Continuation JFK Conspiracy Theories VIII

[Axxman300]

Originally Posted by MicahJava

https://old.reddit.com/r/JFKeveryday...head_contents/

PDF version: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1i7V...ew?usp=sharing

Did this small wound occur the day before or did someone shoot him on the other side of the Triple Underpass?

I ask because the assassination is on film and JFK is only hit twice.

[HSienzant]

Originally Posted by MicahJava

This new post also offers rebuttals.


BTW you should know that Bruce Pitzer's former wife Joyce also said that he was vaguely aware of a "something" her husband had concerning the assassination.

Dennis David said he didn't come forward earlier because of his career and his (perhaps untrue) suspicion that Bruce Pitzer was murdered.

Taking the last point first, Pitzer committed suicide, as you acknowledge as a possibility. He wasn't murdered. That puts the lie to David's story.

Allan Eaglesham investigated the Pitzer case and covered it in in detail:
http://www.manuscriptservice.com/WBP-Resolution/

Dennis David's story of seeing an autopsy assassination film of the assassination taken by Pitzer is patently untrue. Pitzer wasn't at the autopsy, and no one who was at the autopsy claims any motion picture film was taken, only photos.

Dennis David decided sometime after the suicide of Pitzer to interject himself into the assassination story by making up a story involving a deceased co-worker who wasn't around to deny his claims, and he got his wish, David's now mentioned in plenty of conspiracy books.

But there's nothing there. And there never has been. It's all just a story David tells. Conveniently, David doesn't have this autopsy film or anything else that would confirm his story. And Pitzer's wife being "vaguely aware" of "something" doesn't confirm Dennis David's lies about seeing a non-existent autopsy film that Pitzer never took because Pitzer wasn't at the autopsy.

Pretty much all of this was covered with Robert Prey. Read the threads.

Hank

[MicahJava]

Originally Posted by HSienzant

Taking the last point first, Pitzer committed suicide, as you acknowledge as a possibility. He wasn't murdered. That puts the lie to David's story.

Allan Eaglesham investigated the Pitzer case and covered it in in detail:
http://www.manuscriptservice.com/WBP-Resolution/



Dennis David's story of seeing an autopsy assassination film of the assassination taken by Pitzer is patently untrue. Pitzer wasn't at the autopsy, and no one who was at the autopsy claims any motion picture film was taken, only photos.

Dennis David decided sometime after the suicide of Pitzer to interject himself into the assassination story by making up a story involving a deceased co-worker who wasn't around to deny his claims, and he got his wish, David's now mentioned in plenty of conspiracy books.

But there's nothing there. And there never has been. It's all just a story David tells. Conveniently, David doesn't have this autopsy film or anything else that would confirm his story. And Pitzer's wife being "vaguely aware" of "something" doesn't confirm Dennis David's lies about seeing a non-existent autopsy film that Pitzer never took because Pitzer wasn't at the autopsy.

Pretty much all of this was covered with Robert Prey. Read the threads.

Hank

Yes, all of this is directly quoted in the post I linked.

Dennis David never said anything proven to be a lie. He only said that he initially believed Pitzer was left-handed because he dealt cards with his left hand while playing Bridge together. When informed by Joyce Pitzer that Bill was right-handed, Dennis accepted that as true and stated such.

As Humes pointed out to the ARRB, there was a CCTV system set up in the morgue, and he said that in hindsight he wished the autopsy had been filmed. There is no information on whether or not there could have been cameras installed into the walls where a witness would have have necessarily noticed. Eaglesham found one or two witnesses who claimed to remember that only the Walter Reed medical center had cameras capable of filming medical procedures, and that these were giant bulky television cameras which would have been difficult to transport across the street to Bethesda.

As early as the mid-50's, there were special color cameras designed to record medical procedures in a hospital setting, and those cameras looked like a plain square box on wheels, like a non-descript piece of medical equipment.

Jerrol Custer is one witness who claimed to have seen a man filming with a movie camera, but I understand that Jerrol was a clown.

Dennis David claimed to remember the pictures he saw were on 16 millimeter film. He could theoretically be wrong about the technical specs while also being right about Pitzer showing him pictures of the autopsy.

Again, Joyce Pitzer also claimed to be vaguely aware of something her husband had concerning the assassination.

[HSienzant]

Originally Posted by MicahJava

Yes, all of this is directly quoted in the post I linked.

Then you should know better.

Originally Posted by MicahJava

Dennis David never said anything proven to be a lie.

Sigh. You should know better, certainly by now that's the logical fallacy of shifting the burden of proof. Nobody has the obligation to disprove his claims. You want to accept his assertions, the burden is on you (and him) to prove them. You don't get around that burden by saying his claims haven't been disproven.

There's a golden teapot orbiting Jupiter right now. That claim has never been disproven either. Hopefully (hope springs eternal) you understand the problem with your "Dennis David never said anything proven to be a lie" assertion. It matters not whether it's been proven to be a lie. You need to prove it's true., otherwise it's just a scary story Dennis David tells around a campfire.

Originally Posted by MicahJava

He only said that he initially believed Pitzer was left-handed because he dealt cards with his left hand while playing Bridge together. When informed by Joyce Pitzer that Bill was right-handed, Dennis accepted that as true and stated such.

But his earliest statements, to David Lifton, don't mention anything about an autopsy film, or seeing such. He only introduced that story 25 years after the fact, to another conspiracy theorist.

Originally Posted by MicahJava

As Humes pointed out to the ARRB, there was a CCTV system set up in the morgue, and he said that in hindsight he wished the autopsy had been filmed.

It wasn't. End of story.

Originally Posted by MicahJava

There is no information on whether or not there could have been cameras installed into the walls where a witness would have have necessarily noticed.

This is all speculation by you. It matters not. Do not confuse it with evidence confirming David's story. It doesn't do that. David's story was that Pitzer was at the autopsy and filmed the assassination. That's the problem with trying to insert yourself into a major incident, like (in this case) the assassination of the President. You don't know what documentation exists that contradicts your claims. The people at the autopsy were documented, and Pitzer wasn't one of them. David's claims fail right there.

Originally Posted by MicahJava

Eaglesham found one or two witnesses who claimed to remember that only the Walter Reed medical center had cameras capable of filming medical procedures, and that these were giant bulky television cameras which would have been difficult to transport across the street to Bethesda.

Bethesda is not Walter Reed. You've just argued against the autopsy being filmed.

Originally Posted by MicahJava

As early as the mid-50's, there were special color cameras designed to record medical procedures in a hospital setting, and those cameras looked like a plain square box on wheels, like a non-descript piece of medical equipment.

It doesn't matter what could have been done. It only matters what was done. There are witnesses who are quite specific that no film of the autopsy was made. The problem you have is Dennis David has been caught in an inescapable lie - and that destroys his credibility.

Originally Posted by MicahJava

Jerrol Custer is one witness who claimed to have seen a man filming with a movie camera, but I understand that Jerrol was a clown.

Since you neither quote Custer saying anything of the sort here, nor establish he was a clown, I'll table that for now.

Originally Posted by MicahJava

Dennis David claimed to remember the pictures he saw were on 16 millimeter film. He could theoretically be wrong about the technical specs while also being right about Pitzer showing him pictures of the autopsy.

No, he said he saw *film* of the autopsy with Pitzer. Not photos. Not pictures. *Film*. You can't salvage his story by claiming he was a poor witness. You salvage his story by establishing he was a witness to what he claimed... Conveniently, there's no evidence he saw anything like he claimed he saw.

Originally Posted by MicahJava

Again, Joyce Pitzer also claimed to be vaguely aware of something her husband had concerning the assassination.

And she made this claim how many decades later? Her "vague awareness of something" came how many years after Dennis David's story about the supposed autopsy film was first published?

You're assuming her vague awareness stemmed from something she learned from her husband prior to his suicide, rather than that vague awareness stemming from something Dennis David alleged in 1988.

These are issues you need to confront if you're going to convince anyone. You're posting on a skeptic site, remember. Show me the evidence.

Hank

[MicahJava]

The purpose of this post is not to present the best evidence, it's to catalogue literally all of the evidence, no matter the quality.

The word of Dennis David is technically evidence, even if it's not the best evidence in the world. And Joyce's non-specific statement also counts as some level of corroboration.

Dennis David first came public with his story about Pitzer in 1975, not 1988, and at that time he had the journalist not print his name. David Lifton only found Dennis David when he saw the article and contacted that journalist and convinced them it was ok to give away Dennis's personal information. Lifton only used Dennis David's real name in his 1980 book because Dennis said he could. Dennis claimed that his own wife was reluctant to let him talk to Lifton for fear of retaliation.

Lifton seems to have a personal bias against the Pitzer story. While Lifton claims that Dennis never told him about the Pitzer story, around 2007 Dennis claimed he did remember telling Lifton about it.

[HSienzant]

Originally Posted by MicahJava

The purpose of this post is not to present the best evidence, it's to catalogue literally all of the evidence, no matter the quality.

So you're not arguing for a conspiracy, even though you're presenting what you think is evidence of a conspiracy?

Originally Posted by MicahJava

The word of Dennis David is technically evidence, even if it's not the best evidence in the world. And Joyce's non-specific statement also counts as some level of corroboration.

No, it's not evidence. It's a story, an assertion, an uncorroborated claim.

Is my assertion of a teapot orbiting Jupiter evidence of a teapot orbiting Jupiter? Would there be corrobation if another poster here makes the same assertion?

Originally Posted by MicahJava

Dennis David first came public with his story about Pitzer in 1975, not 1988, and at that time he had the journalist not print his name.

Still after Pitzer was dead and unable to confirm or deny the story, right? Why did he wait 12 years to come forward with the story? Pitzer wasn't dead yet, and could confirm or deny it while he was still alive, right? Yet conveniently, the only person who could confirm or deny it is dead by the time Dennis David comes forward with his story.

Originally Posted by MicahJava

David Lifton only found Dennis David when he saw the article and contacted that journalist and convinced them it was ok to give him Dennis's personal information. Lifton only used Dennis David's real name in his 1980 book because Dennis said he could. Dennis claimed that his own wife was reluctant to let him talk to Lifton for fear of retaliation.

And my first wife didn't want me to use my real name on these boards (or other ones) so when I first started posting at alt.assassination.jfk, I used an alias for the first ten years or so I posted there.

But more to the point, Lifton claims David said nothing about the supposed autopsy film when he interviewed him in 1980. Why not? Remember that Lifton is a conspiracy theorist. He's not on my side whatsoever. What does that tell you?

Originally Posted by MicahJava

Lifton seems to have a personal bias against the Pitzer story.

Maybe for the same reason I do, people have been known to insert themselves into famous (or infamous) incidents, solely for the notoriety. There's no contempory evidence confirming any of Dennis David's story. And as late as 1980, Dennis David wasn't mentioning this autopsy film to David Lifton at all.

Originally Posted by MicahJava

While Lifton claims that Dennis never told him about the Pitzer story, around 2007 Dennis claimed he did remember telling Lifton about it.

So the story starts and ends with Dennis David. That's not surprising to me that a Johnny-Come-Lately has no evidence. Only his assertions, which are contradicted by other evidence and confirmed by nothing and no one. Since it's Dennis David's very credibility that's in question here, I find it more than a little bizarre that you would think his counter-claim of a recollection (without any proof) has any credibility.

Curiously, there's no evidence this autopsy film ever existed (or the entire incident as told by Dennis David ever happened), just as Beverly Oliver's claim (first told in 1969) that she filmed the JFK assassination and her film was taken away by an FBI agent isn't verifiable either. It's another scary campfire story with it's own set of problems (for starters, the camera she said she used wasn't available for sale in 1963 and the FBI agent she named as taking the camera was stationed in New Orleans, not Dallas).

Stuff like documentary evidence trips these people up all the time.

Hank

[Axxman300]

Now the story has evolved from a CT based on autopsy evidence he hasn't seen to a film of the autopsy that was never made.

At least Bigfoot has the Patterson film. Sure, it's a fake, but it's an actual film.

Now if you'll excuse me I need to get back in my space ship to head back to Jupiter to turn off the stove.

[Cosmic Yak]

Originally Posted by MicahJava

The purpose of this post is not to present the best evidence, it's to catalogue literally all of the evidence, no matter the quality.

I have heard that JFK was tickled to death by tiny communist goblins.
Please include this in your catalogue of evidence. If you're not bothered about the quality of the evidence, then this shouldn't be a problem.

[SteveAitch]

Originally Posted by Cosmic Yak

I have heard that JFK was tickled to death by tiny communist goblins...

Well, the story I heard was that JFK and Bobby wanted out and the assassinations were faked - they lived out their lives happily on a tropical island.

With Elvis and Bruce Lee.

[kookbreaker]

A Tiger got him.

[Cosmic Yak]

Originally Posted by SteveAitch

Well, the story I heard was that JFK and Bobby wanted out and the assassinations were faked - they lived out their lives happily on a tropical island.

With Elvis and Bruce Lee.

Originally Posted by kookbreaker

A Tiger got him.

MicahJava, I hope you're getting all this. Look at the new evidence that's coming out! Make sure you document everything, and then let us know how it all fits into your theory of what actually happened in Dallas.

[BStrong]

You guys are all wet - this is what happened to JFK and it's on video so it has to be true - NSFW:

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

Tip of the hat to the great researcher Joe R. Lansdale that made this video public.

[Axxman300]

Meanwhile, in the grown-up world, another CT is debunked:

https://theconversation.com/jfk-cons...ination-148138

Quote:

A main conspiracy about Oswald’s undocumented time in Mexico City puts him in contact with dangerous Mexicans on the left side of the Cold War.

This story originated in March 1967, when the American consul in the Mexican coastal city of Tampico, Benjamin Ruyle, was buying drinks for local journalists.

One of them – Óscar Contreras Lartigue, a 28-year-old reporter for El Sol de Tampico – told Ruyle he’d met Oswald in 1963 when he was a law student at Mexico’s National Autonomous University.

Contreras said he’d been in a pro-Castro campus group and that Oswald had begged this group for help getting a Cuban visa. According to Contreras, Oswald spent two days with these National Autonomous University students, then met up with them again a few days later at the Cuban Embassy.

And I'll skip to the good part:

Quote:

In Contreras’ telling, he fled the National Autonomous University campus and moved to Tampico around 1964. Yet Contreras also allegedly told his “editor” about his encounter with Oswald after the 1963 Kennedy assassination.

College newspapers aren’t common in Mexico, and Contreras was a law student. So how could he have had an editor in 1963?

I thought his hometown paper, El Sol de Tampico, might hold the answer. Digging through its archives, I found that the newspaper ran a Sunday gossip column in the early 1960s called “Crisol,” or “melting pot.”

Óscar Contreras became the reporter for “Crisol” on June 6, 1963, and continued writing the gossip column in September and October that year.

While Lee Harvey Oswald was in Mexico City, Contreras was 300 miles away in Tampico. In flamboyant prose, faded back issues of the local paper show, he chronicled the sumptuous wedding receptions, quinceañeras and yacht excursions of Tampico’s high society

.

The article itself is great because it links to some of the new declassified documents.

[Allen773]

Originally Posted by Axxman300

The problem with the CIA is that its internal system for getting information to the right departments is slow. There are TV, radio, and print news operations in every country in the world. If you need to know what's going on in a certain country, or specific region within that country you simply subscribe to the closest newspaper.

Indeed, the stovepiping of intelligence is an ongoing systemic problem in the US government; hence, the failure to connect the dots on 9/11 and, I’d argue, the failure to convey to policymakers just how poor and dated the intelligence on Iraqi WMD really was (I lay a good deal of responsibility for the latter at George Tenet’s door).

Though I do wonder if the post-9/11 reforms like fusion centers, DNI, etc. have compounded the problem by pumping massive amounts of intelligence into an ever-expanding bureaucracy (which includes tons of private contractors with Top Secret security clearances - hardly unproblematic). Not to mention, the civil liberties issues that arise with extensive domestic surveillance...

In other words, I’m not exactly confident that adding more hay to the haystack of terrorist leads and threats will help solve these issues, especially given the trend of lone wolf actors being groomed or inspired by terrorist recruiters. One person slipping through the cracks can wreak an awful lot of havoc...

[Axxman300]

Originally Posted by Allen773

Indeed, the stovepiping of intelligence is an ongoing systemic problem in the US government; hence, the failure to connect the dots on 9/11 and, I’d argue, the failure to convey to policymakers just how poor and dated the intelligence on Iraqi WMD really was (I lay a good deal of responsibility for the latter at George Tenet’s door).

Though I do wonder if the post-9/11 reforms like fusion centers, DNI, etc. have compounded the problem by pumping massive amounts of intelligence into an ever-expanding bureaucracy (which includes tons of private contractors with Top Secret security clearances - hardly unproblematic). Not to mention, the civil liberties issues that arise with extensive domestic surveillance...

In other words, I’m not exactly confident that adding more hay to the haystack of terrorist leads and threats will help solve these issues, especially given the trend of lone wolf actors being groomed or inspired by terrorist recruiters. One person slipping through the cracks can wreak an awful lot of havoc...

It is a mixed bag.

The FBI and CIA and the rest are on the same page as far as terrorism goes, but there are still obvious breakdowns. Worse, the current DCI has been funneling intelligence to the DEA and FBI about drug operations, which is not part of the Patriot Act's purview.


As far as the JFK Assassination goes, the recent National Archives document release showed that the CIA's Mexico City Station cabled Langley about Lee Oswald's visit to the Cuban and Soviet Embassies, and advised them to contact the FBI to fill them in so they could investigate. That information was never passed along to the FBI. And then the FBI failed to mention Lee Oswald, a defector to the Soviet Union, was in Dallas to the Secret Service, who would have detailed men to monitor him.

In short had either the CIA told the FBI, and or the FBI told the Secret Service then JFK would probably be alive today.

[The Common Potato]

The teapot was between Earth and Mars and it was Lipton who did it. #fake brews

[HSienzant]

Originally Posted by Axxman300

It is a mixed bag.

The FBI and CIA and the rest are on the same page as far as terrorism goes, but there are still obvious breakdowns. Worse, the current DCI has been funneling intelligence to the DEA and FBI about drug operations, which is not part of the Patriot Act's purview.


As far as the JFK Assassination goes, the recent National Archives document release showed that the CIA's Mexico City Station cabled Langley about Lee Oswald's visit to the Cuban and Soviet Embassies, and advised them to contact the FBI to fill them in so they could investigate. That information was never passed along to the FBI. And then the FBI failed to mention Lee Oswald, a defector to the Soviet Union, was in Dallas to the Secret Service, who would have detailed men to monitor him.

In short had either the CIA told the FBI, and or the FBI told the Secret Service then JFK would probably be alive today.

The only thing I disagree with is your final six words. He would have celebrated his 103 birthday this past May if he was still alive today. That makes it highly improbable he would be alive today. Most people's natural life span isn't typically that long. I usually phrase it as there would have been no assassination attempt in Dallas.

Hank

[Axxman300]

Originally Posted by HSienzant

The only thing I disagree with is your final six words. He would have celebrated his 103 birthday this past May if he was still alive today. That makes it highly improbable he would be alive today. Most people's natural life span isn't typically that long. I usually phrase it as there would have been no assassination attempt in Dallas.

Hank

My head is stuck in 1977.

[Axxman300]

Add this to the list of things Trump lied about:

https://www.arcamax.com/currentnews/...s/s-2448245?fs

Quote:

WASHINGTON — Like many Americans his age, Donald Trump shared an interest in the mysterious assassination of President John F. Kennedy. So much so that soon after taking office he pledged, as a Washington outsider, to order the release of all related documents kept secret in government vaults.

Now weeks away from leaving office, it appears he'll leave that task of historical interest and significance to President-elect Joe Biden.

Trump came to office with a flair for television and how to build audience suspense. And given the numerous documentaries and the hit 1991 movie "JFK" by director Oliver Stone, the promised release of decades-old secret documents had all the makings of a suspense thriller. It portended critical information for historians and could quench a thirst for interested baby boomers.

"Subject to the receipt of further information, I will be allowing, as President, the long blocked and classified JFK FILES to be opened," Trump announced with fanfare in an unexpected tweet on Oct. 21, 2017, just nine months into his term.

But soon after the bombshell, Trump partially retreated.

But there is a end date to this nonsense:

Quote:

The Kennedy assassination documents must be fully declassified by Oct. 26, 2021. That would allow the incoming Biden administration to be the one that boasts it made the JFK files completely open to the public more than 57 years after the fateful day in Dallas on Nov. 22, 1963.

Maybe El Presidente will piss off the CIA and FBI and order their release before he's out the door.

Not holding my breath.

[Allen773]

Been thinking that passing the JFK Records Act was a mistake. Why give in to the pressures of conspiracy theorists? Political cowardice?

[Axxman300]

Originally Posted by Allen773

Been thinking that passing the JFK Records Act was a mistake. Why give in to the pressures of conspiracy theorists? Political cowardice?

First off, most secret documents lose their classification after 20 years.

Second, the big document release a few years back didn't tell us anything we didn't already know about JFK, Ike, and our efforts to quash Castro. They just filled in a few holes.

Third, when Congress passes a law it is supposed to be followed.

Fourth, the CIA and the FBI should be embarrassed by their incompetence and inability/unwillingness to review the documents in question in order for their release within the Congressionally MANDATED timeline.

And finally, while I respect secrecy there comes a time when all secrets see the light of day. Americans have a right to know what has been done in their name and with their tax dollars. While American's don't have a right to know these secrets in this very moment, they should, and must have access to these secrets after a prudent amount of time.

If all our secrets remained in the black there would be zero accountability for the Agencies involved. Things can't evolve in the dark. The CIA's website lists many books about the Agency's history which are not flattering, and they have a link to the FOIA Reading Room. Those are there for CIA officers and employees to access as much as the public because reading them makes for a better intelligence service.

And as it applies to this subject, had the autopsy photos and x-rays been available to the public by the mid-1980s there would likely be no JFK-CTs, certainly not a second gunman. The secrecy surrounding the assassination due to the CIA and FBI's counter-Castro operations fundamentally created the JFK-Assassination CTs and have kept them alive well beyond their expiration date.

[Allen773]

Lee Harvey Oswald: Outspoken in his extreme hatred toward General Edwin Walker, told his wife that he had shot at Walker and even showed her the rifle he had used....the same rifle that was used to kill President Kennedy.

Lee Harvey Oswald: Matched the description by multiple witnesses in Dealey Plaza of the man who killed President Kennedy and wounded Governor Connally.

Lee Harvey Oswald: Matched the description of multiple witnesses to the murder of a police officer who tried to question him in Oak Cliff and who went into the theater where he (ie. Lee Harvey Oswald) violently resisted arrest once the cops showed up.

Lee Harvey Oswald: "I'm just a patsy!"

***

Conspiracy theorists: "We believe him!"



*** This is, of course, just a tiny bit of the massive amount of evidence pointing at Oswald's guilt in the JFK assassination....and Oswald's guilt alone.

[Axxman300]

Originally Posted by Allen773

Lee Harvey Oswald: Outspoken in his extreme hatred toward General Edwin Walker, told his wife that he had shot at Walker and even showed her the rifle he had used....the same rifle that was used to kill President Kennedy.

Yes, he gave her instructions about what to do if he was arrested.

The rifle has always been the 500-pound gorilla in this case. Had he used a garden variety hunting rifle CTists would have a case, but he bought a 6.5x52mm Carcano. The bullets are exclusive to the Carcano, and the only bullets recovered were 6.5x52mm Carcano rounds. There were only two Carcano rifles in the Dallas area on 11/22/63, the other one belonged to a gunshop owner.

Quote:

Lee Harvey Oswald: Matched the description of multiple witnesses to the murder of a police officer who tried to question him in Oak Cliff and who went into the theater where he (ie. Lee Harvey Oswald) violently resisted arrest once the cops showed up.

That plus he tried to shot another DPD officer with the same gun he used to kill Tippit. They literally removed it from his hand.

Quote:

Lee Harvey Oswald: "I'm just a patsy!"

He also told one of the detectives, "I guess everyone will know my name."

[MicahJava]

Originally Posted by Axxman300

Did this small wound occur the day before or did someone shoot him on the other side of the Triple Underpass?

I ask because the assassination is on film and JFK is only hit twice.

What do you call this?

I'm not even saying this proves a conspiracy. One could try arguing this little spot represents a shrapnel exit wound created by a shot from behind. But it sure does look like a little hole in the right front of the scalp. No such hole was acknowledged by the pathologists. By listening to everything the pathologists said, one would think there were two and only two separate holes in the scalp - a small one in the back and one long tear on the right side. At the very least, it looks like we have proof of incompetence looking at this picture.

[turingtest]

Originally Posted by MicahJava

What do you call this?

https://i.imgur.com/znuC8bo.jpg

I'm not even saying this proves a conspiracy. One could try arguing this little spot represents a shrapnel exit wound created by a shot from behind. But it sure does look like a little hole in the right front of the scalp. No such hole was acknowledged by the pathologists. By listening to everything the pathologists said, one would think there were two and only two separate holes in the scalp - a small one in the back and one long tear on the right side. At the very least, it looks like we have proof of incompetence looking at this picture.

Wow, this is a really great example of CTist thinking (and arrogance). Trained pathologists working with the actual body at the time don't see what an amateur sleuth sees in a black-and-white photo almost sixty years later- and it's the pathologists who are incompetent.

[MicahJava]

Originally Posted by turingtest

Wow, this is a really great example of CTist thinking (and arrogance). Trained pathologists working with the actual body at the time don't see what an amateur sleuth sees in a black-and-white photo almost sixty years later- and it's the pathologists who are incompetent.

At the very least:

Maybe they did see it, but were too lazy to bother reporting on it because they were under the impression that it didn't change their basic conclusions. Would you at least be open to acknowledging that? What do you call the area around the red circle? Sure looks like a hold in the scalp to me.

[abaddon]

Originally Posted by MicahJava

What do you call this?

Pareidolia

[Hans]

Originally Posted by abaddon

Pareidolia

I like to think its like a Rorschach inkblot test.

[turingtest]

Originally Posted by MicahJava

At the very least:

Maybe they did see it, but were too lazy to bother reporting on it because they were under the impression that it didn't change their basic conclusions. Would you at least be open to acknowledging that? What do you call the area around the red circle? Sure looks like a hold in the scalp to me.

If they didn't think it would change their basic conclusions, then it isn't a case of laziness, it's a case of parsimony- something I'm aware CTists have a problem with.

And I'm not going to play your game of "what does it look like to you?" I've already explained why, even though it shouldn't need explanation.

[Allen773]

A lot of CT’ers mention Oswald’s ordering the Carcano through the mail as some evidence of him being framed by The Conspiracy (TM). That is, it created a paper trail that inevitably led to Oswald.

They neglect to mention that:
1. Oswald didn’t have a driver’s license, and so ordering a rifle in-person would have required him enlisting the help of someone else and being seen by someone in a store: that’s at minimum two witnesses to Oswald ordering a rifle, and I can’t imagine that gun store managers and owners didn’t keep receipts and other records of purchases.

2. Oswald ordered the rifle under an alias.

3. Oswald ordered the rifle to kill far-right Brigadier General Edwin Walker as, it seems, part of his plan to become a Communist hero and hopefully, either be allowed to return to the USSR or maybe more likely, be settled in Cuba.

4. There’s no evidence that Oswald was even thinking about killing JFK when he ordered the Carcano, let alone making an active plan toward that end. Again, he was focused on Walker.

5. In any event, Oswald desired fame and publicity - a classic narcissist - so being caught wasn’t necessarily a setback for him. If anything, Oswald strikes me as the kind of defendant who planned to make a scene at his trial, denouncing the US government and bragging about his actions and how smart he was and how brainwashed the sheeple were, etc. Obviously he never got the chance.

(Anyone more knowledgeable than me, feel free to correct any errors and/or add more detail. Much appreciated.)

[HSienzant]

Originally Posted by MicahJava

What do you call this?

https://i.imgur.com/znuC8bo.jpg

uh, a black-and-white autopsy photo of the late President's head wound taken on the evening of the assassination with something obscure circled in red?

Originally Posted by MicahJava

I'm not even saying this proves a conspiracy.

Good, because it doesn't.

Originally Posted by MicahJava

One could try arguing this little spot represents a shrapnel exit wound created by a shot from behind.

Sure, go ahead. But you'd have to pretend the autopsy doctors missed this exit wound entirely, or lied about it with no evidence in support whatsoever. Remember, in the past you've taken the word of the autopsy doctors as gospel when it suited you. You cannot turn around and then say the doctors are incompetent and missed a hole in the head entirely.

Originally Posted by MicahJava

But it sure does look like a little hole in the right front of the scalp.

Right, because of your extensive background in brain and skull anatomy as well as your expertise in photo analysis. Riiight...

Originally Posted by MicahJava

No such hole was acknowledged by the pathologists.

So, tell us MicahJava, what was your first clue that you were wrong about this additional hole in the head?

Originally Posted by MicahJava

By listening to everything the pathologists said, one would think there were two and only two separate holes in the scalp - a small one in the back and one long tear on the right side.

Ah, so that was your first clue.

Originally Posted by MicahJava

At the very least, it looks like we have proof of incompetence looking at this picture.

At the very least, we absolutely do.

Your incompetence, not theirs.

Hank

[HSienzant]

Originally Posted by MicahJava

At the very least:

Maybe they did see it, but were too lazy to bother reporting on it because they were under the impression that it didn't change their basic conclusions.

Are you serious? They are dealing with the body of the President of the most powerful nation in the world, shot dead by gunfire, and they are just *too lazy* to mention an additional bullet wound?

You don't get to be a medical doctor by being *too lazy* to be precise, specific, and detailed.

Meanwhile, they went to the trouble of examining and weighing various internal organs and remarking on their characteristics, and even detailing old surgical scars on the President like here:

https://www.archives.gov/files/resea...ppendix-09.pdf
"There is a old well healed 8 cm. McBurney adominal incision. Over the lumbar spine in the midline is an old well healed 15 cm. scar. Situated in the upper antero-lateral aspect of the right thigh is an old, well healed 8 cm. scar. "

But your thesis you're pushing now is they were just *too lazy* to mention a third bullet wound in the head to the late President of the United States killed by gunfire? That's seriously the argument you're advancing here?

Originally Posted by MicahJava

Would you at least be open to acknowledging that?

Sure, I acknowledge it's a ridiculous argument, which makes me question how seriously you take this subject. It's not a joke to some of us. You can do better. Strike that. Maybe you can't do better, but you should do better.

Originally Posted by MicahJava

What do you call the area around the red circle?

The area around the red circle. I guess I was looking in the wrong place. I was looking at the area *within* the red circle. Now you're telling me I should be looking at the area *surrounding* the red circle for this hole you imagine. Silly me.

Originally Posted by MicahJava

Sure looks like a hold [hole] in the scalp to me.

Remind me of your extensive background in human anatomy and photo analysis again. I seem to have forgotten you had any.

You've been informed before you have no expertise in the subjects you constantly opine about, and therefore your uninformed opinions carry no weight here. Yet you insist on continuing this charade, and in every post - or certainly almost every post, so I don't get accused of hyperbole - you tell us what you think something is or what you think something means.

For the umpteenth time, nobody cares about what you think. Nobody cares about your opinion. Your ininformed opinion is worthless here.

Make a case from the expert testimony and the eyewitness testimony. Without substituting what you *think* it means for what they actually said. We have had enough of that.

Hank

[HSienzant]

Originally Posted by turingtest

Wow, this is a really great example of CTist thinking (and arrogance). Trained pathologists working with the actual body at the time don't see what an amateur sleuth sees in a black-and-white photo almost sixty years later- and it's the pathologists who are incompetent.

If I had four hands, I'd give you four thumbs up.

Hank

[HSienzant]

Let's do this another way.

Originally Posted by MicahJava

What do you call this?

https://i.imgur.com/znuC8bo.jpg

The logical fallacy of shifting the burden of proof. If you have a case to make, make it.

Originally Posted by MicahJava

I'm not even saying this proves a conspiracy.

Good, because that would be the logical fallacy of begging the question.

Originally Posted by MicahJava

One could try arguing this little spot represents a shrapnel exit wound created by a shot from behind.

One could try arguing for any number of different things. But by mentioning only one, you're trying to force the argument into an either / or situation, or the logical fallacy of a false dichotomy, where you mention only those interpretations you favor, and ask us to choose from among those. Here, you only mention one, and don't even bother to give us a true choice.

One could also try arguing there's no evidence of an additional wound in the head, so anyone even attempting to advance such an argument must be relying on really extensive expertise in cranial anatomy and photo analysis.

Either that, or they are just trolling.

Originally Posted by MicahJava

But it sure does look like a little hole in the right front of the scalp.

And here you're substituting your opinion for that of the expert witnesses.
We know that - and we know you know that - because you acknowledge the opinion of the expert witnesses immediately thereafter. Right here:

Originally Posted by MicahJava

No such hole was acknowledged by the pathologists. By listening to everything the pathologists said, one would think there were two and only two separate holes in the scalp - a small one in the back and one long tear on the right side.

And let's not forget all the qualified forensic pathologists who reviewed the extant autopsy materials for the HSCA and the other investigations and didn't see anything like you suggest. I believe the estimated number of autopsies conducted by the HSCA forensic panel members was over 100,000 in total. I would wager the estimated number of autopsies you've conducted is zero. That's (0), as in none.

But you think you're truly smarter than all of them, with all their background and are able to discern something neither the autopsy pathologists who conducted the autopsy or the pathologists who reviewed the extant autopsy materials was able to discern?

Wow. Your photo should be in the dictionary under "hubris".

So there's the true choice, go with the experts who had the body in front of them (the original three pathologists) *and* the HSCA forensic pathology review panel of experts, or go with the opinion of some anonymous internet poster with no qualifications whatsoever in cranial anatomy or photo analysis.

Gee, what would any reasonable person do?

Originally Posted by MicahJava

At the very least, it looks like we have proof of incompetence looking at this picture.

I can't improve on my prior answer, so I'll let it go at that.

Hank

[Major Major]

Originally Posted by HSienzant

One could also try arguing there's no evidence of an additional wound in the head, so anyone even attempting to advance such an argument must be relying on really extensive expertise in cranial anatomy and photo analysis.

Either that, or they are just trolling.




And here you're substituting your opinion for that of the expert witnesses.

But you don't understand. He's the talented amateur who lacks the preconceptions and biases of the professionals, so from his outsider perspective he dazzlingly realizes what they are too bogged down in their ways to see.

Hey, it works in all those detective novels.

Just like it did for our former Juror Number Eight, who had an alternative explanation for every point, thus proving reasonable doubt.

And trying to explain that real life isn't like detective novels/movies seems to go over some peoples' heads.

[kookbreaker]

Originally Posted by Allen773

A lot of CT’ers mention Oswald’s ordering the Carcano through the mail as some evidence of him being framed by The Conspiracy (TM). That is, it created a paper trail that inevitably led to Oswald.

They neglect to mention that:
1. Oswald didn’t have a driver’s license, and so ordering a rifle in-person would have required him enlisting the help of someone else and being seen by someone in a store: that’s at minimum two witnesses to Oswald ordering a rifle, and I can’t imagine that gun store managers and owners didn’t keep receipts and other records of purchases.

2. Oswald ordered the rifle under an alias.

3. Oswald ordered the rifle to kill far-right Brigadier General Edwin Walker as, it seems, part of his plan to become a Communist hero and hopefully, either be allowed to return to the USSR or maybe more likely, be settled in Cuba.

4. There’s no evidence that Oswald was even thinking about killing JFK when he ordered the Carcano, let alone making an active plan toward that end. Again, he was focused on Walker.

5. In any event, Oswald desired fame and publicity - a classic narcissist - so being caught wasn’t necessarily a setback for him. If anything, Oswald strikes me as the kind of defendant who planned to make a scene at his trial, denouncing the US government and bragging about his actions and how smart he was and how brainwashed the sheeple were, etc. Obviously he never got the chance.

(Anyone more knowledgeable than me, feel free to correct any errors and/or add more detail. Much appreciated.)

I’ve pointed out earlier in the thread that the likely reason is more likely cost. Mail order surplus rifles are cheap compared to what a store offers and Oswald would know what guns are available and their prices are. If he goes into a shop who knows what they have? And at what price?

Oswald never had a lot of money, but he wanted a rifle so he could be a “revolutionary”.

[Axxman300]

Originally Posted by MicahJava

What do you call this?

Matrixing.

It also looks like:

A parrot.

A dolphin.

The hump of a whale.

Etc...

The flash would make a hole at that angle invisible.

Quote:

I'm not even saying this proves a conspiracy. One could try arguing this little spot represents a shrapnel exit wound created by a shot from behind. But it sure does look like a little hole in the right front of the scalp.

No, it really does not.

Quote:

No such hole was acknowledged by the pathologists.

What? The two guys (plus the others) who actually sawed open the skull and removed the brain somehow missed the hole, even after cleaning the head before dissection?

I'm going out on a limb here and suggest they didn't mention it because it didn't exist.

Quote:

By listening to everything the pathologists said, one would think there were two and only two separate holes in the scalp - a small one in the back and one long tear on the right side.

Almost as if he had been shot with a 6.5x52mm projectile. Weird.

Quote:

At the very least, it looks like we have proof of incompetence looking at this picture.

Well golly, I wonder what's in the other five or six photographs taken of the head wounds? Have you seen them? Oh wait, no, you haven't.

Fun Note: In the time you've wasted posting these JFK fantasies you could have finished Medical School and be in your second year of residency on your way to becoming a real medical doctor.

[Axxman300]

Originally Posted by kookbreaker

I’ve pointed out earlier in the thread that the likely reason is more likely cost. Mail order surplus rifles are cheap compared to what a store offers and Oswald would know what guns are available and their prices are. If he goes into a shop who knows what they have? And at what price?

Oswald never had a lot of money, but he wanted a rifle so he could be a “revolutionary”.

He bought it because it was cheap, and came with a scope, and was Italian (cool factor for all wannabe revolutionaries).

[Axxman300]

Originally Posted by MicahJava

At the very least:

Maybe they did see it, but were too lazy to bother reporting on it because they were under the impression that it didn't change their basic conclusions. Would you at least be open to acknowledging that?

No way in hell.

You have two military doctors, called in cold, who are tasked with performing the autopsy of a murdered President of the United States (a man who a few hours before had been their commander in chief). They are told that RFK is waiting in the building, and that Jackie Kennedy wanted the body ASAP.

So Humes (wisely) brings in a photographer without notifying anyone to document the process due to the limited time they would have with the body. JFK was X-rayed from head to toe. They found the entrance wound in the upper back/lower neck, and the throat wound which they initially believed to be a tracheostomy. They didn't think to call Parkland Hospital until afterwords due to the pressure to wrap things up.

At every step of the procedure Humes was in charge. He managed to be thorough in spite of the situation. Nobody in that room was lazy. You are the last person to make such an assessment.

And keep in mind that Lee Oswald was still alive in a Dallas PD holding cell. The DPD, Secret Service, FBI, and CIA were ALL actively looking for co-conspirators. The documents from that time emphasize this fact. Thus there was no reason to alter or manipulate the autopsy because at any moment Oswald could have spilled his guts, and named people. Or there could have been a second arrest. The investigation had just begun and was going full throttle.

[Allen773]

Why would Oswald's alleged co-conspirators wait two whole days to silence him?

Unless, of course, there was no conspiracy. Occam strikes again.