Metalworking (rec.crafts.metalworking) Discuss various aspects of working with metal, such as machining, welding, metal joining, screwing, casting, hardening/tempering, blacksmithing/forging, spinning and hammer work, sheet metal work.

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
Old June 9th 05, 12:00 AM
wmbjk
 
Posts: n/a
Default OT - Global Warming (Was "Lying Liberals.")

On Wed, 08 Jun 2005 17:57:24 -0400, Cliff wrote:

deleted link to political news article I'd already read

Cliff, in general I agree with your sentiments. I hope you continue to
hound wingers (especially the really irrational ones) mercilessly
wherever they post their crap. But our chief **** disturber in RCM
*seems* to be staying on topic lately (except for his dopey sigs), so
it would be nice IMO if you'd drop RCM from your list. And if you
could do a little pied piper thing and get the rest of the bile
spewers to take their skirmish to say, oh... I don't know,
alt.effingbloodypolitics, then that would be even better.

Wayne

  #3   Report Post  
Old June 12th 05, 06:40 AM
[email protected]
 
Posts: n/a
Default



lionslair at consolidated dot net wrote:
wrote:

What is the best way to respond to Republcan scientists who insist that
man-made global warming is real and that it's related to CO2? I know!
Call them Democrats, or econazis.

Gary

Why is it Liberal scientists doing bad science treated with respect by the Liberal press -
and the rest are naturally Republican scientists ? - maybe just Scientists doing their
job the way they were trained or taught or figured out finally.

Science is above political science (a non-science I mind you!) and above Geo-Political
boundaries. Only when Politics pushes science (a person or a few) this way or that
are they under control. e.g. contract to or not to say...

The Liberals pushed or got scientists that were not true to their training to say what
they wanted to hear. This has a parallel in court cases.

The world isn't black and white (or Red and blue) like so many think.

Martin - A pure scientist. My politics are also known. But science is science.

--
Martin Eastburn
@ home at Lion's Lair with our computer lionslair at consolidated dot net
NRA LOH, NRA Life
NRA Second Amendment Task Force Charter Founder


"Science is science," is it?

Ha! Ha!

Scientists are a dime a dozen. As Bush & Co. have shown, and the
Clintonistas before them, you can get "reputable" scientists to say
whatever you pay them to say. Or, rather, you pick the scientists who
are saying what you want said and then tout their statements as Holy
Writ.

It's an old game that lots of the old hands are well practiced in. And
it's endlessly amusing when True Believers happen upon the scene and
declare imbecilities such as "science is science," as if it isn't
bought and paid for.

Gary

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----


  #4   Report Post  
Old June 13th 05, 04:18 AM
lionslair at consolidated dot net
 
Posts: n/a
Default

wrote:

lionslair at consolidated dot net wrote:

wrote:


What is the best way to respond to Republcan scientists who insist that
man-made global warming is real and that it's related to CO2? I know!
Call them Democrats, or econazis.

Gary


Why is it Liberal scientists doing bad science treated with respect by the Liberal press -
and the rest are naturally Republican scientists ? - maybe just Scientists doing their
job the way they were trained or taught or figured out finally.

Science is above political science (a non-science I mind you!) and above Geo-Political
boundaries. Only when Politics pushes science (a person or a few) this way or that
are they under control. e.g. contract to or not to say...

The Liberals pushed or got scientists that were not true to their training to say what
they wanted to hear. This has a parallel in court cases.

The world isn't black and white (or Red and blue) like so many think.

Martin - A pure scientist. My politics are also known. But science is science.

--
Martin Eastburn
@ home at Lion's Lair with our computer lionslair at consolidated dot net
NRA LOH, NRA Life
NRA Second Amendment Task Force Charter Founder



"Science is science," is it?

Ha! Ha!

Scientists are a dime a dozen. As Bush & Co. have shown, and the
Clintonistas before them, you can get "reputable" scientists to say
whatever you pay them to say. Or, rather, you pick the scientists who
are saying what you want said and then tout their statements as Holy
Writ.

It's an old game that lots of the old hands are well practiced in. And
it's endlessly amusing when True Believers happen upon the scene and
declare imbecilities such as "science is science," as if it isn't
bought and paid for.

Gary


----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----



But I don't call them Scientists. I call them technicians or teachers or lecturers or professors.

Real scientists don't do funny stuff. They experiment. They don't sell us the sky is green.
Martin

--
Martin Eastburn
@ home at Lion's Lair with our computer lionslair at consolidated dot net
NRA LOH, NRA Life
NRA Second Amendment Task Force Charter Founder

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
  #5   Report Post  
Old June 13th 05, 04:21 AM
lionslair at consolidated dot net
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Stuart Grey wrote:

Tempest wrote Garbage, mostly:

Okay, from the top: There are several issues he

1) The issue of the validity the existance of global warming.

2) The issue of the validity that global warming is caused by
"greenhouse gases", or are the greenhouse gases caused by global warming.

3) What the politicians do to respond to the impacts of globaal warming,
if it exists.

4) What the politicians do to stop or slow global warming, if it is man
made.

Generally speaking, what politicians may not have a basis in reality. So
pointing at what Bush or Blair does doesn't prove anything about the
existance of global warming, or about the cause of global warming.

From the evidence, it is pretty clear that:
1) The Earth IS warming.
2) Mars is warming.
3) The CO2 level is correlated to warming.
4) The solar cycle is even more strongly corrrelated to the warming. And
by occum's razor, solar cycle, not man made CO2 is the causation.
5) Some "scientist" who advocate that global warming is man made, have
used fudged data and non-scientific "data mining" techniques.
6) The more shrill the global warming is man made advocate, the more
likely you're going to find that this advocate is a anti-American
socialist/communist who wants to bring down western capitalism.
7) The Kyoto treaty doesn't lower CO2 levels by one molecule. What it
does is it moves man made CO2 production and money to the third world,
and shuts down western production.

The last point goes hand in glove with Bush's policy to send all our
jobs to China, or bring in Mexicans to what's left of our jobs at home.


It is also clear that the SUN is hotter now and increasing more than it has been
in hundreds of years. It is going through yet another cycle change.

That is why Mars and the Earth warms at the same time... Or did the tiny little rover
cause the CO2 zoom up on Mars all by itself ?

Martin

--
Martin Eastburn
@ home at Lion's Lair with our computer lionslair at consolidated dot net
NRA LOH, NRA Life
NRA Second Amendment Task Force Charter Founder

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----


  #6   Report Post  
Old June 13th 05, 08:22 PM
[email protected]
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Call them whatever you want, but "real" scientists, even some of the
most respected in the business, when called upon by powerful enough
forces have often succumbed to pressure and put out bogus nonsense as
verifiable, scientific fact.

I have an MD myself and I've written about this phenomenon as pertains
to the govt experts who evaluated the medical/autopsy evidence in the
Kennedy case FOR THE GOVT. By their work, it's clear they knew who they
had to please.

How do I know? My background is that I was given [by the Kennedy
family] privileged access to all the materials these govt. "experts"
saw and then reviewed their reports and findings in some detail. The
errors and omissions they made are truly astounding.

If you're interested, you may want to see the section I wrote on the
so-called "Rockefeller Commission." It's at:
http://historymatters.com/essays/jfk...5Investigatio=
nsGotItWrong_4.htm

At historymatters.com my footnotes are hot-linked to source documents
so you don't have to take my word for what the evidence says.

The bottom line is that facts trump credentials and one should never
ignore evidence and take "authoritative" pronouncements on faith alone.

Gary

V=2E THE ROCKEFELLER COMMISSION
Introduction - Assembling an Impartial Investigative Staff

The next official review of JFK's autopsy evidence was incidental to
an investigation in 1975 that was occasioned by a December 24, 1974
front-page story in the New York Times. Seymour Hersh revealed that, in
clear violation of its charter, the CIA had conducted widespread and
illegal domestic spying and mail openings of law-abiding citizens. With
the Watergate scandal fresh in the public's mind, President Ford, a
former Warren Commissioner, appointed a "blue ribbon" commission to
investigate. Ford's nominees drew immediate concern. The New York
Times opined that, "The commission named by President Ford to
investigate charges of domestic spying by the Central Intelligence
Agency would inspire greater confidence if so many of its members did
not have close ties to the national security establishment."[206] The
Times' Tom Wicker said the commission "looks suspiciously like a
goat set to guard a cabbage patch. Having the CIA investigated by such
a group is like having the Mafia audited by its own
accountants."[207] (More on this below)

Ford tapped his vice president Nelson Rockefeller, no stranger himself
to the unattractive underbelly of the agency, to chair the commission
that would bear his name. Ford also proposed the appointment of former
Warren Commission counsel David Belin as executive director.[208] Among
the charges investigated were those that the CIA had been a party to
Kennedy's murder. In the course of the Rockefeller Commission's
work, investigators found themselves training their sights on aspects
of JFK's autopsy evidence.[209]

"Since I had served as assistant counsel with the Warren
Commission," Belin later reported, "I removed myself from the
direct responsibility for any investigation pertaining to the
assassination."[210] The Kennedy work was thus delegated to Senior
Counsel Robert B. Olsen. Belin did not keep completely hands off,
however. In 1988 he admitted that when Rockefeller's medical experts
convened to review JFK's autopsy evidence, the irrepressible Belin
personally attended that meeting, examining the autopsy photographs and
X-rays right alongside his consultants.[211]

Chapter 19 of the Commission's Report dealt with the JFK assassination.
The medical portion of this chapter confined itself to "the allegation
that President Kennedy was struck in the head by a bullet fired from
his right front."
(see Rockefeller Report, chapter 19)

Kennedy's autopsy evidence came up during the Commission's
investigation of what it described as the "allegation that President
Kennedy was struck in the head by a bullet fired from his right
front."[212] JFK's rearward jerk after the fatal shot had convinced
skeptics that the fateful shot had not come from Oswald's perch,
behind the limousine. Besides seeking an explanation for JFK's
seemingly paradoxical thrust, the Commission also dealt with
allegations that the forward, "grassy knoll" gunman was not just
any old assassin, but a CIA assassin - either Frank Sturgis or E.
Howard Hunt. Rockefeller's findings rebutted all conspiracy
allegations, including charges that either Sturgis or Hunt had been
involved.

In summarizing its medical conclusions, the Commission noted the
unanimity with which the autopsy report, the Warren Commission's
findings and the Clark Panel's report had all endorsed the lone
gunman conclusion. "Nonetheless," Rockefeller reported, "a
re-examination was made of the question whether the movements of the
President's head and body following the fatal shot are consistent
with the President being struck from (a) the rear, (b) the right front,
or (c) both the rear and the right front." [213]
"Independent" Panel of Medical Experts Review the Evidence

Robert Olsen reported that he assembled a panel of independent experts
to examine all the relevant medical/autopsy evidence. Included were two
forensic pathologists, a neuropathologist (a specialist in the
pathology of the brain and nervous system), a radiologist, and Dr.
Alfred Olivier, the Warren Commission's ballistics expert, of whom we
have already spoken.

On the table were many of the familiar controversies: How many bullets
had struck JFK, and from which direction? In which Zapruder frame(s)
were JFK and Governor John Connally struck in the back? Does JFK's
abrupt movement prove the origin of the shots from the front? Could the
nearly pristine bullet found at Parkland Hospital have caused all of
JFK's and Connally's nonfatal wounds? And so on.

Relevant to the present discussion, the Commission also asked the Panel
whether examinations of JFK's brain, tissue slides, and photographs
of the interior of his chest were "necessary to arrive at a reliable
judgement concerning the number of shots which hit the President or the
angles from which they were fired."[214] As we will see, when finally
declassified by the JFK Review Board in the 1990s, the form in which
the questions were posed, and the nature of the panelists' responses,
revealed a lot about how Rockefeller's commission, and its
independent consultants, went about their work.

The Commission's final report said that, "The Panel members
separately submitted their respective conclusions. They were unanimous
in finding that the President was struck by only two bullets, both of
which were fired from the rear, and that there is no medical evidence
to support a contention that the President was struck by any bullet
coming from any other direction. They were also unanimous in finding
that the violent backward and leftward motion of the President's
upper body following the head shot was not caused by the impact of a
bullet coming from the front or right front."[215]

JFK's rearward lurch was explained as a "neuromuscular reaction"
to the head shot, perhaps augmented by a "jet effect" caused by
forward-ejecting cranial contents propelling JFK's head backward.
Experiments performed by Warren defender Dr. John Lattimer, in which
human skulls (and melons) were shot with the type of gun and ammunition
allegedly used by Oswald, were cited in the report in support of the
presence of a jet effect under the comparable circumstances in
Dallas.[216] (See Figure 6) [Improbably, Dr. Lattimer reported that
"all [target skulls and melons] fell backward off the stand toward
the shooter. No melon or skull combination ever fell away from the
shooter."[217] (Emphasis in original) Though others have repeated
these sorts of tests, no one has ever been able to duplicate
Lattimer's results.]
Noted Skeptic, Cyril Wecht, Endorses Two Bullets, From the Rear

Unexpectedly, Rockefeller also reported that, after a five hour
deposition, Dr. Cyril Wecht, a staunch Warren skeptic, had "testified
that the available evidence all points to the President being struck
only by two bullets coming from his rear, and that no support can be
found for theories which postulate gunmen to the front or right front
of the Presidential car."[218] Summing up, the Rockefeller Commission
reported that it had tried in vain to find either a shred of
medical/autopsy evidence, or a morsel of expert opinion, to support
conspiracy.

But within days of its June 1975 publication, a crack appeared in the
ultra smooth fa=E7ade of the Commission's report. On June 12th, the
New York Times reported that Cyril Wecht had complained that "his
views of President Kennedy's murder were distorted by the Rockefeller
Commission." In its June 23, 1975 edition, Newsweek Magazine reported
that "the flap over the [Rockefeller Commission's] apparent fudging
of [Wecht's] views seemed enough to ensure that this report on the
JFK assassination, like the ones before it, would fail to lay to rest
the suspicions of the conspiratorialists."[219] In published
interviews, Wecht proposed a simple way for the government to refute
his charges of misrepresentation: he called for "the commission to
release a transcript of his statements."[220] "If that transcript
shows in any way I have withdrawn or revised my thoughts of the Warren
Report," Wecht challenged, "I'll eat the transcript on the steps
of the White House."[221]
Rockefeller Stonewalls Wecht

Thereafter, a fascinating and illuminating story unfolded. The Vice
President stonewalled, resolutely refusing Wecht's repeated personal
requests to see his own interview, a request that, if honored, would
scarcely have threatened national security. The famed coroner waited 23
years to be vindicated. Only in 1998 did the JFK Review Board finally
send Wecht a copy of his testimony, belatedly bestowing an official
confirmation of Rockefeller's chicanery.[222] Wecht wasn't the only
respected authority who suffered from Rockefeller's peculiar passion
for secrecy. Noted skeptic, Kansas University pathology professor John
Nichols, MD, got much the same treatment. When Nichols wrote the Vice
President for permission to see the then-secret files from
Rockefeller's autopsy review panel, he got a letter from "White
House counsel," saying, "These materials from the files of the
Commission now belong to the White House, and are under the control of
the President. As such, they are not subject to the Freedom of
Information Act, and cannot be made available to you."[223] With less
irony than one might have hoped, for all the government's
preoccupation with keeping Wecht's testimony and Rockefeller's
autopsy investigation secret, it made an exception for a Warren
Commission defender. It shared parts of it for use by one Jacob Cohen,
a Warren-friendly author who used Wecht's material in an harsh
anticonspiracy article published in Commentary Magazine in October
1975.[224]

Not the sort of doctor to take his medicine lying down, Wecht went into
action. He and two other well-respected forensic authorities[225]
publicly charged that, "the Commission has set up a panel of
governmental sycophants to defend the Warren Report." In a May 5,
1975 press release, Wecht charged that "all the members of the panel
appointed by the Rockefeller Commission have strong ties to the federal
government and close professional relationships with individuals who
have formerly participated in studies defending the Warren Report."

Wecht emphasized Belin's Warren Commission roots. Wecht also charged
that, "The (medical) panel itself is made up of people who have been
associated with the Baltimore Medical Examiner's Office, the Johns
Hopkins School of Medicine, Department of Radiology, and the Armed
Forces Institute of Pathology, three facilities which either supplied
the members of the original autopsy team or from which selected members
of a previous panel had been appointed by the Justice Department in
1968 to defend the Warren Report."[226]

Wecht's unrestrained assertions were not without foundation.
Rockefeller appointee Werner U. Spitz, MD, the Detroit Medical
Examiner, was a close professional colleague of one of the Clark Panel
members, Baltimore Medical Examiner Russell Fisher, MD, under whom
Spitz had served for several years.[227] Richard Lindenberg, MD, a
Baltimore-based, State of Maryland neuropathologist, was described in a
once-secret Commission memo as having provided "consultation to the
Medical Examiner for the State of Maryland [Russell Fisher] - but is
subordinate to him."[228] Panelist Fred Hodges, MD, a
neuroradiologist, was picked from Baltimore's Johns Hopkins
University, the institution that had contributed Russell Morgan, MD,
the radiologist who had made the X-ray mistakes discussed above as a
Clark Panelist. Pathologist Lt. Col. Robert R. McMeeken, MC was
appointed from Pierre Finck's alma mater, the Armed Forces Institute
of Pathology. The Warren Commission consultant who had failed to note
the marked discrepancies between the test skulls he shot up and JFK's
skull, Dr. Alfred Olivier, completed Rockefeller's team of
independent and impartial consultants.
A Preordained Outcome?

Declassified files show that besides publicizing the medical panel's
potential conflicts of interests, Wecht was also instrumental in
eliciting evidence that the panelists had had a predisposition. On
April 15, 1975, Robert Olsen wrote a memo to file concerning his own
telephone conversation with Wecht on that date. In it, he noted that
Wecht had asked, "whether the Commission would be getting access to
the following items which have not been to date made available for
examination since the autopsy." Namely, (1) JFK's brain, (2)
Kodachrome slides of the interior of the President's chest, and (3)
Microscopic slides of tissue taken from various parts of the
President's body, especially those related to wound areas.[229]

Three days later, the Warren Commission counsel who had "removed
himself" from the Kennedy aspect of the probe, David Belin, and
Senior Counsel Robert Olsen sat down with their experts for what an
internal memo called a "Panel of Consultants Meeting." The purpose
was to review the evidence: JFK's autopsy photographs and X-rays,
relevant Zapruder film frames, JFK's clothing, the bullet fragments,
etc. Belin/Olsen asked the panelists to respond to a list of 14 written
questions. Among them, whether examining the missing evidence that
Wecht had specified - JFK's brain, tissue slides, and chest
photographs - was "necessary to arrive at a reliable judgement
concerning the number of shots which hit the President or the angles
from which they were fired."[230]

What was left unasked in the Commission's 14 questions is only
slightly more instructive than the panelists's responses. By way of
background, in a 1972 New York Times interview Cyril Wecht had first
made public the fact that JFK's brain, tissue slides and chest
photographs were missing.[231] Never were the medical authorities ever
asked whether there was any value in solving the mystery of the missing
material. Belin and Olsen only wanted to know whether the experts could
get along without it. The panelists's responses gave Wecht's
suspicions about their impartiality a boost.

