Discussion:
Breakability: The Diminishing Velocity Theory
(too old to reply)
claviger
2018-06-30 15:15:14 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Breakability: CE-399 and the Diminishing Velocity Theory
John Hunt
https://www.history-matters.com/essays/jfkmed/Breakability/Breakability.htm
The Single-Bullet Theory
Anthony Marsh
2018-07-01 00:58:20 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by claviger
Breakability: CE-399 and the Diminishing Velocity Theory
John Hunt
https://www.history-matters.com/essays/jfkmed/Breakability/Breakability.htm
The Single-Bullet Theory
I don't know why you posted this. It destroys the WC.
John Hunt is an excellent researcher and I helped him with his research
and he helped me. One sentence typifies the difference between the
conspiracy researchers and the WC defenders:

Mr. John Hunt, Kennedy Assassination Investigator, for supplying hard to
get material from the Archives and spotting distracting errors in the text.

______________

The fact remains that the WC defenders never do any actual research and
very rarely visit the National Archives to examine the original
materials for themselves. John Hunt did. I did.

________
There are still a few points that John made which I disagreed with or
thought were not forceful enough. He is too much of a gentleman to come
right out and call the WC defenders liars.

Either Sturdivan was simply ignorant of the H.P. White Laboratory tests
which show the ACTUAL measured velocities for Oswald's ammo or he
realized that he had to lie about them to get the velocities he needed.
Maybe he was not allowed to see the FBI documents which I copied.

Loading Image...
Loading Image...

But if you use them you can calculate exactly how many FPS the bullet
loses per foot of flight.

John correctly critiques the Australian tests, but overlooks the fact
that their bullet totally missed the WRIST simulation. You can get a
bullet that looks undamaged if you don't hit the wrist, but when
Edgewood did the nose is smashed.

Loading Image...

But John did not mention a couple of things that I have pointed out
before. The discrepancy of the missing fragments from CE 399.
He seemed to overlook the fact that the hole in the base of the bullet
is where they drilled out some bullet lead to test.
Then several fragments of lead remain in Connally's wrist and thigh.
We don't know how much because they were never measured or tested. They
could be today, but the WC defenders won't allow it because it might
destroy their precious lies.
Then there is another fragment which was unaccounted for the FBI
scratched out the text about it on their report because it may not have
come from CE 399:

http://www.the-puzzle-palace.com/FBI_3452.tif

I can make out the first words that were crossed out: the Governor's

But what is the third word which the FBI desperately tried to hide?
If we were allowed to examine the original document we might be able to
figure out what they were trying to hide and why.
When I examined original HSCA documents at the National Archives I was
able to reconstruct the words they had erased with WhiteOUT by seeing
and feeling the typewriter impressions on the back of the pages. Also,
using bluelihght may let us see the black ink text obscured by pencil marks.


I also suggested to John that some type of SBT might be possible if we
simply remove the wrist from the equation and assign that to another bullet.
What I call a Modified Single Bullet Theory.
claviger
2018-07-02 00:57:49 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Breakability: CE-399 and the Diminishing Velocity Theory
John Hunt
https://www.history-matters.com/essays/jfkmed/Breakability/Breakability.htm
The Single-Bullet Theory
I don't know why you posted this. It destroys the WC.
John Hunt is an excellent researcher and I helped him
with his research and he helped me. One sentence
typifies the difference between the conspiracy researchers
and the WC defenders: Mr. John Hunt, Kennedy Assassination
Investigator, for supplying hard to get material from the
Archives and spotting distracting errors in the text.
If John Hunt is so brilliant then who shot JFK and why?
How many snipers and where were they located? For
any credibility we need type of bullet and trajectories.
How did they escape with weapons in hand?

Should be easy questions to answer for both of you
mentally superior researchers. Remember once you
bash and trash the WCR and HSCA, et al, you have an
obligation to explain every detail of what actually took
place. Just being two of numerous naysayers is boring
and unconvincing.

By the way, what you didn't notice in Hunt's article is
revealing of your inability to digest all pertinent info in
his presentation. You claim he destroys the WCR but
also your argument about Connally's back wound.

Hunt is just one more CT who gets lost in deep minutia
and has no rational alternative to offer. Why don't both
of you get back to us when you have some information
about who organized the ambush and how they pulled
it off.
Anthony Marsh
2018-07-02 19:34:16 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Breakability: CE-399 and the Diminishing Velocity Theory
John Hunt
https://www.history-matters.com/essays/jfkmed/Breakability/Breakability.htm
The Single-Bullet Theory
I don't know why you posted this. It destroys the WC.
John Hunt is an excellent researcher and I helped him
with his research and he helped me. One sentence
typifies the difference between the conspiracy researchers
and the WC defenders: Mr. John Hunt, Kennedy Assassination
Investigator, for supplying hard to get material from the
Archives and spotting distracting errors in the text.
If John Hunt is so brilliant then who shot JFK and why?
Did he say? Did he even get to the point of figuring that out?
Post by claviger
How many snipers and where were they located? For
any credibility we need type of bullet and trajectories.
I've given you some of the answer, with diagrams. You have produced nothing.
Post by claviger
How did they escape with weapons in hand?
I never said they did.
Post by claviger
Should be easy questions to answer for both of you
mentally superior researchers. Remember once you
bash and trash the WCR and HSCA, et al, you have an
obligation to explain every detail of what actually took
place. Just being two of numerous naysayers is boring
and unconvincing.
I have exaplained more details than most have, but I don't have all the
answers.
Post by claviger
By the way, what you didn't notice in Hunt's article is
revealing of your inability to digest all pertinent info in
his presentation. You claim he destroys the WCR but
also your argument about Connally's back wound.
No.
We disagree on some details.
He calls into question the SBT. I offer an alternative.
Post by claviger
Hunt is just one more CT who gets lost in deep minutia
Great idea. If anyone dissents at all, just call them crazy.
Post by claviger
and has no rational alternative to offer. Why don't both
of you get back to us when you have some information
about who organized the ambush and how they pulled
it off.
I am still working on it.
Why don't YOU release all the files? Sometimes it is only by seeing the
released files that I learn new facts.
claviger
2018-07-07 21:42:24 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Breakability: CE-399 and the Diminishing Velocity Theory
John Hunt
https://www.history-matters.com/essays/jfkmed/Breakability/Breakability.htm
The Single-Bullet Theory
I don't know why you posted this. It destroys the WC.
John Hunt is an excellent researcher and I helped him
with his research and he helped me. One sentence
typifies the difference between the conspiracy researchers
and the WC defenders: Mr. John Hunt, Kennedy Assassination
Investigator, for supplying hard to get material from the
Archives and spotting distracting errors in the text.
If John Hunt is so brilliant then who shot JFK and why?
Did he say? Did he even get to the point of figuring that out?
Evidently not.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
How many snipers and where were they located? For
any credibility we need type of bullet and trajectories.
I've given you some of the answer, with diagrams. You
have produced nothing.
The WCR and HSCA did all that before you. The SOTGK is
just as invisible today as he/she was almost 55 years ago.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
How did they escape with weapons in hand?
I never said they did.
Then what happened to all those many rifles used in the
"classic triangulation of fire" ambush that according to
mft turned into a 20 gun fusillade from all sides?
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Should be easy questions to answer for both of you
mentally superior researchers. Remember once you
bash and trash the WCR and HSCA, et al, you have an
obligation to explain every detail of what actually took
place. Just being two of numerous naysayers is boring
and unconvincing.
I have exaplained more details than most have, but I don't
have all the answers.
You've had 5 decades to figure it out. What's the problem,
are you a slow thinker?
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
By the way, what you didn't notice in Hunt's article is
revealing of your inability to digest all pertinent info in
his presentation. You claim he destroys the WCR but
also your argument about Connally's back wound.
No.
We disagree on some details.
What details?
Post by Anthony Marsh
He calls into question the SBT. I offer an alternative.
What alternative?
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Hunt is just one more CT who gets lost in deep minutia
Great idea. If anyone dissents at all, just call them crazy.
All they have to do is present factual evidence.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
and has no rational alternative to offer. Why don't both
of you get back to us when you have some information
about who organized the ambush and how they pulled
it off.
I am still working on it.
After 50 years? I thought you had all the answers a long time ago.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Why don't YOU release all the files?
I'm not POTUSA.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Sometimes it is only by seeing the released files
that I learn new facts.
Why do you need new facts? That means your old facts didn't work
out and you're desperately hoping new facts would come along!
Sounds like a lot of CTs have been stalling for time.
Anthony Marsh
2018-07-09 19:42:05 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Breakability: CE-399 and the Diminishing Velocity Theory
John Hunt
https://www.history-matters.com/essays/jfkmed/Breakability/Breakability.htm
The Single-Bullet Theory
I don't know why you posted this. It destroys the WC.
John Hunt is an excellent researcher and I helped him
with his research and he helped me. One sentence
typifies the difference between the conspiracy researchers
and the WC defenders: Mr. John Hunt, Kennedy Assassination
Investigator, for supplying hard to get material from the
Archives and spotting distracting errors in the text.
If John Hunt is so brilliant then who shot JFK and why?
Did he say? Did he even get to the point of figuring that out?
Evidently not.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
How many snipers and where were they located? For
any credibility we need type of bullet and trajectories.
I've given you some of the answer, with diagrams. You
have produced nothing.
The WCR and HSCA did all that before you. The SOTGK is
just as invisible today as he/she was almost 55 years ago.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
How did they escape with weapons in hand?
I never said they did.
Then what happened to all those many rifles used in the
"classic triangulation of fire" ambush that according to
mft turned into a 20 gun fusillade from all sides?
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Should be easy questions to answer for both of you
mentally superior researchers. Remember once you
bash and trash the WCR and HSCA, et al, you have an
obligation to explain every detail of what actually took
place. Just being two of numerous naysayers is boring
and unconvincing.
I have exaplained more details than most have, but I don't
have all the answers.
You've had 5 decades to figure it out. What's the problem,
are you a slow thinker?
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
By the way, what you didn't notice in Hunt's article is
revealing of your inability to digest all pertinent info in
his presentation. You claim he destroys the WCR but
also your argument about Connally's back wound.
No.
We disagree on some details.
What details?
Post by Anthony Marsh
He calls into question the SBT. I offer an alternative.
What alternative?
It's called the Modified Single Bullet Theory.
One shot goes through JFK's torso and then through Connally's torso.
Then the second shot hits Connally's wrist.
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Hunt is just one more CT who gets lost in deep minutia
Great idea. If anyone dissents at all, just call them crazy.
All they have to do is present factual evidence.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
and has no rational alternative to offer. Why don't both
of you get back to us when you have some information
about who organized the ambush and how they pulled
it off.
I am still working on it.
After 50 years? I thought you had all the answers a long time ago.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Why don't YOU release all the files?
I'm not POTUSA.
POTUS is not supposed to be in charge. Obey the law.
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Sometimes it is only by seeing the released files
that I learn new facts.
Why do you need new facts? That means your old facts didn't work
out and you're desperately hoping new facts would come along!
Sounds like a lot of CTs have been stalling for time.
There are still some missing facts, destroyed documents and destroyed
evidence.
mainframetech
2018-07-10 03:37:00 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Breakability: CE-399 and the Diminishing Velocity Theory
John Hunt
https://www.history-matters.com/essays/jfkmed/Breakability/Breakability.htm
The Single-Bullet Theory
I don't know why you posted this. It destroys the WC.
John Hunt is an excellent researcher and I helped him
with his research and he helped me. One sentence
typifies the difference between the conspiracy researchers
and the WC defenders: Mr. John Hunt, Kennedy Assassination
Investigator, for supplying hard to get material from the
Archives and spotting distracting errors in the text.
If John Hunt is so brilliant then who shot JFK and why?
Did he say? Did he even get to the point of figuring that out?
Evidently not.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
How many snipers and where were they located? For
any credibility we need type of bullet and trajectories.
I've given you some of the answer, with diagrams. You
have produced nothing.
The WCR and HSCA did all that before you. The SOTGK is
just as invisible today as he/she was almost 55 years ago.
Which really means that they accomplished the job they were intended
to handle with the public.
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
How did they escape with weapons in hand?
I never said they did.
Then what happened to all those many rifles used in the
"classic triangulation of fire" ambush that according to
mft turned into a 20 gun fusillade from all sides?
WRONG! Don't even begin to use my name as having mentioned "classic
triangulation of fire". That's your blat, not mine. And the "fusillade"
was also not my idea, I'm repeating what I read in a book which I've
identified.
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Should be easy questions to answer for both of you
mentally superior researchers. Remember once you
bash and trash the WCR and HSCA, et al, you have an
obligation to explain every detail of what actually took
place. Just being two of numerous naysayers is boring
and unconvincing.
You don't get to specify the rules for other people's statements.
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
I have exaplained more details than most have, but I don't
have all the answers.
You've had 5 decades to figure it out. What's the problem,
are you a slow thinker?
I see you're going back to being a wise-ass. It doesn't become you.
Try solving things, it's more adult.
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
By the way, what you didn't notice in Hunt's article is
revealing of your inability to digest all pertinent info in
his presentation. You claim he destroys the WCR but
also your argument about Connally's back wound.
No.
We disagree on some details.
What details?
Post by Anthony Marsh
He calls into question the SBT. I offer an alternative.
What alternative?
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Hunt is just one more CT who gets lost in deep minutia
Great idea. If anyone dissents at all, just call them crazy.
All they have to do is present factual evidence.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
and has no rational alternative to offer. Why don't both
of you get back to us when you have some information
about who organized the ambush and how they pulled
it off.
I am still working on it.
After 50 years? I thought you had all the answers a long time ago.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Why don't YOU release all the files?
I'm not POTUSA.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Sometimes it is only by seeing the released files
that I learn new facts.
Why do you need new facts? That means your old facts didn't work
out and you're desperately hoping new facts would come along!
Sounds like a lot of CTs have been stalling for time.
claviger
2018-07-10 19:53:36 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Breakability: CE-399 and the Diminishing Velocity Theory
John Hunt
https://www.history-matters.com/essays/jfkmed/Breakability/Breakability.htm
The Single-Bullet Theory
I don't know why you posted this. It destroys the WC.
John Hunt is an excellent researcher and I helped him
with his research and he helped me. One sentence
typifies the difference between the conspiracy researchers
and the WC defenders: Mr. John Hunt, Kennedy Assassination
Investigator, for supplying hard to get material from the
Archives and spotting distracting errors in the text.
If John Hunt is so brilliant then who shot JFK and why?
Did he say? Did he even get to the point of figuring that out?
Evidently not.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
How many snipers and where were they located? For
any credibility we need type of bullet and trajectories.
I've given you some of the answer, with diagrams. You
have produced nothing.
The WCR and HSCA did all that before you. The SOTGK is
just as invisible today as he/she was almost 55 years ago.
Which really means that they accomplished the job they
were intended to handle with the public.
Is "they" the WCR and HSCA, or the snipers?
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
How did they escape with weapons in hand?
I never said they did.
Then what happened to all those many rifles used in the
"classic triangulation of fire" ambush that according to
mft turned into a 20 gun fusillade from all sides?
WRONG! Don't even begin to use my name as having mentioned
"classic triangulation of fire". That's your blat, not mine.
The CTOF has been around for a long time and used by one of
the sources you like.
Post by mainframetech
And the "fusillade" was also not my idea, I'm repeating what I
read in a book which I've identified.
Fusillade means a whole bunch of shots at the same time. You
give support to a couple of CT authors who claim there were a
lot more snipers and shots fired than the 3 heard by a majority
of witnesses.
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Should be easy questions to answer for both of you
mentally superior researchers. Remember once you
bash and trash the WCR and HSCA, et al, you have an
obligation to explain every detail of what actually took
place. Just being two of numerous naysayers is boring
and unconvincing.
You don't get to specify the rules for other people's statements.
Yes I do, in the sense that logic requires assertions be supported
with facts.
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
I have exaplained more details than most have, but I don't
have all the answers.
You've had 5 decades to figure it out. What's the problem,
are you a slow thinker?
I see you're going back to being a wise-ass. It doesn't become you.
Try solving things, it's more adult.
Actually that comment was made to Marsh but all CTs welcome
to respond. Try solving the total number of shots and matching
them to locations were snipers were located. IOW try making an
effort to be a competent detective.
mainframetech
2018-07-12 02:41:43 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Breakability: CE-399 and the Diminishing Velocity Theory
John Hunt
https://www.history-matters.com/essays/jfkmed/Breakability/Breakability.htm
The Single-Bullet Theory
I don't know why you posted this. It destroys the WC.
John Hunt is an excellent researcher and I helped him
with his research and he helped me. One sentence
typifies the difference between the conspiracy researchers
and the WC defenders: Mr. John Hunt, Kennedy Assassination
Investigator, for supplying hard to get material from the
Archives and spotting distracting errors in the text.
If John Hunt is so brilliant then who shot JFK and why?
Did he say? Did he even get to the point of figuring that out?
Evidently not.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
How many snipers and where were they located? For
any credibility we need type of bullet and trajectories.
I've given you some of the answer, with diagrams. You
have produced nothing.
The WCR and HSCA did all that before you. The SOTGK is
just as invisible today as he/she was almost 55 years ago.
Which really means that they accomplished the job they
were intended to handle with the public.
Is "they" the WCR and HSCA, or the snipers?
The shooters.
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
How did they escape with weapons in hand?
On the GK they simply put the weapons in the trunk of a nearby car,
and drove away...hastily.
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Then what happened to all those many rifles used in the
"classic triangulation of fire" ambush that according to
mft turned into a 20 gun fusillade from all sides?
WRONG! Don't even begin to use my name as having mentioned
"classic triangulation of fire". That's your blat, not mine.
The CTOF has been around for a long time and used by one of
the sources you like.
Not by me.
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
And the "fusillade" was also not my idea, I'm repeating what I
read in a book which I've identified.
Fusillade means a whole bunch of shots at the same time. You
give support to a couple of CT authors who claim there were a
lot more snipers and shots fired than the 3 heard by a majority
of witnesses.
Now you're finally getting it.
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Should be easy questions to answer for both of you
mentally superior researchers. Remember once you
bash and trash the WCR and HSCA, et al, you have an
obligation to explain every detail of what actually took
place. Just being two of numerous naysayers is boring
and unconvincing.
You don't get to specify the rules for other people's statements.
Yes I do, in the sense that logic requires assertions be supported
with facts.
You can make rules for what you will listen to or believe, but you
cannot make rules for what someone else will say or do. Is that clear
enough? That right is in the hands of the moderator.
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
I have explained more details than most have, but I don't
have all the answers.
You've had 5 decades to figure it out. What's the problem,
are you a slow thinker?
I see you're going back to being a wise-ass. It doesn't become you.
Try solving things, it's more adult.
Actually that comment was made to Marsh but all CTs welcome
to respond. Try solving the total number of shots and matching
them to locations were snipers were located. IOW try making an
effort to be a competent detective.
That was done but you missed it or ignored it. The shots that struck
in the plaza were listed, and as to where they came from, only a fool
would ask that, since it's after the fact and we don't have any of the
shooters or witnesses in custody.

Chris
bigdog
2018-07-13 00:56:46 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Breakability: CE-399 and the Diminishing Velocity Theory
John Hunt
https://www.history-matters.com/essays/jfkmed/Breakability/Breakability.htm
The Single-Bullet Theory
I don't know why you posted this. It destroys the WC.
John Hunt is an excellent researcher and I helped him
with his research and he helped me. One sentence
typifies the difference between the conspiracy researchers
and the WC defenders: Mr. John Hunt, Kennedy Assassination
Investigator, for supplying hard to get material from the
Archives and spotting distracting errors in the text.
If John Hunt is so brilliant then who shot JFK and why?
Did he say? Did he even get to the point of figuring that out?
Evidently not.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
How many snipers and where were they located? For
any credibility we need type of bullet and trajectories.
I've given you some of the answer, with diagrams. You
have produced nothing.
The WCR and HSCA did all that before you. The SOTGK is
just as invisible today as he/she was almost 55 years ago.
Which really means that they accomplished the job they
were intended to handle with the public.
Is "they" the WCR and HSCA, or the snipers?
The shooters.
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
How did they escape with weapons in hand?
On the GK they simply put the weapons in the trunk of a nearby car,
and drove away...hastily.
Oh, we're back on the GK. I guess when no evidence is required, you can
put shooters just about any place you want.
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Then what happened to all those many rifles used in the
"classic triangulation of fire" ambush that according to
mft turned into a 20 gun fusillade from all sides?
WRONG! Don't even begin to use my name as having mentioned
"classic triangulation of fire". That's your blat, not mine.
The CTOF has been around for a long time and used by one of
the sources you like.
Not by me.
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
And the "fusillade" was also not my idea, I'm repeating what I
read in a book which I've identified.
Fusillade means a whole bunch of shots at the same time. You
give support to a couple of CT authors who claim there were a
lot more snipers and shots fired than the 3 heard by a majority
of witnesses.
Now you're finally getting it.
Maybe someday you will, but I doubt it.
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Should be easy questions to answer for both of you
mentally superior researchers. Remember once you
bash and trash the WCR and HSCA, et al, you have an
obligation to explain every detail of what actually took
place. Just being two of numerous naysayers is boring
and unconvincing.
You don't get to specify the rules for other people's statements.
Yes I do, in the sense that logic requires assertions be supported
with facts.
You can make rules for what you will listen to or believe, but you
cannot make rules for what someone else will say or do. Is that clear
enough? That right is in the hands of the moderator.
You don't seem to have any rules for what your theories. You go with
whatever floats your boat.
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
I have explained more details than most have, but I don't
have all the answers.
You've had 5 decades to figure it out. What's the problem,
are you a slow thinker?
I see you're going back to being a wise-ass. It doesn't become you.
Try solving things, it's more adult.
Actually that comment was made to Marsh but all CTs welcome
to respond. Try solving the total number of shots and matching
them to locations were snipers were located. IOW try making an
effort to be a competent detective.
That was done but you missed it or ignored it. The shots that struck
in the plaza were listed, and as to where they came from, only a fool
would ask that, since it's after the fact and we don't have any of the
shooters or witnesses in custody.
or evidence.
mainframetech
2018-07-13 22:28:41 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Breakability: CE-399 and the Diminishing Velocity Theory
John Hunt
https://www.history-matters.com/essays/jfkmed/Breakability/Breakability.htm
The Single-Bullet Theory
I don't know why you posted this. It destroys the WC.
John Hunt is an excellent researcher and I helped him
with his research and he helped me. One sentence
typifies the difference between the conspiracy researchers
and the WC defenders: Mr. John Hunt, Kennedy Assassination
Investigator, for supplying hard to get material from the
Archives and spotting distracting errors in the text.
If John Hunt is so brilliant then who shot JFK and why?
Did he say? Did he even get to the point of figuring that out?
Evidently not.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
How many snipers and where were they located? For
any credibility we need type of bullet and trajectories.
I've given you some of the answer, with diagrams. You
have produced nothing.
The WCR and HSCA did all that before you. The SOTGK is
just as invisible today as he/she was almost 55 years ago.
Which really means that they accomplished the job they
were intended to handle with the public.
Is "they" the WCR and HSCA, or the snipers?
The shooters.
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
How did they escape with weapons in hand?
On the GK they simply put the weapons in the trunk of a nearby car,
and drove away...hastily.
Oh, we're back on the GK. I guess when no evidence is required, you can
put shooters just about any place you want.
WRONG! You OBVIOUSLY haven't been following the conversation.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Then what happened to all those many rifles used in the
"classic triangulation of fire" ambush that according to
mft turned into a 20 gun fusillade from all sides?
WRONG! Don't even begin to use my name as having mentioned
"classic triangulation of fire". That's your blat, not mine.
The CTOF has been around for a long time and used by one of
the sources you like.
Not by me.
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
And the "fusillade" was also not my idea, I'm repeating what I
read in a book which I've identified.
Fusillade means a whole bunch of shots at the same time. You
give support to a couple of CT authors who claim there were a
lot more snipers and shots fired than the 3 heard by a majority
of witnesses.
Now you're finally getting it.
Maybe someday you will, but I doubt it.
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Should be easy questions to answer for both of you
mentally superior researchers. Remember once you
bash and trash the WCR and HSCA, et al, you have an
obligation to explain every detail of what actually took
place. Just being two of numerous naysayers is boring
and unconvincing.
You don't get to specify the rules for other people's statements.
Yes I do, in the sense that logic requires assertions be supported
with facts.
You can make rules for what you will listen to or believe, but you
cannot make rules for what someone else will say or do. Is that clear
enough? That right is in the hands of the moderator.
You don't seem to have any rules for what your theories. You go with
whatever floats your boat.
Evidence floats my boat, and it's what you will ignore. I've shown you
sworn testimony and documents, and you have completely ignored them.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
I have explained more details than most have, but I don't
have all the answers.
You've had 5 decades to figure it out. What's the problem,
are you a slow thinker?
I see you're going back to being a wise-ass. It doesn't become you.
Try solving things, it's more adult.
Actually that comment was made to Marsh but all CTs welcome
to respond. Try solving the total number of shots and matching
them to locations were snipers were located. IOW try making an
effort to be a competent detective.
That was done but you missed it or ignored it. The shots that struck
in the plaza were listed, and as to where they came from, only a fool
would ask that, since it's after the fact and we don't have any of the
shooters or witnesses in custody.
or evidence.
The evidence was there, and much of it was given by eyewitnesses.
Which you ignored.

