Recent Posts

Recent Posts

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 10
31
JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion And Debate / Re: Are there any "researchers" here who started out as LNs but who are now CTs?
« Last post by John Corbett on Today at 03:54:57 AM »
Quote from: Joffrey van de Wiel on Yesterday at 11:18:11 PM
I started as an objective student in High School, who wrote in a paper for history class that President Kennedy had been assassinated by a man named Oswald. I had no opinion on it whatsoever, but assumed it to be true as it was given as a fact in the few books on JFK we had in our school library. But I guess it qualifies me as a LN at that time.

That changed when I had to review a (bad) book on JFK at University and found out there were a lot of questions about the validity of the conclusions of the official Report. It stimulated me to read more on the assassination, focusing on books written by critics/conspiracy theorists. Unfortunately I found out that many of their claims are not based on a correct interpretation of the evidence, to phrase it politely.

Now I consider myself to be a Warren Commission critic and support the HSCA conclusion of a 'probable conspiracy.' I have reasonable doubt about Oswald's guilt or even involvement, but try to keep an open mind. Like Mr. Cole above, I believe that a relatively small, but powerful and well-funded group was behind the assassination.

Vincent Bugliosi's book Reclaiming History addresses every criticism leveled at the WCR (at least the ones invented up to the time his book was published)_ He does a thorough job of demolishing every one of them. There are two absolute truths of the JFKA. One is the evidence is overwhelming that Oswald fired the shots that killed JFK and seriously wounded JBC. The other is there is no credible evidence he had even a single accomplice in the crime. Since CTs have no evidence, their only avenue to establishing a conspiracy is to tear down the findings of the WC rather than present any positive evidence there was a conspiracy. If people applied as much skepticism to criticisms of the WCR as they do to the WCR, there would be a lot fewer CTs. 

To paraphrase Yogi Berra, if people don't want to believe the WCR, nothing is going to stop them.
32
JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion And Debate / Re: Video: Johnson Did Not Rule Out A Conspiracy
« Last post by John Corbett on Today at 03:43:20 AM »
Quote from: Martin Weidmann on Yesterday at 10:16:47 PM
Try thinking before you write something as stupid as this.

You rely on the WC findings, right?

The WC relied completely on Hoover's FBI for the bulk of the investigation. Everything went through Hoover so if he was completely clueless than so was the WC!  :D

You're just trolling.
33
JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion And Debate / Re: Who is this looking out the 6th floor window?
« Last post by John Corbett on Today at 03:42:27 AM »
Quote from: Jake Maxwell on February 14, 2026, 07:33:24 PM

Who is this looking out the 6th floor window?



Looks like those windows needed washing.
34
JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion And Debate / Re: Gov. John Connally Grips His White Stetson Hat at Z-272
« Last post by John Corbett on Today at 03:40:49 AM »
Quote from: Andrew Mason on Today at 01:42:52 AM
All I have done is show that the recollections of witnesses overwhelmingly put the first shot hitting JFK in the neck and the second shot striking JBC in the right armpit after the midpoint between the first and third, and the third striking JFK in the head.

So, according to that evidence the second shot occurred when JBC was turned sideways.  That is not my “theory”. That just follows from that witness evidence. And, this is exactly what Nellie and Gayle Newman recalled seeing shortly after the events.

Now you are saying that you can prove that, despite being independent and mutually consistent, this evidence is all wrong. So it is up to you to show that what the witnesses said happened could not have occurred.  So why don’t you show us why the bullet path through JBC ‘s torso doesn’t work at z271 but does at z222?

It's pointless even discussing any of this other crap because if you can't show it's even possible for JBC to be shot in the back at Z271, the rest of your theory collapses like a house of cards. I'm not even asking you to prove he was shot in that back at or about Z271. Just show us that it was possible. Apparently, you can't do that.
35
JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion And Debate / Re: Who is this looking out the window of the 6th floor?
« Last post by Denis Morissette on Today at 02:32:32 AM »
VIDEO

36
JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion And Debate / Re: Gov. John Connally Grips His White Stetson Hat at Z-272
« Last post by Andrew Mason on Today at 01:42:52 AM »
Quote from: John Corbett on Yesterday at 11:47:42 PM
It's pointless even discussing any of this other crap because if you can't show it's even possible for JBC to be shot in the back at Z271, the rest of your theory collapses like a house of cards. I'm not even asking you to prove he was shot in that back at or about Z271. Just show us that it was possible. Apparently, you can't do that.
All I have done is show that the recollections of witnesses overwhelmingly put the first shot hitting JFK in the neck and the second shot striking JBC in the right armpit after the midpoint between the first and third, and the third striking JFK in the head.

So, according to that evidence the second shot occurred when JBC was turned sideways.  That is not my “theory”. That just follows from that witness evidence. And, this is exactly what Nellie and Gayle Newman recalled seeing shortly after the events.

Now you are saying that you can prove that, despite being independent and mutually consistent, this evidence is all wrong. So it is up to you to show that what the witnesses said happened could not have occurred.  So why don’t you show us why the bullet path through JBC ‘s torso doesn’t work at z271 but does at z222?
37
JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion And Debate / Re: Hypothetical question
« Last post by John Corbett on Today at 01:08:24 AM »
Quote from: Charles Collins on Today at 12:18:24 AM

I could be wrong, but I don’t think there is any other photographic evidence that seems to clearly show a “back and to the left” JFK head movement. So, perhaps we might have avoided that controversy.

It is a myth that JFK went back and to the left. He was already leaning to his left, toward Jackie, when the headshot struck. From that left leaning position, he went straight back. When he hit the seatback, he was still on the far right side of the seat. His left lean gave the illusion he went back and to the left.
38
JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion And Debate / Re: Hypothetical question
« Last post by Charles Collins on Today at 12:18:24 AM »
Quote from: John Corbett on Yesterday at 04:17:45 PM
What if Zapruder hadn't filmed the assassination?

How would it have affected our knowledge of the assassination? Would the Single Bullet Theory have ever been developed? I have my doubts although there would be a dilemma for the finding that there were 3 shot and 3 hits, 2 on  JFK and 1 on JBC. Why were there only 2 bullets recovered if three had struck the victims. Maybe somebody would have developed the theory but it would be much more difficult to support.

Of course other people were filming but none showed the shooting from start to finish and none had the vantage point Zapruder did.

What other mysteries would we now be facing if not for Zapruder?


I could be wrong, but I don’t think there is any other photographic evidence that seems to clearly show a “back and to the left” JFK head movement. So, perhaps we might have avoided that controversy.
39
JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion And Debate / Re: Gov. John Connally Grips His White Stetson Hat at Z-272
« Last post by John Corbett on Yesterday at 11:47:42 PM »
Quote from: Andrew Mason on Yesterday at 09:45:50 PM
I agree it is pointless if you can’t see that with your torso twisted and shoulders turned 90 degrees to the hips, the lateral edge of the scapula, middle of the right armpit and a point just below and medial to the right nipple align and form a left-to-right path that does not pass through the pleural cavity and right lung.

Why not at least try sitting and, keeping your hips facing forward and with your finger on the edge of your shoulder blade, turn your shoulders 90 degrees. Your finger, fifth rib at mid armpit and right nipple will form a straight line going around the pleural cavity.

I am not a thoracic surgeon nor anatomist, but it may be that the known bullet path requires that kind of right turn for the bullet path not to penetrate the pleural cavity.

I am also saddened that you would consider the honest recollections of the witnesses to the murder of your President to be crap.

It's pointless even discussing any of this other crap because if you can't show it's even possible for JBC to be shot in the back at Z271, the rest of your theory collapses like a house of cards. I'm not even asking you to prove he was shot in that back at or about Z271. Just show us that it was possible. Apparently, you can't do that.
40
JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion And Debate / Re: Are there any "researchers" here who started out as LNs but who are now CTs?
« Last post by Joffrey van de Wiel on Yesterday at 11:18:11 PM »
I started as an objective student in High School, who wrote in a paper for history class that President Kennedy had been assassinated by a man named Oswald. I had no opinion on it whatsoever, but assumed it to be true as it was given as a fact in the few books on JFK we had in our school library. But I guess it qualifies me as a LN at that time.

That changed when I had to review a (bad) book on JFK at University and found out there were a lot of questions about the validity of the conclusions of the official Report. It stimulated me to read more on the assassination, focusing on books written by critics/conspiracy theorists. Unfortunately I found out that many of their claims are not based on a correct interpretation of the evidence, to phrase it politely.

Now I consider myself to be a Warren Commission critic and support the HSCA conclusion of a 'probable conspiracy.' I have reasonable doubt about Oswald's guilt or even involvement, but try to keep an open mind. Like Mr. Cole above, I believe that a relatively small, but powerful and well-funded group was behind the assassination.
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 10