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

[manifesto]

So people shouldn't get paid for their work if they love it?

If I love working in the coal mine, Mr. Peabody's Coal Company shouldn't issue me a paycheck at the end of the week?

Hank

If a nations academia and press are ”paid” by the very special interests that benefits from the cover up of the JFK assassination, unpaid research is the only recourse left.

 

[JayUtah]

No. I’m pointing out that JayUtah misread my post and argument, to which he/she now have conceded.

I'll also concede to being male. Just to be sure, I conceded that I had misread your argument and it took me two of your posts to realize that. I'm a big boy and I can take my lumps when I err. But also I have gone on to rebut the argument you were actually making, so I don't think we're quite done with that.

Your are in spite of this insisting on JayUtah being correct in his reading of my post and his/her strawman attack on it?

Well, no, there was more to your post than pointing out my error, and more to my post than conceding it. Hank is referring to the part where you try to poison the well by reducing my approach to your claims as nothing more than an allegedly disingenuous modus operandi than can be safely ignored as mere formula and not sincere argumentation. Several people, including me, have asked you to stop trying to make every argument some sort of personal attack or fit every one of their posts into your model of your critics as shills or sheep. You're trying to analyze the debate as a substitute for having it.

 

[JayUtah]

If a nations academia and press are ”paid” by the very special interests that benefits from the cover up of the JFK assassination, unpaid research is the only recourse left.

No, this just tries to pivot the argument from one of expertise to another of trustworthiness. The problem is that most of the arguments coming from "independent" research, opposing Oswald-alone theory, are trying very hard to be arguments from expertise. They just fail to rest upon a suitable foundation. You can't make the pivot work unless you're willing to rewrite all the relevant arguments to rest upon a foundation of trustworthiness and ignore expertise altogether.

 

[traxy]

You can always find some way to nit-pick every link a causal chain, especially if you let the process go for 50 years or more. We see this in every conspiracy genre. This is why the concept of parsimony is so important to real-world investigation. Generally in a conspiracy theory, each link of the causal chain supporting the conventional narrative has its own self-contained alternate explanation. It's formulated in a vacuum irrespective of the alternate reasoning promoted for other links. So when you view the whole chain in the context of the aggregated alternative explanations, it looks like a comedy of errors. That, in my opinion, is principally why few if any JFK conspiracy theorists are willing to provide an entire narrative: seen all together, any such narrative composed of piecewise snippets would seem altogether less likely that the lone gunman theory.

I'd be interested to see how many other famous cases would completely collapse (in conspiracy land) when subjected to the scrutiny that conspiracy theorists have subjected the Kennedy case to.

How ironclad was the paper trail connecting Ted Bundy to his murder weapons? Were there any mistakes made during the autopsies of the victims of the Manson family?

 

[Dave Rogers]

If a nations academia and press are ”paid” by the very special interests that benefits from the cover up of the JFK assassination, unpaid research is the only recourse left.

Am I allowed to ask you to cite the evidence for this, explain it and argue for its veracity, or is that just Hank's thing?

Dave

 

[HSienzant]

So who were these idiots? Why would every single detail be wrong? Is any aspect of the preparation for this 'conspiracy' done right. Did they get every single detail wrong - is that the CT world view on this?

lol

It is. Because of the consilience of the evidence, those wishing to exonerate Oswald must not only argue the money order connecting Oswald to the rifle is wrong, they must argue all the evidence connecting Oswald to the rifle is wrong.

Like the microfilm from Klein's showing he ordered a Carcano rifle.
Like the microfilm from Kleins showing he was shipped the C2766 rifle.
Like the microfilm from Kleins showing the C2766 rifle was shipped to his PO Box.
Like his fingerprints on the rifle.
Like his palmprint on the rifle.
Like the tuffs of fiber traceable to his arrest shirt found in a crevice in the rifle.
Like the photographs of him with the rifle.
Like the film and photos showing his rifle - not a Mauser - was the one discovered at the Depository.
Like Marina's testimony Oswald owned a rifle.
Like Marina's action after the assassination where she led police to the garage and pointed out the blanket where the rifle was normally stored.
Like Michael Paine moving the blanket and getting the impression of something heavy and made of iron within the blanket.
Like Wes Frazier saying Oswald brought a long package to the TSBD that morning.
Like Linnie Mae Randle saying she saw Oswald put a three-foot long package in Wes' car that morning.

And that's just the evidence linking him to the rifle.

CTs must discount all that information, all of it mutually reinforcing, all of it pointing to Oswald. Because if they don't, then they are left with a punk with a gun and a grudge shooting the President.

You either accept that the evidence is legitimate and points to Oswald or you accept that it's ALL faked to frame Oswald - Manifesto is in the second group. But that means more energy was expended by the conspirators to frame Oswald than to remove Kennedy. Which could have been accomplished by simply revealing he was not the faithful family man he was portrayed as and waiting for the next election. Neat, clean, and simple, like a surgical cut. No witnesses to kill, no paper trail to forge, no testimony to change, no body to alter, no bullets to swap... etc. etc. ad nauseum.

Instead, according to CTs, we have this massive conspiracy at the time and still ongoing cover-up, that involves shills posting at forums worldwide to somehow prevent the truth from getting out.

But if their arguments made sense and relied on the evidence, they'd have a lot more converts, one would think. Instead, like in the case of the money order, they are relying on interpretations of something or other (in this case PO regulations about PO money orders) by fellow non-expert CTs to find some reason, any reason, to exclude the evidence that points to Oswald.

It's all sleight-of-hand by CTs whose only goal is to attempt to establish Oswald didn't do it by any means necessary, because of Oswald didn't, someone else did, ergo conspiracy.

Hank

 

[Hans]

On the contrary, you and your fellow LN’s in that thread are just disappering after a couple of efforts to show the ”falseness” of the documents.

Ohhh my now using LN okay so you laymen of the sectarian order of the bleeding fruit cake, wireless redemption and multiple invisible shooters will now be known as the SOOCFCWRMS. Sounds about right.

 

[HSienzant]

Am I allowed to ask you to cite the evidence for this, explain it and argue for its veracity, or is that just Hank's thing?

Dave

Feel free to add it to the list and assign a number.

Hank

 

[bknight]

Off topic, but what happened this morning?

 

[Hans]

Another lie from Hans, the lying adherent to the lying holy Mighty Church of the Looney Nutters.

Another silly post by a layman of the sectarian order of the bleeding fruit cake, wireless redemption and multiple invisible shooters whose greatest wish is to not provide evidence.

To tell you the truth.

No to make up stuff and refuse to provide evidence so you can pretend to be an expert.

 

[Hans]

It is. Because of the consilience of the evidence, those wishing to exonerate Oswald must not only argue the money order connecting Oswald to the rifle is wrong, they must argue all the evidence connecting Oswald to the rifle is wrong.

Like the microfilm from Klein's showing he ordered a Carcano rifle.
Like the microfilm from Kleins showing he was shipped the C2766 rifle.
Like the microfilm from Kleins showing the C2766 rifle was shipped to his PO Box.
Like his fingerprints on the rifle.
Like his palmprint on the rifle.
Like the tuffs of fiber traceable to his arrest shirt found in a crevice in the rifle.
Like the photographs of him with the rifle.
Like the film and photos showing his rifle - not a Mauser - was the one discovered at the Depository.
Like Marina's testimony Oswald owned a rifle.
Like Marina's action after the assassination where she led police to the garage and pointed out the blanket where the rifle was normally stored.
Like Michael Paine moving the blanket and getting the impression of something heavy and made of iron within the blanket.
Like Wes Frazier saying Oswald brought a long package to the TSBD that morning.
Like Linnie Mae Randle saying she saw Oswald put a three-foot long package in Wes' car that morning.

And that's just the evidence linking him to the rifle.

CTs must discount all that information, all of it mutually reinforcing, all of it pointing to Oswald. Because if they don't, then they are left with a punk with a gun and a grudge shooting the President.

You either accept that the evidence is legitimate and points to Oswald or you accept that it's ALL faked to frame Oswald - Manifesto is in the second group. But that means more energy was expended by the conspirators to frame Oswald than to remove Kennedy. Which could have been accomplished by simply revealing he was not the faithful family man he was portrayed as and waiting for the next election. Neat, clean, and simple, like a surgical cut.

Instead, according to CTs, we have this massive conspiracy at the time and still ongoing cover-up, that involves shills posting at forums worldwide to somehow prevent the truth from getting out.

But if there arguments made sense and relied on the evidence, they'd have a lot more converts, one would think. Instead, like in the case of the money order, they are relying on interpretations of something or other (in this case PO regulations about PO money orders) by fellow non-expert CTs to find some reason, any reason, to exclude the evidence that points to Oswald.

It's all sleight-of-hand by CTs whose only goal is to attempt to establish Oswald didn't do it by any means necessary, because of Oswald didn't, someone else did, ergo conspiracy.

Hank

Yep thanks for the information so in the CT world every single action they did was wrong. One must consider it a miracle that in the CT world all the assassins showed up at the Plaza on the right day - given their level of incompetence.

