Jump to content
The Education Forum
Fred Litwin

I Was a Teenage JFK Conspiracy Freak

Recommended Posts

On 10/24/2018 at 4:12 PM, Lance Payette said:

Or you could just watch this, beginning at the about 39-minute mark:  http://www.veoh.com/watch/v105172340dKhaPjXr

Yes, I know:  The bullet in this recreation emerged below the actual throat wound and bounced off "Connally's" thigh rather than penetrating it.  Still, I found this recreation pretty astonishing.

Yes, I know:  Conspiracy theorists immediately declared the entire documentary to be trash, a sham, yada yada.  Still, I found the recreation pretty astonishing.

Yes, I know:  It is alleged that the shirt/coat experiment had to be repeated "hundreds" of times to work.  I have found no verification of this - but even if true, the fact is that something we're being told is IMPOSSIBLE! is in fact not impossible.  Evidence we're being told is IRREFUTABLE! is in fact not irrefutable.  Moreover, what occurs in the video is precisely what I observed on my own body, with my own shirt and coat, in my own bedroom the first time I tried it.  You don't need a video of me when you have this.

Your not telling us the truth, barrister.

If you could get your clothing to elevate multiple inches above the top of your back without pushing up on your jacket collar you'd produce it in a hot second.

But you can't.

Let's be kind and say you're bluffing instead of you being a full-on, flat-out l-i-a-r.

Quote

Pretty easy to see why Cliff isn't interested in having his IRREFUTABLE PRIMA FACIE! case (oxymoron though it may be) put to independent testing or submitted to a peer-reviewed journal.  The actual "prima facie" case has been accepted by every panel that has reviewed the assassination.  The burden to show otherwise is on YOU.

The world's top men's clothing expert, Alan Flusser, writes that a tucked in custom made dress shirt will "act almost as a second skin."

You can scream all you want, :Lance, but it doesn't change the facts.

 

 

 

Edited by Cliff Varnell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/24/2018 at 6:00 PM, Lance Payette said:

JFK_131024_0071382825942.jpg.24c9d873c9eff8f0e603ac66ae90d0de.jpg Here is JFK's shirt showing the Charles Dillon label, so I stand corrected by Mr. Fashion Police on this sartorial issue.  However, the shirt pretty well speaks for itself.  I myself noted that Brooks Brothers had introduced a more form-flattering suit for JFK, but the reality is that no clothing in 1963 was as form-fitting as Mr. Fashion Police would now like to pretend. 

 

This thread is an interesting case study in how True Belief inhibits cognition.

Lance suffers from a suppression of his reading skills:

http://www.throughtherye.com/flusser/ch2.htm

<quote on, emphasis added>

The sixties brought the Peacock Revolution - a phrase popularized in this country by George Frazier, a former columnist for Esquire magazine and the Boston Globe - which began on Carnaby Street in London and featured a whole array of new looks, including the Nehru jacket and the Edwardian suit. In contrast to the fifties, during which time choices were limited, a wide range of alternatives was now available as the focus moved to youth and protest. The designer Pierre Cardin even created an American version of the slim-lined European silhouette, which, along with the immense popularity of jeans, led to the acceptance of extreme fittedness in clothing - a far cry from the casual, comfortable elegance of preceding generations.

During this period, the American designer Ralph Lauren was attempting to convince the American male that there was a viable alternative to this high-style clothing. This alternative was a version of the two-button shaped suit with natural shoulders that had been introduced by Paul Stuart in 1954 and briefly popularized by John Kennedy during his presidency.

<quote off>

Lance, you realize 1954 came before 1963, right?

 

Quote

 

There are abundant photos of JFK's jacket bunching up, sometimes to a remarkable degree (see http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/bunched.htm), which is why Mr. Fashion Police is so insistent that JFK's shirt had to be as have been as tight as a wet suit.  As the photo posted by DVP shows, this simply wasn't the case.  True Belief prevents Lance Payette from processing that information.

The rigged experiment showed the jacket collar riding above the top of the shirt collar, unlike JFK on Elm St.

Quote

 

One of the doctors at Parkland commented on what an elaborate brace JFK was wearing and the difficulty in cutting it off, which further cuts against the notion that his shirt was a body-hugger. 

Why?

The back brace isn't going to effect the fit of the shirt.

Quote

 

With that, I rest my case insofar as the Not So Irrefutable Solution is concerned.  We will never know the precise orientation of clothing and bodies 55 years after the fact, but it's just silly to keep harping on something like this as IMPOSSIBLE! and IRREFUTABLE!

It's just silly to make claims you can't back up, but such is the life of a SBFraud.

Edited by Cliff Varnell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/25/2018 at 8:14 AM, Cliff Varnell said:

I don't blame you. 

The photo Von Pein posted shows no elevation of the shirt.  Thank you, David!

Sandy Larsen posted that photo, not DVP.  My bad.

Thanks again, Sandy.

 

 

single_bullet_theory_jfk_shirt.jpg

 

Edited by Cliff Varnell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

Parnell seems to forget a very big point:

Its the so called people with forensic expertise who got us into this evidentiary mess.

Do I really have to explain that?  Don Thomas spent a large part of his book on it.  Never was a book so well subtitled. Ever hear of social constructivism?

Should we start with good ole Vince Guinn and his phony CBLA?

How about Dr. Petty who said so memorably, in 2003 at the 40th anniversary to CNN that the Kennedy autopsy was done well.

:stupid

 

And he also said that it would be nice if Kennedy's brain were available.  

Oh really?

Or how about Pierre Finck, who had to be asked something like 8 times why Humes did not dissect the back wound.

Or Humes himself who was finally exposed later as making up a cover story about souvenir seekers getting the blood stained copies of his autopsy report.  And also how he did not just jettison his notes but also the first copy of the report.

Or Cecil Kirk, the so called photo expert, who Bugliosi believed about the head explosion without Kirk even knowing anything about the phenomenon of cavitation.

Or how about the Haags, who Gary Aguilar and Cyril Wecht tarred and feathered from pillar to post.  To the point that they would not even show up to debate them even when Gary offered to pay their plane and hotel fare!!!

Or how about Alvarez who lied about his melon experiment and also how many jiggles are in the Z film?

Maybe you are talking about FBI agent Frazier? He told the Commission that the recovered bullet from the Walker house had the same general characteristics that the alleged Oswald rifle would have. Bugliosi then tells us that means four lands and grooves and a right hand twist to its rifling.  

Vince left out the fact that practically all rifles had that twist and that rifling. Which makes for a very large universe.

These are the experts Parnell has chosen to stand by.:please

 

You must be joking !
And please, tell us what "experts" you rely on ?
- Jack White ? The man who was well known for his lack of knowledge of photogrammetry ? A man who pretended that the Zapruder film was fake ?
- Robert Groden ? A high-school drop-out, must I remind you ? He never studied photography seriously. You remember his fiasco in the OJ Simpson case, don't you ?
- Jim Fetzer ? A man who always pretends that everything is fake ?
- David Mantik ? Another guy who made a fool of himself by pretending that the Zapruder film was faked too ?
- Don Thomas, who, too, made a fool of himself with the so-called acoustics evidence ? Anybody who wants to research the case seriously will quickly determine that Don Thomas was mistaken. He has been discredited. (I wish my book had been translated into English. I have a long section on the acoustics evidence, with a lot of references. There used to be an interview of Charles Rader on line "History. Uncovering The Truth About The JFK Assassination. Signal Processing Tells The Story". Very enlightening. It used to be at this address : http://www.ieee.org/portal/ieeetv/viewer.html?progId=118947 Charles Rader, do I have to remind you, laughs at those who "heard" more than three shots.
Charles Rader was a member of the Committee on Ballistic Acoustics. Don Thomas was a member of nothing, since he started researching the JFK case after watching the movie JFK. He's almost a newbie, and his contribution amounts to nothing interesting or meaningful.
- Gary Aguilar ? Are you joking ? Isn't he someone who denies the facts about the medical evidence ? I would be happy to have a debate with him at any time, anywhere. It would be easy. He would eat his hat !
I mean, you seem to confuse "expert" with "reality denier". Mind you, that's not the same.
I would believe Cecil Kirk over Robert Groden any day ! HE was a real expert in his field, unlike Groden. And by the way, the whole panel of experts agreed with him. He was certainly not the only one to say that the photos were genuine.
You enjoy throwing accusations, but it seems to me that you do that only to try to convince yourself. And I wouldn't be surprised if someone told me that you yourself do not believe what you write…

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

These are the experts Parnell has chosen to stand by.

I wasn't really interested in reviewing the history of scientific experts as it relates to the JFK case. I am sure there have been instances of experts making conclusions that not everyone agrees with. Getting back to the subject I was discussing-all I am saying is that Sandy believes he has found some "proof" whether you want to call scientific or whatever. The normal course of action would be to present that proof in the form of a paper that could be peer-reviewed. If they would allow him to do that I don't know since he is not credentialed. If not, he should find someone to do it for him which should be a simple matter since all it takes according to him is "common sense" to see his "proof." 

But what he doesn't appear to understand is that no one is going to view his "proof" in a vacuum. You might find someone to agree that the "failed" notation means the chart shows a person who has a dental appliance that failed, even though other explanations exist even if it amounts to only human error. But once they find out who the individual is and realize there is overwhelming evidence that this was the one and only Lee Harvey Oswald and the historical record shows there were not two of him, our hypothetical expert will run the other way as he or she should. They will realize that one of the other explanations is correct instead.

Deep down, Sandy knows all of this and that is why he is content to stay here with his "proof" and preach to the choir or in this case a partial choir since informal polls have shown the majority (even here at EF where CTs dominate) don't agree with H&L.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Francois, I am really glad you decided to return because now everyone can see you for what you are.:drive

You apparently read no one's books except your own.

And you read no one else's web site except DVP and McAdams.  I mean if you did then your posts would be a lot more informed and acute.  Instead they remind me of a little kid throwing mud against a wall in order to kill a fly.  I mean really, you never read my two part article on Fetzer?

You did not read the Aguilar/Wecht take down of the Haags? That was actually in a peer reviewed journal, the kind of periodical that your buddy Tracy Parnell thinks is the be all and end all of credulity. You know Alvarez and the jet effect? But in this case,  somehow, Mr. Parnell missed that one. Even though it was spread out over two issues. But if that is his standard of evidence then by all means, he should quit and go home right now because that was a literal demolition job.  But he won't because like DVP, this forum has become his reason for being. Plus he has a see through double standard.

For you to say that someone denies the facts about the medical evidence is really a hoot.:lol:

There are no facts about that part of the case.  Which is why Ayton and Von Pein wrote so little about it in their recycling of the WR.

When you have the official autopsy photographer under oath, with the Chief Counsel of the ARRB holding the pics of the brain in front of him, and he asks, "Did you take those photos?"  And they guy pauses, leans over and looks at the numbers on the print, and then says: "No.  That is the wrong film, I never used that film.  And these numbers mean its a  press pack process. I never used that technique."

That is a fact.  Is it in your book?  If not, why are you covering it up from your readers?

Edited by James DiEugenio

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

The normal course of action would be [for Sandy] to present that proof in the form of a paper that could be peer-reviewed.

 

Tracy,

My two LHO teeth presentations have already been peer reviewed. Here's how:

  1. First, it's important to note that -- for the most part -- the only thing I did in my presentations was to make observations and record them.
  2. My observations are easy to see and understand. Any reasonably intelligent person would make the same observations, as long as they were brought to his or her attention.  No special knowledge is needed
  3. I presented my work to the members of this forum -- my peers -- many of whom are highly intelligent.  One of the reasons I presented my work was so that it could be reviewed by my peers. You see where I'm going here.
  4. Nobody noted errors in any of the observations I had made. Had anybody done so, with legitimate complaints, I would have corrected the errant observations.
  5. In the meantime a handful of H&L critics repeatedly cited writings of Greg Parker (as though he were some sort of expert himself), saying that he had debunked my observations. I read Greg's writings and could find nothing of the sort. So I asked the H&L critics REPEATEDLY to explain Greg's so-called debunkings. None of them did. (I knew that they couldn't because what Greg wrote made no sense.)
  6. Tracy Parnell protested, claiming that experts were required to make the types of observations I'd made. But he couldn't back up his contention with any specific argument or by pointing out any potential misunderstanding I might have had in making my observations. HE COULD HAVE SIMILARLY CLAIMED THAT AN EXPERT IS NEEDED TO OBSERVE THE SUN RISING IN THE MORNING. All I could do with Tracy is to keep repeating to him that no expertise was needed for making the observations I had made.


That said, I will admit that there is ONE claim I made in one of my two presentation which Tracy could legitimately say hasn't been peer reviewed. It relates to the following fact: Oswald's 1958 Marine Corps x-ray shows two molars tipping down into the space left by the adjacent molar (#30) being extracted. And then the exhumation x-ray -- which is a snapshot of how the teeth looked in 1963, only 5 years later -- shows that these two teeth had spontaneously straightened back up again, moved forward about 1/4" in a straight line, and filled in the same space they were previously tipping down into.

Now, I -- as an EXPERT with a masters degree in engineering -- know that such a thing would have been impossible to occur spontaneously, because there are no natural forces that could have moved the teeth to the positions shown in the exhumation x-ray. The use of an orthodontic appliance would have been required to apply the necessary forces to accomplish what is seen to have happened between 1958 and 1963.

So, unless there are other engineers, physicists, or orthodontists on this forum who have scrutinized that particular presentation, then that claim of mine has not been peer reviewed.

But you know what? That doesn't matter, because the remainder of my two presentations still hold. They have been peer reviewed and they remain posted for anybody to scrutinize at any time. Most importantly, they provide sufficiently strong evidence to indicate with little doubt that there must have been two young Oswalds.

 

Edited by Sandy Larsen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

Tracy,

My two LHO teeth presentations have already been peer reviewed. Here's how:

  1. It's important to note that, for the most part, the only thing I did in my presentations was to make observations and record them.
  2. My observations are easy to see and understand. Any reasonably intelligent person would make the same observations, as long as they were brought to his or her attention.  No special knowledge is needed
  3. I presented my work to the members of this forum -- my peers -- many of whom are highly intelligent.  One of the reasons I presented my work was so that it could be reviewed by my peers. You see where I'm going here.
  4. Nobody noted errors in any of the observations I had made. Had anybody done so, with legitimate complaints, I would have corrected the errant observations.
  5. In the meantime a handful of H&L critics repeatedly cited writings of Greg Parker (as though he were some sort of expert himself), saying that he had debunked my observations. I read Greg's writings and could find nothing of the sort. So I asked the H&L critics REPEATEDLY to explain Greg's so-called debunkings. None of them did. (I knew that they couldn't because what Greg wrote made no sense.)
  6. Tracy Parnell protested, claiming that experts were required to make the types of observations I'd made. But he couldn't back up his contention with any specific argument or by pointing out any potential misunderstanding I might have had in making my observations. HE COULD HAVE SIMILARLY CLAIMED THAT AN EXPERT IS NEEDED TO OBSERVE THE SUN RISING IN THE MORNING. All I could do with Tracy is to continue repeating to him that no expertise was needed for making the observations I had made.


That said, I will admit that there is ONE claim I made in one of my two presentation which Tracy could legitimately say hasn't been peer reviewed. It relates to the following fact: Oswald's 1958 Marine Corps x-ray shows two molars tipping down into the space left by the adjacent molar (#30) being extracted. And then the exhumation x-ray -- which is a snapshot of how the teeth looked in 1963, only 5 years later -- shows that these two teeth had spontaneously straightened back up again, moved forward about 1/4" in a straight line, and filled in the same space they were previously tipping down into.

Now, I -- as an EXPERT with a masters degree in engineering -- know that such a thing would have been be impossible to occur spontaneously, because there are no natural forces that could have moved the teeth to the positions shown in the exhumation x-ray. The use of an orthodontic appliance would have been required to apply the necessary forces to accomplish what is seen to have happened between 1958 and 1963.

So, unless there are other engineers, physicists, or orthodontists on this forum who have scrutinized that presentation, then it hasn't been peer reviewed.

But you know what? That doesn't matter, because the remainder of my two presentations still hold. They have been peer reviewed and they remain posted for anybody to scrutinize at any time. Most importantly, they are sufficiently strong as to indicate with little doubt that there must have been two young Oswalds.

 

Hello Mister Larsen,
I have one genuine question for you : why do you think that so few conspiracy believers (or "conspiracy theorists", or "conspiracy advocates") subscribe to the "Harvey and Lee" theory ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

My two LHO teeth presentations have already been peer reviewed.

The peers I was referring to are not fellow conspiracy theorists Sandy. Facts are not determined by a bunch of conspiracy theorists on forums who agree with each other. Let me explain how it works. Back in the day, Linda Norton and 3 other experts in forensic pathology (including 2 with dental experience) presented evidence in a scientific journal that the body in the grave in Fort Worth is the one and only Lee Harvey Oswald. Your "evidence" is essentially trying to refute that finding. In order to do this, you have to find an expert who agrees with your analysis and is willing to present a paper to a similar scientific journal that is then peer reviewed. But we both know that is not going to happen because any particular observation about this case is not made in a vacuum. The experts I am referring to would ask other questions about the situation as I mentioned in my last post. And when they did that, they would find other significant evidence that pointed away from 2 Oswalds. So you have proven nothing nor will you.

Share this post


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

Hello Mister Larsen,
I have one genuine question for you : why do you think that so few conspiracy believers (or "conspiracy theorists", or "conspiracy advocates") subscribe to the "Harvey and Lee" theory ?

Exactly Francois. Most CTs say something like, "well I appreciate his research efforts but I don't agree with 2 Oswalds and 2 mothers."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tracy and Francois:

Its interesting to everyone here that you would now try and escape the point I was trying to make about all the so called "experts" your side has used and which I have shown to be complete frauds and now address Sandy's ideas about Harvey and Lee.

There was a long thread about this already, or did you forget about it?

What I just did was show how your side was the one that abided by theories--that all ended up being proven false, or they were knowing lies to begin with. And you have remained rather quiet about. In fact, the entire fulcrum of the WCR is knowingly based upon nothing but a half baked self serving fantasy, that is CE 399 and the Magic Bullet.  That fantasy is so out there that your own commissioners refused to record the debate on it at the final executive meeting of the commission.  They snookered Russell, Cooper and Boggs that this debate was being recorded.  When in fact it was not.  And they actually had an impersonator sitting there as a stenographer.  Talk about consciousness of guilt!  This is so bad that Bugliosi could not really own up to it and admit it.

Then you pile that bunch of malarkey upon the fact that Specter then posed maybe 12 material questions to Boswell about the autopsy and they then did not call people like Stringer or Ebersole, or incredibly Burkley, or even more incredibly Sibert and O'Neil. So please do not try and insinuate that somehow our side is "out there", and then use Armstrong as some kind of out for everything else.  What that does is show just how weak your case is on the core evidence. Which is the basis of any homicide case, especially a death by gunshot wounds.

Edited by James DiEugenio

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I understand where you are coming from Tracy with the peer review thing, I agree, though I think you waste time quoting Francois who apparently solved the case reading posners book and talking with the French police over coffee, but to be fair to Sandy -and I AM NOT a Harvey lee theorist- it is a fact that as early as 1960 someone was using Oswald’s identity other than him. That is a fact. The warren Ommission clearly provides photos of someone other than Oswald in Mexico City. That is a fact. So while perhaps not a Harvey lee scenario-and those do exist to this day in intelligence work- something was going on with someone other than him using his identity. I think you solve that part and you solve who LHO really was. I do not believe it was a strange coincidence. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, James DiEugenio said:

Tracy and Francois:

Its interesting to everyone here that you would now try and escape the point I was trying to make about all the so called "experts" your side has used and which I have shown to be complete frauds and now address Sandy's ideas about Harvey and Lee.

There was a long thread about this already, or did you forget about it?

What I just did was show how your side was the one that abided by theories--that all ended up being proven false, or they were knowing lies to begin with. And you have remained rather quiet about. In fact, the entire fulcrum of the WCR is knowingly based upon nothing but a half baked self serving fantasy, that is CE 399 and the Magic Bullet.  That fantasy is so out there that your own commissioners refused to record the debate on it at the final executive meeting of the commission.  They snookered Russell, Sherman and Boggs that this debate was being recorded.  When in fact it was not.  And they actually had an impersonator sitting there as a stenographer.  Talk about consciousness of guilt!  This is so bad that Bugliosi could not really own up to it and admit it.

Then you pile that bunch of malarkey upon the fact that Specter then posed maybe 12 material questions to Boswell about the autopsy and they then did not call people like Stringer or Ebersole, or incredibly Burkley, or even more incredibly Sibert and O'Neil. So please do not try and insinuate that somehow our side is "out there", and then use Armstrong as some kind of out for everything else.  What that does is show just how weak your case is on the core evidence. Which is the basis of any homicide case, especially a death by gunshot wounds.

Don't worry, I intend to reply to you. I was just busy today. I'll do it soon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

Its interesting to everyone here that you would now try and escape the point I was trying to make about all the so called "experts" your side has used and which I have shown to be complete frauds and now address Sandy's ideas about Harvey and Lee.

I am not escaping anything. There certainly are peer reviewed studies that exist that point to conspiracy and they should be given every consideration.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Cory Santos said:

I understand where you are coming from Tracy with the peer review thing, I agree, though I think you waste time quoting Francois who apparently solved the case reading posners book and talking with the French police over coffee, but to be fair to Sandy -and I AM NOT a Harvey lee theorist- it is a fact that as early as 1960 someone was using Oswald’s identity other than him. That is a fact. The warren Ommission clearly provides photos of someone other than Oswald in Mexico City. That is a fact. So while perhaps not a Harvey lee scenario-and those do exist to this day in intelligence work- something was going on with someone other than him using his identity. I think you solve that part and you solve who LHO really was. I do not believe it was a strange coincidence. 

I think it was Lance who said Posner's book stands up very well today ( I am paraphrasing). All his book consists of is a summary of the well known evidence from the WC, HSCA and other sources that points to LHO as a lone gunman and a biography of LHO that shows he was a person predisposed to commit the crime. His book was the best promoting the lone gunman theory until Bugliosi came along and I think helped turn a corner for the media and others. And before Jim D. jumps in, myself and a couple others did a study of the supposed "errors" in the book years ago and found it was very overblown. Fred Litwin's book essentially uses the same type of evidence as Posner in 2018 and that evidence stands up today. And no, I don't believe there was anyone using LHO's identity. I do admit that evidence exists so that if someone is predisposed to the idea of multiple Oswalds or someone using his identity they can believe it.

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...