JFK Conspiracy Theories: It Never Ends

[HSienzant]

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?".

Which isn't far removed, I understand, from some CT theories about what brought down the World Trade Center towers.

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

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.

Please show the two versions side by side if you think two versions exist.

Do you think Mantik is part of the conspiracy to keep the truth from you, Robert?

He's a conspiracy believer and has been very vocal about what he thinks is wrong with the medical evidence.

Do you think he would be reticent to speak out extensively about the bogus autopsy photos, if he thought they were falsified and different than the ones in the public domain?

Quite simply, you got nothing. No evidence of what you claim whatsoever. You simply are assuming what you must prove.

We are waiting for you to prove it. I expect we'll be waiting a long time.

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

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.

Good enoough for you, maybe. Not good enough for anyone else here.

Please provide the fuller context so we can determine if you are just blowing smoke or not. Or whether Dr. Wecht was. Or whether you're both correct.

You won't, of course, although you previously claimed it was out of context, which implies you can provide a fuller quote that would establish Wecht meant something different.

Like I said, my money's on the smoke.
And right now, the smoke is winning.

Got any context to add to Wecht's quote?

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

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.

Lol. You keep citing the two-decade later unsworn statements and ignoring the better evidence of statements given in the first six years that directly conflict with those later statements.

Sorry, no, that won't do.

Did you not understand my point about early statements being used at trial to impeach later, different, versions of events? Is it your belief that trials have that backwards, and that the most recent statement should be viewed as the most trustworthy? If not, I fail to understand why you keep quoting the two-decade later unsworn material, instead of the earliest material.

And you keep assuming stuff you absolutely need to prove, namely:

• That testimony from members of the Willis family was altered or censored.
• That the Warren Commission wasn't a neutral panel seeking the truth.
• That Oswald was a patsy.

 

[HSienzant]

Hey, who remembers what it was like in the good ol'days when there was no internet? When you had to make do with what the local library had and then the county. Scouring flea markets and garage sales looking for books that were long out of print but referenced in the ones you've read. Coming across a passage that conflicted with something you read elsewhere and having to start pulling other books out ending up with all these books open in front of you cross-checking statements. It was a lot more fun.

I am more than old enough to remember all that. And more.

Like going to the public library to check out the microfilm editions of the Dallas Morning News. Like waiting for the next monthly copy of The Third Decade to arrive in the mail (later renamed The Fourth Decade early in the 1990's - causing one wag to comment 'Why not just call it The First Century and be done with it?)'

My posting days on JFK go back to AOL in the early 1990's. Typing in a quote was painstakingly difficult - having to keep cross-checking the reference material to make sure you got it right (I'm not a touch typist). Now, it's just cut-and-paste from the online witness testimony. So much easier.

My favorite source of out-of-print JFK assassination books was the Strand in NYC (828 Broadway New York, NY 10003). Still open, still selling used books - as far as I know - but I haven't been there in years.

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

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)

Appropos your claim (in the heading to the above quote) that "It's Called Leading the Witness"): No, it's not.

I remind you that the witness Forrest Sorrels first mentioned the building as the source of the shots in this exchange:

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.

A brief while later, Stern asked went back to that subject, and asked what he meant:

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)

Quite frankly, Feldman's failure to mention the first exchange above, and his negative spin on the second quote amply shows that he is only pushing an agenda, and is not concerned about the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

It's not about leading the witness. It's about following up on something the witness mentioned. And if Feldman had shared the first quote with his readers (where Sorrels mentions the building as being along the line of fire), then it would be easily understood that Stern follow-up questions wasn't "[drawing]... him out of the area of evidence into the area of conforming opinion in order to evoke the right words from his witness" as Feldman falsely claimed.

I amply demonstrated why Sorrels location at the time of the shots reasonably explained why Sorrels thought the shots came from the terrace, and why Sorrels shouldn't be classified as a knoll witness. I also amply demonstrated that Feldman selected judiciously from the record in order to make a harmless line of questioning that was first suggested by the witness appear instead as something sinister, in an supposed attempt by Warren Commission Counsel to steer the testimony in a desired direction. Clearly, Feldman wasn't being honest in his quotes.

It is because of dishonest quotes like this that you believe in a conspiracy, Robert.

I find it amusing in the extreme that you claim to have strong evidence for a conspiracy, but whenever we turn our attention to that said evidence and actually examine it closely, it never says what you claim it does.

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.

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.

Oh I recognise what the closed records mean. I just don't claim to have magical omnipotent powers in which I know what was not recorded in conversations I have no evidence for, or the motivations of decisions I have no insight to.

You on the other hand suggest you not only know what was said that there is no evidence for, the edits there are no evidence to suggest, but also the motivations behind these.

I have no interest in recognising your opinion, only what you can prove with evidence.

Your assertions are not evidence. Those posts also disprove your claim witness testemony can not be forged or manipulated making it superior to physical evidence.

 

[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?????

Ok, here's another word you apparently don't understand the meaning of:

"contemporaneously"

Definition of CONTEMPORANEOUS : existing, occurring, or originating during the same time

Among those on your list were numerous citations from people who gave conflicting statements only 20 or 30 or more years after the assassination.

People like Phillip Willis, whose actual contemporaneous testimony to the Warren Commission has been ignored by you, and instead you cite a 20-year-later non-contemporaneous recollection.

