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 HSCA , JFK assassination , Kennedy conspiracies

Reply
Old 24th March 2017, 04:46 PM   #2801
Meadmaker
Penultimate Amazing
 
Meadmaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 15,784
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
I understand that the initials are supposed to be on the bullet itself, scratched with a diamond pen, and not just an envelope. I gotta say, if there was ever a new "investigation" of the Kennedy forensic evidence, a lot of the issues can be solved with very little cost. What would you need to settle that, a microscope?
Wouldn't that be a bit odd, actually defacing evidence? Sounds like some bizarre, "I heard it somewhere and I'm sure it was right" story.

In a recent interview Donald Trump was asked about his repeating allegations that Ted Cruz' father was involved with the Kennedy assassination, and Trump responded, "That was in a newspaper" as a defense. Is that all it takes? I read it somewhere so it's ok to repeat it?

Anyway, there have been several official and even more unofficial investigations. The questions have already been solved, at more cost than they were worth.

Of course, certain questions will never be solved. Why is it that eyewitness A said something that is clearly contradicted by physical evidence? Witness A says X, witness B says Y. Which is right? Those are unsolved and unsolvable, but, frankly, not very important, even if the eyewitnesses involved happen to be authorities in their field (i.e. doctors).
__________________
Dave
Meadmaker 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 24th March 2017, 06:16 PM   #2802
cmikes
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 328
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
You're wrong. The autopsy has the small head wound 2.5 centimeters tot he right and slightly above the EOP. The "new and improved" location is 10 centimeters above the EOP and slightly right of the midline. Also, it's a different size and shape than the autopsy had it (15x6mm).

OK, the next logical question that follows is SO WHAT? Unless you're making the argument that Oswald could make a shot one inch above and slightly to the right of JFK's EOP but Oswald couldn't make a shot three inches above and slightly to right of JFK's EOP? Do you have any reason to believe that?

I think the problem you're having dealing with the evidence is what's commonly called the "the CSI effect" where people without any experience come to believe that any unexplained details in the evidence must have a sinister reason. To someone that's done the slightest bit of research, the autopsy pathologists getting the entry wound wrong is perfectly explainable. Neither Humes or Boswell had a lot of experience with gunshot wounds [Finck did have such experience, but arrived after the autopsy had already started], they weren't able to shave the head as they wanted to, and they were under incredible time pressure to finish the autopsy quickly from Robert Kennedy via Admiral Burkley. Unfortunate, and people really expect better, especially in such an important case, but completely understandable.

But to someone that's used to watching doctors on TV solve extremely unlikely and complicated cases in an hour, such a thing is completely impossible. There must be a reason for such a mistake. Maybe the doctors are in on it? Maybe THEY changed all the photos and x-rays in ways that can't be detected with technology 50 years more advanced than what THEY would have access to? There must be a reason other than simple government incompetence and mistakes!

Quote:
No. We've already gone over why that is almost certainly not true.

And so we're back to the same question you've ducked and dodged so many times before. What are your qualifications and experience in pathology, reading x-rays, and interpreting medical evidence that we should go with your opinion over that of every single forensic pathologist that has examined the evidence? Until you can answer this question no one is going to take you seriously.
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 24th March 2017, 07:05 PM   #2803
cmikes
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 328
Originally Posted by Reheat View Post
It's in Bugloisi's Reclaiming History. It's true they did want an open casket funeral. However, the morning after they decided that the repair job looked too much like plastic and all agreed to a closed casket.

Thanks for the info. I could have sworn I read it somewhere before Reclaiming History, though. I'll look it up to see if Bugloisi sources it to somewhere else when I have a chance. I do have that book, but I don't have a copy of Death of a President to check my original recollection.

Might just be my memory going, but it can't be that since people's memories are always reliable.
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 24th March 2017, 07:42 PM   #2804
MicahJava
Graduate Poster
 
MicahJava's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 1,156
Originally Posted by cmikes View Post
OK, the next logical question that follows is SO WHAT? Unless you're making the argument that Oswald could make a shot one inch above and slightly to the right of JFK's EOP but Oswald couldn't make a shot three inches above and slightly to right of JFK's EOP? Do you have any reason to believe that?

I think the problem you're having dealing with the evidence is what's commonly called the "the CSI effect" where people without any experience come to believe that any unexplained details in the evidence must have a sinister reason. To someone that's done the slightest bit of research, the autopsy pathologists getting the entry wound wrong is perfectly explainable. Neither Humes or Boswell had a lot of experience with gunshot wounds [Finck did have such experience, but arrived after the autopsy had already started], they weren't able to shave the head as they wanted to, and they were under incredible time pressure to finish the autopsy quickly from Robert Kennedy via Admiral Burkley. Unfortunate, and people really expect better, especially in such an important case, but completely understandable.

But to someone that's used to watching doctors on TV solve extremely unlikely and complicated cases in an hour, such a thing is completely impossible. There must be a reason for such a mistake. Maybe the doctors are in on it? Maybe THEY changed all the photos and x-rays in ways that can't be detected with technology 50 years more advanced than what THEY would have access to? There must be a reason other than simple government incompetence and mistakes!
Or maybe there was no entry high above the ears and your Lone Nut cowlick mythology is crap. To think that the original reports and original professionals got it right isn't an episode of CSI. And that creates problems for the pattern of damage to the brain.

