Discussion:
Douglas L Jackson's Single Bullet Theory
Add Reply
BOZ
2018-04-22 00:46:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
According to J C Bowles:

An officer, identified as "C," was riding to the right rear of the
President's limousine and a second motorcycle away from the president. He
was coming to a stop as the first shot was fired. He had just finished
looking ahead in the direction of the grassy knoll and saw nothing that
would command his attention. He had thought the sound was from overheated
motorcycle backfiring near Elm and Houston as the sound definitely came
from the rear of his position. He was looking directly at President
Kennedy from a distance no greater than ten to twelve feet. The first shot
seemed to have missed, and Governor Connally started to turn. He heard the
second shot and saw that the President had been hit in the back near the
base of his neck, and that the President grabbed his throat. He also saw
Governor Connally jerk, apparently hit too. Then, his eyes frozen on this
sight, the third shot struck with ghastly effect, that shot, too, coming
from the right rear of the limousine. His mind clearly recorded that three
shots were fired and that they were fired from the direction of Elm and
Houston Streets. He wrote a journal(7) recording his observations that
same day, suggesting the "Single Bullet Theory" before there was one. He,
too, was interviewed, but his testimony was neither used nor impeached.

http://www.jfk-online.com/bowles3.html
bigdog
2018-04-23 01:59:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by BOZ
An officer, identified as "C," was riding to the right rear of the
President's limousine and a second motorcycle away from the president. He
was coming to a stop as the first shot was fired. He had just finished
looking ahead in the direction of the grassy knoll and saw nothing that
would command his attention. He had thought the sound was from overheated
motorcycle backfiring near Elm and Houston as the sound definitely came
from the rear of his position. He was looking directly at President
Kennedy from a distance no greater than ten to twelve feet. The first shot
seemed to have missed, and Governor Connally started to turn. He heard the
second shot and saw that the President had been hit in the back near the
base of his neck, and that the President grabbed his throat. He also saw
Governor Connally jerk, apparently hit too. Then, his eyes frozen on this
sight, the third shot struck with ghastly effect, that shot, too, coming
from the right rear of the limousine. His mind clearly recorded that three
shots were fired and that they were fired from the direction of Elm and
Houston Streets. He wrote a journal(7) recording his observations that
same day, suggesting the "Single Bullet Theory" before there was one. He,
too, was interviewed, but his testimony was neither used nor impeached.
http://www.jfk-online.com/bowles3.html
Sounds like an accurate description of what happened but as with any
witness, it shouldn't be assumed this account is right or wrong. It should
be compared to the body of evidence to determine whether or not it is
accurate. In this case, this account dovetails well with the Z-film and
also SSA Bennett's account which he wrote aboard AF1. The SBT of course
remains the only plausible explanation for the wounds to JFK and JBC.

The one thing that makes me wonder about this is that I had never heard it
before. Is this the only source for this story. It says the officer wrote
a journal that same day. Does that journal still exist? While I believe
this is an accurate account, a little skepticism is still called for.
mainframetech
2018-04-24 01:03:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by BOZ
Post by BOZ
An officer, identified as "C," was riding to the right rear of the
President's limousine and a second motorcycle away from the president. He
was coming to a stop as the first shot was fired.
Ah! Proof that the limousine slowed almost to a stop, in that the
motorcycles also had to stop to stay in position.
Post by BOZ
He had just finished
Post by BOZ
looking ahead in the direction of the grassy knoll and saw nothing that
would command his attention.
Which doesn't mean there wasn't 2 or more men with rifles end on
showing and a bit of a head looking down a sight. Hard to see while
moving on a motorcycle and trying to balance as you came to a stop.
Post by BOZ
Post by BOZ
He had thought the sound was from overheated
motorcycle backfiring near Elm and Houston as the sound definitely came
from the rear of his position. He was looking directly at President
Kennedy from a distance no greater than ten to twelve feet. The first shot
seemed to have missed, and Governor Connally started to turn. He heard the
second shot and saw that the President had been hit in the back near the
base of his neck, and that the President grabbed his throat. He also saw
Governor Connally jerk, apparently hit too. Then, his eyes frozen on this
sight, the third shot struck with ghastly effect, that shot, too, coming
from the right rear of the limousine. His mind clearly recorded that three
shots were fired and that they were fired from the direction of Elm and
Houston Streets. He wrote a journal(7) recording his observations that
same day, suggesting the "Single Bullet Theory" before there was one. He,
too, was interviewed, but his testimony was neither used nor impeached.
http://www.jfk-online.com/bowles3.html
Sounds like an accurate description of what happened but as with any
witness, it shouldn't be assumed this account is right or wrong. It should
be compared to the body of evidence to determine whether or not it is
accurate. In this case, this account dovetails well with the Z-film and
also SSA Bennett's account which he wrote aboard AF1. The SBT of course
remains the only plausible explanation for the wounds to JFK and JBC.
WRONG as usual! There are other plausible explanations, some of which
are the right ones. That is that there was a plot and there were many
shooters firing in the direction of JFK, and Connally got in the line of
fire. That is far more believable than the SBT, which was shown to be
false.
Post by BOZ
The one thing that makes me wonder about this is that I had never heard it
a journal that same day. Does that journal still exist? While I believe
this is an accurate account, a little skepticism is still called for.
Oh yes! Quite a lot!

Chris
bigdog
2018-04-25 01:22:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by BOZ
Post by BOZ
An officer, identified as "C," was riding to the right rear of the
President's limousine and a second motorcycle away from the president. He
was coming to a stop as the first shot was fired.
Ah! Proof that the limousine slowed almost to a stop, in that the
motorcycles also had to stop to stay in position.
Post by BOZ
He had just finished
Post by BOZ
looking ahead in the direction of the grassy knoll and saw nothing that
would command his attention.
Which doesn't mean there wasn't 2 or more men with rifles end on
showing and a bit of a head looking down a sight. Hard to see while
moving on a motorcycle and trying to balance as you came to a stop.
Post by BOZ
Post by BOZ
He had thought the sound was from overheated
motorcycle backfiring near Elm and Houston as the sound definitely came
from the rear of his position. He was looking directly at President
Kennedy from a distance no greater than ten to twelve feet. The first shot
seemed to have missed, and Governor Connally started to turn. He heard the
second shot and saw that the President had been hit in the back near the
base of his neck, and that the President grabbed his throat. He also saw
Governor Connally jerk, apparently hit too. Then, his eyes frozen on this
sight, the third shot struck with ghastly effect, that shot, too, coming
from the right rear of the limousine. His mind clearly recorded that three
shots were fired and that they were fired from the direction of Elm and
Houston Streets. He wrote a journal(7) recording his observations that
same day, suggesting the "Single Bullet Theory" before there was one. He,
too, was interviewed, but his testimony was neither used nor impeached.
http://www.jfk-online.com/bowles3.html
Sounds like an accurate description of what happened but as with any
witness, it shouldn't be assumed this account is right or wrong. It should
be compared to the body of evidence to determine whether or not it is
accurate. In this case, this account dovetails well with the Z-film and
also SSA Bennett's account which he wrote aboard AF1. The SBT of course
remains the only plausible explanation for the wounds to JFK and JBC.
WRONG as usual! There are other plausible explanations,
Maybe someday you'll be able to come up with one.
Post by mainframetech
some of which are the right ones.
How can there be more than one right one? How many different ways do you
think the assassination happened?
Post by mainframetech
That is that there was a plot and there were many
shooters firing in the direction of JFK, and Connally got in the line of
fire. That is far more believable than the SBT, which was shown to be
false.
You're explanation is a little sketchy on the details there, ace. Do you
think you could fill in the blanks?
Post by mainframetech
Post by BOZ
The one thing that makes me wonder about this is that I had never heard it
a journal that same day. Does that journal still exist? While I believe
this is an accurate account, a little skepticism is still called for.
Oh yes! Quite a lot!
Notice I didn't adopt your tactic of automatically assuming a witness
account that fits my beliefs is automatically true.
mainframetech
2018-04-26 00:59:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by BOZ
Post by BOZ
An officer, identified as "C," was riding to the right rear of the
President's limousine and a second motorcycle away from the president. He
was coming to a stop as the first shot was fired.
Ah! Proof that the limousine slowed almost to a stop, in that the
motorcycles also had to stop to stay in position.
Post by BOZ
He had just finished
Post by BOZ
looking ahead in the direction of the grassy knoll and saw nothing that
would command his attention.
Which doesn't mean there wasn't 2 or more men with rifles end on
showing and a bit of a head looking down a sight. Hard to see while
moving on a motorcycle and trying to balance as you came to a stop.
Post by BOZ
Post by BOZ
He had thought the sound was from overheated
motorcycle backfiring near Elm and Houston as the sound definitely came
from the rear of his position. He was looking directly at President
Kennedy from a distance no greater than ten to twelve feet. The first shot
seemed to have missed, and Governor Connally started to turn. He heard the
second shot and saw that the President had been hit in the back near the
base of his neck, and that the President grabbed his throat. He also saw
Governor Connally jerk, apparently hit too. Then, his eyes frozen on this
sight, the third shot struck with ghastly effect, that shot, too, coming
from the right rear of the limousine. His mind clearly recorded that three
shots were fired and that they were fired from the direction of Elm and
Houston Streets. He wrote a journal(7) recording his observations that
same day, suggesting the "Single Bullet Theory" before there was one. He,
too, was interviewed, but his testimony was neither used nor impeached.
http://www.jfk-online.com/bowles3.html
Sounds like an accurate description of what happened but as with any
witness, it shouldn't be assumed this account is right or wrong. It should
be compared to the body of evidence to determine whether or not it is
accurate. In this case, this account dovetails well with the Z-film and
also SSA Bennett's account which he wrote aboard AF1. The SBT of course
remains the only plausible explanation for the wounds to JFK and JBC.
WRONG as usual! There are other plausible explanations,
Maybe someday you'll be able to come up with one.
I've already done so. The views of the inside of the body by the
autopsy team told them that there was no such thing as the 'single bullet'
theory. It leaves only the shot from another shooter that hit Connally.
As a plausible story, the truth fits best.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
some of which are the right ones.
How can there be more than one right one? How many different ways do you
think the assassination happened?
I've mentioned the right one above, and elsewhere, and to you as
well. Are you going to play that you forgot again?
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
That is that there was a plot and there were many
shooters firing in the direction of JFK, and Connally got in the line of
fire. That is far more believable than the SBT, which was shown to be
false.
You're explanation is a little sketchy on the details there, ace. Do you
think you could fill in the blanks?
You mean you can't figure out what I said? There were many shooters
firing at JFK, and Connally got hit by one or more of the bullets flying
around.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by BOZ
The one thing that makes me wonder about this is that I had never heard it
a journal that same day. Does that journal still exist? While I believe
this is an accurate account, a little skepticism is still called for.
Oh yes! Quite a lot!
Notice I didn't adopt your tactic of automatically assuming a witness
account that fits my beliefs is automatically true.
bigdog
2018-04-27 00:17:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by BOZ
Post by BOZ
An officer, identified as "C," was riding to the right rear of the
President's limousine and a second motorcycle away from the president. He
was coming to a stop as the first shot was fired.
Ah! Proof that the limousine slowed almost to a stop, in that the
motorcycles also had to stop to stay in position.
Post by BOZ
He had just finished
Post by BOZ
looking ahead in the direction of the grassy knoll and saw nothing that
would command his attention.
Which doesn't mean there wasn't 2 or more men with rifles end on
showing and a bit of a head looking down a sight. Hard to see while
moving on a motorcycle and trying to balance as you came to a stop.
Post by BOZ
Post by BOZ
He had thought the sound was from overheated
motorcycle backfiring near Elm and Houston as the sound definitely came
from the rear of his position. He was looking directly at President
Kennedy from a distance no greater than ten to twelve feet. The first shot
seemed to have missed, and Governor Connally started to turn. He heard the
second shot and saw that the President had been hit in the back near the
base of his neck, and that the President grabbed his throat. He also saw
Governor Connally jerk, apparently hit too. Then, his eyes frozen on this
sight, the third shot struck with ghastly effect, that shot, too, coming
from the right rear of the limousine. His mind clearly recorded that three
shots were fired and that they were fired from the direction of Elm and
Houston Streets. He wrote a journal(7) recording his observations that
same day, suggesting the "Single Bullet Theory" before there was one. He,
too, was interviewed, but his testimony was neither used nor impeached.
http://www.jfk-online.com/bowles3.html
Sounds like an accurate description of what happened but as with any
witness, it shouldn't be assumed this account is right or wrong. It should
be compared to the body of evidence to determine whether or not it is
accurate. In this case, this account dovetails well with the Z-film and
also SSA Bennett's account which he wrote aboard AF1. The SBT of course
remains the only plausible explanation for the wounds to JFK and JBC.
WRONG as usual! There are other plausible explanations,
Maybe someday you'll be able to come up with one.
I've already done so. The views of the inside of the body by the
autopsy team told them that there was no such thing as the 'single bullet'
theory. It leaves only the shot from another shooter that hit Connally.
As a plausible story, the truth fits best.
You haven't come up with plausible explanation. You are disputing the
explanation given by the WC. The WC told us where the shot was fired from,
what wounds it caused, and where the bullet ended up. You have done none
of that. You have simply dismissed the SBT without offering a viable
alternative.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
some of which are the right ones.
How can there be more than one right one? How many different ways do you
think the assassination happened?
I've mentioned the right one above, and elsewhere, and to you as
well. Are you going to play that you forgot again?
You have done nothing but offer a denial of the SBT without providing a
viable alternative in its place. Just a vague claim that it must be
something else but you can't tell us what that something else is.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
That is that there was a plot and there were many
shooters firing in the direction of JFK, and Connally got in the line of
fire. That is far more believable than the SBT, which was shown to be
false.
You're explanation is a little sketchy on the details there, ace. Do you
think you could fill in the blanks?
You mean you can't figure out what I said? There were many shooters
firing at JFK, and Connally got hit by one or more of the bullets flying
around.
I guess that tells us you can't fill in the blanks. You can't tell us
where the shots were fired from that caused each of the wounds to JFK and
JBC and where those bullets went after causing those wounds. The WC was
able to do that. Here we are 54 years later and you still aren't up to the
task. If you can't offer specifics, you haven't presented a viable
alternative.
mainframetech
2018-04-28 22:53:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by BOZ
Post by BOZ
An officer, identified as "C," was riding to the right rear of the
President's limousine and a second motorcycle away from the president. He
was coming to a stop as the first shot was fired.
Ah! Proof that the limousine slowed almost to a stop, in that the
motorcycles also had to stop to stay in position.
Post by BOZ
He had just finished
Post by BOZ
looking ahead in the direction of the grassy knoll and saw nothing that
would command his attention.
Which doesn't mean there wasn't 2 or more men with rifles end on
showing and a bit of a head looking down a sight. Hard to see while
moving on a motorcycle and trying to balance as you came to a stop.
Post by BOZ
Post by BOZ
He had thought the sound was from overheated
motorcycle backfiring near Elm and Houston as the sound definitely came
from the rear of his position. He was looking directly at President
Kennedy from a distance no greater than ten to twelve feet. The first shot
seemed to have missed, and Governor Connally started to turn. He heard the
second shot and saw that the President had been hit in the back near the
base of his neck, and that the President grabbed his throat. He also saw
Governor Connally jerk, apparently hit too. Then, his eyes frozen on this
sight, the third shot struck with ghastly effect, that shot, too, coming
from the right rear of the limousine. His mind clearly recorded that three
shots were fired and that they were fired from the direction of Elm and
Houston Streets. He wrote a journal(7) recording his observations that
same day, suggesting the "Single Bullet Theory" before there was one. He,
too, was interviewed, but his testimony was neither used nor impeached.
http://www.jfk-online.com/bowles3.html
Sounds like an accurate description of what happened but as with any
witness, it shouldn't be assumed this account is right or wrong. It should
be compared to the body of evidence to determine whether or not it is
accurate. In this case, this account dovetails well with the Z-film and
also SSA Bennett's account which he wrote aboard AF1. The SBT of course
remains the only plausible explanation for the wounds to JFK and JBC.
WRONG as usual! There are other plausible explanations,
Maybe someday you'll be able to come up with one.
I've already done so. The views of the inside of the body by the
autopsy team told them that there was no such thing as the 'single bullet'
theory. It leaves only the shot from another shooter that hit Connally.
As a plausible story, the truth fits best.
You haven't come up with plausible explanation. You are disputing the
explanation given by the WC. The WC told us where the shot was fired from,
what wounds it caused, and where the bullet ended up. You have done none
of that. You have simply dismissed the SBT without offering a viable
alternative.
WRONG! I have not even tried to come up with an alternative because I
was able to come up with the truth of the upper back wound. That bullet
never went past the body of JFK, and it's been proven by testimony of 2 of
those in the autopsy team. You stupid WCR came up with a THEORY!!
Theories are not the truth, only guesses.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
some of which are the right ones.
How can there be more than one right one? How many different ways do you
think the assassination happened?
I've mentioned the right one above, and elsewhere, and to you as
well. Are you going to play that you forgot again?
You have done nothing but offer a denial of the SBT without providing a
viable alternative in its place. Just a vague claim that it must be
something else but you can't tell us what that something else is.
REPEAT: THERE IS NO NEED FOR A "VIABLE ALTERNATIVE", GET IT THROUGH
YOUR HEAD. It was shown that the bullet never went past the pleura in the
body of JDFK, and so never left the body and therefore never hot Connally.
You have the truth, now don't go dismissing it like so many other bits of
proof.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
That is that there was a plot and there were many
shooters firing in the direction of JFK, and Connally got in the line of
fire. That is far more believable than the SBT, which was shown to be
false.
You're explanation is a little sketchy on the details there, ace. Do you
think you could fill in the blanks?
You mean you can't figure out what I said? There were many shooters
firing at JFK, and Connally got hit by one or more of the bullets flying
around.
I guess that tells us you can't fill in the blanks. You can't tell us
where the shots were fired from that caused each of the wounds to JFK and
JBC and where those bullets went after causing those wounds. The WC was
able to do that. Here we are 54 years later and you still aren't up to the
task. If you can't offer specifics, you haven't presented a viable
alternative.
It's amazing how stupid humans can be sometimes. No one here could
tell where most of the shots came from. That's one of your red herrings
drug across the path to mislead everyone. Most of the answers were known
many years ago. The ARRB files had them. You wouldn't know about that
since you rarely visit there. Repeat, when you know the truth, you don't
need alternatives.

Chris
bigdog
2018-04-29 23:40:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by BOZ
Post by BOZ
An officer, identified as "C," was riding to the right rear of the
President's limousine and a second motorcycle away from the president. He
was coming to a stop as the first shot was fired.
Ah! Proof that the limousine slowed almost to a stop, in that the
motorcycles also had to stop to stay in position.
Post by BOZ
He had just finished
Post by BOZ
looking ahead in the direction of the grassy knoll and saw nothing that
would command his attention.
Which doesn't mean there wasn't 2 or more men with rifles end on
showing and a bit of a head looking down a sight. Hard to see while
moving on a motorcycle and trying to balance as you came to a stop.
Post by BOZ
Post by BOZ
He had thought the sound was from overheated
motorcycle backfiring near Elm and Houston as the sound definitely came
from the rear of his position. He was looking directly at President
Kennedy from a distance no greater than ten to twelve feet. The first shot
seemed to have missed, and Governor Connally started to turn. He heard the
second shot and saw that the President had been hit in the back near the
base of his neck, and that the President grabbed his throat. He also saw
Governor Connally jerk, apparently hit too. Then, his eyes frozen on this
sight, the third shot struck with ghastly effect, that shot, too, coming
from the right rear of the limousine. His mind clearly recorded that three
shots were fired and that they were fired from the direction of Elm and
Houston Streets. He wrote a journal(7) recording his observations that
same day, suggesting the "Single Bullet Theory" before there was one. He,
too, was interviewed, but his testimony was neither used nor impeached.
http://www.jfk-online.com/bowles3.html
Sounds like an accurate description of what happened but as with any
witness, it shouldn't be assumed this account is right or wrong. It should
be compared to the body of evidence to determine whether or not it is
accurate. In this case, this account dovetails well with the Z-film and
also SSA Bennett's account which he wrote aboard AF1. The SBT of course
remains the only plausible explanation for the wounds to JFK and JBC.
WRONG as usual! There are other plausible explanations,
Maybe someday you'll be able to come up with one.
I've already done so. The views of the inside of the body by the
autopsy team told them that there was no such thing as the 'single bullet'
theory. It leaves only the shot from another shooter that hit Connally.
As a plausible story, the truth fits best.
You haven't come up with plausible explanation. You are disputing the
explanation given by the WC. The WC told us where the shot was fired from,
what wounds it caused, and where the bullet ended up. You have done none
of that. You have simply dismissed the SBT without offering a viable
alternative.
WRONG! I have not even tried to come up with an alternative because I
was able to come up with the truth of the upper back wound.
So you admit there is no plausible alternative to the SBT.
Post by mainframetech
That bullet
never went past the body of JFK, and it's been proven by testimony of 2 of
those in the autopsy team. You stupid WCR came up with a THEORY!!
Theories are not the truth, only guesses.
It is your conclusion that the bullet never went past the body of JFK. No
competent medical examiner has reached that conclusion. They are unanimous
in their verdict that JFK was struck twice from behind and that the bullet
that struck him in the back exited from his throat. Your amateurish
opinions do not trump theirs. That makes the SBT plausible and to date it
remains the only plausible explanation.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
some of which are the right ones.
How can there be more than one right one? How many different ways do you
think the assassination happened?
I've mentioned the right one above, and elsewhere, and to you as
well. Are you going to play that you forgot again?
You have done nothing but offer a denial of the SBT without providing a
viable alternative in its place. Just a vague claim that it must be
something else but you can't tell us what that something else is.
REPEAT: THERE IS NO NEED FOR A "VIABLE ALTERNATIVE", GET IT THROUGH
YOUR HEAD. It was shown that the bullet never went past the pleura in the
body of JDFK, and so never left the body and therefore never hot Connally.
You have the truth, now don't go dismissing it like so many other bits of
proof.
You have convinced yourself that the bullet never exited from JFK's
throat. Now all you have to do is convince the other 7 billion people on
the planet of that.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
That is that there was a plot and there were many
shooters firing in the direction of JFK, and Connally got in the line of
fire. That is far more believable than the SBT, which was shown to be
false.
You're explanation is a little sketchy on the details there, ace. Do you
think you could fill in the blanks?
You mean you can't figure out what I said? There were many shooters
firing at JFK, and Connally got hit by one or more of the bullets flying
around.
I guess that tells us you can't fill in the blanks. You can't tell us
where the shots were fired from that caused each of the wounds to JFK and
JBC and where those bullets went after causing those wounds. The WC was
able to do that. Here we are 54 years later and you still aren't up to the
task. If you can't offer specifics, you haven't presented a viable
alternative.
It's amazing how stupid humans can be sometimes.
Irony noted.
Post by mainframetech
No one here could tell where most of the shots came from.
Speak for yourself. A lot of us have figured out all the shots came from
the sniper's nest.
Post by mainframetech
That's one of your red herrings
drug across the path to mislead everyone. Most of the answers were known
many years ago.
Maybe someday you'll get up to speed. First you have to take your car out
of neutral.
Post by mainframetech
The ARRB files had them. You wouldn't know about that
since you rarely visit there. Repeat, when you know the truth, you don't
need alternatives.
I was aware of the ARRB long before you ever stumbled across them and I
also know there was nothing in them that proved to be a game changer, much
to the chagrin of the conspiracy hobbyists back in the 1990s. Most of them
have moved on from the ARRB because they discovered it was a big nothing
burger.
mainframetech
2018-05-01 02:47:53 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 BOZ
Post by BOZ
An officer, identified as "C," was riding to the right rear of the
President's limousine and a second motorcycle away from the president. He
was coming to a stop as the first shot was fired.
Ah! Proof that the limousine slowed almost to a stop, in that the
motorcycles also had to stop to stay in position.
Post by BOZ
He had just finished
Post by BOZ
looking ahead in the direction of the grassy knoll and saw nothing that
would command his attention.
Which doesn't mean there wasn't 2 or more men with rifles end on
showing and a bit of a head looking down a sight. Hard to see while
moving on a motorcycle and trying to balance as you came to a stop.
Post by BOZ
Post by BOZ
He had thought the sound was from overheated
motorcycle backfiring near Elm and Houston as the sound definitely came
from the rear of his position. He was looking directly at President
Kennedy from a distance no greater than ten to twelve feet. The first shot
seemed to have missed, and Governor Connally started to turn. He heard the
second shot and saw that the President had been hit in the back near the
base of his neck, and that the President grabbed his throat. He also saw
Governor Connally jerk, apparently hit too. Then, his eyes frozen on this
sight, the third shot struck with ghastly effect, that shot, too, coming
from the right rear of the limousine. His mind clearly recorded that three
shots were fired and that they were fired from the direction of Elm and
Houston Streets. He wrote a journal(7) recording his observations that
same day, suggesting the "Single Bullet Theory" before there was one. He,
too, was interviewed, but his testimony was neither used nor impeached.
http://www.jfk-online.com/bowles3.html
Sounds like an accurate description of what happened but as with any
witness, it shouldn't be assumed this account is right or wrong. It should
be compared to the body of evidence to determine whether or not it is
accurate. In this case, this account dovetails well with the Z-film and
also SSA Bennett's account which he wrote aboard AF1. The SBT of course
remains the only plausible explanation for the wounds to JFK and JBC.
WRONG as usual! There are other plausible explanations,
Maybe someday you'll be able to come up with one.
I've already done so. The views of the inside of the body by the
autopsy team told them that there was no such thing as the 'single bullet'
theory. It leaves only the shot from another shooter that hit Connally.
As a plausible story, the truth fits best.
You haven't come up with plausible explanation. You are disputing the
explanation given by the WC. The WC told us where the shot was fired from,
what wounds it caused, and where the bullet ended up. You have done none
of that. You have simply dismissed the SBT without offering a viable
alternative.
WRONG! I have not even tried to come up with an alternative because I
was able to come up with the truth of the upper back wound.
So you admit there is no plausible alternative to the SBT.
WRONG again! Read the above statement I made before you blat. There
is no alternative to the SBT except the truth, which I've given to you.
You will ignore it because of your faith in the WCR, but it wasn't for you
anyway.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
That bullet
never went past the body of JFK, and it's been proven by testimony of 2 of
those in the autopsy team. Your stupid WCR came up with a THEORY!!
Theories are not the truth, only guesses.
It is your conclusion that the bullet never went past the body of JFK. No
competent medical examiner has reached that conclusion. They are unanimous
in their verdict that JFK was struck twice from behind and that the bullet
that struck him in the back exited from his throat. Your amateurish
opinions do not trump theirs. That makes the SBT plausible and to date it
remains the only plausible explanation.
WRONG again! You'll never learn. The medical panels did not have all
the information that we have available to us. If they did have it, they
could have made the right conclusions too. It was really simple once you
knew the details from the autopsy.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
some of which are the right ones.
How can there be more than one right one? How many different ways do you
think the assassination happened?
I've mentioned the right one above, and elsewhere, and to you as
well. Are you going to play that you forgot again?
You have done nothing but offer a denial of the SBT without providing a
viable alternative in its place. Just a vague claim that it must be
something else but you can't tell us what that something else is.
REPEAT: THERE IS NO NEED FOR A "VIABLE ALTERNATIVE", GET IT THROUGH
YOUR HEAD. It was shown that the bullet never went past the pleura in the
body of JFK, and so never left the body and therefore never hit Connally.
You have the truth, now don't go dismissing it like so many other bits of
proof.
You have convinced yourself that the bullet never exited from JFK's
throat. Now all you have to do is convince the other 7 billion people on
the planet of that.
REPEAT FOR YOU: I HAVE NOT CONVINCED MYSELF OF ANYTIHNG. I just
happen to know the truth stated during the autopsy. And I don't have to
convince anyone. I put the info out there and folks will understand it or
they won't.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
That is that there was a plot and there were many
shooters firing in the direction of JFK, and Connally got in the line of
fire. That is far more believable than the SBT, which was shown to be
false.
You're explanation is a little sketchy on the details there, ace. Do you
think you could fill in the blanks?
You mean you can't figure out what I said? There were many shooters
firing at JFK, and Connally got hit by one or more of the bullets flying
around.
I guess that tells us you can't fill in the blanks. You can't tell us
where the shots were fired from that caused each of the wounds to JFK and
JBC and where those bullets went after causing those wounds. The WC was
able to do that. Here we are 54 years later and you still aren't up to the
task. If you can't offer specifics, you haven't presented a viable
alternative.
It's amazing how stupid humans can be sometimes.
Irony noted.
Post by mainframetech
No one here could tell where most of the shots came from.
Speak for yourself. A lot of us have figured out all the shots came from
the sniper's nest.
"A lot of us"? You decided to speak for everyone again? I bet you
didn't check with them first. And there is serious doubt that all shots
(3) came only from the TSBD 6th floor. The list of bullet strikes in the
plaza and the proofs from the autopsy show that as false info.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
That's one of your red herrings
drug across the path to mislead everyone. Most of the answers were known
many years ago.
Maybe someday you'll get up to speed. First you have to take your car out
of neutral.
Post by mainframetech
The ARRB files had them. You wouldn't know about that
since you rarely visit there. Repeat, when you know the truth, you don't
need alternatives.
I was aware of the ARRB long before you ever stumbled across them and I
also know there was nothing in them that proved to be a game changer, much
to the chagrin of the conspiracy hobbyists back in the 1990s. Most of them
have moved on from the ARRB because they discovered it was a big nothing
burger.
That's why you have got no clue as to what or how the murder was
accomplished and how phony the autopsy was. The ARRB files have most of
the answers to questions in the case.

Chris
Anthony Marsh
2018-05-02 04:33:02 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 BOZ
Post by BOZ
An officer, identified as "C," was riding to the right rear of the
President's limousine and a second motorcycle away from the president. He
was coming to a stop as the first shot was fired.
Ah! Proof that the limousine slowed almost to a stop, in that the
motorcycles also had to stop to stay in position.
Post by BOZ
He had just finished
Post by BOZ
looking ahead in the direction of the grassy knoll and saw nothing that
would command his attention.
Which doesn't mean there wasn't 2 or more men with rifles end on
showing and a bit of a head looking down a sight. Hard to see while
moving on a motorcycle and trying to balance as you came to a stop.
Post by BOZ
Post by BOZ
He had thought the sound was from overheated
motorcycle backfiring near Elm and Houston as the sound definitely came
from the rear of his position. He was looking directly at President
Kennedy from a distance no greater than ten to twelve feet. The first shot
seemed to have missed, and Governor Connally started to turn. He heard the
second shot and saw that the President had been hit in the back near the
base of his neck, and that the President grabbed his throat. He also saw
Governor Connally jerk, apparently hit too. Then, his eyes frozen on this
sight, the third shot struck with ghastly effect, that shot, too, coming
from the right rear of the limousine. His mind clearly recorded that three
shots were fired and that they were fired from the direction of Elm and
Houston Streets. He wrote a journal(7) recording his observations that
same day, suggesting the "Single Bullet Theory" before there was one. He,
too, was interviewed, but his testimony was neither used nor impeached.
http://www.jfk-online.com/bowles3.html
Sounds like an accurate description of what happened but as with any
witness, it shouldn't be assumed this account is right or wrong. It should
be compared to the body of evidence to determine whether or not it is
accurate. In this case, this account dovetails well with the Z-film and
also SSA Bennett's account which he wrote aboard AF1. The SBT of course
remains the only plausible explanation for the wounds to JFK and JBC.
WRONG as usual! There are other plausible explanations,
Maybe someday you'll be able to come up with one.
I've already done so. The views of the inside of the body by the
autopsy team told them that there was no such thing as the 'single bullet'
theory. It leaves only the shot from another shooter that hit Connally.
As a plausible story, the truth fits best.
You haven't come up with plausible explanation. You are disputing the
explanation given by the WC. The WC told us where the shot was fired from,
what wounds it caused, and where the bullet ended up. You have done none
of that. You have simply dismissed the SBT without offering a viable
alternative.
WRONG! I have not even tried to come up with an alternative because I
was able to come up with the truth of the upper back wound.
So you admit there is no plausible alternative to the SBT.
WRONG again! Read the above statement I made before you blat. There
is no alternative to the SBT except the truth, which I've given to you.
But they are allergic to the Truth. How can you be so cruel?
Post by mainframetech
You will ignore it because of your faith in the WCR, but it wasn't for you
anyway.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
That bullet
never went past the body of JFK, and it's been proven by testimony of 2 of
those in the autopsy team. Your stupid WCR came up with a THEORY!!
Theories are not the truth, only guesses.
It is your conclusion that the bullet never went past the body of JFK. No
competent medical examiner has reached that conclusion. They are unanimous
in their verdict that JFK was struck twice from behind and that the bullet
that struck him in the back exited from his throat. Your amateurish
opinions do not trump theirs. That makes the SBT plausible and to date it
remains the only plausible explanation.
WRONG again! You'll never learn. The medical panels did not have all
the information that we have available to us. If they did have it, they
could have made the right conclusions too. It was really simple once you
knew the details from the autopsy.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
some of which are the right ones.
How can there be more than one right one? How many different ways do you
think the assassination happened?
I've mentioned the right one above, and elsewhere, and to you as
well. Are you going to play that you forgot again?
You have done nothing but offer a denial of the SBT without providing a
viable alternative in its place. Just a vague claim that it must be
something else but you can't tell us what that something else is.
REPEAT: THERE IS NO NEED FOR A "VIABLE ALTERNATIVE", GET IT THROUGH
YOUR HEAD. It was shown that the bullet never went past the pleura in the
body of JFK, and so never left the body and therefore never hit Connally.
You have the truth, now don't go dismissing it like so many other bits of
proof.
You have convinced yourself that the bullet never exited from JFK's
throat. Now all you have to do is convince the other 7 billion people on
the planet of that.
REPEAT FOR YOU: I HAVE NOT CONVINCED MYSELF OF ANYTIHNG. I just
happen to know the truth stated during the autopsy. And I don't have to
convince anyone. I put the info out there and folks will understand it or
they won't.
So you believe whatever Hunes blurted out, even though you KNOW he was a
professional liar. Ice Bullet, really dude?
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
That is that there was a plot and there were many
shooters firing in the direction of JFK, and Connally got in the line of
fire. That is far more believable than the SBT, which was shown to be
false.
You're explanation is a little sketchy on the details there, ace. Do you
think you could fill in the blanks?
You mean you can't figure out what I said? There were many shooters
firing at JFK, and Connally got hit by one or more of the bullets flying
around.
I guess that tells us you can't fill in the blanks. You can't tell us
where the shots were fired from that caused each of the wounds to JFK and
JBC and where those bullets went after causing those wounds. The WC was
able to do that. Here we are 54 years later and you still aren't up to the
task. If you can't offer specifics, you haven't presented a viable
alternative.
It's amazing how stupid humans can be sometimes.
Irony noted.
Post by mainframetech
No one here could tell where most of the shots came from.
Speak for yourself. A lot of us have figured out all the shots came from
the sniper's nest.
"A lot of us"? You decided to speak for everyone again? I bet you
didn't check with them first. And there is serious doubt that all shots
(3) came only from the TSBD 6th floor. The list of bullet strikes in the
plaza and the proofs from the autopsy show that as false info.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
That's one of your red herrings
drug across the path to mislead everyone. Most of the answers were known
many years ago.
Maybe someday you'll get up to speed. First you have to take your car out
of neutral.
Post by mainframetech
The ARRB files had them. You wouldn't know about that
since you rarely visit there. Repeat, when you know the truth, you don't
need alternatives.
I was aware of the ARRB long before you ever stumbled across them and I
also know there was nothing in them that proved to be a game changer, much
to the chagrin of the conspiracy hobbyists back in the 1990s. Most of them
have moved on from the ARRB because they discovered it was a big nothing
burger.
That's why you have got no clue as to what or how the murder was
accomplished and how phony the autopsy was. The ARRB files have most of
the answers to questions in the case.
Chris
bigdog
2018-05-02 15:23:39 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 BOZ
Post by BOZ
An officer, identified as "C," was riding to the right rear of the
President's limousine and a second motorcycle away from the president. He
was coming to a stop as the first shot was fired.
Ah! Proof that the limousine slowed almost to a stop, in that the
motorcycles also had to stop to stay in position.
Post by BOZ
He had just finished
Post by BOZ
looking ahead in the direction of the grassy knoll and saw nothing that
would command his attention.
Which doesn't mean there wasn't 2 or more men with rifles end on
showing and a bit of a head looking down a sight. Hard to see while
moving on a motorcycle and trying to balance as you came to a stop.
Post by BOZ
Post by BOZ
He had thought the sound was from overheated
motorcycle backfiring near Elm and Houston as the sound definitely came
from the rear of his position. He was looking directly at President
Kennedy from a distance no greater than ten to twelve feet. The first shot
seemed to have missed, and Governor Connally started to turn. He heard the
second shot and saw that the President had been hit in the back near the
base of his neck, and that the President grabbed his throat. He also saw
Governor Connally jerk, apparently hit too. Then, his eyes frozen on this
sight, the third shot struck with ghastly effect, that shot, too, coming
from the right rear of the limousine. His mind clearly recorded that three
shots were fired and that they were fired from the direction of Elm and
Houston Streets. He wrote a journal(7) recording his observations that
same day, suggesting the "Single Bullet Theory" before there was one. He,
too, was interviewed, but his testimony was neither used nor impeached.
http://www.jfk-online.com/bowles3.html
Sounds like an accurate description of what happened but as with any
witness, it shouldn't be assumed this account is right or wrong. It should
be compared to the body of evidence to determine whether or not it is
accurate. In this case, this account dovetails well with the Z-film and
also SSA Bennett's account which he wrote aboard AF1. The SBT of course
remains the only plausible explanation for the wounds to JFK and JBC.
WRONG as usual! There are other plausible explanations,
Maybe someday you'll be able to come up with one.
I've already done so. The views of the inside of the body by the
autopsy team told them that there was no such thing as the 'single bullet'
theory. It leaves only the shot from another shooter that hit Connally.
As a plausible story, the truth fits best.
You haven't come up with plausible explanation. You are disputing the
explanation given by the WC. The WC told us where the shot was fired from,
what wounds it caused, and where the bullet ended up. You have done none
of that. You have simply dismissed the SBT without offering a viable
alternative.
WRONG! I have not even tried to come up with an alternative because I
was able to come up with the truth of the upper back wound.
So you admit there is no plausible alternative to the SBT.
WRONG again! Read the above statement I made before you blat. There
is no alternative to the SBT except the truth,
But apparently you have no idea what that truth is.
Post by mainframetech
which I've given to you.
No you haven't. You've told us why you think the SBT is impossible. You've
offered nothing in its place. No alternative scenario. Just a vague
suggestion of lots of shooters firing lots of shots and apparently most of
them not hitting anything.
Post by mainframetech
You will ignore it because of your faith in the WCR, but it wasn't for you
anyway.
It's hard to ignore something until you actually present it.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
That bullet
never went past the body of JFK, and it's been proven by testimony of 2 of
those in the autopsy team. Your stupid WCR came up with a THEORY!!
Theories are not the truth, only guesses.
It is your conclusion that the bullet never went past the body of JFK. No
competent medical examiner has reached that conclusion. They are unanimous
in their verdict that JFK was struck twice from behind and that the bullet
that struck him in the back exited from his throat. Your amateurish
opinions do not trump theirs. That makes the SBT plausible and to date it
remains the only plausible explanation.
WRONG again! You'll never learn. The medical panels did not have all
the information that we have available to us. If they did have it, they
could have made the right conclusions too. It was really simple once you
knew the details from the autopsy.
The medical panels had far more and better information than you will ever
have an were far more knowledgeable in the area of forensic medicine than
you could ever hope to be. That's why no one with a functional brain would
accept your opinion over theirs.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
some of which are the right ones.
How can there be more than one right one? How many different ways do you
think the assassination happened?
I've mentioned the right one above, and elsewhere, and to you as
well. Are you going to play that you forgot again?
You have done nothing but offer a denial of the SBT without providing a
viable alternative in its place. Just a vague claim that it must be
something else but you can't tell us what that something else is.
REPEAT: THERE IS NO NEED FOR A "VIABLE ALTERNATIVE", GET IT THROUGH
YOUR HEAD. It was shown that the bullet never went past the pleura in the
body of JFK, and so never left the body and therefore never hit Connally.
You have the truth, now don't go dismissing it like so many other bits of
proof.
You have convinced yourself that the bullet never exited from JFK's
throat. Now all you have to do is convince the other 7 billion people on
the planet of that.
REPEAT FOR YOU: I HAVE NOT CONVINCED MYSELF OF ANYTIHNG. I just
happen to know the truth stated during the autopsy. And I don't have to
convince anyone. I put the info out there and folks will understand it or
they won't.
I'm glad you don't need to convince anyone because that would be
problematic.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
That is that there was a plot and there were many
shooters firing in the direction of JFK, and Connally got in the line of
fire. That is far more believable than the SBT, which was shown to be
false.
You're explanation is a little sketchy on the details there, ace. Do you
think you could fill in the blanks?
You mean you can't figure out what I said? There were many shooters
firing at JFK, and Connally got hit by one or more of the bullets flying
around.
I guess that tells us you can't fill in the blanks. You can't tell us
where the shots were fired from that caused each of the wounds to JFK and
JBC and where those bullets went after causing those wounds. The WC was
able to do that. Here we are 54 years later and you still aren't up to the
task. If you can't offer specifics, you haven't presented a viable
alternative.
It's amazing how stupid humans can be sometimes.
Irony noted.
Post by mainframetech
No one here could tell where most of the shots came from.
Speak for yourself. A lot of us have figured out all the shots came from
the sniper's nest.
"A lot of us"? You decided to speak for everyone again?
I didn't pretend to speak for them. I'm just telling you what they know.
Anyone who believes Oswald was the lone assassin knows the shots all came
from the SN.
Post by mainframetech
I bet you didn't check with them first.
Do you really think it is necessary to ask every LN if they believe all
the shots were fired from the SN? It's hard to believe that there could be
someone who believes there was a lone assassin but he fired from somewhere
other than the SN. Maybe there is someone in this world who believes such
a thing.
Post by mainframetech
And there is serious doubt that all shots
(3) came only from the TSBD 6th floor.
I can't help that there are lots of people in this world who believe silly
things.
Post by mainframetech
The list of bullet strikes in the
plaza and the proofs from the autopsy show that as false info.
I guess it's not surprising that a guy who sees imaginary bullet holes
would also believe in imaginary bullet strikes all over DP.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
That's one of your red herrings
drug across the path to mislead everyone. Most of the answers were known
many years ago.
Maybe someday you'll get up to speed. First you have to take your car out
of neutral.
Post by mainframetech
The ARRB files had them. You wouldn't know about that
since you rarely visit there. Repeat, when you know the truth, you don't
need alternatives.
I was aware of the ARRB long before you ever stumbled across them and I
also know there was nothing in them that proved to be a game changer, much
to the chagrin of the conspiracy hobbyists back in the 1990s. Most of them
have moved on from the ARRB because they discovered it was a big nothing
burger.
That's why you have got no clue as to what or how the murder was
accomplished and how phony the autopsy was. The ARRB files have most of
the answers to questions in the case.
Quite the irony alert when you accuse someone else of not having a clue.
Anthony Marsh
2018-05-03 01:58:19 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 BOZ
Post by BOZ
An officer, identified as "C," was riding to the right rear of the
President's limousine and a second motorcycle away from the president. He
was coming to a stop as the first shot was fired.
Ah! Proof that the limousine slowed almost to a stop, in that the
motorcycles also had to stop to stay in position.
Post by BOZ
He had just finished
Post by BOZ
looking ahead in the direction of the grassy knoll and saw nothing that
would command his attention.
Which doesn't mean there wasn't 2 or more men with rifles end on
showing and a bit of a head looking down a sight. Hard to see while
moving on a motorcycle and trying to balance as you came to a stop.
Post by BOZ
Post by BOZ
He had thought the sound was from overheated
motorcycle backfiring near Elm and Houston as the sound definitely came
from the rear of his position. He was looking directly at President
Kennedy from a distance no greater than ten to twelve feet. The first shot
seemed to have missed, and Governor Connally started to turn. He heard the
second shot and saw that the President had been hit in the back near the
base of his neck, and that the President grabbed his throat. He also saw
Governor Connally jerk, apparently hit too. Then, his eyes frozen on this
sight, the third shot struck with ghastly effect, that shot, too, coming
from the right rear of the limousine. His mind clearly recorded that three
shots were fired and that they were fired from the direction of Elm and
Houston Streets. He wrote a journal(7) recording his observations that
same day, suggesting the "Single Bullet Theory" before there was one. He,
too, was interviewed, but his testimony was neither used nor impeached.
http://www.jfk-online.com/bowles3.html
Sounds like an accurate description of what happened but as with any
witness, it shouldn't be assumed this account is right or wrong. It should
be compared to the body of evidence to determine whether or not it is
accurate. In this case, this account dovetails well with the Z-film and
also SSA Bennett's account which he wrote aboard AF1. The SBT of course
remains the only plausible explanation for the wounds to JFK and JBC.
WRONG as usual! There are other plausible explanations,
Maybe someday you'll be able to come up with one.
I've already done so. The views of the inside of the body by the
autopsy team told them that there was no such thing as the 'single bullet'
theory. It leaves only the shot from another shooter that hit Connally.
As a plausible story, the truth fits best.
You haven't come up with plausible explanation. You are disputing the
explanation given by the WC. The WC told us where the shot was fired from,
what wounds it caused, and where the bullet ended up. You have done none
of that. You have simply dismissed the SBT without offering a viable
alternative.
WRONG! I have not even tried to come up with an alternative because I
was able to come up with the truth of the upper back wound.
So you admit there is no plausible alternative to the SBT.
WRONG again! Read the above statement I made before you blat. There
is no alternative to the SBT except the truth,
But apparently you have no idea what that truth is.
Post by mainframetech
which I've given to you.
No you haven't. You've told us why you think the SBT is impossible. You've
This may be too subtle a difference for you to understand, but the WC's
SBT is physically impossible. But some type of SBT may be possible. The
HSCA got so close, but shot itself in the foot.
Post by bigdog
offered nothing in its place. No alternative scenario. Just a vague
suggestion of lots of shooters firing lots of shots and apparently most of
them not hitting anything.
More cheap slander.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
You will ignore it because of your faith in the WCR, but it wasn't for you
anyway.
It's hard to ignore something until you actually present it.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
That bullet
never went past the body of JFK, and it's been proven by testimony of 2 of
those in the autopsy team. Your stupid WCR came up with a THEORY!!
Theories are not the truth, only guesses.
It is your conclusion that the bullet never went past the body of JFK. No
competent medical examiner has reached that conclusion. They are unanimous
in their verdict that JFK was struck twice from behind and that the bullet
that struck him in the back exited from his throat. Your amateurish
opinions do not trump theirs. That makes the SBT plausible and to date it
remains the only plausible explanation.
WRONG again! You'll never learn. The medical panels did not have all
the information that we have available to us. If they did have it, they
could have made the right conclusions too. It was really simple once you
knew the details from the autopsy.
The medical panels had far more and better information than you will ever
have an were far more knowledgeable in the area of forensic medicine than
you could ever hope to be. That's why no one with a functional brain would
accept your opinion over theirs.
You mean they covered up more than you will ever know.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
some of which are the right ones.
How can there be more than one right one? How many different ways do you
think the assassination happened?
I've mentioned the right one above, and elsewhere, and to you as
well. Are you going to play that you forgot again?
You have done nothing but offer a denial of the SBT without providing a
viable alternative in its place. Just a vague claim that it must be
something else but you can't tell us what that something else is.
REPEAT: THERE IS NO NEED FOR A "VIABLE ALTERNATIVE", GET IT THROUGH
YOUR HEAD. It was shown that the bullet never went past the pleura in the
body of JFK, and so never left the body and therefore never hit Connally.
You have the truth, now don't go dismissing it like so many other bits of
proof.
You have convinced yourself that the bullet never exited from JFK's
throat. Now all you have to do is convince the other 7 billion people on
the planet of that.
REPEAT FOR YOU: I HAVE NOT CONVINCED MYSELF OF ANYTIHNG. I just
happen to know the truth stated during the autopsy. And I don't have to
convince anyone. I put the info out there and folks will understand it or
they won't.
I'm glad you don't need to convince anyone because that would be
problematic.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
That is that there was a plot and there were many
shooters firing in the direction of JFK, and Connally got in the line of
fire. That is far more believable than the SBT, which was shown to be
false.
You're explanation is a little sketchy on the details there, ace. Do you
think you could fill in the blanks?
You mean you can't figure out what I said? There were many shooters
firing at JFK, and Connally got hit by one or more of the bullets flying
around.
I guess that tells us you can't fill in the blanks. You can't tell us
where the shots were fired from that caused each of the wounds to JFK and
JBC and where those bullets went after causing those wounds. The WC was
able to do that. Here we are 54 years later and you still aren't up to the
task. If you can't offer specifics, you haven't presented a viable
alternative.
It's amazing how stupid humans can be sometimes.
Irony noted.
Post by mainframetech
No one here could tell where most of the shots came from.
Speak for yourself. A lot of us have figured out all the shots came from
the sniper's nest.
"A lot of us"? You decided to speak for everyone again?
I didn't pretend to speak for them. I'm just telling you what they know.
Anyone who believes Oswald was the lone assassin knows the shots all came
from the SN.
Post by mainframetech
I bet you didn't check with them first.
Do you really think it is necessary to ask every LN if they believe all
the shots were fired from the SN? It's hard to believe that there could be
someone who believes there was a lone assassin but he fired from somewhere
other than the SN. Maybe there is someone in this world who believes such
a thing.
Post by mainframetech
And there is serious doubt that all shots
(3) came only from the TSBD 6th floor.
I can't help that there are lots of people in this world who believe silly
things.
OK, so the majority believes it is a conspiracy.
Aren't you happy to be in the elite that denies science. How's your Flat
Earth club going?
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
The list of bullet strikes in the
plaza and the proofs from the autopsy show that as false info.
I guess it's not surprising that a guy who sees imaginary bullet holes
would also believe in imaginary bullet strikes all over DP.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
That's one of your red herrings
drug across the path to mislead everyone. Most of the answers were known
many years ago.
Maybe someday you'll get up to speed. First you have to take your car out
of neutral.
Post by mainframetech
The ARRB files had them. You wouldn't know about that
since you rarely visit there. Repeat, when you know the truth, you don't
need alternatives.
I was aware of the ARRB long before you ever stumbled across them and I
also know there was nothing in them that proved to be a game changer, much
to the chagrin of the conspiracy hobbyists back in the 1990s. Most of them
have moved on from the ARRB because they discovered it was a big nothing
burger.
That's why you have got no clue as to what or how the murder was
accomplished and how phony the autopsy was. The ARRB files have most of
the answers to questions in the case.
Quite the irony alert when you accuse someone else of not having a clue.
Anthony Marsh
2018-05-03 01:58:44 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 BOZ
Post by BOZ
An officer, identified as "C," was riding to the right rear of the
President's limousine and a second motorcycle away from the president. He
was coming to a stop as the first shot was fired.
Ah! Proof that the limousine slowed almost to a stop, in that the
motorcycles also had to stop to stay in position.
Post by BOZ
He had just finished
Post by BOZ
looking ahead in the direction of the grassy knoll and saw nothing that
would command his attention.
Which doesn't mean there wasn't 2 or more men with rifles end on
showing and a bit of a head looking down a sight. Hard to see while
moving on a motorcycle and trying to balance as you came to a stop.
Post by BOZ
Post by BOZ
He had thought the sound was from overheated
motorcycle backfiring near Elm and Houston as the sound definitely came
from the rear of his position. He was looking directly at President
Kennedy from a distance no greater than ten to twelve feet. The first shot
seemed to have missed, and Governor Connally started to turn. He heard the
second shot and saw that the President had been hit in the back near the
base of his neck, and that the President grabbed his throat. He also saw
Governor Connally jerk, apparently hit too. Then, his eyes frozen on this
sight, the third shot struck with ghastly effect, that shot, too, coming
from the right rear of the limousine. His mind clearly recorded that three
shots were fired and that they were fired from the direction of Elm and
Houston Streets. He wrote a journal(7) recording his observations that
same day, suggesting the "Single Bullet Theory" before there was one. He,
too, was interviewed, but his testimony was neither used nor impeached.
http://www.jfk-online.com/bowles3.html
Sounds like an accurate description of what happened but as with any
witness, it shouldn't be assumed this account is right or wrong. It should
be compared to the body of evidence to determine whether or not it is
accurate. In this case, this account dovetails well with the Z-film and
also SSA Bennett's account which he wrote aboard AF1. The SBT of course
remains the only plausible explanation for the wounds to JFK and JBC.
WRONG as usual! There are other plausible explanations,
Maybe someday you'll be able to come up with one.
I've already done so. The views of the inside of the body by the
autopsy team told them that there was no such thing as the 'single bullet'
theory. It leaves only the shot from another shooter that hit Connally.
As a plausible story, the truth fits best.
You haven't come up with plausible explanation. You are disputing the
explanation given by the WC. The WC told us where the shot was fired from,
what wounds it caused, and where the bullet ended up. You have done none
of that. You have simply dismissed the SBT without offering a viable
alternative.
WRONG! I have not even tried to come up with an alternative because I
was able to come up with the truth of the upper back wound.
So you admit there is no plausible alternative to the SBT.
WRONG again! Read the above statement I made before you blat. There
is no alternative to the SBT except the truth,
But apparently you have no idea what that truth is.
Post by mainframetech
which I've given to you.
No you haven't. You've told us why you think the SBT is impossible. You've
offered nothing in its place. No alternative scenario. Just a vague
suggestion of lots of shooters firing lots of shots and apparently most of
them not hitting anything.
Post by mainframetech
You will ignore it because of your faith in the WCR, but it wasn't for you
anyway.
It's hard to ignore something until you actually present it.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
That bullet
never went past the body of JFK, and it's been proven by testimony of 2 of
those in the autopsy team. Your stupid WCR came up with a THEORY!!
Theories are not the truth, only guesses.
It is your conclusion that the bullet never went past the body of JFK. No
competent medical examiner has reached that conclusion. They are unanimous
in their verdict that JFK was struck twice from behind and that the bullet
that struck him in the back exited from his throat. Your amateurish
opinions do not trump theirs. That makes the SBT plausible and to date it
remains the only plausible explanation.
WRONG again! You'll never learn. The medical panels did not have all
the information that we have available to us. If they did have it, they
could have made the right conclusions too. It was really simple once you
knew the details from the autopsy.
The medical panels had far more and better information than you will ever
have an were far more knowledgeable in the area of forensic medicine than
you could ever hope to be. That's why no one with a functional brain would
accept your opinion over theirs.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
some of which are the right ones.
How can there be more than one right one? How many different ways do you
think the assassination happened?
I've mentioned the right one above, and elsewhere, and to you as
well. Are you going to play that you forgot again?
You have done nothing but offer a denial of the SBT without providing a
viable alternative in its place. Just a vague claim that it must be
something else but you can't tell us what that something else is.
REPEAT: THERE IS NO NEED FOR A "VIABLE ALTERNATIVE", GET IT THROUGH
YOUR HEAD. It was shown that the bullet never went past the pleura in the
body of JFK, and so never left the body and therefore never hit Connally.
You have the truth, now don't go dismissing it like so many other bits of
proof.
You have convinced yourself that the bullet never exited from JFK's
throat. Now all you have to do is convince the other 7 billion people on
the planet of that.
REPEAT FOR YOU: I HAVE NOT CONVINCED MYSELF OF ANYTIHNG. I just
happen to know the truth stated during the autopsy. And I don't have to
convince anyone. I put the info out there and folks will understand it or
they won't.
I'm glad you don't need to convince anyone because that would be
problematic.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
That is that there was a plot and there were many
shooters firing in the direction of JFK, and Connally got in the line of
fire. That is far more believable than the SBT, which was shown to be
false.
You're explanation is a little sketchy on the details there, ace. Do you
think you could fill in the blanks?
You mean you can't figure out what I said? There were many shooters
firing at JFK, and Connally got hit by one or more of the bullets flying
around.
I guess that tells us you can't fill in the blanks. You can't tell us
where the shots were fired from that caused each of the wounds to JFK and
JBC and where those bullets went after causing those wounds. The WC was
able to do that. Here we are 54 years later and you still aren't up to the
task. If you can't offer specifics, you haven't presented a viable
alternative.
It's amazing how stupid humans can be sometimes.
Irony noted.
Post by mainframetech
No one here could tell where most of the shots came from.
Speak for yourself. A lot of us have figured out all the shots came from
the sniper's nest.
"A lot of us"? You decided to speak for everyone again?
I didn't pretend to speak for them. I'm just telling you what they know.
Anyone who believes Oswald was the lone assassin knows the shots all came
from the SN.
Post by mainframetech
I bet you didn't check with them first.
Do you really think it is necessary to ask every LN if they believe all
the shots were fired from the SN? It's hard to believe that there could be
someone who believes there was a lone assassin but he fired from somewhere
other than the SN. Maybe there is someone in this world who believes such
a thing.
Post by mainframetech
And there is serious doubt that all shots
(3) came only from the TSBD 6th floor.
I can't help that there are lots of people in this world who believe silly
things.
Post by mainframetech
The list of bullet strikes in the
plaza and the proofs from the autopsy show that as false info.
I guess it's not surprising that a guy who sees imaginary bullet holes
would also believe in imaginary bullet strikes all over DP.
You have a hole in YOUR head, but you can't see it because you are in
denial.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
That's one of your red herrings
drug across the path to mislead everyone. Most of the answers were known
many years ago.
Maybe someday you'll get up to speed. First you have to take your car out
of neutral.
Post by mainframetech
The ARRB files had them. You wouldn't know about that
since you rarely visit there. Repeat, when you know the truth, you don't
need alternatives.
I was aware of the ARRB long before you ever stumbled across them and I
also know there was nothing in them that proved to be a game changer, much
to the chagrin of the conspiracy hobbyists back in the 1990s. Most of them
have moved on from the ARRB because they discovered it was a big nothing
burger.
That's why you have got no clue as to what or how the murder was
accomplished and how phony the autopsy was. The ARRB files have most of
the answers to questions in the case.
Quite the irony alert when you accuse someone else of not having a clue.
mainframetech
2018-05-04 01:49:48 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 BOZ
Post by BOZ
An officer, identified as "C," was riding to the right rear of the
President's limousine and a second motorcycle away from the president. He
was coming to a stop as the first shot was fired.
Ah! Proof that the limousine slowed almost to a stop, in that the
motorcycles also had to stop to stay in position.
Post by BOZ
He had just finished
Post by BOZ
looking ahead in the direction of the grassy knoll and saw nothing that
would command his attention.
Which doesn't mean there wasn't 2 or more men with rifles end on
showing and a bit of a head looking down a sight. Hard to see while
moving on a motorcycle and trying to balance as you came to a stop.
Post by BOZ
Post by BOZ
He had thought the sound was from overheated
motorcycle backfiring near Elm and Houston as the sound definitely came
from the rear of his position. He was looking directly at President
Kennedy from a distance no greater than ten to twelve feet. The first shot
seemed to have missed, and Governor Connally started to turn. He heard the
second shot and saw that the President had been hit in the back near the
base of his neck, and that the President grabbed his throat. He also saw
Governor Connally jerk, apparently hit too. Then, his eyes frozen on this
sight, the third shot struck with ghastly effect, that shot, too, coming
from the right rear of the limousine. His mind clearly recorded that three
shots were fired and that they were fired from the direction of Elm and
Houston Streets. He wrote a journal(7) recording his observations that
same day, suggesting the "Single Bullet Theory" before there was one. He,
too, was interviewed, but his testimony was neither used nor impeached.
http://www.jfk-online.com/bowles3.html
Sounds like an accurate description of what happened but as with any
witness, it shouldn't be assumed this account is right or wrong. It should
be compared to the body of evidence to determine whether or not it is
accurate. In this case, this account dovetails well with the Z-film and
also SSA Bennett's account which he wrote aboard AF1. The SBT of course
remains the only plausible explanation for the wounds to JFK and JBC.
WRONG as usual! There are other plausible explanations,
Maybe someday you'll be able to come up with one.
I've already done so. The views of the inside of the body by the
autopsy team told them that there was no such thing as the 'single bullet'
theory. It leaves only the shot from another shooter that hit Connally.
As a plausible story, the truth fits best.
You haven't come up with plausible explanation. You are disputing the
explanation given by the WC. The WC told us where the shot was fired from,
what wounds it caused, and where the bullet ended up. You have done none
of that. You have simply dismissed the SBT without offering a viable
alternative.
WRONG! I have not even tried to come up with an alternative because I
was able to come up with the truth of the upper back wound.
So you admit there is no plausible alternative to the SBT.
WRONG again! Read the above statement I made before you blat. There
is no alternative to the SBT except the truth,
But apparently you have no idea what that truth is.
Post by mainframetech
which I've given to you.
No you haven't. You've told us why you think the SBT is impossible. You've
offered nothing in its place. No alternative scenario. Just a vague
suggestion of lots of shooters firing lots of shots and apparently most of
them not hitting anything.
WRONG as usual! I do NOT THINK the SBT is impossible, I KNOW it was
impossible, due to what was seen in the autopsy. Because the autopsy
showed that the bullet never left the body of JFK, there is no way it
could then go on to Connally and hit him. And don't ask about that,
because I've told it to you too many times.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
You will ignore it because of your faith in the WCR, but it wasn't for you
anyway.
It's hard to ignore something until you actually present it.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
That bullet
never went past the body of JFK, and it's been proven by testimony of 2 of
those in the autopsy team. Your stupid WCR came up with a THEORY!!
Theories are not the truth, only guesses.
It is your conclusion that the bullet never went past the body of JFK. No
competent medical examiner has reached that conclusion. They are unanimous
in their verdict that JFK was struck twice from behind and that the bullet
that struck him in the back exited from his throat. Your amateurish
opinions do not trump theirs. That makes the SBT plausible and to date it
remains the only plausible explanation.
WRONG again! You'll never learn. The medical panels did not have all
the information that we have available to us. If they did have it, they
could have made the right conclusions too. It was really simple once you
knew the details from the autopsy.
The medical panels had far more and better information than you will ever
have an were far more knowledgeable in the area of forensic medicine than
you could ever hope to be. That's why no one with a functional brain would
accept your opinion over theirs.
WRONG yet again! The panels were not aware of the bullet hole in the
forehead/temple area, which you know nothing about, since you can't see
it. As well, they had no opportunity to listen to the testimony of the
enlisted men at the autopsy, and they had no chance to actually see into
the body of JFK after the organs were removed and the truth was OBVIOUS to
all present.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
some of which are the right ones.
How can there be more than one right one? How many different ways do you
think the assassination happened?
I've mentioned the right one above, and elsewhere, and to you as
well. Are you going to play that you forgot again?
You have done nothing but offer a denial of the SBT without providing a
viable alternative in its place. Just a vague claim that it must be
something else but you can't tell us what that something else is.
REPEAT: THERE IS NO NEED FOR A "VIABLE ALTERNATIVE", GET IT THROUGH
YOUR HEAD. It was shown that the bullet never went past the pleura in the
body of JFK, and so never left the body and therefore never hit Connally.
You have the truth, now don't go dismissing it like so many other bits of
proof.
You have convinced yourself that the bullet never exited from JFK's
throat. Now all you have to do is convince the other 7 billion people on
the planet of that.
REPEAT FOR YOU: I HAVE NOT CONVINCED MYSELF OF ANYTHING. I just
happen to know the truth stated during the autopsy. And I don't have to
convince anyone. I put the info out there and folks will understand it or
they won't.
I'm glad you don't need to convince anyone because that would be
problematic.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
That is that there was a plot and there were many
shooters firing in the direction of JFK, and Connally got in the line of
fire. That is far more believable than the SBT, which was shown to be
false.
You're explanation is a little sketchy on the details there, ace. Do you
think you could fill in the blanks?
You mean you can't figure out what I said? There were many shooters
firing at JFK, and Connally got hit by one or more of the bullets flying
around.
I guess that tells us you can't fill in the blanks. You can't tell us
where the shots were fired from that caused each of the wounds to JFK and
JBC and where those bullets went after causing those wounds. The WC was
able to do that. Here we are 54 years later and you still aren't up to the
task. If you can't offer specifics, you haven't presented a viable
alternative.
It's amazing how stupid humans can be sometimes.
Irony noted.
Post by mainframetech
No one here could tell where most of the shots came from.
Speak for yourself. A lot of us have figured out all the shots came from
the sniper's nest.
"A lot of us"? You decided to speak for everyone again?
I didn't pretend to speak for them. I'm just telling you what they know.
Anyone who believes Oswald was the lone assassin knows the shots all came
from the SN.
I guess that's like me knowing that all the autopsy team members KNOW
that the bullet never left the body of JFK, and so the SBT is dead.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
I bet you didn't check with them first.
Do you really think it is necessary to ask every LN if they believe all
the shots were fired from the SN? It's hard to believe that there could be
someone who believes there was a lone assassin but he fired from somewhere
other than the SN. Maybe there is someone in this world who believes such
a thing.
ah! Only the LNs will back you up! Calling on them might get you some
answers you don't want to hear.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
And there is serious doubt that all shots
(3) came only from the TSBD 6th floor.
I can't help that there are lots of people in this world who believe silly
things.
Post by mainframetech
The list of bullet strikes in the
plaza and the proofs from the autopsy show that as false info.
I guess it's not surprising that a guy who sees imaginary bullet holes
would also believe in imaginary bullet strikes all over DP.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
That's one of your red herrings
drug across the path to mislead everyone. Most of the answers were known
many years ago.
Maybe someday you'll get up to speed. First you have to take your car out
of neutral.
Post by mainframetech
The ARRB files had them. You wouldn't know about that
since you rarely visit there. Repeat, when you know the truth, you don't
need alternatives.
I was aware of the ARRB long before you ever stumbled across them and I
also know there was nothing in them that proved to be a game changer, much
to the chagrin of the conspiracy hobbyists back in the 1990s. Most of them
have moved on from the ARRB because they discovered it was a big nothing
burger.
That's why you have got no clue as to what or how the murder was
accomplished and how phony the autopsy was. The ARRB files have most of
the answers to questions in the case.
Quite the irony alert when you accuse someone else of not having a clue.
You're allowed your opinion, and it doesn't even have to be corrected.

