Crackpot Corner! It's JFK Month—Here's One for Moeller! :-)

Lindsay Perigo's picture
Submitted by Lindsay Perigo on Mon, 2013-11-04 21:32

Nothing But Rhetorical Legerdemain

Michael Moeller's picture

After the evidence I presented here, including Linz's "pretty sensible" nutcase website, I expected him to come back with some mea culpas. Instead, it is just more diversion from the evidence. It is really, really sad the way Linz has treated the evidence.

Let's take a look at his most recent claims:

"And I'm familiar—and was, before you or Moeller were, probably—with all the reconstructions with water melons, etc., including Dan Rather's lie that the fatal shot caused the President to slump forward, and Peter Jennings' shillery."

WHAT reconstructions with "watermelons"? Nobody posted any reconstructions with "watermelons".

Here are the reconstructions of the single bullet and of the the head shot. No watermelons, no Dan Rather, and no Peter Jennings.

In fact, these videos were produced by two different forsenic science outfits who specialize in doing these forensic recreations. These are the type of recreations done and used in criminal cases.

Since Linz can't argue the evidence presented in these videos, he starts babbling about "watermelons". Same with the Peter Jennings video that was used. That video illustrates the computer modeling of JFK researcher David Meyer, which -- lo and behold -- matches up with the single bullet recreation of the forsenic science recreation team. What's Linz's response? He handwaves them all away as watermelons, Dan Rather, and Peter Jennings -- two of which are not even present.

That's the thing with conspiracists -- they can't dispute the physical evidence, so they pretend like it doesn't exist. Who Linz thinks he is fooling I have no idea.

Linz goes on to write:

"For precisely that reason, I shall not readily repudiate the evidence of my own eyes when watching the Zapruder film, or the testimony of eye- and ear-witnesses, reinforced by this fellow:

He doesn't repudiate the counter evidence because he can't -- that much is obvious. Therefore, he tilts at watermelons.

Secondly, Linz needs to familiarize himself with what the eyewitnesses and earwitnesses actually said. For instance, here is a tabulation of the earwitnesses. Notice that the House Committee has 20% of them coming from the grassy knoll, and 47% from the TSBD. A more exacting examination of the original testimonies has 59% coming from the TSBD, and only 31% coming from the grassy knoll.

So what does Linz have to say about almost double the number of earwitnesses saying they heard shots come from the TSBD? Nothing, because those facts don't support his case.

Or what about eyewitnesses? We have quite a number of eyewitnesses identifying Oswald in the TSBD, including on the 6th Floor. We also have witnesses from down below seeing a shooter in the window of the TSBD. Linz has nothing to say about them either.

Instead, he presents the following testimony as if it is evidence of a grassy knoll shooter:

Solterbeck said he was surprised at how small the plaza is, and standing on Elm Street, where Kennedy was shot, it was not difficult for him to imagine the possibility of a second shooter - someone in addition to Lee Harvey Oswald.

"They always say there possibly was a shot that came from behind the picket fence on the grassy knoll. I know where they think the shooter was, so I kind of just looked up that way. It was kind of an eerie thing because if there was a shooter there, boy, he had a direct shot that would have hit the president just like the (Abraham) Zapruder film shows," he said.

While Solterbeck does not subscribe to the numerous conspiracy theories about Kennedy's assassination, he does believe "that there were people behind (Oswald) or who put Oswald up to it."

Typical. Did the guy actually perceive a shooter? No. The guy gives absolutely no perceptions of any physical evidence supporting a shooter on the grassy knoll. He just felt "eerie" and "imagined the possibility".

Imaginings are not perceptions. Opinions are not evidence.

There have been all kinds of imaginings of multiple shooters and whatnot. Too bad none of it is backed up by physical evidence. And compare that with testimonial evidence of Oswald in the TSBD, which has his gun, fingerprints, and shell casings. Not much of a comparison.

Linz wrote:

G. Robert Blakey, Counsel to the House Assassinations Committee, who believed the assassination was a Mafia hit involving multiple shooters...

Again, opinions are not evidence.

Linz wrote:

"As do I when I watch Zapruder; and as does, in theory at least, the historian to whom I link. That shot came from the right rear?! Bullshit on stilts, I suspect."

Translation: Linz will believe his conclusion that a shot came from the front despite all fact, logic, and science to the contrary. He sees JFK go hurling "back and to the left" and imagines the shot came from the front, even though basic Newtonian physics and real life say that does not happen. But Linz believes it anyway.

No bullets or fragments or exit wound are found on the left side of JFK's head, which would HAVE TO be there if the shot came from the grassy knoll, but Linz believes it anyway.

In fact, two of Linz's own conspiracy sources -- Dr. Cyril Wecht and John Orr -- both have the head shot coming from behind. I guess consistency is secondary when you need something, anything.

Why does Linz cite them if he believes a head shot from the rear is "bullshit on stilts"? You got me, except that those two support conspiracy theories, in which case their theories will do, even if they contradict Linz's own "theory".

That's the way it is with conspiracists, they are gullible as hell when it comes to alleged "evidence" in favor of a conspiracy (see, also, Linz's "pretty sensible" website), but will find any means to dismiss even hard physical evidence to the contrary (see, eg., Linz's "watermelons").

Again, if we compare that nonsense to forensic recreations, shell casings, trajectory of the bullets, etc. it is a no-brainer. Unless you are Linz, then it gets reduced to "watermelons" and "shill-ism" by Dan Rather and Peter Jennings.

Like I said, nothing but rhetorical legerdemain.

Robert

Lindsay Perigo's picture

I recall your telling me privately about your trip to the JFK assassination site. And I'm familiar—and was, before you or Moeller were, probably—with all the reconstructions with water melons, etc., including Dan Rather's lie that the fatal shot caused the President to slump forward, and Peter Jennings' shillery. For precisely that reason, I shall not readily repudiate the evidence of my own eyes when watching the Zapruder film, or the testimony of eye- and ear-witnesses, reinforced by this fellow:

http://www.reviewonline.com/pa...

Solterbeck said he was surprised at how small the plaza is, and standing on Elm Street, where Kennedy was shot, it was not difficult for him to imagine the possibility of a second shooter - someone in addition to Lee Harvey Oswald.

"They always say there possibly was a shot that came from behind the picket fence on the grassy knoll. I know where they think the shooter was, so I kind of just looked up that way. It was kind of an eerie thing because if there was a shooter there, boy, he had a direct shot that would have hit the president just like the (Abraham) Zapruder film shows," he said.

While Solterbeck does not subscribe to the numerous conspiracy theories about Kennedy's assassination, he does believe "that there were people behind (Oswald) or who put Oswald up to it."

G. Robert Blakey, Counsel to the House Assassinations Committee, who believed the assassination was a Mafia hit involving multiple shooters (including Oswald), commented in one of the 50th anniversary docos that it's possible for rational men to look at the evidence and amicably disagree. I've learned to my great regret that that is impossible, on SOLO at least, thanks to the gratuitously bellicose histrionics and ad hominems of the anti-conspiracists. When you say, "Oh God, not this again," I'd break the no-doubt-shocking news to you that I'm entitled to raise whatever subjects I choose on my own site, and that scores of people who ran up the grassy knoll after the shots rang out and testified to the effect that that's where at least a shot came from (but not to the Warren Commision, which sanitised or thwarted all such testimony) thought differently from you. As did the runners who encountered Secret Service men who, as it turned out, were nothing of the sort. As do I when I watch Zapruder; and as does, in theory at least, the historian to whom I link. That shot came from the right rear?! Bullshit on stilts, I suspect.

A Thanksgiving Peace Offer

Michael Moeller's picture

Regardless of my frustrations on this subject, I said some things that were uncalled for. Therefore, I apologize to Linz for calling him a former shell of himself, which was cruel and not true. I also apologize to Terry, who is neither dumb nor a rodent, and it was stupid of me to say that.

Michael

wow..

Jules Troy's picture

Nice to see everyone getting along so well...

Linz

Michael Moeller's picture

Do you still feel good about that website?

How Bad Is Linz's "Pretty Sensible" Website?

Michael Moeller's picture

So bad that it is low even by crackpot standards.

First, I just want to point out that this website completely absolves Oswald of any wrongdoing. Yes, this website is whitewashing a Commie killer, which is monstrous. Part of the moral inversion also means that innocent people get their character assassinated, and I will get to one of those.

I bring this up because when you see the errors I lay out, you will see they are not innocent errors or accidents. They are deliberate and willful, which means their ultimate results of excusing a Commie killer and condemning innocents is intentional as well.

Oh wait, one more thing first. Oswald didn’t kill officer J.D. Tippit either, don’t ya know. Framed for that, too. Un-fucking-real.

In any event, I want to give another example from that website using one of the issues I brought up here – Oswald’s assassination attempt on Gen. Edwin Walker.

First we must ask: what about the physical evidence corroborating Mrs. Oswald’s story that Oswald attempted to kill Gen. Edwin Walker?

The details are given in the Warren Report (pg. 183-87). Among the corroborating evidence is a note from Oswald left to his wife, and according to his wife's testimony it was on the night of the Walker assassination attempt, although the note is not dated. The note was identified by an FBI expert to be Oswald’s handwriting. Although it doesn’t mention Walker, Oswald talks about what to do in the event of his arrest and which jail he will be at, and there are other details in the note that evidence the note was written in the Spring of 1963, which is when the Walker incident happened.

Photographs were found among Oswald’s possessions, including photos of Walker’s house, driveway, and back alley.

A 6.5mm bullet was found in Walker’s home – the same caliber as used to kill JFK. The FBI stated their tests on the bullet were inconclusive, but an independent examination by the Illinois Bureau of Criminal Identification and Investigation said there was a “fair probability” that it was fired from the rifle used to kill Kennedy. In addition, the House Committee later ran Neutron Activated Analysis (“NAA”) and stated it was ”probably a Mannlicher-Carcano bullet”.

So how does that website deal with the corroborating evidence? Here is their page on the topic.

Let’s start with the bullet. The website states that the bullet “went through brickwork”, and the Mannlicher–Carcano was not powerful enough to do that. I am not sure if the rifle is that powerful or not, but nowhere does it state that the bullet “went through brickwork”, which is why they have no citation. From Walker’s testimony, the bullet initially went through the screen crosspiece and window frame and glass to enter the house, then through the inside wall next to his desk and landed on a piece of literature (corroborated by the photographs).

The website just plain made that up.

On the authenticity of the note, the website states that: "only one of the three experts who were consulted by the House Select Committee on Assassinations considered the note to be authentic" (citing this appendix from pages 232-246). Going to that appendix, the Walker note is Item 57. The first expert says (in point 39) on the Russian language items that the person wrote the Walker note is written by the same person who wrote items 26 and 56, and says in the conclusion that there are only two items of indicative of different authorship, and neither of them is the Walker letter. The second expert said he was not familiar with the language of the three Russian items – 26, 56, and 57 (the Walker letter) – and therefore is unable reach a conclusion (see points 63-65). The third expert never mentions the Walker letter (see pages 243 -247).

More like 1 out of 1 experts authenticated the note! One couldn’t examine it because it was in Russian, and the other never mentions it, so the website spins it as only 1 out of 3 authenticated the note in order to make it seem like the other two disagreed!

The Walker note was found in a book given to Mrs. Oswald by Ruth Paine. What does the website say about that? They character assassinate her by saying: “This was not the only time Ruth Paine provided evidence helpful to the case against Oswald:”. Then the website provides links to other incidents alleged incidents of malfeasance, thus implying she is on the take. That’s how they treat inconvenient witnesses.

Just one problem with that story: Paine got accosted by the FBI for giving the note to Ms. Oswald, as she noted in her Warren Commission testimony and as further expanded upon by her and her husband:

”Michael Paine: "I accept that he took a shot at Walker and nothing came of it. I think he probably meant to kill him, but Walker had the good fortune to duck at the right moment. He wrote a letter and left it with Marina Oswald just before he went out that night. My wife was raked over the coals by the FBI when she quite unwittingly sent that letter to Marina Oswald. Ruth was sending Marina things she thought Marina would like, and this was a book written by Doctor Spock on babies. The FBI came back thinking she was trying to smuggle important information to Marina. So they grilled her, brought her to tears, and she was totally ignorant of that letter being in the book. She had never seen it. And she was very angry at Marina for keeping from her that LEE had done that. Later on, I remember discussing with Ruth why she had done that: Marina Oswald was afraid of being deported back to Russia."

And Paine said:

”Ruth Paine: "This was a book that Marina had read to me from. It was child raising manual. After she left on November 23, 1963, I expected her to come back, but she didn't. So every day or so I would send something the baby that might need - a change of clothing, etc. Mail began to come for her. I would give it to the police. The FBI had overlooked it. Later, I understood Marina had hidden a note in a book. First I heard about it, two guys from the Secret Service came and asked if I knew anything about it. They presented it as if I did know something about it. I said, 'I just sent a book to her.'"

She gave such “helpful” evidence to the FBI that it ended up getting her accused of smuggling information to Ms. Oswald. Maybe it was all a ruse just to show she really wasn’t on the take!

The website doesn’t mention the photographs of Walker’s house, probably because they can't accuse one of the witnesses of fabricating that evidence!

Marina Oswald is another inconvenient witness in this case, so how do they attack her?

The website notes WC attorney Norman Redlich’s memo stating that Marina Oswald lied to the FBI, Secret, and WC. Ok, so far. The website then quotes Redlich’s testimony explaining why said that:

“She may not have told the truth in connection with the attempted killing of General Walker. … I gave to Mr Rankin a lengthy document. … I indicated the testimony that she had given, the instances where it was in conflict”

If one did not bother to read the actual testimony, one would get the impression that Redlich was saying that Mrs. Oswald was not telling the truth when she claimed Oswald DID attempt to assassinate Walker, and there is a lengthy document backing this up. Now let’s fill in the stuff left out from the website’s snip of Redlich:

”Now I have tried to recollect any specific matter that i may have had in mind, and I have to say that I do not recollect anything specific. It may have been, and one would have to go back into the investigatory report, it may have been at first she may not have told the truth in connection with the attempted killing of General Walker. It may have been. I am really just surmising she may have been asked if Oswald had ever engaged in violence, and she may have at first said "No" and then brought out the fact about the General Walker shooting. I can only recall that I prepared a lengthy memorandum, and I hope it is in the files because if I had that I could answer your questions, that it was a lengthy memorandum that I prepared which was the basis for her questioning. As I say, I worked for about 5 or 6 weeks to develop a series of questions. Now I give to Mr. Rankin a lengthy document which had a proposed series of questions, and to each one of those questions I indicated the testimony that she had given at various times, because she had been interviewed many times. I indicated the testimony that she had given, the instances where it was in conflict, and indicated the kind of questions that I thought should be asked when she came before the Commission. This, of course, refers to the Secret Service and to the FBI. I believe that most of what I was referring to in this sentence would have related to the answers that she would have given to those agencies.

If you can find that document, i will be happy, if you called it to my attention, to try to be specific on the answer. As of now I have no clear recollection of any particular event other than the possibility of the Walker one, and there was also the possibility that she may have original denied that there was any other act of violence or any threat of violence whereas he had in fact at one point told her that he was going to kill Mr. Nixon, which came out later.

Get that? There is two ways to read Redlich’s testimony. (1) Redlich was saying that Ms. Oswald lied when she first DENIED Oswald had engaged in violence, and then later brought out the fact of attempted killing of Walker. Or, since there is some ambiguity, (2) Redlich is saying that she first DENIED the Walker attempt, then later admitted it. Either way, Redlich is saying that her denials of violent behavior are what caused him to say that she was lying, as Redlich had the corroborating evidence of Oswald’s assassination attempt on Gen. Walker.

Wife first trying to protect her husband? These crackpots use her denials that Oswald didn't do it as evidence that she was lying when later revealed he DID try to assassinate Walker.

In any event, that is how these crackpot websites operate. They divert, distort, or just plain fabricate the evidence because people will believe it simply because they want to believe it. And those that don’t play along are “denialists” or in on the gig.

Oh God not this again...

Robert's picture

For what it's worth, I've BEEN to Dealey Plaza. I've stood on the Grassy Knoll, the spot where Kennedy was shot (you have to dodge traffic), on the over-pass, and I've walked past the book depository. No I haven't been in the room because you had to pay to do that. About the only thing you could do on Dealy Plaza without getting bothered by someone hawking something Kennedy-assassination related was leave. (Oh yes, it is a cottage industry folks and that is why it is still with us).

And here is my conclusion: There was no conspiracy. Oswald was the killer. And the final nail in the coffin (the rest being many of the videos and such that Michael mentions) was seeing with my own eyes how close and exposed the Grassy Knoll and overpass are compared to the book depository. The latter is the only one that offers a concealed escape route and it is the only one where you could set up a rifle with any hope of remaining concealed from the hundreds of people likely to be in the Plaza that day.

The Grassy knoll has a VERY large and open car park behind it. That means that your escape would be seen, but that you could be surprised by civilians or police coming to and from the car-park while you were setting up your ambush. The same is true with the over-pass.

And not only that, the former is barely 100 yards from the road and the latter is under 200 yards from the kill-spot. Both spots can be observed with the naked eye ~from practically any point on the Plaza's open park-areas~ and a man-sized figure sticks out. The crappy optics on the camera's of the day make both locations look further away than they are.

No one hoping to do the job and then make a clean get-away would have ~set up~ and waited in ambush at either location. Not even Oswald was dumb enough to set up there. And he was nutty enough to voluntarily emigrate to the USSR 1960s.

I get it. Kennedy was a beloved, charismatic, handsome, young, dynamic President and war-hero taken in his prime by a wife-beating, defector-midget, and all-around looser by the name of Lee Harvey Oswald. But he was. And nobody else helped him with it.

No, I'm not a JFK fan-boy. But I'd give my left nut to have him in the White House instead of the current occupant. Even Harry S Truman would be better than this a-- clown. I write these words having just read about Obama/Kerry's deal with Iran. Hooray! Peace in our time all over again.

Welcome to human existence where majestic Eagles can be felled on the wing by fetid rodents.

Wrapping up

tvr's picture

Michael,

1) You have now switched to speaking to others about me rather than to me, despite my being respectful to you throughout this thread (and in all my past dealings with you too) while putting up with your attitude;

2) You have an overtly bellicose approach and (hypocritically) don't take responsibility for your contradictions when they are highlighted (note that I have acknowledged my errors when you have satisfied me I have erred), this is indicative of a motive to be confrontational and a desire to justify yourself and "win" rather than to engage in objectivity and collaboration with others in the pursuit of truth;

3) Your argument is turning into a Gish Gallop;

4) You continue to avoid my pointed questions while focusing mostly on moot points (e.g. "cheap old weapon" which I accept I made an error in attributing it to the WC report when it should have been attributed to a WC witness) or else straw men (e.g. despite my arguing that the "expert riflemen" shooters in the WC report were rated as "Master" by the NRA, and so were considerably better marksmen than Oswald was at his know best 7 years earlier and incomparably better than he was at his last known skill level, you do not address this point and instead argue how accurate the weapon was. You ignore that the marksman testing by the WC used a stationary target. Another straw man you brought up is claiming that I said it was not certain that a shot was missed, when what I actually wrote was that what is not certain is the assumption that the first and third shots were missed. In other words, maybe the second was. Furthermore, your argument as to Oswald's marksmanship being good enough to do the job relies entirely on either testimony or inappropriate and/or inconclusive test results, hence why I asked why the conditions of the assassination have not been recreated including appropriately rated marksmen? You ignored this question of mine, among others);

5) You refuse to acknowledge that motive is important evidence (albeit not crucial) and that motive was not clearly identified in Oswald's case, contradicting yourself by claiming that motive was clearly identified by the WC while at the same time claiming that it is futile to speculate on a dead man's motive;

6) You wrote:

"one zinger absolutely explodes Terry’s denial of a political motivation … A previous assassination attempt on the life of Maj. Gen. Edwin Walker"

This is question begging. To accept that Oswald attempted to kill Maj Gen Walker, one must accept the testimony of his then 22 year old non-english speaking Russian wife (who was held in isolation, interrogated by the FBI, accused of being a Russian spy and not cleared of charges for 18 months) as being true. 50 years later, Marina Oswald Porter who told the FBI while under interrogation and being threatened to be deported that she believed Oswald killed JFK, is convinced now that Oswald was innocent and willing to say so publicly . Why is that? Either she is/was a trustworthy witness or she is/was not. There is compelling evidence that she was not a reliable witness, and the WC knew it. Yet again, you can't have it both ways.

7)

"Now, given the trajectory of the bullet that went through JFK’s upper back and neck, where would the shooter need to have been planted?"

Question begging, again (one must discount various doctors' testimonies, accept that the magic bullet that was found on the stretcher was not tampered with, and make certain assumptions about timing of the shots). And again, it is a moot point. My argument is not dependent on the shots coming from more than one direction, or even more than one shooter. They may or may not have. My argument concerns the lack of reliable evidence to remove reasonable doubt, and in particular, the way that the evidence was obtained, handled and reported by the authorities such that reasonable doubt was needlessly introduced.

I interpret 1) thru 7) as being evidence of your intellectual capitulation in this argument.

"Terry is not that smart, so he continues to hiss and snap and growl."

If hissing, snapping and growling is evidence of one not being smart, I give you this challenge: copy and paste something from this thread (or any thread) where show me where I have supposedly hissed, snapped and growled at you. As for your hissing, snapping and growling at me (and Lindsay), I give as evidence this whole page.

"Time to deliver the rodent to the ditch, and this will be the last time I deal with CopyAndPaste Terry."

I agree that this has gone on quite long enough and that the game is up. Why you insist on writing people off for no good reason and so reactively is beyond me.

Terry

CopyAndPaste Terry Should Write a Book!

Michael Moeller's picture

Often times when a cat maims a rodent, he’ll sit there and watch it quiver, or to see if it gets up and moves again. Sometimes he bats it around a bit to see if it is still alive. Smarter rodents play dead, or at least try to run off. Terry is not that smart, so he continues to hiss and snap and growl. Eventually, the cat ceases to be entertained by the spectacle, puts the rodent out of its misery, and unloads it into a ditch.

Time to deliver the rodent to the ditch, and this will be the last time I deal with CopyAndPaste Terry.

Reasonble Doubt

I was going to do a post called: “How to Spot Twaddle”. Basically what you do is assume the crackpot scenario to be true, then link it to the hard physical evidence. Doing so flashes a bright light on the lunacy.

Let's proceed with an example from Terry:

Obvious I cannot answer that question. What we do know is that Oswald can't have shot from the front, so if the neck shot was from the front, that would be evidence of a second shooter. The evidence that the neck shot came from the back is not definitive, unlike the headshot which is. And recall, Lindsay's statement on Oswald (which I agree with) concerns definitiveness, not likelihood or probability. It is about whether "one person did it alone" ... I do not read "did it" to necessarily mean shoot alone, as Lindsay may mean by that that Oswald must have had accomplices, including the possibility that he was hired gun, either of which translates to a conspiracy. Or are you "definitively" ruling out one or both of those possibilities?"

Apparently, if Terry asserts the neck shot could have come from the front, this creates the idea of a second shooter. In his mind, this floating deduction divorced from evidence casts reasonable doubt on Oswald being the lone shooter, as Terry rhetorically inveighs: are you ruling out these “possibilities”? Put this nonsense on hold for a second.

Linz -- from the depths of his “dispassionate” and “hinged” assessment of the facts -- wrote this:

"What is interesting is that Dr Perry states more than once that the throat wound was a wound of *entry*—i.e., it came from the front. Fancy that!"

Yeah, fancy that!

So I was reading an article by JFK assassination researcher Jacob Cohen , and found out some information of which I was not aware:

So how does Corsi know that it [the throat wound] was an entry wound? It’s easy, he says; it is irrefutable, he implies. The experienced doctors in Dallas who examined the president and declared him dead said that the throat wound looked very much like an entry wound. On their testimony alone, it is eminently “conceivable” that that was the case, or at least “arguable.” Of course, it is easy to prove that something is arguable; all you need do is argue it, just as something is conceivable once you conceive of it.
[…]
There is not a single forensic pathologist who has examined the x-rays and photos and then claimed there was an entry wound in the throat—and several groups through the years have been summoned to review that material.
Even Cyril Wecht, a well-known forensic pathologist and a prominent skeptic of the Warren Commission, said after viewing the images that all shots came from behind Kennedy.”

Get that? Not one forsenic pathologist who has studied the evidence has claimed the neck shot came from the front. Not one. Even Cyril Wecht, a pathologist and conspiracy author who Linz previously cited, squashed the notion of the neck shot coming from the front. Linz does not pay very close attention to his own sources and how they comport with his own claims. Nah, that would just get in the way of his conspiracy fantasies!

Notice that the conspiracy author being discussed, Corsi, argues exactly as Terry does – they conceived of it, therefore it is a “possibility”. This is how crackpots like Terry assert “reasonable doubt” – by sundering their assertions from fact and deducing from there. I urge people to read that whole article, as Cohen superbly illuminates the insane illogic of conspiracy crackpots like Linz and CopyAndPaste Terry. A really good article. Highly illuminating re the conspiracy mindset.

Now back to my proposal for uncovering twaddle. As I stated above, all one has to do is assume the scenario is true and apply it to the facts. In this case, we start by assuming a neck shot from the front is true.

Now, given the trajectory of the bullet that went through JFK’s upper back and neck, where would the shooter need to have been planted? In JFK’s limosine, if it was a shot from the front and one had to account for the injuries to JFK and the trajectory of the bullet.

Or suppose it was a shooter on the grassy knoll. How would one account for the JFK’s injuries and the trajectory of the bullet? Well, as the shot entered JFK’s neck, it would have needed to make a sharp left turn – at least 50 degrees by my estimation -- then proceed to move upwards on a steep incline. And this bullet that Terry cannot account for ended up where, exactly?!? But it is still a "possibility" to Terry.

Exactly why CopyAndPaste Terry has obstinately refused -- over and over again – to connect his “possibilities” to the physical evidence. He’d be outed as a crackpot, definitively.

But Terry is only interested in “objectivity” and “truth”. Why? Because he tells us so.

From the Objectivists I’ve heard from, and the many FB posts and comments as people seem interested in this topic, I’ve yet to discover another Objectivist supporting anything other than Oswald as the lone shooter. Except for Linz and Terry.

Therefore, to enlighten us all with his “objectivity” and “truth”, I would like to suggest a book: “The Objective Truth of JFK Conspiracy Theories”, by CopyAndPaste Terry (with Introduction by Lindsay Perigo). A new “dispassionate” look at “reasonable doubt” that includes neck wounds from the front and other recycled factoids, such as hearsay from mafia bosses, ruminations on Hoover’s mindset, various speculations on the ways FBI and police planted evidence, and – my personal favorite – how the media acted as “gatekeepers” of information.

I don’t recommend titling the book “True Objectives of Conspiracy Theorists”, as that book has already been written. The book answers with the question implicit in the title with the following conclusion: to ensnare saps, dupes, and suckers.

CopyAndPaste Terry the Redeemer

Michael Moeller's picture

Terry demands that I “redeem” myself. Boy oh boy, I can’t wait to find out what that all entails. To teach me a lesson, will I have to copy and paste factoids from conspiracy websites until my fingers hurt? I’ll propose an alternative redemption scenario at the end of this post.

“Reasonable” Motive

In his incoherent mutterings about the probabilities of commies who would take violent action and whatnot, Terry missed the most crucial fact regarding motive. (Hint: Oswald had a previously failed political assassination attempt, but we’ll save that doozy for a bit.)

In any event, I was simply pointing out that if he wanted to wrestle with a dead man’s motive, he should read the copious amounts of data regarding Oswald’s communist activities embedded in the Warren Report and elsewhere, and his propensities for violent action, including violent political action.

But CopyAndPaste Terry could not be bothered to consider the facts outlined in the Warren Report while he was busy copying and pasting arguments from conspiracy websites. One of those arguments was based on the “reasonable men” sentence in the Warren Report (see Terry’s copied and pasted Point #2).

But right after that sentence the Warren Report reads:

”For a motive that appears incomprehensible to other men may be the moving force of a man whose view of the world has been twisted, possibly by factors of which those around him were only dimly aware. Oswald's complete state of mind and character are now outside of the power of man to know. He cannot, of course, be questioned or observed by those charged with the responsibility for this report or by experts on their behalf. There is, however, a large amount of material available in his writings and in the history of his life which does give some insight into his character and, possibly, into the motives for his act.”

Exactly. Oswald is dead, and he cannot be questioned. So while Terry urges us to consider “possibilities” – possibilities pulled from thin air, in his case – he wants motive signed, sealed , and delivered. The motive…of a dead man.

On the one hand, we have Terry playing pluck-and-peel with an argument from a conspiracy website -- an argument based on one sentence from the Warren Report that crackpots use to support their claims. On the other hand, Terry ignores all the facts supporting a political motivation in the Warren Report and – like a hamster on a wheel – spins himself dizzy arguing against contrary statements in the Warren Report. And against the House Committee’s more definitive conclusion of a political motivation.

Typical of crackpots. Use the government’s reports when it is convenient -- even while claiming the government cooked the case (!!) -- and trash the government’s reports when inconvenient. The government planted and falsified evidence, except for those points that serve conspiracy nuttery!

And man, one thing in particular is inconvenient regarding Oswald’s political motive. One salient fact, one zinger absolutely explodes Terry’s denial of a political motivation.

What is that fact? (Ok, I already gave it away.)

A previous assassination attempt on the life of Maj. Gen. Edwin Walker. There’s a section in the Warren Report devoted to it. The report Terry claims to have read.

As outlined, Oswald meticulously planned and attempted to assassinate Maj. Gen. Edwin Walker – a man that Oswald compared to Hitler, according to his wife. Oswald fancied the assassination would provide him with a “place in history”, and the Communist newspaper photo of him and his rifle would appear in newspapers around the world.

One the one hand, we have Oswald actually trying to carry out an assassination on a man he viewed as Hitler so that he could secure a “place in history”. On the other hand, Terry cannot find “reasonable” motive for a man who had already evidenced his willingness to go the distance in carrying out an assassination. Nah, Oswald totally lacked motivation! I mean, it is not like killing JFK would secure him a “place in history” and his Communist newspaper photo would appear all over the world!

Pays to know the facts, as I like to say.

Terry says I am trying to have it both ways on motive. But as I have stated, motive does not need to be proven in a court of law, so I did not dwell on it. I wanted to focus on the physical evidence, which Terry avoids like the plague so he can focus on a dead man’s motive as a desperate grab for something, anything.

I wanted to focus my case on the physical evidence because that’s hard evidence, which closes the case for Oswald as the lone shooter quite easily. But he got me to play ball motive -- much to his chagrin now, no doubt.

Now, given CopyAndPaste Terry’s planetary distance from the facts and his willingness to play Linz’s sacrificial lamb, I would like to suggest an alternative redemption -- for him.

I suggest he proceed directly to one of the medical institutes that studies anatomy, and see if, upon his expiration, they will redeem his brain for more than $1. If they will, he should take the deal! Maybe they will even give him more dough if he confesses to being a conspiracy crackpot, as the researchers may be interested in the physical defects of such a brain. Could be a windfall for his heirs.

Terry Firing Away...At His Own Credibility...Bullseye!

Michael Moeller's picture

This issue really illustrates the desperation of conspiracists to distort the evidence. The first argument of Terry’s I address is so bad that it transforms into sheer COMEDY, and perfectly encapsulates what I am dealing with when it comes to Terry.

Timing of the Bullets

Terry assured us that he read the Warren Report. Who knows, maybe 100 times even! Interesting, considering he wrote this:

"The Mannlicher Carcano rifle that was discovered on the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository, however, was a "cheap old weapon" according to the Warren Commission."

Nowhere does the Warren Report state anything about a "cheap old rifle" or reach that conclusion. The “cheap old weapon” was from one of the witnesses in the hearings.

Hold on to your hat because this is where the comedy kicks in.

Terry obviously did not pay attention to the source while he was busy cribbing this argument from Linz’s nutcase website. This website sources the quote to here and here, but the quote “cheap old weapon” does not appear at either spot. So where are they getting this "cheap old weapon" quote?

I was **very suspicious**, so I decided to track down where the quote actually came from. The three word quote appears here as part of an answer to issues re fingerprinting the weapon. The officer is describing the exterior of the rifle in the context of being able to fingerprint it. One of the false links goes to Frazier to make it seem as if the weapons expert is saying the rifle is a "cheap old weapon". How underhanded is that!?!

What does this have to do with the weapon’s ability to fire a round? Nothing!

That’s how desperate these people are. They slice out a three word quote on a different topic in a pathetic attempt to create doubt about the reliability of the weapon. Then the website tried to cover up the mendacity with false citations! But they sure can count on people like Terry not to check. He needs an argument, any one will do!

Linz promoted that website thusly:

"The WC mantras Michael so dutifully repeats are virtually all open to credible dispute, as you note. This site deals with them pretty sensibly, I think:

http://22november1963.org.uk/"

He thinks?!? No, Linz is obviously not thinking since he promotes this website as "pretty sensible". But that doesn't stop him from making bald assertions that *I* am "dutifully" repeating mantras. Bwahahahaha. Wait...Wait...Bwhahahahhaha.

Never underestimate the gullibility of saps like Linz and Terry to swallow any twaddle put in from of them if they think it helps make their case. SUCKERS!!! That website is chock full of all kinds of similar buffoonery. I vehemently urge people to cross-check the alleged facts supporting the conspiracy conclusions against other sources, particularly the Warren Report. It will quickly become clear that Linz is not interested in facts. Linz is only interested in whatever buttresses his fevered imaginings of conspiracies.

Here is what I am doing right now as I think of Terry’s claims to “objectivity” and “truth” while utterly destroying his (and Linz's) credibility:

Love that scene.

So what did the testimony actually say about the reliability of this weapon? The test expert Frazier testified that he fired “approximately 60 rounds” with no misfires, and described the rifle as “very dependable”.

And the Warren Commission’s actual conclusion was:

"The various tests showed that the Mannlicher-Carcano was an accurate rifle and that the use of a four-power scope was a substantial aid to rapid, accurate firing."

On to Terry’s next misrepresentation:

"The Warren Commission itself estimated that the time span between the two shots that hit President Kennedy was 4.8 to 5.6 seconds, and on that basis sharpshooters could not replicate Oswald's supposed marksmanship.”

Plain results in the Warren Report show this is false. Not all results were in that range, but one shooter (Miller?) fired three shots in 4.6 and 5.15 seconds as two of his scores. He also had another one score of 4.45 seconds with an iron sight. Frazier did it in 5.6 seconds.

Yikes.

Important Note: **all test shooters in all trials** fired the three shots in under 8.3 seconds, the current consensus number for the total time of the three shots.

Terry previously failed to disclose that the Warren Report gives a total time of 7.1 – 7.9 seconds for the three shots, and instead used the shady technique of substituting the time between the two shots that hit (i.e. 4.8 - 5.6), as the Warren Report makes explicitly clear:

"If the assassin missed either the first or third shot, he had a total of between 4.8 and 5.6 seconds between the two shots which hit and a total minimum time period of from 7.1 to 7.9 seconds for all three shots.”

He had 4.8 – 5.6 seconds between the two shots that hit, NOT to get off three shots. If, and only if, it was the 2nd intervening shot that missed does the time narrow to 4.8 - 5.6 seconds for the three shots. So Terry tries to dial back:

"The longer time assumes that either the first or third shots were missed, something which is not known for certain. "In all probability" (from the WC report) means "very likely", which is not the same as "certain" or "almost certain", thus introducing reasonable doubt to what actually happened.”

Why is another shot missing “not certain”? Because Terry says so, that's why. He provides no supporting evidence.

As for actual evidence of three shots, we have the three spent cartridges in the TBD 6th floor (I’m sure they were planted!), and 80% of the earwitnesses say they heard three shots, which is an overwhelming consensus for ~200 witnesses on this score. Witnesses including Gov. Connally (and his wife) who testified that he turned his head as he heard the 1st missed shot, and we can see that head snap on the Zapruder film – along with the head snaps of JFK and Jackie (all within 1 second of each other at Zapruder frames 155 – 160, as the Wikipedia link notes).

Even Linz has a missed shot, to wit:

"A cacophony of crackpot conspiracists on Fox News' 50th anniversary special today, including James Tague, whose being hit by a bullet fragment (or fragment of kerb dislodged by a bullet, which missed JFK) thankfully inspired the unimpeachable Arlen Specter to conceive the equally unimpeachable one-bullet/seven-wounds-to-two-men theory;”

Most conspiracy crackpots, like Linz, use Tague for a missed shot, and usually posit 4 or more shots, which, of course, means some shots missed JFK. But Terry is now informing them, including Linz, that their theories are “not certain”. Terry has just cast uncertainty over the theories of his fellow conspiracy crackpots. All those conspiracists with more than 2 shots are now being told by Terry that their "theories" are "uncertain", including Linz. LOL!

As to whether Oswald had the capabilities, again, he earned the ranking of sharpshooter in the Marine Corps, which was done at a distance of 200 yards. The distance from TBD was only 88 yards.

You can believe Marine marksmanship experts cited in the Warren Report:

Oswald's Marine training in marksmanship, his other rifle experience and his established familiarity with this particular weapon show that he possessed ample capability to commit the assassination. Based on the known facts of the assassination, the Marine marksmanship experts, Major Anderson and Sergeant Zahm, concurred in the opinion that Oswald had the capability to fire three shots, with two hits, within 4.8 and 5.6 seconds.816 Concerning the shots which struck the President in the back of the neck, Sergeant Zahm testified: "With the equipment he [Oswald] had and with his ability I consider it a very easy shot." 817 Having fired this slot the assassin was then required to hit the target one more time within a space of from 4.8 to 5.6 seconds. On the basis of Oswald's training and the accuracy of the weapon as established by the tests, the Commission concluded that Oswald was capable of accomplishing this second hit even if there was an intervening shot which missed.”

In other words, even if narrowed to the time between two hits (4.8 and 5.6), the marksmanship experts concur that was within Oswald’s capability, and an "easy shot" with his equipment and said capability. And we don’t need to narrow because the consensus is the House Committee’s 8.3 seconds for the three shots, which substantially increases the probability and enhances the conclusions of the experts.

Or you can believe copy-and-paste expert Terry’s speculations on Oswald’s capabilities at the time. Personally, after his snatching for an argument from a crackpot website without bothering to check the source to see if it was true -- not to mention all of his other distortions outlined above -- I would not trust a word he says. Not. One. Word.

Caveat emptor to those who do.

(Side note for those interested: I think the Warren Commission incorrectly stated the argument about increased probability from a missed 1st or 3rd shot. A missed 2nd shot would increase the probability because the time between hits of 4.8-5.6 seconds would encompass all three shots. By contrast, a missed 1st or 3rd shot would mean only two shots were covered by the 4.8-5.6 seconds, and the total time for all three shots would be expanded to 7.1-7.9, as they noted earlier in the part I quoted. What they meant to say, I think, is that if the 2nd intervening shot missed, the probability would be markedly increased because the total time for all three shots would be 4.8 – 5.6 seconds, i.e. the time between the two shots that hit. But alas, the first shot missed, and the next two hit, thus giving us the modern consensus of 8.3 seconds.)

Inviting The Jiu jitsu

tvr's picture

Michael,

It's kinda funny how you go on about me not reading your posts.

You wrote:

"Hate to break it to you, Ace, but motive is not an element of a crime."

What I wrote in my last reply: "I agree with you that intent and not motive is the definitive psychological element of a given crime."

In other words, I agreed with you. Then I wrote, "but the legal system typically does allow motive to be proven in order to make plausible the accused's reasons for committing a crime, at least when those motives may be obscure or hard to identify with. Or do you disagree with that? Proving or disproving motive is neither conclusive nor essential to a deciding a person's guilt or innocence, but it is certainly material evidence is it not?". You have not answered either of my two questions.

"if you had read closer from the Warren Report instead of just copying and pasting, you would realize that there is a whole chapter dedicated to Oswald's motives … Yes, there were many factors, but they did not settle on ONE, specifically noting the political motivation."

I never said that the Warren Report did not talk at sufficient length about Oswald's motives, what I said was that the report found "no reasonable motive" and "offered no clear explanation of Oswald’s motives". This is confirmed point blank by what you yourself posted of the report, to wit: "Many factors were undoubtedly involved in Oswald's motivation for the assassination, and the Commission does not believe that it can ascribe to him any one motive or group of motives." In other words, question begging followed by an admission no confirmed motive. All of the Commission's psychologizing in the rest of its report amounts to nothing of any substance, only speculation. If Oswald wanted to be remembered for something great, if he was politically motivated and wanted to "protest" as the Commission claims, why did deny shooting Kennedy? It makes no sense. Again, I agree motive is not an element establishing guilt, but it still lends weight one way or the other.

"The depth and direction of Oswald's ideological commitment is, therefore, clear. Politics was the dominant force in his the right down to the last days when, upon being arrested for the assassination, he requested to be represented by a lawyer prominent for representing Communists."

Begging the question and a non sequitur. So what if he requested a lawyer sympathetic to communism? Should he have been happy with a lawyer who hated communists?

"Although no one specific ideological goal that Oswald might have hoped to achieve by the assassination of President Kennedy can be shown with confidence, it appeared to the committee that his dominant motivation, consistent with his known activities and beliefs, must have been a desire to take political action."

Conjecture, speculation and psychologizing. If for instance it were proven that Oswald had entered into contract for $1 million to assassinate the president, THAT would be motive for you. If he were having an affair with the first lady, and the evidence showed that he thought by eliminating JFK he might have a chance at her affections, THAT would be motive for you. The WC had nothing but speculation to offer for motive as it "appeared" to them.

"Double ouch. Pays to do more than copy and paste, Ace."

Right back at you, Mr Moeller. Why should I have to rewrite perfectly valid, factual and objective observations about the evidence which I agree with?

"It is obvious why you want to harp on motive -- one cannot look inside another's mind, particularly somebody like Oswald who is dead. Instead of addressing the evidence, you try to hide behind speculation of what is inside a dead person's mind. Transparent attempt to distract from the physical evidence, and you should have actually read the reports."

So did the WC "look inside" Oswald's mind by "specifically noting the political motivation" as you wrote they did? You can't have it both ways. And I did read the reports.

"The total time for the three shots would have been between 7.1 and 7.9, and under those conditions, the three shooters got off their shots with accuracy."

You are misrepresenting what the report says and then begging the question. The longer time assumes that either the first or third shots were missed, something which is not known for certain. "In all probability" (from the WC report) means "very likely", which is not the same as "certain" or "almost certain", thus introducing reasonable doubt to what actually happened. Again, I reiterate, I am NOT proposing that there was a second shooter, only that there MAY have been one due to the uncertainty of some of the crucial evidence and other evidence becoming tainted. Yet, you are denying me (and Lindsay) that "maybe", despite the evidence pointing to a "maybe".

"The experts even concluded that somebody with Oswald's could have done it in less time than the 7.1 to 7.9 and characterized it as "an easy shot", as you can see from the conclusion. A feat replicated by many shooters, many times over."

Testimonies in circumstances like this where conspiracy is possible if not likely and when physical proof is available or possible to obtain have little import. Answer me this: has there ever been a Mannlicher Carcano Rifle Test where the material conditions of the assassination were recreated, including moving vehicle, and if not, why not? The answer, as far as I am aware, is yes, only the once: the CBS recreation in 1967. The marksmanship of those shooters however was not disclosed so the results are of no consequence. We know that Oswald's latest score 4 years earlier made him barely a marksman, and his best score 7 years earlier just scraped him in as being a sharpshooter. The Warren Commission's findings used three marksmen, all rated as master by the National Rifle Association. Master is 2 or 3 levels above Oswald's best and latest qualification respectively so is of no import. Why is the test not done properly? It still can be.

"The 8.3 seconds number comes from the House Select Committee on Assassinations."

Thanks for citing the source.

"you completely sidestep the issue to avoid the fact that you cannot account for the evidence"

Begging the question. It is only evidence if it is fact, and I am questioning the certainty of the facts. It is simply the best evidence available, that's all. Altogether the "facts" are not conclusive as evidence. THAT's the point.

"If you cannot find an alternative explanation for the evidence, you have NOT created reasonable doubt, much less any doubt. That's Game Over, sorry to say."

Rubbish. A "We don't know for certain what happened" is a perfectly acceptable explanation for the evidence. Of course that opens up the door to conspiracy theories which is precisely what the WC didn't want.

"Yes, you have fully embedded yourself with the conspiracy crackpots."

I've embedded myself in objectivity. Or at least am trying to. You are the one embedding yourself in with the JFK denialist crackpots.

"I think at this point, it is transparently obvious that you didn't form a scenario because you couldn't form a scenario that accounts for the physical evidence. "

I don't need to propose a scenario to enter reasonable doubt into your scenario, I merely need to point out that your scenario is not as rock solid as you think it is, and I have done that (your protestations to the contrary).

"I don't know why you did it, perhaps to curry favor with Linz, but your display is downright embarrassing. I feel sorry for you at this point. Really."

You do realize that it is revealing of your own psychology when you ascribe to me a motivation other than my simply seeking truth and fairness/justice via objectivity, when that is all I have been doing? I have no idea what has gotten into you, because in the 10 or so months that I've been in SOLO I have not seen you like this with someone who didn't deserve it. It was only 2 months ago that Lindsay stated you were one of the people that motivated him to keep SOLO going. In other words he held you in high esteem and valued you. I am perplexed why you would want to publicly write him off when there is zero malice or deceit on his part, and you clearly held him in high esteem not so long ago. How is that being objective? Sure, let's all mean what we say and say what we mean by all means, but that does not mean that we should be mean. What can you possibly be gaining by donning the attitude?

Terry

Of Course, Linz

Michael Moeller's picture

You would sign on to Terry's incompetent copy and paste extravaganza, I would have expected nothing less of you!

You should be careful what you sign up for, though, as Terry sunk your battleship on your initial claims about the doctors in the ER. To top it off, he was so inept at understanding my argument that he unwittingly agreed you were trying to spin your way out instead of admitting your error. That was priceless.

Of course, if you want to adopt stupid ideas and immerse yourself in crackpot conspiracies that is certainly your prerogative. I find it odd, though, that you so vehemently objected to my calling it like I see it. Mean what you say and say what you mean, right?

I mean, you have certainly called plenty of ideas "twaddle" on this site, and delivered much worse insults than "crackpot". That was never a problem. But apparently it becomes a problem when it is your piffle being exposed.

Then you spent your time lying in wait to get some digs in on me while failing to address anything of substance. Pathetic, but you don't hear me whining about the stuff directed at me.

But the bottom line is that you were not man enough to front-up to a false claim, one even acknowledged by Terry. That would have been the intellectually honest thing to do. But you couldn't do it, and took the easy way out by first trying to spin your way out. Then, when that failed and you had no arguments to offer, you leapt for the nearest opportunity to save face by issuing non-substantive smears against me. Like I said, I can take the smears, but the fact that you couldn't be bothered to address any substance in the process was just plain embarrassing.

It made me lose all respect for you. You are a shell of your former self.

The Clincher

Michael Moeller's picture

Terry, you just earned it. Sorry bud.

You wrote:

"Why do I need to give you evidence of an alternative scenario? For evidence that there may have been a conspiracy I need only show that the evidence was manipulated, that protocol was not followed, and debunk the definitiveness of the evidence purported to prove Oswald's guilt."

You and I both know that if you tried an alternative explanation, it would fall flat on its face. As a result, you completely sidestep the issue to avoid the fact that you cannot account for the evidence, and instead throw out all kinds of distractions and side issues. And you even got those wrong because you didn't bother to read..

If you cannot find an alternative explanation for the evidence, you have NOT created reasonable doubt, much less any doubt. That's Game Over, sorry to say.

You should have at least given it a try -- you might have learned something. You certainly couldn't do worse than your copy and paste debacle. Pays to know the facts.

You ended up letting the cat out of the bag, anyway, with this gold nugget:

"And I just gave you all the evidence that the government sullied its hands in manipulating the evidence. That manipulation calls into question the authenticity and legitimacy of the fingerprint evidence and gun purchase, both of which could quite conceivably have been fabricated. If the evidence had not been tampered with and the autopsy and investigation carried out according to protocol, as it should have, then the evidence would not be called into question.

In short, the government planted the evidence! I was waiting for that, and you did not disappoint. Galt bless you.

Yes, you have fully embedded yourself with the conspiracy crackpots.

What evidence do you have that the government planted the fingerprints and other evidence against Oswald in the TBD? None, of course.

Let's put aside that a number of your other factoids are false and assume they are true for a second.

How does a note to the FBI prove dispute the trajectory of the bullets, for instance? It doesn't, course.

How does hearsay on Hoover connect to planting fingerprint evidence? It doesn't, of course.

How does hearsay from mafia bosses prove anything at all? It doesn't, of course.

I have to admit that the ruminations regarding the press as "gatekeepers" of information took the cake. Did you even bother to look at what you were copying and pasting? I think we've settled that issue.

But I think at this point, it is transparently obvious that you didn't form a scenario because you couldn't form a scenario that accounts for the physical evidence. Therefore, you simply grabbed information from the nearest conspiracy websites that focus on testimonial evidence, which are just plain ludicrous.

That's what happens when the facts aren't on your side.

I don't know why you did it, perhaps to curry favor with Linz, but your display is downright embarrassing. I feel sorry for you at this point. Really.

Terry Didn't Bother To Read -- Part 2

Michael Moeller's picture

Regarding Oswald's marksmanship, Terry wrote:

"No it's not. The Wikipedia link you provided confirms that it "may have taken 8.3 seconds". And what is more there is no source provided for the 8.3 second estimate. So you are begging the question. The Warren Commission itself estimated that the time span between the two shots that hit President Kennedy was 4.8 to 5.6 seconds, and on that basis sharpshooters could not replicate Oswald's supposed marksmanship."

Another copy and paste problem, as here is what the Warren Report stated:

"If the assassin missed either the first or third shot, he had a total of between 4.8 and 5.6 seconds between the two shots which hit and a total minimum time period of from 7.1 to 7.9 seconds for all three shots. All three of the firers in these tests were able to fire the rounds within the time period which would have been available to the assassin under those conditions.
[...]
Based on the known facts of the assassination, the Marine marksmanship experts, Major Anderson and Sergeant Zahm, concurred in the opinion that Oswald had the capability to fire three shots, with two hits, within 4.8 and 5.6 seconds.816 Concerning the shots which struck the President in the back of the neck, Sergeant Zahm testified: "With the equipment he [Oswald] had and with his ability I consider it a very easy shot." 817 Having fired this slot the assassin was then required to hit the target one more time within a space of from 4.8 to 5.6 seconds. On the basis of Oswald's training and the accuracy of the weapon as established by the tests, the Commission concluded that Oswald was capable of accomplishing this second hit even if there was an intervening shot which missed. The probability of hitting the President a second time would have been markedly increased if, in fact, he had missed either the first or third shots thereby leaving a time span of 4.8 to 5.6' seconds between the two shots which struck their mark. The Commission agrees with the testimony of Marine marksmanship expert Zahm that it was easy shot" to hit some part of the President's body, and that the range where the rifleman would be expected to hit would include the President's head."

The total time for the three shots would have been between 7.1 and 7.9, and under those conditions, the three shooters got off their shots with accuracy. The experts even concluded that somebody with Oswald's could have done it in less time than the 7.1 to 7.9 and characterized it as "an easy shot", as you can see from the conclusion. A feat replicated by many shooters, many times over.

The 8.3 seconds number comes from the House Select Committee on Assassinations. Other experts have put the number up to 11 seconds, but who's counting, Terry!

Well, at least you have Linz's congratulations and thanks for consolation.

Terry Didn't Bother To Read -- Part 1

Michael Moeller's picture

Hate to break it to you, Ace, but motive is not an element of a crime. Criminal Law 101. If you were a judge and tried to give instructions to the jury that motive must be proved, not only would the case be overturned on appeal, you would get sanctioned. You really shouldn't stray into things like criminal law where you have no idea what you are talking about.

You can continue to harp on it all you want, but the state does not have to prove it in court. In fact, if you had read closer from the Warren Report instead of just copying and pasting, you would realize that there is a whole chapter dedicated to Oswald's motives that concludes:

"Many factors were undoubtedly involved in Oswald's motivation for the assassination, and the Commission does not believe that it can ascribe to him any one motive or group of motives. It is apparent, however, that Oswald was moved by an overriding hostility to his environment. He does not appear to have been able to establish meaningful relationships with other people. He was perpetually discontented with the world around him. Long before the assassination he expressed his hatred for American society and acted in protest against it. Oswald's search for what he conceived to be the perfect society was doomed from the start. He sought for himself a place in historya role as the "great man" who would be recognized as having been in advance of his times. His commitment to Marxism and communism appears to have been another important factor in his motivation. He also had demonstrated a capacity to act decisively and without regard to the consequences when such action would further his aims of the moment. Out of these and the many other factors which may have molded the character of Lee Harvey Oswald there emerged a man capable of assassinating President Kennedy. "

Yes, there were many factors, but they did not settle on ONE, specifically noting the political motivation.

And let's add a little insult to injury, as the House investigation picked up on the political theme with this:

"The depth and direction of Oswald's ideological commitment is, therefore, clear. Politics was the dominant force in his the right down to the last days when, upon being arrested for the assassination, he requested to be represented by a lawyer prominent for representing Communists. Although no one specific ideological goal that Oswald might have hoped to achieve by the assassination of President Kennedy can be shown with confidence, it appeared to the committee that his dominant motivation, consistent with his known activities and beliefs, must have been a desire to take political action. It seems reasonable to conclude that the best single explanation for the assassination was his conception of political action, rooted in his twisted ideological view of himself and the world around him."

Double ouch. Pays to do more than copy and paste, Ace.

It is obvious why you want to harp on motive -- one cannot look inside another's mind, particularly somebody like Oswald who is dead. Instead of addressing the evidence, you try to hide behind speculation of what is inside a dead person's mind. Transparent attempt to distract from the physical evidence, and you should have actually read the reports.

Nice try.

Terry

Lindsay Perigo's picture

I congratulate and thank you for the level-headedness you are maintaining in the face of Michael's gratuitous bellicosity. I'm afraid he has these outbreaks of boorish berserkery quite regularly these days; I hope you don't take them personally. At such times I am invariably guilty of some mendacity most foul, and am an irredeemable rotter generally. I just tune out, walk away ... and enjoy the histrionics for their comedic value. It's sad, though, to see such a talent losing any connection to good will and good humor. I think at some point, around about the time he adopted the shades and the attitude in his avatar, Michael signed up to the Charlie Sheehan/Alec Baldwin school of persuasion, which mistakes over-testosteroned bombast for KASS. I hope he grows out of this, but his incoherently tortuous posturings about Dr McClelland and the head wound several posts back had me seriously worried. In any event, while it should be possible to have this discussion free of such rancorous ravings, I'm afraid you're destined to be a "crackpot"—and possibly worse (maybe even a "twaddler"!)—unless you do indeed swallow the WC report hook, line and sinker. I'm sure you'll survive! Eye

The WC mantras Michael so dutifully repeats are virtually all open to credible dispute, as you note. This site deals with them pretty sensibly, I think:

http://22november1963.org.uk/

Bunch of JFK stuff on the History Channel tonight too.

What's With The Fallacies? Why The Relentless Denialism?

tvr's picture

Michael,

"Instead of giving me an alternative scenario for the "one bullet"

Why do I need to give you evidence of an alternative scenario? For evidence that there may have been a conspiracy I need only show that the evidence was manipulated, that protocol was not followed, and debunk the definitiveness of the evidence purported to prove Oswald's guilt. As far as I am concerned I have done that to the point where anyone who swallows the Warren Commission report hook line and sinker and emphatically agrees with its conclusion that only Oswald could have been involved in the assassination (i.e. in both the shooting and planning of it) is a themselves a crackpot.

"you just went and copied a bunch of junk that has been debunked since forever"

This is a purely emotional appeal that begs the question.

"I don't even think you read the "lies" article because at the bottom it says Oswald was busted lying about purchasing the rifle and the handgun! Jeez Louise."

Sure I read it. So what if he gave a false name buying the rifle (assuming he did in fact buy it)? How does that translate to motive? How does that lie or any of his other lies translate to harming someone? You did not respond to my point. I condemn those who lie and deceive, but is there not a difference between a liar who lies maliciously (i.e. to cover their malice) versus a liar who lies without malice? Where is the evidence of malice on the part of Oswald in his list of past lies which you pointed me to?

"Before you said the science and physical evidence was important. Now you've apparently gone flailing for every piece of conspiracy litter that you can find."

More emotional appeals. I provide you with evidence and you respond calling it "junk" and "litter" and (dirty) "laundry" without proving why.

"No it is NOT. What the state has to prove is the elements of a crime, and motive is not an element of murder. "

The three criteria motive, means and opportunity taken together is what I was referring to as being as important as the physical evidence. If a suspect has neither motive, means nor opportunity, then what would that tell you about the physical evidence? I have demonstrated lack of evidence for motive and means. I agree with you that intent and not motive is the definitive psychological element of a given crime, but the legal system typically does allow motive to be proven in order to make plausible the accused's reasons for committing a crime, at least when those motives may be obscure or hard to identify with. Or do you disagree with that? Proving or disproving motive is neither conclusive nor essential to a deciding a person's guilt or innocence, but it is certainly material evidence is it not?

"Besides, Oswald was a Commie with violent propensities and JFK was seen as an anti-Communist, so if you want to speculate about motives, there is a good one."

How many Commies had violent propensities? How many of them would have wanted an anti-Communist US president assassinated? If you answer "many", then why were there not dozens or hundreds of other assassination attempts by Commies? If you answer "few", then why is being a Commie a motive? You can't have it both ways.

"I just gave you all the evidence that puts Oswald in the TBD 6th floor, to wit:"

And I just gave you all the evidence that the government sullied its hands in manipulating the evidence. That manipulation calls into question the authenticity and legitimacy of the fingerprint evidence and gun purchase, both of which could quite conceivably have been fabricated. If the evidence had not been tampered with and the autopsy and investigation carried out according to protocol, as it should have, then the evidence would not be called into question.

"If that is not means and opportunity, I don't know what is! What is your explanation for those facts?"

It is not means, it is only opportunity. His lack of marksmanship demonstrates lack of means (see below).

"If you think it is possible for them to be hit from different directions, then give me where the shooters were planted, what type of bullets were used, etc. Give me the scenario and connect it to the EVIDENCE!"

That is not necessary to disprove the definitiveness of the Warren Commission's conclusions (lone gunman, magic bullet, no conspiracy). One need only demonstrate that the evidence they based their conclusions on was not reliable, which I believe I have done.

"Your approach is as unscientific as they come, sorry to say. Yeah, and invisible martians could have sent down bullets from space, thus proving it is not "definitive"! Or the limosuine driver could have shot JFK! Or one of the Secret Service Agents could have shot JFK! In fact, these last two have been posited by conspiracy crackpots, and they are twaddle."

My approach is scientific if you grant me the correct premise which is that I am disproving a theory rather than proving one. When I say "disproving", I mean demonstrating objectively that the Warren Commission theory has not been proven beyond reasonable doubt when all the evidence of the last 50 years is looked at as a whole. Oswald would not have been convicted had he remained alive and was tried today and defended by a competent defense attorney. THAT is the point. Your JFK denialism is laudable because there are plenty of crackpot theories out there, but the point is that I have not posited any crackpot theory, I have simply taken the approach of calling into question by reference to the evidence the theory the Warren Commission claimed had been proven, thus inferring the possibility and even likelihood of a conspiracy. You take your denialism too far by remaining so staunchly adamant of the Warren Commission's report to the point of calling anyone who challenges the accuracy of the Commission's report a "crackpot" in the face of the evidence that has since come to light, thus making you look like the crackpot.

"You cannot just make up any old scenario, you need to actually connect it to the evidence!"

I haven't proposed a scenario. I have merely challenged the supposed certitude of the scenario given. If a man is murdered and you claim to have proven who the murderer was and how he committed the murder, I do not need to demonstrate who the actual murderer was or how the murder actually happened in order to disprove your claims. I merely need to call into question your evidence such that there is no longer an absence of reasonable doubt.

"Again, for you to have any credibility, you need to connect your theory to the evidence, Charlie. "

Actually, my credibility is dependent only on disproving your theory to the point of introducing reasonable doubt.

"You neither prove nor disprove anything if you do not have hard physical evidence to back it up."

Depends on the threshold of proof. In this case we are talking aboutwhether there is sufficient evidence to convict Oswald. 75% of Americans according to a Gallup poll don't trust the Warren Commission and its conclusion. The percentage has always been less than 50% ever since the report was released. Since a jury trial requires that twelve peers unanimously must have no reasonable doubt in order to convict a person, if you were the prosecutor, how well do you think you'd do in securing a conviction of Oswald based on the evidence?

"As to Oswald not being able to make the shots, conspiracy crackpots cooked that one up based on a false time (5.3 seconds) to fire the 3 shots. The actual time is 8.3 seconds. "

No it's not. The Wikipedia link you provided confirms that it "may have taken 8.3 seconds". And what is more there is no source provided for the 8.3 second estimate. So you are begging the question. The Warren Commission itself estimated that the time span between the two shots that hit President Kennedy was 4.8 to 5.6 seconds, and on that basis sharpshooters could not replicate Oswald's supposed marksmanship.

"all 11 shooters with no prior experience with that rifle were able to hit the target 2 out of 3 times in under that time, and compare that with Oswald who did have experience and earned a ranking of "sharpshooter" in the Marine Corp."

Wrong. "Many" of the 11 shooters who were all qualified marksmen hit the target 2 out of 3 times within the extended period of time given to them. Just because Oswald was qualified as a sharpshooter 7 years earlier in 1956 does not mean he was one in 1963. Per the link I provided you he barely qualified as a sharpshooter in 1956, scraping in with his score. He clearly wasn't a sharpshooter three years later in 1959 only scraping in as a "marksman". During his tests, Oswald had used “presumably a good to excellent rifle” according to the Warren Commission. The Mannlicher Carcano rifle that was discovered on the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository, however, was a “cheap old weapon” according to the Warren Commission. Oswald was officially “a rather poor shot” (Warren Commission Hearings, vol.19, p.18) in 1959, and you, Mr Moeller, are begging the question in asserting that he had so dramatically improved over the next four years.

"This got panned badly by scientists."

Granted. My bad.

"Look, I am going to stop here. You are just regurgitating conspiracy stuff that has been around forever and does not even BEGIN to touch on the physical evidence."

What is with all the hand waving, appealing to emotion, begging the question, ad hominem, etc etc? Not what someone confident in their facts and logic does.

"you agreed with the headshot, but you thought that maybe the neck shot came from the front. Ok. Now give me an alternative scenario for the neck shot coming from the front that links up the physical evidence."

I am NOT arguing that the neck shot came from the front - only that it may have. And even if it didn't, my MAIN argument is (as is Lindsay's, I believe) that the rest of the evidence and the reporting thereof has been so sullied by manipulation and lack of protocol being followed, and Oswald's means and motive is so lacking, that the idea that the Warren Commission report is the be all and end all of what happened and all who call its findings into question and propose conspiracy is a crackpot is itself more of a crackpot position to take than to entertain the idea.

Terry

Just As I Thought

Michael Moeller's picture

Terry,

Instead of giving me an alternative scenario for the "one bullet", you just went and copied a bunch of junk that has been debunked since forever. I don't even think you read the "lies" article because at the bottom it says Oswald was busted lying about purchasing the rifle and the handgun! Jeez Louise.

Are you going to give me an alternative scenario that connects the dots of the physical evidence or not? From your answer, I will be able to tell you whether you are a crackpot or not. Before you said the science and physical evidence was important. Now you've apparently gone flailing for every piece of conspiracy litter that you can find.

Let me just dispense with some of your laundry list:

"Let's look at equally important as the physical evidence when it comes to determining guilt in a homicide investigation: motive, means and opportunity."

No it is NOT. What the state has to prove is the elements of a crime, and motive is not an element of murder. This is a very common misconception -- for good reason! The state should not have to play guessing games at why the person did the act, they just need to prove he did it and intended to do it. Intent, which is an element of murder, is proved through the person's actions and statements.

People speculate as to the motive of the Newtown murderer, but does that mean he did not do it or that his actions didn't evidence his intent to do it (by walking into the school and pulling the trigger)? Obviously not.

Besides, Oswald was a Commie with violent propensities and JFK was seen as an anti-Communist, so if you want to speculate about motives, there is a good one.

I just gave you all the evidence that puts Oswald in the TBD 6th floor, to wit:

"And how do Oswald's denials comport with the physical evidence, Terry? We've got Oswald purchasing the rifle and it being shipped to his PO Box. We have Oswald's palmprint on the rifle after it was found in the TBD. The fibers from his clothing are on the rifle. Oswald's fingerprints are on the bag he used he carried the rifle into the building, which was found on the 6th floor of the TBD. His fingerprints were also found on the cartons used to prop up the rifle on the 6th floor of the TBD. There's testimony from eyewitnesses spotting him on the 6th floor of the TBD."

If that is not means and opportunity, I don't know what is! What is your explanation for those facts?

You wrote:

"There is either not enough time between Kennedy and Connally being hit for there to have been two shots from the same rifle (this is a definitive conclusion), or there seems to be too much time between impacts on the Zapruder footage to have come from the same bullet, which would have to be near-instantaneous to be plausible, i.e. in the same frame. There is no evidence of near-instantaneousness impacts, with the impact reactions of Kennedy and Connally some frames apart."

Did you bother to watch the ABC video?!? JFK and Connally ARE reacting in the same frames. The Zapruder film is not fast enough (nor clear enough) to catch the miliseconds it takes the bullet to go through JFK and into Connally, but it is plainly obvious from the Zapruder film at frames 223-224 both have been hit with a bullet at the same time. JFK clutches his neck and Connally's jacket goes up and he starts to twist in agony thereafter.

If you think it is possible for them to be hit from different directions, then give me where the shooters were planted, what type of bullets were used, etc. Give me the scenario and connect it to the EVIDENCE!

Which gets us to this little nugget:

"I want to reiterate that my approach is not to prove bullets from two different directions, but to disprove the definitiveness both of the magic bullet theory and there being no evidence bullets can't have come from two different directions."

Your approach is as unscientific as they come, sorry to say. Yeah, and invisible martians could have sent down bullets from space, thus proving it is not "definitive"! Or the limosuine driver could have shot JFK! Or one of the Secret Service Agents could have shot JFK! In fact, these last two have been posited by conspiracy crackpots, and they are twaddle.

You cannot just make up any old scenario, you need to actually connect it to the evidence! Again, for you to have any credibility, you need to connect your theory to the evidence, Charlie. You neither prove nor disporve anything if you do not have hard physical evidence to back it up.

As to Oswald not being able to make the shots, conspiracy crackpots cooked that one up based on a false time (5.3 seconds) to fire the 3 shots. The actual time is 8.3 seconds. Look right on Wikipedia and you can see that all 11 shooters with no prior experience with that rifle were able to hit the target 2 out of 3 times in under that time, and compare that with Oswald who did have experience and earned a ranking of "sharpshooter" in the Marine Corp. Note that the distance he earned the level of "sharpshooter" for was substantially greater (200 yards) than the distance from the TBD (88 yards).

Terry, you wrote:

"1) In 1979, the House Select Committee on Assassinations stated that acoustic evidence from a Dallas police officer’s radio showed it was likely that two shooters had fired on Kennedy’s limousine, and it concluded that the assassination “probably” involved a conspiracy."

This got panned badly by scientists.

As to (2), again, motive is not an element of murder under basic criminal law (see, also, explanation above).

Look, I am going to stop here. You are just regurgitating conspiracy stuff that has been around forever and does not even BEGIN to touch on the physical evidence.

I know you can copy and paste, and you are probably not familiar with the other side of these issues.

So take a deep breath and lets apply a little **logic** to the physical evidence instead of throwing the kitchen sink of conspiracy ideas at me. For instance, you agreed with the headshot, but you thought that maybe the neck shot came from the front. Ok.

Now give me an alternative scenario for the neck shot coming from the front that links up the physical evidence.

Only He Who Denies The Evidence Is A "Crackpot", Correct?

tvr's picture

Michael,

"Of course you can't because there is no physical evidence supporting a shot from the front. "

Actually, there is. Just not conclusive evidence. See 1, 4, and 6 below.

"Yeah, Oswald denied lots of things, just like any criminal that gets busted. Too bad he got busted in all sorts of lies to the point the FBI stopped believing him, including his denial of ownership of the rifle and handgun."

You link says: "His frequent lies, many to government agencies like the State Department and the FBI, might have marked him as a plausible patsy. And his scheming and conniving might suggest that he was the sort who could be manipulated -- hoodwinked, turned into a patsy -- by people who were much more competent schemers and liars than Lee Oswald". I agree. Apart from trying to get out of paying for a hospital bill because he was broke, tell me which of his earlier lies concerned avoiding taking responsibility for demonstrably harming someone? Are not his earlier lies lies that from his own perspective were doing no harm? Is not the notes from his interrogation being destroyed a much more dishonest act than any act of dishonesty Oswald ever committed himself?

"And how do Oswald's denials comport with the physical evidence, Terry?

"

Let's look at equally important as the physical evidence when it comes to determining guilt in a homicide investigation: motive, means and opportunity. The evidence is that Oswald had no reasonable motive, even by the Warren Commission's own findings (see 2 below). Further, the evidence is that Oswald didn't have the means, also by the Warren Commission's own findings, to perform the shots necessary to be a lone gunman. He simply wasn't good enough of a marksman. That leaves only opportunity. Also, Oswald denied committing the murder, which as I have said is strange for a politically motivated assassin to do. The evidence also shows that the government manipulated the evidence to fit the magic bullet Oswald-as-lone-gunman theory (see below). Now, do you think that with all the covering up and manipulation going on that fabricating fingerprints, planting a gun and using Oswald as a patsy is definitively outside the realms of possibility for the likes of someone in the FBI or CIA or Dallas Police to do? Even if Oswald was a gunman, I submit that the evidence that has surfaced since the Warren Commission report implicates the existence of a second or better gunman or at the very least suggests that Oswald was not the only one involved in the planning of the assassination.

Oswald's murder is equally suspect. While the Warren Commission concluded that there was no "significant link between Ruby and organized crime", 15 years later the House Select Committee on Assassinations concluded that Ruby "had a significant number of associations and direct and indirect contacts with underworld figures" and "the Dallas criminal element". Ruby was close enough to the Campisi family to ask them to come see him after he was arrested for shooting Lee Oswald. Howard P. Willens — the third highest official in the Department of Justice - terminated an investigation of Ruby's Cuban related activities. The committee found "circumstantial," but not conclusive, evidence that "…Ruby met with [Mafia boss] Santo Trafficante in Cuba sometime in 1959." In June 1964, Chief Justice Earl Warren, then-Representative Gerald R. Ford of Michigan, and other commission members went to Dallas to see Ruby. Ruby asked Warren several times to take him to Washington D.C., saying "my life is in danger here" and that he wanted an opportunity to make additional statements. He added: "I want to tell the truth, and I can't tell it here." Not long before Ruby died of pneumonia after having a re-trial set, according to an article in the London Sunday Times on August 25, 1974, he told psychiatrist Werner Teuter that the assassination was "an act of overthrowing the government" and that he knew "who had President Kennedy killed." He added: "I am doomed. I do not want to die. But I am not insane. I was framed to kill Oswald." In his memoir, Bound by Honor, Bill Bonanno, son of New York Mafia boss Joseph Bonanno, stated that he realized that certain Mafia families were involved in the JFK assassination when Ruby killed Oswald, since Bonanno was aware that Ruby was an associate of Chicago mobster Sam Giancana.

"On the Zapruder film, we have JFK and Connally reacting at the same time to a bullet -- a bullet that ends up in Connally's thigh."

You are begging the question re "same time". There is either not enough time between Kennedy and Connally being hit for there to have been two shots from the same rifle (this is a definitive conclusion), or there seems to be too much time between impacts on the Zapruder footage to have come from the same bullet, which would have to be near-instantaneous to be plausible, i.e. in the same frame. There is no evidence of near-instantaneousness impacts, with the impact reactions of Kennedy and Connally some frames apart.

"How the hell did the neck shot come from the front, go through JFK's neck, and end up in Connally's thigh?!? Were they hit at the same time with shots from opposite directions?!?"

Maybe, but it seems per above not at same time, but almost at the same time. I want to reiterate that my approach is not to prove bullets from two different directions, but to disprove the definitiveness both of the magic bullet theory and there being no evidence bullets can't have come from two different directions.

Most of what is written below has been copied and pasted from http://consortiumnews.com/2013... and gives evidence together with what I write above that it is reasonable to conclude that the lone gunman and magic bullet theories have not been proven definitively:

1) In 1979, the House Select Committee on Assassinations stated that acoustic evidence from a Dallas police officer’s radio showed it was likely that two shooters had fired on Kennedy’s limousine, and it concluded that the assassination “probably” involved a conspiracy.

2) the Commission stated that Oswald’s actions could not be explained if “judged by the standards of reasonable men,” saying only that he was an isolated individual plagued by a life of failure and disappointment. In other words, the Commission offered no clear explanation of Oswald’s motives.

3) The FBI and the CIA had monitored Lee Harvey Oswald in the months before the assassination, but both agencies later intentionally misled the Commission by downplaying their knowledge of him to the Warren Commission. Oswald had once even left a threatening note for an FBI agent at the Bureau’s office in Dallas. The FBI later destroyed the note and even removed the agent’s name from a typewritten transcript of Oswald’s address book provided to the Warren Commission. Congressman Hale Boggs would later say that FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover “lied his eyes out” to the Commission’s investigators. Evidence also suggests that the CIA had Oswald under surveillance when he made a trip to Mexico in September 1963 and visited the Cuban and Soviet embassies, but the agency repeatedly denied any connection to the alleged shooter.

4) Despite the Warren Commission claiming not to have the actual autopsy exhibits because the Kennedy family supposedly did not allow them to access the material, during executive session hearing on Jan. 27, 1964 Chief Counsel Lee Rankin talked about actually seeing an picture and wondering how the bullet could exit Kennedy’s throat from an entrance point that low in the back. 30 years later when Rankin’s son donated an earlier draft of the Warren Report to the ARRB it was revealed that Commissioner Gerald Ford had changed the draft of the Warren Report to move the location of this back wound to fit with the magic bullet theory. When the photos were finally revealed to the public, it is clear that the wound was in the back, and not in Kennedy’s neck. How could the bullet hit Kennedy in the back and exit at a higher point if it only went through soft tissue? We now know that this questionable proposition was not even credible inside the Commission itself. The Commission was presented with evidence of three shells being recovered from the so-called sniper’s nest on the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository. So, to make Oswald the lone assassin, only three bullets had to be responsible for all the wounds to all the victims in Dealey Plaza. The evidence suggests that the Commission doctored the evidence to make the facts fit their theory.

5) the FBI report did not allow for the single-bullet theory and when the CIA analyzed the Zapruder film, they decided there were two assassins. Troubled by the overall proceedings, Sen. Richard Russell wrote a memo to himself which began with the phrase, “Something strange is happening.” He then noted that the Commission was only going to consider Oswald as the assassin. To lawyer Russell, this was “an untenable position.” (Biancolli, p. 47) Russell was so disturbed by the way the Commission was progressing that he actually composed a letter of resignation to President Lyndon Johnson. Russell took the step of drafting an official dissent to the Warren Report. And he wanted the report to contain his reservations about the Magic Bullet. (ibid, p. 63) Aware of this, the more active members of the Commission – Gerald Ford, Allen Dulles, John McCloy and chief counsel Lee Rankin – tricked Russell. They had discontinued their dealings with their stenography service prior to the final meeting where Russell was to present his dissent. But they did have a secretary in the room to create the pretense that a full transcript was being recorded. (ibid, p. 65) No such thing occurred. Russell was so effective in his presentation at this meeting that he was joined in the effort by Sen. John Sherman Cooper, R-Kentucky, and to a lesser extent by Rep. Hale Boggs, D-Louisiana. But Russell’s eloquent dissent was not recorded in the transcript. In fact, there really is no transcript of this Sept. 18, 1964 meeting. (ibid, pgs. 63-64) With no transcript available, none of Russell’s objections made it into the Warren Report. Thus, the false veneer of a unanimous Commission was maintained. When the Warren Commission verdict was formally announced in the fall of 1964, one of the reasons it appeared authoritative was that it was presented as being unanimous. Today we know this is not true.

6) FBI Director Hoover understood how important it was to remove any doubts that Oswald was the lone gunman. The FBI was found to have fiddled with the evidence relating to the chain of custody for the Magic Bullet. After the declassification process was complete, researcher John Hunt petitioned the National Archives to examine the FBI’s own data in order to determine if CE 399 actually arrived at FBI headquarters when the Bureau said it did and if it was carried there by agent Elmer Lee Todd as Hoover said it was. As basic to an investigation as trail of evidence is, this was not done by either the Warren Commission or the HSCA. In a handwritten receipt, Todd noted he got the bullet at the White House from James Rowley of the Secret Service at 8:50 p.m. Hunt then reviewed the work of Robert Frazier who was the technician who booked and analyzed firearms evidence on the JFK case that day. In Frazier’s chronicle, entitled appropriately enough, “History of Evidence,” Frazier wrote that he received the bullet from Todd at 7:30 p.m. In another document entitled “Laboratory Work Sheet,” Frazier wrote this again and described the exhibit as “Bullet from Stretcher.” The obvious problem was: How could Todd have given CE 399 to Frazier at the FBI lab before he got it from Rowley at the White House? Assuming the contemporaneous documentary record is correct, either the FBI switched the bullet or there was more than one bullet. Either alternative would vitiate the Commission’s conclusion about Oswald as the lone gunman. In Thompson’s book he writes that both Todd and Frazier marked the bullet with their initials; this was based on a two-page FBI document inside a Justice Department Report. The FBI needed Todd’s initials on the bullet because the initials of the man who gave the bullet to Rowley, Secret Service agent Richard Johnsen, are not on CE 399. And neither are Rowley’s. Todd’s initials had to be there to give the chain of possession any validity at all. Hunt discovered that Todd’s initials are not on CE 399, which would mean that the forensic value of the Magic Bullet was worthless. (Hunt’s articles can be read here
http://www.jfklancer.com/hunt/..., and here http://www.jfklancer.com/hunt/...).

7) the testimony of Victoria Adams that Oswald was not running down the Depository stairs from the sixth floor after the shooting.

8 ) the close-minded response to the new evidence from the gatekeepers of the major U.S. news media where authors and investigators who challenged the Warren Commission’s findings were ridiculed and became something of a litmus test for measuring a journalist’s fitness to get a good-paying job in the mainstream press.

9) There appears to have been an unsuccessful attempt to kill Kennedy in Chicago just three weeks before the successful one in Dallas. In November 1975, journalist Edwin Black wrote a long and detailed essay on this aborted plot for the Chicago Independent, a paper with a small and local circulation. Soon, this milestone essay was more or less forgotten, but the HSCA secured a copy of it. Because of its recirculation, other writers have done more work on the subject.  One of the most disturbing aspects of the Chicago attempt is that the outline of the plot is eerily similar to what happened in Dallas, down to the apparent fall guy. Three men who appeared to be Cubans were going to kill Kennedy in a rifle ambush as he exited off a freeway ramp in front of a tall building. The man who was supposed to be accused of the crime was Thomas Vallee. Like Oswald, Valle was a former Marine who was stationed at a U-2 base in Japan. Vallee supposedly was resentful toward Kennedy because of the Bay of Pigs disaster. Curiously, the codename of the FBI informant who tipped off the Secret Service was “Lee.” The existence of a prior assassination plot with parallels to Kennedy’s killing in Dallas would seem to be relevant if one were exploring a wider conspiracy, but there was not one word about this episode in the Warren Report.

Michael, in conclusion, the main theme and impetus of this thread has concerned Lindsay's (and my) objection to your labeling anyone who doesn't swallow the Warren Commission's report hook line and sinker as being a crackpot. With all of the evidence above, do you still think that?

Terry

I have just realised...

Shane's picture

I was going to jump in and defend the Myers-Briggs ratings as not entirely crackpot.

Three admirable objectivist minds so beautifully displaying different personality types out across this thread.

Very surprised by Terry, however. Not at all how I expected.

Reading the title of this thread properly now, I have realised it is about the JFK murder conspiracies.

Oswald and the Neck Shot

Michael Moeller's picture

Terry wrote:

"Obvious I cannot answer that question. What we do know is that Oswald can't have shot from the front, so if the neck shot was from the front, that would be evidence of a second shooter. The evidence that the neck shot came from the back is not definitive, unlike the headshot which is. And recall, Lindsay's statement on Oswald (which I agree with) concerns definitiveness, not likelihood or probability."

Of course you can't because there is no physical evidence supporting a shot from the front. All conspiracy theorists do is cherry-pick the government's evidence, and then spin and speculate.

Yeah, Oswald denied lots of things, just like any criminal that gets busted. Too bad he got busted in all sorts of lies to the point the FBI stopped believing him, including his denial of ownership of the rifle and handgun.

And how do Oswald's denials comport with the physical evidence, Terry? We've got Oswald purchasing the rifle and it being shipped to his PO Box. We have Oswald's palmprint on the rifle after it was found in the TBD. The fibers from his clothing are on the rifle. Oswald's fingerprints are on the bag he used he carried the rifle into the building, which was found on the 6th floor of the TBD. His fingerprints were also found on the cartons used to prop up the rifle on the 6th floor of the TBD. There's testimony from eyewitnesses spotting him on the 6th floor of the TBD.

Now let's connect it to the neck shot, which apparently you seem dubious about. On the Zapruder film, we have JFK and Connally reacting at the same time to a bullet -- a bullet that ends up in Connally's thigh.

How the hell did the neck shot come from the front, go through JFK's neck, and end up in Connally's thigh?!? Were they hit at the same time with shots from opposite directions?!?

You can draw a straight line through Connally's and JFK's injuries and -- like a miracle -- it goes straight to the TBD 6th floor. Here are the important videos again that make it clear:

What's the controversy about the "magic bullet", which includes the neck shot? All the physical evidence lines up perfectly.

So here's the challenge, Terry, if you think the neck shot "possibly" (or whatever) could have come from the front: using the physical evidence, connect the dots of an alternative theory whereby the neck shot to JFK comes from the front.

Terry...

Michael Moeller's picture

You asked:

"How on earth is that a "definitive" statement concerning the direction of the head shot bullet??"

I think you are misunderstanding my point because that was my point all along! No kidding it is "not definitive", Dr. Clark makes no determination about the headshot coming from the front at all.

Linz's first statement says "the other doctors present" agreed about the fatal headshot coming from the front. As you and I both surmised, no they didn't! Linz should have retracted that statement.

Instead, he spun it as "not definitive". "Not definitive" makes it sound like they kinda sorta supported that notion that the headshot came from the front. Dr. Clark, in fact, says no such thing. Just like I said from the very beginning. It is MORE than "not definitive", the notion that the headshot came from the front totally lacks support from Dr. Clark.

Like I said, Linz should have retracted the first statement instead of digging in his heels and spinning it as "not definitive".

Terry, you asked:

"Only if Lindsay's claim is also that there just was one bullet. If his claim is that there could have been two (or more) bullets, whereby the throat shot came from the front and the head shot from the back, how is that contradictory?"

Linz's theory is the *headshot* came from the front, and he snatches at Dr. Perry's testimony as justification. My point is that it is LUDICROUS to snatch at his testimony for justification because we know that the bullet did NOT go through the neck and then cause the head injury. So why is he snatching at this testimony for justification? We know it could NOT have happened that way, i.e. even if the neck shot came from the front, it did NOT cause the head wound, and thus proves NOTHING about the headshot coming from the front.

The answer to your question in the next post.

Moeller

tvr's picture

"A missile had gone in or out of the back of his head"

How on earth is that a "definitive" statement concerning the direction of the head shot bullet??

To be clear, Lindsay's second statement says (of the transcript) "it does not furnish evidence of "contradictory" testimony by the doctors, just an unwillingness to be definitive as to whether the neck and head wounds could have been inflicted by the same shot." In other words, nothing said therein definitively supports the direction of the bullet one way or the other, or whether there was one or more bullets. In other words for the purpose of definitively contradicting his theory of a frontal headshot the transcript is of no import.

"For Linz to jump out this as confirmation that the *headshot* came from the front is pure snatching for something, anything"

Lindsay's second statement does not jump to confirmation of anything, except there being a lack of definitiveness. Hence the accuracy of his second statement contradicts the first, making the first inaccurate. To clarify, I agree with you that Lindsay's initial statement was inaccurate because the testimonies of the two main doctors that you supplied do not corroborate with the theory of a frontal headshot – they neither confirm nor refute it. When Lindsay initially wrote "Like the other doctors present" re " the final, fatal head wound was inflicted from the front" I, like you, have not seen any such testimony from the other doctors present.

"Yeah, Dr. Perry's admitted speculation works for Linz's theory if you believe that the bullet was ping-ponging around in his body for 3-4 seconds."

Only if Lindsay's claim is also that there just was one bullet. If his claim is that there could have been two (or more) bullets, whereby the throat shot came from the front and the head shot from the back, how is that contradictory?

Answer me this: where is the definitive evidence that the throat shot was from the back? If you cannot provide that from the evidence provided thus far to Lindsay, then his second statement is necessarily accurate.

Terry

Are You Serious, Terry?

Michael Moeller's picture

Linz's 2nd statement is accurate? Are you reading the same testimonies that I am reading?

To call Dr. Clark's testimony as not being "definitive" support of a headshot from the front would be the understatement of the year! In fact, it would be complete bs. Here is Dr. Clark:

"A missile had gone in or out of the back of his head, causing extensive lacerations and loss of brain tissue. Shortly after I arrived, the patient, the President, lost his heart action by the electrocardiogram, his heart action had stopped."

In fact, Dr. Clark doesn't make a determination. To call it not "definitive" in favor of a headshot is pure spin.

But Linz snatching at Dr. Perry's testimony goes from spin to silliness. Here's what Linz wrote:

"What is interesting is that Dr Perry states more than once that the throat wound was a wound of *entry*—i.e., it came from the front. Fancy that!"

Let's put aside that Dr. Perry admits his statements about the neck wound coming from the front are "conjecture". Let's even put aside that he later determined -- after getting more of the evidence -- that the shot came from behind.

For Linz to jump out this as confirmation that the *headshot* came from the front is pure snatching for something, anything.

How silly is it?

We know from the Zapruder film that the neck shot happens at frames 223-224 when JFK grabs his neck (and Connally similarly reacts to being hit). The *headshot* does not come until 3-4 seconds later!

What was the bullet doing during the interim after it entered his neck until 3-4 sedconds later? Bouncing around in his body until it finally decided to come out of his head?!?

The fact that Linz snatched at this testimony for justification just goes to show the desperation. Yeah, Dr. Perry's admitted speculation works for Linz's theory if you believe that the bullet was ping-ponging around in his body for 3-4 seconds.

C'mon, Terry, get real!

Key Word You Are Overlooking: "Definitively"

tvr's picture

Michael,

"Is his initial statement the headshot agreement from "the doctors present" accurate? Secondly, is his summary of the doctors' testimonies accurate?"

You are correct that Lindsay's initial statement is not accurate, but his summary of the doctor's testimonies is accurate. You are looking for an acknowledgement from Lindsay re the inaccuracy of his initial statement, but that statement surely became immaterial with the statement he made two comments later (the one I agreed with). As I see it his main defense was against your main charge that he was being a crackpot by concluding that the Warren Commission report had some facts wrong and was not representative of the whole picture.

"maybe you should instead ask yourselves what *facts* led you to regard Oswald acting alone as "suspicious".

How about Oswald's un-waivering denial that he shot the president? That is a fact. It is also a fact that it is uncharacteristic for a lone assassin who assassinates with a political motive not to claim responsibility for the shooting. Oswald's murder before he can stand trial adds to the suspicion.

"Let me ask one simple question then: what kind of bullet did the second shooter use and how do you know it?".

Obvious I cannot answer that question. What we do know is that Oswald can't have shot from the front, so if the neck shot was from the front, that would be evidence of a second shooter. The evidence that the neck shot came from the back is not definitive, unlike the headshot which is. And recall, Lindsay's statement on Oswald (which I agree with) concerns definitiveness, not likelihood or probability. It is about whether "one person did it alone" ... I do not read "did it" to necessarily mean shoot alone, as Lindsay may mean by that that Oswald must have had accomplices, including the possibility that he was hired gun, either of which translates to a conspiracy. Or are you "definitively" ruling out one or both of those possibilities?

As for warranted suspicion, how's this: according to the Assassination Records Review Board review of the autopsy evidence from its investigations between 1992-1998, the board found that:

(1) The autopsy report in evidence today, Warren Commission Exhibit 387, is the third version prepared of that report; it is not the sole version, as was claimed for years by those who wrote it and signed it.

(2) The brain photographs in the National Archives that are purported to be photographs of President Kennedy’s brain are not what they are represented to be; they are not pictures of his brain, but rather are photographs of someone else’s brain. Normally, in cases of death due to injury to the brain, the brain is examined one or two weeks following the autopsy on the body, and photographs are taken of the pattern of damage. Following President Kennedy’s autopsy, there were two subsequent brain examinations, not one: the first examination was of the President’s brain, and those photographs were never introduced into the official record; the second examination was of a fraudulent specimen, whose photographs were subsequently introduced into the official record. The pattern of damage displayed in these ‘official’ brain photographs has nothing whatsoever to do with the assassination in Dallas, and in fact was undoubtedly used to shore up the official conclusion that President Kennedy was killed by a shot from above and behind.

(3) There is something seriously wrong with the autopsy photographs of the body of President Kennedy. It definitely is President Kennedy in the photographs, but the images showing the damage to the President’s head do not show the pattern of damage observed by either the medical professionals at Parkland hospital in Dallas, or by numerous witnesses at the military autopsy at Bethesda Naval hospital. These disparities are real and are significant, but the reasons remain unclear."

Terry

Terry

Michael Moeller's picture

I am not sure what you are agreeing with in Linz's statement. Is it the skepticism about one shooter?

If so, this stuns me. Loooooong before my first debate with Linz on this topic I held this to be twaddle and those running amok with it to be crackpots -- something I *held back* on the previous thread.

Out of the foam of the left's narrative that JFK was this inspired new leader that would carry America to "The New Frontier" and into the Elyasian Fields came a martyr. Their Great Hope stopped by pernicious dark forces, even though it was just another Commie who pulled the trigger.

But that's not good enough for this hero and martyr of the left (and their coddling of Commies), so somewhere along the line it became respectable -- even fashionable -- to dabble in skepticism about the dark forces hiding the truth within the secret vaults of the Warren Commission. Booooooo. Hissssssssss.

Back here on earth, the only difference between JFK conspiracies and UFO's at Area 51 is the popularity gained by the former. Both are backed up by nothing more then wild testimonial statements, speculation, and misrepresentation of the facts.

If you or Linz are abhorred at me calling it twaddle, maybe you should instead ask yourselves what *facts* led you to regard Oswald acting alone as "suspicious".

For instance, Linz posts one video that has LBJ behind the conspiracy, and another that has the mafia behind the conspiracy. Linz theorizes that there was a second shot coming from the front, yet me urges me to look at John Orr who has a second shooter on top of a different building than Oswald.

If I was citing "evidence" like this, alarm bells would not be going off in my head, there would be a full-on 5-alarm fire burning!

It's called snatching. Snatching at any little piece of testimony or mistake or speculation -- no matter how contradictory to the totality of the evidence -- and somehow this adds up to "suspicion".

Does it? If so, then there should be physical evidence behind it, right?

Let me ask one simple question then: what kind of bullet did the second shooter use and how do you know it?

No, Terry

Michael Moeller's picture

*You* also can confirm what Linz was doing by examining his approach to the evidence. That is what I was asking for, i.e. to examine his treatment of the evidence and assess whether he is just "testing" his theory.

For instance, Linz started the thread with the claim that Crenshaw and "the other doctors present" agreed that "the fatal headshot came from the front".

I provided these testimonies from Drs. Perry and Clark, two of the main doctors working on him. Now check out Linz's response.

Is his initial statement the headshot agreement from "the doctors present" accurate? Secondly, is his summary of the doctors' testimonies accurate?

Yes, you can assess these things.

Michael

tvr's picture

You asked:

"What evidence are you talking about that Linz is trying to "test" his theory?"

The evidence is where he wrote:

"This doesn't constitute "proof," and I have never claimed such a thing. What I do think is that the whole saga—the assassination, the killing of Oswald, the "investigation," the Warren Commission—is suspicious as hell. I sure as hell wouldn't say that one person did it alone, definitively, and that any other view is "twaddle."

And I fully agree with Lindsay's statement. Based on the evidence I just don't agree with the theory that the headshot came from the front. The objectivity of hard science via forensic re-creation must take precedence over eye-witness testimony, especially if there are conflicting testimonies.

To reiterate, I was merely describing how Lindsay was "coming across", not stating what he was actually doing (only Lindsay can confirm that), and pointing out that your "frenzied" ad hominem style of arguing was distracting from your argument re the bullet direction (which I agree with you on).

Terry

The "Magic Bullet"

Michael Moeller's picture

Again, it is good not to lose sight of the physical evidence, as that is out there in objective reality.

Linz previously stated this about the "one bullet" theory (aka the "magic bullet"):

"A cacophony of crackpot conspiracists on Fox News' 50th anniversary special today, including James Tague, whose being hit by a bullet fragment (or fragment of kerb dislodged by a bullet, which missed JFK) thankfully inspired the unimpeachable Arlen Specter to conceive the equally unimpeachable one-bullet/seven-wounds-to-two-men theory;"

This was some of Linz's passive-aggressive sarcasm suggesting that Arlen Specter was up to shenanigans and the "one bullet" theory was bunkum. You know, because, as Terry states, Linz is just interested in "testing" his theories, not being a smartass (wink wink).

So how does the "one bullet" theory play out in scientific recreation? Thankfully, another firm also specializing in forensic recreations gave it a whirl. Again, same rifle, same caliber bullet, same height and distance, etc etc.

Notice that the shot almost exactly recreates the seven-wounds-to-two-bodies that Linz scoffed at and intimated was the result of some chicanery by Specter. The only difference between the this shot -- and the real shot -- is that this shot hits TWO ribs in Connally, thus slightly deforming the bullet and thus not having enough kinetic energy to go in Connally's thigh. Not hard to imagine that the bullet would go into the thigh if it hit only one rib and the bullet would look more like the elongated original.

Gonna be hard to dismiss this as "ABC apologia".

I would like to see Linz pony up some physical recreations -- or any physical evidence for that matter -- that show his theory, whatever that may be.

The Head Shot

Michael Moeller's picture

Terry says I am concentrating on the testimonial evidence, but that is only to debunk Linz's misrepresentation thereof. As I said earlier in the thread, the physical evidence -- the ballistics and forensics -- is totally uncontroversial.

Let's take a look at a demonstration. Here a firm specializing in forensic recreations takes a look at what would happen if the head shot came from the grassy knoll:

Exactly as I told Linz on the previous thread. If there was a high caliber shot from the grassy knoll, it would have taken JFK's head clean off. If it was the caliber of Oswald's rifle, there would have been an exit wound on the left side of his head. At the very least, there would have been a bullet or fragments in the left side of his head. There was no such bullet or fragments.

Now look at what happens if the shot is taken from the distance and height of the TBD with Oswald's rifle and ammunition:

Houston, we've got a match. Same wound. Same blood splatter. Matches up with Zapruder footage and eyewitness recollections.

This is why conspiracy theorists pick at testimony. Testimony allows them to selectively pick out things that support their point, particularly in the case of the Parkland doctors where the testimony was all over the place with speculation because nobody examined the back of the head. We've already seen this happen.

Can't spin and twist physical evidence, which is why conspiracy crackpots never do recreations. Well, they can try, but it is much more obvious.

Huh?

Michael Moeller's picture

Terry you wrote:

" If I were to hazard a guess I'd say that Lindsay is not wanting you to prove your position, but rather to disprove his position by showing him conclusively where the irrefutable contradiction is in his theory."

This baffles me. I DID provide the testimonial evidence from just about every Parkland doctor I could find that refutes Linz's claim that "the other doctors present" agree that "the fatal head wound came from the front". THERE IS NO such agreement that the head wound came from the front. Most of the doctors don't even offer an opinion on where the head shot came from. The best that can be said -- outside Crenshaw and McClelland -- is that a couple of doctors admittedly speculated that the head wound was the result of a *neck* shot from the front.

How the hell is Linz trying to "disprove" his point when I give this evidence -- the direct testimony -- and he REFUSES to retract his statement that "the other doctors present" agreed the fatal head shot came from the front?

To me, his refusal to acknowledge the falsity of this statement -- even after I give him all the testimony -- smacks of somebody desperate to hold onto false statements.

What evidence are you talking about that Linz is trying to "test" his theory? From where I stand, he either ignored contrary evidence and/or refused to acknowledge his false statements.

Does somebody who hand waves away the computer modeling as "ABC apologia" sound like somebody interested in "testing" his theory? Not from where I stand.

As to the Mythbusters episode, I included that to show that a human body does NOT go hurling in the direction of the bullet. Note that the body shot demonstrated is crucially important, as it was concentrated at the center of mass, i.e. the force is concentrated on the area easiest to move the body. That is, if a bullet concentrated at the center of mass does not send a body hurling, a head shot CERTAINLY is not going to. Basic physics.

Btw, most experts think that Kennedy's body hurling "back and to the left" is the result a recoil from the blood gushing out of his head, not from a muscle spasm, although some think that. Regardless, the point of the Mythbusters is to show that a bullet does not send a human body hurling, even if concentrated at the center of mass. Again, one does not need Mythbusters for that, it the basic physics of momentum. I told Linz this plenty of times on the previous thread, but he is still talking about Whoa! moments of seeing Kennedy go backwards, so Mythbusters is a good debunking of that.

As I said

tvr's picture

I'm not offended by your "offensives".

I don't know what the history is between you two on this subject, only what is on this thread, so I cannot call out Lindsay on how he is dealing with the evidence except for what I see in this interaction. You are coming across as adamant of your position, but are overly combative and confrontational and have turned into being disrespectful, whereas Lindsay is coming across as trying to test his position, while taking a somewhat playful approach but is still being respectful. If I were to hazard a guess I'd say that Lindsay is not wanting you to prove your position, but rather to disprove his position by showing him conclusively where the irrefutable contradiction is in his theory. Your testimony-based argument approach hasn't done that for him conclusively. What I posted should, I'd hope, because it is hard science. Even your Mythbusters evidence is wanting, because it is based on a body shot, not a headshot.

I've Tried....

Michael Moeller's picture

In the past and on this thread to give him the straight historical evidence, including "pointed questions" about the evidence. Yet, like he did with the Drs. Perry and Clark, Lonz did not acknowledge his statement to be false as far those doctors go, and even tried to slice it apart to claim support for his point. He did the same thing with the original McClelland testimony I provided.

He's making a mockery of the evidence.

If you have more patience for such nonsense, so be it. I have no qualms about calling him out. Like I said, if you are offended by the way I call him out, I'll live with that.

But why are you my calling him out for the disgraceful way he deals with the evidence?

Speaking of the Newmans

Michael Moeller's picture

I cannot find the Bill Hemmer anywhere to verify Linz's claim about the Newmans. However, I did find this Fox News article on the Newmans from 2008. Here is one of the highlights:

"I do tend to want to lean in the direction that it was a conspiracy, meaning more than one person was involved. But so far, no one's ever come forward with concrete evidence," Bill Newman said.

Oh. And I'll be damned if I can find anything in there (or their other interviews and initial statements) that supports this assertion from Linz:

"Oh, and those looney Newmans, who were there, at the bottom of the knoll, and foolishly imagined (as did many other eyewitnesses) that a shot came from the top of it".

Riiiiiiiiight.

No Offense To Your Offensive

tvr's picture

Michael,

You asked:

"What do *you* make of somebody who presents/argues evidence in this manner?"

Well, if the other person is rational and intelligent then I'd conclude that either the evidence or how it has been put to them is unconvincing (making it my responsibility to correct), or else that they have made a mistake in their reasoning, either factually or logically. The only way to know which is the case is to ask some pointed questions while demonstrating good will towards them, making it clear from a congenial and/or respectful approach that the aim is to achieve unanimity via objectivity, whereafter magnanimity will be in order if your case ends up being accepted as proven. To get frustrated merely conveys pusillanimity.

Eye

Terry

Terry

Michael Moeller's picture

It is annoying, to say the least, when one puts direct testimony in front of a person and they STILL cannot cop to it. He STILL slices out any sliver he can find instead of just acknowledging his statement was wrong.

I can forgive the first statement (i.e. "the other doctors present" agreed that "the fatal head shot came from the front") as Linz not being familiar with what the doctors actually said. Ok.

But I cannot forgive his failure to admit such statements are wrong AFTER I give him the doctors' testimonies. In fact, he still tried to pull out a sliver from Dr. Perry's testimony to support his point (i.e. the front *neck* wound was an entry wound), which Dr. Perry himself later changed to an EXIT wound.

Or when he hand waves away a contrary dissection of the evidence as "ABC apologia".

Or when I put the Newmans' actual testimonies right in front of his face and show they neither saw nor heard anything regarding a shooter on the grassy knoll. He didn't retract his statement about the Newmans either. Linz says he has some evidence to the contrary, somewhere.

What do *you* make of somebody who presents/argues evidence in this manner?

Like I said, I find it appalling. If Linz is offended by my being appalled at his treatment of the evidence -- tough titties. He deserves it for not being forthright over the evidence. I am sick of people treating evidence this way. Just plain sick considering how many people have treated evidence in exactly this manner on this website. I didn't expect it from Linz, but there you have it.

If my behavior offends you more than his treatment of the evidence, so be it.

Frenzy or Friends-y?

tvr's picture

Michael,

Not so long ago you accused me of having "gone into a frenzy" (when I hadn't). At least in my case the other guy deserved moral condemnation for engaging in deception. I fail to see how Lindsay deserves any of what you are dishing out to him here.

For what it is worth, this video (continue to watch past the end of assassination footage and onto the forensic simulation) together with the findings of the HSCA analysis, which consulted a wound ballistics expert who concluded that "nerve damage from a bullet entering the President's head could have caused his back muscles to tighten which, in turn, could have caused his head to move toward the rear" supports your conclusion, is fully consistent with what can be seen in the Zapruder film, and as I am concerned settles the matter re from which direction the deadly bullet was fired.

Terry

Perigonoia

Michael Moeller's picture

Linz wrote:

"I note further that Michael, in a further post pursuant to the peculiar set (LDS?) he has developed against me in recent times (which he lacks the breeding to refrain from indulging on a platform provided by the object of his animus) is now quoting me from some time back being much more emphatic that there was a conspiracy than I am now. It's called modifying one's thinking in light of evidence."

Let's add paranoia to the list!

Maybe, just maybe, I am APPALLED at the way he has treated the evidence. Just like he modified "his thinking" after I presented him with the testimonies of Drs. Clark and Perry, only to have him slice out the one sliver from Dr. Perry while ignoring the rest that refutes his claims. And that's forgetting that Dr. Perry even changed his mind the throat wound.

Well, now he has even more testimonies in front of him again, so let us just see if he still tries to claim that "the other doctors present" state that "the fatal head shot" came from the front. We'll see. So far, he has dug in his heels and obstinately refused to cop to this falsehood. And yes, I DO find his behavior towards the evidence appalling, regardless of what he says about me.

Meanwhile, he has Kennedy's niece who "doesn't know" if Oswald acted alone. Well, that convinces me!

On the other hand, he dismisses the evidence presented by the computer modeling of Dealey Plaza based on the Zapruder film because that is nothing more than "ABC's apologia". Uh huh.

At least Linz is backing away from his previous statements about "the government cover-up", which was total nuttery.

Hmmm, That's a Nice Video

Michael Moeller's picture

So I watched the part that Linz described thusly:

"From 1' 45" - 6' 13" it's eight doctors and a nurse, by my count. "

Eight doctors and a nurse, by his count support what, exactly? They describe the wound, but do they support that the head shot came from behind? Linz does not say -- for good reason.

We already know that Dr. McClelland does, but he never examined the back of the head.

Here's a good rundown of many of these witnesses who never actually picked up the head an examined the back of the head! Just like the video, conspiracy crackpots try to use selective testimony as if they support their conclusions.

So what did these doctors really say and what do they really think?

Dr. Peters thinks it was Oswald acting alone. What was that again about "the other doctors present" agree that "the fatal headshot" came from the front?

What about ole' Dr. Malcolm Perry? You know, the one Linz thinks supports his point about the neck wound being an entry wound? Well, first of all, Dr. Perry later changed his mind and reasoned that the neck wound was an EXIT wound. Does Linz still want to use him as a witness? LOL! Just a hunch, but I doubt Linz will be going along with Dr. Perry's later testimony.

Check out this article:

"He observed that a throat hole looked like an entrance wound. He had qualified the observation in the next sentence but virtually nobody paid attention."

It goes on to say that Dr. Perry regrets his initial statement because crackpots have leapt on it for proof of a conspiracy. Sound familiar???? Dr. Perry did not speak much after his Warren Commission testimony, but safe to say that Dr. Perry was not on the side of the conspiracy theorists,.

Here is the testimony of Dr. James Carrico. As one can see, he was one of the primary attending doctors and only gave the head wound a cursory examination (eg. "Looked very briefly at the head wound"). Where again does he state that the headshot came from the front?

He was the one that performed the tracheotomy, and he couldn't tell whether the neck would was an exit or entry wound. Oh.

Here are the testimonies of Dr. Ronald Jones, and Dr. Kenneth Salyer. I can find no testimony for Dr. Richard Delaney.

Notice that none of these men looked at the back of the head, or even knew of anybody turning JFK over. They were all apparently staring at the open wound while he was on the stretcher. Notice also from Dr. Kenneth Salyer's testimony that Dr. Crenshaw's big contribution was to administer the IV. This is one of Linz's go-to guys.

The closest we come to any of these doctors supporting a head wound from the front is Dr. Ronald Jones who makes similar statements to Dr. Perry's initial statements, i.e. that the head wound may be the result of the entrance wound to the throat and an exit wound through the top of the head. For that to be true, he states that the bullet would have had to hit the vertabrae, and noted there was no damage to the vertebrae. And he admits this is "speculation" as he has no knowledge of the number of bullets or their trajectories.

So there are some of the doctors that permitted Linz this statement:

""Here's another crackpot. This one was a doctor in the trauma room in which Kennedy was treated. Like the other doctors present (all crackpots), he says the final, fatal head wound was inflicted from the front".

Yes, just like the other doctors present. Uh huh.

It is quite clear, at this point, that the partial snipping of testimony is meant to leave the impression that the Parkland doctors support the headshot coming from the front when they clearly don't. Outside of McClelland and Crenshaw -- both of whom wrote conspiracy books and the problems with their testimonies have been documented here already -- the doctors support no such thing.

The conspiracy crackpots try to slice out speculation on the part of the doctors to frame a conspiracy -- to the detriment of the rest of their testimony.

And Linz swallows it right up. Sad. Really, really sad.

Parkland Doctors, McClelland, and More Misrepresentation

Michael Moeller's picture

Notice Linz does not cop to the wrongness of his original statement that "the other doctors present" agreed that "the fatal headshot" came from the front. Even when I present their testimony. Typical. I'll let everybody ponder on that.

Meanwhile, he writes this total misrepresentation about the McClelland link that *I* provided:

"Now Michael wants to claim that McClelland (and by implication, the others) could not possibly have seen the wound at all, and so, presumably, must be lying. ??!!"

Where did I say McClelland was lying or that he didn't see the wound? It is clear from his testimony that he saw the open wound, but never examined the back of the head. Period.

I gave him the link to McClelland's original testimony, and Linz quoted the part that all conspiracy crackpots quote -- i.e., McClelland's statement about the head wound. Also, like all conspiracy crackpots, Linz totally ignores McClelland's answers to Specter's questions. When questioned by Specter, it is clear that McClelland NEVER saw the back of JFK's head, by his own testimony. Let's repeat this because this is a bit of razzle dazzle crackpots leave out: McClelland never saw the back of JFK's head, i.e. the alleged "exit wound".

So, instead of coming to grips with that fact, Linz tries to put words in my mouth. Pathetic. Absolutely pathetic.

I never said McClelland lied. He just never examined the back of JFK's head -- by his own admission. Other doctors, and there are oodles of them, DID examine all the evidence and claim that the head wound came from behind, including those who did thorough examination during the autopsy.

So how reliable is McClelland's description of the wound that he never examined from the back compared to those performing the autopsy? And the expert panel of doctors that reviewed the photos after the fact and reached the same conclusion>

Does Linz bother to deal with that while he is busy lapping up only part of McClelland's testimony while ignoring just about every other doctor on the subject? Nope. Never figures into the equation.

The real question should be: does Linz believe McClelland over all the other doctors who testify to the contrary?

Let's see if Linz answers.

Moellysteria

Lindsay Perigo's picture

Linz says he has testimony from Mrs. Newman regarding what she saw on the grassy knoll. I am still waiting for that.

Try watching the Bill Hemmer doco on Fox. That's not too hard, is it? They keep repeating it. Was on again just last night. Oh, and it has 3D computer animation, too, tracing the headshot back to the Crown Records Building.


Just like I will be waiting for some youtube video that allegedly shows the Parkland doctors "pointing" to the head wound and claiming it was an exit wound!?! I would love to see this alleged video, but Linz can't be bothered to provide that either. Apparently it is my job to go look up one of the conspiracy crackpot videos to verify his claims. Hahaha.

I didn't say it was your job; I said I wasn't going to bother doing it for you 'cos you're behaving like a jerk. This ABOTO grandstanding has gone beyond being amusing to the point where it's become hysterical. However, for the benefit of anyone hinged who may be following, dispassionately, here is the "alleged" video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

From 1' 45" - 6' 13" it's eight doctors and a nurse, by my count. Note also Cronkite's remark (in the immediate aftermath of JFK's death) that the doctors have reported a bullet entered his neck and exited his head. And note where the press secretary points.

The CBS profile of Crenshaw that begins at 35' 52" might also be of interest to the calm.

The whole time McClelland was observing JFK his body was on the stretcher. By his own testimony, McClelland NEVER saw the back of JFK's head! McClelland NEVER observed a gunshot wound to the back of JFK's head!

From Michael's own link:

ROBERT McCLELLAND, MD In testimony at Parkland taken before Arlan
Specter on 3-21-64, McClelland described the head wound as, "...I
could very closely examine the head wound, and I noted that the right
posterior portion of the skull had been extremely blasted. It had
been shattered...so that the parietal bone was protruded up through
the scalp and seemed to be fractured almost along its right posterior
half, as well as some of the occipital bone being fractured in its
lateral half, and this sprung open the bones that I mentioned in such
a way that you could actually look down into the skull cavity itself
and see that probably a third or so, at least, of the brain tissue,
posterior cerebral tissue and some of the cerebellar tissue had been
blasted out...." (WC--V6:33) Later he said, "...unfortunately the loss
of blood and the loss of cerebral and cerebellar tissues were so great
that the efforts (to save Kennedy's life) were of no avail."
(Emphasis added throughout) (WC--V6:34) McClelland made clear that he
thought the rear wound in the skull was an exit wound (WC-V6:35,37).

And of course, there's this, quoted by Michael directly:

We attempted to avoid moving him any more than it was absolutely necessary, but I could see, of course, all the extent of the wound.

Now Michael wants to claim that McClelland (and by implication, the others) could not possibly have seen the wound at all, and so, presumably, must be lying. ??!!

I note further that Michael, in a further post pursuant to the peculiar set (LDS?) he has developed against me in recent times (which he lacks the breeding to refrain from indulging on a platform provided by the object of his animus) is now quoting me from some time back being much more emphatic that there was a conspiracy than I am now. It's called modifying one's thinking in light of evidence. I have done a lot more reading and viewing since then, and am currently genuinely agnostic. I find this position most unsatisfactory, but as of now I just wouldn't like to have to call it. I empathised with Kennedy's niece just yesterday who, when asked by Chris Wallace if Oswald acted alone, said, "I don't know. I just don't know."

"Linz can't decide"? Guilty as charged. Or, more accurately, "Linz is still deciding." But a chronic "conspiracy theorist" a la 9/11 nutters, Illuminati kooks and the like, Linz ain't, Moeller's sad smears to the contrary notwithstanding.

Linz Just Can't Decide...

Michael Moeller's picture

Whether he is a conspiracy theorist or not. Linz now states:

To suspect, given all the evidence, there was more than one shooter involved in the JFK assassination does not make one a "conspiracy theorist" of the type you are trying to paint me as, or a "twaddler."

Except on a previous thread Linz wrote this:

"I remember the day Kennedy was shot and remain appalled that the truth has not yet been told about that, and that there are still apologists for the government cover-up who insist, moronically, the fatal headshot came from behind."

Talk about Whoa! moments. "The government cover-up" apparently does not make Linz a "conspiracy theorist". No sir.

What about "twaddler", as he stated that all those who "moronically" think the fatal headshot came from behind are apparently being duped?

Since Linz shows the video of JFK being hurled backwards after the headshot in that previous thread, it is quite clear that he is using this visual evidence to assume that the headshot came from the front. And those who do not agree are morons. Classic.

Problem? Linz is drawing a conclusion about a human body's reaction to a gunshot from watching too many movies. Just watch Mythbusters on this very topic:

Here is the movement of the human body from a shotgun shot.

Here is a 50 caliber bullet to the center of mass (starts at 6:55):

Just another "myth BUSTED"! Again and again. Simple Newtonian physics.

The original Mythbusters episode also showed that even when a 50 caliber bullet is fired and concentrated at the center of mass, it moves the human body on a couple of inches. The episode showed all kinds of experimentation -- like firing round-after-round at the center of gravity of body dummies -- and it shows that the body barely moves. The original episode has a dead link, but this follow-up is suffice to show what nonsense Linz finds himself believing.

If a 50 caliber shot to the center of mass barely moves a human body, some much smaller caliber weapon used for a head shot is going to barely move the human body, not send his whole body hurling "back and to the left". In fact, the Zapruder film was studied closely by scientists, including Feynman, and shows that JFK's head DOES slightly move forward before his head explodes. Exactly as one would expect from Oswald's 6.5 caliber bullet hitting JFK from behind (i.e. slight head movement forward).

Linz should have paid attention during high school physics class.

This Is A Fine Demonstration...

Michael Moeller's picture

That no amount of contrary evidence will ever persuade a conspiracy crackpot. Just look at my previous post. Linz's original statement that "the other doctors present" agree that "the fatal head shot" came from the front bears no resemblance to the actual testimonies, but don't expect him to acknowledge that.

Now look at the rest of this claptrap, which is just ASTOUNDING:

1. Linz doesn't argue against the computer modeler who recreated Dealey Plaza to investigate whether the "one bullet" theory was correct. Instead, he simply dismisses it as "ABC's apolopgia for the Warren Commission Report" and dismisses Peter Jennings as being like Dan Rather who was used as a shill in an unrelated episode. And he does this right before saying he is the victim of "ad hominems". Hahahaha. (Side note: Linz apparently doesn't know the difference between an ad hominem argument and an insult.)

This is the world of the conspiracy crackpot. Attack the source, not the evidence.

2. Speaking of other doctors, I give Linz the results from an expert panel of doctors commissioned to study the medical evidence, and he ignored it. The doctors state that the medical evidence shows both the neck wound and the head wound came from behind.

One wouldn't know it from Linz, but the vast, overwhelming majority of doctors who have studied the medical evidence agree with this conclusion. It is a relative few (that have written books on JFK conspiracies) -- like Crenshaw -- that disagree with these findings. Like magic, Linz manages to find them!

Not only have I just demonstrated that Crenshaw's statements about the other doctors is totally false by providing the other testimonies, but Crenshaw was a resident and had a very little role -- by his own admission -- and made claims to seeing things he could not have seen. I already posted that bit on Crenshaw, but Linz is too busy searching for conspiracy twaddle to be bothered with it.

So the vast majority of doctors should be ignored, but this is Linz's guy! Too funny.

3. Linz cites the Newmans for verification of shots coming from the grassy knoll. I debunk that nonsense by providing the testimony directly from the Newmans that shows they neither saw nor heard anything on the grassy knoll. Their statements about multiple shooters was nothing but their own wild speculation.

Linz says he has testimony from Mrs. Newman regarding what she saw on the grassy knoll. I am still waiting for that.

Just like I will be waiting for some youtube video that allegedly shows the Parkland doctors "pointing" to the head wound and claiming it was an exit wound!?! I would love to see this alleged video, but Linz can't be bothered to provide that either. Apparently it is my job to go look up one of the conspiracy crackpot videos to verify his claims. Hahaha.

I've already given the verbal testimony of two of the Parkland doctors that claims no such thing, but Linz thinks it supports his point! Unbelievable.

4. What about Dr. McClelland? Linz's video has Dr. McClelland repeating conspiracy nonsense, including that the mafia was behind the hit. Linz sums McClelland's assessment of the wounds nicely for us by writing:

"He's still persisting with his crackpot conspiracist notion that the head shot, too, came from the front:"

This is hilarious. Check out Dr. McClelland's Warren Commission testimony at the time when questioned by Arlen Specter:

" Mr. SPECTER. Did you observe anything in the nature of a wound on his body other than that which you have already described for me?
Dr. McCLELLAND. No.
Mr. SPECTER. In what position was President Kennedy maintained from the time you saw him until the pronouncement of death ?
Dr. McCLELLAND. On his back on the cart.
Mr. SPECTER. On his what?
Dr. McCLELLAND. On his back on the stretcher.
Mr. SPECTER. Was he on the stretcher at all times?
Dr. McCLELLAND. Yes.
Mr. SPECTER. In the trauma room No. 1 you described, is there any table onto which he could be placed from the stretcher?
Dr. McCLELLAND. No; generally we do not move patients from the stretcher until they are ready to go into the operating room and then they are moved onto the operating table.
Mr. SPECTER. Well, in fact, was he left on the stretcher all during the course of these procedures until he was pronounced dead?
Dr. McCLELLAND. That's right.
Mr. SPECTER. Then, at any time was he positioned in a way where you could have seen the back of his body?
Dr. McCLELLAND. No.
Mr. SPECTER. Did you observe any gunshot wound on his back?
Dr. McCLELLAND. No.

[Then later]

Mr. SPECTER. Did you observe the condition of the back of the
President's head ?
Dr. McCLELLAND. Well, partially; not, of course, as I say, we did not lift his head up since it was so greatly damaged. We attempted to avoid moving him any more than it was absolutely necessary, but I could see, of course, all the extent of the wound.
Mr. SPECTER. You saw a large opening which you have alreadydescribed?
Dr. McCLELLAND. I saw the large opening which I have described."

The whole time McClelland was observing JFK his body was on the stretcher. By his own testimony, McClelland NEVER saw the back of JFK's head! McClelland NEVER observed a gunshot wound to the back of JFK's head!

Wanna guess why conspiracy crackpots use the first part of McClelland's testimony while totally ignoring this crucial bit of detail from McClelland's testimony?

Linz brings it up, then I shoot it down. Like I said, the conspiracy crackpots just move on to other factoids and never acknowledge their previous misstatements or the failure of the evidence to support their points.

Linz is giving a fine, fine demonstration.

Just Like I Said...

Michael Moeller's picture

There is no point in trying to reason with a conspiracy crackpot.

Linz before:

"Here's another crackpot. This one was a doctor in the trauma room in which Kennedy was treated. Like the other doctors present (all crackpots), he says the final, fatal head wound was inflicted from the front".

Previously, Linz stated that "the other doctors present" said the shot came from the front, and now we have a radical shift. Linz now:

"I have now looked at the link you supplied to the press conference transcript, and find it does not furnish evidence of "contradictory" testimony by the doctors, just an unwillingness to be definitive as to whether the neck and head wounds could have been inflicted by the same shot".

From Linz' first statement, would anybody have gotten that "the other doctors" were not "definitive" and Linz' statement is totally inaccurate? Nope. No acknowledgement of Linz's misstatement. No responsibility. No nothing.

And Linz STILL continues with this nonsense, trying to pick out pieces that he thinks support his point. Here are the doctors' testimonies again. Let me exerpt a couple of pieces:

QUESTION-
Can you demonstrate, Doctor, on your own neck?
DR. MALCOM PERRY-
Approximately here (indicating).
QUESTION-
Below the Adam’s apple?
DR. MALCOM PERRY-
Below the Adam’s apple.
QUESTION-
Doctor, is it the assumption that it went through the head?
DR. MALCOM PERRY-
That would be on conjecture on my part. There are two wounds, as Dr. Clark noted, one of the neck and one of the head. Whether they are directly related or related to two bullets, I cannot say.
QUESTION-
Where was the entrance wound?
DR. MALCOM PERRY-
There was an entrance wound in the neck. As regards the one on the head, I cannot say.
QUESTION-
Which way was the bullet coming on the neck wound? At him?
DR. MALCOM PERRY-
It appeared to be coming at him.
QUESTION-
And the one behind?
DR. MALCOM PERRY-
The nature of the wound defies the ability to describe whether it went through it from either side. I cannot tell you that. Can you, Dr. Clark?
DR. KEMP CLARK-
The head wound could have been either the exit wound from the neck or it could have been a tangential wound, as it was simply a large, gaping loss of tissue.
[...]
QUESTION-
Can’t we clear this up just a little more? In your estimation, was there one or two wounds? Just give us something.
DR. MALCOM PERRY-
I don’t know. From the injury, it is conceivable that it could have been caused by one wound, but there could have been two just as well if the second bullet struck the head in addition to striking the neck, and I cannot tell you that due to the nature of the wound. There is no way for me to tell.
QUESTION-
Doctor, describe the entrance wound. You think from the front in the throat?
DR. MALCOM PERRY-
The wound appeared to be an entrance wound in the front of the throat; yes, that is correct. The exit wound, I don’t know. It could have been the head or there could have been a second wound of the head. There was not time to determine this at the particular instant.
QUESTION-
Would the bullet have to travel up from the neck wound to exit through the back?
DR. MALCOM PERRY-
Unless it was deviated from its course by striking bone or some other object. "

What does Linz get out of all of this? That Dr. Perry agrees with him!!! Hahahahaha. Apparently Linz cannot tell the difference between the head and the neck.

Let's remember Linz's first statement above where he explicitly stated that the "other doctors present" stipulated that the "fatal head shot" came from the front.

Linz does not tell us that Dr. Clark says he cannot determine where the bullet came from, to wit:

"DR. KEMP CLARK-
The head wound could have been either the exit wound from the neck or it could have been a tangential wound, as it was simply a large, gaping loss of tissue.

But don't expect Linz to admit that his initial statement was full of shit.

Don't expect Linz to even notice that his statement about Dr. Perry also does not match up with what Linz stated earlier.

Dr. Perry does NOT say "the fatal head shot" came from the front. Dr. Perry cannot say how the head wound happened, i.e. whether it was either a separate shot or from the same bullet as the neck shot. He admits it is "conjecture".

Don't expect Linz to admit that this DOES contradict both his earlier statement and Dr. Crenshaw's that the other doctors' agree that the head wound came from the front.

No, the one thing Linz will take away from this testimony is that Dr. Perry, while admitting he was speculating and can't give anything definitive about how the two wounds happened (or even IF there are two wounds!), speculates that the throat wound happened from the front. Hahahaha.

Nothing about Linz's original assertion that "the other doctors present" said "the fatal head shot" came from the front. But that doesn't bother Linz. No sir.

Twaddler writ large.

Well Michael ...

Lindsay Perigo's picture

I have now looked at the link you supplied to the press conference transcript, and find it does not furnish evidence of "contradictory" testimony by the doctors, just an unwillingness to be definitive as to whether the neck and head wounds could have been inflicted by the same shot. How the hell could they be expected to be definitive on such things when they're just out of the pandemonium of the operating room in which they've just lost the President of the United States?! What is interesting is that Dr Perry states more than once that the throat wound was a wound of *entry*—i.e., it came from the front. Fancy that!

Another crackpot doctor present in the operating room who looked closely at the head wound was Robert McClelland. He's still persisting with his crackpot conspiracist notion that the head shot, too, came from the front:

Somewhere on YT is the video I described of the Parkland doctors, one after another, pointing to where the gaping hole—an *exit* wound—in Kennedy's head, was: at the back! Somewhere, also, is JFK's press secretary pointing to where the bullet *entered*—front right. That portion of his statement, fascinatingly, was deleted from the ABC's apologia for the Warren Commission Report called Beyond Conspiracy fronted by Peter Jennings, as bad a shill as Dan Rather. A disgraceful travesty of journalism. You can look these things up for yourself, Michael. I don't propose to bother while you continue to engage in gratuitous ABOTO. To suspect, given all the evidence, there was more than one shooter involved in the JFK assassination does not make one a "conspiracy theorist" of the type you are trying to paint me as, or a "twaddler." I shan't pay such ad hominems the respect of engaging their perpetrator.

Linz

Michael Moeller's picture

I am not calling it twaddle to be gratuitous. I am calling the conspiracy-mongering twaddle because it is twaddle. The conspiracies are built on nothing more than speculation, supposition, and misrepresentation of the evidence -- in part or in toto. The exact same method as 9-11 conspiracy-mongering. Utter twaddle.

I find the physical evidence -- the ballistics and medical evidence -- to be entirely uncontroversial.

What exactly do you find "suspicious" about the Zapruder film or any of the physical evidence? What exactly is "Whoa!" about the Zapruder film? I obviously don't share the "Whoa!" moment, so I have no idea what you are referring to when you say anybody looking at it experiences a Eureka! moment.

I certainly would like you to provide Mrs. Newman's statements because she said nothing about seeing or hearing anybody on the grassy knoll at the time it happened, nor did her husband. Their original statements to the police, and in subsequent interviews like the one I linked to, only talk about their perceptions of the right side of JFK's head getting blown off. The rest about multiple shooters was nothing more than their own unfounded speculation, as you can see from the linked interview.

I never heard of John Orr, but from what little is written in the article: most definitely YES!, he is a twaddler. He has Oswald firing three shots: one hitting JFK in the neck, one missing, and one wounding Connally (and the head shot coming from an imaginary 2nd shooter). It took him five years to come up with that?!? The Zapruder film shows this to be nonsense, just watch:

As you can see from the Zapruder film, JFK and Connally react at the same time to a bullet (frames 223 and 224), i.e. the bullet that went through JFK's neck is the same bullet that hit Connally.

For that to happen under Orr's scenario, Oswald would have needed a magic rifle that fired three bullets simultaneously: one hitting JFK in the neck, one missing enitrely, and one magically flying around JFK and hitting Connally. All at the same time.

Safe to say that Orr is a twaddler.

Michael

Lindsay Perigo's picture

I didn't comment on your last post because I want to take the time to read it thoroughly and track down one of the docos I've watched over the years where all the Parkland doctors come on one after the other and physically point to where the big hole (meaning exit wound) in the head was—at the back. The fact that I haven't done so yet doesn't prevent my posting about the Fox doco, however much this may surprise you. As usual you are assuming I must drop everything and attend to you at once and in full.

In the Fox doco Mrs Newman states quite explicitly that the shot came from the top of the knoll behind her and her husband. Many witnesses said the same, and many rushed up there. This doesn't constitute "proof," and I have never claimed such a thing. What I do think is that the whole saga—the assassination, the killing of Oswald, the "investigation," the Warren Commission—is suspicious as hell. I can't understand anyone's looking at the Zapruder film for starters without thinking, "Whoa!" I don't claim anything "definitive"; I'm suspicious as hell. I sure as hell wouldn't say that one person did it alone, definitively, and that any other view is "twaddle." That sounds like good ol' gratuitous ABOTO to me. Is John Orr a twaddler?

This Is What I Mean...

Michael Moeller's picture

Earlier I had stated that it is almost impossible to reason with conspiracy theorists, and Linz gives a good example why. Linz made the claim that Crenshaw and "the other doctors present" thought the fatal head shot was from the front. I provide the actual testimonies from the doctors showing no such thing, and it is ignored. No comment, no acknowledgement, no nothing.

Then Linz does what most conspiracy theorists do -- they bombard you with five more (alleged) pieces of evidence while ignoring their previous errors/falsehoods. And then when you knock those down (as these are equally false), then they will come up with 10 more! This is why it is pointless to argue with a conspiracy theorist. No evidence will ever convince them otherwise. They'll just keep going and going and going.

Instead of acknowledging the problem with his last statement about the ER doctors, he fires off more summary statements that allegedly prove a conspiracy. Do they?

The way Linz tells it, the shady Arlen Specter dreamed up the allegedly preposterous "magic bullet" theory. It conjures up Oliver Stone's nuttery about the bullet turning left and right and doing loops and whatnot. Really? No, not really.

Specter's theory was based on expert testimony regarding the ballistics and medical evidence at the time. Oh, but I am sure those experts were on the take. Well, except that scientists have been studying the one bullet scenario (aka the "magic bullet") for the past 50 years and have verified the one bullet theory over and over again. In fact, one set of scientists was able to almost exactly recreate the wounds to JFK and Connally (i.e. body dummies placed in their position and filled with ballistic jelly) with ONE BULLET while the only damage to the bullet was enlogation. Just like the theory predicts, and just like happened to JFK, Connally, and the bullet. It must be magic!

Or how about those Newmans that Linz says "foolishly imagined the shot" came from the top of the grassy knoll. I am not sure Linz has reviewed what the Newmans say they actually saw because his argument is one of sarcasm -- as if the Newmans testified to something extraordinary regarding the grassy knoll. Really? No, not really. Here are the Newmans' accounts of that day.

Did the Newmans see a person or a shot come from the grassy knoll? No.

Did the Newmans even state that they heard a shot from the grassy knoll? No. In fact, the wife (Gayle Newman) stated she couldn't tell from the sound where the shots came from.

So what did the Newsman perceive on that day? Let's put aside that Bill Newman originally testified that JFK stood up in the car and his ear was blown off -- neither of which happened. All they testified to was that they saw the right side of JFK's head get blown off. That's it. That is all.

So how the hell do conspiracy crackpots claim the Newmans' testimonies are evidence that a shot came from the grassy knoll if all they perceived was the right side of JFK's head coming apart?

Well, the wife says this for justification:

"In my heart, I don't think that one person could have pulled the whole thing off by himself. I don't know who did it, or anything, but I don't think it was the act of just one person."

Oh. Her speculation is not based on what she perceived, but in her "heart" she thinks it had to be more than one person. My oh my.

And the husband:

"But my reaction at that moment, what was going through my mind, was that we were narrowly being missed by that third shot...I thought the shot must have come from behind because [of] the way President Kennedy reacted to it. It was a visual impact. And, when I'm talking with people, I'll say it came from behind, lot of times I'll pause to wait -- if you're a researcher, you've already got an opinion, you want to know [from] behind where: to my left, meaning the school book depository? To my right, meaning the picket fence?... I always just leave it with 'behind,' because I reacted to what...I saw in the car. So we stood up."

He did not see anybody shoot from the gassy knoll, or even hear anything from that direction. Apparently Mr. Newman also got his physics from watching too many movies, and speculates that the shot possibly came from the picket fence because of how JFK reacted to the shot, and he is not even sure of his own speculation.

So how the hell is this supposedly definitive proof -- nay, any proof at all -- a shot came from the grassy knoll? You got me.

Same with the rest of it. All twaddle.

Linz (*a polite tap on the shoulder*), you are being played for a sucker.

More crackpots!

Lindsay Perigo's picture

A cacophony of crackpot conspiracists on Fox News' 50th anniversary special today, including James Tague, whose being hit by a bullet fragment (or fragment of kerb dislodged by a bullet, which missed JFK) thankfully inspired the unimpeachable Arlen Specter to conceive the equally unimpeachable one-bullet/seven-wounds-to-two-men theory; and one John Orr—a new crackpot on me—a former Justice Dept attorney who claims the fatal headshot came from the Crown Records Building, not the TBD. Then there was that crackpot forensic pathologist from way back, Cyril Wecht, who remains delusionally convinced that shot was fired from the grassy knoll. Oh, and those loony Newmans, who were there, at the bottom of the knoll, and foolishly imagined (as did many other nutty eyewitnesses) that shot came from the top of it. Hopeless crackpots, one and all. Why folk can't just accept the findings of the Warren Commission is beyond me. Its composition, processes, integrity and impartiality were, after all, unassailable.

And Linz...

Michael Moeller's picture

You might want to check out this article dissecting Dr. Ben Crenshaw's statements, and compare it with the statements of the other doctors present. Decide for yourself how well his statements about the other doctors stack up with what the doctors actually said. Not very well, to say the least.

Uh, Linz

Michael Moeller's picture

Trouble is, "the other doctors present" have said no such thing. Just look at the testimony from the doctors present at the time outlined here, as well as all the medical evidence here. Notice that the testimonial evidence from the doctors present is often contradictory and speculative:

A little over an hour after declaring John Kennedy dead of gunshot wounds he received in Dealey Plaza, doctors Malcolm Perry and Kemp Clark faced fact-hungry reporters in a news conference at Parkland Hospital and tried as best they could to inform the journalists of the circumstances of Kennedy’s death.

Some of the statements have been used ever since as evidence of a conspiracy. Note that Kemp Clark said the head wound was at the "back of [Kennedy’s] head" — although he didn’t know whether the wound showed the entrance or exit of a bullet. Perry described the wound in the throat as an "entrance" wound, although he later backed off a bit and said it "appeared to be an entrance wound."

But note also that the doctors had to speculate rather wildly about bullet trajectories. Perry said he didn’t know whether the two wounds were the result of one bullet or two, and Kemp Clark speculated that the head wound might be the exit of a bullet that entered at the neck."

Or check out the expert panel of doctors commissioned to review the medical evidence:

"The nature of the bullet wounds suffered by President Kennedy and the location of the car at the time of the shots establish that the bullets were fired from above and behind the Presidential limousine, striking the President as follows:

President Kennedy was first struck by a bullet which entered at the back of his neck and exited through the lower front portion of his neck, causing a wound which would not necessarily have been lethal. The President was struck a second time by a bullet which entered the right rear portion of his head, causing a massive and fatal wound."

What was the conclusion of the doctors again, Linz??? I'm not saying the doctors are crackpots, I am saying those who slice out any piece of evidence they can find to form a conspiracy are crackpots. It is exactly the same method as 9-11 Truthers.

I've already explained the basic physics to you that there is no way the fatal shot could come from the front, unless you think this incident contravenes the laws of physics. And empircal tests have verified it over and over again (surprise, the laws of physics are correct!). It's Hollywood physics to think the shot came from the front and sent Kennedy hurling backwards (i.e. in the same direction of the bullet). In fact, that is exactly what numbskull Oliver Stone tried to postulate in his movie on the subject.

Even a lot of conspiracy theorists acknowledge that at least ONE shot had to hit him from behind, and then they posit crazy theories about multiple shots -- one from the front and one from behind -- hitting him at the same time.

This stuff is so dumb I have given up trying to reason with such people. Knock yourself out with it, if you want.

The only interesting question to me is why people have such a psychological need to find some deep, dark force behind the scenes planning it all. Bidinotto published a good essay on the lure of conspiracy theories once. I am not sure it is still available, but it hit the nail on the head.

Hahaha, Michael!

Lindsay Perigo's picture

You've inspired me to rename this thread "Crackpot Corner!"

Here's another crackpot. This one was a doctor in the trauma room in which Kennedy was treated. Like the other doctors present (all crackpots), he says the final, fatal head wound was inflicted from the front:

Linz...

Michael Moeller's picture

I don't pay attention to the latest JFK assassination conspiracy theories. They proliferate like alleged ghost sightings, and have the same merit. And just like ghost sightings, I dismiss the people promoting them as crackpots. Eye

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.