Quote:
And so we're back to the same question you've ducked and dodged so many times before. What are your qualifications and experience in pathology, reading x-rays, and interpreting medical evidence that we should go with your opinion over that of every single forensic pathologist that has examined the evidence? Until you can answer this question no one is going to take you seriously.
What are your qualifications in basic literacy? I've already established several great reasons for why the cowlick entry theory is almost certainly not true, and the low EOP wound is. Where's your "every singly forensic expert ever" then? Here's where the ARRB hired three totally fresh, uncontaminated forensic experts to study the X-rays and they found no obvious entry in the skull:

ARRB staff report of observations and opinions of forensic anthropologist Dr. Douglas Ubelaker

ARRB staff report of observations and opinions of forensic radiologist Dr. John J. Fitzpatrick

ARRB staff report of observations and opinions of forensic pathologist Dr. Robert H. Kirschner

Last edited by MicahJava; 24th March 2017 at 07:48 PM.
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 24th March 2017, 08:16 PM   #2805
cmikes
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 328
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
Or maybe there was no entry high above the ears and your Lone Nut cowlick mythology is crap. To think that the original reports and original professionals got it right isn't an episode of CSI. And that creates problems for the pattern of damage to the brain.

OK, you've convinced me. The HSCA got it wrong and the autopsy doctors got it right. Oswald's bullet entered JFK's skull one inch above and slightly to the right of the EOP instead of Oswald's bullet entering JFK's skull three inches above and slightly to the right of the EOP.

Since this changes nothing about what happened to JFK's brain when Oswald'd bullet went though it and killed him, I'll ask again, SO WHAT?

We know the bullet that entered the rear of JFK's skull (no matter what exact micron it entered at) came from Oswald's rifle to the exclusion of every other rifle in the world. We know that one bullet entered JFK's skull from the rear and exited his skull from the right front. If you want to believe that Oswald's bullet actually entered two inches lower than it really did, you have the right to your opinion but it still changes nothing.


Quote:
What are your qualifications in basic literacy? I've already established several great reasons for why the cowlick entry theory is almost certainly not true, and the low EOP wound is. Where's your "every singly forensic expert ever" then?

Saying the same thing they always have for more than fifty years. One bullet entered the rear of JFK's skull and exited through a massive wound in the right front of his skull.


Quote:

That was really smooth. I'll bet no one noticed how you completely dodged the question. Oh, wait, everyone noticed how you dodged the question.

And really, "no obvious entry wound in the skull"? What exact point are you trying to make here? THEY had teleportation technology and just had Scottie beam Oswald's bullet into JFK's brain? Was the exit wound fake too and JFK is really living out his retirement with Elvis in a trailer park in Kentucky? You've made quite a few "WTF?" posts in this thread but I think this one might top them all. Are you really now going to start arguing that there's no entry wound in JFK's skull?

Last edited by cmikes; 24th March 2017 at 09:25 PM. Reason: typo
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 24th March 2017, 09:26 PM   #2806
Axxman300
Graduate Poster
 
Axxman300's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 1,421
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
I find it crazy to think that nobody has examined CE399 to find any trace for the missing initials (I don't think anybody has ever tried pointing them out on the photographs). I understand that the initials are supposed to be on the bullet itself, scratched with a diamond pen, and not just an envelope. I gotta say, if there was ever a new "investigation" of the Kennedy forensic evidence, a lot of the issues can be solved with very little cost. What would you need to settle that, a microscope?
So what you're saying is that you haven't bothered looking at the legitimate sources for information...because I posted a link to the National Archives and their HIGH RESOLUTION PHOTOGRAPHS of the bullet.

I'll post it again:

https://catalog.archives.gov/id/305144

On slides 1,2, 3 & 7 there are deep scratch marks which could be the marks you don't think are there.

I will remind you that it is 2017, the resolution of these pictures is outstanding, and that it is YOU who are creating a mystery by ignoring basic, easily accessible facts.
__________________
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 Yesterday, 05:51 AM   #2807
Meadmaker
Penultimate Amazing
 
Meadmaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 15,784
Originally Posted by Axxman300 View Post
So what you're saying is that you haven't bothered looking at the legitimate sources for information...because I posted a link to the National Archives and their HIGH RESOLUTION PHOTOGRAPHS of the bullet.

I'll post it again:

https://catalog.archives.gov/id/305144

On slides 1,2, 3 & 7 there are deep scratch marks which could be the marks you don't think are there.

I will remind you that it is 2017, the resolution of these pictures is outstanding, and that it is YOU who are creating a mystery by ignoring basic, easily accessible facts.
I did some googling as well. I was surprised to learn that they did, in fact, carve their initials into the bullet, and those initials are still there today.

I don't know how they managed to write so small, but they did.

Although, I got my information of a CT web site, so maybe it isn't trustworthy. The point they were making is that although there were initials in the bullet, they were the wrong initials, proving that this wasn't really the bullet found at Parkland.
__________________
Dave
Meadmaker 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 Yesterday, 07:24 AM   #2808
Reheat
Illuminator
 
Reheat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: In Space
Posts: 3,459
Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
Although, I got my information of a CT web site, so maybe it isn't trustworthy. The point they were making is that although there were initials in the bullet, they were the wrong initials, proving that this wasn't really the bullet found at Parkland.
I'd like to thank you for getting me started on the right track. It's a long story which I'll condense. But, you didn't go far enough.

I was in University when the assassination occurred. I watched the news reports and generally familiarized myself with the early details of the event. I was actually watching TV when Ruby shot Oswald. Immersed in studies and working part time, there was very little time left for keeping up with subsequent details.

Then I didn't worry about it for virtually the major part of my adult life. I had better things to be concerned about. I knew vaguely of the many conspiracy theories, but didn't concern myself with them. That summarizes the past.

Recently, I ran across Horne's presentation on youtube. I watched the entire 6 hours. Due to the detail and quotes of documentation I erroneously presumed he was telling the truth. How little did I know. Then I read Josiah Thomson's book.

I am vulnerable to conspiracy theories regarding this due to my intense dislike (maybe hatred) of LBJ. I utterly detested the man and virtually everything he stood for at the time. I had no objection to his Civil Rights agenda, but his Great Society program was a ruse. (a subject for a different thread).

As a result I posted with ignorant information. I simply was not well informed.

I am more than half way thru Bugliosi's Reclaiming History. Wow, what a difference. The difference is utterly amazing.

For example, Thompson concentrates on the discarded jacket [insisting the lack of evidence that Oswald owned it] without mentioning there were at least 4 witnesses who placed Oswald at the J.D. Tippit murder scene or fleeing afterward. He never mentions the witnesses.

To put it very bluntly I was deceived. I took the bait against my better judgment.

The first thing that got my attention in Bugliosi's book was when the asked the question, "Have you read the Warren Report?" Guilty as charged.

That's the first question that should be asked of Conspiracy Theorists.

The Warren Commission was composed of honorable, diverse, and capable people. It is inconceivable to me that any of them would have succumbed to any pressure to arrive at the contrived political conclusion. They did a thorough investigation based on all available evidence at the time. Subsequently, much of their conclusions have been confirmed by other investigations.

In conclusion, I am obligated to accept the Warren Commission conclusion that LHO acted along in the assassination of JFK.


.
__________________
[url=http://www.911myths.com/index.php?title=Noc[/URL]

Last edited by Reheat; Yesterday at 07:33 AM.
Reheat 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 Yesterday, 07:27 AM   #2809
HSienzant
Master Poster
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 2,305
Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
I did some googling as well. I was surprised to learn that they did, in fact, carve their initials into the bullet, and those initials are still there today.

I don't know how they managed to write so small, but they did.

Although, I got my information of a CT web site, so maybe it isn't trustworthy. The point they were making is that although there were initials in the bullet, they were the wrong initials, proving that this wasn't really the bullet found at Parkland.
Which of course, if this is a plot, makes no sense. One would think they would be able to forge the markings found on one bullet onto another that is to take its place in the evidence trail.

But conspiracy theorists think these are both brilliant and stupid plotters at the same time. Brilliant enough to come up with a plan to shoot JFK from multiple directions and alter the body to conceal the multiple shooters while simultaneously framing a lone nut, but too stupid to ensure the bullet introduced into the evidence chain has the necessary markings to ensure it does not reveal the swap of evidence.

And as I like to ask MicahJava, and he likes to avoid answering, what's the genesis of the bullet found at Parkland?

Is it a bullet planted by a conspirator (which means they planted the WRONG bullet and had to swap it later for the right one, according to his arguments that CE399 is not the bullet discovered at Parkland).

Or is it a bullet that survived a different shooting and came out nearly intact (after all the discussion and argument, one thing is certain - the bullet found in Parkland was nearly pristine and had an undamaged tip). And if it was nearly pristine, and could hit a victim and fall out, why couldn't that victim be Connally, and why couldn't the bullet be CE399?

No matter which way he opts to go with this found Parkland bullet, it leaves him with a conundrum he can't resolve, so he avoids the conundrum entirely by simply refusing to address it.

Hank
__________________
"Looks like we're really in nut country now, Toto."

Last edited by HSienzant; Yesterday at 07:29 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 Yesterday, 07:48 AM   #2810
HSienzant
Master Poster
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 2,305
Originally Posted by Reheat View Post
For example, Thompson concentrates on the discarded jacket [insisting the lack of evidence that he owned it] without mentioning there were at least 4 witnesses who placed Oswald at the J.D. Tippit murder scene or fleeing afterward. He never mentions the witnesses.
Well, it's even more obvious than that. Oswald was seen at his rooming house by the housekeeper as he was leaving, zipping up a jacket at about 1pm. This is northwest of the Tippit murder site.

At about 1:30 or thereabouts, Oswald was seen without a jacket by Johnny Brewer outside Brewer's shoe store. This is southwest of the Tippit murder site.

Sometime between 1:00pm and 1:30pm, Oswald clearly discarded a perfectly good jacket for no apparent reason - IF he is an innocent man. But if he just shot Tippit? Then he has a good reason to do this, he's trying to change his appearance by abandoning a jacket.

The zipper jacket was found in a parking lot south of Oswald's rooming house and north of Brewer's shoe store. Oswald was seen in that parking lot by at least one witness, Mary Brock.

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/brock_m.htm

As you undoubtedly saw, critics like to concentrate on the fact that the jacket couldn't be traced to Oswald via a laundry mark inside the jacket, but I like to point out that if Oswald bought the jacket second-hand, the laundry mark would be from the previous owner, not Oswald. And besides, if you picked a random jacket of YOURS and discarded it near a crime scene, could it be traced back to you?

None of my clothes say "Property of Hank Sienzant" inside, and haven't since I was in first or second grade. If the plotters wanted the jacket to be traceable to Oswald, they could have left a Depository pay stub inside a jacket pocket, or wrote "L.Oswald" inside the collar.

Adding weight to the belief that he bought it second-hand, is the fact that it's a "medium" jacket, not a small. Beggars can't be choosers, and people shopping in second-hand stores can't be too picky either. Oswald more than likely bought the jacket second-hand in California (the jacket was manufactured and distributed in California), when he was stationed there as a Marine in the 1950s. He was a bit heftier in the Marines, and the medium might have been a better fit than a small at that time.

Bottom line: You have a guy missing a jacket, and a jacket missing a guy. You also have a witness putting Oswald in the parking lot where the jacket was found. It does not take a rocket scientist to figure this out (unless you're a conspiracy theorist).

Minus the smoke and mirrors, conspiracy theorists have nothing. Nothing at all.



Originally Posted by Reheat View Post
The first thing that got my attention in Bugliosi's book was when the asked the question, "Have you read the Warren Report?" Guilty as charged. That's the first question that should be asked of Conspiracy Theorists.
I asked that of nearly every conspiracy theorist who has posted here. Most avoid answering. And we saw the recent example of MicahJava, who when directed to the expert testimony of Ronald Simmons, refused to read it, claimed the testimony was 'boring', and made up answers rather than read the testimony and obtain the answers.



Originally Posted by Reheat View Post
In conclusion, I am obligated to accept the Warren Commission conclusion that LHO acted along in the assassination of JFK.
Nah, you're not obligated. But if you study the evidence, you'll realize that's the only defensible conclusion at this point in time. And that to believe in a conspiracy, you have to imagine a Rube Goldbergian like plot, where the plot keeps getting bigger and bigger to frame Oswald.

A dirty little CT secret: Both conspiracy theorists and 'lone nutters' believe the evidence points to Oswald. 'Lone nutters' believe it points to Oswald because he actually committed the assassination. Conspiracy Theorists believe it points to Oswald because every imaginable piece of evidence has been planted, altered, or swapped to point to Oswald.

Welcome to the real world.

Hank
__________________
"Looks like we're really in nut country now, Toto."

Last edited by HSienzant; Yesterday at 08:33 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 Yesterday, 12:29 PM   #2811
MicahJava
Graduate Poster
 
MicahJava's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 1,156
Reheat, here's a dirty LN secret: The evidence in the JFK case takes years to get a grasp on if you're reading a little about it every few days of the week. Every single piece of evidence is an anomaly. Every single Tippit witness has their own little story. Every single bit of paperwork connecting Oswald to the rifle. It's a doozy and Lone Nutters don't want you to see that. You aren't going to find everything you need to know on a forum, it's scattered around several official sources and independant books from authors.
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 Yesterday, 01:05 PM   #2812
No Other
Scholar
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Posts: 81
Originally Posted by HSienzant View Post
Does a revolver pulled from his hand matching the shells found at the scene of the Tippit murder (to the exclusion of all other weapons in the world) count as circumstantial evidence?

Do two large fragments found in the limousine the evening of the assassination matching his rifle (to the exclusion of all other weapons in the world) count as circumstantial evidence?

Do eyewitnesses picking him out of lineups as the person they saw fleeing the scene of the Tippit killing count as circumstantial evidence?

http://legallyliterate.com/judge-dis...tial-evidence/


Hank
Of course it does; your mistake is that you thought I was disagreeing with Bstrong. Circumstantial evidence, can be and in some cases, more powerful that Direct Evidence. In order to be accurate, it is not out of line to provide that level of understanding.
No Other 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 Yesterday, 03:53 PM   #2813
MicahJava
Graduate Poster
 
MicahJava's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 1,156
Speaking of circumstantial evidence, am I right in saying this is all of the evidence for an Oswald wallet at the Tippit shooting scene?


FBI agent Bob Barrett

DPD officer Leonard Jez (or Leonard Jaz)- Researcher Martha Moyer has stated that Jez corroborated the story of an Oswald wallet being found at the scene of the Tippit shooting. Jez himself may have said this at a 1999 JFK lancer conference, but a recording of his conference is 10 bucks and I'm too cheap. http://www.jfklancer.com/catalog/nidmedia/Dallas99.html

And A crime scene photograph depicting Tippit’s patrol car was autographed for Rookstool by Jim Leavelle, Bob Barrett, T.F. Bowley, Roy Nichols, and Kenneth H. Croy – who reportedly wrote: “First on the scene, recovered Oswald’s wallet there too.” Rookstool refers to Croy’s autograph as “the only written account” of the recovery of Oswald’s wallet at the scene.

We know that DPD Capt. William R Westbrook purportedly handled the wallet as shown on the film, but he can't be reached for comment on account of dying on 2/19/1996.

MFAAA news story arguing that a film taken of the officers examining the shooting scene shows them holding the Oswald wallet in evidence: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f3nFKFoUyJ0

Dale Meyers argues that the wallet shown the the film is not the same Oswald wallet in evidence: https://jfkfiles.blogspot.com/2014/0...t-mystery.html

Some have argued that the wallet on the film certainly cannot be Tippit's wallet because his wallet was named on a list of items recovered on his person from Methodist Hospital. However, Meyers says that you can see his service revolver on the film, which is also named on the Methodist Hospital list.

So I guess the three main pieces of evidence for the planted wallet are Barrett's statements, Lez's statements, and the captioned crime scene photograph.

Last edited by MicahJava; Yesterday at 04:03 PM.
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 Yesterday, 04:09 PM   #2814
HSienzant
Master Poster
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 2,305
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
Reheat, here's a dirty LN secret: The evidence in the JFK case takes years to get a grasp on if you're reading a little about it every few days of the week.
The evidence is straightforward, the silly lengths conspiracy theorists go to dismiss the evidence or twist it beyond recognition in their favor is what takes years to understand.

Like you advance an argument that the bullet recovered in the hospital wasn't CE399, but you take it no further. You refuse to discuss what a bullet that was not connected to the assassination was doing in Parkland immediately after the two victims of the assassination were taken to Parkland. You refuse to discuss how and why this bullet could have been planted, or how it could have survived hitting a different victim and emerged practically unscathed. And if it could do that, why couldn't the victim be John Connally and the bullet be CE399?



Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
Every single piece of evidence is an anomaly.
In the words of Harry Truman, that's a load of horse manure. You won't be able to show that one piece of evidence is altered or substituted for in any fashion. You will advance the same tired - and wrong - arguments conspiracy theorists have advanced for decades, not even seeing the assumptions and gaps in logic built into those arguments.



Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
Every single Tippit witness has their own little story.
As I told Reheat above, welcome to the real world. Yes, every witness has their own story. And they all differ from each other.

For an excellent example, let's all turn to page 201 of RUSH TO JUDGMENT, by Mark Lane. On that page, he writes:

Benavides made reference to having seen a 'light-beige' jacket, but when Commission Exhibit 163, described by the Commission Report as a 'heavy blue jacket', was shown to him by counsel, evidently in error, he said, 'I would say this looks just like it.' Barbara Davis testified that the killer wore 'a black coat' when she saw him run across her lawn. * Ted Callaway thought the jacket worn by the assailant 'had a little more tan to it' than Commission Exhibit 162. Mrs Markham believed the jacket was darker than the one shown to her in Washington, although little or no credence can be placed in her estimate. Warren Reynolds described the jacket that the fleeing man wore as 'blueish' and Scoggins told Commission counsel that the man who ran past his taxicab wore a jacket darker than Commission Exhibit 162.

So what conclusion are we to draw here? As noted, Oswald was seen zipping up a jacket when he left the rooming house, he was jacketless when seen by Brewer a half-hour later. Meanwhile, a jacket was found in a parking lot roughly in between those two locations, and Oswald was seen in that parking by one witness.

Now, how do YOU reconcile the different descriptions of the gunman's jacket given by the witnesses, given the fact that Oswald apparently abandoned a jacket somewhere along the way, and that abandoned jacket was apparently recovered from the parking lot? I know how I reconcile them -- witnesses are sometimes mistaken, are therefore untrustworthy, and the hard evidence takes primacy, but I need to know how you reconcile these disparate descriptions.

I'll offer up a couple of possibilities. Let me know which one you favor:

(a) Each witness saw a different Tippit killing, with a different killer re-enacting the scene. Each time it was re-enacted, the killer donned a different jacket, accounting for the disparate jacket descriptions of the fleeing killer. This preserves the accuracy of the witnesses accounts.

(b) The Tippit killing only happened once, but Tippit was gunned down by numerous gunmen, each wearing a different jacket. For some reason, the various witnesses only saw one gunman flee the scene. This also preserves the accuracy of the witnesses accounts.

(c) The Tippit killing happened once, the witnesses aren't perfect, and they got some details wrongs. This has the appeal of being the most realistic explanation, but of course, shatters your belief that witnesses recollections - some from 33 years after the fact - should take precedence over hard evidence like the shells collected at the scene or the revolver taken from Oswald's hand or the paperwork linking him to that revolver or the witnesses who picked him out of police lineups over the next 24 hours.

I'd really love to hear your explanation for what these disparate descriptions of the jacket worn by the fleeing Tippit gunman means, and how you account for them.

Do you have an explanation?


Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
Every single bit of paperwork connecting Oswald to the rifle.
Every single bit of paperwork connecting Oswald to the rifle -- What? That's an incomplete sentence. Are you trying to make a point? Make it. And cite the evidence for it. Not the speculation, or your opinion, or the conjectures by somebody on some website, but the evidence.



Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
It's a doozy and Lone Nutters don't want you to see that.
Yes, we broke into his home and disabled his wifi so he could read conspiracy sites on the web. Are you serious? How can we prevent anyone from reading the conspiracy tripe that's available all over the web?



Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
You aren't going to find everything you need to know on a forum, it's scattered around several official sources and independant books from authors.
"Several official sources"? Are you serious?

Here's an official source: http://www.history-matters.com/archi...s/contents.htm

It's the 26 volumes of evidence and testimony the Warren Commission published.

How much of it have YOU read?

We know you refused to read Ronald Simmons testimony when it was cited for you and links provided; you called it "boring" and rather than obtain the information you asked for directly from his Warren Commission testimony, you ignored his testimony and made up your own answers. How many other witnesses and statements did you ignore from the 26 volumes? Is it safe to say "all of them"?

Hank
__________________
"Looks like we're really in nut country now, Toto."

Last edited by HSienzant; Yesterday at 04:26 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 Yesterday, 04:17 PM   #2815
HSienzant
Master Poster
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 2,305
Originally Posted by No Other View Post
Of course it does; your mistake is that you thought I was disagreeing with Bstrong.
Don't assume you know the point I was trying to make. Don't assume I thought you were doing anything other than JAQing off.


Originally Posted by No Other View Post
Circumstantial evidence, can be and in some cases, more powerful that Direct Evidence. In order to be accurate, it is not out of line to provide that level of understanding.
We agree.

Hank
__________________
"Looks like we're really in nut country now, Toto."
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 Yesterday, 04:21 PM   #2816
HSienzant
Master Poster
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 2,305
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
Speaking of circumstantial evidence, am I right in saying this is all of the evidence for an Oswald wallet at the Tippit shooting scene?


FBI agent Bob Barrett

DPD officer Leonard Jez (or Leonard Jaz)- Researcher Martha Moyer has stated that Jez corroborated the story of an Oswald wallet being found at the scene of the Tippit shooting. Jez himself may have said this at a 1999 JFK lancer conference, but a recording of his conference is 10 bucks and I'm too cheap. http://www.jfklancer.com/catalog/nidmedia/Dallas99.html

And A crime scene photograph depicting Tippit’s patrol car was autographed for Rookstool by Jim Leavelle, Bob Barrett, T.F. Bowley, Roy Nichols, and Kenneth H. Croy – who reportedly wrote: “First on the scene, recovered Oswald’s wallet there too.” Rookstool refers to Croy’s autograph as “the only written account” of the recovery of Oswald’s wallet at the scene.

We know that DPD Capt. William R Westbrook purportedly handled the wallet as shown on the film, but he can't be reached for comment on account of dying on 2/19/1996.

MFAAA news story arguing that a film taken of the officers examining the shooting scene shows them holding the Oswald wallet in evidence: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f3nFKFoUyJ0

Dale Meyers argues that the wallet shown the the film is not the same Oswald wallet in evidence: https://jfkfiles.blogspot.com/2014/0...t-mystery.html

Some have argued that the wallet on the film certainly cannot be Tippit's wallet because his wallet was named on a list of items recovered on his person from Methodist Hospital. However, Meyers says that you can see his service revolver on the film, which is also named on the Methodist Hospital list.

So I guess the three main pieces of evidence for the planted wallet are Barrett's statements, Lez's statements, and the captioned crime scene photograph.
And there you go, off and running in a new direction, with some more three decade after-the-fact recollections as your primary "evidence". All of these statements first surfaced in the 1990's at the earliest, correct?

Why should reasonable people put any credence into recollections like these? You have apparently learned nothing from the discussion of the last six months or more about the profound unreliability of eyewitness testimony.

Hank
__________________
"Looks like we're really in nut country now, Toto."

Last edited by HSienzant; Yesterday at 04:22 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 Yesterday, 06:47 PM   #2817
BStrong
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 9,075
Originally Posted by No Other View Post
I am only asking for a clarification... Do you mean circumstantial evidence?
What Hank posted plus the earlier failed attempt on Walker.

LHO was the classic little man w/ a firearm.

He'd be very happy to know his name is recognized and he's being discussed in the 21st century.
__________________
"On the issue of immigration, our policy should not be informed by our collective outrage about one man's conduct." - California Attorney General Kamala Harris.

"An unarmed man can only flee from evil, and evil is not overcome by fleeing from it." - Col. Jeff Cooper, U.S.M.C.
BStrong 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 Yesterday, 06:59 PM   #2818
BStrong
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 9,075
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
Reheat, here's a dirty LN secret: The evidence in the JFK case takes years to get a grasp on if you're reading a little about it every few days of the week. Every single piece of evidence is an anomaly. Every single Tippit witness has their own little story. Every single bit of paperwork connecting Oswald to the rifle. It's a doozy and Lone Nutters don't want you to see that. You aren't going to find everything you need to know on a forum, it's scattered around several official sources and independant books from authors.
The poster that has one year in on the subject matter now posts about how many years it takes to get a grasp on the material.

The poster that advised against reading a book on the subject now asserts that others don't want people to study the material.

I've personally never once advised anyone "not" to read any material on the subject but have pointed out various problems with one or another of the CTist mongers books, and even in the example of the author I personally dislike for their ******** version of events, I've never asserted that someone shouldn't read it.

Sounds to me like you enjoy a side order of strawman with your plate full of self contradiction.
__________________
"On the issue of immigration, our policy should not be informed by our collective outrage about one man's conduct." - California Attorney General Kamala Harris.

"An unarmed man can only flee from evil, and evil is not overcome by fleeing from it." - Col. Jeff Cooper, U.S.M.C.
BStrong 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 Yesterday, 07:06 PM   #2819
BStrong
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 9,075
Originally Posted by HSienzant View Post
And there you go, off and running in a new direction, with some more three decade after-the-fact recollections as your primary "evidence". All of these statements first surfaced in the 1990's at the earliest, correct?

Why should reasonable people put any credence into recollections like these? You have apparently learned nothing from the discussion of the last six months or more about the profound unreliability of eyewitness testimony.

Hank
Because he believes what he wants to believe and there is no intellectual honesty in evidence.

A correction to my post about Dr. Finck. For some senior moment reason I associated him with the doctors at Parkland rather than Bethesda.

When functioning adults make mistakes they cop to them, and they don't believe themselves to be immune from making mistakes. MJ, you might want to take note of that for future use.

ETA - readers may want to know that MJ also claimed to have acquired a full copy of the WCR and then burned it. So much for ther value of studying the material.
__________________
"On the issue of immigration, our policy should not be informed by our collective outrage about one man's conduct." - California Attorney General Kamala Harris.

"An unarmed man can only flee from evil, and evil is not overcome by fleeing from it." - Col. Jeff Cooper, U.S.M.C.

Last edited by BStrong; Yesterday at 07:09 PM.
BStrong 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 Yesterday, 07:09 PM   #2820
Axxman300
Graduate Poster
 
Axxman300's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 1,421
Originally Posted by Reheat View Post
I'd like to thank you for getting me started on the right track. It's a long story which I'll condense. But, you didn't go far enough.

I am vulnerable to conspiracy theories regarding this due to my intense dislike (maybe hatred) of LBJ. I utterly detested the man and virtually everything he stood for at the time. I had no objection to his Civil Rights agenda, but his Great Society program was a ruse. (a subject for a different thread).

As a result I posted with ignorant information. I simply was not well informed.

I am more than half way thru Bugliosi's Reclaiming History. Wow, what a difference. The difference is utterly amazing.

To put it very bluntly I was deceived. I took the bait against my better judgment.

The first thing that got my attention in Bugliosi's book was when the asked the question, "Have you read the Warren Report?" Guilty as charged.

That's the first question that should be asked of Conspiracy Theorists.

The Warren Commission was composed of honorable, diverse, and capable people. It is inconceivable to me that any of them would have succumbed to any pressure to arrive at the contrived political conclusion. They did a thorough investigation based on all available evidence at the time. Subsequently, much of their conclusions have been confirmed by other investigations.

In conclusion, I am obligated to accept the Warren Commission conclusion that LHO acted along in the assassination of JFK.
.
Welcome back to the light. It took 25 years to get here.

You'd be about the same age as my dad, and my dad was the one who got me believing there was a CT at an early age. He hated Johnson too, and said the exact same things that you wrote here.

In my case, I've forgotten as many JFK CTs as I can remember, and there's always a new one with each book publishing cycle. The assassination has a powerful grip on people to this day, and it is easy to get lured into the CT trap because there are a few credible gaps in the narrative.

I was fooled by people I believed had done their homework, and when I decided to do my own in Dallas I was shocked by how badly I'd been suckered.

So yay, you're back. If you really get bored I recommend checking out Stephen King's 11/22/63, either the book or the miniseries. I liked it because it puts you in Texas, and Dallas in 1961 through 1963, and King actually did his homework too.
__________________
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 Yesterday, 07:14 PM   #2821
Reheat
Illuminator
 
Reheat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: In Space
Posts: 3,459
Originally Posted by BStrong View Post
What Hank posted plus the earlier failed attempt on Walker.

LHO was the classic little man w/ a firearm.

He'd be very happy to know his name is recognized and he's being discussed in the 21st century.
How true. He was the equivalent of today's domestic mass killers (those without terrorists motivations) i.e. the Sandy Hook killer and others.

It their twisted way, they do the deed and record their name in history with notoriety. They finally become someone important.
__________________
[url=http://www.911myths.com/index.php?title=Noc[/URL]
Reheat 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 Yesterday, 07:15 PM   #2822
Axxman300
Graduate Poster
 
Axxman300's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 1,421
Originally Posted by BStrong View Post
What Hank posted plus the earlier failed attempt on Walker.

LHO was the classic little man w/ a firearm.

He'd be very happy to know his name is recognized and he's being discussed in the 21st century.

More to the point, look at the real world.

Earlier I asked how many assassinations were carried out by long rifle, and got an answer, but now I need to ask how many times since 1963 have Americans seen what one man with a rifle can do? In a way we've lucky mass shootings weren't a thing in 1963 because Oswald would have spent the money on better gun. So many mass shooters have the same psych profile as LHO, and in 2017 the idea that one guy with a rifle can't act alone is hysterical.
__________________
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 Yesterday, 07:41 PM   #2823
Axxman300
Graduate Poster
 
Axxman300's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 1,421
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
Reheat, here's a dirty LN secret: The evidence in the JFK case takes years to get a grasp on if you're reading a little about it every few days of the week.
No, not even close.

You start from the crime scene and work your way out from there. Anything else is just Kabuki Theater.

Quote:
Every single piece of evidence is an anomaly.
In what context? Every crime is an anomaly because they are incongruous to all of society except for the victim and the perpetrator.


Quote:
Every single Tippit witness has their own little story.
Welcome to the human race.

Quote:
Every single bit of paperwork connecting Oswald to the rifle.
But when presented in conjunction with the people (including his wife) who knew he bought the rifle, and those pesky photos his wife took, the paperwork is pretty dang solid.

Quote:
It's a doozy and Lone Nutters don't want you to see that.
Real life is always a doozy. Donald Trump is my President, 19 drug cartel members just escaped from a Mexican prison, a Malaysian Airbus vanished in the South Pacific. These are all facts that shouldn't make sense in a sane world, but there they are.


Quote:
You aren't going to find everything you need to know on a forum, it's scattered around several official sources and independant books from authors.
Thanks to the JFK CT cult the internet is almost worthless for research.

As far as those books go, if you have read more than four you should be asking why none of them agree on their facts, or their suspects? That was something that bothered my back when I was a CT loon, and should have been a slap in the face.
__________________
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 Yesterday, 07:48 PM   #2824
BStrong
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 9,075
Originally Posted by Reheat View Post
How true. He was the equivalent of today's domestic mass killers (those without terrorists motivations) i.e. the Sandy Hook killer and others.

It their twisted way, they do the deed and record their name in history with notoriety. They finally become someone important.
Outside of any question of conspiracy whatsoever, one of my buddies came up with the idea of forbidding (as much as would be possible) dissemination of the identity of any individual accused/convicted/suicide at the scene/whatever that commits any type of notorious crime.

He suggested that starting with the shooter at UOT Austin the actor should only be referred to in public as (insert favorite pejorative term here) #1 in chronological order. I thought "impotent loser" might be good.

Deny these freaks the recognition that criminal acts now provide.
__________________
"On the issue of immigration, our policy should not be informed by our collective outrage about one man's conduct." - California Attorney General Kamala Harris.

"An unarmed man can only flee from evil, and evil is not overcome by fleeing from it." - Col. Jeff Cooper, U.S.M.C.
BStrong 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 Yesterday, 08:01 PM   #2825
BStrong
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 9,075
Originally Posted by Axxman300 View Post
More to the point, look at the real world.

Earlier I asked how many assassinations were carried out by long rifle, and got an answer, but now I need to ask how many times since 1963 have Americans seen what one man with a rifle can do? In a way we've lucky mass shootings weren't a thing in 1963 because Oswald would have spent the money on better gun. So many mass shooters have the same psych profile as LHO, and in 2017 the idea that one guy with a rifle can't act alone is hysterical.
My .02 is that there have always been people with marginal personalities but the overdose of violent material in popular culture and the 24 hour news cycle guarantees that any misfit mental defective can become instantly famous if they kill a notable individual or a mass of average citizens.

We're lucky in another respect too - most of the actors that do commit cluster homicides generally have low skills. The UOT shooter knew how to shoot and did, LHO knew how to shoot and did, but most of the shooters we know about were just smart enough to load and fire a weapon. They were not trained shooters.
__________________
"On the issue of immigration, our policy should not be informed by our collective outrage about one man's conduct." - California Attorney General Kamala Harris.

"An unarmed man can only flee from evil, and evil is not overcome by fleeing from it." - Col. Jeff Cooper, U.S.M.C.
BStrong 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 Yesterday, 09:36 PM   #2826
Meadmaker
Penultimate Amazing
 
Meadmaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 15,784
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
Reheat, here's a dirty LN secret: The evidence in the JFK case takes years to get a grasp on if you're reading a little about it every few days of the week. Every single piece of evidence is an anomaly. Every single Tippit witness has their own little story. Every single bit of paperwork connecting Oswald to the rifle. It's a doozy and Lone Nutters don't want you to see that. You aren't going to find everything you need to know on a forum, it's scattered around several official sources and independant books from authors.
(Emphasis added)

The thing is, that is precisely what we DO want you to see.

Yes, every witness story is slightly different. Nothing fits perfectly.

Yes, we, the lone nutters, want you to realize that.
__________________
Dave
Meadmaker 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 Yesterday, 09:46 PM   #2827
Meadmaker
Penultimate Amazing
 
Meadmaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 15,784
Originally Posted by Reheat View Post
I'd like to thank you for getting me started on the right track.
...

In conclusion, I am obligated to accept the Warren Commission conclusion that LHO acted along in the assassination of JFK.
You are welcome, but more than that, thank you.

At the moment, I'm having trouble finding words for what I am thinking, but it's something about what a great pleasure it can be to debate issues with reasonable people. Perhaps more later.
__________________
Dave
Meadmaker 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 Today, 06:54 AM   #2828
Garrison
Illuminator
 
Garrison's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 3,177
Originally Posted by BStrong View Post
My .02 is that there have always been people with marginal personalities but the overdose of violent material in popular culture and the 24 hour news cycle guarantees that any misfit mental defective can become instantly famous if they kill a notable individual or a mass of average citizens.

We're lucky in another respect too - most of the actors that do commit cluster homicides generally have low skills. The UOT shooter knew how to shoot and did, LHO knew how to shoot and did, but most of the shooters we know about were just smart enough to load and fire a weapon. They were not trained shooters.

The only thing that distinguishes Oswald from Mark Chapman, John Hinckley or Sirhan Sirhan is his military training. You look at the profiles of these killers and Oswald blends right in.
__________________
So I've started a blog about my writing. Check it out at: http://fourth-planet-problem.blogspot.com/
Garrison 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 Today, 07:45 PM   #2829
Reheat
Illuminator
 
Reheat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: In Space
Posts: 3,459
What's the scoop on the bullet or bullet fragments given to State trooper Bobby Nolan and taken to DPHQ. This had a different chain of custody than CE399 as I understand it. Can't find anything except CT stuff.
__________________
[url=http://www.911myths.com/index.php?title=Noc[/URL]
Reheat 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 11:40 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
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.