JFK Conspiracy Theories: It Never Ends

[HSienzant]

One question at a time.

Here's the five questions again that Robert has no answer for, and continues to duck. Note I correctly predicted Robert's response in my first sentence below.

I will wager you will avoid answering these questions below.

Did she make a habit of putting through all the calls she thought were crank calls or did she exercise some judgment?

And if she suspected/thought/felt this might be a crank call, did she actually put it through to the E/R anyway?

And if she thought this was a crank call and put it through anyway, how did Crenshaw determine it was actually LBJ and not a crank caller?

Oh, yeah, And why did she wait 29 years to mention it anywhere? She did mention getting several crank calls, but made no mention of getting one from the President.

And if she thought it was a crank call in 1963, what happened to change her mind by 1992?

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

Dr. Wecht was talking about the conclusions of the report. The actual transcripts have been since been released and that is what I quoted from. They are Dr. Wechts's actual words.

Out of context.

For you to say that, you must be able to provide more of the quote from Wecht's testimony to show the extended context you claim the original quote was taken out of. Please do so.

Otherwise, you are just blowing smoke.

My money's on the smoke.

Thanks much!

Hank

 

[Tomtomkent]

You can see the man in the flesh, live on tape in TMWKK. The alternative is to rely on the selected, edited version of the WC. The key to that testimony and the clue to it I believe are the words (closed session). In other words, testimony the WC chose to not publish. The interview on TMWKK is emphatic and supported by his wife and daughter.

Wait, his testemony was edited? Like a photograph? Once written down?


Aren't you the one who won a stundie for telling us that testemony was more reliable than photos because it couldn't be manipulated like that?

Why, if his testemony in the WC was manipulated, why not this interview? Or the words of his daughter? Or all testemony?


We better stick to physical evidence to play it safe Robert.

 

[BazBear]

"I dun it Robert, all by my onesies, I dun I dun I dun it!!"

 

[HSienzant]

Because they were closest to the action. Obviously. Just like Joe Stalin said, it depends on who does the counting. You don't like my sampling of those up close and personal, then how about the Warren Commission:

"What follows is the result of a survey of the 121 witnesses to the assassination of President Kennedy whose statements are registered in the twenty-six volumes appended to the Warren Report.[1] On the question of where the shots that killed the President came from, 38 could give no clear opinion and 32 thought they came from the Texas School Book Depository Building (TSBDB). Fifty-one held the shots sounded as if the came from west of the Depository, the area of the grassy knoll on Elm Street, the area directly on the right of the President's car when the bullets struck."

http://spot.acorn.net/jfkplace/09/fp.back_issues/12th_Issue/51_wits.html

One of those counted as a grassy knoll witness in the above listing by Feldman is the Secret Service agent Forrest Sorrels, thusly:

In the lead car rode two Secret Service men, Winston G. Lawson of the White House Detail, responsible for planning many details of the motorcade, and Forrest V. Sorrels, in charge of the Dallas office. Lawson looked back at the President's car continually in order to regulate the speed of the procession. When he heard the shots (car #1 was almost at the Triple Underpass when he heard them) he was positive that they came from the rear of his car, and when he saw an agent standing up with an automatic weapon in his hand in car #3, Lawson's first thought was that the shots came from that gun. (IV, 352-3)

Sorrels remembered scanning the Depository as his car turned the corner, but he saw "no activity, no one moving around that I saw at all." As soon as he heard the shots, he "turned around to look up on this terrace part there, because the sound sounded like it came from the back and up in that direction." He had to repeat this for the Commission's assistant counsel, Samuel A. Stern.

And, as I said, the noise from the shots sounded like they may have come back up or the terrace there ... But the reports seemed to be so loud that it sounded like to me --- in other words, that my first thought, somebody up on the terrace, and that is the reason I looked there.

As noted by the author, the car Sorrels was in was just about to enter the triple underpass, and he thought the shots came from the terrace. Sorrells is counted by Feldman - and no doubt by our resident CT Robert Prey - as a grassy knoll witness.

Even non-conspiracy sources like John McAdams tabulation counts Sorrels as a knolll witness.
See here: http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/earwitnesses.htm

But that's not the whole story.

Well, let's put this in context, and look at a map, shall we?

As you can see from the map below, immediately behind and to the right of Sorrels as the lead car was about to enter the underpass was the terrace -- the Grassy Knoll. That was in the foreground. In the background and behind the terrace from Sorrels position was the School Book Depository. Forrest correctly located the source of the shots as behind him and to his right, but merely focused on the foreground object (the terrace - aka the Grassy Knoll) and not the background object (the TSBD).

It is false to count Sorrels as a grassy knoll witness when the sound could have been coming from the more distant TSBD as one can see from the map below.

Below that is an image taken from the overpass, from what appears to be directly over the center lane of Elm Street. Sorrells would have been about 20 - 25 below this camera location, and from his position, shots coming from the sixth Floor SE corner window of the TSBD would be coming directly over the terrace and sound to him as if they were coming from the terrace. The terrace, however, would be the closest object and would be looming over Sorrels. The Depository would be far more distant and almost hidden by the trees. So if the shots came from the TSBD, it is easy to see why Sorrels would focus on the knoll, and not the more distant TSBD.

I don't think this thought originates with me. I think the commission staff realized much of this, and as pointed out by Feldman, even asked if the Depository was consistent with Sorrels source of the shots. Feldman, however, paints this in a conspiratorial manner as leading the witness into conforming with the pre-conceived notion of a sniper's nest assassin:

Mr. Stern then drew him out of the area of evidence into the area of conforming opinion in order to evoke the right words from his witness:
Mr. Stern. Do you have any reason to believe that the shots could not have come from the Book Depository Building?
Mr. Sorrels. No, sir.
Mr. Stern. Would shots from the Book Depository Building have been consistent with your hearing of the shots?
Mr. Sorrels. Yes, they would have. (VII, 345-7)

Here's Sorrels complete testimony (well worth reading): http://karws.gso.uri.edu/Marsh/WC/sorrels1.html
Note the exchange Feldman omits in his leading his readers toward a conspiratorial conclusion:

Mr. Stern. It sounded to you at first as though it came from there?
Mr. Sorrels. That is the way it sounded--back into the rear and to the right, back up in that direction. And in the direction, of course, of the building.

Note that after Sorrels mentioned the building as the potential source of the shots, Stern then returned a brief while later to have the exchange Feldman classified as "...drawing him [Sorrels] into the area of conforming opinion." That treatment of Sorrels testimony is dishonest.

This is why it is necessary to read the original testimony, and not simply rely on conspiracy believers to spoon-feed you their interpretations.

 

[Robert Prey]

It's called Leading the Witness

And here are the questions slightly revised:

Mr. Stern: Do you have any reason to believe that the shots could not have come from the Grassy Knoll?

Mr. Sorrells: No sir.

Mr. Stern: Would shots from the Grassy Knoll have been consistent with your hearing the shots?

Mr. Sorrels: Yes, they would have.

The point is, that the WC questions do not necessarily conflict with the alternative questions they could have asked but didn't.

 

[Robert Prey]

Wait, his testemony was edited? Like a photograph? Once written down?


Aren't you the one who won a stundie for telling us that testemony was more reliable than photos because it couldn't be manipulated like that?

Why, if his testemony in the WC was manipulated, why not this interview? Or the words of his daughter? Or all testemony?


We better stick to physical evidence to play it safe Robert.

And another clue is the direct statement from the narrator on TMWKK which can reasonably be assumed to come from the Willis family, namely, that while the WC did find two witnesses in the Willis Family that heard shots come from the TSBD, but they choose to not record other Willis statements that claimed a shot from the Knoll. And therein is the explanation for the words (closed session) in the WC transcript. You fail to recognized the fact that the WC was not a neutral open minded panel in search for the truth, but a criminal government panel selected for the purpose of pinning the blame on a designated patsy.

 

[Robert Prey]

For you to say that, you must be able to provide more of the quote from Wecht's testimony to show the extended context you claim the original quote was taken out of. Please do so.

Otherwise, you are just blowing smoke.

My money's on the smoke.

Thanks much!

Hank

No. If Dr. Wecht says the statement was taken out of context, that's good enough. But read the text. What he was saying is that no one can know for sure where the shots came from with one hundred percent certainty without an examination of the brain and NAA analysis of the fragments.

 

[Robert Prey]

Here's the five questions again that Robert has no answer for, and continues to duck. Note I correctly predicted Robert's response in my first sentence below.

One at a time or no response.

 

[Robert Prey]

Numerous people have examined the photos and the x-rays, including conspiracists like Mantik.

None of them noted any differences between the photos in the archives and the ones in the public domain. The ones in the public domain were first sold to a British tabloid by Robert Groden for $50,000. He acquired his set from Secret Service Agent Fox, who possessed his photos since shortly after the assassination.

There are no differences. If you believe there is any difference between the Archives set and the public domain set, publish them side by side and let us see the evidence.

Hank

You don't know what photos they were shown from the archives, whether the real originals or not. Nor was Mantik ever asked about the differences between the photos he was shown and the ones in the public domain.

 

[Robert Prey]

Or the alternative is to rely on the unaltered transcript of the Shaw trial, where he testified to the same points as he did to the Warren Commission. Or are you going to claim the Shaw trial transcript is altered too?

His testimony at the Shaw trial confirms the accuracy of the Warren Commission transcript, and proves his two-decade later recollection to be false.

Which is why you rely on it.

As I characterized it at the time, it's the least reliable of the three.

I quoted all three. I asked you why you relied on the last of the three, especially since we know memory is malleable and fallible.

You never did answer. You simply cite his last recollection yet a third time, as if it's meaningful.

It's not.

Especially since it's contradicted by his earlier statements to the Warren Commission and at the Shaw trial, and by all the physical evidence.

Quite clearly, you continue to use the later false memories (google Loftus if you have no clue what I am talking about) to attempt to impeach the earlier recollections. But it doesn't work that way, except in conspiracy-ville where you live. The earliest recollections impeach the later ones.

Happens all the time in trials. You know what those are, right?

Where the prosecutor or defense attorney confronts a witness with an earlier statement on the record and says, "you expect us to believe X because you are testifying to that today, but isn't it a matter of record you gave the police a statement previously where you said Y?"

That is unfamiliar to you? You've never seen or heard of that before?


Hank

NO. The Shaw trancript is ambiguous. The shots came from the right? Was the TSBD on the right. Well, yes. And so was the Grassy Knoll, depending on which way his head was turned at a particular time. But in attempting to further elaborate, his testimony was cut off.

 

[Robert Prey]

You've shown no proof that any of the WC testimony was edited out, and you chose not to address the Clay Shaw trial testimony at all. Or do you think that was edited as well??

As to the WC the insertion of the words (closed session) is the clue to censorship. As to the Shaw trial, see below.

 

[Robert Prey]

Parsing witness statements made 20, 30 or 40 years after the assassination isn't going to prove doodly-squat.

How about the 40 plus on the scene witnesses at Parkland, Dealey Plaza and Bethesda stated contemporaneously observing a large blow-out in the back of the head and/or shots emanating from the Grassy Knoll?????

 

[RoboTimbo]

How about the 40 plus on the scene witnesses at Parkland, Dealey Plaza and Bethesda stated contemporaneously observing a large blow-out in the back of the head and/or shots emanating from the Grassy Knoll?????

One question mark at a time for continuity. LOL.

Do you even understand that you're being batted around like a toy balloon in a hurricane??????????

 

[HSienzant]

And here are the questions slightly revised:

Mr. Stern: Do you have any reason to believe that the shots could not have come from the Grassy Knoll?

Mr. Sorrells: No sir.

Mr. Stern: Would shots from the Grassy Knoll have been consistent with your hearing the shots?

Mr. Sorrels: Yes, they would have.

The point is, that the WC questions do not necessarily conflict with the alternative questions they could have asked but didn't.

lol. You didn't do your homework. You didn't read the assigned material. And you make up a Q&A that never occurred. That is how a conspiracy theorist works.
But that is not how someone after the truth works, Robert. I will have to give you a failing grade here.

The real Q&A, which you will want to avoid at all costs, included this:

Mr. Stern. ... You testified that you heard three reports?
Mr. Sorrels. Yes, sir.
Mr. Stern. Are you pretty certain about that?
Mr. Sorrels. Positive.
Mr. Stern. And no more and no fewer?
Mr. Sorrels.No, sir.
...
Mr. Stern. Now, as to the apparent source of these reports, did you feel that all three reports came from the same direction?
Mr. Sorrels. Yes. Definitely so.
Mr. Stern. And that direction, as nearly as you can place it, was what?
Mr. Sorrels. To the right and back. That is about the only way I can express it.
And, as I said, the noise from the shots sounded like they may have come back up on the terrace there. And that is the reason I was looking around like that when the first shot. And I continued to look out until the other two shots. And then I turned on around and looked back to where the President's car was, and that is when I saw some movement there, and the car just seemed to leap forward.
Mr. Stern. When you looked at the terrace to the right of Elm Street, did you observe any unusual movement?
Mr. Sorrels. No; I didn't see anything unusual at that time.
Mr. Stern. Were you looking at that terrace when either the second or third shot was fired?
Mr. Sorrels. Yes; I was. And I saw just some movement of some people, but no firearms or anything like that, because we began to move out rather rapidly. And we were quite a ways down the street at that time.
Mr. Stern. How do you mean movement of people?
Mr. Sorrels. It seems I recall someone turned around and was going in the other direction, like moving away from the street. And that is all I can recall.
Mr. Stern. But you didn't observe anything that led you to feel that the shots might have been fired from that terrace there?
Mr. Sorrels. No, sir.
Mr. Stern. It sounded to you at first as though it came from there?
Mr. Sorrels. That is the way it sounded--back into the rear and to the right, back up in that direction. And in the direction, of course, of the building.

Summary of what Sorrels actually testified to: Three shots, no more, no less. All shots from the same location. No shots from the terrace.

But stick with your made-up version.

Don't let the facts get in the way of a good story.

Those facts are terribly inconvenient for your story, aren't they?

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

NO. The Shaw trancript is ambiguous. The shots came from the right? Was the TSBD on the right. Well, yes. And so was the Grassy Knoll, depending on which way his head was turned at a particular time. But in attempting to further elaborate, his testimony was cut off.

Hi Robert,

Who called Phil Willis as a witness? The prosecution or the defense?

It was the prosecution and District Attorney of Orleans Parish Jim Garrison.

As such, his reason for calling Willis was to try to establish that some of the shots came from a source other than the Depository, yes?

That is, to establish that Clay Shaw was part of a conspiracy, Garrison wanted to first establish that there were shots from multiple locations.

But after getting Willis on the stand, the prosecution failed to ask Willis when he had him on the stand the one question he supposed called him there for?

Sorry, he failed to ask that question because he had already pre-interviewed the witness and didn't like the answer. The source of the shots was the TSBD.

The defense had to ask the question the prosecution wanted to avoid.

You again presume what you must prove. The testimony is unambiguous, if you understand how trials work, and how lawyers work. The prosecution failed to ask the question for the simple reason that the answer disproved everything they were trying to prove.

 

[HSienzant]

One at a time or no response.

Here's the questions Robert keeps ducking because he has no response and can't offer anything meaningful to explain Bartlett's supposed actions.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8223938&postcount=6243

I will wager you will avoid answering these questions below.

• Did she make a habit of putting through all the calls she thought were crank calls or did she exercise some judgment?
  
• And if she suspected/thought/felt this might be a crank call, did she actually put it through to the E/R anyway?
  
• And if she thought this was a crank call and put it through anyway, how did Crenshaw determine it was actually LBJ and not a crank caller?
  
• Oh, yeah, And why did she wait 29 years to mention it anywhere? She did mention getting several crank calls, but made no mention of getting one from the President.
  
• And if she thought it was a crank call in 1963, what happened to change her mind by 1992?[/i]

If you can't answer them all, we understand. We also understand why you continue to duck them, hiding behind the 'one-at-a-time' mantra.

 

[BazBear]

And here are the questions slightly revised:

Mr. Stern: Do you have any reason to believe that the shots could not have come from the Grassy Knoll?

Mr. Sorrells: No sir.

Mr. Stern: Would shots from the Grassy Knoll have been consistent with your hearing the shots?

Mr. Sorrels: Yes, they would have.

The point is, that the WC questions do not necessarily conflict with the alternative questions they could have asked but didn't.

Slightly revised Robert??? You might as well have substituted "Do you have any reason to believe the shots could not have come from the alien scout ship hovering over Dealey Plaza?".

 

[HSienzant]

As to the WC the insertion of the words (closed session) is the clue to censorship. As to the Shaw trial, see below.

Here's the Willis testimony: http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/willis_p.htm

The words 'closed session' appear nowhere in the record of Willis testimony.

And you are simply assuming what you have to prove. Your assumption that if the lawyer went 'off the record' (which does appear in the testimony) it was because they had something to hide.

But you don't know that. You simply assume it, because it is more convenient to assume things not in evidence than to actually try to prove them.

Just before they went off the record, they were discussing who in the limo was facing where:

Mr. LIEBELER. You say that the President looked toward his left; is that correct? Toward the side of Elm Street that you are standing on, or which way?
Mr. WILLIS. In slide No. 4 he was looking pretty much toward--straight ahead, and she was looking more to the left, which would be my side of the street. Then when the first shot was fired, she turned to the right toward him and he more or less slumped forward, and it caused me to wonder if he were hit, although I couldn't say.

Liebeler gave a whopping big fat hint as to what was discussed off the record, and it bears no relationship nor resemblance to your theories. When the record resumed, it starts here:

Mr. LIEBELER. In order to clarify some of the discussion we have had about the various number of slides, I want to mark a set of your slides as Willis Exhibit No. 1 and I have initialed a set of these, Mr. Willis, with my own initials, and I will ask you to do the same thing for the purpose of identification so we know what we are talking about when we refer to this exhibit.

So how does the discussion off the record about the Willis slides have any bearing on your claim that Willis asserted that a shot or shots came from the knoll and that was removed from his testimony?

It doesn't. You simply are assuming whatever's convenient to close those gaps in your theories.

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

How about the 40 plus on the scene witnesses at Parkland, Dealey Plaza and Bethesda stated contemporaneously observing a large blow-out in the back of the head and/or shots emanating from the Grassy Knoll?????

You mean the witness list you previously falsely claimed was 40+ medical witnesses? That one?

You mean the list that contains a number of people who weren't medical witnesses? That one?

You mean the list that contains about 20 people whose entire purpose for being on the list has been seriously questioned? That list?

And that when those posts containing the points of rebuttal to your claims were posted, you totally ignored them? That list?

You really want to keep hammering away at a list that is specious, false, and absolutely untrue, do you?

Be my guest, but no one here thinks your list is absolute or even meaningful.

As you previously admitted, it's all in the interpretation of what they meant.

...Just like Joe Stalin said, it depends on who does the counting...

When you were doing the counting, it was 40+ medical witnesses. Now that we've examined your claims, your count has been established to be bogus.

Like with Jenkins - he said the large wound was in the right side of head. You want to insist he meant the back of the head, merely because he said the avulsive nature of the wound caused some brain tissue to be extruded from the wound. But in plain English, he put the wound on the right side of the head. And you continue to ignore it. Was English not Dr. Jenkins native tongue? Did he meant 'right back of the head' when he said 'right side of the head'?

Hank