The American Ruling Class

[rickoff]

@Rick

I can't answer to that whole 2 posts [#4860 and 4861], cause its just to much typing for a subject I just pay attention to but don't really care either way about. I just read or listen to the subject I have no opinion on it.

You didn't answer to, or contest, any of the proofs I showed in my two posts other than to assert that the illustrations of President Kennedy's head wounds which I displayed are incorrect, and state that the ones shown in Bonar Menninger's book are the correct ones. That leads me to believe that you never took the time to read my replies to you, and instead only glanced at the head wound illustrations and compared them to Menninger's book. By the way, for someone who says that the subject of Kennedy's assassination is something you "don't really care either way about," it seems odd to me that you would have watched the TV documentary and then ordered a book from which the documentary was produced. It is also quite odd to me that, in view of your statement, you would take the time to order and read an entire book, but not take the few minutes needed to read and understand what was in two posts specifically addressed to you. If you cannot take a few minutes to read what follows in this current post, please do at least answer the questions that I pose to you, which I will colorize in red so that you can find them quickly. If I can take the time to research and respond to your assertions then it is only fair that you respond to my questions.

In the BOOK which I now have now the CORRECT Wounds on Kennedy head is displayed. The ones you are showing are incorrect and those have been part of the problem for along time according to the Author They came from the Hospital in Texas, were included with the Secret service report.

You never stated which of the head wound diagrams that I presented were incorrect, so how about clarifying that statement? Also, how about scanning the Menninger book images or diagrams and showing them to us? I was simply showing the immense difference between the Parkland Hospital diagram (black and white diagram) and the Warren Commission diagrams (colored) purporting to show the neck and head wounds and the bullet trajectory.

The actual bullet hole in the back of the head was on the left rear and the wound was hollowed out about an 1" through the skull and then there were metal pieces after that, all the way out of the skull which was missing.

Regarding the text which I bolded above for accent, if that were the case then how do you, or Menninger for that matter, explain that the "magic bullet," shown below, was found in pristine condition with no visible signs of deterioration other than the small amount of metal which was scraped off near the tip by the FBI for testing purposes?


Regarding the blowout "skull piece which was missing," if Menninger's theory were correct then that piece would have exited at the upper right area of Kennedy's head, and would have either fallen into the limousine or hit the pavement, but that's not the case. So what did happen with that skull piece? It is an undisputed fact that Jackie picked up that piece and held it in place on the President's head until reaching Parkland Hospital, but where did she find that skull piece? Clint Hill, the Secret Service agent who ran to the rear of the limousine after the shooting and climbed aboard, talks about that in a November 2012 book, "Mrs Kennedy and Me." Clint explains that Jackie Kennedy leaped onto the back of the presidential limousine in a desperate bid to save her husband by attempting to retrieve a piece of his skull. Here's what Clint wrote:
"Somebody had fired a shot at the president, and I had to get myself between the shooter and the president and Mrs. Kennedy. Nothing else mattered." As he raced toward Jackie he could see "her eyes were filled with terror. She was reaching for something. She was reaching for a piece of the president's head." [emphasis added by Rickoff]

She then climbed back into the seat with Clint's help and cover and cradled Kennedy's head in her arms, saying, "Jack, Jack, what have they done to you?" Now how do you, or author Menninger, explain why the blown out piece of Jack's skull was found behind President Kennedy on the limo's trunk lid?

Menninger was given the correct drawings when he was granted access to the Ballistic from the naval hospital, or something like that.

You are simply assuming that the final autopsy report regarding the ballistics, as issued by the Bethesda Naval Hospital, is a correct and honest report. You are also assuming that the doctors at Parkland Hospital, who were the first to see Kennedy's head wounds, don't know what they were talking about when they described Kennedy's fatal head shot as entering from the front and creating a skull blowout area at the back of the head. The Parkland doctors all saw exactly what the wounds were, and none of them had any reason to bear false witness, whereas the doctors at the Naval Hospital were military men under the command of a higher officer, all of which were quite likely pressured to come up with a report that "fit" the official story of Oswald being the shooter.

Did you know, and/or did Menninger mention, that the lead autopsy doctor at the Naval Hospital, Commander J Humes, admitted to the Warren Commission that he burned his first autopsy report in the fireplace at his home?both his notes taken at the autopsy andbold character emphasis by Rickoff his own affidavitARRB Deposition of Pierre Finck, p. 14.

Don't you acknowledge that the destruction of original handwritten autopsy notes, and the destruction of the original autopsy report which was replaced by a later version, are very strong indicators that a cover-up of the medical evidence had occurred, and which makes the report given to Menninger an unreliable one?

I personally feel the simplist answer is the best and this one by for more simple than anything presented in the conspiracy realm.

I think you meant the simplest answer. Anyways, if you prefer simple explanations in regards to Kennedy's assassination then why not simply acknowledge that the evidence clearly points to Kennedy being shot from the front? What is simpler than an irrefutable understanding that his head violently jerked backwards, bouncing off the seat back, upon being hit by the fatal kill shot? You stated in an earlier post that this was due to the limo suddenly accelerating after the shot was fired, but I proved that was an incorrect assumption by showing that Jackie, who was leaning forwards, and unsupported at the time, was not thrust backwards. Can you come up with a "simple" explanation for that, as well as the fact that Jackie retrieved the blown out skull piece from the limo's trunk lid?

I am saying that neither of the two shots that hit Kennedy were fired from behind him. Can you present any credible evidence which would show that these shots were fired from behind, or that Oswald fired either of them? If so then please do show that evidence rather than repeating allegations unsupported by facts.

[rickoff]

More simple questions for Matthew Jones......

There is absolutely no indisputable evidence to even suggest that Kennedy was shot from behind, or that Oswald was a shooter during the assassination. It is assumed by many people that the bullet wound to Kennedy's throat entered from the back of his neck and caused what appears to be a larger blowout wound at the front of his neck, as seen in the below photo. Is this also your and Menninger's conclusion?

The Warren Commission concluded that this rather large opening in Kennedy's throat was an exit wound, and that's certainly what it looks to be, but looks are deceiving and here's why:
Two of the first doctors to arrive in trauma room one at Parkland Memorial Hospital, Dr Charles Carrico and Dr Malcolm Perry, described the throat wound as having the characteristics of an entry wound: small and circular. Dr. Carrico said it was "probably a 4- to 7-mm wound...rather round...no jagged edges..." Dr. Perry described it as about "5 mm" and "roughly spherical to oval in shape, not a punched out wound..." Dr. Perry made a tracheotomy incision across the bullet wound, just large enough to accommodate a breathing tube. During a phone conversation in 1966 with author David Lifton, Perry stated the incision was "two to three centimeters" (less than 1 and 1/4 inches at most) wide. Drs. Paul Peters and Robert McClelland, also present in trauma room one, said the incision was "sharp" and "smooth," respectively. After the breathing tube was removed, the incision closed upon itself, revealing the original wound in the throat, as described by Drs. Charles Crenshaw and Malcolm Perry. Dr. Crenshaw recalled, "When the body left Parkland there was no gaping, bloody defect in the front of the throat, just a small bullet hole in the thin line of Perry's incision."


In rather stark contrast, when the President's body was observed at the Bethesda Naval Hospital at the start of the official autopsy, the incision/wound in the throat was elongated and widened. The autopsy report described it as "a 6.5 cm long (more than 2 and 1/2 inches) transverse wound with widely gaping, irregular edges." In his testimony to the Warren Commission, chief pathologist Dr. James Humes said that it was actually "7 or 8 cm" in the transverse direction (as much as 3 inches or more).

It is rather obvious that someone intentionally altered the appearance of Kennedy's throat wound after his body left Parkland Hospital, and before the autopsy photo, shown above, was taken. Can you, or Meninger, explain why the wound was altered in this manner, other than to create a false impression of an exit wound? I suppose that you and Menninger might attempt to propose the idea that the Secret Service had done this before the body arrived in Bethesda, but that doesn't jive with testimony given by Jerrol Custer, a technician at the Bethesda Naval Hospital who supervised the taking of x-rays of the President's body before the autopsy began. When asked by the ARRB's Jeremy Gunn to describe the throat wound, Custer described the throat wound as a "typical bullet hole...a little bit bigger than my little finger...(in) diameter." After Custer was asked if he had observed a long incision or cut on the throat, Custer replied, "Not at that time, I didn't." After he had described the throat wound, Custer referred to schematics of the skull, saying that there was damage in the parietal temporal region with a "king-size hole" in the occipital region, into which two hands together would fit. The parietal temporal region at the upper side of the head corresponds to the bullet entrance area, while the occipital area is at the back of the skull, just as shown in the Parkland Hospital illustration reposted below, which you claimed was incorrect. Care to change your preferred theory?

[jdodson]

Obamacare: it is hard to imagine that group of supposedly intelligent individuals (although that maybe debatable) could inadvertently concoct this total disaster of a bill and then those same people who created an agency that can listen it to all our cell phones in real time were not able to produce a working enrollment web site. How is this possible or was it done by design?

Could it be that Obamacare was never meant to be implemented? What if the real goal was a totally government run health care system, of course most people would probably be opposed to that. Thus they are left with using a problem, reaction, solution scenario.

First they create a problem, Obamacare. When seeing it the people react saying this is unacceptable and demand it must be changed. They then offer a solution, total government run health care, which in comparison now sounds reasonable.

If that was the plan, I think its backfiring.

Firstly, half the country doesnt even support Obamacare. (thankfully)
Secondly, I think the only reason Obamacare had so much support from the left wing was that they simply wanted to see change.
Hell or high water, democrat voters were ready to hold their nose and say "yes we can". Meanwhile not knowing anything about the bill...it was passed.
It seems this same voting block was significant enough to get Obama elected in the first place. (Obama being a politician with no real experience doing anything important.)

There will always be a percentage of people who want canada's single payer system.
But, those in the left wing who are on the fence will now get to see first hand, the government incompetence in running an unaffordable health insurance system.
Ultimately everyone seeing this Obamacare incompetence, I think will be very helpful in preventing a single payer system.

I can understand why people want government provided health care.
We already have government provided services like the fire and police departments which I think we can agree, works very well.
It would be great, to go into a doctors office without needing to be insured, or being worried if your medical claim will even be covered or if you will get cancelled by the insurance.

I dont think socialism itself is inherently a bad idea. The problem I have with socialism is the great amount of responsibility it requires from our leaders and ourselves.

I do not have confidence in our government which is already going bankrupt and already having robbed social security, to manage something as massive as universal health care. If our government was operating at a surplus, I would be far more supportive of a single payer system.

In light of our current financial death spiral, I will fight tooth and nail against giving any more financial power and control to the federal government.

[dutchdivco]

Mad Scientist

On the one hand, I believe BIG screw-ups happen all the time in Gov't; people make mistakes all the time: as each of us looks at our own life, i'm sure we all can recall times when we have 'screwed up'. I believe the same thing happens in INSTITUTIONS. That is Institutional screw-ups.

SOME times, I look at things that some on this forum think of as vast conspiracies, and I think well, maybe THIS, (whatever THIS is) isn't a conspiracy, its a 'screw-up'?

However, I must admit; I remember following the whole debate run-up to passing o'bummercare, and I recall the ardent liberals pushing 'FOR', really wanted a single-payor system from the outset. And, were disappointed with O'bummer for not pushjing for one.

After all, suppose O'bummercare fails to enroll enough 'young invincibles' by the end of the sign-up period? That will mean that the majority of the people 'signing up' will be expensive people with multiple conditions, etc.

The Insurance companies will HAVE to raise the premiums on EVERYBODY; those with 'individual' plans, as well as those with 'good, employer based plans'. Or, they will lose $ on the deal, and so simply cease to 'bid' on plans in the exchanges; in other words get out of the business. Which, ultimately, leaves you with a single-payor plan.

I think its possible that some people who wanted a single payor system all along, COULD have written a law that would LEAD to single payor, all the while in effect saying "Well, we aren't going to single payor". On the other hand, I think the problems with the website are primarily a major screw-up.

If you want a 'conspiracy', over 1/2 the people in the country do not approve of or like o'bummercare; that means, logically, that over 1/2 the people hired, to do the work on the website, dissaprove of it, as well. I haven't heard anyone suggest that this was deliberate sabatoge, tho, and neither am I.

Just cause you can percieve someone as having a MOTIVE for something happeneing, doesn't MEAN, in and of itself, that something was a conspiracy, and not just a screw-up.

I think thats part of the problem with the Kennedy assasination; their are SO MANY who had MOTIVE; too many suspects. And, its entirely possible that Johnson, knowing or THINKING he knew who was behind it, decided that the American people would 'go ballistic' (literally) if they knew. And so he and Hoover etc. 'covered it up'.

I think the most value you can get from the Kennedy assasination is that it seems obvious IF you can 'muddy the waters' sufficiently',... and allowing for peoples short attention spans, for long enough, you can get away with anything. And THAT applies to current and future activities, LIKE O'bummercare, or other things that are going on, now. I'm not at all sure that O'bummer is secretly delighted with whats going on with the website, and saying "ALL part of my MASTER plan!". But, I think its entirely possible there are some on the 'far left' who are thinking "This could WELL lead to 'single-payor' if it collapses!" After all, by the time it collapses, 'we' will be too far into it, to 'go back'. So, its a kind of 'backing into' Single Payor, instead of charging in directly.Certainly, if any efforts are maed to 'fix' O'bummercare, THEY will be having input into the 'repairs', unlike Repubs, who have been shut-out of the process from the outset, and are continueing to and will in the future. Jim

[rickoff]

