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.

Quite misleading, 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.



Take a look, for example, at Mark Ulrik... rather consistently lying about the evidence in this case. Inventing non-existent citations, and lying about citations that do exist. Or your cowardice in this very forum about the "unassailable" McAdams tabulation that turned out not to be so "unassailable."



Most knowledgeable believers who know about this forum simply refuse post... they know how badly their arguments get chewed up and spit out by knowledgeable critics.

Patrick C Wrote:There are some reasonable arguments for conspiracy and there are some well reasoned works out there on the case that do not support the lone gunman theory - personally for me they fail to convince however.

You can't name even a SINGLE one. Nor will you. You're a coward. When it comes to supporting your assertions, you're just like most believers...



Patrick asserts that he has a very large library of JFK related books - yet he cannot name even ONE that is "well reasoned" and supports conspiracy.



Which, of course, simply goes to show that Patrick is a liar. For until he get specific, and name a title - he's making an assertion that he cannot support.

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.....

Of course, Patrick is simply lying again...



It's amusing that believers cannot defend their faith with the truth. Patrick lies at the drop of a hat, and no wonder - the evidence simply doesn't support his faith.



I defy Patrick to produce cites to my words that support what he just claimed...



But he won't. Nor will he ever even try.



And it's certainly beyond his charactor to apologize for lying about what I've stated...

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?



It's easy for believers to assert that Mark Lane is a liar - it's quite another to actually point to anything he stated in 'Rush to Judgment' - then provide the citation that proves he lied. Mark, for example, has been desperately trying for weeks now to prove what he's been unable to prove.



Patrick simply refuses to even try.



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

Quote:"We would usually see about, as I recall, about a thousand gunshot wounds and a thousand stab wounds a year and about five thousand automobile accident victims a year in the emergency room. The emergency room at Parkland was very busy. Well over 100,000 to 125,000 visits a year at that time. All of us had seen well over 100 or 200 gunshot wounds by the time we had completed a residency, and so that was not something that was new to us or was particularly disturbing to us." - Ron Jones, M.D. - Oral History, Sixth Floor Museum

Believers simply cannot get around the FACT that the wound in JFK's throat was described as an entry wound.



Quite likely the same bullet that put a hole in the windshield that so many witnesses remarked on...



via Forums - All Forums http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/Thread-Gunshot-Wound-Experience-At-Parkland

You virtually never see anyone posting positive evidence that there was a lone assassin, and his name was Lee Harvey Oswald.



Believers not only refuse to post positive evidence for their case, they generally run in the opposite direction when the lies of the Warren Commission are pointed out.



In other words, believers are almost totally reactive.



They don't have a case to put forward... they simply react when critics post their assertions & evidence.



Even such knowledgeable believers such as Patrick C, or Henry Sienzant, rarely post citations to the evidence, and rarely make any positive case for their belief... all they do is react.



This fact simply goes to show that believers realize just how weak their case is. Why did all government investigations blatantly lie in order to make their case???



Why can't believers defend those lies, or even admit that they exist?



via Forums - All Forums http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/Thread-Has-Anyone-Noticed

Quote:"One employee, Jack Dougherty, believed that he saw Oswald coming to work, but he does not remember that Oswald had anything in his hands as he entered the door." (WCR 133)

Let's examine the actual testimony to see if the Warren Commission accurately rendered it:

Quote:Mr. BALL - Did you see him come in the door?

Mr. DOUGHERTY - Yes; I saw him when he first come in the door--yes.

Mr. BALL - Did he have anything in his hands or arms?

Mr. DOUGHERTY - Well, not that I could see of.

...

Mr. BALL - Do you recall him having anything in his hand?

Mr. DOUGHERTY - Well, I didn't see anything, if he did.

Mr. BALL - Did you pay enough attention to him, you think, that you would remember whether he did or didn't?

Mr. DOUGHERTY - Well, I believe I can---yes, sir---I'll put it this way; I didn't see anything in his hands at the time.

Mr. BALL - In other words, your memory is definite on that is it?

Mr. DOUGHERTY - Yes, sir.

Mr. BALL - In other words, you would say positively he had nothing in his hands?

Mr. DOUGHERTY - I would say that---yes, sir.

Mr. BALL - Or, are you guessing?

Mr. DOUGHERTY - I don't think so.

If you believed the Warren Commission, you'd think that Dougherty just "believed" he'd seen Oswald coming to work, when Dougherty wasn't unsure at all. He was quite definite on that point, and the Warren Commission simply lied.



If you believed the Warren Commission Report, you'd think that Dougherty simply didn't remember if Oswald had anything in his hands, yet the testimony shows that he was quite positive on that fact... again, the Warren Commission simply lied in order to present their case.



When does the truth need lies to support it?



via Forums - All Forums http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/Thread-Twisting-The-Testimony

Craig Wrote:Oswald's activities in the summer of 1963 in New Orleans.



We have evidence he approached an anti-Castro group offering to help train rebels, and soon after he on the street handing out pro-Castro leaflets. Not well known is that before his famous altercation, he had been handing them out at a naval base to sailors, which seems quite intentionally trying to provoke a conflict.



In short, we have quite suspicious behavior that doesn't fit 'he was a Marxist activist'.



There are three main theories that fit the behavior:



1. He was attempting to get attention and press he could use to impress Cuban officials to get approval to go to Cuba

2. He was pretending to be pro-Castro for some intelligence activity (Waldron's speculation is wanting to get him into Cuba for the coming invasion)

3. He was being set up as a pro-Marxist activist in order to try to get Castro blamed for Kennedy's assassination and the US to remove Castro

This comes from a believer who pretends to be a critic... it's quite obvious if you understand the true facts. In 1963, the CIA was involved in operations designed to discredit & destroy the FPCC. Notice that the FAR MORE LIKELY theory that Oswald was a part of this operation isn't mentioned.



This is the standard tactics for the 'wolves in sheep's clothing' - the believers who pretend to be critics... you will NEVER hear from this particular "critic" that the Warren Commission lied about the evidence... yet the proof that they did is so overwhelming that no real critic would deny this fact.



It's far easier to debate against other believers than it is to debate knowledgeable critics.



As Dan Hardway pointed out:

Dan Hardway Wrote:The very first conspiracy theory, that Castro and the communists killed JFK – the one expressed by President Johnson 20 minutes after the assassination, and first seeing print in the DRE’s CIA funded newspaper, Trinchera, on November 23, 1963 – still has followers and proponents, the latest being Phil Shenon. None of the proponents, it seems, have ever really considered whether they may be the victims – or a part – of a very good, deliberate disinformation operation – possibly the best Phillips and Joannides ever ran. (Full article here.)

Notice that nothing Craig said contradicts this earliest of all "conspiracy" theories...



via Forums - All Forums http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/Thread-How-Believers-Pretend-to-be-Critics

Quote:Tippit stopped the man and called him to his car. (WCR 165)

Although this was necessary to avoid the implication that the killer knew Tippit, and walked up to him on his own, there's no citation given for this assertion, and no testimony I'm aware of that would support this assertion. Indeed, Helen Markham's testimony can be interpreted as supporting that the two men knew each other - or perhaps more accurately, her testimony does not preclude that they knew each other... see (WC 3H 307,315)



The Warren Commission simply lied. Be sure to note the dead silence that follows this post. Believers have no explanations, yet absolutely refuse to acknowledge these lies.



via Forums - All Forums http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/Thread-Tippit-s-Killer

Rarely discussed by WC apologists (can't imagine why), the document "Concerning Criticism of the Warren Report" continues to defy belief.



http://www.jfklancer.com/CIA.html



Such a horrible document, and the fact it remains so uncontested by believers is beyond comprehension. The mere necessity for the CIA to draft such a document in the first place is never so much as called into question either.



Parts 3 and 4 and their subsections are particularly familiar to any critic who has debated shameless apologists. Their approaches are mirror images to the document's contents, almost verbatim. I challenge any Oswaldist to identify a phrase in this document that couldn't also have been written by Joseph Goebbels, or even one Oswaldist who can approach its insouicance to Kennedy's murder apologetically. Alas, I'm sure "Patrick" will be too busy.



