JFK Conspiracy Theories: It Never Ends

[Robert Prey]

Here's a link to the memo:
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh19/html/WH_Vol19_0251a.htm

I cannot believe you are actually asking this question.

1. First off, I remind you there is no evidence that what Mercer saw was a rifle in a case. She said she saw tool boxes in an air conditioning truck, and saw a man reach over the tailgate of the truck and take 'what appeared to be' a gun case from the truck. You are simply assuming her assumption is correct.

2. By finding the cop (Joe Murphy) who was at the scene and interviewing him and establishing the supposed gunman with the supposed 'gun case' was actually long gone by the time of the assassination. Murphy stated "...it would have been impossible for any of them to have had anything to do with the assassination of President KENNEDY.")

3. It makes no sense that putative assassins would actually be so brazen as to stop their truck in front of the knoll and stop traffic there (Mercer said "... the truck was blocking my passage"), attract the attention of the traffic policemen in the area ("...MURPHY ... 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...")

Quite simply, there is no evidence that connects a stalled air conditioning truck to an attempt on the president's life, as the truck, and the men in it, were gone well before the President drove by.

So do you think the men in the air conditioning truck hand-delivered the rifle to the real assassin behind the fence in full view of the cops? Why couldn't he bring his own rifle to the assassination? I remind you that the railroad workers (like Sam Holland) on the overpass saw no shooter, and nobody with a rifle just after the assassination. I further remind you that YOU YOURSELF questioned whether the assassin had a rifle. I further remind you that your supposed best witness for this shooting (Ed Hoffman) has been exposed as someone whose story makes no sense, who didn't come forward for years, whose story changed repeatedly, and whose story is incapable of being resolved with those of actual witnesses like Sam Holland.

So let me just point out that your "coherent narrative" is still incoherent.

Can we get a simply answer on one small issue?
Did your grassy knoll assassin use a rifle or a handgun?
Or are you still undecided on that issue?

Hank

I asked you for proof that the Mercer story was false. You have only provided speculation. You have no proof her sworn statement was false.

 

[Robert Prey]

Again, a plethora of evidence has been supplied. Your unsupported assertion that they are faked does not interest me until you prove this to be so.

Remember Robert you are the one making assertions. If you want to convince me or anybody else of your assertions support them with evidence. It is irrelevant for anybody else, myself included, to supply evidence as the burden of proof is on YOU.

Perhaps you can't grasp the situation here. My possition is this:

I have seen the available material evidence for the incident. It is indicative of LHO shooting from the TSBD.

I have seen no counter material.

"We have no evidence that Oswald even fired a rifle." -- DPD Police Chief Jesse Curry.

 

[Robert Prey]

Already cited. But to repeat;

The photographic record of the autopsy.
The photographic record of the event itself including filmed evidence.
The rifle.
The cartridges.
The blood splatter on the car.
The bullet fragments.
Signed photographs of Oswald holding the murder weapons.
The revolver.
Fingerprints taken from the rifle.
Fingerprints taken from the cartidges.
Pieces of skull found in the plaza.

That you refuse to accept these is not my concern. Im not making assertions. You are.

My null hypothosis is that these material objects were not forged or faked and form a chain of evidence, untill you show me PHYSICAL evidence to discredit them. I am not interested in your opinions of them, or your opinion of what evidence is better. You are here to convince others of your assertion, and those are the minimum requirements to convince us of your claims.

Pretending these have not been offered or arguing how little others have provided is not the same as meeting your burden of proof. It is a childish and meaningless deflection..

Virtually all baloney and proved so in the past 100 pages.

 

[Robert Prey]

Not to late to the party to see you glossed over the fact that the 40 witnesses at the hospital do not in any way indicate any evidence of a shooter on the grassy knoll.


And you also admit that the Z film isnt evidence of a grassy knoll shooter.

So where is your evidence of a grassy knoll shooter?

Surely you are not just relying on a few people who "think" a shot came from the grassy knoll?

The evidence of a grassy knoll shooter is the 40 plus medical witnesses who observed a large blow-out in the back of K's head indicating a shot from the right front, as well as the up close witnesses to the shooting who asserted that the fatal shot to the head came from the grassy knoll.

 

[Robert Prey]

Feel what ever you want about it Robert. If you want the information it's already in this thread. I am not repeating it again so you can once again declare the autopsywas part of a conspiracy, wrong because it didn't agree with your witnesses (except when you redefine what was reported so it did...) etc.


I note you consider it a cop out to point out subjects are already covered, yet do so yourself in the same barrage of posts.

So, perhaps after one hundresd pages of groundless assertions you will name which members of the autopsy staff were dishonest/liars/part of the cover-up?

Then supply the documentary and physical evidence you have been lacking to support these claims?

Actually, it is you who shies away from quoting anything from the autopsy docs that differs from the Parkland witnesses. The principle lies are the photos and drawings that conflict with both the Parkland and the Bethesda witnesses.

 

[Robert Prey]

You brought up logical fallacies. Deal with this:
That's just an Argument From Authority, Robert.

http://www.theskepticsguide.org/resources/logicalfallacies.aspx

"Argument from authority:
The basic structure of such arguments is as follows: Professor X believes A, Professor X speaks from authority, therefore A is true. Often this argument is implied by emphasizing the many years of experience, or the formal degrees held by the individual making a specific claim. The converse of this argument is sometimes used, that someone does not possess authority, and therefore their claims must be false. (This may also be considered an ad-hominen logical fallacy – see below.)

In practice this can be a complex logical fallacy to deal with. It is legitimate to consider the training and experience of an individual when examining their assessment of a particular claim. Also, a consensus of scientific opinion does carry some legitimate authority. But it is still possible for highly educated individuals, and a broad consensus to be wrong – speaking from authority does not make a claim true.

This logical fallacy crops up in more subtle ways also. For example, UFO proponents have argued that UFO sightings by airline pilots should be given special weight because pilots are trained observers, are reliable characters, and are trained not to panic in emergencies. In essence, they are arguing that we should trust the pilot’s authority as an eye witness."


This is exactly what you are doing with the medical witnesses you cite. You are arguing that we should trust the doctors' authority as eyewitnesses, because, as doctors, their eyewitness accounts cannot be wrong.

Show me the evidence the doctors are correct. Hint: it's not the 'altered' z-film (and autopsy photos), that would be a circular argument. You've already argued you know the z-film (and the autopsy photos) are altered because they don't show what the doctors said they saw; you cannot turn around and say you know the doctors are correct because the z-film (and the autopsy photos) are altered. You would be using the conclusion to justify the premise.

So what evidence do you have?


Hank

The evidence that the medical personnel are correct is that each and every one of them is independently corroborated by each other and the fact that the up close witnesses the shooting itself asserted that that fatal shot to the head came from the grassy knoll.

 

[Tomtomkent]

Virtually all baloney and proved so in the past 100 pages.

No Robert... you have asserted the evidence to be false. You have proven nothing.

The threshold for proof has been explained repeatedly. You attempt to substitute your own, but that simply does not convince anybody else. That you continue to fail to understand this, and continue to tell the barefaced lie you have "proven" anything to anybody but yourself is odd.

 

[Tomtomkent]

The evidence that the medical personnel are correct is that each and every one of them is independently corroborated by each other and the fact that the up close witnesses the shooting itself asserted that that fatal shot to the head came from the grassy knoll.

So your evidence for an assertion is more assertions?

The statements are disproven by physical evidence. If you want us to be convinced of your argument you need to validate it with physical evidence, repeating the same old rote is not going to convince us.

Witnesses can be wrong, more witnesses doesn't "prove" anything.

 

[Tomtomkent]

So to sumarise again:

The evidence required to prove photographs or film to have been altered is the photographic artefacts that show negatives have been spliced or emulsion cut to composite two images.

Not witnesses remembering differently. Not an uninformed opinion of what somebody thinks it should look like. As critical thinkers, not a jury, we validate witnesses with evidence, we do not disqualify evidence based on the words of an unvalidated witness.

Robert needs to decide if he is even trying to convince us at all, and if so then he should stop wasting his time on repeating statements with no persuasive value and actually acknowledge the most basic requirement that WILL persuade.

 

[Regnad Kcin]

The evidence of a grassy knoll shooter is the 40 plus medical witnesses who observed a large blow-out in the back of K's head indicating a shot from the right front, as well as the up close witnesses to the shooting who asserted that the fatal shot to the head came from the grassy knoll.

You can keep repeating this salami until your dying breath. But you're comically wrong.

LHO: Guilty for 50 years, guilty forever.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Classic circular reasoning as an example of Conspiracy Theorist Logic 101.

Only the last 100 pages or so.

Obviously.

 

[Tomtomkent]

You can keep repeating this salami until your dying breath. But you're comically wrong.

LHO: Guilty for 50 years, guilty forever.

Epecially when small questions remain unanswered like: How did they determine the direction the shot came from? Because of the way JFK fell?

The evidence they are wrong remains the Z film and photographic record, until Robert actually identifies physical evidence in the photograph indicative of tampering.

 

[Regnad Kcin]

And what garden variety is John McAdams???

A researcher. One who compiles and presents information in rational terms and is open to ammending and refining the information so that is a more reliable reference source.

Compare that to: "The limo driver did it!" and "JFK's body was switched in the plane!" and anyone who, for 50 years, can't seem to move past "grassy knoll, grassy knoll, grassy knoll!!!!!!!!!!!!"

 

[TheRedWorm]

Robert. Eyewitness. Deal.

 

[HSienzant]

White didn't concede anything about not accounting for perspective. Only that he didn't know the meaning of a technical term for it. But you continue to dwell on "expertise" in favor of the evidence that he and other experts have pointed out. I refer you to the above post regarding Oswald's square as versus rounded chin. Explain how photogrammetry has any bearing on that anomaly??

I think you need to read his full testimony again. It's not good for your credibility to be telling falsehoods:

Mr. WHITE. This is strictly a two-dimensional measurement. Obviously I did not take into consideration any perspective which might exist or any other considerations. It is just a mere measurement of the body from the weightbearing foot to the top of the head in each case and of the rifle from the muzzle to the butt.

Your 'experts' have no expertise.

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

The evidence of a grassy knoll shooter is the 40 plus medical witnesses who observed a large blow-out in the back of K's head indicating a shot from the right front, as well as the up close witnesses to the shooting who asserted that the fatal shot to the head came from the grassy knoll.

Apparently you didn't understand what I posted, as you merely repeated the same assertions you have made previously.

"Argument from authority:
The basic structure of such arguments is as follows: Professor X believes A, Professor X speaks from authority, therefore A is true. Often this argument is implied by emphasizing the many years of experience, or the formal degrees held by the individual making a specific claim. The converse of this argument is sometimes used, that someone does not possess authority, and therefore their claims must be false. (This may also be considered an ad-hominen logical fallacy – see below.)

In practice this can be a complex logical fallacy to deal with. It is legitimate to consider the training and experience of an individual when examining their assessment of a particular claim. Also, a consensus of scientific opinion does carry some legitimate authority. But it is still possible for highly educated individuals, and a broad consensus to be wrong – speaking from authority does not make a claim true.

This logical fallacy crops up in more subtle ways also. For example, UFO proponents have argued that UFO sightings by airline pilots should be given special weight because pilots are trained observers, are reliable characters, and are trained not to panic in emergencies. In essence, they are arguing that we should trust the pilot’s authority as an eye witness."

What close up witnesses asserted the shots came from the grassy knoll?
Remember that witness observations are evidence; witness inferences are not; which is judges typically admonish witnesses to speak of what they saw and heard; not of what they thought.

So I am certain you are going to cite witness inferences, rather than witness observations (or alternately, witness observations and then add your own inferences to that, which is likewise invalid).

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

I asked you for proof that the Mercer story was false. You have only provided speculation. You have no proof her sworn statement was false.

Apparently you didn't read Officer Murphy's statement.

Or you choose to ignore it.

2. By finding the cop (Joe Murphy) who was at the scene and interviewing him and establishing the supposed gunman with the supposed 'gun case' was actually long gone by the time of the assassination. Murphy stated "...it would have been impossible for any of them to have had anything to do with the assassination of President KENNEDY.")

You also ignored my point one; which was that Mercer's story isn't evidence of a grassy knoll shooter in and of itself. You like to believe it is; but she only observed a man walking up the knoll with something; she could not speak to what it was; only what it appeared to be (I remind you witness inferences are NOT evidence. Neither are yours. So prove there was a rifle in the long case she observed).

You likewise ignored my point three; which was that no conspirator would stall their truck in full view of the traffic cops in the vicinity and then remove the rifle in full view of those cops and walk up the knoll with it; what if the cop said something like 'what's in the case, Mac?'

You likewise ignored my final point; which was that this cenario doesn't fit with your previous point when you questioned whether the Grassy Knoll assassin even had a rifle.

Don't you remember that point?

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

Hank wrote:

Lol. Doug Horne is a garden-variety conspiracy theorist, and you can see it in full bloom above.

Comment:
And what garden variety is John McAdams???

I notice you've twice had opportunities to rebut my points about Doug Horne, and you haven't tried yet.

The first time you merely cut my points and then asked me to make a point; now you simply ignore my points again and ask another question.

You brought up the quotes by Horne; apparently you do now realize he has raised NO legitimate objections to the evidence; and instead of defending Horne's meaningless objections; raise a question about John McAdams, which is clearly a side issue and a mere diversion from the points you raised via Horne's quote.

So address the substantive issues I raised; or admit you cannot (or ignore it all for the third time, which will be a concession by you that you cannot rebut the points below):

Lol. Doug Horne is a garden-variety conspiracy theorist, and you can see it in full bloom above.

