Debunking the JFK Conspiracists: New Book

[Charles Collins]

Here is a better book to read: Dr. David Mantik's newly released book JFK Assassination Paradoxes, in which he proves with hard scientific evidence--optical density measurements and radiological analysis--that the JFK autopsy skull x-rays have been altered. As Dr. Greg Henkelmann says in his endorsement of this book, "to reject alteration of the JFK skull x-rays is to reject basic physics and radiology."

https://www.amazon.com/JFK-Assassination-Paradoxes-Essays-Reviews-ebook/dp/B0BH6RV51D

Lone-gunman theorists seem to be caught in a time warp and act like we're living in the early 1990s, seemingly oblivious to the historic evidence that has come to light via the ARRB releases and new scientific research.

For example, are you aware that we now know from ARRB-released files that the autopsy doctors determined for an absolute fact during the autopsy that JFK's back wound had no exit point, and that the first two drafts of the autopsy report said nothing about a bullet exiting the throat? The autopsy doctors, we now know, probed the back wound extensively after removing the chest organs and while positioning the body in different angles and positions. Toward the end of the probing, Dr. Finck informed the two FBI observers (Sibert and O'Neill) that the back wound had no exit point. One of the medical technicians who witnessed the probing could see the end of the probe pushing against the lining of the chest cavity--he could see that the wound was shallow and had no exit point. The HSCA medical panel was aware of this evidence but chose to suppress it by sealing it for 50 years, but the ARRB released it in the mid-1990s.

The fact that the back wound had no exit point, of course, debunks the single-bullet theory, and without the SBT there can be no lone-gunman theory. Since the SBT is false, there must have been at least two gunmen firing at JFK.

Have you just not heard about any of this stuff?

Michael T. Griffith, have you read the book by Michel Jacques Gagne “Thinking Critically About The Kennedy Assassination”?

Just curious….

[Michael T. Griffith]

Michael T. Griffith, have you read the book by Michel Jacques Gagne “Thinking Critically About The Kennedy Assassination”?

Just curious….

I read part of it and quickly saw that it's another uninformed pseudo-academic book on the case that dodges the evidence that has emerged since the 1990s.

[Steve M. Galbraith]

Michael T. Griffith, have you read the book by Michel Jacques Gagne “Thinking Critically About The Kennedy Assassination”?

Just curious….

Apparently Mr. Griffith - who will likely perform his disappearing act again ("Now you See him, Now you Don't") - believes that some type of bullet was fiired by CIA snipers that went into JFK's back only a few inches. And then disappeared. Then another bullet fired by CIA snipers went into JFK's throat/neck a few inches and also disappeared. Yes, these CIA snipers assigned to kill JFK fired not one but two bullets that only went a few inches into JFK and then vanished.

This explanation seems to be more likely to him then a bullet entering the back and exiting through the throat. The autopsy doctors failed to find this during the autopsy because the tracheotomy covered the exit wound. This has been known for decades.

Added: Mantik believes that both wounds - the back and neck - were caused not by bullets but by shrapnel: one piece of glass from the windshield causing the neck wound and another piece of shrapnel from, well, I'm not sure, causing the back wound. And that the autopsy photos and x-rays, indeed the autopsy itself, are fake. This is, well, not very believable. Whether Mr. Griffith believes this is anyone's guess including his own.

As the three autopsy doctors from the Ramsey Clark committee concluded: "The other bullet struck the decedent's back at the right side of the base of the neck between the shoulder and spine and emerged from the front of his neck near the midline. The possibility that this bullet might have followed a pathway other than one passing through the site of the tracheotomy wound was considered. No evidence for this was found. There is a track between the two cutaneous wounds as indicated by subcutaneous emphysema and small metallic fragments on the X-rays and the contusion of the apex of the right lung and laceration of the trachea described in the Autopsy Report. In addition, any path other than one between the two cutaneous wounds would almost surely have been intercepted by bone and the X-ray films show no bony damage in the thorax or neck."

Again: "The possibility that this bullet [that entered the back] might have followed a pathway OTHER THAN ONE PASS ING THROUGH THE SITE OF THE TRACHEOTOMY was considered. NO EVIDENCE FOR THIS WAS FOUND."

[Charles Collins]

I read part of it and quickly saw that it's another uninformed pseudo-academic book on the case that dodges the evidence that has emerged since the 1990s.

Well, the table of contents is available on the website:

https://www.routledge.com/Thinking-Critically-About-the-Kennedy-Assassination-Debunking-the-Myths/Gagne/p/book/9781032114477


Is that the “part of it” that you have read? Or have you actually read part of the book itself?   

[Steve M. Galbraith]

Well, the table of contents is available on the website:

https://www.routledge.com/Thinking-Critically-About-the-Kennedy-Assassination-Debunking-the-Myths/Gagne/p/book/9781032114477


Is that the “part of it” that you have read? Or have you actually read part of the book itself?   

He's more of a believer in the Garrison claims that Oswald conspired with Ferrie and Shaw at a party with numerous people listening in (!?) to kill JFK as part of a homosexual thrill kill.

No, wait. He believes in Newman's theory that it was the Pentagon. No, wait again. He believes Antonio Veciana's claim that it was David Phillips and the CIA.

He believes it was the CIA or the Pentagon or homosexuals. He also believes Oswald was totally innocent but also that he was one of the conspirators.

If you talk to 15 different conspiracy believers you will hear them tell 15 different explanations as to what happened. Or you can talk to Mr. Griffith alone and get 15 different explanations all by himself.

[Charles Collins]

He's more of a believer in the Garrison claims that Oswald conspired with Ferrie and Shaw at a party with numerous people listening in (!?) to kill JFK as part of a homosexual thrill kill.

No, wait. He believes in Newman's theory that it was the Pentagon. No, wait again. He believes Antonio Veciana's claim that it was David Phillips and the CIA.

He believes it was the CIA or the Pentagon or homosexuals. He also believes Oswald was totally innocent but also that he was one of the conspirators.

If you talk to 15 different conspiracy believers you will hear them tell 15 different explanations as to what happened. Or you can talk to Mr. Griffith alone and get 15 different explanations all by himself.

Any explaination other than the government’s explaination will do….     

[Steve M. Galbraith]

Any explaination other than the government’s explaination will do….     

Yes, "the official explanation" must be dismissed at all costs. Any other explanation will suffice even if that one contradicts another one which contradicts a third which contradicts a fourth. They are all believed.

It's like a giant Rube Goldberg conspiracy device. Instead of bells and whistles and mechanisms it's the CIA over here and the FBI over there and Texas oilmen over in another place. You push a button and the conspiracy whirls and turns and at the end of it JFK is dead. Great fun, I guess but nobody should take this nonsense seriously.

[Martin Weidmann]

Any explaination other than the government’s explaination will do….     

Not really.

Any explanation (from the government or anybody else), not based on assumptions and conjecture and supported by credible, authenticated, conclusive evidence would do.