JFK Conspiracy Theories: It Never Ends

[bynmdsue]

McClelleand's observations were independently corroborated by all the other medical personnel on the scene at Parkland.

They corroborated that McClelland saw the back of the president's skull blown out on the Z film? They were all sitting with him when he watched the film?

 

[Walter Ego]

They corroborated that McClelland saw the back of the president's skull blown out on the Z film? They were all sitting with him when he watched the film?

McClelland first saw the Z film on the Johnny Carson show in the 1970s while sitting in bed with his wife. I guess those Parkland witnesses were in the same bed watching with him. Dallas was a swinging town back then.

 

[bynmdsue]

McClelland first saw the Z film on the Johnny Carson show in the 1970s while sitting in bed with his wife. I guess those Parkland witnesses were in the same bed watching with him. Dallas was a swinging town back then.

That's a mighty big bed. Why, it has to hold anywhere from 20 to 30 to all the way up to 40 people at a time!

 

[Robert Prey]

So your answer is that Oswald couldn't possibly be that stupid? And then you lie about the bullets not being linked to the weapon. LOL.

Even the Warren Report admits that, Dude.

 

[RoboTimbo]

That's a mighty big bed. Why, it has to hold anywhere from 20 to 30 to all the way up to 40 people at a time!

All the way up to everyone at Parkland, depending on which Loon site Robert is swallowing info from at the time.

 

[Walter Ego]

That's a mighty big bed. Why, it has to hold anywhere from 20 to 30 to all the way up to 40 people at a time!

Yes, it has been noticed that Robert has conflated the number of the witnesses.

Attempts to divert the subject from the statements of witnesses on the scene at Parkland, to varying interpretations of the Z film, are useless. I do not use the Z film to prove conspiracy. I cite the 20 or so witnesses at Parkland. Deal with that, if you can.

The Parkland observations -- 30 or so witnesses independently corroborating each other -- is as solid evidence as there could be.

So Robert has upped the ante to 40 now?

 

[Robert Prey]

Yes, it has been noticed that Robert has conflated the number of the witnesses.
So Robert has upped the ante to 40 now?

A little more honesty would be highly appreciated. 30 or so witnesses at Parkland, Six or so more at Bethesda, and 3 on the scene in the limo in back of the Presidential Limo. Adds up to about 40 or so. Honesty is a virtue. False witness it a violation of God's Fifdh Commandment. Be not deceived. God is not mocked. Whatsoever you shall sew, that shall you also reap.

 

[RoboTimbo]

A little more honesty would be highly appreciated. 30 or so witnesses at Parkland, Six or so more at Bethesda, and 3 on the scene in the limo in back of the Presidential Limo. Adds up to about 40 or so. Honesty is a virtue. False witness it a violation of God's Fifdh Commandment. Be not deceived. God is not mocked. Whatsoever you shall sew, that shall you also reap.

That one made me snort out loud! Whack! Right on your thumb.

 

[Tomtomkent]

A little more honesty would be highly appreciated.

Yes, you might want to go back and edit a few posts. Like calling a photo of JFKs temple a shot of the back of his head, the one where you seem to have misplaced half the quote about the palm print on the rifle, the mentions of "all" the staff at Parkland having seen the body, and many more.

Of course, nobody has been dishonest by pointing out your number of "Parkland" witnesses is ever changing.

 

[bynmdsue]

Reap what you sew? Only if it's shoddy stitching!

Yeah, there's really no reason to take you seriously any more.

 

[HSienzant]

What matters is where the fatal bullet entered and exited. The large blow-out in the back of the head provides the answer.

You appear to be abandoning McClelland as a witness, because he wrote that the parietal bone was protruding out when he saw the large avulsive wound in JFK's head. Kudos. You can learn the truth after all.

And McClelland says what?
"so that the parietal bone was protruded up through the scalp and seemed to be fractured almost along its right posterior half..."

And where is the parietal bone?
From wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parietal_bone
"The parietal bones are bones in the human skull which, when joined together, form the sides and roof of the cranium."

That sounds a lot like the autopsy photos which show the massive wound in the right temple and top of the head - in the parietal bone.

Hank

 

[Walter Ego]

A little more honesty would be highly appreciated. 30 or so witnesses at Parkland, Six or so more at Bethesda, and 3 on the scene in the limo in back of the Presidential Limo. Adds up to about 40 or so. Honesty is a virtue. False witness it [sic] a violation of God's Fifdh [sic] Commandment. Be not deceived. God is not mocked. Whatsoever you shall sew [sic], that shall you also reap.

This is pathetic, Robert. Threatening a forum of rationalists with divine punishment is pretty lame but maybe that's all you have left at this point.

Back on topic, let's look at what you posted almost a month ago (God, this has been a long thread!) about those Parkland and Bethesda witnesses.

Let's go over this again one by one. Are you saying that all these witnesses from both Parkland and Bethesda are either lying or mistaken?????

* * *

There are thirty well qualified witnesses to JFK's skull wound from Parkland to Bethesda. Their earliest, unrehearsed, specific descriptions, written, verbal or both, place a major skull defect unambiguously at the posterior.

At Parkland

l. KEMP CLARK, MD: Professor and Director of Neurological Surgery at Parkland

2, ROBERT McCLELLAND, MD:

3, MARION THOMAS JENKINS, MD:

4. CHARLES JAMES CARRICO, MD

5. MALCOLM PERRY, MD:

6. RONALD COY JONES: was a senior General Surgery resident physician

7. GENE AIKIN, MD: an anesthesiologist at Parkland

8. PAUL PETERS, MD: a resident physician

9. CHARLES CRENSHAW, MD: a resident physician

10. CHARLES RUFUS BAXTER, MD: a resident physician

11. ROBERT GROSSMAN, MD

12. RICHARD BROOKS DULANEY, MD: was a first year general surgery resident

13. ADOLPH GIESECKE, MD: an assistant professor of anesthesiology

14. FOUAD BASHOUR, MD: an associate professor of medicine

15. KENNETH EVERETT SALYER, MD: was an intern

16 PAT HUTTON, RN: a nurse

17. SECRET SERVICE AGENT CLINT HILL

18. NURSE DIANA HAMILTON BOWRON

Witnesses at Bethesda

1. GODFREY McHUGH: was President Kennedy's Air Force Aid,

2. JOHN STRINGER: was the autopsy photographer.

3. MORTICIAN TOM ROBINSON

4. ROBERT FREDERICK KARNEI, MD: Bethesda pathologist,

5. PAUL KELLY O'CONNOR

6. JAMES CURTIS JENKINS

7. RICHARD A. LIPSEY: an aide to General Wehle

8. EDWARD REED: one of two X-ray technicians

9. JERROL CUSTER: the other X-ray technician

10. JAN GAIL RUDNICKI: Dr. Boswell's lab assistant

11. JAMES E. METZLER: was a hospital corpsman

12. JOHN EBERSOLE, MD: was Assistant Chief of Radiology

You've included Clint Hill, Jackie Kennedy's SS agent who jumped on the back of the limo and viewed JFK's head as he looked down into the back seat as a Parkland witness but let's not quibble. (Jackie was on the back of the limo picking up a piece of JFK's brain that is completely invisible in the blurry vagina-like Z film according to you.)

So that's 18 Parkland witnesses (which you conflated to 20 and then to 30) and 12 Bethesda witnesses which equals 30. Let's be generous and include those three SS agents you mentioned in the car in back of the presidential limo even though Hill was in that car before the shooting started. That's 18 + 12 + 3 = 33, so you're still 7 "witnesses" short of 40.

Knowing your history of confusing even yourself, I will in the Christmas spirit not accuse you of lying, only of being muddled-headed. If you would like to amend 7 more names to your "witness" list, please do so.

 

[Tomtomkent]

You appear to be abandoning McClelland as a witness, because he wrote that the parietal bone was protruding out when he saw the large avulsive wound in JFK's head. Kudos. You can learn the truth after all.

And McClelland says what?
"so that the parietal bone was protruded up through the scalp and seemed to be fractured almost along its right posterior half..."

And where is the parietal bone?
From wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parietal_bone
"The parietal bones are bones in the human skull which, when joined together, form the sides and roof of the cranium."

That sounds a lot like the autopsy photos which show the massive wound in the right temple and top of the head - in the parietal bone.

Hank

Yeah, are you sure you don't mean "Pre-Autopsy even though they are in the autopsy file and nobody other than CTers having tried to present them as anything other than autopsy" photographs?

 

[HSienzant]

First, a summary of the questions in this thread, and their relative importance:

1. Is there any irrefutable evidence that LHO even fired a single shot?
Answer, No.

2. If LHO did fire a shot at JfK, does that prove he was the only shooter.
Answer: NO.

3. Even if LHO was the only shooter, is there any evidence of others involved?
Answer: Yes.

4. Did LHO kill Tippit?
Answer: Maybe not.

5. If LHO did kill Tippit, does that prove he was the single LN that killed JFK?
Answer: Course not.

6. Do the B/Y Photos, even if real, prove that LHO killed JFK.
Answer: Course not.

7. Is there any evidence that the B/Y photos were forged and used to convict LHO in the Court of Public Opinion as the Lone Nut shooter, thereby brainwashing the public into believing there was no reason to look for anyone else?
Answer: Absolutely

8. Is Marina Oswald a credible witness for either side?
Answer: No.

9. Is the question as to whether or not there was a conspiracy the only question of any real importance?

Answer: Yes. The other questions are all Red Herrings.

In answer to your frivolous, irrelevant post, see No. 7.

For your questions and answers above, I will have to give you a failing grade, Robert.
The correct answers are:
1. The physical evidence establishes it was Oswald's rifle that was used to shoot JFK and Governor Connally. Eyewitness Howard Brennan - among others - establishes it was Oswald in the window.

2. NO is correct. It is impossible to prove the lack of a conspiracy. However, there is also no evidence that supports a conspiracy.

3. NO. There are suppositions and poor logic passing as evidence, but no evidence supports a conspiracy.

4. The evidence is overwhelming that Oswald shot and killed Tippit.

5. Your answer is correct. However, the evidence is likewise equally strong that Oswald was the person who shot at JFK from the sixth floor sniper's nest window.

6. They prove Oswald owned and possessed the rifle found on the sixth floor and they also establish he lied in custody about
a) Owning that rifle.
b) Bring that rifle to the TSBD.

7. The photos have been studied on numerous occasions by numerous legitimate experts and found to bear no evidence of falsification. Marina has testified she took the photos. The only arguments for falsification comes from amateur photo-analysts like Robert Groden and Jack White who have no understanding of even rudimentary photo analysis. As legit photos, they don't (of course) establish anything beyond the facts that Oswald owned the rifle, Oswald brought the rifle to the TSBD, and Oswald lied in custody about both those pertinent items in his statements to law enforcement officers who were interrogating him.

8. Marina has always stated she took photos of Oswald in the backyard. In most of those statements, she said she took the photos in evidence. If you believe as you have stated previously, that Marina took photos of Oswald with her back to the stairs instead of with the stairs in the background, you need to explain why conspirators would destroy legit photos only to substitute fake ones showing essentially the same thing.

Here's point 8 addressed in more detail, which you haven't yet begun to rebut:

You're saying the conspirators had legit photos of Oswald, taken by Marina, holding a rifle in that backyard, and for some reason (too much time on their hands and an unlimited budget, perhaps?) they destroyed the legit ones and went to all the trouble to substitute fake ones?

Do you even begin to think about the implications of some of your conjectures?

It appears not.

Of course, the other interpretation - that Marina, 20 or more years after the event - introduced this change in her story simply because she simply mis-remembered where she was standing at the time and this means the photos in evidence have always been the ones she took (and that Oswald signed the back of one), isn't to your liking, because it implicates Oswald as owning the rifle and being a leftist.

So of course you will seize upon any other interpretation, no matter how bizarre.

That is not the correct way to solve a crime.

Can you explain why the conspirators would do this - destroy the legitimate photos of Oswald holding a rifle and substitute fake ones that could be discovered as falsified? Was it perhaps because they had plenty of time and an unlimited budget?

If you have a credible reason for the conspirators you conjecture to act this way, please advance it now. Otherwise, there is clearly no credible reason and the fact that you have conspirators acting in such a bizarre manner is sufficient to dismiss your conjectures as nonsense.

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

Yeah, are you sure you don't mean "Pre-Autopsy even though they are in the autopsy file and nobody other than CTers having tried to present them as anything other than autopsy" photographs?

This is a mere quibble by CTers. It depends on when you define the autopsy started - at the time of the first incision or at the time JFK's body was wheeled into the autopsy room. If at the time of the first incision, yeah, then the photos were 'pre-autopsy'. But if you consider taking photos of the dead body before any incisions are made part of a standard autopsy (to document the state of the body as it was received after the shooting), then the photos are part of the normal autopsy protocol.

I consider them part of the autopsy, and I think anyone who says otherwise just doesn't understand the purpose of an autopsy.

Hank

 

[Tomtomkent]

This is a mere quibble by CTers. It depends on when you define the autopsy started - at the time of the first incision or at the time JFK's body was wheeled into the autopsy room. If at the time of the first incision, yeah, then the photos were 'pre-autopsy'. But if you consider taking photos of the dead body before any incisions are made part of a standard autopsy (to document the state of the body as it was received after the shooting), then the photos are part of the normal autopsy protocol.

I consider them part of the autopsy, and I think anyone who says otherwise just doesn't understand the purpose of an autopsy.

Hank

My thoughts exactly. I suspect Robert only called them "Pre-Autopsy" when it was pointed out that he had made a post claiming ALL autopsy photos of JFK were fake, then used them as evidence himself.

The photos were taken as part of the autopsy record, post mortem, and are in the autopsy file as far as I can tell.

 

[HSienzant]

Let's go over this again one by one. Are you saying that all these witnesses from both Parkland and Bethesda are either lying or mistaken?????

* * *

There are thirty well qualified witnesses to JFK's skull wound from Parkland to Bethesda. Their earliest, unrehearsed, specific descriptions, written, verbal or both, place a major skull defect unambiguously at the posterior.

At Parkland

l. KEMP CLARK, MD: Professor and Director of Neurological Surgery at Parkland

<snipping others>

Let's start here. What did Kemp Clark say about the wound in the typewritten report he signed and which is reproduced in the Warren Commission Report, Robert?

Let me post the link:
http://historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0271b.htm

Let me quote from his first statement on this matter, when his memory was certain to be at its freshest:

"There was a large wound in the right occipito-parietal region... there was considerable loss of scalp and brain tissue...both cerebral and cerebellar tissue was extruding from the wound..."

That description certainly does not conflict with the autopsy report in evidence, the autopsy photos in evidence, and the zapruder film in evidence.

Is Kemp Clark a good witness for you?

I say no.

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

It isn't too often that a murder in broad daylight has the perp emptying shell casings on the scene, but it's a routine procedure when corrupt cops are in the process of framing a Patsy. Moreover, the bullets found in Tippit were never positively linked to the alleged weapon.
Next irrelevant question.

Negative, Robert.

The witnesses at the scene were consistent in saying the shooter emptied his revolver as he walked away after shooting Tippit.

For example, all these witnesses said they saw the gunman empty his revolver and toss the shells away - the Davis sisters, Domingo Benavides and Helen Markham are the ones I could come up quickly. There may be others. If need be, I will cite their statements - but you should be able to find them.

Your argument that this is irrelevant is nonsense. The shells seen by the witnesses to be discarded by the gunman at the scene of the Tippit shooting are proven to have come from Oswald's revolver, to the exclusion of all other weapons in the world.

You need to deal with this evidence, Robert, not just dismiss it with a wave of the hand and calling it irrelevant.

Hank

 

[Robert Prey]

Negative, Robert.

The witnesses at the scene were consistent in saying the shooter emptied his revolver as he walked away after shooting Tippit.

For example, all these witnesses said they saw the gunman empty his revolver and toss the shells away - the Davis sisters, Domingo Benavides and Helen Markham are the ones I could come up quickly. There may be others. If need be, I will cite their statements - but you should be able to find them.

Your argument that this is irrelevant is nonsense. The shells seen by the witnesses to be discarded by the gunman at the scene of the Tippit shooting are proven to have come from Oswald's revolver, to the exclusion of all other weapons in the world.

You need to deal with this evidence, Robert, not just dismiss it with a wave of the hand and calling it irrelevant.

Hank

The difficulty is that some witnesses saw two men involved in the shooting, and none of them identified as Oswald. And planted shells linked to a planted gun is a routine procedure for corrupt cops in the process of framing a Patsy. But the entire episode is irrelevant as to whether there was or was not a conspiracy in the assassination of Kennedy.

 

[Robert Prey]

Let's start here. What did Kemp Clark say about the wound in the typewritten report he signed and which is reproduced in the Warren Commission Report, Robert?

Let me post the link:
http://historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0271b.htm

Let me quote from his first statement on this matter, when his memory was certain to be at its freshest:

"There was a large wound in the right occipito-parietal region... there was considerable loss of scalp and brain tissue...both cerebral and cerebellar tissue was extruding from the wound..."

That description certainly does not conflict with the autopsy report in evidence, the autopsy photos in evidence, and the zapruder film in evidence.

Is Kemp Clark a good witness for you?

I say no.

Hank

Of Course. Can't understand why you would cite him. You do understand where the occipit is located and cerebellum. Hint: Not the front, not the side.