Chris
bigdog
2018-05-05 01:40:12 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 BOZ
Post by BOZ
An officer, identified as "C," was riding to the right rear of the
President's limousine and a second motorcycle away from the president. He
was coming to a stop as the first shot was fired.
Ah! Proof that the limousine slowed almost to a stop, in that the
motorcycles also had to stop to stay in position.
Post by BOZ
He had just finished
Post by BOZ
looking ahead in the direction of the grassy knoll and saw nothing that
would command his attention.
Which doesn't mean there wasn't 2 or more men with rifles end on
showing and a bit of a head looking down a sight. Hard to see while
moving on a motorcycle and trying to balance as you came to a stop.
Post by BOZ
Post by BOZ
He had thought the sound was from overheated
motorcycle backfiring near Elm and Houston as the sound definitely came
from the rear of his position. He was looking directly at President
Kennedy from a distance no greater than ten to twelve feet. The first shot
seemed to have missed, and Governor Connally started to turn. He heard the
second shot and saw that the President had been hit in the back near the
base of his neck, and that the President grabbed his throat. He also saw
Governor Connally jerk, apparently hit too. Then, his eyes frozen on this
sight, the third shot struck with ghastly effect, that shot, too, coming
from the right rear of the limousine. His mind clearly recorded that three
shots were fired and that they were fired from the direction of Elm and
Houston Streets. He wrote a journal(7) recording his observations that
same day, suggesting the "Single Bullet Theory" before there was one. He,
too, was interviewed, but his testimony was neither used nor impeached.
http://www.jfk-online.com/bowles3.html
Sounds like an accurate description of what happened but as with any
witness, it shouldn't be assumed this account is right or wrong. It should
be compared to the body of evidence to determine whether or not it is
accurate. In this case, this account dovetails well with the Z-film and
also SSA Bennett's account which he wrote aboard AF1. The SBT of course
remains the only plausible explanation for the wounds to JFK and JBC.
WRONG as usual! There are other plausible explanations,
Maybe someday you'll be able to come up with one.
I've already done so. The views of the inside of the body by the
autopsy team told them that there was no such thing as the 'single bullet'
theory. It leaves only the shot from another shooter that hit Connally.
As a plausible story, the truth fits best.
You haven't come up with plausible explanation. You are disputing the
explanation given by the WC. The WC told us where the shot was fired from,
what wounds it caused, and where the bullet ended up. You have done none
of that. You have simply dismissed the SBT without offering a viable
alternative.
WRONG! I have not even tried to come up with an alternative because I
was able to come up with the truth of the upper back wound.
So you admit there is no plausible alternative to the SBT.
WRONG again! Read the above statement I made before you blat. There
is no alternative to the SBT except the truth,
But apparently you have no idea what that truth is.
Post by mainframetech
which I've given to you.
No you haven't. You've told us why you think the SBT is impossible. You've
offered nothing in its place. No alternative scenario. Just a vague
suggestion of lots of shooters firing lots of shots and apparently most of
them not hitting anything.
WRONG as usual! I do NOT THINK the SBT is impossible, I KNOW it was
impossible, due to what was seen in the autopsy.
There is a quote attributed to Mark Twain which applies to you:

"It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you
know for sure that just ain't so."

https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/mark_twain_109624
Post by mainframetech
Because the autopsy
showed that the bullet never left the body of JFK, there is no way it
could then go on to Connally and hit him. And don't ask about that,
because I've told it to you too many times.
Only people who don't know what they are talking about believe that.
People like you.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
You will ignore it because of your faith in the WCR, but it wasn't for you
anyway.
It's hard to ignore something until you actually present it.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
That bullet
never went past the body of JFK, and it's been proven by testimony of 2 of
those in the autopsy team. Your stupid WCR came up with a THEORY!!
Theories are not the truth, only guesses.
It is your conclusion that the bullet never went past the body of JFK. No
competent medical examiner has reached that conclusion. They are unanimous
in their verdict that JFK was struck twice from behind and that the bullet
that struck him in the back exited from his throat. Your amateurish
opinions do not trump theirs. That makes the SBT plausible and to date it
remains the only plausible explanation.
WRONG again! You'll never learn. The medical panels did not have all
the information that we have available to us. If they did have it, they
could have made the right conclusions too. It was really simple once you
knew the details from the autopsy.
The medical panels had far more and better information than you will ever
have an were far more knowledgeable in the area of forensic medicine than
you could ever hope to be. That's why no one with a functional brain would
accept your opinion over theirs.
WRONG yet again! The panels were not aware of the bullet hole in the
forehead/temple area,
Because there wasn't one. If there had been one, they would have been
aware of it. It would have shown up in both the x-rays and the photos of
which they had far more and better quality ones than you have seen. They
also know things that when a high velocity bullet enters a skull, it
creates radiating fractures from the point of entry, fractures which
didn't exist in the front of the skull, only the rear. They know that
entry wounds bevel inwards and exit wounds bevel outwards. The inward
beveling was at the hole in the BOH and the outward beveling was in the
hole in the parietal bone. All that trumps your opinions based on what you
think you see your Rorschach SOD photo.
Post by mainframetech
which you know nothing about, since you can't see it.
That is a good thing.
Post by mainframetech
As well, they had no opportunity to listen to the testimony of the
enlisted men at the autopsy, and they had no chance to actually see into
the body of JFK after the organs were removed and the truth was OBVIOUS to
all present.
Why would they care what a couple techies thought they saw when they had
the testimony of the pathologists and the photos and x-rays which gave
proof positive that JFK was shot twice from behind and that the bullet
that entered the back exited the throat. Do you really think the opinions
of a couple techies in their early 20s should trump all of that?
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
some of which are the right ones.
How can there be more than one right one? How many different ways do you
think the assassination happened?
I've mentioned the right one above, and elsewhere, and to you as
well. Are you going to play that you forgot again?
You have done nothing but offer a denial of the SBT without providing a
viable alternative in its place. Just a vague claim that it must be
something else but you can't tell us what that something else is.
REPEAT: THERE IS NO NEED FOR A "VIABLE ALTERNATIVE", GET IT THROUGH
YOUR HEAD. It was shown that the bullet never went past the pleura in the
body of JFK, and so never left the body and therefore never hit Connally.
You have the truth, now don't go dismissing it like so many other bits of
proof.
You have convinced yourself that the bullet never exited from JFK's
throat. Now all you have to do is convince the other 7 billion people on
the planet of that.
REPEAT FOR YOU: I HAVE NOT CONVINCED MYSELF OF ANYTHING. I just
happen to know the truth stated during the autopsy. And I don't have to
convince anyone. I put the info out there and folks will understand it or
they won't.
I'm glad you don't need to convince anyone because that would be
problematic.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
That is that there was a plot and there were many
shooters firing in the direction of JFK, and Connally got in the line of
fire. That is far more believable than the SBT, which was shown to be
false.
You're explanation is a little sketchy on the details there, ace. Do you
think you could fill in the blanks?
You mean you can't figure out what I said? There were many shooters
firing at JFK, and Connally got hit by one or more of the bullets flying
around.
I guess that tells us you can't fill in the blanks. You can't tell us
where the shots were fired from that caused each of the wounds to JFK and
JBC and where those bullets went after causing those wounds. The WC was
able to do that. Here we are 54 years later and you still aren't up to the
task. If you can't offer specifics, you haven't presented a viable
alternative.
It's amazing how stupid humans can be sometimes.
Irony noted.
Post by mainframetech
No one here could tell where most of the shots came from.
Speak for yourself. A lot of us have figured out all the shots came from
the sniper's nest.
"A lot of us"? You decided to speak for everyone again?
I didn't pretend to speak for them. I'm just telling you what they know.
Anyone who believes Oswald was the lone assassin knows the shots all came
from the SN.
I guess that's like me knowing that all the autopsy team members KNOW
that the bullet never left the body of JFK, and so the SBT is dead.
Another fine example of things you are sure you know that ain't so.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
I bet you didn't check with them first.
Do you really think it is necessary to ask every LN if they believe all
the shots were fired from the SN? It's hard to believe that there could be
someone who believes there was a lone assassin but he fired from somewhere
other than the SN. Maybe there is someone in this world who believes such
a thing.
ah! Only the LNs will back you up! Calling on them might get you some
answers you don't want to hear.
Do you think there are LNs who would disagree with me that the shots were
fired from the SN?
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
And there is serious doubt that all shots
(3) came only from the TSBD 6th floor.
I can't help that there are lots of people in this world who believe silly
things.
Post by mainframetech
The list of bullet strikes in the
plaza and the proofs from the autopsy show that as false info.
I guess it's not surprising that a guy who sees imaginary bullet holes
would also believe in imaginary bullet strikes all over DP.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
That's one of your red herrings
drug across the path to mislead everyone. Most of the answers were known
many years ago.
Maybe someday you'll get up to speed. First you have to take your car out
of neutral.
Post by mainframetech
The ARRB files had them. You wouldn't know about that
since you rarely visit there. Repeat, when you know the truth, you don't
need alternatives.
I was aware of the ARRB long before you ever stumbled across them and I
also know there was nothing in them that proved to be a game changer, much
to the chagrin of the conspiracy hobbyists back in the 1990s. Most of them
have moved on from the ARRB because they discovered it was a big nothing
burger.
That's why you have got no clue as to what or how the murder was
accomplished and how phony the autopsy was. The ARRB files have most of
the answers to questions in the case.
Quite the irony alert when you accuse someone else of not having a clue.
You're allowed your opinion, and it doesn't even have to be corrected.
Yours doesn't have to be corrected. It's just fun to keep doing it while
you continue to peddle your nonsense. You'd have better luck trying to
sell air conditioners to Eskimos.
mainframetech
2018-05-06 01:00:33 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 BOZ
Post by BOZ
An officer, identified as "C," was riding to the right rear of the
President's limousine and a second motorcycle away from the president. He
was coming to a stop as the first shot was fired.
Ah! Proof that the limousine slowed almost to a stop, in that the
motorcycles also had to stop to stay in position.
Post by BOZ
He had just finished
Post by BOZ
looking ahead in the direction of the grassy knoll and saw nothing that
would command his attention.
Which doesn't mean there wasn't 2 or more men with rifles end on
showing and a bit of a head looking down a sight. Hard to see while
moving on a motorcycle and trying to balance as you came to a stop.
Post by BOZ
Post by BOZ
He had thought the sound was from overheated
motorcycle backfiring near Elm and Houston as the sound definitely came
from the rear of his position. He was looking directly at President
Kennedy from a distance no greater than ten to twelve feet. The first shot
seemed to have missed, and Governor Connally started to turn. He heard the
second shot and saw that the President had been hit in the back near the
base of his neck, and that the President grabbed his throat. He also saw
Governor Connally jerk, apparently hit too. Then, his eyes frozen on this
sight, the third shot struck with ghastly effect, that shot, too, coming
from the right rear of the limousine. His mind clearly recorded that three
shots were fired and that they were fired from the direction of Elm and
Houston Streets. He wrote a journal(7) recording his observations that
same day, suggesting the "Single Bullet Theory" before there was one. He,
too, was interviewed, but his testimony was neither used nor impeached.
http://www.jfk-online.com/bowles3.html
Sounds like an accurate description of what happened but as with any
witness, it shouldn't be assumed this account is right or wrong. It should
be compared to the body of evidence to determine whether or not it is
accurate. In this case, this account dovetails well with the Z-film and
also SSA Bennett's account which he wrote aboard AF1. The SBT of course
remains the only plausible explanation for the wounds to JFK and JBC.
WRONG as usual! There are other plausible explanations,
Maybe someday you'll be able to come up with one.
I've already done so. The views of the inside of the body by the
autopsy team told them that there was no such thing as the 'single bullet'
theory. It leaves only the shot from another shooter that hit Connally.
As a plausible story, the truth fits best.
You haven't come up with plausible explanation. You are disputing the
explanation given by the WC. The WC told us where the shot was fired from,
what wounds it caused, and where the bullet ended up. You have done none
of that. You have simply dismissed the SBT without offering a viable
alternative.
WRONG! I have not even tried to come up with an alternative because I
was able to come up with the truth of the upper back wound.
So you admit there is no plausible alternative to the SBT.
WRONG again! Read the above statement I made before you blat. There
is no alternative to the SBT except the truth,
But apparently you have no idea what that truth is.
Post by mainframetech
which I've given to you.
No you haven't. You've told us why you think the SBT is impossible. You've
offered nothing in its place. No alternative scenario. Just a vague
suggestion of lots of shooters firing lots of shots and apparently most of
them not hitting anything.
WRONG as usual! I do NOT THINK the SBT is impossible, I KNOW it was
impossible, due to what was seen in the autopsy.
"It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you
know for sure that just ain't so."
https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/mark_twain_109624
Post by mainframetech
Because the autopsy
showed that the bullet never left the body of JFK, there is no way it
could then go on to Connally and hit him. And don't ask about that,
because I've told it to you too many times.
Only people who don't know what they are talking about believe that.
People like you.
Sounds like you're relying on your OPINIONS again!
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
You will ignore it because of your faith in the WCR, but it wasn't for you anyway.
It's hard to ignore something until you actually present it.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
That bullet
never went past the body of JFK, and it's been proven by testimony of 2 of
those in the autopsy team. Your stupid WCR came up with a THEORY!!
Theories are not the truth, only guesses.
It is your conclusion that the bullet never went past the body of JFK. No
competent medical examiner has reached that conclusion. They are unanimous
in their verdict that JFK was struck twice from behind and that the bullet
that struck him in the back exited from his throat. Your amateurish
opinions do not trump theirs. That makes the SBT plausible and to date it
remains the only plausible explanation.
WRONG again! You'll never learn. The medical panels did not have all
the information that we have available to us. If they did have it, they
could have made the right conclusions too. It was really simple once you
knew the details from the autopsy.
The medical panels had far more and better information than you will ever
have an were far more knowledgeable in the area of forensic medicine than
you could ever hope to be. That's why no one with a functional brain would
accept your opinion over theirs.
WRONG yet again! The panels were not aware of the bullet hole in the
forehead/temple area,
Because there wasn't one. If there had been one, they would have been
aware of it.
So now that you've embarrassed yourself for the unmpteenth time, what
do you tell the 3 people here, and the list of people I've shown you that
all have seen that bullet hole?
Post by bigdog
It would have shown up in both the x-rays and the photos of
which they had far more and better quality ones than you have seen.
Oh, get off it. You know the photo quality is plenty good enough to
see the bullet hole clearly. And please stop forgetting them nay
witnesses that have seen what you apparently cannot see. You being the
outlier.
Post by bigdog
They
also know things that when a high velocity bullet enters a skull, it
creates radiating fractures from the point of entry, fractures which
didn't exist in the front of the skull, only the rear. They know that
entry wounds bevel inwards and exit wounds bevel outwards. The inward
beveling was at the hole in the BOH and the outward beveling was in the
hole in the parietal bone. All that trumps your opinions based on what you
think you see your Rorschach SOD photo.
Sounds like it realty bothers you that you're the only person in the
whole world that sees nothing in that photo. It must be a lonely feeling.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
which you know nothing about, since you can't see it.
That is a good thing.
Post by mainframetech
As well, they had no opportunity to listen to the testimony of the
enlisted men at the autopsy, and they had no chance to actually see into
the body of JFK after the organs were removed and the truth was OBVIOUS to
all present.
Why would they care what a couple techies thought they saw when they had
the testimony of the pathologists and the photos and x-rays which gave
proof positive that JFK was shot twice from behind and that the bullet
that entered the back exited the throat. Do you really think the opinions
of a couple techies in their early 20s should trump all of that?
Opinions of the technologists were not used as you've been told many
times. This is a repetitive conversation you're making, so I'm outa here.

Chris
bigdog
2018-05-06 19:37:30 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 BOZ
Post by BOZ
An officer, identified as "C," was riding to the right rear of the
President's limousine and a second motorcycle away from the president. He
was coming to a stop as the first shot was fired.
Ah! Proof that the limousine slowed almost to a stop, in that the
motorcycles also had to stop to stay in position.
Post by BOZ
He had just finished
Post by BOZ
looking ahead in the direction of the grassy knoll and saw nothing that
would command his attention.
Which doesn't mean there wasn't 2 or more men with rifles end on
showing and a bit of a head looking down a sight. Hard to see while
moving on a motorcycle and trying to balance as you came to a stop.
Post by BOZ
Post by BOZ
He had thought the sound was from overheated
motorcycle backfiring near Elm and Houston as the sound definitely came
from the rear of his position. He was looking directly at President
Kennedy from a distance no greater than ten to twelve feet. The first shot
seemed to have missed, and Governor Connally started to turn. He heard the
second shot and saw that the President had been hit in the back near the
base of his neck, and that the President grabbed his throat. He also saw
Governor Connally jerk, apparently hit too. Then, his eyes frozen on this
sight, the third shot struck with ghastly effect, that shot, too, coming
from the right rear of the limousine. His mind clearly recorded that three
shots were fired and that they were fired from the direction of Elm and
Houston Streets. He wrote a journal(7) recording his observations that
same day, suggesting the "Single Bullet Theory" before there was one. He,
too, was interviewed, but his testimony was neither used nor impeached.
http://www.jfk-online.com/bowles3.html
Sounds like an accurate description of what happened but as with any
witness, it shouldn't be assumed this account is right or wrong. It should
be compared to the body of evidence to determine whether or not it is
accurate. In this case, this account dovetails well with the Z-film and
also SSA Bennett's account which he wrote aboard AF1. The SBT of course
remains the only plausible explanation for the wounds to JFK and JBC.
WRONG as usual! There are other plausible explanations,
Maybe someday you'll be able to come up with one.
I've already done so. The views of the inside of the body by the
autopsy team told them that there was no such thing as the 'single bullet'
theory. It leaves only the shot from another shooter that hit Connally.
As a plausible story, the truth fits best.
You haven't come up with plausible explanation. You are disputing the
explanation given by the WC. The WC told us where the shot was fired from,
what wounds it caused, and where the bullet ended up. You have done none
of that. You have simply dismissed the SBT without offering a viable
alternative.
WRONG! I have not even tried to come up with an alternative because I
was able to come up with the truth of the upper back wound.
So you admit there is no plausible alternative to the SBT.
WRONG again! Read the above statement I made before you blat. There
is no alternative to the SBT except the truth,
But apparently you have no idea what that truth is.
Post by mainframetech
which I've given to you.
No you haven't. You've told us why you think the SBT is impossible. You've
offered nothing in its place. No alternative scenario. Just a vague
suggestion of lots of shooters firing lots of shots and apparently most of
them not hitting anything.
WRONG as usual! I do NOT THINK the SBT is impossible, I KNOW it was
impossible, due to what was seen in the autopsy.
"It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you
know for sure that just ain't so."
https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/mark_twain_109624
Post by mainframetech
Because the autopsy
showed that the bullet never left the body of JFK, there is no way it
could then go on to Connally and hit him. And don't ask about that,
because I've told it to you too many times.
Only people who don't know what they are talking about believe that.
People like you.
Sounds like you're relying on your OPINIONS again!
Yes I am. It is my opinion that your opinions are FUBAR.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
You will ignore it because of your faith in the WCR, but it wasn't for you anyway.
It's hard to ignore something until you actually present it.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
That bullet
never went past the body of JFK, and it's been proven by testimony of 2 of
those in the autopsy team. Your stupid WCR came up with a THEORY!!
Theories are not the truth, only guesses.
It is your conclusion that the bullet never went past the body of JFK. No
competent medical examiner has reached that conclusion. They are unanimous
in their verdict that JFK was struck twice from behind and that the bullet
that struck him in the back exited from his throat. Your amateurish
opinions do not trump theirs. That makes the SBT plausible and to date it
remains the only plausible explanation.
WRONG again! You'll never learn. The medical panels did not have all
the information that we have available to us. If they did have it, they
could have made the right conclusions too. It was really simple once you
knew the details from the autopsy.
The medical panels had far more and better information than you will ever
have an were far more knowledgeable in the area of forensic medicine than
you could ever hope to be. That's why no one with a functional brain would
accept your opinion over theirs.
WRONG yet again! The panels were not aware of the bullet hole in the
forehead/temple area,
Because there wasn't one. If there had been one, they would have been
aware of it.
So now that you've embarrassed yourself for the unmpteenth time, what
do you tell the 3 people here, and the list of people I've shown you that
all have seen that bullet hole?
I have to be careful what I tell those three people so as not to get this
reply rejected. Almost all the witnesses you listed placed the bullet hole
they saw a lot closer to the AR placement than to your placement.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
It would have shown up in both the x-rays and the photos of
which they had far more and better quality ones than you have seen.
Oh, get off it. You know the photo quality is plenty good enough to
see the bullet hole clearly. And please stop forgetting them nay
witnesses that have seen what you apparently cannot see. You being the
outlier.
The photos the review panels had were even better and they didn't see a
bullet hole in the forehead in any of them. The did see evidence of an
exit wound in the front right of JFK's skull which is why they concurred
with the AR. You see all of those people know the differing
characteristics between entry wounds and exit wounds and they saw proof
positive of a rear entry wound and a right side exit. They saw no evidence
of your imaginary bullet hole and that is to their credit.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
They
also know things that when a high velocity bullet enters a skull, it
creates radiating fractures from the point of entry, fractures which
didn't exist in the front of the skull, only the rear. They know that
entry wounds bevel inwards and exit wounds bevel outwards. The inward
beveling was at the hole in the BOH and the outward beveling was in the
hole in the parietal bone. All that trumps your opinions based on what you
think you see your Rorschach SOD photo.
Sounds like it realty bothers you that you're the only person in the
whole world that sees nothing in that photo. It must be a lonely feeling.
Not nearly as much as it must bother you that so few people see your
imaginary bullet hole.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
which you know nothing about, since you can't see it.
That is a good thing.
Post by mainframetech
As well, they had no opportunity to listen to the testimony of the
enlisted men at the autopsy, and they had no chance to actually see into
the body of JFK after the organs were removed and the truth was OBVIOUS to
all present.
Why would they care what a couple techies thought they saw when they had
the testimony of the pathologists and the photos and x-rays which gave
proof positive that JFK was shot twice from behind and that the bullet
that entered the back exited the throat. Do you really think the opinions
of a couple techies in their early 20s should trump all of that?
Opinions of the technologists were not used as you've been told many
times. This is a repetitive conversation you're making, so I'm outa here.
You can deny you are relying on the opinion of the techies all you want.
You are 100% dependent on their opinions because that's all you have
regarding the back wound. You accept their judgement over that of the far
more qualified pathologists as we as the even more qualified panels of
forensic medical examiners. Your techies say they saw evidence that the
bullet didn't exit while all those far more qualified people have said
they saw evidence that the bullet most certainly exited the throat and you
put more faith in what they said they saw. Why would you do something so
silly?
mainframetech
2018-05-08 17:31:05 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 bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by BOZ
Post by BOZ
An officer, identified as "C," was riding to the right rear of the
President's limousine and a second motorcycle away from the president. He
was coming to a stop as the first shot was fired.
Ah! Proof that the limousine slowed almost to a stop, in that the
motorcycles also had to stop to stay in position.
Post by BOZ
He had just finished
Post by BOZ
looking ahead in the direction of the grassy knoll and saw nothing that
would command his attention.
Which doesn't mean there wasn't 2 or more men with rifles end on
showing and a bit of a head looking down a sight. Hard to see while
moving on a motorcycle and trying to balance as you came to a stop.
Post by BOZ
Post by BOZ
He had thought the sound was from overheated
motorcycle backfiring near Elm and Houston as the sound definitely came
from the rear of his position. He was looking directly at President
Kennedy from a distance no greater than ten to twelve feet. The first shot
seemed to have missed, and Governor Connally started to turn. He heard the
second shot and saw that the President had been hit in the back near the
base of his neck, and that the President grabbed his throat. He also saw
Governor Connally jerk, apparently hit too. Then, his eyes frozen on this
sight, the third shot struck with ghastly effect, that shot, too, coming
from the right rear of the limousine. His mind clearly recorded that three
shots were fired and that they were fired from the direction of Elm and
Houston Streets. He wrote a journal(7) recording his observations that
same day, suggesting the "Single Bullet Theory" before there was one. He,
too, was interviewed, but his testimony was neither used nor impeached.
http://www.jfk-online.com/bowles3.html
Sounds like an accurate description of what happened but as with any
witness, it shouldn't be assumed this account is right or wrong. It should
be compared to the body of evidence to determine whether or not it is
accurate. In this case, this account dovetails well with the Z-film and
also SSA Bennett's account which he wrote aboard AF1. The SBT of course
remains the only plausible explanation for the wounds to JFK and JBC.
WRONG as usual! There are other plausible explanations,
Maybe someday you'll be able to come up with one.
I've already done so. The views of the inside of the body by the
autopsy team told them that there was no such thing as the 'single bullet'
theory. It leaves only the shot from another shooter that hit Connally.
As a plausible story, the truth fits best.
You haven't come up with plausible explanation. You are disputing the
explanation given by the WC. The WC told us where the shot was fired from,
what wounds it caused, and where the bullet ended up. You have done none
of that. You have simply dismissed the SBT without offering a viable
alternative.
WRONG! I have not even tried to come up with an alternative because I
was able to come up with the truth of the upper back wound.
So you admit there is no plausible alternative to the SBT.
WRONG again! Read the above statement I made before you blat. There
is no alternative to the SBT except the truth,
But apparently you have no idea what that truth is.
Post by mainframetech
which I've given to you.
No you haven't. You've told us why you think the SBT is impossible. You've
offered nothing in its place. No alternative scenario. Just a vague
suggestion of lots of shooters firing lots of shots and apparently most of
them not hitting anything.
WRONG as usual! I do NOT THINK the SBT is impossible, I KNOW it was
impossible, due to what was seen in the autopsy.
"It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you
know for sure that just ain't so."
https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/mark_twain_109624
Post by mainframetech
Because the autopsy
showed that the bullet never left the body of JFK, there is no way it
could then go on to Connally and hit him. And don't ask about that,
because I've told it to you too many times.
Only people who don't know what they are talking about believe that.
People like you.
Sounds like you're relying on your OPINIONS again!
Yes I am. It is my opinion that your opinions are FUBAR.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
You will ignore it because of your faith in the WCR, but it wasn't for you anyway.
It's hard to ignore something until you actually present it.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
That bullet
never went past the body of JFK, and it's been proven by testimony of 2 of
those in the autopsy team. Your stupid WCR came up with a THEORY!!
Theories are not the truth, only guesses.
It is your conclusion that the bullet never went past the body of JFK. No
competent medical examiner has reached that conclusion. They are unanimous
in their verdict that JFK was struck twice from behind and that the bullet
that struck him in the back exited from his throat. Your amateurish
opinions do not trump theirs. That makes the SBT plausible and to date it
remains the only plausible explanation.
WRONG again! You'll never learn. The medical panels did not have all
the information that we have available to us. If they did have it, they
could have made the right conclusions too. It was really simple once you
knew the details from the autopsy.
The medical panels had far more and better information than you will ever
have an were far more knowledgeable in the area of forensic medicine than
you could ever hope to be. That's why no one with a functional brain would
accept your opinion over theirs.
WRONG yet again! The panels were not aware of the bullet hole in the
forehead/temple area,
Because there wasn't one. If there had been one, they would have been
aware of it.
So now that you've embarrassed yourself for the unmpteenth time, what
do you tell the 3 people here, and the list of people I've shown you that
all have seen that bullet hole?
I have to be careful what I tell those three people so as not to get this
reply rejected. Almost all the witnesses you listed placed the bullet hole
they saw a lot closer to the AR placement than to your placement.
Sadly, you seem all knotted up about where the various witnesses
placed the bullet hole in the forehead/temple area. Keep picking at the
nits, but it won't get you anywhere. There was only one wound that was
5mm in diameter, and that's the one we're speaking of, no matter where you
think it was. And it can be seen by almost anyone that wants to see it
and has the courage to look.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
It would have shown up in both the x-rays and the photos of
which they had far more and better quality ones than you have seen.
Oh, get off it. You know the photo quality is plenty good enough to
see the bullet hole clearly. And please stop forgetting the many
witnesses that have seen what you apparently cannot see. You being the
outlier.
The photos the review panels had were even better and they didn't see a
bullet hole in the forehead in any of them.
The review panels did not see into the body, and they didn't get to
interview the autopsy team, and they didn't ENLARGE the only photo that
had the bullet hole on it plain and clear. No better quality of photo was
needed. The 3 people here that saw the bullet hole in the SOD photo saw
it with the existing quality. The other list of witnesses to the bullet
hole saw the hole itself and not a photo.
Post by bigdog
The did see evidence of an
exit wound in the front right of JFK's skull which is why they concurred
with the AR.
Yes, there was a bone flap (just one) over the right ear. It was made
by Humes and Boswell just after 6:35pm in the Bethesda morgue. I'm sure
the idea was to have a wound that might help panels to think there was a
bullet entry in the BOH, whereas there was just a blowout there from the
bullet in the forehead/temple area.
Post by bigdog
You see all of those people know the differing
characteristics between entry wounds and exit wounds and they saw proof
positive of a rear entry wound and a right side exit. They saw no evidence
of your imaginary bullet hole and that is to their credit.
WRONG! The amazing thing is that you can talk about a bullet entering
the BOH and a photo of that area is completely devoid of bullet holes.
Now what do you do to prove your point?
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
They
also know things that when a high velocity bullet enters a skull, it
creates radiating fractures from the point of entry, fractures which
didn't exist in the front of the skull, only the rear. They know that
entry wounds bevel inwards and exit wounds bevel outwards. The inward
beveling was at the hole in the BOH and the outward beveling was in the
hole in the parietal bone. All that trumps your opinions based on what you
think you see your Rorschach SOD photo.
Sounds like it realty bothers you that you're the only person in the
whole world that sees nothing in that photo. It must be a lonely feeling.
Not nearly as much as it must bother you that so few people see your
imaginary bullet hole.
Oh, I have listed a heck of a lot more than you have. I'm comfortable
with that. I have the forensic evidence on my side. The bullet ole in
the forehead/temple area and the resultant blowout at the BOH. Typical
rifle shot results.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
which you know nothing about, since you can't see it.
That is a good thing.
Post by mainframetech
As well, they had no opportunity to listen to the testimony of the
enlisted men at the autopsy, and they had no chance to actually see into
the body of JFK after the organs were removed and the truth was OBVIOUS to
all present.
Why would they care what a couple techies thought they saw when they had
the testimony of the pathologists and the photos and x-rays which gave
proof positive that JFK was shot twice from behind and that the bullet
that entered the back exited the throat. Do you really think the opinions
of a couple techies in their early 20s should trump all of that?
Opinions of the technologists were not used as you've been told many
times. This is a repetitive conversation you're making, so I'm outa here.
You can deny you are relying on the opinion of the techies all you want.
You are 100% dependent on their opinions because that's all you have
regarding the back wound. You accept their judgement over that of the far
more qualified pathologists as we as the even more qualified panels of
forensic medical examiners. Your techies say they saw evidence that the
bullet didn't exit while all those far more qualified people have said
they saw evidence that the bullet most certainly exited the throat and you
put more faith in what they said they saw. Why would you do something so
silly?
I came back to see if you tried to misuse my absence, and sure enough
there you were..:) Yep, NO JUDGMENT of the team members was used because
it wasn't necessary. Their witnessing did the trick. What they saw and
related was all that was needed to see what happened to the bullet in the
upper back, and that it never left the body of JFK. Therefore no SBT.

Chris
bigdog
2018-05-08 23:55:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
So now that you've embarrassed yourself for the unmpteenth time, what
do you tell the 3 people here, and the list of people I've shown you that
all have seen that bullet hole?
I have to be careful what I tell those three people so as not to get this
reply rejected. Almost all the witnesses you listed placed the bullet hole
they saw a lot closer to the AR placement than to your placement.
Sadly, you seem all knotted up about where the various witnesses
placed the bullet hole in the forehead/temple area. Keep picking at the
nits, but it won't get you anywhere. There was only one wound that was
5mm in diameter, and that's the one we're speaking of, no matter where you
think it was. And it can be seen by almost anyone that wants to see it
and has the courage to look.
I know where all those witnesses DIDN'T place the wound. They didn't place
it where you imagine you see it in the SOD photo. The placed it lower and
farther back. That is not nitpicking. That is refuting your placement.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
It would have shown up in both the x-rays and the photos of
which they had far more and better quality ones than you have seen.
Oh, get off it. You know the photo quality is plenty good enough to
see the bullet hole clearly. And please stop forgetting the many
witnesses that have seen what you apparently cannot see. You being the
outlier.
The photos the review panels had were even better and they didn't see a
bullet hole in the forehead in any of them.
The review panels did not see into the body,
So you think highly qualified professionals need to actually see the body
to figure out where the bullet hole was but rank amateurs such as you,
Marsh, and Amy can determine it by looking at ONE copy of a copy of a
copy.
Post by mainframetech
and they didn't get to interview the autopsy team,
The heard the testimony of the autopsy team, i.e. the pathologists. They
criticized their methods but agreed with most of the findings. There was
no dispute that JFK was shot in the BOH.
Post by mainframetech
and they didn't ENLARGE the only photo that
had the bullet hole on it plain and clear.
If it was plain and clear it shouldn't have been necessary to enlarge it.
I would be willing to bet that the original prints were quite a bit larger
than what you have looked at. I don't think they sent them to the drug
store to be developed into 4X6 prints.
Post by mainframetech
No better quality of photo was
needed. The 3 people here that saw the bullet hole in the SOD photo saw
it with the existing quality. The other list of witnesses to the bullet
hole saw the hole itself and not a photo.
Three people convinced themselves they see a bullet hole that nobody else
here can see. That photo has been in the public domain for over 30 years.
If it really did clearly show an entrance wound in JFK's forehead, the
question of conspiracy would have been settled a long time ago. The
reality is that the people who think they see a bullet hole there comprise
a small, insignificant cult.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
The did see evidence of an
exit wound in the front right of JFK's skull which is why they concurred
with the AR.
Yes, there was a bone flap (just one) over the right ear.
Not a bone flap. An exit wound, i.e. a bullet hole.
Post by mainframetech
It was made by Humes and Boswell just after 6:35pm in the Bethesda morgue.
Here's where you inject your fantasies into the conversation.
Post by mainframetech
I'm sure
the idea was to have a wound that might help panels to think there was a
bullet entry in the BOH, whereas there was just a blowout there from the
bullet in the forehead/temple area.
I've never met a man who was so sure of so many things that simply are not
true.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
You see all of those people know the differing
characteristics between entry wounds and exit wounds and they saw proof
positive of a rear entry wound and a right side exit. They saw no evidence
of your imaginary bullet hole and that is to their credit.
WRONG! The amazing thing is that you can talk about a bullet entering
the BOH and a photo of that area is completely devoid of bullet holes.
Now what do you do to prove your point?
As I was saying...
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
They
also know things that when a high velocity bullet enters a skull, it
creates radiating fractures from the point of entry, fractures which
didn't exist in the front of the skull, only the rear. They know that
entry wounds bevel inwards and exit wounds bevel outwards. The inward
beveling was at the hole in the BOH and the outward beveling was in the
hole in the parietal bone. All that trumps your opinions based on what you
think you see your Rorschach SOD photo.
Sounds like it realty bothers you that you're the only person in the
whole world that sees nothing in that photo. It must be a lonely feeling.
Not nearly as much as it must bother you that so few people see your
imaginary bullet hole.
Oh, I have listed a heck of a lot more than you have.
That's because it is easy for you to list them because the list is so
short.
Post by mainframetech
I'm comfortable with that. I have the forensic evidence on my side.
<chuckle>

Oh, wait. We're you being serious?
Post by mainframetech
The bullet ole in
the forehead/temple area and the resultant blowout at the BOH. Typical
rifle shot results.
If only you had people who know what they are talking about to agree with
you.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
which you know nothing about, since you can't see it.
That is a good thing.
Post by mainframetech
As well, they had no opportunity to listen to the testimony of the
enlisted men at the autopsy, and they had no chance to actually see into
the body of JFK after the organs were removed and the truth was OBVIOUS to
all present.
Why would they care what a couple techies thought they saw when they had
the testimony of the pathologists and the photos and x-rays which gave
proof positive that JFK was shot twice from behind and that the bullet
that entered the back exited the throat. Do you really think the opinions
of a couple techies in their early 20s should trump all of that?
Opinions of the technologists were not used as you've been told many
times. This is a repetitive conversation you're making, so I'm outa here.
You can deny you are relying on the opinion of the techies all you want.
You are 100% dependent on their opinions because that's all you have
regarding the back wound. You accept their judgement over that of the far
more qualified pathologists as we as the even more qualified panels of
forensic medical examiners. Your techies say they saw evidence that the
bullet didn't exit while all those far more qualified people have said
they saw evidence that the bullet most certainly exited the throat and you
put more faith in what they said they saw. Why would you do something so
silly?
I came back to see if you tried to misuse my absence, and sure enough
there you were..:) Yep, NO JUDGMENT of the team members was used because
it wasn't necessary. Their witnessing did the trick.
Why do you only believe selected witnesses and why do you select the least
qualified witnesses?
Post by mainframetech
What they saw and
related was all that was needed to see what happened to the bullet in the
upper back, and that it never left the body of JFK. Therefore no SBT.
The least qualified people on the team said they saw evidence the bullet
didn't exit.

The most qualified people on the team said they saw evidence the bullet
did exit.

Why do you put your faith in the former rather than the latter?
Anthony Marsh
2018-05-10 18:47:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
So now that you've embarrassed yourself for the unmpteenth time, what
do you tell the 3 people here, and the list of people I've shown you that
all have seen that bullet hole?
I have to be careful what I tell those three people so as not to get this
reply rejected. Almost all the witnesses you listed placed the bullet hole
they saw a lot closer to the AR placement than to your placement.
Sadly, you seem all knotted up about where the various witnesses
placed the bullet hole in the forehead/temple area. Keep picking at the
nits, but it won't get you anywhere. There was only one wound that was
5mm in diameter, and that's the one we're speaking of, no matter where you
think it was. And it can be seen by almost anyone that wants to see it
and has the courage to look.
I know where all those witnesses DIDN'T place the wound. They didn't place
it where you imagine you see it in the SOD photo. The placed it lower and
farther back. That is not nitpicking. That is refuting your placement.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
It would have shown up in both the x-rays and the photos of
which they had far more and better quality ones than you have seen.
Oh, get off it. You know the photo quality is plenty good enough to
see the bullet hole clearly. And please stop forgetting the many
witnesses that have seen what you apparently cannot see. You being the
outlier.
The photos the review panels had were even better and they didn't see a
bullet hole in the forehead in any of them.
The review panels did not see into the body,
So you think highly qualified professionals need to actually see the body
to figure out where the bullet hole was but rank amateurs such as you,
Marsh, and Amy can determine it by looking at ONE copy of a copy of a
copy.
Yes. Professionals are paid to NOT see what the ordinary person can
obviously see.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
and they didn't get to interview the autopsy team,
The heard the testimony of the autopsy team, i.e. the pathologists. They
criticized their methods but agreed with most of the findings. There was
no dispute that JFK was shot in the BOH.
The HSCA FPP interviewed Humes and Boswell. Humes said the mark THEY
were calling a bullet wound was only a bloodclot. He could not point to
the wound he said was near the EOP.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
and they didn't ENLARGE the only photo that
had the bullet hole on it plain and clear.
If it was plain and clear it shouldn't have been necessary to enlarge it.
Only someone like YOU would have to enlarge it to see the very obvious
bullet hole on the forehead. Maybe someone lied to you and said it was on
the parietal bone so you've been looking in the wrong place. It is just
ABOVE the right eye.
Post by bigdog
I would be willing to bet that the original prints were quite a bit larger
than what you have looked at. I don't think they sent them to the drug
store to be developed into 4X6 prints.
Post by mainframetech
No better quality of photo was
needed. The 3 people here that saw the bullet hole in the SOD photo saw
it with the existing quality. The other list of witnesses to the bullet
hole saw the hole itself and not a photo.
Three people convinced themselves they see a bullet hole that nobody else
here can see. That photo has been in the public domain for over 30 years.
Maybe all the other people here CAN see it, but refuse to admit it
because they are WC defenders dedicated to the cover-up to protect the
real killers.
Post by bigdog
If it really did clearly show an entrance wound in JFK's forehead, the
question of conspiracy would have been settled a long time ago. The
No. It was settled in 1978, but the WC defenders continue to lie and
cover up.
Post by bigdog
reality is that the people who think they see a bullet hole there comprise
a small, insignificant cult.
OK, you mean honest people.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
The did see evidence of an
exit wound in the front right of JFK's skull which is why they concurred
with the AR.
Yes, there was a bone flap (just one) over the right ear.
Not a bone flap. An exit wound, i.e. a bullet hole.
I.E. not correct. The piece of skull blown out is not a "bullet Hole."
There is no bullet THAT big.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
It was made by Humes and Boswell just after 6:35pm in the Bethesda morgue.
Here's where you inject your fantasies into the conversation.
Post by mainframetech
I'm sure
the idea was to have a wound that might help panels to think there was a
bullet entry in the BOH, whereas there was just a blowout there from the
bullet in the forehead/temple area.
I've never met a man who was so sure of so many things that simply are not
true.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
You see all of those people know the differing
characteristics between entry wounds and exit wounds and they saw proof
positive of a rear entry wound and a right side exit. They saw no evidence
of your imaginary bullet hole and that is to their credit.
WRONG! The amazing thing is that you can talk about a bullet entering
the BOH and a photo of that area is completely devoid of bullet holes.
Now what do you do to prove your point?
As I was saying...
Then SHOW us the bullet hole. Humes couldn't see it.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
They
also know things that when a high velocity bullet enters a skull, it
creates radiating fractures from the point of entry, fractures which
didn't exist in the front of the skull, only the rear. They know that
entry wounds bevel inwards and exit wounds bevel outwards. The inward
beveling was at the hole in the BOH and the outward beveling was in the
hole in the parietal bone. All that trumps your opinions based on what you
think you see your Rorschach SOD photo.
Sounds like it realty bothers you that you're the only person in the
whole world that sees nothing in that photo. It must be a lonely feeling.
Not nearly as much as it must bother you that so few people see your
imaginary bullet hole.
Oh, I have listed a heck of a lot more than you have.
That's because it is easy for you to list them because the list is so
short.
Post by mainframetech
I'm comfortable with that. I have the forensic evidence on my side.
<chuckle>
Oh, wait. We're you being serious?
Post by mainframetech
The bullet ole in
the forehead/temple area and the resultant blowout at the BOH. Typical
rifle shot results.
If only you had people who know what they are talking about to agree with
you.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
which you know nothing about, since you can't see it.
That is a good thing.
Post by mainframetech
As well, they had no opportunity to listen to the testimony of the
enlisted men at the autopsy, and they had no chance to actually see into
the body of JFK after the organs were removed and the truth was OBVIOUS to
all present.
Why would they care what a couple techies thought they saw when they had
the testimony of the pathologists and the photos and x-rays which gave
proof positive that JFK was shot twice from behind and that the bullet
that entered the back exited the throat. Do you really think the opinions
of a couple techies in their early 20s should trump all of that?
Opinions of the technologists were not used as you've been told many
times. This is a repetitive conversation you're making, so I'm outa here.
You can deny you are relying on the opinion of the techies all you want.
You are 100% dependent on their opinions because that's all you have
regarding the back wound. You accept their judgement over that of the far
more qualified pathologists as we as the even more qualified panels of
forensic medical examiners. Your techies say they saw evidence that the
bullet didn't exit while all those far more qualified people have said
they saw evidence that the bullet most certainly exited the throat and you
put more faith in what they said they saw. Why would you do something so
silly?
I came back to see if you tried to misuse my absence, and sure enough
there you were..:) Yep, NO JUDGMENT of the team members was used because
it wasn't necessary. Their witnessing did the trick.
Why do you only believe selected witnesses and why do you select the least
qualified witnesses?
Post by mainframetech
What they saw and
related was all that was needed to see what happened to the bullet in the
upper back, and that it never left the body of JFK. Therefore no SBT.
The least qualified people on the team said they saw evidence the bullet
didn't exit.
The most qualified people on the team said they saw evidence the bullet
did exit.
What team? Name names. Hues didn't figure it out until Saturday morning
when he talked to Dr. Perry.
Post by bigdog
Why do you put your faith in the former rather than the latter?
Why do you put your faith in professional liars rather than looking at
the physical evidence for yourself? You'd rather believe in fairy tales.
mainframetech
2018-05-10 19:01:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
So now that you've embarrassed yourself for the unmpteenth time, what
do you tell the 3 people here, and the list of people I've shown you that
all have seen that bullet hole?
I have to be careful what I tell those three people so as not to get this
reply rejected. Almost all the witnesses you listed placed the bullet hole
they saw a lot closer to the AR placement than to your placement.
Sadly, you seem all knotted up about where the various witnesses
placed the bullet hole in the forehead/temple area. Keep picking at the
nits, but it won't get you anywhere. There was only one wound that was
5mm in diameter, and that's the one we're speaking of, no matter where you
think it was. And it can be seen by almost anyone that wants to see it
and has the courage to look.
I know where all those witnesses DIDN'T place the wound. They didn't place
it where you imagine you see it in the SOD photo. The placed it lower and
farther back. That is not nitpicking. That is refuting your placement.
REPEAT: ALL PLACEMENTS WERE IN THE SAME FOREHEAD/TEMPLE AREA.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
It would have shown up in both the x-rays and the photos of
which they had far more and better quality ones than you have seen.
Oh, get off it. You know the photo quality is plenty good enough to
see the bullet hole clearly. And please stop forgetting the many
witnesses that have seen what you apparently cannot see. You being the
outlier.
The photos the review panels had were even better and they didn't see a
bullet hole in the forehead in any of them.
The review panels did not see into the body,
So you think highly qualified professionals need to actually see the body
to figure out where the bullet hole was but rank amateurs such as you,
Marsh, and Amy can determine it by looking at ONE copy of a copy of a
copy.
Try and use your head. The proof that the bullet never left the body
was IN THE BODY, and to see it to make a proper conclusion as to the cause
of death, they had to e into the body, because the AR was false (proven).
The photos showing the autopsy (if they were the same as the 'leaked'
ones) are plenty good enough for anyone to see what's needed to see. You
can't run away with the excuse that they were too fuzzy or whatever.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
and they didn't get to interview the autopsy team,
The heard the testimony of the autopsy team, i.e. the pathologists.
WRONG! The prosectors were the ones that altered the AR, so they were
not the team, but the enlisted men were the ones to interview.
Post by bigdog
They
criticized their methods but agreed with most of the findings. There was
no dispute that JFK was shot in the BOH.
Post by mainframetech
and they didn't ENLARGE the only photo that
had the bullet hole on it plain and clear.
If it was plain and clear it shouldn't have been necessary to enlarge it.
I would be willing to bet that the original prints were quite a bit larger
than what you have looked at. I don't think they sent them to the drug
store to be developed into 4X6 prints.
To correct your nitpicking, they ENLARGED it to make it clear.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
No better quality of photo was
needed. The 3 people here that saw the bullet hole in the SOD photo saw
it with the existing quality. The other list of witnesses to the bullet
hole saw the hole itself and not a photo.
Three people convinced themselves they see a bullet hole that nobody else
here can see.
You have not presented any cites or links for "...a bullet hole that
nobody else here can see." So you're making it up. You have an awful lot
of witnesses to poll to state what they saw. So far I've gotten a few
that will admit they had the courage to look using the instructions and
they either saw a bullet hole or they saw something not normal, whatever
it was. YOU remain the only person that saw nothing out of normal and
therefore can't speak to the problem.
Post by bigdog
That photo has been in the public domain for over 30 years.
If it really did clearly show an entrance wound in JFK's forehead, the
question of conspiracy would have been settled a long time ago. The
reality is that the people who think they see a bullet hole there comprise
a small, insignificant cult.
Nope, won't do. Three people here, but many in a list that saw the
bullet hole itself, and I've listed them for you many times. And if more
here had the courage to follow the instructions and looked at the bullet
hole in that one and only photo, we'd have more in the local list.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
The did see evidence of an
exit wound in the front right of JFK's skull which is why they concurred
with the AR.
Yes, there was a bone flap (just one) over the right ear.
Not a bone flap. An exit wound, i.e. a bullet hole.
I'm not interested in changing the terminology for the bone flap.
And there is nothing to show that it was an exit wound of any kind.
Particularly since there is no entry wound in the BOGH where you'd like to
place one.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
It was made by Humes and Boswell just after 6:35pm in the Bethesda morgue.
Here's where you inject your fantasies into the conversation.
Nope, won't do. Only the proofs and evidence.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
I'm sure
the idea was to have a wound that might help panels to think there was a
bullet entry in the BOH, whereas there was just a blowout there from the
bullet in the forehead/temple area.
I've never met a man who was so sure of so many things that simply are not
true.
Not true by YOUR lights.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
You see all of those people know the differing
characteristics between entry wounds and exit wounds and they saw proof
positive of a rear entry wound and a right side exit. They saw no evidence
of your imaginary bullet hole and that is to their credit.
WRONG! The amazing thing is that you can talk about a bullet entering
the BOH and a photo of that area is completely devoid of bullet holes.
Now what do you do to prove your point?
As I was saying...
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
They
also know things that when a high velocity bullet enters a skull, it
creates radiating fractures from the point of entry, fractures which
didn't exist in the front of the skull, only the rear. They know that
entry wounds bevel inwards and exit wounds bevel outwards. The inward
beveling was at the hole in the BOH and the outward beveling was in the
hole in the parietal bone. All that trumps your opinions based on what you
think you see your Rorschach SOD photo.
Sounds like it realty bothers you that you're the only person in the
whole world that sees nothing in that photo. It must be a lonely feeling.
Not nearly as much as it must bother you that so few people see your
imaginary bullet hole.
Oh, I have listed a heck of a lot more than you have.
That's because it is easy for you to list them because the list is so
short.
Post by mainframetech
I'm comfortable with that. I have the forensic evidence on my side.
<chuckle>
Oh, wait. We're you being serious?
Post by mainframetech
The bullet hole in
the forehead/temple area and the resultant blowout at the BOH. Typical
rifle shot results.
If only you had people who know what they are talking about to agree with
you.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
which you know nothing about, since you can't see it.
That is a good thing.
Post by mainframetech
As well, they had no opportunity to listen to the testimony of the
enlisted men at the autopsy, and they had no chance to actually see into
the body of JFK after the organs were removed and the truth was OBVIOUS to
all present.
Why would they care what a couple techies thought they saw when they had
the testimony of the pathologists and the photos and x-rays which gave
proof positive that JFK was shot twice from behind and that the bullet
that entered the back exited the throat. Do you really think the opinions
of a couple techies in their early 20s should trump all of that?
Opinions of the technologists were not used as you've been told many
times. This is a repetitive conversation you're making, so I'm outa here.
You can deny you are relying on the opinion of the techies all you want.
You are 100% dependent on their opinions because that's all you have
regarding the back wound. You accept their judgement over that of the far
more qualified pathologists as we as the even more qualified panels of
forensic medical examiners. Your techies say they saw evidence that the
bullet didn't exit while all those far more qualified people have said
they saw evidence that the bullet most certainly exited the throat and you
put more faith in what they said they saw. Why would you do something so
silly?
I came back to see if you tried to misuse my absence, and sure enough
there you were..:) Yep, NO JUDGMENT of the team members was used because
it wasn't necessary. Their witnessing did the trick.
Why do you only believe selected witnesses and why do you select the least
qualified witnesses?
You're showing your opinions again!
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
What they saw and
related was all that was needed to see what happened to the bullet in the
upper back, and that it never left the body of JFK. Therefore no SBT.
The least qualified people on the team said they saw evidence the bullet
didn't exit.
You're trying to use 'experts' again, and they're not needed in this
case. The evidence was there to see and it didn't take an expert to see
where the bullet struck and that it had NO PATH around where it hit.

This is all repetitive that you're doing, so I'm outa here.