 

[HSienzant]

I did notice your presence in that thread, Hank. Could you cite and link to the post/s were you or anyone else are showing Larsens posted regulations are ”false”.

Shifting the Burden of Proof. Tsk, tsk. You should know better. Show that Larsen's posted regulations are the appropriate ones, and show his interpretation of those regulations are the correct interpretations. No one has the obligation to disprove Larsen's claims.

I have not seen any such ”shown”.

It's not about what you're convinced of or not.

On the contrary, you and your fellow LN’s in that thread are just disappering after a couple of efforts to show the ”falseness” of the documents.

I left after I established the posted regs were from the wrong part of the document. They dealt with payment money orders issued by the post office to pay vendors for work done. Not customer POs purchased from the PO to pay for purchases by the customer. He was citing the wrong regs entirely.

Where has it been shown to be invalid? In the Ed.Forum-thread? Show me.

Review my posts. Further, wrong question. You appear to be accepting Larsen's claims. Why? Where does he show his interpretation is correct?

No. I’m pointing out that JayUtah misread my post and argument, to which he/she now have conceded.

I saw that concession and thought it was unnecessary and unwarranted.

Your are in spite of this insisting on JayUtah being correct in his reading of my post and his/her strawman attack on it?
Wow.

I saw you raise one point about the money order - since dispensed with - and then saw you claim all the evidence is similarly tainted. I thought Jay's initial response to your arguments was spot on:

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.

I concur with those sentiments.

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

Yep thanks for the information so in the CT world every single action they did was wrong. One must consider it a miracle that in the CT world all the assassins showed up at the Plaza on the right day - given their level of incompetence.

What makes you think they all did?

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

Off topic, but what happened this morning?

Don't know, but was unable to log in for about four hours.

Hank

 

[manifesto]

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.

No. The only photographic film detailed enough is maybe the Zapruder film. I write ”maybe” because the back of the head is in shadow during the whole event sequence AND that it looks like the ”shadow” is painted on afterwards. Ergo. The apparent absence of a big gaping wound in the back of the head in the Z-film, is not conclusive evidence of absence.

The Moorman Polaroid is very clear.

Is it? Do you see any spatter at all in the photo? Show me.

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

Show me and describe your observations.

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.

Name this experts. I haven’t found them.

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 few photographs, I belive it’s two of them, that actually shows the back of the head can very well have been taken after the reconstruction of the head. It looks remarcably neat and tidy exept for the ”flap” allegedly open from the temple region.

Almost no one has authenticated the content in these photographs. In fact, the Parkland medical personel was lied to when reassured that the Bethesda medical personel had authenticated the x-rays and photos and did therefore (some of them) change their story, thinking that the autopsy team had to be correct regarding their more thurough investigation of the headwounds.

When realizing they had been lied to, they changed back to their original statements.

No one from the HSCA have so far stepped forward taking the responsibility of the lie and the head of HSCA, Robert Blakey, are still insisting on not being informed of the lie until ARRB released all the records in the mid 90ies.

Well, **** happens?

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.

No, the autopsy report is positioning the entrance wound ca 4 inches below where the commities placed it. And when asked by the ARRB to clearify the original drawings from the autopsy (not burned by Humes), both Boswell and Humes are testifying that the big gaping wound is extending all the way down to the EOP.

So why did they not say this in the report? Coersion. They were military, taking orders from their superiors in the chain of command.

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.

Did they? Who are these witnesses and what did they say to whom?

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.

Because they were lied to when told that all the Bethesda witnesses had authenticated their contents, yes. And, testimony in total conflict with testimony given 25 years earlier isn’t worth bat **** if not given a plausible explanation. Like coersion when giving the first testimony.

So, who would coerce the Parkland doctors to lie about JFK’s headwounds in order to attack the official narrative? Communist infiltrators? Lol.

It's a total convergence of evidence. Sorry.

Only in your mind.

 

[traxy]

It is. Because of the consilience of the evidence, those wishing to exonerate Oswald must not only argue the money order connecting Oswald to the rifle is wrong, they must argue all the evidence connecting Oswald to the rifle is wrong.

Like the microfilm from Klein's showing he ordered a Carcano rifle.
Like the microfilm from Kleins showing he was shipped the C2766 rifle.
Like the microfilm from Kleins showing the C2766 rifle was shipped to his PO Box.
Like his fingerprints on the rifle.
Like his palmprint on the rifle.
Like the tuffs of fiber traceable to his arrest shirt found in a crevice in the rifle.
Like the photographs of him with the rifle.
Like the film and photos showing his rifle - not a Mauser - was the one discovered at the Depository.
Like Marina's testimony Oswald owned a rifle.
Like Marina's action after the assassination where she led police to the garage and pointed out the blanket where the rifle was normally stored.
Like Michael Paine moving the blanket and getting the impression of something heavy and made of iron within the blanket.
Like Wes Frazier saying Oswald brought a long package to the TSBD that morning.
Like Linnie Mae Randle saying she saw Oswald put a three-foot long package in Wes' car that morning.

And that's just the evidence linking him to the rifle.

CTs must discount all that information, all of it mutually reinforcing, all of it pointing to Oswald. Because if they don't, then they are left with a punk with a gun and a grudge shooting the President.

You either accept that the evidence is legitimate and points to Oswald or you accept that it's ALL faked to frame Oswald - Manifesto is in the second group. But that means more energy was expended by the conspirators to frame Oswald than to remove Kennedy. Which could have been accomplished by simply revealing he was not the faithful family man he was portrayed as and waiting for the next election. Neat, clean, and simple, like a surgical cut.

Instead, according to CTs, we have this massive conspiracy at the time and still ongoing cover-up, that involves shills posting at forums worldwide to somehow prevent the truth from getting out.

But if there arguments made sense and relied on the evidence, they'd have a lot more converts, one would think. Instead, like in the case of the money order, they are relying on interpretations of something or other (in this case PO regulations about PO money orders) by fellow non-expert CTs to find some reason, any reason, to exclude the evidence that points to Oswald.

It's all sleight-of-hand by CTs whose only goal is to attempt to establish Oswald didn't do it by any means necessary, because of Oswald didn't, someone else did, ergo conspiracy.

Hank

Great recap, and totally on point.

Most CTs (manifesto being the latest in a long line) think that by introducing a shred of doubt for once piece of evidence, that the entire convergence of evidence for that particular component of the case falls apart. It's a convenient shortcut to thinking.

 

[MicahJava]

Daily reminder that Kennedy's autopsy pathologists concluded the beveled exit on the skull bone was situated anatomically higher than the beveled entry on the skull, next to the EOP.

See the arrow pointing up here on the face sheet diagram which is stained in the President's blood:

And a summarized autopsy "conclusion" by Sibert and O'Neill in a 2 AM 11/23/1963 teletype, freshly written after departing the autopsy around 11:00 - 1:00 AM and driving to the FBI lab from Bethesda Naval Hospital, reads "TOTAL BODY XRAY AND AUTOPSY REVEALED ONE BULLET ENTERED BACK OF HEAD AND THEREAFTER EMERGED THROUGH TOP OF SKULL. PIECE OF SKULL MEASURING TEN BY SIX POINT FIVE CENTIMETERS LATER FLOWN IN FROM DALLAS HOSPITAL AND XRAYS BETHESDA DISCLOSED MINUTE METAL FRAGMENTS IN THIS PIECE WHERE BULLET EMERGED FROM SKULL.": https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/pdf/md149.pdf

 

[HSienzant]

It's only a matter of time before we get the "whistle-blower" variant -- all the errors in the Warren Commission evidence, dutifully found by these amateurs, were placed there intentionally by CIA operatives uncomfortable with what they were being asked to do, hoping they would be discovered by others sometime hence. Not that anyone here is yet making that argument, but there is a natural progression to these sorts of coverup-based conspiracy theories.

David Lifton suggested as much when he discusses how he re-listened to his tape of his interview of Dr. Humes for like the 200th time... finding a contradiction in what Humes said. He then suggested Humes was trying to tell him something was amiss with the autopsy without coming out and saying it. From BEST EVIDENCE by Lifton.

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

If a nations academia and press are ”paid” by the very special interests that benefits from the cover up of the JFK assassination, unpaid research is the only recourse left.

You ignored the point I made to make a different point. If somebody does labor for the love of it, should they get paid or not?

Hank

 

[SpitfireIX]

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.

I was in college when I first saw this. Previously, though I can't properly claim to have been a "conspiracy theorist," as some of you have described yourselves, I had simply assumed that there was more going on that the public knew. I figured that the most plausible explanation was that Castro had had JFK assassinated, and LBJ had covered it up to avoid risking war with the Soviet Union over the retribution that would have been clamored for by the American public.

When all of the doctors said that the photos were consistent, however, it gave me serious pause. Eventually I learned enough about the real history to know that there's no real evidence of a conspiracy, and that Oswald certainly could have carried out the assassination on his own.