JFK Conspiracy Theories: It Never Ends

[HSienzant]

Probably, but it's not necessary. The z film could be altered with no artifact of alteration. But even if altered, the film still shows the fatal shot from the right front. The Grassy knoll.

Do cite the statement of a recognized photographic expert that says that, using 1963 technology, a film could be altered with no artifact of alteration detectable.

This supposed "fact" is simply a claim you made up on the spot and won't be able to prove to anyone's satisfaction (except possibly your own).

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

The first diagram mimics Ryberg's fictional drawing.

And as it was drawn from the actual photos and x-rays by a qualified medical artist, it shows the Rydberg drawing isn't as fictional as you want us to believe. It is schematic and does show within limits the location of the entry and exit wounds, as does the Ida Dox drawings done for the HSCA. Congratulations, you just conceded the Rydberg drawings are accurate enough for its intended purpose.

The Harper Fragment, where ever someone claims it was found, was positively identified as coming from the back of K's head:

* Over and over again Dr. Boswell told HSCA investigators that BONE WAS MISSING FROM THE BACK OF THE HEAD. He added that they only had part of the rear entry wound until late in the night when pieces of skull arrived from Dallas and one of them was found to have the other part of the rear entry wound--IN THE BACK OF THE HEAD. om Dallas!

I couldn't find Boswell's statements to that effect online anywhere. Can you point me to a source of that claim where his testimony to the HSCA can be read in its entirety?

I do note that Boswell's statements to the Warren Commission and to the AARB did affirm the small back of head entry and large right top of head exit.
His testimony in those cases can be found here:

WC: http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/boswell.htm
AARB: http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/boswella.htm

* The famous Harper fragment, which was blown from President Kennedy's skull during the shooting, was identified by at least two doctors soon after the assassination as occipital bone, i.e., as coming from the back of the head. Dr. Jack Harper, whose nephew found the fragment, told HSCA investigators that "the consensus of the doctors who viewed the skull fragment was that it was part of the occipital region." One of those doctors was the chief pathologist at Methodist Hospital, Dr. A. B. Cairns. Dr. Cairns firmly identified the fragment as occipital bone.

http://www.kenrahn.com/jfk/the_critics/griffith/Important_New_Disclosures.html

Right, and yet others identify it as parietal (previously cited). How do you propose we break the tie, and in the absence of breaking the tie, why did you assert it is occipital bone merely because some witnesses called it that? And can you explain how the bone supposedly from the back of the head wound up forward of the car on the grassy island between Main Street and Elm Street? We can see a large fragment in Z313 spiralling up and forward, and it appears to have come from the top of the head.

Hank

 

[BStrong]

To go from ficton written by an amatuer author in this thread to fiction written by a good author, I'm currently reading "The Third Shot" by Stephen Hunter, I highly recommend it as it's entertaining, well written from a ballisitic viewpoint, and it doesn't pretend to be anything more than it is.

Corrected: The book title is "The Third Bullet."

It helps when the book is nearby and I can read the title - senior momet I was posting outside on the laptop.

 

[HSienzant]

I do not claim the men had anything to do with the autopsy. Only that they both observed a film showing an entrance wound in the right temple and a large blow-out in the back which Dennis David presumes was shot by Pitzer from the gallery.

That's a falsehood. You claimed that Pitzer shot the film of the autopsy here:

You are grasping for non-existent loopholes and parsing words. Pitzer shot the film that he viewed along with Dennis David. That's make him a witness to the large blow-out in the back of the head. Since Dennis David was his associate, that makes them both medical photographers and therefore, both belong on the list of witnesses with a medical background.

And do post the evidence for the existence of this film, and how Pitzer came into possession of it. Right now, I'm aware of one source and one source only. The wholly unsupported claim of Dennis David, made decades after the fact, and decades after Pitzer had committed suicide.

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

No. I do not respect the conclusions of the HSCA, though some of its investigators, I do respect.

(The above was posted at 1/31/ @ 2:07 pm).

A clear and present falsehood, Robert.

You don't respect the conclusions of the HSCA except when you quote them and tell me my preceding statement was factually incorrect because the HSCA concluded otherwise.

Factually incorrect:

"The Committee believes, on the basis of the evidence available to it, that president John F. Kennedy was probably assassinated as a result of a conspiracy. The committee is unable to identify the other gunman or the extent of the conspiracy."

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/report/html/HSCA_Report_0005a.htm

(The above was posted at 1/31/2013 @ 10:06 am) - four hours and one minute before you contradicted your own quote by telling us you don't respect those conclusions!

Hilarious.

Now Robert, do try to rebut my points without contradicting yourself. Here's my points once again. As you may recall, you were claiming the Warren Commission, based on a Rydberg statement in a newspaper 25 years after the fact, relied on Rydberg's drawings to locate the entry and exit wounds, and that "... the entire WC house of cards was built upon those fradulent drawings."

In response, I wrote the below. Do you have any legitimate rebuttal to the points made?

Hello? The autopsists described the location and size of the wounds in their autopsy report. The Warren Commission relied on the autopsy report and the testimony of the autopsy doctors to determine that the shooter was located above and behind the president. The findings of the Warren Commission relied in *no* way on the Rydberg drawings, which were intended to be schematic in nature and illustrative of the general nature of the wounds only.

Since Rydberg had nothing to do with the Warren Commission deliberations or conclusions whatsoever (his drawings were admitted as Warren Commission documents, but Rydberg didn't testify about them in any manner, Dr. Humes did), Rydberg's statements 25 years later in his unsworn newspaper interview have no standing concerning the Warren Commission conclusions. He stated in that article -- falsely -- that the Warren Commission based the location of the wounds on his drawings and that is not true. You won't be able to cite anywhere in the Warren Report where they say that, you won't be able to cite any Warren Commissioner or WC senior or junior counsel saying that, all you have is a statement by a guy who drew a couple of pictures at Dr. Humes direction.

Your claims -- and Rydberg's -- are false.

Rydberg has no standing to be commenting on the Warren Commission deliberations or conclusions. Quoting his beliefs about the Warren Commission conclusions - and what they were supposedly based on - is meaningless. He had as much to do with those determinations as the custodian who emptied the Warren Commission trash daily. Quite simply, Rydberg was just inflating his own importance for that newspaper article, as I stated, and you ignored.

And of course, the HSCA did review the autopsy photos and x-rays, and did confirm the Commission got that right - the shooter that struck both men fired from behind and above the President and they confirm the Commission's conclusion that all those shots were fired by Lee Harvey Oswald from the sniper's nest window.

Hank

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

Your "reliable" autopsy photo evidence cannot be authenticated or even identified as being the body of JFK much less the unaltered body or unaltered photo of the body of JFK.

Except they were authenticated and identified by the HSCA panel as of the body of JFK. Have you even read the report?

There's no evidence the body was altered prior to the autopsy. That's a fantasy by David Lifton.

Frank Scott, who prepared the autopsy report for the HSCA wrote: "I conclude that these pictures are authentic photographs. In forming this conclusion, I assume that the object photographed is, indeed, the body of President Kennedy."

Thus, the authentication based on an assumption.

"None of the photographs contains information identifying the victim, such as his name, the autopsy case number, the date and the place of examination."
-- HSCA 7, 46

Have you even read the Report???

Scott wasn't asked to authentic the photos. That was someone else's job. You're quoting the wrong person -- and out of context to boot! Scott was asked to look for evidence of alterations to the photographs. He concluded there wasn't any.

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/html/HSCA_Vol7_0025b.htm (last paragraph).

Those whose task it was to authenticate did find they were photos of JFK:

http://historymatters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/html/HSCA_Vol7_0026a.htm (see III. Conclusions).

The authentication was performed, and the photographs of the autopsy and the radiographs (x-rays) were deemed authentic. See the link immediately above.

