Denny Zartman

.

Very cool, @Jim Hargrove !

A lot of people bash the Dallas police department, but you have to give them credit on one thing: They were able to figure out who killed Oswald.

It's my understanding that once a bullet enters a body, it can go on any course. These are quotes from different users on Quora:

-

"Not necessarily, it depends on the type of bullet construction and the type of gun used to fire the bullet. There are many variables involved. It may depend on whether the bullet hits a bone. Some bullet designs are made to NOT go through a body so as not to injure a civilian that may be behind the intended target. Hollow point bullets are designed to expand in the soft target of a game animal or a human criminal target. A rifle, due to its much greater power than a pistol, is much more likely to go through the intended target even if a hollow point, as say, in a hunting round. Most don’t but nothing says they can’t over-penetrate and go through. A full metal jacketed, or hard-cast lead, bullet is more likely to go through the target and a frangible round usually won’t."

"Some AK and AR injuries have involved the bullet changing correction inside the body, like a leg hit that ends up in a lung."

https://www.quora.com/If-you-are-shot-does-the-bullet-always-go-through-all-the-way#:~:text=Not always.,will also stop full penetration.

Why do some conspiracy theorists accept the X-rays and autopsy photos as genuine? There seem to be a few CT folks on the forum that appear to automatically accept them (and the Zapruder film) as being completely authentic. Is there no legitimate reason to approach them with at least some amount of skepticism?

6 minutes ago, Michael Griffith said:

Personally, I could never feel shamed by anyone who still believes in the single-bullet theory. Similarly, I could never feel shamed by someone who believes that Elvis did not die in 1977 but faked his death and lived a secret life for many years thereafter. 

I think we can all agree that this forum does not have nearly enough Bubba Ho-Tep references.

You are right. The back wound was a shallow wound that did not exit. The single bullet theory ends right there.

You do great work on this subject @Jim Hargrove , probably better than we deserve. Thanks for your continued research and input.

13 minutes ago, Cory Santos said:

I think what many people are missing is that while President Trump failed to release all the documents the truth is the door was still open for disclosure under his actions.  President Biden, however, effectively shut the door by his actions.  He therefore went beyond merely not releasing records temporarily as he actually made the decision not to release the records permanent.   This is the legal distinction Ben is trying to make which most people here are failing to understand because they interpret it wrongly as a political attack.   Closing the records off from further disclosure is a distinct legal issue from failing to disclose the records pending further review.  Both of these legal issues appear to be under litigation.   Whether the Act allows for either scenario is interesting as there are credible arguments on both sides.  

Biden wouldn't have been able to do what he did had it not been for Trump's failure to release the records. "Pending further review" - as if half a century hadn't already passed.

The point: if someone is mad about what Biden did, Trump is not going to be the one to set things right. Anyone attempting to imply otherwise is going to be called on it. Trump has his chance. He snuffed the job.

1 hour ago, Marcus Fuller said:

Thanks Sandy, that's a good idea. I'll get onto it. I'm just conscious of not wanting to pester the forum members with daft beginner questions  

Welcome to the forum @Marcus Fuller . I hope you find it interesting and useful.

This post is confusing. Oswald rented a room and it's reported that he would occasionally take time out of his day to play with the children of the person who was renting him the room. That doesn't really sound like somebody in a rage or who was raging against the world. Furthermore, it was said that one time two of the children were fighting and Oswald took them aside, sat them down, and told them that fighting each other was wrong. Again, that really doesn't sound like a damaged, violent person who was walking around with a lot of uncontrollable rage.

As far as I've ever heard Oswald never expressed any animosity toward JFK. I believe it was said that he liked JFK. He certainly wasn't in that sixth floor shooting anybody with a rifle that looked like a Mauser and that didn't have fingerprints on it until after he was dead.

If LHO really was up there in the sixth floor window with a rifle and a heretofore undetected rage against JFK, why didn't he fill JFK's face full of lead as the limo was going north on Houston?

As far as I've ever read, it's inconclusive that he actually tried to kill anyone during his apprehension in the Texas Theatre. One story seemed to be that the gun misfired and there was a dented primer to prove it. Another story is that a cop got his hand between the hammer and the primer, preventing the shot. It can't be both.

As far as Tippit, goes, it seems to me that "execution style" is a rather cold-blooded way to murder someone, not the hot-blooded actions of someone in a rage. A rage, imho, would be some sort of savage overkill. The killing of Tippit could have been Oswald acting in self-defense. It seems Tippit may have been drawing his gun when he was shot. Or it could have been someone other than Oswald. I personally do not dismiss Aquilla Clemons's report of seeing two men at the scene, neither of whom looked like Oswald. Also, the different types of ammunition used seem, to me at least, to be strong evidence supporting the possibility of two shooters.

Finally, maybe it's just me, but I believe Oswald's mother has been the subject of assaults on her character practically since the day of the assassination. I don't automatically accept them because I realize any conspirators were going to try and discredit her. Are the negative things we hear about her coming from objective sources, or are they from the WC and other LN sources that are determined to make her sound as bad as possible? Oswald was a mystery, and if there ever was a person who knew him best, it was his mother. Discrediting her would be a priority if the JFK assassination was a conspiracy and Oswald was to be successfully framed as a loner and not a government operative or asset.

6 hours ago, Joe Bauer said:

That's three dynamics of JFK's body movement which the shooter would have to adjust his aim for, all in a two to three second time period?

Target moving to it's left two feet, target moving farther away each second and target moving downward on a slope.

Try hitting a bullseye on a 9 inch wide, 8 inch high target at 265 feet, all while that target is moving in three different dynamic ways. Leftward two feet, forward at 11 MPH and downward on a slope.

So many top marksmen could not duplicate the head shot bullseye accuracy... and their test runs didn't even include all three movement dynamics!

Great points, all rarely made. I'm also reminded of all the discussions I've had with LN's over the years who argued that the first shot was deflected by a tree branch - which suggests the fanciful notion that the shooter not only made a bullseye on a target moving on three axes, but waited until the moving target was partially obscured to fire.

And the marksmen engaged in those tests had 1. all the time to prepare for their shots, 2. multiple attempts to shoot, and 3. nothing on the line except someone writing down the number of missed shots in a test. Lone Nut Oswald was, if successful, about to literally change the world, and - successful or unsuccessful - was going to irrevocably change his life forever and could even get him the electric chair.

It's telling you titled your thread the "Biden JFK records snuff job" instead of the more accurate "Trump & Biden JFK records snuff jobs." Your pro-Trump, anti-Biden bias is obvious again. It's boring. A Ben Cole Biden Snuff Job thread is as predictable as the weather.

You keep posting these threads over and over again. It leads me to conclude that you believe you're going to affect the presidential election via this forum. Or you get a thrill from hearing liberals criticize Biden for any reason.

You can try and try to whip up as much resentment against Biden as you can, and I can't stop you... but you know, I know, and everyone out there knows Donald J. Trump isn't going to do a single damn thing different. On that part, no one is fooled. Trump already had his chance to release JFK records, and it was Snuff Job City.

Can you please take this to Facebook or X or another political forum? Or at least to the current events section of this forum? Please? I think it's stickied at the top of the main page. If people are interested in this, they can read or listen to it over there, and then you and they can discuss it to your heart's content. I'm truly sorry if you don't want to take it to the current events section because of the lack of readers and commenters over there as regards this subject, but maybe that in itself should tell you something. It feels like one of your primary goals here lately is trying to force folks to resent Joe Biden by brute repetition. I appreciate your effort and you're certainly giving it your all, but at this point imho you're undermining your message, not reinforcing it.

If you truly want to help defeat Biden in 2024, why not donate money to the GOP or join your local Republican organization and volunteer your time? If you can't do it in person, you could help organize meetings online via Zoom. You could hand-write letters to voters in swing states, or you could go recruit more volunteers online to get people rides to the polls, or help register new voters. What I'm trying to say is that there are any number of other, more productive things you could do that would make much more of an actual, concrete difference in the outcome of the 2024 election than posting the same, repetitive anti-Biden threads here on this particular forum.

Thanks! 👋

5 hours ago, Paul Bacon said:

I can't wait to see the Cliff Notes on this thread!  It couldn't be but only a page long....

Here's a summary.

4 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

Thanks Denny.

 

 

Your saying that reminds me of something I wanted to clarify, but forgot to, about use of the term "hallucination."

While technically speaking the word "hallucination" could be used in the case of a person seeing a gaping wound that isn't there, I of course concede that it is far better to use the term "mistake"... but only if it just a small number of people making the mistake, and especially if the mistake made varies from person-to-person.

However, the case of the Parkland doctors and nurses -- as described by Pat et al -- with a large number of people making virtually identical mistakes.... this has all the hallmarks of a mass hallucination. And thus "mistake" is not the best term to use to describe it. "Mass hallucination" is.

 

If doctors say they saw cerebellum when in reality they didn't, I don't know how it could be framed as anything but a mass hallucination. From what I've read, doctors can tell the difference between cerebrum and cerebellum by sight. If they actually saw cerebellum, then it follows that there was a hole in the back of Kennedy's head large enough to leak brain matter.

I had been in here or in another thread on this topic where I had previously stated that there were eight Parkland doctors who reported seeing cerebellum. It appears I was wrong. According to my further research, it seems it was ten doctors, not eight. (Apparently, judging from the posts above, it may be even more than ten.) It doesn't matter to me anymore. I had a little epiphany.

My first instinct was to come in here and trumpet my discovery of two additional doctors that said they saw cerebellum, but then I figured; what's the use? It could be a hundred and ten doctors saying so, and those people that wish to believe that the doctors didn't see cerebellum would still believe that the doctors didn't see cerebellum.

That's where the VIP issue comes in and it becomes more of a larger philosophical question for me.

At least ten doctors reported seeing cerebellum... on the single most important patient of their entire careers. If they all got it wrong, then what the hell are we doing with our lives here? If we can't trust the observations of double-digits of educated and experienced doctors who were all viewing the most important patient they'd ever see, what *can* we trust? If those expert opinions aren't valid, are any expert opinions valid, or are we all to pretend that we're the real experts? Do we really think we're smarter and more qualified than all the doctors with medical education and medical experience, and who actually were in the same room as JFK, and saw his body as it was in color and 3D? Apparently, some of us here do.

I can already read the rebuttals: "Just because they're doctors doesn't make them always right!" Of course.

As I see it, the fact that people make mistakes is no logical reason to then assume that all of doctors who saw JFK at Parkland and said they observed cerebellum all made the exact same mistake all at the exact same time. In my view, logical thinking suggests the opposite; that the chances of all of them making the same mistaken observation of cerebellum is nearly zero. If they were really making big mistakes or seeing things that weren't really there, logic suggest there would be many differing observations, not the same one.

All of them mistaken? All of them hallucinating? I don't believe it.

@Keven Hofeling @Sandy Larsen Excellent work on these threads. You have both presented logical and consistent arguments with impressive supporting materials. In my opinion, you have won this debate several times over.

The only thing I would add is that (according to some folks) not only were these medical experts all hallucinating or mistaken, they were all hallucinating or mistaken during the examination of the single most important VIP any one of them would ever examine in their entire lives.

If at first he doesn't succeed, Ben tries and tries again.

It's not a campaign issue. People vote their pocketbooks, and if elected Trump will do exactly what he did for four years when it comes to the JFK records: SNUFF JOB.

Truly outstanding work here, @Keyvan Shahrdar

If only Donald Trump had been in a position to open the JFK records himself...

If only... if only...

3 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

I do not rely upon the witnesses who changed their minds.

https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/29935-proof-that-pat-speer-is-wrong-about-dr-mcclelland-initially-saying-the-gaping-wound-was-near-the-temple/page/6/#comment-522443

On 12/8/2023 at 4:47 PM, Pat Speer said:

Well then you believe all the witnesses placing the wound entirely above the ear must be wrong, and that the Parkland doctors thinking they saw cerebellum were lying or having a brain fart when they later said they were mistaken.

3 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

I do not rely upon the witnesses who changed their minds.

When I told you eight doctors saw cerebellum, your response was that four of them changed their minds. When I told you Dr. Clark said he saw cerebellum, your response was that Clark changed his story and was aligned with Lattimer.

On 12/29/2023 at 9:56 PM, Pat Speer said:

After thinking about what they'd witnessed, and being shown the autopsy photos, Dr.s Carrico, Perry, Jenkins and Baxter all said they'd been mistaken, and that they had not seen cerebellum. 

Eight of the doctors reported seeing cerebellum. You choose to believe their retractions, even though you know perfectly well many witnesses were pressured to change their stories to confirm with the official story of one lone shooter from behind.

On 12/29/2023 at 9:56 PM, Pat Speer said:

You are incorrect if you think Clark doubled-down and said the back of the head was blown out. He actually dismissed CTs as money-grubbers and instead threw in with John Lattimer, the then King of the LNs. 

When did this happen? According to what I've read in January 1994 interviews with David Naro, Clark said "the lower right occipital region of the head was blown out and I saw cerebellum. In my opinion the wound was an exit wound... a large hole in the back of the president's head... blown out" - JFK From Parkland To Bethesda - Vince Palamara - Pg 3

On 12/29/2023 at 9:56 PM, Pat Speer said:

YIKES, the frequent claim the witnesses in Groden's book were pointing to a wound low on the back of the skull, and that we should believe them, is utter hoo-ha. Vomit.

So, believe you over my lying eyes?

@Pat Speer I truly wish I could understand your position, but with every post you make it seems to make less and less sense to me. Perhaps it's my fault, but I have to say that in my opinion your arguments are unconvincing. I have to wonder why you are so devoted to them when, in my view, they seem so completely at odds with the record.

You seem to routinely reject witness statements that are made long after the fact, yet you also seem to reject witness statements that were made on the same day/week/month/year. It seems you cherry-pick which witnesses you choose to believe and when.

You also seem to think that we should trust you, (someone who as far as I am aware has no medical experience and who did not see the body as it was between the shooting and Bethesda) over the medical professionals who were actually there and who saw the body in color and in three dimensions as it was when arriving at Parkland.

Doctors Clark, Perry, McClelland, Jenkins, Carrico, Peters, Crenshaw, and Baxter all reported seeing cerebellum. Yet you choose to reject their observations in favor of some who changed their stories. How could it be a hoax if eight doctors all mentioned seeing cerebellum? When Dr. Malcolm Perry changes his story for Gerald Posner to say he saw no cerebellum, he still says the wound was in the "occipital/parietal area." Perry also wrote to @Vince Palamara that Dr. William Kemp Clark was the doctor examined the head wound the most, and that Dr. Clark was also the most qualified to do so. Dr. Clark said both the day after the JFK assassination in 1963 and then again in 1994 that he saw cerebellum. He didn't change his story.

The montage of pictures from Groden's Death Of A President clearly shows multiple people all locating the wound on the lower right rear of the skull. Yet from what I've seen, you have argued they are showing the wrong location because old people can't reach up to the top of their heads or something. So, are they all infirm, or all mistaken, or all in on a hoax? When added to the 2D illustrations that witnesses have marked and even marking the location  wound on a 3D skull model, as in @Keven Hofeling 's post above, you still reject it and call it a hoax.

Perhaps you are the one who is mistaken on this? I read all your posts and go over them again and again, and I just don't find any good reason to believe you over the medical professionals who saw Kennedy's body in person.

I started reading it yesterday. It's good. It's much like a detective story. I'm only 8% into it. It's a pretty long book, but she writes in a straightforward style and it's an easy read so far. My first impression is that people curious about the Harvey and Lee theory would find it interesting.

Just as an aside, I 100% believe that's Bill Shelley in the leafleting photo.

Was this note retained and independently translated, or are we trusting Ruth Paine's translation?