I Was a Teenage JFK Conspiracy Freak

[Micah Mileto]

1 hour ago, David Von Pein said:

How do you know that?

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=329&relPageId=7&search=pencil

?

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=607&relPageId=9&search=pencil

 

?

 

[David Von Pein]

Thanks, Micah.

But the document you linked to (MD 26) is certainly not clear at all as to which writing instrument Boswell used---a pen or a pencil. The document says Boswell said BOTH, indicating either Boswell's fuzzy memory on that point or the fact that he really did write with both types of writing instruments.

Some great case you've got there. But CTers are experts at the Mountains From Molehills game. And this "Pen vs. Pencil" topic certainly qualifies as that.

Edited October 20, 2018 by David Von Pein

[Ray Mitcham]

double post

Edited October 20, 2018 by Ray Mitcham

[Ray Mitcham]

Grasping at straw yet again, Dave. Now explain how S.A.Bennett happened to see a bullet hole in the President's jacket, four inches down from his right shoulder.

Edited October 20, 2018 by Ray Mitcham

[David Von Pein]

13 minutes ago, Ray Mitcham said:

Now explain how S.A. Bennett happened to see a bullet hole in the President's jacket, four inches down from his right shoulder.

I don't think he did. That type of vision is reserved for a guy named Superman.

Anyway, do you think Bennett had a tape measure with him when he estimated where the bullet entered the President's back?

Bennett was guessing. Simple as that.

Edited October 20, 2018 by David Von Pein

[David Von Pein]

14 minutes ago, Ray Mitcham said:

Grasping at straw yet again, Dave.

No, but the CTers who think the "Pen or Pencil?" discussion goes in the direction of conspiracy sure are "grasping".

[Ray Mitcham]

4 hours ago, David Von Pein said:

I don't think he did. That type of vision is reserved for a guy named Superman.

Anyway, do you think Bennett had a tape measure with him when he estimated where the bullet entered the President's back?

Bennett was guessing. Simple as that.

That the only thing you can come up with? Bennett was guessing? 😀

He said about four inches below the right shoulder. How strange that it matches the autopsy sheet, the clothing holes, what these guys said.

Clint Hill said "“I saw an opening in the back, about six inches below the neckline to the right hand side of the spinal column.”

John Ebersole

"John Ebersole described the back wound in a recorded telephone call with David Mantik, as to the right of T-4. One vertebral space below Admiral Burkley's death certificate placement."

To the HSCA he said “As we turned the body on the autopsy table there was a textbook classical wound of entrance upper right back to the right of the midline three or four centimeters to the right of the midline just perhaps inside the medial board to the upper scapula.”"

Sibert and O'Neill 

“Dr Humes located an opening which appeared to be a bullet hole which was below the shoulders and two inches to the right of the spinal column

They must all have been mistaken and guessing, eh Dave?

 

 

 

 

Edited October 20, 2018 by Ray Mitcham

[François Carlier]

21 hours ago, Ray Mitcham said:

Come on Francois. You can do better than that.You quote at least three authors, Posner, ( a proven plagiarist who lied through his teeth in his book Case Closed) Bugliosi, (an author who wrote his book as a prosecution brief rather than a true investigation.) and DVP (and I don't have to say what I think of his writings)

 

Give me your refutations if you have any, of the evidence of the back shot was in the President's shoulder rather than his neck.

