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

[manifesto]

Do you see any huge contradictions here?

No. Why should I?

 

[bknight]

- The scientific proof of a rifle shot from in front is in the HSCA acoustic evidence.

Debunked so many times, there was no open mike anywhere close to where it HAD to be.

- IF the Zapruder film is not tampered with, it is also scientific proof of a shot from in front.

Do you have any proof that it was tampered with? There is no scientific proof of a shot hitting JFK from the front.

- IF the Zapruder film is tampered with, that too is scientific proof of a shot from in front. If not, why tamper?

See above

- The overwhelming testimony from almost all of those who observed JFK’s headwounds close up says it was a big gaping hole in the right back of the head —-> shot from in front. Alomost 50 doctors, nurses, forensic pathologists from three hospitals and agents from two federal police agencies.

Why is there no evidence of that "Big Gapping Wound" in the X-rays and images at Bethesda, or any where else, except these witnesses, many of whom are not medical personnel. The HSCA was looking for a conspiracy, the main reason it was formed in the first place. Why didn't they find any x-ray or image of this "Big Gapping Hole"?

- The Parkland doctors press conference stating it was a small round punctuated entrance wound in JFK’s throat —-> shot from in front.

They were trying to save his life not do forensics, using the hole for the tracheotomy.

- Most of the asked witnesses, 52 individuals, saying that shot/s came from the direction of the knoll —-> shot from in front.

The amount has been reduced by your own admission. Ear witnesses were studied by all the examining committees and panels and no one except CT's find any merit in this information.

- The concerted effort, by LIFE and investigating authorities, to conceal the violent thrust back and to the left of JFK’s head when hit by the fatal head shot —-> shot from in front.

The shot occurred behind the road sign. It was impossible for Zapruder to film it. Got any witnesses to this alleged event?

- The false Secret Service agent behind the picket fence showing Secret Sevice credentials to two of the police officers running up there directly after the shooting had stopped —-> shot from in front.

He was a treasury agent. Why is this hard evidence of a shot from the front. Why were no weapons discovered by the policemen? Why is there no evidence in the Limo or the grass area beyond the Limo of ANY bullet? It was searched.

- Multiple testimonies of seeing and smelling gunsmoke on and below the knoll after the shooting ——> shot from in front.

Like most of your eye/ear witnesses, they were wrong. He wasn't shot with a musket.

- Multiple witnesses reporting coaching and threats from police officers when not conforming to the official story of three shots from the TSBD ——> shot from in front.

Got any evidence of this?

- Stealing JFK’s dead body from the Parkland Hospital threatening the coroner with guns so that no autopsy could be done before it left the hospital as the law states ——> shot from in front.

The coroner was threatened, but not by guns, by big SS men. He chose to stand aside rather than confront them.

- Scientific proof of faked x-rays ——> shot from in front.

Got any evidence of this?

Shall I continue?

I don't care, as everything you state has either been debunked for decades and you still pursue them, Why? You are not telling the story as it happened rather as you want to believe it happened.

What more do you need to swing around from denial back to reality? An exhumation of JFK?

That probably won't happen, but it might shut you CT's up.

Good idea. It is about time, isn’t it?

Tell the Kennedy clan, as they hold the rights.

 

[manifesto]

Please continue, and maybe this time provide evidence. Like I said, you hold others to a standard that you are unwilling to provide yourself. You make a bunch of assertions and provide no sources for any of them. One that stands out is the proven fake x-rays. Could you please cite the source and provide this evidence?

Well, here is a peer reviewed paper: https://www.journals.ke-i.org/index.php/mra/article/view/177/78

Let me know if you or anyone else find any errors in it. I highly doubt that you will.

 

[manifesto]

By the way, manifesto would you like to have a go at explaining the methodology behind the analysis of the sounds on the dictabelt (those that were claimed to be gunfire) and why the microphone has to be in certain places at certain times for the analysis to mean anything.

Already done. If you want some clearfications, ask nice and I provide.

But, be specific.

 

[JayUtah]

Well, here is a peer reviewed paper: https://www.journals.ke-i.org/index.php/mra/article/view/177/78

I see no evidence that this paper was peer-reviewed. Please provide additional information to substantiate that claim.

Let me know if you or anyone else find any errors in it.

Let me know if anyone else has actually read it. Are you aware of the tools that let you determine to what extent a work has been cited by others in the field? Could you provide some evidence along those lines that this is accepted work in the field and not simply an outlying work?

 

[JayUtah]

IF the Zapruder film is not tampered with, it is also scientific proof of a shot from in front.

- IF the Zapruder film is tampered with, that too is scientific proof of a shot from in front. If not, why tamper?

This is tantamount to saying it doesn't matter whether the Zapruder film was tampered with; both possibilities lead to the same outcome in your line of reasoning, which makes it a tautology.

Your second premise begs a question. "If not, why tamper?" It's an argument from silence that you patch up by begging the question. If, hypothetically, you could present incontrovertible evidence that the film was doctored, then it's a separate question why it was doctored. That would require developing additional evidence. You just leap from the possibility of tampering to the desired outcome. Not a very logical way to go.

Stealing JFK’s dead body from the Parkland Hospital threatening the coroner with guns so that no autopsy could be done before it left the hospital as the law states ——> shot from in front.

No, again you cite no specific evidence of the alleged motive, so you just once again fill in the motive with your desired conclusion. Begging the question.

What more do you need to swing around from denial back to reality?

No, it's not denialism to point out that your argument isn't as logically strong and as supported by evidence as you seem to believe. Your critics are giving you good rebuttals stemming from logical analysis and examination of your proffered evidence. You on the other hand just seem to be emotionally upset that your reasoning isn't being accepted without question.

 

[RoboTimbo]

- The scientific proof of a rifle shot from in front is in the HSCA acoustic evidence.

Nope. Debunked.

- IF the Zapruder film is not tampered with, it is also scientific proof of a shot from in front.

Are you claiming it is tampered with? It's evidence for Oswald's shot from behind.

- IF the Zapruder film is tampered with, that too is scientific proof of a shot from in front. If not, why tamper?

Are you claiming it's been tampered with? It's evidence for Oswald's shot from behind.

- The overwhelming testimony from almost all of those who observed JFK’s headwounds close up says it was a big gaping hole in the right back of the head —-> shot from in front. Alomost 50 doctors, nurses, forensic pathologists from three hospitals and agents from two federal police agencies.

No, you've failed to make any sort of case for that. Explain.

- The Parkland doctors press conference stating it was a small round punctuated entrance wound in JFK’s throat —-> shot from in front.

You've not established your expertise to interpret that.

- Most of the asked witnesses, 52 individuals, saying that shot/s came from the direction of the knoll —-> shot from in front.

You've proven those witnesses to be incorrect with your dictabelt recording.

- The concerted effort, by LIFE and investigating authorities, to conceal the violent thrust back and to the left of JFK’s head when hit by the fatal head shot —-> shot from in front.

Proving a shot from behind.

- The false Secret Service agent behind the picket fence showing Secret Sevice credentials to two of the police officers running up there directly after the shooting had stopped —-> shot from in front.

You've failed to establish any false SS agent behind the picket fence.

- Multiple testimonies of seeing and smelling gunsmoke on and below the knoll after the shooting ——> shot from in front.

You've shown a fifth generation picture of bushes and called those "gun smoke". LOL.

- Multiple witnesses reporting coaching and threats from police officers when not conforming to the official story of three shots from the TSBD ——> shot from in front.

Which you've failed to establish.

- Stealing JFK’s dead body from the Parkland Hospital threatening the coroner with guns so that no autopsy could be done before it left the hospital as the law states ——> shot from in front.

I'm not sure how you connected two dots that aren't even in the same room here. Must be a CT mindset thing.

