• Announcements

    • Evan Burton

      OPEN REGISTRATION BY EMAIL ONLY !!! PLEASE CLICK ON THIS TITLE FOR INFORMATION REQUIRED FOR REGISTRATION!:   06/03/2017

      We have 5 requirements for registration: 1.Sign up with your real name. (This will be your Username) 2.A valid email address 3.Your agreement to the Terms of Use, seen here: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=21403. 4. Your photo for use as an avatar  5.. A brief biography. We will post these for you, and send you your password. We cannot approve membership until we receive these. If you are interested, please send an email to: edforumbusiness@outlook.com We look forward to having you as a part of the Forum! Sincerely, The Education Forum Team
John Simkin

Wikipedia, Spartacus and the JFK Assassination

158 posts in this topic

As something of a fence-sitter on certain aspects of this matter (yeah, I know, I know, beat me up!), I will say this about some of the LN postings that have been appearing of late, here and elsewhere: I have no problem with well-framed and polite LN arguments; as I said, it helps us all put a finer point on our arguments. A few years back, there seemed to be some LN postings that followed these guidelines; but lately, a lot of the LN stuff has taken on an overly-aggressive and deprecating quality. I've just about given up on alt.conspiracy.jfk, and I'm close to giving up on alt.assassination.jfk. I don't think some of these posters realize how ineffective their arguments are when they phrase them in such insulting tones.

************************************************************

"I have no problem with well-framed and polite LN arguments; as I said, it helps us all put a finer point on our arguments."

And, I'm in total agreement with you on that point, Stephen. Plus, I would never attempt to beat up anyone as polite and articulate as you have always been. But, when it comes to someone exhibiting downright rudeness and idiocy, such as Von Pain, I have no qualms about levelling him to the status I personally feel he deserves. I believe in "our right to agree to disagree." But, in the case of the overly-agressive, deprecating quality some have chosen to adopt, as you've pointed out, my reaction is to "fight fire with fire."

Same thing with regard to those "five supposed experts," at Wikipedia, which is what I believe this thread started out as. For them to have the unmitigated gall, and audacity to proclaim that sparatcus.com should be relegated to the status of being considered "unreliable" and therefore censored, just because they were "devastated" since their senses were somehow being "assaulted" by the truth as it was being presented on The Education Forum. What kind of display of cognizant reasoning is that, for a site purportedly established for the availability of public access and dissemination of "accurate" information on the caliber of what one might expect to find in the volumes of The Encyclopedia Brittanica, or even in The Wonder Book of Knowledge, for that matter?

Well, I've got to get to the office. See you all later this evening.

Edited by Terry Mauro

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To get back to Ms. Davison's question, this is a question I have asked myself...what evidence is there that Ford changed the wording to support the SBT? The answer, I'm afraid, is both very little and conclusive. He said he changed it to be more "precise." The only indication in the record that the wound was on the neck is the Rydberg drawings, created by the doctors in preparation for their testimony. Prior to their creation, the only drawing of the President's wounds was the autopsy face sheet, which shows the wound to be on the shoulder. After looking at this "picture", Rankin told the commissioners that the purported entrance on the back was lower than the purported exit in the throat, and said he would seek "help" from the doctors along these lines. It would be extremely naive, IMO, for anyone not to conclude CE385, which shows the back wound at the base of the neck and higher than the throat wound, to be anything but this "help." Thus, Ford's changes were designed to make the report concur with drawings created specifically to support the SBT, and were thus designed to support the SBT.

The real question is whether or not the doctors, as of March, 1964, when they created the drawings, and Ford, as of June, 1964, when he suggested the changes, KNEW the wound location in the drawings was inaccurate. There is no real indication they knew the drawings created to "help" the commission were in error. There is, however, one man who ADMITTED looking at the back wound photo and comparing it to the Rydberg drawings before the publication of the Warren Report. This is the only man who undoubtedly knew the back wound was NOT at the base of the neck, and that, therefore, the Rydberg drawings were inaccurate and the SBT unlikely. That man was the creator of the SBT, Arlen Specter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes, I have read the original article and the excerpt from Kurtz' book. My point is that neither one offers any evidence whatsoever to support the claim that Ford made his revision to support the SBT. Both Morningstar and Kurtz claim that the entry wound *had* to be raised to the "back of the neck" in order to make the Warren Commission's single bullet theory work. But the assertion isn't supported, it's simply a claim.

Furthermore, the claim is false, since there was no need to raise the wound into the nape of the neck. Here's the official WC illustration of the SBT, Commission Exhibit 903:

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk...Vol18_0055b.htm

Whether one agrees with it or not, that *is* the WC's trajectory for the single bullet, and as you can see, it doesn't require an entry in "the back of the neck."

I respectfully ask that you take another look at this issue. My question is still, what evidence is there that Ford made his revision in order to support the SBT? Thanks for listening, and happy new year.

Jean

See above the Robert Charles-Dunne explanation of why Ford’s actions are so important to the “magic bullet” theory.

--------------

He talked about the location of the back wound, but not wasn't the question.

Neither he nor anyone else, to my knowledge, has ever explained how moving the back wound up to THE NECK supports the SBT. Nobody CAN support it, because moving the entry to the neck would destroy the WC's SBT trajectory, not strengthen it.

Again I'll refer you to CE 903. Although Specter didn't drill a hole in the stand-in's body and drive the rod through it, had he done so, the entry would be in the upper back, not in the neck. There's a string on the wall above his hand that shows an angle of about 18 degrees -- that's the approximate angle measured by a surveyor during the re-enactment and the one the WC used for its SBT. If the rod is moved up to the neck, the bullet will exit well above the exit wound under JFK's Adam's apple.

Or take a look at this photo of JFK:

http://www.jfklancer.com/photos/sbt/hsca.jpg

Try drawing a line of c. 18 degrees backward from the knot in JFK's tie. Where does it come out? Upper back, right?

The claim that Ford's change "strengthens" the WC's SBT is simply not true.

If I haven't made my point by now, I give up. Sorry about the bio, but I really didn't intend to be here this long and don't plan to stick around.

<snipping the review>

Jean

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The claim that Ford's change "strengthens" the WC's SBT is simply not true.

If I haven't made my point by now, I give up. Sorry about the bio, but I really didn't intend to be here this long and don't plan to stick around.

<snipping the review>

Jean

Jean:

Hope you do pop in from time to time.

Let me play Devil's Advocate: I think there is one school of thought on the torso wound, that the positioning of the wounds was actually too flat: in other words that the back would was level with or lower than the throat wound.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What is this all about? I've read several posters here opine that it might be good to have some LNs here to keep the debate lively. Jean Davison comes here and asks a couple of polite questions, and for this she is subjected to attacks. To make matters worse, the attacks reference David von Pein, a notably more aggressive writer who merely admires Davison's book, to give her the "guilt-by-association" treatment. Whassup with that? It is also striking that this all occurs in a thread complaining that all points of view are not fairly represented at another site. Are contrary or controversial points of view not welcome here? Are we unable to answer Davison's polite questions with equal politeness? Frankly, this kind of give-and-take helps us keep our own house in better order.

Indeed,

DVon Pain is wrong about everything else he says about Oswald, but Jean's writing on the assassination does have reasoned thinking, sound logic and common sense, and she should be a welcome addition to the discussion.

I started a thread on her book Oswald's Game under History Books to broaden such a discussion, if she bothers to stick around.

I would also like to address DVP's points in another thread as well.

You would think that if DVP and JD used common sense they would recognize that if all the evidence points so distinctly at one person as the culpret, that it may be planted as a set up?

As for Ford, I would like to know what Jean Davison thinks Ford had in mind when he changed the wording of the report if it was not to reallign the facts to fit the single-bullet-theory?

-------

Bill, the original sentence read, "A bullet had entered his back at a point slightly above the shoulder..." Where would that be? It's unclear, don't you think? Ford said he was trying to clarify the meaning, and I think that's plausible, even though his revision wasn't a good one. Since he probably hadn't seen the autopsy photo of the back, he may not've been certain where the wound actually was. The WC and staff should've been allowed to view the autopsy photos, imo, so that the wound descriptions could've been clearer and more consistent from one section of the WR to another.

The Report has several different descriptions of this wound, such as, "the point where the bullet entered the President's back...." (second paragraph here)

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk...eport_0061b.htm

and ... "The bullet that hit President Kennedy in the back..."

(third paragraph):

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk...eport_0065a.htm

I hope that the fact that all the evidence points so disctinctly to O.J. doesn't mean that you think he was framed.

Thanks for the post, Bill. I'm sorry but I don't really want to talk about my book. It was written so long ago, I'd have to re-read it to find out what I said! <g>

Jean

BK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If I haven't made my point by now, I give up. Sorry about the bio, but I really didn't intend to be here this long and don't plan to stick around.

Jean

Jean:

Just before you grab your coat and hat, there's a question I've wanted to ask you since reading "Oswald's Game:"

To the best of your knowledge, are you in any way related to Alexis or Natasha Davison of Atlanta, GA?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If I haven't made my point by now, I give up. Sorry about the bio, but I really didn't intend to be here this long and don't plan to stick around.

Jean

Jean:

Just before you grab your coat and hat, there's a question I've wanted to ask you since reading "Oswald's Game:"

To the best of your knowledge, are you in any way related to Alexis or Natasha Davison of Atlanta, GA?

I am not now, nor have I ever been, related to any Davison of Atlanta, to the best of my knowledge.

Jean

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Perhaps you're right, but all she did was ask a question, and the only response was a note that von Pein liked her book.

That is not true. I provided a detailed answer (61). So did Robert Charles-Dunne (63).

Jean Davidson is welcome to post on the forum. So far, we have been unable to find a supporter of the LN theory willing to defend their position for any length of time while abiding by the rules. Jean has already made clear that she is unwilling to do this and does not intend to stay long. It is up to our readers to decide why this is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Perhaps you're right, but all she did was ask a question, and the only response was a note that von Pein liked her book.

That is not true. I provided a detailed answer (61). So did Robert Charles-Dunne (63).

I stand corrected. As some of her questions came within quoted text, it is difficult to follow the questions and resonses. I see her question in 63 (which I thought was addressed to you) and your response in 67.

Jean Davidson is welcome to post on the forum.

Davison, no second "D". Her welcome was a bit ambiguous.

So far, we have been unable to find a supporter of the LN theory willing to defend their position for any length of time while abiding by the rules. Jean has already made clear that she is unwilling to do this

She made clear that she is not willing to abide by the rules?

and does not intend to stay long. It is up to our readers to decide why this is.

I disagree that readers are free to draw inferences from her disinclination to stay.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jean:

Just before you grab your coat and hat, there's a question I've wanted to ask you since reading "Oswald's Game:"To the best of your knowledge, are you in any way related to Alexis or Natasha Davison of Atlanta, GA?

I am not now, nor have I ever been, related to any Davison of Atlanta, to the best of my knowledge. Jean

Jean,

Thanks for sticking around awhile.

From JFKPlace postings crediting your archives re: LHO's DD1173, it seems that you have read some of the records released by the JFK Act and some of the AARB reports, the Horne reports on DD1173 in particular.

Having reviewed those items, what is your take on DD1173 and what it means, if anything?

And are there any other areas of interest that you have pursued like that?

Thanks, BK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If I haven't made my point by now, I give up. Sorry about the bio, but I really didn't intend to be here this long and don't plan to stick around.

Jean

Jean:

Just before you grab your coat and hat, there's a question I've wanted to ask you since reading "Oswald's Game:"

To the best of your knowledge, are you in any way related to Alexis or Natasha Davison of Atlanta, GA?

Alexis Davidson below.

James

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

addrsbkdav.jpgThe individual referred is must be Dr. Alexis Davison, whose mother's, (Natalia Alekseevna Belimisheva Davison) address in Atlanta was discovered in Oswald's address book. [CE 18] Natalia Alekseevana arrived in the USA with her father after the Russian Civil War but she returned to the Soviet Union in 1924. There she met and married the father of Alexis Davison, a US Red Cross official.

Alexis Davison, as an Embassy doctor had conducted a medical examination of Marina in 1962 in Moscow prior to the Oswalds' departure for the USA. Davison could not recall giving his address to Lee or Marina but testified before the HCSA that in doing so, "this was not an unusual thing to do since my family had always been very hospitable to Russians who visited Atlanta."

Davison was an agent for the CIA, providing "passive communication support" for a major intelligence operatation in Moscow involving the Russian spy GRU Colonel Oleg Penkovsky. In May 1963, Penkovsky was arrested and Davison was one of the US diplomats ordered out of the USSR. Penkovsky was later shot as a traitor by the Russians. While the CIA denies that Davison undertook any other intelligence functions other than those in the Penkovsky operation, many of Davison's files remain classified. Was he a full-time CIA operative or a casual agent as the CIA alleges?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do not only create web pages on the assassination of JFK. In fact, it is only a small part of my website, probably less than 5% of the total. My encyclopedia was started in September, 1997, and includes much large sections on parliamentary reform, the early trade union movement, women’s suffrage, the two world wars, the railways, the Spanish Civil War, etc.

I just produce materials on topics that interest me. Recently, I have been working on a detailed history of West Ham United (for those members from outside the UK, they are a fairly small football/soccer club from the east-end of London). I have a large collection of books on the subject (I have been a supporter of the club for over 50 years). I am also very proud of my photograph collection that I have accumulated over the years on the early history of the club (1895-1940).

I have not uploaded the history section yet. However, I have produced a few pages on these early players that include my collection of photographs. When I create a page I always carry out a search to see what else is available. I then provide a link to that page so that my visitor can get to as much related information as possible. For example, there is a site on the web that lists every game that every West Ham player has played in. This site took some finding as it does not appear very high in search-engine results.

http://www.westhamstats.info/westham.php?west=0

The site that always appears first when you type in a West Ham player is Wikipedia. It seems that someone has written a biography of every player and put it on Wikipedia. However, a closer inspection shows that what this person has done is to copy out the entries that appeared in Tony Hogg’s book, “Who’s Who of West Ham United” (2000). That is of course what happens with Wikipedia. I am always getting emails from my visitors pointing out that Wikipedia is stealing material from my website. So far I have done nothing about this but I am now reconsidering my position on this matter.

These pages included no photographs or links to other pages such as the West Ham Statistics site that I mentioned earlier. I therefore added a link to my individual pages as they did include photographs and links to other related material (including those that a part of the Wikipedia encyclopedia).

To my surprise, within 24 hours, the links that I placed on Wikipedia had been removed by the name:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Nzd

He/she claimed that the reason that the link had been removed was that I was guilty of advertising my own website. According to this person, you are not allowed to add links to sites you own yourself. This is of course ridiculous and is clearly not the real reason. I suspect the reason is Nzd is the person who copied the material from Tony Hogg’s book. He probably now plans to steal my photographs to go with the text he has stolen. If the link remained, others would have discovered what he was up to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I do not only create web pages on the assassination of JFK. In fact, it is only a small part of my website, probably less than 5% of the total. My encyclopedia was started in September, 1997, and includes much large sections on parliamentary reform, the early trade union movement, women’s suffrage, the two world wars, the railways, the Spanish Civil War, etc.

I just produce materials on topics that interest me. Recently, I have been working on a detailed history of West Ham United (for those members from outside the UK, they are a fairly small football/soccer club from the east-end of London). I have a large collection of books on the subject (I have been a supporter of the club for over 50 years). I am also very proud of my photograph collection that I have accumulated over the years on the early history of the club (1895-1940).

I have not uploaded the history section yet. However, I have produced a few pages on these early players that include my collection of photographs. When I create a page I always carry out a search to see what else is available. I then provide a link to that page so that my visitor can get to as much related information as possible. For example, there is a site on the web that lists every game that every West Ham player has played in. This site took some finding as it does not appear very high in search-engine results.

http://www.westhamstats.info/westham.php?west=0

The site that always appears first when you type in a West Ham player is Wikipedia. It seems that someone has written a biography of every player and put it on Wikipedia. However, a closer inspection shows that what this person has done is to copy out the entries that appeared in Tony Hogg’s book, “Who’s Who of West Ham United” (2000). That is of course what happens with Wikipedia. I am always getting emails from my visitors pointing out that Wikipedia is stealing material from my website. So far I have done nothing about this but I am now reconsidering my position on this matter.

These pages included no photographs or links to other pages such as the West Ham Statistics site that I mentioned earlier. I therefore added a link to my individual pages as they did include photographs and links to other related material (including those that a part of the Wikipedia encyclopedia).

To my surprise, within 24 hours, the links that I placed on Wikipedia had been removed by the name:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Nzd

He/she claimed that the reason that the link had been removed was that I was guilty of advertising my own website. According to this person, you are not allowed to add links to sites you own yourself. This is of course ridiculous and is clearly not the real reason. I suspect the reason is Nzd is the person who copied the material from Tony Hogg’s book. He probably now plans to steal my photographs to go with the text he has stolen. If the link remained, others would have discovered what he was up to.

Magic, I never knew you had a Hammers section in the encyclopedia.

Are you Daemonic Kangaroo? I've just checked the wacki for Vic Watson and John Dick. The Vic Watson one has an external link to your photos and a reference citing Hoggs book.

Can you direct me to some of the controversial ones you're talking about, as I'd like to check these out.

Kudos on the photos. Does your collection include any of your own?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Magic, I never knew you had a Hammers section in the encyclopedia.

Are you Daemonic Kangaroo? I've just checked the wacki for Vic Watson and John Dick. The Vic Watson one has an external link to your photos and a reference citing Hoggs book.

Can you direct me to some of the controversial ones you're talking about, as I'd like to check these out.

You will find the first draft of a few of the players here:

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/WestHam.htm

I will start uploading the history section in a few weeks time.

Feel free to add comments about West Ham here:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showforum=244

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now