Don't tell us you don't respect the conclusions of the HSCA, because you certainly quote them and their experts (even if the wrong ones and out of context) when you find it convenient. Tell us what they got wrong, Robert. Can you do that or will you change the subject or insult me?

As I asked originally, have you even read the report? Or is your reading limited to the conspiracy authors who take things out of context and misquote repeatedly to misportray the evidence?

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

William Pitzer, head of the audio visual Dept.at Bethesda, didn't have to "say" anything. We know he was a witness to a small entry wound in the right temple and a large blow-out in the back of K's head because his associate, Petty Officer Dennis David said they both witnessed it on the cryptic autopsy film they both viewed together. But you can add Petty Officer Dennis David to the list of witnesses who observed the large blow-out in the back of K's head.

See The Men Who Killed Kennedy, at approximately 22:22.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VI07govlUqI

Nah, we don't know that about Pitzer. We know that's a story Dennis David is on the record as first telling about 20 years after the fact. We also know Pitzer never said anything about it, and there's no evidence supporting Dennis David's story - no film, no early filed reports, no evidence either was at the autopsy, no evidence David told the story at all in the first two decades after the assassination... All we have is a wholly uncorroborated story.

Hank

 

[Regnad Kcin]

Zapruder frame 313 could arguably be said to show evidence of a "blow out"; but unfortunately for Robert it doesn't show the "blow out" he wishes it did.

What I had hoped to procure from our little friend is his specific definition/description of the term he so blithely bandies about. He won't, of course, because it doesn't serve his purpose to clarify such a thing, especially considering how physics (in this case JFK's reaction to the head shot) can often be counterintuitive.

Put another way, every time you hear someone say "back and to the left," a magician gets his wings.

 

[LogicallyYours]

First of all, the absence of evidence is not evidence. Nonetheless, there is a mountain of evidence that points to a conspiracy. But hundreds of books have been written on the subject and this is only a small space. I'll get to it later, only citing two pieces of evidence, for the sake of brevity.

If the there is a mountain of evidence that points to a conspiracy, then why is there so many different conspiracy theories? How is that possible?

You idiots are like the 911 Twoofers....You all know "the Truth" but you just cant agree upon what "the Truth" is.

 

[Robert Prey]

Scott wasn't asked to authentic the photos. That was someone else's job. You're quoting the wrong person -- and out of context to boot! Scott was asked to look for evidence of alterations to the photographs. He concluded there wasn't any.

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/html/HSCA_Vol7_0025b.htm (last paragraph).

Those whose task it was to authenticate did find they were photos of JFK:

http://historymatters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/html/HSCA_Vol7_0026a.htm (see III. Conclusions).

The authentication was performed, and the photographs of the autopsy and the radiographs (x-rays) were deemed authentic. See the link immediately above.

Don't tell us you don't respect the conclusions of the HSCA, because you certainly quote them and their experts (even if the wrong ones and out of context) when you find it convenient. Tell us what they got wrong, Robert. Can you do that or will you change the subject or insult me?

As I asked originally, have you even read the report? Or is your reading limited to the conspiracy authors who take things out of context and misquote repeatedly to misportray the evidence?

Hank

In James Randi's book 'Flim Flam" he recounts the story surrounding these pictures, authenticated as unaltered and authentic photos by "experts" -- photos of the infamous Cottingly Fairies, creatures discovered by two little girls in England 80 years ago. So convincing were these photos that the leading intellectual of the day, Sir Arthur Conan Doyle wrote a book about it called "Coming of the Fairies" where he professed to be unable to explain these "authentic" pictures. You see it's not the photos that are fake, but the objects therein.

 

[Robert Prey]

Nah, we don't know that about Pitzer. We know that's a story Dennis David is on the record as first telling about 20 years after the fact. We also know Pitzer never said anything about it, and there's no evidence supporting Dennis David's story - no film, no early filed reports, no evidence either was at the autopsy, no evidence David told the story at all in the first two decades after the assassination... All we have is a wholly uncorroborated story.

Hank

The existence of the film in terms of what they show has also been corroborated by the stills seen by White House Photographer Joe O'Donnell taken by Robert Knudson which included photos of Kennedy on his stomach, revealing the large back of the head wound. Subsequently, these pictures were seen again, but very different. See the explanation by Joe O'Donnell at about 22:08 in Men Who Killed Kennedy, Episode 7.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rznWuemqXms

 

[Robert Prey]

If the there is a mountain of evidence that points to a conspiracy, then why is there so many different conspiracy theories? How is that possible?

You idiots are like the 911 Twoofers....You all know "the Truth" but you just cant agree upon what "the Truth" is.

The rational thinker knows the difference between speculation and rational theory backed by evidence. There is only one rational theory as to the simple question as to one shooter as versus more than one, and a mountain of evidence in support the latter. As to the whos and the whats, and the hows and the other whys and wherefores, that ventures into the realm of speculation.

 

[Robert Prey]

Previously disproven as untrue. Governor Connaly never insisted he was hit by a separate bullet as you above claim, but he did insist he was hit by the second one. If the first shot missed the car and the passengers, and the second hit both the President and the Governor, as the Governor conceded was possible, your claim is falsified.

Just another fringe reset attempt by you.

At one point you actually came dangerously close to admitting that:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8171796&postcount=5324

Hank

".. we turned on Elm Street.

We had just made the turn, well, when I heard what I thought was a shot. I heard this noise which I immediately thought was a shot. I heard this noise which I immediately took to be a rifle shot. I instinctively turned to my right because the sound appeared to come from over my right shoulder, so I turned to look back over my right shoulder, and I saw nothing unusual except just people in the crowd, but I did not catch the President in the corner of my eye, and I was interested because once I heard the shot in my own mind I identified it as a rifle shot, and I immediately--the only thought that crossed my mind was that this is an assassination attempt.

So I looked, failing to see him, I was turning to look back over my left shoulder into the back seat, but I never got that far in my turn. I got about in the position I am in now, facing, looking a little bit to the left of center, and then I felt like someone had hit me in the back.

... Mrs. Connally pulled me over to her lap. I reclined with my head in her lap, conscious all the time, and with my eyes open; and I heard the shot very clearly. I heard it hit him... (IV, H-132-133)

... after I heard that shot, I had the time to turn to my right, and to start to my left before I felt anything.

It is not conceivable to me that I could have been hit by the first bullet...

Mrs. Connally stated that she had the time to turn, after a shot had been fired, but previous to the moment when her husband was hit:

... I heard a noise, and not being an expert rifleman, I was not aware that it was a rifle.

I turned over my right shoulder and looked back, and saw the President as he had both hands at his neck."

... Then very soon there was the second shot that hit John. (IV, H-147)


* * *

"Beyond any question, and I'll never change my opinion, the first bullet did not hit me. The second bullet did hit me. The third bullet did not hit me."

Doug Thompson later revealed that in 1982 he asked Connally if he was convinced that Lee Harvey Oswald fired the gun that killed John F. Kennedy. "Absolutely not," Connally said. "I do not, for one second, believe the conclusions of the Warren Commission." Thompson asked why he had not spoken out about this. Connally replied: "Because I love this country and we needed closure at the time. I will never speak out publicly about what I believe."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x302357

 

[Robert Prey]

Please provide the statements where those same 40 plus witnesses discuss the ejecta dispersal patterns seen in the film so we can decide if they have any opinion at all.

But hey, if you want to claim that the film proves a shot from the front you go and reconcile the content of the film with your description of the small entry wound.

Oh and with your claim of no objective evidence.

As it stands your version of events suffers further from internal conflict.

But the Best Evidence is the body.

 

[Border Reiver]

The rational thinker knows the difference between speculation and rational theory backed by evidence.

Good, so can you actually explain the difference is then?

There is only one rational theory as to the simple question as to one shooter as versus more than one,

And based on the evidence that has been adduced from the TBD, ballistic examination of the bullets, and the autopsy, that would be that there was a single shooter, who shot from the 6th floor of the TBD.

and a mountain of evidence in support the latter.

Sorry, no credible evidence of additional shooters has been adduced. The entry wound has been determined to have come from behind and above. And based on the terrain there is no other place where any additional shooters could have been. Your "mountain" is less than an anthill, let alone a molehill.

As to the whos and the whats, and the hows and the other whys and wherefores, that ventures into the realm of speculation.

You've been given gov't training in how to write as unclearly as possible, haven't you?

 

[Tolls]

In James Randi's book 'Flim Flam" he recounts the story surrounding these pictures, authenticated as unaltered and authentic photos by "experts" -- photos of the infamous Cottingly Fairies, creatures discovered by two little girls in England 80 years ago. So convincing were these photos that the leading intellectual of the day, Sir Arthur Conan Doyle wrote a book about it called "Coming of the Fairies" where he professed to be unable to explain these "authentic" pictures. You see it's not the photos that are fake, but the objects therein.

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=808&pictureid=7349[/qimg]

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=808&pictureid=7348[/qimg]

None of the three expert agencies classed the photos as authentic. Two stated they could not see how they were staged, and the other said there were signs of faking.

And Doyle? He was a spiritualist...I would hardly class him as "the leading intellectual of the day". I mean, there were many better placed candidates for that in 1920.

 

[JayUtah]

The rational thinker knows the difference between speculation and rational theory backed by evidence.

Yes. For example you speculate there was another shooter in front of JFK, simply because you pay attention to only a scant amount of evidence.

 

[JayUtah]

In James Randi's book 'Flim Flam" he recounts the story surrounding these pictures, authenticated as unaltered and authentic photos by "experts"

No.

First, asked and answered. You don't get to repeat the whole thread again every time.

Second, the fairy photos were not "authenticated."

Third, the "photo experts of the day" are different than today's photo experts. Photography was then in its infancy. Nevertheless the experts of the day did not pronounce them real; they simply were unable to tell how they had been faked. That does not translate to a similar limitation many decades hence after photographic analysis became a scientific, rational pursuit.

Fourth, you suggest a change of goal posts. First you claim the JFK photos were not "authenticated." Then when you are proven wrong on this point, you seem to argue they were "authenticated" but that the authentication means nothing. Hence you try to trump up evidence of fake photos being falsely authenticated. Have you stipulated to the authentication or not?

So convincing were these photos that the leading intellectual of the day, Sir Arthur Conan Doyle...

No, he was not a "leading intellectual." He was an avowed believer of the supernatural, desperately looking for evidence to prove him right in that belief. He was so convinced of Spiritualism that he even took debunkers such as Houdini as genuine spiritual mediums.

You see it's not the photos that are fake, but the objects therein.

Asked and answered repeatedly, then asked and answered again, now asked and answered ad nauseam.

You cannot provide a single shred of evidence that the photos you claim are fake are, indeed, fake by any means. Here you're providing the same excuse as before why you think you don't need to provide any proof.

Whether you argue the photos were altered to show something other than what they originally depicted, or whether you argue they are unaltered depictions of falsely staged objects or events, you have the burden of proof. It is your affirmative claim, therefore your burden.

 

[Robert Prey]

You cannot provide a single shred of evidence that the photos you claim are fake are, indeed, fake by any means. Here you're providing the same excuse as before why you think you don't need to provide any proof.
.

Except for the 40 plus medical witnesses who observed a large blow-out in the back of K's head. The rest of your screed is baloney as well. I think you need to read the book "Flim Flam." It is, exactly as I described.

 

[Robert Prey]

Yes. For example you speculate there was another shooter in front of JFK, simply because you pay attention to only a scant amount of evidence.

40 plus on the scene medical witnesses is hardly "scant' except in the world of the knee-jerk make believe world of the professional pooh-pooher.