Evidence and The Science of Interpretation

Knowing the truth about the Kennedy Assassination is understanding America today.

Moderators: Bob, Phil Dragoo, Dealey Joe, kenmurray, dankbaar

Evidence and The Science of Interpretation

Postby steve manning » Thu Jul 17, 2014 11:29 pm

Obviously there is more than one type of evidence. For example there is: physical, circumstantial, hear-say, eye witness testimony, etc; all of which can be scientifically ranked in terms of importance and/or priority and reliability. Obviously, the idea is to interpret all of it by giving it the weight it would "most likely "deserve, based on some scientific principles of interpretive reconstruction.

As I've tried to say before, I would argue the most important "evidence" in any case (that requires reconstruction) is obtained closest in time to the event question. This is fundamental to an accurate reconstruction...you know, that pesky little question about what the hell really happened? This leaves the least amount of time for the evidence to be altered in any way, etc. and thus makes sense.

In the case of JFK, first and foremost, this would be all the physical evidence such as, the body of JFK (or descriptions thereof), ballistics, photographic and audio evidence from the scene, as well as all the Eye witness testimony, etc. Next, is anything they have obtained between the hospital and the Plaza and then it's whatever they obtained at the hospital, all of which would be captured in the first 10-20 minutes after the shooting (much of it in the first 5 or 6 minutes).

Just 2 categories of hospital evidence would be: #1 the descriptions of the head wound and throat wound by the doctors and nurses. Also, #2 the descriptions of the limo outside the hospital. An serious boost in credibility is added to the testimony of all the doctors and nurses in trauma room one. Two things; these men and women were dedicated professionals who dealt with more than their share of gunshot wounds at Parkland Hospital. Just as important or more so, is the uniformity of all their testimony. This is huge, and from an interpreters standpoint it increases the reliability! If we stop to realize when this evidence is obtained and the brief proximity of time in relation to the shooting, we are free to conclude the only other chance his wounds could have been altered in any way would of been in the limo while it was still racing out of the plaza only seconds after the event. As I stated before, this evidence has not been given the weight it truly deserves. In other words, I would argue that the uniform description given by the doctors and nurses of the throat wound could have only been superseded by the shooter or JFK himself...not by any other known testimony.

To summarize, I believe it would probably require clear photographic evidence obtained during the same time frame to supersede their testimony (of which we do not have). Any other testimony or even photograph comes under the suspicion of fraud because of the proximity factor alone; thereby reducing the reliability of said evidence by comparison.

I supposed most of you are hesitant to comment on this because you're afraid of potential backlash. Well at this point, I would ask a simple question: if that is the case, what are you trying to save? If we cannot explore the truth and rely on healthy debate to sharpen our understanding, I question the necessity of it all? To just dismiss the throat damage as anything but a clear wound of entrance is to ignore critical evidence that is clearly pointing in another direction...the truth of what really happened.

As Gil Jesus points out, JFK was clearly pulling his necktie to his left with his left hand while simultaneously coughing up a bullet. He may not have understood it was a bullet, but it does appear to have been an involuntary reaction. Yes the bullet did not exit; at least not where we think it should have exited. I really doubt the neck is 50% soft tissue; I would think it is closer to a third. Nevertheless, even if it was, the round could have easily hit the cervical cords and lodged in the neck, or possibly deflected upward and out the top of his head or downward into the chest. We simply don’t know if it was lodged in the neck and later removed by those who altered his body or what? But we do know he was shot there. That firecracker sound was most likely the bullet traversing the windshield. Yes I realize it was early but so what? Even Files was ready to shoot from the front if had to. Doug Weldon clearly shows the trajectory could easily line up from the south side of the underpass. The Secret Service made sure the General (forget his name?) who normally would have been sitting in the front seat of the limo between the Driver (Greer) and the passenger (Kellerman); he would have blocked the shooters sighting of JFK from the front, had he been there like every other time.

Thanx for reading,
steve manning
Posts: 100
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2007 7:24 am

Return to Who shot JFK, and why?

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests