Ben Holmes says it`s simple.

Bud

unread,

May 5, 2012, 10:16:28 PM5/5/12

to

Ben Holmes offered this assertion at the nuthouse...

"That alone should tell you something. It was the *MILITARY* that issued
the order not to dissect the throat wound, and the supposed bullet track.
But you don't have a credible and non-conspiratorial explanation for this
fact."

Setting aside that Ben can`t establish this fact as fact, I asked him
for his credible, conspiratorial one.

He answered...

"And just how difficult must my explanation be? The conspirators didn't
want any front wounds examined and put on record as being entry wounds.
It's just that simple."

So to Ben it seems a simple thing for a high ranking conspirator to walk
into any base in the world and order an improper autopsy on the President
in a room full of unnecessary witnesses and walk out without even his name
being known. This is what passes for "credible" to him.

Bud

unread,

May 6, 2012, 7:46:45 PM5/6/12

to

On May 5, 10:16 pm, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
> Ben Holmes offered this assertion at the nuthouse...
>
> "That alone should tell you something. It was the *MILITARY* that issued
> the order not to dissect the throat wound, and the supposed bullet track.
> But you don't have a credible and non-conspiratorial explanation for this
> fact."
>
> Setting aside that Ben can`t establish this fact as fact,

Over at the nuthouse Ben interjected the following here...

"You're lying again, kook! I have sworn testimony under oath from one of
the prosectors, as well as common sense knowledge about the military and
who controlled the autopsy. What do you have? Anything at all? "

Notice the complete lack of support Ben produced to support his idea?
Nothing cited, nothing quoted, nobody named, just more empty claims.

> I asked him
> for his credible, conspiratorial one.
>
> He answered...
>
> "And just how difficult must my explanation be? The conspirators didn't
> want any front wounds examined and put on record as being entry wounds.
> It's just that simple."
>
> So to Ben it seems a simple thing for a high ranking conspirator to walk
> into any base in the world and order an improper autopsy on the President
> in a room full of unnecessary witnesses and walk out without even his name
> being known. This is what passes for "credible" to him.

Ben had this response to the above...

"Oh, I'm sure his name was known... Finck just didn't want to say it in
court. I rather doubt that he forgot who issued the orders. "

Ben does the usual thing conspiracy mongers often resort to and calls
the witness a liar (probably the same witnesses Ben was just using for
support of his idea). They have to do this because what the witnesses
relate does not support their faith.

And it`s "credible" to Ben that Finck would take the heat when he could
just say he was ordered not to dissect the neck and name the person who
gave him the order.

And it`s a "simple" thing for this military person to waltz in amongst
Kennedy family and friends, security and onlookers, order a substandard
autopsy and waltz out without even his name being revealed by any of the
dozens of people in attendance. The conspirators CTers imagine need
magical levels of control and ability, and since no such thing is
realistic their ideas can`t have any merit. To say such things are
"credible" and "simple" shows a poor grasp of the complexities involved.

Anthony Marsh

unread,

May 6, 2012, 9:31:29 PM5/6/12

to

On 5/5/2012 10:16 PM, Bud wrote:
>
> Ben Holmes offered this assertion at the nuthouse...
>
> "That alone should tell you something. It was the *MILITARY* that issued
> the order not to dissect the throat wound, and the supposed bullet track.
> But you don't have a credible and non-conspiratorial explanation for this
> fact."
>
> Setting aside that Ben can`t establish this fact as fact, I asked him
> for his credible, conspiratorial one.
>

That fact was established in the Clay Shaw trial.

> He answered...
>
> "And just how difficult must my explanation be? The conspirators didn't
> want any front wounds examined and put on record as being entry wounds.
> It's just that simple."
>
> So to Ben it seems a simple thing for a high ranking conspirator to walk
> into any base in the world and order an improper autopsy on the President
> in a room full of unnecessary witnesses and walk out without even his name
> being known. This is what passes for "credible" to him.
>
>

Very simple when you are the highest ranking officer and the commander of
the base tells you to obey the General with all the stars just as if he is
your commander. That was the advantage of having the autopsy performed at
a military facility. Otherwise honest people are forced to obey orders.

Bud

unread,

May 7, 2012, 3:30:59 PM5/7/12

to

On May 6, 9:31 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On 5/5/2012 10:16 PM, Bud wrote:
>
>
>
> > Ben Holmes offered this assertion at the nuthouse...
>
> > "That alone should tell you something. It was the *MILITARY* that issued
> > the order not to dissect the throat wound, and the supposed bullet track.
> > But you don't have a credible and non-conspiratorial explanation for this
> > fact."
>
> > Setting aside that Ben can`t establish this fact as fact, I asked him
> > for his credible, conspiratorial one.
>
> That fact was established in the Clay Shaw trial.

What did anyone say at that trial that established that as fact?

> > He answered...
>
> > "And just how difficult must my explanation be? The conspirators didn't
> > want any front wounds examined and put on record as being entry wounds.
> > It's just that simple."
>
> > So to Ben it seems a simple thing for a high ranking conspirator to walk
> > into any base in the world and order an improper autopsy on the President
> > in a room full of unnecessary witnesses and walk out without even his name
> > being known. This is what passes for "credible" to him.
>
> Very simple when you are the highest ranking officer and the commander of
> the base tells you to obey the General with all the stars just as if he is
> your commander. That was the advantage of having the autopsy performed at
> a military facility. Otherwise honest people are forced to obey orders.

Yah, that is what is being offered, but is it credible? Could a high
ranking officer pop into an autopsy in a room crowded with onlookers,
interfere with the process with the intention of hiding the true identity
of Kennedy`s murderer and have his name hidden for decades, hidden even by
the prosectors who were made to look foolish by that interference? Unless
this could be done the idea isn`t valid, so what can you offer (besides an
circular argument) that such a thing is possible?

Anthony Marsh

unread,

May 7, 2012, 9:42:48 PM5/7/12

to

Excuse me? Who said pop into? The General was there all the time and
outranked everyone.

> interfere with the process with the intention of hiding the true identity
> of Kennedy`s murderer and have his name hidden for decades, hidden even by

Who puts so much fear into an Army physician that he refuses to identify a
multi-star General? Soldiers follow orders, they don't ask questions.

> the prosectors who were made to look foolish by that interference? Unless
> this could be done the idea isn`t valid, so what can you offer (besides an
> circular argument) that such a thing is possible?
>

As I told you before it was sworn testimony from the Clay Shaw trial. If
you are not familiar with the evidence in this case it is not my problem.
Go do your homework.

