Why Are People Here Debating About Debunked Material?

[Charles Blackmon]

The "magic bullet theory" has been totally debunked by researchers including many on this Forum. Yet it still gets brought up repeatedly on here as if it is fact. Can the mods start doing something about the disinformation peddlers?

[James DiEugenio]

One would think that because of the claims made by Bugliosi and Posner, which I outlined and quoted from, that this would make anyone look upon CE 399 with a jaundiced eye.

 

[Bill Brown]

.

Edited June 6, 2023 by Bill Brown

[Joe Bauer]

There is valid rational logic behind not trusting the Warren Commission nor it's main guilty party conclusion.

Starting with the Katzenbach memo.

Then, the make-up of the Commission itself.

Kennedy fired Allen Dulles. Impartial towards JFK? Please.

FBI and Hoover loyalist Gerald Ford? Hoover hated JFK and RFK and Gerald Ford loved Hoover.

Kennedy hating Southern State Reps?

No one from the Northern states?

John McCloy. Could write a book about his secret loyalties.

Warren himself was compromised. LBJ put the fear of WW III into him.

So, the make-up of the WC from the very beginning was a farce regards true impartiality toward JFK and RFK.

One must read ALL of the testimonies in the Warren Report to truly have credibility in determining whether they give the report enough weight to bolster their final finding conclusion versus not.

I've read very close to 70 to 75% of the testimonies. Years of reading.

Some of the more technical testimonies went over my head and are very hard to stick with. So, admittedly I can't say I have read everything.

Still, there are so many testimonies that ( imo ) inject as much doubt regards the WC findings that my truth gut instincts just won't allow me to believe their "lone gunman-no conspiracy" conclusion.

I could cite 50 testimonies that rattle that cage. Other even more WC educated researchers certainly come up with many more.

Just a dozen that I can instantly pull off the top of my head are the testimonies of:

Seth Kantor.

Sylvia Odio.

Orest Pena.

James Hosty.  Who admitted he withheld the true story of his destroying Oswald's FBI file upon orders from his boss from the commission just 3 days after 11,22,1963. Mind blowing.

SS agent Kellerman. 

Marina Oswald's manipulated and ever-changing testimony.

Michael Paine.

Dr. James "Red" Duke. Governor John Connally's trauma room surgeon.

Dr. Charles Baxter, Parkland physician.

Dean Andrews.

Arnold Lewis Roland. Houston Street sidewalk bystander who saw man with rifle in two TXSBD 6th floor windows.

Priscilla Mary Post Johnson McMillan.

And never leave out the September, 1969 Walter Cronkite/LBJ interview in which LBJ himself expresses doubt in totally dismissing that Oswald may have had international connections.

 

 

 

Edited June 8, 2023 by Joe Bauer

[Bill Brown]

12 minutes ago, Joe Bauer said:

There is valid rational logic behind not trusting the Warren Commission nor it's main guilty party conclusion.

Starting with the Katzenbach memo.

Then, the make-up of the Commission itself.

Kennedy fired Allen Dulles. Impartial towards JFK? Please.

FBI and Hoover loyalist Gerald Ford? Hoover hated JFK and RFK and Gerald Ford loved Hoover.

Kennedy hating Southern State Reps?

No one from the Northern states?

John McCloy. Could write a book about his secret loyalties.

Warren himself was compromised. LBJ put the fear of WW III into him.

So, the make-up of the WC from the very beginning was a farce regards true impartiality toward JFK and RFK.

One must read ALL of the testimonies in the Warren Report to truly have credibility in determining whether they give the report enough weight to bolster their final finding conclusion versus not.

I've read very close to 70 to 75% of the testimonies. Years of reading.

Some of the more technical testimonies went over my head and are very hard to stick with. So, admittedly I can't say I have read everything.

Still, there are so many testimonies that ( imo ) inject as much doubt regards the WC findings that my truth gut instincts just won't allow me to believe their "lone gunman-no conspiracy" conclusion.

I could cite 50 testimonies that rattle that cage. Other even more WC educated researchers certainly come up with many more.

Just a dozen that I can instantly pull off the top of my head are the testimonies of:

Seth Kantor.

Sylvia Odio.

Orest Pena.

James Hosty.  Who admitted he withheld the true story of his destroying Oswald's FBI file upon orders from his boss from the commission just 3 days after 11,22,1963. Mind blowing.

SS agent Kellerman. 

Marina Oswald's manipulated and ever-changing testimony.

Michael Paine.

Dr. James "Red" Duke. Governor John Connally's trauma room surgeon.

Dr. Charles Baxter, Parkland physician.

Dean Andrews.

Arnold Lewis Roland. Houston Street sidewalk bystander who saw man with rifle in two TXSBD 6th floor windows.

Karen Carlin. Carousel stripper "Little Lynn."

And never leave out the September, 1969 Walter Cronkite/LBJ interview in which LBJ himself expresses doubt in totally dismissing that Oswald may have had international connections.

 

 

 

 

"Starting with the Katzenbach memo."

 

Oswald was guilty.  What's wrong with wanting to be sure to present the evidence in a responsible manner since presenting it irresponsibly could lead to unfounded rumors?

 

 

"Arnold Lewis Roland. Houston Street sidewalk bystander who saw man with rifle in two TXSBD 6th floor windows."

 

Not at the same time.  So what?

 

[Michael Griffith]

On 6/6/2023 at 4:41 PM, Bill Brown said:

"Starting with the Katzenbach memo."

Oswald was guilty.  What's wrong with wanting to be sure to present the evidence in a responsible manner since presenting it irresponsibly could lead to unfounded rumors?

"Arnold Lewis Roland. Houston Street sidewalk bystander who saw man with rifle in two TXSBD 6th floor windows."

Not at the same time.  So what?

Your answer indicates extreme bias.

Katzenbach wrote that memo just three days after the assassination, before anyone had had enough time to do anything resembling a thorough investigation. Heck, the DPD still had not claimed that Lt. Day had found Oswald's palmprint on the rifle yet. Even if Oswald was guilty, Katzenbach's memo was highly irresponsible and inappropriate.

As for you comment about Arnold Rowland's account, are you seriously suggesting that it's no big deal that he saw two men with rifles on the sixth floor because he saw them shortly before the shooting occurred and not during the shooting itself?!

 

Edited June 8, 2023 by Michael Griffith

[Bill Brown]

5 hours ago, Michael Griffith said:

Your answer indicates extreme bias.

Katzenbach wrote that memo just three days after the assassination, before anyone had had enough time to do anything resembling a thorough investigation. Heck, the DPD still had not claimed that Lt. Day had found Oswald's palmprint on the rifle yet. Even if Oswald was guilty, Katzenbach's memo was highly irresponsible and inappropriate.

As for you comment about Arnold Rowland's account, are you seriously suggesting that it's no big deal that he saw two men with rifles on the sixth floor because he saw them shortly before the shooting occurred and not during the shooting itself?!

 

 

"As for you comment about Arnold Rowland's account, are you seriously suggesting that it's no big deal that he saw two men with rifles on the sixth floor because he saw them shortly before the shooting occurred and not during the shooting itself?!"

 

What are you talking about?  Rowland never said he saw two men with rifles.  Learn the testimonial record, please.