JFK Assassination Forum

    YOU claimed the Pristine Bullet was traveling "BACKWARD". And now you are trying to run away from that. I'm holding you to what YOU said.

Yes it was traveling backwards after it had tumbled 180 degrees. IOW, the base was out front and the nose of the bullet was trailing. I guess it's my fault for not dumbing down the explanation enough so you could understand but Stephen Galbrath tried to help you out with a picture of a tumbling bullet but even that doesn't seem to have sunk in. I don't know what else we can do to help you out.

I doubt that. They would be taking out sites holy to Islam and would kill many fellow muslims. When the US accidentally shot down an Iranian airliner during the tanker escort operation in the 1980s, Iran dod not retaliate via terrorism. They agreed to international mediation and agreed to compensation.

Iranian nukes would likely be used as a deterrent to Israeli aggression as well as aggression from Sunni Arab states. At least they enrich their own uranium, rather than stealing it from the US and leaving a toxic mess that US taxpayers are still paying to clean up.

If Iran was the big boogyman, why did Israel sell them F-14 parts when Iran held our embassy hostage. Why did Israel agree to provide weapons to Iran during Iran-Contra?

Israel sold weapons to Iran during the Iran-Iraq war when the Shah ruled Iran. When the Ayatollah took over, he broke off relations with Israel.

Israel had more animosity toward Iraq at the time. They viewed them as a bigger threat than Iran. In 1981, the Israelis destroyed an Iraqi nuclear reactor just before it became operational for much the same reason we launched Midnight Hammer against Iran. They weren't going to let Iraq have the capability of developing a nuclear weapon.

EF-JFKA participant James Wilkinson defines William Niedernut's role as moderator at the forum thusly:

If this is indeed The Current State of the JFK Education Forum, then perhaps it is for the best if it can’t be continued. Provided a way is figured out to preserve its decades of rich, insightful discussions, of course.

If I were an intel agent tasked with disrupting this board’s ability to collaborate on new leads and other developments, I wouldn’t waste my resources on lone-nut defenders, not when there are plenty of them who do so out of good faith.

No, I’d direct my asset to fixate on 9/11 Truther narratives to the exclusion of any other topic, including the one purportedly at hand, sowing redundant rounds of division and name-calling at the slightest prompt. I’d want them to otherwise toe the line when it comes to popular JFK conspiracy theories so they’d amass enough credibility to angle for a moderator role.

Because with the authority to ban contributors while deleting their allegedly offending posts, that asset could then also ban anyone who criticizes their Stalinesque abuses of authority.

By the time they’re ever sidelined as moderator, the damage will have already been done.

Now I don’t really think William is an asset tasked with chaos and disruption on this Forum. That’s not the point.

The point is that if I were in the position to run such an operative, that hypothetical asset couldn’t have done a better job than what William’s actually managed here in real life. If one’s behavior is indistinguishable from that of a hypothetical saboteur, after all, then isn’t the distinction between those alternatives one that’s without a meaningful difference?

Say what one will about a witting saboteur, but at least they actually accomplish what they aim to do, because at least they know what they’re doing.

He continues to defend Holocaust denier Ron Unz from that description in the face of well-supported evidence—now by insinuating that there’s some sort of cryptic significance to the use of the 6-million-Jews figure before the war.

And hardly anyone but myself bothers to challenge this odiousness. When we’re reduced to arguing over the definition of Holocaust denialism, the denialists have already won the debate.

It’s a fitting end, really, to what was for so long an extraordinary project. But everything has its own lifecycle. Once any message board drifts into tolerance of Holocaust denial, it’s usually a sure symptom of the inevitable.

It’s all the more ironic that the most disruptive elements dedicate their time and efforts toward this end unwittingly, free of charge. At least it could be argued that they’re saving the taxpayers some money, I suppose.

The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars, but in ourselves. Indeed.

---30---

On target.

The question is, why did EF-JFKA founder John Simkin sit on his hands for months and months as Niedernut (in addition to other defects, Niedernut a WWII holocaust-denier) destroyed the EF-JFKA?

The latest word is that the legal owner, or legal operator (I can't tell which), of the EF-JFKA, named James Gordon, has been located. Evidently, the EF-JFKA had plenty of money in a Go Fund Me till, but was not paying the site's host. No one seems to know where the money is now, or how to pay the site's web-host.

Steps have been taken to preserve the EF-JFKA's content for heritage. I guess that includes the demented rantings of William Niedernut. There is endless bickering and sniping even yet among EF-JFKA participants.

My advice to JFK Assassination Forum participants: Don't go down the sniping road. Be collegial. Don't insult. If you have a different point of views, respectfully express them. Confine your present-day political rants to the "U.S. And International Politics" thread.

Among the many mistakes Simkin made was starting numerous threads on present-day topics, evidently as he wanted a sounding board for his views. This led to un-ending gangbang-juvenalia on Trump. But anyone can read anti-Trump blabber anywhere on the 'net in profusion. So why did the EF-JFKA exist?

The old chestnut: rogue elements in the CIA.

Do you mean the "regular" CIA, or the KGB-controlled CIA?

(Look up Bruce Leonard Solie, Leonard V. McCoy, and George Kisevalter,)

Do you think people can't see that you are ducking and dodging? Do you think they can't see that you keep falsely pretending that I am merely giving my own opinions when I am citing and documenting the serious contradictions in the medical evidence that were even noted by experts whose findings you claim to accept?

No. Unlike you i recognize that:
  A) I have never seen the photos in question and
  B) Even if I had seen them, I am totally unqualified to render a judgement on them.

I leave the analysis of the medical evidence to those that are qualified and have seen the all the original materials. They all seem to agree that the evidence shows the head shot came from above and behind JFK. Like from the sniper's nest. That's good enough for me.

You know this is false. I have quoted DiMaio and given the source and page numbers several times in this thread alone.

I'm guessing you don't know enough about the medical evidence to realize that nothing that Cummings says explains any of the contradictions between the brain photos and the skull x-rays and between the brain photos and the autopsy report, not to mention the vanishing low fragment trail.

So tell us what these contradictions prove. I know what they don't prove. They don't prove there was a second gunman.

As for the NOVA JFKA documentary, I recommend you read "NOVA’s Cold Case: JFK -- the Junk Science Behind PBS’s Recent Foray into the Crime of the Century Cold Case JFK vs. Cold Hard JFK Facts" at https://kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-reviews/nova-s-cold-case-jfk-junk-science-pbs. The article presents two detailed rebuttals to PBS’s NOVA Cold Case JFK documentary.

CTs are good and making excuses to dismiss the opinions of people who are actually qualified to offer expert opinions. What they aren't good at is explaining how their perceived anomalies prove somebody other than Oswald was involved in the JFKA.

It wasn't just the FPP--it was also the Clark Panel and the Rockefeller Commission's medical panel. The FPP reviewed the autopsy materials after the Clark Panel (1968) and the RC medical panel (1975) had done so. All three panels said the wound was in the cowlick.

Again. Tell us what you think this proves.

Anyway, I applaud your new position that the autopsy doctors were correct about the rear head entry wound.

Both the autopsy doctors and the FPP were far more qualified than I to render judgement on the medical evidence. Dr. Cummings seems to side with the autopsy team. It's not for me to say who got it right and who got it wrong. What matters is that either way, the shots came from Oswald's rifle. [/quote]

Dr. Wecht and the FPP majority made this statement in reference to the back wound, and they were correct. When it came to the back wound, the autopsy doctors failed to use standard reference points. 

This is erroneous. You clearly have not read the HSCA materials on the acoustical evidence and have not read any of the scholarly defenses of the acoustical evidence. A few points in reply:

* The HSCA did have the BBN findings on the acoustical evidence vetted by peer review. They hired two of the finest acoustical scientists in the country, Dr. Mark Weiss and Professor Earnest Aschkenasy of Queens College, to review the BBN findings. The HSCA selected Weiss and Aschkenasy to review the BBN findings because they were recommended by the Acoustical Society of America.

* The "study" done by the FBI Technical Services Division was a total joke, a slipshod and amateurish attempt to discredit the acoustical evidence. The study was quickly debunked.

* As for the analysis done by the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), I'm certain that you, like nearly all other lone-gunman theorists, have not actually read it. Four observations about the NAS panel's claims

One, not one of the NAS scientists was an acoustical scientist.

Two, the NAS panel (aka the NRC panel and the Ramsey Panel) said that the probability that chance caused the timing-movement correlations noted by the BBN acoustical scientists was 7 percent instead of less than 1 percent. In saying this, of course, the panel was admitting that their own calculations showed that the probability that chance did not cause the correlations was 93 percent.

The panel made no effort to explain the significance of the fact that their own calculations found a 93-percent probability that the timing-movement correlations occurred because the impulse patterns on the police tape were recorded by a motorcycle in Dealey Plaza during the assassination. In fact, the panel did not even specifically mention this. They simply noted that they determined the probability of chance was 7 percent and acted as though they had refuted the BBN finding.

Three, the NAS panel made another revealing oblique admission, this time regarding the impulse pattern that the Queens College acoustical experts identified as the grassy knoll shot. Weiss and Aschkenasy calculated that there was no more than a 5.3 percent probability (P=0.053) that the impulse pattern identified as the grassy knoll shot was not caused by gunfire, and they argued that the probability was likely lower than that. This is why they reported there was a 95 percent probability or higher that a shot came from the grassy knoll.

The NAS panel said their analysis found that the probability that the impulse pattern was not gunfire was actually 22.3 percent (P=0.223) (Report of the Committee on Ballistic Acoustics, p. 40). In other words, the panel was admitting that their own calculations showed that the probability that the impulse pattern was caused by gunfire from the grassy knoll was 77.7%.

Dr. Donald Thomas has proved that the NAS panel committed crucial errors in reaching their P=0.223 calculation, and that the probability that the impulse pattern was caused by grassy knoll gunfire is virtually 100 percent.

Four, the NAS panel said nothing--not one word--about the windshield distortion correlations documented by the BBN acoustical scientists, about the presence of N-waves, muzzle blasts, and muzzle-blast echoes on the dictabelt, and about the fact that those phenomena occur in the correct order and interval. 

I suggest you read the article below and then read Dr. Josiah Thompson's report on the follow-up research done by BBN scientists from 2019-2020 that confirms the HSCA's acoustical evidence in his 2021 book Last Second in Dallas.

The HSCA's Acoustical Evidence: Proof of a Second Gunman
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1KvdvH8gTqFgMn-2vTI5ppg_egWxRKg9U/view?usp=sharing
[/quote]

I don't need to get into the weeds with all your objections to the NAS review of the accoustics evidence. The HSCA conclusions refute themselves because their placement of when the shots were fired doesn't even come close to syncing up with the Z-film.