JFK Conspiracy Theories: It Never Ends

Status
Not open for further replies.
Robert Prey said:
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.
Click to expand...



So the guy is commissioned to create medical illustrations of a gun shot wound.

He is not expected to see the original body (which would be an unusual request) or to ask for the purpose of his illustrations (the purpose of which are to illustrate the wounds he is drawing?)...

So first of all, your evidence "the body did not look like that" is a witness who was chosen BECAUSE HE WOULD NOT EXPECT TO SEE THE BODY?

So what exactly are we meant to believe?

SECRET AGENT: Hey son, we want you illustrate this wound, as described in these autopsy documents.
RYDBERG: Sir yes Sir!
SECRET AGENT: The wound as described in these documents. The ones we are giving you. Not the totally different wounds I will now inform you of for no apparent reason....


In all seriousness, these drawings along with the autopsy and supporting evidence has been discussed at length previously.
 
BazBear said:
There's a grassy overpass there?
Click to expand...

If you go stand in the lane of traffic with the X where the fatal shot occurred, you can get a good idea of the lines of sight available to a potential shooter. The grassy slope that forms the Grassy Knoll continues around the bend, but becomes much steeper. As such, most of it does not present a view factor to the spot where the fatal shot hit. The combination of slope and road curvature means the shooter would pretty much have to be standing on the curb.

If you artificially eliminate the depository and consider only what possible snipers' nests remain, such that the direction of the shot would come from Kennedy's front at that moment, the only suitable place is the overpass, not the gradually steepening extension of the knoll farther down the motorcade route.

Of course if you stick with the artificial exclusion of the depository and consider all sniper's nests regardless of shot direction, the Grassy Knoll is the most suitable spot that remains. But this means the fatal shot would have come from the side, not the front. And objectively it remains a poor choice. Nevertheless among the conspiracy theorists it seems to be the most popular choice for a hypothetical second (or only) gunman.

If you let the sniper position himself anywhere he wants to be, with the goal of taking a fatal shot undetected -- and not the goal of shoe-horning into a predetermined bullet path -- then the high ground behind the target is the spot: i.e., the depository. The target moves slowly away along the line of sight at reasonably close range, with most of the surveillance attention directed at crowd level forward of the motorcade.

The blatant nuttery of the alleged sniper's nest ahead of the motorcade at the moment of the fatal shot is driven entirely by the constraint imposed by the alleged shot direction. That in turn is driven entirely by cherry-picked and badly misinterpreted witness statements. In a real investigation the totality of evidence must be considered, including that which is ambiguous such as eyewitness testimony. Resolving eyewitness testimony first, in an arbitrary way, and then trying to cram the rest of the less ambiguous testimony into it by allegations of forgery and so forth is absolutely unparsimonious.
 
I find it odd Robert is now expecting us to believe that just because somebody COULD have given the illustrator a false description that means they DID.

It still ignores the film and photograph evidence we have of the wounds occuring and at the time of autopsy. Unless Robert can prove these to have been faked he still relies on conjecture.
 
Tomtomkent said:
I find it odd Robert is now expecting us to believe that just because somebody COULD have given the illustrator a false description that means they DID.

It still ignores the film and photograph evidence we have of the wounds occuring and at the time of autopsy. Unless Robert can prove these to have been faked he still relies on conjecture.
Click to expand...

Nah, it's standard operating procedure with him. That was is argument with the Zapruder film as well until he tried to turn that into a Rorserbach(sp) test.

Seriously, if there was any conspiracy, it ran through Oswald. The fact he even refuses to acknowledge LHO as a possible shooter, the sillier he sounds.

(Not suggesting there was an actual conspiracy.)
 
Robert Prey said:
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.

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=808&pictureid=7310[/qimg]

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
Click to expand...


Quoting from the above article:
"He [Rydberg] said he was shocked when the Warren Commission, a blue-ribbon panel empowered to find the truth about the assassination, relied on his drawings to determine the trajectory of the lethal bullets."

That's untrue. The Warren Commission relied on the testimony of the autopsy doctors and the autopsy report to determine the facts of where the bullets hit and where they exited. The Rydberg drawings were merely helpful guides meant to illustrate only. The WC relied on Rydberg's drawings not at all.

For example, Humes explained the Rydberg drawings weren't to be taken literally:
"Commander HUMES - These exhibits again are schematic representations of what we observed at the time of examining the body of the late President.... I must state these drawings are in part schematic. The artist had but a brief period of some 2 days to prepare these. He had no photographs from which to work, and had to work under our description, verbal description, of what we had observed."

Humes also explained how he knew the wound in the occiput was an entry wound:
"Commander HUMES - No, sir; I am speaking here of the wound in the occiput. The wound on the inner table, however, was larger and had what in the field of wound ballistics is described as a shelving or a coning effect. To make an analogy to which the members of the Commission are probably most familiar, when a missile strikes a pane of glass, a typical example, a B-B fired by a child's air rifle, when this strikes a pane of glass there will be a small, usually round to oval defect on the side of the glass from whence the missile came and a boiled-out or coned-out surface on the opposite side of the glass from whence the missile came... This wound then had the characteristics of wound of entrance from this direction through the two tables of the skull."

