The WC Easy Life

[mainframetech]

It's so easy to just sit back and go along with the tide and agree with
the Warren Commission findings. There's nothing more to do unless you
want to potshot at some dirty liberals crowing about conspiracy and put
them down with a few standard lines, like 'There's been no new evidence
for 50 years' and other inane stuff.

The real work and the effort, which is so much easier to avoid, is that
of investigating the case and bringing out the anomalies and the obvious
errors made in the many efforts to shut people up and get them singing the
party line.

If there were no conspiracy and Oswald did the whole thing all by his
incompetent self, we could all go back to our sitcoms and pizzas and relax
with nothing to bother us. The rewards of disconnecting.

Those that that take a sense of responsibility for things like the
conspiracy to murder JFK have the harder uphill job of finding the real
evidence and proving the case against the guilty and bring them to
justice, against the efforts of a small band of those trying to actually
change some evidence and destroy others.

I'd rather have the harder job.

Chris

[OHLeeRedux]

mainframetech

It's not as if your only choice is the JFK assassination or sitcoms and
pizza, Chris. There are real unsolved mysteries left to solve: Who was the
Zodiac killer? What happened to Amelia Earhart, Jimmy Hoffa, Judge Crater?
Why did Michael Jackson wear one glove?

And you could always volunteer at a homeless kitchen or be a Big Brother.

By the way, all LNs are not conservatives. I voted for Obama -- twice.

[Jason Burke]

On 1/31/2014 7:38 PM, mainframetech wrote:
> It's so easy to just sit back and go along with the tide and agree with
> the Warren Commission findings. There's nothing more to do unless you

'Cause, gee, they basically got it right, eh, Chris?

> want to potshot at some dirty liberals crowing about conspiracy and put
> them down with a few standard lines, like 'There's been no new evidence
> for 50 years' and other inane stuff.
>
> The real work and the effort, which is so much easier to avoid, is that
> of investigating the case and bringing out the anomalies and the obvious
> errors made in the many efforts to shut people up and get them singing the
> party line.

Sure you can find an anomalie or twelve when you focus on minutiae. But
look at the forest, Chris.

>
> If there were no conspiracy and Oswald did the whole thing all by his
> incompetent self, we could all go back to our sitcoms and pizzas and relax
> with nothing to bother us. The rewards of disconnecting.
>
> Those that that take a sense of responsibility for things like the
> conspiracy to murder JFK have the harder uphill job of finding the real
> evidence and proving the case against the guilty and bring them to
> justice, against the efforts of a small band of those trying to actually
> change some evidence and destroy others.
>
> I'd rather have the harder job.
>
> Chris
>

And, Chris, you're doing a darn fine job of wasting your time "full of
sound and fury, signifying nothing". Though I must admit, I did like
Lehrer's version better.

[TJCole]

Good on you Chris. me too. I was reading about JAMA's smear job on
Crenshaw last night and it made me sooo mad! You're on the right side of
history.

[Bud]

On Friday, January 31, 2014 10:38:30 PM UTC-5, mainframetech wrote:
> It's so easy to just sit back and go along with the tide and agree with
>
> the Warren Commission findings.

It`s easy to think of the people who agree with the Wc`s conclusions as
sheep and followers, and yourself as a courageous seeker of truth. But the
truth is the WC has the evidence to back up it`s conclusions and you
hobbyists have been doing nothing but shooting blanks for decades.

It`s never been about the WC. The WC didn`t make Oswald pose with the
murder weapon, or flee the scene of the crime or murder a police
officer.

> There's nothing more to do unless you
>
> want to potshot at some dirty liberals crowing about conspiracy and put
>
> them down with a few standard lines, like 'There's been no new evidence
>
> for 50 years' and other inane stuff.

You hobbyist have been scouring the evidence looking for justifications
for the things you desperately want to believe. It isn`t significant that
you have found the justification you crave, at least to your own
satisfaction.

> The real work and the effort,

Silly hobby. Like doing a crossword puzzle, but filling it in with
whatever letters suit your fancy.

> which is so much easier to avoid, is that
>
> of investigating the case and bringing out the anomalies and the obvious
>
> errors made in the many efforts to shut people up and get them singing the
>
> party line.

There isn`t an investigation ever conducted by humans that couldn`t be
second-guessed and criticized. Just because you pretend that what you are
doing is significant doesn`t mean other people have to see it as such.

>
>
> If there were no conspiracy and Oswald did the whole thing all by his
>
> incompetent self,

He proved himself to be up to the task.

> we could all go back to our sitcoms and pizzas and relax
>
> with nothing to bother us. The rewards of disconnecting.

You are the one disconnected from reality, you don`t acknowledge that
you are just playing silly games that amount to nothing. My reward is
bringing this reality to your attention and taking away some of the
enjoyment you get from your silly hobby.

> Those that that take a sense of responsibility for things like the
>
> conspiracy to murder JFK have the harder uphill job of finding the real
>
> evidence and proving the case against the guilty and bring them to
>
> justice, against the efforts of a small band of those trying to actually
>
> change some evidence and destroy others.

You reality is that you are doing nothing and accomplishing nothing. No
wonder you find you fantasy more appealing.

>
>
> I'd rather have the harder job.

I`ll take the easy one, reminding you folks that you are only hobbyists
playing silly games that accomplish nothing. Gee, that wasn`t hard at all.

>
>
> Chris

[mainframetech]

LOL! Given the choices, who else could you vote for? :)


As to the JFK murder, I have my beliefs from the evidence and the cover
up, and must pursue it for a good while yet.

Chris

[mainframetech]

Gosh, I was hoping for argument on my little piece on the testimonial
proof of the damaging of the body BEFORE the autopsy by 2 of the
prosectors...or maybe something to counter the list of 39+ people that saw
the 'large hole' in the back of the head of JFK...:)

Chris

[John McAdams]

On 31 Jan 2014 22:38:30 -0500, mainframetech <mainfr...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

No, Mainframe, you are the one with the easy life.

All you have to do is read conspiracy books, and then spout conspiracy
factoids.

It's easy for conspiracy authors to throw out nonsense. And easy to
accept it.

The difficult part if actually getting to what happened. That means
going to the primary sources. That involves real research.

You, remember, were the fellow who would not admit that Roger Craig
changed his story about the "Mauser."

[John McAdams]

You ought to read this:

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/crenshaw.htm

Of course, I know you will reject any critical analysis of a
conspiracy witness.

[John Fiorentino]

The "harder job" is doing real research, not just believing there's a
spook behind every door.

Personally, I would LOVE to find credible evidence of a
conspiracy..............but alas......I've found none.

John F.



"mainframetech" <mainfr...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:126b3096-4e06-4740...@googlegroups.com...

[Anthony Marsh]

Have you ever talked to Crenshaw? Of course not. I have. And I realized
when I read his book that he was wrong about several things. Or more
accurately his ghost writer was making up crap. But I confirmed some of
the things he said.

So if he got even one thing wrong you think it's ok to slander him? For
the ER doctors to claim that he wasn't even in the room? How much did they
and/or JAMA have to pay to settle that lawsuit?

[Anthony Marsh]

And it's easy for WC defenders to rely on insults rather than FOIA
requests and find documents at libraries. You might break a fingernail
or something.

> The difficult part if actually getting to what happened. That means
> going to the primary sources. That involves real research.
>

And not misrepresenting the historical documents as the WC defenders do.

[Sandy McCroskey]

Even more important, it involves critical *thinking*, to evaluate the
respective value of different bits of evidence, to understand
probabilities, to develop logical hypotheses (that don't mutually
contradict one another--CTs never seem to notice when this happens), etc.

This seems very difficult for some people, if not impossible.

Case in point:

> You, remember, were the fellow who would not admit that Roger Craig
> changed his story about the "Mauser."
>

/sm

[Anthony Marsh]

Junk.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 2/1/2014 10:29 AM, Bud wrote:
> On Friday, January 31, 2014 10:38:30 PM UTC-5, mainframetech wrote:
>> It's so easy to just sit back and go along with the tide and agree with
>>
>> the Warren Commission findings.
>
> It`s easy to think of the people who agree with the Wc`s conclusions as
> sheep and followers, and yourself as a courageous seeker of truth. But the
> truth is the WC has the evidence to back up it`s conclusions and you
> hobbyists have been doing nothing but shooting blanks for decades.
>

No, it doesn't. The American people know that. We won, you lost. Move on.

> It`s never been about the WC. The WC didn`t make Oswald pose with the
> murder weapon, or flee the scene of the crime or murder a police
> officer.
>

None of that proves that Oswald shot JFK.

[Bud]

On Saturday, February 1, 2014 2:31:49 PM UTC-5, Anthony Marsh wrote:
> On 2/1/2014 10:29 AM, Bud wrote:
>
> > On Friday, January 31, 2014 10:38:30 PM UTC-5, mainframetech wrote:
>
> >> It's so easy to just sit back and go along with the tide and agree with
>
> >>
>
> >> the Warren Commission findings.
>
> >
>
> > It`s easy to think of the people who agree with the Wc`s conclusions as
>
> > sheep and followers, and yourself as a courageous seeker of truth. But the
>
> > truth is the WC has the evidence to back up it`s conclusions and you
>
> > hobbyists have been doing nothing but shooting blanks for decades.
>
> >
>
>
>
> No, it doesn't. The American people know that. We won, you lost. Move on.

See what I mean about blanks?

>
>
> > It`s never been about the WC. The WC didn`t make Oswald pose with the
>
> > murder weapon, or flee the scene of the crime or murder a police
>
> > officer.
>
> >
>
>
>
> None of that proves that Oswald shot JFK.

No, but it does show it.

[bigdog]

On Friday, January 31, 2014 10:38:30 PM UTC-5, mainframetech wrote:

>

> Those that that take a sense of responsibility for things like the
> conspiracy to murder JFK have the harder uphill job of finding the real
> evidence and proving the case against the guilty and bring them to
> justice, against the efforts of a small band of those trying to actually
> change some evidence and destroy others.
>
> I'd rather have the harder job.
>

You're right. You do have the harder job. Finding things that don't exist
isn't easy.

[cmikes]

Since you apparently missed it in the other thread, I'll ask you a
question in this thread, Chris.

Since we have authenticated X-rays and autopsy photos proving that there
was no large wound in the back of JFK's head, if 39+ people told you that
the 2+2=5, would you believe them? If 39+ people told you the sky was
green, would you believe them? If 39+ people told you the sun revolved
around the earth, would you demand an immediate investigation into the
laws of physics?

On a side note, you really have to start doing more research than what you
read on the buff sites. The only way to get that number is by
intentionally misreading a lot of people's testimony.

[mainframetech]

I can see the possibility that Craig tried to get his life back by
lying about the 'Mauser'. But how easily you forget that I did the
research on the cover up of the damage to the body of JFK by 2 of the
prosectors and wrote the whole thing up proving it. With the proof found
right in sworn testimony! As well I built the list of 39+ people that saw
the 'large hole' in the BOH of JFK...I didn't read these things somewhere
and make a copy.

And the interesting thing is that few have been able to muster any real
counter to those items. So easy to say: "You read it somewhere." What do
you think many have done with the WC report? Read it and blatted out the
one sided junk.

And once again, as a special note to you who keeps trying to say that I
read conspiracy books all the time, that is false. I read very few of
them over the years. I have looked more often at evidence. For me, there
has been a large outpouring of evidence that still hasn't been gone
through yet. Much of it from the ARRB.

Chris

[mainframetech]

That's not an analysis of a witness. That's a typical 'hit' piece.
And I don't immediately se the author's name or BY line. Let's look at
the first list of items. They are stated I naq fashion that is used to
say they were false:

*The back of Kennedy's head was blown out, clearly implying a shot from
the Grassy Knoll in front of Kennedy.

We can look down the list of 39+ people that saw the very same thing.
And ONLY 2 prosectors said there was ONLY a small bullet hole in the BOH.

*A small wound in Kennedy's throat was an entrance wound, proving a shot
from the front, and not from the Sniper's Nest behind Kennedy.

A few doctors during thee ER time said the same. The wound (before it
was surgically altered for a tracheostomy) had the appearance to some
doctors at Parkland as a wound of entrance. They had seen plenty of
bullet wounds in their work there. 150-200 a year one doctor said.

*Parkland doctors, knowing there was a conspiracy, have feared to speak
out.
*The President's body was altered between Parkland Hospital and the
autopsy at Bethesda.

Indeed many witnesses have feared to speak out, or have later changed
testimony, probably in fear.

*And the most sensational: Lyndon Johnson called the operating room were
Oswald was being treated and demanded a confession be extracted from the
accused assassin.

I have no information about LBJ on that score. It would seem possible
given his mistress' statements, and what others had said about his style.
There have been reports of many similar statements from LBJ. One of his
secretaries said that he wound be sitting on the toilet and tell her to
come on in so they could work on some item. He had his foibles, that's
for sure.

I see the 'conspiracy of Silence' is attacked too. Yet one of the
doctors at Parkland began a 'pact' among the doctors that they would
remain quiet on the subject shortly after the ER experience, and they had
all agreed at that time. There was indeed a 'conspiracy of Silence' in
reality, but it got changed into something else in this article.

As expected, the general tone is not someone reporting on the
inconsistencies in a book, or from a witness, but the typical tome of
ridicule and the same fake style of 'Ancient Aliens' programs, making some
thing look much worse than they were.

Chris

[Stan Shipman]

This is an interesting idea that I keep hearing from many CT's: "It's so

easy to just sit back and go along with the tide and agree with the Warren
Commission findings."

The trouble with this position is that it ignores a basic fact: that for
50 years, the sheer amount of unsubstantiated, silly, false B.S. that's
been published and spouted all over the world has simply been enormous.
The false information distributed comes from the entire spectrum of
CT's... from complete morons- to the profit minded "researchers"- all the
way up to the legitimate investigative CTs. In order to accept the
position that the WC got it mostly right, so many of us so called
'lone-nutters' have had to wade through this enormous swamp of horse
manure in order to reach our present position: that LHO acted alone. It is
my belief that virtually all of us on the LN side worked through this
maze.

So when anyone suggests that any of us LNers are 'sheep'- and are taking
the easy way out- to me personally, it is simply laughable. Like many of
you on the forum, I've been at this since '66 or '67; I've read a ton of
stuff, watched nearly everything posted on YouTube, spent hours in
research on the net- and prior to the net in the libraries, been to the
National Archives, used my training from a graduate degree to explore the
intricacies of the event, yada- yada- yada. And, I have assumed the role
of the CT to attempt to reconcile the other side's argument. I just
couldn't do it, but I walked a many miles in your CT shoes. But then, I
came to MY OWN conclusions- honestly. Furthermore, I am not one to try to
profit or make a living off this tragedy, I don't have some ridiculous,
idiotic theory to sell, and I am not interested in trying to become the
world authority on this one historical event.

So Chris, when you or anyone else suggests that I am blindly following an
easy path- or that any of us are- you simply have no idea what you are
talking about.

SS/Dallas

[Jean Davison]

Amen, Stan. I agree 100%. "The sheer amount of unsubstanitated,

silly, false B.S. that's been published and spouted all over the world"

on this subject is indeed enormous, and apparently endless. One thing
I've learned -- don't believe anything you read without checking it out
carefully.

>
> So when anyone suggests that any of us LNers are 'sheep'- and are taking
> the easy way out- to me personally, it is simply laughable. Like many of
> you on the forum, I've been at this since '66 or '67; I've read a ton of
> stuff, watched nearly everything posted on YouTube, spent hours in
> research on the net- and prior to the net in the libraries, been to the
> National Archives, used my training from a graduate degree to explore the
> intricacies of the event, yada- yada- yada. And, I have assumed the role
> of the CT to attempt to reconcile the other side's argument. I just
> couldn't do it, but I walked a many miles in your CT shoes. But then, I
> came to MY OWN conclusions- honestly. Furthermore, I am not one to try to
> profit or make a living off this tragedy, I don't have some ridiculous,
> idiotic theory to sell, and I am not interested in trying to become the
> world authority on this one historical event.
>
> So Chris, when you or anyone else suggests that I am blindly following an
> easy path- or that any of us are- you simply have no idea what you are
> talking about.

Again, I couldn't agree more. Bravo!

Jean

[Bud]

See, being a CTer isn`t hard at all, they raised ignoring information to
an art form. If evidence goes against their ideas it is faked or planted.
If witness testimony goes against their ideas the witness was threatened
or somehow coerced. If an expert opinion goes against what they want to
believe the expert was put up to saying it. The easy life of the
conspiracy hobbyist.

>
> And I don't immediately se the author's name or BY line. Let's look at
>
> the first list of items. They are stated I naq fashion that is used to
>
> say they were false:
>
>
>
> *The back of Kennedy's head was blown out, clearly implying a shot from
>
> the Grassy Knoll in front of Kennedy.
>
>
>
> We can look down the list of 39+ people that saw the very same thing.

You do know the murder was filmed, right?

> And ONLY 2 prosectors said there was ONLY a small bullet hole in the BOH.

Quality over quantity. And your list is harmed by it`s needless
inflation.

>
>
> *A small wound in Kennedy's throat was an entrance wound, proving a shot
>
> from the front, and not from the Sniper's Nest behind Kennedy.

I doubt you could find a wound ballistic expert who would take that
position.

> A few doctors during thee ER time said the same. The wound (before it
>
> was surgically altered for a tracheostomy) had the appearance to some
>
> doctors at Parkland as a wound of entrance. They had seen plenty of
>
> bullet wounds in their work there. 150-200 a year one doctor said.

What is a layman opinion with no examination worth?

>
>
> *Parkland doctors, knowing there was a conspiracy, have feared to speak
>
> out.
>
> *The President's body was altered between Parkland Hospital and the
>
> autopsy at Bethesda.

Burkley, the President`s physician and the only witness at both places
said the wounds were the same.

>
>
> Indeed many witnesses have feared to speak out, or have later changed
>
> testimony, probably in fear.

Show the changed testimony and show the coercion. Show something and
stop shooting off blanks, it only shows you have nothing to offer after
all these years.

> *And the most sensational: Lyndon Johnson called the operating room were
>
> Oswald was being treated and demanded a confession be extracted from the
>
> accused assassin.

Why would he do that if he didn`t think Oswald was guilty?

> I have no information about LBJ on that score. It would seem possible
>
> given his mistress' statements, and what others had said about his style.
>
> There have been reports of many similar statements from LBJ. One of his
>
> secretaries said that he wound be sitting on the toilet and tell her to
>
> come on in so they could work on some item. He had his foibles, that's
>
> for sure.

You`re going to fault a guy for multi-tasking?

> I see the 'conspiracy of Silence' is attacked too. Yet one of the
>
> doctors at Parkland began a 'pact' among the doctors that they would
>
> remain quiet on the subject shortly after the ER experience, and they had
>
> all agreed at that time. There was indeed a 'conspiracy of Silence' in
>
> reality, but it got changed into something else in this article.
>
>
>
> As expected, the general tone is not someone reporting on the
>
> inconsistencies in a book, or from a witness, but the typical tome of
>
> ridicule and the same fake style of 'Ancient Aliens' programs, making some
>
> thing look much worse than they were.

You never are interested in examining the witnesses who relate things
you like the sound of, or apply critical thinking to the things they said,
or compare what they said to other information to see if it hold up. It`s
so easy for you, grab what you like the sound of and run with it.

[mainframetech]

So you have been listening to McAdams spin that falsehood about me
reading conspiracy books and such. You've been misled. See how easily it
can happen. A rumor is started that way and becomes true to some people
very quickly.

Now, who "authenticated" the X-rays? Have they spoken with David W.
Ma ntik, MD, PhD (physics)? He feels the evidence says something
different th an what you've been led to be;lieve:

http://www.ctka.net/2013/nova.html
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKmantik.htm

. I suggest you look over the list of the 39+ people, it's here in a
thread of its own. You can read what each person said, and go and check
the location where it was found. THEN, after you've done your checking,
you ca n decide whether they saw a 'large hole' or not.

And if 39 people told me that the sky was green, I would believe them
because I've seen the sky green myself a few times down in the Gulf of
Mexico off the Texas coast. I've also seen injuries to people's heads and
would believe that many folks if they said there was a 'large hole' there.
Do you realize that I've challenged EVERYONE in this group to come up with
anyone that said they saw ONLY a small bullet hole in the BOH of JFK
(other than 2 prosectors), and no one has been able to do it? Want to
give it a try to prove your point? Let me know.

Chris

[mainframetech]

Obviously, there will be a few people that actually look into evidence,
and then some will decide that there was no conspiracy. Certainly you
can't think that I was speaking of those that actually did work to make
their decision, though I don't know how they could come to the LN
conclusion, I respect that they did the work. My belief from listening
for years to talk in forums (to both LNs and CTs), is that most haven't
looked at all, assuming up front that any decision other than theirs is
silly and therefore why go look?

I apologize to those that got my comment wrong in that way, for having
to listen to my rant. For those that didn't do the work, no apology is
necessary.

And in our travels through the literature on the case, we will find
witnesses that have NO greedy self interest either like a number of
researchers, and simply want to tell their story, which they feel needs
telling. The case of George Whitaker is one of those people. Wayne and
Edna Hartman also.

Chris

[mainframetech]

Jean, in one respect, I agree too. Please see my comments on it.

Now, from the viewpoint of a CT that required a certain amount of
evidence before committing to a piece of evidence, I have heard "The sheer

amount of unsubstantiated, silly, false B.S. that's been published and

spouted all over the world" from the LN side as well, especially insults
and ridicule, which are not reasonable parts of discussion. Part of the
difficulty of the investigative CT is the constant ridicule and insults
that have to be borne while trying to get to a conclusion.

Chris

[Anthony Marsh]

Then why can't you guys ever agree on anything? Which shot missed. The
exact frame of the SBT. etc.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 2/1/2014 9:59 PM, Stan Shipman wrote:

> On Friday, January 31, 2014 9:38:30 PM UTC-6, mainframetech wrote:
>> It's so easy to just sit back and go along with the tide and agree with
>>
>> the Warren Commission findings. There's nothing more to do unless you
>>
>> want to potshot at some dirty liberals crowing about conspiracy and put
>>
>> them down with a few standard lines, like 'There's been no new evidence
>>
>> for 50 years' and other inane stuff.
>>
>>
>>
>> The real work and the effort, which is so much easier to avoid, is that
>>
>> of investigating the case and bringing out the anomalies and the obvious
>>
>> errors made in the many efforts to shut people up and get them singing the
>>
>> party line.
>>
>>
>>
>> If there were no conspiracy and Oswald did the whole thing all by his
>>
>> incompetent self, we could all go back to our sitcoms and pizzas and relax
>>
>> with nothing to bother us. The rewards of disconnecting.
>>
>>
>>
>> Those that that take a sense of responsibility for things like the
>>
>> conspiracy to murder JFK have the harder uphill job of finding the real
>>
>> evidence and proving the case against the guilty and bring them to
>>
>> justice, against the efforts of a small band of those trying to actually
>>
>> change some evidence and destroy others.
>>
>>
>>
>> I'd rather have the harder job.
>>
>>
>>
>> Chris
>
>
> This is an interesting idea that I keep hearing from many CT's: "It's so
> easy to just sit back and go along with the tide and agree with the Warren
> Commission findings."
>

No, we didn't invent that. We're just throwing it back in your face.

[Stan Shipman]

Hey Chris:

An apology? Wow. I can't tell you how impressed I am by what you just
wrote. It is so refreshing to run into someone on the 'other side' who has
their head screwed-on right. Thanks. 'Wish there were more like you.

My professional training tells me that so many of the CTs are just out to
make a buck or to make an illegitimate name for themselves, which I find
very offensive. We all should respect our country enough to only want the
truth of the event. And yes, that's a little naive, by I try to stay
focused on the big picture.

Since you believe that the Commission got it wrong, I encourage you (and
the rest of the respectable CTs) to prove the rest of us wrong just as
soon as possible. There is so much silly nonsense out there and, as I said
on another thread, I'd love for one of you to post a clear, well written
rebuttal theory to the WC that is supported by the evidence THAT THE
MAJORITY of CTs can support. You guys don't have it yet. I'm sorry, but
you don't. But, if there was a conspiracy, we'd all just as soon know the
truth. So prove us wrong with one, clear voice... the sooner the better.
Or concede that Earl & the boys did a pretty good job under the
circumstances.

SS/Dallas

[Anthony Marsh]

Finding evidence which has been destroyed take a little more time and
effort.

[mainframetech]

Stan,

You asked for a 'clear voice' and I have an article written to show how
the body of JFK was damaged by 2 of the prosectors. I've refreshed the
article so that you can find it easily. It is entitled:

"The Cause of Damage to the Top an Side of the Head of JFK ".

It is almost entirely from sworn testimony.

Chris

[mainframetech]

I have refreshed my article:

"The Cause of Damage to the Top an Side of the Head of JFK"

So you will have something to complain about.

Chris

[Bud]

On Monday, February 3, 2014 12:07:00 AM UTC-5, Anthony Marsh wrote:

The "dog ate my evidence" excuse.

[TJCole]

On Sunday, 2 February 2014 02:55:04 UTC+8, John Fiorentino wrote:
> The "harder job" is doing real research, not just believing there's a
>
> spook behind every door.
>
>
>
> Personally, I would LOVE to find credible evidence of a
>
> conspiracy..............but alas......I've found none.
>
>
>
> John F.

you have found NONE? I find that hard to believe and it suggests you have
a closed mind. 'There are none so blind as those who will not see.'

[TJCole]

>
> >
>
>
>
>
>
> Have you ever talked to Crenshaw? Of course not. I have. And I realized
>
> when I read his book that he was wrong about several things. Or more
>
> accurately his ghost writer was making up crap. But I confirmed some of
>
> the things he said.
>
>
>
> So if he got even one thing wrong you think it's ok to slander him? For
>
> the ER doctors to claim that he wasn't even in the room? How much did they
>
> and/or JAMA have to pay to settle that lawsuit?

the JAMA articles were an absolute disgrace. How some people can look at
themselves in the mirror is beyond me.

[Anthony Marsh]

I notice that you get that directly from the CIA guidelines.
You've never had an original thought in your life. A meek lamb being led
to the slaughter. Or the Judas goat leading the flock into the slaughter
house.

> very offensive. We all should respect our country enough to only want the
> truth of the event. And yes, that's a little naive, by I try to stay
> focused on the big picture.
>
> Since you believe that the Commission got it wrong, I encourage you (and
> the rest of the respectable CTs) to prove the rest of us wrong just as

We already did. We won. You lost. You're a sore loser.

> soon as possible. There is so much silly nonsense out there and, as I said
> on another thread, I'd love for one of you to post a clear, well written
> rebuttal theory to the WC that is supported by the evidence THAT THE

When any theory is proposed it is not necessary to prove a competing
theory to disprove it. Just point out its flaws.

[cmikes]

On Sunday, February 2, 2014 5:29:36 PM UTC-5, Anthony Marsh wrote:

>
>
> Then why can't you guys ever agree on anything? Which shot missed. The
>
> exact frame of the SBT. etc.
>
>

Well, since we don't know the exact 1/18 of a second that the Watergate
burglars broke in, I guess Watergate never happened.

Well, since we don't know the exact 1/18 of a second that RFK ordered the
assassination of Castro, I guess the Castro plots never happened.

Well, since we don't know the exact 1/18 of second that Oliver North
decided to support the Contras, I guess Iran-Contra never happened.

Well, since we don't know the exact 1/18 of second that Clinton decided to
collect raw FBI files on political opponents, I guess File-gate never
happened.

Well, since we don't know the exact 1/18 or second that Obama ordered the
IRS to harass Tea Party groups, I guess the IRS scandal never happened.

The single bullet that went through both JFK and Conally is proven by the
evidence, just because it's unclear on the Z film what 1/18 of second it
happened means nothing. Now if Zapruder had been set up with a modern,
high speed specialty camera like the Mythbusters use, maybe we could
determine exactly what frame it happened, but unfortunately, Zapruder was
not a time traveler.

[stevemg...@yahoo.com]

What evidence is there that the US government killed JFK?

I'm limiting this to the actual killing. Not about the autopsy or
investigation or any other event AFTER the actual killing.

Most of the conspiracy talk I've read or heard is about connecting alleged
coverups of the shooting, e.g., of altering the wounds, of faking the
x-ray, to the actual shooting. A post hoc connection. But I've yet to see
any credible evidence of the government actually committing the act.

Where were these government agents that day? Where did they fire from?
What weapons did they use? Where was JFK hit? Where did they go after the
shooting?

Evidence, again, of the specific acts of killing JFK.

[Anthony Marsh]

No excuse. We still find it eventually.

[Stan Shipman]

I like that piece, Chris. And I've printed it off for study later this
week. It is not a full theory, however. How was the body switched? Who
fired the shots? What individual or group was behind it? Can you post 'the
rest of the story'... as Paul Harvey would say?

SS/Dallas

[OHLeeRedux]

Stan Shipman
- show quoted text -

I like that piece, Chris. And I've printed it off for study later this
week. It is not a full theory, however. How was the body switched? Who
fired the shots? What individual or group was behind it? Can you post 'the
rest of the story'... as Paul Harvey would say?

SS/Dallas

I agree. You have obviously put a lot of work into gathering evidence to
support your theory of evidence tampering by the autopsy doctors, Chris.
You need to start making your theory complete by drawing a connection to
the assassination itself, tying together all of the events of 11/22/63 and
presenting a coherent picture of what you claim happened. I for one would
like to read it. Although I can't guarantee that I would be convinced, I
think it would be an intriguing read.

[Bud]

<snicker> I wouldn`t count on it.

[mainframetech]

Stan,

The latest story I've heard was from Douglas Horne and he is saying
that LBJ and some people working with him switched the body to the
shipping casket on the AF1 plane! He has developed some facts that
support that. Part of the switch was accomplished by General Wehle and
Richard Lipsey. If the switch was accomplished in AF1 early on, then they
were the people that took the real casket with the body away in a
helicopter to Bethesda, to give Humes extra time to modify the body by
damaging the head.

All the news media were watching the Bronze casket with nothing in it
being brought out from the port or left side of the plane, while the real
body and casket went out the starboard (opposite) side of the plane.
There were many mentions of having a forklift on the right (starboard)
side of the plane in the radio transmissions from AF1.

Chris

[mainframetech]

I haven't heard of any government agents actually being the snipers in
Dealey Plaza, and I doubt such would be the case. But government agencies
knew many who would do the job if paid enough.

Sworn testimony has shown that one of the crimes, that of altering the
body to make it appear more like a shooter from above and behind did the
work, was documented, but it was clear at first how it was stated, See the
thread explaining how the damage to the body was accomplished in
testimony.

For where shooters fired from, so far from what I've seen, 2 places
have been set solidly but more may be involved. The 6th floor window and
the Grassy Knoll, where shooters were seen. The kill shot came from the
front, struck JFK in the right forehead, and passed through the head
exiting out the 'large hole' in the BOH of JFK. The 'large hole' was
covered up by a phony autopsy photo, but had been seen by 39+ people,
while only 2 of the prosectors saw a small bullet hole in the same place
on the head. No one has met the challenge to find a witness that saw only
a small bullet hole in the BOH.

Evidence has pointed out all this information, not just theory.

Chris

[Anthony Marsh]

Moot point. If anyone in the CIA paid them they are de facto CIA agents.

[Stan Shipman]

Thanks Chris. I'll look into that, too. However, Horne's got a big problem
with this. First, Jackie refused to leave the body in Dallas and sat with
the casket all the way back to DC on the plane. She walked out behind the
casket with Bobby onto the lift after they landed. Don't you think she
would have noticed if someone was tinkering with the body on the plane
since she was sitting right there with it?

Also, Adm. Burkley, the President's physician, had promised Doctor Earl
Rose in Dallas (the medical examiner) that he would maintain the chain of
custody by staying with the body until autopsy, which as I understand it,
was how the Secret Service finally convinced the Dallas authorities to
quit arguing and let them leave. And we know he was present at the
autopsy. How does Horne attempt to explain that BOTH Jackie & the admiral
missed the switch of the body?


SS/Dallas

[mainframetech]

Stan,

As far as I know, Jackie never opened the casket she was with, just sat
by it, and even left it on rare occasions. The time that Horne saw as the
only possibility was when the casket was first put aboard AF1. Jackie had
to do something and LBJ and some of his cronies had some minutes to move
the body into the shipping casket. There's no doubt that the body was in
the shipping casket when it got to Bethesda based on sworn testimony, so
it had only to be figured out as to when the switch was made. The only
time was at that early point when the Bronze casket came aboard AF1.
There were certain things that pointed to them making that move, with even
LBJ helping.

The communications from the AF1 to the ground was that there had to be
a forklift brought up on the STARBOARD side of the plane. It was
mentioned a few times, but never noted as to what it was for. Seems like
the bronze casket went out the PORT side with Jackie, and went to
hearse/ambulance, and the shipping casket went out to a helicopter and was
carried to the helipad at Bethesda, getting the body to Bethesda a good
while before the Bronze casket and the Kennedy party.

The shipping casket arrived at Bethesda at the rear morgue loading dock
and was brought in by a small troop of navy sailors that were collected to
do the job by Dennis David. Sworn testimony stated that when the shipping
casket was opened, it was JFK's body inside, without a doubt.

The admiral had to also be away from the bronze casket for a short
while too at that loading of AF1. There is no doubt that the switch was
made based on what happened when the shipping casket was opened.

Here's Horne's version of things from a while back:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/2013/07/douglas-p-horne/jfks-phonied-up-autopsy/

Chris

[Anthony Marsh]

No, she didn't. Stop saying things that are not true. She was right next
to LBJ during his swearing in. There was someone who stayed with the body
at all times, but you won't bother to find out who he is.

> casket with Bobby onto the lift after they landed. Don't you think she
> would have noticed if someone was tinkering with the body on the plane
> since she was sitting right there with it?
>

No, she wasn't.

> Also, Adm. Burkley, the President's physician, had promised Doctor Earl
> Rose in Dallas (the medical examiner) that he would maintain the chain of
> custody by staying with the body until autopsy, which as I understand it,
> was how the Secret Service finally convinced the Dallas authorities to
> quit arguing and let them leave. And we know he was present at the

And Earl gave in, only when they shoved a gun in his face.

> autopsy. How does Horne attempt to explain that BOTH Jackie & the admiral
> missed the switch of the body?
>
>

How do YOU explain not knowing the basic facts?

> SS/Dallas
>
>
>

[OHLeeRedux]

mainframetech

- show quoted text -

Given the choice of 1) inventing a vast conspiracy in which the body was
spirited out of the casket without Jackie knowing it, and 2) accepting
that the witnesses were just plain wrong about the body arriving in a
shipping casket, you choose the former. A clear violation of Occum's
Razor.

You seem to be unable to accept the fact that witnesses are often
mistaken. It happens all the time. And it makes much more sense, and is
much more probable, than a scenario that involves multiple persons being
able to conceal something as blatant as stealing a human body in the
confines of an airplane, when the widow is right there next to the body
for most of the flight.

[Anthony Marsh]

As usual you resort to Reductio ad Absurdum when you are stumped.

[mainframetech]

It wouldn't take long for a team of men to remove a body from a casket
and put it in another. It wasn't "stolen", merely changed caskets. And
I'm surprised that you haven't read the testimony of Richard Lipsey, who
knew of the casket switch and helped get the shipping casket into a
helicopter and get it to Bethesda. Read the preamble to his audio
testimony here, which mentions the casket switch:

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/med_testimony/audio/HSCA_Lipsey.htm

his partially transcribed testimony is here:

"So we got in a couple of these helicopters with our honor guard when they
left and flew over to the hospital to get there before they did. And when
they came in, one of the hearses went right up to the front door. All of
the crowd, of course, rushed over there. The one with the body in it went
around to the back where the morgue was and we unloaded it. We met them in
the back and unloaded it right there to avoid the news media and the crowd
and everything else."

From:
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/med_testimony/Lipsey_1-18-78/HSCA-Lipsey.htm

At that point we can pick up the narrative with Ed Reed here:

http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=794&relPageId=6

The page linked above is where Reed identifies Kennedy from the
casket, and the page after is where he identifies the casket as a shipping
casket and describes it.

This whole process was described in my writeup explaining the 'damage'
to the body by the prosectors, in another thread.

It's very easy to try to dismiss witnesses and evidence by saying "they
lied" or "they were mistaken". Occam's Razor suggests that the simplest
case is usually the one to go with, but that is only a suggestion, NOT a
rule. At times people will complicate a situation with their own agenda.

Chris

[Stan Shipman]

Chris: I promised I'd get back to you on this.

Apparently, I'm not the only one who considers you to be one of the good
CTs out there. As OHLee Redux observed in a previous post: "Actually
Chris, I find you to be one of the more reasonable CTs here." I'll be
counting on that as you review my thoughts.

It seems to me that Lifton/Horne are using fundamentally the same theory-
what others have referred to as 'invasion of the body snatchers'. It
sounds like you are inclined to believe this theory because of the several
instances of eyewitness testimony that are cited. Recall what Attorney and
HSCA ramrod Robert Blakey said: that eyewitness testimony is the "least
credible form of evidence unless it can be specifically corroborated".
Let's keep that in mind.

If we are to accept that the body arrived at Bethesda at a different time
and in a different casket from the so called "Dallas Casket", can we agree
that the only logical way for that to occur would be the way Lifton
suggests? That the body was switched on the plane? If so, it therefore
follows that the Lifton/Horne theory is fully dependent upon the switch
occurring between 2:18 and 2:47 as they discuss.

From the take-off for DC on forward, we can be reasonably certain that
Jackie was with the casket all the way to Bethesda, since that is where
nearly all sources place her. We know that McHugh, O'Donnell and Powers
were there with her, too. So, as Lifton says, the switch had to take place
between 2:18 and 2:47.

I submit that this body-switching event is the Rosetta stone of the
theory, in that... if it did NOT occur, then everything else that follows
must be false; the shipping casket, the alteration of the body, the
supporting eyewitness testimony, the whole smash. OK, somebody will jump
on me for stretching that idea into the autopsy- BUT, that would have to
be a separate theory; right now we're just discussing Lifton/Horne.

From the take-off for DC onward, we can be reasonably certain that Jackie
was with the casket all the way to Bethesda since that is where nearly all
sources place her (i.e., Gillon and Hill). We know that O'Donnell and
Powers were there with her. So, as Horne says, the switch had to take
place between 2:14 and 2:38. We also know that General McHugh and Jackie-
though they may not have been in site of the body at all times prior to
the ceremony and departure- was certainly close by. Read Gillon, "The
Kennedy Assassination 24 Hours After", pages 121 to 133. He adequately
describes the activities on the plane during this time period, including
Jackie's desire to depart for DC. Now, when Jackie was in the bedroom, she
would have been just 3 or 4 steps from the casket with only a door between
her and the body. Have you ever been on Kennedy's 707? Well, I have- and
that area in back is extremely cramped. The noise of the transfer would
have likely alerted Jackie to investigate, since she was right there close
by. At any rate, Kennedy staffers would most certainly have been in that
part of the plane and would have witnessed the naked body, dripping with
blood and other tissue, being moved.

By the necessity of space and secrecy, people would have been forced out
of that rear section of the plane while the body was removed to the
storage compartment. Most certainly, there would not have been much room
for a second casket to have been in that area without setting it on the
upright seats temporarily to permit access, or placing it on the aft
floor, which would have blocked access. Either way, these activities would
have been visible to a lot of people who would be asking questions about
it. Then, if it was placed in the isle during the switch, it would have
prevented the Johnson's access to the bedroom, Gen. McHugh's comings and
goings, or Jackie's secretaries and the rest of the Kennedy staff from
having access to her.

<See Part Two>

[Stan Shipman]

On Friday, February 7, 2014 5:00:29 PM UTC-6, mainframetech wrote:

~~~~~<Part Two>~~~~~

These facts suggest to me that the only time for the body to be removed
from the casket would have been just the four minutes before Jackie
arrived on the plane; 2:14 to 2:18. But Johnson and his people were
already there. So for that to happen, you are still talking about a very
large conspiracy that would have to be ridiculously well planned in
advance of the event, flawlessly executed and facilitated by excellent
communication.

Then there is hard evidence that suggests the timeline is incorrect about
her boarding the plane four minutes later. Look at the photo of the casket
being carried aboard:

https://www.google.com/search?q=JFK,+Jackie+boards+the+plane&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=Ayj1UrvjM8GQyAGbjYDoCg&ved=0CAcQ_AUoAQ&biw=1280&bih=558#q=jfk+assassination%2C+loading+the+casket&tbm=isch&imgdii=_

You can see Jackie in the lower right corner of the shot just above the
leading edge of the wing as she follows along behind the casket, and then
goes up the steps to the plane, alone. Given her strong desire to stay
with the body and to leave for DC ASAP, I believe it is highly unlikely
she waited an additional four minutes before boarding. She would have
followed the body into the aircraft leaving ZERO time to switch the body.

Now consider the statement from Dave Powers to author Harrison Livingstone
(1978) regarding Lifton's theory: "the coffin was never unattended.
Lifton's story is the biggest pack of malarkey I ever heard in my life. I
never had my hands or eyes off of it during the period he says it was
unattended, and when Jackie got up to go to her stateroom where Lyndon
Johnson was, Kenney O'Donnell went with her, but we stayed right there
with the coffin and never let go of it. In fact several of us were with it
through the whole trip, all the way to Bethesda Naval Hospital. It
couldn't have happened the way that fellow said. Not even thirty seconds.
I never left it. There was a general watch. We organized it."

In summation, believing this theory requires acceptance that there was a
large conspiracy by the Secret Service and Johnson's staff that has
remained under wraps for fifty years. I have found nothing in my research
that suggests the SS was trying to murder the president- especially when
you consider the documentation that describes how traumatized these guys
were after losing their charge. And, as long as eyewitness testimony
without corroborating evidence constitutes the basis of this theoretical
position, it will be impossible to sell this 'body snatching' as a
credible event.

I cannot accept this theory- even after taking a fresh look at it. In
prior years I had considered Lifton's theory one of the silliest on
record. After review, I realize I wasn't being nearly critical enough.

Chris, I'd much prefer to read ideas you developed on your own. As for the
Lifton/Horne silly, bizarre, abortion of a "theory"- as we say in Texas:
THAT dog just won't hunt.

SS/Dallas

[Anthony Marsh]

Hey, knock it off. You aren't thinking kooky enough. Why change caskets?
Maybe the casket had a false bottom. It would take only two seconds to
push the lever to drop the body into the false bottom. Didn't you see that
Sherlock Holmes of James Bond movie? Shape up or Fetzer will kick you out
of the club.

[mainframetech]

Stan,
Just a general observation. I didn't read Horne's version of the switch until after I had gone through most of the events. The 'theory' I had put together was NOT a theory at all. It was many tiny theories in between the facts in evidence at Bethesda. I had looked through testimony from those at Bethesda, none of whom had any reason to lie, and none of whom wrote books or tried to get on TV. The facts were that a shipping casket (that was recognized as such) arrived at the back door at Bethesda at 6:35pm. It was described by more than one person, giving corroboration. From there we have corroboration between a number of regular Bethesda navy personnel as to what transpired from when the casket was brought in, who was in it, to the damage done to the body and by whom, up to the 'official' autopsy at 8:00pm. A steady time line with someone's testimony right through. I submit to you that my story had less inserts of theory than yours when you look at how many times you had to say 'likely' or probably' or similar words that are not guarantees of an action, and are really what I spoke of as tiny theories in between the facts. there's nothing wrong with those tiny 'theories, they are used by investigators all over the worlds because most often you don't have perpetrators filling in those little moments where we must make assumptions.

Worse for making sense of these things is the probability that LBJ or others told various workers that a cover up was necessary for 'national security' to avoid rioting across the country and possible WW3. Most government workers, especially the military will do what's asked knowing nothing about any conspiracy, and forgetting as much as possible when told to. That way there is NO need for some 'vast' conspiracy, just a small group of senior people that can order others, and supply the needed phony reasons.

I'll be straight with you about this. I am not solid in my mind about where the switch was done, but I KNOW from facts and corroboration that it WAS done. The body came out of the shipping casket, and it was JFK. That much is solid. That Richard Lipsey knew that 2 caskets were being used, and that the one that went to the Bethesda back door first was the one with the body (he says so) is solid. You have to answer why all these solid facts and corroborations are false or mistaken before setting your heart on the "there was no time" scenario.

For instance, we know that Jackie was away from the casket while standing next to LBJ getting sworn in. They may have taken a few minutes getting ready for that, and a few when it was over. There may have been time for Jackie to use the bathroom and be away. The people following up wouldn't want to say that she left the casket for the bathroom, it's too uncool when she was maintaining a 'vigil' of some kind. There was talk from the plane to have a forklift brought up to the plane on the starboard side of the plane, opposite to the port side where the Bronze casket was lowered down. What do you think that was for? That has to be fitted into your scenario too.

What was Lipsey talking about when he said we had to get there before the 'decoy' group who were going to the front entrance with the 'decoy' casket? These questions are endless if we accept the scenario that there was not a casket switch, and JFK didn't arrive in a shipping casket...and certainly no one wanted to announce to the public that JFK's body was being manipulated around like a game of musical chairs/caskets, it wouldn't be cool, so that might introduce some lying to cover that up too. All these things have to be answered and then included into whatever scenario you're working on at the time.

I've rolled this stuff over and over and tried to find the scenario that answers as many of the problems and questions as possible, and fits the most facts, and the one that I detailed is the one I came to. I tried all the other ones and they didn't work. Too many times you would have to say 'they all lied' or they all made a mistake', and that doesn't work for me. This was a president, and memories will be set into mind more strongly than just a walk in the park.

Chris

[OHLeeRedux]

So we got in a couple of these helicopters with our honor guard when they
left and flew over to the hospital to get there before they did. And when
they came in, one of the hearses went right up to the front door. All of
the crowd, of course, rushed over there. The one with the body in it went
around to the back where the morgue was and we unloaded it. We met them in
the back and unloaded it right there to avoid the news media and the crowd
and everything else."

Lipsey never said that a casket was loaded into a helicopter. He said that
he and the honor guard rode to Bethesda in a helicopter and the body was
transported in a hearse. He mentions a "decoy hearse" but does not say
there was any "shipping casket" in the decoy. You have made that
assumption. Nothing that Lipsey said supports your altered body theory.

[mainframetech]

We differ in what I have presented. I don't see it as a 'theory', but as facts with some assumptions (or tiny theories) inserted here and there, as with any investigation would have. True, Lipsey didn't say 'switch' right out, but you also have to use your common sense. Why beat the decoy hearse to Bethesda, which he did? And if there was a decoy, was it without a casket to fool the media? We know from the FBI report (Sibert & O'Neill), that the bronze casket was in the hearse with the Kennedy party and came to the front entrance, so the 'decoy' was the hearse with the Bronze casket. Dennis David and the FBI agents testified to that.

Lipsey also said "The one with the body in it went around to the back where the morgue was and we unloaded it." But remember that Dennis David commanded the party of sailors that brought in the shipping casket at the back loading dock next to the morgue where the autopsy would be done. It was AFTER that when David saw the Kennedy party come in the front entrance and go to the 17th floor to the executive suite. Then AFTER the Kennedy party was inside, the Bronze casket was driven to the back door and brought in. Now think about it...if both caskets had been in motor vehicles, they would have arrived at the same time, but that didn't happen. The shipping casket with JFK in it came first to the loading dock and was brought in, and THEN the 'decoy' hearse came to the front entrance with the Kennedy party, and later went to the back loading dock.

Here's the diagram of the morgue area drawn by Paul O'Connor. Notice that *3* caskets are there. The third was brought by the Gawler's crew, and the other 2 were the shipping casket and the Bronze casket:
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=732

If you can follow the arrows showing the order of events, you see the casket labeled "shipping casket" to the right having been brought in. Later you see arrows leading to the "burial casket", which was brought by Gawler's. The Bronze casket, which was damaged, was not mentioned after this that I know of, except for the dumping of it.

The drawing is also corroboration for there being a shipping casket, and for it containing the body, which was brought in and placed on the table.

Through all the shenanigans in the morgue, the Kennedy party stayed up in the executive suite on the 17th floor. They saw none of what happened below.

At some point as the evidence mounts, we're going to have to admit there was a switch and the body arrived in a shipping casket, earlier than the Bronze casket. We might argue as to just where the switch occurred, but there was a switch. Once we get over that hurdle, we can move on to an even harder point, where the 2 prosectors damaged the body to make it look more like a shot came from above and behind BEFORE the 'official' autopsy.

Chris

[Stan Shipman]

That is exactly what I just read & how I had remembered the situation when I studied this years ago. I have also wondered about the terminology. For example, could the term shipping casket simply refer to the 'Dallas casket' being a tempoary unit used only for transport?

One thing I am certain of- there was no opportunity for a body switch on AF1.

SS

[Anthony Marsh]

You need to learn to obey the rules and quote properly.
Your messages are always a mess.
The first paragraph, improperly quoted, does not say the casket was
loaded into a helicopter. So it looks like you are misrepresenting him
in order to create a phony attack. That may not have been your intent,
but your constant failure to QUOTE makes it look that way.

[mainframetech]

I hear that Doug Horne has found a point on AF1 when there was enough
time to do the deed, but you'd have to check him out. I don't have a
problem if they had done the switch before leaving Parkland, it would only
take a moment after all. The key to it is that a switch DID occur, and
they DID take JFK out of the shipping casket. There is a description of
the shipping casket in Dennis David's testimony:

"He said it was a simple, gray shipping casket such as he frequently saw
used later during the Vietnam war."

From:
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?mode=searchResult&absPageId=67217

For further corroboration, Ed Reed gave a description of the casket
that he helped take JFK out of. Here it is:

"Q. Okay. Could you describe the casket that you saw in the hallway?
A. It was a typical military, aluminum casket. Stainless steel,
aluminum, whatever, I guess it was stainless steel.
Q. What kind of handles did the casket have?
A. Just the normal stainless steel handles.
Q. Would you describe it as a ceremonial casket?
A. No."
From:
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=794&relPageId=7

If it's possible to accept that there was a switch of caskets to get
the casket with JFK in it there sooner than the 'decoy', then we can move
on to WHY it was necessary to do that, and the damage done to the head of
JFK by the prosectors BEFORE the 'official' autopsy. That information is
harder to accept than the switch of caskets.

Chris

[Anthony Marsh]

No, a shipping casket is a slim metal gray box, only used for shipping
bodies via mass transit. They are stackable. Do you not have Google
Images in your Gulag?

http://www.jfklancer.com/pub/md/shipcasket.JPG

[OHLeeRedux]

"Q. Okay. Could you describe the casket that you saw in the hallway?
A. It was a typical military, aluminum casket. Stainless steel,
aluminum, whatever, I guess it was stainless steel.
Q. What kind of handles did the casket have?
A. Just the normal stainless steel handles.
Q. Would you describe it as a ceremonial casket?
A. No."

From:

http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=794&relPageId=7

He was wrong. There might have been another body that arrived that night
in a shipping casket, and he conflated the two in his memory.

Happens all the time. Witnesses make mistakes, have faulty memories.
Remember Jean Hill and the "little dog"?

[Stan Shipman]

Chris:

I know the difference between a shipping casket and a regular casket; so
do you. But that's not to say the guys on duty that night at the hospital
did.

Of course, the "Darling" of this body snatching deal has got to be Paul K.
O'Conner, who Lifton touted for his book. He not only reported the
shipping casket but added the enhancement of a body bag- just to make it
interesting, no doubt. He went on to say that "the President's brains were
literally blown out of his head" despite the brain being removed and fixed
in formula- and documented on the autopsy report.

Additionally, so many CTs have been running around looking for the
President's brain and complain they weren't allowed to see the results of
the sectioning. Would these CTs be doing that if "the President's brains
were literally "blown out of his head"? Unlike these other guys who
describe a shipping casket, O'Conner was cross-examined by Bugliosi at the
London Trial in '86. He came-off looking pretty stupid, since his story
had little credibility (but certainly more than Lifton's). But, one thing
he DID do, was to discuss how Adm. Burkly and- un-named by O'Conner-
"others" were <quote> constantly interfering <unquote> with the autopsy
process. Under the circumstances, is there any wonder that it was a mess?

Chris, you are too intelligent a guy to believe all of this nonsense.
Sooner or later, you and the rest of the CTs are gonna have to decide who
is credible and who is not- OR you risk spending your life in Never-Never
Land. It's called sound judgement- and we need all of that we can get.
That's what this entire argument comes down to; WHO's Credible & Who's
Not. There was no opportunity to switch bodies on the plane; the
helicopter was there to fly staff members and the new President back to
DC, the service requested for AF-1 was the same kind of service all
passenger jets get when they land and these guys either don't recall what
the casket looked like, Lifton paid them to say what they did... or else
they picked the wrong week to quit smoking crack!

After all these years, the total BS is getting deeper & deeper. I
sincerely hope you can sort this out for yourself and escape membership in
the literal-thinker's, nonsensical imagination club.

Best of luck to you, sir. 'Really enjoyed the exchange.

SS/Dallas

[mainframetech]

Nope. 'They lied' or 'they were mistaken' is the standard method of
getting away from the facts, but we have corroboration on the shipping
casket, and the truth is clear. Dennis David, Ed Reed and Paul O'Connor
at the least saw and described the shipping casket and its location in
their sworn testimony.

Chris

[jfk...@gmail.com]

The body-alteration theory, while it does point to the significance of the
changes in the body of JFK between PH and Bethesda, fails to include a
very basic examination of what changes took place to the body through
natural causes, such as transporting the body 1600 miles and carrying it
up to AF1 at LF, and apparently, almost dropping the casket. Without such
orientation, any statements about the body's condition are imo ungrounded.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 2/10/2014 9:41 AM, Stan Shipman wrote:
> On Sunday, February 9, 2014 9:15:16 PM UTC-6, OHLeeRedux wrote:
>> "Q. Okay. Could you describe the casket that you saw in the hallway?
>>
>> A. It was a typical military, aluminum casket. Stainless steel,
>>
>> aluminum, whatever, I guess it was stainless steel.
>>
>> Q. What kind of handles did the casket have?
>>
>> A. Just the normal stainless steel handles.
>>

The handles ona shipping casket are not normal like an ornamental casket.
This is another tipoff that the guy doesn't know what the Hell he is
talking about.

>> Q. Would you describe it as a ceremonial casket?
>>
>> A. No."
>>
>>
>>
>> From:
>>
>>
>>
>> http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=794&relPageId=7
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> He was wrong. There might have been another body that arrived that night
>>
>> in a shipping casket, and he conflated the two in his memory.
>>
>>
>>
>> Happens all the time. Witnesses make mistakes, have faulty memories.
>>
>> Remember Jean Hill and the "little dog"?
>
> Chris:
>
> I know the difference between a shipping casket and a regular casket; so
> do you. But that's not to say the guys on duty that night at the hospital
> did.
>
> Of course, the "Darling" of this body snatching deal has got to be Paul K.
> O'Conner, who Lifton touted for his book. He not only reported the
> shipping casket but added the enhancement of a body bag- just to make it

No, it's an easy mistake to make. The casket was lined with a plastic
mattress protector to catch the blood.

> interesting, no doubt. He went on to say that "the President's brains were
> literally blown out of his head" despite the brain being removed and fixed
> in formula- and documented on the autopsy report.
>

Formalin.
And photographed. When the body arrived the head was wrapped so no one
could possibly have seen it.

> Additionally, so many CTs have been running around looking for the
> President's brain and complain they weren't allowed to see the results of
> the sectioning. Would these CTs be doing that if "the President's brains
> were literally "blown out of his head"? Unlike these other guys who

Well, I personally think it is physically impossible that 100% of his
brains were blow out. But some small percentage was blown out and
covered the insides of the limo and the Connallys and some of the trunk
and hood of the limo and the escort cyclists. So we'd like to know
exactly how much was blown out.

> describe a shipping casket, O'Conner was cross-examined by Bugliosi at the
> London Trial in '86. He came-off looking pretty stupid, since his story
> had little credibility (but certainly more than Lifton's). But, one thing
> he DID do, was to discuss how Adm. Burkly and- un-named by O'Conner-
> "others" were <quote> constantly interfering <unquote> with the autopsy
> process. Under the circumstances, is there any wonder that it was a mess?
>

Yes, Burkley interfered with the autopsy. He saw it as his duty as
President Kennedy's personal physician. He was most worried about
protecting JFK reputation.
But he was not the General who told Humes not to dissect the back wound,
so Humes had to guess. That is not the definition of the word "autopsy."
"To guess." Even a Bowery bum deserves a better autopsy.

> Chris, you are too intelligent a guy to believe all of this nonsense.
> Sooner or later, you and the rest of the CTs are gonna have to decide who
> is credible and who is not- OR you risk spending your life in Never-Never
> Land. It's called sound judgement- and we need all of that we can get.
> That's what this entire argument comes down to; WHO's Credible & Who's
> Not. There was no opportunity to switch bodies on the plane; the
> helicopter was there to fly staff members and the new President back to
> DC, the service requested for AF-1 was the same kind of service all
> passenger jets get when they land and these guys either don't recall what
> the casket looked like, Lifton paid them to say what they did... or else
> they picked the wrong week to quit smoking crack!
>

I don't know how to explain this to a person like you who sees the world
in only black and white, but some people are stupid and make mistakes.
You are guilty of what so many conspiracy believers do, assume that the
only possible explanation is conspiracy to lie.

[Anthony Marsh]

The tipoff that he doesn't know what he is talking about when he said
the metal shipping casket had normal handles. It does not.
Maybe he noticed that the normal handles had been broken off and that
fooled him.

[Sandy McCroskey]

I guess you missed it, Marsh, but the first possibility Stan raised was
that it was an honest mistake.

[Stan Shipman]

Permit me this observation, Anthony:

My beliefs & opinions INCLUDED (a)those who were just plain mistaken,
(b)those who were neurotic (nutty) and (c) those who lied for profit. I
didn't exclude any of those groups by what I wrote. But there is some
truth to what you've said, in that my revulsion for those who deliberately
lie for profit is coming through loud and clear. Good! So be it. I would
hope that you and the rest of the researchers share that same revulsion
for these people. And there can be no doubt that there are plenty of jerks
out there that fit this description.

As for being "a person like you who sees the world in only black and
white", nothing could be further from the truth. To be perfectly honest,
my problem is that I tend to view issues in so many shades of grey that I
have problems trying to sort them out. That should give you some
indication of my level of conviction regarding these mistaken
statements/testimony about body snatching.

SS/Dallas

[jfk...@gmail.com]

On Sunday, February 2, 2014 12:36:49 PM UTC-6, mainframetech wrote:
> On Saturday, February 1, 2014 6:52:39 PM UTC-5, cmikes wrote:
>
> > On Saturday, February 1, 2014 10:37:26 AM UTC-5, mainframetech wrote:
>
> >
>
> > > On Saturday, February 1, 2014 12:22:20 AM UTC-5, Jason Burke wrote:

>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > On 1/31/2014 7:38 PM, mainframetech wrote:
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > > It's so easy to just sit back and go along with the tide and agree with
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > > the Warren Commission findings. There's nothing more to do unless you
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>

> > > > 'Cause, gee, they basically got it right, eh, Chris?

>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > > want to potshot at some dirty liberals crowing about conspiracy and put
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > > them down with a few standard lines, like 'There's been no new evidence
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > > for 50 years' and other inane stuff.
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > > The real work and the effort, which is so much easier to avoid, is that
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > > of investigating the case and bringing out the anomalies and the obvious
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > > errors made in the many efforts to shut people up and get them singing the
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > > party line.
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>

> > > > Sure you can find an anomalie or twelve when you focus on minutiae. But
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > look at the forest, Chris.

>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > > If there were no conspiracy and Oswald did the whole thing all by his
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > > incompetent self, we could all go back to our sitcoms and pizzas and relax
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > > with nothing to bother us. The rewards of disconnecting.
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > > Those that that take a sense of responsibility for things like the
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > > conspiracy to murder JFK have the harder uphill job of finding the real
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > > evidence and proving the case against the guilty and bring them to
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > > justice, against the efforts of a small band of those trying to actually
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > > change some evidence and destroy others.
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > > I'd rather have the harder job.
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > > Chris
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>

> > > > And, Chris, you're doing a darn fine job of wasting your time "full of
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > sound and fury, signifying nothing". Though I must admit, I did like
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > Lehrer's version better.
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > Gosh, I was hoping for argument on my little piece on the testimonial
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > proof of the damaging of the body BEFORE the autopsy by 2 of the
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > prosectors...or maybe something to counter the list of 39+ people that saw
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > the 'large hole' in the back of the head of JFK...:)
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > Chris
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Since you apparently missed it in the other thread, I'll ask you a
>
> >
>
> > question in this thread, Chris.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Since we have authenticated X-rays and autopsy photos proving that there
>
> >
>
> > was no large wound in the back of JFK's head, if 39+ people told you that
>
> >
>
> > the 2+2=5, would you believe them? If 39+ people told you the sky was
>
> >
>
> > green, would you believe them? If 39+ people told you the sun revolved
>
> >
>
> > around the earth, would you demand an immediate investigation into the
>
> >
>
> > laws of physics?
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > On a side note, you really have to start doing more research than what you
>
> > read on the buff sites. The only way to get that number is by
>
> > intentionally misreading a lot of people's testimony.
>
>
>
>
>
> So you have been listening to McAdams spin that falsehood about me
>
> reading conspiracy books and such. You've been misled. See how easily it
>
> can happen. A rumor is started that way and becomes true to some people
>
> very quickly.
>

That's not a falsehood, it is something that you demonstrate with every
post when you repeat nonsense that you have not reasoned through on your
own. The only thing that would be worse would be if you were parroting
the WCR without thinking it through. But then, McAdams would not
complain.

I can't believe I actually agree with McAdams on something. :-0

> Now, who "authenticated" the X-rays? Have they spoken with David W.
>
> Ma= ntik, MD, PhD (physics)? He feels the evidence says something
>
> different th= an what you've been led to be;lieve:
>
>
>
> http://www.ctka.net/2013/nova.html
>
> http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKmantik.htm
>
>
>
> . I suggest you look over the list of the 39+ people, it's here in a
>
> thread of its own. You can read what each person said, and go and check
>
> the location where it was found. THEN, after you've done your checking,
>
> you ca= n decide whether they saw a 'large hole' or not.
>
>
>
> And if 39 people told me that the sky was green, I would believe them
>
> because I've seen the sky green myself a few times down in the Gulf of
>
> Mexico off the Texas coast. I've also seen injuries to people's heads and
>
> would believe that many folks if they said there was a 'large hole' there.
>
> Do you realize that I've challenged EVERYONE in this group to come up with
>
> anyone that said they saw ONLY a small bullet hole in the BOH of JFK
>
> (other than 2 prosectors), and no one has been able to do it? Want to
>
> give it a try to prove your point? Let me know.
>
>
>
> Chris

[jfk...@gmail.com]

On Saturday, February 1, 2014 10:52:07 PM UTC-6, Jean Davison wrote:
> On 2/1/2014 8:59 PM, Stan Shipman wrote:

>
> > On Friday, January 31, 2014 9:38:30 PM UTC-6, mainframetech wrote:
>
> >> It's so easy to just sit back and go along with the tide and agree with
>
> >>
>
> >> the Warren Commission findings. There's nothing more to do unless you
>
> >>
>

> >> want to potshot at some dirty liberals crowing about conspiracy and put
>
> >>
>
> >> them down with a few standard lines, like 'There's been no new evidence
>
> >>
>
> >> for 50 years' and other inane stuff.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> The real work and the effort, which is so much easier to avoid, is that
>
> >>
>
> >> of investigating the case and bringing out the anomalies and the obvious
>
> >>
>
> >> errors made in the many efforts to shut people up and get them singing the
>
> >>
>
> >> party line.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>

> >> If there were no conspiracy and Oswald did the whole thing all by his
>
> >>
>
> >> incompetent self, we could all go back to our sitcoms and pizzas and relax
>
> >>
>
> >> with nothing to bother us. The rewards of disconnecting.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> Those that that take a sense of responsibility for things like the
>
> >>
>
> >> conspiracy to murder JFK have the harder uphill job of finding the real
>
> >>
>
> >> evidence and proving the case against the guilty and bring them to
>
> >>
>
> >> justice, against the efforts of a small band of those trying to actually
>
> >>
>
> >> change some evidence and destroy others.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> I'd rather have the harder job.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> Chris
>
> >
>
> >
>

> > This is an interesting idea that I keep hearing from many CT's: "It's so

>
> > easy to just sit back and go along with the tide and agree with the Warren
>
> > Commission findings."
>
> >
>

> > The trouble with this position is that it ignores a basic fact: that for
>
> > 50 years, the sheer amount of unsubstantiated, silly, false B.S. that's
>
> > been published and spouted all over the world has simply been enormous.
>
> > The false information distributed comes from the entire spectrum of
>
> > CT's... from complete morons- to the profit minded "researchers"- all the
>
> > way up to the legitimate investigative CTs. In order to accept the
>
> > position that the WC got it mostly right, so many of us so called
>
> > 'lone-nutters' have had to wade through this enormous swamp of horse
>
> > manure in order to reach our present position: that LHO acted alone. It is
>
> > my belief that virtually all of us on the LN side worked through this
>
> > maze.
>
>
>

> Amen, Stan. I agree 100%. "The sheer amount of unsubstanitated,

>
> silly, false B.S. that's been published and spouted all over the world"
>

> on this subject is indeed enormous, and apparently endless. One thing
>
> I've learned -- don't believe anything you read without checking it out
>
> carefully.

>
>
>
> >
>
> > So when anyone suggests that any of us LNers are 'sheep'- and are taking
>
> > the easy way out- to me personally, it is simply laughable. Like many of
>
> > you on the forum, I've been at this since '66 or '67; I've read a ton of
>
> > stuff, watched nearly everything posted on YouTube, spent hours in
>
> > research on the net- and prior to the net in the libraries, been to the
>
> > National Archives, used my training from a graduate degree to explore the
>
> > intricacies of the event, yada- yada- yada. And, I have assumed the role
>
> > of the CT to attempt to reconcile the other side's argument. I just
>
> > couldn't do it, but I walked a many miles in your CT shoes. But then, I
>
> > came to MY OWN conclusions- honestly. Furthermore, I am not one to try to
>
> > profit or make a living off this tragedy, I don't have some ridiculous,
>
> > idiotic theory to sell, and I am not interested in trying to become the
>
> > world authority on this one historical event.
>
> >
>
> > So Chris, when you or anyone else suggests that I am blindly following an
>
> > easy path- or that any of us are- you simply have no idea what you are
>
> > talking about.
>

Well said, Jean.

That is true whatever position it is you think is most persuasive. If you
don't know how you got there, you can't really own the position and you
just look silly to anyone who has actually researched a subject.

>
> Again, I couldn't agree more. Bravo!
>
>
>
> Jean

[jfk...@gmail.com]

On Saturday, February 1, 2014 12:55:42 PM UTC-6, Anthony Marsh wrote:
> On 2/1/2014 10:56 AM, John McAdams wrote:
>
> > On 1 Feb 2014 10:25:39 -0500, TJCole <thali...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> >
>
> >> On Saturday, 1 February 2014 11:38:30 UTC+8, mainframetech wrote:
>
> >>> It's so easy to just sit back and go along with the tide and agree with
>
> >>>
>
> >>> the Warren Commission findings. There's nothing more to do unless you
>
> >>>
>
> >>> want to potshot at some dirty liberals crowing about conspiracy and put
>
> >>>
>
> >>> them down with a few standard lines, like 'There's been no new evidence
>
> >>>
>
> >>> for 50 years' and other inane stuff.
>
> >>>
>
> >>>
>
> >>>
>
> >>> The real work and the effort, which is so much easier to avoid, is that
>
> >>>
>
> >>> of investigating the case and bringing out the anomalies and the obvious
>
> >>>
>
> >>> errors made in the many efforts to shut people up and get them singing the
>
> >>>
>
> >>> party line.
>
> >>>
>
> >>>
>
> >>>
>
> >>> If there were no conspiracy and Oswald did the whole thing all by his
>
> >>>
>
> >>> incompetent self, we could all go back to our sitcoms and pizzas and relax
>
> >>>
>
> >>> with nothing to bother us. The rewards of disconnecting.
>
> >>>
>
> >>>
>
> >>>
>
> >>> Those that that take a sense of responsibility for things like the
>
> >>>
>
> >>> conspiracy to murder JFK have the harder uphill job of finding the real
>
> >>>
>
> >>> evidence and proving the case against the guilty and bring them to
>
> >>>
>
> >>> justice, against the efforts of a small band of those trying to actually
>
> >>>
>
> >>> change some evidence and destroy others.
>
> >>>
>
> >>>
>
> >>>
>
> >>> I'd rather have the harder job.
>
> >>>
>
> >>>
>
> >>>
>
> >>> Chris
>
> >>
>

> >> Good on you Chris. me too. I was reading about JAMA's smear job on
>
> >> Crenshaw last night and it made me sooo mad! You're on the right side of
>
> >> history.
>
> >
>
> > You ought to read this:
>
> >
>
> > http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/crenshaw.htm
>
> >
>
> > Of course, I know you will reject any critical analysis of a
>
> > conspiracy witness.
>
> >
>
>
>
>
>
> Have you ever talked to Crenshaw? Of course not. I have. And I realized
>
> when I read his book that he was wrong about several things. Or more
>
> accurately his ghost writer was making up crap. But I confirmed some of
>
> the things he said.
>

Crenshaw also included the Evangelea Glanges story, though that was to be
expected as they worked together.

But then he dumped in the Carl Renas limo story without any definition or
details, and that raised a big red flag to me. I honestly don't know
where he was coming from.

>
> So if he got even one thing wrong you think it's ok to slander him? For
>
> the ER doctors to claim that he wasn't even in the room? How much did they
>
> and/or JAMA have to pay to settle that lawsuit?

[jfk...@gmail.com]

On Saturday, February 1, 2014 12:56:03 PM UTC-6, Anthony Marsh wrote:
> On 2/1/2014 10:53 AM, John McAdams wrote:
>
> > On 31 Jan 2014 22:38:30 -0500, mainframetech <mainfr...@yahoo.com>

>
> > wrote:
>
> >
>
> >> It's so easy to just sit back and go along with the tide and agree with
>
> >> the Warren Commission findings. There's nothing more to do unless you
>
> >> want to potshot at some dirty liberals crowing about conspiracy and put
>
> >> them down with a few standard lines, like 'There's been no new evidence
>
> >> for 50 years' and other inane stuff.
>
> >>
>
> >> The real work and the effort, which is so much easier to avoid, is that
>
> >> of investigating the case and bringing out the anomalies and the obvious
>
> >> errors made in the many efforts to shut people up and get them singing the
>
> >> party line.
>
> >>
>
> >> If there were no conspiracy and Oswald did the whole thing all by his
>
> >> incompetent self, we could all go back to our sitcoms and pizzas and relax
>
> >> with nothing to bother us. The rewards of disconnecting.
>
> >>
>
> >> Those that that take a sense of responsibility for things like the
>
> >> conspiracy to murder JFK have the harder uphill job of finding the real
>
> >> evidence and proving the case against the guilty and bring them to
>
> >> justice, against the efforts of a small band of those trying to actually
>
> >> change some evidence and destroy others.
>
> >>
>
> >> I'd rather have the harder job.
>
> >>
>
> >
>

> > No, Mainframe, you are the one with the easy life.
>
> >
>
> > All you have to do is read conspiracy books, and then spout conspiracy
>
> > factoids.
>
> >
>
> > It's easy for conspiracy authors to throw out nonsense. And easy to
>
> > accept it.
>
> >
>
>
>
> And it's easy for WC defenders to rely on insults rather than FOIA
>
> requests and find documents at libraries. You might break a fingernail
>
> or something.
>
>
>
> > The difficult part if actually getting to what happened. That means
>
> > going to the primary sources. That involves real research.
>
> >
>
>
>
> And not misrepresenting the historical documents as the WC defenders do.
>
>
>
> > You, remember, were the fellow who would not admit that Roger Craig
>
> > changed his story about the "Mauser."
>
> >

WC defenders have been *told* that all the work has been done for them.
So when they actually do research something, that is a breakthrough imo.

[jfk...@gmail.com]

Do you understand when you say 'look into' something, it doesn't mean
swallowing vague statements whole and repeating them? It means you ask
for specifics, and look at the situation from more than one side. It
means you begin to weigh and evaluate the credibility of what you are
'looking into'.

On Sunday, February 2, 2014 12:37:47 PM UTC-6, mainframetech wrote:
> On Saturday, February 1, 2014 9:59:06 PM UTC-5, Stan Shipman wrote:

>
> > On Friday, January 31, 2014 9:38:30 PM UTC-6, mainframetech wrote:
>
> >
>
> > > It's so easy to just sit back and go along with the tide and agree with
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > the Warren Commission findings. There's nothing more to do unless you
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > want to potshot at some dirty liberals crowing about conspiracy and put
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > them down with a few standard lines, like 'There's been no new evidence
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > for 50 years' and other inane stuff.
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > The real work and the effort, which is so much easier to avoid, is that
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > of investigating the case and bringing out the anomalies and the obvious
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > errors made in the many efforts to shut people up and get them singing the
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > party line.
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > If there were no conspiracy and Oswald did the whole thing all by his
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > incompetent self, we could all go back to our sitcoms and pizzas and relax
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > with nothing to bother us. The rewards of disconnecting.
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > Those that that take a sense of responsibility for things like the
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > conspiracy to murder JFK have the harder uphill job of finding the real
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > evidence and proving the case against the guilty and bring them to
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > justice, against the efforts of a small band of those trying to actually
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > change some evidence and destroy others.
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > I'd rather have the harder job.
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>

> > > Chris
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > This is an interesting idea that I keep hearing from many CT's: "It's so

>
> >
>
> > easy to just sit back and go along with the tide and agree with the Warren
>
> >
>
> > Commission findings."
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>

> > The trouble with this position is that it ignores a basic fact: that for
>
> >
>
> > 50 years, the sheer amount of unsubstantiated, silly, false B.S. that's
>
> >
>
> > been published and spouted all over the world has simply been enormous.
>
> >
>
> > The false information distributed comes from the entire spectrum of
>
> >
>
> > CT's... from complete morons- to the profit minded "researchers"- all the
>
> >
>
> > way up to the legitimate investigative CTs. In order to accept the
>
> >
>
> > position that the WC got it mostly right, so many of us so called
>
> >
>
> > 'lone-nutters' have had to wade through this enormous swamp of horse
>
> >
>
> > manure in order to reach our present position: that LHO acted alone. It is
>
> >
>
> > my belief that virtually all of us on the LN side worked through this
>
> >
>
> > maze.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>

> > So when anyone suggests that any of us LNers are 'sheep'- and are taking
>
> >
>
> > the easy way out- to me personally, it is simply laughable. Like many of
>
> >
>
> > you on the forum, I've been at this since '66 or '67; I've read a ton of
>
> >
>
> > stuff, watched nearly everything posted on YouTube, spent hours in
>
> >
>
> > research on the net- and prior to the net in the libraries, been to the
>
> >
>
> > National Archives, used my training from a graduate degree to explore the
>
> >
>
> > intricacies of the event, yada- yada- yada. And, I have assumed the role
>
> >
>
> > of the CT to attempt to reconcile the other side's argument. I just
>
> >
>
> > couldn't do it, but I walked a many miles in your CT shoes. But then, I
>
> >
>
> > came to MY OWN conclusions- honestly. Furthermore, I am not one to try to
>
> >
>
> > profit or make a living off this tragedy, I don't have some ridiculous,
>
> >
>
> > idiotic theory to sell, and I am not interested in trying to become the
>
> >
>
> > world authority on this one historical event.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > So Chris, when you or anyone else suggests that I am blindly following an
>
> >
>
> > easy path- or that any of us are- you simply have no idea what you are
>
> >
>
> > talking about.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>

> > SS/Dallas
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Obviously, there will be a few people that actually look into evidence,
>
> and then some will decide that there was no conspiracy. Certainly you
>
> can't think that I was speaking of those that actually did work to make
>
> their decision, though I don't know how they could come to the LN
>
> conclusion, I respect that they did the work. My belief from listening
>
> for years to talk in forums (to both LNs and CTs), is that most haven't
>
> looked at all, assuming up front that any decision other than theirs is
>
> silly and therefore why go look?
>
>
>
> I apologize to those that got my comment wrong in that way, for having
>
> to listen to my rant. For those that didn't do the work, no apology is
>
> necessary.
>
>
>
> And in our travels through the literature on the case, we will find
>
> witnesses that have NO greedy self interest either like a number of
>
> researchers, and simply want to tell their story, which they feel needs
>
> telling. The case of George Whitaker is one of those people. Wayne and
>
> Edna Hartman also.
>
>
>
> Chris

[jfk...@gmail.com]

It seems to me this 'silliness' began with the WCR. Through it we were
supposed to be taught that we were 'sheeple'. We were supposed to accept
the findings of 'trusted people', whether they made sense to us or not.
This mindset was then incorporated into much of the CT research. So then
you have people fighting against each other, because nobody knows how to
reason things through for themselves. Nobody has told them that is
necessary to understanding the assassination. So whether it is LN disinfo
such as the "Magic Bullet" or CT disinfo such as the wacky limo theories,
it is the same principal at work -- accept the statements of someone else
and don't bother to reason it through for yourself.

[Anthony Marsh]

Some of us know that there are some witnesses who lie and some who are
just wrong. Please name and prove the witnesses you claim deliberately
lie for profit.

[Stan Shipman]

As you well know, not everything is provable in a court of law. Yet some
things are provable in the court of public opinion. All behavior is
goal-directed, but not necessarily provable in court. That, however, does
not mean it is impossible to know the source of an individual's
motivation- especially for those who have had training in that area. It
would be like trying to prove that YOUR goal in all this is to become the
self- proclaimed, all knowing, all-seeing 'ultimate authority' on this
slice of history.

In this case, it is enough for me to know that you agree with my
statement.

SS

[Anthony Marsh]

I don't even know what you are babbling about.

[Stan Shipman]

That's not surprising.

[mainframetech]

A shame Stan...with your intelligence you have ignored or talked away al
the sworn testimony to go with what you THINK is a reasonable course of
belief.

If you're talking about Paul O'Connor's testimony at the mock trial
where Bugliosi was questioning, were you aware from the sworn testimony
that Humes and Boswell lied to O'Connor about what they had done, and by
the time of that mock trial, he still didn't know that they had removed
the brain out of his sight. Because the brain was removed, which the
officers never did, and O'Connor always did, he thought since there was
almost nothing left that it had been blown out by a bullet.

He wasn't telling a story, he was telling what he thought was the
truth. If you go through the testimony of those that were present,
especially the navy workers that were present (before being kicked out of
the autopsy by Humes), you begin to see what really happened.

It appears that you have not actually used an open mind to review all
this stuff, and to check it out, but we each have to do those things we
think are right. My reading of the facts and testimony shows a clear
effort to damage the body to cover up the direction of the bullet that
killed JFK, and I have to pursue it. I find the arguments and debates
interesting, even when the facts are ignored by some folks.

In any event, good luck on your next project...:)

Chris

[Stan Shipman]

Thanks Chris. 'Guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one. I
do notice that you seemed to be focused on the autopsy events and the
specific happenings that surrounded that event. As for me, my focus was on
the plane and the impossibility of the body being removed from it on the
way back to DC & Bethesda- reasoning if the body couldn't have been
removed then the entire theory falls apart.

'Not sure what the significance of all that is- but it might help to
explain our views.

Stay Well,
SS

[Bud]

And as usual you`ve clung to select information in order to follow a
silly and unreasonable course of belief.

[mainframetech]

Stan,

I've had a few things to focus on in the case, and the situation with
there being time to switch the body was not one of them, because it was
obvious that it had been done. There were a few opportunities at
Parkland, in transit, in the AF1, and at the landing after the ambulance
got moving.

Part of the problem of not understanding how it could be done is to
begin with the belief that there was NO conspiracy. If you know there was
a conspiracy to murder, then it is easier to contemplate the possibilities
that we're dealing with. For me, there is only that there WAS a switch
proven and corroborated by sworn testimony. They can't all be lying or
mistaken, that's a typical LN excuse to escape from the facts.

I think we'll find that there WAS time on the plane to switch the body,
rather than at Parkland or elsewhere. Remember the orders (from the
plane) for a forklift to come to the 'wrong' side of the plane to remove
something. Not the special lift that was used to lower the Bronze casket.

Good Luck,
Chris

[Sandy McCroskey]

Now, that's funny.
Your belief in controlled demo at the WTC is very similar.

> There were a few opportunities at
> Parkland, in transit, in the AF1, and at the landing after the ambulance
> got moving.
>

You're dreaming.

[BT George]

Chris, I still owe you following up on your list of 39 witnesses and
trying to follow their testimony though time. Unfortunately, both my work
and personal affairs are still heavily taxed and the effort required to
search and document that many persons major testimony statements is
probably other than brief.


However, I think it is fair to point out that you are above decrying the
very thing that you often practice yourself. I have shown you already
some cases, where other sworn testimony (sometimes by the same witness I
believe) conradicts what is maintained in the (primarily) sworn statements
that you have based much of your theories on.

When I have pointed these things out, you simply say, in effect, "Well
they were just speaking the party line." It seems to me that only reason
you would do that is the reverse of what you just said was a problem for
Stan. That is *you* begin with the belief that there *WAS* a conspiracy,
which enables you to see and accept pretty much only such evidence and
testimony as comports with such a belief.

Of course LN's do rely on some testimony too, but it is testimony that is
generally backed up by various items of hard, corroborating, evidence.
Not to mention we rely heavily on simple *FACT* that it would be
functionally *IMPOSSIBLE* to have a *necessarily* large *TOTAL* number of
individuals involved in:

a) Ordering the assassination.

b) Pulling it off.

c) Ordering the cover up.

d) Faking the the evidence for the cover up. (ballistics, fingerprints,
medical/forensic, photographical)

e) Giving false testimony to support the conspiracy. (Whether willing or
by coercion.)

f) Subsequently re-examining the "faked" evidence years later, and
certifying the items as authentic because---as you once indicated---"They
knew what they were expected to find."

And all of the above doesn't even get into the different government
agencies and groups needed at some point or the other to pull off all of
the above!

Simply put, any discounting of *invonvenient* testimony by LN's pales in
comparison to the discounting of everyday *REALITY* that is necessary to
prop up most conspiracy theories. ...Particularly "patsy plots" that rely
on large-scale fakery of the evidence and subborning of witnesses.

BT George

[Anthony Marsh]

Imagination is not proof.

[Stan Shipman]

Now, there you go again Chris. Sworn testimony alone will forever leave
you in the swamp with the frogs and the snakes. And, did it ever occur to
you that a lift truck on the opposite side of AF1 just might be there to
service the aircraft? 'Don't know if you ever flew on a 707, but I did
many times. It was always serviced on the starboard side- meals, trash,
luggage, standard clean up- yada, yada, yada. That is certainly no reason
to assume something as insane as a stolen body actually happened- of the
President, no less! 'Guess all of the Kennedy staff that was on board must
have helped move the body, nude, dripping with blood and brain matter- out
of the storage area and into the service lift truck. They were all right
there & couldn't have missed that spectacle. Funny, in 50 years not one of
them ever sold the story for a few grand. Talk about civic-minded! Gee....
I wonder why not???

Do yourself a favor, my friend. Don't believe a word I said. Not one (you
won't anyway). Read Dr. McAdams' book. It will help orient you to think
intelligently about conspiracies (and for cryin' out loud, DO believe
him!). And read it slowly- every word. When you are finished, read it
again!! Then, if you still want to be a CT, pick a theory that actually
could have happened- like the Mafia being behind LHO's crime. Robert
Blakey's is the next most reasonable theory after the commission's basic
idea.

As for me, I think I'll write a book, also. It will be page after page
after page of adjectives describing the validity of Lifton's theory. Page
one will start with:

silly
idiotic
dumb
crazy
fantasy
nonsensical
moronic
pathetic

I don't think it would be over three or four hundred pages; then I'll
start with French adjectives, then German, Chinese, .....

It'll be a classic and surpass Bugliosi's 1600 pages. ;-)

Good luck; and for your sake and the sake all the good-guy CTs out there,
READ MCADAMS!

~SS/Dallas

[Bud]

Yes, the figments of Chris`s imagination can do anything.

[mainframetech]

George,

A number of good points, which I will try to address. It's true that
over the years I have come to the conclusion that I was wrong in accepting
the WC report which I did, many years ago. By going through the
information and looking at the case in overview, to me it was obvious that
it was a conspiracy. How it was done was hidden from me and got me going
to find out what I could among all the misleading clues and the real ones.

After I came to the conclusion that it was a conspiracy to murder, I
couldn't just forget that and become suddenly objective, but I've tried to
be where possible. Yes, in talking to Stan I heard an old familiar sound
of someone that was ignoring things they were told from testimony and
other facts, and just going to the LN viewpoint without seriously
considering the things pointed out. I was asking of him to be more
objective or 'open' and consider the evidence.

From myself I ask that I listen to what someone says when they are
putting forward an argument for the 'lone nut' or similar theory, and if I
present an argument to counter that, that I do it in a way that makes
sense, not something like 'space aliens ate the homework'.

One of your main points is the old LN saw that to listen to CTs you
realize that you need vast numbers of people to carry it off. Nope, you
don't at all. That is a false gimmick to attempt answering some of the CT
claims. Here's what I believe (from testimony and other solid sources).
A few people high up let it be known that JFK had to go,. They collected
a small number of types that had similar wishes, that JFK was dangerous to
the country. There are some that think that right now with Obama. It's
relative easy to get these people on board the conspiracy. But that is
probably a count of about 20 people at most, but they are in key
positions, often as senior people or able to give orders. By giving orders
to juniors, you can have a monstrous working force that had NO CLUE what
it is all about.

By using 'National Security' or other excuses, people in government can
be gotten to do many things, thinking they are working for the good.
Even easier after the killing, to say that we need to make the case stick
for the 'lone nut' scenario to avoid rioting in the streets, and to avoid
WW3, which I know LBJ tried to use a few times.

A good example of someone giving the orders to someone that had no clue
what's behind them is here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UFpPjjKdUds

You see an agent that doesn't understand the orders to stop guarding
the president's back and get away from the limo. He didn't know anything
and wasn't part of any conspiracy, but he followed orders that may have
helped the shooters have clearer views.

No, it doesn't take thousands, just a few supervisors and similar. A
guy in the FBI to take control of the evidence like bullets and casings
and so on. An important position, and it only takes one or a few people
to do huge damage to the case.

Chris

[Sandy McCroskey]

On 2/14/14 10:48 PM, mainframetech wrote:
> After I came to the conclusion that it was a conspiracy to murder, I
> couldn't just forget that and become suddenly objective,

That'll be the day!

[Stan Shipman]

Chris, at the risk of beating the proverbial dead horse, let me once again
remind you that I did what I said I would do. You are 'sold' on Lifton and
I promised I'd take another look at it. I did exactly that. In reviewing
the material I had dismissed long ago, I started at the top: the body
snatching. It is an obvious- and might I say "Iron Clad"- fact of life
that there was no opportunity for that to happen. I sited two or three
sources on my second look, the most credible being Dave Powers. His "Iron
Clad" statement- with no reason to lie and every reason to believe he
would have screamed bloody murder if it HAD happened- is YOUR eye-witness
counter to anyone who could accept this theory. Since you love to base
your beliefs on witnesses, I submit that Powers is the trump witness.

Since the opportunity for the 'body snatch' did not/could not happen, I
decided not to waste any more time re-considering the rest of the theory.
I don't go down dead-end streets- it's pointless. Come up with a plot that
allows for your fascinating testimony regarding Bethesda, and we'll talk
again.

If this logical, time-saving approach of mine somehow constitutes having a
'closed mind', then I guess I'll just have to be guilty, as charged.

SS/Dallas

[mainframetech]

Sorry Stan, I'm sold on Doug Horne, not particularly Lifton, though
Lifton has also shown up as a careful researcher and has teased out some
useful information.

You have to think about the situation they were in back then. Why
didn't RFK make any complaint? Because he saw what certain forces could
do, and realized he could be next on the list if he became a problem.
The same for all the other Kennedy people who were around. You don't
really think they all bit on the tale of the 'lone nut'? They saw the
result of murder of a president. Those that did it wouldn't think twice
about some lackeys in the Kennedy entourage.

Let me know where you're finding the rundown of the events at the
plane. I'd be interested in seeing how it went. The one I saw left time
to do the deed near when the body was first put aboard and the plane
hadn't taken off yet. Even 5 minutes would be more than enough time.

I can see the logic of not bothering to look further if you find one
fact you think is incontrovertible. But, there have been many cases where
there was an 'impossibility' that later turned out there was a good
explanation for. I think you've found one. Your 'ironclad' might be
otherwise if certain facts were known to us.

I wonder how you were able to deal with the proof that the shipping
casket was used to hold JFK's body, and the work on the head that 2
witnesses saw done on the body BEFORE the 'official' autopsy, but AFTER
dismissing the navy personnel from the morgue room. And how the
prosectors said nothing about this early work being done and later
testified about it as if it was all part of the 'official' autopsy.

Chris

[BT George]

No, it doesn't take thousands to conceive the plot or even to directly
carry it out. But it does and has taken a lot more than your "20" to do
points d-f that I metnioned above.

Here is my challenge to you. Try to come up with *any* *realistic*
scheme, minimal enough to pull off all the points I outlined, without
mushrooming into the neighborhood of at least 100+. Make sure to
recognize how many primary and secondary actors were needed in the process
of:

1) Gathering and/or manufacturing evidence against LHO in the areas of
forensics, ballistics, firgerprints, photgraphic/film, postal records,
purchase documentation, etc. (Don't forget the different agencies
involved like the DPD, FBI, CIA, postal empoyees, etc.)

2) Then also evaluating and "endorsing" such data as authentic over the
years.

3) Coercing desired testimonies. ("coercers and coercees")

4) Suppressing undesired testimonies. ("suppressors and suppressees")

5) Just silently going along with it, by generally keeping quite/not
asking any questions.

There's no need to come back with any particular response. Just *really*
think your way through some scenarios on your own and see if it doesn't
eventually add up to a pretty large number of persons needing to be
successfully involved at some level to pull off a total frame-up even for
a few months---still less for many decades.

BT George

[mainframetech]

Easy. Here's the list from d-f:

d) Faking the evidence - Frazier of the FBI was in charge of most of the
hard evidence, including bullets. Hoover handed down orders to go with
the wacky 'lone nut' WC theory, which was probably his in the first place
and was taken up by the WC later. They knew that when Hoover gave an
order, if you weren't quick in carrying it out, you were gone. By simply
telling the troops that there would be riots in the streets and the
possibility of WW3 if it were a conspiracy, they would realize that they
had to back the 'lone nut' scenario, even though none of them knew a thing
about any conspiracy, or even had private doubts. Their job was over if
they complained. The FBI was caught changing reports from witnesses into
support for the 'lone nut' scenario from reports that point to conspiracy.

Further, the limo was stripped, recarpeted and reupholstered which
covered up more evidence, and the 2 main areas of evidence were stolen out
from under the eyes of the Dallas police and Medical Examiner. The body
and the limousine. No one needed to know why the body and limo had to go
to DC, because all that had to be said was that Jackie wanted to go 'home'
(and take her dead husband with her). And the limo was a horrible mess
inside and it was wanted to clean up that mess and not have the reminder
around. All things that people and agents would do with understanding and
no knowledge of a conspiracy to murder. Maybe 3-4 conspirators, FBI
Frazier, SS Greer, SS Kellerman, SS Boring. (you should hear the ARRB
testimony of Floyd Boring, SS agent!).

At the autopsy, you can read my little article on how that was
accomplished by 3 people with little or no experience in criminal deaths
at all. And 2 of them damaged the body to make it look like a shot from
behind and above. They were military and nearing retirement and were
susceptible to pressure and the call of 'national security' for the same
reasons, rioting and WW3. They did their jobs. And the whole team, most
of whom knew nothing about any conspiracy, did as ordered and also were
ordered to be silent about the events at the hospital! That make only 2
people that knew about any fakery, and possibly not even conspiracy! 3
people at most knew something was wrong, but had been given reasons. No
conspirators at Bethesda.

e) Lying on the stand was easy for the FBI and other agents. Most knew
nothing to tell that we'd want to know, and those (like Frazier) that were
in on the conspiracy had to lie or die in a hangman's noose. Once the
deed was done, it behooved all the conspirators to shut up or lie like
hell. Maybe 2-3 people knew what was up.

f) Those that looked over the evidence, Warren Commission, HSCA, all 5
panels, most of them were political appointees, with a few doctors for the
medical evidence. The real evidence by that time had been covered up or
replaced or spirited away. A presidential assassination and look how many
records went missing right after being collected!

The politicians knew what they were there for, to shut up the
complaints from the public, or there wouldn't be a panel. The medics had
only fixed data to look at and the testimony of liars that were forced to
do the 'devil's work'. Humes had more conflicts and changes in his
testimony than you can imagine. Only one complained that the autopsy was
a farce, Cyril Wecht, who knew what forensics and pathology were. The
fact that Wecht saw the problem of an incompetent autopsy and said so,
means that others SHOULD HAVE spoken up, but kept quiet, as they knew they
were supposed to.

Now that answers d-f, and it shows that very few people had to be
involved to carry out the murder. Add in the shooters that may have been
recruited elsewhere, but LBJ (for instance) kept an assassin on his
payroll and it is rumored that he used him for killing jobs in Texas. A
fellow named Wallace. I suspect any politician that aspires to high
office, knows such people for when it becomes necessary.

All in all it comes to around 20-25 people actually that knew anything
important, and after the fact, no on was going to admit to anything
criminal, or even put out a deathbed confession like E. Howard Hunt.
Although you might find the statement of an old FBI agent interesting,
though he was pushing his book, it was still important statements:

http://tinyurl.com/6lnwuqc

Chris

>
>
> Here is my challenge to you. Try to come up with *any* *realistic*
>
> scheme, minimal enough to pull off all the points I outlined, without
>
> mushrooming into the neighborhood of at least 100+. Make sure to
>
> recognize how many primary and secondary actors were needed in the process
>
> of:
>

See above under d-f.

>
>
> 1) Gathering and/or manufacturing evidence against LHO in the areas of
>
> forensics, ballistics, firgerprints, photgraphic/film, postal records,
>
> purchase documentation, etc. (Don't forget the different agencies
>
> involved like the DPD, FBI, CIA, postal empoyees, etc.)
>

I don't know why you assume that all those people would do something
knowingly illegal. Some, yes, but not all. Nor did they need to. If you
have the right people in the right positions, you just don't need all that
people power.

>
>
> 2) Then also evaluating and "endorsing" such data as authentic over the
>
> years.
>

See above.

>
>
> 3) Coercing desired testimonies. ("coercers and coercees")
>

Don't know what that means. Most testimonies were by people that didn't
know there was conspiracy. For coerces, I might suggest the 3 prosectors,
but particularly Humes and Boswell. No others at Bethesda were coerced
that I could think of.

>
>
> 4) Suppressing undesired testimonies. ("suppressors and suppressees")
>

From the beginning statements that suggested conspiracy were ignored or
changed on written reports. The WC was also very lax in following up
anything suggestive of conspiracy. Everyone by then was sold on selling
the wacky 'lone nut' theory, probably to quiet the thundering herd outside
in the streets.

>
>
> 5) Just silently going along with it, by generally keeping quite/not
>
> asking any questions.

In Washington, some people are silenced by death for opening up their
mouths even when they know nothing. It is generally not considered wise
to blab or complain all over. Remember the phrase "I don't want to get
involved".

>
>
>
> There's no need to come back with any particular response. Just *really*
>
> think your way through some scenarios on your own and see if it doesn't
>
> eventually add up to a pretty large number of persons needing to be
>
> successfully involved at some level to pull off a total frame-up even for
>
> a few months---still less for many decades.
>
>
>
> BT George

I have no problem "thinking my way through" this stuff. I've thought
through it many times in looking to solve parts of the crime. I've shown
you how it could be done with less people, and if there are any questions.
I'll be happy to explain in detail on any part of it. Just let me know,
though it might be better in a new thread, as this pone is getting to the
limit for Google Groups.

Chris

[Stan Shipman]

Chris/BT:

BT has a really good point regarding the number of people that would be
required to pull-off such a plot. Let me see if I can give you another
perspective.

Let's say you are watching a college football game and it's halftime. The
talking heads are getting redundant so the director switches over to the
band's performance on the field. He first starts with a 'wide-shot', but
after 15-20 seconds zooms in on a sax player near the 45 yard line. As the
camera zooms-in, a lady watching on TV in Iowa swears she sees a gun on
this kid's belt behind the bell of the horn. Now, it just so happens that
a man dies in the stands near the field at about the 40 yard line, not too
far from the Sax player's position. The camera then switches to a
mid-range shot of the area near the front of the band near the 50 yard
line- to all those kids performing- then back to the wide shot.

The lady hears the next day that someone died in the stands and calls
police. But is it likely the sax player killed the guy- especially when
photo experts examine the replay and find out that lady in Iowa was seeing
things? Someone else would have noticed the shooting had it occurred and
reported it- probably a lot of people would have called police if this had
happened. Instead, all you have is the word of one little ole lady in Iowa
who is neurotic, and after seeing some weird shadows in the harsh lights
of a football field on TV, she decides that 2 + 2 = 87, when all that
really happen was that an elderly man had a heart attack.

ALL OF US must operate like the camera in this example. Our minds must
certainly zoom-in to look at the details, but then we have to zoom-out to
see the big picture and how that one bit of information fits together with
the other facts.

With no opportunity to switch the body, no others inside the autopsy room
discussing a 'shipping casket', and the likelihood that the witness was
just plain wrong, we must base our CONCLUSIONS on ALL of the info
available- not just on the statements of one or two guys.

Here's another idea for you: we southerners tend to be very imprecise with
language. Since before the Civil War, the south is very laid back compared
to the northern segment of the country. I believe that this cultural
difference may have plaid a part in the discrepancies in eyewitness
testimony- in that so many witness, being from the south, just did not
communicate what they saw in a precise manner. "Us guys inda south jes don
talk lik dem Yankees do". Maybe the Yankees at Bethesda had the same
problem.

Again, look at the big picture. You can find my sources in my posts above
in this thread (some of them anyway), but then "your camera" needs to
zoom-in, and then zoom-out again! Then look at what would have been
required as BT suggests.

When it's all said and done, each of us must decide for ourselves on the
most likely set of information. Lifton is just plain silly; Horne is just
plain wrong.

I still think reading Dr. McAdams book will help you better see what I'm
getting at.

SS

[BT George]

On Tuesday, February 18, 2014 7:49:27 PM UTC-6, mainframetech wrote:
> On Monday, February 17, 2014 8:41:28 PM UTC-5, BT George wrote:
>
> > On Friday, February 14, 2014 9:48:29 PM UTC-6, mainframetech wrote:
>
> >
>
> > > On Thursday, February 13, 2014 11:19:53 PM UTC-5, BT George wrote:
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > On Thursday, February 13, 2014 3:19:15 PM UTC-6, mainframetech wrote:
>
> >
>
> > >
>
>

SNIPPAGE OF PRIOR THREAD STUFF

No Chris. I am not going to continue this here or in another thread. I
asked you to take some time to *really* think things over and approach the
number of conspirators and actors from realistic common sense POV.
Instead you fired off something within a few hours that IMO, shows that
you really didn't take much time to mull it over. (Or maybe you think you
already have and don't need to think any further.)

Your scenarios paint *way* too many non-plotters as unquestioning
"automatons" who---unlike you presumably---are not interested much in
quant notions like "honesty" and "patriotic duty" or else their interest
ranks *way* below fear of job loss or death. Never mind the fact that
*many* of the needed "automotons" were in the SS, Military, DPD, or FBI
and who by the very nature of their jobs, are often willing to risk life
and limb for the good of the country or the public in general.

Your plots also have to ignore the fact that so many unquestioningly
obedient order-takers, would have needed only a little imagination to see
that they may be helping their superiors get away with *high treason*
rather than simply allowing them to get away with some sort of routine
malfeasance or failure to follow inconvenient laws that might be standing
in the way of "organization objectives". In your world *LOTS* of people
seemed not to "get it" that helping others supress or manipulate evidence
related to the assassination of a President, was helping them commit a
*TREASON* of *epic* proportions against the Constitution and people of the
United States.

I reject such rank skepticism. This is not some Bananna Republic where,
as you said above, "I suspect any politician that aspires to high office,
knows such people (i.e., paid assassins) for when it becomes necessary."
Even if that were true even today---and I don't agree that it is---it
defintately was *NOT* the case back in 1963. Many of your "automotons"
where members of the so-called "greatest generation" and they did not
fight a World War only to turn a "blind eye" to the killing of a President
and the evidence right under their noses of a conpiracy to cover it up.

If you truly have that low a view of the character and intelligence of the
various persons who's support was needed to pull somthing like this off,
then it's small wonder that the "common sense" observation that it would
simply require too many persons to pull it all off, remains a lost point
to you.

BT George

[Anthony Marsh]

No. The Castro plots did not take millions of people.

[Anthony Marsh]

But Hoover thought it was a conspiracy and did not want an honest
investigation of the evidence.

> order, if you weren't quick in carrying it out, you were gone. By simply
> telling the troops that there would be riots in the streets and the

No. No one ever said riots in the streets. The danger was WWIII.

> possibility of WW3 if it were a conspiracy, they would realize that they
> had to back the 'lone nut' scenario, even though none of them knew a thing
> about any conspiracy, or even had private doubts. Their job was over if

Hoover knew about conspiracy and he knew the rumors. Maybe YOU don't.

[mainframetech]

thank you for letting me know where you're coming from. I hate to
burst your bubble, but people will follow the orders of their bosses when
those bosses are heavy handed like for instance Hoover. Some people even
now are also willing to wave guns around just at a meeting, to show their
readiness to shoot someone if they don't like the way things are
going...all for the country...in their eyes. Tea party members who
visited some of the meetings they went to with their weapons open and
ready, and those are professed patriots.

Some people could well think that murdering a president that they think
is going to give the country to communism might well join a conspiracy.
I'm obviously not talking about those that think such talk is foolish, but
those that are quite serious about it. Some of them have murdered doctors
that do abortions, legal ones. Those that followed their orders are not
thinking in their wildest dreams that they were being used in a plot to
kill the president. The thought cannot have been in anyone's head that
day. And once the story began circulating (early on) that it was a 'lone
nut' killer, they were satisfied for the most part. Any that had
reservations were ignored or put out to pasture. Here's an example:

http://tinyurl.com/6lnwuqc

Since the 'plot' needed no more than 20 people, most other people can
be 'honest' and 'patriotic' and still not tumble to the idea that their
bosses were looking to murder the president. They can sacrifice their
lives for others in their duties and never have a qualm about it. The
story of a 'lone nut' would suffice for some, and many would be told that
it's for national security that we not let anything else be believed by
anyone because of rioting and WW3. Those are powerful excuses and most
would go with them. Remember, that each person didn't really know that
much of what someone else was doing or being told to do.

Either way, by stepping back from the detail, it's obvious to some
people that humans can and do orchestrate some petty complicated and
hardhearted conspiracies. Others can't bear to contemplate that their
leaders might have some low scheme that they would pull on someone else
given the chance.

Chris

[Bud]

I guess you think that since you would have just followed orders you
suppose everyone would do as you would.

> Some people even
>
> now are also willing to wave guns around just at a meeting, to show their
>
> readiness to shoot someone if they don't like the way things are
>
> going...all for the country...in their eyes.

Are you talking about the Blank Panthers?

> Tea party members who
>
> visited some of the meetings they went to with their weapons open and
>
> ready, and those are professed patriots.

Guns are harmless if you don`t shoot anyone with them. Oswald used his
to devastating result and you go out of you way to contrive reasons to
justify your belief that he didn`t.

> Some people could well think that murdering a president that they think
>
> is going to give the country to communism might well join a conspiracy.

JFK was anti-communist.

> I'm obviously not talking about those that think such talk is foolish, but
>
> those that are quite serious about it. Some of them have murdered doctors
>
> that do abortions, legal ones.

Don`t forget that whack-job conspiracy theorist that attacked the
Pentagon.

> Those that followed their orders are not
>
> thinking in their wildest dreams that they were being used in a plot to
>
> kill the president.

Yah, they don`t know what is going on right in front of them, but you
can see it from the outside looking in.

> The thought cannot have been in anyone's head that
>
> day. And once the story began circulating (early on) that it was a 'lone
>
> nut' killer, they were satisfied for the most part.

Why wouldn`t they? Everything pointed to it, then and now.

> Any that had
>
> reservations were ignored or put out to pasture. Here's an example:
>
>
>
> http://tinyurl.com/6lnwuqc
>
>
>
> Since the 'plot' needed no more than 20 people, most other people can
>
> be 'honest' and 'patriotic' and still not tumble to the idea that their
>
> bosses were looking to murder the president. They can sacrifice their
>
> lives for others in their duties and never have a qualm about it.

You can make the empty claim that anything your ideas require are what
happened. And you do.

> The
>
> story of a 'lone nut' would suffice for some, and many would be told that
>
> it's for national security that we not let anything else be believed by
>
> anyone because of rioting and WW3.

Who would conspire with Oswald? Was there ever a lot of public opinion
that Oswald shot Kennedy at the behest of the Russians?

> Those are powerful excuses and most
>
> would go with them. Remember, that each person didn't really know that
>
> much of what someone else was doing or being told to do.

> Either way, by stepping back from the detail, it's obvious to some
>
> people that humans can and do orchestrate some petty complicated and
>
> hardhearted conspiracies. Others can't bear to contemplate that their
>
> leaders might have some low scheme that they would pull on someone else
>
> given the chance.

No, nothing like any of the things you envision are possible in this
event. You just pretend they are so you can also pretend your ideas are
viable. They aren`t.

>
>
> Chris