Rossley debate, setting the record straight
bigdog
record. Overall I am pleased with the way it went and have been somewhat
gratified by the support from fellow LNs. I've noticed a lack of reviews
from the CT side and I'm not sure what to make of that.
I mentioned in another thread that I am a person who often thinks of
things I should have said after the fact, and the latest debate was no
exception. I would like to raise these two issues and invite Tom to
respond.
The first has to do with my observation that every forensic medical
professional who has examined the autopsy evidence has concurred that JFK
had been shot twice from behind. Tom rebutted that statement by
mentioning Doug Horne working for the ARRB having come to a different
conclusion. I completely blanked out on the name Doug Horne, forgetting
that he had authored a five volume publication in which he resurrected
David Lifton's comical theory that JFK's body had been surgically altered
prior to autopsy. I took Tom's statement to mean that Doug Horne had been
hired as a medical examiner for the ARRB and I'm sure many listeners got
the same impression. In fact, every source I have googled indicates that
Doug Horne was the chief MILITARY analyst for the ARRB. Since the autopsy
was performed by Army and Navy personnel at Bethesda, it fell under
Horne's jurisdiction, but that in no way indicates he is a qualified
medical examiner. None of the sources I have looked at even identifies him
as a doctor of any kind. So my question to Tom is this. Do you know of
medical qualifications Horne has which are not mentioned by any other
source, were you trying to mislead the listerners, or did you just not
know any better?
The other had to do with Tom's accusations that the late President Gerald
Ford was a crook who should have died in prison. I wish at the time I had
remembered what took place back in 2001. I would have asked Tom if he knew
what the Profiles in Courage Award was. It is presented by the John F.
Kennedy Library to public servants who make courageous decisions
disregarding the political fallout. Ford was presented this award for his
controversial pardon of Richard Nixon in 1974. While historian's might
argue whether or not it was the right thing to do, there is no doubt that
Ford did it because he believed it was the best thing for the country and
knowing full well he would suffer politically for it. It likely cost him
the Presidential election in 1976. Sen. Edward Kennedy, Caroline Kennedy,
and JFK Jr mad the presentation. The citation read as follows:
"For more than a quarter century, Gerald Ford proved to the people of
Michigan, the Congress, and our nation that politics can be a noble
profession," said Caroline Kennedy in presenting the Profile in Courage
Award to the former president. "As President, he made a controversial
decision of conscience to pardon former president Nixon and end the
national trauma of Watergate. In doing so, he placed his love of country
ahead of his own political future."
So, Tom, do you believe the Kennedy clan would have presented such a
prestigous award to a man they believed was complicit in the cover up of
the assasination of President John F. Kennedy? Obviously, the Kennedys
have a much different perspective on President Ford than you do.
pdoherty76
I heard the debates and I thought your performance was laughable.
One of the highlights for me was:
Rossley: What do you think about the secret service stealing JFK's
body at gunpoint?
Bigdog: Yes, that probably wasn't the wisest thing to do.
LOL
There were other great moments. Notably:
Bigdog: [for the umpteenth time doesn't know about a piece of
evidence that Rossley mentions]
Rossley: It's in the volumes you haven't read, John.
I must thank you for providing me with such a great comedy radio
show. I haven't had this much fun since, oh, the last time Rossley
destroyed a lone nutter.
Lt.Bullitt
>
1. Horne took testimony from people who were trying to remember what took
place 30 plus years previously, and created a massive conspiracy out of
it. The whole story about Horne is on Mcadams site.
2. Was JFK's body really taken at "gunpoint?" I heard that O'Donnell,
Powers, & O'Brien were arguing with Earl Rose & Judge Ward about it, and
finally just took control because they knew Jackie wasn't leaving dallas
without the body. DA Wade had no problems with it.
3. bigdog has plenty enough knowledge to debate Rossley. IMO he justs
needs to be a little more forceful, like he is here.
John Blubaugh
Chuck Schuyler
> I heard the debates and I thought your performance was laughable.
>
> One of the highlights for me was:
>
> Rossley: What do you think about the secret service stealing JFK's
> body at gunpoint?
> Bigdog: Yes, that probably wasn't the wisest thing to do.
>
> LOL
>
> There were other great moments. Notably:
>
> Bigdog: [for the umpteenth time doesn't know about a piece of
> evidence that Rossley mentions]
> Rossley: It's in the volumes you haven't read, John.
>
> I must thank you for providing me with such a great comedy radio
> show. I haven't had this much fun since, oh, the last time Rossley
> destroyed a lone nutter.
Mrs. Rossley to the rescue. The old Tammy Wynette song, "Stand by Your
Man" comes to mind.
David Von Pein
Anybody who thinks Rossley came within 10 miles of winning this debate
with J. Corbett needs his or her head examined:
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/11/jfk-assassination-debate.html
The classic Rossley-ism for me was this:
Corbett (paraphrased) -- "If there was already one legitimate backyard
photo (as you readily admit there was), then why would the conspirators
feel a need to fake additional photos of the exact same thing?"
Rossley (after a long pause) -- "I don't know."
bigdog
>
Thank you again, Mrs. Rossley. You seem to think that accumulation of the
minutia of the assassination is more important than the ability to
logically fit the pieces of evidence together. As I stated at the start of
round one of the debate, I am not a researcher. I acknowledged from the
start that there are many people, including Rossley, who have read far
more about the assassination than I have. I didn't present myself as an
expert. What I stated from the outset was that I was a skeptic of the
skeptics.
In 1964, the Warren Commision presented a comprehensive explaination for
what happened during the weekend of 11/22/63. Their conclusions were
logically and all the pieces of evidence fit together. Since that time,
the critics have tried unsuccessfully to tear down the WCR. The original
report has stood the test of time. It has required no revisions. Compare
that to what the conspiracy theorists have offered us. Dozens of theories,
none of which has stood the test of time because none can stand up to the
scrutiny that the WCR has received. That is why new conspiracy theories
have to be developed as the old ones get rejected. As Rossley himself
admitted, he has no hard evidence of another shooter or hard evidence
Oswald was acting on behalf of anyone else. But we are supposed to reject
the logical findings of the WC, which were based on hard evidence and
replace them with wild assed theories created through smoke and mirrors.
My intention from the start was to expose the weakness of the conspiracy
theories. I did this my demanding that Rossley, do more than offer
criticisms of the original investigation and provide hard evidence of his
vague theories, something he failed miserably to do. A classic example of
this was Rossley's claim that three different guns were used in the Tippit
murder and to support this, he pointed to private correspondence he had
with Robert Paterniti, formerly of the FBI. I exposed his lame argument by
pointing out that Paterniti himself had told Rossley that he couldn't make
a positive judgement about the shells from a single photograph and that
the only way to make such a judgement was by examining the actual shells
under a microscope, something Paterniti had never done as I force Rossley
to admit. He had no choice since this information came from his own
website. I further went on to point out how ludicrous it would be to think
that three different shooters shot Tippit, even though all but one witness
said there was one gunman, and that each of these three shooters all went
over and discarded one or two shells in the shrubbery at 10th and Patton
were the shells were found. I'm not sure, but I thought I heard Anton
Batey chuckling about that one. Of course, Rossley had no explaination for
that. Would you care to take a crack at it. Or are you like every other CT
who takes potshots at the WCR without ever offering anything better, or
even half as good, in its place?
jas
>
> I heard the debates and I thought your performance was laughable.
>
> One of the highlights for me was:
>
> Rossley: What do you think about the secret service stealing JFK's
> body at gunpoint?
> Bigdog: Yes, that probably wasn't the wisest thing to do.
Yeah, your point?
The "stealing of the body" as it pertains to Buffer allegation of a
conspiracy is one of the most overblown Buff talking points of the entire
case.
The truth of the matter is, Jackie didn't want to leave without the body,
and LBJ didn't want to leave without Jackie, but feeling they needed to
get to the plane ASAP and back to Washington because at the time they had
no idea whether the assassination was a coup in progress and there may be
more attacks, they went with the decision to take the casket out of there
and get airborne quickly.
That, coupled with the highly unusual nature of the assassination, and the
highly charged and extremely emotional atmosphere of the moment -- as well
as considering Jackie's feelings -- JFK's aides wanted leave Dallas, fast.
They, in effect, wanted to "get the hell out Dodge."
True, removing the body without an autopsy was technically against Texas
law, but under the extreme circumstances of the murder of the president of
the United States, the aides went with their gut feelings.
Had I been one of JFK's aides I would have done the same thing.
> LOL
>
> There were other great moments. Notably:
>
> Bigdog: [for the umpteenth time doesn't know about a piece of
> evidence that Rossley mentions]
> Rossley: It's in the volumes you haven't read, John.
First off, Rossley wasn't mentioning "evidence" most of the time, he was
spewing out speculative Buffermania allegations. Of course there's no hard
evidence, most of it is made up, and if not, then improperly embellished
to look conspiratorial.
Secondly, what is it with the Buffermania allegation that, because someone
didn't read all the volumes of the Warren Commission and HSCA, they are
somehow ignorant to the facts of the assassination and therefore couldn't
possibly see there was a conspiracy? This is what I call the "you're not
an expert" argument, and it is incredibly lame.
The case has been scrutinized up, down, and sideways thoroughly for 47
years -- some of it over-scrutinized to ad nauseum -- with voluminous
numbers of pro- and anti-conspiracy books, articles, and documentaries
already addressing both sides. One would have to be locked in a concrete
bunker with no outside contact for the past 50 years to not understand the
facts of the case, pro and anti-conspiracy, just from the case bombarding
us in media.
I haven't read all the volumes either, just the 880 pg. Warren Report, but
I have read enough conspiracy and LN books to acquire enough knowledge of
the case through the years to understand the talking points of both sides,
and come to my own knowledgeable conclusions.
And with the technology of the Internet, when some Buffer comes up with
yet another conspiracy theory, or a different take on already debated
conspiracy idea, there are so many resources to get answers that one
doesn't have to read and study the volumes -- they can study on the fly,
including looking it up in the actual volumes if necessary.
As John said in the interview, the volumes are more of a reference if you
want to use them, like an encyclopedia, but they are not required reading.
> I must thank you for providing me with such a great comedy radio
> show. I haven't had this much fun since, oh, the last time Rossley
> destroyed a lone nutter.
Rossley destroying an Lner? What other jokes you got up your sleeve?
Anthony Marsh
> finally just took control because they knew Jackie wasn't leaving dallas
> without the body. DA Wade had no problems with it.
>
Yes, the Secret Service drew their guns.
HistorianDetective
RE: > One of the highlights for me was:
> Rossley: What do you think about the secret service stealing JFK's
> body at gunpoint?
> Bigdog: Yes, that probably wasn't the wisest thing to do.
>
> LOL
>
I'm also laughing at the question, as any JFK Assassination buff should
know that the body was not stolen; that no illegal act was performed in
that regard. The SS agents were given the written go ahead from a Texas
authority.
I disagree with Bigdog in that I believe it may very well have been the
wisest thing to do. It involved a US President and laws were outdated
regarding the assassination of one. Those outdated laws created chaos. The
WC recommended new legislature and Congress abided by passing new laws and
making the assassination of the president a federal crime.
Or perhaps you would like to revert our current laws back to what they
were in 1963?
JM/HD
PS...Bottomline. It was a lame question, along with being inaccurate.
Anthony Marsh
> On Dec 2, 6:39 am, pdoherty76<pdohert...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> I heard the debates and I thought your performance was laughable.
>>
>> One of the highlights for me was:
>>
>> Rossley: What do you think about the secret service stealing JFK's
>> body at gunpoint?
>> Bigdog: Yes, that probably wasn't the wisest thing to do.
