JFK Assassination Forum

This nonsense is further proof that you have no business discussing the JFK case. Using your logic, one could certainly call David Ferrie an "erratic loon," yet we know that David Ferrie worked for Carlos Marcello--indeed, he was one of Marcello's personal pilots, among other things--but he was not a formal Mafia member.

The Mafia sometimes used disreputable people who had Mafia connections but who were not Mafia members, precisely to establish technically plausible denial.

The HSCA polygraph experts found indications in Ruby's polygraph results that he was lying when he denied being involved in a JFK assassination conspiracy.

Ruby flat out lied about being at Parkland talking to Seth Kantor, and he lied about walking down the ramp to kill Oswald.

    Your admission above is why I continue Urging you to expand your JFK Assassination Foundational Knowledge. Knowing that Gary Mack and Jack White conjured "Badge Man" from the Moorman Photo is "JFK Assassination 101".  And, your Not knowing this also means you have Not watched, "The Men Who Killed Kennedy" (1988), which once again is, "JFK Assassination 101".

I guess that explains how get got off on the wrong foot. You got duped by TMWKK. The WCR is JFK Assassination 101.

    After Gordon Arnold told his story on, "The Men Who Killed Kennedy", he then did a Q/A for the Sixth Floor Museum. This Q/A was very good and detailed. Arnold said they were pushing dirt around between the picket fence and the short wall running down from Zapruder. Arnold said he stood atop a mound to do his filming. He said when a shot whizzed over his (L) shoulder, he dove and rolled. This had been part of his military training and his diving and rolling is corroborated by U.S. Senator Yarborough. Yarborough was riding inside the LBJ Convertible on 11/22/63. This Yarborough corroboration is part of, "The Men Who Killed Kennedy". Arnold also said during his 6th Floor Q/A that the cop kicking him around was wearing colored glasses. Shooter's glasses.

Did anybody besides Arnold see a dirt pile behind the picket fence?

I'll never understand how anybody could buy into the Badgeman photo. Hasn't any of those folks noticed Badgeman is not looking down the site of his rifle. If that is a rifle behind that supposed smoke, why is he holding it at the level of his chin? Anybody who believes that is a picture of a guy in a cop's uniform firing a shot at JFK has to be amazingly gullible.

Debunkers and naysayers across all areas of what I call Weirdness – including the JFKA, UFOs and almost all types of anomalous phenomena – are really quite fascinating. They pride themselves on being exceedingly rational critical thinkers, but they are actually the opposite.

The first tactic is to dismiss all testimonial accounts as “not evidence.” Evidence, you see, is only that which can be falsified. This is an artificially narrow definition that is not even the standard in the hard sciences.

One then points out that in many areas of weirdness, including UFOs, there are literally thousands and thousands of highly detailed reports spanning decades from witnesses as unlikely as Aborigines and African tribesmen to highly trained military observers, pilots and professors. Many, many reports involve multiple witnesses and withstand intense scrutiny. Can this vast body of testimonial evidence simply be dismissed? Yes, it can – it’s “not evidence.”

But wait, you point out: Many, many of those reports are accompanied by physical evidence – radar reports, electrical interference, damage to ground and foliage. Here, the debunkers play a bit of a shell game. The physical evidence receives some mundane “explanation” that is completely at odds with what the witnesses reported – but that’s OK, because what they reported is “not evidence.” The radar was malfunctioning, cars and generators sometimes just quit, a family of moose caused that damage.

There is also the game of trying to pigeonhole the phenomenon: UFOs are pigeonholed as “space aliens,” even though this not what most serious students of the phenomenon believe (or least accept as a full explanation of the phenomenon). Why the pigeonholing? Oh, because the pigeonhole is always phrased in a way that sounds slightly silly and is a relatively easy target because many of the most mysterious aspects of the phenomenon can then simply be ignored.

Lastly, the debunkers and naysayers seldom – almost never – really know what they are talking about. They have no depth of knowledge because they assume the subject is beneath them, mere entertainment for credulous cranks. Credulous cranks like Nobel Laureates and the Pentagon. Ya think?

When the Pentagon itself releases videos that observers of the highest caliber agree show “Something” exhibiting performance characteristics that are far beyond any earthly technology and that defy the known laws of physics, what do we get? Still, “Not evidence.” Or perhaps, “Don’t know what it is and don’t really care, but it ain’t space aliens 'cause there ain't no space aliens.”

It’s a bizarre, head-in-the-sand approach to a subject that is of potentially far greater significance than any in the history of mankind. I can only attribute it to fear. It is anything but rational critical thinking. The fact that these folks portray themselves – and perhaps even view themselves – as hard-nosed critical thinkers is literally comical.

I think there’s a lesson here for discussions of the JFKA as well. It’s less a lesson for CTers than for LN zealots because the latter seem to be the ones who exhibit the debunker mentality I’m talking about. I have said that hardcore LN zealots are more puzzling to me than rational CTers (or at least rational questioners of the LN narrative), but I guess I shouldn’t be too puzzled because I’ve encountered this mindset across the entire spectrum of Weirdness and religion.

Right - the Mafia (my leading CT candidate) left no fingerprints at all except erratic loon Jack Ruby and his "Mafia ties," "Mafia phone calls," yada yada. Ya know, I DON'T THINK SO. I love whoever it was at a hearing who was asked "What would you say if I told you Jack Ruby was working for the Mafia?" and replied "I'd say the Mafia needs a new personnel director." Yeah. The Mafia at the level of Trafficante and Marcello did not deal with characters like Jack Ruby. Can we get a little respect for the Mafia, please?

This nonsense is further proof that you have no business discussing the JFK case. Using your logic, one could certainly call David Ferrie an "erratic loon," yet we know that David Ferrie worked for Carlos Marcello--indeed, he was one of Marcello's personal pilots, among other things--but he was not a formal Mafia member.

The Mafia sometimes used disreputable people who had Mafia connections but who were not Mafia members, precisely to establish technically plausible denial.

The HSCA polygraph experts found indications in Ruby's polygraph results that he was lying when he denied being involved in a JFK assassination conspiracy.

How crazy is the Ed Forum? They have people there who think Nixon set up Teddy at Chappaquiddick.