JFK Conspiracy Theories IV: The One With The Whales

[No Other]

Hilarious. I have an excellent idea, based on your arguments advanced thus far, all of them critical of the 'Lone Nut' solution to the crime. So yeah, I call 'em as I see 'em, and I'm calling you a conspiracy theorist until I see evidence to the contrary.

Well, there you go again labeling something you know absolutely nothing about. Again, you can yell from a mountain top... it doesn't mean it is correct. You are grasping at straws. Since you have established the desire for labels and by George the label does not have to be correct I will refer to you as a BS'er if you call me a CT'er one more time.

I don't use fallacies (or try not to). I just point the logical fallacies out when my opponents use them. A narrative by the conspiracy theorists would allow us to compare apples to apples -- which narrative fits the known evidence better and does a better job of explaining what happened?

You may want to hone up your understanding of fallacies.

The lack of a compelling opposing narrative hampers your argument.

What argument? You mean the one that I claim you make up your conclusions?

If you had one, you could cite the evidence and show how the evidence fits your narrative, as I do when I cite the evidence pointing to Oswald as the assassin.

You have yet to point out evidence that puts LHO with the rifle in his hand, pulling the trigger on the day JFK was killed. You only state your opinion.

Your problem, as a conspiracy theorist, is that you don't have a compelling competing narrative because you don't have any evidence.

Let me again correct you, I don't claim anything, therefore I have no narrative.

All you have is outlier anomalies that you don't think fit the narrative we have. So you stress those anomalies, thinking it's sufficient to overturn the narrative on the table. They are not. They never will be.

You call them outliers because you can't argue against them, this allows you to dismiss versus providing facts to disprove something that I stated. Your final argument when you are trapped is "how do you know what (fill in the blank) said is true?" That brings the discussion down to the 3rd grade.

In many cases the arguments conspiracy theorists advance not only don't fit the conventional narrative, they don't even agree with each other. So we get arguments like
"Oswald's rifle wasn't found on the sixth floor."
"It was found there, but it was planted."
"It was found there, but there's no evidence he fired it."
"Besides, it was a piece of junk rifle and not good enough for the task."
"And besides, he wasn't a good enough shot to accomplish the assassination."

What does this have to do with the discussion other than poisoning the well? Bring this up to a CT'er.

All of those arguments have been advanced by conspiracy theorists. I've pointed this out before, but it sounds a lot like the claims of a young man accused of statutory rape: First, he claims he didn't know her, then he admits he did know her, but says he never touched her, then he offers up the excuse, "She told me she was over 18!"

non sequitur

Asking you to familiarize yourself with the preceding arguments advanced in this thread is neither an Appeal to Authority nor an Appeal to Popular Opinion. You apparently don't know what either logical fallacy actually means.

If you want me to point out exactly how my claims fit, I will be happy to comply.

I have never once cited myself as an authority. I have cited witnesses testimony and expert testimony that agrees with the narrative I believe explains the assassination best. If I happened to repeat those arguments, it's because you ignore them and pointing them out again is deemed a necessary reminder. And remember, the evidence hasn't changed in the past 53+ years, so if the argument was sufficient five or ten or twenty years ago to dismiss a particular conspiracy claim, its repetition should be sufficient now as well.

Who said the argument was sufficient years ago?

I put my claims through the same "litmus test" I ask of you. If you differ, point out the claims you think I cannot support. I've pointed out plenty of claims you couldn't support, and you just keep changing the subject.

I have pointed it out over and over and you repeat yourself like a broken record. What claim have I made that I failed to support?

You have constantly cited his claims, calling them his "direct experiences" (that's a value judgement that they are true) and claiming "Gaudet was a Participant" (again, a value judgment that his claims are true), nor claim that "Gaudet acknowledged he was an employee for the CIA" (again, a value judgment that his claims are true).

You claim Gaudet was something that I have not seen as evidence and that is a businessman who went to other countries and reported to the CIA. You have never posted evidence to support your comment but you insist that Gaudet lies, yet if I take what he says at face value, I made a value judgement... pretzel logic on your part. Provide evidence that Gaudet lies and that he was only a businessman... then we can discuss it and if you provide it, I could very well change my opinion. By the way, Gaudet being a Participant is not a value judgement, it is reading something and understanding that when he speaks of his experiences he was actually alive and conducting those activities. You read one thing and I read multiple sources and the ones who wish to discount anything related to the CIA states what you state... they were only interviewed by the CIA. McAdams is by far the worse offender. As for the CIA, they never admit that any of their employees work for them as it is against the law to ferret out an Agent, just look at Valerie Pflame.

 

[No Other]

I'm not interested, just now, in whether CTers think they've raised reasonable doubt concerning the package, or whether LNers think that that standard of proof has been met. Any such position begs the question of whether a beyond-a-reasonable-doubt standard is even appropriate for what is now essentially a question of history and historiography. I'm asking No Other--and you, too, Micah, if you have a pertinent opinion--why anyone would or should take the position that an eyewitness to Oswald's entering the TSBD with the package is "required" to establish his guilt, historically or forensically.

I didn't say that. I asked who besides Buell and his sister saw LHO take that package into TSBD? The importance is that the WC puts weight and it is heavy weight on the "fact" that LHO brought the rifle to work that day. The package that the only two who saw LHO carry that package said it was a lot smaller than what the WC said it was. In short, the WC relies on the need for LHO to bring the package to work, it hangs onto the Frazier as a key witness to that event, yet it dismisses Frazier's view. They throw out what they do not want and create a whole new situation due to the composite that they developed. It is a total sham and for those who do not see it that way, they need to explain why the WC was correct in dismissing Frazier's description and why the WC's description is correct.

 

[HSienzant]

Why should I accept the paper bag taken out of the Depository as the paper bag in evidence?

Because it was taken out of the Depository and bears Oswald's print and was marked into evidence by Detective J.C.Day? All that makes the bag evidence and makes it something that could be introduced as evidence in a criminal trial.

Mr. BELIN. I will now hand you what has been marked as Commission Exhibit 626 and ask you to state if you know what this is, and also appears to be marked as Commission Exhibit 142.
Mr. DAY. This is the sack found on the sixth floor in the southeast corner of the building on November 22, 1963.
Mr. BELIN. Do you have any identification on that to so indicate?
Mr. DAY. It has my name on it, and it also has other writing that I put on there for the information of the FBI.
Mr. BELIN. Could you read what you wrote on there?
Mr. DAY. "Found next to the sixth floor window gun fired from. May have been used to carry gun. Lieutenant J. C. Day."
Mr. BELIN. When did you write that?
Mr. DAY. I wrote that at the time the sack was found before it left our possession.
Mr. BELIN. All right, anything else that you wrote on there?
Mr. DAY. When the sack was released on November 22 to the FBI about 11:45 p.m., I put further information to the FBI reading as follows: "FBI: Has been dusted with metallic magnetic powder on outside only. Inside has not been processed. Lieut J. C. Day."

See here: http://www.patspeer.com/chapter-4c

Speer is not here to debate this. Don't tell me what Speer says. His opinion has no import and would never be admitted into court, nor can I question him here about his opinion. Tell me what you say. I can then ask you any questions I may have.

And just look at how you phrase problems: "Do estimates by eyewitnesses that are off by about 25% eliminate the actual package"

Incomplete quote. What I actually wrote, and you don't tell us what is wrong with it, is this:

Do estimates by eyewitnesses that are off by about 25% eliminate the actual package, especially considering the package recovered from the Depository is large enough to contain the disassembled weapon, AND contains the suspect's print on it, AND his weapon was discovered in the Depository as well?

Please try to offer up a reasoned narrative that explains all this, and accounts for Oswald's claim in custody that he only took his lunch to work that day... no long package put on the back seat.

Can you explain all that? Martin Hay doesn't even try.

Now, explain what is wrong with those points. Or ignore the points I actually made some more and quote me out of context.

Frazier said the bag was about the size of a large grocery bag, from a grocery store. In the common every day sense, who sees a paper bag that long? Frazier thought of it as a grocery bag. It's the difference between him remembering a common, every day grocery bag and remembering a weird long paper bag stitched together with tape.

