The silliness of the JFK conspiracy theorists

[bigdog]

The conspiracy theorists seem destined to remain in a permanent state of
confusion for one simple reason. They reject the obvious in favor of the
bizarre. Those of us who have long accepted the very simple truth of the
assassination of JFK have known this for quite some time but that point
was driven home again for me when I watched the CNN series The Sixties and
the episode dealing with the JFK assassination. Vincent Bugliosi observed
that when a person is innocent, there is usually no evidence pointing to
their guilt. In the case of the JFK assassination, ALL the evidence points
to Oswald's guilt. I believe Bugliosi has identified 53 pieces of evidence
that points to Oswald. I haven't bothered to count them, but I would take
his word for it.

No one single piece of evidence proves beyond a reasonable doubt that
Oswald was guilty. Rather it is the totality of evidence which proves
that. For any one piece of evidence, there is the most likely explanation
and one or more less likely possibilities. In order to believe in Oswald's
innocence, one has to reject the most likely explanation in favor of far
less likely explanations. You might make a case for reasonable doubt if
you only had to do that for one or two pieces of evidence, but to do it
for every one of the dozens of pieces of evidence against Oswald, it
becomes downright silly. In addition, CTs must believe in things for which
there is no credible evidence, such as the phantom gunman on the grassy
knoll. It simply defies reason that there could be so many arrows pointing
to Oswald's guilt if he were actually innocent.

If we accept the evidence at face value, it all fits together and clearly
indicates Oswald's guilt. In order to believe that for some of the
evidence, the less likely explanation is the correct one or that some of
the evidence is fraudulent, one would need to believe that for ALL the
evidence. If one only believes that for some of the evidence, then that
evidence would conflict with the genuine evidence which points to Oswald.
In addition, if one embraces the less likely explanation for each piece of
evidence, in so many cases, those explanations are not even compatible
with the explanations for the other pieces of evidence.

If one takes the position that ALL the evidence is fraudulent, then one
has to believe that every single entity responsible for gathering and
analyzing that evidence was in on the cover up. That would include the
Dallas police and sheriff's offices, the Secret Service, the FBI, and the
military personnel who conducted the autopsy. Then we would have to
include the other crime labs that were enlisted to review and offer second
opinions about key pieces of evidence. One has to wonder whether these
entities were lined up before the assassination or afterward. I'm not sure
which would be the most incredulous. Then every single panel that was
assembled to review the evidence would have to get on board with the cover
up. This would include the Warren Commission, the Clark Panel, the
Rockefeller Commission, the Church Committee and the House Select
Committee on assassinations as well as all the experts assembled by these
various entities to give testimony. And after getting all these people on
board, they would have to continue to maintain their silence about the
cover up for all these years since. It is mind boggling that anyone could
think that such a thing is even remotely possible. But that is the
universe in which the dedicated JFK conspiracy theorists reside.

[stevemg...@yahoo.com]

Well, put. One of the ironies is that as more evidence of Oswald's guilt
is produced, the more determined the conspiracy advocates are of the
conspiracy. Instead of causing them to question their theories, it only
makes them deepen their conspiracy beliefs. Another layer of conspiracy,
another group of conspirators, another plan is devised to explain away the
new evidence.

Norman Mailer put it this way: "There's a terrible fault built into all
conspiracies, which I've even decided can be stated as a law. And the law
is that the only conspiracies that work are the imperfect ones. Because
when you have a conspiracy with a number of people, the human factor - if
the conspiracy is perfectly plotted - the human factor will derail it.
Tension is enormous; the people in conspiracies not only have their
strengths but their terrible weaknesses and imperfections. And so the
perfect conspiracy never works."

Time is the enemy of conspiracies because over time the human factor that
Mailer mentions has a greater role. And all of the frailties and failures
of humans become magnified. The weaknesses and imperfections become
exposed.

But time is also the enemy of conspiracy theories too. Because time
exposes the emptiness of their theories. People who should talk, don't.
The failures of the conspirators to maintain the conspiracy should show
up; but they don't.

Lee Oswald, on his own and driven by his own personal demons, took his
rifle and shot the president. End of story.

[Robert Harris]

bigdog wrote:
> The conspiracy theorists seem destined to remain in a permanent state of
> confusion for one simple reason. They reject the obvious in favor of the
> bizarre.

You seem to be leaping past the first logical step in your analysis.

You first need to prove that your conclusion really is "obvious" :-)

I recently challenged you to a civil and and honest debate in which we
ask one another relevant questions about the shooting and commit to
fully answering those questions.

Why haven't you replied?

> Those of us who have long accepted the very simple truth of the
> assassination of JFK

Simplicity is not a form of truth. "God made everything" is simple, but
ridiculously untrue.

> have known this for quite some time but that point
> was driven home again for me when I watched the CNN series The Sixties and
> the episode dealing with the JFK assassination. Vincent Bugliosi observed
> that when a person is innocent, there is usually no evidence pointing to
> their guilt. In the case of the JFK assassination, ALL the evidence points
> to Oswald's guilt.

Yes, but Mr. Bugliosi lies.

While there might be legitimate evidence against Oswald, that certainly
is not true of "all" the evidence.

There is indisputable visual, scientific and testimonial evidence which
proves that Oswald could not have fired any of the early shots, or all
of the shots at the end.

I have challenged you many times, to address that evidence and I am
still waiting for you to do so. Why are you posting ridiculous claims
like this, after being presented with evidence that you couldn't refute
to save your life:-)

> I believe Bugliosi has identified 53 pieces of evidence
> that points to Oswald. I haven't bothered to count them, but I would take
> his word for it.

Well of course. I mean, everything he says can't be a lie, can it??

>
> No one single piece of evidence proves beyond a reasonable doubt that
> Oswald was guilty.

Why do you continue to generalize??

Why don't you talk about specific pieces of evidence??

Would you like to talk about the numero uno piece of evidence, CE399?

I mean, hell, that bullet was proven to have come from Oswald's rifle,
to the exclusion of ALL others, right?

And it was found.....

Wait a minute!

Where WAS it found, Mr. Dog??

It wasn't found by Daryl Tomlinson. His bullet was initialed by SS agent
Johnsen and FBI agent Todd, but neither of their initials are present on
CE399.

http://jfkhistory.com/bell/bellarticle/initials.png

And why do you suppose the FBI phoned Tomlinson in the wee hours of the
morning to tell him to "keep his mouth shut" about the bullet he found??
Do you suppose that had anything to do with them receiving fragments
less than two hours earlier that were large enough to compare with his
bullet??

http://jfkhistory.com/bell/bellarticle/fraziernotes.jpg

And do you suppose that had anything to do with the fact that ALL FOUR
of the men who examined that bullet prior to it being passed to the FBI,
refused to verify that CE399 was the same one they originally saw??

And where is the bullet that fell from Connally's stretcher and was
recovered by a nurse when he was being moved to an operating table?

She showed that bullet to DA Henry Wade and told him that it came from
Connally's "gurney". Officer Bobby Nolan heard her say the same thing -
that this was a whole bullet that fell from Connally's "gurney".

That couldn't have been the same bullet that Tomlinson found, could it,
Mr. Dog?? Nolan delivered that bullet to the DPD on the evening of
11/22/63, while that afternoon, the stretcher bullet had been flown to
the FBI labs in Wash DC.

So, what happened to the bullet that really did strike Connally and
possibly, the President??

Did you also know that nursing supervisor Audrey Bell flatly denied the
FBI's claim that she told them she gave tiny wrist fragments to officer
Nolan? She was adamant that she gave those fragments to plain clothed
agents, who signed a receipt for them, which of course evaporated after
it was sent to the FBI.

And what happened to the bullet that Tomlinson really did find?? I'm
thinking they both wound up in the same black hole at the FBI labs,
aren't you??


You see Big Dog, the problem with speaking in vague generalizations, as
you do, is that usually, the devil is in the proverbial details. It
certainly is in this case, don't you agree:-)

You need to read this article, which goes into much more detail about
this and includes numerous, sourced citations.

http://jfkhistory.com/bell/bellarticle/BellArticle.html

After you do that, come back and tell everyone with a straight face that
"all the evidence" points to Oswald.


Robert Harris

[Anthony Marsh]

I don't know how to explain it to someone of your intelligence, but
Oswald could be guilty and it still be a conspiracy. That's what Hoover
thought. That's what LBJ thought. You WC defenders use Oswald's presumed
guilt as a weapon to not look for conspiracy. The HSCA found conspiracy
AND Oswald guilty, but you can't accept that. You don't want anything to
upset your Pollyanna world.

> Norman Mailer put it this way: "There's a terrible fault built into all
> conspiracies, which I've even decided can be stated as a law. And the law
> is that the only conspiracies that work are the imperfect ones. Because
> when you have a conspiracy with a number of people, the human factor - if
> the conspiracy is perfectly plotted - the human factor will derail it.
> Tension is enormous; the people in conspiracies not only have their
> strengths but their terrible weaknesses and imperfections. And so the
> perfect conspiracy never works."
>

Mailer is FOS. He's just a CIA stooge.
He never shows any examples of conspiracies which have last 40 or 50
years that the public does not know about, even though we have heard of
some.

> Time is the enemy of conspiracies because over time the human factor that
> Mailer mentions has a greater role. And all of the frailties and failures
> of humans become magnified. The weaknesses and imperfections become
> exposed.
>

All of you seem to miss the point that no conspiracy really cares to
keep it secret forever. Usually they are content with a lifetime or
until the next election like Watergate. They know it will eventually
fall apart, but they'll be long gone by then. That's why the ordered
that the files be kept secret for only 75 years, an average lifetime,
rather than 2,000 years. The JFK conspiracy is falling apart. Documents
are getting released. Photos are being leaked. Face it, you guys are done.

> But time is also the enemy of conspiracy theories too. Because time
> exposes the emptiness of their theories. People who should talk, don't.

Some are long since dead. Just talking is no good unless you have the
files to back up what you say and the CIA is keeping those locked up.

> The failures of the conspirators to maintain the conspiracy should show
> up; but they don't.

Pure nonsense. The conspirators are dead. The cover-up only has to last
until they are dead and can no longer be held accountable.

>
> Lee Oswald, on his own and driven by his own personal demons, took his
> rifle and shot the president. End of story.
>

End of the investigation for deadheads who want to believe everything
the government says.

>
>

[mainframetech]

That's an awful lot of talking with so little evidence of anything.
Praising Bugliosi won't prove a thing, and his 53 pieces of evidence are
the same kind of thing that LNs have done for years, by picking a number
(like 50 years). His 53 bits of stuff have been gone through and been
shown to be a mass of altered evidence (easy when you have the resources
of a government), and other foolish bits. For example, we know from sworn
testimony that the body was altered by Humes and Boswell BEFORE the
'official' autopsy, and yet there are those that have been shown this and
still go around pretending that it hasn't been made evident. They'll
ignore all kinds of testimony just to believe on the faith of the WCR.

The fear that they will have spent so many years thinking the wrong thing
is more important to them than getting the right answer to the murder.

Of all the many LNs that inhabit the world of the JFK forums, bigdog
and similar sworn enemies of the conspirracy of murder are the most
damaging to people that just want the truth. Ignoring evidence and saying
anything to convince folks to go away, that it's all just another
'conspiracy theory'. And yet the whole wacky WC idea of the murder is
nothing but theories, and crazy ones at that.

Any government cannot tolerate conspiracy theories, especially about
the government. They make people doubt those governments, and make them
less likely to follow orders when commanded by that government. The
people ruled must BELIEVE what they are told, and do what they are told,
or there isn't complete rule of those people. Trying to classify people
into the group of 'conspiracy theorists' and then ridiculing that group,
has made many who doubt ridiculous things they are told by their
government into people having to sometimes hide from the light of public
view. And yet, the biggest conspiracy is the one to convince people that
there are NO conspiracies and that everything they are told is the
absolute truth.

Chris

[mainframetech]

If you think that people don't talk after years of silence from within a
conspiracy, Try these:

An FBI agent that knows that some people were let off in favor of the
wacky 'lone nut' theory of the WC:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VSXQYvm57YM

Then you can look into the statements of E. Howard Hunt, who tried to
keep himself free of guilt by calling himself an 'observer' of the 'big
event', but why would ANY conspiracy hire someone to just 'observe'?
Hunt was involved, just as he was involved in Watergate. And he gave up
some of the workings of the conspiracy.

There have been others that came out with information, but the strength
of the LNs with their WC wacky theories put them down and so their message
was loudly covered up.

Chris

[bigdog]

On Saturday, June 14, 2014 10:26:10 PM UTC-4, Anthony Marsh wrote:
>
> I don't know how to explain it to someone of your intelligence, but
> Oswald could be guilty and it still be a conspiracy.

No shit. Yet in 50 years, no one has provided a scrap of credible evidence
he had a single accomplice. Just about everyone who knows Oswald was
guilty would be very interested in seeing such evidence if in fact there
were any, but with each passing year, that seems more and more unlikely.
Furthermore, few CTs argue that Oswald was the triggerman for a
conspiracy. The few who accept his guilt argue that he was not the only
gunman or that he was just an innocent patsy.

> That's what Hoover
> thought. That's what LBJ thought.

And neither of them could find any evidence Oswald had any accomplices
either.

> You WC defenders use Oswald's presumed
> guilt as a weapon to not look for conspiracy.

To a man, the staff lawyers for the WC said they would have loved to have
found evidence of a conspiracy and Dan Rather made the same observation
about the reporters of his day. The would have been bigger than Woodward
and Bernstein if they could have found evidence that Oswald was part of a
conspiracy. But of course they couldn't find any. If you want to keep
searching for such evidence, have at it, but I think you would have a
better chance of proving the existence of Sasquatch or the Loch Ness
Monster.

> The HSCA found conspiracy
> AND Oswald guilty,

They were half right.

> but you can't accept that.

I won't accept it because the finding isn't based on credible evidence.
They were hoodwinked.

> You don't want anything to
> upset your Pollyanna world.
>

As opposed to your Bizarro world.

>
> > Norman Mailer put it this way: "There's a terrible fault built into all
> > conspiracies, which I've even decided can be stated as a law. And the law
> > is that the only conspiracies that work are the imperfect ones. Because
> > when you have a conspiracy with a number of people, the human factor - if
> > the conspiracy is perfectly plotted - the human factor will derail it.
> > Tension is enormous; the people in conspiracies not only have their
> > strengths but their terrible weaknesses and imperfections. And so the
> > perfect conspiracy never works."
>
> Mailer is FOS. He's just a CIA stooge.

Right every reporter and writer who doesn't buy into the conspiracy
nonsense is a CIA stooge.

>
> He never shows any examples of conspiracies which have last 40 or 50
> years that the public does not know about, even though we have heard of
> some.
>
> > Time is the enemy of conspiracies because over time the human factor that
> > Mailer mentions has a greater role. And all of the frailties and failures
> > of humans become magnified. The weaknesses and imperfections become
> > exposed.
>
> All of you seem to miss the point that no conspiracy really cares to
> keep it secret forever. Usually they are content with a lifetime or
> until the next election like Watergate. They know it will eventually
> fall apart, but they'll be long gone by then. That's why the ordered
> that the files be kept secret for only 75 years, an average lifetime,
> rather than 2,000 years. The JFK conspiracy is falling apart.

Now that's funny.

> Documents
> are getting released. Photos are being leaked. Face it, you guys are done.
>

You were saying the same thing on the old Prodigy board over 20 years ago.
You thought the ARRB was going to reveal the smoking gun. It produced no
gun and no smoke.

>
> > But time is also the enemy of conspiracy theories too. Because time
> > exposes the emptiness of their theories. People who should talk, don't.
>
> Some are long since dead. Just talking is no good unless you have the
> files to back up what you say and the CIA is keeping those locked up.
>

The dog-ate-my-evidence excuse.

>
> > The failures of the conspirators to maintain the conspiracy should show
> > up; but they don't.
>
> Pure nonsense. The conspirators are dead. The cover-up only has to last
> until they are dead and can no longer be held accountable.
>

So if the conspirators are dead, why hasn't the cover-up fallen apart?

>
> > Lee Oswald, on his own and driven by his own personal demons, took his
> > rifle and shot the president. End of story.
>
> End of the investigation for deadheads who want to believe everything
> the government says.
>

You guys are modern day Don Quixotes, believing you are on a noble crusade
when in fact, you are all just tilting at windmills.

[bigdog]

Thank you for providing a perfect example of what I said in the OP.
Because the evidence all points to Oswald, you have to claim it is all
fraudulent in order to argue for his innocence, or to use your words, "His

53 bits of stuff have been gone through and been shown to be a mass of
altered evidence (easy when you have the resources of a government), and

other foolish bits." And of course, to alter all that evidence, you would
need everyone who collected and analyzed that evidence to be on board with
the cover up. I would ask if you knew how ridiculous that sounds, but we
already know the answer.

[bigdog]

On Saturday, June 14, 2014 10:24:20 PM UTC-4, Robert Harris wrote:

> bigdog wrote:
>
>
> I recently challenged you to a civil and and honest debate in which we
> ask one another relevant questions about the shooting and commit to
> fully answering those questions.
>
> Why haven't you replied?
>

You've been trying for years to rope me or anyone else into a discussion
of your silly Z285 shot theory. I told you some time ago I have no
interest in discussing such nonsense.

Nobody cares, Bob. Nobody cares!!!

[Jason Burke]

Dang, man, do you believe EVER conspiracy statement?
Even the most whacky ones?

[Bud]

On Saturday, June 14, 2014 10:24:20 PM UTC-4, Robert Harris wrote:

> bigdog wrote:
>
> > The conspiracy theorists seem destined to remain in a permanent state of
>
> > confusion for one simple reason. They reject the obvious in favor of the
>
> > bizarre.
>
>
>
> You seem to be leaping past the first logical step in your analysis.
>
>
>
> You first need to prove that your conclusion really is "obvious" :-)
>
>
>
> I recently challenged you to a civil and and honest debate in which we
>
> ask one another relevant questions about the shooting and commit to
>
> fully answering those questions.

I think that just about everyone by now knows you have no intention of
doing any of those things.

[Bud]

On Saturday, June 14, 2014 10:26:10 PM UTC-4, Anthony Marsh wrote:

Intelligently, of course.

> but
>
> Oswald could be guilty and it still be a conspiracy. That's what Hoover
>
> thought. That's what LBJ thought. You WC defenders use Oswald's presumed
>
> guilt as a weapon to not look for conspiracy.

Look all you like for Oswald`s co-conspirator. None of the conspiracy
hobbyists seem interested.

> The HSCA found conspiracy
>
> AND Oswald guilty, but you can't accept that.

They found Lee Harvey Oswald responsible for all the wounds inflicted on
the passengers of the limo, I can accept that. If some want to think that
Oswald worked with someone who fired a shot that did nothing, then let
them chase after this phantom.

> You don't want anything to
>
> upset your Pollyanna world.

By all means Tony, make the world right, accept that Oswald killed
Kennedy and go about finding the person or persons who conspired with him.
With a clear starting place this shouldn`t be so difficult.

> > Norman Mailer put it this way: "There's a terrible fault built into all
>
> > conspiracies, which I've even decided can be stated as a law. And the law
>
> > is that the only conspiracies that work are the imperfect ones. Because
>
> > when you have a conspiracy with a number of people, the human factor - if
>
> > the conspiracy is perfectly plotted - the human factor will derail it.
>
> > Tension is enormous; the people in conspiracies not only have their
>
> > strengths but their terrible weaknesses and imperfections. And so the
>
> > perfect conspiracy never works."
>
> >
>
>
>
> Mailer is FOS. He's just a CIA stooge.
>
> He never shows any examples of conspiracies which have last 40 or 50
>
> years that the public does not know about, even though we have heard of
>
> some.
>
>
>
> > Time is the enemy of conspiracies because over time the human factor that
>
> > Mailer mentions has a greater role. And all of the frailties and failures
>
> > of humans become magnified. The weaknesses and imperfections become
>
> > exposed.
>
> >
>
>
>
> All of you seem to miss the point that no conspiracy really cares to
>
> keep it secret forever. Usually they are content with a lifetime or
>
> until the next election like Watergate. They know it will eventually
>
> fall apart, but they'll be long gone by then. That's why the ordered
>
> that the files be kept secret for only 75 years, an average lifetime,
>
> rather than 2,000 years. The JFK conspiracy is falling apart. Documents
>
> are getting released. Photos are being leaked. Face it, you guys are done.

Yes we are, we are at the finish line, a place you will never see.

> > But time is also the enemy of conspiracy theories too. Because time
>
> > exposes the emptiness of their theories. People who should talk, don't.
>
>
>
> Some are long since dead. Just talking is no good unless you have the
>
> files to back up what you say and the CIA is keeping those locked up.
>
>
>
> > The failures of the conspirators to maintain the conspiracy should show
>
> > up; but they don't.
>
>
>
> Pure nonsense. The conspirators are dead. The cover-up only has to last
>
> until they are dead and can no longer be held accountable.
>
>
>
> >
>
> > Lee Oswald, on his own and driven by his own personal demons, took his
>
> > rifle and shot the president. End of story.
>
> >
>
>
>
> End of the investigation for deadheads who want to believe everything
>
> the government says.

After years of reading what conspiracy hobbyists write it`s a no
brainer.

>
>
> >
>
> >

[Bud]

You`ll believe anything you like the sound of.

>
>
> Then you can look into the statements of E. Howard Hunt, who tried to
>
> keep himself free of guilt by calling himself an 'observer' of the 'big
>
> event', but why would ANY conspiracy hire someone to just 'observe'?

<snicker> Leave it to a conspiracy hobbyist to bring up a supposed
witness in support of an idea and then insinuate that witness is a liar
all in the same sentence.

[mainframetech]

On Saturday, June 14, 2014 11:10:52 PM UTC-4, bigdog wrote:
> On Saturday, June 14, 2014 10:26:10 PM UTC-4, Anthony Marsh wrote:
>
> >
>
> > I don't know how to explain it to someone of your intelligence, but
>
> > Oswald could be guilty and it still be a conspiracy.
>
>
>
> No shit. Yet in 50 years, no one has provided a scrap of credible evidence
>
> he had a single accomplice. Just about everyone who knows Oswald was
>
> guilty would be very interested in seeing such evidence if in fact there
>
> were any, but with each passing year, that seems more and more unlikely.
>
> Furthermore, few CTs argue that Oswald was the triggerman for a
>
> conspiracy. The few who accept his guilt argue that he was not the only
>
> gunman or that he was just an innocent patsy.
>

Ho hum. The typical LN comment that 'in 50 years nothing new has
happened'. Old stuff. There has been a lot of movement in those 50
years, but no LN dares to admit it. The full scam of the autopsy has been
shone, and completely from the new sworn testimony coming from the ARRB.
The scam of the MC rifle and its bullets has been shown and proven to be
uninvolved in the murder. Yep. Many things have been happening in your
absence. You might want to stick around. No other LN fights so
desperately to keep things as they were after the murder, Oswald guilty
and NO ONE ELSE needed to be tracked down.

>
>
> > That's what Hoover
>
> > thought. That's what LBJ thought.
>
>
>
> And neither of them could find any evidence Oswald had any accomplices
>
> either.
>

Oh plenty has happened outside your knowledge it would appear.

>
>
> > You WC defenders use Oswald's presumed
>
> > guilt as a weapon to not look for conspiracy.
>
>
>
> To a man, the staff lawyers for the WC said they would have loved to have
>
> found evidence of a conspiracy and Dan Rather made the same observation
>
> about the reporters of his day. The would have been bigger than Woodward
>
> and Bernstein if they could have found evidence that Oswald was part of a
>
> conspiracy. But of course they couldn't find any. If you want to keep
>
> searching for such evidence, have at it, but I think you would have a
>
> better chance of proving the existence of Sasquatch or the Loch Ness
>
> Monster.
>

Nope, won't do. It's all been done in your absence. Try looking into
it instead of making wise comments, and see what you've been missing.

>
>
> > The HSCA found conspiracy
>
> > AND Oswald guilty,
>
>
>
> They were half right.
>

Or all wrong.

>
>
> > but you can't accept that.
>
>
>
> I won't accept it because the finding isn't based on credible evidence.
>
> They were hoodwinked.
>
>
>
> > You don't want anything to
>
> > upset your Pollyanna world.
>
> >
>
> As opposed to your Bizarro world.
>

Check again. Show some proof or evidence to oppose what's been shown
to you in your brief return. Or are you unable to oppose solid proof?

> >
>
> > > Norman Mailer put it this way: "There's a terrible fault built into all
>
> > > conspiracies, which I've even decided can be stated as a law. And the law
>
> > > is that the only conspiracies that work are the imperfect ones. Because
>
> > > when you have a conspiracy with a number of people, the human factor - if
>
> > > the conspiracy is perfectly plotted - the human factor will derail it.
>
> > > Tension is enormous; the people in conspiracies not only have their
>
> > > strengths but their terrible weaknesses and imperfections. And so the
>
> > > perfect conspiracy never works."
>
> >
>
> > Mailer is FOS. He's just a CIA stooge.
>
>
>
> Right every reporter and writer who doesn't buy into the conspiracy
>
> nonsense is a CIA stooge.
>

Naah. Just useless.

>
>
> >
>
> > He never shows any examples of conspiracies which have last 40 or 50
>
> > years that the public does not know about, even though we have heard of
>
> > some.
>
> >
>
> > > Time is the enemy of conspiracies because over time the human factor that
>
> > > Mailer mentions has a greater role. And all of the frailties and failures
>
> > > of humans become magnified. The weaknesses and imperfections become
>
> > > exposed.
>
> >
>
> > All of you seem to miss the point that no conspiracy really cares to
>
> > keep it secret forever. Usually they are content with a lifetime or
>
> > until the next election like Watergate. They know it will eventually
>
> > fall apart, but they'll be long gone by then. That's why the ordered
>
> > that the files be kept secret for only 75 years, an average lifetime,
>
> > rather than 2,000 years. The JFK conspiracy is falling apart.
>
>
>
> Now that's funny.
>

On and on with nothing but wise comments. When are you going to argue
for the WC with evidence to oppose the newer findings since the ARRB?

>
>
> > Documents
>
> > are getting released. Photos are being leaked. Face it, you guys are done.
>
> >
>
>
>
> You were saying the same thing on the old Prodigy board over 20 years ago.
>
> You thought the ARRB was going to reveal the smoking gun. It produced no
>
> gun and no smoke.
>

Sorry Charlie. It's been done right under your nose. The autopsy scam
has been laid bare from ARRB information and testimony. The MC rifle
phony evidence has been countered. You've been exposed as an old fan of
the WC and their lawyers. Keep the faith...:)

>
>
> >
>
> > > But time is also the enemy of conspiracy theories too. Because time
>
> > > exposes the emptiness of their theories. People who should talk, don't.
>
> >
>
> > Some are long since dead. Just talking is no good unless you have the
>
> > files to back up what you say and the CIA is keeping those locked up.
>
> >
>
>
>
> The dog-ate-my-evidence excuse.
>

Useless comment. Ignored.

>
>
> >
>
> > > The failures of the conspirators to maintain the conspiracy should show
>
> > > up; but they don't.
>
> >
>
> > Pure nonsense. The conspirators are dead. The cover-up only has to last
>
> > until they are dead and can no longer be held accountable.
>
> >
>
>
>
> So if the conspirators are dead, why hasn't the cover-up fallen apart?
>

It has, but you keep standing back up pretending your living in the past.
It's over. Go home to your old Life magazine.

>
>
> >
>
> > > Lee Oswald, on his own and driven by his own personal demons, took his
>
> > > rifle and shot the president. End of story.
>
> >
>
> > End of the investigation for deadheads who want to believe everything
>
> > the government says.
>
> >
>
>
>
> You guys are modern day Don Quixotes, believing you are on a noble crusade
>
> when in fact, you are all just tilting at windmills.

Even windmills need deflating now and then, but the evidence has been
drug out and shown to you and others. In not too much time it will be
looked at carefully and it will be believed.

Chris

[mainframetech]

Once again we have the cry of the LNs. It had to be a huge group of
people to carry out such a big plot! But no, not at all. Less than 20
people could carry it off. The others that helped had been given excuses
(after the murder) that were enough for them to believe in and carry out
what they thought were their 'duties', to Hoover and others. Before the
murder, few were needed. Just shooters. After, the few had to be in
particular positions like evidence bearer for the FBI, a SS agent or 2 to
move the others to grab the body (for the love of Jackie and her feelings)
and the limo and get them away into controlled circumstances, like the WH
garage, or Bethesda hospital where everyone was military and could be (and
were) ordered to silence, as to what they did and what they saw. It was a
simple plot, using the resources available.

Chris

[stevemg...@yahoo.com]

Frankly, someone who thinks Mailer was a CIA stooge shouldn't be
questioning other people's intelligence.

Or sobriety. Or logic. Or common sense.

Among a dozen or more other things.

Mailer said that for decades he believed in a conspiracy; but as an
intelligent person he changed his mind as the facts changed.

I too used to believe in one but like Mailer, as new facts emerged I
changed my opinion.

But others won't change their views. Or can't.

Probably can't more than won't.

[Robert Harris]

Poor Bigdog. Can't answer questions about CE399 so his excuse is that
the won't discuss the evidence related to the shooting.

You said "all" the evidence pointed to Oswald. But as usual, you were
flatly wrong. Let's put the questions back in that you just snipped and
give you another chance to come clean:

[Anthony Marsh]

On 6/14/2014 11:10 PM, bigdog wrote:
> On Saturday, June 14, 2014 10:26:10 PM UTC-4, Anthony Marsh wrote:
>>
>> I don't know how to explain it to someone of your intelligence, but
>> Oswald could be guilty and it still be a conspiracy.
>
> No shit. Yet in 50 years, no one has provided a scrap of credible evidence
> he had a single accomplice. Just about everyone who knows Oswald was
> guilty would be very interested in seeing such evidence if in fact there
> were any, but with each passing year, that seems more and more unlikely.
> Furthermore, few CTs argue that Oswald was the triggerman for a
> conspiracy. The few who accept his guilt argue that he was not the only
> gunman or that he was just an innocent patsy.
>

Not true. WC defenders want Oswald o be guilty so they don't have to
look for a conspiracy.

>> That's what Hoover
>> thought. That's what LBJ thought.
>
> And neither of them could find any evidence Oswald had any accomplices
> either.

Hoover had the evidence right in his hands.

>
>> You WC defenders use Oswald's presumed
>> guilt as a weapon to not look for conspiracy.
>
> To a man, the staff lawyers for the WC said they would have loved to have
> found evidence of a conspiracy and Dan Rather made the same observation
> about the reporters of his day. The would have been bigger than Woodward
> and Bernstein if they could have found evidence that Oswald was part of a
> conspiracy. But of course they couldn't find any. If you want to keep
> searching for such evidence, have at it, but I think you would have a
> better chance of proving the existence of Sasquatch or the Loch Ness
> Monster.
>

They are lying.

>> The HSCA found conspiracy
>> AND Oswald guilty,
>
> They were half right.
>
>> but you can't accept that.
>
> I won't accept it because the finding isn't based on credible evidence.
> They were hoodwinked.
>

Oh, so that's YOUR conspiracy theory, that the acoustical evidence was
faked to show conspiracy?

>> You don't want anything to
>> upset your Pollyanna world.
>>
> As opposed to your Bizarro world.
>>
>>> Norman Mailer put it this way: "There's a terrible fault built into all
>>> conspiracies, which I've even decided can be stated as a law. And the law
>>> is that the only conspiracies that work are the imperfect ones. Because
>>> when you have a conspiracy with a number of people, the human factor - if
>>> the conspiracy is perfectly plotted - the human factor will derail it.
>>> Tension is enormous; the people in conspiracies not only have their
>>> strengths but their terrible weaknesses and imperfections. And so the
>>> perfect conspiracy never works."
>>
>> Mailer is FOS. He's just a CIA stooge.
>
> Right every reporter and writer who doesn't buy into the conspiracy
> nonsense is a CIA stooge.
>

The CIA owns most of them. Anyone who breaks rank is punished, like
Rather.

>>
>> He never shows any examples of conspiracies which have last 40 or 50
>> years that the public does not know about, even though we have heard of
>> some.
>>
>>> Time is the enemy of conspiracies because over time the human factor that
>>> Mailer mentions has a greater role. And all of the frailties and failures
>>> of humans become magnified. The weaknesses and imperfections become
>>> exposed.
>>
>> All of you seem to miss the point that no conspiracy really cares to
>> keep it secret forever. Usually they are content with a lifetime or
>> until the next election like Watergate. They know it will eventually
>> fall apart, but they'll be long gone by then. That's why the ordered
>> that the files be kept secret for only 75 years, an average lifetime,
>> rather than 2,000 years. The JFK conspiracy is falling apart.
>
> Now that's funny.
>
>> Documents
>> are getting released. Photos are being leaked. Face it, you guys are done.
>>
>
> You were saying the same thing on the old Prodigy board over 20 years ago.
> You thought the ARRB was going to reveal the smoking gun. It produced no
> gun and no smoke.
>

Maybe it did reveal the smoking gun, but you refused to look.

>>
>>> But time is also the enemy of conspiracy theories too. Because time
>>> exposes the emptiness of their theories. People who should talk, don't.
>>
>> Some are long since dead. Just talking is no good unless you have the
>> files to back up what you say and the CIA is keeping those locked up.
>>
>
> The dog-ate-my-evidence excuse.

The CIA ate my evidence.

>
>>
>>> The failures of the conspirators to maintain the conspiracy should show
>>> up; but they don't.
>>
>> Pure nonsense. The conspirators are dead. The cover-up only has to last
>> until they are dead and can no longer be held accountable.
>>
>
> So if the conspirators are dead, why hasn't the cover-up fallen apart?
>

It IS falling apart. But the CIA hires disinformation professionals to
argue for them.

>>
>>> Lee Oswald, on his own and driven by his own personal demons, took his
>>> rifle and shot the president. End of story.
>>
>> End of the investigation for deadheads who want to believe everything
>> the government says.
>>
>
> You guys are modern day Don Quixotes, believing you are on a noble crusade
> when in fact, you are all just tilting at windmills.
>

So you think Cold Case files should remain cold?

[Bud]

On Sunday, June 15, 2014 6:31:29 PM UTC-4, mainframetech wrote:
> On Saturday, June 14, 2014 11:10:52 PM UTC-4, bigdog wrote:
>
> > On Saturday, June 14, 2014 10:26:10 PM UTC-4, Anthony Marsh wrote:
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > I don't know how to explain it to someone of your intelligence, but
>
> >
>
> > > Oswald could be guilty and it still be a conspiracy.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > No shit. Yet in 50 years, no one has provided a scrap of credible evidence
>
> >
>
> > he had a single accomplice. Just about everyone who knows Oswald was
>
> >
>
> > guilty would be very interested in seeing such evidence if in fact there
>
> >
>
> > were any, but with each passing year, that seems more and more unlikely.
>
> >
>
> > Furthermore, few CTs argue that Oswald was the triggerman for a
>
> >
>
> > conspiracy. The few who accept his guilt argue that he was not the only
>
> >
>
> > gunman or that he was just an innocent patsy.
>
> >
>
>
>
>
>
> Ho hum. The typical LN comment that 'in 50 years nothing new has
>
> happened'. Old stuff. There has been a lot of movement in those 50
>
> years, but no LN dares to admit it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dsbUpyc5qPc

[Anthony Marsh]

You are misrepresenting what Hunt said. He said he was invited to joing
the conspiracy and he declined the invitation.

[HERCULE POIROT]

Mailer actually believed that Jack Ruby was injected with cancer.

[Anthony Marsh]

OK. So you simply deny that anyone was a CIA stooge. Even after Colby
bragged that the CIA owned any journalist of import.

> Or sobriety. Or logic. Or common sense.
>
> Among a dozen or more other things.
>
> Mailer said that for decades he believed in a conspiracy; but as an
> intelligent person he changed his mind as the facts changed.
>

Said, but he didn't really. And he had never investigated until the CIA
sent him to Russia.

> I too used to believe in one but like Mailer, as new facts emerged I
> changed my opinion.
>

No, just like Mailer you didn't.

[Anthony Marsh]

Notice how they ONLY use that gimmick for the JFK assassination. Not for
Watergate or Iran Contra or any other proven conspiracy.

[bigdog]

On Sunday, June 15, 2014 6:31:29 PM UTC-4, mainframetech wrote:
>

> Ho hum. The typical LN comment that 'in 50 years nothing new has
> happened'. Old stuff.

Yes old stuff. Because in 50 years, there has been nothing new of any
significance and what new technologies have done is verify what the WC
determined 50 years ago using what they had then. Oswald was the shooter,
the only shooter, and that hasn't changed in 50 years and won't change for
500 or 5000 years. We are able to stay with the old stuff because it is
still valid. On the other hand, it is the CTs who have to keep dreaming up
new shit as there old theories get shredded. When they run out of new
ideas, they recycle the old turds, like David Lifton's body altering fairy
tale or your efforts in treating the ARRB non-revelations as if they are
something new and exciting.

> There has been a lot of movement in those 50
> years, but no LN dares to admit it.

Why would we admit something that isn't true.

I said earlier I am not going to waste any more of my time doing
point-by-point rebuttals of your silly beliefs. Nobody cares about this
crap you dream up and nobody every will. Nothing any of you are doing is
of any consequence. The rest of the world will continue to ignore you.

[bigdog]

Then it wasn't 20 people. Anybody who had followed orders to surpress
evidence would by definition become coconspirators and guilty of
obstruction of justice. Hundreds or people were involved in gathering and
analyzing the evidence and since all that evidence points to Oswald,
hundreds of people would have to have been involved in the cover up and
framing of Oswald in order to pull it off. They would have required 100%
cooperation from everyone involved in the investigation, 100% cooperation
from the witnesses, 100% silence afterward, and 100% compliance by all the
subsequent panels that reinvestigated the crime and all the experts those
panels called to give testimony. Only in Conspiracyland could something
that ridiculous happen.

[David Von Pein]

"MAINFRAME" SAID:

When are you going to argue for the WC with evidence to oppose the newer
findings since the ARRB?

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

I sure would like to know what those "newer findings" are that the ARRB
supposedly unearthed and released. I've yet to see any of it.

Perhaps Chris/Mainframe can supply just ONE document that supports the
idea that the ARRB released something that shows a conspiracy existed in
Dallas.

How 'bout it, Chris? Link to one such post-ARRB document. And then watch
this video:

http://dvp-potpourri.blogspot.com/2010/01/anna-nelson-of-arrb-october-1998.html

[stevemg...@yahoo.com]

Mailer explains here, about nine minutes in, how he learned about the KGB
files being available and how he got to Russia. No mention of the CIA
anywhere.

http://www.c-span.org/video/?64863-1/book-discussion-oswalds-tale-american-mystery

The book - "Oswald's Tale" - was the followup work to his earlier book
"Harlot's Ghost".

[Sandy McCroskey]

This was when he still thought there was a conspiracy, right?

[Sandy McCroskey]

Please prove, or at least give something resembling evidence, that "the
CIA sent [Mailer] to Russia."

[bigdog]

On Sunday, June 15, 2014 9:15:07 PM UTC-4, Anthony Marsh wrote:
> On 6/14/2014 11:10 PM, bigdog wrote:
>
> > On Saturday, June 14, 2014 10:26:10 PM UTC-4, Anthony Marsh wrote:
>
> >>
>
> >> I don't know how to explain it to someone of your intelligence, but
> >> Oswald could be guilty and it still be a conspiracy.
>
> > No shit. Yet in 50 years, no one has provided a scrap of credible evidence
> > he had a single accomplice. Just about everyone who knows Oswald was
> > guilty would be very interested in seeing such evidence if in fact there
> > were any, but with each passing year, that seems more and more unlikely.
> > Furthermore, few CTs argue that Oswald was the triggerman for a
> > conspiracy. The few who accept his guilt argue that he was not the only
> > gunman or that he was just an innocent patsy.
>
> Not true. WC defenders want Oswald o be guilty so they don't have to
> look for a conspiracy.
>

Oswald was guilty and people have been looking for a conspiracy for 50
years without finding one. I'm not optimistic they ever will.

>
> >> That's what Hoover
> >> thought. That's what LBJ thought.
>
> > And neither of them could find any evidence Oswald had any accomplices
> > either.
>
> Hoover had the evidence right in his hands.
>

And you know this how?

> > To a man, the staff lawyers for the WC said they would have loved to have
> > found evidence of a conspiracy and Dan Rather made the same observation
> > about the reporters of his day. The would have been bigger than Woodward
> > and Bernstein if they could have found evidence that Oswald was part of a
> > conspiracy. But of course they couldn't find any. If you want to keep
> > searching for such evidence, have at it, but I think you would have a
> > better chance of proving the existence of Sasquatch or the Loch Ness
> > Monster.
>
> They are lying.
>

What they say doesn't fit your narrative so they must be lying. Couldn't
be that you are just way off base.

>
> >> The HSCA found conspiracy
> >> AND Oswald guilty,
>
> > They were half right.
>
> >> but you can't accept that.
>
> > I won't accept it because the finding isn't based on credible evidence.
> > They were hoodwinked.
>
> Oh, so that's YOUR conspiracy theory, that the acoustical evidence was
> faked to show conspiracy?
>

Faked implies it the data was deliberately falsified. I don't think the
accoustics team falsified data. I think their analysis of the data was
FUBAR.

>
> >> You don't want anything to
> >> upset your Pollyanna world.
>
> > As opposed to your Bizarro world.
>
> >>
>
> >>> Norman Mailer put it this way: "There's a terrible fault built into all
>
> >>> conspiracies, which I've even decided can be stated as a law. And the law
>
> >>> is that the only conspiracies that work are the imperfect ones. Because
>
> >>> when you have a conspiracy with a number of people, the human factor - if
>
> >>> the conspiracy is perfectly plotted - the human factor will derail it.
>
> >>> Tension is enormous; the people in conspiracies not only have their
>
> >>> strengths but their terrible weaknesses and imperfections. And so the
>
> >>> perfect conspiracy never works."
>
> >>
>
> >> Mailer is FOS. He's just a CIA stooge.
>
> >
>
> > Right every reporter and writer who doesn't buy into the conspiracy
>
> > nonsense is a CIA stooge.
>
> The CIA owns most of them. Anyone who breaks rank is punished, like
> Rather.
>

Oliver Stone blames the Vietnam War for most of the countries troubles and
likewise, you want to blame the CIA for everything. Everyone who doesn't
conform to your beliefs is a CIA stooge.

>
>
> >> Documents
> >> are getting released. Photos are being leaked. Face it, you guys are done.
>
> > You were saying the same thing on the old Prodigy board over 20 years ago.
> > You thought the ARRB was going to reveal the smoking gun. It produced no
> > gun and no smoke.
>
> Maybe it did reveal the smoking gun, but you refused to look.
>

Are you sitting on the smoking gun? If there was a smoking gun in the ARRB
released documents, why aren't you telling the world about it? Why are you
just sharing it with the few people who frequent this forum.

>
> >> Some are long since dead. Just talking is no good unless you have the
> >> files to back up what you say and the CIA is keeping those locked up.
>
> > The dog-ate-my-evidence excuse.
>
> The CIA ate my evidence.
>

Then how do you know there is such evidence?

> >>> The failures of the conspirators to maintain the conspiracy should show
> >>> up; but they don't.
>
> >> Pure nonsense. The conspirators are dead. The cover-up only has to last
> >> until they are dead and can no longer be held accountable.
>
> > So if the conspirators are dead, why hasn't the cover-up fallen apart?
>
> It IS falling apart. But the CIA hires disinformation professionals to
> argue for them.
>

Is there anything you don't blame the CIA for?

>
> >>> Lee Oswald, on his own and driven by his own personal demons, took his
> >>> rifle and shot the president. End of story.
>
> >> End of the investigation for deadheads who want to believe everything
> >> the government says.
>
> > You guys are modern day Don Quixotes, believing you are on a noble crusade
> > when in fact, you are all just tilting at windmills.
>
> So you think Cold Case files should remain cold?

I really don't care.

[bigdog]

On Sunday, June 15, 2014 9:18:47 PM UTC-4, Bud wrote:
> On Sunday, June 15, 2014 6:31:29 PM UTC-4, mainframetech wrote:
>
>
> > Ho hum. The typical LN comment that 'in 50 years nothing new has
> > happened'. Old stuff. There has been a lot of movement in those 50
> > years, but no LN dares to admit it.
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dsbUpyc5qPc
>

Now that's funny!!!

[bigdog]

On Sunday, June 15, 2014 8:45:08 PM UTC-4, Robert Harris wrote:
> bigdog wrote:
>
> Poor Bigdog. Can't answer questions about CE399 so his excuse is that
> the won't discuss the evidence related to the shooting.
>

The non-issues regarding CE399 have been addressed by me and numerous
others over the years so I have no interest in another nonsensical
discussion of it. Suffice it to say the CE399 fits in with the entire body
of evidence that all indicates Oswald was the only shooter. To believe it
was faked, one would have to believe all of it was faked and that makes no
sense whatsoever. If only some of the evidence was faked, why would
someone fake evidence to indicate the same thing that the genuine evidence
already shows.

[mainframetech]

On Sunday, June 15, 2014 9:27:52 PM UTC-4, bigdog wrote:
> On Sunday, June 15, 2014 6:31:29 PM UTC-4, mainframetech wrote:
>
> >
>
> > Ho hum. The typical LN comment that 'in 50 years nothing new has
>
> > happened'. Old stuff.
>
>
>
> Yes old stuff. Because in 50 years, there has been nothing new of any
>
> significance and what new technologies have done is verify what the WC
>
> determined 50 years ago using what they had then. Oswald was the shooter,
>
> the only shooter, and that hasn't changed in 50 years and won't change for
>
> 500 or 5000 years. We are able to stay with the old stuff because it is
>
> still valid. On the other hand, it is the CTs who have to keep dreaming up
>
> new shit as there old theories get shredded. When they run out of new
>
> ideas, they recycle the old turds, like David Lifton's body altering fairy
>
> tale or your efforts in treating the ARRB non-revelations as if they are
>
> something new and exciting.
>

You've been away, and that becomes more evident as you embarrass
yourself with statements like that. In the last 50 years, one of many
new, significant things have occurred. The ARRB was formed by law and
collected much information that hadn't come out because of the 'order of
silence' permeating much of the investigation. Once that information came
out, and witnesses were sworn and interviewed, much came to light. And
now with that information, we know how the body was damaged to look like
it had been shot from above and behind, we know for sure about the
alteration of certain photos from the autopsy, and many other things which
have now become public knowledge. You'll just have to go make up a new
batch of objections to keep up. Your old ones are passé, and no longer
carry any weight.

>
>
> > There has been a lot of movement in those 50
>
> > years, but no LN dares to admit it.
>
>
>
> Why would we admit something that isn't true.
>

Dunno, but obviously we know why you won't admit the things that ARE
true...:)

>
>
> I said earlier I am not going to waste any more of my time doing
>
> point-by-point rebuttals of your silly beliefs. Nobody cares about this
>
> crap you dream up and nobody every will. Nothing any of you are doing is
>
> of any consequence. The rest of the world will continue to ignore you.

LOL! Yep. You've been away...:) The "rest of the world" (in the USA,
at least)has a 61% belief that there was a conspiracy in the death of JFK.
You're on the minority side with your hidebound attitudes from the wacky
old WC.

Oswald didn't shoot anything from the TSBD. He wasn't on the 6th floor
at the time. The government needs him to be there because they have to
have a 'patsy' so that the real conspirators won't be tracked down during
the rest of their lives, and everyone will believe anything they say, or
any order they give, without any rebellion or dissension. I'm sure
they're happy with your voluntary efforts to assist their goals.

As to not answering each and every thing I say, I can easily understand
that. Most proofs I put up you find are too much trouble to research, and
you believe I'm right anyway and it's just not worth it to lose yet
another debate. The attempts to make the WCR come true are way past where
they matter. We're beyond all 5 panels that told the public to shut up
and do like they're told. And I predict that you can't get away from
what's happening here just by making noises about getting away. You'll be
back. After all, you're useful to the cause.


Chris

[mainframetech]

another attempt to get a hit on your website? No thanks. But I'll be
happy to tell you all about the scam that was done at Bethesda by Humes
and Boswell and recorded in sworn testimony. Steel yourself, you're going
to hear it all.

There will soon be a thread called 'The Scam at the Autopsy". It is
almost completely from sworn testimony and explains what actually happened
from before the body arrived at Bethesda to the finish where the
morticians fix up the body after what had been done to it.

If you have the patience. Now I've answered the challenge, so don't
complain otherwise. And if you want to post my explanation on your
website, you have my permission to post it complete, and in no other way.
No editing. Thanks.

Chris

[mainframetech]

The FBI has been already shown to have altered the statements of
witnesses. It has been stated by a number of witnesses that the FBI tried
intimidation and threats on them to shut them up, and they did whatever
they had to do to push the wacky 'lone nut' theory of Hoover and the WC
lawyers.

You need to think more carefully about who all was involved in the
investigation. You'll find that "hundreds" isn't really the number. And
telling many of them that it was a matter of 'national security' that we
not let the Russians or the Cubans or whoever, know that they had
succeeded at murdering JFK and hurting our country. They might have told
folks that they wanted to stop 'rioting in the streets' too. Any number
of excuses would work. LBJ sued the phony fear of WW3, and in politics to
control people, anything is fair game.

For evidence custody, ONE person did that job almost alone. Robert
Frazier. And he was in a position to do whatever needed doing with that
evidence, such as replacing the CE399 bullet with a bullet from the MC
rifle.

The limo was sent out almost immediately to be stripped and re
upholstered, and a new windshield put in. It was a simple of an order to
Vaughn Ferguson of the Ford company to have it done, and the government
would pay for the work. The order came from one person in the SS, and the
reason might be anything like 'it would be terrible to have that reminder
around of a murder of a president', or 'it had to be cleaned up so we
could use it for LBJ and other presidents'. There are many excuses to get
people to do what they wanted, and it didn't take "hundreds" of people.

In the area of the autopsy, there were a few admirals and generals that
had orders to keep the autopsy to a minimum, and they issued orders at the
time to not do certain procedures and caused part of the incompetence in
the autopsy that was spoken of by many. The reason would be that the
Kennedy family had religious reasons not to damage the body and to bury
everything together, and so forth. Another reason might be that Jackie
was upstairs and knowing that we all were down here cutting up her
husband, and we want to shorten it as much as possible. There are always
reasons, and the number of people to carry them out didn't have to be in
the "hundreds".

I don't consider the panels and their participants to be part of the
'crew' that covered up the murderers. They were presented with photos and
statements (often conflicting) but were not given those elements that
would help them know that there was a scam being perpetrated right in
front of them.

Chris

[Anthony Marsh]

They put him in touch with KGB assets in Russia.

[Anthony Marsh]

He mentions that he had sources which put him in contact with KGB
officers.

> http://www.c-span.org/video/?64863-1/book-discussion-oswalds-tale-american-mystery
>
> The book - "Oswald's Tale" - was the followup work to his earlier book
> "Harlot's Ghost".
>

Which is based on inside sources inside the CIA.

>

[Sandy McCroskey]

1) Which doesn't say the CIA sent him.

2) No citation yet given even for this.

[bigdog]

On Monday, June 16, 2014 2:09:24 PM UTC-4, mainframetech wrote:
>
> You've been away, and that becomes more evident as you embarrass
> yourself with statements like that. In the last 50 years, one of many
> new, significant things have occurred. The ARRB was formed by law and
> collected much information that hadn't come out because of the 'order of
> silence' permeating much of the investigation.

Is that supposed to be a newsflash? They closed up shop about 20 years
ago. It was in all the papers.

> Once that information came
> out, and witnesses were sworn and interviewed, much came to light. And
> now with that information, we know how the body was damaged to look like
> it had been shot from above and behind,

Who's we. Do you have a mouse in your pocket?

> we know for sure about the
> alteration of certain photos from the autopsy, and many other things which
> have now become public knowledge. You'll just have to go make up a new
> batch of objections to keep up. Your old ones are passé, and no longer
> carry any weight.
>

I suppose there are a handful of people in this world who believe such
nonsense, so maybe the word "we" is appropriate. Apparently, "we" know a
lot of things that just aren't so.

>
> > > There has been a lot of movement in those 50
> > > years, but no LN dares to admit it.
>
> > Why would we admit something that isn't true.
>
> Dunno, but obviously we know why you won't admit the things that ARE
> true...:)

The WCR will be the defining work of the assassination of JFK long after
people like David Lifton and Doug Horne are dead, buried, and forgotten.

> > I said earlier I am not going to waste any more of my time doing
> > point-by-point rebuttals of your silly beliefs. Nobody cares about this
> > crap you dream up and nobody every will. Nothing any of you are doing is
> > of any consequence. The rest of the world will continue to ignore you.
> LOL! Yep. You've been away...:) The "rest of the world" (in the USA,
> at least)has a 61% belief that there was a conspiracy in the death of JFK.
> You're on the minority side with your hidebound attitudes from the wacky
> old WC.
>

The rest of the world goes through their daily lives without ever giving a
thought or a rat's ass about the JFK assassination.

> Oswald didn't shoot anything from the TSBD. He wasn't on the 6th floor
> at the time. The government needs him to be there because they have to
> have a 'patsy' so that the real conspirators won't be tracked down during
> the rest of their lives, and everyone will believe anything they say, or
> any order they give, without any rebellion or dissension. I'm sure
> they're happy with your voluntary efforts to assist their goals.
>

As long as you believe that, there is no hope you will ever know the truth
about the assassination of JFK. You can't find the truth when you run from
the truth.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 6/15/2014 9:32 PM, David Von Pein wrote:
> "MAINFRAME" SAID:
>
> When are you going to argue for the WC with evidence to oppose the newer
> findings since the ARRB?
>
>
> DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
>
> I sure would like to know what those "newer findings" are that the ARRB
> supposedly unearthed and released. I've yet to see any of it.
>

OK, so you just admitted that you are unaware of the ARRB findings.
In other words you don't do research.

[stevemg...@yahoo.com]

That's not what he says.

Marsh, when you're reduced to saying Norman Mailer is a CIA stooge and
Seymour Hersh was manipulated by them then you're really getting into kook
territory.

So, there were no honest people in the government who blew the whistle on
the conspiracy and there's no honest people outside of the government - in
journalism - either?

And you once said that WC defenders are cynics?

Who's the cynic here?

[Sandy McCroskey]

Well, of course he did. How do you know they were CIA?

[Anthony Marsh]

How many men broke into the Watergate? 100,000?
How many people tried to assassinate Castro? 2 million?

[Anthony Marsh]

Except for 90% of the public. You have the minority opinion.

[HERCULE POIROT]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5j2F4VcBmeo&feature=kp

[Bud]

Who do your claims that the body was tampered with carry weight with?

>
>
>
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > > There has been a lot of movement in those 50
>
> >
>
> > > years, but no LN dares to admit it.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Why would we admit something that isn't true.
>
> >
>
>
>
>
>
> Dunno, but obviously we know why you won't admit the things that ARE
>
> true...:)
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > I said earlier I am not going to waste any more of my time doing
>
> >
>
> > point-by-point rebuttals of your silly beliefs. Nobody cares about this
>
> >
>
> > crap you dream up and nobody every will. Nothing any of you are doing is
>
> >
>
> > of any consequence. The rest of the world will continue to ignore you.
>
>
>
>
>
> LOL! Yep. You've been away...:) The "rest of the world" (in the USA,
>
> at least)has a 61% belief that there was a conspiracy in the death of JFK.

It doesn`t matter that a lot of people think something fishy happened,
it`s a free country.

> You're on the minority side with your hidebound attitudes from the wacky
>
> old WC.

Actually many more people believe what an LNer thinks occurred than any
conspiracy hobbyist you can name.

>
>
> Oswald didn't shoot anything from the TSBD. He wasn't on the 6th floor
>
> at the time. The government needs him to be there because they have to
>
> have a 'patsy' so that the real conspirators won't be tracked down during
>
> the rest of their lives, and everyone will believe anything they say, or
>
> any order they give, without any rebellion or dissension. I'm sure
>
> they're happy with your voluntary efforts to assist their goals.

I doubt the figments of your imagination have such feelings.

>
>
> As to not answering each and every thing I say, I can easily understand
>
> that. Most proofs I put up you find are too much trouble to research, and
>
> you believe I'm right anyway and it's just not worth it to lose yet
>
> another debate.

You believe anything you like the sound of. Free country, you can
believe any silly things you like. And you do like.

> The attempts to make the WCR come true are way past where
>
> they matter. We're beyond all 5 panels that told the public to shut up
>
> and do like they're told. And I predict that you can't get away from
>
> what's happening here just by making noises about getting away. You'll be
>
> back. After all, you're useful to the cause.

There is no cause. Nothing is done in these newsgroups. There are people
who can accept Oswald`s guilt and those that made this event into a silly
hobby.


>
>
>
>
> Chris

[Bud]

It has been stated by a number of witnesses that they saw Oswald kill
people.

> and they did whatever
>
> they had to do to push the wacky 'lone nut' theory of Hoover and the WC
>
> lawyers.

Name a witness who said that "A" was true when they knew "B" to be true.

[Sandy McCroskey]

On 6/16/14, 5:43 PM, Anthony Marsh wrote:
> On 6/15/2014 9:32 PM, David Von Pein wrote:
>> "MAINFRAME" SAID:
>>
>> When are you going to argue for the WC with evidence to oppose the newer
>> findings since the ARRB?
>>
>>
>> DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
>>
>> I sure would like to know what those "newer findings" are that the ARRB
>> supposedly unearthed and released. I've yet to see any of it.
>>
>
> OK, so you just admitted that you are unaware of the ARRB findings.

Nooooo, he's obviously saying that the AARB files were released twenty
years ago.

[Anthony Marsh]

Ordinary people don't have that level of access to CIA sources and
methods.

[Anthony Marsh]

No. Harlot's Ghost revealed his inside connections and which side he was
aligned with.
Hersh admitted that he changed his book based on a tip from his CIA
contact to interview SS agents about JFK's drug use.

> So, there were no honest people in the government who blew the whistle on
> the conspiracy and there's no honest people outside of the government - in
> journalism - either?
>

Of course there were. So what?

> And you once said that WC defenders are cynics?
>

Not exactly.

> Who's the cynic here?
>
>

You.

[mainframetech]

On Monday, June 16, 2014 4:09:28 PM UTC-4, bigdog wrote:
> On Monday, June 16, 2014 2:09:24 PM UTC-4, mainframetech wrote:
>
> >
>
> > You've been away, and that becomes more evident as you embarrass
>
> > yourself with statements like that. In the last 50 years, one of many
>
> > new, significant things have occurred. The ARRB was formed by law and
>
> > collected much information that hadn't come out because of the 'order of
>
> > silence' permeating much of the investigation.
>
>
>
> Is that supposed to be a newsflash? They closed up shop about 20 years
>
> ago. It was in all the papers.
>

You mentioned that nothing was new in 50 years. Going back on that
already? Doesn't take much to do that to you.

>
>
> > Once that information came
>
> > out, and witnesses were sworn and interviewed, much came to light. And
>
> > now with that information, we know how the body was damaged to look like
>
> > it had been shot from above and behind,
>
>
>
> Who's we. Do you have a mouse in your pocket?
>

Me and whoever read the testimony of those that saw Humes and Boswell
damage the body to make it look that way. It was open, sworn testimony
gathered by the ARRB. 2 people corroborated each other that they took
scalpel and bone saw to the body and damaged it in the fashion that Gave
the wrong impression just after 6:35pm when no one was around, and then at
the 'official' autopsy at 8:00pm they looked at their own work and
pronounced it a shot from above and behind. They worked to keep their
previous work secret, so that no one would realize they had just done the
dirty work themselves.

The proof of what they did is easily seen by looking at the top of the
head, which was intact leaving parkland, and knocked out at Bethesda
autopsy after 8:00pm. The only opportunity to do that work was BEFORE the
autopsy at 6:35pm when the body arrived at Bethesda morgue 42 minutes
before the Kennedy party with the SS and FBI agents.

>
>
> > we know for sure about the
>
> > alteration of certain photos from the autopsy, and many other things which
>
> > have now become public knowledge. You'll just have to go make up a new
>
> > batch of objections to keep up. Your old ones are passé, and no longer
>
> > carry any weight.
>
> >
>
>
>
> I suppose there are a handful of people in this world who believe such
>
> nonsense, so maybe the word "we" is appropriate. Apparently, "we" know a
>
> lot of things that just aren't so.
>

So now you're calling the sworn testimony "nonsense". Is there no end
to your insults in an effort to get away from the truth in sworn
testimony? Remember, you've been away and have no idea what I'm talking
about. You haven't read over the testimony and seen for yourself that
Humes and Boswell were seen doing the deed.

>
>
> >
>
> > > > There has been a lot of movement in those 50
>
> > > > years, but no LN dares to admit it.
>
> >
>
> > > Why would we admit something that isn't true.
>
> >
>
> > Dunno, but obviously we know why you won't admit the things that ARE
>
> > true...:)
>
>
>
> The WCR will be the defining work of the assassination of JFK long after
>
> people like David Lifton and Doug Horne are dead, buried, and forgotten.
>

Do I hear the sound of wishful thinking? :) The WCR defines only the
ridiculous extent that they went to in making up evidence that caught them
in their own dirt.

>
>
> > > I said earlier I am not going to waste any more of my time doing
>
> > > point-by-point rebuttals of your silly beliefs. Nobody cares about this
>
> > > crap you dream up and nobody every will. Nothing any of you are doing is
>
> > > of any consequence. The rest of the world will continue to ignore you.
>
> > LOL! Yep. You've been away...:) The "rest of the world" (in the USA,
>
> > at least)has a 61% belief that there was a conspiracy in the death of JFK.
>
> > You're on the minority side with your hidebound attitudes from the wacky
>
> > old WC.
>
> >
>
>
>
> The rest of the world goes through their daily lives without ever giving a
>
> thought or a rat's ass about the JFK assassination.
>

Not quite. 61% of them think about the conspiracy they know occurred.

>
>
> > Oswald didn't shoot anything from the TSBD. He wasn't on the 6th floor
>
> > at the time. The government needs him to be there because they have to
>
> > have a 'patsy' so that the real conspirators won't be tracked down during
>
> > the rest of their lives, and everyone will believe anything they say, or
>
> > any order they give, without any rebellion or dissension. I'm sure
>
> > they're happy with your voluntary efforts to assist their goals.
>
> >
>
>
>
> As long as you believe that, there is no hope you will ever know the truth
>
> about the assassination of JFK. You can't find the truth when you run from
>
> the truth.

And who is really doing the running in this thread? Not I. I'm willing
to bring forth the proof of the fakery that occurred and the names of
those that did it. And show where it is stated in sworn testimony which
you are running from even now.

Chris

[mainframetech]

There was no genuine evidence until they made some up and inserted into
the FBI custody. 4 men refused to identify the CE399 bullet when it was
trotted out for them to ID. One of them said the bullet he was shown had
the wrong shape! Of course it had been replaced by that time and the
bullet that man would have recognized was gone now.

2 of the 4 men were SS agents, and should have known to mark the bullet
they saw with their mark, but they were still unable to ID the bullet they
were shown.

This is more than a "non-issue" but I can see how you would desperately
hope that it would go away and you wouldn't have to try to find your way
out of the morass created by the evidence makers.


Chris

[mainframetech]

You mean watching LNs repeating the same old tired phrases?

Chris

[Anthony Marsh]

Keep asking the same questions 100,000 times after I have already
answered them 1,000 times just to show what a tough guy you are.

[Anthony Marsh]

You ignore two facts.
1. They discussed what to do for about two weeks before sending the limo
out to be fixed.
2. They decided to bullet proof the exiting limo rather than wait months
for a custom made limo from scratch.

> In the area of the autopsy, there were a few admirals and generals that
> had orders to keep the autopsy to a minimum, and they issued orders at the
> time to not do certain procedures and caused part of the incompetence in
> the autopsy that was spoken of by many. The reason would be that the
> Kennedy family had religious reasons not to damage the body and to bury
> everything together, and so forth. Another reason might be that Jackie

No, the orders came from an unnameable Army General who had no
connections to the Kennedy family.
I defy you to quote any part of Catholic doctrine which would interfere
with JFK's autopsy.
I assume that you are not Catholic so you'll have to ask an authority on
Catholic doctrine.

> was upstairs and knowing that we all were down here cutting up her
> husband, and we want to shorten it as much as possible. There are always
> reasons, and the number of people to carry them out didn't have to be in
> the "hundreds".
>
> I don't consider the panels and their participants to be part of the
> 'crew' that covered up the murderers. They were presented with photos and
> statements (often conflicting) but were not given those elements that
> would help them know that there was a scam being perpetrated right in
> front of them.
>

The one example I pointed out is quite clear. The expert who said there
was a 6.5 mm object on the X-rays in order to frame Oswald.

> Chris
>

[cmikes]

Exactly the point, thank you for making it. The Watergate break in and
the Castro plots had very few people in the know about them and yet we
know all about them and have for 30 years. And yet a supposed conspiracy
to kill JFK that had to have involved at least 10 times if not 100 times
as many people has stayed completely and totally secret for 50 years.

To paraphrase Charles Colson, 12 people couldn't keep a secret for 3 weeks
to protect their president. And yet supposedly hundreds, if not thousands
of people have kept completely silent for 50 years about the JFK case.

[stevemg...@yahoo.com]

I believe a lone erratic, angry person shot JFK. Oswald essentially
committed suicide by killing JFK.

You think a CIA sniper team did it. On Helms' orders. And then for 50
years various people inside and outside government lied or were corrupted.
Or worse.

Who's the cynic in those two narratives?

[Jason Burke]

Once again you're confused, Chris.

Look up the difference between "tired" and "truthful". I know they both
start with the same letter, but...

[Sandy McCroskey]

ha HA. And you're somehow "extraordinary"?
Well, maybe I'll grant you that.
But this is just another dodge.
Put up or shut up, Marsh.

[Sandy McCroskey]

I asked for a citation, not for you to just shoot your mouth off one
more time like you know what you're talking about and no one can
question it.

I hope you realize that every time you do this, what you claim becomes
even less believable.

[Anthony Marsh]

Knowing that the government always covers up wrongdoing is not being a
cynic. It's being a realist.

[mainframetech]

Try reading the thread called "The Scam at the Autopsy", then come up
with some evidence that opposes it. If you can. And remember, everything
in that post came from sworn testimony.

Chris

[mainframetech]

There were NO snipers in the 'team'. If there had been, there would
have been NO missed shots, like we saw all over Dealey Plaza. At best,
they were hired shooters, possibly supplied by the Mafia. I haven't heard
anyone say that Helm's gave orders to kill JFK.

As far as insiders coming out with tales from the inside, here's one
from the FBI:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VSXQYvm57YM

Chris

[mainframetech]

You made your own straw man. YOU made the number "hundreds" and
"thousands", not me or other CT. Then you come along and use the number
that YOU created, and act like it was too much.

To carry out the murder, you needed only about 10 men, and they would be
mostly shooters and helpers, like 'CIA agents' on the GK to keep it clear
of civilians.

The larger number of men in the conspiracy were used AFTER the murder,
in covering up the conspiracy and making sure that the evidence pointed to
Oswald. That was probably more like 20 men. But remember, with the
proper excuse, you can get many workers to help out in the cover up with
them not aware of who they wee helping. Use 'National Security', or
rioting in the streets, or WW3 or any number of excuses, and folks will be
happy to risk their lives to help cover up.

In the case of the autopsy, one of the above excuses and military
orders made clearly to the prosectors, and a threat of prison and the end
of their retirement will do to get the proper things done. And they even
threw on top of that an order of silence wit ha threat of prison if they
violated it. When that order was rescinded, the ARRB got some wonderful
evidence for the public to chew on.

Chris

[stevemg...@yahoo.com]

He thinks that by simply pointing again and again and again to journalist
"A" or journalist "B" who had connections to the CIA or by citing again
and again and again that goofy Helms quote that that is sufficient
evidence to show that journalist "C" and "D" also had connections or were
agency assets.

If you don't think that's persuasive then he'll question your
intelligence.

Yes, we all know that the CIA had and has assets in the media.

Prove that Mailer or Hersh were among them.

Otherwise it's just groundless accusations.

[bigdog]

Do you really think the JFK assassination is of any concern to 90% of the
public. I would bet most people rarely give it a thought, regardless if
the ar LNs or CTs. It's old news. If the American people still had a
widespread interest in the subject, politicians would be pandering to that
interest every election cycle. But of course, it never gets mentioned by
politicians of either party because they no that for the most part, nobody
cares. It's a niche interest and a very small niche at that.

[Anthony Marsh]

I did. But you refuse to read it.

[Sandy McCroskey]

Oops, I think you must have meant the people who put him in contact with
the KGB people.

But you are only surmising that they were CIA, correct?

(And then it's another step to assume that they were part of a cover-up.
And so the conspiracy grows...)

[bigdog]

On Tuesday, June 17, 2014 5:11:23 PM UTC-4, mainframetech wrote:
>
> Try reading the thread called "The Scam at the Autopsy", then come up
> with some evidence that opposes it. If you can. And remember, everything
> in that post came from sworn testimony.
>

I've lost track of the number of times I've had to tell a conspiracy
theorist that when you propose a theory, the onus is on you to prove it.
Nobody else has the burden of disproving it. I have better things to do
with my time than debunk every cockamamie theory that comes down the
pike.

As I pointed out in your thread, you began with the false premise that
there was no damage to the top of JFK's head when the body left Parkland.
There was no need to go any further than that.

[Bud]

But the premise is pure hobbyist figuring.

>
>
> Chris

[Bud]

Actually only needed one.

> and they would be
>
> mostly shooters and helpers, like 'CIA agents' on the GK to keep it clear
>
> of civilians.

Various elves, pixies and leprechauns.

> The larger number of men in the conspiracy were used AFTER the murder,
>
> in covering up the conspiracy and making sure that the evidence pointed to
>
> Oswald. That was probably more like 20 men. But remember, with the
>
> proper excuse, you can get many workers to help out in the cover up with
>
> them not aware of who they wee helping.

Conspiracy hobbyists who have not shown themselves to be astute in any
manner think they can figure out things looking at it from the outside
that those on the inside could not figure out for themselves.

> Use 'National Security', or
>
> rioting in the streets, or WW3 or any number of excuses, and folks will be
>
> happy to risk their lives to help cover up.

It`s the conspiracy hobbyists that throw out lame rationals for the
extraordinary actions they claim occurred.

>
>
> In the case of the autopsy, one of the above excuses and military
>
> orders made clearly to the prosectors, and a threat of prison and the end
>
> of their retirement will do to get the proper things done.

Chris was kind enough to give an example of what I was referring to.

> And they even
>
> threw on top of that an order of silence wit ha threat of prison if they
>
> violated it. When that order was rescinded, the ARRB got some wonderful
>
> evidence for the public to chew on.

For some hobbyist to go nowhere with.

>
>
> Chris

[Sandy McCroskey]

He absolutely *has* to file away information this way or else admit that
Mailer could think for himself and came honestly to his conclusion.

[Sandy McCroskey]

To what are you referring?
Point me to it, and I'll read it.
Promise.

[Bud]

On Monday, June 16, 2014 8:56:31 PM UTC-4, mainframetech wrote:
> On Monday, June 16, 2014 12:52:45 PM UTC-4, bigdog wrote:
>
> > On Sunday, June 15, 2014 8:45:08 PM UTC-4, Robert Harris wrote:
>
> >
>
> > > bigdog wrote:
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > Poor Bigdog. Can't answer questions about CE399 so his excuse is that
>
> >
>
> > > the won't discuss the evidence related to the shooting.
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > The non-issues regarding CE399 have been addressed by me and numerous
>
> >
>
> > others over the years so I have no interest in another nonsensical
>
> >
>
> > discussion of it. Suffice it to say the CE399 fits in with the entire body
>
> >
>
> > of evidence that all indicates Oswald was the only shooter. To believe it
>
> >
>
> > was faked, one would have to believe all of it was faked and that makes no
>
> >
>
> > sense whatsoever. If only some of the evidence was faked, why would
>
> >
>
> > someone fake evidence to indicate the same thing that the genuine evidence
>
> >
>
> > already shows.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> There was no genuine evidence until they made some up and inserted into
>
> the FBI custody. 4 men refused to identify the CE399 bullet when it was
>
> trotted out for them to ID.

How is it that you don`t understand the meaning of a common word like
"refuse"?

> One of them said the bullet he was shown had
>
> the wrong shape!

But the first person who handled it said it was the right shape! Did it
change shape between the two?

> Of course it had been replaced by that time and the
>
> bullet that man would have recognized was gone now.
>
>
>
> 2 of the 4 men were SS agents, and should have known to mark the bullet
>
> they saw with their mark,

Why do you say that. Can you show that the marking of evidence is
something taught to SS agents?

> but they were still unable to ID the bullet they
>
> were shown.

"unable" means nothing. Being unable to make a positive identification
in a lineup does not mean the perpetrator is not in the lineup.

>
>
> This is more than a "non-issue" but I can see how you would desperately
>
> hope that it would go away and you wouldn't have to try to find your way
>
> out of the morass created by the evidence makers.

It`s a non-issue, a squalking point like the ones conspiracy hobbyists
collect.

>
>
>
>
> Chris

[mainframetech]

LOL! Said by a long time JFK hobbyist...:)

Chris

[mainframetech]

First, no THEORY has been shown to you. You've seen testimony from
involved personnel at Bethesda explaining what happened to the body of JFK
once they got a hold of it. This did not interest you, since you have the
WCR to hug to your chest. Your excuse to avoid the testimony is weak.
You cannot deal with this information, because it makes everything you've
worked for become useless. How can you face that?

What a shame. You missed it all. The lack of damage to the top of the
head was documented in testimony, drawings and statements. They
corroborate each other, making your comment merely embarrassing for you.
If you need proof of that, let me know. Nurse Diane Bowron wrapped the
body and was the last person to see it before going into a casket. Her
comments of 'no damage to the top of the head' are in testimony. Other
medical personnel drew pictures of the damage to the head, and none of
them placed ANY damage on the TOP or right side of the head. Mind you,
the top of the head was even easier to see than the back of the head, and
most of them saw that damage and noted it.

So the upshot of your comments are that you've found an excuse to avoid
documented testimony, drawings and statements from the personnel at
Bethesda, and calling their testimony a "cockamamie theory". This really
puts you out of the research area. A researcher would be interested in
whatever had been said on a subject, then decide on the truth of it later.

Oh, BTW...here's more detail by Nurse Diana Bowron in an interview for
an author. It goes into detail about the BOH and the damage to the head
in general:

http://alt.assassination.jfk.uncensored.narkive.com/U0b132Fv/nurse-diana-bowron

Chris

[mainframetech]

Nope. Won't do. The TV channels need to know what they're putting on
will be attractive to people and cause them to watch their channels. The
JFK murder is on not only on the anniversary of the murder, but at other
times throughout the year. They wouldn't put it on if they didn't think
it would attract viewers. So your belief is wrong again.

Chris

[Anthony Marsh]

No, you won't. Bernstein's article. I already pointed you to it, but you
refused to read it.

[Anthony Marsh]

Silly. Of course Mailer can think for himself, but he needs the CIA to
get access to the original KGB agents. Just as Sy Hersh needed his CIA
contact to get access to the Secret Service agents who were anxious to
speak about JFK's drug use.

[Anthony Marsh]

No, he used his CIA contacts to find the old KGB officers.
You think he looked them up in the phone book?

> (And then it's another step to assume that they were part of a cover-up.
> And so the conspiracy grows...)
>

The cover-up was separate from the conspiracy.

[Anthony Marsh]

I don't claim that they think about it every day. But when a new book or
new movie comes out they rush to see it. And this is only about opinion
polls. Regardless of where the people got their information it is about
what the public thinks.

Lane published an indictment of the Warren Commission, entitled Rush to
Judgment, using these interviews as well as evidence from the 26 volumes
of the Commission's report. Despite the fact that the majority of Mark
Lane's material for his book came from the Warren Report itself, as well
as from interviews with those who were at the scene, sixteen publishers
canceled contracts before Rush to Judgment was published."[9] The book
became a number one best seller and spent 29 weeks on the New York Times
best-seller list.[13]

Was the Warren Report on the New York Times best-seller list? Yes or no?
This is why you are afraid to answer my questions.

> public. I would bet most people rarely give it a thought, regardless if
> the ar LNs or CTs. It's old news. If the American people still had a
> widespread interest in the subject, politicians would be pandering to that
> interest every election cycle. But of course, it never gets mentioned by

Politicians are too smart to take ANY position on the JFK assassination.
Only people like you are in favor of it.

[Anthony Marsh]

It was Colby, not Helms who said that the CIA owned any journalist of
consequence. The mere fact that you get simple facts like this wrong
proves that you have not done your homework.

> If you don't think that's persuasive then he'll question your
> intelligence.
>

Or intelligence connections.

> Yes, we all know that the CIA had and has assets in the media.
>

We know that, you do not.

> Prove that Mailer or Hersh were among them.
>

Hersh admitted it. Call him up and ask him if you don't believe what he
himself wrote.

http://www.nieman.harvard.edu/reports/article/102486/Two-Stories-Seymour-Hersh-Never-Wrote.aspx

So 1 start work. That was the initial entry point to doing the book. I'm
talking to retired agents of the CIA, guys who worked Cuba. I'm getting
the stories, as I knew I would because I knew they would all point the
finger at the Kennedys, particularly Bobby.
. . .
So I asked one of the spooks, one of the CIA guys, "Why was he so nutty
about this?" He says, "If you want to learn about Jack Kennedy go find
his Secret Service agents. Just go do it." So I did.

I talked to about 10 of them. Four we actually got to go on record and
went on camera for the ABC documentary, which [was] an amazing feat in
itself.

Others were there ready to talk. If those guys are ready to talk about
sex I'm ready to write about it. But the purpose in doing it was, you
see, that the whole point of his sexual behavior was that it was a
recklessness that fell over into other areas�Castro, Vietnam, the
missile crisis. I'm going after all of them. I'm doing revisionist
history on all of them.

Of course, it's not going to make a lot of people happy in the
journalist business. When I was an AP kid covering the Pentagon in the
6()'s I learned to hate the war. But if somebody in the LA. Times got a
great story that even hit the war hard, I was the first guy in the next
morning to Arthur Sylvester, the Press Secretary, trying to get a
knockdown �"Pentagon denied today the report"�because somebody else had
something I didn't have. That's our business. It's wrong. You have to
understand that's very deep in our system. It's pervasive. Most of the
time it's all-out war. I'm glad I'm not a reporter now because the
competitive instinct is so strong it dominates everything.

The point is it's inevitable that what I'm saying by indirection is that
if I'm right about the Kennedy presidency�if I'm right�two generations
of reporters and historians are wrong. I understood I was not going to
get prizes for this book.

What's ironic about what's going on now [the special prosecutor's
investigation of sexual allegations and subornation of perjury charges
against President Clinton] is that the issue for me isn't oral sex. It's
what does it say about this guy and what else do we want to look at? If
you have looked at the literature it's clearly a pathology. There's been
a lot of amazingly detailed psychoanalytical treatises and studies done
on this pathology.

If you read the literature about this obsessive need for sex [one thing
that is] interesting is it's almost a daily requirement. If you don't
get it you get depressed. Kennedy used to talk about having headaches
all the time when he didn't get sex. That was his way of coping with it.

One of the Secret Service guys [told] me [that] on Fridays, if Jackie
Kennedy would stick around for the weekend, [the President] was like a
rooster that had been sprayed with water. He would get headaches and
have a lousy weekend, because he didn't want to mess around when his
wife was around.

It also involves a certain denigration of women. It's the need to have
this kind of sex that doesn't stem from a sexual desire, I guess. It
stems from other sorts of neurotic things in your makeup. It makes you
take huge risks, like messing around with a 21-year-old intern. And if
you're taking those risks can you stop those risks just there?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=whZ9zmPDzFk

http://scottgsherman.com/profiles/seymourhersh.php

He dismisses the caller without rancor, signaling in a phrase that,
despite this particular transgression, their business relationship
remains intact: "Keep your ear to the ground." Whom was he talking to?
"Oh, just somebody calling me." Who was it? Hersh replies,
mischievously, "Somebody I've known for thirty years who used to work in
the CIA, giving me a tip."

Above all, as CIA officer Walter Elder told Seymour Hersh, �There was an
intense dislike in CIA for Bobby.�

[Bud]

No, your thinking is wrong again. With so many entertainment options
networks are happy with a niche audience.

>
>
> Chris

[bigdog]

On Wednesday, June 18, 2014 7:25:35 PM UTC-4, mainframetech wrote:
>
> First, no THEORY has been shown to you. You've seen testimony from
> involved personnel at Bethesda explaining what happened to the body of JFK
> once they got a hold of it. This did not interest you, since you have the
> WCR to hug to your chest. Your excuse to avoid the testimony is weak.
> You cannot deal with this information, because it makes everything you've
> worked for become useless. How can you face that?
>

Testimony given to the ARRB was almost 30 years after the fact. Are we
supposed to dump all the evidence gathered in the immediate aftermath of
the assassination based on three decade old recollections. I guess when
all that evidence runs contrary to your beliefs, you choose to go that
route.

>
> What a shame. You missed it all. The lack of damage to the top of the
> head was documented in testimony, drawings and statements.

Nonsense, the Z-film showed the upper right side of JFK's head blasted out
which is perfectly consistent with what the autopsy photos and x-rays
showed. That trumps all your witnesses.

> They
> corroborate each other, making your comment merely embarrassing for you.
> If you need proof of that, let me know. Nurse Diane Bowron wrapped the
> body and was the last person to see it before going into a casket. Her
> comments of 'no damage to the top of the head' are in testimony.

The Parkland staff never understood the true nature of the head wound
because they never treated the head wound. They had no idea there was a
massive blowout with most of the pieces of skull remaining attached to the
scalp. With those flaps closed, it appeared to them there was no blowout
on the top of the skull. They were simply oblivious to the extent of a
wound that nobody at Parkland did any more than glance at. I trust the
visual evidence of the Z-film, the autopsy photos and x-rays, the findings
of the autopsy team and the review of their work by subsequent panels far
more than I do those casual glances. But of course the best evidence never
works for the CTs so they always turn to the worst.

> Other
> medical personnel drew pictures of the damage to the head, and none of
> them placed ANY damage on the TOP or right side of the head.

Because they couldn't see it.

> Mind you,
> the top of the head was even easier to see than the back of the head, and
> most of them saw that damage and noted it.
>

And they saw the head with the flaps closed. It is a very simply concept.
Flaps open. Flaps close. The head would look very different with the flaps
closed than with the flaps open.

> So the upshot of your comments are that you've found an excuse to avoid
> documented testimony, drawings and statements from the personnel at
> Bethesda, and calling their testimony a "cockamamie theory".

No, your theory is cockamamie.

> This really
> puts you out of the research area.

I'm not a researcher and neither are you. We are hobbyists.

> A researcher would be interested in
> whatever had been said on a subject, then decide on the truth of it later.
>

Been there. Done that.

>
> Oh, BTW...here's more detail by Nurse Diana Bowron in an interview for
> an author. It goes into detail about the BOH and the damage to the head
> in general:
>

Oh goody. More tales from someone who never treated the head wound to
discover the full extent of it.

[bigdog]

On Wednesday, June 18, 2014 7:26:13 PM UTC-4, mainframetech wrote:

That's the nice thing about cable TV. It doesn't have to a appeal to a
broad range of people the way programs had to back in the days when
broadcast TV ruled. You get all kinds of programming that appeals to a
very narrow slice of the public, and that is true of programming that has
nothing to do with JFK. Hell, a few years ago, one of the cable channels
was playing old Cisco Kid reruns. Do you think that has a broad appeal?

[Sandy McCroskey]

I've just gone back through every message by Anthony Marsh in this
thread. There is no reference to any article by anyone named Bernstein.

This is a transparent dodge because you can't back up what you say.

You just don't want me to read that article and point out how you're
misconstruing it. That seems obvious.

After all, that's what I did with your precious newspaper article(s)
about the supposed fourth shot that landed "in the vicinity" of the limo.

/sandy

[Anthony Marsh]

The Watergate case is the easiest to understand. Under orders from the
top it only took 5 men to break into the Watergate and bug the phones.
But they needed several people on the support team to help them. Then
the cover-up of that crime involved the entire executive branch of the
US government.

[Anthony Marsh]

Interesting fine point, but it contains a couple of flawed assumptions.
First, snipers DO miss sometimes. Second, the fault was the rifle, not
the shooter as we saw with the Walker miss.

> have been NO missed shots, like we saw all over Dealey Plaza. At best,
> they were hired shooters, possibly supplied by the Mafia. I haven't heard
> anyone say that Helm's gave orders to kill JFK.
>

I said that.
He is conflating all conspiracy believers together.

[Sandy McCroskey]

And blah di blah di blah.

You said the CIA *sent* Mailer to Russia. Ha ha. No way.


You also said Mailer didn't change his opinion, which would mean that he
was never inclined to give the conspiracy hypothesis the benefit of the
doubt.
You can call a dead man a liar and get away with it, but where's your
evidence? (Same place as usual...)

[Sandy McCroskey]

A distinction without a difference.

[cmikes]

On Wednesday, June 18, 2014 8:15:34 PM UTC-4, Anthony Marsh wrote:
> On 6/17/2014 8:15 PM, Sandy McCroskey wrote:
>

Stuff Trimmed

>
>
>
> > (And then it's another step to assume that they were part of a cover-up.
>
> > And so the conspiracy grows...)
>
> >
>
>
>
> The cover-up was separate from the conspiracy.
>
>

We've had this discussion before, Tony. Under US law the cover-up IS the
conspiracy. Anyone who changed testimony, changed evidence, intimidated
witnesses, or obstructed the investigation is just as guilty of the murder
of JFK as if they pulled the trigger themselves. That's the law of the
land and all your attempts to claim differently are simply wrong. The
only difference legally is that generally accessories after the fact get
shorter prison sentences. But really, is 40 years in prison really that
much better than the death penalty?

That's not to mention that killing or intimidating witness or obstructing
an investigation are against the law themselves and would have gotten the
participants long prison terms even without being guilty of being
accessories in the murder of the president.

[Anthony Marsh]

Sharknado 2?

>>
>>
>> Chris
>
>

[Anthony Marsh]

Shaknado 2?

> Chris
>

[Anthony Marsh]

I noticed that you left out one sentence.

When the body was placed in the coffin the wound at the back of the head
was packed with gauze squares and wrapped in small white sheet, there
was no terrycloth or other type of towel used.

Here is the entire letter she wrote:

Subject: Re: Those "Unreliable" Parkland Nurses 1.
Date: 27 Jun 2003 14:29:18 GMT
From: Martin Shackelford <msh...@concentric.net>
Organization: Concentric Internet Services
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk

In case the copy with the photo doesn't download properly, here's the
text without the photo:

Harrison Livingstone has granted permission for me to post the contents of
a letter from Diana Bowron, dated 24th January 1993, and which arrived too
late for inclusion in High Treason 2. He recently ran across it again, and
thought it might be of interest. The only items omitted are several
personal notes, salutations, and her married name, which she asked not be
published.

The Cover Letter:

I have enclosed two photostats of photographs which may be of help to you.

1. From the Illustrated London News dated Nov 30th 1963 showing the
arrival of the casket at Andrews Air Force Base. That is the casket in
which we placed the President's body. The colour was bronzeand according
to the people from the funeral home it was the best they had.

2. From the Hospital Highlights the news letter of the Dallas County
Hospital District, of the trauma room where Kennedy was treated. The
photograph was taken for that edition of the news letter so it shows the
room as it was at the time of the assassination. I thought it might help
with the placement or non-placement of photographs, eg. tiles, also
gurney covers which were black. As I remember all the wall tiles in the
emergency room were the same height.

I understood the last time I was in Dallas, about two years after the
assassination, that the Emergency Room was to be moved and enlarged so I
am assuming that it no longer exists in its original form.

[Note: The photostats were not enclosed, as both pictures are widely
available.]

[A copy of a JFK back photo, F5, is enclosed, indicating "This is where
I remember the wound," but adding, "This is not the back I saw." The
location is indicated on the attached copy of the photo.]

[The main statement follows:]

The following is in answer to your questions.

When the president expired everyone left the room apart from Miss
Hinchcliffe, a male orderly and myself. We tidied the room and changed the
linen on the gurney and washed the body as best we could. Miss Hinchcliffe
and the orderly left the room, but I was told to remain with the body
until the casket arrived. I was told that I had to stay because I had been
one of the people who had taken the body from the car. I remained in the
room while the widow paid her respects. After she had left I was asked, by
a man I assumed was Secret Service, to collect all pieces of skull and
brain I could find and place them in a plastic bag which he gave me. This
I did and returned the bag to him (there were only a few fragments of bone
that had stuck to the dressings and towels that we had used to pack the
hole in the back of the head). I remained in the room until the people
from the funeral home arrived. After we had placed the body in the casket
and it had been closed I was allowed to leave. During the time I was with
the body only the widow and the priest came into the room, any dealings I
had with the Secret Service were done in the doorway; no one else entered
the room and no photographs were taken.

Apart from 2-3 mins, when I left the trauma room to collect blood from the
Blood Bank, I was with the body from the car until it was placed in the
casket.

Being new to the establishment, I was assigned to Minor Medicine and
Surgery, which was across the hall from the Triage desk and the major
sections of the Emergency room. It being very quiet, there were only two
or three patients waiting for the results of tests, I was talking with the
Triage nurse when the call went up for gurneys. I grabbed a gurney in the
hall and together with an orderly ran to the entrance. I saw that the
person in the back of the car was injured so I climbed in to render what
assistance I could until such time as we could move him to a trolley, then
to the trauma room (others were assisting the Governor in the front seat).
I saw that there was a massive amount of blood on the back seat and in
order to find the cause I lifted his head and my fingers went into a large
wound in the back of his head; I turned his head and seeing the size of
the wound realized that I could not stop the bleeding. I turned his head
back and saw an entry wound in the front of the throat, I could feel no
pulse at the jugular and having seen the extent of the injury to the back
of the head I assumed that he was dead. (not my job, only a Doctor can
certify death) When we got the President to the Trauma room, word had
reached the Trauma team and they were ready with I.Vs etc. I worked with
the team, assisting where needed for about 10 mins (time is difficult to
judge in those circumstances), when I was told to go to the Blood Bank. I
was away 2-3 mins and on my return I continued to assist where needed
until the President was declared dead.

Miss Margaret Hinchcliffe and an African-American orderly and I prepared
the body for the coffin. [Marginal note: David Sanders]

I observed no strange activity of any kind and saw no bullets.

As explained above, I thought after examination in the car that he was
dead. There was no damage to the front of his face, only the gaping
wound in the back of his head and the entry wound in his throat.

When we prepared the body for the coffin we washed the face and closed
the eyes; there was no damage to the face, there was no flap of scalp on
the right, neither was there a laceration pointing toward the right
eyebrow from the scalp.

When we were preparing the body for the coffin we rolled it over in
order to remove the bloodstained sheet from underneath and to wipe away
the blood from the back of the body. I saw another entry wound in the
upper back (the other entry wound being in the front of the throat).
With reference to the photograph The Back (F5) I only saw one wound, and
not the number of wounds in the photograph; I do not think that the
photo (F5) is of the President. I have marked for you on the photostat
that you sent me where I think the entry wound was.

I first saw the large wound in the back of the head in the car; when we
were preparing the body for the coffin I had the opportunity to examine
it more closely. It was about 5ins in diameter, there was no flap of
skin covering it, just a fraction of skin along part of the edges of
bone, there was however some hair hanging down from the top of the head
which was caked with blood, and most of the brain was missing. The wound
was so large I could almost put my whole fist inside.

When we prepared the body I washed as much blood as I could from the
hair; while doing this I didnot see any other wound either in the
temples or in other parts of the head.

I did not see anything suspicious about any of the doctors, though there
were far more doctors there than they should have been; perhaps because
it was the president they all wanted to get in on the act. You must
remember that I had only been there a short time and I did not know all
the doctors, some I never saw again, but they were all known to each
other. With regard to a post: in this context I think it would refer to
a gathering of the doctors after the event, to discuss the case. This
was standard practice, when more than one or two doctors were involved.

When the body was placed in the coffin the wound at the back of the head
was packed with gauze squares and wrapped in small white sheet, there
was no terrycloth or other type of towel used.

The coffin or casket was bronze with plain fittings, as in the enclosed
photograph. [This refers to the Andrews Air Force Base photo.]

I don't think the body was removed from the coffin. After I left the
Trauma room I was in a position to see if any one entered or left the
room. No one entered or left until they removed the coffin.

A clear plastic sheet was placed in the bottom of the coffin, which may
have been a mattress cover; the body was wrapped in at the most two
sheets plus the one around the head, all the sheets were white and none
had zips. There was no "body bag".

Perhaps the following will be of interest to you.

As soon as the coffin left the trauma room, I went back to Minor Med.
and Surg. to resume my work: I don't know anything about the fight with
Earl Rose, which happened at that time.

When I arrived there I found that the patients had been moved elsewhere,
and the department had been taken over by the Vice President and his
staff. They were getting ready to leave when I got there, as they passed
me I heard the Vice President say to his wife "Make a note of what
everyone says and does".

Again I hope this is of some help to you.

[Signed] Diana Bowron


I can see why didn't want to post it.

> Chris
>

[Anthony Marsh]

On 6/18/2014 9:44 PM, cmikes wrote:
> On Wednesday, June 18, 2014 8:15:34 PM UTC-4, Anthony Marsh wrote:
>> On 6/17/2014 8:15 PM, Sandy McCroskey wrote:
>>
>
> Stuff Trimmed
>
>
>>
>>
>>
>>> (And then it's another step to assume that they were part of a cover-up.
>>
>>> And so the conspiracy grows...)
>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> The cover-up was separate from the conspiracy.
>>
>>
>
> We've had this discussion before, Tony. Under US law the cover-up IS the
> conspiracy. Anyone who changed testimony, changed evidence, intimidated

No, it isn't. The cover-up by the government is not the same thing as
the crime they are trying to cover up.

> witnesses, or obstructed the investigation is just as guilty of the murder
> of JFK as if they pulled the trigger themselves. That's the law of the
> land and all your attempts to claim differently are simply wrong. The

No. You don't know what you are talking about.

> only difference legally is that generally accessories after the fact get
> shorter prison sentences. But really, is 40 years in prison really that
> much better than the death penalty?
>
> That's not to mention that killing or intimidating witness or obstructing
> an investigation are against the law themselves and would have gotten the
> participants long prison terms even without being guilty of being
> accessories in the murder of the president.

No hopes of prosecution. They just claim National Security and everyone
walks away.

[Anthony Marsh]

To a certain segment of the public yes it does. I'll go you one better.
A local UHF channel ran out of money and started showing a public domain
movie called The Tunnel just so they could keep their license and be
able to sell the facility to another channel.

[bigdog]

On Wednesday, June 18, 2014 9:02:39 PM UTC-4, Anthony Marsh wrote:
> On 6/17/2014 8:05 PM, bigdog wrote:
>
> >>> I said earlier I am not going to waste any more of my time doing
> >>> point-by-point rebuttals of your silly beliefs. Nobody cares about this
> >>> crap you dream up and nobody every will. Nothing any of you are doing is
> >>> of any consequence. The rest of the world will continue to ignore you.

>
> >> Except for 90% of the public. You have the minority opinion.
>
> > Do you really think the JFK assassination is of any concern to 90% of the
>
> I don't claim that they think about it every day. But when a new book or
> new movie comes out they rush to see it.

Seriously? Parkland bombed at the box office and most new JFK books go
straight to the clearance tables. Groden has resorted to self publishing
his crap and hawking it at his table in Dealey Plaza which is one place
JFK junkies congregate. The hit move JFK came out in 1991 and briefly
revived the public's interest but of course, that quickly subsided.

> And this is only about opinion
> polls. Regardless of where the people got their information it is about
> what the public thinks.
>

My comment to Chris was about how little the public thinks or cares about
the assassination.

>
> Lane published an indictment of the Warren Commission, entitled Rush to
> Judgment, using these interviews as well as evidence from the 26 volumes
> of the Commission's report. Despite the fact that the majority of Mark
> Lane's material for his book came from the Warren Report itself, as well
> as from interviews with those who were at the scene, sixteen publishers
> canceled contracts before Rush to Judgment was published."[9] The book
> became a number one best seller and spent 29 weeks on the New York Times
> best-seller list.[13]
>

That was over 40 years ago. Got anything more recent that the public has shown an interest in?

>
> Was the Warren Report on the New York Times best-seller list? Yes or no?
> This is why you are afraid to answer my questions.
>

Yes, Tony, that came out in 1964. Most of us aren't living in the 1960s
anymore and most of the American public moved on from the assassination a
long time ago. When was the last time a JFK assassination book made
anybody's best seller list. Very few people have an interest in it any
more no matter whether they think there was a conspiracy or not.

>
> > public. I would bet most people rarely give it a thought, regardless if
> > the ar LNs or CTs. It's old news. If the American people still had a
> > widespread interest in the subject, politicians would be pandering to that
> > interest every election cycle. But of course, it never gets mentioned by
>
> Politicians are too smart to take ANY position on the JFK assassination.
> Only people like you are in favor of it.
>

In favor of what? Politicians will take an interest in anything the public
cares about. Almost nobody cares about JFK's assassination so politicians
aren't going to bring it up.

[bigdog]

On Thursday, June 19, 2014 1:09:51 PM UTC-4, Anthony Marsh wrote:
>
> > That's the nice thing about cable TV. It doesn't have to a appeal to a
> > broad range of people the way programs had to back in the days when
> > broadcast TV ruled. You get all kinds of programming that appeals to a
> > very narrow slice of the public, and that is true of programming that has
> > nothing to do with JFK. Hell, a few years ago, one of the cable channels
> > was playing old Cisco Kid reruns. Do you think that has a broad appeal?
>
> To a certain segment of the public yes it does. I'll go you one better.
> A local UHF channel ran out of money and started showing a public domain
> movie called The Tunnel just so they could keep their license and be
> able to sell the facility to another channel.

I can't decide if you are agreeing or disagreeing with me, but since it
would be so out of character for you to agree with anyone about anything,
I'm going to guess you are disagreeing. My question was whether Cisco Kid
reruns had a broad appeal. You answered that it did to a certain segment
of the public. Unless that is a very large segment, that does not
constitute broad appeal.

The cable channel in question is the World Harvest Network, a religous
organization. They run mostly religous programming in their prime time
hours but don't have enough of it for 24 hours of broadcasting so they
fill the schedule with what I am guessing is the cheapest programming they
can find that they can still draw enough of an audience to sell commercial
time. I'm sure at most they were attracting viewers in the tens of
thousands and probably didn't make much from airing the program, but it is
more than they would make from dead air so they went for it. To a certain
extent, the various history oriented cable channels do the same thing.
They don't have enough original programming to fill a 24 hour schedule so
they supplement with often repeated programming from the past to fill the
time slots, and that would include JFK assassination programming. They
probably draw a bigger audience than old Cisco Kid reruns, but probably
not much bigger.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 6/19/2014 5:53 PM, bigdog wrote:
> On Thursday, June 19, 2014 1:09:51 PM UTC-4, Anthony Marsh wrote:
>>
>>> That's the nice thing about cable TV. It doesn't have to a appeal to a
>>> broad range of people the way programs had to back in the days when
>>> broadcast TV ruled. You get all kinds of programming that appeals to a
>>> very narrow slice of the public, and that is true of programming that has
>>> nothing to do with JFK. Hell, a few years ago, one of the cable channels
>>> was playing old Cisco Kid reruns. Do you think that has a broad appeal?
>>
>> To a certain segment of the public yes it does. I'll go you one better.
>> A local UHF channel ran out of money and started showing a public domain
>> movie called The Tunnel just so they could keep their license and be
>> able to sell the facility to another channel.
>
> I can't decide if you are agreeing or disagreeing with me, but since it
> would be so out of character for you to agree with anyone about anything,
> I'm going to guess you are disagreeing. My question was whether Cisco Kid
> reruns had a broad appeal. You answered that it did to a certain segment
> of the public. Unless that is a very large segment, that does not
> constitute broad appeal.
>

Well, I'll let you in on a little secret, but don't tell anybody.
Sometimes I agree with you just to annoy you. Make you doubt that you
are as die-hard in your support of the WC as you pretend. Maybe secretly
you are a conspiracy hobbyist.

> The cable channel in question is the World Harvest Network, a religous
> organization. They run mostly religous programming in their prime time
> hours but don't have enough of it for 24 hours of broadcasting so they
> fill the schedule with what I am guessing is the cheapest programming they
> can find that they can still draw enough of an audience to sell commercial
> time. I'm sure at most they were attracting viewers in the tens of

Don't tell anyone, but sometimes they don't have to pay for the content,
but are in fact paid to air it.

> thousands and probably didn't make much from airing the program, but it is
> more than they would make from dead air so they went for it. To a certain

The example that I gave was watched by virtually no one in this market.

[Anthony Marsh]

Best Evidence. You got any best sellers on your side?

>>
>> Was the Warren Report on the New York Times best-seller list? Yes or no?
>> This is why you are afraid to answer my questions.
>>
>
> Yes, Tony, that came out in 1964. Most of us aren't living in the 1960s
> anymore and most of the American public moved on from the assassination a
> long time ago. When was the last time a JFK assassination book made
> anybody's best seller list. Very few people have an interest in it any
> more no matter whether they think there was a conspiracy or not.

That is the whole point of the cover-up.

>
>>
>>> public. I would bet most people rarely give it a thought, regardless if
>>> the ar LNs or CTs. It's old news. If the American people still had a
>>> widespread interest in the subject, politicians would be pandering to that
>>> interest every election cycle. But of course, it never gets mentioned by
>>
>> Politicians are too smart to take ANY position on the JFK assassination.
>> Only people like you are in favor of it.
>>
>
> In favor of what? Politicians will take an interest in anything the public
> cares about. Almost nobody cares about JFK's assassination so politicians
> aren't going to bring it up.
>

No, as I said politicians are too smart to bring it up.