JFK Conspiracy Theories IV: The One With The Whales

[OKBob]

It seems that his idea is, that if the Warren Commission got some detail wrong, it must mean that there was a conspiracy.

Yes, MicahJava has been indulging in a form of bellwether fallacy: a (purported) anomaly that all by itself reveals Oswald's guilt to be manufactured. Never mind all the other evidence that converges--in the process known as consilience--on Oswald and on him alone. This is the thinking of the amateur detective transposed to conspiracy buff.

 

[CORed]

Doesn't even Bugliosi admit that the FBI were taking fingerprint samples off of Oswald's corpse?

Yeah. Why would they do that? It's not like they'd have any desire to make sure they had a positive ID of the corpse or anything like that. Oh wait, that's almost certainly exactly why they would do that.

The problem with the idea that they did some kind of elaborate frame-up of Oswald is that one has to assume that all of the front line police and FBI folks would cooperate in this, and that none would blow the whistle, and it would have taken a lot of people to make this work. It's the silliest sort of CT "thinking". Tens, hundreds or thousands of people can be bribed or bullied into covering up the conspiracy, and none of them will talk.

 

[OKBob]

Doesn't even Bugliosi admit that the FBI were taking fingerprint samples off of Oswald's corpse?

Notice MicahJava's use of the word "admit" here. It's a common CT ploy to suggest that an author with whom one disagrees has been intentionally withholding the truth (not just taking a different position on the facts) and has made a small, incriminating admission regarding the otherwise withheld truth. This subtle implication of bad faith--which incidentally begs the question of what the "truth" is--is pervasive among JFK CT rhetoric. It attempts to turn one's opponent--whether that opponent is a published author or a blog discussant--into a courtroom fact or expert witness, whom the CTer then cross-examines in the manner of Perry Mason. This is an illegitimate approach to critical thinking.

On the factual question of why prints were taken from Oswald's corpse, that point has been discussed fully on this list or its ISF/JREF predecessors. Knowledgeable folks have pointed out that the latent print(s) found on the rifle could not have been manufactured from Oswald's corpse. The authorities were likely taking prints to ensure Oswald's identity against possible later claims (which were made anyway) that the body was not that of Oswald.

 

[CORed]

Notice MicahJava's use of the word "admit" here. It's a common CT ploy to suggest that an author with whom one disagrees has been intentionally withholding the truth (not just taking a different position on the facts) and has made a small, incriminating admission regarding the otherwise withheld truth. This subtle implication of bad faith--which incidentally begs the question of what the "truth" is--is pervasive among JFK CT rhetoric. It attempts to turn one's opponent--whether that opponent is a published author or a blog discussant--into a courtroom fact or expert witness, whom the CTer then cross-examines in the manner of Perry Mason. This is an illegitimate approach to critical thinking.

On the factual question of why prints were taken from Oswald's corpse, that point has been discussed fully on this list or its ISF/JREF predecessors. Knowledgeable folks have pointed out that the latent print(s) found on the rifle could not have been manufactured from Oswald's corpse. The authorities were likely taking prints to ensure Oswald's identity against possible later claims (which were made anyway) that the body was not that of Oswald.

Yes, I noticed the use of "admit" and chuckled a bit. It's certainly there to imply that there was something improper about taking fingerprints from the corpse, when in reality it was something that due diligence required them to do.

 

[No Other]

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

I was responding to a post and what this forum does is pit us versus them. One side does not eat it's own and that makes for a poor environment...

I have no doubt that you have read the WC Report, what I find interesting is that you believe it. I just went of over George DeMohrenschildt's testimony again and I find it fascinating that he doesn't get more attention and I also find it entertaining in that you do not see all the coincidences that take place with this man. Personally, anybody who has read the WC and argues in favor of it, is merely playing with others on a debate.

 

[OKBob]

I have no doubt that you have read the WC Report, what I find interesting is that you believe it. I also find it entertaining in that you do not see all the coincidences that take place with this man. Personally, anybody who has read the WC and argues in favor of it, is merely playing with others on a debate.

