Debunking Griffith's ridiculous claims!

[John Mytton]

Since the evidence against Oswald is rock solid, CT's like Griffith are reduced to claiming the Mountain of Evidence is faked, manipulated or is simply misrepresented but as I will amply demonstrate his/their claims are just amateur observations and nonsense.

No boxes were moved in the time between Powell and Dillard taking their respective photos and is just a matter of differing perspective. In fact can any CT give a legitimate reason for moving any boxes in the minutes following the assassination and especially when many eyes in Dealey Plaza were fixated on these windows?



There was no hole in the windscreen of Kennedy's Limo as can be seen in the corresponding glass crack in the same position in Altgens photo and the later official photo which shows no hole.





Many stereoscopic photos were taken of Kennedy's injuries so as to give a better 3D representation of these injuries and as a by-product these stereoscopic images by definition rule out any manipulation because any attempt at simultaneous fakery would literally "stick out" on a different plane. These genuine impossible to alter back of head photos show no exit wound.



The "red spot" bullet entrance was also photographed twice and when the skin was stretched with differing tautness between the two photos, the back of head entrance wound can be seen to slightly open and close, thus proving the red spot was not merely a pool of blood.



Kennedy's neck exit wound was located directly behind his tie knot. This is important because CT's are constantly trying to manipulate the neck wound position to further their anti-SBF BS.



The backyard photos have been proven 7 ways to Sunday but still there is CT's amateurish analysis like the square chin which was simply a product of overhead lighting and the subsequent shadow.



Some time later a back yard photo was discovered IIRC at the Dallas Police Headquarters with a cut-out and the CT's say this is proof that it was one of the templates for the backyard photos but the cut-out photo obviously was taken many months later because of the significant plant growth to Oswald's left.
But as we know the genuine backyard photos were taken just after Oswald ordered and received his rifle and just before the Walker assassination attempt. BTW how likely is it that someone had the foresight to take at least three empty photos of the backyard at Neely street eight months before the assassination and then later have at least three differing heads of Oswald which individually magically match the lighting and shadows of the Neely street backyard photos?



The following ballistics study shows that a shot from behind, high and above shows a close correlation between the expelled matter and resulting exit wound seen in the Zapruder film and this recreation.



These Dealey Plaza eyewitnesses who were interviewed within hours, simply described what they saw and their descriptions closely match the Zapruder film which in turn are further proof that the autopsy photos and X-Rays are genuine.



It only happened one way!



Further proof that this Autopsy photo is genuine is that the scalp flap and ragged edge is an exact match of Moorman's photo which was taken a split second after.



The Moorman photo was on the UPI network on Saturday and was on the front page of newspapers on Sunday.





Real life isn't a Hollywood movie with exaggerated physics but as can be seen when a FMJ bullet is fired into a head and as is graphically demonstrated in the following footage, a relatively lightweight penetrating bullet lacks the kinetic energy to throw anybody anywhere. These brave soldiers simply fall straight down, they don't even fall forward and in fact they move back towards the shooters.



The first eyewitnesses who ran towards the Knoll didn't run up the steps! The first eyewitnesses ran right past the fence and supposed smoke and were just following Haygood who ran up to the railway overpass.





And where did the majority of the "steps crowd" come from? It appears that the majority came from across the Plaza and simply sheep-like were just mindlessly following the flock.





For every claim of conspiracy in the JFKA, there is a always a simple, logical and/or scientific level of refutation, so CT's like Griffith "shotgun" their braindead claims in an attempt to overwhelm the reader.
It's easy to make a single sentence conspiracy claim like Kennedy's head moves back and to the left due to a bullet like a Hollywood movie but researching scientific principles such as momentum, inelastic/elastic collisions, kinetic energy, physiology and researching WW2 films of FMJ strikes takes time which most lay people couldn't be bothered with.
And another example is saying everyone ran immediately to the steps of the grassy knoll because of the Bell film but when did this happen, who was in this crowd and did they know from where the gunshot sounds originated, but again researching the chronological order based on photos and testimony takes time.

So in conclusion dear reader don't take the CT's claims as gospel, but use your brain and do a little research and ask yourself do their claims make sense because they usually don't, for instance why have your "lone nut" high and behind yet still have another assassin in front, how does that make sense or why use different types of bullets when your "lone nut" is exclusively using full metal jacket bullets?

JohnM

[Michael T. Griffith]

Since the evidence against Oswald is rock solid, CT's like Griffith are reduced to claiming the Mountain of Evidence is faked, manipulated or is simply misrepresented but as I will amply demonstrate his/their claims are just amateur observations and nonsense.

And the comedy show continues. For your next act, I'm sure you'll produce some bogus graphics that will "prove" the Earth is flat.

This latest barrage of your bogus graphics, accompanied by your usual uninformed polemic, is obviously aimed at my thread "The Lone-Gunman Theory: An Extremely Fragile House of Cards": https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,4756.0.html. Anyone who reads that thread and then reads your response will see how misleading and shallow your response is. 

No boxes were moved in the time between Powell and Dillard taking their respective photos and is just a matter of differing perspective. In fact can any CT give a legitimate reason for moving any boxes in the minutes following the assassination and especially when many eyes in Dealey Plaza were fixated on these windows?

Clearly you have read nothing on this issue. The HSCA photographic experts addressed and rejected the claim that the apparent movement is merely the result of differing perspective. Barry Krusch spends dozens of pages proving that the HSCA experts were correct and that the "differing perspective" explanation is invalid. He also proves that none other than David Belin realized that boxes were moved between the Dillard photo and the police evidence photo of the sniper's nest. But I know you haven't read Krusch's analysis, even though I cited it twice.

Krusch's analysis is the most detailed ever written on the subject. It is 45 pages long in the Kindle version and is contained in his book Impossible: The Case Against Lee Harvey Oswald, Volume 3, pp. 25-70. Krusch shows beyond any doubt that the HSCA PEP experts were correct. He also shows that Belin recognized that the boxes in the Dillard photo were not in the same position as the boxes in the police evidence photo of the sniper’s nest taken after 1:12 PM (CE 715).

BTW, all three volumes of Barry Krusch's book Impossible: The Case Against Lee Harvey Oswald are available online in PDF format. He has combined all three volumes into a single PDF file online. In the PDF version, his analysis of the HSCA PEP's conclusion that boxes were rearranged within two minutes after the shooting is on pp. 657-690. Here's the link:

https://krusch.com/books/Impossible_Case_Against_Lee_Harvey_Oswald.pdf

How about all the witnesses who saw two men with a rifle on the sixth floor 10-15 minutes before the shooting? Were they all "mistaken, hallucinating, lying"? Is it just a coincidence that Deputy Sheriff Mooney encountered two well-dressed men coming down the stairs from the sixth floor at no later than 12:50? Who were they? No federal or local law enforcement officers were on any of the upper floors of the building before 1:00.

"Who Were the Two Men Heading *Down* the Stairs at NLT 12:50?"
https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,4510.0.html

How about the law clerk, Lillian Mooneyham, who saw a man in the sniper's nest window 4-5 minutes after the shooting? This could not have been Oswald and could not have been a law enforcement officer.

[John Mytton]

The following extract is what the HSCA claimed. For some reason they think that the rear box wall that encapsulates the sniper's nest was 6 inches from the plane of the pane of glass, which puts the boxes up against the bricks?





But as seen in the very early Tom Alyea footage, the boxes were closer to two to three feet back and upon closer examination, we can see the higher box on the left side of the stack which in actual fact never moves between Dillard and Powell. And my original question still stands, why the heck would someone remain behind and move some boxes, it's just another absurd CT belief, because when you have no evidence of any conspiracy you end up clinging to illogical garbage.



The above HSCA extract comes from a section of HSCA Volume VI and since they understandably weren't sure they used a lot of terms like "approximate", "suggests", "not known precisely", "probable error" ETC ETC ETC.
https://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol6/pdf/HSCA_Vol6_4A_Gunmen.pdf

And now that we have a clearer understanding of where the higher box was actually located, NOT 6 inches back but at least two feet behind the glass pane, the varying perspectives can be easily explained by the following graphic.



JohnM

[Paul J Cummings]

Right on Michael. Even Jesse Curry couldn't put LHO on the 6th Floor but guys like Mytton do. If that doesn't take the cake, national disgrace Arlen Specter invented the single bullet even though Connelly says otherwise. I love the word "Debunk" when it comes to the JFKA and Mytton did nothing but regurgitate Warren Commission. Keep up the good work Michael when it comes to the evidence in the case.

[Lance Payette]

Hi, JM!

You are clearly the master of the photographic record and most all evidentiary stuff, and your contributions are always excellent.

The only quibble I have is that engaging with MTG and other Gee-Whiz True Believers is essentially just feeding the trolls. He gains some sort of curious credibility just by virtue of the fact that someone like you engages with him on his turf. I don't think there is any way his stuff really resonates with anyone other than a fellow Gee-Whiz True Believer. It's actually kind of bizarre to me that he keeps posting his stuff on this forum, as though the audience here hadn't already heard it all 5,000 times.

As you can see at his "Extremely Fragile House of Cards" thread, I personally think the only effective way to engage with these characters is at the level of:

1. Epistemology.
2. Psychology.
3. Ridicule.

Of course, my engagement is only "effective" with those still having enough critical-thinking skills to recognize "Yes, that's right. This is a mind not tracking in the channels of normality. These arguments do not hold together rationally and logically."

My engagement is not at all effective with Michael himself because, as I set forth in my post about the four defining characteristics of far-fetched conspiracy thinking, he lives in a cocoon (or echo chamber, if you will) where his theories are bullet-proof and his faith in them is unshakeable.

At the "Extremely Fragile" thread, he just blew right past my posts and blithely posted his next batch of nonsense.

One more, which is somewhat off-topic, but the epistemological aspects of what we see on forums such as this continue to fascinate me.

It occurred to me on our morning walk (4 miles after Achilles surgery on August 21, thanks for asking) that, apart from all the psychological/sociological jargon, there are really four defining characteristics of far-fetched conspiracy thinking (as opposed to more rational conspiracy thinking, such as I credit Larry Hancock with doing). We see these again and again throughout this forum and the JFKA community in general:

1. An inability – more than a mere stubborn refusal, I think – to step back and view things from the proverbial 30,000-foot level. An inability to ask, “How would my theory have worked, from A to Z, out in the real world? What would it actually have looked like, out in the real world? Would it have made any sense, out in the real world?”

2. An obsession with irrelevant minutiae – attaching huge importance to people and evidence that are actually of little or no importance at all. Together with #1, this results in the proverbial inability to see the forest for the trees (and the shrubs, and the weeds, and the pine cones).

3. A perverse desire for everything to be different – indeed, the very opposite – from what common sense and the evidence tell us it is. Those who simply follow the evidence and apply common sense just don’t “get it,” just don’t grasp how diabolical the conspirators were.

4. An almost cult-like reliance on authorities and sources that mainstream historians, academics and researchers regard as being of dubious expertise and reliability. To the conspiracist, the mainstream thinkers likewise just don't "get it" and are either pawns of or fellow travelers with the conspirators.

These collectively result in the conspiracy theory being almost bullet-proof and the conspiracist’s belief being almost unshakeable.

Why these are the defining characteristics of believers in far-fetched conspiracy theories, even believers who are otherwise intelligent and rational and high-functioning, is where the psychological and sociological studies kick in. But you don’t need them to be able to look at many of the denizens of JFKA World and say, “Yes, that’s exactly who he is and what he's doing.”

[John Mytton]

Right on Michael. Even Jesse Curry couldn't put LHO on the 6th Floor but guys like Mytton do.

Curry's supposed quote came from a newspaper article, when he was pushing his book and even then Curry says he's "not sure". Curry wanted to make money and CT books were profitable.





But one fact from Curry's book that is rarely mentioned is that he endorses that Oswald killed Tippit! How do you feel about that, Paul?



JohnM

[Michael T. Griffith]

The following extract is what the HSCA claimed. For some reason they think that the rear box wall that encapsulates the sniper's nest was 6 inches from the plane of the pane of glass, which puts the boxes up against the bricks?

But as seen in the very early Tom Alyea footage, the boxes were closer to two to three feet back and upon closer examination, we can see the higher box on the left side of the stack which in actual fact never moves between Dillard and Powell. And my original question still stands, why the heck would someone remain behind and move some boxes, it's just another absurd CT belief, because when you have no evidence of any conspiracy you end up clinging to illogical garbage.

The above HSCA extract comes from a section of HSCA Volume VI and since they understandably weren't sure they used a lot of terms like "approximate", "suggests", "not known precisely", "probable error" ETC ETC ETC.
https://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol6/pdf/HSCA_Vol6_4A_Gunmen.pdf

And now that we have a clearer understanding of where the higher box was actually located, NOT 6 inches back but at least two feet behind the glass pane, the varying perspectives can be easily explained by the following graphic.JohnM

You don't know what you're talking about. You clearly don't grasp the points made by the HSCA photographic experts on this issue. And, obviously, you still have not bothered to read Barry Krusch's exhaustive analysis that proves the HSCA experts were correct.

Does it ever, ever occur to you to read the other side before you get on here and repeat your debunked claims? I know you haven't read Krusch's detailed analysis, yet you responded to my reply by doubling down on your claim that the movement of boxes is just an optical illusion created by two different perspectives. The HSCA experts considered that explanation and rejected it. Krusch demolishes it.

Finally, I notice that you once again declined to discuss the witnesses who saw two men with a rifle on the sixth floor 10-15 minutes before the shooting, the law clerk who saw a man in the sniper's window 4-5 minutes after the shooting when Oswald could not have been there and long before any law officer had gone to the sixth floor, and the two well-dressed men coming down the stairs from the sixth floor at no later than 12:50.

[John Mytton]

Hi, JM!

You are clearly the master of the photographic record and most all evidentiary stuff, and your contributions are always excellent.

The only quibble I have is that engaging with MTG and other Gee-Whiz True Believers is essentially just feeding the trolls. He gains some sort of curious credibility just by virtue of the fact that someone like you engages with him on his turf. I don't think there is any way his stuff really resonates with anyone other than a fellow Gee-Whiz True Believer. It's actually kind of bizarre to me that he keeps posting his stuff on this forum, as though the audience here hadn't already heard it all 5,000 times.

As you can see at his "Extremely Fragile House of Cards" thread, I personally think the only effective way to engage with these characters is at the level of:

1. Epistemology.
2. Psychology.
3. Ridicule.

Of course, my engagement is only "effective" with those still having enough critical-thinking skills to recognize "Yes, that's right. This is a mind not tracking in the channels of normality. These arguments do not hold together rationally and logically."

My engagement is not at all effective with Michael himself because, as I set forth in my post about the four defining characteristics of far-fetched conspiracy thinking, he lives in a cocoon (or echo chamber, if you will) where his theories are bullet-proof and his faith in them is unshakeable.

At the "Extremely Fragile" thread, he just blew right past my posts and blithely posted his next batch of nonsense.

Hey Lance,

I enjoy reading your stuff too, and yes there is no doubt that hardly anyone outside us fanatics is really interested in the JFKA anymore.
There is nothing left to prove and even if there was some massive Griffith type conspiracy where the Mountain of evidence was faked by some unknown alien technology and lied about by hundreds, would anyone under 60 give a stuff?
Unless someone can provide concrete proof that LBJ or Hoover or Tom's KGB was behind the assassination then I see no reason why anyone will care.
Personally I like exploring the photographic and film evidence and piecing together these individual elements into a cohesive whole and which 99 times out of a hundred just reinforces the official narrative.

JohnM