My New Book, A Heritage of Nonsense: Jim Garrison's Tales of Mystery and Imagination

[Jonathan Cohen]

13 minutes ago, W. Niederhut said:

Their method seems to be-- repeat falsehoods.

That's what your method seems to be, actually - including your evidence-free insinuation that Fred Litwin is a paid CIA plant.

14 minutes ago, W. Niederhut said:

And their last epistemological refuge is to declare that their disinformation is just as valid as the true facts

Not only is it not "disinformation," at all, but it is absolutely just as valid as any pro-conspiracy version of events.

[Pat Speer]

40 minutes ago, Micah Mileto said:

Did Wagner propose a theory of a long gunman without the SBT being true?

Yep. As Mark Fuhrman did before him. 

[Pat Speer]

25 minutes ago, Jonathan Cohen said:

That's what your method seems to be, actually - including your evidence-free insinuation that Fred Litwin is a paid CIA plant.

Not only is it not "disinformation," at all, but it is absolutely just as valid as any pro-conspiracy version of events.

Excuse my butting in. I thought you believed, as I, that the bulk of the evidence suggests conspiracy, but that much of the CT so-called evidence is nonsense. 

Are you saying you actually think it's 50/50? if so, that's fine, but I'm curious. 

[Cliff Varnell]

59 minutes ago, W. Niederhut said:

Exactly right, Cliff.

Unfortunately, we have a vocal cadre of Education Forum members who tirelessly promote WCR/LN disinformation-- e.g., denying the facts about the Grassy Knoll sniper, the right frontal entry wound, and the occipital skull exit wound.

William, with all due respect, when you make the case for conspiracy on these ancillary issues you invite fake debate.

59 minutes ago, W. Niederhut said:

It's downright Orwellian.

In the absence of censorship of such disinformation, the forum has no choice but to endlessly fact-check people who repeat the WCR/LN lies.  We go around and around with this nonsense.

Or we could follow the lead of Gaeton Fonzi and Vincent Salandria and crush their arguments with the physical evidence.

You don't see anyone going around and around with me, do you?

59 minutes ago, W. Niederhut said:

Their method seems to be-- repeat falsehoods to promote and maintain public confusion and doubt about the CIA conspiracy to murder JFK.

They employ the rhetorical tactic Simplicity and Repetition.

Press the fact the bullet holes in the clothes are too low and watch them STFU.

59 minutes ago, W. Niederhut said:

It's eerily similar to Cass Sunstein's concept of having the government fund "cognitive infiltrators" to promote public confusion and doubt about "conspiracy theories," and to attack researchers who have debunked government narratives about military and intelligence black ops.

And their last epistemological refuge is to declare that their disinformation is just as valid as the true facts

MAGA level dishonesty.

Edited Saturday at 09:35 PM by Cliff Varnell

[Cliff Varnell]

59 minutes ago, Jonathan Cohen said:

That's what your method seems to be, actually - including your evidence-free insinuation that Fred Litwin is a paid CIA plant.

Not only is it not "disinformation," at all, but it is absolutely just as valid as any pro-conspiracy version of events.

Such a mis-observation could only be made in the throes of confirmation bias.

[W. Niederhut]

37 minutes ago, Cliff Varnell said:

William, with all due respect, when you make the case for conspiracy on these ancillary issues you invite fake debate.

Or we could follow the lead of Gaeton Fonzi and Vincent Salandria and crush their arguments with the physical evidence.

You don't see anyone going around and around with me, do you?

They employ the rhetorical tactic Simplicity and Repetition.

Press the fact the bullet holes in the clothes are too low and watch them STFU.

MAGA level dishonesty.

Cliff,

   I agree with your points here-- except that I don't view the evidence for the frontal GK  shot that blasted JFK's brains and occipital skull behind the limo as "ancillary."

   It's, literally, a no-brainer.  

Edited Saturday at 10:08 PM by W. Niederhut

[Cliff Varnell]

4 minutes ago, W. Niederhut said:

Cliff,

   I agree with your points here-- except that I don't view the evidence for the frontal GK  shot that blasted JFK's brains and occipital skull behind the limo as "ancillary."

   It's, literally, a no-brainer.  

How much oxygen is sucked out of the room by these endless debates over the head wound(s)?

I don't see much debate at all over the clothing evidence.  Jim DiEugenio cited the Croft photo and "clothes bundling" as arguments for the SBT, but even Von Pein conceded the jacket collar fell in Dealey Plaza and the jacket was elevated only "a little bit."

Clothes bundling?  Was JFK on his way to a Trade Mart or a laundromat? 

[Cliff Varnell]

How many times did JFK get shot in the head?

Once?  Twice?  Thrice?

We'll never know.  That's why all the head wound(s) evidence is ancillary.

The back/throat wound evidence is clear cut. 

If Pat Speer or Fred Litwin want to make fools of themselves they can try to argue otherwise.

[W. Niederhut]

24 minutes ago, Cliff Varnell said:

How many times did JFK get shot in the head?

Once?  Twice?  Thrice?

We'll never know.  That's why all the head wound(s) evidence is ancillary.

The back/throat wound evidence is clear cut. 

If Pat Speer or Fred Litwin want to make fools of themselves they can try to argue otherwise.

Cliff,

  I agree that there has been a lot of gaslighting on this forum about the obvious GK frontal head shot, and the violent backward motion of JFK's head, but gaslighting doesn't make evidence "ancillary."

   Trump has gaslighted his fans about J6 and Stop the Steal, but the evidence of his crimes is still damning.

[Keven Hofeling]

2 hours ago, Micah Mileto said:

Somebody needs to go see the x-rays and check to see whether the emulsion over the "T" really is unbroken, but I fear another Prayer Man situation where suddenly it becomes impossible to do a bit of checking up.

Here is Dr. David Mantik describing the procedure by which he verified that the emulsion is not missing over the T shaped inscription on the left lateral autopsy X-ray (thereby demonstrating that it is a copy film and not an original X-ray):

 

The following is Dr. David Mantik's 'Appendix H' of his new book "The Final Analysis" coauthored by Jerome Corsi. Appendix H is devoted to making recommendations for future testing to be performed at the National Archives as the evil empire has banned both Dr. Mantik and Dr. Michael Chesser from conducting future testing ostensibly to prevent them from further embarrassing the government.

Note that Mantik lists verification of his findings regarding the T shaped inscription as number one on his list, and notes the following about others who have failed to conduct similar testing:

"...Surprisingly, no one (except for Chesser) has attempted
to confirm my observation of intact emulsion (on both sides). Chad
Zimmerman850 and Larry Sturdivan had that opportunity after my
observation became public, but they ignored it. In my emails with Stur-
divan, he seemed ignorant of that observation...." 

Mr. @Pat Speer apparently idolizes the type of work that Zimmerman and Sturdivan have performed on the autopsy materials. Perhaps he can advise us as to the reasons why they have failed to perform the most obviously needed testing of the autopsy materials at the National Archives -- to confirm or refute the alteration findings of Drs. Chesser and Mantik.

 

Edited Saturday at 11:33 PM by Keven Hofeling

[Cliff Varnell]

42 minutes ago, W. Niederhut said:

Cliff,

  I agree that there has been a lot of gaslighting on this forum about the obvious GK frontal head shot, and the violent backward motion of JFK's head, but gaslighting doesn't make evidence "ancillary."

Ever wring a concession out of any of them?

42 minutes ago, W. Niederhut said:

   Trump has gaslighted his fans about J6 and Stop the Steal, but the evidence of his crimes is still damning.

And the rebuttals are simple and irrefutable.  60+ court decisions prove the validity of the 2020 election, and we can see with our own eyes the violence of J6.

I discussed the clothing evidence with Von Pein a dozen years ago, or so.  He didn't get around to gaslighting before he conceded with no debate that JFK's jacket collar fell in Dealey Plaza and the jacket was elevated only "a little bit."

Physical evidence in a cold case murder investigation is primary.  Everything else is ancillary.

Edited Saturday at 11:36 PM by Cliff Varnell

[Cliff Varnell]

13 minutes ago, Keven Hofeling said:

Mr. @Pat Speer apparently idolizes the type of work that Zimmerman and Sturdivan have performed on the autopsy materials. Perhaps he can advise us as to the reasons why they have failed to perform the most obviously needed testing of the autopsy materials at the National Archives -- to confirm or refute the alteration findings of Drs. Chesser and Mantik.

Does it take an advanced degree to reach, confirm, or refute the good Doctors' findings?

A child could figure out the clothing evidence.

 

[Benjamin Cole]

4 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

You are correct in that Baden is an unreliable expert. I have multiple chapters on this, including https://www.patspeer.com/chapter13battackoftheclones which includes a large section on Baden's hare-brained claims about the Kennedy assassination and HSCA. 

As far as the x-rays being deceiving, I believe they are, but not because they were faked. Close to the top of the head one can see a large fracture. Well I believe this fracture marked the bottom margin of a bone flap that was flapped out at Parkland, which resulted in a wound appearing to be at the top of the back of the head and more rearward than the defect shown in the x-rays and top of the head photos.

 

 

PS--

 

Thanks for your collegial reply. 

I will re-read your relevant sections on the JFKA. 

[Benjamin Cole]

8 hours ago, Paul Bacon said:

The exit wound was where the Parkland doctors said it was--exactly where the black patch in the Zapruder film is located!

If a forhead shot (the one over the right eye) came from the grassy knoll, JFK's head had to have been turned toward the knoll. If it had been, that would have allowed a shot to the forehead to exit out the back and cover Hargis with brain matter.  At no point in the Z-film, is Kennedy's head turned toward the grassy knoll. 

(This assumes Z frames haven't been removed.)

JFK's head was turned, more or less, toward the south knoll at the time of the head shots.  So what did happen?  

First, a shot to the low back of JFK's head from behind, moving it forward.  Then, immediately, basically overlapping, two shots from the front.

The first of these two, came from the south knoll and entered the forehead over the right eye, where we see the fragment trail in one of the x-rays.

The second of these two, came from the grassy knoll, where it entered the right side of the head, blew out the occiput, and covered Hargis with brains.  It was a tangential wound, as speculated by Parkland Dr. McClelland.

I've read that Horne and Mantik think there were three shots to the head.  I, separately, came to this conclusion. 

 

PB--

Thanks for your collegial reply. 

You could be right. 

 

[Keven Hofeling]

54 minutes ago, Cliff Varnell said:

Does it take an advanced degree to reach, confirm, or refute the good Doctors' findings?

A child could figure out the clothing evidence.

 

It would appear that the answer is "yes," unfortunately.

For the particular findings of Drs. Mantik and Chesser relating to the autopsy photographs and X-rays (and other autopsy materials) to which you refer, it requires approved access to the materials at the National Archives by a representative of the Kennedy family. To my knowledge, those that have been granted such access have been medical professionals with advanced degrees.

And here is something from Dr. David Mantik regarding his work at the National Archives that may be of interest to you...