Jump to content
The Education Forum

David Lifton spots a piece of scalp in the Moorman photo.


Sandy Larsen
 Share

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Steven Kossor said:

John Taylor Gatto and I shared the stage a couple of times in the 1990s talking about the history and probable future of the American education system, and you're 100% correct about its pernicious influence on children and adults.  We could not have had the election results in 2016, or the wholesale abandonment of rationality and reverence for the truth, that we have seen in America since then, without a strong foundation supplied by the American education system (replacing the study of history with "social studies" and reporting on scientific discovery and the "scientific method" with the "Earth Science Curriculum Project" in the 1960s).  Gatto's An Underground History of American Education is a must-read summary of where our education system came from in the 1800s and what it intentionally and deliberately does to people (turns them into "consumers" and obedient participants in an exploitative capitalistic oligarchy that yields a tremendous and perpetually growing economy for the oligarchs).  We have entered a time of contempt for intelligence, a new "dark age" of superstition and reverence for fantasy in lieu of science, culminating in the election and persistence of a puerile reality show personality impersonating a national leader, and I'm not sure the plunge toward the bottom is something we can recover from.

People are absolutely oblivious to this. I read John Taylor Gatto's "Weapons of Mass Instruction". It was an excellent read. I think what started me off was Robert Kiyosaki pointing out the one thing everyone needs to learn about at school is 'money' and it's the one thing they don't teach you about, that's very telling. Huxley touched upon this too in 1958 and the theme of 'operant conditioning' and a mix of propaganda, pharmacological means and constant entertainment keeping society too distracted to know what's going on. 

Those who don't know history are destined to repeat it.” 
Edmund Burke 

 

To me, whats going on online is the equivalent of a modern day book burning. Alarm bells should have been ringing when pupils are not being taught about the 50-100m dead as a result of communism and what happened to the educated in those affected countries. I can't even begin to fathom how bright Nietzsche was to understand a lot of this in his time. 

Edited by Chris Barnard
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 152
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, Steven Kossor said:

In the Moorman photo, the holes found through MRI analysis are located too far toward the top of the head to have exposed cerebellar tissue that was observed at Parkland, so there must have been another hole created farther down at the back and right side of JFK's head in order for the observations of the Parkland doctors to be based on a real body they examined.  Moorman's photo doesn't show it, so it wasn't yet created at the time her photo was taken, and that's a rock solid foundation upon which you can place Moorman's photo on a time line (thereby revealing exactly what happened before and after it was taken).  Or so it seems to me.

Steven:

I guess the wound of the size of a baseball in the right parietal region of the head described by Parkland doctors cannot be seen in Marry Moorman picture; that wound would be on the right side of the head as a part of the blown-off bone flap. I guess what happend was that a large amount of brain tissue has been torn off from the rest of the brain, basically the whole of the right parietal lobe and a part of the occipital cortex. Therefore, it would have been possible to see the remaining brain tissue through the large wound, and that would be the cerebellum.

Unfortunately,we lack a proper 3D reconstruction of President's head and the head wound in Z-film or Mary Moorman picture which would be of great help. 

Edited by Andrej Stancak
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Neil Postman's Entertaining Ourselves to Death is another good read about the effects of the entertainment media that came into existence in the 1950s and 1960s.  Devotees of early television were called "vidiots" by those who disdained Uncle Miltie and all of his descendants.  Another great survey on the subject of money and power in America is Noam Chomsky's Requiem for the American Dream that appears as a 2015 video here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hZnuc-Fv_Tc  Greg Poulgrain's books on the connection between Indonesia's President Sukarno and JFK are illuminating as to the incredibly enormous amounts of money at stake for the Rockefellers and their minions (Allen Dulles, for example) if only JFK could be moved out of power before he screwed it all up for them. Sukarno himself was killed in a coup in 1965 that drew the circle closed as Poulgrain explains.  Oliver Stone wrote an introduction to the latest Poulgrain book JFK vs Allen Dulles (2020) and Jim DiEugenio gave a thorough and favorable review of it recently as well.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Steven Kossor said:

