Recent Posts

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 10
11
MTG-

An interesting post, and thanks for posting it.

There is a difference between being guilty, and guilty beyond reasonable doubt. A man might be guilty in truth, but in court enough doubts are raised that a jury would have to vote not guilty. And you need 12-0 to convict. 

LHO found not guilty in court would not necessarily mean LHO was not guilty in real life. (OJ got off, for example.)

In regards to your excellent post, I suspect the FBI "leaned on on the evidence" in the JFKA, on instructions from Hoover, and LBJ, and so that WC-LNT narrative would prevail. No nuke war with Russia motivated LBJ through this period. A sensible enough concern.

However, the strong possibility that the FBI leaned on the evidence does not, in real life, exonerate LHO. It is possible to frame a guilty man.

For example, I suspect the FBI switched out evidence bullets in Walker shooting, and CE-399 sure looks funny. It may be the FBI introduced false evidence.

However, for me, the best suspect for the TSBD6 sniper remains LHO. The HSCA looked at the BYP and said they were real. LHO was in the building. LHO was invisible at the time shots rang out---not one witness ever said they saw LHO when shots rang out.

A slender white male was seen firing a rifle in the direction of the limo, by Brennan.

LHO's post-JFKA behavior in entirely consistent with that of a guilty man. It may be LHO thought himself framed, or more likely, hung out to dry---hence the bitter "patsy" comment.

I gotta say, LHO as a totally innocent bystander...just does not hold water.

Unfortunately, LHO was murdered before he could spill the beans.

I suspect LHO was part of a very small plot, including possibly G2, or Alpha-66'ers.

IMHO.

Caveat emptor, and draw your own conclusions.

 
12
Like nearly all threads, this quickly veered off-topic but surely there must be a consensus opinion regarding the OP
13
I still remember being surprised in the early days of my research into the JFK case to see Norman Mailer say in a TV interview that he could have gotten Oswald acquitted in a trial. In 2015, Jeremy Gunn, the former general counsel for the Assassination Records Review Board, said he believed Oswald would have been acquitted--found not guilty--if he had stood trial. Said Gunn,

If we actually ask the question was Oswald guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, I am convinced that Oswald would have been found not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. To me there is just no question he is not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

A defendant is either found guilty or not guilty. If he is found guilty, the jury concluded there was no reasonable doubt. If he is found not guilty, the jury concluded there was reasonable doubt. There is no such thing as "not guilty beyond reasonable doubt." For Gunn to have said this - twice - is a howler of epic proportions.

Gee, if a novelist with a degree in engineering could've got Oswald acquitted, maybe he really was not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt!  :D :D :D
14
That has always been an interesting aspect of Gov. John Connally's wounds: His two surgeons thought the SBT did not hold water.

Dr. Robert Shaw and Dr. Charles Gregory were not activists or leftists, and Shaw had military experience of working on hundreds of wartime gunshot victims. Shaw, without dispute, is an authority on the topic.

My take is Shaw and Gregory gave their earnest opinions and had no axes to grind.

Gregory found that a projectile had entered JBC's wrist on the dorsal side...almost an anatomical impossibility for a slug that first entered JBC's chest from the rear.

Shaw thought it most likely JBC had been hit by a separate shot, that shot had not been impeded before hitting JBC.

The small round hole in the rear of JBC's assassination day shirt strongly suggests a direct shot, and not a slug that hit JBC "sideways" after tumbling.

There are a lot of reasons to have reasonable doubts about SBT, including that it was fabricated by Arlen Specter based on the premise that only two shots had struck JFK and JBC. Specter's job was to present the SBT-LNT narrative, not to investigate the truth. The WC concluded that one shot struck near Tague.

That CE-399 was not found in Trauma Room 2 adds another layer of perplexity. Even then hospital procedures were to retain bullets and report bullet wounds to police. JBC recalls the bullet fell from his leg on clicked on the floor of Trauma Room 2.

Yet somehow a slug is found in the Parkland hospital corridor, described as a "pointy-head" slug by OP Wright, hospital administrator and former police chief, and then that slug is purported to be CE-399.

I have reasonable doubts about the LNT-SBT.

Take away CE399 and there is no issue with the SBT.
The only reason Shaw and Gregory doubted it was because they were trying to account for CE399 as the bullet involved.
Both JFK and JBC getting shot through by a single bullet fired from the SN is to be fully expected given that it passed through nothing but soft tissue until striking JBC's ribs.
As you point out, the bullet (fragment?) in JBC's leg fell onto the Trauma Room floor and was picked up by a nurse. Henry Wade, visiting his good friend at the time, reports the nurse coming up to him and asking him what to do with the bullet. He told her to give it to a policeman. She put it in an envelope and gave it to officer Bob Nolan who eventually put it on Fritz's desk.
While all this was going on, Audrey Bell was placing the small bullet fragments retrieved from JBC's wrist into a small plastic box and envelope when two FBI agents came in and confiscated the fragments. Miraculously, while it was in the FBI's Washington Labs, the bullet left on Fritz's desk by Nolan morphed into the small bullet fragments taken from JBC's wrist. The same miracle morphed the pointed "hunting slug" found by Tomlinson into CE399, also in the Washington Labs.
Hmmmm...

The bullet that passed through JFK and JBC at z222/223 fragmented when it struck JBC's radius.
This accounts for the various holes in the clothing and why there is no hole for a bullet to pass through in the X-Rays of JBC's wrist. It explains why there is no metal fragments from this bullet found in JFK or JBC until the wrist then leg.
15
I still remember being surprised in the early days of my research into the JFK case to see Norman Mailer say in a TV interview that he could have gotten Oswald acquitted in a trial. In 2015, Jeremy Gunn, the former general counsel for the Assassination Records Review Board, said he believed Oswald would have been acquitted--found not guilty--if he had stood trial. Said Gunn,

If we actually ask the question was Oswald guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, I am convinced that Oswald would have been found not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. To me there is just no question he is not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

What led Mailer and Gunn to say these things? Answer: There are gaping holes and numerous problems with the evidence against Lee Harvey Oswald. Here are just a few of them:

-- The Dallas post office where the alleged murder rifle was supposedly picked up should have retained the signature of the person who picked up the rifle for four years. However, the FBI said the signature form was "missing" when they tried to obtain it from the post office.

-- The alleged murder rifle was ordered under the name "A. Hidell." Yet, Oswald stipulated on his PO Box form that "Lee H. Oswald" was the only person authorized to receive mail from his  box. Moreover, U.S. Postal regulations required that "Mail addressed to a person at a PO Box who is not authorized to receive mail shall be endorsed 'addressee unknown' and returned to sender."

It should also be pointed out that the FBI was unable to find anyone at the post office who recalled giving Oswald the large package that contained the mail-order rifle. Additionally, the money order that was allegedly used to buy the rifle was purchased at a time when Oswald was at work.

-- Oswald supposedly carried his disassembled rifle into the TSBD in a long paper bag that he allegedly made from wrapping paper and tape from the TSBD. However, no such bag appears in any of the official crime scene photos of the sixth-floor sniper's nest, and the first police officers on the scene did not see it there. For example, Sergeant Gerald Hill told the WC that the only paper bag he saw was a "small lunch sack" and said, "... if it was found up there on the sixth floor, if it was there, I didn't see it" (7 H 65).

DPD Detective R.D. Lewis showed Buell Wesley Frazier the long paper bag supposedly found in the sniper's nest. Frazier told him "he did not think that it resembled ... the crinkly brown paper sack that Oswald had when he rode to work with him that morning..." (FBI 105-82555 Oswald HQ File, Section 17, p. 100) Frazier got the best look at the bag that Oswald carried that morning.

WC defenders not that Oswald's partial right palmprint and partial left index fingerprint were found on the bag. Yet, this raises an obvious question: How could Oswald have left only two partial prints on the bag when he supposedly made it himself using paper and tape from the TSBD, carried it with him to the Paine home, used it to wrap his rifle, carried it into the TSBD, and unwrapped it off his rifle on the sixth floor?

Oswald worked at the TSBD and handled boxes and wrapping paper as part of his job. It is likely that the DPD either found wrapping paper that Oswald had touched and used it to make the large paper bag or they made the large paper back and manipulated Oswald into handling it during one of his interrogations. Either scenario would explain why only two partial Oswald prints were found on the bag.

If Oswald had actually made the bag and carried it as claimed by the WC, his prints would have been all over it--he certainly would have left more than just two partial prints on it.

Oswald told the police that the bag was a regular small brown grocery bag from a grocery store and that it merely contained his lunch and nothing else. There are compelling reasons to believe he was telling the truth.

-- WC defenders point out that Marina Oswald "identified the rifle in testimony to the Warren Commission during its 1964 hearings." When asked, "Is that the scope that it had on it, as far as you know?", Marine said "Yes" (1 H 119). However, when she was interviewed months earlier by the Secret Service, Marina said the only rifle her husband ever owned did not have a scope. In fact, she said that before she saw the sixth-floor rifle on TV, "she did not know that rifles with scopes existed" (CD 344, p. 24).

Needless to say, this also calls into question the backyard rifle photos, which Marina allegedly took (although in later years she insisted they were not the photos she took). Thus, it is no surprise that the backyard photos contain impossible variant shadows that no one has ever been able to duplicate, despite repeated attempts.

-- WC defenders note that the FBI said it found a "tuft of cotton fibers ... clinging to the butt of the rifle" and that the fibers "matched those in the shirt worn by Oswald the day of the assassination." However, the shirt to which the fibers were "matched" was the one Oswald was wearing when he was arrested, but this was not the shirt he wore to work that day.

During his interrogations, when he knew nothing about any fibers found on the rifle, Oswald told police that between the time of the shooting and the time of his arrest, he returned to his rooming house and changed his shirt and pants. Oswald's statement was corroborated by Dallas Policeman Marrion Baker. Baker saw Oswald on the second floor of the TSBD less than two minutes after the shooting and saw him again at the police station a few hours later. Baker told the WC that when he saw Oswald the second time, "He looked as though he did not have the same thing on" (3 H 262).

In other words, an FBI man, not realizing that Oswald had changed shirts after he left the TSBD, took the shirt he was wearing when he was arrested and rubbed the butt of the alleged murder rifle into the shirt to plant fiber evidence against Oswald.

-- WC defenders claim that Oswald's palmprint was found on the barrel of the alleged murder weapon and that this proves he was the assassin. Leaving aside the highly doubtful, extremely suspicious circumstances of the alleged discovery of the latent palmprint, it should be pointed out that the man who supposedly (and belatedly) found the palmprint, Lt. J. C. Day, told the WC the print was an "old dry print" (26 H 831) and said in a 1994 interview that the print "had been on the gun several weeks or months" Anthony Summers, Not In Your Lifetime, p. 84).

Suffice it to say that when the FBI's fingerprint expert, Sebastian Latona, examined the rifle a few days later, he found no indication that the rifle had even been processed for prints and saw no prints on the rifle barrel, even though Lt. Day claimed the palmprint was still visible on the barrel after he allegedly lifted it.

-- We still here some WC apologists cite Vincent Scalice's 1993 claim that he positively identified the fragmentary fingerprints on the alleged murder rifle's trigger guard as Oswald's prints. Scalice claimed he found 18 "points of identity" by using a composite of four enhanced Dallas police photos.

Yet, when Scalice examined the trigger-guard prints for the HSCA, he said they were "of no value for identification purposes" (8 HSCA 248). Moreover, when FBI latent print expert George Bonebrake reviewed the prints for the PBS documentary Who Was Lee Harvey Oswald?, he concluded the prints were "simply not clear enough to make an identification." In addition, in 2003, an FBI laboratory computer software analysis of the prints failed to match the prints with Oswald's prints (Donald Thomas, [i[Hear No Evil[/i], p. 85).

-- Voice stress analysis (VSA) of Oswald's declarations of innocence while in police custody indicate he was telling the truth when he said he didn't shoot anybody. VSA polygraphs are more effective than traditional polygraphs because they can be administered without the person's knowledge and/or can be administered after the fact from recordings of the person's statements. George O'Toole, an ex-CIA agent, discussed the VSA results of Oswald's statements in his book The Assassination Tapes.

A forensic psychologist who is also an expert in body language has likewise concluded from video footage of Oswald in police custody that Oswald was telling the truth when he said he didn't shoot anybody:



16
Most likely it's Tippit's citation book.  A logical thing for the investigators to do is look through it to see if perhaps he wrote down the name or license plate number before being shot.  It makes no sense for the conspirators to suppress a wallet they planted at the crime the scene to frame Oswald.  It also makes no sense for the police to suppress an Oswald wallet left at the scene where it would be highly incriminating and instead claim it was found during his arrest.  The double wallet explanation for suppressing any crime scene wallet makes no sense because the conspirators should have anticipated that Oswald would have his wallet when arrested or killed.  They would have to be baked into the plan.

Most likely it's Tippit's citation book.

It has been established some time ago that it isn't. Besides Barrett said it was a wallet!

It makes no sense for the conspirators to suppress a wallet they planted at the crime the scene to frame Oswald.

That would indeed make no sense, but nobody is suggesting that is what happened.

17
Most likely it's Tippit's citation book. 

Garbage. They would have said that.
18
https://assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z295.jpg



JBC is not lying in his wife's lap at Z-295.

Please review the Z-frames available here:

https://assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/

 :D :D :D

It's you who needs to review the Z-film.
Here's a very interesting version of it created by a guy named Ant Davison.
View it full screen and slowed down.
After being shot JBC turns to look at JFK over his right shoulder and then 'swoons' backwards into Nellie's lap as he looks skyward, just before the headshot.
By z295 he is 100% in this position.
Your assertion, that he is shot while in this position, is something the looniest Tinfoil Nutter would be proud of.
Maybe it's your belief that Nellie shot him in the back.

Doubtless you will continue to deny what is plain to the eye. This seems to be a tried and trusted technique.
Each to their own I suppose.


19
https://assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z295.jpg



JBC is not lying in his wife's lap at Z-295.

Please review the Z-frames available here:

https://assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/

Tell us how somebody could have shot JBC in that back at that point without shooting through Nellie first. Maybe Mary Moorman's Polaroid was really a camera gun. Is it just a coincidence she took her picture at the precise moment JFK was shot in the head.
20
So I ask you again: Were all the members of the HSCA FPP wrong when they said the brain photos categorically, irrefutably prove that no bullet could have entered at the EOP site? Were all the members of the FPP, the Clark Panel, and the Rockefeller Commission's medical panel wrong for saying the only fragment trail on the skull x-rays is the high fragment trail?

Just once, quit your juvenile ducking and dodging and try to answer these questions.

Well, then surely you can provide at least one example of where I have taken a quote out of context.

Did I quote Dr. Loquvam "out of context" when I quoted his entire exchange with Finck on the fact that any bullet entering the EOP site would have had to cause subarachnoid hemorrhaging in the cerebellum but that no such hemorrhaging is seen in the cerebellum on the brain photos? How could I have quoted him "out of context" when I quoted the entire exchange?

Did I quote Dr. Hodges "out of context" when I quoted his entire statement that the skull x-rays show a goodly portion of the right side of the brain to be missing? How could I have quoted him "out of context" when I quoted his entire statement?

Did I quote Dr. Humes "out of context" when I quoted his matter-of-fact statement that 2/3 of the cerebrum was blown away? Go check his statement in the JAMA article. How did I quote him "out of context"?

Do tell me where I have quoted someone out of context. I'm assuming you understand what it means to quote someone "out of context."

Ah, so peer-reviewed published experts in radiation oncology, neurology, radiology, physics, ballistics, and neuroscience don't count, huh, including a neuroscientist who was the director of two NIH institutes and who pioneered mapping and imaging the human brain? And how about Dr. Cyril Wecht? He was a famous forensic pathologist, and in his later years he was convinced by Dr. Mantik's research that the skull x-rays have been altered.

You have made the statement that the skull x-rays were altered. Never mind how you alter an x-ray. You now claim that 40 some years after reviewing the x-rays, he believed they were altered. Funny how he never got that idea when he was actually looking at the -x-rays. Neither did anybody else on the FPP. What would be the point of altering the x-rays? Why would somebody want to deliberately misrepresent where the bullet entered the skull?

There appears to be a difference of opinion between the autopsy team and the FPP as to where the bullet actually entered JFK's skull. Does it really matter? They all agree the bullet entered the back of JFK's head. That is consistent with that shot being fired from the sniper's nest. There is ample forensic evidence that Oswald was the one who fired that shot from the rifle he purchased the previous March from Klein's. There is zero forensic or medical evidence of any other shot from any other location striking JFK. That is what is important.
Quote

FYI, forensic pathologists are usually not experts in reading x-rays, which is why they frequently ask a radiologist to read x-rays for them. That's why the FPP asked several radiologists to review the skull x-rays (and then they ignored all the radiologists' findings that contradicted the FPP's version of the wounds). That's why the Rockefeller Commission included Dr. Hodges on the medical panel (he was one of the foremost radiologists in the world at the time). That's why the autopsy doctors asked Dr. Ebersole, the radiologist at the autopsy, to help with reading the x-rays.

A radiation oncologist isn't an expert in reading x-rays either. They too will consult with a radiologist to read the x-rays. A forensic pathologist does have a lot more experience reading x-rays of gunshot victims than a radiation oncologist.
Quote

BTW, nowhere "can you cite an expert in the field of forensic science who has had access to the evidence" and who has explained the impossible contradictions between the brain photos and the skull x-rays, who has explained the hard scientific evidence of the multiple optical-density measurements that prove the skull x-rays have been altered. Two can play your silly game of using arguments from silence.

The contradictions are regarding where the bullet entered the back of the head. There is no disagreement from the qualified medical examiners that the bullet did enter the back of the head.
Quote

LOL! Says the guy who is still ducking and dodging all over the place and refusing to explain the evidence from the FPP, the Clark Panel, Dr. Hodges, Dr. Baden, Dr. Mantik, Dr. Chesser, Dr. Aguilar, Dr. Haus, Dr. Humes, etc., etc., on the drastic contradictions between the brain photos and the EOP site, between the brain photos and the skull x-rays, between the autopsy report and the skull x-rays, between the autopsy report and the brain photos.

I've explained this to you before but I'll type a little slower this time in hopes you can follow along this time. I have not seen the medical evidence myself and even if I had, I am totally unqualified to analyze it. That's why I leave it to the people who are qualified. That doesn't include you. All the qualified people that I am aware of who have seen the medical evidence have agreed that JFK was shot in the back of the head. The crime scene forensic evidence tells us unequivocally that he was shot in the back of the head by LHO. I have no idea why you spend so much mental energy fretting over the exact location of the entry wound.
Quote

Yeah, uh-huh. Anyone who reads this thread can see that I have repeatedly cited the analysis of "recognized experts in the various technical fields," and you are still ducking and dodging and refusing to explain their analyses.

I ask you yet again: Were the FPP members wrong when they insisted that the brain photos absolutely prove that no bullet could have entered the EOP site? Were all the members of the FPP, the Clark Panel, and the Rockefeller Commission's medical panel wrong for saying the only fragment trail on the skull x-rays is the high fragment trail? What happened to the low fragment trail described in the autopsy report? How could the brain photos show JFK's brain when the skull x-rays show  2/3 of the right brain to be missing, and when this amount of missing brain in the x-rays has been confirmed by multiple OD measurements of the x-rays done by a board-certified radiation oncologist and a board-certified neurologist? [/quote]

I don't give a shit who was right and who was wrong as to precisely where the bullet entered JFK's skull. These anomalies don't change the fact that all these experts agree JFK was shot in the back of the head. That is what matters, because we have all he evidence we need to prove Oswald was the one who fired the shot. You should really focus on what is important.
Quote

So your third option to the two other options--(1) the brain photos are fraudulent or (2) the EOP site did not exist--is that "your opinions are silly"? Really, that's your answer? Are you trying to make yourself look like a teenager who knows he's losing the argument and doesn't want to explain contrary facts?

No. That is a viable third option.
Quote

Let me repeat the obvious: We're not just talking about my opinions. We are talking about the unanimous conclusion of the FPP members that the brain photos prove the EOP site is impossible. Yet, neuroscientist Dr. Joseph Riley and forensic anthropologist Dr. Douglas Ubelaker argued that the EOP site is visible in the autopsy photos, a conclusion that both Dr. Larry Sturdivan and Pat Speer accept, and six people at the autopsy (Humes, Finck, Boswell, Stringer, Kellerman, and O'Neil) insisted the entry wound was near the EOP.

So tell us what all these opinions you've cited means as far as determining who shot JFK.
Quote

So is the EOP site correct or are the brain photos correct? One of them has to be wrong, but you can't bring yourself to face this issue credibly and objectively.

Yes, if there is a disagreement as to where the bullet entered the back of JFK's head, they both can't be right. Congratulations on figuring that one out, Columbo. Where would we be without you?
Quote

Similarly, we are not just talking about my opinions on the brain photos vs. the skull rays. Experts from both sides of the debate have acknowledged that the skull x-rays show about 2/3 of the right brain to be missing, and multiple sets of OD measurements have confirmed this fact. Who has said the skull x-rays show this much missing brain? Just to refresh your memory: Dr. Hodges, Dr. Lattimer, Dr. Humes, Dr. Aguilar, Dr. Chesser, medical scientist Russell Kent, Dr. Livingston, and Dr. Henkelmann (I'm assuming you are aware that Dr. Hodges, Dr. Lattimer, and Dr. Humes were lone-gunman theorists). But the brain photos show "less than 1-2 ounces" of missing tissue. How can you believe the brain photos are authentic unless you reject the skull x-rays, and vice versa?
Quote

I haven't seen the brain photos and neither have you. If either of us had seen them, we are not qualified to analyze them.
Quote

I should add that Dr. John Fitzpatrick, the ARRB's forensic radiologist, who was decidedly pro-WC and anti-conspiracy, clearly seemed to indicate that the x-rays show more than just 1-2 ounces of missing brain. He did not quantify how much brain he saw missing in the x-rays, but his description sounds like it was more than just 1-2 ounces:

So somebody made a  mistake about how much brain was blown away. BFD.
Quote

. . . right frontal brain is missing. . . . The extremely dark region on the A-P X-Ray depicting the upper right side of the cranium indicates both some absence of brain and the presence of air inside an open wound. (Meeting Report, ARRB, 2/9/96, p. 1)

For one thing, 1-2 ounces of missing brain tissue would be very hard to spot on a skull x-ray. Ask any radiologist. And, most people would describe 1-2 ounces of missing brain tissue as "a slight amount," "a little," "a very small amount," etc., not as "some absence of brain."

Fascinating. Now tell us who you think shot JFK.
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 10