JFK Conspiracy Theories: It Never Ends

[Noztradamus]

It looks like everyone was shooting at Kennedy. His wife, the driver, the guy under the sewer lid, the grassy knoll and someone in the school book depository, I'm amazed that someone didn't get hurt what with all the stray bullets.

Then to get to all the doctors to cover it up, well the organization is fantastic.

You omiited the guys on the roof of the Dal-Tex building

 

[Robert Prey]

BUT UNLESS IT WAS LHO PLANNING TO AND ACTUALLY FIRING THE KILLING SHOTS, THEY HAVE NOT CONSPIRED, BY THE DEFINITION YOU POSTED AND ARGUED FOR, CLAIMING THIS WAS EVIDENCE OF A CONSPIRACY.

Or on the other hand, you could be admitting they were not conspiring, as per the legal description you gave. They could just be two guys given to believe somebody might have been capable of shooting the president. Who was not LHO now. Great, but not a conspiracy by the definition you posted.

The conspiracy definition is deliberately ambiguous, all that is necessary is a "partnership" discussing a crime.

 

[RoboTimbo]

I've more or less stopped responding directly to him. Stundie, who is a real person, would be proud of him.

He's desperately looking for something, anything, that can be his Nail in the Coffin Tail Between His Legs Running Away post. That's why he's taking so long coming up with it, he has to consult someone more educated than him. The last part shouldn't be difficult.

 

[Noztradamus]

Event Horizon wrote:


3) Robert hasn't done any research on the type of person Oswald was.

OH, really? And just what type of person was Mr.Oswald? Enlighten me.

Legend, Edward Jay Epstein

Oswald's Game, Jean Davidson

Oswald's Tale, Norman Mailer

While none are perfect, reading any of them will leave you better informed, if no wiser.

 

[Robert Prey]

Legend, Edward Jay Epstein

Oswald's Game, Jean Davidson

Oswald's Tale, Norman Mailer

While none are perfect, reading any of them will leave you better informed, if no wiser.

The proper response would be to summarize in your own words and even give a reason or two. Obviously, if you just list a bunch of books and I list a bunch of books there is no conversation. I invite you to try again when you've got something to say.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Event Horizon wrote:


3) Robert hasn't done any research on the type of person Oswald was.

OH, really? And just what type of person was Mr.Oswald? Enlighten me.

Well, we know he was an assassin because he killed JFK. What else would you like to know? You've been getting quite an education so far. I hope you appreciate it.

 

[Robert Prey]

Okay, so the parkland witnesses are unassailable and unimpeachable, beyond reproach and thoroughly incapable of being mistaken or God forbid, lying. Right? That's one of the legs of RP's "gonna show you all" gambit. Then what to make of this?

Dr. Robert Nelson McClelland, Attending Surgeon:
a) WR 526-527 / 17 H 11-12 / CE 392: report written 11/22/63---" a
massive gunshot wound of the head with a fragment wound of the
trachea The cause of death was due to massive head and brain injury from
a gunshot wound of the left temple.";http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/palamara/excerpt_book2.html

Left temple? LEFT TEMPLE!! But that means the bullet couldn't have come from the rear...or from the grassy knoll to Kennedy's right. That means the killer could only be Jackie Kennedy, tired of all the years of unfaithfulness, she punished her husband in public. This also explains the trunk escapade. Nothing more than a guilty woman's attempt to flee the scene of the crime.

Damn, Robert, you were way off base.

Interview with Dr. Robt. McCelleand by V. Bugliosi:

"...before I ended the interview I reminded Dr. McClelland of the fact that in his Parkland Hospital admission note... he had written that the president died 'from a gunshot wound of the left temple.' "Yes," he said, "that was a mistake. I never saw any wound to the President's left temple."

From: "Reclaiming History," P. 406

 

[Noztradamus]

The proper response would be to summarize in your own words and even give a reason or two. Obviously, if you just list a bunch of books and I list a bunch of books there is no conversation. I invite you to try again when you've got something to say.

Well you have to read them first. If you decide to continue your education past high school (middle school?), there will be less spoon feeding of the facts. You will be expected to do your own background reading. Then your tutor may discuss it with you. What points the author has established, what he is overlooking.

At the moment you have read Lifton (and maybe Garrison), but most us do not find Lifton's account of Parkland people's recollections of one moment of time compelling. Because they don't match the actual shooting, or the examination of the corpse at Besthsesda. Find something else.

 

[I Ratant]

http://books.google.com/books?id=7j...esnum=4&ved=0CD0Q6AEwAzgK#v=onepage&q&f=false
.
Reading further than the mined quote by the kid, as is always necessary with anything from that source, the plot unthickens...
Volume V, pages 406 & 407...

 

[PhantomWolf]

Wow, a citation. And from the mendacious Mark Lane no less.

More nitpicking. The point is that Oswald fled the scene of the crime. He nearly knocked down NBC reporter Robert MacNiel while exiting the front door of the TSBD and was seen by an ex-landlady on a city bus a few minutes later. Why did Oswald haul ass from Dealey Plaza, return to his rooming house (where he stored his handgun) and then kill Officer Tibbit? These are not the actions of an innocent man.

Most people recall that Oswald shot Officer Tippet (which was wittnessed) but few remember that he tried to shoot the officer that apprehended him in the theatre. When he was being arrested, Oswald pulled the revolver and attempted to fire it, but it didn't go off, though whether that was due to the officer getting a thumb in the way or otherwise preventing the pin striking the bullet with enough force to set it off remains a little mystery. Regardless of that, firing at a police officer is a very strange act for someone that is innocent.

 

[bynmdsue]

Interview with Dr. Robt. McCelleand by V. Bugliosi:

"...before I ended the interview I reminded Dr. McClelland of the fact that in his Parkland Hospital admission note... he had written that the president died 'from a gunshot wound of the left temple.' "Yes," he said, "that was a mistake. I never saw any wound to the President's left temple."

From: "Reclaiming History," P. 406

Whoa whoa whoa! Are you saying that it IS possible for Parkland witnesses to be mistaken? You're making progress, good for you!

 

[PhantomWolf]

Interview with Dr. Robt. McCelleand by V. Bugliosi:

"...before I ended the interview I reminded Dr. McClelland of the fact that in his Parkland Hospital admission note... he had written that the president died 'from a gunshot wound of the left temple.' "Yes," he said, "that was a mistake. I never saw any wound to the President's left temple."

From: "Reclaiming History," P. 406

Since you already have refused to accept Bugliosi's work as valid in previous posts, why are you quoting it to support you now? Since you claim Bugliosi is incorrect elsewhere then it is obvious you must accept the original statement, that Kennedy had a wound in the left temple as Dr. McClelland initially wrote.

 

[Tomtomkent]

The conspiracy definition is deliberately ambiguous, all that is necessary is a "partnership" discussing a crime.

A crime intended to be carried out. You keep arguing that the crime discussed was NOT the one committed! How can they be conspiring if they were in cahoots for a crime that was never planned or intended?

 

[Tomtomkent]

Since you already have refused to accept Bugliosi's work as valid in previous posts, why are you quoting it to support you now? Since you claim Bugliosi is incorrect elsewhere then it is obvious you must accept the original statement, that Kennedy had a wound in the left temple as Dr. McClelland initially wrote.

Well he would be forced to accept the wound on the left temple because he stated that the Parkland witnesses were infallible and their statements were the best evidence.

Even if they dont match his photographic evidence.

 

[PhantomWolf]

Well he would be forced to accept the wound on the left temple because he stated that the Parkland witnesses were infallible and their statements were the best evidence.

Even if they dont match his photographic evidence.

Ooooh, you mean he just cherry picks his evidence based on if he thinks it agrees with his pre-determined position. Why didn't you just say that?

 

[Walter Ego]

Since you already have refused to accept Bugliosi's work as valid in previous posts, why are you quoting it to support you now? Since you claim Bugliosi is incorrect elsewhere then it is obvious you must accept the original statement, that Kennedy had a wound in the left temple as Dr. McClelland initially wrote.

Robert is quoting the "Bug Man", a man he has previously labeled as insane. Well, any port in a storm, I guess. I own a copy of Bugliosi's book and checking the citation I note he did get the quote correct if somewhat out of context.

McClelland, along with Dr. Crenshaw, is of course one of Robert's "unimpeachable" Parkland witnesses.

The only Parkland doctors who still believe they saw a wound in the rear of [Kennedy's] head, as well as seeing cerebellum, are Robert McClelland and Charles Crenshaw...

Posner, Case Closed p. 312

Interestedly, McClelland like Crenshaw (who co-authored a JFK conspiracy book) is a conspiracy theorist. Speaking to a group of medical students

[McClelland] explains that too many things don’t add up. Doctors at Parkland reported seeing the president’s body put into a coffin with a blanket over it. But that it somehow got into a body bag by the time it got to Washington. He says he’s from East Texas and has seen enough deer hunting to know a body moves in the direction of the bullet. That the president moved backward because he was shot from the front.


He mentions an odd phone call the operator at the emergency room got when Oswald was in surgery. Someone claiming to be from the White House inquired about Oswald’s condition. He talks about a British documentarian’s theory that three hitmen flew from Corsica to Marseille to Mexico City and drove across the border and up to Dallas to murder the president.

http://www.dmagazine.com/Home/2008/10/24/The_Day_Kennedy_Died.aspx

The “body bag” business comes from the bizarre theory of author David Lifton, who claimed that Kennedy’s body was stolen, mutilated to give the impression that all the shots came from behind, and then delivered to the official autopsy at Bethesda. The business about the Corsican hitmen comes from a 1988 documentary called The Men Who Killed Kennedy. Soon after it first aired on the U.K., the theory was blown out of the water when it was found that all three of the supposed “hit men” had ironclad alibis for the day of the assassination.

From the same article quoted above...

[McClelland] wouldn’t feel confident in his initial assessment until 11 and a half years later, when he and his wife watched an episode of The Tonight Show with Johnny Carson. As the couple got ready for bed, Carson introduced his guest, a young, ambitious television host named Geraldo Rivera. Rivera had with him footage of the assassination previously unseen by the public, footage known simply as “the Zapruder film.” Shot by Abraham Zapruder, an immigrant from the Ukraine, the 8-millimeter Kodachrome movie shows the motorcade through the duration of the assassination. As McClelland watched it for the first time, he saw the back of the president’s head blasted out. He saw the president swayed “back and to the left,” a phrase later repeated ad nauseum in Oliver Stone’s JFK. McClelland was convinced he had been standing over an exit wound.

Of course the Z film shows the right front not the back of JFK's head being "blasted out" which kind of makes you wonder about McClelland's powers of observation.

McClelland is also a friend of Dallas resident Robert Groden, a conspiracy huckster who first presented his bootlegged third-generation print of the Z film in 1976 on Rivera's Good Night America show on ABC, the first time the complete film was seen by the general public.

 

[Robert Prey]

Since you already have refused to accept Bugliosi's work as valid in previous posts, why are you quoting it to support you now? Since you claim Bugliosi is incorrect elsewhere then it is obvious you must accept the original statement, that Kennedy had a wound in the left temple as Dr. McClelland initially wrote.

I merely point out that the Bug Man has a bias; but if you guys think he's a good source, then deal with the quoted interview.

 

[Robert Prey]

WAlter Ego wrote:

Quote:
The only Parkland doctors who still believe they saw a wound in the rear of [Kennedy's] head, as well as seeing cerebellum, are Robert McClelland and Charles Crenshaw...
Posner, Case Closed p. 312

Comment: Nonsense.

 

[Tomtomkent]

WAlter Ego wrote:

Quote:
The only Parkland doctors who still believe they saw a wound in the rear of [Kennedy's] head, as well as seeing cerebellum, are Robert McClelland and Charles Crenshaw...
Posner, Case Closed p. 312

Comment: Nonsense.

So what does page 312 of case closed actually say then?
Or is your claim of nonsense piffle?

 

[Tomtomkent]

I merely point out that the Bug Man has a bias; but if you guys think he's a good source, then deal with the quoted interview.

So when you said he was a lunatic you just meant he had a bias? And when you said the witnesses statements were the best evidence, you meant except for when they were wrong?

Hows your hand after all this waving?