On The Trail Of Delusion

[Dan O'meara]

Tell us us how posting sworn testimony is goofy

Sworn testimony?


   billchapman_hunter of trolls

[Bill Chapman]

Sworn testimony?


   billchapman_hunter of trolls

It was Oswald


billchapman_hunter of trolls_you_are_next

[Fred Litwin]

JFK Revisited Distorts John Stringer's Testimony
Oliver Stone's so-called documentary makes it seem that autopsy photographer John Stringer disputed the authenticity of the photographs of JFK's brain. Nothing could be further from the truth. Stone and DiEugenio distort his testimony to make him say something he didn't.

https://www.onthetrailofdelusion.com/post/jfk-revisited-distorts-john-stringer-s-testimony

[Jon Banks]

Stringer has given inconsistent statements on Kennedy’s wounds and the autopsy photos but in his example I believe it’s due to memory lapses, not malice.

8/26/72: Occiput had large defect

Lifton: [W]as the main damage to the skull on the top, or in the back?

Stringer: In the back.

Lifton: ...High In the back, or lower In the back?

Stringer: Oh, the occipital part in the back there  (garbled) up above the neck.

Lifton: …In other words, the main part of his head that was blasted away was in the occipital part of the skull?

Stringer: Yes. the back part. [Tape played for Stringer in 1996, p78]

https://www.history-matters.com/essays/jfkmed/TracesOfWitnessTampering/TracesOfWitnessTampering.htm

Stringer wasn’t alone. Several witnesses between Parkland hospital and the autopsy recalled seeing a large wound in the right-rear of Kennedy’s skull (which the autopsy photos don’t show).

It would be easy to dismiss as just an inaccurate recollection if there weren’t so many witnesses who described the head wound that way.

[W. Tracy Parnell]

Excellent job Fred. Look forward to the report on Knudson.

[Jerry Freeman]

The "95%" claim was made by Wiess and Ashkenazy, no one else. Two guys.

The study was supervised by Dr. James E. Barger, the firm's chief scientist. At the time of the reconstruction in August 1978, the committee was extremely conscious of the significance of Barger's preliminary work, realizing, as it did, that his analysis indicated that there possibly were too many shots, spaced too closely together, 5 for Lee Harvey Oswald to have fired all of them, and that one of the shots came from" the grassy knoll, not the Texas School Book Depository. When questioned about the probability of the entire third impulse pattern representing a supersonic bullet being fired at the President from the grassy knoll, Barger estimated there was a 20 percent chance that the N-wave, as opposed to the sequence of impulses following it, was actually caused by random noise.(65) Accordingly, the mathematical probability of the entire sequence of impulses actually representing a supersonic bullet was 76 percent, the product of a 95 percent chance that the impulse pattern represented noise as loud as a rifle shot from the grassy knoll times an 80 percent chance that the N-wave was caused by a supersonic bullet. (66)

The committee found no evidence or indication of any other cause of noise as loud as a rifle shot coming from the grassy knoll at the time the impulse sequence was recorded on the dispatch tape, and therefore concluded that the cause was probably a gunshot fired at the motorcade.

https://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/select-committee-report/part-1b.html

The Backyard pictures do not prove that Oswald killed JFK.
In retrospect...being plastered on the cover of LIFE magazine with the caption 'weapons used to kill Kennedy and Officer Tippit' instilled prejudice in the minds of Americans no matter the questions and no matter the circumstantial evidence.

[Dan O'meara]

It was Oswald


billchapman_hunter of trolls_you_are_next

"It was Oswald"

You said it so it must be true.

[Patrick Jackson]

You have to understand and accept that every single official and unofficial statement from Marina Oswald must be taken with reserve. She was giving statements in Russian which was then translated in English. We can not accept any her statement from 1963/64 for granted and 100% accurate.
If Oswald was framed as LN, than why would we believe that Marina statements translations are accurate?

Maybe it was like this:
Question: Did you take back yard photos?
Marina in Russian: Yes, but not this ones!
Translator: Yes, but not this ones.
Translation in statement: Yes.