Bighunter43 said:

---

FobTies said:

---

Ah thanks, it would still be good to go off something more than a job title to back up the claim they did many gunshot wound autopsies before JFKs.

I don't think anyone would trust Fauci more if NIH changed his title to "Head of Honest COVID Origin Review".

As I have said before, IF a foundational argument hinges on consensus or authority (title), it should always be scurtinized.

---

I was referring to Cyril Wecht though not Pierre Finck.

---

To evaluate this you would have to know more about the man. Cyril Wecht makes an exceeding impressive impression. The "gut" is to think he wouldn't lie blandly about something that could be very readily disproven back when he said it. But that is only if he is not some kind of charlatan or agitator. Already said how he came across. Would he just lie about the qualifications of the Bethesda staff, so stridently? A red-meat journo might, but is that kind of person? I don't know but betting the thread's JFK case enthusiasts have an idea.

Actually, you don't need to know anything about the man. You simply just need to see authentic proof he had done any gunshot wound autopsies before JFK. Right now, this is all I could find. So I'd be interested to see how Dr. Cyril would repsond to this (but he's dead).

Perhaps Cyril was referencing the 2 other pathologists involved? Maybe Humes who led it hadn't done any gunshot wounds before?

True, but what I meant was, the more you know about an `expert' the more you know if you really do need to fact check every thing they said, or if you can reliably take it that its probably true (not "fact" but probably true to stipulate short term) and you will learn the same things if investigate. This goes more to time spent on a source. Really big details like that, probably need to check anyway. But all research and fact-checking takes time and effort --- if you are having to vet everything in a discussion, that can become an issue quick.

Gotcha.

This bit was pretty interesting....

Yes, that is interesting. You see, I had just read your original post, and thought "well then, plenty of experience with those men." But then you follow up, and it seems they were not the ones allowed to lead. So this is a good example of the context of the details matters. And ends up sounding something like what Wecht was saying.

titan said:

---

hrue, but what I meant was, the more you know about an `expert' the more you know if you really do need to fact check every thing they said, or if you can reliably take it that its probably true (not "fact" but probably true to stipulate short term) and you will learn the same things if investigate. This goes more to time spent on a source. Really big details like that, probably need to check anyway. But all research and fact-checking takes time and effort --- if you are having to vet everything in a discussion, that can become an issue quick.

---

No intent to derail here but to your point, the Derek Chauvin case where George Floyd's "family" hired Dr. Michael Baden to review and do a second "autopsy." Then he went on TV and announced his conclusions pointing to Chauvin's guilt. Only glaring problem was that he did not wait for the tox and tissue reports before he reached his conclusions. That was so bad that the prosecution asked for and received a motion in limine denying the defense to even broach the subject of the second "autopsy" in front of the jury.

BTW, anyone seen the formerly esteemed Dr. Baden on TV as the expert pathologist since then? Ruined his career it was such a colossal blunder.

aggiehawg said:

---

titan said:

---

hrue, but what I meant was, the more you know about an `expert' the more you know if you really do need to fact check every thing they said, or if you can reliably take it that its probably true (not "fact" but probably true to stipulate short term) and you will learn the same things if investigate. This goes more to time spent on a source. Really big details like that, probably need to check anyway. But all research and fact-checking takes time and effort --- if you are having to vet everything in a discussion, that can become an issue quick.

---

No intent to derail here but to your point, the Derek Chauvin case where George Floyd's "family" hired Dr. Michael Baden to review and do a second "autopsy." Then he went on TV and announced his conclusions pointing to Chauvin's guilt. Only glaring problem was that he did not wait for the tox and tissue reports before he reached his conclusions. That was so bad that the prosecution asked for and received a motion in limine denying the defense to even broach the subject of the second "autopsy" in front of the jury.

BTW, anyone seen the formerly esteemed Dr. Baden on TV as the expert pathologist since then? Ruined his career it was such a colossal blunder.

---

You weighing in is no derail. You understand these kind of testimonies and events better. That's patently ridiculous about Baden. He seemed sharper or more honest than that. It makes one wonder anew about earlier cases...

That's nuts. But imagine if gov military officials or local police came in to make decisions on how the pathologists were to execute Floyd's autopsy?!

That seems to be what happened with JFK's.

Its hard to think of any less qualified to be hanging around while they do their work. That does seems
dubious.

In I/T management you generally needed the sales people to clear out while you work on the network and their units. It was difficult to get anything done if they were standing around. Can't imagine the pressure they would be feeling because of the military chain of command shadow.

FobTies said:

---

That's nuts. But imagine if gov military officials or local police came in to make decisions on how the pathologists were to execute Floyd's autopsy?!

That seems to be what happened with JFK's.

---

Well, that actually did happen in Dallas, only it was the Secret Service. At the time, there was no federal statute that applied to the assassination of a President, meaning the murder was a Texas state law matter only. To prove such a homicide, the autopsy had to be performed by the ME there. And he was at Parkland, trying to get access to do just that. But SS would not allow him access to JFK's body. There was quite a confrontation happening. (Even Caro wrote about that.) No one knew about the Zapruder film that day.

So when JFK's body was removed from Texas, without a Texas autopsy, under the law at the time, serious doubt Texas state capital murder charges could even be brought against Oswald. That's still subject to some debate but I'm not so sure the state could prove homicide under state laws, back then.

Amazing to think about that now but it was true.

aggiehawg said:

---

FobTies said:

---

That's nuts. But imagine if gov military officials or local police came in to make decisions on how the pathologists were to execute Floyd's autopsy?!

That seems to be what happened with JFK's.

---

Well, that actually did happen in Dallas, ony it was the Secret Service. At the time, there was no federal statute that applied to the assassination of a President, meaning the murder was a Texas state law matter only. To prove such a homicide, the autopsy had to be performed by the ME there. And he was at Parkland, trying to get access to do just that. But SS would not allow him access to JFK's body. There was quite a confrontation happening. (Even Caro wrote about that.) No one knew about the Zapruder film that day.

So when JFK's body was removed from Texas, without a Texas autopsy, under the law at the time, serious doubt Texas state capital murder charges could even be brought against Oswald. That's still subject to some debate but I'm not so sure the state could prove homicide under state laws, back then.

Amazing to think about that now but it was true.

---

This is where align closer to the skeptics. Believe had that been known that day, Zapruder's film would never have been seen. Even he might be gone. Sometimes wonder how it did survive when so many supposed other streams did not.

A very apt point....well made sir.

I really don't lay the blame on JFK's and Jackie's personal SS details on that. I mean the ME was telling them what state law demanded happen but they were so traumatized by losing a protectee, LBJ was on AF One waiting to take off. And then there was a blood stained Jackie sitting on a folding char in the hall. She wasn't going to leave without him.

OTOH? A couple of days later, no trial was necessary anymore? A little queasy about that one.

NBC has the goods

BREAKING: @realannapaulina tells Primetime that NBC has a secret tape that shows Lee Harvey Oswald near JFK's vehicle when the assassination took place... which would mean he wasn't the shooter. pic.twitter.com/SI34rf2HPG

— Jesse Watters (@JesseBWatters) March 29, 2025

BMX Bandit said:

---

NBC has the goods

BREAKING: @realannapaulina tells Primetime that NBC has a secret tape that shows Lee Harvey Oswald near JFK's vehicle when the assassination took place... which would mean he wasn't the shooter. pic.twitter.com/SI34rf2HPG

— Jesse Watters (@JesseBWatters) March 29, 2025

---

Her source is Oliver Stone. And Stone and NBC kept it secret for decades because....

Oliver Stone is apparently on her oversight committee and is one of the people she picked to testify in Congress. What happened to all the doctors she said were going to testify?

Comcast stock is struggling and Stone hasn't made anything good since the masterpiece Evita. They are holding the tape back to build excitement and momentum for the release of JFK2: Mr. X Strikes Back. (Exclusively on Peacock)

I would bet the farm that there is no tape showing Oswald on the street near the limo….there would be zero way to prove it anyway!! Plus, Oswald told police he was on the front steps, if he's a been out near the street he'd a said so…ain't happening!

Bighunter43 said:

---

I would bet the farm that there is no tape showing Oswald on the street near the limo….there would be zero way to prove it anyway!! Plus, Oswald told police he was on the front steps, if he's a been out near the street he'd a said so…ain't happening!

---

Exactly. And we have seen tons and tons of pictures taken on the day from all over.

I think that most everyone (if not everyone) on the street after the turn is known.

I bet NBC has a grainy low res vid of a white guy that resembles Oswald. This type of stuff isn't designed to bring scrutiny to the CIA. It's catnip designed to distract people and protect the CIA/LBJ. The more things that ultimately get disproven, the more credibility is lost from the broader conspiracy theory.

Where does John Ratcliffe fall in all of this? CIA is said to still be keeping items hidden.

He's head of CIA, and from Texas. LBJ connection we don't know about??

Then were is this!

RFK Jr’s silence on the JFK files and Israel’s clear involvement makes so much more sense now. I thought the silence was weird but the public war cry and support for Israel had me really weirded out. The man is being blackmailed.

I’d like to say. @RobertKennedyJr as long as… https://t.co/OD0HExR4YE

— Jeremy (@Jeremy4_liberty) March 29, 2025

Does NBC have the RFK sex tape too? Or is that kept in Israel?

In that long form conversation with Dave Smith, RFK goes into great detail breaking down his stance on Israel and Gaza. He goes into depth on the history and shows his motivation for peace and resolution. I tend to agree more with Dave on that topic, but in no way did RFK come off as compromised by Israel.

if you were compromised by someone, you'd make it a point to not make it look you were compromised.

Fair point, but RFK has consistently made the same genuine points in that debate. They are basically the same GOP points. Now, if there was evidence he changed his position, or was apathetic then vocal, I think it might be more believable. Plus he isnt really in a postion in gov to do anything to help Israel. His pushing for answers to his uncles murder have been more passive most others who have no personal connection.

Luna probably thinks the Jimmy Darnell film is brand new

They are probably going with the long since debunked conspiracy theory that Billy Lovelady is LHO.

I thought Luna had some common sense. I thought wrong.

rwpag71 said:

---

I thought Luna had some common sense. I thought wrong.

---

Did you miss the press conference when she kicked all this off where she said she had proof of a second shooter and would call a bunch of people to testify before Congress, and all the people she mentioned have been dead a long time

Guitarsoup said:

---

rwpag71 said:

---

I thought Luna had some common sense. I thought wrong.

---

Did you miss the press conference when she kicked all this off where she said she had proof of a second shooter and would call a bunch of people to testify before Congress, and all the people she mentioned have been dead a long time

---

FFS. Why do people do this to themselves? I'm embarrassed for her.

rwpag71 said:

---

Guitarsoup said:

---

rwpag71 said:

---

I thought Luna had some common sense. I thought wrong.

---

Did you miss the press conference when she kicked all this off where she said she had proof of a second shooter and would call a bunch of people to testify before Congress, and all the people she mentioned have been dead a long time

---

FFS. Why do people do this to themselves? I'm embarrassed for her.

---

It's great she is working on releasing all these things confirming the CIA is every bit as bad or worse than we know/thought. But she clearly didn't spend anytime actually reading or studying the subjects and it seems is relying on nutjobs like Oliver Stone.

Have been quite a few own goals.

She would have been better off if she just picked a leading researcher on either side of the debate (Morley and Posner are the super easy choices) and get their thoughts. But it is clear she doesn't really know what she is talking about and that she doesn't know much about the history. And who would expect her to? It is endlessly time consuming with tons of rabbit holes all over the place. Easily the most researched crime story in history.

She invited Morley to be the first to speak to the task force on April 1….Posner has been pouting because he's not invited.

Bighunter43 said:

---

She invited Morley to be the first to speak to the task force on April 1….Posner has been pouting because he's not invited.

---

It would make sense to bring in both. Fair and balanced, and what not? Both have very extensive knowledge on the subject.

Guitarsoup said:

---

Bighunter43 said:

---

She invited Morley to be the first to speak to the task force on April 1….Posner has been pouting because he's not invited.

---

It would make sense to bring in both. Fair and balanced, and what not? Both have very extensive knowledge on the subject.

---

My guess is that they are familiar with the "official story" and are looking only for "new" information to confirm a preconceived agenda. Morley and Posner would be a great one on one discussion to watch though.

Bighunter43 said:

---

Guitarsoup said:

---

Bighunter43 said:

---

She invited Morley to be the first to speak to the task force on April 1….Posner has been pouting because he's not invited.

---

It would make sense to bring in both. Fair and balanced, and what not? Both have very extensive knowledge on the subject.

---

My guess is that they are familiar with the "official story" and are looking only for "new" information to confirm a preconceived agenda. Morley and Posner would be a great one on one discussion to watch though.

---

Luna didn't know the members of the Warren Commission were dead a month ago. I don't think we can assume she is familiar with anything.

The question comes down to do you want to push an agenda or find the truth. I'm interested in the truth, which is why I pay attention to both Morley and Posner.