You may not like what I say, Denis, but it's very true. Go back to my thread above about what I posted. I know you won't but go anyway. Read it. Now tell me why not a single person here is willing to try to dispute what I'm saying?
You were given answers. You just didn't like them.
How can it be that during this reenactment they had the stickers on the Kennedy stand-in exactly where the injuries were on the body? How can it be that instead of not writing the obvious about those stickers, we then had a policitian pencil in "of neck" to further fudge the official record?
The on-site reenactment was a preliminary part of their analysis as to how the trajectory occurred. They placed the reenactment car at Z210 and determined a slope of 17° 43' 30". They then went to "a nearby garage where a photograph was taken to determine through closer study whether the angle of that shot could have accounted for the wounds in the President's neck and the Governor's back". (WCR p.106-07)
Arlen Spector thought the President's jacket raised up because Kennedy in the Z-film had his right arm up waving. But the bunch at the nape was present in most, if not all, photos (of sufficient resolution) of the motorcade after it left Love Field. The bunch at the nape wasn't dependent on how high the right arm was.
What else is there to say? Do you not find it the least bit intriguing to see those two stickers on that stand-in? Do you have any explanation at all of how a shot that hits that lower part of the back to then some how work its way up and exit where the throat sticker is on the other side? We're talking simple physics here, Denis.
"hits that
lower part of the back"? And you accuse others of "moving" the wound. LOL.
And per the autopsy the back wound DID NOT EVEN EXIT. Humes said as much...it terminated there and he could stick his finger into it and feel where ended. So what about that, Denis?
Even if a little finger could enter the wound (the Clark Panel thought it unlikely), wouldn't the increasing circumference of the finger alone hold the finger back?
If you or anyone else is jumping around all over the place on this not facing the facts, then yes, your biased. What else is there?
"Defining your opponent": oldest strategy in politics. Part of negative campaigning. You're not to blame; you're reflecting the "democratic" process and how it's presented on TV. And maybe also the way people conduct themselves on the Internet. And the rise of individualism with narrowed circles of empathy and the omnipotent belief that even the most uneducated somehow intuitively know more than anyone else.
I liken it to the police investigator who hates prostitutes and then has to investigate one's murder. He's not going to give a vigorous and honest investigation because in his mind, she deserved it or whatever.
There's more than enough of that to go around in this case too. The truth hurts, Denis.
'Night John Boy. 'Night Mary Ellen.
I think bias infers LNers "hate" Kennedy on a personal or political level. Very little of those aspects get discussed here. The political side is so far in the past, I doubt it's all that relevant to most LNers, at least, not here. John McAdams is rabidly far-right and seems motivated to "embarrass" or "expose" CTers because he thinks they're all "liberal" and "leftists". But he doesn't post here.
Most LNers on this Forum see the issues from a forensic and photogrammetry level. The jacket bunched; Connally was inboard relative to Kennedy; Ford clarified wording to better match that in the autopsy report. Are we no longer supposed to mention such things for fear of intimidation?