Last night, I happened to catch a JFK presentation on CNN's Piers Morgan show. I was interested to see Morgan's assured spin on the assassination. Sure enough, he had three "experts" appear, and they all stated there was absolutely no evidence to support any conclusion other than that Oswald was the shooter, and that the Warren Commission had it right. Also on the show was Parkland Hospital's then chief resident physician, Dr Ronald Jones. When asked about what he had seen, Jones said this: (CNN video link herehe had a large wound in the back of his head." [bolding emphasis by Rickoff]

So there we go once again, with Jones stating there was "a small wound in his neck," not the large one shown in the autopsy photo which I showed in my last post, and also stating that Kennedy "had a large wound in the back of his head." Of course Morgan appeared oblivious to the relevance of what Jones had just said, and never mentioned that this contradicted the Warren Commission report, and the autopsy report, concerning the wounds. Instead, Morgan immediately shifted the conversation to another person before coming back to Jones and asking a question not related to the wounds. And of course there was no mention that Jones' contradiction was supported by the sworn testimony of several other eyewitnesses, or the fact that these contradictions can only support Kennedy being shot from his front.

Something not seen in the CNN video was Dr Jones' closing statement. Morgan showed a clip of Jones stating he couldn't see any reason why any theory involving any shooter other than Oswald had any merit. He did mention that the small hole in Kennedy's throat "could have been an entrance wound," but said nothing about the wound at the rear of Kennedy's head being an obvious blowout wound. It is unimaginable that Jones himself does not realize the relevance of what he stated earlier in the interview, and why this assures that Kennedy was not killed by Oswald. So, the only logical conclusion that I can draw from his closing statement is that while he surreptitiously let loose the truth in his first statement, he only pretended not to realize the significance of what he had said, and did so because he prefers not to become added to the long list of eyewitnesses who have expired under unusual and suspicious circumstances.

Any viewer who did not have knowledge as to why Jones' first statement contradicts both his final statement, and the "official" story, would probably have come away from the program still believing that Oswald had killed Kennedy.

Tonight at 9:00 Eastern time CNN will feature a "special 2 hour presentation" about JFK and the assassination. Included will be a documentary, or docu-drama, created by Tom Hanks and titled "The Assassination of President Kennedy." From briefly hearing a preview, it looks like Hanks is going to insert at least some conspiracy oriented footage. I don't expect that the presentation will end upon a conclusion that the Warren Commission report was wrong, and that evidence was hidden and altered, but I'll watch the show anyways.

[rickoff]

Quotable quote of the day...

"I never met Obama at Columbia. We were both Political Science majors, both Pre Law. We graduated on the same day. There were perhaps 100 to 150 of us in the Political Science department. And I thought I knew all of them. As the token big-mouthed conservative patriot, I know they all knew me. But not Obama. I never met him, saw him, or even heard of him. Not one of my friends at Columbia ever met him either. At our 30th class reunion last May, I could not find a single classmate who had ever met him." - Wayne Allyn Root, Columbia University class of 1963.

Wayne goes on to say this about the indoctrination and belief system of students at Columbia:

Richard Cloward and Frances Piven

[dutchdivco]

Excellent posts, as usual, Rick

Particularly the last one. Speaks for itself, so nothing to add but KUDO'S! Jim

[dutchdivco]

I suppose

ANOTHER 'part of the plan', probably covered in a sepreate class or coarse, (at Columbia, and probably other colleges as well), would be to degrade or destroy morality. One way to do this is to reward behavior that is immoral, and punish behavior that is moral, or responsible.
Such as penalising people who take responsibility for obtaining their OWN health insurance, so as to 'reward' those who haven't taken responsibility for obtaining theirs. And, with businesses, similarly rewarding BAD behavior, with TARP bail-out, etc.
This kind of behavior, by the Gov't., (it seems to me), can have a kind of 'cumulative' effect, on a Nation's people, both a 'demoralisng effect', in terms of morale, and a 'demoralising effect' in terms of them beginning to see moral questions and dilemmas in their lives in a different light? Jim

[aljhoa]

A

[FuzzyTomCat]

Dude .... look at your reflection ???

[rickoff]

A rope? Sure, what's your neck size?

[aljhoa]

A rope? Sure, what's your neck size?

Who will start the outboard engine?

Al

[rickoff]

Who will start the outboard engine?

Al

No one. It's a non-starter, just like Barry's website.

[aljhoa]

No one. It's a non-starter, just like Barry's website.

Selena Gomez singing in Wizards of Waverly Place [Make It Happen] - YouTube

Al

[jdodson]

My father got his health insurance cancellation today, thanks to Obamacare
He has had Anthem for the past year. It was basic coverage for a great price. Only needed it for any dire emergencies.
His private plan only cost $190 a month, on the cancellation notice they say they can switch to a comparable plan that is "compliant" with Obamacare.....for $485

"If you like your plan, you can keep it!"
Obama should be impeached.