...please tell me this is actually a thing that someone believes happened...
JFK Conspiracy Theories IV: The One With The Whales
- Thread starter Robert Harris
- Start date
- Status
...please tell me this is actually a thing that someone believes happened...
MicahJava
Illuminator
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2016
- Messages
- 3,039
Traxy, that estimate is too low for the Grassy Knoll witnesses. Even John McAdams put it higher, and he's a lying bastard. The real estimate is about 50/50 or as low as 40/60.
HSienzant
Philosopher
Great, now try explaining why they didn't proceed along the lines of least dangerous option to most dangerous.
Oswald had two options as the limo went past: Shot with his revolver from the street level, shoot from further away in a sniper position with the rifle. He didn't have the option of revealing JFK's mistresses, nor the option to frame someone else from their place of work. His options, as a lone assassin, were far more limited than a vast conspiracy that could alter films and the President's body to frame a patsy.
Pretty sure you wanted us to watch it; you may not have come out and said that, but you posted the link and said you found it convincing; claiming he dealt with all the problems save one. Regardless, it appears you are now disavowing the body alteration thesis, which is Doug Horne's baby. True?
Well, there's always Johnson in the back of the plane, as suggested by the appropriately named Paul Krassner in the pages of the Realist: http://www.ep.tc/realist/74/18.html
Based on what evidence?
I'm well aware of that. I'm also aware of the propensity of conspiracy theorists I debate online -and I've been doing this since the early 1990s and the days of Prodigy - to suggest whatever they think as a possibility, based on nothing more than a need to believe it. We're back to you suggesting shots from multiple locations, but you still haven't provided one iota of evidence for shots from anywhere. I'll grant the sixth floor southeastern most corner window as one location. What evidence you got for any other other locations?
I am gathering you're starting to see the whole body alteration thing as a house of cards. But body alteration only gets proposed to get around the fact that the autopsists found no evidence of shots from the front or either side, only evidence of two shots from behind. Thus, if you want to cling to the multiple shooter scenario, unless you conjecture all but Oswald missed, you have to explain away the lack of evidence pointing to other shooters as
(a) either the pathologists all lied (many early critics)
(b) the pathologists were duped by alterations to the body (Lifton)
(c) the pathologists did the alterations (Horne)
Of course, those who believe Oswald did it alone have no problems accepting the results of the autopsy on its face.
I've read a lot of bad things about LBJ. I see very little in the way of evidence for most of them. I would still like to know your thoughts on why the supposed plotters didn't simply shoot JFK with one weapon from the Depository, and then frame Oswald for owning that weapon. That seems the cleanest and easiest way to accomplish the assassination. Of course, if you've got an unlimited budget and unlimited time, then you might want something more complex, like shooting the President from multiple locations and then altering all the films, altering the body, killing contrary witnesses, and planting and substituting evidence out the whazoo.
There's more -- Are you also not aware that among Oswald's possessions after the assassination were found a series of photographs of General Walker's home - taken with the Oswald's Imperial Reflex brand camera, to the exclusion of all other cameras in the world? Due to the visibility of some construction in the background, the photos could be determined to have been taken in late March of 1963, about two weeks before the shooting of Walker.
Walker's house. Quite possibly the same way he got his rifle into the Depository.
Hank
Substitute whatever numbers you feel are appropriate. The questions are the same.
Who's correct? The all knoll witnesses or the all depository witnesses? And if echoes in Dealey Plaza are not the reason for the discrepancy, give me a better reason.
HSienzant
Philosopher
Not at all. Either the witnesses can count to four or they can't. Yet 90% of the witnesses said three shots, no more, no less. More witnesses said 'two shots' than said 'four or more'. If they can't count to four, why give credence to the witnesses who said 'all the shots came from the knoll'? You yourself know that's wrong.
Based on what studies do you suggest this?
Sorry, you're now employing the logical fallacy known as shifting the burden of proof. It's not emcumbent on me to provide reasons or evidence to doubt your assertions. It's encumbent on YOU to provide reasons and evidence to prove your assertions. What you think might have happened is not evidence, and need not be disproved. We've discussed this in the past on numerous occasions.
