JFK Conspiracy Theories IV: The One With The Whales

[Tomtomkent]

Occipital/parietal have to include occipital but in the autopsy photos of the back of the head, the occipital bone is intact. In fact, the whole of the back of the head is intact.

Same goes for the x-ray-photos.

The wound on the side of the head covers both bones named.

It doesn't matter how creatively you are trying to tweak the semantics, disgraced McAdams style, you end up with a contradictory evidentiary record all the same.

I am afraid not. Look at the wikipedia links once more and compare to the autopsy photos And the X ray.

You will see the wound is at the top, rear, right hand side of the head. It stretches from behind the ear, to the paterial bone. Meaning it covers the Occipital area, to the paterial.

There is no twisting of semantics required. Only an accurate understanding of anatomy. Assuming "occipital" can only mean "back of the head" is plain silly.

 

[manifesto]

So, let us look at a few of the Conspiracy Innuendos that have been brought up again.

There are chain of custody issues for the rifle?

Okay. So Oswald turns up for work on the sixth floor of the TSBD with his "curtain rods"

No. According to his working buddy Buell Wesley Frazier, Oswald said it was curtain rods in his lunch bag, yes. According to Oswald he had his lunch in it, as usual. Word against word, I guess ...

where a rifle just so happens to be found. And at some point between discovery and final storage there is a gap in the chain of custody.

It is NO custody at all in this part of the rifle’s journey, no.

What seems the most likely.

That we do not have all the documents that tracked it between DPD and FBI?

That not all the documents tracking it between DPD and FBI were completed.

That the rifle was substituted for another, which happened to have Oswald's prints on it, and match the bullets, bullet fragments, and shell casings?

That the rifle was in some way altered?

You see... this is what confuses me. If Oswald's rifle was there to be found, why alter the evidence?

I’m not questioning the custody of the rifle from “found” on the 6th floor TSBD ——> DPD HQ —-> FBI HQ (D.C.) —-> DPD HQ —-> FBI HQ ——> Warren Commission —-> NARA, it is probably the same rifle (CE-139) the whole time. I’m questioning the way it was handled and by whom while in the custody of said organisations.

If Oswald was not the shooter, then why was he in a snipers nest with his rifle and spent shell casings?

No one saw Oswald in snipers nest that day. There is no physical evidence for Oswald firing a rifle that day. Ask DPD Chief Jesse Curry.

If they were planted, why is there a need for a deliberate hole in the custody chain later?

See above.

Why did Oswald have pictures of himself taken with the rifle?

Marina. Not trustworthy. And if he had, it could have a number of perfectly innocent explanations.

Why did Oswald try and attempt at least one other murder with the rifle?

Marina. Not trustworthy. And there is no witnesses or physical evidence of Oswald being the shooter or the rifle being the same as the one found on the 6th floor.

And if the evidence was somehow substituted or altered, then how was it substituted or altered? How does one fake the evidence retrieved from the rifle?

What substituted evidence?

And where exactly is the evidence of fakery or substitution.

Of what?

CT advocates fail to differentiate between reasons to suspect tampering, and evidence of tampering.

No. Show me one instance of me doing that.

They often tell us why they are suspicious that evidence could be faked or altered, but remain unable to show it was. Or even that it could be.

Proclamations without any substance whatsoever. As usual in the Church of the Lone Assassin.

Mari[n]a is not a good witness? Well Oswald still posed with two murder weapons for his photograph.

Did he? Who took the photos? Marina? Sure …

Want to suggest otherwise? Fine. Show me how the photographs were altered, without leaving a mark in the emulsion or other photo-artefact.

I can’t prove the photographs being faked and you can’t prove the opposite. We have to go elsewhere for more solid evidence. I intend to do that in due course.

You want to claim some doctors saw a different wound on JFK?

Some of … All the doctors. In all three hospitals. All the medical personal. Secret Service. FBI. The witness testimony from everyone that had the opportunity to see the big head wound up close (or the Harpers fragment) said it were positioned at the back of the head, and some of them also described the wound extending from the occipital to the parietal on the right top of the head.

You have to re-wright their testimony in order to make a “fit.” Or, accept the possibility of altered photographs and film.

Fine. Show me how the photographs of the autopsy were faked.

Show me how all the over 50 expert vittnes testimony were faked, and why it was faked.

Or how the body was altered.

I’m not sure it was altered. We do not know at this point in time. We know that the body as EVIDENCE was destroyed the second US SS stole it from the Dallas coroner before he had a chance to do an autopsy, as Texas law stated. The reason for this law was and is to hinder any possible alterations of the body as evidence. Not to destroy the chain of custody.

Or how the back of the head, resting on the gurney, was visible.

From the sides, from the behind and slightly from the above. Most of the Parkland witnesses also had a closer look. Read the testimonies.

The closest we have had to actual evidence of this is the photographer stating the photos she was presented were not the set she took.

There were no female photographer allegedly present taking photos of the autopsy. I believe you are mixing up something here.

CT books miss out the rest of her testimony where she explains she took a sanitised set after the body was cleaned up, for potential public consumption, and she was being shown the set taken before sanitisation. No comment on the wounds. No suggestion of alteration.

She was not a photographer taking photos of the autopsy OR the cleaned up body.

The dictabelt recordings? Sure, assume they recorded five gunshots. As those there identified outside of the experiment,

What?

how do we know the identical impulses were not also gunshots? That all five were gunshots?

Individual matches above 95% on all the five impulse patterns. The order in the data: 1, 2, 3 , 4 and 5, makes this P = 1/100 000 for being chance occurrences from lets say static, human talk, or other unknowns.


Why are you avoiding responding to my arguments using the proper forum quote-function? Are you trying to muddy the waters?

Try again: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11027826&postcount=496

 

[manifesto]

I find it revealing that you revert to faith based arguments.

Yes, I know.

 

[Tomtomkent]

No one saw Oswald in snipers nest that day. There is no physical evidence for Oswald firing a rifle that day. Ask DPD Chief Jesse Curry.

Other than the bullets, cartridges, and fingerprints...

Marina. Not trustworthy. And if he had, it could have a number of perfectly innocent explanations.

You keep saying Marina is not trustworthy. It doesn't matter. We have the photos to prove she is correct.

And please. You are the one advocating he did not purchase the rifle, and his prints were planted upon it somehow. Why would he be photographed with a rifle he did not buy?

Conclusion: It was his rifle.

Marina. Not trustworthy. And there is no witnesses or physical evidence of Oswald being the shooter or the rifle being the same as the one found on the 6th floor.

Other than it being the same rifle. With his prints on. And the photo. Etc.

What substituted evidence?

Well. To justify your varying claims: Rifles, bullets, cartridges, photographs, and either a body, or all documents and photographs of the body (and by extension, thanks to the lack of massive ejecta from a wound blasting out the back of JFKs head, the Zappruda film).

If you argue this, then you do not understand the implications of your assertions.

No. Show me one instance of me doing that.

Oswald was finger printed SEVEN times while alive in custody after the arrest. But, this was still not enough...

Suggesting that at some point there was an opportunity to fake prints, ergo the prints were faked.
And also:

You have to re-wright their testimony in order to make a “fit.” Or, accept the possibility of altered photographs and film.

Seems pretty much the same deal. The only reason to accept the possibility is evidence of alteration.
See also any time you said Marina was "not a reliable witness" to talk of the photographs. Or any time you have to mention how corrupt Texan law enforcement was. It's all conspiracy innuendo, and all in place of actual evidence of tampering.

I can’t prove the photographs being faked and you can’t prove the opposite. We have to go elsewhere for more solid evidence. I intend to do that in due course.

Learn about the burden of proof. If you wish to claim they were faked you need evidence.

Some of … All the doctors. In all three hospitals. All the medical personal. Secret Service. FBI. The witness testimony from everyone that had the opportunity to see the big head wound up close (or the Harpers fragment) said it were positioned at the back of the head, and some of them also described the wound extending from the occipital to the parietal on the right top of the head.

You have to re-wright their testimony in order to make a “fit.” Or, accept the possibility of altered photographs and film.

Nope. As you have no evidence of alteration, and given the wound DOES MATCH THE TESTIMONY (the wound is indeed at the rear of the head, it is just not on the back of the head), and is further supported by the Z film, I think you need to consider that your interpretation is wrong.

Especially as those medical witnesses did this without lifting the head, so it would by definition have had to be visible, and not where you want to place it.

You could of course, read all about this, in considerable depth whenever you wish to get up to speed with the conversation.

Show me how all the over 50 expert vittnes testimony were faked, and why it was faked.

I'm not claiming it was.

I'm claiming your interpretation of the testimony is wrong.

I am more than satisfied, as the WCR was, that the medical testimony is accurate. I am also sure (because I am not relying on CT books) that the testimony fits with the photos.

I’m not sure it was altered. We do not know at this point in time.

Lets get this right.

You are not sure if the body was altered?

YOU ARE NOT SURE IF A DEAD BODY WAS ALTERED?

If you are not sure against the impossible, then perhaps you reconsider your methods.

We know that the body as EVIDENCE was destroyed the second US SS stole it from the Dallas coroner before he had a chance to do an autopsy, as Texas law stated. The reason for this law was and is to hinder any possible alterations of the body as evidence. Not to destroy the chain of custody.

Or when the body was transferred to military custody.

Odd. I thought Texan law enforcers were corrupt. Surely you are happy it was moved to safer hands?

From the sides, from the behind and slightly from the above. Most of the Parkland witnesses also had a closer look. Read the testimonies.

So not an angle they could see the back of his head.
Yes. i read the testimony. That is why I know you are wrong.

 

[manifesto]

Yes, I understand that you said my question was "Fair enough," and then proceeded to dodge it and go into a Gish gallop of CT bunkum.

You do not get it du you? You wrote:

We have more hard, physical evidence nailing Oswald than is ever brought forth to win most murder convictions; all the circumstantial evidence also points directly at Ozzie. Rather than my rehashing the most salient aspects of the case, of which you are surely already aware, and probably inspiring the zombie resurrection of yet another long-debunked CT myth about how evidence was faked, it might be more productive if you told me first exactly what kind of evidence you would demand before you could be convinced that Oswald fired those shots.

I wrote, "fair enough", meaning it is a reasonable request, and posting 12 points of problems with the evidentiary record on Oswalds supposed purchase of the weapon. A resolution of these 12 problems would increase the probability that Oswald "fired those shots." It's not enough, but it would be a good start.

Understand?

No, your reply is a non sequitur. Fair is fair, so don't dodge my question. (In any case, I see that Hank has already explained your 12 points, one at a time, and quite effectively.)

I'm not debating "Hank", I am debating YOU and if you think "Hank" has a good argument for anything, quote it and I'd be happy to respond.

Ok?

My question again: What kind of evidence would you ever accept as proof that Oswald fired those shots?

Not compromised evidence of Oswald buying the alleged murder weapon (CE-139) would be a good start. Would it be enough? No, it would be a good start. One step at a time. The material is vast.

Fair enough?

 

[manifesto]

1. Most important. All the documents put forward by the FBI are copies of film of the originals, not the original documents. The originals are these days nowhere to be found.

1. Armstrong: http://harveyandlee.net/Guns/Guns.html

John Armstrong!
Of "two Oswalds" fame!
Wows!

Are you disputing the factual content of my first point?

 

[manifesto]

I'll debate no more than two of you at a time. It gets almost impossible to keep track of every nuance of every argument on every tangent of a specific issue.

At the moment those two are Sandy McCroskey and Tomtomkent, but the rest of you have to wait. It is not personal.

 

[manifesto]

If Oswald was not the shooter, then why was he in a snipers nest with his rifle and spent shell casings?

No one saw Oswald in snipers nest that day. There is no physical evidence for Oswald firing a rifle that day. Ask DPD Chief Jesse Curry.

Other than the bullets, cartridges, and fingerprints...

Why are you constantly moving the goal posts?

 

[Tomtomkent]

Why are you constantly moving the goal posts?

I'm not. I asked why he was there. I did not say there was a witness. Nobody needs to have seen him. We have ample evidence of his presence.

And as it happens, we have a witness who described seeing a man of Oswalds description in the window of the tsbd. The stabilised footage from one of the private cine cameras also seems to catch the shooter.

Which have all been discussed before.

 

[Tomtomkent]

I'll debate no more than two of you at a time. It gets almost impossible to keep track of every nuance of every argument on every tangent of a specific issue.

At the moment those two are Sandy McCroskey and Tomtomkent, but the rest of you have to wait. It is not personal.

I would encourage to join the conversation. There is no rush,and you can always track back to reffer to what has gone before.

Apart from anything else, you don't know when the right question will change how you look at evidence.

Telling people you are setting terms to a discussion, and pretending it is a debate, makes this sound too much like you expect somebody to win or lose.

 

[manifesto]

I'm not. I asked why he was there. I did not say there was a witness. Nobody needs to have seen him. We have ample evidence of his presence.

No, you have nil evidence of his supposed presence in the snipers nest near or during the shooting. Fingerprints on the boxes is no evidence since Oswald worked on the sixth floor with the boxes on a daily basis. "No one has been able to put Oswald on the sixth floor with a rifle in his hand" - DPD Chief Jesse Curry, years after the murder of JFK. You beg to differ?

The CE-139 is not evidence of Oswalds guilt if you can not show he owned it or brought it to the TSBD that day.

Same with the three casings.

And as it happens, we have a witness who described seeing a man of Oswalds description in the window of the tbd.

Who?

The stabilised footage from one of the private cine cameras also seems to catch the shooter.

Maybe, but is it in that case Oswald? It is completely blurred. No one is disputing a shooter or shooters from behind the limo.

Which have all been discussed before.

Yes, for more than fifty years now, and it will not go away until a truly independent fully mandated investigative body open up the case again and solve the crime. Meantime, proposed "evidence" for Oswalds guilt gets thinner and thinner by the day. Look at the trend.

Today everything is in dispute. Political mandate is needed to make it official. You belong to a lost cause. Truth is a force of nature.

Repent.

 

[Tomtomkent]

Howard Brennan offered the best description that matched Oswald. But there were three others. Not that it matters because: We have his rifle, his prints, his cartridges, and the bullets his rifle fired.

As you keep trying to dismiss actual evidence for the sake of a witness I am giving up.

Read the rest of the threads and come back when you have something new to offer.I really can not be bothered with another fringe reset and ride down the helterskelter.

 

[manifesto]

Howard Brennan offered the best description that matched Oswald.

No. He could not identify Oswald in the line up.

But there were three others.

Who?

Not that it matters

So, why mention it?

because: We have his rifle,

No we have a planted rifle with a fabricated paper trail trying to incriminate Oswald as the assassin of JFK.

his prints,

An old palm print on the barrel. Very easy to fake.

his cartridges,

No. Three cartridges with no chain of custody planted in the proposed snipers nest in order to implicate the planted rifle implicating Oswald with a fabricated paper trail.

and the bullets his rifle fired.

The CE-399 bullet is probably fired from the CE-139 rifle yes, but nothing else is proven, no. No chain of custody.

As you keep trying to dismiss actual evidence for the sake of a witness I am giving up.

No, I'm trying to show you the problems with taking "evidence" at face value, not looking closer for signs of misconduct, in a case riddled with allegations of cover up and conspiracy since day one.

Read the rest of the threads and come back when you have something new to offer.I really can not be bothered with another fringe reset and ride down the helterskelter.

So, we are both of the opinion that crack pot primadonna Vincent Bugliosi's Helter_Scelter_conspiracy_urban_legend is a complete nut job?!

That's good and a first small sign of sanity.

 

[Tomtomkent]

So, we are both of the opinion that crack pot primadonna Vincent Bugliosi's Helter_Scelter_conspiracy_urban_legend is a complete nut job?!

That's good and a first small sign of sanity.

No. I said helterskelter. Nothing to do with the Mansons and their white album obsession, thank you very much.

You are still waffling on about rubbish like faked prints that are easily proven to be rubbish. None of the methods to fake them were viable at the time, none of the traces of fakery are ever presented, and you were uninformed enough to suggest they could be transferred from a corpse.

As far as I am concerned I have been down the aformentioned fairground mainstay over the last few cycles of the discussion, and there is literally nothing in your claims that have not been shown to be flawed in those cycles. There is nothing new or interesting in recapping the same answers to the same questions, with somebody else who is blinkered to one interpretation of what the medical testimony says, or why a failure of a line up may not be as significant as one expects, and no doubt you will soon reach the misunderstandings of photo anylisis too.

I got to the bottom, I could go back to the top, or I could walk away and find something new.

I'm finding something new.

 

[manifesto]

No. I said helterskelter. Nothing to do with the Mansons and their white album obsession, thank you very much.

Ah, so you believe in Bugliosi's Helter Skelter conspiracy scenario of the Tate murders?

You are still waffling on about rubbish like faked prints that are easily proven to be rubbish. None of the methods to fake them were viable at the time, none of the traces of fakery are ever presented, and you were uninformed enough to suggest they could be transferred from a corpse.

Before discussing the possibilities of faking old and dry fingerprints in 1963, lets suppose it was Oswalds old and dry palm print on the barrel.

- Does prior handling of the rifle prove that he handled it that day?

- Does it prove that he fired the rifle that day?

As far as I am concerned I have been down the aformentioned fairground mainstay over the last few cycles of the discussion, and there is literally nothing in your claims that have not been shown to be flawed in those cycles.

And I know that you are not telling us the truth, stating that.

There is nothing new or interesting in recapping the same answers to the same questions, with somebody else who is blinkered to one interpretation of what the medical testimony says, or why a failure of a line up may not be as significant as one expects, and no doubt you will soon reach the misunderstandings of photo anylisis too.

Nobody is forcing you to take part in this discussion ... or is it included in your job description?

I got to the bottom, I could go back to the top, or I could walk away and find something new.

I'm finding something new.

Good on you, leaving space to those actually interested in the case.

 

[Tomtomkent]

Ah, so you believe in Bugliosi's Helter Skelter conspiracy scenario...

I made no comment about it.
I made reference to an actual helterscelter, a fairground ride.

And if you don't think this is a ride most sceptics here have been on before, do read the previous 300ish pages of the previous threads. Nothing you have mentioned before is new.

You should also check up on how long fingerprints remain on different materials and what signs you would expect from older prints.

You Amy also want to consider the effects of somebody using a rifle after Oswald. What signs would there be on the trigger guard for example, if prints had been smudged by somebody else?

If the prints were faked, if the photos were faked, or the autopsy, there would be evidence of fakery. All we ever get is CT advocates saying the evidence is not how they think it should look, with nothing mote than innuendo and talk of why it "must" have been altered.

After a while it just gets boring. Especially when great conspiracy is read into simple mistakes and human error.

One day there will be evidence of somebody with a rifle on the grassy knoll, beyond a few impulses accoustically identical to scores of others on the same recording. Better yet there will be evidence another gunman was able to hit anything. That is when people will start to be interested again.

But another ride down the same helterscelter wont do it.

 

[manifesto]

I made no comment about it. I made reference to an actual helterscelter, a fairground ride.


And if you don't think this is a ride most sceptics here have been on before, do read the previous 300ish pages of the previous threads. Nothing you have mentioned before is new.

I'm interested in discussing the assassination of JFK and if you are not, why are you discussing it?

You should also check up on how long fingerprints remain on different materials and what signs you would expect from older prints.

I have a fairly good understanding of the subject matter and I insist, it was fairly routine to fake them even as early as 1963. FBI did it. DPD did it.

You Amy also want to consider the effects of somebody using a rifle after Oswald. What signs would there be on the trigger guard for example, if prints had been smudged by somebody else?

What?

If the prints were faked, if the photos were faked, or the autopsy, there would be evidence of fakery.

Not necessarily, no.

All we ever get is CT advocates saying the evidence is not how they think it should look, with nothing mote than innuendo and talk of why it "must" have been altered.

No, "could" been altered. Big difference. Weigh the evidence.

After a while it just gets boring.

But, stop doing it then.

Especially when great conspiracy is read into simple mistakes and human error.

Possible signs of a cover up, yes. "Great conspiracy" is step two.

One day there will be evidence of somebody with a rifle on the grassy knoll, beyond a few impulses accoustically identical to scores of others on the same recording. Better yet there will be evidence another gunman was able to hit anything. That is when people will start to be interested again.

No one has been able to refute BB&N's acoustics evidence of five rifle shots fired that day. Many have tried.

But another ride down the same helterscelter wont do it.

As I said, nobody is forcing you, or?

 

[Cosmic Yak]

I think the unstated caveat on that was "that could have been done in the 1960s".
Not too many digital processing programmes, digital cameras, or even (despite having been invented in 1946) too many microwave ovens. Plus, they would have had to have Oswald's palm-prints some time beforehand, in order for any of this to have been possible.

The microwave oven was invented in 1946, and the first commercial available one was marketed and sold under the "Tappen" brand in 1955. In any case, instead of "hand putty", fine potting clay could be used and hardened in an ordinary oven.

I do wonder sometimes if people actually read my posts before replying.

LHO was in the US Marines from 1956 to 1959. I don't know about the US Marines, but I was definitely printed when I joined our military.

Even if not, LHO was court martialled (twice) so his prints would have been taken then.

Also, LHO was arrested in New Orleans on August 9, 1963 for disturbing the peace and he would definitely have been printed then.

Did they take palm prints? My post was specifically about palm prints.

To be clear, I do not believe in any of the JFK conspiracy theories that advocate involvement of anyone other than LHO "before the fact" (read my signature), but I am open to the idea that there may have been a conspiracy "after the fact" to cover up certain aspects of the case, probably to hide incompetence by one or more people at the time of the assassination or afterwards.

Do I believe that faking fingerprints was possible in 1963? Yes, I do

Do I believe that LHO's fingerprints were faked? No, I do not!

When we argue against CT nut-bars, we must do so using facts and truth and not resort to hand-waving away evidence or allegations, otherwise we are no better than them.

Oh, absolutely. You'll get no disagreement from me there. My point was simply to say that most of the methods in your links would not have been possible in 1963. I am all for considering both sides. If you have any links showing a) how palm prints could have been faked in 1963, b) whether that would produce the characteristics of the palm prints detailed by other posters, and c0 whether that could have been done in the relevant time frame, then that, IMHO, would be more valid.

 

[manifesto]

Oswald would have left lots of latent fingerprints during his time in custody:

1. Tape his palm print from, lets say, a glass.

2. Use the same tape on the rifle barrel, picking up the traces mixing the two.

3. Or, in reversed order.

Not possible?

 

[Sandy McCroskey]

Are you disputing the factual content of my first point?

I said Hank answered this question. Armstrong (and you, blindly following) is making something out of nothing. Maybe you didn't read Hank's answer:

"Do you still get your original checks returned to you by your bank? Or do you get copies, which are sufficient to establish what you wrote and who you wrote it to? If you go to your bank and argue you didn't write that check and they can't prove it because there's no original, do you think you'd get very far? But that's the silly argument you're advancing here. Only microfilm copies of the orders were retained by Kleins. Those microfilm copies were their business records. They are perfectly acceptable - unless the accused name is Oswald, for some reason."

You haven't responded to this point yet.