Neil Postman's Entertaining Ourselves to Death is another good read about the effects of the entertainment media that came into existence in the 1950s and 1960s.  Devotees of early television were called "vidiots" by those who disdained Uncle Miltie and all of his descendants.  Another great survey on the subject of money and power in America is Noam Chomsky's Requiem for the American Dream that appears as a 2015 video here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hZnuc-Fv_Tc  Greg Poulgrain's books on the connection between Indonesia's President Sukarno and JFK are illuminating as to the incredibly enormous amounts of money at stake for the Rockefellers and their minions (Allen Dulles, for example) if only JFK could be moved out of power before he screwed it all up for them. Sukarno himself was killed in a coup in 1965 that drew the circle closed as Poulgrain explains.  Oliver Stone wrote an introduction to the latest Poulgrain book JFK vs Allen Dulles (2020) and Jim DiEugenio gave a thorough and favorable review of it recently as well.

 

 

I’ll certainly take a look at Neil’s book. One thing which is a shocking indictment of society is Tinder. The dating App has such little diversity of interests in the female bio’s, the same the desired physical appearance. It would be fair to say most women “like dogs, Netflix, shopping, food and travel”. 
I am not kidding when I say that’s 80-90% of profiles. it tells me people aren’t reading or thirsting for knowledge.
I have a decent understanding of dopamine releasing activities and substances, it just seems we’ve got a society hooked on that chemical being released with increasing frequency. 
It has occurred to me that what governments or, these social architects desired is not ‘diversity’ but, a society where everyone is the same, which makes for easy control and compliance. It was interesting to me that Kalergi, the EU planner was funded by the Warburg’s, same guys at the FED. 
The Rockefeller’s have been at the heart of so much of this, including the way they infiltrated academia and science to further their own goals. To some that may sound like conspiracy talk but, it’s just business, anything is available at a price. 
 

