BOOK REVIEW -- "The JFK Myths" By Larry M. Sturdivan
David VP
THE NOTION OF "CONSPIRACY" IN PRESIDENT JOHN KENNEDY'S ASSASSINATION --
NOT ONE PIECE!
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Larry M. Sturdivan's 2005 softcover book "THE JFK MYTHS: A SCIENTIFIC
INVESTIGATION OF THE KENNEDY ASSASSINATION" is filled with very large
doses of common sense .... and it is also filled with FACTS, instead of
the type of shadowy guesswork that has been utilized in many other
books on the subject.
For decades, pro-conspiracy writers have turned the JFK assassination
into a massive, convoluted, "unsolvable" morass of "assumed conspiracy"
(with every brand of conspirator imaginable tossed into the mix, save
possibly the Pope himself) that cleverly has aroused the suspicions of
the vast majority of Americans.
But the part that has been left out of the conspiratorial mix, it
seems, has been the crux of the whole event -- i.e., the PHYSICAL
EVIDENCE IN THE CASE. And that physical evidence, undeniably, all
points toward one single killer named Lee Harvey Oswald (as Mr.
Sturdivan so adeptly and systematically reveals within the pages of
this very well-written publication).
The very idea that the physical evidence (all of it) in the JFK case
could so unambiguously lead straight to the feet (and rifle) of just
one single man (Lee H. Oswald), and yet STILL entertain the notion that
a massive conspiracy of some kind existed in Dealey Plaza in November
of 1963, is an idea that lacks all semblance of reasoned, realistic
thinking, and common sense.
There is one particular passage contained in this book that I
thoroughly enjoyed seeing in print within a widely-available
publication like this one. It is something that aligns nicely with what
I just said in the above paragraph regarding the wealth of physical
evidence against Oswald, and is a passage from Mr. Sturdivan that
radiates with common sense -- and that is:
"While one of the pieces of physical evidence could conceivably have
been faked by an expert, there is no possibility that an expert, or
team of super-experts, could have fabricated the perfectly coordinated
whole. This brings to mind the recurrent theme in most conspiracy
books. {I.E.:} All the officials alternate between the role of
"Keystone Kops", with the inability to recognize the implications of
the most elementary evidence, and "Evil Geniuses", with superhuman
abilities to fake physical evidence, that is in complete agreement with
all the other faked evidence." -- Page 246 of "The JFK Myths"
A portion of that book quote above is worth repeating, to drive home a
point that for years I have believed to be a largely-overlooked or just
flat-out ignored hunk of ordinary common sense that destroys many, many
conspiracy theories all by itself --- "There is no possibility that an
expert, or team of super-experts, could have fabricated the perfectly
coordinated whole ... with superhuman abilities to fake physical
evidence, that is in COMPLETE AGREEMENT WITH ALL THE OTHER FAKED
EVIDENCE". (Emphasis mine.)
The conspiracy promoters who do believe that this "perfectly
coordinated whole" of Oswald-Did-It-Alone physical evidence was all
faked or manufactured in order to implicate a completely-innocent patsy
must also surely believe that miracles of the highest order can,
indeed, be performed.
The work of animator and author Dale K. Myers is also featured in "The
JFK Myths", and Mr. Myers has (not surprisingly) given this book his
full endorsement....even on Amazon.com:
www.amazon.com/gp/cdp/member-reviews/A1VBOWXF710LTB/ref=cm_pdp_about_see_review/102-0679552-6293763
In fact, Mr. Myers' endorsement and involvement in "The JFK Myths" is a
big reason why I initially wanted to read it. Because anything given a
thumbs-up by Myers re. the Kennedy case is BOUND to contain a good deal
of a little something that virtually all pro-conspiracy publications
lack -- that "something" being: hard, verifiable, factual evidence to
back up the notion that Lee Oswald was performing a "solo act" in
Dallas on November 22, 1963.
Now, if Vincent Bugliosi had also put in a good word for this volume, I
would probably have been inclined to pick up half-a-dozen additional
copies. Because an endorsement by both Mr. Myers AND Mr. Bugliosi could
only mean one thing -- i.e., this book is loaded with an enormous
amount of common sense!
