Moderators

[Benjamin Cole]

9 hours ago, Michael Griffith said:

I think most rational, educated people, especially those who know anything about Israel's early history, would agree that "Israel's possible involvement" is an absurd, fringe, far-fetched proposition that is well beyond the bounds of respectable discussion. 

Michael Griffith: I disagree with you on some issues, but I notice you always argue from the viewpoint that "American should do the right thing." 

And I agree with you that Nazism, communism (as practiced in nation-states) and anti-Semitic bile are reprehensible. 

The ridiculous tale that Israelis murdered JFK...well, maybe the Mormon mafia did too. A combo job. I posted here recently a treatment on how Utah Sen. Bennett and the Mormon mafia, acting through Tosh Plumlee, did the deed. BTW, Bennett was hip-deep in Watergate, interestingly enough. And running a PR front for the CIA that had hired E. Howard Hunt. 

This photo below explains much of the anti-Semitic excrement that make the rounds in the Mideast today. And even in the US. 

 

"The Führer stated that Germany would not intervene in internal Arab matters and that the only German “goal at that time would be the annihilation of Jewry living in Arab space under the protection of British power.”

Well, that is the sanitized version of what Hitler said, to the welcoming ears of Arabs. 

Keep fighting for what you believe is right Michael Griffith. I do not think the US should have gotten entangled in Vietnam...but the commies showed their true colors when they massacred thousands of people in the old imperial capital of Hue.

Typical event in Hue: 

"Pham Van Tuong, a part-time janitor for the Huế government information office who made it on the Vietcong list of "reactionaries" for working there, was hiding with his family as it hunted for him. When he was found with his 3-year-old daughter, 5-year-old son and two nephews, the Vietcong immediately gunned them all down, leaving their bodies on the street for the rest of the family to see."

It is insanity when certain segments on the US political spectrum valorize the communists, the Nazis, or Putin, or Hamas. 

 

 

[Pat Speer]

9 hours ago, Michael Griffith said:

I think most rational, educated people, especially those who know anything about Israel's early history, would agree that "Israel's possible involvement" is an absurd, fringe, far-fetched proposition that is well beyond the bounds of respectable discussion. 

You might be surprised by the people who have considered Israel's involvement. While I am not one of them, I don't consider it out of bounds to wonder if a group of people whose very survival was under attack might think their survival was dependent on their having a nuclear weapon, and that they would stop at nothing to have such a weapon. Unfortunately, this can never be discussed in a rational manner because someone always brings up 9/11 and the "dancing Israelis" and so on. And the discussion always goes down from there. You weren't a member at the time, but I recall an instance where a certain prominent member brought up the "dancing Israelis" etc, only to be denounced by another member, who had once written a chapter for an anthology put together by the first member. This quickly devolved into the first member's attacking the second member, and making him out to be a greedy you know what. It then came out that the first member had never paid the second member for his contribution to his book, but had paid his expenses to a conference at which the book was promoted, and was now demanding he be repaid! Just awful. Anyhow, this topic has come up many times over the years, and it always turns ugly. In a similar vein, more than once someone has come to believe the fifth floor witnesses--Jarman, Norman, and Williams--were actually in on the killing, and took from this that black Americans as a whole were complicit. One such challenged person even admitted that upon coming to this (rather stupid, IMO) conclusion, he went through his record collection and threw out all the records by black musicians. I mean, what the flip? Anyhow, it was around this time that I finally understood that some of my fellow forum members were not only unwell, but potentially dangerous. 

Edited January 13 by Pat Speer

[Pat Speer]

7 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

Your belief in that forces you to also believe that nearly every witness to the gaping head wound mass-hallucinated it being where it wasn't. Now THAT is far-fetched.

In contrast, most of us believe what the witnesses said, and that it was the photographic evidence that was altered. There is nothing far-fetched about that.

Therefore, what I and most others believe is not far fetched at all. What you believe is.

 

You can believe the medical evidence was altered, Sandy. Many fine people do. But you really shouldn't claim "every witness" saw the same thing, etc, when you know full well that the first witnesses--the Newmans, Burkley, and Zapruder--claimed to see something completely different, and that some of the Parkland witnesses (McClelland, in his first report, Baxter, Salyer and Giesecke in their testimony) also said something different. You're a math guy. If you go back and quantify the witnesses in chronological order, and assume those placing the wound on the right rear meant the right side of the head, towards the back, and NOT the right side of the far back of the head, you will see that the case for a blow-out wound on the far back of the head, as depicted in the McClelland drawing, is actually pretty weak. 

So, in short, you're 100% wrong when you claim I won't admit the back of the head was blown out because of my bias against photo alteration. I would admit it, if that's what was suggested by the evidence...as a whole.

1. We have a pool of witness statements which is erratic, and kind of a mess. Those seeing JFK get hit thought he was hit by the temple or the right side of the head. They saw but one wound, a large one. Those seeing JFK at Parkland thought it was towards the back of the head. They saw but one wound, a large one. Those seeing JFK at Bethesda saw two wounds, a small entrance wound low on the back of the head, and a large defect at the top of the head, which some, viewing the wound after the scalp was peeled back and skull fell to the table, thought stretched down onto the back of the head. As stated, it's all a big mess. One should be reluctant to come come to conclusions about the nature. and location of the wounds based purely on the recollections of the witnesses. 

2. We should feel fortunate, then, that there was an autopsy report, which largely confirmed the impressions of the plaza witnesses and Bethesda witnesses. 

3. We should feel fortunate, then, that x-rays and photographs were taken at this autopsy, and that they largely confirm the impressions of the plaza witnesses and Bethesda witnesses. 

4. And we should feel fortunate, then, that there are photos of the shooting, which largely confirm the impressions of the plaza witnesses and Bethesda witnesses. 

5. Now, it should also be noted that the impressions of the plaza witnesses, the x-rays and autopsy photos, and the photographs of the shooting, strongly suggest a conspiracy.

So... WHY should anyone focus on the one outlier--the Parkland witnesses--and take from this that all the other evidence is fake? Eyewitness evidence is notoriously unreliable. And, as I've shown, those cherry-picking the statements of eyewitnesses are also unreliable. 

It's embarrassing. A serious researcher will look at all the evidence, and not just focus on one element of the evidence, and then misrepresent it to make it more sexy to those unwilling to perform a deep dive. 

But that doesn't sell books, now does it? 

 

 

 

 

Edited January 13 by Pat Speer

[Michael Crane]

Let's go....time is ticking.

 

[Sandy Larsen]

16 hours ago, Jonathan Cohen said:

Well, there you have it, folks. “Harvey and Lee” - a theory that there were two distinct Lee Harvey Oswalds (and Marguerite Oswald’s) who were secret government spies for a decade - is not far-fetched, according to Sandy Larsen.

 

I never said that the Harvey & Lee theory isn't or doesn't sound farfetched. When I first came across it, I thought it was farfetched myself.

I also never said that there is something wrong with thinking something is farfetched.

Here is what I said:

I prefer to go by the evidence rather than by what people might consider to be far fetched.

And by "people" I mean everybody including myself!

I followed that principle with Harvey & Lee, kept an opened mind, and studied the evidence. I ultimately discovered that it is very likely that there is some truth to the theory.

 

 

[Sandy Larsen]

16 hours ago, David Von Pein said:

A theory which has multiple gunmen firing at JFK from different directions while attempting to frame a lone "patsy" in the TSBD (and therefore necessitating the need for a massive amount of photo alteration) is NOT a "far-fetched" theory in your opinion, Sandy?

 

That sounds farfetched to me, Dave.

BTW, what you described is not what I believe.

 

[Sandy Larsen]

15 hours ago, Marcus Fuller said:

My only suggestion while I'm thinking of it would be maybe to consider having a 'Beginner' type section where people like me could ask questions that I'm sure you've all heard 1000 times without having them disrupt the flow of conversation. Either way, keep up the good work! 

 

Marcus,

Just start a new topic/thread and name it something like "I have some questions." I'm sure there are plenty of members who would love to answer whatever questions you might have.

It would be helpful if you focus on one area of interest at a time, and name the thread accordingly. For example, "I have questions regarding Oswald's rifle." That way members who know a lot about that topic would be more likely to follow your thread.

Good luck!

 

 

[Sandy Larsen]

12 hours ago, Miles Massicotte said:

I strongly feel that Sandy Larsen intentionally deleted my response to his post on Kevin Hofeling's "Why Pat Speer...." thread currently on the front page.

 

Not only did I intentionally delete your post, I told you (and everybody else) that I did. And I told you why I deleted it. After which I restored it because you protested.

You are making far too big a deal about this and I think it's due to sour grapes on your part, because I had just called you out for cherry-picking something.

Here is what happened with the post:

I had just written a new comment and was about to proofread it. While proofreading it, I realized I'd made a material mistake in it. When I tried to correct it, I discovered that my comment had somehow gotten posted. I have no idea how that happened.

I proceeded to delete my post, at which time I saw that Miles had already posted a quick reply to it.

Realizing that Miles had replied to a flawed post -- thereby rendering his reply inconsequential -- in a momentary lapse of judgement I deleted his reply along with my post.

I wouldn't have done that if Miles had spent much time writing his reply. But it was very short.

Miles protested, and so I restored his post. I restored mine too so that his would have some context.

 

12 hours ago, Miles Massicotte said:

I have saved screenshots of it for posterity if need be.

 

Oh my lord... you are so making too big a deal about this. You know that I restored the posts. Anybody who wants to can go read them.

 

12 hours ago, Miles Massicotte said:

I cannot prove my accusation but I hold it very strongly. I will no longer post on this forum where I feel at risk of having my speech deleted.

 

Well if that's how you feel, go right ahead and quit posting. But just know that you are only hurting yourself.

 

[Jim Hargrove]

21 hours ago, Jonathan Cohen said:

You have a very different definition of "evidence" than many people who have been studying this case for generations, which is borne out by the fact that the research community almost unanimously rejects the idiotic "Harvey and Lee" theory.

 

19 hours ago, Jonathan Cohen said:

Well, there you have it, folks. “Harvey and Lee” - a theory that there were two distinct Lee Harvey Oswalds (and Marguerite Oswald’s) who were secret government spies for a decade - is not far-fetched, according to Sandy Larsen.

PLEASE DO NOT CLICK THE LINK BELOW!!

HarveyandLee.net

 

[Jonathan Cohen]

53 minutes ago, Jim Hargrove said:

PLEASE DO NOT CLICK THE LINK BELOW!!

Don't worry, I won't. The entire theory is an embarrassment to critical thinking, which is why it is considered a laughingstock by serious researchers of this case.

[David Von Pein]

5 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

BTW, what you described is not what I believe.

That's good. At least you're not endorsing the insane pre-arranged multi-gun/one-patsy theories put forth by Oliver Stone and Rob Reiner and so many others.

 

Edited January 13 by David Von Pein

[Bill Brown]

10 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

Marcus,

Just start a new topic/thread and name it something like "I have some questions." I'm sure there are plenty of members who would love to answer whatever questions you might have.

It would be helpful if you focus on one area of interest at a time, and name the thread accordingly. For example, "I have questions regarding Oswald's rifle." That way members who know a lot about that topic would be more likely to follow your thread.

Good luck!

 

 

 

That's good advice.

 

[Jeremy Bojczuk]

What is or isn't far-fetched is an interesting question. I'm sure that even the most ardent lone-nutter accepts that conspiracies sometimes happen, and that assassinations of prominent political figures are very often the result of conspiracies. Any reasonable member of the public would certainly accept this. Hardly anyone would rule out, a priori, a conspiracy in the assassination of President Kennedy or any other political figure.

It's individual conspiracy theories, and the assumptions behind them, that some people rightly or wrongly consider to be far-fetched. Of course, what each person considers to be far-fetched depends largely on their own view of how the world works. Someone who considers it unremarkable that a group of people might have possessed the ability to fake the moon landings, for example, would define 'far-fetched' very differently from someone who believes that the moon landings did actually take place. The moon-landings denier might not even understand the term. If you think it's perfectly conceivable that many thousands of people worked together to fake the moon landings and all the associated photos and films, the term 'far-fetched' probably won't mean anything to you.

So who should get to judge what is far-fetched and what isn't? I would suggest that we should adopt the view of a reasonable, intelligent member of the public who has no particular interest in, knowledge of, or opinion about the assassination: someone who accepts that criminal conspiracies occasionally exist but who requires an appropriate amount of evidence before accepting that any specific conspiracy existed in this case.

Our reasonable member of the public would judge certain claims to be inherently more far-fetched than others, based on his or her personal experience. Being reasonable, he or she would not rule out a claim in advance. But he or she would demand stronger evidence for those claims which did not match his or her idea of how the world worked than for those claims which did match it.

So, for example, our reasonable member of the public would probably accept that the sixth-floor rifle or the CE399 bullet might have been planted, as long as it could be demonstrated that an opportunity existed for either of them to be planted, since he or she would be aware that items of evidence are sometimes planted at crime scenes.

For similar reasons, he or she would accept that a witness might have been coerced into giving false testimony, or that a written statement might have been falsified. All it would take for such a claim to be made plausible and not far-fetched would be for the opportunity and motive to be demonstrated.

For a claim that a photograph had been altered, the standard of evidence required might be higher, since our reasonable member of the public might well think that incidents of nefarious photographic alteration are much less common than the coercion of witnesses, or the alteration of written documents, or the planting of evidence.

For a claim that numerous spectators' photographs, press photographs, autopsy photographs, home movies, news films and X-rays, as well as JFK's body, were altered, the standard of evidence required would be higher still, because our reasonable member of the public would presumably not be aware of any criminal case in which such widespread falsification of evidence had ever happened. The more items that are claimed to have been altered, the more far-fetched the claim, and the stronger the evidence required to make the claim plausible.

Such a claim would start out far-fetched, since it would not match the reasonable person's experience of how the world worked. It would remain far-fetched until very strong evidence was provided. If, as is usually the case, the claims of mass alteration are based on trivial discrepancies in the evidential record, and plausible everyday explanations exist for such discrepancies, the standard of evidence required would be even higher.

The main problem with the sort of claim which a reasonable person would find far-fetched is that even though some evidence might exist that is consistent with the proposition, such evidence is insufficient to overcome the inherent implausibility of the proposition. As a wise man once said, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Unfortunately, the JFK assassination has always attracted the sort of people who would be equally at home discussing which locations Stanley Kubrick chose when filming each of the so-called moon landings, and why NASA employs people to manufacture all those so-called satellite photos of a supposedly round Earth. Something doesn't look right, so let's not bother searching for obvious explanations but instead let's invent an elaborate, inherently implausible conspiracy to explain it, and then fail to provide sufficient evidence to overcome that implausibility.

Also unfortunately, this forum has attracted more than its fair share of that sort of person over the years. At times, it seems as though there's a competition going on here to see who can come up with the most elaborate conspiracy based on the flimsiest body of evidence. Presidential body-snatching squads, the mass alteration of photographs and films, and top-secret long-term doppelgänger projects are precisely the sort of claims any reasonable member of the public would define as far-fetched, or even outright crazy.

[Michael Crane]

[Pamela Brown]

It seems to me that in an enlightened intellectual environment we ought to be able to put forth whatever we believe to be valid. Our goal is to persuade others to agree with us.  We can mutually decide to agree-to-disagree whenever someone puts forth a concept we don't agree with. We can also put on 'ignore' anyone whose input we consider unhelpful...

In such a manner we could then move forward in tandem, so to speak...