Cont: JFK Conspiracy Theories V: Five for Fighting

[bknight]

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.

Yes I saw the edits, as a couple of my posts edited out his comments.
I should think he would learn and avoid that type of behavior in the future. Other than him being trashed on all of his ideas, he now fights on separate threads, his choice, very poorly.

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.

Anyone who has fired either a semi or full automatic weapon has seen the same type of cartridge damage. I can remember policing brass at Ft. Polk many years ago from M-16s although I wasn't interested to make a statistical analysis.

 

[Puppycow]

Website not available, says my browser. Surprise

Worked for me just now.

 

[William Parcher]

I would like to read about these new documents and what members have to say about them that is unrelated to conspiracy theory. Maybe there should be a new thread in the Current Events or History forum. There the discussion of the documents could happen without mention of conspiracies. I'm concerned that the best discussion would happen in this thread but would require sifting through the conspiracy debates.

I'm just making a suggestion and maybe it's not a good one.

 

[Axxman300]

Here's a fun one:

https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/docid-32282609.pdf

They refer to photographs of LHO leaving the Soviet Embassy, likely the ones they sent to the WC that weren't of him.

Best part, they acknowledge that all of the recordings of Oswald calling the Cuban and Soviet Embassies had been erased.

Fun.

 

[Axxman300]

I would like to read about these new documents and what members have to say about them that is unrelated to conspiracy theory. Maybe there should be a new thread in the Current Events or History forum. There the discussion of the documents could happen without mention of conspiracies. I'm concerned that the best discussion would happen in this thread but would require sifting through the conspiracy debates.

I'm just making a suggestion and maybe it's not a good one.

I've looked at 70 documents so far. What the documents show - big picture - is the scope of the investigation by the FBI. They looked hard at the Cuban exile community. The mafia theories filter into the picture around 1966, well after the assassination.The CIA documents will be useful to fill in the gaps on their anti-Castro operations from 1960 onward.

Taken as a whole they are an operational window on the FBI and CIA anti-Communist activities.

 

[buka001]

The conspiracy theorists are going to love this from page 64 -

Nov 1963, informant advised Chicago officer that subject was member of anti-Casto [sic] Cuban group. Subject allegedly approached informant to provide machine guns for Cuban rev. 11/21/63 subject allegedly told informant "We now have plenty of money -- our new backers are Jews -- as soon as 'we' or (they) take care of Kennedy ..." Subject expressed favourable attitude toward LBJ.

This will be the smoking gun they have been looking for.

The fact that the events postulated that would take place after Kennedy was dead, never actually took place will be ignored.

 

[Hubert Cumberdale]

This one will be a favourite

https://i.redd.it/7nsqygniu9uz.jpg

Debunks?

 

[Tomtomkent]

This one will be a favourite

https://i.redd.it/7nsqygniu9uz.jpg

Debunks?

There are lots of images of the car after the assassination. Any sign of that bullet hole?

Otherwise? Clearly a case of an exit being confused for an entry, which is not unreasonable when you are preserving the life of a person, and not carrying out a thorough forensic examination.

 

[pgwenthold]

This one will be a favourite

https://i.redd.it/7nsqygniu9uz.jpg

Debunks?

Find the cross examination of POTITO to determine the basis for that determination.

 

[MicahJava]

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.

Gee, tumbling?

 

[MicahJava]

Changing the subject entirely, I think it's important to note that our most recent conspiracy advocate on this board, who has quoted liberally from recollections made to the HSCA (15 years after the assassination) and the ARRB (33 years after the assassination) to support his claims has quite a different take on recollections when it suits his purposes on the 9/11 forums.



Edit: I wrote the above at the same time as the post immediately preceding. But given he talks about the Judy Woods "Death Rays from Space" (sounds like a 1950s low budget sci fi movie) theory for 9/11, it's actually not that much of a change of subject.

9/11 was sixteen years ago. The majority of the quotes from FDNY officials I used in my posts to that subforum are based on statements made seven years or less after 9/11.

As for JFK, you can prove exactly what I'm talking about using only sources from the 60's. It just doesn't help that witness interviews from 1970's-1990's all say the same thing too.

 

[Dave Rogers]

9/11 was sixteen years ago. The majority of the quotes from FDNY officials I used in my posts to that subforum are based on statements made seven years or less after 9/11.

Not meaning to give offence, but this is the sort of comment that makes you look like you haven't been following the conversation and don't really know what's going on. You yourself said that some of these statements should be considered less reliable because "It is important to be conscious on how hindsight can affect a witness statement". By suddenly switching sides and defending them, you're arguing against yourself here.

