Conspiracy JFK Forum Site

John Paul Jones Wrote:Do all agree that it was difficult for experts to replicate Oswald's shooting of Kennedy?

This question was posted in one of the few places on the Internet where it will NEVER draw an honest response. (alt.assassination.jfk)



It wasn't "difficult" at all - IT NEVER HAPPENED!!! The question presumes that the shots were duplicated, but it was just difficult... that's simply not true.



Nor will anyone ever get a believer to admit the major problem...



You see, even a poor shot such as Oswald provably was, might have gotten lucky enough to have fired the shots that the evidence shows were fired, presuming only that he'd used a good rifle.



But we know that three shooters, each with VASTLY superior shooting skills, were unable to duplicate what the Warren Commission said happened.



The only time that even believers will assert that the shooting sequence was duplicated - was when the Mannlicher Carcano was not used.



So they're forced to try to argue that there's no difference between the alleged murder weapon, and any other Mannlicher Carcano... despite the evidence.



In other words... they lie.



I predict right now that no-one will bring up these issues in the censored forum...



via Forums - All Forums http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/Thread-Experts-Duplicate-The-Shooting

(28) Oswald then fought the police and tried to pull his revolver out.



This has been disputed, and is based on one police officer, Patrolman M. N. McDonald.



But presuming it were true, it fails to support the theory that Oswald shot the President. Once again, Bugliosi is treating every single event as lending support for his theory. He would be laughed out of court if he tried to make this claim.



This incident simply has no reasonable connection with the murder of JFK. After all, he didn't pull out a 6.5mm Mannlicher Carcano, did he?



via Forums - All Forums http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/Thread-Vincent-Bugliosi-s-53-Reasons-28-Refuted

Susan Haigh, Associated Press Wrote:More States Consider Working Around Electoral College

...

The compact wouldn't benefit any one party, said Patrick Rosenstiel, a consultant to National Popular Vote, the group that has been pushing for the compact since 2006. Rather, the Republican said, it will incourage candidates to campaign in every state, regardless of its politics, and make every voter relevant.



"Right now we've got a system where the battleground states have all the political influence."

...

I'm often amused at the lies told ... quite blatantly... about the Electoral College... and usually right around the time that the Democrats lose again.



The Electoral College is what forces Presidential candidates to go ANYWHERE other than California, New York, and perhaps Texas.



Clinton won close to 3 million votes more than Trump - but if you discount California & New York, Hillary Clinton LOST the popular vote by roughly 3 million.



This fact alone shows why Susan Haigh, the author of that quite misleading Associated Press article, is lying about the effects of getting rid of the Electoral College.



And if ending the Electoral College depends on lying about it...



via Forums - All Forums http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/Thread-Lying-About-The-Electoral-College

Isn't it fascinating the way LNers can "know" Oswald is guilty without him having had a chance to go to trial? Legally, you cannot even speak about a criminal as if they're a criminal until they've been proven guilty. There's a reason for that.



Most sensible people would also regard any investigation as biased based on what the investigators want you to see or not see. Yet how strange...that LNers just...."know."



Very obviously the mock Bugliosi/Gerry Spence trial 20+ years after the fact is not what I'm talking about, and any LNer who mentions it in the same vein as any "real" trial is simply being dishonest and pretending they don't know what I mean.



via Forums - All Forums http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/Thread-Without-Trial

'An Anonymous Believer Wrote:There is yet another reason why Oswald’s statement that he was on the first floor eating lunch at the time of the shooting makes no sense at all. If he had been, once he heard the shots and the screaming and all the commotion outside, if he were innocent, what is the likelihood that he would have proceeded to go, as he claims, up to the second floor to get himself a Coke? How could any sensible person believe a story like that?



Vinny Bugliosi Reclaiming History

Sadly, this is what Bugliosi does time and time again. Presume Oswald's guilt, then use any and all actions as "proof" of that guilt.



Bugliosi is just upset that Oswald didn't rush the Grassy Knoll as so many others did.



And he's just indicted everyone who were still INSIDE the TSBD as guilty murderers... yet refuses to name them.



Believers keep quoting Bugliosi, as if he were the ultimate authority - yet each time I show how Bugliosi can be credibly and reasonably answered... all you hear from believers is crickets...



Such cowards!!!



P.S. This was also posted to the alt.assassination.jfk forum where I found the original post. Anyone care to place a bet on whether anyone will dare answer?



via Forums - All Forums http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/Thread-Unanswerable-Question

An Anonymous Believer Wrote:Who ordered Jack Ruby to do that? [Assassinate Oswald] If Jack Ruby was ordered to do that, why was he still at home in his underwear when Oswald was scheduled to be transferred. Why was he still at the Western Union office just minutes before Oswald was actually transferred? Why did he bring his favorite dog along with him and leave her in his car? Why wasn't Jack Ruby killed to keep him quiet?

The questions are easily answered... let's go through them one by one.



Who ordered Jack Ruby to do that? - The Mafia. His calls to major Mafia figures dramatically increased in the weeks before the assassination. The Warren Commission was so embarrassed at Jack Ruby's Mafia connections, that they chose to simply lie about it.



If Jack Ruby was ordered to do that, why was he still at home in his underwear when Oswald was scheduled to be transferred. - Because some members of the DPD were involved. This was really simple, Oswald WAS NOT GOING TO BE MOVED UNTIL RUBY SHOWED UP. I really have to laugh that believers can't understand this simple explanation...



