Mike Rago Posted August 7, 2012 Author Share Posted August 7, 2012 (edited) You need to produce a theory that is not more bizarre than the the theory you are trying to debunk. It is a logical conclusion that explains what they observed, simply and elegantly. I see why the SBT exists. I like it. Mikey likes it. Edited August 7, 2012 by Mike Rago Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Burnham Posted August 8, 2012 Share Posted August 8, 2012 You need to produce a theory that is not more bizarre than the the theory you are trying to debunk. No we do not. Moreover, such irresponsible speculation has been the undoing of the research community for nearly 5 decades. The burden of proof is on those who claim to know what happened. I make no such claim. I claim to know what did NOT happen. The SBT did not happen. None of the evidence supports it. Indeed, the evidence supports multiple bullets beyond those cited in the WCR. Exactly how many? As many as it took. Can't you read? There was a very shallow back wound of entrance and NO corresponding wound of exit. That is evidence whether or not you like it. It is evidence that debunks the lone gunman/SBT in one fell swoop. And there is much more. But, you already know that. I know that all opinions are welcome on this forum. However, you are not responding as an honest broker. You are choosing to argue your point simply because it is yours, but not because it sheds light on the truth. And you argue it illogically. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Rago Posted August 8, 2012 Author Share Posted August 8, 2012 (edited) I can read and I am arguing as an honest broker. I think it most likely that Finck did not do as good a job of probing wounds as he should have or may have let on. That is what I think might be going on here. http://educationforu...=60#entry257883 Edited August 8, 2012 by Mike Rago Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Burnham Posted August 8, 2012 Share Posted August 8, 2012 (edited) deleted Edited August 8, 2012 by Greg Burnham Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Costella Posted August 8, 2012 Share Posted August 8, 2012 We KNOW frames are missing from the film... 156/57, 205-212, and btw did you know about the zplice at 341 that was replaced with a different film's frame? So we KNOW the film was in at least 3-4 pieces at some point. sigh..... http://www.assassina...arch.com/zfilm/ David, I think you missed Craig's point. His hyperlink is to my "combined edit", which is where all the colour frames you have posted come from. I originally created this set in early 2003 (you can see them all over the net with the blue mask around them; there was a historical reason I did this), and then improved the processing in 2006 (without adding the blue mask this time). You're showing frames from the current (2006) set, as shown on the page linked to by Craig. There was never a splice alleged at 341 or 350 by anyone. These are two of the three frames "lost" by MPI when they created the 1998 DVD that these frames (originally) came from. (They also managed to "lose" the last frame, 486.) The frames damaged and missing around 155-156 and 207-212 are that way on the "camera original" film that MPI scanned. Before 2003 I ran some processes to try to "reconstruct" as much of the missing frames (and parts of frames) from the copies of them on Groden's videos. (I tried getting some digital originals from him back around 2001, but that went nowhere.) This includes trying to position them correctly relative to where the sprocket holes would have been, removing some distortions / damage in his copies of copies, and trying to get the colour balance to match that of the MPI scans. Some parts of the Groden frame images were so damaged or distorted that I ended up just smudging them with a paint program, to remove the impression that the damage or artefacts were part of the original. Likewise where I stitched parts of reconstructed Groden frames to the MPI versions of the "camera original". All of this "splicing" was done by yours truly, this century. I don't know why you think that they are "WCR" or "SS" splices. I've tried to make it pretty clear what I did and why. John Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Varnell Posted August 8, 2012 Share Posted August 8, 2012 I can read and I am arguing as an honest broker. An honest broker wouldn't jump to a conclusion and then fight tooth and nail to defend it, no matter the redundancy of contrary evidence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Rago Posted August 8, 2012 Author Share Posted August 8, 2012 (edited) If the SBT is not correct then, according to your theory, at least 3 "projectiles" were fired. Two blood soluble darts struck the president and have no exit and disappeared without a trace and at least 1 actual bullet struck Connally. So there was at least 3 assassins firing blood soluble darts and regular bullets. As bizarre as the SBT may seem it is not as bizarre as the above scenario. http://educationforu...