Recent Posts

Pages: 1 ... 8 9 [10]
91
JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate / Re: Vicki Adams: The Lost Interview
« Last post by Dan O'meara on March 23, 2024, 12:00:37 AM »
And, although Jack's identification of this officer with Harkness has been shown to be farcical and that there isn't a single statement by Harkness, Sawyer or Barnett that relates to Vicki's movements, he will still continue to peddle the lie that their testimonies refute Adams' testimony.
He will continue with this lie because he is a good little Nutter.


The irony is that the testimony of Sawyer shows beyond doubt that Nessan's fairytale is bogus. In his desperation, Nessan claims that Harkness (or one of the officers with him) "sealed off" the back of the building at 12.36, which he claims is the time the officer encountered Adams and Styles as they exited the building.

However, Sawyer says he arrived at the TSBD at 12.34 and parked his car near the front door. The first thing his did was run into the building to take the stairs up to the 4th floor. He looked around, found nothing and returned to the first floor. This firmly places Sawyer on the stairs at the time that Adams and Styles must have been using the stairs to go down to the alleged encounter with Harkness (or one of the officers with him). The only way that Sawyer could not have seen the women coming down the stairs was if they went down before 12.34, but that doesn't match with Adams seeing Shelley and Lovelady 5 minutes after the shooting or an encounter with Harkness et all at 12.36.

What makes Nessan's claim completely impossible is that Styles was photographed standing near Sawyer's car (which didn't get there until 12.34) before going back into the building through the not yet sealed off front door (which happened at 12.36 or 12.37). So unless, Styles had magical powers that allowed her to be in two places at the same time, Nessan's fairytale is utterly debunked.

But I agree with you, Dan, this will not prevent him from telling the same lie over and over again.   Thumb1:

I have a slightly different understanding of Sawyer's movements and timings but it has absolutely no bearing on how quickly Adams and Styles left the fourth floor. Regardless of Jack's Lie, Sawyer never makes any kind of statement that relates to how quickly Adams and Styles left the fourth floor. And neither do Harkness or Barnett. Dealing with someone who is prepared to lie makes any kind of reasoned debate almost impossible.
As I understand it, it's a good 5 or 6 minute drive from Sawyer's position near Main and Ervay down to the TSBD building and Sawyer makes it clear it is slow going at first due to the crowds. He hears Decker's voice urging people to get to the railroad yard so he heads that way. He is still in his car at 12:34pm when he hears mention of shots from the TSBD building and that becomes his focus.
I believe he pulls up outside the building about 12:36pm. Harkness has just made his call and is making his way from the railroad yard to the front of the TSBD building with Euins on board. We see Sawyer pulling up in the distance in the Martin(?) film. Harkness parks up and puts Euins in the back of Sawyer's car and Harkness sees Sawyer talking to officers by the steps. Sawyer is yet to enter the building.
Sawyer enters the building as Harkness goes round the back to seal off the rear entrance. Sawyer takes the lift in the lobby up to the fourth floor with two officers and an employee. I get the impression that Sawyer incorrectly believes he is on the floor the shooting took place. He has a very quick look round to establish there is no shooter on that floor. While he is on the fourth floor Baker and Truly show up in an elevator as they make their way back down from the roof and Baker has some kind of interaction with Sawyer, who then makes his way back down to the lobby. I believe it is about 12:38/12:39pm when Sawyer orders the lock down. He then goes outside and makes his first transmission at 12:40pm.
Around the time Sawyer is ordering the lock down, Adams, who is stood outside, hears the 12:38pm transmission mentioning the "second floor" that convinces her to go back inside the building. She almost doesn't make it back inside before the building is locked down. Styles has already re-entered unchallenged minutes earlier.
92
JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate / Re: Vicki Adams: The Lost Interview
« Last post by Martin Weidmann on March 22, 2024, 10:51:30 PM »
Why did Oswald include Shelley as part of his alibi?
It's a simple question Jack, so what do you think?
The only rational reason Oswald would do this, in my opinion, is because he did talk to Shelley before he left the building.
If, as you believe, Oswald didn't talk to Shelley, why would he use him in his alibi? What is your sensible explanation for this?

