Cont: JFK Conspiracy Theories VIII

[Axxman300]

Why would Oswald's alleged co-conspirators wait two whole days to silence him?

Unless, of course, there was no conspiracy. Occam strikes again.

The better question is:

Why not frame Oswald as part of a larger Marxist/Cuban Conspiracy?

Hoover could have rolled up Communist organizations across the country as threats, and LBJ would have been in a better position to make the case to check the Soviet/Red Menace in places like SE Asia and Central/South America.

If the conspiracy was to get the US into Vietnam, and or Cuba while turning the CIA loose then why accurately paint Oswald as the sad-sack dork that he was? How does that advance the secret US agenda?

 

[MicahJava]

If they didn't think it would change their basic conclusions, then it isn't a case of laziness, it's a case of parsimony- something I'm aware CTists have a problem with.

And I'm not going to play your game of "what does it look like to you?" I've already explained why, even though it shouldn't need explanation.

From my point of view, a pathologist performing an autopsy should painstakingly note every small defect in the way they would with a living patient. If a living person had a little hole in their right temple going right through the scalp, then there would be a medical record of it, there shouldn't be any real professional saying "it's only a small wound, who cares".

 

[MicahJava]

As of right now, I guess there's no way to argue any further than to look back at the few versions of the cranium photos that have leaked to the public.

https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1uvGaBl2_EanXn4OwQrr083_yiLVrNGYK

 

[MicahJava]

What do you suspect that semi-circular white spot is, if not a hole in the scalp? Do you think that's some kind of glare on a piece of matter closer to the foreground?

 

[Axxman300]

From my point of view, a pathologist performing an autopsy should painstakingly note every small defect in the way they would with a living patient.

Pathologists only work on the dead.

There is no "defect", just a blob of flesh, or brain, or internal skull matter that you are unfamiliar with. You see what you want to see, they had their fingers inside the President's skull. They didn't miss anything. Bullet holes are obvious in the head.

If a living person had a little hole in their right temple going right through the scalp, then there would be a medical record of it, there shouldn't be any real professional saying "it's only a small wound, who cares"

Do you even read what you type?

 

[Axxman300]

As of right now, I guess there's no way to argue any further than to look back at the few versions of the cranium photos that have leaked to the public.

https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1uvGaBl2_EanXn4OwQrr083_yiLVrNGYK

The problem is the official autopsy photos are full color 35mm prints. These are secondary shots to show the damage from the LONE head-wound.

 

[HSienzant]

From my point of view, a pathologist performing an autopsy should painstakingly note every small defect in the way they would with a living patient.

This is simply a thinly-veiled attempt at Begging the Question. You've suggested they didn't note every small defect here, and that's on you to prove, not on anyone else to disprove. Don't you remember your bizarre argument here:

At the very least:Maybe they did see it, but were too lazy to bother reporting on it because they were under the impression that it didn't change their basic conclusions. Would you at least be open to acknowledging that? What do you call the area around the red circle? Sure looks like a hold in the scalp to me.

As I previously pointed out, you're going to have a hard time establishing they failed to document any bullet holes because the autopsy report even notes decades-old scars, including an appendectomy scar.

If a living person had a little hole in their right temple going right through the scalp, then there would be a medical record of it, there shouldn't be any real professional saying "it's only a small wound, who cares".

There wasn't any real professional saying anything of the sort. If you disagree, quote the pathologist(s) who said anything of the sort about any of the wounds on the President. You won't be able to because this is only your own suggestion (documented above) you're now attacking, not what any one of the pathologists who performed the autopsy actually said. You're now fully into the shifting the burden of proof logical fallacy arena and fringe reset mode.

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

As of right now, I guess there's no way to argue any further than to look back at the few versions of the cranium photos that have leaked to the public.

https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1uvGaBl2_EanXn4OwQrr083_yiLVrNGYK

Exactly. You need to up your game and provide some actual proof, not more of "Well, to my uneducated eye, it looks like this" interpretations of evidence.

As I explained, your arguments go nowhere, and justifiably so, because you don't have any of the necessary background to speak from authority on this. It's all just your uneducated amateur opinion, and I've already told you that's meaningless.

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

What do you suspect that semi-circular white spot is, if not a hole in the scalp? Do you think that's some kind of glare on a piece of matter closer to the foreground?

That's the logical fallacy of shifting the burden of proof. You brought up a photo and tried to make a point that the photo shows a bullet hole in the head that wasn't documented in the record due to the pathologist's incompetence. You've failed both in establishing a bullet hole and in showing any incompetence on the part of the autopsy doctors.

You don't get to try to back up into an argument for that by asking for our opinion.

Make a case for your silly claims the photo shows an additional bullet wound and that the autopsy doctors who had the body in front of them didn't document all of the bullet wounds or admit you can't do either.

Make your additional case that all the forensic pathologists who examined the extant autopsy materials for House Select Committee on Assassination (with over 100,000 autopsies performed in total) somehow likewise overlooked this bullet wound you are suggesting or likewise decided not to mention it in their report in 1978.

Turingtest summed it up perfectly here:

Wow, this is a really great example of CTist thinking (and arrogance). Trained pathologists working with the actual body at the time don't see what an amateur sleuth sees in a black-and-white photo almost sixty years later- and it's the pathologists who are incompetent.

Hank

 

[Axxman300]

The assassination is on film. There is no second GSW to the head.

Period.

 

[Major Major]

The Future of Freedom Foundation is offering a seminar on the assassination. As you know, Bob, Jacob Hornberger of the FFF has asserted:

"The biggest breakthrough came in the 1990s, when the evidence that the ARRB uncovered established beyond any reasonable doubt that the national-security establishment had performed a fraudulent autopsy on President Kennedy’s body. There is no innocent explanation for a fraudulent autopsy, and no one — including no one in the mainstream press — has ever been able to come up with one. A fraudulent autopsy can only mean one thing — a cover-up in the assassination itself. Nothing else makes any sense."

https://www.fff.org/2021/02/05/our-upcoming-jfk-conference/

The conference, “The National Security State and the Kennedy Assassination.”, will begin on March 3. and consist of an online presentation on each subsequent Wednesday.

Hornberger recommends a list of books for the conference listeners to read beforehand, including his books The Kennedy Autopsy and The Kennedy Autopsy 2 and the ever-popular JFK and the Unspeakable by James Douglass:

https://www.fff.org/2021/02/09/jfk-conference-homework/

If you think you've decisively refuted such accusations, well you have. In your circle. And they believe that these accusations have been thoroughly established. In their circle. And of course you shut each other off, secure in being correct.

Organized skepticism is unable to assert itself.

 

[HSienzant]

The Future of Freedom Foundation is offering a seminar on the assassination. As you know, Bob, Jacob Hornberger of the FFF has asserted:

"The biggest breakthrough came in the 1990s, when the evidence that the ARRB uncovered established beyond any reasonable doubt that the national-security establishment had performed a fraudulent autopsy on President Kennedy’s body. There is no innocent explanation for a fraudulent autopsy, and no one — including no one in the mainstream press — has ever been able to come up with one. A fraudulent autopsy can only mean one thing — a cover-up in the assassination itself. Nothing else makes any sense."

https://www.fff.org/2021/02/05/our-upcoming-jfk-conference/

The conference, “The National Security State and the Kennedy Assassination.”, will begin on March 3. and consist of an online presentation on each subsequent Wednesday.

Hornberger recommends a list of books for the conference listeners to read beforehand, including his books The Kennedy Autopsy and The Kennedy Autopsy 2 and the ever-popular JFK and the Unspeakable by James Douglass:

https://www.fff.org/2021/02/09/jfk-conference-homework/

If you think you've decisively refuted such accusations, well you have. In your circle. And they believe that these accusations have been thoroughly established. In their circle. And of course you shut each other off, secure in being correct.

Organized skepticism is unable to assert itself.

You're assuming both sides have equal standing. They don't.

Do they explain, for example, why Governor Connally's wounds point to a sniper from above and behind?

Were Connally's wounds altered to conceal evidence of other shooters from other than behind?

Do they explain when and where this was done?

Do they explain why 35-year old contradictory memories (given as testimony to the ARRB) take precedence over the first day evidence collected on the day and evening of the assassination, and take precedence over the autopsy report prepared on the weekend of the assassination?

Just curious.

Hank

And as a total aside, the same website champions the 'blame the USA' argument for the Pearl Harbor attack:
https://www.fff.org/2012/02/16/won-world-war-ii-2/
"Of course, most people now concede that Roosevelt was lying and, in fact, was doing everything he could to thwart the will of the American people by provoking both the Germans and the Japanese into attacking first, thereby trapping Americans into entering the war."

I wouldn't be surprised if they also argue for no planes hitting the WTC*.

______________

*: Close. They blame the USA as the ultimate cause of the attacks.
https://www.fff.org/2012/09/11/911-and-the-national-security-state/
Why am I not surprised?

 

[Major Major]

You're assuming both sides have equal standing. They don't.

Do they explain, for example, why Governor Connally's wounds point to a sniper from above and behind?

Were Connally's wounds altered to conceal evidence of other shooters from other than behind?

Do they explain when and where this was done?

Do they explain why 35-year old contradictory memories (given as testimony to the ARRB) take precedence over the first day evidence collected on the day and evening of the assassination, and take precedence over the autopsy report prepared on the weekend of the assassination?

Just curious.

Hank

I haven't seen it. You are introducing points and he should answer them. But you have proven this in your circle, and you won't engage them because you disdain him. And meanwhile, in spite of all your efforts, a majority of people still believe there was a conspiracy.

 

[Axxman300]

The Future of Freedom Foundation is offering a seminar on the assassination. As you know, Bob, Jacob Hornberger of the FFF has asserted:

"The biggest breakthrough came in the 1990s, when the evidence that the ARRB uncovered established beyond any reasonable doubt that the national-security establishment had performed a fraudulent autopsy on President Kennedy’s body. There is no innocent explanation for a fraudulent autopsy, and no one — including no one in the mainstream press — has ever been able to come up with one. A fraudulent autopsy can only mean one thing — a cover-up in the assassination itself. Nothing else makes any sense."

https://www.fff.org/2021/02/05/our-upcoming-jfk-conference/

The conference, “The National Security State and the Kennedy Assassination.”, will begin on March 3. and consist of an online presentation on each subsequent Wednesday.

Hornberger recommends a list of books for the conference listeners to read beforehand, including his books The Kennedy Autopsy and The Kennedy Autopsy 2 and the ever-popular JFK and the Unspeakable by James Douglass:

https://www.fff.org/2021/02/09/jfk-conference-homework/

If you think you've decisively refuted such accusations, well you have. In your circle. And they believe that these accusations have been thoroughly established. In their circle. And of course you shut each other off, secure in being correct.

Organized skepticism is unable to assert itself.

Neat.

Reading his dreck, it is clear he has never done any casual - and certainly no serious research into the JFK Assassination. Even his grasp of history sucks:

Kennedy had gone to war with the national-establishment over the future direction of the United States. He had declared an end to the Cold War, which was the justification for the national-security establishment in the first place, along with its ever-increasing budgets, influence, and power. He was determined to establish peaceful and friendly relations with the the communist world. Once he won the 1964 election, he intended to pull all U.S. troops out of Vietnam.

Everything in this paragraph is a lie. Not just inaccurate - a bald-faced lie.

JFK enlarged the National Security Establishment at every level. He expanded the US military in a change from Eisenhower's Nuclear Deterrence strategy to one based on Flexible Response. JFK GREW THE CIA, expanding its actions well beyond its charter. JFK spun up US Army and Naval special forces to counter communist insurgencies around the world. He increased the number of US Army special forces advisors in SE Asia, Central and South America.

And no serious historian can claim to know what JFK would have done regarding Vietnam in his second term. What is written above is nothing more than wishful thinking.

The ugliest part of that promo is the author's pathetic attempt to re-shape JFK as a Libertarian. JFK was a Democrat, and a proud Democrat. JFK was a staunch anti-Communist, enough so he brought us to the brin of WWIII to stop it.

Needless to say, someone who screws up basic US history this badly is not someone to trust when it comes to assessing anything beyond the immediate weather conditions, let alone any aspect of the JFK assassination.

 

[Axxman300]

I haven't seen it. You are introducing points and he should answer them. But you have proven this in your circle, and you won't engage them because you disdain him. And meanwhile, in spite of all your efforts, a majority of people still believe there was a conspiracy.

Why would we engage with someone who lacks a basic grasp of the facts?

And why should we care how many people are wrong about the JFK Assassination?

You can't fix stupid. You can't polish a turd.

Most people, certainly most Americans don't know the facts of 11/22/1963. The belief in conspiracy is largely group-think, and not based on any facts.

HSienzant and I are happy to entertain any SERIOUS investigation into a conspiracy to kill JFK. In this case, the problem is the claim that the autopsy was staged, or altered, or botched in order to frame Oswald. Not only has this been proven false multiple times since 1963, with the release of the assassination documents from the National Archives it doesn't even make sense.

Those documents show the FBI, CIA, Secret Service, and Dallas Police actively searching for co-conspirators in the days following the assassination. Hoover desperately hoped to tie Oswald to Cuba and or the Soviets, and actively pursued that line of investigation through all of 1964.

So why frame a lone shooter when, at any moment investigators could have arrested a getaway driver, or a backup gunman?

This logic fails.

 

[HSienzant]

I haven't seen it. You are introducing points and he should answer them. But you have proven this in your circle, and you won't engage them because you disdain him.

Guess again. I engage a lot of people in a lot of places on this subject. Where's his forum on this subject? Can you provide a link? I'd be more than willing to discuss this with him. I do see a big 'DONATE' button, but no forum link.

I'm currently discussing the Tippit killing with one conspiracy enthusiast at alt.assassination.jfk. It's a moderated site, so my most recent post has yet to be approved, but here's my post from yesterday:
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.assassination.jfk/c/vHtMMDoZ45Q/m/djG6pVoMBgAJ

And meanwhile, in spite of all your efforts, a majority of people still believe there was a conspiracy.

But what kind of conspiracy? When you look at and slice and dice the data, more people believe Oswald did it alone (about 30%) than a specific conspiracy with either the CIA or the FBI or the Mob or anti-Castro Cubans or pro-Castro Cubans or the Russians or ...

Each of those conspiracy theories have their proponents, but each of them contradict each other and each garner a smaller percentage than 'Oswald alone'. It's only in ignoring the contradictions and lumping them all together as some vague *unspecified* self-contradictory 'conspiracy' that your statement is true.

We're 30 years past the release of the movie JFK (released in 1991). In fact more time has elapsed since that movie to the present (30 years) than elapsed between the assassination (1963) and the movie (28 years). How many people have seen that movie and believe it or been influenced by it? There's nothing factual about the movie except the date of the assassination and one of the victims (I don't recall the movie even mentioning Governor Connally getting shot at all).

We're 57+ years past the assassination proper. This is ancient history to most people alive on the planet today - it happened before they were born, and in some cases, 30 or 40 years before they were born. Why does what they believe matter to anyone? Why should it? The truth isn't up for vote.

Hank

 

[MarkCorrigan]

I haven't seen it. You are introducing points and he should answer them. But you have proven this in your circle, and you won't engage them because you disdain him. And meanwhile, in spite of all your efforts, a majority of people still believe there was a conspiracy.

But, and this is important here, one side is simply wrong.

I'm not even stating which side is wrong, just that in matters of fact one side is right and the other(s) are wrong.

I'm sure there are groups of people who in their own little circles believe that crystals cure illness, or that reiki is effective, or that the Earth is 6000 years old. They may well believe in their own circle that this has been proven to be true, but they are wrong.

In matters of fact, one side has the evidence and one does not, no matter what they may believe. Delusions of grandeur are not evidence.

 

[HSienzant]

But, and this is important here, one side is simply wrong.

I'm not even stating which side is wrong, just that in matters of fact one side is right and the other(s) are wrong.

I'm sure there are groups of people who in their own little circles believe that crystals cure illness, or that reiki is effective, or that the Earth is 6000 years old. They may well believe in their own circle that this has been proven to be true, but they are wrong.

In matters of fact, one side has the evidence and one does not, no matter what they may believe. Delusions of grandeur are not evidence.

And to expand on this point, both sides agree the evidence all points to Oswald.

Where we disagree is the reason for this. The people on the 'Oswald did it' side of the fence believe the evidence points to Oswald because he was the lone shooter and the evidence points to him because he did it. That's the simplest and the most reasonable accounting. It's true in most cases and there's no reason to assume anything different here - especially in this day and age when mass shootings are far more common.

The people on the conspiracy side of the fence believe all the evidence points to Oswald because it is all fraudulent. So case in point -- the autopsy. They argue the autopsy is fraudulent.

But they also believe the shells were planted at the Sniper's Nest window. They believe the paperwork indicating Oswald purchased a Mannlicher-Carcano rifle from Klein's Sporting Goods via mail order is also fraudulent. They believe the photos of him with the rifle is also fraudulent. They believe the rifle originally found was a Mauser, not Oswald's M-C. They believe someone other than Oswald went to Mexico in September of 1963 posing as Oswald. They believe someone other than Oswald was buried in Oswald's grave. They think there were two Oswald's with two different mothers living apart as early as Oswald's pre-teen years. They believe there were multiple shooters firing from multiple locations (depending on the conspiracy theorist, this is usually anywhere from two to eleven shooters, but the most common is three). They believe Oswald was doubled by nefarious conspirators doing totally innocent things - like taking a test drive. They believe there is a hit squad of killers going around eliminating inconvenient witnesses.

Not all conspiracy theorists believe all of these things. But some believe most or all and a lot more.

Their beliefs can be summed up simply as Anybody But Oswald. It's not a reasonable position to hold, and it's simply not feasible for a conspiracy this massive to hold together for 57+ years.

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

The Future of Freedom Foundation is offering a seminar on the assassination. As you know, Bob, Jacob Hornberger of the FFF has asserted:

And the most burning question of the day, just who is Bob, and what does he know, and when did he know it?

Hank

 

[MarkCorrigan]

Personally I like the JFK conspiracy theory put forward in the episode of Red Dwarf Tikka to Ride.

To sum it up, the cast go back in time in order to order a takeaway curry (it makes sense in context) and accidentally knock LHO out of a window and kill him before he can shoot JFK, and with JFK surviving and being found to have affairs the US goverment collapses and the world crumbles. So they go back in time again, kidnap JFK from a different point in time and take him to the site of the shooting, and hide behind the grassy knoll and get JFK to shoot himself.

Obviously not serious, but hilarious.