Why Is This Theory Such A Popular One?

[David Von Pein]

One of the most popular JFK assassination theories is that a massive
conspiracy took place in Dealey Plaza on 11/22/63, resulting in not only
the death of the American President, but also resulting in so many
supposed conspiratorial loose ends that a cover-up team of thousands
probably wouldn't have provided enough manpower to accomplish the
burdensome task of rearranging all of the various pieces of evidence
surrounding JFK's murder in order to conceal the true facts and bumbling
inadequacies of the harebrained "Patsy Plot" that many conspiracy
believers advocate. And yet that's exactly what a goodly number of CTers
think occurred in 1963.

Despite the illogic of it all, and despite the massive roadblocks in the
conspirators' path, somehow ALL of the physical evidence that was actually
being created by all of these OTHER KILLERS who were busy firing away and
pelting President Kennedy with rifle bullets in Dallas on November 22
(physical evidence such as guns, bullets, bullet fragments, bullet shells,
and fingerprints) found a way to ALL get placed on the plate of only Lee
Harvey Oswald. ....

CONTINUE READING HERE:
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/09/insane-assassination-plot.html

[mainframetech]

The most popular foolish comments are from those LNs that say it would
take a massive force of conspirators to accomplish the plot described by
some CTs. It just ain't so!

It would take a few main conspirators in good positions in government,
and a higher up, probably just one hungry politician. The plot could be
accomplished by 10-20 people at most, then the cover up can be done by
many worker bees who need not know of the plot. They only need to be
given a good excuse for doing what had to be done. If told that they were
helping to stop WW3, or told that they were stopping rioting and the break
up of our union, they would do what was needed...as good patriots!

It's simply foolish to use the old LN gimmick of predicting a cast of
thousands.

Chris

[GERALD BOSTOCK]

On Tuesday, January 20, 2015 at 11:24:04 PM UTC-5, David Von Pein wrote:

I believe that Oswald killed the Governor as well because he destroyed the
man's lung. Your writing makes perfect sense but it does not matter
because Oswald is an icon like Jesus, Mary, saints and angels, and is
venerated among CIA conspiracy theorists, the mob did it, and the federal
reserve cabal. Any criticism of Oswald is irreverent and stridently
non-conformist in tone.

[Pamela Brown]

its such fun to see a WC defender creating a conspiracy theory and blaming
it on the CTs.

There is such an obvious explanation for the differences in the state of
the body and evidence -- when you move everything 1600 mines from the
crime scene, you lose control of the evidence and all sort of confusing
things can happen. And that isn't even a theory -- it just happens to be
a fact.

[Pamela Brown]

And yet, for example, even shown a photo of Lee Oswald with David Ferrie they will INSIST that the two never met. There is no extreme too far for them to go to attempt to claim that LHO acted alone...

[David Von Pein]

So, Chris, do YOU think it would be a GOOD and WISE decision to try and
frame a lone gunman in the Book Depository by utilizing multiple gunmen
firing at JFK from both the back and the FRONT?

Is that a GOOD plan, Chris? And would YOU have tried to frame a patsy in
such a reckless manner?

(I'm dying to hear Mainframe's fascinating reply.)

[Anthony Marsh]

On 1/21/2015 4:29 PM, mainframetech wrote:
> On Tuesday, January 20, 2015 at 11:24:04 PM UTC-5, David Von Pein wrote:
>> One of the most popular JFK assassination theories is that a massive
>> conspiracy took place in Dealey Plaza on 11/22/63, resulting in not only
>> the death of the American President, but also resulting in so many
>> supposed conspiratorial loose ends that a cover-up team of thousands
>> probably wouldn't have provided enough manpower to accomplish the
>> burdensome task of rearranging all of the various pieces of evidence
>> surrounding JFK's murder in order to conceal the true facts and bumbling
>> inadequacies of the harebrained "Patsy Plot" that many conspiracy
>> believers advocate. And yet that's exactly what a goodly number of CTers
>> think occurred in 1963.
>>
>> Despite the illogic of it all, and despite the massive roadblocks in the
>> conspirators' path, somehow ALL of the physical evidence that was actually
>> being created by all of these OTHER KILLERS who were busy firing away and
>> pelting President Kennedy with rifle bullets in Dallas on November 22
>> (physical evidence such as guns, bullets, bullet fragments, bullet shells,
>> and fingerprints) found a way to ALL get placed on the plate of only Lee
>> Harvey Oswald. ....
>>
>> CONTINUE READING HERE:
>> http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/09/insane-assassination-plot.html
>
>
>
> The most popular foolish comments are from those LNs that say it would
> take a massive force of conspirators to accomplish the plot described by
> some CTs. It just ain't so!
>

When they can't argue honestly they have to depend on crutches like
Reductio ad Absurdum.

[David Von Pein]

PAMELA BROWN SAID:

its [sic] such fun to see a WC defender creating a conspiracy theory and

blaming it on the CTs.

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Oh sure, Pam. Try to spin things around to where it's the "WC defenders"
who have "created" the "Patsy" theory. (That's a howl!)

And I suppose you also think it's the LNers who have created the theory
that JFK was shot from the FRONT and the REAR **in tandem with the "Patsy"
theory**. Is that what you're implying?

Pam....you're a riot.

PAMELA BROWN SAID:

There is such an obvious explanation for the differences in the state of

the body and evidence -- when you move everything 1600 mines [miles] from
the crime scene, you lose control of the evidence and all sort [sic] of

confusing things can happen. And that isn't even a theory -- it just
happens to be a fact.

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

And how does anything you just said have anything whatsoever to do with
the crazy "Multi-Gun, One-Patsy" theory that I was talking about in my
thread-starting post, Pam?

Regardless of WHERE the evidence was located at any point in time AFTER
the assassination, many conspiracy theorists DO believe that BEFORE the
shooting ever took place in Dealey Plaza, the following two things were
being planned and co-existed PRIOR to 11/22/63....

1.) At least two (or more) gunmen, located both in FRONT of and BEHIND the
President's car, were going to be stationed in Dealey Plaza to take shots
at President Kennedy on November 22nd.

2.) Lee Harvey Oswald was being "sheep-dipped" (i.e., he was being set up
and framed) to take the lone fall for JFK's murder PRIOR to November 22nd.

Tell me, Pam .... Do you disagree with either of the two points I just
mentioned above? Were there at least TWO shooters stationed in Dealey
Plaza? And was Lee Oswald being sheep-dipped as the patsy IN ADVANCE of
the actual shooting?

If you answer "Yes" to both questions, you've got a serious problem, Pam.
Because only a conspiracy team that WANTED to get caught would have had a
desire to incorporate both #1 and #2 above into their plan to assassinate
America's 35th President in Dallas, Texas, in 1963.

[cmikes]

So you believe that the assassination of JFK was in the works from at
least the time that Oswald was 15 years ago and attended a couple of Civil
Air Patrol meetings? Did Ferrie recruit Oswald or was already an evil
member of "they" at that age?

[Anthony Marsh]

On 1/21/2015 10:55 PM, David Von Pein wrote:
> So, Chris, do YOU think it would be a GOOD and WISE decision to try and
> frame a lone gunman in the Book Depository by utilizing multiple gunmen
> firing at JFK from both the back and the FRONT?
>

That was not the plan.

> Is that a GOOD plan, Chris? And would YOU have tried to frame a patsy in
> such a reckless manner?
>

What kind of half-assed plan did the FBI use to frame the 5 Boston
bookies for murder?

[Bud]

On Wednesday, January 21, 2015 at 10:55:02 PM UTC-5, David Von Pein wrote:
> So, Chris, do YOU think it would be a GOOD and WISE decision to try and
> frame a lone gunman in the Book Depository by utilizing multiple gunmen
> firing at JFK from both the back and the FRONT?
>
> Is that a GOOD plan, Chris?

Of course it`s a good plan to him because the "they" he imagines can do
absolutely anything. This is also why he is a Truther. Anything that he
can imagine needs to be done, the great and powerful plotters can do. They
are everywhere, they can make any piece of evidence disappear or be
replaced, they can make any witness say anything at any time, and stick to
their stories for life. Of course nobody with any sense would take his
ideas seriously since they rely so heavily on the impossible.

> And would YOU have tried to frame a patsy in
> such a reckless manner?

Why would people who are already powerful risk everything on such a
plan? The only way they could lose their power (not to mention ruining
their families and names, and risking the death penalty) would be
undertaking such a foolish venture. The idea fails in every way you look
at, but Chris lacks the ability to think it through.

[bigdog]

On Wednesday, January 21, 2015 at 10:47:30 PM UTC-5, Pamela Brown wrote:
>

> And yet, for example, even shown a photo of Lee Oswald with David Ferrie they will INSIST that the two never met. There is no extreme too far for them to go to attempt to claim that LHO acted alone...

Rosalyn Carter was photographed with serial killer John Wayne Gacy. That
doesn't establish they ever had an association.

So what if Ferrie and Oswald were in the CAP at the same time. That is
true of other people as well. Does that make them co-conspirators?

[bigdog]

The differences were in perceptions and not the state of the body.
Rigormortis would have begun setting in by the time JFK's body got to
Bethesda, but the wounds were the same as they were at Parkland. Bethesda
had the chance to open up the wounds and see how massive the damage to the
head was. Parkland never did that of course. As soon as they realized JFK
was dead, the pulled the sheet over his head.

[mainframetech]

Apparently you have no reply of your own to our previous discussion, and
have decided to use that ploy to escape having to have one.

The answer is not difficult, since the method you outlined worked!

First, you had to use multiple shooters to be sure you killed JFK.
The main reason being that he was the POTUS, and had great resources to
chase down any plotters and see to their imprisonment if left alive. If
the VP were the leader or a main mover of the plot, then most would be
safe.

Second, having a 'patsy' would be a necessary element in a plot like
this one, since without someone to take the fall, the real plotters would
be chased to the ends of the earth to be captured. Simple.

BTW, the prosectors at the autopsy discovered a wound clearly saying
that there were indeed wounds from both front and back of JFK. The
frontal wound was the small (5mm) wound in the right temple/forehead seen
by a number of witnesses, and completely left out if the Autopsy Report
(AR). That wound was also seen by Pierre Finck, the Forensic Pathologist
and Wound Ballistics expert. He recognized it as an entry wound, partly
because it had a grey ring around the circumference of the wound, which
sometimes happens with lead bullets. An X-ray by technician Jerrol Custer
proved that the small wound was the entrance because of the metal
fragments seen in the skull originating form the small wound toward the
rear of the skull in an expanding cone to the blow-out at the rear of the
skull seen by over 40 witnesses.

All the above is recorded in sworn testimony in ARRB files, and is NOT a
theory like the WC lawyers made. Links provided on request.

Chris

[mainframetech]

Oh, give it up! Oswald wasn't any saint, and he had his faults for
sure. But the evidence says he didn't kill JFK, yet he makes such a nice
'patsy' tzhat the suckers just have to lay it on him, as was planned.

Chris

[Bud]

On Wednesday, January 21, 2015 at 4:29:40 PM UTC-5, mainframetech wrote:
> On Tuesday, January 20, 2015 at 11:24:04 PM UTC-5, David Von Pein wrote:
> > One of the most popular JFK assassination theories is that a massive
> > conspiracy took place in Dealey Plaza on 11/22/63, resulting in not only
> > the death of the American President, but also resulting in so many
> > supposed conspiratorial loose ends that a cover-up team of thousands
> > probably wouldn't have provided enough manpower to accomplish the
> > burdensome task of rearranging all of the various pieces of evidence
> > surrounding JFK's murder in order to conceal the true facts and bumbling
> > inadequacies of the harebrained "Patsy Plot" that many conspiracy
> > believers advocate. And yet that's exactly what a goodly number of CTers
> > think occurred in 1963.
> >
> > Despite the illogic of it all, and despite the massive roadblocks in the
> > conspirators' path, somehow ALL of the physical evidence that was actually
> > being created by all of these OTHER KILLERS who were busy firing away and
> > pelting President Kennedy with rifle bullets in Dallas on November 22
> > (physical evidence such as guns, bullets, bullet fragments, bullet shells,
> > and fingerprints) found a way to ALL get placed on the plate of only Lee
> > Harvey Oswald. ....
> >
> > CONTINUE READING HERE:
> > http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/09/insane-assassination-plot.html
>
>
>
> The most popular foolish comments are from those LNs that say it would
> take a massive force of conspirators to accomplish the plot described by
> some CTs. It just ain't so!

You guys heap complexity on top of complexity until your ideas collapse
under the weight of them.

> It would take a few main conspirators in good positions in government,
> and a higher up, probably just one hungry politician.

And maybe a few leprechauns with an ample supply of pixie dust.

> The plot could be
> accomplished by 10-20 people at most,

Right, look at how the Mission Impossible guys used to topple
governments with just a small team. Or Charlie`s Angels. Hell, James Bond
is only one guy and look at what he can routinely do.

>then the cover up can be done by
> many worker bees who need not know of the plot. They only need to be
> given a good excuse for doing what had to be done.

Good thing CTers are such a clever bunch that they can detect these
things from the outside that those who have it right in front of them
always miss. Either that or they things they think they detect from the
outside only exist in their imaginations and the really aren`t that clever
at all. This is not a tough call to make.

> If told that they were
> helping to stop WW3, or told that they were stopping rioting and the break
> up of our union, they would do what was needed...as good patriots!

Where are they now that the threat has passed?

> It's simply foolish to use the old LN gimmick of predicting a cast of
> thousands.

You are the one trying to sell the preposterous idea of a massively
complex conspiracy.

> Chris

[Bud]

The ideas you guys express are absurdly complex ones, they really can be
dismissed out of hand.

[stevemg...@yahoo.com]

The reduction ad asburdum is on the part of conspiracy theorists like you
who think a small handful of conspirators could pull this off.

Hell, you think the conspirators are still active today, fifty-plus years
later.

If "they" framed Oswald and covered up what really happened - and continue
to do so today - this couldn't be done by a handful of CIA snipers on the
orders of Richard Helms.

[tom...@cox.net]

APPARENTLY CORBETT HAS NEVER READ THE TESTIMONYOF THE PEOPLE IN DALLAS AND,
THE TESTIMONY OF THE PEOPLE IN BETHESDA ! ! !
===========================================================================

=====bigdog <jecorb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Wednesday, January 21, 2015 at 10:47:21 PM UTC-5, Pamela Brown wrote:
> > On Tuesday, January 20, 2015 at 10:24:04 PM UTC-6, David Von Pein
> > wrote:
> > > One of the most popular JFK assassination theories is that a

> > > massive=20 conspiracy took place in Dealey Plaza on 11/22/63,
> > > resulting in not onl=
> y=20
> > > the death of the American President, but also resulting in so many=20

> > > supposed conspiratorial loose ends that a cover-up team of

> > > thousands=20 probably wouldn't have provided enough manpower to
> > > accomplish the=20 burdensome task of rearranging all of the various
> > > pieces of evidence=20 surrounding JFK's murder in order to conceal
> > > the true facts and bumblin=
> g=20
> > > inadequacies of the harebrained "Patsy Plot" that many conspiracy=20

> > > believers advocate. And yet that's exactly what a goodly number of

> > > CTer=
> s=20
> > > think occurred in 1963.
> > >=20

> > > Despite the illogic of it all, and despite the massive roadblocks in

> > > th=
> e=20

> > > conspirators' path, somehow ALL of the physical evidence that was

> > > actua=
> lly=20

> > > being created by all of these OTHER KILLERS who were busy firing away

> > > a=
> nd=20

> > > pelting President Kennedy with rifle bullets in Dallas on November

> > > 22=
> =20

> > > (physical evidence such as guns, bullets, bullet fragments, bullet

> > > shel=
> ls,=20

> > > and fingerprints) found a way to ALL get placed on the plate of only

> > > Le=
> e=20
> > > Harvey Oswald. ....
> > >=20
> > > CONTINUE READING HERE:
> > > http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/09/insane-assassination-plot.ht
> > > ml
> >=20

> > its such fun to see a WC defender creating a conspiracy theory and

> > blamin=
> g=20
> > it on the CTs.
> >=20

> > There is such an obvious explanation for the differences in the state

> > of=
> =20

> > the body and evidence -- when you move everything 1600 mines from

> > the=20 crime scene, you lose control of the evidence and all sort of
> > confusing=
> =20

> > things can happen. And that isn't even a theory -- it just happens to

> > be=
> =20

> > a fact.
>
> The differences were in perceptions and not the state of the body.
> Rigormortis would have begun setting in by the time JFK's body got to
> Bethesda, but the wounds were the same as they were at Parkland. Bethesda
> had the chance to open up the wounds and see how massive the damage to
> the head was. Parkland never did that of course. As soon as they realized
> JFK was dead, the pulled the sheet over his head.

--
-------------------- http://NewsReader.Com/ --------------------
Usenet Newsgroup Service $9.95/Month 30GB

[mainframetech]

That's an opinion with no backup of logic or common sense.

> Hell, you think the conspirators are still active today, fifty-plus years
> later.
>

Not necessarily. So you're wrong yet again. There may be a few alive
still, but the main work of arguing against any thoughts of conspiracy in
the government is the government itself. No government can stand for long
if the public doesn't believe the people in government. If people don't
believe the government, there will soon be a takeover of that government.
As long as the JFK case has conspiracy adherents, there will be government
efforts to offset those statements and efforts to prove that the
government theory of the murder is the right and only one. And they will
even go to the extreme of having people go out and pretend to be believers
in the government version of the story and argue with conspiracy believers
to show to others that there is plenty of reason to believe the government
version of things.

> If "they" framed Oswald and covered up what really happened - and continue
> to do so today - this couldn't be done by a handful of CIA snipers on the
> orders of Richard Helms.

Correct. It could be done by the orders of LBJ and with a few workers
in the SS and the FBI, along with some borrowed shooters from the Mafia.
Later, the cover up could be handled by the FBI, who will do exactly what
Hoover wants, which was to support the 'lone nut' theory. After that, the
government itself will take over the effort to cover up, and will do all
it can to get people believing whatever they say.

Chris

[mainframetech]

Oh hell. You were doing so well too! Now you go back to being wrong
again!

Parkland did NOT pull the sheet over JFK's head when they realized he
was dead. Many Parkland personnel noted that the wounds that JFK
sustained were life ending, but they stayed with it to try and resuscitate
him, even though they knew it was hopeless. They also noted the amount of
damage to the head while he was there, and a few even had to handle the
head and the BOH wound that was so obvious to over 40 witnesses.

When it came to Bethesda, there were a number of procedures normal in
that type of autopsy that were avoided by the prosectors partly on orders
from the gallery, and partly because of orders they got in advance of the
final Autopsy Report (AR). When they had previously worked hard to find a
path for the back wound bullet that was stopped at the pleura in the back,
the Forensic Pathologist and Wound Ballistics expert, Pierre Finck, said
"There's NO EXIT" from the body of JFK, and Humes offered that the missing
bullet was probably wiggled out at Parkland during heart massage.

There were indeed a major difference in the wounds at Parkland and at
Bethesda, after Humes and Boswell got at the body and used scalpel and
bone saw to modify the skull while using the excuse that they were
searching for bullets and fragments. This was earlier at 6:35pm in the
evening, BEFORE the 'official' autopsy! There were at least 2 witnesses
to that clandestine 'surgery', Tom Robinson and Ed Reed.

Chris

[mainframetech]

Wow! For a change you said something that made some sense! And not
wrong either! Keep it going!

Chris

[mainframetech]

I doubt that Oswald had anything of substance to do with Ferrie early
on. And maybe not that much later, around 1963, but you never know. It
seems many people in the JFK case knew of each other there in Dallas.

Chris

[mainframetech]

Ridiculous logic! No sense to that at all. In actuality, there were at
LEAST 2 shooters, both in front and behind JFK in Dealey Plaza or nearby.
Witnesses saw a rifle being fired from the TSBD 6th floor window, and the
final kill shot came from in front of the limo based on findings of the
prosectors in the autopsy.

You apparently have avoided the ARRB file information that has made
many things crystal clear in the murder. For one, tne small (5mm) wound
on the right forehead/temple above the right eye of JFK was seen by a
number of witnesses, yet left out of the final Autopsy Report (AR), which
was not incompetence, but following orders to avoid anything that might
sound like a shooter from the front. But the wound in question was seen
by the Wound ballistics expert, Pierre Finck, and he recognized it as an
entry wound partly because of the gray ring around the circumference of
the wound, which is left when a lead bullet hits. Thst wound was also
documented in an X-ray that showed that the bullet that hit there began a
trail of metal fragments that expanded toward the rear of the skull in a
cone shape and heading toward the blow-out area in the BOH of JFK.

So we have both front shooters and back shooters. And since the SBT has
been proved to be dead, the wounds in Connally had to be caused by a shot
from the rear, perhaps the Dal-tex building or similar location.

Chris

[Clubking01]

No it doesn't necessarily make them co-conspirators, but it does lend
credence to the fact that they at least knew each other. A fact that
Ferrie later lied about.

[Anthony Marsh]

So you are saying that there were no plots to assassinate Fidel Castro.
You haven't bothered to read the Inspector General's report.

[Anthony Marsh]

Funny how I can notice something in a photograph that no one else ever
noticed before.

>
>> If told that they were
>> helping to stop WW3, or told that they were stopping rioting and the break
>> up of our union, they would do what was needed...as good patriots!
>
> Where are they now that the threat has passed?

If the threat has passed then how come they still need a cover-up?

>
>> It's simply foolish to use the old LN gimmick of predicting a cast of
>> thousands.
>
> You are the one trying to sell the preposterous idea of a massively
> complex conspiracy.
>

False charge.

>> Chris
>
>

[Anthony Marsh]

On 1/22/2015 8:43 PM, bigdog wrote:
> On Wednesday, January 21, 2015 at 10:47:30 PM UTC-5, Pamela Brown wrote:
>>
>> And yet, for example, even shown a photo of Lee Oswald with David Ferrie they will INSIST that the two never met. There is no extreme too far for them to go to attempt to claim that LHO acted alone...
>
> Rosalyn Carter was photographed with serial killer John Wayne Gacy. That
> doesn't establish they ever had an association.
>

Neil Bush, a landman for Amoco Oil, told Denver reporters he had met
Scott Hinckley at a surprise party at the Bush home January 23, 1981 [Nine
weeks before Hinckley's brother John Jr. attempted to assassinate
President Reagan--which would have elevated Bush Sr. to the presidency].

But that doen't prove that Bush hired Hinckley assassinate Reagan.

> So what if Ferrie and Oswald were in the CAP at the same time. That is
> true of other people as well. Does that make them co-conspirators?
>
>

The so what is that all you WC defenders denied it for so many years. You
said they could not possibly have known of each other. Until the photo of
the CAP picnic came out. Then you had to backtrack and claim that just
because they knew each other does not prove they were in the SAME
conspiracy.

[Anthony Marsh]

It's a little easier to recruit someone if you already know him.

[David Von Pein]

MainFrame/Chris *actually* thinks it's "ridiculous logic" for me to think
that it's silly for a group of plotters to want to frame a lone patsy by
firing shots at JFK from both the front and rear.

Therefore, per wise ol' MainFrame, it *WAS* indeed a great idea (a perfect
plan!) to try and set up Oswald IN ADVANCE of Nov. 22 by placing a gunman
on the Knoll.

The only thing left to be said now is ---- Incredible!

[Bud]

As long as people spout terrible ideas there will people who say "Man,
thats just silly".

And nobody has a higher opinion of the government than conspiracy
hobbyists, they think it can do anything the hobbyist imagines.

>
>
>
> > If "they" framed Oswald and covered up what really happened - and continue
> > to do so today - this couldn't be done by a handful of CIA snipers on the
> > orders of Richard Helms.
>
> Correct. It could be done by the orders of LBJ and with a few workers
> in the SS and the FBI, along with some borrowed shooters from the Mafia.
> Later, the cover up could be handled by the FBI, who will do exactly what
> Hoover wants, which was to support the 'lone nut' theory. After that, the
> government itself will take over the effort to cover up, and will do all
> it can to get people believing whatever they say.

After heaping one complexity onto another you now try to make you ideas
seem simple. It isn`t convincing.'

> Chris

[Bud]

So if Rosalyn Carter was asked if she knew Gacy and she said "no" she
would be lying just because a photo of the two of them exist?

And doesn`t this photo link Gacy to Jimmy Carter?

http://www.infobarrel.com/media/image/73381.jpg

[Bud]

Thats kind of the point, most conspiracy hobbyists fancy that they are
some sort of astute detective. On examination that never seems to be the
case.

> >
> >> If told that they were
> >> helping to stop WW3, or told that they were stopping rioting and the break
> >> up of our union, they would do what was needed...as good patriots!
> >
> > Where are they now that the threat has passed?
>
> If the threat has passed then how come they still need a cover-up?

For the same reason you don`t need an umbrella for imaginary rain.

> >
> >> It's simply foolish to use the old LN gimmick of predicting a cast of
> >> thousands.
> >
> > You are the one trying to sell the preposterous idea of a massively
> > complex conspiracy.
> >
>
> False charge.

Quite accurate, actually. I tried to get you to outline this supposed
small conspiracy model and you failed miserably.


> >> Chris
> >
> >

[Anthony Marsh]

Why lie if he didn't have anything to hide? Because he was afraid of the
gossip and what elaborate stories people would make up. You do know that
David Ferrie was a Pedophile, don't you, who preyed on young boys like
CPA cadets?

[Anthony Marsh]

Gallery? Prove gallery. Maybe the Army General was standing right behind
him with a gun in his ribs.

> final Autopsy Report (AR). When they had previously worked hard to find a
> path for the back wound bullet that was stopped at the pleura in the back,

No, they hadn't worked hard. They guessed. They were incompetent.

> the Forensic Pathologist and Wound Ballistics expert, Pierre Finck, said
> "There's NO EXIT" from the body of JFK, and Humes offered that the missing
> bullet was probably wiggled out at Parkland during heart massage.
>
> There were indeed a major difference in the wounds at Parkland and at
> Bethesda, after Humes and Boswell got at the body and used scalpel and
> bone saw to modify the skull while using the excuse that they were
> searching for bullets and fragments. This was earlier at 6:35pm in the
> evening, BEFORE the 'official' autopsy! There were at least 2 witnesses
> to that clandestine 'surgery', Tom Robinson and Ed Reed.
>

You are confusing head wound with back wound.

> Chris
>

[cmikes]

Any evidence that Ferrie even remembered Oswald? Oswald only went to a
couple of meetings so I find very unlikely that anyone actually in the CAP
remembered much about him. I joined the Boy Scouts for a couple of months
when I was a kid before I decided it wasn't for me and I couldn't pick my
troop leader out of a line-up.

[mainframetech]

For 43 years logic was a major part of my working life, which was a
successful career in computers and programming. I can readily recognize
'bad' logic, and that's what you tried to apply in your previous post.
When you have taken a course in logic and found your error, don't be mad
when I say 'I told you so'...:)


The proof of your mistake begins with the fact that shots were fired at
JFK from both the front AND the rear. I'm sure you'll accept that there
were shots fired from the TSBD, which would be 'shots from behind', and
the shots from in front would be the small (5mm) wound in the
temple/forehead above the right eye, which was seen by a number of
witnesses. That wound was also recognized by the Forensic Pathologist and
Wound Ballistics expert, Pierre Finck during the autopsy. As well, as
corroboration, the X-ray technician (Jerrol Custer) took an X-ray that
showed where a bullet had entered the small wound and began breaking up
into metal fragments and expanding in a cone toward the rear toward the
blow-out at the BOH seen by over 40 people. That can be read from his
sworn testimony:

"Q: When did that happen?
A: That was during - after the first set of skull films were taken. And the
AP cervical spine
showed metal fragments. And one of the laterals also showed a - bone
fragments that had the cones effect.
If you've ever used a fragment bullet - when it goes in, it fragments.
And the further it goes in,
the cone becomes bigger. So, you have a small-
Let me borrow your pen. I know this is hard to put it on record.
Like your cone starts small. And it goes - As you come out, it expands.
Say, this being the front of the skull: the forehead, the orbits, the
nasion, which is the nose, the jaw -
come back, the occipital region."

From: http://aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/arrb/medical_testimony/pdf/Custer_10-28-97.pdf
page 100-101

Chris

[Anthony Marsh]

Well, we actually look at the evidence. Something you guys never do.

>>>
>>>> If told that they were
>>>> helping to stop WW3, or told that they were stopping rioting and the break
>>>> up of our union, they would do what was needed...as good patriots!
>>>
>>> Where are they now that the threat has passed?
>>
>> If the threat has passed then how come they still need a cover-up?
>
> For the same reason you don`t need an umbrella for imaginary rain.

An umbrella is not just for rain. It's also for signaling. And
assassinations.

>
>>>
>>>> It's simply foolish to use the old LN gimmick of predicting a cast of
>>>> thousands.
>>>
>>> You are the one trying to sell the preposterous idea of a massively
>>> complex conspiracy.
>>>
>>
>> False charge.
>
> Quite accurate, actually. I tried to get you to outline this supposed
> small conspiracy model and you failed miserably.
>

Just look at the Castro plots.

>
>>>> Chris
>>>
>>>
>
>

[bigdog]

Why lie. A New Orleans district attorney is on a witch hunt and you can't
imagine why Ferrie would deny knowing Oswald?

It's also possible Ferrie wasn't lying. He may not have even remembered
Oswald. Or maybe he knew him really well which might be another reason to
lie about it.

[mainframetech]

Yep. You still don't get it. You see, when you have the resources of a
government to do your bidding, you can get a lot done. First, having
multiple shooters does a better job of guaranteeing that you will get the
target, who in this case could use his position to track down the guilty
with a vengeance if left alive. Second, by having the government at your
beck and call, you have what you need to make it look like there was only
one shooter! And that is exactly what happened! The FBI was the most
responsible for modifying evidence and changing testimony and statements,
and the custodian of the bullet evidence was able to do some work that
helped.

Yep, once the idea sets in, you see what can be done with multiple
shooters and a single 'patsy'...:)

Chris

[bigdog]

On Sunday, January 25, 2015 at 9:16:02 AM UTC-5, mainframetech wrote:
>
> For 43 years logic was a major part of my working life, which was a
> successful career in computers and programming. I can readily recognize
> 'bad' logic, and that's what you tried to apply in your previous post.
> When you have taken a course in logic and found your error, don't be mad
> when I say 'I told you so'...:)
>

I hope you used better logic in your working life than you have shown
here. Logic does not allow one to arbitrarily dismiss plausible
explanations in favor of the desired one. All possibilities must be
considered until they can be proven to be no longer possible. For example,
you continually insist that Finck's observation early in the autopsy was
that there was "no exit" must be true even though he and the rest of the
team later abandoned it. But that is the outcome you desire so you accept
it as fact. You refuse to consider the possibility that he could have
changed his mind about there being no exit after further examination of
the body revealed wounds all the way through the torso. You illogically
insist the only reason the AR does not agree with the early observation is
because the team was ordered to falsify it, even though you have no
evidence any such order was given. It is something you simply assume.

The above is just one example of the piss poor logic you apply in the case
with just about every piece of evidence available.

[Bud]

We don`t play the silly games you guys do, put on your imagination caps
on and run wild, whats the point to that?

If I show you a picture of a horse, you can imagine it`s really a zebra
that someone painted. Look at it long enough and maybe you can convince
yourself that it is some other kind of animal in disguise. Again, there is
no point to this kind of activity.

> >>>
> >>>> If told that they were
> >>>> helping to stop WW3, or told that they were stopping rioting and the break
> >>>> up of our union, they would do what was needed...as good patriots!
> >>>
> >>> Where are they now that the threat has passed?
> >>
> >> If the threat has passed then how come they still need a cover-up?
> >
> > For the same reason you don`t need an umbrella for imaginary rain.
>
> An umbrella is not just for rain. It's also for signaling. And
> assassinations.

And travelling down chimneys.

> >
> >>>
> >>>> It's simply foolish to use the old LN gimmick of predicting a cast of
> >>>> thousands.
> >>>
> >>> You are the one trying to sell the preposterous idea of a massively
> >>> complex conspiracy.
> >>>
> >>
> >> False charge.
> >
> > Quite accurate, actually. I tried to get you to outline this supposed
> > small conspiracy model and you failed miserably.
> >
>
> Just look at the Castro plots.

By all mean, outline what you think happened in the Kennedy
assassination and draw comparisons to the Castro plots. Don`t be bashful,
put your ideas on the table for consideration, so they can be seen for
what they are, silly.


> >
> >>>> Chris
> >>>
> >>>
> >
> >

[Anthony Marsh]

So now you are conflating the back wound with the head wound.
Cervical means neck. Not brain.

[Anthony Marsh]

No, not exactly. But he was worried enough by the rumors to try to make
sure that Oswald didn't have his library card. Sometimes a pedophile can
not remember each of his 10,000 victims.

> couple of meetings so I find very unlikely that anyone actually in the CAP
> remembered much about him. I joined the Boy Scouts for a couple of months
> when I was a kid before I decided it wasn't for me and I couldn't pick my
> troop leader out of a line-up.

Is that why the police let him go? You helped free a pedophile?

>

[David Von Pein]

Yeah, sure, Chris. Just snap your fingers and get the evil Government to
do anything you want them to. What fabulous power "they" possessed, huh?

And Mainframe still misses the key point -- nobody would dare risk
undertaking such a foolhardy Multi-Gun, Solo-Patsy plan in the first
place. The built-in hazards and complications are all too obvious. But
those hazards are things that Mr. or Mrs. Mainframe think the plotters
welcomed with open arm s (and with multiple guns).

Mainframe is evidently built in the "David Lifton" mold, with this motto
hanging above his/her desk -- **Complicate things to the max, even when
you don't need to.**

[tom...@cox.net]

===========================================================================
===== FERRIE KNEW OSWALD WELL ENOUGH TO ALLOW OSWALD TO USE FERRIE'S
LIBRARY CARD ! ! AND, THEY K EACH OTHER WHEN TH WORKED TOGETHER AT GUY
BANNISTER'S OFFICE AT 544 CAMP STREET ! ! ! !
===========================================================================
===

--
-------------------- http://NewsReader.Com/ --------------------
Usenet Newsgroup Service $9.95/Month 30GB

[mainframetech]

On Sunday, January 25, 2015 at 8:09:53 PM UTC-5, bigdog wrote:
> On Sunday, January 25, 2015 at 9:16:02 AM UTC-5, mainframetech wrote:
> >
> > For 43 years logic was a major part of my working life, which was a
> > successful career in computers and programming. I can readily recognize
> > 'bad' logic, and that's what you tried to apply in your previous post.
> > When you have taken a course in logic and found your error, don't be mad
> > when I say 'I told you so'...:)
> >
>
> I hope you used better logic in your working life than you have shown
> here. Logic does not allow one to arbitrarily dismiss plausible
> explanations in favor of the desired one. All possibilities must be
> considered until they can be proven to be no longer possible. For example,
> you continually insist that Finck's observation early in the autopsy was
> that there was "no exit" must be true even though he and the rest of the
> team later abandoned it.

As usual, you're so wrong you're off in the weeds. Using logic in one
case does not force one to use it in every case. and common sense in
another case can be just as useful, it all depends on the situation and
the specific problem you're working on at any one moment. Think it
through!

> But that is the outcome you desire so you accept
> it as fact. You refuse to consider the possibility that he could have
> changed his mind about there being no exit after further examination of
> the body revealed wounds all the way through the torso. You illogically
> insist the only reason the AR does not agree with the early observation is
> because the team was ordered to falsify it, even though you have no
> evidence any such order was given. It is something you simply assume.
>

I see along with being wrong as usual, you've decided to put on your
wizard of Oz cap and read my mind and what I was thinking at some point.
And you did that wrong too! Try to get it together. I have given my
reasons for believing that DURING the autopsy that truth was being told by
the observers, but that in the Autopsy Report (AR) Humes could NOT be
honest because of orders. Your continual insistence on trying to pretend
that the prosectors made only an 'early' finding, and later discarded it,
is phony as hell, and I've put it down before, you (of course) cannot
stand to face the truth and the embarrassment and so you insist on the
false parts of the story. When one reads the actual sworn testimony of
James Sibert and his partner, you see right away that the prosectors spent
much time looking for the bullet from the back wound, and time on finding
the path of that bullet, until the Forensic Pathologist and Wound
Ballistics expert (Finck) decided "There's NO EXIT" from the bodty of JFK.
Your continual attempts to discredit Finck, when he has only the best of
experience for this work is ridiculous, and desperate. Finck himself
announced that "There's NO EXIT" from the body of JFK, not just the other
prosectors, and he was the expert. Why do you keep suggesting that he
didn't know what he was doing and that they all had to change their minds
later after Finck had made his determination?

The many errors in the AR show that Humes didn't know how to deal with
the orders he was given. He left out mention of an important wound in the
wound list, probably because it was almost surely the kill shot and was
from the front, and he made a mess of the report about the back wound
bullet, especially when he said the pleura "was INTACT", which immediately
meant that the bullet had stopped there.

There is NO way that the AR was honest, since I've pointed out the
deficiencies, which would never be in a normal shooting autopsy. Your
continued attempts to cover up the facts that were shown DURING the
autopsy make one suspect whether you're being straightforward. When the
evidence is passed to you about the AR and the events DURING the autopsy,
you glide by them and go back to your various mantras, which ever one your
using at any one time.

Chris

[Anthony Marsh]

I have done so thousands of times here, but you refuse to pay attention.
And you will refuse to look at the Castro plots. Even when we force feed
you you refuse to digest the information.

>
>>>
>>>>>> Chris
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>>
>
>

[Anthony Marsh]

On 1/25/2015 8:09 PM, bigdog wrote:
> On Sunday, January 25, 2015 at 9:16:02 AM UTC-5, mainframetech wrote:
>>
>> For 43 years logic was a major part of my working life, which was a
>> successful career in computers and programming. I can readily recognize
>> 'bad' logic, and that's what you tried to apply in your previous post.
>> When you have taken a course in logic and found your error, don't be mad
>> when I say 'I told you so'...:)
>>
>
> I hope you used better logic in your working life than you have shown
> here. Logic does not allow one to arbitrarily dismiss plausible
> explanations in favor of the desired one. All possibilities must be
> considered until they can be proven to be no longer possible. For example,
> you continually insist that Finck's observation early in the autopsy was

Early? Finck wasn't even there early. He got there late.
They didn't discover the back wound until LATE in the autopsy.

> that there was "no exit" must be true even though he and the rest of the
> team later abandoned it. But that is the outcome you desire so you accept
> it as fact. You refuse to consider the possibility that he could have
> changed his mind about there being no exit after further examination of
> the body revealed wounds all the way through the torso. You illogically

It was not based on further examination. It was based on finding out
about the throat wound from Dr. Perry.

[Anthony Marsh]

Even with two shooters the WC defenders said it was just a case of 2
lone nuts, not conspiracy.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 1/25/2015 7:42 PM, bigdog wrote:
> On Saturday, January 24, 2015 at 10:57:42 PM UTC-5, Anthony Marsh wrote:
>> On 1/23/2015 9:55 PM, Clubking01 wrote:
>>> On Thursday, January 22, 2015 at 7:43:16 PM UTC-6, bigdog wrote:
>>>> On Wednesday, January 21, 2015 at 10:47:30 PM UTC-5, Pamela Brown wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> And yet, for example, even shown a photo of Lee Oswald with David Ferrie they will INSIST that the two never met. There is no extreme too far for them to go to attempt to claim that LHO acted alone...
>>>>
>>>> Rosalyn Carter was photographed with serial killer John Wayne Gacy. That
>>>> doesn't establish they ever had an association.
>>>>
>>>> So what if Ferrie and Oswald were in the CAP at the same time. That is
>>>> true of other people as well. Does that make them co-conspirators?
>>>
>>> No it doesn't necessarily make them co-conspirators, but it does lend
>>> credence to the fact that they at least knew each other. A fact that
>>> Ferrie later lied about.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Why lie if he didn't have anything to hide? Because he was afraid of the
>> gossip and what elaborate stories people would make up. You do know that
>> David Ferrie was a Pedophile, don't you, who preyed on young boys like
>> CPA cadets?
>
> Why lie. A New Orleans district attorney is on a witch hunt and you can't
> imagine why Ferrie would deny knowing Oswald?
>

That was MY point. Stop stealing. Make up your own points.

> It's also possible Ferrie wasn't lying. He may not have even remembered
> Oswald. Or maybe he knew him really well which might be another reason to
> lie about it.
>
>

As I said before, when a pedophile has raped thousands of victims he
can't possibly remember each and every one of them.

[mainframetech]

Actually the plot was fairly simple, but I can see that you didn't
understand it, or the key elements. It would be foolish to avoid having a
'patsy' for a conspiracy to murder the president, whether you had prepared
1 shooter or 10 of them. If there were no 'patsy', the plotters would
have been chased down to the end of their ropes until caught. With a
'patsy' that was planned to be killed after the murder, there would be NO
search for the guilty because the 'guilty' person was dead.

The conspiracy did not include anyone with the power to "snap their
fingers" until after the murder, then if the guilty party were, let's say,
LBJ, then he would indeed have the power to snap fingers and get what he
wanted, since he would be president.

You've picked out a theme that is foolish, and needs more thinking.
Letting themselves in for a lifetime search for the guilty (without a
patsy) would be a mistake for anyone doing any serious planning to kill
the POTUS.

Chris

[Anthony Marsh]

> welcomed with open arm= (and with multiple guns).
>

They do so all the time.
How many times has the CIA used a solo shooter?

[tom...@cox.net]

I see that bud has not read the church committee either if he had, he
would know that the ans to assassinate caro was strictly a cia plot when
the Kennedy's ordered them stopped the cia lied to the Kennedy's by telling
them that the plote have been stopped , while they were ill ongoing ! ! !
> > >
> > >>>> Chris
===========================================================================
==== see>>>
http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/contents/church/contents_church_reports_v
ol5.htm
===========================================================================
====

[DR SEUSS]

What a joke! You get almost 95 percent of your claims from conspiracy
books.

[David Von Pein]

Chris still doesn't get the point. Might as well chalk him/her up as a
"lost cause".

[Bud]

It`s not my fault that you are afraid to put your ideas on the table for
consideration. You know if you did it would be obvious that they have no
merit. The whole concept that what you guys imagine in the Kennedy
assassination can be accomplished by a small number of people is silly and
unsupportable, so its no surprise that you don`t even try.

> >
> >>>
> >>>>>> Chris
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >
> >

[bigdog]

On Monday, January 26, 2015 at 11:36:16 PM UTC-5, mainframetech wrote:
> On Sunday, January 25, 2015 at 8:09:53 PM UTC-5, bigdog wrote:
> > On Sunday, January 25, 2015 at 9:16:02 AM UTC-5, mainframetech wrote:
> > >
> > > For 43 years logic was a major part of my working life, which was a
> > > successful career in computers and programming. I can readily recognize
> > > 'bad' logic, and that's what you tried to apply in your previous post.
> > > When you have taken a course in logic and found your error, don't be mad
> > > when I say 'I told you so'...:)
> > >
> >
> > I hope you used better logic in your working life than you have shown
> > here. Logic does not allow one to arbitrarily dismiss plausible
> > explanations in favor of the desired one. All possibilities must be
> > considered until they can be proven to be no longer possible. For example,
> > you continually insist that Finck's observation early in the autopsy was
> > that there was "no exit" must be true even though he and the rest of the
> > team later abandoned it.
>
> As usual, you're so wrong you're off in the weeds. Using logic in one
> case does not force one to use it in every case.

Now this is revealing. So you admit that you don't use logic to form your
beliefs. We've known that for quite a while but it is surprising to see
you admit it.

> and common sense in
> another case can be just as useful,

Yes it is. Give it a try sometime.

> it all depends on the situation and
> the specific problem you're working on at any one moment. Think it
> through!
>

And when neither logic nor common sense get you to where you want to go,
you just dream shit up.

>

> > But that is the outcome you desire so you accept
> > it as fact. You refuse to consider the possibility that he could have
> > changed his mind about there being no exit after further examination of
> > the body revealed wounds all the way through the torso. You illogically
> > insist the only reason the AR does not agree with the early observation is
> > because the team was ordered to falsify it, even though you have no
> > evidence any such order was given. It is something you simply assume.
> >
>
>
> I see along with being wrong as usual, you've decided to put on your
> wizard of Oz cap and read my mind and what I was thinking at some point.

I can honestly say I have never understood your thinking.

> And you did that wrong too! Try to get it together. I have given my
> reasons for believing that DURING the autopsy that truth was being told by
> the observers, but that in the Autopsy Report (AR) Humes could NOT be
> honest because of orders.

Yes you have. And none of it made sense.

> Your continual insistence on trying to pretend
> that the prosectors made only an 'early' finding, and later discarded it,
> is phony as hell,

Even though that is exactly what the FINAL report said.

> and I've put it down before, you (of course) cannot
> stand to face the truth and the embarrassment and so you insist on the
> false parts of the story. When one reads the actual sworn testimony of
> James Sibert and his partner, you see right away that the prosectors spent
> much time looking for the bullet from the back wound,

Of course they did. They had an entrance wound and no apparent exit since
the exit wound had been obliterated at Parkland. It is only natural that
their first inclination would be that there should still be a bullet in
the body, i.e. "no exit". But when that bullet didn't materialize, they
began to question that initial thought and try to figure out why that
was.

> and time on finding
> the path of that bullet, until the Forensic Pathologist and Wound
> Ballistics expert (Finck) decided "There's NO EXIT" from the bodty of JFK.

You keep going back to the idea that was discarded once they realized
there was no bullet in the body. Why can't you just accept that this early
idea was wrong? The person who proposed it did. Why do you insist that
once he said that, it was carved in stone?

> Your continual attempts to discredit Finck, when he has only the best of
> experience for this work is ridiculous, and desperate.

I don't discredit Finck. I applaud him. His initial observation of "no
exit" seemed reasonable at first glance and he had the good sense to
realize that was not true and changed his mind. That's what intelligent
people do when faced with evidence that contradicts their initial
beliefs.

> Finck himself
> announced that "There's NO EXIT" from the body of JFK, not just the other
> prosectors, and he was the expert. Why do you keep suggesting that he
> didn't know what he was doing and that they all had to change their minds
> later after Finck had made his determination?
>

Because they wrote a report which Finck put his name to that clearly
stated there was an exit.

> The many errors in the AR show that Humes didn't know how to deal with
> the orders he was given.

Now you are back to assuming things for which there is no evidence, logic,
or common sense involved.

> He left out mention of an important wound in the
> wound list, probably because it was almost surely the kill shot and was
> from the front, and he made a mess of the report about the back wound
> bullet, especially when he said the pleura "was INTACT", which immediately
> meant that the bullet had stopped there.
>

Now you are just spouting nonsense not supported by anyone who has any
experience determining entrance wounds from exit wounds.

> There is NO way that the AR was honest, since I've pointed out the
> deficiencies, which would never be in a normal shooting autopsy. Your
> continued attempts to cover up the facts that were shown DURING the
> autopsy make one suspect whether you're being straightforward. When the
> evidence is passed to you about the AR and the events DURING the autopsy,
> you glide by them and go back to your various mantras, which ever one your
> using at any one time.
>

I am not covering up facts but you seem intent on inventing facts. You
present no evidence. You present speculation and assumptions, just like
your hero Horne.

[Anthony Marsh]

There is no proof that Oswald used Ferrie's library card. That was just
a vicious rumor that someone started and Ferrie was worried about it.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 1/27/2015 5:55 PM, David Von Pein wrote:
> Chris still doesn't get the point. Might as well chalk him/her up as a
> "lost cause".
>

So now you're going to start calling hims hers?

[mainframetech]

On Tuesday, January 27, 2015 at 5:55:04 PM UTC-5, David Von Pein wrote:
> Chris still doesn't get the point. Might as well chalk him/her up as a
> "lost cause".

I got your point long ago, and saw immediately the logic error and
replied with the description of your error. You're still fooling around
and cannot figure out your error.

Now, I'll take it very slowly this time and see if you can figure out
what I'm talking about:


First, multiple shooters stationed around Dealey Plaza will do a better
job of guaranteeing that the target will be killed. That's important
because as POTUS, JFK could use all those resources to chase down all the
plotters and have them prosecuted. Second, For the safety of the
plotters, it is far wiser to have a single 'lone nut' that was guilty (or
seemed to be) of the crime. It would be stupid to have multiple 'patsies'
to blame for the crime. That would entail another murder. Third, the
'lone nut' that is to be set up to take the fall for the crime must be
killed as soon as possible so that he can't somehow get out of the charge
of murder against him, and possibly give away some important piece of
evidence. Fourth, as the murder completes, you have to make sure that all
bases were covered as to there seeming to be a single shooter, and NOT
multiple shooters. So you have your minions looking around for anything
out of whack, and raking care of it.


Now, if you still can't understand the above detailed explanation,
please give the detail of your thinking re: multiple shooter, single
patsy, and explain why that won't work. I'm sure there is a meeting
ground here somewhere.

Chris

[cmikes]

Good response. Let's take a look, again, at what Finck actually said.

From Finck's HSCA deposition.

Quote on.

Mr. PURDY. Is there anything that you would like to add or that -- maybe
confusion that has come up over the years that you have not had a chance
to clear up on the record that you might like to state at this time or
anything else of significance that you think you should mention to us?

Dr. FINCK. Again I think that there were only two wound tracks, one in the
back and one exit, and the front of the throat that is wound track number
one and the second wound track was an entry in the back of the head with a
large exit on the top and right side of the head. Although there had been
rumors that shots came from the front, I did not see any evidence on the
dead body of President Kennedy of wounds of entry in the front portions of
the cadaver. At the time of autopsy in the autopsy report we established
the number of wound tracks. We did not establish a sequence of wounds and
I think that is where the motion picture film taken by an amateur is of
value; it permits to say that the wounds of entry in the upper back/lower
neck on the right side was wound number one and that the second projectile
struck in the back of the head. That is the great value of the movie. So I
think that evidence has to be used for what it is worth. The cadaver
itself for the determination of the anatomic position of the wounds, my
request of the whole body X ray film survey ruling out the presence of an
intact bullet in the body of President Kennedy, the value of the motion
picture film to establish a sequence of tracks. I think that is about all
I have to say.

Quote off.

From Finck's testimony in the Shaw trial.

Quote on.

Q: Isn't it a fact, Doctor, at the time you were performing the autopsy,
or assisting in performing the autopsy, you were of the opinion the wound
in the back of the President was not a through-and-through gunshot
wound?
A: At the time of the autopsy on that night?
Q: Right.
A: Having a wound of entry and no wound of exit, and negative X-rays
showing no bullets in the cadaver at that time, the time of the autopsy, I
was puzzled by the fact of having an entry and no exit. However, this
cleared up after the conversation between Dr. Humes and the surgeons at
Dallas who stated that included a small wound in the front of the neck in
their incision of tracheotomy to keep the breathing of the President
up.
Q: On the night of the 22nd of November you did have occasion to see the
wound in the area of the throat?
A: On the skin?
Q: Yes.
A: No, I examined the surgical incision, but I don't recall seeing the small
wound de- scribed by the Dallas surgeons. It was part of the surgical
incision and I didn't see it.
Q: You saw the incision.
A: In the front of the neck, definitely.
Q: You were puzzled by what you found in the back, is that right?
A: I was not puzzled by what I found in the back, I was puzzled by having
a definite entry in the back, a bruise in the plural region, that is the
region of the cavity of the chest, which was bruised, between the entry in
the back and the exit in the front, and the three of us, the prosectors,
we saw that bruise, and the following day knowing that a small wound had
been seen in the front of the neck that made very much sense to me, an
entry in the back, a wound in the front and a bruise in between due to the
passage of that bullet.

Quote off.

So much for "NO EXIT".

[tom...@cox.net]

===========================================================================
=====CASTRO DID NOT HAVE THE ABILITY TO KILL JFK NOR, DID CASTRO HAVE THE
POWER TO COVER IT UP. NOR, CASTRO DID NOT HAVE HE POWER TO TAMPER WITH
TVIDENCE ! ! !
===========================================================================
====

[mainframetech]

On Tuesday, January 27, 2015 at 10:44:08 PM UTC-5, bigdog wrote:
> On Monday, January 26, 2015 at 11:36:16 PM UTC-5, mainframetech wrote:
> > On Sunday, January 25, 2015 at 8:09:53 PM UTC-5, bigdog wrote:
> > > On Sunday, January 25, 2015 at 9:16:02 AM UTC-5, mainframetech wrote:
> > > >
> > > > For 43 years logic was a major part of my working life, which was a
> > > > successful career in computers and programming. I can readily recognize
> > > > 'bad' logic, and that's what you tried to apply in your previous post.
> > > > When you have taken a course in logic and found your error, don't be mad
> > > > when I say 'I told you so'...:)
> > > >
> > >
> > > I hope you used better logic in your working life than you have shown
> > > here. Logic does not allow one to arbitrarily dismiss plausible
> > > explanations in favor of the desired one. All possibilities must be
> > > considered until they can be proven to be no longer possible. For example,
> > > you continually insist that Finck's observation early in the autopsy was
> > > that there was "no exit" must be true even though he and the rest of the
> > > team later abandoned it.
> >
> > As usual, you're so wrong you're off in the weeds. Using logic in one
> > case does not force one to use it in every case.
>
> Now this is revealing. So you admit that you don't use logic to form your
> beliefs. We've known that for quite a while but it is surprising to see
> you admit it.
>

::: sigh ::: Wrong again. You'll never get out of that jump at the
sound of my voice habit, will you? I admit nothing of the kind. I don't
make admissions, I make statements. Various items learned can be learned
directly from evidence and one need not apply logic to know them. Other
items may not be immediately obvious and must be divined, and logic is one
of the tools to do that with. Try and think it through before jumping.

> > and common sense in
> > another case can be just as useful,
>
> Yes it is. Give it a try sometime.
>
> > it all depends on the situation and
> > the specific problem you're working on at any one moment. Think it
> > through!
> >
>
> And when neither logic nor common sense get you to where you want to go,
> you just dream shit up.
>

Nope. Think it through, and then come up with an example. I'll be glad
to explain any example you can find to help you along in learning how to
do this sort of thing.

> >
>
> > > But that is the outcome you desire so you accept
> > > it as fact. You refuse to consider the possibility that he could have
> > > changed his mind about there being no exit after further examination of
> > > the body revealed wounds all the way through the torso. You illogically
> > > insist the only reason the AR does not agree with the early observation is
> > > because the team was ordered to falsify it, even though you have no
> > > evidence any such order was given. It is something you simply assume.
> > >
> >
> >
> > I see along with being wrong as usual, you've decided to put on your
> > wizard of Oz cap and read my mind and what I was thinking at some point.
>
> I can honestly say I have never understood your thinking.
>

Then don't try to guess what it is that I'm thinking. I've always
answered a question of that type if asked in a normal decent fashion.

> > And you did that wrong too! Try to get it together. I have given my
> > reasons for believing that DURING the autopsy that truth was being told by
> > the observers, but that in the Autopsy Report (AR) Humes could NOT be
> > honest because of orders.
>
> Yes you have. And none of it made sense.
>

Because YOU didn't understand something doesn't mean that it makes no
sense. It can make plenty of sense to others. Fortunately I don't say
things for you to understand, but for any onlookers to understand. As a
person who needs to change their thinking, you're not my project, only my
useful helper.

> > Your continual insistence on trying to pretend
> > that the prosectors made only an 'early' finding, and later discarded it,
> > is phony as hell,
>
> Even though that is exactly what the FINAL report said.
>

Nope, wrong again! Although Humes got in the sentence he was forced by
orders to put in, he also made mistakes in his final Autopsy Report (AR)
that gave away his real thoughts. When he said that the "pleura was
INTACT", he gave away the most information in one sentence. He said (in
effect) that a bullet did NOT go past this point, and therefore did not
exit the body of JFK. Humes also offered the reason for the missing
bullet by saying that it might have fallen out during heart massage at
Parkland.

> > and I've put it down before, you (of course) cannot
> > stand to face the truth and the embarrassment and so you insist on the
> > false parts of the story. When one reads the actual sworn testimony of
> > James Sibert and his partner, you see right away that the prosectors spent
> > much time looking for the bullet from the back wound,
>
> Of course they did. They had an entrance wound and no apparent exit since
> the exit wound had been obliterated at Parkland. It is only natural that
> their first inclination would be that there should still be a bullet in
> the body, i.e. "no exit". But when that bullet didn't materialize, they
> began to question that initial thought and try to figure out why that
> was.
>

Nope. Wrong yet again! I would have thought you'd have picked it up by
now, but shooting autopsies have the Medical Examiner dissecting the
bullet paths to be absolutely sure where the bullet came from (direction)
and where it had gone, including where it had exited. The obliteration of
the throat wound did NOT deter from Pierre Finck (the experienced Wound
Ballistics expert) to find the path and describe it...if it existed in the
body. In the observer's sworn testimony, he makes it clear that the
prosectors spent a good deal of time trying to follow the bullet path and
where the bullet had gone. That is mentioned in his statements. Sadly,
Finck had finally come to the conclusion, "There's NO EXIT" from the body
of JFK after all the work of looking.

And BTW, 2 witnesses said that Humes talked to Dr. Perry at Parkland
and learned of all the procedures they performed at Parkland, including
the throat wound and the tracheostomy over it, DURING the autopsy. Look
into testimony of Nurse Audrey Bell and Dr. Ebersole, Radiologist at
Bethesda. So please don't bother me with phony talk that Humes and the
others didn't know about the tracheostomy, or what it hid.

> > and time on finding
> > the path of that bullet, until the Forensic Pathologist and Wound

> > Ballistics expert (Finck) decided "There's NO EXIT" from the body of JFK.

>
> You keep going back to the idea that was discarded once they realized
> there was no bullet in the body. Why can't you just accept that this early
> idea was wrong? The person who proposed it did. Why do you insist that
> once he said that, it was carved in stone?
>

WRONG! You keep trying to pretend that what was learned while
examining the back wound and its bullet was only a preliminary finding,
whereas it was really a conclusion made after much work looking through
the wound and where the bullet stopped. The evidence is there, amazing
that you think your fantasies can get people to believe other than the
facts. The bullet missing from the body was excused by Humes as having
probably come out during heart massage at Parkland, and as you know, nurse
Phyllis Hall at Parkland, saw a bullet on a gurney with JFK, though it
turned up missing later as some bullets also seem to have done.

>
> > Your continual attempts to discredit Finck, when he has only the best of
> > experience for this work is ridiculous, and desperate.
>
> I don't discredit Finck. I applaud him. His initial observation of "no
> exit" seemed reasonable at first glance and he had the good sense to
> realize that was not true and changed his mind. That's what intelligent
> people do when faced with evidence that contradicts their initial
> beliefs.
>

Yep, except Finck wasn't faced with any contradicting evidence. Humes learned of the procedures and the tracheostomy at Parkland DURING the autopsy, and I doubt he would not tell the other prosectors about what he had learned. So Finck was aware of the tracheostomy over a bullet wound. But it wouldn't matter to Finck. His job was to dissect the path of the bullet, whether the trach was done or not. He didn't do that, and the reason is that he knew already that the path stopped at the pleura and did NOT go past. Otherwise he would have to dissect through the pleura, the lung, and any other tissue along the way to the throat wound. Amazing how your fantasies force you to argue with logic and evidence from the record!

> > Finck himself
> > announced that "There's NO EXIT" from the body of JFK, not just the other
> > prosectors, and he was the expert. Why do you keep suggesting that he
> > didn't know what he was doing and that they all had to change their minds
> > later after Finck had made his determination?
> >
>
> Because they wrote a report which Finck put his name to that clearly
> stated there was an exit.
>

Yes, but Finck had made his conclusion after long examination and search DURING the autopsy. So if someone (Humes) wrote something else in the AR, that had no bearing on what had been found before. That didn't change. They all had to sign off on the AR to follow the orders. So the statement was there that the back wound and the throat were somehow connected, but they were unable to say how. No dissection was done because they knew there was nothing to dissect, because there was no path.

> > The many errors in the AR show that Humes didn't know how to deal with
> > the orders he was given.
>
> Now you are back to assuming things for which there is no evidence, logic,
> or common sense involved.
>

There's plenty of evidence and logic and common sense for everybody here, but you just can't see things like that. You're being blinded by the WCR and what you were told long ago. I've explained the logic, common sense, and pointed out the evidence to you.

> > He left out mention of an important wound in the
> > wound list, probably because it was almost surely the kill shot and was
> > from the front, and he made a mess of the report about the back wound
> > bullet, especially when he said the pleura "was INTACT", which immediately
> > meant that the bullet had stopped there.
> >
>
> Now you are just spouting nonsense not supported by anyone who has any
> experience determining entrance wounds from exit wounds.
>

Oh, give it a rest! Your made up fantasies get wearing after a while. A number of witnesses saw the wound in question, and there was also an X-ray corroborating it. Also where do you get off trying to fool people into thinking there was no wound? Pierre Finck was experienced in determining entry from exit wounds, and he decided that the wound in question was an entrance wound. That is supported by the wound being ringed in gray color at the rim, which is sometimes left by lead bullets.

> > There is NO way that the AR was honest, since I've pointed out the
> > deficiencies, which would never be in a normal shooting autopsy. Your
> > continued attempts to cover up the facts that were shown DURING the
> > autopsy make one suspect whether you're being straightforward. When the
> > evidence is passed to you about the AR and the events DURING the autopsy,
> > you glide by them and go back to your various mantras, which ever one

> > you're using at any one time.

> >
>
> I am not covering up facts but you seem intent on inventing facts. You
> present no evidence. You present speculation and assumptions, just like
> your hero Horne.

You're welcome to name the facts I've invented, and I'll be happy to explain or apologize as needed. I'll be waiting.

Chris

[David Von Pein]

How am I supposed to know if "Chris/Mainframetech" is a he or a she? I've
never met him/her and Chris is a unisex name.

[David Von Pein]

Still don't get it, do you Chris?

[Bud]

On Wednesday, January 28, 2015 at 10:57:45 AM UTC-5, mainframetech wrote:

> On Tuesday, January 27, 2015 at 5:55:04 PM UTC-5, David Von Pein wrote:
> > Chris still doesn't get the point. Might as well chalk him/her up as a
> > "lost cause".
>
>
> I got your point long ago, and saw immediately the logic error and
> replied with the description of your error. You're still fooling around
> and cannot figure out your error.
>
> Now, I'll take it very slowly this time and see if you can figure out
> what I'm talking about:
>
>
> First, multiple shooters stationed around Dealey Plaza will do a better
> job of guaranteeing that the target will be killed.

The only thing this would guarantee would be that it would be impossible
to frame a single shooter.

> That's important
> because as POTUS, JFK could use all those resources to chase down all the
> plotters and have them prosecuted. Second, For the safety of the
> plotters, it is far wiser to have a single 'lone nut' that was guilty (or
> seemed to be) of the crime. It would be stupid to have multiple 'patsies'
> to blame for the crime. That would entail another murder. Third, the
> 'lone nut' that is to be set up to take the fall for the crime must be
> killed as soon as possible so that he can't somehow get out of the charge
> of murder against him, and possibly give away some important piece of
> evidence.

By your flawed thinking there should have been several shooters among
the reporter, why count on a single bullet killing Oswald?

And of course Oswald had plenty of opportunity to talk. If things were as
you imagine he would have been killed before he got clear of the TSBD. Or
in the Texas Theater where shooting him would have been justified.

> Fourth, as the murder completes, you have to make sure that all
> bases were covered as to there seeming to be a single shooter, and NOT
> multiple shooters. So you have your minions looking around for anything
> out of whack, and raking care of it.
>
>
> Now, if you still can't understand the above detailed explanation,

Silly speculation not grounded in reality.

[Anthony Marsh]

These nuts never study history and look at other assassinations.
In the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand, the mastermind was well in
front of the motorcade, signaling his conspirators. All the attempts
from the rear failed due to technical problems. He eventually had to
take the insurance shot from the front.

In the attempts on Hitler most of the failures were due to technical
defects in otherwise brilliant plans. You can't account for every
variable and you need backup plans.

In the Petit Clamart attempt on de Gaulle, the shooters at the rear
missed seeing the late signal until after the car had passed them.
Even shooting out the tires did no good and the car sped away. One
shooter in the front barely missed de Gaulle's head and the other had
his machine gun jam.

[Anthony Marsh]

I have for many years, but you refuse to read my articles and my Web site.
I can't even lead the horse to water. He refuses to get up.

>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Chris
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>>
>
>

[Anthony Marsh]

The theory is that Castro hired Oswald to shoot JFK and LBJ started the
cover-up to hide that fact lest it start WWIII.

[mainframetech]

Nope, wrong. Finck was one of the prosectors, and an officer. They
were ordered to say and find certain things, and NOT find or say others.
After the autopsy they had no choice but to stay with the same story they
had to sign off on. The only way we know what happened DURING the autopsy
is that they were around the prosectors and saw and heard what they later
testified to.

It's so easy to fool people. Just make a report and call it the
'final' report, and everyone will believe it, even if it makes no logical
sense. That's the case here. The autopsy was done with SOME natural
ability to find what they should in ANY shooting autopsy. But along the
way, and after the autopsy, they had to follow the orders that came down.
Why do you think it was important enough to fight over stealing the body
out of Dallas and getting it into the hands of a military base? Because
the military were far more amenable to orders, and would follow them.
The stakes were too high for the prosectors to avoid doing following the
orders.

Chris

[Bud]

Notice how real conspiracies can be shown? Imaginary ones can only be
imagined.

[mainframetech]

You're repeating yourself. Have you made ANY effort at all to try and
understand where you went astray? And if you don't think you did, have
you made any effort to be better understood? Or do you want to avoid the
whole thing and run away but can't find a good way to do it?

Chris

[mainframetech]

I'm male, and have not corrected anyone using that gender in
addressing me.

Chris

[bigdog]

On Wednesday, January 28, 2015 at 10:57:45 AM UTC-5, mainframetech wrote:

> On Tuesday, January 27, 2015 at 5:55:04 PM UTC-5, David Von Pein wrote:
> > Chris still doesn't get the point. Might as well chalk him/her up as a
> > "lost cause".
>
>
> I got your point long ago, and saw immediately the logic error and
> replied with the description of your error. You're still fooling around
> and cannot figure out your error.
>
> Now, I'll take it very slowly this time and see if you can figure out
> what I'm talking about:
>
>
> First, multiple shooters stationed around Dealey Plaza will do a better
> job of guaranteeing that the target will be killed.

Yes it will and also make it impossible to frame one guy.

> That's important
> because as POTUS, JFK could use all those resources to chase down all the
> plotters and have them prosecuted.

Are you seriously saying killing JFK would stop that from happening?

> Second, For the safety of the
> plotters, it is far wiser to have a single 'lone nut' that was guilty (or
> seemed to be) of the crime. It would be stupid to have multiple 'patsies'
> to blame for the crime.

About as stupid as using multiple shooters to frame one patsy.

> That would entail another murder. Third, the
> 'lone nut' that is to be set up to take the fall for the crime must be
> killed as soon as possible so that he can't somehow get out of the charge
> of murder against him, and possibly give away some important piece of
> evidence.

So why did they let him live for two days. A guy can spill lots of beans
in two days. If their plan was to shut Oswald up, he wouldn't have lived
to see another day.

> Fourth, as the murder completes, you have to make sure that all
> bases were covered as to there seeming to be a single shooter, and NOT
> multiple shooters. So you have your minions looking around for anything
> out of whack, and raking care of it.
>

How many minions would that be? Were the minions involved before hand or
recruited after the fact.

>
> Now, if you still can't understand the above detailed explanation,
> please give the detail of your thinking re: multiple shooter, single
> patsy, and explain why that won't work. I'm sure there is a meeting
> ground here somewhere.
>

It's hard to understand how somebody could find that more believeable than
Oswald just shot JFK by himself.

[bigdog]

On Wednesday, January 28, 2015 at 10:26:06 PM UTC-5, Anthony Marsh wrote:

Assassinations are like snowflakes. No two are alike.

[Sandy McCroskey]

Whose theory is that?
No one I can think of thinks Castro hired Oswald to shoot JFK.
Name one.

[Sandy McCroskey]

It's sure easier to fool some people than others.

[Bud]

By all means, link to the article that outlines what you think occurred
during the assassination and which actions you feel were the result of the
conspiracy to kill Kennedy.

> I can't even lead the horse to water. He refuses to get up.

What you can`t do is put a viable small conspiracy model on the table
for consideration. Here I am almost a decade ago trying futilely to get
you to put this small conspiracy model on the table...

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.assassination.jfk/L1xwOqfKNHY/mRpzXhEBrPMJ

Another fail on your part.

> >>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Chris
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >
> >

[Anthony Marsh]

Are you denying that the several attempts on de Gaulle were only
imaginary? Do you understand that the Secret Service investigates hundreds
of conspiracies every year? Are you saying none of those are real and the
investigations are just a hoax?

[Anthony Marsh]

How am I supposed to know if you are a real person?

[Anthony Marsh]

Hoover. LBJ.

[Anthony Marsh]

But there are similarities.

[mainframetech]

On Thursday, January 29, 2015 at 10:54:01 PM UTC-5, bigdog wrote:
> On Wednesday, January 28, 2015 at 10:57:45 AM UTC-5, mainframetech wrote:
> > On Tuesday, January 27, 2015 at 5:55:04 PM UTC-5, David Von Pein wrote:
> > > Chris still doesn't get the point. Might as well chalk him/her up as a
> > > "lost cause".
> >
> >
> > I got your point long ago, and saw immediately the logic error and
> > replied with the description of your error. You're still fooling around
> > and cannot figure out your error.
> >
> > Now, I'll take it very slowly this time and see if you can figure out
> > what I'm talking about:
> >
> >
> > First, multiple shooters stationed around Dealey Plaza will do a better
> > job of guaranteeing that the target will be killed.
>
> Yes it will and also make it impossible to frame one guy.
>

Wrong again, and this is a simple one! You see, there WERE multiple
shooters, and yet the FBI and others made it look like a 'lone nut'
killing, and so even with multiple shooters folks were fooled into
thinking there was just one shooter. Many things had to be changed or
fooled with to keep the illusion that there was a single 'lone nut', and
it worked! Look at all the silly fools that got roped in, still to this
day!

> > That's important
> > because as POTUS, JFK could use all those resources to chase down all the
> > plotters and have them prosecuted.
>
> Are you seriously saying killing JFK would stop that from happening?
>

If it was believed that it was just one 'lone nut' killer, yes. Think
it through. JFK alive would be evidence of the multiple wounds from
multiple directions that he sustained. Dead, he would be handled badly as
he was at Bethesda, and then buried and not much chance of digging him up
to prove otherwise. It is always more easy to claim all sorts of things
if the victim isn't there to complain about what was said.

> > Second, For the safety of the
> > plotters, it is far wiser to have a single 'lone nut' that was guilty (or
> > seemed to be) of the crime. It would be stupid to have multiple 'patsies'
> > to blame for the crime.
>
> About as stupid as using multiple shooters to frame one patsy.
>

You phrased that incorrectly, I believe. Multiple shooters weren't
hired to frame the patsy, they were hired to be sure the target was
killed. The single patsy was set up in advance and it was known that
clearly that there was a multiple shooter, single patsy situation. That
was handled very well by the FBI and others, by their continuing efforts
to eliminate any witnesses that were saying anything that went against the
'single lone nut' scenario. Even the military autopsy was done so that
multiple bullets form multiple guns wouldn't be found. If you read the
ARRB files, the X-ray technicians were told by Humes that their priority
was looking for bullets and fragments.

> > That would entail another murder. Third, the
> > 'lone nut' that is to be set up to take the fall for the crime must be
> > killed as soon as possible so that he can't somehow get out of the charge
> > of murder against him, and possibly give away some important piece of
> > evidence.
>
> So why did they let him live for two days. A guy can spill lots of beans
> in two days. If their plan was to shut Oswald up, he wouldn't have lived
> to see another day.
>

Think it through. They didn't LET him live, he got away from them and
ran before they figured he would. Because he ran, they had to plan a
different way to kill him, and it fell to Jack Ruby to do the deed, and I
would think that his own life would be forfeit if he screwed up.

> > Fourth, as the murder completes, you have to make sure that all
> > bases were covered as to there seeming to be a single shooter, and NOT
> > multiple shooters. So you have your minions looking around for anything

> > out of whack, and taking care of it.

> >
>
> How many minions would that be? Were the minions involved before hand or
> recruited after the fact.
>

A few were from the original group of conspirators, but they used the
bulk of the resources available, mostly from the FBI, who has
traditionally handled the cover ups for government. Any good excuse for
why would be accepted, and orders from Hoover meant do it or lose it (the
job).

> >
> > Now, if you still can't understand the above detailed explanation,
> > please give the detail of your thinking re: multiple shooter, single
> > patsy, and explain why that won't work. I'm sure there is a meeting
> > ground here somewhere.
> >
>
> It's hard to understand how somebody could find that more believeable than
> Oswald just shot JFK by himself.

Well, I guess if you're looking for the easy life, you're right. But
if you're looking for the conspirators who actually planned and executed
the job, then you have to do the work. No simple way out using the old
WCR.

Chris

[bigdog]

The hallmark of anything Marsh presents is vagueness. It is his only
defense for the silly things he believes. He knows if he gets specific, he
will get shot to hell. He always wants to be in a position to deny he said
what it is you are refuting. That's why he presents as few specifics as
possible. He wants to throw knuckleballs. You'll never get a good fastball
from him.

[stevemg...@yahoo.com]

Are you denying that there haven't been lone assassins in history?

Everyone acknowledges that there have been and are conspiracies.

Those of us who believe Oswald alone shot JFK don't cite Czolgosz or
Guiteau or Hinckley to support our arguments. Why do you insist on
pointing to these irrelevant examples to support your claim?

Once again: For example is not proof.

Of either argument.

[David Von Pein]

I'm not. I'm a washing machine that has learned how to type.

[slats]

bigdog <jecorb...@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:eca94b15-511f-4224...@googlegroups.com:

Like when he accuses "rogue elements" within the CIA of murdering
Kennedy.

Who, specifically?

<crickets>

[Sandy McCroskey]

I know that you maintain that they believed that--that they not only
suspected it at one point but continued to believe it. You have asserted
this numerous times. Can't say I'm sold.

Whose theory is this, though, the theory that not only did Castro hire
Oswald to shoot JFK but "LBJ started the cover-up to hide that fact lest
it start WWIII"...?

We know that last part is strictly your *own* theory.

But you don't believe Castro hired Oswald, the first part of this theory
someone out there supposedly holds.

So I don't think anybody holds this theory, as stated.

(For the sake of argument, if that's what LBJ believed, and that's what he
did, it wouldn't be his "theory.")


But you are talking about yourself whe you said it was someone's theory
whose *theory* is it, as you said, that Castro hired Oswald to shoot JFK
and LBJ started the cover-up to hide the fact lest it start WW

[bigdog]

Where is it written the solution has to be a complicated one? It isn't any
more complicated than man brings his rifle to work. Man sticks rifle out
the window. Man shoots the President.

[Bud]

No, I was saying that real conspiracies can be shown, whereas imaginary

[Anthony Marsh]

I have cited many lone nut assassins.
About half of the assassination attempt on US Presidents have been by
lone nuts.
The more often they are by lone nuts the more often they fail.

> Everyone acknowledges that there have been and are conspiracies.

No, you haven't.

[Anthony Marsh]

Not theory. Facts in my article which you refuse to read.

> We know that last part is strictly your *own* theory.
>

No.

> But you don't believe Castro hired Oswald, the first part of this theory
> someone out there supposedly holds.
>

I entitle it a HOAX.

> So I don't think anybody holds this theory, as stated.
>

Some WC defenders believe in it. And some CIA types.

> (For the sake of argument, if that's what LBJ believed, and that's what
> he did, it wouldn't be his "theory.")
>

It was Hoover's theory and LBJ believed it.

>
> But you are talking about yourself whe you said it was someone's theory
> whose *theory* is it, as you said, that Castro hired Oswald to shoot JFK
> and LBJ started the cover-up to hide the fact lest it start WW
>

Hoover's theory and LBJ used it to start the cover-up.

[mainframetech]

Oops! Wrong again! Simple people look for simple solutions. Don't be
caught up by such baloney.

The plot wasn't overly complicated, but it had a few parts that
demanded some thinking, not like the theories of the WC lawyers.

Chris

[Bud]

What impact does that have on the ones that succeed?

[bigdog]

On Saturday, January 31, 2015 at 10:02:45 PM UTC-5, Anthony Marsh wrote:
>
> I have cited many lone nut assassins.
> About half of the assassination attempt on US Presidents have been by
> lone nuts.
> The more often they are by lone nuts the more often they fail.
>

Funny. Only one conspiracy was successful.

[bigdog]

Don't take it personally. We largely ignore Cinque and Harris too.

[bigdog]

On Sunday, February 1, 2015 at 10:09:03 AM UTC-5, mainframetech wrote:
> On Saturday, January 31, 2015 at 3:40:48 PM UTC-5, bigdog wrote:
> > On Friday, January 30, 2015 at 9:57:50 PM UTC-5, mainframetech wrote:
> > > On Thursday, January 29, 2015 at 10:54:01 PM UTC-5, bigdog wrote:
> > > > On Wednesday, January 28, 2015 at 10:57:45 AM UTC-5, mainframetech wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Now, if you still can't understand the above detailed explanation,
> > > > > please give the detail of your thinking re: multiple shooter, single
> > > > > patsy, and explain why that won't work. I'm sure there is a meeting
> > > > > ground here somewhere.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > It's hard to understand how somebody could find that more believeable than
> > > > Oswald just shot JFK by himself.
> > >
> > > Well, I guess if you're looking for the easy life, you're right. But
> > > if you're looking for the conspirators who actually planned and executed
> > > the job, then you have to do the work. No simple way out using the old
> > > WCR.
> > >
> >
> > Where is it written the solution has to be a complicated one? It isn't any
> > more complicated than man brings his rifle to work. Man sticks rifle out
> > the window. Man shoots the President.
>
>
>
> Oops! Wrong again! Simple people look for simple solutions. Don't be
> caught up by such baloney.
>

Given the choice between a simple, straight forward explanation and a
convoluted one, I'll go with the former almost every time, especially when
there is no evidence for the latter.

> The plot wasn't overly complicated,

Not it wasn't. Oswald just stuck his rifle out the window and shot JFK.

> but it had a few parts that
> demanded some thinking,

Someday you should give that a try.

> not like the theories of the WC lawyers.
>

Which have stood the test of time. Nobody has had to revise any of their
findings in order to defend them.

[Bud]

On Sunday, February 1, 2015 at 10:09:03 AM UTC-5, mainframetech wrote:

More like a comic book than reality.

> Chris

[black...@aol.com]

Interesting piece. I'm an oldtimer, been at this for a long time, and what
strikes me is how the belief system has escalated over the years. Back
then, we suspected that there was more than one gunman; we suspected that
is was possible that Oswald was not one of them; we suspected that
Oswald's pro-left stance might have been a cover for being a US agent; we
suspected that there was a significant coverup; and we suspected that the
CIA may have been behind much of this. In each case I emphasize the word
SUSPECTED.

Today, most of those things have hardened into consensus in some quarters,
and it is considered a bad thing to question them. It used to be that some
of the WC folks didn't like thinking outside the box. The tables have
turned.