Cont: JFK Conspiracy Theories V: Five for Fighting

Status
Not open for further replies.
MicahJava said:
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.
Click to expand...

I believe that is time to quit hijacking this thread and the one in the 9/11, lets keep to the thread intents, please.
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.
Click to expand...

What's your point? The autopsy report clearly states
One GSW to the back, exiting slightly below the Adams Apple.
One GSW to the back of head, exiting the front of the head.
Not one of the doctors performing the autopsy attached a dissent to the findings.
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.
Click to expand...

Same arguments same problems with those arguments. You still find that the difference of the precise location in the back head implies there was something "fishy". Nothing here except differing opinions. The HSCA verified the findings of the original autopsy. You lose again.
 
HSienzant said:
Page 64 of what link?

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
Click to expand...

Page 64 of the archive.

I agree with you 100%. I am no JFK conspiracy theorist.

I saw this posted elsewhere and the conspiracy theorists were jumping for joy over their smoking gun. Especially since "Jews" were mentioned. That set off their confirmation bias into overdrive.

Hence my clarification at the end of my post that the fact that none of the events this "informant" said would take place once JFK was "removed" actually took place. So my confidence in this being a legitimate truthful statement from the informant to the FBI is around 0.00001%
 
buka001 said:
Page 64 of the archive.

I agree with you 100%. I am no JFK conspiracy theorist.

I saw this posted elsewhere and the conspiracy theorists were jumping for joy over their smoking gun. Especially since "Jews" were mentioned. That set off their confirmation bias into overdrive.

Hence my clarification at the end of my post that the fact that none of the events this "informant" said would take place once JFK was "removed" actually took place. So my confidence in this being a legitimate truthful statement from the informant to the FBI is around 0.00001%
Click to expand...

0.00001%?

Why so high?

Hank
 
The big problem with releasing more, each document will be used to start a new dumber conspiracy claim. The anti-intellectual cherry picking quote mining JFK-CT superior "experts", now have more stuff to Gish Gallop for a hundred years. I hope all the guys are dead who names appear, else, they are about to be visited by nuts. Conspiracy theory nuts will make up more BS from anything they can make into an imaginary anomaly. It appears a lot of stuff is opinions, hearsay, and what you get when you question and investigate thousand of people.

More conspiracy theory claims will arise out of ignorance, a new JFK BS fest will take off in the fertile clueless minds of CTers from the new material released. Will there be some CT tweets from "So interesting!".
 
beachnut said:
The big problem with releasing more, each document will be used to start a new dumber conspiracy claim. The anti-intellectual cherry picking quote mining JFK-CT superior "experts", now have more stuff to Gish Gallop for a hundred years. .
Click to expand...

I agree.

For example, the link above about POTITO.

The idea that the throat wound was an entrance wound isn't new or unique. Hell, wasn't that one of the thoughts initially when he got to DC (because they hadn't realized the Parkland doctors had done a trach over the original wound?)

So who cares that someone else claimed it? It's been hashed to death, and it's baseless. So the response to that claim is the same as the response to every other claim that the throat wound was an entrance.
 
beachnut said:
The big problem with releasing more, each document will be used to start a new dumber conspiracy claim. The anti-intellectual cherry picking quote mining JFK-CT superior "experts", now have more stuff to Gish Gallop for a hundred years. I hope all the guys are dead who names appear, else, they are about to be visited by nuts. Conspiracy theory nuts will make up more BS from anything they can make into an imaginary anomaly. It appears a lot of stuff is opinions, hearsay, and what you get when you question and investigate thousand of people.

More conspiracy theory claims will arise out of ignorance, a new JFK BS fest will take off in the fertile clueless minds of CTers from the new material released. Will there be some CT tweets from "So interesting!".
Click to expand...

Yeah. My worry as well. I have already seen these CTers jumping on some random informant who said the "Jews" paid them to get rid of Kennedy. Literally could not have asked for anything better to wine and dine that confirmation bias CTers have.

When I saw that I was like oh no, here we go again.
 
beachnut said:
The big problem with releasing more, each document will be used to start a new dumber conspiracy claim. The anti-intellectual cherry picking quote mining JFK-CT superior "experts", now have more stuff to Gish Gallop for a hundred years. I hope all the guys are dead who names appear, else, they are about to be visited by nuts. Conspiracy theory nuts will make up more BS from anything they can make into an imaginary anomaly. It appears a lot of stuff is opinions, hearsay, and what you get when you question and investigate thousand of people.

More conspiracy theory claims will arise out of ignorance, a new JFK BS fest will take off in the fertile clueless minds of CTers from the new material released. Will there be some CT tweets from "So interesting!".
Click to expand...

I agree. That's why I'm opposed to any new government re-investigation of this, or Pearl Harbor, or the WTC attacks, or Custer's last stand.

It's always the CTs who are pounding the drums for a new investigation, once they've exhausted quote-mining the last investigation for every minor anomaly they can find.

The recollections get more absurd with each retelling, and the conspiracy theory science (recollections are better than hard evidence or expert opinion) doesn't help matters.

A new investigation just gives the CTs more erroneous data to quote-mine for bizarre claims about what else has been forged (JFK's body, the films and photos, what's next?)

Hank
 
News media are already covering a claim that a local newspaper in Cambridge was warned of big news about to happen in the US on the day of the assassination. Unless there is any further evidence to support it, I see no way to distinguish it from crank calls. With all the crank calls and hoaxes made to all the local papers and media in the world, sooner or later one will hit on a day news breaks.

That said, I am pretty sure the paper did the right thing by reporting it to authorities at the time.
 
HSienzant said:
It's always the CTs who are pounding the drums for a new investigation, once they've exhausted quote-mining the last investigation for every minor anomaly they can find.
Click to expand...

And, when any new investigation is carried out, the first to reject it or ignore it when it doesn't give the results they wanted.

Dave
 
pgwenthold said:
I agree.

For example, the link above about POTITO.

The idea that the throat wound was an entrance wound isn't new or unique. Hell, wasn't that one of the thoughts initially when he got to DC (because they hadn't realized the Parkland doctors had done a trach over the original wound?)
Click to expand...

No, this is just a faulty recollection by you. It was the Parkland doctors who thought it was an entry wound. The autopsy surgeons in DC at Bethesda thought it was a tracheostomy only. They didn't realize until the following morning when Humes spoke to Dr. Perry from Parkland that there was a bullet wound in the front of the neck that needed to be accounted for.

All the more reason to discount recollections and why I typically site the actual language for my claims (above, I did it from recollection, and wound up apologizing for the goof of saying Fromme and Moore tried to assassinate Bush instead of Ford). MicahJava, are you listening?


pgwenthold said:
So who cares that someone else claimed it? It's been hashed to death, and it's baseless. So the response to that claim is the same as the response to every other claim that the throat wound was an entrance.
Click to expand...

Yep, but this guy read it in the "Surgeon General's Report", so you know it's got to be true! :boggled:

Hank
 
Last edited:
beachnut said:
The big problem with releasing more, each document will be used to start a new dumber conspiracy claim. The anti-intellectual cherry picking quote mining JFK-CT superior "experts", now have more stuff to Gish Gallop for a hundred years. I hope all the guys are dead who names appear, else, they are about to be visited by nuts. Conspiracy theory nuts will make up more BS from anything they can make into an imaginary anomaly. It appears a lot of stuff is opinions, hearsay, and what you get when you question and investigate thousand of people.

More conspiracy theory claims will arise out of ignorance, a new JFK BS fest will take off in the fertile clueless minds of CTers from the new material released. Will there be some CT tweets from "So interesting!".
Click to expand...

Like Hank said and I agree with both(all) of you this will bring more CT "proofs" of a conspiracy. Or the Government, LBJ, Mob, Cuba, Russians were in collusion. No more wasted money on reinvestigations proving what has already been proven several times. One shooter, one weapon, three shots, two hits. This won't stop MJ from posting more of his alleged differences, as if they would over turn many investigations.
 
Tomtomkent said:
News media are already covering a claim that a local newspaper in Cambridge was warned of big news about to happen in the US on the day of the assassination. Unless there is any further evidence to support it, I see no way to distinguish it from crank calls. With all the crank calls and hoaxes made to all the local papers and media in the world, sooner or later one will hit on a day news breaks.

That said, I am pretty sure the paper did the right thing by reporting it to authorities at the time.
Click to expand...

Yeah.

And let the cranks investigate it to their hearts desire. Just don't expect anything to come of it, and don't presume that, just because it hasn't been beaten completely to death and exhausted, that it means anything.
 
Tomtomkent said:
News media are already covering a claim that a local newspaper in Cambridge was warned of big news about to happen in the US on the day of the assassination. Unless there is any further evidence to support it, I see no way to distinguish it from crank calls. With all the crank calls and hoaxes made to all the local papers and media in the world, sooner or later one will hit on a day news breaks.

That said, I am pretty sure the paper did the right thing by reporting it to authorities at the time.
Click to expand...

Anonymously call a different paper every day and say "Big News is about to happen today!"

Sooner or later you'll be right.

Wow, is that how psychics work?

Nobody remembers the misses, only the hits. Jean Dixon is STILL getting credit for predicting JFK's assassination... although she predicted Nixon would win in 1960.

Hank
 
Last edited:
The files are goldmine of JFK Assassination trivia where back-stories can be filled in. There are a bunch of CIA and FBI memos about monitoring Jim Garrison's "investigation". A close look at Operation Mongoose.

Right after the assassination the FBI and CIA hit the streets and contacted every informant they had asking about Oswald. Not one of them had ever heard of him.

You can see the files change from investigation to speculation as time goes on. From 1966 on through the 70's there are memos reporting mafia CI's spreading rumors they had overheard. I haven't gone through the 1970's yet, but I expect Watergate to color those memos.

I know, I make a lousy CTist what with actually digging into the files and reading them instead of letting someone else tell me what they think they say.
 
Axxman300 said:
The files are goldmine of JFK Assassination trivia where back-stories can be filled in. There are a bunch of CIA and FBI memos about monitoring Jim Garrison's "investigation". A close look at Operation Mongoose.

Right after the assassination the FBI and CIA hit the streets and contacted every informant they had asking about Oswald. Not one of them had ever heard of him.

You can see the files change from investigation to speculation as time goes on. From 1966 on through the 70's there are memos reporting mafia CI's spreading rumors they had overheard. I haven't gone through the 1970's yet, but I expect Watergate to color those memos.

I know, I make a lousy CTist what with actually digging into the files and reading them instead of letting someone else tell me what they think they say.
Click to expand...

It appears the CIA wasn't sure if the defector was Nosenko or someone pretending to be Nosenko.

"The only conclusion we can come to from the foregoing is that NOSENKO has been allowed to say little or nothing about the lives of important Soviet officials, or this man is not NOSENKO and all he knows is the legend which has been provided him or answers which he could figure out himself."

I wasn't aware there was any doubt about his identity, just about his reasons for defecting.

https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/docid-32404864.pdf
(bottom of page 3)

Hank
 
I'm going to look through more files tonight. One thing that is clear is that nobody can say that the FBI and CIA weren't looking for a conspiracy - just the opposite in fact. The HSCA was certainly kicking over every stone hoping to link Oswald to some shadowy group.

These files are an excellent profile on US Government agencies, and just how much paperwork is generated on any project or operation. You can see how disjointed the FBI operates with the field offices being almost independent from each other, and D.C. The CIA, at least in its communications, is extremely cautious with sharing information within the organization, and stresses confirmation on intelligence.
 
HSienzant said:
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
Click to expand...

1. The autopsy report, partially based on notes and measurements taken during the actual autopsy.

2. The autopsy face sheet diagram, prepared by the autopsy doctors and signed by Dr. Burkley.

3. The Rydberg drawings, directed by Dr. Humes.

4. The Warren Commission testimonies of Dr. Humes, Dr. Boswell, and Dr. Finck.

5. The Warren Commission testimony of Roy Kellerman.

6. Dr. Finck's summary of the autopsy to General Blumberg.

7. The autopsy X-ray and photograph inventory written by the autopsy doctors.

8. Dr. Finck's testimony at the trial of Clay Shaw.

See, all those pieces of evidence support the EOP location for the entry wound on the back of the head, and all came before the 1970's.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom