Summary of Some of the Major Problems with the JFK Medical Evidence

[Lance Payette]

Perhaps instead of giving your opinion on MTG's research you will counter research of your own?

I hate to bust your burble, but MTG doesn't do research. He collects conspiracy nuggets and weaves them into hyperbolic conspiracy narratives like a crazed CT televangelist. The JFKA medical evidence has been subjected to enough discussion and debate by genuine medical, ballistic and forensic experts for six decades, and they and their fans have arrived at such a bewildering mishmash of hopelessly conflicting interpretations, that one can weave almost any narrative one wishes. Some of it is interesting and genuinely puzzling, but in the absence of any consensus and any medical expertise on my part I decline to assemble hyperbolic narratives telling others what is IMPOSSIBLE! UNDENIABLE! UNSOLVABLE! MUST BE BELIEVED! and CAN'T BE REFUTED!!! "Research," as MTG's hero Paul Hoch himself pointed out, consists in working from primary source documents - not assembling dubious secondary sources and then compiling self-serving but fallacious appeals to authority.

[Paul J Cummings]

Thanks for your opinion. Where's your counter research to dispute his?

[Michael T. Griffith]

Perhaps instead of giving your opinion on MTG's research you will counter research of your own?

Oh, yes! You hit the nail on the head!

Mark my words: They will do everything but provide any specifics in response to the facts I've presented. They will offer a myriad of excuses for their ducking and dodging, but they will never get around to engaging me on a single one of the facts I've documented.

[Lance Payette]

Thanks for your opinion. Where's your counter research to dispute his?

Look at the roster of characters to whom MTG refers you: Mantik, Horne, Hornberger. These are 33rd-degree, card-carrying, one-dimensional, believe-anything CT proselytizers. The late John Hunt, indefatigable document hound, was a purchasing manager at Jamestown Distributors, purveyors of building a maintenance products; his essay relies heavily on Mantik. I don't mean to demean any of these individuals, but fallacious appeals to fantastically biased "authorities" such as these are not what research looks like.

For an entirely CT-oriented but at least somewhat more balanced discussion, I kind of like Gary Aguilar's "How Five Investigations Into JFK's Medical/Autopsy Evidence Got It Wrong," https://www.history-matters.com/essays/jfkmed/How5Investigations/How5InvestigationsGotItWrong_tabfig.htm. What he means by "got it wrong," of course, is that all five investigations reached conclusions CTers don't like. I have no problem acknowledging legitimate puzzles and conflicts in the evidence, but MTG's work is neither research nor balanced discussion.

[Paul J Cummings]

You keep proving my point. Where is your research that counters his? He went into detail on it but I've yet to see you or anyone refute it. I'm done asking for the counters because It's multiple times with the same takes. Several people in here are more interested in a mob mentality of attacking the person instead of the content.

Look at the roster of characters to whom MTG refers you: Mantik, Horne, Hornberger. These are 33rd-degree, card-carrying, one-dimensional, believe-anything CT proselytizers. The late John Hunt, indefatigable document hound, was a purchasing manager at Jamestown Distributors, purveyors of building a maintenance products; his essay relies heavily on Mantik. I don't mean to demean any of these individuals, but fallacious appeals to fantastically biased "authorities" such as these are not what research looks like.

For an entirely CT-oriented but at least somewhat more balanced discussion, I kind of like Gary Aguilar's "How Five Investigations Into JFK's Medical/Autopsy Evidence Got It Wrong," https://www.history-matters.com/essays/jfkmed/How5Investigations/How5InvestigationsGotItWrong_tabfig.htm. What he means by "got it wrong," of course, is that all five investigations reached conclusions CTers don't like. I have no problem acknowledging legitimate puzzles and conflicts in the evidence, but MTG's work is neither research nor balanced discussion.

[Lance Payette]

You keep proving my point. Where is your research that counters his? He went into detail on it but I've yet to see you or anyone refute it. I'm done asking for the counters because It's multiple times with the same takes. Several people in here are more interested in a mob mentality of attacking the person instead of the content.

Because I am a kindly and patient sort, I will humor you and MTG to the tune of one more post. I have investigated some 20 or so nuggets of conspiracy gospel. My batting average is 1.000. Not one - not one - has withstood scrutiny. Exposing each of these has been an absurd amount of work, totally out of proportion to what it was worth. If I were billing at my hourly rate when I was a lawyer, each of these would have been a $15K project. Moreover, the exercise was entirely futile. Exposing the factoid changed nothing. It went right being a nugget of conspiracy gospel. By the fifth factoid or so, I accepted that I was doing this for my own self-amusement and mental exercise.

What MTG offers is neither "research" nor "facts." It's a bunch of conspiracy factoids supported by fallacious appeals to dubious CT "authorities." My normal factoid-busting procedure would be to take one of his nuggets and examine it closely to see if it withstands scrutiny. BUT I'M NOT GONNA DO IT. Why? Because MTG has established to my satisfaction that he is 33rd-degree CT nutcase. He is not worth the amount of time and effort that it takes to expose ONE LITTLE FACTOID. If you and MTG want to pretend that this means those of us who decline to engage with him are "hiding" and "avoiding" his "facts," I really don't give a steaming bowl of bat guano. I'm frankly mystified that anyone wastes time engaging with him; it just gives a veneer of credibility to his crap.

The stuff he raises here has been masturbated over ad nauseam. Here is one of many threads from the Ed Forum where these topics are discussed: https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/30083-why-do-some-conspiracy-theorists-accept-the-x-rays-and-autopsy-photos-as-genuine/ As usual, Pat Speer - who knows 100X more about the medical evidence than I do - ends up being the nemesis of those who, like MTG, think the autopsy x-rays and photos are either altered or fake. MTG insists the brain photos are not JFK's head. If that sounds plausible to you, fine. It doesn't sound to me like a factoid worth busting even if I had the medical expertise to do so. The one point Pat makes is precisely what I made above: there is virtually no area of the medical evidence as to which there is a consensus, so how would one go about "refuting" MTG's supposed "facts" even if one wanted to attempt to do so?

MTG's contributions are just one-dimensional CT screeds. As stated, his reliance on body-alteration fanatics like Mantik, Horne and Hornberger - whose stuff strikes me as pulp science fiction, unworthy of being taken seriously - should tell you something. A genuine contribution would be to carefully collect what everyone who has considered the autopsy x-rays and photos has had to say about them and perhaps have a new group of qualified experts consider the issue and try to make sense of the differing opinions. As a former lawyer, I can tell you that real research is a hell of a lot of work and not what MTG does. I once wrote a completely inconsequential law review article that ended up being published in the obscure Idaho Law Review; I took two weeks off of work to finish the silly thing and just about worked myself into a breakdown. MTG wouldn't know research if it bit him in the butt.

[Paul J Cummings]

I don't come here for humor. What entails your research to dispute his? I've yet to see you do it or show it in this thread. I don't know why I'm responding because it appears you're just arrogant enough to feel like it's benneath you to counter. How about countering instead of the personal attacks? We should just assume everyone on this site is familiar with your research on this subject?

Definition of Research. Research is a systematic and intentional process of investigation designed to discover new knowledge, validate existing theories, or solve specific problems. It relies on structured methodologies to collect, analyze, and interpret data, ultimately contributing to a broader or generalizable understanding of a topic