I'm referring to the forensic evidence specifically, i.e. JFK's body, which, had it remained in Dallas for a proper autopsy, would have spared us all these theories. Or maybe not...
JFK Conspiracy Theories: It Never Ends
- Thread starter Walter Ego
- Start date
-
- Tags
- jfk assassination
- Status
I'm referring to the forensic evidence specifically, i.e. JFK's body, which, had it remained in Dallas for a proper autopsy, would have spared us all these theories. Or maybe not...
Poor choice of words in this context: Substitute "coverup" for "conspiracy" then. There's some suggestion of this by Hosty, for example, immediately after the assassination when it was initially considered "in furtherance of an international communist conspiracy."
Darnit, left out "any." Which is not to say "any post-assassination scenario IS credible," but it is striking how many there are and how tenaciously they have been maintained.
HSienzant
Philosopher
Robert,
The fairy tales are all on your side. Newman and his family can be seen in numerous photos during and immediately after the assassination. His location is well documented.
For example, he can seen with his wife and child at the far left of this image:http://www.jfk.org/go/collections/item-detail?fedoraid=sfm:2002.040.0007
Here is a simple map where a conspiracy theorist places Bill Newman.
http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/23/dp331newman100111.gif/sr=1
The limo had almost directly in front of and had passed Newman's location at the time of the head shot in Zapruder frame 313. Furthermore, remember that JFK's head was canted 17 degrees to the left of the centerline of the limo as the limo traveled down Elm Street.
That puts Newman slightly behind and to the right of JFK's head at the time of the head shot. Newman would have had an excellent view of the back of JFK's head. Your statement concerning Newman that "the back of the head is not observed since the witness was in front of the limo" is absolutely and provably false.
In fact, Newman observed the head wound, as stated and demonstrated above, from slightly behind and to the right of JFK. He described no back of the head wound. His description to the newsman Jay Watson was “And then as the car got directly in front of us, well, a gun shot apparently from behind us hit the President in the side, the side of the temple.” Billy Newman pointed to his left temple as the source of the large wound, pointing with his left hand to the temple, as he held his son on his lap with his right arm.
The three photos at the top across at this location shows where Newman, where Kilduff, and where Zapruder indicated the large wound was:
http://www.patspeer.com/chapter18b:reasontobelieve
(the first photo is inverted left-to-right to indicate a right temple wound).
I remind you that you characterized Kilduff's location as the temple here:
Now you argue that's not the temple when Zapruder indicates that, but that's almost precisely the same area as indicated by both Kilduff and Zapruder.
You emphasize but mischaracterize Newman's conclusions about where the shots came from, but his conclusions are not evidence. You characterize the shots as coming from the grassy knoll fence area, but that is untrue. Newman said the 'mall', and that is a pedestrian walkway.
Mall: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/mall
The pedestrian walkway behind Newman can be see in the photo and the map cited above. It is a large semi-circular concrete structure, and it would serve as an ampitheatre, amplifying sounds and echoing them back toward Newman.
In fact, he did mark a map in precisely that location in the made-for-tv TV trial featuring Bugliosi as the prosecutor:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6oykKXTfLRI&feature=related
A shooter in this area would be BEHIND Kennedy. Do you really want to claim Newman gave evidence of a grassy knoll shooter?
His auditory *conclusions* about the source of the shots are not valid evidence. His visual *observations* certainly are. I trust you understand the difference.
He, Kilduff, and Zapruder all placed the large wound (clearly visible in this loop)
http://i366.photobucket.com/albums/oo103/bmjfk63/spatteronJackiesface-1.gif
as in the right side of the head, above and in front of the ear.
Hank
Last edited:
jargon buster
Banned
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2009
- Messages
- 4,773
Im convinced Robert is right about all this after all no one yet has put him off his stride, you guys need to up your game if you want to prove him wrong.
HSienzant
Philosopher
Robert,
Concerning Dr. Burkley's conclusions, it is also clear Burkley was talking about the large wound visible in the Z-Film as seen above, and his conclusions (again that word) about the source of the shot to the head are not evidence. I remind you that autopsies are conducted for precisely that reason, to determine the manner of death, and if by gunshot, to determine the number of wounds and their location and the location of the shooter.
The autopsy determined, based on the indications left on the skull, that the bullet that struck the head came from behind JFK, and that the large wound seen in the z-film (and seen by Newman, Burkley, and Zapruder, and mentioned to Kilduff by Burkley) is in the right side of the head, above and in front of the ear.
We got here because you cited a photo of Kilduff pointed to his temple, falsely claiming that he was indicating an entry wound to JFK's head.
Also, try to remember that you quoted Dr. Jenkins statement that JFK suffered "a great laceration on the right side of the head" (to the occipital and TEMPORAL bone) when asked to document the claim that Kilduff said it was an entry wound. You even highlighted the word temporal in large type. Do you remember stating this?
Please note that Dr. Jenkins said nothing about that one wound being a wound of entry. He just said there was a large wound there.
Now, prove it was one of entry, by citing someone who was qualified to make that assessment.
Otherwise, you are just citing mis-information by persons who are not qualified to make the assessments you quote them as making.
Hank
Last edited:
HSienzant
Philosopher
I presume you mean a post-assassination coverup conspiracy, rather than a pre-assassination conspiracy to assassinate the President.
Yes, certain isolated incidents of cover-your-ass destruction of evidence took place (like the FBI agent Hosty destroying a note Oswald left at the FBI office a few weeks before the assassination), but they by no means change the overall conclusions of the Warren Commission in any way.
In fact, they were investigated in 1978 by the HSCA and Hosty claimed he was following the orders of his immediate superior, but his superior denied telling Hosty that. Hosty had no reason to lie about that, as it was he who brought the destuction of evidence to light. His superior certainly had reason to lie, but I don't think it rose higher than that. Rather, Hosty's boss wanted to save the FBI the embarrassment of having received a note from the assassin shortly before the shooting, and not having done anything about it. Hoover's wrath for embarrassing the Bureau was well-known.
What Cuban contingency plans are you speaking of?
HSienzant
Philosopher
Not at all.
First off, it had a proper autopsy. Only it was in Bethesda, not Dallas.
Secondly, the worse-case scenario was for one local group to control all the evidence. If that were the case, the claim could be made that it was definitely a fix by a small group of individuals, mostly Dallas Police officers.
But the body was given a proper military autopsy by a group of Naval surgeons, the bullet fragments found in the car were discovered by the Secret Service, the Dallas Police found the rifle and the shells in the Depository, the Sheriff's Department took the statements of dozens of witnesses that first day, etc. etc. To run a conspiracy like this, the active agents involved would easily number in the hundreds, if not thousands.
Hank
HSienzant
Philosopher
Say what?
Nope.
Robert needs to prove his claims are right.
We need only prove his claims aren't based on any legitimate evidence, and are often just suppositions where they are not outright falsehoods - like his claiming most recently that the Dealey Plaza witness Bill Newman didn't see the back of the head because he was in front of the limo at the time of the head shot.
Here's the problem: The conspiracy theorists can claim almost anything is true in a sentence or two. It often takes a lot of citations of evidence to disprove those claims. Just look at my post establishing what Newman truly said and meant, versus Robert's one-liner that Newman didn't see the back of the head wound because he was in front of the limo.
Original conspiracy theorist Mark Lane was once described as a man who had falsehoods leap out of his mouth like frogs, and trying to capture all those frogs is nearly impossible. And even when the truth is well-documented and provably true (like Newman's true location), CTs can simply ignore the counter-evidence (as Robert does) and continue to make the claim, or simply switch it up and make other undocumented claims about something else.
Trying to capture all those frogs Robert spews forth is hard work.
Hank
Hank
Last edited:
HSienzant
Philosopher
Robert, where's the entry wound in that photo? Or are you suggesting it was a bullet striking the rear of the head tangentially that caused that damage?
If so, why did you suggest a bullet entry in the forehead?
Why did you suggest yet another bullet strike in the right side of the head with a dum-dum bullet?
How many bullets do you think struck JFK between frames Z312 and Z313 in total, and can you show any other frames of the z-film that show a clear bullet strike to the head in the manner of Z313?
And furthermore, if the bullet didn't come from behind JFK, how come JFK's head clearly moves FORWARD in the z-film after being struck by a bullet?
Hank
jargon buster
Banned
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2009
- Messages
- 4,773
mmm..I don't know why you bother.
HSienzant
Philosopher
Conspiracy nuts have painted Oswald as a patriot in many cases (see the movie JFK, where Oswald in the summation is said to have been trying to actively stop the conspiracy).
The man murdered the president. And he is being portrayed now as a hero.
I can't think of many bigger lies than that that have been foisted on the American populace.
That is why I bother.
Hank
jargon buster
Banned
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2009
- Messages
- 4,773
Robert knows the truth, its just not the truth he's trying to get you to buy.
Robert Prey
Banned
- Joined
- Sep 8, 2011
- Messages
- 6,705
NO. I'd find it reasonable to place it where witness Bill Newman placed it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Y3JLIhUYf0
HSienzant
Philosopher
No, actually I didn't. I cited Zapruder as giving first-day evidence consistent with a large blowout on the right side of the head, specificially in the temple area. You are raising a false issue to deflect from your own inability to document any evidence for an *entry* wound (as opposed to an exit wound) in the temple area.
Robert Prey
Banned
- Joined
- Sep 8, 2011
- Messages
- 6,705
Zapruder said no such thing. You have been corrected on this already, but you refuse to acknowledge it.
Robert Prey
Banned
- Joined
- Sep 8, 2011
- Messages
- 6,705
NOt even the most ardent Lone Nutters would describe the autopsy as "proper."
Robert Prey
Banned
- Joined
- Sep 8, 2011
- Messages
- 6,705
"Assistant Press Secretary Malcolm Kilduff announced President Kennedy’s death from Parkland Hospital. He told the country: “President John F. Kennedy died at approximately one o’clock Central Standard Time today here in Dallas. He died of a gunshot wound in the brain…Dr. Burkley [Kennedy's personal physician] told me it is a simple matter…of a bullet right through the head.(at which time, as shown on the slide above, he pointed to his right temple) . . . It is my understanding that it entered in the temple, the right temple.”
From YOUR source, PatSpeer.com .
Your last several posts have earned by my count at least 4 or 5 Pinnochios. A little more honesty would be highly appreciated.
Last edited:
Robert Prey
Banned
- Joined
- Sep 8, 2011
- Messages
- 6,705
Your statements about what Bill Newman said, and where his position was is a crock. Here is what he said:
"...The President was still 50 feet in front of us coming towards us and we heard the first shot and I don't know who was hit first, but the President jumped up in his seat, .. and as the car got directly ih front of us, Ithought it scared him becuase he looked up in his seat and I thought he looked like it was a fire cracker because he looked up scared, and as the car got directly in front of us, a gunshot apparently from behind us hit him in the side of the temple...
Interviewer: Do you think the first shot came from behind you too???
BN: Come from the same location, apparently from behind the uh Mall, I don't know what you call it.
Mod: Do you think the shot came from on top of the viaduct?
BN: No, not on the viaduct itself, but on top of the hill, the mound of garden... We were looking more or less directly at the President when he was hit. he was more or less directly in front of us..."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Y3JLIhUYf0
So he was directly in front of them, thus they could not possibly view the rear of the head. And by the Mall he clearly meant the Grassy Knoll (hill, mound, garden). Let's have no more Pinnochios on this interview as well.
Last edited:
Tomtomkent
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jul 5, 2010
- Messages
- 8,607
Gosh. If only there was something Robert could offer us to convince us.
Like Physical evidence.
Wonder why he doesn't just give that a go...
Like Physical evidence.
Wonder why he doesn't just give that a go...
MinnesotaBrant
Philosopher
- Joined
- Apr 20, 2011
- Messages
- 5,827
I would say, based on movies and tv, that the world is run by organized crime syndicates.
- Status