I have read Chomsky’s “Manufacturing Consent”, i’ll look out for the title you recommended. I like some of his stuff but, dislike him for ignoring the JFKA. I might be wrong for that, as you have to be in those shoes yourself to know how you’d react. John Perkins wrote a good book called “Confessions of an economic hitman” which talks about the US foreign policy, corruption and destabilising/exploiting/regime changes all over the world and how he was involved. I asked some very deep questions of myself as to what i’d do in the same position he was in. The system itself is geared up to keep people in it, it doesn’t work out well for idealists or whistle blowers. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The descriptions of JFK's head wound at Parkland was more in the Occipital (back) area than in the Parietal (side) area of the skull.  The cerebellum is located at the back, bottom part of the brain.  Several doctors reported seeing pieces of the cerebellum on the table (cerebellar tissue is dramatically different in appearance than other brain tissue), so if it fell out of his head, the hole it came through had to have been at the lower back of the head, where it was not immediately noticed by the doctors who attended him as he arrived at Parkland.  When neurosurgeon Kemp Clark arrived at the ER, he looked at the hole and the apparent damage to Kennedy's brain and said that the wound "was not compatible with life."  He later said that he thought JFK had actually died in Dealey Plaza (at 12:30 pm), although he signed the official death certificate stating a time of death at 1:30 pm, for reasons that remain obscure.  Jenkins (the anesthesiologist who hooked JFK's tracheal tube up to a respirator) eventually testified that he knew he was connecting the device to a corpse, but that he did it so the family might be comforted by thinking the last rites were administered to a living person.  When Dr. Perry started to perform the tracheotomy, JKF had no pulse, was cyanotic (turning blue) from a lack of respiration for several minutes (during the ride from DP to Parkland), had fixed and dilated, divergent pupils and no detectable heartbeat, but he recognized that the endotracheal tube that Dr. Carrico had previously installed wasn't working efficiently and went forward with a surgical procedure to install a tube directly into JFK's trachea.  Without appreciable blood pressure, the surgical incision would not have bled, starkly revealing the patient's expired condition, but the doctors reportedly pressed on with their resuscitation efforts (chest compressions, etc) anyway, until Kemp Clark called it all off with his pronouncement of JFK's death.  Perry's press conference around 2:00 pm disclosed Carrico's installation of an endotracheal tube in JFK's throat through his mouth (specifically spelling out e-n-d-o-t-r-a-c-h-e-a-l), but didn't mention his own performance of a tracheotomy surgical procedure (cutting JFK's trachea open) until he was called by Humes, et al in Bethesda about it.  Perhaps he didn't want to call attention to what he had done during the 2:00 pm press conference, or just didn't think it was important to mention that there were two different medical doctors' attempts at giving respiratory aid to the President after he had died, not just one.  Later, Perry would testify that he'd cut through the throat bullet wound, that he'd made his incision above the wound, and that the incision was below the bullet wound.  The poor guy was in a terrible bind as soon as he mentioned in his 2:00 pm press conference that the throat bullet wound looked like one of the 100 to 200 bullet entrance wounds he'd treated up to that point in his career.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Greg Burnham had published an essay I'd written back in 2018 called "Emotional Memories" that described some of the psychological processes, including those documented by Perkins in his Confessions of an Economic Hitman that resulted in the growth and flourishing of the corporate surveillance apparatus and infrastructure in the US.  The basic idea is that emotions color memories, and that the persistent presentation of memes that provoke fear and the value of timidity as a virtue, result in greater tolerance of confusion in the pronouncements of authorities, and encroachments on civil and human rights.  The brutal treatment that whistleblowers receive (think of Edward Snowden) at the hands of wrongdoers and their government supporters who invoke The Espionage Act to capture and silence them is a potent source of these "keep your head down and your mouth shut and everything will be fine" memes that foster compliance and complacency, and deter courageous investigatory work. The essay has become inaccessible on Greg's website for some reason but I posted an earlier version on this forum in 2012:  https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/18871-the-power-of-emotional-memories/

Edited by Steven Kossor
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Steven Kossor said:

Greg Burnham had published an essay I'd written back in 2018 called "Emotional Memories" that described some of the psychological processes, including those documented by Perkins in his Confessions of an Economic Hitman that resulted in the growth and flourishing of the corporate surveillance apparatus and infrastructure in the US.  The basic idea is that emotions color memories, and that the persistent presentation of memes that provoke fear and the value of timidity as a virtue, result in greater tolerance of confusion in the pronouncements of authorities, and encroachments on civil and human rights.  The brutal treatment that whistleblowers receive (think of Edward Snowden) at the hands of wrongdoers and their government supporters who invoke The Espionage Act to capture and silence them is a potent source of these "keep your head down and your mouth shut and everything will be fine" memes that foster compliance and complacency, and deter courageous investigatory work. The essay has become inaccessible on Greg's website for some reason but I posted an earlier version on this forum in 2012:  https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/18871-the-power-of-emotional-memories/

Thank you for sharing the essay. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Andrej Stancak writes:

Quote

The remaining flap of bone was turned back, it could even be Jackie who did that, basically closing the enormous wound on the right side of the head.

Yes, it was Jackie who did that. This is what she told the Warren Commission:

Quote

I was trying to hold his hair on. From the front there was nothing. I suppose there must have been. But from the back, you could see, you know, you were trying to hold his hair on, and his skull on.

That passage was omitted from her testimony as published in the WC Hearings and Exhibits, vol.5, p.180 ("Reference to wounds deleted"), but it was revealed when the official transcript was made public as the result of a Freedom of Information Act request by Harold Weisberg. See Kennedy Assassination Chronicles, vol.7 issue 2 (Summer 2001), p.18: https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=4271#relPageId=20

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Steven Kossor writes:

Quote

facts undeniably lead to the conclusion that the Zfilm is a fabrication.  For example, frame 313 is the only one with a show of bloody tissue exploding from the vicinity of the head, meaning that the material erupted and then disappeared in just 1/18 of a second -- it didn't slow down or linger in the air as it certainly must have, to be captured on frames 314, 315, etc (if it was real material and not a painted-in special effect for that one frame for the purpose of blaming Lee Oswald for shooting JFK "from above and behind").

