Cont: JFK Conspiracy Theories VI: Lyndon Johnson's Revenge

Status
Not open for further replies.
turingtest said:
MJ's rambling reminds me of the Stephen Hawking quote that "the greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." What possible good is such a helter-skelter method, one that apparently equates piling up a mass of disconnected minutiae with a consilient approach, when no useful conclusion can be drawn from it?
Click to expand...

I dare you to debate me one-on-one in a special thread.
 
Axxman300 said:
The question he has yet to answer is why any of this is important, or proves conspiracy.

How does ignoring the throat wound prove conspiracy?
How is admitting this fact to anyone who will listen constitute a cover-up?

You have an entry wound in the back (obvious from tissue and fiber evience), and you have a CLEAR exit wound in the throat (again, tissue and fiber evidence).

One bullet to the back and another to the head, both a 6.5x52mm round fired from the same rifle (belonging to Oswald).
Click to expand...

Axxman, your nonsensical rambling about the clothing fiber evidence being valuable made me remember a real issue I noticed earlier.

[IMGw=500]https://i.imgur.com/eywmk7d.png[/IMGw]


http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/pdf/lattimer.pdf

Compare the round holes in the clothing from the experiments above with the vertical slits in the front of the shirt below the button.

[IMGw=500]https://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/images/a/a5/Pict_essay_mcknightsbt_shirt_lrg.jpg[/IMGw]


Edited by Loss Leader: 
Edited for disruptive formatting. Members must use imgw= for large pictures.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Is the vertical slit the ONLY outcome an experiment could produce?
Can you notice anything else in the second photo that may be a factor in the reaction of the material?
 
MicahJava said:
What do you mean by "CT Websites"? Mary Farrel, History-Matters, and ARRC is a direct source to the original JFK-related documents.

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/strawman
Click to expand...

1. I said "The majority", not all

2. You may have gleaned a small amount of information from reliable sources, but you then dismiss the expert conclusions, and substitute your own (flawed), CT whackjob conclusions in their stead.

3. It seems that your lack of knowledge extends to logical fallacies as well. I haven't changed what you said into something you didn't say, and then try to argue against what you didn't say... You need to read your own link and actually learn what a strawman argument really is.
 
Last edited:
smartcooky said:
1. I said "The majority", not all

2. You may have gleaned a small amount of information from reliable sources, but you then dismiss the expert conclusions, and substitute your own (flawed), CT whackjob conclusions in their stead.

3. It seems that your lack of knowledge extends to logical fallacies as well. I haven't changed what you said into something you didn't say, and then try to argue against what you didn't say... You need to read your own link and actually learn what a strawman argument really is.
Click to expand...

Reading MJ's ramblings makes it apparent that MJ does not know what a logical fallacy is since his ramblings are full of those fallacies.
 
MicahJava said:
What do you mean by "CT Websites"? Mary Farrel, History-Matters, and ARRC is a direct source to the original JFK-related documents.

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/strawman
Click to expand...

First of all, it's Mary Ferrell. She was a long-time conduit of information from and to people interested in the JFK assassination, regardless of their persuasion (LN or CT). Since her death, the site has been run by long-time conspiracy theorists.
https://www.maryferrell.org/pages/About_MFF.html

The other two sites are both conspiracy-oriented as well.

For example, on the History-Matters website, you see this noted as a 'starting point': https://www.history-matters.com/frameup.htm
The "ABOUT" For History-Matters contains quite a few known CTs as 'contributors' (and no LNs): https://www.history-matters.com/siteguide/siteguide_abouthm.htm

And if one clicks on the "ANALYSIS AND OPINION" tab at the AARC, the first thing one sees is this CT article: http://aarclibrary.org/analysis-and-opinion/

Here's the AARC Board of Directors: http://aarclibrary.org/board-of-directors/ (Note how many are avowed CTs and note the overlap between those on the other sites).

While the sites you list do contain links to the actual source materials, the vast bulk of the opinion pieces (if not all of them) are conspiracy-oriented arguments.

Hank
 
Last edited:
MicahJava said:
Axxman, your nonsensical rambling about the clothing fiber evidence being valuable made me remember a real issue I noticed earlier.

Compare the round holes in the clothing from the experiments above with the vertical slits in the front of the shirt below the button.
Click to expand...

You cited the correct answer in your post on the prior page (but of course, ignored the correct expert response):

Mr. FRAZIER. I think the effect in the front of the shirt is due more to the strength of the material being more in the horizontal rather than the vertical direction which caused the cloth to tear vertically rather than due to a change in the shape or size of the bullet or projectile.

It's funny how often you do that. Almost like you're trying out a comedy routine on us.

Hank
 
Last edited:
MicahJava said:
Axxman, your nonsensical rambling about the clothing fiber evidence being valuable made me remember a real issue I noticed earlier.
Click to expand...
That will be a refreshing change from the contrived issues you've previously nattered on about.

[qimg]https://i.imgur.com/eywmk7d.png[/qimg]

[URL="http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/pdf/lattimer.pdf"]http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/pdf/lattimer.pdf[/URL]

Compare the round holes in the clothing from the experiments above with the vertical slits in the front of the shirt below the button.

[qimg]https://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/images/a/a5/Pict_essay_mcknightsbt_shirt_lrg.jpg[/qimg]
Click to expand...
Oh, I thought you said it was a real issue.

Was it an impossible shot for anybody? Or just for Oswald?
 
MicahJava said:
Axxman, your nonsensical rambling about the clothing fiber evidence being valuable made me remember a real issue I noticed earlier.

Compare the round holes in the clothing from the experiments above with the vertical slits in the front of the shirt below the button.
Click to expand...

Here's the link to the story behind the picture.

https://www.maryferrell.org/pages/E..._to_Resuscitate_the_Single-Bullet_Theory.html

Note that the problem starts with conspiracy author Harold Weisberg. He ignored the EXPERT TESTIMONY of .FBI agent Robert Frazier and substituted his own argument in its place. Gerald McKnight then simply repeats Weisberg's argument ("As Harold Weisberg noted in Never AGAIN, the picture shows slits cut by a nurse, not bullet holes") and again ignores the expert testimony. See the caption under the first photo in the link above.

The counter-argument to Weisberg is there's no testimony that a nurse was the first medical person at Parkland to attend to the President. This is solely a CONJECTURE by Weisberg that, as always, gets repeated as a FACT by subsequent conspiracy authors. Dr. Carrico was the first one to treat the President.

And in the cited essay, footnote 6 contains this counter-argument:
6. Todd Vaughan questioned the whole idea that the slits were made by a scalpel, noting that "As for the overall suggestion that the slits in the collar were made by a scalpel, can anyone imaging the absurdity of trained medical professionals hurriedly trying to cut off a snug tie and shirt collar with a razor sharp scalpel? One slip and, presto, the patient winds up with a wound they did not come into the emergency room with. Having worked on an ambulance and been present many, many times in a hospital emergency room, I can assure anyone that a scalpel would never be used for such a job. In emergency situations clothing is cut off with scissors, sometimes specially designed scissors for just such a purpose. In the case of the shirt collar it wound have been quicker to rip it open than try and fumble around cutting it with a scalpel."

Hank

PS: So we're off and running in an entirely different direction from the pathologists now, are we?
 
Last edited:
Stamuel said:
Here are some thoughts I have put together after reading your sources in this thread.

To prove that the autopsy doctors all lied together, you at least need to show that the evidence is inconsistent with the autopsy concluding before the phone call from Bethesda to Perry (that is, the call during which the autopsy doctors learned that the tracheotomy covered a bullet wound). If the evidence is consistent with the autopsy ending first, then there is no reason to think the doctors lied. Their testimony on this point would be consistent with the other evidence.

As it turns out, there is a lot of evidence that supports the doctor’s time line.

First, some things that appear to be supported by all available evidence, and appear to be agreed upon by all sides (correct me if I am wrong):
  • The final casket arrived at Bethesda around 2:00 AM.
  • The final casket containing JFK left Bethesda between 3:30 AM and 4:00 AM.

Here is some evidence:


The autopsy doctors
Though you reject them all as liars, the autopsy doctors’ testimony still exists.

They all said that they only found out about the throat wound after the autopsy. The testimony of those directly involved is all consistent about this. This supports the claim that they found out about the throat wound after the autopsy.

Further, Humes said the autopsy ended around 11PM and he called Perry Saturday morning. At some point, he said it was 9 or 10 in the morning. If he is correct, the call was well after the end of the autopsy.


Perry and the phone call
Perry gave the earliest estimate of the time of the phone call. Here is his testimony:



Vague, but he tentatively remembers it as Friday. Friday in Dallas ends at 1AM Bethesda time. Most people would describe 1AM Saturday as “Late Friday night,” so his testimony could be consistent with a call at 2AM. It is hard to say, since he is so unsure and vague. Midnight Dallas (1AM Bethesda) is certainly consistent with his testimony.

This is the earliest anyone said the phone call was, as far as I am aware. Any estimate that puts the end of the autopsy before 1AM Bethesda time is consistent with Perry’s admittedly vague testimony.


Embalming timing
Here is how the autopsy is described in contemporaneous documentation: “UNDER THE SUPERVISION OF MR. HAGAN, THE EMBALMING, COSMETICS, RESTORATION (EXTENSIVE CRANIAL DAMAGE), DRESSING AND CASKETING WAS COMPLETED BY 4 A.M. ON SATURDAY, NOVEMBER 23, 1963.”

That is a lot of work to do, and 3 hours is a reasonable estimate. If the embalming, cosmetics, restoration, dressing, and casketing took 3 hours total, this alone would put the end of the autopsy before 1AM. As we will see later, there is a testimony suggesting that it did take 3 hours.


Hagan’s direct statement
Hagan, of Gawler’s funeral home, stated that “the embalming began shortly after midnight, and concluded about 3 A. M.” This puts the end of the autopsy at shortly after midnight at the latest.

(Hagan had a hard time remembering what went on. He recalled arriving with the casket, but also recalled arriving “no later than 12:30AM.” But the casket arrived at 2AM. His testimony cannot all be correct, as he himself later realized. Nevertheless, he directly testified to the embalming starting shortly after midnight.)


Agent Sibert leaves
FBI Agent James Sibert said he left before midnight. He also said he left at the end of the autopsy. This is how he described the scene as he was leaving the autopsy:



If we take Sibert at his word, the doctors were not even attending to the body at the time he left. He testified that the doctors were gathering records, completing the final cataloguing, and filling out paperwork after the autopsy. You have tried very hard to dismiss his testimony as irrelevant by saying he just assumed the autopsy was over, but it is much stronger than that. He witnessed them stop working on the body and start working on the concluding paperwork.

This is consistent with the doctors learning about the throat wound after the autopsy.


Kellerman estimates the times
During Kellerman’s WC testimony, he often that he used estimates of duration, rather than specific memory of the time, to determine when events occurred. Still, he supports an early autopsy end time (and a 2AM end time). At one point he states:



When Specter asked, “about what time, then, did they [the embalming team] complete their work?” Kellerman replied, “They were all through at 3:30.”

If we accept his most confident statement—that the autopsy began by 7:30—and also accept that the autopsy was 4.5 to 5 hours, then the autopsy ended between midnight and 12:30 AM. If we accept his two hour estimate for embalming and his statement that they were through by 3:30AM, then they began at 1:30AM. The autopsy must have ended earlier than that.

This is consistent with the doctors learning about the throat wound after the autopsy.


Manchester writes a book
This description comes from Manchester’s The Death of a President.



