Jump to content
The Education Forum
Fred Litwin

I Was a Teenage JFK Conspiracy Freak

Recommended Posts

5 hours ago, Micah Mileto said:

The official story can be two or three shots, right? With the third shell casing being a chamber plug and the third loud report being the reverberation from the head shot?

As far as I know the official story has been three shots. I'm not aware of any official story that claims only two.

I suppose that if we realistically accept the possibility there there were only two shots, it's not much of a stretch to then suppose that there was maybe really only one shot that went through JFK and Connally, through the limo windshield, looped back around and through the chrome trim, hit the curb near Tague (causing the second sound that only sounded like a gunshot), and then ricocheted back to hit JFK in the head (that being the third loud report) before bouncing back into Connally's clothing and then falling out onto a stretcher.

As long as we're thinking about it, perhaps there were no shots fired at all, and JFK's head just spontaneously exploded. All the injuries to Connally and Tague were as a result of being hit by skull fragments. Sounds almost as reasonable to me.

But, back here in reality, JFK was hit in the back with a bullet that did not go through his body and only made a shallow wound. JFK was also hit in the front of the throat by a separate bullet. Every medical professional that saw the anterior throat wound before the tracheostomy thought it was one of entrance. There were more fragments left in Connally than could have possibly come from the nearly pristine bullet that was alleged to have caused seven wounds on two men going through at least five layers of clothing and two bones, and then came out of Connally's thigh, on it's own and was not only barely deformed but also clean of blood, tissue, and fibers.

Have we all forgotten that the single bullet theory was not one that was arrived at by medical professionals or even the initial FBI investigators, but one that was constructed by WC assistant Arlen Specter, who didn't even look at the autopsy photos or X-Rays?

Edited by Denny Zartman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, David Von Pein said:

The photos in the composite below should suffice.

Hopefully, the "obvious" won't escape you here....

JFK-Head-Wound-Photographic-Comparison.p

Dave, you still haven't indicated where you think the bullet went in and came out. Showing photos proves nothing. Where's your notation?

Just so I don't misunderstand your position.

Edited by Ray Mitcham

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dallas motorcycle cop Marrion Baker testified that he was almost knocked over on the corner of Houston and Elm by a stiff wind from the north.

The flags on the limo at the time of the headshot/s show a strong wind from the south-west.

Tague was several hundred feet to the south-west of the limo.

Pet Theory sez the Tague-strike was a bullet fragment, flying a straight line into the teeth of a hard, swirling wind...

We commit an act of intellectual dishonesty giving this crap any serious consideration.

Edited by Cliff Varnell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/14/2018 at 1:50 AM, Denny Zartman said:

 

But, back here in reality, JFK was hit in the back with a bullet that did not go through his body and only made a shallow wound. JFK was also hit in the front of the throat by a separate bullet. Every medical professional that saw the anterior throat wound before the tracheostomy thought it was one of entrance. There were more fragments left in Connally than could have possibly come from the nearly pristine bullet that was alleged to have caused seven wounds on two men going through at least five layers of clothing and two bones, and then came out of Connally's thigh, on it's own and was not only barely deformed but also clean of blood, tissue, and fibers.

 

Denny,

Very good summary of the wounds and very probable shot sequences and damage, all based on facts, evidence and statements from experienced medical professionals before the coverup machine manufactured the lone shooter story.  You could add to your list however something along the lines of "In the same fraction of a second that JFK was hit in the back of the head, another round came from the front, striking him on the right temple area above the right eye at the hairline.  This caused a massive blowout of the back rear portion of his skull, some of which coated Officer Hargis to JFK's left rear with blood and brain matter, and sent a large fragment of his skull flying to the left rear into the grass of the plaza to be found by Harper the next day."  (I think it was the next day, could have been 11/22.)

Adding in this and the shots that wounded Connally would make it complete in my opinion.  

