Jump to content
The Education Forum
Douglas Caddy

Oswald mock trial drop box of CLE course materials

Recommended Posts

On 11/22/2017 at 7:17 PM, Michael Clark said:

Cliff, I admire your persistence, and I agree that the evidence that you hold-forth is monumental and definitive. Yet, please respect my observations, in light of the comments of Vincent Salandria at @13 minutes into the video that was recently posted, and in light of the comments he made at about the same time, that the shirt holes do qualify as the minutiae that Vince warned about. Conspiracy is a fact. I will go back and lift Mr. salandria's exact words but it is long-past the time to even care about gathering consensus on the minutiae. It has long-been time to board a plane and map the landscape. To be sure, I am aware that you are all over that as well, and I hope that you publish your findings.

Regards,

Michael

Michael, your thoughtful post got me thinking.

If my posts on this thread incited a back and forth with a T3 denier I'd agree with you wholeheartedly that that was what Salandria opposed.

But you'll notice there is only a whimper from the T3 denialists, no fake debate at all.  I cite readily observable facts and they meltdown, stfu.

Salandria wasn't pushing for the end of research -- no! indeed, he was establishing the place where we start research!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/22/2017 at 7:17 PM, Michael Clark said:

 I hope that you publish your findings.

Regards,

Michael

Thank you for that, Michael.

I'm deeply ambivalent about publishing findings.

The JFKA Critical Community is researcher-centric.  There is a tendency for researchers to "own" their fields of expertise.

Don Thomas "owns" the acoustics evidence.

James DiEugenio "owns" the provenance of CE399, and all things Garrison as well.

Doug Weldon "owned" the t&t windshield hole.

Sherry Fiester "owned" the blood splatter evidence.

David Lifton and Doug Horne "own" the pre-autopsy surgery scenario.

John Costella and Jack White "own" Zapruder film alteration.

But the Vincent Salandria School doesn't play that.  In the interview when Salandria was asked if he regarded his debunking of the single bullet theory as his greatest accomplishment -- he acted as if he didn't think debunking the sbt was any kind of accomplishment.  After all, all he did was point out the obvious -- the bullet holes in the clothes are too low to associate with the throat wound.

Salandria doesn't own the clothing evidence.  Neither do I, nor anyone else.

 Gaeton Fonzi didn't own the Weaponized Fact of Conspiracy, and neither do I nor anyone else.

David Lifton doesn't own the FBI report on the autopsy, nor does anyone else.

I don't own Charles Senseney's testimony to the Church Committee, or William Colby's.

But if I point out excerpts from the historical record people will go -- "Your dart gun theory"' -- attributing to me the scenario suggested by the autopsists when they had the body in front of them.

I get that all the time -- "Your dart gun theory."

No, no...I'm not researcher-centric.

I'm evidence-centric.

Edited by Cliff Varnell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Cliff Varnell said:

Michael, your thoughtful post got me thinking.

If my posts on this thread incited a back and forth with a T3 denier I'd agree with you wholeheartedly that that was what Salandria opposed.

But you'll notice there is only a whimper from the T3 denialists, no fake debate at all.  I cite readily observable facts and they meltdown, stfu.

Salandria wasn't pushing for the end of research -- no! indeed, he was establishing the place where we start research!

 

I'd like to hear from the T3 denialists myself. But since I don't....

My guess is that it has to do with the autopsy photo showing no wound at T3. As I see it, you can either believe that the photo was doctored, or that somehow the shirt rode up. I have no trouble whatsoever concluding that the photo was doctored. But for some reason some people just can't believe that happened. And so they force themselves into accepting that the shirt rode up.

I'm pretty sure that the reason they don't respond to your posts, Cliff, is because they know it could only end in you and them arguing endlessly.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

I'd like to hear from the T3 denialists myself. But since I don't....

My guess is that it has to do with the autopsy photo showing no wound at T3. As I see it, you can either believe that the photo was doctored, or that somehow the shirt rode up. I have no trouble whatsoever concluding that the photo was doctored. But for some reason some people just can't believe that happened. And so they force themselves into accepting that the shirt rode up.

I'm pretty sure that the reason they don't respond to your posts, Cliff, is because they know it could only end in you and them arguing endlessly.

 

Sandy, the incredible thing about the shirt lifters (if you'll excuse the expression) is that they  believe that both the shirt and the jacket both rose up the same amount. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

I'd like to hear from the T3 denialists myself. But since I don't....

My guess is that it has to do with the autopsy photo showing no wound at T3. As I see it, you can either believe that the photo was doctored, or that somehow the shirt rode up.

Somehow how?

6 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

I have no trouble whatsoever concluding that the photo was doctored. But for some reason some people just can't believe that happened.

Screw them.  They deserve every bit of ridicule  poured upon their heads.

6 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

And so they force themselves into accepting that the shirt rode up.

I'm pretty sure that the reason they don't respond to your posts, Cliff, is because they know it could only end in you and them arguing endlessly.

What argument?

They don't have an argument!

There is no debate, is there?

Endlessly repeating one''s conclusion is not an argument.  It's an invitation for well deserved public humiliation.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/25/2017 at 6:50 AM, Ray Mitcham said:

Sandy, the incredible thing about the shirt lifters (if you'll excuse the expression) is that they  believe that both the shirt and the jacket both rose up the same amount. 

Indeed.  Multiple inch shirt lift is contrary to the nature of reality given JFK's casual posture.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/25/2017 at 4:02 AM, Sandy Larsen said:

I'm pretty sure that the reason they don't respond to your posts, Cliff, is because they know it could only end in you and them arguing endlessly.

My favorite T3 denier is David Von Pein.  He promoted Gross Shirt Lift until I pointed out the normal amount of JFK's shirt collar visible in the Elm St. photos.

He readily conceded the point -- there could be no significant elevation of the clothing without pushing up on the jacket collar and thus occluding the shirt collar.

He started to go on and on about the supremacy of the BOH autopsy photo -- a view shared by all T3 deniers -- but I cut him off with: "No further questions."

If CAPA were to lead with the FBI report on the autopsy how could the state rebut it?  The prosectors were "at a loss" to explain a shallow wound of entrance in the back below the shoulders, no exit, no bullet.

This lets Oswald off the hook since a MC 6.5mm strike is inconsistent with that wound pattern.

This destroys the sbt.

The state has nothing to challenge any of this.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/20/2017 at 11:05 AM, James DiEugenio said:

I do not think this was a promotion by people like Cheeser, and Mantik as Pat seems to imply.  Those guys are not activists in any sense.  They just do their work and get published willy nilly.

From my info this was a CAPA production, that is people like Andrew Krieg and Bill Kelly and Wecht etc.  The witnesses were chosen by the lawyers, just as they would be in a real case.  And what the witnesses testified to was also proscribed by the lawyers.  As any lawyer or judge will tell you, the presentation's effectiveness is as much determined by the examiner as by the witness.  

There will be a DVD of this put out and those who did not subscribe to the Livestream can then see what the procedure was themselves.

Having watched the whole thing over two days, I stand by what I said. There was too much information, which needed more explication, for a jury to digest in two days.  In a real trial, you can do that since you have much more time to do so.  But considering the limitations of this proceeding, I would have streamlined it and spent more time on explication of a few central points, than on presenting a welter of material to a layman.  

The other thing is, you also had to go right after the circumstantial case against Oswald. I don't think that was done.  Only Bill Simpich tried to explain the Oswald profile and that was on the second day.  And as I said, the Craig-Robinson testimony was not introduced at all, even though you had Thompson there.

As I said, I think former police officer Brian Edwards was the most effective witness, but he went last.  If he had gone first, and if he had been allowed to expound more on a few key points, I think the result may have been different.

 

FWIW, I was thinking more of Don Thomas and the dictabelt evidence. While Thomas has convinced men like Wecht, Aguilar, and Thompson the dictabelt evidence is sound, and suggests five or more shots, I actually side with Mantik on this issue, and suspect it to be an enormous red herring. If there is something to it--which I doubt--it's probably beyond the comprehension of a jury. In any event, I know a number of people have been dying to get Thomas his day in court.

He got it. How did it go? Evidently not as well as they had hoped.

Edited by Pat Speer

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

×