>
> Yeah, your point?
>
> The "stealing of the body" as it pertains to Buffer allegation of a
> conspiracy is one of the most overblown Buff talking points of the entire
> case.
>
> The truth of the matter is, Jackie didn't want to leave without the body,
> and LBJ didn't want to leave without Jackie, but feeling they needed to
> get to the plane ASAP and back to Washington because at the time they had
> no idea whether the assassination was a coup in progress and there may be
> more attacks, they went with the decision to take the casket out of there
> and get airborne quickly.
>
Exactly. If this WERE a nuclear attack, every single second could be
crucial. That's why they waited on the tarmac for 20 minutes for LBJ to
be sworn in as President.
> That, coupled with the highly unusual nature of the assassination, and the
> highly charged and extremely emotional atmosphere of the moment -- as well
> as considering Jackie's feelings -- JFK's aides wanted leave Dallas, fast.
> They, in effect, wanted to "get the hell out Dodge."
>
> True, removing the body without an autopsy was technically against Texas
> law, but under the extreme circumstances of the murder of the president of
> the United States, the aides went with their gut feelings.
>
> Had I been one of JFK's aides I would have done the same thing.
>
Hell, had you been one of JFK's aides you would have poisoned him.
Anthony Marsh
How can you fit the pieces together when you don't know the evidence?
Anthony Marsh
To link Oswald to the Communists. I don't think he was holding up the
Communist newspapers in the photo with him holding the rifle over his
head. But maybe you can prove me wrong.
David Von Pein
>>> "To link Oswald to the Communists." <<<
And they couldn't do that with just a SINGLE legit photo of LHO, eh?
The stupid photo-fakers required THREE--or four--or five, or whatever.
Right?
Ridic.
David Von Pein
>>> "To link Oswald to the Communists." <<<
And Oswald's REAL defection to Russia and his REAL radio debates in
Aug. '63 (where LHO talks freely about his support for COMMUNIST
Castro and the FPCC) wouldn't suffice in this regard, right Tony?
The goofball plotters decided they needed photos to "link Oswald to
the Communists", right?
Ridic.
David Von Pein
I always get a kick out of the CTers who think it was wrong (or illegal in
some way) for the FBI to get involved in the JFK assassination
investigation so quickly (and thus take the evidence from Dallas to
Washington for further study).
But the President of the United States had just been killed....and while
it was not technically a FEDERAL crime, does anyone in their right mind
actually think that the FEDERAL Bureau of Investigation was just going to
step aside and stay completely out of the investigation of the murder of
the PRESIDENT? That's nuts.
Of course the FBI was going to get involved in the case--and quickly. And
that's what happened. Nothing sinister. Nothing unusual about that
whatsoever. The kooks just want somebody to blame as "cover-up agents" --
and Hoover's agency will do just fine for those conspiracy kooks of the
world.
But to think that the FBI, with all of its manpower and resources, would
have just sat by on its collective ass and watched the local Dallas
authorities handle the entire case from start to finish is just plain
silly.
Chuck Schuyler
wrote:
>
> I'm also laughing at the question, as any JFK Assassination buff should
> know that the body was not stolen; that no illegal act was performed in
> that regard. The SS agents were given the written go ahead from a Texas
> authority.
>
> I disagree with Bigdog in that I believe it may very well have been the
> wisest thing to do. It involved a US President and laws were outdated
> regarding the assassination of one. Those outdated laws created chaos. The
> WC recommended new legislature and Congress abided by passing new laws and
> making the assassination of the president a federal crime.
>
> Or perhaps you would like to revert our current laws back to what they
> were in 1963?
It's another classic "heads we win, tails you lose" open-ended question
for the CTs to smugly trot out and demand a neat answer to. If the JFK's
body had stayed in Texas for an autopsy, CTs would find something sinister
with the good 'ol boy LBJ controlled red-necks performing the procedure.
They'd argue that one reason the "hit" occurred in Dallas was so the
autopsy could be monitored and dominated far away from Washington D.C.
where JFK had political allies that would've kept the examination on the
up-and-up.
It's an endless game for the CTs.
pdoherty76
>
You are either a skeptic or you aren't. You haven't displayed the
slightest iota of skepticism toward the official story. The fact that you
can casually dismiss the proven destruction of evidence and the taking of
the body, bith illegally, tells us everything we need to know.
The idea that you can debate someone like rossley seriously when you
haven't even read the volumes is laughable. As Rossley put it "Would you
work with an umpire that hadn't read the rule book?"
Anthony Marsh
Not if just one single legit photo of LHO didn't show him holding
Communist newspapers.
I never said the backyard photos were fakes. You asked why someone would
want to fake them. That is one reason.
jas
.
>
> > The truth of the matter is, Jackie didn't want to leave without the body,
> > and LBJ didn't want to leave without Jackie, but feeling they needed to
> > get to the plane ASAP and back to Washington because at the time they had
> > no idea whether the assassination was a coup in progress and there may be
> > more attacks, they went with the decision to take the casket out of there
> > and get airborne quickly.
>
> Exactly. If this WERE a nuclear attack, every single second could be
> crucial. That's why they waited on the tarmac for 20 minutes for LBJ to
> be sworn in as President.
Your point? They needed a judge to administer the oath, or, didn't you
know that?
That day was chaos. Things were decided on the fly. If you think you could
have planned a better departure in that short time after the murder of the
president AND quickly swear in a new president, you're nuts.
> > That, coupled with the highly unusual nature of the assassination, and the
> > highly charged and extremely emotional atmosphere of the moment -- as well
> > as considering Jackie's feelings -- JFK's aides wanted leave Dallas, fast.
> > They, in effect, wanted to "get the hell out Dodge."
>
> > True, removing the body without an autopsy was technically against Texas
> > law, but under the extreme circumstances of the murder of the president of
> > the United States, the aides went with their gut feelings.
>
> > Had I been one of JFK's aides I would have done the same thing.
>
> Hell, had you been one of JFK's aides you would have poisoned him.
I'll leave this last comment for the public to be amused by, and as a
testament to your sometimes eloquent, delightful, and brilliant posts.
Anthony Marsh
>
> I always get a kick out of the CTers who think it was wrong (or
> illegal in some way) for the FBI to get involved in the JFK
> assassination investigation so quickly (and thus take the evidence
> from Dallas to Washington for further study).
>
As usual you will distort history to protect the government at all
costs. Police departments routinely send evidence to the FBI lab to be
examined by the FBI experts. And in such a high profile case as this it
was common sense.
> But the President of the United States had just been killed....and
> while it was not technically a FEDERAL crime, does anyone in their
> right mind actually think that the FEDERAL Bureau of Investigation was
> just going to step aside and stay completely out of the investigation
> of the PRESIDENT? That's nuts.
>
Could be that they were ORDERED to investigate this case by the
President of the United States.
> OF COURSE the FBI was going to get involved in the case--and quickly.
> And that's what happened. Nothing sinister. Nothing unusual about that
> whatsoever. The kooks just want somebody to blame as "cover-up agents"
> -- and Hoover's agency will do just fine for those conspiracy kooks of
> the world.
>
The FBI will do nicely as a cover-up agency since that is their business.
> But to think that the FBI, with all of its manpower and resources,
> would have just sat by on its collective ass and watched the local
> Dallas authorities handle the entire case from start to finish is just
> plain silly.
>
Explain why the CIA and NSA had a mandate to investigate this case from
12:30 PM CST 11/22/63.
Anthony Marsh
Show me that written go ahead. You are making up crap again unhistorian.
> I disagree with Bigdog in that I believe it may very well have been the
> wisest thing to do. It involved a US President and laws were outdated
> regarding the assassination of one. Those outdated laws created chaos. The
> WC recommended new legislature and Congress abided by passing new laws and
> making the assassination of the president a federal crime.
