Discussion:
Over 39 witnesses to the 'large hole' in the BOH of JFK
Add Reply
mainframetech
2018-03-16 00:00:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
This is the list of 'over 39' people that I have mentioned now and then that saw the 'large hole' in the BOH of JFK. I have gotten the information from only the most reputable places, like mostly from the WC, HSCA or ARRB.

The number '39' is there for each name below, but you can consider that the full number of 65 includes the people that witnessed the autopsy. The HSCA lied about them and said that they all saw a small bullet hole in the BOH, but that was found to be false and subsequent interviews of many of those people showed that they all agreed with those that saw the 'large hole' on the BOH. That puts the count way over 40, up to 65. The gallery people aren't named, but their positive statements were checked and put out by David W. Mantik, MD,PhD in "Murder in Dealey Plaza" his article "Paradoxes of the JFK Assassination" pages 197-198.

There are many references to a photo that has a montage of people on it. The reason is that the people use their hand to locate the 'gaping hole' in the BOH.


Chris/mainframetech



1. James Jenkins - lab assistant at Bethesda - testimony to HSCA
"Jenkins does not recall a small hole in the head as drawn on the descriptive sheet; he said that the big hole would have covered the area where the little hole was drawn on the sheet."
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=329&relPageId=12

&&&&&&&&

2. Dennis David 1st class petty officer - Bethesda. He was shown a film by LCDR Pitzer that showed the back of JFK's head while on the morgue table and before any cutting had begun. It was clearly the Bethesda morgue. He said it showed a 'gaping wound' in the back of the president's head and that the top of the head looked intact.
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=708&relPageId=4

&&&&&&&&

3. Robert L. Knudsen - photographer

Showed photos of BOH wound and forehead wound to Joe O'Donnell. From O'Donnell HSCA testimony:
"The back of the head photograph(s) showed a hole in the back of the head, about 2" above the hairline, about the size of a grapefruit; the hole clearly penetrated the skull and was very deep. Another one of the photographs showed a hole in the forehead above the right eye which was a round wound about 3/8" in diameter which he interpreted as a gunshot."
From:
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/md231/html/md231_0002a.htm

&&&&&&&&

4. Ed Hoffman - deaf/mute watching from overpass. He said "The rear of his head was gone, blasted outward."
From Montage halfway down at:
Loading Image...

&&&&&&&&

5. Dr. Robert McClelland - physician in ER at Parkland hospital. Said "It was in the right back part of his head--very large...a portion of the cerebellum fell out on the table while we were doing the tracheotomy."
From Montage halfway down at:
http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/Witness-reports-of-head-wound.jpg

&&&&&&&&

6. Dr. Charles Carrico - Physician at Parkland ER. Said "There was a large--quite a large--defect about here (pointing) on his skull. See photo where he shows the area with his hand [BOH slightly right].
From Montage halfway down at:
http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/Witness-reports-of-head-wound.jpg

&&&&&&&&

7. Dr. Charles Crenshaw - Physician at Parkland hospital ER. Said "The wound was the size of a baseball." Demonstrates with hand on the right rear of his head (see photo).
From Montage halfway down at:
http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/Witness-reports-of-head-wound.jpg

&&&&&&&&

8. Nurse Audrey Bell - Parkland OR supervisor. Said "There was a massive wound at the back of his head." See [photo.
From Montage halfway down at:
http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/Witness-reports-of-head-wound.jpg

&&&&&&&&

9. Frank O'Neill - FBI agent said "...a massive wound in the right rear." See photo:
From Montage halfway down at:
http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/Witness-reports-of-head-wound.jpg

&&&&&&&&

10. Jerrol Custer - Bethesda Navy X-ray technician. Said: "From the top of his head to almost the base of the skull, you could see where that part was gone." See photo:
From Montage halfway down at:
Loading Image...

&&&&&&&&

11. Paul O'Connor - Bethesda Navy corpsman-morgue assistant. Said "[There was] an open areas all the way across into the rear of the brain." See photo:
From Montage halfway down at:
http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/Witness-reports-of-head-wound.jpg

&&&&&&&&

12. Floyd Reibe - Bethesda photographer at morgue. Said "...a big gaping hole in the back of the head." See photo:
From Montage halfway down at:
http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/Witness-reports-of-head-wound.jpg

&&&&&&&&

13. Nurse Diana Hamilton Bowron - Parkland ER nurse. WC testimony:
"Mr. SPECTER - You saw the condition of his what?
Miss BOWRON - The back of his head.
Mr. SPECTER - And what was that condition?
Miss BOWRON - Well, it was very bad---you know.
Mr. SPECTER - How many holes did you see?
Miss BOWRON - I just saw one large hole.
Mr. SPECTER - Did you see a small bullet hole beneath that one large hole?
Miss BOWRON - No, sir. "

&&&&&&&&

14. KEMP CLARK, MD: Professor and Director of Neurological Surgery at Parkland. Said during WC testimony:

"...in the occipital region of the skull... Through the head wound, blood and brain were extruding... There was a large wound in the right occipitoparietal region, from which profuse bleeding was occurring... There was considerable loss of scalp and bone tissue. Both cerebral and cerebellar tissue were extruding from the wound." (WC--CE#392)

&&&&&&&&

15. Dr. RICHARD BROOKS DULANY - Parkland hospital, said: " The wound was on the back of his head. On the back side" They lifted up the head and "the whole back-side was gone." (Groden R., Livingston, H., High Treason. 1989 New York, Berkley Books, p.460.)

&&&&&&&&

16. Nurse Patricia ( HUTTON) Gustafson - Parkland ER staff. While helping with resuscitation efforts a physician asked her to apply a pressure dressing to the head wound, she observed, however, that, "This was no use, however, because of the massive opening in the back of the head."
http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/boh/parkland_boh/parkland_wound.htm

&&&&&&&&

17. Dr. MARION THOMAS JENKINS Parkland staff. WC testimony "...a great laceration on the right side of the head (temporal and occipital) (sic), causing a great defect in the skull plate so that there was herniation and laceration of great areas of the brain, even to the extent that the cerebellum had protruded from the wound." (WC--Exhibit #392)

&&&&&&&&

18. Dr. RONALD COY JONES Parkland staff. WC testimony "He had a large wound in the right posterior side of the head... There was a large defect in the back side of the head as the President lay on the cart with what appeared to be some brain hanging out of this wound with multiple pieces of skull noted next with the brain and with a tremendous amount of clot and blood." (WC-V6:53-54)

&&&&&&&&

19. Dr. MALCOLM PERRY Parkland staff said "I looked at the head wound briefly by leaning over the table and noticed that the parietal occipital head wound was largely avulsive and there was visible brain tissue in the macard and some cerebellum seen..." (HSCA-V7:302-interview with Purdy 1-11-78.

&&&&&&&&

20. Dr. PAUL PETERS Parkland staff - WC testimony - "...I noticed that there was a large defect in the occiput...It seemed to me that in the right occipitalparietal area that there was a large defect." (WC-V6:71)

&&&&&&&&

21. Tom Robinson mortician with Gawler's. At Bethesda after autopsy enumerating head wounds, he "described a large, open head wound in the back of the president's head, centrally located right between the ears, where the bone was gone, as well as some scalp.
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=711&relPageId=3
Robinson's drawing of the wound is here:
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=350&relPageId=4

&&&&&&&&

22. Clinton Hill - Secret Service presidential detail. As kill shot rang out Hill was on the limo and covering the Kennedys. His WC testimony said "As I lay over the top of the back seat I noticed a portion of the President's head on the right rear side was missing and he was bleeding profusely. Part of his brain was gone. I saw a part of his skull with hair on it lying in the seat."

&&&&&&&&

23. Joe O'Donnell photographer. Spoke with Knudsen about photos of autopsy and saw head wound photo. Said "The back of the head photograph(s) showed a hole in the back of the head, about 2" above the hairline, about the size of a grapefruit; the hole clearly penetrated the skull and was very deep. Another one of the photographs showed a hole in the forehead above the right eye which was a round wound about 3/8" in diameter which he interpreted as a gunshot."

"The second occasion occurred a few days later, when Knudsen showed him a second set of photograph(s) once again about 12 ea 5" by 7" B&W prints. On this second occasion, the back-of-head photograph(s) was intact, and showed no hole in the back of the head. Instead of a hole, he remembers seeing neatly combed hair which looked slightly wet, or damp in appearance."
From:
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=753&relPageId=2

While the nutter contingent has done all it can to discredit O'Donnell, Knudsen's family (wife and 2 of his kids) went to the ARRB and made corroborating statements as to the faking of some autopsy photos.

&&&&&&&&

24. Dr. Charles Baxter - Professor Of Surgery; Director Of Emergency Room. - Said "The right temporal and occipital bones were missing and the brain was lying on the table".
http://www.jfklancer.com/ParklandDrs.html

&&&&&&&&

25. Dr. John Ebersole - Acting Chief of Radiology and head of the Radiology Division - Bethesda. Said "The back of the head was missing...".
WC testimony.

&&&&&&&&

26. Saundra Key Spencer - Navy E-6 Photographer's Mate at Naval Photographic Center at Anacostia. ARRB testimony summary. Spencer was given a set of autopsy photos that were completely diferent than the ones we are all familiar with. They were cleaned up and showed the correct BOH wound. Most of her work was for the White House. Said: "She remembers a wound in the back of the president's head Which she described as a "Blown out chunk" about 2 to 2.5 inches wide located in about the center of the back of the president's head about 3 or 5 inches above the hairline at the back of his head.

&&&&&&&&

27. James Sibert - FBI agent stayed with bronze casket and was at the autopsy. Gave ARRB testimony. Drawing of wound is here:
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=719

Testimony about his drawing:
"Q. ...That is the drawing you made earlier today showing the size of the wound, which, by my very rough estimate, the wound you drew seems much smaller.
A. Much smaller, yes, it's larger than that. I should have made that larger, but I'm not much of an artist.

&&&&&&&&

28. Dr. Gene Akin - Parkland hospital. WC testimony. Said "The back of the right occipital-parietal portion of his head was shattered, with brain substance extruding."

&&&&&&&&

29. Jacqueline Kennedy - Wife of JFK - held JFK in her arms and had very close view of head wounds. Testimony of the head wounds was suppressed in the WC. She said ""I was trying to hold his hair on. From the front there was nothing --
I suppose there must have been. But from the back you could see,
you know, you were trying to hold his hair on, and his skull on...". If she was trying to hold his hair and skull on at the back or his head, then it was a big wound.
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/09/jackie-kennedy-testimony.html

&&&&&&&&

30. John Stringer - photographer - Bethesda. Worked around the autopsy. In interview with David Lifton on 8/26/72:

Lifton: Was the main damage to the skull on the top, or in the back?
Stringer: In the back.
Lifton: ...High In the back, or lower In the back?
Stringer: Oh, the occipital part in the back there (garbled) up above the neck.
Lifton: …In other words, the main part of his head that was blasted away was in the occipital part of the skull?
Stringer: Yes. the back part. [Tape played for Stringer in 1996, p78]

From:
http://www.history-matters.com/essays/jfkmed/TracesOfWitnessTampering/TracesOfWitnessTampering.htm

&&&&&&&&

31. Jan Gail Rudnicki - Assistant to Boswell at Bethesda on night of autopsy. Interviewed by Flanagan for HSCA. Said: "the back-right quadrant of the head was missing."
http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/boh/beth/beth.htm

&&&&&&&&

32. James Metzler - Hospital Corpsman at Bethesda, helped put body from shipping casket to table. HSCA interview 4/21/78. "Metzler recalled a wound situated in the "right side of the head behind the right ear, extending down to the center of the back of the skull."
http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/boh/beth/beth.htm

&&&&&&&&

33. Roy Kellerman - Secret Service agent - rode in limousine in passenger seat. Gave WC testimony as follows:
"Mr. KELLERMAN. OK. This all transpired in the morgue of the Naval Hospital in Bethesda, sir. He had a large wound this size.
Mr. SPECTER. Indicating a circle with your finger of the diameter of 5 inches; would that be approximately correct?
Mr. KELLERMAN. Yes, circular; yes, on this part of the head.
Mr. SPECTER. Indicating the rear portion of the head.
Mr. KELLERMAN. Yes.
Mr. SPECTER. More to the right side of the head?
Mr. KELLERMAN. Right. This was removed.
Mr. SPECTER. When you say, "This was removed," what do you mean by this?
Mr. KELLERMAN. The skull part was removed."

&&&&&&&&

34. Aubrey Rike - Ambulance Driver - at Parkland hospital - interviewed by Vince Palamara on 11/22/97. Described the BOH wound with right hand circling the back of his head about the size of a baseball:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dvbuv_eLISk

&&&&&&&&

35. Chester Boyers - Chief Petty Officer Bethesda - head of pathology dept. - helped during autopsy with various functions. Interviewed for HSCA. "Concerning the wounds of President Kennedy, Mr. Boyers stated that there was a large wound to the right side and towards the rear of the head."
http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/pdf/md62.pdf

&&&&&&&&

36. Joseph Hagan - Gawler's embalming team - did their work at Bethesda after autopsy. Hagan was in charge of the team. His ARRB interview said: "However, he did state that "all of this was open in the back", while holding his two hands about 6 inches away from his upper posterior skull, gesturing to the area between both of his own ears on the back of his head."

&&&&&&&&

37. J. Thornton Boswell - Bethesda prosector at autopsy - the record said "Q. When you say the left posterior, what do you mean?
A. The left occipital area, and that wound extends to the right frontal area." An awfully large wound!

&&&&&&&&

38. Phyllis Hall - Parkland nurse - brought in to work in the ER when JFK brought in - Said in video "There was a huge hole in head" while using her right hand to hold over head area:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5zxgYrc7-Zs

&&&&&&&&

39. Dr. Don Teal Curtis - Resident at Parkland hospital - Spoke to interviewer for Canyon News.com said: "Curtis also looked, and he told the audience “the posterior part of his head was blown out.”
Curtis, who had become very familiar with entrance and exit wounds during his trauma room work at Parkland, said that there was no doubt in his mind that the exit wound on the president’s head was at the back."
http://www.myplainview.com/canyon/news/article_f6555d0a-48c4-11e3-bbd1-001a4bcf887a.html

&&&&&&&&
Ace Kefford
2018-03-17 00:41:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
This is the list of 'over 39' people that I have mentioned now and then that saw the 'large hole' in the BOH of JFK. I have gotten the information from only the most reputable places, like mostly from the WC, HSCA or ARRB.
The number '39' is there for each name below, but you can consider that the full number of 65 includes the people that witnessed the autopsy. The HSCA lied about them and said that they all saw a small bullet hole in the BOH, but that was found to be false and subsequent interviews of many of those people showed that they all agreed with those that saw the 'large hole' on the BOH. That puts the count way over 40, up to 65. The gallery people aren't named, but their positive statements were checked and put out by David W. Mantik, MD,PhD in "Murder in Dealey Plaza" his article "Paradoxes of the JFK Assassination" pages 197-198.
There are many references to a photo that has a montage of people on it. The reason is that the people use their hand to locate the 'gaping hole' in the BOH.
Chris/mainframetech
1. James Jenkins - lab assistant at Bethesda - testimony to HSCA
"Jenkins does not recall a small hole in the head as drawn on the descriptive sheet; he said that the big hole would have covered the area where the little hole was drawn on the sheet."
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=329&relPageId=12
&&&&&&&&
2. Dennis David 1st class petty officer - Bethesda. He was shown a film by LCDR Pitzer that showed the back of JFK's head while on the morgue table and before any cutting had begun. It was clearly the Bethesda morgue. He said it showed a 'gaping wound' in the back of the president's head and that the top of the head looked intact.
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=708&relPageId=4
&&&&&&&&
3. Robert L. Knudsen - photographer
"The back of the head photograph(s) showed a hole in the back of the head, about 2" above the hairline, about the size of a grapefruit; the hole clearly penetrated the skull and was very deep. Another one of the photographs showed a hole in the forehead above the right eye which was a round wound about 3/8" in diameter which he interpreted as a gunshot."
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/md231/html/md231_0002a.htm
&&&&&&&&
4. Ed Hoffman - deaf/mute watching from overpass. He said "The rear of his head was gone, blasted outward."
http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/Witness-reports-of-head-wound.jpg
&&&&&&&&
5. Dr. Robert McClelland - physician in ER at Parkland hospital. Said "It was in the right back part of his head--very large...a portion of the cerebellum fell out on the table while we were doing the tracheotomy."
http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/Witness-reports-of-head-wound.jpg
&&&&&&&&
6. Dr. Charles Carrico - Physician at Parkland ER. Said "There was a large--quite a large--defect about here (pointing) on his skull. See photo where he shows the area with his hand [BOH slightly right].
http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/Witness-reports-of-head-wound.jpg
&&&&&&&&
7. Dr. Charles Crenshaw - Physician at Parkland hospital ER. Said "The wound was the size of a baseball." Demonstrates with hand on the right rear of his head (see photo).
http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/Witness-reports-of-head-wound.jpg
&&&&&&&&
8. Nurse Audrey Bell - Parkland OR supervisor. Said "There was a massive wound at the back of his head." See [photo.
http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/Witness-reports-of-head-wound.jpg
&&&&&&&&
http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/Witness-reports-of-head-wound.jpg
&&&&&&&&
http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/Witness-reports-of-head-wound-640x481.jpg
&&&&&&&&
http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/Witness-reports-of-head-wound.jpg
&&&&&&&&
http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/Witness-reports-of-head-wound.jpg
&&&&&&&&
"Mr. SPECTER - You saw the condition of his what?
Miss BOWRON - The back of his head.
Mr. SPECTER - And what was that condition?
Miss BOWRON - Well, it was very bad---you know.
Mr. SPECTER - How many holes did you see?
Miss BOWRON - I just saw one large hole.
Mr. SPECTER - Did you see a small bullet hole beneath that one large hole?
Miss BOWRON - No, sir. "
&&&&&&&&
"...in the occipital region of the skull... Through the head wound, blood and brain were extruding... There was a large wound in the right occipitoparietal region, from which profuse bleeding was occurring... There was considerable loss of scalp and bone tissue. Both cerebral and cerebellar tissue were extruding from the wound." (WC--CE#392)
&&&&&&&&
15. Dr. RICHARD BROOKS DULANY - Parkland hospital, said: " The wound was on the back of his head. On the back side" They lifted up the head and "the whole back-side was gone." (Groden R., Livingston, H., High Treason. 1989 New York, Berkley Books, p.460.)
&&&&&&&&
16. Nurse Patricia ( HUTTON) Gustafson - Parkland ER staff. While helping with resuscitation efforts a physician asked her to apply a pressure dressing to the head wound, she observed, however, that, "This was no use, however, because of the massive opening in the back of the head."
http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/boh/parkland_boh/parkland_wound.htm
&&&&&&&&
17. Dr. MARION THOMAS JENKINS Parkland staff. WC testimony "...a great laceration on the right side of the head (temporal and occipital) (sic), causing a great defect in the skull plate so that there was herniation and laceration of great areas of the brain, even to the extent that the cerebellum had protruded from the wound." (WC--Exhibit #392)
&&&&&&&&
18. Dr. RONALD COY JONES Parkland staff. WC testimony "He had a large wound in the right posterior side of the head... There was a large defect in the back side of the head as the President lay on the cart with what appeared to be some brain hanging out of this wound with multiple pieces of skull noted next with the brain and with a tremendous amount of clot and blood." (WC-V6:53-54)
&&&&&&&&
19. Dr. MALCOLM PERRY Parkland staff said "I looked at the head wound briefly by leaning over the table and noticed that the parietal occipital head wound was largely avulsive and there was visible brain tissue in the macard and some cerebellum seen..." (HSCA-V7:302-interview with Purdy 1-11-78.
&&&&&&&&
20. Dr. PAUL PETERS Parkland staff - WC testimony - "...I noticed that there was a large defect in the occiput...It seemed to me that in the right occipitalparietal area that there was a large defect." (WC-V6:71)
&&&&&&&&
21. Tom Robinson mortician with Gawler's. At Bethesda after autopsy enumerating head wounds, he "described a large, open head wound in the back of the president's head, centrally located right between the ears, where the bone was gone, as well as some scalp.
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=711&relPageId=3
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=350&relPageId=4
&&&&&&&&
22. Clinton Hill - Secret Service presidential detail. As kill shot rang out Hill was on the limo and covering the Kennedys. His WC testimony said "As I lay over the top of the back seat I noticed a portion of the President's head on the right rear side was missing and he was bleeding profusely. Part of his brain was gone. I saw a part of his skull with hair on it lying in the seat."
&&&&&&&&
23. Joe O'Donnell photographer. Spoke with Knudsen about photos of autopsy and saw head wound photo. Said "The back of the head photograph(s) showed a hole in the back of the head, about 2" above the hairline, about the size of a grapefruit; the hole clearly penetrated the skull and was very deep. Another one of the photographs showed a hole in the forehead above the right eye which was a round wound about 3/8" in diameter which he interpreted as a gunshot."
"The second occasion occurred a few days later, when Knudsen showed him a second set of photograph(s) once again about 12 ea 5" by 7" B&W prints. On this second occasion, the back-of-head photograph(s) was intact, and showed no hole in the back of the head. Instead of a hole, he remembers seeing neatly combed hair which looked slightly wet, or damp in appearance."
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=753&relPageId=2
While the nutter contingent has done all it can to discredit O'Donnell, Knudsen's family (wife and 2 of his kids) went to the ARRB and made corroborating statements as to the faking of some autopsy photos.
&&&&&&&&
24. Dr. Charles Baxter - Professor Of Surgery; Director Of Emergency Room. - Said "The right temporal and occipital bones were missing and the brain was lying on the table".
http://www.jfklancer.com/ParklandDrs.html
&&&&&&&&
25. Dr. John Ebersole - Acting Chief of Radiology and head of the Radiology Division - Bethesda. Said "The back of the head was missing...".
WC testimony.
&&&&&&&&
26. Saundra Key Spencer - Navy E-6 Photographer's Mate at Naval Photographic Center at Anacostia. ARRB testimony summary. Spencer was given a set of autopsy photos that were completely diferent than the ones we are all familiar with. They were cleaned up and showed the correct BOH wound. Most of her work was for the White House. Said: "She remembers a wound in the back of the president's head Which she described as a "Blown out chunk" about 2 to 2.5 inches wide located in about the center of the back of the president's head about 3 or 5 inches above the hairline at the back of his head.
&&&&&&&&
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=719
"Q. ...That is the drawing you made earlier today showing the size of the wound, which, by my very rough estimate, the wound you drew seems much smaller.
A. Much smaller, yes, it's larger than that. I should have made that larger, but I'm not much of an artist.
&&&&&&&&
28. Dr. Gene Akin - Parkland hospital. WC testimony. Said "The back of the right occipital-parietal portion of his head was shattered, with brain substance extruding."
&&&&&&&&
29. Jacqueline Kennedy - Wife of JFK - held JFK in her arms and had very close view of head wounds. Testimony of the head wounds was suppressed in the WC. She said ""I was trying to hold his hair on. From the front there was nothing --
I suppose there must have been. But from the back you could see,
you know, you were trying to hold his hair on, and his skull on...". If she was trying to hold his hair and skull on at the back or his head, then it was a big wound.
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/09/jackie-kennedy-testimony.html
&&&&&&&&
Lifton: Was the main damage to the skull on the top, or in the back?
Stringer: In the back.
Lifton: ...High In the back, or lower In the back?
Stringer: Oh, the occipital part in the back there (garbled) up above the neck.
Lifton: …In other words, the main part of his head that was blasted away was in the occipital part of the skull?
Stringer: Yes. the back part. [Tape played for Stringer in 1996, p78]
http://www.history-matters.com/essays/jfkmed/TracesOfWitnessTampering/TracesOfWitnessTampering.htm
&&&&&&&&
31. Jan Gail Rudnicki - Assistant to Boswell at Bethesda on night of autopsy. Interviewed by Flanagan for HSCA. Said: "the back-right quadrant of the head was missing."
http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/boh/beth/beth.htm
&&&&&&&&
32. James Metzler - Hospital Corpsman at Bethesda, helped put body from shipping casket to table. HSCA interview 4/21/78. "Metzler recalled a wound situated in the "right side of the head behind the right ear, extending down to the center of the back of the skull."
http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/boh/beth/beth.htm
&&&&&&&&
"Mr. KELLERMAN. OK. This all transpired in the morgue of the Naval Hospital in Bethesda, sir. He had a large wound this size.
Mr. SPECTER. Indicating a circle with your finger of the diameter of 5 inches; would that be approximately correct?
Mr. KELLERMAN. Yes, circular; yes, on this part of the head.
Mr. SPECTER. Indicating the rear portion of the head.
Mr. KELLERMAN. Yes.
Mr. SPECTER. More to the right side of the head?
Mr. KELLERMAN. Right. This was removed.
Mr. SPECTER. When you say, "This was removed," what do you mean by this?
Mr. KELLERMAN. The skull part was removed."
&&&&&&&&
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dvbuv_eLISk
&&&&&&&&
35. Chester Boyers - Chief Petty Officer Bethesda - head of pathology dept. - helped during autopsy with various functions. Interviewed for HSCA. "Concerning the wounds of President Kennedy, Mr. Boyers stated that there was a large wound to the right side and towards the rear of the head."
http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/pdf/md62.pdf
&&&&&&&&
36. Joseph Hagan - Gawler's embalming team - did their work at Bethesda after autopsy. Hagan was in charge of the team. His ARRB interview said: "However, he did state that "all of this was open in the back", while holding his two hands about 6 inches away from his upper posterior skull, gesturing to the area between both of his own ears on the back of his head."
&&&&&&&&
37. J. Thornton Boswell - Bethesda prosector at autopsy - the record said "Q. When you say the left posterior, what do you mean?
A. The left occipital area, and that wound extends to the right frontal area." An awfully large wound!
&&&&&&&&
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5zxgYrc7-Zs
&&&&&&&&
39. Dr. Don Teal Curtis - Resident at Parkland hospital - Spoke to interviewer for Canyon News.com said: "Curtis also looked, and he told the audience “the posterior part of his head was blown out.”
Curtis, who had become very familiar with entrance and exit wounds during his trauma room work at Parkland, said that there was no doubt in his mind that the exit wound on the president’s head was at the back."
http://www.myplainview.com/canyon/news/article_f6555d0a-48c4-11e3-bbd1-001a4bcf887a.html
&&&&&&&&
A shocking NEW claim! Never heard this one before! And if it had been
raised before, I'm assuming there has been no response by sensible
researchers. So I guess that's it. Case closed. Pack up the tents and
move on to the next area of repetitious conspiracy talk. Consult Alex
Jones for other current topics!
mainframetech
2018-03-18 00:10:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ace Kefford
Post by mainframetech
This is the list of 'over 39' people that I have mentioned now and then that saw the 'large hole' in the BOH of JFK. I have gotten the information from only the most reputable places, like mostly from the WC, HSCA or ARRB.
The number '39' is there for each name below, but you can consider that the full number of 65 includes the people that witnessed the autopsy. The HSCA lied about them and said that they all saw a small bullet hole in the BOH, but that was found to be false and subsequent interviews of many of those people showed that they all agreed with those that saw the 'large hole' on the BOH. That puts the count way over 40, up to 65. The gallery people aren't named, but their positive statements were checked and put out by David W. Mantik, MD,PhD in "Murder in Dealey Plaza" his article "Paradoxes of the JFK Assassination" pages 197-198.
There are many references to a photo that has a montage of people on it. The reason is that the people use their hand to locate the 'gaping hole' in the BOH.
Chris/mainframetech
1. James Jenkins - lab assistant at Bethesda - testimony to HSCA
"Jenkins does not recall a small hole in the head as drawn on the descriptive sheet; he said that the big hole would have covered the area where the little hole was drawn on the sheet."
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=329&relPageId=12
&&&&&&&&
2. Dennis David 1st class petty officer - Bethesda. He was shown a film by LCDR Pitzer that showed the back of JFK's head while on the morgue table and before any cutting had begun. It was clearly the Bethesda morgue. He said it showed a 'gaping wound' in the back of the president's head and that the top of the head looked intact.
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=708&relPageId=4
&&&&&&&&
3. Robert L. Knudsen - photographer
"The back of the head photograph(s) showed a hole in the back of the head, about 2" above the hairline, about the size of a grapefruit; the hole clearly penetrated the skull and was very deep. Another one of the photographs showed a hole in the forehead above the right eye which was a round wound about 3/8" in diameter which he interpreted as a gunshot."
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/md231/html/md231_0002a.htm
&&&&&&&&
4. Ed Hoffman - deaf/mute watching from overpass. He said "The rear of his head was gone, blasted outward."
http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/Witness-reports-of-head-wound.jpg
&&&&&&&&
5. Dr. Robert McClelland - physician in ER at Parkland hospital. Said "It was in the right back part of his head--very large...a portion of the cerebellum fell out on the table while we were doing the tracheotomy."
http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/Witness-reports-of-head-wound.jpg
&&&&&&&&
6. Dr. Charles Carrico - Physician at Parkland ER. Said "There was a large--quite a large--defect about here (pointing) on his skull. See photo where he shows the area with his hand [BOH slightly right].
http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/Witness-reports-of-head-wound.jpg
&&&&&&&&
7. Dr. Charles Crenshaw - Physician at Parkland hospital ER. Said "The wound was the size of a baseball." Demonstrates with hand on the right rear of his head (see photo).
http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/Witness-reports-of-head-wound.jpg
&&&&&&&&
8. Nurse Audrey Bell - Parkland OR supervisor. Said "There was a massive wound at the back of his head." See [photo.
http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/Witness-reports-of-head-wound.jpg
&&&&&&&&
http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/Witness-reports-of-head-wound.jpg
&&&&&&&&
http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/Witness-reports-of-head-wound-640x481.jpg
&&&&&&&&
http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/Witness-reports-of-head-wound.jpg
&&&&&&&&
http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/Witness-reports-of-head-wound.jpg
&&&&&&&&
"Mr. SPECTER - You saw the condition of his what?
Miss BOWRON - The back of his head.
Mr. SPECTER - And what was that condition?
Miss BOWRON - Well, it was very bad---you know.
Mr. SPECTER - How many holes did you see?
Miss BOWRON - I just saw one large hole.
Mr. SPECTER - Did you see a small bullet hole beneath that one large hole?
Miss BOWRON - No, sir. "
&&&&&&&&
"...in the occipital region of the skull... Through the head wound, blood and brain were extruding... There was a large wound in the right occipitoparietal region, from which profuse bleeding was occurring... There was considerable loss of scalp and bone tissue. Both cerebral and cerebellar tissue were extruding from the wound." (WC--CE#392)
&&&&&&&&
15. Dr. RICHARD BROOKS DULANY - Parkland hospital, said: " The wound was on the back of his head. On the back side" They lifted up the head and "the whole back-side was gone." (Groden R., Livingston, H., High Treason. 1989 New York, Berkley Books, p.460.)
&&&&&&&&
16. Nurse Patricia ( HUTTON) Gustafson - Parkland ER staff. While helping with resuscitation efforts a physician asked her to apply a pressure dressing to the head wound, she observed, however, that, "This was no use, however, because of the massive opening in the back of the head."
http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/boh/parkland_boh/parkland_wound.htm
&&&&&&&&
17. Dr. MARION THOMAS JENKINS Parkland staff. WC testimony "...a great laceration on the right side of the head (temporal and occipital) (sic), causing a great defect in the skull plate so that there was herniation and laceration of great areas of the brain, even to the extent that the cerebellum had protruded from the wound." (WC--Exhibit #392)
&&&&&&&&
18. Dr. RONALD COY JONES Parkland staff. WC testimony "He had a large wound in the right posterior side of the head... There was a large defect in the back side of the head as the President lay on the cart with what appeared to be some brain hanging out of this wound with multiple pieces of skull noted next with the brain and with a tremendous amount of clot and blood." (WC-V6:53-54)
&&&&&&&&
19. Dr. MALCOLM PERRY Parkland staff said "I looked at the head wound briefly by leaning over the table and noticed that the parietal occipital head wound was largely avulsive and there was visible brain tissue in the macard and some cerebellum seen..." (HSCA-V7:302-interview with Purdy 1-11-78.
&&&&&&&&
20. Dr. PAUL PETERS Parkland staff - WC testimony - "...I noticed that there was a large defect in the occiput...It seemed to me that in the right occipitalparietal area that there was a large defect." (WC-V6:71)
&&&&&&&&
21. Tom Robinson mortician with Gawler's. At Bethesda after autopsy enumerating head wounds, he "described a large, open head wound in the back of the president's head, centrally located right between the ears, where the bone was gone, as well as some scalp.
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=711&relPageId=3
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=350&relPageId=4
&&&&&&&&
22. Clinton Hill - Secret Service presidential detail. As kill shot rang out Hill was on the limo and covering the Kennedys. His WC testimony said "As I lay over the top of the back seat I noticed a portion of the President's head on the right rear side was missing and he was bleeding profusely. Part of his brain was gone. I saw a part of his skull with hair on it lying in the seat."
&&&&&&&&
23. Joe O'Donnell photographer. Spoke with Knudsen about photos of autopsy and saw head wound photo. Said "The back of the head photograph(s) showed a hole in the back of the head, about 2" above the hairline, about the size of a grapefruit; the hole clearly penetrated the skull and was very deep. Another one of the photographs showed a hole in the forehead above the right eye which was a round wound about 3/8" in diameter which he interpreted as a gunshot."
"The second occasion occurred a few days later, when Knudsen showed him a second set of photograph(s) once again about 12 ea 5" by 7" B&W prints. On this second occasion, the back-of-head photograph(s) was intact, and showed no hole in the back of the head. Instead of a hole, he remembers seeing neatly combed hair which looked slightly wet, or damp in appearance."
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=753&relPageId=2
While the nutter contingent has done all it can to discredit O'Donnell, Knudsen's family (wife and 2 of his kids) went to the ARRB and made corroborating statements as to the faking of some autopsy photos.
&&&&&&&&
24. Dr. Charles Baxter - Professor Of Surgery; Director Of Emergency Room. - Said "The right temporal and occipital bones were missing and the brain was lying on the table".
http://www.jfklancer.com/ParklandDrs.html
&&&&&&&&
25. Dr. John Ebersole - Acting Chief of Radiology and head of the Radiology Division - Bethesda. Said "The back of the head was missing...".
WC testimony.
&&&&&&&&
26. Saundra Key Spencer - Navy E-6 Photographer's Mate at Naval Photographic Center at Anacostia. ARRB testimony summary. Spencer was given a set of autopsy photos that were completely diferent than the ones we are all familiar with. They were cleaned up and showed the correct BOH wound. Most of her work was for the White House. Said: "She remembers a wound in the back of the president's head Which she described as a "Blown out chunk" about 2 to 2.5 inches wide located in about the center of the back of the president's head about 3 or 5 inches above the hairline at the back of his head.
&&&&&&&&
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=719
"Q. ...That is the drawing you made earlier today showing the size of the wound, which, by my very rough estimate, the wound you drew seems much smaller.
A. Much smaller, yes, it's larger than that. I should have made that larger, but I'm not much of an artist.
&&&&&&&&
28. Dr. Gene Akin - Parkland hospital. WC testimony. Said "The back of the right occipital-parietal portion of his head was shattered, with brain substance extruding."
&&&&&&&&
29. Jacqueline Kennedy - Wife of JFK - held JFK in her arms and had very close view of head wounds. Testimony of the head wounds was suppressed in the WC. She said ""I was trying to hold his hair on. From the front there was nothing --
I suppose there must have been. But from the back you could see,
you know, you were trying to hold his hair on, and his skull on...". If she was trying to hold his hair and skull on at the back or his head, then it was a big wound.
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/09/jackie-kennedy-testimony.html
&&&&&&&&
Lifton: Was the main damage to the skull on the top, or in the back?
Stringer: In the back.
Lifton: ...High In the back, or lower In the back?
Stringer: Oh, the occipital part in the back there (garbled) up above the neck.
Lifton: …In other words, the main part of his head that was blasted away was in the occipital part of the skull?
Stringer: Yes. the back part. [Tape played for Stringer in 1996, p78]
http://www.history-matters.com/essays/jfkmed/TracesOfWitnessTampering/TracesOfWitnessTampering.htm
&&&&&&&&
31. Jan Gail Rudnicki - Assistant to Boswell at Bethesda on night of autopsy. Interviewed by Flanagan for HSCA. Said: "the back-right quadrant of the head was missing."
http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/boh/beth/beth.htm
&&&&&&&&
32. James Metzler - Hospital Corpsman at Bethesda, helped put body from shipping casket to table. HSCA interview 4/21/78. "Metzler recalled a wound situated in the "right side of the head behind the right ear, extending down to the center of the back of the skull."
http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/boh/beth/beth.htm
&&&&&&&&
"Mr. KELLERMAN. OK. This all transpired in the morgue of the Naval Hospital in Bethesda, sir. He had a large wound this size.
Mr. SPECTER. Indicating a circle with your finger of the diameter of 5 inches; would that be approximately correct?
Mr. KELLERMAN. Yes, circular; yes, on this part of the head.
Mr. SPECTER. Indicating the rear portion of the head.
Mr. KELLERMAN. Yes.
Mr. SPECTER. More to the right side of the head?
Mr. KELLERMAN. Right. This was removed.
Mr. SPECTER. When you say, "This was removed," what do you mean by this?
Mr. KELLERMAN. The skull part was removed."
&&&&&&&&
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dvbuv_eLISk
&&&&&&&&
35. Chester Boyers - Chief Petty Officer Bethesda - head of pathology dept. - helped during autopsy with various functions. Interviewed for HSCA. "Concerning the wounds of President Kennedy, Mr. Boyers stated that there was a large wound to the right side and towards the rear of the head."
http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/pdf/md62.pdf
&&&&&&&&
36. Joseph Hagan - Gawler's embalming team - did their work at Bethesda after autopsy. Hagan was in charge of the team. His ARRB interview said: "However, he did state that "all of this was open in the back", while holding his two hands about 6 inches away from his upper posterior skull, gesturing to the area between both of his own ears on the back of his head."
&&&&&&&&
37. J. Thornton Boswell - Bethesda prosector at autopsy - the record said "Q. When you say the left posterior, what do you mean?
A. The left occipital area, and that wound extends to the right frontal area." An awfully large wound!
&&&&&&&&
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5zxgYrc7-Zs
&&&&&&&&
39. Dr. Don Teal Curtis - Resident at Parkland hospital - Spoke to interviewer for Canyon News.com said: "Curtis also looked, and he told the audience “the posterior part of his head was blown out.”
Curtis, who had become very familiar with entrance and exit wounds during his trauma room work at Parkland, said that there was no doubt in his mind that the exit wound on the president’s head was at the back."
http://www.myplainview.com/canyon/news/article_f6555d0a-48c4-11e3-bbd1-001a4bcf887a.html
&&&&&&&&
A shocking NEW claim! Never heard this one before! And if it had been
raised before, I'm assuming there has been no response by sensible
researchers. So I guess that's it. Case closed. Pack up the tents and
move on to the next area of repetitious conspiracy talk. Consult Alex
Jones for other current topics!
A surprise? I've put it out a few times over the last couple of years.
I renew it now and then so it's easier to find, because I refer to it in
posts often. There are still many LN that just don't understand how they
were hoodwinked by the 'official' story. There is a bullet hole in one of
the 'leaked' autopsy photos in the right forehead/temple area, and it
matches the 'large hole' in the BOH spoken of in this list. Small going
in, large coming out. Typical bullet profile.

Chris
Anthony Marsh
2018-03-19 00:38:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ace Kefford
Post by mainframetech
This is the list of 'over 39' people that I have mentioned now and then that saw the 'large hole' in the BOH of JFK. I have gotten the information from only the most reputable places, like mostly from the WC, HSCA or ARRB.
The number '39' is there for each name below, but you can consider that the full number of 65 includes the people that witnessed the autopsy. The HSCA lied about them and said that they all saw a small bullet hole in the BOH, but that was found to be false and subsequent interviews of many of those people showed that they all agreed with those that saw the 'large hole' on the BOH. That puts the count way over 40, up to 65. The gallery people aren't named, but their positive statements were checked and put out by David W. Mantik, MD,PhD in "Murder in Dealey Plaza" his article "Paradoxes of the JFK Assassination" pages 197-198.
There are many references to a photo that has a montage of people on it. The reason is that the people use their hand to locate the 'gaping hole' in the BOH.
Chris/mainframetech
1. James Jenkins - lab assistant at Bethesda - testimony to HSCA
"Jenkins does not recall a small hole in the head as drawn on the descriptive sheet; he said that the big hole would have covered the area where the little hole was drawn on the sheet."
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=329&relPageId=12
&&&&&&&&
2. Dennis David 1st class petty officer - Bethesda. He was shown a film by LCDR Pitzer that showed the back of JFK's head while on the morgue table and before any cutting had begun. It was clearly the Bethesda morgue. He said it showed a 'gaping wound' in the back of the president's head and that the top of the head looked intact.
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=708&relPageId=4
&&&&&&&&
3. Robert L. Knudsen - photographer
"The back of the head photograph(s) showed a hole in the back of the head, about 2" above the hairline, about the size of a grapefruit; the hole clearly penetrated the skull and was very deep. Another one of the photographs showed a hole in the forehead above the right eye which was a round wound about 3/8" in diameter which he interpreted as a gunshot."
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/md231/html/md231_0002a.htm
&&&&&&&&
4. Ed Hoffman - deaf/mute watching from overpass. He said "The rear of his head was gone, blasted outward."
http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/Witness-reports-of-head-wound.jpg
&&&&&&&&
5. Dr. Robert McClelland - physician in ER at Parkland hospital. Said "It was in the right back part of his head--very large...a portion of the cerebellum fell out on the table while we were doing the tracheotomy."
http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/Witness-reports-of-head-wound.jpg
&&&&&&&&
6. Dr. Charles Carrico - Physician at Parkland ER. Said "There was a large--quite a large--defect about here (pointing) on his skull. See photo where he shows the area with his hand [BOH slightly right].
http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/Witness-reports-of-head-wound.jpg
&&&&&&&&
7. Dr. Charles Crenshaw - Physician at Parkland hospital ER. Said "The wound was the size of a baseball." Demonstrates with hand on the right rear of his head (see photo).
http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/Witness-reports-of-head-wound.jpg
&&&&&&&&
8. Nurse Audrey Bell - Parkland OR supervisor. Said "There was a massive wound at the back of his head." See [photo.
http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/Witness-reports-of-head-wound.jpg
&&&&&&&&
http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/Witness-reports-of-head-wound.jpg
&&&&&&&&
http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/Witness-reports-of-head-wound-640x481.jpg
&&&&&&&&
http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/Witness-reports-of-head-wound.jpg
&&&&&&&&
http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/Witness-reports-of-head-wound.jpg
&&&&&&&&
"Mr. SPECTER - You saw the condition of his what?
Miss BOWRON - The back of his head.
Mr. SPECTER - And what was that condition?
Miss BOWRON - Well, it was very bad---you know.
Mr. SPECTER - How many holes did you see?
Miss BOWRON - I just saw one large hole.
Mr. SPECTER - Did you see a small bullet hole beneath that one large hole?
Miss BOWRON - No, sir. "
&&&&&&&&
"...in the occipital region of the skull... Through the head wound, blood and brain were extruding... There was a large wound in the right occipitoparietal region, from which profuse bleeding was occurring... There was considerable loss of scalp and bone tissue. Both cerebral and cerebellar tissue were extruding from the wound." (WC--CE#392)
&&&&&&&&
15. Dr. RICHARD BROOKS DULANY - Parkland hospital, said: " The wound was on the back of his head. On the back side" They lifted up the head and "the whole back-side was gone." (Groden R., Livingston, H., High Treason. 1989 New York, Berkley Books, p.460.)
&&&&&&&&
16. Nurse Patricia ( HUTTON) Gustafson - Parkland ER staff. While helping with resuscitation efforts a physician asked her to apply a pressure dressing to the head wound, she observed, however, that, "This was no use, however, because of the massive opening in the back of the head."
http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/boh/parkland_boh/parkland_wound.htm
&&&&&&&&
17. Dr. MARION THOMAS JENKINS Parkland staff. WC testimony "...a great laceration on the right side of the head (temporal and occipital) (sic), causing a great defect in the skull plate so that there was herniation and laceration of great areas of the brain, even to the extent that the cerebellum had protruded from the wound." (WC--Exhibit #392)
&&&&&&&&
18. Dr. RONALD COY JONES Parkland staff. WC testimony "He had a large wound in the right posterior side of the head... There was a large defect in the back side of the head as the President lay on the cart with what appeared to be some brain hanging out of this wound with multiple pieces of skull noted next with the brain and with a tremendous amount of clot and blood." (WC-V6:53-54)
&&&&&&&&
19. Dr. MALCOLM PERRY Parkland staff said "I looked at the head wound briefly by leaning over the table and noticed that the parietal occipital head wound was largely avulsive and there was visible brain tissue in the macard and some cerebellum seen..." (HSCA-V7:302-interview with Purdy 1-11-78.
&&&&&&&&
20. Dr. PAUL PETERS Parkland staff - WC testimony - "...I noticed that there was a large defect in the occiput...It seemed to me that in the right occipitalparietal area that there was a large defect." (WC-V6:71)
&&&&&&&&
21. Tom Robinson mortician with Gawler's. At Bethesda after autopsy enumerating head wounds, he "described a large, open head wound in the back of the president's head, centrally located right between the ears, where the bone was gone, as well as some scalp.
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=711&relPageId=3
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=350&relPageId=4
&&&&&&&&
22. Clinton Hill - Secret Service presidential detail. As kill shot rang out Hill was on the limo and covering the Kennedys. His WC testimony said "As I lay over the top of the back seat I noticed a portion of the President's head on the right rear side was missing and he was bleeding profusely. Part of his brain was gone. I saw a part of his skull with hair on it lying in the seat."
&&&&&&&&
23. Joe O'Donnell photographer. Spoke with Knudsen about photos of autopsy and saw head wound photo. Said "The back of the head photograph(s) showed a hole in the back of the head, about 2" above the hairline, about the size of a grapefruit; the hole clearly penetrated the skull and was very deep. Another one of the photographs showed a hole in the forehead above the right eye which was a round wound about 3/8" in diameter which he interpreted as a gunshot."
"The second occasion occurred a few days later, when Knudsen showed him a second set of photograph(s) once again about 12 ea 5" by 7" B&W prints. On this second occasion, the back-of-head photograph(s) was intact, and showed no hole in the back of the head. Instead of a hole, he remembers seeing neatly combed hair which looked slightly wet, or damp in appearance."
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=753&relPageId=2
While the nutter contingent has done all it can to discredit O'Donnell, Knudsen's family (wife and 2 of his kids) went to the ARRB and made corroborating statements as to the faking of some autopsy photos.
&&&&&&&&
24. Dr. Charles Baxter - Professor Of Surgery; Director Of Emergency Room. - Said "The right temporal and occipital bones were missing and the brain was lying on the table".
http://www.jfklancer.com/ParklandDrs.html
&&&&&&&&
25. Dr. John Ebersole - Acting Chief of Radiology and head of the Radiology Division - Bethesda. Said "The back of the head was missing...".
WC testimony.
&&&&&&&&
26. Saundra Key Spencer - Navy E-6 Photographer's Mate at Naval Photographic Center at Anacostia. ARRB testimony summary. Spencer was given a set of autopsy photos that were completely diferent than the ones we are all familiar with. They were cleaned up and showed the correct BOH wound. Most of her work was for the White House. Said: "She remembers a wound in the back of the president's head Which she described as a "Blown out chunk" about 2 to 2.5 inches wide located in about the center of the back of the president's head about 3 or 5 inches above the hairline at the back of his head.
&&&&&&&&
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=719
"Q. ...That is the drawing you made earlier today showing the size of the wound, which, by my very rough estimate, the wound you drew seems much smaller.
A. Much smaller, yes, it's larger than that. I should have made that larger, but I'm not much of an artist.
&&&&&&&&
28. Dr. Gene Akin - Parkland hospital. WC testimony. Said "The back of the right occipital-parietal portion of his head was shattered, with brain substance extruding."
&&&&&&&&
29. Jacqueline Kennedy - Wife of JFK - held JFK in her arms and had very close view of head wounds. Testimony of the head wounds was suppressed in the WC. She said ""I was trying to hold his hair on. From the front there was nothing --
I suppose there must have been. But from the back you could see,
you know, you were trying to hold his hair on, and his skull on...". If she was trying to hold his hair and skull on at the back or his head, then it was a big wound.
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/09/jackie-kennedy-testimony.html
&&&&&&&&
Lifton: Was the main damage to the skull on the top, or in the back?
Stringer: In the back.
Lifton: ...High In the back, or lower In the back?
Stringer: Oh, the occipital part in the back there (garbled) up above the neck.
Lifton: …In other words, the main part of his head that was blasted away was in the occipital part of the skull?
Stringer: Yes. the back part. [Tape played for Stringer in 1996, p78]
http://www.history-matters.com/essays/jfkmed/TracesOfWitnessTampering/TracesOfWitnessTampering.htm
&&&&&&&&
31. Jan Gail Rudnicki - Assistant to Boswell at Bethesda on night of autopsy. Interviewed by Flanagan for HSCA. Said: "the back-right quadrant of the head was missing."
http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/boh/beth/beth.htm
&&&&&&&&
32. James Metzler - Hospital Corpsman at Bethesda, helped put body from shipping casket to table. HSCA interview 4/21/78. "Metzler recalled a wound situated in the "right side of the head behind the right ear, extending down to the center of the back of the skull."
http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/boh/beth/beth.htm
&&&&&&&&
"Mr. KELLERMAN. OK. This all transpired in the morgue of the Naval Hospital in Bethesda, sir. He had a large wound this size.
Mr. SPECTER. Indicating a circle with your finger of the diameter of 5 inches; would that be approximately correct?
Mr. KELLERMAN. Yes, circular; yes, on this part of the head.
Mr. SPECTER. Indicating the rear portion of the head.
Mr. KELLERMAN. Yes.
Mr. SPECTER. More to the right side of the head?
Mr. KELLERMAN. Right. This was removed.
Mr. SPECTER. When you say, "This was removed," what do you mean by this?
Mr. KELLERMAN. The skull part was removed."
&&&&&&&&
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dvbuv_eLISk
&&&&&&&&
35. Chester Boyers - Chief Petty Officer Bethesda - head of pathology dept. - helped during autopsy with various functions. Interviewed for HSCA. "Concerning the wounds of President Kennedy, Mr. Boyers stated that there was a large wound to the right side and towards the rear of the head."
http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/pdf/md62.pdf
&&&&&&&&
36. Joseph Hagan - Gawler's embalming team - did their work at Bethesda after autopsy. Hagan was in charge of the team. His ARRB interview said: "However, he did state that "all of this was open in the back", while holding his two hands about 6 inches away from his upper posterior skull, gesturing to the area between both of his own ears on the back of his head."
&&&&&&&&
37. J. Thornton Boswell - Bethesda prosector at autopsy - the record said "Q. When you say the left posterior, what do you mean?
A. The left occipital area, and that wound extends to the right frontal area." An awfully large wound!
&&&&&&&&
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5zxgYrc7-Zs
&&&&&&&&
39. Dr. Don Teal Curtis - Resident at Parkland hospital - Spoke to interviewer for Canyon News.com said: "Curtis also looked, and he told the audience “the posterior part of his head was blown out.”
Curtis, who had become very familiar with entrance and exit wounds during his trauma room work at Parkland, said that there was no doubt in his mind that the exit wound on the president’s head was at the back."
http://www.myplainview.com/canyon/news/article_f6555d0a-48c4-11e3-bbd1-001a4bcf887a.html
&&&&&&&&
A shocking NEW claim! Never heard this one before! And if it had been
raised before, I'm assuming there has been no response by sensible
researchers. So I guess that's it. Case closed. Pack up the tents and
move on to the next area of repetitious conspiracy talk. Consult Alex
Jones for other current topics!
They could not SEE the back of the head. It was resting on the table.
claviger
2018-03-17 00:49:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
This list of 39 witnesses has been thoroughly debugged and debunked. The
fact you close your eyes tight and put your hands over your ears while
yelling "I can't see you! I can't hear you!" several times in a row
doesn't change the fact you made several big bloopers.
mainframetech
2018-03-18 00:09:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by claviger
This list of 39 witnesses has been thoroughly debugged and debunked. The
fact you close your eyes tight and put your hands over your ears while
yelling "I can't see you! I can't hear you!" several times in a row
doesn't change the fact you made several big bloopers.
Nothing of the kind, and you continue to run away from my challenge to
pick out an example from this list and prove it doesn't belong there.
The blooper here is your constant LN attitude of closed mind ignoring any
proof that comes to you. The challenge continues, are you chicken to take
a chance? The last time you tried, you failed miserably, but still
pretend part of the list is wrong.

Chris
Steve BH
2018-03-21 18:28:12 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
This list of 39 witnesses has been thoroughly debugged and debunked. The
fact you close your eyes tight and put your hands over your ears while
yelling "I can't see you! I can't hear you!" several times in a row
doesn't change the fact you made several big bloopers.
Nothing of the kind, and you continue to run away from my challenge to
pick out an example from this list and prove it doesn't belong there.
The blooper here is your constant LN attitude of closed mind ignoring any
proof that comes to you. The challenge continues, are you chicken to take
a chance? The last time you tried, you failed miserably, but still
pretend part of the list is wrong.
Chris
The challenge is you have no TIME to get a second casket onto the plane,
and JFK's body out of his bronze monster, in the very short time just
before the swearing-in.

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/b_snatch.htm

Too many people have to be in on this plot, and the rest of them have to
be elsewhere and not notice anything on board this airplane, jammed with
two groups of people who didn't like each other. JFK's group were back in
the tail, with his body. It's them you're up against. McHugh didn't go to
the swearing in.

Dave Powers (who had known JFK since before he ran for office in 1947):

"the coffin was never unattended. Lifton's story is the biggest pack of
malakey I ever heard in my life. I never had my hands or eyes off of it
during the period he says it was unattended, and when Jackie got up to go
to her stateroom where Lyndon Johnson was, Kenney O'Donnell went with her,
but we stayed right there with the coffin and never let go of it. In fact
several of us were with it through the whole trip, all the way to Bethesda
Naval Hospital. It couldn't have happened the way that fellow said. Not
even thirty seconds. I never left it. There was a general watch. We
organized it."

You can have the secret service in on it, but not a man who has known JFK
forever.

Powers was known for his eidetic memory. JFK never lost a campaign and
Powers is one reason why. You should read "Johnny We Hardly Knew Ye" by
Powers and O'Donnell t get a feel for these folks. They remind of the case
The West Wing. You're getting nothing past them with JFK's.

As for McHugh, he goes up and down the length of the plane no less than 5
times before the swearing in, to see the pilot. When's he going to show up
in the tail, all that time? You don't know. If you're a conspirator body
switcher, y ou have to deal with him too.

Give it up.
mainframetech
2018-03-22 12:56:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Steve BH
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
This list of 39 witnesses has been thoroughly debugged and debunked. The
fact you close your eyes tight and put your hands over your ears while
yelling "I can't see you! I can't hear you!" several times in a row
doesn't change the fact you made several big bloopers.
Nothing of the kind, and you continue to run away from my challenge to
pick out an example from this list and prove it doesn't belong there.
The blooper here is your constant LN attitude of closed mind ignoring any
proof that comes to you. The challenge continues, are you chicken to take
a chance? The last time you tried, you failed miserably, but still
pretend part of the list is wrong.
Chris
The challenge is you have no TIME to get a second casket onto the plane,
and JFK's body out of his bronze monster, in the very short time just
before the swearing-in.
Actually, if they call ahead for someone at the airport, who was
watching the AF1 plane, they might be able to rustle up a military casket
and get it aboard while the SS agents are fighting with The Dallas Medical
Examiner and coming to the airport. And as I've suggested, any of the
agents or the friends of the family of JFK would be glad to help switch
the body from one to the other casket to save poor Jackie from the press.
Then when the Bronze casket was removed with the scissors lift, when
everyone followed that, the shipping casket could be brought out and put
in a helicopter and flown to Bethesda. What ever method was used, the
body came out of the SHIPPING casket and there are witnesses that saw
that. So they HAD to find a way to make the switch.

Remember, we're talking about the FIRST arrival of the shipping casket,
seen by a number of enlisted men who helped bring it in, and put the body
on the table #1. There was a second arrival that was the Bronze casket,
and we don't know if the agents that came with it lied to cover up their
playing musical caskets with the body. If so, that would be the arrival
where they said they never left the casket (I can prove they did) and the
suckers believed them.

Here's a comment from James Sibert, one of the 2 FBI agents that swore
they never left the casket:

""A: Yes. I might mention - on this Exhibit
157 - that when we were in that autopsy room. One
of us was present all the time, with the exception
of when photographs and radiology work and X-rays
were done.
Of course, you can see the reason for
that. We didn’t have lead jackets to wear, like a
doctor does working in that environment. But,
otherwise, one of us was always present.""

From Sibert ARRB testimony page 25-26.


So they lied that they were always in the presence of the casket. What
other times did they leave it? We don't know and probably will never
know. The same applies to all of those that promised they never left the
casket.


.
Post by Steve BH
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/b_snatch.htm
Too many people have to be in on this plot, and the rest of them have to
be elsewhere and not notice anything on board this airplane, jammed with
two groups of people who didn't like each other. JFK's group were back in
the tail, with his body. It's them you're up against. McHugh didn't go to
the swearing in.
Do you have some cite and link that says they were all in the back of
the plane? I know they were all up front for the swearing in. And if the
casket was already aboard, then one or 2 men could switch the body.
We're not talking about an army. That baloney was tried but flopped.
And the possibility still exists that 1 or 2 agents agreed to help move
the body.
Post by Steve BH
"the coffin was never unattended. Lifton's story is the biggest pack of
malakey I ever heard in my life. I never had my hands or eyes off of it
during the period he says it was unattended, and when Jackie got up to go
to her stateroom where Lyndon Johnson was, Kenney O'Donnell went with her,
but we stayed right there with the coffin and never let go of it. In fact
several of us were with it through the whole trip, all the way to Bethesda
Naval Hospital. It couldn't have happened the way that fellow said. Not
even thirty seconds. I never left it. There was a general watch. We
organized it."
You can have the secret service in on it, but not a man who has known JFK
forever.
You missed the point I made earlier. If they were asked, friends of
JFK or the agents that came along would gladly help move the body to the
other casket and lie about it later so the public wouldn't know they had
played musical caskets with the body of the POTUS. The excuse was that
the press would follow the wrong casket and Jackie would be free of them
for some period of time in her grief. Again, the body came out of the
SHIPPING casket and there are witnesses to that, so they switched the
caskets. They had to get the body to Bethesda as long before the other
casket as possible to give as much time as they could to the pathologists
to do their work on the body BEFORE the autopsy.
Post by Steve BH
Powers was known for his eidetic memory. JFK never lost a campaign and
Powers is one reason why. You should read "Johnny We Hardly Knew Ye" by
Powers and O'Donnell t get a feel for these folks. They remind of the case
The West Wing. You're getting nothing past them with JFK's.
As for McHugh, he goes up and down the length of the plane no less than 5
times before the swearing in, to see the pilot. When's he going to show up
in the tail, all that time? You don't know. If you're a conspirator body
switcher, y ou have to deal with him too.
Give it up.
Of course, you again have forgotten that the family friends and the
agents would happily help move the body if asked to save Jackie dealing
with the press in her grief.

Please try to pay attention to the facts above, and where you doubt it,
make an argument. It can all be answered.

Chris
Anthony Marsh
2018-03-23 04:31:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by Steve BH
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
This list of 39 witnesses has been thoroughly debugged and debunked. The
fact you close your eyes tight and put your hands over your ears while
yelling "I can't see you! I can't hear you!" several times in a row
doesn't change the fact you made several big bloopers.
Nothing of the kind, and you continue to run away from my challenge to
pick out an example from this list and prove it doesn't belong there.
The blooper here is your constant LN attitude of closed mind ignoring any
proof that comes to you. The challenge continues, are you chicken to take
a chance? The last time you tried, you failed miserably, but still
pretend part of the list is wrong.
Chris
The challenge is you have no TIME to get a second casket onto the plane,
and JFK's body out of his bronze monster, in the very short time just
before the swearing-in.
Actually, if they call ahead for someone at the airport, who was
watching the AF1 plane, they might be able to rustle up a military casket
and get it aboard while the SS agents are fighting with The Dallas Medical
Examiner and coming to the airport. And as I've suggested, any of the
agents or the friends of the family of JFK would be glad to help switch
the body from one to the other casket to save poor Jackie from the press.
Then when the Bronze casket was removed with the scissors lift, when
everyone followed that, the shipping casket could be brought out and put
in a helicopter and flown to Bethesda. What ever method was used, the
body came out of the SHIPPING casket and there are witnesses that saw
that. So they HAD to find a way to make the switch.
Remember, we're talking about the FIRST arrival of the shipping casket,
seen by a number of enlisted men who helped bring it in, and put the body
on the table #1. There was a second arrival that was the Bronze casket,
and we don't know if the agents that came with it lied to cover up their
playing musical caskets with the body. If so, that would be the arrival
where they said they never left the casket (I can prove they did) and the
suckers believed them.
Here's a comment from James Sibert, one of the 2 FBI agents that swore
""A: Yes. I might mention - on this Exhibit
157 - that when we were in that autopsy room. One
of us was present all the time, with the exception
of when photographs and radiology work and X-rays
were done.
Of course, you can see the reason for
that. We didn???t have lead jackets to wear, like a
doctor does working in that environment. But,
otherwise, one of us was always present.""
From Sibert ARRB testimony page 25-26.
So they lied that they were always in the presence of the casket. What
other times did they leave it? We don't know and probably will never
know. The same applies to all of those that promised they never left the
casket.
.
Post by Steve BH
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/b_snatch.htm
Too many people have to be in on this plot, and the rest of them have to
be elsewhere and not notice anything on board this airplane, jammed with
two groups of people who didn't like each other. JFK's group were back in
the tail, with his body. It's them you're up against. McHugh didn't go to
the swearing in.
Do you have some cite and link that says they were all in the back of
the plane? I know they were all up front for the swearing in. And if the
casket was already aboard, then one or 2 men could switch the body.
We're not talking about an army. That baloney was tried but flopped.
And the possibility still exists that 1 or 2 agents agreed to help move
the body.
Post by Steve BH
"the coffin was never unattended. Lifton's story is the biggest pack of
malakey I ever heard in my life. I never had my hands or eyes off of it
during the period he says it was unattended, and when Jackie got up to go
to her stateroom where Lyndon Johnson was, Kenney O'Donnell went with her,
but we stayed right there with the coffin and never let go of it. In fact
several of us were with it through the whole trip, all the way to Bethesda
Naval Hospital. It couldn't have happened the way that fellow said. Not
even thirty seconds. I never left it. There was a general watch. We
organized it."
You can have the secret service in on it, but not a man who has known JFK
forever.
You missed the point I made earlier. If they were asked, friends of
JFK or the agents that came along would gladly help move the body to the
other casket and lie about it later so the public wouldn't know they had
played musical caskets with the body of the POTUS. The excuse was that
the press would follow the wrong casket and Jackie would be free of them
for some period of time in her grief. Again, the body came out of the
SHIPPING casket and there are witnesses to that, so they switched the
caskets. They had to get the body to Bethesda as long before the other
casket as possible to give as much time as they could to the pathologists
to do their work on the body BEFORE the autopsy.
Post by Steve BH
Powers was known for his eidetic memory. JFK never lost a campaign and
Powers is one reason why. You should read "Johnny We Hardly Knew Ye" by
Powers and O'Donnell t get a feel for these folks. They remind of the case
The West Wing. You're getting nothing past them with JFK's.
As for McHugh, he goes up and down the length of the plane no less than 5
times before the swearing in, to see the pilot. When's he going to show up
in the tail, all that time? You don't know. If you're a conspirator body
switcher, y ou have to deal with him too.
Give it up.
Of course, you again have forgotten that the family friends and the
agents would happily help move the body if asked to save Jackie dealing
with the press in her grief.
WTF? Now you say the body theft and alteration was only to save Jackie
dealing with the press in her grief? That makes absolutely no sense. You
are grasping at straws. SHOW me the press trying to harass Jackie. Where?
On the plane? In the ambulance? At Bethesda? Tell me the names of the
reporters harassing Jackie. How low can you sink?
Post by mainframetech
Please try to pay attention to the facts above, and where you doubt it,
make an argument. It can all be answered.
Chris
Steve M. Galbraith
2018-03-23 04:29:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Steve BH
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
This list of 39 witnesses has been thoroughly debugged and debunked. The
fact you close your eyes tight and put your hands over your ears while
yelling "I can't see you! I can't hear you!" several times in a row
doesn't change the fact you made several big bloopers.
Nothing of the kind, and you continue to run away from my challenge to
pick out an example from this list and prove it doesn't belong there.
The blooper here is your constant LN attitude of closed mind ignoring any
proof that comes to you. The challenge continues, are you chicken to take
a chance? The last time you tried, you failed miserably, but still
pretend part of the list is wrong.
Chris
The challenge is you have no TIME to get a second casket onto the plane,
and JFK's body out of his bronze monster, in the very short time just
before the swearing-in.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/b_snatch.htm
Too many people have to be in on this plot, and the rest of them have to
be elsewhere and not notice anything on board this airplane, jammed with
two groups of people who didn't like each other. JFK's group were back in
the tail, with his body. It's them you're up against. McHugh didn't go to
the swearing in.
"the coffin was never unattended. Lifton's story is the biggest pack of
malakey I ever heard in my life. I never had my hands or eyes off of it
during the period he says it was unattended, and when Jackie got up to go
to her stateroom where Lyndon Johnson was, Kenney O'Donnell went with her,
but we stayed right there with the coffin and never let go of it. In fact
several of us were with it through the whole trip, all the way to Bethesda
Naval Hospital. It couldn't have happened the way that fellow said. Not
even thirty seconds. I never left it. There was a general watch. We
organized it."
You can have the secret service in on it, but not a man who has known JFK
forever.
Powers was known for his eidetic memory. JFK never lost a campaign and
Powers is one reason why. You should read "Johnny We Hardly Knew Ye" by
Powers and O'Donnell t get a feel for these folks. They remind of the case
The West Wing. You're getting nothing past them with JFK's.
As for McHugh, he goes up and down the length of the plane no less than 5
times before the swearing in, to see the pilot. When's he going to show up
in the tail, all that time? You don't know. If you're a conspirator body
switcher, y ou have to deal with him too.
Give it up.
See what's happening? You're trying to disprove - to conspiracy fanatics -
that the casket switch didn't occur.

