Cont: JFK Conspiracy Theories V: Five for Fighting

[abaddon]

What was Jim Marrs talking about when he alledgedly said something about a trajectory from the Dal-Tex? I'm assuming he considered the back wound to have no exit, and the large head wound to be a shot from the front.

Wow. You really have no idea?

 

[Imhotep]

The events of Dealey Plaza are a red herring in my opinion. Seems like a complete waste of time endlessly debating Oswald's movements on that day and even the ballistic and medical evidence. If Oswald did shoot Kennedy, we're back to square one anyway because there could still be a conspiracy.

The areas that deserve more research relate to Oswald's visit to Mexico City. See John Newman and Bill Simpich's writings.

 

[abaddon]

The events of Dealey Plaza are a red herring in my opinion. Seems like a complete waste of time endlessly debating Oswald's movements on that day and even the ballistic and medical evidence. If Oswald did shoot Kennedy, we're back to square one anyway because there could still be a conspiracy.

The areas that deserve more research relate to Oswald's visit to Mexico City. See John Newman and Bill Simpich's writings.

I sympathise to an extent, but one must realise that the hoax proponents have no interest in any resolution whatsoever. Their only goal is to prolong the faux controversy indefinitely. A solid resolution of anything is the last thing they want. It would render them both unemployed and unemployable, and they know it.

 

[MicahJava]

There was nothing to discuss as far as the autopsy went. There are - STILL - only two bullet wounds to the president: One in the back (exiting the throat), and one to the back of the head.

The trajectory lines up with the corner window of the 6th floor of the TSBD. That you choose not to believe this is your malfunction.

As far as the HSCA goes, if it was a ranch in Texas it would be called "The Circle-J". It was a circus of CT nimrods, and former government types telling conflicting accounts, bad audio recordings passed off as evidence, and no consistent narrative. It was nothing more than an attempt to give the mentally ill their "day in court" and shut them up,period.

There is no second wound to the head. The concept is so vastly stupid there isn't a word for such nincompoopery. The assassination is on film from two decent angles, there is NO other head-shot.

Even Jim Marrs was never this dumb.

If the HSCA was a circus, their staffers were the performing acts. Past performances we've discussed here include "fit a nearly complete human brain through a five-inch skull cavity" and "argue about the wounds of President Kennedy with the men who were there examining his body for hours".

 

[Axxman300]

If the HSCA was a circus, their staffers were the performing acts. Past performances we've discussed here include "fit a nearly complete human brain through a five-inch skull cavity" and "argue about the wounds of President Kennedy with the men who were there examining his body for hours".

The brain was removed via the standard method, we've covered this two dozen times.

2 bullets hit JFK, 1 in the back, 1 in the head. Both from behind.

 

[bknight]

What was Jim Marrs talking about when he alledgedly said something about a trajectory from the Dal-Tex? I'm assuming he considered the back wound to have no exit, and the large head wound to be a shot from the front.

I can't add anything more than abaddon and Axxman300 commented concerning your post.

 

[MicahJava]

The brain was removed via the standard method, we've covered this two dozen times.

2 bullets hit JFK, 1 in the back, 1 in the head. Both from behind.

I know how the brain was removed, but you have to first remove the "cowlick" area of the skull. And Dr. Finck always said he arrived late to the autopsy and examined the entry hole in the intact, open cranium. A lower wound, like they always said.

 

[HSienzant]

What was Jim Marrs talking about when he alledgedly said something about a trajectory from the Dal-Tex? I'm assuming he considered the back wound to have no exit, and the large head wound to be a shot from the front.

Why are you asking? You already cited the free e-book. Haven't you read it? Why not tell us what you think Marrs was talking about and what evidence he provided for the claim of a shot from the Dal-Tex building. Why would you have to *assume* anything or claim Marr's was *allegedly* writing about a trajectory? Isn't Marrs citing sources and writing clearly? Haven't you even read the e-book you cited?

As I've pointed out in the past in this thread or its predecessor threads to Robert Harris and yourself, there is as much evidence for any gunman in the Dal-Tex building as there is for pink unicorns -- none.

If you beg to differ, cite some evidence to the contrary.

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

I know how the brain was removed, but you have to first remove the "cowlick" area of the skull.

Says you. Cite the experts who agree with you.

And Dr. Finck always said he arrived late to the autopsy and examined the entry hole in the intact, open cranium.

"Comminuted". Did you look that word up yet?

Does that word appear in the autopsy in relation to the skull? Does the word "intact" appear in the autopsy in relation to the skull?

A lower wound, like they always said.

Not always, as you yourself have noted and tried to explain away.

You don't get the point here. Your repetition of untrue claims doesn't make them more true. It just destroys your credibility.

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

Where does Finck say there were complete fractures radiating from the entry wound? I can't find that.

Oh, look: You've never read the official autopsy report. It's in there:
https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/warren-commission-report/appendix-09.pdf

"Upon reflecting the scalp multiple complete fracture lines are seen to radiate from the large defect at the vertex and the smaller wound at the occiput." (page 4)

Again: "multiple complete fracture lines are seen to radiate from ... the smaller wound at the occiput."

The autopsy report is signed by Finck (along with Humes and Boswell) is it not?

You don't even know what the autopsy report says.

And you're sufficiently well-versed in this subject to lecture us about what transpired?

No.

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

The fragment of lead on the curb?

Complete sentences much?

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

What? He was but a man. He's not like the Warren Commission or HSCA with a whole team of investigators to double-check eachother (but still fail so hard).

Each of whom were but men.

It's funny how you blame the men of the Warren Commission and of the HSCA for their failures to document everything to the Nth degree and resolve every issue to your everlasting satisfaction but absolve conspiracy writers of any errors with a "He was but a man" excuse.

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

I know how the brain was removed, but you have to first remove the "cowlick" area of the skull.

He has said that they had to do barely any sawing to enlarge the skull cavity, because the area around the large defect was so damaged that pieces of the skull would naturally come off. The "cowlick" area of the skull would have to be amoung the areas separated during this.

Nope.

The autopsy doctors said the cuts were from the large exit wound at the top of the head extended down to the ears. This has been quoted to you numerous times. The autopsy report is also quite clear: "The scalp wounds are extended in the coronal plane to examine the cranial content..." (page 5).
https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/warren-commission-report/appendix-09.pdf

Look up "coronal plane" if you don't know what that means.

It totally destroys the argument you've been advancing here for the past months. There is nothing about a cut around the back of the head along the axial plane (look that up too) to remove the remaining portion of the skull cap as you like to pretend. It wasn't necessary because of how extensively fractured the skull itself was due to the entry and exit of a bullet. The multiple fractures left the skull completely devoid of integrity and those cuts along the coronal plane were sufficient to examine the brain and remove it.

Again: Your repetition of untrue claims doesn't make them more true. It just destroys your credibility.

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

The events of Dealey Plaza are a red herring in my opinion. Seems like a complete waste of time endlessly debating Oswald's movements on that day and even the ballistic and medical evidence.

We're at that place because of the early conspiracy authors like Mark Lane, Harold Weisberg, Sylvia Meagher and Josiah Thompson. Their approach was, if we can establish Oswald didn't do it, then someone else must have, and ergo, Oswald was framed, therefore conspiracy.

Because the evidence so overwhelmingly points to Oswald and Oswald alone (there is no evidence of a second gunman), they took the approach of nitpicking every claim of the Warren Commission by citing the outlier recollections and taking claims out of context to argue for a different rifle being found on the sixth floor, that Oswald couldn't shoot the President from the sixth floor because he was seen on the second floor about 78 - 90 after the shooting, that two witnesses estimated a bag Oswald was seen carrying the morning of the assassination was "about two feet" instead of the necessary three, that there was no evidence of a rifle clip (it holds the bullets enabling automatic feeding of bullets into the chamber when the bolt is manually recycled) in the weapon, that there was no mention of Oswald having a 'Hidell ID' in his wallet until the rifle was traced to the rifle order by one "A.Hidell', that Oswald couldn't work the bolt fast enough to accomplish the assassination, that Oswald wasn't skilled enough as a shooter to accomplish the assassination, and that the rifle wasn't accurate enough as a weapon accomplish the assassination, that Oswald couldn't get to Tenth & Patton in time to kill Tippit... these arguments and hundreds of others were brought up by the early critics. And despite being exposed as false numerous times, you still hear these same claims repeated endlessly on JFK assassination boards like this one.

If Oswald did shoot Kennedy, we're back to square one anyway because there could still be a conspiracy.

Absolutely, but because the early critics sought to exclude Oswald from the shooting (taking the approach of a defense attorney in a trial and arguing for his innocence) rather than argue for a conspiracy, that is for the most part where the conspiracy theorists remain today... stuck arguing - despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary - that Oswald didn't do it. And because there is no evidence for conspiracy, anyone looking for one must start by trying to exclude Oswald somehow. Hence the concentration on Dealey Plaza.

The areas that deserve more research relate to Oswald's visit to Mexico City. See John Newman and Bill Simpich's writings.

Some critics argue Oswald never went to Mexico City, that it was an imposter - again, they seek to exclude Oswald from anything inculpatory, taking the approach that if they can establish Oswald wasn't there, there must have been a conspiracy. It's been a while since I read Newman views on that.

But Simplch is among those who take the approach Oswald was being impersonated in Mexico City. You can read that here: http://www.maryferrell.org/pages/State_Secret_Chapter1.html (Simpich writes: "That propaganda operation will eventually take us to Mexico City just two months before the assassination, where Oswald was impersonated when he tried once again to get an instant visa – this time, to go to Cuba as well as the Soviet Union....") [emphasis added]

So his arguments seem to be in conflict with your own admission of "Oswald's visit to Mexico City".

It is therefore curious to me why you cite Simpich.

What does Newman say about Oswald's visit to Mexico City, or like Simpich, does he argue for an imposter being there?

[EDIT: Newman's views can be found here: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/oswald-the-cia-and-mexico-city/
Newman's views differ from Simpich's in that he admits Oswald was in Mexico City AND at the Cuban consulate and Soviet embassy, but he thinks follow-up phone calls to those places were made by an imposter. But how an imposter could know Oswald was there, and follow up on Oswald's visits isn't explained by Newman, that I could see].

And what possible evidence could be found to convince anyone - at this late date - that a conspiracy might NOT be found in Mexico City?

It is impossible to prove a negative. The best we can say is there is NO evidence for conspiracy involving Oswald or anyone else. And given that, that might best explain why the earliest critics and nearly every critic since has focused on removing Oswald from the shooting rather than providing evidence of a conspiracy.

It is also important to note that the man calling himself "Oswald" showed up at the Cuban Embassy in Mexico City asking for a visa to Cuba, but he didn't have a photo of himself to attach to the visa application form. He was told where to go, and came back with a photo of himself that was attached to the visa application and sent to Cuba for processing. It was in the hands of the Cuban government from 1963 until 1978 when it was turned over to the HSCA for their investigation. Here's a copy of that image:
https://media1.s-nbcnews.com/j/stre...-oswald-cuba-vmed-345p.nbcnews-fp-360-360.jpg

That photo alone does much to destroy Simpich's argument for an Oswald imposter.

There is room for a small conspiracy, where one or more people (among Oswald's acquaintances) encouraged him to shoot JFK, but there's also no evidence for that. And it seems remote that anyone in Mexico City could encourage him to shoot JFK as Oswald didn't have a job at the Depository yet nor was JFK's trip to Dallas and its route past the Depository determined in September of 1963). Oswald only got the job through the intervention of a neighbor, and JFK's route was determined only about a week before the assassination. So at the time of the Mexico City trip, there was no reason for anyone to encourage Oswald to assassinate JFK, as it was only happenstance that nearly two months later Oswald would find himself with that opportunity.

Hank

 

[bknight]

A nobody that wanted to be a somebody.

 

[HSienzant]

A nobody that wanted to be a somebody.

And fifty four years later, people are still suggesting we need to study his life in more depth and detail (witness Imhotep above) to find out more about him and presumably, whom he conspired with.

This for a man who dropped out of high school, quit the Marines, quit Russia, and couldn't hold a steady job.

His life is already among the most studied in history. We can pretty much pinpoint where he was at every significant moment in his life. The U. S. Treasury undertook a study of his finances, determining down to nearly the dollar where he spent his money and how much he saved. The FBI and Warren Commission documented his movements in great detail.

And we're still talking about him. He accomplished what he wanted.

And it's ironic that if he had confessed, he'd be a footnote in history. Yeah, he assassinated JFK, but who would be talking about him or claiming to be his girlfriend decades after the fact? If he wanted to go down in history and be a somebody, denying any involvement in the assassination was the right approach. It almost guaranteed people would still be discussing his involvement, or lack thereof, five decades later.

Hank

 

[MicahJava]

Says you. Cite the experts who agree with you.

Neuroscientist Joseph N. Riley. Speaking of the HSCA's interpretation of the open-cranium photographs, he said:

"A semi-circular skull defect has been identified as part of an exit wound. The location of this defect depends upon the interpretation of the autopsy photographs. The interpretations to date (by the Clark Panel and the HSCA forensics panel) are in error. These interpretations fail to appreciate basic neuroanatomical relationships (unfortunately, there was no neuroanatomist on either panel -- parietal foramina alone are enough to orient the photographs), are contradictory, and ignore the obvious (it would be irresponsible and stupid to try to remove the brain if so much skull were left, as it must be in the official interpretations of the photographs)."

http://jfkhistory.com/riehl/What_Struck_John.html

But, of course, the points I've been making here are just applying preschool concepts of space, shape and volume, I shouldn't need to fetch you an expert who agrees specifically relating to the Kennedy case's forensic evidence.

"Comminuted". Did you look that word up yet?

Does that word appear in the autopsy in relation to the skull? Does the word "intact" appear in the autopsy in relation to the skull?

Surely you do know that when I say "intact, open cranium", I mean Kennedy's skull without the portions missing from the cavity create by the gunshot wounding and the procedures to facilitate removal of the brain. Why, playing dumb when something is explained in such plain English would almost make you look like you're just hanging around stalling and wasting time and not participating in any real discussion.

I can't say anything because I prefer the advantages to debating via text on the internet, but how would you look debating these issues in a real live setting with an audience? Do you think you will look clever by wasting time with games?

Oh, look: You've never read the official autopsy report. It's in there:
https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/warren-commission-report/appendix-09.pdf

"Upon reflecting the scalp multiple complete fracture lines are seen to radiate from the large defect at the vertex and the smaller wound at the occiput." (page 4)

Again: "multiple complete fracture lines are seen to radiate from ... the smaller wound at the occiput."

The autopsy report is signed by Finck (along with Humes and Boswell) is it not?

You don't even know what the autopsy report says.

And you're sufficiently well-versed in this subject to lecture us about what transpired?

No.

Hank

I already replied to that here:

Your only important earlier note was that the autopsy report states "Upon reflecting the scalp multiple complete fracture lines are seen to radiate from both the large defect at the vertex and the smaller wound at the occiput."

If we take "complete fractures" by it's common literal definition, a complete break in the bone, then that may cast doubt on the notion that the entry hole in the skull could be left undisturbed on the intact, empty cranium after the brain had already been successfully removed.

But this goes both ways. If anybody has any reason to doubt Dr. Pierre Finck's consistent and 100% clear statement that he examined the entry hole in the intact, empty cranium after the brain had been removed before he arrived, speak now or forever hold your peace.

You know what else the autopsy report says? "There is a large irregular defect of the scalp and skull on the right involving chiefly the parietal bone but extending somewhat into the temporal and occipital regions". I've seen David Von Pein try to suggest that when the doctors wrote "occipital" when they really meant "frontal", but a less silly explanation is that this statement is partially describing how large the defect became when skull fragments broke off. The skull cavity becoming extended into the occipital region implies that the cowlick mark theorized by the Clark Panel and HSCA is not the wound that Finck et. al described.

And finally, for what it's worth, forensic pathologist Dr. Peter Cummings has said that the JFK X-rays have the appearance of fractures radiating from the lower occipital area!

Face it: Dr. Finck always said the entry wound was still in the empty skull, after the large defect had been widened to facilitate removal of the brain. The part of the skull which remained intact. He specifically denied that he only saw the entry in previously-separated portions of skull bone. He described being present when photographs were taken of the entry within the empty cranium.

Nope.

The autopsy doctors said the cuts were from the large exit wound at the top of the head extended down to the ears. This has been quoted to you numerous times. The autopsy report is also quite clear: "The scalp wounds are extended in the coronal plane to examine the cranial content..." (page 5).
https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/warren-commission-report/appendix-09.pdf

Look up "coronal plane" if you don't know what that means.

It totally destroys the argument you've been advancing here for the past months. There is nothing about a cut around the back of the head along the axial plane (look that up too) to remove the remaining portion of the skull cap as you like to pretend. It wasn't necessary because of how extensively fractured the skull itself was due to the entry and exit of a bullet. The multiple fractures left the skull completely devoid of integrity and those cuts along the coronal plane were sufficient to examine the brain and remove it.

Again: Your repetition of untrue claims doesn't make them more true. It just destroys your credibility.

Hank

You are either confused or you are trying to confuse others. The fact that virtually no sawing was required to facilitate removal of the brain is a point against the cowlick entry theory. Since the alleged cowlick "entry" defect was right besides the large "exit" defect, that area of the skull would have been among the areas to naturally separate due to the fractures radiating from the large defect.

A lower wound, as the original autopsy doctors always swore to, explains all of this.

 

[MicahJava]

A nobody that wanted to be a somebody.

I don't know why people pretend that this is a silly thing to point out, but what was with the torn dollar bills that Oswald had?

One partially torn $1 bill (with the number "300" written on it) was found in his wallet after his arrest, and two "half bills" (one with the number "180, the other with the number "221" written on them) are referenced in an obscure DPD handwritten note, Dallas Municipal Archives, John F. Kennedy / Dallas Police Department Collection, Box 7, Folder 10, Item 26. This is an old spy technique. Sometimes best buddies will do that for fun, but that possibility is refuted by the fact that there are three $1 dollar bills under question instead of just one. Anybody want to theorize a weird coincidence to explain all of this? Last time I don't think I got a coherent response besides people playing dumb (a classic pseudo-skeptic forum tactic).

 

[bknight]

I have no idea what the mind of the man was thinking, but maybe he liked to deface currency.

 

[Axxman300]

Meanwhile, at the grown-up's table...

How the CIA Came to Doubt the Official Story of JFK’s Murder

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/08/03/jfk-assassination-lone-gunman-cia-new-files-215449

Politico's headline is misleading once you read the click-bait headline - BUT - there's some good stuff coming out of the National Archives' document dump already.

To save some of you reading time, the CIA wondered if Oswald acted on behalf of ...wait for it...Cuba, and felt that the Warren Commission and the FBI didn't ask enough questions about his Mexico City visit.

They also point to a possible motive for Oswald to kill JFK:

It was that same CIA memo that offered a detailed theory of the chain of events that led Oswald to kill Kennedy—how Oswald, who lived in his hometown of New Orleans for much of 1963, may have been inspired to assassinate the president if, as seemed probable, he read an article on Monday, September 9, in the local newspaper, that suggested Castro was targeted for murder by the United States.

The article, written by a reporter for The Associated Press in Havana and then published prominently in the Times-Picayune, was an account of an AP interview with Castro two days earlier, in which the Cuban strongman angrily warned the Kennedy administration that he was aware of U.S. assassination plots aimed at Cuban leaders, presumably including him, and was prepared to retaliate. The article quoted Castro as saying: “U.S. leaders would be in danger if they helped in any attempt to do away with leaders of Cuba.”

I'm going to have to track down and read the 26-page memo, but this was a new one for me. And it makes more sense as a motive, a weak one, granted, but one that would have driven Oswald to kill the President had the opportunity arose...and it did.