JFK Conspiracy Theories: It Never Ends

[HSienzant]

The autopsy report is dishonest, if for no other reason that it is missing the most important component -- the original photos and x-rays which were denied to the Warren Commission. But that does not necessarily require dishonesty, where incompetence is also a possibility. Here is but one example:

Head Autopsy Doctor Commander Humes made this statement at the WC hearings. Would you characterize this statement as accurate, logical and coherent?

Referring to the bullet wound in the back of the head:

"Scientifically sir, it is impossible for it to have been fired from other than behind. Or to have exited from other than behind." WCH, Vol. II, page 360


Can this statement be interpreted as confirming a shot from the back, or a shot from the front, or both??? How does one characterize a man, a professional pathologist, as dishonest when he merely may have a scrambled brain??

When speaking extemporaneously, people sometimes mis-speak.
Have you never done this?

What did the autopsy report that Cmdr Humes signed say about the bullet to the head?

It says the bullet traversed the head in a posterior-anterior direction. That means back-to-front.

I would suggest that would be a good source to resolve the apparent conflict:
http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0284a.htm

 

[Robert Prey]

Yes, I am granting all that for the sake of the argument. You also admitted that you believe Marina took photos of Oswald holding the rifle, just not the [forged] ones in evidence.

I am pointing out a problem with your re-construction of the crime, that the scenario you are advancing requires the conspirators to destroy perfectly legitimate photos of Oswald holding his rifle, taken by Marina, and then substituting falsified photos of Oswald holding his rifle, purported taken by Marina.

My point is simple and I am surprised you have not been able to explain it away. Why would the conspirators do this, unless they had a lot of free time on their hands and an unlimited budget?

Why not just use the legit photos to frame Oswald in the court of public opinion? Would not those work as well?

For Robert: This is called reduction to an absurdity. I have taken your own argument and accepted your premises, and shown how your argument makes no sense. Therefore, whether you understand it or not, or accept it or not, I have demonstrated you have clearly made a mistake somewhere in your argument. I suggest you go back over the steps and re-think your premises.

Hank

I don't accept anything Marina says. But assuming she did take some photos, perhaps they the govt. perps wanted to "improve" on them, perhaps adding a rifle and or a gun and or some commie literature. A more perplexing question would be why Oswald would ever want such pics taken. Your argument about time and budget is laughable.

 

[Tomtomkent]

I don't accept anything Marina says. But assuming she did take some photos, perhaps they the govt. perps wanted to "improve" on them, perhaps adding a rifle and or a gun and or some commie literature. A more perplexing question would be why Oswald would ever want such pics taken. Your argument about time and budget is laughable.

Then as your claims about "impossible" shadows have been proven false many times over, and you don't believe Marina, what grounds are there to assume any photo to have been fake? Other than your need to "prove" a conspiracy of course.

 

[HSienzant]

The autopsy drawing by Paul O'Connor is consistent with the statement above properly interpreted as the occipit being absent of bone. The bullet travels from the right temple blasting out the thru the parietal and the occipt. It hardly has any consistency with a small entrance wound in the back of the head. But your mis-interpretation confirms the ambiguity.

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_526994ed41798cf9ee.jpg[/qimg]

Hi Robert,

How soon after the assassination did Paul O'Connor make that drawing?
I believe the autopsy report was completed (typed) on 11/24/63 - two days after the assassination. I believe Humes testimony on the autopsy was in 1964, less than a year after the autopsy.

I believe Paul O'Connor's drawing was made more than 35 years after the assassination. Please let us know when this drawing was executed, and why you believe it should be granted more credence than the documents executed on the weekend of the assassination by the autopsists and more credence than the photographs of the body now available publicly that were taken on the night of the autopsy.

 

[HSienzant]

I don't accept anything Marina says. But assuming she did take some photos, perhaps they the govt. perps wanted to "improve" on them, perhaps adding a rifle and or a gun and or some commie literature. A more perplexing question would be why Oswald would ever want such pics taken. Your argument about time and budget is laughable.

Yes, my argument about having too much time on their hands and unlimited money was intended to be laughable, as it mocks the argument you advanced for the conspirators to be creating false images when the perfectly legit ones would do. I am glad you see that.

And your saying you don't accept anything Marina says is not entirely true. My recollection is you did accept her word that the photos she took were taken with her back to the stairs. But if you are not accepting her word as true now, then you don't have any evidence that the photos now in evidence are not the ones Marina took.

Harrison Livingston interviewed her in for "High Treason Two" in 1992. Her story then was that she took the photos, but not the one's in evidence because she said in the photos she took, the stairs of the house were to her back. IN the photos in evidence, the picture taker is facing the stairs, and the stairs are to the subject's back. That's a real inconsistency which if true, points to a re-taking of the photos by the conspirators.

However, if you are now saying you don't believe her at all about taking any photos - that is your only other recourse - then that of course is just silly. She has been entirely consistent about this from day one. She has always maintained she took photos of Oswald in the backyard with him holding a rifle. Denying this fact just shows how desperate you are.

And Oswald wanted such photos taken - and inscribed one "To my daughter, June" and gave it to Marina as a keepsake for June - because he wanted to document his standing as a good Marxist (and 'Hunter of Fascists') when he attempted to defect to Cuba.

And you still haven't answered my question. You merely dodged it for at least a fourth time. Your argument was that the photos in evidence are not the ones Marina took - and she has always insisted she took photos of Oswald with a rifle - and that the ones now in evidence are forgeries.

So to argue that the conspirators destroyed perfectly legit photos of Oswald with a rifle and substituted faked photos of Oswald with a rifle - that only untrained eyes with no established background as photo experts can see are faked [like Jack White and Robert Groden] - is just plain absurd. Unless you can come up with a valid reason for conspirators to go to all that trouble.

I am sorry you don't see that.

Hank

PS: Did you see that I addressed all your points, I did not ask for you to post one point at a time? Why do you imporse this artificial limitation? Is it simply to be able to dodge answering any and all questions you wish to avoid?

 

[Robert Prey]

Y

And Oswald wanted such photos taken - and inscribed one "To my daughter, June" and gave it to Marina as a keepsake for June - because he wanted to document his standing as a good Marxist (and 'Hunter of Fascists') when he attempted to defect to Cuba.

I take it you don't see anything unusual about this Marxist "hunter of Fascists" joining up with the Marines, perhaps to fight commies and get killed somewhere, a Marxist who got a secret clearance to work at the Atsugi Airbase tracking U2's, a Marxist who had ties to Naval Intell, Army Intell, CIA, FBI and anti-Castro groups as well.... Just your normal, every day Marxist hunter of Fascists wanting to impress what? his daughter. I don't know what your day job is, but I suggest you don't go into any kind of detective work.

 

[Robert Prey]

Hi Robert,

How soon after the assassination did Paul O'Connor make that drawing?
I believe the autopsy report was completed (typed) on 11/24/63 - two days after the assassination. I believe Humes testimony on the autopsy was in 1964, less than a year after the autopsy.

I believe Paul O'Connor's drawing was made more than 35 years after the assassination. Please let us know when this drawing was executed, and why you believe it should be granted more credence than the documents executed on the weekend of the assassination by the autopsists and more credence than the photographs of the body now available publicly that were taken on the night of the autopsy.

HOw much cred can you put in an autopsy doc who burned his notes the night of the autopsy?

 

[bynmdsue]

I take it you don't see anything unusual about this Marxist "hunter of Fascists" joining up with the Marines, perhaps to fight commies and get killed somewhere, a Marxist who got a secret clearance to work at the Atsugi Airbase tracking U2's, a Marxist who had ties to Naval Intell, Army Intell, CIA, FBI and anti-Castro groups as well.... Just your normal, every day Marxist hunter of Fascists wanting to impress what? his daughter. I don't know what your day job is, but I suggest you don't go into any kind of detective work.

He needed the fotos to prove his bona fides to the Reds he was infiltrating on orders of the intelligence community.

Duh.

 

[Tomtomkent]

Robert, you have yet to prove any connection to the CIA, FBI or Army intelligence.

Do you really want to criticise somebody for not being a good enough "detective" to accept your claims with out valid evidence? You who kept stating a drawing and eye witnesses were Material evidence?

Really?

 

[Robert Prey]

When speaking extemporaneously, people sometimes mis-speak.
Have you never done this?

What did the autopsy report that Cmdr Humes signed say about the bullet to the head?

It says the bullet traversed the head in a posterior-anterior direction. That means back-to-front.

I would suggest that would be a good source to resolve the apparent conflict:
http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0284a.htm

Yeah, perhaps you can resolve this infamous Humes quote as well:

"Scientifically sir, it is impossible for it to have been fired from other than behind. Or to have exited from other than behind." WCH, Vol. II, page 360

 

[Tomtomkent]

Yeah, perhaps you can resolve this infamous Humes quote as well:

"Scientifically sir, it is impossible for it to have been fired from other than behind. Or to have exited from other than behind." WCH, Vol. II, page 360

You still cant comprehend basic english?
The shot was fired from behid.
It exited FROM behind, ie the same direction.

I assume from your confusion you think it is saying it exited from HIS behind. But it does not. If you are not mistakenly adding an extra word, I have no idea how you can think anything needs resolving.

 

[Tomtomkent]

HOw much cred can you put in an autopsy doc who burned his notes the night of the autopsy?

Any evidence to support this allegation?

 

[Walter Ego]

I take it you don't see anything unusual about this Marxist "hunter of Fascists" joining up with the Marines, perhaps to fight commies and get killed somewhere, a Marxist who got a secret clearance to work at the Atsugi Airbase tracking U2's, a Marxist who had ties to Naval Intell, Army Intell, CIA, FBI and anti-Castro groups as well.... Just your normal, every day Marxist hunter of Fascists wanting to impress what? his daughter. I don't know what your day job is, but I suggest you don't go into any kind of detective work.

Robert, don't you know anything about your hero?

Lee Harvey Oswald went into the Marines to escape from the house of his horrid, smothering mother, Marguerite Oswald. He was following the path of his older brother Robert who he admired who was also a Marine. His half-brother John Pic joined the Coast Guard. All of Marguerite's children chose military service as a way of flying the coop.

As a Marine serving in Atsugi, Japan, Oswald had a security clearance of confidential (the lowest level), not secret and never received a higher classification.

And Oswald's only "ties" to the U.S. intelligence services you mention and to the FBI was that they all opened files on him after he defected to the Soviet Union. Oswald's only "work" with anti-Castro groups in New Orleans was his bumbling attempts to infiltrate them.

Your would-be hero was an inept, mentally unstable screw up not the kind of person an intelligence agency would employ. The KGB realized this almost immediately and wouldn't touch him with a ten-foot pole.

Your boy Oswald was a loser, Robert, a loser's loser in fact. His murder of the president was either a last act of desperation or an attempt to prove (to Cuba and Castro most likely) that he wasn't a loser.

 

[Robert Prey]

Any evidence to support this allegation?

 

[Walter Ego]

Lee Harvey Oswald: Hero or Loser?

More opinions on the man Robert would elevate to the level of an American hero.

Robert Stone, New York Review of Books, June 22, 1995.

Lee Harvey Oswald... was a loser’s loser whose chance of fame would always be proportional to his willingness to self-destruct. He would never prove a lover or a hero; his options were only shades of villainy, something which he naturally failed to understand. In the Marine Corps, he was just another one of those mouthy sea lawyers full of pseudo-intellectual yammer about their far-out politics, one of the revolutionaries who would go to Russia when they got out. The difference between Oswald and the rest was that he actually went. And then, instead of skulking home when his money ran out, he insisted on staying, even to the point of making a superficial suicidal gesture when he was asked to leave. He was determined to achieve the status of “defector.” This was a man whose only gift was the wit to compound his mistakes exponentially. A man to turn a personal ****-up into a national disaster and make his problems everybody’s.

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/arc...losers-loser/?pagination=false&printpage=true

From Don DeLillo, author of Libra, a novel about Oswald.

Oswald would not have walked two blocks to shoot at the president. The president had to come to him, and this is what happened, ruinously, on Nov. 22.

This was an act of naked desperation. Oswald abandoned his claim to history and became the first of those soft white dreamy young men who plan the murder of a famous individual -- a president, a presidential candidate, a rock star -- as a way of organizing their loneliness and misery, making a network out of it, a web of connections.

Think of Oswald the defector, the pro-Castro activist, the earnest student of world affairs. In the end, there was nothing left of him but a defeated ego, a self isolated from the world and from other people. He fell out of history and politics and became a figure in one of his own bent daydreams.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/oswald/forum/

 

[EventHorizon]

Yeah, perhaps you can resolve this infamous Humes quote as well:

"Scientifically sir, it is impossible for it to have been fired from other than behind. Or to have exited from other than behind." WCH, Vol. II, page 360

Oh my word! Which word do you not understand the definition of? From, other, exited or behind?! This is truly unbelievable. You criticize other people's research, saying they'd be lousy detectives yet you don't know what material evidence is and you don't backup claims. You speculate, quote mine, crop photos and basically act completely dishonestly and now we see that you can't even comprehend basic English? You have absolutely no credibility. You can't be for real? Please tell me you've been putting us on this whole time. You have to have been.

 

[SpitfireIX]

HOw much cred can you put in an autopsy doc who burned his notes the night of the autopsy?

He burned his notes after he copied them, because they had Kennedy's blood on them. He testified about this to the HSCA:

Mr. CORNWELL. I only have one final question. First, however, the notes are no longer in existence; is that correct?
Dr. HUMES. The original notes which were stained with the blood of our late President, I felt, were inappropriate to retain to turn in to anyone in that condition. I felt that people with some peculiar ideas about the value of that type of material, they might fall into their hands. I sat down and word for word copied what I had on fresh paper.
Mr. CORNWELL. And then destroyed them?
Dr. HUMES. Destroyed the ones that were stained with the President's blood.

(source)

 

[bynmdsue]

...He would never prove a lover or a hero; his options were only shades of villainy, something which he naturally failed to understand....This was a man whose only gift was the wit to compound his mistakes exponentially....

That's gold, Jerry! Gold!

You want the shadowy figures behind the assassination? You have to start with Marguerite...

 

[Robrob]

I take it you don't see anything unusual about this Marxist "hunter of Fascists" joining up with the Marines, perhaps to fight commies and get killed somewhere, a Marxist who got a secret clearance to work at the Atsugi Airbase tracking U2's, a Marxist who had ties to Naval Intell, Army Intell, CIA, FBI and anti-Castro groups as well.... Just your normal, every day Marxist hunter of Fascists wanting to impress what? his daughter. I don't know what your day job is, but I suggest you don't go into any kind of detective work.

Robert, don't you know anything about your hero?

Lee Harvey Oswald went into the Marines to escape from the house of his horrid, smothering mother, Marguerite Oswald. He was following the path of his older brother Robert who he admired who was also a Marine. His half-brother John Pic joined the Coast Guard. All of Marguerite's children chose military service as a way of flying the coop.

As a Marine serving in Atsugi, Japan, Oswald had a security clearance of confidential (the lowest level), not secret and never received a higher classification.

And Oswald's only "ties" to the U.S. intelligence services you mention and to the FBI was that they all opened files on him after he defected to the Soviet Union. Oswald's only "work" with anti-Castro groups in New Orleans was his bumbling attempts to infiltrate them.

Your would-be hero was an inept, mentally unstable screw up not the kind of person an intelligence agency would employ. The KGB realized this almost immediately and wouldn't touch him with a ten-foot pole.

Your boy Oswald was a loser, Robert, a loser's loser in fact. His murder of the president was either a last act of desperation or an attempt to prove (to Cuba and Castro most likely) that he wasn't a loser.

1) Not all that improbable for a disturbed loser, seeking to make himself "special" in the eyes of others, to do something as disconnected as enlist in the Marines then defect to the Soviet Union.

2) "perhaps to fight commies and get killed" Supposition and not the least bit likely for any of his assignments.

3) "secret clearance" He had a CONFIDENTIAL clearance. FAIL!

4) What significance would there be in "tracking U2's?" LHO was a Aircraft Control and Warning Operator. He ran the radar dish that tracked all the aircraft.

5) "had ties to Naval Intell, Army Intell, CIA, FBI?" Utter fantasy.

BTW, have you ever admitted you were "mistaken" when you claimed LHO attended military language school and was "fluent" in Russian when he arrived in Moscow?

 

[Walter Ego]

You want the shadowy figures behind the assassination? You have to start with Marguerite...

Marguerite molded Oswald's personality and they shared many traits in common, namely arrogance, self-absorption, a sense of grievance and entitlement and the belief that they were smarter than everyone else.

Marguerite was a truly bizarre woman and she was probably the first person to assert Oswald was a secret agent for American Intelligence. Dig these jaw-droppers from her Warren Commission testimony.

MARGUERITE OSWALD -- "I did say...I wanted my son buried in the Arlington Cemetery. Now, gentlemen, I didn't know that President Kennedy was going to be buried in Arlington Cemetery. All I know is that my son is an [U.S. Intelligence] agent, and that he deserves to be buried in Arlington Cemetery."

---

"I am going to say it as strongly as I can...and I have stated this from the beginning...I think our trouble in this is in our own Government. And I suspect these two agents of conspiracy with my daughter-in-law in this plot."

EARL WARREN -- "With who?"

MARGUERITE OSWALD -- "With Marina and Mrs. Paine--the two women. Lee was set up, and it is quite possible these two Secret Service men are involved."

J. LEE RANKIN -- "Which ones are you referring to?"

MARGUERITE OSWALD -- "Mr. Mike Howard and the man that I did not know the name." ....

J. LEE RANKIN -- "What kind of a conspiracy are you describing that
these men are engaged in?"

MARGUERITE OSWALD -- "The assassination of President Kennedy."

J. LEE RANKIN -- "You think that two Secret Service agents and Marina
and Mrs. Paine were involved in that--in the conspiracy?"

MARGUERITE OSWALD -- "Yes, I do."

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/b41ed913d511cfc8?dmode=print

Another jaw-dropper.

Lee Harvey Oswald, my son, even after his death, has done more for his country than any other living human being.

For Marguerite the assassination was a golden opportunity to be the center of attention, something she always craved (and another attribute she shared with her son Lee). It was also an opportunity to turn an easy buck.

Hugh Aynesworth, [Reporter, Dallas Morning News] : Oswald's mother, Marguerite, was one of the weirdest people I've ever run into. Some people were actually afraid of her and I can understand why... She was constantly calling me claiming that he was involved in a conspiracy with the CIA and all. She said, 'My son is innocent, he was an FBI agent. She was always groveling for money for interviews for anything.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/oswald/program/pt.html

A MOTHER IN HISTORY by Jean Stafford. 121 pages. Farrar, Straus & Giroux. $3.95.

Jean Stafford (The Mountain Lion, Children Are Bored on Sunday) has a reputation for writing impressively about all sorts of unpleasant human woes and misfortunes—accidents, operations, psychic fear in children. But this is by far her most thoroughly unpleasant book—perhaps the most abrasively unpleasant book in recent years—and it required no writing talent at all.

On three successive days, Author Stafford merely set a tape recorder whirling and asked 58-year-old Marguerite Oswald, mother of Lee Harvey Oswald, to talk nonstop. She complied readily, for a price of course ($1,500)....

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,835326,00.html