-----------------------
Lone assassin Lee Harvey Oswald is no doubt laughing out loud from his
eternal home in the fiery pits of Hell (where he most assuredly
deserves to reside) as he looks up and watches millions of
conspiracists spinning their wheels attempting to "solve" a crime that
was virtually solved the very day it shocked the nation in November of
1963. I'm just glad there are at least a few people on the planet,
including Mr. Sturdivan and Mr. Myers and Mr. Bugliosi, who haven't
been sucked up into the vacuum of the seemingly-endless stream of
unsupportable conspiracy fantasies.
In "The JFK Myths", Larry Sturdivan has written a very thorough and
readable book on the physical evidence of the John F. Kennedy
assassination. It's a most refreshing breath of unpolluted air amid a
sea of murky pro-conspiracy volumes.
David Von Pein
December 2005
lazu...@webtv.net
downward slope- that's going out the throat, or deflecting down the
spinal coumn-certainly wouldn't cause the damage to the top of the head
and right temple region seen in the autopsy photos.
aaronhi...@yahoo.com
photographs, and the wounds on the X-rays don't match!
Even the crummiest copies of the back of the head autopsy photos show
the matte insertion line!
The strap on the rifle in the backyard photos is not the same strap as
the strap on the MC entered into evidence. It is not even attached in
the same places! There is no proof that LHO took the gun to a gunsmith
or whatever to have a new strap installed.
The scratch marks put on the revolver shells discovered at the Tippit
murder scene to create an evidence trail were not on the shells placed
into evidence!
These are the easy one's I can remember off the top of my head.
Aaron Hirshberg
Ben Holmes
says...
>
>THERE HAS NEVER BEEN ANY SOLID, VERIFIABLE PHYSICAL EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT
>THE NOTION OF "CONSPIRACY" IN PRESIDENT JOHN KENNEDY'S ASSASSINATION --
>NOT ONE PIECE!
Of course there has... and the WC simply buried it. The Minox camera is an
excellent example, the 6.5mm virtually round object in the AP X-ray is another,
the NAA testing on the cheek cast is another, a published photograph showing a
currently "unknown" bullet being dug out of the grass is another, the several
eyewitnesses that saw *MORE THAN ONE PERSON* in the SN window is another.
Why bother to lie? I'm only going to point it out...
<snipped>
--
NewsGuy.Com 30Gb $9.95 Carry Forward and On Demand Bandwidth
Ben Holmes
lazu...@webtv.net says...
Yep... this was another mistake of the coverup... it's *highly* unlikely, if not
virtually impossible, for a bullet entering near the EOP to exit out of the rear
of the skull as Humes stated, or out the top of the head as was also asserted by
the WC. The tests commissioned by the WC showed that the bullet would exit the
*face* every time.
On the next 'go-around' of the coverup - the Clark Panel... they rectified this
error.
Ben Holmes
aaronhi...@yahoo.com says...
Oh, I'm quite sure that Davey-boy knows better... but each time he makes this
factual lie, it's a good time to list the evidence for lurkers to see who has
the evidence, and who has the speculation...
aaronhi...@yahoo.com
forged physical evidence.
Peter Dale Scott, Mark Lane, Sylvia Meagher, wrote books as thick as
the yellow pages documenting the Warren Commission's mistakes and
flagrant oversights.
Aaron Hirshberg
gary...@yahoo.com
How do you know that Bugliosi's book is so good? Just because he agrees
with you? Or have you read an advance copy? Bugliosi has said that he
believes there was a conspiracy in the Robert Kennedy assassination. Do
you agree with him there or do you only agree with him when he agrees
with you?
Cliff
EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE NOTION OF "CONSPIRACY" IN
PRESIDENT JOHN KENNEDY'S ASSASSINATION -- NOT ONE
PIECE!
***
David, could you post what Sturdivan wrote concerning
the location of the bullet defects in JFK's shirt and jacket?
I'm curious how Sturdivan reasons that clothing is not
"physical evidence."
TIA
Cliff Varnell
Bud
Ben Holmes wrote:
> In article <1144988039.7...@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com>, David VP
> says...
> >
> >THERE HAS NEVER BEEN ANY SOLID, VERIFIABLE PHYSICAL EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT
> >THE NOTION OF "CONSPIRACY" IN PRESIDENT JOHN KENNEDY'S ASSASSINATION --
> >NOT ONE PIECE!
