Thread 10—Nutty charges against nonconspiracy

      We have now arrived at the final three “threads,” which were not really threads because they were single messages. The first was a message from I that consisted of many strange charges against the lone gunman theory. For clarity, I describe the errors after each of I’s paragraphs.

Essay: It is very instructive to compare the levels of prediction by the various “theories” in the JFK case.
   But first a word about the meaning of “theory.” Science reserves “theory” for an idea that has survived initial levels of testing and has emerged as a serious contender for “truth.”

I: So thats the problem. Your theory has not so-emerged. Its riddled with improbability, piled upon the unlikely. Your theory answers by saying that the un-damaged fact in evidence about the nose of the alledged SB is because it was 'a-tumbling' at the time. Your theory answers the facts in evidence about the low location of the undisputed holes in the clothes by saying; because the clothes MUST have been "bunched" at the time. Your theory says that the uniform testimony of all those present at the time of the Autopsy, who agreed upon ," no laneway for an outlet"..must be mistaken. Your theory says the same about all those at Parkland who thought the hole in the throat came from the front. I won't even delve into the evidence of the Z film which shows the same. On and on it could go..to the SB found on who knows whose stretcher..and so on..

      Here I was contending that the nonconspiracy “theory” has not passed enough tests to qualify it as a genuine theory. He then listed six pieces of evidence that he considered improbable. Disingenuously, he failed to note that they all had clear answers. His charge against nonconspiracy is thus invalid. (a) He implied that the nose of CE 399 would have had to be damaged if it had passed through both Kennedy and Connally. But he conveniently ignored the viselike distortion to the bottom of the bullet, to the point that lead had been squeezed out, and ignored the lateral damage as well. He also failed to note that bullets do not tumble infinitely, but turn over halfway in order to reach the stable position with the heavier bottom end traveling first. This is why the nose wasn’t damaged. At a more general level, I has illustrated how the lack of something is always weak grounds for proving anything because it is too similar to proving a negative. (b) Regarding the low position of the holes in Kennedy’s shirt, I implied that nonconspiracists can only claim that the shirt MUST have been bunched. Not true—several photos clearly show that the jacket was bunched upward by a couple of inches. The relative position of the hole in the shirt shows that it must also have been bunched. (c) He misrepresented the autopsy findings on the passage of the first bullet through Kennedy’s body by citing only the doctors’ early remark that they could not find an obvious passageway (because the muscles had shifted from their original orientation as JFK was laid down and during the long journey from Dallas to Bethesda). By the end of the autopsy, the doctors had found three or four other sites of internal damage that formed a line from the entrance to the throat wound of exit, and the final report recognized this clear track. In other words, there was an obvious reason for the lack of a pathway through the first muscles, and that lack was superseded by later evidence. Even the doctors themselves realized that their early remark had been mistaken. (d) I used a similar technique for dealing with early the reports from Parkland that a bullet entered through the throat. The full suite of later evidence, discussed above, showed that it had to have exited through the throat, not entered there. In any event, most early reports indicated that the wound could have been either entrance or exit. The Parkland doctors were not thinking about an exit because they did not yet know of the entrance wound in Kennedy’s back. (e) I claimed that the Zapruder film showed “the same,” whatever that was supposed to mean. If I was referring to an entrance wound in the throat, that is something that the Z film offers no evidence on. If he was referring to JFK’s long backward lurch, a simple viewing of the film frame by frame shows that the direction of the lurch is unrelated to the direction of the bullet hit because the lurch begins well after the bullet passed through the head, and even after the head exploded. (f) I’s last point, that nobody can know on whose stretcher CE 399 was found, is again only part of the story because the ballistic and chemical data show that the bullet had been fired that day from Oswald’s rifle, regardless of where it was found.

*****

I: Why anyone would think the 'Oswald theory' is as "serious contender" for the truth..is really hard to see.

Given that=what anyone can see is that what was planned in the frame against the patsy did not work as planned. That anyone still believes the "plan" is the more amazing part. The more sensible part would be to start to try to understand the frame, and what obviously went wrong with it..in theory.

That few do so is why you think your predictions are true. All I am saying at this point is that Oswald did not do it. You say this instead:

Essay: Now, 36 years is not the end of time, but it is effectively very close to it, given that in that period there have been two huge governmental investigations and a few smaller ones, one massive release of documents, and the continuous intensive efforts of hundreds to thousands of committed citizens. Every day that passes, the probability declines that anything significant remains to be found. The handwriting on the wall is becoming ever clearer, but will the people ever see it?

I: Do you not see that in all the years, there has NEVER been advanced any new or fresh evidence that would support your already known-failed theory? If anyone could ADD to that theory= it would be known. Unless you/anyone..has something to ADD to the case against Oswald..the evidence is "in". The "hanwriting" is on the wall= it doesn't work against Oswald=thats been around for a lot of years.

At this point..in a very old subject=..you have to return to the rifle found only against him..and wonder 'why'?

Why was he framed as it was done? Or would you rather argue again that Oswald did it? Your choice.

I

PS=Not at all. The Z film is evidence of the chaos that ensued after the mis-fired plan. Thats why Jackie scrambled out onto the rear trunk of the car...but you won't get that..until you get the above..
It establishes conspiracy, to some in more ways than one.

      To reduce this long, rambling message to its essence, I was manufacturing things again. What chaos? What misfired plan? He didn’t say. Jackie was scrambling out of the car because some plan went awry? Did she know about it in advance? I left us wondering, and worrying why we don’t “get it.” If I had an explanation for these critical points, he should have offered it, not just stated claims without any backup. Otherwise we can assume only he had nothing.

Ahead to Thread 11
Back to Thread 9
Back to Anatomy Of A Newsgroup Discussion