Chris
bigdog
2018-07-14 17:08:53 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Breakability: CE-399 and the Diminishing Velocity Theory
John Hunt
https://www.history-matters.com/essays/jfkmed/Breakability/Breakability.htm
The Single-Bullet Theory
I don't know why you posted this. It destroys the WC.
John Hunt is an excellent researcher and I helped him
with his research and he helped me. One sentence
typifies the difference between the conspiracy researchers
and the WC defenders: Mr. John Hunt, Kennedy Assassination
Investigator, for supplying hard to get material from the
Archives and spotting distracting errors in the text.
If John Hunt is so brilliant then who shot JFK and why?
Did he say? Did he even get to the point of figuring that out?
Evidently not.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
How many snipers and where were they located? For
any credibility we need type of bullet and trajectories.
I've given you some of the answer, with diagrams. You
have produced nothing.
The WCR and HSCA did all that before you. The SOTGK is
just as invisible today as he/she was almost 55 years ago.
Which really means that they accomplished the job they
were intended to handle with the public.
Is "they" the WCR and HSCA, or the snipers?
The shooters.
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
How did they escape with weapons in hand?
On the GK they simply put the weapons in the trunk of a nearby car,
and drove away...hastily.
Oh, we're back on the GK. I guess when no evidence is required, you can
put shooters just about any place you want.
WRONG! You OBVIOUSLY haven't been following the conversation.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Then what happened to all those many rifles used in the
"classic triangulation of fire" ambush that according to
mft turned into a 20 gun fusillade from all sides?
WRONG! Don't even begin to use my name as having mentioned
"classic triangulation of fire". That's your blat, not mine.
The CTOF has been around for a long time and used by one of
the sources you like.
Not by me.
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
And the "fusillade" was also not my idea, I'm repeating what I
read in a book which I've identified.
Fusillade means a whole bunch of shots at the same time. You
give support to a couple of CT authors who claim there were a
lot more snipers and shots fired than the 3 heard by a majority
of witnesses.
Now you're finally getting it.
Maybe someday you will, but I doubt it.
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Should be easy questions to answer for both of you
mentally superior researchers. Remember once you
bash and trash the WCR and HSCA, et al, you have an
obligation to explain every detail of what actually took
place. Just being two of numerous naysayers is boring
and unconvincing.
You don't get to specify the rules for other people's statements.
Yes I do, in the sense that logic requires assertions be supported
with facts.
You can make rules for what you will listen to or believe, but you
cannot make rules for what someone else will say or do. Is that clear
enough? That right is in the hands of the moderator.
You don't seem to have any rules for what your theories. You go with
whatever floats your boat.
Evidence floats my boat, and it's what you will ignore. I've shown you
sworn testimony and documents, and you have completely ignored them.
Tell us what your evidence is that JFK was shot from the SoGK.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
I have explained more details than most have, but I don't
have all the answers.
You've had 5 decades to figure it out. What's the problem,
are you a slow thinker?
I see you're going back to being a wise-ass. It doesn't become you.
Try solving things, it's more adult.
Actually that comment was made to Marsh but all CTs welcome
to respond. Try solving the total number of shots and matching
them to locations were snipers were located. IOW try making an
effort to be a competent detective.
That was done but you missed it or ignored it. The shots that struck
in the plaza were listed, and as to where they came from, only a fool
would ask that, since it's after the fact and we don't have any of the
shooters or witnesses in custody.
or evidence.
The evidence was there, and much of it was given by eyewitnesses.
Which you ignored.
The eyewitness accounts were taken into account. Nothing they reported
indicates bullets from any other rifle other than Oswald's. As for your
phantom bullets that supposedly hit in the grassy strip, that evidence is
non-existent. Every verified strike can be attributed to either a hole
bullet or fragments of bullets that came from Oswald's rifle.
Anthony Marsh
2018-07-15 17:59:31 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Breakability: CE-399 and the Diminishing Velocity Theory
John Hunt
https://www.history-matters.com/essays/jfkmed/Breakability/Breakability.htm
The Single-Bullet Theory
I don't know why you posted this. It destroys the WC.
John Hunt is an excellent researcher and I helped him
with his research and he helped me. One sentence
typifies the difference between the conspiracy researchers
and the WC defenders: Mr. John Hunt, Kennedy Assassination
Investigator, for supplying hard to get material from the
Archives and spotting distracting errors in the text.
If John Hunt is so brilliant then who shot JFK and why?
Did he say? Did he even get to the point of figuring that out?
Evidently not.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
How many snipers and where were they located? For
any credibility we need type of bullet and trajectories.
I've given you some of the answer, with diagrams. You
have produced nothing.
The WCR and HSCA did all that before you. The SOTGK is
just as invisible today as he/she was almost 55 years ago.
Which really means that they accomplished the job they
were intended to handle with the public.
Is "they" the WCR and HSCA, or the snipers?
The shooters.
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
How did they escape with weapons in hand?
On the GK they simply put the weapons in the trunk of a nearby car,
and drove away...hastily.
Oh, we're back on the GK. I guess when no evidence is required, you can
put shooters just about any place you want.
WRONG! You OBVIOUSLY haven't been following the conversation.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Then what happened to all those many rifles used in the
"classic triangulation of fire" ambush that according to
mft turned into a 20 gun fusillade from all sides?
WRONG! Don't even begin to use my name as having mentioned
"classic triangulation of fire". That's your blat, not mine.
The CTOF has been around for a long time and used by one of
the sources you like.
Not by me.
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
And the "fusillade" was also not my idea, I'm repeating what I
read in a book which I've identified.
Fusillade means a whole bunch of shots at the same time. You
give support to a couple of CT authors who claim there were a
lot more snipers and shots fired than the 3 heard by a majority
of witnesses.
Now you're finally getting it.
Maybe someday you will, but I doubt it.
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Should be easy questions to answer for both of you
mentally superior researchers. Remember once you
bash and trash the WCR and HSCA, et al, you have an
obligation to explain every detail of what actually took
place. Just being two of numerous naysayers is boring
and unconvincing.
You don't get to specify the rules for other people's statements.
Yes I do, in the sense that logic requires assertions be supported
with facts.
You can make rules for what you will listen to or believe, but you
cannot make rules for what someone else will say or do. Is that clear
enough? That right is in the hands of the moderator.
You don't seem to have any rules for what your theories. You go with
whatever floats your boat.
Evidence floats my boat, and it's what you will ignore. I've shown you
sworn testimony and documents, and you have completely ignored them.
Tell us what your evidence is that JFK was shot from the SoGK.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
I have explained more details than most have, but I don't
have all the answers.
You've had 5 decades to figure it out. What's the problem,
are you a slow thinker?
I see you're going back to being a wise-ass. It doesn't become you.
Try solving things, it's more adult.
Actually that comment was made to Marsh but all CTs welcome
to respond. Try solving the total number of shots and matching
them to locations were snipers were located. IOW try making an
effort to be a competent detective.
That was done but you missed it or ignored it. The shots that struck
in the plaza were listed, and as to where they came from, only a fool
would ask that, since it's after the fact and we don't have any of the
shooters or witnesses in custody.
or evidence.
The evidence was there, and much of it was given by eyewitnesses.
Which you ignored.
The eyewitness accounts were taken into account. Nothing they reported
indicates bullets from any other rifle other than Oswald's. As for your
Silly. Most witnesses said the shots came from the grassy knoll.
How can Oswald shoot from the TSBD and the grassy knoll simultaneously?
Post by bigdog
phantom bullets that supposedly hit in the grassy strip, that evidence is
non-existent. Every verified strike can be attributed to either a hole
bullet or fragments of bullets that came from Oswald's rifle.
SHow me what hit the chrome topping AND the windshield AND the reaview
mirror. All ONE bullet?
mainframetech
2018-07-15 23:44:44 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Breakability: CE-399 and the Diminishing Velocity Theory
John Hunt
https://www.history-matters.com/essays/jfkmed/Breakability/Breakability.htm
The Single-Bullet Theory
I don't know why you posted this. It destroys the WC.
John Hunt is an excellent researcher and I helped him
with his research and he helped me. One sentence
typifies the difference between the conspiracy researchers
and the WC defenders: Mr. John Hunt, Kennedy Assassination
Investigator, for supplying hard to get material from the
Archives and spotting distracting errors in the text.
If John Hunt is so brilliant then who shot JFK and why?
Did he say? Did he even get to the point of figuring that out?
Evidently not.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
How many snipers and where were they located? For
any credibility we need type of bullet and trajectories.
I've given you some of the answer, with diagrams. You
have produced nothing.
The WCR and HSCA did all that before you. The SOTGK is
just as invisible today as he/she was almost 55 years ago.
Which really means that they accomplished the job they
were intended to handle with the public.
Is "they" the WCR and HSCA, or the snipers?
The shooters.
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
How did they escape with weapons in hand?
On the GK they simply put the weapons in the trunk of a nearby car,
and drove away...hastily.
Oh, we're back on the GK. I guess when no evidence is required, you can
put shooters just about any place you want.
WRONG! You OBVIOUSLY haven't been following the conversation.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Then what happened to all those many rifles used in the
"classic triangulation of fire" ambush that according to
mft turned into a 20 gun fusillade from all sides?
WRONG! Don't even begin to use my name as having mentioned
"classic triangulation of fire". That's your blat, not mine.
The CTOF has been around for a long time and used by one of
the sources you like.
Not by me.
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
And the "fusillade" was also not my idea, I'm repeating what I
read in a book which I've identified.
Fusillade means a whole bunch of shots at the same time. You
give support to a couple of CT authors who claim there were a
lot more snipers and shots fired than the 3 heard by a majority
of witnesses.
Now you're finally getting it.
Maybe someday you will, but I doubt it.
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Should be easy questions to answer for both of you
mentally superior researchers. Remember once you
bash and trash the WCR and HSCA, et al, you have an
obligation to explain every detail of what actually took
place. Just being two of numerous naysayers is boring
and unconvincing.
You don't get to specify the rules for other people's statements.
Yes I do, in the sense that logic requires assertions be supported
with facts.
You can make rules for what you will listen to or believe, but you
cannot make rules for what someone else will say or do. Is that clear
enough? That right is in the hands of the moderator.
You don't seem to have any rules for what your theories. You go with
whatever floats your boat.
Evidence floats my boat, and it's what you will ignore. I've shown you
sworn testimony and documents, and you have completely ignored them.
Tell us what your evidence is that JFK was shot from the SoGK.
That's been done, why do you constantly try to repeat everything?
Don't you make notes the first time around? Go check out the article I
linked you to:

http://www.jfksouthknollgunman.com/index.php/08-2south-knoll/


And of course, include the bullet hole in the forehead/temple area.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
I have explained more details than most have, but I don't
have all the answers.
You've had 5 decades to figure it out. What's the problem,
are you a slow thinker?
I see you're going back to being a wise-ass. It doesn't become you.
Try solving things, it's more adult.
Actually that comment was made to Marsh but all CTs welcome
to respond. Try solving the total number of shots and matching
them to locations were snipers were located. IOW try making an
effort to be a competent detective.
That was done but you missed it or ignored it. The shots that struck
in the plaza were listed, and as to where they came from, only a fool
would ask that, since it's after the fact and we don't have any of the
shooters or witnesses in custody.
or evidence.
The evidence was there, and much of it was given by eyewitnesses.
Which you ignored.
The eyewitness accounts were taken into account. Nothing they reported
indicates bullets from any other rifle other than Oswald's. As for your
phantom bullets that supposedly hit in the grassy strip, that evidence is
non-existent. Every verified strike can be attributed to either a hole
bullet or fragments of bullets that came from Oswald's rifle.
That foolishness was shown to be what it was, silly. You can't have 10
bullet fragments all coming from the head of JFK and going to all points
in Dealey Plaza from a single bullet that struck the head of JFK. And all
of them acting like primary strikes. Just plain dumb! There was only one
place for the fragments to exit the head, and that was the spot over the
right ear, which for many of the bullets was pointing in the wrong
direction, for instance the direction of James Tague.

Chris
n***@gmail.com
2018-07-16 23:01:36 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Breakability: CE-399 and the Diminishing Velocity Theory
John Hunt
https://www.history-matters.com/essays/jfkmed/Breakability/Breakability.htm
The Single-Bullet Theory
I don't know why you posted this. It destroys the WC.
John Hunt is an excellent researcher and I helped him
with his research and he helped me. One sentence
typifies the difference between the conspiracy researchers
and the WC defenders: Mr. John Hunt, Kennedy Assassination
Investigator, for supplying hard to get material from the
Archives and spotting distracting errors in the text.
If John Hunt is so brilliant then who shot JFK and why?
Did he say? Did he even get to the point of figuring that out?
Evidently not.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
How many snipers and where were they located? For
any credibility we need type of bullet and trajectories.
I've given you some of the answer, with diagrams. You
have produced nothing.
The WCR and HSCA did all that before you. The SOTGK is
just as invisible today as he/she was almost 55 years ago.
Which really means that they accomplished the job they
were intended to handle with the public.
Is "they" the WCR and HSCA, or the snipers?
The shooters.
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
How did they escape with weapons in hand?
On the GK they simply put the weapons in the trunk of a nearby car,
and drove away...hastily.
Oh, we're back on the GK. I guess when no evidence is required, you can
put shooters just about any place you want.
WRONG! You OBVIOUSLY haven't been following the conversation.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Then what happened to all those many rifles used in the
"classic triangulation of fire" ambush that according to
mft turned into a 20 gun fusillade from all sides?
WRONG! Don't even begin to use my name as having mentioned
"classic triangulation of fire". That's your blat, not mine.
The CTOF has been around for a long time and used by one of
the sources you like.
Not by me.
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
And the "fusillade" was also not my idea, I'm repeating what I
read in a book which I've identified.
Fusillade means a whole bunch of shots at the same time. You
give support to a couple of CT authors who claim there were a
lot more snipers and shots fired than the 3 heard by a majority
of witnesses.
Now you're finally getting it.
Maybe someday you will, but I doubt it.
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Should be easy questions to answer for both of you
mentally superior researchers. Remember once you
bash and trash the WCR and HSCA, et al, you have an
obligation to explain every detail of what actually took
place. Just being two of numerous naysayers is boring
and unconvincing.
You don't get to specify the rules for other people's statements.
Yes I do, in the sense that logic requires assertions be supported
with facts.
You can make rules for what you will listen to or believe, but you
cannot make rules for what someone else will say or do. Is that clear
enough? That right is in the hands of the moderator.
You don't seem to have any rules for what your theories. You go with
whatever floats your boat.
Evidence floats my boat, and it's what you will ignore. I've shown you
sworn testimony and documents, and you have completely ignored them.
Tell us what your evidence is that JFK was shot from the SoGK.
That's been done, why do you constantly try to repeat everything?
Don't you make notes the first time around? Go check out the article I
http://www.jfksouthknollgunman.com/index.php/08-2south-knoll/
And of course, include the bullet hole in the forehead/temple area.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
I have explained more details than most have, but I don't
have all the answers.
You've had 5 decades to figure it out. What's the problem,
are you a slow thinker?
I see you're going back to being a wise-ass. It doesn't become you.
Try solving things, it's more adult.
Actually that comment was made to Marsh but all CTs welcome
to respond. Try solving the total number of shots and matching
them to locations were snipers were located. IOW try making an
effort to be a competent detective.
That was done but you missed it or ignored it. The shots that struck
in the plaza were listed, and as to where they came from, only a fool
would ask that, since it's after the fact and we don't have any of the
shooters or witnesses in custody.
or evidence.
The evidence was there, and much of it was given by eyewitnesses.
Which you ignored.
The eyewitness accounts were taken into account. Nothing they reported
indicates bullets from any other rifle other than Oswald's. As for your
phantom bullets that supposedly hit in the grassy strip, that evidence is
non-existent. Every verified strike can be attributed to either a hole
bullet or fragments of bullets that came from Oswald's rifle.
That foolishness was shown to be what it was, silly. You can't have 10
bullet fragments all coming from the head of JFK and going to all points
in Dealey Plaza from a single bullet that struck the head of JFK. And all
of them acting like primary strikes. Just plain dumb! There was only one
place for the fragments to exit the head, and that was the spot over the
right ear, which for many of the bullets was pointing in the wrong
direction, for instance the direction of James Tague.
Chris
And all the evidence was faked, we get it. Chris, if you weren't real
I'd almost swear Hollywood Central Casting had to invent you.

Mark
mainframetech
2018-07-19 17:49:22 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by n***@gmail.com
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Breakability: CE-399 and the Diminishing Velocity Theory
John Hunt
https://www.history-matters.com/essays/jfkmed/Breakability/Breakability.htm
The Single-Bullet Theory
I don't know why you posted this. It destroys the WC.
John Hunt is an excellent researcher and I helped him
with his research and he helped me. One sentence
typifies the difference between the conspiracy researchers
and the WC defenders: Mr. John Hunt, Kennedy Assassination
Investigator, for supplying hard to get material from the
Archives and spotting distracting errors in the text.
If John Hunt is so brilliant then who shot JFK and why?
Did he say? Did he even get to the point of figuring that out?
Evidently not.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
How many snipers and where were they located? For
any credibility we need type of bullet and trajectories.
I've given you some of the answer, with diagrams. You
have produced nothing.
The WCR and HSCA did all that before you. The SOTGK is
just as invisible today as he/she was almost 55 years ago.
Which really means that they accomplished the job they
were intended to handle with the public.
Is "they" the WCR and HSCA, or the snipers?
The shooters.
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
How did they escape with weapons in hand?
On the GK they simply put the weapons in the trunk of a nearby car,
and drove away...hastily.
Oh, we're back on the GK. I guess when no evidence is required, you can
put shooters just about any place you want.
WRONG! You OBVIOUSLY haven't been following the conversation.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Then what happened to all those many rifles used in the
"classic triangulation of fire" ambush that according to
mft turned into a 20 gun fusillade from all sides?
WRONG! Don't even begin to use my name as having mentioned
"classic triangulation of fire". That's your blat, not mine.
The CTOF has been around for a long time and used by one of
the sources you like.
Not by me.
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
And the "fusillade" was also not my idea, I'm repeating what I
read in a book which I've identified.
Fusillade means a whole bunch of shots at the same time. You
give support to a couple of CT authors who claim there were a
lot more snipers and shots fired than the 3 heard by a majority
of witnesses.
Now you're finally getting it.
Maybe someday you will, but I doubt it.
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Should be easy questions to answer for both of you
mentally superior researchers. Remember once you
bash and trash the WCR and HSCA, et al, you have an
obligation to explain every detail of what actually took
place. Just being two of numerous naysayers is boring
and unconvincing.
You don't get to specify the rules for other people's statements.
Yes I do, in the sense that logic requires assertions be supported
with facts.
You can make rules for what you will listen to or believe, but you
cannot make rules for what someone else will say or do. Is that clear
enough? That right is in the hands of the moderator.
You don't seem to have any rules for what your theories. You go with
whatever floats your boat.
Evidence floats my boat, and it's what you will ignore. I've shown you
sworn testimony and documents, and you have completely ignored them.
Tell us what your evidence is that JFK was shot from the SoGK.
That's been done, why do you constantly try to repeat everything?
Don't you make notes the first time around? Go check out the article I
http://www.jfksouthknollgunman.com/index.php/08-2south-knoll/
And of course, include the bullet hole in the forehead/temple area.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
I have explained more details than most have, but I don't
have all the answers.
You've had 5 decades to figure it out. What's the problem,
are you a slow thinker?
I see you're going back to being a wise-ass. It doesn't become you.
Try solving things, it's more adult.
Actually that comment was made to Marsh but all CTs welcome
to respond. Try solving the total number of shots and matching
them to locations were snipers were located. IOW try making an
effort to be a competent detective.
That was done but you missed it or ignored it. The shots that struck
in the plaza were listed, and as to where they came from, only a fool
would ask that, since it's after the fact and we don't have any of the
shooters or witnesses in custody.
or evidence.
The evidence was there, and much of it was given by eyewitnesses.
Which you ignored.
The eyewitness accounts were taken into account. Nothing they reported
indicates bullets from any other rifle other than Oswald's. As for your
phantom bullets that supposedly hit in the grassy strip, that evidence is
non-existent. Every verified strike can be attributed to either a hole
bullet or fragments of bullets that came from Oswald's rifle.
That foolishness was shown to be what it was, silly. You can't have 10
bullet fragments all coming from the head of JFK and going to all points
in Dealey Plaza from a single bullet that struck the head of JFK. And all
of them acting like primary strikes. Just plain dumb! There was only one
place for the fragments to exit the head, and that was the spot over the
right ear, which for many of the bullets was pointing in the wrong
direction, for instance the direction of James Tague.
Chris
And all the evidence was faked, we get it. Chris, if you weren't real
I'd almost swear Hollywood Central Casting had to invent you.
Mark
WRONG again! Much of the evidence was NOT faked, and the sworn
testimonies and documents prove what I've shown, but notice that you're
unable to argue about the evidence, so you devolve down to trying to use
ridicule, which also fails. That's the rule for LNs, when you can't find
anything to respond to in an argument, try ridicule, and next try insult
to the person making the argument with evidence.

Chris
bigdog
2018-07-20 16:24:23 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by n***@gmail.com
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Breakability: CE-399 and the Diminishing Velocity Theory
John Hunt
https://www.history-matters.com/essays/jfkmed/Breakability/Breakability.htm
The Single-Bullet Theory
I don't know why you posted this. It destroys the WC.
John Hunt is an excellent researcher and I helped him
with his research and he helped me. One sentence
typifies the difference between the conspiracy researchers
and the WC defenders: Mr. John Hunt, Kennedy Assassination
Investigator, for supplying hard to get material from the
Archives and spotting distracting errors in the text.
If John Hunt is so brilliant then who shot JFK and why?
Did he say? Did he even get to the point of figuring that out?
Evidently not.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
How many snipers and where were they located? For
any credibility we need type of bullet and trajectories.
I've given you some of the answer, with diagrams. You
have produced nothing.
The WCR and HSCA did all that before you. The SOTGK is
just as invisible today as he/she was almost 55 years ago.
Which really means that they accomplished the job they
were intended to handle with the public.
Is "they" the WCR and HSCA, or the snipers?
The shooters.
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
How did they escape with weapons in hand?
On the GK they simply put the weapons in the trunk of a nearby car,
and drove away...hastily.
Oh, we're back on the GK. I guess when no evidence is required, you can
put shooters just about any place you want.
WRONG! You OBVIOUSLY haven't been following the conversation.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Then what happened to all those many rifles used in the
"classic triangulation of fire" ambush that according to
mft turned into a 20 gun fusillade from all sides?
WRONG! Don't even begin to use my name as having mentioned
"classic triangulation of fire". That's your blat, not mine.
The CTOF has been around for a long time and used by one of
the sources you like.
Not by me.
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
And the "fusillade" was also not my idea, I'm repeating what I
read in a book which I've identified.
Fusillade means a whole bunch of shots at the same time. You
give support to a couple of CT authors who claim there were a
lot more snipers and shots fired than the 3 heard by a majority
of witnesses.
Now you're finally getting it.
Maybe someday you will, but I doubt it.
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Should be easy questions to answer for both of you
mentally superior researchers. Remember once you
bash and trash the WCR and HSCA, et al, you have an
obligation to explain every detail of what actually took
place. Just being two of numerous naysayers is boring
and unconvincing.
You don't get to specify the rules for other people's statements.
Yes I do, in the sense that logic requires assertions be supported
with facts.
You can make rules for what you will listen to or believe, but you
cannot make rules for what someone else will say or do. Is that clear
enough? That right is in the hands of the moderator.
You don't seem to have any rules for what your theories. You go with
whatever floats your boat.
Evidence floats my boat, and it's what you will ignore. I've shown you
sworn testimony and documents, and you have completely ignored them.
Tell us what your evidence is that JFK was shot from the SoGK.
That's been done, why do you constantly try to repeat everything?
Don't you make notes the first time around? Go check out the article I
http://www.jfksouthknollgunman.com/index.php/08-2south-knoll/
And of course, include the bullet hole in the forehead/temple area.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
I have explained more details than most have, but I don't
have all the answers.
You've had 5 decades to figure it out. What's the problem,
are you a slow thinker?
I see you're going back to being a wise-ass. It doesn't become you.
Try solving things, it's more adult.
Actually that comment was made to Marsh but all CTs welcome
to respond. Try solving the total number of shots and matching
them to locations were snipers were located. IOW try making an
effort to be a competent detective.
That was done but you missed it or ignored it. The shots that struck
in the plaza were listed, and as to where they came from, only a fool
would ask that, since it's after the fact and we don't have any of the
shooters or witnesses in custody.
or evidence.
The evidence was there, and much of it was given by eyewitnesses.
Which you ignored.
The eyewitness accounts were taken into account. Nothing they reported
indicates bullets from any other rifle other than Oswald's. As for your
phantom bullets that supposedly hit in the grassy strip, that evidence is
non-existent. Every verified strike can be attributed to either a hole
bullet or fragments of bullets that came from Oswald's rifle.
That foolishness was shown to be what it was, silly. You can't have 10
bullet fragments all coming from the head of JFK and going to all points
in Dealey Plaza from a single bullet that struck the head of JFK. And all
of them acting like primary strikes. Just plain dumb! There was only one
place for the fragments to exit the head, and that was the spot over the
right ear, which for many of the bullets was pointing in the wrong
direction, for instance the direction of James Tague.
Chris
And all the evidence was faked, we get it. Chris, if you weren't real
I'd almost swear Hollywood Central Casting had to invent you.
Mark
WRONG again! Much of the evidence was NOT faked, and the sworn
testimonies and documents prove what I've shown,
Why do you think that witness testimonies are proof of anything. Witness
testimony requires proof to validate it because witnesses can be an often
are wrong about key points. As for documentation, you have absolutely no
documents that indicate more than one casket arrived at Bethesda the night
of the autopsy.
Post by mainframetech
but notice that you're
unable to argue about the evidence, so you devolve down to trying to use
ridicule, which also fails.
I understand what constitutes evidence but I've never been able to get
that across to you. You still seem to be buffaloed by it.
Post by mainframetech
That's the rule for LNs, when you can't find
anything to respond to in an argument, try ridicule, and next try insult
to the person making the argument with evidence.
No, I do that just for fun.
mainframetech
2018-07-23 21:28:41 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by n***@gmail.com
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Breakability: CE-399 and the Diminishing Velocity Theory
John Hunt
https://www.history-matters.com/essays/jfkmed/Breakability/Breakability.htm
The Single-Bullet Theory
I don't know why you posted this. It destroys the WC.
John Hunt is an excellent researcher and I helped him
with his research and he helped me. One sentence
typifies the difference between the conspiracy researchers
and the WC defenders: Mr. John Hunt, Kennedy Assassination
Investigator, for supplying hard to get material from the
Archives and spotting distracting errors in the text.
If John Hunt is so brilliant then who shot JFK and why?
Did he say? Did he even get to the point of figuring that out?
Evidently not.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
How many snipers and where were they located? For
any credibility we need type of bullet and trajectories.
I've given you some of the answer, with diagrams. You
have produced nothing.
The WCR and HSCA did all that before you. The SOTGK is
just as invisible today as he/she was almost 55 years ago.
Which really means that they accomplished the job they
were intended to handle with the public.
Is "they" the WCR and HSCA, or the snipers?
The shooters.
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
How did they escape with weapons in hand?
On the GK they simply put the weapons in the trunk of a nearby car,
and drove away...hastily.
Oh, we're back on the GK. I guess when no evidence is required, you can
put shooters just about any place you want.
WRONG! You OBVIOUSLY haven't been following the conversation.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Then what happened to all those many rifles used in the
"classic triangulation of fire" ambush that according to
mft turned into a 20 gun fusillade from all sides?
WRONG! Don't even begin to use my name as having mentioned
"classic triangulation of fire". That's your blat, not mine.
The CTOF has been around for a long time and used by one of
the sources you like.
Not by me.
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
And the "fusillade" was also not my idea, I'm repeating what I
read in a book which I've identified.
Fusillade means a whole bunch of shots at the same time. You
give support to a couple of CT authors who claim there were a
lot more snipers and shots fired than the 3 heard by a majority
of witnesses.
Now you're finally getting it.
Maybe someday you will, but I doubt it.
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Should be easy questions to answer for both of you
mentally superior researchers. Remember once you
bash and trash the WCR and HSCA, et al, you have an
obligation to explain every detail of what actually took
place. Just being two of numerous naysayers is boring
and unconvincing.
You don't get to specify the rules for other people's statements.
Yes I do, in the sense that logic requires assertions be supported
with facts.
You can make rules for what you will listen to or believe, but you
cannot make rules for what someone else will say or do. Is that clear
enough? That right is in the hands of the moderator.
You don't seem to have any rules for what your theories. You go with
whatever floats your boat.
Evidence floats my boat, and it's what you will ignore. I've shown you
sworn testimony and documents, and you have completely ignored them.
Tell us what your evidence is that JFK was shot from the SoGK.
That's been done, why do you constantly try to repeat everything?
Don't you make notes the first time around? Go check out the article I
http://www.jfksouthknollgunman.com/index.php/08-2south-knoll/
And of course, include the bullet hole in the forehead/temple area.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
I have explained more details than most have, but I don't
have all the answers.
You've had 5 decades to figure it out. What's the problem,
are you a slow thinker?
I see you're going back to being a wise-ass. It doesn't become you.
Try solving things, it's more adult.
Actually that comment was made to Marsh but all CTs welcome
to respond. Try solving the total number of shots and matching
them to locations were snipers were located. IOW try making an
effort to be a competent detective.
That was done but you missed it or ignored it. The shots that struck
in the plaza were listed, and as to where they came from, only a fool
would ask that, since it's after the fact and we don't have any of the
shooters or witnesses in custody.
or evidence.
The evidence was there, and much of it was given by eyewitnesses.
Which you ignored.
The eyewitness accounts were taken into account. Nothing they reported
indicates bullets from any other rifle other than Oswald's. As for your
phantom bullets that supposedly hit in the grassy strip, that evidence is
non-existent. Every verified strike can be attributed to either a hole
bullet or fragments of bullets that came from Oswald's rifle.
That foolishness was shown to be what it was, silly. You can't have 10
bullet fragments all coming from the head of JFK and going to all points
in Dealey Plaza from a single bullet that struck the head of JFK. And all
of them acting like primary strikes. Just plain dumb! There was only one
place for the fragments to exit the head, and that was the spot over the
right ear, which for many of the bullets was pointing in the wrong
direction, for instance the direction of James Tague.
Chris
And all the evidence was faked, we get it. Chris, if you weren't real
I'd almost swear Hollywood Central Casting had to invent you.
Mark
WRONG again! Much of the evidence was NOT faked, and the sworn
testimonies and documents prove what I've shown,
Why do you think that witness testimonies are proof of anything. Witness
testimony requires proof to validate it because witnesses can be an often
are wrong about key points. As for documentation, you have absolutely no
documents that indicate more than one casket arrived at Bethesda the night
of the autopsy.
WRONG! As you well know, most of the witness testimony was
corroborated, meaning it was far more important than if only one person
was a witness.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
but notice that you're
unable to argue about the evidence, so you devolve down to trying to use
ridicule, which also fails.
I understand what constitutes evidence but I've never been able to get
that across to you. You still seem to be buffaloed by it.
Not at all. Your ignoring of evidence allows you to pretend there
wasn't any. A backassward way of faking it.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
That's the rule for LNs, when you can't find
anything to respond to in an argument, try ridicule, and next try insult
to the person making the argument with evidence.
No, I do that just for fun.
So it's fun for you to insult people and use ridicule on them. I see.

