JFK Conspiracy Theories IV: The One With The Whales

[Hans]

I lurk here at times and as noted above one has to wonder who the moron-in-charge would have been to have crafted the 'plan' that had to be in place for all the things the believers come up with to have Oswald not be the real shooter.

 

[cmikes]

I was thinking about the fact that the only reason we don't have an exact position of the entry wound in JFK's skull is because the autopsy doctors didn't shave JFK's hair. I'm sure I've read that the reason that Humes, Boswell and Finck didn't do so was because they were told by RFK through Burkley that the family wanted an open casket funeral if possible but I can't seem to find the citation on-line anywhere.

I'm thinking I read it in Manchester's Death of a President, can anyone confirm this? Or can find it on-line if their Google-fu is stronger than mine?

 

[MicahJava]

That he made a mistake?

With as many times you've been busted posting nonsense in this thread I'd have would thought that you'd would be familiar with the concept.

There comes a point where you're positing that Dr. Finck literally hallucinated the small head wound. Can you show me one instance where he clarified that he only saw the small head wound when pieced together from skull fragments?

 

[MicahJava]

You'd rather make up stuff than find the truth. We established that above.

Hank

Then what's this?

NSFW - autopsy photo

 

[MicahJava]

Who cares what Lifton says or posits?

Lifton insists all the shooters were in front of the President, which puts them all in front of the Governor, too. So if the President's wounds were all inflicted from the front, and altered to look like wounds from behind as Lifton posits, then it follows that the Governor's wounds were likewise inflicted from the front and altered to look like wounds from behind, even though Lifton never mentions this in his 747+ page tome to bad science and poorer logic.

This is what you get when you follow conspiracy authors down their personal rabbit hole.

And if you want to believe that Perry said he never made the trache through the bullet wound, be my guest, just bear in mind NO ONE ELSE ever said there were two wounds on the throat - a bullet wound and a trache. None of the other Parkland doctors, none of the Bethesda witnesses. The autopsy photos don't show it. The autopsy report doesn't show it. None of the Bethesda witnesses, even 33 years after the assassination, remembered it that way.

Believe whatever outlier nonsense you wish.

It sounds like you can't attack the message, so you attack the messenger.

"They did speculate..." Thank you for that admission. Speculations are not evidence. Surely you know this. The 'sanitized' bit is just your belief, supported by no evidence whatsoever. It carries no weight.

It sounds like a man who's done a lot of work and isn't about to give it away for free. It also sounds like you can't attack the message, so you attack the messenger.

The very first image is wrong. Note the red line in relation to the hairline in Myers' images, but in the center [autopsy] image, the hairline is much closer to the red line than in Myers' images. Pat Speer is trying to show something is wrong with Myers work, but Speer's establishing he either can't align the hairline correctly in three images, or he deliberately misaligned them.

Hank

I think if you bothered to actually read the chapter you'd understand better. Hank, if this is a big piece of evidence that convinces you that the SBT is true, than you should check out the scrutiny it has gone up against, the chapter discusses the entire history of the back-and-forths between Meyers and his critics.

I am in favor of somebody or some entity attempting to test the validity of the SBT by trying to match a computer animation with all of the known photographic evidence, that's a good idea and all, but Meyers leaves way too much to be desired.

 

[MicahJava]

Still just avoiding my points entirely.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11767402&postcount=2727

And making up stuff.

Hank

I was mostly responding to Reheat more than any of you guys, It's just worth reminding everyone that CE399 is one of the most discredited pieces of forensic evidence ever. I'm not a CE399 expert like some people, but when you have people saying they scratched their initials on it when no photograph shows these initials, what else have you got?

You're kind of trying to force me into speculation instead of hard evidence about medical evidence.

 

[MicahJava]

No, I'm arguing my position. As far as determining who was responsible for JFK's assassination it's irrelevant if the entry wound in JFK's skull is above and slightly to the right of the EOP as claimed by the autopsy doctors or if the entry wound in JFK's skull is more above and slightly to the right of the EOP as claimed by the HSCA medical panel.

What's relevant is that the wound was made by a bullet fired from Lee Harvey Oswald's rifle to exclusion of every other rifle in the world as proven by the bullet fragments discovered in the limo after the assassination.

You're wrong. The autopsy has the small head wound 2.5 centimeters tot he right and slightly above the EOP. The "new and improved" location is 10 centimeters above the EOP and slightly right of the midline. Also, it's a different size and shape than the autopsy had it (15x6mm).

Now, since you dodged the question again, can you please try to answer this time. One bullet entered the back of JFK's skull and exited through a massive wound in the right front of JFK's skull. Do you agree with this statement? Why or why not?

No. We've already gone over why that is almost certainly not true.

 

[BStrong]

This whole undercharged and sabot discussion brings up something about the assassination that just doesn't get discussed a lot.

If this was a conspiracy, it had to be planned. Right? That's kind of the definition of a conspiracy.

So, I've planned events. I've done project management. The process is pretty straightforward. You visualize how you want the event or activity to go. You put resources in place to make it happen. Depending on the risk involved you might have to have contingency plans in place. You probably make a list and check off items as you go.

So now I'm picturing the planning guy giving instructions to the Assassination Committee on the night of November 21.

"Ok. We're all set. Oswald will be in the book depository. He usually works alone, so he'll have time to build a sniper's nest. He is instructed use one special undercharged sabot round so that (*insert motive here - I'm really not following why anyone would ever do that*). Lefty will be at the grassy knoll. He's got fake Secret Service credentials. Mugs is at the hospital. He has a bullet that matches Oswald's rifle with him that he will plant and make sure it's found."

"Uh, boss...why plant a bullet? Won't there be plenty of bullets in the car?"

"Yeah, that's the problem. Not all of them will be from Oswald's gun. Our team at the FBI will arrange to make sure they are assigned to the evidence detail from the limo. They're going to throw out all the bullets they find unless they are absolutely sure it's Oswald's. He's a lousy shot, so there might not be any. We have to be sure there's at least one."

"There are a lot of people with cameras and even movie cameras these days. What happens if they record a shot from the front?"

"We've got people on the ground to interrogate anyone with a camera. They'll say they are gathering evidence, but they'll expose as much film as they can. We'll have to spin the contents of any that get past us."

Now keep repeating that scenario for all the contingencies they have to deal with. It's a masterpiece of planning. Just imagine how you would go about planning it, and what resources and skills would be required. It's a tall order.

All the various multiple shooter/mismatched weapons CT jive reminds me of the old Bill Cosby bit about street football:

 

[BStrong]

There comes a point where you're positing that Dr. Finck literally hallucinated the small head wound. Can you show me one instance where he clarified that he only saw the small head wound when pieced together from skull fragments?

Keep your tongue out of my mouth.

You have cited inconsistencies in recollection or perception as proof of conspiracy. At no time have you ever taken into consideration the most basic fact - humans make mistakes. Humans forget, their recollections are sometimes colored by time and some folks simply make **** up as they go along. You rely on a couple of them, so maybe it's in your vested interest to ignore the phenomenon but the rest of us that have more than one year in have a little different pov.

You've cited as a source a known douchebag from my side of the street. I posted about his particular ******** story in this thread three years before you landed here. and I was aware of his ******** years before that

A reasonable "investigator" that claims to have one year in on the subject might take note of both criticism and/or factual validation of evidence instead of marrying whichever CT monger that supports their confirmation bias.

You've taken the latter option.

 

[BStrong]

I was mostly responding to Reheat more than any of you guys, It's just worth reminding everyone that CE399 is one of the most discredited pieces of forensic evidence ever.
I'm not a CE399 expert like some people, but when you have people saying they scratched their initials on it when no photograph shows these initials, what else have you got?

You're kind of trying to force me into speculation instead of hard evidence about medical evidence.

According to the worlds best snipers and Olympic Snipers? Or Sylvia Meagher reporting on what the un-named snipers say and do? I'd assert that CE399 outweighs every uninformed effort to discredit it.

It's a funny thing but if someone actually wants to prove something hard evidence is usually required, Speculation? You have a never ending supply of that and you apply in liberally in "proving" conspiracy...ah, not so much.

 

[MicahJava]

Keep your tongue out of my mouth.

You have cited inconsistencies in recollection or perception as proof of conspiracy. At no time have you ever taken into consideration the most basic fact - humans make mistakes. Humans forget, their recollections are sometimes colored by time and some folks simply make **** up as they go along. You rely on a couple of them, so maybe it's in your vested interest to ignore the phenomenon but the rest of us that have more than one year in have a little different pov.

You've cited as a source a known douchebag from my side of the street. I posted about his particular ******** story in this thread three years before you landed here. and I was aware of his ******** years before that

A reasonable "investigator" that claims to have one year in on the subject might take note of both criticism and/or factual validation of evidence instead of marrying whichever CT monger that supports their confirmation bias.

You've taken the latter option.

Can you take me through what you think Dr. Finck actually saw? Do you think he only saw the entry wound when pieced together from removed skull fragments? Because he never said that.

 

[HSienzant]

So....the plan didn't work? CE399 wasn't recovered from the car, and nothing was recovered from either body.

But maybe CE399 was deliberately flattened at the base so as to preserve the rifling when Mugs planted it at the hospital. That's a pretty clever plan. They need a bullet from Oswald's rifle. So, they make one. They need the rifling preserved, but it has to have at least some damage, so they damage it at the base, and "VOILA", a bullet perfect to frame Oswald. What could be simpler?

But then they had to invent the single bullet theory in order to explain the flattening at the base.

I wonder if they had that story in advance, or it was an afterthought.

The problem with that preparation and planning is the fact that at the time when the CE399 bullet had to be planted in Parkland, it was unknown whether any bullets would be found in the President or Governor. What if the President had two wounds, and two bullets were found within his body at the autopsy that night? What is the Governor had wounds from one bullet, and that bullet was recovered from his thigh?

You'd be planting a bullet to supposedly frame Oswald, but you'd be exposing the conspiracy, as that planted bullet wouldn't correspond to any wound in the President or the Governor, and would clearly have nothing to do with the wounding of either man.

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

Why not just "steal" an M-14 from a National Guard armory? You can frame Oswald for that one too, and you have a .762 weapon that's capable of full-auto, and had a 20-round magazine. He could have killed everybody in the President's car, the second car, and even LBJ's car. Go big or go home, right? With five magazines he could have shot it out with DPD for a while and gone out a legend.

Either way, if I'm throwing an assassination in 1963 I'm arming my shooter(s) with M-14s because it widens my pool of applicants to every man with prior military service, it's an easy weapon to get your hands on if you're an evil shadow government type, and it's more reliable than the Carcano while being harder to trace (unless it's left at the crime scene, and even then it just gets tracked back to the NG armory we stole it from).

But that's just me.

Yeah, it's amazing how dumb these conspirators have to be, framing a lousy shot for using a lousy weapon, while overlooking the more obvious solutions.

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

There comes a point where you're positing that Dr. Finck literally hallucinated the small head wound.

Straw man argument. Nobody has come close to suggesting that Finck hallucinated anything.

And we already determined how serious you are about getting to the truth. You wouldn't read the testimony of Ronald Simmons when the link was presented to you in two different forms. You preferred to make up the answers rather than read the testimony, calling the testimony 'boring'.

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

It sounds like you can't attack the message, so you attack the messenger.

No, this is what I wrote, and all of it is an attack on the message. You don't get to just dismiss my points by claiming they are something they are not. I attacked Lifton's argument that all the shooters were in front of JFK by pointing out that means the Governor's wounds also had to be altered:

Who cares what Lifton says or posits?

Lifton insists all the shooters were in front of the President, which puts them all in front of the Governor, too. So if the President's wounds were all inflicted from the front, and altered to look like wounds from behind as Lifton posits, then it follows that the Governor's wounds were likewise inflicted from the front and altered to look like wounds from behind, even though Lifton never mentions this in his 747+ page tome to bad science and poorer logic.

This is what you get when you follow conspiracy authors down their personal rabbit hole.

And if you want to believe that Perry said he never made the trache through the bullet wound, be my guest, just bear in mind NO ONE ELSE ever said there were two wounds on the throat - a bullet wound and a trache. None of the other Parkland doctors, none of the Bethesda witnesses. The autopsy photos don't show it. The autopsy report doesn't show it. None of the Bethesda witnesses, even 33 years after the assassination, remembered it that way.

Believe whatever outlier nonsense you wish.

I think if you bothered to actually read the chapter you'd understand better. Hank, if this is a big piece of evidence that convinces you that the SBT is true, than you should check out the scrutiny it has gone up against, the chapter discusses the entire history of the back-and-forths between Meyers and his critics.

Which chapter? Speers? I read it. I don't see the validity of his argument. As I pointed out, the very first image is misaligned to make Myers placement of the back wound appear incorrect relative to the autopsy photo. If you wish to debate any points here, perhaps you should set a better example by reading the sworn expert testimony I present, instead of dismissing it by calling it "boring", and making up answers, and then telling me I need to read the stuff you present.

I am in favor of somebody or some entity attempting to test the validity of the SBT by trying to match a computer animation with all of the known photographic evidence, that's a good idea and all, but Meyers leaves way too much to be desired.

Somebody did. Dale Myers. True to form, conspiracy theorists DON'T come up with a better mousetrap, they merely criticize the mousetrap we have, that gets the job done. They did it with the Warren Commission, they did it with the HSCA, they did it with Posner's book, Bugliosi's book, Myers recreation, etc. etc. etc.

They advance the argument not at all. They merely find any reason to argue Oswald didn't do it.

Hank

 

[BStrong]

Can you take me through what you think Dr. Finck actually saw? Do you think he only saw the entry wound when pieced together from removed skull fragments? Because he never said that.

I don't know Finck, and I have no idea what he saw or how he may have interpreted what he saw, but I have a certain amount of sympathy for him due to his involvement with Garrison.

He was sucked into that vortex of ******** and I'm sure it wasn't pleasant.

I've posted my opinion several times in this thread about why Secret Service, Kennedy aides et al did not allow much involvement w/ Texas doctors/LE etc. after JFK was pronounced dead.

They were through with the whole state at that point and they were taking Jack home, period.

No conspiracy. No cast of grand villains. A group of humans that lost their Husband/Brother/Father/Leader in an area they felt little or no connection to watched that man die because someone in Texas wanted him dead.

Those folks behaved in a very normal, understandable fashion.

They took their dead home, and any Texan of any rank of office that stood in their way was going to be ignored. I doubt it would come to bloodshed if the Texas authorities tried to insist, but I'm sure it would have gotten uglier than it already was.

That's my take.

 

[HSienzant]

Then what's this?

NSFW - autopsy photo

[qimg]https://i.imgur.com/9rwWwcr.jpg[/qimg]

A drawing of an autopsy photo.

Glad I could clear that up for you.

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

I was mostly responding to Reheat more than any of you guys

Bunk.

I direct your attention to post 2728:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11767417&postcount=2728

We had this exchange. It involved Reheat NOT AT ALL. You're reduced to making up stuff again:

Can I get some context to that quote? Like down to exactly what height he was, how big the target was, if the target was moving, etc.?

It's all in Simmons testimony. You don't know where to find it? It's in multiple places on the web. For instance:

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/simmons.htm

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh3/html/WC_Vol3_0225a.htm

Hank

Oh, so he was standing just 1 ft. off the ground, firing at a stationary 20 sq ft. target from 40 feet away. Nice.

semitists weapon gnarl bitter iowans shyer cgs

You admitted that cryptic line above meant something else entirely:

It's an anagram for "WC testimony is boring, answer direct questions"

I pointed out your claim that "Oh, so he was standing just 1 ft. off the ground, firing at a stationary 20 sq ft. target from 40 feet away" was simply made up, and none of those measurements are in Simmons testimony. You have yet to retract your false claims.

You established exactly how wedded to the truth you are by ignoring the cited testimony of Simmons and making up answers. That's still exactly where it stands.

Hank

 

[Reheat]

I was thinking about the fact that the only reason we don't have an exact position of the entry wound in JFK's skull is because the autopsy doctors didn't shave JFK's hair. I'm sure I've read that the reason that Humes, Boswell and Finck didn't do so was because they were told by RFK through Burkley that the family wanted an open casket funeral if possible but I can't seem to find the citation on-line anywhere.

I'm thinking I read it in Manchester's Death of a President, can anyone confirm this? Or can find it on-line if their Google-fu is stronger than mine?

It's in Bugloisi's Reclaiming History. It's true they did want an open casket funeral. However, the morning after they decided that the repair job looked too much like plastic and all agreed to a closed casket.

 

[HSienzant]

It's just worth reminding everyone that CE399 is one of the most discredited pieces of forensic evidence ever.

I'm sure you'd like to believe that, but you have yet to come close to proving it. A good start would be a complete scenario of how a bullet was discovered at Parkland, and where it came from, if it wasn't CE399 and a bullet from the assassination. I'd really like to hear your theory there, but you get awfully reticent when asked to flesh out your argument with something resembling a scenario. I've asked multiple times, and you ignored every request for this info.

I'm not a CE399 expert like some people, but when you have people saying they scratched their initials on it when no photograph shows these initials, what else have you got?

Who determined the initials are not scratched thereon? A conspiracy theorist. But Elmer Todd examined the bullet, and found his initials on it. (last paragraph on the right side of page): http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh24/html/WH_Vol24_0215b.htm

So who do I believe? The agent who actually found his initials on the bullet, or the conspiracy theorist who claims they aren't there, but doesn't show the whole bullet and doesn't establish what Todd's initials look like on other items? (As he notes, Courtland Cunningham used a mark that didn't consist of his initials "CC", and he doesn't begin to establish what mark we should be looking for on the bullet for Elmer Todd's mark). So how can you say Todd's mark isn't on the bullet?

You're kind of trying to force me into speculation instead of hard evidence about medical evidence.

Your problem is all you have is speculation. If you stuck to the medical evidence, and the expert testimony, you'd have conceded the arguments months ago. But you substitute your own interpretations for those of the medical experts, and then try to argue your speculations need to be disproven. No, they don't. You need to prove them, and thus far, you haven't come close on any issue you've raised in the past six months or so (however long you've been posting here).

Hank