ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags assassinations , JFK assassination , John F. Kennedy , Kennedy conspiracies

Reply
Old 9th February 2019, 10:30 AM   #2601
HSienzant
Illuminator
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 4,810
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
https://www.history-matters.com/arch...t/pdf/md54.pdf

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

[...]



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.
Your current conjecture - what you laughably call a theory - like the other conjectures you've advanced, is not supported by any evidence and is only an unreasonable inference on your part.

There was a 'Henry Burroughs' in the motorcade. See page 21 in the below link. He was an NBC cameraman. I don't know whether he stayed in the car and went to Parkland or abandoned the vehicle in Dealey Plaza as some other newsmen did. The 'David Burros' (otherwise not identified) was not a Secret Service agent, because the memorandum says 'Burros' turned it over to the Secret Service. Spelling the last name phonetically and getting the first name wrong after five days is not an unexpected error to make.

http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisb.../Item%2015.pdf

Unless you've got some further evidence to advance, this appears to be again much ado about nothing. The fact that this man is otherwise in identified doesn't overturn the massive pile of evidence that establishes that Oswald was the gunman, nor the massive pile of evidence that establishes that President Kennedy was hit by two shots, and only two shots, both fired from Oswald's rifle by Oswald.

Hank
__________________
I have never ”refused” to provide evidence. I provide evidence if requested to do so in a specific and relevant manner.

Hanks ”method” [of requesting evidence] is not going to [get me to] provide any evidence since it has a completely different purpose. To create the the illusion of me not providing evidence when requested to do so.
- Manifesto
HSienzant is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th February 2019, 10:33 AM   #2602
HSienzant
Illuminator
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 4,810
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
Nonsense. He's attempting to show that bits of data that he thinks supports his ideas are better than the mountains of data that don't.


Hank
__________________
I have never ”refused” to provide evidence. I provide evidence if requested to do so in a specific and relevant manner.

Hanks ”method” [of requesting evidence] is not going to [get me to] provide any evidence since it has a completely different purpose. To create the the illusion of me not providing evidence when requested to do so.
- Manifesto
HSienzant is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th February 2019, 10:54 AM   #2603
HSienzant
Illuminator
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 4,810
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
ARRB acknowledged that it could not identify anybody named Burros: https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc....eId=1&tab=page
No, that's not precisely true. According to that link, they tried to find only two possible permutations of the name: "David Burros" or "David Burroughs". No thought was apparently given to finding a "Dave" or "Davey" (Burros or Burroughs). If it was, it's not so indicated in the memo you cite.

Also no consideration was given to the possibility that the first name might have been misremembered after five days, nor any consideration given to finding NBC cameraman Henry Burroughs from the motorcade and interviewing him to nail down what he did in the aftermath of the assassination. Again, no indication that they even tried to determine whether his "DB" person was a resident of Dallas (they searched the DPD 1963 JFK records, and the DPD personnel files). Also, given there was a NBC cameraman with the last name of Burroughs in the motorcade, the possibility exists that the person who found the fragment could be identified readily enough by anyone familiar enough with the details to ask the right questions.

They answered the question they were asked, and sought to go no further.

Close enough for government work.

Part of the problem, from my viewpoint, is that they left a conspiracy-monger, Doug Horne, as the contact person to answer questions and direct the Dallas Police archives search. Horne wrote a five-volume set of books on the medical evidence, filling in the gaps in the evidence with inventive conspiracy theories of body alteration. He might not have been the best person to be in charge of closing this particular gap. Asking a CT author to close a gap is a clear conflict of interest.

But regardless, if the "Burros" person is unknown, it's because CT Doug Horne was responsible for finding him and failed at his task.

Hank
__________________
I have never ”refused” to provide evidence. I provide evidence if requested to do so in a specific and relevant manner.

Hanks ”method” [of requesting evidence] is not going to [get me to] provide any evidence since it has a completely different purpose. To create the the illusion of me not providing evidence when requested to do so.
- Manifesto

Last edited by HSienzant; 9th February 2019 at 12:38 PM.
HSienzant is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th February 2019, 11:21 AM   #2604
Allen773
Muse
 
Allen773's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Cali Four Neea
Posts: 960
To MicahJava and other Conspiratorial "Theorists":

If you truly believe JFK (and RFK, and MLK, etc.) were killed by some sort of government conspiracy, don't just name organizations - name individuals. And don't merely speculate. Prove it.

If it's that important to you to "correct the record," then give us all of the suspects. If any of them are living, then go to the appropriate authorities with your evidence of their guilt that I presume you have (...) and try to get them prosecuted for this political assassination(s) - murder, treason, conspiracy, etc.

Surely you understand how SERIOUS your accusations are? If so, then BE serious. Otherwise I'll continue to tune you out as white noise, equivalent to man-children who live in their mom's basement and who've smoked too many bongs and watched too many terrible documentaries on YouTube.

I say the same to the 9/11 truthers, etc.
Allen773 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th February 2019, 12:39 PM   #2605
bknight
Graduate Poster
 
bknight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 1,374
Originally Posted by Allen773 View Post
To MicahJava and other Conspiratorial "Theorists":

If you truly believe JFK (and RFK, and MLK, etc.) were killed by some sort of government conspiracy, don't just name organizations - name individuals. And don't merely speculate. Prove it.

If it's that important to you to "correct the record," then give us all of the suspects. If any of them are living, then go to the appropriate authorities with your evidence of their guilt that I presume you have (...) and try to get them prosecuted for this political assassination(s) - murder, treason, conspiracy, etc.

Surely you understand how SERIOUS your accusations are? If so, then BE serious. Otherwise I'll continue to tune you out as white noise, equivalent to man-children who live in their mom's basement and who've smoked too many bongs and watched too many terrible documentaries on YouTube.

I say the same to the 9/11 truthers, etc.
The CT's "know" LHO could not have done it or that he could not act alone. That's as far as their knowledge goes. But that "someone" has never ben ID'd because the police/FBI/SS never did a through investigation leaving all those "maybes/could haves/possibilities" open for conjecture especially when as Axxman300 put one can write a book and make a tidy sum of money from those who "know" that the truth has NEVER been discovered.
bknight is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th February 2019, 12:48 PM   #2606
HSienzant
Illuminator
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 4,810
Originally Posted by bknight View Post
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.
Indeed, in the interrogation sessions, one person noted in his memorandum for the record that Oswald appeared surprised to learn that Connally was wounded. That's understandable because from the sixth floor window, Connally was for the most part obscured by JFK. So it was pretty unimaginable to Oswald (if he's the lone gunman) how Connally got shot.

But if Oswald is innocent, and framed, and sitting in the first floor lunchroom at the time of the shooting, and had no idea how many gunman were shooting or where they were located, why would Oswald be surprised gunshots wounded more than one person in the Presidential limo?

His surprise that Connally was wounded only makes sense if he was the lone gunman.


Originally Posted by bknight View Post
Why do you keep mentioning other peoples theories and formulate your own as to what happened?
He doesn't formulate his own because he knows he can't support it with anywhere near the amount of evidence indicating Oswald was the lone gunman. If he even seriously tried to advance a theory, it would be shot down in minutes for lack of supporting evidence.

He only cites others arguments and theories because when they are inevitably exposed as nonsense, he can rest easy, thinking "Hey, it wasn't my theory that just went 'poof' like a balloon filled with hydrogen".

Hank
__________________
I have never ”refused” to provide evidence. I provide evidence if requested to do so in a specific and relevant manner.

Hanks ”method” [of requesting evidence] is not going to [get me to] provide any evidence since it has a completely different purpose. To create the the illusion of me not providing evidence when requested to do so.
- Manifesto

Last edited by HSienzant; 9th February 2019 at 01:19 PM.
HSienzant is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th February 2019, 01:05 PM   #2607
tinribmancer
Hasbarian NWO Templar Cattle
 
tinribmancer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Location: Belgium
Posts: 1,650
I see that MicahJava has re-entered the fray. Has he come up with new "theories", or is he just using the same stuff again?

Originally Posted by Allen773 View Post
If you truly believe JFK (and RFK, and MLK, etc.) were killed by some sort of government conspiracy, don't just name organizations - name individuals. And don't merely speculate. Prove it.
You really want them to post a gazillion Youtube video's or links the some kooky blogs? That's the only kind of "Truth" that they have...

Originally Posted by Allen773 View Post
If it's that important to you to "correct the record," then give us all of the suspects. If any of them are living, then go to the appropriate authorities with your evidence of their guilt that I presume you have (...) and try to get them prosecuted for this political assassination(s) - murder, treason, conspiracy, etc.
They won't, because they literally think that every single autority is in on it aswell...

Originally Posted by Allen773 View Post
Surely you understand how SERIOUS your accusations are? If so, then BE serious. Otherwise I'll continue to tune you out as white noise, equivalent to man-children who live in their mom's basement and who've smoked too many bongs and watched too many terrible documentaries on YouTube.
__________________
"Bravery Is Not A Function Of Firepower." - JC Denton

"And belief in conspiracy theories is not the function of a higher intellect." - BStrong
tinribmancer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th February 2019, 01:33 PM   #2608
Axxman300
Illuminator
 
Axxman300's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 3,705
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
Reminder that 2017 marked the tiebreaker for "who can prove or disprove the Single Bullet Theory using a 3D computer model".


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.
Well...that's embarrassing...for you.

First, only two bullets struck JFK, the first passing through him and into Connally, and the second striking him in the back of the head.

Second, we knew thirty years before computer modeling thanks to the FBI and Dr. Finck, who reviewed the fiber evidence from JFK's coat, shirt, and necktie which ALL DETAILED A SHOT FROM BEHIND THAT EXITED THROUGH THE FRONT.

Third, they recovered the first bullet, and most of the head-shot bullet.

Fourth, the only people who try to dispute these facts are CTists, and only CTists.
__________________
Disingenuous Piranha
Axxman300 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th February 2019, 03:13 PM   #2609
cmikes
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 473
Originally Posted by pgwenthold View Post
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.

Wecht is evidence of the old axiom that people are more conservative in their own areas of expertise. While he was the only pathologist to disagree with the findings of the HSCA autopsy panel, he did agree that all the evidence showed one bullet hit JFK's head from the rear and exited the right front of JFK's skull. He based his belief in a frontal head shot on other evidence outside his area of expertise. His explanation for why there was no evidence for this second bullet is that the bullet from the rear miraculously obliterated all the evidence of the shot from the front.
cmikes is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th February 2019, 06:58 PM   #2610
Pacal
Graduate Poster
 
Pacal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Toronto
Posts: 1,024
Originally Posted by cmikes View Post
Wecht is evidence of the old axiom that people are more conservative in their own areas of expertise. While he was the only pathologist to disagree with the findings of the HSCA autopsy panel, he did agree that all the evidence showed one bullet hit JFK's head from the rear and exited the right front of JFK's skull. He based his belief in a frontal head shot on other evidence outside his area of expertise. His explanation for why there was no evidence for this second bullet is that the bullet from the rear miraculously obliterated all the evidence of the shot from the front.
Oh MY God!! that is just so pathetic. Unless you do have good evidence for a frontal shot, claiming the second shot obliterated ALL!? evidence of the frontal shot is the equivalent of the dog ate my homework excuse.

It is also non falsifiable and basically useless. The bottom line is such a conjecture is exceptionally dubious to put it mildly and requires a good deal more than the so-called "evidence", (very, very weak), of a frontal shot. Finally from what I know it appears that they managed to find well over 90% of JFK's skull and very little was permanently missing. So the obliteration of all evidence of a frontal shot is exceptionally dubious. And of course just what happened to the alleged bullet and / or bullet fragments? Which serves only to increase the dubiousness of this desperate conjecture to save an idea which has little to no evidence to support it. No doubt the rear bullet also got rid of the frontal bullet / bullet fragments also. Really?!

The response to this will of course be conspiracy, conspiracy!!
Pacal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th February 2019, 07:45 PM   #2611
Axxman300
Illuminator
 
Axxman300's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 3,705
Again, here is the underlying problem:

The official documents, now almost completely released, show that the FBI, CIA, and Dallas Police were LOOKING FOR A CONSPIRACY TO KILL THE PRESIDENT.

While the autopsy is being performed in Maryland, DPD is turning Dallas upside down with the FBI hot on their tails, and the FBI is shaking down every CI (Criminal Informant) from Los Angeles to Miami looking for a link from Oswald to Castro, and the CIA is doing the same at their Mexico City Station.

How could the autopsy team fake evidence, and tailor the autopsy results when nobody in Washington D.C. or Dallas knew what the investigation was going to turn up? What are you going to do when you've signed off on a report stating the President was shot twice from behind, and suddenly DPD arrest a second shooter? They weren't going to dig him up.

We're talking about Capital Treason here where the prize is a visit to the electric chair or hangman's noose.
__________________
Disingenuous Piranha
Axxman300 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th February 2019, 09:30 AM   #2612
MicahJava
Master Poster
 
MicahJava's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 2,965
Originally Posted by bknight View Post
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?
Circular logic.
MicahJava is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th February 2019, 09:35 AM   #2613
MicahJava
Master Poster
 
MicahJava's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 2,965
Originally Posted by HSienzant View Post
No, that's not precisely true. According to that link, they tried to find only two possible permutations of the name: "David Burros" or "David Burroughs". No thought was apparently given to finding a "Dave" or "Davey" (Burros or Burroughs). If it was, it's not so indicated in the memo you cite.

Also no consideration was given to the possibility that the first name might have been misremembered after five days, nor any consideration given to finding NBC cameraman Henry Burroughs from the motorcade and interviewing him to nail down what he did in the aftermath of the assassination. Again, no indication that they even tried to determine whether his "DB" person was a resident of Dallas (they searched the DPD 1963 JFK records, and the DPD personnel files). Also, given there was a NBC cameraman with the last name of Burroughs in the motorcade, the possibility exists that the person who found the fragment could be identified readily enough by anyone familiar enough with the details to ask the right questions.

They answered the question they were asked, and sought to go no further.

Close enough for government work.

Part of the problem, from my viewpoint, is that they left a conspiracy-monger, Doug Horne, as the contact person to answer questions and direct the Dallas Police archives search. Horne wrote a five-volume set of books on the medical evidence, filling in the gaps in the evidence with inventive conspiracy theories of body alteration. He might not have been the best person to be in charge of closing this particular gap. Asking a CT author to close a gap is a clear conflict of interest.

But regardless, if the "Burros" person is unknown, it's because CT Doug Horne was responsible for finding him and failed at his task.

Hank
Henry Burroughs was outside Parkland Hospital shortly after the shooting to witness the washing of the limousine.

Last edited by MicahJava; 10th February 2019 at 09:37 AM.
MicahJava is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th February 2019, 09:44 AM   #2614
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
 
RoboTimbo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Springwood, NJ
Posts: 29,621
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
Henry Burroughs was outside Parkland Hospital shortly after the shooting to witness the washing of the limousine.
So who shot JFK?
RoboTimbo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th February 2019, 10:05 AM   #2615
HSienzant
Illuminator
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 4,810
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
Henry Burroughs was outside Parkland Hospital shortly after the shooting to witness the washing of the limousine.
Still leaves you with the problem that an unidentified witness doesn't overturn or overrule or diminish in any way the mountain of evidence indicating Oswald fired all the shots.

Still leaves you with the problem that the person responsible for tracking down 'David Burros' was a known CT, Doug Horne.

Beyond that, your claim above is unsourced. What is it? Provide the link establishing how you you know what you claim is true.

Hank
__________________
I have never ”refused” to provide evidence. I provide evidence if requested to do so in a specific and relevant manner.

Hanks ”method” [of requesting evidence] is not going to [get me to] provide any evidence since it has a completely different purpose. To create the the illusion of me not providing evidence when requested to do so.
- Manifesto

Last edited by HSienzant; 10th February 2019 at 10:30 AM.
HSienzant is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th February 2019, 10:10 AM   #2616
HSienzant
Illuminator
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 4,810
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
Circular logic.
Expand on your answer. Show the circularity.

Hank
__________________
I have never ”refused” to provide evidence. I provide evidence if requested to do so in a specific and relevant manner.

Hanks ”method” [of requesting evidence] is not going to [get me to] provide any evidence since it has a completely different purpose. To create the the illusion of me not providing evidence when requested to do so.
- Manifesto
HSienzant is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th February 2019, 10:26 AM   #2617
Allen773
Muse
 
Allen773's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Cali Four Neea
Posts: 960
Originally Posted by HSienzant View Post
Expand on your answer. Show the circularity.

Hank
Oh I think he will show the circular logic.