He did remember a long paper bag. He said it was as long as a grocery bag, but he also said it was a lot narrower. How come you leave that out?
Mr. BALL - What did the package look like?
Mr. FRAZIER - Well, I will be frank with you, I would just, it is right as you get out of the grocery store, just more or less out of a package, you have seen some of these brown paper sacks you can obtain from any, most of the stores, some varieties, but it was a package just roughly about two feet long.
Mr. BALL - It was, what part of the back seat was it in?
Mr. FRAZIER - It was in his side over on his side in the far back.
Mr. BALL - How much of that back seat, how much space did it take up?
Mr. FRAZIER - I would say roughly around 2 feet of the seat.
Mr. BALL - From the side of the seat over to the center, is that the way you would measure it?
Mr. FRAZIER - If, if you were going to measure it that way from the end of the seat over toward the center, right. But I say like I said I just roughly estimate and that would be around two feet, give and take a few inches.
Mr. BALL - How wide was the package?
Mr. FRAZIER - Well, I would say the package was about that wide.
Mr. BALL - How wide would you say that would be?
Mr. FRAZIER - Oh, say, around 5 inches, something like that. 5, 6 inches or there. I don't--
Mr. BALL - The paper, was the color of the paper, that you would get in a grocery store, is that it, a bag in a grocery store?
Mr. FRAZIER - Right. You have seen, not a real light color but you know normally, the normal color about the same color, you have seen these kinds of heavy duty bags you know like you obtain from the grocery store, something like that, about the same color of that, paper sack you get there.

So he estimated maybe 24-27 inches by 5 or 6 inches or thereabouts. That's a length approximately four or five times the width. The size of the sack recovered from the Depository was 38 inches by 8 inches (or 35 inches if the sack was folded over the disassembled rifle). Those dimensions put the length between four and five times the width.

In other words, he got the overall shape correct generally correct, but underestimated both the length and width.

Again, do witness estimates allow you to disregard or throw out the actual evidence recovered at the scene of the crime?

You never answer my questions. Why is that?

Hank

 

[Axxman300]

I would love to see a survey where people are asked to estimate length, because my guess is most would not be accurate. The difference between 27 and 34 inches is within any reasonable margin of error.

Here are a list of problems:

Oswald lied about the bag carrying curtain rods to Frazier, and then told DPD that he didn't bring anything with him to work that morning accept a sack lunch, but Frazier even asked Oswald where his usual lunch sack was to which Oswald said he would buy lunch that day...so Oswald could even keep his story straight about the bag.

The bag (constructed using paper AND TAPE from the TSBD) also contained fibers from a blanket. The Carcano was usually wrapped in a blanket. Had the fibers been planted then why not use enough to tie them to the blanket Oswald used? I mean if you're going to frame the guy do it right.

Oswald's room HAD curtains, and there was no need for curtain rods, and he had not talked to his land lady about putting in new ones. These rods were never seen by anyone, and were not found in the TSBD...so what happened to them? Were is the receipt for their purchase? Where's the guy who sold them to Oswald?

 

[HSienzant]

First, a Witness that saw LHO carry the sack into the TSBD is required.

I didn't say that.

No such witness is required. You absolutely did make that claim.

I asked who besides Buell and his sister saw LHO take that package into TSBD?

Technically, neither saw him take it into the Depository and you didn't ask that question originally either*. Linnie Mae Randle didn't see it because she was miles away and only saw Oswald put the long package into her brother's car. Wes Frazier didn't see it because he didn't watch Oswald at the moment he walked into the building.

The importance is that the WC puts weight and it is heavy weight on the "fact" that LHO brought the rifle to work that day.

No, that's their conclusion.
The facts that led to that conclusion were, among others, these:

[1]They had testimony that the weapon was stored at the Paine garage prior to the assassination.

[2]They had testimony that the weapon was recovered in the Depository shortly after the assassination.

[3]They had testimony that Oswald told Wes Frazier he'd be bringing curtain rods on Friday.

[4]They had testimony that Oswald was seen with a long sack (the exact dimensions only estimated by the witnesses) the morning of the assassination.

