JFK Assassination Forum

Recent Posts

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 10

JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate / Re: Are CT'ers "Crazy"? Or LNT'ers?

« Last post by Joe Elliott on Today at 05:08:05 PM »

Does anyone deny that the HSCA, after a two-year investigation, was coming down on the side that JFK was assassinated by Oswald alone, but in a sudden rush, changed their mind because of an acoustic study that was presented in the last few weeks.

And this acoustic study seems clearly very flawed to me.

JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate / Re: The Kennedy Center

« Last post by Michael T. Griffith on Today at 05:07:48 PM »

Quote from: Joe Elliott on Today at 04:52:52 PM

I am surprised that there has not been more discussion about the Kennedy Center. Trump cannot destroy the Kennedy Center. If he bulldozes it, we will rebuild it exactly as it was, as much as possible, and it will only carry John F. Kennedy name.

Nothing in Washington D. C. will be named after Trump except, perhaps, a new sewage pipeline designed to help clean up the Potomac River.

Why are you posting this in this forum? It has nothing to do with the JFK case.

I get it: You are severely infected with Trump Derangement Syndrome. But, this is not the place for you to peddle your anti-Trump propaganda.

JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate / Re: Ultra-Liberal CTers Are Outraged Over New Book on JFK and Vietnam

« Last post by Michael T. Griffith on Today at 05:05:38 PM »

Quote from: Benjamin Cole on Today at 08:51:45 AM

MTG--

Please expand on this.

For example, one of Halberstam's primary sources, if not his leading source, was Pham Xuan An. At one point, Halberstam gushed that An had the “best military contacts in the country.” But An was actually a Viet Cong spy. Cheevers is not the first one to discuss this fact. Several other Vietnam War scholars, such as Dr. Mark Moyar, discussed this fact years ago.

ARVN Colonel Pham Ngoc Thao was a key player in the anti-Diem coup forces. Thao was the inspector general of the strategic hamlet program and was close to three main coup generals, Big Minh, Khiem, and Khanh. Thao was a key player in the aborted August coup plot. The coup generals themselves had to restrain Thao when he tried to launch a coup on October 24, before the other coup plotters were ready to act. After Diem's death, Thao persuaded General Phat to attempt a coup against General Khanh, but the coup failed. A short time later, Thao was in the process of preparing a coup against the new prime minister, Phan Huy Quat, but he had to abandon the plot and go underground when security agents arrested dozens of the coup members. It was subsequently revealed that Thao was a Viet Cong agent. His job was to foment as much trouble for the Diem government as possible, an assignment he performed masterfully.

JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate / Re: The Kennedy Center

« Last post by Richard Smith on Today at 05:02:29 PM »

Quote from: Joe Elliott on Today at 04:52:52 PM

I am surprised that there has not been more discussion about the Kennedy Center. Trump cannot destroy the Kennedy Center. If he bulldozes it, we will rebuild it exactly as it was, as much as possible, and it will only carry John F. Kennedy name.

Nothing in Washington D. C. will be named after Trump except, perhaps, a new sewage pipeline designed to help clean up the Potomac River.

A decades long and continuing propaganda campaign by the media and political establishment has affected the minds of many people to produce deep seated personal feelings about Trump. The barrage of different influence techniques on society is much more frightening than AI. A successful psyop that would make Joseph Goebbles blush. The unhinged anger and obsession with Trump is the result (i.e. TDS). Interestingly, those most affected are older, white, college educated types. The impact on that group might be explained by their prolonged exposure to the media sources that espouse this propaganda.

JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate / The Kennedy Center

« Last post by Joe Elliott on Today at 04:52:52 PM »

I am surprised that there has not been more discussion about the Kennedy Center. Trump cannot destroy the Kennedy Center. If he bulldozes it, we will rebuild it exactly as it was, as much as possible, and it will only carry John F. Kennedy name.

Nothing in Washington D. C. will be named after Trump except, perhaps, a new sewage pipeline designed to help clean up the Potomac River.

JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate / Andrew Iler Cannot Clean Up Education Forum

« Last post by Benjamin Cole on Today at 04:31:08 PM »

Andrew Iler recently assumed ownership of the the Education Forum-JFKA, and engaged in a partial housecleaning, notably deposing William Niedernut, an overt anti-Semitic crackpot who somehow became a "moderator" with the approval of founder John Simkin.

Niedernut promoted crank theories that Israelis and Jews perped 9.11, intentionally sank the USS Liberty in 1967, and he promoted authors who held that the JFKA and RFKA were Mossad plots. That barely scratches the surface, but you get the idea.

But despite Niedernut's undoing, the "Mossad perped the JFKA narrative" is increasingly common in the EF-JFKA, although that theory is now paired with Mossad perping Watergate too!

See: https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/32198-the-jfk-assassination-and-the-link-with-other-political-conspiracies-1963-2026/page/4/

As of now, Iler appears to fighting a losing battle to create a forum that does not reek of crackpot-ism and rank ethnic biases. It is the nature of CT'er crowds to believe in dark (and sometimes demented) conspiracy theories, giving unto Iler the look of man hand-building sandcastles to fight the tide.

But add on: As of today, one of the "solons" of the EF-JFKA, Douglas Caddy, is citing John Kiriakou, a former CIA officer who went to prison for 30 months after pleading guilty in 2012 to violating the Intelligence Identities Protection Act by disclosing the name of a covert CIA officer to a journalist. In other words, Kiriakou ratted out a fellow undercover officer.

Since then Kiriakou has become an asset of the IRGC and Moscow, a Scott Ritter-type, often appearing in Russia's RT propaganda channels, and also lesser US media outlets.

And what does Caddy say that Kiriakou says now?

"The JFK Files Claim Kiriakou states that a person he describes as a close confidant of President Trump told him that 10,000 JFK-related documents 'will never be released' because 'every single one of them points directly at Israel,' and specifically because Kennedy was attempting to prevent Israel from acquiring nuclear weapons."---Doug Caddy.

One of the sources for the Mossad killed JFK narrative, according to Caddy: Times of Islamabad, "Did Israel Kill US President JF Kennedy? Former CIA Official Stunning Claims Over Secret Files," March 26, 2026.

Yes, the Times of Islamabad.

See https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/32298-facebook-post-ex-cia-officer-claims-the-jfk-files-wil-never-see-the-light-of-day/

Good luck to Andrew Iler. Maybe with a few firehoses he can clean up the EF-JFKA.

JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate / Re: Dr. Baden Refuted the Single-Bullet Theory

« Last post by Jack Nessan on Today at 03:39:08 PM »

Quote from: Michael T. Griffith on Today at 02:49:48 PM

I'm sure readers have noticed that WC apologists, as evidenced by Tim Nickerson's labored and errant replies, still have not been able to explain the fact that the back-wound bullet could not have come from the sixth-floor window unless JFK had been leaning markedly forward when the missile struck, and that no photo or frame shows JFK's head tilted anywhere near that far forward, if at all.

Incredibly, Nickerson can't even admit what the HSCA's SBT diagram plainly shows, and he's still erroneously denying that Rydberg drew CE 385 under Humes's direct and point-by-point supervision, even though Humes and Rydberg themselves made this clear. I find it amazing that Nickerson actually cites Humes's descriptions of the back wound to support the claim that the wound was in the neck and not in the back, never mind the bullet holes in the rear of JFK's clothing, never mind the autopsy photo of the back wound, never mind the autopsy face sheet, never mind the "certified" death certificate, and never mind the HSCA FPP's SBT diagram. I see Nickerson even resorts to the ridiculous bunched-clothing theory, ignoring the fact that no photo or frame shows the jacket bunched nearly enough to make the holes align with a wound several inches higher, and ignoring the fact that Willis slide 5, taken much closer to the moment of impact, shows the jacket virtually flat on JFK's back.

This thread is a great example of the fact that WC apologists have largely ignored the HSCA FPP's findings about the back wound's location (slightly below the throat wound or, at the most, level with it) and the bullet's upward trajectory. In their various and conflicting SBT diagrams/animations, WC defenders always (1) have JFK sitting upright with his head held upright or tilted only slightly forward, (2) have the bullet traveling downward through the neck.

It is worth remembering that Dr. Werner Spitz, a prominent forensic pathologist who served on the RC's medical panel and on the HSCA FPP, informed the RC in 1975 that there was "no doubt" that the back-wound bullet hit the back "in a sharply upward direction" and that it traveled "upwards within the body":

There is no doubt that the bullet which struck the President’s back penetrated the skin in a sharply upward direction, as is evident from the width of the abrasion at the lower half of the bullet wound of entrance. The term "sharply upward direction" is used because it is evident from this injury that the missile traveled upwards within the body. (Report of Werner Spitz, 4/24/75, p. 1, Rockefeller Commission papers)

Spitz was either unaware that these facts destroyed the SBT or he dismissed as irrelevant all the photos and footage taken of JFK during the SBT's timeframe. Ditto for Dr. Baden when he demonstrated in the 1988 NOVA JFKA documentary that the alleged magic bullet's trajectory would have been upward through the neck and that this trajectory could only align with the sixth-floor window if JFK had been leaning far forward when the bullet struck.

Same useless crap. Stop being such a coward, stop hiding. Explain a separate wound to JBC if you don't think SBT is correct. Here are the facts you can use. 45 Degree downward angle through JBC's chest with a 10 degree medial angle right to left, this should help with your explanation.

I will start you off locating the shooter. For every 1 foot horizontal, you go 1 foot vertical. Maybe math is not your thing. If the shooter was 200 feet away, he would also be 200 feet off the ground. Should be easy to locate that building in Dealey Plaza or maybe not.

Explain the different medical wounds JBC would have suffered with a direct nose on bullet instead of one that was in the process of yawing after having passed through JFK. Hint: the rib damage would be way different.

C'mon you can do it. Your MTG weaver of tall tales.

JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate / Re: Dr. Baden Refuted the Single-Bullet Theory

« Last post by Michael T. Griffith on Today at 02:49:48 PM »

I'm sure readers have noticed that WC apologists, as evidenced by Tim Nickerson's labored and errant replies, still have not been able to explain the fact that the back-wound bullet could not have come from the sixth-floor window unless JFK had been leaning markedly forward when the missile struck, and that no photo or frame shows JFK's head tilted anywhere near that far forward, if at all.

Incredibly, Nickerson can't even admit what the HSCA's SBT diagram plainly shows, and he's still erroneously denying that Rydberg drew CE 385 under Humes's direct and point-by-point supervision, even though Humes and Rydberg themselves made this clear. I find it amazing that Nickerson actually cites Humes's descriptions of the back wound to support the claim that the wound was in the neck and not in the back, never mind the bullet holes in the rear of JFK's clothing, never mind the autopsy photo of the back wound, never mind the autopsy face sheet, never mind the "certified" death certificate, and never mind the HSCA FPP's SBT diagram. I see Nickerson even resorts to the ridiculous bunched-clothing theory, ignoring the fact that no photo or frame shows the jacket bunched nearly enough to make the holes align with a wound several inches higher, and ignoring the fact that Willis slide 5, taken much closer to the moment of impact, shows the jacket virtually flat on JFK's back.

This thread is a great example of the fact that WC apologists have largely ignored the HSCA FPP's findings about the back wound's location (slightly below the throat wound or, at the most, level with it) and the bullet's upward trajectory. In their various and conflicting SBT diagrams/animations, WC defenders always (1) have JFK sitting upright with his head held upright or tilted only slightly forward, (2) have the bullet traveling downward through the neck.

It is worth remembering that Dr. Werner Spitz, a prominent forensic pathologist who served on the RC's medical panel and on the HSCA FPP, informed the RC in 1975 that there was "no doubt" that the back-wound bullet hit the back "in a sharply upward direction" and that it traveled "upwards within the body":

There is no doubt that the bullet which struck the President’s back penetrated the skin in a sharply upward direction, as is evident from the width of the abrasion at the lower half of the bullet wound of entrance. The term "sharply upward direction" is used because it is evident from this injury that the missile traveled upwards within the body. (Report of Werner Spitz, 4/24/75, p. 1, Rockefeller Commission papers)

Spitz was either unaware that these facts destroyed the SBT or he dismissed as irrelevant all the photos and footage taken of JFK during the SBT's timeframe. Ditto for Dr. Baden when he demonstrated in the 1988 NOVA JFKA documentary that the alleged magic bullet's trajectory would have been upward through the neck and that this trajectory could only align with the sixth-floor window if JFK had been leaning markedly forward when the bullet struck.

JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate / Re: JFK's Throat Wound Was an Entrance Wound: Refuting the Shored-Wound Theory

« Last post by Michael T. Griffith on Today at 01:27:28 PM »

Quote from: Tim Nickerson on Today at 03:44:23 AM

Was the HSCA's FPP of the opinion that an unshored exit wound of a missile of comparable size and velocity to that of the single bullet might be similar if the missile were not misshapen by striking a substantial bone within the body?

This is your answer to all the evidence presented in the OP and in subsequent replies? This is it? You're not even accurately describing the HSCA FPP's argument. I think British physiologist Russell Kent does a good job of explaining the fatal flaw in the FPP's shored-wound scenario:

To characterize the neck wound as an exit, and therefore to support the single-bullet theory, the HSCA Forensic Pathology Panel needed to account for it being so small. The panel did this by relying on the principle of ‘shored exit’ where clothing tight against the skin at the exit site of a bullet may prevent the usual shattering and tearing that results in a stellate-shaped, irregular wound. It is illustrated in Petty’s book Modern Legal Medicine, Psychiatry, and Forensic Science. The HSCA Forensic Pathology Panel report reads that:

"It is of the opinion that such a wound, uniformly regular in shape and small in size, might be anticipated from an intermediate or even high velocity missile if the tissues through which the missile exited were shored, buttressed or otherwise reinforced by clothing."

The problem is that according to Dr. Vincent DiMaio, a world expert on gunshot wounds, shored exit wounds produce "very wide, irregular abrasion collars." This was not evident in the wound seen at Parkland and is not seen in the autopsy photographs. The clincher that the throat wound was not a shored exit, however, is that the slits are not in the collar band (see Figure 21). I accept that the collar band would have been tight against the skin, but the slits are below it in a single layer of cotton not held firmly against the neck. They are at the level of the suprasternal notch (the dip in the middle of the neck between the two collar bones) and were probably not caused by a bullet. This fact alone undoes the single-bullet theory. The hole in the front of JFK’s neck was more likely an entrance wound, and the shirt slits were unrelated to it. (JFK Medical Betrayal: Where the Evidence Lies, 2022, pp. 179-180)

If anyone is inclined to suggest that Kent is misquoting Dr. DiMaio's statement that shored exit wounds will have "very wide, irregular abrasion collars," let us read the paragraph in which the statement appears in DiMaio's world-renowned forensic handbook Gunshot Wounds:

In unusual circumstances, exit wounds will have abraded margins (Figure 4.24). These are called shored exit wounds. They are characterized by a broad, irregular band of abrasion of the skin around the exit. In such wounds the skin is reinforced, or “shored,” by a firm surface at the instant the bullet exits. Thus, individuals shot while lying on the floor, leaning against a wall, or sitting back in a chair may have shored exit wounds. As it exits, the bullet everts the skin, with the everted margin impacting against the wall, floor, or back of a chair, thus being abraded or “rubbed raw.” Shored exit wounds can also occur from tight supportive garments, such as girdles, brassieres, and belts, as well as from tight clothing. Fresh shored wounds have a moist, succulent appearance. The pattern of the material overlying the shored exit may be imprinted on the edges of the wound. Shored wounds have very wide, irregular abrasion collars and when dry may simulate contact wounds. (Gunshot Wounds: Practical Aspects of Firearms, Ballistics, and Forensic Techniques, Second Edition, CRC Press, 1999, pp 94-95)

Thus, WC apologists have no way to explain the fact that JFK's throat wound was small (about 5 mm), neat, and punched inward, textbook traits of an entry wound, and that the damage behind and below the wound was larger than the wound itself, another textbook trait of an entry wound. The shored-wound theory cannot explain the throat wound, and the FPP majority who floated this nonsense surely should have known better.

There is, of course, a logical, straightforward, forensic explanation for the throat wound's appearance and underlying damage: it was an entrance wound, just as the Parkland doctors initially said it was. But you guys can't be logical and follow the science because your theory of the shooting collapses if you admit the throat wound was an entrance wound.

JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate / Re: Ultra-Liberal CTers Are Outraged Over New Book on JFK and Vietnam

« Last post by Benjamin Cole on Today at 08:51:45 AM »

MTG--

Please expand on this.

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 10