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

[HSienzant]

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

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.

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

Sam Holland is called a knoll witness by your conspiracy site. He is one of the supposed 52 witnesses to a knoll shot. If you're excluding witnesses who weren't sure where the shots came from, you need to exclude Holland. He saw smoke on the knoll, but said he wasn't sure if the third sound he heard was even a gunshot or not.

== QUOTE ==
Mr. HOLLAND - I observed it. It knocked him completely down on the floor. Over, just slumped completely over. That second---
Mr. STERN - Did you hear a third report?
Mr. HOLLAND - I heard a third report and I counted four shots and about the same time all this was happening, and in this group of trees--[indicating].
Mr. STERN - Now, you are indicating trees on the north side of Elm Street?
Mr. HOLLAND - These trees right along here [indicating].
Mr. STERN - Let's mark this Exhibit C and draw a circle around the trees you are referring to.
Mr. HOLLAND - Right in there. (Indicating.)
There was a shot, a report, I don't know whether it was a shot. I can't say that. And a puff of smoke came out about 6 or 8 feet above the ground right out from under those trees. And at just about this location from where I was standing you could see that puff of smoke, like someone had thrown a firecracker, or something out, and that is just about the way it sounded. It wasn't as loud as the previous reports or shots.
Mr. STERN - What number would that have been in the----
Mr. HOLLAND - Well, that would--they were so close together.
Mr. STERN - The second and third or the third and fourth?
Mr. HOLLAND - The third and fourth. The third and the fourth.
Mr. STERN - So, that it might have been the third or the fourth?
Mr. HOLLAND - It could have been the third or fourth, but there were definitely four reports.
== UNQUOTE ==

So Holland shouldn't be counted as a knoll witness because he only saw smoke on the knoll, and never actually said any of the shots came from there.

There's your website's double standard again.

Holland saw smoke on the knoll, so he's a knoll witness. And Potter saw smoke rising above the trees in front of the Depository, so he's a knoll witness too.

That's the way your website counted them. You admit it's wrong to do so. You admit your website is flawed:

Here I agree, Potter should be in the could not tell-category. At least if based on the FBI-protocoll above. I’ll try to contact Galanor for his reasons to have Potter in the knoll-category. Good find. That makes it 51 knoll-witnesses.

Actually, we're down to about 41 now, with all the other exclusions, like trading the eight railroad men on the overpass and the two men in the lead car (Curry and Sorrels) for the two women, Davis and Kounas, based on where they were when they heard the shots. Along with some of the other witnesses I pointed out were vague in terms of where they were indicating (viaduct or railroad yards or 'below and to the right').

Your website assumes anyone who said anything even close to the knoll meant the knoll, along with a heaping dollop of bending the truth and calling people who named the depository as knoll witnesses as well.

Hank

 

[bknight]

- 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?

Your own misinterpretation of the facts and evidence gathered that day and the days that followed. No information gained implies multiple shooters, just your perverse interpretation of history. Your finest bit of misinformation continues to be the dicta-belt. We have shown you links to many who have disproven the sounds are multiple shots. Then you trot out an image of an x-ray the contrast of which has been severely manipulated to "show a 6.5 mm object." The original image is much more washed out with the "object" almost hidden in the rest of the image. I'm not an expert but it doesn't appear to be a round object but a round object with a "pie shaped piece" missing. Perhaps an artifact of the developing process? Or artifact of the bullet lodged in or near the eye socket. Axxmann300 has show you that much of the round is/was never found.

 

[bknight]

Hank.

Plagiarizing now? Hank did not sign that post.

 

[smartcooky]

Do you ever grow tired to handwave away information not to your liking?

Me? Handwave? That's rich coming from you! Pot, meet kettle!

What you posted is not "information", its rubbish, spurious BS either coming from your own fantasy worldview, or something that you have been told to think by one of the conspiraloon websites that are your only sources and references.

If there are anything in my post you take issue with, quote it and tell me what you find in error.

But, be specific.

Ok then.

He did not plan the execution of the assassination, but he was in on it and played a critical role in the cover up.

Show us your evidence for this bare assertion. You're not expressing this as your opinion, you are asserting it as fact, and doing so without any evidence.

If you think it is a fact, state your source for it (not a conspiraloon site), and explain. Provide documentary evidence of its truth. Argue for its veracity. If you can't, then retract this statement and admit you have no evidence to support it.

The plotters knew he would be the most powerful man in USA (and the world)...

Show us the evidence that these plotters exist. Name them, and show us proof that the people you name actually plotted the assassination of JFK. Provide documentary evidence to support this claim. Explain how this documentary evidence proves the named people as conspiracists. Argue for its veracity. If you can't, then retract this statement and admit you have no evidence to support it.

