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

[Elagabalus]

Of course it was a right wing conspiracy, but do you believe that Oswald in any way took part in it?

Of course, he took part. We've already provided ample evidence that he was the one shooting from the TSBD.

...Except for you and your fellow members in the Mighty Church of the Lone Nut. You just ”know” stuff, don’t you?

Oswald was the lone shooter.
Search your feelings, you know it to be true!
Join us, manifesto, and together we can rule the galaxy.

 

[manifesto]

To sum it up.

The only evidence of a shot from the knoll hitting Kennedy in the head is...nothing. There is no evidence for this.

The evidence AGAINST this is:

The Zapruder film - https://imgur.com/a/6kRQ40z

Explain why the Zapruder film is evidence of a headshot from behind and not from in front.

The Nix film - https://imgur.com/00wJCMH

Same here, explain.

The Muchmore film - https://imgur.com/2WYYaND

Same here, explain.

The Moorman Polaroid - https://jfkplayersandwitnesses.files.wordpress.com/2013/08/moorman-full.jpg

Same here, explain.

The x-rays

Agree, IF authentic, which they are not.

The autopsy photos

Which one/s? Explain.

The autopsy report

Explain.

The autopsy physicians testimony

Which one? Cite them.

The findings of the Clarke Panel pathologists

What did they find? Explain.

The findings of the HSCA pathologists

IF the x-ray photos are authentic, yes. And, you can’t cite HSCA’s medical panel AND the autopsy doctors as support for the same conclusion since their findings are completely different in a number of critical observations. You have to chose.

Statements from witnesses in Dealey Plaza

What statements? Explain.

Later statements from the Parkland trauma room personnel - https://vimeo.com/130545091 (start around 30 minutes in and watch the Parkland doctors react to seeing the autopsy photos for the first time)

Ponder that for a while.

They were lied to by representatives from HSCA that all of the medical personel at Bethesda involved in handling JFK’s body confirmed the content in the photographs and x-rays and that the film/photos were authenticated being the ones taken by the correct personel and with the correct equipment.

The same was done to the HSCA medical panel, they were lied to in order not to question the autenticity of the photographic record.

The lie was discovered ca 20 years later when the ARRB publicised all the HSCA records, but still, no one has been charged for doing the lying. Robert Blakey got confronted with these lies in a conference but he swore that he had nothing to do with it.

Well, he certainly was responsible for it not being checked at the time of HSCA’s deliberations.

 

[manifesto]

Of course, he took part. We've already provided ample evidence that he was the one shooting from the TSBD.

No, you certainly have not.

Please do.

Oswald was the lone shooter.
Search your feelings, you know it to be true!
Join us, manifesto, and together we can rule the galaxy.

Exactly my point. Your conviction of Oswald as the lone nut assassin is not reasoned from evidence. It is just so.

 

[HSienzant]

...Tell me why the majority of interviewed witnesses report shots from the knoll, if they clearly saw that nobody was there shooting.

To sum it up.

... Instead it was most of the ASKED witnesses in Dealey Plaza, 52 individuals, who heard shot/s from the knoll.

You've gone from a majority of all interviewed witnesses to a majority of those who were asked to name a location for the source of the shots. You're wrong in either case.

According to the website you cited.
https://www.history-matters.com/analysis/witness/Sort216Witness.htm

Their totals - at the top left on the page above say this:

216 Witnesses
52 Knoll
48 Depository
5 Knoll & Depository
4 Elsewhere
37 Could Not Tell
70 Not Asked​

Let's assume their numbers are correct, although we've already established their knoll numbers are inflated.

52 is only about 25% of the total interviewed. So your first claim (the majority of the interviewed witnesses named the knoll) is clearly false, according to your own cited source.

Regarding your altered claim (most of those who were asked named the knoll), well, that's false too.

We should exclude the 70 who weren't asked, but no one else. That leaves 146 witnesses who were asked, of which at most 52 named the knoll. You claim those 52 are most of the 146. They are 35.6% -- about a third.

You attempt to get to a majority by apparently also excluding the "Could Not Tell" witnesses, and that is erroneous. Those witnesses are an important part of the witness population --- they didn't have a clue - perhaps because they weren't paying attention, or perhaps because they were confused by all 14 of the shooters in Dealey Plaza all shooting during the assassination. Or - I should probably mention this just to be complete although we all know this can be safely eliminated - they were confused by the echoes off the buildings and the overpass the HSCA acoustics study you cite insisted were there on the dictabelt and hence, audible to the witnesses.

