Conspiracy JFK Forum Site

Tom Wilson presents an image of what appears to be a two-man sniper team in one of the windows of the Dal-Tex building:





https://www.google.com/search?q=dal-tex+...Z3ZWNbM%3A



It's a somewhat cool image, but to me they look a bit much like Badge Man, which was established to be a bit of pareidolia. What are people's thoughts on this image?



via Forums - All Forums http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/Thread-Image-of-Dal-Tex-Snipers

Dean Abramson Wrote:I am currently wavering between LN and CT. I am not vested in either side.



But if you were at a scene where shooting broke out, would you run TOWARD the gunman? Would most people? I think not. Cops might, some very brave reporters, perhaps a would-be hero or two, but not most people. Not me.



Maybe people thought they could take cover up there, rather than be out in the open, after JFK was shot out in the open.

I've NEVER seen someone who claimed to be on the fence that didn't ultimately prove themselves to be true believers in the Warren Commission.



And judging from the polling numbers of the general population - one would expect to see a large MAJORITY of such people to end up being critics of the Warren Commission.



So this tells me that people who claim to be on the fence, are simply dishonest and lying right from the very beginning. Yes Dean, I need nothing other than history to predict that as you post more, it will come out that you're really a Warren Commission believer...



These "fence-sitting" claims are, no doubt, an attempt to cover themselves with the cloak of honesty.



It's simply a fact that cops did indeed run toward the Grassy Knoll - this is indisputable.



It's also a fact that a great number of civilians were attracted and went to that area - and Dean fails to acknowledge or explain that fact. It's completely explainable in the critic's theory of the case...



P.S. Buildings on one side, wide open space parking lot on the other - which way would you run to evade a shooter?



via Forums - All Forums http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/Thread-Wolves-in-Sheep-s-Clothing-Dean-Abramson

David Von Pein Wrote:This also puts me in mind of CTers who insist that Oswald couldn't possibly have left the sixth floor of the Depository after the assassination without being seen by Adams, Styles, Garner, Dougherty, etc. And yet those same CTers don't raise an eyebrow of concern whenever I ask:



***Well, then, how did the real killers manage to exit the sixth floor

without anybody seeing them leave?***



Apparently the rules for solving things are completely different for Lee Oswald than they are for those "other assassins" -- whether it be when buying bullets or being able to vacate the sixth floor.

Once again, we see another believer who commits a logical fallacy, and doesn't even realize it.



The argument about Oswald coming down the stairs is a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT ARGUMENT from the assassins who came down the stairs.



Oswald ABSOLUTELY MUST HAVE come down those stairs in a very narrow window of time... within one minute from the last shot.



The real assassins had no need for such a fast getaway - they were no doubt quite prepared for their 'getaway' and knew that they'd have no problems... the easiest way might well have been to stick around long enough to mingle with the police, and pretend to be detectives. We have a witness who testified to seeing two people come down the stairs as he was first arriving at the scene - and he presumed them to be police, yet didn't know who they were. So this isn't a far-fetched idea.



David Von Pein hasn't taken the timing into account - and simply pretends that both scenarios ... Oswald coming down the stairs, or assassins coming down the stairs... are equivalent... yet we know for a fact that any scenario involving Oswald had a very tight constraint on the time. So the "rules" ARE different... But DVP cannot acknowledge this.



David Von Pein cannot defend his assertions against any knowledgeable critic - so you'll never see him here in this forum. As I've pointed out, believers are cowards.



via Forums - All Forums http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/Thread-David-Von-Pein-Fails-Again

An Anonymous Believer Wrote:There were as many as 600 people in Dealey Plaza ON NOVEMBER 22 1963. THERE IS NOT ONE CREDIBLE WITNESS WHO SAW A GRASSY KNOLL GUNMAN. NOT EVEN ONE.

This is a typical logical fallacy that believers employ. They confuse the lack of the SPECIFIC evidence they are searching for - for a lack of evidence.



Sorta like saying "THERE IS NOT ONE CREDIBLE WITNESS WHO REPORTED SEEING A MANNLICHER CARCANO SHOOTING FROM THE SNIPER'S NEST".



And indeed it's true. But a very poor way to judge whether or not a Mannlicher Carcano was firing from the Sniper's Nest. That's why I'd feel quite stupid indeed to offer this analogous argument as a serious point to raise...



We do know that the majority of eyewitnesses who were documented in print in the first few days - before the official story could start to take hold - put the shots as coming from the Grassy Knoll.



Not seeing a shooter doesn't mean that there isn't one.



via Forums - All Forums http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/Thread-Logical-Fallacy-From-A-Believer

An Anonymous Believer Wrote:The JFK assassination has been the most researched crime in the history of the world. If there were any evidence that someone other than Oswald was a party to the crime it would have been discovered by now.

The majority of the witnesses who were documented in print in the first two days pointed to the Grassy Knoll as the source of the shots. This is so damaging to the Warren Commission believers, that Patrick Collins has repeatedly lied about this fact.



And it is, of course, the "evidence" that the anonymous believer pretends does not exist.



via Forums - All Forums http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/Thread-Are-Believers-Blind

Frank Warner Wrote: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.

I'm frequently amused by this assertion by believers that the Single Bullet Theory is a "proven fact."



If it actually were a proven fact, I'd be inundated by believers on this forum smashing me repeatedly in debate.



Instead, all we see is dead silence.



It's quite easy to prove this "proven fact" incorrect. Simply hold your right hand next to your right chest, with the palm pointed outward.



Then ask yourself, how likely is it that Gov Connally was holding his hand palm outward.



The medical testimony clearly places the entry of the bullet into his wrist on the outside of his hand - and the exit on the palm side - yet believers simply refuse to address this issue.



They can't.



So they simply avoid the issue, and go around lying that something not supported by the evidence is "proven fact."



via Forums - All Forums http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/Thread-SBT-Proven-Fact

Since the founding of this forum, we've had precisely three believers post.



The average posting time has been several months, but the latest believer lasted just a week or so...



They ALWAYS end up running away - despite the fact that no ad hominem attacks are allowed. While it would be amusing to think that it's some inbuilt cowardice on the part of those who believe the Warren Commission, the truth is probably more mundane.



They can't refute what I post.



And their own posts in support of the Warren Commission are invariably demolished in short order.



Believers come up with all sorts of reasons why they refuse to debate with knowledgeable critics - but it all boils down to one fact: The evidence doesn't support their faith.



via Forums - All Forums http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/Thread-Believers-Are-Invariably-Cowards

Jeff Morley Wrote:Orest Pena’s story is particularly compelling because he was trusted by the FBI agents in New Orleans. As a bar owner of Cuban descent, he saw and heard a lot of interest to law enforcement. Oswald had visited his bar in the summer of 1963 in the company of a man Pena described as Mexican. Pena also said he saw Oswald with FBI agent Warren DeBreuys on several occasions. DeBreuys denied this and denigrated Pena as unreliable.



In fact, Pena was able to prove that he had been a confidential source for the FBI and still his testimony was ignored, no doubt in part due to the everyday racism which infected even the liberal lawyers of theWarren Commission who could not imagine a Cuban coujld be as credible as a white FBI agent.



The HSCA took him more seriously and was able to incorporate his testimony into their account of the assassination but no one else has been able to read his testimony ever since.



Such is one of the uses of classification. It prevents people from asking follow up questions. Pena is now dead. His testimony will shed new light on the FBI’s interest in and relationship with Oswald.

It's facts like these that prove beyond all doubt that believers are both cowards and liars. You see, an honest man would question why the testimony of a bar owner would need to be classified. There's absolutely ZERO chance that a New Orleans bar owner is capable of testifying to something that would harm National Security interests... There's absolutely NO EVIDENCE AT ALL that he's a spy for a foreign government, or would know anything that, on any rational basis, needs to be classified.



A believer, on the other hand, absolutely refuses even to acknowledge that there's any problem here with classifying Orest Pena's testimony.



I predict, right here and now - that in October of this year - when his testimony is likely to be released - that it will contain nothing at all that would justify being classified - that it will only contain evidence that Oswald was far more known by, and used by the FBI than the FBI ever let on. Orest Pena's testimony will contradict elements of the Warren Commission's grand theory (just as his Warren Commission testimony did.)



And by the questions asked by the HSCA, and not asked by the Warren Commission - his testimony will show a willful refusal to address the real evidence in this case by the Warren Commission.



God willing, I'll still be here 10 months from now to see these predictions come true.



via Forums - All Forums http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/Thread-Orest-Pena

(32) After visiting him on Saturday, Marina came away convinced of Oswald's guilt.



What Bugliosi WON'T tell you is the testimony... here it is:

Quote:Mr. RANKIN. When you saw your husband on November 23d, at the police station, did you ask him if he had killed President Kennedy?

Mrs. OSWALD. No.

Mr. RANKIN. Did you ask him at that time if he had killed Officer Tippit?

Mrs. OSWALD. No. I said. "I don't believe that you did that, and everything will turn out well."

After all, I couldn't accuse him--after all, he was my husband.

Mr. RANKIN. And what did he say to that?

Mrs. OSWALD. He said that I should not worry, that everything would turn out well. But I could see by his eyes that he was guilty. Rather, he tried t appear to be brave. However, by his eyes I could tell that he was afraid. This was just a feeling. It is hard to describe.

Mr. RANKIN. Would you help us a little bit by telling us what you saw i his eyes that caused you to think that?

Mrs. OSWALD. He said goodbye to me with his eyes. I knew that. He said that everything would turn out well, but he did not believe it himself.

Mr. RANKIN. How could you tell that?

Mrs. OSWALD. I saw it in his eyes.

Now, this is wonderful nonsense... just the sort of stuff that would never be allowed into court. This is, at it's essence, merely Marina's OPINION. Based on nothing that she can pinpoint.



It's hardly the sort of evidence that Bugliosi would put forth if he actually had a strong case...



And the fact that believers absolutely REFUSE to defend all of these nonsensical bits of "evidence" after I refute them isn't a demonstration of some sort of genius on my part, but merely a demonstration of just how weak a case Bugliosi put together.



via Forums - All Forums http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/Thread-Vincent-Bugliosi-s-53-Reasons-32-Refuted

(31) Oswald refused a lie detector test.



Hearsay. Amusingly, Bugliosi would be the first to argue the inadmissibility of a Lie Detector test that failed to show what he wanted.



Ironically, although not quoted by the Warren Commission believer who compiled this list, Bugliosi goes on to state: "By contrast, Ruby volunteered to take one." So the argument here is that if you're provably guilty of murder, you willingly take a lie-detector test...