Charles Drago Wrote:No one said this would be easy.
It gets even harder. I mean, I don't spare myself from the label -- Assassination Pornographer.
I distorted the record for a decade and a half by arguing about the throat and back wounds. I gave the impression by going back and forth with LNers (and Vichy CTs like John Hunt) that there were two sides to the issue.
I knew what I was doing. I even joked once on the EF that the centerpiece of a well-planned cover-up would be someone doing what I did -- take the primary physical evidence in the case and drive it down a rabbit hole of false equivalency.
I knew what I was doing and I did it anyway. I didn't care. I was out for my own truth, so if Historical Truth was laying bleeding in the gutter and I was flipping stubbed out cigarettes onto Her prone and battered body -- so what? Near as I can tell the entire JFK Assassination Critical Research Community (to say nothing of the USG and MSM) has been grossly abusing the Lady for decades, and I've just been a bit player in the peanut gallery.
I wanted to wrench admissions of fact out of rhetorical opponents. It was my hobby. To get John Hunt to describe a sideways movement of jacket, to get Chad Zimmerman to admit the jacket was raised only an inch before the collar dropped, to get Craig Lamson to admit that the jacket collar was in a normal position in Dealey Plaza, to get David Von Pein to admit that the jacket was not significantly raised before the jacket collar dropped.
I enjoyed debating lawyers about points of law, chiropractors about points of anatomy, and photographers about photo analysis. I was always right and I always "won" and most of the time it was fun.
Doesn't make it any less Assassination Porno, however.
Charles, I have a little saying...95% of everything said or written about the JFK assassination is bullshit. Disinfo, misinfo, meaningless minutia, details of egregiously exaggerated significance -- Assassination Pornography.
I certainly don't spare myself from the 95% rule -- but now I'm trying to concentrate on the 5%, as I see it.
I have another little saying...Obfuscation is the collateral damage of good research. I did good research into the clothing evidence over the years. The obfuscation was the notion that I needed to.
People do good research into the acoustics evidence. But it's inherently obfuscatory because 4+ shots have already been established and we don't need the acoustics evidence to establish anything.
Same with the NAA. Less than useless -- highly obfuscatory since the failure of the SBT's trajectory is readily observed.
Almost the entire 2003 Wecht Conference was an Assassination Porn convention. So was almost half of the 2005 Cracking the Case conference.
People do good research into the head wounds but it's highly obfuscatory since there may have been pre-autopsy surgery to the head, ergo no firm conclusion can ever be drawn about the number of times JFK was shot in the head.
Doug Weldon was a nice guy who devoted many decades to the t&t windshield hole. It was very good research. But Doug pooh-poohed the throat entrance wound. He almost had to or else his work was of secondary importance. And I hate to say it because he was such a nice guy -- but his work was obfuscatory when he went back and forth on this issue with a variety of people as if it were crucial to establish a frontal shot.
We don't need to know there was a shot from the front that hit the windshield when we know for a fact there was a shot from the front that hit the throat.
When we promote -- or even give credence to -- scientific proofs against the SBT we are engaged in Assassination Pornography, a distortion of the record which clearly shows that the SBT is debunked by the act of visual observation, not scientific evaluation.
None of us are innocent, Charles. Eh?
