Post by mainframetechPost by BT GeorgePost by mainframetechPost by David Von PeinPost by mainframetechPost by David Von Peinhttp://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/01/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-887.html
Excerpt....
There is a serious problem here. You are suggesting that these
frames--especially from 225 to 228--demonstrate that Connally has been
struck and is reacting to that. I agree something extremely strange is
going on -- but what is causing this reaction is very blurred frames being
run one after the other. It is the consequence of the blurred frames that
suggest Connally is wounded. It is not Connally, because basically in
these frames it is impossible to see him clearly or indeed what he is
doing.
Now 224 into 225 really did puzzle me. To be fair, I did wonder if indeed
we were seeing a reaction by Connally. And the truth is that you are
seeing a reaction by John Connally between these two frames. Between 224
and 225 Connally turns around 20 degrees to his left. That is what you are
seeing. The change in the left shoulder is not a reaction to the bullet --
it is a movement by Connally to his left and a change in the position of
Connally's shoulder. It may look like Connally's left shoulder is
flinching, but actually it is being turned to Connally's left as he is
turning his body left.
As I pointed out to you in an earlier post--and you did agree with
me--between 224 and 230 John Connally is turning his body to his left.
What allows you to think that Connally has been injured in these frames
a) that 20-degree turn between 224 and 225.
b) the total blurred distortion in frames 226-228.
That is why it is being suggested that Connally has been wounded, when
actually Connally is turning to his left.
This is hilarious. And absolutely mind-boggling, to boot. The levels of
total denial the CTers will rise to in order to ignore the obvious signs
of John Connally being in distress in Z225-Z230.
It couldn't be more obvious that Connally's shoulders are shrugging from a
flinch starting at Z225, and yet I'm supposed to believe it only looks
that way because JBC is turning to his left. Does EVERY "left turn" made
by all limo occupants give the false appearance of "shoulder shrugging",
James? Get real.
And I guess you still want to ignore Connally's moving tie, eh? Is his tie
bulging outward due to his "left turn" too? And the startled look that we
can see on his face starting in Z225 too? And the opening of the mouth?
Are none of these things enough to give you pause to even consider the
possibility that Connally has just been shot and is reacting to that shot
in an involuntary manner starting at Z225?
And then there's the hat flip at Z226 too. Are we really to believe that
JBC's arm-raising is also NOT indicative of Connally reacting to a
bullet---even when we know JBC was struck by a bullet in that very SAME
right arm/wrist that's flipping upward ultra-fast at Z226? You're not
going to pass off the hat/arm flip as "video distortion" too, are you Jim?
Lots more SBT Denial here (and at the link above)....
http://single-bullet-theory.blogspot.com/#Debating-The-SBT
Let's get rid of this SBT once and for all.
How do you "get rid of" something that is so obviously true?
Good luck.
Self well wishing? Chris needs to, since he will need all the luck he can
get to convince anyone else with an eye for critical thinking using his
"everything was faked" except the witnesses who agree with my beliefs
methodology.
Ah, here we go! The LN self congratulations parade. LNs telling each
other how clever and wise they are. Of course, completely ignoring sworn
testimony and documents, but what the heck, it's fun to dump on some CTs
for fun. I have to tell you I don't rely on luck. I rely on sworn
testimony, documents and statements of those that were present at the
events spoken about in the case. I see where the happy LNs have used the
autopsy photos as proof of various things in the case, and I have to laugh
at the obvious problems of many of those 'leaked' photos.
Sure. "Problems" so "obvious that none (zero) of the the Foresic
Professionals who have viewed the photos (both in and outside of the
public domain) have noticed them! Not even Cyril Wecht who is a
died-in-the-wool CT bu utterly rejects all notion of "body altering" put
out by Lifton/Horne, et. al.
Post by mainframetechLet's take the one that shows the BOH of JFK. Try and use the
instructions from Humes or Boswell to find the bullet holes in the BOH in
that one. I'll chuckle while you keep looking in vain, and I know the
photo is plenty clear enough to see a bullet hole if one was there. But
to make it worse, that photo had a drawing done of it by Ida Dox, who
copied it supposedly as exactly as possible. The laugh comes in when we
see that Ida has put in the bullet hole right where they told her to put
http://i318.photobucket.com/albums/mm433/JFKAUTOPSYPHOTOS/JFKcolor_boh_autopsy_photo.jpg
I have no idea what you are babling about, since what you linked to
clearly shows the red spot near the Cowlick that was held by the various
Panels that looked at it post-autopsy have said was the bullet entrance
wound. Again even Wecht did did not disagree. But here is another view of
it which I think shows the red spot a bit more vividly:
Loading Image...Now as to it differing than from the autopsist description I fully agree.
Moreover, I agree that there is a mystery there that needs to be resolved.
I have gone into this numerous times here, so you need only search: BT
George and the Cowlick or EOP entry and I am quite sure you will quickly
acertain my thouhts on that.
I have no good explanation for where the red spot entrance wound appears
to be on the BOH photo vs. where the significant *majority* of the other
evidence places it. (E.g., the original and crystal clear versions in the
NA of the Lateral X-ray and F10 photo were reviewed by Sturdivan/Zimmerman
who both stated that these leave little or no doubt in thier minds that
the entrance wound was much closer to the EOP as the original Autopsists
described, than where it at least *appears* to be in the BOH photo---and I
am not convinced of John Canal's attempts at resolution.) But I in *no*
way believe the multiply reviewed/re-vetted autopsy evidence is faked or
altered, nor that the body itself was altered.
Post by mainframetechhttp://4.bp.blogspot.com/-1eAF6xNtTsY/T6b3bOQ7wgI/AAAAAAAAIkk/sfjIkGhcrRQ/s702/Dox-Drawing-Of-JFK-Autopsy-Photo.jpg
What a yock! How many LNs do you suppose have believed that photo for
the last 50 years, and ardently fought any CTs who thought it was altered!
But there's no bullet hole there! And on top of that, the photo was
altered because there's a list right here in the forum of over 39
eyewitnesses that said they saw clearly a 'large hole' in the BOH of JFK,
right where that photo was taken! Of course the happy LNs will try to
pretend that there was some excuse, like the photo was fuzzy (check for
yourself, it's not), or just ignore the evidence. Some will avoid looking
altogether and try to blame me for the false claims I'm making! And never
know the truth.
It's as if LNs just never got the word that photos could be altered in
1963. So their logic bumps disappear and they can't see the OBVIOUS.
Post by BT GeorgePost by mainframetechSee below. It was the easiest thing going to get rid of the stupid
SBT. Just get eyewitnesses that saw the proof.
As I said, his methodolgy is as simple as it is self-insulating against
any conceivable correction by demonstrable *hard* evidence. He would much
(1) Gun purchase and delivery records, numerous films and pictures of the
motorcade and autopsy, and ballistics and finger/palm print analysis and
evidence was all faked.
WRONG! The information showing that an MC rifle was sold to Oswald
is fine by me, and I believe he bought it for a purpose. Just not to
shoot anyone with it. So that statement is wrong. Amazing the things
that get said that aren't true. I believe all the fingerprints of Oswald
that are on the rifle and boxes in the 'nest' are legitimate, so you're
wrong on that too.
Uhhh sure. Which is why you accept them as proof of his guilt, right?
Oh that's right. You think *they* a real, but the *scene* was staged to
frame him. Please tell the good folks out there how such shenanigans were
pulled off without involving the same type of far-fetched chicanery I
described above.
I believe many of the photos and films of the
Post by mainframetechmotorcade are mostly true also. I've seen proof that some of the Z-film
was altered, but that came from eyewitnesses to the original film who also
were CIA witnesses.
...IOW, I am dead *right* that in all *substance* that you think the
photographic evidnce has been faked accordingly.
Post by mainframetechSo there is very little in that list of things that I considered fake.
The rifle was Oswald's and he worked at the TSBD. So a lot of what was
said was just plain made up, as LNs tend to do when they don't know what's
up.
I'll let the good lurkers/viewers out there decide just how much of what I
said can be fairly called "made up".
Post by mainframetechPost by BT George(2) Numerous government officials high and low, federal, state, and city,
military and civilian, all coordinated, and knowingly lied to cover up the
murder of the POTUS.
WRONG again. How can you be so wrong so often?
LOL! This Pot meet Kettle moment brought to you by Chris/Mainframetech!
I think the DPD was
Post by mainframetechas honest or corrupt as any town's police dept. Not more or less.
...Well since they did a lot to help frame the Patsy by staging the crime
scene and pursuing Oswald's guilt from a very early stage when he,
himself, claimed they were using him as Patsy for having lived in the
Soviet Union, when at stake was finding the "real) killer(s) of the POTUS,
I'd say you must think most police departments are pretty corrupt Chris!
And
Post by mainframetechwhen the FBI came into the case early on, for the most part the local cops
deferred to them. There were a few people in various organizations that
were in the plot to murder JFK, but not whole organizations. Say about 20
on the front side and 30 on the back side. and that number hasn't changed
since my first look at the case. However, I believe that a number of
Mafia shooters were involved beyond those numbers, and a number of FBI
agents helped cover up many clues and statements to push the 'lone nut'
theory that was handed down by Hoover. But they were unaware of the plot.
In short, you have a *minumum* of 20 actors in "various organizations" not
even counting Mafia hitmen. I guess you'll have to forgive me for
thinking you have pretty wide-ranging plot with a lot of loose lips that
could sink ships from a *very* early stage.
Post by mainframetechPost by BT George(3) Numerous recognized forensic, anthropological, photographic, and
document examination experts either blundered in re-vetting the evidence
in the years since the WC closed up shop, and/or also knowingly helped
carried out the cover up.
WRONG again! Where in the world do you get this stuff? NO EXPERTS
"knowingly helped" to cover up anything, other than the pathologists at
the autopsy, and they were ordered to tell a certain story in the Autopsy
Report. All the 'experts' that were later involved in looking over the
data they were allowed to see from the autopsy, were shown only what would
lead them to believe the cause of death as it had been stated by the
pathologists. They assumed from that info what the cause of death was.
So you deny willing involvement, but *not* where I said the part about
"either blundered in..." And there is no two ways about it. All of the
above were recognized as bona fide experts, and for them all to come away
and not spot the fakery that you and others---cleaver amatuer sluths that
you are---managed to figure out, involved a lot of "blundering" if I ever
saw it pure and simple.
Post by mainframetechPost by BT George(4) Any witnesses whose testimony more closely matches the "official
story" were either mistaken or lying too.
WRONG of course! Many statements were honest and could be believed.
The only places where you will find me disbelieving is where I can prove
someone was lying.
You need to read a bit more carfully. I didn't you thought they all were
necessarily "lying" I said, "either *mistaken* or lying..." So since you
do reject such "contra" witness statements and acknowledge you found some
to be outright lying, tell me again where my statement is seriously in
error?
Post by mainframetechPost by BT George*BUT* witnesses who give recollections that contradict that story (even if
the recollections are put in writing 15-30 or more years after the fact)
are to be believed as all costs!
Nope, there is an overall view of the crime, and from that point of
view, one can see clearly that the crime was a conspiracy to murder.
With that in mind, many of the facts of the case begin to look very
different. In my view, the vast majority of eyewitness testimony is
corroborated and so is more to be believed whatever it's age.
So IOW, you approach the case and the witness statements having determined
the "overall view of the crime" was "a conspiracy to commit murder" and it
is at *that* point that one can see clearly see that "facts of the case
begin to look very different." Excuse me, but I think that is the cart
before the horse. The overall view of the crime should only be formed
after weighing all the *facts* independent of a desired outcome.
That means assigning relative weights to the available *evidence*. Find
me any credibly modern case study of how crimes should be investigated and
solved that places equal or greater weight upon witness statements (even
early ones; still less those obtained years later) than on any available
*hard* evidence that can be examined and vetted by trained experts, and
maybe I'll say you are onto something. ...But until then you will have
sail alone on the good ship "USS No Good Evidence or Rationale". :-)
Post by mainframetechPost by BT George...Yepper. That's a "reasonable" and "fact based" approach if I ever saw
one!
So we've found that your narrative is phony from the word go, but I've
corrected much of it. and if you ever want to actually deal in facts of
the case, let me know.
Post by BT GeorgePost by mainframetechPost by David Von PeinPost by mainframetechFollowing is the statement
made by Paul O'Connor, Navy Technologist, and member of the Bethesda
autopsy team.
"O'Connor: We started out with a rigid probe and found that it only went
in so far. I'd say maybe an inch and a quarter. It didn't go any further
than that. So we used a malleable probe and bent it a little bit and found
out that the bullet entered the body, went through the intercostal
muscles—the muscles in between the ribs. The bullet went in
through the muscles, didn't touch any of the ribs, arched downwards, hit
the back of the pleural cavity, which encases the lungs, both front and
back. It bounced off that cavity and stopped. It actually went down and
stopped. Went through the ribs and stopped (photo 10). So we didn't know
the track of the bullet until we eviscerated the body later. That's what
happened at that time. We traced the bullet path down and found out it
didn't traverse the body. It did not go in one side and come out the other
side of the body.
Law: You can be reasonably sure of that?
O'Connor: Absolutely.
Law: It was just from the probe then?
O'Connor: Oh yes.
Law: And these doctors knew that?
O'Connor: Absolutely.
Law: While it happened?
O'Connor: Absolutely."
From "In the Eye of History" by William Matson Law, pages 40-41
Online at: https://www.krusch.com/books/kennedy/In_The_Eye_Of_History.pdf
So even the pathologists saw what O'Connor saw. That the bullet from
the upper back wound never left the body of JFK, and so could never have come
out of the throat wound. Therefore there was no SBT and the Autopsy Report
was phonied up to cover up that there were multiple gunshots in the plaza
that day.
Chris