(3) that the bullet hit nothing solid (no “bony structures”);
(4) that he has "looked" at the X-rays, which support the report;
(5) that there is no evidence of conspiracy in the assassination;
(6) that we now know that Humes burned his autopsy notes; and,
(7) that you can't prove a negative.
Not even the Zapruder film—which we have discovered to be a recreation—supports claim (1). Indeed, you can find a technically enhanced version of the film in a video lecture that I presented on JFK, which is archived at the bottom of my public issues web site, assassinationscience.com, and can be found on YouTube. I have already explained enough about (2), (3), and (4) to demonstrate that they are also false. It follows from what we have found that there is substantial evidence of a conspiracy, enough to make the matter beyond reasonable doubt, which means that (5) is also false. What is interesting about (6) is not that Humes had burned his “notes “, whic was not news, but it turned out that he had also burned the first draft of his autopsy report as well, as the ARRB disclosed and as MURDER IN DEALEY PLAZA (2000)—especially the brilliant synthesis of the medical evidence by Mantik—explains.
Claim (7)—that you can’t prove a negative—has been disproven six times already in this context alone, but can be shown to be false on simpler grounds, such as by proving that there is no elephant in your living room by observing its contents and not finding one present or by demonstrating that not all ducks are white by locating a single non-white duck. This is a popular opinion, but that does not make it true. That JFK had an entry wound to his throat, that the “magic bullet” theory is anatomically impossible, and that the autopsy X-rays have been altered not only implicates the government in a conspiracy to conceal the truth about the death of our 35th president but suggests that the most likely explanation for governmental complicity in the cover-up is governmental complicity in the crime. So if this man, Arlen Specter, really has a "passion for truth", as his book proclaims, why is he saying so many things to the American people that are provably false?
