Conspiracy JFK Forum Site

Anonymous Believer Wrote:I began seriously doubting that there had been a conspiracy when I learned that Oswald had gotten his job in the TSBD 6 weeks earlier before anyone could have possibly known there would be a motorcade going past the TSBD. I don't believe in clairvoyance so it seemed completely implausible to me that it was anything but chance circumstance that brought JFK into rifle range of Oswald's workplace. I still believe that is one of the strongest arguments against any conspiracy theory.

This is the "strongest evidence" against a conspiracy?



That the patsy took a job overlooking the murder site before the motorcade had been determined???



The silliness of such an argument can be seen when we examine the underlying assumption that has been made:



That a shooter had to have had a job overlooking the motorcade... No matter where the motorcade took place, and no matter where the shooting occurred, does it not seem reasonable to make plans to put the patsy in an appropriate place???



There was no particular need to have the patsy working in a building where the shots came from - only the need to have the patsy credibly there. This means that any building that is reasonably open to strangers walking in would work quite well.



The other implied assumption is that Oswald was the shooter. That's simply not established by the evidence, and indeed; is contradicted by some of the evidence.



It's amusing that this is the "strongest argument" that this anonymous believer can make. It looks pretty weak against the multitudes of witnesses who put the shots as coming from the Grassy Knoll, or the witnesses that heard more than three shots...



It's pretty weak evidence when compared against the provable eyewitness intimidation campaign that both the FBI and the S.S. engaged in.



It's pretty weak evidence when compared to the FACT that the autopsy was controlled by the military - and in a way to avoid any evidence being gathered that supported multiple shooters.



It's pretty weak evidence when compared to the fact that the FBI & CIA culpably hid evidence from the Warren Commission - who weren't all that much impelled to seek out the truth in any case.



I do hope someone will step up and correct this believer... and give the evidence that's stronger than this example...



Because if someone truly thinks that this is the "strongest argument" that can be made... what more needs to be said?







via Forums - All Forums http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/Thread-Strongest-Evidence-Against-Conspiracy

Anonymous WCR Defender Wrote:Nobody has ever disputed that at times SS agents rode the bumper of the Presidential limo or were close behind. There are also pictures taken elsewhere when they weren't close behind and as DVP's picture shows the Queen Mary was sometimes farther back than it was in Dallas. Those decisions were made on a case by case basis. Some of the pictures you posted show agents close by earlier in the motorcade route. They got close when the crowds got close. There was no SS stand down in Dallas. JFK got the same level of protection that he hard received in numerous other places both home and abroad.

So the question remains - how did they manage to give the same level of protection when they left agents at the airport instead of their assigned spots?











via Forums - All Forums http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/Thread-Secret-Service-Stand-down

John McAdams Wrote:Several days ago, I posted a few comments on posts on Morley's JFKFacts site.



They were not approved. They still have not been approved. Many more recent comments have been approved.



So I wrote him, asking "Why are my comments not being approved?"



And adding "perhaps there is some explanation."



After a few days, and no response, I wrote him again, saying I deserved an explanation.



He agreed, and then didn't provide any.



Finally, he said:

Quote:John, for a man with deserved reputation for rudeness and recent

professional rebuke for uncivil behavior, you are mighty quick to

demand respect. Excuse me for ungenerously ignoring your imperious

tone.



I recently suffered a serious injury to my Achilles tendon. The

Comments Editor submitted his resignation. I have not picked a

successor. The Comments section has suffered as a result.



That is the explanation I owe you.

In the first place, somehow, in spite of his injury, he has managed to approve many comments. But none of mine.



As for "rude:" anybody looking at JFK Facts can see that Jeff's moderators have routinely approved very nasty comments directed at lone assassin people.



We have routinely been accused of being CIA stooges.



It seems Morley has turned into a bitter buff. Bitter buffs are people who not only believe in a conspiracy, they believe that everybody else *must* believe in a conspiracy. They believe that if enough people believe in a conspiracy the evil conspirators will be discovered and virtue will return to this Republic



Thus people who disagree with conspiracy are not merely people with a different opinion, they are evil heretics.

This is the level that most believers have sunk to... they cannot debate the evidence, so they are forced to rant at the critics. This forum is an excellent example - forbidden from the only tool they have left, ad hominem attacks - believers are simply silent.



Patrick, for example, has often made this accusation of "differing opinions" being the cause... yet he knows quite well that I label people as liars only when they provably lie about the evidence, or about what someone stated.



There are many critics with whom I differ when it comes to this case... people can easily come to different conclusions about the weight of the evidence, or the credibility of differing bits of evidence.



What liars do is simply lie about that evidence. Patrick, for example; won't argue the relative merits of evidence credibility, he'll simply lie about the evidence itself.



Such as the recent example where he applauded Dr. Baden in saying that the large skull wound on JFK was not located in the Parietal-Occipital...



Of course, these non-stop lies concerning the evidence point thoughtful readers to the truth.



via Forums - All Forums http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/Thread-John-McAdams-The-Truth

Amusingly, even one of the Warren Commission staffers admitted that they'd lied in their report.

David Belin Wrote:"When the drafts of our final Report were presented for the Commissioners to review, their deference to Governor Connally was so great that they directed a revision in a major conclusion of the Commission that resulted in AN OUTRIGHT MISSTATEMENT OF FACT. This revision involved the single bullet theory; you will find it on page 19 of the Report, Conclusion No. 3." - David Belin, "You Are The Jury", pg 347

Belin recognized, as many do; that the SBT is ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY (Belin's words!) to the Warren Commission's theory. Without the SBT, conspiracy is PROVEN.



That the Warren Commission lied on much of the evidence is something I've shown time and time again - but here we have an actual Warren Commission Staff lawyer admitting that the Warren Commission KNOWINGLY published a lie.



And not a single believer will step forward and admit publicly that the Warren Commission lied.



(That fact tells the tale, doesn't it?!)



via Forums - All Forums http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/Thread-WC-Staffer-Admits-Lying

From a memorandum written by Albert Jenner to Lee Rankin on April 20th, 1964:

Quote:"Delivered herewith are three preliminary memoranda prepared by John Ely at my request made in late February or early March.



My purpose was to obtain a chronology based on these existing data in our files of the background facts -- life, school, places of residence, etc -- of Mrs Oswald, her several marriages, her husbands and her three children and, in particular, Lee Harvey Oswald, from the time she married Edward John Pic, Jr., in the fall of 1929, to the time Lee Harvey Oswald entered military service in October, 1956.

...

On the whole, Mr. Ely's memoranda present a good over-all picture of the course of events involving the Oswalds up to the time of Lee Harvey Oswald's entry into the military service. Our depositions and examination of records and other data disclose that there are details in Mr. Ely's memoranda which will require material alteration and, in some instances, omission."

...

Let me repeat that last sentence one more time... regarding the historical details of Oswald and his family: "...THERE ARE DETAILS ... WHICH WILL REQUIRE MATERIAL ALTERATION AND, IN SOME INSTANCES, OMISSION."



Now, since believers FREQUENTLY claim that Mark Lane is a "liar" based on the claim that he "omitted" something - can believers now admit that the Warren Commission lied?



(Of course, none will...)



via Forums - All Forums http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/Thread-Warren-Commission-Omission

David Von Pein Wrote:

Ben Holmes Wrote:If you held a gun to the head of a Warren Commission believer, he'd be forced to admit that the FBI didn't see the palmprint on the rifle. They'll admit easily enough that Lt. Day saw one.

And that is undoubtedly due to the fact that there was MUCH MORE TO SEE when Lt. Day lifted the print. There was a lot more THERE to see (and lift). By the time Day had lifted Oswald's print off the barrel, very little in the way of a visible print remained (although, yes, Day said he thought enough of a remaining print was still present on the barrel for the FBI to find).

It's good that DVP admits that Lt. Day thought that there was still something to see, yet the FBI did NOT see it. This is a contradiction.



Normally, one would go with the more credible source... and the FBI's fingerprint expert is certainly far better qualified & credible than Lt. Day.



Lt. Day's statements on this palm print are contradictory, and there's still no credible explanation why Lt. Day failed to follow the ordinary procedure that he provably used on other prints, EVEN ON THAT SAME WEAPON. Photography is a standard used PRECEDING a lift, so in case the lift goes wrong, you still have the print. Lt. Day did that on other prints, yet mysteriously skipped that step on the only print that could be matched to Oswald.



David Von Pein has no answer for that incredible fact...



via Forums - All Forums http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/Thread-David-Von-Pein-Tells-A-Fib

Henry Sienzant Wrote:Also note who Bertrand Russell blames for all the misinformation in his Warren Report critique:

Bertrand Russell Wrote:I am indebted to Mr. Mark Lane, the New York criminal lawyer who was appointed counsel for Oswald by his mother, for much of the information in this article.

That effectively explains why Russell got so much wrong, doesn't it? Lane has never been known for his honesty in his treatment of the assassination evidence.

The Special Lie: The raw accusation, with zero supporting evidence or citation.



This is a favored tactic of believers, and time and time again I point out that despite their non-stop accusations against Mark Lane - BELIEVERS CANNOT DOCUMENT OR CITE ANY EVIDENCE FOR THEIR LIES.



Henry is quite slick with these sorts of tricks... which undoubtedly explains his reticence in posting to this forum - where they will be quickly spotted and pointed out.



via Forums - All Forums http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/Thread-Special-Lying-Tactic-Used-By-Believers

On June 15, 1978, William Ira Trantham from the Dallas County Sheriff's Office was interviewed by Jack Moriarty of the HSCA. The interview as follows:

Quote:Name: Ira Trantham

Date: 6/15/78

Time: 1400

Address: 10119 Newcomb Street, Dallas, Texas



INTERVIEW: Watched the motorcade pass Main and Harwood from the press room of Dallas Police Department Headquarters. Then checked out a cruiser and headed in the opposite direction not having an assignment germane to the Presidential visit.



Had not driven more than a few blocks when the police department radio blared the shooting report at Dealey Plaza. Reversing his direction he responded to that area parking in the freight yard near the rear of the TSBD. Observing uniformed men in the rear with shotguns, then seeing Inspector Sawyer at the front door, he reported for instructions. Sawyer advised they were still not certain where the gunfire came from, but the best guess at that time was the TSBD.



By this time they were joined by Jerry Hill and he and Hill went inside. Hill continued upstairs and an officer W. H. Desham (#7140 DPD) approached him with a prisoner. Advised this subject had been observed "acting suspiciously" on the third floor without a reasonable explanation for being there.

Correction: The name Desham above should read Denham.



It's interesting that no believer has been able to give a name for this suspect... and the Warren Commission is completely silent on this suspect.



This, of course, must be a "stranger" in the building, as he couldn't give a "reasonable explanation" for being in the building... believers have long denied that there were any strangers in the building.



If fingerprinted, would this suspect's prints match the unknown prints found in the Sniper's Nest?



Believer's have no answer...



via Forums - All Forums http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/Thread-Who-Was-This-Suspect

It's often the claim that believers are knowledgeable on the case evidence, and critics are simply ignorant. And while I've occasionally seen a 'critic' who seems quite ignorant on the case evidence, it's far more common to see believers who don't know the evidence.



(Or lie about the evidence...)



Take, for example, Bill Clarke - a very dedicated believer in this case, who admited on 10/28/2013:

Quote:I haven't read the WC and don't intend to. What little I have read of it I

found one glaring mistake. I assume there are others.

A very telling admission.



And believers such as Mr. Clarke can't post here... not because he cannot register and post, but because ad hominem is forbidden - and that is his only debating tactic.



He simply doesn't know the evidence.



This is the reason that others, such as Henry Sienzant, David Von Pein, or Dale refuse to post here, they can't call everyone names... they have to deal with the evidence.



Patrick, for example, after a great initial start, has been almost shut down by the evidence... every time he lies, it get's pointed out. He has no explanation for the real evidence in this case. He's forced to remain silent.



And that tells the tale...



via Forums - All Forums http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/Thread-Are-Believers-Knowledgeable

Quote:Ben Holmes disease. Make a claim, see it rebutted, and then wait a few days or weeks and repeat the claim.

Quite naturally, Henry cannot support such a claim. He's NEVER credibly and successfully rebutted any statement I've ever made about this case.



When challenged to do so, he merely slinks off again...



Patrick Collins - will you help out your fellow believer and quote even one example where Henry rebutted anything I've stated?



And if you cannot, would you have the common decency to publicly admit so?



Or will you, as an "honest man," simply allow a lie to stay on the record?



via Forums - All Forums http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/Thread-Another-Whopper-From-Henry-Sienzant