23-02-2013, 10:10 PM
LR Trotter Wrote:What I have viewed or not viewed, I have no desire or need to debate. And, certainly not on this forum. But, I fail to see anything positive about associating pornagraphy with assassination research. JMO, and I am not interested in debating the contents of this post. But, I will read any opposing view in case I missed something.
:thumbsdown:
I take a dim view of much what you refer to as "assassination research." It's titillating but valueless -- or sometimes less than valueless.
It isn't the actual study of one issue or another that I disparage -- but the exaggerated framing of so much research as "significant" when it simply isn't significant at all, imo. The windshield t&t debate is one such notable example.
These exaggerations distort the record and are ripe for the appellation: "pornography"
I actually don't see very much "assassination research." I see a whole lot of "assassination cover-up research."
There is no JFK Assassination Critical Research Community, imo. Such an entity exists in name only. There is a thriving JFK Assassination Cover-up Critical Research Community.
What does "assassination research" entail? To me, it means a study of that which ended JFK's life. An entrance wound in the back, an entrance wound in the throat, an unknown number of shots to the head. The back and throat wounds had no exits and no rounds were recovered from those wounds during the autopsy.
Those are the root facts of the JFK assassination. Most "assassination research" in this regard concerns the head wound(s). But in light of the fact that the FBI report on the autopsy mentions "apparent" surgery to the top of the head, nothing of the head wound(s) can be known with certainty.
The issue of the head wound(s) appears to me to be a study of the cover-up.
Oswald didn't have anything directly to do with ending JFK's life, so a study of Oswald is a study of the cover-up.
Studies of CE399 and the back yard photos and the MC are studies of the cover-up.
There are two kinds of medical evidence in the case: evidence which was prepared according to proper protocols, and evidence which was NOT prepared according to proper protocols.
Of the latter we include the final autopsy report, the autopsy photos, the portion of the autopsy face sheet filled out in pen. Since pre-autopsy surgery to the head was a possibility, the head x-rays are also tainted. These are artifacts of the cover-up, and so studies of these issues are studies of the cover-up.
The proper medical evidence includes the contemporaneous notes of the Parkland doctors concerning the throat entrance wound, Burkely's death certificate putting the back wound at T3, the portion of the autopsy face sheet filled out in pencil, the Sibert/O'Neill FBI report on the autopsy and Sibert and O'Neill's HSCA depositions. I would also argue that the neck x-ray is genuine.
There were at least 15 eye-witnesses to the low back wound, and more than a half-dozen eye-witnesses to the throat entrance wound.
The physical evidence (clothing defects), the properly prepared medical evidence, and the eye-witnesses are clear and consistent: there was an entrance wound in the back with no exit and no round recovered during the autopsy; there was an entrance wound in the throat with no exit and no round recovered during the autopsy.
"Assassination research" -- in my book -- starts with this question at Square One:
What happened to the bullets that caused the throat and back wounds?
The cover-up of JFK's assassination succeeded in keeping an entire community from addressing this root mystery in any meaningful way.
Keep 'em busy with the shiny baubles of the cover-up and they won't ask the hard question.
And voila...the question isn't asked very often, is it?
"What happend to the bullets that caused JFK's throat and back wounds"?