As for JFK, you can prove exactly what I'm talking about using only sources from the 60's.

I realise that you think you can prove that there were two bullet wounds in JFK's head from sources from the 60's that clearly and categorically state that there was only one bullet wound in JFK's head, but this is not what most normal people would take as conforming to the definition of the word "proof".

Dave

 

[MicahJava]

Not meaning to give offence, but this is the sort of comment that makes you look like you haven't been following the conversation and don't really know what's going on. You yourself said that some of these statements should be considered less reliable because "It is important to be conscious on how hindsight can affect a witness statement". By suddenly switching sides and defending them, you're arguing against yourself here.

I don't care about what failed joke you're trying to force here. Way way of thinking about the FDNY statements is simply about reconciling all of them at once to get a more accurate picture. When you do that, it seems like the WTC 7 foreknowledge traces back to the special engineer at around 11:30 AM -12:00 PM.

I realise that you think you can prove that there were two bullet wounds in JFK's head from sources from the 60's that clearly and categorically state that there was only one bullet wound in JFK's head, but this is not what most normal people would take as conforming to the definition of the word "proof".

Dave

The autopsy doctors, including Dr. Pierre Finck who was experienced in identifying gunshot wounds, said that the small wound near the EOP exhibited beveling indicating it was a wound of entry, and that the large head wound included beveling of exit. They probably weren't technically lying there. What is your point? That is still consistent with a scenario with two bullets striking the head.

Or would you like to switch from cowlick to EOP? If you want to think the beveled entry low near the base of the head had anything to do with he beveled "exit" somewhere on the right side of the head, then you must explain how that matches the official evidence we have now.

 

[Meadmaker]

After not looking at any of the newly released documents, I think I can reach a few conclusions.


1. The released documents prove beyond all doubt that there was a conspiracy to kill the President, and cover up his murder.

2. The fact that some documents were withheld prove beyond all doubt that the government continues to conceal the documents that would prove the conspiracy to kill the President.

3. The released documents prove beyond all doubt that those investigating the conspiracy to kill the President were inept bunglers who misread even the most obvious evidence.

Did I miss anything?

ETA:

Best part, they acknowledge that all of the recordings of Oswald calling the Cuban and Soviet Embassies had been erased.

I forgot: The released documents prove, beyond all doubt, that the evidence which would have proved the conspiracy has been destroyed as part of the cover up.

 

[HSienzant]

The conspiracy theorists are going to love this from page 64 -

Nov 1963, informant advised Chicago officer that subject was member of anti-Casto [sic] Cuban group. Subject allegedly approached informant to provide machine guns for Cuban rev. 11/21/63 subject allegedly told informant "We now have plenty of money -- our new backers are Jews -- as soon as 'we' or (they) take care of Kennedy ..." Subject expressed favourable attitude toward LBJ.

This will be the smoking gun they have been looking for.

The fact that the events postulated that would take place after Kennedy was dead, never actually took place will be ignored.

Page 64 of what link to what document?

How reliable is the informant?

Who is the informant?

There's nothing there. Many people, after the fact, tried to take advantage of the Kennedy assassination for their own gain. In some cases that meant claiming Oswald was a member of a group the person reporting had a grudge against, or that turned them down for membership, or was opposed to their politics.

Why should we believe anything posted by an anonymous poster who posts an unsourced allegation from an unknown person?

Is that the best way to decide what's real and what's fake news?

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

This one will be a favourite

https://i.redd.it/7nsqygniu9uz.jpg

Debunks?

What's to debunk?

How about you substantiate the claims therein?

Otherwise, you're just shifting the burden of proof.

But let me give you a head start on the proof with a few hints:

Find out who Potito is.
Find out how he knew what's in the "Surgeon General's Report".
Find that report.
Show it's legit (it can't be the Warren Report, because that shows no such conclusion).
Establish how the 12 railroad workers and two police officers on the railroad overpass ("Bridge" in the document you cite) didn't see this shooter. *
Establish how the bullet didn't exit the body (JFK had only an entrance wound on his back) and yet wasn't found in the body during the full body radiographs taken during the autopsy. Where's that magic bullet?
Establish what happened to the bullet that struck JFK in the back. If the throat wound was a separate entry, you've got two bullets that struck JFK, two bullets that didn't exit, and both of which weren't found in the body -- two magic bullets!
Show us photos of the limo showing a bullet hole.
In the two more famous Altgens' photos, taken after JFK was struck in the throat (with the car approaching Altgens), and in the one taken after JFK was struck in the head (with the car moving away from Altgens), the damage to the windshield can be seen, and neither show a hole in the windshield, just a crack.
Establish where the shooter was. (there was a three-degree downward slope of the roadway that JFK's car was on - a shooter on the bridge firing into the windshield would be shooting DOWN into the car. Could a bullet fired down, hitting the windshield, even reach JFK?
If it could, why would the shooter not wait until JFK got a bit closer and fire at JFK when the windshield wasn't in the way? Wouldn't that make for an easier shot?​

So you've got a lot of work to do.

Roll up your sleeves and get to work.

We'll expect to hear from you with a follow-up after you've nailed all this down. Interim reports are okay.

Thanks,
Hank
_____________
* Only one book puts a shooter on the overpass, to my knowledge. It was written by Thomas Buchanan and was published before the Warren Commission even concluded their deliberations.
https://www.amazon.com/Who-killed-Kennedy-Thomas-Buchanan/dp/B00005X6M4
It was a hodgepodge of statements taken from newspaper articles, wild guesses, and logical fallacies. It had JACK RUBY as the shooter on the overpass, and Officer Tippit as the shooter in the Depository. Of course, Oswald was totally innocent. It's not worth being even a doorstop, unlike Lifton's Best Evidence, which makes a good doorstop.

 

[HSienzant]

Gee, tumbling?

Gee, guess much?

Where's the exit in the base of the skull?

I thought you had all this nailed down?

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

9/11 was sixteen years ago. The majority of the quotes from FDNY officials I used in my posts to that subforum are based on statements made seven years or less after 9/11.

As for JFK, you can prove exactly what I'm talking about using only sources from the 60's. It just doesn't help that witness interviews from 1970's-1990's all say the same thing too.

Go ahead. Prove it using only statements from the 60s. We'll wait. None of your famous (and fatuous) 'interpretations' where you take some words out of context and tell us what the person meant.

If they didn't clearly say it, then it's not proof. Cite the supposed proof.

We'll wait.

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

I don't care about what failed joke you're trying to force here. Way way of thinking about the FDNY statements is simply about reconciling all of them at once to get a more accurate picture. When you do that, it seems like the WTC 7 foreknowledge traces back to the special engineer at around 11:30 AM -12:00 PM.

Why try to 'reconcile' anything? We know witnesses sometimes contradict each other (well, I know, you appear to not know this). If you're trying to reconcile contradictory statements you're going to reach an erroneous conclusion. Rather, you should be discarding the witness statements that don't agree with the known physical evidence and the conclusions of the experts. That's the proper approach.

The alternative is you use the contradictory witness statements to discard the expert opinions and the hard evidence.

This methodology has a name. It's called 'Conspiracy Theory Science', and it's absolutely the worst way to reach the truth.

But to each his own. You want to prove your theory in the worst way. So you adopted the worst way to prove your theory.

The autopsy doctors, including Dr. Pierre Finck who was experienced in identifying gunshot wounds, said that the small wound near the EOP exhibited beveling indicating it was a wound of entry, and that the large head wound included beveling of exit. They probably weren't technically lying there. What is your point? That is still consistent with a scenario with two bullets striking the head.

Then you're missing another entry and another exit.

You just accused your sources of being less than honest. If you don't trust them, why should we trust them?

You just gave another of your famous 'interpretations' (mind-reading exhibitions). The doctor you cite said one entry and one exit. You called him less than honest and said there were two, but you cite nothing to establish that he's withholding anything or that there were two wounds.

That's not proof. That's just you repeating your theory.

Or would you like to switch from cowlick to EOP? If you want to think the beveled entry low near the base of the head had anything to do with he beveled "exit" somewhere on the right side of the head, then you must explain how that matches the official evidence we have now.

The autopsy puts the wound 'slightly' above the EOP, with 'slightly' undefined. I see no contradiction.

Hank

 

[Dave Rogers]

I don't care about what failed joke you're trying to force here.

I think you're being a bit hard on yourself there. I think you need to decide whether recollections as little as seven or eight years after the event are nevertheless to be considered subject to interpretation because people re-evaluate their recollections in the light of subsequent events, or whether recollections fifteen years or more after the event are crystal clear and accurate. If you continue to insist that both are true, everyone but you can see that your position is so inconsistent as to be absurd.

[...]What is your point? That is still consistent with a scenario with two bullets striking the head.

As usual, you're cherry-picking parts of the evidence that don't specifically disprove your assertion that there were two bullet wounds to the head, ignoring or handwaving away the parts that do specifically disprove it, then pretending that this somehow proves that there were two bullet wounds to the head. The autopsy report clearly stated that there was only one, and your repeated attempts to pretend that you know better don't carry any weight.

Dave