JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion & Debate > JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion And Debate
Bugliosi's "Conclusion of No Conspiracy"
Michael Walton:
A government committee hand-picked by LBJ got it wrong in 1964.
A government committee got it right in 1978.
It's always amazing to me that no LNer ever mentions the '78 conclusion. It's always the '64 conclusion, all of the time.
The '78 conclusion, though ultra-conservative in its conclusion, did it's job. Yes, it could have gone much, much further but did not. The '78 committee was started because the Church hearings in DC were started. Those hearings were started because the population was outraged that a never-before-seen copy of the Z film was shown nationwide. That film showed that someone taking a high-powered bullet to the back of the head is not slinged backward as seen in the film, as if someone pushed the front of their head backward. It was basic common sense and all-too-obvious.
As Thompson said, who cares what Bugliosi wrote - or anyone for that matter?
https://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/select-committee-report/summary.html
Mitch Todd:
--- Quote from: Michael Walton on June 10, 2018, 07:58:25 PM ---A government committee hand-picked by LBJ got it wrong in 1964.
A government committee got it right in 1978.
It's always amazing to me that no LNer ever mentions the '78 conclusion. It's always the '64 conclusion, all of the time.
The '78 conclusion, though ultra-conservative in its conclusion, did it's job. Yes, it could have gone much, much further but did not. The '78 committee was started because the Church hearings in DC were started. Those hearings were started because the population was outraged that a never-before-seen copy of the Z film was shown nationwide. That film showed that someone taking a high-powered bullet to the back of the head is not slinged backward as seen in the film, as if someone pushed the front of their head backward. It was basic common sense and all-too-obvious.
As Thompson said, who cares what Bugliosi wrote - or anyone for that matter?
https://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/select-committee-report/summary.html
--- End quote ---
The HSCA was about to come to the same conclusion as the WC until the Weiss/Aschkenasy report came out. The problem is, the W/A report is wrong. Steve Barber's discovery of the "hold everything" message created two fatal problems for WA study. The first is timing: we know from the context of the message itself that it came after the last shot was fired. The second is a little more esoteric. The 95% probability that Weiss and Aschkenasy calculated for the GK shot was based on an assumption that the "impulses" on the DPD recording could either be shots or just random noise. The crosstalk sits on top of the "shots" and introduces a possibility that WA didn't consider, that the "shots" are part of the Decker crosstalk. That alone invalidates the WA 95% number. Without a valid acoustic study to support a GK gunman, the HSCA report simply amplifies on the WC.
Richard Rubio:
--- Quote from: Mitch Todd on June 10, 2018, 08:52:42 PM ---The HSCA was about to come to the same conclusion as the WC until the Weiss/Aschkenasy report came out. The problem is, the W/A report is wrong. Steve Barber's discovery of the "hold everything" message created two fatal problems for WA study. The first is timing: we know from the context of the message itself that it came after the last shot was fired. The second is a little more esoteric. The 95% probability that Weiss and Aschkenasy calculated for the GK shot was based on an assumption that the "impulses" on the DPD recording could either be shots or just random noise. The crosstalk sits on top of the "shots" and introduces a possibility that WA didn't consider, that the "shots" are part of the Decker crosstalk. That alone invalidates the WA 95% number. Without a valid acoustic study to support a GK gunman, the HSCA report simply amplifies on the WC.
--- End quote ---
I think I understand that, without the dictabelt which is proven faulty, HSCA and WR are very similar.
Michael Walton:
Go by your own eyes please. I have an extremely graphic video that I could share with you on here that shows two men, taking a high-powered bullet to the back of the head and NEITHER of them are slinged backward. Taking away all of the scientific mumbo-jumbo (jet effect, acoustics, etc.) this is more than enough proof - at least for me - to me that someone taking a shot from the rear does not suddenly be slinged backward. It doesn't make sense and if you're honest with yourself after seeing it, it should put doubt into even the most rabid LNer.
I would post it for educational purposes only here but I do not know if the admins would allow it and I don't know who to ask. When I posted it many months ago on EF, some people were shocked but nothing was reported. Then months later a member there, Stancak, got pissed because I kept rebutting his stupid PM long-leg theory. When he came across the video, he suddenly became ultra-sensitive ("oh my goodness") and reported it. Then, irony of ironies, he posts Kennedy's graphic autopsy photos.
If you want to see for yourself, email me.
Bill Brown:
--- Quote from: Michael Walton on June 10, 2018, 07:58:25 PM ---A government committee hand-picked by LBJ got it wrong in 1964.
A government committee got it right in 1978.
It's always amazing to me that no LNer ever mentions the '78 conclusion. It's always the '64 conclusion, all of the time.
The '78 conclusion, though ultra-conservative in its conclusion, did it's job. Yes, it could have gone much, much further but did not. The '78 committee was started because the Church hearings in DC were started. Those hearings were started because the population was outraged that a never-before-seen copy of the Z film was shown nationwide. That film showed that someone taking a high-powered bullet to the back of the head is not slinged backward as seen in the film, as if someone pushed the front of their head backward. It was basic common sense and all-too-obvious.
As Thompson said, who cares what Bugliosi wrote - or anyone for that matter?
https://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/select-committee-report/summary.html
--- End quote ---
Please explain what conspiracy the "'78 conclusion" uncovered.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version