The problem with a guy like you is that you have no understanding of what common sense and critical thinking are.
OK, so I'll teach you a thing or two.
1. About Gerald Posner. OK. Let's suppose that I wanted to write a book about American institutions. I would travel to Washington, DC and visit, say, the National Museum of American History. There, in the lobby, I could buy a leaflet on American presidents and copy/paste the whole content of the leaflet into my own book. That copying/pasting action would be dishonest. It would definitely be plagiarism. Yet, everything in my book would be true. I mean, my book would say that Ronald Reagan was President of the United States, then George H. W. Bush, then Bill Clinton, then George W. Bush, then Barack Obama, then Donald Trump. That's the truth. People would be right to accuse me of being a plagiarist. But anybody reading my book would learn facts and true statements. In other words, you should distinguish between the message and the messenger. I may be a dishonest author, that doesn't mean that my book doesn't tell the truth. So criticizing the author has no impact on the book's message.
Therefore, your accusing Gerald Posner of being a plagiarist does not mean that he isn't right in saying that Lee Oswald was the sole assassin; Even if Gerald Posner had written his book "Case closed" by simply copying and pasting the Warren report without doing any research, his book would still be right. In other words, we already knew that Oswald was the sole assassin, even before Gerald Posner wrote his book. So you are wasting your time.
I must of course clearly state here that Gerald Posner is not a plagiarist at all (though I am aware of all the accusations that have been thrown) and of course he did NOT lie in his book. You are just resorting to lame and dirty defamation. You should be ashamed of yourself.
(As a matter of fact, Gerald Posner is one of my heroes in this JFK assassination case !)
2. About Vincent Bugliosi. So he wrote a prosecution brief ? That's funny how you seem to only be able to repeat what other conspiracy theorists have written well before you. YOU are the plagiarist here… But anyway. There's nothing wrong with being a prosecutor and showing all the evidence against the suspect. Suppose that I wanted to write a book on the Christopher Porco case, you know, the crazy young guy who tried to murder his parents with an axe (killing his father and atrociously wounding his mother). Suppose I wrote a book laying down the evidence against Porco. I would prove that he was guilty. Would you say that since my book looks to you to be a "prosecution brief", then Porco is innocent ? That's nonsense ! Again, what matters is what the author writes. Is his evidence valid ? Are his arguments sound ? Is he using logic and common sense, as well as true facts and scientific evidence ? Is he right ? Yes, or no. That's what matters.
What do you mean Bugliosi didn't do a true investigation ? Did YOU do one ? Don't make me laugh… What was he supposed to do ? Interview Jack Ruby ? Issue a warrant to search Buell Frazier's basement ? He actually did a great job separating facts from fiction and analyzing the evidence. Something you'll never be able to do
3. David Von Pein. No, you don't have to say what you think of his writings. I'm not interested in what you might say. It can only be some bad-faith opinion. Everybody knows that DVP is superior to you in every way. His contribution to the JFK assassination literature is as impressive and great-quality and useful as yours is non-existent and useless.
He is very productive and a lot of people admire his work. I do. You don't like what he writes for a very simple reason : you are unable to debate him. You have no answer to his arguments. He is convincing when you are not. He is knowledgeable when you are not. He is eloquent and articulate when you are not. He offers common sense when you only have empty, useless, fruitless hopeless, worthless posts that are always as short as they are meaningless !
So, to cut a long story short, your empty post was only a symbol of the conspiracy theorists speech, that you seem only able to repeat.
Gerald Posner, Vincent Bugliosi and David Von Pein are intelligent experts. They know the evidence and have been able to honestly analyze it.
As for you, I don't know if you are here only because you want some entertainment. You don't know much about the Kennedy assassination but when we advise you to read some books you just couldn't care less. You don't want to learn. You don't want to get the information. You don't want to debate. All you seem to enjoy is defame renowned authors.
So, not wanting to open your eyes, not wanting to have a honest debate, not interested in the truth, afraid you might discover that you had been wrong all along, you just throw accusations and redundant questions, hoping to make people waste their time giving you answers that you'll not even read…
And today, it's my turn. You want me to tell you something that you don't even want to know.
What a waste of time…
Besides, where is the mystery ? Yes, JFK was hit in the back.
I see that David Von Pein has already answered you in this thread.
I could give you the same answer.
But you don't really care. You don't want to know the truth.
You don't want to know where the bullet entered the back of President Kennedy.
Whatever we tell you, you won't listen.
Have fun !

[Guest]

On ‎10‎/‎19‎/‎2018 at 5:16 PM, David Von Pein said:

The autopsy report and the Boswell Face Sheet provide the exact place where the bullet entered --- "14 cm. below the tip of the right mastoid process" --- which is in the UPPER BACK, not the NECK.

On a given individual, the mastoid process is a fixed point.  It doesn't float, which is why it is used as a reference point.  When Boswell later placed a dot where the written measurements would indicate, it was much higher than the original dot on the autopsy face sheet.

Certainly, the SBT is problematical.  If I were hell-bent to prove a conspiracy, it's one of the key areas on which I'd focus.  But is it less problematical than the alternatives?  Two assassins' bullets, one from the front and one from the back, that didn't exit the body?  Pure happenstance that those two shots lined up in a way that brought the SBT at least within the realm of possibility?  All sorts of nefarious doings on the part of medical professionals, yet screaming discrepancies in the testimony and documents that were allowed to remain and fuel conspiracy thinking?  A cover-up involving a bullet with so little damage that it practically invites conspiracy thinking?

Isn't the reality that nothing can be established with absolute certainty?  We don't know to the millimeter how Oswald was holding his rifle when the shot was fired.  We don't know to the nanosecond when the shot impacted JFK.  We don't know to the millimeter the orientation of JFK's body and arms.  We don't know the precise location of the back wound.  We don't even know the precise location of the throat wound.  We don't know precisely what the bullet did as it transited JFK's body.  We do know the location of the holes in his shirt and coat (although even there the measurements differed slightly), but we don't know precisely how they were arranged at the time of impact or the possible effect of his elaborate back brace.  These are a lot of small unknowns that could cumulatively shift the SBT from problematical to not problematical at all.

Yes, much evidence suggests (but certainly not conclusively) a location of the back wound that makes the SBT more problematical than if the wound were higher.  But there are too many variables, as described above, to state dogmatically that the SBT is IMPOSSIBLE.  The difference between a back wound location that makes the SBT "highly problematical" and one that makes it "not problematical at all" isn't large - certainly within the realm of faulty observation or sloppiness in a case where the real issue was that the victim's head had been blown open like a melon.  This is why trials where the case hinges on forensic evidence typically have dueling experts who vehemently disagree with each other.  Because Cliff doesn't understand what prima facie evidence or a prima facie case is, he keeps shrieking "IMPOSSIBLE!" or "FAKE DEBATE!" when all he has really shown is that there is indeed a body of evidence which, on its face, suggests that the SBT is unlikely.  In the real world, unlikely and even seemingly IMPOSSIBLE! chains of physical events happen all the time.

Lastly, as DVP correctly notes, the SBT is merely one area of evidence in a mountain pointing toward Oswald.  That mountain is large enough that some of us are willing to accept a problematical SBT as the likely truth vs. alternatives that seem even more implausible.  Those who are convinced there is a conspiracy will view the SBT through that lens.  But there is no point in either side pretending that the evidence regarding the SBT is conclusive or that the other side's position is silly.

Edited December 26, 2018 by Guest

[W. Tracy Parnell]

4 minutes ago, Lance Payette said:

But there is no point in either side pretending that the evidence regarding the SBT is conclusive or that the other side's position is silly.

Very well said.

[Ray Mitcham]

14 minutes ago, Lance Payette said:

On a given individual, the mastoid process is a fixed point.  It doesn't float, which is why it is used as a reference point.  When Boswell later placed a dot where the written measurements would indicate, it was much higher than the original dot on the autopsy face sheet.

Certainly, the SBT is problematical.  If I were hell-bent to prove a conspiracy, it's one of the key areas on which I'd focus.  But is it less problematical than the alternatives?  Two assassins' bullets, one from the front and one from the back, that didn't exit the body?  Pure happenstance that those two shots lined up in a way that brought the SBT at least within the realm of possibility?  All sorts of nefarious doings on the part of medical professionals, yet screaming discrepancies in the testimony and documents that were allowed to remain and fuel conspiracy thinking?  A cover-up involving a bullet with so little damage that it practically invites conspiracy thinking?

Isn't the reality that nothing can be established with absolute certainty?  We don't know to the millimeter how Oswald was holding his rifle when the shot was fired.  We don't know to the nanosecond when the shot impacted JFK.  We don't know to the millimeter the orientation of JFK's body and arms.  We don't know the precise location of the back wound.  We don't even know the precise location of the throat wound.  We don't know precisely what the bullet did as it transited JFK's body.  We do know the location of the holes in his shirt and coat (although even there the measurements differed slightly), but we don't know precisely how they were arranged at the time of impact or the possible effect of his elaborate back brace.  These are a lot of small unknowns that could cumulatively shift the SBT from problematical to not problematical at all.

Yes, much evidence suggests (but certainly not conclusively) a location of the back wound that makes the SBT more problematical than if the wound were higher.  But there are too many variables, as described above, to state dogmatically that the SBT is IMPOSSIBLE.  The difference between a back wound location that makes the SBT "highly problematical" and one that makes it "not problematical at all" isn't large - certainly within the realm of faulty observation or sloppiness in a case where the real issue was that the victim's head had been blown open like a melon.  This is why trials where the case hinges on forensic evidence typically have dueling experts who vehemently disagree with each other.  Because Cliff doesn't understand what prima facie evidence or a prima facie case is, he keeps shrieking "IMPOSSIBLE!" or "FAKE DEBATE!" when all he has really shown is that there is indeed a body of evidence which, on its face, suggests that the SBT is unlikely.  In the real world, unlikely and even seemingly IMPOSSIBLE! chains of physical events happen all the time.

Lastly, as DVP correctly notes, the SBT is merely one area of evidence in a mountain pointing toward Oswald.  That mountain is large enough that some of us are willing to accept a problematical SBT as the likely truth vs. alternatives that seem even more implausible.  Those who are convinced there is a conspiracy will view the SBT through that lens.  But there is no point in either side pretending that the evidence regarding the SBT is conclusive or that the other side's position is silly.

"On a given individual, the mastoid process is a fixed point. "

It is only in relation to any other point on the head. Unless you believe the head couldn't be moved forward or backwards when in position on a bench. 

[Ray Mitcham]

43 minutes ago, François Carlier said:

The problem with a guy like you is that you have no understanding of what common sense and critical thinking are.
OK, so I'll teach you a thing or two.
1. About Gerald Posner. OK. Let's suppose that I wanted to write a book about American institutions. I would travel to Washington, DC and visit, say, the National Museum of American History. There, in the lobby, I could buy a leaflet on American presidents and copy/paste the whole content of the leaflet into my own book. That copying/pasting action would be dishonest. It would definitely be plagiarism. Yet, everything in my book would be true. I mean, my book would say that Ronald Reagan was President of the United States, then George H. W. Bush, then Bill Clinton, then George W. Bush, then Barack Obama, then Donald Trump. That's the truth. People would be right to accuse me of being a plagiarist. But anybody reading my book would learn facts and true statements. In other words, you should distinguish between the message and the messenger. I may be a dishonest author, that doesn't mean that my book doesn't tell the truth. So criticizing the author has no impact on the book's message.
Therefore, your accusing Gerald Posner of being a plagiarist does not mean that he isn't right in saying that Lee Oswald was the sole assassin; Even if Gerald Posner had written his book "Case closed" by simply copying and pasting the Warren report without doing any research, his book would still be right. In other words, we already knew that Oswald was the sole assassin, even before Gerald Posner wrote his book. So you are wasting your time.
I must of course clearly state here that Gerald Posner is not a plagiarist at all (though I am aware of all the accusations that have been thrown) and of course he did NOT lie in his book. You are just resorting to lame and dirty defamation. You should be ashamed of yourself.
(As a matter of fact, Gerald Posner is one of my heroes in this JFK assassination case !)
2. About Vincent Bugliosi. So he wrote a prosecution brief ? That's funny how you seem to only be able to repeat what other conspiracy theorists have written well before you. YOU are the plagiarist here… But anyway. There's nothing wrong with being a prosecutor and showing all the evidence against the suspect. Suppose that I wanted to write a book on the Christopher Porco case, you know, the crazy young guy who tried to murder his parents with an axe (killing his father and atrociously wounding his mother). Suppose I wrote a book laying down the evidence against Porco. I would prove that he was guilty. Would you say that since my book looks to you to be a "prosecution brief", then Porco is innocent ? That's nonsense ! Again, what matters is what the author writes. Is his evidence valid ? Are his arguments sound ? Is he using logic and common sense, as well as true facts and scientific evidence ? Is he right ? Yes, or no. That's what matters.
What do you mean Bugliosi didn't do a true investigation ? Did YOU do one ? Don't make me laugh… What was he supposed to do ? Interview Jack Ruby ? Issue a warrant to search Buell Frazier's basement ? He actually did a great job separating facts from fiction and analyzing the evidence. Something you'll never be able to do
3. David Von Pein. No, you don't have to say what you think of his writings. I'm not interested in what you might say. It can only be some bad-faith opinion. Everybody knows that DVP is superior to you in every way. His contribution to the JFK assassination literature is as impressive and great-quality and useful as yours is non-existent and useless.
He is very productive and a lot of people admire his work. I do. You don't like what he writes for a very simple reason : you are unable to debate him. You have no answer to his arguments. He is convincing when you are not. He is knowledgeable when you are not. He is eloquent and articulate when you are not. He offers common sense when you only have empty, useless, fruitless hopeless, worthless posts that are always as short as they are meaningless !
So, to cut a long story short, your empty post was only a symbol of the conspiracy theorists speech, that you seem only able to repeat.
Gerald Posner, Vincent Bugliosi and David Von Pein are intelligent experts. They know the evidence and have been able to honestly analyze it.
As for you, I don't know if you are here only because you want some entertainment. You don't know much about the Kennedy assassination but when we advise you to read some books you just couldn't care less. You don't want to learn. You don't want to get the information. You don't want to debate. All you seem to enjoy is defame renowned authors.
So, not wanting to open your eyes, not wanting to have a honest debate, not interested in the truth, afraid you might discover that you had been wrong all along, you just throw accusations and redundant questions, hoping to make people waste their time giving you answers that you'll not even read…
And today, it's my turn. You want me to tell you something that you don't even want to know.
What a waste of time…
Besides, where is the mystery ? Yes, JFK was hit in the back.
I see that David Von Pein has already answered you in this thread.
I could give you the same answer.
But you don't really care. You don't want to know the truth.
You don't want to know where the bullet entered the back of President Kennedy.
Whatever we tell you, you won't listen.
Have fun !

I'm glad to see that you believe that the bullet entered JFK's back. In that case can you explain how the bullet supposedly exited his throat. 

I know where the bullet entered the President's back. It's in the evidence which you are ignoring.

The clothing, the witnesses, and the autopsy sheet all state where it entered his back. It is you Warren Commission supporters who willl not accept the truth. 

I'd like DVD to confirm your comment that he agreed that the shot hit JFK in the back rather than the neck. It'll be a hell of a shock to him.

I understand why you suggest I read the books mentioned. They all support your position. I've read Posner's book, which was rubbish, and I have read Bugliosi's book, which was ten times longer than it should've been due to the large number of suppositions in it. (rather like your post) That book was rubbish too. IMO.

P.s. I'm not here just for entertainment. I have been studying the assassination since 1970. 

I'm sorry that you consider my posts are short and meaningless, as I think that yours are long and boring, (see above) and wrong. I come on here not to spout my options but to point out  evidence which you obviously are incapable of understanding.

[Guest]

26 minutes ago, Ray Mitcham said:

"On a given individual, the mastoid process is a fixed point. "

It is only in relation to any other point on the head. Unless you believe the head couldn't be moved forward or backwards when in position on a bench. 

Sure, that's true of basically every part of the body.  But why must we assume that the dot on the autopsy face sheet is precise but Dr. Boswell didn't know how to determine the mastoid process on JFK and accurately measure 14 cm down from there?  Possibly, because the back wound was of lesser importance than the head wound, Dr. Boswell was somewhat casual and a more precise measurement would have been 13 cm or 15 cm - but this is true of the dot and all the other observations of the back wound.

[Guest]

5 hours ago, Ray Mitcham said:

Grasping at straw yet again, Dave. Now explain how S.A.Bennett happened to see a bullet hole in the President's jacket, four inches down from his right shoulder.

Seated in a moving auto behind JFK's moving limousine, in the instant of a completely unanticipated rifle shot, Bennett accurately determines that the bullet impacted 4" down from JFK's right shoulder on his dark suit coat?  Does this seem plausible?  Do you think that in these circumstances anyone could be relied upon to distinguish between 2", 4" and 6"?  And precisely what is "about four inches down from the right shoulder" when the victim is wearing a suit coat?  Looking at the photo of the actual hole in JFK's coat, would anyone describe this in relation to the "right shoulder" unless the coat were bunched or the arm were raised?

Bennett's actual statement, which raises some timing issues as well, was:  "At this point I heard what sounded like a fire-cracker. I immediately looked from the right/crowd/physical area/and looked towards the President who was seated in the right rear seat of his limousine open convertible. At the moment I looked at the back of the President I heard another fire-cracker noise and saw the shot hit the President about four inches down from the right shoulder."

It just seems to me that an unwarranted level of precision is attached to this sort of evidence.

[Ray Mitcham]

14 minutes ago, Lance Payette said:

Seated in a moving auto behind JFK's moving limousine, in the instant of a completely unanticipated rifle shot, Bennett accurately determines that the bullet impacted 4" down from JFK's right shoulder on his dark suit coat?  Does this seem plausible?  Do you think that in these circumstances anyone could be relied upon to distinguish between 2", 4" and 6"?  And precisely what is "about four inches down from the right shoulder" when the victim is wearing a suit coat?  Looking at the photo of the actual hole in JFK's coat, would anyone describe this in relation to the "right shoulder" unless the coat were bunched or the arm were raised?

Bennett's actual statement, which raises some timing issues as well, was:  "At this point I heard what sounded like a fire-cracker. I immediately looked from the right/crowd/physical area/and looked towards the President who was seated in the right rear seat of his limousine open convertible. At the moment I looked at the back of the President I heard another fire-cracker noise and saw the shot hit the President about four inches down from the right shoulder."

It just seems to me that an unwarranted level of precision is attached to this sort of evidence.

Of course you think "an unwarranted level of precision is attached to this sort of evidence" as it doesn't agree with your point of view. (Yet you accept "a thirteen to fourteen mm down from the mastoid"added notation to the autopsy sheet as gospel.)

Bennett was less than ten yards from the President when he saw the bullet hole in JFK's jacket. He estimated that it was about 4" down from his right shoulder. (Wearing a suit or not he could see it was below his right shoulder.) Why is that so hard for you to accept? How strange it agrees with the other physical evidence hole in coat and shirt, and other testimonies shown above.  

Edited October 20, 2018 by Ray Mitcham