Jump to content
The Education Forum

Let's Start a New JFK Forum


Recommended Posts

Hi folks, I am planning to start a new forum in LinkedIn.

https://www.linkedin.com/

It would be focused on this kind of material:

http://patriot.net/~ramon/jfk/Physics-of-JFK-Assassination-Miatello.pdf

http://patriot.net/~ramon/jfk/The-JFK-Autopsy-Materials-Twenty-Conclusions-after-Nine-Visits.pdf

http://patriot.net/~ramon/jfk/Gemma-Radford-MSc-Thesis.pdf

... complete with a section about "Assorted Snake Oil and Bovine Manure":

http://patriot.net/~ramon/jfk/Luis-Alvarez-and-the-JFK-Assassination.pdf

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dale_K._Myers

In the LinkedIn site, just to mention a few examples, there are already forums about Clinical Pathology (3400 members). Some are private, for MDs, but I am sure we can find a way to ask some members the Radiology forums to interpret the JFK X-rays for us.

http://patriot.net/~ramon/jfk/Radiology-Forums.png

Everybody is welcome, of course, but the people I am mostly after, the ones who can provide the most value, is the likes of David Mantik, Alberto Miatello (see first paper above), John Hunt, etc.

http://www.history-matters.com/essays/jfkmed/ADemonstrableImpossibility/ADemonstrableImpossibility.htm

TIA for your interest.

Edited by Ramon F. Herrera
Link to comment
Share on other sites

David Mantik is already a founding member of my forum. However, he doesn't participate too often in posted discussions due to his travel schedule, but he will respond to questions and occasionally write an article. Good luck with your efforts, Ramon.

Hi Greg: Can you please either send me Dr. Mantik's e-mail address or forward a message of mine to him?

My e-mail address is: ramon@patriot.net

Alternatively, I can join the forum that you mentioned and post a letter to him there.

Thanks!

Addition:

Oh! It turns out that I am already member of your forum, and Doug Horne -another person that I have been trying to track down- is a founding member as well.

Edited by Ramon F. Herrera
Link to comment
Share on other sites

David Mantik is already a founding member of my forum. However, he doesn't participate too often in posted discussions due to his travel schedule, but he will respond to questions and occasionally write an article. Good luck with your efforts, Ramon.

Does Dr. Mantik travel to a planet where discrete, concrete objects can occupy the same physical space at the same time?

According to Mantik's T1 back wound theory 2 inches of JFK's jacket and 2 inches of his shirt occupied the same physical space as JFK's jacket collar, which rested at a normal position at the upper margin of the base of his neck.

Maybe there is no such thing as a multiple car accident on Planet Mantik...

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.

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.

Edited by Cliff Varnell
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.

I agree with your statement. I've not joined linkedin or twitter, both 'not my thing' mostly for 'cute comments' both are severely limited in no of characters per post, so not much interchange.

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

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.

Jon, I like to think of myself as an Internet pioneer and co-founder (was lucky enough to be at MIT at the time and worked deploying the network. After that, was appointed Tzar of the Venezuelan branch and worked expanding it to other Latin American countries). I also -like you- always tell folks that despite my early background do not use social media.

What gives?

This is the thing: I do not consider LinkedIn to be social. It is more properly defined as a professional network. I have avoided Tweeter and Facebook like that plague.

Let me put it in another way: the forum that I am describing and this one are not that different, are they?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ramon,

Best of luck, but count me out. I don't use social media.

Jon, I like to think of myself as an Internet pioneer and co-founder (was lucky enough to be at MIT at the time and worked deploying the network. After that, was appointed Tzar of the Venezuelan branch and worked expanding it to other Latin American countries).

(*) Yes, Al Gore was there and was inducted to the Internet Hall of Fame. I did not directly interact with Al, but my boss did.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Gore_and_information_technology

Mr. Gore was also appointed by his best friend, Steve Jobs, as Member of the Apple Board of Directors

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ramon,

Best of luck, but count me out. I don't use social media.

Jon, I like to think of myself as an Internet pioneer and co-founder (was lucky enough to be at MIT at the time and worked deploying the network. After that, was appointed Tzar of the Venezuelan branch and worked expanding it to other Latin American countries). I also -like you- always tell folks that despite my early background do not use social media.

What gives?

This is the thing: I do not consider LinkedIn to be social. It is more properly defined as a professional network. I have avoided Tweeter and Facebook like that plague.

Let me put it in another way: the forum that I am describing and this one are not that different, are they?

Congrats on still looking like a youngster in your photos. I was in the Research Triangle Park back in the early 70's where the 'beginnings' of the internet had spread after originating back in the 60's out in California after some of the early concept work of the early 60's at MIT, etc. It was fascinating back in those days with the blazing speeds in the low Kbps. It hadn't improved very much even by the late 80's where it was still in the kbps ranges where I could watch the operating systems from the manufacturing.operations on a laptop at home. Sitting here in my house now with an iphone 5s directly off a cell tower I can download at 40 mbps. Seems almost unbelievable but with Google fiber now hitting 1000mbps, wow.....And I'm sure, that since you were there at MIT back in the early 60's must be even more amazed at the things you are seeing now compared to those pioneering days. I didn't realize Al Gore was that old either.

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...