Well, now you just have to provide the evidence of these additional shooters and provide the evidence of their use of noise suppressors.
So why did only four witnesses think the shots came from multiple directions? According to you, it's not possible to confuse the sources, but you have a multitude of people saying "three shots, all from the Depository", and a lesser group saying "Three shots, from the knoll". According to your arguments, that's not possible, as it's easy to tell a shot from the knoll from a shot from the Depository.
40 is still not close to half.
So the House Select Committee on Assassination was comprised of a bunch of liars? Is that your argument now? So you won't be citing any conclusions they reach or any data they compiled from them in the future? Or are they only liars when they conclude something you don't like, and you reserve the right to cite in the future favorable data to your beliefs from anything else they studied?
Don't bother answering, everyone here already knows your answer.
No. Neither did you. Your argument here goes nowhere.
I did. And the conclusions by the experts who conducted that study. I didn't disregard their conclusions and post my own.
Last edited:
HSienzant
Philosopher
Did you miss the part where I cited Robert Frazier's claim that bullets sometimes do that? He didn't say they always do that. He said sometimes. How many times was the experiment you cite performed? Once?
Hardly sufficient to establish the point that it always happens that way.
Hank
HSienzant
Philosopher
So would echoes. How do we break the tie?
I know:
I'll supply evidence of echoes.
You supply evidence of rear snipers using noise-suppressors.
Sound fair?
Hank
HSienzant
Philosopher
David Lifton once published an article on this, that the knoll was actually an underground bunker and the assassins were disguised as trees. The part about the periscope & J.E. Hoover is made up, although admittedly it's hard to tell where fantasy starts and reality leaves off in the world of conspiracy theorists.
Another one is that JFK wasn't shoot in the limo, that was actually police officer J.D.Tippit riding in the limo who was shot. That's by someone else.
Hank
Last edited:
MicahJava
Illuminator
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2016
- Messages
- 3,039
IMO your resistance to the Grassy Knoll witnesses/acoustics/earshot experiment issue is pretty lame. But can you respond to my earlier post about being able to see the cranial opening in the back wound photo? As Dr. Humes diagrammed to the ARRB, the back wound photo appears to show the cranial opening extending well to the left of the midline, and that really causes a problem with Dr. Finck always saying he could see the small head wound intact when he arrived at the autopsy after the brain was removed. The part of the skull with the depressed cowlick fracture was removed to access the brain, so what was Dr. Finck talking about?
Can you link to what specifically you're talking about regarding the highlighted? When was it said, and by who? As a matter of fact, according to Finck, Humes didn't have to saw through any of the skull in order to remove the brain due to all the damage that Oswald's bullet did.
Pierre Finck said:
It's pretty clear from the above that you're misreading the x-rays somehow. Could you share your experience and training in reading x-rays and interpreting medical photos and x-rays?
As far as the earwitness testimony, you have a decision to make. Is it reliable or not? You can't just keep cherry picking your witnesses. If your entire method of choosing which witnesses you keep and which you believe are mistaken comes down to "Well, this witness supports my theory so they must be right and this witness doesn't support my theory so they must be wrong", no one is going to take you seriously. Only four earwitnesses heard shots from two directions. So is your claim now that there were only shots from the front? What exactly is your theory of the assassination? Or are you Just Asking Questions?
My intent was NOT to imply that Connally was in one any conspiracy, but that he merely cooperated with LBJ.. That's all.
You go from accusing me of being ridiculous and then pull an even worse trick yourself. I think you out did me on this one.
Why can't you answer a simple question Micah? Who's correct? The all knoll witnesses or the all depository witnesses?
MicahJava
Illuminator
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2016
- Messages
- 3,039
Cmikes, it is a common misconception (even pushed by researchers like Doug Horne) that Dr. Humes claimed that no sawing of the skull was necessary to remove the brain.
From Martin Hay's review of the documentary film A Coup In Camelot:
At the very heart of Horne's hypothesis is a comment made by Tom Robinson―an embalmer who was present for most of the autopsy―during a 1996 interview for the Assassination Records Review Board. When shown a photo displaying a large defect in the top of Kennedy's head Robinson recalled that this was “what the doctors did”. He then explained that the autopsy surgeons had cut the scalp open and “reflected it back in order to remove bullet fragments.” (ARRB MD180) He also recalled seeing that “some sawing was done to remove some bone before the brain could be removed.” (ibid) What Robinson described is, of course, a perfectly normal part of an autopsy and he himself called what he saw a “normal craniotomy procedure.” (ibid) Yet somehow Horne construes Robinson's remarks as evidence of some clandestine pre-autopsy activity. Why?
The reason, according to Horne, is that “Dr. Humes always denied having to saw the skull open, he always maintained that the wound was so big that he just removed the brain with a minimum of cutting of the scalp; he never had to cut any bone.” However, as this passage from Hume's sworn deposition for the ARRB demonstrates, Horne is entirely mistaken :
GUNN: But just let me start out first: Where was the first incision made?
HUMES: I believe, of course, the top of the skull to remove the skull plate of the brain. To remove what remained of the calvarium and to approach the removal of the brain.
GUNN: And was that incision simply of the scalp, or did you need to cut –
HUMES: No, we had to cut some bone as well. [my emphasis]
* * *
GUNN: Where did you cut the bone?
HUMES: I find that--it's hard to recall. Once we got the scalp laid back, some of those pieces could just be removed, you know, by picking them up, picking them up because they were just not held together very well, other than by the dura, I suppose. So other than that, we probably made it like we normally do, in a circumferential fashion from books, like right above the ear around. But it was a real problem because it was all falling apart, the skull. And I can't recall the details of exactly how we managed to maneuver that, because it was a problem. (ARRB Deposition of James J. Humes, pgs. 101-102)
As the reader can see, not only did Humes not deny having to saw the skull, he specifically testified to doing so. But Horne does not quote Humes himself and instead refers to a report written in 1965 by autopsy surgeon Dr. Pierre Finck―who did not arrive at Bethesda until after the brain had already been removed―in which Finck recalled being told that “no sawing of the skull was necessary”. What this means, therefore, is that the basis of Horne's claim that “Humes always denied having to saw the skull open” is not any direct quotation from Humes himself, but the hearsay claim of a man who wasn't even present when the brain was removed. This type of methodology is extremely difficult to defend. And what makes it all the more confounding is that Horne himself was actually present for the deposition during which Humes specifically swore to cutting the skull bone.
https://kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-reviews/a-coup-in-camelot
From Martin Hay's review of the documentary film A Coup In Camelot:
At the very heart of Horne's hypothesis is a comment made by Tom Robinson―an embalmer who was present for most of the autopsy―during a 1996 interview for the Assassination Records Review Board. When shown a photo displaying a large defect in the top of Kennedy's head Robinson recalled that this was “what the doctors did”. He then explained that the autopsy surgeons had cut the scalp open and “reflected it back in order to remove bullet fragments.” (ARRB MD180) He also recalled seeing that “some sawing was done to remove some bone before the brain could be removed.” (ibid) What Robinson described is, of course, a perfectly normal part of an autopsy and he himself called what he saw a “normal craniotomy procedure.” (ibid) Yet somehow Horne construes Robinson's remarks as evidence of some clandestine pre-autopsy activity. Why?
The reason, according to Horne, is that “Dr. Humes always denied having to saw the skull open, he always maintained that the wound was so big that he just removed the brain with a minimum of cutting of the scalp; he never had to cut any bone.” However, as this passage from Hume's sworn deposition for the ARRB demonstrates, Horne is entirely mistaken :
GUNN: But just let me start out first: Where was the first incision made?
HUMES: I believe, of course, the top of the skull to remove the skull plate of the brain. To remove what remained of the calvarium and to approach the removal of the brain.
GUNN: And was that incision simply of the scalp, or did you need to cut –
HUMES: No, we had to cut some bone as well. [my emphasis]
* * *
GUNN: Where did you cut the bone?
HUMES: I find that--it's hard to recall. Once we got the scalp laid back, some of those pieces could just be removed, you know, by picking them up, picking them up because they were just not held together very well, other than by the dura, I suppose. So other than that, we probably made it like we normally do, in a circumferential fashion from books, like right above the ear around. But it was a real problem because it was all falling apart, the skull. And I can't recall the details of exactly how we managed to maneuver that, because it was a problem. (ARRB Deposition of James J. Humes, pgs. 101-102)
As the reader can see, not only did Humes not deny having to saw the skull, he specifically testified to doing so. But Horne does not quote Humes himself and instead refers to a report written in 1965 by autopsy surgeon Dr. Pierre Finck―who did not arrive at Bethesda until after the brain had already been removed―in which Finck recalled being told that “no sawing of the skull was necessary”. What this means, therefore, is that the basis of Horne's claim that “Humes always denied having to saw the skull open” is not any direct quotation from Humes himself, but the hearsay claim of a man who wasn't even present when the brain was removed. This type of methodology is extremely difficult to defend. And what makes it all the more confounding is that Horne himself was actually present for the deposition during which Humes specifically swore to cutting the skull bone.
https://kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-reviews/a-coup-in-camelot
MicahJava
Illuminator
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2016
- Messages
- 3,039
With noise suppressors, both could be right. Noise suppressors can distort the sound of a gunshot to seem like it came from the opposite direction. But of course, noise suppressors don't make the muzzle blast completely silent.
Last edited:
Quote where I said anything of the sort? This is a JFK conspiracy thread, not 9/11. I suggest if you have a problem discussing these issues then don't post. Neither you nor I own this thread or this Forum. It's really pretty simple. You've made good contributions up to this point. If you're getting tired/bored or frustrated then you know what to do... Thanks
There are simply a number of issues that don't make sense. I am studying as I go, which should be indicated by my posts. If I'm making a wrong assumption, I've admitted it. I'm trying my best to not be obstinate. I see major differences between this issue and 9/11 conspiracies, yet people continue to make direct comparisons.
Why can't you answer a simple question Micah? Who's correct? The all knoll witnesses or the all depository witnesses?
Thank you for the link. In this case, I would say that Finck's memory of what Humes said is probably more reliable since his memo was relatively soon after the autopsy rather than Humes' testimony 33 years after the fact. Humes specifically that it was difficult to recall. But that still doesn't explain why you believe that even if Humes had to saw part of the skull to remove the brain, why he would remove the piece of skull that had the entry wound in it?
The conflict between Finck's recollections and Humes' memories just highlights why it's a very good thing that we have authenticated photos and x-rays on exactly what JFK's wounds looked like and where they were located, wouldn't you say?
You posted "In fact, I'd guess LBJ and Connally were the principles who helped decide on the route."
I took that to mean that if there was a conspiracy, that LBJ and Connally made sure that the route went through Dealy Plaza so that Oswald or all the people framing Oswald had a clear shot at JFK. If that's not what you were implying what was your point? Honest question, no sarcasm meant.
You're right, and I apologize for the snark. Let me rephrase. Are you aware of any evidence that places Lansdale in Dealy Plaza at the time of the assassination?
I could have sworn that I once read that Lifton seriously put forward the Hoover periscope theory but I may be wrong. But yes, the bunker under Dealy Plaza was a real theory for sure. It was how the members of THEY on the knoll escaped and disposed of their weapons.
MicahJava
Illuminator
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2016
- Messages
- 3,039
When the scalp was reflected, pieces of bone fragments around the large head wound were naturally coming off, and apparently some bone had to be cut as well to access the brain.
Finck arrive when the brain had already been removed. This is why he claimed in his 1965 report that there was no sawing of the skull.
I've already explained several times why the area of skull with the depressed cowlick fracture had to be removed to access the brain. The cranial opening was extended well within the left of the midline.
Last edited:
- Status