W. Niederhut

Pat, I'm responding to your latest post in red (below.) Pat Speer wrote: Oh please. I've been through this stuff ad nauseam both on this forum and on my website. If you look at his "witnesses" for an entrance on the forehead, you will see that there are not actually witnesses for an entrance wound on the forehead. Pat, this is simply false. Dr. Chesser specifically lists the witnesses at Bethesda who saw the right forehead entry wound in his lecture (above.) Interested forum members should listen to Dr. Chesser's presentation. He is highly credible, in my medical opinion. Of course some will say McClelland and Crenshaw said they saw a wound but they actually specified that they saw no such wound but mused based upon the large defect that a bullet entered on the forehead but was hidden in the hair. Listen to Dr. Chesser's discussion of the entry wound and hairline, Pat. It's a hoax. That's a projection. Pat, you never answered my question last week. Do you deny that JFK was shot from the front, as we can all clearly see on the Z film? Please answer the question.

Trump’s Medal of Dishonor by Elliot Ackerman August 18, 2024 Former President Donald Trump sparked near universal criticism last week when he said that the Presidential Medal of Freedom, the nation’s highest civilian award, was “much better” than the Medal of Honor, the nation’s highest award for military valor. Trump made these comments during an event at his Bedminster, New Jersey, estate about anti-Semitism, in which he was drawing attention to the work of Miriam Adelson—the widow of his friend, the casino magnate and megadonor Sheldon Adelson—who received the Medal of Freedom from Trump in 2018. Trump’s bizarre logic was that many recipients of the Medal of Honor are in “bad shape” because of their wounds or receive the award posthumously, and that the Medal of Freedom is better because a “healthy, beautiful woman” like Miriam Adelson can receive it. During the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, I wrote numerous citations for valor awards. Discerning whether actions such as rescuing a friend from an ambush or assaulting an enemy position or leading a daring raid are worthy of a Silver Star, Navy Cross, or, possibly, the Medal of Honor is a unique challenge. The first time I had to write up a valor award, I was a 24-year-old Marine second lieutenant in Fallujah. We had been in sustained house-to-house combat for two weeks when a directive came down from our higher headquarters to begin writing up our awards. The battle wasn’t even over. Marines were still getting killed. Nevertheless, the sergeants and corporals in my platoon scribbled their recommendations on pieces of paper and I wrote them up between firefights on our company’s single laptop, a Toughbook we kept charged with a gas-powered generator. My company commander at the time—a captain who, at the age of 30, seemed infinitely old and wise to me—explained his philosophy of writing awards. He suggested that if I couldn’t figure out whether a Marine deserved a Bronze Star, Silver Star, or something even higher, I should imagine the day in the future when we would all stand in formation at the award’s presentation. He encouraged me to aim for as high a valor award as possible, so long as no one standing in formation would snicker under their breath that the award wasn’t deserved. This proved sound advice, which I hewed to over the years. Valor awards recognize what was, likely, one of the worst days of someone’s life. This is particularly true if a person is being written up for the highest awards—the Silver Star, Navy Cross, Air Force Cross, Distinguished Service Cross, or Medal of Honor. These are not given after a mission where everything went right and everyone came home. The process of approving these awards is arduous, and each of the services handles it a little bit differently. The Marine Corps requires a “summary of action,” a lengthy document that outlines in detail what occurred and why it merits the award. This is followed by multiple witness statements from those who saw the actions of the awardee—many a hero has gone unsung because no survivors existed to write these witness statements. Once all of this documentation is gathered, it goes into an awards packet, which then circulates through a labyrinthine bureaucracy; at every level of command, the award is either recommended for approval, downgraded, or, in some cases, upgraded. The nomination first travels to a battalion-level awards board. If approved, it goes to the regiment. The process repeats as it circulates up to division, and, in the case of the Marine Corps, to the Marine Expeditionary Force awards board, and then onward to Headquarters Marine Corps, followed by the Offices of the Secretaries of the Navy and Defense, and then the White House. Awards boards meet only periodically, so this process can take years. Valor awards are not bestowed by fiat. In the case of the Medal of Honor, recipients enter a special fraternity. They become the embodiment of American valor, living tributes to the heroism that exists deep in our national character. This is a heavy burden, a celebrity that, for many, exacts a cost and becomes a second type of service. Audie Murphy, the most decorated soldier of the Second World War and a Medal of Honor recipient, struggled until his death with his own mental health and with alcoholism. More recently, post-9/11 Medal of Honor recipients such as Kyle Carpenter and Ryan Pitts have become vocal advocates for veterans and their mental health and reintegration. When confronted with American valor, Trump has a history of making disparaging comments, dating as far back as 2015 when he said of the late Senator John McCain, a recipient of the Silver Star, that he “was only a war hero because he was captured,” adding, “I like people who weren’t captured, okay?” Perhaps Trump thinks the Medal of Freedom is “better” because he, as the president, can award it to whomever he pleases, including friends and donors. The Medal of Honor affords him no such discretion. Also, it seems beyond his comprehension that an award could simply lead to another chapter of service and not become an accolade used for simple personal advantage. During Trump’s presidency, he presided over 12 presentations of the Medal of Honor. If he wins the White House in November, he’ll likely preside over more. I doubt anyone will be saying at any future White House presentation that an award wasn’t deserved. But they might say, instead, that the man presenting it doesn’t deserve the honor of performing the task. Trump’s Medal of Dishonor (msn.com)

Very interesting, Doug. I wouldn't put anything past Trump and his goons. Is this Kremlin microwave technology, perchance?

Fragments, Kevin... and one 6.5 mm slug mysteriously seen on AP only. If you study Dr. Chesser's analysis you'll learn a lot. There was, certainly, a lot of fraud committed on behalf of the WCR. But some important clues remained.

Study Dr. Chesser's analysis carefully, Kevin. You'll be surprised. He uses the extant archival X-ray data to prove that JFK was, in fact, shot in the forehead. He also discusses the obvious fraudulence of the Bethesda and HSCA pathology and radiology reports.

This Trump/MAGA "far left" (and "radical left") trope has always been a joke. (Two Education Forum members have frequently used this false trope to describe Trump critics.) If people take the time to study the history of Trump and the post-2009 Koch/GOP, they will realize that they are actually extreme right, having quietly embraced the "misanthropic libertarian," anti-New Deal agenda of the Koch think tanks-- Heritage Foundation, CATO Institute, Federalist Society, American Enterprise Institute, et.al. Trump and his Koch plutocrats, ultimately, want to roll back the New Deal, and even century-old Progressive reforms.

People interested in understanding the scientific proof that JFK had a right upper forehead entrance wound should take the time to listen carefully to Dr. Michael Chesser's analysis of the JFK X-Ray and autopsy data, beginning around 2:20 in the video (below.) Dr. Chesser also clearly describes the fraudulent Bethesda (and HSCA) pathology and radiology reports, and the surgical mangling of JFK's head after his body was confiscated from Parkland. (No wonder people are confused!) His analysis puts to rest any claims that JFK was not shot in the right forehead from the front. Dr. Chesser also describes the witness testimony (even at Bethesda!) of the right forehead entry wound-- debunking Pat Speer's claim that no witnesses described the right frontal entry wound.

I haven't heard Jon Stewart's commentary about this story, but I did write a multiple-choice question on the subject last week, for the Water Cooler... 🤓 I. Which statement(s) below is(are) true about Donald Trump? A) Trump once rode in a helicopter with Willie Brown. B ) Trump once refused to rent apartments to brown people. C) Trump once rode in a hydrofoil with James Brown. D) Trump once falsely accused five brown guys of committing a murder in Central Park. E) A) and C) F) B ) and D)

Well, thank goodness for that, John. As for the subject of this thread, commentaries about internet "coverage" of the Trump assassination attempt are germane, although they may not align with the narrative that most interests you.

2024 election ads on immigration mislead voters - Washington Post

Huh, John? Are you joking? I'm asking questions about the Trump assassination narratives on social media, including the narrative (which 20% of the public, apparently, believes) that the Deep State conspired to assassinate Trump. Are they the latest example of the many bogus Trump-as-Victim narratives in the right wing media since 2016? Meanwhile, you have now falsely accused me of posting off topic comments or questions on four or five occasions on this thread. It smells like inaccurate ad hominem defamation. In fact, discussing media narratives about the assassination attempt (and criticism of the Secret Service) is germane to the thread topic.

LOL. Although Tom Cruise would probably object to the use of this morbid metaphor. One question I have for those who deny that the occipital skull blow out fracture was an exit wound. Why did Jackie crawl back on the trunk of the limo after the fatal head shot? And a related question. Why did the Dealey Plaza crowd rush to the Grassy Knoll?

Jean, Pat Speer has not demonstrated, using the example of Politician 1, that hearsay evidence is necessarily invalid, but that it is not monolithic. It's validity depends on the say-er. And, yes, Trump seems like a bona fide case of pseudologia fantastica. His childhood schoolmates have pointed out that Donald could never admit that he was wrong, even when it was painfully obvious to everyone in the room.

Let me help you out here, John. If you look at my lengthy list of false Trump-as-Victim narratives promoted by right wing media pundits since 2016, is it conceivable that the latest one could be, "The FBI Tried to Assassinate Trump?" Second question. Is the topic of this thread, the Trump Assassination Attempt?

True, John, but I was thinking of the numerous, recent, heavily-promoted, false Trump-as-Victim narratives; -- Obamagate -- Nunes Memo -- "No Collusion" -- Ukrainegate "Hoax" -- Stop the Steal -- "Patriot Purge" -- "Perfect Phone Call" (to Brad Raffensperger) -- Walt Nauta draining pool to destroy security cam footage -- No business fraud in NYC -- Did not screw Stormy Daniels -- Crooked Joe Biden "investigation" -- Hunter Biden gun scandal investigation -- Fani Willis dating a black guy scandal

Geez... James Comer, Gym Jordan, and the MAGA stooges in the House have no shame. None. 🙄 House GOP targets Democratic VP candidate Tim Walz in new probe (axios.com)

Most read story at WaPo today... 🤥 He found a Project 2025 duffel bag. Then D.C. police came knocking. - The Washington Post August 17, 2024

Cliff, If there is any substance to these rumors and innuendos about a Trump assassination conspiracy, I'm certainly interested. But our European friends may not realize that, in the United States, we have been subjected to an endless series of false narratives during the past 60 years. They are endless. The Kennedy assassinations are especially prominent, along with Iran-Contra, Iraq WMDs, and Trump's numerous false narratives (since 2016) blaming the "Deep State" for his crimes. I can conceive of Iran wanting to assassinate Trump, in retaliation for Soleimani's murder but, IMO, if the U.S. Deep State wanted to kill Trump, they wouldn't have hired a nursing home aid like Thomas Crooks.

Steve, I must confess that my schadenfreude would be considerable if I saw any of the following clips; 1) Eric Swalwell punching Matt Gaetz in the mug. 2) Anyone punching Ted Cruz in the mug. 3) AOC punching Lauren Boebert in the mug. 😂

Kurt Vonnegut? (I know nothing about Margo Kidder.) P.S. I met Kurt's son, Mark Vonnegut, at a Harvard Med School dinner in (?) 1979 or 1980. I had read his book, The Eden Express, about his psychotic break and hospitalization in Vancouver. He recovered, and graduated from HMS in 1979, then did a pediatric residency at Mass General.

I'll go with Hunter.

Gore Vidal? Bernie Sanders? Ralph Nader? Jeffrey Sachs?

I'll go with Dr. Michael Cesser's medical opinions over yours any day, Pat. He's a very knowledgeable, experienced, board-certified neurologist. (I, myself, was board certified by the American Board of Psychiatry & Neurology in 1989.) But let's cut to the chase, and skip the gibberish. Do you actually deny that JFK was hit in the head by a bullet fired from in front of the limo, as anyone can plainly see on the Zapruder film? Yes or no?

Greg, I'm responding to your comments in red (below.) Greg Doudna wrote: Understanding you to mean his (Oswald's) use of the 2nd floor office of (Banister's) building, the former anti-Castro Cubans' office space, for a few days, and a possible relationship with Banister, yes, I think the CIA would have motive to not want some things to be uncovered that Garrison might uncover. Especially the JFKA patsy posing as a pro-Castro Marxist in the office of an ex-FBI agent, I should think! Talk about bad optics... But what are you saying? That that proves these people including Oswald had foreknowledge of the JFK assassination or that any of them, the issue of Oswald himself aside, did it? It doesn't prove it, but it, certainly, raises questions. Have you considered the CIA could be doing a lot of things, including some with Oswald, in a lot of places and that is not proof that the CIA was doing the JFK assassination in all those places? Do you see the logical leap in reasoning I am pushing back against? The CIA's fingerprints are all over the JFKA-- and Oswald case-- which, again raises questions here. What "logical leap" am I allegedly making? You are assuming suspicion is grounds for a logical conclusion. Potential grounds for a conclusion. As a science guy (M.D.) I tend to think in terms of probabilistic hypotheses. This is the legitimate side of the criticism against conspiracy theorizing, the bane of what outsiders see wrong with so much conspiracy theorizing. It wouldn't be so bad if speculation was labeled speculation, conjecture conjecture, and not claimed as hard fact that it is heresy to question or point out is not proven. Who claimed my theorizing is claimed as a "hard fact?" I made no such claim. I know all about the philosophical relationship between facts and theories. There is a theory that Garrison, who made a lot of accusations but never proved the CIA or anyone in New Orleans (the issue of Oswald himself aside) was involved in the JFK assassination, was carrying out, including with financial support, an agenda from fellow New Orleans-ite Carlos Marcello, grocery wholesaler and mob boss over Louisiana and east Texas including Dallas. With all of his investigative skills, Garrison could not figure out that Jack Ruby went back to Marcello, and seek to find out what that was about. Garrison claimed Ruby was working for the CIA! Garrison never once even interviewed or questioned Marcello! The same Marcello who later confessed that he did the JFK assassination! I know very little about Marcello, or Ruby's relationship with Marcello. Giancana once said that the CIA and the Mafia were two sides of the same coin, didn't he? And I vaguely recall reading that Ruby was involved (originally) with Giancana and the Chicago mob in some capacity. There is also the case of the mobster in Oklahoma, Jack Zagretty, who had apparent foreknowledge that Ruby was going to kill Oswald. He was found floating in a swimming pool with a gun shot to the mouth. The confession of Marcello isn't airtight, I know. People say he was losing his mind when he bragged that he had had JFK assassinated, said Oswald and Oswald's uncle used to work for him, told how he did it. But sometimes people losing their minds can speak uninhibited truth unfiltered. Too bad there was never an investigation of Marcello on JFK. Too bad Garrison didn't. Was he really in his bones certain Marcello was innocent? But was sure Clay Shaw wasn't? Talk about arbitrary! Reasonable point about Marcello. But did he also handle the Warren Commission cover up and the mainstream media (Mockingbird) psy op for the JFKA-- Life magazine, WaPo, NYT, CBS, et.al.? Not likely. Secondly, Clay Shaw wasn't the only CIA asset who was in contact with Oswald prior to the assassination. George De Mohrenschildt, Ruth Paine, and, possibly, David Atlee Phillips were also in contact with the designated JFKA patsy.