RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
JFK Conspiracy Theories: It Never Ends
- Thread starter Walter Ego
- Start date
-
- Tags
- jfk assassination
- Status
TheRedWorm
I AM the Red Worm!
- Joined
- Aug 13, 2007
- Messages
- 4,452
Tomtomkent
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jul 5, 2010
- Messages
- 8,607
But what you posted was not a coherent narrative. It was an incoherent pick and mix of assertions.
It was what you would call "sophoric". What the rest of us call "debunked". Worst of all it bares little correlation to many more of your self conflicting threads.
EventHorizon
Atheist Tergiversator
I'm not sure why you'd want to admit you have your head in the sand but at least you're finally being honest. Other appropriate pictures to describe you would be a hand caught in a cookie jar, someone with red hands, or....well actually I don't know if there is a visual representation of hypocrisy. But if there is one it could go there as well.
Anyone else not surprised that this "Final Nail" amounts to more speculation, no physical evidence and a bibliography?
Tomtomkent
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jul 5, 2010
- Messages
- 8,607
And I already listed them. Just tell me which ones you can prove to be liars, or assume they are known as single group: "those present at the autopsy". Proof supplied by you must be of both physical and documentary natures to stand.
BaaBaa
Semi-literate hench-person
- Joined
- Feb 15, 2010
- Messages
- 1,466
So, the previous post was actually "The Penultimate Nail"?
jargon buster
Banned
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2009
- Messages
- 4,773
Last edited:
Tomtomkent
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jul 5, 2010
- Messages
- 8,607
Again, this differs from your original statement. Feel free to go back and check, you originally stated that written documents can not be forged, unlike photos.
Given your new stance, why shouldwe offer credence to any new statement? How do you the OLD statement was a Lie and the new one Honest?
This point has been made repeatedly. It has already been pointed out you can hardly. vouch for the assumed honesty of a self confessed liar.
And yet you boasted more than one as evidence!
Feel free to undermine your own "evidence" some more... so Sophomoric.
HSienzant
Philosopher
Only one copy was in the hands of the Secret Service. You seem to not understand that fact. As was pointed out above, altering that copy would be ineffective, as the other copies (and the original) would still exist, any of which could reveal the alterations.
Why would anybody bother to modify a copy, when the original and some copies of the original was still out there, and additional copies could be made from that?
In addition, there were quite a number of other photographers in Dealey Plaza, so the conspirators would have to get their hands ON EVERY FILM AND EVERY PHOTO before any were published, to ensure that those photograhers did not accidentally capture in their films and photos any one of the number of shooters you have alleged at various times. HOW AND WHEN DID THEY DO THAT to all the films and photos, especially considering the Moorman photo was a self-developing Polaroid that appeared on television at 3:19 that day local time?
You ignore entirely the points you have no answer for.
Quite simply, you haven't produced a coherent narrative until you account for all the alterations to all the films.
Hank
Last edited:
HSienzant
Philosopher
This was investigated as a serious lead but ultimately was disproven as evidence of anything in 1964. I see you are citing Mark Lane's book Rush to Judgment (no 'E", btw), but how come Lane only cites her affadavit, and not the ensuing investigation and dismissal of her claims as proving nothing?
For example, there are quite a number of FBI reports trying to track down the air conditioning truck.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/mercer5.txt
Lane did not mention any of that.
There was a report from police officer E.V.Brown as well. Lane did not mention that, either.
Brown told the FBI:
He [Brown] advised that about 10:40 AM [on November 22], he recalls a green pick-up truck which was stalled on Elm Street near the overpass. This truck was a concern since they needed to get it moved prior to the Presidential motorcade. Patrolman Joe Murphy can give full facts regarding the truck and the occupants as he handled the matter and was successful in getting it removed prior to the Presidential motorcade. The persons in this truck were workmen who actually had trouble with the truck and were out of the area when the motorcade came by. He [Murphy] did not see anyone remove anything from this truck.
The FBI followed up with Officer Joe Murphy. Murphy's statement makes crystal-clear the men had nothing to do with the assassination. I quote it in its entirety here. Lane doesn't mention any of this either.
The following investigation was conducted by SA's HENRY J. OLIVER and LOUIS M. KELLEY on December 9, 1963:
JOE MURPHY, Patrolman, Traffic Division, Police Department, Dallas, Texas, advised that on November 22, 1963, he was stationed at the Triple Underpass on Elm Street to assist in handling traffic. At approximately 10:30 - 10:40 AM, a pickup truck stalled on Elm Street between Houston Street and the underpass. He was unable to recall the name of the company to whom this truck belonged but stated it is the property of the company working on the First National Bank Building at Elm and Akard in Dallas.
There were three construction men in this truck, and he took one to the bank building to obtain another truck in order to assist in moving the stalled one. The other two men remained with the pickup truck along with two other officers. Shortly prior to the arrival of the motorcade, the man he had taken to the bank building returned with a second truck, and all three of the men left with the two trucks, one pushing the other.
MURPHY noted that the men did not leave the truck except for the one he took to the bank building, and all three left together sometime prior to the arrival of the President's motorcade. He described the stalled truck as being a green pickup and noted the truck had the hood raised during the time it was stalled. This truck had side tool bins on it, and they had a considerable amount of construction equipment in the back.
MURPHY futher stated it was probable that one of these men had taken something from the rear of this truck in an effort to start it. He stated these persons were under observation all during the period they were stalled on Elm Street because the officers wanted the truck moved prior to the arrival of the motorcade, and it would have been impossible for any of them to have had anything to do with the assassination of President KENNEDY.
Please advise why this is on your list of evidence of anything conspiratorial. It's not. It was seriously investigated and proven to be a false lead back in 1964. Please remove it from your (ahem) 'coherent narrative'.
Repeating nonsense like this is why this thread got started:
Last edited:
HSienzant
Philosopher
Robert, do yourself a favor and look up the meaning of these two words before you embarass yourself further:
1) Coherent
2) Narrative
I see nothing in what you posted that fits the definition of either word.
Hank
Last edited:
EventHorizon
Atheist Tergiversator
I'm sorry Hank but I just can't take you seriously unless you use the word 'obviously' as a standalone sentence. This serves to enhance your point and is in no way a sign that you lack a coherent argument. Obviously.
Tomtomkent
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jul 5, 2010
- Messages
- 8,607
Baloney. You have had too much governement brainwash.
HSienzant
Philosopher
Calling a man a physicist by education is not an ad hominem attack, Robert.
Jack White has no training in photo interpretation. He admitted he had no clue in his testimony before Congress. His idiotic photo interpretations have only muddied the water with nonsense. He is not someone you want to cite as a photographic expert, do you? The man has no clue. That is not an ad hominem. That is merely the truth. Real photo experts studied the issues he raised in 1978 and determined his points are all invalid.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/jwhite.txt
What I see on the film itself is a wound that matches the autopsy photos and the testimony of Elm Street witnesses like Abraham Zapruder and Bill Newman. Those individual pieces of evidence then become much stronger because they mutually corroborate each other, and outliers like some Parkland observations can be disregarded. I know you think you see other things, but so what? In the absence of evidence of alteration (and you have provided nothing except your various interpretations of what you think is problematic. I remind you that your interpretations of the film are not evidence of alteration).
The man I cited is a 8mm film expert, studied the Zapruder film, and determined there is no evidence of alteration. That fits what we know of the film's history, when it was developed, when it was copied, and what happened to it. Quite simply, there is no time before copies were struck for all the ZALTERATIONS you allege to have been made.
You need to establish what you allege. Otherwise it is what it is - simply an unproven allegation.
Hank
Last edited:
HSienzant
Philosopher
I found this.
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=797&relPageId=1
However, note that this statement was given 34 YEARS after the assassination. That is more than a third of the century after the event. Of what value is her recollection then?
I would say very little.
But how come you don't quote her on this:
Q: Is there any question in your mind whether the photographs that you saw today were photographs of President Kennedy?
A: There is not doubt they are pictures of President Kennedy.
Or this:
Q: Did he talk to you at all about where he had obtained the photographs?
A: No. When he gave us the material to process he said that they - had been shot at Bethesda and they were autopsy pictures, for us to process them and try to not observe too much. don't peruse.
So in your estimation, how well did she observe these photos she developed and for how long, before she gave her testimony you cite as part of your coherent narrative?
Did she even see the autopsy photos? Is she simply mis-remembering something? It appears there is room for doubt:
A:... Briefly they were very, what I would consider pristine for an autopsy. There was no blood or opening cavities, opening or anything of that nature...
Q: .. Do you mean that the body appeared to be clean, had been washed?...
A: Yes.
Quite simply - and I know you will disagree, because without 'evidence' like this, you don't have any evidence - her statement, 34 years after she viewed the photos for a very brief time (at 2am in the morning, she says), isn't worth very much. Not very much at all.
Hank
Last edited:
Tomtomkent
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jul 5, 2010
- Messages
- 8,607
Even if they aren't the photos she took (though this is more likely explained by the faliability of memories) they are still photographs of JFK (as has been established beyond doubt) with head wounds that do not match the descriptions or drawings Robert relies on.
It is worth remembering he offered, or more than one occassion cropped and rotated versions of the autopsy photos as evidence, so he must consider them reliable himself. He has been shown unaltered versions and the series they come from and has not retracted his original claims (that have been written down on this forum and published so are beyond alteration anyway apparently).
It is worth remembering he offered, or more than one occassion cropped and rotated versions of the autopsy photos as evidence, so he must consider them reliable himself. He has been shown unaltered versions and the series they come from and has not retracted his original claims (that have been written down on this forum and published so are beyond alteration anyway apparently).
HSienzant
Philosopher
Just to clarify, the photos she is referencing in the exchange below are the extant photos showing the damage to the right side of the head, etc. The ones we have seen numerous times.
Q: Is there any question in your mind whether the photographs that you saw today were photographs of President Kennedy?
A: There is not doubt they are pictures of President Kennedy.
There is another way to get to the correct place and validate that she developed the autopsy photos we've already seen, not special ones showing damage to the rear of the head, and that she is simply mis-remembering some things.
Note she did remember the FBI agent's name was FOX. That is important, because the first published set of the JFK autopsy photos came from the collection of retired agent James FOX. These are the ones we've all seen, nothing in there shows the back of the head being damaged with a large exit wound, as she recalled 34 years after the fact.
In addition, the Lancer website below (a conspiracy site) acknowledges a set of the autopsy photos was developed at the NPIC on 11/27/63 (where she worked).
http://www.jfklancer.com/photos/autopsy_slideshow/index.html
Last edited:
HSienzant
Philosopher
Let's see; did you even read what you posted?
Correcting for the left/right reversal, I see this claim:
The wound extended from the top of the head (vertex) to the right ear, and from the browline to the occiput. Do you agree or disagree?
Does that look a lot like the damage visible here or not:
http://simfootball.net/JFK/aut10_HI.jpg
Let me know where you see the discrepancies between his description and the photo above.
From what I see, his description of the wound looks like the autopsy photo above, and is not any evidence of anything except your desire to inflate the medical witnesses.
Hank
Last edited:
HSienzant
Philosopher
I simply highlighted in the above the portions I wish to emphasize.
Here's the photo again I want you to compare the above to and tell me where you see discrepancies.
http://simfootball.net/JFK/aut10_HI.jpg
Last edited:
HSienzant
Philosopher
Your source is Mark Lane's "Rush to Judgment, P37.
Mark Lane is a conspiracy theorist, and his count is biased in that regard.
Another conspiracy theorist, Stewart Galanor, has his own count, and gets these numbers in his book, Cover-Up:
Not Asked: 32%
Grassy Knoll: 37%
Depository: 32%
Could Not Tell: 24%
TSBD & GK: 4%
Someplace Else: 3%
The HSCA in 1978, however, did an independent count of the witnesses, counted 178 witnesses, and categorized them this way:
Grassy Knoll : 11%
Depository: 27%
Unsure: 44%
Somewhere Else: 17%
While some of the witnesses we may wrangle with*, the HSCA count is the least biased in my opinion and the most thorough. Note the 'Somewhere Else' total is larger than the grassy knoll total.
Mark Lane's list is incomplete and clearly biased in favor of the Grassy Knoll (he was, after all, trying to sell a book).
Your point here is meaningless. Even one of your own witnesses (you brought up Lee Bowers a few weeks ago) admitted during his testimony he could not tell where the shots were coming from because of the reverberation.
Mr. BALL - Can you tell me now whether or not it came, the sounds you heard, the three shots came from the direction of the Depository Building or the triple underpass?
Mr. BOWERS - No; I could not.
Mr. BALL - From your experience there, previous experience there in hearing sounds that originated at the Texas School Book Depository Building, did you notice that sometimes those sounds seem to come from the triple underpass? Is that what you told me a moment ago?
Mr. BOWERS - There is a similarity of sound, because there is a reverberation which takes place from either location.
http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/bowers.htm
One more related point: The vast majority of witnesses (156 of 169 who reported a shot count, according to the HSCA) reported three shots or FEWER. That uniformity is hard to ignore. Unless your theory accounts for this by counting only three shots, the majority of the witnesses dispute your account.
Hank
_____________
* For example John McAdams - a 'lone-nutter' - counts James Crawford as a knoll witness because his impression of the first shot was it was a motorcycle backfire from down the hill, but Crawford started looking around, and by the third shot, starting looking up for the source of the sound. Just after the third shot, he caught a fleeting glimpse of movement in the sniper's nest window, and believed what he saw was a person moving away from that window. Still not certain he heard shots (as opposed to firecrackers, for example) he turned to his co-worker, Mary Ann Mitchell, and said, "If those were shots, they came from that window" (pointing at the sniper's nest window). I personally count Crawford as a TSBD witness because while his first impression was a backfire from 'down the hill', he concluded that was wrong during the shooting, and identified the Depository 6th floor window as the source of the shots within seconds of the final shot.
http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/crawford.htm
John McAdams list of witnesses and how he classifies them is here:
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/earwitnesses.htm
Last edited:
- Status