JFK Assassination 40th Anniversary Thread - Page 5

"Oswald was proven guilty in the court of public opinion"

No he wasn't since public opinion almost from the beginning wanted to believe conspiracy.

"Never given a lawyer, Which is everyone's right as an american"

Because he specifically asked to be represented by one attorney, John Abt of New York, whom no one could get hold of that weekend.

"Then he is disposed of three days later"

Kindly go back and read my earlier post on the timing factor which shows how this theory is ridiculous.

"To think this little puny man acted alone is laughable."

Is it anymore laughable then a nut like John Hinckley coming close to murdering Ronald Reagan for one of the most bizarre reasons on the face of the Earth (impressing Jodie Foster)? Stop and think about that one for a moment.

"However, like the folks who decry Stone or other CT for not giving a rebuttal, a rebuttal was not given by Stone or anyone else."

Excuse me, but considering the propaganda campaign of free passes that Stone has gotten from the critics for more then a decade, not to mention the fact that there is no "balance" to be found in his movie or in his DVD, not to mention the fact that most of what Stone did can not be defended, period, why should this get you up in arms?

"Testimonials about photos aside (isn't that heresy as well?),"

No it isn't, because 19 forensic pathologists, the trained competent experts in the field, have examined them and their opinion is unanimous: Shots fired from behind.

"I still can't buy the most basic points - the action of Kennedy's head,"

Why not? Because it doesn't give you the answer you like? Try looking at the Z-film sometime and you'll see JFK's head move *forward* at the initial impact before being thrown back according to forces that all medical experts say are perfectly normal. Then you're left with small entry wound at the back, large exit wound at the front, fragments of a bullet from Oswald's rifle found in the head, and no evidence of any gunman from any other location, yet somehow after all of this, this is still impossible for you to "buy"?

"the lack of security awareness around the TSBD -"

What "lack"? Here what you are doing is transposing 21st Century perceptions of security back into 1963, which isn't how the process is done. You have to recall that in 1963, no president had been assassinated since 1901, and it was still taken for granted that a President should appear before the public in the open in ways that he would not today. The Secret Service did the best they could possibly have done. The only fault was the FBI not taking more seriously what kind of a risk Oswald, who they had under surveillance, might be. But that isn't proof of a government conspiracy, that's just proof of a bureaucratic breakdown.

"CIA/USSR background of the supposed lone gunman."

What CIA connection? The KGB had him under surveillance for three years and knew he was no CIA spy. Why shouldn't that be the end of things? And look at the real Oswald for a change, and tell me just where this "CIA" connection comes from other then the imagination of conspiracy authors who think American intelligence agencies are the root of all evil?

"Reasonable Doubt."

There is no reasonable doubt when there is (1)a murder weapon (2) eyewitness testimony (3) no alibi (4) the murder of a Dallas police officer fleeing the scene (5) the attempted murder of General Walker six months before (6) Oswald's fingerprints on the rifle (7) said rifle the only one ballistically found to have fired the bullets that wounded JFK and Connally. After all this, the only room left for reasonable doubt is the kind of standard used to ask if there is reasonable doubt to believe the moon landings were faked.

"Now you've really screwed up."

No, I haven't. Kindly go back through the entire Warren Commission Index and you will find that Crenshaw's participation in the effort to save JFK's life was barely significant compared to those who appeared before the Commission. I didn't need the JAMA piece, I just needed to go back and find (1) that Crenshaw wasn't deemed significant enough by the WC to talk about his observations then and (2) his accounts spun 30 years after the fact contradict all the other doctors who were there. And his credibility about getting a phone call from LBJ on 11/24 is nonexistent since there is no way that could have happened.

"No credence whatsoever? None? These same doctors had already created a record concerning wounds of the President--a record that began just after they saw the body, a record sworn under oath. Their record describes a large wound at the rear of the President's head and a small wound in the front of the throat. Their record describes cerebellar tissue extruding from the head wound.

Once again, Eric, there is that pesky record you have to contend with..."

No Chris, the pesky record is the hard FACTS of the autopsy photos and x-rays that say otherwise, all of which have been authenticated by competent photo experts, and I don't give a smidgen of credibility to people who want to promote laughably ludicrous stories of faked autopspy photos and x-rays, which are usually spun by the likes of Robert Groden, the guy whose credibility as a photo expert went up in smoke for good at the OJ civil trial. That's the guy you need to stake your faith in a conspiracy in in order for your ludicrous claims to get taken seriously.

"Nearly every Dallas doctor, while under oath, was asked by the Warren Commission where the head wound was located. Each doctor placed the wound in the back of the President's head."

None of them ever turned JFK's head over. The recollections were simply mistaken because the facts of JFK's x-rays and autopsy photos say otherwise. And as all of them admitted in the NOVA special in 1988, they saw NO evidence of altering, and they also chose to doubt the infallibility of their own recollections by noting that they were not acting as trained forensic pathologists, they were engaged in a lifesaving emergency attempt.

"I have similar examples from doctors Paul Peters, Ronald Jones, Gene Akin, and Robert McClelland. Does this sound like people who were not completely sure of what they were looking at to you...?"

Dr. Peters, Dr. McClelland and Dr. Jenkins are but three of the doctors from the NOVA special who admitted their recollections could not be accepted as gospel. If they can doubt their infallibility in light of the factual record, why can't you?

"May I please have a cite for this?"

That was the conclusion arrived at by the HSCA as to what most likely happened. And considering that we know that RFK went to the trouble of dropping the casket that brought JFK back from Dallas into the Atlantic off the Continental Shelf, that conclusion has the ring of authenticity, which is a lot more then I can say for the charge of "doctored autopsy photos" pushed by OJ Simpson's laughable "photo expert."

"What of the numerous important witnesses that the Warren Commission chose not to interview?"

Name them. And don't give me the names of phonies like Gordon Arnold who can't even prove they were in Dealey Plaza that day.

"Your claims of drugging witnesses, hypnotizing, etc. are also examples of twisting the facts regarding the case"

That Perry Russo, Garrison's star witness, conveniently zapped out of the film, was put under hypnosis by Dr. Esmond Fatter and fed leading questions before he came up with his story about Shaw and Oswald isn't subject to dispute. Kindly consult the accounts of those like Milton Bremer, Jay Epstein, Patricia Lambert and everyone else who has written about the Garrison "case" and that fraudulent miscarriage of justice that never should have gone to trial.

"Are the remainder of the questions I submitted going to receive answers at some later time, or are you admitting you either do not know or have no opinion?"

Which "questions" are we talking about? So far, all I've seen is a lot of evasion and a lot of pushing of theories of conspiracy that make no rational sense. If you want to place your faith in Robert Groden's ability to read photographs and x-rays over that of the 19 forensic pathologists who say otherwise, you might as well place your faith in the Flat Earth Society.

Now going back, I find there is not a single significant question that I didn't answer. But I can't resist calling attention to this one again:

"The motorcade route was changed at the last minute and yet the assassination occurred on the very part that had been changed."

A falsehood that I documented in full, for which you gave no response. There was no change, period.

"Oswald's description in connection with the murder of patrolman Tippit was broadcast over Dallas police radio at 12:43p.m., yet Tippit was not shot until 1:06p.m. How do you account for any of this?"

Because the description came from Howard Brennan, who saw Oswald shoot the President. Anyone with an elementary knowledge of the Warren Commission would be able to tell you that one.

Those two questions destroy the credibility of the other questions you ask. You keep insisting fakery in the autopsy photos based on unreliable, after-the-fact recollections of people who have not a shred of competence in the ability to read photos and x-rays, and who are not experts in photographic analysis. Pardon me if I take such stories with more then just the proverbial grain of salt.

"Okay, I will. Since you've lost track of the argument, allow me to jog your memory. You said "he wasn't even there." I proved to you that not only was he there"

If I used the wrong choice of words, I'll plead guilty. Crenshaw inflated his importance with regard to working on JFK, and that is a point I stand by completely. If I said he wasn't there, then that would be inaccurate, but he was not the prime mover.

"There is extensive additional evidence in regards to the autopsy photographs having been tampered with, altered"

And I reiterate: Only in the vivid imaginations of people giving worthless, long after the fact recollections by people who are not competent in the field. That is not "evidence" it's worthless hearsay. And then we come back to the other reason why the "evidence" is worthless, it's because the theory makes no rational, logical sense and can not be fit into the full picture of the physical and medical evidence. Period. If you want to argue the x-rays and autopsy photos are altered when every competent photographic expert says they are genuine, and there is no credible time for when JFK's body can be altered, then you are giving me a Flat Earth Society argument. You can not fit this scenario into a credible explanation of what happened.

"This is one of the little nuggets that I asked you to address before."

I already addressed it and you didn't like the answer so you pretend that I didn't answer it.

"Oh, now you're saying that is what most likely happened. I find it funny that that you didn't use the word "likely""

I merely express my belief in the plausible, not the silly, which is what you're doing with the faked autopsy photos nonsense.

"And, since we haven't heard Robert Kennedy say that for himself, I hardly think we should treat it as the 'fact' that you attempted to make it appear."

That RFK destroyed items that he was afraid would become macabre souvenirs is beyond dispute. That autopsy photos and x-rays were hidden from the staff out of deference to the Kennedy family is also beyond dispute. Extrapolate that to JFK's brain and you get, as the HSCA logically concluded, a less sinister explanation then the one you want to push, for which the burden of proof is on *you* to say we should take seriously.

"I'd like for a lawyer on this board to chime in if he would be so kind and field this one for me, but Hypnosis, sodium amatol (or other truth serum), and lie detector tests are all acceptable tools at the disposal of prosecution when attempting to extract information."

You just stuck your foot in your mouth again. Russo later admitted the story he gave only under hypnosis was garbage. If your newest tactic is to salvage Russo's credibility, then you are really staying in Flat Eart territory (if Russo had any measure of reliability, then Stone would not have zapped him out of existence and made up Kevin Bacon's character instead).

"It is only when YOU say things like "Drugged" and "Fed questions" that it takes on such a sinister tone."

That is what happened, and unlike you, there are eyewitnesses and documented evidence to what Garrison did. Concrete facts that show an out-of-control prosecutor abusing his power to frame an innocent man.

"There is ZERO evidence that Garrison operated outside of the law in respect to the Shaw trial when it comes to the things that I just mentioned."

Wrong. There is plenty of evidence that shows Garrison resorting to duplicitous methods and knowing full well that they were duplicitous. That is part of the documented record, and you'd better come up with some direct responses to what authors like Bremer, Kirkwood, Epstein and Lambert have found before you can salvage this monster's credibility.

"Your manipulation of words in describing him as a monster will not change that."

Garrison was a monster. Period. He framed an innocent man named Clay Shaw who was ruined for life because of what Garrison did to his reputation. And had Shaw not died in 1974, he in all likelihood would have won a pending defamation suit against Garrison that died only because of Shaw's death.

"No Eric, they do not. This is not a house of cards. This is a series of questions, one after another."

Oh yes it is a house of cards. Because to me, the fact that you would ask two questions that simple research would tell you have no logical basis for being asked in the first place automatically tells me the suspect nature of the sources you rely on. And you have to do some explaining of your own to account for why the authors you relied on to ask those questions of the description and the route "change" that never was, deliberately lied when they raised those questions that never should have been asked in the first place if they'd done their homework.

"just because you think you have discredited a couple of statements within my post."

Meaning you can still defend the "route change" nonsense and the "Description" timing nonsense? Well go right ahead, let's see if you're willing.

"Again, I point you to my post (#69) to familiarize yourself with just what is an expert:"

19 forensic pathologists, including those of the original autopsy, the Clark Commission, the Rockefeller Panel, the HSCA. They in short, uphold the WC and I have no reason to question their credentials.

"The conclusion is that no single bullet could have accounted for both of these wounds unless cervical vertebrae were intersected."

Um, let's see if I get this straight. You're now citing someone to make the argument that JFK's non-head wounds were caused by two bullets. Except that you've got a multitude of problems with that.

1-You would have to have four shots at a minimum. The overwhelming number of witnesses say three. And that includes those in the limousine.

2-You would have to account for where such a fourth bullet went, and how it could disappear into thin air without wounding Connally or anyone else or damaging the limousine.

3-You would then have to pinpoint the location of such a phantom shooter and then explain why there is no physical evidence of a shooter in any location other than the TSBD.

4-And then we have 19 pathologists who in effect say this conclusion is all wet, so that I am now forced to say this one person trumps the other 19?

Oh, BTW you were mentioning a guy named Stringer earlier. I now call your attention to the HSCA report on the matter of "faked autopsy photos."

"Further, in 1967 the autopsy pathologists, Drs. Humes, Boswell, and Finck, as well as Dr. James H. Ebersole, the acting chief of radiology, and one of the autopsy photographers, John Thomas Stringer, viewed the autopsy
photographs or X-rays, or both, and verified them as accurately portraying the wounds of President Kennedy. (6)"

Gee whiz, in 1967 Stringer says the autopsy photos accurately depicted the wounds according to the HSCA. And I'm supposed to believe a different after-the-fact story?

And yes, I think Mantik is full of it, since he has in the past aligned himself with a couple of other non-experts like Jack White and James Fetzer, whose credibility is in the same toilet that Robert Groden's is in.

Chris, I can't take the notion seriously that you or any other buff is intersted in the truth since the alarming pattern of deception and lies by conspiracy authors and filmmakers always manages to get a collective yawn from people like you and not faze you in the slightest. To me, that indicates more of a religious faith in the belief that a conspiracy *must* be true, then a willingness to accept the evidence as it is.

Personally, I think the real reason why conspiracy buffdom goes on is because Lee Harvey Oswald had a background and ideological beliefs that was too politically incorrect for too many people. I.E., he was a communist who murdered JFK in all likelihood because of his fanatical committment to Marxist-Leninst ideology. And for some people, for whom John F. Kennedy is supposed to be this symbol of progressive goodness, this is not a noble way for him to die. JFK, the symbol of the American Left's hopes and dreams must die the victim of a right wing extremist or plot in order for his death to have meaning. If Oswald had been a Klansman or just a Goldwater supporter, there would be no cottage industry of conspiracy buffs to this day.

And yet, just look at history and you will find that irrational motives more often account for how things like this happen. The motives of John Hinckley, the only man to come close to matching Oswald's accomplishment since 1963 for goodness sake, should make that obvious.

"Who said he had to be, you said HE WASN'T THERE."

And I admitted my mistake and moved on from it. Why can't you? I've never claimed to be infallible when I have to summon certain info from pure recall sometimes.

"Funny, I don't see it that way. The official White House Photographer, the individual that developed the film..."

Both of whom in 1967 said the photos matched what they remembered so let's move on from that silliness. The person who took the pictures is not a pathologist either.

"Obviously setting up a straw man here, so I won't touch it."

Translation: You won't touch the legit point that the theory you're pushing makes no sense in the big picture so you won't address it, and will instead resort to the usual buff game of sticking to nitpick anomalies without fitting them into a Big Picture answer. That's quite typical.

"Another straw man. This has nothing to do with the fact that Garrison's tactics are legal and ethical"

Oh please. This is nitpicking at its finest to bail out the disreputable conduct of conspiracy heroes at every possible turn, no matter how much the evidence points to their deceptions, while thinking that unsubstantiated innuendo is perfectly okay upon which to slander the United States government.

"Also, Stone has addressed Kevin Bacon's character eloquently enough in the director's commentary of the film"

No he hasn't. The real reason why Stone made the character up was because if he'd stuck to the truth, the audience would have realized Garrison was a crackpot framing an innocent man. You are evading again.

"Who was later found to have lied about working for the CIA."

Another conspiracy buff lie. Shaw never worked for the CIA. He was simply debriefed like hundreds of other businessmen in the late 1950s when returning from overseas, but that only made him a good citizen, not a CIA employee.

"And furthermore, are these witnesses that you speak of to be held under the same scrutiny that you hold against those witnesses the dispute your opinion?"

These are reputable people. Garrison isn't. And you are simply bobbing and weaving when the evidence doesn't support your pet theories.

"Suit yourself, but the fact that you still refuse to address the questions looks bad. Just an observation."

Repeating an untruth about my not answering the questions, when I did answer them, will not make your untrue statement true.

"His recorded words after the fact state simply enough that his testimony was not represented in an accurate manner. He was quite pissed about it actually."

Actually, I think he's just pissed to find out that he's incriminated by his own words in the documented record and that for whatever reason known to himself, he just wants to make himself a hero to the buffs by charging "government conspiracy".


"As these posts move on, your tone is shifting away from credible evidence"

None of which you've ever bothered to address, I notice, so let's hear you explain the deceptions of conspiracy authors with regard to:

1-The "changed motorcade route"
2-The timing of the "description" broadcast which you found sinister, because you didn't bother to remember Howard Brennan.

Are willing to deal with those?

The problem is that conspiracy buffs invite such a broad brush to be applied to them because too often they are just repeating the same disinformation about the assassination over and over again. When questions about the "changed motorcade route" keep getting asked when they shouldn't, the broad brush is sometimes needed.

My passion about this issue has nothing to do with my feelings about John F. Kennedy. I was born long after his death, and from the objective standpoint of what kind of leader he was, I would not count myself as an admirer of him, though there are qualities of him I respect. To me, this issue boils down to the misuse of the process in how we study history and the techniques used by a group of conspiracy authors who trample on the accepted guidelines of responsible historical research. Were the techniques of conspiracy buffs employed with any other topic in history, the shallowness of their methods would become all the more evident.