Discussion:
New to the forum
Add Reply
Amy Joyce
2017-05-29 01:42:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Although new to this forum I have been researching JFK for some time now.
After experience in similar/other forums I was hesitant to join because I
despise fallacy arguments, mostly gaslighting, but also any that steer
conversation away from polite debate toward trading insults. However I
enjoy it and look forward to it.

I'm not on the fence with my opinion and I don't think it matters much
what I think when I say that I'm disgusted with the WC's inquiry. Because
it wasn't a trial with a defense team and jury, they had a responsibility
to investigate different theories, examine any/all evidence, and consider
as much witness testimony as they could.

This is not to say that I don't think it's likely that Oswald in some way
(also irrelevant). By appearances it seems that Oswald was convicted,that
if the WC found him responsible, it must be true. However that's not due
process. Since he had no one to stand up for and defend him in an official
capacity, and that none was even allowed, makes me most suspicious. That
evidence evidence was held from public view for so long (and still is)
increases my suspicions (and anger). The possibility for a valid inquiry
has long since passed because most witnesses have died and evidence has
gotten lost, stolen, and destroyed.... Just sayin' :-)
mainframetech
2017-06-01 01:14:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Amy Joyce
Although new to this forum I have been researching JFK for some time now.
After experience in similar/other forums I was hesitant to join because I
despise fallacy arguments, mostly gaslighting, but also any that steer
conversation away from polite debate toward trading insults. However I
enjoy it and look forward to it.
I'm not on the fence with my opinion and I don't think it matters much
what I think when I say that I'm disgusted with the WC's inquiry. Because
it wasn't a trial with a defense team and jury, they had a responsibility
to investigate different theories, examine any/all evidence, and consider
as much witness testimony as they could.
This is not to say that I don't think it's likely that Oswald in some way
(also irrelevant). By appearances it seems that Oswald was convicted,that
if the WC found him responsible, it must be true. However that's not due
process. Since he had no one to stand up for and defend him in an official
capacity, and that none was even allowed, makes me most suspicious. That
evidence evidence was held from public view for so long (and still is)
increases my suspicions (and anger). The possibility for a valid inquiry
has long since passed because most witnesses have died and evidence has
gotten lost, stolen, and destroyed.... Just sayin' :-)
Amy, there is still a lot of evidence in the ARRB files. The
testimonies of many there have answered many of the questions from the
case.


Here's some info on whether a lawyer was assigned to work on behalf of
Oswald:

“In fairness to the alleged assassin and his family, the
Commission on February 25, 1964, requested Walter E. Craig, president of
the American Bar Association, to participate in the investigation and to
advise the Commission whether in his opinion the proceedings conformed to
the basic principles of American justice. Mr. Craig accepted this
assignment and participated fully and without limitation. He attended
Commission hearings in person or through his appointed assistants. All
working papers, reports, and other data in Commission files were made
available, and Mr. Craig and his associates were given the opportunity to
cross-examine witnesses, to recall any witness heard prior to his
appointment, and to suggest witnesses whose testimony they would like to
have the Commission hear. This procedure was agreeable to counsel for
Oswald’s widow.”

And:

"No one who has read the 888 pages of the Report can have any doubt about
the role played by Walter E. Craig: His name does not even appear in the
index, nor does it appear in the extended index contained in the 15th
volume of the 26 volumes of Hearings and Exhibits. One does find an
occasional reference to the presence of an “observer”
representing Craig, but none of these “observers” ever
poses a question which might illuminate a point in Oswald’s
favor."

From: http://kenrahn.com/JFK/The_critics/Sauvage/Oswalds_Case/Oswalds_case.html

Chris
Amy Joyce
2017-06-02 12:08:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by Amy Joyce
Although new to this forum I have been researching JFK for some time now.
After experience in similar/other forums I was hesitant to join because I
despise fallacy arguments, mostly gaslighting, but also any that steer
conversation away from polite debate toward trading insults. However I
enjoy it and look forward to it.
I'm not on the fence with my opinion and I don't think it matters much
what I think when I say that I'm disgusted with the WC's inquiry. Because
it wasn't a trial with a defense team and jury, they had a responsibility
to investigate different theories, examine any/all evidence, and consider
as much witness testimony as they could.
This is not to say that I don't think it's likely that Oswald in some way
(also irrelevant). By appearances it seems that Oswald was convicted,that
if the WC found him responsible, it must be true. However that's not due
process. Since he had no one to stand up for and defend him in an official
capacity, and that none was even allowed, makes me most suspicious. That
evidence evidence was held from public view for so long (and still is)
increases my suspicions (and anger). The possibility for a valid inquiry
has long since passed because most witnesses have died and evidence has
gotten lost, stolen, and destroyed.... Just sayin' :-)
Amy, there is still a lot of evidence in the ARRB files. The
testimonies of many there have answered many of the questions from the
case.
Here's some info on whether a lawyer was assigned to work on behalf of
“In fairness to the alleged assassin and his family, the
Commission on February 25, 1964, requested Walter E. Craig, president of
the American Bar Association, to participate in the investigation and to
advise the Commission whether in his opinion the proceedings conformed to
the basic principles of American justice. Mr. Craig accepted this
assignment and participated fully and without limitation. He attended
Commission hearings in person or through his appointed assistants. All
working papers, reports, and other data in Commission files were made
available, and Mr. Craig and his associates were given the opportunity to
cross-examine witnesses, to recall any witness heard prior to his
appointment, and to suggest witnesses whose testimony they would like to
have the Commission hear. This procedure was agreeable to counsel for
Oswald’s widow.”
"No one who has read the 888 pages of the Report can have any doubt about
the role played by Walter E. Craig: His name does not even appear in the
index, nor does it appear in the extended index contained in the 15th
volume of the 26 volumes of Hearings and Exhibits. One does find an
occasional reference to the presence of an “observer”
representing Craig, but none of these “observers” ever
poses a question which might illuminate a point in Oswald’s
favor."
From: http://kenrahn.com/JFK/The_critics/Sauvage/Oswalds_Case/Oswalds_case.html
Chris
Chris - thanks for responding and for posting the information.

I've been (slowly) reading the WC reports as well as any others, but not
in a particular order. Even if I was convinced that Oswald had murdered
JFK alone and with malice, I'd still feel the same way. Per the
paragraphs you quoted, the "request" for the president of the bar to
participate in the investigation on Oswald's behalf and seemingly as his
attorney - that he did nothing makes it worse. I'm flabbergasted!

PS. Do you by chance know if there was a lawsuit or attempt at one in
regards to Oswald being killed while under the protection of the DPD?

~Amy
claviger
2017-06-02 21:21:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Amy Joyce
Post by mainframetech
Post by Amy Joyce
Although new to this forum I have been researching JFK for some time now.
After experience in similar/other forums I was hesitant to join because I
despise fallacy arguments, mostly gaslighting, but also any that steer
conversation away from polite debate toward trading insults. However I
enjoy it and look forward to it.
I'm not on the fence with my opinion and I don't think it matters much
what I think when I say that I'm disgusted with the WC's inquiry. Because
it wasn't a trial with a defense team and jury, they had a responsibility
to investigate different theories, examine any/all evidence, and consider
as much witness testimony as they could.
This is not to say that I don't think it's likely that Oswald in some way
(also irrelevant). By appearances it seems that Oswald was convicted,that
if the WC found him responsible, it must be true. However that's not due
process. Since he had no one to stand up for and defend him in an official
capacity, and that none was even allowed, makes me most suspicious. That
evidence evidence was held from public view for so long (and still is)
increases my suspicions (and anger). The possibility for a valid inquiry
has long since passed because most witnesses have died and evidence has
gotten lost, stolen, and destroyed.... Just sayin' :-)
Amy, there is still a lot of evidence in the ARRB files. The
testimonies of many there have answered many of the questions from the
case.
Here's some info on whether a lawyer was assigned to work on behalf of
“In fairness to the alleged assassin and his family, the
Commission on February 25, 1964, requested Walter E. Craig, president of
the American Bar Association, to participate in the investigation and to
advise the Commission whether in his opinion the proceedings conformed to
the basic principles of American justice. Mr. Craig accepted this
assignment and participated fully and without limitation. He attended
Commission hearings in person or through his appointed assistants. All
working papers, reports, and other data in Commission files were made
available, and Mr. Craig and his associates were given the opportunity to
cross-examine witnesses, to recall any witness heard prior to his
appointment, and to suggest witnesses whose testimony they would like to
have the Commission hear. This procedure was agreeable to counsel for
Oswald’s widow.”
"No one who has read the 888 pages of the Report can have any doubt about
the role played by Walter E. Craig: His name does not even appear in the
index, nor does it appear in the extended index contained in the 15th
volume of the 26 volumes of Hearings and Exhibits. One does find an
occasional reference to the presence of an “observer”
representing Craig, but none of these “observers” ever
poses a question which might illuminate a point in Oswald’s
favor."
From: http://kenrahn.com/JFK/The_critics/Sauvage/Oswalds_Case/Oswalds_case.html
Chris
Chris - thanks for responding and for posting the information.
I've been (slowly) reading the WC reports as well as any others, but not
in a particular order. Even if I was convinced that Oswald had murdered
JFK alone and with malice, I'd still feel the same way. Per the
paragraphs you quoted, the "request" for the president of the bar to
participate in the investigation on Oswald's behalf and seemingly as his
attorney - that he did nothing makes it worse. I'm flabbergasted!
PS. Do you by chance know if there was a lawsuit or attempt at one in
regards to Oswald being killed while under the protection of the DPD?
~Amy
Sadly the DPD did a good imitation of the Keystone Cops. To their credit
some DPD wanted to secretly move LHO without the press being there. From
what I read the Mayor screwed up that plan. As for proximate cause sue
Jack Ruby and the Mafia. That should be interesting.
Anthony Marsh
2017-06-03 12:37:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by claviger
Post by Amy Joyce
Post by mainframetech
Post by Amy Joyce
Although new to this forum I have been researching JFK for some time now.
After experience in similar/other forums I was hesitant to join because I
despise fallacy arguments, mostly gaslighting, but also any that steer
conversation away from polite debate toward trading insults. However I
enjoy it and look forward to it.
I'm not on the fence with my opinion and I don't think it matters much
what I think when I say that I'm disgusted with the WC's inquiry. Because
it wasn't a trial with a defense team and jury, they had a responsibility
to investigate different theories, examine any/all evidence, and consider
as much witness testimony as they could.
This is not to say that I don't think it's likely that Oswald in some way
(also irrelevant). By appearances it seems that Oswald was convicted,that
if the WC found him responsible, it must be true. However that's not due
process. Since he had no one to stand up for and defend him in an official
capacity, and that none was even allowed, makes me most suspicious. That
evidence evidence was held from public view for so long (and still is)
increases my suspicions (and anger). The possibility for a valid inquiry
has long since passed because most witnesses have died and evidence has
gotten lost, stolen, and destroyed.... Just sayin' :-)
Amy, there is still a lot of evidence in the ARRB files. The
testimonies of many there have answered many of the questions from the
case.
Here's some info on whether a lawyer was assigned to work on behalf of
“In fairness to the alleged assassin and his family, the
Commission on February 25, 1964, requested Walter E. Craig, president of
the American Bar Association, to participate in the investigation and to
advise the Commission whether in his opinion the proceedings conformed to
the basic principles of American justice. Mr. Craig accepted this
assignment and participated fully and without limitation. He attended
Commission hearings in person or through his appointed assistants. All
working papers, reports, and other data in Commission files were made
available, and Mr. Craig and his associates were given the opportunity to
cross-examine witnesses, to recall any witness heard prior to his
appointment, and to suggest witnesses whose testimony they would like to
have the Commission hear. This procedure was agreeable to counsel for
Oswald’s widow.”
"No one who has read the 888 pages of the Report can have any doubt about
the role played by Walter E. Craig: His name does not even appear in the
index, nor does it appear in the extended index contained in the 15th
volume of the 26 volumes of Hearings and Exhibits. One does find an
occasional reference to the presence of an “observer”
representing Craig, but none of these “observers” ever
poses a question which might illuminate a point in Oswald’s
favor."
From: http://kenrahn.com/JFK/The_critics/Sauvage/Oswalds_Case/Oswalds_case.html
Chris
Chris - thanks for responding and for posting the information.
I've been (slowly) reading the WC reports as well as any others, but not
in a particular order. Even if I was convinced that Oswald had murdered
JFK alone and with malice, I'd still feel the same way. Per the
paragraphs you quoted, the "request" for the president of the bar to
participate in the investigation on Oswald's behalf and seemingly as his
attorney - that he did nothing makes it worse. I'm flabbergasted!
PS. Do you by chance know if there was a lawsuit or attempt at one in
regards to Oswald being killed while under the protection of the DPD?
~Amy
Sadly the DPD did a good imitation of the Keystone Cops. To their credit
some DPD wanted to secretly move LHO without the press being there. From
what I read the Mayor screwed up that plan. As for proximate cause sue
Close enough for a WC defender. It was also the need to SHOW the press
that Oswald wasn't being mistreated that caused the problem. They were
used to the copy beating a confession out of a suspect.
Post by claviger
Jack Ruby and the Mafia. That should be interesting.
bigdog
2017-06-03 13:25:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by claviger
Post by Amy Joyce
Post by mainframetech
Post by Amy Joyce
Although new to this forum I have been researching JFK for some time now.
After experience in similar/other forums I was hesitant to join because I
despise fallacy arguments, mostly gaslighting, but also any that steer
conversation away from polite debate toward trading insults. However I
enjoy it and look forward to it.
I'm not on the fence with my opinion and I don't think it matters much
what I think when I say that I'm disgusted with the WC's inquiry. Because
it wasn't a trial with a defense team and jury, they had a responsibility
to investigate different theories, examine any/all evidence, and consider
as much witness testimony as they could.
This is not to say that I don't think it's likely that Oswald in some way
(also irrelevant). By appearances it seems that Oswald was convicted,that
if the WC found him responsible, it must be true. However that's not due
process. Since he had no one to stand up for and defend him in an official
capacity, and that none was even allowed, makes me most suspicious. That
evidence evidence was held from public view for so long (and still is)
increases my suspicions (and anger). The possibility for a valid inquiry
has long since passed because most witnesses have died and evidence has
gotten lost, stolen, and destroyed.... Just sayin' :-)
Amy, there is still a lot of evidence in the ARRB files. The
testimonies of many there have answered many of the questions from the
case.
Here's some info on whether a lawyer was assigned to work on behalf of
“In fairness to the alleged assassin and his family, the
Commission on February 25, 1964, requested Walter E. Craig, president of
the American Bar Association, to participate in the investigation and to
advise the Commission whether in his opinion the proceedings conformed to
the basic principles of American justice. Mr. Craig accepted this
assignment and participated fully and without limitation. He attended
Commission hearings in person or through his appointed assistants. All
working papers, reports, and other data in Commission files were made
available, and Mr. Craig and his associates were given the opportunity to
cross-examine witnesses, to recall any witness heard prior to his
appointment, and to suggest witnesses whose testimony they would like to
have the Commission hear. This procedure was agreeable to counsel for
Oswald’s widow.”
"No one who has read the 888 pages of the Report can have any doubt about
the role played by Walter E. Craig: His name does not even appear in the
index, nor does it appear in the extended index contained in the 15th
volume of the 26 volumes of Hearings and Exhibits. One does find an
occasional reference to the presence of an “observer”
representing Craig, but none of these “observers” ever
poses a question which might illuminate a point in Oswald’s
favor."
From: http://kenrahn.com/JFK/The_critics/Sauvage/Oswalds_Case/Oswalds_case.html
Chris
Chris - thanks for responding and for posting the information.
I've been (slowly) reading the WC reports as well as any others, but not
in a particular order. Even if I was convinced that Oswald had murdered
JFK alone and with malice, I'd still feel the same way. Per the
paragraphs you quoted, the "request" for the president of the bar to
participate in the investigation on Oswald's behalf and seemingly as his
attorney - that he did nothing makes it worse. I'm flabbergasted!
PS. Do you by chance know if there was a lawsuit or attempt at one in
regards to Oswald being killed while under the protection of the DPD?
~Amy
Sadly the DPD did a good imitation of the Keystone Cops. To their credit
some DPD wanted to secretly move LHO without the press being there. From
what I read the Mayor screwed up that plan. As for proximate cause sue
Jack Ruby and the Mafia. That should be interesting.
Up until the point they let Ruby whack Oswald, they had done a very
respectable job. The even used restraint when arresting Oswald when they
had every legal justification to blow him away. Allowing Ruby the chance
to kill Oswald was a bad blunder. <snicker>

I was 4 days shy of my 12th birthday when it happened. I cheered when it
was announced that Oswald had died. I haven't stopped cheering since.
Amy Joyce
2017-06-04 01:05:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by claviger
Post by Amy Joyce
Post by mainframetech
Post by Amy Joyce
Although new to this forum I have been researching JFK for some time now.
After experience in similar/other forums I was hesitant to join because I
despise fallacy arguments, mostly gaslighting, but also any that steer
conversation away from polite debate toward trading insults. However I
enjoy it and look forward to it.
I'm not on the fence with my opinion and I don't think it matters much
what I think when I say that I'm disgusted with the WC's inquiry. Because
it wasn't a trial with a defense team and jury, they had a responsibility
to investigate different theories, examine any/all evidence, and consider
as much witness testimony as they could.
This is not to say that I don't think it's likely that Oswald in some way
(also irrelevant). By appearances it seems that Oswald was convicted,that
if the WC found him responsible, it must be true. However that's not due
process. Since he had no one to stand up for and defend him in an official
capacity, and that none was even allowed, makes me most suspicious. That
evidence evidence was held from public view for so long (and still is)
increases my suspicions (and anger). The possibility for a valid inquiry
has long since passed because most witnesses have died and evidence has
gotten lost, stolen, and destroyed.... Just sayin' :-)
Amy, there is still a lot of evidence in the ARRB files. The
testimonies of many there have answered many of the questions from the
case.
Here's some info on whether a lawyer was assigned to work on behalf of
“In fairness to the alleged assassin and his family, the
Commission on February 25, 1964, requested Walter E. Craig, president of
the American Bar Association, to participate in the investigation and to
advise the Commission whether in his opinion the proceedings conformed to
the basic principles of American justice. Mr. Craig accepted this
assignment and participated fully and without limitation. He attended
Commission hearings in person or through his appointed assistants. All
working papers, reports, and other data in Commission files were made
available, and Mr. Craig and his associates were given the opportunity to
cross-examine witnesses, to recall any witness heard prior to his
appointment, and to suggest witnesses whose testimony they would like to
have the Commission hear. This procedure was agreeable to counsel for
Oswald’s widow.”
"No one who has read the 888 pages of the Report can have any doubt about
the role played by Walter E. Craig: His name does not even appear in the
index, nor does it appear in the extended index contained in the 15th
volume of the 26 volumes of Hearings and Exhibits. One does find an
occasional reference to the presence of an “observer”
representing Craig, but none of these “observers” ever
poses a question which might illuminate a point in Oswald’s
favor."
From: http://kenrahn.com/JFK/The_critics/Sauvage/Oswalds_Case/Oswalds_case.html
Chris
Chris - thanks for responding and for posting the information.
I've been (slowly) reading the WC reports as well as any others, but not
in a particular order. Even if I was convinced that Oswald had murdered
JFK alone and with malice, I'd still feel the same way. Per the
paragraphs you quoted, the "request" for the president of the bar to
participate in the investigation on Oswald's behalf and seemingly as his
attorney - that he did nothing makes it worse. I'm flabbergasted!
PS. Do you by chance know if there was a lawsuit or attempt at one in
regards to Oswald being killed while under the protection of the DPD?
~Amy
Sadly the DPD did a good imitation of the Keystone Cops. To their credit
some DPD wanted to secretly move LHO without the press being there. From
what I read the Mayor screwed up that plan. As for proximate cause sue
Jack Ruby and the Mafia. That should be interesting.
Up until the point they let Ruby whack Oswald, they had done a very
respectable job. The even used restraint when arresting Oswald when they
had every legal justification to blow him away. Allowing Ruby the chance
to kill Oswald was a bad blunder. <snicker>
I disagree with the "respectable job" part but do agree with their having
much restraint in not shooting Oswald just prior to his arrest. Oswald's
actions at that time made it justifiable IMO and considering what they
"wanted" him for, it's surprising that it didn't happen. I think he knew
they were searching for him (specifically) and that's why he had left home
with a gun and why he led into the arresting officer with a punch.
Post by bigdog
I was 4 days shy of my 12th birthday when it happened. I cheered when it
was announced that Oswald had died. I haven't stopped cheering since.
bigdog
2017-06-05 01:15:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Amy Joyce
Post by bigdog
Post by claviger
Post by Amy Joyce
Post by mainframetech
Post by Amy Joyce
Although new to this forum I have been researching JFK for some time now.
After experience in similar/other forums I was hesitant to join because I
despise fallacy arguments, mostly gaslighting, but also any that steer
conversation away from polite debate toward trading insults. However I
enjoy it and look forward to it.
I'm not on the fence with my opinion and I don't think it matters much
what I think when I say that I'm disgusted with the WC's inquiry. Because
it wasn't a trial with a defense team and jury, they had a responsibility
to investigate different theories, examine any/all evidence, and consider
as much witness testimony as they could.
This is not to say that I don't think it's likely that Oswald in some way
(also irrelevant). By appearances it seems that Oswald was convicted,that
if the WC found him responsible, it must be true. However that's not due
process. Since he had no one to stand up for and defend him in an official
capacity, and that none was even allowed, makes me most suspicious. That
evidence evidence was held from public view for so long (and still is)
increases my suspicions (and anger). The possibility for a valid inquiry
has long since passed because most witnesses have died and evidence has
gotten lost, stolen, and destroyed.... Just sayin' :-)
Amy, there is still a lot of evidence in the ARRB files. The
testimonies of many there have answered many of the questions from the
case.
Here's some info on whether a lawyer was assigned to work on behalf of
“In fairness to the alleged assassin and his family, the
Commission on February 25, 1964, requested Walter E. Craig, president of
the American Bar Association, to participate in the investigation and to
advise the Commission whether in his opinion the proceedings conformed to
the basic principles of American justice. Mr. Craig accepted this
assignment and participated fully and without limitation. He attended
Commission hearings in person or through his appointed assistants. All
working papers, reports, and other data in Commission files were made
available, and Mr. Craig and his associates were given the opportunity to
cross-examine witnesses, to recall any witness heard prior to his
appointment, and to suggest witnesses whose testimony they would like to
have the Commission hear. This procedure was agreeable to counsel for
Oswald’s widow.”
"No one who has read the 888 pages of the Report can have any doubt about
the role played by Walter E. Craig: His name does not even appear in the
index, nor does it appear in the extended index contained in the 15th
volume of the 26 volumes of Hearings and Exhibits. One does find an
occasional reference to the presence of an “observer”
representing Craig, but none of these “observers” ever
poses a question which might illuminate a point in Oswald’s
favor."
From: http://kenrahn.com/JFK/The_critics/Sauvage/Oswalds_Case/Oswalds_case.html
Chris
Chris - thanks for responding and for posting the information.
I've been (slowly) reading the WC reports as well as any others, but not
in a particular order. Even if I was convinced that Oswald had murdered
JFK alone and with malice, I'd still feel the same way. Per the
paragraphs you quoted, the "request" for the president of the bar to
participate in the investigation on Oswald's behalf and seemingly as his
attorney - that he did nothing makes it worse. I'm flabbergasted!
PS. Do you by chance know if there was a lawsuit or attempt at one in
regards to Oswald being killed while under the protection of the DPD?
~Amy
Sadly the DPD did a good imitation of the Keystone Cops. To their credit
some DPD wanted to secretly move LHO without the press being there. From
what I read the Mayor screwed up that plan. As for proximate cause sue
Jack Ruby and the Mafia. That should be interesting.
Up until the point they let Ruby whack Oswald, they had done a very
respectable job. The even used restraint when arresting Oswald when they
had every legal justification to blow him away. Allowing Ruby the chance
to kill Oswald was a bad blunder. <snicker>
I disagree with the "respectable job" part but do agree with their having
much restraint in not shooting Oswald just prior to his arrest. Oswald's
actions at that time made it justifiable IMO and considering what they
"wanted" him for, it's surprising that it didn't happen. I think he knew
they were searching for him (specifically) and that's why he had left home
with a gun and why he led into the arresting officer with a punch.
Of course he knew they were searching for him. He knew they would quickly
figure out he was the prime suspect in the assassination because he was
the assassin. That's why he shot and killed the first cop to stop and
question him. That's why he tried to kill the arresting officer. I can't
pretend to know what Oswald had in mind but my guess is that when the
lights in the movie theater came on and he saw the cops converging on him
he had to know it was over. Pulling the gun on the cops might very well
have been his way of committing suicide by cop. He seemed intent on taking
as many with him as he could. He only managed to take one.
mainframetech
2017-06-06 03:26:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by Amy Joyce
Post by bigdog
Post by claviger
Post by Amy Joyce
Post by mainframetech
Post by Amy Joyce
Although new to this forum I have been researching JFK for some time now.
After experience in similar/other forums I was hesitant to join because I
despise fallacy arguments, mostly gaslighting, but also any that steer
conversation away from polite debate toward trading insults. However I
enjoy it and look forward to it.
I'm not on the fence with my opinion and I don't think it matters much
what I think when I say that I'm disgusted with the WC's inquiry. Because
it wasn't a trial with a defense team and jury, they had a responsibility
to investigate different theories, examine any/all evidence, and consider
as much witness testimony as they could.
This is not to say that I don't think it's likely that Oswald in some way
(also irrelevant). By appearances it seems that Oswald was convicted,that
if the WC found him responsible, it must be true. However that's not due
process. Since he had no one to stand up for and defend him in an official
capacity, and that none was even allowed, makes me most suspicious. That
evidence evidence was held from public view for so long (and still is)
increases my suspicions (and anger). The possibility for a valid inquiry
has long since passed because most witnesses have died and evidence has
gotten lost, stolen, and destroyed.... Just sayin' :-)
Amy, there is still a lot of evidence in the ARRB files. The
testimonies of many there have answered many of the questions from the
case.
Here's some info on whether a lawyer was assigned to work on behalf of
“In fairness to the alleged assassin and his family, the
Commission on February 25, 1964, requested Walter E. Craig, president of
the American Bar Association, to participate in the investigation and to
advise the Commission whether in his opinion the proceedings conformed to
the basic principles of American justice. Mr. Craig accepted this
assignment and participated fully and without limitation. He attended
Commission hearings in person or through his appointed assistants. All
working papers, reports, and other data in Commission files were made
available, and Mr. Craig and his associates were given the opportunity to
cross-examine witnesses, to recall any witness heard prior to his
appointment, and to suggest witnesses whose testimony they would like to
have the Commission hear. This procedure was agreeable to counsel for
Oswald’s widow.”
"No one who has read the 888 pages of the Report can have any doubt about
the role played by Walter E. Craig: His name does not even appear in the
index, nor does it appear in the extended index contained in the 15th
volume of the 26 volumes of Hearings and Exhibits. One does find an
occasional reference to the presence of an “observer”
representing Craig, but none of these “observers” ever
poses a question which might illuminate a point in Oswald’s
favor."
From: http://kenrahn.com/JFK/The_critics/Sauvage/Oswalds_Case/Oswalds_case.html
Chris
Chris - thanks for responding and for posting the information.
I've been (slowly) reading the WC reports as well as any others, but not
in a particular order. Even if I was convinced that Oswald had murdered
JFK alone and with malice, I'd still feel the same way. Per the
paragraphs you quoted, the "request" for the president of the bar to
participate in the investigation on Oswald's behalf and seemingly as his
attorney - that he did nothing makes it worse. I'm flabbergasted!
PS. Do you by chance know if there was a lawsuit or attempt at one in
regards to Oswald being killed while under the protection of the DPD?
~Amy
Sadly the DPD did a good imitation of the Keystone Cops. To their credit
some DPD wanted to secretly move LHO without the press being there. From
what I read the Mayor screwed up that plan. As for proximate cause sue
Jack Ruby and the Mafia. That should be interesting.
Up until the point they let Ruby whack Oswald, they had done a very
respectable job. The even used restraint when arresting Oswald when they
had every legal justification to blow him away. Allowing Ruby the chance
to kill Oswald was a bad blunder. <snicker>
I disagree with the "respectable job" part but do agree with their having
much restraint in not shooting Oswald just prior to his arrest. Oswald's
actions at that time made it justifiable IMO and considering what they
"wanted" him for, it's surprising that it didn't happen. I think he knew
they were searching for him (specifically) and that's why he had left home
with a gun and why he led into the arresting officer with a punch.
Of course he knew they were searching for him. He knew they would quickly
figure out he was the prime suspect in the assassination because he was
the assassin.
He didn't have to be the killer and could still be concerned because
they were searching the TSBD and would find his rifle soon. So he would
be a suspect no matter what. Did he get his gun just for protection, or
did he get it to intimidate someone he was going to see on his walk across
town? He was heading in the direction of Jack Ruby's apartment, but we
can't be sure that was his destination, since he never got there.
Post by bigdog
That's why he shot and killed the first cop to stop and
question him. That's why he tried to kill the arresting officer.
WRONG! We have no proof that he tried to kill the arresting officer in
the theater. The cop said his grab for the revolver got his skin wedged
in between the hammer and the firing pin. But for all we know the cop was
making himself look good for a promotion. Oswald had shown no interest in
shooting anyone back when he got the MC rifle, and from then on.
Post by bigdog
I can't
pretend to know what Oswald had in mind but my guess is that when the
lights in the movie theater came on and he saw the cops converging on him
he had to know it was over. Pulling the gun on the cops might very well
have been his way of committing suicide by cop. He seemed intent on taking
as many with him as he could. He only managed to take one.
So now you're reading the mind of a long dead person. Give it up.
You haven't a clue what Oswald was thinking at that time.

Chris
bigdog
2017-06-06 20:40:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by Amy Joyce
Post by bigdog
Post by claviger
Post by Amy Joyce
Post by mainframetech
Post by Amy Joyce
Although new to this forum I have been researching JFK for some time now.
After experience in similar/other forums I was hesitant to join because I
despise fallacy arguments, mostly gaslighting, but also any that steer
conversation away from polite debate toward trading insults. However I
enjoy it and look forward to it.
I'm not on the fence with my opinion and I don't think it matters much
what I think when I say that I'm disgusted with the WC's inquiry. Because
it wasn't a trial with a defense team and jury, they had a responsibility
to investigate different theories, examine any/all evidence, and consider
as much witness testimony as they could.
This is not to say that I don't think it's likely that Oswald in some way
(also irrelevant). By appearances it seems that Oswald was convicted,that
if the WC found him responsible, it must be true. However that's not due
process. Since he had no one to stand up for and defend him in an official
capacity, and that none was even allowed, makes me most suspicious. That
evidence evidence was held from public view for so long (and still is)
increases my suspicions (and anger). The possibility for a valid inquiry
has long since passed because most witnesses have died and evidence has
gotten lost, stolen, and destroyed.... Just sayin' :-)
Amy, there is still a lot of evidence in the ARRB files. The
testimonies of many there have answered many of the questions from the
case.
Here's some info on whether a lawyer was assigned to work on behalf of
“In fairness to the alleged assassin and his family, the
Commission on February 25, 1964, requested Walter E. Craig, president of
the American Bar Association, to participate in the investigation and to
advise the Commission whether in his opinion the proceedings conformed to
the basic principles of American justice. Mr. Craig accepted this
assignment and participated fully and without limitation. He attended
Commission hearings in person or through his appointed assistants. All
working papers, reports, and other data in Commission files were made
available, and Mr. Craig and his associates were given the opportunity to
cross-examine witnesses, to recall any witness heard prior to his
appointment, and to suggest witnesses whose testimony they would like to
have the Commission hear. This procedure was agreeable to counsel for
Oswald’s widow.”
"No one who has read the 888 pages of the Report can have any doubt about
the role played by Walter E. Craig: His name does not even appear in the
index, nor does it appear in the extended index contained in the 15th
volume of the 26 volumes of Hearings and Exhibits. One does find an
occasional reference to the presence of an “observer”
representing Craig, but none of these “observers” ever
poses a question which might illuminate a point in Oswald’s
favor."
From: http://kenrahn.com/JFK/The_critics/Sauvage/Oswalds_Case/Oswalds_case.html
Chris
Chris - thanks for responding and for posting the information.
I've been (slowly) reading the WC reports as well as any others, but not
in a particular order. Even if I was convinced that Oswald had murdered
JFK alone and with malice, I'd still feel the same way. Per the
paragraphs you quoted, the "request" for the president of the bar to
participate in the investigation on Oswald's behalf and seemingly as his
attorney - that he did nothing makes it worse. I'm flabbergasted!
PS. Do you by chance know if there was a lawsuit or attempt at one in
regards to Oswald being killed while under the protection of the DPD?
~Amy
Sadly the DPD did a good imitation of the Keystone Cops. To their credit
some DPD wanted to secretly move LHO without the press being there. From
what I read the Mayor screwed up that plan. As for proximate cause sue
Jack Ruby and the Mafia. That should be interesting.
Up until the point they let Ruby whack Oswald, they had done a very
respectable job. The even used restraint when arresting Oswald when they
had every legal justification to blow him away. Allowing Ruby the chance
to kill Oswald was a bad blunder. <snicker>
I disagree with the "respectable job" part but do agree with their having
much restraint in not shooting Oswald just prior to his arrest. Oswald's
actions at that time made it justifiable IMO and considering what they
"wanted" him for, it's surprising that it didn't happen. I think he knew
they were searching for him (specifically) and that's why he had left home
with a gun and why he led into the arresting officer with a punch.
Of course he knew they were searching for him. He knew they would quickly
figure out he was the prime suspect in the assassination because he was
the assassin.
He didn't have to be the killer and could still be concerned because
they were searching the TSBD and would find his rifle soon.
He didn't have to be the killer but he was and he knew it.
Post by mainframetech
So he would
be a suspect no matter what. Did he get his gun just for protection, or
did he get it to intimidate someone he was going to see on his walk across
town? He was heading in the direction of Jack Ruby's apartment, but we
can't be sure that was his destination, since he never got there.
Right. That's what most people would do if they thought they were going to
be falsely accused of a crime. Grab a gun and kill the first cop they
encounter.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
That's why he shot and killed the first cop to stop and
question him. That's why he tried to kill the arresting officer.
WRONG! We have no proof that he tried to kill the arresting officer in
the theater.
Other than the statement of the arresting officer.
Post by mainframetech
The cop said his grab for the revolver got his skin wedged
in between the hammer and the firing pin. But for all we know the cop was
making himself look good for a promotion. Oswald had shown no interest in
shooting anyone back when he got the MC rifle, and from then on.
So this is where you use the "they all lied" excuse that you are
constantly accusing the LNs of doing.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
I can't
pretend to know what Oswald had in mind but my guess is that when the
lights in the movie theater came on and he saw the cops converging on him
he had to know it was over. Pulling the gun on the cops might very well
have been his way of committing suicide by cop. He seemed intent on taking
as many with him as he could. He only managed to take one.
So now you're reading the mind of a long dead person. Give it up.
You haven't a clue what Oswald was thinking at that time.
Your poor reading comprehension is on full display here. I prefaced by
remarks by saying, "I can't pretend to know what Oswald had in mind". Did
you steal a page from Marsh's playbook and only skim over the remarks
before making your knee jerk response to them?
BT George
2017-06-07 00:34:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by Amy Joyce
Post by bigdog
Post by claviger
Post by Amy Joyce
Post by mainframetech
Post by Amy Joyce
Although new to this forum I have been researching JFK for some time now.
After experience in similar/other forums I was hesitant to join because I
despise fallacy arguments, mostly gaslighting, but also any that steer
conversation away from polite debate toward trading insults. However I
enjoy it and look forward to it.
I'm not on the fence with my opinion and I don't think it matters much
what I think when I say that I'm disgusted with the WC's inquiry. Because
it wasn't a trial with a defense team and jury, they had a responsibility
to investigate different theories, examine any/all evidence, and consider
as much witness testimony as they could.
This is not to say that I don't think it's likely that Oswald in some way
(also irrelevant). By appearances it seems that Oswald was convicted,that
if the WC found him responsible, it must be true. However that's not due
process. Since he had no one to stand up for and defend him in an official
capacity, and that none was even allowed, makes me most suspicious. That
evidence evidence was held from public view for so long (and still is)
increases my suspicions (and anger). The possibility for a valid inquiry
has long since passed because most witnesses have died and evidence has
gotten lost, stolen, and destroyed.... Just sayin' :-)
Amy, there is still a lot of evidence in the ARRB files. The
testimonies of many there have answered many of the questions from the
case.
Here's some info on whether a lawyer was assigned to work on behalf of
“In fairness to the alleged assassin and his family, the
Commission on February 25, 1964, requested Walter E. Craig, president of
the American Bar Association, to participate in the investigation and to
advise the Commission whether in his opinion the proceedings conformed to
the basic principles of American justice. Mr. Craig accepted this
assignment and participated fully and without limitation. He attended
Commission hearings in person or through his appointed assistants. All
working papers, reports, and other data in Commission files were made
available, and Mr. Craig and his associates were given the opportunity to
cross-examine witnesses, to recall any witness heard prior to his
appointment, and to suggest witnesses whose testimony they would like to
have the Commission hear. This procedure was agreeable to counsel for
Oswald’s widow.”
"No one who has read the 888 pages of the Report can have any doubt about
the role played by Walter E. Craig: His name does not even appear in the
index, nor does it appear in the extended index contained in the 15th
volume of the 26 volumes of Hearings and Exhibits. One does find an
occasional reference to the presence of an “observer”
representing Craig, but none of these “observers” ever
poses a question which might illuminate a point in Oswald’s
favor."
From: http://kenrahn.com/JFK/The_critics/Sauvage/Oswalds_Case/Oswalds_case.html
Chris
Chris - thanks for responding and for posting the information.
I've been (slowly) reading the WC reports as well as any others, but not
in a particular order. Even if I was convinced that Oswald had murdered
JFK alone and with malice, I'd still feel the same way. Per the
paragraphs you quoted, the "request" for the president of the bar to
participate in the investigation on Oswald's behalf and seemingly as his
attorney - that he did nothing makes it worse. I'm flabbergasted!
PS. Do you by chance know if there was a lawsuit or attempt at one in
regards to Oswald being killed while under the protection of the DPD?
~Amy
Sadly the DPD did a good imitation of the Keystone Cops. To their credit
some DPD wanted to secretly move LHO without the press being there. From
what I read the Mayor screwed up that plan. As for proximate cause sue
Jack Ruby and the Mafia. That should be interesting.
Up until the point they let Ruby whack Oswald, they had done a very
respectable job. The even used restraint when arresting Oswald when they
had every legal justification to blow him away. Allowing Ruby the chance
to kill Oswald was a bad blunder. <snicker>
I disagree with the "respectable job" part but do agree with their having
much restraint in not shooting Oswald just prior to his arrest. Oswald's
actions at that time made it justifiable IMO and considering what they
"wanted" him for, it's surprising that it didn't happen. I think he knew
they were searching for him (specifically) and that's why he had left home
with a gun and why he led into the arresting officer with a punch.
Of course he knew they were searching for him. He knew they would quickly
figure out he was the prime suspect in the assassination because he was
the assassin.
He didn't have to be the killer and could still be concerned because
they were searching the TSBD and would find his rifle soon. So he would
be a suspect no matter what. Did he get his gun just for protection, or
did he get it to intimidate someone he was going to see on his walk across
town? He was heading in the direction of Jack Ruby's apartment, but we
can't be sure that was his destination, since he never got there.
Post by bigdog
That's why he shot and killed the first cop to stop and
question him. That's why he tried to kill the arresting officer.
WRONG! We have no proof that he tried to kill the arresting officer in
the theater. The cop said his grab for the revolver got his skin wedged
in between the hammer and the firing pin. But for all we know the cop was
making himself look good for a promotion. Oswald had shown no interest in
shooting anyone back when he got the MC rifle, and from then on.
Yep. No interest in shooting anyone:

https://www.google.com/search?q=gravesite+of+jd+tippit&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiewfDK26nUAhVBsVQKHXK8ATAQ_AUICigB&biw=850&bih=626#imgrc=RJmIiPMRUFluWM:

Not content with killing the POTUS, "they" decided to bump off poor Dallas
Cop to get their "Patsy." ...Who then obliged them by giving an academy
award performance as a guilty man before, during, and after being taken
into custody.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
I can't
pretend to know what Oswald had in mind but my guess is that when the
lights in the movie theater came on and he saw the cops converging on him
he had to know it was over. Pulling the gun on the cops might very well
have been his way of committing suicide by cop. He seemed intent on taking
as many with him as he could. He only managed to take one.
So now you're reading the mind of a long dead person. Give it up.
You haven't a clue what Oswald was thinking at that time.
Chris
mainframetech
2017-06-08 02:31:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by BT George
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by Amy Joyce
Post by bigdog
Post by claviger
Post by Amy Joyce
Post by mainframetech
Post by Amy Joyce
Although new to this forum I have been researching JFK for some time now.
After experience in similar/other forums I was hesitant to join because I
despise fallacy arguments, mostly gaslighting, but also any that steer
conversation away from polite debate toward trading insults. However I
enjoy it and look forward to it.
I'm not on the fence with my opinion and I don't think it matters much
what I think when I say that I'm disgusted with the WC's inquiry. Because
it wasn't a trial with a defense team and jury, they had a responsibility
to investigate different theories, examine any/all evidence, and consider
as much witness testimony as they could.
This is not to say that I don't think it's likely that Oswald in some way
(also irrelevant). By appearances it seems that Oswald was convicted,that
if the WC found him responsible, it must be true. However that's not due
process. Since he had no one to stand up for and defend him in an official
capacity, and that none was even allowed, makes me most suspicious. That
evidence evidence was held from public view for so long (and still is)
increases my suspicions (and anger). The possibility for a valid inquiry
has long since passed because most witnesses have died and evidence has
gotten lost, stolen, and destroyed.... Just sayin' :-)
Amy, there is still a lot of evidence in the ARRB files. The
testimonies of many there have answered many of the questions from the
case.
Here's some info on whether a lawyer was assigned to work on behalf of
“In fairness to the alleged assassin and his family, the
Commission on February 25, 1964, requested Walter E. Craig, president of
the American Bar Association, to participate in the investigation and to
advise the Commission whether in his opinion the proceedings conformed to
the basic principles of American justice. Mr. Craig accepted this
assignment and participated fully and without limitation. He attended
Commission hearings in person or through his appointed assistants. All
working papers, reports, and other data in Commission files were made
available, and Mr. Craig and his associates were given the opportunity to
cross-examine witnesses, to recall any witness heard prior to his
appointment, and to suggest witnesses whose testimony they would like to
have the Commission hear. This procedure was agreeable to counsel for
Oswald’s widow.”
"No one who has read the 888 pages of the Report can have any doubt about
the role played by Walter E. Craig: His name does not even appear in the
index, nor does it appear in the extended index contained in the 15th
volume of the 26 volumes of Hearings and Exhibits. One does find an
occasional reference to the presence of an “observer”
representing Craig, but none of these “observers” ever
poses a question which might illuminate a point in Oswald’s
favor."
From: http://kenrahn.com/JFK/The_critics/Sauvage/Oswalds_Case/Oswalds_case.html
Chris
Chris - thanks for responding and for posting the information.
I've been (slowly) reading the WC reports as well as any others, but not
in a particular order. Even if I was convinced that Oswald had murdered
JFK alone and with malice, I'd still feel the same way. Per the
paragraphs you quoted, the "request" for the president of the bar to
participate in the investigation on Oswald's behalf and seemingly as his
attorney - that he did nothing makes it worse. I'm flabbergasted!
PS. Do you by chance know if there was a lawsuit or attempt at one in
regards to Oswald being killed while under the protection of the DPD?
~Amy
Sadly the DPD did a good imitation of the Keystone Cops. To their credit
some DPD wanted to secretly move LHO without the press being there. From
what I read the Mayor screwed up that plan. As for proximate cause sue
Jack Ruby and the Mafia. That should be interesting.
Up until the point they let Ruby whack Oswald, they had done a very
respectable job. The even used restraint when arresting Oswald when they
had every legal justification to blow him away. Allowing Ruby the chance
to kill Oswald was a bad blunder. <snicker>
I disagree with the "respectable job" part but do agree with their having
much restraint in not shooting Oswald just prior to his arrest. Oswald's
actions at that time made it justifiable IMO and considering what they
"wanted" him for, it's surprising that it didn't happen. I think he knew
they were searching for him (specifically) and that's why he had left home
with a gun and why he led into the arresting officer with a punch.
Of course he knew they were searching for him. He knew they would quickly
figure out he was the prime suspect in the assassination because he was
the assassin.
He didn't have to be the killer and could still be concerned because
they were searching the TSBD and would find his rifle soon. So he would
be a suspect no matter what. Did he get his gun just for protection, or
did he get it to intimidate someone he was going to see on his walk across
town? He was heading in the direction of Jack Ruby's apartment, but we
can't be sure that was his destination, since he never got there.
Post by bigdog
That's why he shot and killed the first cop to stop and
question him. That's why he tried to kill the arresting officer.
WRONG! We have no proof that he tried to kill the arresting officer in
the theater. The cop said his grab for the revolver got his skin wedged
in between the hammer and the firing pin. But for all we know the cop was
making himself look good for a promotion. Oswald had shown no interest in
shooting anyone back when he got the MC rifle, and from then on.
Not content with killing the POTUS, "they" decided to bump off poor Dallas
Cop to get their "Patsy." ...Who then obliged them by giving an academy
award performance as a guilty man before, during, and after being taken
into custody.
Oswald did not have any intention of killing anyone is the case from
the evidence, however, anyone when pushed the right way, may defend
themselves or shoot someone under the right circumstances. And I still
say that there are unresolved things about the Tippit scene.

