Jump to content
The Education Forum

Let's Start a New JFK Forum


Recommended Posts

Ramon,

Best of luck, but count me out. I don't use social media. At age 70, I communicate to various audiences in speaking and writing on professional topics (tax matters). Social media, in my

limited view, is the domain of relatively young individuals. Young persons, in my experience, have no knowledge of, no interest in, the JFK assassination.

You'd be surprised, Jon.

I talk to millennials every now and again and I find that when one sticks to the basic facts they're interested and even down-right insightful

.One time I pointed out to a millennial friend that her generation wasn't interested in the JFK assassination.

"That's because they make it so boring," she said.

A couple weeks later she asks me what I'd been up to, and I said -- "Giving people hell about the basic facts of the Kennedy assassination."

"What are the basic facts of the Kennedy assassination?"

"You don't want to know."

"No -- I want to know. Tell me."

"Okay. He was shot in the back at the level of his third vertebra. The round didn't exit, and no round was discovered during the autopsy. He was shot in the throat from the front, the round didn't exit, and no round was recovered during the autopsy. So the central mystery of the case is -- 'What happened to the bullets that caused the back and throat wounds?'"

"...Well, was it a real autopsy?"

"A lot of problems with the autopsy but the basic facts remain...some people think the bullets were removed prior to the autopsy--"

"Or it was some government [stuff] that dissolved!"

Now, about a year later I told this anecdote to another millennial and when I got to the last line -- "Or it was some government [stuff] that dissolved" -- she immediately blurted -- "That's what I was gonna say!!"

One could have attended every major JFK conference for the past decade and never get this level of insight into the JFK assassination.

This made me wonder -- how could previously un-interested kids, armed with the basic facts of the case, trump the accumulated research experience of the JFK Assassination Critical Research Community?

It finally dawned on me. Folks born before 1970 or so grew up on James Bond and the notion high tech spy weaponry is the stuff of Hollywood fantasy.

The idea that JFK was struck with a high tech weapon which wouldn't show up in the autopsy -- which is exactly what the autopsists speculated when they had the body in front of them -- strikes the ears of a baby boomer as something silly.

Most boomers simply cannot take this scenario seriously.

Millennials, on the other hand, grew up on The Matrix, by Andy and Lana Wachowski.

Agent Smith vs. Agent 007.

High tech weaponry and government nobility versus high tech weaponry and government perfidy.

To a Boomer the idea of a dissolving bullet is silly.

To a Millennial such a scenario is obvious.

"Or it was some government [stuff] that dissolved!" Or, uh it was some stuff that they imported in from the future by time machine and after the shooting it was 'called' back to it's time, so it left no traces behind.

Ah. Contempt prior to investigation.

Quite the common condition hereabouts.

I don't think any of this 'magic dissolving' stuff has been found to exist.

So, how is that "thinking" stuff working out for you?

http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/church/reports/vol1/pdf/ChurchV1_1_Colby.pdf

http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/church/reports/vol1/pdf/ChurchV1_6_Senseney.pdf

I'm not a boomer or a millennial, I'm a 'greatest generationer' so maybe that's why I think that way. I'll bet all of those folks at the assassination were communicating by cell phone, or at least that would be obvious to a millennial.

Millennials don't have a problem grasping the information contained in those Church Committee reports.

You might, however....

I know a family that recently visited the 6th floor museum and they just assumed (didn't know any details) that the museum told them the truth, that LHO, a lone nutter, shot JFK with a rifle from the snipers nest. No question about it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ramon,

Best of luck, but count me out. I don't use social media. At age 70, I communicate to various audiences in speaking and writing on professional topics (tax matters). Social media, in my

limited view, is the domain of relatively young individuals. Young persons, in my experience, have no knowledge of, no interest in, the JFK assassination.

You'd be surprised, Jon.

I talk to millennials every now and again and I find that when one sticks to the basic facts they're interested and even down-right insightful

.One time I pointed out to a millennial friend that her generation wasn't interested in the JFK assassination.

"That's because they make it so boring," she said.

A couple weeks later she asks me what I'd been up to, and I said -- "Giving people hell about the basic facts of the Kennedy assassination."

"What are the basic facts of the Kennedy assassination?"

"You don't want to know."

"No -- I want to know. Tell me."

"Okay. He was shot in the back at the level of his third vertebra. The round didn't exit, and no round was discovered during the autopsy. He was shot in the throat from the front, the round didn't exit, and no round was recovered during the autopsy. So the central mystery of the case is -- 'What happened to the bullets that caused the back and throat wounds?'"

"...Well, was it a real autopsy?"

"A lot of problems with the autopsy but the basic facts remain...some people think the bullets were removed prior to the autopsy--"

"Or it was some government [stuff] that dissolved!"

Now, about a year later I told this anecdote to another millennial and when I got to the last line -- "Or it was some government [stuff] that dissolved" -- she immediately blurted -- "That's what I was gonna say!!"

One could have attended every major JFK conference for the past decade and never get this level of insight into the JFK assassination.

This made me wonder -- how could previously un-interested kids, armed with the basic facts of the case, trump the accumulated research experience of the JFK Assassination Critical Research Community?

It finally dawned on me. Folks born before 1970 or so grew up on James Bond and the notion high tech spy weaponry is the stuff of Hollywood fantasy.

The idea that JFK was struck with a high tech weapon which wouldn't show up in the autopsy -- which is exactly what the autopsists speculated when they had the body in front of them -- strikes the ears of a baby boomer as something silly.

Most boomers simply cannot take this scenario seriously.

Millennials, on the other hand, grew up on The Matrix, by Andy and Lana Wachowski.

Agent Smith vs. Agent 007.

High tech weaponry and government nobility versus high tech weaponry and government perfidy.

To a Boomer the idea of a dissolving bullet is silly.

To a Millennial such a scenario is obvious.

"Or it was some government [stuff] that dissolved!" Or, uh it was some stuff that they imported in from the future by time machine and after the shooting it was 'called' back to it's time, so it left no traces behind.

Ah. Contempt prior to investigation.

Quite the common condition hereabouts.

I don't think any of this 'magic dissolving' stuff has been found to exist.

So, how is that "thinking" stuff working out for you?

http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/church/reports/vol1/pdf/ChurchV1_1_Colby.pdf

http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/church/reports/vol1/pdf/ChurchV1_6_Senseney.pdf

I'm not a boomer or a millennial, I'm a 'greatest generationer' so maybe that's why I think that way. I'll bet all of those folks at the assassination were communicating by cell phone, or at least that would be obvious to a millennial.

Millennials don't have a problem grasping the information contained in those Church Committee reports.

You might, however....

I know a family that recently visited the 6th floor museum and they just assumed (didn't know any details) that the museum told them the truth, that LHO, a lone nutter, shot JFK with a rifle from the snipers nest. No question about it.

Millennials don't have a problem grasping the information contained in those Church Committee reports.

You might, however....

So Cliff, you think the millennials invented the bright bulbs, eh?

From your photo, I'd say you're not a spring chick either, so tell you what. Get on the internet and take a few of those quizzes along with a millennial, some in 'common sense, some in history, knowledge of JFK, US Constitution, who is president and I will assure you that if you are average, you will outscore all of them. I know I do. Add reasoning and math skills also. Millennials depend on Siri to answer their questions for them and don't know who to call if she doesn't answer. You can give them all the credit you wish.

Edited by Kenneth Drew
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The

Ramon,

Best of luck, but count me out. I don't use social media. At age 70, I communicate to various audiences in speaking and writing on professional topics (tax matters). Social media, in my

limited view, is the domain of relatively young individuals. Young persons, in my experience, have no knowledge of, no interest in, the JFK assassination.

You'd be surprised, Jon.

I talk to millennials every now and again and I find that when one sticks to the basic facts they're interested and even down-right insightful

.One time I pointed out to a millennial friend that her generation wasn't interested in the JFK assassination.

"That's because they make it so boring," she said.

A couple weeks later she asks me what I'd been up to, and I said -- "Giving people hell about the basic facts of the Kennedy assassination."

"What are the basic facts of the Kennedy assassination?"

"You don't want to know."

"No -- I want to know. Tell me."

"Okay. He was shot in the back at the level of his third vertebra. The round didn't exit, and no round was discovered during the autopsy. He was shot in the throat from the front, the round didn't exit, and no round was recovered during the autopsy. So the central mystery of the case is -- 'What happened to the bullets that caused the back and throat wounds?'"

"...Well, was it a real autopsy?"

"A lot of problems with the autopsy but the basic facts remain...some people think the bullets were removed prior to the autopsy--"

"Or it was some government [stuff] that dissolved!"

Now, about a year later I told this anecdote to another millennial and when I got to the last line -- "Or it was some government [stuff] that dissolved" -- she immediately blurted -- "That's what I was gonna say!!"

One could have attended every major JFK conference for the past decade and never get this level of insight into the JFK assassination.

This made me wonder -- how could previously un-interested kids, armed with the basic facts of the case, trump the accumulated research experience of the JFK Assassination Critical Research Community?

It finally dawned on me. Folks born before 1970 or so grew up on James Bond and the notion high tech spy weaponry is the stuff of Hollywood fantasy.

The idea that JFK was struck with a high tech weapon which wouldn't show up in the autopsy -- which is exactly what the autopsists speculated when they had the body in front of them -- strikes the ears of a baby boomer as something silly.

Most boomers simply cannot take this scenario seriously.

Millennials, on the other hand, grew up on The Matrix, by Andy and Lana Wachowski.

Agent Smith vs. Agent 007.

High tech weaponry and government nobility versus high tech weaponry and government perfidy.

To a Boomer the idea of a dissolving bullet is silly.

To a Millennial such a scenario is obvious.

"Or it was some government [stuff] that dissolved!" Or, uh it was some stuff that they imported in from the future by time machine and after the shooting it was 'called' back to it's time, so it left no traces behind.

Ah. Contempt prior to investigation.

Quite the common condition hereabouts.

I don't think any of this 'magic dissolving' stuff has been found to exist.

So, how is that "thinking" stuff working out for you?

http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/church/reports/vol1/pdf/ChurchV1_1_Colby.pdf

http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/church/reports/vol1/pdf/ChurchV1_6_Senseney.pdf

I'm not a boomer or a millennial, I'm a 'greatest generationer' so maybe that's why I think that way. I'll bet all of those folks at the assassination were communicating by cell phone, or at least that would be obvious to a millennial.

Millennials don't have a problem grasping the information contained in those Church Committee reports.

You might, however....

I know a family that recently visited the 6th floor museum and they just assumed (didn't know any details) that the museum told them the truth, that LHO, a lone nutter, shot JFK with a rifle from the snipers nest. No question about it.

Millennials don't have a problem grasping the information contained in those Church Committee reports.

You might, however....

So Cliff, you think the millennials invented the bright bulbs, eh?

Yeah, the ones I hang out with.

Like any generation there are the sharp and the dim.

I associate with the sharp ones.

From your photo, I'd say you're not a spring chick either, so tell you what.

Full on Boomer.

Get on the internet and take a few of those quizzes along with a millennial, some in 'common sense, some in history, knowledge of JFK, US Constitution, who is president and I will assure you that if you are average, you will outscore all of them. I know I do. Add reasoning and math skills also. Millennials depend on Siri to answer their questions for them and don't know who to call if she doesn't answer. You can give them all the credit you wish.

You don't get out much, do you?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, the ones I hang out with.

I think you'll find out one day that bright bulbs were around a long time before millennials were thought of.

You don't get out much, do you?

Most days.

You're trying to make a point?

You make it for me...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just what we need like a hole in the head (excuse the pun).

This forum provides plenty of debate on the physical evidence and ballistics. Those who are obsessed with convincing everyone of physical anomalies are protesting too loud, IMO. I already believe there was a conspiracy. I'd rather spend my time going the step further to figuring out who was responsible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just what we need like a hole in the head (excuse the pun).

This forum provides plenty of debate on the physical evidence and ballistics. Those who are obsessed with convincing everyone of physical anomalies are protesting too loud, IMO. I already believe there was a conspiracy. I'd rather spend my time going the step further to figuring out who was responsible.

Me too!

The night of the autopsy the doctors thought JFK might have been struck with a high tech weapon.

Th FBI guys took the scenario seriously and called the FBI Lab to check on the existence of such weapons.

Charles Senseney, a civilian employee of the US Army Special Operations Division at Ft. Detrick, MD, testified to the Church Comm. that he'd informed the FBI that such weaponry existed.

Since JFK reacted to the throat shot as if he seized up paralyzed -- a reaction consistent with a hit by a blood soluble paralytic -- it seems perfectly reasonable to follow that lead, which, after all, was developed and pursued at the autopsy.

Best lead in the case, habitually ignored or derided.

Why?

Edited by Cliff Varnell
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...