Jump to content
The Education Forum
Cory Santos

“Hogwash” by the silly wc rascals.

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Cory Santos said:

I suppose this guy is lying that Ford moved the bullet entrance or is he a just one of those witnesses we ignore?

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=GDNZBfPkbPk

 

No, he's not lying.  "It's a false statement".  Is true.   While how much he was allowed to see, for the FBI at the autopsy is unknowable, this he saw with certainty.   In spite of Ford and Specters movement of the wound.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, David Von Pein said:

I read your post.  I disagree.  It appears the point you make is that if he raised it, it generally hurts the SBT more than help it-It is pretty late and I am getting ready for a hearing tomorrow so excuse me if I misread your blog.  

That is all fine and dandy.  But, it is relevant to show, yet again for the … well, I cant keep count of how many times, that evidence was changed.

Why did he change it?  What was the purpose?  Who put this in his mind or did he do it on his own?   These are relevant questions to ask.

The photo, as I always note, is not the best photo because the car apparently is level, Elm Street is not level (a fact few people on either side seem to know unless they have been there or actually taken the time to study the geography).  As such, this photo in your blog has a questionable value UNLESS the angle is adjusted clearly for the fact that Elm slopes.

The point is, this witness clearly shows yet again the official story from the w.c. is not actually documenting the actual facts of what was happening.  My previous comments about the autopsy photos which appear to show something yet don't  do to clever angles, lighting, rulers, etc. are also still important to this discussion. 

In the grand scheme, your blog response does not address what this witness is saying, whether he is credible, etc.  It apparently only suggests regardless of what he says, it does not matter in the grand scheme.  

Edited by Cory Santos

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Cory Santos said:

...this photo in your blog has a questionable value UNLESS the angle is adjusted clearly for the fact that Elm slopes.

The CE903 photo taken in the Dallas garage is adjusted to account for the 3.15-degree downward slope of Elm Street, making the angle through JFK's body equal to 17.72 degrees downward (as opposed to just over 20 degrees if the car had been photographed out on Elm Street).

And Gerald Ford's "move" wasn't really a physical "move" of the wound at all. It was merely semantics. It was Ford realizing that the original language couldn't possibly be accurate --- "entered his back at a point slightly above the shoulder". Ford knew that if the bullet had really entered ABOVE the shoulder, it must have entered the "neck", not the "back". Hence the change. And it made things worse, because, as we can see via the autopsy photo, the bullet did not enter the "neck". It entered the "back" (pretty much right AT the level of the shoulders). Hence, the CTers have now been given a perfect reason to shout "Cover-up" at the top of their lungs as they get to accuse Gerald Ford of playing fast and loose with the evidence, when all he really was doing was trying to make things more accurate. But since Ford never saw the actual back-wound photo, he was really just guessing. The real "culprit" is whoever wrote that first draft of the wound location. That person had it wrong and Ford was merely trying to correct it.

Commission-Exhibit-903.jpg

Ford-Language-Change.gif

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You'd better take another gander at CE903. No "11-degree upwards" crap needed at all.

Commission-Exhibit-903.jpg

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Duh?  Does the photo showing Arlen Specter and his bullet angle mean that Kennedy was shot twice in the back?   He had another wound further down in the back demonstrated in other photos.  Check Josephs' post, it has the idea graphically represented.

   

Edited by John Butler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, John Butler said:

Does the photo showing Arlen Specter and his bullet angle mean that Kennedy was shot twice in the back?

No, John. It's just that the Rydberg drawings suck. (Yes, even an LNer like myself can admit that fact.)

But fortunately, Arlen Specter didn't actually rely at all (quite obviously) on the awful Rydberg drawings when he put that metal rod up against JFK's stand-in, because the wound is placed in the BACK, not in the NECK, in Commission Exhibit No. 903.

CE903-Complete-Series-Logo.png
 

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its hard to believe how much baloney that DVP can get into one post. 

 

The Warren Commission did have the autopsy materials.  In one of the executive sessions, McCloy asks about this point. Rankin replies that they have them for the Commission only in a  room off the hall.  This point is also acknowledged in the McKnight book.  (This is the kind of research that this guy does.)

All of this makes this lie even worse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jim,

The bottom line is....

The WC got it right in CE903.

You'll never admit that fact, though, of course (even though you can SEE it in the photo published as Commission Exhibit No. 903).

There was no wound depicted as being in the back of the "neck" in CE903. It's in the UPPER BACK, just like the autopsy photo shows.

Period.

No "baloney". Just facts----in ILLUSTRATED form, via this photo....

[Cue Pat Speer's anti-CE903 retorts here.]

Commission-Exhibit-903.jpg

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


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

Jim,

The bottom line is....

The WC got it right via CE903.

You'll never admit that fact, though, of course (even though you can SEE it in the photo published as Commission Exhibit No. 903).

There was no wound depicted as being in the back of the "neck" in CE903. It's in the UPPER BACK, just like the autopsy photo shows.

Period.

No "baloney". Just facts----in ILLUSTRATED form, via this photo....

[Cue Pat Speer's anti-CE903 retorts here.]

Commission-Exhibit-903.jpg

Was this the same limo JFK was in?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/11/2019 at 2:54 AM, Cory Santos said:

Was this the same limo JFK was in?

No, it's the Secret Service follow-up car (the "Queen Mary"), which is a Cadillac, not a Lincoln.

But the inner seat configuration is very similar to JFK's SS-100-X limo.

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, David Von Pein said:

No, it's the SS folow-up car (the "Queen Mary"). It's a Cadillac, not a Lincoln.

But the inner seat configuration is very similar to JFK's SS-100-X limo.

I thought so.  That is cause for debate as experiments need to be exact.  Thanks for confirming that 

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...