Conspiracy JFK Forum Site

A Believer Wrote:The CIA was not conducting the investigation. The Warren Commission was. The CIA was a source of information. The fact the CIA withheld some information from the WC does not translate to a cover up by the WC. James Hosty also destroyed a note which he believed had been written by Oswald to the FBI. That was a cover-your-ass operation, not a cover up. Again, this was not an action taken by the investigating body. The WC investigation was not a cover up.

This is simply silly.



And completely unsupportable. Which is why you'll never see a believer in this forum debating this issue with knowledgeable critics.



The Warren Commission began from the beginning as a coverup institution... from the very beginning they started with the major premise that Oswald was the lone assassin - and evidence against that premise was most certainly covered up by the Warren Commission.



Believers cannot support their assertions in the face of knowledgeable critics.



And that fact tells the tale.



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

A True Believer Wrote:How is it possible to see the back of JFK's head? The doctors never turned him over.

It takes a true believer to make such an incredibly stupid statement.



I can view at least 90% or more of the back of someone's head while both of their shoulderblades are perfectly flat on a surface.



You simply turn the head.



It swivels on something that is known in medical terminology as the "Neck".



Of course, this same nonsense that the doctors couldn't have seen what they stated that they saw simply cannot apply to the autopsy - and the doctors there SAID THE SAME THING!!!



The large head wound was Occipital-Parietal in location, and on the right side of the head.



So how did Parkland witnesses manage to come up with the same location if - as believers believe - they couldn't have seen the back of the head???



All you'll hear are crickets... eh Patrick?



via Forums - All Forums http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/Thread-Back-Of-The-Head

It seems that Patrick, like Mark Ulrik - has decided that cowardice is the better part of valor...



Patrick has lasted much longer than Mark did... but the truth is quite simple - believers cannot face critics in an arena where ad hominem is deleted... and where only evidence & citation can make a difference.



Patrick, as all believers do - will give all sorts of different reasons why they aren't showing cowardice, yet the facts are quite clear...



I'm posting - and they are running.



No amount of explanation is going to make up for that simple fact.



via Forums - All Forums http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/Thread-Cowardice-Extraordinaire

(25) A store manager saw Oswald evading police sirens in front of his store.



Again, sheer speculation. Indeed, in court, this would have been objected to - as the store manager could not possibly have known what was in the person's mind... who needs to first be identified as Oswald.



It hardly needs pointing out that such an action - PRESUMING IT TO BE TRUE - doesn't support the crime...



People can 'look' evasive all the time... it doesn't mean that they've just murdered someone. Indeed, just last night, I walked into a Post Office, took one look, and went right back out. (very evasive behavior indeed!)



The truth, of course, is that I saw a longer line that I wanted to simply stand in without a paperback to read... so I went back to the car - and grabbed the book I was reading... 'The Enemy' by Lee Child. I managed about 10 pages or so while standing in line...



And no-one was killed in the city that day to the best of my knowledge.



Yet another bit of Bugliosi "evidence" refuted, and believers are running away as fast as they can...



via Forums - All Forums http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/Thread-Vincent-Bugliosi-s-53-Reasons-25-Refuted

Mark Oblazney Wrote:This is why the REAL scholars studying the Dead Sea/Nag Hammadi Scrolls wanted some time by themselves with them first, before the amateur sleuths stepped in and started telling the scholars how wrong they were.

Actually, as virtually anyone in the field of Biblical studies is aware, this has been a very famous scholarly scandal.



As BAR put it:

Biblical Archaeology Review Wrote:In 1977, Oxford don Geza Vermes declared that the failure to publish these scrolls and make them publicly available was threatening to become “the academic scandal par excellence of the 20th century.”

Real scholars took a relatively short time to decipher and comment on the scrolls... Anyone who's been in the field of early Christianity would have to laugh at Mark's apparent ignorance. The original team that controlled the Dead Sea Scrolls were still hemming & hawing over their work four decades later... even to the point of passing along "their" scrolls to their students.



Nothing less than a true academic scandal - it was broken only when a set of photographs of the scrolls was publicly released. (and not at the behest of the scholars who controlled the Dead Sea Scrolls, indeed, over their vehement objections.)



It's interesting that Mark conflated the Dead Sea Scrolls with the Nag Hamadi collection... the later were never controlled as the Dead Sea Scrolls were controlled... they didn't have the historical significance that the Dead Sea Scrolls had - and although both collections were discovered at roughly the same time (just a few years apart), the Nag Hammadi was published in English decades earlier than the Dead Sea Scrolls.



There never was the scandal attached to the Nag Hammadi collection that was to the Dead Sea Scrolls... and Mark is apparently unaware of that.



via Forums - All Forums http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/Thread-Dead-Sea-Scrolls

Glenn Wrote:Whenever discussing the JFK assassination, it seems that Professor McAdams is the prime target of whatever criticisms there might be related to the Warren Commission. Being an outsider with many good friends far more versed in this thing (on both sides, I should add) than I am; can anyone question McAdams knowledge about this case?

Yep... and quite easily too.



John McAdams was absolutely AFRAID to publicly admit that the 6.5mm virtually round object seen in the AP X-ray from the autopsy was the largest foreign object that could be seen.



It is, as I calculated (and no-one has even tried to refute it) 33 times larger than the next largest foreign fragment seen.



Anyone can view the AP X-ray - and instantly see this object.











Yet John McAdams - who surely knows this subject well enough to answer without even doing any research, has been quite the coward on this issue. He absolutely REFUSES to admit that it's the largest foreign object seen.