We all know how difficult it is to prove a negative; it's impossible to
prove a negative to fanatics.

When you point out it's impossible to do "A" and "B" and "C" you are
pointing to the limits of human actions. But to conspiracy fanatics there
are no limits. "They" can do anything.

What is their evidence that "they" can do anything? The fact - for them -
that "they" did it. It is a circular argument: "they" can do "A" because
they did. It doesn't matter that you show that logistically they couldn't.
It doesn't matter that you point out that forensic pathologists (Wecht for
example) say you can't alter the wounds in the manner they claim. For the
conspiracy fanatics all of the evidence for them is that "they" did it.
mainframetech
2018-03-24 00:19:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Post by Steve BH
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
This list of 39 witnesses has been thoroughly debugged and debunked. The
fact you close your eyes tight and put your hands over your ears while
yelling "I can't see you! I can't hear you!" several times in a row
doesn't change the fact you made several big bloopers.
Nothing of the kind, and you continue to run away from my challenge to
pick out an example from this list and prove it doesn't belong there.
The blooper here is your constant LN attitude of closed mind ignoring any
proof that comes to you. The challenge continues, are you chicken to take
a chance? The last time you tried, you failed miserably, but still
pretend part of the list is wrong.
Chris
The challenge is you have no TIME to get a second casket onto the plane,
and JFK's body out of his bronze monster, in the very short time just
before the swearing-in.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/b_snatch.htm
Too many people have to be in on this plot, and the rest of them have to
be elsewhere and not notice anything on board this airplane, jammed with
two groups of people who didn't like each other. JFK's group were back in
the tail, with his body. It's them you're up against. McHugh didn't go to
the swearing in.
"the coffin was never unattended. Lifton's story is the biggest pack of
malakey I ever heard in my life. I never had my hands or eyes off of it
during the period he says it was unattended, and when Jackie got up to go
to her stateroom where Lyndon Johnson was, Kenney O'Donnell went with her,
but we stayed right there with the coffin and never let go of it. In fact
several of us were with it through the whole trip, all the way to Bethesda
Naval Hospital. It couldn't have happened the way that fellow said. Not
even thirty seconds. I never left it. There was a general watch. We
organized it."
You can have the secret service in on it, but not a man who has known JFK
forever.
Powers was known for his eidetic memory. JFK never lost a campaign and
Powers is one reason why. You should read "Johnny We Hardly Knew Ye" by
Powers and O'Donnell t get a feel for these folks. They remind of the case
The West Wing. You're getting nothing past them with JFK's.
As for McHugh, he goes up and down the length of the plane no less than 5
times before the swearing in, to see the pilot. When's he going to show up
in the tail, all that time? You don't know. If you're a conspirator body
switcher, y ou have to deal with him too.
Give it up.
See what's happening? You're trying to disprove - to conspiracy fanatics -
that the casket switch didn't occur.
We all know how difficult it is to prove a negative; it's impossible to
prove a negative to fanatics.
When you point out it's impossible to do "A" and "B" and "C" you are
pointing to the limits of human actions. But to conspiracy fanatics there
are no limits. "They" can do anything.
What is their evidence that "they" can do anything? The fact - for them -
that "they" did it. It is a circular argument: "they" can do "A" because
they did. It doesn't matter that you show that logistically they couldn't.
It doesn't matter that you point out that forensic pathologists (Wecht for
example) say you can't alter the wounds in the manner they claim. For the
conspiracy fanatics all of the evidence for them is that "they" did it.
How strange can people get? What was that quote from Sherlock Holmes?
'When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however
improbable, must be the truth? There are witnesses that the body of JFK
came out of the SHIPPING casket, and not just one witness, so there is
corroboration. What kind of insanity is it to face a fact and insist it
isn't there while looking right at it? As well, much following that fact
proves there was a necessity to get the body to Bethesda sooner than the
decoy ambulance, and the ONLY possible way was to use a helicopter, which
was suggested earlier among the SS agents on AF1. IT HAPPENED! However
improbable, it happened.

Chris
bigdog
2018-03-25 00:14:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Post by Steve BH
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
This list of 39 witnesses has been thoroughly debugged and debunked. The
fact you close your eyes tight and put your hands over your ears while
yelling "I can't see you! I can't hear you!" several times in a row
doesn't change the fact you made several big bloopers.
Nothing of the kind, and you continue to run away from my challenge to
pick out an example from this list and prove it doesn't belong there.
The blooper here is your constant LN attitude of closed mind ignoring any
proof that comes to you. The challenge continues, are you chicken to take
a chance? The last time you tried, you failed miserably, but still
pretend part of the list is wrong.
Chris
The challenge is you have no TIME to get a second casket onto the plane,
and JFK's body out of his bronze monster, in the very short time just
before the swearing-in.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/b_snatch.htm
Too many people have to be in on this plot, and the rest of them have to
be elsewhere and not notice anything on board this airplane, jammed with
two groups of people who didn't like each other. JFK's group were back in
the tail, with his body. It's them you're up against. McHugh didn't go to
the swearing in.
"the coffin was never unattended. Lifton's story is the biggest pack of
malakey I ever heard in my life. I never had my hands or eyes off of it
during the period he says it was unattended, and when Jackie got up to go
to her stateroom where Lyndon Johnson was, Kenney O'Donnell went with her,
but we stayed right there with the coffin and never let go of it. In fact
several of us were with it through the whole trip, all the way to Bethesda
Naval Hospital. It couldn't have happened the way that fellow said. Not
even thirty seconds. I never left it. There was a general watch. We
organized it."
You can have the secret service in on it, but not a man who has known JFK
forever.
Powers was known for his eidetic memory. JFK never lost a campaign and
Powers is one reason why. You should read "Johnny We Hardly Knew Ye" by
Powers and O'Donnell t get a feel for these folks. They remind of the case
The West Wing. You're getting nothing past them with JFK's.
As for McHugh, he goes up and down the length of the plane no less than 5
times before the swearing in, to see the pilot. When's he going to show up
in the tail, all that time? You don't know. If you're a conspirator body
switcher, y ou have to deal with him too.
Give it up.
See what's happening? You're trying to disprove - to conspiracy fanatics -
that the casket switch didn't occur.
We all know how difficult it is to prove a negative; it's impossible to
prove a negative to fanatics.
When you point out it's impossible to do "A" and "B" and "C" you are
pointing to the limits of human actions. But to conspiracy fanatics there
are no limits. "They" can do anything.
What is their evidence that "they" can do anything? The fact - for them -
that "they" did it. It is a circular argument: "they" can do "A" because
they did. It doesn't matter that you show that logistically they couldn't.
It doesn't matter that you point out that forensic pathologists (Wecht for
example) say you can't alter the wounds in the manner they claim. For the
conspiracy fanatics all of the evidence for them is that "they" did it.
How strange can people get? What was that quote from Sherlock Holmes?
'When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however
improbable, must be the truth? There are witnesses that the body of JFK
came out of the SHIPPING casket,
There are other witnesses who said it came out of the ornamental casket
but of course you ignore them because they don't fit your theory.
Post by mainframetech
and not just one witness, so there is
corroboration. What kind of insanity is it to face a fact and insist it
isn't there while looking right at it? As well, much following that fact
proves there was a necessity to get the body to Bethesda sooner than the
decoy ambulance, and the ONLY possible way was to use a helicopter, which
was suggested earlier among the SS agents on AF1. IT HAPPENED! However
improbable, it happened.
To use a helicopter, they had to first get the body off the plane. Your
claim that it was taken off the opposite side of the plane has been shot
down. Just when do you suppose they were able to move your shipping casket
from the plane to the helicopter without being seen by anyone? Even
Richard Lipsey who flew with the honor guard from Andrews to Bethesda said
the body was moved by ambulance.
mainframetech
2018-03-26 04:30:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Post by Steve BH
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
This list of 39 witnesses has been thoroughly debugged and debunked. The
fact you close your eyes tight and put your hands over your ears while
yelling "I can't see you! I can't hear you!" several times in a row
doesn't change the fact you made several big bloopers.
Nothing of the kind, and you continue to run away from my challenge to
pick out an example from this list and prove it doesn't belong there.
The blooper here is your constant LN attitude of closed mind ignoring any
proof that comes to you. The challenge continues, are you chicken to take
a chance? The last time you tried, you failed miserably, but still
pretend part of the list is wrong.
Chris
The challenge is you have no TIME to get a second casket onto the plane,
and JFK's body out of his bronze monster, in the very short time just
before the swearing-in.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/b_snatch.htm
Too many people have to be in on this plot, and the rest of them have to
be elsewhere and not notice anything on board this airplane, jammed with
two groups of people who didn't like each other. JFK's group were back in
the tail, with his body. It's them you're up against. McHugh didn't go to
the swearing in.
"the coffin was never unattended. Lifton's story is the biggest pack of
malakey I ever heard in my life. I never had my hands or eyes off of it
during the period he says it was unattended, and when Jackie got up to go
to her stateroom where Lyndon Johnson was, Kenney O'Donnell went with her,
but we stayed right there with the coffin and never let go of it. In fact
several of us were with it through the whole trip, all the way to Bethesda
Naval Hospital. It couldn't have happened the way that fellow said. Not
even thirty seconds. I never left it. There was a general watch. We
organized it."
You can have the secret service in on it, but not a man who has known JFK
forever.
Powers was known for his eidetic memory. JFK never lost a campaign and
Powers is one reason why. You should read "Johnny We Hardly Knew Ye" by
Powers and O'Donnell t get a feel for these folks. They remind of the case
The West Wing. You're getting nothing past them with JFK's.
As for McHugh, he goes up and down the length of the plane no less than 5
times before the swearing in, to see the pilot. When's he going to show up
in the tail, all that time? You don't know. If you're a conspirator body
switcher, y ou have to deal with him too.
Give it up.
See what's happening? You're trying to disprove - to conspiracy fanatics -
that the casket switch didn't occur.
We all know how difficult it is to prove a negative; it's impossible to
prove a negative to fanatics.
When you point out it's impossible to do "A" and "B" and "C" you are
pointing to the limits of human actions. But to conspiracy fanatics there
are no limits. "They" can do anything.
What is their evidence that "they" can do anything? The fact - for them -
that "they" did it. It is a circular argument: "they" can do "A" because
they did. It doesn't matter that you show that logistically they couldn't.
It doesn't matter that you point out that forensic pathologists (Wecht for
example) say you can't alter the wounds in the manner they claim. For the
conspiracy fanatics all of the evidence for them is that "they" did it.
How strange can people get? What was that quote from Sherlock Holmes?
'When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however
improbable, must be the truth? There are witnesses that the body of JFK
came out of the SHIPPING casket,
There are other witnesses who said it came out of the ornamental casket
but of course you ignore them because they don't fit your theory.
WRONG! I do not ignore evidence. There were 3 casket arrivals at the
morgue that night, and some witnesses may have seen one of the others
where the body was taken out in the Bronze casket that it was supposed to
have been in, and drove around to come back to the morgue and give many
witnesses the ability to swear that they saw the body come out of the
Bronze casket. I'm guessing, but her is more on the 3 casket arrivals:

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2013/07/douglas-p-horne/jfks-phonied-up-autopsy/
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
and not just one witness, so there is
corroboration. What kind of insanity is it to face a fact and insist it
isn't there while looking right at it? As well, much following that fact
proves there was a necessity to get the body to Bethesda sooner than the
decoy ambulance, and the ONLY possible way was to use a helicopter, which
was suggested earlier among the SS agents on AF1. IT HAPPENED! However
improbable, it happened.
To use a helicopter, they had to first get the body off the plane. Your
claim that it was taken off the opposite side of the plane has been shot
down. Just when do you suppose they were able to move your shipping casket
from the plane to the helicopter without being seen by anyone? Even
Richard Lipsey who flew with the honor guard from Andrews to Bethesda said
the body was moved by ambulance.
I have apologized about the opposite side door. I found that was not
so, but that doesn't mean that they didn't use the shipping casket to
carry the body anyway. The point being that the body came out of the
SHIPPING casket just after 6:35pm. So the switch happened! Stop ignoring
the witnesses.

Chris
Anthony Marsh
2018-03-27 14:15:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Post by Steve BH
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
This list of 39 witnesses has been thoroughly debugged and debunked. The
fact you close your eyes tight and put your hands over your ears while
yelling "I can't see you! I can't hear you!" several times in a row
doesn't change the fact you made several big bloopers.
Nothing of the kind, and you continue to run away from my challenge to
pick out an example from this list and prove it doesn't belong there.
The blooper here is your constant LN attitude of closed mind ignoring any
proof that comes to you. The challenge continues, are you chicken to take
a chance? The last time you tried, you failed miserably, but still
pretend part of the list is wrong.
Chris
The challenge is you have no TIME to get a second casket onto the plane,
and JFK's body out of his bronze monster, in the very short time just
before the swearing-in.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/b_snatch.htm
Too many people have to be in on this plot, and the rest of them have to
be elsewhere and not notice anything on board this airplane, jammed with
two groups of people who didn't like each other. JFK's group were back in
the tail, with his body. It's them you're up against. McHugh didn't go to
the swearing in.
"the coffin was never unattended. Lifton's story is the biggest pack of
malakey I ever heard in my life. I never had my hands or eyes off of it
during the period he says it was unattended, and when Jackie got up to go
to her stateroom where Lyndon Johnson was, Kenney O'Donnell went with her,
but we stayed right there with the coffin and never let go of it. In fact
several of us were with it through the whole trip, all the way to Bethesda
Naval Hospital. It couldn't have happened the way that fellow said. Not
even thirty seconds. I never left it. There was a general watch. We
organized it."
You can have the secret service in on it, but not a man who has known JFK
forever.
Powers was known for his eidetic memory. JFK never lost a campaign and
Powers is one reason why. You should read "Johnny We Hardly Knew Ye" by
Powers and O'Donnell t get a feel for these folks. They remind of the case
The West Wing. You're getting nothing past them with JFK's.
As for McHugh, he goes up and down the length of the plane no less than 5
times before the swearing in, to see the pilot. When's he going to show up
in the tail, all that time? You don't know. If you're a conspirator body
switcher, y ou have to deal with him too.
Give it up.
See what's happening? You're trying to disprove - to conspiracy fanatics -
that the casket switch didn't occur.
We all know how difficult it is to prove a negative; it's impossible to
prove a negative to fanatics.
When you point out it's impossible to do "A" and "B" and "C" you are
pointing to the limits of human actions. But to conspiracy fanatics there
are no limits. "They" can do anything.
What is their evidence that "they" can do anything? The fact - for them -
that "they" did it. It is a circular argument: "they" can do "A" because
they did. It doesn't matter that you show that logistically they couldn't.
It doesn't matter that you point out that forensic pathologists (Wecht for
example) say you can't alter the wounds in the manner they claim. For the
conspiracy fanatics all of the evidence for them is that "they" did it.
How strange can people get? What was that quote from Sherlock Holmes?
'When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however
improbable, must be the truth? There are witnesses that the body of JFK
came out of the SHIPPING casket,
There are other witnesses who said it came out of the ornamental casket
but of course you ignore them because they don't fit your theory.
WRONG! I do not ignore evidence. There were 3 casket arrivals at the
morgue that night, and some witnesses may have seen one of the others
where the body was taken out in the Bronze casket that it was supposed to
have been in, and drove around to come back to the morgue and give many
witnesses the ability to swear that they saw the body come out of the
https://www.lewrockwell.com/2013/07/douglas-p-horne/jfks-phonied-up-autopsy/
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
and not just one witness, so there is
corroboration. What kind of insanity is it to face a fact and insist it
isn't there while looking right at it? As well, much following that fact
proves there was a necessity to get the body to Bethesda sooner than the
decoy ambulance, and the ONLY possible way was to use a helicopter, which
was suggested earlier among the SS agents on AF1. IT HAPPENED! However
improbable, it happened.
To use a helicopter, they had to first get the body off the plane. Your
claim that it was taken off the opposite side of the plane has been shot
down. Just when do you suppose they were able to move your shipping casket
from the plane to the helicopter without being seen by anyone? Even
Richard Lipsey who flew with the honor guard from Andrews to Bethesda said
the body was moved by ambulance.
I have apologized about the opposite side door. I found that was not
so, but that doesn't mean that they didn't use the shipping casket to
carry the body anyway. The point being that the body came out of the
SHIPPING casket just after 6:35pm. So the switch happened! Stop ignoring
the witnesses.
Chris
You're not trying hard enough. Why don't you have the shipping casket
INSIDE the bronze casket?
bigdog
2018-03-24 01:05:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Post by Steve BH
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
This list of 39 witnesses has been thoroughly debugged and debunked. The
fact you close your eyes tight and put your hands over your ears while
yelling "I can't see you! I can't hear you!" several times in a row
doesn't change the fact you made several big bloopers.
Nothing of the kind, and you continue to run away from my challenge to
pick out an example from this list and prove it doesn't belong there.
The blooper here is your constant LN attitude of closed mind ignoring any
proof that comes to you. The challenge continues, are you chicken to take
a chance? The last time you tried, you failed miserably, but still
pretend part of the list is wrong.
Chris
The challenge is you have no TIME to get a second casket onto the plane,
and JFK's body out of his bronze monster, in the very short time just
before the swearing-in.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/b_snatch.htm
Too many people have to be in on this plot, and the rest of them have to
be elsewhere and not notice anything on board this airplane, jammed with
two groups of people who didn't like each other. JFK's group were back in
the tail, with his body. It's them you're up against. McHugh didn't go to
the swearing in.
"the coffin was never unattended. Lifton's story is the biggest pack of
malakey I ever heard in my life. I never had my hands or eyes off of it
during the period he says it was unattended, and when Jackie got up to go
to her stateroom where Lyndon Johnson was, Kenney O'Donnell went with her,
but we stayed right there with the coffin and never let go of it. In fact
several of us were with it through the whole trip, all the way to Bethesda
Naval Hospital. It couldn't have happened the way that fellow said. Not
even thirty seconds. I never left it. There was a general watch. We
organized it."
You can have the secret service in on it, but not a man who has known JFK
forever.
Powers was known for his eidetic memory. JFK never lost a campaign and
Powers is one reason why. You should read "Johnny We Hardly Knew Ye" by
Powers and O'Donnell t get a feel for these folks. They remind of the case
The West Wing. You're getting nothing past them with JFK's.
As for McHugh, he goes up and down the length of the plane no less than 5
times before the swearing in, to see the pilot. When's he going to show up
in the tail, all that time? You don't know. If you're a conspirator body
switcher, y ou have to deal with him too.
Give it up.
See what's happening? You're trying to disprove - to conspiracy fanatics -
that the casket switch didn't occur.
We all know how difficult it is to prove a negative; it's impossible to
prove a negative to fanatics.
It's impossible to prove anything, positive or negative, to the fanatics.
While it is difficult to prove a negative, you can prove that what you are
saying didn't happen is impossible. We can certainly come close to that
with the casket switch. If it is not impossible, it is certainly
implausible.
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
When you point out it's impossible to do "A" and "B" and "C" you are
pointing to the limits of human actions. But to conspiracy fanatics there
are no limits. "They" can do anything.
Nobody demonstrates that better than Chris. He has already made up his
mind that his theory is correct so whatever needed to have happened to
allow that to be possible, in his mind must have happened. This is what
happens when you start with your conclusion and work backward, force
fitting the evidence to the predetermined conclusion.
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
What is their evidence that "they" can do anything? The fact - for them -
that "they" did it. It is a circular argument: "they" can do "A" because
they did. It doesn't matter that you show that logistically they couldn't.
It doesn't matter that you point out that forensic pathologists (Wecht for
example) say you can't alter the wounds in the manner they claim. For the
conspiracy fanatics all of the evidence for them is that "they" did it.
An excellent example of what I wrote earlier in this post. Chris has
determined that the body was altered so it must be true that the body
could be altered without the alterations being obvious to any of the
review panels. It is his way of rationalizing a nutty idea.
Anthony Marsh
2018-03-24 20:24:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Post by Steve BH
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
This list of 39 witnesses has been thoroughly debugged and debunked. The
fact you close your eyes tight and put your hands over your ears while
yelling "I can't see you! I can't hear you!" several times in a row
doesn't change the fact you made several big bloopers.
Nothing of the kind, and you continue to run away from my challenge to
pick out an example from this list and prove it doesn't belong there.
The blooper here is your constant LN attitude of closed mind ignoring any
proof that comes to you. The challenge continues, are you chicken to take
a chance? The last time you tried, you failed miserably, but still
pretend part of the list is wrong.
Chris
The challenge is you have no TIME to get a second casket onto the plane,
and JFK's body out of his bronze monster, in the very short time just
before the swearing-in.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/b_snatch.htm
Too many people have to be in on this plot, and the rest of them have to
be elsewhere and not notice anything on board this airplane, jammed with
two groups of people who didn't like each other. JFK's group were back in
the tail, with his body. It's them you're up against. McHugh didn't go to
the swearing in.
"the coffin was never unattended. Lifton's story is the biggest pack of
malakey I ever heard in my life. I never had my hands or eyes off of it
during the period he says it was unattended, and when Jackie got up to go
to her stateroom where Lyndon Johnson was, Kenney O'Donnell went with her,
but we stayed right there with the coffin and never let go of it. In fact
several of us were with it through the whole trip, all the way to Bethesda
Naval Hospital. It couldn't have happened the way that fellow said. Not
even thirty seconds. I never left it. There was a general watch. We
organized it."
You can have the secret service in on it, but not a man who has known JFK
forever.
Powers was known for his eidetic memory. JFK never lost a campaign and
Powers is one reason why. You should read "Johnny We Hardly Knew Ye" by
Powers and O'Donnell t get a feel for these folks. They remind of the case
The West Wing. You're getting nothing past them with JFK's.
As for McHugh, he goes up and down the length of the plane no less than 5
times before the swearing in, to see the pilot. When's he going to show up
in the tail, all that time? You don't know. If you're a conspirator body
switcher, y ou have to deal with him too.
Give it up.
See what's happening? You're trying to disprove - to conspiracy fanatics -
that the casket switch didn't occur.
We all know how difficult it is to prove a negative; it's impossible to
prove a negative to fanatics.
It's impossible to prove anything, positive or negative, to the fanatics.
While it is difficult to prove a negative, you can prove that what you are
saying didn't happen is impossible. We can certainly come close to that
with the casket switch. If it is not impossible, it is certainly
implausible.
It's impossible to make WC defenders see what they don't want to see.
Post by bigdog
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
When you point out it's impossible to do "A" and "B" and "C" you are
pointing to the limits of human actions. But to conspiracy fanatics there
are no limits. "They" can do anything.
Nobody demonstrates that better than Chris. He has already made up his
mind that his theory is correct so whatever needed to have happened to
allow that to be possible, in his mind must have happened. This is what
happens when you start with your conclusion and work backward, force
fitting the evidence to the predetermined conclusion.
But you also fail to point out that he changes his theory every day.
Almost as bad as the WC defenders with their SBT.
Post by bigdog
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
What is their evidence that "they" can do anything? The fact - for them -
that "they" did it. It is a circular argument: "they" can do "A" because
they did. It doesn't matter that you show that logistically they couldn't.
It doesn't matter that you point out that forensic pathologists (Wecht for
example) say you can't alter the wounds in the manner they claim. For the
conspiracy fanatics all of the evidence for them is that "they" did it.
An excellent example of what I wrote earlier in this post. Chris has
determined that the body was altered so it must be true that the body
could be altered without the alterations being obvious to any of the
review panels. It is his way of rationalizing a nutty idea.
Now, wait just a damn minute. Why do you leave him huge loopholes like
that that he he could drive a truck through? All he has to do is claim
that all the review panels were in on it too.
mainframetech
2018-03-25 00:27:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Post by Steve BH
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
This list of 39 witnesses has been thoroughly debugged and debunked. The
fact you close your eyes tight and put your hands over your ears while
yelling "I can't see you! I can't hear you!" several times in a row
doesn't change the fact you made several big bloopers.
Nothing of the kind, and you continue to run away from my challenge to
pick out an example from this list and prove it doesn't belong there.
The blooper here is your constant LN attitude of closed mind ignoring any
proof that comes to you. The challenge continues, are you chicken to take
a chance? The last time you tried, you failed miserably, but still
pretend part of the list is wrong.
Chris
The challenge is you have no TIME to get a second casket onto the plane,
and JFK's body out of his bronze monster, in the very short time just
before the swearing-in.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/b_snatch.htm
Too many people have to be in on this plot, and the rest of them have to
be elsewhere and not notice anything on board this airplane, jammed with
two groups of people who didn't like each other. JFK's group were back in
the tail, with his body. It's them you're up against. McHugh didn't go to
the swearing in.
"the coffin was never unattended. Lifton's story is the biggest pack of
malakey I ever heard in my life. I never had my hands or eyes off of it
during the period he says it was unattended, and when Jackie got up to go
to her stateroom where Lyndon Johnson was, Kenney O'Donnell went with her,
but we stayed right there with the coffin and never let go of it. In fact
several of us were with it through the whole trip, all the way to Bethesda
Naval Hospital. It couldn't have happened the way that fellow said. Not
even thirty seconds. I never left it. There was a general watch. We
organized it."
You can have the secret service in on it, but not a man who has known JFK
forever.
Powers was known for his eidetic memory. JFK never lost a campaign and
Powers is one reason why. You should read "Johnny We Hardly Knew Ye" by
Powers and O'Donnell t get a feel for these folks. They remind of the case
The West Wing. You're getting nothing past them with JFK's.
As for McHugh, he goes up and down the length of the plane no less than 5
times before the swearing in, to see the pilot. When's he going to show up
in the tail, all that time? You don't know. If you're a conspirator body
switcher, y ou have to deal with him too.
Give it up.
See what's happening? You're trying to disprove - to conspiracy fanatics -
that the casket switch didn't occur.
We all know how difficult it is to prove a negative; it's impossible to
prove a negative to fanatics.
It's impossible to prove anything, positive or negative, to the fanatics.
While it is difficult to prove a negative, you can prove that what you are
saying didn't happen is impossible. We can certainly come close to that
with the casket switch. If it is not impossible, it is certainly
implausible.
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
When you point out it's impossible to do "A" and "B" and "C" you are
pointing to the limits of human actions. But to conspiracy fanatics there
are no limits. "They" can do anything.
Nobody demonstrates that better than Chris. He has already made up his
mind that his theory is correct so whatever needed to have happened to
allow that to be possible, in his mind must have happened. This is what
happens when you start with your conclusion and work backward, force
fitting the evidence to the predetermined conclusion.
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
What is their evidence that "they" can do anything? The fact - for them -
that "they" did it. It is a circular argument: "they" can do "A" because
they did. It doesn't matter that you show that logistically they couldn't.
It doesn't matter that you point out that forensic pathologists (Wecht for
example) say you can't alter the wounds in the manner they claim. For the
conspiracy fanatics all of the evidence for them is that "they" did it.
An excellent example of what I wrote earlier in this post. Chris has
determined that the body was altered so it must be true that the body
could be altered without the alterations being obvious to any of the
review panels. It is his way of rationalizing a nutty idea.
Foolishly, bd has forgotten something once again! All review panels
saw photos that now I know appeared to give a wrong impression, that the
wound was on the side of the head, and the BOH had no wound at all except
a bullet hole which only the prosectors could see. Those changes to the
body were made AFTER the body reached Bethesda, and all medical panels
were after that. so the body had already been modified and probably
photos had been changed to alter the conclusions of the prosectors. The
poor medical panels didn't have a chance to see the original wounds and
didn't know there was also a wound in the forehead/temple area.

Chris
bigdog
2018-03-26 20:47:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Post by Steve BH
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
This list of 39 witnesses has been thoroughly debugged and debunked. The
fact you close your eyes tight and put your hands over your ears while
yelling "I can't see you! I can't hear you!" several times in a row
doesn't change the fact you made several big bloopers.
Nothing of the kind, and you continue to run away from my challenge to
pick out an example from this list and prove it doesn't belong there.
The blooper here is your constant LN attitude of closed mind ignoring any
proof that comes to you. The challenge continues, are you chicken to take
a chance? The last time you tried, you failed miserably, but still
pretend part of the list is wrong.
Chris
The challenge is you have no TIME to get a second casket onto the plane,
and JFK's body out of his bronze monster, in the very short time just
before the swearing-in.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/b_snatch.htm
Too many people have to be in on this plot, and the rest of them have to
be elsewhere and not notice anything on board this airplane, jammed with
two groups of people who didn't like each other. JFK's group were back in
the tail, with his body. It's them you're up against. McHugh didn't go to
the swearing in.
"the coffin was never unattended. Lifton's story is the biggest pack of
malakey I ever heard in my life. I never had my hands or eyes off of it
during the period he says it was unattended, and when Jackie got up to go
to her stateroom where Lyndon Johnson was, Kenney O'Donnell went with her,
but we stayed right there with the coffin and never let go of it. In fact
several of us were with it through the whole trip, all the way to Bethesda
Naval Hospital. It couldn't have happened the way that fellow said. Not
even thirty seconds. I never left it. There was a general watch. We
organized it."
You can have the secret service in on it, but not a man who has known JFK
forever.
Powers was known for his eidetic memory. JFK never lost a campaign and
Powers is one reason why. You should read "Johnny We Hardly Knew Ye" by
Powers and O'Donnell t get a feel for these folks. They remind of the case
The West Wing. You're getting nothing past them with JFK's.
As for McHugh, he goes up and down the length of the plane no less than 5
times before the swearing in, to see the pilot. When's he going to show up
in the tail, all that time? You don't know. If you're a conspirator body
switcher, y ou have to deal with him too.
Give it up.
See what's happening? You're trying to disprove - to conspiracy fanatics -
that the casket switch didn't occur.
We all know how difficult it is to prove a negative; it's impossible to
prove a negative to fanatics.
It's impossible to prove anything, positive or negative, to the fanatics.
While it is difficult to prove a negative, you can prove that what you are
saying didn't happen is impossible. We can certainly come close to that
with the casket switch. If it is not impossible, it is certainly
implausible.
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
When you point out it's impossible to do "A" and "B" and "C" you are
pointing to the limits of human actions. But to conspiracy fanatics there
are no limits. "They" can do anything.
Nobody demonstrates that better than Chris. He has already made up his
mind that his theory is correct so whatever needed to have happened to
allow that to be possible, in his mind must have happened. This is what
happens when you start with your conclusion and work backward, force
fitting the evidence to the predetermined conclusion.
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
What is their evidence that "they" can do anything? The fact - for them -
that "they" did it. It is a circular argument: "they" can do "A" because
they did. It doesn't matter that you show that logistically they couldn't.
It doesn't matter that you point out that forensic pathologists (Wecht for
example) say you can't alter the wounds in the manner they claim. For the
conspiracy fanatics all of the evidence for them is that "they" did it.
An excellent example of what I wrote earlier in this post. Chris has
determined that the body was altered so it must be true that the body
could be altered without the alterations being obvious to any of the
review panels. It is his way of rationalizing a nutty idea.
Foolishly, bd has forgotten something once again! All review panels
saw photos that now I know appeared to give a wrong impression,
By "wrong impression" you mean one that doesn't fit with your goofy
predetermined conclusion.
Post by mainframetech
that the
wound was on the side of the head, and the BOH had no wound at all except
a bullet hole which only the prosectors could see.
No, the BOH was damaged as the large defect extended into the occipital
region but was as the AR stated "chiefly parietal".
Post by mainframetech
Those changes to the
body were made AFTER the body reached Bethesda, and all medical panels
were after that. so the body had already been modified and probably
photos had been changed to alter the conclusions of the prosectors. The
poor medical panels didn't have a chance to see the original wounds and
didn't know there was also a wound in the forehead/temple area.
Whatever you have to imagine happened for your goofy conclusions to be
valid must have happened.
mainframetech
2018-03-27 18:38:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Post by Steve BH
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
This list of 39 witnesses has been thoroughly debugged and debunked. The
fact you close your eyes tight and put your hands over your ears while
yelling "I can't see you! I can't hear you!" several times in a row
doesn't change the fact you made several big bloopers.
Nothing of the kind, and you continue to run away from my challenge to
pick out an example from this list and prove it doesn't belong there.
The blooper here is your constant LN attitude of closed mind ignoring any
proof that comes to you. The challenge continues, are you chicken to take
a chance? The last time you tried, you failed miserably, but still
pretend part of the list is wrong.
Chris
The challenge is you have no TIME to get a second casket onto the plane,
and JFK's body out of his bronze monster, in the very short time just
before the swearing-in.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/b_snatch.htm
Too many people have to be in on this plot, and the rest of them have to
be elsewhere and not notice anything on board this airplane, jammed with
two groups of people who didn't like each other. JFK's group were back in
the tail, with his body. It's them you're up against. McHugh didn't go to
the swearing in.
"the coffin was never unattended. Lifton's story is the biggest pack of
malakey I ever heard in my life. I never had my hands or eyes off of it
during the period he says it was unattended, and when Jackie got up to go
to her stateroom where Lyndon Johnson was, Kenney O'Donnell went with her,
but we stayed right there with the coffin and never let go of it. In fact
several of us were with it through the whole trip, all the way to Bethesda
Naval Hospital. It couldn't have happened the way that fellow said. Not
even thirty seconds. I never left it. There was a general watch. We
organized it."
You can have the secret service in on it, but not a man who has known JFK
forever.
Powers was known for his eidetic memory. JFK never lost a campaign and
Powers is one reason why. You should read "Johnny We Hardly Knew Ye" by
Powers and O'Donnell t get a feel for these folks. They remind of the case
The West Wing. You're getting nothing past them with JFK's.
As for McHugh, he goes up and down the length of the plane no less than 5
times before the swearing in, to see the pilot. When's he going to show up
in the tail, all that time? You don't know. If you're a conspirator body
switcher, y ou have to deal with him too.
Give it up.
See what's happening? You're trying to disprove - to conspiracy fanatics -
that the casket switch didn't occur.
We all know how difficult it is to prove a negative; it's impossible to
prove a negative to fanatics.
It's impossible to prove anything, positive or negative, to the fanatics.
While it is difficult to prove a negative, you can prove that what you are
saying didn't happen is impossible. We can certainly come close to that
with the casket switch. If it is not impossible, it is certainly
implausible.
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
When you point out it's impossible to do "A" and "B" and "C" you are
pointing to the limits of human actions. But to conspiracy fanatics there
are no limits. "They" can do anything.
Nobody demonstrates that better than Chris. He has already made up his
mind that his theory is correct so whatever needed to have happened to
allow that to be possible, in his mind must have happened. This is what
happens when you start with your conclusion and work backward, force
fitting the evidence to the predetermined conclusion.
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
What is their evidence that "they" can do anything? The fact - for them -
that "they" did it. It is a circular argument: "they" can do "A" because
they did. It doesn't matter that you show that logistically they couldn't.
It doesn't matter that you point out that forensic pathologists (Wecht for
example) say you can't alter the wounds in the manner they claim. For the
conspiracy fanatics all of the evidence for them is that "they" did it.
An excellent example of what I wrote earlier in this post. Chris has
determined that the body was altered so it must be true that the body
could be altered without the alterations being obvious to any of the
review panels. It is his way of rationalizing a nutty idea.
Foolishly, bd has forgotten something once again! All review panels
saw photos that now I know appeared to give a wrong impression,
By "wrong impression" you mean one that doesn't fit with your goofy
predetermined conclusion.
WRIONG! that don't fit with the evidence. Try getting out of your
goofy mode, and it will make more sense.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
that the
wound was on the side of the head, and the BOH had no wound at all except
a bullet hole which only the prosectors could see.
No, the BOH was damaged as the large defect extended into the occipital
region but was as the AR stated "chiefly parietal".
Post by mainframetech
Those changes to the
body were made AFTER the body reached Bethesda, and all medical panels
were after that. so the body had already been modified and probably
photos had been changed to alter the conclusions of the prosectors. The
poor medical panels didn't have a chance to see the original wounds and
didn't know there was also a wound in the forehead/temple area.
Whatever you have to imagine happened for your goofy conclusions to be
valid must have happened.
You'd do better to try acting normal instead of trying all the time to
be a standard LN ad hominem type.

Chris
Steve M. Galbraith
2018-03-30 03:21:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Post by Steve BH
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
This list of 39 witnesses has been thoroughly debugged and debunked. The
fact you close your eyes tight and put your hands over your ears while
yelling "I can't see you! I can't hear you!" several times in a row
doesn't change the fact you made several big bloopers.
Nothing of the kind, and you continue to run away from my challenge to
pick out an example from this list and prove it doesn't belong there.
The blooper here is your constant LN attitude of closed mind ignoring any
proof that comes to you. The challenge continues, are you chicken to take
a chance? The last time you tried, you failed miserably, but still
pretend part of the list is wrong.
Chris
The challenge is you have no TIME to get a second casket onto the plane,
and JFK's body out of his bronze monster, in the very short time just
before the swearing-in.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/b_snatch.htm
Too many people have to be in on this plot, and the rest of them have to
be elsewhere and not notice anything on board this airplane, jammed with
two groups of people who didn't like each other. JFK's group were back in
the tail, with his body. It's them you're up against. McHugh didn't go to
the swearing in.
"the coffin was never unattended. Lifton's story is the biggest pack of
malakey I ever heard in my life. I never had my hands or eyes off of it
during the period he says it was unattended, and when Jackie got up to go
to her stateroom where Lyndon Johnson was, Kenney O'Donnell went with her,
but we stayed right there with the coffin and never let go of it. In fact
several of us were with it through the whole trip, all the way to Bethesda
Naval Hospital. It couldn't have happened the way that fellow said. Not
even thirty seconds. I never left it. There was a general watch. We
organized it."
You can have the secret service in on it, but not a man who has known JFK
forever.
Powers was known for his eidetic memory. JFK never lost a campaign and
Powers is one reason why. You should read "Johnny We Hardly Knew Ye" by
Powers and O'Donnell t get a feel for these folks. They remind of the case
The West Wing. You're getting nothing past them with JFK's.
As for McHugh, he goes up and down the length of the plane no less than 5
times before the swearing in, to see the pilot. When's he going to show up
in the tail, all that time? You don't know. If you're a conspirator body
switcher, y ou have to deal with him too.
Give it up.
See what's happening? You're trying to disprove - to conspiracy fanatics -
that the casket switch didn't occur.
We all know how difficult it is to prove a negative; it's impossible to
prove a negative to fanatics.
It's impossible to prove anything, positive or negative, to the fanatics.
While it is difficult to prove a negative, you can prove that what you are
saying didn't happen is impossible. We can certainly come close to that
with the casket switch. If it is not impossible, it is certainly
implausible.
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
When you point out it's impossible to do "A" and "B" and "C" you are
pointing to the limits of human actions. But to conspiracy fanatics there
are no limits. "They" can do anything.
Nobody demonstrates that better than Chris. He has already made up his
mind that his theory is correct so whatever needed to have happened to
allow that to be possible, in his mind must have happened. This is what
happens when you start with your conclusion and work backward, force
fitting the evidence to the predetermined conclusion.
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
What is their evidence that "they" can do anything? The fact - for them -
that "they" did it. It is a circular argument: "they" can do "A" because
they did. It doesn't matter that you show that logistically they couldn't.
It doesn't matter that you point out that forensic pathologists (Wecht for
example) say you can't alter the wounds in the manner they claim. For the
conspiracy fanatics all of the evidence for them is that "they" did it.
An excellent example of what I wrote earlier in this post. Chris has
determined that the body was altered so it must be true that the body
could be altered without the alterations being obvious to any of the
review panels. It is his way of rationalizing a nutty idea.
We went through this with the discussion on the 9/11 attacks.

When he asked for evidence that a plane hit the Pentagon and when shown
the photos of the airplane parts around the building he dismissed them as
planted evidence; that is, as evidence of the conspiracy.

So the very evidence showing that there no missile that hit the Pentagon
attack is, for him, evidence of a missile hitting it. Up is down and down
is up.

When he asked for evidence of DNA testing of the remains of the passengers
and when he was shown reports on that very testing he dismissed it as part
of the conspiracy. It was staged DNA testing of remains (since there were
no passengers on the planes).

Once again the very evidence showing a plane hit the Pentagon is for him
evidence that a plane didn't.

There is no way out of this. Whatever evidence we show that a plane hit
the Pentagon is, again, evidence for him it didn't.

Substitute JFK and Oswald for missile and Pentagon.
bigdog
2018-03-31 02:36:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Post by bigdog
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Post by Steve BH
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
This list of 39 witnesses has been thoroughly debugged and debunked. The
fact you close your eyes tight and put your hands over your ears while
yelling "I can't see you! I can't hear you!" several times in a row
doesn't change the fact you made several big bloopers.
Nothing of the kind, and you continue to run away from my challenge to
pick out an example from this list and prove it doesn't belong there.
The blooper here is your constant LN attitude of closed mind ignoring any
proof that comes to you. The challenge continues, are you chicken to take
a chance? The last time you tried, you failed miserably, but still
pretend part of the list is wrong.
Chris
The challenge is you have no TIME to get a second casket onto the plane,
and JFK's body out of his bronze monster, in the very short time just
before the swearing-in.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/b_snatch.htm
Too many people have to be in on this plot, and the rest of them have to
be elsewhere and not notice anything on board this airplane, jammed with
two groups of people who didn't like each other. JFK's group were back in
the tail, with his body. It's them you're up against. McHugh didn't go to
the swearing in.
"the coffin was never unattended. Lifton's story is the biggest pack of
malakey I ever heard in my life. I never had my hands or eyes off of it
during the period he says it was unattended, and when Jackie got up to go
to her stateroom where Lyndon Johnson was, Kenney O'Donnell went with her,
but we stayed right there with the coffin and never let go of it. In fact
several of us were with it through the whole trip, all the way to Bethesda
Naval Hospital. It couldn't have happened the way that fellow said. Not
even thirty seconds. I never left it. There was a general watch. We
organized it."
You can have the secret service in on it, but not a man who has known JFK
forever.
Powers was known for his eidetic memory. JFK never lost a campaign and
Powers is one reason why. You should read "Johnny We Hardly Knew Ye" by
Powers and O'Donnell t get a feel for these folks. They remind of the case
The West Wing. You're getting nothing past them with JFK's.
As for McHugh, he goes up and down the length of the plane no less than 5
times before the swearing in, to see the pilot. When's he going to show up
in the tail, all that time? You don't know. If you're a conspirator body
switcher, y ou have to deal with him too.
Give it up.
See what's happening? You're trying to disprove - to conspiracy fanatics -
that the casket switch didn't occur.
We all know how difficult it is to prove a negative; it's impossible to
prove a negative to fanatics.
It's impossible to prove anything, positive or negative, to the fanatics.
While it is difficult to prove a negative, you can prove that what you are
saying didn't happen is impossible. We can certainly come close to that
with the casket switch. If it is not impossible, it is certainly
implausible.
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
When you point out it's impossible to do "A" and "B" and "C" you are
pointing to the limits of human actions. But to conspiracy fanatics there
are no limits. "They" can do anything.
Nobody demonstrates that better than Chris. He has already made up his
mind that his theory is correct so whatever needed to have happened to
allow that to be possible, in his mind must have happened. This is what
happens when you start with your conclusion and work backward, force
fitting the evidence to the predetermined conclusion.
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
What is their evidence that "they" can do anything? The fact - for them -
that "they" did it. It is a circular argument: "they" can do "A" because
they did. It doesn't matter that you show that logistically they couldn't.
It doesn't matter that you point out that forensic pathologists (Wecht for
example) say you can't alter the wounds in the manner they claim. For the
conspiracy fanatics all of the evidence for them is that "they" did it.
An excellent example of what I wrote earlier in this post. Chris has
determined that the body was altered so it must be true that the body
could be altered without the alterations being obvious to any of the
review panels. It is his way of rationalizing a nutty idea.
We went through this with the discussion on the 9/11 attacks.
When he asked for evidence that a plane hit the Pentagon and when shown
the photos of the airplane parts around the building he dismissed them as
planted evidence; that is, as evidence of the conspiracy.
So the very evidence showing that there no missile that hit the Pentagon
attack is, for him, evidence of a missile hitting it. Up is down and down
is up.
When he asked for evidence of DNA testing of the remains of the passengers
and when he was shown reports on that very testing he dismissed it as part
of the conspiracy. It was staged DNA testing of remains (since there were
no passengers on the planes).
Once again the very evidence showing a plane hit the Pentagon is for him
evidence that a plane didn't.
There is no way out of this. Whatever evidence we show that a plane hit
the Pentagon is, again, evidence for him it didn't.
Substitute JFK and Oswald for missile and Pentagon.
I've come to the conclusion that it is impossible to present any evidence
to a dedicated conspiracy believer that he/she cannot invent an excuse to
dismiss. If you present them with 500 pieces of evidence that conflict
with their beliefs they will counter with 500 excuses to dismiss it. It
doesn't matter how strong the evidence or how flimsy the excuse, just
having any excuse at all is enough for them to continue with their self
delusion which is really what it is all about.
mainframetech
2018-03-31 23:08:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Post by bigdog
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Post by Steve BH
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
This list of 39 witnesses has been thoroughly debugged and debunked. The
fact you close your eyes tight and put your hands over your ears while
yelling "I can't see you! I can't hear you!" several times in a row
doesn't change the fact you made several big bloopers.
Nothing of the kind, and you continue to run away from my challenge to
pick out an example from this list and prove it doesn't belong there.
The blooper here is your constant LN attitude of closed mind ignoring any
proof that comes to you. The challenge continues, are you chicken to take
a chance? The last time you tried, you failed miserably, but still
pretend part of the list is wrong.
Chris
The challenge is you have no TIME to get a second casket onto the plane,
and JFK's body out of his bronze monster, in the very short time just
before the swearing-in.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/b_snatch.htm
Too many people have to be in on this plot, and the rest of them have to
be elsewhere and not notice anything on board this airplane, jammed with
two groups of people who didn't like each other. JFK's group were back in
the tail, with his body. It's them you're up against. McHugh didn't go to
the swearing in.
"the coffin was never unattended. Lifton's story is the biggest pack of
malakey I ever heard in my life. I never had my hands or eyes off of it
during the period he says it was unattended, and when Jackie got up to go
to her stateroom where Lyndon Johnson was, Kenney O'Donnell went with her,
but we stayed right there with the coffin and never let go of it. In fact
several of us were with it through the whole trip, all the way to Bethesda
Naval Hospital. It couldn't have happened the way that fellow said. Not
even thirty seconds. I never left it. There was a general watch. We
organized it."
You can have the secret service in on it, but not a man who has known JFK
forever.
Powers was known for his eidetic memory. JFK never lost a campaign and
Powers is one reason why. You should read "Johnny We Hardly Knew Ye" by
Powers and O'Donnell t get a feel for these folks. They remind of the case
The West Wing. You're getting nothing past them with JFK's.
As for McHugh, he goes up and down the length of the plane no less than 5
times before the swearing in, to see the pilot. When's he going to show up
in the tail, all that time? You don't know. If you're a conspirator body
switcher, y ou have to deal with him too.
Give it up.
See what's happening? You're trying to disprove - to conspiracy fanatics -
that the casket switch didn't occur.
We all know how difficult it is to prove a negative; it's impossible to
prove a negative to fanatics.
It's impossible to prove anything, positive or negative, to the fanatics.
While it is difficult to prove a negative, you can prove that what you are
saying didn't happen is impossible. We can certainly come close to that
with the casket switch. If it is not impossible, it is certainly
implausible.
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
When you point out it's impossible to do "A" and "B" and "C" you are
pointing to the limits of human actions. But to conspiracy fanatics there
are no limits. "They" can do anything.
Nobody demonstrates that better than Chris. He has already made up his
mind that his theory is correct so whatever needed to have happened to
allow that to be possible, in his mind must have happened. This is what
happens when you start with your conclusion and work backward, force
fitting the evidence to the predetermined conclusion.
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
What is their evidence that "they" can do anything? The fact - for them -
that "they" did it. It is a circular argument: "they" can do "A" because
they did. It doesn't matter that you show that logistically they couldn't.
It doesn't matter that you point out that forensic pathologists (Wecht for
example) say you can't alter the wounds in the manner they claim. For the
conspiracy fanatics all of the evidence for them is that "they" did it.
An excellent example of what I wrote earlier in this post. Chris has
determined that the body was altered so it must be true that the body
could be altered without the alterations being obvious to any of the
review panels. It is his way of rationalizing a nutty idea.
We went through this with the discussion on the 9/11 attacks.
When he asked for evidence that a plane hit the Pentagon and when shown
the photos of the airplane parts around the building he dismissed them as
planted evidence; that is, as evidence of the conspiracy.
So the very evidence showing that there no missile that hit the Pentagon
attack is, for him, evidence of a missile hitting it. Up is down and down
is up.
When he asked for evidence of DNA testing of the remains of the passengers
and when he was shown reports on that very testing he dismissed it as part
of the conspiracy. It was staged DNA testing of remains (since there were
no passengers on the planes).
Once again the very evidence showing a plane hit the Pentagon is for him
evidence that a plane didn't.
There is no way out of this. Whatever evidence we show that a plane hit
the Pentagon is, again, evidence for him it didn't.
Substitute JFK and Oswald for missile and Pentagon.
I've come to the conclusion that it is impossible to present any evidence
to a dedicated conspiracy believer that he/she cannot invent an excuse to
dismiss. If you present them with 500 pieces of evidence that conflict
with their beliefs they will counter with 500 excuses to dismiss it. It
doesn't matter how strong the evidence or how flimsy the excuse, just
having any excuse at all is enough for them to continue with their self
delusion which is really what it is all about.
The problem lies in the little list you produced that you think proves
that Oswald did the shooting. But it doesn't do anything of the kind.
It's a few little circumstantial points, and some unrelated points, and
none of them put Oswald in the window firing the MC rifle into the
motorcade.

Chris
Anthony Marsh
2018-03-31 23:24:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Post by bigdog
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Post by Steve BH
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
This list of 39 witnesses has been thoroughly debugged and debunked. The
fact you close your eyes tight and put your hands over your ears while
yelling "I can't see you! I can't hear you!" several times in a row
doesn't change the fact you made several big bloopers.
Nothing of the kind, and you continue to run away from my challenge to
pick out an example from this list and prove it doesn't belong there.
The blooper here is your constant LN attitude of closed mind ignoring any
proof that comes to you. The challenge continues, are you chicken to take
a chance? The last time you tried, you failed miserably, but still
pretend part of the list is wrong.
Chris
The challenge is you have no TIME to get a second casket onto the plane,
and JFK's body out of his bronze monster, in the very short time just
before the swearing-in.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/b_snatch.htm
Too many people have to be in on this plot, and the rest of them have to
be elsewhere and not notice anything on board this airplane, jammed with
two groups of people who didn't like each other. JFK's group were back in
the tail, with his body. It's them you're up against. McHugh didn't go to
the swearing in.
"the coffin was never unattended. Lifton's story is the biggest pack of
malakey I ever heard in my life. I never had my hands or eyes off of it
during the period he says it was unattended, and when Jackie got up to go
to her stateroom where Lyndon Johnson was, Kenney O'Donnell went with her,
but we stayed right there with the coffin and never let go of it. In fact
several of us were with it through the whole trip, all the way to Bethesda
Naval Hospital. It couldn't have happened the way that fellow said. Not
even thirty seconds. I never left it. There was a general watch. We
organized it."
You can have the secret service in on it, but not a man who has known JFK
forever.
Powers was known for his eidetic memory. JFK never lost a campaign and
Powers is one reason why. You should read "Johnny We Hardly Knew Ye" by
Powers and O'Donnell t get a feel for these folks. They remind of the case
The West Wing. You're getting nothing past them with JFK's.
As for McHugh, he goes up and down the length of the plane no less than 5
times before the swearing in, to see the pilot. When's he going to show up
in the tail, all that time? You don't know. If you're a conspirator body
switcher, y ou have to deal with him too.
Give it up.
See what's happening? You're trying to disprove - to conspiracy fanatics -
that the casket switch didn't occur.
We all know how difficult it is to prove a negative; it's impossible to
prove a negative to fanatics.
It's impossible to prove anything, positive or negative, to the fanatics.
While it is difficult to prove a negative, you can prove that what you are
saying didn't happen is impossible. We can certainly come close to that
with the casket switch. If it is not impossible, it is certainly
implausible.
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
When you point out it's impossible to do "A" and "B" and "C" you are
pointing to the limits of human actions. But to conspiracy fanatics there
are no limits. "They" can do anything.
Nobody demonstrates that better than Chris. He has already made up his
mind that his theory is correct so whatever needed to have happened to
allow that to be possible, in his mind must have happened. This is what
happens when you start with your conclusion and work backward, force
fitting the evidence to the predetermined conclusion.
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
What is their evidence that "they" can do anything? The fact - for them -
that "they" did it. It is a circular argument: "they" can do "A" because
they did. It doesn't matter that you show that logistically they couldn't.
It doesn't matter that you point out that forensic pathologists (Wecht for
example) say you can't alter the wounds in the manner they claim. For the
conspiracy fanatics all of the evidence for them is that "they" did it.
An excellent example of what I wrote earlier in this post. Chris has
determined that the body was altered so it must be true that the body
could be altered without the alterations being obvious to any of the
review panels. It is his way of rationalizing a nutty idea.
We went through this with the discussion on the 9/11 attacks.
When he asked for evidence that a plane hit the Pentagon and when shown
the photos of the airplane parts around the building he dismissed them as
planted evidence; that is, as evidence of the conspiracy.
So the very evidence showing that there no missile that hit the Pentagon
attack is, for him, evidence of a missile hitting it. Up is down and down
is up.
When he asked for evidence of DNA testing of the remains of the passengers
and when he was shown reports on that very testing he dismissed it as part
of the conspiracy. It was staged DNA testing of remains (since there were
no passengers on the planes).
Once again the very evidence showing a plane hit the Pentagon is for him
evidence that a plane didn't.
There is no way out of this. Whatever evidence we show that a plane hit
the Pentagon is, again, evidence for him it didn't.
Substitute JFK and Oswald for missile and Pentagon.
I've come to the conclusion that it is impossible to present any evidence
to a dedicated conspiracy believer that he/she cannot invent an excuse to
So when I prove that the Zapruder film is authentic you have to attack me
because I am a conspiracy believer. And when I say that the autopsy photos
are authentic you have to attack me.
Post by bigdog
dismiss. If you present them with 500 pieces of evidence that conflict
with their beliefs they will counter with 500 excuses to dismiss it. It
Your pieces are phony.
Post by bigdog
doesn't matter how strong the evidence or how flimsy the excuse, just
having any excuse at all is enough for them to continue with their self
delusion which is really what it is all about.
The WC defenders are in denial.
mainframetech
2018-03-31 02:40:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Post by bigdog
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Post by Steve BH
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
This list of 39 witnesses has been thoroughly debugged and debunked. The
fact you close your eyes tight and put your hands over your ears while
yelling "I can't see you! I can't hear you!" several times in a row
doesn't change the fact you made several big bloopers.
Nothing of the kind, and you continue to run away from my challenge to
pick out an example from this list and prove it doesn't belong there.
The blooper here is your constant LN attitude of closed mind ignoring any
proof that comes to you. The challenge continues, are you chicken to take
a chance? The last time you tried, you failed miserably, but still
pretend part of the list is wrong.
Chris
The challenge is you have no TIME to get a second casket onto the plane,
and JFK's body out of his bronze monster, in the very short time just
before the swearing-in.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/b_snatch.htm
Too many people have to be in on this plot, and the rest of them have to
be elsewhere and not notice anything on board this airplane, jammed with
two groups of people who didn't like each other. JFK's group were back in
the tail, with his body. It's them you're up against. McHugh didn't go to
the swearing in.
"the coffin was never unattended. Lifton's story is the biggest pack of
malakey I ever heard in my life. I never had my hands or eyes off of it
during the period he says it was unattended, and when Jackie got up to go
to her stateroom where Lyndon Johnson was, Kenney O'Donnell went with her,
but we stayed right there with the coffin and never let go of it. In fact
several of us were with it through the whole trip, all the way to Bethesda
Naval Hospital. It couldn't have happened the way that fellow said. Not
even thirty seconds. I never left it. There was a general watch. We
organized it."
You can have the secret service in on it, but not a man who has known JFK
forever.
Powers was known for his eidetic memory. JFK never lost a campaign and
Powers is one reason why. You should read "Johnny We Hardly Knew Ye" by
Powers and O'Donnell t get a feel for these folks. They remind of the case
The West Wing. You're getting nothing past them with JFK's.
As for McHugh, he goes up and down the length of the plane no less than 5
times before the swearing in, to see the pilot. When's he going to show up
in the tail, all that time? You don't know. If you're a conspirator body
switcher, y ou have to deal with him too.
Give it up.
See what's happening? You're trying to disprove - to conspiracy fanatics -
that the casket switch didn't occur.
We all know how difficult it is to prove a negative; it's impossible to
prove a negative to fanatics.
It's impossible to prove anything, positive or negative, to the fanatics.
While it is difficult to prove a negative, you can prove that what you are
saying didn't happen is impossible. We can certainly come close to that
with the casket switch. If it is not impossible, it is certainly
implausible.
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
When you point out it's impossible to do "A" and "B" and "C" you are
pointing to the limits of human actions. But to conspiracy fanatics there
are no limits. "They" can do anything.
Nobody demonstrates that better than Chris. He has already made up his
mind that his theory is correct so whatever needed to have happened to
allow that to be possible, in his mind must have happened. This is what
happens when you start with your conclusion and work backward, force
fitting the evidence to the predetermined conclusion.
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
What is their evidence that "they" can do anything? The fact - for them -
that "they" did it. It is a circular argument: "they" can do "A" because
they did. It doesn't matter that you show that logistically they couldn't.
It doesn't matter that you point out that forensic pathologists (Wecht for
example) say you can't alter the wounds in the manner they claim. For the
conspiracy fanatics all of the evidence for them is that "they" did it.
An excellent example of what I wrote earlier in this post. Chris has
determined that the body was altered so it must be true that the body
could be altered without the alterations being obvious to any of the
review panels. It is his way of rationalizing a nutty idea.
WRONG! I didn't 'determine' that the body was altered, the evidence
stated it. What I find amazing is that LNs can ignore so much fact and
eyewitnesses and insist that those things testified to just didn't happen,
and they go blind and can't see them anymore. In fact, the body was
altered, and in such a way that it was accepted. It would be very
UNbelievable (witness the LN in this post) that alteration of the body of
the POTUS would be altered. Proof that the LN uses opinion only is in the
phrase "rationalizing a nutty idea". There's no fact there to hang your
hat on, but plenty of opinion, which is exactly what plotters might depend
on. There was a reason that such a fight to grab the body away from the
Dallas Medical Examiner was so important, and it was to get it to as
military hospital for the autopsy ,where they had some control of the
process and the report.

As to alterations in the body not being obvious, what are your
thoughts about the triangular flap of bone over the right ear? Are the
edges to straight, and is the shape not a normal result of a bullet or a
strike on the head? Do the differences in the body BEFORE it left
Parkland, and AFTER arriving at Bethesda not strike anyone? Here's a good
example of that before/after:

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

after:
http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/boh/beth/beth.htm
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
We went through this with the discussion on the 9/11 attacks.
When he asked for evidence that a plane hit the Pentagon and when shown
the photos of the airplane parts around the building he dismissed them as
planted evidence; that is, as evidence of the conspiracy.
Obviously you didn't read the comments I made. I pointed out that the
parts were in the wrong place and couldn't normally be where they were
found, in the alleyway between the building sections. Since the plane
couldn't get there through all the beams and supports shown to be in place
outside, the parts of the plane could not be there. A solid logical
argument, but the LN view is 'listen to nothing' believe nothing' and do
not think.
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
So the very evidence showing that there no missile that hit the Pentagon
attack is, for him, evidence of a missile hitting it. Up is down and down
is up.
Nope. You stopped thinking again. I like to talk about proof or the
absence of it. Not your opinions.
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
When he asked for evidence of DNA testing of the remains of the passengers
and when he was shown reports on that very testing he dismissed it as part
of the conspiracy. It was staged DNA testing of remains (since there were
no passengers on the planes).
It was unknown if there were passengers or not, but they were
certainly not on the grass in front of the Pentagon, or on the grass at
the Shanksville site. If there are no bodies, then how can there be valid
DNA tests, which can be written on a piece of paper and shown to people?
With no bodies, anyone can fill up a piece of paper with DNA info.
Telling people all the facts and showing none of them suggests a hoax.
But on top of all that, the very collapse of 3 buildings to 2 trained
experts was 'controlled demolition', but no, we're not going to listen to
experts because our opinion is more important.
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Once again the very evidence showing a plane hit the Pentagon is for him
evidence that a plane didn't.
That's the problem. You were told that a plane hit the Pentagon and
you went with it. There was no proof, and in fact, there was proof that
it wasn't a plane that hit. And the 85 videos from the nearby businesses
were kept away from the public to this day, so we'll never know what they
showed. A photshopped plane was shown in one photo, and we're supposed to
bow down and swear to it! The LN philosophy is a weird one alright!
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
There is no way out of this. Whatever evidence we show that a plane hit
the Pentagon is, again, evidence for him it didn't.
Substitute JFK and Oswald for missile and Pentagon.
Same situation. You don't have the necessary evidence. C'mon, list
you evidence that Oswald was looking out the 6th floor window and firing
the MC rifle into the motorcade. And I'll give you the fact that Oswald
brought in his own MC rifle in a paper bag as well. Prove he not only was
firing the MC rifle out the window, but that ANY MC type bullet hit or
hurt any person.

Chris
bigdog
2018-04-02 01:08:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Post by bigdog
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Post by Steve BH
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
This list of 39 witnesses has been thoroughly debugged and debunked. The
fact you close your eyes tight and put your hands over your ears while
yelling "I can't see you! I can't hear you!" several times in a row
doesn't change the fact you made several big bloopers.
Nothing of the kind, and you continue to run away from my challenge to
pick out an example from this list and prove it doesn't belong there.
The blooper here is your constant LN attitude of closed mind ignoring any
proof that comes to you. The challenge continues, are you chicken to take
a chance? The last time you tried, you failed miserably, but still
pretend part of the list is wrong.
Chris
The challenge is you have no TIME to get a second casket onto the plane,
and JFK's body out of his bronze monster, in the very short time just
before the swearing-in.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/b_snatch.htm
Too many people have to be in on this plot, and the rest of them have to
be elsewhere and not notice anything on board this airplane, jammed with
two groups of people who didn't like each other. JFK's group were back in
the tail, with his body. It's them you're up against. McHugh didn't go to
the swearing in.
"the coffin was never unattended. Lifton's story is the biggest pack of
malakey I ever heard in my life. I never had my hands or eyes off of it
during the period he says it was unattended, and when Jackie got up to go
to her stateroom where Lyndon Johnson was, Kenney O'Donnell went with her,
but we stayed right there with the coffin and never let go of it. In fact
several of us were with it through the whole trip, all the way to Bethesda
Naval Hospital. It couldn't have happened the way that fellow said. Not
even thirty seconds. I never left it. There was a general watch. We
organized it."
You can have the secret service in on it, but not a man who has known JFK
forever.
Powers was known for his eidetic memory. JFK never lost a campaign and
Powers is one reason why. You should read "Johnny We Hardly Knew Ye" by
Powers and O'Donnell t get a feel for these folks. They remind of the case
The West Wing. You're getting nothing past them with JFK's.
As for McHugh, he goes up and down the length of the plane no less than 5
times before the swearing in, to see the pilot. When's he going to show up
in the tail, all that time? You don't know. If you're a conspirator body
switcher, y ou have to deal with him too.
Give it up.
See what's happening? You're trying to disprove - to conspiracy fanatics -
that the casket switch didn't occur.
We all know how difficult it is to prove a negative; it's impossible to
prove a negative to fanatics.
It's impossible to prove anything, positive or negative, to the fanatics.
While it is difficult to prove a negative, you can prove that what you are
saying didn't happen is impossible. We can certainly come close to that
with the casket switch. If it is not impossible, it is certainly
implausible.
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
When you point out it's impossible to do "A" and "B" and "C" you are
pointing to the limits of human actions. But to conspiracy fanatics there
are no limits. "They" can do anything.
Nobody demonstrates that better than Chris. He has already made up his
mind that his theory is correct so whatever needed to have happened to
allow that to be possible, in his mind must have happened. This is what
happens when you start with your conclusion and work backward, force
fitting the evidence to the predetermined conclusion.
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
What is their evidence that "they" can do anything? The fact - for them -
that "they" did it. It is a circular argument: "they" can do "A" because
they did. It doesn't matter that you show that logistically they couldn't.
It doesn't matter that you point out that forensic pathologists (Wecht for
example) say you can't alter the wounds in the manner they claim. For the
conspiracy fanatics all of the evidence for them is that "they" did it.
An excellent example of what I wrote earlier in this post. Chris has
determined that the body was altered so it must be true that the body
could be altered without the alterations being obvious to any of the
review panels. It is his way of rationalizing a nutty idea.
WRONG! I didn't 'determine' that the body was altered, the evidence
stated it.
The evidence talks to you?
Post by mainframetech
What I find amazing is that LNs can ignore so much fact and
eyewitnesses and insist that those things testified to just didn't happen,
and they go blind and can't see them anym
It is impossible for everything everyone testified to can be factual
because there is much testimony that is conflicting. For example you cite
witnesses that claim the body was removed from a shipping casket while
others, like Sibert and O'Neill insist it was removed from the ornamental
casket which they accompanied from Andrews. Unless you believe there can
be dual realities, both of those things can't be true.
Post by mainframetech
In fact, the body was altered, and in such a way that it was accepted.
There is nothing factual about that and that is not even possible as even
CT hero Cyril Wecht has stated.
Post by mainframetech
It would be very
UNbelievable (witness the LN in this post) that alteration of the body of
the POTUS would be altered.
Alteration would be altered?
Post by mainframetech
Proof that the LN uses opinion only is in the
phrase "rationalizing a nutty idea".
Is that your way of saying we rely on forensic evidence to resolve
conflicting testimony?
Post by mainframetech
There's no fact there to hang your
hat on, but plenty of opinion, which is exactly what plotters might depend
on. There was a reason that such a fight to grab the body away from the
Dallas Medical Examiner was so important, and it was to get it to as
military hospital for the autopsy ,where they had some control of the
process and the report.
That is what you imagine/assume. There is no evidence that was the reason.
The SS quite understandably wanted to get AF1 in the air and get LBJ back
to the relative safety of Washington. It is also understandable why LBJ
would not want to hightail it out of Dallas and leave the widow of the
slain President behind. It is also understandable that the widow wasn't
going to leave without her husband's body. The only way to resolve this
was to remove the body from Dallas. There was no fight. There was an
argument. That argument was resolved when the Justice of the Peace agreed
to release the body provided Admiral Burkley agreed to stay with the body
until the autopsy was performed.
Post by mainframetech
As to alterations in the body not being obvious, what are your
thoughts about the triangular flap of bone over the right ear? Are the
edges to straight, and is the shape not a normal result of a bullet or a
strike on the head? Do the differences in the body BEFORE it left
Parkland, and AFTER arriving at Bethesda not strike anyone? Here's a good
There were no differences other than the normal rigor mortis process.
Post by mainframetech
http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/boh/parkland_boh/parkland_wound.htm
http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/boh/beth/beth.htm
There were no differences. JFK's head was blown open and instant after the
bullet struck him. What was seen at Bethesda fits perfectly with what we
see in the Z-film. The Z-film is incompatible with the nonsense you are
forced to believe so you buy into the silly claim it was altered, a claim
made by people equally desperate to dismiss the Z-film as an accurate film
record of the assassination. Your problem is Zapruder described the same
thing his film shows to a local TV reporter before he was even able to get
the film developed. Bill Newman described the same thing. Usually we use
forensic evidence to corroborate witness testimony. Due to your silly
claim of film alteration we use witness testimony to corroborate the film
evidence.
Post by mainframetech
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
We went through this with the discussion on the 9/11 attacks.
When he asked for evidence that a plane hit the Pentagon and when shown
the photos of the airplane parts around the building he dismissed them as
planted evidence; that is, as evidence of the conspiracy.
Obviously you didn't read the comments I made. I pointed out that the
parts were in the wrong place and couldn't normally be where they were
found, in the alleyway between the building sections.
Why do you think that because you point something out the rest of the
world is supposed to accept that as the truth?
Post by mainframetech
Since the plane
couldn't get there through all the beams and supports shown to be in place
outside, the parts of the plane could not be there. A solid logical
argument, but the LN view is 'listen to nothing' believe nothing' and do
not think.
There is nothing solid or logical about the way you think about 9/11 or
the JFK assassination. You want desperately to believe there were cover
ups in both so you bend and twist the evidence to force fit it to what you
want to believe rather than allowing your beliefs to conform to the
evidence.
Post by mainframetech
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
So the very evidence showing that there no missile that hit the Pentagon
attack is, for him, evidence of a missile hitting it. Up is down and down
is up.
Nope. You stopped thinking again. I like to talk about proof or the
absence of it. Not your opinions.
Mostly absence of it because that is what you have to support your beliefs.
Post by mainframetech
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
When he asked for evidence of DNA testing of the remains of the passengers
and when he was shown reports on that very testing he dismissed it as part
of the conspiracy. It was staged DNA testing of remains (since there were
no passengers on the planes).
It was unknown if there were passengers or not, but they were
certainly not on the grass in front of the Pentagon, or on the grass at
the Shanksville site.
Did you expect them to be posing for a group picture after there planes
slammed into a concrete structure and nosedived into the ground?
Post by mainframetech
If there are no bodies, then how can there be valid
DNA tests, which can be written on a piece of paper and shown to people?
There were bodies. Mostly charred remains which wouldn't be apparent in
any photo taken from a distance.
Post by mainframetech
With no bodies, anyone can fill up a piece of paper with DNA info.
Telling people all the facts and showing none of them suggests a hoax.
But on top of all that, the very collapse of 3 buildings to 2 trained
experts was 'controlled demolition', but no, we're not going to listen to
experts because our opinion is more important.
You listen to wackos.
Post by mainframetech
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Once again the very evidence showing a plane hit the Pentagon is for him
evidence that a plane didn't.
That's the problem. You were told that a plane hit the Pentagon and
you went with it. There was no proof, and in fact, there was proof that
it wasn't a plane that hit. And the 85 videos from the nearby businesses
were kept away from the public to this day, so we'll never know what they
showed. A photshopped plane was shown in one photo, and we're supposed to
bow down and swear to it! The LN philosophy is a weird one alright!
It wasn't a photo, it was a frame from a security camera which didn't take
that many frames per second. That's why the intact plane only appeared in
one frame.
Post by mainframetech
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
There is no way out of this. Whatever evidence we show that a plane hit
the Pentagon is, again, evidence for him it didn't.
Substitute JFK and Oswald for missile and Pentagon.
Same situation. You don't have the necessary evidence.
It would be impossible to provide the evidence necessary to convince you
that your beliefs are wacky because no matter how much you were given you
would invent excuses to dismiss it all.
Post by mainframetech
C'mon, list
you evidence that Oswald was looking out the 6th floor window and firing
the MC rifle into the motorcade. And I'll give you the fact that Oswald
brought in his own MC rifle in a paper bag as well. Prove he not only was
firing the MC rifle out the window, but that ANY MC type bullet hit or
hurt any person.
It would be futile to do that for you..........AGAIN!!!
mainframetech
2018-04-03 00:32:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Post by bigdog
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Post by Steve BH
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
This list of 39 witnesses has been thoroughly debugged and debunked. The
fact you close your eyes tight and put your hands over your ears while
yelling "I can't see you! I can't hear you!" several times in a row
doesn't change the fact you made several big bloopers.
Nothing of the kind, and you continue to run away from my challenge to
pick out an example from this list and prove it doesn't belong there.
The blooper here is your constant LN attitude of closed mind ignoring any
proof that comes to you. The challenge continues, are you chicken to take
a chance? The last time you tried, you failed miserably, but still
pretend part of the list is wrong.
Chris
The challenge is you have no TIME to get a second casket onto the plane,
and JFK's body out of his bronze monster, in the very short time just
before the swearing-in.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/b_snatch.htm
Too many people have to be in on this plot, and the rest of them have to
be elsewhere and not notice anything on board this airplane, jammed with
two groups of people who didn't like each other. JFK's group were back in
the tail, with his body. It's them you're up against. McHugh didn't go to
the swearing in.
"the coffin was never unattended. Lifton's story is the biggest pack of
malakey I ever heard in my life. I never had my hands or eyes off of it
during the period he says it was unattended, and when Jackie got up to go
to her stateroom where Lyndon Johnson was, Kenney O'Donnell went with her,
but we stayed right there with the coffin and never let go of it. In fact
several of us were with it through the whole trip, all the way to Bethesda
Naval Hospital. It couldn't have happened the way that fellow said. Not
even thirty seconds. I never left it. There was a general watch. We
organized it."
You can have the secret service in on it, but not a man who has known JFK
forever.
Powers was known for his eidetic memory. JFK never lost a campaign and
Powers is one reason why. You should read "Johnny We Hardly Knew Ye" by
Powers and O'Donnell t get a feel for these folks. They remind of the case
The West Wing. You're getting nothing past them with JFK's.
As for McHugh, he goes up and down the length of the plane no less than 5
times before the swearing in, to see the pilot. When's he going to show up
in the tail, all that time? You don't know. If you're a conspirator body
switcher, y ou have to deal with him too.
Give it up.
See what's happening? You're trying to disprove - to conspiracy fanatics -
that the casket switch didn't occur.
We all know how difficult it is to prove a negative; it's impossible to
prove a negative to fanatics.
It's impossible to prove anything, positive or negative, to the fanatics.
While it is difficult to prove a negative, you can prove that what you are
saying didn't happen is impossible. We can certainly come close to that
with the casket switch. If it is not impossible, it is certainly
implausible.
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
When you point out it's impossible to do "A" and "B" and "C" you are
pointing to the limits of human actions. But to conspiracy fanatics there
are no limits. "They" can do anything.
Nobody demonstrates that better than Chris. He has already made up his
mind that his theory is correct so whatever needed to have happened to
allow that to be possible, in his mind must have happened. This is what
happens when you start with your conclusion and work backward, force
fitting the evidence to the predetermined conclusion.
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
What is their evidence that "they" can do anything? The fact - for them -
that "they" did it. It is a circular argument: "they" can do "A" because
they did. It doesn't matter that you show that logistically they couldn't.
It doesn't matter that you point out that forensic pathologists (Wecht for
example) say you can't alter the wounds in the manner they claim. For the
conspiracy fanatics all of the evidence for them is that "they" did it.
An excellent example of what I wrote earlier in this post. Chris has
determined that the body was altered so it must be true that the body
could be altered without the alterations being obvious to any of the
review panels. It is his way of rationalizing a nutty idea.
WRONG! I didn't 'determine' that the body was altered, the evidence
stated it.
The evidence talks to you?
Are you fully conscious? Do you see anyplace where I said that?
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
What I find amazing is that LNs can ignore so much fact and
eyewitnesses and insist that those things testified to just didn't happen,
and they go blind and can't see them anym
It is impossible for everything everyone testified to can be factual
because there is much testimony that is conflicting. For example you cite
witnesses that claim the body was removed from a shipping casket while
others, like Sibert and O'Neill insist it was removed from the ornamental
casket which they accompanied from Andrews. Unless you believe there can
be dual realities, both of those things can't be true.
WRONG! The problem doesn't lie with the witnesses, it lies with you
and your inability to understand the simplest information put to you. I
repeat for the nth time, there were multiple casket arrivals. The
Shipping casket and the Bronze casket arrived at different times
(proven)...get it through your head. You don't have to believe it, but
you should at least remember that I said it to you, so you don't sound
stupid the next time. Some eyewitnesses saw the first SHIPPING casket
arrive, and JFK be brought out of it. The body was put into the Bronze
casket after Humes and Boswell did their clandestine work on it, and Later
in the evening, the Bronze casket (which now had the body in it) arrived
from driving around the Bethesda complex, and some eyewitnesses saw the
body come out of it. So both cases are true. They all saw what they said
they saw.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
In fact, the body was altered, and in such a way that it was accepted.
There is nothing factual about that and that is not even possible as even
CT hero Cyril Wecht has stated.
I'm not interested in what Wecht said. He wasn't there and didn't see
the body, or any of the shenanigans that went on. As noted, the body
after modification was accepted by medical panels, who never saw the body,
never interviewed the enlisted men, and never saw the complete (or even
correct) photos.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
It would be very
UNbelievable (witness the LN in this post) that alteration of the body of
the POTUS would be altered.
Alteration would be altered?
Post by mainframetech
Proof that the LN uses opinion only is in the
phrase "rationalizing a nutty idea".
Is that your way of saying we rely on forensic evidence to resolve
conflicting testimony?
Post by mainframetech
There's no fact there to hang your
hat on, but plenty of opinion, which is exactly what plotters might depend
on. There was a reason that such a fight to grab the body away from the
Dallas Medical Examiner was so important, and it was to get it to a
military hospital for the autopsy, where they had some control of the
process and the report.
That is what you imagine/assume. There is no evidence that was the reason.
WRONG as usual! The false Autopsy Report was proven to be incorrect,
and was completely different than what the autopsy team saw in the body.
Post by bigdog
The SS quite understandably wanted to get AF1 in the air and get LBJ back
to the relative safety of Washington. It is also understandable why LBJ
would not want to hightail it out of Dallas and leave the widow of the
slain President behind. It is also understandable that the widow wasn't
going to leave without her husband's body. The only way to resolve this
was to remove the body from Dallas. There was no fight. There was an
argument. That argument was resolved when the Justice of the Peace agreed
to release the body provided Admiral Burkley agreed to stay with the body
until the autopsy was performed.
It was a violation of the law to remove the body from the venue it was
in (Dallas). That as state to the S agents, who were adamant about taking
the body. Jackie said nothing while all this was going on. It makes nice
excuses to have all those reasons to steal the body, but it was taken
against the law. No matter that Wade the DA gave permission. That body
had to be gotten out of there. They could have waited a few hours for
Earl Rose (Medical Examiner) to finish his work, but they couldn't stand
even that short a wait.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
As to alterations in the body not being obvious, what are your
thoughts about the triangular flap of bone over the right ear? Are the
edges too straight, and is the shape not a normal result of a bullet or a
strike on the head? Do the differences in the body BEFORE it left
Parkland, and AFTER arriving at Bethesda not strike anyone? Here's a good
There were no differences other than the normal rigor mortis process.
Post by mainframetech
http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/boh/parkland_boh/parkland_wound.htm
http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/boh/beth/beth.htm
There were no differences. JFK's head was blown open and instant after the
bullet struck him. What was seen at Bethesda fits perfectly with what we
see in the Z-film. The Z-film is incompatible with the nonsense you are
forced to believe so you buy into the silly claim it was altered, a claim
made by people equally desperate to dismiss the Z-film as an accurate film
record of the assassination. Your problem is Zapruder described the same
thing his film shows to a local TV reporter before he was even able to get
the film developed. Bill Newman described the same thing. Usually we use
forensic evidence to corroborate witness testimony. Due to your silly
claim of film alteration we use witness testimony to corroborate the film
evidence.
Stupidity is rampant. When you have over 39 eyewitnesses to the
state of JFK's head, including the nurse that washed his hair and handled
his head, and put the body into the casket to leave Parkland, you know the
state of the head. That Nurse stated in no uncertain circumstances that
the head had only one major wound, and that was the hole in the BOH, and
NOT on the side.

Anything else is wrong in one way or another. You decided to believe the
Z-film even though it's not the best witness to the shooting, and was put
in doubt when proof that it was altered was presented by Douglas Horne.
Clinging to phony evidence will only make you a sucker, as was intended by
the plotters.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
We went through this with the discussion on the 9/11 attacks.
When he asked for evidence that a plane hit the Pentagon and when shown
the photos of the airplane parts around the building he dismissed them as
planted evidence; that is, as evidence of the conspiracy.
Obviously you didn't read the comments I made. I pointed out that the
parts were in the wrong place and couldn't normally be where they were
found, in the alleyway between the building sections.
Why do you think that because you point something out the rest of the
world is supposed to accept that as the truth?
It was simply logical, but you could try to disprove that with
evidence or logic, which wasn't done. I'm aware I'm dealing with
fanatics, but I will keep my cool and keep trying to explain the obvious
logic of the crime.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Since the plane
couldn't get there through all the beams and supports shown to be in place
outside, the parts of the plane could not be there. A solid logical
argument, but the LN view is 'listen to nothing' believe nothing' and do
not think.
There is nothing solid or logical about the way you think about 9/11 or
the JFK assassination. You want desperately to believe there were cover
ups in both so you bend and twist the evidence to force fit it to what you
want to believe rather than allowing your beliefs to conform to the
evidence.
If I've done the crime you have accused me of, it should be an easy job
for you to prove that I've twisted evidence, or whatever. But all you do
is go back to your general ad hominem comments. That can be very
frustrating for you, and I appreciate that, But I'm not going to fake my
results to make you feel better.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
So the very evidence showing that there no missile that hit the Pentagon
attack is, for him, evidence of a missile hitting it. Up is down and down
is up.
Nope. You stopped thinking again. I like to talk about proof or the
absence of it. Not your opinions.
Mostly absence of it because that is what you have to support your beliefs.
Which is YOUR OPINION.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
When he asked for evidence of DNA testing of the remains of the passengers
and when he was shown reports on that very testing he dismissed it as part
of the conspiracy. It was staged DNA testing of remains (since there were
no passengers on the planes).
It was unknown if there were passengers or not, but they were
certainly not on the grass in front of the Pentagon, or on the grass at
the Shanksville site.
Did you expect them to be posing for a group picture after there planes
slammed into a concrete structure and nosedived into the ground?
Nope, I expected there to be bodies strewn around the site along with
seats and luggage and all sort of plane debris. That's the kind of thing
news cameramen like to photograph. The Shanksville site had NONE of those
things. When the first photos were taken. And if you didn't research it,
then you can check it now. The gash in the earth that was supposedly
where the plane hit was there BEFORE the site was used as a crash site.
Of course, you won't bother to check it, since you know you're right.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
If there are no bodies, then how can there be valid
DNA tests, which can be written on a piece of paper and shown to people?
There were bodies. Mostly charred remains which wouldn't be apparent in
any photo taken from a distance.
And such charred bodies would be what the cameramen would want to
photograph to show the goriest they could find. Yet no photos of charred
bodies at that site. Although finding a few photos of charred bodies
would be easy to find to show as if they were from that site. I'm
speaking of Shanksville now, the Pentagon had what I consider real deaths,
though I'm not sure what killed them. Possibly a bomb put against the
wall.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
With no bodies, anyone can fill up a piece of paper with DNA info.
Telling people all the facts and showing none of them suggests a hoax.
But on top of all that, the very collapse of 3 buildings to 2 trained
experts was 'controlled demolition', but no, we're not going to listen to
experts because our opinion is more important.
You listen to wackos.
See? You have only OPINION, yet you act like you know the truth! I
just got through talking a bout the 2 expert controlled demolition people
that I showed during out discussion on the 3 towers collapsing. Neither
of them were wackos, they were legitimate demolition people who recognized
'controlled demolition' immediately and said so. Of course, if you admit
they were normal experts, then you have to admit there was 'controlled
demolition' so you're stuck with your silly opinions.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Once again the very evidence showing a plane hit the Pentagon is for him
evidence that a plane didn't.
That's the problem. You were told that a plane hit the Pentagon and
you went with it. There was no proof, and in fact, there was proof that
it wasn't a plane that hit. And the 85 videos from the nearby businesses
were kept away from the public to this day, so we'll never know what they
showed. A photoshopped plane was shown in one photo, and we're supposed to
bow down and swear to it! The LN philosophy is a weird one alright!
It wasn't a photo, it was a frame from a security camera which didn't take
that many frames per second. That's why the intact plane only appeared in
one frame.
LOL! There was only one frame that showed a flying vehicle of some
kind, which was (when ENLARGED) a thin missile like vehicle, but NOT a
passenger plane with 2 large engines hanging down. but someone showed me a
photo of plane close up and not fuzz or bad photo. It was a fake.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
There is no way out of this. Whatever evidence we show that a plane hit
the Pentagon is, again, evidence for him it didn't.
Substitute JFK and Oswald for missile and Pentagon.
Same situation. You don't have the necessary evidence.
It would be impossible to provide the evidence necessary to convince you
that your beliefs are wacky because no matter how much you were given you
would invent excuses to dismiss it all.
Welp, if you had taken the overview, you would have arrived at the
result that there was a hoax done on the US public. The rest become easy
to see.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
C'mon, list
you evidence that Oswald was looking out the 6th floor window and firing
the MC rifle into the motorcade. And I'll give you the fact that Oswald
brought in his own MC rifle in a paper bag as well. Prove he not only was
firing the MC rifle out the window, but that ANY MC type bullet hit or
hurt any person.
It would be futile to do that for you..........AGAIN!!!
Right on! Believe it!

Chris
bigdog
2018-04-04 01:59:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Post by bigdog
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Post by Steve BH
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
This list of 39 witnesses has been thoroughly debugged and debunked. The
fact you close your eyes tight and put your hands over your ears while
yelling "I can't see you! I can't hear you!" several times in a row
doesn't change the fact you made several big bloopers.
Nothing of the kind, and you continue to run away from my challenge to
pick out an example from this list and prove it doesn't belong there.
The blooper here is your constant LN attitude of closed mind ignoring any
proof that comes to you. The challenge continues, are you chicken to take
a chance? The last time you tried, you failed miserably, but still
pretend part of the list is wrong.
Chris
The challenge is you have no TIME to get a second casket onto the plane,
and JFK's body out of his bronze monster, in the very short time just
before the swearing-in.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/b_snatch.htm
Too many people have to be in on this plot, and the rest of them have to
be elsewhere and not notice anything on board this airplane, jammed with
two groups of people who didn't like each other. JFK's group were back in
the tail, with his body. It's them you're up against. McHugh didn't go to
the swearing in.
"the coffin was never unattended. Lifton's story is the biggest pack of
malakey I ever heard in my life. I never had my hands or eyes off of it
during the period he says it was unattended, and when Jackie got up to go
to her stateroom where Lyndon Johnson was, Kenney O'Donnell went with her,
but we stayed right there with the coffin and never let go of it. In fact
several of us were with it through the whole trip, all the way to Bethesda
Naval Hospital. It couldn't have happened the way that fellow said. Not
even thirty seconds. I never left it. There was a general watch. We
organized it."
You can have the secret service in on it, but not a man who has known JFK
forever.
Powers was known for his eidetic memory. JFK never lost a campaign and
Powers is one reason why. You should read "Johnny We Hardly Knew Ye" by
Powers and O'Donnell t get a feel for these folks. They remind of the case
The West Wing. You're getting nothing past them with JFK's.
As for McHugh, he goes up and down the length of the plane no less than 5
times before the swearing in, to see the pilot. When's he going to show up
in the tail, all that time? You don't know. If you're a conspirator body
switcher, y ou have to deal with him too.
Give it up.
See what's happening? You're trying to disprove - to conspiracy fanatics -
that the casket switch didn't occur.
We all know how difficult it is to prove a negative; it's impossible to
prove a negative to fanatics.
It's impossible to prove anything, positive or negative, to the fanatics.
While it is difficult to prove a negative, you can prove that what you are
saying didn't happen is impossible. We can certainly come close to that
with the casket switch. If it is not impossible, it is certainly
implausible.
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
When you point out it's impossible to do "A" and "B" and "C" you are
pointing to the limits of human actions. But to conspiracy fanatics there
are no limits. "They" can do anything.
Nobody demonstrates that better than Chris. He has already made up his
mind that his theory is correct so whatever needed to have happened to
allow that to be possible, in his mind must have happened. This is what
happens when you start with your conclusion and work backward, force
fitting the evidence to the predetermined conclusion.
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
What is their evidence that "they" can do anything? The fact - for them -
that "they" did it. It is a circular argument: "they" can do "A" because
they did. It doesn't matter that you show that logistically they couldn't.
It doesn't matter that you point out that forensic pathologists (Wecht for
example) say you can't alter the wounds in the manner they claim. For the
conspiracy fanatics all of the evidence for them is that "they" did it.
An excellent example of what I wrote earlier in this post. Chris has
determined that the body was altered so it must be true that the body
could be altered without the alterations being obvious to any of the
review panels. It is his way of rationalizing a nutty idea.
WRONG! I didn't 'determine' that the body was altered, the evidence
stated it.
The evidence talks to you?
Are you fully conscious? Do you see anyplace where I said that?
Yes. Right above the line I wrote. You said "the evidence stated it".
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
What I find amazing is that LNs can ignore so much fact and
eyewitnesses and insist that those things testified to just didn't happen,
and they go blind and can't see them anym
It is impossible for everything everyone testified to can be factual
because there is much testimony that is conflicting. For example you cite
witnesses that claim the body was removed from a shipping casket while
others, like Sibert and O'Neill insist it was removed from the ornamental
casket which they accompanied from Andrews. Unless you believe there can
be dual realities, both of those things can't be true.
WRONG! The problem doesn't lie with the witnesses, it lies with you
and your inability to understand the simplest information put to you. I
repeat for the nth time, there were multiple casket arrivals.
Were there multiple bodies too? You have one group of witnesses saying the
body arrived in a shipping casket inside a body bag and another which said
it arrived in the ornamental casket wrapped in sheets. Do you believe it
is possible both groups can be correct?
Post by mainframetech
The Shipping casket and the Bronze casket arrived at different times
(proven)...get it through your head.
Not proven. Not proven there was a shipping casket. Only claimed.
Post by mainframetech
You don't have to believe it, but
you should at least remember that I said it to you, so you don't sound
stupid the next time.
It would be stupid to believe you.
Post by mainframetech
Some eyewitnesses saw the first SHIPPING casket
arrive, and JFK be brought out of it. The body was put into the Bronze
casket after Humes and Boswell did their clandestine work on it, and Later
in the evening, the Bronze casket (which now had the body in it) arrived
from driving around the Bethesda complex, and some eyewitnesses saw the
body come out of it. So both cases are true. They all saw what they said
they saw.
This gets really comical. So not only do you have the body arriving in a
shipping casket and removed so Humes and Boswell could do there
clandestine work, you then have it returned to the ornamental casket so
Sibert and O'Neill would see it come out of that box. Just one question.
How did they manage to get body back into the ornamental casket without
Sibert and O'Neill noticing it since they stated they were with that
casket from the time it was placed in the ambulance at Andrews until the
body was removed from it at Bethesda?
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
In fact, the body was altered, and in such a way that it was accepted.
There is nothing factual about that and that is not even possible as even
CT hero Cyril Wecht has stated.
I'm not interested in what Wecht said.
Of course you aren't. He knows what he's talking about when it comes to
forensic pathology.
Post by mainframetech
He wasn't there and didn't see
the body, or any of the shenanigans that went on. As noted, the body
after modification was accepted by medical panels, who never saw the body,
never interviewed the enlisted men, and never saw the complete (or even
correct) photos.
So you simply assume what you can't prove even if what you assume isn't
remotely possible.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
It would be very
UNbelievable (witness the LN in this post) that alteration of the body of
the POTUS would be altered.
Alteration would be altered?
Post by mainframetech
Proof that the LN uses opinion only is in the
phrase "rationalizing a nutty idea".
Is that your way of saying we rely on forensic evidence to resolve
conflicting testimony?
Post by mainframetech
There's no fact there to hang your
hat on, but plenty of opinion, which is exactly what plotters might depend
on. There was a reason that such a fight to grab the body away from the
Dallas Medical Examiner was so important, and it was to get it to a
military hospital for the autopsy, where they had some control of the
process and the report.
That is what you imagine/assume. There is no evidence that was the reason.
WRONG as usual! The false Autopsy Report was proven to be incorrect,
and was completely different than what the autopsy team saw in the body.
Once again you claim to have proven something which you have simply
assumed.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
The SS quite understandably wanted to get AF1 in the air and get LBJ back
to the relative safety of Washington. It is also understandable why LBJ
would not want to hightail it out of Dallas and leave the widow of the
slain President behind. It is also understandable that the widow wasn't
going to leave without her husband's body. The only way to resolve this
was to remove the body from Dallas. There was no fight. There was an
argument. That argument was resolved when the Justice of the Peace agreed
to release the body provided Admiral Burkley agreed to stay with the body
until the autopsy was performed.
It was a violation of the law to remove the body from the venue it was
in (Dallas).
The Justice of the Peace consented to allow the body to be removed under
the conditions stated. It was his call to make.
Post by mainframetech
That as state to the S agents, who were adamant about taking
the body. Jackie said nothing while all this was going on. It makes nice
excuses to have all those reasons to steal the body, but it was taken
against the law. No matter that Wade the DA gave permission. That body
had to be gotten out of there. They could have waited a few hours for
Earl Rose (Medical Examiner) to finish his work, but they couldn't stand
even that short a wait.
If they waited a few hours that means the new President would be waiting
on the tarmac at Love Field for a few more hours. Since at that point they
didn't know who are what was behind the assassination, that would have
left the new President vulnerable to a second attack. For all they knew
the Soviets were behind the assassination and they might have had the
weaponry to take out AF1. Having already lost one President, the SS didn't
want to chance losing another.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
As to alterations in the body not being obvious, what are your
thoughts about the triangular flap of bone over the right ear? Are the
edges too straight, and is the shape not a normal result of a bullet or a
strike on the head? Do the differences in the body BEFORE it left
Parkland, and AFTER arriving at Bethesda not strike anyone? Here's a good
There were no differences other than the normal rigor mortis process.
Post by mainframetech
http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/boh/parkland_boh/parkland_wound.htm
http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/boh/beth/beth.htm
There were no differences. JFK's head was blown open and instant after the
bullet struck him. What was seen at Bethesda fits perfectly with what we
see in the Z-film. The Z-film is incompatible with the nonsense you are
forced to believe so you buy into the silly claim it was altered, a claim
made by people equally desperate to dismiss the Z-film as an accurate film
record of the assassination. Your problem is Zapruder described the same
thing his film shows to a local TV reporter before he was even able to get
the film developed. Bill Newman described the same thing. Usually we use
forensic evidence to corroborate witness testimony. Due to your silly
claim of film alteration we use witness testimony to corroborate the film
evidence.
Stupidity is rampant. When you have over 39 eyewitnesses to the
state of JFK's head, including the nurse that washed his hair and handled
his head, and put the body into the casket to leave Parkland, you know the
state of the head. That Nurse stated in no uncertain circumstances that
the head had only one major wound, and that was the hole in the BOH, and
NOT on the side.
She only saw one major wound and didn't see the full extent of it. That
didn't become apparent until the autopsy although it was apparent to both
Zapruder and his camera.
Post by mainframetech
Anything else is wrong in one way or another. You decided to believe the
Z-film even though it's not the best witness to the shooting,
It is the only one with perfect recall.
Post by mainframetech
and was put
in doubt when proof that it was altered was presented by Douglas Horne.
Clinging to phony evidence will only make you a sucker, as was intended by
the plotters.
The only thing Doug Horne proved was how gullible his readers are.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
We went through this with the discussion on the 9/11 attacks.
When he asked for evidence that a plane hit the Pentagon and when shown
the photos of the airplane parts around the building he dismissed them as
planted evidence; that is, as evidence of the conspiracy.
Obviously you didn't read the comments I made. I pointed out that the
parts were in the wrong place and couldn't normally be where they were
found, in the alleyway between the building sections.
Why do you think that because you point something out the rest of the
world is supposed to accept that as the truth?
It was simply logical, but you could try to disprove that with
evidence or logic, which wasn't done.
I have no need to disprove something you have never proven. You simply
assume ridiculous things and then claim you have proven them.
Post by mainframetech
I'm aware I'm dealing with
fanatics, but I will keep my cool and keep trying to explain the obvious
logic of the crime.
First you would have to understand it.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Since the plane
couldn't get there through all the beams and supports shown to be in place
outside, the parts of the plane could not be there. A solid logical
argument, but the LN view is 'listen to nothing' believe nothing' and do
not think.
There is nothing solid or logical about the way you think about 9/11 or
the JFK assassination. You want desperately to believe there were cover
ups in both so you bend and twist the evidence to force fit it to what you
want to believe rather than allowing your beliefs to conform to the
evidence.
If I've done the crime you have accused me of, it should be an easy job
for you to prove that I've twisted evidence, or whatever.
It's been pointed out to you numerous times by me and others how illogical
your conclusions are.
Post by mainframetech
But all you do
is go back to your general ad hominem comments. That can be very
frustrating for you, and I appreciate that, But I'm not going to fake my
results to make you feel better.
This is why I converse with you. You are almost always good for a laugh or
two.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
So the very evidence showing that there no missile that hit the Pentagon
attack is, for him, evidence of a missile hitting it. Up is down and down
is up.
Nope. You stopped thinking again. I like to talk about proof or the
absence of it. Not your opinions.
Mostly absence of it because that is what you have to support your beliefs.
Which is YOUR OPINION.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
When he asked for evidence of DNA testing of the remains of the passengers
and when he was shown reports on that very testing he dismissed it as part
of the conspiracy. It was staged DNA testing of remains (since there were
no passengers on the planes).
It was unknown if there were passengers or not, but they were
certainly not on the grass in front of the Pentagon, or on the grass at
the Shanksville site.
Did you expect them to be posing for a group picture after there planes
slammed into a concrete structure and nosedived into the ground?
Nope, I expected there to be bodies strewn around the site along with
seats and luggage and all sort of plane debris.
All of those things would have been nothing more than charred remains.
Post by mainframetech
That's the kind of thing
news cameramen like to photograph. The Shanksville site had NONE of those
things. When the first photos were taken. And if you didn't research it,
then you can check it now. The gash in the earth that was supposedly
where the plane hit was there BEFORE the site was used as a crash site.
Of course, you won't bother to check it, since you know you're right.
Of all the ridiculous things you have claimed over the years, this latest
one ranks near the top of the list.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
If there are no bodies, then how can there be valid
DNA tests, which can be written on a piece of paper and shown to people?
There were bodies. Mostly charred remains which wouldn't be apparent in
any photo taken from a distance.
And such charred bodies would be what the cameramen would want to
photograph to show the goriest they could find. Yet no photos of charred
bodies at that site.
Show us close ups of these crash sites.
Post by mainframetech
Although finding a few photos of charred bodies
would be easy to find to show as if they were from that site. I'm
speaking of Shanksville now, the Pentagon had what I consider real deaths,
though I'm not sure what killed them. Possibly a bomb put against the
wall.
Amazing the things you are willing to believe.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
With no bodies, anyone can fill up a piece of paper with DNA info.
Telling people all the facts and showing none of them suggests a hoax.
But on top of all that, the very collapse of 3 buildings to 2 trained
experts was 'controlled demolition', but no, we're not going to listen to
experts because our opinion is more important.
You listen to wackos.
See? You have only OPINION,
There is only one correct answer for each of these events. Unlike you I
don't look at finding the truth to be a multiple choice exercise.
Post by mainframetech
yet you act like you know the truth!
It's not an act. I really do.
Post by mainframetech
I just got through talking a bout the 2 expert controlled demolition people
that I showed during out discussion on the 3 towers collapsing. Neither
of them were wackos, they were legitimate demolition people who recognized
'controlled demolition' immediately and said so. Of course, if you admit
they were normal experts, then you have to admit there was 'controlled
demolition' so you're stuck with your silly opinions.
You reject the findings of those who investigated these attacks because
you would rather believe something else. It doesn't even make sense that
the Twin Towers were controlled demolitions when they were top down
collapses. That's not how controlled demolitions work and you can't find
one instance in which it was done that way.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Once again the very evidence showing a plane hit the Pentagon is for him
evidence that a plane didn't.
That's the problem. You were told that a plane hit the Pentagon and
you went with it. There was no proof, and in fact, there was proof that
it wasn't a plane that hit. And the 85 videos from the nearby businesses
were kept away from the public to this day, so we'll never know what they
showed. A photoshopped plane was shown in one photo, and we're supposed to
bow down and swear to it! The LN philosophy is a weird one alright!
It wasn't a photo, it was a frame from a security camera which didn't take
that many frames per second. That's why the intact plane only appeared in
one frame.
LOL! There was only one frame that showed a flying vehicle of some
kind, which was (when ENLARGED) a thin missile like vehicle, but NOT a
passenger plane with 2 large engines hanging down. but someone showed me a
photo of plane close up and not fuzz or bad photo. It was a fake.
No, it was a passenger plane. An American Airlines jet.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
There is no way out of this. Whatever evidence we show that a plane hit
the Pentagon is, again, evidence for him it didn't.
Substitute JFK and Oswald for missile and Pentagon.
Same situation. You don't have the necessary evidence.
It would be impossible to provide the evidence necessary to convince you
that your beliefs are wacky because no matter how much you were given you
would invent excuses to dismiss it all.
Welp, if you had taken the overview, you would have arrived at the
result that there was a hoax done on the US public. The rest become easy
to see.
No you are assuming I am as easily duped as you are.
mainframetech
2018-04-05 03:00:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Post by bigdog
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Post by Steve BH
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
This list of 39 witnesses has been thoroughly debugged and debunked. The
fact you close your eyes tight and put your hands over your ears while
yelling "I can't see you! I can't hear you!" several times in a row
doesn't change the fact you made several big bloopers.
Nothing of the kind, and you continue to run away from my challenge to
pick out an example from this list and prove it doesn't belong there.
The blooper here is your constant LN attitude of closed mind ignoring any
proof that comes to you. The challenge continues, are you chicken to take
a chance? The last time you tried, you failed miserably, but still
pretend part of the list is wrong.
Chris
The challenge is you have no TIME to get a second casket onto the plane,
and JFK's body out of his bronze monster, in the very short time just
before the swearing-in.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/b_snatch.htm
Too many people have to be in on this plot, and the rest of them have to
be elsewhere and not notice anything on board this airplane, jammed with
two groups of people who didn't like each other. JFK's group were back in
the tail, with his body. It's them you're up against. McHugh didn't go to
the swearing in.
"the coffin was never unattended. Lifton's story is the biggest pack of
malakey I ever heard in my life. I never had my hands or eyes off of it
during the period he says it was unattended, and when Jackie got up to go
to her stateroom where Lyndon Johnson was, Kenney O'Donnell went with her,
but we stayed right there with the coffin and never let go of it. In fact
several of us were with it through the whole trip, all the way to Bethesda
Naval Hospital. It couldn't have happened the way that fellow said. Not
even thirty seconds. I never left it. There was a general watch. We
organized it."
You can have the secret service in on it, but not a man who has known JFK
forever.
Powers was known for his eidetic memory. JFK never lost a campaign and
Powers is one reason why. You should read "Johnny We Hardly Knew Ye" by
Powers and O'Donnell t get a feel for these folks. They remind of the case
The West Wing. You're getting nothing past them with JFK's.
As for McHugh, he goes up and down the length of the plane no less than 5
times before the swearing in, to see the pilot. When's he going to show up
in the tail, all that time? You don't know. If you're a conspirator body
switcher, y ou have to deal with him too.
Give it up.
See what's happening? You're trying to disprove - to conspiracy fanatics -
that the casket switch didn't occur.
We all know how difficult it is to prove a negative; it's impossible to
prove a negative to fanatics.
It's impossible to prove anything, positive or negative, to the fanatics.
While it is difficult to prove a negative, you can prove that what you are
saying didn't happen is impossible. We can certainly come close to that
with the casket switch. If it is not impossible, it is certainly
implausible.
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
When you point out it's impossible to do "A" and "B" and "C" you are
pointing to the limits of human actions. But to conspiracy fanatics there
are no limits. "They" can do anything.
Nobody demonstrates that better than Chris. He has already made up his
mind that his theory is correct so whatever needed to have happened to
allow that to be possible, in his mind must have happened. This is what
happens when you start with your conclusion and work backward, force
fitting the evidence to the predetermined conclusion.
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
What is their evidence that "they" can do anything? The fact - for them -
that "they" did it. It is a circular argument: "they" can do "A" because
they did. It doesn't matter that you show that logistically they couldn't.
It doesn't matter that you point out that forensic pathologists (Wecht for
example) say you can't alter the wounds in the manner they claim. For the
conspiracy fanatics all of the evidence for them is that "they" did it.
An excellent example of what I wrote earlier in this post. Chris has
determined that the body was altered so it must be true that the body
could be altered without the alterations being obvious to any of the
review panels. It is his way of rationalizing a nutty idea.
WRONG! I didn't 'determine' that the body was altered, the evidence
stated it.
The evidence talks to you?
Are you fully conscious? Do you see anyplace where I said that?
Yes. Right above the line I wrote. You said "the evidence stated it".
So you're going to waste our time with more pickiness. OK. Nowhere
did I say the evidence talked to me. And it is generally know that I was
saying that the evidence made it clear.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
What I find amazing is that LNs can ignore so much fact and
eyewitnesses and insist that those things testified to just didn't happen,
and they go blind and can't see them anym
It is impossible for everything everyone testified to can be factual
because there is much testimony that is conflicting. For example you cite
witnesses that claim the body was removed from a shipping casket while
others, like Sibert and O'Neill insist it was removed from the ornamental
casket which they accompanied from Andrews. Unless you believe there can
be dual realities, both of those things can't be true.
WRONG! The problem doesn't lie with the witnesses, it lies with you
and your inability to understand the simplest information put to you. I
repeat for the nth time, there were multiple casket arrivals.
Were there multiple bodies too? You have one group of witnesses saying the
body arrived in a shipping casket inside a body bag and another which said
it arrived in the ornamental casket wrapped in sheets. Do you believe it
is possible both groups can be correct?
Of course! Are you feeble minded? With 3 casket arrivals, there's at
least 2 of them that offer themselves to allow eyewitnesses to see the
body of JFK come out of 2 casket, the SHIPPING casket, and the Bronze
casket. And that's what happened. You had it explained to you and you
still can't get it. And it was so simple too.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
The Shipping casket and the Bronze casket arrived at different times
(proven)...get it through your head.
Not proven. Not proven there was a shipping casket. Only claimed.
Proven. I'm not going through all that again, just because you can't
keep a single thought in your head. There were too many corroborating
witnesses to the presence of the SHIPPING casket for it not to have been
there. And witnesses that the body of JFK came out of it at 6:35pm as
well.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
You don't have to believe it, but
you should at least remember that I said it to you, so you don't sound
stupid the next time.
It would be stupid to believe you.
Did you see what I just wrote? I said "You don't have to believe it".
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Some eyewitnesses saw the first SHIPPING casket
arrive, and JFK be brought out of it. The body was put into the Bronze
casket after Humes and Boswell did their clandestine work on it, and Later
in the evening, the Bronze casket (which now had the body in it) arrived
from driving around the Bethesda complex, and some eyewitnesses saw the
body come out of it. So both cases are true. They all saw what they said
they saw.
This gets really comical. So not only do you have the body arriving in a
shipping casket and removed so Humes and Boswell could do there
clandestine work, you then have it returned to the ornamental casket so
Sibert and O'Neill would see it come out of that box. Just one question.
How did they manage to get body back into the ornamental casket without
Sibert and O'Neill noticing it since they stated they were with that
casket from the time it was placed in the ambulance at Andrews until the
body was removed from it at Bethesda?
You really are slow it would appear. I've shown you the proof that
S&O did NOT stay with the casket every minute. And Sibert admitted it.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
In fact, the body was altered, and in such a way that it was accepted.
There is nothing factual about that and that is not even possible as even
CT hero Cyril Wecht has stated.
I'm not interested in what Wecht said.
Of course you aren't. He knows what he's talking about when it comes to
forensic pathology.
WRONG! You know what I meant, so stop with the childish pickiness.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
He wasn't there and didn't see
the body, or any of the shenanigans that went on. As noted, the body
after modification was accepted by medical panels, who never saw the body,
never interviewed the enlisted men, and never saw the complete (or even
correct) photos.
So you simply assume what you can't prove even if what you assume isn't
remotely possible.
What I've proved to you (whether you like it or not) is true. Not
"theory" like the WCR.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
It would be very
UNbelievable (witness the LN in this post) that alteration of the body of
the POTUS would be altered.
Alteration would be altered?
Post by mainframetech
Proof that the LN uses opinion only is in the
phrase "rationalizing a nutty idea".
Is that your way of saying we rely on forensic evidence to resolve
conflicting testimony?
Post by mainframetech
There's no fact there to hang your
hat on, but plenty of opinion, which is exactly what plotters might depend
on. There was a reason that such a fight to grab the body away from the
Dallas Medical Examiner was so important, and it was to get it to a
military hospital for the autopsy, where they had some control of the
process and the report.
That is what you imagine/assume. There is no evidence that was the reason.
WRONG as usual! The false Autopsy Report was proven to be incorrect,
and was completely different than what the autopsy team saw in the body.
Once again you claim to have proven something which you have simply
assumed.
FALSE! I've shown the eyewitness statements that corroborate each
other as to what was seen in the body with the organs removed.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
The SS quite understandably wanted to get AF1 in the air and get LBJ back
to the relative safety of Washington. It is also understandable why LBJ
would not want to hightail it out of Dallas and leave the widow of the
slain President behind. It is also understandable that the widow wasn't
going to leave without her husband's body. The only way to resolve this
was to remove the body from Dallas. There was no fight. There was an
argument. That argument was resolved when the Justice of the Peace agreed
to release the body provided Admiral Burkley agreed to stay with the body
until the autopsy was performed.
It was a violation of the law to remove the body from the venue it was
in (Dallas).
The Justice of the Peace consented to allow the body to be removed under
the conditions stated. It was his call to make.
It was not his call, though he made it. It was the Texas law that the
body stay and be autopsied by the Medical Examiner. Wade, the DA stepped
in and let the body go, but it was illegal for him to do so.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
That as state to the SS agents, who were adamant about taking
the body. Jackie said nothing while all this was going on. It makes nice
excuses to have all those reasons to steal the body, but it was taken
against the law. No matter that Wade the DA gave permission. That body
had to be gotten out of there. They could have waited a few hours for
Earl Rose (Medical Examiner) to finish his work, but they couldn't stand
even that short a wait.
If they waited a few hours that means the new President would be waiting
on the tarmac at Love Field for a few more hours.
WRONG! There was a separate plane used for the VP, and it could take
LBJ anywhere he needed to go.
Post by bigdog
Since at that point they
didn't know who are what was behind the assassination, that would have
left the new President vulnerable to a second attack. For all they knew
the Soviets were behind the assassination and they might have had the
weaponry to take out AF1. Having already lost one President, the SS didn't
want to chance losing another.
Nice theory. No facts in evidence though, since there was plane there
just for the VP.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
As to alterations in the body not being obvious, what are your
thoughts about the triangular flap of bone over the right ear? Are the
edges too straight, and is the shape not a normal result of a bullet or a
strike on the head? Do the differences in the body BEFORE it left
Parkland, and AFTER arriving at Bethesda not strike anyone? Here's a good
There were no differences other than the normal rigor mortis process.
Post by mainframetech
http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/boh/parkland_boh/parkland_wound.htm
http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/boh/beth/beth.htm
There were no differences. JFK's head was blown open and instant after the
bullet struck him. What was seen at Bethesda fits perfectly with what we
see in the Z-film. The Z-film is incompatible with the nonsense you are
forced to believe so you buy into the silly claim it was altered, a claim
made by people equally desperate to dismiss the Z-film as an accurate film
record of the assassination. Your problem is Zapruder described the same
thing his film shows to a local TV reporter before he was even able to get
the film developed. Bill Newman described the same thing. Usually we use
forensic evidence to corroborate witness testimony. Due to your silly
claim of film alteration we use witness testimony to corroborate the film
evidence.
Stupidity is rampant. When you have over 39 eyewitnesses to the
state of JFK's head, including the nurse that washed his hair and handled
his head, and put the body into the casket to leave Parkland, you know the
state of the head. That Nurse stated in no uncertain circumstances that
the head had only one major wound, and that was the hole in the BOH, and
NOT on the side.
She only saw one major wound and didn't see the full extent of it. That
didn't become apparent until the autopsy although it was apparent to both
Zapruder and his camera.
TOTAL BULLSHIT! Nurse Diana Bowron handled the head and washed the
hair, don't tell me she didn't see the extent of the wound that was there.
She made a drawing of what she saw too:

http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/boh/parkland_boh/piks/bowron_drawing.jpg

And it didn't go around the right side. Or anything to do with the top
of the head either. That was all done at Bethesda by Hume and Boswell.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Anything else is wrong in one way or another. You decided to believe the
Z-film even though it's not the best witness to the shooting,
It is the only one with perfect recall.
WRONG! Film is not a guarantee that it hasn't been manipulated or
altered. And when altered, film is much harder to believe that it was
altered.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
and was put
in doubt when proof that it was altered was presented by Douglas Horne.
Clinging to phony evidence will only make you a sucker, as was intended by
the plotters.
The only thing Doug Horne proved was how gullible his readers are.
You have as yet proven that Horne was wrong in his work proving the
alteration of the Z-film.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
We went through this with the discussion on the 9/11 attacks.
When he asked for evidence that a plane hit the Pentagon and when shown
the photos of the airplane parts around the building he dismissed them as
planted evidence; that is, as evidence of the conspiracy.
Obviously you didn't read the comments I made. I pointed out that the
parts were in the wrong place and couldn't normally be where they were
found, in the alleyway between the building sections.
Why do you think that because you point something out the rest of the
world is supposed to accept that as the truth?
It was simply logical, but you could try to disprove that with
evidence or logic, which wasn't done.
I have no need to disprove something you have never proven. You simply
assume ridiculous things and then claim you have proven them.
It was proven that the plane did NOT go through the building because
there was no hole present to allow it to go through. The alleyway was
between the outer ring and next inner ring and had plane parts in it.
Those parts couldn't get there from a crash, since the plane couldn't get
to that far into the building. Proven.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
I'm aware I'm dealing with
fanatics, but I will keep my cool and keep trying to explain the obvious
logic of the crime.
First you would have to understand it.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Since the plane
couldn't get there through all the beams and supports shown to be in place
outside, the parts of the plane could not be there. A solid logical
argument, but the LN view is 'listen to nothing' believe nothing' and do
not think.
There is nothing solid or logical about the way you think about 9/11 or
the JFK assassination. You want desperately to believe there were cover
ups in both so you bend and twist the evidence to force fit it to what you
want to believe rather than allowing your beliefs to conform to the
evidence.
If I've done the crime you have accused me of, it should be an easy job
for you to prove that I've twisted evidence, or whatever.
It's been pointed out to you numerous times by me and others how illogical
your conclusions are.
Because you express your OPINION of me being "illogical" doesn't make
it true. Opinions in a debate carry NO weight. Evidence or logic or
proof count though. Like what can be seen in a photo.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
But all you do
is go back to your general ad hominem comments. That can be very
frustrating for you, and I appreciate that, But I'm not going to fake my
results to make you feel better.
This is why I converse with you. You are almost always good for a laugh or
two.
Chuckling doesn't prove anything either. It only demeans the
chuckler who can't stay with the subject.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
So the very evidence showing that there no missile that hit the Pentagon
attack is, for him, evidence of a missile hitting it. Up is down and down
is up.
Nope. You stopped thinking again. I like to talk about proof or the
absence of it. Not your opinions.
Mostly absence of it because that is what you have to support your beliefs.
Which is YOUR OPINION.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
When he asked for evidence of DNA testing of the remains of the passengers
and when he was shown reports on that very testing he dismissed it as part
of the conspiracy. It was staged DNA testing of remains (since there were
no passengers on the planes).
It was unknown if there were passengers or not, but they were
certainly not on the grass in front of the Pentagon, or on the grass at
the Shanksville site.
Did you expect them to be posing for a group picture after there planes
slammed into a concrete structure and nosedived into the ground?
Nope, I expected there to be bodies strewn around the site along with
seats and luggage and all sort of plane debris.
All of those things would have been nothing more than charred remains.
Nope. I've looked at other plane crashes and they have seats and
debris all over the place, and sometimes bodies if the photo is early
enough after the crash. Many plane parts are metal too, and so don't get
burned.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
That's the kind of thing
news cameramen like to photograph. The Shanksville site had NONE of those
things when the first photos were taken. And if you didn't research it,
then you can check it now. The gash in the earth that was supposedly
where the plane hit was there BEFORE the site was used as a crash site.
Of course, you won't bother to check it, since you know you're right.
Of all the ridiculous things you have claimed over the years, this latest
one ranks near the top of the list.
See? I was right! You didn't check it, and used your useless OPINION
as if it meant something! There are photos online that show the site
before the crash, and you can see the gash in the earth that matches the
gash AFTER the crash. It was the same gash, and the crash didn't create
it.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
If there are no bodies, then how can there be valid
DNA tests, which can be written on a piece of paper and shown to people?
There were bodies. Mostly charred remains which wouldn't be apparent in
any photo taken from a distance.
And such charred bodies would be what the cameramen would want to
photograph to show the goriest they could find. Yet no photos of charred
bodies at that site.
Show us close ups of these crash sites.
They did. But here's Shanksville early after the crash:



And if you have the patience (you don't) here's some proof of there NOT
being a plane in the ground at Shanksville!


Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Although finding a few photos of charred bodies
would be easy to find to show as if they were from that site. I'm
speaking of Shanksville now, the Pentagon had what I consider real deaths,
though I'm not sure what killed them. Possibly a bomb put against the
wall.
Amazing the things you are willing to believe.
I didn't say I believed that, but I have to think of something since
the official story is baloney.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
With no bodies, anyone can fill up a piece of paper with DNA info.
Telling people all the facts and showing none of them suggests a hoax.
But on top of all that, the very collapse of 3 buildings to 2 trained
experts was 'controlled demolition', but no, we're not going to listen to
experts because our opinion is more important.
You listen to wackos.
See? You have only OPINION,
There is only one correct answer for each of these events. Unlike you I
don't look at finding the truth to be a multiple choice exercise.
Post by mainframetech
yet you act like you know the truth!
It's not an act. I really do.
Post by mainframetech
I just got through talking about the 2 expert controlled demolition people
that I showed during out discussion on the 3 towers collapsing. Neither
of them were wackos, they were legitimate demolition people who recognized
'controlled demolition' immediately and said so. Of course, if you admit
they were normal experts, then you have to admit there was 'controlled
demolition' so you're stuck with your silly opinions.
You reject the findings of those who investigated these attacks because
you would rather believe something else. It doesn't even make sense that
the Twin Towers were controlled demolitions when they were top down
collapses. That's not how controlled demolitions work and you can't find
one instance in which it was done that way.
'Controlled demolition' can work from the top down, or the bottom up.
What matters is where you place the explosives and the weakening material
and the order in which you set them off. When 2 experts in 'controlled
demolition' say that 9/11 was 'controlled demolition' why do you run away
from them saying that? They're the experts, not you!
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Once again the very evidence showing a plane hit the Pentagon is for him
evidence that a plane didn't.
That's the problem. You were told that a plane hit the Pentagon and
you went with it. There was no proof, and in fact, there was proof that
it wasn't a plane that hit. And the 85 videos from the nearby businesses
were kept away from the public to this day, so we'll never know what they
showed. A photoshopped plane was shown in one photo, and we're supposed to
bow down and swear to it! The LN philosophy is a weird one alright!
It wasn't a photo, it was a frame from a security camera which didn't take
that many frames per second. That's why the intact plane only appeared in
one frame.
LOL! There was only one frame that showed a flying vehicle of some
kind, which was (when ENLARGED) a thin missile like vehicle, but NOT a
passenger plane with 2 large engines hanging down. but someone showed me a
photo of plane close up and not fuzz or bad photo. It was a fake.
No, it was a passenger plane. An American Airlines jet.
The photo I'm speaking of was a photoshopped fake. The plane was close
in the photo, not the far away thin missile taken by the gateway camera.
If that was the one you're speaking of, you were suckered.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
There is no way out of this. Whatever evidence we show that a plane hit
the Pentagon is, again, evidence for him it didn't.
Substitute JFK and Oswald for missile and Pentagon.
Same situation. You don't have the necessary evidence.
It would be impossible to provide the evidence necessary to convince you
that your beliefs are wacky because no matter how much you were given you
would invent excuses to dismiss it all.
Welp, if you had taken the overview, you would have arrived at the
result that there was a hoax done on the US public. The rest became easy
to see.
No you are assuming I am as easily duped as you are.
Oh? Sorry, I thought I was far more skeptical than you.

Chris
bigdog
2018-04-07 01:05:24 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Post by bigdog
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Post by Steve BH
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
This list of 39 witnesses has been thoroughly debugged and debunked. The
fact you close your eyes tight and put your hands over your ears while
yelling "I can't see you! I can't hear you!" several times in a row
doesn't change the fact you made several big bloopers.
Nothing of the kind, and you continue to run away from my challenge to
pick out an example from this list and prove it doesn't belong there.
The blooper here is your constant LN attitude of closed mind ignoring any
proof that comes to you. The challenge continues, are you chicken to take
a chance? The last time you tried, you failed miserably, but still
pretend part of the list is wrong.
Chris
The challenge is you have no TIME to get a second casket onto the plane,
and JFK's body out of his bronze monster, in the very short time just
before the swearing-in.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/b_snatch.htm
Too many people have to be in on this plot, and the rest of them have to
be elsewhere and not notice anything on board this airplane, jammed with
two groups of people who didn't like each other. JFK's group were back in
the tail, with his body. It's them you're up against. McHugh didn't go to
the swearing in.
"the coffin was never unattended. Lifton's story is the biggest pack of
malakey I ever heard in my life. I never had my hands or eyes off of it
during the period he says it was unattended, and when Jackie got up to go
to her stateroom where Lyndon Johnson was, Kenney O'Donnell went with her,
but we stayed right there with the coffin and never let go of it. In fact
several of us were with it through the whole trip, all the way to Bethesda
Naval Hospital. It couldn't have happened the way that fellow said. Not
even thirty seconds. I never left it. There was a general watch. We
organized it."
You can have the secret service in on it, but not a man who has known JFK
forever.
Powers was known for his eidetic memory. JFK never lost a campaign and
Powers is one reason why. You should read "Johnny We Hardly Knew Ye" by
Powers and O'Donnell t get a feel for these folks. They remind of the case
The West Wing. You're getting nothing past them with JFK's.
As for McHugh, he goes up and down the length of the plane no less than 5
times before the swearing in, to see the pilot. When's he going to show up
in the tail, all that time? You don't know. If you're a conspirator body
switcher, y ou have to deal with him too.
Give it up.
See what's happening? You're trying to disprove - to conspiracy fanatics -
that the casket switch didn't occur.
We all know how difficult it is to prove a negative; it's impossible to
prove a negative to fanatics.
It's impossible to prove anything, positive or negative, to the fanatics.
While it is difficult to prove a negative, you can prove that what you are
saying didn't happen is impossible. We can certainly come close to that
with the casket switch. If it is not impossible, it is certainly
implausible.
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
When you point out it's impossible to do "A" and "B" and "C" you are
pointing to the limits of human actions. But to conspiracy fanatics there
are no limits. "They" can do anything.
Nobody demonstrates that better than Chris. He has already made up his
mind that his theory is correct so whatever needed to have happened to
allow that to be possible, in his mind must have happened. This is what
happens when you start with your conclusion and work backward, force
fitting the evidence to the predetermined conclusion.
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
What is their evidence that "they" can do anything? The fact - for them -
that "they" did it. It is a circular argument: "they" can do "A" because
they did. It doesn't matter that you show that logistically they couldn't.
It doesn't matter that you point out that forensic pathologists (Wecht for
example) say you can't alter the wounds in the manner they claim. For the
conspiracy fanatics all of the evidence for them is that "they" did it.
An excellent example of what I wrote earlier in this post. Chris has
determined that the body was altered so it must be true that the body
could be altered without the alterations being obvious to any of the
review panels. It is his way of rationalizing a nutty idea.
WRONG! I didn't 'determine' that the body was altered, the evidence
stated it.
The evidence talks to you?
Are you fully conscious? Do you see anyplace where I said that?
Yes. Right above the line I wrote. You said "the evidence stated it".
So you're going to waste our time with more pickiness. OK. Nowhere
did I say the evidence talked to me. And it is generally know that I was
saying that the evidence made it clear.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
What I find amazing is that LNs can ignore so much fact and
eyewitnesses and insist that those things testified to just didn't happen,
and they go blind and can't see them anym
It is impossible for everything everyone testified to can be factual
because there is much testimony that is conflicting. For example you cite
witnesses that claim the body was removed from a shipping casket while
others, like Sibert and O'Neill insist it was removed from the ornamental
casket which they accompanied from Andrews. Unless you believe there can
be dual realities, both of those things can't be true.
WRONG! The problem doesn't lie with the witnesses, it lies with you
and your inability to understand the simplest information put to you. I
repeat for the nth time, there were multiple casket arrivals.
Were there multiple bodies too? You have one group of witnesses saying the
body arrived in a shipping casket inside a body bag and another which said
it arrived in the ornamental casket wrapped in sheets. Do you believe it
is possible both groups can be correct?
Of course! Are you feeble minded? With 3 casket arrivals, there's at
least 2 of them that offer themselves to allow eyewitnesses to see the
body of JFK come out of 2 casket, the SHIPPING casket, and the Bronze
casket. And that's what happened. You had it explained to you and you
still can't get it. And it was so simple too.
So you have JFK's body arriving in two different caskets. That's
hysterical. Or maybe they used a body double. Why not. If they are going
to the trouble of sneaking a shipping casket onto AF1 and then off again
and keeping it hidden the whole time in between, why not go with a
duplicate body too. "They" apparently could do anything.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
The Shipping casket and the Bronze casket arrived at different times
(proven)...get it through your head.
Not proven. Not proven there was a shipping casket. Only claimed.
Proven. I'm not going through all that again, just because you can't
keep a single thought in your head. There were too many corroborating
witnesses to the presence of the SHIPPING casket for it not to have been
there. And witnesses that the body of JFK came out of it at 6:35pm as
well.
There were also witnesses who refuted the shipping casket story but you
don't care about them. Nobody had even mentioned a shipping casket until
Paul O'Connor made up that story almost two decades later for Lifton and
then several people jumped on board.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
You don't have to believe it, but
you should at least remember that I said it to you, so you don't sound
stupid the next time.
It would be stupid to believe you.
Did you see what I just wrote? I said "You don't have to believe it".
I already knew I didn't have to. I didn't need your permission.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Some eyewitnesses saw the first SHIPPING casket
arrive, and JFK be brought out of it. The body was put into the Bronze
casket after Humes and Boswell did their clandestine work on it, and Later
in the evening, the Bronze casket (which now had the body in it) arrived
from driving around the Bethesda complex, and some eyewitnesses saw the
body come out of it. So both cases are true. They all saw what they said
they saw.
This gets really comical. So not only do you have the body arriving in a
shipping casket and removed so Humes and Boswell could do there
clandestine work, you then have it returned to the ornamental casket so
Sibert and O'Neill would see it come out of that box. Just one question.
How did they manage to get body back into the ornamental casket without
Sibert and O'Neill noticing it since they stated they were with that
casket from the time it was placed in the ambulance at Andrews until the
body was removed from it at Bethesda?
You really are slow it would appear. I've shown you the proof that
S&O did NOT stay with the casket every minute. And Sibert admitted it.
No you didn't. You showed documentation that they moved to another room
during the x-rays but that didn't happen until AFTER they had seen the
body taken out of the ornamental casket. The were with the casket from the
time it was loaded into the ambulance an Andrews until JFK's body was
taken out of it at Bethesda. You have no answer for that timeline problem
so you continue to pretend it doesn't exist.

It's ridiculous that I have to spell it out for you but here is the
sequence of events.

1. Ornamental casket is loaded into the ambulance at Andrews.
2. Sibert and O'Neill ride with the ornamental casket from Andrews to
Bethesda.
3. Casket is unloaded from the ambulance at Bethesda's loading dock and is
brought into the autopsy room, all while under the watch of Sibert and
O'Neill.
4. JFK's body is removed from the ornamental casket and placed on the
autopsy table, still under the watchful eyes of Sibert and O'Neill.
5. Sibert and O'Neill are asked to move to an adjacent room while the body
is x-rayed.

Between which two of the above events could the JFK's body have been
slipped back into the ornamental casket without Sibert and O'Neill seeing
that done?
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
In fact, the body was altered, and in such a way that it was accepted.
There is nothing factual about that and that is not even possible as even
CT hero Cyril Wecht has stated.
I'm not interested in what Wecht said.
Of course you aren't. He knows what he's talking about when it comes to
forensic pathology.
WRONG! You know what I meant, so stop with the childish pickiness.
I rarely know what you mean because rarely does it make any sense. You
aren't interested in what Wecht said because what Wecht said doesn't fit
with your theories so you simply dismiss what Wecht said.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
He wasn't there and didn't see
the body, or any of the shenanigans that went on. As noted, the body
after modification was accepted by medical panels, who never saw the body,
never interviewed the enlisted men, and never saw the complete (or even
correct) photos.
So you simply assume what you can't prove even if what you assume isn't
remotely possible.
What I've proved to you (whether you like it or not) is true. Not
"theory" like the WCR.
Continuously claiming you have proven something falls short of having
actually proved it.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
It would be very
UNbelievable (witness the LN in this post) that alteration of the body of
the POTUS would be altered.
Alteration would be altered?
Post by mainframetech
Proof that the LN uses opinion only is in the
phrase "rationalizing a nutty idea".
Is that your way of saying we rely on forensic evidence to resolve
conflicting testimony?
Post by mainframetech
There's no fact there to hang your
hat on, but plenty of opinion, which is exactly what plotters might depend
on. There was a reason that such a fight to grab the body away from the
Dallas Medical Examiner was so important, and it was to get it to a
military hospital for the autopsy, where they had some control of the
process and the report.
That is what you imagine/assume. There is no evidence that was the reason.
WRONG as usual! The false Autopsy Report was proven to be incorrect,
and was completely different than what the autopsy team saw in the body.
Once again you claim to have proven something which you have simply
assumed.
FALSE! I've shown the eyewitness statements that corroborate each
other as to what was seen in the body with the organs removed.
Eyewitness accounts can't prove anything by themselves because
eyewitnesses can be and often are wrong about details.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
The SS quite understandably wanted to get AF1 in the air and get LBJ back
to the relative safety of Washington. It is also understandable why LBJ
would not want to hightail it out of Dallas and leave the widow of the
slain President behind. It is also understandable that the widow wasn't
going to leave without her husband's body. The only way to resolve this
was to remove the body from Dallas. There was no fight. There was an
argument. That argument was resolved when the Justice of the Peace agreed
to release the body provided Admiral Burkley agreed to stay with the body
until the autopsy was performed.
It was a violation of the law to remove the body from the venue it was
in (Dallas).
The Justice of the Peace consented to allow the body to be removed under
the conditions stated. It was his call to make.
It was not his call, though he made it. It was the Texas law that the
body stay and be autopsied by the Medical Examiner. Wade, the DA stepped
in and let the body go, but it was illegal for him to do so.
They reached the legal decision that as long as Admiral Burkley stayed
with the body through the autopsy the chain of possession would be
maintained and the legal requirement for a medico-legal autopsy would be
met.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
That as state to the SS agents, who were adamant about taking
the body. Jackie said nothing while all this was going on. It makes nice
excuses to have all those reasons to steal the body, but it was taken
against the law. No matter that Wade the DA gave permission. That body
had to be gotten out of there. They could have waited a few hours for
Earl Rose (Medical Examiner) to finish his work, but they couldn't stand
even that short a wait.
If they waited a few hours that means the new President would be waiting
on the tarmac at Love Field for a few more hours.
WRONG! There was a separate plane used for the VP, and it could take
LBJ anywhere he needed to go.
He was the boss and he wasn't going to go anywhere until Jackie and JFK's
body were onboard his plane. That is the hand the SS was dealt. They
weren't going to get LBJ out of Dallas until Jackie and the body were on
board.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Since at that point they
didn't know who are what was behind the assassination, that would have
left the new President vulnerable to a second attack. For all they knew
the Soviets were behind the assassination and they might have had the
weaponry to take out AF1. Having already lost one President, the SS didn't
want to chance losing another.
Nice theory. No facts in evidence though, since there was plane there
just for the VP.
It's the reason the SS gave for wanting to get LBJ out of Dallas ASAP.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
As to alterations in the body not being obvious, what are your
thoughts about the triangular flap of bone over the right ear? Are the
edges too straight, and is the shape not a normal result of a bullet or a
strike on the head? Do the differences in the body BEFORE it left
Parkland, and AFTER arriving at Bethesda not strike anyone? Here's a good
There were no differences other than the normal rigor mortis process.
Post by mainframetech
http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/boh/parkland_boh/parkland_wound.htm
http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/boh/beth/beth.htm
There were no differences. JFK's head was blown open and instant after the
bullet struck him. What was seen at Bethesda fits perfectly with what we
see in the Z-film. The Z-film is incompatible with the nonsense you are
forced to believe so you buy into the silly claim it was altered, a claim
made by people equally desperate to dismiss the Z-film as an accurate film
record of the assassination. Your problem is Zapruder described the same
thing his film shows to a local TV reporter before he was even able to get
the film developed. Bill Newman described the same thing. Usually we use
forensic evidence to corroborate witness testimony. Due to your silly
claim of film alteration we use witness testimony to corroborate the film
evidence.
Stupidity is rampant. When you have over 39 eyewitnesses to the
state of JFK's head, including the nurse that washed his hair and handled
his head, and put the body into the casket to leave Parkland, you know the
state of the head. That Nurse stated in no uncertain circumstances that
the head had only one major wound, and that was the hole in the BOH, and
NOT on the side.
She only saw one major wound and didn't see the full extent of it. That
didn't become apparent until the autopsy although it was apparent to both
Zapruder and his camera.
TOTAL BULLSHIT! Nurse Diana Bowron handled the head and washed the
hair, don't tell me she didn't see the extent of the wound that was there.
http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/boh/parkland_boh/piks/bowron_drawing.jpg
She made a drawing of the hole she saw. Part of the hole had been closed
by the flaps. She saw the part where the skull was missing.
Post by mainframetech
And it didn't go around the right side. Or anything to do with the top
of the head either. That was all done at Bethesda by Hume and Boswell.
Of course it did. I think it was claviger who provided a statement from
Bowron who said the wound extend from the back to the top of the head.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Anything else is wrong in one way or another. You decided to believe the
Z-film even though it's not the best witness to the shooting,
It is the only one with perfect recall.
WRONG! Film is not a guarantee that it hasn't been manipulated or
altered. And when altered, film is much harder to believe that it was
altered.
The only manipulation occurred in your imagination.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
and was put
in doubt when proof that it was altered was presented by Douglas Horne.
Clinging to phony evidence will only make you a sucker, as was intended by
the plotters.
The only thing Doug Horne proved was how gullible his readers are.
You have as yet proven that Horne was wrong in his work proving the
alteration of the Z-film.
What Horne proposed is simply impossible. Wecht has stated so. It was
impossible when Lifton first dreamed it up and it was still impossible
when Horne recycled it.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
We went through this with the discussion on the 9/11 attacks.
When he asked for evidence that a plane hit the Pentagon and when shown
the photos of the airplane parts around the building he dismissed them as
planted evidence; that is, as evidence of the conspiracy.
Obviously you didn't read the comments I made. I pointed out that the
parts were in the wrong place and couldn't normally be where they were
found, in the alleyway between the building sections.
Why do you think that because you point something out the rest of the
world is supposed to accept that as the truth?
It was simply logical, but you could try to disprove that with
evidence or logic, which wasn't done.
I have no need to disprove something you have never proven. You simply
assume ridiculous things and then claim you have proven them.
It was proven that the plane did NOT go through the building because
there was no hole present to allow it to go through.
Thank you for once again demonstrating what I just wrote.
Post by mainframetech
The alleyway was
between the outer ring and next inner ring and had plane parts in it.
Those parts couldn't get there from a crash, since the plane couldn't get
to that far into the building. Proven.
Claimed. Assumed. Unproven.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
I'm aware I'm dealing with
fanatics, but I will keep my cool and keep trying to explain the obvious
logic of the crime.
First you would have to understand it.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Since the plane
couldn't get there through all the beams and supports shown to be in place
outside, the parts of the plane could not be there. A solid logical
argument, but the LN view is 'listen to nothing' believe nothing' and do
not think.
There is nothing solid or logical about the way you think about 9/11 or
the JFK assassination. You want desperately to believe there were cover
ups in both so you bend and twist the evidence to force fit it to what you
want to believe rather than allowing your beliefs to conform to the
evidence.
If I've done the crime you have accused me of, it should be an easy job
for you to prove that I've twisted evidence, or whatever.
It's been pointed out to you numerous times by me and others how illogical
your conclusions are.
Because you express your OPINION of me being "illogical" doesn't make
it true. Opinions in a debate carry NO weight.
All you ever present are opinions and pretty silly ones at that.
Post by mainframetech
Evidence or logic or
proof count though. Like what can be seen in a photo.
But not what you imagine you see in a photo.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
But all you do
is go back to your general ad hominem comments. That can be very
frustrating for you, and I appreciate that, But I'm not going to fake my
results to make you feel better.
This is why I converse with you. You are almost always good for a laugh or
two.
Chuckling doesn't prove anything either. It only demeans the
chuckler who can't stay with the subject.
Still more laughs.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
So the very evidence showing that there no missile that hit the Pentagon
attack is, for him, evidence of a missile hitting it. Up is down and down
is up.
Nope. You stopped thinking again. I like to talk about proof or the
absence of it. Not your opinions.
Mostly absence of it because that is what you have to support your beliefs.
Which is YOUR OPINION.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
When he asked for evidence of DNA testing of the remains of the passengers
and when he was shown reports on that very testing he dismissed it as part
of the conspiracy. It was staged DNA testing of remains (since there were
no passengers on the planes).
It was unknown if there were passengers or not, but they were
certainly not on the grass in front of the Pentagon, or on the grass at
the Shanksville site.
Did you expect them to be posing for a group picture after there planes
slammed into a concrete structure and nosedived into the ground?
Nope, I expected there to be bodies strewn around the site along with
seats and luggage and all sort of plane debris.
All of those things would have been nothing more than charred remains.
Nope. I've looked at other plane crashes and they have seats and
debris all over the place, and sometimes bodies if the photo is early
enough after the crash. Many plane parts are metal too, and so don't get
burned.
Why don't you provide some links to such photos.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
That's the kind of thing
news cameramen like to photograph. The Shanksville site had NONE of those
things when the first photos were taken. And if you didn't research it,
then you can check it now. The gash in the earth that was supposedly
where the plane hit was there BEFORE the site was used as a crash site.
Of course, you won't bother to check it, since you know you're right.
Of all the ridiculous things you have claimed over the years, this latest
one ranks near the top of the list.
See? I was right! You didn't check it, and used your useless OPINION
as if it meant something! There are photos online that show the site
before the crash, and you can see the gash in the earth that matches the
gash AFTER the crash. It was the same gash, and the crash didn't create
it.
Why don't you show us a photo taken on 9/10/2001 or earlier that shows
that gash was there before the plane crashed.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
If there are no bodies, then how can there be valid
DNA tests, which can be written on a piece of paper and shown to people?
There were bodies. Mostly charred remains which wouldn't be apparent in
any photo taken from a distance.
And such charred bodies would be what the cameramen would want to
photograph to show the goriest they could find. Yet no photos of charred
bodies at that site.
Show us close ups of these crash sites.
http://youtu.be/9wwXrZuSUHU
And if you have the patience (you don't) here's some proof of there NOT
being a plane in the ground at Shanksville!
http://youtu.be/-2_em8G6DJE
Damn, you're gullible.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Although finding a few photos of charred bodies
would be easy to find to show as if they were from that site. I'm
speaking of Shanksville now, the Pentagon had what I consider real deaths,
though I'm not sure what killed them. Possibly a bomb put against the
wall.
Amazing the things you are willing to believe.
I didn't say I believed that, but I have to think of something since
the official story is baloney.
So you admit you dreamed up an alternative because you assumed the
official story was baloney.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
With no bodies, anyone can fill up a piece of paper with DNA info.
Telling people all the facts and showing none of them suggests a hoax.
But on top of all that, the very collapse of 3 buildings to 2 trained
experts was 'controlled demolition', but no, we're not going to listen to
experts because our opinion is more important.
You listen to wackos.
See? You have only OPINION,
There is only one correct answer for each of these events. Unlike you I
don't look at finding the truth to be a multiple choice exercise.
Post by mainframetech
yet you act like you know the truth!
It's not an act. I really do.
Post by mainframetech
I just got through talking about the 2 expert controlled demolition people
that I showed during out discussion on the 3 towers collapsing. Neither
of them were wackos, they were legitimate demolition people who recognized
'controlled demolition' immediately and said so. Of course, if you admit
they were normal experts, then you have to admit there was 'controlled
demolition' so you're stuck with your silly opinions.
You reject the findings of those who investigated these attacks because
you would rather believe something else. It doesn't even make sense that
the Twin Towers were controlled demolitions when they were top down
collapses. That's not how controlled demolitions work and you can't find
one instance in which it was done that way.
'Controlled demolition' can work from the top down,
If that is true why can't you produce a single video which shows it being
done that way.
Post by mainframetech
or the bottom up.
What matters is where you place the explosives and the weakening material
and the order in which you set them off. When 2 experts in 'controlled
demolition' say that 9/11 was 'controlled demolition' why do you run away
from them saying that? They're the experts, not you!
Because they are wackos.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Once again the very evidence showing a plane hit the Pentagon is for him
evidence that a plane didn't.
That's the problem. You were told that a plane hit the Pentagon and
you went with it. There was no proof, and in fact, there was proof that
it wasn't a plane that hit. And the 85 videos from the nearby businesses
were kept away from the public to this day, so we'll never know what they
showed. A photoshopped plane was shown in one photo, and we're supposed to
bow down and swear to it! The LN philosophy is a weird one alright!
It wasn't a photo, it was a frame from a security camera which didn't take
that many frames per second. That's why the intact plane only appeared in
one frame.
LOL! There was only one frame that showed a flying vehicle of some
kind, which was (when ENLARGED) a thin missile like vehicle, but NOT a
passenger plane with 2 large engines hanging down. but someone showed me a
photo of plane close up and not fuzz or bad photo. It was a fake.
No, it was a passenger plane. An American Airlines jet.
The photo I'm speaking of was a photoshopped fake. The plane was close
in the photo, not the far away thin missile taken by the gateway camera.
If that was the one you're speaking of, you were suckered.
Of course. Any film or photo which doesn't fit with your beliefs has to be
a fake. It's you standard excuse for dismissing evidence which isn't
compatible with your theories.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
There is no way out of this. Whatever evidence we show that a plane hit
the Pentagon is, again, evidence for him it didn't.
Substitute JFK and Oswald for missile and Pentagon.
Same situation. You don't have the necessary evidence.
It would be impossible to provide the evidence necessary to convince you
that your beliefs are wacky because no matter how much you were given you
would invent excuses to dismiss it all.
Welp, if you had taken the overview, you would have arrived at the
result that there was a hoax done on the US public. The rest became easy
to see.
No you are assuming I am as easily duped as you are.
Oh? Sorry, I thought I was far more skeptical than you.
Skepticism can be healthy. Gullibility is not.
mainframetech
2018-04-08 19:28:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Post by Steve BH
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
This list of 39 witnesses has been thoroughly debugged and debunked. The
fact you close your eyes tight and put your hands over your ears while
yelling "I can't see you! I can't hear you!" several times in a row
doesn't change the fact you made several big bloopers.
Nothing of the kind, and you continue to run away from my challenge to
pick out an example from this list and prove it doesn't belong there.
The blooper here is your constant LN attitude of closed mind ignoring any
proof that comes to you. The challenge continues, are you chicken to take
a chance? The last time you tried, you failed miserably, but still
pretend part of the list is wrong.
Chris
The challenge is you have no TIME to get a second casket onto the plane,
and JFK's body out of his bronze monster, in the very short time just
before the swearing-in.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/b_snatch.htm
Too many people have to be in on this plot, and the rest of them have to
be elsewhere and not notice anything on board this airplane, jammed with
two groups of people who didn't like each other. JFK's group were back in
the tail, with his body. It's them you're up against. McHugh didn't go to
the swearing in.
"the coffin was never unattended. Lifton's story is the biggest pack of
malakey I ever heard in my life. I never had my hands or eyes off of it
during the period he says it was unattended, and when Jackie got up to go
to her stateroom where Lyndon Johnson was, Kenney O'Donnell went with her,
but we stayed right there with the coffin and never let go of it. In fact
several of us were with it through the whole trip, all the way to Bethesda
Naval Hospital. It couldn't have happened the way that fellow said. Not
even thirty seconds. I never left it. There was a general watch. We
organized it."
You can have the secret service in on it, but not a man who has known JFK
forever.
Powers was known for his eidetic memory. JFK never lost a campaign and
Powers is one reason why. You should read "Johnny We Hardly Knew Ye" by
Powers and O'Donnell t get a feel for these folks. They remind of the case
The West Wing. You're getting nothing past them with JFK's.
As for McHugh, he goes up and down the length of the plane no less than 5
times before the swearing in, to see the pilot. When's he going to show up
in the tail, all that time? You don't know. If you're a conspirator body
switcher, y ou have to deal with him too.
Give it up.
See what's happening? You're trying to disprove - to conspiracy fanatics -
that the casket switch didn't occur.
We all know how difficult it is to prove a negative; it's impossible to
prove a negative to fanatics.
It's impossible to prove anything, positive or negative, to the fanatics.
While it is difficult to prove a negative, you can prove that what you are
saying didn't happen is impossible. We can certainly come close to that
with the casket switch. If it is not impossible, it is certainly
implausible.
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
When you point out it's impossible to do "A" and "B" and "C" you are
pointing to the limits of human actions. But to conspiracy fanatics there
are no limits. "They" can do anything.
Nobody demonstrates that better than Chris. He has already made up his
mind that his theory is correct so whatever needed to have happened to
allow that to be possible, in his mind must have happened. This is what
happens when you start with your conclusion and work backward, force
fitting the evidence to the predetermined conclusion.
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
What is their evidence that "they" can do anything? The fact - for them -
that "they" did it. It is a circular argument: "they" can do "A" because
they did. It doesn't matter that you show that logistically they couldn't.
It doesn't matter that you point out that forensic pathologists (Wecht for
example) say you can't alter the wounds in the manner they claim. For the
conspiracy fanatics all of the evidence for them is that "they" did it.
An excellent example of what I wrote earlier in this post. Chris has
determined that the body was altered so it must be true that the body
could be altered without the alterations being obvious to any of the
review panels. It is his way of rationalizing a nutty idea.
WRONG! I didn't 'determine' that the body was altered, the evidence
stated it.
The evidence talks to you?
Are you fully conscious? Do you see anyplace where I said that?
Yes. Right above the line I wrote. You said "the evidence stated it".
So you're going to waste our time with more pickiness. OK. Nowhere
did I say the evidence talked to me. And it is generally know that I was
saying that the evidence made it clear.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
What I find amazing is that LNs can ignore so much fact and
eyewitnesses and insist that those things testified to just didn't happen,
and they go blind and can't see them anym
It is impossible for everything everyone testified to can be factual
because there is much testimony that is conflicting. For example you cite
witnesses that claim the body was removed from a shipping casket while
others, like Sibert and O'Neill insist it was removed from the ornamental
casket which they accompanied from Andrews. Unless you believe there can
be dual realities, both of those things can't be true.
WRONG! The problem doesn't lie with the witnesses, it lies with you
and your inability to understand the simplest information put to you. I
repeat for the nth time, there were multiple casket arrivals.
Were there multiple bodies too? You have one group of witnesses saying the
body arrived in a shipping casket inside a body bag and another which said
it arrived in the ornamental casket wrapped in sheets. Do you believe it
is possible both groups can be correct?
Of course! Are you feeble minded? With 3 casket arrivals, there's at
least 2 of them that offer themselves to allow eyewitnesses to see the
body of JFK come out of 2 casket, the SHIPPING casket, and the Bronze
casket. And that's what happened. You had it explained to you and you
still can't get it. And it was so simple too.
So you have JFK's body arriving in two different caskets. That's
hysterical. Or maybe they used a body double. Why not.
WRONG! You're getting hysterical, try calming down. You've been told
all this before. The body arrived first in the Shipping casket
(witnessed) at 6:35pm and Humes and Boswell began doing their clandestine
work on it. Later, Sibert and O'Neill arrived with the Bronze casket
which was empty, and that was at about 7:17pm. Sibert admits that they
were away from that casket while X-rays and photographs were taken, and so
there was an opportunity to put the body into the Bronze casket where it
had started out. The Bronze casket was then taken out and driven around
the compound and came back with the honor guard in tow. On that second
arrival of the Bronze casket, JFK's body came out of the Bronze casket
that the FBI and SS agents were supposed to watch. That made them all
honest men.
Post by bigdog
If they are going
to the trouble of sneaking a shipping casket onto AF1 and then off again
and keeping it hidden the whole time in between, why not go with a
duplicate body too. "They" apparently could do anything.
You're becoming hysterical again. Caaalm down. I'm not aware that
they kept the shipping casket hidden during it's time on the AF1.
Particularly if the agents or friends helped wit the switch.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
The Shipping casket and the Bronze casket arrived at different times
(proven)...get it through your head.
Not proven. Not proven there was a shipping casket. Only claimed.
Proven. I'm not going through all that again, just because you can't
keep a single thought in your head. There were too many corroborating
witnesses to the presence of the SHIPPING casket for it not to have been
there. And witnesses that the body of JFK came out of it at 6:35pm as
well.
There were also witnesses who refuted the shipping casket story but you
don't care about them. Nobody had even mentioned a shipping casket until
Paul O'Connor made up that story almost two decades later for Lifton and
then several people jumped on board.
NO ONE REFUTED THE SHIPPING CASKET STORY. That was explained to you.
There were 3 arrivals of 2 different caskets. Some saw one casket and saw
the body come out of it, and some saw the other and saw the body come out
of it. It was just laid out for you above.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
You don't have to believe it, but
you should at least remember that I said it to you, so you don't sound
stupid the next time.
It would be stupid to believe you.
Did you see what I just wrote? I said "You don't have to believe it".
I already knew I didn't have to. I didn't need your permission.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Some eyewitnesses saw the first SHIPPING casket
arrive, and JFK be brought out of it. The body was put into the Bronze
casket after Humes and Boswell did their clandestine work on it, and Later
in the evening, the Bronze casket (which now had the body in it) arrived
from driving around the Bethesda complex, and some eyewitnesses saw the
body come out of it. So both cases are true. They all saw what they said
they saw.
This gets really comical. So not only do you have the body arriving in a
shipping casket and removed so Humes and Boswell could do there
clandestine work, you then have it returned to the ornamental casket so
Sibert and O'Neill would see it come out of that box. Just one question.
How did they manage to get body back into the ornamental casket without
Sibert and O'Neill noticing it since they stated they were with that
casket from the time it was placed in the ambulance at Andrews until the
body was removed from it at Bethesda?
You really are slow it would appear. I've shown you the proof that
S&O did NOT stay with the casket every minute. And Sibert admitted it.
No you didn't. You showed documentation that they moved to another room
during the x-rays but that didn't happen until AFTER they had seen the
body taken out of the ornamental casket. The were with the casket from the
time it was loaded into the ambulance an Andrews until JFK's body was
taken out of it at Bethesda. You have no answer for that timeline problem
so you continue to pretend it doesn't exist.
They admitted that they left the casket while X-rays and photographs
were taken. When the casket got there with the agents, it would be a
simple thing to hustle them off to the anteroom and while they were in
there, put the body in the Bronze casket which was now present. Then when
the agents came out of the anteroom, they took the body out of the Bronze
casket and the agents saw that happen. Simple. But it gets even simpler
if the agents decided to help do the switch for good ole Jackie in her
grief. Then they would lie in the record and make you into a sucker.
Post by bigdog
It's ridiculous that I have to spell it out for you but here is the
sequence of events.
1. Ornamental casket is loaded into the ambulance at Andrews.
2. Sibert and O'Neill ride with the ornamental casket from Andrews to
Bethesda.
3. Casket is unloaded from the ambulance at Bethesda's loading dock and is
brought into the autopsy room, all while under the watch of Sibert and
O'Neill.
4. JFK's body is removed from the ornamental casket and placed on the
autopsy table, still under the watchful eyes of Sibert and O'Neill.
5. Sibert and O'Neill are asked to move to an adjacent room while the body
is x-rayed.
Between which two of the above events could the JFK's body have been
slipped back into the ornamental casket without Sibert and O'Neill seeing
that done?
That's the case IF your sequence was what happened, but that's no
guarantee. If Sibert wrote down the wrong sequence to look like they had
done their orders of staying with the casket, then the switch back could
have happened without them knowing. If they had helped to do the switch
in the first place, they would lie to keep the record from getting
complicated with musical caskets. So you keeping on with this will only
waste everyone's time.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
In fact, the body was altered, and in such a way that it was accepted.
There is nothing factual about that and that is not even possible as even
CT hero Cyril Wecht has stated.
I'm not interested in what Wecht said.
Of course you aren't. He knows what he's talking about when it comes to
forensic pathology.
WRONG! You know what I meant, so stop with the childish pickiness.
I rarely know what you mean because rarely does it make any sense. You
aren't interested in what Wecht said because what Wecht said doesn't fit
with your theories so you simply dismiss what Wecht said.
WRONG! Wecht wasn't important at that particular moment in the
conversation.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
He wasn't there and didn't see
the body, or any of the shenanigans that went on. As noted, the body
after modification was accepted by medical panels, who never saw the body,
never interviewed the enlisted men, and never saw the complete (or even
correct) photos.
So you simply assume what you can't prove even if what you assume isn't
remotely possible.
What I've proved to you (whether you like it or not) is true. Not
"theory" like the WCR.
Continuously claiming you have proven something falls short of having
actually proved it.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
It would be very
UNbelievable (witness the LN in this post) that alteration of the body of
the POTUS would be altered.
Alteration would be altered?
Post by mainframetech
Proof that the LN uses opinion only is in the
phrase "rationalizing a nutty idea".
Is that your way of saying we rely on forensic evidence to resolve
conflicting testimony?
Post by mainframetech
There's no fact there to hang your
hat on, but plenty of opinion, which is exactly what plotters might depend
on. There was a reason that such a fight to grab the body away from the
Dallas Medical Examiner was so important, and it was to get it to a
military hospital for the autopsy, where they had some control of the
process and the report.
That is what you imagine/assume. There is no evidence that was the reason.
WRONG as usual! The false Autopsy Report was proven to be incorrect,
and was completely different than what the autopsy team saw in the body.
Once again you claim to have proven something which you have simply
assumed.
FALSE! I've shown the eyewitness statements that corroborate each
other as to what was seen in the body with the organs removed.
Eyewitness accounts can't prove anything by themselves because
eyewitnesses can be and often are wrong about details.
Not two of them at a time. And what they saw fits with the plot to
murder.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
The SS quite understandably wanted to get AF1 in the air and get LBJ back
to the relative safety of Washington. It is also understandable why LBJ
would not want to hightail it out of Dallas and leave the widow of the
slain President behind. It is also understandable that the widow wasn't
going to leave without her husband's body. The only way to resolve this
was to remove the body from Dallas. There was no fight. There was an
argument. That argument was resolved when the Justice of the Peace agreed
to release the body provided Admiral Burkley agreed to stay with the body
until the autopsy was performed.
It was a violation of the law to remove the body from the venue it was
in (Dallas).
The Justice of the Peace consented to allow the body to be removed under
the conditions stated. It was his call to make.
It was not his call, though he made it. It was the Texas law that the
body stay and be autopsied by the Medical Examiner. Wade, the DA stepped
in and let the body go, but it was illegal for him to do so.
They reached the legal decision that as long as Admiral Burkley stayed
with the body through the autopsy the chain of possession would be
maintained and the legal requirement for a medico-legal autopsy would be
met.
WRONG! Now you think you're a lawyer! There is just no limit to your
ego trying to get itself back. Following the body to Washington is NOT
maintaining the chain o custody. Burkley was not an official of the state
of Texas. Show cites and links please or give up that silly business.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
That as state to the SS agents, who were adamant about taking
the body. Jackie said nothing while all this was going on. It makes nice
excuses to have all those reasons to steal the body, but it was taken
against the law. No matter that Wade the DA gave permission. That body
had to be gotten out of there. They could have waited a few hours for
Earl Rose (Medical Examiner) to finish his work, but they couldn't stand
even that short a wait.
If they waited a few hours that means the new President would be waiting
on the tarmac at Love Field for a few more hours.
WRONG! There was a separate plane used for the VP, and it could take
LBJ anywhere he needed to go.
He was the boss and he wasn't going to go anywhere until Jackie and JFK's
body were onboard his plane. That is the hand the SS was dealt. They
weren't going to get LBJ out of Dallas until Jackie and the body were on
board.
You'll say anything no matter how imaginary to try and save the WCR
from the mud. There was no reason to break the Texas law except that they
had to have the autopsy in a military hospital where they could control
the outcome.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Since at that point they
didn't know who are what was behind the assassination, that would have
left the new President vulnerable to a second attack. For all they knew
the Soviets were behind the assassination and they might have had the
weaponry to take out AF1. Having already lost one President, the SS didn't
want to chance losing another.
Nice theory. No facts in evidence though, since there was a plane there
just for the VP.
It's the reason the SS gave for wanting to get LBJ out of Dallas ASAP.
Any excuse to get that body out of Dallas and into a military hospital
where they could control the outcome.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
As to alterations in the body not being obvious, what are your
thoughts about the triangular flap of bone over the right ear? Are the
edges too straight, and is the shape not a normal result of a bullet or a
strike on the head? Do the differences in the body BEFORE it left
Parkland, and AFTER arriving at Bethesda not strike anyone? Here's a good
There were no differences other than the normal rigor mortis process.
Post by mainframetech
http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/boh/parkland_boh/parkland_wound.htm
http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/boh/beth/beth.htm
There were no differences. JFK's head was blown open and instant after the
bullet struck him. What was seen at Bethesda fits perfectly with what we
see in the Z-film. The Z-film is incompatible with the nonsense you are
forced to believe so you buy into the silly claim it was altered, a claim
made by people equally desperate to dismiss the Z-film as an accurate film
record of the assassination. Your problem is Zapruder described the same
thing his film shows to a local TV reporter before he was even able to get
the film developed. Bill Newman described the same thing. Usually we use
forensic evidence to corroborate witness testimony. Due to your silly
claim of film alteration we use witness testimony to corroborate the film
evidence.
Stupidity is rampant. When you have over 39 eyewitnesses to the
state of JFK's head, including the nurse that washed his hair and handled
his head, and put the body into the casket to leave Parkland, you know the
state of the head. That Nurse stated in no uncertain circumstances that
the head had only one major wound, and that was the hole in the BOH, and
NOT on the side.
She only saw one major wound and didn't see the full extent of it. That
didn't become apparent until the autopsy although it was apparent to both
Zapruder and his camera.
TOTAL BULLSHIT! Nurse Diana Bowron handled the head and washed the
hair, don't tell me she didn't see the extent of the wound that was there.
http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/boh/parkland_boh/piks/bowron_drawing.jpg
She made a drawing of the hole she saw. Part of the hole had been closed
by the flaps. She saw the part where the skull was missing.
Post by mainframetech
And it didn't go around the right side. Or anything to do with the top
of the head either. That was all done at Bethesda by Hume and Boswell.
Of course it did. I think it was claviger who provided a statement from
Bowron who said the wound extend from the back to the top of the head.
Note that the statement you're trying to use as evidence was from much
later, while the one I've shown was in testimony soon after the event.
By the time later, Bowron could have heard or seen the same thing some of
the doctors saw, and believed the phony Autopsy Report (AR).



This is all repeating. I'm outa here.

Chris

Anthony Marsh
2018-04-04 22:32:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Post by bigdog
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Post by Steve BH
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
This list of 39 witnesses has been thoroughly debugged and debunked. The
fact you close your eyes tight and put your hands over your ears while
yelling "I can't see you! I can't hear you!" several times in a row
doesn't change the fact you made several big bloopers.
Nothing of the kind, and you continue to run away from my challenge to
pick out an example from this list and prove it doesn't belong there.
The blooper here is your constant LN attitude of closed mind ignoring any
proof that comes to you. The challenge continues, are you chicken to take
a chance? The last time you tried, you failed miserably, but still
pretend part of the list is wrong.
Chris
The challenge is you have no TIME to get a second casket onto the plane,
and JFK's body out of his bronze monster, in the very short time just
before the swearing-in.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/b_snatch.htm
Too many people have to be in on this plot, and the rest of them have to
be elsewhere and not notice anything on board this airplane, jammed with
two groups of people who didn't like each other. JFK's group were back in
the tail, with his body. It's them you're up against. McHugh didn't go to
the swearing in.
"the coffin was never unattended. Lifton's story is the biggest pack of
malakey I ever heard in my life. I never had my hands or eyes off of it
during the period he says it was unattended, and when Jackie got up to go
to her stateroom where Lyndon Johnson was, Kenney O'Donnell went with her,
but we stayed right there with the coffin and never let go of it. In fact
several of us were with it through the whole trip, all the way to Bethesda
Naval Hospital. It couldn't have happened the way that fellow said. Not
even thirty seconds. I never left it. There was a general watch. We
organized it."
You can have the secret service in on it, but not a man who has known JFK
forever.
Powers was known for his eidetic memory. JFK never lost a campaign and
Powers is one reason why. You should read "Johnny We Hardly Knew Ye" by
Powers and O'Donnell t get a feel for these folks. They remind of the case
The West Wing. You're getting nothing past them with JFK's.
As for McHugh, he goes up and down the length of the plane no less than 5
times before the swearing in, to see the pilot. When's he going to show up
in the tail, all that time? You don't know. If you're a conspirator body
switcher, y ou have to deal with him too.
Give it up.
See what's happening? You're trying to disprove - to conspiracy fanatics -
that the casket switch didn't occur.
We all know how difficult it is to prove a negative; it's impossible to
prove a negative to fanatics.
It's impossible to prove anything, positive or negative, to the fanatics.
While it is difficult to prove a negative, you can prove that what you are
saying didn't happen is impossible. We can certainly come close to that
with the casket switch. If it is not impossible, it is certainly
implausible.
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
When you point out it's impossible to do "A" and "B" and "C" you are
pointing to the limits of human actions. But to conspiracy fanatics there
are no limits. "They" can do anything.
Nobody demonstrates that better than Chris. He has already made up his
mind that his theory is correct so whatever needed to have happened to
allow that to be possible, in his mind must have happened. This is what
happens when you start with your conclusion and work backward, force
fitting the evidence to the predetermined conclusion.
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
What is their evidence that "they" can do anything? The fact - for them -
that "they" did it. It is a circular argument: "they" can do "A" because
they did. It doesn't matter that you show that logistically they couldn't.
It doesn't matter that you point out that forensic pathologists (Wecht for
example) say you can't alter the wounds in the manner they claim. For the
conspiracy fanatics all of the evidence for them is that "they" did it.
An excellent example of what I wrote earlier in this post. Chris has
determined that the body was altered so it must be true that the body
could be altered without the alterations being obvious to any of the
review panels. It is his way of rationalizing a nutty idea.
WRONG! I didn't 'determine' that the body was altered, the evidence
stated it.
The evidence talks to you?
Are you fully conscious? Do you see anyplace where I said that?
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
What I find amazing is that LNs can ignore so much fact and
eyewitnesses and insist that those things testified to just didn't happen,
and they go blind and can't see them anym
It is impossible for everything everyone testified to can be factual
because there is much testimony that is conflicting. For example you cite
witnesses that claim the body was removed from a shipping casket while
others, like Sibert and O'Neill insist it was removed from the ornamental
casket which they accompanied from Andrews. Unless you believe there can
be dual realities, both of those things can't be true.
WRONG! The problem doesn't lie with the witnesses, it lies with you
and your inability to understand the simplest information put to you. I
repeat for the nth time, there were multiple casket arrivals. The
Shipping casket and the Bronze casket arrived at different times
(proven)...get it through your head. You don't have to believe it, but
you should at least remember that I said it to you, so you don't sound
stupid the next time. Some eyewitnesses saw the first SHIPPING casket
arrive, and JFK be brought out of it. The body was put into the Bronze
casket after Humes and Boswell did their clandestine work on it, and Later
in the evening, the Bronze casket (which now had the body in it) arrived
from driving around the Bethesda complex, and some eyewitnesses saw the
body come out of it. So both cases are true. They all saw what they said
they saw.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
In fact, the body was altered, and in such a way that it was accepted.
There is nothing factual about that and that is not even possible as even
CT hero Cyril Wecht has stated.
I'm not interested in what Wecht said. He wasn't there and didn't see
the body, or any of the shenanigans that went on. As noted, the body
after modification was accepted by medical panels, who never saw the body,
never interviewed the enlisted men, and never saw the complete (or even
correct) photos.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
It would be very
UNbelievable (witness the LN in this post) that alteration of the body of
the POTUS would be altered.
Alteration would be altered?
Post by mainframetech
Proof that the LN uses opinion only is in the
phrase "rationalizing a nutty idea".
Is that your way of saying we rely on forensic evidence to resolve
conflicting testimony?
Post by mainframetech
There's no fact there to hang your
hat on, but plenty of opinion, which is exactly what plotters might depend
on. There was a reason that such a fight to grab the body away from the
Dallas Medical Examiner was so important, and it was to get it to a
military hospital for the autopsy, where they had some control of the
process and the report.
That is what you imagine/assume. There is no evidence that was the reason.
WRONG as usual! The false Autopsy Report was proven to be incorrect,
and was completely different than what the autopsy team saw in the body.
Post by bigdog
The SS quite understandably wanted to get AF1 in the air and get LBJ back
to the relative safety of Washington. It is also understandable why LBJ
would not want to hightail it out of Dallas and leave the widow of the
slain President behind. It is also understandable that the widow wasn't
going to leave without her husband's body. The only way to resolve this
was to remove the body from Dallas. There was no fight. There was an
argument. That argument was resolved when the Justice of the Peace agreed
to release the body provided Admiral Burkley agreed to stay with the body
until the autopsy was performed.
It was a violation of the law to remove the body from the venue it was
in (Dallas). That as state to the S agents, who were adamant about taking
So what? It was a matter of National Security. You remind me of the guy in
Dr. Strangelove who refused to shoot the Coke machine to get change to
call Washington to stop WWIII.
Post by mainframetech
the body. Jackie said nothing while all this was going on. It makes nice
excuses to have all those reasons to steal the body, but it was taken
against the law. No matter that Wade the DA gave permission. That body
had to be gotten out of there. They could have waited a few hours for
Earl Rose (Medical Examiner) to finish his work, but they couldn't stand
even that short a wait.
Not with WWIII going on.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
As to alterations in the body not being obvious, what are your
thoughts about the triangular flap of bone over the right ear? Are the
edges too straight, and is the shape not a normal result of a bullet or a
strike on the head? Do the differences in the body BEFORE it left
Parkland, and AFTER arriving at Bethesda not strike anyone? Here's a good
There were no differences other than the normal rigor mortis process.
Post by mainframetech
http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/boh/parkland_boh/parkland_wound.htm
http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/boh/beth/beth.htm
There were no differences. JFK's head was blown open and instant after the
bullet struck him. What was seen at Bethesda fits perfectly with what we
see in the Z-film. The Z-film is incompatible with the nonsense you are
forced to believe so you buy into the silly claim it was altered, a claim
made by people equally desperate to dismiss the Z-film as an accurate film
record of the assassination. Your problem is Zapruder described the same
thing his film shows to a local TV reporter before he was even able to get
the film developed. Bill Newman described the same thing. Usually we use
forensic evidence to corroborate witness testimony. Due to your silly
claim of film alteration we use witness testimony to corroborate the film
evidence.
Stupidity is rampant. When you have over 39 eyewitnesses to the
state of JFK's head, including the nurse that washed his hair and handled
his head, and put the body into the casket to leave Parkland, you know the
state of the head. That Nurse stated in no uncertain circumstances that
the head had only one major wound, and that was the hole in the BOH, and
NOT on the side.
Anything else is wrong in one way or another. You decided to believe the
Z-film even though it's not the best witness to the shooting, and was put
in doubt when proof that it was altered was presented by Douglas Horne.
Clinging to phony evidence will only make you a sucker, as was intended by
the plotters.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
We went through this with the discussion on the 9/11 attacks.
When he asked for evidence that a plane hit the Pentagon and when shown
the photos of the airplane parts around the building he dismissed them as
planted evidence; that is, as evidence of the conspiracy.
Obviously you didn't read the comments I made. I pointed out that the
parts were in the wrong place and couldn't normally be where they were
found, in the alleyway between the building sections.
Why do you think that because you point something out the rest of the
world is supposed to accept that as the truth?
It was simply logical, but you could try to disprove that with
evidence or logic, which wasn't done. I'm aware I'm dealing with
fanatics, but I will keep my cool and keep trying to explain the obvious
logic of the crime.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Since the plane
couldn't get there through all the beams and supports shown to be in place
outside, the parts of the plane could not be there. A solid logical
argument, but the LN view is 'listen to nothing' believe nothing' and do
not think.
There is nothing solid or logical about the way you think about 9/11 or
the JFK assassination. You want desperately to believe there were cover
ups in both so you bend and twist the evidence to force fit it to what you
want to believe rather than allowing your beliefs to conform to the
evidence.
If I've done the crime you have accused me of, it should be an easy job
for you to prove that I've twisted evidence, or whatever. But all you do
is go back to your general ad hominem comments. That can be very
frustrating for you, and I appreciate that, But I'm not going to fake my
results to make you feel better.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
So the very evidence showing that there no missile that hit the Pentagon
attack is, for him, evidence of a missile hitting it. Up is down and down
is up.
Nope. You stopped thinking again. I like to talk about proof or the
absence of it. Not your opinions.
Mostly absence of it because that is what you have to support your beliefs.
Which is YOUR OPINION.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
When he asked for evidence of DNA testing of the remains of the passengers
and when he was shown reports on that very testing he dismissed it as part
of the conspiracy. It was staged DNA testing of remains (since there were
no passengers on the planes).
It was unknown if there were passengers or not, but they were
certainly not on the grass in front of the Pentagon, or on the grass at
the Shanksville site.
Did you expect them to be posing for a group picture after there planes
slammed into a concrete structure and nosedived into the ground?
Nope, I expected there to be bodies strewn around the site along with
seats and luggage and all sort of plane debris. That's the kind of thing
news cameramen like to photograph. The Shanksville site had NONE of those
things. When the first photos were taken. And if you didn't research it,
then you can check it now. The gash in the earth that was supposedly
where the plane hit was there BEFORE the site was used as a crash site.
Of course, you won't bother to check it, since you know you're right.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
If there are no bodies, then how can there be valid
DNA tests, which can be written on a piece of paper and shown to people?
There were bodies. Mostly charred remains which wouldn't be apparent in
any photo taken from a distance.
And such charred bodies would be what the cameramen would want to
photograph to show the goriest they could find. Yet no photos of charred
bodies at that site. Although finding a few photos of charred bodies
would be easy to find to show as if they were from that site. I'm
speaking of Shanksville now, the Pentagon had what I consider real deaths,
though I'm not sure what killed them. Possibly a bomb put against the
wall.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
With no bodies, anyone can fill up a piece of paper with DNA info.
Telling people all the facts and showing none of them suggests a hoax.
But on top of all that, the very collapse of 3 buildings to 2 trained
experts was 'controlled demolition', but no, we're not going to listen to
experts because our opinion is more important.
You listen to wackos.
See? You have only OPINION, yet you act like you know the truth! I
just got through talking a bout the 2 expert controlled demolition people
that I showed during out discussion on the 3 towers collapsing. Neither
of them were wackos, they were legitimate demolition people who recognized
'controlled demolition' immediately and said so. Of course, if you admit
they were normal experts, then you have to admit there was 'controlled
demolition' so you're stuck with your silly opinions.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Once again the very evidence showing a plane hit the Pentagon is for him
evidence that a plane didn't.
That's the problem. You were told that a plane hit the Pentagon and
you went with it. There was no proof, and in fact, there was proof that
it wasn't a plane that hit. And the 85 videos from the nearby businesses
were kept away from the public to this day, so we'll never know what they
showed. A photoshopped plane was shown in one photo, and we're supposed to
bow down and swear to it! The LN philosophy is a weird one alright!
It wasn't a photo, it was a frame from a security camera which didn't take
that many frames per second. That's why the intact plane only appeared in
one frame.
LOL! There was only one frame that showed a flying vehicle of some
kind, which was (when ENLARGED) a thin missile like vehicle, but NOT a
passenger plane with 2 large engines hanging down. but someone showed me a
photo of plane close up and not fuzz or bad photo. It was a fake.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
There is no way out of this. Whatever evidence we show that a plane hit
the Pentagon is, again, evidence for him it didn't.
Substitute JFK and Oswald for missile and Pentagon.
Same situation. You don't have the necessary evidence.
It would be impossible to provide the evidence necessary to convince you
that your beliefs are wacky because no matter how much you were given you
would invent excuses to dismiss it all.
Welp, if you had taken the overview, you would have arrived at the
result that there was a hoax done on the US public. The rest become easy
to see.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
C'mon, list
you evidence that Oswald was looking out the 6th floor window and firing
the MC rifle into the motorcade. And I'll give you the fact that Oswald
brought in his own MC rifle in a paper bag as well. Prove he not only was
firing the MC rifle out the window, but that ANY MC type bullet hit or
hurt any person.
It would be futile to do that for you..........AGAIN!!!
Right on! Believe it!
Chris
OHLeeRedux
2018-04-05 19:44:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Post by Steve BH
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
This list of 39 witnesses has been thoroughly debugged and debunked. The
fact you close your eyes tight and put your hands over your ears while
yelling "I can't see you! I can't hear you!" several times in a row
doesn't change the fact you made several big bloopers.
Nothing of the kind, and you continue to run away from my challenge to
pick out an example from this list and prove it doesn't belong there.
The blooper here is your constant LN attitude of closed mind ignoring any
proof that comes to you. The challenge continues, are you chicken to take
a chance? The last time you tried, you failed miserably, but still
pretend part of the list is wrong.
Chris
The challenge is you have no TIME to get a second casket onto the plane,
and JFK's body out of his bronze monster, in the very short time just
before the swearing-in.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/b_snatch.htm
Too many people have to be in on this plot, and the rest of them have to
be elsewhere and not notice anything on board this airplane, jammed with
two groups of people who didn't like each other. JFK's group were back in
the tail, with his body. It's them you're up against. McHugh didn't go to
the swearing in.
"the coffin was never unattended. Lifton's story is the biggest pack of
malakey I ever heard in my life. I never had my hands or eyes off of it
during the period he says it was unattended, and when Jackie got up to go
to her stateroom where Lyndon Johnson was, Kenney O'Donnell went with her,
but we stayed right there with the coffin and never let go of it. In fact
several of us were with it through the whole trip, all the way to Bethesda
Naval Hospital. It couldn't have happened the way that fellow said. Not
even thirty seconds. I never left it. There was a general watch. We
organized it."
You can have the secret service in on it, but not a man who has known JFK
forever.
Powers was known for his eidetic memory. JFK never lost a campaign and
Powers is one reason why. You should read "Johnny We Hardly Knew Ye" by
Powers and O'Donnell t get a feel for these folks. They remind of the case
The West Wing. You're getting nothing past them with JFK's.
As for McHugh, he goes up and down the length of the plane no less than 5
times before the swearing in, to see the pilot. When's he going to show up
in the tail, all that time? You don't know. If you're a conspirator body
switcher, y ou have to deal with him too.
Give it up.
See what's happening? You're trying to disprove - to conspiracy fanatics -
that the casket switch didn't occur.
We all know how difficult it is to prove a negative; it's impossible to
prove a negative to fanatics.
It's impossible to prove anything, positive or negative, to the fanatics.
While it is difficult to prove a negative, you can prove that what you are
saying didn't happen is impossible. We can certainly come close to that
with the casket switch. If it is not impossible, it is certainly
implausible.
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
When you point out it's impossible to do "A" and "B" and "C" you are
pointing to the limits of human actions. But to conspiracy fanatics there
are no limits. "They" can do anything.
Nobody demonstrates that better than Chris. He has already made up his
mind that his theory is correct so whatever needed to have happened to
allow that to be possible, in his mind must have happened. This is what
happens when you start with your conclusion and work backward, force
fitting the evidence to the predetermined conclusion.
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
What is their evidence that "they" can do anything? The fact - for them -
that "they" did it. It is a circular argument: "they" can do "A" because
they did. It doesn't matter that you show that logistically they couldn't.
It doesn't matter that you point out that forensic pathologists (Wecht for
example) say you can't alter the wounds in the manner they claim. For the
conspiracy fanatics all of the evidence for them is that "they" did it.
An excellent example of what I wrote earlier in this post. Chris has
determined that the body was altered so it must be true that the body
could be altered without the alterations being obvious to any of the
review panels. It is his way of rationalizing a nutty idea.
WRONG! I didn't 'determine' that the body was altered, the evidence
stated it.
The evidence talks to you?
Are you fully conscious? Do you see anyplace where I said that?
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
What I find amazing is that LNs can ignore so much fact and
eyewitnesses and insist that those things testified to just didn't happen,
and they go blind and can't see them anym
It is impossible for everything everyone testified to can be factual
because there is much testimony that is conflicting. For example you cite
witnesses that claim the body was removed from a shipping casket while
others, like Sibert and O'Neill insist it was removed from the ornamental
casket which they accompanied from Andrews. Unless you believe there can
be dual realities, both of those things can't be true.
WRONG! The problem doesn't lie with the witnesses, it lies with you
and your inability to understand the simplest information put to you. I
repeat for the nth time, there were multiple casket arrivals. The
Shipping casket and the Bronze casket arrived at different times
(proven)...get it through your head. You don't have to believe it, but
you should at least remember that I said it to you, so you don't sound
stupid the next time. Some eyewitnesses saw the first SHIPPING casket
arrive, and JFK be brought out of it. The body was put into the Bronze
casket after Humes and Boswell did their clandestine work on it, and Later
in the evening, the Bronze casket (which now had the body in it) arrived
from driving around the Bethesda complex, and some eyewitnesses saw the
body come out of it. So both cases are true. They all saw what they said
they saw.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
In fact, the body was altered, and in such a way that it was accepted.
There is nothing factual about that and that is not even possible as even
CT hero Cyril Wecht has stated.
I'm not interested in what Wecht said. He wasn't there and didn't see
the body, or any of the shenanigans that went on. As noted, the body
after modification was accepted by medical panels, who never saw the body,
never interviewed the enlisted men, and never saw the complete (or even
correct) photos.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
It would be very
UNbelievable (witness the LN in this post) that alteration of the body of
the POTUS would be altered.
Alteration would be altered?
Post by mainframetech
Proof that the LN uses opinion only is in the
phrase "rationalizing a nutty idea".
Is that your way of saying we rely on forensic evidence to resolve
conflicting testimony?
Post by mainframetech
There's no fact there to hang your
hat on, but plenty of opinion, which is exactly what plotters might depend
on. There was a reason that such a fight to grab the body away from the
Dallas Medical Examiner was so important, and it was to get it to a
military hospital for the autopsy, where they had some control of the
process and the report.
That is what you imagine/assume. There is no evidence that was the reason.
WRONG as usual! The false Autopsy Report was proven to be incorrect,
and was completely different than what the autopsy team saw in the body.
Post by bigdog
The SS quite understandably wanted to get AF1 in the air and get LBJ back
to the relative safety of Washington. It is also understandable why LBJ
would not want to hightail it out of Dallas and leave the widow of the
slain President behind. It is also understandable that the widow wasn't
going to leave without her husband's body. The only way to resolve this
was to remove the body from Dallas. There was no fight. There was an
argument. That argument was resolved when the Justice of the Peace agreed
to release the body provided Admiral Burkley agreed to stay with the body
until the autopsy was performed.
It was a violation of the law to remove the body from the venue it was
in (Dallas). That as state to the S agents, who were adamant about taking
So what? It was a matter of National Security. You remind me of the guy in
Dr. Strangelove who refused to shoot the Coke machine to get change to
call Washington to stop WWIII.
Wrong again, Anthony. The following clip shows that he does in fact shoot
open the Coke machine. You never tire of making yourself look foolish, do
you?




Steve BH
2018-04-05 01:20:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
WRONG! The problem doesn't lie with the witnesses, it lies with you
and your inability to understand the simplest information put to you. I
repeat for the nth time, there were multiple casket arrivals. The
Shipping casket and the Bronze casket arrived at different times
(proven)...get it through your head. You don't have to believe it, but
you should at least remember that I said it to you, so you don't sound
stupid the next time. Some eyewitnesses saw the first SHIPPING casket
arrive, and JFK be brought out of it. The body was put into the Bronze
casket after Humes and Boswell did their clandestine work on it, and Later
in the evening, the Bronze casket (which now had the body in it) arrived
from driving around the Bethesda complex, and some eyewitnesses saw the
body come out of it. So both cases are true. They all saw what they said
they saw.


No, it's a problem with the witnesses. Some are nuttier than fruitcake and
their stories get better over the years, like "pink shipping casket"
O'Conner, who didn't mention the fact that the president came out of that
casket with no brain in his head (and never had one) at 8 PM, in a body
bag. Sorry, but there's no way to set that up.

Bugliosi in the mock Oswald trial in 1986 shuts O'Conner down by asking
why he doesn't mention the most shocking fact of his career (a brainless
JFK body coming out of a shipping casket at 8 O'Clock), and yet didn't
mention that to the HSCA in 1978. O'Connor says he wasn't asked.
RIIIIIIIGHT.

As for you, you should have paid more attention to Anthony Marsh, who
suggest to you that the president arrives with his head half stuff with
medical winding guaze. Because that is what you see in the top of head
autopsy photo. That pink spongy stuff isn't brain or fat. And the stuff in
the head is not cerebrum-- it's blood soaked gauze. Bowron the nurse put
it there, but it's STILL THERE. So this photo is indeed how JFK came from
Parkland.
mainframetech
2018-04-05 23:03:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Steve BH
Post by mainframetech
WRONG! The problem doesn't lie with the witnesses, it lies with you
and your inability to understand the simplest information put to you. I
repeat for the nth time, there were multiple casket arrivals. The
Shipping casket and the Bronze casket arrived at different times
(proven)...get it through your head. You don't have to believe it, but
you should at least remember that I said it to you, so you don't sound
stupid the next time. Some eyewitnesses saw the first SHIPPING casket
arrive, and JFK be brought out of it. The body was put into the Bronze
casket after Humes and Boswell did their clandestine work on it, and Later
in the evening, the Bronze casket (which now had the body in it) arrived
from driving around the Bethesda complex, and some eyewitnesses saw the
body come out of it. So both cases are true. They all saw what they said
they saw.
http://youtu.be/NgpvRv9oMs8
No, it's a problem with the witnesses. Some are nuttier than fruitcake and
their stories get better over the years, like "pink shipping casket"
O'Conner, who didn't mention the fact that the president came out of that
casket with no brain in his head (and never had one) at 8 PM, in a body
bag. Sorry, but there's no way to set that up.
You used the word "some" so who else besides Paul O'Connor do you
cite as being "nuttier than a fruitcake"? Actually, at the scheduled
autopsy at 8:00pm, it was O'Connor's job to remove the brain from the
body. The officers ALWAYS had the enlisted Technologists do that job.
O'Connor was habituated to doing that task. He probably turned away for a
few a moments to do something, and that's when Humes took out the brain,
which was very easily done, since he had done it a few hours BEFORE the
autopsy. When O'Connor came back to do his task of removing the brain, it
wasn't there any more and he knew no one would take it out except him.
Humes had already put it into the bucket kept for that. No one told him
anything because the atmosphere was one where with all the generals and
admirals around and the job being the POTUS, no one wanted to say anything
out of place or unnecessary.
Post by Steve BH
Bugliosi in the mock Oswald trial in 1986 shuts O'Conner down by asking
why he doesn't mention the most shocking fact of his career (a brainless
JFK body coming out of a shipping casket at 8 O'Clock), and yet didn't
mention that to the HSCA in 1978. O'Connor says he wasn't asked.
RIIIIIIIGHT.
The 1978 HSCA interview of O'Connor was a joke too. Did you read the
whole thing? They had the nerve to say that O'Connor was ordered out of
the autopsy at that moment when they had gone into the body, and he missed
most of the autopsy!!!! It was complete bull! N reason for ordering him
out, they just said he missed most of the autopsy by being ordered out!
What he had to say at that time was so explosive, that even the HSCA had
to lie to cover up what he was going to say at that point. Or it may be
that he said it and they had to change it and get it out of there.

You apparently missed the part in the mock trial where O'Connor said
he was nervous testifying. When he said he answered only questions put to
him, and didn't volunteer anything, his state of mind fit that.

Now to help you out on the above HSCA testimony, O'Connor said that
during the autopsy the whole team saw the proof that the upper back wound
bullet NEVER left the body of JFK!! And that the prosectors all saw that.
That meant that there could NOT be any SBT, and that the autopsy Report
(AR) was faked up. They couldn't have that in the record, so they
expunged his comments and put in that he was ordered out of the
autopsy...for no reason. If you want the testimony of O'Connor proving
the above, let me know and I'll put it out.
Post by Steve BH
As for you, you should have paid more attention to Anthony Marsh, who
suggest to you that the president arrives with his head half stuff with
medical winding guaze. Because that is what you see in the top of head
autopsy photo. That pink spongy stuff isn't brain or fat. And the stuff in
the head is not cerebrum-- it's blood soaked gauze. Bowron the nurse put
it there, but it's STILL THERE. So this photo is indeed how JFK came from
Parkland.
I'm not sure which phony photo you're talking about. Why not put out
the link to it, so I can see what you're saying? I don't know of any of
the phony autopsy photos that show gauze except one that had a little
square of gauze on the forehead trying to cover up the bullet hole in the
forehead.

Chris
Anthony Marsh
2018-04-06 15:01:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Steve BH
Post by mainframetech
WRONG! The problem doesn't lie with the witnesses, it lies with you
and your inability to understand the simplest information put to you. I
repeat for the nth time, there were multiple casket arrivals. The
Shipping casket and the Bronze casket arrived at different times
(proven)...get it through your head. You don't have to believe it, but
you should at least remember that I said it to you, so you don't sound
stupid the next time. Some eyewitnesses saw the first SHIPPING casket
arrive, and JFK be brought out of it. The body was put into the Bronze
casket after Humes and Boswell did their clandestine work on it, and Later
in the evening, the Bronze casket (which now had the body in it) arrived
from driving around the Bethesda complex, and some eyewitnesses saw the
body come out of it. So both cases are true. They all saw what they said
they saw.
http://youtu.be/NgpvRv9oMs8
No, it's a problem with the witnesses. Some are nuttier than fruitcake and
their stories get better over the years, like "pink shipping casket"
O'Conner, who didn't mention the fact that the president came out of that
casket with no brain in his head (and never had one) at 8 PM, in a body
bag. Sorry, but there's no way to set that up.
Bugliosi in the mock Oswald trial in 1986 shuts O'Conner down by asking
why he doesn't mention the most shocking fact of his career (a brainless
JFK body coming out of a shipping casket at 8 O'Clock), and yet didn't
mention that to the HSCA in 1978. O'Connor says he wasn't asked.
RIIIIIIIGHT.
In some cases that is true. The WC knew to not ask some questions
because they didn't wan to hear the answer.
Post by Steve BH
As for you, you should have paid more attention to Anthony Marsh, who
suggest to you that the president arrives with his head half stuff with
medical winding guaze. Because that is what you see in the top of head
Stop the slander. I never said that.
Post by Steve BH
autopsy photo. That pink spongy stuff isn't brain or fat. And the stuff in
the head is not cerebrum-- it's blood soaked gauze. Bowron the nurse put
it there, but it's STILL THERE. So this photo is indeed how JFK came from
Parkland.
Steve M. Galbraith
2018-04-07 19:53:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Steve BH
Post by mainframetech
WRONG! The problem doesn't lie with the witnesses, it lies with you
and your inability to understand the simplest information put to you. I
repeat for the nth time, there were multiple casket arrivals. The
Shipping casket and the Bronze casket arrived at different times
(proven)...get it through your head. You don't have to believe it, but
you should at least remember that I said it to you, so you don't sound
stupid the next time. Some eyewitnesses saw the first SHIPPING casket
arrive, and JFK be brought out of it. The body was put into the Bronze
casket after Humes and Boswell did their clandestine work on it, and Later
in the evening, the Bronze casket (which now had the body in it) arrived
from driving around the Bethesda complex, and some eyewitnesses saw the
body come out of it. So both cases are true. They all saw what they said
they saw.
http://youtu.be/NgpvRv9oMs8
No, it's a problem with the witnesses. Some are nuttier than fruitcake and
their stories get better over the years, like "pink shipping casket"
O'Conner, who didn't mention the fact that the president came out of that
casket with no brain in his head (and never had one) at 8 PM, in a body
bag. Sorry, but there's no way to set that up.
Bugliosi in the mock Oswald trial in 1986 shuts O'Conner down by asking
why he doesn't mention the most shocking fact of his career (a brainless
JFK body coming out of a shipping casket at 8 O'Clock), and yet didn't
mention that to the HSCA in 1978. O'Connor says he wasn't asked.
RIIIIIIIGHT.
As for you, you should have paid more attention to Anthony Marsh, who
suggest to you that the president arrives with his head half stuff with
medical winding guaze. Because that is what you see in the top of head
autopsy photo. That pink spongy stuff isn't brain or fat. And the stuff in
the head is not cerebrum-- it's blood soaked gauze. Bowron the nurse put
it there, but it's STILL THERE. So this photo is indeed how JFK came from
Parkland.
and yet didn't
mention that to the HSCA in 1978. O'Connor says he wasn't asked. >

Bugliosi was wrong about O'Connor and the HSCA and admitted it in his
book. The record shows that O'Connor DID mention that the brain was
missing in his interview with the HSCA. Apparently he forgot this during
the mock trial.

From RH, pg 1060, Bugliosi write:

"I am here to report that years later [after the trial] I came into
possession of another HSCA document containing an interview of O'Connor
conducted by the HSCA investigators at an earlier time, August 25, 1977,
in which O'Connor _did_ tell them that there was "nothing left in the
[president's] cranium but splattered brain matter" (HSCA Record
180-10107-10448, p. 2). O'Connor, in London, has apparently forgotten he
had told HSCA investigators this earlier...I owe him an apology, which I
am herein giving."
Anthony Marsh
2018-04-03 04:00:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Post by bigdog
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Post by Steve BH
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
This list of 39 witnesses has been thoroughly debugged and debunked. The
fact you close your eyes tight and put your hands over your ears while
yelling "I can't see you! I can't hear you!" several times in a row
doesn't change the fact you made several big bloopers.
Nothing of the kind, and you continue to run away from my challenge to
pick out an example from this list and prove it doesn't belong there.
The blooper here is your constant LN attitude of closed mind ignoring any
proof that comes to you. The challenge continues, are you chicken to take
a chance? The last time you tried, you failed miserably, but still
pretend part of the list is wrong.
Chris
The challenge is you have no TIME to get a second casket onto the plane,
and JFK's body out of his bronze monster, in the very short time just
before the swearing-in.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/b_snatch.htm
Too many people have to be in on this plot, and the rest of them have to
be elsewhere and not notice anything on board this airplane, jammed with
two groups of people who didn't like each other. JFK's group were back in
the tail, with his body. It's them you're up against. McHugh didn't go to
the swearing in.
"the coffin was never unattended. Lifton's story is the biggest pack of
malakey I ever heard in my life. I never had my hands or eyes off of it
during the period he says it was unattended, and when Jackie got up to go
to her stateroom where Lyndon Johnson was, Kenney O'Donnell went with her,
but we stayed right there with the coffin and never let go of it. In fact
several of us were with it through the whole trip, all the way to Bethesda
Naval Hospital. It couldn't have happened the way that fellow said. Not
even thirty seconds. I never left it. There was a general watch. We
organized it."
You can have the secret service in on it, but not a man who has known JFK
forever.
Powers was known for his eidetic memory. JFK never lost a campaign and
Powers is one reason why. You should read "Johnny We Hardly Knew Ye" by
Powers and O'Donnell t get a feel for these folks. They remind of the case
The West Wing. You're getting nothing past them with JFK's.
As for McHugh, he goes up and down the length of the plane no less than 5
times before the swearing in, to see the pilot. When's he going to show up
in the tail, all that time? You don't know. If you're a conspirator body
switcher, y ou have to deal with him too.
Give it up.
See what's happening? You're trying to disprove - to conspiracy fanatics -
that the casket switch didn't occur.
We all know how difficult it is to prove a negative; it's impossible to
prove a negative to fanatics.
It's impossible to prove anything, positive or negative, to the fanatics.
While it is difficult to prove a negative, you can prove that what you are
saying didn't happen is impossible. We can certainly come close to that
with the casket switch. If it is not impossible, it is certainly
implausible.
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
When you point out it's impossible to do "A" and "B" and "C" you are
pointing to the limits of human actions. But to conspiracy fanatics there
are no limits. "They" can do anything.
Nobody demonstrates that better than Chris. He has already made up his
mind that his theory is correct so whatever needed to have happened to
allow that to be possible, in his mind must have happened. This is what
happens when you start with your conclusion and work backward, force
fitting the evidence to the predetermined conclusion.
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
What is their evidence that "they" can do anything? The fact - for them -
that "they" did it. It is a circular argument: "they" can do "A" because
they did. It doesn't matter that you show that logistically they couldn't.
It doesn't matter that you point out that forensic pathologists (Wecht for
example) say you can't alter the wounds in the manner they claim. For the
conspiracy fanatics all of the evidence for them is that "they" did it.
An excellent example of what I wrote earlier in this post. Chris has
determined that the body was altered so it must be true that the body
could be altered without the alterations being obvious to any of the
review panels. It is his way of rationalizing a nutty idea.
WRONG! I didn't 'determine' that the body was altered, the evidence
stated it.
The evidence talks to you?
Post by mainframetech
What I find amazing is that LNs can ignore so much fact and
eyewitnesses and insist that those things testified to just didn't happen,
and they go blind and can't see them anym
It is impossible for everything everyone testified to can be factual
because there is much testimony that is conflicting. For example you cite
witnesses that claim the body was removed from a shipping casket while
others, like Sibert and O'Neill insist it was removed from the ornamental
casket which they accompanied from Andrews. Unless you believe there can
be dual realities, both of those things can't be true.
False logic. Witnesses can simply be wrong and sometimes are just stupid.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
In fact, the body was altered, and in such a way that it was accepted.
There is nothing factual about that and that is not even possible as even
CT hero Cyril Wecht has stated.
Post by mainframetech
It would be very
UNbelievable (witness the LN in this post) that alteration of the body of
the POTUS would be altered.
Alteration would be altered?
Post by mainframetech
Proof that the LN uses opinion only is in the
phrase "rationalizing a nutty idea".
Is that your way of saying we rely on forensic evidence to resolve
conflicting testimony?
Post by mainframetech
There's no fact there to hang your
hat on, but plenty of opinion, which is exactly what plotters might depend
on. There was a reason that such a fight to grab the body away from the
Dallas Medical Examiner was so important, and it was to get it to as
military hospital for the autopsy ,where they had some control of the
process and the report.
That is what you imagine/assume. There is no evidence that was the reason.
The SS quite understandably wanted to get AF1 in the air and get LBJ back
to the relative safety of Washington. It is also understandable why LBJ
would not want to hightail it out of Dallas and leave the widow of the
slain President behind. It is also understandable that the widow wasn't
going to leave without her husband's body. The only way to resolve this
was to remove the body from Dallas. There was no fight. There was an
argument. That argument was resolved when the Justice of the Peace agreed
to release the body provided Admiral Burkley agreed to stay with the body
until the autopsy was performed.
Post by mainframetech
As to alterations in the body not being obvious, what are your
thoughts about the triangular flap of bone over the right ear? Are the
edges to straight, and is the shape not a normal result of a bullet or a
strike on the head? Do the differences in the body BEFORE it left
Parkland, and AFTER arriving at Bethesda not strike anyone? Here's a good
There were no differences other than the normal rigor mortis process.
Post by mainframetech
http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/boh/parkland_boh/parkland_wound.htm
http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/boh/beth/beth.htm
There were no differences. JFK's head was blown open and instant after the
bullet struck him. What was seen at Bethesda fits perfectly with what we
see in the Z-film. The Z-film is incompatible with the nonsense you are
forced to believe so you buy into the silly claim it was altered, a claim
made by people equally desperate to dismiss the Z-film as an accurate film
record of the assassination. Your problem is Zapruder described the same
thing his film shows to a local TV reporter before he was even able to get
the film developed. Bill Newman described the same thing. Usually we use
forensic evidence to corroborate witness testimony. Due to your silly
claim of film alteration we use witness testimony to corroborate the film
evidence.
Post by mainframetech
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
We went through this with the discussion on the 9/11 attacks.
When he asked for evidence that a plane hit the Pentagon and when shown
the photos of the airplane parts around the building he dismissed them as
planted evidence; that is, as evidence of the conspiracy.
Obviously you didn't read the comments I made. I pointed out that the
parts were in the wrong place and couldn't normally be where they were
found, in the alleyway between the building sections.
Why do you think that because you point something out the rest of the
world is supposed to accept that as the truth?
Post by mainframetech
Since the plane
couldn't get there through all the beams and supports shown to be in place
outside, the parts of the plane could not be there. A solid logical
argument, but the LN view is 'listen to nothing' believe nothing' and do
not think.
There is nothing solid or logical about the way you think about 9/11 or
the JFK assassination. You want desperately to believe there were cover
ups in both so you bend and twist the evidence to force fit it to what you
want to believe rather than allowing your beliefs to conform to the
evidence.
Post by mainframetech
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
So the very evidence showing that there no missile that hit the Pentagon
attack is, for him, evidence of a missile hitting it. Up is down and down
is up.
Nope. You stopped thinking again. I like to talk about proof or the
absence of it. Not your opinions.
Mostly absence of it because that is what you have to support your beliefs.
Post by mainframetech
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
When he asked for evidence of DNA testing of the remains of the passengers
and when he was shown reports on that very testing he dismissed it as part
of the conspiracy. It was staged DNA testing of remains (since there were
no passengers on the planes).
It was unknown if there were passengers or not, but they were
certainly not on the grass in front of the Pentagon, or on the grass at
the Shanksville site.
Did you expect them to be posing for a group picture after there planes
slammed into a concrete structure and nosedived into the ground?
Post by mainframetech
If there are no bodies, then how can there be valid
DNA tests, which can be written on a piece of paper and shown to people?
There were bodies. Mostly charred remains which wouldn't be apparent in
any photo taken from a distance.
Post by mainframetech
With no bodies, anyone can fill up a piece of paper with DNA info.
Telling people all the facts and showing none of them suggests a hoax.
But on top of all that, the very collapse of 3 buildings to 2 trained
experts was 'controlled demolition', but no, we're not going to listen to
experts because our opinion is more important.
You listen to wackos.
Post by mainframetech
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Once again the very evidence showing a plane hit the Pentagon is for him
evidence that a plane didn't.
That's the problem. You were told that a plane hit the Pentagon and
you went with it. There was no proof, and in fact, there was proof that
it wasn't a plane that hit. And the 85 videos from the nearby businesses
were kept away from the public to this day, so we'll never know what they
showed. A photshopped plane was shown in one photo, and we're supposed to
bow down and swear to it! The LN philosophy is a weird one alright!
It wasn't a photo, it was a frame from a security camera which didn't take
that many frames per second. That's why the intact plane only appeared in
one frame.
Post by mainframetech
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
There is no way out of this. Whatever evidence we show that a plane hit
the Pentagon is, again, evidence for him it didn't.
Substitute JFK and Oswald for missile and Pentagon.
Same situation. You don't have the necessary evidence.
It would be impossible to provide the evidence necessary to convince you
that your beliefs are wacky because no matter how much you were given you
would invent excuses to dismiss it all.
Post by mainframetech
C'mon, list
you evidence that Oswald was looking out the 6th floor window and firing
the MC rifle into the motorcade. And I'll give you the fact that Oswald
brought in his own MC rifle in a paper bag as well. Prove he not only was
firing the MC rifle out the window, but that ANY MC type bullet hit or
hurt any person.
It would be futile to do that for you..........AGAIN!!!
Steve BH
2018-04-03 23:37:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
As to alterations in the body not being obvious, what are your
thoughts about the triangular flap of bone over the right ear? Are the
edges to straight, and is the shape not a normal result of a bullet or a
strike on the head? Do the differences in the body BEFORE it left
Parkland, and AFTER arriving at Bethesda not strike anyone? Here's a good
A "Kroenlein shot" to the head blows out the brains and the interior skull
explosion leaves many flaps and plates of fracture skull, in some cases
triangular. If you can't find some in these cases, you're not looking
hard. Which would be understandable, and this is not pretty. But it's also
not surgery. These are dead people who blew their brains out.

https://www.documentingreality.com/forum/f10/kr-nlein-shots-156314/
mainframetech
2018-04-05 03:01:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Steve BH
Post by mainframetech
As to alterations in the body not being obvious, what are your
thoughts about the triangular flap of bone over the right ear? Are the
edges to straight, and is the shape not a normal result of a bullet or a
strike on the head? Do the differences in the body BEFORE it left
Parkland, and AFTER arriving at Bethesda not strike anyone? Here's a good
A "Kroenlein shot" to the head blows out the brains and the interior skull
explosion leaves many flaps and plates of fracture skull, in some cases
triangular. If you can't find some in these cases, you're not looking
hard. Which would be understandable, and this is not pretty. But it's also
not surgery. These are dead people who blew their brains out.
https://www.documentingreality.com/forum/f10/kr-nlein-shots-156314/
When the body of JFK left Parkland hospital, the nurse that washed his
hair noticed only the hole in the BOH as wounds. There was no bunch of
plates cracked away from each other, because that is clearly recognizable
when you handle the head. I know from experience. However, AFTER arrival
at Bethesda the X-rays showed cracks and plates, and a single bone flap
over the right ear.

Chris
Anthony Marsh
2018-04-05 23:37:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by Steve BH
Post by mainframetech
As to alterations in the body not being obvious, what are your
thoughts about the triangular flap of bone over the right ear? Are the
edges to straight, and is the shape not a normal result of a bullet or a
strike on the head? Do the differences in the body BEFORE it left
Parkland, and AFTER arriving at Bethesda not strike anyone? Here's a good
A "Kroenlein shot" to the head blows out the brains and the interior skull
explosion leaves many flaps and plates of fracture skull, in some cases
triangular. If you can't find some in these cases, you're not looking
hard. Which would be understandable, and this is not pretty. But it's also
not surgery. These are dead people who blew their brains out.
https://www.documentingreality.com/forum/f10/kr-nlein-shots-156314/
When the body of JFK left Parkland hospital, the nurse that washed his
hair noticed only the hole in the BOH as wounds. There was no bunch of
plates cracked away from each other, because that is clearly recognizable
when you handle the head. I know from experience. However, AFTER arrival
at Bethesda the X-rays showed cracks and plates, and a single bone flap
over the right ear.
Jackie put the head back together on the way to the hospital.
At Parkland, the piece of skull was no longe jutting out. She did a
pretty good job. gauging from the early autopsy photos.
Post by mainframetech
Chris
Steve BH
2018-03-21 18:28:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
This list of 39 witnesses has been thoroughly debugged and debunked. The
fact you close your eyes tight and put your hands over your ears while
yelling "I can't see you! I can't hear you!" several times in a row
doesn't change the fact you made several big bloopers.
Nothing of the kind, and you continue to run away from my challenge to
pick out an example from this list and prove it doesn't belong there.
The blooper here is your constant LN attitude of closed mind ignoring any
proof that comes to you. The challenge continues, are you chicken to take
a chance? The last time you tried, you failed miserably, but still
pretend part of the list is wrong.
Chris
Carrico told the Warren Commission "occiputal-parietal." Do you know
where parietal is? He doesn't belong there.
mainframetech
2018-03-22 12:54:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Steve BH
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
This list of 39 witnesses has been thoroughly debugged and debunked. The
fact you close your eyes tight and put your hands over your ears while
yelling "I can't see you! I can't hear you!" several times in a row
doesn't change the fact you made several big bloopers.
Nothing of the kind, and you continue to run away from my challenge to
pick out an example from this list and prove it doesn't belong there.
The blooper here is your constant LN attitude of closed mind ignoring any
proof that comes to you. The challenge continues, are you chicken to take
a chance? The last time you tried, you failed miserably, but still
pretend part of the list is wrong.
Chris
Carrico told the Warren Commission "occiputal-parietal." Do you know
where parietal is? He doesn't belong there.
Parietal is at the upper back of the head and around the sides. If
the hole in the BOH is in the "occipital-parietal" area it can be right
where the drawings by the witnesses said it was:

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=350#relPageId=4&tab=page

This is the drawing of the hole in the BOH done by Tom Robinson, the
mortician.

Carrico made a change when he was in the video from 1997. He said
parietal-temporal, which is far from the BOH, and completely on the side.
He changed his statement, and I've seen a few of the doctors change their
beliefs probably after reading the autopsy Report (AR), which was faked.

The info he gave in the 1997 video was what wa in the faked AR.
Ace Kefford
2018-03-19 23:48:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by claviger
This list of 39 witnesses has been thoroughly debugged and debunked. The
fact you close your eyes tight and put your hands over your ears while
yelling "I can't see you! I can't hear you!" several times in a row
doesn't change the fact you made several big bloopers.
Don't worry, having a theory or piece of evidence thoroughly debunked has
never stopped most of the buffs over the past 50 plus years. There's no
reason think it ever will.
mainframetech
2018-03-21 02:06:24 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ace Kefford
Post by claviger
This list of 39 witnesses has been thoroughly debugged and debunked. The
fact you close your eyes tight and put your hands over your ears while
yelling "I can't see you! I can't hear you!" several times in a row
doesn't change the fact you made several big bloopers.
Don't worry, having a theory or piece of evidence thoroughly debunked has
never stopped most of the buffs over the past 50 plus years. There's no
reason think it ever will.
Particularly since they rely on evidence and facts, rather than
theories like the WCR.

Chris
Ace Kefford
2018-03-23 04:33:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by Ace Kefford
Post by claviger
This list of 39 witnesses has been thoroughly debugged and debunked. The
fact you close your eyes tight and put your hands over your ears while
yelling "I can't see you! I can't hear you!" several times in a row
doesn't change the fact you made several big bloopers.
Don't worry, having a theory or piece of evidence thoroughly debunked has
never stopped most of the buffs over the past 50 plus years. There's no
reason think it ever will.
Particularly since they rely on evidence and facts, rather than
theories like the WCR.
Chris
Yeah, no evidence for Oswald as the lone assassin. Just a theory. Like
evolution.
mainframetech
2018-03-24 00:20:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ace Kefford
Post by mainframetech
Post by Ace Kefford
Post by claviger
This list of 39 witnesses has been thoroughly debugged and debunked. The
fact you close your eyes tight and put your hands over your ears while
yelling "I can't see you! I can't hear you!" several times in a row
doesn't change the fact you made several big bloopers.
Don't worry, having a theory or piece of evidence thoroughly debunked has
never stopped most of the buffs over the past 50 plus years. There's no
reason think it ever will.
Particularly since they rely on evidence and facts, rather than
theories like the WCR.
Chris
Yeah, no evidence for Oswald as the lone assassin. Just a theory. Like
evolution.
Naah! There's a difference, the theory of evolution was not only
possible, but proven. Not so with the guilt of Oswald. There are enough
facts in his favor, and IF (repeat 'IF') some of the stories are true in
certain books, he was an unwilling patsy.

Chris
Anthony Marsh
2018-03-24 15:40:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ace Kefford
Post by mainframetech
Post by Ace Kefford
Post by claviger
This list of 39 witnesses has been thoroughly debugged and debunked. The
fact you close your eyes tight and put your hands over your ears while
yelling "I can't see you! I can't hear you!" several times in a row
doesn't change the fact you made several big bloopers.
Don't worry, having a theory or piece of evidence thoroughly debunked has
never stopped most of the buffs over the past 50 plus years. There's no
reason think it ever will.
Particularly since they rely on evidence and facts, rather than
theories like the WCR.
Chris
Yeah, no evidence for Oswald as the lone assassin. Just a theory. Like
evolution.
Which theory of evolution do you like the best?
John McAdams
2018-03-24 15:46:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ace Kefford
Post by mainframetech
Post by Ace Kefford
Post by claviger
This list of 39 witnesses has been thoroughly debugged and debunked. The
fact you close your eyes tight and put your hands over your ears while
yelling "I can't see you! I can't hear you!" several times in a row
doesn't change the fact you made several big bloopers.
Don't worry, having a theory or piece of evidence thoroughly debunked has
never stopped most of the buffs over the past 50 plus years. There's no
reason think it ever will.
Particularly since they rely on evidence and facts, rather than
theories like the WCR.
Chris
Yeah, no evidence for Oswald as the lone assassin. Just a theory. Like
evolution.
I got into this with Harris once.

Evolution is "a theory." Saying "just a theory" isn't fair.

When somebody says "evolution is just a theory," the more
sophisticated response is "so is gravity."

A fact is an observable piece of data. When I let go of my pencil, it
drops to the floor. Gravity is the theory that explains that.

A fact is that a lot of fossils have been dug up. Evolution is the
theory that explains that.

The wound on Connally's back was oval. That's a fact. The Single
Bullet Theory explains that.

.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
OHLeeRedux
2018-03-25 00:50:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
John McAdams
On 23 Mar 2018 00:33:59 -0400, Ace Kefford <***@yahoo.com>
- show quoted text -
I got into this with Harris once.

Evolution is "a theory." Saying "just a theory" isn't fair.

When somebody says "evolution is just a theory," the more
sophisticated response is "so is gravity."

A fact is an observable piece of data. When I let go of my pencil, it
drops to the floor. Gravity is the theory that explains that.

A fact is that a lot of fossils have been dug up. Evolution is the
theory that explains that.

The wound on Connally's back was oval. That's a fact. The Single
Bullet Theory explains that.

.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm



That makes too much sense. Stand by for Marsh to go into a tailspin and
vomit up a string of non sequiturs to cover up his latest faux pas.
Anthony Marsh
2018-03-25 19:00:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by John McAdams
Post by Ace Kefford
Post by mainframetech
Post by Ace Kefford
Post by claviger
This list of 39 witnesses has been thoroughly debugged and debunked. The
fact you close your eyes tight and put your hands over your ears while
yelling "I can't see you! I can't hear you!" several times in a row
doesn't change the fact you made several big bloopers.
Don't worry, having a theory or piece of evidence thoroughly debunked has
never stopped most of the buffs over the past 50 plus years. There's no
reason think it ever will.
Particularly since they rely on evidence and facts, rather than
theories like the WCR.
Chris
Yeah, no evidence for Oswald as the lone assassin. Just a theory. Like
evolution.
I got into this with Harris once.
Evolution is "a theory." Saying "just a theory" isn't fair.
OK, do you understand that there can be competing theories?
How come you are afraid to answer questions?
Which theory of evolution do you like?
Which theory of gravity do you like?
You don't have to be a scientist to believe one over the other.
The guys with competing theories ARE scientists and they can't all agree.
There maybe be 1 scientist out of 400,000 who doesn't believe in Global
Warming so you'll go with him because he's an extreme rightwinger owned
by the Koch brothers. It's called bias.
Post by John McAdams
When somebody says "evolution is just a theory," the more
sophisticated response is "so is gravity."
OK, so which theory do you like best?
Post by John McAdams
A fact is an observable piece of data. When I let go of my pencil, it
drops to the floor. Gravity is the theory that explains that.
No, it doesn't. Because of static electricity.
Post by John McAdams
A fact is that a lot of fossils have been dug up. Evolution is the
theory that explains that.
And some fossils were fakes. Piltdown Man.
Post by John McAdams
The wound on Connally's back was oval. That's a fact. The Single
Bullet Theory explains that.
That is NOT a fact. That is what they call a lie.

And the Single Bullet Theory is not the only possible explanation. The
correct explanation is that the bullet hit a curved surface, Connally's
chest in his armpit coming in at an angle. The wound was slightly
elongated. Not an oval.

So, now here is a question that NO WC defender is brave enough to answer.
If you really think that an elongated bullet wound proves that the bullet
MUST have hit something else first to make it tumble, what did the head
shot bullet hit to leave an elongated wound measuring 15 x 6mm? <crickets>
Post by John McAdams
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
mainframetech
2018-03-25 19:07:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by John McAdams
Post by Ace Kefford
Post by mainframetech
Post by Ace Kefford
Post by claviger
This list of 39 witnesses has been thoroughly debugged and debunked. The
fact you close your eyes tight and put your hands over your ears while
yelling "I can't see you! I can't hear you!" several times in a row
doesn't change the fact you made several big bloopers.
Don't worry, having a theory or piece of evidence thoroughly debunked has
never stopped most of the buffs over the past 50 plus years. There's no
reason think it ever will.
Particularly since they rely on evidence and facts, rather than
theories like the WCR.
Chris
Yeah, no evidence for Oswald as the lone assassin. Just a theory. Like
evolution.
I got into this with Harris once.
Evolution is "a theory." Saying "just a theory" isn't fair.
When somebody says "evolution is just a theory," the more
sophisticated response is "so is gravity."
A fact is an observable piece of data. When I let go of my pencil, it
drops to the floor. Gravity is the theory that explains that.
A fact is that a lot of fossils have been dug up. Evolution is the
theory that explains that.
The wound on Connally's back was oval. That's a fact. The Single
Bullet Theory explains that.
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
I completely agree that gravity and evolution are both theories, but
they both have been proven to a practical degree. The 'Single Bullet'
theory is far from proven, since there is clear proof that it didn't
happen. Here's some of that proof in the statement from Paul O'Connor in
an interview with William Matson Law, in his book "In the Eye of History":

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

Pages 40-41
book is online at https://www.krusch.com/books/kennedy/In_The_Eye_Of_History.pdf

There is corroboration from the other Technologist, James Jenkins, who
commented in an interview:

"JAMES JENKINS' RECOLLECTIONS OF JFK'S BACK WOUND ARE INCONSISTENT WITH
THE SINGLE BULLET THEORY: Jim Jenkins recalled a very shallow back wound
in JFK's upper posterior thorax, that did not transit the body. He
recalled Dr. Humes sticking his finger in the wound, and seeing Dr. Humes'
finger making an indentation in the intact pleura as he viewed Humes'
probing from the other side, where the right lung would have been before
its removal. The pleura was intact. Jenkins also recalled seeing a
bruise at the top of the middle lobe of the right lung (but not at the
top, or apex of the right lung). Jenkins also recalled that the back
wound was 10 centimeters lower than the tracheotomy site in the anterior
neck."

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

It was suggested that this particular bullet was what they call a
'short shot' that for whatever reason doesn't have the power to continue
through the target. The bruises left on the pleura and the lung were
almost 2 inches in diameter, suggesting the bullet struck away from the
edge of the lung. Jenkins disagrees with the AR by pointing out the
strike was in the middle lobe and not the upper lobe. No corroboration on
that.

Law did not intervene with any comments or author's 'spin'.

I believe this story for a number of reasons, but in any event it
disproves the SBT, because if that bullet never left the body of JFK, then
it couldn't come out of the throat wound to hit Connally, and the SBT is a
crock.

Chris
OHLeeRedux
2018-03-26 04:38:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Anthony Marsh
Post by John McAdams
Post by Ace Kefford
Post by mainframetech
Post by Ace Kefford
Post by claviger
This list of 39 witnesses has been thoroughly debugged and debunked. The
fact you close your eyes tight and put your hands over your ears while
yelling "I can't see you! I can't hear you!" several times in a row
doesn't change the fact you made several big bloopers.
Don't worry, having a theory or piece of evidence thoroughly debunked has
never stopped most of the buffs over the past 50 plus years. There's no
reason think it ever will.
Particularly since they rely on evidence and facts, rather than
theories like the WCR.
Chris
Yeah, no evidence for Oswald as the lone assassin. Just a theory. Like
evolution.
I got into this with Harris once.
Evolution is "a theory." Saying "just a theory" isn't fair.
OK, do you understand that there can be competing theories?
How come you are afraid to answer questions?
Which theory of evolution do you like?
Which theory of gravity do you like?
You don't have to be a scientist to believe one over the other.
The guys with competing theories ARE scientists and they can't all agree.
There maybe be 1 scientist out of 400,000 who doesn't believe in Global
Warming so you'll go with him because he's an extreme rightwinger owned
by the Koch brothers. It's called bias.



Translation: I can't respond intelligently (and I know deep down that I'm
wrong anyway), so I will spew out a stream of unrelated, unconnected
thoughts, then throw in some random questions and if you don't answer them
I will tell my fragile little ego that that means I am right, then giggle
to myself.
Anthony Marsh
2018-03-27 02:27:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by OHLeeRedux
Anthony Marsh
Post by John McAdams
Post by Ace Kefford
Post by mainframetech
Post by Ace Kefford
Post by claviger
This list of 39 witnesses has been thoroughly debugged and debunked. The
fact you close your eyes tight and put your hands over your ears while
yelling "I can't see you! I can't hear you!" several times in a row
doesn't change the fact you made several big bloopers.
Don't worry, having a theory or piece of evidence thoroughly debunked has
never stopped most of the buffs over the past 50 plus years. There's no
reason think it ever will.
Particularly since they rely on evidence and facts, rather than
theories like the WCR.
Chris
Yeah, no evidence for Oswald as the lone assassin. Just a theory. Like
evolution.
I got into this with Harris once.
Evolution is "a theory." Saying "just a theory" isn't fair.
OK, do you understand that there can be competing theories?
How come you are afraid to answer questions?
Which theory of evolution do you like?
Which theory of gravity do you like?
You don't have to be a scientist to believe one over the other.
The guys with competing theories ARE scientists and they can't all agree.
There maybe be 1 scientist out of 400,000 who doesn't believe in Global
Warming so you'll go with him because he's an extreme rightwinger owned
by the Koch brothers. It's called bias.
Translation: I can't respond intelligently (and I know deep down that I'm
wrong anyway), so I will spew out a stream of unrelated, unconnected
thoughts, then throw in some random questions and if you don't answer them
I will tell my fragile little ego that that means I am right, then giggle
to myself.
You can't even post correctly. We could claim that it was YOU who wrote
everything that I had written and you replied to.
OHLeeRedux
2018-03-27 18:44:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by OHLeeRedux
Anthony Marsh
Post by John McAdams
Post by Ace Kefford
Post by mainframetech
Post by Ace Kefford
Post by claviger
This list of 39 witnesses has been thoroughly debugged and debunked. The
fact you close your eyes tight and put your hands over your ears while
yelling "I can't see you! I can't hear you!" several times in a row
doesn't change the fact you made several big bloopers.
Don't worry, having a theory or piece of evidence thoroughly debunked has
never stopped most of the buffs over the past 50 plus years. There's no
reason think it ever will.
Particularly since they rely on evidence and facts, rather than
theories like the WCR.
Chris
Yeah, no evidence for Oswald as the lone assassin. Just a theory. Like
evolution.
I got into this with Harris once.
Evolution is "a theory." Saying "just a theory" isn't fair.
OK, do you understand that there can be competing theories?
How come you are afraid to answer questions?
Which theory of evolution do you like?
Which theory of gravity do you like?
You don't have to be a scientist to believe one over the other.
The guys with competing theories ARE scientists and they can't all agree.
There maybe be 1 scientist out of 400,000 who doesn't believe in Global
Warming so you'll go with him because he's an extreme rightwinger owned
by the Koch brothers. It's called bias.
Translation: I can't respond intelligently (and I know deep down that I'm
wrong anyway), so I will spew out a stream of unrelated, unconnected
thoughts, then throw in some random questions and if you don't answer them
I will tell my fragile little ego that that means I am right, then giggle
to myself.
everything that I had written and you replied to.
No, Anthony, "we" wouldn't claim that. You would, and in fact you've been
caught several times doing just that.
bigdog
2018-03-27 02:11:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by John McAdams
Post by Ace Kefford
Post by mainframetech
Post by Ace Kefford
Post by claviger
This list of 39 witnesses has been thoroughly debugged and debunked. The
fact you close your eyes tight and put your hands over your ears while
yelling "I can't see you! I can't hear you!" several times in a row
doesn't change the fact you made several big bloopers.
Don't worry, having a theory or piece of evidence thoroughly debunked has
never stopped most of the buffs over the past 50 plus years. There's no
reason think it ever will.
Particularly since they rely on evidence and facts, rather than
theories like the WCR.
Chris
Yeah, no evidence for Oswald as the lone assassin. Just a theory. Like
evolution.
I got into this with Harris once.
Evolution is "a theory." Saying "just a theory" isn't fair.
When somebody says "evolution is just a theory," the more
sophisticated response is "so is gravity."
A fact is an observable piece of data. When I let go of my pencil, it
drops to the floor. Gravity is the theory that explains that.
A fact is that a lot of fossils have been dug up. Evolution is the
theory that explains that.
The wound on Connally's back was oval. That's a fact. The Single
Bullet Theory explains that.
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
I completely agree that gravity and evolution are both theories, but
they both have been proven to a practical degree. The 'Single Bullet'
theory is far from proven, since there is clear proof that it didn't
happen.
The SBT is the only plausible explanation that has every been give for the
wounds suffered by both men. It wins by default.
Post by mainframetech
Here's some of that proof in the statement from Paul O'Connor in
Oh goody. Another example of what Chris thinks passes for proof.
Post by mainframetech
"O'Connor: We started out with a rigid probe and found that it only went
in so far. I'd say maybe an inch and a quarter. It didn't go any further
than that. So we used a malleable probe and bent it a little bit and found
out that the bullet entered the body, went through the intercostal
muscles—the muscles in between the ribs. The bullet went in
through the muscles, didn't touch any of the ribs, arched downwards, hit
the back of the pleural cavity, which encases the lungs, both front and
back. It bounced off that cavity and stopped. It actually went down and
stopped. Went through the ribs and stopped (photo 10). So we didn't know
the track of the bullet until we eviscerated the body later. That's what
happened at that time. We traced the bullet path down and found out it
didn't traverse the body. It did not go in one side and come out the other
side of the body.
Law: You can be reasonably sure of that?
O'Connor: Absolutely.
Law: It was just from the probe then?
O'Connor: Oh yes.
Law: And these doctors knew that?
O'Connor: Absolutely.
Law: While it happened?
O'Connor: Absolutely."
Pages 40-41
book is online at https://www.krusch.com/books/kennedy/In_The_Eye_Of_History.pdf
There is corroboration from the other Technologist, James Jenkins, who
"JAMES JENKINS' RECOLLECTIONS OF JFK'S BACK WOUND ARE INCONSISTENT WITH
THE SINGLE BULLET THEORY: Jim Jenkins recalled a very shallow back wound
in JFK's upper posterior thorax, that did not transit the body. He
recalled Dr. Humes sticking his finger in the wound, and seeing Dr. Humes'
finger making an indentation in the intact pleura as he viewed Humes'
probing from the other side, where the right lung would have been before
its removal. The pleura was intact. Jenkins also recalled seeing a
bruise at the top of the middle lobe of the right lung (but not at the
top, or apex of the right lung). Jenkins also recalled that the back
wound was 10 centimeters lower than the tracheotomy site in the anterior
neck."
From: https://insidethearrb.livejournal.com/10811.html
It was suggested that this particular bullet was what they call a
'short shot' that for whatever reason doesn't have the power to continue
through the target. The bruises left on the pleura and the lung were
almost 2 inches in diameter, suggesting the bullet struck away from the
edge of the lung. Jenkins disagrees with the AR by pointing out the
strike was in the middle lobe and not the upper lobe. No corroboration on
that.
Law did not intervene with any comments or author's 'spin'.
I believe this story for a number of reasons,
Primarily because you need to for your desired conclusions to hold water.
Post by mainframetech
but in any event it
disproves the SBT, because if that bullet never left the body of JFK, then
it couldn't come out of the throat wound to hit Connally, and the SBT is a
crock.
If your aunt had balls she'd be your uncle.
mainframetech
2018-03-28 00:00:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by John McAdams
Post by Ace Kefford
Post by mainframetech
Post by Ace Kefford
Post by claviger
This list of 39 witnesses has been thoroughly debugged and debunked. The
fact you close your eyes tight and put your hands over your ears while
yelling "I can't see you! I can't hear you!" several times in a row
doesn't change the fact you made several big bloopers.
Don't worry, having a theory or piece of evidence thoroughly debunked has
never stopped most of the buffs over the past 50 plus years. There's no
reason think it ever will.
Particularly since they rely on evidence and facts, rather than
theories like the WCR.
Chris
Yeah, no evidence for Oswald as the lone assassin. Just a theory. Like
evolution.
I got into this with Harris once.
Evolution is "a theory." Saying "just a theory" isn't fair.
When somebody says "evolution is just a theory," the more
sophisticated response is "so is gravity."
A fact is an observable piece of data. When I let go of my pencil, it
drops to the floor. Gravity is the theory that explains that.
A fact is that a lot of fossils have been dug up. Evolution is the
theory that explains that.
The wound on Connally's back was oval. That's a fact. The Single
Bullet Theory explains that.
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
I completely agree that gravity and evolution are both theories, but
they both have been proven to a practical degree. The 'Single Bullet'
theory is far from proven, since there is clear proof that it didn't
happen.
The SBT is the only plausible explanation that has every been give for the
wounds suffered by both men. It wins by default.
WRONG! It fails by default! Never mind that it's a ridiculous theory
to answer for the many bullet wounds that occurred, it has been proven
false by what was learned at the autopsy, even though Humes didn't write
it up properly. Use common sense and you'll find that a bullet that hit 2
men 7 times, striking 2 bones in the process won't come out looking almost
pristine. Here's some examples:

Loading Image...

The last bullet to the right was fired into a wrist bone of a cadaver.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Here's some of that proof in the statement from Paul O'Connor in
Oh goody. Another example of what Chris thinks passes for proof.
It sure beats what you've offered from the WCR. Basically nothing!
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
"O'Connor: We started out with a rigid probe and found that it only went
in so far. I'd say maybe an inch and a quarter. It didn't go any further
than that. So we used a malleable probe and bent it a little bit and found
out that the bullet entered the body, went through the intercostal
muscles—the muscles in between the ribs. The bullet went in
through the muscles, didn't touch any of the ribs, arched downwards, hit
the back of the pleural cavity, which encases the lungs, both front and
back. It bounced off that cavity and stopped. It actually went down and
stopped. Went through the ribs and stopped (photo 10). So we didn't know
the track of the bullet until we eviscerated the body later. That's what
happened at that time. We traced the bullet path down and found out it
didn't traverse the body. It did not go in one side and come out the other
side of the body.
Law: You can be reasonably sure of that?
O'Connor: Absolutely.
Law: It was just from the probe then?
O'Connor: Oh yes.
Law: And these doctors knew that?
O'Connor: Absolutely.
Law: While it happened?
O'Connor: Absolutely."
Pages 40-41
book is online at https://www.krusch.com/books/kennedy/In_The_Eye_Of_History.pdf
There is corroboration from the other Technologist, James Jenkins, who
"JAMES JENKINS' RECOLLECTIONS OF JFK'S BACK WOUND ARE INCONSISTENT WITH
THE SINGLE BULLET THEORY: Jim Jenkins recalled a very shallow back wound
in JFK's upper posterior thorax, that did not transit the body. He
recalled Dr. Humes sticking his finger in the wound, and seeing Dr. Humes'
finger making an indentation in the intact pleura as he viewed Humes'
probing from the other side, where the right lung would have been before
its removal. The pleura was intact. Jenkins also recalled seeing a
bruise at the top of the middle lobe of the right lung (but not at the
top, or apex of the right lung). Jenkins also recalled that the back
wound was 10 centimeters lower than the tracheotomy site in the anterior
neck."
From: https://insidethearrb.livejournal.com/10811.html
It was suggested that this particular bullet was what they call a
'short shot' that for whatever reason doesn't have the power to continue
through the target. The bruises left on the pleura and the lung were
almost 2 inches in diameter, suggesting the bullet struck away from the
edge of the lung. Jenkins disagrees with the AR by pointing out the
strike was in the middle lobe and not the upper lobe. No corroboration on
that.
Law did not intervene with any comments or author's 'spin'.
I believe this story for a number of reasons,
Primarily because you need to for your desired conclusions to hold water.
Post by mainframetech
but in any event it
disproves the SBT, because if that bullet never left the body of JFK, then
it couldn't come out of the throat wound to hit Connally, and the SBT is a
crock.
If your aunt had balls she'd be your uncle.
A typical LN ad hominem comment that replaces any proof to the contrary
from what has been shown.

Chris
Anthony Marsh
2018-03-29 00:32:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by John McAdams
Post by Ace Kefford
Post by mainframetech
Post by Ace Kefford
Post by claviger
This list of 39 witnesses has been thoroughly debugged and debunked. The
fact you close your eyes tight and put your hands over your ears while
yelling "I can't see you! I can't hear you!" several times in a row
doesn't change the fact you made several big bloopers.
Don't worry, having a theory or piece of evidence thoroughly debunked has
never stopped most of the buffs over the past 50 plus years. There's no
reason think it ever will.
Particularly since they rely on evidence and facts, rather than
theories like the WCR.
Chris
Yeah, no evidence for Oswald as the lone assassin. Just a theory. Like
evolution.
I got into this with Harris once.
Evolution is "a theory." Saying "just a theory" isn't fair.
When somebody says "evolution is just a theory," the more
sophisticated response is "so is gravity."
A fact is an observable piece of data. When I let go of my pencil, it
drops to the floor. Gravity is the theory that explains that.
A fact is that a lot of fossils have been dug up. Evolution is the
theory that explains that.
The wound on Connally's back was oval. That's a fact. The Single
Bullet Theory explains that.
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
I completely agree that gravity and evolution are both theories, but
they both have been proven to a practical degree. The 'Single Bullet'
theory is far from proven, since there is clear proof that it didn't
happen.
The SBT is the only plausible explanation that has every been give for the
wounds suffered by both men. It wins by default.
WRONG! It fails by default! Never mind that it's a ridiculous theory
WRONG!!!
Some type of SBT is theoretically possible.
It's just that all the current variations of the SBT fail by logic and
by evidence.
Post by mainframetech
to answer for the many bullet wounds that occurred, it has been proven
false by what was learned at the autopsy, even though Humes didn't write
it up properly. Use common sense and you'll find that a bullet that hit 2
men 7 times, striking 2 bones in the process won't come out looking almost
Then don't use THAT bullet for your SBT.
Post by mainframetech
https://3.bp.blogspot.com/_wUfmxg7xM44/SuD3ycKfX-I/AAAAAAAAADk/ylbn5dwoJGY/s400/Exf294.gif
The last bullet to the right was fired into a wrist bone of a cadaver.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Here's some of that proof in the statement from Paul O'Connor in
Oh goody. Another example of what Chris thinks passes for proof.
It sure beats what you've offered from the WCR. Basically nothing!
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
"O'Connor: We started out with a rigid probe and found that it only went
in so far. I'd say maybe an inch and a quarter. It didn't go any further
than that. So we used a malleable probe and bent it a little bit and found
out that the bullet entered the body, went through the intercostal
muscles???the muscles in between the ribs. The bullet went in
through the muscles, didn't touch any of the ribs, arched downwards, hit
the back of the pleural cavity, which encases the lungs, both front and
back. It bounced off that cavity and stopped. It actually went down and
stopped. Went through the ribs and stopped (photo 10). So we didn't know
the track of the bullet until we eviscerated the body later. That's what
happened at that time. We traced the bullet path down and found out it
didn't traverse the body. It did not go in one side and come out the other
side of the body.
Law: You can be reasonably sure of that?
O'Connor: Absolutely.
Law: It was just from the probe then?
O'Connor: Oh yes.
Law: And these doctors knew that?
O'Connor: Absolutely.
Law: While it happened?
O'Connor: Absolutely."
Pages 40-41
book is online at https://www.krusch.com/books/kennedy/In_The_Eye_Of_History.pdf
There is corroboration from the other Technologist, James Jenkins, who
"JAMES JENKINS' RECOLLECTIONS OF JFK'S BACK WOUND ARE INCONSISTENT WITH
THE SINGLE BULLET THEORY: Jim Jenkins recalled a very shallow back wound
in JFK's upper posterior thorax, that did not transit the body. He
recalled Dr. Humes sticking his finger in the wound, and seeing Dr. Humes'
A competent doctor would never probe by using his finger.
You walways must dissect.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
finger making an indentation in the intact pleura as he viewed Humes'
probing from the other side, where the right lung would have been before
its removal. The pleura was intact. Jenkins also recalled seeing a
bruise at the top of the middle lobe of the right lung (but not at the
top, or apex of the right lung). Jenkins also recalled that the back
wound was 10 centimeters lower than the tracheotomy site in the anterior
neck."
From: https://insidethearrb.livejournal.com/10811.html
It was suggested that this particular bullet was what they call a
'short shot' that for whatever reason doesn't have the power to continue
through the target. The bruises left on the pleura and the lung were
almost 2 inches in diameter, suggesting the bullet struck away from the
edge of the lung. Jenkins disagrees with the AR by pointing out the
strike was in the middle lobe and not the upper lobe. No corroboration on
that.
Law did not intervene with any comments or author's 'spin'.
I believe this story for a number of reasons,
Primarily because you need to for your desired conclusions to hold water.
Post by mainframetech
but in any event it
disproves the SBT, because if that bullet never left the body of JFK, then
it couldn't come out of the throat wound to hit Connally, and the SBT is a
crock.
If your aunt had balls she'd be your uncle.
A typical LN ad hominem comment that replaces any proof to the contrary
from what has been shown.
Chris
bigdog
2018-03-29 02:37:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by John McAdams
Post by Ace Kefford
Post by mainframetech
Post by Ace Kefford
Post by claviger
This list of 39 witnesses has been thoroughly debugged and debunked. The
fact you close your eyes tight and put your hands over your ears while
yelling "I can't see you! I can't hear you!" several times in a row
doesn't change the fact you made several big bloopers.
Don't worry, having a theory or piece of evidence thoroughly debunked has
never stopped most of the buffs over the past 50 plus years. There's no
reason think it ever will.
Particularly since they rely on evidence and facts, rather than
theories like the WCR.
Chris
Yeah, no evidence for Oswald as the lone assassin. Just a theory. Like
evolution.
I got into this with Harris once.
Evolution is "a theory." Saying "just a theory" isn't fair.
When somebody says "evolution is just a theory," the more
sophisticated response is "so is gravity."
A fact is an observable piece of data. When I let go of my pencil, it
drops to the floor. Gravity is the theory that explains that.
A fact is that a lot of fossils have been dug up. Evolution is the
theory that explains that.
The wound on Connally's back was oval. That's a fact. The Single
Bullet Theory explains that.
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
I completely agree that gravity and evolution are both theories, but
they both have been proven to a practical degree. The 'Single Bullet'
theory is far from proven, since there is clear proof that it didn't
happen.
The SBT is the only plausible explanation that has every been give for the
wounds suffered by both men. It wins by default.
WRONG! It fails by default! Never mind that it's a ridiculous theory
to answer for the many bullet wounds that occurred, it has been proven
false by what was learned at the autopsy, even though Humes didn't write
it up properly. Use common sense and you'll find that a bullet that hit 2
men 7 times, striking 2 bones in the process won't come out looking almost
So you think what you imagine the autopsy revealed carries more weight
than the report of the men who performed the autopsy.
Post by mainframetech
https://3.bp.blogspot.com/_wUfmxg7xM44/SuD3ycKfX-I/AAAAAAAAADk/ylbn5dwoJGY/s400/Exf294.gif
The last bullet to the right was fired into a wrist bone of a cadaver.
Nice shot.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Here's some of that proof in the statement from Paul O'Connor in
Oh goody. Another example of what Chris thinks passes for proof.
It sure beats what you've offered from the WCR. Basically nothing!
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
"O'Connor: We started out with a rigid probe and found that it only went
in so far. I'd say maybe an inch and a quarter. It didn't go any further
than that. So we used a malleable probe and bent it a little bit and found
out that the bullet entered the body, went through the intercostal
muscles—the muscles in between the ribs. The bullet went in
through the muscles, didn't touch any of the ribs, arched downwards, hit
the back of the pleural cavity, which encases the lungs, both front and
back. It bounced off that cavity and stopped. It actually went down and
stopped. Went through the ribs and stopped (photo 10). So we didn't know
the track of the bullet until we eviscerated the body later. That's what
happened at that time. We traced the bullet path down and found out it
didn't traverse the body. It did not go in one side and come out the other
side of the body.
Law: You can be reasonably sure of that?
O'Connor: Absolutely.
Law: It was just from the probe then?
O'Connor: Oh yes.
Law: And these doctors knew that?
O'Connor: Absolutely.
Law: While it happened?
O'Connor: Absolutely."
Pages 40-41
book is online at https://www.krusch.com/books/kennedy/In_The_Eye_Of_History.pdf
There is corroboration from the other Technologist, James Jenkins, who
"JAMES JENKINS' RECOLLECTIONS OF JFK'S BACK WOUND ARE INCONSISTENT WITH
THE SINGLE BULLET THEORY: Jim Jenkins recalled a very shallow back wound
in JFK's upper posterior thorax, that did not transit the body. He
recalled Dr. Humes sticking his finger in the wound, and seeing Dr. Humes'
finger making an indentation in the intact pleura as he viewed Humes'
probing from the other side, where the right lung would have been before
its removal. The pleura was intact. Jenkins also recalled seeing a
bruise at the top of the middle lobe of the right lung (but not at the
top, or apex of the right lung). Jenkins also recalled that the back
wound was 10 centimeters lower than the tracheotomy site in the anterior
neck."
From: https://insidethearrb.livejournal.com/10811.html
It was suggested that this particular bullet was what they call a
'short shot' that for whatever reason doesn't have the power to continue
through the target. The bruises left on the pleura and the lung were
almost 2 inches in diameter, suggesting the bullet struck away from the
edge of the lung. Jenkins disagrees with the AR by pointing out the
strike was in the middle lobe and not the upper lobe. No corroboration on
that.
Law did not intervene with any comments or author's 'spin'.
I believe this story for a number of reasons,
Primarily because you need to for your desired conclusions to hold water.
Post by mainframetech
but in any event it
disproves the SBT, because if that bullet never left the body of JFK, then
it couldn't come out of the throat wound to hit Connally, and the SBT is a
crock.
If your aunt had balls she'd be your uncle.
A typical LN ad hominem comment that replaces any proof to the contrary
from what has been shown.
Still waiting to see that viable alternative to the SBT.
mainframetech
2018-03-30 00:49:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by John McAdams
Post by Ace Kefford
Post by mainframetech
Post by Ace Kefford
Post by claviger
This list of 39 witnesses has been thoroughly debugged and debunked. The
fact you close your eyes tight and put your hands over your ears while
yelling "I can't see you! I can't hear you!" several times in a row
doesn't change the fact you made several big bloopers.
Don't worry, having a theory or piece of evidence thoroughly debunked has
never stopped most of the buffs over the past 50 plus years. There's no
reason think it ever will.
Particularly since they rely on evidence and facts, rather than
theories like the WCR.
Chris
Yeah, no evidence for Oswald as the lone assassin. Just a theory. Like
evolution.
I got into this with Harris once.
Evolution is "a theory." Saying "just a theory" isn't fair.
When somebody says "evolution is just a theory," the more
sophisticated response is "so is gravity."
A fact is an observable piece of data. When I let go of my pencil, it
drops to the floor. Gravity is the theory that explains that.
A fact is that a lot of fossils have been dug up. Evolution is the
theory that explains that.
The wound on Connally's back was oval. That's a fact. The Single
Bullet Theory explains that.
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
I completely agree that gravity and evolution are both theories, but
they both have been proven to a practical degree. The 'Single Bullet'
theory is far from proven, since there is clear proof that it didn't
happen.
The SBT is the only plausible explanation that has every been give for the
wounds suffered by both men. It wins by default.
WRONG! It fails by default! Never mind that it's a ridiculous theory
to answer for the many bullet wounds that occurred, it has been proven
false by what was learned at the autopsy, even though Humes didn't write
it up properly. Use common sense and you'll find that a bullet that hit 2
men 7 times, striking 2 bones in the process won't come out looking almost
So you think what you imagine the autopsy revealed carries more weight
than the report of the men who performed the autopsy.
WRONG as usual! The autopsy revealed the truth about the upper back
wound, and in so doing decimated the silly SBT. I only reported what they
found. That the bullet never left the body of JFK, and so couldn't hit
Connally.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
https://3.bp.blogspot.com/_wUfmxg7xM44/SuD3ycKfX-I/AAAAAAAAADk/ylbn5dwoJGY/s400/Exf294.gif
The last bullet to the right was fired into a wrist bone of a cadaver.
Nice shot.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Here's some of that proof in the statement from Paul O'Connor in
Oh goody. Another example of what Chris thinks passes for proof.
It sure beats what you've offered from the WCR. Basically nothing!
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
"O'Connor: We started out with a rigid probe and found that it only went
in so far. I'd say maybe an inch and a quarter. It didn't go any further
than that. So we used a malleable probe and bent it a little bit and found
out that the bullet entered the body, went through the intercostal
muscles—the muscles in between the ribs. The bullet went in
through the muscles, didn't touch any of the ribs, arched downwards, hit
the back of the pleural cavity, which encases the lungs, both front and
back. It bounced off that cavity and stopped. It actually went down and
stopped. Went through the ribs and stopped (photo 10). So we didn't know
the track of the bullet until we eviscerated the body later. That's what
happened at that time. We traced the bullet path down and found out it
didn't traverse the body. It did not go in one side and come out the other
side of the body.
Law: You can be reasonably sure of that?
O'Connor: Absolutely.
Law: It was just from the probe then?
O'Connor: Oh yes.
Law: And these doctors knew that?
O'Connor: Absolutely.
Law: While it happened?
O'Connor: Absolutely."
Pages 40-41
book is online at https://www.krusch.com/books/kennedy/In_The_Eye_Of_History.pdf
There is corroboration from the other Technologist, James Jenkins, who
"JAMES JENKINS' RECOLLECTIONS OF JFK'S BACK WOUND ARE INCONSISTENT WITH
THE SINGLE BULLET THEORY: Jim Jenkins recalled a very shallow back wound
in JFK's upper posterior thorax, that did not transit the body. He
recalled Dr. Humes sticking his finger in the wound, and seeing Dr. Humes'
finger making an indentation in the intact pleura as he viewed Humes'
probing from the other side, where the right lung would have been before
its removal. The pleura was intact. Jenkins also recalled seeing a
bruise at the top of the middle lobe of the right lung (but not at the
top, or apex of the right lung). Jenkins also recalled that the back
wound was 10 centimeters lower than the tracheotomy site in the anterior
neck."
From: https://insidethearrb.livejournal.com/10811.html
It was suggested that this particular bullet was what they call a
'short shot' that for whatever reason doesn't have the power to continue
through the target. The bruises left on the pleura and the lung were
almost 2 inches in diameter, suggesting the bullet struck away from the
edge of the lung. Jenkins disagrees with the AR by pointing out the
strike was in the middle lobe and not the upper lobe. No corroboration on
that.
Law did not intervene with any comments or author's 'spin'.
I believe this story for a number of reasons,
Primarily because you need to for your desired conclusions to hold water.
Post by mainframetech
but in any event it
disproves the SBT, because if that bullet never left the body of JFK, then
it couldn't come out of the throat wound to hit Connally, and the SBT is a
crock.
If your aunt had balls she'd be your uncle.
A typical LN ad hominem comment that replaces any proof to the contrary
from what has been shown.
Still waiting to see that viable alternative to the SBT.
It's been shown many times. And it comes from the many shooters
around the plaza. Connally was hit by bullet(s) that missed JFK.



Chris
bigdog
2018-03-30 18:55:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by John McAdams
Post by Ace Kefford
Post by mainframetech
Post by Ace Kefford
Post by claviger
This list of 39 witnesses has been thoroughly debugged and debunked. The
fact you close your eyes tight and put your hands over your ears while
yelling "I can't see you! I can't hear you!" several times in a row
doesn't change the fact you made several big bloopers.
Don't worry, having a theory or piece of evidence thoroughly debunked has
never stopped most of the buffs over the past 50 plus years. There's no
reason think it ever will.
Particularly since they rely on evidence and facts, rather than
theories like the WCR.
Chris
Yeah, no evidence for Oswald as the lone assassin. Just a theory. Like
evolution.
I got into this with Harris once.
Evolution is "a theory." Saying "just a theory" isn't fair.
When somebody says "evolution is just a theory," the more
sophisticated response is "so is gravity."
A fact is an observable piece of data. When I let go of my pencil, it
drops to the floor. Gravity is the theory that explains that.
A fact is that a lot of fossils have been dug up. Evolution is the
theory that explains that.
The wound on Connally's back was oval. That's a fact. The Single
Bullet Theory explains that.
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
I completely agree that gravity and evolution are both theories, but
they both have been proven to a practical degree. The 'Single Bullet'
theory is far from proven, since there is clear proof that it didn't
happen.
The SBT is the only plausible explanation that has every been give for the
wounds suffered by both men. It wins by default.
WRONG! It fails by default! Never mind that it's a ridiculous theory
to answer for the many bullet wounds that occurred, it has been proven
false by what was learned at the autopsy, even though Humes didn't write
it up properly. Use common sense and you'll find that a bullet that hit 2
men 7 times, striking 2 bones in the process won't come out looking almost
So you think what you imagine the autopsy revealed carries more weight
than the report of the men who performed the autopsy.
WRONG as usual! The autopsy revealed the truth about the upper back
wound, and in so doing decimated the silly SBT.
In your dreams.
Post by mainframetech
I only reported what they found.
They reported what they found in their AR. I give them a lot more weight
than I give you which is to say I give you no weight at all.
Post by mainframetech
That the bullet never left the body of JFK, and so couldn't hit Connally.
This is and example of why I don't give you any weight.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
https://3.bp.blogspot.com/_wUfmxg7xM44/SuD3ycKfX-I/AAAAAAAAADk/ylbn5dwoJGY/s400/Exf294.gif
The last bullet to the right was fired into a wrist bone of a cadaver.
Nice shot.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Here's some of that proof in the statement from Paul O'Connor in
Oh goody. Another example of what Chris thinks passes for proof.
It sure beats what you've offered from the WCR. Basically nothing!
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
"O'Connor: We started out with a rigid probe and found that it only went
in so far. I'd say maybe an inch and a quarter. It didn't go any further
than that. So we used a malleable probe and bent it a little bit and found
out that the bullet entered the body, went through the intercostal
muscles—the muscles in between the ribs. The bullet went in
through the muscles, didn't touch any of the ribs, arched downwards, hit
the back of the pleural cavity, which encases the lungs, both front and
back. It bounced off that cavity and stopped. It actually went down and
stopped. Went through the ribs and stopped (photo 10). So we didn't know
the track of the bullet until we eviscerated the body later. That's what
happened at that time. We traced the bullet path down and found out it
didn't traverse the body. It did not go in one side and come out the other
side of the body.
Law: You can be reasonably sure of that?
O'Connor: Absolutely.
Law: It was just from the probe then?
O'Connor: Oh yes.
Law: And these doctors knew that?
O'Connor: Absolutely.
Law: While it happened?
O'Connor: Absolutely."
Pages 40-41
book is online at https://www.krusch.com/books/kennedy/In_The_Eye_Of_History.pdf
There is corroboration from the other Technologist, James Jenkins, who
"JAMES JENKINS' RECOLLECTIONS OF JFK'S BACK WOUND ARE INCONSISTENT WITH
THE SINGLE BULLET THEORY: Jim Jenkins recalled a very shallow back wound
in JFK's upper posterior thorax, that did not transit the body. He
recalled Dr. Humes sticking his finger in the wound, and seeing Dr. Humes'
finger making an indentation in the intact pleura as he viewed Humes'
probing from the other side, where the right lung would have been before
its removal. The pleura was intact. Jenkins also recalled seeing a
bruise at the top of the middle lobe of the right lung (but not at the
top, or apex of the right lung). Jenkins also recalled that the back
wound was 10 centimeters lower than the tracheotomy site in the anterior
neck."
From: https://insidethearrb.livejournal.com/10811.html
It was suggested that this particular bullet was what they call a
'short shot' that for whatever reason doesn't have the power to continue
through the target. The bruises left on the pleura and the lung were
almost 2 inches in diameter, suggesting the bullet struck away from the
edge of the lung. Jenkins disagrees with the AR by pointing out the
strike was in the middle lobe and not the upper lobe. No corroboration on
that.
Law did not intervene with any comments or author's 'spin'.
I believe this story for a number of reasons,
Primarily because you need to for your desired conclusions to hold water.
Post by mainframetech
but in any event it
disproves the SBT, because if that bullet never left the body of JFK, then
it couldn't come out of the throat wound to hit Connally, and the SBT is a
crock.
If your aunt had balls she'd be your uncle.
A typical LN ad hominem comment that replaces any proof to the contrary
from what has been shown.
Still waiting to see that viable alternative to the SBT.
It's been shown many times.
Still waiting to see it.
Post by mainframetech
And it comes from the many shooters
around the plaza. Connally was hit by bullet(s) that missed JFK.
I can't see things that you imagine.

A viable alternative would explain where each shot was fired that caused
each of the wounds suffered by the two men. It would explain where the
bullet went after causing each of the wounds even if that explanation was
that the bullet exited the limo and was never recovered. Most important,
the explanations would be based on forensic evidence. Your explanation
meets none of these criteria. Don't feel bad. Nobody else's has either.
mainframetech
2018-03-31 20:07:24 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by John McAdams
Post by Ace Kefford
Post by mainframetech
Post by Ace Kefford
Post by claviger
This list of 39 witnesses has been thoroughly debugged and debunked. The
fact you close your eyes tight and put your hands over your ears while
yelling "I can't see you! I can't hear you!" several times in a row
doesn't change the fact you made several big bloopers.
Don't worry, having a theory or piece of evidence thoroughly debunked has
never stopped most of the buffs over the past 50 plus years. There's no
reason think it ever will.
Particularly since they rely on evidence and facts, rather than
theories like the WCR.
Chris
Yeah, no evidence for Oswald as the lone assassin. Just a theory. Like
evolution.
I got into this with Harris once.
Evolution is "a theory." Saying "just a theory" isn't fair.
When somebody says "evolution is just a theory," the more
sophisticated response is "so is gravity."
A fact is an observable piece of data. When I let go of my pencil, it
drops to the floor. Gravity is the theory that explains that.
A fact is that a lot of fossils have been dug up. Evolution is the
theory that explains that.
The wound on Connally's back was oval. That's a fact. The Single
Bullet Theory explains that.
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
I completely agree that gravity and evolution are both theories, but
they both have been proven to a practical degree. The 'Single Bullet'
theory is far from proven, since there is clear proof that it didn't
happen.
The SBT is the only plausible explanation that has every been give for the
wounds suffered by both men. It wins by default.
WRONG! It fails by default! Never mind that it's a ridiculous theory
to answer for the many bullet wounds that occurred, it has been proven
false by what was learned at the autopsy, even though Humes didn't write
it up properly. Use common sense and you'll find that a bullet that hit 2
men 7 times, striking 2 bones in the process won't come out looking almost
So you think what you imagine the autopsy revealed carries more weight
than the report of the men who performed the autopsy.
WRONG as usual! The autopsy revealed the truth about the upper back
wound, and in so doing decimated the silly SBT.
In your dreams.
Post by mainframetech
I only reported what they found.
They reported what they found in their AR. I give them a lot more weight
than I give you which is to say I give you no weight at all.
WRONG as usual! The Autopsy Rep[ort (AR) was proven wrong, but you
just don't like it, but as an LN, you have to pretend it was right, even
though it left things out and made the wrong conclusions.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
That the bullet never left the body of JFK, and so couldn't hit Connally.
This is and example of why I don't give you any weight.
That's OK, I made no conclusions. The findings from the autopsy were
OBVIOUS to anyone following the information.



https://3.bp.blogspot.com/_wUfmxg7xM44/SuD3ycKfX-I/AAAAAAAAADk/ylbn5dwoJGY/s400/Exf294.gif
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
The last bullet to the right was fired into a wrist bone of a cadaver.
Nice shot.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Here's some of that proof in the statement from Paul O'Connor in
Oh goody. Another example of what Chris thinks passes for proof.
It sure beats what you've offered from the WCR. Basically nothing!
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
"O'Connor: We started out with a rigid probe and found that it only went
in so far. I'd say maybe an inch and a quarter. It didn't go any further
than that. So we used a malleable probe and bent it a little bit and found
out that the bullet entered the body, went through the intercostal
muscles—the muscles in between the ribs. The bullet went in
through the muscles, didn't touch any of the ribs, arched downwards, hit
the back of the pleural cavity, which encases the lungs, both front and
back. It bounced off that cavity and stopped. It actually went down and
stopped. Went through the ribs and stopped (photo 10). So we didn't know
the track of the bullet until we eviscerated the body later. That's what
happened at that time. We traced the bullet path down and found out it
didn't traverse the body. It did not go in one side and come out the other
side of the body.
Law: You can be reasonably sure of that?
O'Connor: Absolutely.
Law: It was just from the probe then?
O'Connor: Oh yes.
Law: And these doctors knew that?
O'Connor: Absolutely.
Law: While it happened?
O'Connor: Absolutely."
Pages 40-41
book is online at https://www.krusch.com/books/kennedy/In_The_Eye_Of_History.pdf
There is corroboration from the other Technologist, James Jenkins, who
"JAMES JENKINS' RECOLLECTIONS OF JFK'S BACK WOUND ARE INCONSISTENT WITH
THE SINGLE BULLET THEORY: Jim Jenkins recalled a very shallow back wound
in JFK's upper posterior thorax, that did not transit the body. He
recalled Dr. Humes sticking his finger in the wound, and seeing Dr. Humes'
finger making an indentation in the intact pleura as he viewed Humes'
probing from the other side, where the right lung would have been before
its removal. The pleura was intact. Jenkins also recalled seeing a
bruise at the top of the middle lobe of the right lung (but not at the
top, or apex of the right lung). Jenkins also recalled that the back
wound was 10 centimeters lower than the tracheotomy site in the anterior
neck."
From: https://insidethearrb.livejournal.com/10811.html
It was suggested that this particular bullet was what they call a
'short shot' that for whatever reason doesn't have the power to continue
through the target. The bruises left on the pleura and the lung were
almost 2 inches in diameter, suggesting the bullet struck away from the
edge of the lung. Jenkins disagrees with the AR by pointing out the
strike was in the middle lobe and not the upper lobe. No corroboration on
that.
Law did not intervene with any comments or author's 'spin'.
I believe this story for a number of reasons,
Primarily because you need to for your desired conclusions to hold water.
Post by mainframetech
but in any event it
disproves the SBT, because if that bullet never left the body of JFK, then
it couldn't come out of the throat wound to hit Connally, and the SBT is a
crock.
If your aunt had balls she'd be your uncle.
A typical LN ad hominem comment that replaces any proof to the contrary
from what has been shown.
Still waiting to see that viable alternative to the SBT.
It's been shown many times.
Still waiting to see it.
Is that because as an LN you don't dare use an open mind?
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
And it comes from the many shooters
around the plaza. Connally was hit by bullet(s) that missed JFK.
I can't see things that you imagine.
Well, I knew that long ago. You have no powers of imaging, only of
imagination.
Post by bigdog
A viable alternative would explain where each shot was fired that caused
each of the wounds suffered by the two men.
WRONG! Stop making me laugh so hard! So among the many bullets fired
into Dealey Plaza you would like to have EVERY bullet followed every foot
of its way from weapon to target! You're a riot! Sorry, there were too
many shots fired toward JFK, that following each one that hit someone
would be a huge task. However, some info can be drawn, like for instance,
that NO MC rifle bullet ever hit or hurt anyone, which you can't oppose,
and the SBT is proven baloney, and the throat wound was a frontal wound,
and there is a bullet hole in the forehead/temple area that you're unable
to see, and so forth.


It would explain where the
Post by bigdog
bullet went after causing each of the wounds even if that explanation was
that the bullet exited the limo and was never recovered. Most important,
the explanations would be based on forensic evidence. Your explanation
meets none of these criteria. Don't feel bad. Nobody else's has either.
WRONG again! It's only that you don't listen that you don't have any
answers to that question...:) The ridiculous path of the 'single bullet'
theory, and remember it IS ONLY a theory, cannot compete with the straight
forward truth. A bullet struck JFK in the throat from in front of the
limo, and probably lodged in the throat or the backbone behind it.
Another struck him in the upper back and went in only an inch or so and
stopped. Another struck the forehead/temple area and passed through the
brain killing JFK and building up such pressure that it blew out the BOH,
and left a path of tiny particles as it went through the skull from front
to rear.

Another bullet, or even two struck Connally instead of JFK and caused
his injuries. And there you are, neatly tied up in a bow.

Chris
bigdog
2018-04-02 01:11:07 UTC
Reply
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 John McAdams
Post by Ace Kefford
Post by mainframetech
Post by Ace Kefford
Post by claviger
This list of 39 witnesses has been thoroughly debugged and debunked. The
fact you close your eyes tight and put your hands over your ears while
yelling "I can't see you! I can't hear you!" several times in a row
doesn't change the fact you made several big bloopers.
Don't worry, having a theory or piece of evidence thoroughly debunked has
never stopped most of the buffs over the past 50 plus years. There's no
reason think it ever will.
Particularly since they rely on evidence and facts, rather than
theories like the WCR.
Chris
Yeah, no evidence for Oswald as the lone assassin. Just a theory. Like
evolution.
I got into this with Harris once.
Evolution is "a theory." Saying "just a theory" isn't fair.
When somebody says "evolution is just a theory," the more
sophisticated response is "so is gravity."
A fact is an observable piece of data. When I let go of my pencil, it
drops to the floor. Gravity is the theory that explains that.
A fact is that a lot of fossils have been dug up. Evolution is the
theory that explains that.
The wound on Connally's back was oval. That's a fact. The Single
Bullet Theory explains that.
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
I completely agree that gravity and evolution are both theories, but
they both have been proven to a practical degree. The 'Single Bullet'
theory is far from proven, since there is clear proof that it didn't
happen.
The SBT is the only plausible explanation that has every been give for the
wounds suffered by both men. It wins by default.
WRONG! It fails by default! Never mind that it's a ridiculous theory
to answer for the many bullet wounds that occurred, it has been proven
false by what was learned at the autopsy, even though Humes didn't write
it up properly. Use common sense and you'll find that a bullet that hit 2
men 7 times, striking 2 bones in the process won't come out looking almost
So you think what you imagine the autopsy revealed carries more weight
than the report of the men who performed the autopsy.
WRONG as usual! The autopsy revealed the truth about the upper back
wound, and in so doing decimated the silly SBT.
In your dreams.
Post by mainframetech
I only reported what they found.
They reported what they found in their AR. I give them a lot more weight
than I give you which is to say I give you no weight at all.
WRONG as usual! The Autopsy Rep[ort (AR) was proven wrong, but you
just don't like it, but as an LN, you have to pretend it was right, even
though it left things out and made the wrong conclusions.
It would take a lot more to prove the AR was wrong than you just stating
it as if it were an established fact. So far that is all you have done.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
That the bullet never left the body of JFK, and so couldn't hit Connally.
This is and example of why I don't give you any weight.
That's OK, I made no conclusions. The findings from the autopsy were
OBVIOUS to anyone following the information.
Yes they are. Why haven't you done that.
Post by mainframetech
https://3.bp.blogspot.com/_wUfmxg7xM44/SuD3ycKfX-I/AAAAAAAAADk/ylbn5dwoJGY/s400/Exf294.gif
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
The last bullet to the right was fired into a wrist bone of a cadaver.
Nice shot.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Here's some of that proof in the statement from Paul O'Connor in
Oh goody. Another example of what Chris thinks passes for proof.
It sure beats what you've offered from the WCR. Basically nothing!
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
"O'Connor: We started out with a rigid probe and found that it only went
in so far. I'd say maybe an inch and a quarter. It didn't go any further
than that. So we used a malleable probe and bent it a little bit and found
out that the bullet entered the body, went through the intercostal
muscles—the muscles in between the ribs. The bullet went in
through the muscles, didn't touch any of the ribs, arched downwards, hit
the back of the pleural cavity, which encases the lungs, both front and
back. It bounced off that cavity and stopped. It actually went down and
stopped. Went through the ribs and stopped (photo 10). So we didn't know
the track of the bullet until we eviscerated the body later. That's what
happened at that time. We traced the bullet path down and found out it
didn't traverse the body. It did not go in one side and come out the other
side of the body.
Law: You can be reasonably sure of that?
O'Connor: Absolutely.
Law: It was just from the probe then?
O'Connor: Oh yes.
Law: And these doctors knew that?
O'Connor: Absolutely.
Law: While it happened?
O'Connor: Absolutely."
Pages 40-41
book is online at https://www.krusch.com/books/kennedy/In_The_Eye_Of_History.pdf
There is corroboration from the other Technologist, James Jenkins, who
"JAMES JENKINS' RECOLLECTIONS OF JFK'S BACK WOUND ARE INCONSISTENT WITH
THE SINGLE BULLET THEORY: Jim Jenkins recalled a very shallow back wound
in JFK's upper posterior thorax, that did not transit the body. He
recalled Dr. Humes sticking his finger in the wound, and seeing Dr. Humes'
finger making an indentation in the intact pleura as he viewed Humes'
probing from the other side, where the right lung would have been before
its removal. The pleura was intact. Jenkins also recalled seeing a
bruise at the top of the middle lobe of the right lung (but not at the
top, or apex of the right lung). Jenkins also recalled that the back
wound was 10 centimeters lower than the tracheotomy site in the anterior
neck."
From: https://insidethearrb.livejournal.com/10811.html
It was suggested that this particular bullet was what they call a
'short shot' that for whatever reason doesn't have the power to continue
through the target. The bruises left on the pleura and the lung were
almost 2 inches in diameter, suggesting the bullet struck away from the
edge of the lung. Jenkins disagrees with the AR by pointing out the
strike was in the middle lobe and not the upper lobe. No corroboration on
that.
Law did not intervene with any comments or author's 'spin'.
I believe this story for a number of reasons,
Primarily because you need to for your desired conclusions to hold water.
Post by mainframetech
but in any event it
disproves the SBT, because if that bullet never left the body of JFK, then
it couldn't come out of the throat wound to hit Connally, and the SBT is a
crock.
If your aunt had balls she'd be your uncle.
A typical LN ad hominem comment that replaces any proof to the contrary
from what has been shown.
Still waiting to see that viable alternative to the SBT.
It's been shown many times.
Still waiting to see it.
Is that because as an LN you don't dare use an open mind?
Still waiting to see it.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
And it comes from the many shooters
around the plaza. Connally was hit by bullet(s) that missed JFK.
I can't see things that you imagine.
Well, I knew that long ago. You have no powers of imaging, only of
imagination.
Irony noted.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
A viable alternative would explain where each shot was fired that caused
each of the wounds suffered by the two men.
WRONG! Stop making me laugh so hard! So among the many bullets fired
into Dealey Plaza you would like to have EVERY bullet followed every foot
of its way from weapon to target! You're a riot! Sorry, there were too
many shots fired toward JFK, that following each one that hit someone
would be a huge task.
I didn't ask you to follow every bullet every foot of the way. I asked you
to explain where the bullets were fired from that struck the victims, whom
they hit and where, and where the went after causing the wounds. You don't
have to explain the missed shots, just the ones that struck the victims.
That has been done for the SBT. Sorry you aren't up to the task of
providing a viable alternative.
Post by mainframetech
However, some info can be drawn, like for instance,
that NO MC rifle bullet ever hit or hurt anyone, which you can't oppose,
and the SBT is proven baloney, and the throat wound was a frontal wound,
and there is a bullet hole in the forehead/temple area that you're unable
to see, and so forth.
Another recitation of the factoids you have convinced yourself of.
Post by mainframetech
It would explain where the
Post by bigdog
bullet went after causing each of the wounds even if that explanation was
that the bullet exited the limo and was never recovered. Most important,
the explanations would be based on forensic evidence. Your explanation
meets none of these criteria. Don't feel bad. Nobody else's has either.
WRONG again! It's only that you don't listen that you don't have any
answers to that question...:) The ridiculous path of the 'single bullet'
theory, and remember it IS ONLY a theory, cannot compete with the straight
forward truth.
A truth which you apparently are keeping secret along with the evidence to
support it.
Post by mainframetech
A bullet struck JFK in the throat from in front of the
limo, and probably lodged in the throat or the backbone behind it.
If that had happened he would have been instantly paralyzed from the neck
down. That is what happened to MLK.
Post by mainframetech
Another struck him in the upper back and went in only an inch or so and
stopped.
Amazing you think these shooter were trying kill JFK with ammo so week it
could barely penetrate the skin.
Post by mainframetech
Another struck the forehead/temple area and passed through the
brain killing JFK and building up such pressure that it blew out the BOH,
and left a path of tiny particles as it went through the skull from front
to rear.
Another bullet, or even two struck Connally instead of JFK and caused
his injuries. And there you are, neatly tied up in a bow.
Your scenario is missing two key elements which I challenged you to
provide. You fail to tell us where these various shots were fired from and
you fail to provide any supporting evidence. That has been done for the
SBT. The source of the shots was the sniper's nest in the TSBD. The
supporting evidence is the fragmented bullet found in the limo and CE399
recovered at Parkland, both of which match the rifle found on the same
floor of the TSBD as the sniper's nest where several witnesses saw a
rifleman. You have none of that for the scenario you just presented. You
made it up out of thin air.
mainframetech
2018-04-03 00:28:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by John McAdams
Post by Ace Kefford
Post by mainframetech
Post by Ace Kefford
Post by claviger
This list of 39 witnesses has been thoroughly debugged and debunked. The
fact you close your eyes tight and put your hands over your ears while
yelling "I can't see you! I can't hear you!" several times in a row
doesn't change the fact you made several big bloopers.
Don't worry, having a theory or piece of evidence thoroughly debunked has
never stopped most of the buffs over the past 50 plus years. There's no
reason think it ever will.
Particularly since they rely on evidence and facts, rather than
theories like the WCR.
Chris
Yeah, no evidence for Oswald as the lone assassin. Just a theory. Like
evolution.
I got into this with Harris once.
Evolution is "a theory." Saying "just a theory" isn't fair.
When somebody says "evolution is just a theory," the more
sophisticated response is "so is gravity."
A fact is an observable piece of data. When I let go of my pencil, it
drops to the floor. Gravity is the theory that explains that.
A fact is that a lot of fossils have been dug up. Evolution is the
theory that explains that.
The wound on Connally's back was oval. That's a fact. The Single
Bullet Theory explains that.
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
I completely agree that gravity and evolution are both theories, but
they both have been proven to a practical degree. The 'Single Bullet'
theory is far from proven, since there is clear proof that it didn't
happen.
The SBT is the only plausible explanation that has every been give for the
wounds suffered by both men. It wins by default.
WRONG! It fails by default! Never mind that it's a ridiculous theory
to answer for the many bullet wounds that occurred, it has been proven
false by what was learned at the autopsy, even though Humes didn't write
it up properly. Use common sense and you'll find that a bullet that hit 2
men 7 times, striking 2 bones in the process won't come out looking almost
So you think what you imagine the autopsy revealed carries more weight
than the report of the men who performed the autopsy.
WRONG as usual! The autopsy revealed the truth about the upper back
wound, and in so doing decimated the silly SBT.
In your dreams.
Post by mainframetech
I only reported what they found.
They reported what they found in their AR. I give them a lot more weight
than I give you which is to say I give you no weight at all.
WRONG as usual! The Autopsy Rep[ort (AR) was proven wrong, but you
just don't like it, but as an LN, you have to pretend it was right, even
though it left things out and made the wrong conclusions.
It would take a lot more to prove the AR was wrong than you just stating
it as if it were an established fact. So far that is all you have done.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
That the bullet never left the body of JFK, and so couldn't hit Connally.
This is and example of why I don't give you any weight.
That's OK, I made no conclusions. The findings from the autopsy were
OBVIOUS to anyone following the information.
Yes they are. Why haven't you done that.
Post by mainframetech
https://3.bp.blogspot.com/_wUfmxg7xM44/SuD3ycKfX-I/AAAAAAAAADk/ylbn5dwoJGY/s400/Exf294.gif
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
The last bullet to the right was fired into a wrist bone of a cadaver.
Nice shot.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Here's some of that proof in the statement from Paul O'Connor in
Oh goody. Another example of what Chris thinks passes for proof.
It sure beats what you've offered from the WCR. Basically nothing!
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
"O'Connor: We started out with a rigid probe and found that it only went
in so far. I'd say maybe an inch and a quarter. It didn't go any further
than that. So we used a malleable probe and bent it a little bit and found
out that the bullet entered the body, went through the intercostal
muscles—the muscles in between the ribs. The bullet went in
through the muscles, didn't touch any of the ribs, arched downwards, hit
the back of the pleural cavity, which encases the lungs, both front and
back. It bounced off that cavity and stopped. It actually went down and
stopped. Went through the ribs and stopped (photo 10). So we didn't know
the track of the bullet until we eviscerated the body later. That's what
happened at that time. We traced the bullet path down and found out it
didn't traverse the body. It did not go in one side and come out the other
side of the body.
Law: You can be reasonably sure of that?
O'Connor: Absolutely.
Law: It was just from the probe then?
O'Connor: Oh yes.
Law: And these doctors knew that?
O'Connor: Absolutely.
Law: While it happened?
O'Connor: Absolutely."
Pages 40-41
book is online at https://www.krusch.com/books/kennedy/In_The_Eye_Of_History.pdf
There is corroboration from the other Technologist, James Jenkins, who
"JAMES JENKINS' RECOLLECTIONS OF JFK'S BACK WOUND ARE INCONSISTENT WITH
THE SINGLE BULLET THEORY: Jim Jenkins recalled a very shallow back wound
in JFK's upper posterior thorax, that did not transit the body. He
recalled Dr. Humes sticking his finger in the wound, and seeing Dr. Humes'
finger making an indentation in the intact pleura as he viewed Humes'
probing from the other side, where the right lung would have been before
its removal. The pleura was intact. Jenkins also recalled seeing a
bruise at the top of the middle lobe of the right lung (but not at the
top, or apex of the right lung). Jenkins also recalled that the back
wound was 10 centimeters lower than the tracheotomy site in the anterior
neck."
From: https://insidethearrb.livejournal.com/10811.html
It was suggested that this particular bullet was what they call a
'short shot' that for whatever reason doesn't have the power to continue
through the target. The bruises left on the pleura and the lung were
almost 2 inches in diameter, suggesting the bullet struck away from the
edge of the lung. Jenkins disagrees with the AR by pointing out the
strike was in the middle lobe and not the upper lobe. No corroboration on
that.
Law did not intervene with any comments or author's 'spin'.
I believe this story for a number of reasons,
Primarily because you need to for your desired conclusions to hold water.
Post by mainframetech
but in any event it
disproves the SBT, because if that bullet never left the body of JFK, then
it couldn't come out of the throat wound to hit Connally, and the SBT is a
crock.
If your aunt had balls she'd be your uncle.
A typical LN ad hominem comment that replaces any proof to the contrary
from what has been shown.
Still waiting to see that viable alternative to the SBT.
It's been shown many times.
Still waiting to see it.
Is that because as an LN you don't dare use an open mind?
Still waiting to see it.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
And it comes from the many shooters
around the plaza. Connally was hit by bullet(s) that missed JFK.
I can't see things that you imagine.
Well, I knew that long ago. You have no powers of imaging, only of
imagination.
Irony noted.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
A viable alternative would explain where each shot was fired that caused
each of the wounds suffered by the two men.
WRONG! Stop making me laugh so hard! So among the many bullets fired
into Dealey Plaza you would like to have EVERY bullet followed every foot
of its way from weapon to target! You're a riot! Sorry, there were too
many shots fired toward JFK, that following each one that hit someone
would be a huge task.
I didn't ask you to follow every bullet every foot of the way. I asked you
to explain where the bullets were fired from that struck the victims, whom
they hit and where, and where the went after causing the wounds. You don't
have to explain the missed shots, just the ones that struck the victims.
That has been done for the SBT. Sorry you aren't up to the task of
providing a viable alternative.
Post by mainframetech
However, some info can be drawn, like for instance,
that NO MC rifle bullet ever hit or hurt anyone, which you can't oppose,
and the SBT is proven baloney, and the throat wound was a frontal wound,
and there is a bullet hole in the forehead/temple area that you're unable
to see, and so forth.
Another recitation of the factoids you have convinced yourself of.
Post by mainframetech
It would explain where the
Post by bigdog
bullet went after causing each of the wounds even if that explanation was
that the bullet exited the limo and was never recovered. Most important,
the explanations would be based on forensic evidence. Your explanation
meets none of these criteria. Don't feel bad. Nobody else's has either.
WRONG again! It's only that you don't listen that you don't have any
answers to that question...:) The ridiculous path of the 'single bullet'
theory, and remember it IS ONLY a theory, cannot compete with the straight
forward truth.
A truth which you apparently are keeping secret along with the evidence to
support it.
Post by mainframetech
A bullet struck JFK in the throat from in front of the
limo, and probably lodged in the throat or the backbone behind it.
If that had happened he would have been instantly paralyzed from the neck
down. That is what happened to MLK.
Post by mainframetech
Another struck him in the upper back and went in only an inch or so and
stopped.
Amazing you think these shooter were trying kill JFK with ammo so week it
could barely penetrate the skin.
Post by mainframetech
Another struck the forehead/temple area and passed through the
brain killing JFK and building up such pressure that it blew out the BOH,
and left a path of tiny particles as it went through the skull from front
to rear.
Another bullet, or even two struck Connally instead of JFK and caused
his injuries. And there you are, neatly tied up in a bow.
Your scenario is missing two key elements which I challenged you to
provide. You fail to tell us where these various shots were fired from and
you fail to provide any supporting evidence. That has been done for the
SBT. The source of the shots was the sniper's nest in the TSBD. The
supporting evidence is the fragmented bullet found in the limo and CE399
recovered at Parkland, both of which match the rifle found on the same
floor of the TSBD as the sniper's nest where several witnesses saw a
rifleman. You have none of that for the scenario you just presented. You
made it up out of thin air.
I'm really sick of you pretending that you forgot everything we've
discussed all this time, and so repeating it all over again. No one
person could say where every shot was fired from, but there are buildings
around the plaza where there could be many shooters. Since I wasn't a
witness to the shooters around the plaza, I can give you the locations
that someone else thought were used.

1. In the alley behind the fence and above th so called Grassy Knoll.

2. Under the bridge in case the president was not shot and above in the
R.R. Area.

3. Roof of the County Records building.

4. Sixth floor of the TSBD.

5. The Dal Tex building.

Chris
bigdog
2018-04-04 01:51:35 UTC
Reply
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 bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by John McAdams
Post by Ace Kefford
Post by mainframetech
Post by Ace Kefford
Post by claviger
This list of 39 witnesses has been thoroughly debugged and debunked. The
fact you close your eyes tight and put your hands over your ears while
yelling "I can't see you! I can't hear you!" several times in a row
doesn't change the fact you made several big bloopers.
Don't worry, having a theory or piece of evidence thoroughly debunked has
never stopped most of the buffs over the past 50 plus years. There's no
reason think it ever will.
Particularly since they rely on evidence and facts, rather than
theories like the WCR.
Chris
Yeah, no evidence for Oswald as the lone assassin. Just a theory. Like
evolution.
I got into this with Harris once.
Evolution is "a theory." Saying "just a theory" isn't fair.
When somebody says "evolution is just a theory," the more
sophisticated response is "so is gravity."
A fact is an observable piece of data. When I let go of my pencil, it
drops to the floor. Gravity is the theory that explains that.
A fact is that a lot of fossils have been dug up. Evolution is the
theory that explains that.
The wound on Connally's back was oval. That's a fact. The Single
Bullet Theory explains that.
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
I completely agree that gravity and evolution are both theories, but
they both have been proven to a practical degree. The 'Single Bullet'
theory is far from proven, since there is clear proof that it didn't
happen.
The SBT is the only plausible explanation that has every been give for the
wounds suffered by both men. It wins by default.
WRONG! It fails by default! Never mind that it's a ridiculous theory
to answer for the many bullet wounds that occurred, it has been proven
false by what was learned at the autopsy, even though Humes didn't write
it up properly. Use common sense and you'll find that a bullet that hit 2
men 7 times, striking 2 bones in the process won't come out looking almost
So you think what you imagine the autopsy revealed carries more weight
than the report of the men who performed the autopsy.
WRONG as usual! The autopsy revealed the truth about the upper back
wound, and in so doing decimated the silly SBT.
In your dreams.
Post by mainframetech
I only reported what they found.
They reported what they found in their AR. I give them a lot more weight
than I give you which is to say I give you no weight at all.
WRONG as usual! The Autopsy Rep[ort (AR) was proven wrong, but you
just don't like it, but as an LN, you have to pretend it was right, even
though it left things out and made the wrong conclusions.
It would take a lot more to prove the AR was wrong than you just stating
it as if it were an established fact. So far that is all you have done.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
That the bullet never left the body of JFK, and so couldn't hit Connally.
This is and example of why I don't give you any weight.
That's OK, I made no conclusions. The findings from the autopsy were
OBVIOUS to anyone following the information.
Yes they are. Why haven't you done that.
Post by mainframetech
https://3.bp.blogspot.com/_wUfmxg7xM44/SuD3ycKfX-I/AAAAAAAAADk/ylbn5dwoJGY/s400/Exf294.gif
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
The last bullet to the right was fired into a wrist bone of a cadaver.
Nice shot.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Here's some of that proof in the statement from Paul O'Connor in
Oh goody. Another example of what Chris thinks passes for proof.
It sure beats what you've offered from the WCR. Basically nothing!
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
"O'Connor: We started out with a rigid probe and found that it only went
in so far. I'd say maybe an inch and a quarter. It didn't go any further
than that. So we used a malleable probe and bent it a little bit and found
out that the bullet entered the body, went through the intercostal
muscles—the muscles in between the ribs. The bullet went in
through the muscles, didn't touch any of the ribs, arched downwards, hit
the back of the pleural cavity, which encases the lungs, both front and
back. It bounced off that cavity and stopped. It actually went down and
stopped. Went through the ribs and stopped (photo 10). So we didn't know
the track of the bullet until we eviscerated the body later. That's what
happened at that time. We traced the bullet path down and found out it
didn't traverse the body. It did not go in one side and come out the other
side of the body.
Law: You can be reasonably sure of that?
O'Connor: Absolutely.
Law: It was just from the probe then?
O'Connor: Oh yes.
Law: And these doctors knew that?
O'Connor: Absolutely.
Law: While it happened?
O'Connor: Absolutely."
Pages 40-41
book is online at https://www.krusch.com/books/kennedy/In_The_Eye_Of_History.pdf
There is corroboration from the other Technologist, James Jenkins, who
"JAMES JENKINS' RECOLLECTIONS OF JFK'S BACK WOUND ARE INCONSISTENT WITH
THE SINGLE BULLET THEORY: Jim Jenkins recalled a very shallow back wound
in JFK's upper posterior thorax, that did not transit the body. He
recalled Dr. Humes sticking his finger in the wound, and seeing Dr. Humes'
finger making an indentation in the intact pleura as he viewed Humes'
probing from the other side, where the right lung would have been before
its removal. The pleura was intact. Jenkins also recalled seeing a
bruise at the top of the middle lobe of the right lung (but not at the
top, or apex of the right lung). Jenkins also recalled that the back
wound was 10 centimeters lower than the tracheotomy site in the anterior
neck."
From: https://insidethearrb.livejournal.com/10811.html
It was suggested that this particular bullet was what they call a
'short shot' that for whatever reason doesn't have the power to continue
through the target. The bruises left on the pleura and the lung were
almost 2 inches in diameter, suggesting the bullet struck away from the
edge of the lung. Jenkins disagrees with the AR by pointing out the
strike was in the middle lobe and not the upper lobe. No corroboration on
that.
Law did not intervene with any comments or author's 'spin'.
I believe this story for a number of reasons,
Primarily because you need to for your desired conclusions to hold water.
Post by mainframetech
but in any event it
disproves the SBT, because if that bullet never left the body of JFK, then
it couldn't come out of the throat wound to hit Connally, and the SBT is a
crock.
If your aunt had balls she'd be your uncle.
A typical LN ad hominem comment that replaces any proof to the contrary
from what has been shown.
Still waiting to see that viable alternative to the SBT.
It's been shown many times.
Still waiting to see it.
Is that because as an LN you don't dare use an open mind?
Still waiting to see it.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
And it comes from the many shooters
around the plaza. Connally was hit by bullet(s) that missed JFK.
I can't see things that you imagine.
Well, I knew that long ago. You have no powers of imaging, only of
imagination.
Irony noted.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
A viable alternative would explain where each shot was fired that caused
each of the wounds suffered by the two men.
WRONG! Stop making me laugh so hard! So among the many bullets fired
into Dealey Plaza you would like to have EVERY bullet followed every foot
of its way from weapon to target! You're a riot! Sorry, there were too
many shots fired toward JFK, that following each one that hit someone
would be a huge task.
I didn't ask you to follow every bullet every foot of the way. I asked you
to explain where the bullets were fired from that struck the victims, whom
they hit and where, and where the went after causing the wounds. You don't
have to explain the missed shots, just the ones that struck the victims.
That has been done for the SBT. Sorry you aren't up to the task of
providing a viable alternative.
Post by mainframetech
However, some info can be drawn, like for instance,
that NO MC rifle bullet ever hit or hurt anyone, which you can't oppose,
and the SBT is proven baloney, and the throat wound was a frontal wound,
and there is a bullet hole in the forehead/temple area that you're unable
to see, and so forth.
Another recitation of the factoids you have convinced yourself of.
Post by mainframetech
It would explain where the
Post by bigdog
bullet went after causing each of the wounds even if that explanation was
that the bullet exited the limo and was never recovered. Most important,
the explanations would be based on forensic evidence. Your explanation
meets none of these criteria. Don't feel bad. Nobody else's has either.
WRONG again! It's only that you don't listen that you don't have any
answers to that question...:) The ridiculous path of the 'single bullet'
theory, and remember it IS ONLY a theory, cannot compete with the straight
forward truth.
A truth which you apparently are keeping secret along with the evidence to
support it.
Post by mainframetech
A bullet struck JFK in the throat from in front of the
limo, and probably lodged in the throat or the backbone behind it.
If that had happened he would have been instantly paralyzed from the neck
down. That is what happened to MLK.
Post by mainframetech
Another struck him in the upper back and went in only an inch or so and
stopped.
Amazing you think these shooter were trying kill JFK with ammo so week it
could barely penetrate the skin.
Post by mainframetech
Another struck the forehead/temple area and passed through the
brain killing JFK and building up such pressure that it blew out the BOH,
and left a path of tiny particles as it went through the skull from front
to rear.
Another bullet, or even two struck Connally instead of JFK and caused
his injuries. And there you are, neatly tied up in a bow.
Your scenario is missing two key elements which I challenged you to
provide. You fail to tell us where these various shots were fired from and
you fail to provide any supporting evidence. That has been done for the
SBT. The source of the shots was the sniper's nest in the TSBD. The
supporting evidence is the fragmented bullet found in the limo and CE399
recovered at Parkland, both of which match the rifle found on the same
floor of the TSBD as the sniper's nest where several witnesses saw a
rifleman. You have none of that for the scenario you just presented. You
made it up out of thin air.
I'm really sick of you pretending that you forgot everything we've
discussed all this time, and so repeating it all over again.
You don't seem to understand the difference between forgetting and
rejecting. Mostly I have done the latter although I wish I could do more
of the former.
Post by mainframetech
No one person could say where every shot was fired from,
We can do that for the SBT. Since you have imagined other shots, why can't
you imagine where they came from?
Post by mainframetech
but there are buildings
around the plaza where there could be many shooters. Since I wasn't a
witness to the shooters around the plaza, I can give you the locations
that someone else thought were used.
1. In the alley behind the fence and above th so called Grassy Knoll.
Which wounds did that shooter cause?
Post by mainframetech
2. Under the bridge in case the president was not shot and above in the
R.R. Area.
Which wounds did those shooters cause?
Post by mainframetech
3. Roof of the County Records building.
Which wounds did that shooter cause?
Post by mainframetech
4. Sixth floor of the TSBD.
I know which wounds that shooter caused. All of them.
Post by mainframetech
5. The Dal Tex building.
Which wounds did that shooter cause?

I can understand you wanting to be as vague as possible about which
shooter caused which wounds. It's quite easy to postulate vague theories
of multiple shooters firing into the limo but the devil is in the details.
If you were to try actually provided those, you know your scenario would
get shredded so it is best to not get too specific. Far better to argue in
the abstract.
mainframetech
2018-04-05 03:02:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by John McAdams
Post by Ace Kefford
Post by mainframetech
Post by Ace Kefford
Post by claviger
This list of 39 witnesses has been thoroughly debugged and debunked. The
fact you close your eyes tight and put your hands over your ears while
yelling "I can't see you! I can't hear you!" several times in a row
doesn't change the fact you made several big bloopers.
Don't worry, having a theory or piece of evidence thoroughly debunked has
never stopped most of the buffs over the past 50 plus years. There's no
reason think it ever will.
Particularly since they rely on evidence and facts, rather than
theories like the WCR.
Chris
Yeah, no evidence for Oswald as the lone assassin. Just a theory. Like
evolution.
I got into this with Harris once.
Evolution is "a theory." Saying "just a theory" isn't fair.
When somebody says "evolution is just a theory," the more
sophisticated response is "so is gravity."
A fact is an observable piece of data. When I let go of my pencil, it
drops to the floor. Gravity is the theory that explains that.
A fact is that a lot of fossils have been dug up. Evolution is the
theory that explains that.
The wound on Connally's back was oval. That's a fact. The Single
Bullet Theory explains that.
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
I completely agree that gravity and evolution are both theories, but
they both have been proven to a practical degree. The 'Single Bullet'
theory is far from proven, since there is clear proof that it didn't
happen.
The SBT is the only plausible explanation that has every been give for the
wounds suffered by both men. It wins by default.
WRONG! It fails by default! Never mind that it's a ridiculous theory
to answer for the many bullet wounds that occurred, it has been proven
false by what was learned at the autopsy, even though Humes didn't write
it up properly. Use common sense and you'll find that a bullet that hit 2
men 7 times, striking 2 bones in the process won't come out looking almost
So you think what you imagine the autopsy revealed carries more weight
than the report of the men who performed the autopsy.
WRONG as usual! The autopsy revealed the truth about the upper back
wound, and in so doing decimated the silly SBT.
In your dreams.
Post by mainframetech
I only reported what they found.
They reported what they found in their AR. I give them a lot more weight
than I give you which is to say I give you no weight at all.
WRONG as usual! The Autopsy Rep[ort (AR) was proven wrong, but you
just don't like it, but as an LN, you have to pretend it was right, even
though it left things out and made the wrong conclusions.
It would take a lot more to prove the AR was wrong than you just stating
it as if it were an established fact. So far that is all you have done.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
That the bullet never left the body of JFK, and so couldn't hit Connally.
This is and example of why I don't give you any weight.
That's OK, I made no conclusions. The findings from the autopsy were
OBVIOUS to anyone following the information.
Yes they are. Why haven't you done that.
Post by mainframetech
https://3.bp.blogspot.com/_wUfmxg7xM44/SuD3ycKfX-I/AAAAAAAAADk/ylbn5dwoJGY/s400/Exf294.gif
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
The last bullet to the right was fired into a wrist bone of a cadaver.
Nice shot.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Here's some of that proof in the statement from Paul O'Connor in
Oh goody. Another example of what Chris thinks passes for proof.
It sure beats what you've offered from the WCR. Basically nothing!
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
"O'Connor: We started out with a rigid probe and found that it only went
in so far. I'd say maybe an inch and a quarter. It didn't go any further
than that. So we used a malleable probe and bent it a little bit and found
out that the bullet entered the body, went through the intercostal
muscles—the muscles in between the ribs. The bullet went in
through the muscles, didn't touch any of the ribs, arched downwards, hit
the back of the pleural cavity, which encases the lungs, both front and
back. It bounced off that cavity and stopped. It actually went down and
stopped. Went through the ribs and stopped (photo 10). So we didn't know
the track of the bullet until we eviscerated the body later. That's what
happened at that time. We traced the bullet path down and found out it
didn't traverse the body. It did not go in one side and come out the other
side of the body.
Law: You can be reasonably sure of that?
O'Connor: Absolutely.
Law: It was just from the probe then?
O'Connor: Oh yes.
Law: And these doctors knew that?
O'Connor: Absolutely.
Law: While it happened?
O'Connor: Absolutely."
Pages 40-41
book is online at https://www.krusch.com/books/kennedy/In_The_Eye_Of_History.pdf
There is corroboration from the other Technologist, James Jenkins, who
"JAMES JENKINS' RECOLLECTIONS OF JFK'S BACK WOUND ARE INCONSISTENT WITH
THE SINGLE BULLET THEORY: Jim Jenkins recalled a very shallow back wound
in JFK's upper posterior thorax, that did not transit the body. He
recalled Dr. Humes sticking his finger in the wound, and seeing Dr. Humes'
finger making an indentation in the intact pleura as he viewed Humes'
probing from the other side, where the right lung would have been before
its removal. The pleura was intact. Jenkins also recalled seeing a
bruise at the top of the middle lobe of the right lung (but not at the
top, or apex of the right lung). Jenkins also recalled that the back
wound was 10 centimeters lower than the tracheotomy site in the anterior
neck."
From: https://insidethearrb.livejournal.com/10811.html
It was suggested that this particular bullet was what they call a
'short shot' that for whatever reason doesn't have the power to continue
through the target. The bruises left on the pleura and the lung were
almost 2 inches in diameter, suggesting the bullet struck away from the
edge of the lung. Jenkins disagrees with the AR by pointing out the
strike was in the middle lobe and not the upper lobe. No corroboration on
that.
Law did not intervene with any comments or author's 'spin'.
I believe this story for a number of reasons,
Primarily because you need to for your desired conclusions to hold water.
Post by mainframetech
but in any event it
disproves the SBT, because if that bullet never left the body of JFK, then
it couldn't come out of the throat wound to hit Connally, and the SBT is a
crock.
If your aunt had balls she'd be your uncle.
A typical LN ad hominem comment that replaces any proof to the contrary
from what has been shown.
Still waiting to see that viable alternative to the SBT.
It's been shown many times.
Still waiting to see it.
Is that because as an LN you don't dare use an open mind?
Still waiting to see it.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
And it comes from the many shooters
around the plaza. Connally was hit by bullet(s) that missed JFK.
I can't see things that you imagine.
Well, I knew that long ago. You have no powers of imaging, only of
imagination.
Irony noted.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
A viable alternative would explain where each shot was fired that caused
each of the wounds suffered by the two men.
WRONG! Stop making me laugh so hard! So among the many bullets fired
into Dealey Plaza you would like to have EVERY bullet followed every foot
of its way from weapon to target! You're a riot! Sorry, there were too
many shots fired toward JFK, that following each one that hit someone
would be a huge task.
I didn't ask you to follow every bullet every foot of the way. I asked you
to explain where the bullets were fired from that struck the victims, whom
they hit and where, and where the went after causing the wounds. You don't
have to explain the missed shots, just the ones that struck the victims.
That has been done for the SBT. Sorry you aren't up to the task of
providing a viable alternative.
Post by mainframetech
However, some info can be drawn, like for instance,
that NO MC rifle bullet ever hit or hurt anyone, which you can't oppose,
and the SBT is proven baloney, and the throat wound was a frontal wound,
and there is a bullet hole in the forehead/temple area that you're unable
to see, and so forth.
Another recitation of the factoids you have convinced yourself of.
Post by mainframetech
It would explain where the
Post by bigdog
bullet went after causing each of the wounds even if that explanation was
that the bullet exited the limo and was never recovered. Most important,
the explanations would be based on forensic evidence. Your explanation
meets none of these criteria. Don't feel bad. Nobody else's has either.
WRONG again! It's only that you don't listen that you don't have any
answers to that question...:) The ridiculous path of the 'single bullet'
theory, and remember it IS ONLY a theory, cannot compete with the straight
forward truth.
A truth which you apparently are keeping secret along with the evidence to
support it.
Post by mainframetech
A bullet struck JFK in the throat from in front of the
limo, and probably lodged in the throat or the backbone behind it.
If that had happened he would have been instantly paralyzed from the neck
down. That is what happened to MLK.
Post by mainframetech
Another struck him in the upper back and went in only an inch or so and
stopped.
Amazing you think these shooter were trying kill JFK with ammo so week it
could barely penetrate the skin.
Post by mainframetech
Another struck the forehead/temple area and passed through the
brain killing JFK and building up such pressure that it blew out the BOH,
and left a path of tiny particles as it went through the skull from front
to rear.
Another bullet, or even two struck Connally instead of JFK and caused
his injuries. And there you are, neatly tied up in a bow.
Your scenario is missing two key elements which I challenged you to
provide. You fail to tell us where these various shots were fired from and
you fail to provide any supporting evidence. That has been done for the
SBT. The source of the shots was the sniper's nest in the TSBD. The
supporting evidence is the fragmented bullet found in the limo and CE399
recovered at Parkland, both of which match the rifle found on the same
floor of the TSBD as the sniper's nest where several witnesses saw a
rifleman. You have none of that for the scenario you just presented. You
made it up out of thin air.
I'm really sick of you pretending that you forgot everything we've
discussed all this time, and so repeating it all over again.
You don't seem to understand the difference between forgetting and
rejecting. Mostly I have done the latter although I wish I could do more
of the former.
Post by mainframetech
No one person could say where every shot was fired from,
We can do that for the SBT. Since you have imagined other shots, why can't
you imagine where they came from?
WRONG! That's a good example of baloney, since the SBT was proven to
have not happened, you would be unable to determine where every shot came
from.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
but there are buildings
around the plaza where there could be many shooters. Since I wasn't a
witness to the shooters around the plaza, I can give you the locations
that someone else thought were used.
1. In the alley behind the fence and above the so called Grassy Knoll.
Which wounds did that shooter cause?
Are you slow? That's one of the questions that can't be answered by
what we know so far. Matching wounds with firearms can't be done under
the circumstances. And you damn well know it.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
2. Under the bridge in case the president was not shot and above in the
R.R. Area.
Which wounds did those shooters cause?
Ditto.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
3. Roof of the County Records building.
Which wounds did that shooter cause?
Ditto.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
4. Sixth floor of the TSBD.
I know which wounds that shooter caused. All of them.
WRONG. None of them. No MC type bullet ever hit or hurt anyone.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
5. The Dal Tex building.
Which wounds did that shooter cause?
Ditto.
Post by bigdog
I can understand you wanting to be as vague as possible about which
shooter caused which wounds. It's quite easy to postulate vague theories
of multiple shooters firing into the limo but the devil is in the details.
If you were to try actually provided those, you know your scenario would
get shredded so it is best to not get too specific. Far better to argue in
the abstract.
Oh stop pretending you have some idea of what your talking about.
Pretending to be a ballistics expert isn't going to cut it. No one would
be able to make that kind of match with the available information, and you
full well know it. It's a setup of yours so you can pretend you know
something.

There is no "vague theory" when counting the bullet strikes in dealey
Plaza. I've given you some of the locations where shooters could work
from, but until we get real experts to properly examine the evidence,
that's all we have.

Chris
Anthony Marsh
2018-04-05 23:37:36 UTC
Reply
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 bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by John McAdams
Post by Ace Kefford
Post by mainframetech
Post by Ace Kefford
Post by claviger
This list of 39 witnesses has been thoroughly debugged and debunked. The
fact you close your eyes tight and put your hands over your ears while
yelling "I can't see you! I can't hear you!" several times in a row
doesn't change the fact you made several big bloopers.
Don't worry, having a theory or piece of evidence thoroughly debunked has
never stopped most of the buffs over the past 50 plus years. There's no
reason think it ever will.
Particularly since they rely on evidence and facts, rather than
theories like the WCR.
Chris
Yeah, no evidence for Oswald as the lone assassin. Just a theory. Like
evolution.
I got into this with Harris once.
Evolution is "a theory." Saying "just a theory" isn't fair.
When somebody says "evolution is just a theory," the more
sophisticated response is "so is gravity."
A fact is an observable piece of data. When I let go of my pencil, it
drops to the floor. Gravity is the theory that explains that.
A fact is that a lot of fossils have been dug up. Evolution is the
theory that explains that.
The wound on Connally's back was oval. That's a fact. The Single
Bullet Theory explains that.
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
I completely agree that gravity and evolution are both theories, but
they both have been proven to a practical degree. The 'Single Bullet'
theory is far from proven, since there is clear proof that it didn't
happen.
The SBT is the only plausible explanation that has every been give for the
wounds suffered by both men. It wins by default.
WRONG! It fails by default! Never mind that it's a ridiculous theory
to answer for the many bullet wounds that occurred, it has been proven
false by what was learned at the autopsy, even though Humes didn't write
it up properly. Use common sense and you'll find that a bullet that hit 2
men 7 times, striking 2 bones in the process won't come out looking almost
So you think what you imagine the autopsy revealed carries more weight
than the report of the men who performed the autopsy.
WRONG as usual! The autopsy revealed the truth about the upper back
wound, and in so doing decimated the silly SBT.
In your dreams.
Post by mainframetech
I only reported what they found.
They reported what they found in their AR. I give them a lot more weight
than I give you which is to say I give you no weight at all.
WRONG as usual! The Autopsy Rep[ort (AR) was proven wrong, but you
just don't like it, but as an LN, you have to pretend it was right, even
though it left things out and made the wrong conclusions.
It would take a lot more to prove the AR was wrong than you just stating
it as if it were an established fact. So far that is all you have done.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
That the bullet never left the body of JFK, and so couldn't hit Connally.
This is and example of why I don't give you any weight.
That's OK, I made no conclusions. The findings from the autopsy were
OBVIOUS to anyone following the information.
Yes they are. Why haven't you done that.
Post by mainframetech
https://3.bp.blogspot.com/_wUfmxg7xM44/SuD3ycKfX-I/AAAAAAAAADk/ylbn5dwoJGY/s400/Exf294.gif
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
The last bullet to the right was fired into a wrist bone of a cadaver.
Nice shot.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Here's some of that proof in the statement from Paul O'Connor in
Oh goody. Another example of what Chris thinks passes for proof.
It sure beats what you've offered from the WCR. Basically nothing!
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
"O'Connor: We started out with a rigid probe and found that it only went
in so far. I'd say maybe an inch and a quarter. It didn't go any further
than that. So we used a malleable probe and bent it a little bit and found
out that the bullet entered the body, went through the intercostal
muscles???the muscles in between the ribs. The bullet went in
through the muscles, didn't touch any of the ribs, arched downwards, hit
the back of the pleural cavity, which encases the lungs, both front and
back. It bounced off that cavity and stopped. It actually went down and
stopped. Went through the ribs and stopped (photo 10). So we didn't know
the track of the bullet until we eviscerated the body later. That's what
happened at that time. We traced the bullet path down and found out it
didn't traverse the body. It did not go in one side and come out the other
side of the body.
Law: You can be reasonably sure of that?
O'Connor: Absolutely.
Law: It was just from the probe then?
O'Connor: Oh yes.
Law: And these doctors knew that?
O'Connor: Absolutely.
Law: While it happened?
O'Connor: Absolutely."
Pages 40-41
book is online at https://www.krusch.com/books/kennedy/In_The_Eye_Of_History.pdf
There is corroboration from the other Technologist, James Jenkins, who
"JAMES JENKINS' RECOLLECTIONS OF JFK'S BACK WOUND ARE INCONSISTENT WITH
THE SINGLE BULLET THEORY: Jim Jenkins recalled a very shallow back wound
in JFK's upper posterior thorax, that did not transit the body. He
recalled Dr. Humes sticking his finger in the wound, and seeing Dr. Humes'
finger making an indentation in the intact pleura as he viewed Humes'
probing from the other side, where the right lung would have been before
its removal. The pleura was intact. Jenkins also recalled seeing a
bruise at the top of the middle lobe of the right lung (but not at the
top, or apex of the right lung). Jenkins also recalled that the back
wound was 10 centimeters lower than the tracheotomy site in the anterior
neck."
From: https://insidethearrb.livejournal.com/10811.html
It was suggested that this particular bullet was what they call a
'short shot' that for whatever reason doesn't have the power to continue
through the target. The bruises left on the pleura and the lung were
almost 2 inches in diameter, suggesting the bullet struck away from the
edge of the lung. Jenkins disagrees with the AR by pointing out the
strike was in the middle lobe and not the upper lobe. No corroboration on
that.
Law did not intervene with any comments or author's 'spin'.
I believe this story for a number of reasons,
Primarily because you need to for your desired conclusions to hold water.
Post by mainframetech
but in any event it
disproves the SBT, because if that bullet never left the body of JFK, then
it couldn't come out of the throat wound to hit Connally, and the SBT is a
crock.
If your aunt had balls she'd be your uncle.
A typical LN ad hominem comment that replaces any proof to the contrary
from what has been shown.
Still waiting to see that viable alternative to the SBT.
It's been shown many times.
Still waiting to see it.
Is that because as an LN you don't dare use an open mind?
Still waiting to see it.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
And it comes from the many shooters
around the plaza. Connally was hit by bullet(s) that missed JFK.
I can't see things that you imagine.
Well, I knew that long ago. You have no powers of imaging, only of
imagination.
Irony noted.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
A viable alternative would explain where each shot was fired that caused
each of the wounds suffered by the two men.
WRONG! Stop making me laugh so hard! So among the many bullets fired
into Dealey Plaza you would like to have EVERY bullet followed every foot
of its way from weapon to target! You're a riot! Sorry, there were too
many shots fired toward JFK, that following each one that hit someone
would be a huge task.
I didn't ask you to follow every bullet every foot of the way. I asked you
to explain where the bullets were fired from that struck the victims, whom
they hit and where, and where the went after causing the wounds. You don't
have to explain the missed shots, just the ones that struck the victims.
That has been done for the SBT. Sorry you aren't up to the task of
providing a viable alternative.
Post by mainframetech
However, some info can be drawn, like for instance,
that NO MC rifle bullet ever hit or hurt anyone, which you can't oppose,
and the SBT is proven baloney, and the throat wound was a frontal wound,
and there is a bullet hole in the forehead/temple area that you're unable
to see, and so forth.
Another recitation of the factoids you have convinced yourself of.
Post by mainframetech
It would explain where the
Post by bigdog
bullet went after causing each of the wounds even if that explanation was
that the bullet exited the limo and was never recovered. Most important,
the explanations would be based on forensic evidence. Your explanation
meets none of these criteria. Don't feel bad. Nobody else's has either.
WRONG again! It's only that you don't listen that you don't have any
answers to that question...:) The ridiculous path of the 'single bullet'
theory, and remember it IS ONLY a theory, cannot compete with the straight
forward truth.
A truth which you apparently are keeping secret along with the evidence to
support it.
Post by mainframetech
A bullet struck JFK in the throat from in front of the
limo, and probably lodged in the throat or the backbone behind it.
If that had happened he would have been instantly paralyzed from the neck
down. That is what happened to MLK.
Post by mainframetech
Another struck him in the upper back and went in only an inch or so and
stopped.
Amazing you think these shooter were trying kill JFK with ammo so week it
could barely penetrate the skin.
Post by mainframetech
Another struck the forehead/temple area and passed through the
brain killing JFK and building up such pressure that it blew out the BOH,
and left a path of tiny particles as it went through the skull from front
to rear.
Another bullet, or even two struck Connally instead of JFK and caused
his injuries. And there you are, neatly tied up in a bow.
Your scenario is missing two key elements which I challenged you to
provide. You fail to tell us where these various shots were fired from and
you fail to provide any supporting evidence. That has been done for the
SBT. The source of the shots was the sniper's nest in the TSBD. The
supporting evidence is the fragmented bullet found in the limo and CE399
recovered at Parkland, both of which match the rifle found on the same
floor of the TSBD as the sniper's nest where several witnesses saw a
rifleman. You have none of that for the scenario you just presented. You
made it up out of thin air.
I'm really sick of you pretending that you forgot everything we've
discussed all this time, and so repeating it all over again.
You don't seem to understand the difference between forgetting and
rejecting. Mostly I have done the latter although I wish I could do more
of the former.
Post by mainframetech
No one person could say where every shot was fired from,
We can do that for the SBT. Since you have imagined other shots, why can't
you imagine where they came from?
WRONG! That's a good example of baloney, since the SBT was proven to
have not happened, you would be unable to determine where every shot came
from.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
but there are buildings
around the plaza where there could be many shooters. Since I wasn't a
witness to the shooters around the plaza, I can give you the locations
that someone else thought were used.
1. In the alley behind the fence and above the so called Grassy Knoll.
Which wounds did that shooter cause?
Are you slow? That's one of the questions that can't be answered by
what we know so far. Matching wounds with firearms can't be done under
the circumstances. And you damn well know it.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
2. Under the bridge in case the president was not shot and above in the
R.R. Area.
Which wounds did those shooters cause?
Ditto.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
3. Roof of the County Records building.
Which wounds did that shooter cause?
Ditto.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
4. Sixth floor of the TSBD.
I know which wounds that shooter caused. All of them.
WRONG. None of them. No MC type bullet ever hit or hurt anyone.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
5. The Dal Tex building.
Which wounds did that shooter cause?
Ditto.
Post by bigdog
I can understand you wanting to be as vague as possible about which
shooter caused which wounds. It's quite easy to postulate vague theories
of multiple shooters firing into the limo but the devil is in the details.
If you were to try actually provided those, you know your scenario would
get shredded so it is best to not get too specific. Far better to argue in
the abstract.
Oh stop pretending you have some idea of what your talking about.
Pretending to be a ballistics expert isn't going to cut it. No one would
be able to make that kind of match with the available information, and you
full well know it. It's a setup of yours so you can pretend you know
something.
There is no "vague theory" when counting the bullet strikes in dealey
Plaza. I've given you some of the locations where shooters could work
from, but until we get real experts to properly examine the evidence,
that's all we have.
Right, no theory. Only Guesswork.
Post by mainframetech
Chris
Anthony Marsh
2018-04-05 16:50:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by John McAdams
Post by Ace Kefford
Post by mainframetech
Post by Ace Kefford
Post by claviger
This list of 39 witnesses has been thoroughly debugged and debunked. The
fact you close your eyes tight and put your hands over your ears while
yelling "I can't see you! I can't hear you!" several times in a row
doesn't change the fact you made several big bloopers.
Don't worry, having a theory or piece of evidence thoroughly debunked has
never stopped most of the buffs over the past 50 plus years. There's no
reason think it ever will.
Particularly since they rely on evidence and facts, rather than
theories like the WCR.
Chris
Yeah, no evidence for Oswald as the lone assassin. Just a theory. Like
evolution.
I got into this with Harris once.
Evolution is "a theory." Saying "just a theory" isn't fair.
When somebody says "evolution is just a theory," the more
sophisticated response is "so is gravity."
A fact is an observable piece of data. When I let go of my pencil, it
drops to the floor. Gravity is the theory that explains that.
A fact is that a lot of fossils have been dug up. Evolution is the
theory that explains that.
The wound on Connally's back was oval. That's a fact. The Single
Bullet Theory explains that.
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
I completely agree that gravity and evolution are both theories, but
they both have been proven to a practical degree. The 'Single Bullet'
theory is far from proven, since there is clear proof that it didn't
happen.
The SBT is the only plausible explanation that has every been give for the
wounds suffered by both men. It wins by default.
WRONG! It fails by default! Never mind that it's a ridiculous theory
to answer for the many bullet wounds that occurred, it has been proven
false by what was learned at the autopsy, even though Humes didn't write
it up properly. Use common sense and you'll find that a bullet that hit 2
men 7 times, striking 2 bones in the process won't come out looking almost
So you think what you imagine the autopsy revealed carries more weight
than the report of the men who performed the autopsy.
WRONG as usual! The autopsy revealed the truth about the upper back
wound, and in so doing decimated the silly SBT.
In your dreams.
Post by mainframetech
I only reported what they found.
They reported what they found in their AR. I give them a lot more weight
than I give you which is to say I give you no weight at all.
WRONG as usual! The Autopsy Rep[ort (AR) was proven wrong, but you
just don't like it, but as an LN, you have to pretend it was right, even
though it left things out and made the wrong conclusions.
It would take a lot more to prove the AR was wrong than you just stating
it as if it were an established fact. So far that is all you have done.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
That the bullet never left the body of JFK, and so couldn't hit Connally.
This is and example of why I don't give you any weight.
That's OK, I made no conclusions. The findings from the autopsy were
OBVIOUS to anyone following the information.
Yes they are. Why haven't you done that.
Post by mainframetech
https://3.bp.blogspot.com/_wUfmxg7xM44/SuD3ycKfX-I/AAAAAAAAADk/ylbn5dwoJGY/s400/Exf294.gif
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
The last bullet to the right was fired into a wrist bone of a cadaver.
Nice shot.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Here's some of that proof in the statement from Paul O'Connor in
Oh goody. Another example of what Chris thinks passes for proof.
It sure beats what you've offered from the WCR. Basically nothing!
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
"O'Connor: We started out with a rigid probe and found that it only went
in so far. I'd say maybe an inch and a quarter. It didn't go any further
than that. So we used a malleable probe and bent it a little bit and found
out that the bullet entered the body, went through the intercostal
muscles???the muscles in between the ribs. The bullet went in
through the muscles, didn't touch any of the ribs, arched downwards, hit
the back of the pleural cavity, which encases the lungs, both front and
back. It bounced off that cavity and stopped. It actually went down and
stopped. Went through the ribs and stopped (photo 10). So we didn't know
the track of the bullet until we eviscerated the body later. That's what
happened at that time. We traced the bullet path down and found out it
didn't traverse the body. It did not go in one side and come out the other
side of the body.
Law: You can be reasonably sure of that?
O'Connor: Absolutely.
Law: It was just from the probe then?
O'Connor: Oh yes.
Law: And these doctors knew that?
O'Connor: Absolutely.
Law: While it happened?
O'Connor: Absolutely."
Pages 40-41
book is online at https://www.krusch.com/books/kennedy/In_The_Eye_Of_History.pdf
There is corroboration from the other Technologist, James Jenkins, who
"JAMES JENKINS' RECOLLECTIONS OF JFK'S BACK WOUND ARE INCONSISTENT WITH
THE SINGLE BULLET THEORY: Jim Jenkins recalled a very shallow back wound
in JFK's upper posterior thorax, that did not transit the body. He
recalled Dr. Humes sticking his finger in the wound, and seeing Dr. Humes'
finger making an indentation in the intact pleura as he viewed Humes'
probing from the other side, where the right lung would have been before
its removal. The pleura was intact. Jenkins also recalled seeing a
bruise at the top of the middle lobe of the right lung (but not at the
top, or apex of the right lung). Jenkins also recalled that the back
wound was 10 centimeters lower than the tracheotomy site in the anterior
neck."
From: https://insidethearrb.livejournal.com/10811.html
It was suggested that this particular bullet was what they call a
'short shot' that for whatever reason doesn't have the power to continue
through the target. The bruises left on the pleura and the lung were
almost 2 inches in diameter, suggesting the bullet struck away from the
edge of the lung. Jenkins disagrees with the AR by pointing out the
strike was in the middle lobe and not the upper lobe. No corroboration on
that.
Law did not intervene with any comments or author's 'spin'.
I believe this story for a number of reasons,
Primarily because you need to for your desired conclusions to hold water.
Post by mainframetech
but in any event it
disproves the SBT, because if that bullet never left the body of JFK, then
it couldn't come out of the throat wound to hit Connally, and the SBT is a
crock.
If your aunt had balls she'd be your uncle.
A typical LN ad hominem comment that replaces any proof to the contrary
from what has been shown.
Still waiting to see that viable alternative to the SBT.
It's been shown many times.
Still waiting to see it.
Is that because as an LN you don't dare use an open mind?
Still waiting to see it.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
And it comes from the many shooters
around the plaza. Connally was hit by bullet(s) that missed JFK.
I can't see things that you imagine.
Well, I knew that long ago. You have no powers of imaging, only of
imagination.
Irony noted.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
A viable alternative would explain where each shot was fired that caused
each of the wounds suffered by the two men.
WRONG! Stop making me laugh so hard! So among the many bullets fired
into Dealey Plaza you would like to have EVERY bullet followed every foot
of its way from weapon to target! You're a riot! Sorry, there were too
many shots fired toward JFK, that following each one that hit someone
would be a huge task.
I didn't ask you to follow every bullet every foot of the way. I asked you
to explain where the bullets were fired from that struck the victims, whom
they hit and where, and where the went after causing the wounds. You don't
have to explain the missed shots, just the ones that struck the victims.
That has been done for the SBT. Sorry you aren't up to the task of
providing a viable alternative.
Post by mainframetech
However, some info can be drawn, like for instance,
that NO MC rifle bullet ever hit or hurt anyone, which you can't oppose,
and the SBT is proven baloney, and the throat wound was a frontal wound,
and there is a bullet hole in the forehead/temple area that you're unable
to see, and so forth.
Another recitation of the factoids you have convinced yourself of.
Post by mainframetech
It would explain where the
Post by bigdog
bullet went after causing each of the wounds even if that explanation was
that the bullet exited the limo and was never recovered. Most important,
the explanations would be based on forensic evidence. Your explanation
meets none of these criteria. Don't feel bad. Nobody else's has either.
WRONG again! It's only that you don't listen that you don't have any
answers to that question...:) The ridiculous path of the 'single bullet'
theory, and remember it IS ONLY a theory, cannot compete with the straight
forward truth.
A truth which you apparently are keeping secret along with the evidence to
support it.
Post by mainframetech
A bullet struck JFK in the throat from in front of the
limo, and probably lodged in the throat or the backbone behind it.
If that had happened he would have been instantly paralyzed from the neck
down. That is what happened to MLK.
Post by mainframetech
Another struck him in the upper back and went in only an inch or so and
stopped.
Amazing you think these shooter were trying kill JFK with ammo so week it
could barely penetrate the skin.
Post by mainframetech
Another struck the forehead/temple area and passed through the
brain killing JFK and building up such pressure that it blew out the BOH,
and left a path of tiny particles as it went through the skull from front
to rear.
Another bullet, or even two struck Connally instead of JFK and caused
his injuries. And there you are, neatly tied up in a bow.
Your scenario is missing two key elements which I challenged you to
provide. You fail to tell us where these various shots were fired from and
you fail to provide any supporting evidence. That has been done for the
SBT. The source of the shots was the sniper's nest in the TSBD. The
supporting evidence is the fragmented bullet found in the limo and CE399
recovered at Parkland, both of which match the rifle found on the same
floor of the TSBD as the sniper's nest where several witnesses saw a
rifleman. You have none of that for the scenario you just presented. You
made it up out of thin air.
I'm really sick of you pretending that you forgot everything we've
discussed all this time, and so repeating it all over again.
You don't seem to understand the difference between forgetting and
rejecting. Mostly I have done the latter although I wish I could do more
of the former.
Post by mainframetech
No one person could say where every shot was fired from,
We can do that for the SBT. Since you have imagined other shots, why can't
you imagine where they came from?
Post by mainframetech
but there are buildings
around the plaza where there could be many shooters. Since I wasn't a
witness to the shooters around the plaza, I can give you the locations
that someone else thought were used.
1. In the alley behind the fence and above th so called Grassy Knoll.
Which wounds did that shooter cause?
Post by mainframetech
2. Under the bridge in case the president was not shot and above in the
R.R. Area.
Which wounds did those shooters cause?
Post by mainframetech
3. Roof of the County Records building.
Which wounds did that shooter cause?
Post by mainframetech
4. Sixth floor of the TSBD.
I know which wounds that shooter caused. All of them.
Post by mainframetech
5. The Dal Tex building.
Which wounds did that shooter cause?
Kookbaiting. Stop enabling him.
Post by bigdog
I can understand you wanting to be as vague as possible about which
shooter caused which wounds. It's quite easy to postulate vague theories
You can't account for all the shots either. Tell us where the miss went.
Show us that bullet. You know, the alterarionists are so desperate they
actually PLANT bullets? Well, I guess it's the season for planting.
Remember the Lester bullet?
Post by bigdog
of multiple shooters firing into the limo but the devil is in the details.
If you were to try actually provided those, you know your scenario would
get shredded so it is best to not get too specific. Far better to argue in
the abstract.
Anthony Marsh
2018-03-31 20:09:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by John McAdams
Post by Ace Kefford
Post by mainframetech
Post by Ace Kefford
Post by claviger
This list of 39 witnesses has been thoroughly debugged and debunked. The
fact you close your eyes tight and put your hands over your ears while
yelling "I can't see you! I can't hear you!" several times in a row
doesn't change the fact you made several big bloopers.
Don't worry, having a theory or piece of evidence thoroughly debunked has
never stopped most of the buffs over the past 50 plus years. There's no
reason think it ever will.
Particularly since they rely on evidence and facts, rather than
theories like the WCR.
Chris
Yeah, no evidence for Oswald as the lone assassin. Just a theory. Like
evolution.
I got into this with Harris once.
Evolution is "a theory." Saying "just a theory" isn't fair.
When somebody says "evolution is just a theory," the more
sophisticated response is "so is gravity."
A fact is an observable piece of data. When I let go of my pencil, it
drops to the floor. Gravity is the theory that explains that.
A fact is that a lot of fossils have been dug up. Evolution is the
theory that explains that.
The wound on Connally's back was oval. That's a fact. The Single
Bullet Theory explains that.
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
I completely agree that gravity and evolution are both theories, but
they both have been proven to a practical degree. The 'Single Bullet'
theory is far from proven, since there is clear proof that it didn't
happen.
The SBT is the only plausible explanation that has every been give for the
wounds suffered by both men. It wins by default.
WRONG! It fails by default! Never mind that it's a ridiculous theory
to answer for the many bullet wounds that occurred, it has been proven
false by what was learned at the autopsy, even though Humes didn't write
it up properly. Use common sense and you'll find that a bullet that hit 2
men 7 times, striking 2 bones in the process won't come out looking almost
So you think what you imagine the autopsy revealed carries more weight
than the report of the men who performed the autopsy.
WRONG as usual! The autopsy revealed the truth about the upper back
wound, and in so doing decimated the silly SBT.
In your dreams.
Post by mainframetech
I only reported what they found.
They reported what they found in their AR. I give them a lot more weight
than I give you which is to say I give you no weight at all.
So you believe in the Ice Bullet theory?
And YOU can SEE the bullet hole next to the EOP that Humes said was the
entrance wound?

Now we know why you never answer questions, just like Trump. Because any
answere will reveal logical errors.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
That the bullet never left the body of JFK, and so couldn't hit Connally.
This is and example of why I don't give you any weight.
But when Humes says it, that's OK with you.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
https://3.bp.blogspot.com/_wUfmxg7xM44/SuD3ycKfX-I/AAAAAAAAADk/ylbn5dwoJGY/s400/Exf294.gif
The last bullet to the right was fired into a wrist bone of a cadaver.
Nice shot.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Here's some of that proof in the statement from Paul O'Connor in
Oh goody. Another example of what Chris thinks passes for proof.
It sure beats what you've offered from the WCR. Basically nothing!
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
"O'Connor: We started out with a rigid probe and found that it only went
in so far. I'd say maybe an inch and a quarter. It didn't go any further
than that. So we used a malleable probe and bent it a little bit and found
out that the bullet entered the body, went through the intercostal
muscles—the muscles in between the ribs. The bullet went in
through the muscles, didn't touch any of the ribs, arched downwards, hit
the back of the pleural cavity, which encases the lungs, both front and
back. It bounced off that cavity and stopped. It actually went down and
stopped. Went through the ribs and stopped (photo 10). So we didn't know
the track of the bullet until we eviscerated the body later. That's what
happened at that time. We traced the bullet path down and found out it
didn't traverse the body. It did not go in one side and come out the other
side of the body.
Law: You can be reasonably sure of that?
O'Connor: Absolutely.
Law: It was just from the probe then?
O'Connor: Oh yes.
Law: And these doctors knew that?
O'Connor: Absolutely.
Law: While it happened?
O'Connor: Absolutely."
Pages 40-41
book is online at https://www.krusch.com/books/kennedy/In_The_Eye_Of_History.pdf
There is corroboration from the other Technologist, James Jenkins, who
"JAMES JENKINS' RECOLLECTIONS OF JFK'S BACK WOUND ARE INCONSISTENT WITH
THE SINGLE BULLET THEORY: Jim Jenkins recalled a very shallow back wound
in JFK's upper posterior thorax, that did not transit the body. He
recalled Dr. Humes sticking his finger in the wound, and seeing Dr. Humes'
finger making an indentation in the intact pleura as he viewed Humes'
probing from the other side, where the right lung would have been before
its removal. The pleura was intact. Jenkins also recalled seeing a
bruise at the top of the middle lobe of the right lung (but not at the
top, or apex of the right lung). Jenkins also recalled that the back
wound was 10 centimeters lower than the tracheotomy site in the anterior
neck."
From: https://insidethearrb.livejournal.com/10811.html
It was suggested that this particular bullet was what they call a
'short shot' that for whatever reason doesn't have the power to continue
through the target. The bruises left on the pleura and the lung were
almost 2 inches in diameter, suggesting the bullet struck away from the
edge of the lung. Jenkins disagrees with the AR by pointing out the
strike was in the middle lobe and not the upper lobe. No corroboration on
that.
Law did not intervene with any comments or author's 'spin'.
I believe this story for a number of reasons,
Primarily because you need to for your desired conclusions to hold water.
Post by mainframetech
but in any event it
disproves the SBT, because if that bullet never left the body of JFK, then
it couldn't come out of the throat wound to hit Connally, and the SBT is a
crock.
If your aunt had balls she'd be your uncle.
A typical LN ad hominem comment that replaces any proof to the contrary
from what has been shown.
Still waiting to see that viable alternative to the SBT.
It's been shown many times.
Still waiting to see it.
Post by mainframetech
And it comes from the many shooters
around the plaza. Connally was hit by bullet(s) that missed JFK.
I can't see things that you imagine.
You refuse to look at the evidence.
Post by bigdog
A viable alternative would explain where each shot was fired that caused
each of the wounds suffered by the two men. It would explain where the
bullet went after causing each of the wounds even if that explanation was
that the bullet exited the limo and was never recovered. Most important,
Is this YOUR conspiracy theory or are you quoting a kook?
Post by bigdog
the explanations would be based on forensic evidence. Your explanation
meets none of these criteria. Don't feel bad. Nobody else's has either.
I assume you include the WC in that.
Anthony Marsh
2018-03-30 01:11:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by John McAdams
Post by Ace Kefford
Post by mainframetech
Post by Ace Kefford
Post by claviger
This list of 39 witnesses has been thoroughly debugged and debunked. The
fact you close your eyes tight and put your hands over your ears while
yelling "I can't see you! I can't hear you!" several times in a row
doesn't change the fact you made several big bloopers.
Don't worry, having a theory or piece of evidence thoroughly debunked has
never stopped most of the buffs over the past 50 plus years. There's no
reason think it ever will.
Particularly since they rely on evidence and facts, rather than
theories like the WCR.
Chris
Yeah, no evidence for Oswald as the lone assassin. Just a theory. Like
evolution.
I got into this with Harris once.
Evolution is "a theory." Saying "just a theory" isn't fair.
When somebody says "evolution is just a theory," the more
sophisticated response is "so is gravity."
A fact is an observable piece of data. When I let go of my pencil, it
drops to the floor. Gravity is the theory that explains that.
A fact is that a lot of fossils have been dug up. Evolution is the
theory that explains that.
The wound on Connally's back was oval. That's a fact. The Single
Bullet Theory explains that.
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
I completely agree that gravity and evolution are both theories, but
they both have been proven to a practical degree. The 'Single Bullet'
theory is far from proven, since there is clear proof that it didn't
happen.
The SBT is the only plausible explanation that has every been give for the
wounds suffered by both men. It wins by default.
WRONG! It fails by default! Never mind that it's a ridiculous theory
to answer for the many bullet wounds that occurred, it has been proven
false by what was learned at the autopsy, even though Humes didn't write
it up properly. Use common sense and you'll find that a bullet that hit 2
men 7 times, striking 2 bones in the process won't come out looking almost
So you think what you imagine the autopsy revealed carries more weight
than the report of the men who performed the autopsy.
Which autopsy report? Do you mean the original autopsy report that Humes
wrote and then was ordered to destroy because it said conspiracy?
Or do you mean one of his later lies?
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
https://3.bp.blogspot.com/_wUfmxg7xM44/SuD3ycKfX-I/AAAAAAAAADk/ylbn5dwoJGY/s400/Exf294.gif
The last bullet to the right was fired into a wrist bone of a cadaver.
Nice shot.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Here's some of that proof in the statement from Paul O'Connor in
Oh goody. Another example of what Chris thinks passes for proof.
It sure beats what you've offered from the WCR. Basically nothing!
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
"O'Connor: We started out with a rigid probe and found that it only went
in so far. I'd say maybe an inch and a quarter. It didn't go any further
than that. So we used a malleable probe and bent it a little bit and found
out that the bullet entered the body, went through the intercostal
muscles???the muscles in between the ribs. The bullet went in
through the muscles, didn't touch any of the ribs, arched downwards, hit
the back of the pleural cavity, which encases the lungs, both front and
back. It bounced off that cavity and stopped. It actually went down and
stopped. Went through the ribs and stopped (photo 10). So we didn't know
the track of the bullet until we eviscerated the body later. That's what
happened at that time. We traced the bullet path down and found out it
didn't traverse the body. It did not go in one side and come out the other
side of the body.
Law: You can be reasonably sure of that?
O'Connor: Absolutely.
Law: It was just from the probe then?
O'Connor: Oh yes.
Law: And these doctors knew that?
O'Connor: Absolutely.
Law: While it happened?
O'Connor: Absolutely."
Pages 40-41
book is online at https://www.krusch.com/books/kennedy/In_The_Eye_Of_History.pdf
There is corroboration from the other Technologist, James Jenkins, who
"JAMES JENKINS' RECOLLECTIONS OF JFK'S BACK WOUND ARE INCONSISTENT WITH
THE SINGLE BULLET THEORY: Jim Jenkins recalled a very shallow back wound
in JFK's upper posterior thorax, that did not transit the body. He
recalled Dr. Humes sticking his finger in the wound, and seeing Dr. Humes'
finger making an indentation in the intact pleura as he viewed Humes'
probing from the other side, where the right lung would have been before
its removal. The pleura was intact. Jenkins also recalled seeing a
bruise at the top of the middle lobe of the right lung (but not at the
top, or apex of the right lung). Jenkins also recalled that the back
wound was 10 centimeters lower than the tracheotomy site in the anterior
neck."
From: https://insidethearrb.livejournal.com/10811.html
It was suggested that this particular bullet was what they call a
'short shot' that for whatever reason doesn't have the power to continue
through the target. The bruises left on the pleura and the lung were
almost 2 inches in diameter, suggesting the bullet struck away from the
edge of the lung. Jenkins disagrees with the AR by pointing out the
strike was in the middle lobe and not the upper lobe. No corroboration on
that.
Law did not intervene with any comments or author's 'spin'.
I believe this story for a number of reasons,
Primarily because you need to for your desired conclusions to hold water.
Post by mainframetech
but in any event it
disproves the SBT, because if that bullet never left the body of JFK, then
it couldn't come out of the throat wound to hit Connally, and the SBT is a
crock.
If your aunt had balls she'd be your uncle.
A typical LN ad hominem comment that replaces any proof to the contrary
from what has been shown.
Still waiting to see that viable alternative to the SBT.
How many SBTs are you guys up to by now? 2,20,100?
Name your frame.
<crickets>
Anthony Marsh
2018-03-21 14:24:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ace Kefford
Post by claviger
This list of 39 witnesses has been thoroughly debugged and debunked. The
fact you close your eyes tight and put your hands over your ears while
yelling "I can't see you! I can't hear you!" several times in a row
doesn't change the fact you made several big bloopers.
Don't worry, having a theory or piece of evidence thoroughly debunked has
never stopped most of the buffs over the past 50 plus years. There's no
reason think it ever will.
So you support the cover-up so that buffs have to guess.
claviger
2018-03-24 00:10:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by claviger
This list of 39 witnesses has been thoroughly debugged and debunked. The
fact you close your eyes tight and put your hands over your ears while
yelling "I can't see you! I can't hear you!" several times in a row
doesn't change the fact you made several big bloopers.
alt.assassination.jfk ›
Witnesses Head Wound
103 posts by 6 authors
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.assassination.jfk/uvJj4PBqx78%5B1-25%5D
Steve BH
2018-03-19 01:54:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
This is the list of 'over 39' people that I have mentioned now and then that saw the 'large hole' in the BOH of JFK. I have gotten the information from only the most reputable places, like mostly from the WC, HSCA or ARRB.
The number '39' is there for each name below, but you can consider that the full number of 65 includes the people that witnessed the autopsy. The HSCA lied about them and said that they all saw a small bullet hole in the BOH, but that was found to be false and subsequent interviews of many of those people showed that they all agreed with those that saw the 'large hole' on the BOH. That puts the count way over 40, up to 65. The gallery people aren't named, but their positive statements were checked and put out by David W. Mantik, MD,PhD in "Murder in Dealey Plaza" his article "Paradoxes of the JFK Assassination" pages 197-198.
There are many references to a photo that has a montage of people on it. The reason is that the people use their hand to locate the 'gaping hole' in the BOH.
Chris/mainframetech
1. James Jenkins - lab assistant at Bethesda - testimony to HSCA
"Jenkins does not recall a small hole in the head as drawn on the descriptive sheet; he said that the big hole would have covered the area where the little hole was drawn on the sheet."
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=329&relPageId=12
&&&&&&&&
2. Dennis David 1st class petty officer - Bethesda. He was shown a film by LCDR Pitzer that showed the back of JFK's head while on the morgue table and before any cutting had begun. It was clearly the Bethesda morgue. He said it showed a 'gaping wound' in the back of the president's head and that the top of the head looked intact.
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=708&relPageId=4
&&&&&&&&
3. Robert L. Knudsen - photographer
"The back of the head photograph(s) showed a hole in the back of the head, about 2" above the hairline, about the size of a grapefruit; the hole clearly penetrated the skull and was very deep. Another one of the photographs showed a hole in the forehead above the right eye which was a round wound about 3/8" in diameter which he interpreted as a gunshot."
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/md231/html/md231_0002a.htm
&&&&&&&&
4. Ed Hoffman - deaf/mute watching from overpass. He said "The rear of his head was gone, blasted outward."
http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/Witness-reports-of-head-wound.jpg
&&&&&&&&
5. Dr. Robert McClelland - physician in ER at Parkland hospital. Said "It was in the right back part of his head--very large...a portion of the cerebellum fell out on the table while we were doing the tracheotomy."
http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/Witness-reports-of-head-wound.jpg
&&&&&&&&
6. Dr. Charles Carrico - Physician at Parkland ER. Said "There was a large--quite a large--defect about here (pointing) on his skull. See photo where he shows the area with his hand [BOH slightly right].
http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/Witness-reports-of-head-wound.jpg
&&&&&&&&
7. Dr. Charles Crenshaw - Physician at Parkland hospital ER. Said "The wound was the size of a baseball." Demonstrates with hand on the right rear of his head (see photo).
http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/Witness-reports-of-head-wound.jpg
&&&&&&&&
8. Nurse Audrey Bell - Parkland OR supervisor. Said "There was a massive wound at the back of his head." See [photo.
http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/Witness-reports-of-head-wound.jpg
&&&&&&&&
http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/Witness-reports-of-head-wound.jpg
&&&&&&&&
http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/Witness-reports-of-head-wound-640x481.jpg
&&&&&&&&
http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/Witness-reports-of-head-wound.jpg
&&&&&&&&
http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/Witness-reports-of-head-wound.jpg
&&&&&&&&
"Mr. SPECTER - You saw the condition of his what?
Miss BOWRON - The back of his head.
Mr. SPECTER - And what was that condition?
Miss BOWRON - Well, it was very bad---you know.
Mr. SPECTER - How many holes did you see?
Miss BOWRON - I just saw one large hole.
Mr. SPECTER - Did you see a small bullet hole beneath that one large hole?
Miss BOWRON - No, sir. "
&&&&&&&&
"...in the occipital region of the skull... Through the head wound, blood and brain were extruding... There was a large wound in the right occipitoparietal region, from which profuse bleeding was occurring... There was considerable loss of scalp and bone tissue. Both cerebral and cerebellar tissue were extruding from the wound." (WC--CE#392)
&&&&&&&&
15. Dr. RICHARD BROOKS DULANY - Parkland hospital, said: " The wound was on the back of his head. On the back side" They lifted up the head and "the whole back-side was gone." (Groden R., Livingston, H., High Treason. 1989 New York, Berkley Books, p.460.)
&&&&&&&&
16. Nurse Patricia ( HUTTON) Gustafson - Parkland ER staff. While helping with resuscitation efforts a physician asked her to apply a pressure dressing to the head wound, she observed, however, that, "This was no use, however, because of the massive opening in the back of the head."
http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/boh/parkland_boh/parkland_wound.htm
&&&&&&&&
17. Dr. MARION THOMAS JENKINS Parkland staff. WC testimony "...a great laceration on the right side of the head (temporal and occipital) (sic), causing a great defect in the skull plate so that there was herniation and laceration of great areas of the brain, even to the extent that the cerebellum had protruded from the wound." (WC--Exhibit #392)
&&&&&&&&
18. Dr. RONALD COY JONES Parkland staff. WC testimony "He had a large wound in the right posterior side of the head... There was a large defect in the back side of the head as the President lay on the cart with what appeared to be some brain hanging out of this wound with multiple pieces of skull noted next with the brain and with a tremendous amount of clot and blood." (WC-V6:53-54)
&&&&&&&&
19. Dr. MALCOLM PERRY Parkland staff said "I looked at the head wound briefly by leaning over the table and noticed that the parietal occipital head wound was largely avulsive and there was visible brain tissue in the macard and some cerebellum seen..." (HSCA-V7:302-interview with Purdy 1-11-78.
&&&&&&&&
20. Dr. PAUL PETERS Parkland staff - WC testimony - "...I noticed that there was a large defect in the occiput...It seemed to me that in the right occipitalparietal area that there was a large defect." (WC-V6:71)
&&&&&&&&
21. Tom Robinson mortician with Gawler's. At Bethesda after autopsy enumerating head wounds, he "described a large, open head wound in the back of the president's head, centrally located right between the ears, where the bone was gone, as well as some scalp.
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=711&relPageId=3
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=350&relPageId=4
&&&&&&&&
22. Clinton Hill - Secret Service presidential detail. As kill shot rang out Hill was on the limo and covering the Kennedys. His WC testimony said "As I lay over the top of the back seat I noticed a portion of the President's head on the right rear side was missing and he was bleeding profusely. Part of his brain was gone. I saw a part of his skull with hair on it lying in the seat."
&&&&&&&&
23. Joe O'Donnell photographer. Spoke with Knudsen about photos of autopsy and saw head wound photo. Said "The back of the head photograph(s) showed a hole in the back of the head, about 2" above the hairline, about the size of a grapefruit; the hole clearly penetrated the skull and was very deep. Another one of the photographs showed a hole in the forehead above the right eye which was a round wound about 3/8" in diameter which he interpreted as a gunshot."
"The second occasion occurred a few days later, when Knudsen showed him a second set of photograph(s) once again about 12 ea 5" by 7" B&W prints. On this second occasion, the back-of-head photograph(s) was intact, and showed no hole in the back of the head. Instead of a hole, he remembers seeing neatly combed hair which looked slightly wet, or damp in appearance."
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=753&relPageId=2
While the nutter contingent has done all it can to discredit O'Donnell, Knudsen's family (wife and 2 of his kids) went to the ARRB and made corroborating statements as to the faking of some autopsy photos.
&&&&&&&&
24. Dr. Charles Baxter - Professor Of Surgery; Director Of Emergency Room. - Said "The right temporal and occipital bones were missing and the brain was lying on the table".
http://www.jfklancer.com/ParklandDrs.html
&&&&&&&&
25. Dr. John Ebersole - Acting Chief of Radiology and head of the Radiology Division - Bethesda. Said "The back of the head was missing...".
WC testimony.
&&&&&&&&
26. Saundra Key Spencer - Navy E-6 Photographer's Mate at Naval Photographic Center at Anacostia. ARRB testimony summary. Spencer was given a set of autopsy photos that were completely diferent than the ones we are all familiar with. They were cleaned up and showed the correct BOH wound. Most of her work was for the White House. Said: "She remembers a wound in the back of the president's head Which she described as a "Blown out chunk" about 2 to 2.5 inches wide located in about the center of the back of the president's head about 3 or 5 inches above the hairline at the back of his head.
&&&&&&&&
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=719
"Q. ...That is the drawing you made earlier today showing the size of the wound, which, by my very rough estimate, the wound you drew seems much smaller.
A. Much smaller, yes, it's larger than that. I should have made that larger, but I'm not much of an artist.
&&&&&&&&
28. Dr. Gene Akin - Parkland hospital. WC testimony. Said "The back of the right occipital-parietal portion of his head was shattered, with brain substance extruding."
&&&&&&&&
29. Jacqueline Kennedy - Wife of JFK - held JFK in her arms and had very close view of head wounds. Testimony of the head wounds was suppressed in the WC. She said ""I was trying to hold his hair on. From the front there was nothing --
I suppose there must have been. But from the back you could see,
you know, you were trying to hold his hair on, and his skull on...". If she was trying to hold his hair and skull on at the back or his head, then it was a big wound.
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/09/jackie-kennedy-testimony.html
&&&&&&&&
Lifton: Was the main damage to the skull on the top, or in the back?
Stringer: In the back.
Lifton: ...High In the back, or lower In the back?
Stringer: Oh, the occipital part in the back there (garbled) up above the neck.
Lifton: …In other words, the main part of his head that was blasted away was in the occipital part of the skull?
Stringer: Yes. the back part. [Tape played for Stringer in 1996, p78]
http://www.history-matters.com/essays/jfkmed/TracesOfWitnessTampering/TracesOfWitnessTampering.htm
&&&&&&&&
31. Jan Gail Rudnicki - Assistant to Boswell at Bethesda on night of autopsy. Interviewed by Flanagan for HSCA. Said: "the back-right quadrant of the head was missing."
http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/boh/beth/beth.htm
&&&&&&&&
32. James Metzler - Hospital Corpsman at Bethesda, helped put body from shipping casket to table. HSCA interview 4/21/78. "Metzler recalled a wound situated in the "right side of the head behind the right ear, extending down to the center of the back of the skull."
http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/boh/beth/beth.htm
&&&&&&&&
"Mr. KELLERMAN. OK. This all transpired in the morgue of the Naval Hospital in Bethesda, sir. He had a large wound this size.
Mr. SPECTER. Indicating a circle with your finger of the diameter of 5 inches; would that be approximately correct?
Mr. KELLERMAN. Yes, circular; yes, on this part of the head.
Mr. SPECTER. Indicating the rear portion of the head.
Mr. KELLERMAN. Yes.
Mr. SPECTER. More to the right side of the head?
Mr. KELLERMAN. Right. This was removed.
Mr. SPECTER. When you say, "This was removed," what do you mean by this?
Mr. KELLERMAN. The skull part was removed."
&&&&&&&&
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dvbuv_eLISk
&&&&&&&&
35. Chester Boyers - Chief Petty Officer Bethesda - head of pathology dept. - helped during autopsy with various functions. Interviewed for HSCA. "Concerning the wounds of President Kennedy, Mr. Boyers stated that there was a large wound to the right side and towards the rear of the head."
http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/pdf/md62.pdf
&&&&&&&&
36. Joseph Hagan - Gawler's embalming team - did their work at Bethesda after autopsy. Hagan was in charge of the team. His ARRB interview said: "However, he did state that "all of this was open in the back", while holding his two hands about 6 inches away from his upper posterior skull, gesturing to the area between both of his own ears on the back of his head."
&&&&&&&&
37. J. Thornton Boswell - Bethesda prosector at autopsy - the record said "Q. When you say the left posterior, what do you mean?
A. The left occipital area, and that wound extends to the right frontal area." An awfully large wound!
&&&&&&&&
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5zxgYrc7-Zs
&&&&&&&&
39. Dr. Don Teal Curtis - Resident at Parkland hospital - Spoke to interviewer for Canyon News.com said: "Curtis also looked, and he told the audience “the posterior part of his head was blown out.”
Curtis, who had become very familiar with entrance and exit wounds during his trauma room work at Parkland, said that there was no doubt in his mind that the exit wound on the president’s head was at the back."
http://www.myplainview.com/canyon/news/article_f6555d0a-48c4-11e3-bbd1-001a4bcf887a.html
&&&&&&&&
Schorlemer saw what Zapruder and the secret service saw, which was right
side of the head blown out above the right ear.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s6_d2O47_qs
mainframetech
2018-03-19 23:24:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Steve BH
Post by mainframetech
This is the list of 'over 39' people that I have mentioned now and then that saw the 'large hole' in the BOH of JFK. I have gotten the information from only the most reputable places, like mostly from the WC, HSCA or ARRB.
The number '39' is there for each name below, but you can consider that the full number of 65 includes the people that witnessed the autopsy. The HSCA lied about them and said that they all saw a small bullet hole in the BOH, but that was found to be false and subsequent interviews of many of those people showed that they all agreed with those that saw the 'large hole' on the BOH. That puts the count way over 40, up to 65. The gallery people aren't named, but their positive statements were checked and put out by David W. Mantik, MD,PhD in "Murder in Dealey Plaza" his article "Paradoxes of the JFK Assassination" pages 197-198.
There are many references to a photo that has a montage of people on it. The reason is that the people use their hand to locate the 'gaping hole' in the BOH.
Chris/mainframetech
1. James Jenkins - lab assistant at Bethesda - testimony to HSCA
"Jenkins does not recall a small hole in the head as drawn on the descriptive sheet; he said that the big hole would have covered the area where the little hole was drawn on the sheet."
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=329&relPageId=12
&&&&&&&&
2. Dennis David 1st class petty officer - Bethesda. He was shown a film by LCDR Pitzer that showed the back of JFK's head while on the morgue table and before any cutting had begun. It was clearly the Bethesda morgue. He said it showed a 'gaping wound' in the back of the president's head and that the top of the head looked intact.
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=708&relPageId=4
&&&&&&&&
3. Robert L. Knudsen - photographer
"The back of the head photograph(s) showed a hole in the back of the head, about 2" above the hairline, about the size of a grapefruit; the hole clearly penetrated the skull and was very deep. Another one of the photographs showed a hole in the forehead above the right eye which was a round wound about 3/8" in diameter which he interpreted as a gunshot."
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/md231/html/md231_0002a.htm
&&&&&&&&
4. Ed Hoffman - deaf/mute watching from overpass. He said "The rear of his head was gone, blasted outward."
http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/Witness-reports-of-head-wound.jpg
&&&&&&&&
5. Dr. Robert McClelland - physician in ER at Parkland hospital. Said "It was in the right back part of his head--very large...a portion of the cerebellum fell out on the table while we were doing the tracheotomy."
http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/Witness-reports-of-head-wound.jpg
&&&&&&&&
6. Dr. Charles Carrico - Physician at Parkland ER. Said "There was a large--quite a large--defect about here (pointing) on his skull. See photo where he shows the area with his hand [BOH slightly right].
http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/Witness-reports-of-head-wound.jpg
&&&&&&&&
7. Dr. Charles Crenshaw - Physician at Parkland hospital ER. Said "The wound was the size of a baseball." Demonstrates with hand on the right rear of his head (see photo).
http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/Witness-reports-of-head-wound.jpg
&&&&&&&&
8. Nurse Audrey Bell - Parkland OR supervisor. Said "There was a massive wound at the back of his head." See [photo.
http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/Witness-reports-of-head-wound.jpg
&&&&&&&&
http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/Witness-reports-of-head-wound.jpg
&&&&&&&&
http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/Witness-reports-of-head-wound-640x481.jpg
&&&&&&&&
http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/Witness-reports-of-head-wound.jpg
&&&&&&&&
http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/Witness-reports-of-head-wound.jpg
&&&&&&&&
"Mr. SPECTER - You saw the condition of his what?
Miss BOWRON - The back of his head.
Mr. SPECTER - And what was that condition?
Miss BOWRON - Well, it was very bad---you know.
Mr. SPECTER - How many holes did you see?
Miss BOWRON - I just saw one large hole.
Mr. SPECTER - Did you see a small bullet hole beneath that one large hole?
Miss BOWRON - No, sir. "
&&&&&&&&
"...in the occipital region of the skull... Through the head wound, blood and brain were extruding... There was a large wound in the right occipitoparietal region, from which profuse bleeding was occurring... There was considerable loss of scalp and bone tissue. Both cerebral and cerebellar tissue were extruding from the wound." (WC--CE#392)
&&&&&&&&
15. Dr. RICHARD BROOKS DULANY - Parkland hospital, said: " The wound was on the back of his head. On the back side" They lifted up the head and "the whole back-side was gone." (Groden R., Livingston, H., High Treason. 1989 New York, Berkley Books, p.460.)
&&&&&&&&
16. Nurse Patricia ( HUTTON) Gustafson - Parkland ER staff. While helping with resuscitation efforts a physician asked her to apply a pressure dressing to the head wound, she observed, however, that, "This was no use, however, because of the massive opening in the back of the head."
http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/boh/parkland_boh/parkland_wound.htm
&&&&&&&&
17. Dr. MARION THOMAS JENKINS Parkland staff. WC testimony "...a great laceration on the right side of the head (temporal and occipital) (sic), causing a great defect in the skull plate so that there was herniation and laceration of great areas of the brain, even to the extent that the cerebellum had protruded from the wound." (WC--Exhibit #392)
&&&&&&&&
18. Dr. RONALD COY JONES Parkland staff. WC testimony "He had a large wound in the right posterior side of the head... There was a large defect in the back side of the head as the President lay on the cart with what appeared to be some brain hanging out of this wound with multiple pieces of skull noted next with the brain and with a tremendous amount of clot and blood." (WC-V6:53-54)
&&&&&&&&
19. Dr. MALCOLM PERRY Parkland staff said "I looked at the head wound briefly by leaning over the table and noticed that the parietal occipital head wound was largely avulsive and there was visible brain tissue in the macard and some cerebellum seen..." (HSCA-V7:302-interview with Purdy 1-11-78.
&&&&&&&&
20. Dr. PAUL PETERS Parkland staff - WC testimony - "...I noticed that there was a large defect in the occiput...It seemed to me that in the right occipitalparietal area that there was a large defect." (WC-V6:71)
&&&&&&&&
21. Tom Robinson mortician with Gawler's. At Bethesda after autopsy enumerating head wounds, he "described a large, open head wound in the back of the president's head, centrally located right between the ears, where the bone was gone, as well as some scalp.
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=711&relPageId=3
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=350&relPageId=4
&&&&&&&&
22. Clinton Hill - Secret Service presidential detail. As kill shot rang out Hill was on the limo and covering the Kennedys. His WC testimony said "As I lay over the top of the back seat I noticed a portion of the President's head on the right rear side was missing and he was bleeding profusely. Part of his brain was gone. I saw a part of his skull with hair on it lying in the seat."
&&&&&&&&
23. Joe O'Donnell photographer. Spoke with Knudsen about photos of autopsy and saw head wound photo. Said "The back of the head photograph(s) showed a hole in the back of the head, about 2" above the hairline, about the size of a grapefruit; the hole clearly penetrated the skull and was very deep. Another one of the photographs showed a hole in the forehead above the right eye which was a round wound about 3/8" in diameter which he interpreted as a gunshot."
"The second occasion occurred a few days later, when Knudsen showed him a second set of photograph(s) once again about 12 ea 5" by 7" B&W prints. On this second occasion, the back-of-head photograph(s) was intact, and showed no hole in the back of the head. Instead of a hole, he remembers seeing neatly combed hair which looked slightly wet, or damp in appearance."
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=753&relPageId=2
While the nutter contingent has done all it can to discredit O'Donnell, Knudsen's family (wife and 2 of his kids) went to the ARRB and made corroborating statements as to the faking of some autopsy photos.
&&&&&&&&
24. Dr. Charles Baxter - Professor Of Surgery; Director Of Emergency Room. - Said "The right temporal and occipital bones were missing and the brain was lying on the table".
http://www.jfklancer.com/ParklandDrs.html
&&&&&&&&
25. Dr. John Ebersole - Acting Chief of Radiology and head of the Radiology Division - Bethesda. Said "The back of the head was missing...".
WC testimony.
&&&&&&&&
26. Saundra Key Spencer - Navy E-6 Photographer's Mate at Naval Photographic Center at Anacostia. ARRB testimony summary. Spencer was given a set of autopsy photos that were completely diferent than the ones we are all familiar with. They were cleaned up and showed the correct BOH wound. Most of her work was for the White House. Said: "She remembers a wound in the back of the president's head Which she described as a "Blown out chunk" about 2 to 2.5 inches wide located in about the center of the back of the president's head about 3 or 5 inches above the hairline at the back of his head.
&&&&&&&&
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=719
"Q. ...That is the drawing you made earlier today showing the size of the wound, which, by my very rough estimate, the wound you drew seems much smaller.
A. Much smaller, yes, it's larger than that. I should have made that larger, but I'm not much of an artist.
&&&&&&&&
28. Dr. Gene Akin - Parkland hospital. WC testimony. Said "The back of the right occipital-parietal portion of his head was shattered, with brain substance extruding."
&&&&&&&&
29. Jacqueline Kennedy - Wife of JFK - held JFK in her arms and had very close view of head wounds. Testimony of the head wounds was suppressed in the WC. She said ""I was trying to hold his hair on. From the front there was nothing --
I suppose there must have been. But from the back you could see,
you know, you were trying to hold his hair on, and his skull on...". If she was trying to hold his hair and skull on at the back or his head, then it was a big wound.
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/09/jackie-kennedy-testimony.html
&&&&&&&&
Lifton: Was the main damage to the skull on the top, or in the back?
Stringer: In the back.
Lifton: ...High In the back, or lower In the back?
Stringer: Oh, the occipital part in the back there (garbled) up above the neck.
Lifton: …In other words, the main part of his head that was blasted away was in the occipital part of the skull?
Stringer: Yes. the back part. [Tape played for Stringer in 1996, p78]
http://www.history-matters.com/essays/jfkmed/TracesOfWitnessTampering/TracesOfWitnessTampering.htm
&&&&&&&&
31. Jan Gail Rudnicki - Assistant to Boswell at Bethesda on night of autopsy. Interviewed by Flanagan for HSCA. Said: "the back-right quadrant of the head was missing."
http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/boh/beth/beth.htm
&&&&&&&&
32. James Metzler - Hospital Corpsman at Bethesda, helped put body from shipping casket to table. HSCA interview 4/21/78. "Metzler recalled a wound situated in the "right side of the head behind the right ear, extending down to the center of the back of the skull."
http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/boh/beth/beth.htm
&&&&&&&&
"Mr. KELLERMAN. OK. This all transpired in the morgue of the Naval Hospital in Bethesda, sir. He had a large wound this size.
Mr. SPECTER. Indicating a circle with your finger of the diameter of 5 inches; would that be approximately correct?
Mr. KELLERMAN. Yes, circular; yes, on this part of the head.
Mr. SPECTER. Indicating the rear portion of the head.
Mr. KELLERMAN. Yes.
Mr. SPECTER. More to the right side of the head?
Mr. KELLERMAN. Right. This was removed.
Mr. SPECTER. When you say, "This was removed," what do you mean by this?
Mr. KELLERMAN. The skull part was removed."
&&&&&&&&
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dvbuv_eLISk
&&&&&&&&
35. Chester Boyers - Chief Petty Officer Bethesda - head of pathology dept. - helped during autopsy with various functions. Interviewed for HSCA. "Concerning the wounds of President Kennedy, Mr. Boyers stated that there was a large wound to the right side and towards the rear of the head."
http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/pdf/md62.pdf
&&&&&&&&
36. Joseph Hagan - Gawler's embalming team - did their work at Bethesda after autopsy. Hagan was in charge of the team. His ARRB interview said: "However, he did state that "all of this was open in the back", while holding his two hands about 6 inches away from his upper posterior skull, gesturing to the area between both of his own ears on the back of his head."
&&&&&&&&
37. J. Thornton Boswell - Bethesda prosector at autopsy - the record said "Q. When you say the left posterior, what do you mean?
A. The left occipital area, and that wound extends to the right frontal area." An awfully large wound!
&&&&&&&&
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5zxgYrc7-Zs
&&&&&&&&
39. Dr. Don Teal Curtis - Resident at Parkland hospital - Spoke to interviewer for Canyon News.com said: "Curtis also looked, and he told the audience “the posterior part of his head was blown out.”
Curtis, who had become very familiar with entrance and exit wounds during his trauma room work at Parkland, said that there was no doubt in his mind that the exit wound on the president’s head was at the back."
http://www.myplainview.com/canyon/news/article_f6555d0a-48c4-11e3-bbd1-001a4bcf887a.html
&&&&&&&&
Schorlemer saw what Zapruder and the secret service saw, which was right
side of the head blown out above the right ear.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s6_d2O47_qs
You've been had. The Z-film was proven to have been altered, so you're
seeing what they wanted you to see. There are witnesses to the original
Z-film, and independent analyses that show that there was alteration.
Here:

The witness:

Dino Brugione:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OGr21FZBVL4

The independent analyses:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AAtEdEaXBtQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XCigDMyHisE


And for really deep proof, get "Inside the ARRB" by Douglas Horne.
It spends up to 200 pages proving the alteration, and shows witnesses from
the CIA and the equipment used and all the arguments you need to know that
the Z-film was altered.

Chris
Steve BH
2018-03-20 23:58:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by Steve BH
Post by mainframetech
This is the list of 'over 39' people that I have mentioned now and then that saw the 'large hole' in the BOH of JFK. I have gotten the information from only the most reputable places, like mostly from the WC, HSCA or ARRB.
The number '39' is there for each name below, but you can consider that the full number of 65 includes the people that witnessed the autopsy. The HSCA lied about them and said that they all saw a small bullet hole in the BOH, but that was found to be false and subsequent interviews of many of those people showed that they all agreed with those that saw the 'large hole' on the BOH. That puts the count way over 40, up to 65. The gallery people aren't named, but their positive statements were checked and put out by David W. Mantik, MD,PhD in "Murder in Dealey Plaza" his article "Paradoxes of the JFK Assassination" pages 197-198.
There are many references to a photo that has a montage of people on it. The reason is that the people use their hand to locate the 'gaping hole' in the BOH.
Chris/mainframetech
1. James Jenkins - lab assistant at Bethesda - testimony to HSCA
"Jenkins does not recall a small hole in the head as drawn on the descriptive sheet; he said that the big hole would have covered the area where the little hole was drawn on the sheet."
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=329&relPageId=12
&&&&&&&&
2. Dennis David 1st class petty officer - Bethesda. He was shown a film by LCDR Pitzer that showed the back of JFK's head while on the morgue table and before any cutting had begun. It was clearly the Bethesda morgue. He said it showed a 'gaping wound' in the back of the president's head and that the top of the head looked intact.
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=708&relPageId=4
&&&&&&&&
3. Robert L. Knudsen - photographer
"The back of the head photograph(s) showed a hole in the back of the head, about 2" above the hairline, about the size of a grapefruit; the hole clearly penetrated the skull and was very deep. Another one of the photographs showed a hole in the forehead above the right eye which was a round wound about 3/8" in diameter which he interpreted as a gunshot."
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/md231/html/md231_0002a.htm
&&&&&&&&
4. Ed Hoffman - deaf/mute watching from overpass. He said "The rear of his head was gone, blasted outward."
http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/Witness-reports-of-head-wound.jpg
&&&&&&&&
5. Dr. Robert McClelland - physician in ER at Parkland hospital. Said "It was in the right back part of his head--very large...a portion of the cerebellum fell out on the table while we were doing the tracheotomy."
http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/Witness-reports-of-head-wound.jpg
&&&&&&&&
6. Dr. Charles Carrico - Physician at Parkland ER. Said "There was a large--quite a large--defect about here (pointing) on his skull. See photo where he shows the area with his hand [BOH slightly right].
http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/Witness-reports-of-head-wound.jpg
&&&&&&&&
7. Dr. Charles Crenshaw - Physician at Parkland hospital ER. Said "The wound was the size of a baseball." Demonstrates with hand on the right rear of his head (see photo).
http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/Witness-reports-of-head-wound.jpg
&&&&&&&&
8. Nurse Audrey Bell - Parkland OR supervisor. Said "There was a massive wound at the back of his head." See [photo.
http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/Witness-reports-of-head-wound.jpg
&&&&&&&&
http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/Witness-reports-of-head-wound.jpg
&&&&&&&&
http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/Witness-reports-of-head-wound-640x481.jpg
&&&&&&&&
http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/Witness-reports-of-head-wound.jpg
&&&&&&&&
http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/Witness-reports-of-head-wound.jpg
&&&&&&&&
"Mr. SPECTER - You saw the condition of his what?
Miss BOWRON - The back of his head.
Mr. SPECTER - And what was that condition?
Miss BOWRON - Well, it was very bad---you know.
Mr. SPECTER - How many holes did you see?
Miss BOWRON - I just saw one large hole.
Mr. SPECTER - Did you see a small bullet hole beneath that one large hole?
Miss BOWRON - No, sir. "
&&&&&&&&
"...in the occipital region of the skull... Through the head wound, blood and brain were extruding... There was a large wound in the right occipitoparietal region, from which profuse bleeding was occurring... There was considerable loss of scalp and bone tissue. Both cerebral and cerebellar tissue were extruding from the wound." (WC--CE#392)
&&&&&&&&
15. Dr. RICHARD BROOKS DULANY - Parkland hospital, said: " The wound was on the back of his head. On the back side" They lifted up the head and "the whole back-side was gone." (Groden R., Livingston, H., High Treason. 1989 New York, Berkley Books, p.460.)
&&&&&&&&
16. Nurse Patricia ( HUTTON) Gustafson - Parkland ER staff. While helping with resuscitation efforts a physician asked her to apply a pressure dressing to the head wound, she observed, however, that, "This was no use, however, because of the massive opening in the back of the head."
http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/boh/parkland_boh/parkland_wound.htm
&&&&&&&&
17. Dr. MARION THOMAS JENKINS Parkland staff. WC testimony "...a great laceration on the right side of the head (temporal and occipital) (sic), causing a great defect in the skull plate so that there was herniation and laceration of great areas of the brain, even to the extent that the cerebellum had protruded from the wound." (WC--Exhibit #392)
&&&&&&&&
18. Dr. RONALD COY JONES Parkland staff. WC testimony "He had a large wound in the right posterior side of the head... There was a large defect in the back side of the head as the President lay on the cart with what appeared to be some brain hanging out of this wound with multiple pieces of skull noted next with the brain and with a tremendous amount of clot and blood." (WC-V6:53-54)
&&&&&&&&
19. Dr. MALCOLM PERRY Parkland staff said "I looked at the head wound briefly by leaning over the table and noticed that the parietal occipital head wound was largely avulsive and there was visible brain tissue in the macard and some cerebellum seen..." (HSCA-V7:302-interview with Purdy 1-11-78.
&&&&&&&&
20. Dr. PAUL PETERS Parkland staff - WC testimony - "...I noticed that there was a large defect in the occiput...It seemed to me that in the right occipitalparietal area that there was a large defect." (WC-V6:71)
&&&&&&&&
21. Tom Robinson mortician with Gawler's. At Bethesda after autopsy enumerating head wounds, he "described a large, open head wound in the back of the president's head, centrally located right between the ears, where the bone was gone, as well as some scalp.
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=711&relPageId=3
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=350&relPageId=4
&&&&&&&&
22. Clinton Hill - Secret Service presidential detail. As kill shot rang out Hill was on the limo and covering the Kennedys. His WC testimony said "As I lay over the top of the back seat I noticed a portion of the President's head on the right rear side was missing and he was bleeding profusely. Part of his brain was gone. I saw a part of his skull with hair on it lying in the seat."
&&&&&&&&
23. Joe O'Donnell photographer. Spoke with Knudsen about photos of autopsy and saw head wound photo. Said "The back of the head photograph(s) showed a hole in the back of the head, about 2" above the hairline, about the size of a grapefruit; the hole clearly penetrated the skull and was very deep. Another one of the photographs showed a hole in the forehead above the right eye which was a round wound about 3/8" in diameter which he interpreted as a gunshot."
"The second occasion occurred a few days later, when Knudsen showed him a second set of photograph(s) once again about 12 ea 5" by 7" B&W prints. On this second occasion, the back-of-head photograph(s) was intact, and showed no hole in the back of the head. Instead of a hole, he remembers seeing neatly combed hair which looked slightly wet, or damp in appearance."
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=753&relPageId=2
While the nutter contingent has done all it can to discredit O'Donnell, Knudsen's family (wife and 2 of his kids) went to the ARRB and made corroborating statements as to the faking of some autopsy photos.
&&&&&&&&
24. Dr. Charles Baxter - Professor Of Surgery; Director Of Emergency Room. - Said "The right temporal and occipital bones were missing and the brain was lying on the table".
http://www.jfklancer.com/ParklandDrs.html
&&&&&&&&
25. Dr. John Ebersole - Acting Chief of Radiology and head of the Radiology Division - Bethesda. Said "The back of the head was missing...".
WC testimony.
&&&&&&&&
26. Saundra Key Spencer - Navy E-6 Photographer's Mate at Naval Photographic Center at Anacostia. ARRB testimony summary. Spencer was given a set of autopsy photos that were completely diferent than the ones we are all familiar with. They were cleaned up and showed the correct BOH wound. Most of her work was for the White House. Said: "She remembers a wound in the back of the president's head Which she described as a "Blown out chunk" about 2 to 2.5 inches wide located in about the center of the back of the president's head about 3 or 5 inches above the hairline at the back of his head.
&&&&&&&&
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=719
"Q. ...That is the drawing you made earlier today showing the size of the wound, which, by my very rough estimate, the wound you drew seems much smaller.
A. Much smaller, yes, it's larger than that. I should have made that larger, but I'm not much of an artist.
&&&&&&&&
28. Dr. Gene Akin - Parkland hospital. WC testimony. Said "The back of the right occipital-parietal portion of his head was shattered, with brain substance extruding."
&&&&&&&&
29. Jacqueline Kennedy - Wife of JFK - held JFK in her arms and had very close view of head wounds. Testimony of the head wounds was suppressed in the WC. She said ""I was trying to hold his hair on. From the front there was nothing --
I suppose there must have been. But from the back you could see,
you know, you were trying to hold his hair on, and his skull on...". If she was trying to hold his hair and skull on at the back or his head, then it was a big wound.
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/09/jackie-kennedy-testimony.html
&&&&&&&&
Lifton: Was the main damage to the skull on the top, or in the back?
Stringer: In the back.
Lifton: ...High In the back, or lower In the back?
Stringer: Oh, the occipital part in the back there (garbled) up above the neck.
Lifton: …In other words, the main part of his head that was blasted away was in the occipital part of the skull?
Stringer: Yes. the back part. [Tape played for Stringer in 1996, p78]
http://www.history-matters.com/essays/jfkmed/TracesOfWitnessTampering/TracesOfWitnessTampering.htm
&&&&&&&&
31. Jan Gail Rudnicki - Assistant to Boswell at Bethesda on night of autopsy. Interviewed by Flanagan for HSCA. Said: "the back-right quadrant of the head was missing."
http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/boh/beth/beth.htm
&&&&&&&&
32. James Metzler - Hospital Corpsman at Bethesda, helped put body from shipping casket to table. HSCA interview 4/21/78. "Metzler recalled a wound situated in the "right side of the head behind the right ear, extending down to the center of the back of the skull."
http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/boh/beth/beth.htm
&&&&&&&&
"Mr. KELLERMAN. OK. This all transpired in the morgue of the Naval Hospital in Bethesda, sir. He had a large wound this size.
Mr. SPECTER. Indicating a circle with your finger of the diameter of 5 inches; would that be approximately correct?
Mr. KELLERMAN. Yes, circular; yes, on this part of the head.
Mr. SPECTER. Indicating the rear portion of the head.
Mr. KELLERMAN. Yes.
Mr. SPECTER. More to the right side of the head?
Mr. KELLERMAN. Right. This was removed.
Mr. SPECTER. When you say, "This was removed," what do you mean by this?
Mr. KELLERMAN. The skull part was removed."
&&&&&&&&
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dvbuv_eLISk
&&&&&&&&
35. Chester Boyers - Chief Petty Officer Bethesda - head of pathology dept. - helped during autopsy with various functions. Interviewed for HSCA. "Concerning the wounds of President Kennedy, Mr. Boyers stated that there was a large wound to the right side and towards the rear of the head."
http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/pdf/md62.pdf
&&&&&&&&
36. Joseph Hagan - Gawler's embalming team - did their work at Bethesda after autopsy. Hagan was in charge of the team. His ARRB interview said: "However, he did state that "all of this was open in the back", while holding his two hands about 6 inches away from his upper posterior skull, gesturing to the area between both of his own ears on the back of his head."
&&&&&&&&
37. J. Thornton Boswell - Bethesda prosector at autopsy - the record said "Q. When you say the left posterior, what do you mean?
A. The left occipital area, and that wound extends to the right frontal area." An awfully large wound!
&&&&&&&&
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5zxgYrc7-Zs
&&&&&&&&
39. Dr. Don Teal Curtis - Resident at Parkland hospital - Spoke to interviewer for Canyon News.com said: "Curtis also looked, and he told the audience “the posterior part of his head was blown out.”
Curtis, who had become very familiar with entrance and exit wounds during his trauma room work at Parkland, said that there was no doubt in his mind that the exit wound on the president’s head was at the back."
http://www.myplainview.com/canyon/news/article_f6555d0a-48c4-11e3-bbd1-001a4bcf887a.html
&&&&&&&&
Schorlemer saw what Zapruder and the secret service saw, which was right
side of the head blown out above the right ear.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s6_d2O47_qs
You've been had. The Z-film was proven to have been altered, so you're
seeing what they wanted you to see. There are witnesses to the original
Z-film, and independent analyses that show that there was alteration.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OGr21FZBVL4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AAtEdEaXBtQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XCigDMyHisE
And for really deep proof, get "Inside the ARRB" by Douglas Horne.
It spends up to 200 pages proving the alteration, and shows witnesses from
the CIA and the equipment used and all the arguments you need to know that
the Z-film was altered.
Chris
As I said, I need to know not only that the Z film was altered, but that
poor Mr. Z was "altered" as well, since he describes what it shows on TV
just two hours after the assassination, before the film is even developed
(so it can't influence him at that point-- he's a primary witness). How
the hell are you going to make him do THAT?

Who altered the Moorman photo? Who altered the Nix film? It must have been
Groden, eh?

How did we get Boswell and Humes to lie? Who altered the autopsy BOH
photos? That's Pierre Finck, forensic pathologist in the apron, pulling up
JFK's scalp in back, showing nothing but the Dox hole in it. Do you think
Finck went back to his native Switzerland (as he didn't much like the US
attitude to experts) and continued to lie, lie, lie? Why?

Your theory has the secret service get the body out of the casket on AF-1
just after it arrives on board, and while Jackie is up with LBJ, they flat
out fool poor old General McHugh, chain-of-evidence-Burkley, the Irish
mafia ("Murphia," as Jackie drolly called them) of K. O'Donnell, Dave
Powers, and Larry O'Brien, and also Malcolm Kilduff, all sitting in back
of the airplane right next to the casket to GET away from the LBJ staff,
by saying to all of them that it's to throw off the pack of reporters? And
NOBODY among all these people mentions the gruesome removal (nobody know
just what they're going to see) all those years later? For the rest of
their lives? Are you mad?
Anthony Marsh
2018-03-21 18:35:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Steve BH
Post by mainframetech
Post by Steve BH
Post by mainframetech
This is the list of 'over 39' people that I have mentioned now and then that saw the 'large hole' in the BOH of JFK. I have gotten the information from only the most reputable places, like mostly from the WC, HSCA or ARRB.
The number '39' is there for each name below, but you can consider that the full number of 65 includes the people that witnessed the autopsy. The HSCA lied about them and said that they all saw a small bullet hole in the BOH, but that was found to be false and subsequent interviews of many of those people showed that they all agreed with those that saw the 'large hole' on the BOH. That puts the count way over 40, up to 65. The gallery people aren't named, but their positive statements were checked and put out by David W. Mantik, MD,PhD in "Murder in Dealey Plaza" his article "Paradoxes of the JFK Assassination" pages 197-198.
There are many references to a photo that has a montage of people on it. The reason is that the people use their hand to locate the 'gaping hole' in the BOH.
Chris/mainframetech
1. James Jenkins - lab assistant at Bethesda - testimony to HSCA
"Jenkins does not recall a small hole in the head as drawn on the descriptive sheet; he said that the big hole would have covered the area where the little hole was drawn on the sheet."
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=329&relPageId=12
&&&&&&&&
2. Dennis David 1st class petty officer - Bethesda. He was shown a film by LCDR Pitzer that showed the back of JFK's head while on the morgue table and before any cutting had begun. It was clearly the Bethesda morgue. He said it showed a 'gaping wound' in the back of the president's head and that the top of the head looked intact.
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=708&relPageId=4
&&&&&&&&
3. Robert L. Knudsen - photographer
"The back of the head photograph(s) showed a hole in the back of the head, about 2" above the hairline, about the size of a grapefruit; the hole clearly penetrated the skull and was very deep. Another one of the photographs showed a hole in the forehead above the right eye which was a round wound about 3/8" in diameter which he interpreted as a gunshot."
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/md231/html/md231_0002a.htm
&&&&&&&&
4. Ed Hoffman - deaf/mute watching from overpass. He said "The rear of his head was gone, blasted outward."
http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/Witness-reports-of-head-wound.jpg
&&&&&&&&
5. Dr. Robert McClelland - physician in ER at Parkland hospital. Said "It was in the right back part of his head--very large...a portion of the cerebellum fell out on the table while we were doing the tracheotomy."
http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/Witness-reports-of-head-wound.jpg
&&&&&&&&
6. Dr. Charles Carrico - Physician at Parkland ER. Said "There was a large--quite a large--defect about here (pointing) on his skull. See photo where he shows the area with his hand [BOH slightly right].
http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/Witness-reports-of-head-wound.jpg
&&&&&&&&
7. Dr. Charles Crenshaw - Physician at Parkland hospital ER. Said "The wound was the size of a baseball." Demonstrates with hand on the right rear of his head (see photo).
http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/Witness-reports-of-head-wound.jpg
&&&&&&&&
8. Nurse Audrey Bell - Parkland OR supervisor. Said "There was a massive wound at the back of his head." See [photo.
http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/Witness-reports-of-head-wound.jpg
&&&&&&&&
http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/Witness-reports-of-head-wound.jpg
&&&&&&&&
http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/Witness-reports-of-head-wound-640x481.jpg
&&&&&&&&
http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/Witness-reports-of-head-wound.jpg
&&&&&&&&
http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/Witness-reports-of-head-wound.jpg
&&&&&&&&
"Mr. SPECTER - You saw the condition of his what?
Miss BOWRON - The back of his head.
Mr. SPECTER - And what was that condition?
Miss BOWRON - Well, it was very bad---you know.
Mr. SPECTER - How many holes did you see?
Miss BOWRON - I just saw one large hole.
Mr. SPECTER - Did you see a small bullet hole beneath that one large hole?
Miss BOWRON - No, sir. "
&&&&&&&&
"...in the occipital region of the skull... Through the head wound, blood and brain were extruding... There was a large wound in the right occipitoparietal region, from which profuse bleeding was occurring... There was considerable loss of scalp and bone tissue. Both cerebral and cerebellar tissue were extruding from the wound." (WC--CE#392)
&&&&&&&&
15. Dr. RICHARD BROOKS DULANY - Parkland hospital, said: " The wound was on the back of his head. On the back side" They lifted up the head and "the whole back-side was gone." (Groden R., Livingston, H., High Treason. 1989 New York, Berkley Books, p.460.)
&&&&&&&&
16. Nurse Patricia ( HUTTON) Gustafson - Parkland ER staff. While helping with resuscitation efforts a physician asked her to apply a pressure dressing to the head wound, she observed, however, that, "This was no use, however, because of the massive opening in the back of the head."
http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/boh/parkland_boh/parkland_wound.htm
&&&&&&&&
17. Dr. MARION THOMAS JENKINS Parkland staff. WC testimony "...a great laceration on the right side of the head (temporal and occipital) (sic), causing a great defect in the skull plate so that there was herniation and laceration of great areas of the brain, even to the extent that the cerebellum had protruded from the wound." (WC--Exhibit #392)
&&&&&&&&
18. Dr. RONALD COY JONES Parkland staff. WC testimony "He had a large wound in the right posterior side of the head... There was a large defect in the back side of the head as the President lay on the cart with what appeared to be some brain hanging out of this wound with multiple pieces of skull noted next with the brain and with a tremendous amount of clot and blood." (WC-V6:53-54)
&&&&&&&&
19. Dr. MALCOLM PERRY Parkland staff said "I looked at the head wound briefly by leaning over the table and noticed that the parietal occipital head wound was largely avulsive and there was visible brain tissue in the macard and some cerebellum seen..." (HSCA-V7:302-interview with Purdy 1-11-78.
&&&&&&&&
20. Dr. PAUL PETERS Parkland staff - WC testimony - "...I noticed that there was a large defect in the occiput...It seemed to me that in the right occipitalparietal area that there was a large defect." (WC-V6:71)
&&&&&&&&
21. Tom Robinson mortician with Gawler's. At Bethesda after autopsy enumerating head wounds, he "described a large, open head wound in the back of the president's head, centrally located right between the ears, where the bone was gone, as well as some scalp.
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=711&relPageId=3
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=350&relPageId=4
&&&&&&&&
22. Clinton Hill - Secret Service presidential detail. As kill shot rang out Hill was on the limo and covering the Kennedys. His WC testimony said "As I lay over the top of the back seat I noticed a portion of the President's head on the right rear side was missing and he was bleeding profusely. Part of his brain was gone. I saw a part of his skull with hair on it lying in the seat."
&&&&&&&&
23. Joe O'Donnell photographer. Spoke with Knudsen about photos of autopsy and saw head wound photo. Said "The back of the head photograph(s) showed a hole in the back of the head, about 2" above the hairline, about the size of a grapefruit; the hole clearly penetrated the skull and was very deep. Another one of the photographs showed a hole in the forehead above the right eye which was a round wound about 3/8" in diameter which he interpreted as a gunshot."
"The second occasion occurred a few days later, when Knudsen showed him a second set of photograph(s) once again about 12 ea 5" by 7" B&W prints. On this second occasion, the back-of-head photograph(s) was intact, and showed no hole in the back of the head. Instead of a hole, he remembers seeing neatly combed hair which looked slightly wet, or damp in appearance."
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=753&relPageId=2
While the nutter contingent has done all it can to discredit O'Donnell, Knudsen's family (wife and 2 of his kids) went to the ARRB and made corroborating statements as to the faking of some autopsy photos.
&&&&&&&&
24. Dr. Charles Baxter - Professor Of Surgery; Director Of Emergency Room. - Said "The right temporal and occipital bones were missing and the brain was lying on the table".
http://www.jfklancer.com/ParklandDrs.html
&&&&&&&&
25. Dr. John Ebersole - Acting Chief of Radiology and head of the Radiology Division - Bethesda. Said "The back of the head was missing...".
WC testimony.
&&&&&&&&
26. Saundra Key Spencer - Navy E-6 Photographer's Mate at Naval Photographic Center at Anacostia. ARRB testimony summary. Spencer was given a set of autopsy photos that were completely diferent than the ones we are all familiar with. They were cleaned up and showed the correct BOH wound. Most of her work was for the White House. Said: "She remembers a wound in the back of the president's head Which she described as a "Blown out chunk" about 2 to 2.5 inches wide located in about the center of the back of the president's head about 3 or 5 inches above the hairline at the back of his head.
&&&&&&&&
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=719
"Q. ...That is the drawing you made earlier today showing the size of the wound, which, by my very rough estimate, the wound you drew seems much smaller.
A. Much smaller, yes, it's larger than that. I should have made that larger, but I'm not much of an artist.
&&&&&&&&
28. Dr. Gene Akin - Parkland hospital. WC testimony. Said "The back of the right occipital-parietal portion of his head was shattered, with brain substance extruding."
&&&&&&&&
29. Jacqueline Kennedy - Wife of JFK - held JFK in her arms and had very close view of head wounds. Testimony of the head wounds was suppressed in the WC. She said ""I was trying to hold his hair on. From the front there was nothing --
I suppose there must have been. But from the back you could see,
you know, you were trying to hold his hair on, and his skull on...". If she was trying to hold his hair and skull on at the back or his head, then it was a big wound.
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/09/jackie-kennedy-testimony.html
&&&&&&&&
Lifton: Was the main damage to the skull on the top, or in the back?
Stringer: In the back.
Lifton: ...High In the back, or lower In the back?
Stringer: Oh, the occipital part in the back there (garbled) up above the neck.
Lifton: …In other words, the main part of his head that was blasted away was in the occipital part of the skull?
Stringer: Yes. the back part. [Tape played for Stringer in 1996, p78]
http://www.history-matters.com/essays/jfkmed/TracesOfWitnessTampering/TracesOfWitnessTampering.htm
&&&&&&&&
31. Jan Gail Rudnicki - Assistant to Boswell at Bethesda on night of autopsy. Interviewed by Flanagan for HSCA. Said: "the back-right quadrant of the head was missing."
http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/boh/beth/beth.htm
&&&&&&&&
32. James Metzler - Hospital Corpsman at Bethesda, helped put body from shipping casket to table. HSCA interview 4/21/78. "Metzler recalled a wound situated in the "right side of the head behind the right ear, extending down to the center of the back of the skull."
http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/boh/beth/beth.htm
&&&&&&&&
"Mr. KELLERMAN. OK. This all transpired in the morgue of the Naval Hospital in Bethesda, sir. He had a large wound this size.
Mr. SPECTER. Indicating a circle with your finger of the diameter of 5 inches; would that be approximately correct?
Mr. KELLERMAN. Yes, circular; yes, on this part of the head.
Mr. SPECTER. Indicating the rear portion of the head.
Mr. KELLERMAN. Yes.
Mr. SPECTER. More to the right side of the head?
Mr. KELLERMAN. Right. This was removed.
Mr. SPECTER. When you say, "This was removed," what do you mean by this?
Mr. KELLERMAN. The skull part was removed."
&&&&&&&&
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dvbuv_eLISk
&&&&&&&&
35. Chester Boyers - Chief Petty Officer Bethesda - head of pathology dept. - helped during autopsy with various functions. Interviewed for HSCA. "Concerning the wounds of President Kennedy, Mr. Boyers stated that there was a large wound to the right side and towards the rear of the head."
http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/pdf/md62.pdf
&&&&&&&&
36. Joseph Hagan - Gawler's embalming team - did their work at Bethesda after autopsy. Hagan was in charge of the team. His ARRB interview said: "However, he did state that "all of this was open in the back", while holding his two hands about 6 inches away from his upper posterior skull, gesturing to the area between both of his own ears on the back of his head."
&&&&&&&&
37. J. Thornton Boswell - Bethesda prosector at autopsy - the record said "Q. When you say the left posterior, what do you mean?
A. The left occipital area, and that wound extends to the right frontal area." An awfully large wound!
&&&&&&&&
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5zxgYrc7-Zs
&&&&&&&&
39. Dr. Don Teal Curtis - Resident at Parkland hospital - Spoke to interviewer for Canyon News.com said: "Curtis also looked, and he told the audience “the posterior part of his head was blown out.”
Curtis, who had become very familiar with entrance and exit wounds during his trauma room work at Parkland, said that there was no doubt in his mind that the exit wound on the president’s head was at the back."
http://www.myplainview.com/canyon/news/article_f6555d0a-48c4-11e3-bbd1-001a4bcf887a.html
&&&&&&&&
Schorlemer saw what Zapruder and the secret service saw, which was right
side of the head blown out above the right ear.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s6_d2O47_qs
You've been had. The Z-film was proven to have been altered, so you're
seeing what they wanted you to see. There are witnesses to the original
Z-film, and independent analyses that show that there was alteration.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OGr21FZBVL4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AAtEdEaXBtQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XCigDMyHisE
And for really deep proof, get "Inside the ARRB" by Douglas Horne.
It spends up to 200 pages proving the alteration, and shows witnesses from
the CIA and the equipment used and all the arguments you need to know that
the Z-film was altered.
Chris
As I said, I need to know not only that the Z film was altered, but that
poor Mr. Z was "altered" as well, since he describes what it shows on TV
just two hours after the assassination, before the film is even developed
(so it can't influence him at that point-- he's a primary witness). How
the hell are you going to make him do THAT?
Who altered the Moorman photo? Who altered the Nix film? It must have been
Groden, eh?
How did we get Boswell and Humes to lie? Who altered the autopsy BOH
They were threatened with Court Martial.
Post by Steve BH
photos? That's Pierre Finck, forensic pathologist in the apron, pulling up
JFK's scalp in back, showing nothing but the Dox hole in it. Do you think
Finck went back to his native Switzerland (as he didn't much like the US
attitude to experts) and continued to lie, lie, lie? Why?
He FLED to Switzerland to avoid question.
Post by Steve BH
Your theory has the secret service get the body out of the casket on AF-1
I missed that. WHo said it was the Secret Service?
Post by Steve BH
just after it arrives on board, and while Jackie is up with LBJ, they flat
out fool poor old General McHugh, chain-of-evidence-Burkley, the Irish
MChugh is almost a perfect refutation but he did go to find LBJ crying
in the shower.
Post by Steve BH
mafia ("Murphia," as Jackie drolly called them) of K. O'Donnell, Dave
Powers, and Larry O'Brien, and also Malcolm Kilduff, all sitting in back
of the airplane right next to the casket to GET away from the LBJ staff,
by saying to all of them that it's to throw off the pack of reporters? And
NOBODY among all these people mentions the gruesome removal (nobody know
just what they're going to see) all those years later? For the rest of
their lives? Are you mad?
Good tactic. If someone says something you don't like, just call him
crazy. How come we aren't allowed to do that about Trump?
mainframetech
2018-03-22 01:18:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Steve BH
Post by mainframetech
Post by Steve BH
Post by mainframetech
This is the list of 'over 39' people that I have mentioned now and then that saw the 'large hole' in the BOH of JFK. I have gotten the information from only the most reputable places, like mostly from the WC, HSCA or ARRB.
The number '39' is there for each name below, but you can consider that the full number of 65 includes the people that witnessed the autopsy. The HSCA lied about them and said that they all saw a small bullet hole in the BOH, but that was found to be false and subsequent interviews of many of those people showed that they all agreed with those that saw the 'large hole' on the BOH. That puts the count way over 40, up to 65. The gallery people aren't named, but their positive statements were checked and put out by David W. Mantik, MD,PhD in "Murder in Dealey Plaza" his article "Paradoxes of the JFK Assassination" pages 197-198.
There are many references to a photo that has a montage of people on it. The reason is that the people use their hand to locate the 'gaping hole' in the BOH.
Chris/mainframetech
1. James Jenkins - lab assistant at Bethesda - testimony to HSCA
"Jenkins does not recall a small hole in the head as drawn on the descriptive sheet; he said that the big hole would have covered the area where the little hole was drawn on the sheet."
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=329&relPageId=12
&&&&&&&&
2. Dennis David 1st class petty officer - Bethesda. He was shown a film by LCDR Pitzer that showed the back of JFK's head while on the morgue table and before any cutting had begun. It was clearly the Bethesda morgue. He said it showed a 'gaping wound' in the back of the president's head and that the top of the head looked intact.
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=708&relPageId=4
&&&&&&&&
3. Robert L. Knudsen - photographer
"The back of the head photograph(s) showed a hole in the back of the head, about 2" above the hairline, about the size of a grapefruit; the hole clearly penetrated the skull and was very deep. Another one of the photographs showed a hole in the forehead above the right eye which was a round wound about 3/8" in diameter which he interpreted as a gunshot."
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/md231/html/md231_0002a.htm
&&&&&&&&
4. Ed Hoffman - deaf/mute watching from overpass. He said "The rear of his head was gone, blasted outward."
http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/Witness-reports-of-head-wound.jpg
&&&&&&&&
5. Dr. Robert McClelland - physician in ER at Parkland hospital. Said "It was in the right back part of his head--very large...a portion of the cerebellum fell out on the table while we were doing the tracheotomy."
http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/Witness-reports-of-head-wound.jpg
&&&&&&&&
6. Dr. Charles Carrico - Physician at Parkland ER. Said "There was a large--quite a large--defect about here (pointing) on his skull. See photo where he shows the area with his hand [BOH slightly right].
http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/Witness-reports-of-head-wound.jpg
&&&&&&&&
7. Dr. Charles Crenshaw - Physician at Parkland hospital ER. Said "The wound was the size of a baseball." Demonstrates with hand on the right rear of his head (see photo).
http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/Witness-reports-of-head-wound.jpg
&&&&&&&&
8. Nurse Audrey Bell - Parkland OR supervisor. Said "There was a massive wound at the back of his head." See [photo.
http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/Witness-reports-of-head-wound.jpg
&&&&&&&&
http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/Witness-reports-of-head-wound.jpg
&&&&&&&&
http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/Witness-reports-of-head-wound-640x481.jpg
&&&&&&&&
http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/Witness-reports-of-head-wound.jpg
&&&&&&&&
http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/Witness-reports-of-head-wound.jpg
&&&&&&&&
"Mr. SPECTER - You saw the condition of his what?
Miss BOWRON - The back of his head.
Mr. SPECTER - And what was that condition?
Miss BOWRON - Well, it was very bad---you know.
Mr. SPECTER - How many holes did you see?
Miss BOWRON - I just saw one large hole.
Mr. SPECTER - Did you see a small bullet hole beneath that one large hole?
Miss BOWRON - No, sir. "
&&&&&&&&
"...in the occipital region of the skull... Through the head wound, blood and brain were extruding... There was a large wound in the right occipitoparietal region, from which profuse bleeding was occurring... There was considerable loss of scalp and bone tissue. Both cerebral and cerebellar tissue were extruding from the wound." (WC--CE#392)
&&&&&&&&
15. Dr. RICHARD BROOKS DULANY - Parkland hospital, said: " The wound was on the back of his head. On the back side" They lifted up the head and "the whole back-side was gone." (Groden R., Livingston, H., High Treason. 1989 New York, Berkley Books, p.460.)
&&&&&&&&
16. Nurse Patricia ( HUTTON) Gustafson - Parkland ER staff. While helping with resuscitation efforts a physician asked her to apply a pressure dressing to the head wound, she observed, however, that, "This was no use, however, because of the massive opening in the back of the head."
http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/boh/parkland_boh/parkland_wound.htm
&&&&&&&&
17. Dr. MARION THOMAS JENKINS Parkland staff. WC testimony "...a great laceration on the right side of the head (temporal and occipital) (sic), causing a great defect in the skull plate so that there was herniation and laceration of great areas of the brain, even to the extent that the cerebellum had protruded from the wound." (WC--Exhibit #392)
&&&&&&&&
18. Dr. RONALD COY JONES Parkland staff. WC testimony "He had a large wound in the right posterior side of the head... There was a large defect in the back side of the head as the President lay on the cart with what appeared to be some brain hanging out of this wound with multiple pieces of skull noted next with the brain and with a tremendous amount of clot and blood." (WC-V6:53-54)
&&&&&&&&
19. Dr. MALCOLM PERRY Parkland staff said "I looked at the head wound briefly by leaning over the table and noticed that the parietal occipital head wound was largely avulsive and there was visible brain tissue in the macard and some cerebellum seen..." (HSCA-V7:302-interview with Purdy 1-11-78.
&&&&&&&&
20. Dr. PAUL PETERS Parkland staff - WC testimony - "...I noticed that there was a large defect in the occiput...It seemed to me that in the right occipitalparietal area that there was a large defect." (WC-V6:71)
&&&&&&&&
21. Tom Robinson mortician with Gawler's. At Bethesda after autopsy enumerating head wounds, he "described a large, open head wound in the back of the president's head, centrally located right between the ears, where the bone was gone, as well as some scalp.
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=711&relPageId=3
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=350&relPageId=4
&&&&&&&&
22. Clinton Hill - Secret Service presidential detail. As kill shot rang out Hill was on the limo and covering the Kennedys. His WC testimony said "As I lay over the top of the back seat I noticed a portion of the President's head on the right rear side was missing and he was bleeding profusely. Part of his brain was gone. I saw a part of his skull with hair on it lying in the seat."
&&&&&&&&
23. Joe O'Donnell photographer. Spoke with Knudsen about photos of autopsy and saw head wound photo. Said "The back of the head photograph(s) showed a hole in the back of the head, about 2" above the hairline, about the size of a grapefruit; the hole clearly penetrated the skull and was very deep. Another one of the photographs showed a hole in the forehead above the right eye which was a round wound about 3/8" in diameter which he interpreted as a gunshot."
"The second occasion occurred a few days later, when Knudsen showed him a second set of photograph(s) once again about 12 ea 5" by 7" B&W prints. On this second occasion, the back-of-head photograph(s) was intact, and showed no hole in the back of the head. Instead of a hole, he remembers seeing neatly combed hair which looked slightly wet, or damp in appearance."
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=753&relPageId=2
While the nutter contingent has done all it can to discredit O'Donnell, Knudsen's family (wife and 2 of his kids) went to the ARRB and made corroborating statements as to the faking of some autopsy photos.
&&&&&&&&
24. Dr. Charles Baxter - Professor Of Surgery; Director Of Emergency Room. - Said "The right temporal and occipital bones were missing and the brain was lying on the table".
http://www.jfklancer.com/ParklandDrs.html
&&&&&&&&
25. Dr. John Ebersole - Acting Chief of Radiology and head of the Radiology Division - Bethesda. Said "The back of the head was missing...".
WC testimony.
&&&&&&&&
26. Saundra Key Spencer - Navy E-6 Photographer's Mate at Naval Photographic Center at Anacostia. ARRB testimony summary. Spencer was given a set of autopsy photos that were completely diferent than the ones we are all familiar with. They were cleaned up and showed the correct BOH wound. Most of her work was for the White House. Said: "She remembers a wound in the back of the president's head Which she described as a "Blown out chunk" about 2 to 2.5 inches wide located in about the center of the back of the president's head about 3 or 5 inches above the hairline at the back of his head.
&&&&&&&&
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=719
"Q. ...That is the drawing you made earlier today showing the size of the wound, which, by my very rough estimate, the wound you drew seems much smaller.
A. Much smaller, yes, it's larger than that. I should have made that larger, but I'm not much of an artist.
&&&&&&&&
28. Dr. Gene Akin - Parkland hospital. WC testimony. Said "The back of the right occipital-parietal portion of his head was shattered, with brain substance extruding."
&&&&&&&&
29. Jacqueline Kennedy - Wife of JFK - held JFK in her arms and had very close view of head wounds. Testimony of the head wounds was suppressed in the WC. She said ""I was trying to hold his hair on. From the front there was nothing --
I suppose there must have been. But from the back you could see,
you know, you were trying to hold his hair on, and his skull on...". If she was trying to hold his hair and skull on at the back or his head, then it was a big wound.
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/09/jackie-kennedy-testimony.html
&&&&&&&&
Lifton: Was the main damage to the skull on the top, or in the back?
Stringer: In the back.
Lifton: ...High In the back, or lower In the back?
Stringer: Oh, the occipital part in the back there (garbled) up above the neck.
Lifton: …In other words, the main part of his head that was blasted away was in the occipital part of the skull?
Stringer: Yes. the back part. [Tape played for Stringer in 1996, p78]
http://www.history-matters.com/essays/jfkmed/TracesOfWitnessTampering/TracesOfWitnessTampering.htm
&&&&&&&&
31. Jan Gail Rudnicki - Assistant to Boswell at Bethesda on night of autopsy. Interviewed by Flanagan for HSCA. Said: "the back-right quadrant of the head was missing."
http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/boh/beth/beth.htm
&&&&&&&&
32. James Metzler - Hospital Corpsman at Bethesda, helped put body from shipping casket to table. HSCA interview 4/21/78. "Metzler recalled a wound situated in the "right side of the head behind the right ear, extending down to the center of the back of the skull."
http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/boh/beth/beth.htm
&&&&&&&&
"Mr. KELLERMAN. OK. This all transpired in the morgue of the Naval Hospital in Bethesda, sir. He had a large wound this size.
Mr. SPECTER. Indicating a circle with your finger of the diameter of 5 inches; would that be approximately correct?
Mr. KELLERMAN. Yes, circular; yes, on this part of the head.
Mr. SPECTER. Indicating the rear portion of the head.
Mr. KELLERMAN. Yes.
Mr. SPECTER. More to the right side of the head?
Mr. KELLERMAN. Right. This was removed.
Mr. SPECTER. When you say, "This was removed," what do you mean by this?
Mr. KELLERMAN. The skull part was removed."
&&&&&&&&
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dvbuv_eLISk
&&&&&&&&
35. Chester Boyers - Chief Petty Officer Bethesda - head of pathology dept. - helped during autopsy with various functions. Interviewed for HSCA. "Concerning the wounds of President Kennedy, Mr. Boyers stated that there was a large wound to the right side and towards the rear of the head."
http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/pdf/md62.pdf
&&&&&&&&
36. Joseph Hagan - Gawler's embalming team - did their work at Bethesda after autopsy. Hagan was in charge of the team. His ARRB interview said: "However, he did state that "all of this was open in the back", while holding his two hands about 6 inches away from his upper posterior skull, gesturing to the area between both of his own ears on the back of his head."
&&&&&&&&
37. J. Thornton Boswell - Bethesda prosector at autopsy - the record said "Q. When you say the left posterior, what do you mean?
A. The left occipital area, and that wound extends to the right frontal area." An awfully large wound!
&&&&&&&&
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5zxgYrc7-Zs
&&&&&&&&
39. Dr. Don Teal Curtis - Resident at Parkland hospital - Spoke to interviewer for Canyon News.com said: "Curtis also looked, and he told the audience “the posterior part of his head was blown out.”
Curtis, who had become very familiar with entrance and exit wounds during his trauma room work at Parkland, said that there was no doubt in his mind that the exit wound on the president’s head was at the back."
http://www.myplainview.com/canyon/news/article_f6555d0a-48c4-11e3-bbd1-001a4bcf887a.html
&&&&&&&&
Schorlemer saw what Zapruder and the secret service saw, which was right
side of the head blown out above the right ear.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s6_d2O47_qs
You've been had. The Z-film was proven to have been altered, so you're
seeing what they wanted you to see. There are witnesses to the original
Z-film, and independent analyses that show that there was alteration.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OGr21FZBVL4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AAtEdEaXBtQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XCigDMyHisE
And for really deep proof, get "Inside the ARRB" by Douglas Horne.
It spends up to 200 pages proving the alteration, and shows witnesses from
the CIA and the equipment used and all the arguments you need to know that
the Z-film was altered.
Chris
As I said, I need to know not only that the Z film was altered, but that
poor Mr. Z was "altered" as well, since he describes what it shows on TV
just two hours after the assassination, before the film is even developed
(so it can't influence him at that point-- he's a primary witness). How
the hell are you going to make him do THAT?
Sounds like you didn't even bother with the proofs that were offered to
start you off. I suggest you check them. In cases of witnesses seeing
violence, it's seems possible they thought they saw something that we KNOW
didn't happen. A few witnesses said they saw a bone flap on JFK over his
right ear come loose and material come out of that hole that was left.
Sorry, they were wrong, that didn't happen. Where they got that image I
don't know, but subsequent witnesses and acts do NOT verify what they
said.

First, there is the list of 39 witnesses (really up to 65) that saw
ONLY a 'large hole' in the BOH the size of a baseball. Next, here is a
list of drawings made by witnesses who saw the body UP CLOSE at a calmer
time:

First, Tom Robinson, mortician:

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=350#relPageId=4&tab=page

Next, Nurse Audrey Bell, Parkland hospital:

Loading Image...

Next, Nurse Diana Bowron, Parkland hospital:

Loading Image...

James Sibert, FBI Agent:

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=719

Note the roundish hole in the BOH, and no other wounds.
Post by Steve BH
Who altered the Moorman photo? Who altered the Nix film? It must have been
Groden, eh?
I'm surprised you can see all the same exact things as the Z-film,
especially when some of those films were from the other side of the street
and the right side of JFK's head wouldn't be seen.
Post by Steve BH
How did we get Boswell and Humes to lie? Who altered the autopsy BOH
photos? That's Pierre Finck, forensic pathologist in the apron, pulling up
JFK's scalp in back, showing nothing but the Dox hole in it. Do you think
Finck went back to his native Switzerland (as he didn't much like the US
attitude to experts) and continued to lie, lie, lie? Why?
Now don't go crazy on me! First, the reason they had to keep the body
away from Earl Rose, the Dallas Medical Examiner, was that they had to
have an autopsy done by military hospital. The reason is they could give
an excuse about national security and give ORDERS to the pathologists to
cover up any untoward evidence, like bullets of the wrong type or coming
from the wrong direction. It was critical that they maintain the fiction
that it was a 'lone nut' killing. That way they could kill the one
shooter and blame him for everything, and keep the plot under cover.
Bullets from a different gun than the MC rifle or Oswald's, or fragments,
and bullets coming from the wrong direction would immediately mean
conspiracy.

In fact orders were indeed given to fake the Autopsy Report (AR), which
the 3 prosectors did. BTW, I believe Boswell admitted to the hand pulling
the scalp in the phony photo. Now you comment on the photo where the
scalp is being pulled back, and I take it this is the one you're talking
about:

Loading Image...


Please tell me where the 'bullet hole' is that you think you see.
Since Dox is an artist that made the drawings, I don't see where her
drawing is of use to us as evidence of a bullet hole. The photo should be
the evidence, and there's no bullet hole there. She placed a bullet hole
on her drawing where they told her to put it.
Post by Steve BH
Your theory has the secret service get the body out of the casket on AF-1
just after it arrives on board, and while Jackie is up with LBJ, they flat
out fool poor old General McHugh, chain-of-evidence-Burkley, the Irish
mafia ("Murphia," as Jackie drolly called them) of K. O'Donnell, Dave
Powers, and Larry O'Brien, and also Malcolm Kilduff, all sitting in back
of the airplane right next to the casket to GET away from the LBJ staff,
by saying to all of them that it's to throw off the pack of reporters? And
NOBODY among all these people mentions the gruesome removal (nobody know
just what they're going to see) all those years later? For the rest of
their lives? Are you mad?
I rather think you've lost it. You need a clear head and the ability
to think through many of these things, like phony photos. You've ignored
witnesses completely and just whacked out a bunch of BELIEFS, NOT anything
to oppose the facts spoken by witnesses. I supply facts and logic, and
witness testimony and you ignore it all and go back to BELIEFS. Why do
you avoid arguing about the facts presented to you?

I gave you the witness testimony of Edward Reed who saw the body of
JFK coming out of the SHIPPING casket, and you ignore it. You don't even
say he was lying or he was mistaken, you simply roll on over it and spout
BELIEFS! You'll never see the real world if you keep telling yourself
what to see instead of looking clearly.

Let me know when you really want to debate all this stuff, and I'll
give you (again) all the facts and testimony proving it all.

Chris
Anthony Marsh
2018-03-23 15:27:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by Steve BH
Post by mainframetech
Post by Steve BH
Post by mainframetech
This is the list of 'over 39' people that I have mentioned now and then that saw the 'large hole' in the BOH of JFK. I have gotten the information from only the most reputable places, like mostly from the WC, HSCA or ARRB.
The number '39' is there for each name below, but you can consider that the full number of 65 includes the people that witnessed the autopsy. The HSCA lied about them and said that they all saw a small bullet hole in the BOH, but that was found to be false and subsequent interviews of many of those people showed that they all agreed with those that saw the 'large hole' on the BOH. That puts the count way over 40, up to 65. The gallery people aren't named, but their positive statements were checked and put out by David W. Mantik, MD,PhD in "Murder in Dealey Plaza" his article "Paradoxes of the JFK Assassination" pages 197-198.
There are many references to a photo that has a montage of people on it. The reason is that the people use their hand to locate the 'gaping hole' in the BOH.
Chris/mainframetech
1. James Jenkins - lab assistant at Bethesda - testimony to HSCA
"Jenkins does not recall a small hole in the head as drawn on the descriptive sheet; he said that the big hole would have covered the area where the little hole was drawn on the sheet."
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=329&relPageId=12
&&&&&&&&
2. Dennis David 1st class petty officer - Bethesda. He was shown a film by LCDR Pitzer that showed the back of JFK's head while on the morgue table and before any cutting had begun. It was clearly the Bethesda morgue. He said it showed a 'gaping wound' in the back of the president's head and that the top of the head looked intact.
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=708&relPageId=4
&&&&&&&&
3. Robert L. Knudsen - photographer
"The back of the head photograph(s) showed a hole in the back of the head, about 2" above the hairline, about the size of a grapefruit; the hole clearly penetrated the skull and was very deep. Another one of the photographs showed a hole in the forehead above the right eye which was a round wound about 3/8" in diameter which he interpreted as a gunshot."
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/md231/html/md231_0002a.htm
&&&&&&&&
4. Ed Hoffman - deaf/mute watching from overpass. He said "The rear of his head was gone, blasted outward."
http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/Witness-reports-of-head-wound.jpg
&&&&&&&&
5. Dr. Robert McClelland - physician in ER at Parkland hospital. Said "It was in the right back part of his head--very large...a portion of the cerebellum fell out on the table while we were doing the tracheotomy."
http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/Witness-reports-of-head-wound.jpg
&&&&&&&&
6. Dr. Charles Carrico - Physician at Parkland ER. Said "There was a large--quite a large--defect about here (pointing) on his skull. See photo where he shows the area with his hand [BOH slightly right].
http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/Witness-reports-of-head-wound.jpg
&&&&&&&&
7. Dr. Charles Crenshaw - Physician at Parkland hospital ER. Said "The wound was the size of a baseball." Demonstrates with hand on the right rear of his head (see photo).
http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/Witness-reports-of-head-wound.jpg
&&&&&&&&
8. Nurse Audrey Bell - Parkland OR supervisor. Said "There was a massive wound at the back of his head." See [photo.
http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/Witness-reports-of-head-wound.jpg
&&&&&&&&
http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/Witness-reports-of-head-wound.jpg
&&&&&&&&
http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/Witness-reports-of-head-wound-640x481.jpg
&&&&&&&&
http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/Witness-reports-of-head-wound.jpg
&&&&&&&&
http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/Witness-reports-of-head-wound.jpg
&&&&&&&&
"Mr. SPECTER - You saw the condition of his what?
Miss BOWRON - The back of his head.
Mr. SPECTER - And what was that condition?
Miss BOWRON - Well, it was very bad---you know.
Mr. SPECTER - How many holes did you see?
Miss BOWRON - I just saw one large hole.
Mr. SPECTER - Did you see a small bullet hole beneath that one large hole?
Miss BOWRON - No, sir. "
&&&&&&&&
"...in the occipital region of the skull... Through the head wound, blood and brain were extruding... There was a large wound in the right occipitoparietal region, from which profuse bleeding was occurring... There was considerable loss of scalp and bone tissue. Both cerebral and cerebellar tissue were extruding from the wound." (WC--CE#392)
&&&&&&&&
15. Dr. RICHARD BROOKS DULANY - Parkland hospital, said: " The wound was on the back of his head. On the back side" They lifted up the head and "the whole back-side was gone." (Groden R., Livingston, H., High Treason. 1989 New York, Berkley Books, p.460.)
&&&&&&&&
16. Nurse Patricia ( HUTTON) Gustafson - Parkland ER staff. While helping with resuscitation efforts a physician asked her to apply a pressure dressing to the head wound, she observed, however, that, "This was no use, however, because of the massive opening in the back of the head."
http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/boh/parkland_boh/parkland_wound.htm
&&&&&&&&
17. Dr. MARION THOMAS JENKINS Parkland staff. WC testimony "...a great laceration on the right side of the head (temporal and occipital) (sic), causing a great defect in the skull plate so that there was herniation and laceration of great areas of the brain, even to the extent that the cerebellum had protruded from the wound." (WC--Exhibit #392)
&&&&&&&&
18. Dr. RONALD COY JONES Parkland staff. WC testimony "He had a large wound in the right posterior side of the head... There was a large defect in the back side of the head as the President lay on the cart with what appeared to be some brain hanging out of this wound with multiple pieces of skull noted next with the brain and with a tremendous amount of clot and blood." (WC-V6:53-54)
&&&&&&&&
19. Dr. MALCOLM PERRY Parkland staff said "I looked at the head wound briefly by leaning over the table and noticed that the parietal occipital head wound was largely avulsive and there was visible brain tissue in the macard and some cerebellum seen..." (HSCA-V7:302-interview with Purdy 1-11-78.
&&&&&&&&
20. Dr. PAUL PETERS Parkland staff - WC testimony - "...I noticed that there was a large defect in the occiput...It seemed to me that in the right occipitalparietal area that there was a large defect." (WC-V6:71)
&&&&&&&&
21. Tom Robinson mortician with Gawler's. At Bethesda after autopsy enumerating head wounds, he "described a large, open head wound in the back of the president's head, centrally located right between the ears, where the bone was gone, as well as some scalp.
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=711&relPageId=3
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=350&relPageId=4
&&&&&&&&
22. Clinton Hill - Secret Service presidential detail. As kill shot rang out Hill was on the limo and covering the Kennedys. His WC testimony said "As I lay over the top of the back seat I noticed a portion of the President's head on the right rear side was missing and he was bleeding profusely. Part of his brain was gone. I saw a part of his skull with hair on it lying in the seat."
&&&&&&&&
23. Joe O'Donnell photographer. Spoke with Knudsen about photos of autopsy and saw head wound photo. Said "The back of the head photograph(s) showed a hole in the back of the head, about 2" above the hairline, about the size of a grapefruit; the hole clearly penetrated the skull and was very deep. Another one of the photographs showed a hole in the forehead above the right eye which was a round wound about 3/8" in diameter which he interpreted as a gunshot."
"The second occasion occurred a few days later, when Knudsen showed him a second set of photograph(s) once again about 12 ea 5" by 7" B&W prints. On this second occasion, the back-of-head photograph(s) was intact, and showed no hole in the back of the head. Instead of a hole, he remembers seeing neatly combed hair which looked slightly wet, or damp in appearance."
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=753&relPageId=2
While the nutter contingent has done all it can to discredit O'Donnell, Knudsen's family (wife and 2 of his kids) went to the ARRB and made corroborating statements as to the faking of some autopsy photos.
&&&&&&&&
24. Dr. Charles Baxter - Professor Of Surgery; Director Of Emergency Room. - Said "The right temporal and occipital bones were missing and the brain was lying on the table".
http://www.jfklancer.com/ParklandDrs.html
&&&&&&&&
25. Dr. John Ebersole - Acting Chief of Radiology and head of the Radiology Division - Bethesda. Said "The back of the head was missing...".
WC testimony.
&&&&&&&&
26. Saundra Key Spencer - Navy E-6 Photographer's Mate at Naval Photographic Center at Anacostia. ARRB testimony summary. Spencer was given a set of autopsy photos that were completely diferent than the ones we are all familiar with. They were cleaned up and showed the correct BOH wound. Most of her work was for the White House. Said: "She remembers a wound in the back of the president's head Which she described as a "Blown out chunk" about 2 to 2.5 inches wide located in about the center of the back of the president's head about 3 or 5 inches above the hairline at the back of his head.
&&&&&&&&
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=719
"Q. ...That is the drawing you made earlier today showing the size of the wound, which, by my very rough estimate, the wound you drew seems much smaller.
A. Much smaller, yes, it's larger than that. I should have made that larger, but I'm not much of an artist.
&&&&&&&&
28. Dr. Gene Akin - Parkland hospital. WC testimony. Said "The back of the right occipital-parietal portion of his head was shattered, with brain substance extruding."
&&&&&&&&
29. Jacqueline Kennedy - Wife of JFK - held JFK in her arms and had very close view of head wounds. Testimony of the head wounds was suppressed in the WC. She said ""I was trying to hold his hair on. From the front there was nothing --
I suppose there must have been. But from the back you could see,
you know, you were trying to hold his hair on, and his skull on...". If she was trying to hold his hair and skull on at the back or his head, then it was a big wound.
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/09/jackie-kennedy-testimony.html
&&&&&&&&
Lifton: Was the main damage to the skull on the top, or in the back?
Stringer: In the back.
Lifton: ...High In the back, or lower In the back?
Stringer: Oh, the occipital part in the back there (garbled) up above the neck.
Lifton: …In other words, the main part of his head that was blasted away was in the occipital part of the skull?
Stringer: Yes. the back part. [Tape played for Stringer in 1996, p78]
http://www.history-matters.com/essays/jfkmed/TracesOfWitnessTampering/TracesOfWitnessTampering.htm
&&&&&&&&
31. Jan Gail Rudnicki - Assistant to Boswell at Bethesda on night of autopsy. Interviewed by Flanagan for HSCA. Said: "the back-right quadrant of the head was missing."
http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/boh/beth/beth.htm
&&&&&&&&
32. James Metzler - Hospital Corpsman at Bethesda, helped put body from shipping casket to table. HSCA interview 4/21/78. "Metzler recalled a wound situated in the "right side of the head behind the right ear, extending down to the center of the back of the skull."
http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/boh/beth/beth.htm
&&&&&&&&
"Mr. KELLERMAN. OK. This all transpired in the morgue of the Naval Hospital in Bethesda, sir. He had a large wound this size.
Mr. SPECTER. Indicating a circle with your finger of the diameter of 5 inches; would that be approximately correct?
Mr. KELLERMAN. Yes, circular; yes, on this part of the head.
Mr. SPECTER. Indicating the rear portion of the head.
Mr. KELLERMAN. Yes.
Mr. SPECTER. More to the right side of the head?
Mr. KELLERMAN. Right. This was removed.
Mr. SPECTER. When you say, "This was removed," what do you mean by this?
Mr. KELLERMAN. The skull part was removed."
&&&&&&&&
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dvbuv_eLISk
&&&&&&&&
35. Chester Boyers - Chief Petty Officer Bethesda - head of pathology dept. - helped during autopsy with various functions. Interviewed for HSCA. "Concerning the wounds of President Kennedy, Mr. Boyers stated that there was a large wound to the right side and towards the rear of the head."
http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/pdf/md62.pdf
&&&&&&&&
36. Joseph Hagan - Gawler's embalming team - did their work at Bethesda after autopsy. Hagan was in charge of the team. His ARRB interview said: "However, he did state that "all of this was open in the back", while holding his two hands about 6 inches away from his upper posterior skull, gesturing to the area between both of his own ears on the back of his head."
&&&&&&&&
37. J. Thornton Boswell - Bethesda prosector at autopsy - the record said "Q. When you say the left posterior, what do you mean?
A. The left occipital area, and that wound extends to the right frontal area." An awfully large wound!
&&&&&&&&
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5zxgYrc7-Zs
&&&&&&&&
39. Dr. Don Teal Curtis - Resident at Parkland hospital - Spoke to interviewer for Canyon News.com said: "Curtis also looked, and he told the audience “the posterior part of his head was blown out.”
Curtis, who had become very familiar with entrance and exit wounds during his trauma room work at Parkland, said that there was no doubt in his mind that the exit wound on the president’s head was at the back."
http://www.myplainview.com/canyon/news/article_f6555d0a-48c4-11e3-bbd1-001a4bcf887a.html
&&&&&&&&
Schorlemer saw what Zapruder and the secret service saw, which was right
side of the head blown out above the right ear.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s6_d2O47_qs
You've been had. The Z-film was proven to have been altered, so you're
seeing what they wanted you to see. There are witnesses to the original
Z-film, and independent analyses that show that there was alteration.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OGr21FZBVL4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AAtEdEaXBtQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XCigDMyHisE
And for really deep proof, get "Inside the ARRB" by Douglas Horne.
It spends up to 200 pages proving the alteration, and shows witnesses from
the CIA and the equipment used and all the arguments you need to know that
the Z-film was altered.
Chris
As I said, I need to know not only that the Z film was altered, but that
poor Mr. Z was "altered" as well, since he describes what it shows on TV
just two hours after the assassination, before the film is even developed
(so it can't influence him at that point-- he's a primary witness). How
the hell are you going to make him do THAT?
Sounds like you didn't even bother with the proofs that were offered to
start you off. I suggest you check them. In cases of witnesses seeing
violence, it's seems possible they thought they saw something that we KNOW
didn't happen. A few witnesses said they saw a bone flap on JFK over his
right ear come loose and material come out of that hole that was left.
Sorry, they were wrong, that didn't happen. Where they got that image I
don't know, but subsequent witnesses and acts do NOT verify what they
said.
First, there is the list of 39 witnesses (really up to 65) that saw
ONLY a 'large hole' in the BOH the size of a baseball. Next, here is a
list of drawings made by witnesses who saw the body UP CLOSE at a calmer
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=350#relPageId=4&tab=page
http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/boh/parkland_boh/piks/bell_wound.jpg
http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/boh/parkland_boh/piks/bowron_drawing.jpg
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=719
Note the roundish hole in the BOH, and no other wounds.
Post by Steve BH
Who altered the Moorman photo? Who altered the Nix film? It must have been
Groden, eh?
I'm surprised you can see all the same exact things as the Z-film,
especially when some of those films were from the other side of the street
and the right side of JFK's head wouldn't be seen.
Post by Steve BH
How did we get Boswell and Humes to lie? Who altered the autopsy BOH
photos? That's Pierre Finck, forensic pathologist in the apron, pulling up
JFK's scalp in back, showing nothing but the Dox hole in it. Do you think
Finck went back to his native Switzerland (as he didn't much like the US
attitude to experts) and continued to lie, lie, lie? Why?
Now don't go crazy on me! First, the reason they had to keep the body
away from Earl Rose, the Dallas Medical Examiner, was that they had to
have an autopsy done by military hospital. The reason is they could give
an excuse about national security and give ORDERS to the pathologists to
cover up any untoward evidence, like bullets of the wrong type or coming
from the wrong direction. It was critical that they maintain the fiction
that it was a 'lone nut' killing. That way they could kill the one
shooter and blame him for everything, and keep the plot under cover.
Bullets from a different gun than the MC rifle or Oswald's, or fragments,
and bullets coming from the wrong direction would immediately mean
conspiracy.
In fact orders were indeed given to fake the Autopsy Report (AR), which
the 3 prosectors did. BTW, I believe Boswell admitted to the hand pulling
the scalp in the phony photo. Now you comment on the photo where the
scalp is being pulled back, and I take it this is the one you're talking
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-vqCHcouIKAw/VUqLbt9rNKI/AAAAAAABF_4/TKqoCMy1h-M/s1600/JFK-Autopsy-Photo.jpg
Please tell me where the 'bullet hole' is that you think you see.
Since Dox is an artist that made the drawings, I don't see where her
drawing is of use to us as evidence of a bullet hole. The photo should be
the evidence, and there's no bullet hole there. She placed a bullet hole
on her drawing where they told her to put it.
Post by Steve BH
Your theory has the secret service get the body out of the casket on AF-1
just after it arrives on board, and while Jackie is up with LBJ, they flat
out fool poor old General McHugh, chain-of-evidence-Burkley, the Irish
mafia ("Murphia," as Jackie drolly called them) of K. O'Donnell, Dave
Powers, and Larry O'Brien, and also Malcolm Kilduff, all sitting in back
of the airplane right next to the casket to GET away from the LBJ staff,
by saying to all of them that it's to throw off the pack of reporters? And
NOBODY among all these people mentions the gruesome removal (nobody know
just what they're going to see) all those years later? For the rest of
their lives? Are you mad?
I rather think you've lost it. You need a clear head and the ability
to think through many of these things, like phony photos. You've ignored
witnesses completely and just whacked out a bunch of BELIEFS, NOT anything
to oppose the facts spoken by witnesses. I supply facts and logic, and
witness testimony and you ignore it all and go back to BELIEFS. Why do
you avoid arguing about the facts presented to you?
I gave you the witness testimony of Edward Reed who saw the body of
JFK coming out of the SHIPPING casket, and you ignore it. You don't even
say he was lying or he was mistaken, you simply roll on over it and spout
BELIEFS! You'll never see the real world if you keep telling yourself
what to see instead of looking clearly.
Let me know when you really want to debate all this stuff, and I'll
give you (again) all the facts and testimony proving it all.
Chris
You are too afraid to debate. You run away.
Amy Joyce
2018-04-05 01:20:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
This is the list of 'over 39' people that I have mentioned now and then that saw the 'large hole' in the BOH of JFK. I have gotten the information from only the most reputable places, like mostly from the WC, HSCA or ARRB.
The number '39' is there for each name below, but you can consider that the full number of 65 includes the people that witnessed the autopsy. The HSCA lied about them and said that they all saw a small bullet hole in the BOH, but that was found to be false and subsequent interviews of many of those people showed that they all agreed with those that saw the 'large hole' on the BOH. That puts the count way over 40, up to 65. The gallery people aren't named, but their positive statements were checked and put out by David W. Mantik, MD,PhD in "Murder in Dealey Plaza" his article "Paradoxes of the JFK Assassination" pages 197-198.
There are many references to a photo that has a montage of people on it. The reason is that the people use their hand to locate the 'gaping hole' in the BOH.
Chris/mainframetech
1. James Jenkins - lab assistant at Bethesda - testimony to HSCA
"Jenkins does not recall a small hole in the head as drawn on the descriptive sheet; he said that the big hole would have covered the area where the little hole was drawn on the sheet."
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=329&relPageId=12
&&&&&&&&
2. Dennis David 1st class petty officer - Bethesda. He was shown a film by LCDR Pitzer that showed the back of JFK's head while on the morgue table and before any cutting had begun. It was clearly the Bethesda morgue. He said it showed a 'gaping wound' in the back of the president's head and that the top of the head looked intact.
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=708&relPageId=4
&&&&&&&&
3. Robert L. Knudsen - photographer
"The back of the head photograph(s) showed a hole in the back of the head, about 2" above the hairline, about the size of a grapefruit; the hole clearly penetrated the skull and was very deep. Another one of the photographs showed a hole in the forehead above the right eye which was a round wound about 3/8" in diameter which he interpreted as a gunshot."
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/md231/html/md231_0002a.htm
&&&&&&&&
4. Ed Hoffman - deaf/mute watching from overpass. He said "The rear of his head was gone, blasted outward."
http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/Witness-reports-of-head-wound.jpg
&&&&&&&&
5. Dr. Robert McClelland - physician in ER at Parkland hospital. Said "It was in the right back part of his head--very large...a portion of the cerebellum fell out on the table while we were doing the tracheotomy."
http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/Witness-reports-of-head-wound.jpg
&&&&&&&&
6. Dr. Charles Carrico - Physician at Parkland ER. Said "There was a large--quite a large--defect about here (pointing) on his skull. See photo where he shows the area with his hand [BOH slightly right].
http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/Witness-reports-of-head-wound.jpg
&&&&&&&&
7. Dr. Charles Crenshaw - Physician at Parkland hospital ER. Said "The wound was the size of a baseball." Demonstrates with hand on the right rear of his head (see photo).
http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/Witness-reports-of-head-wound.jpg
&&&&&&&&
8. Nurse Audrey Bell - Parkland OR supervisor. Said "There was a massive wound at the back of his head." See [photo.
http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/Witness-reports-of-head-wound.jpg
&&&&&&&&
http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/Witness-reports-of-head-wound.jpg
&&&&&&&&
http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/Witness-reports-of-head-wound-640x481.jpg
&&&&&&&&
http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/Witness-reports-of-head-wound.jpg
&&&&&&&&
http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/Witness-reports-of-head-wound.jpg
&&&&&&&&
"Mr. SPECTER - You saw the condition of his what?
Miss BOWRON - The back of his head.
Mr. SPECTER - And what was that condition?
Miss BOWRON - Well, it was very bad---you know.
Mr. SPECTER - How many holes did you see?
Miss BOWRON - I just saw one large hole.
Mr. SPECTER - Did you see a small bullet hole beneath that one large hole?
Miss BOWRON - No, sir. "
&&&&&&&&
"...in the occipital region of the skull... Through the head wound, blood and brain were extruding... There was a large wound in the right occipitoparietal region, from which profuse bleeding was occurring... There was considerable loss of scalp and bone tissue. Both cerebral and cerebellar tissue were extruding from the wound." (WC--CE#392)
&&&&&&&&
15. Dr. RICHARD BROOKS DULANY - Parkland hospital, said: " The wound was on the back of his head. On the back side" They lifted up the head and "the whole back-side was gone." (Groden R., Livingston, H., High Treason. 1989 New York, Berkley Books, p.460.)
&&&&&&&&
16. Nurse Patricia ( HUTTON) Gustafson - Parkland ER staff. While helping with resuscitation efforts a physician asked her to apply a pressure dressing to the head wound, she observed, however, that, "This was no use, however, because of the massive opening in the back of the head."
http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/boh/parkland_boh/parkland_wound.htm
&&&&&&&&
17. Dr. MARION THOMAS JENKINS Parkland staff. WC testimony "...a great laceration on the right side of the head (temporal and occipital) (sic), causing a great defect in the skull plate so that there was herniation and laceration of great areas of the brain, even to the extent that the cerebellum had protruded from the wound." (WC--Exhibit #392)
&&&&&&&&
18. Dr. RONALD COY JONES Parkland staff. WC testimony "He had a large wound in the right posterior side of the head... There was a large defect in the back side of the head as the President lay on the cart with what appeared to be some brain hanging out of this wound with multiple pieces of skull noted next with the brain and with a tremendous amount of clot and blood." (WC-V6:53-54)
&&&&&&&&
19. Dr. MALCOLM PERRY Parkland staff said "I looked at the head wound briefly by leaning over the table and noticed that the parietal occipital head wound was largely avulsive and there was visible brain tissue in the macard and some cerebellum seen..." (HSCA-V7:302-interview with Purdy 1-11-78.
&&&&&&&&
20. Dr. PAUL PETERS Parkland staff - WC testimony - "...I noticed that there was a large defect in the occiput...It seemed to me that in the right occipitalparietal area that there was a large defect." (WC-V6:71)
&&&&&&&&
21. Tom Robinson mortician with Gawler's. At Bethesda after autopsy enumerating head wounds, he "described a large, open head wound in the back of the president's head, centrally located right between the ears, where the bone was gone, as well as some scalp.
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=711&relPageId=3
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=350&relPageId=4
&&&&&&&&
22. Clinton Hill - Secret Service presidential detail. As kill shot rang out Hill was on the limo and covering the Kennedys. His WC testimony said "As I lay over the top of the back seat I noticed a portion of the President's head on the right rear side was missing and he was bleeding profusely. Part of his brain was gone. I saw a part of his skull with hair on it lying in the seat."
&&&&&&&&
23. Joe O'Donnell photographer. Spoke with Knudsen about photos of autopsy and saw head wound photo. Said "The back of the head photograph(s) showed a hole in the back of the head, about 2" above the hairline, about the size of a grapefruit; the hole clearly penetrated the skull and was very deep. Another one of the photographs showed a hole in the forehead above the right eye which was a round wound about 3/8" in diameter which he interpreted as a gunshot."
"The second occasion occurred a few days later, when Knudsen showed him a second set of photograph(s) once again about 12 ea 5" by 7" B&W prints. On this second occasion, the back-of-head photograph(s) was intact, and showed no hole in the back of the head. Instead of a hole, he remembers seeing neatly combed hair which looked slightly wet, or damp in appearance."
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=753&relPageId=2
While the nutter contingent has done all it can to discredit O'Donnell, Knudsen's family (wife and 2 of his kids) went to the ARRB and made corroborating statements as to the faking of some autopsy photos.
&&&&&&&&
24. Dr. Charles Baxter - Professor Of Surgery; Director Of Emergency Room. - Said "The right temporal and occipital bones were missing and the brain was lying on the table".
http://www.jfklancer.com/ParklandDrs.html
&&&&&&&&
25. Dr. John Ebersole - Acting Chief of Radiology and head of the Radiology Division - Bethesda. Said "The back of the head was missing...".
WC testimony.
&&&&&&&&
26. Saundra Key Spencer - Navy E-6 Photographer's Mate at Naval Photographic Center at Anacostia. ARRB testimony summary. Spencer was given a set of autopsy photos that were completely diferent than the ones we are all familiar with. They were cleaned up and showed the correct BOH wound. Most of her work was for the White House. Said: "She remembers a wound in the back of the president's head Which she described as a "Blown out chunk" about 2 to 2.5 inches wide located in about the center of the back of the president's head about 3 or 5 inches above the hairline at the back of his head.
&&&&&&&&
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=719
"Q. ...That is the drawing you made earlier today showing the size of the wound, which, by my very rough estimate, the wound you drew seems much smaller.
A. Much smaller, yes, it's larger than that. I should have made that larger, but I'm not much of an artist.
&&&&&&&&
28. Dr. Gene Akin - Parkland hospital. WC testimony. Said "The back of the right occipital-parietal portion of his head was shattered, with brain substance extruding."
&&&&&&&&
29. Jacqueline Kennedy - Wife of JFK - held JFK in her arms and had very close view of head wounds. Testimony of the head wounds was suppressed in the WC. She said ""I was trying to hold his hair on. From the front there was nothing --
I suppose there must have been. But from the back you could see,
you know, you were trying to hold his hair on, and his skull on...". If she was trying to hold his hair and skull on at the back or his head, then it was a big wound.
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/09/jackie-kennedy-testimony.html
&&&&&&&&
Lifton: Was the main damage to the skull on the top, or in the back?
Stringer: In the back.
Lifton: ...High In the back, or lower In the back?
Stringer: Oh, the occipital part in the back there (garbled) up above the neck.
Lifton: …In other words, the main part of his head that was blasted away was in the occipital part of the skull?
Stringer: Yes. the back part. [Tape played for Stringer in 1996, p78]
http://www.history-matters.com/essays/jfkmed/TracesOfWitnessTampering/TracesOfWitnessTampering.htm
&&&&&&&&
31. Jan Gail Rudnicki - Assistant to Boswell at Bethesda on night of autopsy. Interviewed by Flanagan for HSCA. Said: "the back-right quadrant of the head was missing."
http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/boh/beth/beth.htm
&&&&&&&&
32. James Metzler - Hospital Corpsman at Bethesda, helped put body from shipping casket to table. HSCA interview 4/21/78. "Metzler recalled a wound situated in the "right side of the head behind the right ear, extending down to the center of the back of the skull."
http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/boh/beth/beth.htm
&&&&&&&&
"Mr. KELLERMAN. OK. This all transpired in the morgue of the Naval Hospital in Bethesda, sir. He had a large wound this size.
Mr. SPECTER. Indicating a circle with your finger of the diameter of 5 inches; would that be approximately correct?
Mr. KELLERMAN. Yes, circular; yes, on this part of the head.
Mr. SPECTER. Indicating the rear portion of the head.
Mr. KELLERMAN. Yes.
Mr. SPECTER. More to the right side of the head?
Mr. KELLERMAN. Right. This was removed.
Mr. SPECTER. When you say, "This was removed," what do you mean by this?
Mr. KELLERMAN. The skull part was removed."
&&&&&&&&

&&&&&&&&
35. Chester Boyers - Chief Petty Officer Bethesda - head of pathology dept. - helped during autopsy with various functions. Interviewed for HSCA. "Concerning the wounds of President Kennedy, Mr. Boyers stated that there was a large wound to the right side and towards the rear of the head."
http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/pdf/md62.pdf
&&&&&&&&
36. Joseph Hagan - Gawler's embalming team - did their work at Bethesda after autopsy. Hagan was in charge of the team. His ARRB interview said: "However, he did state that "all of this was open in the back", while holding his two hands about 6 inches away from his upper posterior skull, gesturing to the area between both of his own ears on the back of his head."
&&&&&&&&
37. J. Thornton Boswell - Bethesda prosector at autopsy - the record said "Q. When you say the left posterior, what do you mean?
A. The left occipital area, and that wound extends to the right frontal area." An awfully large wound!
&&&&&&&&

&&&&&&&&
39. Dr. Don Teal Curtis - Resident at Parkland hospital - Spoke to interviewer for Canyon News.com said: "Curtis also looked, and he told the audience “the posterior part of his head was blown out.”
Curtis, who had become very familiar with entrance and exit wounds during his trauma room work at Parkland, said that there was no doubt in his mind that the exit wound on the president’s head was at the back."
http://www.myplainview.com/canyon/news/article_f6555d0a-48c4-11e3-bbd1-001a4bcf887a.html
&&&&&&&&

What about the Willis family? 24 minutes.
mainframetech
2018-04-05 23:01:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Amy Joyce
Post by mainframetech
This is the list of 'over 39' people that I have mentioned now and then that saw the 'large hole' in the BOH of JFK. I have gotten the information from only the most reputable places, like mostly from the WC, HSCA or ARRB.
The number '39' is there for each name below, but you can consider that the full number of 65 includes the people that witnessed the autopsy. The HSCA lied about them and said that they all saw a small bullet hole in the BOH, but that was found to be false and subsequent interviews of many of those people showed that they all agreed with those that saw the 'large hole' on the BOH. That puts the count way over 40, up to 65. The gallery people aren't named, but their positive statements were checked and put out by David W. Mantik, MD,PhD in "Murder in Dealey Plaza" his article "Paradoxes of the JFK Assassination" pages 197-198.
There are many references to a photo that has a montage of people on it. The reason is that the people use their hand to locate the 'gaping hole' in the BOH.
Chris/mainframetech
1. James Jenkins - lab assistant at Bethesda - testimony to HSCA
"Jenkins does not recall a small hole in the head as drawn on the descriptive sheet; he said that the big hole would have covered the area where the little hole was drawn on the sheet."
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=329&relPageId=12
&&&&&&&&
2. Dennis David 1st class petty officer - Bethesda. He was shown a film by LCDR Pitzer that showed the back of JFK's head while on the morgue table and before any cutting had begun. It was clearly the Bethesda morgue. He said it showed a 'gaping wound' in the back of the president's head and that the top of the head looked intact.
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=708&relPageId=4
&&&&&&&&
3. Robert L. Knudsen - photographer
"The back of the head photograph(s) showed a hole in the back of the head, about 2" above the hairline, about the size of a grapefruit; the hole clearly penetrated the skull and was very deep. Another one of the photographs showed a hole in the forehead above the right eye which was a round wound about 3/8" in diameter which he interpreted as a gunshot."
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/md231/html/md231_0002a.htm
&&&&&&&&
4. Ed Hoffman - deaf/mute watching from overpass. He said "The rear of his head was gone, blasted outward."
http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/Witness-reports-of-head-wound.jpg
&&&&&&&&
5. Dr. Robert McClelland - physician in ER at Parkland hospital. Said "It was in the right back part of his head--very large...a portion of the cerebellum fell out on the table while we were doing the tracheotomy."
http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/Witness-reports-of-head-wound.jpg
&&&&&&&&
6. Dr. Charles Carrico - Physician at Parkland ER. Said "There was a large--quite a large--defect about here (pointing) on his skull. See photo where he shows the area with his hand [BOH slightly right].
http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/Witness-reports-of-head-wound.jpg
&&&&&&&&
7. Dr. Charles Crenshaw - Physician at Parkland hospital ER. Said "The wound was the size of a baseball." Demonstrates with hand on the right rear of his head (see photo).
http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/Witness-reports-of-head-wound.jpg
&&&&&&&&
8. Nurse Audrey Bell - Parkland OR supervisor. Said "There was a massive wound at the back of his head." See [photo.
http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/Witness-reports-of-head-wound.jpg
&&&&&&&&
http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/Witness-reports-of-head-wound.jpg
&&&&&&&&
http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/Witness-reports-of-head-wound-640x481.jpg
&&&&&&&&
http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/Witness-reports-of-head-wound.jpg
&&&&&&&&
http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/Witness-reports-of-head-wound.jpg
&&&&&&&&
"Mr. SPECTER - You saw the condition of his what?
Miss BOWRON - The back of his head.
Mr. SPECTER - And what was that condition?
Miss BOWRON - Well, it was very bad---you know.
Mr. SPECTER - How many holes did you see?
Miss BOWRON - I just saw one large hole.
Mr. SPECTER - Did you see a small bullet hole beneath that one large hole?
Miss BOWRON - No, sir. "
&&&&&&&&
"...in the occipital region of the skull... Through the head wound, blood and brain were extruding... There was a large wound in the right occipitoparietal region, from which profuse bleeding was occurring... There was considerable loss of scalp and bone tissue. Both cerebral and cerebellar tissue were extruding from the wound." (WC--CE#392)
&&&&&&&&
15. Dr. RICHARD BROOKS DULANY - Parkland hospital, said: " The wound was on the back of his head. On the back side" They lifted up the head and "the whole back-side was gone." (Groden R., Livingston, H., High Treason. 1989 New York, Berkley Books, p.460.)
&&&&&&&&
16. Nurse Patricia ( HUTTON) Gustafson - Parkland ER staff. While helping with resuscitation efforts a physician asked her to apply a pressure dressing to the head wound, she observed, however, that, "This was no use, however, because of the massive opening in the back of the head."
http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/boh/parkland_boh/parkland_wound.htm
&&&&&&&&
17. Dr. MARION THOMAS JENKINS Parkland staff. WC testimony "...a great laceration on the right side of the head (temporal and occipital) (sic), causing a great defect in the skull plate so that there was herniation and laceration of great areas of the brain, even to the extent that the cerebellum had protruded from the wound." (WC--Exhibit #392)
&&&&&&&&
18. Dr. RONALD COY JONES Parkland staff. WC testimony "He had a large wound in the right posterior side of the head... There was a large defect in the back side of the head as the President lay on the cart with what appeared to be some brain hanging out of this wound with multiple pieces of skull noted next with the brain and with a tremendous amount of clot and blood." (WC-V6:53-54)
&&&&&&&&
19. Dr. MALCOLM PERRY Parkland staff said "I looked at the head wound briefly by leaning over the table and noticed that the parietal occipital head wound was largely avulsive and there was visible brain tissue in the macard and some cerebellum seen..." (HSCA-V7:302-interview with Purdy 1-11-78.
&&&&&&&&
20. Dr. PAUL PETERS Parkland staff - WC testimony - "...I noticed that there was a large defect in the occiput...It seemed to me that in the right occipitalparietal area that there was a large defect." (WC-V6:71)
&&&&&&&&
21. Tom Robinson mortician with Gawler's. At Bethesda after autopsy enumerating head wounds, he "described a large, open head wound in the back of the president's head, centrally located right between the ears, where the bone was gone, as well as some scalp.
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=711&relPageId=3
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=350&relPageId=4
&&&&&&&&
22. Clinton Hill - Secret Service presidential detail. As kill shot rang out Hill was on the limo and covering the Kennedys. His WC testimony said "As I lay over the top of the back seat I noticed a portion of the President's head on the right rear side was missing and he was bleeding profusely. Part of his brain was gone. I saw a part of his skull with hair on it lying in the seat."
&&&&&&&&
23. Joe O'Donnell photographer. Spoke with Knudsen about photos of autopsy and saw head wound photo. Said "The back of the head photograph(s) showed a hole in the back of the head, about 2" above the hairline, about the size of a grapefruit; the hole clearly penetrated the skull and was very deep. Another one of the photographs showed a hole in the forehead above the right eye which was a round wound about 3/8" in diameter which he interpreted as a gunshot."
"The second occasion occurred a few days later, when Knudsen showed him a second set of photograph(s) once again about 12 ea 5" by 7" B&W prints. On this second occasion, the back-of-head photograph(s) was intact, and showed no hole in the back of the head. Instead of a hole, he remembers seeing neatly combed hair which looked slightly wet, or damp in appearance."
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=753&relPageId=2
While the nutter contingent has done all it can to discredit O'Donnell, Knudsen's family (wife and 2 of his kids) went to the ARRB and made corroborating statements as to the faking of some autopsy photos.
&&&&&&&&
24. Dr. Charles Baxter - Professor Of Surgery; Director Of Emergency Room. - Said "The right temporal and occipital bones were missing and the brain was lying on the table".
http://www.jfklancer.com/ParklandDrs.html
&&&&&&&&
25. Dr. John Ebersole - Acting Chief of Radiology and head of the Radiology Division - Bethesda. Said "The back of the head was missing...".
WC testimony.
&&&&&&&&
26. Saundra Key Spencer - Navy E-6 Photographer's Mate at Naval Photographic Center at Anacostia. ARRB testimony summary. Spencer was given a set of autopsy photos that were completely diferent than the ones we are all familiar with. They were cleaned up and showed the correct BOH wound. Most of her work was for the White House. Said: "She remembers a wound in the back of the president's head Which she described as a "Blown out chunk" about 2 to 2.5 inches wide located in about the center of the back of the president's head about 3 or 5 inches above the hairline at the back of his head.
&&&&&&&&
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=719
"Q. ...That is the drawing you made earlier today showing the size of the wound, which, by my very rough estimate, the wound you drew seems much smaller.
A. Much smaller, yes, it's larger than that. I should have made that larger, but I'm not much of an artist.
&&&&&&&&
28. Dr. Gene Akin - Parkland hospital. WC testimony. Said "The back of the right occipital-parietal portion of his head was shattered, with brain substance extruding."
&&&&&&&&
29. Jacqueline Kennedy - Wife of JFK - held JFK in her arms and had very close view of head wounds. Testimony of the head wounds was suppressed in the WC. She said ""I was trying to hold his hair on. From the front there was nothing --
I suppose there must have been. But from the back you could see,
you know, you were trying to hold his hair on, and his skull on...". If she was trying to hold his hair and skull on at the back or his head, then it was a big wound.
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/09/jackie-kennedy-testimony.html
&&&&&&&&
Lifton: Was the main damage to the skull on the top, or in the back?
Stringer: In the back.
Lifton: ...High In the back, or lower In the back?
Stringer: Oh, the occipital part in the back there (garbled) up above the neck.
Lifton: …In other words, the main part of his head that was blasted away was in the occipital part of the skull?
Stringer: Yes. the back part. [Tape played for Stringer in 1996, p78]
http://www.history-matters.com/essays/jfkmed/TracesOfWitnessTampering/TracesOfWitnessTampering.htm
&&&&&&&&
31. Jan Gail Rudnicki - Assistant to Boswell at Bethesda on night of autopsy. Interviewed by Flanagan for HSCA. Said: "the back-right quadrant of the head was missing."
http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/boh/beth/beth.htm
&&&&&&&&
32. James Metzler - Hospital Corpsman at Bethesda, helped put body from shipping casket to table. HSCA interview 4/21/78. "Metzler recalled a wound situated in the "right side of the head behind the right ear, extending down to the center of the back of the skull."
http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/boh/beth/beth.htm
&&&&&&&&
"Mr. KELLERMAN. OK. This all transpired in the morgue of the Naval Hospital in Bethesda, sir. He had a large wound this size.
Mr. SPECTER. Indicating a circle with your finger of the diameter of 5 inches; would that be approximately correct?
Mr. KELLERMAN. Yes, circular; yes, on this part of the head.
Mr. SPECTER. Indicating the rear portion of the head.
Mr. KELLERMAN. Yes.
Mr. SPECTER. More to the right side of the head?
Mr. KELLERMAN. Right. This was removed.
Mr. SPECTER. When you say, "This was removed," what do you mean by this?
Mr. KELLERMAN. The skull part was removed."
&&&&&&&&
http://youtu.be/Dvbuv_eLISk
&&&&&&&&
35. Chester Boyers - Chief Petty Officer Bethesda - head of pathology dept. - helped during autopsy with various functions. Interviewed for HSCA. "Concerning the wounds of President Kennedy, Mr. Boyers stated that there was a large wound to the right side and towards the rear of the head."
http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/pdf/md62.pdf
&&&&&&&&
36. Joseph Hagan - Gawler's embalming team - did their work at Bethesda after autopsy. Hagan was in charge of the team. His ARRB interview said: "However, he did state that "all of this was open in the back", while holding his two hands about 6 inches away from his upper posterior skull, gesturing to the area between both of his own ears on the back of his head."
&&&&&&&&
37. J. Thornton Boswell - Bethesda prosector at autopsy - the record said "Q. When you say the left posterior, what do you mean?
A. The left occipital area, and that wound extends to the right frontal area." An awfully large wound!
&&&&&&&&
http://youtu.be/5zxgYrc7-Zs
&&&&&&&&
39. Dr. Don Teal Curtis - Resident at Parkland hospital - Spoke to interviewer for Canyon News.com said: "Curtis also looked, and he told the audience “the posterior part of his head was blown out.”
Curtis, who had become very familiar with entrance and exit wounds during his trauma room work at Parkland, said that there was no doubt in his mind that the exit wound on the president’s head was at the back."
http://www.myplainview.com/canyon/news/article_f6555d0a-48c4-11e3-bbd1-001a4bcf887a.html
&&&&&&&&
http://youtu.be/aoJnfnRbasU
What about the Willis family? 24 minutes.
An interesting video! Go to 24:25 and listen to what the wife says.

Chris
Anthony Marsh
2018-04-06 15:01:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Amy Joyce
Post by mainframetech
This is the list of 'over 39' people that I have mentioned now and then that saw the 'large hole' in the BOH of JFK. I have gotten the information from only the most reputable places, like mostly from the WC, HSCA or ARRB.
The number '39' is there for each name below, but you can consider that the full number of 65 includes the people that witnessed the autopsy. The HSCA lied about them and said that they all saw a small bullet hole in the BOH, but that was found to be false and subsequent interviews of many of those people showed that they all agreed with those that saw the 'large hole' on the BOH. That puts the count way over 40, up to 65. The gallery people aren't named, but their positive statements were checked and put out by David W. Mantik, MD,PhD in "Murder in Dealey Plaza" his article "Paradoxes of the JFK Assassination" pages 197-198.
There are many references to a photo that has a montage of people on it. The reason is that the people use their hand to locate the 'gaping hole' in the BOH.
Chris/mainframetech
1. James Jenkins - lab assistant at Bethesda - testimony to HSCA
"Jenkins does not recall a small hole in the head as drawn on the descriptive sheet; he said that the big hole would have covered the area where the little hole was drawn on the sheet."
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=329&relPageId=12
&&&&&&&&
2. Dennis David 1st class petty officer - Bethesda. He was shown a film by LCDR Pitzer that showed the back of JFK's head while on the morgue table and before any cutting had begun. It was clearly the Bethesda morgue. He said it showed a 'gaping wound' in the back of the president's head and that the top of the head looked intact.
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=708&relPageId=4
&&&&&&&&
3. Robert L. Knudsen - photographer
"The back of the head photograph(s) showed a hole in the back of the head, about 2" above the hairline, about the size of a grapefruit; the hole clearly penetrated the skull and was very deep. Another one of the photographs showed a hole in the forehead above the right eye which was a round wound about 3/8" in diameter which he interpreted as a gunshot."
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/md231/html/md231_0002a.htm
&&&&&&&&
4. Ed Hoffman - deaf/mute watching from overpass. He said "The rear of his head was gone, blasted outward."
http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/Witness-reports-of-head-wound.jpg
&&&&&&&&
5. Dr. Robert McClelland - physician in ER at Parkland hospital. Said "It was in the right back part of his head--very large...a portion of the cerebellum fell out on the table while we were doing the tracheotomy."
http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/Witness-reports-of-head-wound.jpg
&&&&&&&&
6. Dr. Charles Carrico - Physician at Parkland ER. Said "There was a large--quite a large--defect about here (pointing) on his skull. See photo where he shows the area with his hand [BOH slightly right].
http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/Witness-reports-of-head-wound.jpg
&&&&&&&&
7. Dr. Charles Crenshaw - Physician at Parkland hospital ER. Said "The wound was the size of a baseball." Demonstrates with hand on the right rear of his head (see photo).
http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/Witness-reports-of-head-wound.jpg
&&&&&&&&
8. Nurse Audrey Bell - Parkland OR supervisor. Said "There was a massive wound at the back of his head." See [photo.
http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/Witness-reports-of-head-wound.jpg
&&&&&&&&
http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/Witness-reports-of-head-wound.jpg
&&&&&&&&
http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/Witness-reports-of-head-wound-640x481.jpg
&&&&&&&&
http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/Witness-reports-of-head-wound.jpg
&&&&&&&&
http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/Witness-reports-of-head-wound.jpg
&&&&&&&&
"Mr. SPECTER - You saw the condition of his what?
Miss BOWRON - The back of his head.
Mr. SPECTER - And what was that condition?
Miss BOWRON - Well, it was very bad---you know.
Mr. SPECTER - How many holes did you see?
Miss BOWRON - I just saw one large hole.
Mr. SPECTER - Did you see a small bullet hole beneath that one large hole?
Miss BOWRON - No, sir. "
&&&&&&&&
"...in the occipital region of the skull... Through the head wound, blood and brain were extruding... There was a large wound in the right occipitoparietal region, from which profuse bleeding was occurring... There was considerable loss of scalp and bone tissue. Both cerebral and cerebellar tissue were extruding from the wound." (WC--CE#392)
&&&&&&&&
15. Dr. RICHARD BROOKS DULANY - Parkland hospital, said: " The wound was on the back of his head. On the back side" They lifted up the head and "the whole back-side was gone." (Groden R., Livingston, H., High Treason. 1989 New York, Berkley Books, p.460.)
&&&&&&&&
16. Nurse Patricia ( HUTTON) Gustafson - Parkland ER staff. While helping with resuscitation efforts a physician asked her to apply a pressure dressing to the head wound, she observed, however, that, "This was no use, however, because of the massive opening in the back of the head."
http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/boh/parkland_boh/parkland_wound.htm
&&&&&&&&
17. Dr. MARION THOMAS JENKINS Parkland staff. WC testimony "...a great laceration on the right side of the head (temporal and occipital) (sic), causing a great defect in the skull plate so that there was herniation and laceration of great areas of the brain, even to the extent that the cerebellum had protruded from the wound." (WC--Exhibit #392)
&&&&&&&&
18. Dr. RONALD COY JONES Parkland staff. WC testimony "He had a large wound in the right posterior side of the head... There was a large defect in the back side of the head as the President lay on the cart with what appeared to be some brain hanging out of this wound with multiple pieces of skull noted next with the brain and with a tremendous amount of clot and blood." (WC-V6:53-54)
&&&&&&&&
19. Dr. MALCOLM PERRY Parkland staff said "I looked at the head wound briefly by leaning over the table and noticed that the parietal occipital head wound was largely avulsive and there was visible brain tissue in the macard and some cerebellum seen..." (HSCA-V7:302-interview with Purdy 1-11-78.
&&&&&&&&
20. Dr. PAUL PETERS Parkland staff - WC testimony - "...I noticed that there was a large defect in the occiput...It seemed to me that in the right occipitalparietal area that there was a large defect." (WC-V6:71)
&&&&&&&&
21. Tom Robinson mortician with Gawler's. At Bethesda after autopsy enumerating head wounds, he "described a large, open head wound in the back of the president's head, centrally located right between the ears, where the bone was gone, as well as some scalp.
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=711&relPageId=3
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=350&relPageId=4
&&&&&&&&
22. Clinton Hill - Secret Service presidential detail. As kill shot rang out Hill was on the limo and covering the Kennedys. His WC testimony said "As I lay over the top of the back seat I noticed a portion of the President's head on the right rear side was missing and he was bleeding profusely. Part of his brain was gone. I saw a part of his skull with hair on it lying in the seat."
&&&&&&&&
23. Joe O'Donnell photographer. Spoke with Knudsen about photos of autopsy and saw head wound photo. Said "The back of the head photograph(s) showed a hole in the back of the head, about 2" above the hairline, about the size of a grapefruit; the hole clearly penetrated the skull and was very deep. Another one of the photographs showed a hole in the forehead above the right eye which was a round wound about 3/8" in diameter which he interpreted as a gunshot."
"The second occasion occurred a few days later, when Knudsen showed him a second set of photograph(s) once again about 12 ea 5" by 7" B&W prints. On this second occasion, the back-of-head photograph(s) was intact, and showed no hole in the back of the head. Instead of a hole, he remembers seeing neatly combed hair which looked slightly wet, or damp in appearance."
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=753&relPageId=2
While the nutter contingent has done all it can to discredit O'Donnell, Knudsen's family (wife and 2 of his kids) went to the ARRB and made corroborating statements as to the faking of some autopsy photos.
&&&&&&&&
24. Dr. Charles Baxter - Professor Of Surgery; Director Of Emergency Room. - Said "The right temporal and occipital bones were missing and the brain was lying on the table".
http://www.jfklancer.com/ParklandDrs.html
&&&&&&&&
25. Dr. John Ebersole - Acting Chief of Radiology and head of the Radiology Division - Bethesda. Said "The back of the head was missing...".
WC testimony.
&&&&&&&&
26. Saundra Key Spencer - Navy E-6 Photographer's Mate at Naval Photographic Center at Anacostia. ARRB testimony summary. Spencer was given a set of autopsy photos that were completely diferent than the ones we are all familiar with. They were cleaned up and showed the correct BOH wound. Most of her work was for the White House. Said: "She remembers a wound in the back of the president's head Which she described as a "Blown out chunk" about 2 to 2.5 inches wide located in about the center of the back of the president's head about 3 or 5 inches above the hairline at the back of his head.
&&&&&&&&
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=719
"Q. ...That is the drawing you made earlier today showing the size of the wound, which, by my very rough estimate, the wound you drew seems much smaller.
A. Much smaller, yes, it's larger than that. I should have made that larger, but I'm not much of an artist.
&&&&&&&&
28. Dr. Gene Akin - Parkland hospital. WC testimony. Said "The back of the right occipital-parietal portion of his head was shattered, with brain substance extruding."
&&&&&&&&
29. Jacqueline Kennedy - Wife of JFK - held JFK in her arms and had very close view of head wounds. Testimony of the head wounds was suppressed in the WC. She said ""I was trying to hold his hair on. From the front there was nothing --
I suppose there must have been. But from the back you could see,
you know, you were trying to hold his hair on, and his skull on...". If she was trying to hold his hair and skull on at the back or his head, then it was a big wound.
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/09/jackie-kennedy-testimony.html
&&&&&&&&
Lifton: Was the main damage to the skull on the top, or in the back?
Stringer: In the back.
Lifton: ...High In the back, or lower In the back?
Stringer: Oh, the occipital part in the back there (garbled) up above the neck.
Lifton: …In other words, the main part of his head that was blasted away was in the occipital part of the skull?
Stringer: Yes. the back part. [Tape played for Stringer in 1996, p78]
http://www.history-matters.com/essays/jfkmed/TracesOfWitnessTampering/TracesOfWitnessTampering.htm
&&&&&&&&
31. Jan Gail Rudnicki - Assistant to Boswell at Bethesda on night of autopsy. Interviewed by Flanagan for HSCA. Said: "the back-right quadrant of the head was missing."
http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/boh/beth/beth.htm
&&&&&&&&
32. James Metzler - Hospital Corpsman at Bethesda, helped put body from shipping casket to table. HSCA interview 4/21/78. "Metzler recalled a wound situated in the "right side of the head behind the right ear, extending down to the center of the back of the skull."
http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/boh/beth/beth.htm
&&&&&&&&
"Mr. KELLERMAN. OK. This all transpired in the morgue of the Naval Hospital in Bethesda, sir. He had a large wound this size.
Mr. SPECTER. Indicating a circle with your finger of the diameter of 5 inches; would that be approximately correct?
Mr. KELLERMAN. Yes, circular; yes, on this part of the head.
Mr. SPECTER. Indicating the rear portion of the head.
Mr. KELLERMAN. Yes.
Mr. SPECTER. More to the right side of the head?
Mr. KELLERMAN. Right. This was removed.
Mr. SPECTER. When you say, "This was removed," what do you mean by this?
Mr. KELLERMAN. The skull part was removed."
&&&&&&&&
http://youtu.be/Dvbuv_eLISk
&&&&&&&&
35. Chester Boyers - Chief Petty Officer Bethesda - head of pathology dept. - helped during autopsy with various functions. Interviewed for HSCA. "Concerning the wounds of President Kennedy, Mr. Boyers stated that there was a large wound to the right side and towards the rear of the head."
http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/pdf/md62.pdf
&&&&&&&&
36. Joseph Hagan - Gawler's embalming team - did their work at Bethesda after autopsy. Hagan was in charge of the team. His ARRB interview said: "However, he did state that "all of this was open in the back", while holding his two hands about 6 inches away from his upper posterior skull, gesturing to the area between both of his own ears on the back of his head."
&&&&&&&&
37. J. Thornton Boswell - Bethesda prosector at autopsy - the record said "Q. When you say the left posterior, what do you mean?
A. The left occipital area, and that wound extends to the right frontal area." An awfully large wound!
&&&&&&&&
http://youtu.be/5zxgYrc7-Zs
&&&&&&&&
39. Dr. Don Teal Curtis - Resident at Parkland hospital - Spoke to interviewer for Canyon News.com said: "Curtis also looked, and he told the audience “the posterior part of his head was blown out.”
Curtis, who had become very familiar with entrance and exit wounds during his trauma room work at Parkland, said that there was no doubt in his mind that the exit wound on the president’s head was at the back."
http://www.myplainview.com/canyon/news/article_f6555d0a-48c4-11e3-bbd1-001a4bcf887a.html
&&&&&&&&
http://youtu.be/aoJnfnRbasU
What about the Willis family? 24 minutes.
What about them? They were on the SOUTH side of Elm, so they did not
have the same view as most of his witnesses.