[5]They had testimony that a long sack was recovered near the sniper's nest and it bore Oswald's print.

[6]They had testimony that Oswald's rifle was recovered on the sixth floor, the same floor the assassin was seen by witnesses at street level.

[7]They had testimony that Oswald denied bringing any long package to work that day, insisting that Wes Frazier must have been thinking of another day.

[8]They had testimony that the blanket in the Paine garage that previously had been seen to contain a rifle was discovered to be EMPTY shortly after the assassination.

Let's hear what you think they should have concluded, and why. If you're going to be critical of their conclusion, tell us what better conclusion the evidence points inexorably towards. Walk us through your argument and your logic step-by-step.

The package that the only two who saw LHO carry that package said it was a lot smaller than what the WC said it was.

The witnesses did not measure it. They estimated it. I asked before, and you failed to answer, what amount or percentage of error do you allow in estimates of this nature? Do tell us the allowable percentage.

In short, the WC relies on the need for LHO to bring the package to work

No, it relies on the evidence to reach that conclusion. Put the above evidence together and show us another, more reasonable conclusion. Bet you can't. Bet you won't. Bet you'll claim you don't have to, because you're not a conspiracy theorist (but you sure sound like one).

it hangs onto the Frazier as a key witness to that event, yet it dismisses Frazier's view.

No, it retains most of what Frazier said, and only concludes his estimate of the bag's dimensions were wrong.

They throw out what they do not want and create a whole new situation due to the composite that they developed. It is a total sham...

Projection. It sounds like what you're doing. The actual bag recovered had Oswald's print on it and was large enough to contain the rifle. You are totally disregarding that bag as evidence, it appears. Along with a lot of other evidence, like Oswald's rifle being recovered on the sixth floor.

...and for those who do not see it that way, they need to explain why the WC was correct in dismissing Frazier's description and why the WC's description is correct.

They dismissed Frazier's estimated dimensions of the bag he saw. They retained the actual measured dimensions of the actual physical bag recovered from the sixth floor that bore Oswald's print.

I would not think that anyone could be foolish enough to argue (as you are doing) that estimates of dimensions should take precedence over the actual measured dimensions. You appear intent on proving me wrong on that.

Hank
_____________
* You didn't ask any questions. You made the series of assertions seen below:

First, a Witness that saw LHO carry the sack into the TSBD is required. Buell Wesley Frazier witnessed LHO bringing a sack approximately 27" long with him that morning but not a 38" sack. Buell's sister also witnessed seeing a sack the size that her brother saw... outside of that Nobody saw LHO carry a 38" sack into the building that day or any other day. The WC said Frazier was mistaken on the length and then they said his sister was also mistaken yet the cornerstone of the WC saying LHO brought the rifle to work is based on Buell's and his sister's testimony (except for their description of what they say). So the only 2 people who can put LHO with a package were told they were wrong (the size of the package) by a Committee that never saw the package. The 36" rifle broken down still had a measurement of 34.8". Hank, this is classic, you were complaining about Micah dismissing evidence when it didn't fit his outcome and this is exactly what the WC did. So really your question means nothing; it is only a Red Herring.

 

[OKBob]

I didn't say that. I asked who besides Buell and his sister saw LHO take that package into TSBD?

You most certainly did say that, at 11:26AM on May 3: "First, a Witness that saw LHO carry the sack into the TSBD is required."

Frazier himself saw Oswald take it out of the car and begin walking ahead of him towards the TSBD. So what do you mean by your statement? And, by the way, if this crime had gone to trial and if Frazier had been put on the stand to rebut the evidence of the bag, his testimony would easily have been called into question by a competent prosecutor. Just look at Frazier's WC testimony and count the number of times he testified that he did not look closely at the bag and really wasn't paying much attention to it.

 

[Axxman300]

Meanwhile, in grown-up news, there's finally a release date (sort of) for the remaining JFK Assassination Files: October 26, 2017:

http://www.startribune.com/the-fina...-records-set-for-release-this-year/420958203/

It actually says "On or before October 26" so who knows?

It will be nice to have all of it out there where it can be evaluated,

 

[HSienzant]

You claim Gaudet was something that I have not seen as evidence and that is a businessman who went to other countries and reported to the CIA. You have never posted evidence to support your comment...

False. I posted the link to the HSCA determination and you dismissed it with a snide remark. You never did address the points therein.

...but you insist that Gaudet lies

False. I asked you to prove he was telling the truth, despite the HSCA determination to the contrary. You have yet to do so.

yet if I take what he says at face value, I made a value judgement...

Well, yeah. You're accepting what he says without seeking or finding any corroboration anywhere for his claims. That's a value judgment that he is honest.

pretzel logic on your part.

Projection.

Provide evidence that Gaudet lies and that he was only a businessman...

Asked and answered.

... then we can discuss it and if you provide it, I could very well change my opinion.

Provided it days ago. We're still waiting for you to acknowledge its existence.

...By the way, Gaudet being a Participant is not a value judgement, it is reading something and understanding that when he speaks of his experiences he was actually alive and conducting those activities.

No, you're back to assuming he is being truthful. You need to prove that. I don't need to prove he's lying. You brought him up, you cited his claims, you referenced him repeatedly. The burden of proof is on you to prove his claims are truthful. I do not have the burden to disprove your claims. We'll wait.

... You read one thing and I read multiple sources...

Hilarious. You don't know what I've read and how long I've been studying this case. I own and have read over 500 books on the assassination (most of them conspiracy related). I have read the Warren Commission's 26 volumes of evidence and the HSCA's 12 volumes on the JFK assassination. Don't even think to tell me what I've read. You have no clue.

... and the ones who wish to discount anything related to the CIA states what you state... they were only interviewed by the CIA. McAdams is by far the worse offender.

Calling him names is not the same as pointing out his errors of fact. Or pointing out mine. I note you haven't pointed out any errors in my posts. You mostly just change the subject.

...As for the CIA, they never admit that any of their employees work for them as it is against the law to ferret out an Agent, just look at Valerie Pflame.

By that 'logic', we can therefore assume YOU are a CIA agent, as the agency has never denied you work for them. Talk about pretzel logic. You got it in spades.

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

Still waiting for a conspiracy theorist to reconcile just some of the questions their arguments about the paper bag (and the supposed curtain rods) raise:

(a) what was in the package Oswald brought to the Depository that morning,
(b) what happened to what was in the blanket stored in the Paine garage,
(c) where'd the 'whatever' that Oswald brought into the Depository wound up,
(d) why was the sack found on the sixth floor determined to be long enough to contain the disassembled rifle,
(e) why that sack found on the sixth floor was made in the recent past with Depository paper,
(f) why it had Oswald's prints on it,
(g) How did Oswald's rifle get into the Depository, and
(h) please, tell us why Oswald denied in custody he brought any long sack to the Depository that morning, going as far as claiming Frazier must be mistaken and thinking of some other time?

Asked the above of No Other here (and am still waiting for an answer to any of them):
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11824191&postcount=3281

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

I would love to see a survey where people are asked to estimate length, because my guess is most would not be accurate. The difference between 27 and 34 inches is within any reasonable margin of error.

Here are a list of problems:

Oswald lied about the bag carrying curtain rods to Frazier, and then told DPD that he didn't bring anything with him to work that morning accept a sack lunch, but Frazier even asked Oswald where his usual lunch sack was to which Oswald said he would buy lunch that day...so Oswald could even keep his story straight about the bag.

The bag (constructed using paper AND TAPE from the TSBD) also contained fibers from a blanket. The Carcano was usually wrapped in a blanket. Had the fibers been planted then why not use enough to tie them to the blanket Oswald used? I mean if you're going to frame the guy do it right.

Oswald's room HAD curtains, and there was no need for curtain rods, and he had not talked to his land lady about putting in new ones. These rods were never seen by anyone, and were not found in the TSBD...so what happened to them? Were is the receipt for their purchase? Where's the guy who sold them to Oswald?

Good point about the landlady. Gladys Johnson and her husband owned the rooming house on North Beckley that Oswald had been staying at for only a short while and he was only renting a *furnished room* from them. It would be highly inappropriate for a boarder at a rooming house to make unapproved changes to his room. Oswald never sought nor obtained permission to put up his own curtain rods from the Johnsons.

Mr. BALL. How is this room furnished that Oswald rented?
Mrs. JOHNSON. A very small room; it had an old fashioned clothes closet that had a place to hang your clothes and drawer space for your underwear, your socks and everything, and then it also had a cabinet space anyone could have stored food or, well I mean bundles of things, you know, and then I had a dresser and a bed and a heater and a little refrigerated unit.
Mr. BALL. A refrigerating unit?
Mrs. JOHNSON. Yes, sir; a window unit.
Mr. BALL. You mean it cooled the room?
Mrs. JOHNSON. Yes, sir; and it had curtains and venetian blinds.
Mr. BALL. What kind of curtains did it have?
Mrs. JOHNSON. Well, it just had side drapes and panels.
Mr. BALL. Were the curtains on curtain rods?
Mrs. JOHNSON. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. They were in the room when he rented it?
Mrs. JOHNSON. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. Did Oswald ever talk to you about redecorating his room?
Mrs. JOHNSON. No sir; never mentioned it.
Mr. BALL. Did he ever talk to you about putting up new curtains in his room?
Mrs. JOHNSON. No, sir.
Mr. BALL. Did he ever tell you he was going to get some curtain rods?
Mrs. JOHNSON. No; he didn't.
Mr. BALL. The room had curtain rods on the window when he came in there?
Mrs. JOHNSON. Yes, sir; sure did.
Mr. BALL. Also curtains?
Mrs. JOHNSON. Yes, sir.

Moreover, at one point Oswald had said he would switch to a larger room when one was available, and yet, when he was offered the opportunity to switch to a larger room, he declined. If his room was missing curtain rods, one wonders why Oswald would not take the Johnsons up on their offer and switch to the larger room with curtain rods:
Mr. JOHNSON. I believe that--uh--the little room he took was the only room available at that time.
Mr. BELIN. Had he come any earlier to try and find a room earlier--or not?
Mr. JOHNSON. Uh--Mrs. Roberts said he had been by once before.
Mr. BELIN. And was that little room available then, or not--or don't you remember?
Mr. JOHNSON. I don't remember exactly, I believe, though, that--uh--I believe he looked at it and decided he'd wait awhile. But the next time he came back, why he decided he'd take it.
My wife told him that--uh--if he wanted to take that room, why he could, you know, when we had a larger room and more convenient for him, why he could have it. And so he just--after he got this little room, why he just decided he'd stay in it.
_________

Mr. BALL. Where was he when you first met him, at what place?
Mrs. JOHNSON. At my home--I was between serving hours and I come home for relaxation and to kind of help out. I cooperate in keeping the house and seeing after it, too, and I had returned home that afternoon and he seen the room for rent sign--the first time that he came by, I happened to have just rented the last room that one time. Occasionally, I will have them full and then they just go vacant; people just come in and out, stay a week and then are gone, anyway, at that time, I didn't have a room.
Mr. BALL. The first time he came to see you?
Mrs. JOHNSON. Yes; that's something about 3 weeks before he came back.
Mr. BALL. This was 1026 North Beckley?
Mrs. JOHNSON. Yes.
Mr. BALL. He talked to you?
Mrs. JOHNSON. Yes; the first time and the last time; the first time, he told me he wanted a room and I told him I was very sorry, I just rented the last room and he said he was very sorry, he wanted to get near his work and he didn't have a car and it being on the bus line, he was sorry he missed it. I said, "You noticed the sign." I hadn't had time to take the sign up and I told him, "I will take the sign up and if you notice the sign up again, you might stop by and I will have a room" and sure enough, he came by this second time and so this tiny, little room--it was at one time my library; that's what it was built for, and he came by and I said I only have this small room at the present time. I run an ad, it seems like, at that time, and I said I only have the small room and he looked at it and said, "I will take this room with the understanding I can have a larger room at the time you have one go vacant" and I said to him that's agreeable, so, at the time, I had other vacancies which in just 2 or 3 days I had two or three more accommodations go vacant, so I told him I had other accommodations that are larger and he said, "I find this room to be light and comfortable." It was four windows on the outside wall; it was all light. He said, "I find it to be light and comfortable and worth the money, you don't mind, I will remain in this room," so he didn't even look at the other rooms. He just remained in that room, what I call my library.

Moreover, in custody, Oswald denied the curtain rod story entirely, so conspiracy theorists like MicahJava or No Other can't exactly fall back on a story about curtain rods when the guy they are attempting to defend is denying their claims entirely and claiming he brought no long package to work that day.

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

Meanwhile, in grown-up news, there's finally a release date (sort of) for the remaining JFK Assassination Files: October 26, 2017:

http://www.startribune.com/the-fina...-records-set-for-release-this-year/420958203/

It actually says "On or before October 26" so who knows?

It will be nice to have all of it out there where it can be evaluated,

Won't change anything. Conspiracy theorists will still argue "they are hiding the good stuff!"

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

And it's important to remember we only got into the subject of what Wes Frazier and his sister said because No Other changed the subject after I asked these questions:

QUESTIONS FOR THE CONSPIRACY THEORISTS HERE:

Why did the conspirators, who presumably planted the 40-inch weapon on the sixth floor, make a 38-inch sack and plant that instead of planting a 42-inch sack? Didn't they know the length of the rifle they were framing Oswald for owning?

How did the blanket in the Paine garage which presumably normally contained the rifle Oswald didn't own or ever possess, happen to wind up empty on 11/22/63? If it never contained a rifle, what did it contain when Marina looked inside it and when Michael Paine moved it?

He never attempted to respond to either question with a meaningful answer. He basically changed the subject on the first, and hand-waved the second one away.

Hank

 

[Axxman300]

There are pictures of Oswald's room from 11/23. His curtains were in good shape...unless that second gunman got there first, and is really good at redecoration...

 

[HSienzant]

There are pictures of Oswald's room from 11/23. His curtains were in good shape...unless that second gunman got there first, and is really good at redecoration...

Image: http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_6kYzhJGqq...g/FeM_X4OlLXo/s1600/LHO's+Room+On+Beckley.jpg

 

[Hans]

As there seems to be a lull my I ask one question of the experts? After LHO received his rifle how much time did he spend at the firing range to familiarized himself with it?

 

[HSienzant]

As there seems to be a lull my I ask one question of the experts? After LHO received his rifle how much time did he spend at the firing range to familiarized himself with it?

That is unknown. While Oswald's life might be the most researched in history - the Warren Commission had the Treasury Department study his finances and they accounted for nearly every penny Oswald ever spent - they couldn't account for all his time and hence there are gaps such that where he was and what he was doing is sometimes unknown.

He might have practiced the Sunday before the assassination at a rifle range. Some people came forward to identify Oswald as the person they saw, but there are reasons to dispute that. He didn't have many opportunities in Dallas before then, as his rifle was stored away in the Paine garage and as far as we can tell, he didn't access it between September and mid-November.

But between March of 1963, when he obtained it and was photographed with it, through September when his rifle was taken back to Dallas and was stored in the Paine garage, he had plenty of opportunity to practice with it. How much and when is, however, as I said, unknown.

Hank

 

[Axxman300]

As there seems to be a lull my I ask one question of the experts? After LHO received his rifle how much time did he spend at the firing range to familiarized himself with it?

He would spend evenings down at a river shooting bottles, he sat on his porch dry-firing the rifle.

Oswald went to the Sportsdrome Gun Range in Grand Prairie, TX., on October 26, November 9 or 10, and Sunday, November 17. * As told to Hugh Aynesworth by Howard Price. Price was interviewed by the FBI, but never said that he knew Oswald's name because he didn't want to get involved. Garland Slack was in the stall next to Oswald at the range, remembered him because he got into a shouting match with Oswald after he started shooting targets in other lanes, "He centered them all." *

Marina said Oswald practiced disassembling and reassembling the Carcano for hours.

Does this help?

 

[MicahJava]

Anybody care to give an opinion on what these object(s) on the skull photographs are?

NSFW - autopsy photo

The HSCA basically promoted the interpretation that the area in blue is a beveled exit on the frontal bone margin of the skull cavity, and the marked in yellow is a beveled entrance. But since the skull photographs have been taken after the brain had been removed, how could the skull cavity be so small?

Here's a HSCA sketch of their entry and exit interpretations, with an image of a human brain overlaid. Somebody please tell me how (you think) they removed the brain. MS paint an outline of a hypothetical skull cavity and upload your version to imgur.com.

Reminders:

1. Dr. Pierre Finck arrived at the autopsy after the skull cavity had been enlarged and the brain removed. Finck's statements indicate that he could still view the small head wound in the skull plainly, as a part of the intact skull and not skull fragments that had been separated.

2. Kennedy's official autopsy report states that the brain weighed 1,500 grams, slightly higher than the average intact, adult male brain. Below is a tracing of an official brain photograph:

3. This is the consistency of an unfixed human brain, as demonstrated by a Doctor: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jHxyP-nUhUY

 

[HSienzant]

Anybody care to give an opinion on what these object(s) on the skull photographs are?

https://i.imgur.com/jlte6oG.jpg

Apparently you don't care to give your opinion. You're learning that your opinion is worthless, as you're not a medical professional, nor are you a skilled photo analyst. What did the original three pathologists say? What did all the forensic pathologists who reviewed the extant autopsy materials say?

Did they mention it and give an opinion? What was it? Why do you suppose that was?

The HSCA basically promoted the interpretation that the area in blue is a beveled exit on the frontal bone margin of the skull cavity, and the marked in yellow is a beveled entrance. But since the skull photographs have been taken after the brain had been removed, how could the skull cavity be so small?

"Small" is your interpretation of the image, is it not? Did the forensic pathologists who examined the extant autopsy materials call this wound "small", or are you treating us to your opinion once more? Is this "small" interpretation because of your extensive background as a medical professional, a skilled photographic analyst, both, or neither?

Do you understand photogrammetry, for starters?

Here's a HSCA sketch of their entry and exit interpretations, with an image of a human brain overlaid. Somebody please tell me how (you think) they removed the brain. MS paint an outline of a hypothetical skull cavity and upload your version to imgur.com.

https://i.imgur.com/wBMHA8e.png

https://i.imgur.com/bnCM9QI.jpg

The HSCA already commissioned a medical artist - Ida Dox - to do just that:
[qimg]http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/dox2big.jpg[/qimg]

Why on earth would you be seeking the opinion of laymen here with little to no medical training or photo analytic skills, for the most part? Can you explain why you're asking us for our opinion?

Reminders:

1. Dr. Pierre Finck arrived at the autopsy after the skull cavity had been enlarged and the brain removed. Finck's statements indicate that he could still view the small head wound in the skull plainly, as a part of the intact skull and not skull fragments that had been separated.

So we're not talking about the massive head wound on the top right side of the head, then, are we? Where did Finck and the rest of the autopsy team locate this small head wound? Regarding the bolded, where did Finck plainly say this, or is this your 'interpretation' of his remarks?

2. Kennedy's official autopsy report states that the brain weighed 1,500 grams, slightly higher than the average intact, adult male brain. Below is a tracing of an official brain photograph:

https://i.imgur.com/z7Hs8Ty.png

And your point is?

3. This is the consistency of an unfixed human brain, as demonstrated by a Doctor: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jHxyP-nUhUY

And your point is?

Hank

 

[Tomtomkent]

Micha, I think we are past the point that you will find anybody showing interest in your questions about photographs. It is clear we will never be able to answer why any marking or feature has any significance to you, nor will you be satisfied with answers that are painfully obvious to the rest of us.

I can not, for example, explain why a cavity looks so small to you, when I do not understand how large you expect it to be, or why you are interpreting it as abnormal or in discrepancy with the autopsy records, just as I can not understand why you thought obvious wounds as red splotches, or find suspicion in the hair being parted around the wound.

Time and again you offer photos that clearly support the Warren commission, and argue as though they show something entirely different.