David G. Healy
-
Posts
3,622 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by David G. Healy
-
-
Although this book's author gets some things right, she also commits several fundamental blunders leaving this work with much to be desired.
Check out David Mantik's review here.
While Sherry made some major mistakes in her book, Mantik's review is much worse, IMO. It is redeemed mainly by his listing of typos and repetitions, which could be of help should Sherry do a re-write or a second printing.
I mean, really, to attack her appraisal of the Z-film as being authentic because she failed to accept the possibility government employed "felons" moved the mist from the head shot from one point in the film to another! That's pretty darned silly. He also cites Joe O'Donnell, a man with no proven connection to the case, who was later proven to have had an ongoing obsession with the Kennedys, whereas he told numerous lies about his connections to them, as a witness Sherry should have taken seriously. Ouch. Pretty embarrassing.
And that's not even to mention the three head-shot theory proposed by Mantik. Oh my! He refuses to believe people thinking the limo stopped could be wrong, and to have confused the limo's slowing with a stop, and yet he thinks these same witnesses--who only noted one head shot--were wrong--and that there were in fact three head shots (with two of them impacting on the front half of the head). Yikes!
you know Pat, you been on Mantik for quite awhile... the guy is an MD and also has a PhD. in Physics. Are you jealous he trumps, with credibility, your own un-lettered "medical" case research or something? Get over it!
...
Mantik and I will be sharing a stage at the Wecht Conference. I'll let that audience decide whose "research" is built upon common sense and science, and whose is largely pixie dust.
...
sounds like you're throwing down a gauntlet at the Wecht Conference, is that correct? So there's no misunderstanding of your intentions?
-
Although this book's author gets some things right, she also commits several fundamental blunders leaving this work with much to be desired.
Check out David Mantik's review here.
While Sherry made some major mistakes in her book, Mantik's review is much worse, IMO. It is redeemed mainly by his listing of typos and repetitions, which could be of help should Sherry do a re-write or a second printing.
I mean, really, to attack her appraisal of the Z-film as being authentic because she failed to accept the possibility government employed "felons" moved the mist from the head shot from one point in the film to another! That's pretty darned silly. He also cites Joe O'Donnell, a man with no proven connection to the case, who was later proven to have had an ongoing obsession with the Kennedys, whereas he told numerous lies about his connections to them, as a witness Sherry should have taken seriously. Ouch. Pretty embarrassing.
And that's not even to mention the three head-shot theory proposed by Mantik. Oh my! He refuses to believe people thinking the limo stopped could be wrong, and to have confused the limo's slowing with a stop, and yet he thinks these same witnesses--who only noted one head shot--were wrong--and that there were in fact three head shots (with two of them impacting on the front half of the head). Yikes!
you know Pat, you been on Mantik for quite awhile... the guy is an MD and also has a PhD. in Physics. Are you jealous he trumps, with credibility, your own un-lettered "medical" case research or something? Get over it!
-
Although this book's author gets some things right, she also commits several fundamental blunders leaving this work with much to be desired.
Check out David Mantik's review here.
excellent work.... thank you!
-
my model runs at 8, 16, 24 and 32 frames per second (fps). The above model runs at 16, 32, 48 and 64 FPS
Above camera mfgr'd by Bell-Howell, same manufacturer of Abe Zapruder's film camera. Camera dimensions: 4 7/8" tall x 1 5/8" wide x 4" deep (end of lens to rear eye piece)... fits right in the palm of your hand (much smaller than Abe's camera). Fixed focal length, no ZOOM lens.
-
interesting if anyone will update this thread, Duncan?
-
I too am a part of this production. Will give more details when we are through.
^5
-
I've tried to lay back on the Judyth Baker thing for a number of reasons. She never met Ferrie (and probably not Oswald, either), but I have no desire to rain on her parade, cut into sales of her books, etc.
...
yep, uh-huh! Geez Blackburst.... LMAO!
-
It's revolting to think Bugliosi, Bill O'Reilly and a number of actors and directors are gonna make more off their JFK-related products than all the actual researchers to ever work on this case. But that's the reality.
What's truly "revolting" is to think how much profit Oliver Stone has made on his JFK fantasy flick.
In my view, people like Bugliosi, Hanks, Posner, Davison, Myers, McAdams, Moore, and O'Reilly deserve all the reward they can rake in from their JFK-related work. After all, they've told the FACTS about the way John Kennedy died. Oliver Stone sure as hell didn't.
Ahhh, E-N-V-Y, not a good trait, Davey-me-boy. You aren't still ticked off because Dale *gotta see my EMMY* Myers got the Reclaiming History-ghost writing nod and not you? Bugliosi probably figures your JFK assassination related 15 blogs, 25 websites, unknown quantity of video clips, gazillion audio clips, 200,000 posts to various forums around the USENET and Internet, cover enough bases... I'm sure Myers enjoyed the work.
And besides you got the internet marketing nod for Bugliosi's Reclaiming History (the worst book publishing disaster in the history of book publishing!) You're a natural, dude! LMAO
-
Excuse me, but why would anyone care about 14 years of JFK assassination related threads?
-
I see Tink is mentioned in the article. What does he have to say about the production? Tink ?
Tink, I believe is busy wrapping up a new manuscript that I think may explain a lot, though I too would like to know what his contribution to the NOVA special was.
In the NOVA press release they also mention a new "virtual autopsy," which I can imagine is probably an application of Dale Myers computer generated cartoons and not a real, virtual autopsy of the body, which can and should be done now with the latest techniques and equipment.
BK
Does anyone, ANYONE actually believe the conclusion reached in the upcoming "NOVA" Special will be anything other than: LHO was the lone gunman, and the SBT is the most logical explanation as to what happened on Elm Street Nov 22nd 1963?
After 50 years the Warren Commission Report supporters (the main stream media leading the pact) are going to change colors, at this late date? Come on, and the tooth fairy is on her way too?
What would cause lone nuts and WCR support organizers to pause and take note is simple: JFK case researchers of repute leaning towards conspiracy 1) resign from internet forums, 2) organize the investigators, divey out areas of expertise, work-out a simple script-synopsis-presentation updating the entire JFK assassination case evidence, 3) STOP posting via the internet/USENET type forums and other web means, 4) announce on those same forums resigned from when the work is finished, 5) then wait. Reputable, experienced television/film producers will find you.
-
...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k8H_DaL_tQk
If you listen starting at 5:30 of this youtube video with Lee Bowers, you will see him ALSO show that he heard the last two shots fired a split second apart. The two witnesses I have shown, Lee Bowers and Patrica Ann Donaldson, probably never knew each other, probably had no connection other than they both were in Dealey Plaza during the shooting. But they both indicated that they heard that the last two shots were fired a split second apart.
...
Then you have enough ancillary evidence to prove a conspiracy murder JFK, Bill. Go with it! All we need! Just the same, I'll stick with medical evidence and medical experts.
-
Here's your problem Bill, Like DVP you expect debate where there is none, nor will any argument happen. The SBT was dead on arrival in 1964. The entire Warren Commission Report failed and failed miserably. Where have you guys been for the past 40 years? Staging faux arguments sounds about right.
David, I am not looking for an argument, I'm looking for agreement: The ultimate goal is to show how to prove what happened during the shooting, not argue about what did not happen.
...
Then 100% of our focus should be on the medical evidence, there is no wiggle room, nor room for debate. Especially if one is looking to prove, a conspiracy murdered JFK!
Obviously you will do and pursue what you feel best. However, the door is closing on case debate and dumb JFK forum arguments that go absolutely no where...
-
...
The SBT has a pedigree that is seemingly zillions of pages long, what is your basis? 2 shooters form the rear and 2 shooters from the front? When did each of those shots happen? is that scenario just a guess? An educated guess? A WAG or a SWAG?
Anything other than a SBT, aka LHO did it all by his lonesome, would lead to conspiracy and that, would lead to upheaval, possibly anarchy. I believe Earl Warren knew that and chose the easier, softer way out!
If you're going to win the argument SBT vs. something else, you have to find some proof to support the something else.
Here's your problem Bill, Like DVP you expect debate where there is none, nor will any argument happen. The SBT was dead on arrival in 1964. The entire Warren Commission Report failed and failed miserably. Where have you guys been for the past 40 years? Staging faux arguments sounds about right.
-
The answer, unfortunately, is yes
In your estimation: planned or negligence?
Thanks,
DHealy
-
That in my humble opinion is nonsense. There is enough evidence right this second to prove, conspiracy murdered JFK.
With all due respect, is your opinion the point? Or is demonstrating the truth so convincingly by working together that the WC defenders pack up shop and go home what we are working toward?
David's point may be that anyone who has looked at the available information believes that there is sufficient evidence to show that the SBT (Single Bullet Theory) did not happen. For example, when you look at the pictures of the back of JFK's shirt and jacket, there is no way the bullet went up to exit JFK's neck and then down to hit Connally in the back. There are many things that appear to show the lone gunman theory is not correct. The discussions have been reduced to the SBT is correct with the counter argument is that no it is not. It is analogous to two kids yelling yes it is, no it isn't.
To move the argument forward, it is going to be necessary to show what actually happened during the shooting. Do you have any idea what happened if the SBT is not correct?
There is no need to be concerned at all. There is no "SBT". There are merely different scenarios that the LNTs have tried to play a shell game with.
I discuss this in my article "The Pretty Pig's Saturday Night"'
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=2372&hl=pretty+pig%27s+saturday+night
correct, NO SBT.... 2 shooters from the rear hits on (JFK and JC) -- 2 shooters from the front (insurance)-1 hit possibly 2 (JFK in the head). End of story, hence CONSPIRACY.
Anything other than a SBT, aka LHO did it all by his lonesome, would lead to conspiracy and that, would lead to upheaval, possibly anarchy. I believe Earl Warren knew that and chose the easier, softer way out!
-
Correct Pam. As an outsider, I see groups of peoples who should be together simply fighting amongst one another. Instead of people agreeing that it was not LHO but the exact method is not clear, they bicker amongst one another about how this all happened.
I don't know what happened but if it was a government conspiracy, they must be loving the way the JFK people are splintered.
... we just fall prey to the aspect of the WCR mindset that claims the WC defenders all 'agree' on everything (they don't) and the CTs can't even get along...
That in my humble opinion is nonsense. There is enough evidence right this second to prove, conspiracy murdered JFK. And we did it with overblown egos and stepped on many toes. Who cares what lone nut trolls think (they are stuck with the Warren Commission Report and, with NO- read Z-E-R-O debate, wiggle room), ya think a courtroom-judge-jury would care what bottom feeders think? It's pure case evidence. A conspiracy to murder the president is there, right now!
Lone Nuts (aka Warren Commission Report) and their supporters have an agenda that being fractionalize the debate, ANY debate... nit-pick minutiae, debate lies... Facts being what they are, there is NO need for debate, dedicated researchers who have come down on the side of conspiracy, not only understand it, but KNOW it.
We could get rid of 5 internet forums today and it won't change a damn thing, with the exception of a few, bent out of shape lone nut egos and more than just a few CT ego's, of course.
This case medical evidence alone blows the entire case, and the WCR and its supporters right out of the water.
... so cross your projects 't's' and dot your 'i's', who knows, we might just make a wee-footnote in history.
-
Correct Pam. As an outsider, I see groups of peoples who should be together simply fighting amongst one another. Instead of people agreeing that it was not LHO but the exact method is not clear, they bicker amongst one another about how this all happened.
I don't know what happened but if it was a government conspiracy, they must be loving the way the JFK people are splintered.
IF? o' yee foreigners of little faith... LMAO!
-
Here is a question for Garrison fans:
Garrison learned about the Milteer tapes AFTER he indicted Clay Shaw.
The Milteer tapes first received wide publicity (if you can call it that) when mentioned in a footnote in Sylvia Meagher's
Accessories After the Fact in 1967. It seems the book was ready for printing when Meagher learned about Milteer, and only footnotes could be added.
But according to researcher Barbara La Monica, Garrison's files contain extensive information on the Milteer tapes including the diary of the Florida judge (name escapes me) who was monitoring the issue.
Although he appeared extensively on television and in interviews, and had a public platform at his disposal, Garrison never breathed a word about the Milteer tapes, not even in his book ON THE TRAIL OF THE ASSASSINS.
I would like to know how Garrison could, in effect, suppress his knowledge of the Milteer Tapes, in which Milteer predicted, on November 9, 1963 that JFK would be shot from a tall building, with a rifle dis-assembled and smuggled into the building. How could he suppress the Milteer tapes and still be considered a serious inquirer into the assassination of JFK?
we're to assume Garrison suppressed his knowledge of Milteer tapes because of Barbra LaMonica unpublished, non-cited research? C'mon... Your question is irrelevant. btw and who is Barbara LaMonica?
-
Guns Review
Official Journal of the The British Sporting Rifle Club
Vol 4 No 2 (February 1964), 65-66
Details and Doubts about the Assassination Gun
By Lieut.-Colonel A. Barker
Many of the details attendant on the tragic demise of John F. Kennedy have been obscured by the shock with which the world received the news that the President of the United States could be assassinated in his own country, in this day and age. Of those facts which have been revealed, it is difficult to reconcile the technicalities associated with shooting at a moving target, surrounded by security guards trained to react at the first sign of any hostile action against their ward, with an old hand-operated carbine fitted with a cheap telescopic sight.
On the basis of the information revealed in the Press, the following essay is an attempt to highlight some of the considerations which may be considered irreconcilable by those who know something of the world of small arms.
The first thing an assassin has to decide is whether he wishes to escape the consequences of his crime. If he does, then this excludes any method of closing on his victim and using a short range weapon. Stabbing, or shooting in the stomach with a pistol is out, since this means capture. Execution from a distance entails much more careful consideration. A warehouse is ideal since an upper storey window will provide a clear field of fire over the heads of the crowd.
Choosing the weapon
The next problem is the choice of weapon. The specification for this is that it should be capable of delivering a number of aimed shots quickly and accurately, and that the bullets themselves should be lethal. This suggests some form of automatic or semi-automatic weapon, which is known to have a high stopping power. It is possible to kill with a .22 weapon, or even an air gun, but such a killing is dependent on striking a vital organ and to ensure success a larger calibre weapon which will deliver a heavy, smashing projectile will be necessary. Whether it is preferable to deliver a large number of projectiles with lesser accuracy rather than one or two carefully aimed shots hinges on the problem of surprise, and the feasibility of concealing the firing point. If the guards react as quickly as they might be expected to react, the location of an automatic weapon will be determined very quickly, whereas the first report of rifle shot may not even cause a head to turn.
If, as result of this argument, it is decided to use a few, well-aimed highly lethal rounds, what is needed is a high-powered self-loading rifle. And, if the weapon is fitted with a telescopic sight, the system must be carefully zeroed at the anticipated range and thereafter preserved, almost in cotton wool in its fully assembled state, until the fateful hour. (Ideally the zeroing will be done as close to this time as possible.)
Having selected his weapon and found a suitable firing point, the next considerations are of the target. For the occasion, the victim is travelling in an open car across the assassin’s front at an approximate speed of 20 m.p.h. The minimum ground range is estimated to be not more than 100 yards. In ten seconds, if the speed of the car remains constant, it will have travelled another 100 yards; this will mean a slight increase in range, but of more importance for another shot there will have been a rather large change in the lateral angle.
In 30 seconds the car – still travelling at 20 m.p.h. – will have covered almost 300 yards; the range will have more than trebled and the aspect of the target will have changed considerably. There will be a lesser vulnerable area at which to shoot, and for the next shot a sighting correction must also be applied. Consideration might even have to be given to a change in the firing point.
£7 10s. carbine
Economic reasons may well decide the type of gun which our assassin is able to procure; its size may be influenced by the need for concealment. Unfortunately the requirements of an accurate and reliable weapon are at variance with both of these facts. Well-made and reliable guns are never cheap, accurate guns tend to have long barrels and are not easily disassembled. Good telescopic sights add to the cost, as does a semi-automatic mechanism. In the event, an ex-Italian army carbine, of a design perfected in 1891, which had been fitted with a cheap 4x telescopic sight was selected. Its cost ($19.95) was less than £7 10s.
Now, carbines are not the most suitable weapon for the requirements that have been discussed. Developed originally as a lighter version of the rifle, shorter and more handy, for use by mounted troops, such a weapon has most of the disadvantages of that from which it has been cut down; together with a few others. It uses the same ammunition as its big-brother rifle which, fired through a shorter barrel, produces greater flash and heavier recoil. Not that these effects are relevant to our problems of assassination; it is just that the adoption of modern self-loading rifles by the Services of most European countries has made such weapons virtually obsolete – hence presumably the disposal of the Mannlicher-Carcano with which the President’s assassin was able to equip himself.
Three shots apparently struck the car in which the President was travelling; the time taken to fire these shots is variously reported as 5.5 seconds, 8 seconds and 15 seconds. Even allowing for the fact that the Mannlicher bolt action is reasonably quick and easy to work, the added telescopic attachment undoubtedly would tend to hinder its quick manipulation when the gun was reloaded. Much play has been made of the assassin’s marksmanship capabilities and there is no doubt that it is possible for an expert to fire three rounds in 5.5 seconds with such a weapon. To do so demands constant and recent practice however, and it seems doubtful whether the man Oswald had any opportunity to keep his marksmanship up to scratch since he left the U.S. forces. It seems that there had been no such opportunity during his sojourn in Russia, since lack of shooting facilities was one of the things he complained about.
Remarkable accuracy
Nor was the President an easy target. The problems associated with a moving target and a depressed line of fire have already been mentioned (dependent on how long it took for the occupants of the car to realise what was happening and for the driver to accelerate out of range), together with the state of the gun and Oswald’s skill...so the accuracy of the shots seems remarkable.
The fatal shot was said to have been a 6.5 mm. round, which ballistic tests showed to have been fired from the Mannlicher-Carcano found in the Dallas warehouse. The carbine was easily traced to Oswald’s ownership and his fingerprints were on it. After his capture Oswald’s hands were subjected to a liquid paraffin test to determine whether he had filed a rifle, but as he had fired a pistol and killed a policeman immediately prior to his capture the validity of this test seems to be somewhat dubious.
Finally there is the question of the missing “charger” – the clip which holds the six rounds which are the magazine capacity of the weapon. In loading the gun the charger is discarded and might be expected to have been found near the firing position, or on Oswald’s person. It was never found. And if the carbine was loaded at the time of the shooting without a charger there can be no question of his being able to discharge three shots in even 15 seconds.
Like so many other enigmas, so much depends on the factor of time. But let us return briefly to the assassination planning. If one way to really make certain of an assassination is to have more than one shot, then surely it might be preferable to have more than one man shooting.
Interesting article Paul, will you continue along this same vein? Perhaps a separate thread with the entire articles information. Thanks --David
-
...
As for the time period in which I was born (or anybody was born) that is totally immaterial, because the power of historical method allows each of us to gaze upon the facts with the equal eye of reason.
Best regards,
--Paul Trejo
baloney Paul... nice dance though. When it comes to history and historians (sic) circa. 1963, most students/researchers know, the historians were asleep at the wheel and remain asleep, to this day, ALL of them! Reason? Whose reason? Certainly not the American public's.
Further, "historical method" goes to the victor-- and you know what that means.
-
...In my theory, Marguerite Oswald was half-right. IMHO we know that Lee Oswald was not a full-time employee of any Intelligence Agency -- however, insofar as he was falsely but deliberately made into the Lone Assassin by the Warren Commission for the specific purpose of National Security, then we might easily argue that Lee Harvey Oswald single-handedly prevented World War 3.
So, June and Rachel can both be right, within these nuances. Oswald was a martyr -- because he was victimized by his own associates; and yet Oswald was also a hero, because without the "Lone Assassin" mythology, the USA might easily have plunged into a Civil War during the Cold War which would have ignited a World War.
Best regards,
--Paul Trejo
Oh pleez, Paul. . I think you're going way too far in this analysis.
What about the 58,000 people whose names are engraved on the Vietnam memorial in Washington, D.C.? (And the 1 million Asians who died in that conflict?)
Are we supposed to believe that somehow their deaths too, somehow are invested with some "meaning" because "they" too, functioned as a buffer of sorts, and prevented World War 3?
Sorry, but I can't buy into that kind of analysis.
At all....
DSL
6/18/13; 8:50 PM PDT
Los Angeles, California
...
However, the closest we came to World War Three was, I will argue, the moment when the truth of the JFK assassination had to be declared to the American People. That is a separate instance and stands alone in history.
...
Best regards,
--Paul Trejo
<edit typos>
perhaps you should refresh your history AND argument.. when it comes to potential events leading to WW3: The Cuban Missile Crises... (see below) Then again, if you were not born then what would you know, eh?
http://www.jfklibrary.org/JFK/JFK-in-History/Cuban-Missile-Crisis.aspx
-
I wonder sometimes if my world experience is vastly different from that of my fellow forum members.
The reality, IMO, is that very few people EVER admit their mistakes, and that writers--once their brilliant words have been carved in gold--almost NEVER admit their mistakes.
The best one can hope for on a public forum, therefore, is to point out "Well, hmmm, look at this, I think you're wrong and here's why" and hope those following the forum come to believe you. Pushing the issue--and trying to make the writer or fellow forum member AGREE with you--is, IMO, a de facto form of harassment, designed to make that writer or member quit the forum.
I wish it weren't true, but 'tis so. We have many members, with a variety of opinions, and variety of approaches to the evidence. Whittling it down to a few whose facts are completely in order would lead to a very quiet forum, in which few ideas are explored, IMO.
People need room to breathe, and come to their own decision about their having made a mistake. Pressuring them to do so leads nowhere, unfortunately...which is why this case drags on...and on...and on...
This is the voice of reason, Pat. Many thanks for your objective perspective.
Best regards,
--Paul Trejo
any port in a storm, eh Paul? btw, the Warren Report is kaput, how's that for reason!
-
Robert,
I think you miss the point. For instance, if I were to say that Lee Harvey Oswald shot JFK, some might call me a xxxx. That would be based on my saying what they believe to be untrue. However if I were to say that beliving it to be the truth, I am not telling a lie, I am merely wrong.
John's rule regarding that is meant to, amongst other things, stop such an accusation. It is also meant to stop such an accusation when the two parties are in disagreement.
For example, if I were to say that President Obama was a secret agent for the forces of the antichrist and you believed he was a step forward for the forces of good, could you call me a xxxx when I said something that I said - untrue and misguided as it may be - beliveing it to be correct?
If you believe someone is incorrect then you say that they are incorrect and present your evidence to support your case; readers will make their own judgments.
If you believe someone is deliberately saying things they know to be untrue then you contact th moderators, present your case, and ask that you call accuse them. If you case is strong enough then an exemption will be made otherwise you just have to be satisfied with showing that what someone has said is wrong.
I haven’t missed the point, Evan; I believe you may have missed mine.
There is much evidence open to debate, because it can be construed more than one way. That’s fair game. It’s a difference of opinion that makes a horse race, they say.
However, just as a recent example, Paul Trejo asserted that there were 20 witnesses to Oswald’s abuse of his wife Marina. Were he merely ignorant of the actual facts - which is a recurring pattern with him, as I’ve demonstrated - that doesn’t make him a xxxx; it merely means he’s wrong and needs to be corrected.
In order to correct his blatant misrepresentation of the facts, I meticulously searched through the testimony and demonstrated beyond doubt that most of the people Paul Trejo included in his “20" figure had no such direct first-hand knowledge and did not testify as he said they did.
Nevertheless, and despite acknowledging the "20" figure was overstated, Paul Trejo thereafter still contended there were twenty witnesses. At this point, it is no longer a mistake - because he’s been shown and admitted the error of his ways - and is an outright falsehood. Fairly clear instance, wouldn’t you think? I raise the point because I think there is a parallel with the Janney episode.
A few observations which I’ll try to keep brief.
From the little bit of correspondence we’ve had during the eight years I’ve been a member here, I believe John Simkin to be a liberal egalitarian who felt he could construct the single best and most effective JFK site by inviting the best researchers and authors. A laudable goal, and one he achieved I think. (It is a measure of his liberalism that he has granted membership to persons such as Jim DiEugenio, who had written some unflattering things about John prior to joining here.)
Because authors were invited by John, he no doubt hoped that they’d be treated with civility by the Forum membership. Contrary to the analogy offered, I don’t think this is John’s living room, but his classroom. He has invited visiting lecturers, through whom we might benefit by learning more, and they might benefit by selling some books.
Unfortunately for some of those authors, the membership here proved to be as well versed - or more so - than the authors who presume to educate us. Fireworks is predictably inevitable, particularly if authors expected deference rather than civility. Haughtiness ensues, due to wounded pride. But whom should we fault for this? The authors, whose case has not been made beyond a reasonable doubt? Or the members who point out that failing on the authors’ part?
This is multiply true in the case of Peter Janney’s book. John Simkin not only invited Peter here, but I believe provided him with some material aid in preparing his book (please correct me if I’m wrong on this), and subscribes to the book’s central premise that CIA murdered Mary Pinchot Meyer. (As it happens, I am inclined to concur with that assertion. That does not require me - or anyone - to accept Janney’s scenario for the crime if compelling evidence is not presented.)
Both the ousted members found reasonable fault with Janney’s book and demonstrated that some of the evidence presented was underwhelming at best, incorrect at worst. In fact, ex-moderator Tom Scully seemed to have located the man Janney accused of being Mary Meyer’s murderer, a man whom Janney himself claimed he was unable to find. Most of the comments made by the ousted members seemed fair game to me. But then, I don’t have a personal relationship with Peter Janney.
I believe that John has inadvertently admitted that he put his thumb on the scale in Janney’s favour:
“The main reason I did not act on this was because I was part of the argument. If I had tried to restrain these attacks I would have been accused of being biased and interfering with free speech. Even so, it was no real excuse for not protecting a friend.”
If a friend has been proved wrong, as I believe Janney had been by the ousted members, he doesn’t need protection; he needs correction. If he is unwilling to be corrected when shown persuasive evidence by forum members, a true friend shares some harsh truth with him. The alternative is to allow said friend to flail fruitlessly with a demonstrably flawed scenario, an allowance that does no favor to the friend, or the truth. Those who persist in pushing data they know to be wrong are no longer merely mistaken; they are trafficking in falsehoods. It is a disservice to this Forum’s raison d’etre to remain silent in such a case, irrespective of who the trafficker may be.
Those who refused to remain silent were the ones made to pay the price of excommunication, well after Janney ceased to post here.
I have written the foregoing to respond to something directed specifically to me. If DiEugenio and Scully are not re-instated as members, it will be my last post here, for reasons I think I have made sufficiently clear.
(Edited for typo)
I wonder sometimes if my world experience is vastly different from that of my fellow forum members.
The reality, IMO, is that very few people EVER admit their mistakes, and that writers--once their brilliant words have been carved in gold--almost NEVER admit their mistakes.
The best one can hope for on a public forum, therefore, is to point out "Well, hmmm, look at this, I think you're wrong and here's why" and hope those following the forum come to believe you. Pushing the issue--and trying to make the writer or fellow forum member AGREE with you--is, IMO, a de facto form of harassment, designed to make that writer or member quit the forum.
I wish it weren't true, but 'tis so. We have many members, with a variety of opinions, and variety of approaches to the evidence. Whittling it down to a few whose facts are completely in order would lead to a very quiet forum, in which few ideas are explored, IMO.
People need room to breathe, and come to their own decision about their having made a mistake. Pressuring them to do so leads nowhere, unfortunately...which is why this case drags on...and on...and on...
you've spend too much time in Hollyweird, dude! "People need room to breathe..."? <sigh>
-
...
"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."
-- HSCA Volume 7, Page 41
Pretty simple, actually.
But....
"I will readily admit that I don't have all the answers to this odd "BOH" [back Of Head] matter regarding the witnesses who said they saw a BOH hole in JFK's head. It's my #1 "mystery" in the whole case. But it's not something that must equate to conspiracy, IMO....because there are many things contradicting these witnesses, including the Z-Film, which shows no such BOH wound at all; plus the Z-Film shows no blood at the supposed "exit" (BOH) point on JFK's head; not a bit of "spray" at the so-called exit point. Impossible, if JFK had been hit from the front, causing a massive BOH exit wound. Plus there are the "authenticated by the HSCA and Clark Panel" autopsy photos and X-rays. Plus there's the huge "clue" of there being only ONE single entry hole on the back of JFK's head (regardless of the exact millimeter on the head this wound was located). There was no frontal entry hole, period. That fact in itself (backed up by the autopsy report and the three autopsists who signed that AR and testified multiple times to this "One Entry Hole" effect) disproves the long-held CTer notion that President Kennedy was hit in the head from the front -- regardless of what ANY of the witnesses say about the location of JFK's wounds." -- David Von Pein; October 16, 2006
quoting yourself? Is this what you call sweeping up after yourself these days, from October 16, 2006? 7 years ago? Really, quoting yourself? You should be ashamed.
DPF still hacked ....
in JFK Assassination Debate
Posted · Edited by David G. Healy
thank you Dawn.