Denny Zartman

Actor Donald Sutherland passed away at age 88, known for many film roles, including the key role of "X" in Oliver Stone's 1991 film "JFK."

To the owner and the remaining moderators on this forum:

The forum looks like garbage, y'all.

This new and seemingly incessant use of the term "RFK1A" by Ben Cole is ridiculous. There is no "RFK2A" or "RFK3A" or "RFK4A." Referring to the RFK assassination as "RFK1A" is ridiculous.

I open the forum, I see "RFK1A", and the stupidity of it strikes me like an ice cream headache.

Why is it being done?

Why is it being tolerated?

If I'm the only one bugged by it, so be it. But, from my perspective, this is making forum look really bad.

There's no RFK2A, so the term "RFK1A" is complete nonsense.

Why is this nonsense being posted? Why is it allowed to be posted? What's the real story? @Benjamin Cole knows there is no RFK2A or RFK3A or RFK4A, ect., but he keeps on posting it anyway. Why?

What's actually going on here? No more lies, no more nonsense. What is the point?

Am I the only one here who thinks this kind of stuff makes the forum look like garbage?

What is this "RFK1A" bullshit of yours? When did RFK2 get assassinated?

Please stop this silly-ass bullshit. This forum looks like garbage, thanks to @Benjamin Cole.

What is this "RFK1A" bullshit? When did RFK2 get assassinated?

Is there no one participating in the RFK assassination discussion section of this forum? Is that why this is posted here?

I guess there are no rules in this forum anymore.

This is not about the JFK assassination. I don't know why you insist on going off topic all the time. Is there really no other place for you to have this discussion? Have you really run out of everything that you have to talk about regarding the JFK assassination? 

Please stop.

My thanks as well to @Sandy Larsen for his fairness and hard work keeping this forum accurate and equitable under what I know are incredibly difficult conditions. He is to be commended.

17 minutes ago, James R Gordon said:

If you look at the photographic evidence you will find numerous images of Jenkins pointing to an upper head wound. I looked at some today. That said whether these images are historically accurate is another matter.
Not being able to verify a claim I never considered a banning issue. There were less than 5 members banned when I was an active moderator. Thjat is not the case today

The EF was once the premier JFK forum and the present state of the forum bothers me. It is not going to be done overnight but I do intend to improve this site. I have been absent for too long and I can see much that shouyld be dealt with.

Why did you bother to ask for feedback if you've already made up your mind? Why waste everyone's time?

6 minutes ago, James R Gordon said:

If you look at the photographic evidence you will find numerous images of Jenkins pointing to an upper head wound.

When did I mention photographs? We're not talking about photographs. We're talking about multiple statements. Pat said Jenkins made multiple statements that the wound he saw was in the top of the head.

Prove it. Show us two statements and then we can all agree that Pat was right. Pat couldn't provide the proof. I'm sure you can.

Read and listen to the statements Jim Jenkins has given over the years. I think you will find no statements where he says in the in the top of the head. That's the claim Pat made and it sure looks like it's completely false.

@James R Gordon Thanks for reaching out to forum members and for summarizing what's been going on from your viewpoint.

Let me please say that I've served as a moderator on another website, and I didn't enjoy it at all. It's a difficult job, made much harder if the moderator also wishes to engage in the same discussion and debate as the other regular members do. In sports terms, it's like being a referee and a player at the same time.

Regarding Pat Speer: I tapped out early from the most recent argument, so others may wish to get back in the weeds over who started it and who said what, because I don't. From what I understand, Pat claimed Bethesda autopsy witness James Jenkins made multiple statements locating the large head wound as being at the top of the head, but when pressed it seems Mr. Speer was unable to cite one example of Jenkins making this claim. When requested to edit his statements and add qualifiers to show that what he had previously stated as facts was instead his opinion, he apparently refused.

I believe people have a right to their own opinions, but they do not have a right to their own facts. In my personal opinion, I believe Mr. Speer's penalty was justified. In my view, it's not hard to qualify one's statements when stating facts as they are currently understood by that individual.

This is not an easy conflict to resolve, so again, I do not envy your job. I think most people would say facts are not a matter of opinion. Facts are facts. But, who is to say what is a definite fact or not, especially when discussing this particular case, where - after more than 60 solid years of intense research - some of the most basic and elemental questions are still total mysteries?

Regarding Mark Knight: I only saw a few of his recent posts so I'm not sure what's going on. He really seemed angry, from what I've read.

As for my opinion on the present state of the site, I'm unhappy with it, but I've long since come to accept that the forum just is the way it is. There are people in this world that can look at the same set of facts and come away with vastly different takeaways. Takeaways so vastly different that at times it's unbelievable - and unbelievably frustrating.

And as for my suggestions at improving the forum, I'll have to give it some more thought. My suggestions might not be good ones anyway. I've been resigned to the fact that the forum is what it is for so long that I haven't devoted much time thinking about what should be changed or how it could be improved. I'll try to get back to you on that.

Thanks again.

11 hours ago, Keven Hofeling said:

Just in case you were unaware...

Thanks for that tip! I didn't know about the Price Exhibits. The letter from Dr. Clark to Dr. Burkley is just the type of information I was looking for. I agree that the earliest statements are the ones most likely to be the most accurate

So far I'm referencing:

WC H Vol 6 - Testimony

WC H Vol 17 CE 392 (Initial written statements from 11/22/63 Drs. Carrico, Perry, Clark, and Jenkins)

Press conference from 11/22/63 with Drs. Perry and Clark

ARRB Medical exhibits MD 97 and MD 98 (Initial written statements from 11/22 & 11/23/63 by Drs. Baxter and Jones)

WC H Vol 21, Price Exhibit #2 (Letter from Dr. Clark to Dr. Burkley, dated 11/23/63)

ARRB Medical exhibit MD 99 / WC H vol 21, Price Exhibit #24, Pg 222 (Initial written statement from 11/22/63 by RN Patricia Hutton

And this video: Dr. Perry from 1963 (video is labeled as November 27, but according to another source it's from November 22) where he says “Large wound to the head in the right posterior area” - YouTube Real Time 1960’s

11 hours ago, Keven Hofeling said:

I sure would be interested in seeing that footage of O'Connor and Jenkins commenting about the autopsy photographs that you have described. Do you know if it is posted anywhere online?

I don't think it is online, unfortunately. It didn't come up for me in a YouTube search. It was a DVD that came along with the book "In The Eye Of History" by William Law. I'll have to check to see if it's still available or if there is some other way to get the video to you. I'll see what I can do.

1 minute ago, W. Niederhut said:

Yeah, Ben is on an RFK roll lately-- starting four old "news" RFK threads in less than a week.

At least Ben has finally discovered Lisa Pease's book, A Lie Too Big to Fail.

I guess Mr. Cole got everyone to agree on another thread that the two assassinations are linked, so it's now open season on RFKA discussion here.

9 hours ago, Matthew Koch said:

I agree with Tucker Carlson's take that Mike Pompeo manipulated Trump into making the delay.

Why should anyone consider voting for a man who could be so easily manipulated by the likes of Mike Pompeo?

10 hours ago, Matthew Koch said:

you and your Water Boys don't really care because it aligns with your political biases

Why are you going off subject and attacking me about what you imagine are my politics? I make it a point not to post about current political events here.

I guess we've all run out of things to discuss regarding JFK's assassination, huh?

13 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

Denny,

For some reason, anti-alterationists have a strange reverence for films and photograph. For some reason they believe that those are off limits to cover-ups.

I've seen all kinds. Some CTers don't believe that witnesses could have been convinced to lie. Some won't even believe that evidence or testimony got altered!

I'm thinking of one CTer in particular who just spins his wheels day after day trying to figure out how the Warren Commission was innocently fooled by the conspiracy.

And the really odd thing is that these anti-alterationists tend to have a good deal of contempt for those of us who do suspect alteration when it is necessary to explain inconsistencies between evidence and large numbers of corroborating witnesses.

It's very, very odd.

 

It is very strange, I agree. I wish I knew why this is. The conspirators knew that pictures would say a thousand words for a thousand years, and they were right in that the pictures seemingly have the power to convince even some of those who otherwise believe there was a conspiracy.

Jenkins and O'Connor's discussion of the pictures was revealing, and I know that the inconsistencies they highlighted are but a small fraction of the many suspicious details that surround the record.

I spent a lot of time over the weekend re-reading the Warren Commission testimony of the medical personnel at Parkland. I also hunted down as many of the earliest statements from the Parkland doctors and nurses as I could find.

Reading them and relying only on them - I can't understand how anyone can doubt that the large head wound was observed as being either in the back of the head, or being along the right temple and extending into the back. It just seems abundantly clear, from what I've read and heard.

It's a genuine puzzle to me why anyone - especially a conspiracy theorist - would go out of their way to belittle and/or deny what the doctors and nurses at Parkland reportedly observed.

22 minutes ago, Matthew Koch said:

Brace yourself, here comes the "Main Steam Water Cooler" brigade to derail your post. 

 

And why shouldn't they move it? There's nothing of substance being reported here. Trump had 4 solid years worth of time to release any remaining JFK documents. They were scheduled to be released under his watch, but he didn't do jack. And we're supposed to believe that this time he's really going to do it? Based on what?

1 minute ago, T Weier said:

Make of it what you will.  Probably won't convince any here to vote for him.   But, at this  point, it's more than we've heard from the other guy.   

 

 

He had his chance. He was president for 4 years, and it was supposed to come out in his watch. He punted. Why should anyone believe him now?

I don't know how any reasonable person can put their faith in the autopsy photos and x-rays. How many red flags need to go up before one approaches them with skepticism? Personally, I'd only find them of use as evidence of conspiracy and fraud, and not as anything even remotely useful in determining the truth of what really happened that day.

The William Law book "In The Eye Of History" has a DVD supplement that doesn't seem to be online as far as I know. It's a discussion called The Gathering. In part of it, Jim Jenkins and Paul O'Connor use a laser pointer and a projected image to talk about some of the autopsy photos. One of them was the top of the head image Pat posted recently. Jenkins and O'Connor both pointed at the top of the head and indicated that the photo did not reflect what they remembered seeing at the autopsy. Jenkins said that the wound he saw did not cross the midline.

Jenkins and O'Connor also said they had a chock block for use under the necks of corpses in the morgue. Part of a chock block is visible in one of the photos. This is a clear contrast to other photos, which show a different metal support device being used under JFK's head - a support device that Jenkins and O'Connor say the Bethesda morgue simply didn't have.

There are other details in the photos that Jenkins and O'Connor say are incongruous with the Bethesda morgue. And honestly, in my opinion, some of those shadows do appear suspicious, at least to my eyes.

Regarding a comment made earlier in the thread:

Does anyone know if there any Dallas police officers stationed in the railyard during the motorcade?

44 minutes ago, Mark Knight said:

The purpose is NOT to "ride someone out of town on a rail" simply because their interpretation of the facts differs from your own.

And THAT, my friends, explains why David Von Pein was reinstated to The Education Forum

Von Pein was not expelled from the forum because his interpretation of the facts differed from others. Von Pein was expelled from the forum for stealing user content for his own use without giving notice or getting permission.

You're doing tremendous work here, @Keven Hofeling . I'll be curious to find out if James Jenkins does offer a comment.

1 hour ago, Jean Ceulemans said:

Regarding, this quote, Keven Hofeling from his post: 

* Thus, it is clear that Speer fraudulently misrepresented that Jenkins was disagreeing with a marking that was already on the mannequin head.

* And it is clear that Speer fraudulently misrepresented that Jenkins was, in any way, saying that there "was no blow out wound" in the area of the back of the head"

-----------------------------------------------------------------

I would like to protest against the use of the word fraudulently, that IMO implies "to secure unfair or unlawful gain, or to deprive a victim of a legal right"

As such, the above is ad hominem, as there is no gain, and nobody is deprived of his legal rights, by what Pat writes.

Using the term fraudlently is way out of order IMO

Pat has a different view and interpretation, that's it, that's how I see it.

Anyway, we have been here before, not?  

Going to cut his wings? Again?

 

He's obviously using the term so that he doesn't have to say "liar."

My favorite line is from Mark Lane, talking about Ruby's mother's dental records being brought into his trial. Lane said that the records wouldn't have been relevant even if Ruby had bitten Oswald to death.