Cont: JFK Conspiracy Theories V: Five for Fighting

[No Other]

The final language in the Warren Report is here (pages 86-87):
The President's Neck Wounds
During the autopsy at Bethesda Naval Hospital another bullet wound was observed near the base of the back of President Kennedy's neck slightly to the right of his spine which provides further enlightenment as to the source of the shots. The hole was located approximately 5% inches (14 centimeters) from the tip of the right shoulder joint and approximately the same distance below the tip of the right mastoid process, the bony point immediately behind the ear. The wound was approximately one-fourth by one-seventh of an inch (7 by 4 millimeters), had clean edges, was sharply delineated, and had margins similar in all respects to those of the entry wound in the skull.

This wound had nothing to do with the neck... why was "neck" inserted? by your own admission this is a back wound and not a neck wound.

... and what is pathetic, is that you act like you don't even know anything about this alteration. Since you go off on a tangent that convinces you that you are omnipotent, it is useless to have a discussion. Your arguments are narcissistic as your view is the only one that can be discussed however false they may be...

 

[HSienzant]

This wound had nothing to do with the neck... why was "neck" inserted? by your own admission this is a back wound and not a neck wound.

I honestly don't understand why you're saying that.

I showed you what Humes said in his testimony.

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/humes.htm
Commander HUMES - The wound in the low neck of which I had previously begun to speak is now posteriorly--is now depicted in [Commission Exhibits] 385, in 386 and in 388.

That's where the autopsy report placed it too:

"The other missile entered the right superior posterior thorax above the scapula and traversed the soft tissue of the supra-scapular and the supra-clavicular portions of the base of the right side of the neck."

That's where the Warren Report placed it as well, using slightly different language:

During the autopsy at Bethesda Naval Hospital another bullet wound was observed near the base of the back of President Kennedy's neck...

The wound in the low neck... near the base of the back of the neck... I'm seeing the word neck repeatedly. What word are you seeing?

... and what is pathetic, is that you act like you don't even know anything about this alteration.

On the contrary, I researched it when I first saw the claim made (more than a decade ago, if my memory is correct). I know a lot about this claim of alteration. It's only claim of alteration, not an alteration.

When I researched it, I found the facts were contrary to those stated on conspiracy sites and by conspiracy theorists. It's not my fault you apparently accepted this claim of alteration without question. It's not true. It's a falsehood. It's a lie. The testimony of Humes and the language in the autopsy report establish that.

Since you go off on a tangent that convinces you that you are omnipotent, it is useless to have a discussion.

Translation: I can't argue your facts so I'll claim you're 'off on a tangent'. You appear far more knowledgeable on this subject than me, so I'll claim you're convinced 'you are omnipotent'. I am not ready to concede I'm wrong, so I will stop arguing this point now claiming it's useless to continue the discussion.

There was no 'tangent' I went off on. You raised the issue of the wound being moved by the Warren Commission. I showed the Warren Report was faithful to the testimony of the chief autopsy doctor (Dr. Humes) and the autopsy report, both of which placed the wound in the neck.

Your arguments are narcissistic as your view is the only one that can be discussed however false they may be...

And that's clearly false. There's nothing 'narcissistic' about quoting the primary source documents, and there's nothing false about using the word 'neck' to describe the wound, as that's exactly where the primary source documents put it.

And my view wasn't the only one discussed. You posted your view, and we clearly discussed your view.

You appear to be unhappy with me because my view corresponds to the facts while your view doesn't. That's the whole point of having this discussion, and I think it was very worthwhile.

Again, it's not my fault if your view doesn't conform to the facts of the case and your conspiracy sources are lying to you.

I believe your vituperation is misplaced. You're getting upset with me for establishing your beliefs are false, but you should be getting upset with your conspiracy sources for lying to you in the first place.

I'll be happy to discuss any other claims you've read on conspiracy sites about the JFK assassination.

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

And yet his responses are packed with solid information complete with links to their source. His replies are thorough and direct.

I know, all of those facts get in the way of the game of "Let's Pretend".

His history show this is not true.

Just because he doesn't support your fantasy world's "truth" doesn't mean he's not serious.

The majority of JFK-CT message boards ban people like Hank in a matter of hours.


No, what is pathetic is not answering the question, what is your source for Gerald Ford?

Just because he doesn't read everything the flakes of the word write in their blogs doesn't make him ill informed.

How many of the recently released JFK Assassination files have YOU read?

We both know he will shrug and dismiss us and everything we've said with the thought that we're mere shills.

I've run into that mentality too many times to count. People believe what they want to believe, and the facts be damned.

My hope isn't to persuade those who come here committed to a conspiracy, but persuade those undecideds who come here wondering what all the fuss is about.

Hank

 

[BStrong]

Your dribble is the reason why this thread is a waste. Your insistence of stating nonsense and failing to address anything directly is legendary. For a person who supposedly read the entire WC Report and the subsequent releases, you obfuscate every challenge. You are not serious about the truth or even a "friendly" debate. Go ahead and park yourself on this site and continue to spew Hank "facts".

Your last sentence says it all; no matter what is stated anywhere, it has to be false because it doesn't agree with and you say so... how pathetic.

by the way, since you are totally unaware of the little amount I posted, it shows how ill informed you are.

Coming from someone who has asserted that a headspace gauge is a testing tool used to determine when a firearm has been fired, the above is skating on very thin ice.

HS is very well informed on the facts in evidence.

 

[bknight]

Your dribble is the reason why this thread is a waste. Your insistence of stating nonsense and failing to address anything directly is legendary. For a person who supposedly read the entire WC Report and the subsequent releases, you obfuscate every challenge. You are not serious about the truth or even a "friendly" debate. Go ahead and park yourself on this site and continue to spew Hank "facts".

Your last sentence says it all; no matter what is stated anywhere, it has to be false because it doesn't agree with and you say so... how pathetic.

by the way, since you are totally unaware of the little amount I posted, it shows how ill informed you are.

Why does it seem like most CT's use this word to describe the facts that non CT's present to describe history.

 

[BStrong]

Why does it seem like most CT's use this word to describe the facts that non CT's present to describe history.

IIRC JayUtah noted that certain individuals use their belief in and knowledge of conspiracy theories as a shortcut to erudition - I believe that is correct.

I strongly suspect that many CTists post here and elsewhere using words that they do not understand and never are called on to use as part of their training or profession - the headspace gauge jive from No Other being one prime example and MJ's use of any ballistic or firearms related technical terms being another.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Why does it seem like most CT's use this word to describe the facts that non CT's present to describe history.

And they seem to think that everyone else must be as clueless as they are about those subjects. Hilarity ensues.

MicahJava or No Other, were Oswald's shots impossible for everyone? Or just Oswald? I don't think I've ever seen a CTist with the courage to answer that.

 

[Axxman300]

IIRC JayUtah noted that certain individuals use their belief in and knowledge of conspiracy theories as a shortcut to erudition - I believe that is correct.

Yup. I can quote the first Star Wars (IV) from start to finish, this in no way qualifies me for an engineering job at NASA.

After my awakening I tossed out all of my CT books, must have been 15 or so. I still have one that I keep because it has great pictures and blow-ups.

What I didn't realize back when I was a CT-Gimp was that those folks writing the CT books were usually quoting other CTists, and their poorly researched, cherry-picked, and or fabricated works. That's on me.

After going through the recent National Archives document dump it is clear that the assassination was exhaustively investigated, looking at all of the angles. The documents show that the HSCA went all the way back to 1947 looking for anything, but never found anything conclusive.

I strongly suspect that many CTists post here and elsewhere using words that they do not understand and never are called on to use as part of their training or profession - the headspace gauge jive from No Other being one prime example and MJ's use of any ballistic or firearms related technical terms being another.

The thing that iced it all for me was the Carcano and its 6.5x52mm round. The thing is a canon, the round is good out to 1,200 yards, and at 312 feet it is unforgiving. The FBI was suitably impressed by their testing, and like you I can't believe the caliber has not been widely adopted by the military. 6.5 is becoming the new darling of distance shooters these days, but the round run almost $1 a piece.

Everything we see in the assassination with gunshot wounds is well within the performance envelope of that round.

 

[bknight]

IIRC JayUtah noted that certain individuals use their belief in and knowledge of conspiracy theories as a shortcut to erudition - I believe that is correct.

I strongly suspect that many CTists post here and elsewhere using words that they do not understand and never are called on to use as part of their training or profession - the headspace gauge jive from No Other being one prime example and MJ's use of any ballistic or firearms related technical terms being another.

Jay is good for sure, very succinct in debating with CT's, especially the Apollo deniers.

 

[mikegriffith1]

G. Robert Blakely, chief counsel of the HSCA and a former professor law at Notre Dame, has said that the case for conspiracy in the JFK assassination is so compelling that it's no longer "conspiracy theory" but "conspiracy fact."

Are you folks just unaware of the new information that has come from the files that the ARRB released in the mid-1990s?

 

[Tomtomkent]

G. Robert Blakely, chief counsel of the HSCA and a former professor law at Notre Dame, has said that the case for conspiracy in the JFK assassination is so compelling that it's no longer "conspiracy theory" but "conspiracy fact."

Are you folks just unaware of the new information that has come from the files that the ARRB released in the mid-1990s?

His opinion alone, does not make it a conspiracy.
Which of those documents do you believe is proof of a conspiracy? Or even the best indication of a conspiracy?

 

[bknight]

G. Robert Blakely, chief counsel of the HSCA and a former professor law at Notre Dame, has said that the case for conspiracy in the JFK assassination is so compelling that it's no longer "conspiracy theory" but "conspiracy fact."

Are you folks just unaware of the new information that has come from the files that the ARRB released in the mid-1990s?

It is funny that you should post this, because the panel found no evidence of a conspiracy and even a possible fourth shot was discredited, so no conspiracy. One shooter, three shots, two hits one assassination.

 

[HSienzant]

G. Robert Blakely, chief counsel of the HSCA and a former professor law at Notre Dame, has said that the case for conspiracy in the JFK assassination is so compelling that it's no longer "conspiracy theory" but "conspiracy fact."

Nobody named Blakely served on the HSCA, in any capacity.

This guy, however, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G._Robert_Blakey
did serve on the HSCA, and he came in with a bias against the mob because he had served under Robert Kennedy in the Justice Department in RFK's war against the mob. Specifically, he served as a Special Attorney in the Organized Crime and Racketeering Section of the Criminal Division of the Department of Justice, and he felt it was a mob hit from the beginning. He wrote a book about it, with about 95% devoted to mob hits, and about 5% devoted to the JFK assassination.

Are you folks just unaware of the new information that has come from the files that the ARRB released in the mid-1990s?

Yes, we've been buried under rocks here and are totally unaware of anything that's transpired in the last 20 years or more. Enlighten us.

By all means, let us know what "new information" came to light two decades ago.

Hank

PS: I see you wrote this article: http://miketgriffith.com/files/largewound.htm
where you argue for a large wound in the back of JFK's head. Can you perhaps try to reason with our resident CT who believes there was only a tiny wound in the back of JFK's head at about the level of the EOP caused by a bullet fired by someone other that Oswald from behind JFK, that then exited JFK's throat? Let us know what you guys decide. Thanks a heap.

 

[Axxman300]

Are you folks just unaware of the new information that has come from the files that the ARRB released in the mid-1990s?

Are you?

Did you read them? All of them?

What about the latest release? Did you read those as well?

If you did read them you might have noticed something was missing: Evidence of a conspiracy.

The FBI ran down every crazy lead, tried desperately to link Oswald to a Communist group. The CIA shook every tree in their sphere of influence hoping to link Oswald to Castro. Neither could find evidence to connect Oswald with anyone part of a larger group of any kind.

G. Robert Blakely, chief counsel of the HSCA and a former professor law at Notre Dame, has said that the case for conspiracy in the JFK assassination is so compelling that it's no longer "conspiracy theory" but "conspiracy fact."

Blakely saw what he wanted to see. IF YOU HAVE READ THE RECENT FILES you'd know that there were many in the FBI and CIA who didn't buy the Warren Commission's conclusion that Oswald acted alone. From 1966 onward you can find FBI memos discussing the Mafia as being behind the assassination, and memos where FBI field agents pursued leads from mob CI's alleging that some mobster claimed this and that. Nothing was ever confirmed. Yet this fueled the continued belief by some in the FBI that Oswald had been part of a mafia hit.

It is nothing more than professional bias. We see this all the time.

All that matters is the evidence from 11/22/1963, and that all points to Oswald as the sole actor.

 

[BStrong]

Nobody named Blakely served on the HSCA, in any capacity.

This guy, however, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G._Robert_Blakey
did serve on the HSCA, and he came in with a bias against the mob because he had served under Robert Kennedy in the Justice Department in RFK's war against the mob. Specifically, he served as a Special Attorney in the Organized Crime and Racketeering Section of the Criminal Division of the Department of Justice, and he felt it was a mob hit from the beginning. He wrote a book about it, with about 95% devoted to mob hits, and about 5% devoted to the JFK assassination.




Yes, we've been buried under rocks here and are totally unaware of anything that's transpired in the last 20 years or more. Enlighten us.

By all means, let us know what "new information" came to light two decades ago.

Hank

PS: I see you wrote this article: http://miketgriffith.com/files/largewound.htm
where you argue for a large wound in the back of JFK's head. Can you perhaps try to reason with our resident CT who believes there was only a tiny wound in the back of JFK's head at about the level of the EOP caused by a bullet fired by someone other that Oswald from behind JFK, that then exited JFK's throat? Let us know what you guys decide. Thanks a heap.

IIRC, he didn't cite the evidence that the LCN Commission did not and does not sanction hits on LEO's and politicians and in fact killed one of their own when Dutch Schultz refused the Commission's order not to hit Thomas Dewey - and Dewey in his day was a hell of a lot bigger immediate threat to LCN than RFK was in the AG's office - Dewey eventually got convictions on prostitution and pandering charges on Charlie Luciano and he was sentenced to 30 to 50 years.

Luciano was the man that had Schultz hit.

The major split between LCN in America and LCN in Sicily and Italy came about over this:

http://www.nytimes.com/1992/07/20/world/bomb-kills-anti-mafia-official-and-5-others-in-sicily.html

The American families wanted no part of the heat that the war between LCN and the Italian state created.

As romantic as it sounds to certain outside observers, "the mafia did it" angle is a no-goer.

 

[Agatha]

Will you all please remember to concentrate on arguments and not those making them. Be civil and polite, and do not personalise your posts.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Agatha

 

[MicahJava]

As, of course, does a great deal of the pro-conspiracy evidence on offer in this very thread.

Dave

Surely we must consider the possibility of alternate universes merging before we accept a conspiracy.

 

[MicahJava]

Here is a screenshot album from John Orr's presentation at the JFK mock trial of some many interesting angles of the 3D animation: https://imgur.com/a/TbNJ5


I'm wondering how this project will be critiqued, maybe there can be more projects to see what trajectories would work around the z190-224 areas by probing the photographic evidence.

 

[MicahJava]

Some interesting screenshots from the 3D animation shown at the mock trial.

Here is the link to a photo album: [URL="https://imgur.com/a/TbNJ5"][URL="https://i.imgur.com/oA0ThvC.png"]https://i.imgur.com/oA0ThvC.png[/URL][/URL]

 

[Cosmic Yak]

Surely we must consider the possibility of alternate universes merging before we accept a conspiracy.

Well that certainly seems more likely than your ever providing evidence for said conspiracy.