JFK Conspiracy Theories IV: The One With The Whales

[HSienzant]

Hank,

Wasn't there a specific threat in Tampa that came to light when the Secret Service agents collaborated on a book a few years back? Or am I wrong?

(Not trying to give Manifesto a lifeline, but the trip to Tampa did cause great concern.)

Let me expand on my prior answer.

Here's the article posted by Vince Palamara (scroll down).

http://vincepalamara.com/2012/07/09/111863-tampa-fl-threats/

Note however at the end whom the document references: a man named John William Warrington, a mental patient.

However, through sleight of hand, the accused man today is someone else entirely: Gilberto Policarpo Lopez.

See this story:

http://jfkcountercoup.blogspot.com/2012/07/tampa-plot-in-retrospect.html

Kennedy received lots of threats, most of which, like this one, was investigated by the Secret Service.

There's no credible evidence of a plot, or of any linkage to Oswald, or to the Dallas assassination. That's the point I was making to Manifesto.

Conspiracy theorists simply take these random episodes and assume everything they need to prove to assert, as Manifesto did, that the conspiratorial plot that supposedly ensnared Oswald extended to Tampa and Miami. But those claims are simply assumptions.

Yeah, there as a mental patient who made claims that he would attempt to kill JFK in Tampa. But so what?

And how does the accused go from John William Warrington to Gilberto Policarpo Lopez?

I'd love to see the evidence, but as the above article shows, there isn't any -- as always, it's all simply assumptions.

Hank

 

[Bubba]

CTs never explain why whichever shadowy group was behind the assassination chose a plan with such a ridiculously high chance of failure. All it takes is a little drizzle in Dalla for Kennedy to put the top on the car and thwart the plan.

Amateurs probably wouldn't have a back up plan or two.

 

[Bubba]

Chuckle

One would also have to ask who would be paying a shill? Who exactly would care? Everyone who would have had a hand in a conspiracy against JFK would be dead or very elderly.

Somehow overlooking 'heirs' and or associates etc still operating in guilty (rogue or not) organizations/offices/departments still associated with and, knowingly, benefiting today, in such a hypothetical coup ?

They'd care.

They'd pay shills.

 

[HSienzant]

Maybe it's just because I'm not a big aficionado of Kennedy conspiracy theories, but that's one I haven't heard before.
It's not quite as good as the claim I once heard that Kennedy was assassinated because he was planning to give a speech going public with the US government's secret diplomatic dealings with the Greys. (Two great tastes that taste great together.)

Believe it or not, there's also the claim that JFK was killed for someone to make money in the stock market; the argument going that this unnamed someone shorted the market, and the surest way to make the market drop is to kill the President. It did have the desired effect, the stock market did close lower that day; and if you had appropriately shorted one or more stocks, you could have raked in millions.

Of course, there's also the theory that JFK wasn't shot at all, that it was police officer J.D.Tippit who was shot riding in the limo (theory advanced by George C. Thomson in 1964). This theory is not to be confused with the theory that J.D.Tippit's autopsy evidence was swapped for JFK's (theory advanced by Robert Morningstar in the 1990s). Tippit has also been accused of being a shooter on the knoll (the "Badgeman" image) as well as the person shooting from the Depository (WHO KILLED KENNEDY, 1964, by Thomas Buchanan).

So Tippit, in addition to being shot at 10th and Patton, was quite a busy fellow that day, if these theories are to be believed, being in three places at once during the assassination, being both one of the victims and two of the shooters.

Thomson: http://whoshotjfk.wikispaces.com/The+Mother+of+All+Conspiracy+Theories

Morningstar:
http://www.redicecreations.com/article.php?id=17710

I think it's safe to say there are more theories than there were witnesses in Dealey Plaza.

Hank

 

[Tomtomkent]

To be fair to Morningstar, when he wrote his blog is there were people arguing over the conflicting JFK autopsy photos available on the internet. That Tippet's and Kennedy's both found their way onto the web, and were both presented as JFK was a neat solution. If the reality was more a case of CT's wanting to see medical evidence that better matched their claim, than any deliberate conspiracy to switch the two.

It was Robert Ramsey, of the Fortean Times and the Lobster magazines who first (to my knowledge) worked out what Morningstar had stumbled on, in the mainstream(ish) media, and did give Morningstar credit.

 

[Garrison]

Amateurs probably wouldn't have a back up plan or two.

Somehow overlooking 'heirs' and or associates etc still operating in guilty (rogue or not) organizations/offices/departments still associated with and, knowingly, benefiting today, in such a hypothetical coup ?

I rather think you have to choose one or another here. Either this was a group of amateurs who had no choice but to carry out a high risk plan(though even this scenari begs the question why go with such a cheap gun. Why not club together for something high end?) Or it was a well connected group of powerful people who with so much to lose have every reason to avoid a plan that's bascially a roll of the dice.

And I have to register my incredulity that any organized group could keep this a secret for 60 years.

 

[Bubba]

Posted by Bubba View Post
Amateurs probably wouldn't have a back up plan or two.

Posted by Bubba View Post
Somehow overlooking 'heirs' and or associates etc still operating in guilty (rogue or not) organizations/offices/departments still associated with and, knowingly, benefiting today, in such a hypothetical coup ?

I rather think you have to choose one or another here. Either this was a group of amateurs who had no choice but to carry out a high risk plan(though even this scenari begs the question why go with such a cheap gun. Why not club together for something high end?) Or it was a well connected group of powerful people who with so much to lose have every reason to avoid a plan that's bascially a roll of the dice.

And I have to register my incredulity that any organized group could keep this a secret for 60 years.

No. In my two comments above I was not necessarily advancing one or the other ie amateurs vs 'a well connected group of powerful people'.

Rather, I was suggesting ideas for either choice, per the posters' comments I was responding to.

 

[HSienzant]

To be fair to Morningstar, when he wrote his blog is there were people arguing over the conflicting JFK autopsy photos available on the internet. That Tippet's and Kennedy's both found their way onto the web, and were both presented as JFK was a neat solution.

There are no conflicting JFK autopsy photos. If you believe so, let's discuss. Present a link to the supposed conflicting photos, and explicate what's in conflict.

Tippit's wounds were argued to have been presented by conspirators as JFK's wounds by Morningstar, not from any Tippit autopsy photographs, but from the Tippit autopsy report. He claimed to have noticed a supposed similarity in the wounds, but there is no such similarity:

Here's what Morningstar said:
"While studying the entry wound diagrams by Dr. Rose, I saw a remarkable similarity between Dr. Rose's Tippit diagrams and the wound I perceived in the purported JFK lateral x-ray. I realized that the lateral x-ray purported to be that of the late President might in fact be that of Officer J. D. Tippit."

See the entry wound diagram at this page for Tippit's head wound: http://www.redicecreations.com/article.php?id=17710

JFK had the entire top of his head removed by a bullet that created an entry wound in the back of the head (according to his autopsy report, and his autopsy x-rays and photos), and then exited the right top of his skull. Tippit had an entry wound at the temple, the bullet did not exit, and his skull was intact. There is no similarity in the wounds, other than what Morningstar imagines.

It is the same old conspiracy theorist conjecture, presented as fact.

Morningstar is arguing that Tippit's autopsy photo was switched by conspirators and presented as JFK's in a deliberate attempt to mislead, but he presents no evidence of that.

If the reality was more a case of CT's wanting to see medical evidence that better matched their claim, than any deliberate conspiracy to switch the two.

Not sure what you're trying to say here. Not sure if the "If" in your quoted sentence above is necessary; and if it's removed, I agree to an extent... Morningstar was simply presenting Tippit's autopsy diagrams and arguing that Tippit's wounds could have been presented as JFK's, but he presents no evidence that's the case, and he finds "similarities" in the wounds that simply don't exist in an effort to support his arguments.

It was Robert Ramsey, of the Fortean Times and the Lobster magazines who first (to my knowledge) worked out what Morningstar had stumbled on, in the mainstream(ish) media, and did give Morningstar credit.

I'm confused.... What exactly do you think Morningstar stumbled upon, except assuming what he needed to prove -- that Tippit's autopsy photos were falsely being represented as JFK's?

Hank

 

[Tomtomkent]

I'm sorry. I didn't make myself clear, because this is something I went over, back with Robert Prey.

There are no conflicting autopsy photos. But some years ago if you did a google search for JFK autopsy photos there were the JFK photos (with the wounds we know and understand), and other photos that appeared to be JFK, that CTs also claimed were JFK. And yes, as they appeared to show JFK with a wound that matched being shot from the front, I think some people were eager to believe was JFK.

Morningstar identified these as being Tippets (hence appearing to have matched the dates and location etc). But he pretty much proved it, while stumbling around looking for evidence the bodies had been switched. IIRC Morningstar was able to show that Tippet was nicknamed JFK by his fellow officers, because of a passing resemblance.

Pretty soon after it was in the mainstream. Now when you google JFK autopsy photos you will probably only find the genuine articles. Two sets, one considerably cleaned up and sanitized, but both of the same body. The confusion has dropped away, and the conversation has quietly moved on.

I don't think the "other" photos were taken seriously by many researchers.

 

[Tomtomkent]

I know CTs like to claim Connelly insisted he was shot twice until he died, but did he? I seem to remember a frame by frame analysis of the Z film predicting that the bullet that struck him was tumbling too slowly to damage himself. IIRC Connelly measured his scars and found a match to a side on bullet, retracting his claim in the face of evidence.

Does that ring a bell with anybody? I'm away from my computer so cant google it at the moment.

 

[MicahJava]

Robert,

Your channel on the JFK assassination has really caught my interest. I am new to most of this. What I am most skeptical of is that you consider object 2 in the picture the true bullet wound, and object 1 is just a drop of blood or something unrelated.

Wouldn't this be the world's tiniest bullet wound? Especially if you believe that such a tiny bullet passed through both men. I can see the darkened area around object 2 and I can see how the ruler is turned to measure that one and not object 1, but it's still very tiny. Most people would consider object 2 as a bullet wound as simply being disinformation.

 

[Tomtomkent]

Why would you consider it the true bullet wound? Based on what analysis?

 

[Tomtomkent]

And if the ruler is measuring it, why is it mid scale? How do you discount the measure being there as a scale reference?

 

[MicahJava]

There are only three proven shots. Two hit the passengers, one hit the traffic gantry.

Robert: Being able to show us that you think what witnesses saw or heard is compatible with any other shot, rather than assuming the Z film shows 'startle reactions', why not show us the physical evidence for other bullets being fired.

Show us the bullets, or their impact on physical evidence, then you can discuss as and when they may have been fired.

If you can not show us that the bullets made any mark on the world, then no matter how convinced you happen to be, it can not be stated with any confidence that anybody reacted to bullets over any other noise in the chaotic situation.

Please stop trying to dress speculation as fact.

Woah, woah, what's this about a bullet hitting the traffic gantry?

 

[BStrong]

Robert,

Your channel on the JFK assassination has really caught my interest. I am new to most of this. What I am most skeptical of is that you consider object 2 in the picture the true bullet wound, and object 1 is just a drop of blood or something unrelated.

Wouldn't this be the world's tiniest bullet wound? Especially if you believe that such a tiny bullet passed through both men. I can see the darkened area around object 2 and I can see how the ruler is turned to measure that one and not object 1, but it's still very tiny. Most people would consider object 2 as a bullet wound as simply being disinformation.

[qimg]https://i.imgur.com/FIMVRMf.jpg[/qimg]

The 6.5 mm class of projectiles have the best sectional density of common military rifle caliber projectiles - see:

http://www.chuckhawks.com/want_better_sd.htm

 

[Tomtomkent]

Woah, woah, what's this about a bullet hitting the traffic gantry?

Asked and answered a few posts later. IIRC sometime around the last few years traces of a bullet impact were found on a traffic gantry after some film footage of the assassination was stabilised. If I am wrong I am happy to be corrected.

 

[MicahJava]

Why would you consider it the true bullet wound? Based on what analysis?

Object 1 is larger than the diameter of a 6.5mm bullet as well as being asymmetrical, while object 2 perfectly matches it. Object 2 also appears to have an abrasion ring around it, while object 1 does not.

 

[JayUtah]

Object 1 is larger than the diameter of a 6.5mm bullet...

Because human skin is in no way elastic.

 

[MicahJava]

Because human skin is in no way elastic.

Usually, that's an argument for why bullet holes are sometimes smaller than the diameter of the bullet used to make it.

 

[vtbub]

Asked and answered a few posts later. IIRC sometime around the last few years traces of a bullet impact were found on a traffic gantry after some film footage of the assassination was stabilised. If I am wrong I am happy to be corrected.

Wasn't that a NatGeo documentary?

IIRC, they couldn't quite say for certain it hit there, but the odds were very high. A fascinating hour to watch.