Jump to content
The Education Forum

VIDEO - The Back Wound


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 54
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

examines the wound on the President's back and how the Warren

Commission relocated it to the base of his neck in order to

accommodate the Single Bullet Theory.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=60vU41qoflU

Gil, this one's got a ton of errors in it. You might want to take it down.

Pat, your "argument" for a T1 back wound is absurd. More, it's intellectually

dishonest.

Like the Warren Commission, the HSCA, and Vincent Bugliosi, you

simply pretend the too-low holes in the back of JFK's shirt and jacket

don't exist -- JFK Parlor Gaming at its worst.

It's your videos that need to be taken down. You argue the case for

conspiracy on the weakest evidence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dear Mr. Speer:

Since you feel the need to address the video in this forum, we will address the video in this forum.

First, let me say that the comments that you left for this video at Youtube have been removed and you have been blocked by me from viewing any of my videos.

This is the second time you've left negative comments for my videos while at the same time promoting your own videos and website. That is not what the comment section of the videos is for.

While you are entitled to your opinion, you are not entitled to "hawk" your videos through the comment section of my videos.

I find this act of denegrating someone's videos while promoting your own in their comment section highly distasteful and unethical. I don't do that to anyone else, and I'm not going to allow anyone to do it to me.

You certainly have available to you the same outlets to promote your videos as I have, and I suggest that you use them.

I am sorry that you had to pay money to get the information you needed to make your video, but I had nothing to do with that. Since I started posting videos here, you given me the feeling that you are more than a little resentful and perhaps a little bit envious of my posting videos.

I'm not the enemy, Mr. Speer, we're on the same side.

As for your suggestion that the video is so laden with errors that I should remove it, under the circumstances, I'm willing to let the viewers determine that.

The video stays.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll just share my personal philosophy and, as always, anyone can take it or leave it.

My philosophy is that, ideally, researchers try to us the forum or email or PMs or whatever to debate the output of another researcher.

In other words keep it in the family.

And try to stay out of each other's way publicly.

It's a multi-front war as it is so we don't need more fronts (or afronts).

I'm not suggesting we march in lock step, but ideally we can make a distinction between public and private debates, and not divide and conquer ourselves.

You know, FWIW.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dear Mr. Speer:

Since you feel the need to address the video in this forum, we will address the video in this forum.

First, let me say that the comments that you left for this video at Youtube have been removed and you have been blocked by me from viewing any of my videos.

This is the second time you've left negative comments for my videos while at the same time promoting your own videos and website. That is not what the comment section of the videos is for.

While you are entitled to your opinion, you are not entitled to "hawk" your videos through the comment section of my videos.

I find this act of denegrating someone's videos while promoting your own in their comment section highly distasteful and unethical. I don't do that to anyone else, and I'm not going to allow anyone to do it to me.

You certainly have available to you the same outlets to promote your videos as I have, and I suggest that you use them.

I am sorry that you had to pay money to get the information you needed to make your video, but I had nothing to do with that. Since I started posting videos here, you given me the feeling that you are more than a little resentful and perhaps a little bit envious of my posting videos.

I'm not the enemy, Mr. Speer, we're on the same side.

As for your suggestion that the video is so laden with errors that I should remove it, under the circumstances, I'm willing to let the viewers determine that.

The video stays.

Gil and Cliff, if I'd have had more time last night, I'd have listed the errors in the video. Perhaps I should have withheld commentary till I had the time. The errors in the video I referred to had nothing to do with my contention that the back wound entrance is at T1--based on the autopsy measurements, autopsy face sheet, and autopsy photos--nor the video (and Cliff's) contention that the back wound entrance is at T3 (based on Burkley's death certificate). The mistakes to which I referred were in reference to the measurements. The video asserts that the hole in the clothes was 5 inches below the shoulder line. This is not true; they were 5 1/2 inches or so below the collar. The video asserts that the back wound in the autopsy photos is four times the size of the measured entrance. This is malarkey; as the back wound was measured at 7mm, this would mean that the back wound in the photo is more than 1 inch wide. If I remember correctly, the video also asserts that the back wound in the photos is 6 inches below the throat wound. As what most interpret to be the back wound in the autopsy photos is acknowledged by all (except for a few lone nut theorists) to be at or below the level of the throat wound, this would mean that the lower mark interpreted in the video to be the back wound is 6 inches below the higher mark. This is almost certainly untrue. 6 inches below T1 is far lower than T3. Mistakes such as these are easily refuted by the Bugliosis of the world and only feed into the recent round of "conspiracy theorists are wackos" discussions in the media. I feel it's better that we correct these errors before they come back to haunt us, and discredit us all.

For the record, Gil, I support your putting these vids online. I do think, when you know who is responsible for the vids, that you should seek their permission. I also think you should credit the actual creators of the videos at the end, so that people know who is responsible for the content, and whose efforts they should applaud. I also think you should be more selective about which vids you upload. The mistakes in this last vid are so basic they should have been caught at the outset.

As far as me plugging my own vids...Youtube has a feature called "Post a video response." Rather than post a link to my vids, I thought I'd just mention them in the comments in case anyone else was interested. Since the goal is to expose people to as much info as possible, so they can reach informed decisions, I fail to see why this is a problem.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I also think you should be more selective about which vids you upload.....
As far as me plugging my own vids......Since the goal is to expose people to as much info as possible, so they can reach informed decisions, I fail to see why this is a problem.

You are one perceptive fellow Mike Hogan.

It's a gift.

To the forum.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I also think you should be more selective about which vids you upload.....
As far as me plugging my own vids......Since the goal is to expose people to as much info as possible, so they can reach informed decisions, I fail to see why this is a problem.

You are one perceptive fellow Mike Hogan.

It's a gift.

To the forum.

If this is an attempt to show an inconsistency, it failed. Notice that I said "as much info" as possible, not "as much obvious and blatant misinfo" as possible. People shouldn't have to wade through a swamp of indefensible nonsense just to get to the issues. My complaint about the video is not that it presented the "The real entrance is the little smudge in the autopsy photo" theory first pushed by Groden. I spent 50 bucks on Groden's book, after all, knowing it included such claims. My complaint, as stated, is that it presents a number of easily refuted measurements and descriptions as facts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If this is an attempt to show an inconsistency, it failed. Notice that I said "as much info" as possible, not "as much obvious and blatant misinfo" as possible. People shouldn't have to wade through a swamp of indefensible nonsense just to get to the issues. My complaint about the video is not that it presented the "The real entrance is the little smudge in the autopsy photo" theory first pushed by Groden. I spent 50 bucks on Groden's book, after all, knowing it included such claims. My complaint, as stated, is that it presents a number of easily refuted measurements and descriptions as facts.

I noticed what you said the first time. When someone on this Forum deems themselves arbiters of what constitutes facts as you do...Well, nevermind. Your advice to Gil about being more selective was condescending. And yes, despite your spin, those two statements of yours that I posted out of context were contradictory.

You're entitled to your opinion, but it's not your place to spare people from wading through "swamps of indefensible nonsense" just to get to what you consider to be the issues. If its such obvious and blatant misinfo as you suggest, people shouldn't have to wade too far. Hard to determine where altruism leaves off and ego begins.

No one likes to be talked down to. In my opinion, that is what you did to Gil. And he's not the only one.

Maybe its not what you say, but the way you say it.

Edited by Michael Hogan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If this is an attempt to show an inconsistency, it failed. Notice that I said "as much info" as possible, not "as much obvious and blatant misinfo" as possible. People shouldn't have to wade through a swamp of indefensible nonsense just to get to the issues. My complaint about the video is not that it presented the "The real entrance is the little smudge in the autopsy photo" theory first pushed by Groden. I spent 50 bucks on Groden's book, after all, knowing it included such claims. My complaint, as stated, is that it presents a number of easily refuted measurements and descriptions as facts.

I noticed what you said the first time. When someone on this Forum deems themselves arbiters of what constitutes facts as you do...Well, nevermind. Your advice to Gil about being more selective was condescending. And yes, despite your spin, those two statements of yours that I posted out of context were contradictory.

You're entitled to your opinion, but it's not your place spare people from wading through "swamps of indefensible nonsense." just to get to what you consider to be the issues. If its such obvious and blatant misinfo as you suggest, people shouldn't have to wade too far. Hard to determine where altruism leaves off and ego begins.

No one likes to be talked down to. In my opinion, that is what you did to Gil. And he's not the only one.

Maybe its not what you say, but the way you say it.

I apologize if I've upset any delicate sensibilities with my medium-level tolerance of outright moonshine. When I told Gil he should take the video down it was not because I disagreed with its major points, but because some of the measurements mentioned in the video were embarrassingly wrong. And I didn't mean that the video should be trashed either. It illuminates the possibility of the Groden lower back wound. It succeeds in showing the discrepancies between the Rydberg drawings and the autopsy photos. If the measurements were corrected, it would be fine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I also think you should be more selective about which vids you upload.....
As far as me plugging my own vids......Since the goal is to expose people to as much info as possible, so they can reach informed decisions, I fail to see why this is a problem.

You are one perceptive fellow Mike Hogan.

It's a gift.

To the forum.

If this is an attempt to show an inconsistency, it failed. Notice that I said "as much info" as possible, not "as much obvious and blatant misinfo" as possible. People shouldn't have to wade through a swamp of indefensible nonsense just to get to the issues. My complaint about the video is not that it presented the "The real entrance is the little smudge in the autopsy photo" theory first pushed by Groden. I spent 50 bucks on Groden's book, after all, knowing it included such claims. My complaint, as stated, is that it presents a number of easily refuted measurements and descriptions as facts.

Pat,

There have been plenty of successful attempts, like this one, to show inconsistency in your statements.

There are some whoppers in this thread:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=9946

No matter how blatant your contradictions are you tend to deny them.

But denial of your contradictions doesn't make them invisible to others.

Myra

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I apologize if I've upset any delicate sensibilities with my medium-level tolerance of outright moonshine.

Your sarcasm about my delicate sensibilities aside, its clear that you just don't get it. If I truly had delicate sensibilities, I would have been in many more threads of yours than I have.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I apologize if I've upset any delicate sensibilities with my medium-level tolerance of outright moonshine.

Your sarcasm about my delicate sensibilities aside, its clear that you just don't get it. If I truly had delicate sensibilities, I would have been in many more threads of yours than I have.

Oh admit it, you haven't got it any longer, you old codger.... the Lone Nut clock is running out

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...