Tomtomkent
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jul 5, 2010
- Messages
- 8,607
All claims, all unsupported by objective evidence.
JFK Conspiracy Theories: It Never Ends
- Thread starter Walter Ego
- Start date
-
- Tags
- jfk assassination
- Status
All claims, all unsupported by objective evidence.
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
Begging the question.
Begging the question.
Ad hominem.
You tell us. Be sure to provide evidence.
Please tell us, and explain how you can intimately see into another man's mind.
See the previous 200 pages of this thread.
Asked and answered.
Supposition.
Begging the question.
Ambiguous.
Can you offer anything that isn't a dismal display of blatantly biased and faulty reasoning?
Tomtomkent
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jul 5, 2010
- Messages
- 8,607
and all proven false by the film and photogrphic evidence.
memory is falliable. how else would you be able to claim you never insult people despite posts in this thread? or that topics in this thread have not been discussed?
Oh and which bones of the skull were covered by the wc and autopsy placement of the exit wound? if the occipital is one, would that not be confirmed by her description? handy hint, what is the upper limit of the occiputal bone? which bones does it border?
uh oh, this subjective evidence is not as damning as you hoped.
Tomtomkent
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jul 5, 2010
- Messages
- 8,607
I thought you insised only one question be asked at a time?
Tomtomkent
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jul 5, 2010
- Messages
- 8,607
Is Bowrons opinion of entrance and exit wounds qualified by forensics training? She is qualified in pathology?
Robert is on a Monty Haul, desperate to kick down the next door before he has finished proving the step before.
No evidence any photograph,film or document is faked. Just subjective claims.
No evidece to support subjective claims and opinions.
No evidence of the whitewash, planted evidence, etc.
just the same old tosh and a complaint objective evidence must have been buried, with noevidence of the burial, destruction, altertions, etc.
Robert is on a Monty Haul, desperate to kick down the next door before he has finished proving the step before.
No evidence any photograph,film or document is faked. Just subjective claims.
No evidece to support subjective claims and opinions.
No evidence of the whitewash, planted evidence, etc.
just the same old tosh and a complaint objective evidence must have been buried, with noevidence of the burial, destruction, altertions, etc.
Robert Prey
Banned
- Joined
- Sep 8, 2011
- Messages
- 6,705
Mystery Witness Answers
l. Why did the autopsy doctors go along with a lie?
"I really believe honestly that if you go to where the Warren Commission started, LBJ started the Warren Commission, Hoover fed the Warren Commission every bit of information, and Dr. Humes and Dr. Boswell, Dr. Perry all the rest of them who might know what really happened, know that the evidence that was saved could not be backed up by anybody. And Dr. Humes and Dr. Boswell were facing retirement. They didn't want to lose their retirement. They both gained another rank, too....I think it was a chess game and they were checkmated. I think that always sat wrong with Dr. Humes, that he had to knuckle under....But playing a game of chess, sometimes, one gets checkmated. The better part of valor is to do what he did."
2. Who put them up to it?
LBJ and J. Edgar Hoover
"They only got the information that Hoover wanted them to have. And they also knew, by the time the Select Committee started, that all of all the evidence was missing, including the brain. Humes would say: "Let me review the evidence." And they would have stated, "We no longer know where it is." In other words, you're on a floating boat on thin ice. So they had to go in just about like I did. Verbally reconstruct it."
3. Was Dr.Humes really just a pencil pusher with no clue as to what he was doing?
"Well, Dr. Humes was the head of pathology and would be the one who would do the autopsy on Kennedy, because he was the department head. He was basically in the administrative part, but he was a doctor."
4. Who scripted the autopsy conclusions?
LBJ and J. Edgar Hoover
5. Did Harold Rydberg knowingly concoct a lie with his fictional drawings?
Not at the time. But when he found out that his drawing was used to track the exit and entry wounds, he was appalled and outraged. But he couldn't say anythng under threat of court martial.
