Cont: JFK Conspiracy Theories V: Five for Fighting

[HSienzant]

In my defense I was a JFK CTist for 32 years, meaning I believed there was a conspiracy to kill JFK based on lies, fabricated evidence, out-of-context anecdotal evidence, and all stemming from paranoia about the government

About 15 years for me (1965-80) or thereabouts. Started with Weisberg, moved to Lane & Meagher, then a host of others, including Groden, Marrs, Lifton, too many to count.

Getting the WC 26 volumes and the HSCA set was the turning point for me. I found out for myself how badly the critics had been twisting the facts and how it was the critics who were keeping the truth from the American public, while accusing the Warren Commission of that very deed, and they were doing it in the name of the almighty dollar.

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

So I am digging myself out of a deep intellectual hole I dug. The irony is that this hole is being filled in from the dirt you're shoveling while digging your own hole.

Great analogy!

Hank

 

[bknight]

...

In my defense I was a JFK CTist for 32 years, meaning I believed there was a conspiracy to kill JFK based on lies, fabricated evidence, out-of-context anecdotal evidence, and all stemming from paranoia about the government.

...

About 15 years for me (1965-80) or thereabouts. Started with Weisberg, moved to Lane & Meagher, then a host of others, including Groden, Marrs, Lifton, too many to count.

Getting the WC 26 volumes and the HSCA set was the turning point for me. I found out for myself how badly the critics had been twisting the facts and how it was the critics who were keeping the truth from the American public, while accusing the Warren Commission of that very deed, and they were doing it in the name of the almighty dollar.

Hank

I guess I'm different, in that I never believed a conspiracy, and am very skeptical of those writers of books positioning for their point of view on a subject. Or those that post gibberish on the web defending "truth" as they see it. My brush with CT's started with the Moon landing conspiracy and the non scientific/technical buffoonery.

I'm glad that you two have done a great deal of research and can put people like MicahJava down.

 

[MicahJava]

Hank:

On the ~z190 evidence, the HSCA photographic panel definitely listed more reasons than "jiggle analysis" for believing that those frames showed more than Kennedy moving his arm down from waving.

 

[Axxman300]

I guess I'm different, in that I never believed a conspiracy, and am very skeptical of those writers of books positioning for their point of view on a subject. Or those that post gibberish on the web defending "truth" as they see it. My brush with CT's started with the Moon landing conspiracy and the non scientific/technical buffoonery.

I'm glad that you two have done a great deal of research and can put people like MicahJava down.

My dad got me into the JFK thing when I was real young, so I was handicapped by an adult I trusted.

I'm not trying to put down anybody, just doing my penance for all of the BS I put into the world.

 

[HSienzant]

Hank: On the ~z190 evidence, the HSCA photographic panel definitely listed more reasons than "jiggle analysis" for believing that those frames showed more than Kennedy moving his arm down from waving.

Really?

Can you tell us what those other reasons were?

Not looking for these assumptions or their attempt to marry the acoustic data to the Z-film. Please provide these supposed reasons.

Hank

 

[Axxman300]

Really?

Can you tell us what those other reasons were?

Not looking for these assumptions or their attempt to marry the acoustic data to the Z-film. Please provide these supposed reasons.

Hank

Maybe JFK had been replaced by a cyborg replica that malfunctioned in the humidity of Dallas causing its head to explode, so they frame Oswald to keep the secret that the real JFK had been rescued by time travelers to become the POTUS in 2024.

This is a more rational explanation than the President being struck by a silenced .22 round that nobody saw.

 

[BStrong]

Maybe JFK had been replaced by a cyborg replica that malfunctioned in the humidity of Dallas causing its head to explode, so they frame Oswald to keep the secret that the real JFK had been rescued by time travelers to become the POTUS in 2024.

This is a more rational explanation than the President being struck by a silenced .22 round that nobody saw.

Unless you guys prove me wrong, my comprehensive account of the assassination and the players involved stands...

At least it's funnier than the flights of fancy that CTists insist are true.

 

[CORed]

Since we've established the validity of my question "How did Dr. Finck see the entry hole in the intact skull after the brain had already been removed", I must remind everyone who still thinks the wound was high in the cowlick area to answer that in a way that isn't completely stupid, otherwise any reasonable person must revert to the original lower EOP location for the entry in the back of the head.

Maybe they cut the top of the skull off above the "cowlick" area.

 

[MicahJava]

Really?

Can you tell us what those other reasons were?

Not looking for these assumptions or their attempt to marry the acoustic data to the Z-film. Please provide these supposed reasons.

Hank

From the 1971 paper in the Journal of Forensic Sciences, Photographic Evidence and the Assassination of President John F. Kennedy by physicist Don Olson and criminalist Ralph Turner:

"The Warren Commission believed that frames 225-230 represented the President's reactions to a shot fired somewhere in the interval of Zapruder frames 210-224, while the President was behind the road sign. However, certain observations in the Zapruder film will be noted here to indicate that the first wounding of the President may not have been blocked from the record by the road sign. The transition in the President's appearance between frames 183 and 230 (described above) in fact seems to begin with certain reactions in the intervals of frames 194-206.

First, a general trend in the frames 194-206 may be noted. Beginning as early as frame 194, the President's body seems to undergo a motion forward and to the left. This motion, which can be visually approximated to be on the order of six or seven inches, seems to begin in frame 194 and continues through about frame 200. The President seems to move away from the seat back and tilt to to the left, away from the window ledge."

...

"Study of the frames reveals further information. Recalling the descriptions above, it is clear that between frames 183 and 230, two specific changes occurred in the President's position. First, the President turned his head and shoulders back from the crowd until he was facing forward. Also, the President's right arm moved from a position with the elbow below a chrome strip on the outside of the car, into a position with the arm and elbow well inside the car and raised almost to chin level. These frames and motions have been described in such great detail because both of these specific changes in Kennedy can be observed to occur in the "early Zapruder frames," i.e., those before the President disappears from view behind the road sign. In this context, It happens that frame 204 is very important.

On the interval the President's body is seen to narrow somewhat to the view, indicating that he not only leans to the Left front, but also is rotated to the left. The rotation of the shoulders begins as early as frame 195. His head comes around at 200-202. By frame 204 the President is facing almost directly forward.

As the President moves and rotates to the left, his right arm is pulled back into the car. While his elbow has been resting outside the car, it comes up noticeably at frame 195. The President's elbow can be seen to cross the chrome strip on the side of the car at frames As President Kennedy disappears from view behind the sign, his right arm seems to he in a particularly unusual position the clearly visible gray of his suit coat indicating that his right arm and elbow have been raised at least to the level of his chin."

http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg%20Subject%20Index%20Files/J%20Disk/Journal%20of%20Forensic%20Science/Item%2001.pdf



From the 9/12/1978 testimony of Calvin McCamy, spokesman for the HSCA photographic evidence panel:

"...There is considerable blurring at this point. The President's arm is up in a waving position. His head is still toward the right. At this point there is considerable blur, and by here, it appears as though his head is beginning to turn quite rapidly to the left. His head is now to the left. That is only one-eighteenth of a second from one frame to the next. He continues to look toward the left. One barely sees his right ear toward the camera. It is quite clear he is here now looking directly at his wife. He and his wife can be seen looking at one another in this sequence. He now goes behind the sign, and only a fraction of a second later we see his hands moving upward. He has a gasping expression. His hands are in a classic position of a person who has been startled. He now begins to raise his arms into what I would call a defensive position. He may be clutching at the throat wound."

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=81#relPageId=148&tab=page


From the HSCA photographic evidence panel's final report:

64. (a) By a vote of 12 to 5, the Panel determined that President Kennedy first showed a reaction to some severe external stimulus by Zapruder frame 207 as he is seen going behind a street sign that obstructed Zapruder's view.

...

70. At approximately Zapruder frame 200, Kennedy's movements suddenly freeze; his right hand abruptly stops in the midst of a waving motion and his head moves rapidly from right to his left in the direction of his wife. Based on these movements, it appears that by the time the President goes behind the sign at frame 207 he is evidencing some kind of reaction to a severe external stimulus. By the time he emerges from behind the sign at Zapruder frame 225, the President makes a clutching motion with his hands toward his neck, indicating clearly that he has been shot.

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=958#relPageId=22&tab=page


HSCA photographic expert Cecil Kirk's testimony at the 1986 mock trial of Lee Harvey Oswald: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vGsD8i3qOgo&t=2m55s

Notice how Bugliosi is using evidence of conspiracy as evidence of whatever the hell he believes in (he doesn't address the z190+ problems in his book Reclaiming History)!!

Not to mention the photograph taken by Dealey Plaza witness Phillip Willis, corresponding to Zapruder frame 206-210, which he always swore was snapped as a startle reaction to hearing the first shot.

 

[MicahJava]

Maybe they cut the top of the skull off above the "cowlick" area.

Let's assume the cowlick area of the skull wouldn't naturally separate considering how it was within the fractured radius of the large defect. It would, but let's assume the hypothetical cowlick entry hole is an invincible perforation in the skull bone. If you "cut the top off the skull above the 'cowlick' area, that would make a skullcap opening about half as large as your average skullcap procedure performed to remove a brain. How do you fit that brain through that small of a hole?

Also, according to this webpage from the Vermont University anatomy department, you must have a skull cavity large enough to get your fingers under the temporal lobes of the brain so you can cut the tentorium cerebelli: https://web.archive.org/web/20060615153312/http://cats.med.uvm.edu/cats_teachingmod/gross_anatomy/head_and_neck/head_and_neck_index.html

 

[MicahJava]

My dad got me into the JFK thing when I was real young, so I was handicapped by an adult I trusted.

I'm not trying to put down anybody, just doing my penance for all of the BS I put into the world.

You went from believing in badge man to believing you can see the bullet entry on the Zapruder Film.

What the difference between you and the badge man guys? The badge man guys actually had the balls to draw a circle around what they were talking about.

 

[RoboTimbo]

The badge man guys actually had the balls to draw a circle around what they were talking about.

Are you saying you have the balls to spell out your comprehensive theory for how JFK was assassinated?

 

[RoboTimbo]

You went from believing in badge man to believing you can see the bullet entry on the Zapruder Film.

What the difference between you and the badge man guys? The badge man guys actually had the balls to draw a circle around what they were talking about.

You weren't going to modify this post, were you?

 

[Axxman300]

From the 1971 paper in the Journal of Forensic Sciences, ...blah, blah, blah.

External stimulus does not automatically mean he got shot, and these evaluations are subjective. Plus at the time none of these "experts" had access to enhanced or stabilized footage like we do today. Another resource we have today is a few thousand videos online of people getting shot.

Nothing in the Zapruder Film looks anything like a gunshot wound until the fatal headshot.

Has anyone ask these guys if they still believe what they stated today?

In the end the President was only struck by two bullets, both from behind, both a 6.5x52mm round.

 

[Axxman300]

You went from believing in badge man to believing you can see the bullet entry on the Zapruder Film.

What the difference between you and the badge man guys? The badge man guys actually had the balls to draw a circle around what they were talking about.

Rule #1: Never explain the obvious.

 

[MicahJava]

Let's assume the cowlick area of the skull wouldn't naturally separate considering how it was within the fractured radius of the large defect. It would, but let's assume the hypothetical cowlick entry hole is an invincible perforation in the skull bone. If you "cut the top off the skull above the 'cowlick' area, that would make a skullcap opening about half as large as your average skullcap procedure performed to remove a brain. How do you fit that brain through that small of a hole?

Also, according to this webpage from the Vermont University anatomy department, you must have a skull cavity large enough to get your fingers under the temporal lobes of the brain so you can cut the tentorium cerebelli: https://web.archive.org/web/20060615153312/http://cats.med.uvm.edu/cats_teachingmod/gross_anatomy/head_and_neck/head_and_neck_index.html

Furthermore, you need enough room to sever the brain stem. You can do that by either accessing it from the posterior side of skull cavity, or from the front if you lift the brain. I think I've seen a video where they sever the brain stem by somewhat lifting the brain and reaching underneath, sticking their hands and the necessary tool from the front part, but you still need a skull cavity large enough to facilitate said lifting.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Are you saying you have the balls to spell out your comprehensive theory for how JFK was assassinated?

So your answer seems to be...?

 

[Axxman300]

Furthermore, you need enough room to sever the brain stem. You can do that by either accessing it from the posterior side of skull cavity, or from the front if you lift the brain. I think I've seen a video where they sever the brain stem by somewhat lifting the brain and reaching underneath, sticking their hands and the necessary tool from the front part, but you still need a skull cavity large enough to facilitate said lifting.

Just pointing out that Humes detailed all of that in the interview I posted.

There is just no mystery.

 

[MicahJava]

Just pointing out that Humes detailed all of that in the interview I posted.

There is just no mystery.

Can you quote the part you think helps you?