment is not about the evidence in the assassination, it’s about playing the Lone Nut Game, and why you refuse to be a critical thinker in this matter when you are probably one of the best critical thinkers we have.

 

_______________________________________________________________________________

 

That’s why I side tracked with the Roman Catholic route, or maybe the Masonic, or some Secret Society route.  No one can be that dumb as to think that there’s not some kind of a conspiracy reality in the JFK assasination.  There must be something else.

 

J. Edgar Hoover was Jesuit trained and educated at multiple Jesuit institutions, he was personally given by the Jesuits, a Sword of Ignatius Loyola, the highest award a Jesuit can be bestowed . . . Besides already being a devout Roman Catholic, and lay-Jesuit Temporal Coadjutor, he was indeed, a fourth-vow Jesuit himself, and 33rd degree Shriner Freemason.

 

Francis Spellman, Jesuit Cardinal,…. Spelly’s War, the main reason for JFK’s death.

 

Gerald Ford, 33rd degree Shriner Freemason

 

George H Bush, Jesuit controlled Skull and Bones

 

Charles Bonaparte, Jesuit Knight of Malta, created forerunner of the FBI

 

Joe Kennedy Sr, Jesuit Knight of Malta, had disobedient son.

 

Fidel Castro, Fourth Vow Jesuit Coadjutor…..big communist, died a billionaire.

 

John McAdams from Jesuit Marquette Univ.

 

Gerald Posner from Jesuit Loyola Univ

 

James Jesus Angleton, Jesuit Knight of Malta

 

Allen Dulles, Jesuit Knight of Malta,

 

John Foster Dulles, Jesuit Knight of Malta, Son Avery was a Jesuit Cardinal

 

John McCloy, Jesuit Knight of Malta

 

David Rockefeller, Jesuit Knight of Malta

 

Nelson Rockefeller, Jesuit Knight of Malta

 

G Gordon Liddy, Jesuit Fordham Univ, ...ghostwriter for J Edgar Hoover

 

LBJ, screened at Georgetown Univ  (Jesuit Political Headquarters, Americas)

 

John McCone, Jesuit Knight of Malta

 

Cartha DeLoach, Jesuit Knight of Malta, LBJ’s man in the FBI

 

Lee Iacocca, Jesuit Knight of Malta, Ford exec took control of SS-100-X after the FBI

 

Francis Flanagan, Jesuit Knight of Malta, ITT exec, phones cutoff in Washington after murder

 

James M Moroney, Jesuit Knight of Malta, , Dallas Morning News, controlled the news in Dallas that weekend

 

Thomas Gorman, Jesuit Priest and Bishop, Knight of Malta, Cardinal Spelly’s  right hand man in Dallas.

 

Henry Luce, Jesuit Knight of Malta, Time-Life, media

 

Robert Maheu, Jesuit Georgetown, Holy Cross

 

Harry Connick Jr, Loyola, Jesuit Temporal Coadjutor, Garrison opponent, escorted Fincke to witness stand

 

Dr James C Humes, Jesuit St Josephs Prep, Jesuit St Josephs Univ

 

Lee Harvey Oswald, lecturer at Jesuit Spring Hill College, didn’t shoot anybody

 

Eugene Murret, cousin of LHO, and student at Jesuit House of Studies

 

G Robert Blakey, Jesuit Univ of Notre Dame

 

Henry B Gonzalez, St Marys

 

George Joannides, St Johns

 

Richard McSorley, JFK’s Jesuit, Georgetown Univ

 

Kenneth O’Donnell, Jesuit Boston College, Appt Secy, booked Dallas, drank himself to death

 

Tip O’Neill, Jesuit Boston College, conflicting testimony about shots fired

 

Joseph Califano, Jesuit Holy Cross

 

Alexander Haig, Multiple Jesuit Institutions, Knight of Malta, ‘he really was in charge’

 

Henry Wade, former boss was J Edgar Hoover

 

Hugh Aynesworth, worked for Knight of Malta, James Moroney at Dallas Morning News.  Garrison, Lane critic

 

Univ of Pennsylvania is a Jesuit front, study it.   many in attendance there, Arlen Spector.  others

 

Donald Trump, Jesuit Fordham, Jesuit Univ of Penn, covered up the release of JFK documents in 2017…son, two daughters, Jesuit Georgetown Univ

 

Obama, Clinton, Jesuit Georgetown.

 

“To see what is in front of one’s nose requires a constant struggle.” —George Orwell

 

 

Disclaimer:   I see we have more than one person on this site being a graduate of a Jesuit institution.  Just because a person went to a Jesuit school doesn’t mean they’re part of some cabal of insiders running the world.  They may just want a Catholic education, and know nothing about anything.

 

BTW, there’s no way to change anything.  The Nutwork is so strong that it’s basically impossible to stop them.  We have television to thank for that.  The only thing you can do is make the best deal for yourself.   I tell the rebellious youth of today to not do anything stupid, as you can’t win, the greatest President we ever had, JFK, found that out the hard way.

 

So Lance, I guess you’re off the hook about being a Catholic, but I still don’t know about any other secret society connections you may have.  I know, I’m playing straight man here.

 

Lance, what’s so hard to believe about a coup d’etat?   Jesuits almost got Jackson, they did poison Harrison, and Taylor,  nearly poisoned Buchanan, but he was able to quickly tell his doctors that he was given arsenic so was saved, but sadly, they got Lincoln, and he predicted who was going to get him.   Cardinal Spelly’s war killed JFK.

That's a heck of a list Robert.  it reminded me of these books.

https://www.amazon.com/Rule-Secrecy-Trilateral-Commission-Freemasons/dp/0060931841/ref=sr_1_1?crid=1N7CINX8WY6VX&keywords=rule+by+secrecy+jim+marrs&qid=1567475672&s=books&sprefix=rule+by%2Caps%2C277&sr=1-1

https://www.amazon.com/Rise-Fourth-Reich-Societies-Threaten/dp/0061245593/ref=sr_1_2?crid=1N7CINX8WY6VX&keywords=rule+by+secrecy+jim+marrs&qid=1567475809&s=books&sprefix=rule+by%2Caps%2C277&sr=1-2

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The FBI investigation of the JFK case--if you can call it that--was an utter joke.

How bad was it?  Even the WC thought it was unacceptable.  And Hoover knew it was nothing but a cover story.  He said it twice.  Both comments are in Destiny Betrayed.

Bill Turner, a former FBI agent, told me that all he had to do was read through several reports and he understood the fix was in.  

He said, after you collect the leads, the second step for an agent is to follow those leads though to their ultimate conclusion. After that you collate the relevant evidence into a report that does not draw any conclusion as to guilt or innocence.  He said looking at reports he was able to secure from his buds, it was obvious that the second step had not been performed.  In fact, it was avoided with such rigor  that he concluded the orders came on from up high.  Because FBI agents do not act like that as investigators. But even though the inquiry was not followed through on, they still formed a conclusion. To a former ten year agent, that was the dead giveaway.  In fact, Turner said the decline of the FBI's public reputation began with the JFK case.

And how many people know the following?  That whole phony CBLA junk science test that people like Blakey used, that had its beginnings with the JFK case.  Vincent Guinn was trying to sell it to the Bureau at that time.  They did not really bite, but they did later.  Guinn went on to make lots of money off of it until Ric Randich and Pat Grant tore it apart.

This is how politically loaded the JFK case is. In an evidentiary  manner, it becomes the Bermuda Triangle. All the normal rules are turned upside down. And it began with Hoover.

 

Edited by James DiEugenio
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...