Skip to main content

View Diary: John Kennedy smiled at me. Five minutes later, he was dead. (176 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  you miss my point utterly /nt (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    hnichols

    In the end, reality always wins.

    by Lenny Flank on Sun Nov 17, 2013 at 05:42:24 PM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  You avoid my point utterly. (0+ / 0-)

      And since it was a direct refutation of your point, I have to assume you avoid it on purpose. Do I need to post block quotes from the NPR piece?

      At least you got your sig line right.

      "Well, yeah, the Constitution is worth it if you succeed." - Nancy Pelosi, 6/30/07 // "Succeed?" At what?

      by nailbender on Sun Nov 17, 2013 at 06:00:26 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  please do (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        wader, hnichols
        Do I need to post block quotes from the NPR piece?
        Especially this one:
        Of course, Gunn interviewed Spencer 30 years after the event
        So let's see just how woo-woo you really are . . . .

        She says the photos aren't the way she remembers them.  Which of these two explanations for that do YOU think is more likely:

        1. she is mis-remembering something she had not seen in over 30 years

        or

        2. the CIA or FBI or space aliens or somebody stole the original photos, found an exact double for JFK and shot him in the head so they could shoot new photos (or maybe it's. . .  what . . .  a mannequin?), and planted them in the National Archives without anyone noticing. Oh, and since the x-rays match the photos, I guess they found time to steal, fake, and replace those too. . . .

        (sigh)

        This is why it's simply impossible to take the woo-woo's seriously.  The very concept of "evidence" is beyond them---it's useless to even TALK with them about evidence when anything can get waved away simply on a whim, with the unsupported assertion that "they" can alter or replace or fake or remove anything anywhere at any time, all unseen.

        It's pointless even attempting to have a rational discussion. But then, CTers aren't based on rational evidence; they're based on emotional ideology--"the evil fascist government diddit !!!"

        But then, I would say all this, wouldn't I, since I work for the CIA or the NSA or both, and my job is to prevent the heroic efforts of, uh, investigators like you who struggle to find The Truth and expose the fascist corporate police state and its FEMA Camps.

        (snicker)

        In the end, reality always wins.

        by Lenny Flank on Sun Nov 17, 2013 at 06:18:54 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  So now I've gone from being deceptive to obtuse to (0+ / 0-)

          a CT flake, according to your successive characterizations of me.  You really are desperate to refute the NPR story for some reason.

          Gunn (who was the fucking head of the Review Board which was set up to quell the growing, deserved distrust of the Warren Commission) , who knows more than any one person on the planet what all the evidence is, says:
           

          "There were many things that were disturbing"
          I agree with him and, like him, I don't have a conspiracy theory, asshole.  I just know shit doesn't add up.

          You, actually, are being deceptive when you say that the autopsy report was changed because of bad info that the doctor in question didn't have access to till after the autopsy (WTF? How can any autopsy be done on any John Doe for crissake? What, did they need to know what meds he was taking in order to explain how ballistic damage to the head???).  Here's what actually went down around the autopsy report:

          "Dr. Humes admitted that the supposedly original handwritten version of the autopsy that is in the National Archives is in fact not the original version," Gunn says. He says Humes had never said that publicly before, even to the Warren Commission.

          In the deposition, Humes explained that when he took the material home after the autopsy was completed, he began thinking about how he had once seen the bloodstained chair Abraham Lincoln had been sitting in when he was shot.

          "I thought this was the most macabre thing I ever saw in my life," Humes said. "It just made a terrible impression on me. And when I noticed that these bloodstains were on this document that I had prepared, I said nobody's ever going to get these documents. So I copied them ... and burned the original notes in the fireplace."

          When Gunn asked him whether there was anything in the original document that was not in the copy, Humes replied, "I don't think so."

          Now there's a bit of confidence-inspiring forensic medicine you can hang your hat on!  

          As to the person who developed the autopsy photos of the most traumatic historic event in our lifetimes - who said the photos she developed were of a clean body viewed respectfully compared to the unrecognizable hamburger shots that ended up in the archives which didn't even use the same photo paper that she was using contemporaneously at the time - I'll take her word to yours any day of the century.  You don't forget something momentous like that that you've been so intimately involved in, ever.  

          Man, you got some issues around this.  Gunn agrees with 3/4 of Americans who think the Warren Commission is bunk, and he was charged with reviewing everything they did. I agree with the NPR report that we probably won't ever know what really happened that day (ie, I don't have a CT about this).  Your need for the US government's handling of this matter to be exonerated is crystal clear, though.  Fine.  

          Oswald in the Depository with a rifle.
           You win!

          "Well, yeah, the Constitution is worth it if you succeed." - Nancy Pelosi, 6/30/07 // "Succeed?" At what?

          by nailbender on Mon Nov 18, 2013 at 04:39:11 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  ok, so then it's the woo-woo (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            hnichols

            People who witness traumatic events never mis-remember them 30 years later becuase. . .  well . .  just because.

            So explain to me how the photos were faked.  Where did the FBI or the CIA or the space aliens find a double for JFK to shoot in the head and take the photos.  If the photos in the National Archives are not of Kennedy, who are they and how were they made.

            In the end, reality always wins.

            by Lenny Flank on Mon Nov 18, 2013 at 04:53:34 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Fuck your "woo-woo." (0+ / 0-)

              How the hell should I know what really happened in any or all of the particulars? All I know is that the autopsy doctor was totally baffled by the photos that Spenser said were definitely (for very specific, articulated reasons)  not the ones she developed for the autopsy:

              After that, Gunn turned to the official autopsy photographs, the ones that are kept in the National Archives. Humes had never handled them before; the Warren Commission had never shown them to him. In fact, when Humes testified before the Warren Commission, he that the artist who drew the schematics he was using for his testimony was not allowed to see the photos.

              When Humes did get a close look at the pictures — in his Review Board deposition — he said he found it hard to tell what was what in the pictures.

              In fact, Gunn says, it's hard for anyone to tell what's what in the pictures, especially such important details as how many bullet wounds there are, and whether they are entry wounds or exit wounds.

              I don't know what happened, whether Oswald did it or not and if he did, whether he was alone or not.  The evidence is botched, whether it's a whitewash or incompetence or a combination thereof.  Read the final section of that NPR report.  I agree with it totally.

              And go fuck your shallow, presumptive, name-calling self.

              "Well, yeah, the Constitution is worth it if you succeed." - Nancy Pelosi, 6/30/07 // "Succeed?" At what?

              by nailbender on Mon Nov 18, 2013 at 05:22:55 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  ok, so you won't even try to defend the woo-woo (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                hnichols

                Humes did NOT, repeat NOT, as in N-O-T, say that the photos weren't the ones from the autopsy. And indeed, Humes confirms what I said before----it's hard to remember stuff that you haven't seen in 30 years.  

                I find that a lot more likely than "some conspirator faked the pictures--I don't know who or how or when or where but by golly they did it anyway !!!"

                This is why I find it impossible to either take the woo-woos seriously or even to talk rationally with them---the very concept of "evidence" is meaningless to them.  They can "explain" anything with a simple handwave and a completely-unsupported assertion that "they" faked or altered or forged or replaced any and all evidence, without a single shred of anything anywhere to show that anything of the sort ever actually happened.

                It's a simple question I'm asking----if the photos in the National Archives are faked and are not really Kennedy, then who the hell IS that in the photographs.  He sure looks an awful lot like Kennedy to me--does it look like someone else to YOU? Or did "they" find an exact double of JFK and shoot him in the head (in the precise manner that they wanted to depict) so they could fake the photographs?

                But at least you've now established just how woo-woo you really are . . . .

                In the end, reality always wins.

                by Lenny Flank on Mon Nov 18, 2013 at 05:54:49 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Who said the photos were switched? (0+ / 0-)

                  Although I see where you might have gotten that from my comment that the ones in the archive aren't the originals.  What I meant was that they weren't the originals that Spenser developed.  I wasn't intending to imply that those photos were faked, only that another set of autopsy photos were withheld.

                  Hume never saw the photos till Gunn showed them to him so how could he have made an assertion one way or the other as to them being the ones he saw before? He never saw any till Gunn showed them to him!

                  The only assertion he made about them is that they were pretty much useless, forensically:

                  When Humes did get a close look at the pictures — in his Review Board deposition — he said he found it hard to tell what was what in the pictures.

                  In fact, Gunn says, it's hard for anyone to tell what's what in the pictures, especially such important details as how many bullet wounds there are, and whether they are entry wounds or exit wounds.

                  So the photos that the Warren Commission received (which I, you, Gunn, Spenser and everyone except fruitcakes agree are of Kennedy's body) are very messy evidence but the photos that Spencer developed (and remember that the ones in the archive aren't using the paper stock Spenser had access to at the time) are "pristine" with the wounds cleaned, but nowhere to be found.  You can say her memory sucks but she was deposed under oath by an official federal inquiry and was extremely exact in all her replies to very specific questioning, both in what she recalled and what she didn't recall.  She was in her 50s at the time of the deposition and she had a very military attitude, very exacting.  Go read her deposition, the link is in the NPR piece.

                  "Well, yeah, the Constitution is worth it if you succeed." - Nancy Pelosi, 6/30/07 // "Succeed?" At what?

                  by nailbender on Mon Nov 18, 2013 at 08:12:23 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site