Conspiracy JFK Forum Site

There are many writing service online due to the great demand from the customers. Also many spam sites are arising in addition with the good one. Most of them are ultimately aimed to seeking money from customers, also they not able to write quality paper for the customers. So be careful on choosing custom essay writing service. You have to ensure the quality and experience of the service. Also you should check the service writing standards, pricing structure, customer support and offered guarantees from the company.



via Forums - All Forums http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/Thread-Cheap-service-system

Frank Warner Wrote:What was the “single-bullet theory”?



It was Arlen Specter’s deductive guess, since proven fact, that one 6.5-millimeter rifle bullet fired by Lee Harvey Oswald on Nov. 22, 1963, caused a non-fatal wound to President John F. Kennedy’s neck, then passed through Texas Gov. John Connally’s chest and right wrist, and finally lodged loosely in Connally’s left thigh.

Ever notice how believers keep asserting that it's now "proven fact" - yet never seem to show just how it was "proven?"



Frank Warner is another coward who cannot debate in a forum where knowledgeable critics would point out his nonsense.



The evidence didn't support the SBT back in November of 1963 - and nothing changed ... it's still a theory developed to avoid the only other possibility - that there was a conspiracy... multiple shooters.



No transit was ever found during the autopsy - that's a fact that's unavoidable.



Connally's wrist wound alone shows that there was no SBT.



The "elliptical" back wound of Connally demonstrates that there was no SBT.



But you can't find any believers willing to stand up and defend their nonsense.



Why is that?



via Forums - All Forums http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/Thread-Another-Single-Bullet-Fact

David Emerling Wrote:

Anonymous Critic Wrote:The second bullet missed JFK completely and struck Connally under his right armpit. That is the scenario that is supported by all of the evidence.

Then why was the entry wound in Connally's black so elliptical? It's hard to construct a trajectory of a bullet that is fired from behind the limousine and manages to COMPLETELY misses Kennedy and hits Governor Connally. I'd like to see a graphic depiction of that trajectory. I'll bet THAT bullet will have to do more zigging and zagging than what the conspiracy theorists contend with the Single Bullet Theory.



Where did the bullet go that exited Kennedy's throat if it did not continue on and hit neither the limousine nor Connally?

It's too bad that David is too much a coward to face knowledgeable critics... (as are most other believers).



I'd simply ask him why the "elliptical" wound of Connally matches so well in measurements with the elliptical wounds of JFK.



Nor is the trajectory difficult at all... once you eliminate the hidden assumption that David is making... that shots only came from the Sniper's Nest.



The fact that believers can be so easily and credibly answered explains their cowardice - they simply cannot face a knowledgeable critic without running away.



via Forums - All Forums http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/Thread-The-Cowardice-of-Believers

'Vincent Bugliosi Wrote:"With respect to the second shot fired in Dealey Plaza, the "single-bullet THEORY" is an obvious misnomer. Though in its incipient stages it was but a theory, the indisputable evidence is that it is now a proven FACT, a wholly supported conclusion. .... And no sensible mind that is also informed can plausibly make the case that the bullet that struck President Kennedy in the upper right part of his back did not go on to hit Governor Connally." -- Vincent Bugliosi; Pages 489-490 of "Reclaiming History"

If the SBT is a "Fact" - why is it that no believer dares to try to defend it against a knowledgeable critic?



It's a FACT that the prosectors could not trace ANY PATH AT ALL through the body.



It's a FACT that this theory didn't even come into existence until Tague forced a revision of the "Three shots, three hits" theory.



It's a FACT that without the SBT, conspiracy is the only other explanation... one that explains other facts as well...



Why aren't their any believers brave enough to dispute these facts?



via Forums - All Forums http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/Thread-Single-Bullet-Fact

Quote:If the election were based on vote count, Trump lost. The Gerrymandering of the Republicans won the election.

And if the election were based on those who cast mail-in ballots while wearing a red hat - perhaps Santa Claus would have won.



I find it truly amusing the despair felt by Democrats - who are willing to blame anything and everything other than the policies they work toward.



Wouldn't it make more sense to turn introspective, and figure out what policies they are championing that voters don't want?



And does it make sense to any honest person that President Obama was elected twice by those same "Republican Gerrymandered" voting districts?



Truth is often the first victim when people search for someone or something to blame...



via Forums - All Forums http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/Thread-Gerrymandering

David Emerling Wrote:I'm simply pointing out the importance of reading documents for yourself instead of having a biased organization interpret it for you.



It's sort of like reading Mark Lane's "Rush to Judgment" that came out in 1966, less that two years after the Warren Commission Report became public. Most Americans had no ready access to the 26 volumes and relied heavily on Mark Lane's selective and misleading interpretations. Of course, many years later, when a simple Google search gives you access to just about everything - we now know how deceptive that book was.

It happens so regularly that it's predictable.



Believers make uncited assertions about 'Rush to Judgment' ... and virtually never even make the slightest attempt to support their claim.



On the other hand, when I point out the lies told by Vincent Bugliosi - I do so fully capable of citing page numbers, and quoting his exact lies.



As just one example:

Vincent Bugliosi Wrote:"Although Carrico was unable to determine whether the throat wound was an entrance or exit wound, he did observe that the wound was "ragged," virtually a sure sign of an exit wound as opposed to an entrance wound, which is usually round and devoid of ragged edges." (Bugliosi, p.413)

Now, was the wound in the throat actually "ragged"? Did Carrico actually say this anywhere?



What does the ACTUAL evidence show that neck wound description to be?



Bugliosi claimed to have spent over 20 years studying this case, and could not POSSIBLY have been unaware of the actual description of the throat wound.



So he lied.



It's just as simple as that.



Now David... do the same thing as I just did... make your assertion about Mark Lane's 'Rush to Judgment' again, then cite and quote an example that supports your claim.



Or run like the coward you are...



via Forums - All Forums http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/Thread-David-Emerling-s-Cowardice

David Emerling Wrote:This brings us back to the Kennedy assassination and the commonly held view by conspiracy theorists that our government should release all the documents. They still hold on to the silly notion that there is a "smoking gun" within some buried document that would reveal the nature of the conspiracy.

I always find it amusing to see believers asserting what critics say...



David cannot cite even a single critic who states that they believe the documents (which will be released in October of this year) will contain the "smoking gun".



Believers cannot refute what knowledgeable critics ACTUALLY state... so they hide in censored forums - and when they do exert the effort to post here - they quickly end up running away.



Why is that?



Simple... the evidence doesn't support their faith.



via Forums - All Forums http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/Thread-David-Emerling-s-Smoking-Gun

Steve Wrote:The main author of the Warren Report - the person who actually put pen to paper - was Norman Redlich. Mr. Redlich was a progressive/liberal who defended the rights of radical left groups and people. Ford wanted him removed from the investigation because he thought he, Redlich, was too leftwing. Warren refused to remove him.



When the conspiracy people claim the WC was a whitewash and that it covered up for a rightwing type coup they are accusing people like Redlich of the act.



Why would a progressive like Redlich work with rightwinger to stage a coup? Then keep it quiet all of his life?



When you accuse the WC of being a coverup you're not just accusing the CIA or Hoover or LBJ of being involved. You are accusing people like Redlich and Warren and John Hart Ely (google his name) of doing so.



No they didn't. And wouldn't.

It's truly amusing to note that the very same people who loudly complain that the Warren Commission was honest - absolutely REFUSE to defend the Warren Commission when knowledgeable critics point out the lies and misrepresentations contained in the Warren Commission Report.



I'm not afraid to label a "leftwing" a liar...



Nor am I afraid to label a conservative a liar...



It's the truth at stake here... not political affiliation.



The Warren Commission repeatedly lied about their own evidence & testimony... and true believers such as Steve can only run from this fact.



via Forums - All Forums http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/Thread-Warren-Commission-Honest

(33) Oswald's Mannlicher-Carcano rifle was found on the sixth floor of the TSBD.



It's never been established by credible evidence that this rifle belonged to Oswald. Now, I know that this will bring howls of complaint from Warren Commission Believers – but it's merely a fact.



Even if one were to assume, for the sake of argument, that this were Oswald's rifle – this is not ironclad evidence of Oswald's guilt. Since he was murdered before he could mount a defense, we have no idea what the circumstances were.



Once again, we have the presumption of guilt, and only then, looking at the evidence... rather than the other way around.



Anyone noticing the sound of crickets coming from Warren Commission believers on my refutations of Vincent Bugliosi?



via Forums - All Forums http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/Thread-Vincent-Bugliosi-s-53-Reasons-33-Refuted

I found a review for James Douglass' "JFK and the Unspeakable", written by our old friend Garry Puffer.....



http://www.valentinetti.com/thoughts-on-...ry-puffer/



******

The ideas herein are not all ideas put forth by Mr. Douglass in his book. He makes no mention of the connection to 9/11, for example. His is the best book I have ever read about the assassination, and it should be read by everyone, not just those of us still interested in this question.

President Eisenhower warned us as he was leaving office about the “Military-Industrial Complex” that was shaping up. He told us in so many words that we needed to do something about it before it was too late. We didn’t listen and here we are today, with those very people in control of our nation.

But maybe it was always too late. A few years later, John F. Kennedy was killed by order of this cabal, and they successfully fooled a lot of people for many years with the lone gunman/magic bullet theory. Most Americans now believe that JFK was assassinated by a conspiracy, but unfortunately most of those still believe that Lee Harvey Oswald was the important part of that conspiracy along with “rogue” intelligence people. That’s how well these cover stories stick in the American mind.

The truth is far different. Douglass makes a compelling case for the “Oswald as patsy” idea, which to my mind is the only conclusion one can draw. You have to make what’s known about Oswald twist and turn like the magic bullet to even place a rifle in his hands. Something Douglass brings out that I don’t recall ever reading anywhere else is the story of the aborted Chicago assassination plot in early November of 1963. The plot was blown when the FBI received a tip from an informant named “Lee.” Two of the people were arrested, two others were not found. Kennedy’s trip was cancelled at the last minute because of this information. The most interesting thing about this story is a fifth person allegedly involved, a man named Thomas Arthur Vallee. If you look at the highlights of Vallee’s biography you might think that you were reading that of Lee Harvey Oswald. U-2 base in Japan, work with the CIA to train anti-Castro rebels in preparation for a Castro assassination (Oswald worked both sides of the fence at different times on the Castro question), and even a job in a building along the Presidential parade route in Chicago. If this plot had gone off, Douglass contends, then we would be reviling Thomas Arthur Vallee, not Lee Harvey Oswald.

The subtitle of Douglass’ book is “Why He Died and Why it Matters.” See, here’s the really sad thing. In the first part of the book, Douglass convincingly shows Kennedy’s change from a Cold Warrior to a man of peace. The Cuban Missile Crisis had hit him hard, and he had learned to distrust the CIA (can you say “Bay of Pigs?”) and the Joint Chiefs of Staff (he thought the JCS was insane for having presented him with “Project Northwoods,” for example, and he could see that they did not want any kind of peaceful resolution to the Cold War). He looked into a future where nuclear power was unleashed on one’s enemies, and it scared the shit out of him. He engaged in a secret backdoor dialogue with Premier Khrushchev and both leaders were heading toward disarmament and collisions with their military leaders over the use of nuclear weapons. He was also well on his way to opening up a dialogue with Castro, and in both instances he went well outside the military/intelligence circles to do it. But you can’t hide from these people forever. The military men saw the President as a traitor, wanting to deal with our sworn enemies, the “Communists.” Therefore he had to die. He died because he wanted peace instead of war. That is indeed sad.

The scenario Douglass envisions is pretty much the same one Jim Garrison came up with for his novel, A Heritage of Stone (and used in Oliver Stone’s “JFK”), a scenario that’s always seemed very reasonable to me, especially given the military and intelligence role in the cover-up.

The military/intelligence/industrial complex has more control now than ever before. We let them get away with assassinating a president who wanted us to be able to live our lives without fear, and this gave them the knowledge that they could get away with anything they wanted. And they’re right. The major thing they want now is for us to live in fear. Fear of Muslims, fear of Iranians, fear of terrorism in general, and fear of each other.

If our own military would present a plan to the President calling for fake attacks blamed on the Cubans, attacks in which some Americans might have to lose their lives for the greater good, allowing us then to righteously attack Castro in retaliation for something he did not do (“Project Northwoods”), and if they would set in motion a plan to assassinate the President because they thought he was committing treason by wanting to engage in diplomatic dialogue with communist countries, then is it so far fetched to think that they were also responsible for 9/11, especially since none of the evidence really points to 19 Muslims with box cutters? The FBI has admitted that they never had any “hard evidence” linking Al Qaeda to the attack, yet we send in Navy Seals to assassinate bin Laden for something he was alleged to have done. This is justice in our world today, and the fake cover story, full of holes as it is, goes on and on.

This is why it matters that we understand the reasons John Kennedy was assassinated and who was responsible. They have never been stopped and they are making your life, and the world, more miserable each day.



via Forums - All Forums http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/Thread-Book-Review-JFK-and-the-Unspeakable