• 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.
No measurements. The language used in the autopsy is 'slightly above the EOP', with 'slightly' undefined. It is CT pretense that this equates to right next to the EOP. The problem arises because Humes didn't take measurements, but relied on Boswell's notes for that, and Boswell didn't note the distance, if it was measured, between the EOP and the wound.

So hence the totally imprecise fudge-factor word 'slightly'.

CTs have been defining that to mean one thing, and one thing only, but that's solely their interpretation, it's not from anything in the autopsy.

And of course, at the same time they quote the autopsy to put the entrance wound in the back of the head, they also quote some of the Parkland doctors who claimed the exit wound was back there. They somehow think both wounds can co-exist in the same part of the head - a small entry wound and a massive exit wound.

They can't.

This is something CTs need to resolve if they are going to quote both the autopsy and some of the Parkland doctors.

Hank

Let me put it this way: If there was a small wound on the back of the head, it was right next to the EOP. I do find it hard to think that Humes, Boswell, Finck, Burkley, Boyers, Kellerman, O'Neill, and Lipsey could all be lying about a small hole being there.

Of course, you already know how many times the autopsy pathologists screamed from the highest mountains that the wound was next to the EOP and that the cowlick entry theory is a misinterpretation.
 
Not only did we cover most or all of this in the past, you still haven't supplied one iota of evidence supporting your claims despite numerous requests to do so. Quibble some more over how I point out you failing in that regard:

<various quotes from manifesto>

Hank

Quoting the quote - an excellent way to show manifesto demands things that are the exact thing he fails at providing himself.
 
Let me put it this way: If there was a small wound on the back of the head, it was right next to the EOP. I do find it hard to think that Humes, Boswell, Finck, Burkley, Boyers, Kellerman, O'Neill, and Lipsey could all be lying about a small hole being there.

Of course, you already know how many times the autopsy pathologists screamed from the highest mountains that the wound was next to the EOP and that the cowlick entry theory is a misinterpretation.
Where the three autopsy pathologists placed the small head wound versus where the government wishes it was:

[IMGw=600]https://i.imgur.com/rn3fSsN.jpg[/IMGw]

[IMGw=600]https://i.imgur.com/vYA5MKK.jpg[/IMGw]



Quiet in the cheap seats... you're just a sideshow at this point
 
Let me put it this way: If there was a small wound on the back of the head, it was right next to the EOP. I do find it hard to think that Humes, Boswell, Finck, Burkley, Boyers, Kellerman, O'Neill, and Lipsey could all be lying about a small hole being there.

Of course, you already know how many times the autopsy pathologists screamed from the highest mountains that the wound was next to the EOP and that the cowlick entry theory is a misinterpretation.

The entry wound is located approximately 2.5cm laterally and to the right and slightly above the EOP. My guess it that it was never measured for the exact location because there was only the ONE BULLET WOUND TO THE HEAD.

They took photographs for reference, and they have the x-rays.

What they don't have is any evidence of a shot from the front, or a second bullet to the head.
 
Let me put it this way: If there was a small wound on the back of the head, it was right next to the EOP. I do find it hard to think that Humes, Boswell, Finck, Burkley, Boyers, Kellerman, O'Neill, and Lipsey could all be lying about a small hole being there.

Of course, you already know how many times the autopsy pathologists screamed from the highest mountains that the wound was next to the EOP and that the cowlick entry theory is a misinterpretation.

Are you saying that manifesto ;) is incorrect in claiming a bullet from the front?
 
Hah, that is really funny. YOU BOLDED THE WRONG PART. It was the other (obvious) part he was referring to.
No, you are as usual flaunting your reading impairment in public. The bolded part is bolded because it is there he/she makes the statement inferred from the first part, to which I agree.

Channel 1, which carried routine police radio traffic, it was NOT being used by any of the motorcycles in the motorcade.
The mike was stucked on that channel, not used.

Channel 2 was used for the Presidential motorcade traffic.
Yes?

