• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

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

Status
Not open for further replies.
smartcooky said:
A couple of things about this as it relates to the JFK conspiracy.

First off, there doesn't have to be a full on military style operation with multiple shooters and support personnel to carry out an assassination; RFK, MLK Jr, John Lennon, Ronald Reagan (attempt) and Archduke Ferdinand of Austria all tell us this.
Click to expand...

I agree with everything you wrote.

For me it boils down to the what I call the First Law of Conspiracy:

Before you can rule in a conspiracy you have to successfully rule out the accused actors in the event.

And nobody can rule Oswald out as the lone shooter, at least not those who are intellectually honest.

His gun with his finger-prints from his place of employment. He flees, kills Tippit, almost kills a second officer.

During his interrogation at DPD he says a couple of times: "Everyone will know my name".

Everything else involved with this CT is either unsubstantiated eye-witness testimony, testimony taken out of context, or unadulterated lies.

This CT was allowed to fester in a vacuum between 1965 onward. In the 60's there was no 24-hour cable news, no internet, and the public didn't have access regular viewing of the Zapruder Film or the other films. This allowed speculation to become dogma. In the case of the Zapruder Film most believers in the CT had 11 years of being told what it showed, and were told that the images had been altered. Today anyone viewing the film knows this is not true.

Throw in the social turmoil of the Vietnam War, and the counter-culture where the JFK CT thrived, and the story goes from a communist wannabe killing JKF to a conspiracy by dark forces to drive the US into Vietnam by killing the one man who would have stopped it.

History is not clear about what JFK would have done in Vietnam. History is clear about his attitude against communism as witnessed by Operation Mongoose, and its larger sister operation against Cuba. The man loved black-ops and commandos. No one can say what JFK's future held had he lived for that second term.

Anyway, in my view a conspiracy involving Oswald is one where he is the initiator of the assassination with hopes to defect to Cuba to live out his life as a hero of the Marxist Revolution. Maybe he made contact with Cuban operatives in Dallas, contacts given to him at this mysterious party in Mexico City. Maybe he pitches the plan citing his April 10th assassination attempt on General Walker is his credentials. I'm sure the Cubans would have been skeptical, and would have taken the Seinfeld-esque attitude of "Good luck with that". If he kills Kennedy, great, and if he doesn't, that's cool too. I don't see more than 5 people knowing what Oswald was up to in November, 1963.

I sure as hell don't see any professional direction given to Oswald.
 
MicahJava said:
Whatever you think it means, that's probably not it means.

Again, not only did they peel back the scalp in order to remove the brain, but also to expose the small head wound for examination and photography. Statements by the autopsy pathologists indicate that a separate, incision was made low in the scalp to expose the small head wound.

From Dr. Pierre Finck's Clay Shaw trial testimony:

A: As I recall, the brain had been removed. Dr. Humes told me that to remove the brain he did not have to carry out the procedure you carry out when there is no wound in the skull. The wound was of such an extent, over five inches in diameter, that it was not of a great difficulty for him to remove this brain, and this is the best of my recollection. There were no removals of the wound of entry in the back of the neck, no removal of the wound of entry in the back of the head prior to my arrival, and I made a positive identification of both wounds of entry. At this time I might, for the sake of clarity, say that in the autopsy report we may have called the first wound the one in the head and the second wound the one in the neck, because we did not know the sequence of shots at that time. Again, the sequence of shots was determined by the Zapruder film, so what we did, we determined the entry of the bullet wound and stated that there were two bullet wounds, one in the back of the neck and the other in the back of the head, without giving a sequence.


3/11/1978 HSCA interview of Humes and Boswell:


Dr. PETTY: What is this opposite-oh, it must be, I can’t read it-but up close
to the tip of the ruler, there you are two centimeters down.

Dr. BOSWELL: It’s the posterior-inferior margin of the lacerated scalp.

Dr. Perry: That’s the posterior-inferior margin of the-lacerated scalp?

Dr. BOSWELL: It tore right down to that point. And then we just folded that
back and this back and an interior flap forward and that exposed almost the entire, I
guess we did have to dissect a little bit to get to-

Dr. HUMES: To get to this entrance, right?

Dr. BOSWELL: But not much, because this bone was all gone and actually the
smaller fragment fit this piece down here-there was a hole here, only half of
which was present in the bone that was intact. and this small piece then fit right
on there and the beveling on those was on the interior surface.


From Dr. Finck's interview with the HSCA:

Dr. PETTY. All right. Let me ask you one other question. In order to expose that area where the wound was present in the bone, did you have to or did someone have to dissect the I scalp off of the bone in order to show this?

Dr. FINCK. Yes.

Dr. PETTY. Was this a difficult dissection and did it go very low into the head so as to expose the external aspect of the posterior cranial fascia?

Dr. FINCK. I don't remember the difficulty involved in separating the scalp from the skull but this was done in order to have a clear view of the outside and inside to show the crater from the inside.

Dr. BADEN. Do you recall specifically that some dissection was done in the area?

Dr. FINCK. To free the skull from the scalp, to separate the scalp from the skull.

Dr. BADEN. Yes.

Dr. FINCK. Yes. I don't know who did that. I don't know the difficulty involved but the scalp is adherent to the skull and it had to be separated from it in order to show in the back of the head the wound in the bone.
Click to expand...

Tell me how this testimony compares to the comments made just after the autopsy and the WC?
 
Axxman300 said:
I agree with everything you wrote.

For me it boils down to the what I call the First Law of Conspiracy:

Before you can rule in a conspiracy you have to successfully rule out the accused actors in the event.

And nobody can rule Oswald out as the lone shooter, at least not those who are intellectually honest.

His gun with his finger-prints from his place of employment. He flees, kills Tippit, almost kills a second officer.

During his interrogation at DPD he says a couple of times: "Everyone will know my name".

Everything else involved with this CT is either unsubstantiated eye-witness testimony, testimony taken out of context, or unadulterated lies.

This CT was allowed to fester in a vacuum between 1965 onward. In the 60's there was no 24-hour cable news, no internet, and the public didn't have access regular viewing of the Zapruder Film or the other films. This allowed speculation to become dogma. In the case of the Zapruder Film most believers in the CT had 11 years of being told what it showed, and were told that the images had been altered. Today anyone viewing the film knows this is not true.

Throw in the social turmoil of the Vietnam War, and the counter-culture where the JFK CT thrived, and the story goes from a communist wannabe killing JKF to a conspiracy by dark forces to drive the US into Vietnam by killing the one man who would have stopped it.

History is not clear about what JFK would have done in Vietnam. History is clear about his attitude against communism as witnessed by Operation Mongoose, and its larger sister operation against Cuba. The man loved black-ops and commandos. No one can say what JFK's future held had he lived for that second term.

Anyway, in my view a conspiracy involving Oswald is one where he is the initiator of the assassination with hopes to defect to Cuba to live out his life as a hero of the Marxist Revolution. Maybe he made contact with Cuban operatives in Dallas, contacts given to him at this mysterious party in Mexico City. Maybe he pitches the plan citing his April 10th assassination attempt on General Walker is his credentials. I'm sure the Cubans would have been skeptical, and would have taken the Seinfeld-esque attitude of "Good luck with that". If he kills Kennedy, great, and if he doesn't, that's cool too. I don't see more than 5 people knowing what Oswald was up to in November, 1963.

I sure as hell don't see any professional direction given to Oswald.
Click to expand...

That is absolutely true:

http://bostonreview.net/us/galbraith-exit-strategy-vietnam

Conclusion

John F. Kennedy had formally decided to withdraw from Vietnam, whether we were winning or not. Robert McNamara, who did not believe we were winning, supported this decision.10 The first stage of withdrawal had been ordered. The final date, two years later, had been specified. These decisions were taken, and even placed, in an oblique and carefully limited way, before the public.

But there's also this straight from the mouth of RFK:

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

Kennedy:

Yes, because I, everybody including General MacArthur felt that land conflict between our troops, white troops and Asian, would only lead to, end in disaster. So it was. . . . We went in as advisers, but to try to get the Vietnamese to fight themselves, because we couldn't win the war for them. They had to win the war for themselves.

Martin:

It's generally true all over the world, whether it's in a shooting war or a different kind of a war. But the president was convinced that we had to keep, had to stay in there . . .

Kennedy:

Yes.

Martin:

. . . and couldn't lose it.

Kennedy:

Yes.

Martin:

And if Vietnamese were about to lose it, would he propose to go in on land if he had to?

Kennedy:

Well, we'd face that when we came to it.
 
MicahJava said:
From Dr. Pierre Finck's Clay Shaw trial testimony:

A: As I recall, the brain had been removed. Dr. Humes told me that to remove the brain he did not have to carry out the procedure you carry out when there is no wound in the skull. The wound was of such an extent, over five inches in diameter, that it was not of a great difficulty for him to remove this brain, and this is the best of my recollection. There were no removals of the wound of entry in the back of the neck, no removal of the wound of entry in the back of the head prior to my arrival, and I made a positive identification of both wounds of entry. At this time I might, for the sake of clarity, say that in the autopsy report we may have called the first wound the one in the head and the second wound the one in the neck, because we did not know the sequence of shots at that time. Again, the sequence of shots was determined by the Zapruder film, so what we did, we determined the entry of the bullet wound and stated that there were two bullet wounds, one in the back of the neck and the other in the back of the head, without giving a sequence.


3/11/1978 HSCA interview of Humes and Boswell:


Dr. PETTY: What is this opposite-oh, it must be, I can’t read it-but up close
to the tip of the ruler, there you are two centimeters down.

Dr. BOSWELL: It’s the posterior-inferior margin of the lacerated scalp.

Dr. Perry: That’s the posterior-inferior margin of the-lacerated scalp?

Dr. BOSWELL: It tore right down to that point. And then we just folded that
back and this back and an interior flap forward and that exposed almost the entire, I
guess we did have to dissect a little bit to get to-

Dr. HUMES: To get to this entrance, right?

Dr. BOSWELL: But not much, because this bone was all gone and actually the
smaller fragment fit this piece down here-there was a hole here, only half of
which was present in the bone that was intact. and this small piece then fit right
on there and the beveling on those was on the interior surface.


From Dr. Finck's interview with the HSCA:

Dr. PETTY. All right. Let me ask you one other question. In order to expose that area where the wound was present in the bone, did you have to or did someone have to dissect the I scalp off of the bone in order to show this?

Dr. FINCK. Yes.

Dr. PETTY. Was this a difficult dissection and did it go very low into the head so as to expose the external aspect of the posterior cranial fascia?

Dr. FINCK. I don't remember the difficulty involved in separating the scalp from the skull but this was done in order to have a clear view of the outside and inside to show the crater from the inside.

Dr. BADEN. Do you recall specifically that some dissection was done in the area?

Dr. FINCK. To free the skull from the scalp, to separate the scalp from the skull.

Dr. BADEN. Yes.

Dr. FINCK. Yes. I don't know who did that. I don't know the difficulty involved but the scalp is adherent to the skull and it had to be separated from it in order to show in the back of the head the wound in the bone.
Click to expand...

I don't know what you hope to glean from this testimony.

Does this testimony indicate in any way that JFK was hit from any direction other than behind the motorcade? No, it does not!

Does this testimony indicate in any way that there were one or more extra shooters to the right of the motorcade (e.g. near or on the grassy knoll)? No, it does not!

Does this testimony indicate in any way that any proposed extra shooters had silencers on their weapons. No, it does not!

Does this testimony indicate in any way that the autopsy or the associated photos and/or x-rays were amended, altered or faked? No, it does not!

Does this testimony in any way prove there was a conspiracy to kill JFK. No, it does not!

Do not try to attribute to orchestration, machinations or conspiracy, that which is more readily explained by human error. Doing so is not the path to truth.

IMO, you are merely throwing bucket-loads of crap against the wall in the minute hope that some of it will stick. You have been desperate to clutch onto anything, anything to try to keep your conspiracy alive.... and you have failed miserably.
 
MicahJava said:
It means that not only did they peel back the scalp in order to remove the brain, but also to expose the small head wound for examination and photography.
Click to expand...
HSienzant said:
No, that's not what incisions in the coronal plane mean.

Do look it up - you being an expert and all - and tell us where those incisions in the coronal plane were made, so as to examine the cranial contents per the autopsy report.

"INCISIONS: The scalp wounds are extended in the coronal plane to examine the cranial content"

What does the above mean, Micah Java?

Or is it your plan to ignore the clear language of the autopsy report forever and just recycle your failed arguments from nine months ago?

Hank
Click to expand...
HSienzant said:
Case in point: Watch Micah Java change the subject to something one of the autopsists said they recalled 33 years after the fact and ignore this sentence from the autopsy report (which he insists is correct) once more:

"INCISIONS: The scalp wounds are extended in the coronal plane to examine the cranial content"

Hank
Click to expand...
MicahJava said:
Whatever you think it means, that's probably not [what] it means.

[Red Herring Logical Fallacy deleted]
Click to expand...


I didn't ask what you thought I thought it meant. I asked you to tell us what it meant to you.

You are still dodging the questions and repeating recollections from years and decades after the fact.

Exactly as I said you would do. In other words, this is another fringe reset for you.

When do you intend to actually confront what the autopsy report says:

"INCISIONS: The scalp wounds are extended in the coronal plane to examine the cranial content"

Tell us what that means, Micah Java. You're the expert on all things JFK autopsy, right?


Hank
 
Last edited:
smartcooky said:
I don't know what you hope to glean from this testimony.

Does this testimony indicate in any way that JFK was hit from any direction other than behind the motorcade? No, it does not!

Does this testimony indicate in any way that there were one or more extra shooters to the right of the motorcade (e.g. near or on the grassy knoll)? No, it does not!

Does this testimony indicate in any way that any proposed extra shooters had silencers on their weapons. No, it does not!

Does this testimony indicate in any way that the autopsy or the associated photos and/or x-rays were amended, altered or faked? No, it does not!

Does this testimony in any way prove there was a conspiracy to kill JFK. No, it does not!

Do not try to attribute to orchestration, machinations or conspiracy, that which is more readily explained by human error. Doing so is not the path to truth.

IMO, you are merely throwing bucket-loads of crap against the wall in the minute hope that some of it will stick. You have been desperate to clutch onto anything, anything to try to keep your conspiracy alive.... and you have failed miserably.
Click to expand...

His claim stems from his inability to understand medical testimony, and is based on the misconception that the brain was removed intact through the hole blasted out by Oswald - and that is not true.

We have posted links multiple times to Hume's testimony on this subject (Fink was not there at the time the skull was cut open). He testifies that the skull-cap was removed per the usual method (bone saw) with particular care taken around the damaged regions of the head.

MJ is stumped for some reason because Fink said he saw the entry hole in the back of the skull, meaning that that part of the skull was left intact by Humes when HE CUT AROUND A KEY PIECE OF EVIDENCE. MJ continues to insist that the brain was removed through the 5-inch hole made by the Carcano round.

All this while at the same time posting autopsy photos that show JFK's skull cap had been sawed off.

Somehow he's getting a second bullet strike to the back of the head out of this misinterpretation.
 
Axxman300 said:
His claim stems from his inability to understand medical testimony, and is based on the misconception that the brain was removed intact through the hole blasted out by Oswald - and that is not true.

We have posted links multiple times to Hume's testimony on this subject (Fink was not there at the time the skull was cut open). He testifies that the skull-cap was removed per the usual method (bone saw) with particular care taken around the damaged regions of the head.