=60#entry257883 Edited August 8, 2012 by Mike Rago Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest James H. Fetzer Posted August 8, 2012 Share Posted August 8, 2012 (edited) Just a couple of points. The "magic bullet" theory is not even anatomically possible, as David W. Mantik, M.D., Ph.D., established long ago. The holes in the shirt and the jacket contradict it, where they align with the back wound as identified on the Boswell autopsy diagram. Sibert and O'Neill sketched the location of the back wound as lower than the throat wound. Admiral George Burkley, USNMC, the president's personal physician, located it at the level of the third thoracic vertebra, which corresponds to the other locations. Even the Warren Commission staff, in reenactments of the shooting, located the back wound by a large patch at that lower location. And Thomas Evan Robinson, the mortician, confirmed it. Documents released by the ARRB arrived in time for me to include an article from The New York Times explaining that Gerald Ford (R-MI), then a junior member, had had the wound re-described from "his uppermost back", which was already an exaggeration, to the base of the back of his neck, which was a complete fabrication, in ASSASSINATION SCIENCE (1998). Check out Mantik's CAT-scan impossibility proof. I explained all of this during a conference held at Cambridge and what I explained there subsequently published in an international, peer-reviewed journal. So if you care about science, you might want to take a look at what we know about it: Reasoning about Assassinations assassinationscience.com/ReasoningAboutAssassinations.pdf The wound to the throat was described by Malcolm Perry, M.D., who had performed a tracheostomy incision through it, three times as a wound of entry during the Parkland Press Conference. I published the transcript--which never made its way to the Warren Commission--in ASSASSINATION SCIENCE (1998) along with diagrams of the wound before and after the trach by Charles Crenshaw, M.D., who was the last physician to observe the body before it was wrapped in sheets and loaded into the bronze, ceremonial casket. It cannot have been an ice bullet, because it passed through the windshield en route to its target, as I have explained in a recent article in Veterans Today. Bob Livingston, M.D., a world authority on the human brain and an expert on wound ballistics, explained to me that it had to have fragmented by hitting bony structures, where part went down into the right lung and the other upward where it penetrated the skull and severed the tough membrane, the tentorium, covering the cerebellum. The physicians at Parkland, who were very competent and experienced dealing with gun shot wounds, reported that cerebellar as well as cerebral tissue was extruding from the wound at the back of his head, which could not have occurred had the tentorium not been ruptured--even from the near simultaneous impact of two shots (from the back and the right/front). Edited August 9, 2012 by James H. Fetzer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bernice Moore Posted August 8, 2012 Share Posted August 8, 2012 Hi Mike ; fyi here is the information from the original researchers, it may contain a little more information; yes it must appear to some to be quite out there, but not if they are up to date as they should be on just exactly what capabilities their government was capable of, or at least admit it to themselves, that is..what ...they were and are.....take care b.. http://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/TUM.html "The Umbrella System: Prelude to an Assassination", by Richard E. Sprague and Robert Cutler Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Jeffries Posted August 8, 2012 Share Posted August 8, 2012 (edited) Mike, I have read some of your posts, both here and on Lancer. You did not previously impress me as a lone nutter. Now you are acting as if you've just been struck on the road to Damascus, and have seen the light indicating the SBT is valid. Where are you going with this line of thought? If you've spent any time at all researching this case, you should have rejected the SBT as an impossibility. The condition of the "magic" bullet alone rules it out as a missile that could have caused 7 wounds. Look at the same ammunition, in the official record, test fired into other substances and compare. It isn't incumbent upon lay researchers to state what happened to any other bullets. The crime scene was taken over and ruined as evidence by the Secret Service. There are strong indications that a bullet was found in the grass at Dealey Plaza. The entrance wound in the back was documented nicely in Boswell's original autopsy face sheet, and backed up by Burkley's death certificate reference and, of course, the all important matching location as shown on JFK's shirt and coat. The wound was far too low to have exited from the throat. It's that simple. We have an entrance wound to the throat, as noted early on by Dr. Perry and others. Dr. Clark declared that this bullet did not exit. There are indications a bullet was removed at the autopsy. These are all questions you should study before jumping into the deep end and purporting to defend one of the most untenable theories ever devised. Once you declare the SBT possible, no credible researcher is going to pay attention to anything else you say. Edited August 8, 2012 by Don Jeffries Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted August 8, 2012 Share Posted August 8, 2012 (edited) We KNOW frames are missing from the film... 156/57, 205-212, and btw did you know about the zplice at 341 that was replaced with a different film's frame? So we KNOW the film was in at least 3-4 pieces at some point. sigh..... http://www.assassina...arch.com/zfilm/ David, I think you missed Craig's point. His hyperlink is to my "combined edit", which is where all the colour frames you have posted come from. I originally created this set in early 2003 (you can see them all over the net with the blue mask around them; there was a historical reason I did this), and then improved the processing in 2006 (without adding the blue mask this time). You're showing frames from the current (2006) set, as shown on the page linked to by Craig. There was never a splice alleged at 341 or 350 by anyone. These are two of the three frames "lost" by MPI when they created the 1998 DVD that these frames (originally) came from. (They also managed to "lose" the last frame, 486.) The frames damaged and missing around 155-156 and 207-212 are that way on the "camera original" film that MPI scanned. Before 2003 I ran some processes to try to "reconstruct" as much of the missing frames (and parts of frames) from the copies of them on Groden's videos. (I tried getting some digital originals from him back around 2001, but that went nowhere.) This includes trying to position them correctly relative to where the sprocket holes would have been, removing some distortions / damage in his copies of copies, and trying to get the colour balance to match that of the MPI scans. Some parts of the Groden frame images were so damaged or distorted that I ended up just smudging them with a paint program, to remove the impression that the damage or artefacts were part of the original. Likewise where I stitched parts of reconstructed Groden frames to the MPI versions of the "camera original". All of this "splicing" was done by yours truly, this century. I don't know why you think that they are "WCR" or "SS" splices. I've tried to make it pretty clear what I did and why. John John... The only point CL was trying to make, imo, was that there are indeed 486 frames. His disdain for you comes thru most every post... I KNOW you used other film (without the Intersproket area images) to replace the damaged/missing frames. I hope you've read thru my and C.Davidson's math on the zframes and timings and know how important 156, and the 207 sequences are.... That there are also problems with frames 340 and 350 is also of no surprise as this is the key area, that is corrected for the actual placement of the 313 shot, occurs at z341/2 I happen to think your contributions have been ginormous and thank you each and every time I use the zframes.... I happen to believe that MANY FRAMES of what was the Zfilm were removed and that the "original" was then recreated.... and I think 8mm copy 0184 is key.... Zap has the original and best copy on 11/22 (master + 0183) Sorrells has two copies (0185, 0186)...one he keeps one goes to the FBI THAT's all four versions of the film... How then does Max Phillips put a copy on a plane to Rowley that evening ? Cheers DJ CD - 87 Folder 1 CO2 34030 11/22 9:55 To: Chief Rowley From: Max D. Phillips Subject: 8mm movie film showing President Kennedy being shot Enclosed is an 8mm movie film taken by Mr. A. Zapruder, 501 Elm St., Dallas Texas (RI8-6071) Mr.. Zapruder was photographing the President at the instant he was shot. According to Mr. Zapruder, the position of the assassin was behind Mr. Zapruder. Note: Disregard personel scenes shown on Mr. Zapruder’s film.. Mr. Zapruder is in custody of the "master" film. Two prints were given to SAIC Sorrels, this date. The third print is forwarded. Max D. Phillips Special Agent - PRS Edited August 8, 2012 by David Josephs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Varnell Posted August 8, 2012 Share Posted August 8, 2012 (edited) Just a couple of points. The "magic bullet" theory is not even anatomically possible, as David W. Mantik, M.D., Ph.D., established long ago. The holes in the shirt and the jacket contradict it, where they align with the back wound as identified on the Boswell autopsy diagram. Sibert and O'Neill sketched the location of the back wound as lower than the throat wound. Admiral George Burkley, USNMC, the president's personal physician, located it at the level of the third thoracic vertebra, which corresponds to the other locations. Even the Warren Commission staff, in reenactments of the shooting, located the back wound by a large patch at that lower location. And Thomas Evan Robinson, the mortician, confirmed it. Documents released by the ARRB arrived in time for me to include an article from The New York Times explaining that Gerald Ford (R-MI), then a junior member, had had the wound re-described from "his uppermost back", which was already an exaggeration, to the base of the back of his neck, which was a complete fabrication. Mantik has shown that the official trajectory is not even anatomically possible. I explained all of this during a conference held at Cambridge and what I explained there subsequently published in an international, peer-reviewed journal. So if you care about science, you might want to take a look at what we know about it: Reasoning about Assassinations assassinationscience.com/ReasoningAboutAssassinations.pdf The wound to the throat was described by Malcolm Perry, M.D., who had performed a tracheostomy incision through it, three times as a wound of entry during the Parkland Press Conference. I published the transcript--which never made its way to the Warren Commission--in ASSASSINATION SCIENCE (1998) along with diagrams of the wound before and after the trach by Charles Crenshaw, M.D., who was the last physician to observe the body before it was wrapped in sheets and loaded into the bronze, ceremonial casket. Up to this point, Jim, excellent work. It cannot have been an ice bullet, because it passed through the windshield en route to its target, as I have explained in a recent article in Veterans Today. Unless you've offered something new that hasn't been presented in this forum, you haven't made the case for this. Are you saying the plotters planned for the first shot to go thru the windshield? First-shot/kill-shot thru the windshield? No way...Unless they somehow got extra points for difficulty of shot... Bob Livingston, M.D., a world authority on the human brain and an expert on wound ballistics, explained to me that it had to have fragmented by hitting bony structures, where part went down into the right lung and the other upward where it penetrated the skull and severed the tough membrane, the tentorium, covering the cerebellum. This scenario assumes JFK was struck twice in the head, does not take into account the possibility he was struck 3 times, as Horne has speculated. The neck x-ray shows a completely different set of wounds. The physicians at Parkland, who were very competent and experienced dealing with gun shot wounds, reported that cerebellar as well as cerebral tissue was extruding from the wound at the back of his head, which could not have occurred had the tentorium not been ruptured--even from the near simultaneous impact of two shots (from the back and the right/front). And what if there were 3 shots, one of which ruptured the tentorium? Edited August 8, 2012 by Cliff Varnell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Costella Posted August 8, 2012 Share Posted August 8, 2012 We KNOW frames are missing from the film... 156/57, 205-212, and btw did you know about the zplice at 341 that was replaced with a different film's frame? So we KNOW the film was in at least 3-4 pieces at some point. sigh..... http://www.assassina...arch.com/zfilm/ David, I think you missed Craig's point. His hyperlink is to my "combined edit", which is where all the colour frames you have posted come from. (snip...) John John... The only point CL was trying to make, imo, was that there are indeed 486 frames. His disdain for you comes thru most every post... I KNOW you used other film (without the Intersproket area images) to replace the damaged/missing frames. I hope you've read thru my and C.Davidson's math on the zframes and timings and know how important 156, and the 207 sequences are.... That there are also problems with frames 340 and 350 is also of no surprise as this is the key area, that is corrected for the actual placement of the 313 shot, occurs at z341/2 I happen to think your contributions have been ginormous and thank you each and every time I use the zframes.... I happen to believe that MANY FRAMES of what was the Zfilm were removed and that the "original" was then recreated.... and I think 8mm copy 0184 is key.... (snip...) David, I know exactly where Lamson sits, don't worry about that. But when he points out a factual truth (that the "splicing" evident in these frames implies nothing about the original film) -- and when I'm the "splicer" myself! -- I'm going to say so, regardless of anything else. Do the "damaged" frames in the "original" film have significance? Quite possibly (although they could also be distractions). Do frames 341, 350 and 486 "lost" by MPI have any significance? Less likely, in my opinion, but it's also possible. If you've seen my Duluth presentation, or read The Great Zapruder Film Hoax, then you'd know you that I'm the last person you'd have to convince that the film is a complete fabrication. If you'd like to email me directly the details of (or links to) your analyses of the "damaged" sequences I'll take a look. Unfortunately I don't get to follow the forum regularly. John Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Rago Posted August 8, 2012 Author Share Posted August 8, 2012 (edited) Mike, I have read some of your posts, both here and on Lancer. You did not previously impress me as a lone nutter. Now you are acting as if you've just been struck on the road to Damascus, and have seen the light indicating the SBT is valid. Where are you going with this line of thought? I am most definitely not a LN'er. The theory of the case that I support does not depend upon the SBT being false. I believe the double hit occurred at the Grassy Knoll. The problem with the SBT , as I see it , is the alternative theories are even more bizarre , and hence less believable, than the SBT. If the SBT is false then at least 3 shots must have been fired and two of those shots had to have been with some kind of disappearing projectile. The SBT was a logical conclusion reached to satisfy perplexing data. The doctors were perplexed because they did not find a bullet in the back wound or an exit for that wound. The doctors were perplexed because they did not find a bullet in the throat wound or an exit for that wound. They had two wounds, no exits and no bullets. Edited August 8, 2012 by Mike Rago Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Varnell Posted August 8, 2012 Share Posted August 8, 2012 (edited) The problem with the SBT , as I see it , is the alternative theories are even more bizarre , and hence less believable, than the SBT. I'm just curious, Mike...do you find the atomic bomb "bizarre' -- the idea of it "bizarre"? How about the hydrogen bomb -- is the idea of anyone using that "bizarre"? The neutron bomb -- "bizarre"? How about laser guided smart bombs -- are those "bizarre"? Predator drones -- are those really really "bizarre"? Weaponized anthrax -- "bizarre"? No, those are all weapons systems. The blood soluble technology developed by Charles Senseney and tested on humans by the CIA was a weapons system. Unlike bombs this weapons system was designed for an individual target. One of the goals of this weapon was to paralyze the target. The Zapruder film shows JFK seizing up paralyzed in about two seconds, consistent with this scenario. The neck x-ray shows damaged blood vessels, a hair-line fracture the right T1 transverse process and an air-pocket. This damage pattern is consistent with a small caliber round. The 3mm-5mm throat wound was consistent with a small caliber round. The Flechette scenario explains a wider array of evidence than any other. The SBT is contradicted by the clothing defects, the consensus eye-witness statements, and the properly produced official documents. [Prediction: the honest broker will claim this makes him believe in the SBT all the more!] Edited August 8, 2012 by Cliff Varnell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now