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

[JayUtah]

I think you didn’t understand what I wrote.

You clearly didn't understand what I wrote. Read it again until you do.

Your first argument was that one single bit of impeached evidence turns the whole case. It does not. Now you're trying to pretend what you really argued was that you can impeach all the evidence that favors the conventional narrative, on merits. We know you cannot do this. You're being doubly dishonest.

 

[smartcooky]

I think you didn’t understand what I wrote. The absence of regulated endorsing bank stamps on the PMO is evidence of it being fabricated.

Nope, it isn't

In my business, I used to deal with PMO's frequently for goods to be mailed or couriered. After I bank them, they are processed, and they come back to me a few months later. On most occasions, they were stamped, but not always. They were often not stamped, I'd estimate one in 10 to 20.

This is what the banker tried to tell Larsen; stamping is often not done when PMOs are dealt with in large batches. It doesn't really matter what the regulations state, what is common practice is more important and more valid and more relevant to this situation. Stamping is only a certainty when the Payee presents the PMO for payment in cash, at the bank, in person; the PMO is stamped by the teller who serves him.

The banker's evidence was handwaved (as usual)

 

[manifesto]

You clearly didn't understand what I wrote. Read it again until you do.

You wrote:

No, that's not at all how evidence works in the real world. If "one little detail" seems out of place in the face of a mountain of otherwise consistent and consilient evidence, it's far more parsimonious to conclude that the "one little detail" is wrong or misinterpreted than it is to throw out all the rest of the evidence in favor of it.​

Since I clearly stated that ALL pieces of evidence in the alleged Oswald/Hidell purchase of the Carcano is tainted and impossible, you clearly missed that since complaining of it as being ”one little detail”.

But that is your well established MO, JayUtah. Hone in on the semantics and get your opponent bogged down in endless wordgames leading nowhere.

It is called obstruction. Or worse.

 

[manifesto]

Nope, its isn't

In my business, I used to deal with PMO's frequently for goods to be mailed or couriered. After I bank them, and they are processed, and they come back to me a few months later. On most occasions, they were stamped, but not always.

This is what the banker tried to tell Larsen.... handwaved!

Your banker backed down confronted with Larsens clearly stated regulations from 1960 still enforced in 1963.

He said that they didn’t handle any paper anymore. That most of it were digital.

 

[traxy]

Just picked it apart.

No, you didn't.

Every piece of photographic evidence backs up every other piece. The rear of the head in Zapruder matches the rear of the head in Nix and Muchmore. If Zapruder is faked, they would have to be as well.

The Moorman Polaroid is very clear. The condition of the rear of the head in it matches what is seen in Zapruder, Nix and Muchmore.

The x-rays gave been authenticated by a panel of photography and radiology experts. The damage seen in them matches what is seen in Zapruder, Nix, Muchmore and Moorman.

The autopsy photos have been authenticated by a panel of forensic anthropologists and photography experts. The damage seen in them matches Zapruder, Nix, Muchmore, Moorman and the x-rays.

The autopsy report, verified by the Clarke Panel, the Rockefeller Commission and the House Select Committee, confirms the damage seen in all of the photographic material.

Several contemporaneous witnesses in Dealey Plaza gave interviews immediately following the shooting, and they described the exact damage seen in every piece of photographic evidence and confirmed by the autopsy report.

Parkland doctors were shown the autopsy photos in 1988 for an episode of Nova, and to a man they agreed the damage in the photos was consistent with what they saw in the trauma room.

It's a total convergence of evidence. Sorry.

 

[JayUtah]

Since I clearly stated that ALL pieces of evidence in the alleged Oswald/Hidell is tainted...

Yes, you're right. I misread your post -- my apologies.

But that is your well established MO, JayUtah. Hone in on the semantics and get your opponent bogged down in endless wordgames leading nowhere.

Oh, quit trying to portray yourself as the victim of some horrible conspiracy at a forum you voluntarily frequent.

You claim to know all about the U.S. intelligence community, but it's quickly discovered that you don't have any basis for that claim. You say two inches is outside the acceptable margin of error for locating wounds on a shattered skull. I ask what the basis is for that standard and you totally ignore the question. I could go on. You clearly want your foisted expectations to prevail without contest.

You have nothing. All you have is bare assertions accompanied by personal attacks. If you can't stand scrutiny, stay away from skeptics' forums. If you aren't willing to answer questions, don't say you are.

It is called obstruction. Or worse.

No, it's called holding people accountable for things they clearly don't want to be made accountable for, such as all your pretense to knowledge and expertise you obviously don't have. You want people to just accept your bare assertions as fact. This is the wrong place to expect people to do that.

 

[MicahJava]

I've always felt that most of the critics of the Warren Commission must truly hate America to post some of the stuff they post. And that they use the JFK assassination solely as a pretext to bash the USA.

Nobody has come out and confirmed it as strongly as you just did.

Now, question for you to contemplate: Do you think your hatred for America & capitalism as you just expressed above has biased your opinion on the JFK assassination, or do you think despite that hatred, you're unbiased and able to fairly entertain arguments from both sides of the table?

Hank

What, do you not grasp that somebody can "hate America" while also being intelligent and knowledgeable? Also, the original reference was to General Walker, an actual nazi if just being homicidal towards communists wasn't enough.

 

[Axxman300]

Yes...? That's what a guy who links pirated material should think. The flow of information is more important than asshurt over lost profit of books. If you try to sell me ones and zeroes that anybody can copy and share for free, don't get asshurt if you lose a sale. Hate the game not the player.

No, I hate thieves.

Here's the thing: Most legitimate information is free in the internet. The National Archives doesn't charge for access to it's online database, nor does the CIA, NSA, FBI, and their satellite databases run by universities. If you are a college student, or just need access to a research paper or journal this can be done for free at a school or public library.

Most legitimate history books are written by accessing official records. Some contain interviews conducted by the author, who has spent time and money to track down, and travel to record the statements of people involved. Often times their work is important enough to shed new light on a historical event.

And you are comfortable ripping them off.

Every stolen book means there is less money for the next historian to conduct research with, and everybody loses.

You even posted a link to a CT-based book, which means that deep down you don't respect people on your side of the CT fence who, unlike you, are out poking through files, and talking to witnesses. I don't agree with their point of view on reality, but I respect their right to make a living taking money from fools.

Your unwillingness to pay for JFK-Assassination CT literature suggests that deep down you don't believe or respect any of it.

 

[Axxman300]

What, do you not grasp that somebody can "hate America" while also being intelligent and knowledgeable? Also, the original reference was to General Walker, an actual nazi if just being homicidal towards communists wasn't enough.

Walker was a Segregationist, not a Nazi.

The man killed Nazis, real Nazis in Italy and France. The only Nazi he loved were dead ones.

His anti-Communist feelings stemmed from his experience in the Korean War, where the North initiated an invasion of the South. It was a brutal and ugly war that fueled an anti-Communists zeal across America thanks to the hundreds of thousands of returning veterans who went home and told it like it was.

The beginnings of the Civil Rights Movement was thought by many white Americans as being a Soviet, Communist plot. The recent JFK Assassination files that the National Archives just released - THE SAME FILES YOU HAVE NOT BOTHERED TO READ - detail the anti-Communist hysteria of the time that gripped every branch of the US Government including the Kennedy White House.

Walker was a right-wing scumbag, but he wasn't a Nazi.

 

[MicahJava]

No, I hate thieves.

Here's the thing: Most legitimate information is free in the internet. The National Archives doesn't charge for access to it's online database, nor does the CIA, NSA, FBI, and their satellite databases run by universities. If you are a college student, or just need access to a research paper or journal this can be done for free at a school or public library.

Most legitimate history books are written by accessing official records. Some contain interviews conducted by the author, who has spent time and money to track down, and travel to record the statements of people involved. Often times their work is important enough to shed new light on a historical event.

And you are comfortable ripping them off.

Every stolen book means there is less money for the next historian to conduct research with, and everybody loses.

You even posted a link to a CT-based book, which means that deep down you don't respect people on your side of the CT fence who, unlike you, are out poking through files, and talking to witnesses. I don't agree with their point of view on reality, but I respect their right to make a living taking money from fools.

Your unwillingness to pay for JFK-Assassination CT literature suggests that deep down you don't believe or respect any of it.

Research like this is, always was, and always will be a labor of love. From what I understand, most major JFK authors can break even on their work, and none have ever starved to death, which means that most of them are just about as wealthy as every human should be.

 

[Axxman300]

Yes, they absolutely could be wrong, and are wrong.

First of all, multiple Parkland doctors have stated that, given the decimated and blood soaked state of Kennedy's head, determining entry and exit wounds in the trauma room was impossible.

Second, the condition of the skull in the x-ray matches what's seen in the autopsy photos, and the Nix film, and the Muchmore film, and the Moorman Polaroid, and the Zapruder film.

All of the photographic evidence is in perfect synchronicity. There was no gaping wound in the rear of the head.

This is a video of Dr. Ronald C. Jones and Dr. Robert N. McClelland, two of the physicians who contributed to President John F. Kennedy's treatment in Trauma Room One, who worked on JFK and Oswald at Parkland:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xuZCxT88cMo&t=1293s

It is fascinating because the two men disagree about the nature of GSW. Both men had hands on the President, both stood at head level with the body. One thinks there was a shot from the front, the other does not.

It is worth your time since it discusses that part of the event, and it shows who medical professionals, like any scientists working in the same field, vigorously disagreeing with what they both saw that day.

 

[Axxman300]

Research like this is, always was, and always will be a labor of love. From what I understand, most major JFK authors can break even on their work, and none have ever starved to death, which means that most of them are just about as wealthy as every human should be.

Theft is never justified.

You can try to justify it in your mind to ease your lack of conscience, but it further undermines your credibility on this board.

Most authors have other jobs. Some teach history at a university, or are lawyers. Lifton had been an engineer.

Doesn't matter how wealthy an author is, stealing is stealing. If you can't afford to buy the book you get a LIBRARY CARD. That little card gives you access to the nation's library network, and you can have access to just about any book out there.

Have some self-respect.

 

[Hans]

And, do not forget, this is just ONE little detail in the whole chain of documents and alleged actions that is wrong. All of it. Every single piece.

Wrong.

So your belief in a super smart and efficient secret government consiracy is shown to be wrong.....by your own words you said they couldn't do the simplest clerical action.

THAT are you are simply not understanding a simple clerical action. So which is it, are you wrong about the evil conspiracy or just clueless about a clerical procedure from 50+ years ago?

LOL

 

[MicahJava]

Theft is never justified.

You can try to justify it in your mind to ease your lack of conscience, but it further undermines your credibility on this board.

Most authors have other jobs. Some teach history at a university, or are lawyers. Lifton had been an engineer.

Doesn't matter how wealthy an author is, stealing is stealing. If you can't afford to buy the book you get a LIBRARY CARD. That little card gives you access to the nation's library network, and you can have access to just about any book out there.

Have some self-respect.

Theft is when something is taken from somebody else and that person doesn't have that thing anymore. Piracy is when you breath next to somebody selling air.

 

[OKBob]

You will need it in the years to come, when the official mythology begin to crack open on all fronts.

When will this rapturous moment come? It's been 55 years and still no great fragmenting of the official mythology on one major front, let alone "all fronts." And what do you mean by "all fronts," a geo-military term?

 

[OKBob]

[...] Evidence could have been fabricated and substituted without even having to be part of the original homicidal conspiracy.

Tell me--and I request this seriously--why we should be impressed by or attentive to your judgments about what "could have" or "would have" happened.

 

[OKBob]

There are no evidence of Oswald trying to kill loony Gen. Walker. [...]

This is an excellent example of why you--and others taking similarly foolish absolutist positions--will never be heard outside your small echo chamber. Why should someone, who rejects (for example) the testimony of Marina Oswald as to what her husband said to her on the night of the Walker attempt, be seriously listened to?

 

[OKBob]

I can't imagine what "power" you think I'm "licking up to" by asking you questions about your theory. As far as "ganging up," you chose this forum knowing full well what reception you were likely to get. So stop trying to play the victim.

Jay, you'll find--as many of us have from bitter experience here--that manifesto will regularly accuse you of unspecified, abstract toadyism and of contributing to his martyrdom as a seeker of truth.

 

[OKBob]

I think you didn’t understand what I wrote. The absence of regulated endorsing bank stamps on the PMO is evidence of it being fabricated.

No, it's not necessarily evidence of fabrication at all. It far more likely means that the endorsements that government regulations stated "should" (note that word--not the typical "shall" used for mandatory rules) be placed on money instruments were not always and uniformly placed on postal orders. (I'll let Jay explain to you why invoking this "should" language as proof of conspiracy is a version of the If I Ran the Zoo fallacy.) If you wish to try to prove fabrication of the postal order, you still have all your work in front of you.

 

[OKBob]

But that is your well established MO, JayUtah. Hone in on the semantics and get your opponent bogged down in endless wordgames leading nowhere. It is called obstruction. Or worse.

No, it's called logical reasoning. You wish to dispense with it because (a) you don't understand what logical reasoning is, and/or (b) logic is a constraint upon your royal hunt of conspiracy. And stop with the fallacious ad hominem attacks, as in your cryptic taunt "Or worse."