The behavior/ballistics of FMJ rounds and fragmenting rounds are very different in reality; only with the MC ammo can one find one study that FMJ rounds behave significantly different based on where they strike the body.  Apparently, when they cause 7 wounds in two men, including one of the hardest bones in the body (JBC's wrist), we can expect MC FMJ rounds to remain nearly pristine.  When the same round hits one man in the skull, we can expect them to fragment apart.  


Like many other areas of the JFK assassination, everyday reality, observations and physics must give way to special and illogical physics-defying behavior in this one case, on that one day, as related to that one man who fired that one type of ammo from that one rifle from that one window.  Any other day, any other murder would follow everyday procedures and physics.

Thank you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Rick McTague said:

Denny,

Very good summary of the wounds and very probable shot sequences and damage, all based on facts, evidence and statements from experienced medical professionals before the coverup machine manufactured the lone shooter story.  You could add to your list however something along the lines of "In the same fraction of a second that JFK was hit in the back of the head, another round came from the front, striking him on the right temple area above the right eye at the hairline.  This caused a massive blowout of the back rear portion of his skull, some of which coated Officer Hargis to JFK's left rear with blood and brain matter, and sent a large fragment of his skull flying to the left rear into the grass of the plaza to be found by Harper the next day."  (I think it was the next day, could have been 11/22.)

Adding in this and the shots that wounded Connally would make it complete in my opinion.  

The behavior/ballistics of FMJ rounds and fragmenting rounds are very different in reality; only with the MC ammo can one find one study that FMJ rounds behave significantly different based on where they strike the body.  Apparently, when they cause 7 wounds in two men, including one of the hardest bones in the body (JBC's wrist), we can expect MC FMJ rounds to remain nearly pristine.  When the same round hits one man in the skull, we can expect them to fragment apart.  


Like many other areas of the JFK assassination, everyday reality, observations and physics must give way to special and illogical physics-defying behavior in this one case, on that one day, as related to that one man who fired that one type of ammo from that one rifle from that one window.  Any other day, any other murder would follow everyday procedures and physics.

Thank you.

What a bunch of nonsense !
Talk about someone deforming reality ! …
People like you always imagine a flurry of shots, limiting themselves to the end of the trajectory (a wound on Kennedy's body) and never bothering thinking about the starting point of that trajectory (a shooter ? where ? who cares ?).
Mind you, a shot must have a point of origin. I guess you never thought about that.
As there was nobody shooting from the front (absolutely no evidence, not to mention the fact that a guy shooting from behind the retaining wall or behind the picket fence would have been seen), you have a problem. The throat wound cannot be one of entrance.
By the way, of all the Dallas doctors with whom I exchanged letters in the 1990, not one of them said that the throat wound was one of entrance. I'd rather believe what they tell me than what you imagine...

Edited by François Carlier

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, François Carlier said:

 

 

Edited by François Carlier

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/8/2018 at 8:38 PM, Cory Santos said:
On 10/8/2018 at 3:12 PM, Cliff Varnell said:

The physical evidence in a homicide case is the sun around which all other evidence revolves.

Any citizen investigating a homicide who doesn't first examine the evidence found with the body should do the world a favor and find another hobby.

You acknowledge the jacket was elevated "a little bit"!

It's over, David.

LOL, why do I even enter into the fray, Cliff is right on this.  Its so right its actually funny, kinda.  

Thank you, Cory.

It is funny!

It's funny when people claim that physical evidence not found with the body trumps physical evidence found with the body.

Or that improperly produced autopsy material trumps properly produced autopsy material.

Or more than a dozen witnesses -- including the contemporaneous notes of 4 Federal agents -- don't count, for no reason at all other than the statements run counter to someone's True Belief.

Laughter and derision are the only justifiable responses to such concentrated ignorance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Cliff Varnell said:

Thank you, Cory.

It is funny!

It's funny when people claim that physical evidence not found with the body trumps physical evidence found with the body.

Or that improperly produced autopsy material trumps properly produced autopsy material.

Or more than a dozen witnesses -- including the contemporaneous notes of 4 Federal agents -- don't count, for no reason at all other than the statements run counter to someone's True Belief.

Laughter and derision are the only justifiable responses to such concentrated ignorance.

Seconded, Cliff. Let's hear from DVP or Francois how they negate the evidence of a shot in the back rather than the neck. Should be interesting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, Ray Mitcham said:

Seconded, Cliff. Let's hear from DVP or Francois how they negate the evidence of a shot in the back rather than the neck. Should be interesting.

Sir, first of all, I do not NEGATE any evidence. So, if you want to have a fair and respectful debate with me, start with avoiding defaming me !
Second of all, well, I too started as a conspiracy believer, when I was young. I was 22 years old when I bought the book "Best evidence" by David Lifton, which was my first book on the case,  ("High treason" by Groden and Livingstone being the second book I bought, and Mark Lane's "Reasonable doubt" being the third, and I now own 150+ of them).
I was influenced by those authors at the time. I believed them (well, to be precise, I believed the overall idea of a conspiracy and a cover-up, since they themselves did not agree with each other, but that's another story).
Then, being open-minded and using common sense, logic, critical thinking and honesty over the years, I had to acknowledge that I had been wrong and that the evidence pointed unequivocally to Lee Oswald. He was the assassin. There had not been any conspiracy. All the seemingly "loose ends" could be explained away and the theories debunked by common sense, logic and critical thinking. Period.
I am not the only one to have opened his eyes and to have agreed to admit that the official version is the truth.
Lance Payette and Fred Litwin have followed the same path. And so many others whom I know, famous or not, in France or in the United States !
What do I think of the back wound ? Well, I wrote about it at length in my book (you may not be aware of it but I am the author of one of the most comprehensive books ever written on the JFK assassination, unfortunately, my book is in French and hasn't been translated yet). But neither in my book nor in my speeches have I had anything special to say. I have no theory. I have no particular opinion. I only say what scientists say. I most certainly don't pretend to have found "shocking new evidence", as most conspiracy theorists usually do.
If you want to know what I think, read the following books :
Mel Ayton, The JFK assassination : dispelling the myths, Woodfield Publishing, 2002
Mel Ayton
with David Von Pein, Beyond reasonable doubt, Strategic Media Books, 2014
Vincent Bugliosi, Reclaiming history, Norton, 2007
Gerald Posner, Case closed, Anchor Books, Doubleday, 1993
Larry Sturdivan, The JFK myths, Paragon House, 2005
And I mean, read them ! Don't just skim through them. Dont open them with a closed mind. Just read them and pay attention and try to understand.
Trust me, you'll have the answers to all your questions !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, François Carlier said:

Sir, first of all, I do not NEGATE any evidence. So, if you want to have a fair and respectful debate with me, start with avoiding defaming me !
Second of all, well, I too started as a conspiracy believer, when I was young. I was 22 years old when I bought the book "Best evidence" by David Lifton, which was my first book on the case,  ("High treason" by Groden and Livingstone being the second book I bought, and Mark Lane's "Reasonable doubt" being the third, and I now own 150+ of them).
I was influenced by those authors at the time. I believed them (well, to be precise, I believed the overall idea of a conspiracy and a cover-up, since they themselves did not agree with each other, but that's another story).
Then, being open-minded and using common sense, logic, critical thinking and honesty over the years, I had to acknowledge that I had been wrong and that the evidence pointed unequivocally to Lee Oswald. He was the assassin. There had not been any conspiracy. All the seemingly "loose ends" could be explained away and the theories debunked by common sense, logic and critical thinking. Period.
I am not the only one to have opened his eyes and to have agreed to admit that the official version is the truth.
Lance Payette and Fred Litwin have followed the same path. And so many others whom I know, famous or not, in France or in the United States !
What do I think of the back wound ? Well, I wrote about it at length in my book (you may not be aware of it but I am the author of one of the most comprehensive books ever written on the JFK assassination, unfortunately, my book is in French and hasn't been translated yet). But neither in my book nor in my speeches have I had anything special to say. I have no theory. I have no particular opinion. I only say what scientists say. I most certainly don't pretend to have found "shocking new evidence", as most conspiracy theorists usually do.
If you want to know what I think, read the following books :
Mel Ayton, The JFK assassination : dispelling the myths, Woodfield Publishing, 2002
Mel Ayton
with David Von Pein, Beyond reasonable doubt, Strategic Media Books, 2014
Vincent Bugliosi, Reclaiming history, Norton, 2007
Gerald Posner, Case closed, Anchor Books, Doubleday, 1993
Larry Sturdivan, The JFK myths, Paragon House, 2005

