JFK Conspiracy Theories: It Never Ends

[Tomtomkent]

That doesnt make sense, why would the people doing the forcing allow a doctor to burn notes himself?
Wouldnt the forcers simply have wanted to see the original notes and confiscate them and destroy them themselves?

Phone call
Hey Doc, you better burn those notes
Ok, I have burned them.
Right now keep it shut , or else.

"Oh, and Doc, make sure you sign the correct form to confirm you burned the notes, then submit it as evidence to the enquiry, and mention it at every oppertunity. You know, so everybody knows about it. But other than that, shuddup!"

 

[HSienzant]

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.

I'm with Robert here. Except I think Humes simply mis-spoke.

For example, if Humes had said,
"Scientifically sir, it is impossible for it to have been fired from other than behind. Or to have exited from other than the front."

That would mean a back-to-front bullet path.

But what Humes actually said was different:
"Scientifically sir, it is impossible for it to have been fired from other than behind. Or to have exited from other than behind."

The two are certainly not synonymous.

The bottom line is Robert is believing the apparent mis-speaking by Humes at the same time he is accusing Humes of being part of a coverup and conspiracy (burning his notes, lying in the autopsy report, etc, etc).

 

[bynmdsue]

lol.

I would ask you for evidence to support those claims, but we both know you don't have anything other than suppositions and quotes out of context.

Hank

Bazinga!

 

[HSienzant]

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

ROTFLMFAO! You just quoted Humes on the bullet path. Don't you remember arguing his words here imply a conspiracy and a shot from other than the rear?

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

How's that working out for you, Robert? The man is not credible, except when you like something he said?

It doesn't work that way, Robert.

And, oh, yeah, you dodged answering my question, Robert. I'll repeat it here:

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.

Hank

 

[Robert Prey]

ROTFLMFAO! You just quoted Humes on the bullet path. Don't you remember arguing his words here imply a conspiracy and a shot from other than the rear?



How's that working out for you, Robert? The man is not credible, except when you like something he said?

It doesn't work that way, Robert.

And, oh, yeah, you dodged answering my question, Robert. I'll repeat it here:




Hank

Ridiculous logic. O'Connor's drawing is legit because it is consistent with what all the medical Personnel at Parkland observed.

 

[Robert Prey]

Dodged the question for a fifth time.

Here it is again.

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 will answer your questions - When Oswald first tried to join the Marines, like his older brother Robert had previously, he was deemed too young by the Marines and turned down. He eventually did join a year later. Do you really think U.S.Intelligence was recruiting 16 year old high school dropouts with NO skills?

He got the clearance (the lowest level available) due to the nature of his job in the Marines, working with the radar group at Atsugi where he and other Marines were stationed.

You haven't provided one iota of evidence supporting the claim that Oswald "had ties to Naval Intell, Army Intell, CIA, FBI and anti-Castro groups as well".

Now, answer the question: You think conspirators whisked away the real photos and substituted fake ones? And this argument makes sense to you?

Hank

One question at a time.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Really, Robert. Nobody thinks less of you for your cowardly dodging and it doesn't harm your credibility at all. Bang! LOL.

 

[HSienzant]

One question at a time.

Robert dodged the question for a Sixth time!

Here it is again. I've placed it in boldface below in case you have trouble finding it amidst my answers to your other bogus issues.

Originally Posted by HSienzant

And you still haven't answered my question. You merely dodged it for at least a fourth fifth 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 will answer your questions - When Oswald first tried to join the Marines, like his older brother Robert had previously, he was deemed too young by the Marines and turned down. He eventually did join a year later. Do you really think U.S.Intelligence was recruiting 16 year old high school dropouts with NO skills?

He got the clearance (the lowest level available) due to the nature of his job in the Marines, working with the radar group at Atsugi where he and other Marines were stationed.

You haven't provided one iota of evidence supporting the claim that Oswald "had ties to Naval Intell, Army Intell, CIA, FBI and anti-Castro groups as well".

Now, answer the question: You think conspirators whisked away the real photos and substituted fake ones? And this argument makes sense to you?

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

How does that prove a non-conspiracy?

Robert dodges the questions.

Originally Posted by HSienzant

Seriously, Robert.

You wrote this in post 983:

I am responding to that point *you* raised.

Here's the facts. The shells found at the scene are traceable to the revolver purchased by Lee Harvey Oswald and wrested from his hand in the theatre.

Oswald shot and killed police officer J.D.Tippit about 45 minutes after the President was assassinated.

Again, I know you are going to argue that an automatic was used to kill Tippit. If that's the case, why didn't the conspirators who were trying to frame Oswald do either of the [rather obvious choices] following:

a) Shoot Tippit with a revolver?
b) Frame Oswald for purchasing an automatic weapon?

Can you answer the question?

I doubt it, as none of the conspiracy books even try to address simple questions like these raised by their theories.

All the best,
Hank

 

[HSienzant]

Originally Posted by Robert Prey

Brennan may have seen someone, but even after seeing Oswald on TV that day, Brennan failed to ID Oswald at the police lineup on the night of Nov. 22nd. Then later, he changed his mind, then later, changed his mind again. Not a very credible witness.

Originally Posted by Robert Prey

A witness with bad eyesight who thinks he saw somebody from a distance but couldn't ID him up close, and then changes his story time and again, is not a credible witness. Obviously.

Hi Robert,

I haven't seen you retract these claims. I apologize if I missed your retraction. Can you point me to it?

Hi Robert,

Alleging Howard Brennan had bad eyesight at the time of the JFK assassination is a falsehood. Please retract it.

Thanks,
Hank

 

[Tomtomkent]

One question at a time.

Robert, why can't you just answer questions one at a time?

 

[HSienzant]

Originally Posted by HSienzant
But you previously said there was no damage to the face. O'Connor's drawing shows the damaged area extending through the head all the way to the face.
The drawing from Six Seconds in Dallas [the drawing showing what McClelland's version of the wound was] shows only a large exit wound on the back of the head, with no damage extending into the right temple or all the way to the face.

Can you somehow merge these disparate images into a coherent story line?

I bet you can't.

McClelland's drawing was pre-autopsy at Parkland.

Sorry, that doesn't explain the difference in the wounds described. Do you think the wounds changed between the time McClelland saw the wound at Parkland and the time O'Connor saw the wound at the autopsy?

How do you think they were changed?

 

[kookbreaker]

One question at a time.

Why bother? Even when someone does ask just one question your answer is always the same: A variation on "Oh yeah?! Well I don't think so! So there!"

 

[Tomtomkent]

Ridiculous logic. O'Connor's drawing is legit because it is consistent with what all the medical Personnel at Parkland observed.

It is not consistant with the material evidence.
If it is consistant with faliable human memory is entirely subjective.
Which makes your logic beyond ridiculous and into the realms of being laughable.


Why do you keep claiming material evidence must be wrong if it conflicts with testamony? You just can't lose face and admit the testamony could be wrong based on actual, reliable and viable evidence!

 

[Tomtomkent]

Sorry, that doesn't explain the difference in the wounds described. Do you think the wounds changed between the time McClelland saw the wound at Parkland and the time O'Connor saw the wound at the autopsy?

How do you think they were changed?

You dont expect him to answer two questions do you? Apparently he is unable to cope with such concepts!

 

[HSienzant]

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

What matters is where the fatal bullet entered and exited, yes. But the witness you cited as giving evidence of a large exit wound in the back of the head gave statements that clearly mean something different. For example, on McClelland:

Originally Posted by HSienzant

Thank you for quoting that. I emphasized one line I wish you to explain away. Bear in mind JFK was on his back the entire time the doctors treated him, and the doctors did not move the head at any time.

Since that is true, how could they look *down* into the wound unless they were looking at it thru the massive right temple opening we see in the Z-film and the autopsy photos?

Where is the parietal bone? Do you know?
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."
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..."

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

Bear in mind as well that at the time he testified, it was already considerably after he had written his notes on 11/22/63, which say there was a gunshot wound of the left temple. There is a massive gunshot wound of the right temple, and I will suggest to you again that McClelland simply made a left-right mistake in his earliest statement.

 

[HSienzant]

You are familiar with the concept of "reloading?"

Robert apparently thinks all weapons are one-use, disposable weapons.

 

[HSienzant]

He burned his original notes because he was forced to. They didn't fit the official script.

A pity you are just making that up and have no evidence to support your accusation. It would be a much better story if you could actually prove it.

 

[HSienzant]

Ridiculous logic. O'Connor's drawing is legit because it is consistent with what all the medical Personnel at Parkland observed.

Yes, I agree it's ridiculous logic to cite the opinion of the autopsy doctor on one hand, then to argue he has little credibility on the other hand, but that's exactly what you did.

And remember, the statements of the medical personnel at Parkland are in dispute. I pointed out previously that Drs. Crenshaw, McClelland and Kemp Clark all gave statements indicating the wound was precisely where the autopsy placed it. Chiefly in the Parietal bone, with damage extending to other areas of the head.

Crenshaw:
Pg 78: "Then I noticed that the entire right hemisphere of his brain was missing, beginning at his hairline and extending all the way behind his right ear." [Crenshaw's book]

McClelland:
"...right posterior portion of the skull had been extremely blasted. It had been shattered...so that the parietal bone was protruded up through the scalp and seemed to be fractured almost along its right posterior half, as well as some of the occipital bone being fractured in its lateral half, and this sprung open the bones that I mentioned in such a way that you could actually look down into the skull cavity itself ..." (WC--V6:33)

Clark:
"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..." (WR Appendix VIII, p.518)

Hank

 

[TheRedWorm]

Why bother? Even when someone does ask just one question your answer is always the same: A variation on "Oh yeah?! Well I don't think so! So there!"

Its almost spamming by this point, no?