He knew that his time as the ”SOG” of the FBI was over the very second JFK was reelected.

Prove that you know what you think he knew. Show us proof of this. Explain. Argue for its veracity. If you can't, then retract this statement and admit you have no evidence to support it.

He was a fanatical racist resenting JFK’s agenda of eradicating Jim Crow and provide equal opportunity to all Americans no matter the color of their skin.

Please provide documentary proof of this allegation. Explain that proof, and provide arguments for its veracity. If you can't, then retract this statement and admit you have no evidence to support it.

The facts are that the opposite is more likely true.

The FBI takes pride in the storing and archiving of documents, yet nowhere in its archives are any documents showing Hoover using the N-word? In his time in the FBI (1924 until his death in 1972) his notes, memos, letters, and documents, many of them detailed and involving the Civil Rights Era, the N-word does not appear in any of them (and this is at a time when it was used more frequently and without the stigma associated with it today).

Additionally, despite a lack of any pressure to so do, The FBI approved the applications of a number of Black Africans as FBI special agents as early as 1919. They worked side-by-side with white special agents.

https://www.fbi.gov/news/stories/early-african-american-agents

Hoover continued that trend throughout his entire time as director. In Deke Loache's book “Hoover’s FBI: The inside Story by Hoover’s Trusted Lieutenant,” (1995) the author maintains that in his years as Hoover’s assistant he never heard him make a racist comment or say anything that would indicate that he was a racial bigot. It would be easy to dismiss this as loyalty if it weren't for the huge number of others giving similar accounts.

Now, many people argue that his feud with MLK Jnr made him a racist. This is an old canard that simply doesn't pass the sniff test. Yes, Hoover accused him of being "a notorious liar" but that had nothing to do with race. Hoover was pissed-off with King for questioning the loyalty of the special agents assigned to the Deep South during the Civil Rights Movement. King speculated that these special agents were not as zealous as they should have been in protecting marchers, and that this was due to their loyalty to the state they grew up in. This last part was a lie. FBI Agents have never been assigned according to their home states. They were (and still are) assigned according to the needs of the bureau on a "best man for the job" basis.

He was best buddy an long time neighbor with LBJ helping him blackmailing his way to the vice presidency.

Provide documentary evidence of this blackmail. Show us evidence of the payoffs. Explain. Argue for the veracity of this claim. If you can't, then retract this statement and admit you have no evidence to support it.

He was litterally at ”the farm” the whole weekend of the assassination of JFK.

You've been reading too much of David Talbot's conspiraloon theories. You should read that stuff carefully, it will give you brain damage.

Also, you should least make some attempt to get your facts straight. Dulles was not at Camp Peary at the time of the assassination or at any time afterwards during that weekend. His desk diary and calendars are available online from the Mudd Library at Princeton.

https://findingaids.princeton.edu/collections/MC019.09

They show that Dulles flew from Washington DC early on the Friday morning of the assassination to Newport News, VA. From there he was driven to Williamsburg, VA to speak to the Brookings Group at 9 am. It then states that he returned Washington, D.C. with the CIA’s John Warner at 3pm after hearing of JFK’s death.

That is an old canard from the lying mouth of LBJ.

Prove that LBJ lied. Show us the evidence of this malfeasance you accuse him of. Explain it to us. Argue for its veracity. If you can't, then retract this statement and admit you have no evidence to support it.

As soon it became known that LBJ was setting up a white washing truth commission, Dulles was hanging at the doorstep lobbying for being accepted as one of its members.

Again, you have provided no evidence of these bare assertions. Provide evidence to support these claims, and explain how that evidence shows what you claim it does.

I’ll bet he really wanted to find JFK’s assassins ... and thank them.

Duh!

Since you claim that Dulles was in on it, then if true, he would already know who the assassins were, so he would not need to find them to thank them.

Regardless, you have again failed to provide evidence of this bare assertion. Provide evidence to support this claims, and explain how that evidence shows what you claim it does. If you can't, then retract this statement and admit you have no evidence to support it.

 

[Whip]

Plagiarizing now? Hank did not sign that post.

'forgery' is the word you're looking for.

 

[bknight]

'forgery' is the word you're looking for.

I won't quibble but he changed the post for his own purpose.

 

[HSienzant]

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.

You're HILARIOUS! You say 'no interpretation needed' then you proceed to *interpret* it for us. Complete with ellipses to denote the parts that don't fit.

Your conjecture is just that, conjecture.

In context, he is saying he saw other people, including police officers, move towards the knoll, and he is offering his own explanation as to why:
"Yes, and that was a little confusing and in analyzing it later, evidently the report 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. It did not sound to me, ever, as I remember, the high-powered rifle sounding. It was not a sharp crack."

At no point does he say he was told what to say or think. This is entirely your made-up *interpretation* (that you say is unnecessary) based on nothing more than what you want to believe.

In addition, as I pointed out initially, by the time of the third shot, he had already determined where the shots were coming from, and pointed out the source of the shots to a co-worker, Mary Ann Mitchell. He also reported his sighting to Deputy Sheriff Sweatt:

== QUOTE ==
Mr. BALL - In your remark to Mary Ann Mitchell, did you say "If those were shots, they came from that window"?
Mr. CRAWFORD - Yes.
Mr. BALL - That is what you reported to the FBI agent, also?
Mr. CRAWFORD - Yes, I suppose; at the time, I was still not absolutely sure they were shots and that's why I said if they were shots. I was basing that, I am sure I was basing that mainly on the fact of this quick movement that I observed. In other words, If I were firing the shots, I would have jumped back immediately at the conclusion of them.
Mr. BALL - Later on, did you go back in the street and talk to someone?
Mr. CRAWFORD - Yes.
Mr. BALL - Did you talk to a deputy sheriff?
Mr. CRAWFORD - Allen Swett.
Mr. BALL - What did you tell him?
Mr. CRAWFORD - I told him to have the men search the boxes directly behind this window that was open on the sixth floor - the window in the far east corner.
== UNQUOTE ==​

Mary Ann Mitchell, who was standing with Crawford, heard him make that statement:

== QUOTE ==
Mr. BALL - You heard Jim Crawford say something about if they were shots - what were his words exactly?
Miss MITCHELL - Well, I'm not sure that he said - I think he just said, "Those shots came from that building," just assuming that everybody could have figured out by then that they were shots.
Mr. BALL - Did you look at the building?
Miss MITCHELL - Yes; I did.
Mr. BALL - Did you see anybody in any of the windows?
Miss MITCHELL - I don't remember. I understand there were some porters that were leaning out of the fifth floor windows but I don't remember whether I saw them or not. I know where I thought he was pointing and where I was looking I couldn't see anybody so I never was sure which window he thought he was pointing to.
== UNQUOTE ==​

Note he didn't say, "some of the shots came from that building and one came from over there (pointing down the hill)" or anything of the sort. He pointed to the Depository and said the shots came from there. By the time of the third shot.

And how does your website count him?
Crawford, James KNOLL

That is false.

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?

His presence on the scene was the reason he could make the determination all the shots came from the Depository by the time of the third shot. He even saw someone moving out of the window.

== QUOTE ==
Mr. CRAWFORD - On the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository. I turned to Miss Mitchell and made the statement that if those were shots they came from that window. That was based mainly on the fact of the quick movement observed in the window right at the conclusion of the report.
Mr. BALL - Could you give me any better description than just a movement? Could you use any other words to describe what you saw by way of color or size of what you saw moving?
Mr. CRAWFORD - If I were asked to describe it, I would say that it was a profile, somewhat from the waist up, but it was very quick movement and rather indistinct and it was very light colored. It was either light colored or it was a reflection from the sun. When the gun was found, or when a gun was found, I asked the question if it was white, simply because if it was a gun I saw, then it was either white or it was reflecting the sun so it would appear white or light colored.
...
Mr. BALL - The movement that you saw that you describe as something light and perhaps a profile from the waist up, you mean it looked like a profile of a person?
Mr. CRAWFORD - That was - I had a hard time describing that. When I saw it, I automatically in my own mind came to the conclusion that it was a person having moved out of the window. Now, to say that it was a brown haired, light skinned individual, I could not do that.
== UNQUOTE ==​

Your question above is merely begging the question - that is, you're assuming that what you need to prove - "the reason that he edited his experience..."

Remember, he reported what he saw to the first officer he spoke to, Allan Sweatt, pointing out the Depository as the source of the shots.

And yet your website says this:
Crawford, James KNOLL

Your website falsely inflates the number of knoll witnesses. You already conceded that point.

Hank

 

[Hans]

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

If not, you are the one pretending, Hans.

Sorry the 'demand and denial' technique used by mythological humanoid creatures is rather old and won't work here.

Yawn

 

[OKBob]

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.

I'm not sure what you mean by this rather cluttered statement, but it sounds as if you're turning JFK into an abstract hero, as Oliver Stone did. What was the Bay of Pigs fiasco but JFK's unfortunate concession to his generals in an effort to remove the Cuban communist menace? And the jury is out on whether he would have committed more than limited advisors to Vietnam.

 

[Hans]

When time permits.

In other words NO.

In the demand and denial technique only HE gets to demand others answer while he ignores awkward questions any time he wants.

lol

How long Manifesto do you think you can continue this?

Now here is a question - you don't need to answer. When you came here did you notice there was no one here using that technique? So what do you think happened to those who have tried it in the past?

 

[HSienzant]

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?

You show by your argument above you don't understand what 'out of context' means. A quote doesn't have to be out of context if it relays the true substance of what the speaker or writer is trying to get across. It isn't by definition out of context simply because it's part of a larger text.

If I were to say "CT authors, websites, and believers who post online always commit logical fallacies, take quotes out of context, misinterpret evidence, ignore contrary evidence, and substitute hearsay, conjecture and speculation for evidence" and then proceeded to give examples of each, that would not be taking my claim out of context. Because that one sentence would adequately summarize my point being made.

If on the other hand, there was a movie review in the NY Times that said "This is a great movie to see if you want to catch up on some ZZZ's. It bore me to tears and put me to sleep. I recommend it highly if you're in need of sleep" and the movie poster quoted only:

"This is a great movie to see ... I recommend it highly ..."​

Well, that would be taking the quote out of context because it doesn't relay the full import of the message the writer is trying to get across.

Since JFK makes one statement and then rather than giving examples affirming that point for the rest of the speech, almost immediately starts talking about conflicting points and stressing those conflicting points that qualify his initial statement, quoting only that one statement is taking his point out of context.

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

I won't quibble but he changed the post for his own purpose.

I didn't get his purpose when I first saw it. I still don't get it.

I just think he had no rebuttal, so he put down any old thing he could of think of as a response. And all he could think of was:

Hank

 

[RoboTimbo]

I didn't get his purpose when I first saw it. I still don't get it.

I just think he had no rebuttal, so he put down any old thing he could of think of as a response. And all he could think of was:

Hank

I think it's hero worship. He comes here to get away from the mindlessness of his favorite CT websites. He finds people here who can provide evidence for what they say and he wants to be like them, he just doesn't know how. In his mind, he was pretending to be Hank. He wants to be respected for erudition rather than mocked and ridiculed for idiocy. He wants to be like the people who can so easily hand him his head.

Forging your name is just his pathetic way of trying to emulate those he secretly worships. Sadly sweet, really.

 

[RoboTimbo]

I’m not sure on exactly what you are trying to convey, here. Blabber as usual. But I can say this. There is no thought police among critics of the official explanatications of the assassination of JFK. That would be like an oxymoron.

But which one of you is wrong?

 

[HSienzant]

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?

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

Tell MicahJava, he disagrees with you .
Which of you is correct?

I’m not sure on exactly what you are trying to convey, here. Blabber as usual.

I'm sure it's evident to everyone else exactly what was being conveyed.

And what's funny as even as you deny understanding what's being conveyed, you admit you understand it via your attempt to refute it:

I’m not sure on exactly what you are trying to convey, here. Blabber as usual. But I can say this. There is no thought police among critics of the official explanatications of the assassination of JFK. That would be like an oxymoron.

The opposite is true of those who adhere to the official proclamations. To state that this adherance is tightly guided by thought police is like a big fat bolded truism, if there ever was one.

What's being conveyed is that after 54 years, two representative samples of the CT population still can't agree on where the shot that hit JFK in the head originated from. Or anything else, for that matter.

Except - oh yeah! - (insert twilight zone theme here) there was a conspiracy.

The rest is still to be determined.

But if you can't agree on the sources of the shots after 54 years, what makes you think you or any other CT is right about anything? Other than the fact that you fervently believe it and wish it were so?

The only one blabbering on here is you. You're the only one here without a clue as to what happened (well, you and the other resident CT).

Hank

 

[Whip]

I didn't get his purpose when I first saw it. I still don't get it.

I just think he had no rebuttal, so he put down any old thing he could of think of as a response. And all he could think of was:

Hank

you're in his head maaaaaaaaaaaan

 

[manifesto]

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.

Changed your mind? That was fast?

So, how do you explain a 6.5 mm round and thin slice from a 6.5 mm bullet on the outside of the scull, if the same bullet entered the scull in one piece?

 

[abaddon]

- 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 fascinating fantasy life you lead.

 

[manifesto]

But which one of you is wrong?

I leave that to you and your little blue idiot smeleys, Robo Timbo. They are wise and irrefutabilitly irrefutoblantantly supreme.

Masters of reason.

 

[manifesto]

What a fascinating fantasy life you lead.

I wish it was so.