Conspiracy JFK Forum Site

Patrick C Wrote:I would agree in respect of most of which these guys believe. It is astonishing. I am not surprised that many people believe in a conspiracy in the JFK case however. Unfortunately most people only get the sensationalist pro conspiracy fiction that dominates the mainstream popular bestseller lists and of course the movie Oliver Stone made.

You're lying again, Patrick. The mainstream media and the educational system is quite firmly in the hands of Warren Commission apologists.

Patrick C Wrote:It is evident from the absence of one time regular expert contributors like Hank and SVA, together with a group of well informed, sensible adults like Paul, IGS and Craig (though they did not necessarily see things in the same way), that our gang of three here are either not taken seriously or just drive people away with their irritating and exasperating methods.

What's evident is that knowledgeable believers cannot stand toe to toe with knowledgeable critics. THAT is what this clearly shows. Even those who still post, such as you, absolutely REFUSE to address the actual evidence.

Patrick C Wrote:It is s shame in some respects that people like Ben Holmes give many of the well intentioned pro conspiracy supporters a bad name with his 7 shot, 5 shooter scenario with mobile film lab and metal detector team for all those missed bullets.....

What's truly a shame is that Patrick is too much the coward to actually CITE that claim he puts in my mouth.



He knows that if he did, it would prove him to be the liar that he is. It's far easier to simply lie than it is to actually confront the statements critics ACTUALLY make.

Patrick C Wrote:And those that are potentially at least - capable of reasoned debate - such as the prevaricator Mark Lane, simply cannot be trusted to paint a fair and reasonable picture, instead they resort largely to selective and manipulative presentation of the evidence in this case.

And yet, despite over 400 direct quotes from Mark Lane, you've been rather totally unable to respond and refute anything he's been quoted saying. Why is that, Patrick?



via Forums - All Forums http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/Thread-Patrick-Lies-Again

As one critic noted in the Amazon forums:

Quote:Does anyone seriously doubt that Agent Sienzant would be delighted to have me out of the way?

He's referring to Henry Sienzant - who disappeared while I was posting on the Amazon forums, but has since reappeared now that I've been banned from Amazon.



Henry won't come near this forum, he's learned from hard experience that I'm perfectly happy to counter his nonsense, and point out his lies. Henry would rather not post here - knowing that he'd have to face questions such as the one Patrick is currently running from... (David Von Pein is equally afraid...)



For example, here's just one that Patrick is currently avoiding...

The autopsy reported stated that:

Quote:1. There is a large irregular defect of the scalp and skull on the right involving chiefly the parietal bone but extending somewhat into the temporal and occipital regions. In this region there is an actual absence of scalp and bone producing a defect which measures approximately 13 cm. in greatest diameter.

Believers often think that this doesn't mean that the wound was in the back of the head... despite the fact that dozens of medically trained witnesses reported that it was.



So I keep trying to find any believer honest enough to admit that a wound that is in the BACK of the head fits this Autopsy Report description.



David Von Pein has been quite dishonest in the past on this issue... we are about to see Patrick Collins follow David's path, and lie about this location as well.



I keep challenging believers to describe what portion of the Parietal is in the back of the head - and none of them seem willing to answer. So I've drawn a line from the extreme top of a skull - and it's quite clear, I hope; which is the front, and which is the back.

Paul Schrade Wrote:Thank you Andy for highlighting this portion of Robert Kennedy Jr’s new book on the Skakel case. You have exposed some little known facts and concerns. Bobby describes his Mother’s deep and compelling wisdom when she told him “we needed to let go of our impulse for revenge” as she had to with her husband's murder. Bobby Jr said he saw and felt that up close. While all other members of the Kennedy family agree that revenge is no answer as I do...truth and justice should be. My work with Bobby now is against revenge by “our system”. We must find out who shot Robert Kennedy. Prosecution’s own evidence is clear and conclusive that Sirhan could not and did not shoot Robert Kennedy. Again Robert Jr. advises us as he does in the Skakel case what we must do...“attack the prosecutors, cops, courts for willful misconduct” and their act of revenge in the Robert Kennedy case. The truth is….if Sirhan had been the only gunman that night Robert Kennedy would have lived....in solidarity...PAUL SCHRADE

Taken from the Litchfield County Times, I'd also add that the evidence shows that if Oswald had been the only assassin, John F. Kennedy would have lived as well.



The evidence clearly shows that the shot that killed Kennedy entered from the front.



This explains why the Warren Commission crowd so vehemently reject the evidence for a large back of the head wound... they know precisely what the implications are. No shooter in the Sniper's Nest could have made that shot.



via Forums - All Forums http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/Thread-Only-One-Gunman

Larry Hancock Wrote:

Chris Newton Wrote:

Chris Bristow Wrote:Did the SS ever make an attempt to identify those two agents? The explanation for their presence is that a call went out to off duty agents of many agencies to provide extra security that day. So there was no official SS presence on the ground in Dealey Plaza just unnamed volunteers. The SS could have determined which of their agents was there simply by asking all of them so why do we not have witness statements from these two. First hand accounts of the assassination and closest to the knoll. Two people claim to be SS you would think the agency would want to verify who they were.

Army SOP is that a sniper team deploys with a security element. I think that was the role of the fake SS behind the fence. They delayed and created confusion to allow the perps to escape.

The ARRB investigated the activities of the 112th at great length; its Dallas detachment was not activated in any sort of security mode and interviews with its personnel determined that other than Powell, who was on leave, none were in the area. Unfortunately all the dialog about the MI group takes attention from the people with fake credentials who were behind there, acting in a tactical team effort just as Chris describes...and creating a diversion. Powell was never behind the fence, he was on Houston, went to the corner, spoke to Brennan, and then went inside the building. Unfortunately the HSCA interviewed the 112th officer who was acting as G2 rather than the officer they should have who was in charge of operations - and Jones just confused them more.

What I find interesting about this is that critics can attempt to get at the truth of the matter, yet believers simply deny the basic facts. The testimony shows quite clearly that someone identified himself as Secret Service.



This shows that the assassination was a planned event, and that it was planned not by Mafia thugs, who'd have no idea about how to help their shooters get away, but by trained assassins.



Oswald was hardly a "trained assassin" - but he was a very useful patsy. Because of his intelligence connections, he virtually forced a coverup - thus covering up the real assassins, and preventing any real investigation into the murder.



via Forums - All Forums http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/Thread-Secret-Service-On-The-Grassy-Knoll

Quote:April 27, 1964



MEMORANDUM



TO: J. Lee Rankin



FROM: Norman Redlich



The purpose of this memorandum is to explain the reasons why certain members of the staff feel that it is important to take certain on-site photographs in connection with the location of the approximate points at which the three bullets struck the occupants of the Presidential limousine.



Our report presumably will state that the President was hit by the first bullet, Governor Connally by the second, and the President by the third and fatal bullet. The report will also conclude that the bullets were fired by one person located in the sixth floor southeast corner window of the TSBD building.



As our investigation now stands, however, we have not shown that these events could possibly have occurred in the manner suggested above. All we have is a reasonable hypothesis which appears to be supported by the medical testimony but which has not been checked out against the physical facts at the scene of the assassination.



Our examination of the Zapruder films shows that the fatal third shot struck the President at a point which we can locate with reasonable accuracy on the ground. We can do this because we know the exact frame (no. 313) in the film at which the third shot hit the President and we know the location of the photographer. By lining up fixed objects in the movie frame where this shot occurs we feel that we have determined the approximate location of this shot. This can be verified by a photo of the same spot from the point where Zapruder was standing.



We have the testimony of Governor and Mrs. Connally that the Governor was hit with the second bullet at a point which we probably cannot fix with precision. We feel we have established, however, with the help of medical testimony, that the shot which hit the Governor did not come after frame 240 on the Zapruder film. The governor feels that it came around 230, which is certainly consistent with our observations of the film and with the doctor's testimony. Since the President was shot at frame 313, this would leave a time of at least 4 seconds between the two shots, certainly ample for even an inexperienced marksman.



Prior to our last viewing of the films with Governor Connally we had assumed that the President was hit while he was concealed behind the sign which occurs between frames 215-225. We have expert testimony to the effect that a skilled marksman would require a minimum 2 seconds between shots with this rifle. Since the camera operates at 18 1/3 frames per second, there would have to be a minimum of 40 frames between shots. It is apparent, therefore, that if Governor Connally was even as late as frame 240, the President would have to have been hit no later than frame 190 and probably even earlier.



We have not yet examined the assassination scene to determine whether the assassin in fact could have shot the President prior to frame 190. We could locate the position on the ground which corresponds to this frame and it would then be our intent to establish by photography that the assassin would have fired the first shot at the President prior to this point. Our intention is not to establish the point with complete accuracy, but merely to substantiate the hypothesis which underlies the conclusions that Oswald was the sole assassin.



I had always assumed that our final report would be accompanied by a surveyor's diagram which would indicate the approximate location of the three shots. We certainly cannot prepare such a diagram without establishing that we are describing an occurrence which is physically possible. Our failure to do this will, in my opinion, place this Report in jeopardy since it is a certainty that others will examine the Zapruder films and raise the same questions which have been raised by our examination of the films. If we do not attempt to answer these observable facts, others may answer them with facts which challenge our most basic assumptions, or with fanciful theories based on our unwillingness to test our assumptions by the investigatory methods available to us.



I should add that the facts which we now have in our Possession, submitted to us in separate reports from the FBI and Secret Service, are totally incorrect and, if left uncorrected, will present a completely misleading picture.



It may well be that this project should be undertaken by the FBI and Secret Service with our assistance instead of being done as a staff project. The important thing is that the project be undertaken expeditiously.

I've underlined a few sentences above.



Embarrassments to the Warren Commission crowd... even the Warren Commission acknowledged that the evidence was consistent with Connally being hit by a separate bullet - THUS PROVING A CONSPIRACY.



Note also the fact that Norman Redlich presumed from the beginning the conclusion that Oswald was the lone assassin - and was attempting to fit the evidence to his presumption, rather than allowing the conclusions to flow from the evidence.



It was the Commission's preconceived conclusions that were driving the investigation, not the evidence...



via Forums - All Forums http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/Thread-Evidence-For-Warren-Commission-Dishonesty

I asked for the following statement to be analyzed by believers:

Quote:"The [autopsy] photographer was there, the corpsman who usually took pictures of damaged hearts and cirrhotic livers and other diseases. He was snapping away when he caught the attention of an FBI agent, who came up to him and asked for his clearance. 'Clearance?' said the corpsman. 'This is my job.' The agent took away his camera, exposed all the film, and threw him out. (The exposed film is in the archive.) 'We've got our own man taking pictures,' the FBI agent said. The FBI photographer, who had clearance, was in the same quandary as Humes. He had never taken autopsy pictures before and was untrained in photographing gunshot wounds. The photographs of the body's interior were out of focus ... Before the President was buried, no one, either in Dallas or Washington, looked at both sides of the body, front and back, and realized that a bullet had entered the back and exited the throat ... ." - Michael Baden "Unnatural Death - Confessions of a Medical Examiner", pg. 10-11

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Dale refused to answer, Patrick refused to answer, only Henry managed enough courage to post a response.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++



The cowardice exhibited by believers in this forum (Amazon Forum) is incredible... they are CONSTANTLY running ... every single one of them ... even Henry, who did, to his credit, offer his analysis. So now it's time to show just how cowardly and dishonest believers are:

Henry Sienzant Wrote:Sure. Baden wasn't there, so he is repeating hearsay for the most part. Who was there who said all this and why don't you quote some actual testimony instead of hearsay? let's go through that statement sentence by sentence and see how much Baden can actually confirm by claiming he witnessed it.

This, of course, is very poor analysis indeed... Henry is presuming that Dr. Baden is being used as evidence... but refuses to LOOK AT WHAT IS BEING SAID.



Or, more accurately, Henry KNOWS that what Dr. Baden is saying is garbage, but is unwilling to correct Dr. Baden - who is a fellow believer.



Nor was Henry ever concerned with the use of Dr. Baden as an expert. Here's a few examples from Dale:

Quote:"Read especially Dr. Baden's quote - it annihilates Ben's entire set of beliefs."



"Dr. Baden exposes your little charade, doesn't he?"



"Dr. Baden stated it best: the Parkland doctors were WRONG"

Now, Henry was no-where to be found when Dale was citing Dr. Baden to counter what the Parkland doctors stated - and Henry had nothing to say about "hearsay" being used to counter first-hand knowledge.



HENRY HAD NOTHING WHATSOEVER TO SAY WHEN DR. BADEN WAS BEING USED AS AN EXPERT WITNESS TO COUNTER ACTUAL EYEWITNESSES!



But NOW - when actually quoting Dr. Baden - it's suddenly hearsay.







Perhaps because he knows quite well just how wrong Dr. Baden is on these statements - and since Dr. Baden is a believer - doesn't wish to denigrate him.

Henry Sienzant Wrote:

Dr. Baden Wrote:The [autopsy] photographer was there, the corpsman who usually took pictures of damaged hearts and cirrhotic livers and other diseases.

Hearsay.

No Henry... it's not "hearsay" - it's flat WRONG. The photographer was John Stringer, who as Dr. Humes pointed out "The medical school's director of photography was a civilian, John Stringer." - not a corpsman.



Nor was the implication that the photographer hadn't ever photographed an autopsy before correct... as Dr. Humes pointed out, Stringer was "one of the best medical photographers in the world."



So here's two errors OF FACT that Dr. Baden is guilty of... yet you refer only to this as "hearsay".

Henry Sienzant Wrote:

Dr. Baden Wrote:He was snapping away when he caught the attention of an FBI agent, who came up to him and asked for his clearance.

Hearsay.

No Henry... again, IT IS FLAT WRONG. Those familiar with the evidence know that the Secret Service stopped Stringer's assistant, Floyd Reibe, not the FBI.



Once again, you know that the statement is false, yet you hide that fact behind a charge of "hearsay".

Henry Sienzant Wrote:

Dr. Baden Wrote:'Clearance?' said the corpsman. 'This is my job.' The agent took away his camera, exposed all the film, and threw him out. (The exposed film is in the archive.)

Hearsay.

Again, it wasn't the FBI... it was the Secret Service. It's not "hearsay" - it's WRONG.



Ironically, we see here one of the few accuracies that Dr. Baden is guilty of - the exposing of film.

Henry Sienzant Wrote:

Dr. Baden Wrote:'We've got our own man taking pictures,' the FBI agent said.

Hearsay.

No Henry... once again, it's WRONG. There was no FBI photographer there, and you should certainly know that historical fact.



That you try to camouflage Dr. Baden's incorrect statements as "hearsay" without stating that he was WRONG shows your bias against the truth.

Henry Sienzant Wrote:

Dr. Baden Wrote:The FBI photographer, who had clearance, was in the same quandary as Humes.

Hearsay.

There was no FBI photographer. Dr. Baden was flat wrong. If a critic were to write a book, and have half the false statements we see here - you'd go ballistic. But since it's a Warren Commission defender making these false statements - you refuse to correct him.

Henry Sienzant Wrote:

Dr. Baden Wrote:He had never taken autopsy pictures before and was untrained in photographing gunshot wounds.

Hearsay.

No Henry - it's a COMPLETE INVENTION. There was no "FBI Photographer" - and the photographer who WAS there was "one of the best medical photographers in the world" - who certainly knew his job.

Henry Sienzant Wrote:

Dr. Baden Wrote:The photographs of the body's interior were out of focus ...

Did Baden examine the photos of the interior of JFK's body? I believe so. If so, then, as an expert witness, he can attest to this. Did he attest to this at any point in testimony? Authors are sometimes unreliable in what they put into their books --- and might inflate any given story to change its importance. Books are hearsay, as are newspaper articles and rumors. But let's grant this is accurate for the sake of argument.

ROFLMAO!!!



The one point on which you grant Dr. Baden expert status is the one where he is most OBVIOUSLY lying.



On all the other points, the passage of time could have made his recollections fuzzy, he can seem to recall someone taking away someones camera, and confusing the Secret Service with the FBI for that incident... but Dr. Baden NEVER SAW any interior photos, in OR out of focus... NONE EXIST.



And Henry KNOWS THIS FOR A FACT!



Anyone can view the inventory of photos from 11/10/66 for themselves:



It's quite clear that there's no interior body shots. There's testimony that they were taken, such as Stringer's testimony.



Henry also knows that Dr. Humes testified that at least one interior body photo was taken that isn't found in the collection.



But this information has long been known... Ramsey Clark told LBJ back in 1967.



So Henry knows quite well that no interior body photos exist in the record - YET THIS IS THE ONE ISSUE ON WHICH HE'S WILLING TO GRANT DR. BADEN ACCURACY ON.



Which means that either Henry is ignorant - which, as this is a longstanding issue known since 1966-67 time-frame seems incredible, or Henry is intentionally lying.



Tell us Henry, can you cite ANYTHING for your claim that Dr. Baden was telling the truth about seeing interior body photos of JFK?



(Despite Henry's claim to be able to cite for *HIS* claims, I don't expect a citation... Henry will run!)



[And indeed, Henry ran from this, and refused to answer...]

Henry Sienzant Wrote:

Dr. Baden Wrote:"Before the President was buried, no one, either in Dallas or Washington, looked at both sides of the body, front and back, and realized that a bullet had entered the back and exited the throat ... ." - Michael Baden "Unnatural Death - Confessions of a Medical Examiner", pg. 10-11

Again, hearsay. He wasn't at Parkland in Dallas nor at Bethesda in Washington.

Of course, you know that this is a completely ACCURATE statement. Perhaps, other than his statement that film had been exposed, the only statement that Dr. Baden makes that is truthful to history.

Henry Sienzant Wrote:So here's the evidence that Baden (at best) can personally testify to: "The photographs of the body's interior were out of focus ..." The rest of it is just hearsay and wouldn't be allowed in a trial."

The one point that you allow as truthful is the one point that YOU KNOW IS A LIE ON DR. BADEN'S PART. Everything else Dr. Baden said could be simply mixed up memories... After all, this was written many years later... but you can't 'remember' something that never happened at all - there is ZERO EVIDENCE of any interior body photographs, and quite obvious and credible evidence that they don't exist.



So where did Dr. Baden come up with the "out of focus" idea? HE NEVER SAW ANY SUCH PHOTOGRAPHS... they don't exist.



You can't cite for them. Nor can you pretend that they exist, but are simply still classified, BECAUSE THE INVENTORY LISTS NO SUCH PHOTOGRAPHS.

Henry Sienzant Wrote:So what's your point, exactly,

With your help, I just made it.



Dale was afraid (or too ignorant) to answer... Patrick refused to answer... and YOU REFUSED TO POINT OUT THE OBVIOUS UNTRUTH OF MOST OF THESE STATEMENTS.



THAT was my point, and you helped me make it. I knew IN ADVANCE that no-one would dare state the obvious - that Dr. Baden was clearly wrong on so many points in just a short paragraph. The point is that believers refuse to correct other believers even when it's so BLAZINGLY obvious...



For example, no-one will step up to the plate and point out to you that there were MANY Grassy Knoll witnesses that you claim ignorance of... no-one.



And this is the point.



Honest people don't act this way.



Quite surprisingly, you publicly accepted as truthful the one statement that has contrary evidence going back to 1966-67.



Now, I'd defy you to produce ANY EVIDENCE AT ALL that there are interior body photographs taken of JFK during the autopsy that still exist somewhere - but I know that would be a meaningless challenge... you can't produce any evidence, and you know it.



For some strange reason, you thought that a lie about internal body photos would pass muster.



Now Henry, you stated: "And we're still waiting for your response. We don't expect an answer anytime soon. If ever." - and I told you I'd be expecting your apology for that obviously incorrect statement.



Not that I really EXPECT one... you're notoriously dishonest... but you and Dale owe me one... because you *KNEW* that I'd answer... and lied.



It's really more of a telling point that you could think that I wouldn't respond to a thread I've started. Because you clearly aren't so dumb as to actually BELIEVE I wouldn't respond. So you were simply lying when you claimed that you weren't expecting this answer.



Now, would you like to offer any citations for your pretended belief that interior body photos exist of JFK's autopsy?



Or explain why you were so unwilling to point out what YOU MUST HAVE KNOWN were incorrect statements on Dr. Baden's part?



via Forums - All Forums http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/Thread-Dr-Baden-Believer-s-Cowardice

HARD SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE...

An excellent example of the Warren Commission flat lying about the evidence is the missing "Part 3" of Oswald's Dallas Post Office Box form. According to the Warren Commission:

Quote:It is not known whether the application for post office box 2915 listed "A. Hidell" as a person entitled to receive mail at this box. In accordance with postal regulations, the portion of the application which lists names of persons, other than the applicant, entitled to receive mail was thrown away after the box was closed on May 1963.

But that was an out and out lie... In Commission Exhibit 2585 - the FBI states that:

Quote:INVESTIGATION: Our investigation has revealed that Oswald did not indicate on his application that others, including an "A. Hidell," would receive mail through the box in question, which was Post Office Box 2915 in Dallas. This box was obtained by Oswald on October 9, 1962, and relinquished by him on May 14, 1963.

Amusingly, not a SINGLE believer has ever publicly acknowledged that the Warren Commission flat lied even a single time, let alone the multiple times that critics have pointed out.



Why does the "truth" need lies to support it?



via Forums - All Forums http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/Thread-WC-Lied-About-Part-3

Anthony Marsh Wrote:Humes supposedly burned the notes ... in his fireplace on Saturday

morning. - Anthony Marsh 1/15/2003

Anthony Marsh Wrote:I never said that Humes burned the doctors' notes on Saturday. -

Anthony Marsh 2/5/2003 (21 days later...)

It's truly amusing to keep track of the lies being told by believers to support their faith.



ALL of the evidence shows that Dr. Humes was playing near his fireplace on SUNDAY - not Saturday... and it wouldn't be a stretch to accept that it happened after Oswald was killed.



via Forums - All Forums http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/Thread-Liar-s-Lie-Anthony-Marsh-the-Burning-of-Dr-Humes-Notes