Jump to content
The Education Forum
Vince Palamara

Bush not in Dallas- He is dead

Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, Ron Ecker said:

Ha ha ha ha. All I have to do to know that the "back of the head" photo is fake is to look at it. Where's the hole that all those medical professionals saw and documented? But then why even show a photo of the back of JFK's head unless the purpose was to show that what was there wasn't there, because - well, because it would very inconvenient for it to still be there. So see, it isn't there!

Oh, but how could anyone dare think that the U.S. government or military would fake something. There was a time in my life when I wouldn't dare think such a thing. It would be so unpatriotic! But over the years the U.S. government has opened my eyes to many things about itself, and guess what, it continues to do so.

You should be thankful that you have a government you can trust in France.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

OK, I'll ask again : do you have any evidence ? Can we see it ?
Or do you prefer to keep throwing wild accusations without concern for evidence ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, François Carlier said:

OK, I'll ask again : do you have any evidence ? Can we see it ?
Or do you prefer to keep throwing wild accusations without concern for evidence ?

I told you what my evidence is on the back of the head photo. The two eyeballs in my head that can still see things. Which reminds me of an old document that says something about "we hold these truths to be self-evident."

I know that's not good enough for you, nothing would be, so you and the others will have to carry on without me.

 

Edited by Ron Ecker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I dunno, Ron - not much trust in the French government among the middle class and working poor these days.  We should be as brave over here as are the gilets-jaunes:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/nov/24/french-gilets-jaunes-protests-turn-violent-on-the-streets-of-paris

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/dec/03/who-are-the-gilets-jaunes-and-what-do-they-want

https://www.theguardian.com/world/gallery/2018/dec/08/gilets-jaunes-protesters-clash-with-police-in-paris-in-pictures

A nous la liberte, and all that.  Here, too - OK?

 

Edited by David Andrews

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, David Andrews said:

I dunno, Ron - not much trust in the French government among the middle class and working poor these days.  We should be as brave over here as are the gilets-jaunes:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/nov/24/french-gilets-jaunes-protests-turn-violent-on-the-streets-of-paris

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/dec/03/who-are-the-gilets-jaunes-and-what-do-they-want

https://www.theguardian.com/world/gallery/2018/dec/08/gilets-jaunes-protesters-clash-with-police-in-paris-in-pictures

A nous la liberte, and all that.  Here, too - OK?

 

I thought they were supposed to eat cake over there.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, François Carlier said:

If you're so clever, and if I'm so wrong, and if your beloved 20 professionals saw a real wound, then how come the photos and x-rays don't show it ?
Care to answer that question ?

 

Sure Francois.  Let's reason this through:

The testimonies of the 20 Parkland medical professionals are quite consistent with each other, but irreconcilably contradict with what the back-of-head (BOH) autopsy photo shows. (I'm not a radiologist, so I can't speak about the head x-rays.) This means that one of the following must have happened:

  1. Either the 20 Parkland professionals mass hallucinated the same thing; or
  2. The BOH photo was altered or faked.

I don't believe in mass hallucination... do you? I didn't think so. That leaves us with number 2.

It is easy to fake a photograph of the back of somebody's head. We therefore conclude that that is what happened. It explains the contradiction between the 20 Parkland medical professionals and the BOH photo.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I'll add my two cents even though Lance, DVP and Francois have stated things very well. It is obvious when looking at the "data dump" from Sandy that the witnesses do not even agree with themselves. The descriptions of the wounds as well as the drawings vary. So who do you believe?

We know from scientific studies such as those done by Elizabeth Loftus that witnesses will vary on their remembrances of a given incident. We also know that the Dallas doctors were engaged in an effort to save the President and describing or documenting the wounds was a secondary and "after the fact" consideration. Additionally, we know that some of these doctors' exposure to JFK was fleeting at best. To resolve these issues, we can go to the physical evidence authenticated by the HSCA-the autopsy photos and x-ray. These show no such back of the head defect. Problem solved unless you believe in alteration which there is no evidence for.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

. Problem solved unless you believe in alteration which there is no evidence for.

I keep getting sucked into this. I need more will power. Would you consider the use of two brains in the autopsy to fall under the category of fakery or alteration? There is evidence for it, because the ARRB found it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Ron Ecker said:

I keep getting sucked into this. I need more will power. Would you consider the use of two brains in the autopsy to fall under the category of fakery or alteration? There is evidence for it, because the ARRB found it. 

