JFK Conspiracy Theories: It Never Ends

[Walter Ego]

None Dare Call It Conspiracy

Is it possible that Oswald acted alone, but that a conspiracy (for lack of a better word) emerged in the aftermath of JFK's assassination, involving the Justice Dept., FBI and organized crime figures?

Cards on table: I think it probable that Oswald was the lone assassin. But the evidence has been so tainted (principally thru deference to the Kennedy family) that we'll never know for certain. There is enough circumstantial evidence (e.g. Cuban "contingency plans") that post-assassination scenario seems credible.

Guess that makes me a barking loon to half of you, but so be it.

There was a post-assassination cover up of Oswald's pre-assassination activities and associations and, yes, the Kennedy family, specifically RFK, was involved in the cover up along with LBJ, the CIA, FBI, et al. Avenues of investigation were curtailed and information was withheld from the Warren Commission, governmental agencies and officials and the American public.

This cover up is by far the most interesting and intriguing angle on the assassination as it relates to suppressed information about Oswald's motive in killing the President and the possible assistance and tacit encouragement he received in carrying out the assassination. I will be posting a separate thread about this angle in a few days.

You are wrong, however, that we cannot know for certain that Oswald was the lone gunman. The scientific and forensic evidence nails Oswald and there is no credible evidence of a second shooter. The only remaining question is who had foreknowledge of Oswald's expressed intention of killing JFK and what did they do to advance (or, at the very least, not impede) his goal of political assassination.

 

[HSienzant]

NO. I'd find it reasonable to place it where witness Bill Newman placed it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Y3JLIhUYf0

Here's precisely where Bill Newman placed it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6oykKXTfLRI

That agrees with his original statement.
Your inference of what his words mean is incorrect. You want to move the location of the sound from behind him and to his left to behind him and to his right - the grassy knoll fence. But that is not what he said, and that is not the location he marked.

He marked the pergola area.

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

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.

I remind you that Bill Newman entered the discussion because you said there were no contrary witnesses to a large exit wound in the back of JFK's head.

You have yet to provide any quotes or observations of anybody on the scene either at Parkland, Bethesda or Dealey Plaze which contradicts that observations of 40 plus on the scene witnesses.

Bill Newman was one of several witnesses in Dealey Plaza who said the blowout was to the right side of the head, not the back of the head.

You dismissed Newman because you said Newman couldn't possibly see the back of JFK's head from his location at the time of the head shot because the witness was *IN FRONT OF THE LIMO*.

... Just checking two additional witnesses (Bill and Gayle Newman) which you cite as observing a wound to the right side of the head (that is not in dispute, sir, the right side of the head exploded, the back of the head is not observed since the witness was in front of the limo) ...

I established using a map and photos of Newman's location that that was a falsehood and that the limo was almost directly in front of Newman at the time of the head shot. Instead of conceding defeat, you compound your problem by continuing your charade.

You now quote and emphasize where the JFK limo was at the time of the *first shot*. But that is not the pertinent location here, and you know it. The pertinent location is where the JFK limo was at the time of the head shot.

Here's the quote YOU provided, with the correct location (at the time of the head shot) emphasized. Note it agrees completely with the location I put the limo at the time of the head shot, and establishes that your original reason for dismissing Newman's failure to mention a back of the head wound is an absolute crock.

"...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 in front of us, I thought it scared him because 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..."

Now you change your story. Saying instead that although the limo was directly in front of Bill Newman, Newman still couldn't have seen the back of the head. That is likewise nonsense, as it has been established that JFK's head was canted to the left of the limo by 17 degrees from the centerline of the limo, and thus Newman, who was alongside the right side of the limo would have seen the back of JFK's head from his position after the head shot.

He mentioned no damage there. He mentioned damage only to the right side of the head. Newman is a Dealey Plaza witness that contradicts the Parkland doctors. One that you challenged us to cite.

Would you like to move on to another witness or do you want to continue your charade by arguing about what Newman could or could not have seen?

 

[Robert Prey]

I remind you that Bill Newman entered the discussion because you said there were no contrary witnesses to a large exit wound in the back of JFK's head.




Bill Newman was one of several witnesses in Dealey Plaza who said the blowout was to the right side of the head, not the back of the head.

You dismissed Newman because you said Newman couldn't possibly see the back of JFK's head from his location at the time of the head shot because the witness was *IN FRONT OF THE LIMO*.






I established using a map and photos of Newman's location that that was a falsehood and that the limo was almost directly in front of Newman at the time of the head shot. Instead of conceding defeat, you compound your problem by continuing your charade.

You now quote and emphasize where the JFK limo was at the time of the *first shot*. But that is not the pertinent location here, and you know it. The pertinent location is where the JFK limo was at the time of the head shot.

Here's the quote YOU provided, with the correct location (at the time of the head shot) emphasized. Note it agrees completely with the location I put the limo at the time of the head shot, and establishes that your original reason for dismissing Newman's failure to mention a back of the head wound is an absolute crock.

"...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 in front of us, I thought it scared him because 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..."

Now you change your story. Saying instead that although the limo was directly in front of Bill Newman, Newman still couldn't have seen the back of the head. That is likewise nonsense, as it has been established that JFK's head was canted to the left of the limo by 17 degrees from the centerline of the limo, and thus Newman, who was alongside the right side of the limo would have seen the back of JFK's head from his position after the head shot.

He mentioned no damage there. He mentioned damage only to the right side of the head. Newman is a Dealey Plaza witness that contradicts the Parkland doctors. One that you challenged us to cite.

Would you like to move on to another witness or do you want to continue your charade by arguing about what Newman could or could not have seen?

The "side" of the head is not the back of the head. Nor did he say anything about a "blow-out" . That is your interpolation. And you prefer to ignore where he said the fatal head shot came from. His entire verbal observations support the Parkland doctors, support the Grassy knoll shot andh thus support a conspiacy, and negate your Lone Nutter shot from the back brainwash.

 

[Robert Prey]

Here's precisely where Bill Newman placed it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6oykKXTfLRI

That agrees with his original statement.
Your inference of what his words mean is incorrect. You want to move the location of the sound from behind him and to his left to behind him and to his right - the grassy knoll fence. But that is not what he said, and that is not the location he marked.

He marked the pergola area.

Hank

What pergola? This one?

 

[Robert Prey]

Here's precisely where Bill Newman placed it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6oykKXTfLRI

That agrees with his original statement.
Your inference of what his words mean is incorrect. You want to move the location of the sound from behind him and to his left to behind him and to his right - the grassy knoll fence. But that is not what he said, and that is not the location he marked.

He marked the pergola area.

Hank

That "pergola" area would be directly behind from where he said he was standing -- the Grassy Knoll.

 

[Robert Prey]

Here's precisely where Bill Newman placed it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6oykKXTfLRI

That agrees with his original statement.
Your inference of what his words mean is incorrect. You want to move the location of the sound from behind him and to his left to behind him and to his right - the grassy knoll fence. But that is not what he said, and that is not the location he marked.

He marked the pergola area.

Hank

From the Mock Trial:

Bill Newman: I was standing on the curb, in front of the grassy knoll....just as he was in front of me, about 15 feet away, boom the side of his ear fell off,

Spence: Where'd you think the shots were coming from?

BN: Sir, I thought the shots were coming from directly behind (meaning behind from where he was standing).

Spence: Where would that be on this exhibit?

BN: It would be somewhere back in this general area.
(Points to an area on the grassy knoll.)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z4NbiOihaCs

 

[Tomtomkent]

Do you have any physical evidence to support your claims yet Robert?

 

[HSienzant]

"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.

Once again, it is clear that neither Burkley nor Kilduff are forensic pathologists. As such, any determination they made as to wounds of entry or exit (remember as well that Burkley did not handle the skull in any way, he simply saw a large wound in the right side of the head) are simply guesses.

Burkley saw a large wound *on the right side of the head*. Nowhere does anything you quoted say that was believed to be an an entry wound by Dr. Burkley. Kilduff's opinion of what he thought Dr. Burkley was saying doesn't mean squat (e.g., "It is my [Kilduff's] understanding that it entered in the temple, the right temple").

The important thing is to note that both these men put a wound in the right side of the head. Neither mentioned nor put a wound in the back of the head on 11/22/63.

These two men disprove your contention that all the Parkland witnesses mentioned a large exit wound on the back of the skull.

Along with numerous other witnesses in Dealey Plaza, like Bill Newman and Abraham Zapruder, both of whom put the wound on the right side of the head, not the back of the head, and Dr. Jenkins, who put the wound on the right side of the head (in a quote you offered!) these people offer straightforward evidence that there was no damage to the back of the head. In addition to the witnesses, of course, we have the autopsy x-rays, the autopsy photos, the autopsy report, the HSCA forensic panel's report, the Zapruder film, the Clark panel's report, etc. etc., all of which confirm the existence of a large wound on the right side of the head - and all of which you simply dismiss because you don't like what they tell you.

PS: Pat Speer is a conspiracy theorist. Just thought you should know.

Hank

 

[EventHorizon]

A little more honesty would be highly appreciated.

A shocking level of hypocrisy.

 

[Robert Prey]

ff's]

The important thing is to note that both these men put a wound in the right side of the head. Neither mentioned nor put a wound in the back of the head on 11/22/63.

These two men disprove your contention that all the Parkland witnesses mentioned a large exit wound on the back of the skull.

Hank

That the right side of the head was wounded is not in dispute. But your contention that such an observation disproves all of the 40 plus witnesses at Parkland and Bethesda who did indeed observe a large blowout in the back of the head, is your own, illogical, baloney. But now you go even further to claim the Parkland witnesses were lying. Absurd.

 

[TheRedWorm]

Why do you even bother? Your pretend stance isn't going to convince anyone here or in the real world. So again, why do you even bother?

 

[HSienzant]

The "side" of the head is not the back of the head. Nor did he say anything about a "blow-out" . That is your interpolation. And you prefer to ignore where he said the fatal head shot came from. His entire verbal observations support the Parkland doctors, support the Grassy knoll shot andh thus support a conspiacy, and negate your Lone Nutter shot from the back brainwash.

Great, we're making real progress here. I see you are no longer denying that Newman was alongside the limo and no longer falsely claiming he was in front of the limo at the time of the head shot. So did Newman have a view of the back of the head or not? You originally claimed he did not. Clearly he did, from the map provided and the photos that establish both JFK's head was canted to the left of the centerline of the limo as well as photos that establish where Newman was standing.

Yes, Robert, the side of the head is not the back of the head. Newman mentioned no damage to the back of the head.

Newman said the damage he saw was to the side of the head - the temple, specifically. We both agree it's the right temple area. Clearly he was not talking about a small entry wound - you yourself said a dum-dum bullet caused extensive damage to that area. So we're talking about a large wound that Newman placed in the right temple area - Not the Back of the Head.

He put the damage to JFK's head on the side of the head, contrary to the Parkland doctors. He is one of *many* Dealey Plaza witnesses that put the damage on the side of the head, not the back of the head.

I am not ignoring where he said the shots came from. I am telling you he marked the map showing where he said he thought the shots came from. It is approximately 90 degrees from where you would like the shots to have emanated from, the Grassy Knoll fence. Anything you are reading into his statement about the source of the shots being the Grassy knoll fence area is simply your interpretation of his words - not where he indicated the shots came from when he actually marked the map.

Did you actually click on the link I provided and look at where he marked the map?
Have you ever visited Dealey Plaza and seen the area?
Do you understand that his words are subject to mis-interpretation by you, and in fact, have been mis-interpreted by you?

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

NOt even the most ardent Lone Nutters would describe the autopsy as "proper."

Sorry, the experts who've examined the extant autopsy materials have agreed with the conclusions and the methodology used to conduct the autopsy. You won't be able to find any valid criticisms of that autopsy by any expert.

It was a proper autopsy, conducted according to standard protocol.

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

From the Mock Trial:

Bill Newman: I was standing on the curb, in front of the grassy knoll....just as he was in front of me, about 15 feet away, boom the side of his ear fell off,

Spence: Where'd you think the shots were coming from?

BN: Sir, I thought the shots were coming from directly behind (meaning behind from where he was standing).

Spence: Where would that be on this exhibit?

BN: It would be somewhere back in this general area.
(Points to an area on the grassy knoll.)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z4NbiOihaCs

Hi Robert,

Where he marked on the map is closer to the location of the Depository than it is to the Grassy Knoll fence.

Do you think Bill Newman's marked location was correct? I remind you that a shot from that location was behind JFK at the time of the head shot, and thus a shot striking JFK in the head from that location *disagrees with your own proposed bullet path* where you indicated the angle and the direction of the wound to JFK.

Do you remember submitting this bullet path image?

Corrected bullet path here. The faint red arrow.

Are you saying that bullet path was incorrect, and the red arrow should be reversed?

Or are you telling me where Newman marked the image was incorrect, and the true source wasn't behind him and to his left, but off to the right?

Please try to understand the assassination only happened one way. Thus far, you have it happening multiple ways.

Thanks,
Hank

 

[HSienzant]

Your questions are too non-specific. Have you not read the Warren Report? The doctors statements in the WR are dated Nov. 22, 1963.

Hi Robert,

Do you intend to back up your claims about Riebe and Stringer by providing the dates they gave the statements you cite?

How many decades after the assassination did they give those statements?

Can you advise?

I've asked for this information before.

Thanks,

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

That the right side of the head was wounded is not in dispute. But your contention that such an observation disproves all of the 40 plus witnesses at Parkland and Bethesda who did indeed observe a large blowout in the back of the head, is your own, illogical, baloney. But now you go even further to claim the Parkland witnesses were lying. Absurd.

