Cont: JFK Conspiracy Theories V: Five for Fighting

[Axxman300]

Hey, while we were arguing null points the National Archives dumped another 533 documents onto the web yesterday.

Linky linky: https://www.archives.gov/press/press-releases/nr18-07

This one has transcripts of Oswald's phone calls, and recordings of goings on at the Cuban Embassy.

 

[MicahJava]

bknight apparently doesn't realize that his silly confusions over the Z Film are not published in a scientific journals and were never used in a government investigation. That helps legitimize the case for a loud gunshot a moment before Kennedy went behind the sign on the Z film. Since Connally's lapel flap after he emerged behind the sign is a well-supported contender for showing the exact moment he was struck, we then have well-sourced photographic evidence for multiple shooters.

 

[Axxman300]

-The Death of a President by William Manchester, 1967

See, since Sibert and O'Neil left around 11:30 PM because they assumed the autopsy was finishing up once the funeral home people, it would make sense if the autopsy doctors only then telephoned Dr. Perry and learned of the throat wound.

Here's the thing, the fact that the throat wound was no determined to be an exit wound during the autopsy IS NOT IN CONTENTION. THIS HAS BEEN DOCUMENTED AND ADMITTED TO STARTING FROM THE WARREN COMMISSION ON.

It is a non-issue that changes nothing.

 

[MicahJava]

The really sad thing is MJ has not dived into the recent document release by the National Archives at all. A real truth seeker would be living on that site for the next three weeks downloading files, and sorting them to construct a narrative - even if it was for a CT narrative.

I know MJ hasn't because I found a memo that - while it doesn't prove his theory - he could certainly find a new horse to beat to death with it. I wasn't even looking for it, I was just systematically opening the FBI files from 1968.

And no, I'm not going to discuss the contents because this would mean I'd have to find it again to post the supporting link, and in the end the story itself is obvious hearsay. But it's waiting out there in cyberspace just waiting for MJ to find it...which he won't because that involves work.

Axxman, I'm genuinely curious what you're talking about here if it's not a lie. I was under the impression that the new JFK files would contain nothing relating to forensic evidence.

 

[MicahJava]

Here's the thing, the fact that the throat wound was no determined to be an exit wound during the autopsy IS NOT IN CONTENTION. THIS HAS BEEN DOCUMENTED AND ADMITTED TO STARTING FROM THE WARREN COMMISSION ON.

It is a non-issue that changes nothing.

Humes, Boswell, and Finck say that. Everybody else who was there tells a different story.

 

[Axxman300]

bknight apparently doesn't realize that his silly confusions over the Z Film are not published in a scientific journals and were never used in a government investigation. That helps legitimize the case for a loud gunshot a moment before Kennedy went behind the sign on the Z film. Since Connally's lapel flap after he emerged behind the sign is a well-supported contender for showing the exact moment he was struck, we then have well-sourced photographic evidence for multiple shooters.

bknight's not a moron.

We have access to better resolution footage today on YouTube than they did in 1971, and that means bknight and anyone else without mental defect can see superior image to make judgments from. The Zapruder Film shows two rounds striking the occupants - ONLY TWO.

For 50 years the Zapruder Film has been used by CT-loonies to make their case, and all have failed. The public never saw the actual footage until 1975, and didn't have direct access until the 1980's and VHS. The multiple shooter-LIE was formed before most idiots who made these claims had seen the moving images, and had based everything on stills from the film.

Quit parroting long dead theories and give us original thought for once.

 

[Axxman300]

Axxman, I'm genuinely curious what you're talking about here if it's not a lie. I was under the impression that the new JFK files would contain nothing relating to forensic evidence.

Hey, you're the truth seeker, how about you click a link and start seeking.

 

[Axxman300]

Humes, Boswell, and Finck say that. Everybody else who was there tells a different story.

Everybody else is wrong. Humes talks about the call to Parkland, and kicking himself for not doing so first. There is no mystery or issue here at all.

 

[HSienzant]

sigh...-The Death of a President by William Manchester, 1967

What part of "Apologies for the error" did you not understand?
What part of it's "hearsay from a book" did you not understand?

See, since Sibert and O'Neil left around 11:30 PM because they assumed the autopsy was finishing up once the funeral home people, it would make sense if the autopsy doctors only then [OR SOMETIME THEREAFTER - Hank] telephoned Dr. Perry and learned of the throat wound.

So there's a discrepancy of about six hours between Humes recollection and the claim in Manchester's book? So what? Can you explain the significance without using the word "lie", "lying", or "liar" and without applying it to the person whose testimony you've cited dozens, if not hundreds of times in the past year? (I'm speaking of Dr. Humes, of course).

Hank

 

[MicahJava]

Everybody else is wrong. Humes talks about the call to Parkland, and kicking himself for not doing so first. There is no mystery or issue here at all.

According to Dr. Perry, Dr. Humes telephoned twice. Humes never mentioned the second separate phone call.

 

[MicahJava]

bknight's not a moron.

We have access to better resolution footage today on YouTube than they did in 1971, and that means bknight and anyone else without mental defect can see superior image to make judgments from. The Zapruder Film shows two rounds striking the occupants - ONLY TWO.

For 50 years the Zapruder Film has been used by CT-loonies to make their case, and all have failed. The public never saw the actual footage until 1975, and didn't have direct access until the 1980's and VHS. The multiple shooter-LIE was formed before most idiots who made these claims had seen the moving images, and had based everything on stills from the film.

Quit parroting long dead theories and give us original thought for once.

I think you should go back and read the compilation of evidence I posted earlier in colored text.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=12061378&postcount=2481

 

[MicahJava]

So there's a discrepancy of about six hours between Humes recollection and the claim in Manchester's book? So what? Can you explain the significance without using the word "lie", "lying", or "liar" and without applying it to the person whose testimony you've cited dozens, if not hundreds of times in the past year? (I'm speaking of Dr. Humes, of course).

Hank

Humes said that he only telephoned Dr. Perry at around 10:30 AM Saturday. That's long after the body left. So it does not make sense for so many autopsy witnesses to give statements indicating that they knew about the throat wound on the night of the autopsy.

 

[HSienzant]

bknight apparently doesn't realize that his silly confusions over the Z Film are not published in a scientific journals and were never used in a government investigation. That helps legitimize the case for a loud gunshot a moment before Kennedy went behind the sign on the Z film. Since Connally's lapel flap after he emerged behind the sign is a well-supported contender for showing the exact moment he was struck, we then have well-sourced photographic evidence for multiple shooters.

What happened to the medical evidence of four or more shots which you previously asserted?

1. There were three loud noises in Dealey Palza, contrary to the medical evidence which indicates more than three shots were fired.

And the forensic evidence of multiple shooters which you previously asserted?

The forensic evidence strongly supports multiple shooters in the JFK assassination.

Now it's "photographic evidence for multiple shooters"?

And it's "a loud gunshot a moment before Kennedy went behind the sign"?

How much is "a moment" before Kennedy went behind the sign?

A moment in the English language isn't a specific amount of time.

MOMENT
a minute portion or point of time :instant
(a moment of dreadful suspense)
b :a comparatively brief period of time (moments of solitude)

Governor Connally would tell you "a comparatively brief period of time" was ten to twelve seconds. You're trying to make it no more than a second or so. That's disingenuous. Even granting for the sake of argument that those men had the reactions you suggest, as I noted, that's not evidence of anything other than, as I said previously, "a bullet shot sometime before frame Z210".

Z160 is before Z210 (by about three seconds). Anything more specific than that is going to rely on an awful lot of conjecture and ham-fisted attempts to push the round evidence into the square hole of your specific conspiracy theory.

Which is precisely what you're attempting to do by narrowing the first shot to no sooner than Z190.

Can you tell us how you eliminated Z189? Or Z185? or Z172?

Love to hear you explain your theory in more detail, and how you know the first shot came at Z190 or later.

You won't, of course.

Hank

 

[Tomtomkent]

Humes, Boswell, and Finck say that. Everybody else who was there tells a different story.

Which should be telling you something about how human memory works.
This should be raising red flags about your attempts to suggest that the documentary evidence of the autopsy is flawed, based on what people remember.

This alone should be giving you big clues about why your "evidence" has been placed so low in priority compared to documentary evidence and records.

 

[HSienzant]

Humes said that he only telephoned Dr. Perry at around 10:30 AM Saturday. That's long after the body left. So it does not make sense for so many autopsy witnesses to give statements indicating that they knew about the throat wound on the night of the autopsy.

What witnesses gave *contemporaneous* (not a third of a century later) statements indicating they knew about the throat wound from anything done at the autopsy?

Your argument appears to be that since I was home watching TV that day and saw the Parkland press conference (along perhaps with some others who then later that evening actually attended the autopsy while I was glued to the TV), Humes should have watched it and seen it too. And therefore known about the throat wound. Is that the argument you're advancing?

That Humes should have known about the throat wound before talking to Parkland? Prove it.

If your argument is that Humes should have talked to Dr. Perry of Parkland Hospital (or did talk to Dr. Perry of Parkland Hospital) before the next morning, but sometime after the body left, please tell us what the significance of the difference in time is.

And tell us how you know whose recollection is the correct one (I hope you're not going to cite Hagan, we've already seen how you cited Hagan in the past only to see Hagan's statement that he could not reconcile his own recollections about what transpired).

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

Which should be telling you something about how human memory works.

You have to get with the program. Their memories are fine when MicahJava wants them to be. Otherwise they are stinking liars.

Hank

 

[bknight]

bknight apparently doesn't realize that his silly confusions over the Z Film are not published in a scientific journals and were never used in a government investigation. That helps legitimize the case for a loud gunshot a moment before Kennedy went behind the sign on the Z film. Since Connally's lapel flap after he emerged behind the sign is a well-supported contender for showing the exact moment he was struck, we then have well-sourced photographic evidence for multiple shooters.

Only in your mind(CT's) Watch the video and tell me what your observe.

 

[Tomtomkent]

You have to get with the program. Their memories are fine when MicahJava wants them to be. Otherwise they are stinking liars.

Hank

I cling to my hope that if he is trying to have a discussion, he might want to know what it would take to convince people.

 

[HSienzant]

If you refuse to accept the possibility that the three main autopsy doctors are lying about a few things, then there is also the "accidental misinterpretation" possibility...

These are the people you are quoting for the EOP entrance, and above you suggest they might be liars. If you don't understand why that destroys any argument you might make from what they said, we cannot help you understand it.

Suggesting they are untrustworthy cuts the very legs out from under your argument.

We can explain it to you, we cannot understand it for you. That you need to do on your own.

So here you suggest they were incompetent. But again, that's a problem for YOUR arguments, because you rely on their expertise when you wish to cite them, but dismiss them as incompetent when it serves your purposes.

Sorry, no. We can see the problem with your argument, even if you remain blind to it (or pretend to be blind to it, or are incompetent to see the problem with it).

And you don't have the qualifications, experience, education, or background to make that criticism in any case. Maybe Earl Rose could criticize something Cyril Wecht or James Humes said, but you can't. You're not qualified to judge.

Hank

Just as a reminder, the next time you quote anything by Humes, Boswell or Finck, we just need to remind you that you already questioned their credibility so you don't get to pick and choose the pieces you like, claim that's the evidence, and discard the rest.

If they are liars as you claim, then you can't rely on anything they said.

You've figured that out by now, right?

Hank

 

[bknight]

I think you should go back and read the compilation of evidence I posted earlier in colored text.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=12061378&postcount=2481

And then read my rebuttal,

Frame 206-210 may have been the first shot or could have been earlier.. It is my opinion that the first shot was 150-160 as you can observe at different times JFK and JBC turning their heads to the left where the shots came from. Then a pause before the next round. There were two groupings of shell casings on the floor of the TSBA one casing by itself, two in close proximity, as if LHO firing position changed. This would be consistent with the travel of the car away from him requiring a change in firing stance. No mystery for me, just understanding aiming/firing a rifle.