Justice for JFK

[Mc Mike]

426. Octa's post 400, just past post 28, has

a link to analysis of (some of) the WC's 'inadvertent' failings. It's worth reading.

The last post of the 8 I listed is post 107, titled 'and how much of the Warren Commission report have YOU read?' You don't have to wade through the 8 I noted and re-read them, and it's a free country, so people can interpret things in any way they feel is right. But I know how I feel and interpret stop's constant refrain, and the tone of it.

I don't demand that you don't read the Report, but just on one of the points in Oct's post 400 link, you can see how there might be a problem. The Commission transposed two frames of the film of Kennedy getting shot in the head. The result was that the head appeared to snap forward. They were caught and called on it, so they said it was just a transcription 'error'. Yet 'stop' the report advocate is up thread explaining that the high velocity rear shot's effect causes the head to snap backward.

So the Commission tried to show that the head was back and snapped forward. The error was caught. Then Commission advocates say that a forward leaning head will snap backward when shot from the rear, due to 'physics'. So by accidentally transposing the two frames, they made it look like any reasonable lay person would suspect, that a head shot from the rear by a high velocity round will snap forward. Which contradicts the 'science' or 'physics' of Warren Commission advocates. It's lucky detractors caught the transcription error, so 'strict reality based' people like 'stop' wouldn't come away in a quandry, inadvertently believing that Kennedy was shot from the front, because the Warren Commission showed his back-leaning head snap to the front. Har Har.

The top members of the Commission each had staffers to do the leg work, but each staffer only had part of the picture and task. The members controlled who they hired -- people who were known and loyal to them. And only the top people had all the clearances and the overall picture. Who put the words together into coherent English doesn't matter, the key findings matter. In this case, in my opinion, the composition of personnel on the panel would be like hiring Carlo Gambino, Joe Bonanno, Vito Genovese, Lucchese, and Colombo-Profaci to investigate who is behind the sale of narcotics in the greater NY area. Even if they got a great word smith reporter or poet laureate to punch up their report stylistically, I'm pretty sure I could guess who wouldn't be to blame, in the report's conclusions.

Your point-counterpoint idea would be nice, but could find itself de-railed by one person saying the same thing, over and over again.