If the autopsy took about the hours, that would put its end at about 10:30PM. If the embalming took almost 3 hours, that would mean it started by 1 AM, probably earlier. That would mean the autopsy had to have ended earlier.

This is consistent with the doctors learning about the throat wound after the autopsy.


Lipsey
Here is what Lipsey had to say:



Everything about this supports a midnight end for the autopsy. If the autopsy started between 7 and 8PM and lasted 3 to 4 hours, that puts the end before midnight. If the funeral people took almost as long as the autopsy and they finished between 3 and 4AM, that means they started by about 1AM.

This is consistent with the doctors learning about the throat wound after the autopsy.


Enough for now
That is a lot of evidence supporting the autopsy doctors. It is hard to conclude they are lying, especially when there is no coherent reason for them to do so. I know you have presented evidence for a different conclusion, but your conclusion requires the evidence is inconsistent with the doctors learning about the throat wound after the autopsy. All this evidence supporting the doctors makes your already difficult task that much more difficult, in a way you have never acknowledged.
Click to expand...

MicahJava,

So now that your work stint is over (shorthand for ducking hard questions) and you've returned to this board (shorthand for another fringe reset) how about responding to the points you said you would?

Or is work calling again?

Hank
 
Last edited:
The theory that the autopsy pathologists lied about their ignorance of the throat wound is compounded by the fact that Dr. Boswell couldn't keep his story straight over the years and Francis X. O'Neill apparently fabricated a story about staying at the autopsy long enough to view the restoration of the body.
 
MicahJava said:
The theory that the autopsy pathologists lied about their ignorance of the throat wound is compounded by the fact that Dr. Boswell couldn't keep his story straight over the years and Francis X. O'Neill apparently fabricated a story about staying at the autopsy long enough to view the restoration of the body.
Click to expand...

The theory is bunk. That simple.

HOW DOES LYING ABOUT THE THROAT WOUND PROVE CONSPIRACY?

And you can't remember what you posted six pages ago, how is anyone supposed to remember details over 10, 20, 30, or 40 years later with 100% accuracy?
 
MicahJava said:
The theory that the autopsy pathologists lied about their ignorance of the throat wound...
Click to expand...

Translation: They suffered from the same memory issues as the rest of us. Read some Elizabeth Loftus and quit treating memory as inviolate.


MicahJava said:
is compounded by the fact that Dr. Boswell couldn't keep his story straight over the years...
Click to expand...

Translation: He suffered from the same memory issues as the rest of us. Read some Elizabeth Loftus and quit treating memory as inviolate.


MicahJava said:
...and Francis X. O'Neill apparently fabricated a story about staying at the autopsy long enough to view the restoration of the body.
Click to expand...

Translation: He suffered from the same memory issues as the rest of us. Read some Elizabeth Loftus and quit treating memory as inviolate.

You have contradictions between recollections even among the same witnesses on different dates. That doesn't mean anyone lied. That means they forgot, and tried to reconstruct it in their head, and because their memory is imperfect, got stuff wrong. Period.

Memory issues are well known and accounted for by reasonable researchers. Of course, that excludes anyone searching for evidence of a conspiracy. Not because they are searching for evidence, but because their mind is already made up, so all discrepancies in accounts become evidence that people deliberately lied to cover up the conspiracy. Like you do with the autopsy doctors, Dr. Bowell (who is one of the autopsy doctors, so you're counting him twice), and FBI agent O'Neill.

It's nonsensical. But as always, that's all you've got.

Hank
 
Last edited:
Axxman300 said:
The theory is bunk. That simple.

HOW DOES LYING ABOUT THE THROAT WOUND PROVE CONSPIRACY?

And you can't remember what you posted six pages ago, how is anyone supposed to remember details over 10, 20, 30, or 40 years later with 100% accuracy?
Click to expand...

I'll repeat a thought you had a page or so before:
How does ANYTHING concerning the autopsy point to a conspiracy to assassinate JFK?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom