Jump to content
The Education Forum

Cold Case JFK on NOVA on 11/13/2013


Douglas Caddy
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 42
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Guest Robert Morrow

More long nutter BS. Still making cartoons... How come some does not make a cartoon of JFK getting shot twice from the front - in the neck and in the head?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought the science in this show was very good. They show the stability of the bullet and how it travels thru matter. They were able to give a reasoned explanation for the path of the tumbling bullet . And how the bullet does not deform.

But they cherry-picked the facts and ignored others. They show a bullet hole thru JFKs jacket about 4 inches below the collar, but then use a diagram with a bullet hole up at the base of the neck. They say there is about 1.6 seconds between JFKs reaction and Connelly's reaction, but then do not account for that time difference in their SBT diagram.

At one point, they talk about bullet yaw on the SBT theory and show the bullet going straight to hit Connelly. Then in the next segment, they say that obviously, a bullet will change direction when it begins to yaw after hitting the skull. Which is it or why is it different?

Overall, it was disappointing. The science was good. But if you use good science on the flawed Warren Comm facts and drawings as evidence, then you prove nothing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This was a typically putrid piece of msm disinformation. McAdams was one of the talking heads- do you need more than that? The Father-Son "expert" team "proved" the SBT was valid using....a container of liquid soap. Seriously. This was beyond awful- to paraphrase Jefferson, a viewer who knew nothing about the JFK assassination would be closer to the truth than someone who watched this program.

Why did Josiah Thompson participate in such a show?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why did Josiah Thompson participate in such a show?

Hi Don,

I, too, wonder why in the world Josiah Thompson participated in the "Cold Case JFK" broadcast?

None of his commentary did anything at all to advance his conspiratorial beliefs. I wonder if half his stuff was cut out?

Overall, the "Cold Case" program was pretty good, IMO. And I always find it interesting to take note of the fact that whenever one of these "forensic" type of analytical shows is done about the JFK case, the end result is always the same: The science always ends up supporting and buttressing the Single-Bullet Theory and the general idea that Lee Harvey Oswald could most certainly have pulled off the assassination by himself with that "crummy" $21 mail-order Mannlicher-Carcano. The same results were obtained in the very similar program aired in 2004, "JFK: Beyond The Magic Bullet".

In short, science and forensics supports the "Lone Nut" and "Single-Bullet Theory" scenarios.

Always has. Always will.

How come some[one] does not make a cartoon of JFK getting shot twice from the front - in the neck and in the head?

Probably because if someone were to do that--while trying to stick to the facts of the case--their cartoon would end up looking as silly and unreasonable as a Road Runner cartoon.

And I'm wondering why it is, Robert, that you aren't bothered at all (it would seem) by the complete lack of bullets in John Kennedy's body. Why is that?

Am I supposed to just ignore the fact that President Kennedy had ZERO bullets in his body, which is a fact that destroys any theory that has JFK being struck in both the throat and upper back by separate bullets?

Tell me why I should just assume that somebody dug some bullets out of Kennedy's body as a part of some "cover-up" after the assassination?

Edited by David Von Pein
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Apparently, this is not the first sellout for PBS Nova.

All one has to do is look at the bottom of the Nova/Cold Case website : NOVA is provided by David H. Koch.

Nova presented a Koch-funded show denying climate change, and loyal viewership revolted and called them on it.

So much for the "liberal media" ! Even PBS can be bought and sold.

NOVA is provided by David H. Koch, NOVA is en PBSprovided by David H. Koch, NOVA is provided by David H. Koch,ewership

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why did Josiah Thompson participate in such a show?

Hi Don,

I, too, wonder why in the world Josiah Thompson participated in the "Cold Case JFK" broadcast?

None of his commentary did anything at all to advance his conspiratorial beliefs. I wonder if half his stuff was cut out?

Overall, the "Cold Case" program was pretty good, IMO. And I always find it interesting to take note of the fact that whenever one of these "forensic" type of analytical shows is done about the JFK case, the end result is always the same: The science always ends up supporting and buttressing the Single-Bullet Theory and the general idea that Lee Harvey Oswald could most certainly have pulled off the assassination by himself with that "crummy" $21 mail-order Mannlicher-Carcano. The same results were obtained in the very similar program aired in 2004, "JFK: Beyond The Magic Bullet".

In short, science and forensics supports the "Lone Nut" and "Single-Bullet Theory" scenarios.

Always has. Always will.

How come some[one] does not make a cartoon of JFK getting shot twice from the front - in the neck and in the head?

Probably because if someone were to do that--while trying to stick to the facts of the case--their cartoon would end up looking as silly and unreasonable as a Road Runner cartoon.

And I'm wondering why it is, Robert, that you aren't bothered at all (it would seem) by the complete lack of bullets in John Kennedy's body. Why is that?

Am I supposed to just ignore the fact that President Kennedy had ZERO bullets in his body, which is a fact that destroys any theory that has JFK being struck in both the throat and upper back by separate bullets?

Tell me why I should just assume that somebody dug some bullets out of Kennedy's body as a part of some "cover-up" after the assassination?