>
> Or perhaps you would like to revert our current laws back to what they
> were in 1963?
>
What's wrong with the original law against treason?
bigdog
The most ridiculous part of Tony's accusation that that photos were
planted to tie Oswald to the Communists was that the WC then proceeded to
conclude that he acted alone. I guess they didn't get the game plan.
bigdog
I am.
> You haven't displayed the
> slightest iota of skepticism toward the official story.
Yes I have and the official story as stood up to 46 years of skepticisim
and has required no revisions. The official story fits the evidence and
the evidence all fits together in a cohesive conclusion. None of those
things can be said about any conspiracy theory that has been trotted out.
> The fact that you
> can casually dismiss the proven destruction of evidence and the taking of
> the body, bith illegally, tells us everything we need to know.
>
The fact is that no large scale human endeavor is ever without flaws and
there is no reason to believe the investigation into the assassination of
JFK should be. It would be nice if everyone had acted perfectly in the
wake of the crime, but that didn't happen. So we have two choices, we can
throw up our hands, say "they fucked up, we can never know what happened"
or we can look at the entire body of evidence, most of which is not
tainted, and try to figure things out with what we do have, taking into
account whatever errors were made in the process. Did you ever stop and
think that if any CT was able to come up with a plausible alternative to
the WCR, their story will have the same problems with the investigative
errors.
> The idea that you can debate someone like rossley seriously when you
> haven't even read the volumes is laughable. As Rossley put it "Would you
> work with an umpire that hadn't read the rule book?"
It is hardly necessary to acquaint oneself with the minutia of the JFK
assassination in order to be informed about it. It certainly isn't
necessary to shoot down the conspiracy theories as many of us have been
demonstrating on this forum for years. The WCR presented us with a
comprehensive and completely logical account of what happened on 11/22/63.
Their story fits the evidence and all the evidence fits together. Are we
really supposed to discard that in favor of a nebulous theories that don't
fit the evidence and don't reach a logical conclusion. Those of us who are
skeptical of the conspiracy theories are simply telling the CTs, if you
want us to reject the WCR, give us something better. After 46 years we are
still waiting.
Yes, people like Tom Rossley are extremely well read about the JFK
assassination. Unfortunately, they are unable to take all that knowledge
and put it together into a plausible theory. They are working with the
same knowledge base as the WC did plus additional information that has
been learned in the decades since and still can't come up with anything as
rational as the WCR. The ultimate irony is that Tom has title his website
whokilledjfk and with all his knowledge he still can't tell us who killed
JFK.
timstter
Huh? Kennedy's closest White House aides, like Kenny O'Donnell, were
leading the charge to take the coffin back to Washington.
Was Kenny O'Donnell in on the conspiracy to cover up JFK's murder,
Doherty? LOL!
Read a decent book like DEATH OF A PRESIDENT and don't waste your time
with nonsense found at Rossley's website.
Helpful Regards,
Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup(s) Commentator*
Anthony Marsh
Again, not my theory. You asked hypothetical why someone would do it.
How many Americans listened to his radio debates as compared to how many
saw him on the cover of LIFE holding the murder weapon and a Communist
newspaper?
Anthony Marsh
I made no such allegation. All I did was answer someone's hypothetical
question about why anyone WOULD want to fake the photos. You have a
habit of not understanding and/or misrepresenting.
curtjester1
Tom should have said that LHO said that the photo was superimposed
which meant someone was taking a half a body of one photo and putting
onto another one. And to the one 'legit' photo, how can it be a legit
one with that fake square chin?
CJ
bigdog
>
I must say, I'm a little disappointed that Rossley hasn't responded to the
OP, which I invited him to do. It was an opportunity to clarify things he
claimed during our debate. He seems to be MIA since 11/29. Perhaps he
needed a little R&R after the grilling he went through.
bigdog
Maybe you could take Rossley's place on the next debate. Or better
yet, how about a tag team match?
It sounds like you were disappointed in Rossley's performance. Don't
be too hard on him. He was playing a weak hand.