Unfortunately, Steven has neglected to perform some basic research. Check out "frames 314, 315, etc" and see if you can spot some of the brain matter that Steven claims isn't there: 

According to Steven, if the Zapruder film is genuine, it will include brain matter in those frames. If it isn't genuine, we won't see any brain matter.

What do we see? We see brain matter. Another supposed anomaly bites the dust.

Why did Steven jump in and assume, without checking, that the Zapruder film cannot have shown the brain matter hanging in the air? It must be because his urge to believe overcame any rational, skeptical thought processes.

This is a common problem with JFK assassination enthusiasts. What attracts them is the idea of a conspiracy, and the bigger the conspiracy, the better. Shooting a guy in a slow-moving open-topped car isn't exciting enough. That conspiracy can't be true; it is far too plausible. There has to be more to it! Let's go for a conspiracy that's really, really complicated and implausible!

But the JFK assassination need not have involved a cast of thousands and god-like masterminds with magical powers. It was a political event that just happened to involve more than one person. The conspiracy aspect is not the important factor.

The simpler the explanation, the more likely it is to be correct.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Chris Barnard writes:

Quote

The education system is teaching conformity, obedience and to trust reputable institutions such as government, banks, news networks etc. The one thing it removes is the individuals capacity to critically think

I agree with all of that, although I'm not sure things are beyond hope. Even Fox News-watchers can become functioning members of society, given the right encouragement and sufficient quantities of un-Murdoched information.

You mustn't underestimate the contagious property of reasonable ideas. Even in the few decades since the JFK assassination, a number of what used to be minority or subversive ideas have become very much more widely accepted: concern for the environment, for example, or the notion that various forms of discrimination, oppression, and other inequalities of power are unjustified. Ideas percolate, and things can change quite dramatically and suddenly if the conditions are suitable.

Anyway, I'd better step down from my soap box and return to the topic at hand.

Quote

Upon release, all that was needed was for it not to be completely obvious that there was a 2nd shooter to the masses. When most laymen watch, it did that.

I'm not convinced that's true. The 'back and to the left' head snap must be one of the most widely known facts among members of the general public with only a passing knowledge or interest in the JFK assassination. Surely almost everyone who sees the head snap for themselves in the Zapruder film must realise that it appears to contradict the lone-nut-firing-from-behind doctrine.

Quote

Editing only needed to hide or obscure very obvious stuff, like a limo stop or the exiting of brain matter through the rear of JFK’s skull.

Why make things more complicated than they need to be? We have an obvious, everyday explanation for the small number of witnesses who claimed that the limo stopped: they were mistaken, as witnesses often are. The horizontal 'exit debris' issue is something I've dealt with on at least two other threads recently (e.g. this reply to Chris himself) : there's no reason to assume that any of the assassination films would have captured it.

Over at least two decades, people have been spotting anomalies in the Zapruder film and other films and photographs. One by one, each supposed anomaly has been shown to have a reasonable, common-sense explanation, as Josiah Thompson has pointed out. Why do people keep reading too much into common-or-garden (and sometimes entirely imaginary) anomalies? What's the attraction of believing in huge, impractical conspiracies?

Then there are the practical problems. As we've seen in this thread and others, no-one has come close to explaining how four home movies and two photos could have been faked to eliminate as complex a procedure as the car swerving into the left-hand lane and stopping. Until someone comes up with a credible reason to doubt the Zavada report, we can be sure that any alteration of the Zapruder film simply cannot have happened.

Edited by Jeremy Bojczuk
Removed a sad-face thingy that the stupid software inserts when a colon immediately follows a closing bracket.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

Chris Barnard writes:

I agree with all of that, although I'm not sure things are beyond hope. Even Fox News-watchers can become functioning members of society, given the right encouragement and sufficient quantities of un-Murdoched information.

You mustn't underestimate the contagious property of reasonable ideas. Even in the few decades since the JFK assassination, a number of what used to be minority or subversive ideas have become very much more widely accepted: concern for the environment, for example, or the notion that various forms of discrimination, oppression, and other inequalities of power are unjustified. Ideas percolote, and things can change quite dramatically and suddenly if the conditions are suitable.

Anyway, I'd better step down from my soap box and return to the topic at hand.

I'm not convinced that's true. The 'back and to the left' head snap must be one of the most widely known facts among members of the general public with only a passing knowledge or interest in the JFK assassination. Surely almost everyone who sees the head snap for themselves in the Zapruder film must realise that it appears to contradict the lone-nut-firing-from-behind doctrine.

Why make things more complicated than they need to be? We have an obvious, everyday explanation for the small number of witnesses who claimed that the limo stopped: they were mistaken, as witnesses often are. The horizontal 'exit debris' issue is something I've dealt with on at least two other threads recently (e.g. this reply to Chris himself😞 there's no reason to assume that any of the assassination films would have captured it.

Over at least two decades, people have been spotting anomalies in the Zapruder film and other films and photographs. One by one, each supposed anomaly has been shown to have a reasonable, common-sense explanation, as Josiah Thompson has pointed out. Why do people keep reading too much into common-or-garden (and sometimes entirely imaginary) anomalies? What's the attraction of believing in huge, impractical conspiracies?

Then there are the practical problems. As we've seen in this thread and others, no-one has come close to explaining how four home movies and two photos could have been faked to eliminate as complex a procedure as the car swerving into the left-hand lane and stopping. Until someone comes up with a credible reason to doubt the Zavada report, we can be sure that any alteration of the Zapruder film simply cannot have happened.

The problem is, the catching up of society is at a rate that is too slow. We're in this situation where a few notice something at the time and it takes 4-6 decades for us to accept that the few were originally correct, if at all. What we're up against is moving much faster. The reason I underestimate the masses is the combination of things that we are being exposed to, its very effective and powerful. All that's needed is an Ettiene de La Boetie method and we can end it, the trouble is that people don't even understand it's happening, feel resistance is futile or just don't care. It's my opinion that the percolating ideas are being led by agenda, not a natural evolution. They're being used to fulfil agenda and divide the masses. Fox is just the counterpoint to CNN. 
Yeh, I agree. Steven has another thread going with some of these ideas, feel free to jump in there, if you wish. 

The head snap may look obvious to us, perhaps because we've both shot things or watched it depicted in action films. Someone who has been conditioned to the WC propagated narrative will not see that, they'll see a recoil or something else not really backed by science. This is the crux of what Steven and I are saying, it's not immediately apparent to your average person and most people won't have watched the Z-Film, they'll have been perfectly happy with the newspaper stills from 13 years earlier, with stories covering it by all their favourite trusted columnists. People would rather sit and blindly trust an authority over a minority. To me the job was already done before the film was shown.What we do is assume people interpret things the way we do when viewing. I can see why people might think it came from above. We don't have the luxury of a blind study on the video, everyone was already prejudiced for 13 years before they saw it. 

I am not sure I see that they are being made more complicated than they needed to be. We don't know all of the variables, the reason for the filming or how they thought it would go, which leaves us with these blanks to fill in. I do like Stevens theory about the sign and the obscured filming. 

I am also open to the double shot idea, one from the South Knoll and one from the Grassy Knoll, which explains the bone/brain splatter hitting the bike cop Hargis. 

As always, I am open to theories on this and think its good that we are sharing them. 



 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's all about plausible deniability. The people behind this coup wanted everyone to know what they did. Sure, they wanted some semblance of innocence on their part but only for public record. It's their way of saying we did not kill Kennedy but then winking at you. Make no mistake my friends, they wanted to send a message. That's why they killed him in the most brutal fashion in broad daylight. I'm sure they expected public acceptance to be higher but I'm sure they would have gladly taken 50/50 odds and been happy that they duped half the people out there. The fox was investigating the chicken coup (pun intended). They had no real fear of getting caught at least as far as legally. But they intentionally signed their work. They wanted people who opposed them to know what would happen to them. They made it painfully obvious without actually confessing to the crime. They murdered him in LBJ's home state. Where Earl Cabell was mayor in Dallas, whose brother was fired by JFK. They put Dulles on the Warren Comission, who was fired by JFK. Don't you think they had a million other ways to kill him without making him look like Swiss cheese in public? He wasn't exactly in the best of health. He was getting amphetamine injections regularly. Get the doctor in on it or just plant a toxic needle or syringe in his bag. They wanted a very public execution! They were sending this message out to anyone who even thought about crossing them but make no mistake, it was a very personal message to Bobby Kennedy! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm no mastermind, and the puerile ad hominem attacks that pop up periodically on this thread reflect badly on the sender, yet they persist, unfortunately.  Very nearly a laugh, but they're really a cry. 

I do think that Jamey is absolutely correct as to the motivation of the plotters to "send a message" to the world at large.  There are lots of ways to get rid of someone you don't like. To do it in the way that they did it to JFK can only be interpreted as viciously vindictive.  His killing was far from an amateur affair; it was grotesquely configured that way and that underscores both the depth of the planning that went into it and the power behind it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some lyrics from Dylan's Murder Most Foul..

Don't worry, Mr. President, help's on the way
Your brothers are comin', there'll be hell to pay
Brothers? What brothers? What's this about hell?
Tell them, "We're waiting, keep coming," we'll get them as well
Love Field is where his plane touched down
But it never did get back up off the ground

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Jamey Flanagan said:

It's all about plausible deniability. The people behind this coup wanted everyone to know what they did. Sure, they wanted some semblance of innocence on their part but only for public record. It's their way of saying we did not kill Kennedy but then winking at you. Make no mistake my friends, they wanted to send a message. That's why they killed him in the most brutal fashion in broad daylight. I'm sure they expected public acceptance to be higher but I'm sure they would have gladly taken 50/50 odds and been happy that they duped half the people out there. The fox was investigating the chicken coup (pun intended). They had no real fear of getting caught at least as far as legally. But they intentionally signed their work. They wanted people who opposed them to know what would happen to them. They made it painfully obvious without actually confessing to the crime. They murdered him in LBJ's home state. Where Earl Cabell was mayor in Dallas, whose brother was fired by JFK. They put Dulles on the Warren Comission, who was fired by JFK. Don't you think they had a million other ways to kill him without making him look like Swiss cheese in public? He wasn't exactly in the best of health. He was getting amphetamine injections regularly. Get the doctor in on it or just plant a toxic needle or syringe in his bag. They wanted a very public execution! They were sending this message out to anyone who even thought about crossing them but make no mistake, it was a very personal message to Bobby Kennedy! 

100%, it was a statement to anyone thinking about whistleblowing in their power elite class, no more idealists, only 'yes men' from now on. I've said this before but, a mechanical failure plane crash was the easiest way, or something that was made to look like the very ill JFK had passed of natural causes, a Dr Max Jacobsen shot gone wrong perhaps. The plane crash would have been controlled by military investigators, a poisoning would have been controlled, even if the family requested a private autopsy, they'd unlikely find conclusive evidence of foul play. There is also the psychological effect on the population, a much loved president having his brains blown out in front of crowds, had American citizens thinking emotionally, not logically or lucidly about what may have happened. The screw up was not killing Oswald right away, the whole Ruby thing made some question the narrative and aroused suspicion. 

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...