Gett'er out Dave, makes you feel better, eh? Ya know damn well no one believes a thing you say here... Carry on lad!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This was a typically putrid piece of msm disinformation. McAdams was one of the talking heads- do you need more than that? The Father-Son "expert" team "proved" the SBT was valid using....a container of liquid soap. Seriously. This was beyond awful- to paraphrase Jefferson, a viewer who knew nothing about the JFK assassination would be closer to the truth than someone who watched this program.

Why did Josiah Thompson participate in such a show?

The whole MSM has been pushing the lone nut theory on each and every channel I see. Tonight Piers Morgan had 3 'researchers' on who smugly stated the Warren Omission got it all correct. But even with them shoving it down people's throats, the people still know something just doesn't add up. It's amazing how common sense with these actors is thrown out the window.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why did Josiah Thompson participate in such a show?

Hi Don,

I, too, wonder why in the world Josiah Thompson participated in the "Cold Case JFK" broadcast?

None of his commentary did anything at all to advance his conspiratorial beliefs. I wonder if half his stuff was cut out?

Overall, the "Cold Case" program was pretty good, IMO. And I always find it interesting to take note of the fact that whenever one of these "forensic" type of analytical shows is done about the JFK case, the end result is always the same: The science always ends up supporting and buttressing the Single-Bullet Theory and the general idea that Lee Harvey Oswald could most certainly have pulled off the assassination by himself with that "crummy" $21 mail-order Mannlicher-Carcano. The same results were obtained in the very similar program aired in 2004, "JFK: Beyond The Magic Bullet".

In short, science and forensics supports the "Lone Nut" and "Single-Bullet Theory" scenarios.

Always has. Always will.

How come some[one] does not make a cartoon of JFK getting shot twice from the front - in the neck and in the head?

Probably because if someone were to do that--while trying to stick to the facts of the case--their cartoon would end up looking as silly and unreasonable as a Road Runner cartoon.

And I'm wondering why it is, Robert, that you aren't bothered at all (it would seem) by the complete lack of bullets in John Kennedy's body. Why is that?

Am I supposed to just ignore the fact that President Kennedy had ZERO bullets in his body, which is a fact that destroys any theory that has JFK being struck in both the throat and upper back by separate bullets?

Tell me why I should just assume that somebody dug some bullets out of Kennedy's body as a part of some "cover-up" after the assassination?

NOvaSBTlie.jpg

So, tell us, David, is the image above "scientific"? Is it "scientific" to pretend a bullet entering 5 inches down from the collar on the clothes and 2 inches down from the shoulder on the body entered the back of the neck? Is it "scientific" to tell the unsuspecting that "the controversy about the single-bullet theory is all about what it does after it emerges from Kennedy's neck" while at the same time LYING about where it entered on Kennedy's back?

If this program had aired in Russia, about the death of a Russian President, you would denounce it as propaganda.

Edited by Pat Speer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

NOvaSBTlie.jpg

So, tell us, David, is the image above "scientific"? Is it "scientific" to pretend a bullet entering 5 inches down from the collar on the clothes and 2 inches down from the shoulder on the body entered the back of the neck? Is it "scientific" to tell the unsuspecting that "the controversy about the single-bullet theory is all about what it does after it emerges from Kennedy's neck" while at the same time LYING about where it entered on Kennedy's back?

If this program had aired in Russia, about the death of a Russian President, you would denounce it as propaganda.

Pat,

You know as well as I that just one bullet passed through Kennedy's body. If it didn't, then we'd have two bullets lodged in Kennedy's body. And, instead, there's ZERO.

Why not just face the obvious fact that one bullet went clean through the President?

And once you've admitted that obvious fact--the rest is easy....because that bullet that just exited John Kennedy's throat is now travelling straight toward a man who (just coincidentally?) also just happened to be hit with a bullet--in his back--during those 8 seconds in Dallas, Texas, on 11/22/63.

A first-grader who flunked study hall and lunch period could figure this out. Why can't any conspiracy theorists manage to do it?

ADDENDUM:

Do you contend, Pat, that the location of the back wound in the "Cold Case" computer simulation shown below is significantly off when compared to the autopsy photo on the left? I don't see a large difference in the location of the wound. Plus, it appears as if the "Cold Case" simulation has JFK leaning a little bit backward in his seat, which I do not think is altogether accurate:

JFK-Back-Wound.jpg

Edited by David Von Pein
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The show is bound to cause some controversy among LNs, however, by supporting the minority opinion that the entry wound was located where the three autopsy pathologists placed it in 1963, and not higher up on the head, as the Clark Panel and HSCA Forensic Pathology Panel placed it.

Yes, Dave, even though during the "Cold Case" program they showed on camera this autopsy photo, which couldn't be any clearer as to the location of the entry wound in JFK's head---and it sure isn't "low" on the head....

JFK_Autopsy_Photo_BOH.jpg

I guess the PBS/NOVA people must think that Kennedy's scalp was, indeed, s-t-r-e-t-c-h-e-d four inches when that picture was taken.

But even so, it still doesn't help explain how a "stretched" hole which started out down around the EOP can be penetrating what clearly appears to be the "cowlick" area of JFK's head.

~large-sized shrug needed here~

Edited by David Von Pein
Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://www.jfk-online.com/jfk-back.jpg David, when I first looked at this picture, it caused me to stop and say to myself; wait a minute, this could really change everything. It looks like JFK's shape makes the 'single bullet theory' entirely plausible. His 'back' is much higher and the front of his neck appears much lower than most people, which would allow for the bullet entrance to look as if it were lower on his back, yet be in line to come out the front of his neck.

I must argue, however, that a simple shrug of the shoulders will put ones back and neck in nearly or identically the same location.

Therefore, a single picture, obviously, cannot necessarily be relied upon to reach a particular conclusion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The show is bound to cause some controversy among LNs, however, by supporting the minority opinion that the entry wound was located where the three autopsy pathologists placed it in 1963, and not higher up on the head, as the Clark Panel and HSCA Forensic Pathology Panel placed it.

Yes, Dave, even though during the "Cold Case" program they showed on camera this autopsy photo, which couldn't be any clearer as to the location of the entry wound in JFK's head---and it sure isn't "low" on the head....

JFK_Autopsy_Photo_BOH.jpg

I guess the PBS/NOVA people must think that Kennedy's scalp was, indeed, s-t-r-e-t-c-h-e-d four inches when that picture was taken.

But even so, it still doesn't help explain how a "stretched" hole which started out down around the EOP can be penetrating what clearly appears to be the "cowlick" area of JFK's head.

~large-sized shrug needed here~

You once again MISS THE OBVIOUS, David. Cummings, the gunshot wounds expert, was NOT proposing that the wound in the cowlick was stretched upwards. He was telling people like YOU what you should have figured out long ago. That the red mark in the cowlick is NOT what he would expect the entrance wound for this bullet to look like.

Let's look at the most recent experts to view the photo you think shows a wound in the cowlick.

Three men looked at it for the ARRB. One said he thought it was a wound, one said he wasn't sure, and one said he thought it wasn't a wound. That's one for three.

Then there's the LNs Sturdivan and Zimmerman. Neither of them came away convinced this was an entrance wound, correct? I know they subscribe to the low entrance, and I'm pretty sure they don't buy Canal's nonsense. That's one for five.

And now this guy Cummings, who thinks it's unclear, and clearly believes the x-rays show an EOP entrance.

So, David, face it. Your Bugliosi-fueled theories are losing their support among those who you'd think would support them, if they had any credibility. Of the last SIX non-CTs to view the photos, ONLY ONE thought the red mark was an entrance wound.

Now why do you think that is, David?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My response in bold.

NOvaSBTlie.jpg

So, tell us, David, is the image above "scientific"? Is it "scientific" to pretend a bullet entering 5 inches down from the collar on the clothes and 2 inches down from the shoulder on the body entered the back of the neck? Is it "scientific" to tell the unsuspecting that "the controversy about the single-bullet theory is all about what it does after it emerges from Kennedy's neck" while at the same time LYING about where it entered on Kennedy's back?

If this program had aired in Russia, about the death of a Russian President, you would denounce it as propaganda.

Pat,

You know as well as I that just one bullet passed through Kennedy's body. If it didn't, then we'd have two bullets lodged in Kennedy's body. And, instead, there's ZERO.

Why not just face the obvious fact that one bullet went clean through the President?

OBVIOUS TO YOU MAYBE. IT WASN'T OBVIOUS TO THE AUTOPSY DOCTORS ON 11-22-63. IT WASN'T OBVIOUS TO FBI AGENTS SIBERT AND O'NEILL. IT WASN'T OBVIOUS TO DR.S HELPERN NICHOLS, WECHT, etc.

And once you've admitted that obvious fact--the rest is easy....because that bullet that just exited John Kennedy's throat is now travelling straight toward a man who (just coincidentally?) also just happened to be hit with a bullet--in his back--during those 8 seconds in Dallas, Texas, on 11/22/63.

A first-grader who flunked study hall and lunch period could figure this out. Why can't any conspiracy theorists manage to do it?

BECAUSE WE'RE SMARTER THAN A FIRST GRADER.


ADDENDUM:

Do you contend, Pat, that the location of the back wound in the "Cold Case" computer simulation shown below is significantly off when compared to the autopsy photo on the left? I don't see a large difference in the location of the wound. Plus, it appears as if the "Cold Case" simulation has JFK leaning a little bit backward in his seat, which I do not think is altogether accurate:

JFK-Back-Wound.jpg

Your inability to note a difference between a wound inches below the shoulder line and a wound inches above the shoulder line near the top of the collar, says it all, David.

The LN crowd has doubled-down on the loopiest part of their theory--that the back wound was well above the throat wound. When I show this to people otherwise unconvinced there was a cover-up they gasp. They can't believe they've been fed so much wacko nonsense...from the supposed non-wackos.

Edited by Pat Speer
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...