Education Forum closing yet again...

[Vasilios Vazakas]

WHAT??? Wecht went on tv and said one bullet caused both the throat and back wounds? Did you hear this correctly? I saw him at COPA - he was the keynote speaker and he did not say anything remotely intellectually dishonest as this. Could the damn media have edited his words? Certainly not the first time. NBC did this to Garrison decades ago to make him look like a fool.

Dawn.[/QUOTE]

Watch this Dawn
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YtUL-BpZAu8

[Cliff Varnell]

There were three major JFK Critical Community Conferences leading up to the 50th Anniv. -- Wecht, Lancer and COPA.

How many times during the course of those conferences was the following question asked from the podium:

"What happened to the bullets that caused the back and throat wounds?"

To the best of my knowledge (I'd love to stand corrected!), this key question was asked once.

Once.

By Cyril Wecht, who didn't try to answer the question during his presentation, but afterwards went on TV and claimed that one bullet caused both wounds.

The Zombie Lie from Pittsburgh!

What was the hot topic at Wecht?

The headwound/s.

So please tell me who is being mono-manical here, Albert-- me, or all ya'all?
::laughingdog::

WHAT??? Wecht went on tv and said one bullet caused both the throat and back wounds? Did you hear this correctly? I saw him at COPA - he was the keynote speaker and he did not say anything remotely intellectually dishonest as this. Could the damn media have edited his words? Certainly not the first time. NBC did this to Garrison decades ago to make him look like a fool.

Dawn.

Dawn, Bill Kelly posted the info about Wecht after the first day of the Pittsburgh conference. I did not see the footage myself.

Bill said Wecht went on local Pittsburgh TV and claimed one bullet caused both wounds.

[Cliff Varnell]

WHAT??? Wecht went on tv and said one bullet caused both the throat and back wounds? Did you hear this correctly? I saw him at COPA - he was the keynote speaker and he did not say anything remotely intellectually dishonest as this. Could the damn media have edited his words? Certainly not the first time. NBC did this to Garrison decades ago to make him look like a fool.

Dawn.

Watch this Dawn
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YtUL-BpZAu8[/QUOTE]

Thank you, Vasilios!

First Wecht states as a fact that the bullet exited the throat and then a little while later discusses the opposing view -- that the throat wound was one of entrance!

He calls the throat wound evidence "a hodge-podge."

The cardinal fact of JFK's murder has escaped Dr. Wecht, as it has escaped so many -- the wound in the back was too low to have been associated with the throat wound.

Dr. Wecht doesn't understand the first thing about the murder of JFK.

And this guy was the keynote speaker at COPA?

Whatta joke...

[Dawn Meredith]

WHAT??? Wecht went on tv and said one bullet caused both the throat and back wounds? Did you hear this correctly? I saw him at COPA - he was the keynote speaker and he did not say anything remotely intellectually dishonest as this. Could the damn media have edited his words? Certainly not the first time. NBC did this to Garrison decades ago to make him look like a fool.

Dawn.

Watch this Dawn
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YtUL-BpZAu8

Thank you, Vasilios!

First Wecht states as a fact that the bullet exited the throat and then a little while later discusses the opposing view -- that the throat wound was one of entrance!

He calls the throat wound evidence "a hodge-podge."

The cardinal fact of JFK's murder has escaped Dr. Wecht, as it has escaped so many -- the wound in the back was too low to have been associated with the throat wound.

Dr. Wecht doesn't understand the first thing about the murder of JFK.

And this guy was the keynote speaker at COPA?

Whatta joke...[/QUOTE]
\
Wow, I am stunned. He was GREAT at COPA. He's been speaking out about this case forever.

This is just too freaking weird...Maybe....he's not who he purports himself to be...this is just stunning to me. I have admired and respected him my entire adult life.

Dawn

[Albert Doyle]

It isn't equally valid. False equivalence. There is a tremendous amount of conflicting evidence in regards to the headwound/s -- there is tremendous consistency in regard to the back and throat wounds as long as one understands that properly prepared evidence trumps improperly prepared evidence.

Serves the cover-up to direct attention to the most complex data sets.

I think Lifton and Horne have made a good enough case that something needed to be covered-up during the pre-autopsy. At that point a five year old would realize you don't need any precise explanations of the exact wounds. I don't think there's any disagreement here.

My argument is that the headwound/s study, within the JFK Critical Community, has become mono-manical at the expense of the study of the more revealing back/throat wounds.

I think it is and I also think the input you offer here doesn't live up to it or respectfully reflect what it has shown. You've diverted to Wecht but what I was talking about was Horne's collective evidence that showed there was a pre-autopsy designed to hide head wounds. There's no false equivalence involved here because such a drastic manipulation of evidence, as a covert pre-autopsy, is strong evidence in itself that is usually enough to prove guilt. Complexity is no sin as long as the offerer is capable of that complexity, and I think Horne is. But the evidence for the pre-autopsy isn't really that complex anyway. I feel all the evidence in its totality is stronger than just the shirt damage evidence. But if we were to ask what we personally prefered as the single-most example of evidence I would say the brain evidence myself. I think it is much more damning than the shirt evidence personally. It's pure evidence of evidence-tampering and conspiracy. And it's in Horne. Most people are smart enough to dismiss the mastermind stuff while still seeing how Nelson's evidence of Johnson's corruption adds to the real case. The Mafia did it stuff is also uncredible, but they were not uninvolved. It all adds up.

[Cliff Varnell]

My argument is that the headwound/s study, within the JFK Critical Community, has become mono-manical at the expense of the study of the more revealing back/throat wounds.

I think it is and I also think the input you offer here doesn't live up to it or respectfully reflect what it has shown. You've diverted to Wecht but what I was talking about was Horne's collective evidence that showed there was a pre-autopsy designed to hide head wounds. There's no false equivalence involved here because such a drastic manipulation of evidence, as a covert pre-autopsy, is strong evidence in itself that is usually enough to prove guilt.

"Collective evidence" is not as valid as "prima facie evidence."

You should be able to answer the questions -- who performed the pre-autopsy surgery, at what location and at what time?

I don't think Lifton and Horne are in perfect agreement with this, are they?

I acknowledge Lifton's and Horne's work on the throat and back wounds, although I disagree with their conclusions.

Complexity is no sin as long as the offerer is capable of that complexity, and I think Horne is.
But the evidence for the pre-autopsy isn't really that complex anyway. I feel all the evidence in its totality is stronger than just the shirt damage evidence. But if we were to ask what we personally prefered as the single-most example of evidence I would say the brain evidence myself. I think it is much more damning than the shirt evidence personally.

I'll take the Pepsi Challenge on that one, Albert!

The shirt resides in the National Archives.

Where does the brain reside?

The bullet hole in the shirt is too low to be associated with the throat wound. This establishes the throat wound as an entrance, leading to the central issue of the case -- what happened to the bullets that caused the back and throat wounds?

According to the historical record there are two possible explanations -- the the bullets were removed prior to the autopsy, or JFK was struck with a high tech weapon -- a round which didn't show up on x-ray.

So the clothing evidence demands we view how the Secret Service and the US military handled the body, but we should also be looking at those who had access to high tech weaponry in 1963.

To paraphrase E. Martin Schotz -- all waters of knowledge flow from the clothing evidence.

Why?

Because the clothing evidence is that which is knowable.

[Lauren Johnson]

I have copied most of the forensic discussion to a new thread: The 'Other' Wounds. Please use that one for forensic discussions. --Lauren

[LR Trotter]

::::vroom::

[David Lifton]

Perhaps you could see the hour-long address I delivered at a Kennedy presidency symposium at Bismarck State College on November 7, 2013. Just Google my name plus "Bismarck". Someone said had nearly 4,000 views on YouTube. (Clint Hill delivered the Keynote, and gave an additional talk the day before mine).

[Dawn Meredith]

I think John Simkin mis-estimated the degree with which we Yanks take this JFK shit personally,
and the central part rancor plays in our national discourse.

Not to blame John at all. Who wants to spend all their time bucking the headwinds of the Great American Male Ego?

I think John Simkin over-estimates the value of JFK assassination research -- we (I) rubbish other peoples' research because it is rubbish!

I don't spare myself from the accusation of havin' written reams of inconsequential rubbish in the past.

Not on Deep Politics Forum however!

Over here I'm gold!

::rockon::

You have a point but I take John at his word here. He had the best of intentions when he began the forum. For me it was a haven. A community where I could participate and make new friends. As John would later observe the critical community was a nasty mess. Always has been. The lack of unity bothered me for the start. And when I read John Kelin's wonderful book about the first generation researchers I realized that the infighting began immediately. John has written several times that this was upsetting to him. He attempted in vein to achieve unity. And because he allowed what he called "free speech" - ie the lone nutters and paid agents- the rancor only escalated. Finally it simply became too much. EF has been there for ten years. I will be sad to see it go as there are still many good people. John had the best of intentions and in large part he accomplished a great deal.