RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
LOL. What was your theory again?
Cont: JFK Conspiracy Theories V: Five for Fighting
- Thread starter bknight
- Start date
- Status
LOL. What was your theory again?
MicahJava
Illuminator
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2016
- Messages
- 3,039
There was a window of time between the departure of FBI agents Sibert and O'Neil and the true end of the autopsy.
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
Oh. Fringe reset it is then.
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
So nothing except "anybody but Oswald"?
I accept your concession that you don't have a theory. Like every other CTist. I look forward to the day when an interesting CTist shows up and displays some relevance.
Axxman300
Philosopher
What this says is they got there early, and had to wait around.
Not seeing conspiracy, just guys concerned with taking care JFK.
You are really bad at this.
Axxman300
Philosopher
None of which matters in any way. It doesn't change what happened in Dallas, and that is the only thing that counts in this story.
Harrison Livingstone lived a few miles away from me. He is not a good source, he saw only what he wanted to see.
If you accept Livingstone then you have to accept his theory:
Four men fire 13 shots at JFK striking him in the front and back of the head and neck. None of the shooters was Oswald.
Livingstone claims that the Zapruder Film was doctored to hide a massive exit wound in the back of JFK's head.
Livingstone asserts that Hoover was behind the assassination, doing the bidding of wealth Texas oilmen, who had invested heavily in the defense industry, and stood to lose billions if the US withdrew from Vietnam(which we weren't involved in a big way in 1963), and that LBJ would insure escalation.
By citing Livingstone you have to accept this as your theory of what happened in Dallas. You can't pick and choose your sources because each CT-Hack's work is slanted to support their silly theories, and thus suffered from inadequate research, and heavy speculation.
Why you've failed (again) on this red-herring is the only reason the autopsy time line inconsistencies are relevant is because the body was being surgically altered to frame Oswald as the lone shooter...THE ONLY REASON.
So you now have to explain why you believe the body was altered, who altered it before it got to Bethesda, and how they knew to frame Oswald in the first place.
Tomtomkent
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jul 5, 2010
- Messages
- 8,607
None. Hence the problem with your theory.
HSienzant
Philosopher
By Sibert and O'Neill?
You mean your argument where they made stuff up to destroy Lifton's body alteration theory that hadn't been invented yet?
"Comparing their statements to other evidence and witnesses, it seems that they may have a personal motive for adding details to their stories that conveniently discredit various theories like body alteration/early throat wound discovery"
Is that your best argument for the discrepancies in the 33-years-after-the-fact recollections of the men involved?
Yeah, that makes as much sense as anything else you've said to date.
And if you're going to follow Lifton's lead on his body alteration theory, at least reveal what Lifton never could: WHO ALTERED CONNALLY'S WOUNDS? It's Lifton's theory that all the shooters were in front of the President, none behind, and that means all the shooters were in front of the Governor as well. In Lifton's nearly 800-page doorstop, he never once addressed that issue.
Remember, by the time the Presidential Limousine arrived at Parkland Hospital, the Governor already had wounds pointing to a shooter behind him. So which one of the six people (excluding the Governor himself) altered the Governor's wounds on the ride from Dealey Plaza to Parkland?
You mean the Oswald-did-it case still takes precedence over the inane speculations of conspiracy theorists like David Lifton?
Thanks for that admission.
Hank
Last edited:
Tomtomkent
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jul 5, 2010
- Messages
- 8,607
So... let’s cut away all the flab and the silly name calling. The majority of posters here simply seem to be stating:
There is no evidence that passes the benchmark required for them to believe the autopsy lasted much longer than midnight.
There is nothing suspicious about the paperwork being completed some time later.
The observable records of the autopsy, and medical evidence supports the WC findings.
Testimony should be tested against the Objective and Documentary records, not vice versa, due to the limitation of subjective human memory.
Even IF it were shown the autopsy continued later, and maximum weight were placed upon the outlying interpretations of the objective evidence, that does not support or suggest the plethora of contradictory “theories” that have previously been stated. Proving the known timeline wrong does not equate to proving another correct.
There is no evidence that passes the benchmark required for them to believe the autopsy lasted much longer than midnight.
There is nothing suspicious about the paperwork being completed some time later.
The observable records of the autopsy, and medical evidence supports the WC findings.
Testimony should be tested against the Objective and Documentary records, not vice versa, due to the limitation of subjective human memory.
Even IF it were shown the autopsy continued later, and maximum weight were placed upon the outlying interpretations of the objective evidence, that does not support or suggest the plethora of contradictory “theories” that have previously been stated. Proving the known timeline wrong does not equate to proving another correct.
novaphile
Quester of Doglets
MicahJava
Illuminator
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2016
- Messages
- 3,039
The evidence for the timeline may provide the best explaination for the reports of the autopsy pathologists discussing, examining, and probing the traceotomy throat wound as a bullet hole: Sibert and O'Neil could have just departed the autopsy before that became an issue. Then a lie was formulated that the doctors were informed about the throat wound later in the day of 11/23.
Last edited:
HSienzant
Philosopher
So a full fringe reset is the argument you're advancing now?
All the above was explored in depth months previous to this.
You punted.
You must hold the NFL record for punts, in fact.
You punted here, too, ignoring the post entirely.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=12131162&postcount=3328
It pointed out the logical conclusion of your prior argument:"reductio ad absurdum"
Hank
Last edited:
HSienzant
Philosopher
What's the point of the lie again?
To cover up a body alteration theory that hadn't been invented yet, and wouldn't be invented until David Lifton twisted himself into a pretzel trying to justify a conspiracy in the 1970s?
And they came up with this lie within 24 hours of the President's death?
Did they possess time travel?
Hank
Axxman300
Philosopher
The reports are wrong, it's that easy.
The three attending pathologists have never changed their story about the throat wound. If they had probed it they would have been able to trace it out the hole in the back. We know the throat wound was an exit wound because of the fiber evidence from the shirt AND tie which back this up.
If there was a cover-up then why admit to calling Parkland to ask about the throat wound?
Why have none of the Kennedy people ever brought this up? They had someone with the body from Love Field to the Rotunda, someone reliable would have said something by now.
MicahJava
Illuminator
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2016
- Messages
- 3,039
Hank, in case you are not sure, so far I have only been discussing the timeline of the later stages of the autopsy and the reconstruction by the Gawler's funeral team (who provided the Mahogany casket to replace the bronze casket, which was deemed unfit because it had a damaged handle).
"Body alteration" usually refers to theories involving major surgical alterations of the body before the photographs and X-rays were taken. Whether the autopsy pathologists discovered that a bullet wound in the throat obscured by the tracheotomy while the autopsy was in progress, or the next day when it was too late is a different issue.
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
Fringe reset it is.
Axxman300
Philosopher
HSienzant
Philosopher
No, that's not true. You have brought up a lot of non-issues since you first signed on here. And in every case, you've abandoned those issues and moved on to other issues when your arguments were exposed as nonsense and not in accordance with the facts.
Six months ago you weren't talking about the timeline whatsoever. You were making claims about the wound in JFK head that you simply didn't understand:
July 2nd, 2017: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11905090&postcount=842
After all that was explained to you extensively and repeatedly, you simply changed the subject. You punted.
Nine months ago (April 2nd, 2017) you still weren't talking about the timeline. You were telling us what you saw on a x-ray.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11782221&postcount=2964
You punted there as well.
There were no posts in the predecessor thread between December 8th, 2016 and February 15th, 2017, so I can't do "A year ago today" but when you posted on March 9th, 2017 you brought up a supposed witness talking about the EOP wound (external occipital protuberance) here: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11749838&postcount=2316
You dropped that too. You punted.
Don't you remember also arguing about the bullet found at Parkland and claiming it wasn't the bullet found in evidence?
Punt.
And of course, elsewhere you argued that forensic pathologists weren't qualified to read x-rays (punt), that the paperwork linking Oswald to the rifle is faked (punt), that the first shot came after Zapruder frame 190 (punt), that the autopsy doctors thought the shot that hit JFK in the back of the head exited the throat (punt), that Dale Myers recreation wasn't accurate (punt), that the wound was in the cowlick area (punt), that Dr. Burkley thought there were two head shots:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11749838&postcount=2316
Punt.
That CE399 should have suffered more damage if it struck both JFK and Connally:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11766334&postcount=2698
Punt.
That the back wound was shallow, according to the autopsy:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11766867&postcount=2708
Punt.
All nonsense. All claimed by you. All abandoned by you. You have punted repeatedly, exactly as I claimed. And contrary to your above assertion, you have so far NOT "only been discussing the timeline of the later stages of the autopsy".
You have flitted from claim to claim, abandoning one and picking up another, then going back to the earlier claims months later, pretending they weren't already disproven, and trying to start the discussion anew, as if none of the previous discussion had taken place.
And now you're doing it again, with the autopsy timeline. All that was previously discussed, and exposed as nonsense.
A fringe reset is what you seek.
Hey, no kidding. I read Lifton's book when it was first published, and saw the problem with his thesis immediately:
Who altered Connally's wounds?
Lifton won't touch this. Neither will any other body alteration fantasist. Including you.
A reminder that you claimed Sibert and O'Neill might have lied to discredit body alteration theories here:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=12130571
You brought up body alteration. Not me.
One you just raised immediately above, claiming without any evidence that the autopsy doctors were lying about when they found out about the throat wound. And that Sibert and O'Neill were lying as well. It's amazing how many people must be lying if you insist on a conspiracy in the JFK assassination. Just within the last few days you've suggested the autopsy doctors and two FBI agents lied.
And you brought up body alteration as the reason for the FBI agents to be lying.
So it's not true "so far I have only been discussing the timeline of the later stages of the autopsy".
And of course, you ignored the problems I pointed out with that argument here:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=12131162&postcount=3328
It pointed out the logical conclusion of your prior argument:"reductio ad absurdum"
Keep ignoring it. It proves my point.
Every time you're faced with the facts, you punt.
Hank
Last edited:
MicahJava
Illuminator
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2016
- Messages
- 3,039
Hank, you should keep links to facts and evidence in a convenient folder on your computer instead of links to my posts that you rebutted in your imagination alone. And it comes off as clueless when you bring up off-topic issues like body alteration and Lifton's theories rather than the content of the interviews he conducted, etc.
Axxman300
Philosopher
Lifton's interviews were skewed to support his theory that the body was altered to frame Oswald, and that is why they are a waste of time.
- Status