And to be clear - Shelley denying he spoke to Oswald isn't what makes him a liar. Shelley lies about his movements after the assassination, that's what makes him a liar. It is then important to look at Shelley's other interactions that day in the light of him being a proven liar. This is from the post you completely ignored:

"...Shelley only knows Oswald as a quiet loner who works at the TSBD building. They are not friends, they do not socialise, they barely know each other. Yet Oswald believes that Shelley will back him up. He believes that Shelley will confirm that he gave Oswald permission to leave that day, otherwise why would he mention Shelley at all?
Oswald knows that all the authorities have to do is ask Shelley and this alibi will be blown so why does he do it?
The only rational reason is that Oswald fully expected Shelley to back him up.
The only rational reason why Oswald would expect Shelley to back him up is that Oswald really did have a conversation with Shelley just before he left the TSBD building.
Fritz makes the point that Oswald is very cool and controlled during interrogation, so this isn't a question of someone panicking under pressure and saying the wrong thing. Oswald knows exactly what he's doing when he brings Shelley into his alibi. He clearly views Shelley as an accomplice."


Do you agree with this assessment? If you don't, what do you disagree with and why.
And while we're on the subject of proven liars, I see you're still peddling the lie about Sawyer, Harkness and Barnett.
For those not familiar with Jack's Lie, a few posts back Jack was insisting that statements made by Sawyer, Harkness and Barnett refuted Vicki Adams' testimony that she left the fourth floor within seconds of the last shot. Time after time after time Jack was asked to provide these statements and demonstrate how they refuted Adams' testimony. Obviously he refused to do so because no such statements exist but he continues to peddle the lie that they do exist.
Unbelievably, the sum total of Jack's accumulated evidence that "refutes" the testimony of Vicki Adams is a single statement made by Harkness.
This is how it 'works' - after they exit the TSBD building through the Houston dock door, Adams and Styles run about 20ft to a set of stairs, go down these and then run another 30ft to the end of the extension on the back of the building. They turn west and are met by a police officer who tells them to get back inside the building.
In the diagram below the route Adams and Styles took is marked out. The circle is where Shelley and Lovelady were stood, the star is where Adams and Styles run into the police officer.



In his WC testimony Harkness makes the point that at around 12:36pm he and two other officers go around the back of the building to seal it off and lock the building down:

Mr. BELIN. How soon after 12:36 p.m., would you say the building was sealed off?
Mr. HARKNESS. It was sealed off then because I was back there and two other men.


This is where things become difficult to believe.
For no given reason and with absolutely not a shred of evidence to back this up, Jack simply decides that the policeman that Adams and Styles run into is Harkness or one of the other officers he mentions. Jack simply plucks this identification out of thin air. Then his logic kicks in - well, if these officers didn't go round the back until 12:36pm then that must be the time when Adams and Styles left the building, therefore the statement made by Harkness proves Adams and Styles didn't leave the fourth floor immediately.
And that's it.
Seriously.
That is the sum total of Jack's "evidence".
A chimpanzee trying to crack open a nut with a rock uses superior logic.
The first thing to note is that Sawyer and Barnett don't come into. Neither man makes any kind of statement that has any bearing on Vicki's movements. In fact, Barnett completely undermines Jack's little fantasy as he points out that seconds after the shooting he runs down Houston Street, looks around the back of the building and sees at least one police officer already there. The officer that Barnett sees cannot be Harkness or his merry men. This must be the officer Adams and Styles run into.
The second thing to note is that Harkness doesn't make any kind of statement that relates to Vicki's movements. He simply says that he and two other officers go to the back of the building around 12:36pm. As has been said all along, not one of these officers makes any kind of statement relating to Vicki's movements. Jack knows this but he continues to peddle the lie that these officers refute Adams' timeline. This is Jack's Lie.
Just to demonstrate how poor Jack's use of logic is, let's take a closer look at his decision to identify the policeman Adams and Styles run into as Harkness (or one of his colleagues. Remember, Harkness never mentions anything about this encounter).
Jack's logic is that the officer they run into is part of the effort to lock down the building.
But there's a slight flaw - a building is locked down at the doors!
To control people entering and leaving the building, police officers must be stationed at the doors.
We see that at the front doors. The officers controlling people entering and leaving the building through the front doors are not stood around the corner of the building on Houston Street. They are not trying to do it from the railroad yard. They are stood at the doors. That's how a building is locked down.
Now look at the diagram above. The encounter with the officer occurs about 50ft away from the back door, around the side of the building.
What happens if someone comes out the back door and goes right onto Houston Street? How is this officer supposed to deal with that person?
And there's another part of the building being locked down that Jack has failed to grasp. Adams and Styles are outside the building. They are about 50ft away from the back door. If the building was locked down the police officer would be stopping them from getting back inside. Instead, this officer does the very opposite thing - he orders Adams and Styles back inside the building. It's the very opposite of what is supposed to happen!
Jack's identification of the officer as someone involved in the lock down involves logic so poor it would make a chimpanzee blush.

And, although Jack's identification of this officer with Harkness has been shown to be farcical and that there isn't a single statement by Harkness, Sawyer or Barnett that relates to Vicki's movements, he will still continue to peddle the lie that their testimonies refute Adams' testimony.
He will continue with this lie because he is a good little Nutter.

And, although Jack's identification of this officer with Harkness has been shown to be farcical and that there isn't a single statement by Harkness, Sawyer or Barnett that relates to Vicki's movements, he will still continue to peddle the lie that their testimonies refute Adams' testimony.
He will continue with this lie because he is a good little Nutter.


The irony is that the testimony of Sawyer shows beyond doubt that Nessan's fairytale is bogus. In his desperation, Nessan claims that Harkness (or one of the officers with him) "sealed off" the back of the building at 12.36, which he claims is the time the officer encountered Adams and Styles as they exited the building.

However, Sawyer says he arrived at the TSBD at 12.34 and parked his car near the front door. The first thing his did was run into the building to take the stairs up to the 4th floor. He looked around, found nothing and returned to the first floor. This firmly places Sawyer on the stairs at the time that Adams and Styles must have been using the stairs to go down to the alleged encounter with Harkness (or one of the officers with him). The only way that Sawyer could not have seen the women coming down the stairs was if they went down before 12.34, but that doesn't match with Adams seeing Shelley and Lovelady 5 minutes after the shooting or an encounter with Harkness et all at 12.36.

What makes Nessan's claim completely impossible is that Styles was photographed standing near Sawyer's car (which didn't get there until 12.34) before going back into the building through the not yet sealed off front door (which happened at 12.36 or 12.37). So unless, Styles had magical powers that allowed her to be in two places at the same time, Nessan's fairytale is utterly debunked.

But I agree with you, Dan, this will not prevent him from telling the same lie over and over again.   Thumb1:
93
JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate / Re: Reasons for Continued Coverup?
« Last post by Paul McBrearty on March 22, 2024, 09:53:29 PM »
Are you aware the HSCA concluded there was a conspiracy?

Yes, of course. See my previous post in this thread (scroll down): https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,3948.16.html
94
JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate / Re: Reasons for Continued Coverup?
« Last post by Dan O'meara on March 22, 2024, 08:43:39 PM »
There is undoubtedly and unequivocally no cover-up in this case. I am not overlooking the concept of conspiracies; yes, they do transpire. Nevertheless, in this case, the JFK Assassination, there is absolutely no doubt whatsoever that Lee Harvey Oswald acted entirely independently without the assistance of any conspiracy. I have objectively viewed all the evidence from books, articles, videos, documentaries, photographs, documents, etc., while always considering possible conspiracies, which, in this case, are easily debunked by known evidence and logical reasoning. There is no evidence of any involvement by any individual or group other than Lee Harvey Oswald. It has been sixty years and four months since 22 November 1963, and no credible evidence of a cover-up or conspiracy has ever come to light. It is beyond rationality as to why people continue in futility to postulate bizarre conspiracy theories about the JFK Assassination that are so very effortlessly disproven.

Are you aware the HSCA concluded there was a conspiracy?
95
JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate / Re: Reasons for Continued Coverup?
« Last post by Paul McBrearty on March 22, 2024, 07:22:02 PM »


the deceptions and lies of the Warren Commission . IE Specter and his SBT starting with an entry wound location on the right side (of the rear ) of JFKs neck that he knew was a lie .he knew it was a lie because BY HIS OWN ADMISSION he admitted seeing atleast one autopsy photo that showed the wound in question several inches below and to the left ON THE BACK.



Please elucidate us by furnishing evidence that Arlen Specter disclosed viewing an autopsy photo which illustrated a wound some inches below and to the LEFT on Kennedy's back. Or is this merely a typographical error or misinterpretation on your part?
96
JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate / Re: Reasons for Continued Coverup?
« Last post by Jerry Organ on March 22, 2024, 05:29:38 PM »
There is undoubtedly and unequivocally no cover-up in this case. I am not overlooking the concept of conspiracies; yes, they do transpire. Nevertheless, in this case, the JFK Assassination, there is absolutely no doubt whatsoever that Lee Harvey Oswald acted entirely independently without the assistance of any conspiracy. I have objectively viewed all the evidence from books, articles, videos, documentaries, photographs, documents, etc., while always considering possible conspiracies, which, in this case, are easily debunked by known evidence and logical reasoning. There is no evidence of any involvement by any individual or group other than Lee Harvey Oswald. It has been sixty years and four months since 22 November 1963, and no credible evidence of a cover-up or conspiracy has ever come to light. It is beyond rationality as to why people continue in futility to postulate bizarre conspiracy theories about the JFK Assassination that are so very effortlessly disproven.

One way they keep the fantasy going is to shift the wound locations so they no longer work with trajectories from the SN. They avoid the C7 back entry like the plague; they prefer to go as low as T5 and high as C6.
97
JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate / Re: Reasons for Continued Coverup?
« Last post by Paul McBrearty on March 22, 2024, 04:28:32 PM »
There is undoubtedly and unequivocally no cover-up in this case. I am not overlooking the concept of conspiracies; yes, they do transpire. Nevertheless, in this case, the JFK Assassination, there is absolutely no doubt whatsoever that Lee Harvey Oswald acted entirely independently without the assistance of any conspiracy. I have objectively viewed all the evidence from books, articles, videos, documentaries, photographs, documents, etc., while always considering possible conspiracies, which, in this case, are easily debunked by known evidence and logical reasoning. There is no evidence of any involvement by any individual or group other than Lee Harvey Oswald. It has been sixty years and four months since 22 November 1963, and no credible evidence of a cover-up or conspiracy has ever come to light. It is beyond rationality as to why people continue in futility to postulate bizarre conspiracy theories about the JFK Assassination that are so very effortlessly disproven.
98
JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate / Re: Reasons for Continued Coverup?
« Last post by Jerry Organ on March 22, 2024, 03:18:42 PM »
"Where in the Warren Report does it say the back wound was to the left of JFK's midline?"

do try to read properly before you reply . that IS NOT what i said . i said

"BY HIS OWN ADMISSION he admitted seeing atleast one autopsy photo that showed the wound in question several inches below and to the left ON THE BACK "

Did you not see where you wrote "to the left"? If not left of the midline, then leftward from what?

Quote
"Where does the Clark Panel say the entry wound was as far as 5 inches from the EOP wound?"

firstly it would be much better if you quoted what you are replying to , as i did here with you .

I read it, And I get four inches.

Quote
" the foregoing observations indicate that the decedents head was struck from behind by a single projectile . it entered the occipital region 25 mm to the right of the midline and 100 mm  ABOVE THE EXTERNAL OCCIPITAL PROTUBERANCE . "
https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/md59/pages/Image11.gif

100mm or roughly 10 cm equates to roughly 4 inches . i said some 4 to 5 off the cuff as it were , and only from memory as i some times do . while 5 is an accidental over statement 4 inches is perfectly acceptable .

OK, now you're getting four inches. I thought that since you had "bumped" your original post, you might have caught your "guess" and corrected it.

Quote
"Where does the Clark Panel say the entry wound was in the crown of the head?"

well correct me if i am wrong but it appears that you are disputing that the clark panel placed the head entry wound about 4 inches ABOVE the level of the EOP ? . i relate 4 inches above the level of the EOP to be in the area (not the entire area ) where a man can have a bald spot .i think i was clear enough on that point .

"they said it was in the crown of the head where a man has a bald spot "

if you desire to argue about the circumference of a mans bald spot have at it , i am sure all will vary some what in width and length .

"Humes located the EOP by touch only and the other two went with that."

i really should not have to explain every single thing , but often i find it to be the case with some people that i do . now if you desire to argue that none of the three men conducting jfks autopsy had the basic knowledge to locate the EOP and that they erred and mislocated it well do that to your hearts content , it however is not an argument i will be engaging in .i dont have time for silliness .

Humes was the only one who used palpation to locate some bump he thought was the EOP. Humes was a teaching pathologist who rarely, if ever, encountered a much-shattered skull with fracture lines covered by thick scalp. Finck argued that Humes' palpation was better than what the photographs showed. Those doctors stick together.

Quote
"DESPITE the fact that autopsy photos show a wound at the EOP"

above i was very clear about what the autopsy PHOTO shows near the EOP . here is what the commission said

, “approximately 2.5 cm. laterally to the right and slightly above the external occipital protuberance is a lacerated wound "

The Top-of-the-Head autopsy photo shows one hole (beside the ruler making it the center of interest) and it's at the Clark Panel's "cowlick" level. You must be seeing another hole at the EOP level ("autopsy photos show a wound at the EOP"), which is why I asked you to arrow it.

Quote
"Good for Humes. There was no entry wound in the crown area."

yes i think we already established this YES ? .

"The Bethesda pathologists endorsed autopsy photos showing the gaping scalp opening was not at the very rear of the head. Four Parkland doctors visited the Archives and endorse the same photos."

these are the same pathologists (and i use that term lightly ) who endorsed a right of neck entry wound in and around the level of the shirt collar yes / no ? .

Certainly not. Where are you getting such stupid information from? You approve some claim that the back wound was to the "right of neck" (which would be in the shoulder ball) and "around the level of the shirt collar" on the back?



Quote
i am not getting into what anyone endorsed , the autopsy photos that we have dispute them on that .as do the holes on jfks clothing that are on the back , certainly not in the collar areas of his clothing . i know the PBS documentary that you refer to . one of the doctors was mclellend and he maintained his position before and after that documentary , which was that he saw a large wound in the right rear of jfks head .why did you not mention that ? .

LOL. You didn't mention the visit of the Parkland doctors to the Archives at all. McClelland's suggestion that the photo shows a large flap of scalp was being held in place is preposterous. How could McClelland see the very back of Kennedy's head if it's lying on the stretcher and not in view?

Quote
i do think its important information along with the fact that certain parkland doctors originally said jfk had a right rear head wound or that they saw cerebellum but then reversed and contradicted them selves .and we should give the readers here as much information as we can so that they can decide for them selves on this matter .

I know one critic, Pat Speer, who gets grief because he correctly believes critics are distorting the Parkland descriptions and he thinks the head wound seen at Parkland was the same as photographed at Bethesda.

( Also: https://www.jfk-assassination.net/aguilar/agg20.txt )
99
More likely the opposite.   Whoever revealed "the truth" would be deemed a hero.  No bureaucrat cares about what happened decades ago.  They are all about promoting themselves.  And no secret can be kept this long in DC.  There was no conspiracy or cover up.  A governmental conspiracy is necessary for UFO and JFK CT believers to explain why they lack evidence to ever prove their nutty theories.  It is because the spooky government or some "men in black" are always showing up to cover it up.
We've had hundreds if not more people go to Washington and serve in these agencies/department/divisions in various roles over the past 60 years. Two if not three generations of people of various backgrounds and experiences, liberals and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans have gone there. As heads of CIA, assistants to the director of CIA/FBI/Pentagon/NSA, staffers, career officers, mid-level operatives. Why would an assistant to the director today - or over the past several decades - someone who had nothing to do with this supposed conspiracy, someone who had no role in the event, need to continue to lie to cover it up? For what benefit? As you said, he or she would be considered a national hero, a JFK assassination equivalent of a Daniel Ellsberg or a Mark Felt or other whistleblowers in history.

This is why, I think, that in large part Seymour Hersh, the investigative reporter, dismissed Oliver Stone's conspiracy nonsense when they met: he knew how the bureaucracy operates (and doesn't), how impossible it is to keep something like this quiet. Other investigative reporters - Tim Weiner for example who did a very critical book on the CIA - said the same thing. George Lardner, Phillip Shenon, others.  And cover this up over more than half a century? Not just at that time? Impossible.

The only counter explanation for this is, as you said, some "secret team" of assassins who killed all of these witnesses or intimidated them. They would kill this whistleblower too. It's cloud cuckoo land fantasies.
100
JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate / Re: Reasons for Continued Coverup?
« Last post by Richard Smith on March 22, 2024, 12:55:03 PM »
I would assume that an official admission of guilt would essentially undermine their integrity as an institution. Imagine yourself as a government entity. For literal decades you have denied any and all wrongdoing related to the assassination of your chief-of-state, and now you admit guilt. Why did you deny it for all of these years just to admit guilt now? What changed? Who influenced your decision? And for what reason?

More likely the opposite.   Whoever revealed "the truth" would be deemed a hero.  No bureaucrat cares about what happened decades ago.  They are all about promoting themselves.  And no secret can be kept this long in DC.  There was no conspiracy or cover up.  A governmental conspiracy is necessary for UFO and JFK CT believers to explain why they lack evidence to ever prove their nutty theories.  It is because the spooky government or some "men in black" are always showing up to cover it up.
Pages: 1 ... 8 9 [10]