Bud

unread,

May 8, 2012, 8:05:56 PM5/8/12

to

On May 7, 9:42 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On 5/7/2012 3:30 PM, Bud wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 6, 9:31 pm, Anthony Marsh<anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >> On 5/5/2012 10:16 PM, Bud wrote:
>
> >>> Ben Holmes offered this assertion at the nuthouse...
>
> >>> "That alone should tell you something. It was the *MILITARY* that issued
> >>> the order not to dissect the throat wound, and the supposed bullet track.
> >>> But you don't have a credible and non-conspiratorial explanation for this
> >>> fact."
>
> >>> Setting aside that Ben can`t establish this fact as fact, I asked him
> >>> for his credible, conspiratorial one.
>
> >> That fact was established in the Clay Shaw trial.
>
> > What did anyone say at that trial that established that as fact?

Nothing Tony? What was introduced at the Clay Shaw trial that
established it as fact that the military issued the order not to
dissect the throat wound?

> >>> He answered...
>
> >>> "And just how difficult must my explanation be? The conspirators didn't
> >>> want any front wounds examined and put on record as being entry wounds.
> >>> It's just that simple."
>
> >>> So to Ben it seems a simple thing for a high ranking conspirator to walk
> >>> into any base in the world and order an improper autopsy on the President
> >>> in a room full of unnecessary witnesses and walk out without even his name
> >>> being known. This is what passes for "credible" to him.
>
> >> Very simple when you are the highest ranking officer and the commander of
> >> the base tells you to obey the General with all the stars just as if he is
> >> your commander. That was the advantage of having the autopsy performed at
> >> a military facility. Otherwise honest people are forced to obey orders.
>
> > Yah, that is what is being offered, but is it credible? Could a high
> > ranking officer pop into an autopsy in a room crowded with onlookers,
>
> Excuse me? Who said pop into?

I did. You don`t think Generals hang around Naval bases, do you?

> The General was there all the time and
> outranked everyone.

A General ordering naval personnel in a naval base? Don`t they turn to
an Admiral and ask if they should follow the instructions? Don`t they
complain if forced to follow orders that go against the performance of
their job. If forced, don`t they remember the name of this General and
tell the world? The idea doesn`t hold water.

> > interfere with the process with the intention of hiding the true identity
> > of Kennedy`s murderer and have his name hidden for decades, hidden even by
>
> Who puts so much fear into an Army physician that he refuses to identify a
> multi-star General? Soldiers follow orders, they don't ask questions.

No, thats not a valid idea. They have been getting grief for the poor
autopsy for decades. Why would they if it wasn`t their fault and they were
following orders?

Also how CTers allege it was done doesn`t make sense. If a cover-up was
being done they would be called into the office of the high ranking
officer and would be told what they are going to find. Not some fly by the
seat of the pants, come in and tell them not to dissect the throat
roundabout way in a room full of onlookers that don`t even need to be
there (yah, thats how you you mess with evidence, you get as many people
to witness you doing it as possible). And even if they were called into a
room at some point one, two or probably all three would blow the whistle
at some point. Everybody has been blaming these guys for a substandard
autopsy for years and years, if they were following orders the blame for
it rests elsewhere, why should they take the blame?

> > the prosectors who were made to look foolish by that interference? Unless
> > this could be done the idea isn`t valid, so what can you offer (besides an
> > circular argument) that such a thing is possible?
>
> As I told you before it was sworn testimony from the Clay Shaw trial. If
> you are not familiar with the evidence in this case it is not my problem.
> Go do your homework.

Thats not how it works, it was your idea, you need to support it.
But you don`t support your claims very often, do you?

Lt.Bullitt

unread,

May 8, 2012, 8:43:18 PM5/8/12

to

> Go do your homework.- Hide quoted text -
>

This the well worn Pierre Finck story from the Shaw trial.

He divulged that "when you are a Lieutenant Colonel in the Army you just
follow orders."

What was the specific order given to him and who gave it? Finck was
"specifically told not to discuss the case...by Admiral Kinney.. without
coordination with the Attorney General."

Bud

unread,

May 9, 2012, 8:15:54 AM5/9/12

to

Yes, people in the military follow orders, that is known. The issue
being discussed is whether the prosectors were ordered not to dissect
the neck.

> What was the specific order given to him and who gave it? Finck was
> "specifically told not to discuss the case...by Admiral Kinney.. without
> coordination with the Attorney General."

RFK was the Attorney General. You suppose he was "in on it"?

And any orders not to discuss the case likely were for at the time,
to prevent rumors. Not in effect when Finck testified at the Clay Shaw
trial.

Anthony Marsh

unread,

May 9, 2012, 8:20:31 AM5/9/12

to

On 5/8/2012 8:05 PM, Bud wrote:
> On May 7, 9:42 pm, Anthony Marsh<anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On 5/7/2012 3:30 PM, Bud wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On May 6, 9:31 pm, Anthony Marsh<anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>> On 5/5/2012 10:16 PM, Bud wrote:
>>
>>>>> Ben Holmes offered this assertion at the nuthouse...
>>
>>>>> "That alone should tell you something. It was the *MILITARY* that issued
>>>>> the order not to dissect the throat wound, and the supposed bullet track.
>>>>> But you don't have a credible and non-conspiratorial explanation for this
>>>>> fact."
>>
>>>>> Setting aside that Ben can`t establish this fact as fact, I asked him
>>>>> for his credible, conspiratorial one.
>>
>>>> That fact was established in the Clay Shaw trial.
>>
>>> What did anyone say at that trial that established that as fact?
>
> Nothing Tony? What was introduced at the Clay Shaw trial that
> established it as fact that the military issued the order not to
> dissect the throat wound?
>

Finck's testimony and later statements to the ARRB by Humes.

>>>>> He answered...
>>
>>>>> "And just how difficult must my explanation be? The conspirators didn't
>>>>> want any front wounds examined and put on record as being entry wounds.
>>>>> It's just that simple."
>>
>>>>> So to Ben it seems a simple thing for a high ranking conspirator to walk
>>>>> into any base in the world and order an improper autopsy on the President
>>>>> in a room full of unnecessary witnesses and walk out without even his name
>>>>> being known. This is what passes for "credible" to him.
>>
>>>> Very simple when you are the highest ranking officer and the commander of
>>>> the base tells you to obey the General with all the stars just as if he is
>>>> your commander. That was the advantage of having the autopsy performed at
>>>> a military facility. Otherwise honest people are forced to obey orders.
>>
>>> Yah, that is what is being offered, but is it credible? Could a high
>>> ranking officer pop into an autopsy in a room crowded with onlookers,
>>
>> Excuse me? Who said pop into?
>
> I did. You don`t think Generals hang around Naval bases, do you?
>

No one just popped in there. He was there all the time.

>> The General was there all the time and
>> outranked everyone.
>
> A General ordering naval personnel in a naval base? Don`t they turn to

Yes, and Finck was told to obey whatever the general told him.

> an Admiral and ask if they should follow the instructions? Don`t they

Fink did that sorta, but why should an ARMY man ask an Admiral for any
guidance? You are not being consistent in your arguments.

> complain if forced to follow orders that go against the performance of

No, they don't.

> their job. If forced, don`t they remember the name of this General and
> tell the world? The idea doesn`t hold water.
>

No, they don't. When their job and even life is on the line.

>>> interfere with the process with the intention of hiding the true identity
>>> of Kennedy`s murderer and have his name hidden for decades, hidden even by
>>
>> Who puts so much fear into an Army physician that he refuses to identify a
>> multi-star General? Soldiers follow orders, they don't ask questions.
>
> No, thats not a valid idea. They have been getting grief for the poor
> autopsy for decades. Why would they if it wasn`t their fault and they were
> following orders?
>

The mistakes were not entirely caused by following orders. They were
incompetent.

> Also how CTers allege it was done doesn`t make sense. If a cover-up was
> being done they would be called into the office of the high ranking
> officer and would be told what they are going to find. Not some fly by the

The general did not tell them what they were going to find. Just what
they were not allowed to do.
Don't open that door. Don't look in that room. Don't open that letter.
Don't read that document.

> seat of the pants, come in and tell them not to dissect the throat
> roundabout way in a room full of onlookers that don`t even need to be

Who are all these hobos and winos you claim are onlookers who shouldn't
even be there?

> there (yah, thats how you you mess with evidence, you get as many people
> to witness you doing it as possible). And even if they were called into a
> room at some point one, two or probably all three would blow the whistle

So what if someone blows the whistle? They can be killed off.

> at some point. Everybody has been blaming these guys for a substandard
> autopsy for years and years, if they were following orders the blame for
> it rests elsewhere, why should they take the blame?
>

The general did not order them to be incompetent. Admiral Burkley not
the general ordered Humes to cover up the adrenal glands.

>>> the prosectors who were made to look foolish by that interference? Unless
>>> this could be done the idea isn`t valid, so what can you offer (besides an
>>> circular argument) that such a thing is possible?

Who is going to call the prosectors foolish? Some dirty little
Communists? Certainly not a patriotic American.

>>
>> As I told you before it was sworn testimony from the Clay Shaw trial. If
>> you are not familiar with the evidence in this case it is not my problem.
>> Go do your homework.
>
> Thats not how it works, it was your idea, you need to support it.
> But you don`t support your claims very often, do you?
>

I just did.

>

Anthony Marsh

unread,

May 9, 2012, 8:21:20 AM5/9/12

to

And who the Hell are you to ask a question like that? What are you
trying to do, get yourself shot?
No one will reveal the name of the general, certainly not the general
himself. Most are dead by now.
The order was, "Stop what you are doing."

BTW, are you aware that there were rumors that the autopsy was recorded
on audio?

I believe the reinterment was recorded on audio, but the Army will never
release the tape.

Lt.Bullitt

unread,

May 9, 2012, 12:38:12 PM5/9/12

to

> > coordination with the Attorney General."- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Huh? I am using Finck's own words from his Shaw testimony to describe
the specific order to not discuss the case.
Finck never claimed some General or Admiral told him to "Stop what
you are doing." Does someone need to post Finck's entire testimony
here?

Was it Humes, Boswell, or Finck who told of an order to "stop what you
are doing." What source?

Anthony Marsh

unread,

May 9, 2012, 11:57:00 PM5/9/12

to

I don't want to name names but there is one kook who claims that RFK was
the one giving the orders because he was a General, the Attorney
General. And he was in charge of the autopsy because he was family.

> And any orders not to discuss the case likely were for at the time,
> to prevent rumors. Not in effect when Finck testified at the Clay Shaw
> trial.
>
>

The orders were in effect when Finck testified at the Clay Shaw trial
and that is why he would not name the General. During the trial they
repeated their warnings to him.

Bud

unread,

May 9, 2012, 11:57:53 PM5/9/12

to

On May 9, 8:20 am, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On 5/8/2012 8:05 PM, Bud wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 7, 9:42 pm, Anthony Marsh<anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >> On 5/7/2012 3:30 PM, Bud wrote:
>
> >>> On May 6, 9:31 pm, Anthony Marsh<anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >>>> On 5/5/2012 10:16 PM, Bud wrote:
>
> >>>>> Ben Holmes offered this assertion at the nuthouse...
>
> >>>>> "That alone should tell you something. It was the *MILITARY* that issued
> >>>>> the order not to dissect the throat wound, and the supposed bullet track.
> >>>>> But you don't have a credible and non-conspiratorial explanation for this
> >>>>> fact."
>
> >>>>> Setting aside that Ben can`t establish this fact as fact, I asked him
> >>>>> for his credible, conspiratorial one.
>
> >>>> That fact was established in the Clay Shaw trial.
>
> >>> What did anyone say at that trial that established that as fact?
>
> > Nothing Tony? What was introduced at the Clay Shaw trial that
> > established it as fact that the military issued the order not to
> > dissect the throat wound?
>
> Finck's testimony

Quote Finck saying he was ordered not to dissect the neck.

>and later statements to the ARRB by Humes.

Quote Humes saying he was ordered not to dissect the neck.

