Newspeak?

[Miles Scull]

By the way, the NBC Nightly News with Brian Williams tonight devoted a segment to the research paper and interviewed one of its authors, who challenged the one-bullet theory and advocated that further research be conducted on the existing JFK bullet fragments that are in the possession of the National Archives. -- Douglas Caddy, today on thread: Scientists Cast Doubt on Kennedy Bullet Analysis.

Thanks for pointing to this segment of the NBC Nightly News.

The theme of this segment as emphatically stressed by Brian Williams was: this new research proves that the intriguing mystery of the JFK assassination will never be solved. What?

Appearing in the segment was Gary Mack who said: The original explanation still stands that the fragments all came from Oswald's bullets because there is no evidence, hard evidence, that there was any other shooter on that day.

Hard evidence?

Is film showing a violent backward motion of the head hard evidence? That is violent backward thrust motion resulting from the impact of a bullet strike from the front.

The Washington Post's article yesterday by Jon Solomon was headlined: Scientists Cast Doubt on Kennedy Bullet Analysis, Multiple Shooters Possible, Study Says

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...7051601967.html

The clear implication is that continuing new studies may very well lead the way to solving the "mystery" of the JFK assassination.

Why then would NBC make the trumpeting theme & import of this national news segment: the intriguing mystery of the JFK assassination will never be solved?

Of course, if the mystery can never be solved then it must fade away into a curiosity, a hermetically sealed unknowable, an eventual triviality, even a parlor game.

One pundit remarked that NBC's segment was species of the Orwell's Newspeak:

“The key-word here is blackwhite. Like so many Newspeak words, this word has two mutually contradictory meanings. Applied to an opponent, it means the habit of impudently claiming that black is white, in contradiction of the plain facts.”

Isn't NBC Nightly News the evening TV news national broadcast with the highest rating for national viewership? ABC & CBS lagging behind?

Edited May 18, 2007 by Miles Scull

[Miles Scull]

By the way, the NBC Nightly News with Brian Williams tonight devoted a segment to the research paper and interviewed one of its authors, who challenged the one-bullet theory and advocated that further research be conducted on the existing JFK bullet fragments that are in the possession of the National Archives. -- Douglas Caddy, today on thread: Scientists Cast Doubt on Kennedy Bullet Analysis.

Thanks for pointing to this segment of the NBC Nightly News.

The theme of this segment as emphatically stressed by Brian Williams was: this new research proves that the intriguing mystery of the JFK assassination will never be solved. What?

Appearing in the segment was Gary Mack who said: The original explanation still stands that the fragments all came from Oswald's bullets because there is no evidence, hard evidence, that there was any other shooter on that day.

Hard evidence?

Is film showing a violent backward motion of the head hard evidence? That is violent backward thrust motion resulting from the impact of a bullet strike from the front.

The Washington Post's article yesterday by Jon Solomon was headlined: Scientists Cast Doubt on Kennedy Bullet Analysis, Multiple Shooters Possible, Study Says

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...7051601967.html

The clear implication is that continuing new studies may very well lead the way to solving the "mystery" of the JFK assassination.

Why then would NBC make the trumpeting theme & import of this national news segment: the intriguing mystery of the JFK assassination will never be solved?

Of course, if the mystery can never be solved then it must fade away into a curiosity, a hermetically sealed unknowable, an eventual triviality, even a parlor game.

One pundit remarked that NBC's segment was species of the Orwell's Newspeak:

“The key-word here is blackwhite. Like so many Newspeak words, this word has two mutually contradictory meanings. Applied to an opponent, it means the habit of impudently claiming that black is white, in contradiction of the plain facts.”

Isn't NBC Nightly News the evening TV news national broadcast with the highest rating for national viewership? ABC & CBS lagging behind?

Oh, Miles!!

I agree with you that the Z film shows a frontal shot, but there are many who don't.

Some see a shot from the rear(???)

Some think it's (I don't want to say it) uh, altered.

And I am afraid that you may have opened this .....

Hi Kathy,

You are right, there are questions. However, allowing a head tilt forward, a shot from the rear with cranial impact combined with a frontal shot with cranial impact would have produced a result that was not seen in Zapruder nor by Parkland Hospital physicians. For example there would have been facial deformation & wide spread additional cranial fracturing.

What I was noting, however, was NBC's clear cut, stark obfuscation of the import of the new bullet analysis. The new analysis was used by NBC to demonstrate that the JFK assassination "mystery" will never be solved, even though the new analysis proves that progress toward a solution is alive & well & marching forward.

One is reminded of The Big Lie, which is repeated over & over until it becomes THE TRUTH.

Maybe somebody has Mein Kampf around?

The Big Lie is a propaganda technique, defined by Adolf Hitler in his 1925 autobiography Mein Kampf as a lie so "colossal" that no one would believe that someone "could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously".

Edited May 19, 2007 by Miles Scull

[Shanet Clark]

I saw the news.

Brian Williams spun it a "mystery which may never be solved"

which is something, anyway.

The fragments are now scientifically proven to NOT be from only

two rounds, but likely point to a third or fourth similar lead round...

Of course GARY MACK has his entire career tied up with the

Dallas Museum / Warren Commission belief system.

Most viewers drew the opposite conclusion, that the

single bullet and sole assassin theory has been WEAKENED......

(((( Gary Mack - Do not contact me again : I consider it harassment )))

explanation: this guy reads the Forum, never contributes to the debate

and has sent me inflammatory email responding to my posts ................???????

Edited May 18, 2007 by Shanet Clark

[Miles Scull]

I saw the news.

Brian Williams spun it a "mystery which may never be solved"

which is something, anyway.

The fragments are now scientifically proven to NOT be from only

two rounds, but likely point to a third or fourth similar lead round...

Of course GARY MACK has his entire career tied up with the

Dallas Museum / Warren Commission belief system.

Most viewers drew the opposite conclusion, that the

single bullet and sole assassin theory has been WEAKENED......

(((( Gary Mack - Do not contact me again : I consider it harassment )))

Most viewers drew the opposite conclusion, that the

single bullet and sole assassin theory has been WEAKENED......

I sincerely hope that is the case, but do we know that? Most NBC viewers, for example, are not are members of this forum & are not steeped in the intricacies of the research.

But what is NBC doing by blatantly hindering viewers from arriving at the conclusion that the JFK assassination is a not merely an "intriguing mystery" which may never be solved (quoting Brian Williams), but is instead The Big Lie which is cracking under rigorous scientific investigation?

NBC slams 95% of its millions of viewers with: Naauugh, don't worry about that old JFK funny business, nobody's ever going to figure that one out. Forget about it.

Edited May 18, 2007 by Miles Scull

[Ron Ecker]

A real news program would relate this bullet fragments study to another recent development in the JFK case, the "confession" of long-time suspect E. Howard Hunt.

Whether or not Brian Williams and his ilk believe Hunt was telling the truth or lying, what Hunt had to say was NEWS.

I quit watching network "news" years ago. I would just as soon listen to some rap "music," which is torture enough.

[Myra Bronstein]

I saw the news.

Brian Williams spun it a "mystery which may never be solved"

which is something, anyway.

The fragments are now scientifically proven to NOT be from only

two rounds, but likely point to a third or fourth similar lead round...

Of course GARY MACK has his entire career tied up with the

Dallas Museum / Warren Commission belief system.

Most viewers drew the opposite conclusion, that the

single bullet and sole assassin theory has been WEAKENED......

(((( Gary Mack - Do not contact me again : I consider it harassment )))

explanation: this guy reads the Forum, never contributes to the debate

and has sent me inflammatory email responding to my posts ................???????

I'm guessing most people will know the problem without the explanation.

You're not the only person he harasses.

And you're not the only person who has told him not to.

Sometimes he forgets...

Hey, he probably has a quota he has to make.

[Kathleen Collins]

Oh, Miles!!

I agree with you that the Z film shows a frontal shot, but there are many who don't.

Some see a shot from the rear(???)

Some think it's (I don't want to say it) uh, altered.

And I am afraid that you may have opened this .....

Yes to me the Z film shows a shot from the front right. But the conspirators tell us it shows the shot came from the back, and if we were good Americans we would believe the Warren Commission and what "those on high" say about the film. I guess people who look at the film and see what their eyes are telling them are a bunch of America-hating Commies.

Kathy Collins

[Peter McGuire]

Of course this is hard evidence. It is conclusive evidence. Only in the insane world of this case is it not.

It looks like a shot from the front to me also. The only reason some people believe otherwise is because they are told to believe otherwise. Everyone that I introduced the ( full) Z film to thought the same thing.

What is amazing is that while the Zapruder film is obviously altered , the frontal head shot remains. I believe that shows their arrogance in that they believed , and were correct , that they could explain even that away.

Edited May 19, 2007 by Peter McGuire

[Miles Scull]

Of course this is hard evidence. It is conclusive evidence. Only in the insane world of this case is it not.

It looks like a shot from the front to me also. The only reason some people believe otherwise is because they are told to believe otherwise. Everyone that I introduced the ( full) Z film to thought the same thing.

What is amazing is that while the Zapruder film is obviously altered , the frontal head shot remains. I believe that shows their arrogance in that they believed , and were correct , that they could explain even that away.

Peter,

Just as an experiment imagine this situation:

In a room two men ( A & B ) are seated 10 feet apart facing each other. Between them is a placard which is black on one side and white on the other; each man sees only one of the placard's two sides.

A third man (X ) enters the room, approaches A, and asks him what color the placard is. A answers "It is Black."

Then, X approaches B and asks what color the placard is. B answers "It is White."

Then, X summons 30 men into the room to stand with A. X asks the 30 men what color the placard is. They all say "It is Black."

Then, X approaches B and informs him: "I'm sorry, but most people say the placard is Black, so I am afraid you must be mistaken."

Then, B scratches his head & mutters to himself: "Gee, this is, is truly a deep mystery."

Then, X approaches A & his 30 companions and says: "I'm sorry about B, he is having mental problems, but in time I feel he will come around to seeing matters differently. Let's hope he recovers soon."

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Now keeping this little experiment in mind, consider the "theory of the tilting head." It goes:

Wow, did you see that! The head tilted forward. Do you realize what this means?! By God, he was struck from the rear; a bullet hit the back, yes!, the BACK of the head. Wait till I tell everybody. Ha! They won't believe it!

Of course the "tilting head theory" is irrefutable because the head does actually tilt forward.

But two nearly simultaneous high-power rifle fired bullets impacting at opposites side of the head would have destroyed the head. That did not happen.

Yes, you might claim that the shot from the rear was under-powdered & spent. (Chauncey Holt mentions loading under-powdered rifle cartridges.) Well, OK, then aside from amazing sniper skill to adjust for weak rounds, the evidence of the violent backward thrust becomes more brightly spotlighted as the reality, the hard evidence.

So, NBC hits everybody on the head (!) with: Yeah, see, here's another of those weird science conspiracy theories. Believe this, it's all just one of those mysteries, you see. That's all. We'll never know. Believe it.

Who's getting brainwashed now, Alice?

Edited May 19, 2007 by Miles Scull

[J. Raymond Carroll]

Appearing in the segment was Gary Mack who said: The original explanation still stands that the fragments all came from Oswald's bullets because there is no evidence, hard evidence, that there was any other shooter on that day.

Hard evidence?

If Gary said this then he is guilty of going egregiously beyond the information given.

It is much too soon to say that the hard evidence connects Lee Oswald to the crime. Fingerprints on boxes he was legitimately working on, a palmprint on the Mannlicher that Tthe FBI expert said might have been months old and what else?

There is no evidence directly connecting Lee Oswald with so much as one single bullet of the Mannlicher variety, unless you count his weapons training in the marines. If he cannot be connected to any Mannlicher bullet ever, how can anyone honestly speak of "Oswald's bullets"in reference to the JFK assassination?

Did Gary Mack ever read the very first book to compare the Warren Commission report with the actual evidence in the Commission' record? In THE OSWALD AFFAIR, Leo Sauvage pointed out the lack of any direct link between Lee Oswald and the Mannlicher ammo, which may be considered a fairly serious anomaly in the "the original explanation" which the original explainers and their descendants have so far been unable to explain.

As discussed on Bullet Lead threads, Dr. Vincent Guinn pioneered a line of inquiry that may actually establish, in the not-too-distant future, that the ultimate meaning of the "hard evidence" of CE399 and the limo fragments is the exact opposite of the explanation that the first explainers and their loyal followers still believe.

Cheer up, Gary. According to pioneering cognitive scientist Jerome Bruner, Going Beyond The Information Given is a natural stage in our cognitive development, and your emails are always welcome where I come from.

Edited May 20, 2007 by J. Raymond Carroll

[J. Raymond Carroll]

NBC Nightly News ...... advocated that further research be conducted on the existing JFK bullet fragments that are in the possession of the National Archives. -- Douglas Caddy, today on thread: Scientists Cast Doubt on Kennedy Bullet Analysis.

Thanks for pointing to this segment of the NBC Nightly News.

Appearing in the segment was Gary Mack who said: The original explanation still stands that the fragments all came from Oswald's bullets because there is no evidence, hard evidence, that there was any other shooter on that day.

Good Stuff on this thread. Special thanks to Doug Caddy, who also posted the link to the research paper itself. Call me crazy, if you like, but Bullet lead is my favorite part of the case.

I have made a VERBATIM transcript of Gary Mack's segment. Would anyone be able to post a VERBATIM transcript of the remainder of NBC's bullet segment?

http://video.msn.com/v/us/fv/msnbc/fv.htm?...ce-edfbf0e62582

Here is my transcription:

NBC:" An expert on the assassination says that, while the bullet science is debatable, a widely accepted finding still stands.

Gary Mack: "So the original explanation remains, that the fragments MUST HAVE (my emphasis) come from Lee Harvey Oswald's bullets because there is no evidence -- no HARD evidence -- of any other shooter that day."

[Miles Scull]

Here is my transcription:

NBC:" An expert on the assassination says that, while the bullet science is debatable, a widely accepted finding still stands.

Gary Mack: "So the original explanation remains, that the fragments MUST HAVE (my emphasis) come from Lee Harvey Oswald's bullets because there is no evidence -- no HARD evidence -- of any other shooter that day."

NBC:" An expert on the assassination says that,

An expert? Notice that "the expert" is unnamed. If you didn't recognize Gary's mug as 50,000,000 viewers did not, then you would have registered: "Oh, an expert, huh. Guess I can trust him."

If, on the other hand, you were among the handful of viewers who recognized Gary's kindly face, then alarm bells might have been sounding because Gary is known to pull the lone nut party line. Danger.

while the bullet science is debatable, a widely accepted finding still stands.

...widely accepted...? In other words, whereas the bullet science is debatable (read "could go either way"), it does not affect or change the widely accepted (read "the real truth") that will be annunciated by the expert!... And here he is, the expert, The Wizard of Oz:

Gary Mack: "So the original explanation remains, that the fragments MUST HAVE (my emphasis) come from Lee Harvey Oswald's bullets because there is no evidence -- no HARD evidence -- of any other shooter that day."

As Mr. Raymond Carroll points out, Gary's statement as an expert is without objective foundation or validity. After this statement is made by Gary the segment immediately concludes with the NBC comment that "the study shows that the books on the Kennedy assassination may never be closed."

...never be closed...? In other words, the American people may never know how & why their country was stolen. So, why bother to worry about it. Better to just forget about it.

Gary is an innocent victim, of course. But Operation Mockingbird is alive & well.

Edited May 20, 2007 by Miles Scull

[J. Raymond Carroll]

Gary is an innocent victim, of course. But Operation Mockingbird is alive & well.[/b] [/color]

How do you explain the Washington Post?

By John Solomon

Washington Post Staff Writer

Thursday, May 17, 2007

The "evidence used to rule out a second assassin is fundamentally flawed," concludes a new article in the Annals of Applied Statistics written by former FBI lab metallurgist William A. Tobin and Texas A&M University researchers Cliff Spiegelman and William D. James.[/b][/indent]

Full article: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...7051601967.html

[Miles Scull]

Gary is an innocent victim, of course. But Operation Mockingbird is alive & well.[/b] [/color]

How do you explain the Washington Post?

By John Solomon

Washington Post Staff Writer

Thursday, May 17, 2007

The "evidence used to rule out a second assassin is fundamentally flawed," concludes a new article in the Annals of Applied Statistics written by former FBI lab metallurgist William A. Tobin and Texas A&M University researchers Cliff Spiegelman and William D. James.[/b][/indent]

Full article: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...7051601967.html

That's right. The Post article reads:

"This finding means that the bullet fragments from the assassination that match could have come from three or more separate bullets," the researchers said. "If the assassination fragments are derived from three or more separate bullets, then a second assassin is likely," the researchers said. If the five fragments came from three or more bullets, that would mean a second gunman's bullet would have had to strike the president, the researchers explained."

Notice the reporter of the article, Solomon, is careful to attribute quotes to the researchers.

This study was coming into the media. It was of that significance.

So, since it is in the media, then it is necessary to minimize the story, to belittle it, to neutralize it. Damage control.

That's exactly what NBC did. Now, everybody can ignore the study and:

Drop any plans for further investigation!!

which the researchers recommend.

Edited May 20, 2007 by Miles Scull

[J. Raymond Carroll]

Appearing in the segment was Gary Mack who said.....the fragments all came from Oswald's bullets

If Gary said this then he is guilty of going egregiously beyond the information given.

I have discussed with Gary whether he is entitled to refer to "Oswald's bullets" on the information available.

I pointed out some problems with proving this, to all of which Gary offered rebuttal. I suggested that the only basis would be that " his ownership can still be inferred because there is evidence (purchase order and palmprint plus Marina's testimony and the backyard photos) connecting him to the rifle, and ballistics tests indisputably link the rifle to the bullets. Thus we can legitimately refer to them as "Oswald's bullets."

Gary: Right. There is no evidence they came from any one else.

I cannot say I agree, but it will take the confluence of many diverse minds to get to the bottom of this case. Some of us will be proven wrong on some this, and wrong on that, yet right overall. Even our mistakes are valuable. I'm starting to sound like John Dolva.