Lifton and Morningstar, nice but no cigar.

[Daniel Gallup]

Perhaps I should have put quotes around the word "jogging" when I described Toni Foster, the "running woman." Then you would have seen more clearly I was not attempting to describe the speed at which she was moving. Then you conclude that I pick and choose what I want to about the Z-film. Let me be very clear about something, Mike. Since the limo stop has been excised, and the ejecta from the back of the head excised, and whatever else may have happened during the limo stop, I do not appeal to the Z-film for any information about how the shooting occurred, unless it is corrobrated by eye-witness testimony, and hopefully multiply corroborating eye-witness testimony. But since the central part of the film has been edited, I find it best not to appeal to the film at all, but rather to Clint Hill's description of the wound as he climbed aboard("I noticed a portion of the President's head on the right rear side was missing..."), Jackie's description of what she saw ("from the front there was nothing. I suppose there must have been, but from the back youi could see, you know, you were trying to hold his hair on, and his skull on.") and the Parkland doctors and nurses observations, all of which form a consistent picture. So no, I do not pick and choose with the Z-film. That piece of fraud is too dirty to lay a foundation for any decisive knowldege of the shooting.

Who "busted" the limo-stop "myth," Mike, and how did they do it? I'd be interested in your take on this.

[Daniel Gallup]

The limo did not stop and over half of the 59 witnesses said it did not stop.

I would suggest to you that you stop reading the books and concentrate on the evidence.

There is a part of me that thinks that because you read Best Evidence you have no desire to do your own investigation of the evidence. If that is the effect of reading Best Evidence then I do not agree with it.

You should know the evidence before your read the books so you can be in a position to correct errors that are made in the books, in fact, I think that is one of the major jobs of a researcher today, correct the books and the myths that those books have created.

But you are arguing in a circle, Mike, that is, assuming what needs to be proved. If a student does that in a math proof, I give him an "F". It is the evidence that is in question because of its suspicious nature, the lack of clear a chain of possession (CE 399, for example), the loss of vital evidence, including the brain, the Harper Fragment, for example; and conflicting descriptions of the President's wounds , anomalies in the official x-rays and photos and pressure applied by the FBI to witnesses (Tomlilnson, for instance). One cannot know the evidence in this case as one knows a mathematical solution. This is the Kennedy case: the search for evidence that can be trusted.

[Cliff Varnell]

This is the Kennedy case: the search for evidence that can be trusted.

It's simple in regards to the medical evidence. If the evidence was properly handled/produced/maintained according to the prevailing professional protocols, the evidence can be trusted.

1) the contemporaneous notes of the Parkland doctors (esp. the identification of the throat wound as an entrance)

2) Burkley's death certificate (properly marked "verified")

3) the portion of the autopsy face sheet filled out in pencil (properly signed off as "verified")

4) the Sibert & O'Neill FBI report on the autopsy

5) the neck x-ray

According to the above JFK was shot in the back at T3 and shot in the throat from the front.

This matches the consensus witness testimonies from Parkland (throat wound) and Bethesda (back wound).

The T3 back wound matches the holes in the clothing.

JFK was shot in the throat from the front, the round did not exit, and no round was recovered during the autopsy.

He was shot in the back at T3, the round did not exit, no round was recovered during the autopsy.

Ignore improperly prepared evidence such as the final autopsy report, the autopsy photos, the portion of the autopsy face sheet filled out in pen, and anything to do with the head wound(s) given the notation of "apparent" surgery to the head mentioned in the S & O FBI report.

Those are the root facts of the JFK assassination, imo.

Edited August 23, 2012 by Cliff Varnell

[Pat Speer]

The limo did not stop and over half of the 59 witnesses said it did not stop.

I would suggest to you that you stop reading the books and concentrate on the evidence.

There is a part of me that thinks that because you read Best Evidence you have no desire to do your own investigation of the evidence. If that is the effect of reading Best Evidence then I do not agree with it.

You should know the evidence before your read the books so you can be in a position to correct errors that are made in the books, in fact, I think that is one of the major jobs of a researcher today, correct the books and the myths that those books have created.

I agree with much of what you say, Mike. But disagree with your overall point. Reading conspiracy books and non-conspiracy books alike can open your mind to new ideas. You just shouldn't SWEAR BY those ideas until you check the facts out for yourself.

When I first started out , I was intimidated by the x-rays. I didn't know much about them. I didn't know how to read them. So I deferred to Dr. Mantik's interpretation of them. Big mistake. When I finally found the time to read some instruction manuals and text books I realized Mantik was wrong about most everything. Well-intentioned but wrong. So I agree that one shouldn't swallow whatever one is fed.

That said, however, I think one can learn a lot from Lifton's book. He doesn't just say what he thinks happened, he describes his journey to coming to his conclusions. It's entertaining and informative.

Edited August 23, 2012 by Pat Speer

[Daniel Gallup]

"I agree with much of what you say, Mike. But disagree with your overall point. Reading conspiracy books and non-conspiracy books alike can open your mind to new ideas. You just shouldn't SWEAR BY those ideas until you check the facts out for yourself."

And Pat, what are the facts? It is the facts in this case that are so much in dispute. However, your dissmissal of Mantik based on your own study merits some qualified praise. At least you investigated Mantik's claims and spent time with x-ray reading etc. and came to the conclusion that Mantik was wrong. I assume the particulars of Mantik's errors are on your website, for anyone to check. I say, good for you, Pat, because now Mike Rago or I or anyone else can read your arguments, read into the matter ourselves or what other experts have said about them etc. and make an estimation of their merit. That is the kind of thing I am most willing to do, and I hope Mike Rago feels the same way. But I cannot effectively talk to Pat Speer about his convictions on Mantik unless I carefully read him on Mantik. At this was the point I was making to Mike Rago. Before summarily dismissing Lifton, he should CAREFFULLY read him.

[Daniel Gallup]

This is the Kennedy case: the search for evidence that can be trusted.

It's simple in regards to the medical evidence. If the evidence was properly handled/produced/maintained according to the prevailing professional protocols, the evidence can be trusted.

1) the contemporaneous notes of the Parkland doctors (esp. the identification of the throat wound as an entrance)

2) Burkley's death certificate (properly marked "verified")

3) the portion of the autopsy face sheet filled out in pencil (properly signed off as "verified")

4) the Sibert & O'Neill FBI report on the autopsy

5) the neck x-ray

According to the above JFK was shot in the back at T3 and shot in the throat from the front.

This matches the consensus witness testimonies from Parkland (throat wound) and Bethesda (back wound).

The T3 back wound matches the holes in the clothing.

JFK was shot in the throat from the front, the round did not exit, and no round was recovered during the autopsy.

He was shot in the back at T3, the round did not exit, no round was recovered during the autopsy.

Ignore improperly prepared evidence such as the final autopsy report, the autopsy photos, the portion of the autopsy face sheet filled out in pen, and anything to do with the head wound(s) given the notation of "apparent" surgery to the head mentioned in the S & O FBI report.

Those are the root facts of the JFK assassination, imo.

I am sympathetic with your post but am troubled by several matters. One, the only testimony we have that the back wound existed at Parkland is Diana Bowron years after the event, in the 90s. She never spoke of the wound before the WC, even though she was asked if she saw any other wounds on the body. That is very troubling to me. There was definitely a wound at T-3, as evidenced by all the sources you name -- but what was its origin? And I agree that the Sibert and O'Neill report is much more valuable than the Bethesda autopsy protocol, but as you note that report tells us that Humes cried "foul" over apparent surgery of the head area, at the top of the skull. If Kennedy's body was touched between Parkland and the time Humes made that remark, the body's value as evidence goes to zero. I cannot trust that the body is telling me the truth any longer, if surgery was indeed done to Kennedy.

[Mike Rago]

It is precisely because this was the assassination of a president that all the extravagant manipulation of so much evidence DID NOT OCCUR. You think that every single person was involved in the conspiracy?

There was manipulation but for the most part it was very subtle, and there was always a grain of truth at the core. For instance, the SBT has two components, first a bullet passed through the presidents body and second that bullet then struck Connally and caused all the damage to him. In fact, a bullet did pass through the presidents body and passed by Connally's left side but it was not the bullet that caused all the damage. The SBT was designed to cover that two bullets were fired nearly simultaneously. They thought they could get away with that subtle manipulation.

Likewise they want you to believe that another single bullet caused all the damage to JFK's head, when in fact, the president was struck by two bullets to the head, again, fired nearly simultaneously.

The firing of nearly simultaneous shots ,and the attempt to conceal them as a single shot is a characteristic of this assassination and coverup! It was a way to disguise the sound of multiple shots and greatly increased the probability of success. The WC was obsessed with "how many shots did you hear". People heard 1 shot but two were fired.

What does sina quo non mean?

Was there manipulation of the photographic record. Yes. But it was not done by altering the images, it was done by cropping of photos , removing frames from the existing films and losing critical photographic negatives.. The photographic evidence is what shows that nearly simultaneous shots were fired at least twice during the assassination. You have to analyze the photographic evidence very carefully to see it because they were nearly simultaneous.

This was not a perfect crime, far from it. The evidence is there to identify who was involved. If you want to turn it into a perfect crime then start the rumor that all the evidence has been manipulated and cannot be believed!

The manner in which the manipulation has been carried is described by the following quote ( I do not remember where I read it)

"If you want someone to believe a lie...mix it with a lot of truth"

That is what has happened in this case...

Edited August 23, 2012 by Mike Rago

[Daniel Gallup]

Did I use "sine qua non"? In Latin it means," without which, not" or, "a necessary and sufficient condition for something to be true." I think you are right in this: it is pretty well established that two shots were fired almost simultaneoulsy after reports of a first shot. And Mike, I don't think "every single person" was involved in the conspiracy, only key people. Many people acting in good faith had no idea they were party to something sinister. Read Best Evidence and Lifton's inteviews with some of the Bethesda personnel, like Dennis David, James Jenkins, Jerrol Custer, Paul O'Connor, and John Stringer. Many of these were interviewed later in Law's In the Eye of History. Happy reading, Dan

[David Josephs]

Nice post Daniel....

There is also the TIMES we are discussing... a TIME when the first assumption was NOT that the governement or police or FBI was lying... covering anything up...

THEY were the good guys, the guys to trust... and the "plan" used this fact against the witnesses....

When men in dark suits and glasses flash Secret Service credientials - both on the GK and at the back of the TSBD - it is not questioned...

We have the benefit now of YEARS being indoctrinated to the evils of the governement and its employees...

At that time, when you were told you only heard three shots and only from the TSBD... THEY must be right since THEY are the government and THEY would never lie to us...

Some of the fooled spoke out sooner - and were dealt with.. some spoke out later.... and were also dealt with....

When a boulder is pushed down a hill - it is simply not correct to state that each pebble it encounters along its journey down the mountain is part of the reason the boulder is moving to being with....

they are simply spots along the way where the boulder comes into contact with the outside world...

As DSL so eloquently puts it... the case is NOT about who put the bullets in, but who made sure they were taken out.

DJ

[Mike Rago]

Did I use "sine qua non"? In Latin it means," without which, not" or, "a necessary and sufficient condition for something to be true." I think you are right in this: it is pretty well established that two shots were fired almost simultaneoulsy after reports of a first shot. And Mike, I don't think "every single person" was involved in the conspiracy, only key people. Many people acting in good faith had no idea they were party to something sinister. Read Best Evidence and Lifton's inteviews with some of the Bethesda personnel, like Dennis David, James Jenkins, Jerrol Custer, Paul O'Connor, and John Stringer. Many of these were interviewed later in Law's In the Eye of History. Happy reading, Dan

It is all right there, recorded in the photographic record. A common trend for you and your followers is you do not use the photographic evidence. You should use it because it tells the story of what happened.

If you would start to look at the photographic evidence as important evidence in this case and not fabricated by some unknown conspirators then maybe we can begin to have a meeting of the minds.

Just as you want me to read Davids book I want you to invest some time in learning how to interpret the photographic evidence. It will not be a waste of time.

Edited August 23, 2012 by Mike Rago

[Daniel Gallup]

Did I use "sine qua non"? In Latin it means," without which, not" or, "a necessary and sufficient condition for something to be true." I think you are right in this: it is pretty well established that two shots were fired almost simultaneoulsy after reports of a first shot. And Mike, I don't think "every single person" was involved in the conspiracy, only key people. Many people acting in good faith had no idea they were party to something sinister. Read Best Evidence and Lifton's inteviews with some of the Bethesda personnel, like Dennis David, James Jenkins, Jerrol Custer, Paul O'Connor, and John Stringer. Many of these were interviewed later in Law's In the Eye of History. Happy reading, Dan

It is all right there, recorded in the photographic record. A common trend for you and your followers is you do not use the photographic evidence. You should use it because it tells the story of what happened.

If you would start to look at the photographic evidence as important evidence in this case and not fabricated by some unknown conspirators then maybe we can begin to have a meeting of the minds.

Just as you want me to read Davids book I want you to invest some time in learning how to interpret the photographic evidence. It will not be a waste of time.

I would like to share with you, if possible, a pretty good copy of the Moorman photo. There is a strange blackening out in the area of Kennedy's neck and upper back. The right shoulder looks quite suspicious as well. If you would like, I can send it to you. It was this copy which began to make me suspicious of photographic alteration. Let me know if you are intersted. I have tried making an electronic copy, but the contrasts are lost and the problem areas not easily discerned.

[Mike Rago]

Did I use "sine qua non"? In Latin it means," without which, not" or, "a necessary and sufficient condition for something to be true." I think you are right in this: it is pretty well established that two shots were fired almost simultaneoulsy after reports of a first shot. And Mike, I don't think "every single person" was involved in the conspiracy, only key people. Many people acting in good faith had no idea they were party to something sinister. Read Best Evidence and Lifton's inteviews with some of the Bethesda personnel, like Dennis David, James Jenkins, Jerrol Custer, Paul O'Connor, and John Stringer. Many of these were interviewed later in Law's In the Eye of History. Happy reading, Dan

It is all right there, recorded in the photographic record. A common trend for you and your followers is you do not use the photographic evidence. You should use it because it tells the story of what happened.

If you would start to look at the photographic evidence as important evidence in this case and not fabricated by some unknown conspirators then maybe we can begin to have a meeting of the minds.

Just as you want me to read Davids book I want you to invest some time in learning how to interpret the photographic evidence. It will not be a waste of time.

I would like to share with you, if possible, a pretty good copy of the Moorman photo. There is a strange blackening out in the area of Kennedy's neck and upper back. The right shoulder looks quite suspicious as well. If you would like, I can send it to you. It was this copy which began to make me suspicious of photographic alteration. Let me know if you are intersted. I have tried making an electronic copy, but the contrasts are lost and the problem areas not easily discerned.

This is a good beginning. Lets do it in the forum. Lets see what is bothering you and see how to address it.

Please attach that image to one of your posts. I will take that attachment and give it a url so it can be posted in the forum.

Is that ok?

[Steve Cearfoss]

Lifton's reply re the Parkland doctors description of the head wounds THAT afternoon: "It matters not what some of these people said decades later, when they tried to wriggle off the hook. The record stands." Right on the money.

[David Josephs]

Did I use "sine qua non"? In Latin it means," without which, not" or, "a necessary and sufficient condition for something to be true." I think you are right in this: it is pretty well established that two shots were fired almost simultaneoulsy after reports of a first shot. And Mike, I don't think "every single person" was involved in the conspiracy, only key people. Many people acting in good faith had no idea they were party to something sinister. Read Best Evidence and Lifton's inteviews with some of the Bethesda personnel, like Dennis David, James Jenkins, Jerrol Custer, Paul O'Connor, and John Stringer. Many of these were interviewed later in Law's In the Eye of History. Happy reading, Dan

It is all right there, recorded in the photographic record. A common trend for you and your followers is you do not use the photographic evidence. You should use it because it tells the story of what happened.

If you would start to look at the photographic evidence as important evidence in this case and not fabricated by some unknown conspirators then maybe we can begin to have a meeting of the minds.

Just as you want me to read Davids book I want you to invest some time in learning how to interpret the photographic evidence. It will not be a waste of time.

I would like to share with you, if possible, a pretty good copy of the Moorman photo. There is a strange blackening out in the area of Kennedy's neck and upper back. The right shoulder looks quite suspicious as well. If you would like, I can send it to you. It was this copy which began to make me suspicious of photographic alteration. Let me know if you are intersted. I have tried making an electronic copy, but the contrasts are lost and the problem areas not easily discerned.

Hey there Daniel...

For me, it is this frame z323, which shows the extent of the "blackening out" ... no other "black" area on this print does what the BOH black square does... the back of his jacket, Jackie's hair... etc...

Sure would like to see the 35mm Hollywood version... I've only read where it appeared to them that this and the other blackouts simply hovers over the film... that is extremely obvious..

Be nice to see those some day.

Cheers

DJ

[Daniel Gallup]

Did I use "sine qua non"? In Latin it means," without which, not" or, "a necessary and sufficient condition for something to be true." I think you are right in this: it is pretty well established that two shots were fired almost simultaneoulsy after reports of a first shot. And Mike, I don't think "every single person" was involved in the conspiracy, only key people. Many people acting in good faith had no idea they were party to something sinister. Read Best Evidence and Lifton's inteviews with some of the Bethesda personnel, like Dennis David, James Jenkins, Jerrol Custer, Paul O'Connor, and John Stringer. Many of these were interviewed later in Law's In the Eye of History. Happy reading, Dan

It is all right there, recorded in the photographic record. A common trend for you and your followers is you do not use the photographic evidence. You should use it because it tells the story of what happened.

If you would start to look at the photographic evidence as important evidence in this case and not fabricated by some unknown conspirators then maybe we can begin to have a meeting of the minds.

Just as you want me to read Davids book I want you to invest some time in learning how to interpret the photographic evidence. It will not be a waste of time.

I would like to share with you, if possible, a pretty good copy of the Moorman photo. There is a strange blackening out in the area of Kennedy's neck and upper back. The right shoulder looks quite suspicious as well. If you would like, I can send it to you. It was this copy which began to make me suspicious of photographic alteration. Let me know if you are intersted. I have tried making an electronic copy, but the contrasts are lost and the problem areas not easily discerned.

This is a good beginning. Lets do it in the forum. Lets see what is bothering you and see how to address it.

Please attach that image to one of your posts. I will take that attachment and give it a url so it can be posted in the forum.

Is that ok?

I tried this with the help of Jerry Dealey on the Lancer Forum, and we could not obtain the contrast necessary on the original. The best I can do is to send it to you if you promise to send it back.