Jump to content
The Education Forum

Scintilla


Recommended Posts

This is the final slide of my presentation, reproduced here for the benefit of anyone subscribing to the absolute fiction espoused by Hoover/Specter/Posner/Jennings that there is not one scintiilla of evidence indicating anyone other than Oswald was involved.

Scintilla

In conclusion, I should make clear I don’t pretend to know who killed Kennedy, only that the evidence suggests he was murdered by a conspiracy. The decision within the Johnson Administration to shut down independent inquiry and staunchly defend the flawed conclusions of the Warren Commission does not in itself prove that anyone within the administration was involved in the murder itself, or was deliberately covering up a conspiracy. When one studies Lyndon Johnson and the history of the Vietnam War, in fact, one finds that Johnson’s behavior was such that he would worry out loud to his advisers to such an extent that they would become uncomfortable, and tell him what they thought he wanted to hear, and not necessarily what he needed to hear. Some believe this was a deliberate tactic of Johnson’s designed to get others to back him up on controversial decisions, as he would often turn around and use what amounted to a capitulation on the part of one of his advisers to get others to capitulate as well, saying “I’m just a poor old country schoolteacher, but Walt Rostow’s from Harvard, and he says we oughta bomb that country into the stone age, etc.” (Not actual quotes, as far as I know.) Anyhow, it certainly seems plausible that this may have been a factor in the assassination investigation as well; men like Assistant Attorney General Katzenbach, FBI Director Hoover, and even Chief Justice Earl Warren may very well have taken from Johnson that he’d be much more comfortable if the investigation didn’t really dig too deep, and that he (the President) felt this would be the best course of action for the country, for national security purposes, etc. This may not have been Johnson’s overtly expressed desire. The Watergate burglary and the Iran/Contra scandals are perfect examples of crimes committed and covered up in the President’s name, without the President’s full knowledge beforehand. Irregardless, it took the United States 90 years to correct its official view on slavery; one can only hope the government’s forthcoming admission it erred on the Kennedy assassination will not take as long.

But in the meantime, I’m hopeful I’ve been able to show those who habitually claim there’s just not one “scintilla” of evidence for a conspiracy that there is, in fact, a whole boatload of scintillas. No, scratch that, a flotilla of scintillas. If nothing else, I pray my efforts have lessened the chances of anyone taking the “not one scintilla” argument seriously. In Latin, scintilla means spark. If the evidence in this presentation has sparked your imagination, then you should conclude there is a scintilla of evidence.

For those of you still in denial, in this presentation, it has been demonstrated that:

1. There was a verifiable lack of interest by the FBI in uncovering the facts of Kennedy’s autopsy.

2. The drawings prepared by the autopsy doctors and presented in their Warren Commission testimony ignored their own measurements of the President’s wound locations and presented a grossly distorted picture of his wounds. During his testimony, Dr. Humes lied about the use of the measurements in creating these drawings.

3. There was a verifiable lack of interest on the part of the Warren Commission in determining the facts of the President’s wounds, and how these related to the possibility of conspiracy.

4. The re-enactment on May 24, 1964 was deliberately not as accurate as it could have been, in ways that indicate it was designed not to uncover the likelihood of the single-bullet theory, but merely whether it was remotely possible.

5. A report was created in 1967 that verifiably misrepresented the autopsy photos of the President at the very time CBS News was pressuring the administration to create a report confirming that these photographs supported the conclusions of the Warren Commission.

6. A similar report was created in 1968, and released in the final days of the Johnson Administration. This report is verifiably false in its defense of the single-bullet theory. Its re-appraisal of the President’s head wounds is also in conflict with the autopsy photos on the internet.

7. This incorrect appraisal of the head wound was seconded by the HSCA Forensic Pathology Panel in 1979. To support their conclusions a number of contradictory exhibits were presented.

8. Dr. Michael Baden presented an important exhibit to the HSCA upside down. He made statements in his testimony that, when compared to the pathology report created by his panel, reflected his total confusion about Kennedy’s head wounds. He also lied in his testimony about the nature of the skull exit observed at the autopsy.

9. The enhanced x-rays as presented by the HSCA were cropped in a suspicious manner, with an area of supreme interest in the un-enhanced x-ray, the occipital region, deliberately left off.

10. The interpretations of the autopsy photos and x-rays by the HSCA’s various panels and consultants were frequently in disagreement with each other. The committee for the most part ignored these conflicts, and presented the reports of the consultants as if they had all been accepted by the committee. While this may have spared the doctors some embarrassment, it left an extremely confusing public record..

