MicahJava
Illuminator
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2016
- Messages
- 3,031
JFK Conspiracy Theories IV: The One With The Whales
- Thread starter Robert Harris
- Start date
- Status
Jrrarglblarg
Unregistered
- Joined
- Nov 15, 2010
- Messages
- 12,673
Is that supposed to be an intellectual response? Or are you not bothering to try?
Tomtomkent
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jul 5, 2010
- Messages
- 8,607
So which part of this evidence are we supposed to be impressed by?
A guy not hearing, or at least not remembering hearing, a bullet?
Or the astounding revelation that the vast trauma wave that caused massive ejecta may have caused cracks that reached the bottom of the skull?
Why are CT advocates still doing this the wrong way around and scrabbling for any nugget of evidence they hope might spin just enough to give the illusion of a second shooter in the gaps.
Here's an amazing idea nobody will take up. Why not suggest a fully formed their of who did the shooting and how, a comprehensive timeline that us sceptics than then question and test to see if the evidence passes scrutiny?
Why not start by stating what you want to prove, so it can be said for sure if the evidence actually supports, let alone proves, the narrative?
A guy not hearing, or at least not remembering hearing, a bullet?
Or the astounding revelation that the vast trauma wave that caused massive ejecta may have caused cracks that reached the bottom of the skull?
Why are CT advocates still doing this the wrong way around and scrabbling for any nugget of evidence they hope might spin just enough to give the illusion of a second shooter in the gaps.
Here's an amazing idea nobody will take up. Why not suggest a fully formed their of who did the shooting and how, a comprehensive timeline that us sceptics than then question and test to see if the evidence passes scrutiny?
Why not start by stating what you want to prove, so it can be said for sure if the evidence actually supports, let alone proves, the narrative?
Axxman300
Philosopher
There is ZERO possibility of a subsonic round striking JFK. The damage doesn't support it in any way. The damage to both JFK and Connally is consistent with the Carcano round, almost exclusively.
And no, Connally wouldn't have heard the shot that hit him because it was supersonic. By the time the sound would have reached him he was busy bleeding, people were screaming, and my guess is that after the President's head exploded and showered everyone with brains the resulting mental shock combined with the physical shock of being shot would make Connally's memories of those moments unreliable.
It's all on film. The President and the Governor only get struck by two bullets, both from behind.
There's a reason for the phrase "you never hear the one that hits you".
Do you know what it might be?
HSienzant
Philosopher
Sigh.
I've snipped the vast portion of your response because it deals with recollections from the mid-1990's, three decades after the assassination.
I gather you still haven't read anything by Elizabeth Loftus on memory, and the fallibility of the human mind. I recommended it before, I recommend it now.
Those recollections are valueless. Quoting them, and trying to solve the assassination via that route will never get you closer to the truth. The truth is in the evidence collected in the first 48 hours, and the testimony of the witnesses and experts as they testified in the first nine months following the assassination.
Per the above which I did quote, it deals with two separate reports, a hearsay report of an interview written by Tom Purdy, which says Burkley admitted to the possibility of two bullets to the brain, and an affidavit by Burkley himself, which eliminates the possibility of two bullets to the brain (he wrote, if he had testified to the WC, "the possibility of two bullets having wounded President John F. Kennedy's brain would have been eliminated". Both these reports are from the late 1970's, to the HSCA.
I know which one I would give greater credence to. The affidavit signed by Dr. Burkley. Why do you post and credit the contradictory summary of an interview with Burkley by Andrew Purdy?
Hank
MicahJava
Illuminator
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2016
- Messages
- 3,031
The evidence seems to support a subsonic missile striking the EOP from behind.
And no, Connally wouldn't have heard the shot that hit him because it was supersonic. By the time the sound would have reached him he was busy bleeding, people were screaming, and my guess is that after the President's head exploded and showered everyone with brains the resulting mental shock combined with the physical shock of being shot would make Connally's memories of those moments unreliable.
It's all on film. The President and the Governor only get struck by two bullets, both from behind.