Why was he still at the Western Union office just minutes before Oswald was actually transferred? - Same answer as above. Oswald wasn't going anywhere until Ruby arrived. Quite simple.



Why did he bring his favorite dog along with him and leave her in his car? - Sheer habit, most likely. This question presupposes that criminals commit perfect crimes all the time - carefully staging everything to perfection. Quite silly, actually... criminals are normally not the smarter members of humanity. And although it's claimed that Jack Ruby was actually a tad smarter than the average, clearly he couldn't judge the consequences of his actions.



But I'll remember to bring my dog to the next crime I commit, so that believers will accept it as evidence of innocence.



Why wasn't Jack Ruby killed to keep him quiet? - You don't need to kill someone to keep them quiet... you merely need to convince them that the consequences of talking too much will mean the death of their loved ones.



Now, real critics could easily have given all these reasonable and credible answers... but in the alt.assassination.jfk forum, where I found this - you'll never see such answers.



Believers cannot confront real critics in a non-censored forum.



That fact tells the tale, doesn't it?



via Forums - All Forums http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/Thread-Jack-Ruby-Answered-Questions

(27) When approached by police in the Texas Theater, Oswald said "Well, it is all over now." What else could he have possibly meant by these words other than that he knew the police had been in pursuit of him and were there to arrest him?



Sheer speculation. There are, in fact, quite reasonable explanations for such a statement, if indeed he made this exact statement. Only Patrolman M. N. McDonald heard these words, other officers fail to corroborate this statement.



I'll answer that question Bugliosi asks quite reasonably. Oswald knew that his usefulness as an informant working with U.S. intelligence was at an end. Publicity would ensure that.



Bugliosi asserts "what else could he have possibly meant"... and I just gave a perfectly valid, perfectly credible, AND PERFECTLY REASONABLE explanation.



Now, it may at first glance seem ludicrous that a 24 year old former Marine was connected with U.S. intelligence, but no less an expert than Sen. Richard Schweiker, who was a member of the U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (and thus could be reasonably labeled an expert on this topic) said, "We do know Oswald had intelligence connections. Everywhere you look with him, there're fingerprints of intelligence."



So Bugliosi's challenge is easily met. A reason for such a statement on Oswald's part (if he actually did say it) that is just as credible as Bugliosi's reasoning that this showed murderous guilt on Oswald's part.



Was Bugliosi simply too stupid to come up with this explanation? Or was he acting, not as an investigator of a crime, but as a prosecutor?



via Forums - All Forums http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/Thread-Vincent-Bugliosi-s-53-Reasons-27-Refuted

Boz Wrote:Though Oswald was probably more politically oriented than all thirteen other warehousemen at the Book Depository Building put together, if we are to believe Oswald’s story, he apparently was the only one who had no interest at all in watching the presidential motorcade go by, either from out on the street or froma window, claiming in one version that he was having lunch on the first floor of the Book Depository Building at the time of the shooting, and in another version that he was working on the sixth floor. Indeed, Oswald, the political animal, was so uninterested in the fact that the most powerful politician on earth had just been shot that he had no inclination to stick around for a few minutes and engage in conversation with his coworkers about the sensational and tragic event. Does that make any sense?



V Bugliosi Reclaiming History

Interestingly, although this post already has over half a dozen responses, and these include alleged critics, not a single person has pointed out Bugliosi's lie.



IT'S A LIE that Oswald ever stated that he was on the 6th floor during the shooting. There's no citation given, and none available.



So if you want the truth, alt.assassination.jfk, a censored forum run by "Professor" John McAdams, probably isn't the place you want to go...



via Forums - All Forums http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/Thread-Alt-assassination-jfk-Any-Honesty

(26) The cashier at the theater said that Oswald had "ducked in" to the theater without buying a ticket.



I'm amused that Bugliosi now pretends that how a witness describes someone's actions can now be used as evidence that he committed murder. Bugliosi knew better than that.



Vincent Bugliosi was an experienced prosecutor - HE KNEW BETTER THAN THAT!



The 'action' described is Oswald walking into a theater... the "ducking in" is the opinion of Julia Postal. What Julia Postal thinks of Oswald's actions (even presuming that it is Oswald), cannot possibly be used as evidence against Oswald... and Bugliosi knows this.



And, as with many of the other 53 reasons, it has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with guilt or innocence in a murder case.



What Bugliosi is guilty of is a circular argument... Oswald is guilty, thus all of his actions must relate and prove that 'guilt'.



Watch - as Patrick demonstrates his cowardice...



He'll absolutely REFUSE to address this issue.



via Forums - All Forums http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/Thread-Vincent-Bugliosi-s-53-Reasons-26-Refuted

Quote:Hillary won this election by almost 3 million votes...

No source needs to be cited, since far too many people have said this...



But it's quite wrong.



Elections are not determined by the popular vote - they're Constitutionally decided by the Electoral College. This should be difficult to understand, yet in many Presidential election cycles we have, the same nonsense keeps coming up.



Nor will it ever be changed - it would require the votes of the very people that the Electoral College was meant to help to eliminate it - and people are simply too smart to vote contrary to their best interests.



via Forums - All Forums http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/Thread-Hillary-Won