New York Times: JFK conspiracy theorists need to be shunned. Agree?

Great Debates
101

[QUOTE=mswas]
I totally believe in UFOs. I have on a number of occasions seen things flying that I could not identify.

As for JFK’s brain, it’s sitting on a shelf in New Haven next to Geronimo’s Skull, and above Hitler’s silverware.
[/QUOTE]

You’re in this thread why? Oh, to show that JFK conspiracy theorists are clearly batshit fuckin insane. Welcome, friend. You do your cause a great service.

[QUOTE=Magiver]

It’s not the consipiracy theories that interest me as much as the information that was deliberately set asside. The transcripts of the commissioners were originally classified until 2039. And I remember Jackie Kennedy holding documents for release at a particular date but I cannot find a cite for the date. President Ford promoted a complete release of all information related to the event. I’m just curious. What’s so frickin important that needs to be held back for a later date?
[/QUOTE]

If you actually care, which I truly think you don’t, see here.

102

[QUOTE=Magiver]

Are you aware that a book was written naming the 2nd shooter by name and that person waited until the statute of limitations ran out before suing?
[/QUOTE]

Title? :confused: Name? :confused: SoL on what? :confused:

Facts, cites, and that sort of stuff plz.

103

[QUOTE=Johnny Hildo]
You’re in this thread why? Oh, to show that JFK conspiracy theorists are clearly batshit fuckin insane. Welcome, friend. You do your cause a great service.
[/quote]

How exactly do I accomplish that? I’m not even a JFK Conspiracy Theorist. Are you one of those people that gets off by taking everything you read absolutely literally?

For you, I give a gift: Joke

104

[QUOTE=Magiver]
Well, Jackie left us a nice little note about JFK to read. Not sure what’s in it but the earliest it will be opened is 2044. Maybe it’s all about his affairs. Don’t know.

Yes, I’m aware of President Ford’s push to reveal all the documents. Are you aware he said the CIA was directly involved in the destruction of evidence regarding JFK’s assassination?

Are you aware that a book was written naming the 2nd shooter by name and that person waited until the statute of limitations ran out before suing? Don’t know about you but I would be looking at Ferrari catalogs if someone did that to me.

Yes, the Warren Commission went to great pains to address potential conspiracy issues. They just left out forensic evidence of the 3rd bullet. Which would be easy to discern from the other 2 if was truly different. It’s convenient that his brain grew feet when it became possible to examine it.
[/QUOTE]

Are you aware of the freaking evidence? :rolleyes:

How about some citations so we can figure out what you’re talking about? What forensic evidence of a third bullet?

On or about 6 December 1963, after suitable pickling, the pathologists examined Kennedy’s brain (gross examination, prepared and looked at slide sections, photographed the thing). After that, there was no practical need to keep it around.

Course, you’ll probably come back with, “Humes et. al. were lying through their teeth, the photos were altered, etc., etc.” Hard to argue with wild allegations of that sort, which is probably why the conspiracy gang resorts to them. An example:

David Lifton makes a big deal about how the various folks placed the massive headwound in two different places - the Dallas folks toward the back of the head, the Bethesda folks towards the front. [Toward the end of his book Lifton quotes a couple of Bethesda witnesses who put the wound towards the back, which would play hob with his theory; he didn’t deal with the problem, so neither will we.] Anyway, since the “head snap” in the Zapruder film was Lifton’s sine qua non, his pal, his bud, it must have been a horrible day for him when someone pointed out something he had overlooked - the film clearly showed the large head wound toward the front of the head, which shot his theory all to hell. Lifton’s response? “The film has been altered!!” Oy.

I’m really not trying to slap you around. It’s just that when folks throw out random objections in the way you have, it usually means the stuff is third-hand information and such folks have no idea what the actual evidence may be. That bothers me.

105

Magiver, I owe you a bit of an apology. In searching to this thread for a link to a recent article about the ammunition (which is what I suspect you mean by the third bullet), I see that you have been an active participant and have done more than just throw out objections willy-nilly. Sorry.