Chris
Anthony Marsh
2018-05-11 17:58:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
So now that you've embarrassed yourself for the unmpteenth time, what
do you tell the 3 people here, and the list of people I've shown you that
all have seen that bullet hole?
I have to be careful what I tell those three people so as not to get this
reply rejected. Almost all the witnesses you listed placed the bullet hole
they saw a lot closer to the AR placement than to your placement.
Sadly, you seem all knotted up about where the various witnesses
placed the bullet hole in the forehead/temple area. Keep picking at the
nits, but it won't get you anywhere. There was only one wound that was
5mm in diameter, and that's the one we're speaking of, no matter where you
think it was. And it can be seen by almost anyone that wants to see it
and has the courage to look.
I know where all those witnesses DIDN'T place the wound. They didn't place
it where you imagine you see it in the SOD photo. The placed it lower and
farther back. That is not nitpicking. That is refuting your placement.
REPEAT: ALL PLACEMENTS WERE IN THE SAME FOREHEAD/TEMPLE AREA.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
It would have shown up in both the x-rays and the photos of
which they had far more and better quality ones than you have seen.
Oh, get off it. You know the photo quality is plenty good enough to
see the bullet hole clearly. And please stop forgetting the many
witnesses that have seen what you apparently cannot see. You being the
outlier.
The photos the review panels had were even better and they didn't see a
bullet hole in the forehead in any of them.
The review panels did not see into the body,
So you think highly qualified professionals need to actually see the body
to figure out where the bullet hole was but rank amateurs such as you,
Marsh, and Amy can determine it by looking at ONE copy of a copy of a
copy.
Try and use your head. The proof that the bullet never left the body
was IN THE BODY, and to see it to make a proper conclusion as to the cause
of death, they had to e into the body, because the AR was false (proven).
The photos showing the autopsy (if they were the same as the 'leaked'
ones) are plenty good enough for anyone to see what's needed to see. You
can't run away with the excuse that they were too fuzzy or whatever.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
and they didn't get to interview the autopsy team,
The heard the testimony of the autopsy team, i.e. the pathologists.
WRONG! The prosectors were the ones that altered the AR, so they were
not the team, but the enlisted men were the ones to interview.
Post by bigdog
They
criticized their methods but agreed with most of the findings. There was
no dispute that JFK was shot in the BOH.
Post by mainframetech
and they didn't ENLARGE the only photo that
had the bullet hole on it plain and clear.
If it was plain and clear it shouldn't have been necessary to enlarge it.
I would be willing to bet that the original prints were quite a bit larger
than what you have looked at. I don't think they sent them to the drug
store to be developed into 4X6 prints.
To correct your nitpicking, they ENLARGED it to make it clear.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
No better quality of photo was
needed. The 3 people here that saw the bullet hole in the SOD photo saw
it with the existing quality. The other list of witnesses to the bullet
hole saw the hole itself and not a photo.
Three people convinced themselves they see a bullet hole that nobody else
here can see.
You have not presented any cites or links for "...a bullet hole that
nobody else here can see." So you're making it up. You have an awful lot
of witnesses to poll to state what they saw. So far I've gotten a few
that will admit they had the courage to look using the instructions and
they either saw a bullet hole or they saw something not normal, whatever
it was. YOU remain the only person that saw nothing out of normal and
therefore can't speak to the problem.
Post by bigdog
That photo has been in the public domain for over 30 years.
If it really did clearly show an entrance wound in JFK's forehead, the
question of conspiracy would have been settled a long time ago. The
reality is that the people who think they see a bullet hole there comprise
a small, insignificant cult.
Nope, won't do. Three people here, but many in a list that saw the
bullet hole itself, and I've listed them for you many times. And if more
here had the courage to follow the instructions and looked at the bullet
hole in that one and only photo, we'd have more in the local list.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
The did see evidence of an
exit wound in the front right of JFK's skull which is why they concurred
with the AR.
Yes, there was a bone flap (just one) over the right ear.
Not a bone flap. An exit wound, i.e. a bullet hole.
I'm not interested in changing the terminology for the bone flap.
And there is nothing to show that it was an exit wound of any kind.
Particularly since there is no entry wound in the BOGH where you'd like to
place one.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
It was made by Humes and Boswell just after 6:35pm in the Bethesda morgue.
Here's where you inject your fantasies into the conversation.
Nope, won't do. Only the proofs and evidence.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
I'm sure
the idea was to have a wound that might help panels to think there was a
bullet entry in the BOH, whereas there was just a blowout there from the
bullet in the forehead/temple area.
I've never met a man who was so sure of so many things that simply are not
true.
Not true by YOUR lights.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
You see all of those people know the differing
characteristics between entry wounds and exit wounds and they saw proof
positive of a rear entry wound and a right side exit. They saw no evidence
of your imaginary bullet hole and that is to their credit.
WRONG! The amazing thing is that you can talk about a bullet entering
the BOH and a photo of that area is completely devoid of bullet holes.
Now what do you do to prove your point?
As I was saying...
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
They
also know things that when a high velocity bullet enters a skull, it
creates radiating fractures from the point of entry, fractures which
didn't exist in the front of the skull, only the rear. They know that
entry wounds bevel inwards and exit wounds bevel outwards. The inward
beveling was at the hole in the BOH and the outward beveling was in the
hole in the parietal bone. All that trumps your opinions based on what you
think you see your Rorschach SOD photo.
Sounds like it realty bothers you that you're the only person in the
whole world that sees nothing in that photo. It must be a lonely feeling.
Not nearly as much as it must bother you that so few people see your
imaginary bullet hole.
Oh, I have listed a heck of a lot more than you have.
That's because it is easy for you to list them because the list is so
short.
Post by mainframetech
I'm comfortable with that. I have the forensic evidence on my side.
<chuckle>
Oh, wait. We're you being serious?
Post by mainframetech
The bullet hole in
the forehead/temple area and the resultant blowout at the BOH. Typical
rifle shot results.
If only you had people who know what they are talking about to agree with
you.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
which you know nothing about, since you can't see it.
That is a good thing.
Post by mainframetech
As well, they had no opportunity to listen to the testimony of the
enlisted men at the autopsy, and they had no chance to actually see into
the body of JFK after the organs were removed and the truth was OBVIOUS to
all present.
Why would they care what a couple techies thought they saw when they had
the testimony of the pathologists and the photos and x-rays which gave
proof positive that JFK was shot twice from behind and that the bullet
that entered the back exited the throat. Do you really think the opinions
of a couple techies in their early 20s should trump all of that?
Opinions of the technologists were not used as you've been told many
times. This is a repetitive conversation you're making, so I'm outa here.
You can deny you are relying on the opinion of the techies all you want.
You are 100% dependent on their opinions because that's all you have
regarding the back wound. You accept their judgement over that of the far
more qualified pathologists as we as the even more qualified panels of
forensic medical examiners. Your techies say they saw evidence that the
bullet didn't exit while all those far more qualified people have said
they saw evidence that the bullet most certainly exited the throat and you
put more faith in what they said they saw. Why would you do something so
silly?
I came back to see if you tried to misuse my absence, and sure enough
there you were..:) Yep, NO JUDGMENT of the team members was used because
it wasn't necessary. Their witnessing did the trick.
Why do you only believe selected witnesses and why do you select the least
qualified witnesses?
You're showing your opinions again!
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
What they saw and
related was all that was needed to see what happened to the bullet in the
upper back, and that it never left the body of JFK. Therefore no SBT.
The least qualified people on the team said they saw evidence the bullet
didn't exit.
You're trying to use 'experts' again, and they're not needed in this
case. The evidence was there to see and it didn't take an expert to see
where the bullet struck and that it had NO PATH around where it hit.
They SAW the path.
Post by mainframetech
This is all repetitive that you're doing, so I'm outa here.
Chris
bigdog
2018-05-12 03:03:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
So now that you've embarrassed yourself for the unmpteenth time, what
do you tell the 3 people here, and the list of people I've shown you that
all have seen that bullet hole?
I have to be careful what I tell those three people so as not to get this
reply rejected. Almost all the witnesses you listed placed the bullet hole
they saw a lot closer to the AR placement than to your placement.
Sadly, you seem all knotted up about where the various witnesses
placed the bullet hole in the forehead/temple area. Keep picking at the
nits, but it won't get you anywhere. There was only one wound that was
5mm in diameter, and that's the one we're speaking of, no matter where you
think it was. And it can be seen by almost anyone that wants to see it
and has the courage to look.
I know where all those witnesses DIDN'T place the wound. They didn't place
it where you imagine you see it in the SOD photo. The placed it lower and
farther back. That is not nitpicking. That is refuting your placement.
REPEAT: ALL PLACEMENTS WERE IN THE SAME FOREHEAD/TEMPLE AREA.
Of course they are since you have made up the term forehead/temple and defined it so broadly to include just about anywhere in the front right side of JFK's head. I have pointed to very specific placements, such as Jenkins placement in the temporal bone, which aren't even close to where you claim it to be, but you still count those people as supporting you. Nice try.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
It would have shown up in both the x-rays and the photos of
which they had far more and better quality ones than you have seen.
Oh, get off it. You know the photo quality is plenty good enough to
see the bullet hole clearly. And please stop forgetting the many
witnesses that have seen what you apparently cannot see. You being the
outlier.
The photos the review panels had were even better and they didn't see a
bullet hole in the forehead in any of them.
The review panels did not see into the body,
So you think highly qualified professionals need to actually see the body
to figure out where the bullet hole was but rank amateurs such as you,
Marsh, and Amy can determine it by looking at ONE copy of a copy of a
copy.
Try and use your head. The proof that the bullet never left the body
was IN THE BODY,
How would you know? You never saw the body. You took the word of two
techie in their early 20s for that. You dismissed what far more qualified
people who saw the body had to say which was just the opposite of what the
techies said they saw. I've asked you repeatedly why you think what the
techies said they saw is more compelling than what the pathologists said
they saw. Let me phrase the question another way. Why do you consider the
expressed observations of the techies to be proof but you reject the
expressed observations of the three pathologists.
Post by mainframetech
and to see it to make a proper conclusion as to the cause
of death, they had to e into the body, because the AR was false (proven).
The AR is what the pathologists said they saw and your "proof" that it is
false is what the techies said they saw. You don't even see that as a
double standard. You consider the word of the techies to be proof but you
don't accept what the pathologists said as proof.
Post by mainframetech
The photos showing the autopsy (if they were the same as the 'leaked'
ones) are plenty good enough for anyone to see what's needed to see. You
can't run away with the excuse that they were too fuzzy or whatever.
I'm glad to see you acknowledge that because the review panels saw those
photos (far more than you have ever seen) and they concluded that the AR
was correct in stating the bullet that hit JFK in the back exited from his
throat.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
and they didn't get to interview the autopsy team,
The heard the testimony of the autopsy team, i.e. the pathologists.
WRONG! The prosectors were the ones that altered the AR, so they were
not the team, but the enlisted men were the ones to interview.
What is your proof of that? Oh, yeah. The techies said they saw something
different. In seems in your world, the only people qualified to tell us
what was seen at the autopsy are two techies aged 21 and 22 at the time.
What a strange place Conspiracyland is.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
They
criticized their methods but agreed with most of the findings. There was
no dispute that JFK was shot in the BOH.
Post by mainframetech
and they didn't ENLARGE the only photo that
had the bullet hole on it plain and clear.
If it was plain and clear it shouldn't have been necessary to enlarge it.
I would be willing to bet that the original prints were quite a bit larger
than what you have looked at. I don't think they sent them to the drug
store to be developed into 4X6 prints.
To correct your nitpicking, they ENLARGED it to make it clear.
By they, you mean the review panels? That means they did see the enlarged
SOD photo and didn't see your bullet hole.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
No better quality of photo was
needed. The 3 people here that saw the bullet hole in the SOD photo saw
it with the existing quality. The other list of witnesses to the bullet
hole saw the hole itself and not a photo.
Three people convinced themselves they see a bullet hole that nobody else
here can see.
You have not presented any cites or links for "...a bullet hole that
nobody else here can see." So you're making it up.
Well if you know of someone else who has acknowledged seeing your bullet
hole other than Amy and Marsh, by all means cite that person. These posts
are archived back to the 1990s so we should have no trouble verifying any
such person who has said that.
Post by mainframetech
You have an awful lot
of witnesses to poll to state what they saw. So far I've gotten a few
that will admit they had the courage to look using the instructions and
they either saw a bullet hole or they saw something not normal,
Something not normal does not indicate a bullet hole.
Post by mainframetech
whatever it was. YOU remain the only person that saw nothing out of normal > > and therefore can't speak to the problem.
What problem?
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
That photo has been in the public domain for over 30 years.
If it really did clearly show an entrance wound in JFK's forehead, the
question of conspiracy would have been settled a long time ago. The
reality is that the people who think they see a bullet hole there comprise
a small, insignificant cult.
Nope, won't do. Three people here, but many in a list that saw the
bullet hole itself,
Who didn't place it where you think you see it in the photo.
Post by mainframetech
and I've listed them for you many times.
Yes you have which is how I know they didn't place it where you claim to
see it.
Post by mainframetech
And if more
here had the courage to follow the instructions and looked at the bullet
hole in that one and only photo, we'd have more in the local list.
Thanks for the daily belly laugh you are always good for. So now you think
you know better what people see in that photo than what they have said for
themselves. Too funny.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
The did see evidence of an
exit wound in the front right of JFK's skull which is why they concurred
with the AR.
Yes, there was a bone flap (just one) over the right ear.
Not a bone flap. An exit wound, i.e. a bullet hole.
I'm not interested in changing the terminology for the bone flap.
This isn't a question of terminology. The AR described an exit wound, not
the bone flap. You keep insisting the bullet hole they described was the
bone flap when it was no such thing. The bone flap was part of the defect
in the skull that was described separately.
Post by mainframetech
And there is nothing to show that it was an exit wound of any kind.
Particularly since there is no entry wound in the BOGH where you'd like to
place one.
Silly premises lead to silly conclusions.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
It was made by Humes and Boswell just after 6:35pm in the Bethesda morgue.
Here's where you inject your fantasies into the conversation.
Nope, won't do. Only the proofs and evidence.
There is no proof Humes and Boswell enlarged the defect. That is pure
fantasy borne of assumptions and a FUBAR analysis of what witnesses
said.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
I'm sure
the idea was to have a wound that might help panels to think there was a
bullet entry in the BOH, whereas there was just a blowout there from the
bullet in the forehead/temple area.
I've never met a man who was so sure of so many things that simply are not
true.
Not true by YOUR lights.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
You see all of those people know the differing
characteristics between entry wounds and exit wounds and they saw proof
positive of a rear entry wound and a right side exit. They saw no evidence
of your imaginary bullet hole and that is to their credit.
WRONG! The amazing thing is that you can talk about a bullet entering
the BOH and a photo of that area is completely devoid of bullet holes.
Now what do you do to prove your point?
As I was saying...
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
They
also know things that when a high velocity bullet enters a skull, it
creates radiating fractures from the point of entry, fractures which
didn't exist in the front of the skull, only the rear. They know that
entry wounds bevel inwards and exit wounds bevel outwards. The inward
beveling was at the hole in the BOH and the outward beveling was in the
hole in the parietal bone. All that trumps your opinions based on what you
think you see your Rorschach SOD photo.
Sounds like it realty bothers you that you're the only person in the
whole world that sees nothing in that photo. It must be a lonely feeling.
Not nearly as much as it must bother you that so few people see your
imaginary bullet hole.
Oh, I have listed a heck of a lot more than you have.
That's because it is easy for you to list them because the list is so
short.
Post by mainframetech
I'm comfortable with that. I have the forensic evidence on my side.
<chuckle>
Oh, wait. We're you being serious?
Post by mainframetech
The bullet hole in
the forehead/temple area and the resultant blowout at the BOH. Typical
rifle shot results.
If only you had people who know what they are talking about to agree with
you.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
which you know nothing about, since you can't see it.
That is a good thing.
Post by mainframetech
As well, they had no opportunity to listen to the testimony of the
enlisted men at the autopsy, and they had no chance to actually see into
the body of JFK after the organs were removed and the truth was OBVIOUS to
all present.
Why would they care what a couple techies thought they saw when they had
the testimony of the pathologists and the photos and x-rays which gave
proof positive that JFK was shot twice from behind and that the bullet
that entered the back exited the throat. Do you really think the opinions
of a couple techies in their early 20s should trump all of that?
Opinions of the technologists were not used as you've been told many
times. This is a repetitive conversation you're making, so I'm outa here.
You can deny you are relying on the opinion of the techies all you want.
You are 100% dependent on their opinions because that's all you have
regarding the back wound. You accept their judgement over that of the far
more qualified pathologists as we as the even more qualified panels of
forensic medical examiners. Your techies say they saw evidence that the
bullet didn't exit while all those far more qualified people have said
they saw evidence that the bullet most certainly exited the throat and you
put more faith in what they said they saw. Why would you do something so
silly?
I came back to see if you tried to misuse my absence, and sure enough
there you were..:) Yep, NO JUDGMENT of the team members was used because
it wasn't necessary. Their witnessing did the trick.
Why do you only believe selected witnesses and why do you select the least
qualified witnesses?
You're showing your opinions again!
So you think it is just my opinion that pathologists are far more
qualified to analyze medical evidence than the techies whose job it is to
assist them and whose training was limited to performing very specific
tasks to assist the pathologists.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
What they saw and
related was all that was needed to see what happened to the bullet in the
upper back, and that it never left the body of JFK. Therefore no SBT.
The least qualified people on the team said they saw evidence the bullet
didn't exit.
You're trying to use 'experts' again,
You're trying to ignore experts again.
Post by mainframetech
and they're not needed in this case.
IOW, they are not wanted by you because their opinions conflict with your
fantasies.
Post by mainframetech
The evidence was there to see
Then why did only the techies see it that way?
Post by mainframetech
and it didn't take an expert to see
where the bullet struck and that it had NO PATH around where it hit.
Of course it had a path that was documented. It passed over the upper tip
of the lung close enough to cause a bruise without perforating it. It went
through the strap muscles and nicked the trachea before exiting from the
throat.
Post by mainframetech
This is all repetitive that you're doing, so I'm outa here.
But not before stepping in it again.
Anthony Marsh
2018-05-14 00:11:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
So now that you've embarrassed yourself for the unmpteenth time, what
do you tell the 3 people here, and the list of people I've shown you that
all have seen that bullet hole?
I have to be careful what I tell those three people so as not to get this
reply rejected. Almost all the witnesses you listed placed the bullet hole
they saw a lot closer to the AR placement than to your placement.
Sadly, you seem all knotted up about where the various witnesses
placed the bullet hole in the forehead/temple area. Keep picking at the
nits, but it won't get you anywhere. There was only one wound that was
5mm in diameter, and that's the one we're speaking of, no matter where you
think it was. And it can be seen by almost anyone that wants to see it
and has the courage to look.
I know where all those witnesses DIDN'T place the wound. They didn't place
it where you imagine you see it in the SOD photo. The placed it lower and
farther back. That is not nitpicking. That is refuting your placement.
REPEAT: ALL PLACEMENTS WERE IN THE SAME FOREHEAD/TEMPLE AREA.
Of course they are since you have made up the term forehead/temple and defined it so broadly to include just about anywhere in the front right side of JFK's head. I have pointed to very specific placements, such as Jenkins placement in the temporal bone, which aren't even close to where you claim it to be, but you still count those people as supporting you. Nice try.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
It would have shown up in both the x-rays and the photos of
which they had far more and better quality ones than you have seen.
Oh, get off it. You know the photo quality is plenty good enough to
see the bullet hole clearly. And please stop forgetting the many
witnesses that have seen what you apparently cannot see. You being the
outlier.
The photos the review panels had were even better and they didn't see a
bullet hole in the forehead in any of them.
Dr. Lawrence Angel did.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
The review panels did not see into the body,
So you think highly qualified professionals need to actually see the body
to figure out where the bullet hole was but rank amateurs such as you,
Marsh, and Amy can determine it by looking at ONE copy of a copy of a
copy.
Speak for yourself only. You have never seen ANY autopsy photos.
I have seen the original Fox set and Groden set.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Try and use your head. The proof that the bullet never left the body
was IN THE BODY,
How would you know? You never saw the body. You took the word of two
techie in their early 20s for that. You dismissed what far more qualified
And YOU take the word of Humes? Therefore you believe in Ice Bullets?
Post by bigdog
people who saw the body had to say which was just the opposite of what the
techies said they saw. I've asked you repeatedly why you think what the
techies said they saw is more compelling than what the pathologists said
they saw. Let me phrase the question another way. Why do you consider the
expressed observations of the techies to be proof but you reject the
expressed observations of the three pathologists.
We reject the cover-up and the professional liars.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
and to see it to make a proper conclusion as to the cause
of death, they had to e into the body, because the AR was false (proven).
The AR is what the pathologists said they saw and your "proof" that it is
false is what the techies said they saw. You don't even see that as a
double standard. You consider the word of the techies to be proof but you
don't accept what the pathologists said as proof.
Which autopsy report? The one Humes had to burn in his fireplace because
it said conspiracy? I might have believed in that one. None of the
rewrites.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
The photos showing the autopsy (if they were the same as the 'leaked'
ones) are plenty good enough for anyone to see what's needed to see. You
can't run away with the excuse that they were too fuzzy or whatever.
I'm glad to see you acknowledge that because the review panels saw those
photos (far more than you have ever seen) and they concluded that the AR
was correct in stating the bullet that hit JFK in the back exited from his
throat.
The photos do not prove that. The X-rays do.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
and they didn't get to interview the autopsy team,
The heard the testimony of the autopsy team, i.e. the pathologists.
WRONG! The prosectors were the ones that altered the AR, so they were
not the team, but the enlisted men were the ones to interview.
What is your proof of that? Oh, yeah. The techies said they saw something
different. In seems in your world, the only people qualified to tell us
what was seen at the autopsy are two techies aged 21 and 22 at the time.
What a strange place Conspiracyland is.
Orders from Stover. Testimony to the ARRB.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
They
criticized their methods but agreed with most of the findings. There was
no dispute that JFK was shot in the BOH.
Post by mainframetech
and they didn't ENLARGE the only photo that
had the bullet hole on it plain and clear.
If it was plain and clear it shouldn't have been necessary to enlarge it.
I would be willing to bet that the original prints were quite a bit larger
than what you have looked at. I don't think they sent them to the drug
store to be developed into 4X6 prints.
To correct your nitpicking, they ENLARGED it to make it clear.
By they, you mean the review panels? That means they did see the enlarged
SOD photo and didn't see your bullet hole.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
No better quality of photo was
needed. The 3 people here that saw the bullet hole in the SOD photo saw
it with the existing quality. The other list of witnesses to the bullet
hole saw the hole itself and not a photo.
Three people convinced themselves they see a bullet hole that nobody else
here can see.
You have not presented any cites or links for "...a bullet hole that
nobody else here can see." So you're making it up.
Well if you know of someone else who has acknowledged seeing your bullet
hole other than Amy and Marsh, by all means cite that person. These posts
I have, millions of times,but you refuse to admit ANY fact.
Dr. Lawrence Angel.
Post by bigdog
are archived back to the 1990s so we should have no trouble verifying any
such person who has said that.
Post by mainframetech
You have an awful lot
of witnesses to poll to state what they saw. So far I've gotten a few
that will admit they had the courage to look using the instructions and
they either saw a bullet hole or they saw something not normal,
Something not normal does not indicate a bullet hole.
Post by mainframetech
whatever it was. YOU remain the only person that saw nothing out of normal > > and therefore can't speak to the problem.
What problem?
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
That photo has been in the public domain for over 30 years.
If it really did clearly show an entrance wound in JFK's forehead, the
question of conspiracy would have been settled a long time ago. The
reality is that the people who think they see a bullet hole there comprise
a small, insignificant cult.
Nope, won't do. Three people here, but many in a list that saw the
bullet hole itself,
Who didn't place it where you think you see it in the photo.
Post by mainframetech
and I've listed them for you many times.
Yes you have which is how I know they didn't place it where you claim to
see it.
Post by mainframetech
And if more
here had the courage to follow the instructions and looked at the bullet
hole in that one and only photo, we'd have more in the local list.
Thanks for the daily belly laugh you are always good for. So now you think
you know better what people see in that photo than what they have said for
themselves. Too funny.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
The did see evidence of an
exit wound in the front right of JFK's skull which is why they concurred
with the AR.
Yes, there was a bone flap (just one) over the right ear.
Not a bone flap. An exit wound, i.e. a bullet hole.
I'm not interested in changing the terminology for the bone flap.
This isn't a question of terminology. The AR described an exit wound, not
the bone flap. You keep insisting the bullet hole they described was the
bone flap when it was no such thing. The bone flap was part of the defect
in the skull that was described separately.
Post by mainframetech
And there is nothing to show that it was an exit wound of any kind.
Particularly since there is no entry wound in the BOGH where you'd like to
place one.
Silly premises lead to silly conclusions.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
It was made by Humes and Boswell just after 6:35pm in the Bethesda morgue.
Here's where you inject your fantasies into the conversation.
Nope, won't do. Only the proofs and evidence.
There is no proof Humes and Boswell enlarged the defect. That is pure
fantasy borne of assumptions and a FUBAR analysis of what witnesses
said.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
I'm sure
the idea was to have a wound that might help panels to think there was a
bullet entry in the BOH, whereas there was just a blowout there from the
bullet in the forehead/temple area.
I've never met a man who was so sure of so many things that simply are not
true.
Not true by YOUR lights.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
You see all of those people know the differing
characteristics between entry wounds and exit wounds and they saw proof
positive of a rear entry wound and a right side exit. They saw no evidence
of your imaginary bullet hole and that is to their credit.
WRONG! The amazing thing is that you can talk about a bullet entering
the BOH and a photo of that area is completely devoid of bullet holes.
Now what do you do to prove your point?
As I was saying...
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
They
also know things that when a high velocity bullet enters a skull, it
creates radiating fractures from the point of entry, fractures which
didn't exist in the front of the skull, only the rear. They know that
entry wounds bevel inwards and exit wounds bevel outwards. The inward
beveling was at the hole in the BOH and the outward beveling was in the
hole in the parietal bone. All that trumps your opinions based on what you
think you see your Rorschach SOD photo.
Sounds like it realty bothers you that you're the only person in the
whole world that sees nothing in that photo. It must be a lonely feeling.
Not nearly as much as it must bother you that so few people see your
imaginary bullet hole.
Oh, I have listed a heck of a lot more than you have.
That's because it is easy for you to list them because the list is so
short.
Post by mainframetech
I'm comfortable with that. I have the forensic evidence on my side.
<chuckle>
Oh, wait. We're you being serious?
Post by mainframetech
The bullet hole in
the forehead/temple area and the resultant blowout at the BOH. Typical
rifle shot results.
If only you had people who know what they are talking about to agree with
you.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
which you know nothing about, since you can't see it.
That is a good thing.
Post by mainframetech
As well, they had no opportunity to listen to the testimony of the
enlisted men at the autopsy, and they had no chance to actually see into
the body of JFK after the organs were removed and the truth was OBVIOUS to
all present.
Why would they care what a couple techies thought they saw when they had
the testimony of the pathologists and the photos and x-rays which gave
proof positive that JFK was shot twice from behind and that the bullet
that entered the back exited the throat. Do you really think the opinions
of a couple techies in their early 20s should trump all of that?
Opinions of the technologists were not used as you've been told many
times. This is a repetitive conversation you're making, so I'm outa here.
You can deny you are relying on the opinion of the techies all you want.
You are 100% dependent on their opinions because that's all you have
regarding the back wound. You accept their judgement over that of the far
more qualified pathologists as we as the even more qualified panels of
forensic medical examiners. Your techies say they saw evidence that the
bullet didn't exit while all those far more qualified people have said
they saw evidence that the bullet most certainly exited the throat and you
put more faith in what they said they saw. Why would you do something so
silly?
I came back to see if you tried to misuse my absence, and sure enough
there you were..:) Yep, NO JUDGMENT of the team members was used because
it wasn't necessary. Their witnessing did the trick.
Why do you only believe selected witnesses and why do you select the least
qualified witnesses?
You're showing your opinions again!
So you think it is just my opinion that pathologists are far more
qualified to analyze medical evidence than the techies whose job it is to
assist them and whose training was limited to performing very specific
tasks to assist the pathologists.
It's not opinion. It's bias. It's a cover-up.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
What they saw and
related was all that was needed to see what happened to the bullet in the
upper back, and that it never left the body of JFK. Therefore no SBT.
The least qualified people on the team said they saw evidence the bullet
didn't exit.
You're trying to use 'experts' again,
You're trying to ignore experts again.
Post by mainframetech
and they're not needed in this case.
IOW, they are not wanted by you because their opinions conflict with your
fantasies.
Post by mainframetech
The evidence was there to see
Then why did only the techies see it that way?
Post by mainframetech
and it didn't take an expert to see
where the bullet struck and that it had NO PATH around where it hit.
Of course it had a path that was documented. It passed over the upper tip
of the lung close enough to cause a bruise without perforating it. It went
through the strap muscles and nicked the trachea before exiting from the
throat.
And why are you conveniently forgetting the fracture of T-1? Maybe it
doesn't line up perfectly for your bullet to hit Connally. So sorry.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
This is all repetitive that you're doing, so I'm outa here.
But not before stepping in it again.
Steve M. Galbraith
2018-05-06 01:21:15 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 BOZ
Post by BOZ
An officer, identified as "C," was riding to the right rear of the
President's limousine and a second motorcycle away from the president. He
was coming to a stop as the first shot was fired.
Ah! Proof that the limousine slowed almost to a stop, in that the
motorcycles also had to stop to stay in position.
Post by BOZ
He had just finished
Post by BOZ
looking ahead in the direction of the grassy knoll and saw nothing that
would command his attention.
Which doesn't mean there wasn't 2 or more men with rifles end on
showing and a bit of a head looking down a sight. Hard to see while
moving on a motorcycle and trying to balance as you came to a stop.
Post by BOZ
Post by BOZ
He had thought the sound was from overheated
motorcycle backfiring near Elm and Houston as the sound definitely came
from the rear of his position. He was looking directly at President
Kennedy from a distance no greater than ten to twelve feet. The first shot
seemed to have missed, and Governor Connally started to turn. He heard the
second shot and saw that the President had been hit in the back near the
base of his neck, and that the President grabbed his throat. He also saw
Governor Connally jerk, apparently hit too. Then, his eyes frozen on this
sight, the third shot struck with ghastly effect, that shot, too, coming
from the right rear of the limousine. His mind clearly recorded that three
shots were fired and that they were fired from the direction of Elm and
Houston Streets. He wrote a journal(7) recording his observations that
same day, suggesting the "Single Bullet Theory" before there was one. He,
too, was interviewed, but his testimony was neither used nor impeached.
http://www.jfk-online.com/bowles3.html
Sounds like an accurate description of what happened but as with any
witness, it shouldn't be assumed this account is right or wrong. It should
be compared to the body of evidence to determine whether or not it is
accurate. In this case, this account dovetails well with the Z-film and
also SSA Bennett's account which he wrote aboard AF1. The SBT of course
remains the only plausible explanation for the wounds to JFK and JBC.
WRONG as usual! There are other plausible explanations,
Maybe someday you'll be able to come up with one.
I've already done so. The views of the inside of the body by the
autopsy team told them that there was no such thing as the 'single bullet'
theory. It leaves only the shot from another shooter that hit Connally.
As a plausible story, the truth fits best.
You haven't come up with plausible explanation. You are disputing the
explanation given by the WC. The WC told us where the shot was fired from,
what wounds it caused, and where the bullet ended up. You have done none
of that. You have simply dismissed the SBT without offering a viable
alternative.
WRONG! I have not even tried to come up with an alternative because I
was able to come up with the truth of the upper back wound.
So you admit there is no plausible alternative to the SBT.
WRONG again! Read the above statement I made before you blat. There
is no alternative to the SBT except the truth,
But apparently you have no idea what that truth is.
Post by mainframetech
which I've given to you.
No you haven't. You've told us why you think the SBT is impossible. You've
offered nothing in its place. No alternative scenario. Just a vague
suggestion of lots of shooters firing lots of shots and apparently most of
them not hitting anything.
WRONG as usual! I do NOT THINK the SBT is impossible, I KNOW it was
impossible, due to what was seen in the autopsy.
"It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you
know for sure that just ain't so."
https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/mark_twain_109624
Post by mainframetech
Because the autopsy
showed that the bullet never left the body of JFK, there is no way it
could then go on to Connally and hit him. And don't ask about that,
because I've told it to you too many times.
Only people who don't know what they are talking about believe that.
People like you.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
You will ignore it because of your faith in the WCR, but it wasn't for you
anyway.
It's hard to ignore something until you actually present it.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
That bullet
never went past the body of JFK, and it's been proven by testimony of 2 of
those in the autopsy team. Your stupid WCR came up with a THEORY!!
Theories are not the truth, only guesses.
It is your conclusion that the bullet never went past the body of JFK. No
competent medical examiner has reached that conclusion. They are unanimous
in their verdict that JFK was struck twice from behind and that the bullet
that struck him in the back exited from his throat. Your amateurish
opinions do not trump theirs. That makes the SBT plausible and to date it
remains the only plausible explanation.
WRONG again! You'll never learn. The medical panels did not have all
the information that we have available to us. If they did have it, they
could have made the right conclusions too. It was really simple once you
knew the details from the autopsy.
The medical panels had far more and better information than you will ever
have an were far more knowledgeable in the area of forensic medicine than
you could ever hope to be. That's why no one with a functional brain would
accept your opinion over theirs.
WRONG yet again! The panels were not aware of the bullet hole in the
forehead/temple area,
Because there wasn't one. If there had been one, they would have been
aware of it. It would have shown up in both the x-rays and the photos of
which they had far more and better quality ones than you have seen. They
also know things that when a high velocity bullet enters a skull, it
creates radiating fractures from the point of entry, fractures which
didn't exist in the front of the skull, only the rear. They know that
entry wounds bevel inwards and exit wounds bevel outwards. The inward
beveling was at the hole in the BOH and the outward beveling was in the
hole in the parietal bone. All that trumps your opinions based on what you
think you see your Rorschach SOD photo.
Post by mainframetech
which you know nothing about, since you can't see it.
That is a good thing.
Post by mainframetech
As well, they had no opportunity to listen to the testimony of the
enlisted men at the autopsy, and they had no chance to actually see into
the body of JFK after the organs were removed and the truth was OBVIOUS to
all present.
Why would they care what a couple techies thought they saw when they had
the testimony of the pathologists and the photos and x-rays which gave
proof positive that JFK was shot twice from behind and that the bullet
that entered the back exited the throat. Do you really think the opinions
of a couple techies in their early 20s should trump all of that?
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
some of which are the right ones.
How can there be more than one right one? How many different ways do you
think the assassination happened?
I've mentioned the right one above, and elsewhere, and to you as
well. Are you going to play that you forgot again?
You have done nothing but offer a denial of the SBT without providing a
viable alternative in its place. Just a vague claim that it must be
something else but you can't tell us what that something else is.
REPEAT: THERE IS NO NEED FOR A "VIABLE ALTERNATIVE", GET IT THROUGH
YOUR HEAD. It was shown that the bullet never went past the pleura in the
body of JFK, and so never left the body and therefore never hit Connally.
You have the truth, now don't go dismissing it like so many other bits of
proof.
You have convinced yourself that the bullet never exited from JFK's
throat. Now all you have to do is convince the other 7 billion people on
the planet of that.
REPEAT FOR YOU: I HAVE NOT CONVINCED MYSELF OF ANYTHING. I just
happen to know the truth stated during the autopsy. And I don't have to
convince anyone. I put the info out there and folks will understand it or
they won't.
I'm glad you don't need to convince anyone because that would be
problematic.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
That is that there was a plot and there were many
shooters firing in the direction of JFK, and Connally got in the line of
fire. That is far more believable than the SBT, which was shown to be
false.
You're explanation is a little sketchy on the details there, ace. Do you
think you could fill in the blanks?
You mean you can't figure out what I said? There were many shooters
firing at JFK, and Connally got hit by one or more of the bullets flying
around.
I guess that tells us you can't fill in the blanks. You can't tell us
where the shots were fired from that caused each of the wounds to JFK and
JBC and where those bullets went after causing those wounds. The WC was
able to do that. Here we are 54 years later and you still aren't up to the
task. If you can't offer specifics, you haven't presented a viable
alternative.
It's amazing how stupid humans can be sometimes.
Irony noted.
Post by mainframetech
No one here could tell where most of the shots came from.
Speak for yourself. A lot of us have figured out all the shots came from
the sniper's nest.
"A lot of us"? You decided to speak for everyone again?
I didn't pretend to speak for them. I'm just telling you what they know.
Anyone who believes Oswald was the lone assassin knows the shots all came
from the SN.
I guess that's like me knowing that all the autopsy team members KNOW
that the bullet never left the body of JFK, and so the SBT is dead.
Another fine example of things you are sure you know that ain't so.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
I bet you didn't check with them first.
Do you really think it is necessary to ask every LN if they believe all
the shots were fired from the SN? It's hard to believe that there could be
someone who believes there was a lone assassin but he fired from somewhere
other than the SN. Maybe there is someone in this world who believes such
a thing.
ah! Only the LNs will back you up! Calling on them might get you some
answers you don't want to hear.
Do you think there are LNs who would disagree with me that the shots were
fired from the SN?
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
And there is serious doubt that all shots
(3) came only from the TSBD 6th floor.
I can't help that there are lots of people in this world who believe silly
things.
Post by mainframetech
The list of bullet strikes in the
plaza and the proofs from the autopsy show that as false info.
I guess it's not surprising that a guy who sees imaginary bullet holes
would also believe in imaginary bullet strikes all over DP.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
That's one of your red herrings
drug across the path to mislead everyone. Most of the answers were known
many years ago.
Maybe someday you'll get up to speed. First you have to take your car out
of neutral.
Post by mainframetech
The ARRB files had them. You wouldn't know about that
since you rarely visit there. Repeat, when you know the truth, you don't
need alternatives.
I was aware of the ARRB long before you ever stumbled across them and I
also know there was nothing in them that proved to be a game changer, much
to the chagrin of the conspiracy hobbyists back in the 1990s. Most of them
have moved on from the ARRB because they discovered it was a big nothing
burger.
That's why you have got no clue as to what or how the murder was
accomplished and how phony the autopsy was. The ARRB files have most of
the answers to questions in the case.
Quite the irony alert when you accuse someone else of not having a clue.
You're allowed your opinion, and it doesn't even have to be corrected.
Yours doesn't have to be corrected. It's just fun to keep doing it while
you continue to peddle your nonsense. You'd have better luck trying to
sell air conditioners to Eskimos.
Did he ever answer why the snipers would use not just one but two bullets
that would (somehow) just penetrate a few inches inside JFK's body?

What the heck is this for? Why do something this stupid?

Were they trying to kill JFK or just wound him a little?

Then, of course, the autopsy doctors - who were in on the conspiracy -
reveal these "shallow" bullets to people watching. No, they don't keep it
quiet; they reveal it. Moreover, during the secret pre-autopsy surgery
they forget to lengthen/deepen these back and neck wounds and connect them
to each other.

So not only do they forget to alter these "shallow" wounds they reveal
them to others.
bigdog
2018-05-06 19:38:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
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 BOZ
Post by BOZ
An officer, identified as "C," was riding to the right rear of the
President's limousine and a second motorcycle away from the president. He
was coming to a stop as the first shot was fired.
Ah! Proof that the limousine slowed almost to a stop, in that the
motorcycles also had to stop to stay in position.
Post by BOZ
He had just finished
Post by BOZ
looking ahead in the direction of the grassy knoll and saw nothing that
would command his attention.
Which doesn't mean there wasn't 2 or more men with rifles end on
showing and a bit of a head looking down a sight. Hard to see while
moving on a motorcycle and trying to balance as you came to a stop.
Post by BOZ
Post by BOZ
He had thought the sound was from overheated
motorcycle backfiring near Elm and Houston as the sound definitely came
from the rear of his position. He was looking directly at President
Kennedy from a distance no greater than ten to twelve feet. The first shot
seemed to have missed, and Governor Connally started to turn. He heard the
second shot and saw that the President had been hit in the back near the
base of his neck, and that the President grabbed his throat. He also saw
Governor Connally jerk, apparently hit too. Then, his eyes frozen on this
sight, the third shot struck with ghastly effect, that shot, too, coming
from the right rear of the limousine. His mind clearly recorded that three
shots were fired and that they were fired from the direction of Elm and
Houston Streets. He wrote a journal(7) recording his observations that
same day, suggesting the "Single Bullet Theory" before there was one. He,
too, was interviewed, but his testimony was neither used nor impeached.
http://www.jfk-online.com/bowles3.html
Sounds like an accurate description of what happened but as with any
witness, it shouldn't be assumed this account is right or wrong. It should
be compared to the body of evidence to determine whether or not it is
accurate. In this case, this account dovetails well with the Z-film and
also SSA Bennett's account which he wrote aboard AF1. The SBT of course
remains the only plausible explanation for the wounds to JFK and JBC.
WRONG as usual! There are other plausible explanations,
Maybe someday you'll be able to come up with one.
I've already done so. The views of the inside of the body by the
autopsy team told them that there was no such thing as the 'single bullet'
theory. It leaves only the shot from another shooter that hit Connally.
As a plausible story, the truth fits best.
You haven't come up with plausible explanation. You are disputing the
explanation given by the WC. The WC told us where the shot was fired from,
what wounds it caused, and where the bullet ended up. You have done none
of that. You have simply dismissed the SBT without offering a viable
alternative.
WRONG! I have not even tried to come up with an alternative because I
was able to come up with the truth of the upper back wound.
So you admit there is no plausible alternative to the SBT.
WRONG again! Read the above statement I made before you blat. There
is no alternative to the SBT except the truth,
But apparently you have no idea what that truth is.
Post by mainframetech
which I've given to you.
No you haven't. You've told us why you think the SBT is impossible. You've
offered nothing in its place. No alternative scenario. Just a vague
suggestion of lots of shooters firing lots of shots and apparently most of
them not hitting anything.
WRONG as usual! I do NOT THINK the SBT is impossible, I KNOW it was
impossible, due to what was seen in the autopsy.
"It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you
know for sure that just ain't so."
https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/mark_twain_109624
Post by mainframetech
Because the autopsy
showed that the bullet never left the body of JFK, there is no way it
could then go on to Connally and hit him. And don't ask about that,
because I've told it to you too many times.
Only people who don't know what they are talking about believe that.
People like you.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
You will ignore it because of your faith in the WCR, but it wasn't for you
anyway.
It's hard to ignore something until you actually present it.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
That bullet
never went past the body of JFK, and it's been proven by testimony of 2 of
those in the autopsy team. Your stupid WCR came up with a THEORY!!
Theories are not the truth, only guesses.
It is your conclusion that the bullet never went past the body of JFK. No
competent medical examiner has reached that conclusion. They are unanimous
in their verdict that JFK was struck twice from behind and that the bullet
that struck him in the back exited from his throat. Your amateurish
opinions do not trump theirs. That makes the SBT plausible and to date it
remains the only plausible explanation.
WRONG again! You'll never learn. The medical panels did not have all
the information that we have available to us. If they did have it, they
could have made the right conclusions too. It was really simple once you
knew the details from the autopsy.
The medical panels had far more and better information than you will ever
have an were far more knowledgeable in the area of forensic medicine than
you could ever hope to be. That's why no one with a functional brain would
accept your opinion over theirs.
WRONG yet again! The panels were not aware of the bullet hole in the
forehead/temple area,
Because there wasn't one. If there had been one, they would have been
aware of it. It would have shown up in both the x-rays and the photos of
which they had far more and better quality ones than you have seen. They
also know things that when a high velocity bullet enters a skull, it
creates radiating fractures from the point of entry, fractures which
didn't exist in the front of the skull, only the rear. They know that
entry wounds bevel inwards and exit wounds bevel outwards. The inward
beveling was at the hole in the BOH and the outward beveling was in the
hole in the parietal bone. All that trumps your opinions based on what you
think you see your Rorschach SOD photo.
Post by mainframetech
which you know nothing about, since you can't see it.
That is a good thing.
Post by mainframetech
As well, they had no opportunity to listen to the testimony of the
enlisted men at the autopsy, and they had no chance to actually see into
the body of JFK after the organs were removed and the truth was OBVIOUS to
all present.
Why would they care what a couple techies thought they saw when they had
the testimony of the pathologists and the photos and x-rays which gave
proof positive that JFK was shot twice from behind and that the bullet
that entered the back exited the throat. Do you really think the opinions
of a couple techies in their early 20s should trump all of that?
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
some of which are the right ones.
How can there be more than one right one? How many different ways do you
think the assassination happened?
I've mentioned the right one above, and elsewhere, and to you as
well. Are you going to play that you forgot again?
You have done nothing but offer a denial of the SBT without providing a
viable alternative in its place. Just a vague claim that it must be
something else but you can't tell us what that something else is.
REPEAT: THERE IS NO NEED FOR A "VIABLE ALTERNATIVE", GET IT THROUGH
YOUR HEAD. It was shown that the bullet never went past the pleura in the
body of JFK, and so never left the body and therefore never hit Connally.
You have the truth, now don't go dismissing it like so many other bits of
proof.
You have convinced yourself that the bullet never exited from JFK's
throat. Now all you have to do is convince the other 7 billion people on
the planet of that.
REPEAT FOR YOU: I HAVE NOT CONVINCED MYSELF OF ANYTHING. I just
happen to know the truth stated during the autopsy. And I don't have to
convince anyone. I put the info out there and folks will understand it or
they won't.
I'm glad you don't need to convince anyone because that would be
problematic.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
That is that there was a plot and there were many
shooters firing in the direction of JFK, and Connally got in the line of
fire. That is far more believable than the SBT, which was shown to be
false.
You're explanation is a little sketchy on the details there, ace. Do you
think you could fill in the blanks?
You mean you can't figure out what I said? There were many shooters
firing at JFK, and Connally got hit by one or more of the bullets flying
around.
I guess that tells us you can't fill in the blanks. You can't tell us
where the shots were fired from that caused each of the wounds to JFK and
JBC and where those bullets went after causing those wounds. The WC was
able to do that. Here we are 54 years later and you still aren't up to the
task. If you can't offer specifics, you haven't presented a viable
alternative.
It's amazing how stupid humans can be sometimes.
Irony noted.
Post by mainframetech
No one here could tell where most of the shots came from.
Speak for yourself. A lot of us have figured out all the shots came from
the sniper's nest.
"A lot of us"? You decided to speak for everyone again?
I didn't pretend to speak for them. I'm just telling you what they know.
Anyone who believes Oswald was the lone assassin knows the shots all came
from the SN.
I guess that's like me knowing that all the autopsy team members KNOW
that the bullet never left the body of JFK, and so the SBT is dead.
Another fine example of things you are sure you know that ain't so.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
I bet you didn't check with them first.
Do you really think it is necessary to ask every LN if they believe all
the shots were fired from the SN? It's hard to believe that there could be
someone who believes there was a lone assassin but he fired from somewhere
other than the SN. Maybe there is someone in this world who believes such
a thing.
ah! Only the LNs will back you up! Calling on them might get you some
answers you don't want to hear.
Do you think there are LNs who would disagree with me that the shots were
fired from the SN?
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
And there is serious doubt that all shots
(3) came only from the TSBD 6th floor.
I can't help that there are lots of people in this world who believe silly
things.
Post by mainframetech
The list of bullet strikes in the
plaza and the proofs from the autopsy show that as false info.
I guess it's not surprising that a guy who sees imaginary bullet holes
would also believe in imaginary bullet strikes all over DP.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
That's one of your red herrings
drug across the path to mislead everyone. Most of the answers were known
many years ago.
Maybe someday you'll get up to speed. First you have to take your car out
of neutral.
Post by mainframetech
The ARRB files had them. You wouldn't know about that
since you rarely visit there. Repeat, when you know the truth, you don't
need alternatives.
I was aware of the ARRB long before you ever stumbled across them and I
also know there was nothing in them that proved to be a game changer, much
to the chagrin of the conspiracy hobbyists back in the 1990s. Most of them
have moved on from the ARRB because they discovered it was a big nothing
burger.
That's why you have got no clue as to what or how the murder was
accomplished and how phony the autopsy was. The ARRB files have most of
the answers to questions in the case.
Quite the irony alert when you accuse someone else of not having a clue.
You're allowed your opinion, and it doesn't even have to be corrected.
Yours doesn't have to be corrected. It's just fun to keep doing it while
you continue to peddle your nonsense. You'd have better luck trying to
sell air conditioners to Eskimos.
Did he ever answer why the snipers would use not just one but two bullets
that would (somehow) just penetrate a few inches inside JFK's body?
Of course he hasn't. It's amazing how this sophisticated conspiracy
apparently hired snipers who couldn't shoot straight, firing shots that
struck all over Dealey Plaza. They couldn't even afford decent ammo and
even resorted to firing black powder weapons which would emit billows of
smoke giving away their stealth positions. This is the kind of nonsense
one has to resort to when one rejects the most obvious explanation for the
body of evidence.
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
What the heck is this for? Why do something this stupid?
Were they trying to kill JFK or just wound him a little?
Maybe the were using a Red Ryder BB gun with a compass in the stock, and
this thing which tells time.
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Then, of course, the autopsy doctors - who were in on the conspiracy -
reveal these "shallow" bullets to people watching. No, they don't keep it
quiet; they reveal it. Moreover, during the secret pre-autopsy surgery
they forget to lengthen/deepen these back and neck wounds and connect them
to each other.
So not only do they forget to alter these "shallow" wounds they reveal
them to others.
Makes about as much sense as anything else he's come up with.
mainframetech
2018-05-08 17:29:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
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 BOZ
Post by BOZ
An officer, identified as "C," was riding to the right rear of the
President's limousine and a second motorcycle away from the president. He
was coming to a stop as the first shot was fired.
Ah! Proof that the limousine slowed almost to a stop, in that the
motorcycles also had to stop to stay in position.
Post by BOZ
He had just finished
Post by BOZ
looking ahead in the direction of the grassy knoll and saw nothing that
would command his attention.
Which doesn't mean there wasn't 2 or more men with rifles end on
showing and a bit of a head looking down a sight. Hard to see while
moving on a motorcycle and trying to balance as you came to a stop.
Post by BOZ
Post by BOZ
He had thought the sound was from overheated
motorcycle backfiring near Elm and Houston as the sound definitely came
from the rear of his position. He was looking directly at President
Kennedy from a distance no greater than ten to twelve feet. The first shot
seemed to have missed, and Governor Connally started to turn. He heard the
second shot and saw that the President had been hit in the back near the
base of his neck, and that the President grabbed his throat. He also saw
Governor Connally jerk, apparently hit too. Then, his eyes frozen on this
sight, the third shot struck with ghastly effect, that shot, too, coming
from the right rear of the limousine. His mind clearly recorded that three
shots were fired and that they were fired from the direction of Elm and
Houston Streets. He wrote a journal(7) recording his observations that
same day, suggesting the "Single Bullet Theory" before there was one. He,
too, was interviewed, but his testimony was neither used nor impeached.
http://www.jfk-online.com/bowles3.html
Sounds like an accurate description of what happened but as with any
witness, it shouldn't be assumed this account is right or wrong. It should
be compared to the body of evidence to determine whether or not it is
accurate. In this case, this account dovetails well with the Z-film and
also SSA Bennett's account which he wrote aboard AF1. The SBT of course
remains the only plausible explanation for the wounds to JFK and JBC.
WRONG as usual! There are other plausible explanations,
Maybe someday you'll be able to come up with one.
I've already done so. The views of the inside of the body by the
autopsy team told them that there was no such thing as the 'single bullet'
theory. It leaves only the shot from another shooter that hit Connally.
As a plausible story, the truth fits best.
You haven't come up with plausible explanation. You are disputing the
explanation given by the WC. The WC told us where the shot was fired from,
what wounds it caused, and where the bullet ended up. You have done none
of that. You have simply dismissed the SBT without offering a viable
alternative.
WRONG! I have not even tried to come up with an alternative because I
was able to come up with the truth of the upper back wound.
So you admit there is no plausible alternative to the SBT.
WRONG again! Read the above statement I made before you blat. There
is no alternative to the SBT except the truth,
But apparently you have no idea what that truth is.
Post by mainframetech
which I've given to you.
No you haven't. You've told us why you think the SBT is impossible. You've
offered nothing in its place. No alternative scenario. Just a vague
suggestion of lots of shooters firing lots of shots and apparently most of
them not hitting anything.
WRONG as usual! I do NOT THINK the SBT is impossible, I KNOW it was
impossible, due to what was seen in the autopsy.
"It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you
know for sure that just ain't so."
https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/mark_twain_109624
Post by mainframetech
Because the autopsy
showed that the bullet never left the body of JFK, there is no way it
could then go on to Connally and hit him. And don't ask about that,
because I've told it to you too many times.
Only people who don't know what they are talking about believe that.
People like you.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
You will ignore it because of your faith in the WCR, but it wasn't for you
anyway.
It's hard to ignore something until you actually present it.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
That bullet
never went past the body of JFK, and it's been proven by testimony of 2 of
those in the autopsy team. Your stupid WCR came up with a THEORY!!
Theories are not the truth, only guesses.
It is your conclusion that the bullet never went past the body of JFK. No
competent medical examiner has reached that conclusion. They are unanimous
in their verdict that JFK was struck twice from behind and that the bullet
that struck him in the back exited from his throat. Your amateurish
opinions do not trump theirs. That makes the SBT plausible and to date it
remains the only plausible explanation.
WRONG again! You'll never learn. The medical panels did not have all
the information that we have available to us. If they did have it, they
could have made the right conclusions too. It was really simple once you
knew the details from the autopsy.
The medical panels had far more and better information than you will ever
have an were far more knowledgeable in the area of forensic medicine than
you could ever hope to be. That's why no one with a functional brain would
accept your opinion over theirs.
WRONG yet again! The panels were not aware of the bullet hole in the
forehead/temple area,
Because there wasn't one. If there had been one, they would have been
aware of it. It would have shown up in both the x-rays and the photos of
which they had far more and better quality ones than you have seen. They
also know things that when a high velocity bullet enters a skull, it
creates radiating fractures from the point of entry, fractures which
didn't exist in the front of the skull, only the rear. They know that
entry wounds bevel inwards and exit wounds bevel outwards. The inward
beveling was at the hole in the BOH and the outward beveling was in the
hole in the parietal bone. All that trumps your opinions based on what you
think you see your Rorschach SOD photo.
Post by mainframetech
which you know nothing about, since you can't see it.
That is a good thing.
Post by mainframetech
As well, they had no opportunity to listen to the testimony of the
enlisted men at the autopsy, and they had no chance to actually see into
the body of JFK after the organs were removed and the truth was OBVIOUS to
all present.
Why would they care what a couple techies thought they saw when they had
the testimony of the pathologists and the photos and x-rays which gave
proof positive that JFK was shot twice from behind and that the bullet
that entered the back exited the throat. Do you really think the opinions
of a couple techies in their early 20s should trump all of that?
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
some of which are the right ones.
How can there be more than one right one? How many different ways do you
think the assassination happened?
I've mentioned the right one above, and elsewhere, and to you as
well. Are you going to play that you forgot again?
You have done nothing but offer a denial of the SBT without providing a
viable alternative in its place. Just a vague claim that it must be
something else but you can't tell us what that something else is.
REPEAT: THERE IS NO NEED FOR A "VIABLE ALTERNATIVE", GET IT THROUGH
YOUR HEAD. It was shown that the bullet never went past the pleura in the
body of JFK, and so never left the body and therefore never hit Connally.
You have the truth, now don't go dismissing it like so many other bits of
proof.
You have convinced yourself that the bullet never exited from JFK's
throat. Now all you have to do is convince the other 7 billion people on
the planet of that.
REPEAT FOR YOU: I HAVE NOT CONVINCED MYSELF OF ANYTHING. I just
happen to know the truth stated during the autopsy. And I don't have to
convince anyone. I put the info out there and folks will understand it or
they won't.
I'm glad you don't need to convince anyone because that would be
problematic.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
That is that there was a plot and there were many
shooters firing in the direction of JFK, and Connally got in the line of
fire. That is far more believable than the SBT, which was shown to be
false.
You're explanation is a little sketchy on the details there, ace. Do you
think you could fill in the blanks?
You mean you can't figure out what I said? There were many shooters
firing at JFK, and Connally got hit by one or more of the bullets flying
around.
I guess that tells us you can't fill in the blanks. You can't tell us
where the shots were fired from that caused each of the wounds to JFK and
JBC and where those bullets went after causing those wounds. The WC was
able to do that. Here we are 54 years later and you still aren't up to the
task. If you can't offer specifics, you haven't presented a viable
alternative.
It's amazing how stupid humans can be sometimes.
Irony noted.
Post by mainframetech
No one here could tell where most of the shots came from.
Speak for yourself. A lot of us have figured out all the shots came from
the sniper's nest.
"A lot of us"? You decided to speak for everyone again?
I didn't pretend to speak for them. I'm just telling you what they know.
Anyone who believes Oswald was the lone assassin knows the shots all came
from the SN.
I guess that's like me knowing that all the autopsy team members KNOW
that the bullet never left the body of JFK, and so the SBT is dead.
Another fine example of things you are sure you know that ain't so.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
I bet you didn't check with them first.
Do you really think it is necessary to ask every LN if they believe all
the shots were fired from the SN? It's hard to believe that there could be
someone who believes there was a lone assassin but he fired from somewhere
other than the SN. Maybe there is someone in this world who believes such
a thing.
ah! Only the LNs will back you up! Calling on them might get you some
answers you don't want to hear.
Do you think there are LNs who would disagree with me that the shots were
fired from the SN?
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
And there is serious doubt that all shots
(3) came only from the TSBD 6th floor.
I can't help that there are lots of people in this world who believe silly
things.
Post by mainframetech
The list of bullet strikes in the
plaza and the proofs from the autopsy show that as false info.
I guess it's not surprising that a guy who sees imaginary bullet holes
would also believe in imaginary bullet strikes all over DP.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
That's one of your red herrings
drug across the path to mislead everyone. Most of the answers were known
many years ago.
Maybe someday you'll get up to speed. First you have to take your car out
of neutral.
Post by mainframetech
The ARRB files had them. You wouldn't know about that
since you rarely visit there. Repeat, when you know the truth, you don't
need alternatives.
I was aware of the ARRB long before you ever stumbled across them and I
also know there was nothing in them that proved to be a game changer, much
to the chagrin of the conspiracy hobbyists back in the 1990s. Most of them
have moved on from the ARRB because they discovered it was a big nothing
burger.
That's why you have got no clue as to what or how the murder was
accomplished and how phony the autopsy was. The ARRB files have most of
the answers to questions in the case.
Quite the irony alert when you accuse someone else of not having a clue.
You're allowed your opinion, and it doesn't even have to be corrected.
Yours doesn't have to be corrected. It's just fun to keep doing it while
you continue to peddle your nonsense. You'd have better luck trying to
sell air conditioners to Eskimos.
Did he ever answer why the snipers would use not just one but two bullets
that would (somehow) just penetrate a few inches inside JFK's body?
Of course he hasn't. It's amazing how this sophisticated conspiracy
apparently hired snipers who couldn't shoot straight, firing shots that
struck all over Dealey Plaza. They couldn't even afford decent ammo and
even resorted to firing black powder weapons which would emit billows of
smoke giving away their stealth positions. This is the kind of nonsense
one has to resort to when one rejects the most obvious explanation for the
body of evidence.
Talk about the blind leading the blind! Where are these 2 bullets
you're talking about? There was one bullet that struck JFK in the upper
back, and there was proof presented by witnesses that the bullet never
left the body of JFK, and so the SBT is dead. Why are you misleading a
newer member? Trying to recover some of your lost ego? Plus no one told
you that the guns on the GK were loaded with black powder, that was only a
possible reason for the smoke that appeared as the folks on the overpass
saw as shots were fired from that area. You're going to lead poor
Galbraith into more confusion that he already is experiencing.
Post by bigdog
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
What the heck is this for? Why do something this stupid?
Were they trying to kill JFK or just wound him a little?
Maybe the were using a Red Ryder BB gun with a compass in the stock, and
this thing which tells time.
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Then, of course, the autopsy doctors - who were in on the conspiracy -
reveal these "shallow" bullets to people watching. No, they don't keep it
quiet; they reveal it. Moreover, during the secret pre-autopsy surgery
they forget to lengthen/deepen these back and neck wounds and connect them
to each other.
So not only do they forget to alter these "shallow" wounds they reveal
them to others.
Makes about as much sense as anything else he's come up with.
Talk about humans being dumber than a stump! No doctors were in on
any conspiracy. Where's you get that foolishness? On a kooky LN website?

Chris
bigdog
2018-05-08 23:51:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Did he ever answer why the snipers would use not just one but two bullets
that would (somehow) just penetrate a few inches inside JFK's body?
Of course he hasn't. It's amazing how this sophisticated conspiracy
apparently hired snipers who couldn't shoot straight, firing shots that
struck all over Dealey Plaza. They couldn't even afford decent ammo and
even resorted to firing black powder weapons which would emit billows of
smoke giving away their stealth positions. This is the kind of nonsense
one has to resort to when one rejects the most obvious explanation for the
body of evidence.
Talk about the blind leading the blind! Where are these 2 bullets
you're talking about?
I guess if you're a conspiracy hobbyist, having a short memory is a useful
trait. We were talking about your two shallow entry bullets. You know.
You're back wound where the bullet stopped at the pleura and your throat
wound that went in so shallow that Humes and Boswell were able to dig it
out. Bullets so weak they could make only a shallow penetration despite
striking nothing but soft tissue. Far weaker than even handgun ammo, much
less a rifle. To propose even one such weak bullet is preposterous enough
but to claim two fired by different shooters is off the charts funny.
Post by mainframetech
There was one bullet that struck JFK in the upper
back, and there was proof presented by witnesses that the bullet never
left the body of JFK, and so the SBT is dead.
No such proof has ever been presented. That is an unsubstantiated claim
made by the least qualified people on the autopsy team which conflicts
with what the most qualified people on the team concluded. I don't know in
what universe that would constitute proof.
Post by mainframetech
Why are you misleading a newer member?
Even a newer member is going to see through your bullshit. It's not even
good bullshit.
Post by mainframetech
Trying to recover some of your lost ego? Plus no one told
you that the guns on the GK were loaded with black powder,
That is a preposterous idea you floated to try to rescue another
preposterous idea. It didn't work.
Post by mainframetech
that was only a
possible reason for the smoke that appeared as the folks on the overpass
saw as shots were fired from that area.
Apparently you couldn't see how preposterous an idea it was. I don't blame
you for trying to walk it back.
Post by mainframetech
You're going to lead poor
Galbraith into more confusion that he already is experiencing.
Of the three of us, one of us is confused and it isn't Galbraith or bigdog
so that kind of narrows it down.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
What the heck is this for? Why do something this stupid?
Were they trying to kill JFK or just wound him a little?
Maybe the were using a Red Ryder BB gun with a compass in the stock, and
this thing which tells time.
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Then, of course, the autopsy doctors - who were in on the conspiracy -
reveal these "shallow" bullets to people watching. No, they don't keep it
quiet; they reveal it. Moreover, during the secret pre-autopsy surgery
they forget to lengthen/deepen these back and neck wounds and connect them
to each other.
So not only do they forget to alter these "shallow" wounds they reveal
them to others.
Makes about as much sense as anything else he's come up with.
Talk about humans being dumber than a stump!
That does explain the conspiracy hobby.
Post by mainframetech
No doctors were in on
any conspiracy. Where's you get that foolishness? On a kooky LN website?
Nice of you to admit that. If doctors had deliberately falsified evidence
to cover up the true nature of the crime, that would have made them
accessories after the fact and by definition part of the conspiracy. By
saying they were not part of the conspiracy, you are acknowledging that
they did not falsify evidence.
mainframetech
2018-05-10 19:12:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Did he ever answer why the snipers would use not just one but two bullets
that would (somehow) just penetrate a few inches inside JFK's body?
Of course he hasn't. It's amazing how this sophisticated conspiracy
apparently hired snipers who couldn't shoot straight, firing shots that
struck all over Dealey Plaza. They couldn't even afford decent ammo and
even resorted to firing black powder weapons which would emit billows of
smoke giving away their stealth positions. This is the kind of nonsense
one has to resort to when one rejects the most obvious explanation for the
body of evidence.
Talk about the blind leading the blind! Where are these 2 bullets
you're talking about?
I guess if you're a conspiracy hobbyist, having a short memory is a useful
trait. We were talking about your two shallow entry bullets. You know.
You're back wound where the bullet stopped at the pleura and your throat
wound that went in so shallow that Humes and Boswell were able to dig it
out. Bullets so weak they could make only a shallow penetration despite
striking nothing but soft tissue. Far weaker than even handgun ammo, much
less a rifle. To propose even one such weak bullet is preposterous enough
but to claim two fired by different shooters is off the charts funny.
Ah! It never occurred to me that you were talking about the throat
wound! Indeed, that one was a full normal shot, but I'm betting that it
hit the backbone at the back of the throat that stopped it, and THEN was
dug out by Humes and Boswell. So now you only have to deal with ONE
'short shot'.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
There was one bullet that struck JFK in the upper
back, and there was proof presented by witnesses that the bullet never
left the body of JFK, and so the SBT is dead.
No such proof has ever been presented. That is an unsubstantiated claim
made by the least qualified people on the autopsy team which conflicts
with what the most qualified people on the team concluded. I don't know in
what universe that would constitute proof.
Post by mainframetech
Why are you misleading a newer member?
Even a newer member is going to see through your bullshit. It's not even
good bullshit.
My point is that I've presented the evidence and the eyewitnesses to
explain the upper back wound which never came out of the throat wound.
You've reported incorrectly again!
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Trying to recover some of your lost ego? Plus no one told
you that the guns on the GK were loaded with black powder,
That is a preposterous idea you floated to try to rescue another
preposterous idea. It didn't work.
Post by mainframetech
that was only a
possible reason for the smoke that appeared as the folks on the overpass
saw as shots were fired from that area.
Apparently you couldn't see how preposterous an idea it was. I don't blame
you for trying to walk it back.
Forget it. I suggested it as a possibility since my research showed
that some people still used black powder at times. But it was clearly one
of a few possibilities. As usual your WCR fervor has screwed you up
again.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
You're going to lead poor
Galbraith into more confusion that he already is experiencing.
Of the three of us, one of us is confused and it isn't Galbraith or bigdog
so that kind of narrows it down.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
What the heck is this for? Why do something this stupid?
Were they trying to kill JFK or just wound him a little?
Maybe the were using a Red Ryder BB gun with a compass in the stock, and
this thing which tells time.
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Then, of course, the autopsy doctors - who were in on the conspiracy -
reveal these "shallow" bullets to people watching. No, they don't keep it
quiet; they reveal it. Moreover, during the secret pre-autopsy surgery
they forget to lengthen/deepen these back and neck wounds and connect them
to each other.
So not only do they forget to alter these "shallow" wounds they reveal
them to others.
Makes about as much sense as anything else he's come up with.
Talk about humans being dumber than a stump!
That does explain the conspiracy hobby.
Post by mainframetech
No doctors were in on
any conspiracy. Where's you get that foolishness? On a kooky LN website?
Nice of you to admit that. If doctors had deliberately falsified evidence
to cover up the true nature of the crime, that would have made them
accessories after the fact and by definition part of the conspiracy. By
saying they were not part of the conspiracy, you are acknowledging that
they did not falsify evidence.
WRONG! You don't get to define who's part of the conspiracy or not.
The prosectors were NOT part of the original crime and the plotting. The
problem was brought to them, and they were ordered to handle it a certain
way. Because of circumstances, I would call them more likely 'victims'
than criminals. And they falsified the Autopsy Report (AR) which was
proven, though you were unhappy with that proof.

Chris
Anthony Marsh
2018-05-11 17:57:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Did he ever answer why the snipers would use not just one but two bullets
that would (somehow) just penetrate a few inches inside JFK's body?
Of course he hasn't. It's amazing how this sophisticated conspiracy
apparently hired snipers who couldn't shoot straight, firing shots that
struck all over Dealey Plaza. They couldn't even afford decent ammo and
even resorted to firing black powder weapons which would emit billows of
smoke giving away their stealth positions. This is the kind of nonsense
one has to resort to when one rejects the most obvious explanation for the
body of evidence.
Talk about the blind leading the blind! Where are these 2 bullets
you're talking about?
I guess if you're a conspiracy hobbyist, having a short memory is a useful
trait. We were talking about your two shallow entry bullets. You know.
You're back wound where the bullet stopped at the pleura and your throat
wound that went in so shallow that Humes and Boswell were able to dig it
out. Bullets so weak they could make only a shallow penetration despite
striking nothing but soft tissue. Far weaker than even handgun ammo, much
less a rifle. To propose even one such weak bullet is preposterous enough
but to claim two fired by different shooters is off the charts funny.
Ah! It never occurred to me that you were talking about the throat
wound! Indeed, that one was a full normal shot, but I'm betting that it
hit the backbone at the back of the throat that stopped it, and THEN was
dug out by Humes and Boswell. So now you only have to deal with ONE
'short shot'.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
There was one bullet that struck JFK in the upper
back, and there was proof presented by witnesses that the bullet never
left the body of JFK, and so the SBT is dead.
No such proof has ever been presented. That is an unsubstantiated claim
made by the least qualified people on the autopsy team which conflicts
with what the most qualified people on the team concluded. I don't know in
what universe that would constitute proof.
Post by mainframetech
Why are you misleading a newer member?
Even a newer member is going to see through your bullshit. It's not even
good bullshit.
My point is that I've presented the evidence and the eyewitnesses to
explain the upper back wound which never came out of the throat wound.
You've reported incorrectly again!
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Trying to recover some of your lost ego? Plus no one told
you that the guns on the GK were loaded with black powder,
That is a preposterous idea you floated to try to rescue another
preposterous idea. It didn't work.
Post by mainframetech
that was only a
possible reason for the smoke that appeared as the folks on the overpass
saw as shots were fired from that area.
Apparently you couldn't see how preposterous an idea it was. I don't blame
you for trying to walk it back.
Forget it. I suggested it as a possibility since my research showed
that some people still used black powder at times. But it was clearly one
of a few possibilities. As usual your WCR fervor has screwed you up
again.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
You're going to lead poor
Galbraith into more confusion that he already is experiencing.
Of the three of us, one of us is confused and it isn't Galbraith or bigdog
so that kind of narrows it down.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
What the heck is this for? Why do something this stupid?
Were they trying to kill JFK or just wound him a little?
Maybe the were using a Red Ryder BB gun with a compass in the stock, and
this thing which tells time.
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Then, of course, the autopsy doctors - who were in on the conspiracy -
reveal these "shallow" bullets to people watching. No, they don't keep it
quiet; they reveal it. Moreover, during the secret pre-autopsy surgery
they forget to lengthen/deepen these back and neck wounds and connect them
to each other.
So not only do they forget to alter these "shallow" wounds they reveal
them to others.
Makes about as much sense as anything else he's come up with.
Talk about humans being dumber than a stump!
That does explain the conspiracy hobby.
Post by mainframetech
No doctors were in on
any conspiracy. Where's you get that foolishness? On a kooky LN website?
Nice of you to admit that. If doctors had deliberately falsified evidence
to cover up the true nature of the crime, that would have made them
accessories after the fact and by definition part of the conspiracy. By
saying they were not part of the conspiracy, you are acknowledging that
they did not falsify evidence.
WRONG! You don't get to define who's part of the conspiracy or not.
The prosectors were NOT part of the original crime and the plotting. The
problem was brought to them, and they were ordered to handle it a certain
way. Because of circumstances, I would call them more likely 'victims'
than criminals. And they falsified the Autopsy Report (AR) which was
proven, though you were unhappy with that proof.
Chris
For instance, the autopsy team was planning on doing a proper autopsy and
then the military ordered them to stop what they were doing and not
dissect the back wound.

Are the soldiers who participated in the My Lai Massacre just as guilty as
the Generals who ordered it or were they just following orders?
bigdog
2018-05-12 03:28:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Did he ever answer why the snipers would use not just one but two bullets
that would (somehow) just penetrate a few inches inside JFK's body?
Of course he hasn't. It's amazing how this sophisticated conspiracy
apparently hired snipers who couldn't shoot straight, firing shots that
struck all over Dealey Plaza. They couldn't even afford decent ammo and
even resorted to firing black powder weapons which would emit billows of
smoke giving away their stealth positions. This is the kind of nonsense
one has to resort to when one rejects the most obvious explanation for the
body of evidence.
Talk about the blind leading the blind! Where are these 2 bullets
you're talking about?
I guess if you're a conspiracy hobbyist, having a short memory is a useful
trait. We were talking about your two shallow entry bullets. You know.
You're back wound where the bullet stopped at the pleura and your throat
wound that went in so shallow that Humes and Boswell were able to dig it
out. Bullets so weak they could make only a shallow penetration despite
striking nothing but soft tissue. Far weaker than even handgun ammo, much
less a rifle. To propose even one such weak bullet is preposterous enough
but to claim two fired by different shooters is off the charts funny.
Ah! It never occurred to me that you were talking about the throat
wound! Indeed, that one was a full normal shot, but I'm betting that it
hit the backbone at the back of the throat that stopped it, and THEN was
dug out by Humes and Boswell. So now you only have to deal with ONE
'short shot'.
Had a bullet gone through JFK's throat and struck his spine, he would have
been instantly paralyzed from the neck down. That is what happened to MLK
Jr. although that bullet went through his jaw first. A bullet hitting
nothing but the soft tissue of JFK's throat before smashing into his
backbone would have barely been slowed and would have destroyed his spinal
column. He wouldn't have been able to raise his hands up in front of his
throat. It is just another in a long line of ridiculous postulations you
have made to try to hold your equally ridiculous theories together. You
are forced to come up with one nonsensical explanation after another
rather than accepting the simplest, most straight forward explanation of
the evidence which doesn't require all the mental gymnastics you are
forced to resort to.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
There was one bullet that struck JFK in the upper
back, and there was proof presented by witnesses that the bullet never
left the body of JFK, and so the SBT is dead.
No such proof has ever been presented. That is an unsubstantiated claim
made by the least qualified people on the autopsy team which conflicts
with what the most qualified people on the team concluded. I don't know in
what universe that would constitute proof.
Post by mainframetech
Why are you misleading a newer member?
Even a newer member is going to see through your bullshit. It's not even
good bullshit.
My point is that I've presented the evidence and the eyewitnesses to
explain the upper back wound which never came out of the throat wound.
You've reported incorrectly again!
You've presented the least qualified witnesses and dismissed what the most
qualified witnesses said. Another fine example of the bassackwards way you
have of weighing evidence. It isn't any more complicated than this. The
techies said the bullet didn't exit and the pathologists said it did and
you choose to believe the techies because they are all you have.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Trying to recover some of your lost ego? Plus no one told
you that the guns on the GK were loaded with black powder,
That is a preposterous idea you floated to try to rescue another
preposterous idea. It didn't work.
Post by mainframetech
that was only a
possible reason for the smoke that appeared as the folks on the overpass
saw as shots were fired from that area.
Apparently you couldn't see how preposterous an idea it was. I don't blame
you for trying to walk it back.
Forget it. I suggested it as a possibility since my research showed
that some people still used black powder at times.
Only a moron would use black powder if his intent was to fire a stealth
shot and escape undetected. Everyone in Dealey Plaza would have seen the
smoke billowing from the GK. I have a neighbor who fires a black powder
muzzle loader and the smoke shoots out of the muzzle for several yards and
then hangs in the air. Modern firearms on the other hand put out a barely
visible wisp of smoke which dissipates almost immediately.
Post by mainframetech
But it was clearly one
of a few possibilities. As usual your WCR fervor has screwed you up
again.
It is a ridiculous suggestion for the reasons stated. If your imaginary GK
shooter had fired a weapon using modern ammo, Sam Holland would never have
seen the smoke. If he fired a black powder weapon. Everyone would have
seen the smoke.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
You're going to lead poor
Galbraith into more confusion that he already is experiencing.
Of the three of us, one of us is confused and it isn't Galbraith or bigdog
so that kind of narrows it down.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
What the heck is this for? Why do something this stupid?
Were they trying to kill JFK or just wound him a little?
Maybe the were using a Red Ryder BB gun with a compass in the stock, and
this thing which tells time.
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Then, of course, the autopsy doctors - who were in on the conspiracy -
reveal these "shallow" bullets to people watching. No, they don't keep it
quiet; they reveal it. Moreover, during the secret pre-autopsy surgery
they forget to lengthen/deepen these back and neck wounds and connect them
to each other.
So not only do they forget to alter these "shallow" wounds they reveal
them to others.
Makes about as much sense as anything else he's come up with.
Talk about humans being dumber than a stump!
That does explain the conspiracy hobby.
Post by mainframetech
No doctors were in on
any conspiracy. Where's you get that foolishness? On a kooky LN website?
Nice of you to admit that. If doctors had deliberately falsified evidence
to cover up the true nature of the crime, that would have made them
accessories after the fact and by definition part of the conspiracy. By
saying they were not part of the conspiracy, you are acknowledging that
they did not falsify evidence.
WRONG! You don't get to define who's part of the conspiracy or not.
The law does that. Anyone who covered up evidence to help a guilty party
escape prosecution is by definition an accessory after the fact and a
co-conspirator.
Post by mainframetech
The prosectors were NOT part of the original crime and the plotting. The
problem was brought to them, and they were ordered to handle it a certain
way.
It wouldn't matter if they were ordered to commit a crime or not. They
would still be guilty of committing a crime and by definition would be
part of the conspiracy.
Post by mainframetech
Because of circumstances, I would call them more likely 'victims'
than criminals.
One of the legal principles established at the Nuremberg trials is that
having been ordered to commit an illegal act does not constitute a legal
defense. The person who commits the act, even if under orders, is still
guilty of committing a crime. Military people are not required to follow
illegal orders and if they do follow them, they are guilty of committing a
crime.
Post by mainframetech
And they falsified the Autopsy Report (AR) which was
proven, though you were unhappy with that proof.
Your silly claims do not constitute proof of anything other than you are
prone to make silly claims.
Anthony Marsh
2018-05-13 19:39:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Did he ever answer why the snipers would use not just one but two bullets
that would (somehow) just penetrate a few inches inside JFK's body?
Of course he hasn't. It's amazing how this sophisticated conspiracy
apparently hired snipers who couldn't shoot straight, firing shots that
struck all over Dealey Plaza. They couldn't even afford decent ammo and
even resorted to firing black powder weapons which would emit billows of
smoke giving away their stealth positions. This is the kind of nonsense
one has to resort to when one rejects the most obvious explanation for the
body of evidence.
Talk about the blind leading the blind! Where are these 2 bullets
you're talking about?
I guess if you're a conspiracy hobbyist, having a short memory is a useful
trait. We were talking about your two shallow entry bullets. You know.
You're back wound where the bullet stopped at the pleura and your throat
wound that went in so shallow that Humes and Boswell were able to dig it
out. Bullets so weak they could make only a shallow penetration despite
striking nothing but soft tissue. Far weaker than even handgun ammo, much
less a rifle. To propose even one such weak bullet is preposterous enough
but to claim two fired by different shooters is off the charts funny.
Ah! It never occurred to me that you were talking about the throat
wound! Indeed, that one was a full normal shot, but I'm betting that it
hit the backbone at the back of the throat that stopped it, and THEN was
dug out by Humes and Boswell. So now you only have to deal with ONE
'short shot'.
Had a bullet gone through JFK's throat and struck his spine, he would have
been instantly paralyzed from the neck down. That is what happened to MLK
Maybe, but we don't know the angle because he can't specify where the
bullet came from. Wouldn't it have to go over the windshield and thus
angled down? Yes a vertebra can stop some bullets.
In most cases the victim will be paralyzed, but where and how far
depends on where the victim is hit. In the case of Darrel Williams he
was paralyzed from the neck down. I don't think there is an accurate
diagram of the wound, but I believe it hit at about T-3.


Darryl Williams lived his adult life in a wheelchair, but that never
slowed him down. The Boston Globe
Apr 2, 2010

Richard LapchickContributing Writer, ESPN.com

Facebook
Twitter
Facebook Messenger
Pinterest
Email
print
comment

Darryl Williams was laid to rest on Saturday in Boston. I was lucky
enough to have him as both a hero and a dear friend for more than 25 years.

I first learned about Darryl in 1980 while I was writing a book, and his
story compelled me to want to join the world of sport. One of the first
things I did when I helped start Northeastern University's Center for
the Study of Sport in Society in 1984 was to hire Darryl to speak to
students in the Boston schools.

I knew the day I met him that he would become a lifelong friend. And he was.

Darryl was the victim of a heinous hate crime in 1979 in Boston; I'd
been the victim of a hate crime in Virginia a year earlier. I read about
Darryl's case in 1980; he read about me a few years later. When we first
met, Darryl told me he'd assumed I was black. But then he quickly said,
"The color of your skin does not matter to me. What's in your heart
matters."

And a person's skin color never did matter to him. I heard him say this
to many audiences: "White people didn't shoot me. Three white people
shot me."

Darryl was a serious athlete and a good student at Jamaica Plain High
School in the late 1970s. Like many 15-year-olds, he was not
particularly socially conscious. He loved sports and music and girls. He
was thinking about how he was going to play for the Patriots.

It all seemed to be on track during his sophomore year when his team
went to play Charlestown High School on Sept. 28, 1979. He played well
in the first half. While the team was waiting for the second half to
start, he was hit by a sniper's bullet fired by one of three white
teenagers from a rooftop. He survived, but as a quadriplegic, confined
to a wheelchair for the rest of his years.

It might have been easy for Darryl to leave the hospital hating white
people, but that isn't the direction he took. Instead, he devoted the
rest of his life to teaching others the transformative power of love.
And what a heart he had. He was a communicator, and the message he
communicated was love.
Muhammad Ali had an apt description for Williams in 1991: 'The second
greatest.' The Boston Globe

Just two weeks ago, we were talking about getting together at the
celebration of the Center for the Study of Sport in Society's 25th
anniversary. We'd called each other pretty much every month since my
family moved to Florida, and my wife, Ann, saved many of the voice mails
Darryl left on our home phone. They were full of love, humor and
inspiration, all beginning with "Hello, my dear friends."

By definition, a hero is distinguished by exceptional courage and
strength. Literary and cinematic examples of heroes are often portrayed
as physically indestructible, using their powers for good, and to defeat
villains and criminals. As a society, we often mistakenly think of an
athlete or an entertainer as a hero, but people are not heroes simply
because they are athletes or entertainers. Darryl Williams, though, was
a hero in every sense of the word. He exemplified courage and strength.

These are Darryl's words from his unpublished life story:

Unfortunately, racial intolerance followed me as I recovered from my
injuries in the hospital, including Ku Klux Klan death threats. Verbal
and physical abuses from hospital staff and patients. As I grappled with
the painful thought of possibly living life with paralysis, I would cry
myself to sleep many nights. When awake, I would have to resist the
natural response of revenge.

I knew many men would have difficulty with such a huge life adjustment.
After long, ofttimes-emotionally draining hospital stints, I was
discharged into a world that I was unfamiliar with: a world of paralysis!

No one is exempted from adversity. All are faced with two options:

??? Fully submit to the adversity, rolling yourself up into a little ball
in a corner of the room.

??? Make the adversity work for you, i.e., use it to educate and empower
yourself.

The severity level of adversity varies from one person to another.
However, what is typically the same is the person's initial reaction:
fear and avoidance.

I believe what superseded my "initial reaction," was to restructure
myself; personal pride would not let me give up! Everyone has this type
of "personal pride;" oftimes it takes standing in witness of someone
else's journey to ignite it.
In 1985, Williams spoke with Sen. Ted Kennedy and Boston mayor Raymond
Flynn about the city's facilities for the handicapped. The Boston Globe

During his stay in the hospital, he was visited by two neighborhood
thugs who came to tell him that they were going to assault some white
people to take revenge for what had happened to him. He convinced them
not to do it.

Over the years since, Darryl delivered his message anywhere he could. I
will always remember that we spoke back-to-back at a "Team Harmony"
event led by another hero of ours, Lenny Zakim. There were 12,000
teenagers in the audience. Darryl started his speech from his wheelchair
by saying, "Good morning," and getting only a muffled response. He
repeated his greeting more loudly -- "Good morning!" -- and got the
buoyant response he was after. He followed that by saying, "Thank God
you came alive. I was afraid I was going to have to break-dance to get
your attention." Darryl's great sense of humor brought the house down.

So many times, I watched as people met him for the first time and seemed
not to know what to say, but his sharp wit opened the conversation and
put them at ease.

He had champions in the Boston media, including Joe Fitzgerald and Dan
Shaughnessy. Joe Malone, a public figure in Boston, was always there to
help. President Clinton once told Darryl that he was "an inspiration."
Muhammad Ali called him "the second greatest." Northeastern University
president Jack Curry awarded Darryl a presidential scholarship, and he
earned a B.A. in human resources management there. As a team member who
spread the gospel of forgiveness over blame, intelligence over
ignorance, compassion over disdain, and love over hate, he helped the
Center for the Study of Sport in Society's "Project Teamwork" on its way
to being named "America's most successful violence prevention program."

I call Darryl "America's lesser-known Nelson Mandela." Like Mandela, he
had every reason to hate white people. Instead, he loved all people.

Before he died, Darryl wrote a book about his life, and hopefully some
intelligent publisher will bring it into the public's hands so more
people can be inspired. He called the book "Triumphant." And that is
exactly what Darryl's life was: triumphant.

I define a leader as someone who stands up for justice and doesn't block
its path. Darryl Williams became a leader. He was unable to stand
physically, but he was a towering figure for social justice.

Like thousands of others, I will miss him terribly. We're all better
people who live in a better world because he graced this planet with his
presence.

Richard E. Lapchick is the Chair of the DeVos Sport Business Management
Graduate Program in the College of Business Administration at the
University of Central Florida. The author of 14 books, Lapchick also
directs UCF's Institute for Diversity and Ethics in Sport, is the author
of the annual Racial and Gender Report Card, and is the director of the
National Consortium for Academics and Sport. He has joined ESPN.com as a
regular commentator on issues of diversity in sport.

Loading Image...
Post by bigdog
Jr. although that bullet went through his jaw first. A bullet hitting
nothing but the soft tissue of JFK's throat before smashing into his
backbone would have barely been slowed and would have destroyed his spinal
column. He wouldn't have been able to raise his hands up in front of his
throat. It is just another in a long line of ridiculous postulations you
Excellent point. Which is why Burkley's GUESS of T-3 makes no sense.
Hitting the transverse process of T-1 would excite the C-8 nerve and
cause the involuntary rising of the hands.
Post by bigdog
have made to try to hold your equally ridiculous theories together. You
are forced to come up with one nonsensical explanation after another
rather than accepting the simplest, most straight forward explanation of
the evidence which doesn't require all the mental gymnastics you are
forced to resort to.
That is the danger of being an alterationist. Eventually you have to
claim that ALL evidence is fake. It's like falling into a black hole.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
There was one bullet that struck JFK in the upper
back, and there was proof presented by witnesses that the bullet never
left the body of JFK, and so the SBT is dead.
No such proof has ever been presented. That is an unsubstantiated claim
made by the least qualified people on the autopsy team which conflicts
with what the most qualified people on the team concluded. I don't know in
what universe that would constitute proof.
Post by mainframetech
Why are you misleading a newer member?
Even a newer member is going to see through your bullshit. It's not even
good bullshit.
My point is that I've presented the evidence and the eyewitnesses to
explain the upper back wound which never came out of the throat wound.
You've reported incorrectly again!
You've presented the least qualified witnesses and dismissed what the most
qualified witnesses said. Another fine example of the bassackwards way you
And you call Humes the most qualified? ICE BULLET? Really, dude?
Not even a mainframe tech is stupid enough to fall for that sci-fi.
I saw it in a sci-fi movie and everyone laughed. Even the janitor.
Post by bigdog
have of weighing evidence. It isn't any more complicated than this. The
techies said the bullet didn't exit and the pathologists said it did and
you choose to believe the techies because they are all you have.
Humes said it didn't and you think he's God.
At least you have your moron Specter.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Trying to recover some of your lost ego? Plus no one told
you that the guns on the GK were loaded with black powder,
That is a preposterous idea you floated to try to rescue another
preposterous idea. It didn't work.
Post by mainframetech
that was only a
possible reason for the smoke that appeared as the folks on the overpass
saw as shots were fired from that area.
Apparently you couldn't see how preposterous an idea it was. I don't blame
you for trying to walk it back.
Forget it. I suggested it as a possibility since my research showed
that some people still used black powder at times.
Only a moron would use black powder if his intent was to fire a stealth
shot and escape undetected. Everyone in Dealey Plaza would have seen the
smoke billowing from the GK. I have a neighbor who fires a black powder
Oh, so now you claim and everyone in Dealey Plaza would have see smoke
from the black powder gun? I guess you've never shot any so you can just
guess. Why not test it for us and prove it? Make sure you get the
weather conditions to match perfectly.
Post by bigdog
muzzle loader and the smoke shoots out of the muzzle for several yards and
then hangs in the air. Modern firearms on the other hand put out a barely
visible wisp of smoke which dissipates almost immediately.
You still have not watched Carcanos shooting.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
But it was clearly one
of a few possibilities. As usual your WCR fervor has screwed you up
again.
It is a ridiculous suggestion for the reasons stated. If your imaginary GK
shooter had fired a weapon using modern ammo, Sam Holland would never have
seen the smoke. If he fired a black powder weapon. Everyone would have
seen the smoke.
Ridiculous claim.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
You're going to lead poor
Galbraith into more confusion that he already is experiencing.
Of the three of us, one of us is confused and it isn't Galbraith or bigdog
so that kind of narrows it down.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
What the heck is this for? Why do something this stupid?
Were they trying to kill JFK or just wound him a little?
Maybe the were using a Red Ryder BB gun with a compass in the stock, and
this thing which tells time.
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Then, of course, the autopsy doctors - who were in on the conspiracy -
reveal these "shallow" bullets to people watching. No, they don't keep it
quiet; they reveal it. Moreover, during the secret pre-autopsy surgery
they forget to lengthen/deepen these back and neck wounds and connect them
to each other.
So not only do they forget to alter these "shallow" wounds they reveal
them to others.
Makes about as much sense as anything else he's come up with.
Talk about humans being dumber than a stump!
That does explain the conspiracy hobby.
Post by mainframetech
No doctors were in on
any conspiracy. Where's you get that foolishness? On a kooky LN website?
Nice of you to admit that. If doctors had deliberately falsified evidence
to cover up the true nature of the crime, that would have made them
accessories after the fact and by definition part of the conspiracy. By
saying they were not part of the conspiracy, you are acknowledging that
they did not falsify evidence.
WRONG! You don't get to define who's part of the conspiracy or not.
The law does that. Anyone who covered up evidence to help a guilty party
escape prosecution is by definition an accessory after the fact and a
co-conspirator.
Post by mainframetech
The prosectors were NOT part of the original crime and the plotting. The
problem was brought to them, and they were ordered to handle it a certain
way.
It wouldn't matter if they were ordered to commit a crime or not. They
would still be guilty of committing a crime and by definition would be
part of the conspiracy.
Post by mainframetech
Because of circumstances, I would call them more likely 'victims'
than criminals.
One of the legal principles established at the Nuremberg trials is that
having been ordered to commit an illegal act does not constitute a legal
defense. The person who commits the act, even if under orders, is still
We're not bound by Nuremberg. What did they say about My Lai?
What do they say about obeying Trump?