***************************





RE: Concerning Criticism of the Warren Report



1. Our Concern. From the day of President Kennedy's assassination on, there has been speculation about the responsibility for his murder. Although this was stemmed for a time by the Warren Commission report, (which appeared at the end of September 1964), various writers have now had time to scan the Commission's published report and documents for new pretexts for questioning, and there has been a new wave of books and articles criticizing the Commission's findings. In most cases the critics have speculated as to the existence of some kind of conspiracy, and often they have implied that the Commission itself was involved. Presumably as a result of the increasing challenge to the Warren Commission's report, a public opinion poll recently indicated that 46% of the American public did not think that Oswald acted alone, while more than half of those polled thought that the Commission had left some questions unresolved. Doubtless polls abroad would show similar, or possibly more adverse results.





2. This trend of opinion is a matter of concern to the U.S. government, including our organization. The members of the Warren Commission were naturally chosen for their integrity, experience and prominence. They represented both major parties, and they and their staff were deliberately drawn from all sections of the country. Just because of the standing of the Commissioners, efforts to impugn their rectitude and wisdom tend to cast doubt on the whole leadership of American society. Moreover, there seems to be an increasing tendency to hint that President Johnson himself, as the one person who might be said to have benefited, was in some way responsible for the assassination.

Innuendo of such seriousness affects not only the individual concerned, but also the whole reputation of the American government. Our organization itself is directly involved: among other facts, we contributed information to the investigation. Conspiracy theories have frequently thrown suspicion on our organization, for example by falsely alleging that Lee Harvey Oswald worked for us. The aim of this dispatch is to provide material countering and discrediting the claims of the conspiracy theorists, so as to inhibit the circulation of such claims in other countries. Background information is supplied in a classified section and in a number of unclassified attachments.





3. Action. We do not recommend that discussion of the assassination question be initiated where it is not already taking place. Where discussion is active [business] addresses are requested:



a. To discuss the publicity problem with [?] and friendly elite contacts (especially politicians and editors), pointing out that the Warren Commission made as thorough an investigation as humanly possible, that the charges of the critics are without serious foundation, and that further speculative discussion only plays into the hands of the opposition. Point out also that parts of the conspiracy talk appear to be deliberately generated by Communist propagandists. Urge them to use their influence to discourage unfounded and irresponsible speculation.



b. To employ propaganda assets to [negate] and refute the attacks of the critics. Book reviews and feature articles are particularly appropriate for this purpose. The unclassified attachments to this guidance should provide useful background material for passing to assets. Our ploy should point out, as applicable, that the critics are (I) wedded to theories adopted before the evidence was in, (I) politically interested, (III) financially interested, (IV) hasty and inaccurate in their research, or (V) infatuated with their own theories. In the course of discussions of the whole phenomenon of criticism, a useful strategy may be to single out Epstein's theory for attack, using the attached Fletcher [?] article and Spectator piece for background. (Although Mark Lane's book is much less convincing that Epstein's and comes off badly where confronted by knowledgeable critics, it is also much more difficult to answer as a whole, as one becomes lost in a morass of unrelated details.)





4. In private to media discussions not directed at any particular writer, or in attacking publications which may be yet forthcoming, the following arguments should be useful:



a. No significant new evidence has emerged which the Commission did not consider. The assassination is sometimes compared (e.g., by Joachim Joesten and Bertrand Russell) with the Dreyfus case; however, unlike that case, the attack on the Warren Commission have produced no new evidence, no new culprits have been convincingly identified, and there is no agreement among the critics. (A better parallel, though an imperfect one, might be with the Reichstag fire of 1933, which some competent historians (Fritz Tobias, AJ.P. Taylor, D.C. Watt) now believe was set by Vander Lubbe on his own initiative, without acting for either Nazis or Communists; the Nazis tried to pin the blame on the Communists, but the latter have been more successful in convincing the world that the Nazis were to blame.)



b. Critics usually overvalue particular items and ignore others. They tend to place more emphasis on the recollections of individual witnesses (which are less reliable and more divergent--and hence offer more hand-holds for criticism) and less on ballistics, autopsy, and photographic evidence. A close examination of the Commission's records will usually show that the conflicting eyewitness accounts are quoted out of context, or were discarded by the Commission for good and sufficient reason.



c. Conspiracy on the large scale often suggested would be impossible to conceal in the United States, esp. since informants could expect to receive large royalties, etc. Note that Robert Kennedy, Attorney General at the time and John F. Kennedy's brother, would be the last man to overlook or conceal any conspiracy. And as one reviewer pointed out, Congressman Gerald R. Ford would hardly have held his tongue for the sake of the Democratic administration, and Senator Russell would have had every political interest in exposing any misdeeds on the part of Chief Justice Warren. A conspirator moreover would hardly choose a location for a shooting where so much depended on conditions beyond his control: the route, the speed of the cars, the moving target, the risk that the assassin would be discovered. A group of wealthy conspirators could have arranged much more secure conditions.



d. Critics have often been enticed by a form of intellectual pride: they light on some theory and fall in love with it; they also scoff at the Commission because it did not always answer every question with a flat decision one way or the other. Actually, the make-up of the Commission and its staff was an excellent safeguard against over-commitment to any one theory, or against the illicit transformation of probabilities into certainties.



e. Oswald would not have been any sensible person's choice for a co-conspirator. He was a "loner," mixed up, of questionable reliability and an unknown quantity to any professional intelligence service.



f. As to charges that the Commission's report was a rush job, it emerged three months after the deadline originally set. But to the degree that the Commission tried to speed up its reporting, this was largely due to the pressure of irresponsible speculation already appearing, in some cases coming from the same critics who, refusing to admit their errors, are now putting out new criticisms.



g. Such vague accusations as that "more than ten people have died mysteriously" can always be explained in some natural way e.g.: the individuals concerned have for the most part died of natural causes; the Commission staff questioned 418 witnesses (the FBI interviewed far more people, conduction 25,000 interviews and re interviews), and in such a large group, a certain number of deaths are to be expected. (When Penn Jones, one of the originators of the "ten mysterious deaths" line, appeared on television, it emerged that two of the deaths on his list were from heart attacks, one from cancer, one was from a head-on collision on a bridge, and one occurred when a driver drifted into a bridge abutment.)





5. Where possible, counter speculation by encouraging reference to the Commission's Report itself. Open-minded foreign readers should still be impressed by the care, thoroughness, objectivity and speed with which the Commission worked. Reviewers of other books might be encouraged to add to their account the idea that, checking back with the report itself, they found it far superior to the work of its critics.



http://thedailyresistance.com/wp-content...6_0002.jpg



http://thewebfairy.com/masonic/Ciaa.jpg



via Forums - All Forums http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/Thread-CIA-Document-1035-960

Henry Sienzant Wrote:Actually, between 1965 (Whitewash by Weisberg) and the early 1980's, I was a believer in a conspiracy that had kill JFK. In the early 1980's, dissatisfied with the various interpretations of the evidence I was reading in conspiracy books, I decided to research it from the top. I purchased a set of the Warren Commission volumes from the "Presidents Box Bookshop" and a copy of the HSCA volumes from the Government Printing Office. I read through all the testimony, and found, to my surprise, that the testimony was more often than not twisted beyond recognition by the conspiracy books. I ultimate flipped 180 degrees by the mid-1980's to believe Oswald killed Kennedy alone and unaided. I am open to conversion back, but it's not going to take the same old BS claims echoed here that you read in conspiracy books. I already know the problems with those claims.

This is actually a common assertion by believers... yet when challenged, they ABSOLUTELY REFUSE to give any examples of "testimony was more often than not twisted beyond recognition by the conspiracy books."



And when provable examples of lies told by the Warren Commission Report about their own collected testimony - these very same believers run for the hills.



The "hidden" clipboard is a good example for Henry... who quite desperately maintains that there's nothing wrong with the Warren Commission twisting testimony as dramatically as they did in this case.



Why can't believers tell the truth?



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

Logic and common sense once again prevails over wishful thinking.

Statistics: Posted by Mark Ulrik — Thu Jul 28, 2016 1:17 pm

---

via ConspiracyJFKForum.com http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=95&p=981#p981

If you measure the width of the motorcyle wind shields...there is very little in it.



Nigh on "proof" that Chaney would not be in the Z film... he is almost level with Bobby H.....a little forward as you say......

Statistics: Posted by Patrick C — Thu Jul 28, 2016 11:11 am

---

via ConspiracyJFKForum.com http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=95&p=980#p980