The JFK ASSASSINATION SURVEY...

[David Mantik]

 

...is now available online at TheMantikView:

 

    http://themantikview.com/

 

If time is limited, be sure not to miss the SURVEY CONCLUSIONS (the last file).

 

If you are limited to only a few minutes, you should find useful and new information at the end of the CONCLUSIONS, in my discussion of the Single Bullet Theory.

 

Best wishes,

 

David Mantik

[John McAdams]

On 25 Jan 2020 21:23:56 -0500, David Mantik <david...@verizon.net>
wrote:

>
> ...is now available online at TheMantikView:      http://themantikview.com/ If time is limited, be sure not to miss the SURVEY CONCLUSIONS (the last file). If you are limited to only a few minutes, you should find useful and new information at the end of the CONCLUSIONS, in my discussion of the Single Bullet Theory. Best wishes,  David Mantik

Here is the survey:

http://themantikview.com/pdf/JFK_Survey.pdf

Essentially *nobody* who was not a conspiracist completed the survey:

http://themantikview.com/pdf/JFK_Survey.pdf#page=3

And while some of the respondents are relatively sane, he asked James
Fetzer and Judyth Baker for this opinions.

Some of the questions are framed in a terribly biased way. For
example:

"42. Fred Newcomb interviewed four Dealey Plaza motorcycle escorts;
they describe actions (including a limousine stop) not seen in the
extant Zapruder film. Were all these men mistaken?"

It is questionable whether this claimed testimony is really as Mantik
describes it.

"41. Dealey Plaza witnesses (and early viewers of the Zapruder film)
report tissue debris flying to the rear. On the contrary, the extant
Z-film shows the largest particles flying forward. Do you believe that
these witnesses saw significant debris flying to the rear?"

There are not "many" such witnesses, especially if you don't
misrepresent what Bobby Hargis experienced.

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/exploded.htm

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/hargis.htm

"31. Were Drs. Jones, Crenshaw, and Carrico correct to describe a
small wound above the knot in the necktie?"

Carrico did *not* describe such a wound -- that's a distortion of his
WC testimony.

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/carrico.txt

As for Jones, he said the was "just above the superasternal notch."

https://www.pinterest.com/pin/615445105310757736/?lp=true

And Perry (conveniently not mentioned) said the wound was "in the
lower third of the neck anteriorly."

"22. Three Dallas pathologists at Methodist Hospital held the Harper
fragment and declared that it was from occipital bone. Were they all
wrong?"

Who would want to disagree with "there pathologists??"

But assuming this is even true, it's in error.

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/harper.htm

The survey simply proves that conspiracists believe in conspiraist
things.


.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

[Piotr Mancini]

On Saturday, January 25, 2020 at 9:02:07 PM UTC-6, John McAdams wrote:
>
> Here is the survey:
>
> http://themantikview.com/pdf/JFK_Survey.pdf
>

> Essentially *nobody* who was not a conspiracist completed the survey.
>


Gee, what else is new? For over a year I have been asking the same
question, dressed in different ways, reworded and the answers that I have
received from your fan club?

ZERO

In one of many incarnations, the question was:

"Should the JFK Numbers projects proceed: [Yes] [No]"

Nothing.

When I was told:

"Ramon, Dale Myers has already done all. Perhaps he has retired?"

I added a 3rd. option:

[c] "I hereby declare myself inconsequential, not interested in the JFK
case"

Still waiting.

-Ramon
JFK Numbers

[Anthony Marsh]

On 1/25/2020 10:02 PM, John McAdams wrote:
> On 25 Jan 2020 21:23:56 -0500, David Mantik <david...@verizon.net>
> wrote:
>
>>

>> ??...is now available online at TheMantikView: ??????????http://themantikview.com/??If time is limited, be sure not to miss the SURVEY CONCLUSIONS (the last file).??If you??are limited to only??a few minutes, you should find useful and new information at the end of the CONCLUSIONS, in my discussion of the Single Bullet Theory.??Best wishes, ??David Mantik

>
> Here is the survey:
>
> http://themantikview.com/pdf/JFK_Survey.pdf
>
> Essentially *nobody* who was not a conspiracist completed the survey:
>

Oh what a pity. Is that because WC defenders are not brave enough to take
the survey? Or maybe they don't like PDFs. I didn't bother to fill out the
survey so it does not perfectly reflect the numbers on both sided.

> http://themantikview.com/pdf/JFK_Survey.pdf#page=3
>
> And while some of the respondents are relatively sane, he asked James
> Fetzer and Judyth Baker for this opinions.
>
> Some of the questions are framed in a terribly biased way. For
> example:
>

Ya think? Like Begging the Question.
How about: Do you agree it's OK to assassinate the President?

> "42. Fred Newcomb interviewed four Dealey Plaza motorcycle escorts;
> they describe actions (including a limousine stop) not seen in the
> extant Zapruder film. Were all these men mistaken?"
>

Jeez, didn't anyone read my essay on the limo stop?

> It is questionable whether this claimed testimony is really as Mantik
> describes it.
>

He may not even think it himself.

> "41. Dealey Plaza witnesses (and early viewers of the Zapruder film)
> report tissue debris flying to the rear. On the contrary, the extant
> Z-film shows the largest particles flying forward. Do you believe that
> these witnesses saw significant debris flying to the rear?"
>

Well, once the researchers were allowed to see the original Zapruder film
they could see for themselves the debris from the skull flying to the
LEFT. So your hypothesis would mean that the bullet came from the right,
right?

> There are not "many" such witnesses, especially if you don't
> misrepresent what Bobby Hargis experienced.
>

But it's so much fun to do things like that. It's like playing y
telephone tag.

> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/exploded.htm
>
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/hargis.htm
>
> "31. Were Drs. Jones, Crenshaw, and Carrico correct to describe a
> small wound above the knot in the necktie?"
>
> Carrico did *not* describe such a wound -- that's a distortion of his
> WC testimony.
>
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/carrico.txt
>
> As for Jones, he said the was "just above the superasternal notch."
>

Yeah, like anyone knew what that meant.

> https://www.pinterest.com/pin/615445105310757736/?lp=true
>
> And Perry (conveniently not mentioned) said the wound was "in the
> lower third of the neck anteriorly."
>

Close enough for government work.

> "22. Three Dallas pathologists at Methodist Hospital held the Harper
> fragment and declared that it was from occipital bone. Were they all
> wrong?"
>
> Who would want to disagree with "there pathologists??"
>

Their? Three?
Why not use Roman numerals?
We are coming up to the Super Bowl, you know, so you gotta get into
practice.

BTW, do you know how dangerous it is to mention Perry? He thought the
throat shot came from the front.

> But assuming this is even true, it's in error.
>

He's not the only one to make errors. I suspect that most human beings
make errors. Even robots can make errors (although it's not really their
fault." Just the other day I saw Marty turn the wrong way in my local Stop
and Shop and had to remind him to turn around.

> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/harper.htm
>
> The survey simply proves that conspiracists believe in conspiraist
> things.
>

Boy, that was hard to figure out.
Do you understand that Trump supporters believe in impossible conspiracy
theories?

>
> .John
> -----------------------
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
>

[Mark]

There are many questions a person could ask you about this answer of
yours. I have one.

But first other questions: Does Mantik's question number 41 hint at
Zapruder film alteration? It says "early viewers" saw "debris flying to
the rear." But "extant Z-film" shows debris going "forward."

Then you say "when researchers were allowed to see the original Zapruder
film." Is there a difference in content between the "original" and the
copies?

But here is my main question: If the debris from JFK's skull and brain
went "LEFT," then how did it rain down on JBC and Mrs. Connally seated in
front him? And how did it reach Kellerman in the limo's front seat
forward of the Connallys?

