JFK Conspiracy Theories: It Never Ends

[BStrong]

H - I posted pics of a sporterized Mauser 7.65 and an Oswald Carcano clone earlier in the thread, as well as the statements that Robert is relying upon for his ID of rifle other than Oswald's Carcano at the TSBD - Robert still has no explanation for his reliance on non-admissable statements over the established ID and chain-of-custody of Oswald's Carcano.

 

[EventHorizon]

I'm glad I tapped out of this discussion long ago. The rest of you might want to do the same. I mean, you're arguing with someone using the following logic:

"I asked for 1 thing I got wrong. You listed 10 things. 10 is different than 1 so I win, you lose; I'm right, you're wrong! Neener neener! "

This is not the logic of a rational thinking, mature adult.

 

[jargon buster]

Why not have just ONE expert shooter with a really good rifle shooting from behind?

Why not just suffocate him with a pillow?

 

[HSienzant]

A sworn statement is just as good, and affirmed by 3 other officers.

Who are the other three officers who affirmed it?

I already produced the Weitzman testimony that he only based his ID on a glance at the weapon. Ignore his testimony some more.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8459754&postcount=6832

I already provided links to the films and photos of the rifle found in the TSBD; you baloney'ed it all -- on what basis you did not say. However, legitimate photo experts studied that evidence and determined it was Oswald's rifle; none other, not a Mauser, not a different Mannlicher Carcano, Oswald's MC rifle - to the exclusion of all other weapons in the world.

We get the fact you tend to ignore evidence you don't like [hence the ever-present 'baloney']. We don't do that. The fact that it works for you just means you've rejected a lot of valid evidence, which helps to explain why you've reached erroneous conclusions.


Hank

 

[bynmdsue]

You mean like this?

Exactly! Weird, huh? And try to imagine it fresh and also you really can't get too good a look because you're standing on your toes trying to see past the three people in front of you.

 

[HSienzant]

No doubt one could mistake a Mauser for a Carcano. But one could hardly mistake the words 'Made Italy, Cal 6.5" for Mauser 7.65.

Please quote one police officer who said he handled the weapon and said it read "Mauser 7.65" somewhere on the rifle in his initial statement.

You won't be able to do it, because such a statement does not exist.

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

The list is not of forty medical witnesses but merely 40 witnesses. The word "medical" is your interpolation. Yes, there were indeed 40 plus medical witnesses but this post was merely headed "on the scene witnesses". Your addition of the word "medical" is false. The post title read thusly:

Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 3,502
O Ye Of Little Faith (and even less scholarship)
Forty Plus On-the-Scene Witnesses, including, but not limited to:

An apology is in order. Would also like to hear any of your own witnesses, medical or otherwise who described a small entry wound in the back of the head, and a large blow-out in the right front -- what the Warren Commission was shown from the Ryberg drawing. (Crickets Chirping).

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=808&pictureid=6346[/qimg]

The autopsy photo I posted above looks a lot like the drawing. Please delineate the differences you see.

 

[HSienzant]

No doubt one could mistake a Mauser for a Carcano. But one could hardly mistake the words 'Made Italy, Cal 6.5" for Mauser 7.65.

Can you cite a photo showing the words "Made Italy, Cal 6.5" on the rifle in evidence?

 

[HSienzant]

"At every turn, the evidence ... simply does not add up to a lone gunman...Evidence is missing. Witnesses were asked to falsify affidavits. Testimony is dramatically altered. Documents are manipulated. What happend in Dealey Plaza on Nov. 22nd, 1963 was an effort by two or more people to kill the president of the United States. What has happened since has been a conspiracy to hide the truth." -- Dr. Cyril Wecht in "Tales from the Morgue" Page. 243.

All of what you quote from Cyril Wecht is hearsay and his opinion -- for example, "witnesses were asked to falsify affidavits" or "Documents are manipulated."

None of that would be admissible in court.

What would be admissible is Wecht's opinion concerning the wounds - as a board certified forensic pathologist, he is an expert in the field - and it was his opinion there was no evidence of a exit wound in the back of the head.

Here is a quote from Dr. Cyril Wecht, one of the forensic pathologists on the HSCA. Robert is fond of quoting him due to his conspiracy leanings. But let's see what he says....


From the Rockefeller Commission (Archives Document Record #180-10107-10237 Agency File #002422).

Mr. Olsen: Now, I’m going to ask you whether you have an opinion, based upon a reasonable medical certainty, as to whether any shots were fired at the President from the front or right front that struck him.

Dr. Wecht: No. With reasonable medical certainty, I could not say that a shot had been fired from the front.

 

[Monza]

Let's begin at the beginning: Tell me what I don't understand or is mis-represented about this witness testimony.

Dr. KEMP CLARK, MD: Professor and Director of Neurological Surgery at Parkland
"There was a large wound in the right occiputo-pariatel region, from which profuse bleeding was occurring... There was considrable loss of scalp and bone tussue. Both cerebral and cerebellar tissue were extruding from the wound." -- Page 518, Warren Report.

Now tell me whether this is an accurate statement from Dr. Clark as signed and published on P. 518 of the Warren Report and then Perhaps Jay Utah can explain how a "Large wound in the right occiputo-pariatel region .. and cerebral and cerebellar tissue extruding" " doesn't really mean what it says.

(Crickets still chirping)

Well, why dont you let Dr. Clark answer what he thinks it means? In his WC testimony, Dr. Clark confirmed that the wounds he witnessed at Parkland were consistent with an entry wound at the back and an exit at the right-center of the head.

 

[HSienzant]

A claim that Jack White was or was not an expert photo analyst is not a matter of fact but an opinion. You understand the difference???
Nah.

lol... You are backtracking quicker than I can run forward.

So everything you've been claiming these last 174 pages is just your opinion?

Thanks, that's precisely what we've been telling you all along - You have no evidence, just opinion.

There is a difference, you know.

 

[HSienzant]

Jack White is your Red Herring, not mine. Jack White's expertise has nothing whatsoever to do with the conspiracy to assassinate the President, but only the subordinate conspiracy to frame up a Patsy. Nor does your opinion as to whether he was an "expert" have any validity in judging his conclusions regarding the B/Y photos which have been proven to be forged by any number of photo experts.

lol. No, we went through this a while ago, you were unable to cite one legitimate expert who actually examined the first-generation originals who rendered an opinion they were forged in any way.

Simply starting over and lying about it doesn't do your credibility any good.

And here's multiple quotes from you insisting Jack White is a photographic expert.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8129725&postcount=4433

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

But a man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still.

Yes, thanks for explaining that to us -- now we see why you still hold the same nonsensical opinions you did months ago, despite our best efforts to educate you.

 

[Robert Prey]

Well, why dont you let Dr. Clark answer what he thinks it means? In his WC testimony, Dr. Clark confirmed that the wounds he witnessed at Parkland were consistent with an entry wound at the back and an exit at the right-center of the head.

Mr. Specter.
What, if anything, did you say then in the course of that press conference?
Dr. Clark.
I described the President's wound in his head in very much the same way as I have described it here. I was asked if this wound was an entrance wound, an exit wound, or what, and I said it could be an exit wound, but I felt it was a tangential wound.

AND

At a press conference 2&1/2 hours after the shooting Clark said, "The head wound could have been either the exit wound from the neck or it could have been a tangential wound, as it was simply a large, gaping loss of tissue"

http://www.assassinationweb.com/ag6.htm

 

[Robert Prey]

Robert is cranking hard on the "fringe reset" handle. He left for a few weeks and is now back with the same old claims from months ago, as if none of the intervening debate had ever taken place. All we're waiting for now is for him to turn to the wings and say, "Quick! Play me off, Johnny!" [ cue: frenetic ragtime piano music ]

Juvenile.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Juvenile.

Clownish. LOL

 

[HSienzant]

Why not just suffocate him with a pillow?

A good point, but I was responding to Robert's point about a shooting that involved framing Oswald. If JFK was smothered by a pillow, how do you frame Oswald for that?

Using a very good rifle (instead of Oswald's war-surplus $19.95 weapon); and framing Oswald for using that (instead of planting the 'junk' MC and framing him for that) gets rid of all of Robert's objections and also gets rid of the need to alter the body, alter the autopsy x-rays and photos, kill witnesses, etc. etc.

Hank

 

[Robert Prey]

So,nether TomTom nor Jay can respond to Dr.Kemp Clark's WC statement. No surprise.
Nor has either offered a single medical witness that is consistent with the Ryberg Drawing. Not a surprise.

The crickets are still chirping. Checkmate.

 

[JayUtah]

So,nether TomTom nor Jay can respond to Dr.Kemp Clark's WC statement. No surprise.

One topic at a time. I'm not part of the Kemp Clark discussion. I was talking about Jack White. Got anything more intelligent to say about him than "Baloney?"

The crickets are still chirping.

...and making more sense than you.

 

[JayUtah]

Juvenile.

Sorry, that's all you deserve. I write thoughtful, well-reasoned posts and you simply answer "Baloney." So if that's all the thought you're going to put into the debate, I'm going to write shorter, funnier posts for you to ignore. At least the other posters can giggle while you flee.