JFK Conspiracy Theories IV: The One With The Whales

[HSienzant]

If you have any evidence that Henry Hurt or Michael L. Kurtz are "conspiracy nuts" who misquote people left and right, please provide it here.

Henry Hurt wrote REASONABLE DOUBT, a typical conspiracy book in the first half where he gives the same generic arguments against Oswald being the shooter we're all familiar with. The second half is devoted to specific nonsense, where he blames a mental patient (Robert Easterling) for the assassination. https://www.amazon.com/Reasonable-Doubt-Investigation-Assassination-Kennedy/dp/0030040590

Michael Kurtz wrote CRIME OF THE CENTURY, another typical conspiracy book. https://www.amazon.com/Crime-Century-Assassination-Michael-Kurtz/dp/087049824X

I am not about to write a review of either, but if you have some specific issues you wish to talk about, I'd be happy to discuss. I own both books and read them decades ago. There's nothing worthwhile in either.

Until then, I'll tend to think they were telling the truth when they said Burkley told them he believed in a conspiracy.

What's the precise quote?

Dr. Burkley apparently told a family member once that he thought Oswald had outsider help

So only more hearsay offered here by you.

but it is clear otherwise that Burkley thought it was a conspiracy because of the medical evidence he saw.

Your supposition does not rise to the level of evidence.

You talk about 15 years this, 30 years that, it's all because the original records and testimonies aren't good enough for you.

On the contrary, I reference the original records and the original testimony. You reference recollections from the ARRB, 33 years after the assassination, or the HSCA, 15 years after the assassination.

I don't know if you saw my edit, but I ask again, how could Dr. Finck see this hypothetical cowlick entry wound if that part of the skull was removed to get to the brain?

Asked and answered. Given the conflict between what the autopsists noted they saw on the night of the assassination, and the recollections from 33 years after the assassination, doesn't that call into question the recollections rather than the first day records?

Hank

 

[traxy]

You are confusing what the pathologists did in removing the brain versus a gunshot wound. As has been pointed out, huge difference.

The photo I'm talking about was taken before the brain was removed.

Horne proves the autopsy photos were manipulated with plenty of evidence and not to be trusted.

Horne does nothing of the sort. Horne is not an expert in photography. An entire panel of photographic experts examined the autopsy photos for the HSCA and found them to be original and unaltered.

Horne is a huckster selling snake oil.

 

[BStrong]

According to all of the convincing evidence I've seen the wound was not to the top of Kennedy's heard. It was in the right rear as evidence by all of the 22 Nov testimony. That includes the Dr's at Parkland and Clint Hill, perhaps others, as well. The stuff at the top of his head was done by pathologists at Bethesda during the removal of the brain prior to the autopsy.

I am no longer interested in participating in this thread. There are simply too many here that seem to think they know everything there is to know and who's opinions are more valid than anyone else.That simply results in continued bickering.

A good example is someone telling me that Horne was not a Dr., as if I didn't know that already. I never claimed he was and as far as I know, he never claimed that either. He merely spent several years reviewing the available documents, photos, x-rays etc and interviewing hundreds if not thousands of people with first hand knowledge of the events they were questioned about.

His account and conclusions make more sense to me than anything else I've reviewed over the years. Bye.

Then there are those who use The Columbus System for determining factual information.

They find a fact that they agree with and believe and land on it, never to be dissuaded by proven fact.

See all the absolute nonsense about the actual mechanics involved in the assassination -it was far from an impossible feat of marksmanship - longest distance 88 yards at a human sized target. The rifle wasn't the worst rifle in history as has been asserted by people who've never squeezed a trigger and the 6.5 Carcano round is good, and actually is close to being great.

 

[Tolls]

Which is how you end up down the CT rabbit hole.

Start from "well, the autopsy shows issues, and people I've read seem to think there was more than 1 headshot", or some such start point, and then you end up having to shoehorn that into the events in the Plaza. And that's when you end up with magic weapons, or ultra-sneaky assassins hiding in sewers, or with back firing guns...and so on. All because you picked a poor position to defend.

This is no different than someone latching onto the collapse of the towers and thinking (or reading) that there were explosives involved, and then having to work around the logistical issues to make that "real".

Reheat's only at the start, there. Hopefully that's as far as it goes.

 

[MicahJava]

Would it even be physically possible to remove the brain from the cranium without removing the part of the skull which had this alleged cowlick entry? There's just not enough room. So how could Dr. Finck say he saw the small head wound in the skull?

 

[BStrong]

Would it even be physically possible to remove the brain from the cranium without removing the part of the skull which had this alleged cowlick entry? There's just not enough room. So how could Dr. Finck say he saw the small head wound in the skull?

It's a human thing called being wrong.

Even physicians fall victim to it.

 

[MicahJava]

It's a human thing called being wrong.

Even physicians fall victim to it.

So all those times Dr. Finck described the entry wound, he was just hallucinating?

 

[BStrong]

So all those times Dr. Finck described the entry wound, he was just hallucinating?

Or was mistaken, or any one of a number of known human behaviors.

 

[HSienzant]

Would it even be physically possible to remove the brain from the cranium without removing the part of the skull which had this alleged cowlick entry? There's just not enough room. So how could Dr. Finck say he saw the small head wound in the skull?

Ummm, granting for the sake of argument your supposition is correct, he saw the hole before any sawing was done and before the brain was removed?

What argument are you trying to make?

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

According to all of the convincing evidence I've seen the wound was not to the top of Kennedy's heard.

Look at the Zapruder film. Where does it show the damage? Top-right, above the right ear, consistent with the autopsy photos and the Dealey Plaza witnesses.

Like, of all people, Abraham Zapruder: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JLqOGEBcjnI
(1:15 into the video)

Not the back of the head.

Billy Newman puts the damage in the same location, in the temple, in this same day interview broadcast live: http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/11/bill-and-gayle-newman.html (he points to the left temple, but clearly he couldn't see that from his location to the right of the Presidential limo). (1:27 into the video)

Not the back of the head.

So there's three possibilities I can think of. Feel free to pick one, or add to this list:

(a) the President's wounds were altered on the ride to Parkland so the physicians could see a back of head wound.
(b) Newman and Zapruder and other Dealey Plaza witnesses were all lying, and the Z-film is forged.
(c) The Parkland witnesses were mistaken and misled by the Trendelenburg position the President was placed in. (see conspiracy theorist Pat Speer's article: http://www.patspeer.com/reasontobelieve)

It was in the right rear as evidence by all of the 22 Nov testimony. That includes the Dr's at Parkland and Clint Hill, perhaps others, as well.

Not all. One must ignore the earliest witnesses, those on Elm Street who witnessed the assassination as it happened. They put the damage above the right ear. Just like we see in those 'altered' autopsy films, and the 'altered' Zapruder film. How much evidence do you need to believe is altered or forged to believe in a conspiracy? Almost all of it.

The stuff at the top of his head was done by pathologists at Bethesda during the removal of the brain prior to the autopsy.

Curiously, one can see the top of the had being removed in Dealey Plaza in frame Z313. Was that film altered?

I am no longer interested in participating in this thread.

You came on in a huff, recommended a six-hour video, and left the same way. There's scant evidence you were ever inclined to actually participate here.

There are simply too many here that seem to think they know everything there is to know and who's opinions are more valid than anyone else. That simply results in continued bickering.

Yourself included, right? You posted a video, telling us you found it convincing, but declined to discuss it in whole or part. What about those actions speak of someone whose opinions aren't already formed and appears intent on lecturing to the rest of us?

A good example is someone telling me that Horne was not a Dr., as if I didn't know that already. I never claimed he was and as far as I know, he never claimed that either.

That was me. I pointed it out because you're not citing the doctors; you're citing Doug Horne's interpretations of the doctors testimony and other statements. You are assuming he is giving it to you straight, and not cutting corners to get from A to Z. You have not validated his claims whatsoever. Have you?

He merely spent several years reviewing the available documents, photos, x-rays etc and interviewing hundreds if not thousands of people with first hand knowledge of the events they were questioned about.

He joined the ARRB as a committed conspiracist, it's not surprising he came out the same way and wrote a series of books about his 'findings' (really, just cherry-picking quotes and recollections from 33 years after the fact to fit his hypothesis).

His account and conclusions make more sense to me than anything else I've reviewed over the years. Bye.

What part of being JFK made him immune to a punk with a grudge and a gun?

I asked a few simple questions in my prior post. Here they are again:

Maybe you can answer a simple question Horne won't touch: If JFK's wounds necessitated alterations, why didn't Connally's? And if they did, where and when were his wounds altered?

Putting it another way, why would sane conspirators try to frame a lone-nut shooting only from behind by shooting the victim from multiple locations and then have to jump through hoops to make it look like a lone nut did all the shooting? Why not just shoot the victim only from behind, with one weapon, and frame the lone-nut for owning that weapon?

Alternately, why didn't they simply reveal how Jack, the family man, was actually up to his eyeballs in mistresses? See the Profumo Affair if you're unaware of what the repercussions there can be.

Can you tell me where Doug Horne deals with these issues in that six-hour video? I'd love to see his responses.

Hank

 

[Reheat]

The entire principle behind anything at all that might have been modified was to convince everyone that this was the result of the lone nut shooting from behind and not a conspiracy.

Conally's wounds were consistent with a shot from the rear, Kennedy's wounds were not all consistent with that. So, there was no need to modify anything at all regarding Conally's wounds to accomplish the lone gunman theory.

I don't know Horne's history. Perhaps he was a looney tune prior to the ARRB. However, he does do a nice job of explaining things with virtually no unanswered questions and many interviews with principles.

Look I've been to Dealey Plaza. I know the size. Like everyone else who's been there, I was surprised that it was so small. If Oswald fired the supposed 3 shots as quickly as proposed it was a miracle. Not entirely impossible, but implausible.

Kennedy's wound in the back were obviously from behind. However, the throat wound appeared to have been an entry wound, not an exit wound. That would in and of itself require a conspiracy. The pristine "magic bullet" theory is simply total BS. I know the theory on the seat arrangement, but a bullet of that type can not do the damage it supposedly did and be totally pristine like it was.

As far as Kennedy's dalliances with women, that would have required that he be impeached, but adultery was not a crime then or now. We know that Johnson intensely disliked Kennedy and there were substantial rumors that he would not be his running mate in '64. As ambitious and ruthless as Johnson was it is easy to believe he was in on a conspiracy. There is also evidence that Johnson would be indicted in the Billy Sol Estes scandal. He had plenty of reasons to want Kennedy gone.

For all of this to work the Zuperder film would have to have been modified. I know the theory gets pretty complicated, but there are discrepancies in it. The other films do not show the head shot clearly enough to assume anything.

I will stay and discuss this in a rational manner, but I'm not going to be treated like an idiot with snide remarks and snark. I know it's easy to see a conspiracy where there is none and my attitude may be a result of a intense dislike of Johnson. I loathed the man for many reasons, so perhaps I'm predisposed to believing in a conspiracy in this case. I'm not a truther or anything resembling one and I don't invent conspiracies out of whole cloth, so don't imply that I am.

 

[Meadmaker]

Look I've been to Dealey Plaza. I know the size. Like everyone else who's been there, I was surprised that it was so small. If Oswald fired the supposed 3 shots as quickly as proposed it was a miracle. Not entirely impossible, but implausible. ....

I will stay and discuss this in a rational manner, but I'm not going to be treated like an idiot with snide remarks and snark. I know it's easy to see a conspiracy where there is none and my attitude may be a result of a intense dislike of Johnson. I loathed the man for many reasons, so perhaps I'm predisposed to believing in a conspiracy in this case. I'm not a truther or anything resembling one and I don't invent conspiracies out of whole cloth, so don't imply that I am.

Ok. I'll bite. I haven't done the JFK conspiracy thing in a long time. I've forgotten a lot of what I used to know, so I might be missing some details, but I will try and discuss this in a rational manner.

Once upon a time, I was a conspiracy believer myself, although it was a very long time ago. I came around to the lone gunman theory sometime around age 20, which was over 30 years ago.

One thing I have learned from long participation on conspiracy threads is that the discussions are often whack-a-mole style. You can't nail down anyone. When a position becomes untenable, the subject changes. I've managed to avoid that somewhat in the past, but it happens a lot. Let's see if we can avoid that.

I want to begin with the highlighted assertion above, in part because it was instrumental in my own conversion from conspiracy believer to lone nut believer.

Why do you say that? I don't think it is implausible in the least. One thing I've noticed is that most books on the subject really distort the amount of time available, shortening it considerably. Bearing that in mind, how long do you think he had to fire the three shots? Are you familiar with what the Warren Report says about that time frame, and about what subsequent research has added to either confirm or refute the time available that was stated in the Warren Report?

 

[MicahJava]

Ummm, granting for the sake of argument your supposition is correct, he saw the hole before any sawing was done and before the brain was removed?

What argument are you trying to make?

Hank

What?! It's well established that Finck showed up later in the autopsy, after the brain was removed.

From HSCA testimony:

Dr. PETTY: All right. Now if I understand you correctly, then there was a restriction; that is, that the organs of the head or the head only should be examined, is that correct?

Dr. FINCK: At the beginning there was that restriction. As a matter of fact, when I reached the hospital, as far as I can remember, the brain had been removed.

So you're left with nothing but maybe saying that Dr. Finck only saw the small head wound when previously-removed skull fragments were fitted together, and NOTHING he says in his testimonies clearly indicate that. He always talked like he could see the entire hole in the cranium. To me, the cowlick entry wound theory is like saying the Earth is flat.

 

[MicahJava]

Ok. I'll bite. I haven't done the JFK conspiracy thing in a long time. I've forgotten a lot of what I used to know, so I might be missing some details, but I will try and discuss this in a rational manner.

Once upon a time, I was a conspiracy believer myself, although it was a very long time ago. I came around to the lone gunman theory sometime around age 20, which was over 30 years ago.

One thing I have learned from long participation on conspiracy threads is that the discussions are often whack-a-mole style. You can't nail down anyone. When a position becomes untenable, the subject changes. I've managed to avoid that somewhat in the past, but it happens a lot. Let's see if we can avoid that.

I want to begin with the highlighted assertion above, in part because it was instrumental in my own conversion from conspiracy believer to lone nut believer.

Why do you say that? I don't think it is implausible in the least. One thing I've noticed is that most books on the subject really distort the amount of time available, shortening it considerably. Bearing that in mind, how long do you think he had to fire the three shots? Are you familiar with what the Warren Report says about that time frame, and about what subsequent research has added to either confirm or refute the time available that was stated in the Warren Report?

Many still cling to the notion that there was a "first missed shot" before 190-224, often due to the acoustic evidence, Rosemary Willis, or Connally's quick head turn, however I really think the evidence overwhelmingly supports the first loud shot coming at z190-224, slightly before or after the Limousine went behind the sign. Dealey Plaza photographers Robert Croft, Hugh Betzner, and Phillip Willis all orient the first shot as coming at about this time, naming specific photographs they took as clear markers. Phillip Willis actually said his fifth photograph (equivalent of z202 or z210) was snapped as the result of a startle reaction by him at the first loud shot.

Studying the eyewitness accounts, I really think the best option is to have the first shot at z190-224, and the last two shots bunched together. Some witnesses apparently said they only heard two shots because the last two shots sounded so close together (depends on where you were standing).

From what I understand, the scope would not be accurate for the first shot on on a newly-assembled rifle like that, so Lone Nutters would then be forced to say he used iron sights. Oh, and I guess Conally's recollections are red-hot conspiracy evidence because he always swore he heard a loud shot a moment before he himself was struck. In a lone assassin Carcano-Depository scenario, the last two shots could maybe be bunched together if the shooter haphazardly cycled and bolt and shot without aiming for the last shot after the z313 shot.

 

[Reheat]

Why do you say that? I don't think it is implausible in the least. One thing I've noticed is that most books on the subject really distort the amount of time available, shortening it considerably. Bearing that in mind, how long do you think he had to fire the three shots? Are you familiar with what the Warren Report says about that time frame, and about what subsequent research has added to either confirm or refute the time available that was stated in the Warren Report?

The Warren Commission time calculated was 8.3". You're right, I've seen as little as 6.x". Note, the Italian team could not repeat the feat, however, a police team did duplicate the feat a little better. Note: Although Oswald was a Marine, he scored the lowest possible score to pass and that was likely at the peak of his proficiency.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...-had-no-time-to-fire-all-Kennedy-bullets.html

I have a British Enfield, reputed to be the fastest bolt action rifle made for repeating shots and I seriously doubt I could recycle three rounds in that time and hit a moving target even at 50 yards, let along any further. An expert rifleman could fire 20-30 rounds in a minute using the Enfield. But, a Carcano is not an Enfield by any stretch.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lee–Enfield

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carcano

BTW: I have no problem discussing this with you as you're a reasonable person.... I've gone the other way. I was just beginning University when this happened, so I didn't have a lot of time to keep up. I accepted the Warren Commission Report with doubt, but I've changed my mind over the years and seriously doubt Oswald did it alone. With all that was at stake for Johnson and his Texas cronies a lot was at stake for them. I don't speculate about who was involved, but I do believe Johnson was behind it....

 

[Reheat]

What?! It's well established that Finck showed up later in the autopsy, after the brain was removed.

That's what Horne says. BTW, where are the photos of the sectioned brain to determine the direction the bullet was traveling. For that matter, where is the brain now.

Horne says the autopsy begin a little after 8:00 and Finck arrived about 8:30. I doubt that's enough time to remove the brain. Horne also contends the brain was examined sometime between 29 Nov and 1 Dec. Again, I've never seen any photos of it and there is no report that I know about.

 

[BStrong]

The Warren Commission time calculated was 8.3". You're right, I've seen as little as 6.x". Note, the Italian team could not repeat the feat, however, a police team did duplicate the feat a little better. Note: Although Oswald was a Marine, he scored the lowest possible score to pass and that was likely at the peak of his proficiency.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...-had-no-time-to-fire-all-Kennedy-bullets.html

I have a British Enfield, reputed to be the fastest bolt action rifle made for repeating shots and I seriously doubt I could recycle three rounds in that time and hit a moving target even at 50 yards, let along any further. An expert rifleman could fire 20-30 rounds in a minute using the Enfield. But, a Carcano is not an Enfield by any stretch.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lee–Enfield

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carcano

BTW: I have no problem discussing this with you as you're a reasonable person.... I've gone the other way. I was just beginning University when this happened, so I didn't have a lot of time to keep up. I accepted the Warren Commission Report with doubt, but I've changed my mind over the years and seriously doubt Oswald did it alone. With all that was at stake for Johnson and his Texas cronies a lot was at stake for them. I don't speculate about who was involved, but I do believe Johnson was behind it....

LHO only had to cycle the action twice. The first round was free.

Your inability to duplicate LHO's performance isn't any more germane than my ability to exceed his abilities.

 

[Reheat]

LHO only had to cycle the action twice. The first round was free.

Your inability to duplicate LHO's performance isn't any more germane than my ability to exceed his abilities.

That's true, but I have doubts that he did that based on a moving target in addition to the cheap 4X scope on the rifle. It's possible, but I think improbable. If that were the only issue I might accept it, but it isn't the only issue.

 

[Tolls]

But he didn't do it 3 times.
He missed the first one and, arguably, missed one of the others, depending on whether he was going for a head shot or the body.

 

[traxy]

Oh wow...lots of BS to unpack here, not sure where to start.

Conally's wounds were consistent with a shot from the rear, Kennedy's wounds were not all consistent with that.

Falsehood #1. All of Kennedy's wounds were consistent with a shot from the rear. The back wound is not in dispute. The throat wound lacked the ragged edges typical of an exit wound because it blasted out right next to Kennedy's tie knot. The head wound has an entry in the back of the head as demonstrated by every photo, x-ray and video documenting the event.

If Oswald fired the supposed 3 shots as quickly as proposed it was a miracle. Not entirely impossible, but implausible.

Falsehood #2. Nothing at all miraculous about Oswald getting off 3 shots in 8.4 seconds. Not even "implausible".

The pristine "magic bullet" theory is simply total BS. I know the theory on the seat arrangement, but a bullet of that type can not do the damage it supposedly did and be totally pristine like it was.

Falsehood #4. A 6.5mm full metal jacketed round can most certainly pass through multiple men. Also, the bullet was in no way "totally pristine". It was flattened at the base, which you'd need to take a hammer to a regular bullet to accomplish. The reason it didn't "mushroom" like most conspiracy believers expect is that it didn't hit any bones nose first.

For all of this to work the Zuperder film would have to have been modified. I know the theory gets pretty complicated, but there are discrepancies in it. The other films do not show the head shot clearly enough to assume anything.

Falsehood #5. The ZAPRUDER film was not altered. There is absolutely no credible evidence to suggest that it was, and no conceivable timeline where this could have realistically occurred.

This is where Doug Horne crosses over from harmless kook to outright liar. Horne had been convinced of Z film alteration for years. During his work with the ARRB he hired Rollie Zavada to study the original film in the archives. Horne was convinced Zavada would find evidence of alteration. Zavada was the lead technician in the development of Kodachrome II film for Kodak in the 1960s, which is the stock of film the Z film was shot on. Zavada studied the original film and Zapruders camera in depth and found that the film in the National Archives is an unaltered in camera original shot on Zapruder's Bell & Howell camera to the exclusion of all other cameras.

Zavada was a stone cold expert and he killed the alteration arguments in one stroke.

What did Horne do? He attacked Zavada personally and accused him of all manner of things, from incompetence to outright dishonesty. It was a sorry display.