Cont: JFK Conspiracy Theories V: Five for Fighting

Status
Not open for further replies.
pgwenthold said:
I could swear I saw Wecht doing this nonsense in a TV special. He had a physical mock-up, not just a drawing.

It may have been after the OJ trial, because I remember seeing him in the OJ trial and thinking he knows his stuff, but then I saw his crap with the limo and it made me question everything about him.
Click to expand...

He may have added that to his repertoire, but it's not original with him. He has been a long-time opponent of the single-bullet theory, and his disagreements about the assassination has always stemmed from two things:
1. His belief that the alignment of the two men is wrong for one bullet to wound both men
2. His belief that the recovered bullet should have suffered more damage than the one recovered in Parkland, CE399.
​
For example, here's his testimony to the HSCA:
Mr. PURDY. Dr. Wecht, is it your opinion, then, that not only is the conclusion of the forensic pathology panel that Commission exhibit 399 is consistent with the wounds, incorrect, you feel it is demonstrably false, is that correct?
Dr. WECHT. It is absolutely false. Well, I got involved back in 1965 with the American Academy of Forensic Sciences. For the past 12 or 13 years, I have repeatedly, limited to the context of the forensic pathologist, numerous times implored, beseeched, urged, in writing, orally, privately, collectively, my colleagues; to come up with one bullet, that has done this. I am not talking about 50 percent of the time plus one, 5 percent or 1 percent--just one bullet that have done this. I also heard reference today by Dr. Baden that, yes, we have seen such bullets, not in the military setting, but we have seen them in civilian life. I can only say to to you as a member of the panel, at no time did any of my colleagues ever bring in a bullet from a documented case of the Commonwealth of such and such or the State of such and such versus Jones or Smith and say here is a bullet in a documented case, there is the crime lab's report, it broke two bones in some human being, and look at it, its condition, it is pristine. I stand here today and I wonder where that bullet is? Maybe it will be presented by the next member of the majority who has conveniently been sandwiched on the other side of me sometime tomorrow.
Mr. PURDY. Dr. Wecht, what is the basis for your opinion that the positions of President Kennedy and Governor Connally in the limousine are inconsistent with the single bullet passing through both men?
Dr. WECHT. The physical---
Mr. PURDY. I think you might want to stay there, we will get to the exhibit in one second.
Dr. WECHT. The physical relationship of the two men clearly demonstrates the physical impossibility of the trajectory attributed to Commission exhibit 399, specifically the horizontal and vertical angles with which it would have had to have struck the President and Governor Connally. Absolutely impossible.

Source: http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/m_j_russ/hscawech.htm
Hank
 
Last edited:
HSienzant said:
It's a straw man argument that conspiracy theorists have sold to the American public as a fact to argue against the so-called "magic bullet theory". There's actually nothing magically about a copper-jacketed bullet that is designed to penetrate flesh without deformation doing exactly that.

Here's the way they picture it:
http://dyingwords.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/A71.jpg
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/bogus3.gif (From High Treason; by Groden & Livingstone)
Click to expand...

Those or similar fantasies are probably what MJ thinks are correct. And since bullets don't change trajectories like that: Conspiracy.
But with a few minor tweaks, hardly worth mentioning, here's the actual path:
http://dyingwords.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/A61.jpg

Of course Oliver Stone used the straw man version of the men's seating arrangement's, not the correct one, in his movie "JFK".

Hank
Click to expand...
Now if MJ would only see this as the correct positioning, trajectory he might crawl back to 9/11 and post some nonsense there.
 
HSienzant said:
He may have added that to his repertoire, but it's not original with him. He has been a long-time opponent of the single-bullet theory, and his disagreements about the assassination has always stemmed from two things:
1. His belief that the alignment of the two men is wrong for one bullet to wound both men
2. His belief that the recovered bullet should have suffered more damage than the one recovered in Parkland, CE399.
​
For example, here's his testimony to the HSCA:
Mr. PURDY. Dr. Wecht, is it your opinion, then, that not only is the conclusion of the forensic pathology panel that Commission exhibit 399 is consistent with the wounds, incorrect, you feel it is demonstrably false, is that correct?
Dr. WECHT. It is absolutely false. Well, I got involved back in 1965 with the American Academy of Forensic Sciences. For the past 12 or 13 years, I have repeatedly, limited to the context of the forensic pathologist, numerous times implored, beseeched, urged, in writing, orally, privately, collectively, my colleagues; to come up with one bullet, that has done this. I am not talking about 50 percent of the time plus one, 5 percent or 1 percent--just one bullet that have done this. I also heard reference today by Dr. Baden that, yes, we have seen such bullets, not in the military setting, but we have seen them in civilian life. I can only say to to you as a member of the panel, at no time did any of my colleagues ever bring in a bullet from a documented case of the Commonwealth of such and such or the State of such and such versus Jones or Smith and say here is a bullet in a documented case, there is the crime lab's report, it broke two bones in some human being, and look at it, its condition, it is pristine. I stand here today and I wonder where that bullet is? Maybe it will be presented by the next member of the majority who has conveniently been sandwiched on the other side of me sometime tomorrow.
Mr. PURDY. Dr. Wecht, what is the basis for your opinion that the positions of President Kennedy and Governor Connally in the limousine are inconsistent with the single bullet passing through both men?
Dr. WECHT. The physical---
Mr. PURDY. I think you might want to stay there, we will get to the exhibit in one second.
Dr. WECHT. The physical relationship of the two men clearly demonstrates the physical impossibility of the trajectory attributed to Commission exhibit 399, specifically the horizontal and vertical angles with which it would have had to have struck the President and Governor Connally. Absolutely impossible.
k
Click to expand...