>
> Of course there has... and the WC simply buried it. The Minox camera is an
> excellent example,
Ah, produce this physical evidence so that we might examine it.
> the 6.5mm virtually round object in the AP X-ray is another,
Ben can`t establish what this object is, or how it got there. How
can it be considered evidence of anything until those issues are
resolved?
> the NAA testing on the cheek cast is another,
Rifles only leave residue on the face about half the time.
> a published photograph showing a
> currently "unknown" bullet being dug out of the grass is another,
What did the person who wrote the caption to that photo say? Did
they personally see that bullet? That photo is physical evidence of
someone bending over and picking something up, if that.
> the several
> eyewitnesses that saw *MORE THAN ONE PERSON* in the SN window is another.
How is witness testimony physical evidence?
David VP
>>you?"
No. I'm just using good ol' common sense.I know it's going to be "so
good" mainly because of WHO it is that's writing it.
And since he has studied the JFK case for 20+ years (and knowing VB's
work ethic and his desire for wanting to get to the truth of any matter
he tackles), I have a heck of a hard time believing he's GOT IT ALL
WRONG when he says things like this......
"I'm 95% sure he {Oswald} acted alone; and if you threw 85% of the
evidence out the window there would still be enough to prove his guilt
beyond a reasonable doubt." -- VB
----------------
"I agree with all of {Gerald} Posner's conclusions -- that Oswald
killed Kennedy and acted alone -- but I disagree with his methodology.
There's a credibility problem. When he is confronted with a situation
antithetical to the view he's taking, he ignores or distorts it." -- VB
---------------
"If there's one thing I take pride in, it's that I never, ever make a
charge without supporting it. You might not agree with me, but I
invariably offer an enormous amount of support for my position." -- VB
>>"Bugliosi has said that he believes there was a conspiracy in the Robert Kennedy
>>assassination. Do you agree with him there or do you only agree with him when he
>>agrees with you?"
I don't know much of anything concerning the intricate details re. the
RFK case, so I have no informed opinion on that case. However, ANYTHING
that Vince says with regard to ANY subject matter is, IMO, worth
listening to and certainly worth taking into serious account.
I know that Vince thought there WAS a conspiracy connection re. the RFK
murder....but as far as I know (today) he no longer holds that opinion.
I've heard that he now no longer thinks there was any conspiracy
connected with Bobby's killing.
Does that make him a "Paid Government Shill"?
No, it does not. It only makes him a person who at one time thought one
thing...and now has changed his OWN mind after researching the
evidence.
But nothing VB has studied re. the JFK case has caused him to "change"
his LN tune about Oswald's lone guilt. And THAT fact, all by itself, is
telling me a great deal right there.
David VP
Larry S. chronicles the EOP debate, but I think Sturdivan's comment on
page #50 of his book pretty much puts the matter to rest (regardless of
the EXACT location of the entry wound on the back of JFK's head), and I
fully agree........
"He {Dr. Humes} further confirmed {via his HSCA testimony} that there
was only one entry wound in the skull and that it was on the rear." --
Pg. 50; "The JFK Myths"
Therefore, since we KNOW (unless Humes is a bald-faced liar and always
has been since 11/22/63) that there was ONLY ONE ENTRY WOUND ON THE
BACK OF JFK'S HEAD, it doesn't make a damn bit of difference what
specific square inch on the head this ONE AND ONLY ONE entry wound
resided.....just as it doesn't make a damn bit of difference exactly
where the holes in JFK's clothes are located (or John Connally's
clothes either, which, of course, don't come even close to "lining up"
with Connally's chest wound on the front of his jacket).
It's the hole on JFK's upper back itself that matters...not the
clothes. And that wound is spelled out in detail right in the Warren
Report (notwithstanding the obviously-not-to-scale Boswell Face Sheet
stick-figure drawing and the other drawings). The back wound was "14
cm. below the tip of the right mastoid process and 14 cm. from the
right shoulder joint".
And that location is positively HIGHER than where the bullet exited
JFK's throat. Try the measurement on your own body...or, better yet, on
another person in your house. I have done this test. It's a crude,
non-exacting test of course, but interesting nonetheless. A "wound" on
my back in just the place we see this one on JFK.....
http://www.jfklancer.com/photos/Autopsy_photos/BE5_HI.JPG
.....is higher than a "wound" I would have sustained in my lower throat
(beneath the Adam's Apple).
Why in the world more researchers don't try this simple "test" on
themselves or another willing participant is something I've never been
able to figure out. I tried to get the CTers at Lancer-la-la-CT-land to
perform such a test as well. AFAIK, not a single one of them ever did
such a simple, easy-to-check-the-angle test.
http://www.jfklancer.com/photos/Autopsy_photos/zeroang.jpg
But CTers just cannot seem to let go of the silly argument re. the
clothing holes not lining up to the exact square inch. Which is just
another reason that CTers are CTers and LNers are ... well ... people
with at least a modicum of "CS&L".
One hole in JFK's back (which there was) + 1 hole in JFK's shirt (which
there was) + 1 hole in JFK's jacket (which there was) = One bullet had
to have passed through all three holes, REGARDLESS of the slight
non-alignment of the clothing to the wound on the skin. Again, just
like with Connally's coat...which, as we can see, isn't anywhere NEAR
the chest exit-wound location.....
http://216.122.129.112/dc/user_files/4108.jpg
The Connally example above, I'll admit, isn't quite as solid an
argument for LNers to make re. clothing holes that don'e align to
skin-wound locale....because, obviously, that JBC jacket was hanging
very loose on the front of JBC's body, unlike a man's shirt on his
BACK.
But.....
To answer Cliff's specific question re. Sturdivan's comments in his
book about Kennedy's clothing holes....I cite pages 217-218 of Larry's
book:
"The neck wounds shown in the autopsy pictures also correlate perfectly
with the other evidence. In many pictures taken along the motorcade
route, the President's suit coat is seen to be riding up his back as he
waved to the crowd. When the coat is in this position, the holes in the
coat and shirt line up with the wound in his back at the base of his
neck. Critics use the hole in the coat to prove that the entry wound on
the back was lower than the autopsy photographs show it to be. It
hardly needs to be stated that using a piece of movable clothing to
dispute the location of a wound is a bad approach." -- Pp. 217-218;
"The JFK Myths" by Larry M. Sturdivan
Once again (to drive home the effect of this important point):
"It hardly needs to be stated that using a piece of movable clothing to
dispute the location of a wound is a bad approach." -- L. Sturdivan
Ben Holmes
says...
>
>>>"How do you know that Bugliosi's book is so good? Just because he agrees with
>>>you?"
>
>No. I'm just using good ol' common sense.I know it's going to be "so
>good" mainly because of WHO it is that's writing it.
Then you're really going to feel like a fool (if and) when it comes out, and you
discover that he's just another Posner clone...
My prediction here and now: You'll *refuse* to answer any rebuttals of his
specific statments, when his book surfaces...
>And since he has studied the JFK case for 20+ years (and knowing VB's
>work ethic and his desire for wanting to get to the truth of any matter
>he tackles),
This would easily apply to many CT authors... nothing unique here...
David VP
Yeah...that must be why Vince specifically uttered these words a few
years ago......
"I agree with all of {Gerald} Posner's conclusions -- that Oswald
killed Kennedy and acted alone -- but I disagree with his methodology.
There's a credibility problem. When he is confronted with a situation
antithetical to the view he's taking, he ignores or distorts it." -- V.
Bugliosi
>>"My prediction here and now: You'll *refuse* to answer any rebuttals of his
>>specific statments [sic], when his book surfaces."
My prediction (#1): Ben will *refuse* to admit he was wrong when VB
presents page after page of CT-debunking pro-LN points (as Larry
Sturdivan has done before him in 2005 for that matter). .... IOW: Ben
wouldn't know how to sort the "LN wheat" from the "CT chaff" if he took
a 6-year college course on "Separating LN Wheat From CT Chaff".
My prediction (#2): Ben will remain a certifiable CT kook for life
(even if the Lord God Almighty Himself sends down word from heaven next
week telling the world "Lee Harvey Oswald Killed JFK & J.D. Tippit").
Anybody up for a wager re. #2....or #1?
Ben Holmes
says...
>
>>> "Where does Sturdivan place the head wound?"
>
>Larry S. chronicles the EOP debate, but I think Sturdivan's comment on
>page #50 of his book pretty much puts the matter to rest (regardless of
>the EXACT location of the entry wound on the back of JFK's head), and I
>fully agree........
LNT'ers are *NEVER* interested in the specifics... only generalities and
speculations...
>"He {Dr. Humes} further confirmed {via his HSCA testimony} that there
>was only one entry wound in the skull and that it was on the rear." --
>Pg. 50; "The JFK Myths"
>
>Therefore, since we KNOW (unless Humes is a bald-faced liar and always
>has been since 11/22/63) that there was ONLY ONE ENTRY WOUND ON THE
>BACK OF JFK'S HEAD, it doesn't make a damn bit of difference what
>specific square inch on the head this ONE AND ONLY ONE entry wound
>resided.....
Of course it does. We know now, that according to the Clark Panel, that three
doctors made a four inch error on the head. That's an *incredibly* large error
for trained medical personal to make.
And considering that he specified a large wound that extended somewhat into the
occipital, DEVOID OF SCALP AND BONE, you can't believe him... for this is in
conflict with the BOH photo. So you'd be better off calling him a "bald-faced
liar"
>just as it doesn't make a damn bit of difference exactly
>where the holes in JFK's clothes are located (or John Connally's
>clothes either, which, of course, don't come even close to "lining up"
>with Connally's chest wound on the front of his jacket).
Then there should have been no reason to refuse the prosectors request to
examine the clothing, right? Yet they did. Why? It *was* SOP, even in those
'dark ages' of 1963.
>It's the hole on JFK's upper back itself that matters...not the
>clothes.
Absolutely true... and since we cannot measure the wound location, the clothing
*can* be measured, can't it?
And far more importantly, when the *CORRECT* method of defining the location -
which is in reference to the spine, which *was* used in the Death Certificate...
it becomes a bit of 'non-evidence'. For the death certificate couldn't find a
place in 27 volumes published on this murder. Why was that, do you suppose?
>And that wound is spelled out in detail right in the Warren
>Report (notwithstanding the obviously-not-to-scale Boswell Face Sheet
>stick-figure drawing and the other drawings).
IOW's: ignore it - it doesn't support my position...
>The back wound was "14 cm. below the tip of the right mastoid process
>and 14 cm. from the right shoulder joint".
>
>And that location is positively HIGHER than where the bullet exited
>JFK's throat.
Taint what the HSCA said. What qualifies *you* to overide the opinion of the
medical expertise presented by the HSCA?
Seems to me that when it suits their purpose, the LNT'er crowd declares that
"forensic pathologists" are the overiding authority... yet here you are denying
that. Why is that?
>Try the measurement on your own body...or, better yet, on
>another person in your house. I have done this test. It's a crude,
>non-exacting test of course, but interesting nonetheless. A "wound" on
>my back in just the place we see this one on JFK.....
>
>http://www.jfklancer.com/photos/Autopsy_photos/BE5_HI.JPG
>
>.....is higher than a "wound" I would have sustained in my lower throat
>(beneath the Adam's Apple).
Taint what the HSCA said...
>Why in the world more researchers don't try this simple "test" on
>themselves or another willing participant is something I've never been
>able to figure out.
Perhaps because the measurements don't mean anything? Perhaps because the
measurements depend on your body size, and head location?
>I tried to get the CTers at Lancer-la-la-CT-land to
>perform such a test as well. AFAIK, not a single one of them ever did
>such a simple, easy-to-check-the-angle test.
>
>http://www.jfklancer.com/photos/Autopsy_photos/zeroang.jpg
>
>But CTers just cannot seem to let go of the silly argument re. the
>clothing holes not lining up to the exact square inch.
Actually, they line up quite nicely... the clothing, the eyewitness testimony,
the Death Certificate, the Boswell diagram...
>Which is just
>another reason that CTers are CTers and LNers are ... well ... people
>with at least a modicum of "CS&L".
And yet, you have no explanation for why LNT'ers "snip and run" at every
opportunity... and refuse to answer refutations based on the evidence.
>One hole in JFK's back (which there was) + 1 hole in JFK's shirt (which
>there was)
Not according to the person who *saw* it.
> + 1 hole in JFK's jacket (which there was) = One bullet had
>to have passed through all three holes,
And yet, you have *NO* explanation for why there was *NO* metal found in the
front collar/tie area.
>REGARDLESS of the slight
>non-alignment of the clothing to the wound on the skin. Again, just
>like with Connally's coat...which, as we can see, isn't anywhere NEAR
>the chest exit-wound location.....
>
>http://216.122.129.112/dc/user_files/4108.jpg
>
>The Connally example above, I'll admit, isn't quite as solid an
>argument for LNers to make re. clothing holes that don'e align to
>skin-wound locale....because, obviously, that JBC jacket was hanging
>very loose on the front of JBC's body, unlike a man's shirt on his
>BACK.
Good of you to be honest...
>But.....
>
>To answer Cliff's specific question re. Sturdivan's comments in his
>book about Kennedy's clothing holes....I cite pages 217-218 of Larry's
>book:
>
>"The neck wounds shown in the autopsy pictures also correlate perfectly
>with the other evidence. In many pictures taken along the motorcade
>route, the President's suit coat is seen to be riding up his back as he
>waved to the crowd. When the coat is in this position, the holes in the
>coat and shirt line up with the wound in his back at the base of his
>neck.
It wasn't, of course, in the "base of his neck"... It's been an amazing journey
for this bullet... starting *below* the shoulder blade, and ending up in the
neck...
>Critics use the hole in the coat to prove that the entry wound on
>the back was lower than the autopsy photographs show it to be. It
>hardly needs to be stated that using a piece of movable clothing to
>dispute the location of a wound is a bad approach." -- Pp. 217-218;
>"The JFK Myths" by Larry M. Sturdivan
Nor does it hardly need to be stated that LNT'ers can't defend their wound
movement. What we have, quite clearly, is a bullet wound that as time went on,
kept moving upward.
>Once again (to drive home the effect of this important point):
>
>"It hardly needs to be stated that using a piece of movable clothing to
>dispute the location of a wound is a bad approach." -- L. Sturdivan
Once again (to drive home the effect of this important point):
Nor does it hardly need to be stated that LNT'ers can't defend their wound
movement. What we have, quite clearly, is a bullet wound that as time went on,
kept moving upward.
And like most LNT'ers, Davey-boy will snip this entire post, and refuse to
respond point by point.
Ben Holmes
says...
>
>> Then you're really going to feel like a fool (if and) when it comes out,
>
>Yeah...that must be why Vince specifically uttered these words a few
>years ago......
>
>"I agree with all of {Gerald} Posner's conclusions -- that Oswald
>killed Kennedy and acted alone -- but I disagree with his methodology.
>There's a credibility problem. When he is confronted with a situation
>antithetical to the view he's taking, he ignores or distorts it." -- V.
>Bugliosi
Doesn't change a thing. Bugliosis will omit, misrepresent, and in all
likelihood, outright lie about the evidence.
>> My prediction here and now: You'll *refuse* to answer any rebuttals of his
>> specific statments [sic], when his book surfaces.
>
>My prediction (#1): Ben will *refuse* to admit he was wrong when VB
>presents page after page of CT-debunking pro-LN points (as Larry
>Sturdivan has done before him in 2005 for that matter).
Care to put any money on this?
Actually, I just finished debunking the points you referenced from Sturdivan,
and you were forced to snip them.
You'll do the same with Bugliosi.
>.... IOW: Ben
>wouldn't know how to sort the "LN wheat" from the "CT chaff" if he took
>a 6-year college course on "Separating LN Wheat From CT Chaff".
Gutless coward, aren't you?
>My prediction (#2): Ben will remain a certifiable CT kook for life
>(even if the Lord God Almighty Himself sends down word from heaven next
>week telling the world "Lee Harvey Oswald Killed JFK & J.D. Tippit").
>
>Anybody up for a wager re. #2....or #1?
Yep... name the amount on #1. Number two is not falsifiable, and so is sheer
nonsense.
David VP
'Brainless Ben' proves his "idiot" status once more. He's wearing it
like a badge now.
Ben Holmes
Snip snip... snip snip... snip snip... and runnnnnnnn....
In article <1145068615.0...@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>, David VP
says...