Chris
bigdog
2018-07-24 21:15:47 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
WRONG again! Much of the evidence was NOT faked, and the sworn
testimonies and documents prove what I've shown,
Why do you think that witness testimonies are proof of anything. Witness
testimony requires proof to validate it because witnesses can be an often
are wrong about key points. As for documentation, you have absolutely no
documents that indicate more than one casket arrived at Bethesda the night
of the autopsy.
WRONG! As you well know, most of the witness testimony was
corroborated, meaning it was far more important than if only one person
was a witness.
Multiple witnesses can make the same mistake and therefore it does not
prove anything even when more than one witness says the same thing. In
Dealey Plaza, one group of witnesses said ALL the shots came from the
direction of the GK while another group said ALL the shots came from the
direction of the TSBD. Both of those groups cannot be right because they
are mutually exclusive of each other. Likewise some witnesses said the
first two shots were closer together, others said the last two were closer
together, and still others said the shots were evenly spaced. Only one of
those things can be true so the other two groups were wrong which means
that multiple witnesses don't prove something is true.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
but notice that you're
unable to argue about the evidence, so you devolve down to trying to use
ridicule, which also fails.
I understand what constitutes evidence but I've never been able to get
that across to you. You still seem to be buffaloed by it.
Not at all. Your ignoring of evidence allows you to pretend there
wasn't any. A backassward way of faking it.
I know how to weigh evidence for credibility. That's a skill you have
never learned and would probably find to be a hinderance to your desire to
believe there was a conspiracy.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
That's the rule for LNs, when you can't find
anything to respond to in an argument, try ridicule, and next try insult
to the person making the argument with evidence.
No, I do that just for fun.
So it's fun for you to insult people and use ridicule on them. I see.
Pretty much.
claviger
2018-07-18 04:56:19 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
How many snipers and where were they located? For
any credibility we need type of bullet and trajectories.
I've given you some of the answer, with diagrams. You
have produced nothing.
The WCR and HSCA did all that before you. The SOTGK is
just as invisible today as he/she was almost 55 years ago.
Which really means that they accomplished the job they
were intended to handle with the public.
Is "they" the WCR and HSCA, or the snipers?
The shooters.
I'm going to ask a simple question: How many shooters do you
think were positioned around Dealey Plaza? Did the rifle shots
come from behind the Limousine? Did shots come from both
sides of the Limousine? Did any shots come from in front of
the Limousine? If the answer is yes to all the above it sounds
like the shooters had the Limousine completely surrounded.
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
How did they escape with weapons in hand?
On the GK they simply put the weapons in the trunk of a
nearby car, and drove away...hastily.
Do you have any witness testimony on that?
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Then what happened to all those many rifles used in the
"classic triangulation of fire" ambush that according to
mft turned into a 20 gun fusillade from all sides?
WRONG! Don't even begin to use my name as having mentioned
"classic triangulation of fire". That's your blat, not mine.
The CTOF has been around for a long time and used by one of
the sources you like.
Not by me.
However you support that theory. When someone uses the term
"classic triangulation of fire" that usually means the target was
in the middle of sniper fire from 3 directions. They could also
fire from a 1-2-3 linear pattern from behind the picket fence. so
this is a second option. If multiple snipers maybe both.

When you acknowledged the theory of 20 snipers as a plausible
scenario and offered it up as realistic option to the official 3 shot
determination by the WCR, then you have adopted this stray cat,
and now have a responsibility to feed and water it.

Sounds like the numerous snipers had the Limousine surrounded
or they were all lined up behind the stockade fence and fired at
the Limousine like a shooting gallery.
Which do you believe?
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
And the "fusillade" was also not my idea, I'm repeating what I
read in a book which I've identified.
Fusillade means a whole bunch of shots at the same time. You
give support to a couple of CT authors who claim there were a
lot more snipers and shots fired than the 3 heard by a majority
of witnesses.
Now you're finally getting it.
So this is your Stamp of Approval on the scenario above?
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Should be easy questions to answer for both of you
mentally superior researchers. Remember once you
bash and trash the WCR and HSCA, et al, you have an
obligation to explain every detail of what actually took
place. Just being two of numerous naysayers is boring
and unconvincing.
You don't get to specify the rules for other people's statements.
Yes I do, in the sense that logic requires assertions be supported
with facts.
You can make rules for what you will listen to or believe, but you
cannot make rules for what someone else will say or do. Is that clear
enough? That right is in the hands of the moderator.
The Rules of Logic are Universal in Academia and Common Sense.
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
I have explained more details than most have, but I don't
have all the answers.
You've had 5 decades to figure it out. What's the problem,
are you a slow thinker?
I see you're going back to being a wise-ass. It doesn't become you.
Try solving things, it's more adult.
Actually that comment was made to Marsh but all CTs welcome
to respond. Try solving the total number of shots and matching
them to locations were snipers were located. IOW try making an
effort to be a competent detective.
That was done but you missed it or ignored it. The shots that struck
in the plaza were listed, and as to where they came from, only a fool
would ask that, since it's after the fact and we don't have any of the
shooters or witnesses in custody.
Chris
Where are those shots listed? If you agree why can't you paraphrase
where they came from and the pattern they used, such as 4 volleys
of 5 shots, something like that? You should be able to do that if you
understand and approve of this theory.
mainframetech
2018-07-19 04:07:18 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
How many snipers and where were they located? For
any credibility we need type of bullet and trajectories.
I've given you some of the answer, with diagrams. You
have produced nothing.
The WCR and HSCA did all that before you. The SOTGK is
just as invisible today as he/she was almost 55 years ago.
Which really means that they accomplished the job they
were intended to handle with the public.
Is "they" the WCR and HSCA, or the snipers?
The shooters.
I'm going to ask a simple question: How many shooters do you
think were positioned around Dealey Plaza? Did the rifle shots
come from behind the Limousine? Did shots come from both
sides of the Limousine? Did any shots come from in front of
the Limousine? If the answer is yes to all the above it sounds
like the shooters had the Limousine completely surrounded.
That doesn't sound like a single simple question. The evidence of
bullet strikes in the plaza is that there were many shooters around the
plaza and they would be shooting toward the limousine from many
directions. One particular scenario says there were 6 shooting teams of 4
each located in or on various buildings and other locations around the
plaza.
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
How did they escape with weapons in hand?
On the GK they simply put the weapons in the trunk of a
nearby car, and drove away...hastily.
Do you have any witness testimony on that?
Yes, the man in the RR tower (Lee Bowers) saw the men behind the fence
and told a friend of his named Walter Rischel, who relayed it to a
reporter.
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Then what happened to all those many rifles used in the
"classic triangulation of fire" ambush that according to
mft turned into a 20 gun fusillade from all sides?
WRONG! Don't even begin to use my name as having mentioned
"classic triangulation of fire". That's your blat, not mine.
The CTOF has been around for a long time and used by one of
the sources you like.
Not by me.
However you support that theory. When someone uses the term
"classic triangulation of fire" that usually means the target was
in the middle of sniper fire from 3 directions. They could also
fire from a 1-2-3 linear pattern from behind the picket fence. so
this is a second option. If multiple snipers maybe both.
When you acknowledged the theory of 20 snipers as a plausible
scenario and offered it up as realistic option to the official 3 shot
determination by the WCR, then you have adopted this stray cat,
and now have a responsibility to feed and water it.
I don't know of anyone that tried to say there were 20 shooters.
That would be a really dumb idea. I've said 6 shooter teams, meaning 6
shooters.



As to plotters, I've said 20 at the front end, and 30 at the backend,
but they would also use others who were NOT in on the plot as helpers,
like the FBI as cleanup, or the Mafia as shooters. Those number have not
and will not expand.
Post by claviger
Sounds like the numerous snipers had the Limousine surrounded
or they were all lined up behind the stockade fence and fired at
the Limousine like a shooting gallery.
Which do you believe?
Neither of course! Those are silly ideas.
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
And the "fusillade" was also not my idea, I'm repeating what I
read in a book which I've identified.
Fusillade means a whole bunch of shots at the same time. You
give support to a couple of CT authors who claim there were a
lot more snipers and shots fired than the 3 heard by a majority
of witnesses.
Now you're finally getting it.
So this is your Stamp of Approval on the scenario above?
Of course not! There's not a chance in hell you'd stumble on the real
scenario on your own. But you have the WCR to tell you what happened.
You need nothing more, right?
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Should be easy questions to answer for both of you
mentally superior researchers. Remember once you
bash and trash the WCR and HSCA, et al, you have an
obligation to explain every detail of what actually took
place. Just being two of numerous naysayers is boring
and unconvincing.
You don't get to specify the rules for other people's statements.
Yes I do, in the sense that logic requires assertions be supported
with facts.
You can make rules for what you will listen to or believe, but you
cannot make rules for what someone else will say or do. Is that clear
enough? That right is in the hands of the moderator.
The Rules of Logic are Universal in Academia and Common Sense.
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
I have explained more details than most have, but I don't
have all the answers.
You've had 5 decades to figure it out. What's the problem,
are you a slow thinker?
I see you're going back to being a wise-ass. It doesn't become you.
Try solving things, it's more adult.
Actually that comment was made to Marsh but all CTs welcome
to respond. Try solving the total number of shots and matching
them to locations were snipers were located. IOW try making an
effort to be a competent detective.
That was done but you missed it or ignored it. The shots that struck
in the plaza were listed, and as to where they came from, only a fool
would ask that, since it's after the fact and we don't have any of the
shooters or witnesses in custody.
Chris
Where are those shots listed? If you agree why can't you paraphrase
where they came from and the pattern they used, such as 4 volleys
of 5 shots, something like that? You should be able to do that if you
understand and approve of this theory.
I do not talk of "theories" like the WCR needs. I talk about real
evidence of real events.

I can list them this time for you. There was a shot that struck JFK
in the forehead, and one in the throat, also one in the upper back. Then
there was at least one that hit Connally, maybe more. Then there was the
shot that hit the right hand curb seen by officer 'Steve' Ellis, then
there was the shot through the windshield of the limo seen by 6
eyewitnesses, and then there was a shot that struck the curb by James
Tague and sent a concrete chip flying into his cheek cutting him. Then
there was Wayne and Edna Hartman who saw 2 gouges on the mid filed, and a
cop told them it was bullet gouges in the dirt They pointed at the GK.
There was one that struck a steel manhole cover in midfield that was
searched for in the grass and found by a DPD cop. It was never sent in.

Loading Image...

Chris
bigdog
2018-07-20 16:03:50 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
How many snipers and where were they located? For
any credibility we need type of bullet and trajectories.
I've given you some of the answer, with diagrams. You
have produced nothing.
The WCR and HSCA did all that before you. The SOTGK is
just as invisible today as he/she was almost 55 years ago.
Which really means that they accomplished the job they
were intended to handle with the public.
Is "they" the WCR and HSCA, or the snipers?
The shooters.
I'm going to ask a simple question: How many shooters do you
think were positioned around Dealey Plaza? Did the rifle shots
come from behind the Limousine? Did shots come from both
sides of the Limousine? Did any shots come from in front of
the Limousine? If the answer is yes to all the above it sounds
like the shooters had the Limousine completely surrounded.
That doesn't sound like a single simple question. The evidence of
bullet strikes in the plaza is that there were many shooters around the
plaza and they would be shooting toward the limousine from many
directions. One particular scenario says there were 6 shooting teams of 4
each located in or on various buildings and other locations around the
plaza.
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
How did they escape with weapons in hand?
On the GK they simply put the weapons in the trunk of a
nearby car, and drove away...hastily.
Do you have any witness testimony on that?
Yes, the man in the RR tower (Lee Bowers) saw the men behind the fence
and told a friend of his named Walter Rischel, who relayed it to a
reporter.
Walter Rischel said that. Lee Bowers never said that. Not only that but
even Rischel's bullshit story doesn't include any such details.
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Then what happened to all those many rifles used in the
"classic triangulation of fire" ambush that according to
mft turned into a 20 gun fusillade from all sides?
WRONG! Don't even begin to use my name as having mentioned
"classic triangulation of fire". That's your blat, not mine.
The CTOF has been around for a long time and used by one of
the sources you like.
Not by me.
However you support that theory. When someone uses the term
"classic triangulation of fire" that usually means the target was
in the middle of sniper fire from 3 directions. They could also
fire from a 1-2-3 linear pattern from behind the picket fence. so
this is a second option. If multiple snipers maybe both.
When you acknowledged the theory of 20 snipers as a plausible
scenario and offered it up as realistic option to the official 3 shot
determination by the WCR, then you have adopted this stray cat,
and now have a responsibility to feed and water it.
I don't know of anyone that tried to say there were 20 shooters.
That would be a really dumb idea. I've said 6 shooter teams, meaning 6
shooters.
None of who could hit the broad side of a barn.
Post by mainframetech
As to plotters, I've said 20 at the front end, and 30 at the backend,
but they would also use others who were NOT in on the plot as helpers,
like the FBI as cleanup, or the Mafia as shooters. Those number have not
and will not expand.
Six shooter teams of 2 men each. Plus you have the gal on the walkie
talkie in the TSBD. That's 13 people. 20 more plotters and we are up to
33. Add to that the 30 people who took part in the cover up and we are up
to 63 people. Is that your idea of a little conspiracy? Did the 20
plotters know ahead of time that the 30 people on the backend would go
along with the cover up or did they just recruit these people after the
deed was done and were just lucky that all of them were willing to go
along with the cover up?
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Sounds like the numerous snipers had the Limousine surrounded
or they were all lined up behind the stockade fence and fired at
the Limousine like a shooting gallery.
Which do you believe?
Sounds like it was a circular firing squad. Maybe that's why nobody saw
anybody fleeing. They ended shooting each other.
Post by mainframetech
Neither of course! Those are silly ideas.
Sounds like right up your alley.
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
And the "fusillade" was also not my idea, I'm repeating what I
read in a book which I've identified.
Fusillade means a whole bunch of shots at the same time. You
give support to a couple of CT authors who claim there were a
lot more snipers and shots fired than the 3 heard by a majority
of witnesses.
Now you're finally getting it.
So this is your Stamp of Approval on the scenario above?
Of course not! There's not a chance in hell you'd stumble on the real
scenario on your own. But you have the WCR to tell you what happened.
So do you but you refuse to read it.
Post by mainframetech
You need nothing more, right?
That's all anybody needs who wants to know the truth of the assassination.
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Should be easy questions to answer for both of you
mentally superior researchers. Remember once you
bash and trash the WCR and HSCA, et al, you have an
obligation to explain every detail of what actually took
place. Just being two of numerous naysayers is boring
and unconvincing.
You don't get to specify the rules for other people's statements.
Yes I do, in the sense that logic requires assertions be supported
with facts.
You can make rules for what you will listen to or believe, but you
cannot make rules for what someone else will say or do. Is that clear
enough? That right is in the hands of the moderator.
The Rules of Logic are Universal in Academia and Common Sense.
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
I have explained more details than most have, but I don't
have all the answers.
You've had 5 decades to figure it out. What's the problem,
are you a slow thinker?
I see you're going back to being a wise-ass. It doesn't become you.
Try solving things, it's more adult.
Actually that comment was made to Marsh but all CTs welcome
to respond. Try solving the total number of shots and matching
them to locations were snipers were located. IOW try making an
effort to be a competent detective.
That was done but you missed it or ignored it. The shots that struck
in the plaza were listed, and as to where they came from, only a fool
would ask that, since it's after the fact and we don't have any of the
shooters or witnesses in custody.
Chris
Where are those shots listed? If you agree why can't you paraphrase
where they came from and the pattern they used, such as 4 volleys
of 5 shots, something like that? You should be able to do that if you
understand and approve of this theory.
I do not talk of "theories" like the WCR needs. I talk about real
evidence of real events.
I can list them this time for you. There was a shot that struck JFK
in the forehead, and one in the throat, also one in the upper back. Then
there was at least one that hit Connally, maybe more. Then there was the
shot that hit the right hand curb seen by officer 'Steve' Ellis, then
there was the shot through the windshield of the limo seen by 6
eyewitnesses, and then there was a shot that struck the curb by James
Tague and sent a concrete chip flying into his cheek cutting him. Then
there was Wayne and Edna Hartman who saw 2 gouges on the mid filed, and a
cop told them it was bullet gouges in the dirt They pointed at the GK.
There was one that struck a steel manhole cover in midfield that was
searched for in the grass and found by a DPD cop. It was never sent in.
https://i.pinimg.com/736x/98/7f/66/987f66dc89410920b710c8b4bc683202--warren-commission-shots-fired.jpg
The way you get more shots than 3 is by counting the same shots multiple
times. There is no evidence of more than 3.
Anthony Marsh
2018-07-21 14:20:01 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
How many snipers and where were they located? For
any credibility we need type of bullet and trajectories.
I've given you some of the answer, with diagrams. You
have produced nothing.
The WCR and HSCA did all that before you. The SOTGK is
just as invisible today as he/she was almost 55 years ago.
Which really means that they accomplished the job they
were intended to handle with the public.
Is "they" the WCR and HSCA, or the snipers?
The shooters.
I'm going to ask a simple question: How many shooters do you
think were positioned around Dealey Plaza? Did the rifle shots
come from behind the Limousine? Did shots come from both
sides of the Limousine? Did any shots come from in front of
the Limousine? If the answer is yes to all the above it sounds
like the shooters had the Limousine completely surrounded.
That doesn't sound like a single simple question. The evidence of
bullet strikes in the plaza is that there were many shooters around the
plaza and they would be shooting toward the limousine from many
directions. One particular scenario says there were 6 shooting teams of 4
each located in or on various buildings and other locations around the
plaza.
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
How did they escape with weapons in hand?
On the GK they simply put the weapons in the trunk of a
nearby car, and drove away...hastily.
Do you have any witness testimony on that?
Yes, the man in the RR tower (Lee Bowers) saw the men behind the fence
and told a friend of his named Walter Rischel, who relayed it to a
reporter.
Walter Rischel said that. Lee Bowers never said that. Not only that but
even Rischel's bullshit story doesn't include any such details.
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Then what happened to all those many rifles used in the
"classic triangulation of fire" ambush that according to
mft turned into a 20 gun fusillade from all sides?
WRONG! Don't even begin to use my name as having mentioned
"classic triangulation of fire". That's your blat, not mine.
The CTOF has been around for a long time and used by one of
the sources you like.
Not by me.
However you support that theory. When someone uses the term
"classic triangulation of fire" that usually means the target was
in the middle of sniper fire from 3 directions. They could also
fire from a 1-2-3 linear pattern from behind the picket fence. so
this is a second option. If multiple snipers maybe both.
When you acknowledged the theory of 20 snipers as a plausible
scenario and offered it up as realistic option to the official 3 shot
determination by the WCR, then you have adopted this stray cat,
and now have a responsibility to feed and water it.
I don't know of anyone that tried to say there were 20 shooters.
That would be a really dumb idea. I've said 6 shooter teams, meaning 6
shooters.
None of who could hit the broad side of a barn.
Post by mainframetech
As to plotters, I've said 20 at the front end, and 30 at the backend,
but they would also use others who were NOT in on the plot as helpers,
like the FBI as cleanup, or the Mafia as shooters. Those number have not
and will not expand.
Six shooter teams of 2 men each. Plus you have the gal on the walkie
talkie in the TSBD. That's 13 people. 20 more plotters and we are up to
33. Add to that the 30 people who took part in the cover up and we are up
to 63 people. Is that your idea of a little conspiracy? Did the 20
plotters know ahead of time that the 30 people on the backend would go
along with the cover up or did they just recruit these people after the
deed was done and were just lucky that all of them were willing to go
along with the cover up?
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Sounds like the numerous snipers had the Limousine surrounded
or they were all lined up behind the stockade fence and fired at
the Limousine like a shooting gallery.
Which do you believe?
Sounds like it was a circular firing squad. Maybe that's why nobody saw
anybody fleeing. They ended shooting each other.
Post by mainframetech
Neither of course! Those are silly ideas.
Sounds like right up your alley.
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
And the "fusillade" was also not my idea, I'm repeating what I
read in a book which I've identified.
Fusillade means a whole bunch of shots at the same time. You
give support to a couple of CT authors who claim there were a
lot more snipers and shots fired than the 3 heard by a majority
of witnesses.
Now you're finally getting it.
So this is your Stamp of Approval on the scenario above?
Of course not! There's not a chance in hell you'd stumble on the real
scenario on your own. But you have the WCR to tell you what happened.
So do you but you refuse to read it.
Post by mainframetech
You need nothing more, right?
That's all anybody needs who wants to know the truth of the assassination.
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Should be easy questions to answer for both of you
mentally superior researchers. Remember once you
bash and trash the WCR and HSCA, et al, you have an
obligation to explain every detail of what actually took
place. Just being two of numerous naysayers is boring
and unconvincing.
You don't get to specify the rules for other people's statements.
Yes I do, in the sense that logic requires assertions be supported
with facts.
You can make rules for what you will listen to or believe, but you
cannot make rules for what someone else will say or do. Is that clear
enough? That right is in the hands of the moderator.
The Rules of Logic are Universal in Academia and Common Sense.
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
I have explained more details than most have, but I don't
have all the answers.
You've had 5 decades to figure it out. What's the problem,
are you a slow thinker?
I see you're going back to being a wise-ass. It doesn't become you.
Try solving things, it's more adult.
Actually that comment was made to Marsh but all CTs welcome
to respond. Try solving the total number of shots and matching
them to locations were snipers were located. IOW try making an
effort to be a competent detective.
That was done but you missed it or ignored it. The shots that struck
in the plaza were listed, and as to where they came from, only a fool
would ask that, since it's after the fact and we don't have any of the
shooters or witnesses in custody.
Chris
Where are those shots listed? If you agree why can't you paraphrase
where they came from and the pattern they used, such as 4 volleys
of 5 shots, something like that? You should be able to do that if you
understand and approve of this theory.
I do not talk of "theories" like the WCR needs. I talk about real
evidence of real events.
I can list them this time for you. There was a shot that struck JFK
in the forehead, and one in the throat, also one in the upper back. Then
there was at least one that hit Connally, maybe more. Then there was the
shot that hit the right hand curb seen by officer 'Steve' Ellis, then
there was the shot through the windshield of the limo seen by 6
eyewitnesses, and then there was a shot that struck the curb by James
Tague and sent a concrete chip flying into his cheek cutting him. Then
there was Wayne and Edna Hartman who saw 2 gouges on the mid filed, and a
cop told them it was bullet gouges in the dirt They pointed at the GK.
There was one that struck a steel manhole cover in midfield that was
searched for in the grass and found by a DPD cop. It was never sent in.
https://i.pinimg.com/736x/98/7f/66/987f66dc89410920b710c8b4bc683202--warren-commission-shots-fired.jpg
The way you get more shots than 3 is by counting the same shots multiple
times. There is no evidence of more than 3.
Show me all three bullets.
mainframetech
2018-07-23 21:30:25 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
How many snipers and where were they located? For
any credibility we need type of bullet and trajectories.
I've given you some of the answer, with diagrams. You
have produced nothing.
The WCR and HSCA did all that before you. The SOTGK is
just as invisible today as he/she was almost 55 years ago.
Which really means that they accomplished the job they
were intended to handle with the public.
Is "they" the WCR and HSCA, or the snipers?
The shooters.
I'm going to ask a simple question: How many shooters do you
think were positioned around Dealey Plaza? Did the rifle shots
come from behind the Limousine? Did shots come from both
sides of the Limousine? Did any shots come from in front of
the Limousine? If the answer is yes to all the above it sounds
like the shooters had the Limousine completely surrounded.
That doesn't sound like a single simple question. The evidence of
bullet strikes in the plaza is that there were many shooters around the
plaza and they would be shooting toward the limousine from many
directions. One particular scenario says there were 6 shooting teams of 4
each located in or on various buildings and other locations around the
plaza.
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
How did they escape with weapons in hand?
On the GK they simply put the weapons in the trunk of a
nearby car, and drove away...hastily.
Do you have any witness testimony on that?
Yes, the man in the RR tower (Lee Bowers) saw the men behind the fence
and told a friend of his named Walter Rischel, who relayed it to a
reporter.
Walter Rischel said that. Lee Bowers never said that. Not only that but
even Rischel's bullshit story doesn't include any such details.
WRONG! You haven't a clue whether the statement came rom Bowers or not.
You're back trying to prove things based on your OPINIONS, not facts.
Including whether the story was bullshit or not too.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Then what happened to all those many rifles used in the
"classic triangulation of fire" ambush that according to
mft turned into a 20 gun fusillade from all sides?
WRONG! Don't even begin to use my name as having mentioned
"classic triangulation of fire". That's your blat, not mine.
The CTOF has been around for a long time and used by one of
the sources you like.
Not by me.
However you support that theory. When someone uses the term
"classic triangulation of fire" that usually means the target was
in the middle of sniper fire from 3 directions. They could also
fire from a 1-2-3 linear pattern from behind the picket fence. so
this is a second option. If multiple snipers maybe both.
When you acknowledged the theory of 20 snipers as a plausible
scenario and offered it up as realistic option to the official 3 shot
determination by the WCR, then you have adopted this stray cat,
and now have a responsibility to feed and water it.
I don't know of anyone that tried to say there were 20 shooters.
That would be a really dumb idea. I've said 6 shooter teams, meaning 6
shooters.
None of who could hit the broad side of a barn.
LOL! Well, at least 2 or 3 were able to hit the target, so that's 2
or 3 out of 6. Not bad odds, could be 50%!
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
As to plotters, I've said 20 at the front end, and 30 at the backend,
but they would also use others who were NOT in on the plot as helpers,
like the FBI as cleanup, or the Mafia as shooters. Those number have not
and will not expand.
Six shooter teams of 2 men each. Plus you have the gal on the walkie
talkie in the TSBD. That's 13 people. 20 more plotters and we are up to
33. Add to that the 30 people who took part in the cover up and we are up
to 63 people. Is that your idea of a little conspiracy? Did the 20
plotters know ahead of time that the 30 people on the backend would go
along with the cover up or did they just recruit these people after the
deed was done and were just lucky that all of them were willing to go
along with the cover up?
As usual, you try the old LN trick of increasing the numbers of
plotters. It did NOT increase from my original guestimate to now. The
shooters were not counted, as I noted at the beginning. As well, the 20
were part of the 30, so you can forget that silly method of increasing the
numbers. The shooters were Mafia members, so they wouldn't dare talk.
And the others were smart enough not to talk at all.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Sounds like the numerous snipers had the Limousine surrounded
or they were all lined up behind the stockade fence and fired at
the Limousine like a shooting gallery.
Which do you believe?
Use you head and the corrections I made above.
Post by bigdog
Sounds like it was a circular firing squad. Maybe that's why nobody saw
anybody fleeing. They ended shooting each other.
Post by mainframetech
Neither of course! Those are silly ideas.
Sounds like right up your alley.
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
And the "fusillade" was also not my idea, I'm repeating what I
read in a book which I've identified.
Fusillade means a whole bunch of shots at the same time. You
give support to a couple of CT authors who claim there were a
lot more snipers and shots fired than the 3 heard by a majority
of witnesses.
Now you're finally getting it.
So this is your Stamp of Approval on the scenario above?
Of course not! There's not a chance in hell you'd stumble on the real
scenario on your own. But you have the WCR to tell you what happened.
So do you but you refuse to read it.
Post by mainframetech
You need nothing more, right?
That's all anybody needs who wants to know the truth of the assassination.
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Should be easy questions to answer for both of you
mentally superior researchers. Remember once you
bash and trash the WCR and HSCA, et al, you have an
obligation to explain every detail of what actually took
place. Just being two of numerous naysayers is boring
and unconvincing.
You don't get to specify the rules for other people's statements.
Yes I do, in the sense that logic requires assertions be supported
with facts.
You can make rules for what you will listen to or believe, but you
cannot make rules for what someone else will say or do. Is that clear
enough? That right is in the hands of the moderator.
The Rules of Logic are Universal in Academia and Common Sense.
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
I have explained more details than most have, but I don't
have all the answers.
You've had 5 decades to figure it out. What's the problem,
are you a slow thinker?
I see you're going back to being a wise-ass. It doesn't become you.
Try solving things, it's more adult.
Actually that comment was made to Marsh but all CTs welcome
to respond. Try solving the total number of shots and matching
them to locations were snipers were located. IOW try making an
effort to be a competent detective.
That was done but you missed it or ignored it. The shots that struck
in the plaza were listed, and as to where they came from, only a fool
would ask that, since it's after the fact and we don't have any of the
shooters or witnesses in custody.
Chris
Where are those shots listed? If you agree why can't you paraphrase
where they came from and the pattern they used, such as 4 volleys
of 5 shots, something like that? You should be able to do that if you
understand and approve of this theory.
I do not talk of "theories" like the WCR needs. I talk about real
evidence of real events.
I can list them this time for you. There was a shot that struck JFK
in the forehead, and one in the throat, also one in the upper back. Then
there was at least one that hit Connally, maybe more. Then there was the
shot that hit the right hand curb seen by officer 'Steve' Ellis, then
there was the shot through the windshield of the limo seen by 6
eyewitnesses, and then there was a shot that struck the curb by James
Tague and sent a concrete chip flying into his cheek cutting him. Then
there was Wayne and Edna Hartman who saw 2 gouges on the mid filed, and a
cop told them it was bullet gouges in the dirt They pointed at the GK.
There was one that struck a steel manhole cover in midfield that was
searched for in the grass and found by a DPD cop. It was never sent in.
https://i.pinimg.com/736x/98/7f/66/987f66dc89410920b710c8b4bc683202--warren-commission-shots-fired.jpg
The way you get more shots than 3 is by counting the same shots multiple
times. There is no evidence of more than 3.
Of course there is! Your denials won't cut it without some sort of
sensible reasoning. If there was a signal, then many shots may have
occurred simultaneously, or close enough to not be separated out
individually.

Chris
claviger
2018-07-22 21:51:57 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
How many snipers and where were they located? For
any credibility we need type of bullet and trajectories.
I've given you some of the answer, with diagrams. You
have produced nothing.
The WCR and HSCA did all that before you. The SOTGK is
just as invisible today as he/she was almost 55 years ago.
Which really means that they accomplished the job they
were intended to handle with the public.
Is "they" the WCR and HSCA, or the snipers?
The shooters.
I'm going to ask a simple question: How many shooters do you
think were positioned around Dealey Plaza? Did the rifle shots
come from behind the Limousine? Did shots come from both
sides of the Limousine? Did any shots come from in front of
the Limousine? If the answer is yes to all the above it sounds
like the shooters had the Limousine completely surrounded.
That doesn't sound like a single simple question.
Please answer these basic questions:

How many shooters were positioned around Dealey Plaza?

Did any shots come from in front of the Limousine?

Did shots come from both sides of the Limousine?

Did rifle shots come from behind the Limousine?
Post by mainframetech
The evidence of bullet strikes in the plaza is that there were many
shooters around the plaza and they would be shooting toward the
limousine from many directions.
You are misusing the word "evidence". Please read the correct
definition for the word you are misapplying.

Evidence - the available body of facts or information indicating
whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.
proof, confirmation, verification, substantiation,
corroboration, affirmation, attestation
LAW
information given personally, drawn from a document, or in the
form of material objects, tending or used to establish facts in a
legal investigation or admissible as testimony in court.
synonyms: proof, confirmation, verification, substantiation,
corroboration, affirmation,
Post by mainframetech
One particular scenario says there were 6 shooting teams of
4 each located in or on various buildings and other locations
around the plaza.
Do you concur with this scenario?
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
How did they escape with weapons in hand?
On the GK they simply put the weapons in the trunk of
a nearby car, and drove away...hastily.
Do you have any witness testimony on that?
Yes, the man in the RR tower (Lee Bowers) saw the men behind
the fence and told a friend of his named Walter Rischel, who
relayed it to a reporter.
Not what Lee Bowers told the police or testified to under oath.
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Then what happened to all those many rifles used in the
"classic triangulation of fire" ambush that according to
mft turned into a 20 gun fusillade from all sides?
WRONG! Don't even begin to use my name as having mentioned
"classic triangulation of fire". That's your blat, not mine.
The CTOF has been around for a long time and used by one
of the sources you like.
Not by me.
However you support that theory. When someone uses the term
"classic triangulation of fire" that usually means the target was
in the middle of sniper fire from 3 directions. They could also
fire from a 1-2-3 linear pattern from behind the picket fence. so
this is a second option. If multiple snipers maybe both.
When you acknowledged the theory of 20 snipers as a plausible
scenario and offered it up as realistic option to the official 3 shot
determination by the WCR, then you have adopted this stray cat,
and now have a responsibility to feed and water it.
I don't know of anyone that tried to say there were 20 shooters.
That would be a really dumb idea. I've said 6 shooter teams,
meaning 6 shooters.
As to plotters, I've said 20 at the front end, and 30 at the backend,
but they would also use others who were NOT in on the plot as helpers,
like the FBI as cleanup, or the Mafia as shooters. Those number have not
and will not expand.
We are discussing actual shooters who pulled a trigger in Dealey Plaza.
How many do you say there were?
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Sounds like the numerous snipers had the Limousine surrounded
or they were all lined up behind the stockade fence and fired at
the Limousine like a shooting gallery.
Which do you believe?
Neither of course! Those are silly ideas.
You claim shooters were all over Dealey Plaza firing at the Limousine.
One behind the picket fence, one inside the tunnel, and one from the
South Pergola. That would be a triangulation crossfire right there.

A new source you injected into this debate claims 20 snipers fired at
the Limousine and you do not reject this theory at all, rather advocate
it as a real scenario that supports you contention that many snipers
were firing shots from all directions. So the question is where do you
think those 20 snipers were located?
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
And the "fusillade" was also not my idea, I'm repeating what I
read in a book which I've identified.
Fusillade means a whole bunch of shots at the same time. You
give support to a couple of CT authors who claim there were a
lot more snipers and shots fired than the 3 heard by a majority
of witnesses.
Now you're finally getting it.
So this is your Stamp of Approval on the scenario above?
Of course not! There's not a chance in hell you'd stumble on the real
scenario on your own. But you have the WCR to tell you what happened.
You need nothing more, right?
The WCR provided evidence to support three possible scenarios of
how 3 shots were fired at the Limousine. I believe another scenario
can explain 3/4 shots at the motorcade.
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Where are those shots listed? If you agree why can't you paraphrase
where they came from and the pattern they used, such as 4 volleys
of 5 shots, something like that? You should be able to do that if you
understand and approve of this theory.
I do not talk of "theories" like the WCR needs. I talk about real
evidence of real events.
Can you explain some of this "real evidence" to clarify your confusing
theory about this ambush with 20 shooters firing at the Motorcade?
Post by mainframetech
I can list them this time for you. There was a shot that struck JFK
in the forehead, and one in the throat, also one in the upper back.
That makes 3 shots. Where did they come from? Different bullets
or same caliber?
Post by mainframetech
Then there was at least one that hit Connally, maybe more.
Then 2 more bullets. Same caliber? Same trajectory or from different
angles?
Post by mainframetech
Then there was the shot that hit the right hand curb seen by officer
'Steve' Ellis,
Yes, where did it come from?
Post by mainframetech
then there was the shot through the windshield of the limo seen by 6
eyewitnesses,
One more shot.
Post by mainframetech
and then there was a shot that struck the curb by James Tague and
sent a concrete chip flying into his cheek cutting him.
OK, where did it come from?
Post by mainframetech
Then there was Wayne and Edna Hartman who saw 2 gouges on the
mid filed, and a cop told them it was bullet gouges in the dirt They
pointed at the GK.
So 3 more shots.
Post by mainframetech
There was one that struck a steel manhole cover in midfield that was
searched for in the grass and found by a DPD cop. It was never sent in.
https://i.pinimg.com/736x/98/7f/66/987f66dc89410920b710c8b4bc683202--warren-commission-shots-fired.jpg
Chris
That makes 12 shots, so where did the the other 8 shots come from?
Were they all 6.5 Carcano bullets or various calibers? Can you explain
the different angles of all these bullets so we can get a better idea the
directions they came from? That would help identify the locations of
all these shooters.
mainframetech
2018-07-23 21:27:42 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
How many snipers and where were they located? For
any credibility we need type of bullet and trajectories.
I've given you some of the answer, with diagrams. You
have produced nothing.
The WCR and HSCA did all that before you. The SOTGK is
just as invisible today as he/she was almost 55 years ago.
Which really means that they accomplished the job they
were intended to handle with the public.
Is "they" the WCR and HSCA, or the snipers?
The shooters.
I'm going to ask a simple question: How many shooters do you
think were positioned around Dealey Plaza? Did the rifle shots
come from behind the Limousine? Did shots come from both
sides of the Limousine? Did any shots come from in front of
the Limousine? If the answer is yes to all the above it sounds
like the shooters had the Limousine completely surrounded.
That doesn't sound like a single simple question.
Since there are a number of scenarios, I'll choose one and answer as if
it were the ONLY one.
Post by claviger
How many shooters were positioned around Dealey Plaza?
6 shooting teams of 4 in each team.
Post by claviger
Did any shots come from in front of the Limousine?
Definitely, and there is evidence to prove it.
Post by claviger
Did shots come from both sides of the Limousine?
It appears they did.
Post by claviger
Did rifle shots come from behind the Limousine?
Yes.
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
The evidence of bullet strikes in the plaza is that there were many
shooters around the plaza and they would be shooting toward the
limousine from many directions.
You are misusing the word "evidence". Please read the correct
definition for the word you are misapplying.
Evidence - the available body of facts or information indicating
whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.
proof, confirmation, verification, substantiation,
corroboration, affirmation, attestation
LAW
information given personally, drawn from a document, or in the
form of material objects, tending or used to establish facts in a
legal investigation or admissible as testimony in court.
synonyms: proof, confirmation, verification, substantiation,
corroboration, affirmation,
You've made yet another mistake. There is evidence of what I speak
of.
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
One particular scenario says there were 6 shooting teams of
4 each located in or on various buildings and other locations
around the plaza.
Do you concur with this scenario?
It is reasonable, though some others are too.
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
How did they escape with weapons in hand?
On the GK they simply put the weapons in the trunk of
a nearby car, and drove away...hastily.
Do you have any witness testimony on that?
Yes, the man in the RR tower (Lee Bowers) saw the men behind
the fence and told a friend of his named Walter Rischel, who
relayed it to a reporter.
Not what Lee Bowers told the police or testified to under oath.
We're NOT IN COURT! As amateur detectives we can do as real
detectives do, and form hypotheses and see if they make sense. Walter
Rischel stated that Lee Bowers told him the info he imparted to the
reporter.
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Then what happened to all those many rifles used in the
"classic triangulation of fire" ambush that according to
mft turned into a 20 gun fusillade from all sides?
WRONG! Don't even begin to use my name as having mentioned
"classic triangulation of fire". That's your blat, not mine.
The CTOF has been around for a long time and used by one
of the sources you like.
Not by me.
However you support that theory. When someone uses the term
"classic triangulation of fire" that usually means the target was
in the middle of sniper fire from 3 directions. They could also
fire from a 1-2-3 linear pattern from behind the picket fence. so
this is a second option. If multiple snipers maybe both.
When you acknowledged the theory of 20 snipers as a plausible
scenario and offered it up as realistic option to the official 3 shot
determination by the WCR, then you have adopted this stray cat,
and now have a responsibility to feed and water it.
I don't know of anyone that tried to say there were 20 shooters.
That would be a really dumb idea. I've said 6 shooter teams,
meaning 6 shooters.
As to plotters, I've said 20 at the front end, and 30 at the backend,
but they would also use others who were NOT in on the plot as helpers,
like the FBI as cleanup, or the Mafia as shooters. Those numbers have not
and will not expand.
We are discussing actual shooters who pulled a trigger in Dealey Plaza.
How many do you say there were?
One scenario said 6.
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Sounds like the numerous snipers had the Limousine surrounded
or they were all lined up behind the stockade fence and fired at
the Limousine like a shooting gallery.
Which do you believe?
Neither of course! Those are silly ideas.
You claim shooters were all over Dealey Plaza firing at the Limousine.
One behind the picket fence, one inside the tunnel, and one from the
South Pergola. That would be a triangulation crossfire right there.
Call it what you like.
Post by claviger
A new source you injected into this debate claims 20 snipers fired at
the Limousine and you do not reject this theory at all, rather advocate
it as a real scenario that supports you contention that many snipers
were firing shots from all directions. So the question is where do you
think those 20 snipers were located?
WRONG! I have NEVER said that 20 shooters fired into Dealey Plaza.
At most I think the t6 shooters were the maximum number if that scenario
is the right one.
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
And the "fusillade" was also not my idea, I'm repeating what I
read in a book which I've identified.
Fusillade means a whole bunch of shots at the same time. You
give support to a couple of CT authors who claim there were a
lot more snipers and shots fired than the 3 heard by a majority
of witnesses.
Now you're finally getting it.
So this is your Stamp of Approval on the scenario above?
Of course not! There's not a chance in hell you'd stumble on the real
scenario on your own. But you have the WCR to tell you what happened.
You need nothing more, right?
The WCR provided evidence to support three possible scenarios of
how 3 shots were fired at the Limousine. I believe another scenario
can explain 3/4 shots at the motorcade.
If you go back to the WCR, you'll find that in some cases they used
THEORIES to maker their proof, which really means guessing.
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Where are those shots listed? If you agree why can't you paraphrase
where they came from and the pattern they used, such as 4 volleys
of 5 shots, something like that? You should be able to do that if you
understand and approve of this theory.
I do not talk of "theories" like the WCR needs. I talk about real
evidence of real events.
Can you explain some of this "real evidence" to clarify your confusing
theory about this ambush with 20 shooters firing at the Motorcade?
I have no theory of 20 shooters. You made that up as you have been
seen to do at times. I have at most said 6 shooters at one time.
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
I can list them this time for you. There was a shot that struck JFK
in the forehead, and one in the throat, also one in the upper back.
That makes 3 shots. Where did they come from? Different bullets
or same caliber?
No idea, and it doesn't matter, they couldn't all come from the MC rifle which hit or hurt no one.
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
Then there was at least one that hit Connally, maybe more.
Then 2 more bullets. Same caliber? Same trajectory or from different
angles?
Too many shooters to know that. Think that through.
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
Then there was the shot that hit the right hand curb seen by officer
'Steve' Ellis,
Yes, where did it come from?
A gun no doubt. Use your head.
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
then there was the shot through the windshield of the limo seen by 6
eyewitnesses,
One more shot.
Post by mainframetech
and then there was a shot that struck the curb by James Tague and
sent a concrete chip flying into his cheek cutting him.
OK, where did it come from?
A weapon.
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
Then there was Wayne and Edna Hartman who saw 2 gouges on the
mid filed, and a cop told them it was bullet gouges in the dirt They
pointed at the GK.
So 3 more shots.
Post by mainframetech
There was one that struck a steel manhole cover in midfield that was
searched for in the grass and found by a DPD cop. It was never sent in.
https://i.pinimg.com/736x/98/7f/66/987f66dc89410920b710c8b4bc683202--warren-commission-shots-fired.jpg
Chris
That makes 12 shots, so where did the the other 8 shots come from?
Were they all 6.5 Carcano bullets or various calibers? Can you explain
the different angles of all these bullets so we can get a better idea the
directions they came from? That would help identify the locations of
all these shooters.
There weren't 8 other shots. You made up that stupid 20 shooters
story, not me. Go back and check. I never said there were 20 shooters.

Chris
claviger
2018-07-25 17:15:57 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
I'm going to ask a simple question: How many shooters do you
think were positioned around Dealey Plaza? Did the rifle shots
come from behind the Limousine? Did shots come from both
sides of the Limousine? Did any shots come from in front of
the Limousine? If the answer is yes to all the above it sounds
like the shooters had the Limousine completely surrounded.
That doesn't sound like a single simple question.
Since there are a number of scenarios, I'll choose one and answer
as if it were the ONLY one.
How many shooting scenarios do you approve of ?
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
How many shooters were positioned around Dealey Plaza?
6 shooting teams of 4 in each team.
Where were they located ?
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Did any shots come from in front of the Limousine?
Definitely, and there is evidence to prove it.
What angle did those shots come from ?
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Did shots come from both sides of the Limousine?
It appears they did.
What direction does it appear they came from ?
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Did rifle shots come from behind the Limousine?
Yes.
From the TSBD or Dal-Tex Building ?
Post by mainframetech
You've made yet another mistake. There is evidence of what I
speak of.
Please explain that evidence.
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
One particular scenario says there were 6 shooting teams of
4 each located in or on various buildings and other locations
around the plaza.
Do you concur with this scenario?
It is reasonable, though some others are too.
Why do you feel it is reasonable ?
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Do you have any witness testimony on that?
Yes, the man in the RR tower (Lee Bowers) saw the men behind
the fence and told a friend of his named Walter Rischel, who
relayed it to a reporter.
Not what Lee Bowers told the police or testified to under oath.
We're NOT IN COURT! As amateur detectives we can do as real
detectives do, and form hypotheses and see if they make sense.
Walter Rischel stated that Lee Bowers told him the info he imparted
to the reporter.
There friends of Lee Bowers report similar stories but some of the details
are different with each story. The fact Bowers told these stories years
after the event is suspicious to any investigator.
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
We are discussing actual shooters who pulled a trigger in Dealey Plaza.
How many do you say there were?
One scenario said 6.
Do you agree ?
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
A new source you injected into this debate claims 20 snipers fired at
the Limousine and you do not reject this theory at all, rather advocate
it as a real scenario that supports you contention that many snipers
were firing shots from all directions. So the question is where do you
think those 20 snipers were located?
WRONG! I have NEVER said that 20 shooters fired into Dealey Plaza.
At most I think the t6 shooters were the maximum number if that scenario
is the right one.
Any theory where they were located ?
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
So this is your Stamp of Approval on the scenario above?
Of course not! There's not a chance in hell you'd stumble on the real
scenario on your own. But you have the WCR to tell you what happened.
You need nothing more, right?
The WCR provided evidence to support three possible scenarios of
how 3 shots were fired at the Limousine. I believe another scenario
can explain 3/4 shots at the motorcade.
If you go back to the WCR, you'll find that in some cases they used
THEORIES to maker their proof, which really means guessing.
Yes theories are a scientific guess based on valid evidence.
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
I do not talk of "theories" like the WCR needs. I talk about real
evidence of real events.
Can you explain some of this "real evidence" to clarify your confusing
theory about this ambush with 20 shooters firing at the Motorcade?
I have no theory of 20 shooters. You made that up as you have been
seen to do at times. I have at most said 6 shooters at one time.
What do you mean by "at one time" ?
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
I can list them this time for you. There was a shot that struck JFK
in the forehead, and one in the throat, also one in the upper back.
That makes 3 shots. Where did they come from? Different bullets
or same caliber?
No idea, and it doesn't matter, they couldn't all come from the MC rifle
which hit or hurt no one.
The back wound indicates a 6.5mm bullet.
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
Then there was at least one that hit Connally, maybe more.
Then 2 more bullets. Same caliber? Same trajectory or from different
angles?
Too many shooters to know that. Think that through.
Too many shooters missed the primary target according to your theory.
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
Then there was the shot that hit the right hand curb seen by officer
'Steve' Ellis,
Yes, where did it come from?
A gun no doubt. Use your head.
Where was that gun located ?
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
then there was the shot through the windshield of the limo seen by 6
eyewitnesses,
One more shot.
Post by mainframetech
and then there was a shot that struck the curb by James Tague and
sent a concrete chip flying into his cheek cutting him.
OK, where did it come from?
A weapon.
Where was that weapon located ?
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
That makes 12 shots, so where did the the other 8 shots come from?
Were they all 6.5 Carcano bullets or various calibers? Can you explain
the different angles of all these bullets so we can get a better idea the
directions they came from? That would help identify the locations of
all these shooters.
There weren't 8 other shots. You made up that stupid 20 shooters
story, not me. Go back and check. I never said there were 20 shooters.
Chris
I did not make up the 20 shooters. A website you liked did, so you gave
the stamp of approval to that theory.
claviger
2018-07-26 13:26:24 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Three friends of Lee Bowers report similar stories but some of the details
are different with each story. The fact Bowers told these stories years
after the event is suspicious to any investigator.

Olan T DeGaugh, James R Sterling, Walter G Rishel.
Anthony Marsh
2018-07-28 03:46:39 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by claviger
Three friends of Lee Bowers report similar stories but some of the details
are different with each story. The fact Bowers told these stories years
after the event is suspicious to any investigator.
Olan T DeGaugh, James R Sterling, Walter G Rishel.
So when someone finally confesses after years of denial you don't believe
it. But you don't even believe it when they say it immediately after or
during the event. You are selective about what you WANT to believe. How
about if you just ignore witnesses and believe the scientific evidence?
claviger
2018-07-29 01:27:38 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Three friends of Lee Bowers report similar stories but some of the details
are different with each story. The fact Bowers told these stories years
after the event is suspicious to any investigator.
Olan T DeGaugh, James R Sterling, Walter G Rishel.
So when someone finally confesses after years of denial you don't
believe it. But you don't even believe it when they say it immediately
after or during the event. You are selective about what you WANT
to believe.
Detectives are skeptical of late blooming witnesses. There were
differences in the 3 stories. None can be verified because the
source has passed away.
Post by Anthony Marsh
How about if you just ignore witnesses and believe the scientific
evidence?
Witnesses can be helpful. For instance, when some CT claims
a gunshot was fired from the GK and the closest witnesses did
not hear any shots from up there, but did hear loud shots from
the direction of the TSBD, then yes that is useful information.
Anthony Marsh
2018-07-30 21:18:11 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Three friends of Lee Bowers report similar stories but some of the details
are different with each story. The fact Bowers told these stories years
after the event is suspicious to any investigator.
Olan T DeGaugh, James R Sterling, Walter G Rishel.
So when someone finally confesses after years of denial you don't
believe it. But you don't even believe it when they say it immediately
after or during the event. You are selective about what you WANT
to believe.
Detectives are skeptical of late blooming witnesses. There were
differences in the 3 stories. None can be verified because the
source has passed away.
Post by Anthony Marsh
How about if you just ignore witnesses and believe the scientific
evidence?
Witnesses can be helpful. For instance, when some CT claims
a gunshot was fired from the GK and the closest witnesses did
not hear any shots from up there, but did hear loud shots from
the direction of the TSBD, then yes that is useful information.
Most witnesses said the shots came from the grassy knoll.
But you should not just accept that as gospel. You need to test it.
claviger
2018-07-31 20:16:35 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Three friends of Lee Bowers report similar stories but some of the details
are different with each story. The fact Bowers told these stories years
after the event is suspicious to any investigator.
Olan T DeGaugh, James R Sterling, Walter G Rishel.
So when someone finally confesses after years of denial you don't
believe it. But you don't even believe it when they say it immediately
after or during the event. You are selective about what you WANT
to believe.
Detectives are skeptical of late blooming witnesses. There were
differences in the 3 stories. None can be verified because the
source has passed away.
Post by Anthony Marsh
How about if you just ignore witnesses and believe the scientific
evidence?
Witnesses can be helpful. For instance, when some CT claims
a gunshot was fired from the GK and the closest witnesses did
not hear any shots from up there, but did hear loud shots from
the direction of the TSBD, then yes that is useful information.
Most witnesses said the shots came from the grassy knoll.
But you should not just accept that as gospel. You need to test it.
Based on what research study?

Dealey Plaza Earwitnesses
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/shots.htm
Anthony Marsh
2018-08-02 02:01:41 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Three friends of Lee Bowers report similar stories but some of the details
are different with each story. The fact Bowers told these stories years
after the event is suspicious to any investigator.
Olan T DeGaugh, James R Sterling, Walter G Rishel.
So when someone finally confesses after years of denial you don't
believe it. But you don't even believe it when they say it immediately
after or during the event. You are selective about what you WANT
to believe.
Detectives are skeptical of late blooming witnesses. There were
differences in the 3 stories. None can be verified because the
source has passed away.
Post by Anthony Marsh
How about if you just ignore witnesses and believe the scientific
evidence?
Witnesses can be helpful. For instance, when some CT claims
a gunshot was fired from the GK and the closest witnesses did
not hear any shots from up there, but did hear loud shots from
the direction of the TSBD, then yes that is useful information.
Most witnesses said the shots came from the grassy knoll.
But you should not just accept that as gospel. You need to test it.
Based on what research study?
Loftus. The Scientific Method.
Post by claviger
Dealey Plaza Earwitnesses
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/shots.htm
claviger
2018-08-02 23:32:50 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Three friends of Lee Bowers report similar stories but some of the details
are different with each story. The fact Bowers told these stories years
after the event is suspicious to any investigator.
Olan T DeGaugh, James R Sterling, Walter G Rishel.
So when someone finally confesses after years of denial you don't
believe it. But you don't even believe it when they say it immediately
after or during the event. You are selective about what you WANT
to believe.
Detectives are skeptical of late blooming witnesses. There were
differences in the 3 stories. None can be verified because the
source has passed away.
Post by Anthony Marsh
How about if you just ignore witnesses and believe the scientific
evidence?
Witnesses can be helpful. For instance, when some CT claims
a gunshot was fired from the GK and the closest witnesses did
not hear any shots from up there, but did hear loud shots from
the direction of the TSBD, then yes that is useful information.
Most witnesses said the shots came from the grassy knoll.
But you should not just accept that as gospel. You need to test it.
Based on what research study?
Loftus. The Scientific Method.
Post by claviger
Dealey Plaza Earwitnesses
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/shots.htm
The Scientific Method requires factual evidence, the reason
there was no SOTGK.
Anthony Marsh
2018-08-08 05:50:08 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Three friends of Lee Bowers report similar stories but some of the details
are different with each story. The fact Bowers told these stories years
after the event is suspicious to any investigator.
Olan T DeGaugh, James R Sterling, Walter G Rishel.
So when someone finally confesses after years of denial you don't
believe it. But you don't even believe it when they say it immediately
after or during the event. You are selective about what you WANT
to believe.
Detectives are skeptical of late blooming witnesses. There were
differences in the 3 stories. None can be verified because the
source has passed away.
Post by Anthony Marsh
How about if you just ignore witnesses and believe the scientific
evidence?
Witnesses can be helpful. For instance, when some CT claims
a gunshot was fired from the GK and the closest witnesses did
not hear any shots from up there, but did hear loud shots from
the direction of the TSBD, then yes that is useful information.
Most witnesses said the shots came from the grassy knoll.
But you should not just accept that as gospel. You need to test it.
Based on what research study?
Loftus. The Scientific Method.
Post by claviger
Dealey Plaza Earwitnesses
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/shots.htm
The Scientific Method requires factual evidence, the reason
there was no SOTGK.
I said that already, whatever the Hell you think you mean. BTW, the
Scientific Method proves that the SS did not shoot JFK in the head.
claviger
2018-08-09 17:22:10 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Three friends of Lee Bowers report similar stories but some of the details
are different with each story. The fact Bowers told these stories years
after the event is suspicious to any investigator.
Olan T DeGaugh, James R Sterling, Walter G Rishel.
So when someone finally confesses after years of denial you don't
believe it. But you don't even believe it when they say it immediately
after or during the event. You are selective about what you WANT
to believe.
Detectives are skeptical of late blooming witnesses. There were
differences in the 3 stories. None can be verified because the
source has passed away.
Post by Anthony Marsh
How about if you just ignore witnesses and believe the scientific
evidence?
Witnesses can be helpful. For instance, when some CT claims
a gunshot was fired from the GK and the closest witnesses did
not hear any shots from up there, but did hear loud shots from
the direction of the TSBD, then yes that is useful information.
Most witnesses said the shots came from the grassy knoll.
But you should not just accept that as gospel. You need to test it.
Based on what research study?
Loftus. The Scientific Method.
Post by claviger
Dealey Plaza Earwitnesses
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/shots.htm
The Scientific Method requires factual evidence, the reason
there was no SOTGK.
I said that already, whatever the Hell you think you mean. BTW, the
Scientific Method proves that the SS did not shoot JFK in the head.
Actually just the opposite. Scientific protocol demands any anomaly
be explained and resolved according to established physical science.
No one has explained how a 6.8mm metal object can pass through a
6.0mm hole in the thickest part of the human skull that has no ability
for flexibility. In fact just the opposite.

The thickest part of the skull is subject to the "reaming effect" of a
spinning bullet that acts like a drill through the skull leaving a bullet
hole larger than the width of the bullet. One purpose for Dr Finck at the
autopsy was measuring all wounds on the body of the President. He
measured the head wound himself for his own duty for reporting to his
superior officer. He did that during the autopsy and verified a 6.0mm
wound to the skull in his official report to his Commanding Officer
Brigadier General Blumberg.

25 January 1965
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=609

Dr Finck's measurement was medically precise for the record on the
autopsy of his Commander-in-Chief, then a 6.8mm projectile did not
make that wound.
Mitch Todd
2018-08-11 04:19:04 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Three friends of Lee Bowers report similar stories but some of the details
are different with each story. The fact Bowers told these stories years
after the event is suspicious to any investigator.
Olan T DeGaugh, James R Sterling, Walter G Rishel.
So when someone finally confesses after years of denial you don't
believe it. But you don't even believe it when they say it immediately
after or during the event. You are selective about what you WANT
to believe.
Detectives are skeptical of late blooming witnesses. There were
differences in the 3 stories. None can be verified because the
source has passed away.
Post by Anthony Marsh
How about if you just ignore witnesses and believe the scientific
evidence?
Witnesses can be helpful. For instance, when some CT claims
a gunshot was fired from the GK and the closest witnesses did
not hear any shots from up there, but did hear loud shots from
the direction of the TSBD, then yes that is useful information.
Most witnesses said the shots came from the grassy knoll.
But you should not just accept that as gospel. You need to test it.
Based on what research study?
Loftus. The Scientific Method.
Post by claviger
Dealey Plaza Earwitnesses
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/shots.htm
The Scientific Method requires factual evidence, the reason
there was no SOTGK.
I said that already, whatever the Hell you think you mean. BTW, the
Scientific Method proves that the SS did not shoot JFK in the head.
Actually just the opposite. Scientific protocol demands any anomaly
be explained and resolved according to established physical science.
No one has explained how a 6.8mm metal object can pass through a
6.0mm hole in the thickest part of the human skull that has no ability
for flexibility. In fact just the opposite.
There wasn't a measurement for the hole in the bone. The
6 x 15mm data given by HBF is for the hole in the scalp.
As Humes said:

Commander HUMES - This is in the scalp, sir, and I believe
that this is explainable on the elastic recoil of the tissues
of the skin, sir. It is not infrequent in missile wounds of
this type that the measured wound is slightly smaller than
the caliber of the missile that traversed it.

For that matter, standard "scientific protocols" recognize
that measurements are only accurate to a certain level of
precision. A measurement using a metric ruler subdivided
into millimeters is held to be .5mm - 1.0mm depending on a
number of factors. The hole could have really been as large
as 7mm by that measure.
Post by claviger
The thickest part of the skull is subject to the "reaming effect" of a
spinning bullet that acts like a drill through the skull leaving a bullet
hole larger than the width of the bullet.
If I search for bullet and "reaming effect," all I seem to
find are old usenet posts involving you. BTW, typical rifling
twist on a rifle is around 12 inches per revolution. The skull
is on the order of 1/3 of an inch thick. 1/3 of an inch is 1/36
of a foot. A bullet rotating once every inch of travel will
turn all of ten degrees passing through the bone. That's not
much reaming.
Post by claviger
One purpose for Dr Finck at the
autopsy was measuring all wounds on the body of the President. He
measured the head wound himself for his own duty for reporting to his
superior officer. He did that during the autopsy and verified a 6.0mm
wound to the skull in his official report to his Commanding Officer
Brigadier General Blumberg.
25 January 1965
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=609
Dr Finck's measurement was medically precise for the record on the
autopsy of his Commander-in-Chief, then a 6.8mm projectile did not
make that wound.
In that doc, Finck states, "The scalp of the back of the head
showed a small laceration, 15 x 6mm," but he does not give a
measurement for the corresponding wound in the underlying
cranium.
claviger
2018-08-11 22:15:48 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Mitch Todd
Post by claviger
Dr Finck's measurement was medically precise for the record
on the autopsy of his Commander-in-Chief, then a 6.8mm
projectile did not make that wound.
In that doc, Finck states, "The scalp of the back of the head
showed a small laceration, 15 x 6mm," but he does not give a
measurement for the corresponding wound in the underlying
cranium.
The scalp of a human being is thin and fits tight over the skull,
especially around the back of the head. There is no cushion of muscle or
fatty flesh between the skin and skull bone, so It is a thin tight fit.
A puncture wound from a normal rifle bullet drills a hole in the skin and
bone instantly. The hole in the outer table of the bone is identical the
scalp wound. The same wound on the inner table of the skull will have a
conning effect and usually twice as large as the entrance wound on the
outer table. This is how pathology doctors know the direction that bullet
came from. The coning effect confirms the incoming trajectory.

The Carcano 6.5 mm projectile is actually 6.8 mm wide. The scalp and
outer table hole was measured by the lead prosector Dr Humes and a US Army
pathology expert Lt Col Finck. His expertise was on rifle wounds and he
just returned from a tour of duty in Vietnam. He certainly knows how to
measure a bullet wound. Finck was there as observer and consultant to the
Navy doctors performing the prosection procedures on the corpse.

The Kennedy family wanted as little dissection on the head and body as
possible. The doctors complied with that request.

Dr Finck was mostly an observer but took his own measurements of the head
and back wounds. In the report to his CO he stated the head wound was
caused by a bullet entering the back of the upper skull causing an extreme
blowout exit wound on top of the head.

The thorax injury was a puncture wound in Trapezius muscle of the upper
back. Much later the autopsy team realized it made exit from the throat,
wounding the passenger sitting in front of the President.

A team of mortuary employees called attention to a small exit wound in the
right temple. They knew it was an exit wound by the irregular shape and
skin flap pushed our by the fragment. These were the only wounds observed
by the pathology team of doctors and morticians.

At the time of the physical examination of head and back the two primary
pathology doctors agreed the entrance wound on back of the skull measured
6 mm x 15 mm. Over several years of Q&A discussions and many questions by
various panels that is still the official measurement.

The human skull is a solid bone braincase not flexible at all, so it would
be impossible for a 6.8 missile to fit through a 6.0 mm hole in the
posterior part of the human cranium. A spinning bullet is a high velocity
drill bit that reams out the bone allowing the deadly missile to penetrate
the skull. For a 6.8 mm bullet to pass inside it would need at least a 7
mm hole, but more likely a 7.5 mm hole.

This may seem like small numbers but pathologists are familiar with these
type of precise measurements.
claviger
2018-08-13 05:58:33 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by claviger
The human skull is a solid bone braincase not flexible at all, so it would
be impossible for a 6.8 missile to fit through a 6.0 mm hole in the
posterior part of the human cranium.
By solid I meant strong, thick, hard, rigid, not flexible.
The skull is basically a bone helmet to protect the brain.
The thickest part of the skull in the back where the bullet
punctured a hole. It was thick enough to cause significant
fragmentation tuning the FMJ bullet into a lead snowstorm.
The Carcano 6.5 FMJ had a reputation as a durable rugged
bullet not prone to complete failure like this one. One more
reason to doubt Carcano bullet caused this massive wound.
Anthony Marsh
2018-08-14 15:28:20 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by claviger
Post by claviger
The human skull is a solid bone braincase not flexible at all, so it would
be impossible for a 6.8 missile to fit through a 6.0 mm hole in the
posterior part of the human cranium.
By solid I meant strong, thick, hard, rigid, not flexible.
The skull is basically a bone helmet to protect the brain.
The thickest part of the skull in the back where the bullet
punctured a hole. It was thick enough to cause significant
fragmentation tuning the FMJ bullet into a lead snowstorm.
That does not happen with the WCC Carcano bullet. It has an unsually
thick copper jacket. More likely it was an explosive bullet.
Show me any copper fragments. They are only tiny lead fragments.
Post by claviger
The Carcano 6.5 FMJ had a reputation as a durable rugged
bullet not prone to complete failure like this one. One more
reason to doubt Carcano bullet caused this massive wound.
You mean an Oswald bullet. The CIA made a custom explosive Carcano bullet.
Anthony Marsh
2018-08-13 14:52:15 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by claviger
Post by Mitch Todd
Post by claviger
Dr Finck's measurement was medically precise for the record
on the autopsy of his Commander-in-Chief, then a 6.8mm
projectile did not make that wound.
In that doc, Finck states, "The scalp of the back of the head
showed a small laceration, 15 x 6mm," but he does not give a
measurement for the corresponding wound in the underlying
cranium.
The scalp of a human being is thin and fits tight over the skull,
especially around the back of the head. There is no cushion of muscle or
fatty flesh between the skin and skull bone, so It is a thin tight fit.
Not exactly. Put your fingers on the back of your head and you can move
the skin up and down. But none of your nonsense deals with the facts.
There was no hole on the back of the head an constantly changing where you
say it was every week does not help to prove that there was really a hole
there.
Post by claviger
A puncture wound from a normal rifle bullet drills a hole in the skin and
bone instantly. The hole in the outer table of the bone is identical the
So WHAT? Did you also know that the Sun rises in the East? Now I'll tell
you something that you don't know because you never do any research. There
have been freak cases where the bullet enters the scalp and then does not
go through the skull, sometimes skimming along the skull and exiting the
scalp in a diferent place or bouncing off the skull, or only going into
the skull halfway. If you don't believe me, look it up on Google. But
please don't look at the photos. I don't want you to faint.
Post by claviger
scalp wound. The same wound on the inner table of the skull will have a
conning effect and usually twice as large as the entrance wound on the
outer table. This is how pathology doctors know the direction that bullet
Who said that? Where did you get that frrom? A sci-fi movie?
Post by claviger
came from. The coning effect confirms the incoming trajectory.
There is no hole on the back of the head to confirm anything.
Post by claviger
The Carcano 6.5 mm projectile is actually 6.8 mm wide. The scalp and
outer table hole was measured by the lead prosector Dr Humes and a US Army
pathology expert Lt Col Finck. His expertise was on rifle wounds and he
just returned from a tour of duty in Vietnam. He certainly knows how to
measure a bullet wound. Finck was there as observer and consultant to the
Navy doctors performing the prosection procedures on the corpse.
No autopsy document or testimony told you that the bullet is actually
6.8mm in diameter. I was the only person here who knew that.
Maybe you're actually learning, heaven forbid!
Post by claviger
The Kennedy family wanted as little dissection on the head and body as
possible. The doctors complied with that request.
Where did you get that from? Your imagination. They never said that.
Don't try to be a Mainframetech when you don't even know how to code.
Post by claviger
Dr Finck was mostly an observer but took his own measurements of the head
and back wounds. In the report to his CO he stated the head wound was
caused by a bullet entering the back of the upper skull causing an extreme
blowout exit wound on top of the head.
TOP? Show me the document. What happened to your exit wound on the side
of the head? Did you just forget it?
Post by claviger
The thorax injury was a puncture wound in Trapezius muscle of the upper
back. Much later the autopsy team realized it made exit from the throat,
wounding the passenger sitting in front of the President.
Something like that. A lot of big words that you don't understand.
But you got the gist of it correct.
Throat wound is an exit.
Remember that they originally thought it was the exit wound for a bullet
that hit under the EOP because they did not even know about the back wound.
Post by claviger
A team of mortuary employees called attention to a small exit wound in the
right temple. They knew it was an exit wound by the irregular shape and
skin flap pushed our by the fragment. These were the only wounds observed
by the pathology team of doctors and morticians.
And you say the autopsy doctors overlooked it just as they overlooked
the back wound?
Post by claviger
At the time of the physical examination of head and back the two primary
pathology doctors agreed the entrance wound on back of the skull measured
6 mm x 15 mm. Over several years of Q&A discussions and many questions by
various panels that is still the official measurement.
Silly. Why do you claim it was a tumbling bullet to cause the
elongation? What intervening object did the bullet hit? Maybe the
traffic light support bar? Maybe a sign?
Post by claviger
The human skull is a solid bone braincase not flexible at all, so it would
Not solid. It is made up of plates.
Post by claviger
be impossible for a 6.8 missile to fit through a 6.0 mm hole in the
posterior part of the human cranium. A spinning bullet is a high velocity
Doesn't that incongruity tip you off that the 6mm measurement is a lie?
Or maybe they just rounded down, not caring to be precise.
Can you show me a 6mm rifle?
Post by claviger
drill bit that reams out the bone allowing the deadly missile to penetrate
the skull. For a 6.8 mm bullet to pass inside it would need at least a 7
mm hole, but more likely a 7.5 mm hole.
Is that your medical opinion or your ballistic opinion.
Show us your degree.
Post by claviger
This may seem like small numbers but pathologists are familiar with these
type of precise measurements.
Balony. WHy did they round out the ruler measurements?
Do you know why? No.

I do. Close enough for government work.
claviger
2018-08-14 15:25:38 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Post by Mitch Todd
Post by claviger
Dr Finck's measurement was medically precise for the record
on the autopsy of his Commander-in-Chief, then a 6.8mm
projectile did not make that wound.
In that doc, Finck states, "The scalp of the back of the head
showed a small laceration, 15 x 6mm," but he does not give a
measurement for the corresponding wound in the underlying
cranium.
The scalp of a human being is thin and fits tight over the skull,
especially around the back of the head. There is no cushion of muscle or
fatty flesh between the skin and skull bone, so It is a thin tight fit.
Not exactly. Put your fingers on the back of your head and you can
move the skin up and down.
Slightly, still a tight fit.
Post by Anthony Marsh
But none of your nonsense deals with the facts.
Oh the irony of that statement! PCTKB!!!
Post by Anthony Marsh
There was no hole on the back of the head an constantly changing
where you say it was every week does not help to prove that there
was really a hole there.
I believe it where the Clark Panel and HSCA said it was.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
A puncture wound from a normal rifle bullet drills a hole in the skin and
bone instantly. The hole in the outer table of the bone is identical the
So WHAT? Did you also know that the Sun rises in the East? Now I'll tell
There you something that you don't know because you never do any research.
have been freak cases where the bullet enters the scalp and then does not
go through the skull, sometimes skimming along the skull and exiting the
scalp in a diferent place or bouncing off the skull, or only going into
the skull halfway. If you don't believe me, look it up on Google. But
please don't look at the photos. I don't want you to faint.
Mostly from small handgun .22 bullets. Show us where that has ever
happened with a 6.5mm rifle bullet. Actually doesn't matter because
a rifle bullet definitely penetrated the back and skull of the President.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
scalp wound. The same wound on the inner table of the skull will have a
conning effect and usually twice as large as the entrance wound on the
outer table. This is how pathology doctors know the direction that bullet
Who said that? Where did you get that frrom? A sci-fi movie?
Dr Finck.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
came from. The coning effect confirms the incoming trajectory.
There is no hole on the back of the head to confirm anything.
Three pathology doctors disagree with that amateurish statement.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
The Carcano 6.5 mm projectile is actually 6.8 mm wide. The scalp and
outer table hole was measured by the lead prosector Dr Humes and a US Army
pathology expert Lt Col Finck. His expertise was on rifle wounds and he
just returned from a tour of duty in Vietnam. He certainly knows how to
measure a bullet wound. Finck was there as observer and consultant to the
Navy doctors performing the prosection procedures on the corpse.
No autopsy document or testimony told you that the bullet is actually
6.8mm in diameter. I was the only person here who knew that.
Maybe you're actually learning, heaven forbid!
Thank you for proving my point.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
The Kennedy family wanted as little dissection on the head and body
as possible. The doctors complied with that request.
Where did you get that from? Your imagination. They never said that.
Don't try to be a Mainframetech when you don't even know how to code.
Jackie did not want any autopsy but Dr Burkley explained it was a legal
requirement. RFK asked the doctors for a minimum autopsy as much
as posible.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Dr Finck was mostly an observer but took his own measurements of the head
and back wounds. In the report to his CO he stated the head wound was
caused by a bullet entering the back of the upper skull causing an extreme
blowout exit wound on top of the head.
TOP? Show me the document. What happened to your exit wound on the
side of the head? Did you just forget it?
There was a small exit wound by a fragment in the temple area. The massive
exit wound was on top of the head more to the right hemisphere of the skull.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
The thorax injury was a puncture wound in Trapezius muscle of the upper
back. Much later the autopsy team realized it made exit from the throat,
wounding the passenger sitting in front of the President.
Something like that. A lot of big words that you don't understand.
What big words?
Post by Anthony Marsh
But you got the gist of it correct.
Throat wound is an exit.
Remember that they originally thought it was the exit wound for a bullet
that hit under the EOP because they did not even know about the back wound.
Yes there was initial confusion because the tracheotomy using
the throat wound.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
A team of mortuary employees called attention to a small exit wound in the
right temple. They knew it was an exit wound by the irregular shape and
skin flap pushed our by the fragment. These were the only wounds observed
by the pathology team of doctors and morticians.
And you say the autopsy doctors overlooked it just as they overlooked
the back wound?
A mortician noticed and pointed it out to Dr Finck.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
At the time of the physical examination of head and back the two primary
pathology doctors agreed the entrance wound on back of the skull measured
6 mm x 15 mm. Over several years of Q&A discussions and many questions by
various panels that is still the official measurement.
Silly. Why do you claim it was a tumbling bullet to cause the elongation?
It was a perforating wound. About an inch higher it would have been
a tangential wound.

Loading Image...

Bullet wounds
https://www.health24.com/Lifestyle/Man/Your-life/Gunshot-wounds-20120721
Post by Anthony Marsh
What intervening object did the bullet hit? Maybe the traffic light support
bar? Maybe a sign?
Max Holland believes that happened.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
The human skull is a solid bone braincase not flexible at all, so it would
Not solid. It is made up of plates.
Thick plates.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
be impossible for a 6.8 missile to fit through a 6.0 mm hole in the
posterior part of the human cranium. A spinning bullet is a high velocity
Doesn't that incongruity tip you off that the 6mm measurement is a lie?
Of course not.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Or maybe they just rounded down, not caring to be precise.
Can you show me a 6mm rifle?
https://www.cheaperthandirt.com/category/firearms/rifles/bolt-action/6mm-creedmoor.do
http://www.shootingtimes.com/rifles/ruger-american-predator-in-6mm-creedmoor/
https://www.sportsmansoutdoorsuperstore.com/products2.cfm/ID/191746/16948/ruger-american-predator-6mm-creedmoor-bolt-action-rifle
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
drill bit that reams out the bone allowing the deadly missile to penetrate
the skull. For a 6.8 mm bullet to pass inside it would need at least a 7
mm hole, but more likely a 7.5 mm hole.
Is that your medical opinion or your ballistic opinion.
Show us your degree.
The opinion of a Pathologist I talked to in a phone call to WRAMC.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
This may seem like small numbers but pathologists are familiar
with these type of precise measurements.
Balony. WHy did they round out the ruler measurements?
Do you know why? No.
I do. Close enough for government work.
So tell us why.
Anthony Marsh
2018-08-15 04:04:00 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Post by Mitch Todd
Post by claviger
Dr Finck's measurement was medically precise for the record
on the autopsy of his Commander-in-Chief, then a 6.8mm
projectile did not make that wound.
In that doc, Finck states, "The scalp of the back of the head
showed a small laceration, 15 x 6mm," but he does not give a
measurement for the corresponding wound in the underlying
cranium.
The scalp of a human being is thin and fits tight over the skull,
especially around the back of the head. There is no cushion of muscle or
fatty flesh between the skin and skull bone, so It is a thin tight fit.
Not exactly. Put your fingers on the back of your head and you can
move the skin up and down.
Slightly, still a tight fit.
Post by Anthony Marsh
But none of your nonsense deals with the facts.
Oh the irony of that statement! PCTKB!!!
Post by Anthony Marsh
There was no hole on the back of the head an constantly changing
where you say it was every week does not help to prove that there
was really a hole there.
I believe it where the Clark Panel and HSCA said it was.
Oh, so now you believe the HSCA. That makes you an HSCA defender and not a
WC defender. That means you are a conspiracy kook. Next thing we know
you'll be saying the SS killed Kennedy! Or aliens.
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
A puncture wound from a normal rifle bullet drills a hole in the skin and
bone instantly. The hole in the outer table of the bone is identical the
So WHAT? Did you also know that the Sun rises in the East? Now I'll tell
There you something that you don't know because you never do any research.
have been freak cases where the bullet enters the scalp and then does not
go through the skull, sometimes skimming along the skull and exiting the
scalp in a diferent place or bouncing off the skull, or only going into
the skull halfway. If you don't believe me, look it up on Google. But
please don't look at the photos. I don't want you to faint.
Mostly from small handgun .22 bullets. Show us where that has ever
happened with a 6.5mm rifle bullet. Actually doesn't matter because
I didn't say 6.5mm and you don't have any proof it was 6.5mm. I happen
to believe the shot from the front was also a 6.5 mm Carcano, but a
different type of bullet.
Post by claviger
a rifle bullet definitely penetrated the back and skull of the President.
Yeah! Huray, you finally admitte the shot from the front penetrated.
I was afraid you were going to say it bounced off.
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
scalp wound. The same wound on the inner table of the skull will have a
conning effect and usually twice as large as the entrance wound on the
outer table. This is how pathology doctors know the direction that bullet
Who said that? Where did you get that frrom? A sci-fi movie?
Dr Finck.
I think you messed up the quoting again. I said I thought you got that
from a sci-fi movie and I wanteed you to tell me which one, what channel
it's on and what time so that I can watch it. I hope it's not one of
those damn stupid Van Dam movies.
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
came from. The coning effect confirms the incoming trajectory.
There is no hole on the back of the head to confirm anything.
Three pathology doctors disagree with that amateurish statement.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
The Carcano 6.5 mm projectile is actually 6.8 mm wide. The scalp and
outer table hole was measured by the lead prosector Dr Humes and a US Army
pathology expert Lt Col Finck. His expertise was on rifle wounds and he
just returned from a tour of duty in Vietnam. He certainly knows how to
measure a bullet wound. Finck was there as observer and consultant to the
Navy doctors performing the prosection procedures on the corpse.
No autopsy document or testimony told you that the bullet is actually
6.8mm in diameter. I was the only person here who knew that.
Maybe you're actually learning, heaven forbid!
Thank you for proving my point.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
The Kennedy family wanted as little dissection on the head and body
as possible. The doctors complied with that request.
Where did you get that from? Your imagination. They never said that.
Don't try to be a Mainframetech when you don't even know how to code.
Jackie did not want any autopsy but Dr Burkley explained it was a legal
requirement. RFK asked the doctors for a minimum autopsy as much
as posible.
Prove that Jackie did not want any autopsy. How could she be talking
about going to Bethesda instead of Walter Reed if it wasn't for an
autopsy? Did SHE want to get a check-up? Stop being silly.
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Dr Finck was mostly an observer but took his own measurements of the head
and back wounds. In the report to his CO he stated the head wound was
caused by a bullet entering the back of the upper skull causing an extreme
blowout exit wound on top of the head.
TOP? Show me the document. What happened to your exit wound on the
side of the head? Did you just forget it?
There was a small exit wound by a fragment in the temple area. The massive
Who said that? Where? Show me. You are making up crap.
Post by claviger
exit wound was on top of the head more to the right hemisphere of the skull.
Something like that. Maybe you can put it in terms of degrees of radius
like 20 degrees to the right. Or clock references like 2 O'Clock.
Maybe even a diagram would help.
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
The thorax injury was a puncture wound in Trapezius muscle of the upper
back. Much later the autopsy team realized it made exit from the throat,
wounding the passenger sitting in front of the President.
Something like that. A lot of big words that you don't understand.
What big words?
Trapezius. SHOW me the wound. You're just making up crap.
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
But you got the gist of it correct.
Throat wound is an exit.
Remember that they originally thought it was the exit wound for a bullet
that hit under the EOP because they did not even know about the back wound.
Yes there was initial confusion because the tracheotomy using
the throat wound.
Well, DUH!
Because they were incompetent.
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
A team of mortuary employees called attention to a small exit wound in the
right temple. They knew it was an exit wound by the irregular shape and
skin flap pushed our by the fragment. These were the only wounds observed
by the pathology team of doctors and morticians.
And you say the autopsy doctors overlooked it just as they overlooked
the back wound?
A mortician noticed and pointed it out to Dr Finck.
Hearsay or testimony?
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
At the time of the physical examination of head and back the two primary
pathology doctors agreed the entrance wound on back of the skull measured
6 mm x 15 mm. Over several years of Q&A discussions and many questions by
Again you make phony Argument by Authority claims. You might as well
have said janitors.
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
various panels that is still the official measurement.
Silly. Why do you claim it was a tumbling bullet to cause the elongation?
It was a perforating wound. About an inch higher it would have been
a tangential wound.
Maybe. Show me what you mean.
Diagram it.
Post by claviger
Bullet wounds
https://www.health24.com/Lifestyle/Man/Your-life/Gunshot-wounds-20120721
Silly. Side wounds and much different angles. Lousy diagrams.
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
What intervening object did the bullet hit? Maybe the traffic light support
bar? Maybe a sign?
Max Holland believes that happened.
I like Max, but he didn't prove what his what. I asked YOU.
What do you say the bullet hit before it hit JFK's head?
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
The human skull is a solid bone braincase not flexible at all, so it would
Not solid. It is made up of plates.
Thick plates.
But moveable when a bullet opens up the head.
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
be impossible for a 6.8 missile to fit through a 6.0 mm hole in the
posterior part of the human cranium. A spinning bullet is a high velocity
Doesn't that incongruity tip you off that the 6mm measurement is a lie?
Of course not.
Then what do you call it. An error? Malpractice?
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Or maybe they just rounded down, not caring to be precise.
Can you show me a 6mm rifle?
https://www.cheaperthandirt.com/category/firearms/rifles/bolt-action/6mm-creedmoor.do
http://www.shootingtimes.com/rifles/ruger-american-predator-in-6mm-creedmoor/
https://www.sportsmansoutdoorsuperstore.com/products2.cfm/ID/191746/16948/ruger-american-predator-6mm-creedmoor-bolt-action-rifle
What diameter are the bullets? Were any Creedmores found in Dealey Plaza?
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
drill bit that reams out the bone allowing the deadly missile to penetrate
the skull. For a 6.8 mm bullet to pass inside it would need at least a 7
mm hole, but more likely a 7.5 mm hole.
Is that your medical opinion or your ballistic opinion.
Show us your degree.
The opinion of a Pathologist I talked to in a phone call to WRAMC.
Translate into English please. You mean you had a dream?
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
This may seem like small numbers but pathologists are familiar
with these type of precise measurements.
Balony. WHy did they round out the ruler measurements?
Do you know why? No.
I do. Close enough for government work.
So tell us why.
Because they were incompetent. Like the map done for the HSCA. Close
enough for government work. Like the bridge that collapsed. Close enough
for government work.
claviger
2018-08-11 22:16:14 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Mitch Todd
Post by claviger
The thickest part of the skull is subject to the "reaming effect" of a
spinning bullet that acts like a drill through the skull leaving a bullet
hole larger than the width of the bullet.
If I search for bullet and "reaming effect," all I seem to
find are old usenet posts involving you. BTW, typical rifling
twist on a rifle is around 12 inches per revolution. The skull
is on the order of 1/3 of an inch thick. 1/3 of an inch is 1/36
of a foot. A bullet rotating once every inch of travel will
turn all of ten degrees passing through the bone. That's not
much reaming.
I'm not a pathologist so I called Walter Reed Army Medical Center and
asked to speak with one of the staff pathologists. It was that
conversation when I learned about the scalp wound being identical to the
outer table hole. In fact the doctor told me they used to not bother
measuring the outer table because it was always the same. Now a required
standard procedure but still identical. He also told me about the
"reaming effect" and estimated it to be .5 mm most of the time. Like you
I said those are tiny numbers to work with.

He agreed but said it's like anything else, the more you work with it the
better you understand it, and in time they get to where they can see the
difference between 6mm and 7mm, etc. I also asked about a 6.5 mm bullet
and he said he would expect a 7 mm hole. So using his .5 number a 6.8 mm
bullet would create a 7.3 mm hole to be precise. I asked if the
difference between 6 mm and 7 mm is significant and he said yes. I never
told him why I was calling and he didn't see to care.

The reaming effect in woodwork is called a kerf. The kerf is slightly
wider than the blade that made the cut. In fact the doctor used that
example. All this is logical and made sense. What is not logical is a
6.8mm bullet making a 6.0mm hole.
Anthony Marsh
2018-08-13 14:52:38 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by claviger
Post by Mitch Todd
Post by claviger
The thickest part of the skull is subject to the "reaming effect" of a
spinning bullet that acts like a drill through the skull leaving a bullet
hole larger than the width of the bullet.
If I search for bullet and "reaming effect," all I seem to
find are old usenet posts involving you. BTW, typical rifling
twist on a rifle is around 12 inches per revolution. The skull
is on the order of 1/3 of an inch thick. 1/3 of an inch is 1/36
of a foot. A bullet rotating once every inch of travel will
turn all of ten degrees passing through the bone. That's not
much reaming.
I'm not a pathologist so I called Walter Reed Army Medical Center and
asked to speak with one of the staff pathologists. It was that
conversation when I learned about the scalp wound being identical to the
outer table hole. In fact the doctor told me they used to not bother
measuring the outer table because it was always the same. Now a required
standard procedure but still identical. He also told me about the
"reaming effect" and estimated it to be .5 mm most of the time. Like you
I said those are tiny numbers to work with.
He agreed but said it's like anything else, the more you work with it the
better you understand it, and in time they get to where they can see the
difference between 6mm and 7mm, etc. I also asked about a 6.5 mm bullet
and he said he would expect a 7 mm hole. So using his .5 number a 6.8 mm
bullet would create a 7.3 mm hole to be precise. I asked if the
difference between 6 mm and 7 mm is significant and he said yes. I never
told him why I was calling and he didn't see to care.
The reaming effect in woodwork is called a kerf. The kerf is slightly
wider than the blade that made the cut. In fact the doctor used that
example. All this is logical and made sense. What is not logical is a
6.8mm bullet making a 6.0mm hole.
You're not trying hard enough to be a WC defdender.
For a true WC defender, anything is possible no matter how ridiculous.
claviger
2018-08-14 19:56:28 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Post by Mitch Todd
Post by claviger
The thickest part of the skull is subject to the "reaming effect" of a
spinning bullet that acts like a drill through the skull leaving a bullet
hole larger than the width of the bullet.
If I search for bullet and "reaming effect," all I seem to
find are old usenet posts involving you. BTW, typical rifling
twist on a rifle is around 12 inches per revolution. The skull
is on the order of 1/3 of an inch thick. 1/3 of an inch is 1/36
of a foot. A bullet rotating once every inch of travel will
turn all of ten degrees passing through the bone. That's not
much reaming.
I'm not a pathologist so I called Walter Reed Army Medical Center and
asked to speak with one of the staff pathologists. It was that
conversation when I learned about the scalp wound being identical to the
outer table hole. In fact the doctor told me they used to not bother
measuring the outer table because it was always the same. Now a required
standard procedure but still identical. He also told me about the
"reaming effect" and estimated it to be .5 mm most of the time. Like you
I said those are tiny numbers to work with.
He agreed but said it's like anything else, the more you work with it the
better you understand it, and in time they get to where they can see the
difference between 6mm and 7mm, etc. I also asked about a 6.5 mm bullet
and he said he would expect a 7 mm hole. So using his .5 number a 6.8 mm
bullet would create a 7.3 mm hole to be precise. I asked if the
difference between 6 mm and 7 mm is significant and he said yes. I never
told him why I was calling and he didn't see to care.
The reaming effect in woodwork is called a kerf. The kerf is slightly
wider than the blade that made the cut. In fact the doctor used that
example. All this is logical and made sense. What is not logical is a
6.8mm bullet making a 6.0mm hole.
You're not trying hard enough to be a WC defdender.
For a true WC defender, anything is possible no matter how ridiculous.
LNs are slaves to Facts. CTs are slaves to Fantasy.
Anthony Marsh
2018-08-12 16:13:51 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Mitch Todd
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Three friends of Lee Bowers report similar stories but some of
the details
are different with each story.?? The fact Bowers told these
stories years
after the event is suspicious to any investigator.
???????????????????? Olan T DeGaugh,?? James R Sterling,?? Walter G Rishel.
So when someone finally confesses after years of denial you don't
believe it. But you don't even believe it when they say it immediately
after or during the event. You are selective about what you WANT
to believe.
Detectives are skeptical of late blooming witnesses. There were
differences in the 3 stories.?? None can be verified because the
source has passed away.
Post by Anthony Marsh
How about if you just ignore witnesses and believe the scientific
evidence?
Witnesses can be helpful.?? For instance, when some CT claims
a gunshot was fired from the GK and the closest witnesses did
not hear any shots from up there, but did hear loud shots from
the direction of the TSBD, then yes that is useful information.
Most witnesses said the shots came from the grassy knoll.
But you should not just accept that as gospel. You need to test it.
Based on what research study?
Loftus. The Scientific Method.
Post by claviger
Dealey Plaza Earwitnesses
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/shots.htm
The Scientific Method requires factual evidence, the reason
there was no SOTGK.
I said that already, whatever the Hell you think you mean. BTW, the
Scientific Method proves that the SS did not shoot JFK in the head.
Actually just the opposite.?? Scientific protocol demands any anomaly
be explained and resolved according to established physical science.
No one has explained how a 6.8mm metal object can pass through a
6.0mm hole in the thickest part of the human skull that has no ability
for flexibility.?? In fact just the opposite.
There wasn't a measurement for the hole in the bone. The
6 x 15mm data given by HBF is for the hole in the scalp.
Commander HUMES - This is in the scalp, sir, and I believe
that this is explainable on the elastic recoil of the tissues
of the skin, sir. It is not infrequent in missile wounds of
this type that the measured wound is slightly smaller than
the caliber of the missile that traversed it.
For that matter, standard "scientific protocols" recognize
that measurements are only accurate to a certain level of
precision. A measurement using a metric ruler subdivided
into millimeters is held to be .5mm - 1.0mm depending on a
number of factors. The hole could have really been as large
as 7mm by that measure.
The thickest part of the skull is subject to the "reaming effect" of a
spinning bullet that acts like a drill through the skull leaving a bullet
hole larger than the width of the bullet.
If I search for bullet and "reaming effect," all I seem to
find are old usenet posts involving you. BTW, typical rifling
twist on a rifle is around 12 inches per revolution. The skull
is on the order of 1/3 of an inch thick. 1/3 of an inch is 1/36
of a foot. A bullet rotating once every inch of travel will
turn all of ten degrees passing through the bone. That's not
much reaming.
So are you claiming it was a different rifle that was used or do you
not know the rate of twist for the Carcano because you never do any
research?
Post by Mitch Todd
One purpose for Dr Finck at the
autopsy was measuring all wounds on the body of the President.?? He
measured the head wound himself for his own duty for reporting to his
superior officer.?? He did that during the autopsy and verified a 6.0mm
wound to the skull in his official report to his Commanding Officer
Brigadier General Blumberg.
25 January 1965
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=609
Dr Finck's measurement was medically precise for the record on the
autopsy of his Commander-in-Chief, then a 6.8mm projectile did not
make that wound.
In that doc, Finck states, "The scalp of the back of the head
showed a small laceration, 15 x 6mm," but he does not give a
measurement for the corresponding wound in the underlying
cranium.
Ridiculous. Show it to me.
How did he measure it?
Doesn't that sound like an elongated wound to you?

So what did the bullet hit first to start tumbling and cause an elongated
wound as you WC defenders claim is the only possible cause for an
elongated wound? You guys are always hypocrites so you keep shooting
yourselves in the foot, and at 3 feet it always creates an elongated
wound!
Anthony Marsh
2018-08-12 16:05:23 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Three friends of Lee Bowers report similar stories but some of the details
are different with each story. The fact Bowers told these stories years
after the event is suspicious to any investigator.
Olan T DeGaugh, James R Sterling, Walter G Rishel.
So when someone finally confesses after years of denial you don't
believe it. But you don't even believe it when they say it immediately
after or during the event. You are selective about what you WANT
to believe.
Detectives are skeptical of late blooming witnesses. There were
differences in the 3 stories. None can be verified because the
source has passed away.
Post by Anthony Marsh
How about if you just ignore witnesses and believe the scientific
evidence?
Witnesses can be helpful. For instance, when some CT claims
a gunshot was fired from the GK and the closest witnesses did
not hear any shots from up there, but did hear loud shots from
the direction of the TSBD, then yes that is useful information.
Most witnesses said the shots came from the grassy knoll.
But you should not just accept that as gospel. You need to test it.
Based on what research study?
Loftus. The Scientific Method.
Post by claviger
Dealey Plaza Earwitnesses
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/shots.htm
The Scientific Method requires factual evidence, the reason
there was no SOTGK.
I said that already, whatever the Hell you think you mean. BTW, the
Scientific Method proves that the SS did not shoot JFK in the head.
Actually just the opposite. Scientific protocol demands any anomaly
be explained and resolved according to established physical science.
No one has explained how a 6.8mm metal object can pass through a
6.0mm hole in the thickest part of the human skull that has no ability
for flexibility. In fact just the opposite.
Where do YOU see a 6 mm hole on the skull? Are you saying there was
another rifle firing smaller bullets?
Post by claviger
The thickest part of the skull is subject to the "reaming effect" of a
spinning bullet that acts like a drill through the skull leaving a bullet
hole larger than the width of the bullet. One purpose for Dr Finck at the
Something like that, but you didn't get the details right.
Post by claviger
autopsy was measuring all wounds on the body of the President. He
measured the head wound himself for his own duty for reporting to his
superior officer. He did that during the autopsy and verified a 6.0mm
wound to the skull in his official report to his Commanding Officer
Brigadier General Blumberg.
Nonsense.
SHOW me this hole.
He misheard the SS or FBI agents and thought the rifle they found was a
6mm rifle. He didn't know enough about bullets to know that the bullet
diameter is wider than the bore diameter which is used to designate the
caliber of the weapon.
Post by claviger
25 January 1965
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=609
Dr Finck's measurement was medically precise for the record on the
autopsy of his Commander-in-Chief, then a 6.8mm projectile did not
make that wound.
Show me your 6mm rifle.
claviger
2018-08-10 15:17:17 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by claviger
Three friends of Lee Bowers report similar stories but some of the details
are different with each story. The fact Bowers told these stories years
after the event is suspicious to any investigator.
Olan T DeGaugh, James R Sterling, Walter G Rishel.
bigdog
2018-07-11 02:05:49 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Breakability: CE-399 and the Diminishing Velocity Theory
John Hunt
https://www.history-matters.com/essays/jfkmed/Breakability/Breakability.htm
The Single-Bullet Theory
I don't know why you posted this. It destroys the WC.
John Hunt is an excellent researcher and I helped him
with his research and he helped me. One sentence
typifies the difference between the conspiracy researchers
and the WC defenders: Mr. John Hunt, Kennedy Assassination
Investigator, for supplying hard to get material from the
Archives and spotting distracting errors in the text.
If John Hunt is so brilliant then who shot JFK and why?
Did he say? Did he even get to the point of figuring that out?
Evidently not.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
How many snipers and where were they located? For
any credibility we need type of bullet and trajectories.
I've given you some of the answer, with diagrams. You
have produced nothing.
The WCR and HSCA did all that before you. The SOTGK is
just as invisible today as he/she was almost 55 years ago.
Which really means that they accomplished the job they were intended
to handle with the public.
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
How did they escape with weapons in hand?
I never said they did.
Then what happened to all those many rifles used in the
"classic triangulation of fire" ambush that according to
mft turned into a 20 gun fusillade from all sides?
WRONG! Don't even begin to use my name as having mentioned "classic
triangulation of fire". That's your blat, not mine. And the "fusillade"
was also not my idea, I'm repeating what I read in a book which I've
identified.
That's your problem. You seem to be willing to buy into any story you
read, no matter how nutty, as long as it doesn't have Oswald as one of the
shooters. You don't even care that the theories you are advocating for
today are incompatible with the ones you were pushing a month ago or a
year ago. You've moved your frontal shooter from the GK, to a storm drain
beyond the underpass, and now have him on the SoGK. If all this so called
evidence is so compelling, why do you have to keep revising your beliefs.
Why can't you stick with one story the way the LNs have for over 50 years.
Oswald did it. By himself. That has always been the LN position and it has
required no revisions since the public was told that was what happened
within 12 hours of the crime.
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Should be easy questions to answer for both of you
mentally superior researchers. Remember once you
bash and trash the WCR and HSCA, et al, you have an
obligation to explain every detail of what actually took
place. Just being two of numerous naysayers is boring
and unconvincing.
You don't get to specify the rules for other people's statements.
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
I have exaplained more details than most have, but I don't
have all the answers.
You've had 5 decades to figure it out. What's the problem,
are you a slow thinker?
I see you're going back to being a wise-ass. It doesn't become you.
Try solving things, it's more adult.
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
By the way, what you didn't notice in Hunt's article is
revealing of your inability to digest all pertinent info in
his presentation. You claim he destroys the WCR but
also your argument about Connally's back wound.
No.
We disagree on some details.
What details?
Post by Anthony Marsh
He calls into question the SBT. I offer an alternative.
What alternative?
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Hunt is just one more CT who gets lost in deep minutia
Great idea. If anyone dissents at all, just call them crazy.
All they have to do is present factual evidence.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
and has no rational alternative to offer. Why don't both
of you get back to us when you have some information
about who organized the ambush and how they pulled
it off.
I am still working on it.
After 50 years? I thought you had all the answers a long time ago.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Why don't YOU release all the files?
I'm not POTUSA.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Sometimes it is only by seeing the released files
that I learn new facts.
Why do you need new facts? That means your old facts didn't work
out and you're desperately hoping new facts would come along!
Sounds like a lot of CTs have been stalling for time.
mainframetech
2018-07-12 02:41:09 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Breakability: CE-399 and the Diminishing Velocity Theory
John Hunt
https://www.history-matters.com/essays/jfkmed/Breakability/Breakability.htm
The Single-Bullet Theory
I don't know why you posted this. It destroys the WC.
John Hunt is an excellent researcher and I helped him
with his research and he helped me. One sentence
typifies the difference between the conspiracy researchers
and the WC defenders: Mr. John Hunt, Kennedy Assassination
Investigator, for supplying hard to get material from the
Archives and spotting distracting errors in the text.
If John Hunt is so brilliant then who shot JFK and why?
Did he say? Did he even get to the point of figuring that out?
Evidently not.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
How many snipers and where were they located? For
any credibility we need type of bullet and trajectories.
I've given you some of the answer, with diagrams. You
have produced nothing.
The WCR and HSCA did all that before you. The SOTGK is
just as invisible today as he/she was almost 55 years ago.
Which really means that they accomplished the job they were intended
to handle with the public.
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
How did they escape with weapons in hand?
I never said they did.
Then what happened to all those many rifles used in the
"classic triangulation of fire" ambush that according to
mft turned into a 20 gun fusillade from all sides?
WRONG! Don't even begin to use my name as having mentioned "classic
triangulation of fire". That's your blat, not mine. And the "fusillade"
was also not my idea, I'm repeating what I read in a book which I've
identified.
That's your problem. You seem to be willing to buy into any story you
read, no matter how nutty, as long as it doesn't have Oswald as one of the
shooters. You don't even care that the theories you are advocating for
today are incompatible with the ones you were pushing a month ago or a
year ago.
I would think with your wonderfully logical mind, you would be able to
point out the problem in detail so you could blat it out to the high
heavens.
Post by bigdog
You've moved your frontal shooter from the GK, to a storm drain
beyond the underpass, and now have him on the SoGK. If all this so called
evidence is so compelling, why do you have to keep revising your beliefs.
If one is to be an amateur detective, one has to learn that it's
foolish to cling to old ideas when better evidence comes along, but you
still cling to the WCR theories, limiting yourself to the 54 year old
story.
Post by bigdog
Why can't you stick with one story the way the LNs have for over 50 years.
Oswald did it. By himself. That has always been the LN position and it has
required no revisions since the public was told that was what happened
within 12 hours of the crime.
Ah, but it has had many excuses made over the years. LNs do indeed
fester in place.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Should be easy questions to answer for both of you
mentally superior researchers. Remember once you
bash and trash the WCR and HSCA, et al, you have an
obligation to explain every detail of what actually took
place. Just being two of numerous naysayers is boring
and unconvincing.
You don't get to specify the rules for other people's statements.
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
I have exaplained more details than most have, but I don't
have all the answers.
You've had 5 decades to figure it out. What's the problem,
are you a slow thinker?
I see you're going back to being a wise-ass. It doesn't become you.
Try solving things, it's more adult.
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
By the way, what you didn't notice in Hunt's article is
revealing of your inability to digest all pertinent info in
his presentation. You claim he destroys the WCR but
also your argument about Connally's back wound.
No.
We disagree on some details.
What details?
Post by Anthony Marsh
He calls into question the SBT. I offer an alternative.
What alternative?
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Hunt is just one more CT who gets lost in deep minutia
Great idea. If anyone dissents at all, just call them crazy.
All they have to do is present factual evidence.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
and has no rational alternative to offer. Why don't both
of you get back to us when you have some information
about who organized the ambush and how they pulled
it off.
I am still working on it.
After 50 years? I thought you had all the answers a long time ago.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Why don't YOU release all the files?
I'm not POTUSA.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Sometimes it is only by seeing the released files
that I learn new facts.
Why do you need new facts? That means your old facts didn't work
out and you're desperately hoping new facts would come along!
Sounds like a lot of CTs have been stalling for time.
WRONG! There was a situation where the old evidence wasn't as strong
as the new, and so a flexible person will go with the newer and better
evidence rather than moulder in place.

Chris
bigdog
2018-07-13 00:50:04 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Breakability: CE-399 and the Diminishing Velocity Theory
John Hunt
https://www.history-matters.com/essays/jfkmed/Breakability/Breakability.htm
The Single-Bullet Theory
I don't know why you posted this. It destroys the WC.
John Hunt is an excellent researcher and I helped him
with his research and he helped me. One sentence
typifies the difference between the conspiracy researchers
and the WC defenders: Mr. John Hunt, Kennedy Assassination
Investigator, for supplying hard to get material from the
Archives and spotting distracting errors in the text.
If John Hunt is so brilliant then who shot JFK and why?
Did he say? Did he even get to the point of figuring that out?
Evidently not.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
How many snipers and where were they located? For
any credibility we need type of bullet and trajectories.
I've given you some of the answer, with diagrams. You
have produced nothing.
The WCR and HSCA did all that before you. The SOTGK is
just as invisible today as he/she was almost 55 years ago.
Which really means that they accomplished the job they were intended
to handle with the public.
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
How did they escape with weapons in hand?
I never said they did.
Then what happened to all those many rifles used in the
"classic triangulation of fire" ambush that according to
mft turned into a 20 gun fusillade from all sides?
WRONG! Don't even begin to use my name as having mentioned "classic
triangulation of fire". That's your blat, not mine. And the "fusillade"
was also not my idea, I'm repeating what I read in a book which I've
identified.
That's your problem. You seem to be willing to buy into any story you
read, no matter how nutty, as long as it doesn't have Oswald as one of the
shooters. You don't even care that the theories you are advocating for
today are incompatible with the ones you were pushing a month ago or a
year ago.
I would think with your wonderfully logical mind, you would be able to
point out the problem in detail so you could blat it out to the high
heavens.
Why don't we start with your ever changing frontal shooter. Originally you
had him on the GK along with most of the CT world. More recently you moved
him to the storm drain beyond the underpass. Now you have him moving to
the SoGK. Someday you might even find a location for him that actually
works and for which there is real evidence.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
You've moved your frontal shooter from the GK, to a storm drain
beyond the underpass, and now have him on the SoGK. If all this so called
evidence is so compelling, why do you have to keep revising your beliefs.
If one is to be an amateur detective, one has to learn that it's
foolish to cling to old ideas when better evidence comes along, but you
still cling to the WCR theories, limiting yourself to the 54 year old
story.
My story is supported by real evidence. Once you find the right answer,
you don't have to keep changing it.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Why can't you stick with one story the way the LNs have for over 50 years.
Oswald did it. By himself. That has always been the LN position and it has
required no revisions since the public was told that was what happened
within 12 hours of the crime.
Ah, but it has had many excuses made over the years. LNs do indeed
fester in place.
No excuses needed. We aren't the ones who need excuses to dismiss solid
evidence.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Should be easy questions to answer for both of you
mentally superior researchers. Remember once you
bash and trash the WCR and HSCA, et al, you have an
obligation to explain every detail of what actually took
place. Just being two of numerous naysayers is boring
and unconvincing.
You don't get to specify the rules for other people's statements.
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
I have exaplained more details than most have, but I don't
have all the answers.
You've had 5 decades to figure it out. What's the problem,
are you a slow thinker?
I see you're going back to being a wise-ass. It doesn't become you.
Try solving things, it's more adult.
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
By the way, what you didn't notice in Hunt's article is
revealing of your inability to digest all pertinent info in
his presentation. You claim he destroys the WCR but
also your argument about Connally's back wound.
No.
We disagree on some details.
What details?
Post by Anthony Marsh
He calls into question the SBT. I offer an alternative.
What alternative?
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Hunt is just one more CT who gets lost in deep minutia
Great idea. If anyone dissents at all, just call them crazy.
All they have to do is present factual evidence.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
and has no rational alternative to offer. Why don't both
of you get back to us when you have some information
about who organized the ambush and how they pulled
it off.
I am still working on it.
After 50 years? I thought you had all the answers a long time ago.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Why don't YOU release all the files?
I'm not POTUSA.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Sometimes it is only by seeing the released files
that I learn new facts.
Why do you need new facts? That means your old facts didn't work
out and you're desperately hoping new facts would come along!
Sounds like a lot of CTs have been stalling for time.
WRONG! There was a situation where the old evidence wasn't as strong
as the new, and so a flexible person will go with the newer and better
evidence rather than moulder in place.
You've never had evidence, old or new. It's all conjuncture. That's why
you continue to wander aimlessly having rejected the only right answer
there is. There is no hope for you.
Anthony Marsh
2018-07-13 18:38:18 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Breakability: CE-399 and the Diminishing Velocity Theory
John Hunt
https://www.history-matters.com/essays/jfkmed/Breakability/Breakability.htm
The Single-Bullet Theory
I don't know why you posted this. It destroys the WC.
John Hunt is an excellent researcher and I helped him
with his research and he helped me. One sentence
typifies the difference between the conspiracy researchers
and the WC defenders: Mr. John Hunt, Kennedy Assassination
Investigator, for supplying hard to get material from the
Archives and spotting distracting errors in the text.
If John Hunt is so brilliant then who shot JFK and why?
Did he say? Did he even get to the point of figuring that out?
Evidently not.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
How many snipers and where were they located? For
any credibility we need type of bullet and trajectories.
I've given you some of the answer, with diagrams. You
have produced nothing.
The WCR and HSCA did all that before you. The SOTGK is
just as invisible today as he/she was almost 55 years ago.
Which really means that they accomplished the job they were intended
to handle with the public.
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
How did they escape with weapons in hand?
I never said they did.
Then what happened to all those many rifles used in the
"classic triangulation of fire" ambush that according to
mft turned into a 20 gun fusillade from all sides?
WRONG! Don't even begin to use my name as having mentioned "classic
triangulation of fire". That's your blat, not mine. And the "fusillade"
was also not my idea, I'm repeating what I read in a book which I've
identified.
That's your problem. You seem to be willing to buy into any story you
read, no matter how nutty, as long as it doesn't have Oswald as one of the
shooters. You don't even care that the theories you are advocating for
today are incompatible with the ones you were pushing a month ago or a
year ago.
I would think with your wonderfully logical mind, you would be able to
point out the problem in detail so you could blat it out to the high
heavens.
Why don't we start with your ever changing frontal shooter. Originally you
had him on the GK along with most of the CT world. More recently you moved
him to the storm drain beyond the underpass. Now you have him moving to
the SoGK. Someday you might even find a location for him that actually
works and for which there is real evidence.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
You've moved your frontal shooter from the GK, to a storm drain
beyond the underpass, and now have him on the SoGK. If all this so called
evidence is so compelling, why do you have to keep revising your beliefs.
If one is to be an amateur detective, one has to learn that it's
foolish to cling to old ideas when better evidence comes along, but you
still cling to the WCR theories, limiting yourself to the 54 year old
story.
My story is supported by real evidence. Once you find the right answer,
you don't have to keep changing it.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Why can't you stick with one story the way the LNs have for over 50 years.
Oswald did it. By himself. That has always been the LN position and it has
required no revisions since the public was told that was what happened
within 12 hours of the crime.
Ah, but it has had many excuses made over the years. LNs do indeed
fester in place.
No excuses needed. We aren't the ones who need excuses to dismiss solid
evidence.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Should be easy questions to answer for both of you
mentally superior researchers. Remember once you
bash and trash the WCR and HSCA, et al, you have an
obligation to explain every detail of what actually took
place. Just being two of numerous naysayers is boring
and unconvincing.
You don't get to specify the rules for other people's statements.
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
I have exaplained more details than most have, but I don't
have all the answers.
You've had 5 decades to figure it out. What's the problem,
are you a slow thinker?
I see you're going back to being a wise-ass. It doesn't become you.
Try solving things, it's more adult.
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
By the way, what you didn't notice in Hunt's article is
revealing of your inability to digest all pertinent info in
his presentation. You claim he destroys the WCR but
also your argument about Connally's back wound.
No.
We disagree on some details.
What details?
Post by Anthony Marsh
He calls into question the SBT. I offer an alternative.
What alternative?
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Hunt is just one more CT who gets lost in deep minutia
Great idea. If anyone dissents at all, just call them crazy.
All they have to do is present factual evidence.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
and has no rational alternative to offer. Why don't both
of you get back to us when you have some information
about who organized the ambush and how they pulled
it off.
I am still working on it.
After 50 years? I thought you had all the answers a long time ago.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Why don't YOU release all the files?
I'm not POTUSA.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Sometimes it is only by seeing the released files
that I learn new facts.
Why do you need new facts? That means your old facts didn't work
out and you're desperately hoping new facts would come along!
Sounds like a lot of CTs have been stalling for time.
WRONG! There was a situation where the old evidence wasn't as strong
as the new, and so a flexible person will go with the newer and better
evidence rather than moulder in place.
You've never had evidence, old or new. It's all conjuncture. That's why
you continue to wander aimlessly having rejected the only right answer
there is. There is no hope for you.
WE have the files. You don't.
All you can ever do is make personal attacks.
mainframetech
2018-07-13 22:29:18 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Breakability: CE-399 and the Diminishing Velocity Theory
John Hunt
https://www.history-matters.com/essays/jfkmed/Breakability/Breakability.htm
The Single-Bullet Theory
I don't know why you posted this. It destroys the WC.
John Hunt is an excellent researcher and I helped him
with his research and he helped me. One sentence
typifies the difference between the conspiracy researchers
and the WC defenders: Mr. John Hunt, Kennedy Assassination
Investigator, for supplying hard to get material from the
Archives and spotting distracting errors in the text.
If John Hunt is so brilliant then who shot JFK and why?
Did he say? Did he even get to the point of figuring that out?
Evidently not.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
How many snipers and where were they located? For
any credibility we need type of bullet and trajectories.
I've given you some of the answer, with diagrams. You
have produced nothing.
The WCR and HSCA did all that before you. The SOTGK is
just as invisible today as he/she was almost 55 years ago.
Which really means that they accomplished the job they were intended
to handle with the public.
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
How did they escape with weapons in hand?
I never said they did.
Then what happened to all those many rifles used in the
"classic triangulation of fire" ambush that according to
mft turned into a 20 gun fusillade from all sides?
WRONG! Don't even begin to use my name as having mentioned "classic
triangulation of fire". That's your blat, not mine. And the "fusillade"
was also not my idea, I'm repeating what I read in a book which I've
identified.
That's your problem. You seem to be willing to buy into any story you
read, no matter how nutty, as long as it doesn't have Oswald as one of the
shooters. You don't even care that the theories you are advocating for
today are incompatible with the ones you were pushing a month ago or a
year ago.
I would think with your wonderfully logical mind, you would be able to
point out the problem in detail so you could blat it out to the high
heavens.
Why don't we start with your ever changing frontal shooter. Originally you
had him on the GK along with most of the CT world. More recently you moved
him to the storm drain beyond the underpass. Now you have him moving to
the SoGK. Someday you might even find a location for him that actually
works and for which there is real evidence.
The south GK works. You wouldn't know about that though. Amateur
detectives have to be flexible and change as the evidence changes or new
evidence becomes available. If they aren't, they lose.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
You've moved your frontal shooter from the GK, to a storm drain
beyond the underpass, and now have him on the SoGK. If all this so called
evidence is so compelling, why do you have to keep revising your beliefs.
Because as evidence changes or new evidence becomes available, you must
change to match it. This should be OBVIOUS to anyone.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
If one is to be an amateur detective, one has to learn that it's
foolish to cling to old ideas when better evidence comes along, but you
still cling to the WCR theories, limiting yourself to the 54 year old
story.
My story is supported by real evidence. Once you find the right answer,
you don't have to keep changing it.
WRONG! Your story (the WCR) is supported by guesses, called
'theories'.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Why can't you stick with one story the way the LNs have for over 50 years.
Oswald did it. By himself. That has always been the LN position and it has
required no revisions since the public was told that was what happened
within 12 hours of the crime.
Ah, but it has had many excuses made over the years. LNs do indeed
fester in place.
No excuses needed. We aren't the ones who need excuses to dismiss solid
evidence.
LOL! Think that line through! You don't need excuses to dismiss
evidence! Believe me, I know it. You completely dismissed sworn
testimony and documents and all sorts of evidence to protect the WCR.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Should be easy questions to answer for both of you
mentally superior researchers. Remember once you
bash and trash the WCR and HSCA, et al, you have an
obligation to explain every detail of what actually took
place. Just being two of numerous naysayers is boring
and unconvincing.
You don't get to specify the rules for other people's statements.
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
I have exaplained more details than most have, but I don't
have all the answers.
You've had 5 decades to figure it out. What's the problem,
are you a slow thinker?
I see you're going back to being a wise-ass. It doesn't become you.
Try solving things, it's more adult.
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
By the way, what you didn't notice in Hunt's article is
revealing of your inability to digest all pertinent info in
his presentation. You claim he destroys the WCR but
also your argument about Connally's back wound.
No.
We disagree on some details.
What details?
Post by Anthony Marsh
He calls into question the SBT. I offer an alternative.
What alternative?
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Hunt is just one more CT who gets lost in deep minutia
Great idea. If anyone dissents at all, just call them crazy.
All they have to do is present factual evidence.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
and has no rational alternative to offer. Why don't both
of you get back to us when you have some information
about who organized the ambush and how they pulled
it off.
I am still working on it.
After 50 years? I thought you had all the answers a long time ago.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Why don't YOU release all the files?
I'm not POTUSA.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Sometimes it is only by seeing the released files
that I learn new facts.
Why do you need new facts? That means your old facts didn't work
out and you're desperately hoping new facts would come along!
Sounds like a lot of CTs have been stalling for time.
WRONG! There was a situation where the old evidence wasn't as strong
as the new, and so a flexible person will go with the newer and better
evidence rather than moulder in place.
You've never had evidence, old or new. It's all conjuncture. That's why
you continue to wander aimlessly having rejected the only right answer
there is. There is no hope for you.
Ah well. More endless opinion.

Chris
bigdog
2018-07-14 17:10:41 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Breakability: CE-399 and the Diminishing Velocity Theory
John Hunt
https://www.history-matters.com/essays/jfkmed/Breakability/Breakability.htm
The Single-Bullet Theory
I don't know why you posted this. It destroys the WC.
John Hunt is an excellent researcher and I helped him
with his research and he helped me. One sentence
typifies the difference between the conspiracy researchers
and the WC defenders: Mr. John Hunt, Kennedy Assassination
Investigator, for supplying hard to get material from the
Archives and spotting distracting errors in the text.
If John Hunt is so brilliant then who shot JFK and why?
Did he say? Did he even get to the point of figuring that out?
Evidently not.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
How many snipers and where were they located? For
any credibility we need type of bullet and trajectories.
I've given you some of the answer, with diagrams. You
have produced nothing.
The WCR and HSCA did all that before you. The SOTGK is
just as invisible today as he/she was almost 55 years ago.
Which really means that they accomplished the job they were intended
to handle with the public.
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
How did they escape with weapons in hand?
I never said they did.
Then what happened to all those many rifles used in the
"classic triangulation of fire" ambush that according to
mft turned into a 20 gun fusillade from all sides?
WRONG! Don't even begin to use my name as having mentioned "classic
triangulation of fire". That's your blat, not mine. And the "fusillade"
was also not my idea, I'm repeating what I read in a book which I've
identified.
That's your problem. You seem to be willing to buy into any story you
read, no matter how nutty, as long as it doesn't have Oswald as one of the
shooters. You don't even care that the theories you are advocating for
today are incompatible with the ones you were pushing a month ago or a
year ago.
I would think with your wonderfully logical mind, you would be able to
point out the problem in detail so you could blat it out to the high
heavens.
Why don't we start with your ever changing frontal shooter. Originally you
had him on the GK along with most of the CT world. More recently you moved
him to the storm drain beyond the underpass. Now you have him moving to
the SoGK. Someday you might even find a location for him that actually
works and for which there is real evidence.
The south GK works. You wouldn't know about that though. Amateur
detectives have to be flexible and change as the evidence changes or new
evidence becomes available. If they aren't, they lose.
There is no evidence that indicates any shots came from the SoGK. Some
schmuck putting up a website and drawing lines through windshields and
intervening bodies between this alleged shooter and JFK is hardly a
compelling case for a SoGK shooter. No bullets were recovered other than
the two from Oswald's rifle. No shells were found on the SoGK. No shooter
was seen on the SoGK. No medical examiner has cited any medical evidence
of entrance wounds from that direction. This clown fabricated this story
out of thin air and you bought it. It seems to be your flavor of the
month. Keep trying. Maybe someday you will find something that works but I
doubt it since you steadfastly refuse to read the WCR.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
You've moved your frontal shooter from the GK, to a storm drain
beyond the underpass, and now have him on the SoGK. If all this so called
evidence is so compelling, why do you have to keep revising your beliefs.
Because as evidence changes or new evidence becomes available, you must
change to match it. This should be OBVIOUS to anyone.
No evidence has changed. There hasn't been a new piece of evidence come to
light in many years. What we have is a lot of kooks creating new websites
that seem to grab your fancy until you find something more interesting.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
If one is to be an amateur detective, one has to learn that it's
foolish to cling to old ideas when better evidence comes along, but you
still cling to the WCR theories, limiting yourself to the 54 year old
story.
My story is supported by real evidence. Once you find the right answer,
you don't have to keep changing it.
WRONG! Your story (the WCR) is supported by guesses, called
'theories'.
You don't even know what's in the WCR.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Why can't you stick with one story the way the LNs have for over 50 years.
Oswald did it. By himself. That has always been the LN position and it has
required no revisions since the public was told that was what happened
within 12 hours of the crime.
Ah, but it has had many excuses made over the years. LNs do indeed
fester in place.
No excuses needed. We aren't the ones who need excuses to dismiss solid
evidence.
LOL! Think that line through! You don't need excuses to dismiss
evidence! Believe me, I know it. You completely dismissed sworn
testimony and documents and all sorts of evidence to protect the WCR.
No, LNs know how to weigh evidence and determine what is compelling and
what is not. Recollections of events that happened 3 decades or more in
the past are hardly compelling especially when they conflict with the
contemporaneous evidence, both forensic an eyewitness. You treat these
recollections as if they are empirical evidence.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Should be easy questions to answer for both of you
mentally superior researchers. Remember once you
bash and trash the WCR and HSCA, et al, you have an
obligation to explain every detail of what actually took
place. Just being two of numerous naysayers is boring
and unconvincing.
You don't get to specify the rules for other people's statements.
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
I have exaplained more details than most have, but I don't
have all the answers.
You've had 5 decades to figure it out. What's the problem,
are you a slow thinker?
I see you're going back to being a wise-ass. It doesn't become you.
Try solving things, it's more adult.
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
By the way, what you didn't notice in Hunt's article is
revealing of your inability to digest all pertinent info in
his presentation. You claim he destroys the WCR but
also your argument about Connally's back wound.
No.
We disagree on some details.
What details?
Post by Anthony Marsh
He calls into question the SBT. I offer an alternative.
What alternative?
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Hunt is just one more CT who gets lost in deep minutia
Great idea. If anyone dissents at all, just call them crazy.
All they have to do is present factual evidence.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
and has no rational alternative to offer. Why don't both
of you get back to us when you have some information
about who organized the ambush and how they pulled
it off.
I am still working on it.
After 50 years? I thought you had all the answers a long time ago.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Why don't YOU release all the files?
I'm not POTUSA.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Sometimes it is only by seeing the released files
that I learn new facts.
Why do you need new facts? That means your old facts didn't work
out and you're desperately hoping new facts would come along!
Sounds like a lot of CTs have been stalling for time.
WRONG! There was a situation where the old evidence wasn't as strong
as the new, and so a flexible person will go with the newer and better
evidence rather than moulder in place.
You've never had evidence, old or new. It's all conjuncture. That's why
you continue to wander aimlessly having rejected the only right answer
there is. There is no hope for you.
Ah well. More endless opinion.
Keep wandering.
Anthony Marsh
2018-07-15 17:59:18 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Breakability: CE-399 and the Diminishing Velocity Theory
John Hunt
https://www.history-matters.com/essays/jfkmed/Breakability/Breakability.htm
The Single-Bullet Theory
I don't know why you posted this. It destroys the WC.
John Hunt is an excellent researcher and I helped him
with his research and he helped me. One sentence
typifies the difference between the conspiracy researchers
and the WC defenders: Mr. John Hunt, Kennedy Assassination
Investigator, for supplying hard to get material from the
Archives and spotting distracting errors in the text.
If John Hunt is so brilliant then who shot JFK and why?
Did he say? Did he even get to the point of figuring that out?
Evidently not.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
How many snipers and where were they located? For
any credibility we need type of bullet and trajectories.
I've given you some of the answer, with diagrams. You
have produced nothing.
The WCR and HSCA did all that before you. The SOTGK is
just as invisible today as he/she was almost 55 years ago.
Which really means that they accomplished the job they were intended
to handle with the public.
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
How did they escape with weapons in hand?
I never said they did.
Then what happened to all those many rifles used in the
"classic triangulation of fire" ambush that according to
mft turned into a 20 gun fusillade from all sides?
WRONG! Don't even begin to use my name as having mentioned "classic
triangulation of fire". That's your blat, not mine. And the "fusillade"
was also not my idea, I'm repeating what I read in a book which I've
identified.
That's your problem. You seem to be willing to buy into any story you
read, no matter how nutty, as long as it doesn't have Oswald as one of the
shooters. You don't even care that the theories you are advocating for
today are incompatible with the ones you were pushing a month ago or a
year ago.
I would think with your wonderfully logical mind, you would be able to
point out the problem in detail so you could blat it out to the high
heavens.
Why don't we start with your ever changing frontal shooter. Originally you
had him on the GK along with most of the CT world. More recently you moved
him to the storm drain beyond the underpass. Now you have him moving to
the SoGK. Someday you might even find a location for him that actually
works and for which there is real evidence.
The south GK works. You wouldn't know about that though. Amateur
detectives have to be flexible and change as the evidence changes or new
evidence becomes available. If they aren't, they lose.
There is no evidence that indicates any shots came from the SoGK. Some
schmuck putting up a website and drawing lines through windshields and
intervening bodies between this alleged shooter and JFK is hardly a
compelling case for a SoGK shooter. No bullets were recovered other than
the two from Oswald's rifle. No shells were found on the SoGK. No shooter
But you and the WC have one shot where no bullet was recovered. You claim
it was a miss. And you don't have a recovered bullet for the head shot. No
matter what the issue, you ALWAYS have to be hypocritical.
Post by bigdog
was seen on the SoGK. No medical examiner has cited any medical evidence
of entrance wounds from that direction. This clown fabricated this story
out of thin air and you bought it. It seems to be your flavor of the
month. Keep trying. Maybe someday you will find something that works but I
doubt it since you steadfastly refuse to read the WCR.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
You've moved your frontal shooter from the GK, to a storm drain
beyond the underpass, and now have him on the SoGK. If all this so called
evidence is so compelling, why do you have to keep revising your beliefs.
Because as evidence changes or new evidence becomes available, you must
change to match it. This should be OBVIOUS to anyone.
No evidence has changed. There hasn't been a new piece of evidence come to
light in many years. What we have is a lot of kooks creating new websites
that seem to grab your fancy until you find something more interesting.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
If one is to be an amateur detective, one has to learn that it's
foolish to cling to old ideas when better evidence comes along, but you
still cling to the WCR theories, limiting yourself to the 54 year old
story.
My story is supported by real evidence. Once you find the right answer,
you don't have to keep changing it.
WRONG! Your story (the WCR) is supported by guesses, called
'theories'.
You don't even know what's in the WCR.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Why can't you stick with one story the way the LNs have for over 50 years.
Oswald did it. By himself. That has always been the LN position and it has
required no revisions since the public was told that was what happened
within 12 hours of the crime.
Ah, but it has had many excuses made over the years. LNs do indeed
fester in place.
No excuses needed. We aren't the ones who need excuses to dismiss solid
evidence.
LOL! Think that line through! You don't need excuses to dismiss
evidence! Believe me, I know it. You completely dismissed sworn
testimony and documents and all sorts of evidence to protect the WCR.
No, LNs know how to weigh evidence and determine what is compelling and
what is not. Recollections of events that happened 3 decades or more in
the past are hardly compelling especially when they conflict with the
contemporaneous evidence, both forensic an eyewitness. You treat these
recollections as if they are empirical evidence.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Should be easy questions to answer for both of you
mentally superior researchers. Remember once you
bash and trash the WCR and HSCA, et al, you have an
obligation to explain every detail of what actually took
place. Just being two of numerous naysayers is boring
and unconvincing.
You don't get to specify the rules for other people's statements.
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
I have exaplained more details than most have, but I don't
have all the answers.
You've had 5 decades to figure it out. What's the problem,
are you a slow thinker?
I see you're going back to being a wise-ass. It doesn't become you.
Try solving things, it's more adult.
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
By the way, what you didn't notice in Hunt's article is
revealing of your inability to digest all pertinent info in
his presentation. You claim he destroys the WCR but
also your argument about Connally's back wound.
No.
We disagree on some details.
What details?
Post by Anthony Marsh
He calls into question the SBT. I offer an alternative.
What alternative?
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Hunt is just one more CT who gets lost in deep minutia
Great idea. If anyone dissents at all, just call them crazy.
All they have to do is present factual evidence.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
and has no rational alternative to offer. Why don't both
of you get back to us when you have some information
about who organized the ambush and how they pulled
it off.
I am still working on it.
After 50 years? I thought you had all the answers a long time ago.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Why don't YOU release all the files?
I'm not POTUSA.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Sometimes it is only by seeing the released files
that I learn new facts.
Why do you need new facts? That means your old facts didn't work
out and you're desperately hoping new facts would come along!
Sounds like a lot of CTs have been stalling for time.
WRONG! There was a situation where the old evidence wasn't as strong
as the new, and so a flexible person will go with the newer and better
evidence rather than moulder in place.
You've never had evidence, old or new. It's all conjuncture. That's why
you continue to wander aimlessly having rejected the only right answer
there is. There is no hope for you.
Ah well. More endless opinion.
Keep wandering.
mainframetech
2018-07-15 23:43:57 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Breakability: CE-399 and the Diminishing Velocity Theory
John Hunt
https://www.history-matters.com/essays/jfkmed/Breakability/Breakability.htm
The Single-Bullet Theory
I don't know why you posted this. It destroys the WC.
John Hunt is an excellent researcher and I helped him
with his research and he helped me. One sentence
typifies the difference between the conspiracy researchers
and the WC defenders: Mr. John Hunt, Kennedy Assassination
Investigator, for supplying hard to get material from the
Archives and spotting distracting errors in the text.
If John Hunt is so brilliant then who shot JFK and why?
Did he say? Did he even get to the point of figuring that out?
Evidently not.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
How many snipers and where were they located? For
any credibility we need type of bullet and trajectories.
I've given you some of the answer, with diagrams. You
have produced nothing.
The WCR and HSCA did all that before you. The SOTGK is
just as invisible today as he/she was almost 55 years ago.
Which really means that they accomplished the job they were intended
to handle with the public.
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
How did they escape with weapons in hand?
I never said they did.
Then what happened to all those many rifles used in the
"classic triangulation of fire" ambush that according to
mft turned into a 20 gun fusillade from all sides?
WRONG! Don't even begin to use my name as having mentioned "classic
triangulation of fire". That's your blat, not mine. And the "fusillade"
was also not my idea, I'm repeating what I read in a book which I've
identified.
That's your problem. You seem to be willing to buy into any story you
read, no matter how nutty, as long as it doesn't have Oswald as one of the
shooters. You don't even care that the theories you are advocating for
today are incompatible with the ones you were pushing a month ago or a
year ago.
I would think with your wonderfully logical mind, you would be able to
point out the problem in detail so you could blat it out to the high
heavens.
Why don't we start with your ever changing frontal shooter. Originally you
had him on the GK along with most of the CT world. More recently you moved
him to the storm drain beyond the underpass. Now you have him moving to
the SoGK. Someday you might even find a location for him that actually
works and for which there is real evidence.
The south GK works. You wouldn't know about that though. Amateur
detectives have to be flexible and change as the evidence changes or new
evidence becomes available. If they aren't, they lose.
There is no evidence that indicates any shots came from the SoGK. Some
schmuck putting up a website and drawing lines through windshields and
intervening bodies between this alleged shooter and JFK is hardly a
compelling case for a SoGK shooter.
WRONG! There is a good line of sight from the South GK through the
windshield to JFK. That area fits nicely. And the 2 frontal shots would
easily come from there and they would be more difficult to come from other
locations.
Post by bigdog
No bullets were recovered other than
the two from Oswald's rifle. No shells were found on the SoGK. No shooter
was seen on the SoGK.
None of those facts mean anything, since not seeing something doesn't
mean it wasn't there. So cancel out all that blat.
Post by bigdog
No medical examiner has cited any medical evidence
of entrance wounds from that direction.
You just refuse to get it. No medical Examiner was allowed to see any
of the evidence that would draw them away from the desired cause of death,
a bullet in the BOH, though of course, no one can find the bullet hole in
the autopsy photo of the BOH:

Loading Image...
Post by bigdog
This clown fabricated this story
out of thin air and you bought it. It seems to be your flavor of the
month. Keep trying. Maybe someday you will find something that works but I
doubt it since you steadfastly refuse to read the WCR.
So when you disagree with the evidence, you use some name to try and
minimize it. This time it's "clown". Proof that it's probably right
because that's when you jump up and start calling names.

As it turns out, this guy kept his rifle and policed his brass, so
nothing was left when he left the area. A wise shooter. Some of them
are, you know.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
You've moved your frontal shooter from the GK, to a storm drain
beyond the underpass, and now have him on the SoGK. If all this so called
evidence is so compelling, why do you have to keep revising your beliefs.
Because as evidence changes or new evidence becomes available, you must
change to match it. This should be OBVIOUS to anyone.
No evidence has changed. There hasn't been a new piece of evidence come to
light in many years. What we have is a lot of kooks creating new websites
that seem to grab your fancy until you find something more interesting.
You just can't get it through your head that because YOU don't see any
new evidence, has no bearing whatsoever on there being new evidence. You
just have an opinion.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
If one is to be an amateur detective, one has to learn that it's
foolish to cling to old ideas when better evidence comes along, but you
still cling to the WCR theories, limiting yourself to the 54 year old
story.
My story is supported by real evidence. Once you find the right answer,
you don't have to keep changing it.
WRONG! Your story (the WCR) is supported by guesses, called
'theories'.
You don't even know what's in the WCR.
Sure I do, or are you saying that you've been unable to impart the
true story yourself?
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Why can't you stick with one story the way the LNs have for over 50 years.
Oswald did it. By himself. That has always been the LN position and it has
required no revisions since the public was told that was what happened
within 12 hours of the crime.
Ah, but it has had many excuses made over the years. LNs do indeed
fester in place.
No excuses needed. We aren't the ones who need excuses to dismiss solid
evidence.
LOL! Think that line through! You don't need excuses to dismiss
evidence! Believe me, I know it. You completely dismissed sworn
testimony and documents and all sorts of evidence to protect the WCR.
No, LNs know how to weigh evidence and determine what is compelling and
what is not. Recollections of events that happened 3 decades or more in
the past are hardly compelling especially when they conflict with the
contemporaneous evidence, both forensic an eyewitness. You treat these
recollections as if they are empirical evidence.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Should be easy questions to answer for both of you
mentally superior researchers. Remember once you
bash and trash the WCR and HSCA, et al, you have an
obligation to explain every detail of what actually took
place. Just being two of numerous naysayers is boring
and unconvincing.
You don't get to specify the rules for other people's statements.
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
I have exaplained more details than most have, but I don't
have all the answers.
You've had 5 decades to figure it out. What's the problem,
are you a slow thinker?
I see you're going back to being a wise-ass. It doesn't become you.
Try solving things, it's more adult.
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
By the way, what you didn't notice in Hunt's article is
revealing of your inability to digest all pertinent info in
his presentation. You claim he destroys the WCR but
also your argument about Connally's back wound.
No.
We disagree on some details.
What details?
Post by Anthony Marsh
He calls into question the SBT. I offer an alternative.
What alternative?
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Hunt is just one more CT who gets lost in deep minutia
Great idea. If anyone dissents at all, just call them crazy.
All they have to do is present factual evidence.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
and has no rational alternative to offer. Why don't both
of you get back to us when you have some information
about who organized the ambush and how they pulled
it off.
I am still working on it.
After 50 years? I thought you had all the answers a long time ago.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Why don't YOU release all the files?
I'm not POTUSA.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Sometimes it is only by seeing the released files
that I learn new facts.
Why do you need new facts? That means your old facts didn't work
out and you're desperately hoping new facts would come along!
Sounds like a lot of CTs have been stalling for time.
WRONG! There was a situation where the old evidence wasn't as strong
as the new, and so a flexible person will go with the newer and better
evidence rather than moulder in place.
You've never had evidence, old or new. It's all conjuncture. That's why
you continue to wander aimlessly having rejected the only right answer
there is. There is no hope for you.
Ah well. More endless opinion.
Keep wandering.
bigdog
2018-07-16 22:33:31 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Breakability: CE-399 and the Diminishing Velocity Theory
John Hunt
https://www.history-matters.com/essays/jfkmed/Breakability/Breakability.htm
The Single-Bullet Theory
I don't know why you posted this. It destroys the WC.
John Hunt is an excellent researcher and I helped him
with his research and he helped me. One sentence
typifies the difference between the conspiracy researchers
and the WC defenders: Mr. John Hunt, Kennedy Assassination
Investigator, for supplying hard to get material from the
Archives and spotting distracting errors in the text.
If John Hunt is so brilliant then who shot JFK and why?
Did he say? Did he even get to the point of figuring that out?
Evidently not.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
How many snipers and where were they located? For
any credibility we need type of bullet and trajectories.
I've given you some of the answer, with diagrams. You
have produced nothing.
The WCR and HSCA did all that before you. The SOTGK is
just as invisible today as he/she was almost 55 years ago.
Which really means that they accomplished the job they were intended
to handle with the public.
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
How did they escape with weapons in hand?
I never said they did.
Then what happened to all those many rifles used in the
"classic triangulation of fire" ambush that according to
mft turned into a 20 gun fusillade from all sides?
WRONG! Don't even begin to use my name as having mentioned "classic
triangulation of fire". That's your blat, not mine. And the "fusillade"
was also not my idea, I'm repeating what I read in a book which I've
identified.
That's your problem. You seem to be willing to buy into any story you
read, no matter how nutty, as long as it doesn't have Oswald as one of the
shooters. You don't even care that the theories you are advocating for
today are incompatible with the ones you were pushing a month ago or a
year ago.
I would think with your wonderfully logical mind, you would be able to
point out the problem in detail so you could blat it out to the high
heavens.
Why don't we start with your ever changing frontal shooter. Originally you
had him on the GK along with most of the CT world. More recently you moved
him to the storm drain beyond the underpass. Now you have him moving to
the SoGK. Someday you might even find a location for him that actually
works and for which there is real evidence.
The south GK works. You wouldn't know about that though. Amateur
detectives have to be flexible and change as the evidence changes or new
evidence becomes available. If they aren't, they lose.
There is no evidence that indicates any shots came from the SoGK. Some
schmuck putting up a website and drawing lines through windshields and
intervening bodies between this alleged shooter and JFK is hardly a
compelling case for a SoGK shooter.
WRONG! There is a good line of sight from the South GK through the
windshield to JFK. That area fits nicely. And the 2 frontal shots would
easily come from there and they would be more difficult to come from other
locations.
If you really believe that, then Bud's link is applicable.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
No bullets were recovered other than
the two from Oswald's rifle. No shells were found on the SoGK. No shooter
was seen on the SoGK.
None of those facts mean anything,
Not to a dedicate conspiracy hobbyist. Hunches are more important than
evidence.
Post by mainframetech
since not seeing something doesn't
mean it wasn't there. So cancel out all that blat.
There is no reason to believe anything or anybody was on the SoGK shooting
at JFK.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
No medical examiner has cited any medical evidence
of entrance wounds from that direction.
You just refuse to get it. No medical Examiner was allowed to see any
of the evidence that would draw them away from the desired cause of death,
a bullet in the BOH, though of course, no one can find the bullet hole in
Humes, Boswell, and Finck were medical examiners and they saw the body.
Multiple teams of medical examiners have reviewed the photographic and
x-ray record of their work and agreed with the conclusion that JFK was
shot twice form behind. You have no competent people who support you on
this but that doesn't matter to you because you know what you want to
believe and you don't care what knowledgeable people think.
Post by mainframetech
http://i318.photobucket.com/albums/mm433/JFKAUTOPSYPHOTOS/JFKcolor_boh_autopsy_photo.jpg
So???
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
This clown fabricated this story
out of thin air and you bought it. It seems to be your flavor of the
month. Keep trying. Maybe someday you will find something that works but I
doubt it since you steadfastly refuse to read the WCR.
So when you disagree with the evidence, you use some name to try and
minimize it. This time it's "clown".
Seems to fit.
Post by mainframetech
Proof that it's probably right
because that's when you jump up and start calling names.
Given your strange concept of what constitutes proof.
Post by mainframetech
As it turns out, this guy kept his rifle and policed his brass, so
nothing was left when he left the area. A wise shooter. Some of them
are, you know.
So you seem to be saying the evidence that there was a shooter up there is
that there is no evidence a shooter was up there.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
You've moved your frontal shooter from the GK, to a storm drain
beyond the underpass, and now have him on the SoGK. If all this so called
evidence is so compelling, why do you have to keep revising your beliefs.
Because as evidence changes or new evidence becomes available, you must
change to match it. This should be OBVIOUS to anyone.
No evidence has changed. There hasn't been a new piece of evidence come to
light in many years. What we have is a lot of kooks creating new websites
that seem to grab your fancy until you find something more interesting.
You just can't get it through your head that because YOU don't see any
new evidence, has no bearing whatsoever on there being new evidence. You
just have an opinion.
Name one piece of new evidence that has come to light in the last 20 years.

Hint: Kook websites and books are not evidence.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
If one is to be an amateur detective, one has to learn that it's
foolish to cling to old ideas when better evidence comes along, but you
still cling to the WCR theories, limiting yourself to the 54 year old
story.
My story is supported by real evidence. Once you find the right answer,
you don't have to keep changing it.
WRONG! Your story (the WCR) is supported by guesses, called
'theories'.
You don't even know what's in the WCR.
Sure I do, or are you saying that you've been unable to impart the
true story yourself?
The only thing you know about the WCR is what your kook authors and
websites have told you.
claviger
2018-07-17 21:16:00 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
WRONG! There is a good line of sight from the South GK through
the windshield to JFK. That area fits nicely. And the 2 frontal shots
would easily come from there and they would be more difficult to
come from other locations.
Why would any sniper take a shot through the windshield? Were
shots from the South GK fired from rifles with silencers? If not,
why did witnesses on top of the Triple Underpass not hear any
of them?
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
No bullets were recovered other than
the two from Oswald's rifle. No shells were found on the SoGK.
No shooter was seen on the SoGK.
None of those facts mean anything, since not seeing something
doesn't mean it wasn't there. So cancel out all that blat.
Not seeing someone with a rifle means something in a wide open
area like the parking lot behind the picket fence. People soon ran
to that area from 3 directions and nobody saw anyone with a rifle.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
No medical examiner has cited any medical evidence
of entrance wounds from that direction.
You just refuse to get it. No medical Examiner was allowed to
see any of the evidence that would draw them away from the
desired cause of death, a bullet in the BOH, though of course,
http://i318.photobucket.com/albums/mm433/JFKAUTOPSYPHOTOS/JFKcolor_boh_autopsy_photo.jpg
Three pathologists found it, measured it, and described it in detail.
The same evidence was studied by two more medical panels who
came to the same conclusions.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
This clown fabricated this story
out of thin air and you bought it. It seems to be your flavor of the
month. Keep trying. Maybe someday you will find something that
works but I doubt it since you steadfastly refuse to read the WCR.
So when you disagree with the evidence, you use some name
to try and minimize it. This time it's "clown". Proof that it's probably
right because that's when you jump up and start calling names.
As it turns out, this guy kept his rifle and policed his brass, so
nothing was left when he left the area. A wise shooter. Some of
them are, you know.
So what direction did he go, how was he dressed, and what did he
do with the rifle?
Anthony Marsh
2018-07-19 02:02:18 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
WRONG! There is a good line of sight from the South GK through
the windshield to JFK. That area fits nicely. And the 2 frontal shots
would easily come from there and they would be more difficult to
come from other locations.
Why would any sniper take a shot through the windshield? Were
shots from the South GK fired from rifles with silencers? If not,
why did witnesses on top of the Triple Underpass not hear any
of them?
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
No bullets were recovered other than
the two from Oswald's rifle. No shells were found on the SoGK.
No shooter was seen on the SoGK.
None of those facts mean anything, since not seeing something
doesn't mean it wasn't there. So cancel out all that blat.
Not seeing someone with a rifle means something in a wide open
area like the parking lot behind the picket fence. People soon ran
to that area from 3 directions and nobody saw anyone with a rifle.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
No medical examiner has cited any medical evidence
of entrance wounds from that direction.
You just refuse to get it. No medical Examiner was allowed to
see any of the evidence that would draw them away from the
desired cause of death, a bullet in the BOH, though of course,
http://i318.photobucket.com/albums/mm433/JFKAUTOPSYPHOTOS/JFKcolor_boh_autopsy_photo.jpg
Three pathologists found it, measured it, and described it in detail.
The same evidence was studied by two more medical panels who
came to the same conclusions.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
This clown fabricated this story
out of thin air and you bought it. It seems to be your flavor of the
month. Keep trying. Maybe someday you will find something that
works but I doubt it since you steadfastly refuse to read the WCR.
So when you disagree with the evidence, you use some name
to try and minimize it. This time it's "clown". Proof that it's probably
right because that's when you jump up and start calling names.
As it turns out, this guy kept his rifle and policed his brass, so
nothing was left when he left the area. A wise shooter. Some of
them are, you know.
So what direction did he go, how was he dressed, and what did he
do with the rifle?
Yes, he was not naked.
He passed the rifle off to his spotter.
mainframetech
2018-07-19 04:09:01 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
WRONG! There is a good line of sight from the South GK through
the windshield to JFK. That area fits nicely. And the 2 frontal shots
would easily come from there and they would be more difficult to
come from other locations.
Why would any sniper take a shot through the windshield? Were
shots from the South GK fired from rifles with silencers? If not,
why did witnesses on top of the Triple Underpass not hear any
of them?
We don't know what equipment they had on their weapons, but we DO know
that it worked well to shoot through the windshield, though it did as
expected and forced the shot down some to the throat instead of the head.
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
No bullets were recovered other than
the two from Oswald's rifle. No shells were found on the SoGK.
No shooter was seen on the SoGK.
None of those facts mean anything, since not seeing something
doesn't mean it wasn't there. So cancel out all that blat.
Not seeing someone with a rifle means something in a wide open
area like the parking lot behind the picket fence. People soon ran
to that area from 3 directions and nobody saw anyone with a rifle.
Oh? Where did you read that people ran to the South GK? Please
supply cites and links. If you can't, then it didn't happen.
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
No medical examiner has cited any medical evidence
of entrance wounds from that direction.
You just refuse to get it. No medical Examiner was allowed to
see any of the evidence that would draw them away from the
desired cause of death, a bullet in the BOH, though of course,
http://i318.photobucket.com/albums/mm433/JFKAUTOPSYPHOTOS/JFKcolor_boh_autopsy_photo.jpg
Three pathologists found it, measured it, and described it in detail.
The same evidence was studied by two more medical panels who
came to the same conclusions.
Amazing that you can look right at the photo of the BOH and find NO
BULLET HOLE, and then go on and say that someone saw it. Bull! Find the
bullet hole in the BOH photo, or admit that it's not there, first, because
the photo was altered, and second because over 39 eyewitnesses saw a
'large hole' in the BOH which the photo doesn't show. And that photo
shows the part of the BOH where the pathologists said was the location of
the bullet hole in the BOH!

You've been suckered!
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
This clown fabricated this story
out of thin air and you bought it. It seems to be your flavor of the
month. Keep trying. Maybe someday you will find something that
works but I doubt it since you steadfastly refuse to read the WCR.
I've read parts of it when it was presented as evidence, but it has
so little evidence I was saved from reading the whole thing. And any
document that needs THEORIES to get its story across, is phony.
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
So when you disagree with the evidence, you use some name
to try and minimize it. This time it's "clown". Proof that it's probably
right because that's when you jump up and start calling names.
As it turns out, this guy kept his rifle and policed his brass, so
nothing was left when he left the area. A wise shooter. Some of
them are, you know.
So what direction did he go, how was he dressed, and what did he
do with the rifle?
Where's your brain? Do you think a shooter is going to drop bread
crumbs so you can follow him to his hideout? Silly questions. When we
have an eyewitness, then you'll get all that info.

Chris
Bud
2018-07-15 23:35:00 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Breakability: CE-399 and the Diminishing Velocity Theory
John Hunt
https://www.history-matters.com/essays/jfkmed/Breakability/Breakability.htm
The Single-Bullet Theory
I don't know why you posted this. It destroys the WC.
John Hunt is an excellent researcher and I helped him
with his research and he helped me. One sentence
typifies the difference between the conspiracy researchers
and the WC defenders: Mr. John Hunt, Kennedy Assassination
Investigator, for supplying hard to get material from the
Archives and spotting distracting errors in the text.
If John Hunt is so brilliant then who shot JFK and why?
Did he say? Did he even get to the point of figuring that out?
Evidently not.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
How many snipers and where were they located? For
any credibility we need type of bullet and trajectories.
I've given you some of the answer, with diagrams. You
have produced nothing.
The WCR and HSCA did all that before you. The SOTGK is
just as invisible today as he/she was almost 55 years ago.
Which really means that they accomplished the job they were intended
to handle with the public.
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
How did they escape with weapons in hand?
I never said they did.
Then what happened to all those many rifles used in the
"classic triangulation of fire" ambush that according to
mft turned into a 20 gun fusillade from all sides?
WRONG! Don't even begin to use my name as having mentioned "classic
triangulation of fire". That's your blat, not mine. And the "fusillade"
was also not my idea, I'm repeating what I read in a book which I've
identified.
That's your problem. You seem to be willing to buy into any story you
read, no matter how nutty, as long as it doesn't have Oswald as one of the
shooters. You don't even care that the theories you are advocating for
today are incompatible with the ones you were pushing a month ago or a
year ago.
I would think with your wonderfully logical mind, you would be able to
point out the problem in detail so you could blat it out to the high
heavens.
Why don't we start with your ever changing frontal shooter. Originally you
had him on the GK along with most of the CT world. More recently you moved
him to the storm drain beyond the underpass. Now you have him moving to
the SoGK. Someday you might even find a location for him that actually
works and for which there is real evidence.
The south GK works. You wouldn't know about that though. Amateur
detectives have to be flexible and change as the evidence changes or new
evidence becomes available.
Loading Image...
Post by mainframetech
If they aren't, they lose.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
You've moved your frontal shooter from the GK, to a storm drain
beyond the underpass, and now have him on the SoGK. If all this so called
evidence is so compelling, why do you have to keep revising your beliefs.
Because as evidence changes or new evidence becomes available, you must
change to match it. This should be OBVIOUS to anyone.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
If one is to be an amateur detective, one has to learn that it's
foolish to cling to old ideas when better evidence comes along, but you
still cling to the WCR theories, limiting yourself to the 54 year old
story.
My story is supported by real evidence. Once you find the right answer,
you don't have to keep changing it.
WRONG! Your story (the WCR) is supported by guesses, called
'theories'.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Why can't you stick with one story the way the LNs have for over 50 years.
Oswald did it. By himself. That has always been the LN position and it has
required no revisions since the public was told that was what happened
within 12 hours of the crime.
Ah, but it has had many excuses made over the years. LNs do indeed
fester in place.
No excuses needed. We aren't the ones who need excuses to dismiss solid
evidence.
LOL! Think that line through! You don't need excuses to dismiss
evidence! Believe me, I know it. You completely dismissed sworn
testimony and documents and all sorts of evidence to protect the WCR.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Should be easy questions to answer for both of you
mentally superior researchers. Remember once you
bash and trash the WCR and HSCA, et al, you have an
obligation to explain every detail of what actually took
place. Just being two of numerous naysayers is boring
and unconvincing.
You don't get to specify the rules for other people's statements.
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
I have exaplained more details than most have, but I don't
have all the answers.
You've had 5 decades to figure it out. What's the problem,
are you a slow thinker?
I see you're going back to being a wise-ass. It doesn't become you.
Try solving things, it's more adult.
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
By the way, what you didn't notice in Hunt's article is
revealing of your inability to digest all pertinent info in
his presentation. You claim he destroys the WCR but
also your argument about Connally's back wound.
No.
We disagree on some details.
What details?
Post by Anthony Marsh
He calls into question the SBT. I offer an alternative.
What alternative?
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Hunt is just one more CT who gets lost in deep minutia
Great idea. If anyone dissents at all, just call them crazy.
All they have to do is present factual evidence.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
and has no rational alternative to offer. Why don't both
of you get back to us when you have some information
about who organized the ambush and how they pulled
it off.
I am still working on it.
After 50 years? I thought you had all the answers a long time ago.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Why don't YOU release all the files?
I'm not POTUSA.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Sometimes it is only by seeing the released files
that I learn new facts.
Why do you need new facts? That means your old facts didn't work
out and you're desperately hoping new facts would come along!
Sounds like a lot of CTs have been stalling for time.
WRONG! There was a situation where the old evidence wasn't as strong
as the new, and so a flexible person will go with the newer and better
evidence rather than moulder in place.
You've never had evidence, old or new. It's all conjuncture. That's why
you continue to wander aimlessly having rejected the only right answer
there is. There is no hope for you.
Ah well. More endless opinion.
Chris
bigdog
2018-07-16 22:32:02 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bud
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Breakability: CE-399 and the Diminishing Velocity Theory
John Hunt
https://www.history-matters.com/essays/jfkmed/Breakability/Breakability.htm
The Single-Bullet Theory
I don't know why you posted this. It destroys the WC.
John Hunt is an excellent researcher and I helped him
with his research and he helped me. One sentence
typifies the difference between the conspiracy researchers
and the WC defenders: Mr. John Hunt, Kennedy Assassination
Investigator, for supplying hard to get material from the
Archives and spotting distracting errors in the text.
If John Hunt is so brilliant then who shot JFK and why?
Did he say? Did he even get to the point of figuring that out?
Evidently not.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
How many snipers and where were they located? For
any credibility we need type of bullet and trajectories.
I've given you some of the answer, with diagrams. You
have produced nothing.
The WCR and HSCA did all that before you. The SOTGK is
just as invisible today as he/she was almost 55 years ago.
Which really means that they accomplished the job they were intended
to handle with the public.
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
How did they escape with weapons in hand?
I never said they did.
Then what happened to all those many rifles used in the
"classic triangulation of fire" ambush that according to
mft turned into a 20 gun fusillade from all sides?
WRONG! Don't even begin to use my name as having mentioned "classic
triangulation of fire". That's your blat, not mine. And the "fusillade"
was also not my idea, I'm repeating what I read in a book which I've
identified.
That's your problem. You seem to be willing to buy into any story you
read, no matter how nutty, as long as it doesn't have Oswald as one of the
shooters. You don't even care that the theories you are advocating for
today are incompatible with the ones you were pushing a month ago or a
year ago.
I would think with your wonderfully logical mind, you would be able to
point out the problem in detail so you could blat it out to the high
heavens.
Why don't we start with your ever changing frontal shooter. Originally you
had him on the GK along with most of the CT world. More recently you moved
him to the storm drain beyond the underpass. Now you have him moving to
the SoGK. Someday you might even find a location for him that actually
works and for which there is real evidence.
The south GK works. You wouldn't know about that though. Amateur
detectives have to be flexible and change as the evidence changes or new
evidence becomes available.
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_uya2HjMfMzU/S_HCNHR1abI/AAAAAAAABUg/KqNv1jZcS-M/s320/blocks.jpg
PERFECTO!!!
mainframetech
2018-07-19 17:49:40 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by Bud
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Breakability: CE-399 and the Diminishing Velocity Theory
John Hunt
https://www.history-matters.com/essays/jfkmed/Breakability/Breakability.htm
The Single-Bullet Theory
I don't know why you posted this. It destroys the WC.
John Hunt is an excellent researcher and I helped him
with his research and he helped me. One sentence
typifies the difference between the conspiracy researchers
and the WC defenders: Mr. John Hunt, Kennedy Assassination
Investigator, for supplying hard to get material from the
Archives and spotting distracting errors in the text.
If John Hunt is so brilliant then who shot JFK and why?
Did he say? Did he even get to the point of figuring that out?
Evidently not.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
How many snipers and where were they located? For
any credibility we need type of bullet and trajectories.
I've given you some of the answer, with diagrams. You
have produced nothing.
The WCR and HSCA did all that before you. The SOTGK is
just as invisible today as he/she was almost 55 years ago.
Which really means that they accomplished the job they were intended
to handle with the public.
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
How did they escape with weapons in hand?
I never said they did.
Then what happened to all those many rifles used in the
"classic triangulation of fire" ambush that according to
mft turned into a 20 gun fusillade from all sides?
WRONG! Don't even begin to use my name as having mentioned "classic
triangulation of fire". That's your blat, not mine. And the "fusillade"
was also not my idea, I'm repeating what I read in a book which I've
identified.
That's your problem. You seem to be willing to buy into any story you
read, no matter how nutty, as long as it doesn't have Oswald as one of the
shooters. You don't even care that the theories you are advocating for
today are incompatible with the ones you were pushing a month ago or a
year ago.
I would think with your wonderfully logical mind, you would be able to
point out the problem in detail so you could blat it out to the high
heavens.
Why don't we start with your ever changing frontal shooter. Originally you
had him on the GK along with most of the CT world. More recently you moved
him to the storm drain beyond the underpass. Now you have him moving to
the SoGK. Someday you might even find a location for him that actually
works and for which there is real evidence.
The south GK works. You wouldn't know about that though. Amateur
detectives have to be flexible and change as the evidence changes or new
evidence becomes available.
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_uya2HjMfMzU/S_HCNHR1abI/AAAAAAAABUg/KqNv1jZcS-M/s320/blocks.jpg
PERFECTO!!!
Yes, of course! The silly LNs will go around congratulating each
other against all sworn testimony and documents. A slap on th back for
your incorrect theory from the WCR!

Chris
Bud
2018-07-13 14:54:00 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Breakability: CE-399 and the Diminishing Velocity Theory
John Hunt
https://www.history-matters.com/essays/jfkmed/Breakability/Breakability.htm
The Single-Bullet Theory
I don't know why you posted this. It destroys the WC.
John Hunt is an excellent researcher and I helped him with his research
and he helped me. One sentence typifies the difference between the
Mr. John Hunt, Kennedy Assassination Investigator, for supplying hard to
get material from the Archives and spotting distracting errors in the text.
______________
The fact remains that the WC defenders never do any actual research and
very rarely visit the National Archives to examine the original
materials for themselves. John Hunt did. I did.
________
There are still a few points that John made which I disagreed with or
thought were not forceful enough. He is too much of a gentleman to come
right out and call the WC defenders liars.
Either Sturdivan was simply ignorant of the H.P. White Laboratory tests
which show the ACTUAL measured velocities for Oswald's ammo or he
realized that he had to lie about them to get the velocities he needed.
Maybe he was not allowed to see the FBI documents which I copied.
http://www.the-puzzle-palace.com/White-p1.gif
http://www.the-puzzle-palace.com/White-p2.gif
But if you use them you can calculate exactly how many FPS the bullet
loses per foot of flight.
More important than this is how much FPS it loses when it goes through a
body. Olivier`s test show the bullet losing 132 FPS going through
goatmeat. Going through a second one it would lose even more energy than
it did going through the first one.
Post by Anthony Marsh
John correctly critiques the Australian tests, but overlooks the fact
that their bullet totally missed the WRIST simulation. You can get a
bullet that looks undamaged if you don't hit the wrist, but when
Edgewood did the nose is smashed.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/jfkinfo3/exhibits/ce856.jpg
Did this slug go through Kennedy and Connally first?

Perhaps CE399 glanced off the wrist bone rather than hitting it head on.
Post by Anthony Marsh
But John did not mention a couple of things that I have pointed out
before. The discrepancy of the missing fragments from CE 399.
He seemed to overlook the fact that the hole in the base of the bullet
is where they drilled out some bullet lead to test.
Then several fragments of lead remain in Connally's wrist and thigh.
We don't know how much because they were never measured or tested. They
could be today, but the WC defenders won't allow it because it might
destroy their precious lies.
Then there is another fragment which was unaccounted for the FBI
scratched out the text about it on their report because it may not have
http://www.the-puzzle-palace.com/FBI_3452.tif
I can make out the first words that were crossed out: the Governor's
But what is the third word which the FBI desperately tried to hide?
If we were allowed to examine the original document we might be able to
figure out what they were trying to hide and why.
When I examined original HSCA documents at the National Archives I was
able to reconstruct the words they had erased with WhiteOUT by seeing
and feeling the typewriter impressions on the back of the pages. Also,
using bluelihght may let us see the black ink text obscured by pencil marks.
I also suggested to John that some type of SBT might be possible if we
simply remove the wrist from the equation and assign that to another bullet.
What I call a Modified Single Bullet Theory.
bigdog
2018-07-13 22:31:43 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bud
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Breakability: CE-399 and the Diminishing Velocity Theory
John Hunt
https://www.history-matters.com/essays/jfkmed/Breakability/Breakability.htm
The Single-Bullet Theory
I don't know why you posted this. It destroys the WC.
John Hunt is an excellent researcher and I helped him with his research
and he helped me. One sentence typifies the difference between the
Mr. John Hunt, Kennedy Assassination Investigator, for supplying hard to
get material from the Archives and spotting distracting errors in the text.
______________
The fact remains that the WC defenders never do any actual research and
very rarely visit the National Archives to examine the original
materials for themselves. John Hunt did. I did.
________
There are still a few points that John made which I disagreed with or
thought were not forceful enough. He is too much of a gentleman to come
right out and call the WC defenders liars.
Either Sturdivan was simply ignorant of the H.P. White Laboratory tests
which show the ACTUAL measured velocities for Oswald's ammo or he
realized that he had to lie about them to get the velocities he needed.
Maybe he was not allowed to see the FBI documents which I copied.
http://www.the-puzzle-palace.com/White-p1.gif
http://www.the-puzzle-palace.com/White-p2.gif
But if you use them you can calculate exactly how many FPS the bullet
loses per foot of flight.
More important than this is how much FPS it loses when it goes through a
body. Olivier`s test show the bullet losing 132 FPS going through
goatmeat. Going through a second one it would lose even more energy than
it did going through the first one.
Post by Anthony Marsh
John correctly critiques the Australian tests, but overlooks the fact
that their bullet totally missed the WRIST simulation. You can get a
bullet that looks undamaged if you don't hit the wrist, but when
Edgewood did the nose is smashed.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/jfkinfo3/exhibits/ce856.jpg
Did this slug go through Kennedy and Connally first?
Perhaps CE399 glanced off the wrist bone rather than hitting it head on.
More likely it had yawed so that its axis was nearly perpendicular to its
path. The flattening occurred on the side of the bullet near the base. The
flattening would likely occur at the surface that struck the dense wrist
bone.
Anthony Marsh
2018-07-14 23:49:29 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by Bud
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Breakability: CE-399 and the Diminishing Velocity Theory
John Hunt
https://www.history-matters.com/essays/jfkmed/Breakability/Breakability.htm
The Single-Bullet Theory
I don't know why you posted this. It destroys the WC.
John Hunt is an excellent researcher and I helped him with his research
and he helped me. One sentence typifies the difference between the
Mr. John Hunt, Kennedy Assassination Investigator, for supplying hard to
get material from the Archives and spotting distracting errors in the text.
______________
The fact remains that the WC defenders never do any actual research and
very rarely visit the National Archives to examine the original
materials for themselves. John Hunt did. I did.
________
There are still a few points that John made which I disagreed with or
thought were not forceful enough. He is too much of a gentleman to come
right out and call the WC defenders liars.
Either Sturdivan was simply ignorant of the H.P. White Laboratory tests
which show the ACTUAL measured velocities for Oswald's ammo or he
realized that he had to lie about them to get the velocities he needed.
Maybe he was not allowed to see the FBI documents which I copied.
http://www.the-puzzle-palace.com/White-p1.gif
http://www.the-puzzle-palace.com/White-p2.gif
But if you use them you can calculate exactly how many FPS the bullet
loses per foot of flight.
More important than this is how much FPS it loses when it goes through a
body. Olivier`s test show the bullet losing 132 FPS going through
goatmeat. Going through a second one it would lose even more energy than
it did going through the first one.
Post by Anthony Marsh
John correctly critiques the Australian tests, but overlooks the fact
that their bullet totally missed the WRIST simulation. You can get a
bullet that looks undamaged if you don't hit the wrist, but when
Edgewood did the nose is smashed.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/jfkinfo3/exhibits/ce856.jpg
Did this slug go through Kennedy and Connally first?
Perhaps CE399 glanced off the wrist bone rather than hitting it head on.
More likely it had yawed so that its axis was nearly perpendicular to its
path. The flattening occurred on the side of the bullet near the base. The
flattening would likely occur at the surface that struck the dense wrist
bone.
So now your theory is that it yawed after going through Connally?
Couldn't it have been deflected by smashing through the rib?
Anthony Marsh
2018-07-14 03:46:20 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bud
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Breakability: CE-399 and the Diminishing Velocity Theory
John Hunt
https://www.history-matters.com/essays/jfkmed/Breakability/Breakability.htm
The Single-Bullet Theory
I don't know why you posted this. It destroys the WC.
John Hunt is an excellent researcher and I helped him with his research
and he helped me. One sentence typifies the difference between the
Mr. John Hunt, Kennedy Assassination Investigator, for supplying hard to
get material from the Archives and spotting distracting errors in the text.
______________
The fact remains that the WC defenders never do any actual research and
very rarely visit the National Archives to examine the original
materials for themselves. John Hunt did. I did.
________
There are still a few points that John made which I disagreed with or
thought were not forceful enough. He is too much of a gentleman to come
right out and call the WC defenders liars.
Either Sturdivan was simply ignorant of the H.P. White Laboratory tests
which show the ACTUAL measured velocities for Oswald's ammo or he
realized that he had to lie about them to get the velocities he needed.
Maybe he was not allowed to see the FBI documents which I copied.
http://www.the-puzzle-palace.com/White-p1.gif
http://www.the-puzzle-palace.com/White-p2.gif
But if you use them you can calculate exactly how many FPS the bullet
loses per foot of flight.
More important than this is how much FPS it loses when it goes through a
body. Olivier`s test show the bullet losing 132 FPS going through
goatmeat. Going through a second one it would lose even more energy than
it did going through the first one.
Sure, but Sturdivan was interested in how fast it would be going when it
hit JFK. If you start with the wrong number intentiionally, your end
result will also be wrong, even if you were close to the correct figure
oif going through the neck. I have no problem with the test Oliver did.
You have to make some common sense assumptions. The meat simulation does
not have bone because he did not know that the bullet hit bone. Ok, i
don't quibble about that minor difference. The meat is about 6 inches
thick which is about what the path of the bullet was going throuh a neck.
But Sturdivan doesn't even try to figure out what the muzzle velocity was.
The WC said 2165 fps, but he said 2160 fps. Maybe he copied it down wrong.
Or maybe he recalculated it for the temperature at noon. Close enough, but
he doesn't exaplain where he got his number.

Then to calculate the loss of velocity in flight he uses a standard figure
which is used for most military rifles. Not specific to Oswald's carcano.
The White lab tests allow you to calculate it for yourself. It's about
102.5 fps per foot, not his nominal .77 fps per foot. Small difference,
but it could be significant over that specific distance for the JFK back
shot and a minor error ruins his calculations.
Post by Bud
Post by Anthony Marsh
John correctly critiques the Australian tests, but overlooks the fact
that their bullet totally missed the WRIST simulation. You can get a
bullet that looks undamaged if you don't hit the wrist, but when
Edgewood did the nose is smashed.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/jfkinfo3/exhibits/ce856.jpg
Did this slug go through Kennedy and Connally first?
No. Calculate the difference in striking velocity, but don't use
Sturdivan's phony numbers. See if you think a couple of hundred fps
would make a big difference.
Run the tests yourself.
I don't remember Oliver stating how many FPS that test bullet was going.
when it hit the wrist on that test.


Conversely I pointed out that the Australian test was flawed because
their bullet did not hit a wrist bone.
Post by Bud
Perhaps CE399 glanced off the wrist bone rather than hitting it head on.
I like that. But there was a through and through wound. Maybe it split
into 2 and the front of the bullet glanced off the wrist and hit the
chrome topping while the base went through the wrist and into the floor.
If you can figure out how to use Google you can go back and read my
lengthy messages where I go into more detail about the mistakes that
Sturdivan made.

But as I said before, some type of SBT bullet is possible, just not the WC
or HSCA version proposed so far.
Post by Bud
Post by Anthony Marsh
But John did not mention a couple of things that I have pointed out
before. The discrepancy of the missing fragments from CE 399.
He seemed to overlook the fact that the hole in the base of the bullet
is where they drilled out some bullet lead to test.
Then several fragments of lead remain in Connally's wrist and thigh.
We don't know how much because they were never measured or tested. They
could be today, but the WC defenders won't allow it because it might
destroy their precious lies.
Then there is another fragment which was unaccounted for the FBI
scratched out the text about it on their report because it may not have
http://www.the-puzzle-palace.com/FBI_3452.tif
I can make out the first words that were crossed out: the Governor's
But what is the third word which the FBI desperately tried to hide?
If we were allowed to examine the original document we might be able to
figure out what they were trying to hide and why.
When I examined original HSCA documents at the National Archives I was
able to reconstruct the words they had erased with WhiteOUT by seeing
and feeling the typewriter impressions on the back of the pages. Also,
using bluelihght may let us see the black ink text obscured by pencil marks.
I also suggested to John that some type of SBT might be possible if we
simply remove the wrist from the equation and assign that to another bullet.
What I call a Modified Single Bullet Theory.
mainframetech
2018-07-02 02:23:25 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by claviger
Breakability: CE-399 and the Diminishing Velocity Theory
John Hunt
https://www.history-matters.com/essays/jfkmed/Breakability/Breakability.htm
The Single-Bullet Theory
A CT finally emerges with the truth. Thank you Claviger for your
changing of sides!

Chris
Loading...