Cont: JFK Conspiracy Theories V: Five for Fighting

[pgwenthold]

There is another:

The conspiracy theorist takes pride in their ability to see things that others cannot, and will claim to have special revealed insight while those who don't buy the conspiracy are blind followers, merely sheeple.

And another

Conspiracy theorists boast about how they've "done their research," which basically consists reading stuff from other conspiracy theorists

 

[HSienzant]

Oh my God.

Please, no. Just call me Hank.

Do you really not see how this is the same kind of vague crap used by creationists who try to argue against evolution?

No, it works pretty much against creationists as well. And I'm not the one invoking 'God'. You are. That list is not on your side.

For example, numbers six & seven in the list pretty much explains what you've been doing with the argument that the autopsy didn't end until sometime after 2AM on Saturday morning.

6. The conspiracy theory ratchets up from small events that might be true to much larger events that have much lower probabilities of being true.

7. The conspiracy theory assigns portentous and sinister meanings to what are most likely random and insignificant events.

You argue that if the autopsy ended after two in the morning, that means the recollections of some of the morticians made more than three decades later must be true, and that means a conspiracy. It means nothing of the sort. Those recollections are still untrustworthy because all 33-year-later memories are, regardless of when the autopsy ended. But by assigning great meaning to the end of the autopsy, and linking it to the recollections, you ratchet up from the meaningless to a conspiracy.

Most of these could mean anything under any interpretation.

Really? Then apply it to the hard evidence against Oswald as the shooter, and the arguments advanced as Oswald as the sole assassin. Show me how it works there. You won't because you can't. The evidence points to Oswald, and you can't make it work any other way, so you must argue the evidence is planted, swapped, forged, or altered. And that any and all witnesses and experts lied in their testimony to frame Oswald. And that the recollections made decades later are more likely to be true than the contemporaneous statements.

Is this your little bible you consult when you realize you don't have any evidence against the case for conspiracy?

No. I signed up for a weekly email from Skeptic magazine two weeks ago. That cited article was in the second one. I posted it shortly after I read it for the first time. However, that said, I marveled when I read it how much it seemed like it was written with you in mind.

In addition to that your assumption that I consult it frequently when in truth I just came across it, you make three other errors of fact or logic in your ONE above cited sentence.

1. ERROR OF LOGIC: I don't need any evidence against the case for conspiracy -- you're once more attempting to shift the burden of proof. You need to prove a conspiracy, I don't need to disprove one.

2. ERROR OF LOGIC: You are begging the question of a case for conspiracy by imbedding the existence of a case for one in your statement, and presuming it's been provided. It hasn't.

3. ERROR OF FACT: I have burst with logic and evidence nearly every conspiracy balloon you have tried to inflate here, showing where your arguments fall short of proving what you claim they prove, and establishing that in most cases, your attempted defenses of your arguments are simply welloff the mark.

BTW have you noticed that I have all of the evidence to justify distrust of the official shooting scenario?

Hilarious. You have NO evidence to justify anything of the sort. Which is why you've refused to debate any of the issues I've raised, and instead have simply deflected from those points I made with inane arguments that go nowhere.

If you differ, go back and address any one of my last several dozen posts, and respond to the actual points made.

Do you need the links or can you find them on your own? The last time I provided links to where you didn't address any of the points I made, you simply complained about the number of links, and still didn't address any of the points made.

Or alternately, cite just ONE item of verifiable evidence that you think helps you to justify distrust of the official shooting scenario. Just one. Let's examine that one. If you do cite something, I will wager it was addressed previously and you ignored the rebuttal (see point ten).

10. The conspiracy theorist refuses to consider alternative explanations, rejecting all disconfirming evidence for his theory and blatantly seeking only confirmatory evidence.

Hank


PS: From Skeptic Magazine: https://www.skeptic.com/downloads/co...hy-and-how.pdf

"Some conspiracy theories are true, some false. How can one tell the difference? The more the conspiracy theory manifests the following characteristics, the less likely it is to be true.

1. Proof of the conspiracy supposedly emerges from a pattern of “connecting the dots” between events that need not be causally connected. When no evidence supports these connections except the allegation of the conspiracy, or when the evidence fits equally well to other causal connections—or to randomness—the conspiracy theory is likely false.

2. The agents behind the pattern of the conspiracy would need nearly superhuman power to pull it off. Most of the time in most circumstances, people are not nearly so powerful as we think they are.

3. The conspiracy is complex and its successful completion demands a large number of elements.

4.The conspiracy involves large numbers of people who would all need to keep silent about their secrets.

5. The conspiracy encompasses some grandiose ambition for control over a nation, economy or political system. If it suggests world domination, it’s probably false.

6. The conspiracy theory ratchets up from small events that might be true to much larger events that have much lower probabilities of being true.

7. The conspiracy theory assigns portentous and sinister meanings to what are most likely random and insignificant events.

8. The theory tends to commingle facts and speculations without distinguishing between the two and without assigning degrees of probability or of factuality.

9. The theorist is extremely and indiscriminately suspicious of any and all government agencies or private organizations.

10. The conspiracy theorist refuses to consider alternative explanations, rejecting all disconfirming evidence for his theory and blatantly seeking only confirmatory evidence."

 

[heymatto70]

From Skeptic Magazine: https://www.skeptic.com/downloads/conspiracy-theories-who-why-and-how.pdf

"Some conspiracy theories are true, some false. How can one tell the difference? The more the conspiracy theory manifests the following characteristics, the less likely it is to be true.

1.Proof of the conspiracy supposedly emerges from a pattern of “connecting the dots” between events that need not be causally connected. When no evidence supports these connections except the allegation of the conspiracy, or when the evidence fits equally well to other causal connections—or to randomness—the conspiracy theory is likely false.

2.The agents behind the pattern of the conspiracy would need nearly superhuman power to pull it off. Most of the time in most circumstances, people are not nearly so powerful as we think they are.

3.The conspiracy is complex and its successful completion demands a large number of elements.

4.The conspiracy involves large numbers of people who would all need to keep silent about their secrets.

5.The conspiracy encompasses some grandiose ambition for control over a nation, economy or political system. If it suggests world domination, it’s probably false.

6.The conspiracy theory ratchets up from small events that might be true to much larger events that have much lower probabilities of being true.

7. The conspiracy theory assigns portentous and sinister meanings to what are most likely random and insignificant events.

8.The theory tends to commingle facts and speculations without distinguishing between the two and without assigning degrees of probability or of factuality.

9.The theorist is extremely and indiscriminately suspicious of any and all government agencies or private organizations.

10.The conspiracy theorist refuses to consider alternative explanations, rejecting all disconfirming evidence for his theory and blatantly seeking only confirmatory evidence."

Reasonable men may differ, but it appears from here MicahJava pretty much nailed all ten.

Hank

I think the major one, at least coming from someone who delves more in 9/11 than JFK, is number 7 there. It amazes me the number of people that just won't accept that random things happen.

 

[HSienzant]

There is another:

The conspiracy theorist takes pride in their ability to see things that others cannot, and will claim to have special revealed insight while those who don't buy the conspiracy are blind followers, merely sheeple.

Not sure that applies exclusively to conspiracy theorists, or that it's a way to exclude non-conspiracy theorists.

For example, I have done a lot of independent research on my own, and I take pride in seeing some of the things that conspiracy theorists cannot (because they are blinded by their trust in 'authorities' like Jim Marrs or Mark Lane or David Lifton).

And I do believe that most conspiracy theorists read a book or two, or saw Oliver Stone's JFK movie, and simply presumed it's true without researching it very much at all (indeed, MicahJava admitted as much when he first posted here, claiming to believe in a conspiracy while also claiming to have only recently started researching the case). He's spent all that time since citing mostly silly claims he garnered from conspiracy-oriented books and websites.

I see CTs as the 'sheeple' in this case, because they reached a conclusion based on blind faith, acceptance of conspiracy claims they read someplace, not on the evidence they independently researched.

Hank

 

[Stamuel]

What, exactly, is this "case for conspiracy" that you mention? You have been asked may times to summarize it. You have yet to do so.

How can evidence be provided against something that does not exist in any coherent form?

It should be pretty clear what his case is:

1. The back of the head entry wound was a few inches closer to the EOP than the "official story" says.
2. If Oswald had made a shot with his gun from the 6th floor to the "EOP wound," the bullet would have exited the face.
3. There is no way for a shot from above and behind to go through the "EOP wound" and out the top right of the head.
4. Therefore, (given no face exit wound) the back of the head wound is not from Oswald, and the wound on the top right of the head is from another shot.
5. Therefore, at least one other person shot JFK.

The first claim is backed up mainly by interpretations of witness testimony and the phrase "slightly above" in the autopsy report. The next two claims are unsupported speculations. The last two are conclusions derived from previous claims.

It is not convincing, but we know what the major components of his case are by now.

 

[bknight]

<snip BS>

BTW have you noticed that I have all of the evidence to justify distrust of the official shooting scenario?

On the contrary, you have posted NO evidence for distrust of the official shooting scenario. You have posted willfully ignorant scenarios in an attempt to keep the discussion going. Nothing you cite comes from evidence but rather regurgitation of CT books and websites. And you buy into these beliefs simply because they distrust the government and agencies that did the original investigations.

 

[Steve]

It should be pretty clear what his case is:

1. The back of the head entry wound was a few inches closer to the EOP than the "official story" says.
2. If Oswald had made a shot with his gun from the 6th floor to the "EOP wound," the bullet would have exited the face.
3. There is no way for a shot from above and behind to go through the "EOP wound" and out the top right of the head.
4. Therefore, (given no face exit wound) the back of the head wound is not from Oswald, and the wound on the top right of the head is from another shot.
5. Therefore, at least one other person shot JFK.

The first claim is backed up mainly by interpretations of witness testimony and the phrase "slightly above" in the autopsy report. The next two claims are unsupported speculations. The last two are conclusions derived from previous claims.

It is not convincing, but we know what the major components of his case are by now.

Ok, he is making a positive claim that JFK was shot by more than one person. Are you suggesting that if this claim is conclusively addressed (and I have no doubt that it has been) that MicahJava will have nothing further to say on the topic of JFK's assassination? I think there is a lot more to his implications than that.

 

[Axxman300]

It should be pretty clear what his case is:

1. The back of the head entry wound was a few inches closer to the EOP than the "official story" says.
2. If Oswald had made a shot with his gun from the 6th floor to the "EOP wound," the bullet would have exited the face.
3. There is no way for a shot from above and behind to go through the "EOP wound" and out the top right of the head.
4. Therefore, (given no face exit wound) the back of the head wound is not from Oswald, and the wound on the top right of the head is from another shot.
5. Therefore, at least one other person shot JFK.

The first claim is backed up mainly by interpretations of witness testimony and the phrase "slightly above" in the autopsy report. The next two claims are unsupported speculations. The last two are conclusions derived from previous claims.

It is not convincing, but we know what the major components of his case are by now.

You left out the second GSW to the back of JFK's head from a subsonic round fired by a silenced weapon...which is where he loses all credibility.

 

[Axxman300]

For example, I have done a lot of independent research on my own, and I take pride in seeing some of the things that conspiracy theorists cannot (because they are blinded by their trust in 'authorities' like Jim Marrs or Mark Lane or David Lifton).

And I do believe that most conspiracy theorists read a book or two, or saw Oliver Stone's JFK movie, and simply presumed it's true without researching it very much at all (indeed, MicahJava admitted as much when he first posted here, claiming to believe in a conspiracy while also claiming to have only recently started researching the case). He's spent all that time since citing mostly silly claims he garnered from conspiracy-oriented books and websites.

My mistake back in my foolish JFK-CT days was assuming those guys who wrote those CT books had done honest research. I can't think of a single CT author who approached the topic objectively.

Back in October I dug into the National Archives JFK file-dump because I'm interested in the subject, and history in general, and the endeavor was worthwhile. The files are a 30 year snapshot of the Cold War through the eyes of the FBI and CIA in which the assassination became a side-show component. The documents show that both the FBI and CIA were looking for co-conspirators starting the afternoon of 11/22/63. The FBI put the screws to almost all of it's CI's in Texas, Louisiana, and Florida trying to find someone who'd heard of Oswald, and who he might have been working with that day.

The CIA's Mexico City station went into overdrive pressing their sources for information about what else happened between him and staff from the Cuban Embassy. They did this three different times - "Ask him again," leads off one of these memos. They weren't taking no for an answer, but that's all they got. Even in 1972 the CIA leadership still didn't buy the Warren Commission, and went back through their files because they couldn't believe that Oswald acted alone.

The idea that there was a cover-up is contradictory to the information in the files. Both agencies WANTED TO FIND A CONSPIRACY. If there was going to be a frame-up it would have skewed in the direct of Castro, and his puppet-masters the Soviets. In the end both had to knuckle down to the facts of the case - Lee Harvey Oswald shot JFK all by himself.

 

[MicahJava]

It should be pretty clear what his case is:

1. The back of the head entry wound was a few inches closer to the EOP than the "official story" says.
2. If Oswald had made a shot with his gun from the 6th floor to the "EOP wound," the bullet would have exited the face.
3. There is no way for a shot from above and behind to go through the "EOP wound" and out the top right of the head.
4. Therefore, (given no face exit wound) the back of the head wound is not from Oswald, and the wound on the top right of the head is from another shot.
5. Therefore, at least one other person shot JFK.

The first claim is backed up mainly by interpretations of witness testimony and the phrase "slightly above" in the autopsy report. The next two claims are unsupported speculations. The last two are conclusions derived from previous claims.

It is not convincing, but we know what the major components of his case are by now.

There is no pet interpretation besides the one clearly made by the doctors. The wound was right next to the EOP, in the occipital bone, and not 4-5 inches above the EOP in the parietal bone.

 

[Tomtomkent]

There is no pet interpretation besides the one clearly made by the doctors. The wound was right next to the EOP, in the occipital bone, and not 4-5 inches above the EOP in the parietal bone.

You keep claiming this, and yet we STILL have the autopsy report, the WC testimony, x rays and photographs showing a clear entry wound higher than your pet interpretation.

We really can use objective evidence to see what "slightly above" meant, and it is not "right next to" (nor for that matter is it your straw man 4-5 inches, which alone should be enough to warn any casual lurkers of the thread away from your...unique... interpretation of cranial anatomy).

 

[HSienzant]

There is no pet interpretation besides the one clearly made by the doctors. The wound was right next to the EOP, in the occipital bone, and not 4-5 inches above the EOP in the parietal bone.

No, that's simply not true.

You've argued - repeatedly - that the bullet that struck JFK in the back of the head exited his throat (the autopsy found the bullet that entered the back of the head exited the top of the head).

You've argued - repeatedly - that there must have been an additional bullet because of the large wound in the top/right-side of the head not accounted for by your interpretation (the autopsy found one bullet struck JFK in the head).

You've argued - repeatedly - that a bullet entered JFK's back but didn't transit (the autopsy report claims the bullet that struck JFK from behind in the body exited the throat).

You've argued that the path of bullet lead in the head as seen in the radiographs went from front-to-back and indicates a bullet fired from the right-front (the autopsy claims this trail of bullet lead indicates a bullet traveling from back-to-front).

You argued that the HSCA forensic pathologists weren't sufficiently trained in reading radiographs to render an expert opinion, but then, having disregarded the expert's opinion on what the radiographs showed with that specious argument, then substituted your own layman's opinion of what the radiographs showed.

You claimed Oswald couldn't accomplish the shooting without a scope because JFK's head would look like an ant, but since Oswald's building was the closest building to JFK during the shooting, that means your argument there reduces to nobody could hit JFK in the head from behind with a non-scoped rifle. And as Oswald's rifle was the only one found that day, you've quite effectively argued that JFK wasn't shot in the head. Except we know that's not true, so your premise must be wrong.

And on and on and on...

You've claimed your arguments about the head wound come from the autopsy report, but none of those arguments you advance are reported in the autopsy. In short, you've substituted your own layman's interpretation of the autopsy findings for the opinions of the three medically trained pathologists who determined what happened to JFK with the body in front of them; as well as the dozen or so forensic pathologists who served on the HSCA pathology panel who examined all the extant autopsy materials.

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

I think the major one, at least coming from someone who delves more in 9/11 than JFK, is number 7 there. It amazes me the number of people that just won't accept that random things happen.

Yes. David Von Pein has an excellent website devoted to debunking JFK conspiracy nonsense.

Here he lists just some of the things that, had they turned out differently, would have altered the course of history and JFK wouldn't have been assassinated, or the controversy wouldn't be what it is:

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/08/if-only.html

Hank

 

[Axxman300]

There is no pet interpretation besides the one clearly made by the doctors. The wound was right next to the EOP, in the occipital bone, and not 4-5 inches above the EOP in the parietal bone.

The autopsy says exactly this:

Situated in the posterior scalp approximately 2.5 cm. laterally to the right and slightly above the external occipital protuberance is a laceration wound measuring 15x16mm. In the underlying bone is a corresponding wound through the skull which exhibits beveling of the margins of the bone when viewed from the inner aspect of the skull.

*source: https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/warren-commission-report/appendix-09.pdf

Nobody here is disputing this.

 

[MicahJava]

Am I knowledgeable of the JFK autopsy enough if the other person's arguments just sound like creationist gibberish? Like this bit from Hank:

You've argued - repeatedly - that a bullet entered JFK's back but didn't transit (the autopsy report claims the bullet that struck JFK from behind in the body exited the throat).

Although I'm pretty dang sure Hank knows that no evidence was ever found at the autopsy that the back wound was deeper than a couple of inches. The back-to-throat transit was admitted to be an assumption at best, lied-about fabrication at worst.

In the same vein, Hank knows that (officially) Kennedy's brain was never properly sectioned, rendering it impossible to determine bullet path. The autopsy conclusion that a single bullet "entered the back of the head and exited the top of the skull" comes from the doctor's findings that the small head wound exhibited inward beveling in the skull (indicating entrance) and a portion of the large head wound exhibited outward beveling in the skull (indicating exit). I am not arguing against either, but these two facts obviously do not exclude both beveled wounds being created by separate bullets. You know who expressed the possibility/certainty that Kennedy was struck in the head twice? his personal physician George Burkley. Hank likes to play this game where he pretends Burkley never said he thought Kennedy was struck in the head twice, but all I need to prove it is to directly quote his stuff.

At yeah at this point Hank just seems like a creationist maybe-charlatan trying to make a scientific-sounding case against evolution.

 

[MicahJava]

The autopsy says exactly this:

Situated in the posterior scalp approximately 2.5 cm. laterally to the right and slightly above the external occipital protuberance is a laceration wound measuring 15x16mm. In the underlying bone is a corresponding wound through the skull which exhibits beveling of the margins of the bone when viewed from the inner aspect of the skull.

*source: https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/warren-commission-report/appendix-09.pdf

Nobody here is disputing this.

Axxman, so you know how many times the autopsy pathologists and witnesses at the autopsy reaffirmed that "slightly above the EOP" means it couldn't have possibly been more than an inch above?

 

[MicahJava]

Yes. David Von Pein has an excellent website devoted to debunking JFK conspiracy nonsense.

Here he lists just some of the things that, had they turned out differently, would have altered the course of history and JFK wouldn't have been assassinated, or the controversy wouldn't be what it is:

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/08/if-only.html

Hank

The Three Failed Plots to Kill JFK: The Historians' Guide on how to Research his Assassination by Paul Bleau

Murder plots in Chicago and Tampa Bay were foiled, and if the Dallas plot was foiled, Kennedy probably would have been assassinated at a later date.

 

[BStrong]

snipped

Murder plots in Chicago and Tampa Bay were foiled, and if the Dallas plot was foiled, Kennedy probably would have been assassinated at a later date.

IIRC, there were individuals in both Tampa and Chicago that were discovered in possession of a firearm or firearms and ammunition that were detained, interviewed and released without charges.

If you have evidence to the contrary, please post it.

 

[Axxman300]

Axxman, so you know how many times the autopsy pathologists and witnesses at the autopsy reaffirmed that "slightly above the EOP" means it couldn't have possibly been more than an inch above?

2.5cm= 0.9842520in

So the hole is the better part of an inch, which is why nobody takes you seriously.

 

[Axxman300]

Am I knowledgeable of the JFK autopsy enough if the other person's arguments just sound like creationist gibberish?

You mean like your obvious mastery of the metric system?

Although I'm pretty dang sure Hank knows that no evidence was ever found at the autopsy that the back wound was deeper than a couple of inches. The back-to-throat transit was admitted to be an assumption at best, lied-about fabrication at worst.

And they would have gotten away with it too is it were not for those pesky X-rays showing through & through...and the fiber evidence...and the eye witness evidence...and the ballistic evidence...

But other than that stuff, yeah, it might be a fabrication because reasons.

In the same vein, Hank knows that (officially) Kennedy's brain was never properly sectioned, rendering it impossible to determine bullet path. The autopsy conclusion that a single bullet "entered the back of the head and exited the top of the skull" comes from the doctor's findings that the small head wound exhibited inward beveling in the skull (indicating entrance) and a portion of the large head wound exhibited outward beveling in the skull (indicating exit).

Throw in the ABSENCE OF A SECOND GSW to the head, and it's obvious why they didn't section the brain...they could count to one.

I am not arguing against either, but these two facts obviously do not exclude both beveled wounds being created by separate bullets.

Yes you are arguing a moot point. The damage to the skull and brain is exclusive to the 6.5x52mm Carcano round.

Excluded it is.

You know who expressed the possibility/certainty that Kennedy was struck in the head twice? his personal physician George Burkley.

Burkley was a GP, not a pathologist, I doubt he had seen many headshots.

I doubt Burkley ever saw the Zapurder Film, and was mostly confused by the extensive damage cause by the powerful 6.5x52mm round.