- Scientific proof of faked x-rays ——> shot from in front.

CT lunacy.

Shall I continue?

When will you start?

What more do you need to swing around from denial back to reality? An exhumation of JFK?

You've been asked for actual evidence and have yet to provide any.

 

[jeffas69]

No. Why should I?

Which of your HSCA acoustic analysis shots hit the throat from in front? You have been arguing a frontal head shot for some time. The acoustics say only one shot from the front. Should we throw out the acoustic analysis? Or the frontal throat shot? Or the frontal head shot?

This is your "proof" not mine.

 

[tinribmancer]

Say, manifesto. Have you ever been to Dallas? You could test out those "theories" of yours yourself, then.

 

[jeffas69]

Which of your HSCA acoustic analysis shots hit the throat from in front? You have been arguing a frontal head shot for some time. The acoustics say only one shot from the front. Should we throw out the acoustic analysis? Or the frontal throat shot? Or the frontal head shot?

This is your "proof" not mine.

While your at it, if you are going to stick with the front throat shot could you show where the exit wound is? If not would you show where the grassy knoll headshot exit wound is?

Then could you finish addressing smartcooky's entire post? I have given a perfectly valid reason for you to do so. As you requested.

 

[manifesto]

Which of your HSCA acoustic analysis shots hit the throat from in front? You have been arguing a frontal head shot for some time. The acoustics say only one shot from the front. Should we throw out the acoustic analysis? Or the frontal throat shot? Or the frontal head shot?

This is your "proof" not mine.

Wrong.

1. The acoustic evidence is based on test shots only from the 6th floor TSBD and from the picket fence on the knoll. Not from, lets say, the south knoll or anywhere else in and around the Dealey Plaza.

2. Ever heard of silencers?

That is, I do not claim there was additional shots. I claim that the doctors in Trauma room one, trying to save the presidents life, testified to a shot from in front and that this testimony was ignored and/or lied about by one of the doctors, Dr. Perry, when later testifying to the WC, and by LIFE Magazine when saying that JFK turned around 180˚ in the limo when hit in the throat.


- Evidence, not proof of a shot from in front.

- Proof of trying to cover up what they feared was a shot from in front.

 

[traxy]

- The scientific proof of a rifle shot from in front is in the HSCA acoustic evidence.

Which will be entertained as valid as soon as you can put HB McLain in the proper spot, and that the impulses could only have been caused by gunshot. So far you can't prove either, and all available evidence suggests McLain WASN'T where he needed to be, and scientific studies have shown that the impulses WERE NOT gunshots, so it isn't proof of anything.

- IF the Zapruder film is not tampered with, it is also scientific proof of a shot from in front.

- It has NOT been tampered with

- It is in fact evidence of only a shot from behind. Kennedy's head movements and the debris field, according to ballistic wound experts, whom I've cited and quoted directly, show that the shot came from above and behind. Neurologists and pathologists, whom I've also cited and quoted directly, confirm that Kennedy's reaction after the headshot is consistent with a neurological reaction to severe brain injury.

The photographic record of the assassination, which includes:

- The Zapruder Film
- The Nix Film
- The Muchmore Film
- The Moorman Polaroid
- The autopsy photos
- The autopsy x-rays

all confirm that the shot came from behind, and that the rear of the head stayed completely intact. The x-rays and autopsy photos have been authenticated by a group of radiologists and photography experts. They found that the x-rays and autopsy photographs are legitimate, that they are unaltered, and that they are definitively images of John F Kennedy. I have cited them and provided you a link to a detailed report outlining their methods and conclusions.

 

[Tomtomkent]

Wrong.

1. The acoustic evidence is based on test shots only from the 6th floor TSBD and from the picket fence on the knoll. Not from, lets say, the south knoll or anywhere else in and around the Dealey Plaza.

2. Ever heard of silencers?

That is, I do not claim there was additional shots. I claim that the doctors in Trauma room one, trying to save the presidents life, testified to a shot from in front and that this testimony was ignored and/or lied about by one of the doctors, Dr. Perry, when later testifying to the WC, and by LIFE Magazine when saying that JFK turned around 180˚ in the limo when hit in the throat.


- Evidence, not proof of a shot from in front.

- Proof of trying to cover up what they feared was a shot from in front.

By all means, describe the impulse patterns expected from suppressed gunshot and how it would be identified on the dicta belt?

 

[Disbelief]

Well, here is a peer reviewed paper: https://www.journals.ke-i.org/index.php/mra/article/view/177/78

Let me know if you or anyone else find any errors in it. I highly doubt that you will.

No, no, no, no, no. That's not how it works according to you. You can't drop a link and demand it is read, you need to quote the relevant parts so we can discuss. I'm not doing your homework for you. I'm demanding the same standard from you that you demand from others.

Remember quotes like this:

Does it? So far you have just been babbleing about how great and scientificallistecly it is.

Show me. Cite the relevant parts. Explain. Argue for its veracity.

I neither can or should do it for you.

 

[No Other]

I see no evidence that this paper was peer-reviewed. Please provide additional information to substantiate that claim.

It took a total of 15 seconds to find evidence from... https://www.journals.ke-i.org/# The Medical Research Archives (MRA) is an international scientific peer-reviewed journal committed to publishing research and clinical medicine in a timely and professional format. MRA is published both in print and online.

 

[jeffas69]

Wrong.

1. The acoustic evidence is based on test shots only from the 6th floor TSBD and from the picket fence on the knoll. Not from, lets say, the south knoll or anywhere else in and around the Dealey Plaza.

Your acoustic evidence says there were only four (five if you go by Bug Dr.) shots. Remember they were supposedly unique from all other sounds. Still only one from the front. Any solid evidence for this third or fourth rifle position? Bug Dr. says two rifles from behind. Now you are adding an additional rifle to the front.

2. Ever heard of silencers?

I have heard of silencers. Have you heard of one that completely eliminates noise? A "silenced shot would have to show up on your acoustic evidence. It should also look more like a shot on the waveforms since it wouldn't be as far over the limits of the microphone or the radio circuitry. So where is it? What is the time reference in relation to the other shots. Where is the exit wound?

That is, I do not claim there was additional shots. I claim that the doctors in Trauma room one, trying to save the presidents life, testified to a shot from in front and that this testimony was ignored and/or lied about by one of the doctors, Dr. Perry, when later testifying to the WC, and by LIFE Magazine when saying that JFK turned around 180˚ in the limo when hit in the throat.

Then why point to it as evidence? I have read Perry's testimony I do not see the lie. Could you be more specific?

Do you have that evidence for the exit wound from the grassy knoll frontal head shot?

While your at it could you finish the response to Smartcooky's post. You were given the necessary reason.

Hank also has a question. Post #3839

And don't forget Jay!

 

[RoboTimbo]

It took a total of 15 seconds to find evidence from... https://www.journals.ke-i.org/# The Medical Research Archives (MRA) is an international scientific peer-reviewed journal committed to publishing research and clinical medicine in a timely and professional format. MRA is published both in print and online.

Show me. Cite the relevant parts. Explain. Argue for its veracity.

I neither can or should do it for you.

 

[Axxman300]

- The scientific proof of a rifle shot from in front is in the HSCA acoustic evidence.

Nope. The recording was from an Officer at the Trade Mart. Debunked, you fail

- IF the Zapruder film is not tampered with, it is also scientific proof of a shot from in front.

Nope. We've posted the science, shot came from behind, you ignore it, you fail

- IF the Zapruder film is tampered with, that too is scientific proof of a shot from in front. If not, why tamper?

It wasn't tampered with or altered in any way. You fail

- The overwhelming testimony from almost all of those who observed JFK’s headwounds close up says it was a big gaping hole in the right back of the head —-> shot from in front. Alomost 50 doctors, nurses, forensic pathologists from three hospitals and agents from two federal police agencies.

Not really, and most of those people had never seen a head-wound like that, plus it was shocking to see the President like that, and humans will be humans. You fail

- The Parkland doctors press conference stating it was a small round punctuated entrance wound in JFK’s throat —-> shot from in front.

ER doctors are not pathologists, no time to inspect the wounds due to trying to save JFK's life. Forensic tests and fiber evidence prove front neck wound was an exit wound. You fail

- Most of the asked witnesses, 52 individuals, saying that shot/s came from the direction of the knoll —-> shot from in front.

The actual number is much less, as has been repeatedly shown, and only once claimed to see a gunman - years after the fact - while interviewed on the day of the assassination she said it came from behind. Forensics shows the 2 shots came from the TSBD. You fail

- The concerted effort, by LIFE and investigating authorities, to conceal the violent thrust back and to the left of JFK’s head when hit by the fatal head shot —-> shot from in front.

Nope. You've yet to post evidence where anyone at LIFE confirmed this, and the truth is this is just another paranoid CT delusion. You fail

- The false Secret Service agent behind the picket fence showing Secret Sevice credentials to two of the police officers running up there directly after the shooting had stopped —-> shot from in front.

He was a Treasury Agent. You fail

- Multiple testimonies of seeing and smelling gunsmoke on and below the knoll after the shooting ——> shot from in front.

Only one person reported smoke and he was 100 yards away, and modern guns use smokeless powder. Those who smelled smoke were the people in open cars who drove under the open 6th floor window of the TSBD where Oswald had just fired three shots. This one is a triple fail

- Multiple witnesses reporting coaching and threats from police officers when not conforming to the official story of three shots from the TSBD ——> shot from in front.

One man's coaching is another man's trying to get a clear statement from someone who was likely confused during a traumatic incident.

- Stealing JFK’s dead body from the Parkland Hospital threatening the coroner with guns so that no autopsy could be done before it left the hospital as the law states ——> shot from in front.

That was ALL JACKIE KENNEDY'S DOING. Nobody was going to tell her no.

- Scientific proof of faked x-rays ——> shot from in front.

Comedy gold right here, but you still fail

Shall I continue?

Oh god, please keep going. I miss the Pink Panther movies.

What more do you need to swing around from denial back to reality? An exhumation of JFK?

At this point we demand a time machine, a couple of cases of good Cognac, and some comfortable patio chairs for the grass at Dealey Plaza.

 

[JayUtah]

[deleted, duplicate]

 

[JayUtah]

The Medical Research Archives (MRA) is an international scientific peer-reviewed journal committed to publishing research and clinical medicine in a timely and professional format. MRA is published both in print and online.[/B]

I said I see no evidence that the article was peer-reviewed. Not everything that is published in a "peer-reviewed" journal is peer reviewed. Note the different categories of submission, some of which would be susceptible to review and some would not. And while many journals -- especially the newly sprung-up such as this one -- claim to be peer-reviewed, not all are. Do you know KEI's reputation in the publishing industry? I do. No list of reviewers appears anywhere on the web site or in conjunction with the article. There is an editorial board, which is different than a review board. And none of them has relevant qualifications. So your challenge is to get me the verifiable name of one person who reviewed this particular article, or in fact any article in this entire journal.

The author David Mantik is well known in the JFK conspiracy circles. While the article purports to be about diagnostic radiology, Dr. Mantik's training and certifications are in therapeutic radiology connected with oncology -- the use of radiation to treat cancer. That's as far as you can get from diagnostic radiology, which is an entirely different science. He claims radiology as a specialty, but has no board certification in it and no relevant publications that are not centered on the JFK assassination. This is perhaps why he chose to publish his findings in an obscure journal whose editorial board would not be well situated to interpret his findings and who would be hungry to publish anything. Peers in this case would be radiologists, not radiology oncologists. Can you provide any evidence that a single radiologist has read this article?