Typical of all the responses was that of Werner U. Spitz: "I do not
believe that an examination of the President's brain would contribute
significantly to a clarification of the circumstances [of the
murder];" and, "Microscopic examination of skin slides from the
bullet wounds would not, in my opinion, have added pertinent
data."[232] Though highly respected for his expertise in these
matters, was Spitz really right there was no significant value, or
pertinent data, to be found in JFK's brain or skin slides? Wecht has
persuasively argued otherwise.

In a New York Times interview, Wecht pointed out that, "Entering
bullets burn and soil tissues around the wound of entry but not at the
point of exit. Thus, the microscopic slides might have settled the
question whether the bullets that passed through the President's head
and body had been fired from the rear."[233] The Chief Medical
Examiner of San Antonio, Texas, Vincent J.M. DiMaio, MD, supports
Wecht's position. In his authoritative textbook, "Gunshot Wounds
- Practical Aspects of Firearms, Ballistics, and Forensic
Techniques," the forensic expert explained how entrance wounds can be
distinguished from exit wounds by the microscopic examination of tissue
samples.

"Microscopic sections through a gunshot wound of entrance show a
progressive increase in alteration of the epithelium and dermis as one
proceeds from the periphery of the abrasion ring to the margin of the
zone of compressed, deformed cells ... Exit wounds ... with rare
exceptions, do not possess an abrasion ring."[234] Besides the
abrasion ring, DiMaio says the microscopic presence of gray-colored
"tissue wipe" on a specimen - soot deposited on the skin surface
- also tags the tissue as coming from an entrance wound.[235]

Spitz's position might be justified if the autopsy report had
adequately addressed this issue. Unfortunately, the original report's
description of the skin damage is sketchy. In its entirety, the autopsy
report has only this to say about the skin:

"Sections through the wounds in the occipital and upper right
posterior thoracic regions are essentially similar. In each there is
loss of continuity of the epidermis with coagulation necrosis of the
tissues at the wound margins. The scalp wound exhibits several small
fragments of bone at its margins in the subcutaneous tissue."[236]

DiMaio emphasized an important point JFK's pathologists ignored: As
one progressively scans from the periphery of an entrance wound - the
outer edge of the abrasion collar - toward the margin of the bullet
hole, one expects to see a progressive increase in the amount of tissue
damage in an entrance wound. A careful look might also have disclosed
the presence or absence of "tissue wipe" in the slides. Since the
original report is silent on the presence or absence of these tell tail
signs, it's likely the slides would have added useful information to
the expert eye. Besides that, the slides might also have offered
additional insight into the overall quality of the original work.

In other words, inasmuch as Rockefeller's experts determined that the
original autopsy team had missed the correct location for the entrance
wound by a whopping 10-cm, putting it not only in the wrong part of the
head but also in the wrong bone, why would a vague description of
tissue samples by the same group of incompetents be satisfactory
evidence about whether a wound was an entrance wound or not?
Unfortunately, none of Rockefeller's experts expressed any doubts.
Not one of them so much as hinted that the tissue slides would have
helped confirm a key corollary of the Single Bullet Theory: that
tissues taken from the edges of the bullet holes in Kennedy's back
and rear scalp showed the distinctive, microscopic signs of a
bullet's entrance.

Finally, while the available photographs of the brain were undoubtedly
helpful, it is hard to imagine that turning the real thing over in
one's hands would have offered forensic experts no significant
advantages over images. [And that's without considering recent,
published doubts that have arisen about JFK's brain photographs from
the work of the Assassinations Records Review Board. In 1999 the Board
reported that there was evidence that two different "JFK" brains
had undergone separate post mortem examinations.[237] And that the
photographer of record, John Stringer, had rejected the authenticity of
the extant brain photographs. Stringer claimed that he shot images of
sections of the brain, which are missing, and that the images in the
current file were not taken with the type of camera, or the kind of
film, he had used in 1963.[238]]
Rockefeller's Autopsy Experts: Errors and Omissions

This exceptional performance alone was sufficient reason not to scoff
at Wecht's charge that, by picking medical experts with such strong
ties to individuals involved in prior probes, Rockefeller had put the
fix in. A reading of the experts' findings provides additional
reasons to suppose the Clark Panel had unduly influenced them: they
made some of the same careless mistakes the Clark Panelists had.
Moreover, in a transparent effort to buttress the Single Bullet Theory,
one of Rockefeller's experts, Richard Lindenberg, MD, rather
hilariously misrepresented Governor John Connally's abrupt motions in
the Zapruder film.
1) Kennedy's X-rays

As previously discussed, the Clark Panel had made three principal
errors in reading JFK's X-rays. First, that there were bullet
fragments in JFK's neck; second, that no bullet fragments were lodged
on the left side of JFK's skull; and third, that the trail of
fragments across the skull lined up between the supposed high entrance
wound, 10-cm above the external occipital protuberance, and the
supposed high exit wound toward the right front of Kennedy's skull.
As discussed, there are no bullet (or bone) fragments in JFK's neck,
only artifacts that cropped up during the exposure or development of
one of the X-ray images. Secondly, there indeed are a few fragments on
the left side of JFK's skull. Finally, the trail of fragments does
not line up with the supposed entrance wound - it is approximately
5-cm higher.

Nevertheless, Rockefeller panelist, Fred J. Hodges, III, MD, Professor
of Neuroradiology at the Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore,
Maryland, repeated the first two of the Clark Panel's errors. He
wrote, "Several very small fragments [are] near these fractures [of
the transverse process of C7 and T1, in JFK's neck] are thought to be
metallic but the exact technical factors are not available and these
tiny densities may be fragments of dense bone." He also said, "...
there are no metallic fragments or bullets in the left side [of JFK's
skull]."[239]

Richard Lindenberg, MD Rockefeller's neuropathology expert, repeated
the third error. Whereas the Clark Panel wrote that the fragment trail
in JFK's skull, "if extended posteriorly, passes through the
above-mentioned (presumed high entrance) hole,"[240] Lindenberg
similarly wrote, "Within the skull a great number of tiny lead
particles ... are distributed along an axis extending from the entrance
hole to the frontal region ... ."[241] Lindenberg's enthusiasm for
the official version of Kennedy's death apparently prompted him to
venture unsuccessfully into an area in which he had no expertise: the
Zapruder film.
2) Neuropathologist Richard Lindenberg validates the Single Bullet
Theory with the Zapruder film

To buttress the Single Bullet Theory, Lindenberg wrote that the same
bullet had struck both JFK and Governor John Connally. He argued that
the hit occurred during the interval when JFK was behind a sign
[Zapruder frames 210 - 225] and thus while he was blocked from the
view of Abraham Zapruder who filmed the murder with a home movie
camera. As evidence Connally was wounded with the same bullet,
Lindenberg said that "on the Zapruder film ... no abrupt change in
their [the limousine occupants'] behavior is noticeable until the
President's head was struck (frame 313) (sic), suggesting that no
wounding of the President or the Governor occurred during this period
(frames 225-312) (sic). This fact," Lindenberg concluded,
"signifies that also the Governor was injured while out of sight
during frames 210-223."[242]

If Lindenberg had been right, his observation would have given a boost
to the Single Bullet Theory. But as even one of his fellow consultants
acknowledged at the time, he wasn't. Connally's abrupt motion was
well known right from start. In its 29 November 1963 issue, Life
Magazine published black and white images of the very frames Lindenberg
described. Describing the action, Life wrote, "The President's wave
turn into a clutching movement toward his throat (seventh picture)
(sic). Governor Connally, who glances around to see what has happened,
is himself struck by a bullet (ninth picture) (sic) and slumps over
(tenth picture) (sic) ... ."[243] The Warren Report related that
"between frames 235 and 240 the Governor turned sharply to his
right."[244] In 1967 Josiah Thompson published the most detailed
description of Connally's motion during the frames in question.
"[W]e see a very definite change indicating the impact of a
bullet," Thompson wrote regarding frames 234 to 238.
"[Connally's] right shoulder collapses, his cheeks and face puff,
and hair is disarranged."[245] Thompson argued that the Governor's
jerky movement reflected the impact of a later bullet than the one that
had hit JFK, a conclusion that the Governor agreed with.[246]
Ironically, in his own report to Rockefeller, Lindenberg's fellow
consultant, Werner Spitz, MD, devoted considerable attention to
explaining why Connally's dramatic reaction to the first shot, though
occurring later in the Zapruder film than JFK's, posed no obstacle to
the Single Bullet Theory.[247]

Misinterpreting the Zapruder film was not Lindenberg's only mistake.
3) Dr. Richard Lindenberg, MD: Pattern of skin damage at JFK's back
wound proves the bullet came from above and behind JFK

The neuropathologist also concluded that, "The hole in the skin also
shows the markings of an entrance wound: a discreet zone of dark
discoloration of the marginal skin, most prominent at the upper and
lateral margin of the wound. This zone is practically absent at the
lower margin."[248] With the upper and outer rim of the skin showing
greater bruising than the lower and inner portion of the wound's
edge, Lindenberg's "diagnostic" finding suggests that the bullet
must have been traveling in a downward and medial direction, and so
from Oswald's perch, when it hit JFK. It is on the basis of
"hard" forensic details such as this that cases may be won or lost.
But the expert appears to have been off target here as well.

Rockefeller consultant Werner Spitz, MD wrote that, "There is no
doubt that the bullet which struck the President's back penetrated
the skin in a sharply upward direction, as is evident from the width of
the abrasion at the lower half of the bullet wound of entrance. The
term 'sharply upward direction' (sic) is used because it is evident
from this injury that the missile traveled upwards within the
body."[249] (Author's emphasis.) To explain how a downward-sloping
bullet had tunneled upward through JFK, Spitz offered two
possibilities: "Any small [forward] inclination of the back will
increase the downward angle significantly." In essence, he was
suggesting that JFK must have been leaning forward at the moment the
missile struck, and so the bullet merely appeared to go upward while it
actually continued downward. The other possibility he offered to the
upward path through JFK was that the bullet was deviated from its
course when it cracked one of the transverse processes of JFK's
spine.

In 1978 HSCA forensic consultant Michael Baden, MD endorsed Spitz's
assertion that the bullet had carved an upward path through JFK's
neck, although not one that was "sharply upward." As the HSCA's
Forensic Panel Report put it, "the direction of the missile in the
body on initial penetration was slightly upward, inasmuch as the lower
margin of the skin is abraded in an upward direction. Furthermore, the
wound beneath the skin appears to be tunneled from below
upward."[250] Baden endorsed Spitz's explanation that JFK was
leaning forward when he was hit. Though plausible in theory, still
images from both the Zapruder and Nix films establish that JFK does not
lean forward until after he is hit in the back.

The HSCA endorsed Rockefeller consultant Werner Spitz's finding that
the wound in JFK's back was lower than its purported exit in the
anterior neck. This presented a problem -- how could a bullet fired
from the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository travel upward
through Kennedy's neck? The theorized solution to this "upward bullet"
problem was that Kennedy was leaning forward when struck, as the HSCA
diagrams above illustrate (see HSCA vol. 7, p. 100).

The cropped portion of Zapruder film frame 228 reproduced below,
however, shows that Kennedy was upright immediately after being struck.
Neither the Zapruder film nor still images of JFK in Dealey Plaza
disclose him leaning forward at any moment in the relevant time period.
4) Outward-bent fibers in the holes in JFK's shirtfront proved a
bullet exited the front of JFK's body

In his report, Dr. Lindenberg wrote that, "In the front of [JFK's]
shirt the bullet produced 1.2cm vertical slits in the overlapping parts
of the collar just below the collar button. The stumps of torn fibers
of the material point to the outside."[251] In 1964, J. Edgar Hoover
had advised the Warren Commission that the FBI lab had found the same
thing: "The hole in the front of the shirt was a ragged, slit-like
hole and the ends of the torn threads around the hole were bent
outward. These characteristics are typical of an exit hole for a
projectile."[252]

Lindenberg was apparently unaware of what Warren skeptic Harold
Weisberg had long since discovered,[253] and what the HSCA later
reported: "the FBI laboratory's initial description," which
preceded Hoover's March 23, 1964 letter, "did not offer evidence
concerning the direction of the fibers."[254] No bent fibers were
noted when the FBI lab initially examined JFK's shirt. The first
report they were bent outward appeared in Hoover's letter. But as
Weisberg has noted, even the Bureau was cautious about this
"evidence," essentially contradicting Hoover. During his Warren
Commission testimony, FBI agent Robert Frazier said that the outward
bend of the shirt fibers was indicative of exit only "assuming that
when I first examined the shirt it was ... it had not been altered from
the condition it was in at the time the hole was made."[255] The FBI
report and Frazier's testimony aside, might Lindenberg have
independently noted the outward bent of the fibers? Perhaps. But even
if he had, the HSCA's forensic experts echoed Frazier about the
dubious value of such evidence: "[T]he panel itself cannot assess
evidentiary significance to the fiber direction because of the numerous
intervening examinations."[256]

Finally, the supposed exit holes in the front of JFK's shirt, it
turns out, aren't really "holes" in usual sense of the term; they
are vertical slits. Although the FBI took photographs of the front of
JFK's shirt showing what it said were exit "slits," the images
were not reproduced in any of the Commission's 26 volumes. Weisberg
has suggested that the ambiguous-appearing slits, which he published
for the first time,[257] were really not left from the passage of a
bullet. Rather, as befits their appearance, they were the result of
scalpel cuts made by Parkland Hospital nurses removing JFK's
clothing.

Moreover, the nick on the left side of Kennedy's tie,[258] said by
the FBI to be (like the shirt slits) the result of a passing bullet,
was also caused by the hurried scalpels, Weisberg said. His reasoning
was based not only on the appearance of the slits and the fact the FBI
found no traces of metal anywhere in the fabric.[259] It was also on
the Commission testimony of Parkland doctor, James Carrico, MD, who
said of the throat wound, "The entrance. All we knew this was a small
wound here."

Commissioner Dulles asked, "I see. And you put your hand right above
where your tie is?"

Carrico: "Yes, sir; just where the tie--" (emphasis added) [260]

As Weisberg bluntly put it, "The Commission blundered into the truth
separately when (Warren Commissioner Allen) Dulles asked Dr. Carrico
where the President's front neck wound was and Carrico told him it
was above the shirt. Carrico confirmed this to me when he also
confirmed the obvious, that this damage to the shirt was done when the
necktie was cut off by nurses under his supervision during emergency
treatment."[261] (emphasis in original)
5) JFK's rearward jolt in the Zapruder film proves he was shot from
behind

Forensic panelist Robert R. McMeekin, MD, the Chief of the Division of
Aerospace Pathology at the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology, came up
with one of the Rockefeller panelists' most novel conclusions: "The
motion of the President's head is inconsistent with the shot striking
him from any direction other than the rear."[262] In other words, and
against common sense, McMeekin said that JFK's rearward jolt is proof
the shot came from behind. No authority but McMeekin has ever taken
this position, not even any of his colleagues on the commission. Werner
Spitz, for example, concluded that, "It is impossible to conclude
from the motion of the President's head and body following the head
shot, from which direction the shots came."[263] Fred Hodges
concluded that, "The motion of the President's head as shown in the
Zapruder film does not indicate the direction of the shot in my opinion
..=2E. ."[264]
6) The hardness of forensic conclusions

The point to be emphasized is not that Rockefeller's experts were
less than perfect. It is rather that, in interpreting clues to the
murder - whether the abrasion collar in JFK's back, Connally's
motion in the Zapruder film, the direction of fibers in JFK's shirt,
the snapping of JFK's skull, or even whether autopsy evidence was
present or suspiciously absent - the forensic consultants invariably
found that the evidence pointed to Oswald, or at least shots from
behind. Expert opinion from superb forensic specialists is thus
apparently not always as hard, or as reliable, as its exponents might
maintain.
Hedging bets with Rockefeller

Since it was a former Warren Commissioner, President Ford, who had
nominated Nelson Rockefeller to head the commission and who had also
suggested David Belin be executive director, a Warren-friendly outcome
was not entirely unexpected. Such an outcome was further assurred when
Warren Commission consultant Alfred Olivier was nominated and when
forensic experts with ties to previous investigations were picked. As
previously noted, Rockefeller's, and perhaps Ford's, preference for
reliable appointees was apparently not restricted to those selected to
investigate JFK's murder. In their authoritative 1995 book about
Nelson Rockefeller, Thy Will Be Done, authors Gerard Colby and
Charlotte Dennett suggest that the fix was put in the moment President
Ford named Rockefeller to head the investigation of the CIA.

When former CIA head William Colby showed up willing to talk, for
example, Rockefeller "recommended keeping secret what in some cases
even Colby thought unnecessary." The V. P. had good reasons to do so,
according to Colby. "As Eisenhower's undersecretary of the
Department of Health, Education, and Welfare [HEW] and then as his
special assistant on Cold War strategy and psychological warfare,
Nelson knew about many of the CIA's covert actions, including the
mind-control experiments [which were funded partly through HEW] and
assassination plots. Indeed, as chairman of the National Security
Council's Special Group, he was briefed on all covert operations and
would have had to approve some of the most questionable ones, including
coups and assassinations abroad and continuing mind-control experiments
at home."[265] Too bright a light cast on CIA abuses might have shown
an approving Rockefeller standing in the shadows.

Therefore, it's not surprising that David Belin, Alfred Olivier and
the medical consultants were not the only Commission investigators with
potential conflicts of interest. So did several of the commissioners.
Colby devoted a short appendix to the backgrounds of the Rockefeller
Commission members. Five of them are of particular note:

=B7 C. Douglas Dillon, as an Eisenhower undersecretary of state,
had participated in deliberations over the fate of Cuba's Fidel
Castro and the Congo's Patrice Lumumba, both marked for assassination
by the CIA. He was a director of the Institute of International
Education, a recipient of CIA funds.

=B7 General Lyman Leminitzer, former chairman of the Joint
Chiefs of Staff, had been active in planning the Bay of Pigs invasion
and supported the CIA's desire for direct U.S. military intervention,
only to be overruled by Kennedy.

=B7 Erwin Griswold, former Harvard Law School dean, argued in
1971 on behalf of the Nixon administration to block the New York Times
from publishing the Pentagon Papers. In 1972, he argued before the
Supreme Court that the U.S. Army's surveillance of citizens opposing
the Vietnam War violated neither federal law nor those citizens'
First Amendment rights to freedom of assembly or speech. He lost both
cases.

=B7 John T. Connor was director of David Rockefeller's Chase
Manhattan Bank. He had also been president of Allied Chemical, in which
the Rockefellers held $52 million in stock.

=B7 Ronald Reagan, former actor and California governor. Reagan,
who would soon be President, had no experience with the CIA. He
attended few of the Commission's sessions.[266]

Next: V. The 'Last' Investigation - The House Select Committee on
Assassinations

[206] Op-ed. New York Times, 1/7/75, p. 32.

[207] Cited in: David W. Belin Final Disclosure. New York: Charles
Scribner's Sons, 1988, p.80

[208] David W. Belin. Final Disclosure. New York: Charles Scribner's
Sons, 1988, p.80. [President Ford, on January 7, brought forth my name
for consideration as executive of the CIA commission."]

[209] Report to the President by the Commission on CIA Activities
Within the United States. Vice President Nelson A. Rockefeller,
Chairman. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, June,
1975.

[210] David W. Belin. Final Disclosure. New York: Charles Scribner's
Sons, 1988, p. 178

[211] David W. Belin. Final Disclosure. New York: Charles Scribner's
Sons, 1988, p. 181.

[212] Report to the President by the Commission on CIA Activities
Within the United States. Vice President Nelson A. Rockefeller,
Chairman. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, June,
1975, p. 257.

[213] Report to the President by the Commission on CIA Activities
Within the United States. Vice President Nelson A. Rockefeller,
Chairman. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, June,
1975, p. 261.

[214] Panel of Consultants Meeting, Commission on CIA Activities Within
the United States, Friday, April 18, 1975, conducted at the National
Archives, Washington, D. C., retrieved from the Gerald Ford Library.

[215] Report to the President by the Commission on CIA Activities
Within the United States. Vice President Nelson A. Rockefeller,
Chairman. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, June,
1975, p. 262.

[216] Report to the President by the Commission on CIA Activities
Within the United States. Vice President Nelson A. Rockefeller,
Chairman. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, June,
1975, p. 263. [Experimental results Lattimer reported in his book,
Kennedy and Lincoln, (Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovich, 1980) have raised
doubts about his work. Whereas, for example, Warren Commission
consultant Alfred Olivier reported that test skulls he shot at were
propelled away from him, Lattimer claimed that every skull he shot at
recoiled back toward him, just as Kennedy was supposed to have done.
Lattimer also said that he also fired at melons, and that every blasted
melon also recoiled toward him, a result that has been attempted by
others, but never once duplicated.]

[217] John K. Lattimer. Kennedy and Lincoln. New York: Harcourt Brace
Jovanovich, 1980, p. 251.

[218] Report to the President by the Commission on CIA Activities
Within the United States. Vice President Nelson A. Rockefeller,
Chairman. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, June,
1975, p. 264.

[219] Newsweek, June 23, 1975, p. 21.

[220] See also AP wire dispatch, 6/11/75.

[221] AP wire dispatch, 6/11/75, reprinted in: The Knoxville Journal,
Vol. 110:140, June 12, 1975.

[222] Letter of transmittal dated February 17, 1998 from federal
counsel, T. Jeremy Gunn of the Assassinations Records Review Board, to
Cyril Wecht.

[223] White House letter quoted in: Nichols, John. The Wounding of
Governor John Connally of Texas, November 22, 1963. Maryland State
Medical Journal, October, 1977, p. 62-63.

[224] Jacob Cohen, Conspiracy Fever. Commentary Magazine, 10/75. In a
12/5/75 letter to Professor Josiah Thompson, Jacob Cohen wrote that
"(Rockefeller Commission counsel Robert) Olsen talked to me at length
about Wecht's testimony." (Copy of letter made available to the
authors by Cyril Wecht.)

[225] Dr. Robert Joling, then the President of the American Academy of
Forensic Sciences, and Herbert L. MacDonnell, Professor of
Criminalistics, Elmira College.

[226] Press Release, May 5, 1978. Copy supplied to authors by Cyril
Wecht.

[227] Memorandum for file, from Robert B. Olsen, regarding subject
"Telephone Conversation with Cyril Wecht, MD, JD," 4/19/1975.

[228] Memorandum for file, from Robert B. Olsen, regarding subject
"Panel of Medical Consultants Relating to Investigation of
Conspiracy Allegations Concerning Assassination of President
Kennedy," April 19, 1975, p. 2.

[229] Memorandum for file, from Robert B. Olsen, 4/15/75, regarding
subject: "Medical Aspects of the Assassination of President Kennedy
- Telephone Call from Dr. Cyril Wecht." Retrieved from the Gerald
R=2E Ford Library

[230] Panel of Consultants Meeting, Commission on CIA Activities Within
the United States, Friday, April 18, 1975, conducted at the National
Archives, Washington, D. C., retrieved from the Gerald Ford Library.

[231] Fred P. Graham. Mystery Cloaks Fate of Brain of Kennedy. New York
Times, 8/27/72, p. 1.

[232] Letter from Werner U. Spitz, MD to Mr. Robert B. Olsen, Senior
Counsel, Commission on CIA Activities Within the U.S., 4/24/75,
obtained from the Gerald R. Ford Library.

[233] Fred P. Graham. Mystery Cloaks Fate of Brain of Kennedy. New York
Times, 8/27/72, p. 57.

[234] Vincent J. M. DiMaio. Gunshot Wounds - Practical Aspects of
Firearms, Ballistics, and Forensic Techniques. Boca Raton, Ann Arbor,
London: CRC Press, 1985, p. 72 - 73.

[235] Vincent J. M. DiMaio. Gunshot Wounds - Practical Aspects of
Firearms, Ballistics, and Forensic Techniques. Boca Raton, Ann Arbor,
London: CRC Press, 1985, p. 97.

[236] Quoted from the Supplemental Autopsy Report, p. 2, reproduced in
the Warren Report.

[237] George Lardner. Archives Photos Not of JFK's Brain, Concludes
Aide to Review Board. Washington Post, 11/10/98, p. A-3.

[238] ARRB deposition of John T. Stringer, July 16, 1996. This subject
is discussed in detail by author Aguilar, in: "The Medical Case for
Conspiracy," in: Charles Crenshaw. Trauma Room One. New York:
Paraview Press, 2001.

[239] Report of Fred J. Hodges, III, MD, professor of radiology
(Neuroradiology), The Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore,
Maryland, "prepared after inspecting pertinent evidence at the
National Archives, Washington, D.C., on 4/18/75 at the direction of Mr.
Robert D. Olsen." Photocopy from the Gerald R. Ford Library, p. 3 and
4=2E

[240] Clark Panel Report, reproduced in ARRB Medical Document #59, p.
11. Also reproduced in: Post Mortem, p. 590.

[241] Report of Richard Lindenberg, MD to the Rockefeller Commission,
signed May 9, 1975. Retrieved from the Gerald R. Ford Library, p. 5.
Lindendberg was Director of Neuropathology and Legal Medicine for the
State of Maryland's Department of Health and Mental Hygiene.

[242] Report of Richard Lindenberg, MD to the Rockefeller Commission,
signed May 9, 1975. Retrieved from the Gerald R. Ford Library, p.
10-11.

[243] The Assassination of President Kennedy - Split-Second Sequence
as the Bullets Struck. Life Magazine, 11/29/63, p. 24.

[244] The President's Commission on the Assassination of President
John F. Kennedy - Report. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing
Office, 1964, p. 106.

[245] Josiah Thompson. Six Seconds in Dallas. New York: Bernard Geis
Associates for Random House, 1967, p. 71.

[246] "Governor Connally viewed the [Zapruder] film and testified
that he was hit between frames 231 and 234." In: The President's
Commission on the Assassination of President John F. Kennedy -
Report. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1964, p.
106.

[247] Report of Werner Spitz, MD to the Rockefeller Commission, dated
4/24/75, p. 2. Retrieved from the Gerald R. Ford Library.

[248] Report of Richard Lindenberg, MD to the Rockefeller Commission,
signed May 9, 1975, p. 2. Retrieved from the Gerald R. Ford Library.

[249] Report of Werner Spitz, MD to the Rockefeller Commission, dated
4/24/75, p. 1. Retrieved from the Gerald R. Ford Library.

[250] See Report of the Forensic Pathology Panel, HSCA, Vol. 7:87.

[251] Report of Richard Lindenberg, MD to the Rockefeller Commission,
signed May 9, 1975, p. 3. Retrieved from the Gerald R. Ford Library.

[252] Excerpt of letter from Hoover to Warren Commissioner General
Counsel J. Lee Rankin reproduced by HSCA in Report of the Forensic
Pathology Panel, Vol. 7:90. Full letter reproduced in: Weisberg,
Harold. Post Mortem. Frederick, MD, 1975, p. 600.

[253] Weisberg, Harold. Post Mortem. Frederick, MD, 1975, p. 599 -
601.

[254] HSCA in Report of the Forensic Pathology Panel, Vol. 7:91.

[255] Weisberg, Harold. Post Mortem. Frederick, MD, 1975, p. 600.
Frazier's Commission testimony appears at: 5H61.

[256] HSCA in Report of the Forensic Pathology Panel, Vol. 7:91.

[257] Weisberg, Harold. Post Mortem. Frederick, MD, 1975, p. 597 -
598.

[258] The FBI report Weisberg reproduced on page 599 of his book Post
Mortem placed the nick on the left side of JFK's tie.

[259] "No bullet metal was found in the fabric surrounding the hole
in the front of the shirt ... X-ray and other examinations of the
clothing revealed no additional evidence of value." From: FBI report
published in CD 205, p. 153 - 154, reproduced in: Weisberg, Harold.
Post Mortem. Frederick, MD, 1975, p. 599.

[260] 3H362

[261] Weisberg, Harold. Post Mortem. Frederick, MD, 1975, p. 598.

[262] Letter dated 4/25/75 from Robert R. McMeekin, MD to Mr. Robert
Olsen, Senior Counsel, Rockefeller Commission, p. 1. Retrieved from
Gerald R. Ford Library.

[263] Report of Werner Spitz, MD to the Rockefeller Commission, dated
4/24/75, p. 3. Retrieved from the Gerald R. Ford Library.

[264] Report of Fred J. Hodges, III, MD, op. cit, p. 9.

[265] Gerard Colby, Charlotte Dennett. Thy Will Be Done - The
Conquest of the Amazon: Nelson Rockefeller and Evangelism in the Age of
Oil. New York: HarperPerrenial, p. 735 - 736. Reference is also made
to: Tad Szulc, "Why Rockefeller Tried to Cover up the CIA Probe,"
New York, September 5, 1977.

[266] Gerard Colby, Charlotte Dennett. Thy Will Be Done - The
Conquest of the Amazon: Nelson Rockefeller and Evangelism in the Age of
Oil. New York: HarperPerrenial, p. 833 - 834.

  #7   Report Post  
Old June 17th 05, 08:11 AM
The Watcher
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Mon, 13 Jun 2005 14:59:32 GMT, yourname wrote:




I thought that the ice mass on the Antarctic land mass was growing by
millions of tons?

Who told you that one?



Latest meteorlogical examination shows snowfall over the Antarctic
IS increasing.

That's to be expected in the event of global warming. The increased
amount of moisture in the atmosphere would be precipitating out
at the coldest point.

Unfortunately, this isn't an escape valve, just a warning sign.

FW



The real problem is that we would expect the earth to be warming after
the exit of an ice age. Proof of warming is irrelevant. The earth has
been significantly warmer than it is now. What is needed is proof that
man is causing warming and that it is a problem.


I disagree. It's basically unimportant to me whether man is causing it or not,
if it becomes a problem. If global warming causes a climatic catastrophe it will
probably not matter much to the people who die from it what caused it.

This is not forthcoming.


The truth often isn't. That's life. The dinosaurs never knew what hit them. We
are still trying to figure out what did it millions of years later.

The earths temperature is bound to drop[if history is evidence] sometime
in the next 50,000 years.


To explain global warming you must explain the ice ages, which global
warming scientists cannot do. until you understand the system[or lack
thereof] you cannot 'prove' anything






Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Completely OT Preparing for life with global warming Clark Magnuson Metalworking 139 February 24th 05 12:12 AM
Global warming - timber frames John Smith UK diy 5 December 18th 04 12:22 AM
OT - Gunner Quote Cliff Huprich Metalworking 183 January 27th 04 09:20 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:33 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2019 DIYbanter.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about DIY & home improvement"

 

Copyright © 2017