JFK Conspiracy Theories VII: Late November back in '63...

Status
Not open for further replies.
Axxman300 said:
The problem is that they're not his arguments, they're someone else's arguments. He hasn't done any actual research to come up with this second bullet to the head theory on his own. This comes from Dr. Cryil Wecht, who was the lone CT pathologist on the HSCA, and unlike the rest of the pathologists, he was happy to bring his bias with him to the investigation.

Wecht wrote his first paper on the assassination in 1965. He was the one who "discovered" the brain had gone missing.

Wecht was the only one of 9 pathologists for the HSCA to disagree with the original autopsy. The man has an ego that gets in the way far too often. There was no way he was going to change his tune no matter what the evidence shows.

His failure is ballistics, he fails to understand the 6.5x52mm round, and his failure is MJ's failure.
Click to expand...

Cyril Wecht is also the creator of the bad recreation of the path of the single bullet, having put Connolly and Kennedy in positions that in no way resembled their actual positions and postures at the time of the shooting. That, alone, is such an embarrassment so to demonstrate that nothing he says has any basis in reality.
 
Belz... said:
Clearly the film is doctored! Maybe entirely fabricated!
Click to expand...

You of course have evidence to this doctoring?

List your qualifications in determining whether film footage is doctored?

How could it be the film be fabricated when the man who took the film is visible in other media, and he has indicated it was his film.
 
bknight said:
You of course have evidence to this doctoring?

List your qualifications in determining whether film footage is doctored?

How could it be the film be fabricated when the man who took the film is visible in other media, and he has indicated it was his film.
Click to expand...

Like I said, the Zapruder Film Alteration Theory is it's own sub-branch of the JFK Assassination nuttery:

https://richardcharnin.wordpress.co...cal-proof-that-the-zapruder-film-was-altered/

Standard CT stuff: The chain of evidence was compromised because one guy is on the record stating one thing while another guy is on record stating the opposite. Out of context facts, bad calculations. All based on the idea that Oswald didn't shoot JFK and the shot came from the front.

Then there is this one:

http://johnfitzgeraldkennedy.net/evidenceofalterationinthezapruderfilm.htm

And this one:

http://assassinationofjfk.net/the-t...s-signposts-pointing-to-the-films-alteration/

And so on and so on.

CTists will never read anything done by adults like this analysis of the Zapruder Film looking into the claim of alteration to the back of JFK's head (because CTist think the back of the head was blown out) done by someone at Dartmouth:

https://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/farid/downloads/publications/tr10a.pdf

Spoiler alert: It's not altered.
 
bknight said:
You of course have evidence to this doctoring?

List your qualifications in determining whether film footage is doctored?

How could it be the film be fabricated when the man who took the film is visible in other media, and he has indicated it was his film.
Click to expand...

Um, recalibrate your irony meter.
 
abaddon said:
Um, recalibrate your irony meter.
Click to expand...

I just had to ask. Film is just too difficult to alter without anyone knowing. I had a 8 mm camera and projector. Camera was a B&H similar to Zapruder. I spliced film and there was always a splice visible to the naked eye. So the whole film would have to be fabricated and that would be a whole lot more difficult, similar to NASA and the Apollo films.
 
Bottom line is that there is no avenue of investigation, or allegation too stupid for JFK Assassination CTists to run wild with...well accept anything that keeps Oswald as the lone shooter in which case that's just crazy talk.
 
HSienzant said:
Irony and conspiracy theory is practically indistinguishable nowadays.

Pretty much need those little emoticons to tell the difference. :(

Hank
Click to expand...

Poe’s Law: Any sufficiently advanced Conspiracy Theory is indistinguishable from satire.

Unfortunately the Participants Observational Engagement index tends to decline proportional to the online population, as more people, make more arguments, based upon narrower life experiences, and feel less inclined to be objective, or to consider there may be more to the world than their personal experiences.

This is made far worse by Apparent Rectal Self Examination effect, when a poster who begins a conversation with tongue in cheek, will quickly lose track of their own irony, and double down on a point, because it is no longer about “being funny” and now about “not being wrong”. Famous examples include Alex Jones, Piers Morgan, Jeremy Clarkson, and by the end of this post...me.
 
Tomtomkent said:
Poe’s Law: Any sufficiently advanced Conspiracy Theory is indistinguishable from satire.

Unfortunately the Participants Observational Engagement index tends to decline proportional to the online population, as more people, make more arguments, based upon narrower life experiences, and feel less inclined to be objective, or to consider there may be more to the world than their personal experiences.

This is made far worse by Apparent Rectal Self Examination effect, when a poster who begins a conversation with tongue in cheek, will quickly lose track of their own irony, and double down on a point, because it is no longer about “being funny” and now about “not being wrong”. Famous examples include Alex Jones, Piers Morgan, Jeremy Clarkson, and by the end of this post...me.
Click to expand...

And this is made even worse by my inability to tell the difference between satire and irony. :boggled:

Hank
 
HSienzant said:
And this is made even worse by my inability to tell the difference between satire and irony. :boggled:

Hank
Click to expand...

Bojack Horseman is ironic.
If he was a human torso on a horse body he would be satyrical.

Erm... something somethings silencers... I’m still on topic.
 
HSienzant said:
And this is made even worse by my inability to tell the difference between satire and irony. :boggled: Hank
Click to expand...

Which raises the question of what the satirists of CT get out of masquerading as CTists in these online contexts. Is this really an effective form of rebuttal by imitation? Or is it simply a way to get attention or to generate confusion and cognitive dissonance? How many satirists have become CTists by embracing their mimesis as an identity? How many converts to CT have they made by the accuracy of their mimesis? Does satire exist at all in the absence of some kind of satire-signaling? My modest proposal, anyway.
 
Last edited:
OKBob said:
Which raises the question of what the satirists of CT get out of masquerading as CTists in these online contexts. Is this really an effective form of rebuttal by imitation? Or is it simply a way to get attention or to generate confusion and cognitive dissonance? How many satirists have become CTists by embracing their mimesis as an identity? How many converts to CT have they made by the accuracy of their mimesis? Does satire exist at all in the absence of some kind of satire-signaling? My modest proposal, anyway.
Click to expand...

To get attention and think they are in the know for sure.
 
OKBob said:
Which raises the question of what the satirists of CT get out of masquerading as CTists in these online contexts. Is this really an effective form of rebuttal by imitation? Or is it simply a way to get attention or to generate confusion and cognitive dissonance? How many satirists have become CTists by embracing their mimesis as an identity? How many converts to CT have they made by the accuracy of their mimesis? Does satire exist at all in the absence of some kind of satire-signaling? My modest proposal, anyway.
Click to expand...

Even if I was to pose as a CTist (and I have considered it many times, especially to write a book, or start a podcast to make money off those folks) I would be subject to the same burden of proof as anyone else.

I don't do this for the same reason I'd never steal from someone who is in a wheelchair, or has Down Syndrome. There are a lot of well meaning people who for many honest reasons believe CT's. When I used to attend UFO discussion meetings most of those people were nice, good, honest people who had seen something weird, and wanted it to be an alien space ship. Toward the end the new believers came in and they were less nice, and actually ran me and another guy out because we had the gall to ask why there was no physical evidence for the majority of cases. At the end of the day I have to live with myself, and fielding a CT book would make that hard.

Besides, CTists end up parodying themselves every time.:thumbsup:
 
Axxman300 said:
Even if I was to pose as a CTist (and I have considered it many times, especially to write a book, or start a podcast to make money off those folks) I would be subject to the same burden of proof as anyone else.

I don't do this for the same reason I'd never steal from someone who is in a wheelchair, or has Down Syndrome. There are a lot of well meaning people who for many honest reasons believe CT's. When I used to attend UFO discussion meetings most of those people were nice, good, honest people who had seen something weird, and wanted it to be an alien space ship. Toward the end the new believers came in and they were less nice, and actually ran me and another guy out because we had the gall to ask why there was no physical evidence for the majority of cases. At the end of the day I have to live with myself, and fielding a CT book would make that hard.

Besides, CTists end up parodying themselves every time.:thumbsup:
Click to expand...

That doesn't seem to bother the CT's that I have seen posting here and other sites, concerning any number of theories.
 
bknight said:
You of course have evidence to this doctoring?

List your qualifications in determining whether film footage is doctored?

How could it be the film be fabricated when the man who took the film is visible in other media, and he has indicated it was his film.
Click to expand...

I guess I didn't make it over the top enough.
 
This write-up I'm working on never ends. Who is David Burros and what was the skull fragment he allegedly found?

So far, this is all I found regarding it's existence:


Burkley receipt: https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/pdf/md54.pdf

From HSCA Vol 7, report on chain of custody: In the same memorandum, Dr. Burkley also commented that Bouck had given him a specimen of bone, apparently on the same day, that was allegedly found in the parkway near the scene of the assassination. (22) Dr. Burkley noted that both of the above specimens were to be turned over to the Bethesda Naval Hospital for examination, analysis, and retention until other disposition was directed. (23) The committee does not know if this occurred.


([HSCA H 7 p. 23, *Medical Panel Report*, Section III. *Chain of Custody of the Materials Acquired During the Autopsy*](https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/pdf/HSCA_Vol7_M3_CustodyChain.pdf) [[text](http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/jfkinfo/hscv7a.htm)])

Chain of custody cheatsheet http://documents.theblackvault.com/documents/jfk/NARA-Oct2017/ARRB/JGUNN/SHARED/HSCA/ARTIFACT.WPD.pdf

ARRB acknowledged that it could not identify anybody named Burros: https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=759#relPageId=1&tab=page

https://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/review-board/report, https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/review-board/report/arrb-final-report.txt, chapter on dallas city and county records


Currently, all we know about the Burros fragment is that it must have been large enough to be discovered laying on the ground.


John Hunt discusses it on the Education forum: https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/12338-new-dallas-documents-online/?page=6

The information about Burros being a "motorcycle policeman" may be completely false.
 
Last edited:
MicahJava said:
This write-up I'm working on never ends. Who is David Burros and what was the skull fragment he allegedly found?

So far, this is all I found regarding it's existence:


Burkley receipt: https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/pdf/md54.pdf

From HSCA Vol 7, report on chain of custody: In the same memorandum, Dr. Burkley also commented that Bouck had given him a specimen of bone, apparently on the same day, that was allegedly found in the parkway near the scene of the assassination. (22) Dr. Burkley noted that both of the above specimens were to be turned over to the Bethesda Naval Hospital for examination, analysis, and retention until other disposition was directed. (23) The committee does not know if this occurred.


([HSCA H 7 p. 23, *Medical Panel Report*, Section III. *Chain of Custody of the Materials Acquired During the Autopsy*](https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/pdf/HSCA_Vol7_M3_CustodyChain.pdf) [[text](http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/jfkinfo/hscv7a.htm)])

Chain of custody cheatsheet http://documents.theblackvault.com/documents/jfk/NARA-Oct2017/ARRB/JGUNN/SHARED/HSCA/ARTIFACT.WPD.pdf

ARRB acknowledged that it could not identify anybody named Burros: https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=759#relPageId=1&tab=page

https://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/review-board/report, https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/review-board/report/arrb-final-report.txt, chapter on dallas city and county records


Currently, all we know about the Burros fragment is that it must have been large enough to be discovered laying on the ground.


John Hunt discusses it on the Education forum: https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/12338-new-dallas-documents-online/?page=6

The information about Burros being a "motorcycle policeman" may be completely false.
Click to expand...

Again you attempt to show that 15 year old memories are better than those immediately after the autopsy.

If you look at the chain o custody sheet, there is ONE piece not two. Perhaps Dr. Burkley was referring to the Harper piece along with this piece. Who knows, but attempting to use 15 year old memories to discount immediate memories just won't cut it. Quit attempting to use them.
 
bknight said:
Again you attempt to show that 15 year old memories are better than those immediately after the autopsy.

If you look at the chain o custody sheet, there is ONE piece not two. Perhaps Dr. Burkley was referring to the Harper piece along with this piece. Who knows, but attempting to use 15 year old memories to discount immediate memories just won't cut it. Quit attempting to use them.
Click to expand...

https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/pdf/md54.pdf

11/27/1963 5:15 p.m.

[...]

Recieved from Robert I. Bouck, Special Agent in Charge, U. S. Secret Service, specimen of bone that appears to be from a skull, turned over to the Secret Service by David Burros. It was apparently found on the parkway near the scene of the assassination (marked Fragment No. 2 for identification).

Both above described specimens to be turned over to Naval Hospital by Dr. Burkley for examination, analysis, and retention until other disposition is directed.

G. G. Burkley, M.D.
Click to expand...

I also have a theory that Lone Nutters will literally hallucinate different numerals on a page when looking directly at it because the actual text is too much for them.
 
Last edited:
MicahJava said:
https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/pdf/md54.pdf

11/27/1963

I also have a theory that Lone Nutters will literally hallucinate different numerals on a page when looking directly at it because the actual text is too much for them.
Click to expand...


And this clearly describes a single piece marked for identification as #2.
Don't you read what you post? Do you see why 15 years of memory is NOT better than the most recent in this case days after the event.
 
bknight said:
And this clearly describes a single piece marked for identification as #2.
Don't you read what you post? Do you see why 15 years of memory is NOT better than the most recent in this case days after the event.
Click to expand...

Well luckily, the receipt clearly reads "BOTH above described specimens..."

:bigclap
 
bknight said:
Do you see why 15 years of memory is NOT better than the most recent in this case days after the event.
Click to expand...

Luckily, the receipt also clearly reads "11/27/1963 5:15 p.m.", which means that it is a contemporaneous document created in the most recent days of the event, and not a memory from fifteen years prior.

:hit:
 
Last edited:
MicahJava said:
This write-up I'm working on never ends. Who is David Burros and what was the skull fragment he allegedly found?

So far, this is all I found regarding it's existence:


Burkley receipt: https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/pdf/md54.pdf

From HSCA Vol 7, report on chain of custody: In the same memorandum, Dr. Burkley also commented that Bouck had given him a specimen of bone, apparently on the same day, that was allegedly found in the parkway near the scene of the assassination. (22) Dr. Burkley noted that both of the above specimens were to be turned over to the Bethesda Naval Hospital for examination, analysis, and retention until other disposition was directed. (23) The committee does not know if this occurred.


([HSCA H 7 p. 23, *Medical Panel Report*, Section III. *Chain of Custody of the Materials Acquired During the Autopsy*](https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/pdf/HSCA_Vol7_M3_CustodyChain.pdf) [[text](http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/jfkinfo/hscv7a.htm)])

Chain of custody cheatsheet http://documents.theblackvault.com/documents/jfk/NARA-Oct2017/ARRB/JGUNN/SHARED/HSCA/ARTIFACT.WPD.pdf

ARRB acknowledged that it could not identify anybody named Burros: https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=759#relPageId=1&tab=page

https://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/review-board/report, https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/review-board/report/arrb-final-report.txt, chapter on dallas city and county records


Currently, all we know about the Burros fragment is that it must have been large enough to be discovered laying on the ground.


John Hunt discusses it on the Education forum: https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/12338-new-dallas-documents-online/?page=6

The information about Burros being a "motorcycle policeman" may be completely false.
Click to expand...

Do you read anything you post? It's obvious you don't.

This link that YOU POSTED details the fragment was recovered by Weitzman on page 9 of the deposition you didn't read. Weitzman described it as first appearing to be part of a firecracker, which gives you an idea of how small the fragment was.

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=759#relPageId=9&tab=page

The best part of the deposition is Weitzman recounting that he heard only three shots, and details the discovery of the rifle on the 6th floor, which he thought at first was a Mauser.

To sum up, you post a link to support your argument that when read in full proves that Oswald did it.:thumbsup:
 
MicahJava said:
Luckily, the receipt also clearly reads "11/27/1963 5:15 p.m.", which means that it is a contemporaneous document created in the most recent days of the event, and not a memory from fifteen years prior.

:hit:
Click to expand...

Yes and you clearly posted before that Burley "Dr. Burkley noted that both of the above specimens were to be turned over to the Bethesda Naval Hospital for examination, analysis, and retention until other disposition was directed. (23)"

That's where I came up with my speculation "Perhaps Dr. Burkley was referring to the Harper piece along with this piece".
 
I also have a theory that Lone Nutters will literally hallucinate different numerals on a page when looking directly at it because the actual text is too much for them.
Click to expand...


you've turned to mocking yourself now? or are you talking about your partner in grime manifecals?
 
bknight said:
Yes and you clearly posted before that Burley "Dr. Burkley noted that both of the above specimens were to be turned over to the Bethesda Naval Hospital for examination, analysis, and retention until other disposition was directed. (23)"

That's where I came up with my speculation "Perhaps Dr. Burkley was referring to the Harper piece along with this piece".
Click to expand...

The Harper fragment is a different story from the Burros fragment, bknight. Even Axxman is trying to help more than you.
 
Axxman300 said:
Do you read anything you post? It's obvious you don't.

This link that YOU POSTED details the fragment was recovered by Weitzman on page 9 of the deposition you didn't read. Weitzman described it as first appearing to be part of a firecracker, which gives you an idea of how small the fragment was.

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=759#relPageId=9&tab=page

The best part of the deposition is Weitzman recounting that he heard only three shots, and details the discovery of the rifle on the 6th floor, which he thought at first was a Mauser.

To sum up, you post a link to support your argument that when read in full proves that Oswald did it.:thumbsup:
Click to expand...

You are saying that you think when Weitzman said "somebody brought me a piece of what he thought to be a firecracker...", he was referring to "David Burros"?
 
MicahJava said:
The Harper fragment is a different story from the Burros fragment, bknight. Even Axxman is trying to help more than you.
Click to expand...

That's possible that is why I included the word "Perhaps", Didn't you read that? Meaning I don't know for sure I was only speculating. I understood that the two pieces were different,.
 
MicahJava said:
You are saying that you think when Weitzman said "somebody brought me a piece of what he thought to be a firecracker...", he was referring to "David Burros"?
Click to expand...

There's no mention of a name. Weitzman recovered the piece. David Burros or Burroughs is either one of the deputized Secret Service agents from another agency/neighboring cities, or he was someone at Bethesda. Dr. Burkley was just signing off on what he had been told.

Where he got the name is anybody's guess. Chances are that it's covered in the WC, HSCA, or ARRB depositions. Either way, David Burros is a non-issue. There was only one shot to JFK's head and we have that bullet and we know where it came from and who fired the rifle.
 
pgwenthold said:
Cyril Wecht is also the creator of the bad recreation of the path of the single bullet, having put Connolly and Kennedy in positions that in no way resembled their actual positions and postures at the time of the shooting. That, alone, is such an embarrassment so to demonstrate that nothing he says has any basis in reality.
Click to expand...

Reminder that 2017 marked the tiebreaker for "who can prove or disprove the Single Bullet Theory using a 3D computer model".

N480PgS.png


J8jVYv3.png


X5HX3Sd.png


mrnXxgj.png


Note: There used to be a higher quality video on Youtube of this project, but it swiftly got taken down, maybe due to copyright concerns.
 
MicahJava said:
Single Bullet Theory using a 3D computer model".
Click to expand...
Which moron computer modeled them in that orientation rather than how they actually were situated? Do they really think they can find people who are so uninformed that they will believe.... oh...

Never mind.
 
MicahJava said:
Reminder that 2017 marked the tiebreaker for "who can prove or disprove the Single Bullet Theory using a 3D computer model".

[qimg]https://i.imgur.com/N480PgS.png[/qimg]

Note: There used to be a higher quality video on Youtube of this project, but it swiftly got taken down, maybe due to copyright concerns.
Click to expand...

You don't see the problem?

They are modeling the wrong moment in time for the single bullet. The correct moment in time is when Connally and Kennedy EMERGE from behind the sign, not when the start to DISAPPEAR behind the sign. That's when we sign Connally's lapel flap and his right arm holding his Stetson fly up, along with JFK's elbows flay outward and his hands go to his throat.

In other words, it's the equivalent of a visual straw man argument.

Hank
 
MicahJava said:
Reminder that 2017 marked the tiebreaker for "who can prove or disprove the Single Bullet Theory using a 3D computer model".

[qimg]https://i.imgur.com/N480PgS.png[/qimg]

[qimg]https://i.imgur.com/J8jVYv3.png[/qimg]

[qimg]https://i.imgur.com/X5HX3Sd.png[/qimg]

[qimg]https://i.imgur.com/mrnXxgj.png[/qimg]

Note: There used to be a higher quality video on Youtube of this project, but it swiftly got taken down, maybe due to copyright concerns.
Click to expand...

No I'm not going to view the video, but any presentation that has JPC and JFK in positions that they were NOT in at the moment of the "Magic" bullet fails. The trajectory is correct from the 6th floor of the TSBD and did indeed strike both men. That probably was not LHO intention but it happened anyway.


Why do you keep mentioning other peoples theories and formulate your own as to what happened?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom