Jump to content
The Education Forum

Conspiracy Theorists v Lone Nutters


John Simkin
 Share

Recommended Posts

David G. Healy started an interesting thread a week ago but once again the Lone Nutters resorted to using abuse instead of answering the question posed. I have re-posted it in an effort to get the LNs to address this issue:

A JFK researcher from a USNET group has put together a group of questions ANY WCR/evidence familiar Lone Nutter SHOULD be able to answer. It's amazing, card carrying Lone Nutter's have refused to come to terms with these SIMPLE questions.

LNT'ers rarely know the evidence as well as CT'ers, since LNT'ers don't even believe that the eyewitnesses knew what they were talking about... so they often don't even bother to study the evidence in this cas. XXXXXXX has implied that he knows the evidence... let's see if he does...

(Of course, XXXXXXXX, like many of these trolls, has disappeared... let's see if "XXXXXXXXXXX" can take a stab at any of this... XXX XXXXXX, who *originally* got these questions, has been running ever since.)

Just for the fun of it, these questions should be easy to answer for someone who both knows the evidence, and can support the WCR, refuting us poor CT'ers:

(1) Why was the closest police eyewitness to the murder - who just coincidently would have testified in contradiction to the SBT, never questioned by the FBI or Warren Commission prior to the release of the WCR?

(2) Why were the NAA results buried by the WC?

(3) Why were the test results of firing a rifle at Oak Ridge buried, and are still denied by most LNT'ers today?

(4) Why was a ballistics expert hired by the WC fired when he refused to endorse their theory?

(5) Why did the FBI engage in a pattern of eyewitness intimidation to get the statements they wanted?

(6) What is the 6.5mm virtually round object that no-one saw in the AP X-ray on the night of the Autopsy... and why was everyone so blind on the night of the autopsy?

(7) How can a bullet transit without breaking the spine, as has been conclusively demonstrated with CAT scans?

(8) Why was dissection of the bullet track, and neck wound, forbidden to the prosectors? Why were they allowed to dissect the chest incisions, which were clearly *not* bullet wounds, but not allowed to dissect the bullet wounds?

(9) Why have photographs and X-rays disappeared out of the inventory? Only the govenment had control of them...

(10) Why did the CIA have a program of harrassment of CT authors, and why did they actively promote the WCR through their friendly news contacts?

(11) Why did the Secret Service remove the limo from the jurisdiction of the DPD? Perhaps an argument can be made for removing JFK's body - as Johnson needed Jackie with him to provide an aura of legitimacy, but there was *NO* valid reason to remove the scene of the crime from Dallas - or was there? Can you provide it?

(12) Why is there no 'chain of evidence' on so much of the evidence in this case? CE399, for example, almost no-one who originally handled it will identify it.

(13) Why did the FBI seem so insistent on erasing the record of a Minox camera owned by LHO?

(14) Why were military intelligence files on LHO never released... even to government investigators?

(15) Why did both the WC and HSCA find it necessary to *LIE* about their own collected evidence in order to support their conclusions? In the case of the HSCA, it's not even disputable - they lied blatantly about the medical testimony... why??

(16) Why have so many *new* "scientific" theories been developed for this case? Never before heard - such as the "jet effect" and "eyewitness unreliability" and "photographs trump eyewitnesses"?

(17) Why does Altgens show Chaney in a position that he's *never* seen in the extant Z-film?

(18) How is it possible to not have a "first frame flash" at Z-133, as the engineers who designed the camera assert must happen?

(19) Why do *dozen's* of eyewitnesses agree on a slowdown or stop of the limo, yet we can't see it in the Z-film?

(20) Why do *dozens* of eyewitnesses agree with each other on the location of the large wound on the back of JFK's head, in contradiction to the BOH photo?

(21) Why does the Autopsy Report contradict the BOH photo?

These questions should keep an *honest* person busy for quite some time... a dishonest xxxxx, on the other hand...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 73
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

(22) Why did the CIA not open a 201 file on Lee Harvey Oswald when on 31st October, 1959, Richard Snyder informing the CIA that Oswald was threatening to reveal radar secrets to the Soviets. According to the CIA the 206 file was not created until December 1960.

(23) Why did the US State Department provide funds that enabled Oswald to get back to the United States in June, 1962?

(24) Why did the CIA destroy all the documents in Oswald's 206 file. According to Richard Helms “none of these documents were classified higher than confidential” and that “because document dissemination records of a relatively low national security interest are retained for only a 5-year period, they were no longer in existence for the years 1959 to 63.” We now know this was a lie as some of these documents have emerged since the passing of the JFK Act. This includes three documents dated before the 201 file was opened in December 1960.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am reluctant to start writing because I don't have adequate time to address this properly this morning. I will limit myself to a couple of questions regarding some of the manipulation in which the W.C. engaged.

(26) Why was Jack Ruby "refused" his request to be taken to D.C. to testify? Particularly since he mentioned that he had much information to offer, but for fear for his life, he would not offer this Testimony while still in Texas. He literally "BEGGED" to testify and was immediately refused by the "head man". He was even so advised by none other than the Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, that if Mr. Ruby really feared for his life that he advised him "not to say anything" ! The Chief Justice actually advised Jack Ruby, arguably the most important witness in this case, to "not testify" ! Would anyone venture a guess as to the WHY of this ?

(27) Why were two witnesses who were within a few feet of the autopsy table, and who were the most highly qualified persons in crime investigation present at the autopsy, and who were there for the "purpose only" of documenting this procedure, not called to testify ? SA's Seibert & Oneil of the FBI !

(28) Why would the President's physician, Admiral Burkely, who was present at both the Parkland Trauma Center and the Bethesda autopsy not called to testify. A person most familiar with both the appearance and health of JFK ? His "expert" testimony could have cleared tha air of any questions regarding the reported appearance of Kennedy's wounds at Parkland and their appearance at Bethesda. It would have cleared all questions involving the alleged autopsy photos presented as

evidence that were claimed to be JFK at Bethesda ?

These three little questions can have but one realistic answer to anyone not trying in vain to argue the government position !

Regardless of where one stands on this matter...... the truth is that these witnesses were "purposely not called". There can be no other reason when one takes the time to merely glance at the list of witnesses who did appear.

This isn't a question for "Rocket Scientists" !

Does any L.N. or single assassinist have an answer that could be believed by any open minded person of average intelligence?

You folks become scarce when faced with the very obvious truths !

Charlie Black

Link to comment
Share on other sites

(29) When JFK was assassinated John Moss Whitten was initially given the job of the CIA investigation into Lee Harvey Oswald. After interviewing Winston Scott, the CIA station chief in Mexico City, Whitten discovered that Lee Harvey Oswald had been photographed at the Cuban consulate in early October, 1963. Scott had not reported this matter to Whitten, his boss, at the time. Nor had Scott told Whitten that Oswald had also visited the Soviet Embassy in Mexico. Why?

(30) Whitten and his staff of 30 officers, were sent a large amount of information from the FBI. According to Gerald D. McKnight "the FBI deluged his branch with thousands of reports containing bits and fragments of witness testimony that required laborious and time-consuming name checks." On 6th December, Nicholas Katzenbach invited John Whitten to read Commission Document 1 (CD1), the report that the FBI had written on Lee Harvey Oswald. Whitten now realized that the FBI had been withholding important information on Oswald from him. He also discovered that Richard Helms had not been providing him all of the agency's available files on Oswald. This included Oswald's political activities in the months preceding the assassination. When Whitten complained to Richard Helms about this, he was taken off the case and the job was given to James Jesus Angleton, chief of the CIA's Counterintelligence Branch, was now put in charge of the investigation. Why?

(31) On 16th May, 1978, Whitten appeared before the HSCA. Whitten said that if he had been allowed to continue with the investigation he would have sought out what was going on at JM/WAVE. This would have involved the questioning of Ted Shackley, David Sanchez Morales, Carl E. Jenkins, Rip Robertson, George Joannides, Gordon Campbell and Thomas G. Clines. As Jefferson Morley has pointed out in The Good Spy: "Had Whitten been permitted to follow these leads to their logical conclusions, and had that information been included in the Warren Commission report, that report would have enjoyed more credibility with the public. Instead, Whitten's secret testimony strengthened the HSCA's scathing critique of the C.I.A.'s half-hearted investigation of Oswald. The HSCA concluded that Kennedy had been killed by Oswald and unidentifiable co-conspirators." Why was the CIA so keen that Whitten did not investigate what was going on at JM/WAVE.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

John,

It should be noted that there are those on this forum who label anyone who questions or does not believe photo/film alteration theory a "lone nutter." This line of logic is a fallacy (not too dissimilar from "you're either with us or against us"). It is entirely possible to be both a conspiracy theorist AND to believe that the photographic / filmographic record is intact.

I am certainly in the "undecided/questioning" camp, yet firmly believe that a conspiracy took place.

My addition to this list:

(32) How was LHO able to correctly identify the parties who were standing in front of the TSBD just moments before the shooting if he was, as the WC states, on the sixth floor preparing to fire a rifle? Correct identification points more toward the veracity of the "in the lunchroom having a coke" statement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

(33) Why did the SS destroy all the motorcade records?.

(34) Why did the CIA retain no less than 16 file drawers of Kennedy assassination ducuments not viewed by anyone outside the agency.. including the WC and HSCA.

(35) Why did the CIA not only have a program of the harassment of CT authors, but also classify Top Secret, their efforts, to also use the CIA assets within the newsmedia... against Jim Garrison in 1968, and Oliver Stone in 1991..

(36) Why did then Congressman Gerald Ford, move the head wound incorrectly, 4 inches lower than the point of entry..

(37) Why is there a document stating that the body was removed from a metal shipping casket at Bethesda..

(38) Why was Dr. G. G. Burkley not called by the ARRB when offering his testimony, and that he had information to give them..

(39) Why did the WC classify transcripts, when it had no such authority of the proceedings, "Secret" except when it classified them "Top Secret".

(40) When proceedings were leaked why was it almost always done in the form of "authorized leaks" of information planted in the media by either the Commission or the FBI, to prepare the public for the eventual release of the official explanation "One, Lee Harvey Oswald" , lone assassin.

(41) Why did only 11% of the 912 page report the alleged facts of the assassination.

(42) Why did President L.B Johnson, approve that the FBI make a report showing the evidence conclusively tie Oswald as the assailant of President Kennedy..The President and Hoover agreeing, that be the official solution of the crime before any evidence was tested, any witness questioned, or JFK buried.

(43) Why on Sunday the 24th did LBJ tell Hoover he wanted a report on his desk by Tues, Nov, 26th, Hoover agreeing to the timetable and ordering the bureau's General Invetsigative Division to wrap up the investigation.

(44) Why did several days after the assn the CIA receive from the SS a copy of the Zapruder film... for which they received an analysis of the film from the agency's Nat. Photographic Intel Center (NPIC) Washington.. The center's interpretation coming to the conclusion, that 1. the first shot had not come from the TSB Snipers nest..and 2..there had been at Least two gunmen in Dealey Plaza..But the results being suppressed..

(45) Why when the CIA uncovered critical evidence in the assassination before the Governments official version was agreed upon....and before President Johnson appointed the WC..and after the SS turned over a copy of the Zapruder film to the CIA, and the NPIC had completed it's analysis, that it had discovered that the first shot, accoridng to the film, had come before Zapruder frame #210....and a second shot at frame # 242..just 1.6 seconds after the first shot.The FBI and Rankin and staff suppressed the findings of the Bureau's photo interpretation of Zapruder's film. It is not certain whether McCone or Helms ever shared with the Commission the NPIC's analysis of the Zapruder film. What the record does show is that the FBI and CIA colluded in the fabrication of a story that the CIA never received a copy of the Zapruder film..until Dec.1964..after the Commission disbanded Hoover told Rankin that in Dec. 64 the CIA requested a copy of the film for training purposes.

(46) Why fifteen years after the autopsy of President Kennedy did a government report reveal that the autopsy had been incompetently conducted, full of gross errors and failures to carry out standard forensic procedures in the investigation of an "unatural" violent death..

(47) Why were the Doctors at Bethesda prevented from examining JFK's clothing by a superior officer..

(48) Why was the autopsy performed at Bethesda which was not fully equipped to do a flawless autopsy upon the Presdident, it being mainly a training school for technologists..

(49) Why was it allowed that at least 24 onlookers almost all ranking military, as well as overcrowding, and continual background noise, interfere with the pathologists work allowed... why was not one of 5 outstanding qualified and experienced forensic experts within one hours flying time of Bethesday, not called in.

(50) Why was the autopsy first draft and autopsy notes destroyed by Dr.Humes... and why is the chain of those autopsy notes a mystery.

(51) Why did the WC suppress , deliberately JFK's death certificate from it's published records because it was destructive of the official explanation of the crime...

(52) Why were there 7 changes of fact about the head wound.

(53) Why did the ARRB hide the fact that more than 70% pf the facts and statements in the final autopsy draft do not appear in any published government records.

(54) Why is the story that Robert Kennedy had denied the WC the autopsy and X-ray photos a lie. These lies, misinformation and blaming the victim’s family, was so unpalatable to even J.Edgar Hoover… that he noted on an FBI memo.. ”The confusion…would never have occurred if we had obtained the autopsy report originally. The Kennedys never asked us to withhold it and if they had we should have disgarded it.”

(55) Why------was John F .Kennedy’s death certificate---signed by Dr. G. Burkley treated as such...

The death certificate sheet headed by the words “summary of the facts related to death “-----Places the President Kennedy’s non-fatal back wound “ in the posterior back at about the level of the Third thoracic vertebrae …Recall that Dr.Burkley wrote the death certificate a day before he had received the Bethesda autopsy report..along with the six copies, before the assassination accounting was manipulated and settled upon….Burkley’s positioning of the Rear Head Wound in the Death Certificate was and is consistent with the Parkland Doctors and Nurses reports of said wounds, along with the Dallas Inquest Report signed on Nov.22/63…the press meeting announcement at Parkland as well as the 15 Doctors,3 Surgery Traumatic Nurses ,Television, radio newspaper reports, eye witnesses ,SS agents, FBI observers and Jacqueline Kennedy..

(56) Why of the 12 people who stood on the North side of Elm St. closest to Kennedy during the shooting, who stated that shots were fired from directly behind them and of whom only 2 were called .... one stating that shots came from both the TSBD and the Knoll area....the other 10 not being called...by the WC..one not even being interviewed...that being Marilyn Sitzman.

(57) Why were millions of copies of the WC Report printed and distributed while only 8,000 sets of the 26 volumes printed.

Enuf..for now..

B.. :ph34r:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

'Frank Agbat' wrote:

John,

It should be noted that there are those on this forum who label anyone who questions or does not believe photo/film alteration theory a "lone nutter." This line of logic is a fallacy (not too dissimilar from "you're either with us or against us"). It is entirely possible to be both a conspiracy theorist AND to believe that the photographic / filmographic record is intact.

dgh: should also be noted there are no specific photo related questions in this threads originating post. Any answers to the questions you'd like venture, Frank?

I am certainly in the "undecided/questioning" camp, yet firmly believe that a conspiracy took place.

My addition to this list:

(32) How was LHO able to correctly identify the parties who were standing in front of the TSBD just moments before the shooting if he was, as the WC states, on the sixth floor preparing to fire a rifle? Correct identification points more toward the veracity of the "in the lunchroom having a coke" statement.

Edited by David G. Healy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

dgh: should also be noted there are no specific photo related questions in this threads originating post. Any answers to the questions you'd like venture, Frank?

Answers? Pardon my frankness (pun intended), but you've GOT to be kidding me!! The number of "answers" I have is statistically meaningless when compared to the number of questions I have...

However, I do want to point out that your original questions 17,18, and 19 are specifically related to the photographic record:

(17) Why does Altgens show Chaney in a position that he's *never* seen in the extant Z-film?

(18) How is it possible to not have a "first frame flash" at Z-133, as the engineers who designed the camera assert must happen?

(19) Why do *dozen's* of eyewitnesses agree on a slowdown or stop of the limo, yet we can't see it in the Z-film?

I brought up this topic specifically because there are very few actual lone nutters (or, as you amusingly call them, "lone neuters") on this forum. However, there seems to be a notable willingness to incorrectly label people in different CT "camps" as such (or by any number of other pejorative titles). If we spend so much effort and release so much venom fighting each other, we will never be able to turn our collective intellectual guns on the real issues.

Now -- so as not to derail the original intent of this thread, I add two more questions:

(58) Why was an honest-to-goodness murder investigation using the accepted practices (evidence collection, evidence handling, investigative techniques and the like) NEVER conducted?

(59) Why was jurisdiction illegally seized away from the Texas authorities?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the third 'camp', probably what others have referred to as a new generation researchers, of those who are independent, who don't ally themselves to any peer goup, who don't adopt a view depending on who proposes it, who can see value across the board and try to decide for themselves, are probably significant in number, but less vocal.

Q : One thing I have difficulty understanding is why Texan authorities see no reason to reopen investigations, yet because it is a murder, the case remains open. The result (as far as I understand)* files being excluded from FOI requests when that file is 'open', thus creating a kind of Catch 22 situation. *is this correct and can something be done about it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

dgh: should also be noted there are no specific photo related questions in this threads originating post. Any answers to the questions you'd like venture, Frank?

Answers? Pardon my frankness (pun intended), but you've GOT to be kidding me!! The number of "answers" I have is statistically meaningless when compared to the number of questions I have...

However, I do want to point out that your original questions 17,18, and 19 are specifically related to the photographic record:

(17) Why does Altgens show Chaney in a position that he's *never* seen in the extant Z-film?

(18) How is it possible to not have a "first frame flash" at Z-133, as the engineers who designed the camera assert must happen?

(19) Why do *dozen's* of eyewitnesses agree on a slowdown or stop of the limo, yet we can't see it in the Z-film?

I brought up this topic specifically because there are very few actual lone nutters (or, as you amusingly call them, "lone neuters") on this forum. However, there seems to be a notable willingness to incorrectly label people in different CT "camps" as such (or by any number of other pejorative titles). If we spend so much effort and release so much venom fighting each other, we will never be able to turn our collective intellectual guns on the real issues.

Now -- so as not to derail the original intent of this thread, I add two more questions:

(58) Why was an honest-to-goodness murder investigation using the accepted practices (evidence collection, evidence handling, investigative techniques and the like) NEVER conducted?

(59) Why was jurisdiction illegally seized away from the Texas authorities?

as for Lone Nutters on this forum, I respectfully put forth, there are more than you think. Quite a few, in fact. Wouldn't be a stretch for a few here to name 5 or 6 self-proclaimed CTer's that regularlly post (to this forum) that are indeed, LONE Neuter's... Been going on since the start of internet USNET boards.

The questions were posted here, Frank for a simple reason, Lone Neuter's can NOT deal with WCR/eyewitness evidence [taken or omitted] that does NOT stand up to scrutiny...

The guns (as you put it) have been on Nutter folks for 20+years, careers have been madeand supported because of denial....

nice addition to the questions by-the-way...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A couple of corrections to Bernice's list...

Ford was a congressman in 1963. He never was a Senator. He changed the back wound from "back" to "back of the neck" and the report ended up saying "base of the back of the neck." This was probably an innocent mistake in that Ford was not the sharpest tack in the box and was almost undoubtedly basing his impression of the wound on the Rydberg drawings, which depicted the wound at the base of the neck. The real question is why Arlen Specter, who'd seen the back wound on an autopsy photo and knew the Rydberg drawings were incorrect, never tried to have the drawings corrected and said nothing to the commission. And I have an answer to that question: he was an ambitious spineless coward. The head wound wasn't moved till 1968.

The NPIC study was done for the Secret Service. The 210 and 242 approximations of the first two hits were made under the impression that the z-film was running at 16 frames per second. They were thus under the impression the shots were two seconds apart. Why two seconds? It seems clear they believed Oswald's rifle could be fired once every two seconds. In other words, they never concluded there was more than one shooter; instead, there analysis was built around a single-assassin from the get-go, even before Oswald had been killed.

Burkley's placement of the back wound at the third thoracic level was not confirmed by the Parkland witnesses, as none of the Parkland witnesses, save a nurse many years later, made any statements indicating they even knew of this wound's existence. While Burkley may have simply said third thoracic based upon his own observation, the possibility he saw the face sheet at the autopsy, which places the wound in that area, seems m ore likely. As Burkley spent most of his time with the family, it seems likely he only took a passing glance at Kennedy, and deferred to the face sheet. There is certainly no report of Burkley making a close inspection of the body. When you look at the face sheet it is clear the drawing is inaccurate in the shoulder area. A mark in line with the shoulder is way too far from the head, and a mark the correct distance from the head is way too far above the shoulder. On the night of the autopsy I believe Boswell placed the wound--which was around T-1 T-2, in line with the shoulder. Later, when it became a huge issue, he placed the wound in relation to the head, effecvtively moving the wound onto the neck. A wound at T-1, as acknowledged by the HSCA, is still too low to be in line with a trajectory from the sniper's nest to the throat. As a result I feel the T-3 T-1 dispute is a non-issue. What remains an issue is whether the doctors deliberately lied to Rydberg when he created his drawings depicting the back wound 2 inches higher than T-1.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

'Pat Speer' wrote:

A couple of corrections to Bernice's list...

Ford was a congressman in 1963. He never was a Senator. He changed the back wound from "back" to "back of the neck" and the report ended up saying "base of the back of the neck." This was probably an innocent mistake in that Ford was not the sharpest tack in the box and was almost undoubtedly basing his impression of the wound on the Rydberg drawings, which depicted the wound at the base of the neck. The real question is why Arlen Specter, who'd seen the back wound on an autopsy photo and knew the Rydberg drawings were incorrect, never tried to have the drawings corrected and said nothing to the commission. And I have an answer to that question: he was an ambitious spineless coward. The head wound wasn't moved till 1968.

The NPIC study was done for the Secret Service.

dgh: Pat, do you have a cite re: the NPIC study was done for the Secret Service, [specifically? Or, are you assuming that conclusion from Doug Hornes interview with NPIC employees[/b]. Thanks -- David Healy

The 210 and 242 approximations of the first two hits were made under the impression that the z-film was running at 16 frames per second. They were thus under the impression the shots were two seconds apart. Why two seconds? It seems clear they believed Oswald's rifle could be fired once every two seconds. In other words, they never concluded there was more than one shooter; instead, there analysis was built around a single-assassin from the get-go, even before Oswald had been killed.

Burkley's placement of the back wound at the third thoracic level was not confirmed by the Parkland witnesses, as none of the Parkland witnesses, save a nurse many years later, made any statements indicating they even knew of this wound's existence. While Burkley may have simply said third thoracic based upon his own observation, the possibility he saw the face sheet at the autopsy, which places the wound in that area, seems m ore likely. As Burkley spent most of his time with the family, it seems likely he only took a passing glance at Kennedy, and deferred to the face sheet. There is certainly no report of Burkley making a close inspection of the body. When you look at the face sheet it is clear the drawing is inaccurate in the shoulder area. A mark in line with the shoulder is way too far from the head, and a mark the correct distance from the head is way too far above the shoulder. On the night of the autopsy I believe Boswell placed the wound--which was around T-1 T-2, in line with the shoulder. Later, when it became a huge issue, he placed the wound in relation to the head, effecvtively moving the wound onto the neck. A wound at T-1, as acknowledged by the HSCA, is still too low to be in line with a trajectory from the sniper's nest to the throat. As a result I feel the T-3 T-1 dispute is a non-issue. What remains an issue is whether the doctors deliberately lied to Rydberg when he created his drawings depicting the back wound 2 inches higher than T-1.

Edited by David G. Healy
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...