JFK Assassination Forum

Ignore is such a beautiful feature when it comes to John Corbett.

It comes from knowing where the focus should be placed. I choose to focus on solid evidence, that would be accepted by our criminal courts. That includes forensics, medical evidence, photographic evidence, expert testimony, etc. It also includes eye and ear witness accounts with the caveat that all such accounts should be scrutinized. Having served on four juries, two criminal and two civil, I know that is how judge's instruct jurors to treat such evidence and that is what I try to do with witness statements regarding the JFKA. That excludes the opinions of amateur sleuths and other people offering opinions about the evidence that falls outside their area of expertise.

I was a bit disappointed when I went on Google Earth a year or two ago and discovered the entire neighborhood around 10th and Patton had been razed and replaced with modern houses. It also appeared a new school had been built that cutoff 10th St from Beckley. It looks much different than it did when I visited it in 2008. All the old houses were still standing, probably much the way it looked in 1963. I guess it's unrealistic to think neighborhoods aren't going to change over 60 years.

I had the same feeling when I visited my old home town of Omaha a few years ago. The neighborhood I grew up in was largely the same but so much nearby it had changed dramatically.

Just who were these "plotters" and how do you know what they were thinking?

Oh, my. Weeks ago you rejected the science of optical-density measurement because it proves the autopsy skull x-rays have been altered.

Wrong. I didn't reject the science. I rejected your FUBAR interpretation of he science. You keep claiming you have proved things which you rarely if ever have done.

Then, last week you rejected the science of trajectory analysis because it refutes the idea of a sixth-floor shooter as the only gunman.

Again, I don't reject the science. I reject your looney idea that you are an authority on the science.

And, now, here you are rejecting the science of wound ballistics testing because it refutes an FMJ-bullet head shot (it also refutes the SBT).

And now, you are trying to present yourself as an expert on wound ballistics.

It should tell you something about your version of the shooting that you keep having to reject scientific evidence. Rather than judge science by your theory, why not judge your theory by science?

I do, but unlike you, I leave it to scientists to interpret the science and specifically the scientists who are experts in the field upon which they are experts. For example, I don't turn to a radiation oncologist to interpret the medical forensic evidence. I turn to recognized medical examiners in that field.

This also gets back to your long-standing rejection of the science of acoustical identification of gunfire because it proves there were at least four shots fired during the assassination.

Quote

I'm hardly alone in rejecting that FUBAR study. Even the BBN, who you cited to support that study, concluded there was only a 50% chance there had been a fourth shot from the GK, not the 95% the study claimed. That means there is an equal chance there was not a shot from the GK. The lack of any forensic or eyewitness evidence of a shooter from he GK tilts the probability sharply in favor of the latter possibility.

Quote

You reject it even though you have not even read the HSCA's extensive materials on the acoustical evidence and have not read a single scholarly defense of the acoustical evidence.

What scholar has ever defended the acoustical study?

Quote

You cited the NRC/NAS panel's critique of the acoustical evidence, obviously not realizing that the NAS panel admitted that there was a 93% probability that the timing-moving correlations identified by the BBN acoustical scientists occurred because the dictabelt recorded gunfire in Dealey Plaza, and that there was a 77.7% chance that the 144.9 impulse pattern was gunfire from the grassy knoll.

Wrong. BBN only said there was a 50% chance of a shot from the GK.

Quote

I suspect you still do not know that acoustical science has been used in other gunshot cases to determine the origin of gunfire, such as the 1970 Kent State shooting.

For any readers who are interested in a detailed introduction to the HSCA's acoustical evidence, please see my article "The HSCA’s Acoustical Evidence: Proof of a Second Gunman," https://drive.google.com/file/d/1KvdvH8gTqFgMn-2vTI5ppg_egWxRKg9U/view.

I don't reject acoustical science. I reject FUBAR attempts at it.

Numerous scholars have uncovered serious problems, contradictions, and clear cases of fraud in the JFK assassination medical evidence, ballistics evidence, crime-scene evidence, and other evidence. This should not be surprising if we remember the following facts:

-- The autopsy materials and other materials that the Warren Commission (WC) sealed were not supposed to be released until 2039. The WC put a 75-year seal on those records. Thus, those involved in the cover-up believed that no one would see those materials for another 75 years (1964-2039).

WC apologists often ask, "How could any halfway intelligent cover-up not have destroyed this evidence?" Answer: One, because they didn't think anyone would see it for 75 years. Two, because they didn't realize the implications of some of the evidence at the time. Three, because criminals sometimes make mistakes, some of them bad ones.

Few conspiracies are perfect. Even carefully planned military operations sometimes go wrong because a few things were overlooked or misjudged.

-- The historic evidence revealed in the House Select Committee on Assassinations' (HSCA's) sealed documents by the Assassination Records Review Board (ARRB) in the 1990s was not supposed to be released until 2029. The HSCA put a 50-year seal on those records. Thus, they thought it would be another 50 years before anyone would read the Lopez-Hardway report on the Oswald impersonations in Mexico City two months before the assassination and the explosive information disclosed by the autopsy witnesses and the Dallas doctors and nurses, for example.

-- The plotters could not have known in 1963 that new scientific disciplines would later provide hard evidence of conspiracy. They could not have known that the science of optical-density measurement would later prove that the autopsy x-rays were altered, and that the science of acoustical identification of gunfire would later prove that more than three shots were fired during the assassination and that one of the shots came from the grassy knoll.

And, again, the WC placed a 75-year seal on the autopsy photos and x-rays, so the plotters thought that no one would even see those materials for 75 years, long after the plotters would be dead and gone.

-- The plotters most likely believed that their cover-up version of the shooting would be readily, uncritically accepted by the vast majority of Americans, since back then most Americans believed that when all government officials from both parties said the same thing about a major event they must be telling the truth. Surely the plotters were surprised when opinion polls done a few years after the Warren Report was published revealed that over 60% of Americans doubted that only one man was behind JFK's death.

-- The plotters were not all powerful and omnipresent, and some of their cover-up operatives made mistakes, some of them severe. Most of the people who aided in the cover-up were not part of the conspiracy and did not realize they were helping to cover up a high-level assassination plot. Many of them believed they were acting patriotically and/or in the interest of national security. Some of them were ordered to do what they did.

This is why some evidence of multiple shooters and of a cover-up escaped the notice of the cover-up operatives. Not all FBI agents misrepresented or suppressed what witnesses told them. Not all local Dallas law enforcement personnel misrepresented the physical evidence and what witnesses told them. Not all FBI lab personnel misstated or suppressed the results of the lab's findings. Most of the autopsy witnesses told the truth about JFK's wounds and about the autopsy.