David Von Pein Misleads Everyone Again...
David Von Pein Wrote:The fact that so many JFK conspiracy clowns are *also* 9/11 conspiracy clowns is a pleasant thing for LNers like myself to contemplate and evaluate (at least on a visceral level).
Of course, since critics compose up to 90% of the American population - they'd naturally include kooks of all flavors... But this doesn't actually address the evidence. It's merely a false impression created by not mentioning the overwhelming numbers of the American Population that fails to accept the Warren Commission.
Believers, on the other hand, composing a much smaller percentage of the American people, have one over-riding characteristic - THEY AREN'T HONEST.
If they are ignorant of the evidence, they can be as truthful as the next person... but when it comes to believers, "Knowledgeable" and "Truthful" or "Honest" ... can't be said in the same sentence.
Take, for example, this forum's leading believer, Patrick Collins... who has been denying this:
Patrick C Wrote:
Ben Holmes Wrote:But, as Mark Lane pointed out many years ago - the witnesses who were on the record in the first two days, 11/22 and 11/23 - quite overwhelmingly pointed to the Grassy Knoll.
Bull shit - no they did not.
Ben Holmes Wrote:No believer has been able to refute that simple fact.
Oh, if I could be bothered I could easily do that. Mike Majerus certainly has. It's just a question of homework and application.
Instead of denying what is said here, he needs to simply be truthful... he either lied, or he couldn't follow the debate, and got confused about the topic. He needs to SPECIFICALLY address these statements he posted.
And if Patrick were a critic, being truthful wouldn't be so hard... But Patrick is a believer... and his faith makes him dishonest.
via Forums - All Forums http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/Thread-David-Von-Pein-Misleads-Everyone-Again
Posted on September 6th, 2016
Spector's Crystal Ball Works!
Quote:THE COMMISSION SHOULD DETERMINE WITH CERTAINTY THAT THERE ARE NO MAJOR VARIATIONS BETWEEN THE FILMS AND THE ARTIST'S DRAWINGS. Commission Exhibits Nos. 385, 386, and 388 were made from the recollections of the autopsy surgeons as told to the artist. Some day someone may compare the films with the artist's drawings and find a significant error which might substantially affect the essential testimony and the Commission's conclusions. In any event, the Commission should not rely on hazy recollections, especially in view of the statement in the autopsy report (Commission Exhibit 387) that: "The complexity of those fractures and the fragments thus produced tax satisfactory verbal description and are better appreciated in the photographs and roentgenograms which are prepared" - part of a memo from Assistant Counsel Arlen Spector to General Counsel J. Lee Rankin on April 30th, 1964.
And indeed, it's come to pass. The autopsy photos have been compared to the Rydberg drawings, and it's quite obvious to everyone that the drawings were incorrect.
Yet believers still think that the conclusions the Warren Commission came to were still accurate.
via Forums - All Forums http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/Thread-Spector-s-Crystal-Ball-Works
Posted on September 5th, 2016
A Coup in Camelot, coming soon.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_2a-Bfjw...e=youtu.be
via Forums - All Forums http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/Thread-A-Coup-in-Camelot-coming-soon
Posted on September 3rd, 2016
Missing Employees...
Taken from: http://www.assassinationresearch.com/v2n1/chrono2.pdf
via Forums - All Forums http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/Thread-Missing-Employees
Posted on September 2nd, 2016
Kennedy's Pressured Prosectors?
Quote:Although Holland has nowhere in print yet explored it, after my presentation at The Nation on the mysteries of the JFK medical/autopsy evidence, Holland said he believed it was likely that JFK’s pathologists didn’t dissect the back wound because of pressure from the Kennedys. In a personal letter I responded that, although “William Manchester,[116] Gus Russo[117] and John Lattimer, MD have advanced this notion,[118] the weight of the evidence is against it. (Not even the discredited Gerald Posner buys it.[119])”
I followed with, "I won’t argue that the Kennedys probably wanted JFK’s Addison’s disease, which was irrelevant to his cause of death, left unexplored. So although there’s no solid evidence for it, perhaps they did request that JFK’s abdominal cavity, which houses the adrenals, be left alone, especially since JFK suffered no abdominal injuries. But even if the Kennedys had made that seemingly reasonable request, it was ignored. (autopsy pathologist Pierre Finck, MD and author Gus) Russo recount that one of JFK’s pathologists, Pierre Finck, MD, said that, "The Kennedy family did not want us to examine the abdominal cavity, but the abdominal cavity was examined."[120] And indeed it was--Kennedy was completely disemboweled.[121] If Finck was right, so much for the military’s kowtowing to the Kennedys. Perhaps the only "victory" the family may have won was that the doctors kept quiet about JFK’s adrenal problems, at least until 1992.
http://www.ctka.net/pr900-holland.html
Believers have often asserted that the reason the neck wound wasn't dissected, nor the track of the wound; was due to pressure from the Kennedy family.
So it's worthwhile to note evidence that this simply isn't true.
The only REAL reason that the track of the wound wasn't dissected, nor the throat... was due to orders from the military.
And this fact screams conspiracy... Can believers offer any other reason for the military's interference with the autopsy?
via Forums - All Forums http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/Thread-Kennedy-s-Pressured-Prosectors
Posted on September 2nd, 2016
Believers Who Lie About The Evidence...
Ben Holmes Wrote:
Patrick C Wrote:
Ben Holmes Wrote:But, as Mark Lane pointed out many years ago - the witnesses who were on the record in the first two days, 11/22 and 11/23 - quite overwhelmingly pointed to the Grassy Knoll.
Bull shit - no they did not.
You're lying again, Patrick. You'll NEVER support such a claim with evidence. Just as Mark refused to do.
So tell us Patrick - why are you a liar?
Patrick has had an opportunity to retract or support his claim (he also claimed that Mike Majerus book also refuted Mark Lane's point raised here)
Then asserts that he's not a liar...
Yet there's STILL no page reference to look at, or a list of witnesses in those first two days that Patrick can total up to less than a majority for the Grassy Knoll.
Why is this? Why do believers consistently refuse to support the lies that they tell about the evidence? How can Patrick believe himself honest when he absolutely refuses to defend his claims?
via Forums - All Forums http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/Thread-Believers-Who-Lie-About-The-Evidence
Posted on September 2nd, 2016
Book List Patrick C
Posted on August 30th, 2016
Evidence Against Transit...
It's important to understand this - THERE IS NO DIRECT EVIDENCE FOR TRANSIT - only speculation. One such speculative bit of "evidence" is the bruise to the apical portion of JFK's lung... but this could have been easily, and most credibly explained as a result of the bullet that entered the front of JFK's throat, and ranged downward... as the Parkland doctors presumed (and treated JFK on that basis!)
Transit is an ABSOLUTE requirement for the lone assassin theory...
The evidence suggests the opposite.
A prediction easily made is that no believer will address all of this evidence ... or present their own that supports their faith.
via Forums - All Forums http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/Thread-Evidence-Against-Transit
Posted on August 29th, 2016
Why Deny The Conspiracy?
Quote:From the beginning, there has been no reason to deny the conspiracy. Four of the seven Warren Commissioners -- the majority -- including the Commission's chairman, Chief Justice Earl Warren, expressed doubts about the Commission's conclusions within a decade of their report. They were joined by a fifth Commissioner in 1978, when John J. McCloy told the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA), that "I no longer feel we had no credible evidence or reliable evidence in regard to a conspiracy...." Lyndon Johnson never believed the report he commissioned. The official policy of the FBI is that the case is not closed, a policy begun by J. Edgar Hoover himself. And those were the people who had supposedly found the truth.
By any standard of historiography, the lone-assassin scenario must be considered a minority opinion which is contrary to the known evidence. Yet that is not enough for a vocal minority of conspiracy deniers.
Well stated... why do believers reject conspiracy when those who know far more of the evidence express their doubts? It's simply not reasonable to be so dogmatic on the issue.
Patrick claims that there are "well reasoned" books that reject (or fail to support) the Lone Assassin theory - yet he refuses to name even one title.
This shows that Patrick is merely pretending to be less dogmatic than he actually is... for otherwise, he'd be happy to list the titles of books he considers "well reasoned".
Mark Lane's 'Rush To Judgment' surely must be one of those titles, since Patrick refuses to point out anything specifically wrong with it. Mark Ulrik has managed to find a number counted wrong... sadly, this isn't a book on mathematics.
Why are believers so inflexible in their faith?
via Forums - All Forums http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/Thread-Why-Deny-The-Conspiracy
Posted on August 29th, 2016
Logical Fallacies & Believers
Quote:What other bullets did or did not do has nothing to do with CE399. It's actions and condition is unrelated to any other bullets. It is entirely possible that it could inflict the wounds that it did and remain in the condition that it is in because that is what it did. Just as Oswald's marksmanship as tested by the Marines is unrelated. On that day, in that place, he was a good enough marksman to make the shot. The proof that he could do it is that HE DID, and the conspiracy nitwits cannot name another shooter, afte 50 years and over 10000 posts on this forum, alone.
This is, of course, the fundamental logical fallacy known as 'Begging The Question'. It is assumed that CE399 did what the Warren Commission said it did - therefore any evidence that contradicts that (which is basically all the ballistics testing done for the Warren Commission) is meaningless.
But this is simply assuming what you need to demonstrate.
Ditto with Oswald's marksmanship... it was incredibly poorer than the three marksmen used to attempt to duplicate their scenario by the Warren Commission - yet they couldn't do the job, despite their many advantages (quite dishonest advantages given to them by the Warren Commission)
via Forums - All Forums http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/Thread-Logical-Fallacies-Believers
Posted on August 29th, 2016