And I mean, read them ! Don't just skim through them. Dont open them with a closed mind. Just read them and pay attention and try to understand.
Trust me, you'll have the answers to all your questions !

Oh dear, don't get your culottes in a twist, Francois. Show me where I defamed you. I asked  you or DVP for your evidence of how you would negate the back wound. How do you explain the holes in the President's jacket and shirt, and the evidence of those who saw the hole in the shoulder, immediately after he was shot, together with the autopsy sheet evidence.

Edited by Ray Mitcham

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, François Carlier said:


Trust me, you'll have the answers to all your questions !

No, I don't "debate" flat-earthers, Holocaust deniers, or Lone Nutters.

Carlier obviously can't support his Big Lies so he refers us to other Big L-i-a-r-s.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Ray Mitcham said:

Oh dear, don't get your culottes in a twist, Francois. Show me where I defamed you. I asked  you or DVP for your evidence of how you would negate the back wound. How do you explain the holes in the President's jacket and shirt, and the evidence of those who saw the hole in the shoulder, immediately after he was shot, together with the autopsy sheet evidence.

Von Pein gave the game away when, in an unguarded moment, he admitted that JFK's jacket was elevated only "a little bit" on Elm St .

There's a 1/8" vertical discrepancy between the hole in the jacket and the defect in the shirt -- "a little bit."'

There is no actual argument in any of the books Carlier cited -- it's a Crazy Clown Car of Nutters...

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, François Carlier said:


If you want to know what I think, read the following books :
Mel Ayton, The JFK assassination : dispelling the myths, Woodfield Publishing, 2002
Mel Ayton
with David Von Pein, Beyond reasonable doubt, Strategic Media Books, 2014
Vincent Bugliosi, Reclaiming history, Norton, 2007
Gerald Posner, Case closed, Anchor Books, Doubleday, 1993
Larry Sturdivan, The JFK myths, Paragon House, 2005

And I mean, read them ! Don't just skim through them. Dont open them with a closed mind. Just read them and pay attention and try to understand.
Trust me, you'll have the answers to all your questions !

To your list, I would add:

OSWALD'S GAME - Jean Davison

MARINA AND LEE - Priscilla Johnson McMillan

OSWALD'S TALE - Norman Mailer

OSWALD: RUSSIAN EPISODE - Ernst Titovets

LEGEND - Edward Jay Epstein

Yes, yes, I know, the first three at least are staples of the Lone Nut community.  (Epstein's work, of course, is approximately 180 degrees removed from the currently prevailing Deep Politics theories, which is why he is dismissed as either a CIA dupe or disinformation agent.)  I believe it is CRITICAL, before bogging down in minutiae and theories, to gain as much of an understanding as possible of WHO LEE HARVEY OSWALD REALLY WAS.  I would've saved myself a lot of time and money if I had taken that approach.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Lance Payette said:

LEGEND - Edward Jay Epstein

 

In his 1966 book INQUEST Epstein cited the clothing evidence/T3 back wound as the prima facie case for conspiracy.

 

Edited by Cliff Varnell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyone that cites Case Closed deserves a laugh. I wrote in depth about it in law school while writing about Garrison. So many issues w that book. I was hoping it would solve everything for me and show Oswald acted alone and that the wc while being sloppy work was actually right. Then, I researched it in depth and came away convinced the authors views were wrong.   So wrong.   Yes Cliff again you made a good point. Why debate flat Earthers?   Anyone citing Case Closed -not a LHO did it person but a Case Closed theorist-is in the same camp. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...