Believers Are Invariably Liars...
Ben Holmes Wrote:You're lying again, Patrick!
Dr. Baden stated that "The head exit wound was not in the parietal-occipital area, as the Parkland doctors said."
You asserted that Dr. Baden was "Baden is quite correct of course..."
Then you contradict what he said.
Who has problems with the English language?
I'll make it real easy for you... you stated that Dr. Baden was correct...
WAS DR. BADEN CORRECT WHEN HE STATED THAT: "The head exit wound was not in the parietal-occipital area, as the Parkland doctors said."?
Now why couldn't you answer the question?
WHY ARE YOU SUCH A COWARD, PATRICK?
via Forums - All Forums http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/Thread-Believers-Are-Invariably-Liars
Posted on September 19th, 2016
James Chaney & Believers' Lying...
Dale Wrote:
Ben Holmes Wrote:Why was the closest police eyewitness to the murder - who just coincidentally would have testified in contradiction to the SBT, never questioned by the FBI or Warren Commission prior to the release of the WCR?
Wrong, David - Chaney and the officer riding in tandem with him BOTH were interviewed by the FBI and they BOTH stated that the three sounds came from above and behind and NO shots came from the side or the front. Chaney only reinforced the WC's official conclusion - the sounds came "from over my right shoulder" - spoken by Chaney on the afternoon of the shooting.
You're a liar, Dale.
When was the WCR released?
When was this FBI interview?
My crystal ball predicts you'll NEVER answer those two questions, then retract the lie you just told.
It's quite interesting that you can't force a believer to ACCURATELY quote what James Chaney said. They always leave words out. I leave it to lurkers to watch the video and determine what James Chaney ACTUALLY said...
I wonder if there's any believer who can ACCURATELY state publicly what James Chaney said about the location of the shots?
'Dale Wrote:Chaney's interview with the FBI is dated 9/8/75. Jackson's was around the same time.
Dale admits that the claim he made is based on an interview conducted 12 years later... during which Chaney CONTRADICTS his televised statement made just hours after the murder.
This is a common tactic among believers... they will cry that the earliest testimony & statements is far preferable to later statements made a decade later... unless, of course, they NEED the later statement. EVERY believer does this.
via Forums - All Forums http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/Thread-James-Chaney-Believers-Lying
Posted on September 16th, 2016
'Human Error'... or Blatant Coverup?
Garry Puffer Wrote:Let's list a few cases where the LNers claim that mistakes made in the JFK case were nothing but "human error":
Greer slowing the limo when protocol requires acceleration without thinking about it first.
The DPD announcing a Mauser had been found, officers submitting two official reports to that effect, and the "mistake" not acknowledged for quite some time.
The "sniper's nest" not being found for over thirty minutes after the DPD being informed exactly where it was by two witnesses.
Capt. Fritz's behavior in Jack Ruby's shooting of Oswald.
The several shells not bearing the initials needed to establish a chain of custody.
The many medical professionals who saw a large, gaping wound in the rear of JFK's head.
The initial police reports that state TWO shells were found in the TSBD along with a whole bullet.
The lack of rear bumper and side motorcycle protection for JFK's limo.
The several conflicting stories told by Officer McDonald concerning Oswald's arrest in the theater.
The arrest report that states Oswald was found in the balcony of the theater.
An autopsy that would not have served a bum found dead on the street much less a national leader.
The entire Warren Report.
The lies told by Vincent Bugliosi.
The Secret Service destruction of documents concerning JFK motorcades in the months prior to Dallas, and the destruction occurring AFTER the ARRB sought those records.
The CIA identification of Oswald in Mexico City.
The switching of the order of Zapruder frames published in LIFE magazine.
The determination, after a viewing of the Zapruder film, that JFK had turned so that his throat was exposed to the 6th floor window.
The many different locations of the head wound, as determined by several official panels, each of which disagreed with the others.
The medical personnel's determination of the location of JFK's back wound, fortunately corrected by medical expert Gerald Ford.
The lack of provenance for CE399.
And this is just for starters. This case was apparently nothing BUT "human error." One wonders if humans can do anything right after looking at this case through the human error prism.
And this is just for starters. This case was apparently nothing BUT "human error." One wonders if humans can do anything right after looking at this case through the human error prism.
Garry's absolutely correct... this is a demonstration of the faith that believers have.
There comes a point when "human error" becomes a very silly excuse for not accepting the fact that there was a provable coverup in this case.
via Forums - All Forums http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/Thread-Human-Error-or-Blatant-Coverup
Posted on September 16th, 2016
Vincent Bugliosi, Subjectivity, And Patrick Collins
Patrick C Wrote:
Ben Holmes Wrote:If Bugliosi spent over 20 years studying the evidence, yet was unaware of one of the most critical and devastating facts that tends to show a conspiracy, how can he be trusted for anything he says about the case?
I think that is a very subjective view.
I listed two facts.
#1 - Bugliosi spent over 20 years studying the evidence.
#2 - Bugliosi failed to understand a very basic bit of medical evidence.
Which one was "subjective," Patrick?
I stated that "I predict that NO believer will specifically address this question." - looks like I was perfectly correct.
And despite asking Patrick what was "subjective" - he has avoided this question for years...
via Forums - All Forums http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/Thread-Vincent-Bugliosi-Subjectivity-And-Patrick-Collins
Posted on September 16th, 2016
20 Forensic Experts - What Did They Know?
Dale Wrote:20 Forensic experts (Independent experts) agree with Kevin and disagree with Ben.
Not a SINGLE ONE of those 20 anonymous "Forensic experts" would disagree that the Autopsy did not dissect, and DID NOT KNOW about the bullet wound in JFK's throat.
Not a SINGLE ONE of those 20 anonymous "Forensic experts" would disagree that the bullet wound *LOOKED* like an entry.
Not a SINGLE ONE of those 20 anonymous "Forensic experts" would disagree that the prosectors were ORDERED not to dissect the track of the bullet.
Not a SINGLE ONE of those 20 anonymous "Forensic experts" even knew that the HSCA had intentionally lied about the testimony of the Bethesda witnesses - indeed, THEY NEVER HEARD THAT TESTIMONY. The HSCA kept the very evidence needed by the "experts" to make an honest appraisal.
Not a SINGLE ONE of those 20 anonymous "Forensic experts" would disagree that the Parkland staff *CHANGED* their "opinion" *AFTER* that weekend...
Not a SINGLE ONE of those 20 anonymous "Forensic experts" would disagree that the *ONLY* medically trained personnel to examine, however briefly, the bullet wound in JFK's throat were at Parkland.
Not a SINGLE ONE of those 20 anonymous "Forensic experts" would disagree that "ragged" holds no place in the description of the original bullet wound in the skin of JFK's throat.
Not a SINGLE ONE of those 20 anonymous "Forensic experts" would disagree that they've never seen the photograph showing bruising of the apical portion of the lung.
Not a SINGLE ONE of those 20 anonymous "Forensic experts" would disagree that the executive session of the Warren Commission on Jan. 27 mentioned an autopsy report in which the throat wound was described as being caused by a fragment of bone.
You can't cite even ONE of these anonymous "experts" contradicting anything I've stated in this post - nor will you even try.
Such AMAZING cowardice!
So the question remains... just what would these anonymous "experts" agree with Kevin on? Or disagree with me on?
Can you show that they knew what I know, and THEN cite their "expert" opinion?
via Forums - All Forums http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/Thread-20-Forensic-Experts-What-Did-They-Know
Posted on September 15th, 2016
Lest We Forget...
One of the frequent posters who support the Warren Commission's theory is someone who uses the name "Barton Paul Levenson".
In April of last year, he posted this:
Living in California, naturally this "prediction" is of great interest to me. Sadly, I've seen no efforts getting started to resettle any Californians...
Nor have I seen any other believer castigating Mr. Levenson for this absolutely kooky statement...
This is common among believers - they won't correct fellow believers.
Critics, on the other hand; rarely have any problems correcting other critics - because we are dealing with facts - not speculation and opinion.
via Forums - All Forums http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/Thread-Lest-We-Forget
In April of last year, he posted this:
Barton Paul Levenson Wrote:California, which produces 25% of American produce, will be uninhabitable in one year. Two years at the most. The rest of the US will have to resettle 39 million people. (original post here.)
Living in California, naturally this "prediction" is of great interest to me. Sadly, I've seen no efforts getting started to resettle any Californians...
Nor have I seen any other believer castigating Mr. Levenson for this absolutely kooky statement...
This is common among believers - they won't correct fellow believers.
Critics, on the other hand; rarely have any problems correcting other critics - because we are dealing with facts - not speculation and opinion.
via Forums - All Forums http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/Thread-Lest-We-Forget
Posted on September 15th, 2016
Just A Few Who Talked...
Quote:Since Dale Hayes keeps forgetting the members who were claimed or who have claimed to be involved in some way with the shooter teams, I will post them again so he can carry the list in his pocket. There may be a few more, but I do not have any more time to spend to help Dale out.
* Eugene Braden (mafia member, spotter)
* Chucky Nicoletti (mafia boss, shooter)
* Nestor Izquierdo (Operation 40, Cuban mercenary, spotter)
* Johnny Roselli (mafia boss)
* Eladio del Valle (Operation 40, shooter)
* Hermionos de Garcia (Operation 40, spotter)
* Richard Cain (mafia, shooter)
* Frank Sturgis (Operation 40)
* Rosco White (Dallas police)
* James Files (mob gunman)
* Lucien Sarti (Marseilles mafia assassin, shooter)
* Bernard Baker (Operation 40, Watergate burglar)
* Harry Weatherford (Dallas police marksman)
* Roy Hargraves (Operation 40, "Umbrella Man")
* Charles Harrelson (nicely dressed tramp")
* Felipe Vidal Santiago (Operation 40, exiled Cuban)
* Curtis Crayford (Ruby's man)
* Jack Allen Lawrence (Navy marksman)
* Tony Cuesta (spotter)
* Virgilio Gonzalez (shooter)
* Eugenio Martinez (spotter)
* Dick Whatley (spotter)
* Ed Collins (radio)
* Gerry Hemming (CIA mercenary)
* Rip Robertson (CIA operative)
* David Morales (CIA operative)
* Felipe Vidal Santiago (planner)
* General Edwin Walker (overseer)
This gives a good flavor of the numbers of people who spoke up about the conspiracy. Now, it's true that almost any high-profile crime will have people stepping up to 'claim' it... but what's truly interesting here is that this isn't a round-up of mentally ill people, or people seeking fame & fortune. These are people who would be naturally involved if a believer admits what the evidence showed about the players involved.
via Forums - All Forums http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/Thread-Just-A-Few-Who-Talked
Posted on September 14th, 2016
Reliable Government Evidence
Jeff Wrote:There is no reliable government supplied evidence for this murder.
Actually, there is...
The 6.5mm virtually round object in the AP X-ray that causes Warren Commission believers to shut their mouths and run ... is one good example. [Dale just HATES this one!]
Another is CE 748.
As Mark Lane pointed out:
Mark Lane Wrote:In preparation for his appearance before the Commission on April 23, 1964, Shaneyfelt photographed an FBI employee standing on the roof of the Justice Department building in Washington and holding the Mannlicher-Carcano rifle. This picture was published as Commission Exhibit 748, but it cannot be said to have resolved the issue, for the FBI had removed the employee's head from the photograph before submitting it to the Commission. When the picture was offered in evidence to Commission counsel, this colloquy ensued:
Q. I see the head of the individual in the photograph is blacked out. Can you explain the reason for that?
Shaneyfelt: I blanked out the head because it was one of the employees of the FBI, and I felt it was desirable to blank out the head since it was not pertinent.
One can sympathize with the desire of police agents for anonymity and still wish that some non-secret individual might have been chosen to pose with the rifle, since nothing was more pertinent than a comparison of the nose and body shadows.
Shaneyfelt testified that he had prepared Commission Exhibit 748 in an attempt to depict 'the rifle held in approximately the same position' as in the controversial photograph. It would seem that he had an additional, if unmentioned, objective as well. The position of the feet of the FBI employee, his posture and the length and orientation of the shadow from his body suggest that Shaneyfelt sought to simulate all the conditions that existed when the disputed photograph was made. The fact that he left the FBI laboratory to prepare the photograph on the roof of the building appears to confirm the suspicion that he was aware of the non-conformity of the shadows and was trying to simulate them. The fact that the photograph was altered before it was submitted to the Commission would tend to indicate that the effort failed.
And thus the evidence came full cycle: a photograph doctored by the FBI was admitted in evidence ostensibly to demonstrate that another photograph, discovered by the Dallas police, was genuine.
So there IS government evidence that shows ... not what they wanted it to show - but that efforts were being made to frame a patsy. And WCR Supporters can do nothing but whine or hide in a censored forum...
via Forums - All Forums http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/Thread-Reliable-Government-Evidence
Posted on September 14th, 2016
Patrick Runs From Garry Puffer's Legitimate List
Patrick C Wrote:
Garry Puffer Wrote:Things that do not bother our little LN friends:
1) Scientifically proven forged X-rays
Speculation and not proved.
No Patrick, this is not "speculation". It is indeed a scientific test that demonstrated that the AP X-ray has been forged. This first test by Mantik has since been duplicated with the same results by someone else. This is HARD SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE - and you can't deal with it.
Patrick C Wrote:
Garry Puffer Wrote:2) Men with fake Secret Service ID in Dealey Plaza.
Yeah right and I am a monkey's uncle....you believe Gordon Arnold and Bev Oliver who took how many years to say this......
This is in testimony taken by the Warren Commission - so you're lying, aren't you Patrick? I've demonstrated time and time again that you cannot accept ANY EYEWITNESS that made statements or testimony in 1963-1964.
Why the cowardice, Patrick?
Patrick C Wrote:
Garry Puffer Wrote:3) Confirmed presence of two assassins in Dealey Plaza.
Hogwash and sheer speculation on your part. Confirmed presence of ONE assassin more like.
Of course, this is "hogwash and sheer speculation" on YOUR part, isn't it Patrick?
Patrick C Wrote:
Garry Puffer Wrote:5) Examination of a brain that could not be JFK's.
That was suppsed to be JFK's...?
Do you also believe in flying saucers?
You need to EXPLAIN the facts, not run from them, Patrick. The ARRB really messed you guys up, didn't it? We now have medical testimony that demonstrates that the government lied about the testimony and evidence.
Why did the government lie about the testimony & evidence, Patrick? You know very well that the brain photo shows a brain that's simply too large to be what was left in JFK's head...
You know that 1,500 gms is just an impossible weight...
So you have to run rather than address the evidence.
Patrick C Wrote:
Garry Puffer Wrote:6) Substituted bullets.
Sheer Speculation !!
Au contraire - it's the only explanation that fits the known evidence and lack of any chain of custody. (And missing 302 form)
Patrick C Wrote:
Garry Puffer Wrote:7) Substituted autopsy photos.
You mean like the ones of Tippit....? Or some other BS theory..?
I'm quite sure that Garry meant what he said. You can't handle that, so you have to erect a strawman, and try to paint Garry as a kook of some sort.
The Autopsy Report was quite specific that both bone & scalp was missing in an area that extended into the occipital. You are forced to the explanation that they were lying... because you know that the BOH photo shows no such thing.
Such cowardice!!!
Patrick C Wrote:
Garry Puffer Wrote:8) FBI witness intimidation.
Yes I am sure it was intimidating for most people (many of them young) to be interviewed by the FBI....so what!
YOU'RE A GUTLESS LIAR... and a coward to boot. The evidence for FBI intimidation has been posted many times, you cannot possibly be unaware of the facts.
Tell us Patrick, why are you so willing to lie to protect your faith?
Patrick C Wrote:
Garry Puffer Wrote:9) DPD "incompetence" that always works against Oswald.
Actually they did a pretty good job - they had the assassin within 2 hours right David......
If you truly think that the DPD did a "good job" - then you have severe problems with your honesty...
Patrick C Wrote:
Garry Puffer Wrote:10) Multiple missing forms.
Too vague to comment
Okay... that's a decent reply. Let's start with the FBI reports on the interviews done with the Parkland staff.
Can you produce them?
via Forums - All Forums http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/Thread-Patrick-Runs-From-Garry-Puffer-s-Legitimate-List
Posted on September 14th, 2016
Missing Moorman Photo
Mary Ann Moorman, an eyewitness to the assassination equipped with a Polaroid camera, was positioned in a strategic location in Dealey Plaza. She was standing with her friend, Jean Hill, across the street from and southwest of the Depository. Consequently, as she took a picture of the approaching motorcade the Book Depository formed the backdrop. Her camera was aimed, providentially, a trifle higher than the occasion demanded, and her photograph therefore contained a view of the sixth-floor of the building, including the alleged assassination window.
Mrs Moorman thus became a most important witness and her photograph an essential part of the evidence. Her presence at the scene and the fact that she did take the picture were vouched for by Mrs Hill when she testified before a Commission attorney. An FBI report filed by two agents discloses that they both interviewed Mrs Moorman on November 22. On that same day she signed an affidavit for the Dallas Sheriff's office. Deputy Sheriff John Wiseman submitted a report in which he said that he talked with Mrs Moorman that afternoon and that he took the picture from her. Wiseman stated that in examining the picture he could see the sixth-floor window from which the shots purportedly were fired. 'I took this picture to Chief Criminal Deputy Sheriff, Allan Sweatt, who later turned it over to Secret Service Officer Patterson,' Wiseman said. A report submitted by Sweatt reveals that he also questioned Mrs Moorman and Mrs Hill on November 22 and that he received and examined the photograph. Sweatt said that 'this picture was turned over to Secret Service Agent Patterson'.
Since Mrs Moorman had used a Polaroid camera, the consequences were twofold: she was able to see the picture before it was taken from her by the police; she was not able to retain a negative. She told the FBI that the picture showed the Book Depository in the background, a fact confirmed by the two deputy sheriffs who also saw it.
Mrs Moorman was a witness with inordinately pertinent evidence to offer. Pictures of her in the act of photographing the motorcade appear in the volumes of evidence published by the Commission and in the Warren Commission Report itself. Yet the Report makes no mention of her or of her photograph; her name does not appear in the index to the Report. Although the Commission published many photographs, some of doubtful pertinency, it refused to publish the picture that possibly constituted the single most important item of evidence in establishing Oswald's innocence or guilt.
If the photograph depicted Oswald and his rifle at the window, may we not confidently presume that it would have been published? The Commission stated that it refrained from publishing certain exhibits only if they were 'of negligible relevance' and 'because of their length or for reasons of taste'. A photograph of the sixth-floor window was quite obviously of relevance and was not too long. Nor could it be held to be offensive to 'taste', unless, as I hardly think likely, the overthrow of a theory issued as fact by seven august men could so qualify it.
Examination of another Commission explanation relating to the disposition of the evidence discloses the assertion that all items of evidence 'which are relied upon in this report' were published. This last explanation seems the most appropriate: the Moorman photograph was not 'relied upon' and was therefore suppressed.
via Forums - All Forums http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/Thread-Missing-Moorman-Photo
Mrs Moorman thus became a most important witness and her photograph an essential part of the evidence. Her presence at the scene and the fact that she did take the picture were vouched for by Mrs Hill when she testified before a Commission attorney. An FBI report filed by two agents discloses that they both interviewed Mrs Moorman on November 22. On that same day she signed an affidavit for the Dallas Sheriff's office. Deputy Sheriff John Wiseman submitted a report in which he said that he talked with Mrs Moorman that afternoon and that he took the picture from her. Wiseman stated that in examining the picture he could see the sixth-floor window from which the shots purportedly were fired. 'I took this picture to Chief Criminal Deputy Sheriff, Allan Sweatt, who later turned it over to Secret Service Officer Patterson,' Wiseman said. A report submitted by Sweatt reveals that he also questioned Mrs Moorman and Mrs Hill on November 22 and that he received and examined the photograph. Sweatt said that 'this picture was turned over to Secret Service Agent Patterson'.
Since Mrs Moorman had used a Polaroid camera, the consequences were twofold: she was able to see the picture before it was taken from her by the police; she was not able to retain a negative. She told the FBI that the picture showed the Book Depository in the background, a fact confirmed by the two deputy sheriffs who also saw it.
Mrs Moorman was a witness with inordinately pertinent evidence to offer. Pictures of her in the act of photographing the motorcade appear in the volumes of evidence published by the Commission and in the Warren Commission Report itself. Yet the Report makes no mention of her or of her photograph; her name does not appear in the index to the Report. Although the Commission published many photographs, some of doubtful pertinency, it refused to publish the picture that possibly constituted the single most important item of evidence in establishing Oswald's innocence or guilt.
If the photograph depicted Oswald and his rifle at the window, may we not confidently presume that it would have been published? The Commission stated that it refrained from publishing certain exhibits only if they were 'of negligible relevance' and 'because of their length or for reasons of taste'. A photograph of the sixth-floor window was quite obviously of relevance and was not too long. Nor could it be held to be offensive to 'taste', unless, as I hardly think likely, the overthrow of a theory issued as fact by seven august men could so qualify it.
Examination of another Commission explanation relating to the disposition of the evidence discloses the assertion that all items of evidence 'which are relied upon in this report' were published. This last explanation seems the most appropriate: the Moorman photograph was not 'relied upon' and was therefore suppressed.
via Forums - All Forums http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/Thread-Missing-Moorman-Photo
Posted on September 13th, 2016