If gunfire was going to be recorded at all, it would have been on Ch2 not Ch1. This is a really big clue as to why the dictabelt recordings are worse than useless as evidence of anything.
Not if this particular mike was stucked on channel-1, no. Not during the ca five minutes it was stucked, no.

IMO, and in the opinions of most people who have an ounce of commonsense, the open mic on Ch1 was most likely on a Police motorcycle parked in an underground garage being used as a Police staging area the Trade Mart, and here are the reasons why this is the case:

a. On the dictabelt channel is the sound of motorcycle sirens. That sound is heard to rise in pitch, and then fall in pitch, the classic result of the Doppler Effect as the vehicle sounding the siren, first approaches the microphone, and then recedes from it. That would put the microphone somewhere between Dealey Plaza and Parklands hospital - Trade Mart was between Dealey Plaza and Parklands Hospital. If the open microphone had been on Officer HB McLeans's motorcycle, or indeed on any of the other escort motorcycles, the sirens would have been heard at a steady pitch, with no Doppler Effect.
Wrong. The mike on the bike could as well have been passing the sirens on the Stemmons freeway on its way to Parkland. McLain was one of the first officers on the spot, helping Mrs. Kennedy out of the limo at Parkland. It could also be sirens traveling in the opposite direction since both the chief of DPD and the chief of the Sheriffs Department radioed their troops to the area behind the picket fence seconds after the shooting.

Ca 3-4 minutes in to the 5 minutes the stuck mike was recording, the HQ radio operator asked every officer on channel-2 to tell the officer on Stemmons Freeway with the stuck mike occupying channel-1, to turn it of. How did the operator know it was on the Stemmons Freeway? All the sirens.

b. Officer McLain said that he heard DPD Chief Curry give the order "Go to the hospital..." That broadcast by Chief Curry was on Ch2. If McLain's radio was jamming Ch1, how could he hear a message on Ch2? When the microphone on, the transmitter is keyed and the receiver does not receive anything.
I wouldn’t trust anything McLain was saying he ”remembered”.

1. Memory fades as time goes by. Especially when it comes to details.

2. McLain are himself admitting that he did ’adjust’ his ’memory’ when realizing it lends itself to the conclusion that the assassination was performed by a conspiracy, which he is reportedly firmly rejecting.

3. Looking at a presentation from Donald Thomas at AARC, in the round of questions after the presentation, a woman in the public are telling the auditorium that she met McLain in Dallas. He had told her that government guys from the get go was at the DPD HQ telling the officers what they had seen and not seen. Very intimidating. (36.59) https://youtu.be/7W_qgeHG7bw

c. Steve Barber, an outstanding and knowledgeable researcher, and a trained musician was able to pick out a vital phrase on Ch1. Right at the point in the recording when the shots were supposed to have been found by the HSCA's audio experts, he heard a barely audible transmission, a voice saying "Hold everything secure...until Homicide and other investigators can get there........" . That transmission was actually made by Sheriff Decker, and that transmission had actually been made on channel 2, and further, this statement was known to have been made well after the shooting had already occurred. This timing was confirmed by the appearance of the "Stemmens Phrase", clearly heard later on both channels.
Yes, this crosstalk would be proof of the cha-1 recording of the suspect five impulsepatterns being recorded ca 1 minute after the real event IF THE TWO CHANNELS WAS IN SYNC. They were NOT in sync.

If instead using the crosstalk closest to the real event, ”I’ll check it”, the match is perfect. The five suspect rifle shots are recorded exactly in the time span where the real shooting took place. End of story.

Now the question was "How did Sheriff Decker's voice come to be recorded on the wrong channel, at the exact time the shooting occurred?"
I’m afraid that you haven’t grasped even the most basics of the material you are discussing with such a fervor.

No, Deckers voice was recorded on ”the wrong channel” (crosstalk) ca one minute after the five suspect impulsepatterns. Since Decker is ordering his men up on the knoll seconds after the shooting it is a good marker for the real shooting event = the five suspect impulse patterns was recorded one minute after the real event. IF in sync.

The answer to that is very simple.

