John McAdams has passed on

[David G. Healy]

2 hours ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

Why is it a howler? are you disputing, for example, that Wikipedia says this? Let's take a look:

Lee Harvey Oswald (October 18, 1939 – November 24, 1963) was a former U.S. Marine who assassinated United States president John F. Kennedy on November 22, 1963.

The majority of the media, historians, academia, scientists etc. say this. Even the HSCA, who theorists never tire of quoting regarding their "finding" of conspiracy, believed this.

So, you folks need to find something big that will get them to change their minds. That is my point. Or you can stay here in your sandbox and assure each other that you have solved the case and everyone would know this if it wasn't for the worldwide media conspiracy that covers it up. If you really cared, you would be doing something to change the verdict of history with the people that matter which should be very easy to do with all the "overwhelming" evidence you have.

ya been on this nutter gig for around 30 years now, that I know of. Ya could drop this comment of yours right into the middle of R.DellaRosa's JFKAssassination Research forum 25 years ago and there's not one bit of advancement/change of the Nutter/Warren fantasy you visualize today... Ya "debate" (and I use that term loosely) case evidence and you simply can't support Warren Commission conclusions with critic's PROOF, therefore, there is NO debate about 1964 case evidence...

Talk of someone's sandbox, lmao. Dude, you haven't emptied the first post 1964  pail of critic's provided evidence yet and that, is illuminating.

Say a rosary for .John, they'll be another research college savior wagon you can attach to soon.

Present your LHO did it all by his lonesome case. If you have one. There is still an abundance humor on the critic's side of the case for CONSPIRACY.

Attrition will not denied. 

Lone Nut's can't close the WCR deal, simply incapable of doing so...

Have a nice Sunday.

Edited April 25, 2021 by David G. Healy
I found a spelling error...lmao!

[W. Niederhut]

And the scripture reading for this Sunday, regarding Parnell's homily, is from Proverbs 26:11...

"As a dog returneth to his vomit, so a fool returneth to his folly."

[W. Tracy Parnell]

8 minutes ago, David G. Healy said:

ya been on this nutter gig for around 30 years now, that I know of.

You have missed the point. I don't HAVE to convince anyone of anything. I can go home right now and Wikipedia will still say what it does. You guys really should read Uscinski's book. The "Epistemological authorities" (as he calls them) like Wikipedia are who you need to convince, not each other which is all you are doing here.

[David G. Healy]

15 minutes ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

You have missed the point. I don't HAVE to convince anyone of anything. I can go home right now and Wikipedia will still say what it does. You guys really should read Uscinski's book. The "Epistemological authorities" (as he calls them) like Wikipedia are who you need to convince, not each other which is all you are doing here.

lmao.... Dude Wikipedia is like dust on my doorstep (don't track it in the house)... Now, Mark Lane's Rush to Judgement, that's another story. 

As I said: lone nut's can't close the WCR conclusions deal. It's simply impossible to sanctify lies... 

Edited April 25, 2021 by David G. Healy
brilliance...

[Guest]

52 minutes ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

IMO, it all would start with a unified theory that the prominent members of the CT community could get behind. Such a theory would explain who orchestrated the conspiracy and (specifically) how and why they did it. The theory would also have to (specifically) explain how all of the evidence against LHO was faked and who did it. If you had this, there would be no way that the media (who would be the first entity you should contact) could ignore you. For example, Morley, as a former journalist, gets press all the time. But he has no unified theory, just a bunch of suspicions (Joannides or Phillips or Angleton must have been guilty).

Now, I have been saying this (which I do in all seriousness) for years and the CTs just laugh at me or ignore me. And most really don't want to do anything about it anyway. They just want to sit on forums like this one and communicate with others that share their belief. It is just a hobby.

Believe me, if I thought there really was a conspiracy, I would be the first in line to try and do something. But a specific unified theory is the key and that must be first.

The very reason I asked the question was that I thought you’d walk straight into a reply like this. You’re living in this bubble of ignorant bliss, where corruption doesn’t exist, the press is free of bias and the establishment is populated by honest citizens who have no agenda. In that world the Pentagon & CIA are holy organisations protecting citizens like you from bad things. It really doesn’t matter whether you read about the Roman Empire, the British Empire or the USA’s dominance of the world we live in, you’ll see the same corruption and behaviours in any of these dominance hierarchies, in one form or another. 
 

Are there any conspiracy theories that you believe in? Or does the state have to declassify and rubber stamp them, making them official history for you to be on board? Be careful how you answer that. 

Edited April 25, 2021 by Chris Barnard

[James DiEugenio]

Let me post this again since Parnell wants to ignore it.

https://kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/jfk-and-the-unforgivable-how-the-historians-version-of-the-jfk-assassination-dishonors-the-historical-record-part-1

Please do not.  Its an important article.  Paul did something that no one had ever done before.  I mean no one.  He actually contacted many of these authors of history text books.

He asked them two basic questions,: what they had read on the JFK case, and what they based their statements on in their books. The answer to the first was, very little.  A repeated answer to the second was Posner and Bugliosi.

But this is the clincher: in most of the cases, the author did not even reveal if he had read those two books!  Does anyone think they read Bugliosi's door stop? No indication they did.

What Parnell wants to ignore is this fact: these authors understand the drift.  No one gets ahead in the game advocating for the true facts of the JFK case e.g. Jim Garrison, Dick Sprague. We saw what happened at CBS in 1967.  (Another one about which he says, I read that, let us ignore it.) Even "alternative media" PBS succumbed in 1993 when they hired the two hacks, Gus Russo and Dale Myers to do their cover up show, replete with Ed Butler. 

The other thing Parnell wants to ignore is that this demonstrates that Kennedy's assassination was a political crime. It was not Oswald, or the Mafia.  This is why Bob Loomis and Harold Evans did what they did with Posner.  This is why Alec Baldwin could not get his program on NBC, as big a star as we was and is.  They said  to Alec something like, we have reconciled ourselves to the official story.

No one will ever know what actually happened to President Kennedy. So this unified theory that he talks about is pie in the sky.  No one will ever know the actual way the plot worked and who the planners were and who the hit men were. One reason being the rigged autopsy.  The other reason being something Parnell does not want to admit: the Warren Commission covered all that up.  I mean way back then, attorney Stanley Marks accused them of doing just that. He did not buy the idea that they were in the dark as to what really happened.  They were willing accomplices.  And they kept at it for decades on in, even going after Oliver Stone 30 years later.  And let us not deny this because Jerry Ford admitted it to Giscard d'Estaing years later when he was president.

https://kennedysandking.com/news-items/the-kennedy-assassination-the-dream-was-assassinated-along-with-the-man-giscard-says

I don't see how it gets worse than that.  But Parnell will say, I read that.  Doesn't matter if one of the Commissioners confessed.

🙂

Edited April 25, 2021 by James DiEugenio

[W. Tracy Parnell]

5 hours ago, Chris Barnard said:

Are there any conspiracy theories that you believe in? Or does the state have to declassify and rubber stamp them, making them official history for you to be on board? Be careful how you answer that.

I am going to have to finish my work on Uscinski. I think it would be helpful. Conspiracies exist of course-Lincoln assassination, Watergate and many others. The JFK thing is just a conspiracy theory until proven. What you have to do is find a way to prove it to those that matter. See Greg Doudna's post in the "Question to Lone Nutters" thread-he explained it better than I did.

[W. Tracy Parnell]

5 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

And let us not deny this because Jerry Ford admitted it to Giscard d'Estaing years later when he was president.

Yes, that's what d'Estaing says Ford said. There are other possibilities such as d'Estaing was not telling the truth for his own reasons or that Ford was telling d'Estaing what he wanted to hear. But in Jim's world when someone says something that he agrees with-it becomes a fact.

[Cliff Varnell]

37 minutes ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

Yes, that's what d'Estaing says Ford said. There are other possibilities such as d'Estaing was not telling the truth for his own reasons or that Ford was telling d'Estaing what he wanted to hear. But in Jim's world when someone says something that he agrees with-it becomes a fact.

In Tracy's world when someone points out facts of conspiracy that Tracy can't refute he simply pretends the evidence doesn't exist.

 

[Guest]

36 minutes ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

I am going to have to finish my work on Uscinski. I think it would be helpful. Conspiracies exist of course-Lincoln assassination, Watergate and many others. The JFK thing is just a conspiracy theory until proven. What you have to do is find a way to prove it to those that matter. See Greg Doudna's post in the "Question to Lone Nutters" thread-he explained it better than I did.

Well, that's actually pretty fair comment if you do believe there are unsolved conspiracies and that they can go on at a very high level. Though I would point out that you only need a second person to make it a 'conspiracy'. There is more than ample evidence to suggest there is more than one person involved. Why do you have trouble accepting eye witness accounts or @Cliff Varnell's succinct explanation of first day evidence outlined in this thread? Sounds like Oswald couldn't be convicted on it in a fair trial. Back to the start, it should be classed as 'unsolved'. 

[Benjamin Cole]

6 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

Let me post this again since Parnell wants to ignore it.

https://kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/jfk-and-the-unforgivable-how-the-historians-version-of-the-jfk-assassination-dishonors-the-historical-record-part-1

Please do not.  Its an important article.  Paul did something that no one had ever done before.  I mean no one.  He actually contacted many of these authors of history text books.

He asked them two basic questions,: what they had read on the JFK case, and what they based their statements on in their books. The answer to the first was, very little.  A repeated answer to the second was Posner and Bugliosi.

But this is the clincher: in most of the cases, the author did not even reveal if he had read those two books!  Does anyone think they read Bugliosi's door stop? No indication they did.

What Parnell wants to ignore is this fact: these authors understand the drift.  No one gets ahead in the game advocating for the true facts of the JFK case e.g. Jim Garrison, Dick Sprague. We saw what happened at CBS in 1967.  (Another one about which he says, I read that, let us ignore it.) Even "alternative media" PBS succumbed in 1993 when they hired the two hacks, Gus Russo and Dale Myers to do their cover up show, replete with Ed Butler. 

The other thing Parnell wants to ignore is that this demonstrates that Kennedy's assassination was a political crime. It was not Oswald, or the Mafia.  This is why Bob Loomis and Harold Evans did what they did with Posner.  This is why Alec Baldwin could not get his program on NBC, as big a star as we was and is.  They said  to Alec something like, we have reconciled ourselves to the official story.

No one will ever know what actually happened to President Kennedy. So this unified theory that he talks about is pie in the sky.  No one will ever know the actual way the plot worked and who the planners were and who the hit men were. One reason being the rigged autopsy.  The other reason being something Parnell does not want to admit: the Warren Commission covered all that up.  I mean way back then, attorney Stanley Marks accused them of doing just that. He did not buy the idea that they were in the dark as to what really happened.  They were willing accomplices.  And they kept at it for decades on in, even going after Oliver Stone 30 years later.  And let us not deny this because Jerry Ford admitted it to Giscard d'Estaing years later when he was president.

https://kennedysandking.com/news-items/the-kennedy-assassination-the-dream-was-assassinated-along-with-the-man-giscard-says

I don't see how it gets worse than that.  But Parnell will say, I read that.  Doesn't matter if one of the Commissioners confessed.

🙂

James D-

Egads, the more one reads about the JFKA and US foreign-policy military history, the more depressing it gets. 

The standard chatter from historians is clueless.

How many people understand the global security state and the multinational-commercial class for which it works?

Thanks to leads from you, I read up on Indonesia. In some respects, I wish I hadn't. It is like learning the US dropped 260 million cluster bomblets on Laos. They still go off sometimes, taking limbs. No one cares. 

As you recently stated, there are few rewards for being informed. 

Don't stress about people with different opinions.  You do have admirers. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[James DiEugenio]

Thanks Benjamin.  Poulgrain's book is really good on Indonesia.

 

[Hank Sienzant]

On 4/21/2021 at 6:46 PM, Cliff Varnell said:

The spin you put on this stuff must be dizzying.

This is stuff I learned before kindergarten.

Seriously, inside and outside?

I'm not the one arguing when Oswald said he was inside the building he really meant outside. You are.

I have steps going up to my front door. When I stand on my steps, I am outside my house. Oswald denied being on the steps, denied being outside, he said he was inside the building. 

What will you be disputing tomorrow, the difference between large and small? Critics do that about Connally's back wound as well, claiming the wound was described as both large and small. 

Hank

PS: I noticed you didn't try to rebut my argument in any fashion, you just asserted it was 'spin'. 

 

 

 

[Hank Sienzant]

On 4/21/2021 at 7:39 PM, W. Niederhut said:

Hank,

        You must be talking about those poorly photo-shopped, reverse-sequence frames of the Zapruder film published by Henry Luce and CIA asset C.D. Jackson in Life magazine in November of 1963, eh?

        I'm referring to the actual Zapruder film that we all finally got to see in 1975.

        On the actual Zapruder film, JFK's head clearly snaps violently backward and to the left when struck by the fatal bullet fired from the Grassy Knoll area.  And the occipital skull fragment and brain matter was blasted backward behind the limo, striking a cop. 

        

I'll await your evidence the frames in LIFE magazine are photo-shopped in any way.

I'll await your evidence the Zapruder film is different from the frames published in LIFE magazine.

Your assertions are not evidence. 

On the actual Zapruder film, as published in the Warren Commission volumes of evidence, the head moves backward starting in Z315, approximately 1/9th of a second after the bullet impact is visible on the head.

This was - for the second time now - ascertained by Nobel Prize winning physicist Richard Feynman when David Lifton tried to draw Feynman into the assassination debate. But from the moment immediately before the impact (Z312) to the moment immediately after impact (Z313), the head moves forward. Lifton details all this in his book, BEST EVIDENCE. 

Hank

[Cliff Varnell]

27 minutes ago, Hank Sienzant said:

This is stuff I learned before kindergarten.

Before kindergarten you should have learned that the back of your neck isn't four inches below the bottom of your shirt collar.  That's a lesson you still haven't learned.

27 minutes ago, Hank Sienzant said:

Seriously, inside and outside?

He said of course he was in the building because he worked there.  That was the context of his statement -- he worked in that building.

27 minutes ago, Hank Sienzant said:

I'm not the one arguing when Oswald said he was inside the building he really meant outside. You are.

There you go again, taking his comment out of context.

27 minutes ago, Hank Sienzant said:

I have steps going up to my front door. When I stand on my steps, I am outside my house. Oswald denied being on the steps, denied being outside, he said he was inside the building. 

Oswald didn't deny being on the steps.  You're making that up because you can't touch anything else I've written.

27 minutes ago, Hank Sienzant said:

What will you be disputing tomorrow, the difference between large and small?

LNers dispute the location of the back of JFK's neck.

27 minutes ago, Hank Sienzant said:

 

Critics do that about Connally's back wound as well, claiming the wound was described as both large and small. 

Hank

PS: I noticed you didn't try to rebut my argument in any fashion, you just asserted it was 'spin'.

I noticed that Hosty's notes are the only item in the First Day Evidence you took exception to.