Where are the Truth-Seekers?

[steve manning]

I'm an historian as are many or perhaps most of you. Obviously, when it comes to truly understanding history, all of us have one major disadvantage in common; we're usually not personally present when history is made. Therefore, if we desire to understand the truthful reality of what actually happened (as most historians do), we obviously have to reconstruct the scene. You don't have to be a historian to know that an eye witness can play a pivotal role in reconstructing a historical event. The aspect of eye witness testimony lesser understood (in terms of credibility and believability), is that eye witnesses can also be ranked according to their proximity to the event in time. One of the reasons I've always had a tendency to believe there was a hole in the windshield is because of the significant testimony obtained from people at the hospital, just 10-20 minutes after the shooting. Again, I believe this goes largely unnoticed and should not be the case. This is why the description of the head wound from the doctors and nurses is so important and thus credible. Just 12-15 minutes after the shooting!Therefore, the reports of what was supposedly witnessed by the secret service in the WH garage are significantly less credible just in terms of proximity in time. Now if those reports did not contradict the early testimony, that would have represented serious corroboration. Which of course there were some reports later that did corroborate the earlier testimony (thereby strengthening that testimony). The Doug Weldon stuff he did in 99 goes into amazing detail of the man who worked fairly high up in the Ford Motor Co. in Michigan (I believe) who even penned a written statement before he died.Doug Weldon has done an amazing job reconstructing the scene at the hospital and tracking down the witnesses to the hole and what was being said by a few secret service agents to some of the people standing around the limo at the hospital...if you don't think the people standing around the limo were looking all over for gun shots you should probably look into it a little further? Secret Service agents who apparently told a few by standers "those were not bullet holes" to some who mentioned what they saw with there own eyes. Again this is just a few minutes after everything went down. This evidence demands much more respect than it has been getting. I'll get the links and post them a little later, but if you're interested before that, look up Doug Weldon Parts 1-16 on you tube...he did a fantastic job. Where are the truthseekers? Are we trying to reconstruct the event as it happened or are we all a bunch of Wim(p)s? Hey, just kidding, he's a good man, I just think he should reevaluate his position on this issue (again). I believe the abort team (real or phony) ultimately caused the original plan of shooting from the front to break down the last few hours in the Plaza, and the shooters who were planning to go ahead with it anyway may have taken any shot they could get, even if it was early and from the front. They had to make sure it was finished this time. JFK would soon have even more light on him in January when the reelection campaign kicked into the final 10 month stretch leading up to the election. They would never have a better chance to finish him off and be done with it like they would on November 22, 1963.Tell me where I'm wrong, and why. Lets rule this out once and for all but lets do it with specific points?StevePosts: 65Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2007 7:24 am

[steve manning]

I have to admit that I have not read Doug Weldon's book either. In 99 when he did the stuff about the windshield (on youtube), he was still going to put this stuff in print and I am assuming he has finished it by now (11 years later)? I wouldn't be surprised if somebody reading this has already read the book I'm referring to.Steve

[steve manning]

I would also add that as we go about the business of considering all the evidence available, we must accept the reality this will ultimately lead us to make judgement calls which "rules out" a piece or two of so called evidence that we've examined and weighed for reliability, and thus come to realize it does not fit into the picture, big or small. Again, all of which we wouldn't even know, had we not weighed it to begin with, and compared it to the strength of earlier and yet even more uniform testimony occurring right after the event. Again, this evidence by it's nature is more credible.I'm really referring to the science of hermeneutics; that is the science of interpreting ancient documents, and many such documents which describe narrative type events, as the bible and various other archeological discoveries. So the job wouldn't be any where near complete without careful consideration of all available evidence. The systematic science of hermeneutics helps us rank the credibility and believability of every piece of evidence scientifically and consistently; increasing the likely-hood of accuracy.Thanx for reading,Steve

[ChristophMessner]

Hi Steve, your plead for the more accurate look onto the details and your quest for more fellow-truthers to join you likewise is very understandable, justified, sympathetic. Now are there really too few truth-seekers of your kind? Regarding the JFK-case-solving-process most probably yes, cause still the case is far from solved. But let me ask whether in general you have many possibilities to seek truth. Not only hermeneutical. Would you agree with me that often people loose the feeling for the context on the whole when they dig too deep into details? Isn't there thrilling hermeneutics (the uncovering of hidden truths from text) AND hermetics (the covering of obvious truth by text)? Refering to the JFK case again I would say, yes, the better look onto the details by more diligent and more truth-seekers will bring further hidden truth to surface, but we should also have respect for those who say: "No, I don't need more research on the details in the case, because what I have already is enough for me to rhyme things together, and instead I rather question the character of JFK and his (too?) soft politics on the eastern superpowers and ask myself whether it might be possible, that it was a good deed to kill JFK, cause he should have played harder against the evil systems of the east, under which so many people suffered." So I agree completely with you in praising diligent hermeneutics and just want to add that it should be done with openness in heart for the questionableness of the big issues on the whole. Shall I put my energy into solving the JFK case at all or shall I rather put my energy in influencing actual secret service action or philosophies in the present? Let's hope the research on the JFK case teaches the right things for handling the cases of the future in a better way! Herzliche Grüße aus Deutschland, Christoph Messner

[Dealey Joe]

Gentleman my .02I do not consider myself a qualified researcher mainly because I am not sure exactly what a researcher is. But I do have a sort of a detective nature.I have heard the term evidence use considerably here and I am wondering just what is considered evidence?Some would have us believe that evidence is something some said.In using what someone said as evidence leads to a whole other set of criteria.One being method of expression. Do you totally understand just what that witness is actually saying do they mean what you think they mean? .One example of this is when someone says the word DOG?My mental vision is tainted by the fact that my favorite pooch was a Black Lab, or Bulldog, or any one of the many variety of pooches that may have been your favorite. and if you don't like dogs maybe you would think of a Pit Bull or Rottweiler ect.So interpreting hearsay evidence is questionable and tainted by the way the hearer hears it.To me evidence is real, something you can see like a picture of a hole in a windshield.or he side of the head blown awayThen you can apply possibilities and probabilities and begin to put together a picture.As for me, I don't consider what someone said until I put together a picture of what could have happenedwhat might have happened and what most likely happened.If you base you findings on what someone said you will be chasing you tale from now on.

[ChristophMessner]

Dealey Joe wrote:Gentleman my .02So interpreting hearsay evidence is questionable and tainted by the way the hearer hears it.To me evidence is real, something you can see like a picture of a hole in a windshield.or he side of the head blown awayThen you can apply possibilities and probabilities and begin to put together a picture.As for me, I don't consider what someone said until I put together a picture of what could have happenedwhat might have happened and what most likely happened.If you base you findings on what someone said you will be chasing you tale from now on. Full agreement! But how complete is your picture of the JFK-case then? 90% solved by evidence, 50% solved by evidence, 10 % solved by evidence? Is there evidence that James Files or/and his buddy were involved in the JFK- and Tippit-killing?

[Dealey Joe]

Well your back to evidence?Lets make a list of the Evidence.1. Kennedy was shot in the head and possibly the back.2.

[ChristophMessner]

2. Mere logic tells the case is solved.

[kenmurray]

3. CE399 does NOT exist:http://www.ctka.net/2010/journeyCE399.html

[Dealey Joe]

There was damage to the limo from the rear.