6. Where did the fatal head shot actually enter Kennedy's head?
"....when you've got a bullet coming in from the right, and you've seen that on the Zapruder film-where Kennedy flies back, his head flies back-it really fragments. The bullet-it was like a dumdum bullet..." There was nothing in that cerebral vault or the brain cavity to turn that bullet if it came in from the back and came out the right side. Brain matter has the consistency of scrambled eggs. There's nothing to turn the bullet, Why would it have come out the right side?"
"They had plenty of other evidence, but they really never saw that other evidence."
While the commission concluded that Lee Harvey Oswald, perched in the Texas School Depository, fired the fatal shots from above and behind the President, the real killer was in a grassy area ahead of the motorcade.
8. Was the statement that Dr. Humes gave to the Warren Commission a slip of the tongue, or a clue left for posterity? What was the real meaning behind this quote:
"Scientifically, sir, it is impossible for it to have been fired from other than behind. Or to have exited from other than behind." -- Dr. Humes to WC
"So, basically, this double-speak is just that. Trying to tell you something without telling it to you...
"He (Humes) was saving his name and face for the people he knew would know what he was [doing]. If you knew Dr. Humes, you'd know that he could speak that way. And you'd know what he was saying. I talked with him that night at dinner."
"I know exactly what Dr. Humes was doing. I've read that testimony, and I know exactly what he was saying. You get a bunch of confused old men on the Warren Commission, which they all were, plus the other assistants they had -- Jerry Ford -- that would be enough to confuse anybody. And they're going to come out by not saying it..."
Humes was an honorable man and he was not going to go down quiet. He was going to leave messages for other people to see what he wanted to say but couldn't."
9. What about that so-called pristine bullet?
Read my book. I've placed everything where it belongs. First of all, that "pristine" bullet they found from the neck wound that went through Connolly -- I'll put it that way, was not a bullet fired at the time. It was part of Oswald's but it was Ruby who put the bullet on the gurney, which was even the wrong gurney.
10. Who benefitted most from the cover-up?
Lyndon Johnson and J. Edgar Hoover
11. Have any of the principles retracted their findings?
Yes.
Next: The Mystery Witness Identified
l. Why did the autopsy doctors go along with a lie?
"I really believe honestly that if you go to where the Warren Commission started, LBJ started the Warren Commission, Hoover fed the Warren Commission every bit of information, and Dr. Humes and Dr. Boswell, Dr. Perry all the rest of them who might know what really happened, know that the evidence that was saved could not be backed up by anybody. And Dr. Humes and Dr. Boswell were facing retirement. They didn't want to lose their retirement. They both gained another rank, too....I think it was a chess game and they were checkmated. I think that always sat wrong with Dr. Humes, that he had to knuckle under....But playing a game of chess, sometimes, one gets checkmated. The better part of valor is to do what he did."
2. Who put them up to it?
LBJ and J. Edgar Hoover
"They only got the information that Hoover wanted them to have. And they also knew, by the time the Select Committee started, that all of all the evidence was missing, including the brain. Humes would say: "Let me review the evidence." And they would have stated, "We no longer know where it is." In other words, you're on a floating boat on thin ice. So they had to go in just about like I did. Verbally reconstruct it."
3. Was Dr.Humes really just a pencil pusher with no clue as to what he was doing?
"Well, Dr. Humes was the head of pathology and would be the one who would do the autopsy on Kennedy, because he was the department head. He was basically in the administrative part, but he was a doctor."
4. Who scripted the autopsy conclusions?
LBJ and J. Edgar Hoover
5. Did Harold Rydberg knowingly concoct a lie with his fictional drawings?
Not at the time. But when he found out that his drawing was used to track the exit and entry wounds, he was appalled and outraged. But he couldn't say anythng under threat of court martial.
6. Where did the fatal head shot actually enter Kennedy's head?
"....when you've got a bullet coming in from the right, and you've seen that on the Zapruder film-where Kennedy flies back, his head flies back-it really fragments. The bullet-it was like a dumdum bullet..." There was nothing in that cerebral vault or the brain cavity to turn that bullet if it came in from the back and came out the right side. Brain matter has the consistency of scrambled eggs. There's nothing to turn the bullet, Why would it have come out the right side?"
"They had plenty of other evidence, but they really never saw that other evidence."
While the commission concluded that Lee Harvey Oswald, perched in the Texas School Depository, fired the fatal shots from above and behind the President, the real killer was in a grassy area ahead of the motorcade.
8. Was the statement that Dr. Humes gave to the Warren Commission a slip of the tongue, or a clue left for posterity? What was the real meaning behind this quote:
"Scientifically, sir, it is impossible for it to have been fired from other than behind. Or to have exited from other than behind." -- Dr. Humes to WC
"So, basically, this double-speak is just that. Trying to tell you something without telling it to you...
"He (Humes) was saving his name and face for the people he knew would know what he was [doing]. If you knew Dr. Humes, you'd know that he could speak that way. And you'd know what he was saying. I talked with him that night at dinner."
"I know exactly what Dr. Humes was doing. I've read that testimony, and I know exactly what he was saying. You get a bunch of confused old men on the Warren Commission, which they all were, plus the other assistants they had -- Jerry Ford -- that would be enough to confuse anybody. And they're going to come out by not saying it..."
Humes was an honorable man and he was not going to go down quiet. He was going to leave messages for other people to see what he wanted to say but couldn't."
9. What about that so-called pristine bullet?
Read my book. I've placed everything where it belongs. First of all, that "pristine" bullet they found from the neck wound that went through Connolly -- I'll put it that way, was not a bullet fired at the time. It was part of Oswald's but it was Ruby who put the bullet on the gurney, which was even the wrong gurney.
10. Who benefitted most from the cover-up?
Lyndon Johnson and J. Edgar Hoover
11. Have any of the principles retracted their findings?
Yes.
Next: The Mystery Witness Identified
Last edited:
Tomtomkent
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jul 5, 2010
- Messages
- 8,607
Oh look. More opinion, claim and speculation.
You know when a statement starts "I believe" it is not evidence.
Next: no objective evidence, more conjecture.
Witness evidence is worthless when disproven by objective evidence.
Witness evidence is worthless when unsupported by objective evidence.
Where is the objective evidence?
*crickets chirping*
But thankyou for proving it is possible to answe more than one question.
You know when a statement starts "I believe" it is not evidence.
Next: no objective evidence, more conjecture.
Witness evidence is worthless when disproven by objective evidence.
Witness evidence is worthless when unsupported by objective evidence.
Where is the objective evidence?
*crickets chirping*
But thankyou for proving it is possible to answe more than one question.
Tomtomkent
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jul 5, 2010
- Messages
- 8,607
Robert...
Please identify one photo artefact in the z film inidicative of alteration.
Please identify one photo artefact in the polaroid photo indicative of alteration.
Please identify one attribute of the Oswald palm print indicating it was taken post mortem.
Please identify one method of producing a latent print in a powder post mortem.
Please identify archival evidence the autopsy was falsified.
Please provide objective evidence of when, where and by whom the available autopsy photographs were produced.
Please provide documentary evidence of the threats of court marshall
Please provide your objective method of knowing what hume and others meant but did not say.
When you have done that, then perhaps your claims may have a reason to be considered. As it is the conjecture is weighed against by real evidence. Not opinion, not conjecture, not innuendo.
Please identify one photo artefact in the z film inidicative of alteration.
Please identify one photo artefact in the polaroid photo indicative of alteration.
Please identify one attribute of the Oswald palm print indicating it was taken post mortem.
Please identify one method of producing a latent print in a powder post mortem.
Please identify archival evidence the autopsy was falsified.
Please provide objective evidence of when, where and by whom the available autopsy photographs were produced.
Please provide documentary evidence of the threats of court marshall
Please provide your objective method of knowing what hume and others meant but did not say.
When you have done that, then perhaps your claims may have a reason to be considered. As it is the conjecture is weighed against by real evidence. Not opinion, not conjecture, not innuendo.
jargon buster
Banned
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2009
- Messages
- 4,773
one answer at a time please
Tomtomkent
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jul 5, 2010
- Messages
- 8,607
Have any of the principles made no effort to retract their findings?
Yes.
Oh gosh. Perhaps "how many" is the more pertinent question than "have any". Closely followed by "were they selling a book and going on tv when they retracted their findings?"
Who benefited most from the cover up?
Lee Harvey Oswald. What? Purely subjective questions have purely subjective answers. LBJ failed to benefit from the assassination at all. Unless you consider a failure to pass his gun control reform and a disasterous second term as a "benefit".
By the way, I just want to remind you folks that Robert dismissed Robin Ramsay out of hand and insulted the guys work. I just want you to bare that in mind now he is going down the LBJ path. If the name Mac or McWallace are suggested as second shooters, if the "Texas suicide" hitmen alleged to be on LBJs payroll are mentioned, if LBJ is quoted at a party for muttering that the Irish Mafia SOB would not be a problem any more, etc, and it all rings of the book "who shot JFK" then I just want you all to remember that somewhere in the murk of this thread, much earlier on, I pointed out to Robert that others have made better cases for the conspiracy, and done so with out handwaving evidence. His response of course took his usual tone.
Which is a shame as if he was going to head in that direction we could have avoided talking in circles for the last hundred or so pages. Oh, and he could have put the confusion caused by Tippets autopsy photos being leaked as JFks to good use if he had read the article from the Fortean Times by Ramsay I linked to instead of dismissing it as garbage.
At the risk of another merry go round, there were two people rushed to hospital, an hour apart,suffering gun shot wounds. One looked so much like the president his fellow watch members called him "JFK" as a nickname. The other was JFK. One had suffered a devestating gunshot wound, small entry at the front, large "blow out" at the back, and for years his autopsy photos fooled folks into thinking they were JFKs.
Is it me or there a more likely reason for conflicting testimony and evidence than a massive conspiracy that required photographic and filmed evidence to be faked in such a way the tampering can not reliably be detected by recognised methods decades later?
And as others pointed out early on, would it not be easier to put your kill team in roughly the same direction as your patsy? (Oh, another reason Robert should have looked more into Ramsay, though flawed in his conclusion the methodology of his research is pretty good and he identifies some of the potholes roberts theory is heading for).
If the answer is that terrible statement "the cover up was seperate from the shooting", then why? Why prearrange your patsy on the off chance the pres got shot? Why not catch the actual shooter or find a patsy who fits with the actual evidence? Heck, even if you planned the president to be shot from the front, why not have a patsy on the overpass?
I would be far more enclined to believe the LBJ stuff if it in any way made sense. And if we adopt a CT standard for credulity then it would be so simple...
LHO is a patsy set up? Fine, he is encouraged through one of his Cuban groups to buy a rifle through his alias. To pose with it for photos. My CT if I wanted to exonorate LHO? He was to be photographed with a rifle at the plaza as JFK drove past. He was afterall a dreamer and wanted to be some kind of important spy. What better way to prove to his superiors what he was capable of? Well apart from pressing him to do the shooting himself.
Next we add the other shooters. In the TSBD or one of the nearby buildings. Close enough so that the evidence points at LHO and nobody looks any further.
The shot that misses is probably LHO, certainly from behind. Cant have come from any other angle. Perhaps thinking his handlers are clearing up after him he casually departs. Or he hears gunshots, looks at the rifle in his hands and works out he is not about to be photographed.
Two, maybe three more shots from the kill team, depending if I think i can get enough people to buy into the audio recordings. JFK is down. The kill team depart, dropping their shells and an unfired round to frame LHO
LHO not being the master spy or operative some paint him to be, or the spy he dreams of being screws up. He arms himself with his revolver and guns down a cop, then tries to gun down another in the theatre. The conspiracy does not even need to arrange Oswalds death, only slack security. Ruby removes the problem.
By happistance the similarity between Tippit and Oswald is noticed. When the accurate findings of the WC are called into question a single simple step is required to confuse matters and discredit any theorist who may identify the actual shooters: leak Tippits autopsy. You only need one or two doctors to lie, and the confusion will do the rest.
So lets see what I have avoided having to explain:
Everybody lying. Almost everybody gives honest testimony accurately, and misinterpretation and conflation lets the cover up work by itself.
No need to fake a film or endless photos.
No need to coerce many, many innocent people
No need to fake x rays or entire autopsies.
No need to reconstruct wounds
Deniability is present, the leak could be explained by a misfiling.
And yet CTs choose over complicated plots unsupportable by evidence because...?
Yes.
Oh gosh. Perhaps "how many" is the more pertinent question than "have any". Closely followed by "were they selling a book and going on tv when they retracted their findings?"
Who benefited most from the cover up?
Lee Harvey Oswald. What? Purely subjective questions have purely subjective answers. LBJ failed to benefit from the assassination at all. Unless you consider a failure to pass his gun control reform and a disasterous second term as a "benefit".
By the way, I just want to remind you folks that Robert dismissed Robin Ramsay out of hand and insulted the guys work. I just want you to bare that in mind now he is going down the LBJ path. If the name Mac or McWallace are suggested as second shooters, if the "Texas suicide" hitmen alleged to be on LBJs payroll are mentioned, if LBJ is quoted at a party for muttering that the Irish Mafia SOB would not be a problem any more, etc, and it all rings of the book "who shot JFK" then I just want you all to remember that somewhere in the murk of this thread, much earlier on, I pointed out to Robert that others have made better cases for the conspiracy, and done so with out handwaving evidence. His response of course took his usual tone.
Which is a shame as if he was going to head in that direction we could have avoided talking in circles for the last hundred or so pages. Oh, and he could have put the confusion caused by Tippets autopsy photos being leaked as JFks to good use if he had read the article from the Fortean Times by Ramsay I linked to instead of dismissing it as garbage.
At the risk of another merry go round, there were two people rushed to hospital, an hour apart,suffering gun shot wounds. One looked so much like the president his fellow watch members called him "JFK" as a nickname. The other was JFK. One had suffered a devestating gunshot wound, small entry at the front, large "blow out" at the back, and for years his autopsy photos fooled folks into thinking they were JFKs.
Is it me or there a more likely reason for conflicting testimony and evidence than a massive conspiracy that required photographic and filmed evidence to be faked in such a way the tampering can not reliably be detected by recognised methods decades later?
And as others pointed out early on, would it not be easier to put your kill team in roughly the same direction as your patsy? (Oh, another reason Robert should have looked more into Ramsay, though flawed in his conclusion the methodology of his research is pretty good and he identifies some of the potholes roberts theory is heading for).
If the answer is that terrible statement "the cover up was seperate from the shooting", then why? Why prearrange your patsy on the off chance the pres got shot? Why not catch the actual shooter or find a patsy who fits with the actual evidence? Heck, even if you planned the president to be shot from the front, why not have a patsy on the overpass?
I would be far more enclined to believe the LBJ stuff if it in any way made sense. And if we adopt a CT standard for credulity then it would be so simple...
LHO is a patsy set up? Fine, he is encouraged through one of his Cuban groups to buy a rifle through his alias. To pose with it for photos. My CT if I wanted to exonorate LHO? He was to be photographed with a rifle at the plaza as JFK drove past. He was afterall a dreamer and wanted to be some kind of important spy. What better way to prove to his superiors what he was capable of? Well apart from pressing him to do the shooting himself.
Next we add the other shooters. In the TSBD or one of the nearby buildings. Close enough so that the evidence points at LHO and nobody looks any further.
The shot that misses is probably LHO, certainly from behind. Cant have come from any other angle. Perhaps thinking his handlers are clearing up after him he casually departs. Or he hears gunshots, looks at the rifle in his hands and works out he is not about to be photographed.
Two, maybe three more shots from the kill team, depending if I think i can get enough people to buy into the audio recordings. JFK is down. The kill team depart, dropping their shells and an unfired round to frame LHO
LHO not being the master spy or operative some paint him to be, or the spy he dreams of being screws up. He arms himself with his revolver and guns down a cop, then tries to gun down another in the theatre. The conspiracy does not even need to arrange Oswalds death, only slack security. Ruby removes the problem.
By happistance the similarity between Tippit and Oswald is noticed. When the accurate findings of the WC are called into question a single simple step is required to confuse matters and discredit any theorist who may identify the actual shooters: leak Tippits autopsy. You only need one or two doctors to lie, and the confusion will do the rest.
So lets see what I have avoided having to explain:
Everybody lying. Almost everybody gives honest testimony accurately, and misinterpretation and conflation lets the cover up work by itself.
No need to fake a film or endless photos.
No need to coerce many, many innocent people
No need to fake x rays or entire autopsies.
No need to reconstruct wounds
Deniability is present, the leak could be explained by a misfiling.
And yet CTs choose over complicated plots unsupportable by evidence because...?
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
Hilarious! In this thread, doctors with administrative positions are just know-nothing pencil-pushers whom Robert can dismiss with a wave of his hand as convenient.
But, in the cancer thread he tells us that doctors with administrative positions are not only competent doctors, they're better doctors than all the others and should be listened to even when they have a distinctly minority opinion.
Which is it? It's even more hilarious when you realize that I tipped him off about this dichotomy in the other thread too.
Once again Robert Prey just makes stuff up.
There is no "grassy area" ahead of the motorcade. I've been there. I've walked all over the site. Once again Robert Prey just makes stuff up.
That's right, Robert really expends no original thought of his own. This is the same line he's used since the early pages of this thread. He reads some guy's conspiracy book, swallows it hook-line-and-sinker, tries to tell everyone they're closed-minded if they don't do the same. It really gets funny when he tries to establish that all these authors he says he's read are experts in the field. Then we get a remarkably silly tap-dance where Robert tries to redefine what it means to be an expert.
But in the end, Prey is just uncritically repeating what he's read elsewhere and can't or won't defend it.
And we're off and running on a brand new tangent likely designed to keep his thread spinning for another 20 pages. Nevermind that Robert patently can't tell me where I "keep claiming victory," as he so unkindly tried on paste on me. Must distract from that embarrassing and potentially infractable gaffe at all costs. Called out again on the "forty medical witnesses" claim that's become a running joke in the whole forum.
Robert has the end to his story all figured out. He's now trying very hard to concoct a beginning and a middle that leads up to his desired conclusion. He's figured out what evidence stands in his way, therefore who needs to be lying and what needs to be forged. And that need is the only evidence he can present that any of it "happened."
SpitfireIX
Philosopher
Aha! I knew it! You shot JFK! Don't bother to deny it; I'm working on a Youtube video that will prove beyond any possible doubt that you did it.
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
Aha! I knew it! You shot JFK! Don't bother to deny it; I'm working on a Youtube video that will prove beyond any possible doubt that you did it.
Starring the ghost of Jack White? Count me in! Also, just so you know, there's a clause in my representation contract that says Patton Oswalt has to play me in any fictionalized story.
I should probably clarify that there is a grassy area in front of the spot where the fatal shot occurred. This isn't the classic Grassy Knoll where everyone else says the fatal shot came from, but farther along the route. However due to the the steep lay of the land, there is no view factor -- i.e., no line of sight and therefore no shot -- from that area.
Again, I firmly believe that spending as little as five minutes actually at Dealey Plaza would pretty much cure any believer of the notion that the fatal shot came from in front or to the side of the President.
It's the same story as in any other conspiracy theory. The "truth" has to be whatever differs most dramatically and from "the official story." Thus if the "official story" is that the fatal shot came from behind, then the "truth" has to be the fatal shot coming from Somewhere Else -- or practically, Anywhere Else. That only leaves a few directions. Sadly, the conspiracy theorists, in theorizing that the fatal shot came from Anywhere Except Where the Official Story Says, fail to see whether that's objectively a good direction to shoot from.
