Your Garage Editors' Picks Amazon Fashion Learn more Discover it Ryley Walker Fire TV Stick Health, Household and Grocery Back to School Totes Summer-Event-Garden Amazon Cash Back Offer ElvisandNixon ElvisandNixon ElvisandNixon  Amazon Echo  Echo Dot  Amazon Tap  Echo Dot  Amazon Tap  Amazon Echo Introducing new colors All-New Kindle Oasis Shop Now
Customer Discussions > History forum

How Do Kennedy Assassination Conspiracy Cultists See the World Around Them?

Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-25 of 580 posts in this discussion
Initial post: Nov 4, 2012 8:29:39 AM PST
Members of any conspiracy cult have an altered sense of what is real and what is created by "the conspirators." With the creation of the Internet in the mid-1990s the number of conspiracy cultists has literally exploded with hundreds of thousands of new converts joining the ranks every few weeks. Oftentimes the cultists feel their numbers validate their claims--"if what we are saying wasn't true it wouldn't be so popular" goes the logic. But there is another explanation to be considered--remember that no matter how thin one slices the balony there is still always two sides.

The general populace is often not extremely well-read. In spite of the arrogance such a statement suggests it is true. Today, text messaging, emailing, and contributing to online chat rooms often takes the place of sitting down and reading a real book written by recognized scholars with formal training and possessing a solid background in the area about which they write. Sensationalism often supplants solid scholarship. Case in point. Former University of Minnesota philosphy professor Jimmy Fetzer has reinvented himself within two conspiracy movements: the Kennedy assassination conspiracy cult and the mis-named "9/11 Truth" movement. He has edited three books dealing with the photographic evidence that recorded the assassination of President Kennedy. In these three books (one of which is hilariously named "Assassination Science") Fetzers cast of characters (not one of whom has ANY recognized training or expertise in the area of photographic analysis) reach the puzzling conclusion that virtually EVERY SINGLE film and still photograph taken of the assassination is either totally fabricated or is an altered version of an original photograph which the authors believe revealed a conspiracy. This mentality demands a bit of analysis. Let's look at how the conspiracy cultist sees the world around them and how they then attempt to re-invent reality to fit their world-view.

1.l Conspiracy cultists start with a preconceived theory and then deny ANY evidence that disproves this theory. Secondly, if factual, scientific evidence disproves the theory then it is an article of faith within the cult that the offending evidencde MUST be labeled flawed, faked, or phony. Of course this approach is the exact opposite of the scientific method. Real scholars examine the evidence ("What were the causes of the Civil War?" "Why did democracy grow dramatically during the era of Andrew Jackson's presidency", "Why has the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints become one of the fastest-growing Christian religions in America today?" THEN after examining the evidence a conclusion is reached. The evidence leads to the thesis statement that later drives the essay, article, or book. NOT the other way around. Flawed historical research entails starting with a preconceived idea ("Rev. Martin Luther King was a racist") and then seeks for evidence to support this predetermined conclusion. This is akin to the young man who brags to his friends about what a great pistol shot he is. To prove his point he shows them the side of the barn with dozens of bulls eye target drawn in chalk with a bullet hole at or near the center of each one. Having been sufficiently impressed the friends leave convinced their friend is a crack shot never knowing that the "crack shot" goes about his target shooting in much the same way the conspiracy cultists do: He shots the gun first and then walks to the barn and draws the target around his bullet hole. When one starts with the conclusion already firmly in mind and then proceeds merely to find supporting evidence, ANYTHING can be "proven". But this is flawed historical research.

2. Conspiracy cultists do not accept ANY human error, if a misidentification occured it wasn't a mistake it was an unguarded slip of the tongue that allowed a momentary glimpse within the inner-workings of the conspiracy. A few examples form the Kennedy assassination:
a. When Wesley Frazier glanced at the package Lee Oswald carried to work with him on the morning of 11/22/63 he estimated its length to be less than the minimum size needed to conceal an unassembled Mannlicher-Carcano rifle like the one found on the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository. But Frazier NEVER claimed to have paid close attention to the package (why would he?) he has stated for 49 years that he glanced at it as Oswald carried it into work with him. He assumed Oswald cupped it beneath his armpit and held the bottom of the package in the palm of his hand, but even as he observed Oswald carrying the package, he NEVER closely examined the length of the rifle nor the manner in which Oswald carried it. Conspiracy cultists accept his momentary glimpse of the package as rock-solid proof that the package couldn't have contained the disassembled rifle--therefore Oswald couldn't have been the rifleman. THey ignore the proven fact that ALL bullet fragments and the one intact bullet recovered that day came from Oswald's rifle (to the exclusion of ALL other rifles on the planet in 1963.) They ignore the proven fact that Oswald owned the murder weapon, it contained HIS prints and no one elses, the package contained Oswald's left index fingerprint as well as his right palm print (exactly where his palm print WOULD have been had Oswald carried the package as Frazier recalled.) They ignore the fact that NO ONE ever saw Oswald carry a rifle into work and they ignore the fact that Oswald said he was carrying curtain rods to work that day with him--yet when Oswald was seen leaving the building after the assassination he held nothing but a bottle of Coke--no curtain rods. AND no curtain rods were ever found in the building. However Oswald's rifle--the one matching all the murder bullets--WAS found there. None of these incontrovertible facts bother the cultists one whit. All they care about is Wesley Frazier's glimpse of a package.
b. When two Dallas police officer glanced at the hidden rifle where Oswald hastily stashed it after the assassination they initially misidentified it as a Mauser. These early mistakes are not mistakes at all according to the conspiracy cultists--they are proof positive that TWO rifles were found in the TSBD: a Mannlicher-Carcano (planted to frame Oswald) and the REAL murder weapon, a Mauser. Of course it makes absolutely no sense for the cultists to claim the real murder weapon was a Mauser when ALL bullet fragments and the one intact bullet matched the Mannlicher-Carcano and NO bullets or fragments matched the Mauser they believe exists. Tom Alyea, a loical Dallas photographer was inside the TSBD as it was being searched and NO film footage was ever taken of a Mauser being found, no audio recording exists of officers talking of a Mauser, and no stipp photographs were ever taken of a recovered Mauser. But the initial misidentification still lives on today in conspiracy cult lore.
c. Some earwitnesses thought they heard a shot or shots eminating from the right-front of the President's motorcade. But later evidence discovered proved beyond any and ALL doubt that they were mistaken. There was NO physical evidence of any right-front gunman--NONE. The autopsy proved conclusively that ALL bullets to strike the President were fired from above and BEHIND--NOT from the right front.
d. Following the assassination some residents of Dallas and even some in Louisiana seemed to recall seeing Oswald prior to the events of 11/22/63. Of course this happens whenever ANY famous news event takes place. Individuals seeking public attention come forth from all walks of life claiming to have "seen" the individuals who later became famous. Sometimes these sighting are legitimate--we KNOW they are legitimate because the known whereabouts of the individuals coincide with the location of the sighting. For instance, if someone claimed to have seen Oswald in Mexico City on such and such a date and we already know from independent corroboration that Oswald actually WAS in Mexico City on such and such a date, then the possibilities of someone seeing him there is more likely. If however someone claims to see Oswald in North Dakota when we already know with 100% certainty that Oswald was living in New York City with his mother then the North Dakota is immediately suspect and virtually a proven impossibility. But to conspiracy nuts like John Armstrong, these "sightings" of multiple Oswald don't prove the human condition but rather reveal an elaborate plot to plant duplicate "Oswalds" going back to the mid-1950s. Of course no rational or sane researcher believes one single word John Armstrong wrote in his fanciful book "Harvey and Lee." But his conspiratorial thinking is evidence of how conspiracy cultists see the world around him.


It is interesting to listen to the cultists when human error does NOT add fuel to their theory. For instance, when Oswald was first arrested and his name was not yet common knowledge. There were several published mistakes concerning his middle name. He was referred to as Lee Henry Oswald, Lee Harold Oswald, and Lee Harvey Oswald. But the conspiracy cultists don't make the claim that there were THREE different individuals arrested, they concede that human can be explained for name confusion. But if the rifle is misidentified THEN it is gospel truth and lives on for 50 years after the mistake was made. THis double standard keeps conspiracy cultists busy as they fabricate more and more theories.
3. Conspiracy cultists always refuse to accept ANY evidence that disproves their theory of the month. And if such evidence does exist then the standard response is that it was either:
a. faked
b. planted
c. manipulated
d. unrelated to the criime itself

For instance...
a. If Oswald's prints were found on the rifle then they must have been planted there after Oswald was murdered. But this ignores the fact that fingerprints and a palm print were photographed the NIGHT of the assassination and were on file at Dallas Police Department. But if this fact were widly known it would incriminate Oswald so the cultists simply lie about this fact and they repeat the claim that no prints were found on the rifle.
b. ALL medical professionals to examine the autopsy materials agree that Kennedy was shot two and ONLY two times from above and behind. In 1964, 1968, 1975, and 1978 teams of recognized medical forensic pathologists examined the original autopsy materials and in EVERY instance concluded unanimously that there is no medical or scientific evidence supporting the claim that a shot from the right front struck Kennedy and killed him. Even Dr. Cyril Wecht, the darling of the conspiracy cult, and a confirmed cultist himself, admitted that based on the medical evidence ALL shots struck Kennedy from the rear.

So how does Wecht still believe that multiple gunmen murdered Kennedy? Simple. He claims now that spaceage frangible bullets were used so that no evidence was left behind. So this former medical examiner has stooped to the level of basing his beliefs on evidence that doesn't exist. This is a common practice. If no evidence supports your theory...simply claim that the evidence USED to be there but has disappeared. Is it any wonder why real scholars don't waste their time debating conspiracy cultists. They reside in a bizarre nether world where up is down, white is black, truth is false, and dead is alive.

Posted on Nov 4, 2012 9:14:31 AM PST
Jeff Marzano says:
Fortunately for the world we have the Zapruder video footage of JFK's head getting blown off. This film clearly shows that the fatal wound struck Kennedy in the right temple area.

This has been verified mathematically. The fatal head shot originated from the front of the limousine. The chances that Oswald could have fired such a deadly accurate shot from his alleged position in the school book building were remote. In reality the shooter was only a few feet away.

Photographic analysis has also revealed that the autopsy photos of JFK that were released to the public had been modified by mortician's wax to support the shot from behind scenario. In reality the back of the skull was completely blown off. This is also verified by the invaluable Zapruder film where the delirious Jackie tries to gather up the back of the skull and re-attach it to JFK's head.

You are correct however that in many cases authors who lack knowledge and creativity often try to compensate with sensationalism. Dan Brown dragged Da Vinci's and Christ's name through the mud with his crackpot book The Da Vinci Code to collect his thirty pieces of silver. There are many other authors in the area of 'new age' type subjects that do this.

The Book Of Revelation is today being interpreted in bizarre ways by many false prophets. Hal Lindsey's book The Late Great Planet Earth gave a specific date in the 1980s when Jesus Christ would return. The book was very popular until the day after that date. Yes his blind followers still hang on his every false word.

Conspiracy theories is another area where people make outrageous and unfounded claims to sell books.

But then there's the other extreme. I'm sure Vincent Bugliosi's 1,600 page door jam can be found somewhere in your massive bookcase where he makes statements like:

"Ruby loved JFK."

Too bad about Robert Kennedy. Another strange coincidence. The coroner says the head shots were fired within a few inches of the skull. SirHan never got that close.

SirHan doesn't remember what happened. All he remembers is a girl in a polka dot dress sat next to him and said:

"Pour me a cup of coffee. Lots of cream, lots of sugar."

The next thing SirHan recalls is being wrestled to the ground by the police. Everything in between is a hypnotic blank.

Jeff Marzano

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 4, 2012 10:41:08 AM PST
not a conspiracy if they did it

just cause you are paranoid does not mean they are not out to get you

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 5, 2012 8:37:12 AM PST
Sadly for Jeff his claims about the Zapruder film are simply his own conspriacy-biased views and not really very scientific at all.

a. The only team of recognized scientific experts with recognized training and expertise in photographic analysis) determined in 1978 that there is absolutely no evidence of any kind that the frames of the Zapruder film were altered, added to, deleted from, enhanced, or edited in ANY WAY. While conspiracy cultists like Jeff Marzano continue to repeat the same falsehoods they refuse to name any recognized experts that allegedly agree with their claims.

b. The medical evidence disagrees 100% with the oft-repeated claims that a shot was fired from the right front. Jeff believes this of course--but please keep in mind that O.J. Simpson's mother also believes he was innocent. A lot of biased people believe a lot of wacky things. In 1964 the medical evidence was examined and the autopsy determined that two and ONLY two shots struck Kennedy from above and behind. In 1968 the Clark Panel's medical team examined the original autopsy materials, including the photographs and X-rays (which the Warren Commission did NOT have access to) and agreed 100% that two shots struck Kennedy from above and behind. In 1975 the Rockefeller Commission also examined the medical evidence and they too agreed that based onthe evidence there was no reason to believe in any shots eminating from the right front. And lastly the most exhaustive and detailed of ALL medical examinations was carried out by the HSCA and their team (including die-hard conspiracy cultist Cyril Wecht) concluded there was NO evidence to support the claim that Kennedy was shot from the right front.

So while Jeff is free to make any claims he chooses, educated reserachers are under no scientific obligation to believe anything he writes about an alleged right-frontal gunman.

There is no evidence one existed.

Posted on Nov 5, 2012 9:11:24 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Nov 5, 2012 9:11:58 AM PST
Debunker says:
Marzano's ridiculous claims that the autopsy photos were altered has absolutely no basis in fact.

Posted on Nov 5, 2012 10:38:43 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Nov 5, 2012 5:29:14 PM PST
Juggernaut says:
I've been at Dealey Plaza myself. The place is visited every day by tourists who gather around to see the place.And of course there are a bunch of opportunists, more or less nuts, who pick the visitors to get a few bucks to sell their conspiracy theories.One of those stray guys once told me that Gov.Connally was also behind the conspiracy because he ...wanted to become vice-president.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 5, 2012 10:51:08 AM PST
Your post has no basis in fact. The doctors say they were altered.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 5, 2012 10:54:39 AM PST
How do they see the world? They see it contains liars like SV Anderson in it.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 5, 2012 11:41:38 AM PST
Debunker says:
Please cite the testimony of the doctors who claim that. Thanks.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 5, 2012 11:42:20 AM PST
Debunker says:
What "lies" has he posted?

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 5, 2012 12:41:55 PM PST
Spiritual Architect's comments represent a couple of common tactics conspiracy cultists love to employ:

1. Refer to a specific comment and apply it to ALL. Meaning, Robert McClelland, one of the Dallas doctors DID claim that the wound he observed was more to the back of the head than the Zapruder film showed. But other doctors flatly disagreed with his claim and stated that the wound was exactly where the Zapruder film, the autopsy photographs and X-rays revealed it to be. For instance Dr. Ronald Jones initially stated that the wound was to the back of the head, but in a June 13, 1986 interview with London Weekend Television he cooled off on his initial statement and admitted that his original statement was based on what he heard OTHERS say and he personally never walked around to the back of the head nor did he ever personally even see the back of the head. Additionally, Dr. Charles Baxter stated that the wound he observed was located in the "termporal and parietal" area (right side--exactly where the Zapruder film revealed it to be.) Dr. William Kemp Clark, the chief neurosurgeon at Parkland Hospital stated that the exit wound was "in the parietal area above the right ear"--exactly where the Zapruder film and autopsy photographs showed it to be located. Dr. Adolf Giesecke Jr. testified the exit wound extended "from the brow line [ridge above the eye] to the occipital on the left hand side of the head. Dr. Marion Jenkins, said he saw "a great laceration on the right side of the head (temporal and occipital) (which was also right where the Zapruder film and autopsy photographs and X-rays revealed it to be.) Dr. Kenneth Salyer told the Warren Commission that the exit wound was in the "right temporal region"--right where the Zapruder film and the autopsy photographs and Z-rays revealed it to be. And lastly, Dr. Donald Seldin, chairman of the Department of Medicine at Parkland, said that "the entire frontal, parietal and temporal bones were shattered...I believe that the official story is accurate in all details."

So Spiritual Architect makes the claim that "the doctors" say the wounds were altered, but that is not the truth. NONE of them claimed the wounds were altered--NO doctor would make the claim that post mortem surgery could be conducted on a dead body that would later fool trained medical forensic pathologists such as Humes, Fincke, Boswell in Maryland. Spiritual Architect didn't give a single name of any doctor that made the claim that the wounds were altered (he doesn't know of any) and he didn't site a single statement of a single doctor to support his claim (he is unaware of any)...I on the other hand DO know what the doctors said and I gladly offered multiple examples of statments that flatly contradicted Spiritual Architect's vague and groundless allegation.

2. The second tactic Spiritual Architect employed is to attack ME calling me a liar. When in fact what I have said is fully documented with statements from the doctors while what HE claimed is TOTALLY his own views with NO support or verification from ANY statements from the principals involved.

And lastly, IF what Spiritual Architect maintains is true (and remember there is not one speck of credible evidence that it is) but IF the President's body had been altered to conceal a rear exit wound here is what we mush be willing to swallow:

1. The government (or whomever was behind this conspiracy--Spiritiaul Architect doesn't tell us who was behind it because he doesn't have the foggiest clue) but whomever it was had to know ahead of time that a wound would have to be concealed and they needed several different teams of surgeons on hand at multiple hospitals to carry out the nefarious and medically-impossible task. There had to be a team in Dallas (for remember Kennedy's body nearly remained in Dallas thanks to the protestations of Dr. Earl Rose--therefore one team of surgeons had to be on standby there) also there was a good chance that Kennedy's body could have been taken to Walter Reed Memorial Hospital--this was a military hospital in Washington D.C, that could have also been the autopsy site. Also a team had to be on hand to work at Bethesda, Maryland since Kennedy had been in the Navy. But there was also a chance Kennedy's body could have been sent to any of a dozen private and equally qualified hospitals in either Dallas or the Washington D.C. area. And please keep in mind that the invisible conspirators that S. Architect chooses to believe in did NOT select the location for the autopsy--Jackie did. Therefore is it the claim of the cultists like S.A. that Jackie was in on the plot also?

2. We must also be willing to believe that this team of conspirators managed to whisk away the president's body sometime after he left Parkland Hospital and arrived in Washington D.C. But not even the author of this hilarious theory--David Lifton--claims to know when or how the body was stolen. To think that Kennedy's body was left unattended for even one second is so far beyond the pale of rational thought that that part of the theory alone qualifies it for inclusion in the "Nuttiest Conspiracy Theory of All Time" Hall of Fame. There was not one SECOND when the coffin was left unattended, and remember that this coffin was SOLID bronze and EXTREMELY heavy. It took six secret service to hoist that behemouth into Air Force one in the first place yet the cultists would have us believe that it was being whisked willy nilly from one airplane to another totally unnoticed and unguarded right from under the noses of the Secret Service, Kennedy's widow, and his closest friends, many of whom NEVER left their vigil near the coffin.

3. We also have to be willing to disregard what EVERY doctor in the world already knows--ante-mortem wounds (wounds sustained when a body is alive with blood pressure and a heartbeat) look VERY different from post-mortem wounds which are sustained when there is NO blood pressure (hence no bruising) and no heartbeat (hence no bleeding.) Only a non-doctor like David Lifton could write such nonsense and only a non-doctor like Spiritual Architect would believe such silliness.

4. We must also be willing to believe that the Zapruder film, the Nix film, the Moorman photograph, and the Muchmore films along with the autopsy photographs and the many autopsy X-rays were ALL somehow altered to agree with this theory. Of course such a claim is simply too stupid to warrant a serious rebuttal. From 11/22/63 until today's date NOT ONE recognized photographic expert has found any evidence that ANY of the photographic record of the assassination has been altered, modified, tampered with, or edited in ANY way. If Spiritual Architect knows of any such expert let him provide their name(s)--trust me he won't because he doesn't know of any. He will wait several days to respond hoping beyond hope that everyone will forget this challenge and his embarassment will be avoided.

Sadly for him, I have a good memory and I will keep asking him for the name(s) of experts that agree with his claims until he decides to quit posting his untruths.

I believe that the price for admission to participate in scholarly debates about the Kennedy assassination should be common sense instead of nonsense. But if that were the case we would never get to hear from posters like Spiritual Architect.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 5, 2012 7:52:11 PM PST
I think that objective readers of this thread will be struck by one glaringly obvious truth: conspiracy cultists such as Spiritual Architect will always make wild, glassy-eyed accusations but when asked for specifics or when asked to provide evidence to back up what they claim there is nothing heard but crickets chirping in the background.

1. Debunker asked Spiritual Architect to cite the testimony of the doctors that claimed the body had been altered. Spiritual Architect's response? Silence. Nothing. Nada. A blank stare.

2. Debunker asked what lies I was guilty of telling. Spiritual Architect's response? Nothing. Nada. A blank stare.

3. I provided NUMEROUS testimonies and statements given by the doctors that directly refuted Spiritual Architects groundless claims. His rebuttal? Nothing. Nada. A blank stare.

4. I pointed out comically illogical nature of the altered body theory hatched by cultist in his 1980 fiction bestseller "Best Evidence", Spiritual Architects's response? Nothing. Nada. A blank stare.

When one deals with the conspiracy cultists as much a sI have over the past thirty thirty-five years it doesn't take long to understand why the educated world refers to these conspiracy nuts as....well...nuts.

Posted on Nov 5, 2012 8:59:45 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Nov 5, 2012 9:04:59 PM PST
Sock Puppet says:
Ah, we find the team of debunker and Anderson spinning their nonsense. Little do they know, but the few on earth who believe the Lone Nut Conspiracy, are the conspiracy theorists. One can argue all month with them, and they just deny, demand proof, and mangle characters. Tell them the Warren Commission members had among them dissenters, easily referenced on the net. Like Hale Boggs who didn't believe any of it. They will say, he signed off. With deep regrets though. And why did LBJ blackmail his way to be on the ticket, when he already had the 2nd most powerful job in America? And why was his personal hitman's pinky print found on the 6th floor? The Madeline Brown they crucify, bore LBJ a son and he made support payments until he died, as per his lawyer. If they allow her to remain untouched, she had an interesting story to tell. Bye fellas, have at it, launch a few daggers, I'm just passing through.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 5, 2012 10:03:50 PM PST
David L. Medearis says: launch a few daggers,

Lord Mac Beth said: is this a dagger i see before me, or is it a dagger of the mind.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 5, 2012 10:07:50 PM PST
whomever it was had to know ahead of time that a wound would have to be concealed


In reply to an earlier post on Nov 6, 2012 4:07:27 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Nov 6, 2012 4:24:01 AM PST
Debunker says:
Typical Medearis post. Utterly devoid of substance. Chock full of gibberish. However it IS telling that he thinks my post requesting Spiritual Architect cite the sources for his claim that the doctors claim the autopsy pictures were altered is "nonsense". In the whacky world of Medearis, supporting a claim with actual evidence evidently IS "nonsense". It's deemed a fact, therefore it's a fact. That's all that's required. Absurd.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 6, 2012 5:38:29 AM PST
***sigh*** How nice it would be if Medearis EVER posted anything of substance to which others could respond.

He did however bring up a humorous point that has been known to be false now for about thirty years.

"And why was his personal hitman's pinky print found on the 6th floor?"

Apparently Medearis doesn't know the name of this person...thank goodneww for him I HAVE done my research. He is referring to a tired, hackneyed claim that Malcolm Wallace was a match for the ONE fingerprint found on the 6th floor that was unidentified. This unsupported claim has been flaoting the fringe of the conspiracy cult for three decades and was debunked as phony about fifteen minutes after it first surfaced. SEVERAL websites show side by side comparisons of Malcolm Wallace's pinky priint and the unidentified print found on the 6th floor. One does NOT need to be a fingerprint expert to see there no match in ANY of the characteristics of these two prints. Medearis has NEVER referred to these readily available websites to do his own research he simply repeats a claim hoping that others don't know the truth. This tactic probablyh works among other conspiracy cultists and among those that don't know the evidence. But sadly I DO know the evidence and it doesn't work with me.

Concerning Brown's fanciful tale. The very fact that Medearis has stoooped to referring to Madeleine Brown's TOTALLY unsupported tale of a late-night party held the night before the assassination that Lyndon Johnson allegedly attended (when we already know with 100% certainty where Johnson was ALL of the time prior to the assassination) if tragically comical. Brown's book "Texas in the Morning" has divided the already confused conspiracy cult into two groups: those so desperate for proof of a conspiracy that they will believe literally ANYTHING that ANYONE claims in order to bolster their crumbled theories; and second the group that believes in a conspiracy (ANY conspiracy) but cannot bring themselves to siding with a woman whose claims are so outlandish and so easily disproven that she is an embarrassment even to the conspiracy cult. And THAT is saying a lot.

It is clear from his post which side of the cult Medearis is standing in. It is humorous that Medearis desires that we allow Brown to "remain untouched". This of course means, 'Let her say ANYTHING she wants but don't double check any of her facts, don't research her story in ANY way, just blindly believe it like we within ghe conspiracy cult do and it eliminates a lot of problems and uncomfortable issues. Just DON'T ASK HER ANY QUESTIONS!!!'

Is it any wonder why the respected historical research community laughs at the conspiracy cult and their "research methods."

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 6, 2012 10:45:25 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Nov 6, 2012 11:02:30 AM PST
Spiritual Architect says: "Your post has no basis in fact. The doctors say they were altered."

That is untrue. The doctors do not say they were altered. Some doctors (by no means all) give differing accounts of the head wound than the autopsists.

It is the conclusion of one David Lifton (a conspiracy theorist since 1963 and the author of a book called _Best Evidence: Disguise and Deception in the Assassination of John F. Kennedy_), not the doctors, that the differing descriptions means the wounds were altered. You echo that conclusion here, and conflate it to claim it's the doctor's claim that the wounds were altered.

Let's leave aside the fact that the autopsy is what would be admissible in court; let's leave aside that the autopsy x-rays and photographs disprove (some of) the doctors recollections, let's leave aside that numerous other pathologists have examined the xrays and photos and agree with the original autopsy conclusions. let's leave aside that wounds made after death look nothing like wounds made while someone is living, and would not fool anyone (Lifton doesn't mention this at all in his book).

Let's assume Lifton's theory is actually credible.

Can we determine if it is true?


Lifton's claim is easily disprovable, because his argument is that there were no shooters behind the president, all the shooters were in front of the president, and hence, all the wounds were from the front and then changed sometime afterward to look like wounds from behind.


But the President wasn't the only person in the limo shot that day. Texas Governor John Connally was also shot. He had, when his wounds were examined and treated in Parkland hospital shortly after the shooting, an apparent entry wound in the right-back, an apparent exit wound in the right chest, a wound through the wrist, and an apparent entry wound in the leg, which contained no bullet (apparently the bullet had only enough momentum to imbed itself partially in the leg and then fell out - but that is not the issue under discussion. Anyone drawing those wounds on a seated person will readily understand that the apparent track of the bullet is from above and behind to below and forward.

Now, if all the shooters were in front of the limo, and in front of the president, as Lifton's thesis claims, then Connally's wounds of necessity must also have been altered.

Curiously, Lifton's nearly 800-page tome does not discuss the implications of Connally's wounds whatsoever. He ignores Connally's wounds and what they mean for his thesis entirely. Anyone can see there is only two possible solutions here:

1. Connally was shot from behind because there was a shooter from behind, his wounds were not altered, and Lifton's body alteration thesis, which demands all the shooters be in front of the limo, is therefore incorrect.


2. There was a shooter lying unnoticed on the floor of the limo, he shot Connally, and Connally's wounds were altered to reverse the direction of the shot on the ride to Parkland (most likely by this shooter who hid on the floor of the limo, but of course the Secret Service agents, the Governor's wife, and the mortally wounded JFK should possibly also be considered suspects for the body alteration theory of Lifton's).

Which do you think is the more credible theory?

Now, given that Lifton's theory is disproven by the other gunshot victim that day, and the autopsists conclusions are shown to be true because the photographic and x-ray evidence that exists from that day confirm the autopsists conclusions (as numerous other pathologists who have studied the evidence unanimously agree), does that change your theory any about the alterations to the wound?

Why do you suppose Lifton didn't mention these two crucial facts in his nearly 800-page book:
1. Post-mortem wounds look nothing like pre-mortem wounds
2. Connally's wounds demonstrate there was a shooter behind the limo?

I would really like to discuss this further with you. Please reply with your thoughts on the body alteration theory of Lifton, especially what you think we can conclude about it given the location and path of Gov. Connally's wounds are not under dispute.


In reply to an earlier post on Nov 6, 2012 12:09:48 PM PST

Based on what you and I have seen on this and other forums, you really don't expect any of the conspiracy cultists to step into the spotlight, tap the microphone, clear their throats, and articulately discuss the evidence in this case do you? To anticipate such would be akin to expecting Lil' Wayne to announce his acceptance into Harvard's School of Business.

We both know--and several discussion threads have proven ad naseum--that conspiracy cultists can only ask questions and endlessly repeat hackneyed claims that have long-since been disproven by people better educated than themselves. It is rewarding to see unfamiliar contributors like Leonard M. Weisfeld reading the vapid claims of conspiracy cultists and recognize their claims for what they are: silly, simpled-minded suspicions devoid of substance and vacant of evidence.

I, like you, like to debate the actual evidence in this case. Not because I expect to learn anything new from the cultists (they haven't offered a fresh spin on the assassination in forty years) but rather to allow the newly initiated to compare side-by-side how the conspiracy cult fares when pitted against the actual evidence in this case. Sadly we are plagued with posters like David Medearis and spearmen, both of whom haven't offered a cogent point in twelve months of endless posting.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 6, 2012 12:41:28 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Nov 6, 2012 12:54:58 PM PST
S. V. Anderson says: "Hank, Based on what you and I have seen on this and other forums, you really don't expect any of the conspiracy cultists to step into the spotlight, tap the microphone, clear their throats, and articulately discuss the evidence in this case do you?"

Hope springs eternal.

It's like pro football in July... every team is a possible champion, and every poster here could engage in an actual debate.

As you note, Medearis and spearman both punted when asked to discuss the actual evidence, all they could do was echo vague claims of conspiracy but couldn't back it up with any substantive evidence. I don't see Spir.Arch. being any different, especially given he butchered the appropriate conspiracy claim, claiming the doctors allege alteration, when it was conspiracy theorist David Lifton who concluded that from the differing descriptions.

As you noted above, to a conspiracy theorist, if a witness recalls something - no matter how many years after the fact - that disagrees with the hard evidence like films and photos and x-rays, why, that must mean the hard evidence has been faked, and the witness is undoubtedly correct. It doesn't matter if that witness's recollection is disputed by other witnesses, and by his own testimony years early, all that is faked as well (as you may recall, I debated spearman on Roger Craig's "Mauser" claims, pointing out that Craig only mentioned the supposed Mauser on the sixth floor for the first time in the 1970's -- prior to that, Craig never mentioned seeing a Mauser on the sixth floor in any known testimony, statement, interview or writing. In addition, film and photos taken on the sixth floor of the rifle, as well as photos of the rifle as it was removed from the building, show beyond dispute that it was Oswald's Mannlicher-Carcano, not a Mauser. Spearman never could defend his theory in any manner, but claimed to believe Craig's 1970's Mauser claim nonetheless).

It is really a bizarre philosophy, but it is all they have. I would like to understand it better, hence my trying to engage the conspiracy folk in actual debate.


Posted on Nov 6, 2012 4:30:02 PM PST
Sock Puppet says:
People who deny multiple villains being involved, fail to discuss the package mailed to Lee Oswald at the wrong address, and containing a bag seemingly to fit the Carcano. Not only the wrong address, but short 12 cents postage, even though it was metered mail. Not to worry though, the post office sent a post card to the right address, asking for 12 cents. The package had no return address. But since it had the wrong address, how did the post office know where to send the 12 cents request.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 6, 2012 5:05:18 PM PST
Has there ever been a red herring you didn't chase Medearis? If you spent a TENTH of the time studying the actual evidence assembled by the Warren Commission, the Dallas Police Department, the FBI, the HSCA and independent researchers instead of worrying about LBJ gaining the vice presidency, Oswald allegedly receiving packages in the mail, phantom pinky fingerprints on the 6th floor, etc...

By the way...this above mentioned red herring is a new one to me. Where did you read this? Since you only seem to have read "Harvey and Lee" and "JFK and the Unspeakable" the refence should be easy to locate. Please give the reference I would love to read what the original author is trying to prove by this claim and I also want to see his/her sources to see how credible the allegation is.

Hank? Wanna lay odds that Medearis NEVER produces either a book title an author or page numbers for others to double check this allegation?

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 6, 2012 7:04:32 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Nov 6, 2012 8:03:10 PM PST
David L. Medearis says: "People who deny multiple villains being involved, fail to discuss the package mailed to Lee Oswald at the wrong address, and containing a bag seemingly to fit the Carcano. Not only the wrong address, but short 12 cents postage, even though it was metered mail. Not to worry though, the post office sent a post card to the right address, asking for 12 cents. The package had no return address. But since it had the wrong address, how did the post office know where to send the 12 cents request."

Lifted directly from the pages of Harvey and Lee, right?

These brilliant conspirators thing of everything, it appears. They mail Oswald a paper bag, that according to Armstrong, is for the sole purpose of obtaining Oswald's prints on the bag so it can be planted in the TSBD. However, they (and Armstrong) overlook a few details:

1. They don't put Oswald's correct address on the package containing the bag, so it never gets to him. Brilliant conspirators? Eh, not so much.

2. They don't put postage on the package, so even if the Post Office figures out where Oswald was living, it still won't get to him, because of the postage due. Brilliant conspirators? Eh, not so much.

3. Once Oswald has the package, Armstrong apparently doesn't bother to think it through, nor explain how the conspirators intend to get it back from Oswald in order to plant it in the TSBD. Brilliant conspirators? Eh, not so much.

4. Armstrong doesn't explain how or why Oswald is making a special trip to the Paine's residence to pick up this bag, if the purpose of the bag is to frame Oswald. It would appear that if Oswald knows the package is there waiting for him to handle and leave his prints on, as Armstrong believes, then there would be no need to mail him the package. Quoting Armstrong: "The author further believes that Harvey Oswald's uncharacteristic visit to the Paine's on Thursday evening, instead of Friday evening, was to pick up this package. If Harvey Oswald had received this package and removed the brown paper bag, then he would have unwittingly placed his fingerprints on the bag. This bag could then have been placed on the 6th floor of the TSBD for the police to find with his fingerprints intact." Question: How could he be placing his prints on it 'unwittingly' if he's making a special trip to the Paine's to pick up the package? Do you know what Armstrong is arguing here? I don't. I doubt you do. In fact, I doubt Armstrong does.

5. It appears Armstrong thinks the conspirators went to a lot of trouble for no reason. Even though the paper bag that was supposed to frame Oswald (according to Armstrong) wasn't ever delivered to him, Oswald still went ahead and manufactured a paper bag out of TSBD shipping department paper and tape, made certain he was seen with that paper bag by two witnesses the morning of the assassination, and then obligingly left the paper bag -- complete with his palmprint on it, no less -- on the sixth floor of the School Book Depository, near the sniper's nest in the southeastern sixth floor window. Oswald even went the conspirators one further -- he also planted his own rifle and three shells from his rifle (Armstrong would apparently have us believe) on the sixth floor in a brilliant attempt to frame himself. Brilliant conspirators? Eh, not so much.

Does Armstrong explain how this bag is supposed to get planted on the sixth floor once Oswald has it?

No, he doesn't.

Does Armstrong explain why Oswald makes a special trip to the Paine's on Thursday to get the bag, if the entire point of the bag is to frame Oswald?

No, he doesn't.

Does Armstrong explain how this bag is supposed to get Oswald's prints on it if it never had the correct address to reach Oswald?

No, he doesn't.

Does Armstrong explain how this bag is supposed to be used to frame Oswald if it never reaches him because the conspirators mailed it without postage (apparently, they could afford a mobile photo alteration lab in Dealey Plaza and a team of doctors ready to alter JFK's and Connally's wounds, but balked at the 12 cents postage necessary to frame Oswald).

No, he doesn't.

Does Armstrong explain why Oswald obligingly left a paper bag with his palmprint on it on the sixth floor near the sniper's nest window, after these not-so-brilliant conspirators failed in their attempt to get a bag with Oswald's print on it?

No, he doesn't.

Armstrong, in raising this nonsensical issue that goes nowhere, does so because he apparently believes his readers are not able to reason their way out of a incorrectly-addressed, postage-due paper bag with one end open.

Yes, he does.

Medearis, could you explain what you think the evidence about the bag indicates, and why? Can you explain why conspirators intent on framing Oswald and obtaining his prints on a bag, mailed the paper bag to Oswald at a non-existent address, with 12 cents postage due, how they intended to get it back from Oswald in order to plant it, and why Oswald was willing to make a special trip to the Paine's to handle the bag that was to be used to frame him, and then, when all that fell through, apparently willingly framed himself by bringing a different paper bag, complete with his print on it, to the sixth floor and left it near the sniper's nest window? Did the conspirators not anticipate Oswald would be so cooperative with them?


In reply to an earlier post on Nov 6, 2012 7:39:51 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Nov 6, 2012 7:48:08 PM PST
David L. Medearis says: "People who deny multiple villains being involved, fail to discuss the package mailed to Lee Oswald at the wrong address, and containing a bag seemingly to fit the Carcano. Not only the wrong address, but short 12 cents postage, even though it was metered mail. Not to worry though, the post office sent a post card to the right address, asking for 12 cents. The package had no return address. But since it had the wrong address, how did the post office know where to send the 12 cents request."

Well, you just answered your own question.

Point one: Since the package found in the dead-letter office had no legit address, they didn't know where to send the 12-cent postage-due request. Ergo, the 12-cent postage due request was for a different item. Logically, it had to be for a different item. No other explanation will suffice. Unless you think the Post Office uses Ouija boards to determine mailing addresses, I guess.

Point two: There is no evidence this package containing the paper bag was mailed before the assassination. It was discovered on December 4th, 12 days after the assassination, in the post office, and no one there remembered handling it or when it arrived. It is mere supposition on Meager's part (and later, Armstrong's) that this was mailed before the assassination. It could have been mailed after the assassination.

Point three: You, and Armstrong, are conflating these two separate issues into one, and assuming the postage due notice received at the Paine's on Saturday, 11/23/63, was for the paper bag discovered on December 4th sitting in the post office that was addressed to Oswald but missing postage and a correct mailing address. The evidence indicates the one is not logically connected to the other.

Go ahead, change the subject.

I challenged you a while back in another thread to post your best evidence of a conspiracy. You dropped out of that thread and never posted again in that thread once I asked for that.

I will ask you again to post the best evidence you have of a conspiracy. Do you have anything? Anything at all?


In reply to an earlier post on Nov 6, 2012 8:04:55 PM PST
patrick says:
here is where I like the one liner I read in a UK newspaper blog after the failed terror attack which involved two Mercedes car bombs near London nightclubs..

Brown had just become PM a few days b4, and the conspiracists/Left wing apologists had decided that it was all "very convenient" and obviously a plot by Brown with M15 to demonstrate how strong he was. conspiracy ..

another blogger responded thus:

"you really do live in a land of giant lizards, dont you?"

said it all for me.
That and another more cynical remark
"we will do anything, anything, to avoid mentioning the elephant in the room"
‹ Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 24 Next ›
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in

Recent discussions in the History forum

  Discussion Replies Latest Post
Amazon Discussions Feedback Forum
442 Jul 14, 2016
Let's just say if 9/11 was a conspiracy... 4126 26 minutes ago
The Atomic Bombing of Japan 3713 55 minutes ago
Philippines~MacArthur 53 4 hours ago
Trump assassination I 674 10 hours ago
Fractured History Films WWII 29 11 hours ago
JFK Assassination Part VI 6156 12 hours ago
History of the Palestinian Nation (Part IV) 8309 12 hours ago
History has been made this evening! 195 13 hours ago
JFK assassination V 1086 14 hours ago
A Place For Pro-Israel Posters IV 1092 14 hours ago
The Propagandist's 9/11 Discussion 6 22 hours ago

This discussion

Discussion in:  History forum
Participants:  27
Total posts:  580
Initial post:  Nov 4, 2012
Latest post:  Jan 23, 2016

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 3 customers

Search Customer Discussions