Cont: JFK Conspiracy Theories VIII

[Axxman300]

Been thinking that passing the JFK Records Act was a mistake. Why give in to the pressures of conspiracy theorists? Political cowardice?

First off, most secret documents lose their classification after 20 years.

Second, the big document release a few years back didn't tell us anything we didn't already know about JFK, Ike, and our efforts to quash Castro. They just filled in a few holes.

Third, when Congress passes a law it is supposed to be followed.

Fourth, the CIA and the FBI should be embarrassed by their incompetence and inability/unwillingness to review the documents in question in order for their release within the Congressionally MANDATED timeline.

And finally, while I respect secrecy there comes a time when all secrets see the light of day. Americans have a right to know what has been done in their name and with their tax dollars. While American's don't have a right to know these secrets in this very moment, they should, and must have access to these secrets after a prudent amount of time.

If all our secrets remained in the black there would be zero accountability for the Agencies involved. Things can't evolve in the dark. The CIA's website lists many books about the Agency's history which are not flattering, and they have a link to the FOIA Reading Room. Those are there for CIA officers and employees to access as much as the public because reading them makes for a better intelligence service.

And as it applies to this subject, had the autopsy photos and x-rays been available to the public by the mid-1980s there would likely be no JFK-CTs, certainly not a second gunman. The secrecy surrounding the assassination due to the CIA and FBI's counter-Castro operations fundamentally created the JFK-Assassination CTs and have kept them alive well beyond their expiration date.

 

[Allen773]

Lee Harvey Oswald: Outspoken in his extreme hatred toward General Edwin Walker, told his wife that he had shot at Walker and even showed her the rifle he had used....the same rifle that was used to kill President Kennedy.

Lee Harvey Oswald: Matched the description by multiple witnesses in Dealey Plaza of the man who killed President Kennedy and wounded Governor Connally.

Lee Harvey Oswald: Matched the description of multiple witnesses to the murder of a police officer who tried to question him in Oak Cliff and who went into the theater where he (ie. Lee Harvey Oswald) violently resisted arrest once the cops showed up.

Lee Harvey Oswald: "I'm just a patsy!"

***

Conspiracy theorists: "We believe him!"



*** This is, of course, just a tiny bit of the massive amount of evidence pointing at Oswald's guilt in the JFK assassination....and Oswald's guilt alone.

 

[Axxman300]

Lee Harvey Oswald: Outspoken in his extreme hatred toward General Edwin Walker, told his wife that he had shot at Walker and even showed her the rifle he had used....the same rifle that was used to kill President Kennedy.

Yes, he gave her instructions about what to do if he was arrested.

The rifle has always been the 500-pound gorilla in this case. Had he used a garden variety hunting rifle CTists would have a case, but he bought a 6.5x52mm Carcano. The bullets are exclusive to the Carcano, and the only bullets recovered were 6.5x52mm Carcano rounds. There were only two Carcano rifles in the Dallas area on 11/22/63, the other one belonged to a gunshop owner.

Lee Harvey Oswald: Matched the description of multiple witnesses to the murder of a police officer who tried to question him in Oak Cliff and who went into the theater where he (ie. Lee Harvey Oswald) violently resisted arrest once the cops showed up.

That plus he tried to shot another DPD officer with the same gun he used to kill Tippit. They literally removed it from his hand.

Lee Harvey Oswald: "I'm just a patsy!"

He also told one of the detectives, "I guess everyone will know my name."

 

[MicahJava]

Did this small wound occur the day before or did someone shoot him on the other side of the Triple Underpass?

I ask because the assassination is on film and JFK is only hit twice.

What do you call this?

NSFW - autopsy photo

I'm not even saying this proves a conspiracy. One could try arguing this little spot represents a shrapnel exit wound created by a shot from behind. But it sure does look like a little hole in the right front of the scalp. No such hole was acknowledged by the pathologists. By listening to everything the pathologists said, one would think there were two and only two separate holes in the scalp - a small one in the back and one long tear on the right side. At the very least, it looks like we have proof of incompetence looking at this picture.

 

[turingtest]

What do you call this?

[qimg]https://i.imgur.com/znuC8bo.jpg[/qimg]

I'm not even saying this proves a conspiracy. One could try arguing this little spot represents a shrapnel exit wound created by a shot from behind. But it sure does look like a little hole in the right front of the scalp. No such hole was acknowledged by the pathologists. By listening to everything the pathologists said, one would think there were two and only two separate holes in the scalp - a small one in the back and one long tear on the right side. At the very least, it looks like we have proof of incompetence looking at this picture.

Wow, this is a really great example of CTist thinking (and arrogance). Trained pathologists working with the actual body at the time don't see what an amateur sleuth sees in a black-and-white photo almost sixty years later- and it's the pathologists who are incompetent.

 

[MicahJava]

Wow, this is a really great example of CTist thinking (and arrogance). Trained pathologists working with the actual body at the time don't see what an amateur sleuth sees in a black-and-white photo almost sixty years later- and it's the pathologists who are incompetent.

At the very least:

Maybe they did see it, but were too lazy to bother reporting on it because they were under the impression that it didn't change their basic conclusions. Would you at least be open to acknowledging that? What do you call the area around the red circle? Sure looks like a hold in the scalp to me.

 

[abaddon]

What do you call this?

Pareidolia

 

[Hans]

Pareidolia

I like to think its like a Rorschach inkblot test.

 

[turingtest]

At the very least:

Maybe they did see it, but were too lazy to bother reporting on it because they were under the impression that it didn't change their basic conclusions. Would you at least be open to acknowledging that? What do you call the area around the red circle? Sure looks like a hold in the scalp to me.

If they didn't think it would change their basic conclusions, then it isn't a case of laziness, it's a case of parsimony- something I'm aware CTists have a problem with.

And I'm not going to play your game of "what does it look like to you?" I've already explained why, even though it shouldn't need explanation.

 

[Allen773]

A lot of CT’ers mention Oswald’s ordering the Carcano through the mail as some evidence of him being framed by The Conspiracy (TM). That is, it created a paper trail that inevitably led to Oswald.

They neglect to mention that:
1. Oswald didn’t have a driver’s license, and so ordering a rifle in-person would have required him enlisting the help of someone else and being seen by someone in a store: that’s at minimum two witnesses to Oswald ordering a rifle, and I can’t imagine that gun store managers and owners didn’t keep receipts and other records of purchases.

2. Oswald ordered the rifle under an alias.

3. Oswald ordered the rifle to kill far-right Brigadier General Edwin Walker as, it seems, part of his plan to become a Communist hero and hopefully, either be allowed to return to the USSR or maybe more likely, be settled in Cuba.

4. There’s no evidence that Oswald was even thinking about killing JFK when he ordered the Carcano, let alone making an active plan toward that end. Again, he was focused on Walker.

5. In any event, Oswald desired fame and publicity - a classic narcissist - so being caught wasn’t necessarily a setback for him. If anything, Oswald strikes me as the kind of defendant who planned to make a scene at his trial, denouncing the US government and bragging about his actions and how smart he was and how brainwashed the sheeple were, etc. Obviously he never got the chance.

(Anyone more knowledgeable than me, feel free to correct any errors and/or add more detail. Much appreciated.)

 

[HSienzant]

What do you call this?

NSFW - autopsy photo

[qimg]https://i.imgur.com/znuC8bo.jpg[/qimg]

uh, a black-and-white autopsy photo of the late President's head wound taken on the evening of the assassination with something obscure circled in red?

I'm not even saying this proves a conspiracy.

Good, because it doesn't.

One could try arguing this little spot represents a shrapnel exit wound created by a shot from behind.

Sure, go ahead. But you'd have to pretend the autopsy doctors missed this exit wound entirely, or lied about it with no evidence in support whatsoever. Remember, in the past you've taken the word of the autopsy doctors as gospel when it suited you. You cannot turn around and then say the doctors are incompetent and missed a hole in the head entirely.

But it sure does look like a little hole in the right front of the scalp.

Right, because of your extensive background in brain and skull anatomy as well as your expertise in photo analysis. Riiight...

No such hole was acknowledged by the pathologists.

So, tell us MicahJava, what was your first clue that you were wrong about this additional hole in the head?

By listening to everything the pathologists said, one would think there were two and only two separate holes in the scalp - a small one in the back and one long tear on the right side.

Ah, so that was your first clue.

At the very least, it looks like we have proof of incompetence looking at this picture.

At the very least, we absolutely do.

Your incompetence, not theirs.

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

At the very least:

Maybe they did see it, but were too lazy to bother reporting on it because they were under the impression that it didn't change their basic conclusions.

Are you serious? They are dealing with the body of the President of the most powerful nation in the world, shot dead by gunfire, and they are just *too lazy* to mention an additional bullet wound?

You don't get to be a medical doctor by being *too lazy* to be precise, specific, and detailed.

Meanwhile, they went to the trouble of examining and weighing various internal organs and remarking on their characteristics, and even detailing old surgical scars on the President like here:

https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/warren-commission-report/appendix-09.pdf
"There is a old well healed 8 cm. McBurney adominal incision. Over the lumbar spine in the midline is an old well healed 15 cm. scar. Situated in the upper antero-lateral aspect of the right thigh is an old, well healed 8 cm. scar. "

But your thesis you're pushing now is they were just *too lazy* to mention a third bullet wound in the head to the late President of the United States killed by gunfire? That's seriously the argument you're advancing here?

Would you at least be open to acknowledging that?

Sure, I acknowledge it's a ridiculous argument, which makes me question how seriously you take this subject. It's not a joke to some of us. You can do better. Strike that. Maybe you can't do better, but you should do better.

What do you call the area around the red circle?

The area around the red circle. I guess I was looking in the wrong place. I was looking at the area *within* the red circle. Now you're telling me I should be looking at the area *surrounding* the red circle for this hole you imagine. Silly me.

Sure looks like a hold [hole] in the scalp to me.

Remind me of your extensive background in human anatomy and photo analysis again. I seem to have forgotten you had any.

You've been informed before you have no expertise in the subjects you constantly opine about, and therefore your uninformed opinions carry no weight here. Yet you insist on continuing this charade, and in every post - or certainly almost every post, so I don't get accused of hyperbole - you tell us what you think something is or what you think something means.

For the umpteenth time, nobody cares about what you think. Nobody cares about your opinion. Your ininformed opinion is worthless here.

Make a case from the expert testimony and the eyewitness testimony. Without substituting what you *think* it means for what they actually said. We have had enough of that.

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

Wow, this is a really great example of CTist thinking (and arrogance). Trained pathologists working with the actual body at the time don't see what an amateur sleuth sees in a black-and-white photo almost sixty years later- and it's the pathologists who are incompetent.

If I had four hands, I'd give you four thumbs up.

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

Let's do this another way.

What do you call this?

NSFW - autopsy photo

[qimg]https://i.imgur.com/znuC8bo.jpg[/qimg]

The logical fallacy of shifting the burden of proof. If you have a case to make, make it.

I'm not even saying this proves a conspiracy.

Good, because that would be the logical fallacy of begging the question.

One could try arguing this little spot represents a shrapnel exit wound created by a shot from behind.

One could try arguing for any number of different things. But by mentioning only one, you're trying to force the argument into an either / or situation, or the logical fallacy of a false dichotomy, where you mention only those interpretations you favor, and ask us to choose from among those. Here, you only mention one, and don't even bother to give us a true choice.

One could also try arguing there's no evidence of an additional wound in the head, so anyone even attempting to advance such an argument must be relying on really extensive expertise in cranial anatomy and photo analysis.

Either that, or they are just trolling.

But it sure does look like a little hole in the right front of the scalp.

And here you're substituting your opinion for that of the expert witnesses.
We know that - and we know you know that - because you acknowledge the opinion of the expert witnesses immediately thereafter. Right here:

No such hole was acknowledged by the pathologists. By listening to everything the pathologists said, one would think there were two and only two separate holes in the scalp - a small one in the back and one long tear on the right side.

And let's not forget all the qualified forensic pathologists who reviewed the extant autopsy materials for the HSCA and the other investigations and didn't see anything like you suggest. I believe the estimated number of autopsies conducted by the HSCA forensic panel members was over 100,000 in total. I would wager the estimated number of autopsies you've conducted is zero. That's (0), as in none.

But you think you're truly smarter than all of them, with all their background and are able to discern something neither the autopsy pathologists who conducted the autopsy or the pathologists who reviewed the extant autopsy materials was able to discern?

Wow. Your photo should be in the dictionary under "hubris".

So there's the true choice, go with the experts who had the body in front of them (the original three pathologists) *and* the HSCA forensic pathology review panel of experts, or go with the opinion of some anonymous internet poster with no qualifications whatsoever in cranial anatomy or photo analysis.

Gee, what would any reasonable person do?

At the very least, it looks like we have proof of incompetence looking at this picture.

I can't improve on my prior answer, so I'll let it go at that.

Hank

 

[Major Major]

One could also try arguing there's no evidence of an additional wound in the head, so anyone even attempting to advance such an argument must be relying on really extensive expertise in cranial anatomy and photo analysis.

Either that, or they are just trolling.




And here you're substituting your opinion for that of the expert witnesses.

But you don't understand. He's the talented amateur who lacks the preconceptions and biases of the professionals, so from his outsider perspective he dazzlingly realizes what they are too bogged down in their ways to see.

Hey, it works in all those detective novels.

Just like it did for our former Juror Number Eight, who had an alternative explanation for every point, thus proving reasonable doubt.

And trying to explain that real life isn't like detective novels/movies seems to go over some peoples' heads.

