Michael Shermer SKEPTIC publisher schooled in *Conspiracy*. Dr. David Mantik responds

[Cliff Varnell]

Time to wake up, Cliff!

You bet!

Any time you have a sheep in wolves' clothing to shear -- gimme a nudge.

One more swipe of the blades:

From the McAdams piece, a description of the autopsy face sheet:

http://www.ctka.net/reviews/McAdams_Mantik.html

Figure 4. The Autopsy Descriptive Sheet, prepared by Boswell. Note the level of the back wound (indicated by the horizontal line from “7 x 4 mm”). It appears to lie at least as low as T2, possibly even lower. If accurate, that would immediately invalidate the SBT.

Dear Dr. Mantik,

The location of the dot on the verified, properly-prepared-in-pencil part of the autopsy face sheet matches the location of the holes in the clothes.

Given that, the SBT was stillborn and required no further "invalidation."

unfortunately Cliff "stillborn" isn't the case, what we DO have is a ripe, putrid, 50 year old SBT lie.... that's alive and well.

It's a zombie lie that feeds on the brains of boomer-age researchers.

I'm sure, if this case ever, EVER ended up in court and expert witness(es) needed concerning custom fitted-sized shirts in relation to and positioned (while seated-waving) against a $3000 suit coat bullet hole, you'd get a call. Don't hold your breath.

Me?

Dave, what do I have to do with it?

How about if we call a five year old from the nearest kindergarten to demonstrate how clothing moves when we casually wave our arms?

No experts required, Dave. They are the problem. "Experts."

Of course that would be trial lawyers call and of course a judges decision as to what is admitted and what not.

Frankly, I don't see it. As I don't see the alleged Zapruder film, as it is at NARA today, being called into question.

As an old SF-OAK-San Jose head-banging punk-rocker of the 70's variety, I suspect that even YOU would be surprised at the level of PR-porn involved in any JFK murder related case brought to trial anytime in the future. Circus comes to mind, maybe even worthy of a Bill Graham-Winterland type of circus. Got any paper?

We're operating entirely in the court of public opinion now, Dave.

The perps are dead.

Edited December 2, 2013 by Cliff Varnell

[David Josephs]

Doesn't THIS make the case pretty simple?

The bullet ROSE at 11 degrees from back to front IF it has to exit that hole in the neck (which of course if did not and could not)

Gerald Ford helps us to understand the problem... the bullet hole is in the wrong place.... {the crowd murmurs with shock and awe}

I happen to agree with Cliff here... we can get all scientific about it as Dr. M has so successfully done... but Vince was right: the coat, shirt and bullet hole gives the entire thing away...

Just ask Arlen about those holes:

The Warren Commission, The Truth, and Arlen Specter

By Gaeton Fonzi
Greater Philadelphia Magazine, 1 August 1966

<snip>

“Well,” said Specter, when asked about this in his City Hall office last month, “that difference is accounted for because the President was waving his arm.” He got up from his desk and attempted to have his explanation demonstrated. “Wave your arm a few times, he said, “wave at the crowd. Well, see if the bullet goes in here, the jacket gets hunched up. If you take this point right here and then you strip the coat down, it comes out at a lower point. Well, not too much lower on your example, but the jacket rides up.”
If the jacket were “hunched up,” wouldn’t there have been two holes as a result of the doubling over of the cloth?
“No, not necessarily. It…it wouldn’t be doubled over. When you sit in the car it could be doubled over at most any point, but the probabilities are that…aaah…that it gets…that…aaah…this…this is about the way a jacket rides up. You sit back…sit back now…all right now…if…usually, as your jacket lies there, the doubling up is right here, but if…but if you have a bullet hit you right about here, which is where I had it, where your jacket sits…it’s not…it’s not…it ordinarily doesn’t crease that far back.”
What about the shirt?
“Same thing.”
So there is no real inconsistency between the Commission’s location of the wound and the holes in the clothing?
“No, not at all. That gave us a lot of concern. First time we lined up the shirt…after all, we lined up the shirt…and the hole in the shirt is right about, right about the knot of the tie, came right about here in a slit in the front…”
But where did it go in the back?
“Well, the back hole, when the shirt is laid down, comes…aaah…well, I forget exactly where it came, but it certainly wasn’t higher, enough higher to…aaah…understand the…aah…the angle of decline which…”
Was it lower? Was it lower than the slit in the front?
“Well, I think that…that if you took the shirt without allowing for it’s being pulled up, that it would either have been in line or somewhat lower.”
Somewhat lower?
“Perhaps. I…I don’t want to say because I don’t really remember. I got to take a look at that shirt.”

Unless JFK was tying his shoes - really fast while behind the sign - the SBT has been and will always be a fabrication...

or Check out WCD298 so the FBI can also explain it - with visual aids.

[David G. Healy]

Doesn't THIS make the case pretty simple?

The bullet ROSE at 11 degrees from back to front IF it has to exit that hole in the neck (which of course if did not and could not)

Gerald Ford helps us to understand the problem... the bullet hole is in the wrong place.... {the crowd murmurs with shock and awe}

I happen to agree with Cliff here... we can get all scientific about it as Dr. M has so successfully done... but Vince was right: the coat, shirt and bullet hole gives the entire thing away...

...

you're right, not much science is needed--frankly, a shot from the front to the throat, answers most questions... just like parkland doctors said: "an entrance wound..."

[David Josephs]

Copper particles on the holes in the BACK of the jacket and BACK of the shirt and in the hole in the back at T3

Nothing on the front of the shirt since the hole was ABOVE the tie and button, not beneath it.

We have OConnor telling us about a bullet removed from the intercostal muscles on the right side...

Belmot tells Tolson about a bullet lodged behind JFK's ear.

Either the cause of the shot was removed (the reason 2-3cms becomes 7-8 and ragged) or it melted... (that CIA backed assassins MIGHT use new technologies is really not so far fetched)

If a flechette - getting it out enroute was a necessity - and backs Lifton's notion that the body HAD to have been removed from the casket before being secured in the back of the plane.

The FBI did not believe in the SBT... until they had to account for everything with only 2 shots...

David - with all the BS explanations why not just state that a fragment cause the Tague problem and leave it at 3 shots 3 hits per the FBI... ??

and they STILL place a shot at Z375 for some reason... about 45 feet further down Elm.

There are times like these where CLARITY PREVAILS.... and remains so simple anyone can understand it.

It's akin to being told the sky is red, regardless of what your lying eyes tell you...

DJ

[Don Jeffries]

I stand with Cliff in terms of being an absolutist on the SBT and the obvious fact that the holes in the clothing alone, without any additional evidence, prove conspiracy. I don't know why so many good researchers have backtracked and accepted the T-1 back location. The only reason to possibly raise the location of this wound at all would be the autopsy photos. Why is anyone willing to trust the autopsy pictures more than the holes in JFK's clothing, especially when they correspond exactly with the original autopsy face sheet and the T-3 location where Burkley described it? The critical community has given too much ground needlessly on so many aspects of this case that were once considered primary indicators of conspiracy.

I respect David Mantik's work and believe he has good intentions, as I'm sure Pat and others who accept the T-1 location do. However, there is just no logical reason to concede these kinds of things. The SBT is impossible because of the low entrance wound, in conjunction with the higher "exit" in the throat (which we also know was an entrance wound in reality). Throw in the almost undamaged nature of CE399, and it's ridiculous that any of us still have to discuss this with "skeptics."

[John Crites]

doesn't make sense that someone can't see there was a cover up?

[Blair Dobson]

doesn't make sense that someone can't see there was a cover up?

does it make sense that people believe in magical theologies or " the spirit world " or faces in toast?

The "psychology" quoted in the Shermer article actually points more at LN'rs.

Have a go through DSM IIII and look through the "cluster b" types and you will see nice clinical descriptions of your LN'rs..( and some of your CT'rs as well).

People forget that SBT adherents aren't interested in looking at "evidence" in the same way that Tea Party types don't like to read.

As long as the banjo is tuned and the grits are hot, they are fine with whatever mumbo jumbo is in line with their contrarian views..

It's the stance, not the viewpoint that is key here.

LN'r/SBT is more like a political party than a theory. This is underscored by the tactics and behaviors of it's progenitors as well as it's fanboys.

You will also notice, if you care to look as I have, there are far fewer women LN'rs compared to the number men...

But Shermer's bit here reads like a search and replace piece where he has taken something said about him and his beliefs and just turned it around...

That greasy little midget David Belin is a prime example of this kind of behavior, and add to that the fact that he benefited financially and politically from delusional thinking and intellectual dishonesty and you have perfect case study of a mentally ill sociopath hell bent on being right just for the sake of it....Regardless of what the facts are...

ramble off..

Edited December 3, 2013 by Blair Dobson

[Steven Gaal]

New Studies: ‘Conspiracy Theorists’ Sane; Government Dupes Crazy, Hostile

Charles Burris

http://www.lewrockwell.com/lrc-blog/new-studies-conspiracy-theorists-sane-government-dupes-crazy-hostile/

Dr. Kevin Barrett reports that recent academic studies by psychologists and social scientists demonstrate these findings: “New studies: ‘Conspiracy theorists’ sane; government dupes crazy, hostile.” This information substantiates Jacob G. Hornberger’s observations in “JFK and the Deferentials” and those of Lance deHaven-Smith in his book, Conspiracy Theory in America, published earlier this year. Dr. Smith is a widely published scholar in peer-reviewed academic journals and is Professor in the Reubin O’ D. Askew School of Public Administration and Policy at Florida State University in Tallahassee. DeHaven-Smith has appeared on Good Morning America, the Today Show, NBC Nightly News, CBS Nightly News, the NewsHour with Jim Lehrer, and other national TV and radio shows.

7:25 pm on December 6, 2013

[Paul Brancato]

Very interesting article.