Chris
Post by BT George
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
I can't
pretend to know what Oswald had in mind but my guess is that when the
lights in the movie theater came on and he saw the cops converging on him
he had to know it was over. Pulling the gun on the cops might very well
have been his way of committing suicide by cop. He seemed intent on taking
as many with him as he could. He only managed to take one.
So now you're reading the mind of a long dead person. Give it up.
You haven't a clue what Oswald was thinking at that time.
Chris
bigdog
2017-06-09 00:30:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by BT George
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by Amy Joyce
Post by bigdog
Post by claviger
Post by Amy Joyce
Post by mainframetech
Post by Amy Joyce
Although new to this forum I have been researching JFK for some time now.
After experience in similar/other forums I was hesitant to join because I
despise fallacy arguments, mostly gaslighting, but also any that steer
conversation away from polite debate toward trading insults. However I
enjoy it and look forward to it.
I'm not on the fence with my opinion and I don't think it matters much
what I think when I say that I'm disgusted with the WC's inquiry. Because
it wasn't a trial with a defense team and jury, they had a responsibility
to investigate different theories, examine any/all evidence, and consider
as much witness testimony as they could.
This is not to say that I don't think it's likely that Oswald in some way
(also irrelevant). By appearances it seems that Oswald was convicted,that
if the WC found him responsible, it must be true. However that's not due
process. Since he had no one to stand up for and defend him in an official
capacity, and that none was even allowed, makes me most suspicious. That
evidence evidence was held from public view for so long (and still is)
increases my suspicions (and anger). The possibility for a valid inquiry
has long since passed because most witnesses have died and evidence has
gotten lost, stolen, and destroyed.... Just sayin' :-)
Amy, there is still a lot of evidence in the ARRB files. The
testimonies of many there have answered many of the questions from the
case.
Here's some info on whether a lawyer was assigned to work on behalf of
“In fairness to the alleged assassin and his family, the
Commission on February 25, 1964, requested Walter E. Craig, president of
the American Bar Association, to participate in the investigation and to
advise the Commission whether in his opinion the proceedings conformed to
the basic principles of American justice. Mr. Craig accepted this
assignment and participated fully and without limitation. He attended
Commission hearings in person or through his appointed assistants. All
working papers, reports, and other data in Commission files were made
available, and Mr. Craig and his associates were given the opportunity to
cross-examine witnesses, to recall any witness heard prior to his
appointment, and to suggest witnesses whose testimony they would like to
have the Commission hear. This procedure was agreeable to counsel for
Oswald’s widow.”
"No one who has read the 888 pages of the Report can have any doubt about
the role played by Walter E. Craig: His name does not even appear in the
index, nor does it appear in the extended index contained in the 15th
volume of the 26 volumes of Hearings and Exhibits. One does find an
occasional reference to the presence of an “observer”
representing Craig, but none of these “observers” ever
poses a question which might illuminate a point in Oswald’s
favor."
From: http://kenrahn.com/JFK/The_critics/Sauvage/Oswalds_Case/Oswalds_case.html
Chris
Chris - thanks for responding and for posting the information.
I've been (slowly) reading the WC reports as well as any others, but not
in a particular order. Even if I was convinced that Oswald had murdered
JFK alone and with malice, I'd still feel the same way. Per the
paragraphs you quoted, the "request" for the president of the bar to
participate in the investigation on Oswald's behalf and seemingly as his
attorney - that he did nothing makes it worse. I'm flabbergasted!
PS. Do you by chance know if there was a lawsuit or attempt at one in
regards to Oswald being killed while under the protection of the DPD?
~Amy
Sadly the DPD did a good imitation of the Keystone Cops. To their credit
some DPD wanted to secretly move LHO without the press being there. From
what I read the Mayor screwed up that plan. As for proximate cause sue
Jack Ruby and the Mafia. That should be interesting.
Up until the point they let Ruby whack Oswald, they had done a very
respectable job. The even used restraint when arresting Oswald when they
had every legal justification to blow him away. Allowing Ruby the chance
to kill Oswald was a bad blunder. <snicker>
I disagree with the "respectable job" part but do agree with their having
much restraint in not shooting Oswald just prior to his arrest. Oswald's
actions at that time made it justifiable IMO and considering what they
"wanted" him for, it's surprising that it didn't happen. I think he knew
they were searching for him (specifically) and that's why he had left home
with a gun and why he led into the arresting officer with a punch.
Of course he knew they were searching for him. He knew they would quickly
figure out he was the prime suspect in the assassination because he was
the assassin.
He didn't have to be the killer and could still be concerned because
they were searching the TSBD and would find his rifle soon. So he would
be a suspect no matter what. Did he get his gun just for protection, or
did he get it to intimidate someone he was going to see on his walk across
town? He was heading in the direction of Jack Ruby's apartment, but we
can't be sure that was his destination, since he never got there.
Post by bigdog
That's why he shot and killed the first cop to stop and
question him. That's why he tried to kill the arresting officer.
WRONG! We have no proof that he tried to kill the arresting officer in
the theater. The cop said his grab for the revolver got his skin wedged
in between the hammer and the firing pin. But for all we know the cop was
making himself look good for a promotion. Oswald had shown no interest in
shooting anyone back when he got the MC rifle, and from then on.
Not content with killing the POTUS, "they" decided to bump off poor Dallas
Cop to get their "Patsy." ...Who then obliged them by giving an academy
award performance as a guilty man before, during, and after being taken
into custody.
Oswald did not have any intention of killing anyone is the case from
the evidence, however, anyone when pushed the right way, may defend
themselves or shoot someone under the right circumstances. And I still
say that there are unresolved things about the Tippit scene.
Just one more excuse you have dreamed up rather than admit Oswald was a
double murderer.
mainframetech
2017-06-05 01:21:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Amy Joyce
Post by bigdog
Post by claviger
Post by Amy Joyce
Post by mainframetech
Post by Amy Joyce
Although new to this forum I have been researching JFK for some time now.
After experience in similar/other forums I was hesitant to join because I
despise fallacy arguments, mostly gaslighting, but also any that steer
conversation away from polite debate toward trading insults. However I
enjoy it and look forward to it.
I'm not on the fence with my opinion and I don't think it matters much
what I think when I say that I'm disgusted with the WC's inquiry. Because
it wasn't a trial with a defense team and jury, they had a responsibility
to investigate different theories, examine any/all evidence, and consider
as much witness testimony as they could.
This is not to say that I don't think it's likely that Oswald in some way
(also irrelevant). By appearances it seems that Oswald was convicted,that
if the WC found him responsible, it must be true. However that's not due
process. Since he had no one to stand up for and defend him in an official
capacity, and that none was even allowed, makes me most suspicious. That
evidence evidence was held from public view for so long (and still is)
increases my suspicions (and anger). The possibility for a valid inquiry
has long since passed because most witnesses have died and evidence has
gotten lost, stolen, and destroyed.... Just sayin' :-)
Amy, there is still a lot of evidence in the ARRB files. The
testimonies of many there have answered many of the questions from the
case.
Here's some info on whether a lawyer was assigned to work on behalf of
“In fairness to the alleged assassin and his family, the
Commission on February 25, 1964, requested Walter E. Craig, president of
the American Bar Association, to participate in the investigation and to
advise the Commission whether in his opinion the proceedings conformed to
the basic principles of American justice. Mr. Craig accepted this
assignment and participated fully and without limitation. He attended
Commission hearings in person or through his appointed assistants. All
working papers, reports, and other data in Commission files were made
available, and Mr. Craig and his associates were given the opportunity to
cross-examine witnesses, to recall any witness heard prior to his
appointment, and to suggest witnesses whose testimony they would like to
have the Commission hear. This procedure was agreeable to counsel for
Oswald’s widow.”
"No one who has read the 888 pages of the Report can have any doubt about
the role played by Walter E. Craig: His name does not even appear in the
index, nor does it appear in the extended index contained in the 15th
volume of the 26 volumes of Hearings and Exhibits. One does find an
occasional reference to the presence of an “observer”
representing Craig, but none of these “observers” ever
poses a question which might illuminate a point in Oswald’s
favor."
From: http://kenrahn.com/JFK/The_critics/Sauvage/Oswalds_Case/Oswalds_case.html
Chris
Chris - thanks for responding and for posting the information.
I've been (slowly) reading the WC reports as well as any others, but not
in a particular order. Even if I was convinced that Oswald had murdered
JFK alone and with malice, I'd still feel the same way. Per the
paragraphs you quoted, the "request" for the president of the bar to
participate in the investigation on Oswald's behalf and seemingly as his
attorney - that he did nothing makes it worse. I'm flabbergasted!
PS. Do you by chance know if there was a lawsuit or attempt at one in
regards to Oswald being killed while under the protection of the DPD?
~Amy
Sadly the DPD did a good imitation of the Keystone Cops. To their credit
some DPD wanted to secretly move LHO without the press being there. From
what I read the Mayor screwed up that plan. As for proximate cause sue
Jack Ruby and the Mafia. That should be interesting.
Up until the point they let Ruby whack Oswald, they had done a very
respectable job. The even used restraint when arresting Oswald when they
had every legal justification to blow him away. Allowing Ruby the chance
to kill Oswald was a bad blunder. <snicker>
I disagree with the "respectable job" part but do agree with their having
much restraint in not shooting Oswald just prior to his arrest. Oswald's
actions at that time made it justifiable IMO and considering what they
"wanted" him for, it's surprising that it didn't happen. I think he knew
they were searching for him (specifically) and that's why he had left home
with a gun and why he led into the arresting officer with a punch.
Post by bigdog
I was 4 days shy of my 12th birthday when it happened. I cheered when it
was announced that Oswald had died. I haven't stopped cheering since.
Yes, he was pretty disturbed at that point. He had been set up and
figured it out after the shooting. He left the TSBD (I believe) because
he had realized he was the 'goat' to be for the whole thing, and I believe
he was headed to someone's place to speak about it with them. Another
reason to take a gun, the other person was probably Jack Ruby, whose
apartment was in the direction that Oswald had begun to travel walking.

Chris
Anthony Marsh
2017-06-02 23:42:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Amy Joyce
Post by mainframetech
Post by Amy Joyce
Although new to this forum I have been researching JFK for some time now.
After experience in similar/other forums I was hesitant to join because I
despise fallacy arguments, mostly gaslighting, but also any that steer
conversation away from polite debate toward trading insults. However I
enjoy it and look forward to it.
I'm not on the fence with my opinion and I don't think it matters much
what I think when I say that I'm disgusted with the WC's inquiry. Because
it wasn't a trial with a defense team and jury, they had a responsibility
to investigate different theories, examine any/all evidence, and consider
as much witness testimony as they could.
This is not to say that I don't think it's likely that Oswald in some way
(also irrelevant). By appearances it seems that Oswald was convicted,that
if the WC found him responsible, it must be true. However that's not due
process. Since he had no one to stand up for and defend him in an official
capacity, and that none was even allowed, makes me most suspicious. That
evidence evidence was held from public view for so long (and still is)
increases my suspicions (and anger). The possibility for a valid inquiry
has long since passed because most witnesses have died and evidence has
gotten lost, stolen, and destroyed.... Just sayin' :-)
Amy, there is still a lot of evidence in the ARRB files. The
testimonies of many there have answered many of the questions from the
case.
Here's some info on whether a lawyer was assigned to work on behalf of
“In fairness to the alleged assassin and his family, the
Commission on February 25, 1964, requested Walter E. Craig, president of
the American Bar Association, to participate in the investigation and to
advise the Commission whether in his opinion the proceedings conformed to
the basic principles of American justice. Mr. Craig accepted this
assignment and participated fully and without limitation. He attended
Commission hearings in person or through his appointed assistants. All
working papers, reports, and other data in Commission files were made
available, and Mr. Craig and his associates were given the opportunity to
cross-examine witnesses, to recall any witness heard prior to his
appointment, and to suggest witnesses whose testimony they would like to
have the Commission hear. This procedure was agreeable to counsel for
Oswald’s widow.”
"No one who has read the 888 pages of the Report can have any doubt about
the role played by Walter E. Craig: His name does not even appear in the
index, nor does it appear in the extended index contained in the 15th
volume of the 26 volumes of Hearings and Exhibits. One does find an
occasional reference to the presence of an “observer”
representing Craig, but none of these “observers” ever
poses a question which might illuminate a point in Oswald’s
favor."
From: http://kenrahn.com/JFK/The_critics/Sauvage/Oswalds_Case/Oswalds_case.html
Chris
Chris - thanks for responding and for posting the information.
I've been (slowly) reading the WC reports as well as any others, but not
in a particular order. Even if I was convinced that Oswald had murdered
JFK alone and with malice, I'd still feel the same way. Per the
paragraphs you quoted, the "request" for the president of the bar to
participate in the investigation on Oswald's behalf and seemingly as his
attorney - that he did nothing makes it worse. I'm flabbergasted!
PS. Do you by chance know if there was a lawsuit or attempt at one in
regards to Oswald being killed while under the protection of the DPD?
~Amy
Don't fall for his Crap. Mark Lane was hired by Oswald's mother to act
as his advocate before the WC and they rejected him.
mainframetech
2017-06-03 00:47:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Amy Joyce
Post by mainframetech
Post by Amy Joyce
Although new to this forum I have been researching JFK for some time now.
After experience in similar/other forums I was hesitant to join because I
despise fallacy arguments, mostly gaslighting, but also any that steer
conversation away from polite debate toward trading insults. However I
enjoy it and look forward to it.
I'm not on the fence with my opinion and I don't think it matters much
what I think when I say that I'm disgusted with the WC's inquiry. Because
it wasn't a trial with a defense team and jury, they had a responsibility
to investigate different theories, examine any/all evidence, and consider
as much witness testimony as they could.
This is not to say that I don't think it's likely that Oswald in some way
(also irrelevant). By appearances it seems that Oswald was convicted,that
if the WC found him responsible, it must be true. However that's not due
process. Since he had no one to stand up for and defend him in an official
capacity, and that none was even allowed, makes me most suspicious. That
evidence evidence was held from public view for so long (and still is)
increases my suspicions (and anger). The possibility for a valid inquiry
has long since passed because most witnesses have died and evidence has
gotten lost, stolen, and destroyed.... Just sayin' :-)
Amy, there is still a lot of evidence in the ARRB files. The
testimonies of many there have answered many of the questions from the
case.
Here's some info on whether a lawyer was assigned to work on behalf of
“In fairness to the alleged assassin and his family, the
Commission on February 25, 1964, requested Walter E. Craig, president of
the American Bar Association, to participate in the investigation and to
advise the Commission whether in his opinion the proceedings conformed to
the basic principles of American justice. Mr. Craig accepted this
assignment and participated fully and without limitation. He attended
Commission hearings in person or through his appointed assistants. All
working papers, reports, and other data in Commission files were made
available, and Mr. Craig and his associates were given the opportunity to
cross-examine witnesses, to recall any witness heard prior to his
appointment, and to suggest witnesses whose testimony they would like to
have the Commission hear. This procedure was agreeable to counsel for
Oswald’s widow.”
"No one who has read the 888 pages of the Report can have any doubt about
the role played by Walter E. Craig: His name does not even appear in the
index, nor does it appear in the extended index contained in the 15th
volume of the 26 volumes of Hearings and Exhibits. One does find an
occasional reference to the presence of an “observer”
representing Craig, but none of these “observers” ever
poses a question which might illuminate a point in Oswald’s
favor."
From: http://kenrahn.com/JFK/The_critics/Sauvage/Oswalds_Case/Oswalds_case.html
Chris
Chris - thanks for responding and for posting the information.
I've been (slowly) reading the WC reports as well as any others, but not
in a particular order. Even if I was convinced that Oswald had murdered
JFK alone and with malice, I'd still feel the same way. Per the
paragraphs you quoted, the "request" for the president of the bar to
participate in the investigation on Oswald's behalf and seemingly as his
attorney - that he did nothing makes it worse. I'm flabbergasted!
PS. Do you by chance know if there was a lawsuit or attempt at one in
regards to Oswald being killed while under the protection of the DPD?
~Amy
Amy, I don't know about that, but someone will probably chime in with the
info. You will find mostly 2 types of folks here. First are the CTs, CT
= 'Conspiracy Theorists', and the LNs, LN = 'Lone Nut' believers, in
the 'lone nut' theory of Oswald acting alone. And between them a range of
folks that go a little this way, and a little that way. Some will even
try to convince you they know all sorts of things, including me. That's
not necessarily true though. Research something you heard but aren't sure
of. Get opposing opinions before settling on what you think.

My belief is that the ARRB files have many of the answers in the case,
but for some strange reason many here try to avoid those. I fall somewhat
into the CT side, but like many CTs I believe I have a number of the
answers.

Chris
bigdog
2017-06-03 22:07:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by Amy Joyce
Post by mainframetech
Post by Amy Joyce
Although new to this forum I have been researching JFK for some time now.
After experience in similar/other forums I was hesitant to join because I
despise fallacy arguments, mostly gaslighting, but also any that steer
conversation away from polite debate toward trading insults. However I
enjoy it and look forward to it.
I'm not on the fence with my opinion and I don't think it matters much
what I think when I say that I'm disgusted with the WC's inquiry. Because
it wasn't a trial with a defense team and jury, they had a responsibility
to investigate different theories, examine any/all evidence, and consider
as much witness testimony as they could.
This is not to say that I don't think it's likely that Oswald in some way
(also irrelevant). By appearances it seems that Oswald was convicted,that
if the WC found him responsible, it must be true. However that's not due
process. Since he had no one to stand up for and defend him in an official
capacity, and that none was even allowed, makes me most suspicious. That
evidence evidence was held from public view for so long (and still is)
increases my suspicions (and anger). The possibility for a valid inquiry
has long since passed because most witnesses have died and evidence has
gotten lost, stolen, and destroyed.... Just sayin' :-)
Amy, there is still a lot of evidence in the ARRB files. The
testimonies of many there have answered many of the questions from the
case.
Here's some info on whether a lawyer was assigned to work on behalf of
“In fairness to the alleged assassin and his family, the
Commission on February 25, 1964, requested Walter E. Craig, president of
the American Bar Association, to participate in the investigation and to
advise the Commission whether in his opinion the proceedings conformed to
the basic principles of American justice. Mr. Craig accepted this
assignment and participated fully and without limitation. He attended
Commission hearings in person or through his appointed assistants. All
working papers, reports, and other data in Commission files were made
available, and Mr. Craig and his associates were given the opportunity to
cross-examine witnesses, to recall any witness heard prior to his
appointment, and to suggest witnesses whose testimony they would like to
have the Commission hear. This procedure was agreeable to counsel for
Oswald’s widow.”
"No one who has read the 888 pages of the Report can have any doubt about
the role played by Walter E. Craig: His name does not even appear in the
index, nor does it appear in the extended index contained in the 15th
volume of the 26 volumes of Hearings and Exhibits. One does find an
occasional reference to the presence of an “observer”
representing Craig, but none of these “observers” ever
poses a question which might illuminate a point in Oswald’s
favor."
From: http://kenrahn.com/JFK/The_critics/Sauvage/Oswalds_Case/Oswalds_case.html
Chris
Chris - thanks for responding and for posting the information.
I've been (slowly) reading the WC reports as well as any others, but not
in a particular order. Even if I was convinced that Oswald had murdered
JFK alone and with malice, I'd still feel the same way. Per the
paragraphs you quoted, the "request" for the president of the bar to
participate in the investigation on Oswald's behalf and seemingly as his
attorney - that he did nothing makes it worse. I'm flabbergasted!
PS. Do you by chance know if there was a lawsuit or attempt at one in
regards to Oswald being killed while under the protection of the DPD?
~Amy
Amy, I don't know about that, but someone will probably chime in with the
info. You will find mostly 2 types of folks here. First are the CTs, CT
= 'Conspiracy Theorists', and the LNs, LN = 'Lone Nut' believers, in
the 'lone nut' theory of Oswald acting alone. And between them a range of
folks that go a little this way, and a little that way. Some will even
try to convince you they know all sorts of things, including me. That's
not necessarily true though. Research something you heard but aren't sure
of. Get opposing opinions before settling on what you think.
My belief is that the ARRB files have many of the answers in the case,
but for some strange reason many here try to avoid those. I fall somewhat
into the CT side, but like many CTs I believe I have a number of the
answers.
The ARRB "answers" have been around for over 20 years and it was a whole
lot of nothing much to the dismay of CTs everywhere. A few refusing to
accept the nothingness tried to make something out of nothing. People like
Doug Horne and the gullible people who bought his books and believed what
was in them. In reality all Horne did was put a new spin on David Lifton's
absurd body altering theory from decades earlier.
mainframetech
2017-06-05 01:20:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by Amy Joyce
Post by mainframetech
Post by Amy Joyce
Although new to this forum I have been researching JFK for some time now.
After experience in similar/other forums I was hesitant to join because I
despise fallacy arguments, mostly gaslighting, but also any that steer
conversation away from polite debate toward trading insults. However I
enjoy it and look forward to it.
I'm not on the fence with my opinion and I don't think it matters much
what I think when I say that I'm disgusted with the WC's inquiry. Because
it wasn't a trial with a defense team and jury, they had a responsibility
to investigate different theories, examine any/all evidence, and consider
as much witness testimony as they could.
This is not to say that I don't think it's likely that Oswald in some way
(also irrelevant). By appearances it seems that Oswald was convicted,that
if the WC found him responsible, it must be true. However that's not due
process. Since he had no one to stand up for and defend him in an official
capacity, and that none was even allowed, makes me most suspicious. That
evidence evidence was held from public view for so long (and still is)
increases my suspicions (and anger). The possibility for a valid inquiry
has long since passed because most witnesses have died and evidence has
gotten lost, stolen, and destroyed.... Just sayin' :-)
Amy, there is still a lot of evidence in the ARRB files. The
testimonies of many there have answered many of the questions from the
case.
Here's some info on whether a lawyer was assigned to work on behalf of
“In fairness to the alleged assassin and his family, the
Commission on February 25, 1964, requested Walter E. Craig, president of
the American Bar Association, to participate in the investigation and to
advise the Commission whether in his opinion the proceedings conformed to
the basic principles of American justice. Mr. Craig accepted this
assignment and participated fully and without limitation. He attended
Commission hearings in person or through his appointed assistants. All
working papers, reports, and other data in Commission files were made
available, and Mr. Craig and his associates were given the opportunity to
cross-examine witnesses, to recall any witness heard prior to his
appointment, and to suggest witnesses whose testimony they would like to
have the Commission hear. This procedure was agreeable to counsel for
Oswald’s widow.”
"No one who has read the 888 pages of the Report can have any doubt about
the role played by Walter E. Craig: His name does not even appear in the
index, nor does it appear in the extended index contained in the 15th
volume of the 26 volumes of Hearings and Exhibits. One does find an
occasional reference to the presence of an “observer”
representing Craig, but none of these “observers” ever
poses a question which might illuminate a point in Oswald’s
favor."
From: http://kenrahn.com/JFK/The_critics/Sauvage/Oswalds_Case/Oswalds_case.html
Chris
Chris - thanks for responding and for posting the information.
I've been (slowly) reading the WC reports as well as any others, but not
in a particular order. Even if I was convinced that Oswald had murdered
JFK alone and with malice, I'd still feel the same way. Per the
paragraphs you quoted, the "request" for the president of the bar to
participate in the investigation on Oswald's behalf and seemingly as his
attorney - that he did nothing makes it worse. I'm flabbergasted!
PS. Do you by chance know if there was a lawsuit or attempt at one in
regards to Oswald being killed while under the protection of the DPD?
~Amy
Amy, I don't know about that, but someone will probably chime in with the
info. You will find mostly 2 types of folks here. First are the CTs, CT
= 'Conspiracy Theorists', and the LNs, LN = 'Lone Nut' believers, in
the 'lone nut' theory of Oswald acting alone. And between them a range of
folks that go a little this way, and a little that way. Some will even
try to convince you they know all sorts of things, including me. That's
not necessarily true though. Research something you heard but aren't sure
of. Get opposing opinions before settling on what you think.
My belief is that the ARRB files have many of the answers in the case,
but for some strange reason many here try to avoid those. I fall somewhat
into the CT side, but like many CTs I believe I have a number of the
answers.
The ARRB "answers" have been around for over 20 years and it was a whole
lot of nothing much to the dismay of CTs everywhere. A few refusing to
accept the nothingness tried to make something out of nothing. People like
Doug Horne and the gullible people who bought his books and believed what
was in them. In reality all Horne did was put a new spin on David Lifton's
absurd body altering theory from decades earlier.
WRONG! In many other forums the ARRB info is used often, and
appreciated. This is a negative LN forum in the majority, so no dares use
the ARRB data, and tries to denigrate it. Too much proof of conspiracy
there.

And BTW, Horne did not put 'spin' on anything. He has told it like it
was stated to him by witnesses. I checked and know it's so. You wouldn't
know it though, having ben in far of Horne and the ARRB, 2 things that
prove your time for years was wasted on theories in the WCR.

Chris
bigdog
2017-06-06 03:04:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by Amy Joyce
Post by mainframetech
Post by Amy Joyce
Although new to this forum I have been researching JFK for some time now.
After experience in similar/other forums I was hesitant to join because I
despise fallacy arguments, mostly gaslighting, but also any that steer
conversation away from polite debate toward trading insults. However I
enjoy it and look forward to it.
I'm not on the fence with my opinion and I don't think it matters much
what I think when I say that I'm disgusted with the WC's inquiry. Because
it wasn't a trial with a defense team and jury, they had a responsibility
to investigate different theories, examine any/all evidence, and consider
as much witness testimony as they could.
This is not to say that I don't think it's likely that Oswald in some way
(also irrelevant). By appearances it seems that Oswald was convicted,that
if the WC found him responsible, it must be true. However that's not due
process. Since he had no one to stand up for and defend him in an official
capacity, and that none was even allowed, makes me most suspicious. That
evidence evidence was held from public view for so long (and still is)
increases my suspicions (and anger). The possibility for a valid inquiry
has long since passed because most witnesses have died and evidence has
gotten lost, stolen, and destroyed.... Just sayin' :-)
Amy, there is still a lot of evidence in the ARRB files. The
testimonies of many there have answered many of the questions from the
case.
Here's some info on whether a lawyer was assigned to work on behalf of
“In fairness to the alleged assassin and his family, the
Commission on February 25, 1964, requested Walter E. Craig, president of
the American Bar Association, to participate in the investigation and to
advise the Commission whether in his opinion the proceedings conformed to
the basic principles of American justice. Mr. Craig accepted this
assignment and participated fully and without limitation. He attended
Commission hearings in person or through his appointed assistants. All
working papers, reports, and other data in Commission files were made
available, and Mr. Craig and his associates were given the opportunity to
cross-examine witnesses, to recall any witness heard prior to his
appointment, and to suggest witnesses whose testimony they would like to
have the Commission hear. This procedure was agreeable to counsel for
Oswald’s widow.”
"No one who has read the 888 pages of the Report can have any doubt about
the role played by Walter E. Craig: His name does not even appear in the
index, nor does it appear in the extended index contained in the 15th
volume of the 26 volumes of Hearings and Exhibits. One does find an
occasional reference to the presence of an “observer”
representing Craig, but none of these “observers” ever
poses a question which might illuminate a point in Oswald’s
favor."
From: http://kenrahn.com/JFK/The_critics/Sauvage/Oswalds_Case/Oswalds_case.html
Chris
Chris - thanks for responding and for posting the information.
I've been (slowly) reading the WC reports as well as any others, but not
in a particular order. Even if I was convinced that Oswald had murdered
JFK alone and with malice, I'd still feel the same way. Per the
paragraphs you quoted, the "request" for the president of the bar to
participate in the investigation on Oswald's behalf and seemingly as his
attorney - that he did nothing makes it worse. I'm flabbergasted!
PS. Do you by chance know if there was a lawsuit or attempt at one in
regards to Oswald being killed while under the protection of the DPD?
~Amy
Amy, I don't know about that, but someone will probably chime in with the
info. You will find mostly 2 types of folks here. First are the CTs, CT
= 'Conspiracy Theorists', and the LNs, LN = 'Lone Nut' believers, in
the 'lone nut' theory of Oswald acting alone. And between them a range of
folks that go a little this way, and a little that way. Some will even
try to convince you they know all sorts of things, including me. That's
not necessarily true though. Research something you heard but aren't sure
of. Get opposing opinions before settling on what you think.
My belief is that the ARRB files have many of the answers in the case,
but for some strange reason many here try to avoid those. I fall somewhat
into the CT side, but like many CTs I believe I have a number of the
answers.
The ARRB "answers" have been around for over 20 years and it was a whole
lot of nothing much to the dismay of CTs everywhere. A few refusing to
accept the nothingness tried to make something out of nothing. People like
Doug Horne and the gullible people who bought his books and believed what
was in them. In reality all Horne did was put a new spin on David Lifton's
absurd body altering theory from decades earlier.
WRONG! In many other forums the ARRB info is used often, and
appreciated. This is a negative LN forum in the majority, so no dares use
the ARRB data, and tries to denigrate it. Too much proof of conspiracy
there.
And BTW, Horne did not put 'spin' on anything. He has told it like it
was stated to him by witnesses. I checked and know it's so. You wouldn't
know it though, having ben in far of Horne and the ARRB, 2 things that
prove your time for years was wasted on theories in the WCR.
I stated quite a while ago that I do this for amusement only and nobody
provides more amusement than you. Thank you.
mainframetech
2017-06-06 20:45:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by Amy Joyce
Post by mainframetech
Post by Amy Joyce
Although new to this forum I have been researching JFK for some time now.
After experience in similar/other forums I was hesitant to join because I
despise fallacy arguments, mostly gaslighting, but also any that steer
conversation away from polite debate toward trading insults. However I
enjoy it and look forward to it.
I'm not on the fence with my opinion and I don't think it matters much
what I think when I say that I'm disgusted with the WC's inquiry. Because
it wasn't a trial with a defense team and jury, they had a responsibility
to investigate different theories, examine any/all evidence, and consider
as much witness testimony as they could.
This is not to say that I don't think it's likely that Oswald in some way
(also irrelevant). By appearances it seems that Oswald was convicted,that
if the WC found him responsible, it must be true. However that's not due
process. Since he had no one to stand up for and defend him in an official
capacity, and that none was even allowed, makes me most suspicious. That
evidence evidence was held from public view for so long (and still is)
increases my suspicions (and anger). The possibility for a valid inquiry
has long since passed because most witnesses have died and evidence has
gotten lost, stolen, and destroyed.... Just sayin' :-)
Amy, there is still a lot of evidence in the ARRB files. The
testimonies of many there have answered many of the questions from the
case.
Here's some info on whether a lawyer was assigned to work on behalf of
“In fairness to the alleged assassin and his family, the
Commission on February 25, 1964, requested Walter E. Craig, president of
the American Bar Association, to participate in the investigation and to
advise the Commission whether in his opinion the proceedings conformed to
the basic principles of American justice. Mr. Craig accepted this
assignment and participated fully and without limitation. He attended
Commission hearings in person or through his appointed assistants. All
working papers, reports, and other data in Commission files were made
available, and Mr. Craig and his associates were given the opportunity to
cross-examine witnesses, to recall any witness heard prior to his
appointment, and to suggest witnesses whose testimony they would like to
have the Commission hear. This procedure was agreeable to counsel for
Oswald’s widow.”
"No one who has read the 888 pages of the Report can have any doubt about
the role played by Walter E. Craig: His name does not even appear in the
index, nor does it appear in the extended index contained in the 15th
volume of the 26 volumes of Hearings and Exhibits. One does find an
occasional reference to the presence of an “observer”
representing Craig, but none of these “observers” ever
poses a question which might illuminate a point in Oswald’s
favor."
From: http://kenrahn.com/JFK/The_critics/Sauvage/Oswalds_Case/Oswalds_case.html
Chris
Chris - thanks for responding and for posting the information.
I've been (slowly) reading the WC reports as well as any others, but not
in a particular order. Even if I was convinced that Oswald had murdered
JFK alone and with malice, I'd still feel the same way. Per the
paragraphs you quoted, the "request" for the president of the bar to
participate in the investigation on Oswald's behalf and seemingly as his
attorney - that he did nothing makes it worse. I'm flabbergasted!
PS. Do you by chance know if there was a lawsuit or attempt at one in
regards to Oswald being killed while under the protection of the DPD?
~Amy
Amy, I don't know about that, but someone will probably chime in with the
info. You will find mostly 2 types of folks here. First are the CTs, CT
= 'Conspiracy Theorists', and the LNs, LN = 'Lone Nut' believers, in
the 'lone nut' theory of Oswald acting alone. And between them a range of
folks that go a little this way, and a little that way. Some will even
try to convince you they know all sorts of things, including me. That's
not necessarily true though. Research something you heard but aren't sure
of. Get opposing opinions before settling on what you think.
My belief is that the ARRB files have many of the answers in the case,
but for some strange reason many here try to avoid those. I fall somewhat
into the CT side, but like many CTs I believe I have a number of the
answers.
The ARRB "answers" have been around for over 20 years and it was a whole
lot of nothing much to the dismay of CTs everywhere. A few refusing to
accept the nothingness tried to make something out of nothing. People like
Doug Horne and the gullible people who bought his books and believed what
was in them. In reality all Horne did was put a new spin on David Lifton's
absurd body altering theory from decades earlier.
Strange that you act like Horne and Lifton were lying. Lifton was
working from evidence he found, and he was also adding his own deductions
to that. Horne went much further by using evidence that he himself, as a
member of the ARRB, collected and heard. He dealt ONLY with evidence, and
yet you try to besmirch his reputation with your small little insults.
The body altering happened, and there were witnesses, yet you still try to
fool yourself and others into not believing it, so your years of belief in
the WCR can be pure.

You talk about "gullibility" but forget that you exhibit the same by
holding the WCR so close to your heart.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
WRONG! In many other forums the ARRB info is used often, and
appreciated. This is a negative LN forum in the majority, so no one dares use
the ARRB data, and tries to denigrate it. Too much proof of conspiracy
there.
And BTW, Horne did not put 'spin' on anything. He has told it like it
was stated to him by witnesses. I checked and know it's so. You wouldn't
know it though, having been in fear of Horne and the ARRB, 2 things that
prove your time for years was wasted on theories in the WCR.
I stated quite a while ago that I do this for amusement only and nobody
provides more amusement than you. Thank you.
Actually, I never believed that excuse. I think you come here to
pretend that you know more than anyone else, and to take shots at some
people when you think you're justified in such actions.

Chris
Amy Joyce
2017-06-03 22:20:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Amy, I don't know about that, but someone will probably chime in with the
info. You will find mostly 2 types of folks here. First are the CTs, CT
= 'Conspiracy Theorists', and the LNs, LN = 'Lone Nut' believers, in
the 'lone nut' theory of Oswald acting alone. And between them a range of
folks that go a little this way, and a little that way. Some will even
try to convince you they know all sorts of things, including me. That's
not necessarily true though. Research something you heard but aren't sure
of. Get opposing opinions before settling on what you think.
Chris, that is good advice. I do try to do that although I will say that
I'm not afraid to change what I think (maybe it is more that I haven't
really settled on much more than a few things like - the WC investigation
was a joke, that Oswald was never given a fair shake at least while alive,
the head shot didn't come from the TSBD or behind the car, and some
witnesses were at the least coerced).
Post by mainframetech
My belief is that the ARRB files have many of the answers in the case,
but for some strange reason many here try to avoid those. I fall somewhat
into the CT side, but like many CTs I believe I have a number of the
answers.
I'm long from considering everything but have discarded some.
Bud
2017-06-05 01:05:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Amy Joyce
Post by mainframetech
Amy, I don't know about that, but someone will probably chime in with the
info. You will find mostly 2 types of folks here. First are the CTs, CT
= 'Conspiracy Theorists', and the LNs, LN = 'Lone Nut' believers, in
the 'lone nut' theory of Oswald acting alone. And between them a range of
folks that go a little this way, and a little that way. Some will even
try to convince you they know all sorts of things, including me. That's
not necessarily true though. Research something you heard but aren't sure
of. Get opposing opinions before settling on what you think.
Chris, that is good advice. I do try to do that although I will say that
I'm not afraid to change what I think (maybe it is more that I haven't
really settled on much more than a few things like - the WC investigation
was a joke, that Oswald was never given a fair shake at least while alive,
the head shot didn't come from the TSBD or behind the car,
What do you base this opinion on?
Post by Amy Joyce
and some
witnesses were at the least coerced).
Post by mainframetech
My belief is that the ARRB files have many of the answers in the case,
but for some strange reason many here try to avoid those. I fall somewhat
into the CT side, but like many CTs I believe I have a number of the
answers.
I'm long from considering everything but have discarded some.
Amy Joyce
2017-06-06 03:06:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bud
Post by Amy Joyce
Chris, that is good advice. I do try to do that although I will say that
I'm not afraid to change what I think (maybe it is more that I haven't
really settled on much more than a few things like - the WC investigation
was a joke, that Oswald was never given a fair shake at least while alive,
the head shot didn't come from the TSBD or behind the car,
What do you base this opinion on?
Which part exactly?
Post by Bud
Post by Amy Joyce
and some
witnesses were at the least coerced).
mainframetech
2017-06-06 20:43:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Amy Joyce
Post by Bud
Post by Amy Joyce
Chris, that is good advice. I do try to do that although I will say that
I'm not afraid to change what I think (maybe it is more that I haven't
really settled on much more than a few things like - the WC investigation
was a joke, that Oswald was never given a fair shake at least while alive,
the head shot didn't come from the TSBD or behind the car,
What do you base this opinion on?
Which part exactly?
Amy, not sure what you question relates to. Usually we leave the
previous conversation in the post, so that we can see what came before.

At a guess, you might be asking why I think the kill shot came from
the front. It's because in one of the 'leaked' photos that wasn't
deleted, there is a bullet hole in the right forehead of the body of JFK.
It is over the right eye, and by following a path straight through the
head, it caused a blow out at the rear or BOH of JFK. This is much more
in keeping with the general rule that a rifle bullet goes in a small
entry, and comes out a large exit. It explains many things.

To view the bullet hole in the forehead, get the 'stare-of-death'
photo and ENLARGE it and look at the right forehead/temple area and just
under the hair hanging down, you'll see the bullet hole. It will have a
fleshy rim, which is common for a fresh bullet entry only hours old. The
bullet entry matches on found in "Gunshot Wounds" by Vincent DiMaio, and
expert in the field, see figure 4.16. Here's an example of the photo to
be ENLARGED:

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/e8/db/db/e8dbdb83da587af5c8d2450fa574908f.jpg


In the whole case you will see frequent efforts to maintain the 'lone
nut' scenario, which allows the plotters to get away and go on with their
lives without looking over their shoulders. It was critical that the
fiction be maintained that there was only a 'lone nut'. That's why the
effort to make the bullet entry be at the BOH, so that they could blame a
rifle bullet from above and behind from the TSBD.

Chris
mainframetech
2017-06-05 01:18:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Amy Joyce
Post by mainframetech
Amy, I don't know about that, but someone will probably chime in with the
info. You will find mostly 2 types of folks here. First are the CTs, CT
= 'Conspiracy Theorists', and the LNs, LN = 'Lone Nut' believers, in
the 'lone nut' theory of Oswald acting alone. And between them a range of
folks that go a little this way, and a little that way. Some will even
try to convince you they know all sorts of things, including me. That's
not necessarily true though. Research something you heard but aren't sure
of. Get opposing opinions before settling on what you think.
Chris, that is good advice. I do try to do that although I will say that
I'm not afraid to change what I think (maybe it is more that I haven't
really settled on much more than a few things like - the WC investigation
was a joke, that Oswald was never given a fair shake at least while alive,
the head shot didn't come from the TSBD or behind the car, and some
witnesses were at the least coerced).
Post by mainframetech
My belief is that the ARRB files have many of the answers in the case,
but for some strange reason many here try to avoid those. I fall somewhat
into the CT side, but like many CTs I believe I have a number of the
answers.
I'm long from considering everything but have discarded some.
I'll show you something interesting. One of the 'leaked' photos of
the autopsy is called the 'stare-of-death' photo and if you look at the
photo and ENLARGE it, then look under the hair hanging down on the right
forehead, then tell me what you see there. Here's a copy of the photo:

Loading Image...

Did you see something?

Chris
Amy Joyce
2017-06-06 03:40:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/e8/db/db/e8dbdb83da587af5c8d2450fa574908f.jpg
Did you see something?
Chris, I did read about a photograph that showed a bullet hole. It looks
to be about an inch above the right eye..is that what you mean? I can see
it plainly. Is there also a small black rectangle or square just to the
left and below the hole, that is perhaps a manipulation of the photo? I
believe that what can't be seen is also a problem - no large, exploding
exit wound toward the front-left side (as depicted in the Z film).
Jason Burke
2017-06-06 19:03:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Amy Joyce
Post by mainframetech
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/e8/db/db/e8dbdb83da587af5c8d2450fa574908f.jpg
Did you see something?
Chris, I did read about a photograph that showed a bullet hole. It looks
to be about an inch above the right eye..is that what you mean? I can see
it plainly. Is there also a small black rectangle or square just to the
left and below the hole, that is perhaps a manipulation of the photo? I
believe that what can't be seen is also a problem - no large, exploding
exit wound toward the front-left side (as depicted in the Z film).
Oh, crap. Not "the Zapruder film was faked" again.

Don't these people *ever* give on on total bullshit?
bigdog
2017-06-07 00:53:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Jason Burke
Post by Amy Joyce
Post by mainframetech
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/e8/db/db/e8dbdb83da587af5c8d2450fa574908f.jpg
Did you see something?
Chris, I did read about a photograph that showed a bullet hole. It looks
to be about an inch above the right eye..is that what you mean? I can see
it plainly. Is there also a small black rectangle or square just to the
left and below the hole, that is perhaps a manipulation of the photo? I
believe that what can't be seen is also a problem - no large, exploding
exit wound toward the front-left side (as depicted in the Z film).
Oh, crap. Not "the Zapruder film was faked" again.
Don't these people *ever* give on on total bullshit?
If they did, what would they have left?
Jason Burke
2017-06-08 02:28:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by Jason Burke
Post by Amy Joyce
Post by mainframetech
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/e8/db/db/e8dbdb83da587af5c8d2450fa574908f.jpg
Did you see something?
Chris, I did read about a photograph that showed a bullet hole. It looks
to be about an inch above the right eye..is that what you mean? I can see
it plainly. Is there also a small black rectangle or square just to the
left and below the hole, that is perhaps a manipulation of the photo? I
believe that what can't be seen is also a problem - no large, exploding
exit wound toward the front-left side (as depicted in the Z film).
Oh, crap. Not "the Zapruder film was faked" again.
Don't these people *ever* give on on total bullshit?
If they did, what would they have left?
There is that.
mainframetech
2017-06-08 02:30:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by Jason Burke
Post by Amy Joyce
Post by mainframetech
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/e8/db/db/e8dbdb83da587af5c8d2450fa574908f.jpg
Did you see something?
Chris, I did read about a photograph that showed a bullet hole. It looks
to be about an inch above the right eye..is that what you mean? I can see
it plainly. Is there also a small black rectangle or square just to the
left and below the hole, that is perhaps a manipulation of the photo? I
believe that what can't be seen is also a problem - no large, exploding
exit wound toward the front-left side (as depicted in the Z film).
Oh, crap. Not "the Zapruder film was faked" again.
Don't these people *ever* give on on total bullshit?
If they did, what would they have left?
The WCR? Oh, horrors!

Chris
claviger
2017-06-06 20:36:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Amy Joyce
Post by mainframetech
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/e8/db/db/e8dbdb83da587af5c8d2450fa574908f.jpg
Did you see something?
Chris, I did read about a photograph that showed a bullet hole. It looks
to be about an inch above the right eye..is that what you mean? I can see
it plainly. Is there also a small black rectangle or square just to the
left and below the hole, that is perhaps a manipulation of the photo? I
believe that what can't be seen is also a problem - no large, exploding
exit wound toward the front-left side (as depicted in the Z film).
Examine the color photo.
John F Kennedy Autopsy Photos
http://www.celebritymorgue.com/jfk/jfk-autopsy.html
mainframetech
2017-06-06 20:42:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Amy Joyce
Post by mainframetech
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/e8/db/db/e8dbdb83da587af5c8d2450fa574908f.jpg
Did you see something?
Chris, I did read about a photograph that showed a bullet hole. It looks
to be about an inch above the right eye..is that what you mean? I can see
it plainly. Is there also a small black rectangle or square just to the
left and below the hole, that is perhaps a manipulation of the photo? I
believe that what can't be seen is also a problem - no large, exploding
exit wound toward the front-left side (as depicted in the Z film).
That should be it above the right eye. Tom Robinson the mortician
stated it was about a 1/4 inch in diameter. The only reason it got
through the editing process of deleting and altering the 'leaked' photos
was because it wasn't seen. And yes, there is no doubt that another of
the 'leaked' photos that showed the BOH was altered. It showed the BOH
with absolutely NO damage at all. Definite alteration on that one.

An interesting sight is this drawing by Ida Dox of an autopsy photo of
the BOH. It shows a bullet hole clearly in the BOH near the top of the
ruler:

Loading Image...

Note how clearly the bullet hole stands out. Then look at the photo
she was copying:

Loading Image...

Note that the bullet hole has disappeared! There is a bit of a red
spot there, but Humes himself stated that the red spot was nothing, maybe
a blood spot.

So you can see the fakery that has gone on over the course of the
evidence. The Ida Dox drawings were used at one point and shown to
medical panels with the excuse that the real photos the Kennedy family
didn't want folks to see, so they made the drawings as close as possible
to the photos. Of course, they directed her to ad in the bullet hole,
since they were pushing the idea of a bullet entry in the BOH.

And yes, the BOH in that photo is completely phony, because the 'large
hole' was there seen by over 39 witnesses. There is a list here in the
index of the 39 witnesses, with the names of the witness, what they said,
and the link to the context.

The "black rectangle" to the left of the bullet hole does have a n odd
appearance, but I think it may just be wet hair hanging down. There was a
flap of skull that stuck out a bit forward of the right ear, but I believe
that as made when the body arrived at Bethesda.


Just a note. Most things I will tell you will sound new or maybe
different from what you may have heard, but I can back most of it up with
official records or statements elsewhere by the witnesses in the case.
Just ask.

Chris
Amy Joyce
2017-06-08 14:41:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by Amy Joyce
Post by mainframetech
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/e8/db/db/e8dbdb83da587af5c8d2450fa574908f.jpg
Did you see something?
Chris, I did read about a photograph that showed a bullet hole. It looks
to be about an inch above the right eye..is that what you mean? I can see
it plainly. Is there also a small black rectangle or square just to the
left and below the hole, that is perhaps a manipulation of the photo? I
believe that what can't be seen is also a problem - no large, exploding
exit wound toward the front-left side (as depicted in the Z film).
That should be it above the right eye. Tom Robinson the mortician
stated it was about a 1/4 inch in diameter. The only reason it got
through the editing process of deleting and altering the 'leaked' photos
was because it wasn't seen. And yes, there is no doubt that another of
the 'leaked' photos that showed the BOH was altered. It showed the BOH
with absolutely NO damage at all. Definite alteration on that one.
An interesting sight is this drawing by Ida Dox of an autopsy photo of
the BOH. It shows a bullet hole clearly in the BOH near the top of the
https://stevengoddard.files.wordpress.com/2013/08/screenhunter_07-aug-20-19-45.jpg
Note how clearly the bullet hole stands out. Then look at the photo
http://i318.photobucket.com/albums/mm433/JFKAUTOPSYPHOTOS/JFKcolor_boh_autopsy_photo.jpg
Note that the bullet hole has disappeared! There is a bit of a red
spot there, but Humes himself stated that the red spot was nothing, maybe
a blood spot.
So you can see the fakery that has gone on over the course of the
evidence. The Ida Dox drawings were used at one point and shown to
medical panels with the excuse that the real photos the Kennedy family
didn't want folks to see, so they made the drawings as close as possible
to the photos. Of course, they directed her to ad in the bullet hole,
since they were pushing the idea of a bullet entry in the BOH.
And yes, the BOH in that photo is completely phony, because the 'large
hole' was there seen by over 39 witnesses. There is a list here in the
index of the 39 witnesses, with the names of the witness, what they said,
and the link to the context.
The "black rectangle" to the left of the bullet hole does have a n odd
appearance, but I think it may just be wet hair hanging down. There was a
flap of skull that stuck out a bit forward of the right ear, but I believe
that as made when the body arrived at Bethesda.
Just a note. Most things I will tell you will sound new or maybe
different from what you may have heard, but I can back most of it up with
official records or statements elsewhere by the witnesses in the case.
Just ask.
Chris
Chris, I'm having a LOT of trouble following the discussion in this forum.
Just for example, at one point I thought a question was posed at me
(paraphrase), "what do you base your opinion on". I responded with a
question of my own, "Which part [of my opinion]"?. But now I'm not sure if
it was to me or even who it was that asked it. I realize that I haven't
been showing most of the quote(s) that were relative to my response but
that's actually because I thought it would actually be easier for others,
lol. Honestly, I'm just short of lost, but I appreciate your lengthy and
well explained responses (which I have understood). You were right that
as far as the autopsy pictures and the explanations are concerned, that
it's new to me. I saw some of the videos you but didn't do research into
the documentation, etc.

Oh yeah, regarding the autopsy: I said that I thought it was illegal and
perhaps in response to that or someone else' statement, it was said that
there wasn't anything illegal about the autopsy. If I followed correctly,
you agreed with that. That's very curious to me because I can't understand
how it cannot be. If it's a law that the autopsy take place in Texas (the
state of the crime), how can it not be illegal to take the body out of the
state and perform the autopsy elsewhere? Considering how the results and
statements regarding the state of the body differed between Parkland
Hospital staff and the final version of the autopsy report, that seems to
me as extremely important.
mainframetech
2017-06-09 13:47:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Amy Joyce
Post by mainframetech
Post by Amy Joyce
Post by mainframetech
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/e8/db/db/e8dbdb83da587af5c8d2450fa574908f.jpg
Did you see something?
Chris, I did read about a photograph that showed a bullet hole. It looks
to be about an inch above the right eye..is that what you mean? I can see
it plainly. Is there also a small black rectangle or square just to the
left and below the hole, that is perhaps a manipulation of the photo? I
believe that what can't be seen is also a problem - no large, exploding
exit wound toward the front-left side (as depicted in the Z film).
That should be it above the right eye. Tom Robinson the mortician
stated it was about a 1/4 inch in diameter. The only reason it got
through the editing process of deleting and altering the 'leaked' photos
was because it wasn't seen. And yes, there is no doubt that another of
the 'leaked' photos that showed the BOH was altered. It showed the BOH
with absolutely NO damage at all. Definite alteration on that one.
An interesting sight is this drawing by Ida Dox of an autopsy photo of
the BOH. It shows a bullet hole clearly in the BOH near the top of the
https://stevengoddard.files.wordpress.com/2013/08/screenhunter_07-aug-20-19-45.jpg
Note how clearly the bullet hole stands out. Then look at the photo
http://i318.photobucket.com/albums/mm433/JFKAUTOPSYPHOTOS/JFKcolor_boh_autopsy_photo.jpg
Note that the bullet hole has disappeared! There is a bit of a red
spot there, but Humes himself stated that the red spot was nothing, maybe
a blood spot.
So you can see the fakery that has gone on over the course of the
evidence. The Ida Dox drawings were used at one point and shown to
medical panels with the excuse that the real photos the Kennedy family
didn't want folks to see, so they made the drawings as close as possible
to the photos. Of course, they directed her to ad in the bullet hole,
since they were pushing the idea of a bullet entry in the BOH.
And yes, the BOH in that photo is completely phony, because the 'large
hole' was there seen by over 39 witnesses. There is a list here in the
index of the 39 witnesses, with the names of the witness, what they said,
and the link to the context.
The "black rectangle" to the left of the bullet hole does have a n odd
appearance, but I think it may just be wet hair hanging down. There was a
flap of skull that stuck out a bit forward of the right ear, but I believe
that as made when the body arrived at Bethesda.
Just a note. Most things I will tell you will sound new or maybe
different from what you may have heard, but I can back most of it up with
official records or statements elsewhere by the witnesses in the case.
Just ask.
Chris
Chris, I'm having a LOT of trouble following the discussion in this forum.
Just for example, at one point I thought a question was posed at me
(paraphrase), "what do you base your opinion on". I responded with a
question of my own, "Which part [of my opinion]"?. But now I'm not sure if
it was to me or even who it was that asked it. I realize that I haven't
been showing most of the quote(s) that were relative to my response but
that's actually because I thought it would actually be easier for others,
lol. Honestly, I'm just short of lost, but I appreciate your lengthy and
well explained responses (which I have understood). You were right that
as far as the autopsy pictures and the explanations are concerned, that
it's new to me. I saw some of the videos you but didn't do research into
the documentation, etc.
Oh yeah, regarding the autopsy: I said that I thought it was illegal and
perhaps in response to that or someone else' statement, it was said that
there wasn't anything illegal about the autopsy. If I followed correctly,
you agreed with that. That's very curious to me because I can't understand
how it cannot be. If it's a law that the autopsy take place in Texas (the
state of the crime), how can it not be illegal to take the body out of the
state and perform the autopsy elsewhere? Considering how the results and
statements regarding the state of the body differed between Parkland
Hospital staff and the final version of the autopsy report, that seems to
me as extremely important.
Amy, it is easier to follow the conversation by leaving the previous
conversation in the post, so that you can go back to see who said what.
If you're using Google groups, it will help you know who is talking with
the list of names at the top of the post. it shows the names in order last
(most recent) to first.

If you're using one of the newsreaders, then I'm not much help with
those. Let me know.

I agree that the autopsy was "illegal" in that they did it in the wrong
venue after stealing the body. But it was done badly also. Humes and
Boswell were Bethesda pathologists, but had little experience in working
real pathology cases. Humes called in Pierre Finck, who was an expert in
pathology and Wound Ballistics. He arrived at 8:30 pm after the scheduled
autopsy had begun.

The difference you noted in the Parkland body and the Bethesda body is
heightened by this article which contains both sides of the problem.
Here's the BOH at Parkland:

http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/boh/parkland_boh/parkland_wound.htm

and the same after arriving at Bethesda:

http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/boh/beth/beth.htm

At this stage, there is little that can be done about the breaking of
the law in stealing the limo an the body.

If questions on what we've covered so far, let me know...:)

Chris
Amy Joyce
2017-06-10 02:38:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by Amy Joyce
Post by mainframetech
Post by Amy Joyce
Post by mainframetech
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/e8/db/db/e8dbdb83da587af5c8d2450fa574908f.jpg
Did you see something?
Chris, I did read about a photograph that showed a bullet hole. It looks
to be about an inch above the right eye..is that what you mean? I can see
it plainly. Is there also a small black rectangle or square just to the
left and below the hole, that is perhaps a manipulation of the photo? I
believe that what can't be seen is also a problem - no large, exploding
exit wound toward the front-left side (as depicted in the Z film).
That should be it above the right eye. Tom Robinson the mortician
stated it was about a 1/4 inch in diameter. The only reason it got
through the editing process of deleting and altering the 'leaked' photos
was because it wasn't seen. And yes, there is no doubt that another of
the 'leaked' photos that showed the BOH was altered. It showed the BOH
with absolutely NO damage at all. Definite alteration on that one.
An interesting sight is this drawing by Ida Dox of an autopsy photo of
the BOH. It shows a bullet hole clearly in the BOH near the top of the
https://stevengoddard.files.wordpress.com/2013/08/screenhunter_07-aug-20-19-45.jpg
Note how clearly the bullet hole stands out. Then look at the photo
http://i318.photobucket.com/albums/mm433/JFKAUTOPSYPHOTOS/JFKcolor_boh_autopsy_photo.jpg
Note that the bullet hole has disappeared! There is a bit of a red
spot there, but Humes himself stated that the red spot was nothing, maybe
a blood spot.
So you can see the fakery that has gone on over the course of the
evidence. The Ida Dox drawings were used at one point and shown to
medical panels with the excuse that the real photos the Kennedy family
didn't want folks to see, so they made the drawings as close as possible
to the photos. Of course, they directed her to ad in the bullet hole,
since they were pushing the idea of a bullet entry in the BOH.
And yes, the BOH in that photo is completely phony, because the 'large
hole' was there seen by over 39 witnesses. There is a list here in the
index of the 39 witnesses, with the names of the witness, what they said,
and the link to the context.
The "black rectangle" to the left of the bullet hole does have a n odd
appearance, but I think it may just be wet hair hanging down. There was a
flap of skull that stuck out a bit forward of the right ear, but I believe
that as made when the body arrived at Bethesda.
Just a note. Most things I will tell you will sound new or maybe
different from what you may have heard, but I can back most of it up with
official records or statements elsewhere by the witnesses in the case.
Just ask.
Chris
Chris, I'm having a LOT of trouble following the discussion in this forum.
Just for example, at one point I thought a question was posed at me
(paraphrase), "what do you base your opinion on". I responded with a
question of my own, "Which part [of my opinion]"?. But now I'm not sure if
it was to me or even who it was that asked it. I realize that I haven't
been showing most of the quote(s) that were relative to my response but
that's actually because I thought it would actually be easier for others,
lol. Honestly, I'm just short of lost, but I appreciate your lengthy and
well explained responses (which I have understood). You were right that
as far as the autopsy pictures and the explanations are concerned, that
it's new to me. I saw some of the videos you but didn't do research into
the documentation, etc.
Oh yeah, regarding the autopsy: I said that I thought it was illegal and
perhaps in response to that or someone else' statement, it was said that
there wasn't anything illegal about the autopsy. If I followed correctly,
you agreed with that. That's very curious to me because I can't understand
how it cannot be. If it's a law that the autopsy take place in Texas (the
state of the crime), how can it not be illegal to take the body out of the
state and perform the autopsy elsewhere? Considering how the results and
statements regarding the state of the body differed between Parkland
Hospital staff and the final version of the autopsy report, that seems to
me as extremely important.
Amy, it is easier to follow the conversation by leaving the previous
conversation in the post, so that you can go back to see who said what.
If you're using Google groups, it will help you know who is talking with
the list of names at the top of the post. it shows the names in order last
(most recent) to first.
If you're using one of the newsreaders, then I'm not much help with
those. Let me know.
I agree that the autopsy was "illegal" in that they did it in the wrong
venue after stealing the body. But it was done badly also. Humes and
Boswell were Bethesda pathologists, but had little experience in working
real pathology cases. Humes called in Pierre Finck, who was an expert in
pathology and Wound Ballistics. He arrived at 8:30 pm after the scheduled
autopsy had begun.
The difference you noted in the Parkland body and the Bethesda body is
heightened by this article which contains both sides of the problem.
http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/boh/parkland_boh/parkland_wound.htm
http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/boh/beth/beth.htm
At this stage, there is little that can be done about the breaking of
the law in stealing the limo an the body.
Agreed, nothing that can be done about the body taken. I wanted to satisfy
my opinion that it was not only taken illegally, but also that the
reasoning behind it was suspicious and that there was opportunity to
manipulate the results in some way. That the limo was also taken at the
same time and cleaned, etc., pretty much cinches for me that there is
exceptional reasons for not trusting the AR. If Oswald had made it to
trial, I think his defense would have made the same point (if not have
gotten the autopsy evidence thrown out completely).
Post by mainframetech
If questions on what we've covered so far, let me know...:)
Chris
Anthony Marsh
2017-06-10 02:42:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by Amy Joyce
Post by mainframetech
Post by Amy Joyce
Post by mainframetech
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/e8/db/db/e8dbdb83da587af5c8d2450fa574908f.jpg
Did you see something?
Chris, I did read about a photograph that showed a bullet hole. It looks
to be about an inch above the right eye..is that what you mean? I can see
it plainly. Is there also a small black rectangle or square just to the
left and below the hole, that is perhaps a manipulation of the photo? I
believe that what can't be seen is also a problem - no large, exploding
exit wound toward the front-left side (as depicted in the Z film).
That should be it above the right eye. Tom Robinson the mortician
stated it was about a 1/4 inch in diameter. The only reason it got
through the editing process of deleting and altering the 'leaked' photos
was because it wasn't seen. And yes, there is no doubt that another of
the 'leaked' photos that showed the BOH was altered. It showed the BOH
with absolutely NO damage at all. Definite alteration on that one.
An interesting sight is this drawing by Ida Dox of an autopsy photo of
the BOH. It shows a bullet hole clearly in the BOH near the top of the
https://stevengoddard.files.wordpress.com/2013/08/screenhunter_07-aug-20-19-45.jpg
Note how clearly the bullet hole stands out. Then look at the photo
http://i318.photobucket.com/albums/mm433/JFKAUTOPSYPHOTOS/JFKcolor_boh_autopsy_photo.jpg
Note that the bullet hole has disappeared! There is a bit of a red
spot there, but Humes himself stated that the red spot was nothing, maybe
a blood spot.
So you can see the fakery that has gone on over the course of the
evidence. The Ida Dox drawings were used at one point and shown to
medical panels with the excuse that the real photos the Kennedy family
didn't want folks to see, so they made the drawings as close as possible
to the photos. Of course, they directed her to ad in the bullet hole,
since they were pushing the idea of a bullet entry in the BOH.
And yes, the BOH in that photo is completely phony, because the 'large
hole' was there seen by over 39 witnesses. There is a list here in the
index of the 39 witnesses, with the names of the witness, what they said,
and the link to the context.
The "black rectangle" to the left of the bullet hole does have a n odd
appearance, but I think it may just be wet hair hanging down. There was a
flap of skull that stuck out a bit forward of the right ear, but I believe
that as made when the body arrived at Bethesda.
Just a note. Most things I will tell you will sound new or maybe
different from what you may have heard, but I can back most of it up with
official records or statements elsewhere by the witnesses in the case.
Just ask.
Chris
Chris, I'm having a LOT of trouble following the discussion in this forum.
Just for example, at one point I thought a question was posed at me
(paraphrase), "what do you base your opinion on". I responded with a
question of my own, "Which part [of my opinion]"?. But now I'm not sure if
it was to me or even who it was that asked it. I realize that I haven't
been showing most of the quote(s) that were relative to my response but
that's actually because I thought it would actually be easier for others,
lol. Honestly, I'm just short of lost, but I appreciate your lengthy and
well explained responses (which I have understood). You were right that
as far as the autopsy pictures and the explanations are concerned, that
it's new to me. I saw some of the videos you but didn't do research into
the documentation, etc.
Oh yeah, regarding the autopsy: I said that I thought it was illegal and
perhaps in response to that or someone else' statement, it was said that
there wasn't anything illegal about the autopsy. If I followed correctly,
you agreed with that. That's very curious to me because I can't understand
how it cannot be. If it's a law that the autopsy take place in Texas (the
state of the crime), how can it not be illegal to take the body out of the
state and perform the autopsy elsewhere? Considering how the results and
statements regarding the state of the body differed between Parkland
Hospital staff and the final version of the autopsy report, that seems to
me as extremely important.
Amy, it is easier to follow the conversation by leaving the previous
conversation in the post, so that you can go back to see who said what.
That is called Netiquette which the WC defenders lack. The other word to
remember is RETENTION. Some places will retain messages for 30 years or
more. Other may only be able to retain messages for a few months.
Post by mainframetech
If you're using Google groups, it will help you know who is talking with
the list of names at the top of the post. it shows the names in order last
(most recent) to first.
If you're using one of the newsreaders, then I'm not much help with
those. Let me know.
I agree that the autopsy was "illegal" in that they did it in the wrong
venue after stealing the body. But it was done badly also. Humes and
Boswell were Bethesda pathologists, but had little experience in working
real pathology cases. Humes called in Pierre Finck, who was an expert in
pathology and Wound Ballistics. He arrived at 8:30 pm after the scheduled
autopsy had begun.
The difference you noted in the Parkland body and the Bethesda body is
heightened by this article which contains both sides of the problem.
http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/boh/parkland_boh/parkland_wound.htm
http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/boh/beth/beth.htm
At this stage, there is little that can be done about the breaking of
the law in stealing the limo an the body.
If questions on what we've covered so far, let me know...:)
Chris
Anthony Marsh
2017-06-07 16:44:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Amy Joyce
Post by mainframetech
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/e8/db/db/e8dbdb83da587af5c8d2450fa574908f.jpg
Did you see something?
Chris, I did read about a photograph that showed a bullet hole. It looks
to be about an inch above the right eye..is that what you mean? I can see
it plainly. Is there also a small black rectangle or square just to the
left and below the hole, that is perhaps a manipulation of the photo? I
believe that what can't be seen is also a problem - no large, exploding
exit wound toward the front-left side (as depicted in the Z film).
Not sure what you mean.
Are you saying that YOU are smart enough to be able to see a bullet hole
in this photo?

Loading Image...

The WC defenders can not. If you are able to see that bullet hole that
makes you a conspiracy kook.

I don't know what you want to see on the front-left side. Some of us can
see a flap sticking out which is a skull bone still attached to the
scalp. What Lifton called the Devil's Ear.

Loading Image...

Your problems are imaginary.
Anthony Marsh
2017-06-06 14:21:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by Amy Joyce
Post by mainframetech
Amy, I don't know about that, but someone will probably chime in with the
info. You will find mostly 2 types of folks here. First are the CTs, CT
= 'Conspiracy Theorists', and the LNs, LN = 'Lone Nut' believers, in
the 'lone nut' theory of Oswald acting alone. And between them a range of
folks that go a little this way, and a little that way. Some will even
try to convince you they know all sorts of things, including me. That's
not necessarily true though. Research something you heard but aren't sure
of. Get opposing opinions before settling on what you think.
Chris, that is good advice. I do try to do that although I will say that
I'm not afraid to change what I think (maybe it is more that I haven't
really settled on much more than a few things like - the WC investigation
was a joke, that Oswald was never given a fair shake at least while alive,
the head shot didn't come from the TSBD or behind the car, and some
witnesses were at the least coerced).
Post by mainframetech
My belief is that the ARRB files have many of the answers in the case,
but for some strange reason many here try to avoid those. I fall somewhat
into the CT side, but like many CTs I believe I have a number of the
answers.
I'm long from considering everything but have discarded some.
I'll show you something interesting. One of the 'leaked' photos of
the autopsy is called the 'stare-of-death' photo and if you look at the
photo and ENLARGE it, then look under the hair hanging down on the right
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/e8/db/db/e8dbdb83da587af5c8d2450fa574908f.jpg
Did you see something?
The Warren Commission defenders are not ALLOWED to see anything.
Post by mainframetech
Chris
bigdog
2017-06-03 12:57:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Amy Joyce
Post by mainframetech
Post by Amy Joyce
Although new to this forum I have been researching JFK for some time now.
After experience in similar/other forums I was hesitant to join because I
despise fallacy arguments, mostly gaslighting, but also any that steer
conversation away from polite debate toward trading insults. However I
enjoy it and look forward to it.
I'm not on the fence with my opinion and I don't think it matters much
what I think when I say that I'm disgusted with the WC's inquiry. Because
it wasn't a trial with a defense team and jury, they had a responsibility
to investigate different theories, examine any/all evidence, and consider
as much witness testimony as they could.
This is not to say that I don't think it's likely that Oswald in some way
(also irrelevant). By appearances it seems that Oswald was convicted,that
if the WC found him responsible, it must be true. However that's not due
process. Since he had no one to stand up for and defend him in an official
capacity, and that none was even allowed, makes me most suspicious. That
evidence evidence was held from public view for so long (and still is)
increases my suspicions (and anger). The possibility for a valid inquiry
has long since passed because most witnesses have died and evidence has
gotten lost, stolen, and destroyed.... Just sayin' :-)
Amy, there is still a lot of evidence in the ARRB files. The
testimonies of many there have answered many of the questions from the
case.
Here's some info on whether a lawyer was assigned to work on behalf of
“In fairness to the alleged assassin and his family, the
Commission on February 25, 1964, requested Walter E. Craig, president of
the American Bar Association, to participate in the investigation and to
advise the Commission whether in his opinion the proceedings conformed to
the basic principles of American justice. Mr. Craig accepted this
assignment and participated fully and without limitation. He attended
Commission hearings in person or through his appointed assistants. All
working papers, reports, and other data in Commission files were made
available, and Mr. Craig and his associates were given the opportunity to
cross-examine witnesses, to recall any witness heard prior to his
appointment, and to suggest witnesses whose testimony they would like to
have the Commission hear. This procedure was agreeable to counsel for
Oswald’s widow.”
"No one who has read the 888 pages of the Report can have any doubt about
the role played by Walter E. Craig: His name does not even appear in the
index, nor does it appear in the extended index contained in the 15th
volume of the 26 volumes of Hearings and Exhibits. One does find an
occasional reference to the presence of an “observer”
representing Craig, but none of these “observers” ever
poses a question which might illuminate a point in Oswald’s
favor."
From: http://kenrahn.com/JFK/The_critics/Sauvage/Oswalds_Case/Oswalds_case.html
Chris
Chris - thanks for responding and for posting the information.
I've been (slowly) reading the WC reports as well as any others, but not
in a particular order. Even if I was convinced that Oswald had murdered
JFK alone and with malice, I'd still feel the same way. Per the
paragraphs you quoted, the "request" for the president of the bar to
participate in the investigation on Oswald's behalf and seemingly as his
attorney - that he did nothing makes it worse. I'm flabbergasted!
Just what was he supposed to do. It's not as if there was a jury to be
hoodwinked the way the OJ jury was. Oswald was guilty as hell and the
evidence of that was overwhelming.
Post by Amy Joyce
PS. Do you by chance know if there was a lawsuit or attempt at one in
regards to Oswald being killed while under the protection of the DPD?
If there was, I would hope the jury would find Oswald's life was worth a
plug nickel. Trebled would make it 15 cents.
mainframetech
2017-06-05 01:21:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by Amy Joyce
Post by mainframetech
Post by Amy Joyce
Although new to this forum I have been researching JFK for some time now.
After experience in similar/other forums I was hesitant to join because I
despise fallacy arguments, mostly gaslighting, but also any that steer
conversation away from polite debate toward trading insults. However I
enjoy it and look forward to it.
I'm not on the fence with my opinion and I don't think it matters much
what I think when I say that I'm disgusted with the WC's inquiry. Because
it wasn't a trial with a defense team and jury, they had a responsibility
to investigate different theories, examine any/all evidence, and consider
as much witness testimony as they could.
This is not to say that I don't think it's likely that Oswald in some way
(also irrelevant). By appearances it seems that Oswald was convicted,that
if the WC found him responsible, it must be true. However that's not due
process. Since he had no one to stand up for and defend him in an official
capacity, and that none was even allowed, makes me most suspicious. That
evidence evidence was held from public view for so long (and still is)
increases my suspicions (and anger). The possibility for a valid inquiry
has long since passed because most witnesses have died and evidence has
gotten lost, stolen, and destroyed.... Just sayin' :-)
Amy, there is still a lot of evidence in the ARRB files. The
testimonies of many there have answered many of the questions from the
case.
Here's some info on whether a lawyer was assigned to work on behalf of
“In fairness to the alleged assassin and his family, the
Commission on February 25, 1964, requested Walter E. Craig, president of
the American Bar Association, to participate in the investigation and to
advise the Commission whether in his opinion the proceedings conformed to
the basic principles of American justice. Mr. Craig accepted this
assignment and participated fully and without limitation. He attended
Commission hearings in person or through his appointed assistants. All
working papers, reports, and other data in Commission files were made
available, and Mr. Craig and his associates were given the opportunity to
cross-examine witnesses, to recall any witness heard prior to his
appointment, and to suggest witnesses whose testimony they would like to
have the Commission hear. This procedure was agreeable to counsel for
Oswald’s widow.”
"No one who has read the 888 pages of the Report can have any doubt about
the role played by Walter E. Craig: His name does not even appear in the
index, nor does it appear in the extended index contained in the 15th
volume of the 26 volumes of Hearings and Exhibits. One does find an
occasional reference to the presence of an “observer”
representing Craig, but none of these “observers” ever
poses a question which might illuminate a point in Oswald’s
favor."
From: http://kenrahn.com/JFK/The_critics/Sauvage/Oswalds_Case/Oswalds_case.html
Chris
Chris - thanks for responding and for posting the information.
I've been (slowly) reading the WC reports as well as any others, but not
in a particular order. Even if I was convinced that Oswald had murdered
JFK alone and with malice, I'd still feel the same way. Per the
paragraphs you quoted, the "request" for the president of the bar to
participate in the investigation on Oswald's behalf and seemingly as his
attorney - that he did nothing makes it worse. I'm flabbergasted!
Just what was he supposed to do. It's not as if there was a jury to be
hoodwinked the way the OJ jury was. Oswald was guilty as hell and the
evidence of that was overwhelming.
The evidence was thin to vanishing, and I've seen your list of evidence
and that's a fact. And though there wasn't a jury to be hoodwinked, there
was a public to be hoodwinked and many were, by the WC.
Post by bigdog
Post by Amy Joyce
PS. Do you by chance know if there was a lawsuit or attempt at one in
regards to Oswald being killed while under the protection of the DPD?
If there was, I would hope the jury would find Oswald's life was worth a
plug nickel. Trebled would make it 15 cents.
Such anger at a semi-innocent man! You should control those outbursts,
it's bad for your arteries.

Chris
bigdog
2017-06-06 03:05:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by Amy Joyce
Post by mainframetech
Post by Amy Joyce
Although new to this forum I have been researching JFK for some time now.
After experience in similar/other forums I was hesitant to join because I
despise fallacy arguments, mostly gaslighting, but also any that steer
conversation away from polite debate toward trading insults. However I
enjoy it and look forward to it.
I'm not on the fence with my opinion and I don't think it matters much
what I think when I say that I'm disgusted with the WC's inquiry. Because
it wasn't a trial with a defense team and jury, they had a responsibility
to investigate different theories, examine any/all evidence, and consider
as much witness testimony as they could.
This is not to say that I don't think it's likely that Oswald in some way
(also irrelevant). By appearances it seems that Oswald was convicted,that
if the WC found him responsible, it must be true. However that's not due
process. Since he had no one to stand up for and defend him in an official
capacity, and that none was even allowed, makes me most suspicious. That
evidence evidence was held from public view for so long (and still is)
increases my suspicions (and anger). The possibility for a valid inquiry
has long since passed because most witnesses have died and evidence has
gotten lost, stolen, and destroyed.... Just sayin' :-)
Amy, there is still a lot of evidence in the ARRB files. The
testimonies of many there have answered many of the questions from the
case.
Here's some info on whether a lawyer was assigned to work on behalf of
“In fairness to the alleged assassin and his family, the
Commission on February 25, 1964, requested Walter E. Craig, president of
the American Bar Association, to participate in the investigation and to
advise the Commission whether in his opinion the proceedings conformed to
the basic principles of American justice. Mr. Craig accepted this
assignment and participated fully and without limitation. He attended
Commission hearings in person or through his appointed assistants. All
working papers, reports, and other data in Commission files were made
available, and Mr. Craig and his associates were given the opportunity to
cross-examine witnesses, to recall any witness heard prior to his
appointment, and to suggest witnesses whose testimony they would like to
have the Commission hear. This procedure was agreeable to counsel for
Oswald’s widow.”
"No one who has read the 888 pages of the Report can have any doubt about
the role played by Walter E. Craig: His name does not even appear in the
index, nor does it appear in the extended index contained in the 15th
volume of the 26 volumes of Hearings and Exhibits. One does find an
occasional reference to the presence of an “observer”
representing Craig, but none of these “observers” ever
poses a question which might illuminate a point in Oswald’s
favor."
From: http://kenrahn.com/JFK/The_critics/Sauvage/Oswalds_Case/Oswalds_case.html
Chris
Chris - thanks for responding and for posting the information.
I've been (slowly) reading the WC reports as well as any others, but not
in a particular order. Even if I was convinced that Oswald had murdered
JFK alone and with malice, I'd still feel the same way. Per the
paragraphs you quoted, the "request" for the president of the bar to
participate in the investigation on Oswald's behalf and seemingly as his
attorney - that he did nothing makes it worse. I'm flabbergasted!
Just what was he supposed to do. It's not as if there was a jury to be
hoodwinked the way the OJ jury was. Oswald was guilty as hell and the
evidence of that was overwhelming.
The evidence was thin to vanishing, and I've seen your list of evidence
and that's a fact. And though there wasn't a jury to be hoodwinked, there
was a public to be hoodwinked and many were, by the WC.
The jury in the London mock trial had no trouble convicting Oswald on that
"thin" evidence and that was without Brennan testifying which illustrates
what I have said numerous times in the past. The case against Oswald
didn't need Brennan's ID. He would have been easily convicted even if
Brennan had never looked up at the sniper's nest.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by Amy Joyce
PS. Do you by chance know if there was a lawsuit or attempt at one in
regards to Oswald being killed while under the protection of the DPD?
If there was, I would hope the jury would find Oswald's life was worth a
plug nickel. Trebled would make it 15 cents.
Such anger at a semi-innocent man! You should control those outbursts,
it's bad for your arteries.
Semi-innocent??? Is that like being a little bit pregnant. Too much.
mainframetech
2017-06-06 20:44:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by Amy Joyce
Post by mainframetech
Post by Amy Joyce
Although new to this forum I have been researching JFK for some time now.
After experience in similar/other forums I was hesitant to join because I
despise fallacy arguments, mostly gaslighting, but also any that steer
conversation away from polite debate toward trading insults. However I
enjoy it and look forward to it.
I'm not on the fence with my opinion and I don't think it matters much
what I think when I say that I'm disgusted with the WC's inquiry. Because
it wasn't a trial with a defense team and jury, they had a responsibility
to investigate different theories, examine any/all evidence, and consider
as much witness testimony as they could.
This is not to say that I don't think it's likely that Oswald in some way
(also irrelevant). By appearances it seems that Oswald was convicted,that
if the WC found him responsible, it must be true. However that's not due
process. Since he had no one to stand up for and defend him in an official
capacity, and that none was even allowed, makes me most suspicious. That
evidence evidence was held from public view for so long (and still is)
increases my suspicions (and anger). The possibility for a valid inquiry
has long since passed because most witnesses have died and evidence has
gotten lost, stolen, and destroyed.... Just sayin' :-)
Amy, there is still a lot of evidence in the ARRB files. The
testimonies of many there have answered many of the questions from the
case.
Here's some info on whether a lawyer was assigned to work on behalf of
“In fairness to the alleged assassin and his family, the
Commission on February 25, 1964, requested Walter E. Craig, president of
the American Bar Association, to participate in the investigation and to
advise the Commission whether in his opinion the proceedings conformed to
the basic principles of American justice. Mr. Craig accepted this
assignment and participated fully and without limitation. He attended
Commission hearings in person or through his appointed assistants. All
working papers, reports, and other data in Commission files were made
available, and Mr. Craig and his associates were given the opportunity to
cross-examine witnesses, to recall any witness heard prior to his
appointment, and to suggest witnesses whose testimony they would like to
have the Commission hear. This procedure was agreeable to counsel for
Oswald’s widow.”
"No one who has read the 888 pages of the Report can have any doubt about
the role played by Walter E. Craig: His name does not even appear in the
index, nor does it appear in the extended index contained in the 15th
volume of the 26 volumes of Hearings and Exhibits. One does find an
occasional reference to the presence of an “observer”
representing Craig, but none of these “observers” ever
poses a question which might illuminate a point in Oswald’s
favor."
From: http://kenrahn.com/JFK/The_critics/Sauvage/Oswalds_Case/Oswalds_case.html
Chris
Chris - thanks for responding and for posting the information.
I've been (slowly) reading the WC reports as well as any others, but not
in a particular order. Even if I was convinced that Oswald had murdered
JFK alone and with malice, I'd still feel the same way. Per the
paragraphs you quoted, the "request" for the president of the bar to
participate in the investigation on Oswald's behalf and seemingly as his
attorney - that he did nothing makes it worse. I'm flabbergasted!
Just what was he supposed to do. It's not as if there was a jury to be
hoodwinked the way the OJ jury was. Oswald was guilty as hell and the
evidence of that was overwhelming.
The evidence was thin to vanishing, and I've seen your list of evidence
and that's a fact. And though there wasn't a jury to be hoodwinked, there
was a public to be hoodwinked and many were, by the WC.
The jury in the London mock trial had no trouble convicting Oswald on that
"thin" evidence and that was without Brennan testifying which illustrates
what I have said numerous times in the past. The case against Oswald
didn't need Brennan's ID. He would have been easily convicted even if
Brennan had never looked up at the sniper's nest.
As you've been reminded, the jury then did not have all the information
that is available to us now. Same for the medical panels.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by Amy Joyce
PS. Do you by chance know if there was a lawsuit or attempt at one in
regards to Oswald being killed while under the protection of the DPD?
If there was, I would hope the jury would find Oswald's life was worth a
plug nickel. Trebled would make it 15 cents.
Such anger at a semi-innocent man! You should control those outbursts,
it's bad for your arteries.
Semi-innocent??? Is that like being a little bit pregnant. Too much.
Think it through. He had some knowledge of the shooters, but wasn't
one himself. He never had any intention of shooting anyone.

Chris
bigdog
2017-06-08 02:30:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by Amy Joyce
Post by mainframetech
Post by Amy Joyce
Although new to this forum I have been researching JFK for some time now.
After experience in similar/other forums I was hesitant to join because I
despise fallacy arguments, mostly gaslighting, but also any that steer
conversation away from polite debate toward trading insults. However I
enjoy it and look forward to it.
I'm not on the fence with my opinion and I don't think it matters much
what I think when I say that I'm disgusted with the WC's inquiry. Because
it wasn't a trial with a defense team and jury, they had a responsibility
to investigate different theories, examine any/all evidence, and consider
as much witness testimony as they could.
This is not to say that I don't think it's likely that Oswald in some way
(also irrelevant). By appearances it seems that Oswald was convicted,that
if the WC found him responsible, it must be true. However that's not due
process. Since he had no one to stand up for and defend him in an official
capacity, and that none was even allowed, makes me most suspicious. That
evidence evidence was held from public view for so long (and still is)
increases my suspicions (and anger). The possibility for a valid inquiry
has long since passed because most witnesses have died and evidence has
gotten lost, stolen, and destroyed.... Just sayin' :-)
Amy, there is still a lot of evidence in the ARRB files. The
testimonies of many there have answered many of the questions from the
case.
Here's some info on whether a lawyer was assigned to work on behalf of
“In fairness to the alleged assassin and his family, the
Commission on February 25, 1964, requested Walter E. Craig, president of
the American Bar Association, to participate in the investigation and to
advise the Commission whether in his opinion the proceedings conformed to
the basic principles of American justice. Mr. Craig accepted this
assignment and participated fully and without limitation. He attended
Commission hearings in person or through his appointed assistants. All
working papers, reports, and other data in Commission files were made
available, and Mr. Craig and his associates were given the opportunity to
cross-examine witnesses, to recall any witness heard prior to his
appointment, and to suggest witnesses whose testimony they would like to
have the Commission hear. This procedure was agreeable to counsel for
Oswald’s widow.”
"No one who has read the 888 pages of the Report can have any doubt about
the role played by Walter E. Craig: His name does not even appear in the
index, nor does it appear in the extended index contained in the 15th
volume of the 26 volumes of Hearings and Exhibits. One does find an
occasional reference to the presence of an “observer”
representing Craig, but none of these “observers” ever
poses a question which might illuminate a point in Oswald’s
favor."
From: http://kenrahn.com/JFK/The_critics/Sauvage/Oswalds_Case/Oswalds_case.html
Chris
Chris - thanks for responding and for posting the information.
I've been (slowly) reading the WC reports as well as any others, but not
in a particular order. Even if I was convinced that Oswald had murdered
JFK alone and with malice, I'd still feel the same way. Per the
paragraphs you quoted, the "request" for the president of the bar to
participate in the investigation on Oswald's behalf and seemingly as his
attorney - that he did nothing makes it worse. I'm flabbergasted!
Just what was he supposed to do. It's not as if there was a jury to be
hoodwinked the way the OJ jury was. Oswald was guilty as hell and the
evidence of that was overwhelming.
The evidence was thin to vanishing, and I've seen your list of evidence
and that's a fact. And though there wasn't a jury to be hoodwinked, there
was a public to be hoodwinked and many were, by the WC.
The jury in the London mock trial had no trouble convicting Oswald on that
"thin" evidence and that was without Brennan testifying which illustrates
what I have said numerous times in the past. The case against Oswald
didn't need Brennan's ID. He would have been easily convicted even if
Brennan had never looked up at the sniper's nest.
As you've been reminded, the jury then did not have all the information
that is available to us now. Same for the medical panels.
This stuff gets funnier the more times you repeat it.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by Amy Joyce
PS. Do you by chance know if there was a lawsuit or attempt at one in
regards to Oswald being killed while under the protection of the DPD?
If there was, I would hope the jury would find Oswald's life was worth a
plug nickel. Trebled would make it 15 cents.
Such anger at a semi-innocent man! You should control those outbursts,
it's bad for your arteries.
Semi-innocent??? Is that like being a little bit pregnant. Too much.
Think it through. He had some knowledge of the shooters, but wasn't
one himself. He never had any intention of shooting anyone.
Stop it. You're killing me.
Amy Joyce
2017-06-05 14:02:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Just what was he supposed to do. It's not as if there was a jury to be
hoodwinked the way the OJ jury was. Oswald was guilty as hell and the
evidence of that was overwhelming.
Bigdog, Seriously?

Why have a "defense" there if he wasn't going to doing anything but watch
(sometimes)? He should have done his job or something that resembled a
job. The world was Oswald's jury and it became deadlocked despite the WC
presenting a one sided show. Of course the evidence appears to point
overwhelmingly at guilt when only the "DA" presents its case.
bigdog
2017-06-06 18:16:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Amy Joyce
Post by bigdog
Just what was he supposed to do. It's not as if there was a jury to be
hoodwinked the way the OJ jury was. Oswald was guilty as hell and the
evidence of that was overwhelming.
Bigdog, Seriously?
Why have a "defense" there if he wasn't going to doing anything but watch
(sometimes)?
Unless the WC was manipulating evidence against Oswald there wouldn't be
anything for him to object to. It's not like a criminal trial in which a
lawyer who is defending a guilty client will still try to cast doubt on
the evidence being presented by the prosecution. His goal is to create
reasonable doubt in the minds of the jurors. That's what criminal defense
lawyers do. The lawyer at the fact finding body would have a much
different role. His job would not be to get a guilty man acquitted. His
role was simply to guard against bogus evidence being presented against
Oswald. Apparently there was nothing being presented that he found
objectionable.
Post by Amy Joyce
He should have done his job or something that resembled a
job.
Specifically what should he have objected to.
Post by Amy Joyce
The world was Oswald's jury and it became deadlocked despite the WC
presenting a one sided show. Of course the evidence appears to point
overwhelmingly at guilt when only the "DA" presents its case.
Was he supposed to present an alibi witness? There were none.

Was he supposed to deny that the rifle found on the sixth floor belonged
to Oswald?

Was he supposed to deny that all the recovered bullets and shells had been
fired from that rifle?

Was he supposed to deny that fibers in the butt plate of the rifle matched
the shirt Oswald was wearing when arrested?

Was he supposed to deny that Oswald's fingerprints were found in the
sniper's nest?

Was he supposed to deny that Oswald's fingerprints were on the rifle bag?

Was he supposed to deny that fibers in that bag matched the blanket Oswald
used to store his rifle?

Just what was he supposed to do with the hand that was dealt to him?
Anthony Marsh
2017-06-07 00:56:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by Amy Joyce
Post by bigdog
Just what was he supposed to do. It's not as if there was a jury to be
hoodwinked the way the OJ jury was. Oswald was guilty as hell and the
evidence of that was overwhelming.
Bigdog, Seriously?
Why have a "defense" there if he wasn't going to doing anything but watch
(sometimes)?
Unless the WC was manipulating evidence against Oswald there wouldn't be
anything for him to object to. It's not like a criminal trial in which a
Mark Lane did have things to object to. Like suppression of evidence and
obstruction of justice.
Post by bigdog
lawyer who is defending a guilty client will still try to cast doubt on
Why do you ASSuME the suspect is guilty? Because you always ASSuME the
worst.
Post by bigdog
the evidence being presented by the prosecution. His goal is to create
reasonable doubt in the minds of the jurors. That's what criminal defense
Ever hear of the OJ Simpson trial? BTW, he's about to be released.
Expect a huge HBO special.
Post by bigdog
lawyers do. The lawyer at the fact finding body would have a much
different role. His job would not be to get a guilty man acquitted. His
role was simply to guard against bogus evidence being presented against
Oswald. Apparently there was nothing being presented that he found
objectionable.
Which is what the WC was doing. NAA?
Post by bigdog
Post by Amy Joyce
He should have done his job or something that resembled a
job.
Specifically what should he have objected to.
Kook baiting. If we list A THROUGH Y you will say that we left out Z so
our case is phony.
Post by bigdog
Post by Amy Joyce
The world was Oswald's jury and it became deadlocked despite the WC
presenting a one sided show. Of course the evidence appears to point
overwhelmingly at guilt when only the "DA" presents its case.
Deadlocked?
The HSCA only voted 7-5 guilty.
Post by bigdog
Was he supposed to present an alibi witness? There were none.
He could have it the DPD paid them off.
Post by bigdog
Was he supposed to deny that the rifle found on the sixth floor belonged
to Oswald?
You mean the Mauser? Oswald didn't own a Mauser. The DPD said it was a
Mauser.
Post by bigdog
Was he supposed to deny that all the recovered bullets and shells had been
fired from that rifle?
How many recovered bullets, plural? You are making up phony evidence.
(Shades of the OJ trial) Are you saying that YOU found the bullet from
your miss shot? Did YOU find the Lester bullet?
Post by bigdog
Was he supposed to deny that fibers in the butt plate of the rifle matched
the shirt Oswald was wearing when arrested?
That could have happened any time. There is no law against wearing the
same shirt twice.
Maybe he changed shirts, maybe he didn't.
Post by bigdog
Was he supposed to deny that Oswald's fingerprints were found in the
sniper's nest?
He worked in that building. If YOU worked for a living I bet we could
find your fingerprints where you worked.
Post by bigdog
Was he supposed to deny that Oswald's fingerprints were on the rifle bag?
Fingerprints? He held it by his pinkie? Did you mean palmprints?
Post by bigdog
Was he supposed to deny that fibers in that bag matched the blanket Oswald
used to store his rifle?
He wouldn't need to. His lawyer Mark Lane would get it thrown out due to
cross-contamination.
Post by bigdog
Just what was he supposed to do with the hand that was dealt to him?
We've been over this millions of times and you keep repeating the same
old false evidence. You have no morals.
OHLeeRedux
2017-06-07 19:08:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bigdog
Post by Amy Joyce
Post by bigdog
Just what was he supposed to do. It's not as if there was a jury to be
hoodwinked the way the OJ jury was. Oswald was guilty as hell and the
evidence of that was overwhelming.
Bigdog, Seriously?
Why have a "defense" there if he wasn't going to doing anything but watch
(sometimes)?
Unless the WC was manipulating evidence against Oswald there wouldn't be
anything for him to object to. It's not like a criminal trial in which a
Mark Lane did have things to object to. Like suppression of evidence and
obstruction of justice.
Post by bigdog
lawyer who is defending a guilty client will still try to cast doubt on
Why do you ASSuME the suspect is guilty? Because you always ASSuME the
worst.
Post by bigdog
the evidence being presented by the prosecution. His goal is to create
reasonable doubt in the minds of the jurors. That's what criminal defense
Ever hear of the OJ Simpson trial? BTW, he's about to be released.
Expect a huge HBO special.
Post by bigdog
lawyers do. The lawyer at the fact finding body would have a much
different role. His job would not be to get a guilty man acquitted. His
role was simply to guard against bogus evidence being presented against
Oswald. Apparently there was nothing being presented that he found
objectionable.
Which is what the WC was doing. NAA?
Post by bigdog
Post by Amy Joyce
He should have done his job or something that resembled a
job.
Specifically what should he have objected to.
Kook baiting. If we list A THROUGH Y you will say that we left out Z so
our case is phony.
Post by bigdog
Post by Amy Joyce
The world was Oswald's jury and it became deadlocked despite the WC
presenting a one sided show. Of course the evidence appears to point
overwhelmingly at guilt when only the "DA" presents its case.
Deadlocked?
The HSCA only voted 7-5 guilty.
Post by bigdog
Was he supposed to present an alibi witness? There were none.
He could have it the DPD paid them off.
Post by bigdog
Was he supposed to deny that the rifle found on the sixth floor belonged
to Oswald?
You mean the Mauser? Oswald didn't own a Mauser. The DPD said it was a
Mauser.
Post by bigdog
Was he supposed to deny that all the recovered bullets and shells had been
fired from that rifle?
How many recovered bullets, plural? You are making up phony evidence.
(Shades of the OJ trial) Are you saying that YOU found the bullet from
your miss shot? Did YOU find the Lester bullet?
Post by bigdog
Was he supposed to deny that fibers in the butt plate of the rifle matched
the shirt Oswald was wearing when arrested?
That could have happened any time. There is no law against wearing the
same shirt twice.
Maybe he changed shirts, maybe he didn't.
Post by bigdog
Was he supposed to deny that Oswald's fingerprints were found in the
sniper's nest?
He worked in that building. If YOU worked for a living I bet we could
find your fingerprints where you worked.
Post by bigdog
Was he supposed to deny that Oswald's fingerprints were on the rifle bag?
Fingerprints? He held it by his pinkie? Did you mean palmprints?
Post by bigdog
Was he supposed to deny that fibers in that bag matched the blanket Oswald
used to store his rifle?
He wouldn't need to. His lawyer Mark Lane would get it thrown out due to
cross-contamination.
Post by bigdog
Just what was he supposed to do with the hand that was dealt to him?
We've been over this millions of times and you keep repeating the same
old false evidence. You have no morals.
Says the man who tells more "alternative facts" than anyone else on the
Internet.
claviger
2017-06-01 22:59:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Amy Joyce
Although new to this forum I have been researching JFK for some time now.
After experience in similar/other forums I was hesitant to join because I
despise fallacy arguments, mostly gaslighting, but also any that steer
conversation away from polite debate toward trading insults. However I
enjoy it and look forward to it.
I'm not on the fence with my opinion and I don't think it matters much
what I think when I say that I'm disgusted with the WC's inquiry. Because
it wasn't a trial with a defense team and jury, they had a responsibility
to investigate different theories, examine any/all evidence, and consider
as much witness testimony as they could.
This is not to say that I don't think it's likely that Oswald in some way
(also irrelevant). By appearances it seems that Oswald was convicted,that
if the WC found him responsible, it must be true. However that's not due
process. Since he had no one to stand up for and defend him in an official
capacity, and that none was even allowed, makes me most suspicious. That
evidence evidence was held from public view for so long (and still is)
increases my suspicions (and anger). The possibility for a valid inquiry
has long since passed because most witnesses have died and evidence has
gotten lost, stolen, and destroyed.... Just sayin' :-)
There have been 10 primary investigations, 5 secondary investigations, 3
ancillary investigations, and 1 criminal trial investigation of the
assassination of President Kennedy.

alt.assassination.jfk ›
Official Investigations of JFK Assassination
54 posts by 12 authors
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!searchin/alt.assassination.jfk/claviger$20investigations$20JFK$20assassination%7Csort:relevance/alt.assassination.jfk/o2CLkhWF84A/8eTBMx1_oHAJ

JFK Lancer - Government Investigations
http://jfklancer.com/Investigations.html
claviger
2017-06-01 22:59:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Amy Joyce
Although new to this forum I have been researching JFK for some time now.
After experience in similar/other forums I was hesitant to join because I
despise fallacy arguments, mostly gaslighting, but also any that steer
conversation away from polite debate toward trading insults. However I
enjoy it and look forward to it.
I'm not on the fence with my opinion and I don't think it matters much
what I think when I say that I'm disgusted with the WC's inquiry. Because
it wasn't a trial with a defense team and jury, they had a responsibility
to investigate different theories, examine any/all evidence, and consider
as much witness testimony as they could.
This is not to say that I don't think it's likely that Oswald in some way
(also irrelevant). By appearances it seems that Oswald was convicted,that
if the WC found him responsible, it must be true. However that's not due
process. Since he had no one to stand up for and defend him in an official
capacity, and that none was even allowed, makes me most suspicious. That
evidence evidence was held from public view for so long (and still is)
increases my suspicions (and anger). The possibility for a valid inquiry
has long since passed because most witnesses have died and evidence has
gotten lost, stolen, and destroyed.... Just sayin' :-)
alt.assassination.jfk ›
Interesting essay on JFK's assassination by history professor
24 posts by 8 authors
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!searchin/alt.assassination.jfk/Interesting$20essay$20on$20JFK$20assassination$20by$20history$20professor%7Csort:relevance/alt.assassination.jfk/26_eVsk5jzs/FMthHgrvWEsJ
claviger
2017-06-01 22:59:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Amy Joyce
Although new to this forum I have been researching JFK for some time now.
After experience in similar/other forums I was hesitant to join because I
despise fallacy arguments, mostly gaslighting, but also any that steer
conversation away from polite debate toward trading insults. However I
enjoy it and look forward to it.
I'm not on the fence with my opinion and I don't think it matters much
what I think when I say that I'm disgusted with the WC's inquiry. Because
it wasn't a trial with a defense team and jury, they had a responsibility
to investigate different theories, examine any/all evidence, and consider
as much witness testimony as they could.
This is not to say that I don't think it's likely that Oswald in some way
(also irrelevant). By appearances it seems that Oswald was convicted,that
if the WC found him responsible, it must be true. However that's not due
process. Since he had no one to stand up for and defend him in an official
capacity, and that none was even allowed, makes me most suspicious. That
evidence evidence was held from public view for so long (and still is)
increases my suspicions (and anger). The possibility for a valid inquiry
has long since passed because most witnesses have died and evidence has
gotten lost, stolen, and destroyed.... Just sayin' :-)
alt.assassination.jfk ›
Ken's Merry Band of Truth Warriors.
69 posts by 15 authors
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!searchin/alt.assassination.jfk/Interesting$20essay$20on$20JFK$20assassination$20by$20history$20professor%7Csort:relevance/alt.assassination.jfk/IVJXhmk-fHQ/MVyC3RapGJIJ
bigdog
2017-06-02 11:57:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Amy Joyce
Although new to this forum I have been researching JFK for some time now.
After experience in similar/other forums I was hesitant to join because I
despise fallacy arguments, mostly gaslighting, but also any that steer
conversation away from polite debate toward trading insults. However I
enjoy it and look forward to it.
I'm not on the fence with my opinion and I don't think it matters much
what I think when I say that I'm disgusted with the WC's inquiry. Because
it wasn't a trial with a defense team and jury, they had a responsibility
to investigate different theories, examine any/all evidence, and consider
as much witness testimony as they could.
The WC did consider other theories and found them to be completely lacking
in evidence. All the available evidence pointed to Oswald and only Oswald.
Much of the investigation was done by the staff lawyers, not the seven
commissioners and to a man they all said they were eager to find evidence
of a conspiracy but there just wasn't any. They did consider the available
witness statements and found some to be not credible because it conflicted
with other known evidence. Do you think they should have accepted
eyewitness accounts that were erroneous?
Post by Amy Joyce
This is not to say that I don't think it's likely that Oswald in some way
(also irrelevant). By appearances it seems that Oswald was convicted,that
if the WC found him responsible, it must be true. However that's not due
process.
Due process is something that is given to a defendant in a criminal or
civil proceeding. The WC was not a trial, it was a fact finding body. Due
process is a requirement that must be given to the accused before the
government may deprive him/her of life, liberty, or property. Since the
government couldn't deprive Oswald of any of those things, they had no
obligation to afford him due process. Had they found evidence that someone
other than Oswald was involved that person or persons would be entitled to
due process, assuming they were still alive.
Post by Amy Joyce
Since he had no one to stand up for and defend him in an official
capacity, and that none was even allowed, makes me most suspicious. That
evidence evidence was held from public view for so long (and still is)
increases my suspicions (and anger). The possibility for a valid inquiry
has long since passed because most witnesses have died and evidence has
gotten lost, stolen, and destroyed.... Just sayin' :-)
The case has been investigated an reinvestigated to the point the
assassination is the most investigated crime in human history. For over 50
years conspiracy hobbyists have been trying to find credible evidence that
someone other than Oswald took part in the crime. They have found nothing
yet they continue on their never ending snipe hunt.
Anthony Marsh
2017-06-03 00:16:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by Amy Joyce
Although new to this forum I have been researching JFK for some time now.
After experience in similar/other forums I was hesitant to join because I
despise fallacy arguments, mostly gaslighting, but also any that steer
conversation away from polite debate toward trading insults. However I
enjoy it and look forward to it.
I'm not on the fence with my opinion and I don't think it matters much
what I think when I say that I'm disgusted with the WC's inquiry. Because
it wasn't a trial with a defense team and jury, they had a responsibility
to investigate different theories, examine any/all evidence, and consider
as much witness testimony as they could.
The WC did consider other theories and found them to be completely lacking
in evidence. All the available evidence pointed to Oswald and only Oswald.
Until Specter invented his Single-Bullet Theory, the WC report was going
to say three shots, three hits, no misses.
Post by bigdog
Much of the investigation was done by the staff lawyers, not the seven
And they relied on the FBI. Hoover thought it was a Communist conspiracy.
Post by bigdog
commissioners and to a man they all said they were eager to find evidence
of a conspiracy but there just wasn't any. They did consider the available
False. They were ordered to NOT find a conspiracy.
Post by bigdog
witness statements and found some to be not credible because it conflicted
with other known evidence. Do you think they should have accepted
eyewitness accounts that were erroneous?
Post by Amy Joyce
This is not to say that I don't think it's likely that Oswald in some way
(also irrelevant). By appearances it seems that Oswald was convicted,that
if the WC found him responsible, it must be true. However that's not due
process.
Due process is something that is given to a defendant in a criminal or
civil proceeding. The WC was not a trial, it was a fact finding body. Due
process is a requirement that must be given to the accused before the
government may deprive him/her of life, liberty, or property. Since the
government couldn't deprive Oswald of any of those things, they had no
obligation to afford him due process. Had they found evidence that someone
other than Oswald was involved that person or persons would be entitled to
due process, assuming they were still alive.
That's why they had to kill him.
Post by bigdog
Post by Amy Joyce
Since he had no one to stand up for and defend him in an official
capacity, and that none was even allowed, makes me most suspicious. That
He did. Mark Lane.
Post by bigdog
Post by Amy Joyce
evidence evidence was held from public view for so long (and still is)
increases my suspicions (and anger). The possibility for a valid inquiry
has long since passed because most witnesses have died and evidence has
gotten lost, stolen, and destroyed.... Just sayin' :-)
The case has been investigated an reinvestigated to the point the
assassination is the most investigated crime in human history. For over 50
years conspiracy hobbyists have been trying to find credible evidence that
someone other than Oswald took part in the crime. They have found nothing
yet they continue on their never ending snipe hunt.
Amy Joyce
2017-06-03 22:20:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by Amy Joyce
Although new to this forum I have been researching JFK for some time now.
After experience in similar/other forums I was hesitant to join because I
despise fallacy arguments, mostly gaslighting, but also any that steer
conversation away from polite debate toward trading insults. However I
enjoy it and look forward to it.
I'm not on the fence with my opinion and I don't think it matters much
what I think when I say that I'm disgusted with the WC's inquiry. Because
it wasn't a trial with a defense team and jury, they had a responsibility
to investigate different theories, examine any/all evidence, and consider
as much witness testimony as they could.
The WC did consider other theories and found them to be completely lacking
in evidence. All the available evidence pointed to Oswald and only Oswald.
Much of the investigation was done by the staff lawyers, not the seven
commissioners and to a man they all said they were eager to find evidence
of a conspiracy but there just wasn't any. They did consider the available
witness statements and found some to be not credible because it conflicted
with other known evidence. Do you think they should have accepted
eyewitness accounts that were erroneous?
I think they should have questioned, listened to, and considered witnesses
that were close enough to see anything or had anything of relevance to
offer. For example: the Newman's, Officers Jackson and Chaney, Marie
Muchmore, the Railroad Employess etc. etc., -all. Seems that they only
RE-questioned people that had already given statements to the FBI or DPD,
because they knew they were going to give corroborating evidence to the
one theory they wanted to prove. That isn't an investigation, it's the
presentation of one side of facts - as they see it. That it may have
"conflicted with other evidence" is exactly why they should be questioned
and contemplated. It otherwise appears biased. Why question anyone again
if that's the case?
Post by bigdog
Post by Amy Joyce
This is not to say that I don't think it's likely that Oswald in some way
(also irrelevant). By appearances it seems that Oswald was convicted,that
if the WC found him responsible, it must be true. However that's not due
process.
Due process is something that is given to a defendant in a criminal or
civil proceeding. The WC was not a trial, it was a fact finding body. Due
process is a requirement that must be given to the accused before the
government may deprive him/her of life, liberty, or property. Since the
government couldn't deprive Oswald of any of those things, they had no
obligation to afford him due process. Had they found evidence that someone
other than Oswald was involved that person or persons would be entitled to
due process, assuming they were still alive.
Post by Amy Joyce
Since he had no one to stand up for and defend him in an official
capacity, and that none was even allowed, makes me most suspicious. That
evidence evidence was held from public view for so long (and still is)
increases my suspicions (and anger). The possibility for a valid inquiry
has long since passed because most witnesses have died and evidence has
gotten lost, stolen, and destroyed.... Just sayin' :-)
The case has been investigated an reinvestigated to the point the
assassination is the most investigated crime in human history. For over 50
years conspiracy hobbyists have been trying to find credible evidence that
someone other than Oswald took part in the crime. They have found nothing
yet they continue on their never ending snipe hunt.
Much changed after the WC. If there ever was a real trial, it's
questionable that illegally obtained evidence (such as the autopsy), would
have been allowed. Testimony from Parkland doctors, which was inconsistent
with WC conclusions, would have had to suffice. Speaking of the autopsy,
the preliminary autopsy report indicated that the first bullet striking
JFK had struck his back and lodged in his shoulder; that the throat injury
was caused by the head shot bullet deflecting, eventually traveling
throughout and exiting the throat (apparently to answer questions of a
bullet coming from the front). How could it be so wrong twice? Obviously
this didn't coincide with the film that doctors didn't yet know about.
Autopsy findings appeared easier to change up to 3 times rather than
admitting that there wasn't conclusive evidence to find that all shots
came from one location.
bigdog
2017-06-04 16:32:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Amy Joyce
Post by bigdog
Post by Amy Joyce
Although new to this forum I have been researching JFK for some time now.
After experience in similar/other forums I was hesitant to join because I
despise fallacy arguments, mostly gaslighting, but also any that steer
conversation away from polite debate toward trading insults. However I
enjoy it and look forward to it.
I'm not on the fence with my opinion and I don't think it matters much
what I think when I say that I'm disgusted with the WC's inquiry. Because
it wasn't a trial with a defense team and jury, they had a responsibility
to investigate different theories, examine any/all evidence, and consider
as much witness testimony as they could.
The WC did consider other theories and found them to be completely lacking
in evidence. All the available evidence pointed to Oswald and only Oswald.
Much of the investigation was done by the staff lawyers, not the seven
commissioners and to a man they all said they were eager to find evidence
of a conspiracy but there just wasn't any. They did consider the available
witness statements and found some to be not credible because it conflicted
with other known evidence. Do you think they should have accepted
eyewitness accounts that were erroneous?
I think they should have questioned, listened to, and considered witnesses
that were close enough to see anything or had anything of relevance to
offer. For example: the Newman's, Officers Jackson and Chaney, Marie
Muchmore, the Railroad Employess etc. etc., -all. Seems that they only
RE-questioned people that had already given statements to the FBI or DPD,
because they knew they were going to give corroborating evidence to the
one theory they wanted to prove. That isn't an investigation, it's the
presentation of one side of facts - as they see it. That it may have
"conflicted with other evidence" is exactly why they should be questioned
and contemplated. It otherwise appears biased. Why question anyone again
if that's the case?
The WC made judgement calls as to which witnesses they believed offered
enough information that it was worth calling them to testify under oath.
To do that they reviewed statements, affidavits, etc. of numerous
witnesses. Even those that didn't testify were included in the 26 volumes
of supporting data.
Post by Amy Joyce
Post by bigdog
Post by Amy Joyce
This is not to say that I don't think it's likely that Oswald in some way
(also irrelevant). By appearances it seems that Oswald was convicted,that
if the WC found him responsible, it must be true. However that's not due
process.
Due process is something that is given to a defendant in a criminal or
civil proceeding. The WC was not a trial, it was a fact finding body. Due
process is a requirement that must be given to the accused before the
government may deprive him/her of life, liberty, or property. Since the
government couldn't deprive Oswald of any of those things, they had no
obligation to afford him due process. Had they found evidence that someone
other than Oswald was involved that person or persons would be entitled to
due process, assuming they were still alive.
Post by Amy Joyce
Since he had no one to stand up for and defend him in an official
capacity, and that none was even allowed, makes me most suspicious. That
evidence evidence was held from public view for so long (and still is)
increases my suspicions (and anger). The possibility for a valid inquiry
has long since passed because most witnesses have died and evidence has
gotten lost, stolen, and destroyed.... Just sayin' :-)
The case has been investigated an reinvestigated to the point the
assassination is the most investigated crime in human history. For over 50
years conspiracy hobbyists have been trying to find credible evidence that
someone other than Oswald took part in the crime. They have found nothing
yet they continue on their never ending snipe hunt.
Much changed after the WC. If there ever was a real trial, it's
questionable that illegally obtained evidence (such as the autopsy),
There was nothing illegal about the autopsy.
Post by Amy Joyce
would
have been allowed. Testimony from Parkland doctors, which was inconsistent
with WC conclusions, would have had to suffice.
Can you cite an attorney who shares that view?
Post by Amy Joyce
Speaking of the autopsy,
the preliminary autopsy report indicated that the first bullet striking
JFK had struck his back and lodged in his shoulder;
Simply not true. You seem to have gotten a lot of bad information from
kook websites.
Post by Amy Joyce
that the throat injury
was caused by the head shot bullet deflecting,
More crap.
Post by Amy Joyce
eventually traveling
throughout and exiting the throat (apparently to answer questions of a
bullet coming from the front). How could it be so wrong twice? Obviously
this didn't coincide with the film that doctors didn't yet know about.
Autopsy findings appeared easier to change up to 3 times rather than
admitting that there wasn't conclusive evidence to find that all shots
came from one location.
The autopsy team produced ONE report at the conclusion of the autopsy
which all three pathologists signed. During the autopsy a number of ideas
were explored and some were rejected as more information was gathered.
Their conclusions were written in their report which was written after
they obtained all the pertinent data including information obtained from
the staff at Parkland.

The original autopsy was reviewed by a number of panels consisting of some
of the most respected medical examiners in the country and while they
found fault with some of the methodology, they all concurred with the
fundamental conclusion that JFK had been shot twice from behind. You won't
find a single qualified medical examiner who has reviewed the evidence who
disputes that finding. Only kooks think they can look at a few photos and
come to better conclusions than the professionals who saw far more photos
and x-rays than were ever leaked to the public.
Anthony Marsh
2017-06-05 14:11:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by Amy Joyce
Post by bigdog
Post by Amy Joyce
Although new to this forum I have been researching JFK for some time now.
After experience in similar/other forums I was hesitant to join because I
despise fallacy arguments, mostly gaslighting, but also any that steer
conversation away from polite debate toward trading insults. However I
enjoy it and look forward to it.
I'm not on the fence with my opinion and I don't think it matters much
what I think when I say that I'm disgusted with the WC's inquiry. Because
it wasn't a trial with a defense team and jury, they had a responsibility
to investigate different theories, examine any/all evidence, and consider
as much witness testimony as they could.
The WC did consider other theories and found them to be completely lacking
in evidence. All the available evidence pointed to Oswald and only Oswald.
Much of the investigation was done by the staff lawyers, not the seven
commissioners and to a man they all said they were eager to find evidence
of a conspiracy but there just wasn't any. They did consider the available
witness statements and found some to be not credible because it conflicted
with other known evidence. Do you think they should have accepted
eyewitness accounts that were erroneous?
I think they should have questioned, listened to, and considered witnesses
that were close enough to see anything or had anything of relevance to
offer. For example: the Newman's, Officers Jackson and Chaney, Marie
Muchmore, the Railroad Employess etc. etc., -all. Seems that they only
RE-questioned people that had already given statements to the FBI or DPD,
because they knew they were going to give corroborating evidence to the
one theory they wanted to prove. That isn't an investigation, it's the
presentation of one side of facts - as they see it. That it may have
"conflicted with other evidence" is exactly why they should be questioned
and contemplated. It otherwise appears biased. Why question anyone again
if that's the case?
The WC made judgement calls as to which witnesses they believed offered
enough information that it was worth calling them to testify under oath.
To do that they reviewed statements, affidavits, etc. of numerous
witnesses. Even those that didn't testify were included in the 26 volumes
of supporting data.
Post by Amy Joyce
Post by bigdog
Post by Amy Joyce
This is not to say that I don't think it's likely that Oswald in some way
(also irrelevant). By appearances it seems that Oswald was convicted,that
if the WC found him responsible, it must be true. However that's not due
process.
Due process is something that is given to a defendant in a criminal or
civil proceeding. The WC was not a trial, it was a fact finding body. Due
process is a requirement that must be given to the accused before the
government may deprive him/her of life, liberty, or property. Since the
government couldn't deprive Oswald of any of those things, they had no
obligation to afford him due process. Had they found evidence that someone
other than Oswald was involved that person or persons would be entitled to
due process, assuming they were still alive.
Post by Amy Joyce
Since he had no one to stand up for and defend him in an official
capacity, and that none was even allowed, makes me most suspicious. That
evidence evidence was held from public view for so long (and still is)
increases my suspicions (and anger). The possibility for a valid inquiry
has long since passed because most witnesses have died and evidence has
gotten lost, stolen, and destroyed.... Just sayin' :-)
The case has been investigated an reinvestigated to the point the
assassination is the most investigated crime in human history. For over 50
years conspiracy hobbyists have been trying to find credible evidence that
someone other than Oswald took part in the crime. They have found nothing
yet they continue on their never ending snipe hunt.
Much changed after the WC. If there ever was a real trial, it's
questionable that illegally obtained evidence (such as the autopsy),
There was nothing illegal about the autopsy.
Post by Amy Joyce
would
have been allowed. Testimony from Parkland doctors, which was inconsistent
with WC conclusions, would have had to suffice.
Can you cite an attorney who shares that view?
Post by Amy Joyce
Speaking of the autopsy,
the preliminary autopsy report indicated that the first bullet striking
JFK had struck his back and lodged in his shoulder;
Simply not true. You seem to have gotten a lot of bad information from
kook websites.
You mean the WC?
Post by bigdog
Post by Amy Joyce
that the throat injury
was caused by the head shot bullet deflecting,
More crap.
It was in the Boston Globe the next day, for Christ's sake.

Loading Image...

And I never heard you complain about LIFE's theory that JFK got shot in
the throat by a nullet fraom the sniper's nest when JFK turned his head to
look back.

Loading Image...

Only conspiracy kooks do that.

You don't even see anything wrong with this drawing from Langley's book:

Loading Image...
Post by bigdog
Post by Amy Joyce
eventually traveling
throughout and exiting the throat (apparently to answer questions of a
bullet coming from the front). How could it be so wrong twice? Obviously
this didn't coincide with the film that doctors didn't yet know about.
Autopsy findings appeared easier to change up to 3 times rather than
admitting that there wasn't conclusive evidence to find that all shots
came from one location.
The autopsy team produced ONE report at the conclusion of the autopsy
False. Humes wrote 2 or 3 autopsy reports. The first was a draft. The
second one he submitted and it was rejected and he was told to write
another one. The one we have been allowed to see is the third.
Post by bigdog
which all three pathologists signed. During the autopsy a number of ideas
were explored and some were rejected as more information was gathered.
Didn't you believe his Ice Bullet Theory?
Post by bigdog
Their conclusions were written in their report which was written after
they obtained all the pertinent data including information obtained from
the staff at Parkland.
Something like that. And being ordered to rewrite it.
Post by bigdog
The original autopsy was reviewed by a number of panels consisting of some
of the most respected medical examiners in the country and while they
found fault with some of the methodology, they all concurred with the
fundamental conclusion that JFK had been shot twice from behind. You won't
So you now acccept the HSCA version because you're really not a WC
defender? Or you just don't care where the bullet hit as long as it hit
the head somehere?
Post by bigdog
find a single qualified medical examiner who has reviewed the evidence who
disputes that finding. Only kooks think they can look at a few photos and
come to better conclusions than the professionals who saw far more photos
and x-rays than were ever leaked to the public.
Well, at least we look at the autopsy photos. You don't. Now you know
why the WC didn't publish them.
mainframetech
2017-06-05 23:17:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by Amy Joyce
Post by bigdog
Post by Amy Joyce
Although new to this forum I have been researching JFK for some time now.
After experience in similar/other forums I was hesitant to join because I
despise fallacy arguments, mostly gaslighting, but also any that steer
conversation away from polite debate toward trading insults. However I
enjoy it and look forward to it.
I'm not on the fence with my opinion and I don't think it matters much
what I think when I say that I'm disgusted with the WC's inquiry. Because
it wasn't a trial with a defense team and jury, they had a responsibility
to investigate different theories, examine any/all evidence, and consider
as much witness testimony as they could.
The WC did consider other theories and found them to be completely lacking
in evidence. All the available evidence pointed to Oswald and only Oswald.
Much of the investigation was done by the staff lawyers, not the seven
commissioners and to a man they all said they were eager to find evidence
of a conspiracy but there just wasn't any. They did consider the available
witness statements and found some to be not credible because it conflicted
with other known evidence. Do you think they should have accepted
eyewitness accounts that were erroneous?
I think they should have questioned, listened to, and considered witnesses
that were close enough to see anything or had anything of relevance to
offer. For example: the Newman's, Officers Jackson and Chaney, Marie
Muchmore, the Railroad Employess etc. etc., -all. Seems that they only
RE-questioned people that had already given statements to the FBI or DPD,
because they knew they were going to give corroborating evidence to the
one theory they wanted to prove. That isn't an investigation, it's the
presentation of one side of facts - as they see it. That it may have
"conflicted with other evidence" is exactly why they should be questioned
and contemplated. It otherwise appears biased. Why question anyone again
if that's the case?
The WC made judgement calls as to which witnesses they believed offered
enough information that it was worth calling them to testify under oath.
To do that they reviewed statements, affidavits, etc. of numerous
witnesses. Even those that didn't testify were included in the 26 volumes
of supporting data.
WRONG! Now we have your opinion, but the fact is that the FBI didn't
present witnesses to the WC if they showed info that suggested conspiracy.
And the lawyers for the WC also did all that they could to make it a crime
possible to be executed by a single 'lone nut' killer. They had 3
bullets, but many wounds, so they devised the 'single bullet' theory
(SBT), that allowed one bullet to hit 2 men 7 times including 2 bone
strikes and it came away looking almost like new. Fortunately, that
theory has been disproved, though you won't admit it.
Post by bigdog
Post by Amy Joyce
Post by bigdog
Post by Amy Joyce
This is not to say that I don't think it's likely that Oswald in some way
(also irrelevant). By appearances it seems that Oswald was convicted,that
if the WC found him responsible, it must be true. However that's not due
process.
Due process is something that is given to a defendant in a criminal or
civil proceeding. The WC was not a trial, it was a fact finding body. Due
process is a requirement that must be given to the accused before the
government may deprive him/her of life, liberty, or property. Since the
government couldn't deprive Oswald of any of those things, they had no
obligation to afford him due process. Had they found evidence that someone
other than Oswald was involved that person or persons would be entitled to
due process, assuming they were still alive.
Post by Amy Joyce
Since he had no one to stand up for and defend him in an official
capacity, and that none was even allowed, makes me most suspicious. That
evidence evidence was held from public view for so long (and still is)
increases my suspicions (and anger). The possibility for a valid inquiry
has long since passed because most witnesses have died and evidence has
gotten lost, stolen, and destroyed.... Just sayin' :-)
The case has been investigated an reinvestigated to the point the
assassination is the most investigated crime in human history. For over 50
years conspiracy hobbyists have been trying to find credible evidence that
someone other than Oswald took part in the crime. They have found nothing
yet they continue on their never ending snipe hunt.
Much changed after the WC. If there ever was a real trial, it's
questionable that illegally obtained evidence (such as the autopsy),
There was nothing illegal about the autopsy.
While true, there was nothing right about the final Autopsy Report
(AR). The conclusions reached DURING the autopsy were not what Humes put
into his AR.
Post by bigdog
Post by Amy Joyce
would
have been allowed. Testimony from Parkland doctors, which was inconsistent
with WC conclusions, would have had to suffice.
Can you cite an attorney who shares that view?
Post by Amy Joyce
Speaking of the autopsy,
the preliminary autopsy report indicated that the first bullet striking
JFK had struck his back and lodged in his shoulder;
Simply not true. You seem to have gotten a lot of bad information from
kook websites.
Post by Amy Joyce
that the throat injury
was caused by the head shot bullet deflecting,
More crap.
Post by Amy Joyce
eventually traveling
throughout and exiting the throat (apparently to answer questions of a
bullet coming from the front). How could it be so wrong twice? Obviously
this didn't coincide with the film that doctors didn't yet know about.
Autopsy findings appeared easier to change up to 3 times rather than
admitting that there wasn't conclusive evidence to find that all shots
came from one location.
The autopsy team produced ONE report at the conclusion of the autopsy
which all three pathologists signed. During the autopsy a number of ideas
were explored and some were rejected as more information was gathered.
Their conclusions were written in their report which was written after
they obtained all the pertinent data including information obtained from
the staff at Parkland.
WRONG! The prosectors came to conclusions early in the autopsy that
"There's NO EXIT" from the body for the back wound bullet. As the autopsy
progressed, they saw the PROOF of that conclusion when the organs were
removed and they could see the PROOF where the bullet had stopped at the
pleura and left bruising there, but NO path through ANY tissue. The back
wound was only about an inch deep before the pleura. As one autopsy team
member put it, it was a 'short shot', which sometimes happens with a
bullet when the powder is bad, or some other reason causes it to lose the
energy it originally should have had.
Post by bigdog
The original autopsy was reviewed by a number of panels consisting of some
of the most respected medical examiners in the country and while they
found fault with some of the methodology, they all concurred with the
fundamental conclusion that JFK had been shot twice from behind. You won't
find a single qualified medical examiner who has reviewed the evidence who
disputes that finding. Only kooks think they can look at a few photos and
come to better conclusions than the professionals who saw far more photos
and x-rays than were ever leaked to the public.
Many of the photos and X-rays were missing and that is the statements
of the X-ray Technician that tool ALL X-rays, and photographers that were
forced to sign off that all photos were present, when they knew that many
were missing.

The medical panels that were asked to examine the evidence came out
with the same conclusions that you can read in the AR. Ondce thety read
the false AR, there were no photos or X-rays left that could show them the
truth. Except the 'stare-of-death' photo that was missed by the panels.
That photo shows the forehead bullet hole that came in from the front.
It was hard to se though, and they missed it.

If the panels had seen the internal organs as the autopsy team members
had seen, and if they had the ability to hear the statements and sworn
testimony of the men of Bethesda, they would have ruled differently.
They were misled and chose the easy path to agree with the AR. All the
above can be shown with cites and links on request.

Chris
bigdog
2017-06-06 20:39:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by Amy Joyce
Post by bigdog
Post by Amy Joyce
Although new to this forum I have been researching JFK for some time now.
After experience in similar/other forums I was hesitant to join because I
despise fallacy arguments, mostly gaslighting, but also any that steer
conversation away from polite debate toward trading insults. However I
enjoy it and look forward to it.
I'm not on the fence with my opinion and I don't think it matters much
what I think when I say that I'm disgusted with the WC's inquiry. Because
it wasn't a trial with a defense team and jury, they had a responsibility
to investigate different theories, examine any/all evidence, and consider
as much witness testimony as they could.
The WC did consider other theories and found them to be completely lacking
in evidence. All the available evidence pointed to Oswald and only Oswald.
Much of the investigation was done by the staff lawyers, not the seven
commissioners and to a man they all said they were eager to find evidence
of a conspiracy but there just wasn't any. They did consider the available
witness statements and found some to be not credible because it conflicted
with other known evidence. Do you think they should have accepted
eyewitness accounts that were erroneous?
I think they should have questioned, listened to, and considered witnesses
that were close enough to see anything or had anything of relevance to
offer. For example: the Newman's, Officers Jackson and Chaney, Marie
Muchmore, the Railroad Employess etc. etc., -all. Seems that they only
RE-questioned people that had already given statements to the FBI or DPD,
because they knew they were going to give corroborating evidence to the
one theory they wanted to prove. That isn't an investigation, it's the
presentation of one side of facts - as they see it. That it may have
"conflicted with other evidence" is exactly why they should be questioned
and contemplated. It otherwise appears biased. Why question anyone again
if that's the case?
The WC made judgement calls as to which witnesses they believed offered
enough information that it was worth calling them to testify under oath.
To do that they reviewed statements, affidavits, etc. of numerous
witnesses. Even those that didn't testify were included in the 26 volumes
of supporting data.
WRONG! Now we have your opinion, but the fact is that the FBI didn't
present witnesses to the WC if they showed info that suggested conspiracy.
Nonsense. The people who were called to testify before the Commision were
the ones it was believed could offer useful information. Those judgements
were based on preliminary statements those people had already made.
Records of all those statements are included in the 26 volumes of
exhibits. It would have made no sense whatsoever to call every person who
had been in Dealey Plaza to testify.
Post by mainframetech
And the lawyers for the WC also did all that they could to make it a crime
possible to be executed by a single 'lone nut' killer.
It was a crime that could be executed by a single 'lone nut' killer.
Nothing complicated about it. Stick a rifle out a window and shoot the
POTUS. Why would that require more than one man?
Post by mainframetech
They had 3
bullets, but many wounds, so they devised the 'single bullet' theory
(SBT), that allowed one bullet to hit 2 men 7 times including 2 bone
strikes and it came away looking almost like new. Fortunately, that
theory has been disproved, though you won't admit it.
The bullet was powerful enough to easily penetrated through two men. You
continue to repeat the myth that the bullet emerged looking almost new.
That is pure nonsense. You have disproven nothing regarding the SBT. All
you have done is continue to repeat your own bullshit.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by Amy Joyce
Post by bigdog
Post by Amy Joyce
This is not to say that I don't think it's likely that Oswald in some way
(also irrelevant). By appearances it seems that Oswald was convicted,that
if the WC found him responsible, it must be true. However that's not due
process.
Due process is something that is given to a defendant in a criminal or
civil proceeding. The WC was not a trial, it was a fact finding body. Due
process is a requirement that must be given to the accused before the
government may deprive him/her of life, liberty, or property. Since the
government couldn't deprive Oswald of any of those things, they had no
obligation to afford him due process. Had they found evidence that someone
other than Oswald was involved that person or persons would be entitled to
due process, assuming they were still alive.
Post by Amy Joyce
Since he had no one to stand up for and defend him in an official
capacity, and that none was even allowed, makes me most suspicious. That
evidence evidence was held from public view for so long (and still is)
increases my suspicions (and anger). The possibility for a valid inquiry
has long since passed because most witnesses have died and evidence has
gotten lost, stolen, and destroyed.... Just sayin' :-)
The case has been investigated an reinvestigated to the point the
assassination is the most investigated crime in human history. For over 50
years conspiracy hobbyists have been trying to find credible evidence that
someone other than Oswald took part in the crime. They have found nothing
yet they continue on their never ending snipe hunt.
Much changed after the WC. If there ever was a real trial, it's
questionable that illegally obtained evidence (such as the autopsy),
There was nothing illegal about the autopsy.
While true, there was nothing right about the final Autopsy Report
(AR).
Because you say so.
Post by mainframetech
The conclusions reached DURING the autopsy were not what Humes put
into his AR.
No conclusions were reached during the autopsy. It would be pretty silly
to reach conclusions before all the facts were known. That is something
conspiracy hobbyists do.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by Amy Joyce
would
have been allowed. Testimony from Parkland doctors, which was inconsistent
with WC conclusions, would have had to suffice.
Can you cite an attorney who shares that view?
Post by Amy Joyce
Speaking of the autopsy,
the preliminary autopsy report indicated that the first bullet striking
JFK had struck his back and lodged in his shoulder;
Simply not true. You seem to have gotten a lot of bad information from
kook websites.
Post by Amy Joyce
that the throat injury
was caused by the head shot bullet deflecting,
More crap.
Post by Amy Joyce
eventually traveling
throughout and exiting the throat (apparently to answer questions of a
bullet coming from the front). How could it be so wrong twice? Obviously
this didn't coincide with the film that doctors didn't yet know about.
Autopsy findings appeared easier to change up to 3 times rather than
admitting that there wasn't conclusive evidence to find that all shots
came from one location.
The autopsy team produced ONE report at the conclusion of the autopsy
which all three pathologists signed. During the autopsy a number of ideas
were explored and some were rejected as more information was gathered.
Their conclusions were written in their report which was written after
they obtained all the pertinent data including information obtained from
the staff at Parkland.
WRONG! The prosectors came to conclusions early in the autopsy that
"There's NO EXIT" from the body for the back wound bullet.
Thank you for demonstrating what I just said about conspiracy hobbyists
being silly enough to reach conclusions before they had all the facts.
Post by mainframetech
As the autopsy
progressed, they saw the PROOF of that conclusion when the organs were
removed and they could see the PROOF where the bullet had stopped at the
pleura and left bruising there, but NO path through ANY tissue. The back
wound was only about an inch deep before the pleura. As one autopsy team
member put it, it was a 'short shot', which sometimes happens with a
bullet when the powder is bad, or some other reason causes it to lose the
energy it originally should have had.
It's real simple. We have two technicians who claimed years later that
that the bullet stopped at the pleura and we have the pathologists who all
signed a report that said the bullet exited and the opinions of teams of
the most highly respected medical examiners in the country who reviewed
the photos and x-rays who concurred that the bullet had exited. So which
of those conclusions do you think should carry the more weight.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
The original autopsy was reviewed by a number of panels consisting of some
of the most respected medical examiners in the country and while they
found fault with some of the methodology, they all concurred with the
fundamental conclusion that JFK had been shot twice from behind. You won't
find a single qualified medical examiner who has reviewed the evidence who
disputes that finding. Only kooks think they can look at a few photos and
come to better conclusions than the professionals who saw far more photos
and x-rays than were ever leaked to the public.
Many of the photos and X-rays were missing and that is the statements
of the X-ray Technician that tool ALL X-rays, and photographers that were
forced to sign off that all photos were present, when they knew that many
were missing.
The review panels saw photos and x-rays which established that the bullet
had exited. That opinion is unanimous. You have never been able to cite a
single qualified medical examiner who has disputed that finding. All you
have are the opinions of people who are completely unqualified to make
such judgements. The technicians. Doug Horne. Yourself.
Post by mainframetech
The medical panels that were asked to examine the evidence came out
with the same conclusions that you can read in the AR. Ondce thety read
the false AR, there were no photos or X-rays left that could show them the
truth.
They based their conclusions on what they did see and what they saw was
more than enough to convince them that the bullet had exited. They saw the
trail of tissue damage from the back wound to exit in the throat. They saw
that the trachea had been struck by a bullet. All they had to do was
connect the dots. Simple stuff for medical examiners. They do that sort of
thing all the time.
Post by mainframetech
Except the 'stare-of-death' photo that was missed by the panels.
What is your evidence that they missed it? Oh yeah. They didn't see what
you saw even though they had a much higher quality version of that photo
than you did. But you think your judgement should supercede theirs. That's
laughable.
Post by mainframetech
That photo shows the forehead bullet hole that came in from the front.
It was hard to se though, and they missed it.
It shows no such thing. You have imagined that because you desperately
want to believe that.
Post by mainframetech
If the panels had seen the internal organs as the autopsy team members
had seen, and if they had the ability to hear the statements and sworn
testimony of the men of Bethesda, they would have ruled differently.
The prosectors saw all that and concluded that the bullet exited. The review
panels saw the photos and x-rays of the same and concurred.
Post by mainframetech
They were misled and chose the easy path to agree with the AR. All the
above can be shown with cites and links on request.
We are supposed to believe they were misled because their conclusions
didn't agree with yours. You never fail to amuse us.
mainframetech
2017-06-07 16:28:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by Amy Joyce
Post by bigdog
Post by Amy Joyce
Although new to this forum I have been researching JFK for some time now.
After experience in similar/other forums I was hesitant to join because I
despise fallacy arguments, mostly gaslighting, but also any that steer
conversation away from polite debate toward trading insults. However I
enjoy it and look forward to it.
I'm not on the fence with my opinion and I don't think it matters much
what I think when I say that I'm disgusted with the WC's inquiry. Because
it wasn't a trial with a defense team and jury, they had a responsibility
to investigate different theories, examine any/all evidence, and consider
as much witness testimony as they could.
The WC did consider other theories and found them to be completely lacking
in evidence. All the available evidence pointed to Oswald and only Oswald.
Much of the investigation was done by the staff lawyers, not the seven
commissioners and to a man they all said they were eager to find evidence
of a conspiracy but there just wasn't any. They did consider the available
witness statements and found some to be not credible because it conflicted
with other known evidence. Do you think they should have accepted
eyewitness accounts that were erroneous?
I think they should have questioned, listened to, and considered witnesses
that were close enough to see anything or had anything of relevance to
offer. For example: the Newman's, Officers Jackson and Chaney, Marie
Muchmore, the Railroad Employess etc. etc., -all. Seems that they only
RE-questioned people that had already given statements to the FBI or DPD,
because they knew they were going to give corroborating evidence to the
one theory they wanted to prove. That isn't an investigation, it's the
presentation of one side of facts - as they see it. That it may have
"conflicted with other evidence" is exactly why they should be questioned
and contemplated. It otherwise appears biased. Why question anyone again
if that's the case?
The WC made judgement calls as to which witnesses they believed offered
enough information that it was worth calling them to testify under oath.
To do that they reviewed statements, affidavits, etc. of numerous
witnesses. Even those that didn't testify were included in the 26 volumes
of supporting data.
WRONG! Now we have your opinion, but the fact is that the FBI didn't
present witnesses to the WC if they showed info that suggested conspiracy.
Nonsense. The people who were called to testify before the Commision were
the ones it was believed could offer useful information. Those judgements
were based on preliminary statements those people had already made.
Records of all those statements are included in the 26 volumes of
exhibits. It would have made no sense whatsoever to call every person who
had been in Dealey Plaza to testify.
Post by mainframetech
And the lawyers for the WC also did all that they could to make it a crime
possible to be executed by a single 'lone nut' killer.
It was a crime that could be executed by a single 'lone nut' killer.
Nothing complicated about it. Stick a rifle out a window and shoot the
POTUS. Why would that require more than one man?
Post by mainframetech
They had 3
bullets, but many wounds, so they devised the 'single bullet' theory
(SBT), that allowed one bullet to hit 2 men 7 times including 2 bone
strikes and it came away looking almost like new. Fortunately, that
theory has been disproved, though you won't admit it.
The bullet was powerful enough to easily penetrated through two men. You
continue to repeat the myth that the bullet emerged looking almost new.
That is pure nonsense. You have disproven nothing regarding the SBT. All
you have done is continue to repeat your own bullshit.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by Amy Joyce
Post by bigdog
Post by Amy Joyce
This is not to say that I don't think it's likely that Oswald in some way
(also irrelevant). By appearances it seems that Oswald was convicted,that
if the WC found him responsible, it must be true. However that's not due
process.
Due process is something that is given to a defendant in a criminal or
civil proceeding. The WC was not a trial, it was a fact finding body. Due
process is a requirement that must be given to the accused before the
government may deprive him/her of life, liberty, or property. Since the
government couldn't deprive Oswald of any of those things, they had no
obligation to afford him due process. Had they found evidence that someone
other than Oswald was involved that person or persons would be entitled to
due process, assuming they were still alive.
Post by Amy Joyce
Since he had no one to stand up for and defend him in an official
capacity, and that none was even allowed, makes me most suspicious. That
evidence evidence was held from public view for so long (and still is)
increases my suspicions (and anger). The possibility for a valid inquiry
has long since passed because most witnesses have died and evidence has
gotten lost, stolen, and destroyed.... Just sayin' :-)
The case has been investigated an reinvestigated to the point the
assassination is the most investigated crime in human history. For over 50
years conspiracy hobbyists have been trying to find credible evidence that
someone other than Oswald took part in the crime. They have found nothing
yet they continue on their never ending snipe hunt.
Much changed after the WC. If there ever was a real trial, it's
questionable that illegally obtained evidence (such as the autopsy),
There was nothing illegal about the autopsy.
While true, there was nothing right about the final Autopsy Report
(AR).
Because you say so.
Post by mainframetech
The conclusions reached DURING the autopsy were not what Humes put
into his AR.
No conclusions were reached during the autopsy. It would be pretty silly
to reach conclusions before all the facts were known. That is something
conspiracy hobbyists do.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by Amy Joyce
would
have been allowed. Testimony from Parkland doctors, which was inconsistent
with WC conclusions, would have had to suffice.
Can you cite an attorney who shares that view?
Post by Amy Joyce
Speaking of the autopsy,
the preliminary autopsy report indicated that the first bullet striking
JFK had struck his back and lodged in his shoulder;
Simply not true. You seem to have gotten a lot of bad information from
kook websites.
Post by Amy Joyce
that the throat injury
was caused by the head shot bullet deflecting,
More crap.
Post by Amy Joyce
eventually traveling
throughout and exiting the throat (apparently to answer questions of a
bullet coming from the front). How could it be so wrong twice? Obviously
this didn't coincide with the film that doctors didn't yet know about.
Autopsy findings appeared easier to change up to 3 times rather than
admitting that there wasn't conclusive evidence to find that all shots
came from one location.
The autopsy team produced ONE report at the conclusion of the autopsy
which all three pathologists signed. During the autopsy a number of ideas
were explored and some were rejected as more information was gathered.
Their conclusions were written in their report which was written after
they obtained all the pertinent data including information obtained from
the staff at Parkland.
WRONG! The prosectors came to conclusions early in the autopsy that
"There's NO EXIT" from the body for the back wound bullet.
Thank you for demonstrating what I just said about conspiracy hobbyists
being silly enough to reach conclusions before they had all the facts.
Post by mainframetech
As the autopsy
progressed, they saw the PROOF of that conclusion when the organs were
removed and they could see the PROOF where the bullet had stopped at the
pleura and left bruising there, but NO path through ANY tissue. The back
wound was only about an inch deep before the pleura. As one autopsy team
member put it, it was a 'short shot', which sometimes happens with a
bullet when the powder is bad, or some other reason causes it to lose the
energy it originally should have had.
It's real simple. We have two technicians who claimed years later that
that the bullet stopped at the pleura and we have the pathologists who all
signed a report that said the bullet exited and the opinions of teams of
the most highly respected medical examiners in the country who reviewed
the photos and x-rays who concurred that the bullet had exited. So which
of those conclusions do you think should carry the more weight.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
The original autopsy was reviewed by a number of panels consisting of some
of the most respected medical examiners in the country and while they
found fault with some of the methodology, they all concurred with the
fundamental conclusion that JFK had been shot twice from behind. You won't
find a single qualified medical examiner who has reviewed the evidence who
disputes that finding. Only kooks think they can look at a few photos and
come to better conclusions than the professionals who saw far more photos
and x-rays than were ever leaked to the public.
Many of the photos and X-rays were missing and that is the statements
of the X-ray Technician that tool ALL X-rays, and photographers that were
forced to sign off that all photos were present, when they knew that many
were missing.
The review panels saw photos and x-rays which established that the bullet
had exited. That opinion is unanimous. You have never been able to cite a
single qualified medical examiner who has disputed that finding. All you
have are the opinions of people who are completely unqualified to make
such judgements. The technicians. Doug Horne. Yourself.
Post by mainframetech
The medical panels that were asked to examine the evidence came out
with the same conclusions that you can read in the AR. Ondce thety read
the false AR, there were no photos or X-rays left that could show them the
truth.
They based their conclusions on what they did see and what they saw was
more than enough to convince them that the bullet had exited. They saw the
trail of tissue damage from the back wound to exit in the throat. They saw
that the trachea had been struck by a bullet. All they had to do was
connect the dots. Simple stuff for medical examiners. They do that sort of
thing all the time.
Post by mainframetech
Except the 'stare-of-death' photo that was missed by the panels.
What is your evidence that they missed it? Oh yeah. They didn't see what
you saw even though they had a much higher quality version of that photo
than you did. But you think your judgement should supercede theirs. That's
laughable.
Post by mainframetech
That photo shows the forehead bullet hole that came in from the front.
It was hard to se though, and they missed it.
It shows no such thing. You have imagined that because you desperately
want to believe that.
Post by mainframetech
If the panels had seen the internal organs as the autopsy team members
had seen, and if they had the ability to hear the statements and sworn
testimony of the men of Bethesda, they would have ruled differently.
The prosectors saw all that and concluded that the bullet exited. The review
panels saw the photos and x-rays of the same and concurred.
Post by mainframetech
They were misled and chose the easy path to agree with the AR. All the
above can be shown with cites and links on request.
We are supposed to believe they were misled because their conclusions
didn't agree with yours. You never fail to amuse us.
Don't be stupid again. You know very well that a list of evidence has
been shown to prove that the conclusions of the prosectors were used, and
those of the autopsy team, ALL who saw the PROOF that the bullet never
left the body of JFK. you just hate to se your beloved WCR get smeared in
the dirt.

Chris
bigdog
2017-06-08 02:53:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
We are supposed to believe they were misled because their conclusions
didn't agree with yours. You never fail to amuse us.
Don't be stupid again. You know very well that a list of evidence has
been shown to prove that the conclusions of the prosectors were used, and
those of the autopsy team, ALL who saw the PROOF that the bullet never
left the body of JFK. you just hate to se your beloved WCR get smeared in
the dirt.
On the contrary, I love seeing the lengths to which you will go to delude
yourself into believing the nonsense that you do. Nobody saw any proof
that the bullet never left the body. They all saw the evidence that the
bullet did leave the body. The prosectors were competent enough to figure
that out. Apparently the technicians were not because they were the only
ones who said that was the case.

But it's not my role to dissuade you from your mythology. Go right on
believing that those two technicians in their early 20s were the only ones
who got it right and all those medical examiners, both the original team
and the review panels, with all their years of training and experience,
were the ones who got it wrong. If that is what you must do to maintain
your belief that Oswald was not the assassin, it's no bother to me. I
actually get a good deal of amusement watching you spin your wheels and
thinking you are getting somewhere.
mainframetech
2017-06-09 00:46:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
We are supposed to believe they were misled because their conclusions
didn't agree with yours. You never fail to amuse us.
Don't be stupid again. You know very well that a list of evidence has
been shown to prove that the conclusions of the prosectors were used, and
those of the autopsy team, ALL who saw the PROOF that the bullet never
left the body of JFK. you just hate to se your beloved WCR get smeared in
the dirt.
On the contrary, I love seeing the lengths to which you will go to delude
yourself into believing the nonsense that you do. Nobody saw any proof
that the bullet never left the body. They all saw the evidence that the
bullet did leave the body. The prosectors were competent enough to figure
that out. Apparently the technicians were not because they were the only
ones who said that was the case.
Strange that you see the proof and still try to defend the tired old
WCR. I guess the WC brainwashing woks pretty well on the weak minded.
The whole autopsy team saw the PROOF that the bullet never left the body
of JFK. They did NOT see any evidence that the bullet left the body, and
the AR proves that. They were unable to dissect the path of the bullet
and so there is no way they could have seen where the bullet left the
body. check the AR and see.

You need to remember the words of the technicians. ALL of the autopsy
team saw the proof. Therefore Humes was following orders when he wrote up
the AR which was so far removed from the truth.
Post by bigdog
But it's not my role to dissuade you from your mythology. Go right on
believing that those two technicians in their early 20s were the only ones
who got it right and all those medical examiners, both the original team
and the review panels, with all their years of training and experience,
were the ones who got it wrong. If that is what you must do to maintain
your belief that Oswald was not the assassin, it's no bother to me. I
actually get a good deal of amusement watching you spin your wheels and
thinking you are getting somewhere.
You forget that the technicians made it clear that ALL of the autopsy
team saw the proof. Get it together! I rather think that you're becoming
irritated at the constant barrage of evidence you have to try to cover up.
I don't think you're as amused as you say.

Chris
bigdog
2017-06-09 13:51:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
We are supposed to believe they were misled because their conclusions
didn't agree with yours. You never fail to amuse us.
Don't be stupid again. You know very well that a list of evidence has
been shown to prove that the conclusions of the prosectors were used, and
those of the autopsy team, ALL who saw the PROOF that the bullet never
left the body of JFK. you just hate to se your beloved WCR get smeared in
the dirt.
On the contrary, I love seeing the lengths to which you will go to delude
yourself into believing the nonsense that you do. Nobody saw any proof
that the bullet never left the body. They all saw the evidence that the
bullet did leave the body. The prosectors were competent enough to figure
that out. Apparently the technicians were not because they were the only
ones who said that was the case.
Strange that you see the proof and still try to defend the tired old
WCR. I guess the WC brainwashing woks pretty well on the weak minded.
The whole autopsy team saw the PROOF that the bullet never left the body
of JFK.
More crap. It was only the two technicians who thought they saw that. The
people who knew what they were doing saw the trail of tissue damage
leading from the back wound to the incision in the throat. The review
panels saw the photos and could see that as well. That left no doubt in
their minds that the bullet traversed from back to front. You can spin it
any way you like but the simple fact is that nobody but the two
technicians are on record as saying the bullet did not exit from the
throat. You are forced to invent all sorts of silly excuses to dismiss
what the pathologists concluded in the report they signed and what every
forensic pathologist who has reviewed their work concluded. All because
two technicians in their early 20s said something different. It doesn't
get any sillier than that.
Post by mainframetech
They did NOT see any evidence that the bullet left the body, and
the AR proves that.
The AR says just the opposite and you know it.
Post by mainframetech
They were unable to dissect the path of the bullet
and so there is no way they could have seen where the bullet left the
body. check the AR and see.
They saw the trail of tissue damage. All they had to do was connect the
dots. Simple stuff for trained professionals. That's why all the competent
people reached the same conclusion.
Post by mainframetech
You need to remember the words of the technicians.
No I don't. They were the least qualified people on the team. Why would I
care what they thought they saw.
Post by mainframetech
ALL of the autopsy team saw the proof.
You only have the word of the two technicians for that. The rest of the
team, i.e. the qualified people, said just the opposite.
Post by mainframetech
Therefore Humes was following orders when he wrote up
the AR which was so far removed from the truth.
More made up crap. Not a scrap of evidence to support that silly claim. It
all goes back to your blind faith in what two technicians had to say and
your utter disdain for what the knowledgeable people concluded.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
But it's not my role to dissuade you from your mythology. Go right on
believing that those two technicians in their early 20s were the only ones
who got it right and all those medical examiners, both the original team
and the review panels, with all their years of training and experience,
were the ones who got it wrong. If that is what you must do to maintain
your belief that Oswald was not the assassin, it's no bother to me. I
actually get a good deal of amusement watching you spin your wheels and
thinking you are getting somewhere.
You forget that the technicians made it clear that ALL of the autopsy
team saw the proof.
They made it clear that you were gullible enough to believe them and not
the qualified people. You keep insisting the whole team saw proof the
bullet didn't exit because the technicians said that's what they all saw.
The pathologists are on record as reaching exactly the opposite
conclusion.
Post by mainframetech
Get it together! I rather think that you're becoming
irritated at the constant barrage of evidence you have to try to cover up.
I don't think you're as amused as you say.
Barrage of evidence? All you've got is the stories the two technicians
cooked up decades later. You believe the bullet didn't
exit.........because the technicians said so. You believe the whole team
saw the proof of that..........because the technicians said so. You
believe the report the three pathologists signed was a
lie..........because the technicians said so. Everything you believe can
be traced back to the stories those two technicians told decades later
while you ignore what every competent person has said the evidence showed.
You never once consider that it was the technicians who were telling the
lies and that the competent people got it right.
Anthony Marsh
2017-06-10 02:14:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
We are supposed to believe they were misled because their conclusions
didn't agree with yours. You never fail to amuse us.
Don't be stupid again. You know very well that a list of evidence has
been shown to prove that the conclusions of the prosectors were used, and
those of the autopsy team, ALL who saw the PROOF that the bullet never
left the body of JFK. you just hate to se your beloved WCR get smeared in
the dirt.
On the contrary, I love seeing the lengths to which you will go to delude
yourself into believing the nonsense that you do. Nobody saw any proof
that the bullet never left the body. They all saw the evidence that the
bullet did leave the body. The prosectors were competent enough to figure
that out. Apparently the technicians were not because they were the only
ones who said that was the case.
Strange that you see the proof and still try to defend the tired old
WCR. I guess the WC brainwashing woks pretty well on the weak minded.
The whole autopsy team saw the PROOF that the bullet never left the body
of JFK.
More crap. It was only the two technicians who thought they saw that. The
people who knew what they were doing saw the trail of tissue damage
leading from the back wound to the incision in the throat. The review
panels saw the photos and could see that as well. That left no doubt in
their minds that the bullet traversed from back to front. You can spin it
any way you like but the simple fact is that nobody but the two
technicians are on record as saying the bullet did not exit from the
throat. You are forced to invent all sorts of silly excuses to dismiss
what the pathologists concluded in the report they signed and what every
forensic pathologist who has reviewed their work concluded. All because
two technicians in their early 20s said something different. It doesn't
get any sillier than that.
Post by mainframetech
They did NOT see any evidence that the bullet left the body, and
the AR proves that.
The AR says just the opposite and you know it.
WHICH autopsy report? The first one which HUmes had to burn because it
said conspiracy or the 2nd rewrite which said ALL shots came from behind
"PRESUMABLY." It's like a POW blinking out an SOS with his eyes.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
They were unable to dissect the path of the bullet
and so there is no way they could have seen where the bullet left the
body. check the AR and see.
They saw the trail of tissue damage. All they had to do was connect the
No, they were stopped from dissecting the wound. By the ARMY.
Post by bigdog
dots. Simple stuff for trained professionals. That's why all the competent
What trained professionals? You mean someone who would say the back
wound was caused by an ICE BULLET and didn't even notice the throat wound?
Post by bigdog
people reached the same conclusion.
So, if someone on the HSCA said something you have to believe it?
So you stipulate that there was a bullet wound on the forehead.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
You need to remember the words of the technicians.
No I don't. They were the least qualified people on the team. Why would I
care what they thought they saw.
Post by mainframetech
ALL of the autopsy team saw the proof.
You only have the word of the two technicians for that. The rest of the
team, i.e. the qualified people, said just the opposite.
Show me what you call opposite.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Therefore Humes was following orders when he wrote up
the AR which was so far removed from the truth.
More made up crap. Not a scrap of evidence to support that silly claim. It
all goes back to your blind faith in what two technicians had to say and
your utter disdain for what the knowledgeable people concluded.
You don't even know that the first autopsy report was rejected and Humes
was ordered to rewrite it. You want to know nothing.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
But it's not my role to dissuade you from your mythology. Go right on
believing that those two technicians in their early 20s were the only ones
who got it right and all those medical examiners, both the original team
and the review panels, with all their years of training and experience,
were the ones who got it wrong. If that is what you must do to maintain
your belief that Oswald was not the assassin, it's no bother to me. I
actually get a good deal of amusement watching you spin your wheels and
thinking you are getting somewhere.
You forget that the technicians made it clear that ALL of the autopsy
team saw the proof.
They made it clear that you were gullible enough to believe them and not
the qualified people. You keep insisting the whole team saw proof the
What qualified people? You believe it was an ICE BULLET because HUmes
said it? Really? THat makes YOU qualified?
Post by bigdog
bullet didn't exit because the technicians said that's what they all saw.
You believe in the Ice Bullet because HUmes said it? Really?
Post by bigdog
The pathologists are on record as reaching exactly the opposite
conclusion.
They were TOLD what conclusions they must reach. Just like the WC.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Get it together! I rather think that you're becoming
irritated at the constant barrage of evidence you have to try to cover up.
I don't think you're as amused as you say.
Barrage of evidence? All you've got is the stories the two technicians
No. We also have the autopsy photos and the S+O report.
Which you don'.
Post by bigdog
cooked up decades later. You believe the bullet didn't
exit.........because the technicians said so. You believe the whole team
YOU believe in the ICE BULLET because the doctors said so.
SHow me this ICE BULLET.
Post by bigdog
saw the proof of that..........because the technicians said so. You
believe the report the three pathologists signed was a
lie..........because the technicians said so. Everything you believe can
You can't even admit that it was a rewrite. SHow me the original autopsy
report. You know, the one that says conspiracy.
Post by bigdog
be traced back to the stories those two technicians told decades later
while you ignore what every competent person has said the evidence showed.
You never once consider that it was the technicians who were telling the
lies and that the competent people got it right.
We didn't even know about some of these things until the ARRB.
It's called a cover-up, which you support.
Anthony Marsh
2017-06-07 21:14:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by Amy Joyce
Post by bigdog
Post by Amy Joyce
Although new to this forum I have been researching JFK for some time now.
After experience in similar/other forums I was hesitant to join because I
despise fallacy arguments, mostly gaslighting, but also any that steer
conversation away from polite debate toward trading insults. However I
enjoy it and look forward to it.
I'm not on the fence with my opinion and I don't think it matters much
what I think when I say that I'm disgusted with the WC's inquiry. Because
it wasn't a trial with a defense team and jury, they had a responsibility
to investigate different theories, examine any/all evidence, and consider
as much witness testimony as they could.
The WC did consider other theories and found them to be completely lacking
in evidence. All the available evidence pointed to Oswald and only Oswald.
Much of the investigation was done by the staff lawyers, not the seven
commissioners and to a man they all said they were eager to find evidence
of a conspiracy but there just wasn't any. They did consider the available
witness statements and found some to be not credible because it conflicted
with other known evidence. Do you think they should have accepted
eyewitness accounts that were erroneous?
I think they should have questioned, listened to, and considered witnesses
that were close enough to see anything or had anything of relevance to
offer. For example: the Newman's, Officers Jackson and Chaney, Marie
Muchmore, the Railroad Employess etc. etc., -all. Seems that they only
RE-questioned people that had already given statements to the FBI or DPD,
because they knew they were going to give corroborating evidence to the
one theory they wanted to prove. That isn't an investigation, it's the
presentation of one side of facts - as they see it. That it may have
"conflicted with other evidence" is exactly why they should be questioned
and contemplated. It otherwise appears biased. Why question anyone again
if that's the case?
The WC made judgement calls as to which witnesses they believed offered
enough information that it was worth calling them to testify under oath.
To do that they reviewed statements, affidavits, etc. of numerous
witnesses. Even those that didn't testify were included in the 26 volumes
of supporting data.
WRONG! Now we have your opinion, but the fact is that the FBI didn't
present witnesses to the WC if they showed info that suggested conspiracy.
And the lawyers for the WC also did all that they could to make it a crime
possible to be executed by a single 'lone nut' killer. They had 3
bullets, but many wounds, so they devised the 'single bullet' theory
(SBT), that allowed one bullet to hit 2 men 7 times including 2 bone
strikes and it came away looking almost like new. Fortunately, that
theory has been disproved, though you won't admit it.
Post by bigdog
Post by Amy Joyce
Post by bigdog
Post by Amy Joyce
This is not to say that I don't think it's likely that Oswald in some way
(also irrelevant). By appearances it seems that Oswald was convicted,that
if the WC found him responsible, it must be true. However that's not due
process.
Due process is something that is given to a defendant in a criminal or
civil proceeding. The WC was not a trial, it was a fact finding body. Due
process is a requirement that must be given to the accused before the
government may deprive him/her of life, liberty, or property. Since the
government couldn't deprive Oswald of any of those things, they had no
obligation to afford him due process. Had they found evidence that someone
other than Oswald was involved that person or persons would be entitled to
due process, assuming they were still alive.
Post by Amy Joyce
Since he had no one to stand up for and defend him in an official
capacity, and that none was even allowed, makes me most suspicious. That
evidence evidence was held from public view for so long (and still is)
increases my suspicions (and anger). The possibility for a valid inquiry
has long since passed because most witnesses have died and evidence has
gotten lost, stolen, and destroyed.... Just sayin' :-)
The case has been investigated an reinvestigated to the point the
assassination is the most investigated crime in human history. For over 50
years conspiracy hobbyists have been trying to find credible evidence that
someone other than Oswald took part in the crime. They have found nothing
yet they continue on their never ending snipe hunt.
Much changed after the WC. If there ever was a real trial, it's
questionable that illegally obtained evidence (such as the autopsy),
There was nothing illegal about the autopsy.
While true, there was nothing right about the final Autopsy Report
(AR). The conclusions reached DURING the autopsy were not what Humes put
into his AR.
Post by bigdog
Post by Amy Joyce
would
have been allowed. Testimony from Parkland doctors, which was inconsistent
with WC conclusions, would have had to suffice.
Can you cite an attorney who shares that view?
Post by Amy Joyce
Speaking of the autopsy,
the preliminary autopsy report indicated that the first bullet striking
JFK had struck his back and lodged in his shoulder;
Simply not true. You seem to have gotten a lot of bad information from
kook websites.
Post by Amy Joyce
that the throat injury
was caused by the head shot bullet deflecting,
More crap.
Post by Amy Joyce
eventually traveling
throughout and exiting the throat (apparently to answer questions of a
bullet coming from the front). How could it be so wrong twice? Obviously
this didn't coincide with the film that doctors didn't yet know about.
Autopsy findings appeared easier to change up to 3 times rather than
admitting that there wasn't conclusive evidence to find that all shots
came from one location.
The autopsy team produced ONE report at the conclusion of the autopsy
which all three pathologists signed. During the autopsy a number of ideas
were explored and some were rejected as more information was gathered.
Their conclusions were written in their report which was written after
they obtained all the pertinent data including information obtained from
the staff at Parkland.
WRONG! The prosectors came to conclusions early in the autopsy that
"There's NO EXIT" from the body for the back wound bullet. As the autopsy
progressed, they saw the PROOF of that conclusion when the organs were
removed and they could see the PROOF where the bullet had stopped at the
pleura and left bruising there, but NO path through ANY tissue. The back
wound was only about an inch deep before the pleura. As one autopsy team
member put it, it was a 'short shot', which sometimes happens with a
bullet when the powder is bad, or some other reason causes it to lose the
energy it originally should have had.
Post by bigdog
The original autopsy was reviewed by a number of panels consisting of some
of the most respected medical examiners in the country and while they
found fault with some of the methodology, they all concurred with the
fundamental conclusion that JFK had been shot twice from behind. You won't
find a single qualified medical examiner who has reviewed the evidence who
disputes that finding. Only kooks think they can look at a few photos and
come to better conclusions than the professionals who saw far more photos
and x-rays than were ever leaked to the public.
Many of the photos and X-rays were missing and that is the statements
of the X-ray Technician that tool ALL X-rays, and photographers that were
forced to sign off that all photos were present, when they knew that many
were missing.
The medical panels that were asked to examine the evidence came out
with the same conclusions that you can read in the AR. Ondce thety read
the false AR, there were no photos or X-rays left that could show them the
truth. Except the 'stare-of-death' photo that was missed by the panels.
That photo shows the forehead bullet hole that came in from the front.
It was hard to se though, and they missed it.
If the panels had seen the internal organs as the autopsy team members
had seen, and if they had the ability to hear the statements and sworn
testimony of the men of Bethesda, they would have ruled differently.
Whom do you mean? The HSCA's FPP interviewed Humes and Boswell.
Post by mainframetech
They were misled and chose the easy path to agree with the AR. All the
above can be shown with cites and links on request.
Chris
mainframetech
2017-06-05 01:20:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Amy Joyce
Post by bigdog
Post by Amy Joyce
Although new to this forum I have been researching JFK for some time now.
After experience in similar/other forums I was hesitant to join because I
despise fallacy arguments, mostly gaslighting, but also any that steer
conversation away from polite debate toward trading insults. However I
enjoy it and look forward to it.
I'm not on the fence with my opinion and I don't think it matters much
what I think when I say that I'm disgusted with the WC's inquiry. Because
it wasn't a trial with a defense team and jury, they had a responsibility
to investigate different theories, examine any/all evidence, and consider
as much witness testimony as they could.
The WC did consider other theories and found them to be completely lacking
in evidence. All the available evidence pointed to Oswald and only Oswald.
Much of the investigation was done by the staff lawyers, not the seven
commissioners and to a man they all said they were eager to find evidence
of a conspiracy but there just wasn't any. They did consider the available
witness statements and found some to be not credible because it conflicted
with other known evidence. Do you think they should have accepted
eyewitness accounts that were erroneous?
I think they should have questioned, listened to, and considered witnesses
that were close enough to see anything or had anything of relevance to
offer. For example: the Newman's, Officers Jackson and Chaney, Marie
Muchmore, the Railroad Employess etc. etc., -all. Seems that they only
RE-questioned people that had already given statements to the FBI or DPD,
because they knew they were going to give corroborating evidence to the
one theory they wanted to prove. That isn't an investigation, it's the
presentation of one side of facts - as they see it. That it may have
"conflicted with other evidence" is exactly why they should be questioned
and contemplated. It otherwise appears biased. Why question anyone again
if that's the case?
You're right of course. And fitting in with that, the FBI also would
change witness statements to fit the 'lone nut' theory when the witness
had said something that showed conspiracy. The following video is of 3
witnesses that had the FBI turn their words into something other than what
they said:



If you look up the FBI reports on those 3, you'll see how they changed
their statements. As well, they rewrote the statement of a woman named
Carolyn Arnold, who saw Oswald in the TSBD 2nd floor lunchroom at about
12:15pm. They actually rewrote it twice. And although they said one of
the version was signed by ?Arnold, I doubt it. No one is shown those FBI
reports, they go in to FBI headquarters and are filed there. Carolyn
Arnold would never have known they misquoted her except that a reporter
had looked up the info and asked her a question about her statement, and
she found out in 1978. At that time she gave her correct statement to the
paper through the reporter, and later the same to another reporter.
Post by Amy Joyce
Post by bigdog
Post by Amy Joyce
This is not to say that I don't think it's likely that Oswald in some way
(also irrelevant). By appearances it seems that Oswald was convicted,that
if the WC found him responsible, it must be true. However that's not due
process.
Due process is something that is given to a defendant in a criminal or
civil proceeding. The WC was not a trial, it was a fact finding body. Due
process is a requirement that must be given to the accused before the
government may deprive him/her of life, liberty, or property. Since the
government couldn't deprive Oswald of any of those things, they had no
obligation to afford him due process. Had they found evidence that someone
other than Oswald was involved that person or persons would be entitled to
due process, assuming they were still alive.
Post by Amy Joyce
Since he had no one to stand up for and defend him in an official
capacity, and that none was even allowed, makes me most suspicious. That
evidence evidence was held from public view for so long (and still is)
increases my suspicions (and anger). The possibility for a valid inquiry
has long since passed because most witnesses have died and evidence has
gotten lost, stolen, and destroyed.... Just sayin' :-)
The case has been investigated an reinvestigated to the point the
assassination is the most investigated crime in human history. For over 50
years conspiracy hobbyists have been trying to find credible evidence that
someone other than Oswald took part in the crime. They have found nothing
yet they continue on their never ending snipe hunt.
Much changed after the WC. If there ever was a real trial, it's
questionable that illegally obtained evidence (such as the autopsy), would
have been allowed. Testimony from Parkland doctors, which was inconsistent
with WC conclusions, would have had to suffice. Speaking of the autopsy,
the preliminary autopsy report indicated that the first bullet striking
JFK had struck his back and lodged in his shoulder; that the throat injury
was caused by the head shot bullet deflecting, eventually traveling
throughout and exiting the throat (apparently to answer questions of a
bullet coming from the front). How could it be so wrong twice? Obviously
this didn't coincide with the film that doctors didn't yet know about.
Autopsy findings appeared easier to change up to 3 times rather than
admitting that there wasn't conclusive evidence to find that all shots
came from one location.
Amy, the ARRB files contain the sworn testimony of many of the
Bethesda Navy men that were present at the autopsy. The findings they
concluded DURING the autopsy were very different from the findings that
Dr. Humes wrote up at home in his Autopsy Report (AR). It was stated by
another member of the autopsy team what had really happened with the back
wound bullet, and also that ALL 3 prosectors saw the proof of it, yet
Humes wrote it up after the autopsy completely differently than what he
had seen. He had to have had orders to do that, since he would never have
taken the initiative himself to lie in the AR.

I can point to many statements and sworn testimony backing that up if
you're interested.

Chris
Amy Joyce
2017-06-06 03:39:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
http://youtu.be/ODXoISgU-0M
If you look up the FBI reports on those 3, you'll see how they changed
their statements. As well, they rewrote the statement of a woman named
Carolyn Arnold, who saw Oswald in the TSBD 2nd floor lunchroom at about
12:15pm. They actually rewrote it twice. And although they said one of
the version was signed by ?Arnold, I doubt it. No one is shown those FBI
reports, they go in to FBI headquarters and are filed there. Carolyn
Arnold would never have known they misquoted her except that a reporter
had looked up the info and asked her a question about her statement, and
she found out in 1978. At that time she gave her correct statement to the
paper through the reporter, and later the same to another reporter.
That is un fricking believable. And then gaslighting occurs (then and now)
about how the witnesses must have been confused about what they saw or the
statements that they actually gave ... and about how CT's are believing a
lying money hound like Mark Lane that got witnesses to change their
stories for the camera.

I can believe that it happens on occasion, especially with a high profile
case but not at the extent I'm seeing.
claviger
2017-06-06 19:11:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Amy Joyce
Post by mainframetech
http://youtu.be/ODXoISgU-0M
If you look up the FBI reports on those 3, you'll see how they changed
their statements. As well, they rewrote the statement of a woman named
Carolyn Arnold, who saw Oswald in the TSBD 2nd floor lunchroom at about
12:15pm. They actually rewrote it twice. And although they said one of
the version was signed by ?Arnold, I doubt it. No one is shown those FBI
reports, they go in to FBI headquarters and are filed there. Carolyn
Arnold would never have known they misquoted her except that a reporter
had looked up the info and asked her a question about her statement, and
she found out in 1978. At that time she gave her correct statement to the
paper through the reporter, and later the same to another reporter.
That is un fricking believable. And then gaslighting occurs (then and now)
about how the witnesses must have been confused about what they saw or the
statements that they actually gave ... and about how CT's are believing a
lying money hound like Mark Lane that got witnesses to change their
stories for the camera.
I can believe that it happens on occasion, especially with a high profile
case but not at the extent I'm seeing.
OK, don't keep us in suspense. Tell us how it really happened. Where did
the shots come from and what type weapon.
mainframetech
2017-06-07 16:29:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by claviger
Post by Amy Joyce
Post by mainframetech
http://youtu.be/ODXoISgU-0M
If you look up the FBI reports on those 3, you'll see how they changed
their statements. As well, they rewrote the statement of a woman named
Carolyn Arnold, who saw Oswald in the TSBD 2nd floor lunchroom at about
12:15pm. They actually rewrote it twice. And although they said one of
the version was signed by ?Arnold, I doubt it. No one is shown those FBI
reports, they go in to FBI headquarters and are filed there. Carolyn
Arnold would never have known they misquoted her except that a reporter
had looked up the info and asked her a question about her statement, and
she found out in 1978. At that time she gave her correct statement to the
paper through the reporter, and later the same to another reporter.
That is un fricking believable. And then gaslighting occurs (then and now)
about how the witnesses must have been confused about what they saw or the
statements that they actually gave ... and about how CT's are believing a
lying money hound like Mark Lane that got witnesses to change their
stories for the camera.
I can believe that it happens on occasion, especially with a high profile
case but not at the extent I'm seeing.
OK, don't keep us in suspense. Tell us how it really happened. Where did
the shots come from and what type weapon.
Are you being ridiculous again? How would anyone know that unless the
shooter told them? And if that happened, then we'd have someone to
arrest.

Chris
Anthony Marsh
2017-06-08 14:32:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by Amy Joyce
Post by mainframetech
http://youtu.be/ODXoISgU-0M
If you look up the FBI reports on those 3, you'll see how they changed
their statements. As well, they rewrote the statement of a woman named
Carolyn Arnold, who saw Oswald in the TSBD 2nd floor lunchroom at about
12:15pm. They actually rewrote it twice. And although they said one of
the version was signed by ?Arnold, I doubt it. No one is shown those FBI
reports, they go in to FBI headquarters and are filed there. Carolyn
Arnold would never have known they misquoted her except that a reporter
had looked up the info and asked her a question about her statement, and
she found out in 1978. At that time she gave her correct statement to the
paper through the reporter, and later the same to another reporter.
That is un fricking believable. And then gaslighting occurs (then and now)
about how the witnesses must have been confused about what they saw or the
statements that they actually gave ... and about how CT's are believing a
lying money hound like Mark Lane that got witnesses to change their
stories for the camera.
I can believe that it happens on occasion, especially with a high profile
case but not at the extent I'm seeing.
OK, don't keep us in suspense. Tell us how it really happened. Where did
the shots come from and what type weapon.
Are you being ridiculous again? How would anyone know that unless the
shooter told them? And if that happened, then we'd have someone to
arrest.
Chris
I told him already. The Carcano was 9 feet west of the corner of the
fence and had a muzzle velocity of 2235 fps. SCIENCE, not rumor.

Loading Image...
claviger
2017-06-06 20:36:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Amy Joyce
Post by mainframetech
http://youtu.be/ODXoISgU-0M
If you look up the FBI reports on those 3, you'll see how they changed
their statements. As well, they rewrote the statement of a woman named
Carolyn Arnold, who saw Oswald in the TSBD 2nd floor lunchroom at about
12:15pm. They actually rewrote it twice. And although they said one of
the version was signed by ?Arnold, I doubt it. No one is shown those FBI
reports, they go in to FBI headquarters and are filed there. Carolyn
Arnold would never have known they misquoted her except that a reporter
had looked up the info and asked her a question about her statement, and
she found out in 1978. At that time she gave her correct statement to the
paper through the reporter, and later the same to another reporter.
That is un fricking believable. And then gaslighting occurs (then and now)
about how the witnesses must have been confused about what they saw or the
statements that they actually gave ... and about how CT's are believing a
lying money hound like Mark Lane that got witnesses to change their
stories for the camera.
I can believe that it happens on occasion, especially with a high profile
case but not at the extent I'm seeing.
Yes Carolyn Arnold is unbelievable when you read the whole story:

alt.assassination.jfk ›
Carolyn Nearn Arnold
2 posts by 2 authors

alt.assassination.jfk ›
Mrs. Carolyn Arnold vs Mrs. Carolyn Johnston
13 posts by 5 authors

alt.assassination.jfk ›
Why Ms. Arnold got it right and Ms. Johnston got it wrong!
8 posts by 5 authors
mainframetech
2017-06-07 16:28:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Amy Joyce
Post by mainframetech
http://youtu.be/ODXoISgU-0M
If you look up the FBI reports on those 3, you'll see how they changed
their statements. As well, they rewrote the statement of a woman named
Carolyn Arnold, who saw Oswald in the TSBD 2nd floor lunchroom at about
12:15pm. They actually rewrote it twice. And although they said one of
the version was signed by ?Arnold, I doubt it. No one is shown those FBI
reports, they go in to FBI headquarters and are filed there. Carolyn
Arnold would never have known they misquoted her except that a reporter
had looked up the info and asked her a question about her statement, and
she found out in 1978. At that time she gave her correct statement to the
paper through the reporter, and later the same to another reporter.
That is un fricking believable. And then gaslighting occurs (then and now)
about how the witnesses must have been confused about what they saw or the
statements that they actually gave ... and about how CT's are believing a
lying money hound like Mark Lane that got witnesses to change their
stories for the camera.
I can believe that it happens on occasion, especially with a high profile
case but not at the extent I'm seeing.
It was the most important case they eve had to work on, and Hoover was
adamant about the 'lone nut' scenario.

In any event, the tale of Carolyn Arnold is here:

http://22november1963.org.uk/carolyn-arnold-witness-oswald

Chris
Anthony Marsh
2017-06-08 14:32:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by Amy Joyce
Post by mainframetech
http://youtu.be/ODXoISgU-0M
If you look up the FBI reports on those 3, you'll see how they changed
their statements. As well, they rewrote the statement of a woman named
Carolyn Arnold, who saw Oswald in the TSBD 2nd floor lunchroom at about
12:15pm. They actually rewrote it twice. And although they said one of
the version was signed by ?Arnold, I doubt it. No one is shown those FBI
reports, they go in to FBI headquarters and are filed there. Carolyn
Arnold would never have known they misquoted her except that a reporter
had looked up the info and asked her a question about her statement, and
she found out in 1978. At that time she gave her correct statement to the
paper through the reporter, and later the same to another reporter.
That is un fricking believable. And then gaslighting occurs (then and now)
about how the witnesses must have been confused about what they saw or the
statements that they actually gave ... and about how CT's are believing a
lying money hound like Mark Lane that got witnesses to change their
stories for the camera.
I can believe that it happens on occasion, especially with a high profile
case but not at the extent I'm seeing.
It was the most important case they eve had to work on, and Hoover was
adamant about the 'lone nut' scenario.
Yes, and Hoover was adamant about 3 shots 3 hits and thought Specter was
a moron. He was also sure that Castro had hired Oswald to kill the
President.
Post by mainframetech
http://22november1963.org.uk/carolyn-arnold-witness-oswald
Chris
mainframetech
2017-06-06 20:42:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Amy Joyce
Post by mainframetech
http://youtu.be/ODXoISgU-0M
If you look up the FBI reports on those 3, you'll see how they changed
their statements. As well, they rewrote the statement of a woman named
Carolyn Arnold, who saw Oswald in the TSBD 2nd floor lunchroom at about
12:15pm. They actually rewrote it twice. And although they said one of
the version was signed by ?Arnold, I doubt it. No one is shown those FBI
reports, they go in to FBI headquarters and are filed there. Carolyn
Arnold would never have known they misquoted her except that a reporter
had looked up the info and asked her a question about her statement, and
she found out in 1978. At that time she gave her correct statement to the
paper through the reporter, and later the same to another reporter.
That is un fricking believable. And then gaslighting occurs (then and now)
about how the witnesses must have been confused about what they saw or the
statements that they actually gave ... and about how CT's are believing a
lying money hound like Mark Lane that got witnesses to change their
stories for the camera.
I can believe that it happens on occasion, especially with a high profile
case but not at the extent I'm seeing.
Yes, it would seem so, but those times were odd when you consider that
when Hoover came out with the scenario of the 'lone nut' his word was
listened to and followed religiously or heads would roll. The FBI did all
kinds of things that supported the 'lone nut' scenario, and avoided any
talk or evidence of conspiracy. The evidence I showed in the video of 3
people was just one of many instances of the FBI doing all kinds of
illegal things. Another example is that of the statement of Acquilla
Clemons, who witnesses part of the Tippit shooting. At the end of her
statement she noted that she was intimidated to shut up or she would get
hurt and it was the police that did it to her. She wasn't sure which
police, but the only ones that were following up later on witnesses was
the FBI. Here's the video:



While I agree with you as to the scruples of Mark Lane, I believe when
listening and watching the witnesses he presented that they were being
honest to the best of their ability. What most of them said fit with many
other items of evidence in the case.

Chris
Anthony Marsh
2017-06-08 02:24:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by Amy Joyce
Post by mainframetech
http://youtu.be/ODXoISgU-0M
If you look up the FBI reports on those 3, you'll see how they changed
their statements. As well, they rewrote the statement of a woman named
Carolyn Arnold, who saw Oswald in the TSBD 2nd floor lunchroom at about
12:15pm. They actually rewrote it twice. And although they said one of
the version was signed by ?Arnold, I doubt it. No one is shown those FBI
reports, they go in to FBI headquarters and are filed there. Carolyn
Arnold would never have known they misquoted her except that a reporter
had looked up the info and asked her a question about her statement, and
she found out in 1978. At that time she gave her correct statement to the
paper through the reporter, and later the same to another reporter.
That is un fricking believable. And then gaslighting occurs (then and now)
about how the witnesses must have been confused about what they saw or the
statements that they actually gave ... and about how CT's are believing a
lying money hound like Mark Lane that got witnesses to change their
stories for the camera.
I can believe that it happens on occasion, especially with a high profile
case but not at the extent I'm seeing.
Yes, it would seem so, but those times were odd when you consider that
when Hoover came out with the scenario of the 'lone nut' his word was
Hoover said three shots, three hits, no misses. He didn't like Misses.
He preferred Misters.
Post by mainframetech
listened to and followed religiously or heads would roll. The FBI did all
kinds of things that supported the 'lone nut' scenario, and avoided any
talk or evidence of conspiracy. The evidence I showed in the video of 3
people was just one of many instances of the FBI doing all kinds of
illegal things. Another example is that of the statement of Acquilla
Clemons, who witnesses part of the Tippit shooting. At the end of her
statement she noted that she was intimidated to shut up or she would get
hurt and it was the police that did it to her. She wasn't sure which
police, but the only ones that were following up later on witnesses was
http://youtu.be/aaCCd0hzLsY
While I agree with you as to the scruples of Mark Lane, I believe when
listening and watching the witnesses he presented that they were being
honest to the best of their ability. What most of them said fit with many
other items of evidence in the case.
Chris
Anthony Marsh
2017-06-06 14:21:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by Amy Joyce
Post by bigdog
Post by Amy Joyce
Although new to this forum I have been researching JFK for some time now.
After experience in similar/other forums I was hesitant to join because I
despise fallacy arguments, mostly gaslighting, but also any that steer
conversation away from polite debate toward trading insults. However I
enjoy it and look forward to it.
I'm not on the fence with my opinion and I don't think it matters much
what I think when I say that I'm disgusted with the WC's inquiry. Because
it wasn't a trial with a defense team and jury, they had a responsibility
to investigate different theories, examine any/all evidence, and consider
as much witness testimony as they could.
The WC did consider other theories and found them to be completely lacking
in evidence. All the available evidence pointed to Oswald and only Oswald.
Much of the investigation was done by the staff lawyers, not the seven
commissioners and to a man they all said they were eager to find evidence
of a conspiracy but there just wasn't any. They did consider the available
witness statements and found some to be not credible because it conflicted
with other known evidence. Do you think they should have accepted
eyewitness accounts that were erroneous?
I think they should have questioned, listened to, and considered witnesses
that were close enough to see anything or had anything of relevance to
offer. For example: the Newman's, Officers Jackson and Chaney, Marie
Muchmore, the Railroad Employess etc. etc., -all. Seems that they only
RE-questioned people that had already given statements to the FBI or DPD,
because they knew they were going to give corroborating evidence to the
one theory they wanted to prove. That isn't an investigation, it's the
presentation of one side of facts - as they see it. That it may have
"conflicted with other evidence" is exactly why they should be questioned
and contemplated. It otherwise appears biased. Why question anyone again
if that's the case?
You're right of course. And fitting in with that, the FBI also would
change witness statements to fit the 'lone nut' theory when the witness
And the FBI warned witnesses to not speak. Like Kenny O'Donnell.
Post by mainframetech
had said something that showed conspiracy. The following video is of 3
witnesses that had the FBI turn their words into something other than what
http://youtu.be/ODXoISgU-0M
If you look up the FBI reports on those 3, you'll see how they changed
their statements. As well, they rewrote the statement of a woman named
Carolyn Arnold, who saw Oswald in the TSBD 2nd floor lunchroom at about
12:15pm. They actually rewrote it twice. And although they said one of
the version was signed by ?Arnold, I doubt it. No one is shown those FBI
reports, they go in to FBI headquarters and are filed there. Carolyn
Arnold would never have known they misquoted her except that a reporter
had looked up the info and asked her a question about her statement, and
she found out in 1978. At that time she gave her correct statement to the
paper through the reporter, and later the same to another reporter.
Post by Amy Joyce
Post by bigdog
Post by Amy Joyce
This is not to say that I don't think it's likely that Oswald in some way
(also irrelevant). By appearances it seems that Oswald was convicted,that
if the WC found him responsible, it must be true. However that's not due
process.
Due process is something that is given to a defendant in a criminal or
civil proceeding. The WC was not a trial, it was a fact finding body. Due
process is a requirement that must be given to the accused before the
government may deprive him/her of life, liberty, or property. Since the
government couldn't deprive Oswald of any of those things, they had no
obligation to afford him due process. Had they found evidence that someone
other than Oswald was involved that person or persons would be entitled to
due process, assuming they were still alive.
Post by Amy Joyce
Since he had no one to stand up for and defend him in an official
capacity, and that none was even allowed, makes me most suspicious. That
evidence evidence was held from public view for so long (and still is)
increases my suspicions (and anger). The possibility for a valid inquiry
has long since passed because most witnesses have died and evidence has
gotten lost, stolen, and destroyed.... Just sayin' :-)
The case has been investigated an reinvestigated to the point the
assassination is the most investigated crime in human history. For over 50
years conspiracy hobbyists have been trying to find credible evidence that
someone other than Oswald took part in the crime. They have found nothing
yet they continue on their never ending snipe hunt.
Much changed after the WC. If there ever was a real trial, it's
questionable that illegally obtained evidence (such as the autopsy), would
have been allowed. Testimony from Parkland doctors, which was inconsistent
with WC conclusions, would have had to suffice. Speaking of the autopsy,
the preliminary autopsy report indicated that the first bullet striking
JFK had struck his back and lodged in his shoulder; that the throat injury
was caused by the head shot bullet deflecting, eventually traveling
throughout and exiting the throat (apparently to answer questions of a
bullet coming from the front). How could it be so wrong twice? Obviously
this didn't coincide with the film that doctors didn't yet know about.
Autopsy findings appeared easier to change up to 3 times rather than
admitting that there wasn't conclusive evidence to find that all shots
came from one location.
Amy, the ARRB files contain the sworn testimony of many of the
Bethesda Navy men that were present at the autopsy. The findings they
concluded DURING the autopsy were very different from the findings that
Dr. Humes wrote up at home in his Autopsy Report (AR). It was stated by
another member of the autopsy team what had really happened with the back
wound bullet, and also that ALL 3 prosectors saw the proof of it, yet
Humes wrote it up after the autopsy completely differently than what he
had seen. He had to have had orders to do that, since he would never have
taken the initiative himself to lie in the AR.
I can point to many statements and sworn testimony backing that up if
you're interested.
Chris
Amy Joyce
2017-06-06 18:32:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
I can point to many statements and sworn testimony backing that up if
you're interested.
Chris
I'm interested, and also curious about what you said to me in another
topic (can't find it easily). You said that as a CT you think that you
determined how some of it went down. It's cool if you don't want to tell
more, or if you feel more comfortable messaging me, that's fine with
me.

~Amy
mainframetech
2017-06-07 16:32:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Amy Joyce
Post by mainframetech
I can point to many statements and sworn testimony backing that up if
you're interested.
Chris
I'm interested, and also curious about what you said to me in another
topic (can't find it easily). You said that as a CT you think that you
determined how some of it went down. It's cool if you don't want to tell
more, or if you feel more comfortable messaging me, that's fine with
me.
~Amy
I'll be happy to show you all that I've dug up so far. But I'm not
sure now which point I was making. You deleted the previous conversation
and I've lost my thread of thought. Better to let the previous discussion
stay in the post, s that we can look back at what has been said.

I'll start with one of the areas of question. The 'single bullet'
theory in the WCR. I'll do it here, and you can then see the opposing
views that almost certainly will be posted after.

As noted previously, when the autopsy got going, 2 FBI agents were
there in attendance as observers. They recorded what they saw and heard
in their reports, which are online as the 'Sibert and O'Neill report'.
At one point they rolled the body over and found a bullet wound in the
upper back. Many people have been told and still believe that it wasn't
the 'upper back' but the lower neck. They found that there were too many
wounds on people and elsewhere to be caused by the 3 shells in the TSBD
6th floor 'nest'. So the WC lawyers devised a theory that would allow one
bullet to do more damage and so cover the problem that way. That became
the single bullet' theory, and consisted of the bullet that hit the upper
back of JFK was to be sent out of his body through the throat wound and
then hit Connally and injure him. That is 7 strikes on 2 men including 2
bone strikes. The bullet they picked to have done all that damage was the
so-called 'pristine' or 'magic' bullet, which was seemingly hardly
damaged.

During the autopsy, Sibert was one of the FBI observers, and had given
sworn testimony to the ARRB of what he saw and heard:

"But when they raised him up, then they
found this back wound. And that’s when they
started probing with the rubber glove and the
finger, and - and also with the chrome probe.
And that’s just before, of course, I made
this call, because they were at a loss to explain
what had happened to this bullet. They couldn’t
find any bullet.
And they said, ‘There's no exit.” Finck,
in particular, said, "There’s no exit.” And they
said that you could feel it with the end of the
finger - I mean, the depth of this wound."

From: http://aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/arrb/medical_testimony/pdf/Sibert_9-11-97.pdf
Page 111

I'll always end a quote with a link to where the info came from, so you
can check context.

The 'prosectors' (pathologists) were Drs. Humes (in charge supposedly),
Boswell and Finck who was called in by Humes who knew that he and Boswell
didn't have the experience for this kind of autopsy with bullet wounds,
and very little experience altogether. Finck had a good reputation and
had done all sorts of autopsies on bullet deaths.

As the autopsy got further along, they reached a point where the organs
were to be removed. At this point, we go to statement made by Paul
O'Connor, Technologist, who assisted at the autopsy. He had stated that
he had assisted at 50-60 autopsies before this one. Here he is speaking:

"We started out with a rigid probe and found that it only went in so far.
I'd say maybe an inch and a quarter. It didn't go any further than that.
So we used a malleable probe and bent it a little bit and found out that
the bullet entered the body, went through the intercostal
muscles—the muscles in between the ribs. The bullet went in
through the muscles, didn't touch any of the ribs, arched downwards, hit
the back of the pleural cavity, which encases the lungs, both front and
back. It bounced off that cavity and stopped. It actually went down and
stopped. Went through the ribs and stopped (photo 10). So we didn't know
the track of the bullet until we eviscerated the body later. That's what
happened at that time. We traced the bullet path down and found out it
didn't traverse the body. It did not go in one side and come out the other
side of the body.
Law: You can be reasonably sure of that?
O'Connor: Absolutely.
Law: It was just from the probe then?
O'Connor: Oh yes.
Law: And these doctors knew that?
O'Connor: Absolutely.
Law: While it happened?
O'Connor: Absolutely."

From: "In the Eyes of History" by William Matson Law, pages 40-41
https://www.krusch.com/books/kennedy/In_The_Eye_Of_History.pdf

That book is online and can be searched. The author used an
interviewer style that just asked questions, without a lot of his own
thoughts included.

So the autopsy ends, with no further discussion or conclusions made,
and Humes goes home ands writes up an Autopsy Report (AR) that is
completely opposite to what he has just seen. Though he knows the bullet
never left the body of JFK, he writes that it did, and that it came out of
the throat wound! But he doesn't say in the AR that they dissected the
path of the bullet, because there WAS no path after the pleura!

To write such a completely false AR, Humes had to have been given
orders by a higher up, and probably an excuse as to why he had to do it
that way. The report is then signed off by the other 2 prosectors, who
also had to have been given orders. They would never have taken the
initiative to fake the AR on their own on such an important document.


Now, since the back wound bullet never left the body of JFK and came
out the throat wound, the 'single bullet' theory is dead. And if the SBT
is dead, then there are too many shots for the 3 shells in the TSBD, and
there had to be another weapon and another shooter, and therefore a
conspiracy.

But that leaves you with a question of where did the bullet go if it
didn't leave the body of JFK. That's for the next installment. For now,
if any questions on this part of the case, let me know. Then we can move
on.

Chris
John McAdams
2017-06-07 16:41:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by Amy Joyce
Post by mainframetech
I can point to many statements and sworn testimony backing that up if
you're interested.
Chris
I'm interested, and also curious about what you said to me in another
topic (can't find it easily). You said that as a CT you think that you
determined how some of it went down. It's cool if you don't want to tell
more, or if you feel more comfortable messaging me, that's fine with
me.
~Amy
I'll be happy to show you all that I've dug up so far. But I'm not
sure now which point I was making. You deleted the previous conversation
and I've lost my thread of thought. Better to let the previous discussion
stay in the post, s that we can look back at what has been said.
I'll start with one of the areas of question. The 'single bullet'
theory in the WCR. I'll do it here, and you can then see the opposing
views that almost certainly will be posted after.
As noted previously, when the autopsy got going, 2 FBI agents were
there in attendance as observers. They recorded what they saw and heard
in their reports, which are online as the 'Sibert and O'Neill report'.
At one point they rolled the body over and found a bullet wound in the
upper back. Many people have been told and still believe that it wasn't
the 'upper back' but the lower neck. They found that there were too many
wounds on people and elsewhere to be caused by the 3 shells in the TSBD
6th floor 'nest'. So the WC lawyers devised a theory that would allow one
bullet to do more damage and so cover the problem that way. That became
the single bullet' theory, and consisted of the bullet that hit the upper
back of JFK was to be sent out of his body through the throat wound and
then hit Connally and injure him. That is 7 strikes on 2 men including 2
bone strikes. The bullet they picked to have done all that damage was the
so-called 'pristine' or 'magic' bullet, which was seemingly hardly
damaged.
But which in fact was badly deformed:

Loading Image...
Post by mainframetech
During the autopsy, Sibert was one of the FBI observers, and had given
"But when they raised him up, then they
found this back wound. And that’s when they
started probing with the rubber glove and the
finger, and - and also with the chrome probe.
And that’s just before, of course, I made
this call, because they were at a loss to explain
what had happened to this bullet. They couldn’t
find any bullet.
And they said, ‘There's no exit.” Finck,
in particular, said, "There’s no exit.” And they
said that you could feel it with the end of the
finger - I mean, the depth of this wound."
From: http://aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/arrb/medical_testimony/pdf/Sibert_9-11-97.pdf
Page 111
I'll always end a quote with a link to where the info came from, so you
can check context.
The 'prosectors' (pathologists) were Drs. Humes (in charge supposedly),
Boswell and Finck who was called in by Humes who knew that he and Boswell
didn't have the experience for this kind of autopsy with bullet wounds,
and very little experience altogether. Finck had a good reputation and
had done all sorts of autopsies on bullet deaths.
As the autopsy got further along, they reached a point where the organs
were to be removed. At this point, we go to statement made by Paul
O'Connor, Technologist, who assisted at the autopsy. He had stated that
"We started out with a rigid probe and found that it only went in so far.
I'd say maybe an inch and a quarter. It didn't go any further than that.
So we used a malleable probe and bent it a little bit and found out that
the bullet entered the body, went through the intercostal
muscles—the muscles in between the ribs. The bullet went in
through the muscles, didn't touch any of the ribs, arched downwards, hit
the back of the pleural cavity, which encases the lungs, both front and
back. It bounced off that cavity and stopped. It actually went down and
stopped. Went through the ribs and stopped (photo 10). So we didn't know
the track of the bullet until we eviscerated the body later. That's what
happened at that time. We traced the bullet path down and found out it
didn't traverse the body. It did not go in one side and come out the other
side of the body.
Law: You can be reasonably sure of that?
O'Connor: Absolutely.
Law: It was just from the probe then?
O'Connor: Oh yes.
Law: And these doctors knew that?
O'Connor: Absolutely.
Law: While it happened?
O'Connor: Absolutely."
From: "In the Eyes of History" by William Matson Law, pages 40-41
https://www.krusch.com/books/kennedy/In_The_Eye_Of_History.pdf
You really need to drop this nonsense.

The fact that a wound cannot be probed does *not* suggest the bullet
did not transit.

From Volume Seven of the HSCA:

(430) The panel believes that the difficulty which Drs. Humes, Finck,
and Boswell experienced in trying to place a soft probe through the
bullet pathway in President Kennedy’s neck probably resulted from
their failure or inability to manipulate this portion of the body into
the same position it was in when the missile penetrated. Rigor mortis
may have hindered this manipulation. Such placement would have enabled
reconstruction of the relationships of the neck and shoulder when the
missile struck. It is customary, however, to dissect missile tracks to
determine damage and pathway. Probing a track blindly may produce
false tracks and misinformation.
Post by mainframetech
That book is online and can be searched. The author used an
interviewer style that just asked questions, without a lot of his own
thoughts included.
So the autopsy ends, with no further discussion or conclusions made,
and Humes goes home ands writes up an Autopsy Report (AR) that is
completely opposite to what he has just seen. Though he knows the bullet
never left the body of JFK, he writes that it did, and that it came out of
the throat wound! But he doesn't say in the AR that they dissected the
path of the bullet, because there WAS no path after the pleura!
There was a path, with the bullet abrading the tip of the right lung,
and the strap muscles.

And the bullet exited the throat.

Loading Image...

But you think the autopsists were lying about that, right?

And you think the autopsy x-rays were faked, right?

.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Anthony Marsh
2017-06-08 02:55:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by John McAdams
Post by mainframetech
Post by Amy Joyce
Post by mainframetech
I can point to many statements and sworn testimony backing that up if
you're interested.
Chris
I'm interested, and also curious about what you said to me in another
topic (can't find it easily). You said that as a CT you think that you
determined how some of it went down. It's cool if you don't want to tell
more, or if you feel more comfortable messaging me, that's fine with
me.
~Amy
I'll be happy to show you all that I've dug up so far. But I'm not
sure now which point I was making. You deleted the previous conversation
and I've lost my thread of thought. Better to let the previous discussion
stay in the post, s that we can look back at what has been said.
I'll start with one of the areas of question. The 'single bullet'
theory in the WCR. I'll do it here, and you can then see the opposing
views that almost certainly will be posted after.
As noted previously, when the autopsy got going, 2 FBI agents were
there in attendance as observers. They recorded what they saw and heard
in their reports, which are online as the 'Sibert and O'Neill report'.
At one point they rolled the body over and found a bullet wound in the
upper back. Many people have been told and still believe that it wasn't
the 'upper back' but the lower neck. They found that there were too many
wounds on people and elsewhere to be caused by the 3 shells in the TSBD
6th floor 'nest'. So the WC lawyers devised a theory that would allow one
bullet to do more damage and so cover the problem that way. That became
the single bullet' theory, and consisted of the bullet that hit the upper
back of JFK was to be sent out of his body through the throat wound and
then hit Connally and injure him. That is 7 strikes on 2 men including 2
bone strikes. The bullet they picked to have done all that damage was the
so-called 'pristine' or 'magic' bullet, which was seemingly hardly
damaged.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/ce399.gif
Slightly. Similar to the Australian test.

Loading Image...
Post by John McAdams
Post by mainframetech
During the autopsy, Sibert was one of the FBI observers, and had given
"But when they raised him up, then they
found this back wound. And that’s when they
started probing with the rubber glove and the
finger, and - and also with the chrome probe.
And that’s just before, of course, I made
this call, because they were at a loss to explain
what had happened to this bullet. They couldn’t
find any bullet.
And they said, ‘There's no exit.” Finck,
in particular, said, "There’s no exit.” And they
said that you could feel it with the end of the
finger - I mean, the depth of this wound."
From: http://aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/arrb/medical_testimony/pdf/Sibert_9-11-97.pdf
Page 111
I'll always end a quote with a link to where the info came from, so you
can check context.
The 'prosectors' (pathologists) were Drs. Humes (in charge supposedly),
Boswell and Finck who was called in by Humes who knew that he and Boswell
didn't have the experience for this kind of autopsy with bullet wounds,
and very little experience altogether. Finck had a good reputation and
had done all sorts of autopsies on bullet deaths.
As the autopsy got further along, they reached a point where the organs
were to be removed. At this point, we go to statement made by Paul
O'Connor, Technologist, who assisted at the autopsy. He had stated that
"We started out with a rigid probe and found that it only went in so far.
I'd say maybe an inch and a quarter. It didn't go any further than that.
So we used a malleable probe and bent it a little bit and found out that
the bullet entered the body, went through the intercostal
muscles—the muscles in between the ribs. The bullet went in
through the muscles, didn't touch any of the ribs, arched downwards, hit
the back of the pleural cavity, which encases the lungs, both front and
back. It bounced off that cavity and stopped. It actually went down and
stopped. Went through the ribs and stopped (photo 10). So we didn't know
the track of the bullet until we eviscerated the body later. That's what
happened at that time. We traced the bullet path down and found out it
didn't traverse the body. It did not go in one side and come out the other
side of the body.
Law: You can be reasonably sure of that?
O'Connor: Absolutely.
Law: It was just from the probe then?
O'Connor: Oh yes.
Law: And these doctors knew that?
O'Connor: Absolutely.
Law: While it happened?
O'Connor: Absolutely."
From: "In the Eyes of History" by William Matson Law, pages 40-41
https://www.krusch.com/books/kennedy/In_The_Eye_Of_History.pdf
You really need to drop this nonsense.
The fact that a wound cannot be probed does *not* suggest the bullet
did not transit.
(430) The panel believes that the difficulty which Drs. Humes, Finck,
and Boswell experienced in trying to place a soft probe through the
bullet pathway in President Kennedy’s neck probably resulted from
their failure or inability to manipulate this portion of the body into
the same position it was in when the missile penetrated. Rigor mortis
may have hindered this manipulation. Such placement would have enabled
reconstruction of the relationships of the neck and shoulder when the
missile struck. It is customary, however, to dissect missile tracks to
determine damage and pathway. Probing a track blindly may produce
false tracks and misinformation.
Post by mainframetech
That book is online and can be searched. The author used an
interviewer style that just asked questions, without a lot of his own
thoughts included.
So the autopsy ends, with no further discussion or conclusions made,
and Humes goes home ands writes up an Autopsy Report (AR) that is
completely opposite to what he has just seen. Though he knows the bullet
never left the body of JFK, he writes that it did, and that it came out of
the throat wound! But he doesn't say in the AR that they dissected the
path of the bullet, because there WAS no path after the pleura!
There was a path, with the bullet abrading the tip of the right lung,
and the strap muscles.
And the bullet exited the throat.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/collar.jpg
But you think the autopsists were lying about that, right?
And you think the autopsy x-rays were faked, right?
Alterationists think everything was faked. Don't you remember Lifton's
fake tree on the grassy knoll with the shooter inside?
Post by John McAdams
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
mainframetech
2017-06-08 19:19:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by John McAdams
Post by mainframetech
Post by Amy Joyce
Post by mainframetech
I can point to many statements and sworn testimony backing that up if
you're interested.
Chris
I'm interested, and also curious about what you said to me in another
topic (can't find it easily). You said that as a CT you think that you
determined how some of it went down. It's cool if you don't want to tell
more, or if you feel more comfortable messaging me, that's fine with
me.
~Amy
I'll be happy to show you all that I've dug up so far. But I'm not
sure now which point I was making. You deleted the previous conversation
and I've lost my thread of thought. Better to let the previous discussion
stay in the post, s that we can look back at what has been said.
I'll start with one of the areas of question. The 'single bullet'
theory in the WCR. I'll do it here, and you can then see the opposing
views that almost certainly will be posted after.
As noted previously, when the autopsy got going, 2 FBI agents were
there in attendance as observers. They recorded what they saw and heard
in their reports, which are online as the 'Sibert and O'Neill report'.
At one point they rolled the body over and found a bullet wound in the
upper back. Many people have been told and still believe that it wasn't
the 'upper back' but the lower neck. They found that there were too many
wounds on people and elsewhere to be caused by the 3 shells in the TSBD
6th floor 'nest'. So the WC lawyers devised a theory that would allow one
bullet to do more damage and so cover the problem that way. That became
the single bullet' theory, and consisted of the bullet that hit the upper
back of JFK was to be sent out of his body through the throat wound and
then hit Connally and injure him. That is 7 strikes on 2 men including 2
bone strikes. The bullet they picked to have done all that damage was the
so-called 'pristine' or 'magic' bullet, which was seemingly hardly
damaged.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/ce399.gif
Strange that the photo you show is different than the one that I showed.
Do you suppose one of them is incorrectly identified as CE399? Here's the
one I saw:

Loading Image...

From: http://themysteriesofdealeyplaza.blogspot.com/2013/11/nova-cold-case-jfk-case-study-in-cherry.html
Post by John McAdams
Post by mainframetech
During the autopsy, Sibert was one of the FBI observers, and had given
"But when they raised him up, then they
found this back wound. And that’s when they
started probing with the rubber glove and the
finger, and - and also with the chrome probe.
And that’s just before, of course, I made
this call, because they were at a loss to explain
what had happened to this bullet. They couldn’t
find any bullet.
And they said, ‘There's no exit.” Finck,
in particular, said, "There’s no exit.” And they
said that you could feel it with the end of the
finger - I mean, the depth of this wound."
From: http://aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/arrb/medical_testimony/pdf/Sibert_9-11-97.pdf
Page 111
I'll always end a quote with a link to where the info came from, so you
can check context.
The 'prosectors' (pathologists) were Drs. Humes (in charge supposedly),
Boswell and Finck who was called in by Humes who knew that he and Boswell
didn't have the experience for this kind of autopsy with bullet wounds,
and very little experience altogether. Finck had a good reputation and
had done all sorts of autopsies on bullet deaths.
As the autopsy got further along, they reached a point where the organs
were to be removed. At this point, we go to statement made by Paul
O'Connor, Technologist, who assisted at the autopsy. He had stated that
"We started out with a rigid probe and found that it only went in so far.
I'd say maybe an inch and a quarter. It didn't go any further than that.
So we used a malleable probe and bent it a little bit and found out that
the bullet entered the body, went through the intercostal
muscles—the muscles in between the ribs. The bullet went in
through the muscles, didn't touch any of the ribs, arched downwards, hit
the back of the pleural cavity, which encases the lungs, both front and
back. It bounced off that cavity and stopped. It actually went down and
stopped. Went through the ribs and stopped (photo 10). So we didn't know
the track of the bullet until we eviscerated the body later. That's what
happened at that time. We traced the bullet path down and found out it
didn't traverse the body. It did not go in one side and come out the other
side of the body.
Law: You can be reasonably sure of that?
O'Connor: Absolutely.
Law: It was just from the probe then?
O'Connor: Oh yes.
Law: And these doctors knew that?
O'Connor: Absolutely.
Law: While it happened?
O'Connor: Absolutely."
From: "In the Eyes of History" by William Matson Law, pages 40-41
https://www.krusch.com/books/kennedy/In_The_Eye_Of_History.pdf
You really need to drop this nonsense.
The fact that a wound cannot be probed does *not* suggest the bullet
did not transit.
John, you need to not call all information from official files or from
witness statements 'nonsense'. I appreciate your opinions, but you're
wrong on this one. The quotes from the technologist at the autopsy were
made by William Matson Law, who got the quotes by asking questions and
recording the answers. The data you see above are the words right from
the autopsy team member's mouth without change or spin by the author.
Primary source as you would have it. The same for the statements of
Sibert, who was sworn in and recorded by the ARRB, an official body.

And your statement about the probe is correct. A probe stopping in a
wound does NOT prove the wound is shallow. That's why I presented the
other information of what they saw when they removed the organs. There
was NO path to be seen except for the inch or so of the back wound to the
pleura. Read the Autopsy Report (AR) and you will see that they had no
dissection of any path from the back wound, since there wasn't any, as per
the technologists report.
Post by John McAdams
(430) The panel believes that the difficulty which Drs. Humes, Finck,
and Boswell experienced in trying to place a soft probe through the
bullet pathway in President Kennedy’s neck probably resulted from
their failure or inability to manipulate this portion of the body into
the same position it was in when the missile penetrated. Rigor mortis
may have hindered this manipulation. Such placement would have enabled
reconstruction of the relationships of the neck and shoulder when the
missile struck. It is customary, however, to dissect missile tracks to
determine damage and pathway. Probing a track blindly may produce
false tracks and misinformation.
Notice that although the HSCA is no good for this particular case,
they say that "It is customary, however, to dissect missile tracks", and
yet the track for this particular wound was not done. See the AR for
proof of that. At the time of the HSCA, and the many medical panels that
were given the opportunity to look over the limited data of photos and
X-rays, No one was given the opportunity to look inside the body except
the autopsy team, and no one was able to see the sworn testimony of the
Bethesda enlisted Navy men, or ask them anything, which the ARRB was able
to do.

Further, which I didn't think was necessary to show before, but now
feel it is indeed important in light of your comments, is the statement
from an interview of James Jenkins describing his experience of looking
into the body cavity from the front after organs were removed just as they
were probing the back wound. The probe was striking the pleura tissue and
there was NO path through it as Jenkins looked on:

"Jim Jenkins recalled a very shallow back wound in JFK's upper posterior
thorax, that did not transit the body. He recalled Dr. Humes sticking his
finger in the wound, and seeing Dr. Humes' finger making an indentation in
the intact pleura as he viewed Humes' probing from the other side, where
the right lung would have been before its removal. The pleura was intact.
Jenkins also recalled seeing a bruise at the top of the middle lobe of the
right lung (but not at the top, or apex of the right lung)."

From: http://insidethearrb.livejournal.com/10811.html


Now I know that last is not from a primary source, but it is from the
other Technologist present at the autopsy and agrees with the previous
information.
Post by John McAdams
Post by mainframetech
That book is online and can be searched. The author used an
interviewer style that just asked questions, without a lot of his own
thoughts included.
So the autopsy ends, with no further discussion or conclusions made,
and Humes goes home ands writes up an Autopsy Report (AR) that is
completely opposite to what he has just seen. Though he knows the bullet
never left the body of JFK, he writes that it did, and that it came out of
the throat wound! But he doesn't say in the AR that they dissected the
path of the bullet, because there WAS no path after the pleura!
There was a path, with the bullet abrading the tip of the right lung,
and the strap muscles.
And the bullet exited the throat.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/collar.jpg
Because it was proved that the back wound bullet did NOT exit from the
body of JFK, the 'single bullet' theory is dead. Therefore the throat
wound was from the front as a few of the Parkland doctors had stated. It
will make a hole in the collar just as well.
Post by John McAdams
But you think the autopsists were lying about that, right?
And you think the autopsy x-rays were faked, right?
The conclusions of the prosectors DURING the autopsy were that the back
wound bullet did NOT exit the body of JFK (why is another discussion with
proof). They ALL saw the proof when the organs were removed, yet though
he saw the proof, Humes went home with no further discussion and wrote up
an AR that was completely different than what he had seen. He could never
have taken that initiative on his own, so that he had to have been given
orders to write it the way he did. It was critical to protect the 'lone
nut' theory for protection of the plotters, which is my belief.


I personally can't speak to the X-rays myself, but Jerrol Custer
(X-ray Technician) had said when they were described to him, that many of
the X-rays he took (and he took ALL of them that night) were missing and
some were not what he took. As well, there were a couple of photographers
that stated that they were made to sign off on sets of photos when there
were many missing from them that they knew they took.

The question of where did the back wound bullet go can be answered in a
separate discussion, as can the bullet from the frontal throat wound. I
wouldn't want to hang you up on the whole conspiracy.

Chris
Anthony Marsh
2017-06-09 13:11:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by John McAdams
Post by mainframetech
Post by Amy Joyce
Post by mainframetech
I can point to many statements and sworn testimony backing that up if
you're interested.
Chris
I'm interested, and also curious about what you said to me in another
topic (can't find it easily). You said that as a CT you think that you
determined how some of it went down. It's cool if you don't want to tell
more, or if you feel more comfortable messaging me, that's fine with
me.
~Amy
I'll be happy to show you all that I've dug up so far. But I'm not
sure now which point I was making. You deleted the previous conversation
and I've lost my thread of thought. Better to let the previous discussion
stay in the post, s that we can look back at what has been said.
I'll start with one of the areas of question. The 'single bullet'
theory in the WCR. I'll do it here, and you can then see the opposing
views that almost certainly will be posted after.
As noted previously, when the autopsy got going, 2 FBI agents were
there in attendance as observers. They recorded what they saw and heard
in their reports, which are online as the 'Sibert and O'Neill report'.
At one point they rolled the body over and found a bullet wound in the
upper back. Many people have been told and still believe that it wasn't
the 'upper back' but the lower neck. They found that there were too many
wounds on people and elsewhere to be caused by the 3 shells in the TSBD
6th floor 'nest'. So the WC lawyers devised a theory that would allow one
bullet to do more damage and so cover the problem that way. That became
the single bullet' theory, and consisted of the bullet that hit the upper
back of JFK was to be sent out of his body through the throat wound and
then hit Connally and injure him. That is 7 strikes on 2 men including 2
bone strikes. The bullet they picked to have done all that damage was the
so-called 'pristine' or 'magic' bullet, which was seemingly hardly
damaged.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/ce399.gif
Strange that the photo you show is different than the one that I showed.
Do you suppose one of them is incorrectly identified as CE399? Here's the
That was CE 399 years later, after they had dug lead out of the base.
Post by mainframetech
http://i1205.photobucket.com/albums/bb421/mnhay27/MashedLOL_zpsa362b2ec.jpg
From: http://themysteriesofdealeyplaza.blogspot.com/2013/11/nova-cold-case-jfk-case-study-in-cherry.html
Post by John McAdams
Post by mainframetech
During the autopsy, Sibert was one of the FBI observers, and had given
"But when they raised him up, then they
found this back wound. And that’s when they
started probing with the rubber glove and the
finger, and - and also with the chrome probe.
And that’s just before, of course, I made
this call, because they were at a loss to explain
what had happened to this bullet. They couldn’t
find any bullet.
And they said, ‘There's no exit.” Finck,
in particular, said, "There’s no exit.” And they
said that you could feel it with the end of the
finger - I mean, the depth of this wound."
From: http://aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/arrb/medical_testimony/pdf/Sibert_9-11-97.pdf
Page 111
I'll always end a quote with a link to where the info came from, so you
can check context.
The 'prosectors' (pathologists) were Drs. Humes (in charge supposedly),
Boswell and Finck who was called in by Humes who knew that he and Boswell
didn't have the experience for this kind of autopsy with bullet wounds,
and very little experience altogether. Finck had a good reputation and
had done all sorts of autopsies on bullet deaths.
As the autopsy got further along, they reached a point where the organs
were to be removed. At this point, we go to statement made by Paul
O'Connor, Technologist, who assisted at the autopsy. He had stated that
"We started out with a rigid probe and found that it only went in so far.
I'd say maybe an inch and a quarter. It didn't go any further than that.
So we used a malleable probe and bent it a little bit and found out that
the bullet entered the body, went through the intercostal
muscles—the muscles in between the ribs. The bullet went in
through the muscles, didn't touch any of the ribs, arched downwards, hit
the back of the pleural cavity, which encases the lungs, both front and
back. It bounced off that cavity and stopped. It actually went down and
stopped. Went through the ribs and stopped (photo 10). So we didn't know
the track of the bullet until we eviscerated the body later. That's what
happened at that time. We traced the bullet path down and found out it
didn't traverse the body. It did not go in one side and come out the other
side of the body.
Law: You can be reasonably sure of that?
O'Connor: Absolutely.
Law: It was just from the probe then?
O'Connor: Oh yes.
Law: And these doctors knew that?
O'Connor: Absolutely.
Law: While it happened?
O'Connor: Absolutely."
From: "In the Eyes of History" by William Matson Law, pages 40-41
https://www.krusch.com/books/kennedy/In_The_Eye_Of_History.pdf
You really need to drop this nonsense.
The fact that a wound cannot be probed does *not* suggest the bullet
did not transit.
John, you need to not call all information from official files or from
witness statements 'nonsense'. I appreciate your opinions, but you're
wrong on this one. The quotes from the technologist at the autopsy were
made by William Matson Law, who got the quotes by asking questions and
recording the answers. The data you see above are the words right from
the autopsy team member's mouth without change or spin by the author.
Primary source as you would have it. The same for the statements of
Sibert, who was sworn in and recorded by the ARRB, an official body.
And your statement about the probe is correct. A probe stopping in a
wound does NOT prove the wound is shallow. That's why I presented the
other information of what they saw when they removed the organs. There
was NO path to be seen except for the inch or so of the back wound to the
pleura. Read the Autopsy Report (AR) and you will see that they had no
dissection of any path from the back wound, since there wasn't any, as per
the technologists report.
Post by John McAdams
(430) The panel believes that the difficulty which Drs. Humes, Finck,
and Boswell experienced in trying to place a soft probe through the
bullet pathway in President Kennedy’s neck probably resulted from
their failure or inability to manipulate this portion of the body into
the same position it was in when the missile penetrated. Rigor mortis
may have hindered this manipulation. Such placement would have enabled
reconstruction of the relationships of the neck and shoulder when the
missile struck. It is customary, however, to dissect missile tracks to
determine damage and pathway. Probing a track blindly may produce
false tracks and misinformation.
Notice that although the HSCA is no good for this particular case,
they say that "It is customary, however, to dissect missile tracks", and
yet the track for this particular wound was not done. See the AR for
proof of that. At the time of the HSCA, and the many medical panels that
were given the opportunity to look over the limited data of photos and
X-rays, No one was given the opportunity to look inside the body except
the autopsy team, and no one was able to see the sworn testimony of the
Bethesda enlisted Navy men, or ask them anything, which the ARRB was able
to do.
Further, which I didn't think was necessary to show before, but now
feel it is indeed important in light of your comments, is the statement
from an interview of James Jenkins describing his experience of looking
into the body cavity from the front after organs were removed just as they
were probing the back wound. The probe was striking the pleura tissue and
"Jim Jenkins recalled a very shallow back wound in JFK's upper posterior
thorax, that did not transit the body. He recalled Dr. Humes sticking his
finger in the wound, and seeing Dr. Humes' finger making an indentation in
the intact pleura as he viewed Humes' probing from the other side, where
the right lung would have been before its removal. The pleura was intact.
Jenkins also recalled seeing a bruise at the top of the middle lobe of the
right lung (but not at the top, or apex of the right lung)."
From: http://insidethearrb.livejournal.com/10811.html
Now I know that last is not from a primary source, but it is from the
other Technologist present at the autopsy and agrees with the previous
information.
Post by John McAdams
Post by mainframetech
That book is online and can be searched. The author used an
interviewer style that just asked questions, without a lot of his own
thoughts included.
So the autopsy ends, with no further discussion or conclusions made,
and Humes goes home ands writes up an Autopsy Report (AR) that is
completely opposite to what he has just seen. Though he knows the bullet
never left the body of JFK, he writes that it did, and that it came out of
the throat wound! But he doesn't say in the AR that they dissected the
path of the bullet, because there WAS no path after the pleura!
There was a path, with the bullet abrading the tip of the right lung,
and the strap muscles.
And the bullet exited the throat.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/collar.jpg
Because it was proved that the back wound bullet did NOT exit from the
body of JFK, the 'single bullet' theory is dead. Therefore the throat
wound was from the front as a few of the Parkland doctors had stated. It
will make a hole in the collar just as well.
Post by John McAdams
But you think the autopsists were lying about that, right?
And you think the autopsy x-rays were faked, right?
The conclusions of the prosectors DURING the autopsy were that the back
wound bullet did NOT exit the body of JFK (why is another discussion with
proof). They ALL saw the proof when the organs were removed, yet though
he saw the proof, Humes went home with no further discussion and wrote up
an AR that was completely different than what he had seen. He could never
have taken that initiative on his own, so that he had to have been given
orders to write it the way he did. It was critical to protect the 'lone
nut' theory for protection of the plotters, which is my belief.
I personally can't speak to the X-rays myself, but Jerrol Custer
(X-ray Technician) had said when they were described to him, that many of
the X-rays he took (and he took ALL of them that night) were missing and
some were not what he took. As well, there were a couple of photographers
that stated that they were made to sign off on sets of photos when there
were many missing from them that they knew they took.
The question of where did the back wound bullet go can be answered in a
separate discussion, as can the bullet from the frontal throat wound. I
wouldn't want to hang you up on the whole conspiracy.
Chris
Anthony Marsh
2017-06-08 02:56:12 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by Amy Joyce
Post by mainframetech
I can point to many statements and sworn testimony backing that up if
you're interested.
Chris
I'm interested, and also curious about what you said to me in another
topic (can't find it easily). You said that as a CT you think that you
determined how some of it went down. It's cool if you don't want to tell
more, or if you feel more comfortable messaging me, that's fine with
me.
~Amy
I'll be happy to show you all that I've dug up so far. But I'm not
sure now which point I was making. You deleted the previous conversation
and I've lost my thread of thought. Better to let the previous discussion
stay in the post, s that we can look back at what has been said.
Anyone here ever hear of QUOTING properly according to USENET rules?
Post by mainframetech
I'll start with one of the areas of question. The 'single bullet'
theory in the WCR. I'll do it here, and you can then see the opposing
views that almost certainly will be posted after.
As noted previously, when the autopsy got going, 2 FBI agents were
there in attendance as observers. They recorded what they saw and heard
in their reports, which are online as the 'Sibert and O'Neill report'.
At one point they rolled the body over and found a bullet wound in the
upper back. Many people have been told and still believe that it wasn't
the 'upper back' but the lower neck. They found that there were too many
wounds on people and elsewhere to be caused by the 3 shells in the TSBD
6th floor 'nest'. So the WC lawyers devised a theory that would allow one
bullet to do more damage and so cover the problem that way. That became
the single bullet' theory, and consisted of the bullet that hit the upper
back of JFK was to be sent out of his body through the throat wound and
then hit Connally and injure him. That is 7 strikes on 2 men including 2
bone strikes. The bullet they picked to have done all that damage was the
so-called 'pristine' or 'magic' bullet, which was seemingly hardly
damaged.
During the autopsy, Sibert was one of the FBI observers, and had given
"But when they raised him up, then they
found this back wound. And that’s when they
started probing with the rubber glove and the
finger, and - and also with the chrome probe.
And that’s just before, of course, I made
this call, because they were at a loss to explain
what had happened to this bullet. They couldn’t
find any bullet.
And they said, ‘There's no exit.” Finck,
in particular, said, "There’s no exit.” And they
said that you could feel it with the end of the
finger - I mean, the depth of this wound."
From: http://aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/arrb/medical_testimony/pdf/Sibert_9-11-97.pdf
Page 111
I'll always end a quote with a link to where the info came from, so you
can check context.
The 'prosectors' (pathologists) were Drs. Humes (in charge supposedly),
Boswell and Finck who was called in by Humes who knew that he and Boswell
didn't have the experience for this kind of autopsy with bullet wounds,
and very little experience altogether. Finck had a good reputation and
had done all sorts of autopsies on bullet deaths.
As the autopsy got further along, they reached a point where the organs
were to be removed. At this point, we go to statement made by Paul
O'Connor, Technologist, who assisted at the autopsy. He had stated that
"We started out with a rigid probe and found that it only went in so far.
I'd say maybe an inch and a quarter. It didn't go any further than that.
So we used a malleable probe and bent it a little bit and found out that
the bullet entered the body, went through the intercostal
muscles—the muscles in between the ribs. The bullet went in
through the muscles, didn't touch any of the ribs, arched downwards, hit
the back of the pleural cavity, which encases the lungs, both front and
back. It bounced off that cavity and stopped. It actually went down and
stopped. Went through the ribs and stopped (photo 10). So we didn't know
the track of the bullet until we eviscerated the body later. That's what
happened at that time. We traced the bullet path down and found out it
didn't traverse the body. It did not go in one side and come out the other
side of the body.
Law: You can be reasonably sure of that?
O'Connor: Absolutely.
Law: It was just from the probe then?
O'Connor: Oh yes.
Law: And these doctors knew that?
O'Connor: Absolutely.
Law: While it happened?
O'Connor: Absolutely."
From: "In the Eyes of History" by William Matson Law, pages 40-41
https://www.krusch.com/books/kennedy/In_The_Eye_Of_History.pdf
That book is online and can be searched. The author used an
interviewer style that just asked questions, without a lot of his own
thoughts included.
So the autopsy ends, with no further discussion or conclusions made,
and Humes goes home ands writes up an Autopsy Report (AR) that is
completely opposite to what he has just seen. Though he knows the bullet
never left the body of JFK, he writes that it did, and that it came out of
the throat wound! But he doesn't say in the AR that they dissected the
path of the bullet, because there WAS no path after the pleura!
To write such a completely false AR, Humes had to have been given
orders by a higher up, and probably an excuse as to why he had to do it
that way. The report is then signed off by the other 2 prosectors, who
also had to have been given orders. They would never have taken the
initiative to fake the AR on their own on such an important document.
Now, since the back wound bullet never left the body of JFK and came
out the throat wound, the 'single bullet' theory is dead. And if the SBT
is dead, then there are too many shots for the 3 shells in the TSBD, and
there had to be another weapon and another shooter, and therefore a
conspiracy.
But that leaves you with a question of where did the bullet go if it
didn't leave the body of JFK. That's for the next installment. For now,
if any questions on this part of the case, let me know. Then we can move
on.
Chris
OHLeeRedux
2017-06-09 00:31:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by mainframetech
Post by Amy Joyce
Post by mainframetech
I can point to many statements and sworn testimony backing that up if
you're interested.
Chris
I'm interested, and also curious about what you said to me in another
topic (can't find it easily). You said that as a CT you think that you
determined how some of it went down. It's cool if you don't want to tell
more, or if you feel more comfortable messaging me, that's fine with
me.
~Amy
I'll be happy to show you all that I've dug up so far. But I'm not
sure now which point I was making. You deleted the previous conversation
and I've lost my thread of thought. Better to let the previous discussion
stay in the post, s that we can look back at what has been said.
Anyone here ever hear of QUOTING properly according to USENET rules?
Nobody but you has any trouble following the conversation. It has nothing
to do with rules, but with your constant state of confusion.
Anthony Marsh
2017-06-09 20:10:12 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by OHLeeRedux
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by mainframetech
Post by Amy Joyce
Post by mainframetech
I can point to many statements and sworn testimony backing that up if
you're interested.
Chris
I'm interested, and also curious about what you said to me in another
topic (can't find it easily). You said that as a CT you think that you
determined how some of it went down. It's cool if you don't want to tell
more, or if you feel more comfortable messaging me, that's fine with
me.
~Amy
I'll be happy to show you all that I've dug up so far. But I'm not
sure now which point I was making. You deleted the previous conversation
and I've lost my thread of thought. Better to let the previous discussion
stay in the post, s that we can look back at what has been said.
Anyone here ever hear of QUOTING properly according to USENET rules?
Nobody but you has any trouble following the conversation. It has nothing
to do with rules, but with your constant state of confusion.
Somebody else just complained about confusing threads.
All you ever do is attack me. You can't do any actual research.
Anthony Marsh
2017-06-08 02:56:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by Amy Joyce
Post by mainframetech
I can point to many statements and sworn testimony backing that up if
you're interested.
Chris
I'm interested, and also curious about what you said to me in another
topic (can't find it easily). You said that as a CT you think that you
determined how some of it went down. It's cool if you don't want to tell
more, or if you feel more comfortable messaging me, that's fine with
me.
~Amy
I'll be happy to show you all that I've dug up so far. But I'm not
sure now which point I was making. You deleted the previous conversation
and I've lost my thread of thought. Better to let the previous discussion
stay in the post, s that we can look back at what has been said.
I'll start with one of the areas of question. The 'single bullet'
theory in the WCR. I'll do it here, and you can then see the opposing
views that almost certainly will be posted after.
As noted previously, when the autopsy got going, 2 FBI agents were
there in attendance as observers. They recorded what they saw and heard
in their reports, which are online as the 'Sibert and O'Neill report'.
At one point they rolled the body over and found a bullet wound in the
upper back. Many people have been told and still believe that it wasn't
the 'upper back' but the lower neck. They found that there were too many
wounds on people and elsewhere to be caused by the 3 shells in the TSBD
6th floor 'nest'. So the WC lawyers devised a theory that would allow one
bullet to do more damage and so cover the problem that way. That became
the single bullet' theory, and consisted of the bullet that hit the upper
back of JFK was to be sent out of his body through the throat wound and
then hit Connally and injure him. That is 7 strikes on 2 men including 2
bone strikes. The bullet they picked to have done all that damage was the
so-called 'pristine' or 'magic' bullet, which was seemingly hardly
damaged.
During the autopsy, Sibert was one of the FBI observers, and had given
"But when they raised him up, then they
found this back wound. And that’s when they
started probing with the rubber glove and the
finger, and - and also with the chrome probe.
And that’s just before, of course, I made
this call, because they were at a loss to explain
what had happened to this bullet. They couldn’t
find any bullet.
And they said, ‘There's no exit.” Finck,
in particular, said, "There’s no exit.” And they
said that you could feel it with the end of the
finger - I mean, the depth of this wound."
Then HUmes said ICE BULLET and you have to believe that because you
believe everyhthing that Humes said. You rely on witnesses and liars.
Post by mainframetech
From: http://aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/arrb/medical_testimony/pdf/Sibert_9-11-97.pdf
Page 111
I'll always end a quote with a link to where the info came from, so you
can check context.
The 'prosectors' (pathologists) were Drs. Humes (in charge supposedly),
Boswell and Finck who was called in by Humes who knew that he and Boswell
didn't have the experience for this kind of autopsy with bullet wounds,
and very little experience altogether. Finck had a good reputation and
had done all sorts of autopsies on bullet deaths.
As the autopsy got further along, they reached a point where the organs
were to be removed. At this point, we go to statement made by Paul
O'Connor, Technologist, who assisted at the autopsy. He had stated that
"We started out with a rigid probe and found that it only went in so far.
I'd say maybe an inch and a quarter. It didn't go any further than that.
So we used a malleable probe and bent it a little bit and found out that
the bullet entered the body, went through the intercostal
muscles—the muscles in between the ribs. The bullet went in
through the muscles, didn't touch any of the ribs, arched downwards, hit
the back of the pleural cavity, which encases the lungs, both front and
back. It bounced off that cavity and stopped. It actually went down and
stopped. Went through the ribs and stopped (photo 10). So we didn't know
the track of the bullet until we eviscerated the body later. That's what
happened at that time. We traced the bullet path down and found out it
didn't traverse the body. It did not go in one side and come out the other
side of the body.
Law: You can be reasonably sure of that?
O'Connor: Absolutely.
Law: It was just from the probe then?
O'Connor: Oh yes.
Law: And these doctors knew that?
O'Connor: Absolutely.
Law: While it happened?
O'Connor: Absolutely."
From: "In the Eyes of History" by William Matson Law, pages 40-41
https://www.krusch.com/books/kennedy/In_The_Eye_Of_History.pdf
That book is online and can be searched. The author used an
interviewer style that just asked questions, without a lot of his own
thoughts included.
So the autopsy ends, with no further discussion or conclusions made,
and Humes goes home ands writes up an Autopsy Report (AR) that is
completely opposite to what he has just seen. Though he knows the bullet
never left the body of JFK, he writes that it did, and that it came out of
the throat wound! But he doesn't say in the AR that they dissected the
path of the bullet, because there WAS no path after the pleura!
To write such a completely false AR, Humes had to have been given
orders by a higher up, and probably an excuse as to why he had to do it
that way. The report is then signed off by the other 2 prosectors, who
also had to have been given orders. They would never have taken the
initiative to fake the AR on their own on such an important document.
Now, since the back wound bullet never left the body of JFK and came
out the throat wound, the 'single bullet' theory is dead. And if the SBT
is dead, then there are too many shots for the 3 shells in the TSBD, and
there had to be another weapon and another shooter, and therefore a
conspiracy.
But that leaves you with a question of where did the bullet go if it
didn't leave the body of JFK. That's for the next installment. For now,
if any questions on this part of the case, let me know. Then we can move
on.
Chris
mainframetech
2017-06-09 02:32:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by mainframetech
Post by Amy Joyce
Post by mainframetech
I can point to many statements and sworn testimony backing that up if
you're interested.
Chris
I'm interested, and also curious about what you said to me in another
topic (can't find it easily). You said that as a CT you think that you
determined how some of it went down. It's cool if you don't want to tell
more, or if you feel more comfortable messaging me, that's fine with
me.
~Amy
I'll be happy to show you all that I've dug up so far. But I'm not
sure now which point I was making. You deleted the previous conversation
and I've lost my thread of thought. Better to let the previous discussion
stay in the post, s that we can look back at what has been said.
I'll start with one of the areas of question. The 'single bullet'
theory in the WCR. I'll do it here, and you can then see the opposing
views that almost certainly will be posted after.
As noted previously, when the autopsy got going, 2 FBI agents were
there in attendance as observers. They recorded what they saw and heard
in their reports, which are online as the 'Sibert and O'Neill report'.
At one point they rolled the body over and found a bullet wound in the
upper back. Many people have been told and still believe that it wasn't
the 'upper back' but the lower neck. They found that there were too many
wounds on people and elsewhere to be caused by the 3 shells in the TSBD
6th floor 'nest'. So the WC lawyers devised a theory that would allow one
bullet to do more damage and so cover the problem that way. That became
the single bullet' theory, and consisted of the bullet that hit the upper
back of JFK was to be sent out of his body through the throat wound and
then hit Connally and injure him. That is 7 strikes on 2 men including 2
bone strikes. The bullet they picked to have done all that damage was the
so-called 'pristine' or 'magic' bullet, which was seemingly hardly
damaged.
During the autopsy, Sibert was one of the FBI observers, and had given
"But when they raised him up, then they
found this back wound. And that’s when they
started probing with the rubber glove and the
finger, and - and also with the chrome probe.
And that’s just before, of course, I made
this call, because they were at a loss to explain
what had happened to this bullet. They couldn’t
find any bullet.
And they said, ‘There's no exit.” Finck,
in particular, said, "There’s no exit.” And they
said that you could feel it with the end of the
finger - I mean, the depth of this wound."
Then HUmes said ICE BULLET and you have to believe that because you
believe everyhthing that Humes said. You rely on witnesses and liars.
You rely on junk. The comment that started the 'ice bullet' idea came
from James Sibert, FBI agent, who had heard the prosectors say that
"there's NO EXIT" from the body of JFK for the back wound bullet.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by mainframetech
From: http://aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/arrb/medical_testimony/pdf/Sibert_9-11-97.pdf
Page 111
I'll always end a quote with a link to where the info came from, so you
can check context.
The 'prosectors' (pathologists) were Drs. Humes (in charge supposedly),
Boswell and Finck who was called in by Humes who knew that he and Boswell
didn't have the experience for this kind of autopsy with bullet wounds,
and very little experience altogether. Finck had a good reputation and
had done all sorts of autopsies on bullet deaths.
As the autopsy got further along, they reached a point where the organs
were to be removed. At this point, we go to statement made by Paul
O'Connor, Technologist, who assisted at the autopsy. He had stated that
"We started out with a rigid probe and found that it only went in so far.
I'd say maybe an inch and a quarter. It didn't go any further than that.
So we used a malleable probe and bent it a little bit and found out that
the bullet entered the body, went through the intercostal
muscles—the muscles in between the ribs. The bullet went in
through the muscles, didn't touch any of the ribs, arched downwards, hit
the back of the pleural cavity, which encases the lungs, both front and
back. It bounced off that cavity and stopped. It actually went down and
stopped. Went through the ribs and stopped (photo 10). So we didn't know
the track of the bullet until we eviscerated the body later. That's what
happened at that time. We traced the bullet path down and found out it
didn't traverse the body. It did not go in one side and come out the other
side of the body.
Law: You can be reasonably sure of that?
O'Connor: Absolutely.
Law: It was just from the probe then?
O'Connor: Oh yes.
Law: And these doctors knew that?
O'Connor: Absolutely.
Law: While it happened?
O'Connor: Absolutely."
From: "In the Eyes of History" by William Matson Law, pages 40-41
https://www.krusch.com/books/kennedy/In_The_Eye_Of_History.pdf
That book is online and can be searched. The author used an
interviewer style that just asked questions, without a lot of his own
thoughts included.
So the autopsy ends, with no further discussion or conclusions made,
and Humes goes home ands writes up an Autopsy Report (AR) that is
completely opposite to what he has just seen. Though he knows the bullet
never left the body of JFK, he writes that it did, and that it came out of
the throat wound! But he doesn't say in the AR that they dissected the
path of the bullet, because there WAS no path after the pleura!
To write such a completely false AR, Humes had to have been given
orders by a higher up, and probably an excuse as to why he had to do it
that way. The report is then signed off by the other 2 prosectors, who
also had to have been given orders. They would never have taken the
initiative to fake the AR on their own on such an important document.
Now, since the back wound bullet never left the body of JFK and came
out the throat wound, the 'single bullet' theory is dead. And if the SBT
is dead, then there are too many shots for the 3 shells in the TSBD, and
there had to be another weapon and another shooter, and therefore a
conspiracy.
But that leaves you with a question of where did the bullet go if it
didn't leave the body of JFK. That's for the next installment. For now,
if any questions on this part of the case, let me know. Then we can move
on.
Chris
John McAdams
2017-06-09 02:37:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by Anthony Marsh
Then HUmes said ICE BULLET and you have to believe that because you
believe everyhthing that Humes said. You rely on witnesses and liars.
You rely on junk. The comment that started the 'ice bullet' idea came
from James Sibert, FBI agent, who had heard the prosectors say that
"there's NO EXIT" from the body of JFK for the back wound bullet.
Do you *ever* pay attention to counter-arguments?

The autopsists were not aware that the tracheotomy in the throat
obliterated another wound. When Humes found it out, he put two and
two together and inferred that was the exit from the bullet that
entered the back.

You quote all these witnesses saying, in effect, that the wound could
not be probed. That proves nothing. I posted the HSCA on that.

You have *no* witnesses who say a bullet was found in the body.

And you disregard the x-rays, that showed there was no bullet in the
body.

.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
mainframetech
2017-06-10 01:42:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by John McAdams
Post by mainframetech
Post by Anthony Marsh
Then HUmes said ICE BULLET and you have to believe that because you
believe everyhthing that Humes said. You rely on witnesses and liars.
You rely on junk. The comment that started the 'ice bullet' idea came
from James Sibert, FBI agent, who had heard the prosectors say that
"there's NO EXIT" from the body of JFK for the back wound bullet.
Do you *ever* pay attention to counter-arguments?
The autopsists were not aware that the tracheotomy in the throat
obliterated another wound. When Humes found it out, he put two and
two together and inferred that was the exit from the bullet that
entered the back.
You quote all these witnesses saying, in effect, that the wound could
not be probed. That proves nothing. I posted the HSCA on that.
You have *no* witnesses who say a bullet was found in the body.
And you disregard the x-rays, that showed there was no bullet in the
body.
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
From Chris,

Hard to tell if you're talking to me or Marsh. If it was me, that's
no problem, since I can back up my comments as to the probing, and have
already done so. As to bullets in the body, I clearly agree that no
bullets were left in the body, especially after the clandestine work done
by Humes and Boswell, who were seen at their work by a few people. I also
agree that any legitimate X-rays do not show any bullets.

As to the probing, I've put out clear statements from witnesses to the
internal proof that the bullet from the upper back wound never left the
body of JFK through the throat wound. There are 2 possible ways for that
bullet to be removed from the body, first, the clandestine work seen by
witnesses that Humes and Boswell did, to find bullets in the body, and
second, the possibility that Jerrol Custer SAW the bullet fall from the
body. Here's the relevant sworn testimony from the ARRB files for Jerrol
Custer:

"When I lifted the body up to take films of
the torso, and the lumbar spine, and the pelvis,
this is when a king-size fragment - I’d say -
estimate around three, four sonometers - fell from
the back. And this is when Dr. Finck come over
with a pair of forceps, picked it up, and took -
That’s the last time I ever saw it.
Now, it was big enough -That’s about,
I’d say, an inch and a half. My finger-my small
finger. First joints."

From: http://aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/arrb/medical_testimony/pdf/Custer_10-28-97.pdf

Page 53

Sonometer = centimeter, and 3-4 centimeters is long enough to be many
types of bullet.


Custer later decided that he wanted to write a book, which puts his
statement in a bit of doubt, but there it is. We know from the internal
proof that the back wound never penetrated more than an inch or so into
the body, because of the removal of the organs showing the resultant
bruise on the pleura and right lung, but NO PATH further beyond that.
The Autopsy Report (AR) even states they didn't dissect any path for that
bullet, and the reason is that there was no path. There is a statement in
the AR that the bullet went out the throat wound and it has NO support
whatsoever. Normally they would dissect the path to be sure of it.

This further information from the statements previously put out by me,
should answer any concerns about probing. One needs only to read them.

A final comment on the HSCA info. They did not see into the body as
the autopsy team did, and they had NO opportunity to review the many
statements of the enlisted men of Bethesda, who were competent for their
specialties. The truth lies there.

Chris
Amy Joyce
2017-06-08 19:23:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by Amy Joyce
Post by mainframetech
I can point to many statements and sworn testimony backing that up if
you're interested.
Chris
I'm interested, and also curious about what you said to me in another
topic (can't find it easily). You said that as a CT you think that you
determined how some of it went down. It's cool if you don't want to tell
more, or if you feel more comfortable messaging me, that's fine with
me.
~Amy
I'll be happy to show you all that I've dug up so far. But I'm not
sure now which point I was making. You deleted the previous conversation
and I've lost my thread of thought. Better to let the previous discussion
stay in the post, s that we can look back at what has been said.
I'll start with one of the areas of question. The 'single bullet'
theory in the WCR. I'll do it here, and you can then see the opposing
views that almost certainly will be posted after.
As noted previously, when the autopsy got going, 2 FBI agents were
there in attendance as observers. They recorded what they saw and heard
in their reports, which are online as the 'Sibert and O'Neill report'.
At one point they rolled the body over and found a bullet wound in the
upper back. Many people have been told and still believe that it wasn't
the 'upper back' but the lower neck. They found that there were too many
wounds on people and elsewhere to be caused by the 3 shells in the TSBD
6th floor 'nest'. So the WC lawyers devised a theory that would allow one
bullet to do more damage and so cover the problem that way. That became
the single bullet' theory, and consisted of the bullet that hit the upper
back of JFK was to be sent out of his body through the throat wound and
then hit Connally and injure him. That is 7 strikes on 2 men including 2
bone strikes. The bullet they picked to have done all that damage was the
so-called 'pristine' or 'magic' bullet, which was seemingly hardly
damaged.
During the autopsy, Sibert was one of the FBI observers, and had given
"But when they raised him up, then they
found this back wound. And that’s when they
started probing with the rubber glove and the
finger, and - and also with the chrome probe.
And that’s just before, of course, I made
this call, because they were at a loss to explain
what had happened to this bullet. They couldn’t
find any bullet.
And they said, ‘There's no exit.” Finck,
in particular, said, "There’s no exit.” And they
said that you could feel it with the end of the
finger - I mean, the depth of this wound."
From: http://aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/arrb/medical_testimony/pdf/Sibert_9-11-97.pdf
Page 111
I'll always end a quote with a link to where the info came from, so you
can check context.
The 'prosectors' (pathologists) were Drs. Humes (in charge supposedly),
Boswell and Finck who was called in by Humes who knew that he and Boswell
didn't have the experience for this kind of autopsy with bullet wounds,
and very little experience altogether. Finck had a good reputation and
had done all sorts of autopsies on bullet deaths.
As the autopsy got further along, they reached a point where the organs
were to be removed. At this point, we go to statement made by Paul
O'Connor, Technologist, who assisted at the autopsy. He had stated that
"We started out with a rigid probe and found that it only went in so far.
I'd say maybe an inch and a quarter. It didn't go any further than that.
So we used a malleable probe and bent it a little bit and found out that
the bullet entered the body, went through the intercostal
muscles—the muscles in between the ribs. The bullet went in
through the muscles, didn't touch any of the ribs, arched downwards, hit
the back of the pleural cavity, which encases the lungs, both front and
back. It bounced off that cavity and stopped. It actually went down and
stopped. Went through the ribs and stopped (photo 10). So we didn't know
the track of the bullet until we eviscerated the body later. That's what
happened at that time. We traced the bullet path down and found out it
didn't traverse the body. It did not go in one side and come out the other
side of the body.
Law: You can be reasonably sure of that?
O'Connor: Absolutely.
Law: It was just from the probe then?
O'Connor: Oh yes.
Law: And these doctors knew that?
O'Connor: Absolutely.
Law: While it happened?
O'Connor: Absolutely."
From: "In the Eyes of History" by William Matson Law, pages 40-41
https://www.krusch.com/books/kennedy/In_The_Eye_Of_History.pdf
That book is online and can be searched. The author used an
interviewer style that just asked questions, without a lot of his own
thoughts included.
So the autopsy ends, with no further discussion or conclusions made,
and Humes goes home ands writes up an Autopsy Report (AR) that is
completely opposite to what he has just seen. Though he knows the bullet
never left the body of JFK, he writes that it did, and that it came out of
the throat wound! But he doesn't say in the AR that they dissected the
path of the bullet, because there WAS no path after the pleura!
To write such a completely false AR, Humes had to have been given
orders by a higher up, and probably an excuse as to why he had to do it
that way. The report is then signed off by the other 2 prosectors, who
also had to have been given orders. They would never have taken the
initiative to fake the AR on their own on such an important document.
Now, since the back wound bullet never left the body of JFK and came
out the throat wound, the 'single bullet' theory is dead. And if the SBT
is dead, then there are too many shots for the 3 shells in the TSBD, and
there had to be another weapon and another shooter, and therefore a
conspiracy.
But that leaves you with a question of where did the bullet go if it
didn't leave the body of JFK. That's for the next installment. For now,
if any questions on this part of the case, let me know. Then we can move
on.
Chris
Chris, this is fascinating and believable (fyi I haven't read any
arguments against it in this forum, yet). It's actually startling for a
few reasons: 1) The gunshot through the back and not exiting is what the
newspapers revealed before the official AR was released. 2) In the same
newspaper was an article that was seemingly written to explain away
"rumors" that there wasn't a shooter from the front. It stated that the
throat wound was an exit wound "deflection" of the shot to the head.
Initial reports seemed to already be getting changed to deter suspicions
and evidence away from a conspiracy (more than 3 shots). That tells me to
be caution if/when more changes occur, as it did. 3) Yes, mistakes can
occur and initial findings corrected as more evidence arises. I can buy
that, but not in a situation like this when the "evidence" comes from
places other than the body. It appears that the final AR was written more
to reflect evidence found at the "scene" of the crime (sniper's nest). An
error, like mistaking that there wasn't an exit wound to a shot in the
back, seems less unlikely to happen by a ME - especially when considering
the multiple explanation(s) offered as to how they came to that
conclusion.
Bud
2017-06-09 02:55:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Amy Joyce
Post by mainframetech
Post by Amy Joyce
Post by mainframetech
I can point to many statements and sworn testimony backing that up if
you're interested.
Chris
I'm interested, and also curious about what you said to me in another
topic (can't find it easily). You said that as a CT you think that you
determined how some of it went down. It's cool if you don't want to tell
more, or if you feel more comfortable messaging me, that's fine with
me.
~Amy
I'll be happy to show you all that I've dug up so far. But I'm not
sure now which point I was making. You deleted the previous conversation
and I've lost my thread of thought. Better to let the previous discussion
stay in the post, s that we can look back at what has been said.
I'll start with one of the areas of question. The 'single bullet'
theory in the WCR. I'll do it here, and you can then see the opposing
views that almost certainly will be posted after.
As noted previously, when the autopsy got going, 2 FBI agents were
there in attendance as observers. They recorded what they saw and heard
in their reports, which are online as the 'Sibert and O'Neill report'.
At one point they rolled the body over and found a bullet wound in the
upper back. Many people have been told and still believe that it wasn't
the 'upper back' but the lower neck. They found that there were too many
wounds on people and elsewhere to be caused by the 3 shells in the TSBD
6th floor 'nest'. So the WC lawyers devised a theory that would allow one
bullet to do more damage and so cover the problem that way. That became
the single bullet' theory, and consisted of the bullet that hit the upper
back of JFK was to be sent out of his body through the throat wound and
then hit Connally and injure him. That is 7 strikes on 2 men including 2
bone strikes. The bullet they picked to have done all that damage was the
so-called 'pristine' or 'magic' bullet, which was seemingly hardly
damaged.
During the autopsy, Sibert was one of the FBI observers, and had given
"But when they raised him up, then they
found this back wound. And that’s when they
started probing with the rubber glove and the
finger, and - and also with the chrome probe.
And that’s just before, of course, I made
this call, because they were at a loss to explain
what had happened to this bullet. They couldn’t
find any bullet.
And they said, ‘There's no exit.” Finck,
in particular, said, "There’s no exit.” And they
said that you could feel it with the end of the
finger - I mean, the depth of this wound."
From: http://aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/arrb/medical_testimony/pdf/Sibert_9-11-97.pdf
Page 111
I'll always end a quote with a link to where the info came from, so you
can check context.
The 'prosectors' (pathologists) were Drs. Humes (in charge supposedly),
Boswell and Finck who was called in by Humes who knew that he and Boswell
didn't have the experience for this kind of autopsy with bullet wounds,
and very little experience altogether. Finck had a good reputation and
had done all sorts of autopsies on bullet deaths.
As the autopsy got further along, they reached a point where the organs
were to be removed. At this point, we go to statement made by Paul
O'Connor, Technologist, who assisted at the autopsy. He had stated that
"We started out with a rigid probe and found that it only went in so far.
I'd say maybe an inch and a quarter. It didn't go any further than that.
So we used a malleable probe and bent it a little bit and found out that
the bullet entered the body, went through the intercostal
muscles—the muscles in between the ribs. The bullet went in
through the muscles, didn't touch any of the ribs, arched downwards, hit
the back of the pleural cavity, which encases the lungs, both front and
back. It bounced off that cavity and stopped. It actually went down and
stopped. Went through the ribs and stopped (photo 10). So we didn't know
the track of the bullet until we eviscerated the body later. That's what
happened at that time. We traced the bullet path down and found out it
didn't traverse the body. It did not go in one side and come out the other
side of the body.
Law: You can be reasonably sure of that?
O'Connor: Absolutely.
Law: It was just from the probe then?
O'Connor: Oh yes.
Law: And these doctors knew that?
O'Connor: Absolutely.
Law: While it happened?
O'Connor: Absolutely."
From: "In the Eyes of History" by William Matson Law, pages 40-41
https://www.krusch.com/books/kennedy/In_The_Eye_Of_History.pdf
That book is online and can be searched. The author used an
interviewer style that just asked questions, without a lot of his own
thoughts included.
So the autopsy ends, with no further discussion or conclusions made,
and Humes goes home ands writes up an Autopsy Report (AR) that is
completely opposite to what he has just seen. Though he knows the bullet
never left the body of JFK, he writes that it did, and that it came out of
the throat wound! But he doesn't say in the AR that they dissected the
path of the bullet, because there WAS no path after the pleura!
To write such a completely false AR, Humes had to have been given
orders by a higher up, and probably an excuse as to why he had to do it
that way. The report is then signed off by the other 2 prosectors, who
also had to have been given orders. They would never have taken the
initiative to fake the AR on their own on such an important document.
Now, since the back wound bullet never left the body of JFK and came
out the throat wound, the 'single bullet' theory is dead. And if the SBT
is dead, then there are too many shots for the 3 shells in the TSBD, and
there had to be another weapon and another shooter, and therefore a
conspiracy.
But that leaves you with a question of where did the bullet go if it
didn't leave the body of JFK. That's for the next installment. For now,
if any questions on this part of the case, let me know. Then we can move
on.
Chris
Chris, this is fascinating and believable (fyi I haven't read any
arguments against it in this forum, yet). It's actually startling for a
few reasons: 1) The gunshot through the back and not exiting is what the
newspapers revealed before the official AR was released. 2) In the same
newspaper was an article that was seemingly written to explain away
"rumors" that there wasn't a shooter from the front. It stated that the
throat wound was an exit wound "deflection" of the shot to the head.
Initial reports seemed to already be getting changed to deter suspicions
and evidence away from a conspiracy (more than 3 shots). That tells me to
be caution if/when more changes occur, as it did. 3) Yes, mistakes can
occur and initial findings corrected as more evidence arises. I can buy
that, but not in a situation like this when the "evidence" comes from
places other than the body. It appears that the final AR was written more
to reflect evidence found at the "scene" of the crime (sniper's nest). An
error, like mistaking that there wasn't an exit wound to a shot in the
back, seems less unlikely to happen by a ME - especially when considering
the multiple explanation(s) offered as to how they came to that
conclusion.
Yep, shes a conspiracy theorist all right. Focusing on all the wrong
things...
bigdog
2017-06-10 01:14:24 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bud
Yep, shes a conspiracy theorist all right. Focusing on all the wrong
things...
That's because the right things don't lead them to where they want to go.
Amy Joyce
2017-06-10 02:24:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bud
Post by Amy Joyce
Post by mainframetech
Post by Amy Joyce
Post by mainframetech
I can point to many statements and sworn testimony backing that up if
you're interested.
Chris
I'm interested, and also curious about what you said to me in another
topic (can't find it easily). You said that as a CT you think that you
determined how some of it went down. It's cool if you don't want to tell
more, or if you feel more comfortable messaging me, that's fine with
me.
~Amy
I'll be happy to show you all that I've dug up so far. But I'm not
sure now which point I was making. You deleted the previous conversation
and I've lost my thread of thought. Better to let the previous discussion
stay in the post, s that we can look back at what has been said.
I'll start with one of the areas of question. The 'single bullet'
theory in the WCR. I'll do it here, and you can then see the opposing
views that almost certainly will be posted after.
As noted previously, when the autopsy got going, 2 FBI agents were
there in attendance as observers. They recorded what they saw and heard
in their reports, which are online as the 'Sibert and O'Neill report'.
At one point they rolled the body over and found a bullet wound in the
upper back. Many people have been told and still believe that it wasn't
the 'upper back' but the lower neck. They found that there were too many
wounds on people and elsewhere to be caused by the 3 shells in the TSBD
6th floor 'nest'. So the WC lawyers devised a theory that would allow one
bullet to do more damage and so cover the problem that way. That became
the single bullet' theory, and consisted of the bullet that hit the upper
back of JFK was to be sent out of his body through the throat wound and
then hit Connally and injure him. That is 7 strikes on 2 men including 2
bone strikes. The bullet they picked to have done all that damage was the
so-called 'pristine' or 'magic' bullet, which was seemingly hardly
damaged.
During the autopsy, Sibert was one of the FBI observers, and had given
"But when they raised him up, then they
found this back wound. And that’s when they
started probing with the rubber glove and the
finger, and - and also with the chrome probe.
And that’s just before, of course, I made
this call, because they were at a loss to explain
what had happened to this bullet. They couldn’t
find any bullet.
And they said, ‘There's no exit.” Finck,
in particular, said, "There’s no exit.” And they
said that you could feel it with the end of the
finger - I mean, the depth of this wound."
From: http://aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/arrb/medical_testimony/pdf/Sibert_9-11-97.pdf
Page 111
I'll always end a quote with a link to where the info came from, so you
can check context.
The 'prosectors' (pathologists) were Drs. Humes (in charge supposedly),
Boswell and Finck who was called in by Humes who knew that he and Boswell
didn't have the experience for this kind of autopsy with bullet wounds,
and very little experience altogether. Finck had a good reputation and
had done all sorts of autopsies on bullet deaths.
As the autopsy got further along, they reached a point where the organs
were to be removed. At this point, we go to statement made by Paul
O'Connor, Technologist, who assisted at the autopsy. He had stated that
"We started out with a rigid probe and found that it only went in so far.
I'd say maybe an inch and a quarter. It didn't go any further than that.
So we used a malleable probe and bent it a little bit and found out that
the bullet entered the body, went through the intercostal
muscles—the muscles in between the ribs. The bullet went in
through the muscles, didn't touch any of the ribs, arched downwards, hit
the back of the pleural cavity, which encases the lungs, both front and
back. It bounced off that cavity and stopped. It actually went down and
stopped. Went through the ribs and stopped (photo 10). So we didn't know
the track of the bullet until we eviscerated the body later. That's what
happened at that time. We traced the bullet path down and found out it
didn't traverse the body. It did not go in one side and come out the other
side of the body.
Law: You can be reasonably sure of that?
O'Connor: Absolutely.
Law: It was just from the probe then?
O'Connor: Oh yes.
Law: And these doctors knew that?
O'Connor: Absolutely.
Law: While it happened?
O'Connor: Absolutely."
From: "In the Eyes of History" by William Matson Law, pages 40-41
https://www.krusch.com/books/kennedy/In_The_Eye_Of_History.pdf
That book is online and can be searched. The author used an
interviewer style that just asked questions, without a lot of his own
thoughts included.
So the autopsy ends, with no further discussion or conclusions made,
and Humes goes home ands writes up an Autopsy Report (AR) that is
completely opposite to what he has just seen. Though he knows the bullet
never left the body of JFK, he writes that it did, and that it came out of
the throat wound! But he doesn't say in the AR that they dissected the
path of the bullet, because there WAS no path after the pleura!
To write such a completely false AR, Humes had to have been given
orders by a higher up, and probably an excuse as to why he had to do it
that way. The report is then signed off by the other 2 prosectors, who
also had to have been given orders. They would never have taken the
initiative to fake the AR on their own on such an important document.
Now, since the back wound bullet never left the body of JFK and came
out the throat wound, the 'single bullet' theory is dead. And if the SBT
is dead, then there are too many shots for the 3 shells in the TSBD, and
there had to be another weapon and another shooter, and therefore a
conspiracy.
But that leaves you with a question of where did the bullet go if it
didn't leave the body of JFK. That's for the next installment. For now,
if any questions on this part of the case, let me know. Then we can move
on.
Chris
Chris, this is fascinating and believable (fyi I haven't read any
arguments against it in this forum, yet). It's actually startling for a
few reasons: 1) The gunshot through the back and not exiting is what the
newspapers revealed before the official AR was released. 2) In the same
newspaper was an article that was seemingly written to explain away
"rumors" that there wasn't a shooter from the front. It stated that the
throat wound was an exit wound "deflection" of the shot to the head.
Initial reports seemed to already be getting changed to deter suspicions
and evidence away from a conspiracy (more than 3 shots). That tells me to
be caution if/when more changes occur, as it did. 3) Yes, mistakes can
occur and initial findings corrected as more evidence arises. I can buy
that, but not in a situation like this when the "evidence" comes from
places other than the body. It appears that the final AR was written more
to reflect evidence found at the "scene" of the crime (sniper's nest). An
error, like mistaking that there wasn't an exit wound to a shot in the
back, seems less unlikely to happen by a ME - especially when considering
the multiple explanation(s) offered as to how they came to that
conclusion.
Yep, shes a conspiracy theorist all right. Focusing on all the wrong
things...
It has always been my opinion that the head-shot came from the front. As
for changing my opinion on that - perhaps I could if the AR wasn't
completely different from what witnesses at Parkland hospital saw (and
people closest to JFK at the scene). I'm faced with the choice of
believing the official AR or the latter, which is also what I saw (back
and to the left). Normally I'd have much more faith in the AR, but the
body was taken from the hospital (the lame excuse about why it was moved
doesn't impress me for many reasons, including that they also took other
evidence, like the car, from investigators - and cleaned it. There is
motive and opportunity for the body and/or the AR to be manipulated and
changed.

If that's what you meant by saying that I am "focusing on all the wrong
things", then there is darn good reason too. I'm surprised that others
would put so much stake in the report, considering everything. Again: it's
different from what I saw in the film (back and to the left), different
what witnesses from the scene saw (back, left portion of his head blown
out), and it's different from what Parkland Hospital staff saw (back, left
portion of his head blown out).
Anthony Marsh
2017-06-09 13:10:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Amy Joyce
Post by mainframetech
Post by Amy Joyce
Post by mainframetech
I can point to many statements and sworn testimony backing that up if
you're interested.
Chris
I'm interested, and also curious about what you said to me in another
topic (can't find it easily). You said that as a CT you think that you
determined how some of it went down. It's cool if you don't want to tell
more, or if you feel more comfortable messaging me, that's fine with
me.
~Amy
I'll be happy to show you all that I've dug up so far. But I'm not
sure now which point I was making. You deleted the previous conversation
and I've lost my thread of thought. Better to let the previous discussion
stay in the post, s that we can look back at what has been said.
I'll start with one of the areas of question. The 'single bullet'
theory in the WCR. I'll do it here, and you can then see the opposing
views that almost certainly will be posted after.
As noted previously, when the autopsy got going, 2 FBI agents were
there in attendance as observers. They recorded what they saw and heard
in their reports, which are online as the 'Sibert and O'Neill report'.
At one point they rolled the body over and found a bullet wound in the
upper back. Many people have been told and still believe that it wasn't
the 'upper back' but the lower neck. They found that there were too many
wounds on people and elsewhere to be caused by the 3 shells in the TSBD
6th floor 'nest'. So the WC lawyers devised a theory that would allow one
bullet to do more damage and so cover the problem that way. That became
the single bullet' theory, and consisted of the bullet that hit the upper
back of JFK was to be sent out of his body through the throat wound and
then hit Connally and injure him. That is 7 strikes on 2 men including 2
bone strikes. The bullet they picked to have done all that damage was the
so-called 'pristine' or 'magic' bullet, which was seemingly hardly
damaged.
During the autopsy, Sibert was one of the FBI observers, and had given
"But when they raised him up, then they
found this back wound. And that’s when they
started probing with the rubber glove and the
finger, and - and also with the chrome probe.
And that’s just before, of course, I made
this call, because they were at a loss to explain
what had happened to this bullet. They couldn’t
find any bullet.
And they said, ‘There's no exit.” Finck,
in particular, said, "There’s no exit.” And they
said that you could feel it with the end of the
finger - I mean, the depth of this wound."
From: http://aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/arrb/medical_testimony/pdf/Sibert_9-11-97.pdf
Page 111
I'll always end a quote with a link to where the info came from, so you
can check context.
The 'prosectors' (pathologists) were Drs. Humes (in charge supposedly),
Boswell and Finck who was called in by Humes who knew that he and Boswell
didn't have the experience for this kind of autopsy with bullet wounds,
and very little experience altogether. Finck had a good reputation and
had done all sorts of autopsies on bullet deaths.
As the autopsy got further along, they reached a point where the organs
were to be removed. At this point, we go to statement made by Paul
O'Connor, Technologist, who assisted at the autopsy. He had stated that
"We started out with a rigid probe and found that it only went in so far.
I'd say maybe an inch and a quarter. It didn't go any further than that.
So we used a malleable probe and bent it a little bit and found out that
the bullet entered the body, went through the intercostal
muscles—the muscles in between the ribs. The bullet went in
through the muscles, didn't touch any of the ribs, arched downwards, hit
the back of the pleural cavity, which encases the lungs, both front and
back. It bounced off that cavity and stopped. It actually went down and
stopped. Went through the ribs and stopped (photo 10). So we didn't know
the track of the bullet until we eviscerated the body later. That's what
happened at that time. We traced the bullet path down and found out it
didn't traverse the body. It did not go in one side and come out the other
side of the body.
Law: You can be reasonably sure of that?
O'Connor: Absolutely.
Law: It was just from the probe then?
O'Connor: Oh yes.
Law: And these doctors knew that?
O'Connor: Absolutely.
Law: While it happened?
O'Connor: Absolutely."
From: "In the Eyes of History" by William Matson Law, pages 40-41
https://www.krusch.com/books/kennedy/In_The_Eye_Of_History.pdf
That book is online and can be searched. The author used an
interviewer style that just asked questions, without a lot of his own
thoughts included.
So the autopsy ends, with no further discussion or conclusions made,
and Humes goes home ands writes up an Autopsy Report (AR) that is
completely opposite to what he has just seen. Though he knows the bullet
never left the body of JFK, he writes that it did, and that it came out of
the throat wound! But he doesn't say in the AR that they dissected the
path of the bullet, because there WAS no path after the pleura!
To write such a completely false AR, Humes had to have been given
orders by a higher up, and probably an excuse as to why he had to do it
that way. The report is then signed off by the other 2 prosectors, who
also had to have been given orders. They would never have taken the
initiative to fake the AR on their own on such an important document.
Now, since the back wound bullet never left the body of JFK and came
out the throat wound, the 'single bullet' theory is dead. And if the SBT
is dead, then there are too many shots for the 3 shells in the TSBD, and
there had to be another weapon and another shooter, and therefore a
conspiracy.
But that leaves you with a question of where did the bullet go if it
didn't leave the body of JFK. That's for the next installment. For now,
if any questions on this part of the case, let me know. Then we can move
on.
Chris
Chris, this is fascinating and believable (fyi I haven't read any
arguments against it in this forum, yet). It's actually startling for a
What specifically do you want to know about?
Post by Amy Joyce
few reasons: 1) The gunshot through the back and not exiting is what the
newspapers revealed before the official AR was released. 2) In the same
Which ones? Show me.
Post by Amy Joyce
newspaper was an article that was seemingly written to explain away
"rumors" that there wasn't a shooter from the front. It stated that the
throat wound was an exit wound "deflection" of the shot to the head.
Boston Globe.
Post by Amy Joyce
Initial reports seemed to already be getting changed to deter suspicions
and evidence away from a conspiracy (more than 3 shots). That tells me to
Sure, but you could have 3 shots with one of them from that front. One
researcher thought that one of the shells had not been fired that day.
Post by Amy Joyce
be caution if/when more changes occur, as it did. 3) Yes, mistakes can
occur and initial findings corrected as more evidence arises. I can buy
that, but not in a situation like this when the "evidence" comes from
places other than the body. It appears that the final AR was written more
to reflect evidence found at the "scene" of the crime (sniper's nest). An
Which autopsy report. The first one was burned. That may be the one
which hinted at conspiracy.
Post by Amy Joyce
error, like mistaking that there wasn't an exit wound to a shot in the
back, seems less unlikely to happen by a ME - especially when considering
the multiple explanation(s) offered as to how they came to that
conclusion.
bigdog
2017-06-09 13:21:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Amy Joyce
Post by mainframetech
Post by Amy Joyce
Post by mainframetech
I can point to many statements and sworn testimony backing that up if
you're interested.
Chris
I'm interested, and also curious about what you said to me in another
topic (can't find it easily). You said that as a CT you think that you
determined how some of it went down. It's cool if you don't want to tell
more, or if you feel more comfortable messaging me, that's fine with
me.
~Amy
I'll be happy to show you all that I've dug up so far. But I'm not
sure now which point I was making. You deleted the previous conversation
and I've lost my thread of thought. Better to let the previous discussion
stay in the post, s that we can look back at what has been said.
I'll start with one of the areas of question. The 'single bullet'
theory in the WCR. I'll do it here, and you can then see the opposing
views that almost certainly will be posted after.
As noted previously, when the autopsy got going, 2 FBI agents were
there in attendance as observers. They recorded what they saw and heard
in their reports, which are online as the 'Sibert and O'Neill report'.
At one point they rolled the body over and found a bullet wound in the
upper back. Many people have been told and still believe that it wasn't
the 'upper back' but the lower neck. They found that there were too many
wounds on people and elsewhere to be caused by the 3 shells in the TSBD
6th floor 'nest'. So the WC lawyers devised a theory that would allow one
bullet to do more damage and so cover the problem that way. That became
the single bullet' theory, and consisted of the bullet that hit the upper
back of JFK was to be sent out of his body through the throat wound and
then hit Connally and injure him. That is 7 strikes on 2 men including 2
bone strikes. The bullet they picked to have done all that damage was the
so-called 'pristine' or 'magic' bullet, which was seemingly hardly
damaged.
During the autopsy, Sibert was one of the FBI observers, and had given
"But when they raised him up, then they
found this back wound. And that’s when they
started probing with the rubber glove and the
finger, and - and also with the chrome probe.
And that’s just before, of course, I made
this call, because they were at a loss to explain
what had happened to this bullet. They couldn’t
find any bullet.
And they said, ‘There's no exit.” Finck,
in particular, said, "There’s no exit.” And they
said that you could feel it with the end of the
finger - I mean, the depth of this wound."
From: http://aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/arrb/medical_testimony/pdf/Sibert_9-11-97.pdf
Page 111
I'll always end a quote with a link to where the info came from, so you
can check context.
The 'prosectors' (pathologists) were Drs. Humes (in charge supposedly),
Boswell and Finck who was called in by Humes who knew that he and Boswell
didn't have the experience for this kind of autopsy with bullet wounds,
and very little experience altogether. Finck had a good reputation and
had done all sorts of autopsies on bullet deaths.
As the autopsy got further along, they reached a point where the organs
were to be removed. At this point, we go to statement made by Paul
O'Connor, Technologist, who assisted at the autopsy. He had stated that
"We started out with a rigid probe and found that it only went in so far.
I'd say maybe an inch and a quarter. It didn't go any further than that.
So we used a malleable probe and bent it a little bit and found out that
the bullet entered the body, went through the intercostal
muscles—the muscles in between the ribs. The bullet went in
through the muscles, didn't touch any of the ribs, arched downwards, hit
the back of the pleural cavity, which encases the lungs, both front and
back. It bounced off that cavity and stopped. It actually went down and
stopped. Went through the ribs and stopped (photo 10). So we didn't know
the track of the bullet until we eviscerated the body later. That's what
happened at that time. We traced the bullet path down and found out it
didn't traverse the body. It did not go in one side and come out the other
side of the body.
Law: You can be reasonably sure of that?
O'Connor: Absolutely.
Law: It was just from the probe then?
O'Connor: Oh yes.
Law: And these doctors knew that?
O'Connor: Absolutely.
Law: While it happened?
O'Connor: Absolutely."
From: "In the Eyes of History" by William Matson Law, pages 40-41
https://www.krusch.com/books/kennedy/In_The_Eye_Of_History.pdf
That book is online and can be searched. The author used an
interviewer style that just asked questions, without a lot of his own
thoughts included.
So the autopsy ends, with no further discussion or conclusions made,
and Humes goes home ands writes up an Autopsy Report (AR) that is
completely opposite to what he has just seen. Though he knows the bullet
never left the body of JFK, he writes that it did, and that it came out of
the throat wound! But he doesn't say in the AR that they dissected the
path of the bullet, because there WAS no path after the pleura!
To write such a completely false AR, Humes had to have been given
orders by a higher up, and probably an excuse as to why he had to do it
that way. The report is then signed off by the other 2 prosectors, who
also had to have been given orders. They would never have taken the
initiative to fake the AR on their own on such an important document.
Now, since the back wound bullet never left the body of JFK and came
out the throat wound, the 'single bullet' theory is dead. And if the SBT
is dead, then there are too many shots for the 3 shells in the TSBD, and
there had to be another weapon and another shooter, and therefore a
conspiracy.
But that leaves you with a question of where did the bullet go if it
didn't leave the body of JFK. That's for the next installment. For now,
if any questions on this part of the case, let me know. Then we can move
on.
Chris
Chris, this is fascinating and believable (fyi I haven't read any
arguments against it in this forum, yet). It's actually startling for a
few reasons: 1) The gunshot through the back and not exiting is what the
newspapers revealed before the official AR was released.
Just what do you suppose they based that report on?
Post by Amy Joyce
2) In the same
newspaper was an article that was seemingly written to explain away
"rumors" that there wasn't a shooter from the front. It stated that the
throat wound was an exit wound "deflection" of the shot to the head.
Newspapers and TV reported a lot of erroneous information in the aftermath
of the attack. The reported a SS agent had been killed in the attack. They
reported that a couple had been arrested. They reported at various times
the murder weapon was a .30-30 Winchester, a .308 Enfield, and an
unspecified Japanese rifle. All this before the rifle was actually found.
Lot's of very sloppy reporting was done. Because of the magnitude of the
event, reporters were so eager to report what they had heard that they
didn't do the normal due diligence that good reporters are supposed to do.
They didn't verify the information they were receiving. As a result, they
ended up reporting lots of rumors that later proved to be false. 17 and
1/2 years later they made the same mistakes when Reagan was shot. They
reported he had not been hit. They reported that Jim Brady died from his
wounds. The latter turned out to be accurate but premature by several
decades.
Post by Amy Joyce
Initial reports seemed to already be getting changed to deter suspicions
and evidence away from a conspiracy (more than 3 shots).
Initial reports were changed because it was discovered they were just flat
wrong.
Post by Amy Joyce
That tells me to
be caution if/when more changes occur, as it did. 3) Yes, mistakes can
occur and initial findings corrected as more evidence arises. I can buy
that, but not in a situation like this when the "evidence" comes from
places other than the body. It appears that the final AR was written more
to reflect evidence found at the "scene" of the crime (sniper's nest). An
error, like mistaking that there wasn't an exit wound to a shot in the
back, seems less unlikely to happen by a ME - especially when considering
the multiple explanation(s) offered as to how they came to that
conclusion.
Nonsense. The AR was based on ALL the information that was gathered at the
autopsy including conversations with personnel at Parkland which confirmed
what they already suspected, that there had been an exit wound in the
throat which was obliterated by the tracheostomy incision.
Anthony Marsh
2017-06-10 12:43:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by Amy Joyce
Post by mainframetech
Post by Amy Joyce
Post by mainframetech
I can point to many statements and sworn testimony backing that up if
you're interested.
Chris
I'm interested, and also curious about what you said to me in another
topic (can't find it easily). You said that as a CT you think that you
determined how some of it went down. It's cool if you don't want to tell
more, or if you feel more comfortable messaging me, that's fine with
me.
~Amy
I'll be happy to show you all that I've dug up so far. But I'm not
sure now which point I was making. You deleted the previous conversation
and I've lost my thread of thought. Better to let the previous discussion
stay in the post, s that we can look back at what has been said.
I'll start with one of the areas of question. The 'single bullet'
theory in the WCR. I'll do it here, and you can then see the opposing
views that almost certainly will be posted after.
As noted previously, when the autopsy got going, 2 FBI agents were
there in attendance as observers. They recorded what they saw and heard
in their reports, which are online as the 'Sibert and O'Neill report'.
At one point they rolled the body over and found a bullet wound in the
upper back. Many people have been told and still believe that it wasn't
the 'upper back' but the lower neck. They found that there were too many
wounds on people and elsewhere to be caused by the 3 shells in the TSBD
6th floor 'nest'. So the WC lawyers devised a theory that would allow one
bullet to do more damage and so cover the problem that way. That became
the single bullet' theory, and consisted of the bullet that hit the upper
back of JFK was to be sent out of his body through the throat wound and
then hit Connally and injure him. That is 7 strikes on 2 men including 2
bone strikes. The bullet they picked to have done all that damage was the
so-called 'pristine' or 'magic' bullet, which was seemingly hardly
damaged.
During the autopsy, Sibert was one of the FBI observers, and had given
"But when they raised him up, then they
found this back wound. And that’s when they
started probing with the rubber glove and the
finger, and - and also with the chrome probe.
And that’s just before, of course, I made
this call, because they were at a loss to explain
what had happened to this bullet. They couldn’t
find any bullet.
And they said, ‘There's no exit.” Finck,
in particular, said, "There’s no exit.” And they
said that you could feel it with the end of the
finger - I mean, the depth of this wound."
From: http://aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/arrb/medical_testimony/pdf/Sibert_9-11-97.pdf
Page 111
I'll always end a quote with a link to where the info came from, so you
can check context.
The 'prosectors' (pathologists) were Drs. Humes (in charge supposedly),
Boswell and Finck who was called in by Humes who knew that he and Boswell
didn't have the experience for this kind of autopsy with bullet wounds,
and very little experience altogether. Finck had a good reputation and
had done all sorts of autopsies on bullet deaths.
As the autopsy got further along, they reached a point where the organs
were to be removed. At this point, we go to statement made by Paul
O'Connor, Technologist, who assisted at the autopsy. He had stated that
"We started out with a rigid probe and found that it only went in so far.
I'd say maybe an inch and a quarter. It didn't go any further than that.
So we used a malleable probe and bent it a little bit and found out that
the bullet entered the body, went through the intercostal
muscles—the muscles in between the ribs. The bullet went in
through the muscles, didn't touch any of the ribs, arched downwards, hit
the back of the pleural cavity, which encases the lungs, both front and
back. It bounced off that cavity and stopped. It actually went down and
stopped. Went through the ribs and stopped (photo 10). So we didn't know
the track of the bullet until we eviscerated the body later. That's what
happened at that time. We traced the bullet path down and found out it
didn't traverse the body. It did not go in one side and come out the other
side of the body.
Law: You can be reasonably sure of that?
O'Connor: Absolutely.
Law: It was just from the probe then?
O'Connor: Oh yes.
Law: And these doctors knew that?
O'Connor: Absolutely.
Law: While it happened?
O'Connor: Absolutely."
From: "In the Eyes of History" by William Matson Law, pages 40-41
https://www.krusch.com/books/kennedy/In_The_Eye_Of_History.pdf
That book is online and can be searched. The author used an
interviewer style that just asked questions, without a lot of his own
thoughts included.
So the autopsy ends, with no further discussion or conclusions made,
and Humes goes home ands writes up an Autopsy Report (AR) that is
completely opposite to what he has just seen. Though he knows the bullet
never left the body of JFK, he writes that it did, and that it came out of
the throat wound! But he doesn't say in the AR that they dissected the
path of the bullet, because there WAS no path after the pleura!
To write such a completely false AR, Humes had to have been given
orders by a higher up, and probably an excuse as to why he had to do it
that way. The report is then signed off by the other 2 prosectors, who
also had to have been given orders. They would never have taken the
initiative to fake the AR on their own on such an important document.
Now, since the back wound bullet never left the body of JFK and came
out the throat wound, the 'single bullet' theory is dead. And if the SBT
is dead, then there are too many shots for the 3 shells in the TSBD, and
there had to be another weapon and another shooter, and therefore a
conspiracy.
But that leaves you with a question of where did the bullet go if it
didn't leave the body of JFK. That's for the next installment. For now,
if any questions on this part of the case, let me know. Then we can move
on.
Chris
Chris, this is fascinating and believable (fyi I haven't read any
arguments against it in this forum, yet). It's actually startling for a
few reasons: 1) The gunshot through the back and not exiting is what the
newspapers revealed before the official AR was released.
Just what do you suppose they based that report on?
Post by Amy Joyce
2) In the same
newspaper was an article that was seemingly written to explain away
"rumors" that there wasn't a shooter from the front. It stated that the
throat wound was an exit wound "deflection" of the shot to the head.
Newspapers and TV reported a lot of erroneous information in the aftermath
of the attack. The reported a SS agent had been killed in the attack. They
reported that a couple had been arrested. They reported at various times
the murder weapon was a .30-30 Winchester, a .308 Enfield, and an
unspecified Japanese rifle. All this before the rifle was actually found.
Lot's of very sloppy reporting was done. Because of the magnitude of the
event, reporters were so eager to report what they had heard that they
didn't do the normal due diligence that good reporters are supposed to do.
They didn't verify the information they were receiving. As a result, they
ended up reporting lots of rumors that later proved to be false. 17 and
1/2 years later they made the same mistakes when Reagan was shot. They
reported he had not been hit. They reported that Jim Brady died from his
wounds. The latter turned out to be accurate but premature by several
decades.
Post by Amy Joyce
Initial reports seemed to already be getting changed to deter suspicions
and evidence away from a conspiracy (more than 3 shots).
Initial reports were changed because it was discovered they were just flat
wrong.
Post by Amy Joyce
That tells me to
be caution if/when more changes occur, as it did. 3) Yes, mistakes can
occur and initial findings corrected as more evidence arises. I can buy
that, but not in a situation like this when the "evidence" comes from
places other than the body. It appears that the final AR was written more
to reflect evidence found at the "scene" of the crime (sniper's nest). An
error, like mistaking that there wasn't an exit wound to a shot in the
back, seems less unlikely to happen by a ME - especially when considering
the multiple explanation(s) offered as to how they came to that
conclusion.
Nonsense. The AR was based on ALL the information that was gathered at the
autopsy including conversations with personnel at Parkland which confirmed
what they already suspected, that there had been an exit wound in the
throat which was obliterated by the tracheostomy incision.
Which shows the flaw and why it was not a complete autopsy report.
It should also contain information from the place where the body was
found. The doctors who treated it. Did they even bother to do any
toxicology?

Jason Burke
2017-06-09 13:36:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Amy Joyce
Post by mainframetech
Post by Amy Joyce
Post by mainframetech
I can point to many statements and sworn testimony backing that up if
you're interested.
Chris
I'm interested, and also curious about what you said to me in another
topic (can't find it easily). You said that as a CT you think that you
determined how some of it went down. It's cool if you don't want to tell
more, or if you feel more comfortable messaging me, that's fine with
me.
~Amy
I'll be happy to show you all that I've dug up so far. But I'm not
sure now which point I was making. You deleted the previous conversation
and I've lost my thread of thought. Better to let the previous discussion
stay in the post, s that we can look back at what has been said.
I'll start with one of the areas of question. The 'single bullet'
theory in the WCR. I'll do it here, and you can then see the opposing
views that almost certainly will be posted after.
As noted previously, when the autopsy got going, 2 FBI agents were
there in attendance as observers. They recorded what they saw and heard
in their reports, which are online as the 'Sibert and O'Neill report'.
At one point they rolled the body over and found a bullet wound in the
upper back. Many people have been told and still believe that it wasn't
the 'upper back' but the lower neck. They found that there were too many
wounds on people and elsewhere to be caused by the 3 shells in the TSBD
6th floor 'nest'. So the WC lawyers devised a theory that would allow one
bullet to do more damage and so cover the problem that way. That became
the single bullet' theory, and consisted of the bullet that hit the upper
back of JFK was to be sent out of his body through the throat wound and
then hit Connally and injure him. That is 7 strikes on 2 men including 2
bone strikes. The bullet they picked to have done all that damage was the
so-called 'pristine' or 'magic' bullet, which was seemingly hardly
damaged.
During the autopsy, Sibert was one of the FBI observers, and had given
"But when they raised him up, then they
found this back wound. And that???s when they
started probing with the rubber glove and the
finger, and - and also with the chrome probe.
And that???s just before, of course, I made
this call, because they were at a loss to explain
what had happened to this bullet. They couldn???t
find any bullet.
And they said, ???There's no exit.??? Finck,
in particular, said, "There???s no exit.??? And they
said that you could feel it with the end of the
finger - I mean, the depth of this wound."
From: http://aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/arrb/medical_testimony/pdf/Sibert_9-11-97.pdf
Page 111
I'll always end a quote with a link to where the info came from, so you
can check context.
The 'prosectors' (pathologists) were Drs. Humes (in charge supposedly),
Boswell and Finck who was called in by Humes who knew that he and Boswell
didn't have the experience for this kind of autopsy with bullet wounds,
and very little experience altogether. Finck had a good reputation and
had done all sorts of autopsies on bullet deaths.
As the autopsy got further along, they reached a point where the organs
were to be removed. At this point, we go to statement made by Paul
O'Connor, Technologist, who assisted at the autopsy. He had stated that
"We started out with a rigid probe and found that it only went in so far.
I'd say maybe an inch and a quarter. It didn't go any further than that.
So we used a malleable probe and bent it a little bit and found out that
the bullet entered the body, went through the intercostal
muscles???the muscles in between the ribs. The bullet went in
through the muscles, didn't touch any of the ribs, arched downwards, hit
the back of the pleural cavity, which encases the lungs, both front and
back. It bounced off that cavity and stopped. It actually went down and
stopped. Went through the ribs and stopped (photo 10). So we didn't know
the track of the bullet until we eviscerated the body later. That's what
happened at that time. We traced the bullet path down and found out it
didn't traverse the body. It did not go in one side and come out the other
side of the body.
Law: You can be reasonably sure of that?
O'Connor: Absolutely.
Law: It was just from the probe then?
O'Connor: Oh yes.
Law: And these doctors knew that?
O'Connor: Absolutely.
Law: While it happened?
O'Connor: Absolutely."
From: "In the Eyes of History" by William Matson Law, pages 40-41
https://www.krusch.com/books/kennedy/In_The_Eye_Of_History.pdf
That book is online and can be searched. The author used an
interviewer style that just asked questions, without a lot of his own
thoughts included.
So the autopsy ends, with no further discussion or conclusions made,
and Humes goes home ands writes up an Autopsy Report (AR) that is
completely opposite to what he has just seen. Though he knows the bullet
never left the body of JFK, he writes that it did, and that it came out of
the throat wound! But he doesn't say in the AR that they dissected the
path of the bullet, because there WAS no path after the pleura!
To write such a completely false AR, Humes had to have been given
orders by a higher up, and probably an excuse as to why he had to do it
that way. The report is then signed off by the other 2 prosectors, who
also had to have been given orders. They would never have taken the
initiative to fake the AR on their own on such an important document.
Now, since the back wound bullet never left the body of JFK and came
out the throat wound, the 'single bullet' theory is dead. And if the SBT
is dead, then there are too many shots for the 3 shells in the TSBD, and
there had to be another weapon and another shooter, and therefore a
conspiracy.
But that leaves you with a question of where did the bullet go if it
didn't leave the body of JFK. That's for the next installment. For now,
if any questions on this part of the case, let me know. Then we can move
on.
Chris
Chris, this is fascinating and believable
See, Amy. The thing is that most of us don't respond to obvious bullshit.
So believe all you want. No matter how laughably far it is from reality
and the truth.
Post by Amy Joyce
(fyi I haven't read any
arguments against it in this forum, yet). It's actually startling for a
few reasons: 1) The gunshot through the back and not exiting is what the
newspapers revealed before the official AR was released. 2) In the same
newspaper was an article that was seemingly written to explain away
"rumors" that there wasn't a shooter from the front. It stated that the
throat wound was an exit wound "deflection" of the shot to the head.
Initial reports seemed to already be getting changed to deter suspicions
and evidence away from a conspiracy (more than 3 shots). That tells me to
be caution if/when more changes occur, as it did. 3) Yes, mistakes can
occur and initial findings corrected as more evidence arises. I can buy
that, but not in a situation like this when the "evidence" comes from
places other than the body. It appears that the final AR was written more
to reflect evidence found at the "scene" of the crime (sniper's nest). An
error, like mistaking that there wasn't an exit wound to a shot in the
back, seems less unlikely to happen by a ME - especially when considering
the multiple explanation(s) offered as to how they came to that
conclusion.
mainframetech
2017-06-09 13:48:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Amy Joyce
Post by mainframetech
Post by Amy Joyce
Post by mainframetech
I can point to many statements and sworn testimony backing that up if
you're interested.
Chris
I'm interested, and also curious about what you said to me in another
topic (can't find it easily). You said that as a CT you think that you
determined how some of it went down. It's cool if you don't want to tell
more, or if you feel more comfortable messaging me, that's fine with
me.
~Amy
I'll be happy to show you all that I've dug up so far. But I'm not
sure now which point I was making. You deleted the previous conversation
and I've lost my thread of thought. Better to let the previous discussion
stay in the post, s that we can look back at what has been said.
I'll start with one of the areas of question. The 'single bullet'
theory in the WCR. I'll do it here, and you can then see the opposing
views that almost certainly will be posted after.
As noted previously, when the autopsy got going, 2 FBI agents were
there in attendance as observers. They recorded what they saw and heard
in their reports, which are online as the 'Sibert and O'Neill report'.
At one point they rolled the body over and found a bullet wound in the
upper back. Many people have been told and still believe that it wasn't
the 'upper back' but the lower neck. They found that there were too many
wounds on people and elsewhere to be caused by the 3 shells in the TSBD
6th floor 'nest'. So the WC lawyers devised a theory that would allow one
bullet to do more damage and so cover the problem that way. That became
the single bullet' theory, and consisted of the bullet that hit the upper
back of JFK was to be sent out of his body through the throat wound and
then hit Connally and injure him. That is 7 strikes on 2 men including 2
bone strikes. The bullet they picked to have done all that damage was the
so-called 'pristine' or 'magic' bullet, which was seemingly hardly
damaged.
During the autopsy, Sibert was one of the FBI observers, and had given
"But when they raised him up, then they
found this back wound. And that’s when they
started probing with the rubber glove and the
finger, and - and also with the chrome probe.
And that’s just before, of course, I made
this call, because they were at a loss to explain
what had happened to this bullet. They couldn’t
find any bullet.
And they said, ‘There's no exit.” Finck,
in particular, said, "There’s no exit.” And they
said that you could feel it with the end of the
finger - I mean, the depth of this wound."
From: http://aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/arrb/medical_testimony/pdf/Sibert_9-11-97.pdf
Page 111
I'll always end a quote with a link to where the info came from, so you
can check context.
The 'prosectors' (pathologists) were Drs. Humes (in charge supposedly),
Boswell and Finck who was called in by Humes who knew that he and Boswell
didn't have the experience for this kind of autopsy with bullet wounds,
and very little experience altogether. Finck had a good reputation and
had done all sorts of autopsies on bullet deaths.
As the autopsy got further along, they reached a point where the organs
were to be removed. At this point, we go to statement made by Paul
O'Connor, Technologist, who assisted at the autopsy. He had stated that
"We started out with a rigid probe and found that it only went in so far.
I'd say maybe an inch and a quarter. It didn't go any further than that.
So we used a malleable probe and bent it a little bit and found out that
the bullet entered the body, went through the intercostal
muscles—the muscles in between the ribs. The bullet went in
through the muscles, didn't touch any of the ribs, arched downwards, hit
the back of the pleural cavity, which encases the lungs, both front and
back. It bounced off that cavity and stopped. It actually went down and
stopped. Went through the ribs and stopped (photo 10). So we didn't know
the track of the bullet until we eviscerated the body later. That's what
happened at that time. We traced the bullet path down and found out it
didn't traverse the body. It did not go in one side and come out the other
side of the body.
Law: You can be reasonably sure of that?
O'Connor: Absolutely.
Law: It was just from the probe then?
O'Connor: Oh yes.
Law: And these doctors knew that?
O'Connor: Absolutely.
Law: While it happened?
O'Connor: Absolutely."
From: "In the Eyes of History" by William Matson Law, pages 40-41
https://www.krusch.com/books/kennedy/In_The_Eye_Of_History.pdf
That book is online and can be searched. The author used an
interviewer style that just asked questions, without a lot of his own
thoughts included.
So the autopsy ends, with no further discussion or conclusions made,
and Humes goes home ands writes up an Autopsy Report (AR) that is
completely opposite to what he has just seen. Though he knows the bullet
never left the body of JFK, he writes that it did, and that it came out of
the throat wound! But he doesn't say in the AR that they dissected the
path of the bullet, because there WAS no path after the pleura!
To write such a completely false AR, Humes had to have been given
orders by a higher up, and probably an excuse as to why he had to do it
that way. The report is then signed off by the other 2 prosectors, who
also had to have been given orders. They would never have taken the
initiative to fake the AR on their own on such an important document.
Now, since the back wound bullet never left the body of JFK and came
out the throat wound, the 'single bullet' theory is dead. And if the SBT
is dead, then there are too many shots for the 3 shells in the TSBD, and
there had to be another weapon and another shooter, and therefore a
conspiracy.
But that leaves you with a question of where did the bullet go if it
didn't leave the body of JFK. That's for the next installment. For now,
if any questions on this part of the case, let me know. Then we can move
on.
Chris
Chris, this is fascinating and believable (fyi I haven't read any
arguments against it in this forum, yet). It's actually startling for a
few reasons: 1) The gunshot through the back and not exiting is what the
newspapers revealed before the official AR was released. 2) In the same
newspaper was an article that was seemingly written to explain away
"rumors" that there wasn't a shooter from the front. It stated that the
throat wound was an exit wound "deflection" of the shot to the head.
Initial reports seemed to already be getting changed to deter suspicions
and evidence away from a conspiracy (more than 3 shots). That tells me to
be caution if/when more changes occur, as it did. 3) Yes, mistakes can
occur and initial findings corrected as more evidence arises. I can buy
that, but not in a situation like this when the "evidence" comes from
places other than the body. It appears that the final AR was written more
to reflect evidence found at the "scene" of the crime (sniper's nest). An
error, like mistaking that there wasn't an exit wound to a shot in the
back, seems less unlikely to happen by a ME - especially when considering
the multiple explanation(s) offered as to how they came to that
conclusion.
Always remember that the critical element for the plotters was the 'lone
nut' scenario. It HAD to be maintained so that the plotters could go
about their lives without looking over their shoulders the rest of their
days.

If you haven't seen the other side of my arguments, just wait a bit.
I usually get a lot of flack about my views because most of the posters
here are LN and can't handle the possibility that it was a political coup
and vengeance together.

Chris
Amy Joyce
2017-06-10 02:40:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by Amy Joyce
Post by mainframetech
Post by Amy Joyce
Post by mainframetech
I can point to many statements and sworn testimony backing that up if
you're interested.
Chris
I'm interested, and also curious about what you said to me in another
topic (can't find it easily). You said that as a CT you think that you
determined how some of it went down. It's cool if you don't want to tell
more, or if you feel more comfortable messaging me, that's fine with
me.
~Amy
I'll be happy to show you all that I've dug up so far. But I'm not
sure now which point I was making. You deleted the previous conversation
and I've lost my thread of thought. Better to let the previous discussion
stay in the post, s that we can look back at what has been said.
I'll start with one of the areas of question. The 'single bullet'
theory in the WCR. I'll do it here, and you can then see the opposing
views that almost certainly will be posted after.
As noted previously, when the autopsy got going, 2 FBI agents were
there in attendance as observers. They recorded what they saw and heard
in their reports, which are online as the 'Sibert and O'Neill report'.
At one point they rolled the body over and found a bullet wound in the
upper back. Many people have been told and still believe that it wasn't
the 'upper back' but the lower neck. They found that there were too many
wounds on people and elsewhere to be caused by the 3 shells in the TSBD
6th floor 'nest'. So the WC lawyers devised a theory that would allow one
bullet to do more damage and so cover the problem that way. That became
the single bullet' theory, and consisted of the bullet that hit the upper
back of JFK was to be sent out of his body through the throat wound and
then hit Connally and injure him. That is 7 strikes on 2 men including 2
bone strikes. The bullet they picked to have done all that damage was the
so-called 'pristine' or 'magic' bullet, which was seemingly hardly
damaged.
During the autopsy, Sibert was one of the FBI observers, and had given
"But when they raised him up, then they
found this back wound. And that’s when they
started probing with the rubber glove and the
finger, and - and also with the chrome probe.
And that’s just before, of course, I made
this call, because they were at a loss to explain
what had happened to this bullet. They couldn’t
find any bullet.
And they said, ‘There's no exit.” Finck,
in particular, said, "There’s no exit.” And they
said that you could feel it with the end of the
finger - I mean, the depth of this wound."
From: http://aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/arrb/medical_testimony/pdf/Sibert_9-11-97.pdf
Page 111
I'll always end a quote with a link to where the info came from, so you
can check context.
The 'prosectors' (pathologists) were Drs. Humes (in charge supposedly),
Boswell and Finck who was called in by Humes who knew that he and Boswell
didn't have the experience for this kind of autopsy with bullet wounds,
and very little experience altogether. Finck had a good reputation and
had done all sorts of autopsies on bullet deaths.
As the autopsy got further along, they reached a point where the organs
were to be removed. At this point, we go to statement made by Paul
O'Connor, Technologist, who assisted at the autopsy. He had stated that
"We started out with a rigid probe and found that it only went in so far.
I'd say maybe an inch and a quarter. It didn't go any further than that.
So we used a malleable probe and bent it a little bit and found out that
the bullet entered the body, went through the intercostal
muscles—the muscles in between the ribs. The bullet went in
through the muscles, didn't touch any of the ribs, arched downwards, hit
the back of the pleural cavity, which encases the lungs, both front and
back. It bounced off that cavity and stopped. It actually went down and
stopped. Went through the ribs and stopped (photo 10). So we didn't know
the track of the bullet until we eviscerated the body later. That's what
happened at that time. We traced the bullet path down and found out it
didn't traverse the body. It did not go in one side and come out the other
side of the body.
Law: You can be reasonably sure of that?
O'Connor: Absolutely.
Law: It was just from the probe then?
O'Connor: Oh yes.
Law: And these doctors knew that?
O'Connor: Absolutely.
Law: While it happened?
O'Connor: Absolutely."
From: "In the Eyes of History" by William Matson Law, pages 40-41
https://www.krusch.com/books/kennedy/In_The_Eye_Of_History.pdf
That book is online and can be searched. The author used an
interviewer style that just asked questions, without a lot of his own
thoughts included.
So the autopsy ends, with no further discussion or conclusions made,
and Humes goes home ands writes up an Autopsy Report (AR) that is
completely opposite to what he has just seen. Though he knows the bullet
never left the body of JFK, he writes that it did, and that it came out of
the throat wound! But he doesn't say in the AR that they dissected the
path of the bullet, because there WAS no path after the pleura!
To write such a completely false AR, Humes had to have been given
orders by a higher up, and probably an excuse as to why he had to do it
that way. The report is then signed off by the other 2 prosectors, who
also had to have been given orders. They would never have taken the
initiative to fake the AR on their own on such an important document.
Now, since the back wound bullet never left the body of JFK and came
out the throat wound, the 'single bullet' theory is dead. And if the SBT
is dead, then there are too many shots for the 3 shells in the TSBD, and
there had to be another weapon and another shooter, and therefore a
conspiracy.
But that leaves you with a question of where did the bullet go if it
didn't leave the body of JFK. That's for the next installment. For now,
if any questions on this part of the case, let me know. Then we can move
on.
Chris
Chris, this is fascinating and believable (fyi I haven't read any
arguments against it in this forum, yet). It's actually startling for a
few reasons: 1) The gunshot through the back and not exiting is what the
newspapers revealed before the official AR was released. 2) In the same
newspaper was an article that was seemingly written to explain away
"rumors" that there wasn't a shooter from the front. It stated that the
throat wound was an exit wound "deflection" of the shot to the head.
Initial reports seemed to already be getting changed to deter suspicions
and evidence away from a conspiracy (more than 3 shots). That tells me to
be caution if/when more changes occur, as it did. 3) Yes, mistakes can
occur and initial findings corrected as more evidence arises. I can buy
that, but not in a situation like this when the "evidence" comes from
places other than the body. It appears that the final AR was written more
to reflect evidence found at the "scene" of the crime (sniper's nest). An
error, like mistaking that there wasn't an exit wound to a shot in the
back, seems less unlikely to happen by a ME - especially when considering
the multiple explanation(s) offered as to how they came to that
conclusion.
Always remember that the critical element for the plotters was the 'lone
nut' scenario. It HAD to be maintained so that the plotters could go
about their lives without looking over their shoulders the rest of their
days.
If you haven't seen the other side of my arguments, just wait a bit.
I usually get a lot of flack about my views because most of the posters
here are LN and can't handle the possibility that it was a political coup
and vengeance together.
I've noticed that you get a lot of flack and have seen a lot of fallacy
arguments (nice way of putting it).
Anthony Marsh
2017-06-10 02:42:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by Amy Joyce
Post by mainframetech
Post by Amy Joyce
Post by mainframetech
I can point to many statements and sworn testimony backing that up if
you're interested.
Chris
I'm interested, and also curious about what you said to me in another
topic (can't find it easily). You said that as a CT you think that you
determined how some of it went down. It's cool if you don't want to tell
more, or if you feel more comfortable messaging me, that's fine with
me.
~Amy
I'll be happy to show you all that I've dug up so far. But I'm not
sure now which point I was making. You deleted the previous conversation
and I've lost my thread of thought. Better to let the previous discussion
stay in the post, s that we can look back at what has been said.
I'll start with one of the areas of question. The 'single bullet'
theory in the WCR. I'll do it here, and you can then see the opposing
views that almost certainly will be posted after.
As noted previously, when the autopsy got going, 2 FBI agents were
there in attendance as observers. They recorded what they saw and heard
in their reports, which are online as the 'Sibert and O'Neill report'.
At one point they rolled the body over and found a bullet wound in the
upper back. Many people have been told and still believe that it wasn't
the 'upper back' but the lower neck. They found that there were too many
wounds on people and elsewhere to be caused by the 3 shells in the TSBD
6th floor 'nest'. So the WC lawyers devised a theory that would allow one
bullet to do more damage and so cover the problem that way. That became
the single bullet' theory, and consisted of the bullet that hit the upper
back of JFK was to be sent out of his body through the throat wound and
then hit Connally and injure him. That is 7 strikes on 2 men including 2
bone strikes. The bullet they picked to have done all that damage was the
so-called 'pristine' or 'magic' bullet, which was seemingly hardly
damaged.
During the autopsy, Sibert was one of the FBI observers, and had given
"But when they raised him up, then they
found this back wound. And that???s when they
started probing with the rubber glove and the
finger, and - and also with the chrome probe.
And that???s just before, of course, I made
this call, because they were at a loss to explain
what had happened to this bullet. They couldn???t
find any bullet.
And they said, ???There's no exit.??? Finck,
in particular, said, "There???s no exit.??? And they
said that you could feel it with the end of the
finger - I mean, the depth of this wound."
From: http://aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/arrb/medical_testimony/pdf/Sibert_9-11-97.pdf
Page 111
I'll always end a quote with a link to where the info came from, so you
can check context.
The 'prosectors' (pathologists) were Drs. Humes (in charge supposedly),
Boswell and Finck who was called in by Humes who knew that he and Boswell
didn't have the experience for this kind of autopsy with bullet wounds,
and very little experience altogether. Finck had a good reputation and
had done all sorts of autopsies on bullet deaths.
As the autopsy got further along, they reached a point where the organs
were to be removed. At this point, we go to statement made by Paul
O'Connor, Technologist, who assisted at the autopsy. He had stated that
"We started out with a rigid probe and found that it only went in so far.
I'd say maybe an inch and a quarter. It didn't go any further than that.
So we used a malleable probe and bent it a little bit and found out that
the bullet entered the body, went through the intercostal
muscles???the muscles in between the ribs. The bullet went in
through the muscles, didn't touch any of the ribs, arched downwards, hit
the back of the pleural cavity, which encases the lungs, both front and
back. It bounced off that cavity and stopped. It actually went down and
stopped. Went through the ribs and stopped (photo 10). So we didn't know
the track of the bullet until we eviscerated the body later. That's what
happened at that time. We traced the bullet path down and found out it
didn't traverse the body. It did not go in one side and come out the other
side of the body.
Law: You can be reasonably sure of that?
O'Connor: Absolutely.
Law: It was just from the probe then?
O'Connor: Oh yes.
Law: And these doctors knew that?
O'Connor: Absolutely.
Law: While it happened?
O'Connor: Absolutely."
From: "In the Eyes of History" by William Matson Law, pages 40-41
https://www.krusch.com/books/kennedy/In_The_Eye_Of_History.pdf
That book is online and can be searched. The author used an
interviewer style that just asked questions, without a lot of his own
thoughts included.
So the autopsy ends, with no further discussion or conclusions made,
and Humes goes home ands writes up an Autopsy Report (AR) that is
completely opposite to what he has just seen. Though he knows the bullet
never left the body of JFK, he writes that it did, and that it came out of
the throat wound! But he doesn't say in the AR that they dissected the
path of the bullet, because there WAS no path after the pleura!
To write such a completely false AR, Humes had to have been given
orders by a higher up, and probably an excuse as to why he had to do it
that way. The report is then signed off by the other 2 prosectors, who
also had to have been given orders. They would never have taken the
initiative to fake the AR on their own on such an important document.
Now, since the back wound bullet never left the body of JFK and came
out the throat wound, the 'single bullet' theory is dead. And if the SBT
is dead, then there are too many shots for the 3 shells in the TSBD, and
there had to be another weapon and another shooter, and therefore a
conspiracy.
But that leaves you with a question of where did the bullet go if it
didn't leave the body of JFK. That's for the next installment. For now,
if any questions on this part of the case, let me know. Then we can move
on.
Chris
Chris, this is fascinating and believable (fyi I haven't read any
arguments against it in this forum, yet). It's actually startling for a
few reasons: 1) The gunshot through the back and not exiting is what the
newspapers revealed before the official AR was released. 2) In the same
newspaper was an article that was seemingly written to explain away
"rumors" that there wasn't a shooter from the front. It stated that the
throat wound was an exit wound "deflection" of the shot to the head.
Initial reports seemed to already be getting changed to deter suspicions
and evidence away from a conspiracy (more than 3 shots). That tells me to
be caution if/when more changes occur, as it did. 3) Yes, mistakes can
occur and initial findings corrected as more evidence arises. I can buy
that, but not in a situation like this when the "evidence" comes from
places other than the body. It appears that the final AR was written more
to reflect evidence found at the "scene" of the crime (sniper's nest). An
error, like mistaking that there wasn't an exit wound to a shot in the
back, seems less unlikely to happen by a ME - especially when considering
the multiple explanation(s) offered as to how they came to that
conclusion.
Always remember that the critical element for the plotters was the 'lone
nut' scenario. It HAD to be maintained so that the plotters could go
about their lives without looking over their shoulders the rest of their
days.
Excellent point.

I don't think that I have discussed this here since you logged on, but I
suspect that the grassy knoll shooter was only there for the insurance
shot. Just as in th assassination of Archduke Ferdinand, where all the
shots from behind missed and the mastermind had to take the shot from the
front.

I think Oswald's rifle jammed and there was a pause of about 5 seconds, so
the grassy knoll shooter thought he had to take the insurance shot.
Post by mainframetech
If you haven't seen the other side of my arguments, just wait a bit.
I usually get a lot of flack about my views because most of the posters
here are LN and can't handle the possibility that it was a political coup
and vengeance together.
Chris
claviger
2017-06-04 16:33:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Amy Joyce
Although new to this forum I have been researching JFK for some time now.
After experience in similar/other forums I was hesitant to join because I
despise fallacy arguments, mostly gaslighting, but also any that steer
conversation away from polite debate toward trading insults. However I
enjoy it and look forward to it.
I'm not on the fence with my opinion and I don't think it matters much
what I think when I say that I'm disgusted with the WC's inquiry. Because
it wasn't a trial with a defense team and jury, they had a responsibility
to investigate different theories, examine any/all evidence, and consider
as much witness testimony as they could.
This is not to say that I don't think it's likely that Oswald in some way
(also irrelevant). By appearances it seems that Oswald was convicted,that
if the WC found him responsible, it must be true. However that's not due
process. Since he had no one to stand up for and defend him in an official
capacity, and that none was even allowed, makes me most suspicious. That
evidence evidence was held from public view for so long (and still is)
increases my suspicions (and anger). The possibility for a valid inquiry
has long since passed because most witnesses have died and evidence has
gotten lost, stolen, and destroyed.... Just sayin' :-)
Alphabetical list of witnesses and testimony
http://jfkassassination.net/russ/wit.htm


JFK 216 Witnesses to the Assassination of President John F. Kennedy
http://history-matters.com/analysis/witness/index.htm

JFK 216 Witnesses to the Assassination of President John F. Kennedy
Sorted by Source of Shots
https://www.history-matters.com/analysis/witness/Sort216Witness.htm


John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_F._Kennedy_assassination_conspiracy_theories


JFK Witness Deaths: Graphical Proof of a Conspiracy
https://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/tag/jfk-witness-graphs/


RASHOMON TO THE EXTREME
68 names and counting!
http://dperry1943.com/rashomon.html
Oliver Stone often compared his movie JFK to the
1951 Japanese film classic RASHOMON in which the
same event is seen differently by several witnesses.
What follows is an example of this theory as applied
to the John F. Kennedy assassination.
claviger
2017-06-06 18:35:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
"The Last Words Of Lee Harvey Oswald", Compiled by Mae Brussell
https://ratical.org/ratville/JFK/LHO.html
Indeed, was it Lee Harvey Oswald at all who killed JFK? ... The quotes,
edited for space and clarity, are based on the recollections of a variety
of witnesses ...


The Last Words of Lee Harvey Oswald - Statement Analysis
http://www.statementanalysis.com/lee-harvey-oswald/
The Last Words of Lee Harvey Oswald
An analysis by Mark McClish
Posted January 3, 2013


Lee Harvey Oswald Quotes
American - Criminal October 18, 1939 - November 24, 1963
https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/l/lee_harvey_oswald.html


The character of Lee Harvey Oswald in In the Lake of the Woods from ...
http://www.litcharts.com/lit/in-the-lake-of-the-woods/characters/lee-harvey-oswald

The supposed assassin of John F. Kennedy, and a veteran of the American
military, Lee Harvey Oswald is at the center of a huge number of
conspiracy theories concerning the Kennedy assassination. There are those
who maintain that Oswald was a “fall guy,” meant to
disguise the fact that a powerful organization—maybe the CIA,
maybe the Freemasons, maybe the Teamsters—killed Kennedy. The
narrator is interested in Oswald because of what he reveals about the
psychology of conspiracy theorists. Lee Harvey Oswald Quotes in In the
Lake of the Woods

The In the Lake of the Woods quotes below are all either spoken by Lee
Harvey Oswald or refer to Lee Harvey Oswald. For each quote, you can also
see the other characters and themes related to it (each theme is indicated
by its own dot and icon, like this one: Vietnam, Authorship,
Interpretation Theme Icon ). Note: all page and citation info for the
quotes below refers to the Penguin Books edition of In the Lake of the
Woods published in 1995.
Loading...