• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Cont: JFK Conspiracy Theories V: Five for Fighting

Status
Not open for further replies.
MicahJava said:
I'm afraid mumbo jumbo won't make the grassy knoll go away. No amount will. People hear about how half the witnesses heard shots from the knoll, see the pictures of people running up there. You can't just ignore that half.
Click to expand...

How many shooters were found up there?
 
MicahJava said:
I'm afraid mumbo jumbo won't make the grassy knoll go away. No amount will. People hear about how half the witnesses heard shots from the knoll, see the pictures of people running up there. You can't just ignore that half.
Click to expand...

There is a lot to unpack here. It leaves me with some questions.

1) Can you cite accurately that half the witnesses heard the shot coming from the knoll? An exact number?

2) What makes their testimony inherently more accurate or reliable than those placing the shots elsewhere, from a variable number of directions and locations?

3) I would love to know how you deduce intent from the photographs. How you look at people rushing towards the grassy knoll, and tell from the photographs that people are towardsa source of gunfire, and not away from a target?

My personal feeling, on looking at films and photographs of the event, is not that people are rushing to find a shooter. I don't think my opinion of photographs is worth a damn (which is entirely the point), but if I were asked, I would suggest that it looked to me, as though people were fleeing the shooting, to a fence onto a rail yard. Rather sensibly, if you got over the fence, you would be out of line of sight, and would be able to seek cover behind a wagon.

Unless you have identified each person in the photographs, and have their testimony of why they were moving that way, and if they were intending to investigate the sight of a shooter, it is unwise to suggest a reason can be discerned.

Of course some people thought they saw or heard something suspicious, but over the years these claims have been contradictory or unsupported by other evidence. Lots emerge only after the story of the knoll took traction, with muddy boot prints on a bumper that "might have been somebody taking aim" (or as likely, somebody getting comfy to watch the president) evolving to complex stories of workmen dismantling rifles and making a get away (later tracked down and found to be innocent), to the suspiciously detailed and extravagant (yet surprisingly often failing to key in with each other.

I like Martin Fido's description of one of the mob-based memoirs, when he wonders how so few people noticed something like the Apalachian Mob Convention sneaking into positions around the Plaza (including the TSBD), firing away like Bilio, then scarpering on their wing tipped toes. IIRC the memoir gleefully included everybody the "Buffs" had identified, but one name vanished between the advanced review copies and first printing to hit the stands, when it was realised the publishers would probably get sued by a "stand-by marksman" identified near the knoll, whose soul basis for suspicion was his moving around the country too often for armchair buffs to track down and interview.
The perfectly innocent Pastor, whose job took him all over the USA, had no idea, as it happened, that he was being accused of a connection to murder and the mob, for years before some aging gangsters wanted to make a quick buck.
Other stories, such as somebody thinking they could smell cordite as they drove past, may well be an honest recollection, but one better explained by the quirks of how we bolster our memories to make them stick, than the likelihood of gunpowder smells having an unusual potency and reach in this one case alone.
 
bknight said:
No other competent forensic pathologist has noticed a fragment. And that would be because there was never a fragment, just CT's imagination.
Cite another report that substantiates his fragment.

MicahJava said:
I think we have a case of denial here and it's kind of hilarious. This article was also co-written by Robert P. Smith, Office of the Coroner, Alegheny County, Pittsburgh PA.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

The denial is all yours. It says he worked for the coroner's office in 1974. It doesn't say in what capacity.

Where does it say he was a qualified forensic pathologist?

And wasn't your complaint those guys (forensic pathologists) aren't qualified to read x-rays, anyway?

Why do your objections to the HSCA forensic pathology panel melt away when one of them says something you like?

And here's part of Wecht's conclusion:

5.3. ...So far as the available medical evidence shows, all shots were fired from the rear. No support can be found for theories which postulate gunmen to the front or right-front of the Presidential car. The medical evidence indicates that the President’s back was hit by one bullet and that his head was hit by one other bullet only.


So NO SUPPORT for your grassy knoll theory, nor for your two shots to the head.

You introduced this document as evidence. Now you're going to tell us Wecht was wrong, right?

Hank
 
Last edited:
HSienzant said:
The denial is all yours. It says he worked for the coroner's office in 1974. It doesn't say in what capacity.

Where does it say he was a qualified forensic pathologist?

And wasn't your complaint those guys (forensic pathologists) aren't qualified to read x-rays, anyway?

Why do your objections to the HSCA forensic pathology panel melt away when one of them says something you like?

Hank
Click to expand...

Even you should know that dense metal would show up on x-rays as a bright, easily noticeable particle.
 
HSienzant said:
Nobody is ignoring that half. We can discuss the validity of the side issues you're attempting to introduce into the discussion separately (and in fact, we have already discussed most or all of those issues already, and shown why they aren't worthy of consideration).

You were asked to provide the most reasonable conclusion from two facts, and two facts only.

Instead, you brought in some other very debatable issues that aren't facts, and then derived your conclusion from those very debatable claims.

Again:

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
Click to expand...

If the Carcano was fired out of the sixth floor window, it is highly unlikely that it could be responsible for all wounds. My go-to inconsistency in the single-assassin scenario are the issues with the EOP wound.
 
Dave Rogers said:
So when the police officers got there, how many armed assassins did they find there?

Dave
Click to expand...

How many armed assassins did they find from the other side? See, LNers know it's possible to hide a gun, only when it's their idea of how it happened.
 
MicahJava said:
If the Carcano was fired out of the sixth floor window, it is highly unlikely that it could be responsible for all wounds.
Click to expand...
IF the Carcano was fired out of the sixth floor?? Can you explain your reasoning for it not having fired out of the sixth floor?

My go-to inconsistency in the single-assassin scenario are the issues with the EOP wound.
Click to expand...
No, your go-to reason is that you have a single CT source you depend on for all of your knowledge. What is an "EOP" wound?
 
RoboTimbo said:
IF the Carcano was fired out of the sixth floor?? Can you explain your reasoning for it not having fired out of the sixth floor?


No, your go-to reason is that you have a single CT source you depend on for all of your knowledge. What is an "EOP" wound?
Click to expand...

What are you talking about "single CT source"?
 
MicahJava said:
How many armed assassins did they find from the other side?
Click to expand...
One - Oswald. Do you know anything about the JFK assassination that your one CT source hasn't told you?

See, LNers know it's possible to hide a gun, only when it's their idea of how it happened.
Click to expand...
The CT loons you depend on for all of your knowledge only give their sycophants enough information to embarrass themselves. Doesn't it bother you that you haven't even gotten one thing right?
 
MicahJava said:
Even you should know that dense metal would show up on x-rays as a bright, easily noticeable particle.
Click to expand...

Then why doesn't the original pathologists report on it?

The HSCA?

Wecht himself says your theories are wrong.

See below.

And why did you avoid all my points?

The denial is all yours. It says he worked for the coroner's office in 1974. It doesn't say in what capacity.

Where does it say he was a qualified forensic pathologist?

And wasn't your complaint those guys (forensic pathologists) aren't qualified to read x-rays, anyway?

Why do your objections to the HSCA forensic pathology panel melt away when one of them says something you like?

And here's part of Wecht's conclusion:

5.3. ...So far as the available medical evidence shows, all shots were fired from the rear. No support can be found for theories which postulate gunmen to the front or right-front of the Presidential car. The medical evidence indicates that the President’s back was hit by one bullet and that his head was hit by one other bullet only.

So NO SUPPORT for your grassy knoll theory, nor for your two shots to the head.

You introduced this document as evidence. Now you're going to tell us Wecht was wrong, right?

Hank
 
Last edited:
MicahJava said:
If the Carcano was fired out of the sixth floor window, it is highly unlikely that it could be responsible for all wounds. My go-to inconsistency in the single-assassin scenario are the issues with the EOP wound.
Click to expand...

"I can see you make a habit of missing the point" - Officer Rick Grimes to Merle Dixon in season 1, episode 2 of "The Walking Dead".

Try answering the question from the facts provided.

Again:

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?
 
MicahJava said:
The FBI saved the shells from their Warren Commission ballistics tests? Where?
Click to expand...

The National Archives took possession of the Warren Commission's materials when the WC rendered its conclusion and closed up shop.

All those materials would be in the National Archives.

Hank
 
MicahJava said:
How many armed assassins did they find from the other side? See, LNers know it's possible to hide a gun, only when it's their idea of how it happened.
Click to expand...

Right. A number of people, led by police officers, heard the shots and ran immediately towards the grassy knoll, but didn't see anyone hiding a gun. But someone was definitely shooting from there, because reasons.

People who are intelligent enough to tie their own shoelaces realise that people can be seen doing things out in the open, when they can't necessarily be seen doing the same things when they've ducked down below the window of a building. Conspiracy theorists, on the other hand, seem to get that one the wrong way round.

Dave
 
MicahJava said:
How many armed assassins did they find from the other side? See, LNers know it's possible to hide a gun, only when it's their idea of how it happened.
Click to expand...

Despite your pretense your argument is identical to ours, nothing could be further than the truth.

The difference is "our gun" (Oswald's weapon) was found, and could be tied to not only three shells found at the sniper's nest window, but to a nearly whole bullet found in Parkland, as well as two large fragments found in the Presidential Limousine after the shooting.

Not only that, but the autopsy, and all subsequent reviews of the extant autopsy materials, found that the President was shot twice, and both shots came from above and behind the decedent.

And when the gun was found, it was photographed in place, and eventually traced to a person who worked in the Depository.

And we have witnesses who saw that person with a large package on the morning of the assassination.

See, we have actual evidence that there was a gun in question, we can show you photos of it, we can show you evidence it was fired during the assassination, the damage it was responsible for, and we can show you who purchased it, and how they got it into the Depository.

Now, as to your weapon, your evidence is an imagined gun, that is imagined to be hidden, imagined to be removed somehow later, and imagined to cause damage that no one could attribute to it, with imagined bullets that caused imagined wounds.

Despite your pretense your argument is identical to ours, nothing could be further than the truth.

When we talk about a gun hidden away, we have the actual evidence to point to that all the way up and down the line to support our argument. You have nothing but your imagination to support your argument.

Now we tie that to your expert's conclusion that no shots came from the knoll from the document you cited.

5.3. ...So far as the available medical evidence shows, all shots were fired from the rear. No support can be found for theories which postulate gunmen to the front or right-front of the Presidential car. The medical evidence indicates that the President’s back was hit by one bullet and that his head was hit by one other bullet only.

So NO SUPPORT for your grassy knoll theory, nor for your two shots to the head.

You introduced this document as evidence. Now you're going to tell us Wecht was wrong, right?

And what really do we have for evidence of a grassy knoll assassin?

Nothing.

Hank
 
Last edited:
HSienzant said:
Then why doesn't the original pathologists report on it?

The HSCA?

Wecht himself says your theories are wrong.

See below.

And why did you avoid all my points?

The denial is all yours. It says he worked for the coroner's office in 1974. It doesn't say in what capacity.

Where does it say he was a qualified forensic pathologist?

And wasn't your complaint those guys (forensic pathologists) aren't qualified to read x-rays, anyway?

Why do your objections to the HSCA forensic pathology panel melt away when one of them says something you like?

And here's part of Wecht's conclusion:

5.3. ...So far as the available medical evidence shows, all shots were fired from the rear. No support can be found for theories which postulate gunmen to the front or right-front of the Presidential car. The medical evidence indicates that the President’s back was hit by one bullet and that his head was hit by one other bullet only.

So NO SUPPORT for your grassy knoll theory, nor for your two shots to the head.

You introduced this document as evidence. Now you're going to tell us Wecht was wrong, right?

Hank
Click to expand...

I'm more suspicious of the HSCA than Cyril Wecht, but who's to say they didn't just overlook that? A couple of them had already dismissed the purported fragments in the lower neck as X-ray film artifacts. I haven't read the HSCA materials in a while, I don't think it mentions this particle on the upper neck area.

Wecht may not be qualified to analyze the complexities of the existent JFK skull X-rays, but he can spot a fragment. What kind of cockamamie game are you trying to play here? Wecht's job is to perform autopsies and determine the cause of death. He can locate the general area of bullet fragments if he needs to.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom