State of Texas vs Lee Harvey Oswald: Autopsy x rays

[Cliff Varnell]

Larry Hancock hardly ever writes about the medical evidence in any venue.

Trajectories and wounds are not Larry's thing.

He once said he left that stuff up to his friends.

Sadly, his friends -- T3 deniers -- have let him down, savagely.

[Peter Lemkin]

New evidence is always welcome. It strengthens the past evidence. Those who believe Oswald didn't do it have always been correct - and this only makes us more correct - so why not accept and celebrate it rather than rail against something that adds to your own beliefs and 'side' of the argument? There is something quite unique about dyed in the wool JFK people - they can fight with people they agree with. Not only can they - they too often do!

[Cliff Varnell]

Oh I forgot: Salandria, shirt, Harriman and ice bullet have solved the case. Don't know how I could forget about that after the hundredth time.

No, that's where we start research, not end it.

[Jim DiEugenio]

This is great, two days and over a thousand views.

Mike will be gratified.

[Cliff Varnell]

New evidence is always welcome. It strengthens the past evidence.

Not if it pretends the past evidence doesn't exist, Peter.

The case for conspiracy is prima facie. But in the CAPA Mock Trial and the Writings of James DiEugenio the prima facie case is never acknowledged. Indeed, DiEugenio brags about ignoring it.

Obfuscation is the collateral damage of good research. Good research proving JFK was shot in the head from the front should not be presented as the first evidence JFK was shot from the front, as a revelation.

The acoustics evidence proves 4+ shots fired -- but that should not obfuscate the fact that the clothing evidence proves two shooters, already. The clothing defects prove the frontal shot, with the neck x-ray as corroboration the back shot could not have caused the hairline fracture of the T1 transverse process, which could only have been the result of a shot from the front.

Those who believe Oswald didn't do it have always been correct - and this only makes us more correct - so why not accept and celebrate it rather than rail against something that adds to your own beliefs and 'side' of the argument?

I don't divide the world into LNers and CTs.

I divide the world into those who acknowledge the prima facie, salient fact of conspiracy -- and those who don't.

I rail against the views of CAPA and James DiEugenio because their good research is generating too much collateral damage.

CAPA lost the most winnable case in history 6 - 5. They put the jurors to sleep. They studiously ignored the prima facie case, the only case that will appeal to millennials who don't have the time for JFK complexity-fetishes.

There is something quite unique about dyed in the wool JFK people - they can fight with people they agree with. Not only can they - they too often do!

I'm not in that club.

I'm of the Vincent Salandria School.

[Peter Lemkin]

New evidence is always welcome. It strengthens the past evidence.

Not if it pretends the past evidence doesn't exist, Peter.

The case for conspiracy is prima facie. But in the CAPA Mock Trial and the Writings of James DiEugenio the prima facie case is never acknowledged. Indeed, DiEugenio brags about ignoring it.

Obfuscation is the collateral damage of good research. Good research proving JFK was shot in the head from the front should not be presented as the first evidence JFK was shot from the front, as a revelation.

The acoustics evidence proves 4+ shots fired -- but that should not obfuscate the fact that the clothing evidence proves two shooters, already. The clothing defects prove the frontal shot, with the neck x-ray as corroboration the back shot could not have caused the hairline fracture of the T1 transverse process, which could only have been the result of a shot from the front.

Those who believe Oswald didn't do it have always been correct - and this only makes us more correct - so why not accept and celebrate it rather than rail against something that adds to your own beliefs and 'side' of the argument?

I don't divide the world into LNers and CTs.

I divide the world into those who acknowledge the prima facie, salient fact of conspiracy -- and those who don't.

I rail against the views of CAPA and James DiEugenio because their good research is generating too much collateral damage.

CAPA lost the most winnable case in history 6 - 5. They put the jurors to sleep. They studiously ignored the prima facie case, the only case that will appeal to millennials who don't have the time for JFK complexity-fetishes.

There is something quite unique about dyed in the wool JFK people - they can fight with people they agree with. Not only can they - they too often do!

I'm not in that club.

I'm of the Vincent Salandria School.

I see fighting/pugilistic behavior for the sake of fighting/pugilistic behavior. You are not the only one...but you are one IMO. I ask you try to refrain. It starts to approach the rublic of ad hom attacks. You have stated your views. Our enemies, adversaries or persons to persuade are less within the 'community' than with the opposition or those too disinterested, to busy struggling to survive, or too thick to understand the details and yes complexities of the JFK case. While it can be simplified some, it can not be simplified. You can present what YOU think is the minimalist argument 'necessary', the opposition and the propaganda ministry will add complexity to negate your message. Besides, we each have our areas of expertise and even of events we think constitute the minimal/necessary open and closed case to prove the Big Lie. Again, the more we combine information and get new information the better. I personally think many people are too uneducated, not practiced or disciplined enough in formal logic to follow a logical argument, be it minimalist or highly complex. The majority already suspect the Big Lie of the official version and are waiting for the officials to declare it. [which they never will]. One has to get rid of the propaganda ministry or find a way to negate it to get out even the simplest of messages. The internet has been an aide to this, but now they begin to control the internet in many ways to take back propaganda control. Each to his own and stop the bickering - all.

[Cliff Varnell]

I see fighting/pugilistic behavior for the sake of fighting/pugilistic behavior. You are not the only one...but you are one IMO.

Impugn my motives all you want, but I for one will not stand by idly and watch younger generations get lost to the cause because of the complexity-fetishes of my fellow boomers.

I ask you try to refrain. It starts to approach the rublic of ad hom attacks. You have stated your views. Our enemies, adversaries or persons to persuade are less within the 'community' than with the opposition or those too disinterested, to busy struggling to survive, or too thick to understand the details and yes complexities of the JFK case.

I disagree. I'm trying to persuade members of this community to quit micro-analyzing complex data and pick up the Weaponized Fact of Conspiracy instead.

I don't care how many Mock Trials CAPA runs -- they'll never get younger people on our side until they present the prima facie case.

While it can be simplified some, it can not be simplified.

Sorry Peter, I don't buy it.

You guys can kick me out of here -- that's your prerogative. But when I see someone claim as Jim D does that we haven't had evidence of a front shot until now I'm going to push back.

You can present what YOU think is the minimalist argument 'necessary', the opposition and the propaganda ministry will add complexity to negate your message.

It's not the "propaganda ministry" attempting to un-necessarily complicate the case -- it's the JFKA Critical Community!

Besides, we each have our areas of expertise and even of events we think constitute the minimal/necessary open and closed case to prove the Big Lie. Again, the more we combine information and get new information the better.

On one hand you decry "the propaganda ministry" adding un-necessary complexity but on the other hand you celebrate the JFKA Critical Community adding un-necessary complexity.

Which is it?

The CAPA Mock Trial did not "combine information," it ignored the prima facie case!

Millennials won't sit still for anything but the prima facie case.

I personally think many people are too uneducated, not practiced or disciplined enough in formal logic to follow a logical argument, be it minimalist or highly complex. The majority already suspect the Big Lie of the official version and are waiting for the officials to declare it. [which they never will].

Support for the conspiracy position used to run 80% -- now it's consistently down to 60%. The conspiracy side is losing millennials and the college educated.

Complex proofs of conspiracy are counter-productive and un-neccessary.

One has to get rid of the propaganda ministry or find a way to negate it to get out even the simplest of messages.

Gaeton Fonzi showed the way in 1966 when he weaponized the clothing evidence in an interview with Arlen Specter and reduced the high-powered legal eagle into a babbling fool within minutes.

If the JFKA Critical Community reached consensus on the T3 back wound and consistently delivered that weaponized fact the "propaganda ministry" would be negated.

The internet has been an aide to this, but now they begin to control the internet in many ways to take back propaganda control. Each to his own and stop the bickering - all.

What you call bickering I call "Wielding the Weaponized Fact against those who attempt to negate it."

[Cliff Varnell]

I see fighting/pugilistic behavior for the sake of fighting/pugilistic behavior.

Those who wield the Weaponized Fact of Conspiracy (the bullet holes in the clothes are too low to associate with his throat wound) naturally appear pugilistic.

That's why it's the Weaponized Fact.

Check out this interview with Vincent Salandria, starting at 12:10.



He doesn't regard being the first to debunk the sbt as a big deal. His greatest accomplishment was separating himself from the JFKA MicroAnalysis School.

E. Martin Schotz at COPA in '98 was hella pugilistic!...

https://ratical.org/ratville/JFK/FalseMy...98EMS.html

What The Waters Of Knowledge Tell Us

Over and over again we hear people asking for more and more information from the government. I suggest to you that the problem is not that we have insufficient data. The problem is that we dare not analyze the data we have had all along. In fact we need very little data. Honestly, as far as I'm concerned you can throw almost the whole 26 volumes of the Warren Commission in the trash can. All you need to do is look at this.

[TABLE="align: center"]
[TR]
[TD="class: letters11, align: center"]
Commission Exhibit 385[/TD]
[TD="align: center"][/TD]
[TD="class: letters11, align: center"]
Supplemental Report exhibit 59[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
Here [on the left] is the Warren Commission drawing of the path of the "magic" bullet. And here [on the right] is a photograph of the hole in the President's jacket.

Now what does this tell us? It tells us without a shadow of a doubt that the President's throat wound was an entry wound, and that there was a conspiracy without any question. But it tells us much more. It tells us that the Warren Commission knew that the conspiracy was obvious and that the Commission was engaged in a criminal conspiracy after the fact to obstruct justice. The Chief Justice of the United States was a criminal accessory to the murder of the President. Senator Arlen Specter is a criminal accessory to murder. The Warren Report was not a mistake; it was and is an obvious act of criminal fraud.[5]

Think of this for a moment. The Warren Report is an obvious criminal act of fraud and no history department in any college or university is willing to say so. What does such silence mean?

It means that we are dealing with something that has affected every history department of every college and university in our society, every major newspaper and magazine, and all means of mass communication. It has affected virtually every "loyal American." This phenomenon is what George Orwell in his novel 1984 called "crimestop" or "protective stupidity."

According to Orwell, "crimestop" is really a form of self mind control in which we find the affected individual "stopping short, as though by instinct, at the threshold of any dangerous thought ... not grasping analogies ... failing to perceive logical errors ... misunderstanding the simplest arguments ... and ... being bored or repelled by any train of thought" if such is inimical to the powers that be.

As a clinician, I look at "crimestop" as a mass psychological illness, an involuntary intellectual, emotional and spiritual illness, part of the psychology of war which has pervaded our society.

<end quote>

[Peter Lemkin]

Fine. Just play nice. Attack another's ideas and not the other person. This applies to all. Thanks.

[Martin White]

I guess it must be here somewhere, but I haven't seen an outcome for the trial?