Did Gina Haspel plead guilty or did she say that she was just following
orders? As a mother did she enjoy torturing the babies?
Post by bigdog
guilty of committing a crime. Military people are not required to follow
illegal orders and if they do follow them, they are guilty of committing a
crime.
Post by mainframetech
And they falsified the Autopsy Report (AR) which was
proven, though you were unhappy with that proof.
Your silly claims do not constitute proof of anything other than you are
prone to make silly claims.
You are very silly.
Anthony Marsh
2018-05-06 23:33:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
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 BOZ
Post by BOZ
An officer, identified as "C," was riding to the right rear of the
President's limousine and a second motorcycle away from the president. He
was coming to a stop as the first shot was fired.
Ah! Proof that the limousine slowed almost to a stop, in that the
motorcycles also had to stop to stay in position.
Post by BOZ
He had just finished
Post by BOZ
looking ahead in the direction of the grassy knoll and saw nothing that
would command his attention.
Which doesn't mean there wasn't 2 or more men with rifles end on
showing and a bit of a head looking down a sight. Hard to see while
moving on a motorcycle and trying to balance as you came to a stop.
Post by BOZ
Post by BOZ
He had thought the sound was from overheated
motorcycle backfiring near Elm and Houston as the sound definitely came
from the rear of his position. He was looking directly at President
Kennedy from a distance no greater than ten to twelve feet. The first shot
seemed to have missed, and Governor Connally started to turn. He heard the
second shot and saw that the President had been hit in the back near the
base of his neck, and that the President grabbed his throat. He also saw
Governor Connally jerk, apparently hit too. Then, his eyes frozen on this
sight, the third shot struck with ghastly effect, that shot, too, coming
from the right rear of the limousine. His mind clearly recorded that three
shots were fired and that they were fired from the direction of Elm and
Houston Streets. He wrote a journal(7) recording his observations that
same day, suggesting the "Single Bullet Theory" before there was one. He,
too, was interviewed, but his testimony was neither used nor impeached.
http://www.jfk-online.com/bowles3.html
Sounds like an accurate description of what happened but as with any
witness, it shouldn't be assumed this account is right or wrong. It should
be compared to the body of evidence to determine whether or not it is
accurate. In this case, this account dovetails well with the Z-film and
also SSA Bennett's account which he wrote aboard AF1. The SBT of course
remains the only plausible explanation for the wounds to JFK and JBC.
WRONG as usual! There are other plausible explanations,
Maybe someday you'll be able to come up with one.
I've already done so. The views of the inside of the body by the
autopsy team told them that there was no such thing as the 'single bullet'
theory. It leaves only the shot from another shooter that hit Connally.
As a plausible story, the truth fits best.
You haven't come up with plausible explanation. You are disputing the
explanation given by the WC. The WC told us where the shot was fired from,
what wounds it caused, and where the bullet ended up. You have done none
of that. You have simply dismissed the SBT without offering a viable
alternative.
WRONG! I have not even tried to come up with an alternative because I
was able to come up with the truth of the upper back wound.
So you admit there is no plausible alternative to the SBT.
WRONG again! Read the above statement I made before you blat. There
is no alternative to the SBT except the truth,
But apparently you have no idea what that truth is.
Post by mainframetech
which I've given to you.
No you haven't. You've told us why you think the SBT is impossible. You've
offered nothing in its place. No alternative scenario. Just a vague
suggestion of lots of shooters firing lots of shots and apparently most of
them not hitting anything.
WRONG as usual! I do NOT THINK the SBT is impossible, I KNOW it was
impossible, due to what was seen in the autopsy.
"It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you
know for sure that just ain't so."
https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/mark_twain_109624
Post by mainframetech
Because the autopsy
showed that the bullet never left the body of JFK, there is no way it
could then go on to Connally and hit him. And don't ask about that,
because I've told it to you too many times.
Only people who don't know what they are talking about believe that.
People like you.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
You will ignore it because of your faith in the WCR, but it wasn't for you
anyway.
It's hard to ignore something until you actually present it.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
That bullet
never went past the body of JFK, and it's been proven by testimony of 2 of
those in the autopsy team. Your stupid WCR came up with a THEORY!!
Theories are not the truth, only guesses.
It is your conclusion that the bullet never went past the body of JFK. No
competent medical examiner has reached that conclusion. They are unanimous
in their verdict that JFK was struck twice from behind and that the bullet
that struck him in the back exited from his throat. Your amateurish
opinions do not trump theirs. That makes the SBT plausible and to date it
remains the only plausible explanation.
WRONG again! You'll never learn. The medical panels did not have all
the information that we have available to us. If they did have it, they
could have made the right conclusions too. It was really simple once you
knew the details from the autopsy.
The medical panels had far more and better information than you will ever
have an were far more knowledgeable in the area of forensic medicine than
you could ever hope to be. That's why no one with a functional brain would
accept your opinion over theirs.
WRONG yet again! The panels were not aware of the bullet hole in the
forehead/temple area,
Because there wasn't one. If there had been one, they would have been
aware of it. It would have shown up in both the x-rays and the photos of
which they had far more and better quality ones than you have seen. They
also know things that when a high velocity bullet enters a skull, it
creates radiating fractures from the point of entry, fractures which
didn't exist in the front of the skull, only the rear. They know that
entry wounds bevel inwards and exit wounds bevel outwards. The inward
beveling was at the hole in the BOH and the outward beveling was in the
hole in the parietal bone. All that trumps your opinions based on what you
think you see your Rorschach SOD photo.
Post by mainframetech
which you know nothing about, since you can't see it.
That is a good thing.
Post by mainframetech
As well, they had no opportunity to listen to the testimony of the
enlisted men at the autopsy, and they had no chance to actually see into
the body of JFK after the organs were removed and the truth was OBVIOUS to
all present.
Why would they care what a couple techies thought they saw when they had
the testimony of the pathologists and the photos and x-rays which gave
proof positive that JFK was shot twice from behind and that the bullet
that entered the back exited the throat. Do you really think the opinions
of a couple techies in their early 20s should trump all of that?
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
some of which are the right ones.
How can there be more than one right one? How many different ways do you
think the assassination happened?
I've mentioned the right one above, and elsewhere, and to you as
well. Are you going to play that you forgot again?
You have done nothing but offer a denial of the SBT without providing a
viable alternative in its place. Just a vague claim that it must be
something else but you can't tell us what that something else is.
REPEAT: THERE IS NO NEED FOR A "VIABLE ALTERNATIVE", GET IT THROUGH
YOUR HEAD. It was shown that the bullet never went past the pleura in the
body of JFK, and so never left the body and therefore never hit Connally.
You have the truth, now don't go dismissing it like so many other bits of
proof.
You have convinced yourself that the bullet never exited from JFK's
throat. Now all you have to do is convince the other 7 billion people on
the planet of that.
REPEAT FOR YOU: I HAVE NOT CONVINCED MYSELF OF ANYTHING. I just
happen to know the truth stated during the autopsy. And I don't have to
convince anyone. I put the info out there and folks will understand it or
they won't.
I'm glad you don't need to convince anyone because that would be
problematic.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
That is that there was a plot and there were many
shooters firing in the direction of JFK, and Connally got in the line of
fire. That is far more believable than the SBT, which was shown to be
false.
You're explanation is a little sketchy on the details there, ace. Do you
think you could fill in the blanks?
You mean you can't figure out what I said? There were many shooters
firing at JFK, and Connally got hit by one or more of the bullets flying
around.
I guess that tells us you can't fill in the blanks. You can't tell us
where the shots were fired from that caused each of the wounds to JFK and
JBC and where those bullets went after causing those wounds. The WC was
able to do that. Here we are 54 years later and you still aren't up to the
task. If you can't offer specifics, you haven't presented a viable
alternative.
It's amazing how stupid humans can be sometimes.
Irony noted.
Post by mainframetech
No one here could tell where most of the shots came from.
Speak for yourself. A lot of us have figured out all the shots came from
the sniper's nest.
"A lot of us"? You decided to speak for everyone again?
I didn't pretend to speak for them. I'm just telling you what they know.
Anyone who believes Oswald was the lone assassin knows the shots all came
from the SN.
I guess that's like me knowing that all the autopsy team members KNOW
that the bullet never left the body of JFK, and so the SBT is dead.
Another fine example of things you are sure you know that ain't so.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
I bet you didn't check with them first.
Do you really think it is necessary to ask every LN if they believe all
the shots were fired from the SN? It's hard to believe that there could be
someone who believes there was a lone assassin but he fired from somewhere
other than the SN. Maybe there is someone in this world who believes such
a thing.
ah! Only the LNs will back you up! Calling on them might get you some
answers you don't want to hear.
Do you think there are LNs who would disagree with me that the shots were
fired from the SN?
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
And there is serious doubt that all shots
(3) came only from the TSBD 6th floor.
I can't help that there are lots of people in this world who believe silly
things.
Post by mainframetech
The list of bullet strikes in the
plaza and the proofs from the autopsy show that as false info.
I guess it's not surprising that a guy who sees imaginary bullet holes
would also believe in imaginary bullet strikes all over DP.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
That's one of your red herrings
drug across the path to mislead everyone. Most of the answers were known
many years ago.
Maybe someday you'll get up to speed. First you have to take your car out
of neutral.
Post by mainframetech
The ARRB files had them. You wouldn't know about that
since you rarely visit there. Repeat, when you know the truth, you don't
need alternatives.
I was aware of the ARRB long before you ever stumbled across them and I
also know there was nothing in them that proved to be a game changer, much
to the chagrin of the conspiracy hobbyists back in the 1990s. Most of them
have moved on from the ARRB because they discovered it was a big nothing
burger.
That's why you have got no clue as to what or how the murder was
accomplished and how phony the autopsy was. The ARRB files have most of
the answers to questions in the case.
Quite the irony alert when you accuse someone else of not having a clue.
You're allowed your opinion, and it doesn't even have to be corrected.
Yours doesn't have to be corrected. It's just fun to keep doing it while
you continue to peddle your nonsense. You'd have better luck trying to
sell air conditioners to Eskimos.
Did he ever answer why the snipers would use not just one but two bullets
that would (somehow) just penetrate a few inches inside JFK's body?
Strawman argument. Humes did not explain his Ice Bullet Theory.
But it was offered to explain why there was only an entrance wound and
no exit wound. Because he was incompetent.
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
What the heck is this for? Why do something this stupid?
Are you saying it proves that the CIA did it because only they are
stupid enough to use such ammo? How cruel. Need I remind you that the
Mossad as well as the CIA used the .22 caliber bullets in their
assassinations?
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Were they trying to kill JFK or just wound him a little?
So you said the same thing about Ruby shooting Oswald? Maybe Ruby did
not want his bullet to exit Oswald and kill the cops.
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Then, of course, the autopsy doctors - who were in on the conspiracy -
reveal these "shallow" bullets to people watching. No, they don't keep it
No such thing as shallow bullets. Yes, there can be shallow wounds. So
what. A bullet does not have to it. James Brady was shot in the head and
that bullet did not exit. People have been shot in the head and the
bullet doesn't even penetrate all the way through the skull. Or is just
ricochets off the inside of the skull.
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
quiet; they reveal it. Moreover, during the secret pre-autopsy surgery
they forget to lengthen/deepen these back and neck wounds and connect them
to each other.
So, this is a battle. WHo is more incompetent, the conspirators or the
Alterationists?
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
So not only do they forget to alter these "shallow" wounds they reveal
them to others.
No one showed off any shallow wounds.
Humes was just incompetent. Even worse than Trump's doctor.
ICE BULLET? Really dude? Was ANYONE ever stupid enough to fall for that?
mainframetech
2018-05-08 17:32:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
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 BOZ
Post by BOZ
An officer, identified as "C," was riding to the right rear of the
President's limousine and a second motorcycle away from the president. He
was coming to a stop as the first shot was fired.
Ah! Proof that the limousine slowed almost to a stop, in that the
motorcycles also had to stop to stay in position.
Post by BOZ
He had just finished
Post by BOZ
looking ahead in the direction of the grassy knoll and saw nothing that
would command his attention.
Which doesn't mean there wasn't 2 or more men with rifles end on
showing and a bit of a head looking down a sight. Hard to see while
moving on a motorcycle and trying to balance as you came to a stop.
Post by BOZ
Post by BOZ
He had thought the sound was from overheated
motorcycle backfiring near Elm and Houston as the sound definitely came
from the rear of his position. He was looking directly at President
Kennedy from a distance no greater than ten to twelve feet. The first shot
seemed to have missed, and Governor Connally started to turn. He heard the
second shot and saw that the President had been hit in the back near the
base of his neck, and that the President grabbed his throat. He also saw
Governor Connally jerk, apparently hit too. Then, his eyes frozen on this
sight, the third shot struck with ghastly effect, that shot, too, coming
from the right rear of the limousine. His mind clearly recorded that three
shots were fired and that they were fired from the direction of Elm and
Houston Streets. He wrote a journal(7) recording his observations that
same day, suggesting the "Single Bullet Theory" before there was one. He,
too, was interviewed, but his testimony was neither used nor impeached.
http://www.jfk-online.com/bowles3.html
Sounds like an accurate description of what happened but as with any
witness, it shouldn't be assumed this account is right or wrong. It should
be compared to the body of evidence to determine whether or not it is
accurate. In this case, this account dovetails well with the Z-film and
also SSA Bennett's account which he wrote aboard AF1. The SBT of course
remains the only plausible explanation for the wounds to JFK and JBC.
WRONG as usual! There are other plausible explanations,
Maybe someday you'll be able to come up with one.
I've already done so. The views of the inside of the body by the
autopsy team told them that there was no such thing as the 'single bullet'
theory. It leaves only the shot from another shooter that hit Connally.
As a plausible story, the truth fits best.
You haven't come up with plausible explanation. You are disputing the
explanation given by the WC. The WC told us where the shot was fired from,
what wounds it caused, and where the bullet ended up. You have done none
of that. You have simply dismissed the SBT without offering a viable
alternative.
WRONG! I have not even tried to come up with an alternative because I
was able to come up with the truth of the upper back wound.
So you admit there is no plausible alternative to the SBT.
WRONG again! Read the above statement I made before you blat. There
is no alternative to the SBT except the truth,
But apparently you have no idea what that truth is.
Post by mainframetech
which I've given to you.
No you haven't. You've told us why you think the SBT is impossible. You've
offered nothing in its place. No alternative scenario. Just a vague
suggestion of lots of shooters firing lots of shots and apparently most of
them not hitting anything.
WRONG as usual! I do NOT THINK the SBT is impossible, I KNOW it was
impossible, due to what was seen in the autopsy.
"It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you
know for sure that just ain't so."
https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/mark_twain_109624
Post by mainframetech
Because the autopsy
showed that the bullet never left the body of JFK, there is no way it
could then go on to Connally and hit him. And don't ask about that,
because I've told it to you too many times.
Only people who don't know what they are talking about believe that.
People like you.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
You will ignore it because of your faith in the WCR, but it wasn't for you
anyway.
It's hard to ignore something until you actually present it.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
That bullet
never went past the body of JFK, and it's been proven by testimony of 2 of
those in the autopsy team. Your stupid WCR came up with a THEORY!!
Theories are not the truth, only guesses.
It is your conclusion that the bullet never went past the body of JFK. No
competent medical examiner has reached that conclusion. They are unanimous
in their verdict that JFK was struck twice from behind and that the bullet
that struck him in the back exited from his throat. Your amateurish
opinions do not trump theirs. That makes the SBT plausible and to date it
remains the only plausible explanation.
WRONG again! You'll never learn. The medical panels did not have all
the information that we have available to us. If they did have it, they
could have made the right conclusions too. It was really simple once you
knew the details from the autopsy.
The medical panels had far more and better information than you will ever
have an were far more knowledgeable in the area of forensic medicine than
you could ever hope to be. That's why no one with a functional brain would
accept your opinion over theirs.
WRONG yet again! The panels were not aware of the bullet hole in the
forehead/temple area,
Because there wasn't one. If there had been one, they would have been
aware of it. It would have shown up in both the x-rays and the photos of
which they had far more and better quality ones than you have seen. They
also know things that when a high velocity bullet enters a skull, it
creates radiating fractures from the point of entry, fractures which
didn't exist in the front of the skull, only the rear. They know that
entry wounds bevel inwards and exit wounds bevel outwards. The inward
beveling was at the hole in the BOH and the outward beveling was in the
hole in the parietal bone. All that trumps your opinions based on what you
think you see your Rorschach SOD photo.
Post by mainframetech
which you know nothing about, since you can't see it.
That is a good thing.
Post by mainframetech
As well, they had no opportunity to listen to the testimony of the
enlisted men at the autopsy, and they had no chance to actually see into
the body of JFK after the organs were removed and the truth was OBVIOUS to
all present.
Why would they care what a couple techies thought they saw when they had
the testimony of the pathologists and the photos and x-rays which gave
proof positive that JFK was shot twice from behind and that the bullet
that entered the back exited the throat. Do you really think the opinions
of a couple techies in their early 20s should trump all of that?
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
some of which are the right ones.
How can there be more than one right one? How many different ways do you
think the assassination happened?
I've mentioned the right one above, and elsewhere, and to you as
well. Are you going to play that you forgot again?
You have done nothing but offer a denial of the SBT without providing a
viable alternative in its place. Just a vague claim that it must be
something else but you can't tell us what that something else is.
REPEAT: THERE IS NO NEED FOR A "VIABLE ALTERNATIVE", GET IT THROUGH
YOUR HEAD. It was shown that the bullet never went past the pleura in the
body of JFK, and so never left the body and therefore never hit Connally.
You have the truth, now don't go dismissing it like so many other bits of
proof.
You have convinced yourself that the bullet never exited from JFK's
throat. Now all you have to do is convince the other 7 billion people on
the planet of that.
REPEAT FOR YOU: I HAVE NOT CONVINCED MYSELF OF ANYTHING. I just
happen to know the truth stated during the autopsy. And I don't have to
convince anyone. I put the info out there and folks will understand it or
they won't.
I'm glad you don't need to convince anyone because that would be
problematic.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
That is that there was a plot and there were many
shooters firing in the direction of JFK, and Connally got in the line of
fire. That is far more believable than the SBT, which was shown to be
false.
You're explanation is a little sketchy on the details there, ace. Do you
think you could fill in the blanks?
You mean you can't figure out what I said? There were many shooters
firing at JFK, and Connally got hit by one or more of the bullets flying
around.
I guess that tells us you can't fill in the blanks. You can't tell us
where the shots were fired from that caused each of the wounds to JFK and
JBC and where those bullets went after causing those wounds. The WC was
able to do that. Here we are 54 years later and you still aren't up to the
task. If you can't offer specifics, you haven't presented a viable
alternative.
It's amazing how stupid humans can be sometimes.
Irony noted.
Post by mainframetech
No one here could tell where most of the shots came from.
Speak for yourself. A lot of us have figured out all the shots came from
the sniper's nest.
"A lot of us"? You decided to speak for everyone again?
I didn't pretend to speak for them. I'm just telling you what they know.
Anyone who believes Oswald was the lone assassin knows the shots all came
from the SN.
I guess that's like me knowing that all the autopsy team members KNOW
that the bullet never left the body of JFK, and so the SBT is dead.
Another fine example of things you are sure you know that ain't so.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
I bet you didn't check with them first.
Do you really think it is necessary to ask every LN if they believe all
the shots were fired from the SN? It's hard to believe that there could be
someone who believes there was a lone assassin but he fired from somewhere
other than the SN. Maybe there is someone in this world who believes such
a thing.
ah! Only the LNs will back you up! Calling on them might get you some
answers you don't want to hear.
Do you think there are LNs who would disagree with me that the shots were
fired from the SN?
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
And there is serious doubt that all shots
(3) came only from the TSBD 6th floor.
I can't help that there are lots of people in this world who believe silly
things.
Post by mainframetech
The list of bullet strikes in the
plaza and the proofs from the autopsy show that as false info.
I guess it's not surprising that a guy who sees imaginary bullet holes
would also believe in imaginary bullet strikes all over DP.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
That's one of your red herrings
drug across the path to mislead everyone. Most of the answers were known
many years ago.
Maybe someday you'll get up to speed. First you have to take your car out
of neutral.
Post by mainframetech
The ARRB files had them. You wouldn't know about that
since you rarely visit there. Repeat, when you know the truth, you don't
need alternatives.
I was aware of the ARRB long before you ever stumbled across them and I
also know there was nothing in them that proved to be a game changer, much
to the chagrin of the conspiracy hobbyists back in the 1990s. Most of them
have moved on from the ARRB because they discovered it was a big nothing
burger.
That's why you have got no clue as to what or how the murder was
accomplished and how phony the autopsy was. The ARRB files have most of
the answers to questions in the case.
Quite the irony alert when you accuse someone else of not having a clue.
You're allowed your opinion, and it doesn't even have to be corrected.
Yours doesn't have to be corrected. It's just fun to keep doing it while
you continue to peddle your nonsense. You'd have better luck trying to
sell air conditioners to Eskimos.
Did he ever answer why the snipers would use not just one but two bullets
that would (somehow) just penetrate a few inches inside JFK's body?
Sounds like something you got from one of those kooky LN websites.
There was only one bullet that penetrated into the body of JFK an inch or
so, and the information came from an autopsy team member, and corroborated
by another. If you can get out of your LN rejection mode, I'll give you
the statements from the witnesses.

Bullets that do that are called 'short shots' due to a failure of the
powder or something similar.
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
What the heck is this for? Why do something this stupid?
Were they trying to kill JFK or just wound him a little?
You're asking those questions that only a kook LN website could
answer.
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Then, of course, the autopsy doctors - who were in on the conspiracy -
reveal these "shallow" bullets to people watching. No, they don't keep it
quiet; they reveal it. Moreover, during the secret pre-autopsy surgery
they forget to lengthen/deepen these back and neck wounds and connect them
to each other.
So not only do they forget to alter these "shallow" wounds they reveal
them to others.
WRONG! The prosectors were NOT part of the conspiracy, but they were
military and that's why the body was taken to a military hospital. So
that the autopsy could be covered up by orders to the military doctors, as
long as a decent excuse was provided with the orders. And I believe one
was provided.

Chris
Anthony Marsh
2018-04-25 22:18:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by BOZ
Post by BOZ
An officer, identified as "C," was riding to the right rear of the
President's limousine and a second motorcycle away from the president. He
was coming to a stop as the first shot was fired.
Ah! Proof that the limousine slowed almost to a stop, in that the
motorcycles also had to stop to stay in position.
Not quite. The motorcycles catch up and start to pass the limo.
But the limo did not stop.

http://www.the-puzzle-palace.com/Mantik1.htm
Post by mainframetech
Post by BOZ
He had just finished
Post by BOZ
looking ahead in the direction of the grassy knoll and saw nothing that
would command his attention.
Which doesn't mean there wasn't 2 or more men with rifles end on
showing and a bit of a head looking down a sight. Hard to see while
moving on a motorcycle and trying to balance as you came to a stop.
Post by BOZ
Post by BOZ
He had thought the sound was from overheated
motorcycle backfiring near Elm and Houston as the sound definitely came
from the rear of his position. He was looking directly at President
Kennedy from a distance no greater than ten to twelve feet. The first shot
seemed to have missed, and Governor Connally started to turn. He heard the
second shot and saw that the President had been hit in the back near the
base of his neck, and that the President grabbed his throat. He also saw
Governor Connally jerk, apparently hit too. Then, his eyes frozen on this
sight, the third shot struck with ghastly effect, that shot, too, coming
from the right rear of the limousine. His mind clearly recorded that three
shots were fired and that they were fired from the direction of Elm and
Houston Streets. He wrote a journal(7) recording his observations that
same day, suggesting the "Single Bullet Theory" before there was one. He,
too, was interviewed, but his testimony was neither used nor impeached.
http://www.jfk-online.com/bowles3.html
Sounds like an accurate description of what happened but as with any
witness, it shouldn't be assumed this account is right or wrong. It should
be compared to the body of evidence to determine whether or not it is
accurate. In this case, this account dovetails well with the Z-film and
also SSA Bennett's account which he wrote aboard AF1. The SBT of course
remains the only plausible explanation for the wounds to JFK and JBC.
WRONG as usual! There are other plausible explanations, some of which
are the right ones. That is that there was a plot and there were many
shooters firing in the direction of JFK, and Connally got in the line of
fire. That is far more believable than the SBT, which was shown to be
false.
Post by BOZ
The one thing that makes me wonder about this is that I had never heard it
a journal that same day. Does that journal still exist? While I believe
this is an accurate account, a little skepticism is still called for.
Oh yes! Quite a lot!
Chris
Anthony Marsh
2018-04-24 17:06:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by BOZ
An officer, identified as "C," was riding to the right rear of the
President's limousine and a second motorcycle away from the president. He
was coming to a stop as the first shot was fired. He had just finished
looking ahead in the direction of the grassy knoll and saw nothing that
would command his attention. He had thought the sound was from overheated
motorcycle backfiring near Elm and Houston as the sound definitely came
from the rear of his position. He was looking directly at President
Kennedy from a distance no greater than ten to twelve feet. The first shot
seemed to have missed, and Governor Connally started to turn. He heard the
second shot and saw that the President had been hit in the back near the
base of his neck, and that the President grabbed his throat. He also saw
Governor Connally jerk, apparently hit too. Then, his eyes frozen on this
sight, the third shot struck with ghastly effect, that shot, too, coming
from the right rear of the limousine. His mind clearly recorded that three
shots were fired and that they were fired from the direction of Elm and
Houston Streets. He wrote a journal(7) recording his observations that
same day, suggesting the "Single Bullet Theory" before there was one. He,
too, was interviewed, but his testimony was neither used nor impeached.
http://www.jfk-online.com/bowles3.html
Sounds like an accurate description of what happened but as with any
witness, it shouldn't be assumed this account is right or wrong. It should
be compared to the body of evidence to determine whether or not it is
accurate. In this case, this account dovetails well with the Z-film and
also SSA Bennett's account which he wrote aboard AF1. The SBT of course
remains the only plausible explanation for the wounds to JFK and JBC.
The one thing that makes me wonder about this is that I had never heard it
THAT means nothing. There's a LOT you never heard off.
Post by bigdog
a journal that same day. Does that journal still exist? While I believe
this is an accurate account, a little skepticism is still called for.
Now you sound like a conspiracy kook. Skepticism? Just believe whatever
the government tells you to believe.
Anthony Marsh
2018-04-23 16:28:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by BOZ
An officer, identified as "C," was riding to the right rear of the
President's limousine and a second motorcycle away from the president. He
was coming to a stop as the first shot was fired. He had just finished
looking ahead in the direction of the grassy knoll and saw nothing that
would command his attention. He had thought the sound was from overheated
motorcycle backfiring near Elm and Houston as the sound definitely came
from the rear of his position. He was looking directly at President
Kennedy from a distance no greater than ten to twelve feet. The first shot
seemed to have missed, and Governor Connally started to turn. He heard the
second shot and saw that the President had been hit in the back near the
base of his neck, and that the President grabbed his throat. He also saw
Governor Connally jerk, apparently hit too. Then, his eyes frozen on this
sight, the third shot struck with ghastly effect, that shot, too, coming
from the right rear of the limousine. His mind clearly recorded that three
shots were fired and that they were fired from the direction of Elm and
Houston Streets. He wrote a journal(7) recording his observations that
same day, suggesting the "Single Bullet Theory" before there was one. He,
too, was interviewed, but his testimony was neither used nor impeached.
http://www.jfk-online.com/bowles3.html
Phony.
Loading...