He went on to say the large wound was determined to be the exit wound thusly: "Having ascertained to our satisfaction and incidentally photographs illustrating this phenomenon from both the external surface of the skull and from the internal surface were prepared, we concluded that the large defect to the upper right side of the skull, in fact, would represent a wound of exit."

The Warren Report contains this on page 86:
"The detailed autopsy of President Kennedy performed on the night of November 22 at the Bethesda Naval Hospital led the three examining pathologists to conclude that the smaller hole in the rear of the President's skull was the point of entry and that the large opening on the right side of his head was the wound of exit."

Note they don't quote or cite the Rydberg drawings at all to derive their conclusions.

Quite simply, a story quoting Rydberg 25 years after the assassination inflating his own relationship to the assassination ('the Warren Commission...relied on his drawings to determine the trajectory of the lethal bullets') is not to be taken seriously.

Sadly, it is perhaps to be expected that a person with a peripheral involvement in an important historical event may later try to inflate his own importance. What is not expected is that any JFK researcher worth a dime's worth of research salt will take that statement at face value. I don't understand why you bothered to quote it, as all it really establishes is that Rydberg's decades-later accounts are not trustworthy.

Hank
 
Last edited:
HSienzant said:
Quite simply, a story quoting Rydberg 25 years after the assassination inflating his own relationship to the assassination ('the Warren Commission...relied on his drawings to determine the trajectory of the lethal bullets') is not to be taken seriously.

Hank
Click to expand...

Not be taken seriously??? Well Arlen Spector took it very seriously in this memo to Lee Rankin:

Arlen Spector Memop to LeeRankin

MEMORANDUM

April 30, 1964

TO: Mr. J. Lee Rankin

FROM: Arlen Specter

SUBJECT: Autopsy Photographs and X-rays of President John F. Kennedy

"In my opinion it is indispensable that we obtain the photographs and x-rays of President Kennedy's autopsy for the following reasons:
1. THE COMMISSION SHOULD DETERMINE WITH CERTAINTY WHETHER THE SHOTS CAME FROM THE REAR. Someone from the Commission should review the films to corroborate the autopsy surgeons' testimony that the holes on the President's back and head had the characteristics of points of entry. None of the doctors at Parkland Hospital in Dallas observed the hole in the President's back or the small hole in the lower portion of his head. With all the outstanding controversy about the direction of the shots, there must be independent viewings of the films to verify testimony which has come only from Government doctors.


THE COMMISSION SHOULD DETERMINE WITH CERTAINTY THAT THERE ARE NO MAJOR VARIATIONS BETWEEN THE FILMS AND THE ARTIST'S DRAWINGS. Commission Exhibits Nos. 385, 386, and 388 were made from the recollections of the autopsy surgeons as told to the artist. Some day someone may compare the films with the artist's drawings and find a significant error which might substantially affect the essential testimony and the Commission's conclusions."

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/shootft.htm

Indeed.
 
vtbub said:
Nah, it's standard operating procedure with him. That was is argument with the Zapruder film as well until he tried to turn that into a Rorserbach(sp) test.

Seriously, if there was any conspiracy, it ran through Oswald. The fact he even refuses to acknowledge LHO as a possible shooter, the sillier he sounds.

(Not suggesting there was an actual conspiracy.)
Click to expand...

Incorrect. I've never refused to acknowledge Oswald as a possible shooter. On the other hand, none of the deep thinkers on this board have ever acknowledged the possibility of Oswald as a set up patsy.
 
JayUtah said:
If you go stand in the lane of traffic with the X where the fatal shot occurred, you can get a good idea of the lines of sight available to a potential shooter. The grassy slope that forms the Grassy Knoll continues around the bend, but becomes much steeper. As such, most of it does not present a view factor to the spot where the fatal shot hit. The combination of slope and road curvature means the shooter would pretty much have to be standing on the curb.

If you artificially eliminate the depository and consider only what possible snipers' nests remain, such that the direction of the shot would come from Kennedy's front at that moment, the only suitable place is the overpass, not the gradually steepening extension of the knoll farther down the motorcade route.

Of course if you stick with the artificial exclusion of the depository and consider all sniper's nests regardless of shot direction, the Grassy Knoll is the most suitable spot that remains. But this means the fatal shot would have come from the side, not the front. And objectively it remains a poor choice. Nevertheless among the conspiracy theorists it seems to be the most popular choice for a hypothetical second (or only) gunman.

If you let the sniper position himself anywhere he wants to be, with the goal of taking a fatal shot undetected -- and not the goal of shoe-horning into a predetermined bullet path -- then the high ground behind the target is the spot: i.e., the depository. The target moves slowly away along the line of sight at reasonably close range, with most of the surveillance attention directed at crowd level forward of the motorcade.

The blatant nuttery of the alleged sniper's nest ahead of the motorcade at the moment of the fatal shot is driven entirely by the constraint imposed by the alleged shot direction. That in turn is driven entirely by cherry-picked and badly misinterpreted witness statements. In a real investigation the totality of evidence must be considered, including that which is ambiguous such as eyewitness testimony. Resolving eyewitness testimony first, in an arbitrary way, and then trying to cram the rest of the less ambiguous testimony into it by allegations of forgery and so forth is absolutely unparsimonious.
Click to expand...

A grassy knoll with no grass and cherry picked statements with still no examples of unpicked cherries. Excellent reasoning.
 
Robert Prey said:
Incorrect. I've never refused to acknowledge Oswald as a possible shooter. On the other hand, none of the deep thinkers on this board have ever acknowledged the possibility of Oswald as a set up patsy.
Click to expand...
Nonsense. I'm sure most of us have acknowledged that possibility, then after looking at all the available evidence, we've come to the conclusion that it's extremely unlikely; in fact all that evidence tends to strongly support exactly the opposite conclusion.
 
Robert Prey said:
Incorrect. I've never refused to acknowledge Oswald as a possible shooter.
Click to expand...

He's either a shooter or a patsy. Pick one.

We went through that excruciating process of you regurgitating Jack White's nonsense about the backyard photos. If Oswald was really a shooter, why the need to fake all those pictures?

Face it -- you rely on the theories of people who say Oswald was not the shooter, and you cite their lines of reasoning that preclude him. Only now are you telling us you only selectively accept their findings.

On the other hand, none of the deep thinkers...
Click to expand...

Name-calling noted. But of course you never insult anyone.

...have ever acknowledged the possibility of Oswald as a set up patsy.
Click to expand...

Of course we acknowledge the possibility. And when we examine the evidence for and against that possibility, we draw a conclusion. Just because your pet theory isn't credible doesn't mean it wasn't fairly considered.
 
Robert Prey said:
Not be taken seriously??? Well Arlen Spector took it very seriously in this memo to Lee Rankin:

Arlen Spector Memop to LeeRankin

MEMORANDUM

April 30, 1964

TO: Mr. J. Lee Rankin

FROM: Arlen Specter

SUBJECT: Autopsy Photographs and X-rays of President John F. Kennedy

"In my opinion it is indispensable that we obtain the photographs and x-rays of President Kennedy's autopsy for the following reasons:
1. THE COMMISSION SHOULD DETERMINE WITH CERTAINTY WHETHER THE SHOTS CAME FROM THE REAR. Someone from the Commission should review the films to corroborate the autopsy surgeons' testimony that the holes on the President's back and head had the characteristics of points of entry. None of the doctors at Parkland Hospital in Dallas observed the hole in the President's back or the small hole in the lower portion of his head. With all the outstanding controversy about the direction of the shots, there must be independent viewings of the films to verify testimony which has come only from Government doctors.


THE COMMISSION SHOULD DETERMINE WITH CERTAINTY THAT THERE ARE NO MAJOR VARIATIONS BETWEEN THE FILMS AND THE ARTIST'S DRAWINGS. Commission Exhibits Nos. 385, 386, and 388 were made from the recollections of the autopsy surgeons as told to the artist. Some day someone may compare the films with the artist's drawings and find a significant error which might substantially affect the essential testimony and the Commission's conclusions."

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/shootft.htm

Indeed.
Click to expand...

But you posted this in reply to somebody who quoted the WC determining that very point, and concludin the limits to which the illustration should be relied upon. This memo is of no use to your point because it shows the illustrations were never relied soley upon,and that the commission did the opposite to what you claimed by making a comparative study of the photos and film...to ensure reasonable accuracy.
 
vtbub said:
So was he a shooter or not?
Click to expand...

If Robert believes his theory does allow for LHO to be one of the shooters then it makes his comments about LHO deserving a medal somewhat worrying.

We should also ask why another shooter would be required if LHO was the highly competant spy descibed earlier in the thread.
 
Robert Prey said:
Incorrect. I've never refused to acknowledge Oswald as a possible shooter. On the other hand, none of the deep thinkers on this board have ever acknowledged the possibility of Oswald as a set up patsy.
Click to expand...

It jas been considered. It has been deemed unsuported by objective evidence.
If you ever support your claim with objective evidence then it may considered as a viable possibility.
 
Robert Prey said:
A grassy knoll with no grass and cherry picked statements with still no examples of unpicked cherries. Excellent reasoning.
Click to expand...

Robert, show us on a map where you think the bullets came from. Identify a knoll, that is grassy and in front of JFK when he is shot.

Stop relying on purely subjective descriptors and getting your skiddies twisted when others disagree.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom