The Trouble with Conspiracy Theories

[Ron Ecker]

We know the location of JFK's back wound without the jacket. You know, the wound that Humes stuck his finger in and it didn't go anywhere. And even if it did, it could not have gone through the throat and hit Connally. It was in his back, not the back of his neck, despite the best efforts of Spector, Ford, Myers, (Purvis?), et al to move it.

[Ron Ecker]

We saw the same thing replicated recently in the Discovery program INSIDE THE TARGET CAR. The rifle bullet drove the skull violently forward, in the same direction as the bullet. There was no jet effect.

I haven't seen that program. How was this violent forward movement explained, when the Z film shows the opposite?

[Cliff Varnell]

We know the location of JFK's back wound without the jacket.

Yes, the witness statements and testimony consistently put

the back wound lower at T3.

But physical evidence trumps witness testimony.

One can look at the photos of the bullet hole in the jacket and the photos

that show the drop of the jacket in Dealey and see for oneself where

the bullet entered the back.

Why make a case that leaves out the best evidence?

Edited February 18, 2009 by Cliff Varnell

[Ron Ecker]

We saw the same thing replicated recently in the Discovery program INSIDE THE TARGET CAR. The rifle bullet drove the skull violently forward, in the same direction as the bullet. There was no jet effect.

I haven't seen that program. How was this violent forward movement explained, when the Z film shows the opposite?

From Gary Mack:

"As for the Discovery show, the blood/brain matter went forward, not the head. Our blood spatter test was simply to learn where the matter went, not what the head did. In fact, the head was fixed so it couldn’t move so we’d have a consistent target for all four head shots."

[J. Raymond Carroll]

We saw the same thing replicated recently in the Discovery program INSIDE THE TARGET CAR. The rifle bullet drove the skull violently forward, in the same direction as the bullet. There was no jet effect.

I haven't seen that program. How was this violent forward movement explained, when the Z film shows the opposite?

The question is (kinda) put to Gary Mack in the Discovery Channel Q&A here:

Q: Why didn’t your test include Kennedy being knocked back and to the left as seen in the film?

A: That movement, which is so obvious in the Zapruder film, was a separate response.

We only tested the initial effect of the bullet striking the skull and where the blood spatter went

http://blogs.discovery.com/jfk/2008/12/gary-mack-answe.html

As you will see if you watch the program, the Discovery team focuses on the blood spatter, but every viewer can see that there is no Jet Effect. The bullet drives the skull in the same direction as the bullet, just as the army proved in their experiments.

Gary Mack and the Discovery people get around the problem by pretending that viewers cannot see what they are actually seeing.

JFK's violent backward movement, so clearly visible in the Z-Film, is PROOF that the assassination of JFK was accomplished by a gunman firing from the knoll, and that single fact alone is more than enough to demolish the entire official story.

[J. Raymond Carroll]

From Gary Mack:

"As for the Discovery show, the blood/brain matter went forward, not the head. Our blood spatter test was simply to learn where the matter went, not what the head did.

Yes, but there is no avoiding the fact that, in the Discovery experiments, the "skulls" were driven violently away from the shooter.

In fact, the head was fixed so it couldn’t move so we’d have a consistent target for all four head shots."

Well in each case the head DID MOVE, and it ALWAYS moved AWAY from the shooter.

The Discovery Program is further PROOF, corroborating the army experiments, the the JET EFFECT THEORY/CONJECTURE has NO BASIS in REALITY.

Anyone who watches the Zapruder film can see, WITH THEIR OWN EYES, that JFK was killed by a shot from the front, and the defenders of the official story are simply unable to deal with that.

[Ron Ecker]

Anyone who watches the Zapruder film can see, WITH THEIR OWN EYES, that JFK was killed by a shot from the front, and the defenders of the official story are simply unable to deal with that.

Well, there's always the "neuromuscular reaction" explanation. But I think that the only neuromuscular reaction is the lone nutters' sphincters tightening whenever they see that head snap.

[Cliff Varnell]

...(Tom Purvis) is an expert at taking over threads. It is a shame because this could have been an interesting discussion. Especially, if Evan and Len would have been willing to contribute.

John, it is not my intent to participate in the hijacking of the thread.

My purpose here is to demonstrate Feser's fallacious framing of the

subject: that JFK was murdered as the result of a conspiracy is not

theoretical in the least.

That 4+ shots were fired is a readily observed, demonstrable fact

given the proven T3 back wound.

Feser's framing of the debate as "trouble with conspiracy theories" must

be rejected, at least in regards to the JFK assassination.

As to 9/11: it is not a theory, but a readily observed fact that

the American air defense system failed to intercept the planes that struck

the WTC and the Pentagon (for the sake of argument I'll set aside the

questions surrounding the strike on the Pentagon.)

The following suggests one man could have single-handedly disabled

the American air defense system: Vice President Dick Cheney.

http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/...MustTestify.pdf

It did not take a wide array of conspirators to allow the terrorist attacks

to succeed, contrary to Feser, Colby, Burton et al.

The trouble with "The Trouble With Conspiracy Theories" is that it ignores

the basic facts of 9/11 and the JFK assassination in favor of strawman attacks

on government-wide conspiracy theories that are the product of Feser's

imagination.

[Thomas H. Purvis]

Tom : "As bad as this system is and with all of it's flaws and errors, it remains the single best form of government which has surfaced on this planet to date." I'd argue that the Swiss and Cuban system are superior.

_____________________

I can live quite happily with whatever Tom may think of me. I've never met him.

However, over the time that Tom has participated in this Forum, he has provided much. For me the ever present focus on Louisiana, and particularly Baton Rouge and New Orleans has been inspiring. His postings re certain groupings like The White Chamelias (btw as per my usual speculative style, has anyone a photo of a bunch of such in DP in the days following the assasinations?), Tulane University, the MSC files, background in history and genealogy(in particular) are a very valuable source from, what I see as, a rather dry witted, very bright, scientific, well researched, no nonsense Ole Boy. Everyone has failings (even me(apart from my modesty of course)). There are definitely anomalies but overall Tom doesn't deserve this roasting. Naturally he'll give as good as he gets, and like most of us makes mistakes. He has shown an ability to accept them and change in viewpoint, all pointing at some good principles. Why do people not want to ask him polite questions? He'll answer if he can or wishes. Take or leave the answer. That's up to you/me. Same with most here. Sure Tom tends to go a bit troppo at times re posting binges, but many of us do that at times. Only John Simkin stands out to me not so much for his line of research, but the care he takes in presenting it and particularly the simple fact that this Forum exist at all in the format it takes. Don't forget this is going to read by our children and others children and their children, 'when we've all shuffled off this mortal coil'. As far as trust goes I only trust Jesus. EVERYONE else gets some measure of the benefits of doubt. That doesn't mean I like or dislike anyone. But I have at times been rather brash. Life on earth's only got so many minutes in it.

I'd argue that the Swiss and Cuban system are superior.

Not according to those Cuban's whom I have met as well as a close friend who was a Full Colonel in the Swiss Army.

In fact, Colonel Graf was afraid that he was going to have to kidnap his own teenage children and force them to return to Switzerland.

I would however agree that the average Cuban is much better off unders the Castro regime than under any other form of Government which has controlled that country.

Unfortunately, with limited natural resources, even a benevelent dictatorship is limited as to what it can do for it's populace.

P.S. You are aware that ALL male citizens in Switzerland MUST serve two years in their armed forces??? Or at least some years back this was the case.

[Thomas H. Purvis]

We know the location of JFK's back wound without the jacket. You know, the wound that Humes stuck his finger in and it didn't go anywhere. And even if it did, it could not have gone through the throat and hit Connally. It was in his back, not the back of his neck, despite the best efforts of Spector, Ford, Myers, (Purvis?), et al to move it.

1. Try reading and then get a good Gray's Anatomy. Might actually suprise one as to what "Supra-Clavicular" means.

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk...Vol17_0030a.htm

Or are you of the frequently misguided opinion that Humes; Boswell; and Finck were so incompetent that they did not even know where the scalpula was located?

2. Considering that I am well aware that CE399 only penetrated a short distance and stopped, it would further appear that you read and understand little of what was long ago posted here as well.

[Thomas H. Purvis]

We know the location of JFK's back wound without the jacket.

Yes, the witness statements and testimony consistently put

the back wound lower at T3.

But physical evidence trumps witness testimony.

One can look at the photos of the bullet hole in the jacket and the photos

that show the drop of the jacket in Dealey and see for oneself where

the bullet entered the back.

Why make a case that leaves out the best evidence?

Yes, the witness statements and testimony consistently put

the back wound lower at T3.

Well, yes! Provided that one accepts the word of a non-pathologist who had absolutely nothing to do with examination of the wounds which JFK incurred.

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/humesa.htm

He's not a pathologist, to start with. He wouldn't

And George Burkley had absolutely nothing to do with it, period.

Q. Would you say that--

A. He says he supervised the autopsy. He was in the room. As far as supervising the autopsy, he didn't.

Q. You see that Dr. Burkley identifies the posterior back at about the level of the third thoracic vertebra. Do you see that?

A. Yes.

Q. Was that correct?

A. I don't know. I didn't measure from which vertebra it was. It's sometimes hard to decide which vertebra, to tell you the truth, by palpation. Maybe you can do it accurately because the first and second--did I say the third? Oh, he says third thoracic. I think that's much lower

than it actually was. I think it's much lower than it actually--you have seven cervical vertebrae. I don't know. I mean, he's got a right to say anything he wants, but I never saw it before, and I don't have an opinion about it.

Q. Did you ever discuss which vertebra--

A. I never discussed anything about it with George Burkley, period, or anybody else.

Q. And you're reasonably confident that the wound of entry is the one that is at the higher--

A. Yes, sir, I am.

Q. Is that correct?

A. Yes, sir.

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/humes.htm

This wound was situated just above the upper border of the scapula,

Now Cliff! Exactly what was it in regards to "just above the upper border of the scalpula" was it that you continue to fail to grasp?

Exactly when was it that you were going to get around to providing us with photographic evidence of a member of the human species* who's T3 vertebrae was slightly above the upper border of the scalpula?

(*Or at least a member who has not suffered a major accident deformity)

Want to pull another of those qualified witnesses out of your hat?

[Cliff Varnell]

We know the location of JFK's back wound without the jacket.

Yes, the witness statements and testimony consistently put

the back wound lower at T3.

But physical evidence trumps witness testimony.

One can look at the photos of the bullet hole in the jacket and the photos

that show the drop of the jacket in Dealey and see for oneself where

the bullet entered the back.

Why make a case that leaves out the best evidence?

Yes, the witness statements and testimony consistently put

the back wound lower at T3.

Well, yes! Provided that one accepts the word of a non-pathologist who had

absolutely nothing to do with examination of the wounds which JFK incurred.

Getting ahead of yourself here, aren't you, Tom?

In a previous post you cited un-named "qualified experts" who have

established that JFK's suit jacket and tucked-in custom-made dress

shirt were elevated in tandem over 3".

Please cite these "qualified experts" and their work, before we move on.

Also, before we get into the corroborative evidence, you have yet to

substantiate your claim that a 6.5mm FMJ round left a 3mm x 3mm defect

without touching the shirt.

Your Humes/Boswell testimony is moot if you can't defend what you've

already written.

But you have no actual argument for any of this, do you?

Edited February 18, 2009 by Cliff Varnell

[Thomas H. Purvis]

We know the location of JFK's back wound without the jacket.

Yes, the witness statements and testimony consistently put

the back wound lower at T3.

But physical evidence trumps witness testimony.

One can look at the photos of the bullet hole in the jacket and the photos

that show the drop of the jacket in Dealey and see for oneself where

the bullet entered the back.

Why make a case that leaves out the best evidence?

Yes, the witness statements and testimony consistently put

the back wound lower at T3.

Well, yes! Provided that one accepts the word of a non-pathologist who had

absolutely nothing to do with examination of the wounds which JFK incurred.

Getting ahead of yourself here, aren't you, Tom?

In a previous post you cited un-named "qualified experts" who have

established that JFK's suit jacket and tucked-in custom-made dress

shirt were elevated in tandem over 3".

Please cite these "qualified experts" and their work, before we move on.

Also, before we get into the corroborative evidence, you have yet to

substantiate your claim that a 6.5mm FMJ round left a 3mm x 3mm defect

without touching the shirt.

Your Humes/Boswell testimony is moot if you can't defend what you've

already written.

But you have no actual argument for any of this, do you?

Actually! Anyone with the ability for word recognition and comprehension would have grasped the answers long ago when you last brought up this subject matter.

Along with all of the others who have expended considerable time and effort in thoroughly refuting your "non-bunch" concept of conspiracy.

So, please by my guest and go waste someone else's time with your vaccum cleaner sales pitch.

[Cliff Varnell]

We know the location of JFK's back wound without the jacket.

Yes, the witness statements and testimony consistently put

the back wound lower at T3.

But physical evidence trumps witness testimony.

One can look at the photos of the bullet hole in the jacket and the photos

that show the drop of the jacket in Dealey and see for oneself where

the bullet entered the back.

Why make a case that leaves out the best evidence?

Yes, the witness statements and testimony consistently put

the back wound lower at T3.

Well, yes! Provided that one accepts the word of a non-pathologist who had

absolutely nothing to do with examination of the wounds which JFK incurred.

Getting ahead of yourself here, aren't you, Tom?

In a previous post you cited un-named "qualified experts" who have

established that JFK's suit jacket and tucked-in custom-made dress

shirt were elevated in tandem over 3".

Please cite these "qualified experts" and their work, before we move on.

Also, before we get into the corroborative evidence, you have yet to

substantiate your claim that a 6.5mm FMJ round left a 3mm x 3mm defect

without touching the shirt.

Your Humes/Boswell testimony is moot if you can't defend what you've

already written.

But you have no actual argument for any of this, do you?

Actually! Anyone with the ability for word recognition and comprehension would have grasped the answers long ago when you last brought up this subject matter.

And what "answers" would those be? Since these "answers" are so readily

grasped, you should have no trouble reiterating them.

Along with all of the others who have expended considerable time and effort in thoroughly refuting your "non-bunch" concept of conspiracy.

Along with what "others"? To whom do you refer, and what was the

substance of their refutation?

This is not an idle point -- it goes straight to the heart of this thread.

As noted previously, the trouble with Feser's "The Trouble With Conspiracy

Theories" is it ignores the basic facts of both 9/11 and the JFK assassination.

Not for nothing do non-conspiracy theorists like Tom Purvis suffer rhetorical

meltdowns when confronted with irrefutable physical evidence.

So, please by my guest and go waste someone else's time with your vaccum cleaner sales pitch.

There is a sucking sound in this thread, all right.

So: tell us who these "qualified experts" are, and what is their argument?

I've given up on you actually defending your "two bullet holes in the jacket,

one bullet hole in the shirt" nonsense.

Apparently it has dawned upon even you that the assertion is absurd.

Edited February 19, 2009 by Cliff Varnell

[Ron Ecker]

1. Try reading and then get a good Gray's Anatomy. Might actually suprise one as to what "Supra-Clavicular" means.

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk...Vol17_0030a.htm

While I'm looking up clavicle, why don't you look up "posterior thorax"?

Or are you of the frequently misguided opinion that Humes; Boswell; and Finck were so incompetent that they did not even know where the scalpula was located?

I don't think that they were incompetent as much as they were complicit up to their military "I don't want to lose my pension" eyeballs. They knew what was expected of them, and they delivered in their necessarily sloppy and "incompetent" fashion.

2. Considering that I am well aware that CE399 only penetrated a short distance and stopped, it would further appear that you read and understand little of what was long ago posted here as well.

I previously indicated that I did not read or don't remember what you posted "long ago" on this. I also indicated that there is no need to repeat it. Indeed, since you seem to agree that a bullet hit JFK in the back and stopped, I don't even know what we're arguing about. If you want the wound a little higher than T3, what difference does it make as far as who did it?

Edited February 19, 2009 by Ron Ecker