JFK Conspiracy Theories: It Never Ends

[HSienzant]

Hank wrote:

"Abraham Zapruder and Bill Newman were both in excellent position to view the back of the head. The Z-film shows the back of the head and it shows no damage there after the head shot.,.."

Comment:
Neither Abe Z. nor Bill Newman described anything about the back of the head. Nonetheless, others did.

Yes, that is correct. Now, explain why they both put the large wound they saw in the right side of the head and failed to mention any wound in the back of the head. We've already seen your bogus claim that they could not see the back of the head of JFK exposed as nonsense, so we know that's not why the failed to see any damage to the back of the head. We've also see the Moorman photo and the Z-film show no damage to the back of the head. You've alleged the Z-film is altered (mostly because you don't like what it shows, and no other reason) and suggested the Moorman photo could have been as well. But as we saw, the photo is a polaroid, and self-develops within a few minutes of being exposed. There is absolutely no way that photo was altered to conceal damage to the head of JFK. So you then retreated to claiming it was taken before the head shot, although almost everyone else on the planet (including most critics) concede it was taken about three Zapruder frames after the head shot.

My original opinoin of the Z film was that it is irrelevant as to whether is was altered or not since the Best Evidence is the condition of the Head as viewed by the Medical personnel. I still believe that, with the additional view that the Z film was indeed altered, in several ways including what it does not show as to the back of the head and the spray of brains, hair, scalp and blood that blew out the back of K's head, as seen by witnesses, but not seen on the Z film. The Best Evidence is still what the Medical personnel observed, but nonetheless the Z film was indeed altered and falsified.

Yes, you allege that now, but your original position on the Z-film a few months ago was that it wasn't altered, just too fuzzy to understand. You then went into the "I don't allege it is or allege it is not altered", only to land on the altered state when you found that it doesn't show what you need it to show. But you have failed to show how and when it was altered, and ignore entirely that the frames reproduced in LIFE magazine less than a week after the assassination show exactly the same thing as the Zapruder film that has always been in evidence. That means the alleged alterations of this film had to have been done in less than a week, and probably in less than a day since copies of the film were distributed over the weekend of the assassination to the FBI, and the Secret Service, LIFE magazine, and Abraham Zapruder retained a copy. It was his copy that was sold back to the National Archives less than a decade ago. It agrees with the Z-film frames reproduced in the Warren Commission volumes and seen in countless programs on television over the years. You ignore all that and just allege "alterations" without showing one ounce of proof or even attempting to explain how and when it was done.

Your entire argument has no basis in fact.

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

Yeah, the film was altered, But they could hardly alter everything. The shot hits the right temple and sends him reeling backwards. That much is enough to conclude a shot from the front. Now the wounds, the blood-tissue spray, the missing brains, etc., that's a different story.

How do you know they didn't alter the shot direction and change the direction he fell? You have only your opinion. You want to retain what you conclude from the Z-film while discarding everything that contradicts your conclusions. But it doesn't work that way.

You ignored my point entirely.

Either the film is legit or it is not. *IF* you can show it is not (and haven't even tried thus far), then you cannot use anything you see in the film to draw conclusions about anything. Because the film would not be admissible as evidence.

Now, show it is altered. Got any evidence of that? -- and don't tell me the witnesses... we've already seen you admit that the Z-film, if admissible, would take precedence over eyewitness testimony.

And remember, the Z-film was considered admissible in the Clay Shaw trial, and was admitted as valid evidence. You've produced nothing to overturn that ruling.

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

Hank wrote:

"no, you mentioned that the reason the memo was false was because it had McCone speaking for the FBI."

Comment: But I said it was also false for neglecting the fact the LHO was associated with the CIA U2 project.

And we've already seen that what you are doing is using the premise (Oswald was CIA) to discard the evidence that you don't like. That is not acceptable anywhere where reasonable people hold forth. If you want to persist in that nonsense, I certainly cannot stop you. But among reasonable people, that's called circular reasoning, and is not acceptable.

That leaves you with only one reason that you yourself claimed was sufficient to eliminate the memo: That CIA Director McCone is speaking for the FBI. But that applies only to the March 3rd, 1964 memo, which originated with a tabloid journalist, has no pedigree, and first surfaced in 2004.

The May 8th memo signed by McCone says there is no evidence Oswald was CIA. It is signed by McCone. It appears in an official document on a timely basis. It does not mention the FBI.

Therefore, the evidence indicates the legitimate memo is the May 8th, 1964 one, and the illegitimate, and most likely falsified, memo is the March 3rdl, 1964 that you profess to believe.

You have no evidence Oswald was CIA. The March 3rd memo can be discarded as not believable -- as you yourself told us.

 

[HSienzant]

The Palm Print was taken in INK and sent to the FBI in INK on a 3 x 5 card.

Yes it was. Your point is what? Fingerprinting a dead man to establish his identity is never done?

Can you make a point? I doubt it.

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

TomTom wrote:

"Why have you yet to even explain WHY the photo would have to be tamoered when you conceded that there were OTHER GENUINE PHOTOS OF LHO HOLDING THE SAME WEAPONS? Why in the name of dixie would people smart enough to produce a tampered photo with no visible artefacts of tampering on, not just use one of the other photos that already existed?"

Comment:
I've never claimed any of that -- never claimed there were any genuine photos.

No, Robert, that's untrue. At one point you were quoting Harrison Livingstone's years-after-the-fact interview of Marina, and arguing the possibility that she took legitimate backyard photos of Lee Harvey Oswald with a rifle, that the conspirators then destroyed, and substituted their own forged versions:

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.

Face it, like the backyard photos issue, you have flip-flopped on nearly every issue we've discussed, going from one version to the next. At no point have you actually discarded any version, and in time, you typically have run yourself around in circles (and us, chasing you from behind, hitting you over the head with the facts).

At some point you will come to the realization that the conspiracy theories espoused in the books are unsupportable by any evidence.

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

TomTom wrote:

The issues you claim to have "debunked" have been covered at length. Your dishonesty about the "Palm Print being taken at the funeral home" alone has been proven false to such a degree it must take an amazing feat of self delusion for you to think we will ever accept your assertion.

There is simply no way on earth a LATENT print in magnezium powder could be taken from a body. You even posted a description of how to take an ink print for identification, and have never been able to reconcile the fact these are two entirely different things."

Comment:

The Funeral director said his palms and his fingers were covered with ink. That's how the print was taken.

Yes, and what was done with that print? You yourself provided the answer:

The Palm Print was taken in INK and sent to the FBI in INK on a 3 x 5 card.

Nothing in there about planting it on a rifle, Robert. That's the most important point, and you neglected to mention it?

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

Hank wrote:

"Keep up the nonsense. It shows you are so wedded to a conspiracy belief that you are incapable of letting go of those beliefs even in the face of a mountain of evidence to the contrary. You simply continue to spout the conspiracy line and ignore the evidence to the contrary."

Comment:
Right back at you. You are so wedded to the fairy tale provided by the very perps who were involved in the crime and the cover-up, that in the face of 50 plus witnesses at Parkland, Bethesda and Dealey plaza, you hopelessly cling to a forged, altered home movie as your only way of countering the mountain of evidence for conspiracy.

No, Robert. You don't get to say 'Right back at you' for the simple reason that you haven't provided one iota of legitimate evidence - just argument, innuendo, and supposition - that there is any evidence to support the belief in a conspiracy.

You argued the Moorman photo was altered, then you learned it was a Polaroid, took about five minutes to develop once pulled from the camera, and wasn't out of Mary Moorman's possession in that time.

You argued that Ed Hoffman was an excellent witness for the Grassy Knoll gunman, then you learned he didn't tell a verifiable Grassy Knoll story until the 1970's, and his story is contradicted entirely by the verifiable witnesses on the overpass like Sam Holland.

You argued that the backyard photos were forged, but haven't presented any evidence of that.

You argued that Ed Hoffman saw a gunman with a rifle on the Grassy Knoll, then, a week or so later, was questioning whether a rifle or handgun was used from the Knoll, forgetting how you had argued for Hoffman's crediibility the week before.

You argued that nobody saw a gunman in the sniper's nest window, until I produced Fischer and Edwards, two witnesses who described the man up there in terms that match Oswald's description to a "T".

You argued that the McCone March 3 memo was legit, but then told us we shouldn't believe any memo that has the CIA director speaking for the FBI, perhaps forgetting that your March 3 memo was the one that had that language, not the May 8 memo I posted.

You argued the Z-film was altered, but haven't yet posted one iota of evidence that is the case.

You count people as witnesses to a back of the head wound that never mentioned a wound in the back of the head.

You told us there were 20+ witnesses, no, 30+, no 40+, and now, with this post, it is 50+ witnesses. Either you have witness inflation or a lot of people are claiming to be witnesses that never were claiming that before.

You argued that it would take a witness vouching for the Z-film to get it admitted as evidence in a trial, and when I pointed out that not only did that witness exist, but the Z-film was admitted as legitimate evidence in the 1969 trial of Clay Shaw, you danced away from your own argument proving the Z-film valid as quickly as you could. Are you claiming you never posted the below?

IN a court of law, in order for a photograph or a motion picture video to be admitted as evidence, there must first be an eyewitness or witnesses who supports the claim that the photo or movie accurately portrays what it claims to portray. Thus, you need an eyewitnesses in order to lay a foundation for a photo or a movie which you claim is superior evidence to an eyewitness.

Etc. Etc.

No, Robert, you can't say 'Right back at you' until you actually post some verifiable evidence. Not before.

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

Your explanation for the K memo is not an explanation for it, but an indictment of it and the evidence for the intended cover-up.

Really?

Katzenbach says, ""It is important that all of the facts surrounding President Kennedy's Assassination be made public in a way which will satisfy people in the United States and abroad that all the facts have been told and that a statement to this effect be made now."".

He says it's important to tell all the facts, and you interpret that to mean he was talking about a cover-up?

That alone says a lot about how you think.

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

What is it about the words "soon be aware" that you don't get?

Actually, why you wrote what you wrote.

Oswald made the claim, after his arrest, that he was just a patsy, that they had taken him in because he had spent time in Russia.

But what you wrote is something different, that he hadn't realized that yet, didn't realize it by the time he was shot dead, and thus had not started to 'sing':

If Oswald had lived, he would have soon been aware that his associates with the CIA, the Mafia and the FBI were not his friends, and he would have had additional information to prove his innocence.

... I would think getting arrested and arraigned for the assassination of the President would have clued him in that he was being framed, but you write it as if he hadn't realized that yet. How slow on the uptake was this guy, anyway?

Please explain why you think Oswald wasn't aware by 11am on Sunday, 11/24/1963 that his associations with the CIA, Mafia, and FBI (all of which are just assumed by you, by the way) were what got him into trouble to start with, and why he hadn't started to provide that additional information that would prove his innocence, especially since he had already said he was a patsy.

While you're at it, please provide a explanation for Oswald's provable lies in custody, like:

I didn't take a long package to work on Friday.

I never owned a rifle.

I didn't shoot nobody, no sir.
​

Hank

 

[Southwind17]

Yeah, the film was altered, But they could hardly alter everything. The shot hits the right temple and sends him reeling backwards. That much is enough to conclude a shot from the front.

Begging the question, Robert, begging the question, again. Of course a shot hitting the right temple is enough to conclude a shot from the front (front-right, to be exact) - what else?! But we don't see a shot from the front in the film, do we! We don't actually see a shot from anywhere in particular! You're deducing a shot from the front based only on what we see as the after effect of a shot from somewhere. And you're assuming that a hole in the front-right of the head plus a backward movement proves a shot from the front. But you're conveniently forgetting that a shot to the head results in two holes, and you're assuming that a head, when shot, inevitably moves in the same direction as the bullet.

How about you provide a calculation showing how much energy would have been transferred from the bullet to the head upon entry. Then provide a calculation showing the reactive force exerted on the head from the expellation of matter from the exit wound. Then deduct the former from the latter and tell us all the answer you get, and hence in what direction we can really expect the head to move.

Now the wounds, the blood-tissue spray, the missing brains, etc., that's a different story.

Well at least you acknowledge that your thoughts on the first part are just a story!

Zabpruder was too far away and too busy filming to really "see" everything.

Really? We see in the Zapruder film exactly what Zapruder himself saw at the time. You, yourself claimed:

A close up observation is not a fleeting, passing event that might be misconstrued.

 

[Regnad Kcin]

JFK conspiricies. It's a religion. A cult of willing certitude.

 

[EventHorizon]

Robert is really fighting outside of his weight class here.

 

[Robert Prey]

Begging the question, Robert, begging the question, again. Of course a shot hitting the right temple is enough to conclude a shot from the front (front-right, to be exact) - what else?! But we don't see a shot from the front in the film, do we! We don't actually see a shot from anywhere in particular! You're deducing a shot from the front based only on what we see as the after effect of a shot from somewhere. And you're assuming that a hole in the front-right of the head plus a backward movement proves a shot from the front. But you're conveniently forgetting that a shot to the head results in two holes, and you're assuming that a head, when shot, inevitably moves in the same direction as the bullet.

How about you provide a calculation showing how much energy would have been transferred from the bullet to the head upon entry. Then provide a calculation showing the reactive force exerted on the head from the expellation of matter from the exit wound. Then deduct the former from the latter and tell us all the answer you get, and hence in what direction we can really expect the head to move.

How about applying a little common sense, namely, that what you see is really what happened. Calculations are useless unless you account for all the variables such as type of weapon, distance, type of bullet, angle of entry, etc., etc,.

 

[Robert Prey]

Actually, why you wrote what you wrote.

Oswald made the claim, after his arrest, that he was just a patsy, that they had taken him in because he had spent time in Russia.

But what you wrote is something different, that he hadn't realized that yet, didn't realize it by the time he was shot dead, and thus had not started to 'sing':




Please explain why you think Oswald wasn't aware by 11am on Sunday, 11/24/1963 that his associations with the CIA, Mafia, and FBI (all of which are just assumed by you, by the way) were what got him into trouble to start with, and why he hadn't started to provide that additional information that would prove his innocence, especially since he had already said he was a patsy.

While you're at it, please provide a explanation for Oswald's provable lies in custody, like:

I didn't take a long package to work on Friday.

I never owned a rifle.

I didn't shoot nobody, no sir.
​

Hank

ONe question at a time. We can only know that when LhO said he was just a Patsy he believed he was just a Patsy. As to when prior to that announcement he realized he was just a Patsy is mindless speculation

 

[Robert Prey]

Really?

Katzenbach says, ""It is important that all of the facts surrounding President Kennedy's Assassination be made public in a way which will satisfy people in the United States and abroad that all the facts have been told and that a statement to this effect be made now."".

He says it's important to tell all the facts, and you interpret that to mean he was talking about a cover-up?

That alone says a lot about how you think.

Hank

A sophomoric attempt to cull words prior to his incriminating statements revealing the intent to frame one man, regardless of the facts"

"The public must be satisfied that Oswald was the assassin; that he did not have confederates who are still at large; and that the evidence was such that he would have been convicted at trial."

 

[Robert Prey]

No, Robert. You don't get to say 'Right back at you' for the simple reason that you haven't provided one iota of legitimate evidence - just argument, innuendo, and supposition - that there is any evidence to support the belief in a conspiracy.

You argued the Moorman photo was altered, then you learned it was a Polaroid, took about five minutes to develop once pulled from the camera, and wasn't out of Mary Moorman's possession in that time.

You argued that Ed Hoffman was an excellent witness for the Grassy Knoll gunman, then you learned he didn't tell a verifiable Grassy Knoll story until the 1970's, and his story is contradicted entirely by the verifiable witnesses on the overpass like Sam Holland.

You argued that the backyard photos were forged, but haven't presented any evidence of that.

You argued that Ed Hoffman saw a gunman with a rifle on the Grassy Knoll, then, a week or so later, was questioning whether a rifle or handgun was used from the Knoll, forgetting how you had argued for Hoffman's crediibility the week before.

You argued that nobody saw a gunman in the sniper's nest window, until I produced Fischer and Edwards, two witnesses who described the man up there in terms that match Oswald's description to a "T".

You argued that the McCone March 3 memo was legit, but then told us we shouldn't believe any memo that has the CIA director speaking for the FBI, perhaps forgetting that your March 3 memo was the one that had that language, not the May 8 memo I posted.

You argued the Z-film was altered, but haven't yet posted one iota of evidence that is the case.

You count people as witnesses to a back of the head wound that never mentioned a wound in the back of the head.

You told us there were 20+ witnesses, no, 30+, no 40+, and now, with this post, it is 50+ witnesses. Either you have witness inflation or a lot of people are claiming to be witnesses that never were claiming that before.

You argued that it would take a witness vouching for the Z-film to get it admitted as evidence in a trial, and when I pointed out that not only did that witness exist, but the Z-film was admitted as legitimate evidence in the 1969 trial of Clay Shaw, you danced away from your own argument proving the Z-film valid as quickly as you could. Are you claiming you never posted the below?




Etc. Etc.

No, Robert, you can't say 'Right back at you' until you actually post some verifiable evidence. Not before.

Hank

As per your usual, a fusillade of baloney, designed to overwhelm and obfuscate. I'm onto your method, which is why I only answer one point at a time.

 

[Robert Prey]

Yes, and what was done with that print? You yourself provided the answer:




Nothing in there about planting it on a rifle, Robert. That's the most important point, and you neglected to mention it?

Hank

"In 1978, FBI agent Richard Harrison confirmed to researcher Gary Mack that he had personally driven another Bureau agent and the 'Oswald' rifle to the Miller Funeral Home. Harrison said at the time he understood that the other agent intended to place Oswald's palm print on the rifle 'for comparison purposes.' Oswald had been fingerprinted three times while alive and in Dallas police custody. There has been no explanation for this postmortem fingerprinting."-- from "Crossfire" by Jim Mars

 

[Robert Prey]

No, Robert, that's untrue. At one point you were quoting Harrison Livingstone's years-after-the-fact interview of Marina, and arguing the possibility that she took legitimate backyard photos of Lee Harvey Oswald with a rifle, that the conspirators then destroyed, and substituted their own forged versions:




Face it, like the backyard photos issue, you have flip-flopped on nearly every issue we've discussed, going from one version to the next. At no point have you actually discarded any version, and in time, you typically have run yourself around in circles (and us, chasing you from behind, hitting you over the head with the facts).

At some point you will come to the realization that the conspiracy theories espoused in the books are unsupportable by any evidence.

Hank

You are incorrect. I only point out the various stories that are out there and their inconsistencies, without taking any position, except that the photos in evidence are fake.

 

[Robert Prey]

Yes it was. Your point is what? Fingerprinting a dead man to establish his identity is never done?

Can you make a point? I doubt it.

Hank

Agent Drain himself later stated in a private interview that he had no idea why the FBI agents took more prints when the authorities already had plenty of Oswald's prints from when Oswald was in custody.

 

[Robert Prey]

And we've already seen that what you are doing is using the premise (Oswald was CIA) to discard the evidence that you don't like. That is not acceptable anywhere where reasonable people hold forth. If you want to persist in that nonsense, I certainly cannot stop you. But among reasonable people, that's called circular reasoning, and is not acceptable.

That leaves you with only one reason that you yourself claimed was sufficient to eliminate the memo: That CIA Director McCone is speaking for the FBI. But that applies only to the March 3rd, 1964 memo, which originated with a tabloid journalist, has no pedigree, and first surfaced in 2004.

The May 8th memo signed by McCone says there is no evidence Oswald was CIA. It is signed by McCone. It appears in an official document on a timely basis. It does not mention the FBI.

Therefore, the evidence indicates the legitimate memo is the May 8th, 1964 one, and the illegitimate, and most likely falsified, memo is the March 3rdl, 1964 that you profess to believe.

You have no evidence Oswald was CIA. The March 3rd memo can be discarded as not believable -- as you yourself told us.

Oswald's association with the top secret U2 program proves he had an association with the CIA. That't not circular reasoning, but a straight line fact.