Willful misrepresentation of Hank's remarks ("you believe it [the WCR]") does not win you points. He said he was particularly persuaded by the evidence and testimony contained in the WCR, not by the WCR's summaries and conclusions.

Do not be supercilious ("I also find it entertaining"). Do not impute bad-faith motives to your opponent ('merely playing with others"). Do not generalize ("anybody who has read the WC and argues in favor of it"). Stop fetishizing the WCR as your opponent's bible. As far as I can tell, none of the folks on this forum who have concluded that Oswald acted alone have done so out of worship of governmental authority.

 

[HSienzant]

It's surprising to see Hank quote Waldman's WC testimony, because his testimony debunks his notion that the "Pay to the Order of The First National Bank of Chicago" stamp is the "missing" bank endorsement. That stamp was from Kleins, not the bank.

He even brought the Kleins stamp with him to provide a sample to the WC (Waldman Exhibit 9):

https://i.imgur.com/gzJb5KK.jpg

Asked and answered.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11825495&postcount=3289

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

Willful misrepresentation of Hank's remarks ("you believe it [the WCR]") does not win you points. He said he was particularly persuaded by the presentation of evidence and testimony in the WCR, not by the WCR's summaries and conclusions.

Actually I said I was convinced by the evidence and testimony in the WC's 26 volumes of evidence (AKA the Hearings), and the HSCA's 12volumes, not by anything I read in the one-volume Warren Commission Report (WCR), which only summarizes the evidence and testimony and also gave the WC's conclusions.

Otherwise spot on.

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

Nope. Look at the entire history of Burkley's statements, including what Henry Hurt wrote. Burkley was never called to testify before the Warren Commission or the HSCA, so the mystery shrouding Burkley's experience with Kennedy's death makes what little he said even more uneasy. The HSCA only has an interview report based on a phone call while Burkley was at a golf club.

Burkley was never asked specifically where he saw the small head wound, nor his opinion on the cowlick entry theory. But since he supervised and signed off on the face sheet, it's only fair to consider him an EOP supporter, along with Humes, Boswell, Finck, Stringer, Kellerman, Lipsey, O'Neil and Boyers.

Asked and answered, by Burkley himself.

Read what he wrote:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11561311&postcount=1905

We covered this ground.

Hank

 

[MicahJava]

Yeah. Why would they do that? It's not like they'd have any desire to make sure they had a positive ID of the corpse or anything like that. Oh wait, that's almost certainly exactly why they would do that.

The problem with the idea that they did some kind of elaborate frame-up of Oswald is that one has to assume that all of the front line police and FBI folks would cooperate in this, and that none would blow the whistle, and it would have taken a lot of people to make this work. It's the silliest sort of CT "thinking". Tens, hundreds or thousands of people can be bribed or bullied into covering up the conspiracy, and none of them will talk.

Okay, where's the part in the WC that talks about the prints being lifted from the body?

 

[MicahJava]

Asked and answered.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11825495&postcount=3289

Hank

Anybody at Klein's sporting goods can go around stamping that on anything. The bank endorsement is a separate marking, from the bank and not from Klein's sporting goods.

 

[MicahJava]

Asked and answered, by Burkley himself.

Read what he wrote:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11561311&postcount=1905

We covered this ground.

Hank

Others will get a clearer picture looking at my earlier post where I compile every relevant quote from Burkley. Except Kurtz's book JFK Assassination Debates, ignore that because I now understand that Kurtz may very well be a fraud who fabricates interviews.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=11750450#post11750450

 

[MicahJava]

REMINDER: This hole isn't big enough to fit a brain through it. The hole had to be enlarged, which would require removing the area of skull portrayed as the entry wound. Dr. Finck always maintained that he could still see the entry wound in the skull after the brain had already been removed when he arrived at the autopsy.

 

[JimOfAllTrades]

Anybody at Klein's sporting goods can go around stamping that on anything. The bank endorsement is a separate marking, from the bank and not from Klein's sporting goods.

According the quote in the post linked to by HSienzant, the money order has to be endorsed *to* a bank or other institution, not *by* a bank.

 

[Axxman300]

REMINDER: This hole isn't big enough to fit a brain through it. The hole had to be enlarged, which would require removing the area of skull portrayed as the entry wound. Dr. Finck always maintained that he could still see the entry wound in the skull after the brain had already been removed when he arrived at the autopsy.

In stead of wasting our time with your twaddle, how about researching exactly how they removed JFK's brain?

If they removed it through the hole already provided by Oswald then that's what they did. Maybe you can regale us with your extensive medical background and how many brains you have removed in your career and a pathologist.

 

[MicahJava]

According the quote in the post linked to by HSienzant, the money order has to be endorsed *to* a bank or other institution, not *by* a bank.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11825156&postcount=3287


Endorsements

All cash items sent to us, or to another Federal Reserve Bank direct for our account, should be endorsed without restriction to the order of the Federal Reserve Bank to which sent, or endorsed to the order of any bank, banker or trust company, or with some similar endorsement. Cash items will be accepted by us, and by other Federal Reserve Banks, only upon the understanding and condition that all prior endorsements are guaranteed by the sending bank. There should be incorporated in the endorsement of the sending bank the phrase, “All prior endorsements guaranteed.” The act of sending or delivering a cash item to us or to another Federal Reserve Bank will, however, be deemed and understood to constitute a guaranty of all prior endorsements on such item, whether or not an express guaranty is incorporated in the sending bank’s endorsement. The endorsement of the sending bank should be dated and should show the American Bankers Association transit number of the sending bank in prominent type on both sides.

Can this description fit the stamp used by Kleins sporting goods?

 

[MicahJava]

In stead of wasting our time with your twaddle, how about researching exactly how they removed JFK's brain?

If they removed it through the hole already provided by Oswald then that's what they did. Maybe you can regale us with your extensive medical background and how many brains you have removed in your career and a pathologist.

Are you going to sit here and try saying you can fit a brain through that hole?

Normally, the entire top of the skull is taken off:

Video of a real brain removal procedure: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y37AhTI1ui8

 

[Axxman300]

What did the doctors say that they did?

 

[Axxman300]

For the adults in the room, this is the FBI's reconstruction film of the assassination:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ohsqv_yDlYc

It is silent, without narration, but serves as a time-capsule showing the building, the 6th Floor, the sniper's nest, the motorcade as viewed from the sniper's nest, and they walk you through Oswald's departure to where he stashed HIS gun, and takes you down stairs to the employee break room.

The film is slow, repetitive, but shows how much work went into the crime scene investigation, and gives anyone interested a clear view of the location as it was in that week in November, 1963.

 

[HSienzant]

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11825156&postcount=3287


Endorsements



Can this description fit the stamp used by Kleins sporting goods?

Asked and answered.

"...or endorsed to the order of any bank, banker or trust company, or with some similar endorsement".

Moreover, the language goes on to say that even minus that endorsement, if the money order is presented for payment, the endorsement will be presumed:
--quote --
There should be incorporated in the endorsement of the sending bank the phrase, “All prior endorsements guaranteed.” The act of sending or delivering a cash item to us or to another Federal Reserve Bank will, however, be deemed and understood to constitute a guaranty of all prior endorsements on such item, whether or not an express guaranty is incorporated in the sending bank’s endorsement.
--unquote--

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=3289

Do you really think Klein's shipped Oswald the rifle without getting paid for it?

Or are you trying to back-door your way to arguing they never shipped the rifle?

Oswald's prints are on the rifle, and he was photographed with the rifle.

And Klein's business records says he was shipped the rifle and that he paid with a money order.
-- quote --
Mr. WALDMAN. It was shipped by parcel post as indicated by this circle around the letters "PP."
Mr. BELIN. Does it show if any amount was enclosed with the order itself?
Mr. WALDMAN. Yes; the amount that was enclosed with the order was $21.45, as designated on the right-hand side of this order blank here.
Mr. BELIN. Opposite the words "total amount enclosed"?
Mr. WALDMAN. Yes.
Mr. BELIN. Is there anything which indicates in what form you received the money?
Mr. WALDMAN. Yes; below the amount is shown the letters "MO" designating money order.
--unquote --

You have to establish all that is fraudulent, not just the money order.

Good luck getting around the consilience of all that evidence.

Hank