Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
1
Thank you, you are doing precisely what I described in my original post! "Ghosts" are an UNDENIABLE phenomenon. The issue is, WHAT IS that phenomenon? There are literally hundreds of thousands of credibly reported ghost experiences spanning all of human history. The best 1000 cases, with which I guarantee you are not familiar, involve multiple highly credible witnesses and/or essentially identical reports of the ghost by witnesses who neither knew each other or anything about the ghost until they saw it. Cable TV is emphatically NOT full of shows about the phenomenon. It is full of fame-seeking crackpots with tinny "ghost detectors" who would shit their knickers if they encountered the real, well-documented phenomenon. To deny the existence of ghosts as a phenomenon would call into question everything that humans report about anything.

A similar but much more recent phenomenon is the "alien abduction" phenomenon. I don't happen to believe the explanation is "aliens" who are "abducting" humans. I really have no good explanation. Nevertheless, the number of reports and the consistency of reports from around the globe, from American medical professionals to African tribesmen, cannot be dismissed as though the phenomenon simply didn't exist. Something is going that has been termed "alien abductions" because that's what many people insist has happened to them. The rational response is not "There ain't no such thing" but rather "What the hell is this phenomenon?"

WITHOUT EXCEPTION, across almost all the fields of weirdness, those who insist "There ain't no such thing" are completely uninformed about the phenomenon.

It's a lot of fun to believe in ghosts.  People are projecting a desire to be entertained, cope with boredom, tell stories, hope that there might be some type of life after death, deal with grief and loss.  Most of the fake spiritualists preyed on the grief of family members who wanted to communicate with their dead relatives.  Lots of different reasons.  For most people, they like to be scared.  That's why horror movies are a genre.  Who wants to be the guy around the campfire who says it's all nonsense?  And if ghosts are the spirits of dead people, then why do they haunt us with their clothes on?  Civil war ghosts are seen wearing uniforms etc.  A silly question but the answer might be revealing.  It's because that is the way in which the living conjure them up in their imagination or via hoaxes. 
2
There are no ghosts, space aliens, Bigfoot, Loch Ness monster etc.   It's just fun for some people to pass the time.  Cable TV is full of shows about all the above.  Very similar to those that believe in a JFK conspiracy.  It's more interesting to entertain such fantasies than accept the boring reality.  It's mostly harmless unless someone goes off the deep end.  My guess is that many people who purport to believe in such things actually do not.

Thank you, you are doing precisely what I described in my original post! "Ghosts" are an UNDENIABLE phenomenon. The issue is, WHAT IS that phenomenon? There are literally hundreds of thousands of credibly reported ghost experiences spanning all of human history. The best 1000 cases, with which I guarantee you are not familiar, involve multiple highly credible witnesses and/or essentially identical reports of the ghost by witnesses who neither knew each other or anything about the ghost until they saw it. Cable TV is emphatically NOT full of shows about the phenomenon. It is full of fame-seeking crackpots with tinny "ghost detectors" who would shit their knickers if they encountered the real, well-documented phenomenon. To deny the existence of ghosts as a phenomenon would call into question everything that humans report about anything.

A similar but much more recent phenomenon is the "alien abduction" phenomenon. I don't happen to believe the explanation is "aliens" who are "abducting" humans. I really have no good explanation. Nevertheless, the number of reports and the consistency of reports from around the globe, from American medical professionals to African tribesmen, cannot be dismissed as though the phenomenon simply didn't exist. Something is going that has been termed "alien abductions" because that's what many people insist has happened to them. The rational response is not "There ain't no such thing" but rather "What the hell is this phenomenon?"

WITHOUT EXCEPTION, across almost all the fields of weirdness, those who insist "There ain't no such thing" are completely uninformed about the phenomenon.
3
The WCR and Reclaiming History are where to steer anyone who wants to know the truth of the JFKA without having the waters muddied by a bunch of nonsensical conspiracy crap.

The [Bible is] where to steer anyone who wants to know the truth of [reality] without having the waters muddied by a bunch of nonsensical [history and science] crap.

See how that works? Religious zealots are all the same, even if their religion is the LN narrative or Harvey and Lee:D :D :D
4
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,
are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside." 14th Amendment

I don't understand. You are a citizen where you were born.
How would you not be?

So an expectant mother from China or any foreign country can come here, give birth, return to their country, and the child could grow up there, and still vote in US elections via the leftist mail in ballot and otherwise enjoy the privileges of US citizenship?  The vast majority of countries do not allow this.  Biden allowed 20 or more million people to enter illegally.   This becomes a major crisis when a president allows tens of millions of illegal aliens to enter the country in violation of the federal immigration laws.   Just another reason for ICE to accelerate the deportations of those who are here illegally.
5
There are no ghosts, space aliens, Bigfoot, Loch Ness monster etc.   It's just fun for some people to pass the time.  Cable TV is full of shows about all the above.  Very similar to those that believe in a JFK conspiracy.  It's more interesting to entertain such fantasies than accept the boring reality.  It's mostly harmless unless someone goes off the deep end.  My guess is that many people who purport to believe in such things actually do not.
6
Now, as for Bugliosi's book, I would bet good money that not one of you has read any of the scholarly critiques of the book. These critiques document that Bugliosi made many erroneous claims on important issues, and that the book's errors far outweigh its valid points.

For those who might be interested, here are some of the critical scholarly reviews of Bugliosi's book:

Dr. Gary Aguilar's review:
https://www.maryferrell.org/pages/Essay_-_Review_of_Reclaiming_History.html

Dr. David Wrone's review:
https://www.maryferrell.org/pages/Essay_-_Vincent_Bugliosis_Misnamed_Reclaiming_History.html

Michael Green's review:
https://www.maryferrell.org/pages/Essay_-_Besmirching_History.html

Pat Speer's review:
https://www.reclaiminghistory.org/speer_2007-07-24.htm
 
Dr. Don Thomas's reviews:
https://www.maryferrell.org/pages/Essay_-_Rewriting_History_-_Bugliosi_Parses_the_Testimony.html
https://www.maryferrell.org/pages/Essay_-_Debugging_Bugliosi.html

Former HSCA investigator Gaeton Fonzi's review:
https://www.maryferrell.org/pages/Essay_-_Reply_From_a_Conspiracy_Believer.html

Dr. Jerry McKnight's review:
https://www.maryferrell.org/pages/Essay_-_Bugliosi_Fails_to_Resuscitate_the_Single-Bullet_Theory.html

Dr. Josiah Thompson's review:
https://www.maryferrell.org/pages/Essay_-_Epic_Book_Resurrects_Finding_That_Oswald_Acted_Alone_in_killing_JFK.html

I neglected to mention Milicent Cranor's revealing critique of Bugliosi's book Reclaiming History:

https://www.maryferrell.org/pages/Essay_-_A_Crime_Scene_Between_Two_Hard_Covers.html

She documents that Bugliosi repeatedly misrepresented the medical evidence and ignored the contradictory results of Lattimer's wound ballistics tests.

Cranor is a currently a senior editor at WhoWhatWhy. She previously worked as an editor of legal and scientific documents and has co-authored numerous peer-reviewed articles for medical journals.

Here are some excerpt from her review:

You will not learn from Bugliosi that the majority of Parkland doctors said the [throat] wound was not ragged. What is more seriously deceptive is that Bugliosi put these words — “ragged edges” — into the mouths of doctors who in fact said the opposite.

Reference 1069 only documents Humes’s questionable claim that, from Malcolm O. Perry, he learned for the first time JFK had a bullet wound in his throat. But Perry never told Humes or anyone else that the wound had “ragged edges.”

Perry implied the wound was definitely not ragged:

“I indicated that the neck wound appeared like an entrance wound, and I based this mainly on its size and the fact that exit wounds in general tend to be somewhat ragged” (7 HSCA 312).

Elsewhere, Perry told the WC that the edges were “neither ragged nor were they punched out, but rather clean.” (3 WCH 372). . . .

Carrico testified in at least two places the [throat] wound was “rather round and there were no jagged edges or stellate lacerations.” (6 WCH 3); “fairly round, had no jagged edges.” (3 WCH 362)

Significant omission: The statement, by Charles R. Baxter, that came immediately before the above selection: “It did not appear to be a jagged wound such as one would expect with a very high velocity rifle bullet.” (6 WCH 42)

[Quoting Bugliosi]"The flying fragments of rib and soft tissue, which were blown out by the tumbling bullet, ripped a large ragged hole in both the shirt and the jacket, just as Oswald’s bullet had done in Dealey Plaza.” (Bugliosi, Endnotes, p.326)

The hole in the front of the governor’s shirt was large, no doubt due to exiting rib fragments, but the hole in the front of the jacket was created only by the bullet, and the small size of this hole indicates the bullet exited straight on, i.e., not sideways, and thus it was not tumbling.

Why would Bugliosi lie about the hole in Connally’s jacket? Why would he want it to appear as though the bullet had exited tumbling?

(1) The alleged tumbling is allegedly caused by the bullet’s alleged journey through JFK.

(2) The alleged tumbling is allegedly associated with the outward movement of Connally’s jacket lapel.

The false evidence concerning the actual size of the hole in Connally’s jacket was manufactured by the late John K. Lattimer, M.D., a well known urologist with powerful connections who wrote several articles, all hard sell and soft science — infomercials, really — that promoted the many aspects of the lone assassin theory. Lattimer’s disinformation on the ballistics of the single bullet theory was based on experiments using mock-ups of Kennedy and Connally (reference #4 below). Lattimer presumably shot Carcano bullets through these mock-ups, then presented various bits of data from the experiments, including the size of the mock torso’s back wound, and the experiment’s jacket lapel — both used to prove the bullet was tumbling.

Lattimer then falsely claimed that the bullet holes in the experiments matched those in the actual case. The similarity of these lies is interesting, expressed here in millimeters for easy comparison:

Back wound, actual size: 15mm
Size per Lattimer: 30mm
Hole in lapel, actual size: 9mm
Size per Lattimer: 30mm

Bugliosi was also very careful in the way he reported a second set of experiments performed by Lattimer to complement the first. When Lattimer fired directly at the simulated torso alone, with no intervening target representing Kennedy’s neck, the mock-up ribs did not push out the lapel, the bullet did not exit tumbling — it came out straight, and the hole in the experimental jacket lapel was small. In Lattimer’s own words, “The jacket did not bulge out and the lapel did not turn over.... With the bullet going straight ahead, wounds to the rib, shirt and jacket were punctate....”

But look how Bugliosi avoids the significant details of this experiment. Not one word from Bugliosi on the size of the hole in the front of the jacket used in the experiment.


7
Really? I wonder aloud again if you suffer from bouts of amnesia. Go back and read our exchanges about when Connally was hit.

And, I'm still waiting for you to explain how a bullet whose impact Connally said felt like someone pounded him hard with their fist would have caused "JBC flipping his arm upward at Z226" but would not have driven his shoulder downward, would not have caused his cheeks to puff, and would not have caused a pained expression to appear on his face until Z238, when we know from forensic science that the pained expression alone would have occurred no more than 250 milliseconds after the moment of impact.

Of course, it's interesting and telling that Connally himself, the guy who actually experienced the wounding, identified Z234 as the moment of impact, which dovetails perfectly with what forensic science tell us about how long it would have taken for his shoulder to be driven downward, for the air forced from his lungs to cause his cheeks to puff, and for a pained expression to appear on his face.

But you guys have to ignore this plain, obvious evidence because it destroys your SBT fantasy.

It wasn't a dodge. McAdams would constantly repeat claims that had been thoroughly answered, just as you and other WC believers do here all the time.

It's funny how you cite Wecht when you like what he said, which is rarely, but then you turn around and trash him the rest of the time.

Anyway, you obviously don't know that Dr. Wecht changed his mind about pre-autopsy surgery once he read Horne's research and discussed the matter with Horne and Mantik. In fact, Dr. Wecht strongly endorsed Dr. Mantik's 2014 book JFK's Head Wounds, which, among many other things, lays out the essentials of the evidence for pre-autopsy surgery.

It's worth repeating for the sake of our readers that you have such a poor handle on JFKA research that just a few weeks ago you erroneously claimed that Dr. Wecht concurred with all but one of the FPP's major conclusions. This statement proves you had not even read his FPP dissent.

I notice you ignored the point that mortician Tom Robinson saw Humes sawing on the skull and that Robinson specified that the damage to the top of the skull was done by the autopsy doctors. None of the medical technicians at the autopsy recalled seeing this, because Robinson arrived before the autopsy began and because the med techs had not arrived yet.

Why do you suppose Humes suspiciously asked aloud, during the autopsy, if there had been surgery done to the head in Dallas?

Before you blunder and embarrass yourself again, you might, just this once, just for once, want to read some of the research that's been done on this issue before you comment on it again. The following article is a good introduction on the subject:

https://www.fff.org/explore-freedom/article/dominick-armentanos-fallacious-disagreement-with-doug-hornes-new-jfk-documentary/ 

The article was written by Jacob Hornberger, who holds degrees in economics and law, is a former university professor, and is now the president of the Future of Freedom Foundation.

I see you're predictably trying to dismiss Doug Horne's historic research on this issue by claiming that anyone who posits pre-autopsy surgery should not be taken seriously. Yeah, never mind that Horne was the Chief Analyst for Military Records for the ARRB, that he took part in nearly all of the ARRB's historic interviews with the autopsy witnesses, and that he holds a degree in history.

Unlike you, Washington Post editor George Lardner was impressed with Horne's research and even found Horne's evidence that the autopsy brain photos do not show JFK's brain to be credible:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1998/11/10/archive-photos-not-of-jfks-brain-concludes-aide-to-review-board/53b0858e-d0ed-4d9c-9d30-eda5ae71a84a/

It is amusing that you so fervently dismiss the idea of pre-autopsy surgery, without having read any of the research that supports it, and then you turn around and defend the preposterous SBT, a ludicrous theory (1) that has been refuted by every single wound ballistics test that was intended to duplicate it, and (2) that was definitively debunked by the 2023 Knott Laboratory SBT trajectory analysis, the most sophisticated and data-intensive SBT trajectory analysis ever done.

Phew! This nonsense is further proof that you have no business pretending to know enough about the JFK case to comment on it. The forum needs to create a sub-forum for people who know little about the case and who want to learn more. That's where you belong.

Now, no, it is certainly not "absolutely ridiculous" to think that a bullet could have only penetrated a few inches into Kennedy's back. The bullet could have been a squib load, i.e., a bullet with a defective cartridge that contained too little gunpowder. This would explain why so many witnesses said one of the shots sounded different than the others.

It is unfortunate that you routinely use adamant verbiage when making erroneous claims. You keep pretending that you have enough knowledge to be making categorical assertions, when you have no business doing so.

I notice you didn't say one word about the disclosed evidence that the autopsy doctors determined with absolute certainty that the back wound had no exit point, that they even probed the wound after removing the chest organs, and that the pathologists and the other men around the autopsy table could see the end of the probe pushing up against the lining of the chest cavity. BTW, this is the same thing that medical technician James Jenkins stated in a recorded interview in the 1970s.

I notice you said nothing about the fact that we know from the released transcript of the 1/27/64 WC executive session alone that the first two drafts of the autopsy report said nothing about the throat wound being an exit point for the back wound. One draft said the back wound had no exit point and said nothing about the throat wound as any kind of exit point. The other draft said that a fragment from the head shot caused the throat wound and said nothing about any exit point for the back wound.

The ARRB materials shed historic light on this vital disclosure by revealing that the autopsy doctors, along with the medical technicians and others who were near the autopsy table, could see with their own eyes that the back wound had no exit point.

These facts have been known since the late 1990s, but you guys have refused to face them and are still peddling the SBT myth.

M Griffith: "Of course, it's interesting and telling that Connally himself, the guy who actually experienced the wounding, identified Z234 as the moment of impact, which dovetails perfectly with what forensic science tell us about how long it would have taken for his shoulder to be driven downward, for the air forced from his lungs to cause his cheeks to puff, and for a pained expression to appear on his face."

According to JBC he did not feel any pain. Can you ask Dr Mantik how that could be when he suffered so horrific injuries, no doubt he can make up some BS to cover it.

Senator COOPER. That is when you heard the first rifleshot?
Governor CONNALLY. This was after I heard the first rifleshot. There was no pain connected with it. There was no particular burning sensation. There was nothing more than that. I think you would feel almost the identical sensation I felt if someone came up behind you and just, with a short jab, hit you with a doubled-up fist just below the shoulder blade.


Now, no, it is certainly not "absolutely ridiculous" to think that a bullet could have only penetrated a few inches into Kennedy's back. The bullet could have been a squib load, i.e., a bullet with a defective cartridge that contained too little gunpowder. This would explain why so many witnesses said one of the shots sounded different than the others.


A squib load is a firearm malfunction where a bullet does not have enough force to exit the barrel, becoming lodged and creating a dangerous obstruction.

Exactly how do you aim to place a shot that has to little of powder to achieve a proper trajectory. Can you ask lame brain DR Mantik, maybe he knows something about rifle rounds unlike his medical opinions.

The only thing that is still puzzling is who is the bigger con artist, M Griffith or Dr Mantik.
8
I think we can safely rule out the single bullet as the cause of Tague's minor injury.
The scientist would use the evidence to test the theory.   In this case you are using the theory to test the evidence. If the evidence doesn’t fit the theory you reject the evidence.  And it is not just Tague’s evidence. What is remarkable is that no one thinks this is a problem except me (and most of the CTers, except when it applies to their own theories).

Quote
For a while, I theorized that it might not have been caused by a shot at all but maybe a pebble tossed up by the traffic on Main St. but when I read there was a chip in the curb with a lead smear, that kind of ruled that out.
So if the road had deflected the fragment leaving nothing that anyone observed you would be arguing that theory... hmm.
9
TG--

OK, the accurate description of Shaw is that he was a "highly paid contract source."

If JKM and the CIA believe that to be true, then it was likely true.

So the CIA had Shaw "under contract" to provide information. So what? The contract may have been a formality of a sort.

Shaw was asked to perform certain tasks, and if he felt he could, then he did.

There is little doubt Shaw was a CIA asset, and evidently important in the 1950s, important enough to be "highly paid."

10
I remember you dodging it many times. I don't recall you addressing it even once.

Really? I wonder aloud again if you suffer from bouts of amnesia. Go back and read our exchanges about when Connally was hit.

And, I'm still waiting for you to explain how a bullet whose impact Connally said felt like someone pounded him hard with their fist would have caused "JBC flipping his arm upward at Z226" but would not have driven his shoulder downward, would not have caused his cheeks to puff, and would not have caused a pained expression to appear on his face until Z238, when we know from forensic science that the pained expression alone would have occurred no more than 250 milliseconds after the moment of impact.

Of course, it's interesting and telling that Connally himself, the guy who actually experienced the wounding, identified Z234 as the moment of impact, which dovetails perfectly with what forensic science tell us about how long it would have taken for his shoulder to be driven downward, for the air forced from his lungs to cause his cheeks to puff, and for a pained expression to appear on his face.

But you guys have to ignore this plain, obvious evidence because it destroys your SBT fantasy.

"I've already answered that" was a favorite dodge of Tony Marsh's on John McAdams' forum. He resorted to it whenever presented with inconvenient facts. He would invariably follow it with "Learn to Google".

It wasn't a dodge. McAdams would constantly repeat claims that had been thoroughly answered, just as you and other WC believers do here all the time.

Dr. Cyril Wecht scoffed at the theory presented by David Lifton. I can't find the exact quote but it essentially said that you could take a team of the best surgeons in the world and they couldn't perform post-mortem surgery that wouldn't be instantly recognizable by a first year medical student.

It's funny how you cite Wecht when you like what he said, which is rarely, but then you turn around and trash him the rest of the time.

Anyway, you obviously don't know that Dr. Wecht changed his mind about pre-autopsy surgery once he read Horne's research and discussed the matter with Horne and Mantik. In fact, Dr. Wecht strongly endorsed Dr. Mantik's 2014 book JFK's Head Wounds, which, among many other things, lays out the essentials of the evidence for pre-autopsy surgery.

It's worth repeating for the sake of our readers that you have such a poor handle on JFKA research that just a few weeks ago you erroneously claimed that Dr. Wecht concurred with all but one of the FPP's major conclusions. This statement proves you had not even read his FPP dissent.

I notice you ignored the point that mortician Tom Robinson saw Humes sawing on the skull and that Robinson specified that the damage to the top of the skull was done by the autopsy doctors. None of the medical technicians at the autopsy recalled seeing this, because Robinson arrived before the autopsy began and because the med techs had not arrived yet.

Why do you suppose Humes suspiciously asked aloud, during the autopsy, if there had been surgery done to the head in Dallas?

Before you blunder and embarrass yourself again, you might, just this once, just for once, want to read some of the research that's been done on this issue before you comment on it again. The following article is a good introduction on the subject:

https://www.fff.org/explore-freedom/article/dominick-armentanos-fallacious-disagreement-with-doug-hornes-new-jfk-documentary/ 

The article was written by Jacob Hornberger, who holds degrees in economics and law, is a former university professor, and is now the president of the Future of Freedom Foundation.

I see you're predictably trying to dismiss Doug Horne's historic research on this issue by claiming that anyone who posits pre-autopsy surgery should not be taken seriously. Yeah, never mind that Horne was the Chief Analyst for Military Records for the ARRB, that he took part in nearly all of the ARRB's historic interviews with the autopsy witnesses, and that he holds a degree in history.

Unlike you, Washington Post editor George Lardner was impressed with Horne's research and even found Horne's evidence that the autopsy brain photos do not show JFK's brain to be credible:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1998/11/10/archive-photos-not-of-jfks-brain-concludes-aide-to-review-board/53b0858e-d0ed-4d9c-9d30-eda5ae71a84a/

It is amusing that you so fervently dismiss the idea of pre-autopsy surgery, without having read any of the research that supports it, and then you turn around and defend the preposterous SBT, a ludicrous theory (1) that has been refuted by every single wound ballistics test that was intended to duplicate it, and (2) that was definitively debunked by the 2023 Knott Laboratory SBT trajectory analysis, the most sophisticated and data-intensive SBT trajectory analysis ever done.

It is absolutely ridiculous to think a bullet would have only penetrated a few inches into JFK's back and then fallen out. Even lower velocity handgun ammo has far more penetration than that.

Phew! This nonsense is further proof that you have no business pretending to know enough about the JFK case to comment on it. The forum needs to create a sub-forum for people who know little about the case and who want to learn more. That's where you belong.

Now, no, it is certainly not "absolutely ridiculous" to think that a bullet could have only penetrated a few inches into Kennedy's back. The bullet could have been a squib load, i.e., a bullet with a defective cartridge that contained too little gunpowder. This would explain why so many witnesses said one of the shots sounded different than the others.

It is unfortunate that you routinely use adamant verbiage when making erroneous claims. You keep pretending that you have enough knowledge to be making categorical assertions, when you have no business doing so.

I notice you didn't say one word about the disclosed evidence that the autopsy doctors determined with absolute certainty that the back wound had no exit point, that they even probed the wound after removing the chest organs, and that the pathologists and the other men around the autopsy table could see the end of the probe pushing up against the lining of the chest cavity. BTW, this is the same thing that medical technician James Jenkins stated in a recorded interview in the 1970s.

I notice you said nothing about the fact that we know from the released transcript of the 1/27/64 WC executive session alone that the first two drafts of the autopsy report said nothing about the throat wound being an exit point for the back wound. One draft said the back wound had no exit point and said nothing about the throat wound as any kind of exit point. The other draft said that a fragment from the head shot caused the throat wound and said nothing about any exit point for the back wound.

The ARRB materials shed historic light on this vital disclosure by revealing that the autopsy doctors, along with the medical technicians and others who were near the autopsy table, could see with their own eyes that the back wound had no exit point.

These facts have been known since the late 1990s, but you guys have refused to face them and are still peddling the SBT myth.
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10