His own.
Allen773 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th February 2019, 10:48 AM   #2618
HSienzant
Illuminator
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 4,810
Originally Posted by Pacal View Post
Oh MY God!! that is just so pathetic. Unless you do have good evidence for a frontal shot, claiming the second shot obliterated ALL!? evidence of the frontal shot is the equivalent of the dog ate my homework excuse.

It is also non falsifiable and basically useless. The bottom line is such a conjecture is exceptionally dubious to put it mildly and requires a good deal more than the so-called "evidence", (very, very weak) of a frontal shot. Finally from what I know it appears that they managed to find well over 90% of JFK's skull and very little was permanently missing. So the obliteration of all evidence of a frontal shot is exceptionally dubious. And of course just what happened to the alleged bullet and / or bullet fragments? Which serves only to increase the dubiousness of this desperate conjecture to save an idea which has little to no evidence to support it. No doubt the rear bullet also got rid of the frontal bullet / bullet fragments also. Really?!

The response to this will of course be conspiracy, conspiracy!!
And that's what Wecht admitted to in his own sworn testimony to the House Select Committee to investigate Assassinations (HSCA). He used the words "very meager" instead of "very weak", but the thought is the same.

Wecht's problem is he suffers from a bad case of 'runaway mouth'. When extemporizing in front of microphones, not giving sworn testimony, he will write checks for claims his evidence can't cash.

When giving sworn testimony, he becomes much more circumspect and honest about the actual state of the evidence.

Here's his sworn testimony to the House of Representatives Committee:

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/m_j_russ/hscawech.htm
--quote --
Dr. WECHT. If the President had been struck in the head with a second bullet, then it would have been fired in synchronized fashion simultaneous with the shot that did strike him in the rear of the head, as has been presented here today.
Mr. PURDY. Dr. Wecht, what evidence is there which supports the possibility that there was a shot from the side or from the lower right rear?
Dr. WECHT. Very meager, and the possibility based upon the existing evidence is extremely remote. There is a small piece of some material that is present at the base of the external scalp, just above the hairline, which has never been commented on before except by me following the 1972 investigation of the material at the Archives, and later commented upon by this forensic pathology panel. There is a total deformation of the right side of the cranial vault with extensive fractures of the calvarium, the top portion of the skull, and extensive scalp lacerations and loss of soft tissue, so that we cannot exactly know where the exit wound was. It is, therefore, possible that that extensive deformity of the scalp, underlying galea, underlying bone calvarium, could also be the locus of the second shot of some kind of frangible ammunition which would not have penetrated deeply or at all through the calvarium. I want to emphasize that this is remote but I have pointed this out because it is a possibility. The question of the President's movement after he was struck in the head makes us direct our attention toward such a possibility and, of course, the absence of the brain and the failure of the original pathologists to have conducted studies that are routine, perfunctory in any kind of an autopsy where the brain has been fixed in formalin, to serially section the brain 10 to 14 days later, and the absence of the brain and the inability or the failure of the staff to obtain that medical evidence, all of these things, I believe, make it important to just raise that possibility, remote as it may be, that a second shot might have struck the President in the head in synchronized or simultaneous fashion.
. . .
Mr. PURDY. Dr. Wecht, does the present state of available evidence permit the conclusion that to a reasonable degree of medical certainty there was not a shot from the side which struck the President?
Dr. WECHT. Yes, with reasonable medical certainty I would have to say that the evidence is not there. I have already said it is a remote possibility and I certainly cannot equate that with reasonable medical certainty.
. . .
Mr. CORNWELL. And if the single-bullet theory is not correct, how many bullets, in your view, did strike the two occupants of the car?
Dr. WECHT. Of course, then--let me answer that, I believe that the President was struck definitely twice, one bullet entering in the back, and one bullet entering in the back of the head. I believe that Gov. John Connally was struck by a bullet, and I believe that another bullet completely missed the car. I think that there were four shots most probably fired. I eagerly await with extreme anticipation the results of the consulting firm that I understand your committee has retained in Boston, Bolt, Beranek & Newman, concerning their interpretative studies of the motorcycle policeman's tape from that day; as to whether or not they have definitely found evidence of four shots having been fired. But I think your question was, how many bullets struck the occupants, and I think that there is definite evidence for three. There is a possibility of more, but I can't really introduce evidence that would corroborate that; more than three.

-- unquote --
Bottom line: Wecht thinks there is evidence for the President being struck only struck twice. And definite evidence of three shots. His primary problem has been with the condition of CE399, and the single bullet theory. He thinks one bullet couldn't go through the soft tissues of the President, go on to cause the Governor's wounds, and emerge in the condition of CE399.

Hank
__________________
I have never ”refused” to provide evidence. I provide evidence if requested to do so in a specific and relevant manner.

Hanks ”method” [of requesting evidence] is not going to [get me to] provide any evidence since it has a completely different purpose. To create the the illusion of me not providing evidence when requested to do so.
- Manifesto

Last edited by HSienzant; 10th February 2019 at 11:10 AM.
HSienzant is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th February 2019, 11:08 AM   #2619
bknight
Graduate Poster
 
bknight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 1,374
Originally Posted by HSienzant View Post
And that's what Wecht admitted to in his own sworn testimony to the House Select Committee to investigate Assassinations (HSCA). He used the words "very meager" instead of "very weak", but the thought is the same.

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/m_j_russ/hscawech.htm
Wecht's problem is he suffers from a bad case of 'runaway mouth'. When extemporizing in front of microphones, not giving sworn testimony, he will write checks for claims his evidence can't cash.

When giving sworn testimony, he becomes much more circumspect and honest about the actual state of the evidence.
--quote --
Dr. WECHT. If the President had been struck in the head with a second bullet, then it would have been fired in synchronized fashion simultaneous with the shot that did strike him in the rear of the head, as has been presented here today.
Mr. PURDY. Dr. Wecht, what evidence is there which supports the possibility that there was a shot from the side or from the lower right rear?
Dr. WECHT. Very meager, and the possibility based upon the existing evidence is extremely remote. There is a small piece of some material that is present at the base of the external scalp, just above the hairline, which has never been commented on before except by me following the 1972 investigation of the material at the Archives, and later commented upon by this forensic pathology panel. There is a total deformation of the right side of the cranial vault with extensive fractures of the calvarium, the top portion of the skull, and extensive scalp lacerations and loss of soft tissue, so that we cannot exactly know where the exit wound was. It is, therefore, possible that that extensive deformity of the scalp, underlying galea, underlying bone calvarium, could also be the locus of the second shot of some kind of frangible ammunition which would not have penetrated deeply or at all through the calvarium. I want to emphasize that this is remote but I have pointed this out because it is a possibility. The question of the President's movement after he was struck in the head makes us direct our attention toward such a possibility and, of course, the absence of the brain and the failure of the original pathologists to have conducted studies that are routine, perfunctory in any kind of an autopsy where the brain has been fixed in formalin, to serially section the brain 10 to 14 days later, and the absence of the brain and the inability or the failure of the staff to obtain that medical evidence, all of these things, I believe, make it important to just raise that possibility, remote as it may be, that a second shot might have struck the President in the head in synchronized or simultaneous fashion.
. . .
Mr. PURDY. Dr. Wecht, does the present state of available evidence permit the conclusion that to a reasonable degree of medical certainty there was not a shot from the side which struck the President?
Dr. WECHT. Yes, with reasonable medical certainty I would have to say that the evidence is not there. I have already said it is a remote possibility and I certainly cannot equate that with reasonable medical certainty.
. . .
Mr. CORNWELL. And if the single-bullet theory is not correct, how many bullets, in your view, did strike the two occupants of the car?
Dr. WECHT. Of course, then--let me answer that, I believe that the President was struck definitely twice, one bullet entering in the back, and one bullet entering in the back of the head. I believe that Gov. John Connally was struck by a bullet, and I believe that another bullet completely missed the car. I think that there were four shots most probably fired. I eagerly await with extreme anticipation the results of the consulting firm that I understand your committee has retained in Boston, Bolt, Beranek & Newman, concerning their interpretative studies of the motorcycle policeman's tape from that day; as to whether or not they have definitely found evidence of four shots having been fired. But I think your question was, how many bullets struck the occupants, and I think that there is definite evidence for three. There is a possibility of more, but I can't really introduce evidence that would corroborate that; more than three.

-- unquote --
Bottom line: Wecht thinks there is evidence for the President being struck only struck twice. His primary problem has been with the condition of CE399, and the single bullet theory. He thinks one bullet couldn't go through the soft tissues of the President, go on to cause the Governor's wounds, and emerge in the condition of CE399.

Hank
Gee maybe the next time MJ brings him up, just repost this, because it totally refutes what MJ wants to believe. The near simultaneous event virtually rules this scenario out, but IT is necessary for a second shot to occur.
MJ are you listening.
bknight is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th February 2019, 12:26 PM   #2620
Axxman300
Illuminator
 
Axxman300's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 3,705
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
Henry Burroughs was outside Parkland Hospital shortly after the shooting to witness the washing of the limousine.
And?
__________________
Disingenuous Piranha
Axxman300 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th February 2019, 12:44 PM   #2621
Steve
Illuminator
 
Steve's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 4,834
Originally Posted by Axxman300 View Post
And?
Following the washing he observed that the limo was clean. Obviously.
__________________
Caption from and old New Yorker cartoon - Why am I shouting? Because I'm wrong!"
Steve is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th February 2019, 01:40 PM   #2622
bknight
Graduate Poster
 
bknight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 1,374
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
Circular logic.
The only circular logic is yours. When you put JBC and JFK in the incorrect positions, questions might appear, but when they are in the true positions the magic bullet is no longer a mystery just a straight trajectory from the 6th floor of the TSBD, so why would I watch any video that places them incorrectly?
bknight is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th February 2019, 05:26 PM   #2623
Axxman300
Illuminator
 
Axxman300's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 3,705
Originally Posted by Steve View Post
Following the washing he observed that the limo was clean. Obviously.
The Presidential limo was back in service quickly. They didn't have the budget to just run out and buy a new one.

Would have creeped me out to ride in it.
__________________
Disingenuous Piranha
Axxman300 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th February 2019, 06:00 PM   #2624
Steve
Illuminator
 
Steve's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 4,834
Originally Posted by Axxman300 View Post
The Presidential limo was back in service quickly. They didn't have the budget to just run out and buy a new one.

Would have creeped me out to ride in it.
They just had the one then? And flew it all over the country? Would have been cheaper to rent one locally. ( in the days when they used open convertibles).
__________________
Caption from and old New Yorker cartoon - Why am I shouting? Because I'm wrong!"
Steve is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th February 2019, 06:36 PM   #2625
Pope130
Master Poster
 
Pope130's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Oregon
Posts: 2,895
Originally Posted by Steve View Post
They just had the one then? And flew it all over the country? Would have been cheaper to rent one locally. ( in the days when they used open convertibles).
They only had the one Lincoln at the time. There was also an older Cadillac, which was further back with Vice-President Johnson. The Cadillac was used for the first recreation photos and film.
Attached Images
File Type: jpg 2002_040_0007.jpg (69.8 KB, 105 views)

Last edited by Pope130; 10th February 2019 at 06:43 PM.
Pope130 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th February 2019, 05:46 AM   #2626
HSienzant
Illuminator
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 4,810
Originally Posted by Steve View Post
They just had the one then? And flew it all over the country? Would have been cheaper to rent one locally. ( in the days when they used open convertibles).
It was a specially-built and reinforced stretch limo - not as reinforced as today (which is closer to a tank than a car), but you couldn't just walk into a local Lincoln-Mercury dealership and get a similar one 'off the shelf'.

It was flown all over the country as needed.

Roy Kellerman detailed some of the the more obvious special modifications in his testimony to the Warren Commission in the first link below (I've excerpted the pertinent parts below). The second link shows the Commission Exhibits illustrating the limo):

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/kellerma.htm
https://www.history-matters.com/arch...ol16_0484a.htm
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. Lawson was with the Secret Service, was he?
Mr. KELLERMAN. Yes, sir; he is. He asked me to determine whether the bubbletop car that the President would ride in in Dallas that day should have the top down or remain up.
Mr. SPECTER. Let me interrupt you there for just a minute, Mr. Kellerman. I show you a photograph which has been marked as Commission Exhibit No. 344. Are you able to identify that picture and the automobile in that picture?
Mr. KELLERMAN. Yes, sir; this is the 1961 Lincoln Continental four-door convertible bubbletop. It is a special car.
Mr. SPECTER. For the purpose of the record, how many doors does that car have?
Mr. KELLERMAN. This vehicle has four doors.
Mr. SPECTER. And in the posture of the picture identified as Commission Exhibit 344, is the top up or down?
Mr. KELLERMAN. The top is down, sir.
Mr. SPECTER. And what top does that automobile have?
Mr. KELLERMAN. This top is a plastic top. From the rear of the passenger all the way to the windshield there are four sections of plastic glass. The one that comes over the top of the passengers in the back seat, two little sections that come over the two doors, and one over the driver and passenger in the front seat.
Mr. SPECTER. In what way is that attached, if any, to the car?
Mr. KELLERMAN. Securely bolted, screwed.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. Chairman, may I ask that the Exhibit 344 be introduced formally in evidence, please?
Representative FORD. It will be so admitted.
...
Mr. SPECTER. I now hand you a photograph marked Commission Exhibit 346, Mr. Kellerman, and ask you if you can tell us what that depicts.
Mr. KELLERMAN. This picture depicts the interior of this same automobile. It has a rear solid seat; there are two other jump seats that can be folded forward in the rear and the complete solid front seat for the driver and passenger. This is the same vehicle.
Mr. SPECTER. Will you describe what, if anything, is present between the front seat and the rear seat area?
Mr. KELLERMAN. Yes, sir. This metal partition that is erected in back of the driver, between the driver and the passengers in the rear seat, is a metal framework that goes over the car. It has four holes in it. These holes are utilized by the President for parades. As an example, say it was used in Washington where you had an official visitor, and in using one of the streets here as your parade route, he and his guest would stand in this car where the people could view them a little better than sitting in the rear seat.
Mr. SPECTER. Where is that metal bar positioned with respect to the front seat?
Mr. KELLERMAN. It is positioned over the front seat; the top of this bar would be 4 or 5 inches over my, head.
Mr. SPECTER. Is it directly over the back portion of the front seat?
Mr. KELLERMAN. Yes, sir. Directly over the front seat.
Mr. SPECTER. And you describe it as 4 or 5 inches over your head. Can you give us an estimate of the distance above the top of the front seat?
Mr. KELLERMAN. Oh, I am guessing in the neighborhood of 15, 18 inches.
Mr. SPECTER. What is the width of that metal bar?
Mr. KELLERMAN. The bar, 4 to 6 inches, I would say.
Mr. SPECTER. Can you tell us approximately how wide the automobile itself is?
Mr. KELLERMAN. No; I can't.
Mr. SPECTER. With respect to the automobile, are there any running boards?
Mr. KELLERMAN. There are no running boards.
Mr. SPECTER. Is there any place on the car where someone can stand up and ride as it proceeds in motion?
Mr. KELLERMAN. Yes; on the rear of the vehicle, sir.
Mr. SPECTER. How many such positions are there?
Mr. KELLERMAN. There is a step on each side of the spare tire, one man on each one.
Mr. SPECTER. And is there any facility for holding on with a man riding in those positions?
Mr. KELLERMAN. Yes, sir; there is a metal arm erected on the trunk where a man can hold on while standing on the rear of the car.
Mr. SPECTER. All right.
May it please the Commission, I move that Exhibit 346 be introduced in evidence.
Representative FORD. It will be so admitted.
Hank
__________________
I have never ”refused” to provide evidence. I provide evidence if requested to do so in a specific and relevant manner.

Hanks ”method” [of requesting evidence] is not going to [get me to] provide any evidence since it has a completely different purpose. To create the the illusion of me not providing evidence when requested to do so.
- Manifesto

Last edited by HSienzant; 11th February 2019 at 06:14 AM.
HSienzant is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th February 2019, 06:54 AM   #2627
HSienzant
Illuminator
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 4,810
Originally Posted by Pope130 View Post
They only had the one Lincoln at the time. There was also an older Cadillac, which was further back with Vice-President Johnson. The Cadillac was used for the first recreation photos and film.
The image you post shows only two cars... The Presidential limo in front (JFK's head can be seen to the right and above the shoulder of the second white-helmeted motorcycle officer). The second car is the Secret Service follow-up vehicle. It contained ten Secret Service agents (six seated and four on the running boards). The agent standing on the left-front running board is Clint Hill, who ran to the Presidential car at the sound of the first shot but arrived at the Presidential limo too late to save the President.

VP Lyndon Johnson was in an 'off the shelf' convertible behind the Secret Service car, not in that car.

