Evidence of Conspiracy...
Bogman Wrote:... It was a domestic political conspiracy.
The evidence supporting this opinion are more tenuous and circumstantial. And Oswald’s actions that day do, IMO, point to knowledge of guilt of some kind. But following are a few of the dangling, unresolved threads that point to conspiracy:o The CIA’s ongoing obfuscation over the Oswald Mexico City tapes and photos
The CIA’s felonious obstruction of the HSCA through George Joannides and continuing withholding of evidence on his relationship with the DRE
Syliva Odio’s testimony
CIA contract agent William Gaudet’s claim he saw Oswald with Guy Bannister in NO
Antonio Veciana’s claim he saw David Atlee Phillips with Oswald in September in Dallas
The endless multitude of anomalies in the criminal evidence, including the backward snap of the president’s head in the Zapruder film, the Parkland doctors contrary views of the head injury, the failed nitrate test, the Harper fragment, the burning of the first autopsy notes, the FBI destruction of the Oswald note, the many revised witness testimonies by the FBI, the botched autopsy, the Siebert/O’Neill testimony, the credible eyewitness testimony of a shot from the front, Ruby’s connections to organized crime, the suspicious deaths of key witnesses including Johnny Roselli, Santos Trafficante and George DM, the CIA communications by George DM before and after knowing Oswald, the moving of the bullet wound to the neck in drawings by the govt to make a shot from a sixth floor more plausible, the currently expanding view that JFK was not another in a line of Cold War presidents and had intentions to end the Cold War and make peace with Castro, etc., etc., etc.
It would be nice to finally get some candor from our government once and for all.
There's only two things wrong with the above statement... Silvia Odio's name is misspelled, and the "nitrate" test should have been "NAA" test.
Interestingly, I don't believe I've ever seen a reasonable and credible explanation for the famously incorrect Rydberg drawing... Dr. Humes surely knew better, and any Commission who used third-hand drawings in place of the actual photos and X-rays is incompetent, at best... and quite possibly criminally negligent.
Let the silence from the believers commence...
via Forums - All Forums http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/Thread-Evidence-of-Conspiracy
Posted on November 14th, 2016
Vincent Bugliosi's 53 Reasons... #17 Refuted.
(17) Oswald walked past his normal bus stop and walked seven blocks to board a different line.
Sheer speculation... The evidence that Oswald got on a bus isn't very credible. There are three witnesses to Oswald getting on a bus... let's examine them:
Mr. McWatters, bus driver - according to the Dallas Police (CE 2003, pg 293) McWatters identified Oswald as the one on the bus... but according to his testimony, he thought a teenager named Milton Jones was the one he saw. He also testified that he picked up "Oswald" at Elm & Houston – although Bugliosi argues that Oswald walked past that bus stop. McWatters also gave Oswald an alibi in his earliest statement – his affidavit puts Oswald off the bus later than the Tippit murder.
Mary Bledsoe - former landlady for Oswald - testified that she'd seen Oswald on the bus, "looking like a maniac," his shirt undone, his "sleeve was out here," he was dirty, he "looked so bad in his face, and his face was so distorted." Mrs. Bledsoe clearly despised Oswald, and could hardly be considered a credible witness in her description. She also gives evidence that she was NOT on the bus at the time, since there's a critical anachronism found in her testimony:
As Don Willis has pointed out: No one just entering Dealey, on a bus, around 12:40pm, would have been "looking up" at the depository, as a scene of shooting. The building had been mentioned only on the police radio, at that point, not on public TV or radio. And the area had not yet been "roped off", as Mrs. Bledsoe said that it was when they passed: "By approximately 1:00 the crowd is kept back from the front of the [depository], though not yet behind rope barricades" (photo caption, page 519, "Pictures of the Pain").
This anachronism shows that Mrs. Bledsoe was hardly a credible witness at all.
Milton Jones, a 17 year old - who stated that a person who might have been Oswald got on the bus about 6 blocks before Houston Street (Did Oswald walk six blocks before getting on the bus?). This is in direct conflict with McWatter's testimony. The only reason that Milton Jones gave for his belief that he'd seen Oswald was a conversation he had with McWatters the following Monday - where McWatters said that the man they'd both saw might have been Oswald.
So all we have here is second-hand corroboration for McWatter's statements, not an independent identification of Oswald.
It's interesting to note that both McWatters and Jones stated that this person had a blue jacket on. Jones said: "Light blue", McWatters said "faded blue". And yet, a blue jacket alleged to belong to Oswald was found at the Texas School Book Depository a few weeks later.
Mary Bledsoe, the least credible witness, asserted that he had no jacket on - and the Warren Commission accepted this - despite having two credible, corroborating witnesses that described someone who could not have been Oswald. She was also reading off notes during her Warren commission testimony - prepared by Secret Service Agent, Forrest Sorrels. When Warren commission counsel, Joseph Ball, asked her why she had notes, she responded: "Well, because I forgot what I had to say."
Note that Milton Jones accepted thought that the man he'd seen was Oswald because McWatters thought it was, yet McWatters testified that it was Milton Jones he'd seen!
The evidence for Oswald getting on the Marsalis bus has been all but refuted.
And certainly, Bugliosi's claim that Oswald walked past his normal bus stop rests on unbelievably shaky grounds.
Hardly the sort of "evidence" one would normally look for in determining the guilt of someone.
via Forums - All Forums http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/Thread-Vincent-Bugliosi-s-53-Reasons-17-Refuted
Sheer speculation... The evidence that Oswald got on a bus isn't very credible. There are three witnesses to Oswald getting on a bus... let's examine them:
Mr. McWatters, bus driver - according to the Dallas Police (CE 2003, pg 293) McWatters identified Oswald as the one on the bus... but according to his testimony, he thought a teenager named Milton Jones was the one he saw. He also testified that he picked up "Oswald" at Elm & Houston – although Bugliosi argues that Oswald walked past that bus stop. McWatters also gave Oswald an alibi in his earliest statement – his affidavit puts Oswald off the bus later than the Tippit murder.
Mary Bledsoe - former landlady for Oswald - testified that she'd seen Oswald on the bus, "looking like a maniac," his shirt undone, his "sleeve was out here," he was dirty, he "looked so bad in his face, and his face was so distorted." Mrs. Bledsoe clearly despised Oswald, and could hardly be considered a credible witness in her description. She also gives evidence that she was NOT on the bus at the time, since there's a critical anachronism found in her testimony:
Quote:Mr. BALL - Was there traffic? Was the traffic heavy?
Mrs. BLEDSOE - Oh, it was awful in the city, and then they had roped off that around where the President was killed, shot, and we were the first car that come around there, and then all of us were talking about the man, and we were looking up to see where he was shot and looking---and then they had one man and taking him already got him in jail, and we got----"Well, I am glad they found him."
Mr. BALL - You were looking up at where?
Mrs. BLEDSOE - At where the boy was shot.
Mr. BALL - You mean the Texas Book Depository?
Mrs. BLEDSOE - Yes, uh-huh.
Mr. BALL - School Book Depository?
Mrs. BLEDSOE - Uh-huh, because we were right four blocks from there, you see.
(Testimony can be found here.)
As Don Willis has pointed out: No one just entering Dealey, on a bus, around 12:40pm, would have been "looking up" at the depository, as a scene of shooting. The building had been mentioned only on the police radio, at that point, not on public TV or radio. And the area had not yet been "roped off", as Mrs. Bledsoe said that it was when they passed: "By approximately 1:00 the crowd is kept back from the front of the [depository], though not yet behind rope barricades" (photo caption, page 519, "Pictures of the Pain").
This anachronism shows that Mrs. Bledsoe was hardly a credible witness at all.
Milton Jones, a 17 year old - who stated that a person who might have been Oswald got on the bus about 6 blocks before Houston Street (Did Oswald walk six blocks before getting on the bus?). This is in direct conflict with McWatter's testimony. The only reason that Milton Jones gave for his belief that he'd seen Oswald was a conversation he had with McWatters the following Monday - where McWatters said that the man they'd both saw might have been Oswald.
So all we have here is second-hand corroboration for McWatter's statements, not an independent identification of Oswald.
It's interesting to note that both McWatters and Jones stated that this person had a blue jacket on. Jones said: "Light blue", McWatters said "faded blue". And yet, a blue jacket alleged to belong to Oswald was found at the Texas School Book Depository a few weeks later.
Mary Bledsoe, the least credible witness, asserted that he had no jacket on - and the Warren Commission accepted this - despite having two credible, corroborating witnesses that described someone who could not have been Oswald. She was also reading off notes during her Warren commission testimony - prepared by Secret Service Agent, Forrest Sorrels. When Warren commission counsel, Joseph Ball, asked her why she had notes, she responded: "Well, because I forgot what I had to say."
Note that Milton Jones accepted thought that the man he'd seen was Oswald because McWatters thought it was, yet McWatters testified that it was Milton Jones he'd seen!
The evidence for Oswald getting on the Marsalis bus has been all but refuted.
And certainly, Bugliosi's claim that Oswald walked past his normal bus stop rests on unbelievably shaky grounds.
Hardly the sort of "evidence" one would normally look for in determining the guilt of someone.
via Forums - All Forums http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/Thread-Vincent-Bugliosi-s-53-Reasons-17-Refuted
Posted on November 12th, 2016
JFK's Head Wound Location
John McAdams Wrote:
Bob Prudhomme Wrote:From the Warren Commission testimony of Clinton J. Hill, Secret Service:
Quote:Mr. SPECTER. What did you observe as to President Kennedy’s condition on arrival at the hospital?
Mr. HILL. The right rear portion of his head was missing. It was lying in the rear seat of the car. His brain was exposed. There was blood and bits of brain all over the entire rear portion of the car. Mrs. Kennedy was completely covered with blood. There was so much blood you could not tell if there had been any other wound or not, except for the one large gaping wound in the right rear portion of the head.
Blood and bits of brain all over the entire rear portion of the car?
"Rear," of course, is extremely vague.
Here is Hill in a 1990s documentary putting the wound "above the ear."
mcadams.posc.mu.edu/clinthill.htm
You folks need a wound with blown out occipital bone. Just saying "rear" or "occipital-parietal" or "occipital region" doesn't get it for you.
BTW, do you think the Zapruder film is faked?
Do you think the autopsy photos and x-rays are faked?
John McAdams is, as usual, being entirely deceptive... and this can be shown by one question...
Presuming that the large head wound were in the back of the head - WHAT MEDICAL TERMINOLOGY WOULD BE APPROPRIATE TO DESCRIBE IT?
Now, an honest man, anyone familiar with the technical jargon, would instantly use "occipital," or "occipital region," or even "occipital-parietal" - since all three terms describe a wound to the BACK of the head. So when McAdams asserted that "Just saying "rear" or "occipital-parietal" or "occipital region" doesn't get it for you." - he was quite provably lying.
McAdams - and I also predict, Patrick Collins - will not offer any answer to the question of how to describe a wound to the back of the head - because it would prove that McAdams is, as usual, simply lying. And it's quite difficult indeed to get believers to admit that another believer is lying.
The wound was described repeatedly as being in the back of the head. That's where it was.
And neither John McAdams, Patrick Collins, Henry Sienzant, or any other Warren Commission believer can HONESTLY argue otherwise.
P.S. If Patrick answers this - I predict in advance that he'll refuse to answer the above posted hypothetical question.
via Forums - All Forums http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/Thread-JFK-s-Head-Wound-Location
Posted on November 12th, 2016
Paraffin Tests & McAdams' Lying...
John McAdams Wrote:
James Howells Wrote:Oswald was tested and did not fire a weapon that day!
Factoid alert!
mcadams.posc.mu.edu/factoid2.htm
The paraffin test was unreliable, and produced both false positives and false negatives. Its only real use was to intimidate naive suspects into confessing.
Liar alert!
The test that showed that Oswald could have fired a weapon that day was the Paraffin test... but the test that gave evidence that Oswald had NOT fired a rifle was the NAA test.
The paraffin test gave evidence that Oswald HAD fired a weapon... although, as McAdams also knows, working around paper products is one of the reasons that the paraffin test will give false positives... the test that showed NEGATIVE for any rifle usage was the NAA test... and McAdams knows this.
The Neutron Activation Analysis test is extremely reliable and accurate. And McAdams knows this...
But just like all other believers, he will instantly take any reference to this topic as referring to the Paraffin test, and absolutely REFUSE to address or even acknowledge the accuracy & reliability of the NAA test.
Of course, this fact demonstrates just who is honest, and who is lying...
via Forums - All Forums http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/Thread-Paraffin-Tests-McAdams-Lying
Posted on November 12th, 2016
Vincent Bugliosi's 53 Reasons... #16 Refuted.
(16) After the assassination, only Oswald missed a roll call at the TSBD.
This is an outright lie on Bugliosi's part... and it shouldn't have taken him 20 plus years to correct this.
Jack Charles Cason - President of School Book Depositary - left the building at 12:10 p.m. and went home. (VOL:22
640)
Gloria Jean Holt - clerk at TSBD - did not return after shooting. (VOL:19
.526) (VOL:22
.652)
Sharon Simmons Nelson, Secretary, (VOL:19
.256;VOL: 22-P.665) did not return.
Bonnie Richey, Secretary, (VOL22
.671) did not return.
Carolyn Arnold (VOL:22
.635) did not return.
Mrs. Donald Baker, Clerk, did not return (VOL:22
.635)
Judy Marie Johnson (VOL22
.256) did not return.
Mrs. Stella Mae Jacob (VOL:22
.665) did not return.
Charles Givens did not come back.
Virginia H. Burnum - McGraw-Hill employee does not return (VOL:22
.636)
Vida Lee Whatley, Clerk, does not return.(VOL:22
.680)
Warren Caster (VOL;22
.641;VOL 26
.738) eating lunch in Denton.
Spauldin “Pud” Jones (VOL:22
.658) eating lunch at Blue Front with Herbert Junker (another McMillan employee) (22:659)
Mrs. Helen Palmer, clerk, (VOL:22
.666) not present was at Love Field.
Franklin Kaiser - was absent from work on 11/22.(VOL:6
.342), (VOL:23
.751)
Vicki Davis, employee, was absent.
Dottie Lovelady, employee, was absent.
Mrs. Rudell Parsons, employee, was absent.
Joe Bergen, Scott Foresman, absent.
Maury Brown, McGraw-Hill, absent.
John Langston, absent.
Bugliosi does admit that Charles Givens was absent, but strangely doesn't note that an APB went out to locate Givens. It's long been a factoid for Warren Commission believers that there was a 'roll call,' and that only Oswald was absent from it - but this is simply untrue, and should have been put to rest long ago.
That Bugliosi has to bring forth such obvious factoids to 'prove' Oswald's guilt is just another illustration of how weak his case is.
And the fact that Patrick will absolutely refuse to publicly state that Bugliosi lied here is yet another proof of Patrick's dishonesty... eh Patrick?
via Forums - All Forums http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/Thread-Vincent-Bugliosi-s-53-Reasons-16-Refuted
This is an outright lie on Bugliosi's part... and it shouldn't have taken him 20 plus years to correct this.
Jack Charles Cason - President of School Book Depositary - left the building at 12:10 p.m. and went home. (VOL:22
640)
Gloria Jean Holt - clerk at TSBD - did not return after shooting. (VOL:19
.526) (VOL:22
.652)
Sharon Simmons Nelson, Secretary, (VOL:19
.256;VOL: 22-P.665) did not return.
Bonnie Richey, Secretary, (VOL22
.671) did not return.
Carolyn Arnold (VOL:22
.635) did not return.
Mrs. Donald Baker, Clerk, did not return (VOL:22
.635)
Judy Marie Johnson (VOL22
.256) did not return.
Mrs. Stella Mae Jacob (VOL:22
.665) did not return.
Charles Givens did not come back.
Virginia H. Burnum - McGraw-Hill employee does not return (VOL:22
.636)
Vida Lee Whatley, Clerk, does not return.(VOL:22
.680)
Warren Caster (VOL;22
.641;VOL 26
.738) eating lunch in Denton.
Spauldin “Pud” Jones (VOL:22
.658) eating lunch at Blue Front with Herbert Junker (another McMillan employee) (22:659)
Mrs. Helen Palmer, clerk, (VOL:22
.666) not present was at Love Field.
Franklin Kaiser - was absent from work on 11/22.(VOL:6
.342), (VOL:23
.751)
Vicki Davis, employee, was absent.
Dottie Lovelady, employee, was absent.
Mrs. Rudell Parsons, employee, was absent.
Joe Bergen, Scott Foresman, absent.
Maury Brown, McGraw-Hill, absent.
John Langston, absent.
Bugliosi does admit that Charles Givens was absent, but strangely doesn't note that an APB went out to locate Givens. It's long been a factoid for Warren Commission believers that there was a 'roll call,' and that only Oswald was absent from it - but this is simply untrue, and should have been put to rest long ago.
That Bugliosi has to bring forth such obvious factoids to 'prove' Oswald's guilt is just another illustration of how weak his case is.
And the fact that Patrick will absolutely refuse to publicly state that Bugliosi lied here is yet another proof of Patrick's dishonesty... eh Patrick?
via Forums - All Forums http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/Thread-Vincent-Bugliosi-s-53-Reasons-16-Refuted
Posted on November 11th, 2016
Vincent Bugliosi's 53 Reasons... #15 Refuted.
(15) It makes no sense that Oswald the "political animal" had no interest in the President's death.
More speculation with no foundation at all. While I took the time to go and stand at the curb while President Reagan's hearse drove by, I had zero interest in going even a few blocks to see President Obama. Does this mean that if an assassin were to make an attempt on the President, that I'm a valid suspect?
Once again, Bugliosi takes it as a matter of faith that Oswald was the lone assassin, then twists anything and everything he 'knows' about Oswald to 'prove' his guilt.
via Forums - All Forums http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/Thread-Vincent-Bugliosi-s-53-Reasons-15-Refuted
More speculation with no foundation at all. While I took the time to go and stand at the curb while President Reagan's hearse drove by, I had zero interest in going even a few blocks to see President Obama. Does this mean that if an assassin were to make an attempt on the President, that I'm a valid suspect?
Once again, Bugliosi takes it as a matter of faith that Oswald was the lone assassin, then twists anything and everything he 'knows' about Oswald to 'prove' his guilt.
via Forums - All Forums http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/Thread-Vincent-Bugliosi-s-53-Reasons-15-Refuted
Posted on November 10th, 2016
Patrick Caught Lying...
Amusingly, Patrick still refuses to quote what Malcolm Kilfuff actually said...
He lied when he claimed that Kilduff said that Dr. Perry was "his source on the head wound."
Henry Sienzant also lied when he claimed that I'd asserted that Kilduff had viewed the body, and got his information that way... Patrick went along with that lie as well.
It would be quite easy to defend Patrick's statement - ALL HE HAS TO DO IS QUOTE KILDUFF SAYING WHAT HE ASSERTS HE SAID...
Yet all we have is silence ... and Patrick's repeated assertions that he's an "honest" man.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again without any fear of refutation - there's no such thing as an honest knowledgeable believer in the Warren Commission's theory.
Anyone who honesty accepts the Warren Commission is simply ignorant of the actual case evidence.
Patrick cannot refute this...
via Forums - All Forums http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/Thread-Patrick-Caught-Lying
He lied when he claimed that Kilduff said that Dr. Perry was "his source on the head wound."
Henry Sienzant also lied when he claimed that I'd asserted that Kilduff had viewed the body, and got his information that way... Patrick went along with that lie as well.
It would be quite easy to defend Patrick's statement - ALL HE HAS TO DO IS QUOTE KILDUFF SAYING WHAT HE ASSERTS HE SAID...
Yet all we have is silence ... and Patrick's repeated assertions that he's an "honest" man.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again without any fear of refutation - there's no such thing as an honest knowledgeable believer in the Warren Commission's theory.
Anyone who honesty accepts the Warren Commission is simply ignorant of the actual case evidence.
Patrick cannot refute this...
via Forums - All Forums http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/Thread-Patrick-Caught-Lying
Posted on November 9th, 2016
Vincent Bugliosi's 53 Reasons... #14 Refuted.
(14) Oswald's story of getting a Coke after hearing commotion of assassination is not sensible.
Sheer speculation with NO REASON. We know for a FACT that several people saw Oswald with a coke. So this is a well established fact. Trying to assert that 'getting a coke' is somehow evidence against someone in a murder is just too silly for words. Quite similar to the 'not seen reading a newspaper' was...
