Reasons for Continued Coverup?

[Fergus O'brien]

If you visit the conspiracy sites you'll quickly see they are filled with posts about such ugly/nasty thing, real or imagined, the government did. Mongoose, Northwoods, MK-Ultra, this or that bad guy that was connected to the CIA or government. It's endless. They seem to think that if they can prove how horrible things were, how such evil people were around, that that is evidence they murdered JFK. And JFK was going to end all of that nastiness but was stopped before he could. They did bad thing "A" and "B" so they did bad thing "C", murdering JFK.

As I said above, I can prove that Castro and his government did bad things too. Execute political dissenters, torture and arrest opponents, support bloody dictators like Mengistu. Is that evidence that he was behind the assassination? Of course not. The conspiracists who say the CIA did it would dismiss it out of hand. Rightly so.

As to coverup claims: It simply can't be done. And pointing to other conspiracies - which were exposed - is contradicting the conspiracy claim that this conspiracy - far more complex and extensive - was somehow the one that was kept secret.

the question here is regarding cover up , i believe cover up can be shown to be fact . so then the question must be WHY ? what were the reasons to cover up ? .what didnt they want the people to know ? .

[Fergus O'brien]

"There never was a conspiracy because the evidence demonstrates beyond doubt that Oswald by his lonesome is the guilty party"

let us just for a moment say that you are correct . ok . now please explain the following .

the deceptions and lies of the Warren Commission . IE Specter and his SBT starting with an entry wound location on the right side (of the rear ) of JFKs neck that he knew was a lie . he knew it was a lie because BY HIS OWN ADMISSION he admitted seeing atleast one autopsy photo that showed the wound in question several inches below and to the left ON THE BACK .why did they set out to ignore some witnesses for example Tague ? , Bill newman ? , Brehm ? .why did they set out to discredit other witnesses such as Vicky adams ? .

the deceptions and lies of the clark panel . they said that JFKs head entry wound was some 4 to 5 inches HIGHER up than where it was located at autopsy (the said it was in the crown of the head where a man has a bald spot ) , at autopsy the 3 pathologists said the entry wound was near the EOP , just above and to the right of it . this would roughly be at the level of the top of ones ears (depending on the size of ones ears of course) and at the center rear of the head .clark put the entry wound 4 to 5 inches above this position DESPITE the fact that autopsy photos show a wound at the EOP and show NO entry wound 4 to 5 inches higher up .and despite the vehement protestations of humes that there was never any entry wound in the crown area .

the deceptions and lies of the HSCA . they had witnesses including FBI agents , and bethesda witnesses (not called by the commission ) who told them that JFK had a large wound in the right rear of the head which corroborated the parkland witnesses . yet the HSCA report states that ALL these witnesses contradicted the parkland witnesses when we now know from their statements , depositions or testimonies that they did not contradict them at all . so that was a blatant lie .

so if it was simply a lone nut nobody ALL ON HIS HIS OWN , a schmuk who just got lucky , why would the above deceptions and lies be required ? .

9 days have passed and not one LN has an answer to the above questions ? . not that i am surprised to see no LN response .

[Royell Storing]

As you know, the conclusion of a probable conspiracy by the HSCA, in the late 70's was based on the now-totally debunked acoustical evidence, where a group of scientists proclaimed "to a 95% possibility, there were a shot from the Grassy Knoll." Our very own in-house Steve Barber was the first individual to point out the flaws of the acoustical evidence. So, therefore with the acoustical evidence being emphatically invalid the conclusion is irrefutabley "no conspiracy."

    Knott Labs Laser 360 SCIENCE proving that the SBT "IS IMPOSSIBLE" + My Proving that there was an Unknown DPD Motorcycle Officer WALKING across the train yard and then WALKING down the Elm St Ext toward the TSBD, (Darnell & Martin Films), = PROVEN CONSPIRACY! Why do you think it has gotten so Quiet around here? It took 60+ years, but the Lone Nut stuff has Now been exposed as Pure Bunk. The Old Guard JFK Assassination Research Community should be ashamed of themselves for Not exposing this Cover-up a long, long, time ago. 

[Royell Storing]

  We plan to post our Victory Lap tomorrow. All anyone ever had to do was seriously look at the Haygood WC Testimony. At no point during his WC Testimony does Haygood Ever mention a caboose, train car, box car, our anything connected to an actual train. The photos and film footage supply a boat load of Supporting Evidence proving a Conspiracy! Slam Dunk! The JFK Research Community for 60+ years has been more concerned with selling books and canoodling with their Assassination Chums vs actually doing some serious research. 

[Jerry Organ]

the wound in question several inches below and to the left ON THE BACK.

Where in the Warren Report does it say the back wound was to the left of JFK's midline?

the deceptions and lies of the clark panel . they said that JFKs head entry wound was some 4 to 5 inches HIGHER up than where it was located at autopsy

Where does the Clark Panel say the entry wound was as far as 5 inches from the EOP wound?

(the said it was in the crown of the head where a man has a bald spot )

Where does the Clark Panel say the entry wound was in the crown of the head?

at autopsy the 3 pathologists said the entry wound was near the EOP , just above and to the right of it

Humes located the EOP by touch only and the other two went with that.

the fact that autopsy photos show a wound at the EOP and show NO entry wound 4 to 5 inches higher up

Please use arrows to show the "EOP" wound in the autopsy photos. And explain what the hole is that the ruler is next to in the Back-of-the-Head-Photo.

and despite the vehement protestations of humes that there was never any entry wound in the crown area .

Good for Humes. There was no entry wound in the crown area.

the deceptions and lies of the HSCA . they had witnesses including FBI agents , and bethesda witnesses (not called by the commission ) who told them that JFK had a large wound in the right rear of the head which corroborated the parkland witnesses . yet the HSCA report states that ALL these witnesses contradicted the parkland witnesses when we now know from their statements , depositions or testimonies that they did not contradict them at all . so that was a blatant lie .

The Bethesda pathologists endorsed autopsy photos showing the gaping scalp opening was not at the very rear of the head. Four Parkland doctors visited the Archives and endorse the same photos.

[Zeon Mason]

The CIA did not wish to be held accountable for their  operatives that they sent into Cuba for the BOP operation, going rogue. Some of those BOP operatives probably escaped  and got back to Miami Fl , hooked up with a really angry mafia boss, and 2 of them possibly hired by John Martino ( per deathbed confession to his wife)

Now Martino could be fabricating this story on his deathbed for some other reason, or his wife made the story up, but it’s interesting coincidence with the story of Loran Hall, a CIA asset who testified he actually had been approached and offered the job but he turned it down!?

[Fergus O'brien]

Where in the Warren Report does it say the back wound was to the left of JFK's midline?

Where does the Clark Panel say the entry wound was as far as 5 inches from the EOP wound?

Where does the Clark Panel say the entry wound was in the crown of the head?

Humes located the EOP by touch only and the other two went with that.

Please use arrows to show the "EOP" wound in the autopsy photos. And explain what the hole is that the ruler is next to in the Back-of-the-Head-Photo.

Good for Humes. There was no entry wound in the crown area.

The Bethesda pathologists endorsed autopsy photos showing the gaping scalp opening was not at the very rear of the head. Four Parkland doctors visited the Archives and endorse the same photos.

"Where in the Warren Report does it say the back wound was to the left of JFK's midline?"

do try to read properly before you reply . that IS NOT what i said . i said

"BY HIS OWN ADMISSION he admitted seeing atleast one autopsy photo that showed the wound in question several inches below and to the left ON THE BACK "

"Where does the Clark Panel say the entry wound was as far as 5 inches from the EOP wound?"

firstly it would be much better if you quoted what you are replying to , as i did here with you .

" the foregoing observations indicate that the decedents head was struck from behind by a single projectile . it entered the occipital region 25 mm to the right of the midline and 100 mm  ABOVE THE EXTERNAL OCCIPITAL PROTUBERANCE . "
https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/md59/pages/Image11.gif

100mm or roughly 10 cm equates to roughly 4 inches . i said some 4 to 5 off the cuff as it were , and only from memory as i some times do . while 5 is an accidental over statement 4 inches is perfectly acceptable .

"Where does the Clark Panel say the entry wound was in the crown of the head?"

well correct me if i am wrong but it appears that you are disputing that the clark panel placed the head entry wound about 4 inches ABOVE the level of the EOP ? . i relate 4 inches above the level of the EOP to be in the area (not the entire area ) where a man can have a bald spot .i think i was clear enough on that point .

"they said it was in the crown of the head where a man has a bald spot "

if you desire to argue about the circumference of a mans bald spot have at it , i am sure all will vary some what in width and length .

"Humes located the EOP by touch only and the other two went with that."

i really should not have to explain every single thing , but often i find it to be the case with some people that i do . now if you desire to argue that none of the three men conducting jfks autopsy had the basic knowledge to locate the EOP and that they erred and mislocated it well do that to your hearts content , it however is not an argument i will be engaging in .i dont have time for silliness .

"DESPITE the fact that autopsy photos show a wound at the EOP"

above i was very clear about what the autopsy PHOTO shows near the EOP . here is what the commission said

, “approximately 2.5 cm. laterally to the right and slightly above the external occipital protuberance is a lacerated wound "


"Good for Humes. There was no entry wound in the crown area."

yes i think we already established this YES ? .

"The Bethesda pathologists endorsed autopsy photos showing the gaping scalp opening was not at the very rear of the head. Four Parkland doctors visited the Archives and endorse the same photos."

these are the same pathologists (and i use that term lightly ) who endorsed a right of neck entry wound in and around the level of the shirt collar yes / no ? . i am not getting into what anyone endorsed , the autopsy photos that we have dispute them on that .as do the holes on jfks clothing that are on the back , certainly not in the collar areas of his clothing . i know the PBS documentary that you refer to . one of the doctors was mclellend and he maintained his position before and after that documentary , which was that he saw a large wound in the right rear of jfks head .why did you not mention that ? . i do think its important information along with the fact that certain parkland doctors originally said jfk had a right rear head wound or that they saw cerebellum but then reversed and contradicted them selves .and we should give the readers here as much information as we can so that they can decide for them selves on this matter .

[Fergus O'brien]

As you know, the conclusion of a probable conspiracy by the HSCA, in the late 70's was based on the now-totally debunked acoustical evidence, where a group of scientists proclaimed "to a 95% possibility, there were a shot from the Grassy Knoll." Our very own in-house Steve Barber was the first individual to point out the flaws of the acoustical evidence. So, therefore with the acoustical evidence being emphatically invalid the conclusion is irrefutabley "no conspiracy."

"the conclusion of a probable conspiracy by the HSCA, in the late 70's was based on the now-totally debunked acoustical evidence"

the conclusion was based primarily BUT NOT exclusively on the acoustics . i will leave discussion of the acoustics to members here far better versed in regarded them than myself .