See this listing by Todd Vaughan.

http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisb.../Item%2015.pdf

Altgens famous photo (showing 'Oswald' in the doorway) shows the VP's convertible behind the Secret Service car. It's identified as a 1964 four-door Lincoln convertible by Vaughan.

https://www.bostonglobe.com/news/nat...ory.html?pic=4

Hank
__________________
I have never ”refused” to provide evidence. I provide evidence if requested to do so in a specific and relevant manner.

Hanks ”method” [of requesting evidence] is not going to [get me to] provide any evidence since it has a completely different purpose. To create the the illusion of me not providing evidence when requested to do so.
- Manifesto

Last edited by HSienzant; 11th February 2019 at 06:58 AM.
HSienzant is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th February 2019, 07:37 AM   #2628
Major Major
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 301
Originally Posted by Pope130 View Post
They only had the one Lincoln at the time. There was also an older Cadillac, which was further back with Vice-President Johnson. The Cadillac was used for the first recreation photos and film.
This is where it is right now:

https://www.thehenryford.org/collect...artifact/50194

Some modifications have been made after the assassination.

I've seen it.

Major Major is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th February 2019, 08:44 AM   #2629
bknight
Graduate Poster
 
bknight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 1,374
Originally Posted by Major Major View Post
This is where it is right now:

https://www.thehenryford.org/collect...artifact/50194

Some modifications have been made after the assassination.

I've seen it.

I have viewed the one LBJ rode in while President.
bknight is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th February 2019, 03:49 PM   #2630
Pacal
Graduate Poster
 
Pacal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Toronto
Posts: 1,024
Originally Posted by HSienzant View Post
And that's what Wecht admitted to in his own sworn testimony to the House Select Committee to investigate Assassinations (HSCA). He used the words "very meager" instead of "very weak", but the thought is the same.

Wecht's problem is he suffers from a bad case of 'runaway mouth'. When extemporizing in front of microphones, not giving sworn testimony, he will write checks for claims his evidence can't cash.

When giving sworn testimony, he becomes much more circumspect and honest about the actual state of the evidence.

Here's his sworn testimony to the House of Representatives Committee:

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/m_j_russ/hscawech.htm
--quote --
Dr. WECHT. If the President had been struck in the head with a second bullet, then it would have been fired in synchronized fashion simultaneous with the shot that did strike him in the rear of the head, as has been presented here today.
Mr. PURDY. Dr. Wecht, what evidence is there which supports the possibility that there was a shot from the side or from the lower right rear?
Dr. WECHT. Very meager, and the possibility based upon the existing evidence is extremely remote. There is a small piece of some material that is present at the base of the external scalp, just above the hairline, which has never been commented on before except by me following the 1972 investigation of the material at the Archives, and later commented upon by this forensic pathology panel. There is a total deformation of the right side of the cranial vault with extensive fractures of the calvarium, the top portion of the skull, and extensive scalp lacerations and loss of soft tissue, so that we cannot exactly know where the exit wound was. It is, therefore, possible that that extensive deformity of the scalp, underlying galea, underlying bone calvarium, could also be the locus of the second shot of some kind of frangible ammunition which would not have penetrated deeply or at all through the calvarium. I want to emphasize that this is remote but I have pointed this out because it is a possibility. The question of the President's movement after he was struck in the head makes us direct our attention toward such a possibility and, of course, the absence of the brain and the failure of the original pathologists to have conducted studies that are routine, perfunctory in any kind of an autopsy where the brain has been fixed in formalin, to serially section the brain 10 to 14 days later, and the absence of the brain and the inability or the failure of the staff to obtain that medical evidence, all of these things, I believe, make it important to just raise that possibility, remote as it may be, that a second shot might have struck the President in the head in synchronized or simultaneous fashion.
. . .
Mr. PURDY. Dr. Wecht, does the present state of available evidence permit the conclusion that to a reasonable degree of medical certainty there was not a shot from the side which struck the President?
Dr. WECHT. Yes, with reasonable medical certainty I would have to say that the evidence is not there. I have already said it is a remote possibility and I certainly cannot equate that with reasonable medical certainty.
. . .
Mr. CORNWELL. And if the single-bullet theory is not correct, how many bullets, in your view, did strike the two occupants of the car?
Dr. WECHT. Of course, then--let me answer that, I believe that the President was struck definitely twice, one bullet entering in the back, and one bullet entering in the back of the head. I believe that Gov. John Connally was struck by a bullet, and I believe that another bullet completely missed the car. I think that there were four shots most probably fired. I eagerly await with extreme anticipation the results of the consulting firm that I understand your committee has retained in Boston, Bolt, Beranek & Newman, concerning their interpretative studies of the motorcycle policeman's tape from that day; as to whether or not they have definitely found evidence of four shots having been fired. But I think your question was, how many bullets struck the occupants, and I think that there is definite evidence for three. There is a possibility of more, but I can't really introduce evidence that would corroborate that; more than three.

-- unquote --
Bottom line: Wecht thinks there is evidence for the President being struck only struck twice. And definite evidence of three shots. His primary problem has been with the condition of CE399, and the single bullet theory. He thinks one bullet couldn't go through the soft tissues of the President, go on to cause the Governor's wounds, and emerge in the condition of CE399.

Hank
Thanks very much for that.

From it I get that Wecht thought there was some "evidence" that could be interpreted has a frontal shot. But this "evidence" is so weak has to be not very different from no evidence at all.

But in your quote I found this of interest.

Quote:
It is, therefore, possible that that extensive deformity of the scalp, underlying galea, underlying bone calvarium, could also be the locus of the second shot of some kind of frangible ammunition which would not have penetrated deeply or at all through the calvarium.
Really!? Then what happened to the bullet and / or bullet fragments? Wow! This speculation is very little different from pure fantasy.
Pacal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th February 2019, 04:30 PM   #2631
bknight
Graduate Poster
 
bknight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 1,374
Originally Posted by Pacal View Post
snip



Really!? Then what happened to the bullet and / or bullet fragments? Wow! This speculation is very little different from pure fantasy.
You're EXPECTING supporting evidence to CT beliefs?
bknight is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th February 2019, 04:35 PM   #2632
HSienzant
Illuminator
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 4,810
Originally Posted by bknight View Post
You're EXPECTING supporting evidence to CT beliefs?
No, he's pointing out there is none. And it's "very little different from pure fantasy".

Hank
__________________
I have never ”refused” to provide evidence. I provide evidence if requested to do so in a specific and relevant manner.

Hanks ”method” [of requesting evidence] is not going to [get me to] provide any evidence since it has a completely different purpose. To create the the illusion of me not providing evidence when requested to do so.
- Manifesto

Last edited by HSienzant; 11th February 2019 at 04:37 PM.
HSienzant is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th February 2019, 04:37 PM   #2633
bknight
Graduate Poster
 
bknight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 1,374
Originally Posted by HSienzant View Post
No, he's pointing out there is none.

Hank
I think it could be interpreted both ways.
bknight is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th February 2019, 04:45 PM   #2634
HSienzant
Illuminator
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 4,810
Originally Posted by bknight View Post
I think it could be interpreted both ways.
I think your interpretation is "very little different from pure fantasy".

Hank
__________________
I have never ”refused” to provide evidence. I provide evidence if requested to do so in a specific and relevant manner.

Hanks ”method” [of requesting evidence] is not going to [get me to] provide any evidence since it has a completely different purpose. To create the the illusion of me not providing evidence when requested to do so.
- Manifesto
HSienzant is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th February 2019, 06:17 PM   #2635
Axxman300
Illuminator
 
Axxman300's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 3,705
The limo is now exhibited to the public at the Henry Ford Museum in Dearborn, Michigan.

All you ever wanted to know about the X-100:

https://www.thehenryford.org/collect.../kennedy-limo/

This is a link to the Museum where they display a few Presidential limos:

https://www.thehenryford.org/visit/h...tial-vehicles/

I like to post these kinds of links because CTists deal in the abstract, and the fact is that all of the JFK Assassination evidence, and the limo, and thr 6thFloor of the TSBD are accessible in some way to the public. The Warren Commission artifacts are mostly online at the National Archives in high resolution, the limo is on display at the Ford Museum, and the 6th Floor Museum is packed with historical items related to the assassination, and that day in Dallas. The only evidence restricted from public view is the autopsy materials, and this is not because of the US Government, but because Jackie Kennedy, and the Kennedy family demanded the terms on which those materials were turned over to the Archives.

While CTists rely on interpretations of grainy photos, the rest of us can go to one of these museums, or view the collections online.
__________________
Disingenuous Piranha

Last edited by Axxman300; 11th February 2019 at 06:36 PM.
Axxman300 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th February 2019, 01:27 AM   #2636
Cosmic Yak
Master Poster
 
Cosmic Yak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Where there's never a road broader than the back of your hand.
Posts: 2,648
Originally Posted by Axxman300 View Post
The limo is now exhibited to the public at the Henry Ford Museum in Dearborn, Michigan.

All you ever wanted to know about the X-100:

https://www.thehenryford.org/collect.../kennedy-limo/

This is a link to the Museum where they display a few Presidential limos:

https://www.thehenryford.org/visit/h...tial-vehicles/

I like to post these kinds of links because CTists deal in the abstract, and the fact is that all of the JFK Assassination evidence, and the limo, and thr 6thFloor of the TSBD are accessible in some way to the public. The Warren Commission artifacts are mostly online at the National Archives in high resolution, the limo is on display at the Ford Museum, and the 6th Floor Museum is packed with historical items related to the assassination, and that day in Dallas. The only evidence restricted from public view is the autopsy materials, and this is not because of the US Government, but because Jackie Kennedy, and the Kennedy family demanded the terms on which those materials were turned over to the Archives.

While CTists rely on interpretations of grainy photos, the rest of us can go to one of these museums, or view the collections online.
Good points.
MicahJava: have you visited any of these sites?
__________________
Fortuna Faveat Fatuis
Cosmic Yak is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th February 2019, 11:22 AM   #2637
Steve
Illuminator
 
Steve's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 4,834
Why I keep reading this forum. Ask a simple question about the JFK limo and an amazing amount of detail is provided. Thank you all.
__________________
Caption from and old New Yorker cartoon - Why am I shouting? Because I'm wrong!"
Steve is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th February 2019, 11:45 AM   #2638
Elagabalus
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 4,095
• Auxiliary jump seats for extra passengers


Aha!
Elagabalus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th February 2019, 12:05 PM   #2639
Steve
Illuminator
 
Steve's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 4,834
Originally Posted by Elagabalus View Post
• Auxiliary jump seats for extra passengers


Aha!
Oh no!!! That is a can of worms that should NOT be opened. The CT's will latch onto it and pages of useless posts will follow.
__________________
Caption from and old New Yorker cartoon - Why am I shouting? Because I'm wrong!"
Steve is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th February 2019, 12:49 PM   #2640
bknight
Graduate Poster
 
bknight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 1,374
Originally Posted by Steve View Post
Oh no!!! That is a can of worms that should NOT be opened. The CT's will latch onto it and pages of useless posts will follow.
LOL, like there isn't some peripheral comment that they don't latch onto to and post garbage.
bknight is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:07 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.