> >>>>> He answered...
>
> >>>>> "And just how difficult must my explanation be? The conspirators didn't
> >>>>> want any front wounds examined and put on record as being entry wounds.
> >>>>> It's just that simple."
>
> >>>>> So to Ben it seems a simple thing for a high ranking conspirator to walk
> >>>>> into any base in the world and order an improper autopsy on the President
> >>>>> in a room full of unnecessary witnesses and walk out without even his name
> >>>>> being known. This is what passes for "credible" to him.
>
> >>>> Very simple when you are the highest ranking officer and the commander of
> >>>> the base tells you to obey the General with all the stars just as if he is
> >>>> your commander. That was the advantage of having the autopsy performed at
> >>>> a military facility. Otherwise honest people are forced to obey orders.
>
> >>> Yah, that is what is being offered, but is it credible? Could a high
> >>> ranking officer pop into an autopsy in a room crowded with onlookers,
>
> >> Excuse me? Who said pop into?
>
> > I did. You don`t think Generals hang around Naval bases, do you?
>
> No one just popped in there. He was there all the time.

What was his name?

> >> The General was there all the time and
> >> outranked everyone.
>
> > A General ordering naval personnel in a naval base? Don`t they turn to
>
> Yes, and Finck was told to obey whatever the general told him.
>
> > an Admiral and ask if they should follow the instructions? Don`t they
>
> Fink did that sorta, but why should an ARMY man ask an Admiral for any
> guidance? You are not being consistent in your arguments.

Finck was working under Humes.

> > complain if forced to follow orders that go against the performance of
>
> No, they don't.

Thats the world that needs to exist for CTer ideas to be valid.
Everyone tows the line for all eternity, taking heat for things they were
ordered to do, ect. But that world is not the world we live in.

> > their job. If forced, don`t they remember the name of this General and
> > tell the world? The idea doesn`t hold water.
>
> No, they don't. When their job and even life is on the line.

Yah, pile on one extraordinary claim with little support onto
another.

> >>> interfere with the process with the intention of hiding the true identity
> >>> of Kennedy`s murderer and have his name hidden for decades, hidden even by
>
> >> Who puts so much fear into an Army physician that he refuses to identify a
> >> multi-star General? Soldiers follow orders, they don't ask questions.
>
> > No, thats not a valid idea. They have been getting grief for the poor
> > autopsy for decades. Why would they if it wasn`t their fault and they were
> > following orders?
>
> The mistakes were not entirely caused by following orders. They were
> incompetent.

Why wouldn`t they come clean about being ordered not to dissect the
neck? All they had to do was name the person who ordered them not to.

> > Also how CTers allege it was done doesn`t make sense. If a cover-up was
> > being done they would be called into the office of the high ranking
> > officer and would be told what they are going to find. Not some fly by the
>
> The general did not tell them what they were going to find. Just what
> they were not allowed to do.
> Don't open that door. Don't look in that room. Don't open that letter.
> Don't read that document.
>
> > seat of the pants, come in and tell them not to dissect the throat
> > roundabout way in a room full of onlookers that don`t even need to be
>
> Who are all these hobos and winos you claim are onlookers who shouldn't
> even be there?

I do know there were a lot of unnecessary personnel. Not what yo do
when you are covering something up.

> > there (yah, thats how you you mess with evidence, you get as many people
> > to witness you doing it as possible). And even if they were called into a
> > room at some point one, two or probably all three would blow the whistle
>
> So what if someone blows the whistle? They can be killed off.

Do you hear whistles blowing?

But you make my point. Only in a world that the government can do
anything at any time to anyone are the ideas of conspiracy mongers valid.

> > at some point. Everybody has been blaming these guys for a substandard
> > autopsy for years and years, if they were following orders the blame for
> > it rests elsewhere, why should they take the blame?
>
> The general did not order them to be incompetent. Admiral Burkley not
> the general ordered Humes to cover up the adrenal glands.

Why should they take the blame for actions they were ordered to
take?

> >>> the prosectors who were made to look foolish by that interference? Unless
> >>> this could be done the idea isn`t valid, so what can you offer (besides an
> >>> circular argument) that such a thing is possible?
>
> Who is going to call the prosectors foolish? Some dirty little
> Communists? Certainly not a patriotic American.

Are you now claiming they haven`t taken heat over the years for this
autopsy?

> >> As I told you before it was sworn testimony from the Clay Shaw trial. If
> >> you are not familiar with the evidence in this case it is not my problem.
> >> Go do your homework.
>
> > Thats not how it works, it was your idea, you need to support it.
> > But you don`t support your claims very often, do you?
>
> I just did.

The idea looks just as bad now as when you started.

Bud

unread,

May 10, 2012, 1:31:48 PM5/10/12

to

I wouldn`t be surprised if some conspiracy monger tried to say RFK
"in on it".

> > And any orders not to discuss the case likely were for at the time,
> > to prevent rumors. Not in effect when Finck testified at the Clay Shaw
> > trial.
>
> The orders were in effect when Finck testified at the Clay Shaw trial
> and that is why he would not name the General.

Explain the fact that Finck did discuss the autopsy if there was a
gag order in effect.

Bud

unread,

May 10, 2012, 1:32:52 PM5/10/12

to

On May 6, 7:46 pm, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
> On May 5, 10:16 pm, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>
> > Ben Holmes offered this assertion at the nuthouse...
>
> > "That alone should tell you something. It was the *MILITARY* that issued
> > the order not to dissect the throat wound, and the supposed bullet track.
> > But you don't have a credible and non-conspiratorial explanation for this
> > fact."
>
> > Setting aside that Ben can`t establish this fact as fact,
>
> Over at the nuthouse Ben interjected the following here...
>
> "You're lying again, kook! I have sworn testimony under oath from one of
> the prosectors, as well as common sense knowledge about the military and
> who controlled the autopsy. What do you have? Anything at all? "
>
> Notice the complete lack of support Ben produced to support his idea?
> Nothing cited, nothing quoted, nobody named, just more empty claims.

Well, over at the nuthouse Ben has offered the following testimony in
support of his claim that the testimony of one of the prosectors
establishes as fact that a military officer ordered the neck not to be
dissected...

MR. OSER: Your Honor, I would ask Your Honor to direct the witness to
answer my question.

BY MR. OSER:
Q: I will ask you the question one more time: Why did you not dissect
the track of the bullet wound that you have described today and you
saw at the time of the autopsy at the time you examined the body?
Why?
I ask you to answer that question.
A: As I recall I was told not to, but I don't remember by whom.
Q: You were told not to but you don't remember by whom?
A: Right.
Q: Could it have been one of the Admirals or one of the Generals in
the room?
A: I don't recall.
Q: Do you have any particular reason why you cannot recall at this
time?
A: Because we were told to examine the head and the chest cavity, and
that doesn't include the removal of the organs of the neck.

Anyone notice anything missing? Like Finck saying a military officer
ordered him not to dissect the neck? Finck`s position is that he doesn`t
recall who told him not to. He mentions that someone conveyed the wishes
of the Kennedy family...

"Finck :I was told that the family wanted an examination of the head, as
I recall, the head and chest, but the prosectors in this autopsy didn't
remove the organs of the neck, to my recollection."

But that is as close as he comes to identifying the source. This is
similar to when Ben assigned the position to the doctor that he didn`t
believe the SBT. The witnesses stated position was that he had "no
opinion" on it. Ben took it upon himself to assign the witness a position,
and he does the same here. When asked directly whether it was an Admiral
or a General his stated position was "I don`t recall". Ben speculates an
answer and then puts his answer in the witnesses mouth. This is why it is
often important to have a CTer quote the *actual* testimony, and not just
take their interpretations as factual. Ben is more than satisfied that he
can establish as fact that Finck was ordered by a military officer not to
dissect the neck when the witness himself says no such thing.

Also it is curious that Ben would use a witness he regards as a liar to
establish something as fact. Often what Ben regards as fact is just what
he chooses to believe.

John McAdams

unread,

May 10, 2012, 1:36:22 PM5/10/12

to

On 10 May 2012 13:32:52 -0400, Bud <sirs...@fast.net> wrote:

>On May 6, 7:46=A0pm, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>> On May 5, 10:16=A0pm, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>>
>> > =A0 Ben Holmes offered this assertion at the nuthouse...
>>
>> > =A0 "That alone should tell you something. It was the *MILITARY* that i=
>ssued
>> > the order not to dissect the throat wound, and the supposed bullet trac=
>k.
>> > But you don't have a credible and non-conspiratorial explanation for th=
>is
>> > fact."
>>
>> > =A0 Setting aside that Ben can`t establish this fact as fact,
>>
>> =A0 Over at the nuthouse Ben interjected the following here...
>>
>> =A0 "You're lying again, kook! I have sworn testimony under oath from one of

>> the prosectors, as well as common sense knowledge about the military and
>> who controlled the autopsy. What do you have? Anything at all? "
>>

>> =A0 Notice the complete lack of support Ben produced to support his idea?

Notice he says "the family" wanted such and such.

The people in the autopsy room were under pressure from the people on
the 17th Floor to get the autopsy done quickly.

That's confirmed by William Manchester's account, and *he* got
testimony from the people on the 17th Floor.

.John

--
The Kennedy Assassination Home Page
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

Bud

unread,

May 10, 2012, 3:17:14 PM5/10/12

to

On May 10, 1:36 pm, john.mcad...@marquette.edu (John McAdams) wrote:

And it wasn`t only in the 1967 Clay Shaw trial that he said this. In a
memo dated Jan. 25th, 1965 he wrote...

"In my discussions with Cdr Humes, I stated we should not check the
block "complete autopsy" in the Autopsy Report Form. In compliance with
the wishes of the Kennedy family, the prosectors had confined their
examination to the head and chest."

And...

" "I was told that the Kennedy family first authorized the autopsy of
the head only and then extended the permission to the chest. Organs of the
neck were not removed because of these same restrictions."

Ben knows this is Finck`s true position, and he never said it was an
order from a military officer. But since this is moderated forum I can`t
label Ben`s claims what they really are.

> The people in the autopsy room were under pressure from the people on
> the 17th Floor to get the autopsy done quickly.

Numerous people in the autopsy room attest to Kennedy family
influence. If only CTer ideas had such corroborative support.

Anthony Marsh

unread,

May 10, 2012, 3:42:42 PM5/10/12

to

On 5/9/2012 11:57 PM, Bud wrote:
> On May 9, 8:20 am, Anthony Marsh<anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On 5/8/2012 8:05 PM, Bud wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On May 7, 9:42 pm, Anthony Marsh<anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>> On 5/7/2012 3:30 PM, Bud wrote:
>>
>>>>> On May 6, 9:31 pm, Anthony Marsh<anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>>> On 5/5/2012 10:16 PM, Bud wrote:
>>
>>>>>>> Ben Holmes offered this assertion at the nuthouse...
>>
>>>>>>> "That alone should tell you something. It was the *MILITARY* that issued
>>>>>>> the order not to dissect the throat wound, and the supposed bullet track.
>>>>>>> But you don't have a credible and non-conspiratorial explanation for this
>>>>>>> fact."
>>
>>>>>>> Setting aside that Ben can`t establish this fact as fact, I asked him
>>>>>>> for his credible, conspiratorial one.
>>
>>>>>> That fact was established in the Clay Shaw trial.
>>
>>>>> What did anyone say at that trial that established that as fact?
>>
>>> Nothing Tony? What was introduced at the Clay Shaw trial that
>>> established it as fact that the military issued the order not to
>>> dissect the throat wound?
>>
>> Finck's testimony
>
> Quote Finck saying he was ordered not to dissect the neck.
>

Phony challenge. I did not that Fink was ordered not to dissect the back
wound.

DR. FINCK: I will remind you that I was not in charge of this autopsy,
that I was called --

MR. OSER: You were a co-author of the report though, weren't you, Doctor?

DR. FINCK: Wait. I was called as a consultant to look at these wounds;
that doesn't mean I am running the show.

MR. OSER: Was Dr. Humes running the show?

DR. FINCK: Well, I heard Dr. Humes stating that -- he said, "Who is in
charge here?" and I heard an Army General, I don't remember his name,
stating, "I am" You must understand that in those circumstances, there
were law enforcement officers, military people with various ranks, and you
have to co-ordinate the operation according to directions.

MR. OSER: But you were one of the three qualified pathologists standing
at that autopsy table, were you not, Doctor?

DR. FINCK: Yes, I am.

MR. OSER: Was this Army General a qualified pathologist?

DR. FINCK: No.

MR. OSER: Was he a doctor?

DR. FINCK: No, not to my knowledge.

MR. OSER: Can you give me his name, Colonel?

DR. FINCK: No, I can't. I don't remember.

MR. OSER: How many other military personnel were present at the autopsy
in the autopsy room?

DR. FINCK: That autopsy room was quite crowded. It is a small autopsy
room, and when you are called in circumstances like that to look at the
wound of the President of the United States who is dead, you don't look
around too much to ask people for their names and take notes on who they
are and how many there are. I did not do so. The room was crowded with
military and civilian personnel and federal agents, Secret Service agents,
FBI agents, for part of the autopsy, but I cannot give you a precise
breakdown as regards the attendance of the people in that autopsy room at
Bethesda Naval Hospital.

MR. OSER: Colonel, did you feel that you had to take orders from this
Army General that was there directing the autopsy?

DR. FINCK: No, because there were others, there were Admirals.

MR. OSER: There were Admirals?

DR. FINCK: Oh, yes, there were Admirals, and when you are a Lieutenant
Colonel in the Army you just follow orders, and at the end of the autopsy
we were specifically told -- as I recall it, it was by Admiral Kinney, the
Surgeon [General] of the Navy -- this is subject to verification -- we
were specifically told not to discuss the case.

Dr. FINCK. Maybe I can help you here. Maybe Admiral Galloway who was in
charge of the center, as I remember -- he was the one as far as I can
remember communicating those restrictions to us.
Dr. PETTY. I see. And the restrictions were modified however.
Dr. FINCK. Yes.
Dr. PETTY. As you went on.
Dr. FINCK. Yes.
Dr. PETTY. Does anyone want to add or ask further in this particular area?
Mr. PURDY. Did you indicate why the restrictions were modified?
Dr. FINCK. I don't know but -- I don't know. I was not the one making
those restrictions so it is hard for me to explain them except it came
from the family.
Dr. WECHT. Pierre, in your subsequent testimony in the trial I believe
you were asked about the bullet wound in the back and in the neck and
why it had not been dissected out and you stated that all of you had
been ordered and that your; recollection was that it was an Army General
whose name you did not recall.
Dr. FINCK. And I still don't remember his name. I read my notes and I
found in my notes an Army General and I don't know who it was.
Dr. WECHT. I was just saying with regard to what Charlie is asking you
now, then you certainly remembered that somebody did give you orders not
to do certain things.
Dr. FINCK. I cannot say that it was this Army General, I don't recall
that precisely. I remember the prosectors and Admiral Galloway. As far
as saying now so and so told me that or didn't tell me that, it is
extremely difficult. There was an Army General in that, room and I
cannot really pinpoint the origin of those instructions to comply with
those family wishes.
Dr. BADEN. Dr. Finck, just so I understand, when you arrived the brain
had already been removed from the cranial cavity.
Dr. FINCK. As far as I remember, yes.
Dr. BADEN. And at that point when you arrived, did a decision have to be
made as to whether to proceed further or not in the autopsy?
Dr. FINCK. Having only X ray films of the head, I am the one who
suggested the whole body X ray survey before going further, as far as I
remember, to rule out the presence; of an intact bullet in that cadaver.
See, having a wound of entry in the upper back/lower neck and at the
time of autopsy no wound of exit and only X ray films of the head
showing numerous metallic fragments, I am the one who asked for that
whole body X ray survey.
Dr. PETTY. If you don't mind, I would like to go about this orderly if I
may.
Dr. FINCK. I think I answered your question why was it stopped or what
was the reason for doing something, and the reason was as I mentioned.

>> and later statements to the ARRB by Humes.
>
> Quote Humes saying he was ordered not to dissect the neck.
>

Q. Prior to the arrival of President Kennedy's body, did you see any
Secret Service or FBI officials?
A. No. I had one interesting encounter in that regard. When I found out
what the problem was, I went downstairs and got into a scrub suit which
I was going to wear to conduct the autopsy. And it was a brand-new
morgue. We had just moved into it a couple of months before. And it had
a loading dock outside, and that's where they were going to bring the
President's body. So I walked outside to see what was going on. A lot of
people?oh, I saw a guy with a speed graphic camera in the building and
didn't feel like running after him myself. So I went out to this loading
dock, and several people were milling around. And I said, "Who's in
charge here?" And some general said, "I am." Well, it turns out he was
in charge of the military district of Washington. That was his role. And
I said, "General, sorry to bother you, but there's some clown in there
running around with a speed graphic camera." Well, he dispatched
somebody to corral this guy . That's the only other person that I had
any conversation with at all. He responded very quickly when I asked who
was in charge. He left no doubt in my mind. But he was in charge of the
loading dock. He was not in charge of anything else. I never saw him
again in my life.

----

Q. Previously, you made reference to the commanding general for the
military district of Washington.
A. Yes.
Q. Was that General Wehle?
A. You got me. You know, he told me, he said he was in charge, and I
heard later that that was his role. I said to somebody else, "Who's that
guy?" And that's what they said; he's the CO of the military district of
Washington. I never saw him before or since, didn't know who he was then.

>>>>>>> He answered...
>>
>>>>>>> "And just how difficult must my explanation be? The conspirators didn't
>>>>>>> want any front wounds examined and put on record as being entry wounds.
>>>>>>> It's just that simple."
>>
>>>>>>> So to Ben it seems a simple thing for a high ranking conspirator to walk
>>>>>>> into any base in the world and order an improper autopsy on the President
>>>>>>> in a room full of unnecessary witnesses and walk out without even his name
>>>>>>> being known. This is what passes for "credible" to him.
>>
>>>>>> Very simple when you are the highest ranking officer and the commander of
>>>>>> the base tells you to obey the General with all the stars just as if he is
>>>>>> your commander. That was the advantage of having the autopsy performed at
>>>>>> a military facility. Otherwise honest people are forced to obey orders.
>>
>>>>> Yah, that is what is being offered, but is it credible? Could a high
>>>>> ranking officer pop into an autopsy in a room crowded with onlookers,
>>
>>>> Excuse me? Who said pop into?
>>
>>> I did. You don`t think Generals hang around Naval bases, do you?
>>
>> No one just popped in there. He was there all the time.
>
> What was his name?
>

No one is allowed to know what his name was.

>>>> The General was there all the time and
>>>> outranked everyone.
>>
>>> A General ordering naval personnel in a naval base? Don`t they turn to
>>
>> Yes, and Finck was told to obey whatever the general told him.
>>
>>> an Admiral and ask if they should follow the instructions? Don`t they
>>
>> Fink did that sorta, but why should an ARMY man ask an Admiral for any
>> guidance? You are not being consistent in your arguments.
>
> Finck was working under Humes.
>

No, consulting with.

>>> complain if forced to follow orders that go against the performance of
>>
>> No, they don't.
>
> Thats the world that needs to exist for CTer ideas to be valid.
> Everyone tows the line for all eternity, taking heat for things they were
> ordered to do, ect. But that world is not the world we live in.
>

Some people do not and then we find their cut up bodies floating in an
oil drum.

>>> their job. If forced, don`t they remember the name of this General and
>>> tell the world? The idea doesn`t hold water.
>>
>> No, they don't. When their job and even life is on the line.
>
> Yah, pile on one extraordinary claim with little support onto
> another.
>
>>>>> interfere with the process with the intention of hiding the true identity
>>>>> of Kennedy`s murderer and have his name hidden for decades, hidden even by
>>
>>>> Who puts so much fear into an Army physician that he refuses to identify a
>>>> multi-star General? Soldiers follow orders, they don't ask questions.
>>
>>> No, thats not a valid idea. They have been getting grief for the poor
>>> autopsy for decades. Why would they if it wasn`t their fault and they were
>>> following orders?
>>
>> The mistakes were not entirely caused by following orders. They were
>> incompetent.
>
> Why wouldn`t they come clean about being ordered not to dissect the
> neck? All they had to do was name the person who ordered them not to.
>

No. Some people just follow orders.

>>> Also how CTers allege it was done doesn`t make sense. If a cover-up was
>>> being done they would be called into the office of the high ranking
>>> officer and would be told what they are going to find. Not some fly by the
>>
>> The general did not tell them what they were going to find. Just what
>> they were not allowed to do.
>> Don't open that door. Don't look in that room. Don't open that letter.
>> Don't read that document.
>>
>>> seat of the pants, come in and tell them not to dissect the throat
>>> roundabout way in a room full of onlookers that don`t even need to be
>>
>> Who are all these hobos and winos you claim are onlookers who shouldn't
>> even be there?
>
> I do know there were a lot of unnecessary personnel. Not what yo do
> when you are covering something up.
>

You mean like Watergate? So therefore Watergate was not a conspiracy
because there were so many people involved and no one spoke out? Well, one
person did speak out and he revealed the conspiracy. Gordon Liddy offered
to let himself be assassinated if they worried that he might spill the
beans. ??If someone wants to shoot me, just tell me what corner to stand
on and I?ll be there,?? Liddy remembered telling John Dean, the White
House counsel.

>>> there (yah, thats how you you mess with evidence, you get as many people
>>> to witness you doing it as possible). And even if they were called into a
>>> room at some point one, two or probably all three would blow the whistle
>>
>> So what if someone blows the whistle? They can be killed off.
>
> Do you hear whistles blowing?
>
> But you make my point. Only in a world that the government can do
> anything at any time to anyone are the ideas of conspiracy mongers valid.
>

So in your world conspiracies are impossible? 9/11 was just an
industrial accident?

>>> at some point. Everybody has been blaming these guys for a substandard
>>> autopsy for years and years, if they were following orders the blame for
>>> it rests elsewhere, why should they take the blame?
>>
>> The general did not order them to be incompetent. Admiral Burkley not
>> the general ordered Humes to cover up the adrenal glands.
>
> Why should they take the blame for actions they were ordered to
> take?
>

Comes with the job.

>>>>> the prosectors who were made to look foolish by that interference? Unless
>>>>> this could be done the idea isn`t valid, so what can you offer (besides an
>>>>> circular argument) that such a thing is possible?
>>
>> Who is going to call the prosectors foolish? Some dirty little
>> Communists? Certainly not a patriotic American.
>
> Are you now claiming they haven`t taken heat over the years for this
> autopsy?
>

And rightly so.

Bud

unread,

May 10, 2012, 6:02:40 PM5/10/12

to

On May 10, 3:42 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On 5/9/2012 11:57 PM, Bud wrote:
>
> > On May 9, 8:20 am, Anthony Marsh<anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >> On 5/8/2012 8:05 PM, Bud wrote:
>
> >>> On May 7, 9:42 pm, Anthony Marsh<anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >>>> On 5/7/2012 3:30 PM, Bud wrote:
>
> >>>>> On May 6, 9:31 pm, Anthony Marsh<anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >>>>>> On 5/5/2012 10:16 PM, Bud wrote:
>
> >>>>>>> Ben Holmes offered this assertion at the nuthouse...
>
> >>>>>>> "That alone should tell you something. It was the *MILITARY* that issued
> >>>>>>> the order not to dissect the throat wound, and the supposed bullet track.
> >>>>>>> But you don't have a credible and non-conspiratorial explanation for this
> >>>>>>> fact."
>
> >>>>>>> Setting aside that Ben can`t establish this fact as fact, I asked him
> >>>>>>> for his credible, conspiratorial one.
>
> >>>>>> That fact was established in the Clay Shaw trial.
>
> >>>>> What did anyone say at that trial that established that as fact?
>
> >>> Nothing Tony? What was introduced at the Clay Shaw trial that
> >>> established it as fact that the military issued the order not to
> >>> dissect the throat wound?
>
> >> Finck's testimony
>
> > Quote Finck saying he was ordered not to dissect the neck.
>
> Phony challenge. I did not that Fink was ordered not to dissect the back
> wound.

Yah, you did.

Quote on...

> Ben Holmes offered this assertion at the nuthouse...
> "That alone should tell you something. It was the *MILITARY* that issued
> the order not to dissect the throat wound, and the supposed bullet track.
> But you don't have a credible and non-conspiratorial explanation for this
> fact."
> Setting aside that Ben can`t establish this fact as fact, I asked him
> for his credible, conspiratorial one.

That fact was established in the Clay Shaw trial.

Quote off.

Thats you claiming it was a fact established at the Clay Shaw
trial.

Nothing there about a military officer ordering Finck not to dissect
the neck

> >> and later statements to the ARRB by Humes.
>
> > Quote Humes saying he was ordered not to dissect the neck.
>
> Q. Prior to the arrival of President Kennedy's body, did you see any
> Secret Service or FBI officials?
> A. No. I had one interesting encounter in that regard. When I found out
> what the problem was, I went downstairs and got into a scrub suit which
> I was going to wear to conduct the autopsy. And it was a brand-new
> morgue. We had just moved into it a couple of months before. And it had
> a loading dock outside, and that's where they were going to bring the
> President's body. So I walked outside to see what was going on. A lot of
> people?oh, I saw a guy with a speed graphic camera in the building and
> didn't feel like running after him myself. So I went out to this loading
> dock, and several people were milling around. And I said, "Who's in
> charge here?" And some general said, "I am." Well, it turns out he was
> in charge of the military district of Washington. That was his role. And
> I said, "General, sorry to bother you, but there's some clown in there
> running around with a speed graphic camera." Well, he dispatched
> somebody to corral this guy . That's the only other person that I had
> any conversation with at all. He responded very quickly when I asked who
> was in charge. He left no doubt in my mind. But he was in charge of the
> loading dock. He was not in charge of anything else. I never saw him
> again in my life.

Nothing there about a military officer ordering Humes not to dissect
the neck.

> ----
>
> Q. Previously, you made reference to the commanding general for the
> military district of Washington.
> A. Yes.
> Q. Was that General Wehle?
> A. You got me. You know, he told me, he said he was in charge, and I
> heard later that that was his role. I said to somebody else, "Who's that
> guy?" And that's what they said; he's the CO of the military district of
> Washington. I never saw him before or since, didn't know who he was then.

How is this relevant to the argument?

> >>>>>>> He answered...
>
> >>>>>>> "And just how difficult must my explanation be? The conspirators didn't
> >>>>>>> want any front wounds examined and put on record as being entry wounds.
> >>>>>>> It's just that simple."
>
> >>>>>>> So to Ben it seems a simple thing for a high ranking conspirator to walk
> >>>>>>> into any base in the world and order an improper autopsy on the President
> >>>>>>> in a room full of unnecessary witnesses and walk out without even his name
> >>>>>>> being known. This is what passes for "credible" to him.
>
> >>>>>> Very simple when you are the highest ranking officer and the commander of
> >>>>>> the base tells you to obey the General with all the stars just as if he is
> >>>>>> your commander. That was the advantage of having the autopsy performed at
> >>>>>> a military facility. Otherwise honest people are forced to obey orders.
>
> >>>>> Yah, that is what is being offered, but is it credible? Could a high
> >>>>> ranking officer pop into an autopsy in a room crowded with onlookers,
>
> >>>> Excuse me? Who said pop into?
>
> >>> I did. You don`t think Generals hang around Naval bases, do you?
>
> >> No one just popped in there. He was there all the time.
>
> > What was his name?
>
> No one is allowed to know what his name was.

Not even his family? How could you page such a person? Book a room?

> >>>> The General was there all the time and
> >>>> outranked everyone.
>
> >>> A General ordering naval personnel in a naval base? Don`t they turn to
>
> >> Yes, and Finck was told to obey whatever the general told him.
>
> >>> an Admiral and ask if they should follow the instructions? Don`t they
>
> >> Fink did that sorta, but why should an ARMY man ask an Admiral for any
> >> guidance? You are not being consistent in your arguments.
>
> > Finck was working under Humes.
>
> No, consulting with.

That puts him under Humes. Consultants don`t run the show.

> >>> complain if forced to follow orders that go against the performance of
>
> >> No, they don't.
>
> > Thats the world that needs to exist for CTer ideas to be valid.
> > Everyone tows the line for all eternity, taking heat for things they were
> > ordered to do, ect. But that world is not the world we live in.
>
> Some people do not and then we find their cut up bodies floating in an
> oil drum.

Another reason conspiracy monger ideas have no merit, those
expounding them never end up this way.

> >>> their job. If forced, don`t they remember the name of this General and
> >>> tell the world? The idea doesn`t hold water.
>
> >> No, they don't. When their job and even life is on the line.
>
> > Yah, pile on one extraordinary claim with little support onto
> > another.
>
> >>>>> interfere with the process with the intention of hiding the true identity
> >>>>> of Kennedy`s murderer and have his name hidden for decades, hidden even by
>
> >>>> Who puts so much fear into an Army physician that he refuses to identify a
> >>>> multi-star General? Soldiers follow orders, they don't ask questions.
>
> >>> No, thats not a valid idea. They have been getting grief for the poor
> >>> autopsy for decades. Why would they if it wasn`t their fault and they were
> >>> following orders?
>
> >> The mistakes were not entirely caused by following orders. They were
> >> incompetent.
>
> > Why wouldn`t they come clean about being ordered not to dissect the
> > neck? All they had to do was name the person who ordered them not to.
>
> No. Some people just follow orders.

Great, now we don`t need a motive for Oswald. Some people just
shoot people.

> >>> Also how CTers allege it was done doesn`t make sense. If a cover-up was
> >>> being done they would be called into the office of the high ranking
> >>> officer and would be told what they are going to find. Not some fly by the
>
> >> The general did not tell them what they were going to find. Just what
> >> they were not allowed to do.
> >> Don't open that door. Don't look in that room. Don't open that letter.
> >> Don't read that document.
>
> >>> seat of the pants, come in and tell them not to dissect the throat
> >>> roundabout way in a room full of onlookers that don`t even need to be
>
> >> Who are all these hobos and winos you claim are onlookers who shouldn't
> >> even be there?
>
> > I do know there were a lot of unnecessary personnel. Not what yo do
> > when you are covering something up.
>
> You mean like Watergate?

You`re slipping, this analogy is weak and easily swatted. You should
have went for My Lai.

> So therefore Watergate was not a conspiracy
> because there were so many people involved and no one spoke out? Well, one
> person did speak out and he revealed the conspiracy. Gordon Liddy offered
> to let himself be assassinated if they worried that he might spill the
> beans. ??If someone wants to shoot me, just tell me what corner to stand
> on and I?ll be there,?? Liddy remembered telling John Dean, the White
> House counsel.

You finished? How does this compare with dropping a corpse in a military
base, have a lot of unnecessary personnel witness the autopsy and then
conspire to conceal the facts about the autopsy. Isn`t it much easier to
just order all the unnecessary people out?

> >>> there (yah, thats how you you mess with evidence, you get as many people
> >>> to witness you doing it as possible). And even if they were called into a
> >>> room at some point one, two or probably all three would blow the whistle
>
> >> So what if someone blows the whistle? They can be killed off.
>
> > Do you hear whistles blowing?
>
> > But you make my point. Only in a world that the government can do
> > anything at any time to anyone are the ideas of conspiracy mongers valid.
>
> So in your world conspiracies are impossible? 9/11 was just an
> industrial accident?

My god man, no wonder you can`t figure these things out. You can`t
discern the difference between people getting together for a common goal
and dropping a conspiracy on peoples laps and getting them to jump on
board.

unread,

unread,

May 14, 2012, 8:04:59 PM5/14/12

to

Try it first.

> You never answer my questions and you refuse to explain
> what you mean.

When, exactly?