How to spot a hopeless CTer
davidemerling
in my opinion, determine whether an individual is a HOPELESS conspiracy
theorist.
1. OSWALD DID NOT TAKE ANY SHOTS AT THE PRESIDENT.
Regardless as to WHO they think was the architect of the assassination
plot ... regardless of how MANY shooters they think were involved ... IF
they believe that Oswald was NOT one of those shooters ... they are
hopeless. I consider this the most important point. In fact, I consider it
SO important (and obvious) that if an individual will not stipulate to the
FACT that, at a minimum, Oswald was ONE of the shooters - I will not waste
my time with such an individual. It's a complete waste of time debating
such foolish people.
As Vincent Bugliosi said, "I can tell the readers of this book
('Reclaiming History') that if anyone in the future maintains to them that
Oswald was just a patsy and did not kill Kennedy, that person is either
unaware of the evidence against Oswald or simply a very silly person.
Indeed, any denial of Oswald's guilt is not worthy of serious discussion."
I couldn't agree more.
In this forum, we obvious have many people who are VERY aware of the
evidence against Oswald, yet, they believe that Oswald was innocent. Silly
people, indeed. (That's according to Vincent Bugliosi - I have to remind
the moderators that I am not specifically calling any individual "silly" -
I'm simply stating how BUGLIOSI characterizes them. The fact that I happen
to agree is another issue.)
2. OSWALD DID NOT KILL OFFICER TIPPIT.
Actually, the case against Oswald as Officer Tippit's killer is probably
stronger. Yet, surprisingly, many of these "silly people" persist in
taking the preposterous position that Oswald was innocent of this crime.
Let me give you an example of how silly it can get. Read this transcript
of a segment of the radio debate between Tom Rossley and John Corbett if
you want to be entertained to the ridiculous heights some will go to in an
attempt to exonerate Oswald of Tippit's killing. The implications of what
Rossley asserts are astounding. Tippit was shot by THREE DIFFERENT
SHOOTERS! That's ridiculous on its face - well - to most people with
common sense, that is.
But, the *truly* entertaining part is how loose Rossley plays with the
word "official" when he is challenged. Corbett asks Rossley if something
is an "official record" regarding the statement of an FBI ballistics
expert. Rossley says the statement is the FBI experts "official view."
Tricky use of the word "official", huh? When pressed further, Rossley
states that the expert was in an "official capacity". Again, he makes
liberal use of the word "official" - but can't bring himself to state that
it is an "official RECORD." He knows it's not but that doesn't prevent him
from squirming.
It all starts at 0:45 into the third segment of the debate:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oYuUv3RspDUn
Rossley: Do you want to talk about the shells found at the Tippit
murder? (Rossley picks the topic so, apparently, he is prepared.)
Corbett: Go ahead.
Rossley: They came from three different weapons.
Corbett: (laughing) OK - tell us how you established that, Tom.
Rossley: By the guy who taught ballistics at Quantico, Virginia, my
friend. He used to be a regular in my chat room. (This is where
Rossley obviously wanted to go.)
Corbett: OK, here's the thing, when the firing pin hits the primer ...
Rossley: (interrupting) I know how it works!
Corbett: The FBI determined ...
Rossley: (interrupting) I'm giving you a statement from the guy who
*taught* the FBI. You're not listening, John.
Corbett: Is that an official record, Tom?
Rossley: Yes - it is. It's in his wording and it's on my website. His
name is Robert Paterniti.
Host (Anton Batey): I want to ask Mr. Rossley a question real quick.
Mr. Rossley, some of the things you're saying - the only people who
will understand what you're saying are people who are deeply involved
in the Kennedy assassination. If you don't mind - if you could dumb
down some of the stuff that you say just so people can understand
where you're coming from. When you talk about the three different
shots and we talk about the person who is training the FBI ... (I get
the feeling the Anton is trying to save Rossley from himself.)
Rossley: (interrupting) Robert Paterniti! He used to train FBI agents
in ballistics.
Host (Anton Batey): OK
Rossley: All shells came from three different weapons.
Host (Anton Batey): So, you're saying that there's three different
shooters who killed Tippit?
Rossley: That's what three different weapons represents - doesn't it?
Moderator: Yes.
Rossley: (condescending tone) Very good. Very good.
Corbett: First of all, Tom ...
Rossley: (interrupting) I lied again - huh?
Corbett: Tom, you are always admonishing people on the forum for not
using official records. Are you claiming what this FBI agent told you
is an official record?
Rossley: Yes. Do you want to challenge that he taught ballistics at
Quantico?
Corbett: I'm not challenging his credentials. I'm asking you ...
Rossley: (interrupting) His credentials are there.
Corbett: (continuing) OK - his credentials are there. I'm saying, what
he told you, is that an official record?
Rossley: That's his official view, my friend. Yes ... and it's in
writing.
Corbett: Well, you have a strange concept of what constitutes official
records.
Rossley: Really?
Corbett: If I threw something out that either isn't in the Warren
Commission's 26 volumes, or, I can't cite chapter and verse where it
came from, you'd throw it back in my face and say 'That's not an
official record,' but somebody tells you, that isn't under oath, that
becomes an official record in your eyes. Is that the standard?
Rossley: Said in an official capacity, my friend.
Corbett: Well, what he told you, first of all, is not an official
record. It's something you go second hand.
Rossley: No.
Corbett: I know nothing about this guy's credentials.
Rossley: It's on the website, sir.
Corbett: All we know is what you've told us about him. But it's
certainly - what he told you - is not in any official record. The
official testimony was presented to the Warren Commission first by the
FBI. The FBI examined it. The shells found at the scene of the Tippit
murder - which Oswald dumped on the ground - were determined to have
only come from the revolver he had in his possession at the time he
was arrested.
Rossley: Another lie! (pause) That's another lie.
* * * * *
In summary, discussions with an individual who thinks there is no evidence
of Oswald taking shots at the presidential limousine because, supposedly,
all the evidence was manufactured, falsified, tainted, and planted -AND-
in addition, they assert that it cannot be proven that Oswald killed
Officer Tippit (because, maybe, THREE people committed that murder) - you
are truly wasting your time.
You might as well be trying to teach a fish to skip rope.
David Emerling
Memphis, TN
Chuck Schuyler
Even Barb Junkkarinen isn't sure Oswald killed Tippit. She does admit it's
most likely he did--but she isn't sure. My personal opinion is that if you
can't get yourself to admit Oswald killed Tippit (the evidence Oswald
killed Tippit is overwhelming), you're hopelessly mired in mud.
David Von Pein
The riotous part of Rossley's "three shooter" nonsense regarding the
Tippit murder is that Rossley doesn't have ANY of the three gun-toting
killers being Oswald.
In a case where there's no doubt at all that Oswald was the LONE
killer of Tippit, Rossley has created a remarkable fantasy that has
triple the killers, and STILL he can't admit Oswald was one of them.
Silly is too mild a term for such crackpottery.
curtjester1
I find LN'er Hyperbole always mired in a Pig Roll.
CJ
markusp
Thanks, David, and I frankly agree with you. I'll easily allow for Oswald
firing from the SN, and without question, I believe he shot Tippit.
However, how do you reconcile Dr. Burkley's claim, throught his attorney,
that others were involved in JFK's murder? Does he carry credibility
within the LN frame of thought?
~Mark
davidemerling
> Thanks, David, and I frankly agree with you. I'll easily allow for Oswald
> firing from the SN, and without question, I believe he shot Tippit.
> However, how do you reconcile Dr. Burkley's claim, throught his attorney,
> that others were involved in JFK's murder? Does he carry credibility
> within the LN frame of thought?
>
> ~Mark
OK - *now* we can have a debate that is SOMEWHAT intelligent.
Unquestionably, Oswald was the sniper's nest shooter and the one who
gunned down Officer Tippit. If you want to postulate that it was STILL a
conspiracy - we can begin by stipulating, at a minimum, Oswald was a part
of that conspiracy and played a role as a Dealey Plaza gunman. And, for
some reason that only Oswald can know for sure, he felt the need to shoot
Officer Tippit in plain view of anybody who had the opportunity to
observe.
I don't know what to make of Burkley's off the record statement (through
his attorney, William Illig) that he had evidence that Kennedy was a
victim of assassins IN ADDITION to Oswald. The HSCA never took his
statement on this matter and only wanted a statement from him that was
clearly intended to refute David Lifton's body theft/ alteration theory.
I can only assume that since Burkley was NOT the doctor who was mostly
involved with the president's wounds, there was really no reason he would
have more to add that was no already known. Even if his interpretation of
the medical evidence would indicate that there were more than one gunman -
it would contradict the conclusions of THREE doctors who had better
knowledge. Burkley's testimony would be received with a shrug of the
shoulders, no doubt. Ample testimony had already been obtained by doctors
(both Parkland and Bethesda) who had much more intimate and detailed
knowledge of the president's wounds. Certainly, Burkley could not possibly
have added MORE in this regard.
Nonetheless, being the president's personal physician, it is curious why
this was not pursued. I can't answer that question.
Perhaps Burkley had something to add that was NOT medically related that
indicated more than one shooter. It's puzzling that he would not have
voluntarily offered this information much early. Why would he wait for the
HSCA investigation, over 15 years after the assassination?
It's an interesting question - indeed. There is no shortage of puzzling
things in this case. What it "proves" that Burkley never got the
opportunity to make this statement - I'm not sure.
Maybe somebody can more to this than I know.
David Emerling
Memphis, TN
bigdog
He would if he would explain why he believes that and produced some
credible evidence. Until then, he is just another CT with an unfounded
theory.
bigdog
theoretically possible that Oswald was the shooter but a conspiracy was
behind him. The physical evidence in such a case would be exactly the same
as it is with Oswald as a lone assassin. But such an argument would
require that they produce some evidence that establishes a link between
Oswald and his accomplices. That seems to be an impossibility so they take
the easy way out. Instead of having to produce evidence of accomplices,
they resort to the tactic of arguing for Oswald's innocence, which only
requires them to attack the evidence of his guilt rather than produce any
evidence of their own.
This is what I set out to demonstrate in my debate with Rossley. Virtually
everything in the CT arsenal consists of rebuttal of the evidence against
Oswald, not producing any evidence that anyone else was involved. I feel I
accomplished that and was amazed that I actually got Rossley to admit he
had no evidence of anyone else's involvement.
markusp
> Perhaps Burkley had something to add that was NOT medically related that
> indicated more than one shooter. It's puzzling that he would not have
> voluntarily offered this information much early. Why would he wait for the
> HSCA investigation, over 15 years after the assassination?
>
> It's an interesting question - indeed. There is no shortage of puzzling
> things in this case. What it "proves" that Burkley never got the
> opportunity to make this statement - I'm not sure.
I appreciate your perspective. Generally, we can pick out right away when
someone comes forward with "new information" after so many years because
they simply are cashing in. With Burkley, it doesn't appear that way, and
speculation can go in several directions. Also, people attempting to
exonerate Oswald must have some internal doubts about whether he truly was
innocent. Thanks!
~Mark
John Canal
davidemerling says...
Burkley....just like about two dozen other, mostly medically trained
eyewitnesses, INCLUDING THE AUTOPSISTS, knew there was a wound larger than
the entry in the BOH.
That said, while the autopsists concluded correctly this damage was caused
by one bullet entering the back of JFK's head, Burkley (evidently) and the
others ASSUMED the larger--than the entry--BOH wound was the result of
another shooter. That's undoubtedly why they didn't take his testimony.
Look, "they" (probably Burkley calling the shots) acted responsibly during
the autopsy and never photographed the back of JFK's head (BOH) when the
body was first received...they didn't want armchair forensic specialists
to think there had been another shooter and a conspiracy. IOW, they did
what they thought was in the nation's best interest.
Years later we've found out (it's rather obvious if you'll study the
medical evidence in its entirety) there was indeed a BOH wound (besides
the entry) and that the autopsy understated and didn't photograph
it......as a result, some (evidently Burkley included)assume that
"cover-up" was part of an assassination plot...while others realize the
purpose of that "cover-up" was not sinister.
While there's an abundance of evidence that shows there was such a BOH
wound, the best evidence is Humes' own WC testimony. He cleverly and
innocuously, admitted they saw cerebellum when the body was first
received. I believe he was going against orders to not describe any wound
(such as a BOH one) that even suggested there might have been a frontal
shot. That's why he said there was damage to the "flocculus" (which most
don't know is part of the cerebellum)...instead of just coming out and
saying "cerebellum".
Humes', in spite of orders not to alarm the public, wanted to be
truthful....and he was.
Of course you realize that there's no way they could have seen cerebellum
unless there was a BOH wound (larger than the entry). Note also that the
lower margin of such a wound would have to have been down near the EOP and
that's consistent with what many of the eyewitnesses described.
Besides, Humes, there were 10 other eyewitnesses who said they saw
cerebellum.
Sorry to interupt...but just wanted to get my 1.5 cents worth in.
P.S. this "benign" cover-up incompassed much more than just the BOH wound.
:-)
--
John Canal
jca...@webtv.net
Anthony Marsh
> Those who want to argue for a conspiracy have a tough hill to climb. It is
> theoretically possible that Oswald was the shooter but a conspiracy was
> behind him. The physical evidence in such a case would be exactly the same
> as it is with Oswald as a lone assassin. But such an argument would
> require that they produce some evidence that establishes a link between
> Oswald and his accomplices. That seems to be an impossibility so they take
> the easy way out. Instead of having to produce evidence of accomplices,
> they resort to the tactic of arguing for Oswald's innocence, which only
> requires them to attack the evidence of his guilt rather than produce any
> evidence of their own.
>
Yet another WC defender comes forward to admit that it was a conspiracy
and others were behind Oswald. Refreshing.
Anthony Marsh
Could be because he saw wounds in the front of the head that the autopsy
doctors did not document.
> Nonetheless, being the president's personal physician, it is curious why
> this was not pursued. I can't answer that question.
>
Hmm, it's called a COVER-UP. Gee, that was a tough one.
Bud
If I remember, Burkley was having a business lunch with his tax lawyer
when the subject of the assassination came up. Seems Burkley said some
things that the lawyer (apparently a buff) felt was conspiratorial. Where
can you go with this without Burkley`s imput? Guess at what he siad and
what he meant?
> ~Mark
John McAdams
>On Jan 11, 1:35=A0pm, markusp <markina...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Jan 10, 9:24=A0pm, davidemerling <davidemerl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> Thanks, David, and I frankly agree with you. I'll easily allow for Oswald
>> firing from the SN, and without question, I believe he shot Tippit.
>> However, how do you reconcile Dr. Burkley's claim, throught his attorney,
>> that others were involved in JFK's murder? Does he carry credibility
>> within the LN frame of thought?
>
> If I remember, Burkley was having a business lunch with his tax lawyer
>when the subject of the assassination came up. Seems Burkley said some
>things that the lawyer (apparently a buff) felt was conspiratorial. Where
>can you go with this without Burkley`s imput? Guess at what he siad and
>what he meant?
>
Researcher Paul Hoch reported his newsletter Echoes of Conspiracy
(Vol. 9, No. 1, May 31, 1987) that "Dr. Burkley recently told a
relative of his that he did think that Oswald must have been part of a
conspiracy, because the way he and his family lived and traveled was
indicative of financial support."
.John
--
The Kennedy Assassination Home Page
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Bud
Theres some real insight based on his intimate knowledge of the
case.
davidemerling
> Researcher Paul Hoch reported his newsletter Echoes of Conspiracy
> (Vol. 9, No. 1, May 31, 1987) that "Dr. Burkley recently told a
> relative of his that he did think that Oswald must have been part of a
> conspiracy, because the way he and his family lived and traveled was
> indicative of financial support."
>
> .John
That's it? He simply had an opinion of a conspiracy based on the way
"his family lived"?
I was thinking it would have been something medical. After all, he's a
doctor. I don't think Dr. Burkley could have discovered anything about
the details of the Oswald family that was not already investigated and
known by the Warren investigators and FBI.
David Emerling
Memphis, TN
John Canal
Bud says...
>
>On Jan 11, 1:35=A0pm, markusp <markina...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Jan 10, 9:24=A0pm, davidemerling <davidemerl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > With regards to the Kennedy assassination, there are 2 basic points tha=
>t,
>> > in my opinion, determine whether an individual is a HOPELESS conspiracy
>> > theorist.
>>
>> > 1. OSWALD DID NOT TAKE ANY SHOTS AT THE PRESIDENT.
>>
>> > Regardless as to WHO they think was the architect of the assassination
>F
>> > they believe that Oswald was NOT one of those shooters ... they are
> it
>> > SO important (and obvious) that if an individual will not stipulate to =
>the
>> > FACT that, at a minimum, Oswald was ONE of the shooters - I will not wa=
>ste
>> > my time with such an individual. It's a complete waste of time debating
>> > such foolish people.
>>
>> > As Vincent Bugliosi said, "I can tell the readers of this book
>hat
>> > Oswald was just a patsy and did not kill Kennedy, that person is either
>> > unaware of the evidence against Oswald or simply a very silly person.
>n."
>>
>> > I couldn't agree more.
>>
>> > In this forum, we obvious have many people who are VERY aware of the
>lly
>> > people, indeed. (That's according to Vincent Bugliosi - I have to remin=
>d
>> > the moderators that I am not specifically calling any individual "silly=
>" -
>> > I'm simply stating how BUGLIOSI characterizes them. The fact that I hap=
>pen
>> > to agree is another issue.)
>>
>> > 2. OSWALD DID NOT KILL OFFICER TIPPIT.
>>
>y
>> > stronger. Yet, surprisingly, many of these "silly people" persist in
>.
>>
>> > Let me give you an example of how silly it can get. Read this transcrip=
>t
>> > of a segment of the radio debate between Tom Rossley and John Corbett i=
>f
>> > you want to be entertained to the ridiculous heights some will go to in=
> an
>> > attempt to exonerate Oswald of Tippit's killing. The implications of wh=
>at
>> > Rossley asserts are astounding. Tippit was shot by THREE DIFFERENT
>> > SHOOTERS! That's ridiculous on its face - well - to most people with
>> > common sense, that is.
>>
>> > But, the *truly* entertaining part is how loose Rossley plays with the
>g
>> > is an "official record" regarding the statement of an FBI ballistics
>> > expert. Rossley says the statement is the FBI experts "official view."
>> > Tricky use of the word "official", huh? When pressed further, Rossley
>> > states that the expert was in an "official capacity". Again, he makes
>hat
>> > it is an "official RECORD." He knows it's not but that doesn't prevent =
>him
>> > from squirming.
>>
>> > It all starts at 0:45 into the third segment of the debate:
>>
>nce
>> > of Oswald taking shots at the presidential limousine because, supposedl=
>y,
>> > all the evidence was manufactured, falsified, tainted, and planted -AND=
>-
>> > in addition, they assert that it cannot be proven that Oswald killed
>ou
>> > are truly wasting your time.
>>
>> > You might as well be trying to teach a fish to skip rope.
>>
>> > David Emerling
>> > Memphis, TN
>>
>> Thanks, David, and I frankly agree with you. I'll easily allow for Oswald
>> firing from the SN, and without question, I believe he shot Tippit.
>> However, how do you reconcile Dr. Burkley's claim, throught his attorney,
>> that others were involved in JFK's murder? Does he carry credibility
>> within the LN frame of thought?
>
> If I remember, Burkley was having a business lunch with his tax lawyer
>when the subject of the assassination came up. Seems Burkley said some
>things that the lawyer (apparently a buff) felt was conspiratorial. Where
>can you go with this without Burkley`s imput? Guess at what he siad and
>what he meant?
Purdy wrote that Burkley told him he [Burkley] thought there was only one
shot to the head but conceded the possibility there had been two. [HSCA
Memo, August 17, 1977]
Burkley told McHugh that he didn't want to be quoted on whether or not he
agreed with the Warren Commission that just two bullets hit JFK. [Oral
History Interview for the John F. Kennedy Library, October 17, 1967]
For what little it's worth, I believe Burkley probably feared from the
start [unnecessarily, IMO], that due to the nature of JFK's wounds, it was
likely there had been multiple shooters....and, therefore, steered the
autopsy to prevent the fact from reaching the public that a wound larger
than the entry in the back of JFK's head existed....which, in turn,
strongly suggested there had been an assassination conspiracy. IOW,
considering the state of the cold war at the time, Burkley thought,
responsibly IMO, it would be in the nation's best interest not to hear
that there might have been a conspiracy to assassinate JFK.
--
John Canal
jca...@webtv.net
Anthony Marsh
You really can't blame Burkley too much. He was only a doctor, not a
ballistics wound expert. He couldn't do the mental gymnastics to figure
out how one shooter from behind could hit the President both in the back
and in the front. He had not taken that course at the CIA propaganda
school.
John Blubaugh
I wonder how McAdams would have handled someone starting a thread
about a hopeless nutter? I'll help, you, he wouldn't allow it to be
posted.
JB
davidemerling
> I wonder how McAdams would have handled someone starting a thread
> about a hopeless nutter? I'll help, you, he wouldn't allow it to be
> posted.
>
> JB
Well, why don't YOU write a post about how one can identify a "hopeless
LNer"?
Allow me to help you.
A "hopeless LNer" exhibits the following traits:
1. He does not pretend to be smarter than doctors, ballistic experts,
criminologists, and a host of other experts. And when experts disagree, he
makes a common sense discernment as to WHICH one is correct - usually
based on corroborating evidence or more advanced testing methods.
2. He is not so cynical and paranoid as to believe that virtually
EVERYBODY in a position of authority is either a liar, cover-up artist, or
an accomplice in the assassination plot. Further, he understands the
difference between lies, misunderstandings, misstatements, and outright
mistakes.
3. Finally, he rejects the notion that the ENTIRE mountain of evidence
indicating Oswald's guilt is ALL planted, manufactured, manipulated,
fabricated, or tainted - in some way.
David Emerling
Memphis, TN