Bugliosi's presumption of guilt, then his tendency to look at any and every event, and assert that it proves Oswald's guilt, is quite evident here.
Watch as believers refuse to defend Bugliosi's quite silly attempt to paint Oswald as guilty...
Where are you - Patrick???
via Forums - All Forums http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/Thread-Vincent-Bugliosi-s-53-Reasons-14-Refuted
Sheer speculation with NO REASON. We know for a FACT that several people saw Oswald with a coke. So this is a well established fact. Trying to assert that 'getting a coke' is somehow evidence against someone in a murder is just too silly for words. Quite similar to the 'not seen reading a newspaper' was...
Bugliosi's presumption of guilt, then his tendency to look at any and every event, and assert that it proves Oswald's guilt, is quite evident here.
Watch as believers refuse to defend Bugliosi's quite silly attempt to paint Oswald as guilty...
Where are you - Patrick???
via Forums - All Forums http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/Thread-Vincent-Bugliosi-s-53-Reasons-14-Refuted
Posted on November 8th, 2016
Vincent Bugliosi's 53 Reasons... #13 Refuted.
(13) During interrogation, Oswald put himself on the sixth floor at the time of the assassination.
This is a rather outrageous untruth that Bugliosi is making here. It's true that Oswald was possibly one of the last to leave the 6th floor, sometime around 12 noon, where he was working that day - but he was seen by others, such as Arnold, on the first or second floor after 12 noon.
That Bugliosi has to lie to make his case shows just how weak these '53 Reasons' are.
Take careful note of the fact that "Honest" Patrick won't dare to defend this lie, nor call it a lie on Bugliosi's part. So much for "honesty."
via Forums - All Forums http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/Thread-Vincent-Bugliosi-s-53-Reasons-13-Refuted
This is a rather outrageous untruth that Bugliosi is making here. It's true that Oswald was possibly one of the last to leave the 6th floor, sometime around 12 noon, where he was working that day - but he was seen by others, such as Arnold, on the first or second floor after 12 noon.
That Bugliosi has to lie to make his case shows just how weak these '53 Reasons' are.
Take careful note of the fact that "Honest" Patrick won't dare to defend this lie, nor call it a lie on Bugliosi's part. So much for "honesty."
via Forums - All Forums http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/Thread-Vincent-Bugliosi-s-53-Reasons-13-Refuted
Posted on November 7th, 2016
Vincent Bugliosi's 53 Reasons... #12 Refuted.
(12) Kennedy's assassin was at the now-infamous sixth-floor window.
Unless you can put Oswald there, this has nothing whatsoever to do with indicting Oswald. This is like saying "Jessica Simpson's assassin was in the yard." - that doesn't indict O.J. Simpson - and had the prosecution tried to make such an assertion, he'd have been laughed out of the court.
That Bugliosi can make such a statement shows his desperation... As I stated before, Bugliosi has a tendency to try to view ANYTHING as proof of Oswald's guilt.
And what's truly funny - is that I can't find a SINGLE believer honest enough to agree with the above refutation - despite the fact that they cannot argue with it. The simple truth is that if a believer is honest, he's ignorant of the evidence in this case.
If a believer knows the evidence, he can't be honest.
via Forums - All Forums http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/Thread-Vincent-Bugliosi-s-53-Reasons-12-Refuted
Unless you can put Oswald there, this has nothing whatsoever to do with indicting Oswald. This is like saying "Jessica Simpson's assassin was in the yard." - that doesn't indict O.J. Simpson - and had the prosecution tried to make such an assertion, he'd have been laughed out of the court.
That Bugliosi can make such a statement shows his desperation... As I stated before, Bugliosi has a tendency to try to view ANYTHING as proof of Oswald's guilt.
And what's truly funny - is that I can't find a SINGLE believer honest enough to agree with the above refutation - despite the fact that they cannot argue with it. The simple truth is that if a believer is honest, he's ignorant of the evidence in this case.
If a believer knows the evidence, he can't be honest.
via Forums - All Forums http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/Thread-Vincent-Bugliosi-s-53-Reasons-12-Refuted
Posted on November 2nd, 2016