Theorist shamers should be ashamed of themselves.

[Denny Zartman]

You do great work on this subject @Jim Hargrove , probably better than we deserve. Thanks for your continued research and input.

 

[Denny Zartman]

6 minutes ago, Michael Griffith said:

Personally, I could never feel shamed by anyone who still believes in the single-bullet theory. Similarly, I could never feel shamed by someone who believes that Elvis did not die in 1977 but faked his death and lived a secret life for many years thereafter. 

I think we can all agree that this forum does not have nearly enough Bubba Ho-Tep references.

You are right. The back wound was a shallow wound that did not exit. The single bullet theory ends right there.

Edited January 17 by Denny Zartman

[Jeremy Bojczuk]

Michael Griffiths writes:

Quote

Anyone who still believes in the single-bullet theory is in no position to shame anyone, especially after the release of close-up photos of the shirt and tie, after the demolition of Guinn's NAA, and after the the Knott Laboratory 3D laser analysis of the SBT.

If that is aimed at me, Michael seriously misunderstands my point of view on these matters! Here's my critique of the single-bullet theory:

http://22november1963.org.uk/single-bullet-theory-jfk-assassination

And here's my critique of Vincent Guinn's use of neutron activation analysis:

http://22november1963.org.uk/jfk-assassination-neutron-activation-analysis

Quote

We could literally fill hundreds of pages with real-life cases of innocent suspects who were wrongly convicted because the police and/or prosecutors used faked evidence, altered evidence, and/or planted evidence.

Exactly! The sort of manipulation of evidence that we see in cases of wrongful convictions would not be considered far-fetched by a reasonable member of the public. But the crackpot theories go much further than everyday examples of manipulated evidence.

Quote

FYI, it is an established fact that the CIA ran long-term imposter projects.

There are good reasons to believe that Oswald was impersonated in Mexico City and perhaps also in Dallas in the weeks leading up to the assassination. A reasonable member of the public would surely not consider that sort of impersonation to be far-fetched.

I'm not aware of any documented imposter projects which involved the following far-fetched elements:

• two unrelated boys being recruited at an early age, along with the mother of one of them plus an unrelated woman who played the role of mother to the other boy;
• each of the boys being almost identical in appearance, despite being unrelated to each other, except that one of them had a 13-inch head;
• each of the mothers being almost identical in appearance, despite being unrelated to each other, apart from their eyebrows;
• one boy being recruited specifically for his knowledge of Russian, only for him to be allowed to forget so much of his Russian that he had to learn the language again, thereby defeating the whole point of recruiting him in the first place;
• one of the boy doppelgängers and one of the mother doppelgängers disappearing from the face of the earth immediately after the murder of the real, one-and-only Oswald by Jack Ruby, with no explanation of where they went or how their disappearance came about;
• one of the boys, the doppelgänger who disappeared without trace, being given a mastoidectomy operation at the age of six, only for the other doppelgänger's body, decades later, to show conclusive evidence of having undergone the mastoidectomy operation;
• one of the adult Oswald doppelgängers magically changing his height, being 5' 11" tall at one point (when it suited the needs of the theory) and 5' 6" tall at another point (when it suited the needs of the theory);
• and plenty more such nonsense (see https://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/f13-debunked for other examples).

I'd be very surprised if the average member of the public would be aware of any documented examples of any of these things happening in real life. It isn't simply a matter of impersonation, it's the sheer implausibility of the details which would make this particular theory seem ridiculously far-fetched to any reasonable outsider.

Quote

Personally, I've never mentioned or seen references to "photo-alteration vans" in Dealey Plaza.

If you trawl through some of the old threads on this forum, from the era of James 'Sandy Hook' Fetzer and Jack 'the moon landings were faked' White, you'll find references to one or more photo-alteration vans parked either in the railway yard or on Houston Street, I forget which.

It's ridiculous, but it was a necessary consequence of the need to explain some hypothetical and pointless alterations to the Altgens 6 photograph, which was distributed all over the world in its current (and allegedly altered) form only half an hour after the assassination.

A couple of years ago or so, someone on this forum suggested that the background of Mary Moorman's well-known Polaroid photo was altered within an hour or two of the assassination. Apparently the background originally showed the book depository, but it was altered to show the grassy knoll. That photo, too, was widely distributed on the afternoon of the assassination. Whether the same photo-alteration van was used in this instance is a matter for debate. Polaroids used a different process than Altgens's 35mm film, so maybe there were two vans.

No reasonable member of the public would take seriously the notion that They (whichever group of all-powerful conspirators They were) would station a van, kitted out as a photographic darkroom, near the scene of a presidential assassination, on the off-chance that some photographs might urgently need to be altered.

In how many assassinations of prominent political figures (or indeed anyone else) has that sort of thing happened? Such a notion would seem preposterous to anyone with a fully functional reality filter. But fully functional reality filters can be in short supply around here.

Quote

Well, we now know that JFK's body arrived at Bethesda long before its official arrival time

Maybe we do, but the point I was making is that the interception of a president's body from under the noses of everyone on Air Force One, and surgery secretly being performed on that body, are not the sort of things a reasonable member of the public would be familiar with.

Now let's add that the purpose of the alteration was to make all of the wounds consistent with shots from the sixth floor, only for the supposedly altered wounds to be blatantly inconsistent with shots from the sixth floor. To a reasonable member of the public, every element of the body-snatching scenario would seem far-fetched.

As for the notion that gunmen were hiding in papier-mâché trees on the grassy knoll, I hope I don't need to explain to anyone what the average member of the public would think about that!

Incidentally, there's a list of wacky JFK assassination theories at Tony Krome's new forum:

https://jacks.forumotion.com/f2-debunked

[Jeremy Bojczuk]

Sandy Larsen writes:

Quote

we don't all agree on what is farfetched ... anybody's personal level of what should be considered to be farfetched.

I explained clearly on another thread what I think the standard should be for a claim to be considered far-fetched:

https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/30064-moderators/?do=findComment&comment=526064

We should adopt the viewpoint of a reasonable, intelligent member of the public who has no preconceived ideas about the JFK assassination.

Does Sandy (or anyone else) see a problem with this definition? If so, what exactly is the problem? And what alternative definition of 'far-fetched' would be appropriate?

Once we have agreed a definition of the term 'far-fetched', we will be justified in referring to certain claims about the JFK assassination as 'far-fetched' (or 'crackpot' or 'whack-job', as appropriate). Using the definition I've given, a number of claims are far-fetched, because they do not reflect a reasonable person's view of how the world works.

Far-fetched claims are not necessarily wrong, but they do require a higher level of proof than claims which are not far-fetched. The more far-fetched the claim, the stronger the evidence needs to be. Far-fetched claims which rely on trivial discrepancies in the written or photographic record, for which plausible everyday explanations are usually available, do not meet the standard. Surely Sandy would agree with that.

[Jim Hargrove]

More about Oswald’s magical mystery tour to Ping-Tung, Taiwan….

The HSCA’s Robert Blakey apparently knew there was a problem with “Oswald’s” Ping-Tung/Atsugi timeline.  Blakey wrote a long letter to Secretary of Defense Harold Brown which included the following (documents below):

2.  During which periods was Oswald separated from his units overseas because of hospitalization.

Oswald’s health records reflect that he was sent “to mainside for a smear” on September 16, 1958.  (See Warren Commission Vol 19, p. 603; see also Vol. 8, p. 313.) But other records reveal that Oswald’s unit, MAG 11, sailed from Yokosuka, Japan, on September 16, 1958, for the South China Sea area, and did not return to Japan until October 5, 1958.   (See Warren Commission Vol. 23, p. 797; see also Warren Report, p. 684.)

Judith Miller from the Office of the Secretary of Defense wrote back as follows:

Oswald did not set sail from Yokosuka, Japan on September 16, 1958.  He remained aboard NAS Atsugi as part of the MAG-11 rear echelon.

It is true that Marine records indicate Oswald did not set sail on the USS Skagit on September 16, 1958 as Blakey (deliberately?) incorrectly asked, but on  Aug 29, 1958 (thanks Tom Gram!).

The Sec Def’s additional response that Oswald “remained aboard NAS Atsugi as part of the MAG-11 rear echelon” seems to imply that he never went to Taiwan.  But there is considerable evidence that he did, extending beyond the Marine Corps unit diaries and including written reports of interviews with Oswald as well as his own alleged words and Marguerite’s testimony.

If the one-and-only Lee Harvey Oswald’s Taiwan trip extended from Aug 29 to October 5, 1958, how on earth was he treated all those times in September at the Navy hospital at Atsugi, Japan?

PS: Thanks to Denny for the kind words.

[Benjamin Cole]

10 hours ago, Jim Hargrove said:

More about Oswald’s magical mystery tour to Ping-Tung, Taiwan….

The HSCA’s Robert Blakey apparently knew there was a problem with “Oswald’s” Ping-Tung/Atsugi timeline.  Blakey wrote a long letter to Secretary of Defense Harold Brown which included the following (documents below):

2.  During which periods was Oswald separated from his units overseas because of hospitalization.

Oswald’s health records reflect that he was sent “to mainside for a smear” on September 16, 1958.  (See Warren Commission Vol 19, p. 603; see also Vol. 8, p. 313.) But other records reveal that Oswald’s unit, MAG 11, sailed from Yokosuka, Japan, on September 16, 1958, for the South China Sea area, and did not return to Japan until October 5, 1958.   (See Warren Commission Vol. 23, p. 797; see also Warren Report, p. 684.)

Judith Miller from the Office of the Secretary of Defense wrote back as follows:

Oswald did not set sail from Yokosuka, Japan on September 16, 1958.  He remained aboard NAS Atsugi as part of the MAG-11 rear echelon.

It is true that Marine records indicate Oswald did not set sail on the USS Skagit on September 16, 1958 as Blakey (deliberately?) incorrectly asked, but on  Aug 29, 1958 (thanks Tom Gram!).

The Sec Def’s additional response that Oswald “remained aboard NAS Atsugi as part of the MAG-11 rear echelon” seems to imply that he never went to Taiwan.  But there is considerable evidence that he did, extending beyond the Marine Corps unit diaries and including written reports of interviews with Oswald as well as his own alleged words and Marguerite’s testimony.

If the one-and-only Lee Harvey Oswald’s Taiwan trip extended from Aug 29 to October 5, 1958, how on earth was he treated all those times in September at the Navy hospital at Atsugi, Japan?

PS: Thanks to Denny for the kind words.

Why not by military transport (aircraft)? At 400 mph, that is a three-hour trip. 

Do you suspect there were two LHOs in the military service, in close proximity to each other, in 1958?

 

[Jim Hargrove]

1 hour ago, Benjamin Cole said:

Why not by military transport (aircraft)? At 400 mph, that is a three-hour trip. 

Do you suspect there were two LHOs in the military service, in close proximity to each other, in 1958?

YES!  ABSOLUTELY! THEY NEEDED TO HAVE IDENTICAL BACKGROUNDS!

One LHO, probably a Russian speaking WWII war orphan, was named Harvey Lee Oswald; the other, an American born southerner, was named Lee Harvey Oswald.  I think the "Oswald Project" was an entirely patriotic operation designed to place a Russian-speaking "American" youth into the USSR, which is EXACTLY what happened in 1959. This was the height of the Cold War.  Three years later, in 1963, tragically, the Oswald Project was taken over by snakes organized to assassinate JFK, cover it up, and blame it on Communist Cuba!  Three or four of these snakes were in the CIA, I think.

[Sandy Larsen]

12 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

Far-fetched claims are not necessarily wrong, but they do require a higher level of proof than claims which are not far-fetched.

 

And yet you advocate for shutting down every one one of those claims by shaming people into not participating for fear of being made fun of.

You not only advocate that... you do it.

If, on the other hand, people are free to argue for and against unusual claims, the evidence will either save the claim or will be its downfall. That is the honest, evil-free approach to handling unusual claims.

 

[Sandy Larsen]

59 minutes ago, Jim Hargrove said:

One LHO, probably a Russian speaking WWII war orphan, was named Harvey Lee Oswald; the other, an American born southerner, was named Lee Harvey Oswald.  I think the "Oswald Project" was an entirely patriotic operation designed to place a Russian-speaking "American" youth into the USSR, which is EXACTLY what happened in 1959.

 

Lest anybody wonder, Jim didn't just pull this stuff out of thin air. It is all backed up by evidence.

 

[Benjamin Cole]

3 hours ago, Jim Hargrove said:

YES!  ABSOLUTELY! THEY NEEDED TO HAVE IDENTICAL BACKGROUNDS!

One LHO, probably a Russian speaking WWII war orphan, was named Harvey Lee Oswald; the other, an American born southerner, was named Lee Harvey Oswald.  I think the "Oswald Project" was an entirely patriotic operation designed to place a Russian-speaking "American" youth into the USSR, which is EXACTLY what happened in 1959. This was the height of the Cold War.  Three years later, in 1963, tragically, the Oswald Project was taken over by snakes organized to assassinate JFK, cover it up, and blame it on Communist Cuba!  Three or four of these snakes were in the CIA, I think.

Do you have any accounts of people simultaneously seeing or meeting both HLO/LHOs? 

That is, the two were seen together in the same room?

Or somebody said, "Oh, he must one of the Oswald twins."

[Paul Rigby]

4 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

And yet you advocate for shutting down every one one of those claims by shaming people into not participating for fear of being made fun of.

You not only advocate that... you do it.

If, on the other hand, people are free to argue for and against unusual claims, the evidence will either save the claim or will be its downfall. That is the honest, evil-free approach to handling unusual claims.

 

We welcome the views of others. We seek a free flow of information across national boundaries and oceans, across iron curtains and stone walls. We are not afraid to entrust the American people with unpleasant facts, foreign ideas, alien philosophies, and competitive values. For a nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people.

John F. Kennedy: "Remarks on the 20th Anniversary of the Voice of America.," February 26, 1962.

 

[Benjamin Cole]

https://vixra.org/pdf/1401.0114v1.pdf

I posted this a while back. I was asked if I actually believed it. 

Having tried to read it (I would say there was no editing), I would say there is grist for the mill there, but I am not sure what. 

E Howard Hunt was very tied into the Mormon Mafia, and so was the CIA. 

Supposedly Tosh Plumlee was an asset of the Mormon mafia. 

Rob Reiner is the latest to give credence to Tosh Plumlee. 

So what make the Mormon Mafia explanation of the JFKA not worthy, but the two LHOs tale worthy? 

 

[Jeremy Bojczuk]

Sandy Larsen writes:

Quote

you advocate for shutting down every one one of those [far-fetched] claims

I don't "advocate for shutting down ... claims", if you mean demanding that such claims not be discussed. I advocate for people who make far-fetched claims being obliged to provide sufficient evidence to justify those claims.

The examples I've mentioned (presidential body-snatching squads, mass alteration of films and photos, long-term doppelgänger projects, etc) are inherently far-fetched and have been supported up to now by insufficient evidence. Those claims remain far-fetched and unworthy of belief, even when they are repeated over and over again. Especially when they are repeated over and over again.

I think it's reasonable to point out this fact, and the fact that such far-fetched claims risk making rational critics of the lone-nut dogma look like idiots by association, which isn't a good thing for anyone who wants to get the case resolved.

The original point I made here and in the other thread concerned a definition of 'far-fetched'. Would Sandy agree with me that we should adopt the viewpoint of a reasonable, intelligent member of the public who has no preconceived ideas about the assassination? If not, how would Sandy define the term?

[Jim Hargrove]

9 hours ago, Benjamin Cole said:

Do you have any accounts of people simultaneously seeing or meeting both HLO/LHOs? 

That is, the two were seen together in the same room?

Or somebody said, "Oh, he must one of the Oswald twins."

We think there were quite a few people who knew both Oswalds, a condition which seemed to be extremely bad for their healths.  One critical witness was Ed Voebel, who knew Harvey in the 8th grade and Lee in the 9th at Beauregard JHS in New Orleans.

If you want to understand John A’s extended take on Voebel, go to this page, search for Voebel, and read the paragraphs that mention him:

https://harveyandlee.net/Early/Early.html

Ed Voebel died at the Ochsner Clinic in New Orleans in May 1971 at the age of 32.  Voebel's father said that his son, healthy one day and dead the following day, died under mysterious circumstances.  He told the House Select Committee on Assassinations that he thought his son's death had something to do with Oswald and the JFK assassination, but he had no proof.  

[Sandy Larsen]

12 hours ago, Paul Rigby said:

We welcome the views of others. We seek a free flow of information across national boundaries and oceans, across iron curtains and stone walls. We are not afraid to entrust the American people with unpleasant facts, foreign ideas, alien philosophies, and competitive values. For a nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people.

John F. Kennedy: "Remarks on the 20th Anniversary of the Voice of America.," February 26, 1962.

 

Wow, what an apropos quotation. Thanks for posting it, Paul.