So there are only 52 out of 146 who named the knoll. That's not most of the witnesses who were asked. That's 35.6% of the witnesses.

Even if we exclude those who couldn't tell, that gets us only to 52 of 109. Still not a majority. 52 is not most of the witnesses who were asked. It's not even most of the witnesses who named a location.

Your claim is false. And beyond that, even the 52 your website claims is inflated by throwing into the mix anyone who named anything close to the knoll.

Hank

 

[Tomtomkent]

Agree, IF authentic, which they are not.

It is not the first time you have stated this as fact.
It is not the first time you have supported it with zero evidence.
Show how an x-ray is faked, and supply PROOF of fakery, or please stop repeating this nonsense.

 

[Whip]

Agree, IF authentic, which they are not.

why would there be 'if authentic' when claiming as fact 'they are not'? we haven't even gotten to your need to provide evidence yet. lol

explain

 

[Elagabalus]

No, you certainly have not.

Please do.

Exactly my point. Your conviction of Oswald as the lone nut assassin is not reasoned from evidence. It is just so.

You know, it still could be a conspiracy even if Oswald was one of the shooters. Why are you so desperate to eliminate Oswald as a suspect?

 

[RoboTimbo]

Explain why the Zapruder film is evidence of a headshot from behind and not from in front.

Are you claiming that the Z film is NOT evidence of a shot from the rear?

Explain.

 

[HSienzant]

Explain why the Zapruder film is evidence of a headshot from behind and not from in front.

Asked and answered*. The laws of physics, as explained to conspiracy addict David Lifton by Nobel Prize winning physicist Richard Feynman.

Did you forget already?

Or did you just decide to ignore that explanation?

Hank
_______________

* This post:

Obey the laws of physics.

David Lifton went through all this with Nobel Prize-winning physicist Richard Feynman hoping to win a conspiracy convert.

Feynman patiently explained to Lifton the momentum is transferred at the moment of impact, not a tenth or an eighteenth of a second later. Or two eighteenths later.

Feynmann patiently explained to Lifton that the correct comparison for the transfer of momentum is between Zapruder frames 312 and 313 - the frame immediately before the bullet impact and the frame immediately after the bullet impact.

Feynmann patiently explained to Lifton that in that eighteenth of a second (the time between the two exposures of the camera) he saw the President's head move forward. That meant, to this Nobel Prize winning physicist, that the bullet came from behind and pushed the President's head forward.

Feynmann patiently explained to Lifton that whatever happened after that, after the bullet had already left the head (which it had done by frame Z313, which shows the immediate aftermath of the bullet strike) could not be caused by the bullet that struck JFK between frames 312 and 313.

All this is covered in great detail in David Lifton's book, BEST EVIDENCE.

There are a lot of different reasons advanced for the backward movement which happens AFTER the bullet has left the head (and Z215 starts the backward movement, which is an eternity in terms of physics).
1. Jet Effect (proposed by Nobel Prize winning physicist Luis Alvarez)
2. Neuromuscular reaction (the brain being damaged causes the muscles to freeze up, and the back muscles being stronger than the stomach muscles, causes JFK to lurch backwards)
3. Back brace holds JFK upright, and he rebounds backward.
4. JFK's head is forced forward with his chin forced to his chest, and then the head rebounds and takes the body with it.
5. A second shot to the head (with a cover up concealing all evidence of it) forces JFK back.
6. A first shot to the head forces JFK backward (which ignores the laws of physics as explained by Nobel Prize winning physicist Richard Feynman AND a cover up concealing all evidence of it).

Which ones did you eliminate and why? Which one did you settle on and why?

Bonus points if you obey the laws of physics.

Hank

PS: All this is covered in detail in the thread. You would be caught up by now and not raising bogus questions if you had started reading it when you were advised to.

 

[RoboTimbo]

No, you certainly have not.

Absolutely have, to the satisfaction of rational human beings.

Exactly my point. Your conviction of Oswald as the lone nut assassin is not reasoned from evidence. It is just so.