Doesn't this last part confirm what I said about Wecht? That he was one of those selling the idea that they were seated wrong based on an improper alignment of people in the car?

OK, it doesn't say that he had an improper alignment, but, yeah, that's what he based it on.

It is interesting, though, how CTs can go from "the wounds are in the wrong positions to be explained by how they were sitting" based on having them sitting wrong, to, after the correct alignment of sitting is shown, they go to "the wounds are not where the WC says they are"

IOW, if you put the people sitting in the car in wrong places, then all the wounds are exactly trustable, but if you put them into the right positions, then the wounds must be wrong.

Because, you know, conspiracy...
 
While y'all are waiting for releases, here is a nice short video by Errol Morris from 2011, featuring Josiah "Tink" Thompson, titled "The Umbrella Man", which the NY Times currently features on their online start page:

https://nyti.ms/2kQc8WM

6:36 minutes long, it talks about the odd observation that on this beautiful sunny morning in Dallas, in all of the photos and videos, you see exactly one person with raingear: A man under an open, black umbrella, and he happened to stand right next to the stretch of road where the shots at Kennedy started.

Which raises the obvious question: Can there be ANY non-sinister explanation for this?

And the answer is (at 5:30): "...you can never on your own think up all the non-sinister, perfectly valid explanations for that fact. A cautionary tale!" - because it turns out that this person meant to protest JFK's father's imvolvement in pre-WW2 appeasement diplomacy - the umbrelly stood for Neville Chamberlain's trademark umbrella; who would have thought that?
 
pgwenthold said:
Doesn't this last part confirm what I said about Wecht? That he was one of those selling the idea that they were seated wrong based on an improper alignment of people in the car?

OK, it doesn't say that he had an improper alignment, but, yeah, that's what he based it on.
Click to expand...

Absolutely. I wasn't disagreeing with you. I expanded on your argument, pointing out he also had problems with the bullet's condition. I just don't think the alignment argument was something that he invented, rather he adopted it after seeing those incorrect drawings.


pgwenthold said:
It is interesting, though, how CTs can go from "the wounds are in the wrong positions to be explained by how they were sitting" based on having them sitting wrong, to, after the correct alignment of sitting is shown, they go to "the wounds are not where the WC says they are"

IOW, if you put the people sitting in the car in wrong places, then all the wounds are exactly trustable, but if you put them into the right positions, then the wounds must be wrong.

Because, you know, conspiracy...
Click to expand...

Well, there was a conspiracy, that's a given to every CT, first and foremost, so there MUST be something wrong. Somewhere. It's just simple everyday common sense. :rolleyes:

And thus is born the fringe reset. Pin them down on one argument, they flip to another. Pin them down on that one, they go back to arguing the first. We've seen it with every CT who has posted here. Our current conspiracy theorist, MicahJava, is no exception. He's reposting his arguments from three months, six months, and a year ago, pretending they weren't already dismantled every previous time he posted them.

Hank
 
Oystein said:
While y'all are waiting for releases, here is a nice short video by Errol Morris from 2011, featuring Josiah "Tink" Thompson, titled "The Umbrella Man", which the NY Times currently features on their online start page:

https://nyti.ms/2kQc8WM

6:36 minutes long, it talks about the odd observation that on this beautiful sunny morning in Dallas, in all of the photos and videos, you see exactly one person with raingear: A man under an open, black umbrella, and he happened to stand right next to the stretch of road where the shots at Kennedy started.

Which raises the obvious question: Can there be ANY non-sinister explanation for this?

And the answer is (at 5:30): "...you can never on your own think up all the non-sinister, perfectly valid explanations for that fact. A cautionary tale!" - because it turns out that this person meant to protest JFK's father's imvolvement in pre-WW2 appeasement diplomacy - the umbrelly stood for Neville Chamberlain's trademark umbrella; who would have thought that?
Click to expand...

Believe it or not, many conspiracy theorists don't buy that Neville Chamberlain explanation because they think it's too outlandish! But body alteration is, like, totally within the realm of probability to these guys.

They still insist the umbrella held a poison dart that paralyzed JFK so subsequent shots would kill him (if it was that easy to hit him with a poison dart, why not just put a bullet in the umbrella and shoot him dead with that?

Or if John Hinckley had been shot and killed by return fire instead of subdued and taken into custody, who would've thought he was doing it to impress Jodie Foster?

A nut's motivation doesn't have to make sense to us, it just has to make sense to him (or in the case of the Lynette Fromme or Sara Jane Moore assassination attempts on George H. W. Bush, her).

Hank
 
HSienzant said:
A nut's motivation doesn't have to make sense to us, it just has to make sense to him (or in the case of the Lynette Fromme or Sara Jane Moore assassination attempts on George H. W. Bush, her).
Click to expand...
They weren't satisfied with failing to kill Ford, they failed to kill HIM, too? :eek:
 
HSienzant said:
Believe it or not, many conspiracy theorists don't buy that Neville Chamberlain explanation because they think it's too outlandish! But body alteration is, like, totally within the realm of probability to these guys.

They still insist the umbrella held a poison dart that paralyzed JFK so subsequent shots would kill him (if it was that easy to hit him with a poison dart, why not just put a bullet in the umbrella and shoot him dead with that?...
Click to expand...

If I were to invent a sinister explanation, I'd speculate that the umbrella man marked the spot where the several shooters should start shooting at Kennedy, a spot perhaps chosen for certain acoustic properties.
 
MicahJava said:
Dale Myers is a shrill copyright Nazi who whines like a baby when somebody uses excerpts from his book or website under the guise of copyright when really he's afraid of being debunked.
Click to expand...

Pot, meet kettle.

Still no answer for how a subsonic projectile doesn't cause fractures at entry but does at exit? I mean an actual explanation of the mechanics of terminal ballistics differ between supersonic and subsonic projectiles.
 
MicahJava said:
Dale Myers is a shrill copyright Nazi who whines like a baby when somebody uses excerpts from his book or website under the guise of copyright when really he's afraid of being debunked.
Click to expand...

When your points are exposed as nonsense, start calling people names?

Is that really the best argument you could muster?

Well, then, you already lost.

Still waiting for you to tell us what Mark Lane got right in Rush to Judgment.
Still waiting for you to tell us what medical evidence indicates more than three shots.
Still waiting for you to tell us why a dented shell after ejection means Oswald couldn't commit the assassination.
Still waiting for you to tell us hw the conspirators thought shooting JFK from the front and altering the wounds would work.

Like your other assertions, those have no basis in fact.

Neither does your above claim.

And of course we're still waiting for you to establish you know a reasonable conclusion when you trip over one:

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

1. 90% of the witness stated heard exactly three shots, no more, no less.
2. Three shells were recovered about 45 minutes after the shooting from a building where numerous people saw a gunman.

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

Remember, you can exclude the assassination for the purposes of this discussion.

Ninth time I've asked. You must not know what a reasonable conclusion is if you can't answer it still.

Hank

PS: I anticipated your response, and already pointed out the issues with it here:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=12050013&postcount=2247
"Oswald wasn't a smoker [typical CT retort to the point made, ignoring the point made]".

You pick one point out of several dozen, complaint about that, and assume you've therefore rebutted everything. Not even close.
 
Last edited:
bknight said:
Ad hominems yes when all else fails attack the messenger.
Click to expand...

Although I didn't report his post addressing me in his 9/11 fantasy thread, his MA violation rated editing by a moderator, so yeah, it's his MO.

And BTW MJ, want to get on the terminal ballistics question and please review the question of the ejector and extractor on the Carcano causing case mouth dents that you regurgitated from one of your sources.
 
Quick review:

Lots of memos, field reports, some pre-date the assassination by several years. HSCA files. It will take me a few days to get a grip on even part of this stuff.

There is a early 1964 memo from LBJ asking how much of "our activities in Cuba" can be revealed to Congressional oversight and other entities.

Lots of memos regarding Cuban Exile groups. Lots of running down Chicago mob leads.

CI names galore.

Tons of boring procedural stuff too.

Update: CIA Mexico City files begin on page 59.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom