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

[traxy]

No.

Yes.

We've provided everything a prosecuting attorney would ask for when trying a murder case.

Were there witnesses that saw the shooter? Does our suspect match their description?

Yes, and yes. Multiple witnesses saw the gunman, Oswald fits the descriptions provided.

Can we place the suspect at the scene? Does he have an alibi during the shooting?

Yes we can definitively place him in the depository. Better than that, he was definitively at the sixth floor window within hours of his prints being lifted from boxes arranged around it. He had no verifiable alibi.

Did we recover the murder weapon? Can it be conclusively linked to the shooting?

Yes, a weapon was recovered from the same window we know Oswald was at. Yes, that weapon links to every recovered shell and fragment large enough to have rifling marks on it.

Can we link the suspect to the murder weapon?

Yes. Every available piece of evidence points to Oswald and only Oswald. The order form, the money order, the PO box, the Hiddell ID, the backyard photos, the statements of his wife, the statements of the Paines, all link Oswald AND ONLY Oswald to the rifle.

Can we come up with a plausible explanation for how the weapon got to the murder scene?

Yup. Paper bag, prints all over it, fibers inside it, "curtain rods" lie, Buell Fraser's statements, Linnie May Randall's statements, all paint a pretty plausible explanation for how the rifle got to the depository.

Did the suspect leave prints or other identifiable markings tying him to the crime?

Yup, palm print on the rifle, fingerprints on the rifle, fingerprints in the snipers nest window, fingerprints on the paper bag on the sixth floor, fibers in the paper bag, fibers in the butt of the gun, all point to Oswald.

Did the suspect show consciousness of guilt after the crime?

Yup. Fled the scene within 3 minutes, armed himself, shot a cop, snuck into a theater to get off the street, attacked other cops on the theater.

This is just scratching the surface. There is so much more than this, these are just the bullet points. You can attempt to pick holes at this, but you can't make any of it go away, and more importantly, you can't produce a shred of evidence implicating a different shooter.

 

[MicahJava]

Yes, and he did. The 6.5x52mm round fractured upon impact, and combined with cavitation, and the angle of his head sent the bullet straight through.

The brain sketch proves this as does the Zapruder film.

Denial is often associated with failure.

[IMGw=500]https://i.imgur.com/IogtQIu.jpg[/IMGw]

 

[manifesto]

What difference does it make? Oswald could have hit either spot from his vantage point.

Both investigations agreed to a single headshot from the depository, as did the Clarke Panel and the Rockefeller Commission. That's all that matters.

What matters is that the three pathologists who did the autopsy on JFK must have collectivele positioned an entrance hole in the opposite part of the back of the head, if the x-rays are genuine.

A little child couldn’t do a worse autopsy if this is what happened.

Are you claiming that this is what happened? They, collectively, misplaced the entrance wound from the lower part of the back of the head, when it was actually in the uppermost part of the back of head? Ca 11 cm above and 4 cm to the left on the midline?

Slightly above the EOP? Are you serious?

 

[Disbelief]

It's a theory in the sense that it can only be explained by a conspiracy.

Ah, so the volumes of the Warren Commission are useless to you, because your theory is "eop wound." Really that is not a theory and you need to flesh it out to try and be taken seriously. If you were really dedicated to righting a wrong and opening the world's eyes, you would have a theory that fits the evidence better and explains everything in detail. That would go a lot further in making your case then claiming that you know more about the autopsies than those who performed it.

 

[Axxman300]

I have named the chief orchestrators of the cover up = at least accessories after the fact = guilty in the conspiracy behind the assassination. I’ll do it again:

Lyndon Baines Johnson - The White house

Nope. LBJ wasn't dumb enough to initiate such a plan let alone orchestrate it. You only have to look at Vietnam to understand the man's ineptitude for strategy, detail, planning, and execution. He didn't benefit financially, and ended up dropping out of the 1968 race because he knew which way the wind was blowing.

J. Edgar Hoover - FBI

Nope. Hoover was a rabid anti-communist. His FBI continued to try to link Oswald to the Cubans AND the Mafia right up until his death. The National Archives records between 11/22/1963 and 12/1965 detail the Bureau's hunt for a co-conspirator(s) with demands from the director's office to shake down their CI's again and again looking for a connection to Cuba or the Soviets.

Documents from 1967 through 1972 show that the FBI ran down every lead that came in to their field offices across the country no matter if it was a mob CI, or some psychic.

The facts do not support your allegation.

Allen Dulles - CIA

Dulles was not in the CIA at the time of the assassination. Dulles didn't want to be on the Warren Commission, but took the position at RFK's personal request.

 

[traxy]

What matters is that the three pathologists who did the autopsy on JFK must have collectivele positioned an entrance hole in the opposite part of the back of the head, if the x-rays are genuine.

A spot slightly above and to the right of the EOP vs the cowlick entry wound seen on the photos and x-rays is a difference of 3 or 4 inches max.

Given the decimated state of Kennedy's skull, the autopsy being rushed by the waiting Kennedy family and the lack of experience Boswell and Humes had evaluating gunshots, it's entirely plausible their measurements were off. The dirty little secret of most autopsies is they make mistakes all the time.

 

[RoboTimbo]

How about Lone nutters finally provide some evidence.

On the contrary, I’ve read just about everything there is that I could find on CT loon sites.

And, it ain’t pretty.

FTFY. CT lunacy never is.

 

[MicahJava]

Ah, so the volumes of the Warren Commission are useless to you, because your theory is "eop wound." Really that is not a theory and you need to flesh it out to try and be taken seriously. If you were really dedicated to righting a wrong and opening the world's eyes, you would have a theory that fits the evidence better and explains everything in detail. That would go a lot further in making your case then claiming that you know more about the autopsies than those who performed it.

The Warren Commission agreed that an entry wound was situated anatomically next to the EOP as described by Humes and Finck to them. It was the Clark Panel and HSCA that came up with the "4-inch above the EOP theory" to reconcile the fact that an entry wound from a high-powered 6.5 round in that location could not have exited the top of the head and replicated the official film evidence.

 

[Axxman300]

Denial is often associated with failure.

[IMGw=500]https://i.imgur.com/IogtQIu.jpg[/IMGw]

The entry point on those photos is too low.

So failure is often associated with failure.

 

[manifesto]

It is exactly ad hominem because it ignores the merits of the argument and focuses on supposed characteristics of the person making it. "That's exactly the kind of argument the CIA would use," could be a textbook example of the Ad Hominem fallacy. It doesn't discuss whether the argument has merit, regardless of what you might think morally of the person or group making it.

No. It focuses on the type methods used to counter critique of the WCR and later other ’investigative’ bodies instigated by the authorities.

Same MO.

Only to people who focus on the persons of their opponents and not the arguments.

But, it is the arguments and methods used, that is the focus of the critique. The obvious similarities.

Read it again.

Your hyperbole is irrelevant. He's focusing on it because it's a dishonest debate tactic and logical fallacy.

If someone is complaining on something but not being specific, just complaining in general, it is whining. Do you have a more, pleseant, word? Name it and I promise to have a look at it.

 

[manifesto]

The entry point on those photos is too low.

So failure is often associated with failure.

Not according to the three pathologist performing the autopsy at the Bethesda.

They were all drunk? Like the Secret Service agents in the motorcade?

 

[RoboTimbo]

Could Oswald have created a small wound next to the EOP without a blow-out in the face?

Another CT who doesn't seem to have read anything but CT loon nonsense and therefore is ill equipped to answer the questions that destroy their religion.

 

[traxy]

Not according to the three pathologist performing the autopsy at the Bethesda.

They were all drunk? Like the Secret Service agents in the motorcade?

Nope, just made a slight mistake in measurement, to the tune of a couple inches.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Why, indeed?

Since you know nothing about the assassination beyond what the one CT website tells you to think, you might start with the Warren Commission Report.

 

[manifesto]

FTFY. CT lunacy never is.

Ah, that is such a waterproof way of winning an argument, isn’t it. Edit your opponents text and give it a devastating blow.

Straw man taken to a new level.

Can’t lose.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Not according to the three pathologist performing the autopsy at the Bethesda.

They were all drunk? Like the Secret Service agents in the motorcade?

What were the findings of the autopsy you are citing?

 

[manifesto]

Nope, just made a slight mistake in measurement, to the tune of a couple inches.

Slight? The opposite side of the back of the head? It’s like living in a suburb of Tokyo claiming to live ”slightly” outside Melbourne.

Slight, indeed.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Ah, that is such a waterproof way of winning an argument, isn’t it. Edit your opponents text and give it a devastating blow.

Straw man taken to a new level.

Can’t lose.

You are whining. Explain.

 

[traxy]

Slight? The opposite side of the back of the head? It’s like living in a suburb of Tokyo claiming to live ”slightly” outside Melbourne.

Slight, indeed.

Nope. Not even close.

I just measured the distance from my EOP to my cowlick. It was 4 inches. Then I moved to what I considered "slightly above and to the right" of my EOP, the distance to my cowlick dropped to 2 and a half inches.

So the autopsy doctors measurements were out by a couple inches. So what?

 

[Disbelief]

The Warren Commission agreed that an entry wound was situated anatomically next to the EOP as described by Humes and Finck to them. It was the Clark Panel and HSCA that came up with the "4-inch above the EOP theory" to reconcile the fact that an entry wound from a high-powered 6.5 round in that location could not have exited the top of the head and replicated the official film evidence.

You still miss the point. Come up with a theory and use the evidence to point to why your theory is correct. Open the world's eyes and break the case open, you'd be a multimillionaire.