Cont: JFK Conspiracy Theories V: Five for Fighting

[HSienzant]

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.

Another punt by you.

The facts and evidence are available online. For example, the interviews conducted by the Warren Commission are readily available in a number of places.

There's a search function here. And to think I would bother with keeping links to your posts on my computer! Hilarious. And I note you didn't bother to rebut the content of those posts any, you merely pretend I made no meaningful points.

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.

Another punt by you.

I'll remind you once again that it was YOU who brought up body alteration when you alluded to it regarding Sibert & O'Neill, claiming they may have lied in their testimony. You did that most recently here:

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.

So when you're slinging around claims like "clueless when you bring up off-topic issues like body alteration", double-check your coverage on your glass house first and foremost. Check your insurance policy now.

And I'll remind you once more that you have responded to none of the points I made in my prior posts in any meaningful fashion. We're still waiting for you, for example, to explain WHO ALTERED CONNALLY'S WOUNDS:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=12131162&postcount=3328

Hank

 

[RoboTimbo]

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

Wow, Hank! I didn't realize how much he runs away! This is a great handy list to refer back to.

MicahJava, address the points in Hank's post.

 

[MicahJava]

Another punt by you.

I'll remind you once again that it was YOU who brought up body alteration when you alluded to it regarding Sibert & O'Neill, claiming they may have lied in their testimony. You did that most recently here:


So when you're slinging around claims like "clueless when you bring up off-topic issues like body alteration", double-check your coverage on your glass house first and foremost. Check your insurance policy now.

And I'll remind you once more that you have responded to none of the points I made in my prior posts in any meaningful fashion. We're still waiting for you, for example, to explain WHO ALTERED CONNALLY'S WOUNDS:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=12131162&postcount=3328

Hank

One example I was thinking of, from a comment posted by Lifton on the alt assassination jfk Google group:

O'Neill's acquaintance was one Wayne Cook, a local businessman who ran Hilltop Orchards. His wife was the CBS anchor person for the local CBS station in Hartford, Conn. (as I recall).

c) After the publication of Best Evidence, Cooke contacted me, told me he had read Best Evidence, and told me of his friendship with O'Neill. (For example: their children played basketball together. . something like that). He offered to question O'Neill about anything I thought was relevant, and call me back, immediately, with his answers. We did this a number of times, and my questions mostly concerned the autopsy. But from the outset, one matter was volunteered, which had nothing to do with any question that I suggested be asked.

d) Wayne told me that when he discussed the autopsy with O'Neill, O'Neill maintained--repeatedly and emphatically, that there was no brain (!). "Wayne, there was no brain!" said O'Neill, more than once. It was a line I repeated in our conversations, which occurred back in 1992.


e)O'Neill had a tremendous --and very personal--antipathy towards me, and Best Evidence. He was furious at the notion he and his FBI partner (Sibert) had been mislead on the night of November 22, 1963, or that they had been improperly kept out of the morgue (as their own FBI report indicates). He didn't just "disagree"; he was furious with me personally, calling me all kinds of names, etc.

f) After the ARRB was created, and Doug Horne telephoned me (this was August 1995, when he first joined the staff), we had many telephone conversations, particularly when it became clear that witnesses would be called. I told Doug Horne about the Wayne Cooke situation, but--possibly because there were so many things on the "to do" list--Wayne Cooke slipped between the cracks. He just was never called. So the record of what Wayne Cooke said that O'Neill said is one that I have, from my phone calls with Cooke.

g) When O'Neill was called to testify before the ARRB (in 1997), he said that only a part of the brain was there, but he seemed to deliberately contradict what was stated bu Paul O'Connor, as set forth in Chapter 26 of Best Evidence. And yet Doug acknowledged to me privately, and more than once, the anger--even hatred--that O'Neill expressed towards me and my work. This is one area where I believe that the ARRB really dropped the ball. Cooke should have been called, or the proper affidavits taken. Then O'Neill should have been challenged, when under oath, about these reports that he repeatedly maintained, back around 1992, that there was no brain. That that was simply a fact of the Bethesda autopsy; and that he repeatedly said: "Wayne, there was no brain!".

 

[MicahJava]

Reminder: Francis X. O'Neill started saying that he stayed at the autopsy to view the morticians restoration and dressing procedures when he was interviewed by the HSCA in 1978. That's 15 years later, not just 33+ years later as with the ARRB and William Law.

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=348#relPageId=8&tab=page

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=628#relPageId=8&tab=page

Or in this case "just prior to the dressing, before the morticians were through". But we know from Robert Frazier's documents that this supposed honest recollection is completely false.

 

[RoboTimbo]

<snip fringe reset punt>

Answer the points in Hank's post.

 

[MicahJava]

Answer the points in Hank's post.

What points? Explain in your words and only your words.

 

[Axxman300]

One example I was thinking of, from a comment posted by Lifton on the alt assassination jfk Google group:

O'Neill's acquaintance was one Wayne Cook, a local businessman who ran Hilltop Orchards. His wife was the CBS anchor person for the local CBS station in Hartford, Conn. (as I recall).

Oh. My. God.

Lifton's "source" was a guy who knew a guy.

After the publication of Best Evidence, Cooke contacted me, told me he had read Best Evidence, and told me of his friendship with O'Neill. (For example: their children played basketball together. . something like that). He offered to question O'Neill about anything I thought was relevant, and call me back, immediately, with his answers. We did this a number of times, and my questions mostly concerned the autopsy.

We're not talking about an interview under controlled conditions, tape-recorded professionally. It was more like, "So, hey, O'Neil, how about that autopsy thing, am I right?"...THIS IS LIFTON'S SOURCE.

Wayne told me that when he discussed the autopsy with O'Neill, O'Neill maintained--repeatedly and emphatically, that there was no brain (!). "Wayne, there was no brain!" said O'Neill, more than once. It was a line I repeated in our conversations, which occurred back in 1992.

Need to point out that Lifton NEVER HEARD O'NEAL SAY THESE WORDS.

This is your accepted base-line of evidence?

I told Doug Horne about the Wayne Cooke situation, but--possibly because there were so many things on the "to do" list--Wayne Cooke slipped between the cracks. He just was never called. So the record of what Wayne Cooke said that O'Neill said is one that I have, from my phone calls with Cooke.

He didn't fall through the cracks, Cooke was not at the autopsy, and was not a witness to anything that actually happened.

This is not evidence of any kind. This is not even quality hearsay.

 

[HSienzant]

Reminder: Francis X. O'Neill started saying that he stayed at the autopsy to view the morticians restoration and dressing procedures when he was interviewed by the HSCA in 1978. That's 15 years later, not just 33+ years later as with the ARRB and William Law.

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=348#relPageId=8&tab=page

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=628#relPageId=8&tab=page

Or in this case "just prior to the dressing, before the morticians were through". But we know from Robert Frazier's documents that this supposed honest recollection is completely false.

Yes. It. Is.

You got it! You finally got it!

Recollections can be false (GASP!).

Recollections aren't always true and don't imply a cover-up if they conflict with hard evidence or contemporaneous documents. Earlier recollections are more likely to be true than ones made more than a decade later.

They don't have to be deliberate lies - they can just be false.

Now, since we have photos of the brain in JFK's head taken at the very start of the autopsy, remember that when citing O'Neill's recollection that there was no brain in the head.

Or go back and look at literally almost any of your posts over the past year. They almost all rely on recollections made to the ARRB or HSCA. They almost all contradict the contemporaneous evidence. They almost all are wrong.

Hank

 

[RoboTimbo]

What points? Explain in your words and only your words.

LOL! You only post crap from CT sites and demand that?

Do as you were instructed. You don't have to run away your entire life.

 

[HSienzant]

Oh. My. God.

Lifton's "source" was a guy who knew a guy.




We're not talking about an interview under controlled conditions, tape-recorded professionally. It was more like, "So, hey, O'Neil, how about that autopsy thing, am I right?"...THIS IS LIFTON'S SOURCE.



Need to point out that Lifton NEVER HEARD O'NEAL SAY THESE WORDS.

This is your accepted base-line of evidence?



He didn't fall through the cracks, Cooke was not at the autopsy, and was not a witness to anything that actually happened.

This is not evidence of any kind. This is not even quality hearsay.

And the reason Lifton thinks Cooke should have been called, of course, is Lifton's ego. MicahJava was even kind enough to quote it for us:

When O'Neill was called to testify before the ARRB (in 1997), he said that only a part of the brain was there, but he seemed to deliberately contradict what was stated by Paul O'Connor, as set forth in Chapter 26 of Best Evidence. And yet Doug acknowledged to me privately, and more than once, the anger--even hatred--that O'Neill expressed towards me and my work. This is one area where I believe that the ARRB really dropped the ball. Cooke should have been called, or the proper affidavits taken. Then O'Neill should have been challenged, when under oath, about these reports that he repeatedly maintained, back around 1992, that there was no brain. That that was simply a fact of the Bethesda autopsy; and that he repeatedly said: "Wayne, there was no brain!".

It's almost like Lifton has never gone fishing, and never heard a fish story (most CTs are like this). A guy may expand on his role at a party or among friends, and the fish gets bigger and bigger, and the one that got away was the size of a small whale. But put him under oath, where he's sworn to tell the truth, and the story changes. That "whale" he mentioned to his friends was truly a minnow.

And therefore a conspiracy. "Somebody got to him", "he lied under oath", and the like, become their currency of the day. They never consider the BS to be that story told among friends.

We've seen it all throughout this case. Robert Knudsen told his family for YEARS he took the autopsy photos (he was the official White House photographer, after all). He was believed. They had no reason to disbelieve him. But there's a known list of the people at the autopsy, and Knudsen wasn't one of them. He was nowhere near the autopsy. He made up a story to inflate his own importance and told his family that story.

Big deal.

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/knudsen.txt

Hank

 

[abaddon]

One example I was thinking of, from a comment posted by Lifton on the alt assassination jfk Google group:

Everyone else here thinks Lifton is a moron. And for good reason. I cannot fathom why you cite Lifton given that you have dissed him in the past. Either you buy Lifton's BS or you don't. Pick one.

 

[Axxman300]

And the reason Lifton thinks Cooke should have been called, of course, is Lifton's ego. MicahJava was even kind enough to quote it for us:
It's almost like Lifton has never gone fishing, and never heard a fish story (most CTs are like this). A guy may expand on his role at a party or among friends, and the fish gets bigger and bigger, and the one that got away was the size of a small whale. But put him under oath, where he's sworn to tell the truth, and the story changes. That "whale" he mentioned to his friends was truly a minnow.

And therefore a conspiracy. "Somebody got to him", "he lied under oath", and the like, become their currency of the day. They never consider the BS to be that story told among friends.

We've seen it all throughout this case. Robert Knudsen told his family for YEARS he took the autopsy photos (he was the official White House photographer, after all). He was believed. They had no reason to disbelieve him. But there's a known list of the people at the autopsy, and Knudsen wasn't one of them. He was nowhere near the autopsy. He made up a story to inflate his own importance and told his family that story.

Big deal.

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/knudsen.txt

Hank

Hearsay is not admissible in a court of law for a good reason.

We don't know what the conditions or circumstances were when Cooke asked his questions. Was he sitting in the stands at their kid's basketball game, were they at a bar, a cookout, or what?

The other issue is that you and I would discuss something that happened at work differently in a casual setting than we would tell the story in an official capacity. We would be cautious about off-hand, and off the cuff remarks. In a casual setting we'd have a huge margin of error to recount our story, but under the canopy of official questioning we would be as exact as we could.

When O'Neil said, "There was no brain" what is missing is the question and the context and the questions leading to the comment (if he ever said it). The next problem is weather Cooke understood the answer, or interpreted the answer. Cooke was obviously s believer in a conspiracy and cover-up, and anything he reported should automatically be suspect.

 

[HSienzant]

Answer the points in Hank's post.

What points? Explain in your words and only your words.

And yet another punt!

Why does he have to rephrase my points in his own words for you to acknowledge those points and respond to them?

Just respond to my points. You'll save everyone a lot of time if you drop the phony delaying tactic.

Your response here makes no sense whatsoever and is clearly just a way to avoid responding to the points made.

For your convenience, I am providing the link to the post in question, containing the points in question, here: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=12135493&postcount=3338

Hank

 

[MicahJava]

I actually agree with most of the criticism of the Wayne Cooke hearsay information, at least as far as what we've been given so far and not what might be in Lifton's new book FINAL CHARADE. The part I was interested in is where Francis X. O'Neill became familiar with conspiracy sources such as Lifton, and had a very negative opinion towards them.

 

[HSienzant]

I actually agree with most of the criticism of the Wayne Cooke hearsay information, at least as far as what we've been given so far and not what might be in Lifton's new book FINAL CHARADE. The part I was interested in is where Francis X. O'Neill became familiar with conspiracy sources such as Lifton, and had a very negative opinion towards them.

No, that's not what you said earlier. You ascribed specific motives to the FBI agents' testimony, suggesting that Sibert & O'Neill LIED to destroy Lifton's body alteration thesis:

It's up in the air when Sibert and O'Neill departed before the 2 AM teletype, the time they left the autopsy room isn't in their report and they only remembered it was "around midnight". 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.

So it seems from here you've already reached your conclusion, and now are just searching for a way to justify it. Verdict first, evidence second? Sounds like something from Alice Through the Looking Glass.

Besides, if you're truly interested in "where Francis X. O'Neill became familiar with conspiracy sources such as Lifton, and had a very negative opinion towards them", you have some great resources right here on this board that you have yet to avail yourself of (myself and other posters on this board, who were previously convinced of a conspiracy).

I've previously described to you how a college friend related to me how he saw Lifton on a morning television show (like the "TODAY" show) and how Lifton made some (what he thought were) good points.

After he explained to me what Lifton's claims were, I told you how I destroyed Lifton's entire thesis with four words -- "WHO ALTERED CONNALLY'S WOUNDS?", and how he saw the flaw in Lifton's argument immediately.

(Lifton's thesis is that the assassination wasn't carried out by a shooter from behind, it was carried out by shooters in front, and then other members of the conspiracy - with medical training - altered the wounds to make it look like shots from behind. In the process, they enlarged the wounds inflicted on the front of the President's body while extracting the assassin's bullets, making the entry wounds look like exits, and created fake wounds on the back of the President's body, to make fake entry wounds that would deceive the autopsy doctors and make them think the shooter was behind the President).

No only does he ignore the fact that wounds inflicted on a dead body look nothing like wounds inflicted on a living person, he ignored the fact that there was another victim in the limousine with wounds that pointed to a shooter from above and behind... the Governor of Texas, John Connally.

His argument mandates that the Governor's wounds were altered as well, because like the President's wounds, the Governor's wounds likewise point to a shooter from behind, while Lifton claims all the shooters were actually in front of the President (and hence, the Governor).

He never explained why, if all the shooters were in front of the President and the Governor, why the Governor's wounds pointed to a shooter from behind. His book was published over three decades ago, and he has yet to explain it.

He can't. Neither can you. Neither can anyone else. Lifton's thesis makes no sense on its face. It's an indefensible theory that conflicts with the known facts of the case, and you can't defend it, so you have to date just ignored the criticisms of it.

Unless and until you can get past that hurdle and explain away the problem with the Governor's wounds establishing a shooter above and behind the limo, I too will have "a very negative opinion towards" ... "conspiracy sources such as Lifton".

So would any sentient being not sucked into the conspiracy whirlpool.

I also previously pointed out how conspiracy sources like Mark Lane, Harold Weisberg, and Sylvia Meagher had me convinced of a conspiracy in the mid-to-late 1960s, all through the 1970s. It wasn't until the early 1980s that I independently went back to their source material -- the Warren Commission 26 volumes of testimony and evidence -- and started comparing what they said versus what those volumes contained. The differences were stark, and established that contrary to their claims, it wasn't the Warren Commission that was selecting out-of-context claims from the record to argue for Oswald's guilt, it was they who were selecting out-of-context claims from the record to argue for a conspiracy.

They were lying up and down, taking advantage of the death of a President to sell books and inflate their own bank accounts.

Perhaps O'Neill had "a very negative opinion towards them" because that very negative opinion is entirely deserved.

Hank

PS: Did you ever wonder about why the conspiracy authors title their books in such a revealing manner? David Lifton has his FINAL CHARADE (on top of his earlier charade), Mark Lane had his RUSH TO JUDGMENT (he wrote his first published piece arguing for Oswald's innocence less than a month after the assassination, and before he had interviewed any witnesses or even been to Dallas), Harold Weisberg had his WHITEWASH (where he ignores or tries to explain away all the evidence of Oswald's guilt), Robert Groden and Harrison Livingstone had their HIGH TREASON (where they accumulated every claim of conspiracy into one book regardless of the veracity of the claim), etc...

 

[HSienzant]

Reminder that you still need to address the points I made earlier here:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=12135493&postcount=3338

You punted away, addressing none of the points here:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=12136452&postcount=3339

RoboTimbo asked you to address them here:

MicahJava, address the points in Hank's post.

and again here:

Answer the points in Hank's post.

You punted away again, asking RoboTimbo to paraphrase all my points here:

What points? Explain in your words and only your words.

I pointed out why that was a meaningless request here:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=12137409&postcount=3353

Perhaps you might want to try to advance the ball on your next possession?

Remember you can't score any points by punting.

Hank

 

[bknight]

I actually agree with most of the criticism of the Wayne Cooke hearsay information, at least as far as what we've been given so far and not what might be in Lifton's new book FINAL CHARADE. The part I was interested in is where Francis X. O'Neill became familiar with conspiracy sources such as Lifton, and had a very negative opinion towards them.

Perhaps the best course for you is to get your nose out of the CT library you have, then burn it kissing your foolishly spent dollars and start over again reading the WC.

 

[MicahJava]

Perhaps the best course for you is to get your nose out of the CT library you have, then burn it kissing your foolishly spent dollars and start over again reading the WC.

I am often more than willing to spend a few dollars to order a book online if it means being able to know and present one more piece of evidence, even if it's just a couple of paragraphs I'm interested in. I don't know what your researching habits are. If you think you can keep the facts straighter than me, then maybe we can have a special one-one-one debate thread about the JFK forensic evidence.

 

[MicahJava]

Hank, all you did is link to older posts of yours and mine and claim that you have refuted them. And you attack Lifton's overall theories as if they have anything to do with the raw evidence he collected. He found the 11/29/1963 George Barnum diary which shows the autopsy doctors knew about the throat wound during the autopsy.

If a one-on-one debate thread with only our comments sounds easier to manage these subjects, say so because that sounds interesting.

 

[MicahJava]

Lisa Pease tweeted this