What have you read besides Mortal Error?

106

[QUOTE=BJMoose]

What have you read besides Mortal Error?
[/QUOTE]

Just to clarify for those not in the know, Mortal Error is the scholarly tome which states that Oswald didn’t inflict the fatal headshot. It was a Secret Serviceman whose gun went off inadvertantly.

107

[QUOTE=Magiver]

Are you aware that a book was written naming the 2nd shooter by name and that person waited until the statute of limitations ran out before suing?
[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=DrDeth]
Title? :confused: Name? :confused: SoL on what? :confused:

Facts, cites, and that sort of stuff plz.
[/QUOTE]

There’s a statute of limitations on first degree murder? Huh. He’s probably referring to Secret Serviceman George Hickey, the suspect touted in Bonar Menninger’s Mortal Error.

Wow, Dealy Plaza sure must have been busy that day, considering there were 68 assassins there.

108

[QUOTE=BJMoose]
Magiver, I owe you a bit of an apology. In searching to this thread for a link to a recent article about the ammunition (which is what I suspect you mean by the third bullet), I see that you have been an active participant and have done more than just throw out objections willy-nilly. Sorry.

What have you read besides Mortal Error?
[/QUOTE]
Well, first, I wasn’t too interested in the book mentioned because I thought it was the dumbest thing I ever heard. I read it looking for major errors of logic. It is the only book on the subject I’ve read cover to cover. I’ve picked through a number of them and found them so poorly written as to make their contents void.

Mortal Error is interesting in that it wasn’t written all at once. It started out as a review of the Warren Report for a magazine and it died early on because it lead to a dead end. His early conclusions suggested a different angle for the final shot as well as a different type of weapon. If the author’s conclusions are true then the bullet that blew a hole in JFK’s head was different and any fragment of that bullet would confirm that.

But it’s not the contents of the book that I find as intriguing as the fact the book was written in the first place. The author could have drawn the same conclusion and left out the name with the idea that it could have been any of the agents. Not sure if that makes it any less liable from a legal standpoint.

And I would give a tidy sum to read Jackie’s interview. What is so frickin bad about JFK that she has to wait until all her children are dead before it’s released.

LBJ wanted to keep the evidence secret for 75 years and Jackie wants to keep something hidden for 81 years. I’m just curious.

109

I have to pass on discussing Mortal Error since I’ve not read it.

As to people limiting access to stuff donated to libraries: yeah, it does pique one’s curiosity. But given that strong human tendency to imagine the unknown to be worse than it usually is, I doubt there is anything earth-shaking on the shelves.
While I’m here, I’d like to throw out something that may shed light on the “Where’s the brain?” issue. Back in the early to mid 70s I read something (I’ll be durned if I can remember what) about the Catholic church’s attitude towards autopsies. In short - they don’t like 'em. They would prefer that an autopsy not be done. If one is required, they insist that any organs removed for inspection be returned to the body at the end of the autopsy (which is what was done in Kennedy’s case, except for the brain). So I have little doubt the brain was eventually put in JFK’s grave; there just is no positive evidence that this is what happened. (Dammit, Teddy Kennedy should know what happened. Would that he would say something and take this non-starter of an issue off of the table.)
Bugliosi has a photo of Robert and Edward Kennedy standing before the Eternal Flame the night JKF’s body was moved to its new, improved grave. Sitting on the ground nearby is a box that appears to be just the right size to hold a human brain. Alas, no one knows what it was.

110

[QUOTE=Magiver]
And I would give a tidy sum to read Jackie’s interview. What is so frickin bad about JFK that she has to wait until all her children are dead before it’s released.
[/QUOTE]
Part of JFK’s skull was blown off and blood and grey matter splattered on her dress. The picture of her reaching back for the Secret Service agent were really her reaching for a piece of skull that was on the trunk of the car. Seems like I’d want to keep those details away from my kids.

111

[QUOTE=DanBlather]
Part of JFK’s skull was blown off and blood and grey matter splattered on her dress. The picture of her reaching back for the Secret Service agent were really her reaching for a piece of skull that was on the trunk of the car. Seems like I’d want to keep those details away from my kids.
[/QUOTE]
O K ??? I’m confused. She talked about it publicly.

112

[QUOTE=Magiver]
O K ??? I’m confused. She talked about it publicly.
[/QUOTE]
She did?

113

[QUOTE=DanBlather]
She did?
[/QUOTE]
How do you think you know this?

114

She spoke at length with both William Manchester and Theodore H. White (I’ll bet the farm and most of the cows on it that they didn’t publish everything they heard).

115

[QUOTE=BJMoose]
Back in the early to mid 70s I read something (I’ll be durned if I can remember what) about the Catholic church’s attitude towards autopsies. In short - they don’t like 'em. They would prefer that an autopsy not be done. If one is required, they insist that any organs removed for inspection be returned to the body at the end of the autopsy (which is what was done in Kennedy’s case, except for the brain).
[/QUOTE]
The second half of this statement is correct, but the first half is silly. (I do not accuse you of being silly, only your source.) Catholic teaching hospitals perform autopsies all the time. There were a few periods where autopsies were restricted (based on the fact that they were a temptation to grave-robbing to secure bodies) but the idea that the Church had any general condemnation of autopsies appears to be rooted in misunderstandings of actual historical events. (Check out the Catholic Encyclopedia on Anatomy .)

It is true that the RCC has an expectation that body parts (severed limbs, etc.) will be treated with reverence and that if the body is separated in or after death, there should be a serious effort to bring them together for burial. However, that is an issue regarding treatment of the body that is separate from the issue of autopsies and necropsies against which the church has no animus.

116

[QUOTE=Magiver]
How do you think you know this?
[/QUOTE]
How do I know that her dress was bloody and her husband’s head was blown on should be obvious. The fact that she was reaching back to get her husband’s skull came out later (with better processing of the film?). The original story was that she was reaching back to pull in the Secret Service Agent. That was more noble and less disgusting.

I’m here, so I know my parents had sex. I don’t need to read about the details in a magazine interview however.

117

[QUOTE=DanBlather]

I’m here, so I know my parents had sex. I don’t need to read about the details in a magazine interview however.
[/QUOTE]
Well, actually, you don’t know. All you know is that you’re here. Whether your mother gave birth to you and your father had sex with her to fertilize the egg, we have no way of knowing. You might be the product of your mom and a turkey baster. You might be the product of your mom and the milkman. You might have been adopted.

118

[QUOTE=DanBlather]
How do I know that her dress was bloody and her husband’s head was blown on should be obvious. The fact that she was reaching back to get her husband’s skull came out later (with better processing of the film?). The original story was that she was reaching back to pull in the Secret Service Agent. That was more noble and less disgusting.

I’m here, so I know my parents had sex. I don’t need to read about the details in a magazine interview however.
[/QUOTE]
That fact that you know it means it’s public knowledge. If you want to argue about whether she discussed it or not is your business. It doesn’t change the fact that it’s not the information in the time-delayed manuscript.

I have no idea what her great secret is other than it relates to JFK. We already know he was a horn-dog so I’m not sure what she’s holding back.

119

[QUOTE=Magiver]
That fact that you know it means it’s public knowledge. If you want to argue about whether she discussed it or not is your business. It doesn’t change the fact that it’s not the information in the time-delayed manuscript.

I have no idea what her great secret is other than it relates to JFK. We already know he was a horn-dog so I’m not sure what she’s holding back.
[/QUOTE]
You don’t know what’s in her manuscript, but you know that’s not it.

120

[QUOTE=DanBlather]
You don’t know what’s in her manuscript, but you know that’s not it.
[/QUOTE]
The manuscript is about JFK. That’s all I know.