11. The x-rays as presented included fractures and fragments that were in conflict with the HSCA’s conclusions on the head wounds. While some of these items of interest were acknowledged by the HSCA’s radiology consultants, they were left unexplained by the pathology panel.

12. The HSCA’s trajectory analysis presented verifiably false depictions of both Governor Connally’s position in the car at Zapruder frame 190, and President Kennedy’s posture at frame 313. These false representations supported the committee’s conclusions on the single-bullet theory and its assertion that Oswald fired all the bullets striking Kennedy.

13. The conclusions of the bullet lead analysis performed on behalf of the HSCA were almost certainly false and were undoubtedly in conflict with the earlier writings of its author. These conclusions were also in conflict with the guidelines of the FBI in place at that time.

14. The exhibit titles and testimony of the HSCA’s ballistics expert were changed in such a manner as to disguise that he'd been studying the wound ballistics of subsonic ammunition. This was probably done on purpose and without his knowledge.

15. The single-bullet theory simulations and recreations shown on TV have all been deceptive in one way or another. None of them present the proportions of Kennedy and the locations of his wounds accurately. They are quite often deceptive about Connally’s position in the limousine as well. Even worse, neither the Warren Commission, nor any of the subsequent medical panels, nor any of the television programs defending the single-bullet theory, have demonstrated the internal passage of the magic bullet through Kennedy and, specifically, how this bullet evaded bone.

16. The autopsy photos and x-rays available on the internet, whose authenticity has been acknowledged by a number of men who’ve inspected the originals, reveal an entrance on the skull right where the autopsy doctors said it was. I am at a loss to explain why so many men who’ve viewed the originals of these photos and x-rays, lone-nut theorist and conspiracy theorist alike, including the autopsy doctors themselves, have failed to notice this entrance. If this failure is due purely to human error, then perhaps many of the suspicious “mistakes” listed above are not so suspicious at all. Perhaps the level of competence we expect from our “experts” is simply unrealistic. Or perhaps I am simply wrong in my appraisal of these photos and x-rays.

But am I wrong about all of this?

Edited by Pat Speer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is the final slide of my presentation, reproduced here for the benefit of anyone subscribing to the absolute fiction espoused by Hoover/Specter/Posner/Jennings that there is not one scintiilla of evidence indicating any but Oswald was involved.

Scintilla

In conclusion, I should make clear I don’t pretend to know who killed Kennedy, only that the evidence suggests he was murdered by a conspiracy. The decision within the Johnson Administration to shut down independent inquiry and staunchly defend the flawed conclusions of the Warren Commission does not in itself prove that anyone within the administration was involved in the murder itself, or was deliberately covering up a conspiracy. When one studies Lyndon Johnson and the history of the Vietnam War, in fact, one finds that Johnson’s behavior was such that he would worry out loud to his advisers to such an extent that they would become uncomfortable, and tell him what they thought he wanted to hear, and not necessarily what he needed to hear. Some believe this was a deliberate tactic of Johnson’s designed to get others to back him up on controversial decisions, as he would often turn around and use what amounted to a capitulation on the part of one of his advisers to get others to capitulate as well, saying “I’m just a poor old country schoolteacher, but Walt Rostow’s from Harvard, and he says we oughta bomb that country into the stone age, etc.” (Not actual quotes, as far as I know.) Anyhow, it certainly seems plausible that this may have been a factor in the assassination investigation as well; men like Assistant Attorney General Katzenbach, FBI Director Hoover, and even Chief Justice Earl Warren may very well have taken from Johnson that he’d be much more comfortable if the investigation didn’t really dig too deep, and that he (the President) felt this would be the best course of action for the country, for national security purposes, etc. This may not have been Johnson’s overtly expressed desire. The Watergate burglary and the Iran/Contra scandals are perfect examples of crimes committed and covered up in the President’s name, without the President’s full knowledge beforehand. Irregardless, it took the United States 90 years to correct its official view on slavery; one can only hope the government’s forthcoming admission it erred on the Kennedy assassination will not take as long.

But in the meantime, I’m hopeful I’ve been able to show those who habitually claim there’s just not one “scintilla” of evidence for a conspiracy that there is, in fact, a whole boatload of scintillas. No, scratch that, a flotilla of scintillas. If nothing else, I pray my efforts have lessened the chances of anyone taking the “not one scintilla” argument seriously. In Latin, scintilla means spark. If the evidence in this presentation has sparked your imagination, then you should conclude there is a scintilla of evidence.

For those of you still in denial, in this presentation, it has been demonstrated that:

1. There was a verifiable lack of interest by the FBI in uncovering the facts of Kennedy’s autopsy.

2. The drawings prepared by the autopsy doctors and presented in their Warren Commission testimony ignored their own measurements of the President’s wound locations and presented a grossly distorted picture of his wounds. During his testimony, Dr. Humes lied about the use of the measurements in creating these drawings.

3. There was a verifiable lack of interest on the part of the Warren Commission in determining the facts of the President’s wounds, and how these related to the possibility of conspiracy.

4. The re-enactment on May 24, 1964 was deliberately not as accurate as it could have been, in ways that indicate it was designed not to uncover the likelihood of the single-bullet theory, but merely whether it was remotely possible.

5. A report was created in 1967 that verifiably misrepresented the autopsy photos of the President at the very time CBS News was pressuring the administration to create a report confirming that these photographs supported the conclusions of the Warren Commission.

6. A similar report was created in 1968, and released in the final days of the Johnson Administration. This report is verifiably false in its defense of the single-bullet theory. Its re-appraisal of the President’s head wounds is also in conflict with the autopsy photos on the internet.

7. This incorrect appraisal of the head wound was seconded by the HSCA Forensic Pathology Panel in 1979. To support their conclusions a number of contradictory exhibits were presented.

8. Dr. Michael Baden presented an important exhibit to the HSCA upside down. He made statements in his testimony that, when compared to the pathology report created by his panel, reflected his total confusion about Kennedy’s head wounds. He also lied in his testimony about the nature of the skull exit observed at the autopsy.

9. The enhanced x-rays as presented by the HSCA were cropped in a suspicious manner, with an area of supreme interest in the un-enhanced x-ray, the occipital region, deliberately left off.

10. The interpretations of the autopsy photos and x-rays by the HSCA’s various panels and consultants were frequently in disagreement with each other. The committee for the most part ignored these conflicts, and presented the reports of the consultants as if they had all been accepted by the committee. While this may have spared the doctors some embarrassment, it left an extremely confusing public record..

11. The x-rays as presented included fractures and fragments that were in conflict with the HSCA’s conclusions on the head wounds. While some of these items of interest were acknowledged by the HSCA’s radiology consultants, they were left unexplained by the pathology panel.

12. The HSCA’s trajectory analysis presented verifiably false depictions of both Governor Connally’s position in the car at Zapruder frame 190, and President Kennedy’s posture at frame 313. These false representations supported the committee’s conclusions on the single-bullet theory and its assertion that Oswald fired all the bullets striking Kennedy.

13. The conclusions of the bullet lead analysis performed on behalf of the HSCA were almost certainly false and were undoubtedly in conflict with the earlier writings of its author. These conclusions were also in conflict with the guidelines of the FBI in place at that time.

14. The exhibit titles and testimony of the HSCA’s ballistics expert were changed in such a manner as to disguise that he'd been studying the wound ballistics of subsonic ammunition. This was probably done on purpose and without his knowledge.

15. The single-bullet theory simulations and recreations shown on TV have all been deceptive in one way or another. None of them present the proportions of Kennedy and the locations of his wounds accurately. They are quite often deceptive about Connally’s position in the limousine as well. Even worse, neither the Warren Commission, nor any of the subsequent medical panels, nor any of the television programs defending the single-bullet theory, have demonstrated the internal passage of the magic bullet through Kennedy and, specifically, how this bullet evaded bone.

16. The autopsy photos and x-rays available on the internet, whose authenticity has been acknowledged by a number of men who’ve inspected the originals, reveal an entrance on the skull right where the autopsy doctors said it was. I am at a loss to explain why so many men who’ve viewed the originals of these photos and x-rays, lone-nut theorist and conspiracy theorist alike, including the autopsy doctors themselves, have failed to notice this entrance. If this failure is due purely to human error, then perhaps many of the suspicious “mistakes” listed above are not so suspicious at all. Perhaps the level of competence we expect from our “experts” is simply unrealistic. Or perhaps I am simply wrong in my appraisal of these photos and x-rays.

But am I wrong about all of this?

But am I wrong about all of this?

Although neither Valedictorian nor Salutatorian, you have nevertheless graduated with "High Honors" in evaluation of many aspects of the obfuscation of the facts of the assassination.

And, if and when you (& others as well) cease to think in terms of multiple assassins and conspiracy in the actual assassination by any members of the US Government, then perhaps much of your questions will be answered.

1. There was a "LONE ASSASSIN".

And, to a relative high degree of probability, this assassin was in fact Lee Harvey Oswald!

2. There was, by all available evidence, a CONSPIRACY to assassinate.

And, to a relatively high degree of probability, this conspiracy centered around the issues of Civil Rights and loss of monies and property, primarily in Cuba. As well as the potentially feelings of "betrayal" in regards to the Bay of Pigs episode.

3. The WC is an absolute and intentional MISREPRESENTATION (aka lie) in presentation of the facts of the assassination.

And, since the WC was in fact a "Political Entity", then perhaps one should look for a "Political" answer as to why they may misrepresent various aspects of the facts of the assassination.

4. The WC misrepresentation/lie has nothing to do with the potential conspiracy to assassinate.

Different diseases often display different symptoms, and one must often isolate each and every indicator in order to know exactly what variety of diseases exist.

a. Conspiracy to assassinate.--------------------------------------See Lee Harvey Oswald

b. Conspiracy to assassinate the assassin.-----------------------See Jack Ruby

c. Conspiracy to obscure the facts of the assassination.--------See Warren Commission

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tom, I must admit a fascination with your scenario. John Canal's as well. You both believe that Oswald acted alone, but that the government told a bunch of lies and blew a bunch of smoke anyhow. If you could please refresh my memory as to why the WC did this, I'd appreciate it. Was it to cover up that Oswald had a motive? Canal, if memory serves, believes Oswald acted alone but the Government didn't believe it, and created a bunch of fake evidence even though they didn't need to. Why, in your opinion, did they find it necessary to tell so many lies, and refuse to look at the autopsy photos, etc? Who benefitted from their lack of action?

Edited by Pat Speer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pat,

I've never understood how Tom could adopt these two seemingly incompatible scenarios of lone assassin and subseguent WC obfuscation and present them as a cohesive argument. But I'm not a genius like Tom.

Great post. I ,too, have become decidedly scintilla averse. "There's not one scintilla of evidence" always sets off alarm bells. Tim used to say that. :D:D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pat,

I've never understood how Tom could adopt these two seemingly incompatible scenarios of lone assassin and subseguent WC obfuscation and present them as a cohesive argument. But I'm not a genius like Tom.

Great post. I ,too, have become decidedly scintilla averse. "There's not one scintilla of evidence" always sets off alarm bells. Tim used to say that. :D:D

Excellent summation of the evidence in ths case Pat. I too would like to see an explanation from our resident lone nutters - Tom and Slattery- as to how to reconcile these many contradictions.

Without resorting name calling, which Mr. Slattery seems unable to do.

By the way BS, I stand by those remarks I wrote and you re- posted. Last time I checked I still had some 1st amendment rights left- of free speech, at least. And our freedoms have eroded under this administration FAR worse than any prior to it. You pretend not to notice, but probably more likely is that you simply do not care.

But if YOU were locked up and not told why, given no right to an attorney, for several YEARS, and were forced to submit to torture, having no idea when, or even IF , you would ever have your day in court, I daresay you'd THEN care. With people like you it takes actually experiencing what is occurring under this administration to finally GET IT.

Dawn

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tom, I must admit a fascination with your scenario. John Canal's as well. You both believe that Oswald acted alone, but that the government told a bunch of lies and blew a bunch of smoke anyhow. If you could please refresh my memory as to why the WC did this, I'd appreciate it. Was it to cover up that Oswald had a motive? Canal, if memory serves, believes Oswald acted alone but the Government didn't believe it, and created a bunch of fake evidence even though they didn't need to. Why, in your opinion, did they find it necessary to tell so many lies, and refuse to look at the autopsy photos, etc? Who benefitted from their lack of action?

>>>1. There was a "LONE ASSASSIN".

And, to a relative high degree of probability, this assassin was in fact Lee Harvey Oswald!<<<

"A" LONE ASSASSIN (SHOOTER) Semantics and Circumstance.

1) An assassin working alone. No other shooters. Therefore also 'the' lone assassin.

2) An assassin working alone. Other known or unknown shooter/s, whether lone shooter/s or part of a group.

"THE" LONE ASSASSIN

1) As (1) above.

2) As (2) above, as long as other shooter or shooters, known or unknown, are part of group or groups.

>>>2. There was, by all available evidence, a CONSPIRACY to assassinate.

And, to a relatively high degree of probability, this conspiracy centered around the issues of Civil Rights and loss of monies and property, primarily in Cuba. As well as the potentially feelings of "betrayal" in regards to the Bay of Pigs episode.<<<

CONSPIRACY (Conspire - To Breath Together)

1) Mind controlled (by others) shooter believing he's doing 'this' all by himself. (One-sided conspiracy)

2) Anything other than a single shooter or multiple single shooters each believing working alone.

"A/THE" LONE ASSASSIN AND CONSPIRACY

This gets too wordy so just connect the above things together to cause the semantic and circumstantial confusion that is there.

ST

Edited by Steven Tomlinson
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...