Cont: JFK Conspiracy Theories V: Five for Fighting

Status
Not open for further replies.
The most overlooked part of the forensics is the evidence of internal damage from the base of head to the lower neck areas. I was hoping you would be familiar with it, since I've listed the evidence several times.

Addendum: To all of you cowlick entry theorists, do you all just believe that possible bullet fragment in the upper neck reported by Cyril Wecht was just an X-ray artifact? Because if some experts were to examine the JFK X-rays at the National Archives and confirm that the X-rays do indeed show a bullet fragment in the upper neck, wouldn't the cowlick entry theory be essentially over?
 
Although my father believed that mafiosi were responsible for the assassination, he was no amateur. When the "magic bullet" jive started going around he knew instantly that the problem was the improper alignment of JFK and Connally in the vehicle, not a magic projectile.

He also stated upon seeing the first photos of LHO- "That ******* won't last a week." I thought my Dad was a pretty savvy guy before he said that. When Ruby shot and killed LHO I was convinced he must have known just about everything.

Sounds like he was referring to LHO being killed in prison.
 
Bknight, I noticed you mentioned Okla. City Bombing. I believe that there was a wider right-wing conspiracy that was covered up by the FBI because they knew they couldn't find everybody. Especially in this political climate, I think it's about time people started talking about the fact that OKC was done by a handful of right-wing extremists, and not just evil Timothy McVeigh and poor Terry Nichols. Even the mainstream media constantly covered evidence for conspiracy in the OKC case. You know it's bad when the media doesn't buy it. Publications like the NY Times, The Guardian, Associated Press, Denver Post would have stories raising concerns over possible right-wing extremists suspects of OKC.

Here is my favorate smoking gun of OKC: Richard Wayne Snell.

http://okbomb.wikia.com/wiki/Richard_Wayne_Snell

This article is under construction by me, but it's an accurate summary.

I do not wish to continue a discussion about OKC here because this is not the right thread.

Is there a conspiracy that you don't believe?
 
I thought it was elementary, requiring only the simplest knowledge of integral calculus.

1 out of 2 : One damaged shell of two shells examined in FBI trials

1 out of 4 : One damaged shell of four shells in HSCA tests
______________________________
2 out of 6 : two damaged shells of six shells in total official tests examined.
2/6 = 1/3 : two of six reduces to one of three.

That's exactly what we got in the Dealey Plaza assassination.

One damaged shell out of three.

Let me know where the math lost you.

Hank


Where did you get the part about a 2 in 6 chance from the FBI?

Straw man argument. The 2 in 6 is the overall total. Reading comprehension is still a net positive, whether or not you're a conspiracy theorist.

If that is a fact, then it appears that by some mechanism you are more likely to get a dented shell casing if its one of the first rounds you eject and/or fire. All three experiments including Chris Millis found a hull, empty or not, with a dented lip on the first few tries.

So that logic would apply to Oswald's shooting attempt from the sixth floor of the Depository building as well, right?

Congratulations, you just disproved your own prior argument that there is anything suspicious or noteworthy about CE543, the shell with the dented lip recovered from the sixth floor.

And there is no "or not". The shell must be empty to get that dent when ejected.


BTW There is another non-conspiratorial interpretation of CE543 that might account for other anomalies. It could be used as a chamber plug. Howard Donahue used the chamber plug idea to push a single-assassin theory.

It can also be used to solve chronic flatulence. Does it pass the sniff test? Either plug is simply speculation.

I remind you that the vast majority of witnesses heard three shots -- not more, not less.

THREE.

And that's the number of expended shells found on the sixth floor of the Depository.

Again, the simplest of logarithmic calculations should establish there is one shell found for each shot heard, and ergo, for each shot fied.

And ergo, CE543 contained and fired a bullet during the assassination.

Not sure what exactly is your problem with this reconstruction at this point.


But if you download that 2016 edition of Reclaiming Parkland, you will find a longer interesting discussion about each of the three shell casings.

Which of course you are introducing here as a way to change the subject and extricate yourself from your nonsense argument about CE543 being unable to be fired from Oswald's rifle on the day of the assassination.

Hank
 
Last edited:
Not much. The very first post in the first thread (this is the fifth of five sequential threads which should be read in order) summed it up beautifully, quoting from something written by Dale Myers.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7707075&postcount=1

On Mark Lane, I think he has done more damage to the American Psyche than any other individual. Pretty much everything he wrote in RUSH TO JUDGMENT was either a falsehood, a logical fallacy (like a strawman argument) or a misinterpretation of the obvious. [emphasis added]
Rush To Judgement contains more than enough time-tested substantial evidence for conspiracy. Entire panels of government-hired
"experts" have created entire sets of volumes worse than Rush To Judgement.

See the bolded above. I can give examples.

One is the chapter title of Chapter 5... "Why Oswald Was Wanted".

He points out that a eyewitness description of the shooter went out at about 12:45: "A description of the suspect in the assassination, matching Lee Harvey Oswald's description, was broadcast by the Dallas police just before 12,45 p.m. on November 22, 15 minutes after the shots were fired at President Kennedy."

After quoting erroneous statements by various people, Lane asks, but never establishes the central question of that chapter: "Why then did the Dallas police want Oswald least 30 minutes before Tippit was shot?"

Oswald was never wanted for either murder. NEVER. And certainly not at 12:45. That description that went out at that time did not mention Oswald by name. It was a description provided by a witness outside the building to the shooting, and was most likely provided by Howard Brennan, who was sitting directly across Elm Street from the Depository's front door and had a view of the sixth floor.

Separate from that, and about 45 minutes later, a suspicious person was reported to the police entering the Texas Theatre by Julia Postal. She was asked to call the police because Johnny Brewer saw a person duck into the alcove of his shoe store down the block from the theatre shortly after he heard on the radio a police officer had been shot in the vicinity.

Brewer asked Postal to call the police after he determined that suspicious person had not bought a movie ticket from Postal, and had ducked into the theatre without paying. Brewer went inside to ascertain whether that suspicious person was still in the theatre, or had left by one of the exit doors.

Brewer determined the exit doors had not been utilized, and that the person he saw was still in the theatre. He pointed out that person to the police, and when that person was approached by Officer McDonald...

Here, let Brewer's testimony describe it from that point:

Mr. BREWER - Well, just before they came. they turned the house lights on, and I looked out from the curtains and saw the man.
Mr. BELIN - Where was he when you saw him?
Mr. BREWER - He was in the center section about six or seven rows, from the back, toward the back.
Mr. BELIN - Toward the back? Are you sure?
Mr. Brewer, do you know exactly which row he was in from the back?
Mr. BREWER - No; I don't know which row.
Mr. BELIN - Then what did you see?
Mr. BREWER - He stood up and walked to the aisle to his right and then he turned around and walked back and sat down and at this time there was no place I could see.
Mr. BELIN - Did he sit down in the same seat he had been in to begin with?
Mr. BREWER - I don't remember if it was the same seat or not.
Mr. BELIN - Then what happened?
Mr. BREWER - I heard a noise outside, and I opened the door, and the alley, I guess it was filled with police cars and policemen were on the fire exits and stacked around the alley, and they grabbed me, a couple of them and held and searched me and asked me what I was doing there, and I told them that there was a guy in the theatre that I was suspicious of, and he asked me if he was still there.
And I said, yes, I just seen him. And he asked me if I would point him out.
And I and two or three other officers walked out on the stage and I pointed him out, and there were officers coming in from the front of the show, I guess, coming toward that way, and officers going from the back.
Mr. BELIN - Then what did you see?
Mr. BREWER - Well, I saw this policeman approach Oswald, and Oswald stood up and I heard some hollering. I don't know exactly what he said, and this man hit Patrolman McDonald.
Mr. BELIN - You say this man hit Patrolman McDonald. Did you know it was Patrolman McDonald?
Mr. BREWER - I didn't know his name, but I had seen him quite a few times around Oak Cliff. But I didn't know his name.
Mr. BELIN - Then you later found out this was Patrolman McDonald?
Mr. BREWER - Yes.
Mr. BELIN - Did you say this man was the same man?
Mr. BREWER - The same man that had stood in my lobby that I followed to the show.
Mr. BELIN - Who hit who first?
Mr. BREWER - Oswald hit McDonald first, and he knocked him to the seat.
Mr. BELIN - Who knocked who?
Mr. BREWER - He knocked McDonald down. McDonald fell against one of the seats. And then real quick he was back up.
Mr. BELIN - When you say he was----
Mr. BREWER - McDonald was back up. He just knocked him down for a second and he was back up. And I jumped off the stage and was walking toward that, and I saw this gun come up and----in Oswald's hand, a gun up in the air.
Mr. BELIN - Did you see from where the gun came?
Mr. BREWER - No.
Mr. BELIN - You saw the gun up in the air?
Mr. BREWER - And somebody hollered "He's got a gun."
And there were a couple of officers fighting him and taking the gun away from him, and they took the gun from him, and he was fighting, still fighting, and I heard some of the police holier, I don't know who it was, "Kill the President, will you." And I saw fists flying and they were hitting him.
Mr. BELIN - Was he fighting back at that time?
Mr. BREWER - Yes; he was fighting back.
Mr. BELIN - Then what happened?
Mr. BREWER - Well, just in a short time they put the handcuffs on him and they took him out.


Oswald wasn't wanted at the time of his arrest. Nobody went to the theatre to arrest a person named Oswald. When Postal called the police, she didn't report a person named Oswald snuck into the theatre. She said this:

Mrs. POSTAL. No, sir; I told Johnny this, don't tell him, because he is an excitable person, and just have him, you know, go with you and examine the exits and check real good, so, he came back and said he hadn't seen anything although, he had heard a seat pop up like somebody getting out, but there was nobody around that area, so, I told Johnny about the fact that the President had been assassinated. "I don't know if this is the man they want," I said, "in there, but he is running from them for some reason," and I said "I am going to call the police, and you and Butch go get on each of the exit doors and stay there."
So, well, I called the police, and he wanted to know why I thought it was their man, and I said, "Well, I didn't know," and he said, "Well, it fits the description," and I have not---I said I hadn't heard the description. All I know is, "This man is running from them for some reason." And he wanted to know why, and told him because everytime the sirens go by he would duck and he wanted to know----well, if he fits the description is what he says. I said, "Let me tell you what he looks like and you take it from there." And explained that he had on this brown sports shirt and I couldn't tell you what design it was, and medium height, ruddy looking to me, and he said, "Thank you,"...


The very title of Lane's Chapter 5 is a straw man argument. He is claiming Oswald was wanted, and he never was.

Hank

PS: If you're going to defend a book, try to get the title correct in the future. There is only one "E" in the title of Mark Lane's first book on the assassination. It's RUSH TO JUDGMENT, not RUSH TO JUDGEMENT.
 
Last edited:
Last edited:
Addendum: To all of you cowlick entry theorists, do you all just believe that possible bullet fragment in the upper neck reported by Cyril Wecht was just an X-ray artifact? Because if some experts were to examine the JFK X-rays at the National Archives and confirm that the X-rays do indeed show a bullet fragment in the upper neck, wouldn't the cowlick entry theory be essentially over?

Why are you asking us a question and then trying to answer it for us?

Is it because if you beg the question, you think you're making a valid point?

Begging the Question is a logical fallacy, no matter who does it.

Hank
 
Last edited:
Already provided it.

It was the HSCA Firearms panel, specifically the testimony of Champagne.

I covered it here:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=12031987&highlight=HSCA#post12031987

I even bolded it for you in that post.

Mr. CHAMPAGNE. We also examined Federal tests. Of two tests that we examined, one of them also had an indented mouth.


Hank

Usually there's contemporary documentation from the FBI themselves about that sort of thing?
 
Why are you asking us a question and then trying to answer it for us?

Is it because if you beg the question, you think you're winning?

Hank

Do you believe that the purported fragment in the upper neck must not exist because it would impede on the cowlick entry theory?
 
Usually there's contemporary documentation from the FBI themselves about that sort of thing?

Why would they note a damaged lip?

You're presuming it is something unusual that should have been noted by the FBI. But if it's a perfectly normal occurrence as others here have pointed out (and you yourself seemed to suggest above*) why would the FBI note it at the time?

The HSCA firearms panel noted it because critics raised this bogus issue between the issuing of the Warren Commission's 26 volumes of evidence in 1964 and the formation of the HSCA in 1977. The FBI tests came before the issuance of the Warren Commission 26 volumes of evidence.

I already pointed all this out to you.

Hank
______________________
* Here:
Where did you get the part about a 2 in 6 chance from the FBI? If that is a fact, then it appears that by some mechanism you are more likely to get a dented shell casing if its one of the first rounds you eject and/or fire. All three experiments including Chris Millis found a hull, empty or not, with a dented lip on the first few tries.
 
Last edited:
Do you believe that the purported fragment in the upper neck must not exist because it would impede on the cowlick entry theory?

There was no "purported fragment" in JFK's neck. Only your CT's Wecht has ever mentioned it, and no one agrees with his guess. You fail again.
 
Micah Java:

Given two separate facts, I am wondering if you can tell us the most reasonable conclusion.

Now, I am not looking for the most outlandish conclusion, the conclusion that most points to a lone shooter, or to a conspiracy.

Just the most reasonable.

Assume for the sake of discussion these two facts are true:

1. 90% of the Dealey Plaza witness stated heard exactly three shots, no more, no less.
2. Three shells were recovered from the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository about 45 minutes after the shooting.

What is the most reasonable conclusion you can come up with here?

Hank
 
Do you believe that the purported fragment in the upper neck must not exist because it would impede on the cowlick entry theory?

Why are you answering questions for us by begging the question, and when I ask you to explain, you beg the same question again?

Is it because if you beg the question, you think you're making a valid point?

Begging the Question is a logical fallacy, no matter who does it.

Or how often they repeat that logical fallacy.

Hank
 
Last edited:
Rush To Judgement contains more than enough time-tested substantial evidence for conspiracy. Entire panels of government-hired "experts" have created entire sets of volumes worse than Rush To Judgement.

You know that how?

How many of Lane's assertions did you INDEPENDENTLY attempt to verify by checking his claims against the actual evidence he cites?

Hank
 
Why would they note a damaged lip?

You're presuming it is something unusual that should have been noted by the FBI. But if it's a perfectly normal occurrence as others here have pointed out (and you yourself seemed to suggest above*) why would the FBI note it at the time?

The HSCA firearms panel noted it because critics raised this bogus issue between the issuing of the Warren Commission's 26 volumes of evidence in 1964 and the formation of the HSCA in 1977. The FBI tests came before the issuance of the Warren Commission 26 volumes of evidence.

I already pointed all this out to you.

Hank
______________________
* Here:

Somewhere there should be photographs or some documentation for how the FBI inadvertently produced a dented shell. What is your source's source?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom