Cont: JFK Conspiracy Theories V: Five for Fighting

Status
Not open for further replies.
bknight apparently doesn't realize that his silly confusions over the Z Film are not published in a scientific journals and were never used in a government investigation. That helps legitimize the case for a loud gunshot a moment before Kennedy went behind the sign on the Z film. Since Connally's lapel flap after he emerged behind the sign is a well-supported contender for showing the exact moment he was struck, we then have well-sourced photographic evidence for multiple shooters.
 
Last edited:
MicahJava said:
-The Death of a President by William Manchester, 1967

See, since Sibert and O'Neil left around 11:30 PM because they assumed the autopsy was finishing up once the funeral home people, it would make sense if the autopsy doctors only then telephoned Dr. Perry and learned of the throat wound.
Click to expand...

Here's the thing, the fact that the throat wound was no determined to be an exit wound during the autopsy IS NOT IN CONTENTION. THIS HAS BEEN DOCUMENTED AND ADMITTED TO STARTING FROM THE WARREN COMMISSION ON.

It is a non-issue that changes nothing.
 
Axxman300 said:
The really sad thing is MJ has not dived into the recent document release by the National Archives at all. A real truth seeker would be living on that site for the next three weeks downloading files, and sorting them to construct a narrative - even if it was for a CT narrative.

I know MJ hasn't because I found a memo that - while it doesn't prove his theory - he could certainly find a new horse to beat to death with it. I wasn't even looking for it, I was just systematically opening the FBI files from 1968.

And no, I'm not going to discuss the contents because this would mean I'd have to find it again to post the supporting link, and in the end the story itself is obvious hearsay. But it's waiting out there in cyberspace just waiting for MJ to find it...which he won't because that involves work.
Click to expand...

Axxman, I'm genuinely curious what you're talking about here if it's not a lie. I was under the impression that the new JFK files would contain nothing relating to forensic evidence.
 
Axxman300 said:
Here's the thing, the fact that the throat wound was no determined to be an exit wound during the autopsy IS NOT IN CONTENTION. THIS HAS BEEN DOCUMENTED AND ADMITTED TO STARTING FROM THE WARREN COMMISSION ON.

It is a non-issue that changes nothing.
Click to expand...

Humes, Boswell, and Finck say that. Everybody else who was there tells a different story.
 
MicahJava said:
bknight apparently doesn't realize that his silly confusions over the Z Film are not published in a scientific journals and were never used in a government investigation. That helps legitimize the case for a loud gunshot a moment before Kennedy went behind the sign on the Z film. Since Connally's lapel flap after he emerged behind the sign is a well-supported contender for showing the exact moment he was struck, we then have well-sourced photographic evidence for multiple shooters.
Click to expand...

bknight's not a moron.

We have access to better resolution footage today on YouTube than they did in 1971, and that means bknight and anyone else without mental defect can see superior image to make judgments from. The Zapruder Film shows two rounds striking the occupants - ONLY TWO.

For 50 years the Zapruder Film has been used by CT-loonies to make their case, and all have failed. The public never saw the actual footage until 1975, and didn't have direct access until the 1980's and VHS. The multiple shooter-LIE was formed before most idiots who made these claims had seen the moving images, and had based everything on stills from the film.

Quit parroting long dead theories and give us original thought for once.
 
MicahJava said:
sigh...-The Death of a President by William Manchester, 1967
Click to expand...

What part of "Apologies for the error" did you not understand?
What part of it's "hearsay from a book" did you not understand?



MicahJava said:
See, since Sibert and O'Neil left around 11:30 PM because they assumed the autopsy was finishing up once the funeral home people, it would make sense if the autopsy doctors only then [OR SOMETIME THEREAFTER - Hank] telephoned Dr. Perry and learned of the throat wound.
Click to expand...

So there's a discrepancy of about six hours between Humes recollection and the claim in Manchester's book? So what? Can you explain the significance without using the word "lie", "lying", or "liar" and without applying it to the person whose testimony you've cited dozens, if not hundreds of times in the past year? (I'm speaking of Dr. Humes, of course).

Hank
 
Last edited:
Axxman300 said:
Everybody else is wrong. Humes talks about the call to Parkland, and kicking himself for not doing so first. There is no mystery or issue here at all.
Click to expand...

According to Dr. Perry, Dr. Humes telephoned twice. Humes never mentioned the second separate phone call.
 
Axxman300 said:
bknight's not a moron.

We have access to better resolution footage today on YouTube than they did in 1971, and that means bknight and anyone else without mental defect can see superior image to make judgments from. The Zapruder Film shows two rounds striking the occupants - ONLY TWO.

For 50 years the Zapruder Film has been used by CT-loonies to make their case, and all have failed. The public never saw the actual footage until 1975, and didn't have direct access until the 1980's and VHS. The multiple shooter-LIE was formed before most idiots who made these claims had seen the moving images, and had based everything on stills from the film.

Quit parroting long dead theories and give us original thought for once.
Click to expand...

I think you should go back and read the compilation of evidence I posted earlier in colored text.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=12061378&postcount=2481
 
HSienzant said:
So there's a discrepancy of about six hours between Humes recollection and the claim in Manchester's book? So what? Can you explain the significance without using the word "lie", "lying", or "liar" and without applying it to the person whose testimony you've cited dozens, if not hundreds of times in the past year? (I'm speaking of Dr. Humes, of course).

Hank
Click to expand...

Humes said that he only telephoned Dr. Perry at around 10:30 AM Saturday. That's long after the body left. So it does not make sense for so many autopsy witnesses to give statements indicating that they knew about the throat wound on the night of the autopsy.
 
MicahJava said:
bknight apparently doesn't realize that his silly confusions over the Z Film are not published in a scientific journals and were never used in a government investigation. That helps legitimize the case for a loud gunshot a moment before Kennedy went behind the sign on the Z film. Since Connally's lapel flap after he emerged behind the sign is a well-supported contender for showing the exact moment he was struck, we then have well-sourced photographic evidence for multiple shooters.
Click to expand...

What happened to the medical evidence of four or more shots which you previously asserted?
MicahJava said:
1. There were three loud noises in Dealey Palza, contrary to the medical evidence which indicates more than three shots were fired.
Click to expand...

And the forensic evidence of multiple shooters which you previously asserted?
MicahJava said:
The forensic evidence strongly supports multiple shooters in the JFK assassination.
Click to expand...

Now it's "photographic evidence for multiple shooters"?

And it's "a loud gunshot a moment before Kennedy went behind the sign"?

How much is "a moment" before Kennedy went behind the sign?

A moment in the English language isn't a specific amount of time.

MOMENT
a minute portion or point of time :instant
(a moment of dreadful suspense)
b :a comparatively brief period of time (moments of solitude)

Governor Connally would tell you "a comparatively brief period of time" was ten to twelve seconds. You're trying to make it no more than a second or so. That's disingenuous. Even granting for the sake of argument that those men had the reactions you suggest, as I noted, that's not evidence of anything other than, as I said previously, "a bullet shot sometime before frame Z210".

Z160 is before Z210 (by about three seconds). Anything more specific than that is going to rely on an awful lot of conjecture and ham-fisted attempts to push the round evidence into the square hole of your specific conspiracy theory.

Which is precisely what you're attempting to do by narrowing the first shot to no sooner than Z190.

Can you tell us how you eliminated Z189? Or Z185? or Z172?

Love to hear you explain your theory in more detail, and how you know the first shot came at Z190 or later.

You won't, of course.

Hank
 
Last edited:
MicahJava said:
Humes, Boswell, and Finck say that. Everybody else who was there tells a different story.
Click to expand...

Which should be telling you something about how human memory works.
This should be raising red flags about your attempts to suggest that the documentary evidence of the autopsy is flawed, based on what people remember.

This alone should be giving you big clues about why your "evidence" has been placed so low in priority compared to documentary evidence and records.
 
MicahJava said:
Humes said that he only telephoned Dr. Perry at around 10:30 AM Saturday. That's long after the body left. So it does not make sense for so many autopsy witnesses to give statements indicating that they knew about the throat wound on the night of the autopsy.
Click to expand...

What witnesses gave *contemporaneous* (not a third of a century later) statements indicating they knew about the throat wound from anything done at the autopsy?

Your argument appears to be that since I was home watching TV that day and saw the Parkland press conference (along perhaps with some others who then later that evening actually attended the autopsy while I was glued to the TV), Humes should have watched it and seen it too. And therefore known about the throat wound. Is that the argument you're advancing?

That Humes should have known about the throat wound before talking to Parkland? Prove it.

If your argument is that Humes should have talked to Dr. Perry of Parkland Hospital (or did talk to Dr. Perry of Parkland Hospital) before the next morning, but sometime after the body left, please tell us what the significance of the difference in time is.

And tell us how you know whose recollection is the correct one (I hope you're not going to cite Hagan, we've already seen how you cited Hagan in the past only to see Hagan's statement that he could not reconcile his own recollections about what transpired).

Hank
 
MicahJava said:
bknight apparently doesn't realize that his silly confusions over the Z Film are not published in a scientific journals and were never used in a government investigation. That helps legitimize the case for a loud gunshot a moment before Kennedy went behind the sign on the Z film. Since Connally's lapel flap after he emerged behind the sign is a well-supported contender for showing the exact moment he was struck, we then have well-sourced photographic evidence for multiple shooters.
Click to expand...

Only in your mind(CT's) Watch the video and tell me what your observe.
 
HSienzant said:
You have to get with the program. Their memories are fine when MicahJava wants them to be. Otherwise they are stinking liars.

Hank
Click to expand...

I cling to my hope that if he is trying to have a discussion, he might want to know what it would take to convince people.
 
MicahJava said:
If you refuse to accept the possibility that the three main autopsy doctors are lying about a few things, then there is also the "accidental misinterpretation" possibility...
HSienzant said:
These are the people you are quoting for the EOP entrance, and above you suggest they might be liars. If you don't understand why that destroys any argument you might make from what they said, we cannot help you understand it.

Suggesting they are untrustworthy cuts the very legs out from under your argument.

We can explain it to you, we cannot understand it for you. That you need to do on your own.

So here you suggest they were incompetent. But again, that's a problem for YOUR arguments, because you rely on their expertise when you wish to cite them, but dismiss them as incompetent when it serves your purposes.

Sorry, no. We can see the problem with your argument, even if you remain blind to it (or pretend to be blind to it, or are incompetent to see the problem with it).

And you don't have the qualifications, experience, education, or background to make that criticism in any case. Maybe Earl Rose could criticize something Cyril Wecht or James Humes said, but you can't. You're not qualified to judge.

Hank
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Just as a reminder, the next time you quote anything by Humes, Boswell or Finck, we just need to remind you that you already questioned their credibility so you don't get to pick and choose the pieces you like, claim that's the evidence, and discard the rest.

If they are liars as you claim, then you can't rely on anything they said.

You've figured that out by now, right?

Hank
 
Last edited:
MicahJava said:
I think you should go back and read the compilation of evidence I posted earlier in colored text.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=12061378&postcount=2481
Click to expand...

And then read my rebuttal,
Frame 206-210 may have been the first shot or could have been earlier.. It is my opinion that the first shot was 150-160 as you can observe at different times JFK and JBC turning their heads to the left where the shots came from. Then a pause before the next round. There were two groupings of shell casings on the floor of the TSBA one casing by itself, two in close proximity, as if LHO firing position changed. This would be consistent with the travel of the car away from him requiring a change in firing stance. No mystery for me, just understanding aiming/firing a rifle.
Click to expand...
 
MicahJava said:
According to Dr. Perry, Dr. Humes telephoned twice. Humes never mentioned the second separate phone call.
Click to expand...

Did anyone ever ask him? This was old news for the subsequent investigations. Seems that nobody but you is interested to state it.
Or is this another insinuation that those doctors were lying, again. THEY ARE PROFESSIONALS. And normally professionals don't lie.
 
Tomtomkent said:
I cling to my hope that if he is trying to have a discussion, he might want to know what it would take to convince people.
Click to expand...

I think it's pretty well established he wants the podium, not to have a seat at the table. After all, like all CTs before him, he knows so much more than the autopsists, the HSCA forensic pathologists, the folks who collected the evidence (like J.C.Day), the experts on ballistics and fingerprints and other specialties utilized by the Warren Commission in reaching their conclusion, and lastly, of course, he knows far more than we do.

He's not looking for discourse. If he was, he wouldn't ignore so many points and brush so many others aside with only a nonsensical one-liner in response.

He apparently wants to set us straight by telling us how he sees it. After all, if that's good enough to convince him, it should be good enough to convince us.

Hank
 
Last edited:
MicahJava said:
According to Dr. Perry, Dr. Humes telephoned twice. Humes never mentioned the second separate phone call.
Click to expand...

So a difference in recollection 33 years after the fact?

That's evidence of faulty recollections. Nothing more. Nothing less.

Get a clue - they could have talked five times over an hour or two and I doubt if either would remember the precise number of calls that transpired. Humes might remember it - 33 YEARS LATER - as only one call. Perry might remember it - 33 YEARS LATER - as multiple calls, and say he remembered two for certain.

You have a discrepancy in a recollection with no significance to anything whatsoever.

Why are we even discussing this?

What is your POINT?

Do you even have one?

Hank
 
Last edited:
I did not know Rob Reiner is a JFK conspiracy theorists. He claimed Oswald could not do it by himself, claiming he studied everything, when he appeared on Realtime Overtime Nov 3, 2017. Wonder if he thinks it was the shots taken were impossible, or what. IF anyone has ever gone to the window in Dallas, I was impressed how easy the shot as in distance and geometry. I could have done it with a .177 pellet gun. Where did Oswald sight-in his weapon before that day.

He was upset the files are delayed. I would make him go to the CIA/FBI and redact all the names and addresses of the living who will be bothered by nuts if the work is not done to mark out names. What 80 or 90 year old agents and witnesses want CT nuts showing up and bothering them, or their families.

Rob Reiner, go get a magic marker and start working on redacting names of the living, or other names so people are not targets of BS from JFK ct-nuts.
 
beachnut said:
I did not know Rob Reiner is a JFK conspiracy theorists. He claimed Oswald could not do it by himself, claiming he studied everything, when he appeared on Realtime Overtime Nov 3, 2017. Wonder if he thinks it was the shots taken were impossible, or what. IF anyone has ever gone to the window in Dallas, I was impressed how easy the shot as in distance and geometry. I could have done it with a .177 pellet gun. Where did Oswald sight-in his weapon before that day.

He was upset the files are delayed. I would make him go to the CIA/FBI and redact all the names and addresses of the living who will be bothered by nuts if the work is not done to mark out names. What 80 or 90 year old agents and witnesses want CT nuts showing up and bothering them, or their families.

Rob Reiner, go get a magic marker and start working on redacting names of the living, or other names so people are not targets of BS from JFK ct-nuts.
Click to expand...

He's still a meathead.

Hank
 
bknight said:
Did anyone ever ask him? This was old news for the subsequent investigations. Seems that nobody but you is interested to state it.
Or is this another insinuation that those doctors were lying, again. THEY ARE PROFESSIONALS. And normally professionals don't lie.
Click to expand...

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=788&search=humes_deposition#relPageId=159&tab=page

He said, "...we wondered where the bullet went, you know? We should have called Dallas right then and there. It would have saved me a lot of worry and grief, you know?"

Hardly a cover-up artist.

I re-read the entire thing (I like history, and I'm not afraid of a little work).

On page 235 Humes claims that 3 photos are missing from the collection, but he also acknowledges that if the pictures are there he doesn't recognize them. He says all the x-rays are there.

I know that MJ will never take the time to read any of this (big boy stuff) but starting around page 190 Dr. Humes discusses the contents of the photos he is shown with context and DETAIL about the interior of the skull, and all that went into the autopsy...this goes on for almost 40 pages, and would clear up almost every lingering question about the head wound in graphic detail.

And no, there was no second bullet wound to the head.
 
beachnut said:
I did not know Rob Reiner is a JFK conspiracy theorists. He claimed Oswald could not do it by himself, claiming he studied everything, when he appeared on Realtime Overtime Nov 3, 2017. Wonder if he thinks it was the shots taken were impossible, or what. IF anyone has ever gone to the window in Dallas, I was impressed how easy the shot as in distance and geometry. I could have done it with a .177 pellet gun. Where did Oswald sight-in his weapon before that day.

He was upset the files are delayed. I would make him go to the CIA/FBI and redact all the names and addresses of the living who will be bothered by nuts if the work is not done to mark out names. What 80 or 90 year old agents and witnesses want CT nuts showing up and bothering them, or their families.

Rob Reiner, go get a magic marker and start working on redacting names of the living, or other names so people are not targets of BS from JFK ct-nuts.
Click to expand...

Jokes on him, they're releasing them as fast as they can.

In one of RFK's final speeches he said that he had seen all the evidence, and that Oswald acted alone. Nice to know I'm on the same side of history as RFK.:thumbsup:
 
HSienzant said:
So a difference in recollection 33 years after the fact?

That's evidence of faulty recollections. Nothing more. Nothing less.

Get a clue - they could have talked five times over an hour or two and I doubt if either would remember the precise number of calls that transpired. Humes might remember it - 33 YEARS LATER - as only one call. Perry might remember it - 33 YEARS LATER - as multiple calls, and say he remembered two for certain.

You have a discrepancy in a recollection with no significance to anything whatsoever.

Why are we even discussing this?

What is your POINT?

Do you even have one?

Hank
Click to expand...

I don't know what you're talking about "33 years later". Dr. Perry's two testimonies to the Warren Commission indicate that he previously thought he was called by Humes late Friday night, and then later called a second time. This recollection stood in his HSCA testimony.
 
bknight said:
And then read my rebuttal,
Click to expand...

I believe there is virtually no witness evidence for any loud gunshot before z190. How many witnesses described seeing Kennedy react to the first shot, not continue smiling and waving for a few moments?
 
HSienzant said:
Just as a reminder, the next time you quote anything by Humes, Boswell or Finck, we just need to remind you that you already questioned their credibility so you don't get to pick and choose the pieces you like, claim that's the evidence, and discard the rest.

If they are liars as you claim, then you can't rely on anything they said.

You've figured that out by now, right?

Hank
Click to expand...

If you wanted to believe that a single round entered the EOP and exited the top-right side of the head, I would suggest going the X-ray alteration/substitute brain route.
 
HSienzant said:
What happened to the medical evidence of four or more shots which you previously asserted?


And the forensic evidence of multiple shooters which you previously asserted?


Now it's "photographic evidence for multiple shooters"?

And it's "a loud gunshot a moment before Kennedy went behind the sign"?

How much is "a moment" before Kennedy went behind the sign?

A moment in the English language isn't a specific amount of time.

MOMENT
a minute portion or point of time :instant
(a moment of dreadful suspense)
b :a comparatively brief period of time (moments of solitude)

Governor Connally would tell you "a comparatively brief period of time" was ten to twelve seconds. You're trying to make it no more than a second or so. That's disingenuous. Even granting for the sake of argument that those men had the reactions you suggest, as I noted, that's not evidence of anything other than, as I said previously, "a bullet shot sometime before frame Z210".

Z160 is before Z210 (by about three seconds). Anything more specific than that is going to rely on an awful lot of conjecture and ham-fisted attempts to push the round evidence into the square hole of your specific conspiracy theory.

Which is precisely what you're attempting to do by narrowing the first shot to no sooner than Z190.

Can you tell us how you eliminated Z189? Or Z185? or Z172?

Love to hear you explain your theory in more detail, and how you know the first shot came at Z190 or later.

You won't, of course.

Hank
Click to expand...

How soon after the first loud gunshot did Connally always say he was struck, Hank?
 
HSienzant said:
What witnesses gave *contemporaneous* (not a third of a century later) statements indicating they knew about the throat wound from anything done at the autopsy?

Your argument appears to be that since I was home watching TV that day and saw the Parkland press conference (along perhaps with some others who then later that evening actually attended the autopsy while I was glued to the TV), Humes should have watched it and seen it too. And therefore known about the throat wound. Is that the argument you're advancing?

That Humes should have known about the throat wound before talking to Parkland? Prove it.

If your argument is that Humes should have talked to Dr. Perry of Parkland Hospital (or did talk to Dr. Perry of Parkland Hospital) before the next morning, but sometime after the body left, please tell us what the significance of the difference in time is.

And tell us how you know whose recollection is the correct one (I hope you're not going to cite Hagan, we've already seen how you cited Hagan in the past only to see Hagan's statement that he could not reconcile his own recollections about what transpired).

Hank
Click to expand...

Oh my God, I literally gave you the evidence, neatly indexed in an older post of mine I've linked before.

Tell me what's your explanation for the Barnum diary. That was written a few days after the assassination.
 
MicahJava said:
I don't know what you're talking about "33 years later". Dr. Perry's two testimonies to the Warren Commission indicate that he previously thought he was called by Humes late Friday night, and then later called a second time. This recollection stood in his HSCA testimony.
Click to expand...

And when was Humes testimony on this point? Hmmm?

What was your point?

You still haven't said.

Perhaps you don't have one, but are too embarrassed to admit that.

Hank
 
Last edited:
MicahJava said:
If you wanted to believe that a single round entered the EOP and exited the top-right side of the head, I would suggest going the X-ray alteration/substitute brain route.
Click to expand...

Why? You think you know more than Lattimer about bullet wounds?

He was a surgeon in Europe during WWII. He saw planty of bullet wounds.

Hank
 
MicahJava said:
How soon after the first loud gunshot did Connally always say he was struck, Hank?
Click to expand...

He never gave a precise time, MicahJava.

He did say after he heard the first shot, he did have time to turn and look over his left shoulder, and then as he was turning back to look over his right shoulder, he was struck.

When does he turn to look over his left shoulder, Micah Java?

How long is it from then to Z224?

Hank

PS: Still waiting for this evidence:

What happened to the medical evidence of four or more shots which you previously asserted?
And the forensic evidence of multiple shooters which you previously asserted?
Now it's "photographic evidence for multiple shooters"?
 
Last edited:
beachnut said:
I did not know Rob Reiner is a JFK conspiracy theorists. He claimed Oswald could not do it by himself, claiming he studied everything, when he appeared on Realtime Overtime Nov 3, 2017. Wonder if he thinks it was the shots taken were impossible, or what. IF anyone has ever gone to the window in Dallas, I was impressed how easy the shot as in distance and geometry. I could have done it with a .177 pellet gun. Where did Oswald sight-in his weapon before that day.

He was upset the files are delayed. I would make him go to the CIA/FBI and redact all the names and addresses of the living who will be bothered by nuts if the work is not done to mark out names. What 80 or 90 year old agents and witnesses want CT nuts showing up and bothering them, or their families.

Rob Reiner, go get a magic marker and start working on redacting names of the living, or other names so people are not targets of BS from JFK ct-nuts.
Click to expand...

The wounds of John F. Kennedy himself appear to indicate multiple shooters.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom