originally posted by: CoriSCapnSkip
Interesting conspiracy debunking article says JFK's supposed threat to destroy the CIA was unsubstantiated and they got along well.
Personally I don't know whether Oswald acted alone but his involvement in some way can hardly be doubted.
I appreciate the link, but I've always had major problems with the self-satisfied attitude of almost everything that comes out of that publication.
For example (regarding the Warren Commission):
Careful and sober analysis of the evidence affirms the commission’s conclusions and vanquishes the arguments of the skeptics.
"careful and sober analysis", HIS
?? I just read an article this morning that included an interview with Charles Barkley
regarding the uproar over some of his recent statements. He said, "Everybody tells me how much they appreciate the fact that I'm a straight-shooter
and speak my mind regardless of what others think, that is until they
don't like what I say." (of course I'm paraphrasing from memory)
Obviously, it is imperative that we remain alert to the possibility of very real conspiracies in our midst (eternal vigilance is the price of
liberty, after all), but it is equally important that we use our critical faculties to distinguish verifiable evidence from idle
Man, there's just SO much in that one... Here I am currently reading the sworn testimony of the actual people involved but the attitude of the
article leaves me feeling pretty insulted.
There was such a shell game going on that even key players disagree, yet the author can sit in his ivory tower and pronounce what is fact?
He'd have a hard time getting that article past ATS. I'd like to see some links to back up his assertions.
Three tramps were
arrested that day. What is his proof the three tramps were the same three men marched through the crowd at Dealey Plaza that
I can't find a link for it, but I'll throw this out there for now:
The first edition of the Dallas Times Herald to hit the streets that day carried a column buried in a few pages that included this.
"Patrolman W. E. Barker saw workers in the Texas School Book
Depository pecking on a window from the third floor and pointing to
a man wearing horn-rimmed glasses, a plaid coat and rain coat. The
officer immediately arrested the man for questioning and placed him
in a room of witnesses in Sheriff Bill Decker's office across the street
from the Depository.
"With the young man protesting, the crowd all along the way
jeered at him as he was escorted across the street. One woman said
to the man: 'I hope you die.' Another screamed hysterically, 'Is that
him? Is that him?' An unidentified photographer shot a picture of
the arrested man and then said bitterly, 'I hope you burn.' Officers
on the case would not explain what connection the man might have
with the shooting nor would they identify him."
So here we have a young man who was identified by eye-witnesses
as a possible killer and who was arrested on the spot, while
Oswald was still at large—and that same person was still in jail three
weeks later! Furthermore, the "investigative charges," i.e., those filed
against him on the day of the assassination for "conspiracy to commit
murder," were not dropped until Monday, Dec. 2—ten days after
Oswald had been "convicted" by the police of being the one and only
killer of President Kennedy! Such are the strange ways of Dallas
Regarding all the Parkland doctors, he says:
Surely, the reasoning goes, these highly trained and experienced professionals could not all be wrong. But they were wrong, and research
shows this is not at all unusual.
How so? Again, I'd like a link to the information to make such a concrete statement. They were right there handling the president's body and he
wasn't. In fact, they were far from alone. Others who saw the body at Bethesda described the same blowout in the back of the head as seen at
What really galled me was the way he besmirched the memory of Dorothy Kilgallen.
Even the Ramparts staff felt the need to qualify their inclusion of Kilgallen’s name on the list, stating, “We know of no serious person
who really believes that the death of Dorothy Kilgallen, the gossip columnist, was related to the Kennedy assassination. Still, she was passionately
interested in the case, told friends she firmly believed there was a conspiracy and that she would find out the truth if it took her all her
Kilgallen was able to use her celebrity to convince the judge at Ruby's trial to allow her a short meeting with Ruby in a small office situated
directly behind the judge's desk. It was brief (less than ten minutes) but probably the only "secure" conversation Ruby had the opportunity to
have before his death.
Since I'm only paraphrasing, I think I can say this without violating the Horne copyright...
When under oath, both Dr. Boswell & Dr. Finck exhibited unusual behavior when shown evidence records from the autopsy.
Dr. Boswell at times would be so excitable that it made the whole process tedious and frustrating, almost bordering on mania. When shown a document,
even if only to verify his own signature, he'd hold it up to his face nearly to his nose scanning every single word at least once before answering.
With many autopsy photos his answer was either, "I don't know" or "I can't answer that". Attempts at clarification such as asking, "Are you
saying you can't or won't
?" accomplished nothing.
Dr. Finck became confused and almost dissociative during his deposition. What he was being shown and asked to identify or comment on often caused him
to seem disoriented and answering out of cognitive dissonance, "That's my signature, so I guess that's right..." Bear in mind that he'd only
seen the one brain examination. During his residencies at two different places (2 years each) he had done somewhere between 200 & 300 autopsies, many
involving gunshots. At one point he seemed to try to reconcile the photo he was being shown with how the brain may have been sitting in the formalin
solution (while his body language gave the impression that he wasn't at all confident in his answer).
It's hard for me to give an article from "Skeptic" a fair shot (though I DO
try) because, with a very few exceptions, what seen them publish
always leaves me feeling that a more honest title would be "Debunker Magazine".
There have been many times over the years that I've wished I could "turn it off for a while" but I'm constantly rolling things around in the back
of my mind and assessing things from different angles. In fact, I've realized since my post about Daniel Sheehan's lecture about Critical Thinking
that my analogy about the fork in the road needed tweaking. If you are presented with new information and you go down the Does Not Apply fork while
weighing what you find against your accumulated bias and you reach the point where things no longer fit logically or rationally, I shouldn't have
said that that was when it was time to go back to the fork. Everything up to where you are still fits so, in fact, Here
is the actual
fork in the road....