No, that's just TWO different straw arguments by you, because you cannot overcome what I actually said.

I never claimed the Parkland witnesses were lying. I have pointed out in the recent past that noted conspiracy theorist David Lifton has claimed they must have been part of the conspiracy, if his body alteration theory is correct. You haven't disavowed that theory, even saying "I don't dismiss it", which means that you might believe the doctors are telling the truth about the wounds and exposing the conspiracy while still being part of the conspiracy. That makes no sense. Quite simply, if you believe the doctors are truthful and NOT part of the conspiracy, you must disavow the body alteration theory. But that's a discussion for another time.

You are now falsely stating I am claiming the Parkland witnesses were lying. That is untrue, and quite clearly a straw argument by you.

Here's you not disavowing Lifton's theory:

...As to body alteration and Z film alteration, I don't know and neither do you, but Lifton makes a plausible argument.

...Nope. I've never said I believed in body alteration, though I don't dismiss it either.

Do you remember stating these things:

Makes no difference to me. The unanimous observations of the medical witnesses at Parkland trump everything else.

You have yet to provide any quotes or observations of anybody on the scene either at Parkland, Bethesda or Dealey Plaze which contradicts that observations of 40 plus on the scene witnesses.

You have no other witnesses contrary to the 40 plus first hand, on site witnesses at Parkland, Bethesda and Dealey plaza who observed a large blow-out in the back of the President's head???

I am providing those contrary quotes you said haven't been provided. You don't like that, so in rebuttal you mischaracterize what I actually said. What I actually said was that "these two witnesses" (Kilduff and Burkley, both of whom were at Parkland) "disprove your contention that all the Parkland witnesses mentioned a large exit wound on the back of the skull."

These two men disprove your contention that all the Parkland witnesses mentioned a large exit wound on the back of the skull.

In addition, of course, there are also numerous witnesses in Dealey Plaza (like Bill Newman and his wife, and Abraham Zapruder) who likewise put the wound in the right side of the head, contrary to your assertion that we have no Dealey Plaza witnesses who failed to place the wound in the back of the head.

And of course, the autopsists in their autopsy report put the large wound in the right side of the head. The autopsy was at Bethesda.

If you don't understand the difference between what I actually said and what you are claiming I said, that alone could explain why you believe in a conspiracy.

I fail to understand why you mischaracterized what I said -- twice in the above -- mis-stating my actual claims. Unless, of course, you have NO legitimate rebuttal argument.

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

What pergola? This one?

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_526994f317c5d57fee.jpg[/qimg]

Absolutely that one. But I find the photo you provide more than a little misleading, as it doesn't even show the portion of the pergola that Newman marked on the map. It is obscured behind trees to the right of your image.

Here's where Newman indicated the shots came from on a map of Dealey Plaza:
http://simfootball.net/JFK/NewmanMark.jpg

Here's a larger map, putting that smaller area in context. Newman's position is marked with a red X, the area he denoted as the source of the shots is a blue line, and the area you believe a grassy knoll shooter was is denoted in orange. Kennedy's limo at the time of the head shot is highlighted in yellow.
http://simfootball.net/JFK/DealeyMap-NewmanMarked.jpg

Let me know if you think I marked anything incorrectly and I will fix it. Or please submit your own image showing the locations above properly marked.

You do see that the area Newman marked is approximately 90 degrees from the position of the supposed grassy knoll shooter, yes?

You do see that a shot from the area Newman marked would hit JFK in the back of the head, especially when we take into account his head was canted 17 degrees to the left of the centerline of the limo, yes?

You do agree that would make the arrow you drew showing the shot to the head point in the wrong direction, yes?

You do agree that if any shot was fired from that area, it struck nothing known, correct?

 

[Southwind17]

Watched "JFK: The Lost Bullet" last night. Assume you've all seen it. As much as I'm prepared to admit that I'd like to hang on to at least the notion of a second shooter (just to keep the 'mystery' alive), being totally honest it does seem to very plausibly put the matter to bed. It certainly seems to offer the most likely scenario, and answer many questions upon which the second shooter idea rests. Conclusion? Oswald acted alone.

 

[Robert Prey]

Watched "JFK: The Lost Bullet" last night. Assume you've all seen it. As much as I'm prepared to admit that I'd like to hang on to at least the notion of a second shooter (just to keep the 'mystery' alive), being totally honest it does seem to very plausibly put the matter to bed. It certainly seems to offer the most likely scenario, and answer many questions upon which the second shooter idea rests. Conclusion? Oswald acted alone.

Another factless conclusion typical of the brainwashed Lone Nutter.