At the Trade Mart, in the Police staging area, there was a loudspeaker mounted on a pillar. That speaker was blasting out the transmissions of the motorcade radio traffic on Ch 2. The open mic on Ch 1 was picking up these sounds, static and general noise in and around the Trade Mart. It was almost certainly the three-wheeler motorcycle of DPD Officer Leslie Beilharz (who was assigned to the area around the Trade Mart) who had the stuck microphone. Beilharz was well known as having a habit of "whistling while he worked" and someone whistling is heard on the dictabelt channel.

And that about wraps it up for the dictabelt (so-called) evidence.
As I said, the Decker crosstalk position on channel-1 is not in sync.

End of story.

And no, no Trade Mart loud speaker needed for crosstalk to appear. It happened all the time everywhere with police radios relatively close to each other.

And, yes, McLain testified to the HSCA that his mike had a chronic tendency to get stuck all the time. And, he testified that he would probably have been on channel-1 during the motorcade.

Sworn testimony.
 
JFK CTs exhibit all the hallmarks of irrationality. They start with the conclusion that JFK was the victim of a conspiracy, then....

► anything that disproves this conclusion is, by default fake or wrong.

► anything that supports the conclusion is by default fact and unquestionably correct.

► any source or person supporting the conclusion is lauded as a world leading expert in the relevant field

► all CT sources tell the gospel truth

► all factual historical sources are evil liars in cahoots with the evil gubmint

► any source or person opposing the conclusion has a hidden agenda, or is a paid shill of the conspirators or is politically motivated.

► any person who cannot be faulted is attacked and has their character assassinated

► any evidence that cannot be rebutted, from a source that cannot be faulted is simply handwaved away

What a terribly sad way to go through life.
 
Last edited:
Where the three autopsy pathologists placed the small head wound versus where the government wishes it was:

Why are you presuming that 15-year after-the-fact recollections are better than the radiographs and photographs taken on the night of the crime?

Or to quote your fellow CT-in-arms:
Memory fades as time goes by. Especially when it comes to details.

Not just in this case, but in any case? Do we discard the hard evidence simply because someone has a contrary recollection 15 years later? Or is this 'special logic' only to be applied when the suspect's initials are LHO and the victim's initials are JFK?

Let us know how you generally advise criminologists to proceed when investigating a crime. Collect the hard evidence, wait 15 years, collect the recollections, and then discard the hard evidence that conflicts with the recollections?

Is that really the best way to proceed, or only in this case?

Or not even in this case?

If the latter, why are you bothering to quote recollections from 15 years after the fact?

Hank
 
Last edited:
Another evidence-free post from manifesto, containing nothing more than obfuscation, bare assertions, un-evidenced claims and an outright lies.

Par for the CT course!
Let me know if if there is anything in my post that you need to see supporting evidence for. One issue at the time.

No worries. I provide.

(I should point out that smartcooky had no problems with the post I responded to. Not a trace of supporting evidence. But I guess he/she is somewhat skewed in the perceptive faculties.)
 
Let me put it this way: If there was a small wound on the back of the head, it was right next to the EOP. I do find it hard to think that Humes, Boswell, Finck, Burkley, Boyers, Kellerman, O'Neill, and Lipsey could all be lying about a small hole being there.

So the Parkland doctors were wrong about a massive exit wound there? Thanks, we're making real progress, right up until you realize you just conceded eyewitness recollections aren't exactly written in stone, and then you (or Manifesto) starts complaining about the massive ex
it wound in the back of the head seen by some Parkland doctors. Or try to salvage the recollections of the above people from a decade and a half after the assassination.


Of course, you already know how many times the autopsy pathologists screamed from the highest mountains that the wound was next to the EOP and that the cowlick entry theory is a misinterpretation.

Asked and answered... covered multiple times in the past... recollections from 15 years after the event (1978) or 33 years after the event (1996) hardly qualify as 'the best evidence'. But that's all you got. Failed memories that the ARRB Final Report warned you against (and you consistently ignore):
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.

Hank
 
The Warren Commission agreed that an entry wound was situated anatomically next to the EOP as described by Humes and Finck to them.

The point is that the blood spatter visible in Z313 is instant when the bullet hits the target = shot from in front, not a delayed effect from a shot from behind.

MicahJava and manifesto, which of you is correct?
 
Another evidence-free post from manifesto, containing nothing more than obfuscation, bare assertions, un-evidenced claims and an outright lies.

Par for the CT course!
Let me know if if there is anything in my post that you need to see supporting evidence for.

Hilarious! He just told you none of it was sourced, none of it had any evidence, all of it was just a long list of conspiracy assertions, obviously gleaned from one or more conspiracy sites.

So the obvious answer to what he needs supporting evidence for is 'all of it'.


One issue at the time. No worries. I provide.

That's funny. I should point out that you had no such limitations when you were posting that long Gish Gallop of unproven, unsourced conspiracy allegations. But to provide evidence for your claims? Suddenly, your rule is 'one issue at a time'.

We see right through this nonsense.

Hank
 
Last edited:
JFK CTs exhibit all the hallmarks of irrationality. They start with the conclusion that JFK was the victim of a conspiracy, then....

► anything that disproves this conclusion is, by default fake or wrong.
Not by default, no. By looking at it and discover its flaws.

► anything that supports the conclusion is by default fact and unquestionably correct.
Goes both way.

► any source or person supporting the conclusion is lauded as a world leading expert in the relevant field
Only when this is actually so. The HSCA acoustic experts, for example.

► all CT sources tell the gospel truth
All Lone Nutters are calling all critical of the official version/s of events for ”CT’s”.

► all factual historical sources are evil liars in cahoots with the evil gubmint
I have studied History, History of Religion, History of Science, History of Ideas a very long time in university and after university, and you are right, very little of the stuff discussed in this thread and the RFK-thread is touched upon in main stream angloamerican schoolarship and education.

This have to be by (systemic) design.

► any source or person opposing the conclusion has a hidden agenda, or is a paid shill of the conspirators or is politically motivated.
Hard to tell, but if you are not paid, you are certainly ”useful idiots”. There are no other reasonable explanation

► any person who cannot be faulted is attacked and has their character assassinated
Coming from you, it is a bit suprising I must say. In the middle of your collective ’ad hominem rant of the week’.

► any evidence that cannot be rebutted, from a source that cannot be faulted is simply handwaved away
No. Ask me and I provide. Concidering your multitude and the avalanche of crap each one of you are producing, it can take time. Remind me and I provide. Always.

What a terribly sad way to go through life.
Indeed.
 
3. Looking at a presentation from Donald Thomas at AARC, in the round of questions after the presentation, a woman in the public are telling the auditorium that she met McLain in Dallas. He had told her that government guys from the get go was at the DPD HQ telling the officers what they had seen and not seen. Very intimidating.

Oh, another game of 'TELEPHONE' being cited as evidence?

Sorry, it's not.

What an unknown, unnamed woman from the audience claims McClain told her decades after the fact is not evidence. It's hearsay.

I know this. Everyone here knows this. Even you know this.

But when you got nothing, you got nothing to lose.

And you got nothing.

Hank
 
Hard to tell, but if you are not paid, you are certainly ”useful idiots”. There are no other reasonable explanation.

That's the LOGICAL FALLACY of a False Dilemma. You had to know it was a false dilemma as you wrote it. I've pointed out the definition often enough to you: https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/94/False-Dilemma
Description: When only two choices are presented yet more exist, or a spectrum of possible choices exists between two extremes. False dilemmas are usually characterized by “either this or that” language, but can also be characterized by omissions of choices. Another variety is the false trilemma, which is when three choices are presented when more exist.

One explanation you always avoid: We have studied the evidence and reached a different conclusion than you, and that's why we're more than willing to discuss the evidence with you. And why we're always asking for your evidence, and pointing out that you're utilizing quotes out of context, hearsay, bare assertions, and logical fallacies instead of evidence.

It's also of course poisoning the well and ad hominem. If you're right, you should be able to rebut our points, not simply question our motives and call us names.

Hank
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom