On The Trail Of Delusion

[Bill Chapman]

My bad.
When you said "It was Oswald" I thought you were referring to the false words you'd put in his mouth which you then claimed were "sworn testimony".
So, when you said, "It was Oswald", you weren't referring to your belief Oswald took the shots.
You were referring to what Oswald was reported to have said regarding the BYP.
Just to clear up any confusion - Oswald is reported to have said these things.

I will spoof assassination lore as I please

[Bill Chapman]

Better stay inside on Tuesdays.

Better stay inside every day and avoid the stench of CT landfill.

Oops.. just made a typo. Guess I'm just a shadow off my former self(ie)

[Fred Litwin]

"JFK Revisited: Misleads on the Weight of JFK's Brain

Oliver Stone's so-called documentary is completely misleading on the weight of JFK's brain. The film tries to use the weight of the brain to support its argument that a brain was substituted for JFK's. In the process, Stone ignores a very good non-conspiratorial explanation.

https://www.onthetrailofdelusion.com/post/jfk-revisited-misleads-on-the-weight-of-jfk-s-brain

[Jon Banks]

"Baden says he saw the photographs taken of the president’s brain at the time of the autopsy, and under his direction the HSCA’s medical illustrator, Ida Dox, drew a diagram of the brain viewed from the top".

Nice try but Dr. Baden wasn't present at JFK's autopsy.

Photographic evidence doesn't trump the descriptions of Kennedy's head wound and missing brain matter from witnesses at Parkland or the witnesses at his autopsy.

"McClelland recounts when he was shown the JFK autopsy photos in 1988. He agreed the photos showed the president’s wounds as he saw them on November 22, 1963. The only exception, said Dr. McClelland, was the photo that showed the right rear JFK’s head. He said that a flap of scalp had been pulled over Kennedy’s fatal wound changing the appearance of the wound.

“That’s where there was a massive hole in the back of his head,” McClelland said. “I looked at that hole from 18 inches for about 12 minutes.”"


https://jfkfacts.org/what-did-dr-mcclelland-think-about-jfks-wounds/

[Martin Weidmann]

[Richard Smith]

Buried in the mountain of LN nonsense produced in this thread, there was a serious question asked to see if those LNs, in particular "Richard Smith", were able/willing to actually discuss and/or explain an evidence conundrum

In which the argument is made yet again that the evidence of Oswald's guilt is so overwhelming that he must be innocent.  Very amusing.  I can understand why you basically stick to playing the contrarian.  Of course, when the BY photos were taken Oswald had no idea that he would ever be leaving the murder weapon at the scene of a crime to be traced back to him through a photo.  Rather, his plan was to assassinate Walker and take the rifle with him from the crime scene, hide it, and retrieve it at some later point.  Which he did.  The JFK assassination scenario was not contemplated at the time of the BY photos and assassinating the president in broad daylight entails as part of the calculation to move forward with that action either arrest or death.  It doesn't matter how much "evidence" is left behind when Oswald pulls the trigger.  He knew as part of the equation to do it that he would not get away with that crime.  Or do you think he shows up at the TSBD on Monday morning as usual ready to move some books?  HA HA HA. 

The writing on the BY photos is that of Marina.  Oswald had no apparent sense of humor and was certainly too insecure to be self deprecating.  The sentiment fits perfectly with Marina's amusement at Oswald fantasy of himself as some revolutionary figure.  Oswald had no apparent qualms at hiding these pictures.  His intent was that they memorialize him in a classic revolutionary pose.  How those pictures would come to be used after the JFK assassination, he would have had no clue at the time they were taken for the reasons noted above (i.e. he was not contemplating assassinating JFK at the time).  Rather, he was building a resume to gain entry to Cuba. 

[Steve M. Galbraith]

Nice try but Dr. Baden wasn't present at JFK's autopsy.

Photographic evidence doesn't trump the descriptions of Kennedy's head wound and missing brain matter from witnesses at Parkland or the witnesses at his autopsy.

"McClelland recounts when he was shown the JFK autopsy photos in 1988. He agreed the photos showed the president’s wounds as he saw them on November 22, 1963. The only exception, said Dr. McClelland, was the photo that showed the right rear JFK’s head. He said that a flap of scalp had been pulled over Kennedy’s fatal wound changing the appearance of the wound.

“That’s where there was a massive hole in the back of his head,” McClelland said. “I looked at that hole from 18 inches for about 12 minutes.”"


https://jfkfacts.org/what-did-dr-mcclelland-think-about-jfks-wounds/

Sorry, photographs don't trump eyewitness accounts? Where does that standard come from? If a photo shows a blue car hitting another car and the eyewitnesses say it was a green car then it was a green car? I thought one thing we all agreed upon was the unreliability of eyewitness accounts and how they must be corroborated?

As to McClelland (who wasn't at the autopsy either): Here is what he wrote/said the day of the assassination.

"From the handwritten statement of Robt McClelland written Nov 22, 1963 at 4:45pm on the cause of death of JFK:
"At approximately 12:45pm on the above date I was called from the second floor of Parkland Hospital and went immediately to the Emergency Operating Room. When I arrived President Kennedy was being attended by Drs Malcolm Perry, Charles Baxter, James Carrico and Ronald Jones. The President was
at that time commatose from a massive gunshot wound of the head with a fragment wound of the trachea. An endotracheal tube and assisted respiration was started immediately by Dr Carrico on duty in the EOR when the President arrived. Drs Perry, Baxter and I then performed a tacheotomy
for respiratory distress and tracheal injury and Drs Jones and Paul Peters inserted bilateral anterior chest tubes for pneumothoracis secondary to the tracheomediastinal injury. In spite of this, at 12:55 he was
pronounced dead by Dr Kemp Clark the neurosurgeon and professor of neurosurgery who arrived immediately after I did. The cause of death was due to massive head and brain injury from a gunshot wound of the left(sic) temple. He was pronounced dead after external cardiac massage failed
and ECG activity was gone."

He said about four hours after seeing JFK that the injury was to the "left temple." Nothing about a injury to the back of the head. If the wound was in the back of the head then how did he see a wound on the temple? Why didn't he write "back" of the head?

BTW, when asked about writing the "left temple" he said he meant the right.

Additionally, he was interviewed by the Texas State Journal of Medicine in January of 1963 1964 about what he saw in the ER. He said this: [T]he cause of death was the massive head and brain injuries from a gunshot wound of the right side of the head."

Again, side of the head. So he says left and then right but not back. So which account of his are your relying upon?

Here's the journal article and McClelland's statement: https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth599863/m1/105/?q=McClelland

[Martin Weidmann]

In which the argument is made yet again that the evidence of Oswald's guilt is so overwhelming that he must be innocent.  Very amusing.  I can understand why you basically stick to playing the contrarian.  Of course, when the BY photos were taken Oswald had no idea that he would ever be leaving the murder weapon at the scene of a crime to be traced back to him through a photo.  Rather, his plan was to assassinate Walker and take the rifle with him from the crime scene, hide it, and retrieve it at some later point.  Which he did.  The JFK assassination scenario was not contemplated at the time of the BY photos and assassinating the president in broad daylight entails as part of the calculation to move forward with that action either arrest or death.  It doesn't matter how much "evidence" is left behind when Oswald pulls the trigger.  He knew as part of the equation to do it that he would not get away with that crime.  Or do you think he shows up at the TSBD on Monday morning as usual ready to move some books?  HA HA HA. 

The writing on the BY photos is that of Marina.  Oswald had no apparent sense of humor and was certainly too insecure to be self deprecating.  The sentiment fits perfectly with Marina's amusement at Oswald fantasy of himself as some revolutionary figure.  Oswald had no apparent qualms at hiding these pictures.  His intent was that they memorialize him in a classic revolutionary pose.  How those pictures would come to be used after the JFK assassination, he would have had no clue at the time they were taken for the reasons noted above (i.e. he was not contemplating assassinating JFK at the time).  Rather, he was building a resume to gain entry to Cuba.

So many words and not even a beginning of an answer to the actual question being asked.

In which the argument is made yet again that the evidence of Oswald's guilt is so overwhelming that he must be innocent.  Very amusing.

Not only amusing, but also pathetically stupid and utterly dishonest because no such argument was made. A simply question was asked and you simply can not provide a credible answer, which is exactly what was expected!

Just for good measure, here's the question again;

Personally I think the photos are probably real, but the backstory is most likely bogus. How else can it be that a BY photo was found in George DeMohrenschildt's storage room, which not only was of far better quality than the others  but also had writing on the back from a person who was never identified?

In a scenario where Oswald had the photos taken by his wife and developed them himself at his place of work, why would the quality of the photos not be the same for all the photos and why in the world would he give a copy to George DeMohrenschildt, if the latter had nothing to do with any of it? Do you know of many would be assassins who, after allegedly committing attempted murder, gives an incriminating photo of himself holding the murder weapon to a man he hardly knew?

The question clearly is about a BY photo being given to DeMohrenschildt, around the time of the attemp on General Walker.'s life It has nothing to do with the assassination of Kennedy which "Richard" is rambling on about.

Everything "Richard" has written is worthless speculation about what Oswald was thinking and what he must have known. In other words the usual self serving mumbo jumbo.

It is ironic however that "Richard", who seems to think he knows everything Oswald ever thought, fails miserably to explain why Oswald would give a high quality print of a photo to George De Mohrenschildt around the same time he allegedly attempts to kill General Walker.

The writing on the BY photos is that of Marina.

This is a bald faced lie. It was never established who wrote the Russian text but it was determined beyond doubt that it wasn't Marina.