JFK Conspiracy Theories V: Five for Fighting
Quote:
|
And in advance of the final document dump, click-bait stories will accumulate ...
...like this one from Politico about June Cobb: http://www.politico.com/magazine/sto...ination-215143 The main reason: Quote:
|
Quote:
And of course, this is all the more believable because we know what a partier Oswald was. That's established by his... err, well... hmm... I guess that's not established at all. In fact, quite the contrary. For instance, his rooming house housekeeper testified: Quote:
Real partier type. More evidence of Oswald being a partier is from the owner of the rooming house: Quote:
He wouldn't even eat in the community kitchen if there was someone else there. Look up the word 'loner' in the dictionary and there's a picture of Oswald. And somehow he winds up at a party in Mexico? This is just another false memory. More than likely, it was simply someone else entirely, and the witnesses convinced themselves, after the assassination, that it was Lee Harvey Oswald. It happens a lot. Well-meaning people simply make mistakes too. Of course to conspiracy theorists, there are no mistakes of this nature. They only allow for two possibilities: (a) It was the real Lee Harvey Oswald in the company of two men who might have been co-conspirators (b) It was a conspirator masquerading as Lee Harvey Oswald, thereby establishing the conspiracy. Option (c) simply doesn't exist to them: (c) It was a simple case of mistaken identity, where the witness recalls to the best of their ability, but erroneously, that it was Lee Harvey Oswald. Especially if they talk to a couple of other witnesses who are convinced it was Oswald. Conspiracy theorists have been making a living out of mistakes such as this since the mid-1960s. The first to raise the spectre of Oswald being impersonated was Richard Popkin in his book: THE SECOND OSWALD. The best at it is John Armstrong in his book HARVEY AND LEE. He has built up this elaborate scheme to double Oswald almost from birth, complete with a second woman impersonating Oswald's mother, Marguerite Oswald. And of course, he half-bakes up this story from nearly every witness coming forward to say they saw Oswald somewhere. Hank |
42 Party Professionals saw him at that party.
|
Yup, everyone has their pet theory.
This article mention's Gus Russo, who did extensive research and interviews with people who knew Oswald. Russo is in the "Castro was Behind It" camp, which is a quiet, but significant portion of the JFK-CT world. It comes from the same idea which all of the CT originate: Oswald couldn't have done it alone. I even hold the door open for evidence showing that at least one other person knew. That person was probably another loner/loser who probably didn't believe Oswald would go through with it, and wisely vanished from Dallas and history. This is a simple scenario not involving spies of any kind, or some larger scheme, just two guys who met in 1963, and got on well enough to go to shooting ranges on a couple of weekends in October and November. The facts at the moment point to LHO acting alone every step of the way; the pre-shooting pattern established with the attempt on General Walker matches his actions of the morning of 11/22, bullets match his rifle, rifle found at his place of work, LHO fled the scene, murders Tippet, attempts to kill second officer during arrest. People are convicted for less.:thumbsup: |
Quote:
|
Part V...
Still can't believe it... So, any new CTers here that wanted to try on the JFK Conspiracy clownshoes? |
Quote:
Marina found the note Oswald left before Oswald got back. He had a room with a separate outside entrance/exit that he used as a 'study'. He had admonished Marina that he was not to be disturbed when he was in the study. When he didn't come out of the study well into the evening, she entered and found he had left via the separate exit, and left her the note. Since the note ends with the not-too-subtle suggestion of some illegal activity on his part ("If I am alive and taken prisoner", directions to the city jail then follows), she confronted him with it when he got back home. I believe he expected to pull off the murder and be back home before she noticed he was even missing, and the note was just Oswald being thorough. But he wasn't thorough enough. He hadn't planned at getting caught by Marina, and didn't have any ready-made excuses handy. When confronted, he simply blurted out the truth. That he had shot at Walker because he considered him, like the WORKER communist paper he subscribed to, to be an incipient Hitler (the WORKER of November 11, 1961, had a headline "Gen. Walker Bids for Fuehrer Role"), and said he thought the world would be better off if Walker was eliminated. It was Oswald's first known assassination attempt. In a separate conversation with Michael Paine, Oswald gave Michael a copy of the WORKER to peruse, and according to Michael, Mr. PAINE - I suppose he used it as the mailing address for most of his mail until he would receive, get a permanent address, so he received the Daily Worker there, or The Worker, and also, I didn't see it come, I don't generally see the mail that arrives there. Most of my mail would arrive at that address even though I was living somewhere else because I also didn't feel permanent in my other addresses, so Ruth would collect the mail and separated mine into a separate pile. I didn't see the Militant arrive. I did see various Russian magazines, Agitateur, maybe a very large one. A very large one and the Daily Worker, The Worker. Mr. LIEBELER - Did you ever discuss these publications with Oswald? Mr. PAINE - Yes, we talked with regard to the Daily Worker. He said that, he told me, that you could tell what they wanted you to do, they, a word I dislike, what they wanted you to do by reading between the lines, reading the thing and doing a little reading between the lines. He then gave me an issue to look and see. I wanted to see if I could read between the lines and see what they wanted you to do.. Hank |
never mind, already answered, better...
|
Quote:
It appears he thought he would be arrested or killed after taking a shot at Walker. He seems to have assumed the same thing on November 21 and early November 22, leaving his ring and most of his cash with Marina. Slipping out of the TSBD unopposed and taxiing to his rented room must have seemed a strange concession of fate. All dressed up for assassination and nowhere to go (except, as Hank suspects, to take another shot at Walker). BTW, LHO's belief in the messaging "they" in the communist periodicals--the abstract, deterministic "they" that irritated Michael Paine--is strangely echoed by CTs, who also point to unspecified "they" as the puppeteers of LHO and the later purported cover-up. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
This tells me that part of him didn't expect to pull it off, that when the motorcade turned the corner the bubble-top might be on, and he would just schlep the rifle back home. I think LHO was just as surprised as anyone when he saw the round hit JFK's head.:thumbsup: |
A new JFK thread? Cool.
To all cowlickers: If the red spot on the BOH photographs is supposed to be an entry wound int he scalp, why is the scalp being pulled back? Wouldn't the doctors choose to photograph the scalp entry wound in it's original location to avoid confusion or misinterpretation? With the scalp being pulled back in the BOH photographs, the red spot has the appearance of being situated somewhere between the location of the EOP and the depressed cowlick fracture. |
Quote:
Like - most recently - if there is a wound in the back of the head as the autopsists claimed (regardless of where exactly it was), doesn't that establish that JFK could be shot in the head from one of the buildings behind the Presidential limousine, including the Depository building, which was the closest building to JFK at the time of the head shot? Previously you were arguing that JFK's head would look like an ant so the shot from the Depository was impossible. Your current argument accepts that there's a wound in the back of the head, which negates the entire thrust of your prior argument. Doesn't your current argument destroy your prior one? Hank |
Yeah, unless there are any compelling arguments that the EOP wound could be some kind of exit, it was an entry. It would have to come from behind.
Your turn to answer the previous post? |
Quote:
Hank |
Quote:
Tough call. MicahJava, do you have anything else besides the uninformed opinion that a CT site told you to think? You've been shy about answering this and the other dozens of questions. Any idea when you'll be providing some answers? |
Quote:
https://www.history-matters.com/arch...Vol7_0062b.jpg https://www.history-matters.com/arch...Vol7_0063a.jpg |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Why did they initial two different circles? Don't they remember the wounds being in the same place? Is their interpretation of autopsy records here, the same as back in the WC? I'm guessing Michajava won't make any real effort to address that, or understand why it makes a difference to people. But I hope to be proven wrong. |
Quote:
|
You, and no one else (CTist or Skeptic) has seen all of the autopsy photographs, so there is not enough visual information to make a judgement which counters the official autopsy on record.
You are playing the same game Bigfooters play with the Patterson Film.:thumbsup: |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
https://i.imgur.com/qu2yKFS.gifNOTICE: My first question posted on this thread has yet to be answered.https://i.imgur.com/qu2yKFS.gif
To all cowlickers: If the red spot on the BOH photographs is supposed to be an entry wound int he scalp, why is the scalp being pulled back? Wouldn't the doctors choose to photograph the scalp entry wound in it's original location to avoid confusion or misinterpretation? With the scalp being pulled back in the BOH photographs, the red spot has the appearance of being situated somewhere between the location of the EOP and the depressed cowlick fracture. |
Here you go, you can see if the description of the wound years later, matches the testimony given to the WC:
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/humes.htm |
Quote:
A better question is why no other entry wounds are visible corresponding with any other markings in on the skull you posted. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
But if you were right, and the scalp were being stretched, why are there still no other wounds visible? |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Does "slightly above" as you oft cited now mean "beneath"? |
Quote:
Doesn't your current argument destroy your prior one? It's a simple question. If JFK has a entry wound in the back of his head, as you're insisting now, then doesn't that mean your prior argument that JFK could not be shot from 88 yards away from the building closest to him was just so much nonsense and a waste of perfectly good electrons? Hank |
Quote:
Quote:
In my opinion, this is the order of likelihood for why you purportedly cannot see the EOP wound on the BOH photographs: 1. It is barely being covered by some pair attached to the portion of scalp being pulled down, 2. You can see it, it's the small dark spot at the 1 o'clock position of the white spot identified by the HSCA as a small nodule of brain matter, 3. You can see it, it's the small dark spot beneath the white spot or just to the right of it, 4. the official autopsy films have been criminally manipulated to frame a certain trajectory for a single shot to the back of the head, and 5. there is no EOP wound, the real wound was 4-5 inches higher. |
Quote:
"...Our interpretation is, sir, that the missile struck the right occipital region, penetrated through the two tables of the skull, making the characteristic coning on the inner table which I have previously referred to..." And there is some discussion of the validity of the Rydberg drawings, which show the small head wound in it's low location, slightly above the EOP. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
You do understand your claims are a matter of record, right? http://www.internationalskeptics.com...0#post11853010 You claimed all we had was the theoretical possibility that JFK could be struck from behind without using a scope, as if that somehow eliminated Oswald using Oswald's weapon (which had a scope). Jesus, you people can't argue facts so you jump on the opportunity when you can argue that theoretically, technically, a 6.5 round could come out of a Carcano's barrel and happen to strike Kennedy's head without using a scope. But just look at this picture and try to imagine hitting someone's head in the sixth floor east window, while moving, using only the iron sights which would have appeared bigger than the size of the subjects head. You can't compare that to deer hunting or whatever the flavor of the week is. No way. It would be the size of an ant. So you're admitting now that hitting JFK in the back, or the back of the head isn't all that difficult with a scope? That didn't come across in your original argument, at all. Hank |
Quote:
|
how many years of woo is it
Quote:
I could hit the head with a tomato... |
All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:41 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2015-24, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.