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

[manifesto]

Where did I say that?

It was a question. Keen to answer?

Where did I say that?

It was a question? Keen to answer?

For the third time, Kennedy's feelings toward secrecy are not as monochromatic as his first sentence would suggest.

Would it? Explain.

That's why he said all the other sentences that explain his feelings in more nuance. That was Hank's entire point.

You are saying that the quote convey some degree of ”monochromatic” feelings. Why is that?

Your inability to accurately summarize what someone else has written or said.

That would be correct only if the quote did not convey JFK’s contention that ”the very word ’secrecy’ is repugnant in a free and open society”. That the quote is misleadingregarding his true message in the speech.

You say this is so?

You seem fond of the word "whine" when a less emotionally laden word would work. A lot of your argument seems to be wrapped up in attaching these unwarranted emotional appendages to what your critics say.

Why is that?

Thank you for your thoughts on my feelings. No, it is carefully chosen, based on reason and the way the discussion have developed. So far I see only whining pared with truisms and a general sence of complaint.

Let me know when you have critique based on what I say and quote, not your fantasies of it.

 

[manifesto]

Nice rant. It completely fails to address the question, so I can only assume you're trying to blow smoke.

Does it? You wrote:

"Errors" is perhaps the wrong word to describe the two fundamental flaws in the paper. These are:

(1) The paper is discussing a piece of evidence that did not come to light until 1978, and was therefore not involved in formulating the conclusion that Oswald was the killer; yet it treats this as a crucial piece of evidence. It therefore commits the usual conspiracist's fallacy of acting as if only one small piece of evidence has to be overcome to require rejection of the conclusions drawn from numerous sources.​

My answer:

What? It is (looks like) a metal fragment of exactly 6.5 mm = slize of a Carcano bullet = Oswald did it.

Problem is, it wasn’t noted by the x-ray doctors and not by anyone else in connection to the autopsy. Strange, since it shines like a lighthouse and that much smaller fragments were identified.

Not this one? Really?

The first time anyone reportedly identified it was when the Clark panel was created by LBJ in order to counter the Garrison trial against CIA’s Clay Shaw.

Another issue with the fragment is how on earth the incoming bullet could split in two, get a thin disk neately slized of and deposited on the outside of the skull before coming together again, enter the skull in one piece and therafter hit the inside of the wind shield split in two again and land on the limo floor.

Some feat?​

Exactly what are you missing in my answer?

One would have to ask an expert on the equipment to find out what sort of artefacts might arise from the process. Possibilities include foreign objects in the optical path, defects in the optics, defects in the film or inadvertant double exposure during handling, and those are just the ones I can think of on the spur of the moment. Are you an expert on spurious artefacts in X-ray films? I'm not, and neither is the author.

Dave

All of these candidates are excluded in one grand swoop. That is, the object is clearly visible in the x-rays from the side and from in front.

Anything else?

 

[manifesto]

Ah, the joys of quote mining, one of the classic go-to moves of the conspiracy theorist.

Dave

What quote mining are you rejoicing about this time? Keen to explain?

 

[Major Major]

That is why two CTers rarely post at the same time. Their game is too obvious. Neither believe their own blathering.

And the reason they run like rabbits from giving a comprehensive hypothesis for how the assassination occurred. Just give them enough rope....

And if there actually were a conspiracy not previously noted, the accumulation of evidence would converge on one coherent story. Instead, as can be seen, the stories diverge, contradict each other, and otherwise decline into an incoherent chaos.

As the CT progresses, the amount of discordant evidence that has to be handwaved away, hidden, or otherwise discarded becomes so great that the number of presumed conspirators proliferates. It becomes impossible to image them even being able to coordinate, much less keep their coordination from being noticed.

 

[Axxman300]

So, what is it?

It's a bullet fragment. He obviously has the size wrong. The x-ray was taken before the brain was removed.

There was plenty of bullet to go around:

https://catalog.archives.gov/id/305151

https://catalog.archives.gov/id/305165

https://catalog.archives.gov/id/305150

https://catalog.archives.gov/id/305167

Compare the fragments to a mostly intact 6.5x52mm round:

https://catalog.archives.gov/id/305144

Anyone can see there is a lot of bullet material that was never recovered. Not reasonable that there are still fragments to be found in the brain.

No mystery, no cover-up.

 

[Hans]

Why are you get this impression?

By your constant action

Could you be a little bit more specific

The vast majority of your posts here and in other threads. Where you avoid questions or give nonsense answers.

I hope that answers your question but I must say your playing dumb isn't really going to work now is it?

 

[abaddon]

So what really happened on that day in Dealy Plaza? Do you know, manifesto?

Of course not.

 

[manifesto]

Quotes by CTs, yes. But a quote (or a paraphrase) doesn't have to be taken out of context.

Correct. But when the quote is part of a larger text, it is per definition ”out of context”. But I know the meaning of the concept, no worries. Do you?

If so, explain in what way the ”context” is providing another meaning to the quote, not captured by the quote standing alone. Nuance? Lol.

As explained to you by two different people already, Kennedy opened with that, then qualified greatly in the following paragraphs.

How ”greatly” did he qualify it? To the degree that he was NOT of the opinion that ”the very word ’secrecy’ is repugnant to a free and open society”?

If not, why are you whining about my quotation of it?

I said everyone except you apparently. There you go taking quotes out of context again.

Let me rephrase. Somehow the phrase ”everyone but you” when invoked by just about anyone in this thread in support of an opinion, doesn’t have the weight it usually have.

I wonder why.

Only you can explain why you take quotes out of context.

I’ll do that when you have explained why JFK wasn’t of the opinion that ”the very word ’secrecy’ is repugnant in a free and open society”.

You can do it, Hank.

Because the speech he delivered is about newsmen not publishing everything just because it is 'news'. It's about prior restraint in the interest of national security. And taking one sentence out of context doesn't convey that.

The issue is if this message is incompatible with the opinion conveyed in the quote.

Well, is it, Hank?

Already asked and answered.

Where? Cite it.

Quote out of context. He didn't change his mind later. He changed it during the shooting as he honed in on the sounds. By the time of the third shot, he had isolated the shots as coming from the Depository, and said that at the time to a co-worker: "If those were shots, they came from that building" [pointing to the Depository]. He also explained why he was confused by the first sound, because of the echo off the overpass. You ignore Crawford's own testimony of what he heard and saw, and substitute your own interpretations.

No interpretion needed. Straight from the horses mouth:

... evidently the report that I heard, and probably a lot of other people, the officers or the FBI, it evidently was a sound that was reflected by the underpass and therefore came back.​

... evidently ...the officers or the FBI ... it evidently = he was told by the police what it was, echo.

He was there, you were not.

Was this precense on the scene the reason that he edited his experience after talking with the officers or the FBI?

Wait, what? It was claimed that the men on the overpass saw smoke in front of the knoll, so that makes them knoll witnesses.

In connection to hearing shots from there and reporting that it was from there they heard and saw the smoke of shots.

Here we have a witness saying he saw smoke rising above the trees in front of the Depository, and he's not a Depository witness?

Double-standard much?

Only in your desperation. What of this are not clear?

Potter said he could not determine from which direction the shots were fire.​

Again, you don't get to overlay your interpretation of the witness statements and change their meaning. He testified to seeing smoke in front of the TSBD. If that makes him not a TSBD witness, then the witnesses who said they saw smoke in front of the knoll shouldn't be counted as knoll witnesses - unless you're utilizing a double-standard.

Wrong. If he is explicitly stating that he could not determine from which direction the shots were fired, that is his statement.

If you see any signs of him being coached by the interviewer, point them out. Otherwise, the clear statement stands.

So you never read his testimony in full and have no clue how they are quoting out of context. Interesting.

Hank

Well, explain how a ”flurry of shots” jibe with just one shot.

 

[manifesto]

By your constant action



The vast majority of your posts here and in other threads. Where you avoid questions or give nonsense answers.

I hope that answers your question but I must say your playing dumb isn't really going to work now is it?

As I feard. Not a trace of specifics or quotes possible to respond to. Just sweeping ad hominem showing your loyalty to the Mighty Church.

Let me know when you actually have some substance behind your whining.

 

[Hans]

As I feard. Not a trace of specifics or quotes possible to respond to. Just sweeping ad hominem showing your loyalty to the Mighty Church.

Let me know when you actually have some substance behind your whining.

Sure I did you are simply ignoring it. Why is pretending better than the truth?

 

[OKBob]

You are saying that the quote convey some degree of ”monochromatic” feelings. Why is that?

Either you're wilfully misunderstanding Jay or you're just not understanding at all. The first sentence of JFK's speech (actually, it's the first sentence after opening pleasantries) acknowledges an ideal of deliberative democracy: the shunning of forms of secrecy that would keep the public in the dark about current issues. But for much of the rest of his speech, which he was making to journalists, he calls on the press to exercise self-restraint--a degree of patriotic secrecy--in the interests of combatting the communist menace. For example, JFK states: "[...] I am asking the members of the newspaper profession and the industry in this country to reexamine their own responsibilities, to consider the degree and the nature of the present danger [of communism], and to heed the duty of self-restraint which that danger imposes upon us all." Do you see now what Jay means by a polychromatic (that is, complex or nuanced) speech rather than a monochromatic celebration of the open society? Never forget that JFK campaigned as, and once elected remained, a cold warrior.

 

[manifesto]

So what really happened on that day in Dealy Plaza? Do you know, manifesto?

Of course not.

- I know that at least two shooters fired at least 5 rifle shots, four from behind the limo and one, the fatal headshot, from in front behind the picket fence on the knoll.

- That the cover up kicked in as soon the last shot was fired.

- That Oswald did not shoot anyone that day and that he was the patsy he claimed he was.

- That JFK was assassinated in a covert coup d’etat because he was leading the US and the rest of the world in a completely different direction than that of the US National Security State.

- That (elements within) the CIA was behind the planning and execution of the assassination, using the same network/nexus used in the attempts to assassinate Castro.

- That LBJ and Hoover was in on it guaranteeing the cover up.

- That some of the highest military brass was in on it and prepared to intervene if the cover up did not succeed, making the coup overt.

- That heavy elements within MSM in connection with CIA/Dulles was in on it, providing the necessary propaganda and cover up.

- That most of all those who took part in the cover up on different levels did it for reasons of National Security, black mail and/or following orders.

- That the cover up, when institutionalized, became impossible to uncover without a revolutionary change in US society.

Shall I continue?

 

[manifesto]

Sure I did you are simply ignoring it. Why is pretending better than the truth?

Where did you do it? Cite. Explain. Argue.

If not, you are the one pretending, Hans.

 

[traxy]

- I know that at least two shooters fired at least 5 rifle shots, four from behind the limo and one, the fatal headshot, from in front behind the picket fence on the knoll.

- That the cover up kicked in as soon the last shot was fired.

- That Oswald did not shoot anyone that day and that he was the patsy he claimed he was.

- That JFK was assassinated in a covert coup d’etat because he was leading the US and the rest of the world in a completely different direction than that of the US National Security State.

- That (elements within) the CIA was behind the planning and execution of the assassination, using the same network/nexus used in the attempts to assassinate Castro.

- That LBJ and Hoover was in on it guaranteeing the cover up.

- That some of the highest military brass was in on it and prepared to intervene if the cover up did not succeed, making the coup overt.

- That heavy elements within MSM in connection with CIA/Dulles was in on it, providing the necessary propaganda and cover up.

- That most of all those who took part in the cover up on different levels did it for reasons of National Security, black mail and/or following orders.

- That the cover up, when institutionalized, became impossible to uncover without a revolutionary change in US society.

Shall I continue?

What a vivid imagination.

It would be something if you had a shred of proof for any single one of the dozen or more small piles of horse manure you've dropped in this comment, but we both know you don't.

Meanwhile there are the 12 separate pieces of physical evidence (and counting) implicating Lee Harvey Oswald as the lone shooter stacked against your baseless fan fiction.

 

[HSienzant]

- I know that at least two shooters fired at least 5 rifle shots, four from behind the limo and one, the fatal headshot, from in front behind the picket fence on the knoll.

- That the cover up kicked in as soon the last shot was fired.

- That Oswald did not shoot anyone that day and that he was the patsy he claimed he was.

- That JFK was assassinated in a covert coup d’etat because he was leading the US and the rest of the world in a completely different direction than that of the US National Security State.

- That (elements within) the CIA was behind the planning and execution of the assassination, using the same network/nexus used in the attempts to assassinate Castro.

- That LBJ and Hoover was in on it guaranteeing the cover up.

- That some of the highest military brass was in on it and prepared to intervene if the cover up did not succeed, making the coup overt.

- That heavy elements within MSM in connection with CIA/Dulles was in on it, providing the necessary propaganda and cover up.

- That most of all those who took part in the cover up on different levels did it for reasons of National Security, black mail and/or following orders.

- That the cover up, when institutionalized, became impossible to uncover without a revolutionary change in US society.

Shall I continue?

Repeating the same assertions doesn't make those same assertions more true.

We're still looking for the *evidence* of all this. You have made these assertions a number of times, curiously, you never seem to find the time to post the evidence for these - and all your other - assertions.

Let's start small, shall we?

Post the evidence for the above bolded item.

• It's not argument like 'innocent until proven guilty'.

Innocent men are convicted and guilty men go free sometimes. Moreover, 'innocent until proven guilty' is a judicial construct, it has no basis in law when someone is dead.​

​

• It's not quibbling about the evidence and which of it has a legitimate chain of evidence.

The police could have fouled up six ways from Sunday and Oswald could still be guilty.​

​

• It's not an argument that there were multiple shooters.

There could have been multiple shooters and Oswald could have been one of them. ​

• It's not turning it around and claiming we have to prove he's guilty.

That's the logical fallacy of an attempt to shift the burden of proof.​

• It's not changing the subject, it's not quibbling over exactly what was requested and how it was requested, it's not an argument that Oswald couldn't be guilty because ... [insert argument here].

None of those are *evidence*. I'm looking for the *evidence*, and only the *evidence* that establishes your claim is true. ​

Post the *evidence* "That Oswald did not shoot anyone that day and that he was the patsy he claimed he was", as per your assertion.

If you can't, we'll know you're just posting your beliefs, and pretending you can prove them.

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

Well, explain how a ”flurry of shots” jibe with just one shot.

Asked and answered in the prior threads when I dealt with Bob Harris.

You'd know you were wrong already to argue this if you had read the thread as you were advised.

Clint Hill heard only two shots, and a third sound, the impact of the bullet on the head:

The last two sounds were almost simultaneous, as described by numerous witnesses, and the two sounds were the head shot and the impact of the bullet on the head. They also said the timespan between the two shots was about five seconds:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10854954&postcount=118

The sound of the impact on the head versus the sound of the gunshot (the speed of sound is listed as 700 F/S, it should be 700 M/S):
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10837726&postcount=53
The conclusion is therefore off by a factor of three (about 1/10th of a second instead of 1/3rd of a second).

Greer spoke of a concussion, the impact of something on his body:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=10836418&highlight=flurry#post10836418

Kellerman spoke of hearing one early shot, and then two close together (which I reconstruct as the head shot, and the sound of the impact, as mentioned by Clint Hill). He also said 'the flurry' was only a conclusion of his, based on the number of wounds suffered by both men:

== QUOTE ==
Mr. KELLERMAN. Yes. Good. There was enough for me to verify that the man was hit. So, in the same motion I come right back and grabbed the speaker and said to the driver, "Let's get out of here; we are hit," and grabbed the mike and I said, "Lawson, this is Kellerman,"--this is Lawson, who is in the front car. "We are hit; get us to the hospital immediately." Now, in the seconds that I talked just now, a flurry of shells come into the car. I then looked back and this time Mr. Hill, who was riding on the left front bumper of our followup car, was on the back trunk of that car; the President was sideways down into. the back seat.
...
Mr. SPECTER. Now, in your prior testimony you described a flurry of shells into the car. How many shots did you hear after the first noise which you described as sounding like a firecracker?
Mr. KELLERMAN. Mr. Specter, these shells came in all together.
Mr. SPECTER. Are you able to say how many you heard?
Mr. KELLERMAN. I am going to say two, and it was like a double bang--bang, bang.
Mr. SPECTER. You mean now two shots in addition to the first noise?
...
Representative FORD. You don't recall precisely a second shot and a third shot such as you did in the case of the first?
Mr. KELLERMAN. Let me give you an illustration, sir, before I can give you an answer. You have heard the sound barrier, of a plane breaking the sound barrier, bang, bang? That is it.
Representative FORD. This is for the second and the third, or the flurry as you described it?
Mr. KELLERMAN. That is right; that is right, sir.
...
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. Kellerman, you said earlier that there were at least two additional shots. Is there any area in your mind or possibility, as you recollect that situation, that there could have been more than two shots, or are you able to say with any certainty?
Mr. KELLERMAN. I am going to say that I have, from the firecracker report and the two other shots that I know, those were three shots. But, Mr. Specter, if President Kennedy had from all reports four wounds, Governor Connally three, there have got to be more than three shots, gentlemen.
Senator COOPER. What is that answer? What did he say?
Mr. SPECTER. Will you repeat that, Mr. Kellerman?
Mr. KELLERMAN. President Kennedy had four wounds, two in the head and shoulder and the neck. Governor Connally, from our reports, had three. There have got to be more than three shots.
Representative FORD. Is that why you have described--
Mr. KELLERMAN. The flurry.
Representative FORD. The noise as a flurry?
Mr. KELLERMAN. That is right, sir.
Mr. SPECTER. Excuse me, do you have any independent recollection, Mr. Kellerman, of the number of shots, aside from the inference that you make as to how many points of wounds there were?
Mr. KELLERMAN. Could you rephrase that, please?
Mr. SPECTER. Yes. You have drawn a conclusion, in effect, by saying that there were four wounds for the President and three wounds for the Governor; and from that, you say there must have been more than three shots in your opinion or your view. But my question is: Do you have any current recollection of having heard more than three shots?
Mr. KELLERMAN. No. I don't. I will have to say "No."
Senator COOPER. Has that been your recollection from the very time of the shooting?
Mr. KELLERMAN. No, sir; it has been my opinion.
Senator COOPER. Not your opinion, but from the time of the shooting you think then that you heard only three shots, or did you--
Mr. KELLERMAN. Yes.
Senator COOPER. Or did you ever think that you heard more than three?
Mr. KELLERMAN. No, sir; I can't say that, sir.
== UNQUOTE ==

The conspiracy source ignores all the context and pretends Kellerman heard a flurry, when he heard two sounds at the end of the shooting - a double-bang, nearly simultaneous, like the sound of the rifle report and the sound of the impact of the bullet on the head. His 'flurry' description comes from the number of wounds suffered by the two men and is only his opinion. I remind you that eyewitness opinions and conclusions are not evidence. Only expert witnesses can express their opinions and conclusions, and expert opinion and conclusions are evidence.

Clint Hill explained that double-sound (what Kellerman called 'the flurry') the best:
Mr. HILL. ... The second one [shot] had almost a double sound--as though you were standing against something metal and firing into it, and you hear both the sound of a gun going off and the sound of the cartridge hitting the metal place, which could have been caused probably by the hard surface of the head. But I am not sure that that is what caused it.

One shot to the head, one sound of the bullet impact on the head.

The 'flurry' Kellerman mentioned and what is quoted at the conspiracy site is out of context. It was only a conclusion Kellerman drew based on what he learned later, that the two men suffered a number of wounds that Kellerman felt could not be inflicted by the shots he heard.

Hank

 

[manifesto]

Either you're wilfully misunderstanding Jay or you're just not understanding at all. The first sentence of JFK's speech (actually, it's the first sentence after opening pleasantries) acknowledges an ideal of deliberative democracy: the shunning of forms of secrecy that would keep the public in the dark about current issues. But for much of the rest of his speech, which he was making to journalists, he calls on the press to exercise self-restraint--a degree of patriotic secrecy--in the interests of combatting the communist menace. For example, JFK states: "[...] I am asking the members of the newspaper profession and the industry in this country to reexamine their own responsibilities, to consider the degree and the nature of the present danger [of communism], and to heed the duty of self-restraint which that danger imposes upon us all." Do you see now what Jay means by a polychromatic (that is, complex or nuanced) speech rather than a monochromatic celebration of the open society?

I fully understand what Hank, Jay and now you are trying to convey, but do not agree. That is, the quote is not incompatible with the primary message in the speech. Everything is conditioned in an interconnected universe and the question is if the quote is not representative for the speech as a whole and/or of JFK’s true opinion conveyed in the quote.

That is, it is fully possible to have the strong opinion that ’secrecy’ is repugnant in a free and open society AND to urge caution and restraint and thereby take full responsible as a citizen and as a member of the fourth estate in the same free and open society.

The two is fully compatible, in fact they are mutually necessary in functional republic and democracy.

THIS is at the core of the speech.

Never forget that JFK campaigned as,

Yes he did. Impossible to win against vice president Tricky Dick, not doing it. In fact, when Allen Dulles, hedging his bets, was providing JFK with information on the buildup for an Cuban-exile invasion of Castros Cuba, JFK used this against Nixon in the debates, accusing him of being too soft on Castro and communism, fully aware of that Nixon could not disclose anything of the top secret operation in full sway.

and once elected remained, a cold warrior.

No. He did not buy in to the National Security State dichotomy of communism or ”us.” Or the domino doctrine. Or the way to best counter communism outside the US. Or conflate nationalism with communism. Progressive policies with communism. Etc.

Look at his track record. It was a sharp breach with the hegemonic world view reigning in the US power elite. In DC. In Pentagon. In MSM. Wall Street. Langley. In the South.


That got him assassinated in a covert coup d’etat.

 

[manifesto]

More hyperbole, I see. It does not make you seem more right.

Well, that is the way it comes through.

My argument is that Kennedy's attitude toward secrecy as expressed in his speech is not the single-minded concept that would be gleaned from its first sentence alone. Your only rebuttal is to keep hammering that one sentence and insist upon an unsophisticated interpretation of it. You still have not addressed a single point of my argument except to double-down on your string of false dichotomies.

Well, I hope that you understand that this goes for just about any quote there is on the market?

Not? Oh dear ...

Further, I brought up these points yesterday which are at least more to the topic as they deal with the assassination while Kennedy's speech, strictly speaking, does not. A number of people asked if you would please address them, which you have not yet done. Do you ever intend to?

When time permits.

 

[HSienzant]

I fully understand what Hank, Jay and now you are trying to convey, but do not agree. That is, the quote is not incompatible with the primary message in the speech. Everything is conditioned in an interconnected universe and the question is if the quote is not representative for the speech as a whole and/or of JFK’s true opinion conveyed in the quote.

That is, it is fully possible to have the strong opinion that ’secrecy’ is repugnant in a free and open society AND to urge caution and restraint and thereby take full responsible as a citizen and as a member of the fourth estate in the same free and open society.

The two is fully compatible, in fact they are mutually necessary in functional republic and democracy.

THIS is at the core of the speech.

Funny, your signature doesn't spell any of that out. And in quoting only the first sentence of the address to the assembled newsmen (after the opening greeting), it leaves the reader with the wrong impression, doesn't it?

So it's taken out of context, isn't it?

Because as you admit, Kennedy was saying to the press there are times we must have secrecy, because of the threat of communism. We can't just turn everything over to the Soviet Union easily by publishing it in the newspapers.

Kennedy was saying secrecy is sometimes necessary, wasn't he?

Hank

 

[jeffas69]

- I know that at least two shooters fired at least 5 rifle shots, four from behind the limo and one, the fatal headshot, from in front behind the picket fence on the knoll.

Could you show the evidence for the exit wound for this shot? Any witnessess see an exit wound on the left side of the head? Any photos of an exit wound on the left side of the head?