In the space of a little more than one paragraph:

1) He denigrates Kodak's own expert's expertise (calling him a "self-taught home movie expert")*;

2) He pits his own opinion (Horne's) against that of the expert's as if they are equal, but of course they are not;

3) He engages in circular reasoning; using the conclusion (the film was altered and the conspirators were really good at faking stuff!) to rule out the evidence it wasn't (for example, the film markings are consistent with authenticity);

4) He rules out the affadavits signed by the film-developing personnel in Zapruder's presence for the same reason (below);

5) He proclaims the affadavit paper trail provided by Zapruder to be suspicious precisely because it doesn't allow him to question it (calling it 'almost too good' below), so he questions it for that reason (!);

6) And finally, he finds two men 35 years AFTER THE FACT to state they REMEMBER something different (below). They have no documents, simply a 35-year old memory. He uses the memory to discard everything else that is documented.

Whoop. This is typical garden-variety Conspiracy Logic 101. And it is nonsense. Obviously.

Robert, I know none of this convinces you that anything is wrong.
But it should at least start you wondering where your beliefs went off the tracks.
The stuff you cite as evidence is NOT evidence.
It doesn't come close to evidence.
It is nonsense, pure and simple.
But you find it convincing. And think it should convince us.
Uh, no.

___________

* Roland Zavada is THE recognized industry expert (and Kodak's own internal expert) on 8mm film.
Here's a brief resume:
http://www.jfk-info.com/zavadabi.htm

 

[HSienzant]

The only arguments regarding photo fakery given by the Lone NUt posters is the claim that their experts are more expert than other experts. That is a fallacious argument from authority and an ad hominem attack as well.

No, it's an argument that you have no experts. Just ordinary people like you and me with no credentials.

Jack White, Costella, Mantik, Lifton and now Horne; none of these people you named are recognized as photo experts. Anywhere.

So you are contrasting legitimate expert opinion (Roland Zavada is Kodak's own 8mm film expert, a recognized authority on 8mm film) with lay person opinions.

That won't fly. As I ponted out, none of those four men you cited would pass the voir dire process and qualify as a legitimate photo expert.

So do you have an expert on 8mm film you care to cite? If not, just say so.

It's not Jack White. He admitted that in his testimony before the HSCA:

His background when he testified before the HSCA was, as he told the committee, in advertising and public relations. He has a BA in Journalism, not photography.


Mr. Genzman. Will you state your full name and occupation for the record?
Mr. WHITE. Jack D. White, vice president of Witherspoon and Associates, an advertising and public relations firm.
...
Mr. GOLDSMITH. Have you had any training in analytical photogrammetry?
Mr. WHITE. No.
Mr. GOLDSMITH. Have you had any formal training in forensic photography?
Mr. WHITE. No.



Hank

 

[HSienzant]

Hank wrote:
a'1: Stringer signed a statement in 1966 saying he took the photos in the archives.
http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/md13/html/Image10.htm
He signed this after viewing the archival photos."

According to an interview with D. Lifton, that is also false.

Lifton: "When you lifted him out, was the main damage to the skull on the top or in the back?"
Stringer: In the back.

P. 516, Best Evidence

and

on page 518:

Lifton: What did you guys check for when you logged it into the archives in 1966?"
Stringer: "Well, I can't since I didn't see it after it was developed."

Ok, we have a signed statement from 1966 on the one hand, and an unsworn statement from 1972 on the other hand. Which do you think will hold up in a court of law, Robert?

You originally cited Stringer's 1996 testimony to the AARB in this post.

The Final Nail​

Autopsy photographer John Stringer similarly disavowed the supplemental autopsy brain photographs.
http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/index.php/JFK_Assassination

But Stringer didn't recall a lot about his JFK assassination memories in his testimony. And some of them were clearly mutable. For example, he gave some phone interviews to Lifton (one of which you quoted a portion of above). But his recollection of that in his testimony before the AARB was very different. His recollection had changed, in other words:

Q: Does that sound as if it was an accurate recording of the conversation that you had with Mr. Lifton?
A: I don't know whether it was or not, but it's not true - what's on there.
Q: In what respect is it not true, what's on there?
A: Well, it - Well, the bullet came in the back and came out the side.
...
Q: - but just where the wound was on President Kennedy. Did you tell Mr. Lifton that the wound was in the occiput or the occipital region?
A: I don't remember telling him that, no.
Q: Was there a wound in the occipital region of the President -
A: Yes, the entry.
Q: By "the entry", you mean what?
A: Where the bullet went.
Q: And how big was the entry wound?
A: About the size of a bullet, from what you could see. On the inside where the bone was, I guess it was different.

So how much do you want to rely on his 1996 recollections? It doesn't sound like the man accurately remembered much. I would go with his 1966 signed statement. Even his 1972 phone conversations with Lifton are different than his 1996 statement, which you first cited.

Frankly, his statements are all over the map; I am not certain how you could think he is a good witness nor why you would want to call him to the stand in this forum.

Hank