How so? Explain.

 

[traxy]

Explain why the Zapruder film is evidence of a headshot from behind and not from in front.

Head snap forward on impact, debris exclusively in front of the head, back of the head completely intact.

Nix film, same thing.

Muchmore, same thing.

Moorman, same thing.

X-rays show the rear of the head was the entry wound, right side of the skull blown out. Lead debris field confirms it.

Autopsy photos show the same, the rear of the head completely intact, small entry wound, massive blowout on the right side.

For witnesses, start with Zapruder himself describing the damage to Kennedy's head on Dallas news a couple hours after the assassination.

The Parkland trauma staff agree that the autopsy photos represent what they saw that day. I've provided quotes and a video clip of the same.

The Clarke panel and HSCA differed on a few minor details, but agreed on the most important one. The kill shot came from above and behind.

Zapruder
Nix
Muchmore
Moorman
X-rays
Autopsy photos
Autopsy report
Autopsy physician testimony (Humes, Boswell and Finck)
Later Parkland doctor statements
Dealey Plaza witness statements

All in complete agreement on which direction the kill shot came from.

 

[manifesto]

You know, it still could be a conspiracy even if Oswald was one of the shooters. Why are you so desperate to eliminate Oswald as a suspect?

Not desperate. The question from day one have been: ”Was Oswald alone committing the assassination, or was he part of a conspiracy.”

As if his guilt was self evident. Well, it isn’t. Far from it. On the contrary, when looking at the so called evidence put forward it turns out that it is all fabricated or highly dubious = evidence of a cover up orchestrated from the highest level of the US Security State.

So, I believe Oswald when he shouts out that he is just a patsy. Innocent until proven guilty.

Show me the evidence.

 

[manifesto]

Head snap forward on impact, ...

Why is the minute movement forward evidence of a bullet from behind, while the violent thrust backwards is NOT evidence of a bullet from in front?

 

[Tomtomkent]

Why is the minute movement forward evidence of a bullet from behind, while the violent thrust backwards is NOT evidence of a bullet from in front?

Apart from the obvious ejecta caused by the trauma of a shot that hit him in the back of the head?
Apart from the obvious delay after first impact?
Other than there being no known weapon that would cause such a wound, dragging ejecta backwards towards the shooter?
Other than basic laws of Newtonian physics?

 

[traxy]

Why is the minute movement forward evidence of a bullet from behind, while the violent thrust backwards is NOT evidence of a bullet from in front?

A half ounce bullet does not possess the kinetic energy to throw a 200 pound man around like that. It's called "Hollywood Physics". No one with any training in wound ballistics thinks that's remotely plausible. Read the statements of Martin Fackler, Larry Sturdivan and John Lattimer. They are all experts in the field of wound ballistics, none of them think the violent thrust backward could have been caused by a bullet. Bullets just don't do that in reality.

At best, that half ounce bullet is going to nudge the skull forwards like what is seen in the Z film. The explosive exit wound on the right side and the debris spray exclusively in front of the head back up that assertion.

 

[RoboTimbo]

So, I believe Oswald when he shouts out that he is just a patsy. Innocent until proven guilty.

Show me the evidence.

Already shown. See the WCR. I thought you said you had read about the subject?

 

[Axxman300]

Not desperate. The question from day one have been: ”Was Oswald alone committing the assassination, or was he part of a conspiracy.”

As if his guilt was self evident.

His weapon w/ his finger prints, his place of employment, he flees the scene of the crime, kills a police officer while trying to escape.

Not rocket science.

Well, it isn’t. Far from it. On the contrary, when looking at the so called evidence put forward it turns out that it is all fabricated or highly dubious

No, only pin-heads think this. The evidence is still solid today. You have yet to prove any of the evidence was fabricated, which you can't even if you weren't so lazy because none of it was fake.

evidence of a cover up orchestrated from the highest level of the US Security State.

Hardly, you obviously have never met a CIA officer.

So, I believe Oswald when he shouts out that he is just a patsy. Innocent until proven guilty.

Sure you do, you need him to be a patsy to realize your sad world view.

Show me the evidence.

Why, you clearly are not interested in either facts or the truth.

 

[Axxman300]

Why is the minute movement forward evidence of a bullet from behind, while the violent thrust backwards is NOT evidence of a bullet from in front?

Because that's what the laws of physics dictate. Because bullets don't explode on impact. Because the autopsy showed the bullet entering the back of the head, and exiting through the front.

 

[smartcooky]

Why is the minute movement forward evidence of a bullet from behind, while the violent thrust backwards is NOT evidence of a bullet from in front?

Firstly, you are making the same mistake that Jim Garrison made.... "Back and to the left" is NOT, repeat NOT always indicative of a shot coming from "in front and to the right"

Secondly, you can't take evidence in isolation like that. You are trying to deal with evidence one bit at a time in a complex and dynamic situation and it does not work. In such situations, one piece of evidence often relies on other pieces of evidence.

The slight forward movement is evidence of the initial impact of the high velocity bullet from behind; most likely caused by muscle contraction or nerve response. It could also be the initial energy of the impact... high velocity bullets carry a LOT of energy. It could even be a little of each.

The large backwards and to the left movement is evidence of the explosion of the pressure cavity in the front right created by the tremendous loss of energy in the millisecond or two after the bullet impacts. That energy cannot just disappear, it has to go somewhere, and where it goes is into the creation of a pressure cavity in the brain case. Its as if a small piece of explosive had been set off inside the front right part of his skull.

Now, if your claim is that he was struck in a head by a shot from the grassy knoll, you have to provide some physical, ballistic and forensic evidence, and this evidence will be conditional on what you claim happened.

1. If the shot was fired from a low velocity weapon such as from a small calibre rifle, say a .22 cal, or a pistol, then the bullet would have remained in JFK's head. So where is it? Why did it not show up in the X-Rays?

2. If the shot was fired from a high velocity weapon such as a .270 or a .30 cal, then the bullet would have created a pressure cavity in the back left of JFK's skull, and there would be a large exit wound caused by the pressure cavity. So where is this large wound on the left side of JFK's head?
- There is no evidence of it on the Zapruder film, or any of the other films.
- There is no evidence of it in any of the autopsy photos
- There is no evidence of it in any of the X-Rays
- There are no reports if it or statements about it from any of the "gore" witnesses

3. Where are the bullet fragments? If there was a shot from the grassy knoll (which is a slightly elevated firing position), then the area beyond the firing zone where any bullet fragments are likely to end up would include the back left of the presidential limo and the grassed area on the north side of Elm directly opposite the Bryan Pergola. Any bullet fragments that passed through JFK's head would have very low velocity (lost all their energy) so they would be relatively easy to find in the firing zone... probably exposed on the ground or at worst, a couple of inches under the ground. That whole area was searched... nothing was found. The only bullet fragments from the kill shot were found in the front area of the limo.

In short,

- there is no physical evidence for a shooter on the grassy knoll
- there is no film/video/photographic evidence for a shooter on the grassy knoll
- there is no ballistics evidence for a shooter on the grassy knoll
- there is no forensic/medical evidence for a shooter on the grassy knoll

ergo: there was no shooter on the grassy knoll.

 

[Axxman300]

Explain why the Zapruder film is evidence of a headshot from behind and not from in front.

Same here, explain.

Same here, explain.

Same here, explain.

Because the back of the head is visible. Because bullets make a small hole going in, and depending on what they hit they can make a large hole going out. Because it's obvious to anyone who has shot a gun.

IF the x-ray photos are authentic, yes. And, you can’t cite HSCA’s medical panel AND the autopsy doctors as support for the same conclusion since their findings are completely different in a number of critical observations. You have to chose.

No, most of the medical experts supported the original autopsy's conclusions.

And none of the x-rays are fakes.

They were lied to by representatives from HSCA that all of the medical personel at Bethesda involved in handling JFK’s body confirmed the content in the photographs and x-rays and that the film/photos were authenticated being the ones taken by the correct personel and with the correct equipment.

Proof?

The same was done to the HSCA medical panel, they were lied to in order not to question the autenticity of the photographic record.

Proof?

The lie was discovered ca 20 years later when the ARRB publicised all the HSCA records, but still, no one has been charged for doing the lying. Robert Blakey got confronted with these lies in a conference but he swore that he had nothing to do with it.

Proof?

Well, he certainly was responsible for it not being checked at the time of HSCA’s deliberations.

Proof?