JFK Conspiracy Theories IV: The One With The Whales

[HSienzant]

Most CTs refuse to offer a theory or narrative beyond occasionally that LHO was innocent. There are a few out there (LBJ got Mac Wallace to do the shooting, etc), but most CTists will only pick convenient cherries from any one theory and ignore other bits. Rarely does it fit together to a whole.

Robert Prey in the earlier incarnations of this thread is a prime example. He would offer lengthy posts about how this witness proves a conspiracy, because a Cuban kid said so, that the medical witnesses were forced to lie, that LBJ called the hospital, and that Oswald was a communist CIA spy....

But even writing a lengthy "essay" he can't offer an actual theory, just a lot of jumbled things he thinks might have happened.

You just described a Poster on this thread and it is not MicahJava.

MicahJava posts fit. But then, so do yours.

Who is denying they are here to argue for or against a conspiracy? You are.

Who is trying to argue that Carolyn Walthers eyewitness report points to a conspiracy? You are.

Who is trying to argue that Oswald didn't bring a rifle to the Depository? You are.

But who can't defend those arguments with anything remotely resembling evidence? You can't.

After all, Oswald's rifle was found in the Depository, and it has his prints on it and his rifle was missing from its normal storage place and a long sack (long enough to contain the rifle and bearing his prints was found in the sniper's nest), but none of that means anything, according to you.

Your arguments reduce to "nothing is established and I refuse to draw reasonable conclusions" - in short, your arguments, carried to their logical ends, would mean no one would ever be convicted of anything.

Certainly, if you don't convict the man whose rifle was found on the same floor where the shooter was seen shooting from and who matches the description of the shooter, you won't convict anyone of this crime. Right?

Hank

 

[Praktik]

Your sister? Your in-law? You can't refute page 1 of the official autopsy report. That's all I'm defending here.

Your retort about Skeptic Magazine had me thinking you thought I was in here regurgitating boilerplate - I wanted to share the authenticity of my perspective here, how its grounded in my real world experience - and how I thought it directly relevant to the topics of conversation on this very page with respect to JFK.

I had a real moment of connection here - as i considered all these myriad of things I mentioned - and how they all had something very similar in contour to the debate on how the damage to JFK's cerebellum "should look like"

 

[No Other]

Asked and answered. Read the post again. It is associated with both.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11824307&postcount=3284

Do you even read what you post????? What you posted supports what I just said... Klein's shipped LHO the 36" rifle. Nowhere does it say they are the same catalogue number, it is only you who makes that claim.


Here's the two different ads showing the two rifles both with the same catalog number:
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-q_gppD-Coys/VnskoDjAe9I/AAAAAAABImY/d2TSQcYLp2s/s1600/Klein%27s-Ads.jpg

And the Klein's business records (also cited and ignored by you) show Oswald was shipped the 40" model with the serial number C2766 - the same number on the rifle found in the Depository.

I ignore stupid claims. Klein's records show that a 36" rifle was shipped... plain and simple. Why do you get everything messed up? Too busy defending a position and not accepting the facts? You sound like the people you admonished a few weeks ago... Here is a link... http://www.whokilledjfk.net/rifle_size.JPG

 

[Praktik]

Do you even read what you post?????

Probably not a productive way to start a post - perhaps some softening of tone and depersonalization is called for.

Just chill out a bit, ain't nothing so important we need to start talking to each other like that!

 

[Tomtomkent]

Klein's did not make this claim, nobody said a mistake took place..

What do you mean? I am saying it. IF you are claiming the rifle in evidence is not, for any reason, the rifle the WC found to have been shipped, then somebody has mistaken it.

Now answer the question: What difference does it make?


The rifle used in the murder was undeniably Oswald's. What difference does it make if the WC traced the order of simaler different length, mistakenly?

 

[No Other]

What do you mean? I am saying it. IF you are claiming the rifle in evidence is not, for any reason, the rifle the WC found to have been shipped, then somebody has mistaken it.

Now answer the question: What difference does it make?

1. If the rifle the WC says was LHO's and it is not the one shipped by Klein's, then how does the WC put that rifle in LHO's hands?

The rifle used in the murder was undeniably Oswald's. What difference does it make if the WC traced the order of simaler different length, mistakenly?

Defend this comment

 

[No Other]

Probably not a productive way to start a post - perhaps some softening of tone and depersonalization is called for.

Just chill out a bit, ain't nothing so important we need to start talking to each other like that!

It could have been over the top but not anymore than pejoratives being thrown around. Calling someone a CT'er or LN'er is meant to make the other person defensive and talking in the 3rd person does not hide the intent. Calling it both ways gives credibility to both the initiator of the admonishment and the message.

 

[No Other]

Who is denying they are here to argue for or against a conspiracy? You are.

I am not arguing one way or another; you are confusing presenting what others (Carolyn Walthers, WC, Frazier, et al) say with one making those comments and attributing one's personal position with the comment(s)

Who is trying to argue that Carolyn Walthers eyewitness report points to a conspiracy? You are.

I only stated what the FBI took down from Carolyn Walthers. Do you claim that the FBI is promoting a conspiracy? I only repeated what the FBI did... nothing more.

Who is trying to argue that Oswald didn't bring a rifle to the Depository? You are.

I am challenging what the WC reported; it is highly inconsistent and in fact, it is an abuse of power to say about someone like Frazier that his observation of a package being brought to work by LHO is the backbone against LHO and then dismiss Frazier's observation of how big the package was... only because it did not fit their narrative. The WC never provided an observational rebuttal to what Frazier saw but instead elected to make an unfounded, unsupported conclusion because it folds neatly into the WC claim.

But who can't defend those arguments with anything remotely resembling evidence? You can't.

I am not defending anything...

After all, Oswald's rifle was found in the Depository, and it has his prints on it and his rifle was missing from its normal storage place and a long sack (long enough to contain the rifle and bearing his prints was found in the sniper's nest), but none of that means anything, according to you.

Again, it needs to be established that it was LHO's rifle, you have not accomplished that. The storage place was not anything that LHO said or Marina said, it was the Paines who made that statement. LHO's prints could easily be found on the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, and 6th floors, it does not mean anything. If there was residue left on his cheek due to firing the rifle, then you may have a position of strength but that is not the case.

Your arguments reduce to "nothing is established and I refuse to draw reasonable conclusions" - in short, your arguments, carried to their logical ends, would mean no one would ever be convicted of anything.

I do not agree with this assessment but it may be a good moment to comment that... "yes, I do take convicting someone seriously as I was part of the justice system that did just that. It is not to be taken lightly as it is my experience of people who do approach litigation cavalierly have not been a participant or at minimum have not been on the bad end of a legal decision. "

Certainly, if you don't convict the man whose rifle was found on the same floor where the shooter was seen shooting from and who matches the description of the shooter, you won't convict anyone of this crime. Right?

I certainly would not convict anyone on the case the WC presented. Remember, Howard Brennan (the person who the WC said saw LHO on the 6th floor) did not recognize him in a parade walk (which is a ploy as it allows the Prosecution to size up a witness and then prep them for a lineup) and Brennan still needed assistance to point out LHO in the "official" lineup.

 

[MicahJava]

In my copy, page one says JFK died of a gunshot wound (singular) to the head: "CAUSE OF DEATH: Gunshot wound, head"
https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/warren-commission-report/appendix-09.pdf
What does your copy say?

By "page 1", I mean the face sheet diagram, stained in the President's blood.

 

[MicahJava]

Citation? (To clear up any confusion, I'm looking for a link to the actual testimony of the "three forensic experts hired by the ARRB"). Not to what some conspiracy theorist says another conspiracy theorist said in some blog about how he interprets their testimony.

Nobody cares what you're pretty convinced of. For some reason, you keep giving us your opinion, when we're looking for expert opinion.

And you just answered my questions in the affirmative, didn't you?

These:

So your answer is, "Yes, my presumption is that the next batch of experts will conclude something different than all the prior experts. That's what I'm counting on, and that's why I'm ignoring all the prior experts, and their unanimous opinion about what the body of JFK shows."

Good of you to admit you got nothing except wishful thinking.

Hank

I've posted these more than once.

ARRB staff report of observations and opinions of forensic anthropologist Dr. Douglas Ubelaker

ARRB staff report of observations and opinions of forensic pathologist Dr. Robert H. Kirschner

ARRB staff report of observations and opinions of forensic radiologist Dr. John J. Fitzpatrick

Can you give me a list of experts that support the cowlick entry theory who:

A. Were not on a panel specifically assembled to "refute some of the junk in Thompson's book"

B. Were not on a panel which stooped to coercing the President's autopsy physician into testifying that he believed the cowlick entry theory

 

[MicahJava]

Do you believe the following list of forensic pathologists? Every single one states that one bullet entered the back JFK's head and exited through the right front.

Dr. James Humes
Dr. J. Thornton Boswell
Dr. Pierre Finck
Dr. John Coe
Dr. Joseph Davis
Dr. George Loquvam
Dr. Charles Petty
Dr. Earl Rose
Dr. Werner Spitz
Dr. Cyril Wecht
Dr. James Weston
Dr. William Carnes
Dr. Russell Fisher
Dr. Russell Morgan
Dr. Alan Mortiz
Dr. Robert McMeekin
Dr. Richard Lindenberg
Dr. Fred Hodges

This is at least the third time that I've posted this list and you still haven't explained what degree or experience you have that means we should listen to your opinion rather than their professional findings.

And you still haven't explained why it matters. If Oswald's bullet entered JFK's skull one inch above and slightly to the right of the EOP, he'd still be just as dead as he is now that Oswald's bullet entered three inches above and slightly to the right of the EOP. Could you please explain why that two inches is so important to your theory of the assassination?

Actually, could you please just give your theory of the assassination?

Um, I already have. A part of truth-seeking and science is memorizing facts, which you have shown you can not do. You can not remember the last time I responded to this same comment, and you do not remember that the difference between the EOP and the cowlick fracture is four inches. The cowlick fracture is 4-5 inches above the EOP, not 3 inches. I've already explained why all of this matters.

Also notice now you didn't mention Dr. George Burkley, the President's personal physician who participated in the autopsy. Probably because he implied more than once than Kennedy may have been shot in the head twice.

 

[MicahJava]

Let me get this straight, you don't believe what forensic experts examining the evidence DON'T say? (Sorry for the double negative, but it seemed the best way to ask)

Yes. Because the depressed cowlick fracture is clear on the X-rays, any expert who examines the X-rays will see it. Not making any note of it means that they most likely just considered it a fracture relating to the large head wound, not an entry wound.

 

[MicahJava]

You post a picture of the entry wound and then say it's not the entry wound because a handful of "experts" that you CHOOSE to believe don't think it is.

Congratulations, you are now a certified ghost hunter. Willfully misinterpreting photographs can be tricky, but you're a natural. At this pace I should be able to get you a MUFON investigator card too.

There are not enough photographs in the public domain to counter the facts.

More importantly - you are not a medical docotor, and yet here you are feebly assessing forensics, a discipline within medicine which requires many years of additional schooling to achieve, trying to scam your way through four or five photographs to justify your ridiculous theory that there were more than two head shots.

This in spite of the fact that the Zapruder Film shows only one head shot and one back shot.

Go big or go home I guess. Maybe now that you're ghost hunter you can go back to Dallas and do EVPs to find the real killers.

1. You have no basis for your interpretation of the BOH photos. Dr. Humes, Dr. Boswell, and Dr. Finck unanimously said that red spot was not the small head wound. The person who took those photographs, John Stringer said he didn't think the red spot was the small head wound.

2. Gunshots to the head don't always look like the movies.

 

[Axxman300]

1. You have no basis for your interpretation of the BOH photos. Dr. Humes, Dr. Boswell, and Dr. Finck unanimously said that red spot was not the small head wound. The person who took those photographs, John Stringer said he didn't think the red spot was the small head wound.

2. Gunshots to the head don't always look like the movies.

1. We know where the entry wound is.

2. The are only 2 movies that matter, Zapruder and Nix.

 

[Axxman300]

A part of truth-seeking and science is memorizing facts...

Truth-seeking is a religious act, science it not. Science is not about memorizing facts, it is about collecting facts, and assembling them to form a narrative to explain something.

Those facts are: the body, the rifle found on the 6th floor with 3 spent casings, the bullet/bullet fragments which match the rifle, the rifle's owner (Oswald) being in the building on the 6th floor at the time of the shooting, Oswald fleeing the scene of the crime, Oswald shooting Tippet, Oswald attempting to murder a second DPD officer during his arrest, Oswald's inconsistent statements while in custody.

Speculation is not fact, anything that is speculation gets thrown out.

I will say it again, if you believe there was a conspiracy you will NEVER find it in Dealey Plaza. Oswald was alone on 11/22/63, this much is clear as it can be, so if you want you're Pulitzer you need to look into Oswald's social circles and see what jumps out, but beware - in 54 years nothing credible has been found.

 

[HSienzant]

Your sister? Your in-law? You can't refute page 1 of the official autopsy report. That's all I'm defending here.

In my copy, page one says JFK died of a gunshot wound (singular) to the head: "CAUSE OF DEATH: Gunshot wound, head"
https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/warren-commission-report/appendix-09.pdf
What does your copy say?

By "page 1", I mean the face sheet diagram, stained in the President's blood.

And there's a great example of the logical fallacy of Moving the Goalposts.

Your argument gets disproven? No Problem - Change your argument.

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

1. You have no basis for your interpretation of the BOH photos. Dr. Humes, Dr. Boswell, and Dr. Finck unanimously said that red spot was not the small head wound. The person who took those photographs, John Stringer said he didn't think the red spot was the small head wound.

When did those gentlemen say that?

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

Also notice now you didn't mention Dr. George Burkley, the President's personal physician who participated in the autopsy. Probably because he implied more than once than Kennedy may have been shot in the head twice.

In the words of the late President Harry Truman, "What a load of horse manure".

We've already discussed this extensively in the past. Burkley said if he had been called to testify, the possibility of two shots to the head would have been ELIMINATED.

Do you understand what the word "eliminated" means, in English?

Burkley's affidavit to the HSCA:
Had the Warren Commission deemed to call me, I would have stated why I retained the brain and the possibility of two bullets having wounded President John F. Kennedy's brain would have been eliminated.

How many more times will I need to point this out before you drop your false claim to the contrary?

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

It could have been over the top but not anymore than pejoratives being thrown around. Calling someone a CT'er or LN'er is meant to make the other person defensive and talking in the 3rd person does not hide the intent. Calling it both ways gives credibility to both the initiator of the admonishment and the message.

Back on Prodigy in the early 1990's the two groups were called "Lone Nutters" and "Loons", and nobody once from either side expressed any discontent over the naming conventions. It was simply short-hand to get the point across. You appear too sensitive by at least half from here.

But what would you prefer the two sides be called that you don't think would offend either side? Love to hear your suggestions on this point.

I personally think Oswald acted alone, but I don't think he was a nut in the classic sense of a mentally unstable person who didn't know right from wrong. So "Lone Nutter" isn't a term I personally think is accurate as it applies to me, but it's a term I don't get worked up over, either.

"Warren Commission Defender" is another that isn't accurate. I read the 26 volumes of evidence and HSCA 12 volumes in the early 1980s, which caused me to flip from conspiracy believer to someone who believed Oswald committed the assassination on his own, but I didn't flip because of anything I read in the Warren Commission Report. I flipped to the other side because of the testimony and evidence I saw. So while I may agree with many of the conclusions of the Warren Commission, I don't agree with all of them, and what I'm here defending is my own beliefs, no one else's.

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

1. If the rifle the WC says was LHO's and it is not the one shipped by Klein's, then how does the WC put that rifle in LHO's hands?

Loaded question (bolded and underlined).

The rifle shipped by Kleins was the one bearing the serial number C2766, and that was the one found in the Depository with Oswald's prints on it. Photos of him with the weapon were also found.

I'd say that evidence puts the rifle in his hands.

Hank