Connally, as well as nearly other witness, described the first loud shot as coming just before the one that hit him, and places his as occurring at around Z190-230. Probably nothing happened before Z190.
MicahJava
Illuminator
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2016
- Messages
- 3,031
Burkley is saying that the possibility of two head shots could not be eliminated. Burkley thought that it was a conspiracy.
HSienzant
Philosopher
That's funny, because the man you quote a lot, including above (John Connally), testified the shooting lasted 10 to 12 seconds and comprised three shots. You believe the third shots was at or near Zapruder frame 313, do you not? You also believe that John Connally testified he heard only two of the three shots, the first one, and the last one, which hit the President in the head, correct?
Working backward, that puts the first shot (since Zapruder's camera ran at 18.3 frames per second), 183 frames before the head shot at a minimum (10 x 18.3 = 183).
Now, when I do the math, that means John Connally's testimony puts the first shot at Z313 minus 183 frames, or frame Z130 at the latest. If we use his 12 seconds estimate, we get, from the Governor's testimony, another 36 or 37 frames earlier for the first shot, or roughly frame Z93 or Z94.
That's what I get working from the Governor's testimony.
So I'm unclear why you think there's no evidence from the eyewitnesses for a shot before Z190.
I've mentioned this point a few times, you've never shown where the math is wrong or where I'm taking anything out of context. You've never addressed my point whatsoever. Since you have quoted John Connally's recollections as supportive of your arguments in the past, I am curious whether you think John Connally's recollections here are of any value, and if not, why not.
I've asked in the past for a citation to a precise quote for the bolded statement above, but you never provided that either.
Hank
Last edited:
MicahJava
Illuminator
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2016
- Messages
- 3,031
That's an odd way to insinuate that Connally thought all three shots were spaced out. He didn't, he always said the first two shots were close together and that he didn't hear the shot that hit him. He thought that it was automatic rifle fire. From z190-z313+, the shooting could've been about 10 seconds.
Last edited:
HSienzant
Philosopher
Citation for the bolded claim above?
Most witnesses didn't even realize the Governor was struck. You're going to have a hard time establishing that the first shot came "just before the one that hit him" (Connally), from the witness statements.
Good luck with that.
You are pretty much stuck with the Governor's statements and that of his wife.
You're also arguing at cross purposes now. You're arguing the first and second were close together above, and you've previously argued the last two were closer together.
So which is it? The vast majority of the witnesses said they heard three shots. You can't put the middle one closer to both the first shot AND the last shot.
They were either roughly equally spaced, the first two were closer together, or the last two were closer together.
Choose one.
Hank
MicahJava
Illuminator
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2016
- Messages
- 3,031
The witnesses indicate that the first loud shot was around 190-224.
HSienzant
Philosopher
Citation requested once again for the bolded statement.
From Z190, I get Z190 + 183 or Z373 for the last shot at the earliest. If we use his 12 second time estimate, we get Z373 + 36 or 37 frames, or Z409 or Z410. But that doesn't conform to the Governor's testimony that the head shot was the last of three shots. And the head shot was at Z313. More than five seconds before the end of the time-frame you're ignoring.
You're now contradicting the Governor's own testimony.
Where did the Governor testify to a shot after 313?
He didn't. Your arguing for one after Z313, "Z313+", means you're saying the Governor was wrong in some of his testimony.
Hank
Last edited:
MicahJava
Illuminator
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2016
- Messages
- 3,031
Connally placed Kennedy being hit at z190, and him being at at z231. The last two loud shots may have been so close together that they blended into one in his mind.
HSienzant
Philosopher
You've said that before, but never cited for it. You also ignored my other points. I suggest you try again.
Hank
HSienzant
Philosopher
Citation for the bolded?
So we're back to the last two being closest together?
And how do two shots at Z313 and, say, Z323, equal ten to twelve seconds from Z190?
And if Connally's recollection on the number of shots couldn't be trusted, why are you citing his recollection on the timing of the shots?
Or are you now arguing the vast majority of the witnesses that heard three shots were all wrong, and there were more than three?
You got some explaining to do.
Hank
MicahJava
Illuminator
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2016
- Messages
- 3,031
Read these generous samplings of witnesses:
http://www.patspeer.com/chapter5:thejigsawpuzzle
http://www.patspeer.com/chapter5b:primarypieces
http://www.patspeer.com/chapter6:piecesontheroad
http://www.patspeer.com/chapter7:morepiecesofthepuzzle
http://www.patspeer.com/more-pieces-in-the-plaza
http://www.patspeer.com/chapter8:therestofthepuzzle
http://www.patspeer.com/chapter9:piecingittogether
http://www.patspeer.com/chapter9b:reclaiminghistoryfromreclaimin2
http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg Subject Index Files/O Disk/Olson Beverly/Item 09.pdf
page 13
Pay attention to the key words in your post.
2 follow up questions.
1) When did Connally specifically say that?
2) How would Connally know when Kennedy was hit?
MicahJava
Illuminator
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2016
- Messages
- 3,031
Do you have semantics BS or a refutation for 2 head shots? We know that there was damage in the base of the skull, and in the neck area above the throat wound. We know that a lot of people who saw the body at least thought maybe there were two head shots, and that the throat wound could be an exit of a bullet or a fragment from a bullet that hit the head.
He saw it on videotape and pointed to exactly where he thinks both of them were hit.
http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg Subject Index Files/O Disk/Olson Beverly/Item 09.pdf
page 13
The autopsy report. The statements of the autopsy doctors. The expert reviews of 5 separate panels of forensic pathologists.
Consider it refuted.
At no point in the PDF does Connally mention frame 190.
Try again.
HSienzant
Philosopher
Why are you trusting a conspiracy theorist to tell you what happened? Why should I? Conspiracy articles are not evidence.
I read the Weisberg letter twice. I don't see any bearing within it on any point I made or any question I asked. Can you elaborate what exactly this letter is supposed to prove?
Edit: See below response.
Hank
Last edited:
Tomtomkent
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jul 5, 2010
- Messages
- 8,607
Can you refute what has not yet been substantiated?
That assumes there was evidence for two headshots. There was not.
By that logic I assume nobody can refute an explosive implant detonating.
But you are right. The recorded physical evidence is clear. Which is why we get vague blather about witnesses, and never the process of seeing if those witnesses were correct.
HSienzant
Philosopher
Shifting the burden of proof is a logical fallacy. You need to establish two head shots, for which there is exactly zero (0) evidence.
None of these people were qualified pathologists, were they?
All the experts who examined the body or the extant autopsy materials thought there was one shot to the head. From behind.
Why should we care what some non-experts think?
Do you consult an x-ray technician to get your plumbing fixed, or a plumber when you fall on your head and get a headache?
Sorry, no. The paper says "He felt the President might have been hit by frame 190." "by" here means prior to and up to 190. Not "Connally placed Kennedy being hit at z190."
Connally actually was saying he thought JFK was hit at Z190 .
And Connally's guess is no better than yours or mine on this. Just because he was a victim in the limo doesn't give him any special insight on when the President was struck.
Your citation is a big letdown.
Hank
PS: He saw it on film. Not videotape. You must be a relative youngster. Videotape was in its infancy then. It was first used in an Army-Navy football game in December of 1963. It wasn't something that was readily available.
Last edited:
HSienzant
Philosopher
That's not what Burkley said in his signed affidavit.
He said his testimony would have eliminated the possibility of two headshots.
here's what I noted previously, in part:
Not 'reinforced'. Not 'confirmed'. Not 'supported'.
Eliminated.
Hank
Last edited:
HSienzant
Philosopher
You actually think there were two shots in that range, though, don't you? One at Z190, one at Z224?
Are you specifying 'loud' because you're going to argue, like Robert Harris, for additional shots that weren't loud, but silenced?
If so, why not just come clean and tell us now how many shots in total you think were fired.
Bob Harris was up to seven, by my count.
How many do you think were fired during the assassination?
Hank
Last edited:
HSienzant
Philosopher
Still waiting for responses on the bolded.
HSienzant
Philosopher
And no response to this point.
In fact, since I wrote the above, you again argued for two close shots at the end of the assassination: "The last two loud shots may have been so close together that they blended into one in his mind."
So it turns out you're actually arguing for a mimimum of four shots, while citing some witness testimony that you think buttresses various points you've made, but ignoring the fact that 90% of the witnesses heard only three shots -- no more, no less.
Hank
Last edited:
Axxman300
Philosopher
For a guy who references the Zapruder film as much as you do, it doesn't seem like you've actually watched it. Kennedy is only struck in the head once - from behind.
A second bullet striking the head would have been obvious. I'm not a cop, but all head-shots are obvious.
Still arguing acoustical evidence from a location that was an echo chamber? You will continue to fail.
Connally was busy getting shot, what he remembers, and what actually happened are two different things. Ask anybody who's been shot.
You are not only painting yourself in a corner, you're now painting your feet.
MicahJava
Illuminator
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2016
- Messages
- 3,031
I could argue that the doctors were well aware of the possibility that a third bullet entered the body, even entering low in the head and exiting the throat. In fact, they could have been exactly what they thought. Did you miss that? Robinson? Lipsey?
Who were operating on the bogus theory that the small head wound was 4 inches higher than it was. In fact, did any panel of forensic pathologists try to shed more light on the damage inside of the base of the skull and the neck area?
Maybe you're looking for this: http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/wcsbt.htm
MicahJava
Illuminator
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2016
- Messages
- 3,031
Sounds like you are holding on to your first-shot-miss idea. No games please.
d) After viewing the films and slides, the Governor was of the opinion that he had been hit by frame 231.
e) The Governor stated that after being hit, he looked to his right, looked to his left, and then turned to his right. He felt the President might have been hit by frame 190. He heard only two shots and felt sure that the shots he heard were the first and third shots. He is positive that he was hit after he heard the first shot, i.e., by the second shot, and by that shot only.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/wcsbt.htm
There is a lot of evidence for some overlooked damage in the base of the skull and perhaps down the neck, as consistent with a low-velocity bullet entering low in the skull.
HSienzant, I already posted evidence that the autopsy doctors thought that 3 bullets entered Kennedy in exactly the scenario I'm proposing. Take some time and listen to the full audio of the supressed HSCA interview with Richard Lipsey. I think that Lipsey may have been completely right.
Lol, semantics garbage. Connally's Z190-231 scenario is a perfect match for the time period between the first two shots he perceived, which he described as "very, very brief". He even marked on a map where he thinks the shooting started. If you think Connally's statement through the years have been vague, check out the statements from people watching the motorcade the closest.
Yeah, I'm sure that's exactly what Burkley means when he says things like "I believe it was a conspiracy" and "others besides Oswald must have participated" and "I would not care to be quoted on how many bullets entered the body". I'm sure this has nothing to do with him knowing about a whole bullet recovered, or him never being interviewed for any government investigation, or how his family still won't release his personal files to the public.
I think if you were standing in Dealey Plaza on 11/23/1963, the last two shots would probably sound close together. Depending on where you are standing, the last two shots could sound so close together that they blend into one.
Last edited:
MicahJava
Illuminator
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2016
- Messages
- 3,031
The reported damage to the body, including the right cerebellum, is a good contender to explain the 224+ reactions. Some have suggested that he's reaching for his throat; if he is, he's very disoriented.
Still arguing acoustical evidence from a location that was an echo chamber? You will continue to fail.
Connally was busy getting shot, what he remembers, and what actually happened are two different things. Ask anybody who's been shot.
You are not only painting yourself in a corner, you're now painting your feet.
If Connally's statements are too confusing for you, why not try bringing up another witness that you think supports an early-shot-miss scinareo. So far, All evidence I see of such a thing is 1. the Zapruder frame blur (possible coincidence), 2. Rosemary Willis (her father Phillip said he believes he was just calling to her), 3. Connally's head turn (again, maybe a coincidence), and 4. the dictabelt evidence (heavily disputed).
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
It's an autonomic reaction. We have done this before ad nauseum.
You yourself claimed that you only recently came to this conspiracy (although I don't believe that). In any event, what is in it for you? Suppose (not going to happen) you proved some madcap conspiracy about an assassination some 53 years ago? Pretty much everyone directly involved is long dead. What is it you want? Exhume the witnesses and put their decayed corpses on the stand? What?
MicahJava
Illuminator
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2016
- Messages
- 3,031
A bullet in the head could do plenty of autonomic whatever.
My interest in conspiracy pretty much started when I watched September 11: The New Pearl Harbor out of curiosity over a year ago. Only within the last few weeks have I delved into the forensic evidence of JFK and the corresponding conspiracy to sanitize it.
If you don't think it's important or at least very interesting, you have a different idea of what's worth your time. I think that even more relevant experts examining the case could lead to more accepted forensic proofs of conspiracy. The best new project I've come across is a group wanting to perfect an open-source, independent computer model that matches all of the photographic evidence, like the Dale Meyers animation, but without the problems and secrecy.
Last edited:
MicahJava
Illuminator
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2016
- Messages
- 3,031
Connally's statements must be taken in conjunction with a large sampling of very good witnesses, and the photographic evidence for a loud report occurring at about z190. Phillip Willis always swore that the fifth photograph he took was a startle response to the first shot, and his photograph happens to have been taken at the equivalent of z202-210. There are also apparently some reasons to think that Kennedy was reacting to some severe external stimuli at that time, and not merely bringing his hand down from waving as the blurry frames may appear to show to the untrained eye.
See this: http://jfkassassination.net/russ/infojfk/jfk6/timing.htm
and this: http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weis... Disk/Journal of Forensic Science/Item 01.pdf
and this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vGsD8i3qOgo&t=2m55s
Last edited:
Axxman300
Philosopher
The throat wound came first, entering through the back and exiting the front.
The second wound was the head-shot.
Only two bullets strike the car, and they're both accounted for.
I'm not confused. Connally is irrelevant as a witness.
MicahJava
Illuminator
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2016
- Messages
- 3,031
Unfortunately, the damage doesn't seem to add up to that.
Axxman300
Philosopher
Bad start.
Please tell me you're a medical doctor.
There is no evidence of sanitization of the medical evidence since the important files are still locked away from the public. We just have the Dallas write-up and xrays, that's it.
The idea that the medical evidence has been tampered with is a lie. Few people have even seen the archived autopsy materials since 1964, and there's not enough evidence to support that claim.
I was a JFK-CT moron for almost 30 years. Every year new "experts" cast their baited hooks into the CT waters to snag money away from dolts, and soft-headed nimrods. Every year some "former intelligence agent/annalist" would come forward with a story that could never be substantiated, and every other year some maffia low-life would "confess" what he knew about the assassination.
The problem was their stories all conflicted with the known facts, and more to the point; all of their villains were different as were their motives.
The only thing that has remained consistent since 1963 is Lee Oswald and his Carcano firing from the 6th floor. That is enough for any rational person.
What you and every JFK-CT nut ignore is that Kennedy was a lackluster president. He accomplished nothing of his agenda during his time in office, and if it weren't for the Cuban Missile Crisis he would have nothing substantial on his record except for a bunch of great speeches. There was no guarantee he would win re-election in 1964.
People who believe that his death was a result of some vast conspiracy suffer from delusions stemming from a grasp of history and historical context.
Oswald understood history well enough to find a shortcut into the history books. That makes him smarter than you.
MicahJava
Illuminator
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2016
- Messages
- 3,031
Evidence for fragments recovered from the body that may have been sanitized from the forensic evidence:
From a report on mortician Tom Robinson's 1996 ARRB interview:
...Robinson said that the agent told him "it had to be this way" (in regard to having so many observers in the room), since there had to be "credible witnesses" to the wounds observed and procedures performed during the autopsy, because the "world was watching."
- Robinson said the same agent claimed to be a ballistics expert, and showed him a glass vial, similar to a test tube (which may have had a cork stopper on it), containing several pieces of tiny bullet fragments which had been removed from the President's head by pathologists, and that it contained "quite a few" fragments of "shrapnel". Robinson said that these bullet fragments were very small. When asked by ARRB staffers whether the number of fragments was closer to 2, 5, 10, or 15 fragments, he said that the total number would be close to 10 fragments.
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=711#relPageId=3&tab=page
Dennis David told David Lifton in 1979 that he handled large bullet fragments and a receipt for these fragments.
In a 1997 ARRB interview report, we read:
Preparation of Receipt for Bullet Fragments
Late on the evening of November 22, Mr. David said he was in the vicinity of the morgue, when the administrative watch officer for the Bethesna Naval Hospital asked him in he knew anyone with a clearance who could type. He answered, "I have a Secret clearance, and I can type." He said he was asked to type a Memorandum for the Record for a Federal agent wearing a suit, whom he assumed was Secret Service. (When asked to recall the name of the agent, i.e., the signature block on the memo, he said the name might have been "Sibert," but he wasn't sure.) He said that the agent dictated a receipt describing in some detail the gross physical characteristics of four bullet fragments which had been removed from the President's body at the post mortem examination. He said that in his estimation there was more metal than would be contained in one bullet, but probably less than would be contained in two bullets. He said the fragments were contained in a round pill vial with a plastic top (a snap-on cap). After typing the memo, he said the agent allowed him to handle the fragments, but then admonished him about security concerns and said that this was all to be treated as if it were classified information. He said the agent (who was wearing a blue suit, but otherwise seemed non-descript in appearance) then confiscated all copies of the memo, including the pieces of carbon paper, and even took the ribbon from the IBM Selectric typewriter with him.
http://aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/pdf/md177.pdf
From a report on mortician Tom Robinson's 1996 ARRB interview:
...Robinson said that the agent told him "it had to be this way" (in regard to having so many observers in the room), since there had to be "credible witnesses" to the wounds observed and procedures performed during the autopsy, because the "world was watching."
- Robinson said the same agent claimed to be a ballistics expert, and showed him a glass vial, similar to a test tube (which may have had a cork stopper on it), containing several pieces of tiny bullet fragments which had been removed from the President's head by pathologists, and that it contained "quite a few" fragments of "shrapnel". Robinson said that these bullet fragments were very small. When asked by ARRB staffers whether the number of fragments was closer to 2, 5, 10, or 15 fragments, he said that the total number would be close to 10 fragments.
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=711#relPageId=3&tab=page
Dennis David told David Lifton in 1979 that he handled large bullet fragments and a receipt for these fragments.
In a 1997 ARRB interview report, we read:
Preparation of Receipt for Bullet Fragments
Late on the evening of November 22, Mr. David said he was in the vicinity of the morgue, when the administrative watch officer for the Bethesna Naval Hospital asked him in he knew anyone with a clearance who could type. He answered, "I have a Secret clearance, and I can type." He said he was asked to type a Memorandum for the Record for a Federal agent wearing a suit, whom he assumed was Secret Service. (When asked to recall the name of the agent, i.e., the signature block on the memo, he said the name might have been "Sibert," but he wasn't sure.) He said that the agent dictated a receipt describing in some detail the gross physical characteristics of four bullet fragments which had been removed from the President's body at the post mortem examination. He said that in his estimation there was more metal than would be contained in one bullet, but probably less than would be contained in two bullets. He said the fragments were contained in a round pill vial with a plastic top (a snap-on cap). After typing the memo, he said the agent allowed him to handle the fragments, but then admonished him about security concerns and said that this was all to be treated as if it were classified information. He said the agent (who was wearing a blue suit, but otherwise seemed non-descript in appearance) then confiscated all copies of the memo, including the pieces of carbon paper, and even took the ribbon from the IBM Selectric typewriter with him.
http://aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/pdf/md177.pdf
- Status