 

[kookbreaker]

A lot of CT’ers mention Oswald’s ordering the Carcano through the mail as some evidence of him being framed by The Conspiracy (TM). That is, it created a paper trail that inevitably led to Oswald.

They neglect to mention that:
1. Oswald didn’t have a driver’s license, and so ordering a rifle in-person would have required him enlisting the help of someone else and being seen by someone in a store: that’s at minimum two witnesses to Oswald ordering a rifle, and I can’t imagine that gun store managers and owners didn’t keep receipts and other records of purchases.

2. Oswald ordered the rifle under an alias.

3. Oswald ordered the rifle to kill far-right Brigadier General Edwin Walker as, it seems, part of his plan to become a Communist hero and hopefully, either be allowed to return to the USSR or maybe more likely, be settled in Cuba.

4. There’s no evidence that Oswald was even thinking about killing JFK when he ordered the Carcano, let alone making an active plan toward that end. Again, he was focused on Walker.

5. In any event, Oswald desired fame and publicity - a classic narcissist - so being caught wasn’t necessarily a setback for him. If anything, Oswald strikes me as the kind of defendant who planned to make a scene at his trial, denouncing the US government and bragging about his actions and how smart he was and how brainwashed the sheeple were, etc. Obviously he never got the chance.

(Anyone more knowledgeable than me, feel free to correct any errors and/or add more detail. Much appreciated.)

I’ve pointed out earlier in the thread that the likely reason is more likely cost. Mail order surplus rifles are cheap compared to what a store offers and Oswald would know what guns are available and their prices are. If he goes into a shop who knows what they have? And at what price?

Oswald never had a lot of money, but he wanted a rifle so he could be a “revolutionary”.

 

[Axxman300]

What do you call this?

Matrixing.

It also looks like:

A parrot.

A dolphin.

The hump of a whale.

Etc...

The flash would make a hole at that angle invisible.

I'm not even saying this proves a conspiracy. One could try arguing this little spot represents a shrapnel exit wound created by a shot from behind. But it sure does look like a little hole in the right front of the scalp.

No, it really does not.

No such hole was acknowledged by the pathologists.

What? The two guys (plus the others) who actually sawed open the skull and removed the brain somehow missed the hole, even after cleaning the head before dissection?

I'm going out on a limb here and suggest they didn't mention it because it didn't exist.

By listening to everything the pathologists said, one would think there were two and only two separate holes in the scalp - a small one in the back and one long tear on the right side.

Almost as if he had been shot with a 6.5x52mm projectile. Weird.

At the very least, it looks like we have proof of incompetence looking at this picture.

Well golly, I wonder what's in the other five or six photographs taken of the head wounds? Have you seen them? Oh wait, no, you haven't.

Fun Note: In the time you've wasted posting these JFK fantasies you could have finished Medical School and be in your second year of residency on your way to becoming a real medical doctor.

 

[Axxman300]

I’ve pointed out earlier in the thread that the likely reason is more likely cost. Mail order surplus rifles are cheap compared to what a store offers and Oswald would know what guns are available and their prices are. If he goes into a shop who knows what they have? And at what price?

Oswald never had a lot of money, but he wanted a rifle so he could be a “revolutionary”.

He bought it because it was cheap, and came with a scope, and was Italian (cool factor for all wannabe revolutionaries).

 

[Axxman300]

At the very least:

Maybe they did see it, but were too lazy to bother reporting on it because they were under the impression that it didn't change their basic conclusions. Would you at least be open to acknowledging that?

No way in hell.

You have two military doctors, called in cold, who are tasked with performing the autopsy of a murdered President of the United States (a man who a few hours before had been their commander in chief). They are told that RFK is waiting in the building, and that Jackie Kennedy wanted the body ASAP.

So Humes (wisely) brings in a photographer without notifying anyone to document the process due to the limited time they would have with the body. JFK was X-rayed from head to toe. They found the entrance wound in the upper back/lower neck, and the throat wound which they initially believed to be a tracheostomy. They didn't think to call Parkland Hospital until afterwords due to the pressure to wrap things up.

At every step of the procedure Humes was in charge. He managed to be thorough in spite of the situation. Nobody in that room was lazy. You are the last person to make such an assessment.

And keep in mind that Lee Oswald was still alive in a Dallas PD holding cell. The DPD, Secret Service, FBI, and CIA were ALL actively looking for co-conspirators. The documents from that time emphasize this fact. Thus there was no reason to alter or manipulate the autopsy because at any moment Oswald could have spilled his guts, and named people. Or there could have been a second arrest. The investigation had just begun and was going full throttle.

 

[Allen773]

Why would Oswald's alleged co-conspirators wait two whole days to silence him?

Unless, of course, there was no conspiracy. Occam strikes again.