MJ is stumped for some reason because Fink said he saw the entry hole in the back of the skull, meaning that that part of the skull was left intact by Humes when HE CUT AROUND A KEY PIECE OF EVIDENCE. MJ continues to insist that the brain was removed through the 5-inch hole made by the Carcano round.

All this while at the same time posting autopsy photos that show JFK's skull cap had been sawed off.

Somehow he's getting a second bullet strike to the back of the head out of this misinterpretation.
Click to expand...

Axxman, there is simply no way you can't comprehend this topic at this point, two years on this thread and I already know a lot of important stuff by heart. So there is no way you still don't understand the brain removal problem.

Also, which part of Humes' statements are you referring to? Ones you made up or ones you misunderstood?
 
MicahJava said:
Axxman, there is simply no way you can't comprehend this topic at this point, two years on this thread and I already know a lot of important stuff by heart. So there is no way you still don't understand the brain removal problem.

Also, which part of Humes' statements are you referring to? Ones you made up or ones you misunderstood?
Click to expand...

You only believe what you want to believe.

That in no way constitutes knowledge.
 
MicahJava said:
Axxman, there is simply no way you can't comprehend this topic at this point, two years on this thread and I already know a lot of important stuff by heart. So there is no way you still don't understand the brain removal problem.

Also, which part of Humes' statements are you referring to? Ones you made up or ones you misunderstood?
Click to expand...

What am I missing?

Humes said he cut the skull cap off, using extreme care to work around the shattered right-rear section of the the head to preserve the damaged section. That's over 80% of the clearance he needed to remove the brain since the right half was shredded.

YOU have posted two photos where the cut skull bone at the forehead is clearly visible.

There was no brain removal problem. This is your fabrication hoping to add to the circus sideshow that is JFK-CT Land.

How about you join the CT big league instead? You can't remove Oswald as the assassin, and you can't add a second gunman; the evidence does not support this. Why not give us a Cuban covert, direct-action cell that had links to Oswald instead? Or if ratting out fellow leftists bothers you, then link him to a CIA Mongoose team. Give us something that will make us work for once. This EOP junk is kiddie-pool level claptrap.
 
Axxman300 said:
What am I missing?

Humes said he cut the skull cap off, using extreme care to work around the shattered right-rear section of the the head to preserve the damaged section. That's over 80% of the clearance he needed to remove the brain since the right half was shredded.

YOU have posted two photos where the cut skull bone at the forehead is clearly visible.

There was no brain removal problem. This is your fabrication hoping to add to the circus sideshow that is JFK-CT Land.

How about you join the CT big league instead? You can't remove Oswald as the assassin, and you can't add a second gunman; the evidence does not support this. Why not give us a Cuban covert, direct-action cell that had links to Oswald instead? Or if ratting out fellow leftists bothers you, then link him to a CIA Mongoose team. Give us something that will make us work for once. This EOP junk is kiddie-pool level claptrap.
Click to expand...

Axxman, which interview with the autopsy pathologists?

Also, you cannot properly remove a brain without separating some of the occipital bone.

Also, you never provided proof that the boh photographs show an empty cranium, let alone provided a reason for why that is even relevant.
 
MicahJava said:
Also, you cannot properly remove a brain without separating some of the occipital bone.
Click to expand...

That is just complete and utter rubbish. You really have no bloody idea what you are talking about.

Here is a photographic record of the actual removal of a human brain from a cadaver. The brain is finally removed by lifting the forebrain up and pulling it forward to remove the occipital lobe leaving the occipital bone completely intact
Warning: Graphic images
https://www.documentingreality.com/forum/f10/how-remove-human-brain-134832/

You continue to make a fool of yourself by shooting yourself in the foot - you post statements together with supporting photos that actually refute your statements. Duh!
 
MicahJava said:
Axxman, which interview with the autopsy pathologists?
Click to expand...

I've posted it at least three times, and so has Hank. Your laziness is your undoing. Go find it, or just look up Humes' final deposition for the archivists at Mary Ferrell, and read the whole thing like a grownup would. Facts are not found in soundbites, you have to dig, and do home work.

Also, you cannot properly remove a brain without separating some of the occipital bone.
Click to expand...

Nope, again, do your homework.

Also, you never provided proof that the boh photographs show an empty cranium, let alone provided a reason for why that is even relevant.
Click to expand...

Proof? If you can't just look at the pictures YOU POSTED then you can use logic because why would they cut open the skull, and not remove the brain? YOU POSTED FINCK'S TESTIMONIES where he said the brain was already out of the skull by the time he got to the room, and that means the pictures were taken AFTER THE BRAIN WAS OUT.

You're chasing a parked car.
 
MicahJava said:
Also, which part of Humes' statements are you referring to?
Click to expand...

How about this one? Can you explain what it means?

When do you intend to actually confront what the autopsy report says:

"INCISIONS: The scalp wounds are extended in the coronal plane to examine the cranial content"

Tell us what that means, Micah Java. You're the expert on all things JFK autopsy, right?

Everyone can see you're avoiding this like the plague.

Hank
 
Meanwhile, in grownup JFK Assassination Land, here's a Newsweek story about how the recent CIA assassination document release outed a still-living CIA asset: Richard Gibson. Gibson was a journalist whom Oswald had contacted at some point, and Gibson was working for the CIA having co-founded something called THE FAIR PLAY for CUBA COMMITTEE.

Check the story out if you like honest history:

http://www.newsweek.com/richard-gib...ldwin-amiri-baraka-richard-wright-cuba-926428

Unlike the CT versions of CIA activities, this article provides a good look at who the agency will hire or partner with to gather intelligence. Not black and white at all.

If you like real spy stuff this one's worth your time.:thumbsup:

Also from last month's Newsweek:

a new analysis of the Zapruder footage conducted by Nicholas Nalli from I.M. Systems Group shows that JFK’s reactions after being shot are physically consistent with the results of the official autopsy findings: that he was killed by a gunshot to the back of the head, fired from a high-energy Carcano rifle (the one used by Oswald) located in the vicinity of the Texas School Book Depository.
Click to expand...

Link to Newsweek here:

http://www.newsweek.com/jfk-assassination-conspiracy-theory-debunked-new-gunshot-study-902292

Link to I.M. Systems Group study here:

https://www.heliyon.com/article/e00603/

It buries the "Back and to the Left" nonsense forever.
 
Last edited:
smartcooky said:
That is just complete and utter rubbish. You really have no bloody idea what you are talking about.

Here is a photographic record of the actual removal of a human brain from a cadaver. The brain is finally removed by lifting the forebrain up and pulling it forward to remove the occipital lobe leaving the occipital bone completely intact
Warning: Graphic images
https://www.documentingreality.com/forum/f10/how-remove-human-brain-134832/

You continue to make a fool of yourself by shooting yourself in the foot - you post statements together with supporting photos that actually refute your statements. Duh!
Click to expand...

Smartcooky, I should not have said it's impossible to remove a brain without separating the occipital bone, you can if you're doing it on an undamaged skull in a typical case. And I bet that it would even be possible to leave a little bit of the right side of the parietal bone, 4-5 inches above the EOP

But...

Where do you think the skull photographs come into play? Whether a frontal or posterior view, they show the left side of the skull intact. So you can not rely on an open left side of the skull to get your fingers under the lobes of the skull to lift it very far. No open space on the left side of the skull also means that autopsists most likely could not have maneuvered under the brain like in your example.

Bonus: As I've said a thousand times, 4-5 inches above the EOP is too close to the large "exit" defect to not have that area of the parietal bone shattered like the rest of that area of skull. Humes and Boswell always said that the skull was so shattered they had to do virtually no work with a saw to create a cavity large enough to remove the brain. The skull photographs corroborate this, jagged spiked edges instead of straight saw cuts. Their statements also always indicated that the skull cavity only involved the top-right and occipital sides.

I cannot use my right hand right now, but eventually I can respond with more.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom