Debunking the JFK Conspiracists: New Book

[John Iacoletti]

You keep suggesting that I or some other LNer must present a "case" to you that satisfies your subjective impossible standard of proof on the topic of Oswald's guilt.  I've explained a dozen times or more that the evidence of Oswald's guilt was compiled by the law enforcement agents charged with investigating the case.  The WC laid out that evidence in excruciating detail almost six decades ago.

And it fails to meet any standard of proof.  You just call it an "impossible" standard to try to make up for the fact that you cannot prove anything.

But that's not the point.  You make your own claims that you provide no substantiation for: for example, your claim that Oswald was on the sixth floor at 12:30 and went down to the second floor within 75 seconds without being seen or heard by any of the at least 12 people who were along the way.  There is no evidence for this.  Not from your posts.  Not from the Dallas police.  Not from the FBI.  Not from the Warren Commission.  It's just assumed that he did.  Why don't you just admit that there is no evidence of this, and that you merely believe it on faith?

[John Iacoletti]

The purpose of this forum is to discuss the case against Oswald and thus the findings of the WC at all. If all you want to do is point to the WC findings and not discuss and/or defend those findings, then the question is why you are here exactly? Why are you spending so much time on a discussion forum when you are unwilling or unable to discuss anything?

That's another great question that "Richard" is unlikely to ever answer.  It appears that he is here because he gets his jollies insulting people who don't agree with his assumptions.

[Richard Smith]

The purpose of this forum is to discuss the case against Oswald and thus the findings of the WC at all. If all you want to do is point to the WC findings and not discuss and/or defend those findings, then the question is why you are here exactly? Why are you spending so much time on a discussion forum when you are unwilling or unable to discuss anything?

I'm not unwilling to discuss the case.  You have repeatedly asked for "my" evidence and I've explained to you countless times that "my" evidence of Oswald's guilt is the evidence compiled by the law enforcement agencies tasked with investigating the case.  Why keep asking me to repeat that evidence and implying that somehow I must travel back in time like Sherlock Holmes to uncover additional evidence that the law enforcement authorities missed to convince you?   You don't accept that evidence because you are a contrarian who applies an impossible standard of proof to the case against Oswald.   You mistakenly believe the standard is to convince you of Oswald's guilt.   I'm not sure there has to be a "purpose" to participate in an internet forum.  What purpose do you have to show up here night and day if all you want to do is nitpick the evidence against Oswald?  What do you expect to happen?   

[Jon Banks]

So here we almost are some 60 years or so later and the conspiracists can't agree on anything other than there was a conspiracy. Was Oswald a participant? Or was he totally innocent? CIA? FBI? Dallas oilmen? Who did it? They disagree on any of these. Because, again, they are starting with their own conclusions and arguing backwards from there. A hundred different conclusions, a hundred different answers to our questions.

We may never find out the truth about what happened but it makes perfect sense why most people don't believe the "lone-nut" explanation.

Why:

- The lone-nut narrative requires not one, but TWO lone-nuts. Oswald and Ruby. And we're supposed to ignore Jack Ruby's relationships with the Dallas PD and organized crime.

-  You can drive a truck through all the holes in the forensic evidence in the Kennedy assassination (coincidentally, both Kennedy assassinations are full of evidence problems).

- The US government remains secretive about the Kennedy assassination almost 60 years later.

I could add more to the list but you get the gist. People intuitively believe something stinks about the JFK assassination because the facts of the case do stink...

[Martin Weidmann]

I'm not unwilling to discuss the case.  You have repeatedly asked for "my" evidence and I've explained to you countless times that "my" evidence of Oswald's guilt is the evidence compiled by the law enforcement agencies tasked with investigating the case.  Why keep asking me to repeat that evidence and implying that somehow I must travel back in time like Sherlock Holmes to uncover additional evidence that the law enforcement authorities missed to convince you?   You don't accept that evidence because you are a contrarian who applies an impossible standard of proof to the case against Oswald.   You mistakenly believe the standard is to convince you of Oswald's guilt.   I'm not sure there has to be a "purpose" to participate in an internet forum.  What purpose do you have to show up here night and day if all you want to do is nitpick the evidence against Oswald?  What do you expect to happen?   

"my" evidence of Oswald's guilt is the evidence compiled by the law enforcement agencies tasked with investigating the case.  Why keep asking me to repeat that evidence and implying that somehow I must travel back in time like Sherlock Holmes to uncover additional evidence that the law enforcement authorities missed to convince you?   

Nobody has ever asked you to travel back in time or to uncover additional evidence. What is being asked of you is your reasons for concluding that the evidence produced by the law enforcement agencies is correct, complete and persuasive. That's all. It is after all your opinion that they got it right, so why can't/won't you defend that opinion? What are you afraid of?

You don't accept that evidence because you are a contrarian who applies an impossible standard of proof to the case against Oswald.

Or you are just a naive, highly impressionable, fool who accepts what he is told on blind faith and without question, and who doesn't see or understand just how weak the evidence and the whole case against Oswald really is.

The irony is that by constantly complaining about "contrarians who apply an impossible standard of proof" you are actually admitting that the case against Oswald is so weak that it can not withstand the scrutiny you call "an impossible standard of proof". What you fail to understand is that evidence is either conclusive or it isn't. Conclusive evidence can easily withstand close scrutiny. Weak evidence can't.

You mistakenly believe the standard is to convince you of Oswald's guilt.

Hilarious! That's exactly the standard. The entire WC report was written to convince people of Oswald's guilt! That's the only reason for presenting evidence; to convince people!

I'm not sure there has to be a "purpose" to participate in an internet forum.

Oh boy...... Are you really saying that you don't have a purpose for participating on this forum? If that's true, perhaps you should try to get a life or at least a hobby that does have a purpose.

What purpose do you have to show up here night and day if all you want to do is nitpick the evidence against Oswald?  What do you expect to happen?   

First of all, I'm not here night and day, You would have no way of knowing, if I was, unless you were here also, but that's beside the point. I have actually been away for more than a week. Secondly, I can tell you exactly why I joined this forum. After reading the WC report I found it hard to believe that this was all there was in the case against Oswald, so I wanted to find out more. The way to do this is to scrutinize every aspect of the case and the evidence. It really is not my problem if some fanatic gets upset when somebody has a closer look.

[John Iacoletti]

I'm not unwilling to discuss the case.  You have repeatedly asked for "my" evidence and I've explained to you countless times that "my" evidence of Oswald's guilt is the evidence compiled by the law enforcement agencies tasked with investigating the case.

So then by "discuss" you actually mean just repeating your conclusions and insisting that they are true.

I'm not sure there has to be a "purpose" to participate in an internet forum.  What purpose do you have to show up here night and day if all you want to do is nitpick the evidence against Oswald?  What do you expect to happen?   

What I'd like to know is exactly what about that evidence do you find so convincing, and why?

[Paul J Cummings]

Saying this case was investigated would be true if not for Oswald being the only person being looked into. Bottom line this had to be resolved before the 1964 election.

I'm not unwilling to discuss the case.  You have repeatedly asked for "my" evidence and I've explained to you countless times that "my" evidence of Oswald's guilt is the evidence compiled by the law enforcement agencies tasked with investigating the case.  Why keep asking me to repeat that evidence and implying that somehow I must travel back in time like Sherlock Holmes to uncover additional evidence that the law enforcement authorities missed to convince you?   You don't accept that evidence because you are a contrarian who applies an impossible standard of proof to the case against Oswald.   You mistakenly believe the standard is to convince you of Oswald's guilt.   I'm not sure there has to be a "purpose" to participate in an internet forum.  What purpose do you have to show up here night and day if all you want to do is nitpick the evidence against Oswald?  What do you expect to happen?   

[Michael T. Griffith]

Here is a better book to read: Dr. David Mantik's newly released book JFK Assassination Paradoxes, in which he proves with hard scientific evidence--optical density measurements and radiological analysis--that the JFK autopsy skull x-rays have been altered. As Dr. Greg Henkelmann says in his endorsement of this book, "to reject alteration of the JFK skull x-rays is to reject basic physics and radiology."

https://www.amazon.com/JFK-Assassination-Paradoxes-Essays-Reviews-ebook/dp/B0BH6RV51D

Lone-gunman theorists seem to be caught in a time warp and act like we're living in the early 1990s, seemingly oblivious to the historic evidence that has come to light via the ARRB releases and new scientific research.

For example, are you aware that we now know from ARRB-released files that the autopsy doctors determined for an absolute fact during the autopsy that JFK's back wound had no exit point, and that the first two drafts of the autopsy report said nothing about a bullet exiting the throat? The autopsy doctors, we now know, probed the back wound extensively after removing the chest organs and while positioning the body in different angles and positions. Toward the end of the probing, Dr. Finck informed the two FBI observers (Sibert and O'Neill) that the back wound had no exit point. One of the medical technicians who witnessed the probing could see the end of the probe pushing against the lining of the chest cavity--he could see that the wound was shallow and had no exit point. The HSCA medical panel was aware of this evidence but chose to suppress it by sealing it for 50 years, but the ARRB released it in the mid-1990s.

The fact that the back wound had no exit point, of course, debunks the single-bullet theory, and without the SBT there can be no lone-gunman theory. Since the SBT is false, there must have been at least two gunmen firing at JFK.

Have you just not heard about any of this stuff?