To be more precise on my answer - no-one can "question" his "knowledge" - his honesty, on the other hand, is quite easily questioned.



The "Professor" is a coward.



via Forums - All Forums http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/Thread-John-McAdams-Knowledge-Of-This-Case

(24) Lee Harvey Oswald murdered J.D. Tippit.



Sheer speculation. There's very strong evidence AGAINST such a claim. The assertion that Oswald murdered Tippit would take far more time than I can spend here to refute - but a search on the Internet will quickly show you reasons why Oswald can't be a suspect here. Briefly:



First, let's establish that Oswald's landlady stated that she'd seen Oswald waiting for a bus outside his roominghouse at 1:04:



http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/robertse.htm, WC VII, 439



The time that Tippit was killed can be very closely pinpointed... Helen Markham, stated it was at 1:06, and she was waiting for a bus that left at 1:12. So if the Warren Commission was correct that Tippit was killed at 1:15 - Helen Markham could not have been a witness. The only witness who stated that he actually looked at his watch, Mr. T.F. Bowley, said that the murder happened BEFORE 1:10.



http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/bowley.htm



Once established that the murder took place much earlier than 1:15 claimed by the Warren Commission, you will be faced with the problem that Oswald was 9/10ths of a mile away, at a bus stop, just minutes before the murder. He must have driven to the scene of the crime, (no witness reported the suspect driving), or ran the distance.



I invite you to type 1026 North Beckley into Google, and trace out for yourself how long it takes to get from where Oswald was last seen, and where Tippit was murdered. You'll discover that Google lists it as a 15 minute walk. Which means that he couldn't have been at the scene until approximately 1:19.



Now, there's quite a bit more evidence than merely this (the time issue) against the supposition that Oswald killed Tippit, but it would take pages to go through... so I'll leave it at this.



But until you can PROVE that Oswald murdered Tippit, you cannot use the presumption of guilt here to 'prove' that he murdered JFK.



Believers will, as usual, try to twist the plain facts listed and cited for here... watch for it!



via Forums - All Forums http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/Thread-Vincent-Bugliosi-s-53-Reasons-24-Refuted

(23) In addition to getting a coat and his gun, Oswald changed trousers.



Answered previously in #21. Changing clothes after leaving work means nothing at all. He wasn't a murderer who needed to remove blood-stained clothing. That Bugliosi would attempt to assert that changing clothes after work when arriving home is evidence of guilt means that most of us are suspects.



Do YOU change clothes when you get home from work? If so, you'd better turn yourself into the local police, for I'm sure there's an unsolved murder somewhere in your vicinity.



Watch as Patrick runs from this one, as he's done from most of these refutations... Not that I blame Patrick, the evidence simply isn't there... nothing you can do about that.



via Forums - All Forums http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/Thread-Vincent-Bugliosi-s-53-Reasons-23-Refuted

Believers give all sorts of excuses why they refuse to debate... they'll pretend not to be interested in answering... they'll pretend that I'm too "mean"... they'll even pretend that they can't understand my clearly worded statements.



They'll even pretend it's not fair if I point out where they're blatantly lying... or running away...



But if any of these excuses were real - then surely they could not have been operating FOR THE LAST SEVERAL DECADES... right? Surely a believer can point to where these valid objections to their theory have been dealt with... Someone, somewhere, must have definitively refuted the critic's claims... right???



Yet no-where has this happened.



Before "Reclaiming History" came out, believers everywhere were asserting that this book would be the final nail in the coffin - all doubts about the Warren Commission's theory would be answered...



Now you can't get a believer to stand up and defend this "definitive" book...



Excuses...



That's all they are...



And that fact tells the tale.



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

More than 50 years have elapsed, and believers still face the most basic of issues...



The one I'd like to focus on here is the lack of any evidence for transit. For the Warren Commission's theory to hold water, a bullet must have transited JFK's body.



Yet there's absolutely no evidence for this at all.



The strongest possible evidence would be the alleged damage seen to the apical portion of JFK's lung - yet the only photo(s) taken of this have disappeared.



Since there's no conceivable non-conspiratorial reason for this photo to go missing - one can credibly presume that the photo didn't support a transit conclusion ... (perhaps it showed damage from a frontal bullet - but no exit through the back...)



Even the idea that a bullet went through the body was only arrived at by speculation ... speculation that attempted to explain newly learned facts... (a bullet wound in JFK's throat) and this speculation occurred AFTER THE AUTOPSY WAS OVER.



Believers think that the strongest reason that a bullet must have transited (since they lack any hard evidence for this theory) is that no bullets were found in JFK.



Unfortunately, this requires that the testimony of the prosectors was honest - yet believers cannot explain the known facts... such as what JFK's body was doing between 6:40pm and 8pm.



It's inconceivable that no-one was doing anything at all with JFK during that time - yet believers must accept that this is precisely what happened... that JFK's body simply laid there with no activity whatsoever for close to an hour & a half.



This strains credulity to the breaking point.



Believers have no explanation for why the prosectors were forbidden from dissecting the track of the wound - EVEN AS THEY WERE ALLOWED TO DISSECT THE CHEST INCISIONS!!! (Which were clearly not bullet wounds.)



Patrick, or any other believer for that matter - are completely incapable of quoting this entire post, and responding point by point... and this clearly proves exactly what I've stated... that although more than 50 years have passed, there is still no evidence for even the most basic of facts required for the Warren Commission's theory to be true.



If there was no transit, then a conspiracy has been proven.



It's just that simple.



via Forums - All Forums http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/Thread-Still-A-Problem-Over-50-Years-Later