Author Topic: Quick take of Ms. Feister's "Enemy of the Truth"  (Read 22473 times)

echelon

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 80
Re: Quick take of Ms. Feister's "Enemy of the Truth"
« Reply #15 on: October 06, 2013, 06:18:46 am »
I believed that this board was supposed to be dedicated to a detailed reading of Sherry's book but it all seems to have gone very quiet.  I would have thought that a discussion and/or rebuttal of the points raised by Mantik would be very germane to our search for the truth.

Thank you echelon, you are correct, this is just the type of challenge needed but to have a proper discussion one would be best prepared after reading the book. It was Alan's intent that a group discussion would include folks who have done so.

Yes, I agree that to have a sensible discussion one would have to have read the book.  I believe that a quorum of members who have done just that already exists, and so surely a full discussion can now ensue.  What are you waiting for?

You (and others) keep encouraging me to read this book.  However, I have already made clear my acceptance of a South Knoll shooter, as on June 16 on the other forum (the middle one):

Quote
To my own way of thinking, the conspirators would have planned for a number of eventualities.  These would have included the possibilities (1) that the President sat on the LEFT side of the limousine and not on the right, and/or (2) that it had started to rain again and the bubbletop was being used.  I also feel that several sets of shooters/spotters would have been deployed and that each shooter would have taken only one shot.  After all, one presumes that the first shot would always be the best one.  With all these possibilities to be considered, I have always thought it most likely that there was a shooter on the opposite side of the cavalcade, i.e. in the South Knoll area, as well as in the more traditional locations.

I don't need to read this book to accept Sherry's main hypothesis.  I cannot spend hours on this case as I have other priorities in life.  I cannot read every book, website and blog and I prefer to focus on those that deal with more macro-level matters.  I prefer Simpich, Armstrong, Douglass, Scott ... and perhaps even Joseph McBride and Di Eugenio's latest.  Kelin, too ... oh.

However, I would be delighted to lurk around this board while you guys and gals discuss Sherry's book in detail.  You might even get a perceptive contribution out of me every now and then!


Cutty

  • Guest
Re: Quick take of Ms. Feister's "Enemy of the Truth"
« Reply #16 on: October 06, 2013, 12:06:40 pm »
^ Good post! I am in agreement with all of it and we are already fortunate to have your perceptive contributions on many subjects.

This is not exactly the same as my buddy Yellowbirch asking us to read the W.C. report because most of us have read a vast amount of it in other publications and at countless links over the years and "Enemy Of The Truth" breaks new ground. I do, however, understand his motivation to get folks he would like to exchange with gain a better understanding of the pattern of a questionable chain of evidence, priorities on who's testimony was used or NOT and generally evidence of obfuscation etc. After 50 years of kicking this around it can become tedious explaining your thoughts to newbies over and over. It's obviously easier between folks who have gotten up to speed together.

Alan has started up individual threads on this board for discussing each chapter. Sherry has been very busy and I know that it's always better coming from the horse's mouth but Alan & I have held our own so far in trying to represent her positions so all members please have at it and pick a chapter thread you are interested in having some questions about answered. Please remember that the chapter titles are not statements but subjects (myths) that are being debunked.

Kelly

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 53
Re: Quick take of Ms. Feister's "Enemy of the Truth"
« Reply #17 on: October 06, 2013, 06:24:11 pm »
Hello Karl and thanks for a great discussion on Sherry`s great book, which I missed because I`ve been really sick. Thanks also for the explanation about kinetic energy. It`s clear as a bell to me now. Phil, I was especially impressed with your excellent post. You always make me laugh. I think this book should be discussed and understood how it completely changes history for us willing to see and understand. I agree with Karl that not researchers are going to embrace this with open arms. It`s human nature to argue and fight over ones` beliefs. Another thing, I don`t know much about David Mantik`s research. I don`t know what all he has done to help there be a truthful analysis of the Kennedy assassination. They say don`t throw the baby out with the bathwater, and perhaps he has done really good, but darn if I can take anybody seriously that believes the Zapruder film was faked! Where did that piece of crap come from to start with, James Fetzler? No wonder conspiracy theorists get such a bad rap. The good honest researchers doing an excellent job get put in the same category as the nuts!  Sometime soon, Karl I will be asking about the autopsy photo. 

TLR

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 216
Re: Quick take of Ms. Feister's "Enemy of the Truth"
« Reply #18 on: October 07, 2013, 07:58:10 pm »
Hope you're feeling better, Kelly.

Mantik is associated with Fetzer, though Mantik is a better researcher for the most part. People have questioned whether a few frames were deleted or altered since 1964, but I think the wholesale fabrication theory started with Fetzer and his associates in the 1990s. 

Kelly

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 53
Re: Quick take of Ms. Feister's "Enemy of the Truth"
« Reply #19 on: October 08, 2013, 07:38:59 am »
Thanks TLR. I feel a little better. I had outpatient surgery yesterday. Thanks for the explanation on James Fetzer and David Mantik. Mantik comes off as a nut in my opinion.

Phil Dragoo

  • Global Moderator
  • Newbie
  • *****
  • Posts: 48
We meet in the hologram, again
« Reply #20 on: October 09, 2013, 05:02:36 am »
I can appreciate that time is finite and the demands of existence reduce our panoply to tunnel vision.

I enjoyed Sherry's book and have found this Year of the South Knoll to be synchronizing.  I don't think it's accident that Anthony DeFiore's Z-225 throat shot analysis appears at this time.  I just posted an exerpt of Richard Dudman's November 30, 1963-datelined article published December 1, 1963 in the Saint Louis Post Dispatch describing the hole in the windshield he saw "with another man" at Parkland. (see footnote)

Talking to a shooter last night, a man with many guns, who had said Oswald was the only one in position to make the shot, I asked him, "Do you have a gun which can throw a bullet in a you-ee, make a U-turn and come back one-eighty, because there were two small holes in Kennedy, one in his right temple which exited his right occipito-parietal, a wound seen by eighty-one per Robert Groden, and one in his throat, in front, above the tie "(which had Elmer Moore on the phone to Perry all Friday night, and Specter and Dulles administering a proctological exam--all which made the doctor confide, "I was afraid they were going to kill me")

So is Mantik useful--when I told our radiologist in 2003 of his work at the Archives on the AP and lateral skull X-rays using radiodensitometry to prove forgery she said, "I knew there was more to it than we were told."

First we look at Alan's Cancellare from Robin Unger at 14 above with attention to the cars in the lot.  Then at the aerial photo below, and there's a car in the corner of the lot, showing where one could've been, as well as anywhere along the fence, all giving elevation, the azimuth gettting juicier toward the overpass:


And that day in Paris a representative of William K Harvey was giving Rolando Cubela a CIA technical services pen with poison to kill Castro; the Mongoose as plausible denial, pointing at Castro, when Helms set Harvey to have Maheu get Roselli who begot Giancana, Nicoletti, and so on and so forth--but to get Castro, you understand--and, of course, it's the Mob, you see

She's got the mass moving at no more than 11 mph toward the shooter; and perhaps a NATO round--for Cubela asked Harvey for a silenced scoped FAL, to get Castro, you understand, and even though this military weapon could easily fire at Z-225 and Z-313 (if we accept 18 fps), it was for Castro

A small hole in the right temple, and the head moves ITEK two inches forward (or maybe everybody did when the stop which didn't occur, occurred) due to kinetic transfer--and we see the backspatter appear and disappear in milliseconds which we wouldn't know it does until 1982

Everyone runs for fence and for the intersection of the fence and the overpass balustrade at the North because of the shots and the commotion and the smoke and the smell of gunpowder reported by Senator Yarborough and Dave Powers and Larry O'Donnell

Harvey had written on the ZR-RIFLE program.  Hunt had his son put Soutre (or someone using his name) on page 123 of Bond of Secrecy, the deathbed deflection from CIA to LBJ; WerBell was producing suppressors for CIA and military, later to become SIONICS, Inc. and between Harvey and WerBell the secret teams of CIA and military specialists were developed

Other shooter (teams) were synched up with perhaps a Collins cryptic radio communications net with (Gordon Novel per Richard Sprague to Louis Stokes in the Appendix of The Taking of America 1-2-3) Umbrella Man pumping and Walkie Talkie man holding up his fist in the military halt signal

And Greer, sitting in for the recently heart-attacked driver Thomas Shipman, dutifully halted (or dramatically slowed, or, simply braked--"I'm so sorry, Mrs. Kennedy," he explained lamely)

While attention was focused on the fake Secret Service agents behind the fence (one of whom Webermann and Canfield may have got Seymour Weitzman to identify as Bernard Barker) then on the carton fort in the sixth floor East, the precursor to the Beltway Snipers drove away in their Chevy with the trunk lid shooting port

This is not an ad hoc, impromptu, event; LBJ announced JFK would lunch in Dallas in the Fall on April 23.  The Thomas dinner in Houston Thursday the 21st insured the party would overnight in that city and fly to Love Field for a motorcade to the Trade Mart the next day

Ruth Paine put Oswald in the Depository, after he was handed off by DeMohrenschildt (wife former partner to Zapruder).  One researcher posits shots from the Dal-Tex, and surely that source explains the Tague ricochet better than any other

Was Braden in that building that day?  Was Ruby there that week?  Were others there--Roselli known at JM WAVE as a "colonel" and used for deniability (Blakey's obedient "mob did it" limited hangout) or was Nicoletti there--for Nicoletti and DeMohrenschildt were murdered March 29, 1977--just after Stansfield Turner replaced GHWBush as DCI

The trajectory might extend to David Rockefeller of Chase who was a major opponent of JFK's comptroller of currency William Saxon, not to mention the EO 11110, the refusal to open up Southeast Asia to resource exploitation (including heroin)

But the mechanic was there on the South Knoll; the sponsor is invisible (always) and the facilitators may chiefly include the Dulles and Angletons et al of the CIA: Sword and Shield of the Cabal, as well as Hoover and Johnson Guess Who Came To Dinner obfuscators

Mantik is also useful in having revealed the wound area appears flat when the back of head is viewed using stereo pairs at the National Archive at College Park

Do I care enough about semantics to expend hundreds of words to quibble--

In the middle of the Century of the Fed, between the conspiracy-clouded birth on Jekyll Island to the blowback to the CIA gunrunning through the Benghazi operation we are in the stranglehold of a dark elite of amoral powerborgs

You say tomato; I say tomato.

Sherry says it as it is, regarding the source of the shot heard round the Century.  A Thomas Noguchi for the murder of the 35th president.

Footnote:

Dudman article:

Richard Dudman's article in the Saint Louis Post Dispatch datelined November 30, 1963, published December 1, 1963, also notes the hole in the windshield, observed by the reporter and a colleague at Parkland:

Another unexplained circumstance is a small hole in the windshield of the presidential limousine. This correspondent and one other man saw the hole, which resembled a bullet hole, as the automobile stood at the hospital emergency entrance while the President was being treated inside the building.

The Secret Service kept possession of the automobile and flew it back to Washington. A spokesman for the agency rejected a request to inspect the vehicle here. He declined to discuss any hole there might be in the windshield.

I have a pdf of the clipping, and Word Document of the transcript for anyone wishing to obtain the source for the above quote.

Alan Dale

  • Administrator
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 387
Re: Quick take of Ms. Feister's "Enemy of the Truth"
« Reply #21 on: October 09, 2013, 12:04:37 pm »
^ Superb.

Your participation is a gift.

I would refer all who seek deeper understanding to the sticky thread dedicated to Phil Dragoo's commentaries and images.

http://www.jfkessentials.com/forum/index.php?topic=56.0
Our future may lie beyond our vision, but it is not completely beyond our control. It is the shaping impulse of America that neither fate nor nature nor the irresistible tides of history, but the work of our own hands, matched to reason and principle, that will determine our destiny.

RFK

TLR

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 216
Re: Quick take of Ms. Feister's "Enemy of the Truth"
« Reply #22 on: October 09, 2013, 07:53:25 pm »
That's definitely another one to include in Phil's Greatest Hits.

Sherry

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 9
Re: Quick take of Ms. Feister's "Enemy of the Truth"
« Reply #23 on: October 10, 2013, 06:40:47 am »
Hi Mitch,
We must address and account for the contradictory statements of witnesses concerning the gunshots they heard. They are not all in agreement, and even persons in the same area disagree on shot origins. The chapter on ear witnesses is only presented to explain why there are differences, not to suggest they are completely unreliable. I admit I evidently did a poor job in explaining why I included that information.

However, it is important to say I am not using ear witnesses to support my trajectory findings. I make that determination based solely on the shooting reconstruction techniques listed in the book. What witnesses heard to totally irrelevant in that process.

Thanks for you interest, comments and for reading the book.

My very best to you,
Sherry

Sherry

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 9
Re: Quick take of Ms. Feister's "Enemy of the Truth"
« Reply #24 on: October 10, 2013, 06:51:02 am »
I appreciate that David Mantik read the book, however he definitely has made some major mistakes in the review and in his basic understanding of the forensic techniques I addressed. Moreover, I feel that rather than review my work, he used it as a platform to promote his personal agenda... which is his right of course.

At any rate, it is significant (in my opinion) that no one in my field has ever disagreed with my findings.

I am very appreciative of Mantik's interest, and that he took the time to read and address Enemy of the Truth.

Thank you for your comments.

Sherry

Sherry

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 9
Re: Quick take of Ms. Feister's "Enemy of the Truth"
« Reply #25 on: October 10, 2013, 06:56:45 am »
I see that this continues to be an issue with readers - evidence that I did not make myself clear in its importance in the trajectory analysis. I am not trying to "have it both ways" when addressing ear witnesses. I simply wanted to provide as much witness information in the book as possible. I certainly did not intend for witness testimony to buttress trajectory analysis for the head shot. In fact, witness testimony is not considered at all in my trajectory findings.

I apologize for the lack of clarity. Thanks for you interest, comments and for reading my book.

Sincerely,
Sherry



Mitch C.

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 25
Re: Quick take of Ms. Feister's "Enemy of the Truth"
« Reply #26 on: October 12, 2013, 11:44:03 am »
Sherry^ Thank you for taking the time to check in on this forum. My concerns over possible contradictions in your work concerning the value of "ear witnesses" were minor, and I appreciate your clarification on the subject.

More important is the fact your research has shattered a long held belief of mine that the kill shot came from the Grassy Knoll. I had to swallow hard, but facts ARE stubborn things. You have presented them in a very straightforward, dispassionate manner that any intelligent layperson (I am definitely the latter; the former is arguable) could understand.

Echelon: I suggest you revisit your decision to not read the book. I understand you already believe Sherry's main premise, but I would value your on going input in this discussion; and a full reading of "Enemy..." would be instructive. As for time: I am very busy as well, but this is a relatively short read compared to other mammoth works. I was finished in three days, with many other of my usual activities interspersed.

D.K.Garretson

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 10
Re: Quick take of Ms. Feister's "Enemy of the Truth"
« Reply #27 on: November 18, 2013, 10:25:52 pm »
Sherry (or others),

Do you have a personal point of view on shots fired? Seems your conclusions may indeed support 2 (or 3) shots from the recovered Mann-Carc (per chapter 5 ballistics) and 2 shots from South Knoll per trajectory analysis?  If so, then "grassy knoll" is smoke and mirrors i.e.,  intentional misdirection?

Thanks for any feedback

Ken

Cutty

  • Guest
Re: Quick take of Ms. Feister's "Enemy of the Truth"
« Reply #28 on: November 19, 2013, 12:57:05 am »
^ I believe that at this point we have one proven headshot from the front (the north knoll was to the side) and all other shots are still left to speculation.

Personally, I have theorized that the north knoll was the scene of some shady activity. Maybe a missed shot or diversionary fireworks or something occurred there but since "Enemy Of The Truth" I now understand that the proven fact of the one and only head shot coming from the other side of the plaza causes all research of goings on behind the infamous fence to be viewed from a new perspective.

Thanks for your participation.

Karl

Sherry

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 9
Re: Quick take of Ms. Feister's "Enemy of the Truth"
« Reply #29 on: November 19, 2013, 08:04:41 pm »
Mitch C. writes: Yet, at the end of the chapter "The Grassy Knoll Headshot", after convincingly arguing that the kill shot likely came from the SOUTH knoll area, she still felt the need to buttress her argument with ear witness testimony of hearing shots from that area. A devils's advocate would say she is trying to have it both ways.

Sherry responds: Witness testimony plays absolutely NO part in the analysis. The analysis is based on standard shooting reconstruction procedures, which can be verified through the many sources I cited in the book. (or you can google the procedures) I did not include the witness information as a buttress to my trajectory analysis. I simply included it to be through in presenting all available relevant information.

Echelon writes: But it is factually incorrect to claim that nobody who is qualified to criticize it has does so. You need only to read David Mantik's review over at CTKA to see a very formidable dissension.

Sherry responds: My work has been peer reviewed and found correct by court certified forensic professionals who are qualified to do so.

David Mantik is most certainly NOT qualified to comment on many of the issues he addresses. Therefore, the information he presents as “facts” are in error. For example, Mantik’s confusion concerning wound ballistics is apparent in his statement suggesting a correlation between wounding and bullet fragment patterns. Moreover, he apparently does not understand the mechanics of bullet fragment pattern creation. His comments concerning the blood on the inside of the limo windshield demonstrates his confusion regarding blood spatter. I could go on, but it really is not necessary. Mantik may be an expert in his field, but he is not a forensic expert in shooting event reconstructions, wound ballistics or blood spatter analysis.

Mitch, you are right -  “Mantik agrees with much more than he disagrees with in "Enemy of the Truth"; except for the altered Z-Film which seems to be near and dear in his belief system.”

Thank you Phil and Karl for your consistent encouragement and unfailing support in promoting forensics to determine the truth concerning this homicide.