Worthless Data
ROBERT: You could have saved everyone on this board from your love of anecdotes culled from a traumatic event by simply asking the physicians who attended to the mortally wounded President about the data contained in the x-rays of his head. Considering the FACT that the x-rays demonstrated that the back of the President's head was intact, your arguments regarding a shot being fired from the grassy knoll are worthless.
ROBERT: You could have saved everyone on this board from your love of anecdotes culled from a traumatic event by simply asking the physicians who attended to the mortally wounded President about the data contained in the x-rays of his head. Considering the FACT that the x-rays demonstrated that the back of the President's head was intact, your arguments regarding a shot being fired from the grassy knoll are worthless.
BazBear
Possible Suspect
I think my favorite alternate CT shooting location is the storm drain openings (wasn't that Tom Wilson's?). That one makes the grassy knoll almost look reasonable.
BazBear
Possible Suspect
Jay, I think you should also insist that the production company gets Christopher Lloyd to play the late Jack White, he'd be perfect for that role!
Robert Prey
Banned
- Joined
- Sep 8, 2011
- Messages
- 6,705
Funny, I've been there too. Sure looks like grass to me.
Robert Prey
Banned
- Joined
- Sep 8, 2011
- Messages
- 6,705
Mystery Witness Revealed
Having censored access to the autopsy photos, there had to be a visual reprsentation of the One Lone Nut" myth that LBJ and J. Edgar sought to brainwash the Warren Commision and the Amercan Public, and so to provide it they needed someone who would not demand to see the original bodily evidence and not bother to ask the purpose of the drawings.. And that was why they chose an inexperienced 23-year-old Navy Medical Illustrator by the name of Harold Rydberg pictured below. Thus the entire WC house of cards was built upon those fradulent drawings.
Mystery Witness: Navy Illustrator Harold Rydberg
Sources:
Spartanburg Herald Journal, Nov. 23, 1988
http://news.google.com/newspapers?n...TssAAAAIBAJ&sjid=wc4EAAAAIBAJ&pg=6892,3010610
* * *
Rydberg Interview with William Matson Law
William Matson Law from his book : "In the Eye of History" (2005).
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKrydbergH.htm
* * *
FOR THE SAKE OF
HISTORICAL ACCURACY
This is an updated version of an article which was first published in the
November 2002 edition of the Dealey Plaza Echo,
the journal of the British research group Dealey Plaza UK by Barry Keane, Vice-Chairman of Dealey Plaza UK
http://www.jfkresearch.com/Historical_Accuracy .pdf
Having censored access to the autopsy photos, there had to be a visual reprsentation of the One Lone Nut" myth that LBJ and J. Edgar sought to brainwash the Warren Commision and the Amercan Public, and so to provide it they needed someone who would not demand to see the original bodily evidence and not bother to ask the purpose of the drawings.. And that was why they chose an inexperienced 23-year-old Navy Medical Illustrator by the name of Harold Rydberg pictured below. Thus the entire WC house of cards was built upon those fradulent drawings.
Mystery Witness: Navy Illustrator Harold Rydberg
Sources:
Spartanburg Herald Journal, Nov. 23, 1988
http://news.google.com/newspapers?n...TssAAAAIBAJ&sjid=wc4EAAAAIBAJ&pg=6892,3010610
* * *
Rydberg Interview with William Matson Law
William Matson Law from his book : "In the Eye of History" (2005).
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKrydbergH.htm
* * *
FOR THE SAKE OF
HISTORICAL ACCURACY
This is an updated version of an article which was first published in the
November 2002 edition of the Dealey Plaza Echo,
the journal of the British research group Dealey Plaza UK by Barry Keane, Vice-Chairman of Dealey Plaza UK
http://www.jfkresearch.com/Historical_Accuracy .pdf
Last edited:
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
Funny how you completely avoided the actual issue.
- Status