People like Saundra Spencer, who first came forward with an non-contemporaneous undocumented recollection more than thirty years after the event.

People like Beverly Oliver, who first came forward with a non-contemporaneous undocumented story six years after the event, and who has altered and revised it at nearly every telling.

Etc. etc.

I fail to understand how you think those statements are contemporaneous to the assassination. But those are just some of the people on your list of "contemporaneous" 40+ witnesses.

If you intend to stick with statements contemporaneous with the assassination, you should strike about 30 of those 40 witnesses from your list yourself.
After you've done that, resubmit the list of the remaining ten and we can talk again.

Hank

 

[Robert Prey]

Your assertions are not evidence. .

Nor are your assertions evidence, especially the assertion that LHO fired all or any of the shots without a scintilla of evidence. But a reasonable theory to explain what might appear to be contradictions in testimony cannot be dismissed and the fact is, Phil Willis stated he was "dead sure" the fatal shot came from the Knoll,

 

[Robert Prey]

Appropos your claim (in the heading to the above quote) that "It's Called Leading the Witness"): No, it's not.

I remind you that the witness Forrest Sorrels first mentioned the building as the source of the shots in this exchange:

[

Nobody denies that at least one or two of the shots came from the TSBD. But the fatal shot, that is the rub.

 

[Robert Prey]

Lol. You keep citing the two-decade later unsworn statements and ignoring the better evidence of statements given in the first six years that directly conflict with those later statements.

Sorry, no, that won't do.

Did you not understand my point about early statements being used at trial to impeach later, different, versions of events? Is it your belief that trials have that backwards, and that the most recent statement should be viewed as the most trustworthy? If not, I fail to understand why you keep quoting the two-decade later unsworn material, instead of the earliest material.

]

Funny, you don't seem to have an answer to the contemporaneous statements of the medical witnesses at Parkland and Bethesda.

 

[Robert Prey]

Lol. You keep citing the two-decade later unsworn statements and ignoring the better evidence of statements given in the first six years that directly conflict with those later statements.

Sorry, no, that won't do.

Did you not understand my point about early statements being used at trial to impeach later, different, versions of events? Is it your belief that trials have that backwards, and that the most recent statement should be viewed as the most trustworthy? If not, I fail to understand why you keep quoting the two-decade later unsworn material, instead of the earliest material.

And you keep assuming stuff you absolutely need to prove, namely:

• That testimony from members of the Willis family was altered or censored.
• That the Warren Commission wasn't a neutral panel seeking the truth.
• That Oswald was a patsy.

The tape recorded statements of the Willis family, away from the editors and censors of the WC, is ample evidence of WC chicanery.

 

[Robert Prey]

Good enoough for you, maybe. Not good enough for anyone else here.

Please provide the fuller context so we can determine if you are just blowing smoke or not. Or whether Dr. Wecht was. Or whether you're both correct.

You won't, of course, although you previously claimed it was out of context, which implies you can provide a fuller quote that would establish Wecht meant something different.

Like I said, my money's on the smoke.
And right now, the smoke is winning.

Got any context to add to Wecht's quote?

Hank

It's only about 191 pages. Do your own homework. Google it. Knock yourself out.

 

[JayUtah]

Do your own homework. Google it.

The question was whether you had done your homework. No one is obliged to consider your belief that Wecht's quote was taken out of context unless you can demonstrate you know what the context was.

 

[BazBear]

Which isn't far removed, I understand, from some CT theories about what brought down the World Trade Center towers.

Hank

Well, at least there's no grassy knoll in that part of Manhattan.

 

[JayUtah]

...without a scintilla of evidence.

You seem to be spending quite a lot of time trying to explain away evidence you now say doesn't exist.

But a reasonable theory to explain what might appear to be contradictions in testimony cannot be dismissed...

And your reasonable theory is ... ?

 

[BazBear]

It's only about 191 pages. Do your own homework. Google it. Knock yourself out.

And the Russian, French, and Canadian judges all give Smoke a score of 9.9!

 

[HSienzant]

Nobody denies that at least one or two of the shots came from the TSBD. But the fatal shot, that is the rub.

I remind you the witness under discussion - Forrest Sorrels - said there were only three shots and all came from the same location.

I remind you that the forensic panel determined the fatal shot came from the TSBD.

I remind you that the autopsy doctors determined the head shot came from the rear.

I remind you that even Cyril Wecht conceded to the HSCA that there was no evidence of a shot to the head from any other location.

I remind you that all you have for your beloved Grassy Knoll shot is some witness statements that - in many cases, as for Forrest Sorrels and Bill Newman - don't point to the Grassy Knoll at all, and are simply statements taken out of context to imply the knoll when the witness actually named somewhere else.

Hank

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

It's only about 191 pages. Do your own homework. Google it. Knock yourself out.

No, Robert. You made the assertion that the quote was out of context.

I am merely asking you to back up your assertion.

As I suspected all along, you cannot, so you now do what you always do, which is turn it around and ask me to prove it's wrong.

Not my job to disprove your assertions. Merely pointing out your can't support them with any evidence is sufficient.

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

Funny, you don't seem to have an answer to the contemporaneous statements of the medical witnesses at Parkland and Bethesda.

What contemporaneous statements of the medical witnesses at Bethesda?

You have all of this as contemporaneous support:



You haven't cited any statements contemporaneous to the assassination from witnesses at Bethesda. Not ONE.