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

[Axxman300]

Disclaimer: Hugh Aynesworth is a news reporter who called Oswald as the assassin on the first day of the assassination, and has has worked with the CIA, the FBI, and DA Bill Alexander.

Here's the problem with that statement:

None of it is true.

You just regurgitate lies from CT sites.

Fact: Aynesworth NEVER worked for, or took money from the CIA. This is a confirmed lie. When he made arrangements to travel to Cuba through the Czechoslovakian embassy the process alerted the CIA, so they called him up to ask what he was doing. When they asked him if he would work for them he informed them that while he was a good American, and would tell them everything he saw while in Cuba, there was NO WAY IN HELL he would work for them. All he needed was to get to Cuba and be arrested as a spy, which would have happened because the Cubans had/have our agencies wired.

In other words, if he was CIA the Cubans would have nailed him while he was there.

As it was, he played a pick-up game of basket ball with Fidel Castro.

Fact: He never worked for the FBI. In fact, he was targeted BY the FBI for his work on the assassination, and later while he chased James Earl Ray into Canada.

Fact: He knew DA Bill Alexander because he was a good reporter. Good reporters get out and about to meet and talk to people in important places. Aynesworth knew beat cops, detectives, judges, many people at the DA's office, shoe-shine boys, cabbies, other reporters, and a wide range of people.

Why?

Because he was a good reporter. You, being a CTist, are incapable of grasping the concept of talking to knowledgeable people, and confirming facts before running with them.

Fact: He called Oswald the assassin on the first day of the assassination because he's not an idiot. The man was standing right there when JFK was shot from Oswald's place of employment. He was there when Oswald tried to SHOOT A SECOND DPD OFFICER while being apprehended. He interviewed Marina. He saw a lot of evidence before the FBI got to it.

It was an easy call BECAUSE OSWALD DID IT.

As Aynesworth says in the video you clearly didn't watch, if there he'd found any evidence of a conspiracy he would have gladly put it on the front page. He's not a legendary journalist because he doesn't report the facts.

 

[Wolrab]

That few? I would have thought it was more.

Hank

I first wanted to put down 1,000, but thought it just might be too high. 500 seemed reasonable. And, of course MJ responded to your above post by changing the subject to remembering phone calls and not answering any questions. Evasion (to be fair, you didn't ask a question) and obfuscation.

 

[RoboTimbo]

<snip forum moderation whining>

Since when have I utilized 30+ year old recollections for anything other than to demonstrate how it relates to an original main piece of evidence?

Every time.

Pointing out the date of the interview is not an argument, dude.

It absolutely is when combined with the reasons that your reliance on 35+ year old memories is fallacious. Why would you incorrectly think otherwise?

With your reliance on 35+ year old memories, what clear picture of the assassination do you come up with which accounts for all of the evidence using the same standard you apply to the prevailing lone gunman theory?

 

[MicahJava]

Here's the problem with that statement:

None of it is true.

You just regurgitate lies from CT sites.

Fact: Aynesworth NEVER worked for, or took money from the CIA. This is a confirmed lie. When he made arrangements to travel to Cuba through the Czechoslovakian embassy the process alerted the CIA, so they called him up to ask what he was doing. When they asked him if he would work for them he informed them that while he was a good American, and would tell them everything he saw while in Cuba, there was NO WAY IN HELL he would work for them. All he needed was to get to Cuba and be arrested as a spy, which would have happened because the Cubans had/have our agencies wired.

In other words, if he was CIA the Cubans would have nailed him while he was there.

As it was, he played a pick-up game of basket ball with Fidel Castro.

Fact: He never worked for the FBI. In fact, he was targeted BY the FBI for his work on the assassination, and later while he chased James Earl Ray into Canada.

Fact: He knew DA Bill Alexander because he was a good reporter. Good reporters get out and about to meet and talk to people in important places. Aynesworth knew beat cops, detectives, judges, many people at the DA's office, shoe-shine boys, cabbies, other reporters, and a wide range of people.

Why?

Because he was a good reporter. You, being a CTist, are incapable of grasping the concept of talking to knowledgeable people, and confirming facts before running with them.

Fact: He called Oswald the assassin on the first day of the assassination because he's not an idiot. The man was standing right there when JFK was shot from Oswald's place of employment. He was there when Oswald tried to SHOOT A SECOND DPD OFFICER while being apprehended. He interviewed Marina. He saw a lot of evidence before the FBI got to it.

It was an easy call BECAUSE OSWALD DID IT.

As Aynesworth says in the video you clearly didn't watch, if there he'd found any evidence of a conspiracy he would have gladly put it on the front page. He's not a legendary journalist because he doesn't report the facts.

Your one example doesn't mean anything. Not wanting to mess with a good leader like Castro while you're in Cuba (if that story is even true) is not evidence against the fact that Aynesworth was an intelligence asset who helped sabotage the Garrison investigation. I'm not about to write a novel for the man who mistook centimeters for millimeters, has repeatedly displayed a poor grasp of the English language, and has displayed lower capacity for memory than most people.

Aynesworth knew beat cops, detectives, judges, many people at the DA's office, shoe-shine boys, cabbies, other reporters, and a wide range of people.

Like Varys from Game of Thrones?

 

[RoboTimbo]

I'm not about to write a novel ...

How about answering some questions which you've continually run away from?

 

[MicahJava]

I found the full version of that 11/25/1966 Baltimore Sun article with Dr. Boswell

https://archive.org/stream/nsia-AutopsyJFKBoswellJThorton/nsia-AutopsyJFKBoswellJThorton/Autopsy%20JFK%20JTB%2008#page/n0/mode/2up

 

[HSienzant]

I think the only thing you've ever read and grasped from my comments is the report button.

Nope, not me. I haven't even grasped that, but the ad hominem inherent in your assertion might be worthy.

Since when have I utilized 30+ year old recollections for anything other than to demonstrate how it relates to an original main piece of evidence?

See your above post.

Pointing out the date of the interview is not an argument, dude.

Yeah, it is, when the recollection is 35 years after the fact. Search for Jeremy Gunn in prior posts (and prior threads) to see what the Executive Director of the ARRB thought of the testimony you're citing. *

We've covered all this ground in the past. It's still nonsense. At this point I don't have to write anything new, I can just point out it's still an attempt at a fringe reset.

Why are you still posting here? It can't be to convince us. It's already established that your claims and arguments are not convincing. So what's the point of recycling all this, uh, 'stuff'?

Is this another question you will ignore, MicahJava?

Add it to the list.

Hank
__________________________

* EDIT: Oh, heck. You won't look this up, so I did it for you.

== quote ==
You quoted extensively from Humes testimony when you first brought your argument up, ignoring entirely the evidence that he himself admitted his recollection wasn't that clear that long after the fact, and used the cherry-picked quotes as the initial basis for your argument. Without those bits, you have nothing to support your argument. Again, this was something we discussed extensively in the past, and you don't get a free fringe reset.

Any testimony to the ARRB was pretty much worthless, as even the ARRB admitted.
QUOTE: "The deposition transcripts and other medical evidence that were released by the Review Board should be evaluated cautiously by the public. Often the witnesses contradict not only each other, but sometimes themselves. For events that transpired almost 35 years ago, all persons are likely to have failures of memory. It would be more prudent to weigh all of the evidence, with due concern for human error, rather than take single statements as 'proof' for one theory or another."

And Jeremy Gunn, the executive director and general counsel of the ARRB said this:
QUOTE: "The last thing I wanted to mention, just in terms of how we understand the evidence and how we deal with what we have is what I will call is the profound underscore profound unreliability of eyewitness testimony. You just cannot believe it. And I can tell you something else that is even worse than eyewitness testimony and that is 35 year old eyewitness testimony. I have taken the depositions of several people who were involved in phases of the Kennedy assassination, all the doctors who performed the autopsy of President Kennedy and people who witnessed various things and they are profoundly unreliable."
== unquote ==

I found that here from August of 2017:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11973287&postcount=1397

Here is one from April of 2012 where I referenced the Jeremy Gunn quote.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8213915&postcount=6061

There are plenty of references to those admissions of the unreliability of eyewitness recollections decades after the fact in between those two. You have to start paying attention. Repeating the same nonsense doesn't make it more true. Citing the same 35-year after-the-fact recollections doesn't establish them as better each time you post. It's still the same old nonsense.

 

[HSienzant]

...Aynesworth ... helped sabotage the Garrison investigation.

Translation: He wrote some articles exposing the shabbiness of Garrison's methods.

Let's not forget that numerous Conspiracy Authors also were highly critical of what Jim Garrison was doing in New Orleans and said so:

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/buffs_on_jim.htm

Hank

 

[BStrong]

Your one example doesn't mean anything. Not wanting to mess with a good leader like Castro while you're in Cuba (if that story is even true) is not evidence against the fact that Aynesworth was an intelligence asset who helped sabotage the Garrison investigation. I'm not about to write a novel for the man who mistook centimeters for millimeters, has repeatedly displayed a poor grasp of the English language, and has displayed lower capacity for memory than most people.



Like Varys from Game of Thrones?

Yet you're deeply in love with the ventriloquist suppressor and "earwitness" reports and iirc once stated that LHO fired from a floor other than the sixth floor of the TSBD.

There's a difference between consenting to answer questions from the C.I.A. or F.B.I. concerning what someone saw while in a foreign country and being employed by an agency, but it's so much sexier to assert secret squirrel status...if you know what I'm talking about and I think you do...

 

[Axxman300]

Your one example doesn't mean anything. Not wanting to mess with a good leader like Castro while you're in Cuba (if that story is even true) is not evidence against the fact that Aynesworth was an intelligence asset who helped sabotage the Garrison investigation.

If it is a fact then there would be proof, and there isn't proof.

Garrison sabotaged his own investigation through ineptitude.

Look, if you want to embrace lies that's your business, but you can't hope to spread them here without being challenged. Worse, you know this is a lie.

I'm not about to write a novel for the man who mistook centimeters for millimeters, has repeatedly displayed a poor grasp of the English language, and has displayed lower capacity for memory than most people.

I own up to my mistakes, you're making a career out of posting JFK ghost stories asserting that they're proof.

 

[Axxman300]

I found the full version of that 11/25/1966 Baltimore Sun article with Dr. Boswell

https://archive.org/stream/nsia-AutopsyJFKBoswellJThorton/nsia-AutopsyJFKBoswellJThorton/Autopsy%20JFK%20JTB%2008#page/n0/mode/2up

Where Boswell confirms the TWO bullets struck JFK from behind?

And the conspiracy is what now?

 

[HSienzant]

Where Boswell confirms the TWO bullets struck JFK from behind?

And the conspiracy is what now?

You have to get with the program... anything that points to Oswald, why, it's clear the pathologists were lying to cover up their own mistakes.

Anything that points to a conspiracy, why, it's clear that they let that slip unintentionally because it's hard to keep track of all those lies.

 

[bknight]

Are you saving your good stuff for later? Because your stuff is very weak.

https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/medical_testimony/pdf/Parkland_8-27-98.pdf

Go under "Humes called on Saturday" in the table of contents in the sidebar.

Just the other day, I noticed in the 8/27/1998 ARRB interview of Parkland staff members, Dr. Perry and Mr. McClelland were asked about the timeline of the Dr. Humes phone call. In order to reconcile Perry's previous testimony of a Friday night phone call with Humes' testimony of a Saturday morning phone call, they concede that Humes could have called really quick on Friday night while it was too busy, told Perry he would call him in the morning, and was only later told about the tracheotomy in the second phone call. Although they concede that the tracheotomy phone call happened "in the middle of the morning" (11/23/1963), they still reported the event of a Friday night phone call, AND a separate second phone call. Dr. Perry always testified that he was called by Humes twice, while Humes always only described one single phone call to Perry.

[qimg]https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-qpydWSzOBc8/Tcn4uHT7vTI/AAAAAAAAAAc/tNw0XsojOZY/s1600/GogoYubariGiggle.gif[/qimg]

And this means what in relation to the assassination of JFK.

 

[MicahJava]

And this means what in relation to the assassination of JFK.

My hobby right now is cataloging every little clue I can find regarding the timeline of the later autopsy/restoration. This is nothing Perry has not said before to the Warren Commission and HSCA: The first of two phone calls from Humes was on Friday night, followed by the second in the middle of the morning 11/23. In this 1998 testimony, both faulty memory and an incentive to piece together their recollections made Perry and McClelland concede so a sort of combination of their stories.

 

[bknight]

My hobby right now is cataloging every little clue I can find regarding the timeline of the later autopsy/restoration. This is nothing Perry has not said before to the Warren Commission and HSCA: The first of two phone calls from Humes was on Friday night, followed by the second in the middle of the morning 11/23. In this 1998 testimony, both faulty memory and an incentive to piece together their recollections made Perry and McClelland concede so a sort of combination of their stories.

And this means what to the assassination of JFK?

 

[MicahJava]

And this means what to the assassination of JFK?

Solving the issue of whether the autopsy pathologists were made aware that the throat wound was originally a bullet hole during or after the time of the autopsy.

 

[bknight]

Solving the issue of whether the autopsy pathologists were made aware that the throat wound was originally a bullet hole during or after the time of the autopsy.

I believe this has been beaten to death, they didn't. They may have suspected, but not until the phone call was that revealed to them.

How does decades old memories prove anything, except that memories fade.
You are on a fool's errand, there is no autopsy error, two shots from behind one in the back exiting the throat, one in the head exiting the right front area of the skull, killing JFK.

 

[Axxman300]

Solving the issue of whether the autopsy pathologists were made aware that the throat wound was originally a bullet hole during or after the time of the autopsy.

And?

Let's say they knew the instant they got him on the table, so what?

It was an exit wound. A couple of the Parkland doctors speculated it was an exit wound from a fragment exiting the skull, but that's because the PARKLAND DOCTORS NEVER SAW THE BACK WOUND.

This is kind of important since 5 ER doctors and over 20 Parkland staff handled, or were present in the room with the President, and none of them saw the back wound.

This is no big deal, they were ER doctors, and not pathologists. Once they confirmed JFK was dead their job was over.

It doesn't matter if Humes called them at 12:30am, or 08:00, the forensics are solid. JFK was stuck in the back and that missile exited the throat. The fiber evidence from the jacket, shirt, and necktie all support this conclusion.

But do go ahead with your new hobby, it's hilarious.

 

[MicahJava]

I believe this has been beaten to death, they didn't. They may have suspected, but not until the phone call was that revealed to them.

How does decades old memories prove anything, except that memories fade.
You are on a fool's errand, there is no autopsy error, two shots from behind one in the back exiting the throat, one in the head exiting the right front area of the skull, killing JFK.

The Barnum journal is probably the best early evidence for the throat wound being known during autopsy.

From BEST EVIDENCE: Disguise and Deception in the Assassination of John F. Kennedy by David Lifton, 1980 (quoted in blue)

[Part VII – SYNTHESIS, Chapter 20. The X-rays and Photographs Reconsidered]

[...]

[...]Nevertheless, circumstancial evidence supports this theory. My own investigation has turned up two accounts in-

[...]

[...]dicating that a transiting neck trajectory was being discussed on Friday night. In his November 29, 1963 account, Coast Guardsman George Barnum wrote that as the men were having sandwiches and coffee sometime after midnight, Admiral Burkley came in and talked to them, and said three shots had been fired, that the President had been hit by the first and third, and he described the trajectories of the two that struck:

"The first striking him in the lower neck and coming out near the throat. The second shot striking him above and to the rear of the right ear, this shot not coming out...."61

Although Barnum's report was incorrect on the head shot not exiting, both points of entry are those shown in the autopsy photographs, and the neck trajectory was the "transiting" conclusion to be found in the official autopsy report Humes wrote later that weekend.*

James Jenkins told me that during the autopsy, when the "civilians" were practically arguing with Humes, they put the idea to him that the bullet entered at the rear, exiting through the tracheotomy inision, and that the bullet went on to hit Connally.**62 [...]

[...]

*Barnum's account also raises this question: why Burkley, speaking informally, described a transiting trajectory, yet in filing his medical report on November 22, omitted any mention of the throat wound.

**Unfortunately, Jenkins never made a written record, and so it is easy to discount his recollections by claiming he was influenced by what he later read in books and magazines.
But having spoken with him, I didn't believe that was the case. Jenkins did not follow the case and, in fact, until I spoke with him in September 1979, did not know a bullet wound at the front of the neck had been observed in Dallas. Jenkins kept referring to it as the "tracheotomy incision," and couldn't understand why those "civilians" in the autopsy room kept claiming that a bullet exited there.

The general public was only informed of the existence of a back wound on December 7th 1963, one week this was written. So this report must have come from insider information.

 

[Axxman300]

This drek from Lifton only counts if you also believe that the body was surgically altered BEFORE the autopsy, which you claim you do not, but you cite Lifton's sloppy work as if it is fact.

Coast Guardsman George Barnum was a pallbearer for JFK's casket. The men on that detail got little sleep in the four days from the time the casket was unloaded from AF1 until the time it was laid to rest at Arlington. We had no time to jot down notes.

They knew the shot from behind exited the throat by 11/23/63. Admiral Burkley would have known about the throat wound since he was there at Parkland, yet he either didn't tell Humes, or Humes never heard him. Either way once he knew about the back wound the exit wound in the throat became academic (that mean obvious).

So you hang your claim on questionable evidence collected by a well known CT hack.