Mark

[Piotr Mancini]

On Monday, January 27, 2020 at 3:05:54 PM UTC-6, Mark wrote:

> But here is my main question: If the debris from JFK's skull and brain
> went "LEFT," then how did it rain down on JBC and Mrs. Connally seated in
> front him? And how did it reach Kellerman in the limo's front seat
> forward of the Connallys?
>
> Mark

Actually the main questions and answers are not for ignorant posters to
decide.

We don't have a single person around here (moi included) qualified to do
the physics and mathematics work required.

Have about you people show a minimum respect for SCIENCE?

There is a lot of self gratification around here.

-Ramon
JFK Numbers

[Mark]

On Saturday, January 25, 2020 at 9:02:07 PM UTC-6, John McAdams wrote:

I'm not sure what the point of the survey was.

The choir answered him.

An exercise in self-importance?

The results are meaningless, and will disappear much quicker than it took
for Mantik to think it up and write it up. Mark

[Doctor W]

Per the WC and aftermath statements from persons who closely, forensically
examined the limousine, there was also blood and head matter on the front
windshield, the front engine hood, and, the rear trunk hood. Of course,
there are also the key forensic locations outside of the limousine where
several skull pieces were also found.

[Anthony Marsh]

Don't know. I didn't even bother looking. I do not waster much time with
alterationists. Did you ever talk to him in person? I have.

> Then you say "when researchers were allowed to see the original Zapruder
> film." Is there a difference in content between the "original" and the
> copies?
>

Slightly. There are many bad copies. For several years all we had were
very poor wuality B&W copies.

> But here is my main question: If the debris from JFK's skull and brain
> went "LEFT," then how did it rain down on JBC and Mrs. Connally seated in

I didn't say ALL. A couple of streaks. Can you see them?

> front him? And how did it reach Kellerman in the limo's front seat
> forward of the Connallys?
>

Some debris may have even gone over the chrome topping topping to then
fall on the windshield. They did not hve the ecience then to TEST the DNA.
We do now. What if it is JFK's DNA? What if it is Connally's DNA? Please
don't answer seriously. I don't want you getting into trouble with the
coverup.

> Mark
>

[Anthony Marsh]

On 1/29/2020 5:55 PM, Piotr Mancini wrote:
> On Monday, January 27, 2020 at 3:05:54 PM UTC-6, Mark wrote:
>
>> But here is my main question: If the debris from JFK's skull and brain
>> went "LEFT," then how did it rain down on JBC and Mrs. Connally seated in
>> front him? And how did it reach Kellerman in the limo's front seat
>> forward of the Connallys?
>>
>> Mark
>
>
> Actually the main questions and answers are not for ignorant posters to
> decide.
>
> We don't have a single person around here (moi included) qualified to do
> the physics and mathematics work required.
>

Silly.

[Anthony Marsh]

I think he alreeady proved his point when no WC defenders were brave
enough to answer any questions.

[Steven M. Galbraith]

Yes, that was what FBI agent Robert Frazier testified to discovering.

And both Greer and Kellermann, riding in the front seat of the limo, said
they were hit by blood/brain/tissue.

DPD officer Bobby Hargis, riding to the immediate right of the limo, said
this:

Question: Would you say that he [JFK] was hit in the rear of the head, the
side of the head, or the front of his head?

Hargis: If he'd got hit in the rear, I'd of been able to see it. All I saw
was just a splash come out on the other side.

We can dismiss Hargis's account; eyewitnesses are unreliable. But how
about the physical evidence of the blood/brain matter landing on people in
front of where JFK was? And on the limo hood and dashboard, et cetera?

[19efppp]

Yes, of course. Dismiss the account you don't like.

Hargis gave the most accurate account. He said that after JFK straightened
up, then he was hit by the shot that killed him. The head shot did not
cause JFK to straighten up. It came after he straightened up. Democracy
does not work for witnesses. We need to select the elite witnesses, the
one percent, the ones who actually noticed what happened. Hargis is the
only one who noticed it, but you can see it in the Zapruder film, too.
Even that altered thing still shows what Hargis described. JFK
straightened up, and then Hargis was splattered with brains.

[Mark]

FWIW, you said the debris went left. Not suprisingly some of it did, and
yes I can see those "streaks."

> > front him? And how did it reach Kellerman in the limo's front seat
> > forward of the Connallys?
> >
>
> Some debris may have even gone over the chrome topping topping to then
> fall on the windshield. They did not hve the ecience then to TEST the DNA.
> We do now. What if it is JFK's DNA? What if it is Connally's DNA? Please
> don't answer seriously. I don't want you getting into trouble with the
> coverup.
>

I couldn't get into anything by answering such unserious questions. You've
put your tap dancing shoes on again.

It was JFK's. (Duh.) Watch the Z-film one more time and you might figure
that out. DNA testing is your, a hobbyist's, game.

What wound of JBC would such a debris storm come from?, and caused most of
it go forward?

Mark

[Anthony Marsh]

"Brain matter and skull pieces"> I've never seen any evidence of that on
the WINDSHIELD.
Where are they and what CE numbers are they?
I am particularly interested in the 2 blood drops. They were never
removed or tested,

[Anthony Marsh]

You ASSuME that, because you can not prove that.
Typical WC defender.

> What wound of JBC would such a debris storm come from?, and caused most of
> it go forward?
>

Chest wound, wrist wound. He might have been hit by two different bullets.

> Mark
>

[FORREST TRUMP]

He was hit by bullet CE 399. One bullet. Have you ever been to Dallas?

[Mark]

I don't need to assume, I can see it. Whose wound debris do you think hit
the Connallys, Kellerman and Greer?

>
> > What wound of JBC would such a debris storm come from?, and caused most of
> > it go forward?
> >
>
> Chest wound, wrist wound. He might have been hit by two different bullets.
>

I hope you're not serious. I can see on the Z-film JFK's wound debris
going forward. Show me debris from Connally's wound doing that. Heck,
show me ANY debris from Connally's wound. Mark

[Mark]

I meant to say any of Connally's woundS. Show me. Mark

[Anthony Marsh]

hysically impossible. Too little damage.

[Anthony Marsh]

o, you't. We know some of it did, but you can't see it.
We can't see any debris from Connally's wound(s).
Please tell me that you can not see the streaks of debris going to the
left from JFK's head. Accoring to YOUR theory of wounds that proves that

[Mark]

I can usually figure out what you mean when you make typos, but this time
I can't. What is the first sentence in your reply?

What is my "theory of wounds"? Clue me in and then we'll both know.
Mark

[Calvin Ye]

David, I believe that Oswald is innocent. The problem with the Lone-wolf
supporters is that they all fabricate evidence to support the lone-wolf
thesis. They and McAdams have proven themselves to be too naive and
ignorant.

[Anthony Marsh]

Now wait just a second there. Are you claiming that you are smart enough
to figure out when my "typos" are cryptic?
Please don't give away my secrets.

> What is my "theory of wounds"? Clue me in and then we'll both know.

Please explain in detail which bullet hit which man and when and which
wounds it caused. This should be fun.

Don't even try to explain all the FRAGMENTS that were examined by the
FBI. I don't want you hurting yourself on anything sharp.

> Mark
>
>

[Anthony Marsh]

On 2/3/2020 9:15 PM, Calvin Ye wrote:
> On Saturday, January 25, 2020 at 6:23:57 PM UTC-8, David Mantik wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ...is now available online at TheMantikView:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>     http://themantikview.com/
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> If time is limited, be sure not to miss the SURVEY CONCLUSIONS (the last file).
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> If you are limited to only a few minutes, you should find useful and new information at the end of the CONCLUSIONS, in my discussion of the Single Bullet Theory.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Best wishes,
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> David Mantik
>
> David, I believe that Oswald is innocent. The problem with the Lone-wolf

Oswald can't be completely innocent. He must have done something wrong.
But there is no proof that he shot and hit Kennedy.

[Mark]

Once again, Holmes, what is my "theory of wounds" that you know and I
don't? Mark