Tracy Riddle Wrote:The LNers would throw out their own "factoids" to refute all of those points. They would be wrong, but they can sound convincing to the uninitiated.
Agreed. The point I started the thread with has been successful to date against LN arguments. It is what it is - it happened, it's provable that it happened and there is no LN rebuttal for it - so far. Ford moved the location of the wound.
I've heard LNers argue that Ford didn't do anything wrong; he only used "clarifying language" to make the wording more precise. Nothing sinister here, move along.
Over the weekend of Nov 22-24 the DPD goes to Neely to reenact the BYP.
They have in their possession 133-A & B where the face virtually matches yet nothing else
Yet when we see the photo of the reenactment - and the photo of the cutout of Oswald we find
it to be the 133-C pose which supposedly does not surface until the mid 70's.
If, over the weekend of Nov 22-24 the only references they have are 133-A&B, how is it possible to place both the DPD stand-in and the cut-out in exactly the same position?
Once in a while you get shown the light
in the strangest of places if you look at it right..... R. Hunter
Drew Phipps Wrote:Was your question designed to elicit answers about a conspiracy to cover up the facts, or was it about a conspiracy to kill the President? Have to be careful about this, because there might be people who participated in a conspiracy to cover up the facts with good and even noble motives (I'm thinking Earl Warren specifically). If you want proof that the fix was in, there's a recording of 1963 LBJ's telephone call to Warren shanghai'ing him into the cover up, and Hoover's 1963 letter to LBJ in agreement with the need for a cover up.
I was thinking more of the mechanics of the assassination itself.
David Josephs Wrote:Over the weekend of Nov 22-24 the DPD goes to Neely to reenact the BYP.
They have in their possession 133-A & B where the face virtually matches yet nothing else
Yet when we see the photo of the reenactment - and the photo of the cutout of Oswald we find
it to be the 133-C pose which supposedly does not surface until the mid 70's.
If, over the weekend of Nov 22-24 the only references they have are 133-A&B, how is it possible to place both the DPD stand-in and the cut-out in exactly the same position?
A labor of Love really.... (simplest argument - how about "prove he did it" ::flyingpig:
How about this one: the Autopsy states this about the man they autopsied:
Skeletal System
Aside from the above described skull wounds there are no significant
gross skeletal abnormalities."
JFK has no gross skeletal abnormalities... really?
or my favorite example of the conspiracy is when the FBI produced WCD298 which places the final shot at Z375 down by the foot of the stairs. For the CE they simply removed the strings and moved the cars.
"The facts which are now in our possession submitted to us in separate reports from the FBI and Secret Service are TOTALLY INCORRECT" -Redlich to Rankin 4/27/64
These "facts" obviously contradict the Evidence of the SBT accepted by this point and that Z313 was the last shot... nothing was ever done to correct these errors other than to bury them within mountains of hay....
Once in a while you get shown the light
in the strangest of places if you look at it right..... R. Hunter
Michael Cross Wrote:I've been in some discussions arguments on the various JFK Facbook pages and I've noticed our community's tendency to get lost in the minutia.
Jim DiEugenio has made many great arguments at ctka, but they are complex for the average attention span of a modern human being.
So, what is your simple argument?
Mine would be that Ford moved JFK's back wound to make the SBT work. Therefore it doesn't work, hence conspiracy.
Humes misplaced his 7 mm by 4 mm back wound at the location of the 7 mm by 10 mm wound discussed by the medical panels. Ford only took credit for this misplacement.
Michael Cross Wrote:I've been in some discussions arguments on the various JFK Facbook pages and I've noticed our community's tendency to get lost in the minutia.
Jim DiEugenio has made many great arguments at ctka, but they are complex for the average attention span of a modern human being.
So, what is your simple argument?
Mine would be that Ford moved JFK's back wound to make the SBT work. Therefore it doesn't work, hence conspiracy.
Humes misplaced his 7 mm by 4 mm back wound at the location of the 7 mm by 10 mm wound discussed by the medical panels. Ford only took credit for this misplacement.
I truly do not want to get into an argument over this Herbert, but as I showed in my grphic above and as this shows, where Ford moved the hole was from the BACK to the NECK. There was no hole where he repositioned the entrance wound while his positioning negates the offered fraudulent path of this missle.
The back and neck wounds do not connect. Ford, as a servent of the FBI did what he was asked to do to "clarify history"
Peace
DJ
Once in a while you get shown the light
in the strangest of places if you look at it right..... R. Hunter
Michael Cross Wrote:I've been in some discussions arguments on the various JFK Facbook pages and I've noticed our community's tendency to get lost in the minutia.
Jim DiEugenio has made many great arguments at ctka, but they are complex for the average attention span of a modern human being.
So, what is your simple argument?
Mine would be that Ford moved JFK's back wound to make the SBT work. Therefore it doesn't work, hence conspiracy.
Humes misplaced his 7 mm by 4 mm back wound at the location of the 7 mm by 10 mm wound discussed by the medical panels. Ford only took credit for this misplacement.
I truly do not want to get into an argument over this Herbert, but as I showed in my grphic above and as this shows, where Ford moved the hole was from the BACK to the NECK. There was no hole where he repositioned the entrance wound while his positioning negates the offered fraudulent path of this missle.
The back and neck wounds do not connect. Ford, as a servent of the FBI did what he was asked to do to "clarify history"
Peace
DJ
Your arrows do not point to the 7 mm by 4 mm wound described by Humes with its longer axis nearly parallel to the long axis of the body. Instead your lower arrow points to the 7 mm by 10 mm wound whose longer axis was almost perpendicular to the same long axis of the body.
Tracy Riddle Wrote:Ok, I'll throw a personal favorite out there: the paper bag.
There is a fairly recent thread in DPF that shows a picture of the bag being removed from the TSBD, and it is clearly folded and constructed differently that the Warren Commission bag pictured in the Archives. More evidence of a cover up conspiracy.
"All that is necessary for tyranny to succeed is for good men to do nothing." (unknown)
James Tracy: "There is sometimes an undue amount of paranoia among some conspiracy researchers that can contribute to flawed observations and analysis."
Gary Cornwell (Dept. Chief Counsel HSCA): "A fact merely marks the point at which we have agreed to let investigation cease."
Alan Ford: "Just because you believe it, that doesn't make it so."
