Conspiracy JFK Forum Site

In a post apparently arguing against parents teaching their children religion, this statement was made:

Bud Wrote:Another thing, scaring children with unsupportable tales of eternal punishment is child abuse.

Unfortunately for atheists, the strongest evidence today for the fact of a theistic universe is science itself.



But even if it could be proven beyond all doubt that there is no God - the teaching of religious values is still in society's best interests - those raised in religious homes are far less likely to rob you, or murder you. Teaching values is the major task facing parents... when character is taught, then society benefits.



Atheism doesn't teach moral values - that can only come from God.



via Forums - All Forums http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/Thread-Teaching-Children-Religion

(36) A handmade paper bag large enough to carry Oswald's rifle was found in the sniper's nest.



No photograph exists of the paper bag in situ. Ironically, if you *look* at the paper bag, it's quite clear that it was originally simply folded around a book... this was, after all the Texas School BOOK Depository...











Here's another view of the bag - again note the folding:









And, as has been pointed out, when a Mannlicher Carcano has been broken down (AS WOULD HAVE BEEN NECESSARY), and placed in a bag - "the first seven or eight inches of the [wooden] stock show obvious signs of severe scoring and scratching. This is caused by the protruding parts of the barrel assembly - principally the trigger - rubbing against it as the bag is moved or carried."



As Ian Griggs continues to point out, "So what is the significance of these facts? Quite simply, no such scratches have ever been reported on the CE 139 rifle. Furthermore, they are not evident in any photographs taken of that rifle. To me, this provides irrefutable physical proof that the rifle was never transported in a disassembled state in a long paper bag as has been claimed by the investigative agencies and the Warren Commission." - No Case to Answer, Ian Griggs - page 200.



And, even if we accept, for the purpose of argument, that a paper bag was found – it fails to support any guilt on Oswald's part – the paper bag he was carrying was too short to carry the rifle. Observations that were corroborated by the nature of the observation – that the bag was carried in the palm of the hand, and tucked under Oswald's armpit. Simply impossible were it a rifle in the bag.



Indeed, the fact that a paper bag was found in the mail, addressed to Oswald at a non-existent Dallas address, with metered postage (not stamps), yet short by 12 cents. Then, on Nov 23, a postage due card for 12 cents arrives at Ruth Paine's house – despite this not being the non-existent address found on the package to Oswald. This just absolutely SCREAMS frame-up... and Warren Commission believers have to just scratch their head... no explanation in sight.



via Forums - All Forums http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/Thread-Vincent-Bugliosi-s-53-Reasons-36-Refuted

Bud Wrote:The fact is that most of the people who have appointed themselves to look into this matter display precious little skill in doing so. It is a simple thing to determine that Oswald killed Kennedy, it is a conclusion that is both obvious and on firm ground. When someone not only can't determine that Oswald killed Kennedy, but spends all their time concocting ways to try to undermine that firm ground it becomes apparent very quickly that they are only playing silly games.

This is the sort of nonsensical claptrap that defines Warren Commission believers nowadays. Just for the sheer enjoyment, I'll take it apart:



"The fact is that most of the people who have appointed themselves to look into this matter display precious little skill in doing so."



As, of course, you're demonstrating. No citations, no examples, no evidence - merely speculative opinion based on nothing whatsoever.



"It is a simple thing to determine that Oswald killed Kennedy, it is a conclusion that is both obvious and on firm ground."



If it actually were a simple thing - then believers wouldn't be so deathly afraid of knowledgeable critics. For example, right here in this forum I've been taking apart Vincent Bugliosi's best evidence for the Warren Commission's theory - and there aren't any believers around to defend Bugliosi.



Not because they simply don't care - they cannot defend Bugliosi because his assertions are simply indefensible. So where's this "firm ground" that "Bud" asserts - yet can't demonstrate? Why is it that believers such as "Bud" are constantly making claims that they cannot support?



It's no surprise that I'm constantly labeling believers as dishonest and cowardly - they keep proving this on a daily basis. While I can answer, and CREDIBLY so, any question posed on the evidence by a believer - the opposite simply isn't true. Even when they promise to answer (as Patrick Collins did) - they end up running away.



"When someone not only can't determine that Oswald killed Kennedy, but spends all their time concocting ways to try to undermine that firm ground it becomes apparent very quickly that they are only playing silly games."



What "Bud" fails to acknowledge, is that there's no particular reason on the part of critics to label Oswald innocent. It would matter NOT AT ALL to hold that he's guilty as sin, and pulled the trigger. If he pulled the trigger while others were also pulling their triggers - IT'S STILL A CONSPIRACY.



So why do so many critics defend Oswald?



It's not the critics doing so... it's the EVIDENCE that shows him to be innocent. It's the EVIDENCE that shows he was framed.



If this were such a simple case as "Bud" implies, then there's no reason for the classification of so much of the evidence... take, for example; the medical testimony that was classified by the HSCA - "Bud" can't supply any possible and credible non-conspiratorial reason for its classification.



He will ABSOLUTELY REFUSE to offer any reason, since he's well aware that anything he might offer will be quickly shown to be nothing but nonsense.



So in addition to being an example of poor logic, "Bud's" statement shows him to be a coward as well - since he'll absolutely refuse to defend it.



via Forums - All Forums http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/Thread-Example-of-Poor-Logic

(35) The three expended shells on the sixth floor were "fired in and ejected from" Oswald's rifle.



This is simply not true. As Thompson pointed out long ago, and anyone can eyeball for themselves, CE543 doesn't have the characteristic 'chamber mark' that all other cartridges known to have been fired from CE2766 had.



You can view CE543 on the left here:









For anyone interested, you can also locate online photos of shells fired from the Mannlicher Carcano by the FBI after the assassination - which also have the same 'chamber mark'.



Note again the dead silence coming from Warren Commission believers - who don't have any way to refute my refutation of Bugliosi's "evidence".



via Forums - All Forums http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/Thread-Vincent-Bugliosi-s-53-Reasons-35-Refuted

Mark Ulrik Wrote:Wow, Ben finally banned me! He and his pals are probably having a small victory dance right now. Although I had requested an opportunity to delete the profile myself, it was kind of a relief. All the childish insults, hypocrisy, Bizarro World logic, etc., were beginning to get to me.

Although Mark admits to requesting that his profile be deleted - he then asserts that I "banned" him when I simply did as he requested.



Mark, as any other believer - is certainly welcome to post here. But it seems that all the believers have run away. They can't survive in a forum that doesn't allow ad hominem attacks.



It would be truly amusing if I could find an honest and knowledgeable believer - but so far, I never have.



Can anyone point me to such a critter?



Does any knowledgeable and honest person exist, that believes the Warren Commission? Anywhere?



(Of course, much like my question concerning any eyewitness whom believers accept, this question too will never be answered...)



via Forums - All Forums http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/Thread-All-Believers-Are-Dishonest-Mark-Ulrik-Example

Anthony Marsh Wrote:

Ben Holmes Wrote:As an example: In another forum, the claim was made that the Mannlicher Carcano could be recycled in 1.6 seconds... this is in conflict with the known evidence, and is an example of a lie. Anyone making that claim would merely be quoted, then the citation to the FBI testing of CE-139 showing the actual cycling time - then, and only then, may the offending poster be labeled a liar.

That is not true. That is a lie.



The known evidence does not rule out 1.6 seconds. People have done it.

It has NEVER been done. Tony will be completely unable to cite any such demonstration of CE-139 cycling that fast.



Tony is a cowardly liar...



Quite despicable of him to label me a liar when I'm telling the truth, and HE'S lying...



I challenge him to tell the truth.



via Forums - All Forums http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/Thread-Anthony-Marsh-Is-A-Liar

Dave Reitzes Wrote:JFK researchers sometimes allude to the Randall Dale Adams case publicized in Errol Morris' documentary, THE THIN BLUE LINE, as an example of Dallas injustice. (In fairness to the Dallas authorities, the tendency of police officers or prosecutors to rush to judgment or rely on poor evidence is hardly exclusive to Dallas.)



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Thin_B...1988_film)



Something that particularly strikes me in the film is the interview with Adams prosecution witness Emily Miller, who comes across as an almost too perfect example of the sort of over-imaginative, over-eager busybody who likes to inject oneself into a criminal case -- talking about how she always wanted to be a detective, how murders seemed to happen around her all the time, and how she loves to solve crimes before the police do. Her testimony against Adams was a crucial factor in Adams' murder conviction, and it was later discredited. (An acquaintance tried to tell the authorities what a liar Miller was, and was ignored.)



Most eyewitnesses are sincere and sober enough (regardless of how accurate their perceptions and memories may be), but these kinds of attention seekers really do exist, and, as James Phelan noted, high profile cases bring them forth in droves. When people allude to such bogus witnesses as Beverly Oliver, Gordon Arnold, Rose Cherami, Nancy Perrin Rich, Jack S. Martin, Richard Case Nagell, et al, and ask "Could all these people be lying?" -- the answer is YES.

I have, on more occasions than I can count, challenged believers to name even a single witness they believe entirely in their 1963-1964 statements & testimony.



Nothing but dead silence... and I predict, that there will continue to be dead silence in any forum that cannot control my responses...



via Forums - All Forums http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/Thread-All-The-Eyewitnesses-Were-Lying

David Emerling Wrote:

Anonymous Believer Wrote:... Custer's bullshit story about a bullet falling out of JFK's back ...

Plus, there were two FBI agents in attendance at the autopsy. One of their primary responsibilities was to gather any evidence - in particular, A BULLET! It's hard to imagine that Agents Sibert and O'Neill wouldn't be interested in a bullet that fell to the floor.



But, of course, this is where the CTs claim that the FBI was in on the conspiracy. There really is no winning this argument. The more proof you give, the larger the conspiracy becomes. They never once pause to consider how absolutely unwieldy (and implausible) their conspiracy has become. And yet, they will never articulate the specific nature of this "conspiracy". All they do is stand on the rooftops and yell "Conspiracy!" - then they call that research.

No matter how many times it's pointed out, believers run away... there were quite conceivably less than a dozen people in the actual conspiracy.



And, it's been articulated many times. Entire books have been written on the topic.



The only truth to be found is that believers are cowards... they are afraid to debate knowledgeable critics.



And that truth is demonstrated daily as believers refuse to debate.



via Forums - All Forums http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/Thread-FBI-Involvement-In-The-Conspiracy

(34) The mostly intact bullet (CE 399) and two of the fragments (CE567 and CE569) were fired from this rifle.



I would expect that whichever rifle was used, would be tied to the Patsy. The chain of custody on all these bullets & fragments is shaky indeed... CE399 probably would not have survived any decent defense attorney's challenges to it.



This also presumes two "facts" not in evidence … that the Mannlicher Carcano belonged to Oswald, and that it was him who was firing it.



Once again, be sure to note the dead silence coming from believers...



Bugliosi simply cannot be defended from reasonable refutation...



via Forums - All Forums http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/Thread-Vincent-Bugliosi-s-53-Reasons-34-Refuted

Ramon F. Herrera Wrote:There are 4 clearly aligned positions in the case of JFK's murder.



Each group has a well defined motivation.



(1) Liberal Conspiracy Theorists



This group is still grieving by the horrible crime. They feel robbed of a demigod who reached mythic proportions. Their source of frustration is the breach of the trust between the government and The People, an injustice that has been unresolved for too long.



Oliver Stone, John Kerry (best friend of Teddy), all the Kennedys, Obama, Clintons, Gore, Jim DiEugenio, Jeff Morley, Gary Aguilar, Cyril Wecht, Ramon F. Herrera.





(2) Liberal Lone Nutters



These folks are terrified about the real possibility that LBJ had something to do with it:



Chris Mathews, Jimmy Carter, Larry Sabato, Robert Allbritton, who is the Founder of Politico and Member of the Trustees of the LBJ Library, Jean Davison, etc.



I am convinced that Rachel Maddow is a closeted CT (she is too intelligent to be LN) but must follow MSNBC policy.



The position of the right is more interesting. Per their nature, it is rooted on abhorrence. It hinges on what they despise the most. See groups No. 3 and No. 4 below.





Conservative/Republicans:



(3) Conservative Lone Nutters:



They hate the Democratic Party the most. Schadenfreude is a factor:



"It was a freakin' commie!! One of your own!!! Oswald did it to impress Fidel!!"



Prof. John McAdams, Bill O'Reilly, Donald Trump, Steve Logan and most Conservatives





(4) Conservative Conspiracy Theorists



These folks have never met a conspiracy they didn't like. First and foremost, they hate the US government with a blind fury.



.See Birthers, Truthers, InfoWars, Breitbart, etc.



Note: We can include CT Libertarians in Group No. 4. See the reason below:



http://www.dealey-plaza.org/~ramon/polit...rnment.png

Well, it's not hard to place Ramon in the political spectrum... he's clearly a lefty.



I challenge him to correctly place me in his list...



It can't be done. I'm to the right of Rush Limbaugh, and laugh at the Moon Landing, 9/11, Birthers, and other wacky conspiracy theories.



Polls would suggest that there are a lot of people similar to me - yet Ramon can't put us into a category.



Clearly, dishonesty isn't limited to the believer's side of the aisle...



via Forums - All Forums http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/Thread-Politics-the-Assassination-Dishonest-Critics