I would say fakery probably. But I don't believe that happened.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's all just abandon this thread and let the like-minded individuals play here together.  We who disagree on how but not what may go pursue happiness elsewhere.

This is the second-hottest topic on the front page, but that's just measuring the energy wasted in wheels spinning in Forward and Reverse, alternately.

Edited by David Andrews

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

Well, I'll add my two cents even though Lance, DVP and Francois have stated things very well. It is obvious when looking at the "data dump" from Sandy that the witnesses do not even agree with themselves. The descriptions of the wounds as well as the drawings vary. So who do you believe?


Oh come on Tracy... the descriptions of the gaping wound are quite consistent with each other. There will always be a little variation in eyewitness testimony and a few outliers. But to imply that they do not agree with each other is intellectually dishonest.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, David Andrews said:

Let's all just abandon this thread and let the like-minded individuals play here together.  We who disagree on how but not what may go pursue happiness elsewhere.

 

Excellent suggestion. I'm outta here!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, David Andrews said:

Let's all just abandon this thread and let the like-minded individuals play here together.

 

2 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

Excellent suggestion. I'm outta here!

 

Ditto.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:
  1. The BOH photo was altered or faked.

 

You are so wrong !
These documents were authenticated by the HSCA.

PART III. CONCLUSIONS

     (179)  From the reports of the experts' analyses of the
autopsy photographs and X-rays, the evidence indicates that the
autopsy photographs and X-rays were taken of President Kennedy at
the time of his autopsy and that they had not been altered in any
manner.

So, the best experts in the country are unanimously adamant that the x-rays are authentic,
but Sandy Larsen, who has no credentials, claims that they are fake.
What can I say ?
I understand why he has decided to leave. That's the only thing he can do, flee.

Edited by François Carlier

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, François Carlier said:

You are so wrong !
These documents were authenticated by the HSCA.


PART III. CONCLUSIONS

     (179)  From the reports of the experts' analyses of the
autopsy photographs and X-rays, the evidence indicates that the
autopsy photographs and X-rays were taken of President Kennedy at
the time of his autopsy and that they had not been altered in any
manner.

So, the best experts in the country are unanimously adamant that the x-rays are authentic,
but Sandy Larsen, who has no credentials, claims that they are fake.
What can I say ?
I understand why he has decided to leave. That's the only thing he can do, flee.

To anyone paying close attention, the sheer number of times that Sandy explains away evidence by claiming "Fake!" speaks volumes.  In the real world, when there are discrepancies in witnesses' recollections the matter will be settled by films, photographs, documents or other items of physical evidence that are consistent with what one set of witnesses is saying (if these are available).  In the conspiracy world, the witnesses who say what the conspiracy theorists want to hear are ALWAYS the ones who are telling the truth.  Films, photographs, documents or other items of physical evidence that are inconsistent are ALWAYS "Fake!" or "Altered!"  Contrary witnesses are "Lying!" or were "Intimidated!"

This approach is applied to literally every aspect of the assassination, to the point where literally NO ONE can be believed except those witnesses who fit the conspiracy theory and NO EVIDENCE is credible except that which fits the theory.  You can't believe the Zapruder film, the autopsy photos, respected professionals with impeccable reputations, or even the body itself.  You can't believe ANYTHING.  When it is conclusively demonstrated that an item of evidence isn't "Fake!" and a witness isn't "Lying!", Sandy and those like him just tap-dance on to the next piece of "Fake!" evidence or the next "Lying!" witness.  "Oh, yeah, well what about THIS?"

If three Conspiracy Nutters have decided to turn tail and run, we must be doing something right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Ron Ecker said:

I keep getting sucked into this. I need more will power. Would you consider the use of two brains in the autopsy to fall under the category of fakery or alteration? There is evidence for it, because the ARRB found it. 

 

I think Carl Reiner and Steve Martin made a movie back in the 80s about this subject, "The Man With Two Brains."

Watching that movie is somewhat like reading posts here by David Von Pein, Lance Payette, Francois Carlier, and W. Tracy Parnell.

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

×
×
  • Create New...