Discussion:
20 Shooters
(too old to reply)
claviger
2018-07-26 13:18:40 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
The majority of earwitnesses in Dealey Plaza heard 3 shots.
One CT supports a theory there were 20 shooters around
the plaza who fired a shot at the Limousine.

Another version is fewer than 20 shooters but some of them
fired more than one shot, adding up to 20 shots fired. There
is no explanation why a majority of witnesses only heard the
sound of 3 shots.

The only logical explanation can be 3 shots were fired from a
rifle with no silencer and 19 other shots were fired from rifles
with silencers.

Why did the majority of these snipers miss the primary target?
Apparently the patsy did all the damage with his loud milsurp
rifle and no silencer. Does this mean silenced rifles are not as
accurate?

Another problem is silencers in the 60s were large and bulky.
Was this the primary reason why all those shooters using the
silencers missed a primary target?

The extreme irony of this ostensible theory, only the patsy hit
the primary target. For all the extreme high risk of 19 people
sneaking in and out Dealey Plaza for a very risky coordinated
ambush with bulky weapons, this plan was a complete failure.

Why would the planners even need that many shooters? If the
idea was to frame a patsy with an older bolt action rifle, a dead
victim with 20 bullet wounds might cause people to doubt that
explanation.
Anthony Marsh
2018-07-27 16:47:57 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by claviger
The majority of earwitnesses in Dealey Plaza heard 3 shots.
Never rely on witnesses. Use SCIENCE. SCIENCE proved that 3 shots were
fired from the sniper's nest.
Post by claviger
One CT supports a theory there were 20 shooters around
the plaza who fired a shot at the Limousine.
Oh, that's nothing. I met a nut who said that Zapruder actually had a
gun in his camera instead of film and fired the fatal hea shot.
If you really want to poison the well, start linking conspiracy
believers to UFOs.
Post by claviger
Another version is fewer than 20 shooters but some of them
fired more than one shot, adding up to 20 shots fired. There
is no explanation why a majority of witnesses only heard the
sound of 3 shots.
Big deal. YOU think Oswald fired 3 shots and the SS fired one shot. That
adds up to 4 shots fired and only 3 heard. So who's the kook now?
Post by claviger
The only logical explanation can be 3 shots were fired from a
rifle with no silencer and 19 other shots were fired from rifles
with silencers.
I used to think that was a possible explanation, but SCIENCE proved it
wrong.
Post by claviger
Why did the majority of these snipers miss the primary target?
Apparently the patsy did all the damage with his loud milsurp
rifle and no silencer. Does this mean silenced rifles are not as
accurate?
Another problem is silencers in the 60s were large and bulky.
Why did Oswald miss Walker at only 120 feet?
Why did the OAS miss de Gaulle with 7 shooters?
Post by claviger
Was this the primary reason why all those shooters using the
silencers missed a primary target?
Hey, wait a minute. I got it for you:
Say that they missed BECAUSE they were using silencers and they made the
bullet go too slow!
Yeah, that's it.
Post by claviger
The extreme irony of this ostensible theory, only the patsy hit
the primary target. For all the extreme high risk of 19 people
sneaking in and out Dealey Plaza for a very risky coordinated
ambush with bulky weapons, this plan was a complete failure.
Well, if he's the patsy wouldn't you want his bullets to hit to link
back to his gun? Could you just drop Oswald bullets onto the ground to
frame him?
Post by claviger
Why would the planners even need that many shooters? If the
idea was to frame a patsy with an older bolt action rifle, a dead
victim with 20 bullet wounds might cause people to doubt that
explanation.
Look at other failed assassination attempts.
Petit-Clamart.


At around 8pm, the convoy ??? a first car with security officers, a second
car with the President and his wife, and two police officers on motorbikes
??? arrives in Petit Clamart, unaware that a commando troop of 12 men is
lying in wait for them. As the convoy reaches the crossroads between the
RN 306, on which they are travelling, and the rue Charles Debry and rue
des Bois, the 12 men, in three different spots, fire off a volley of 187
bullets. Although de Gaulle???s car is hit 14 times, miraculously no-one
is injured.
Travis Banger
2018-08-02 23:39:19 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
The majority of earwitnesses in Dealey Plaza heard 3 shots.
Never rely on witnesses. Use SCIENCE. SCIENCE proved that 3 shots were
fired from the sniper's nest.
So you believe in Science but not in Numbers?

-Ramon
JFK Numbers
Anthony Marsh
2018-08-08 05:48:08 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Travis Banger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
The majority of earwitnesses in Dealey Plaza heard 3 shots.
Never rely on witnesses. Use SCIENCE. SCIENCE proved that 3 shots were
fired from the sniper's nest.
So you believe in Science but not in Numbers?
You can express or measure laws of science with numbers, but they are
not numbers.
Gravity is not 2007.
Post by Travis Banger
-Ramon
JFK Numbers
A meme is not evidence.
mainframetech
2018-07-28 12:30:01 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by claviger
The majority of earwitnesses in Dealey Plaza heard 3 shots.
One CT supports a theory there were 20 shooters around
the plaza who fired a shot at the Limousine.
There are NO CTs who think there were 20 shooters to do the murder of
JFK. Where do you get this stuff?
Post by claviger
Another version is fewer than 20 shooters but some of them
fired more than one shot, adding up to 20 shots fired. There
is no explanation why a majority of witnesses only heard the
sound of 3 shots.
Same as above. No one I know of said there were 20 shots fired.
Post by claviger
The only logical explanation can be 3 shots were fired from a
rifle with no silencer and 19 other shots were fired from rifles
with silencers.
Why did the majority of these snipers miss the primary target?
Apparently the patsy did all the damage with his loud milsurp
rifle and no silencer. Does this mean silenced rifles are not as
accurate?
Another problem is silencers in the 60s were large and bulky.
Was this the primary reason why all those shooters using the
silencers missed a primary target?
The extreme irony of this ostensible theory, only the patsy hit
the primary target. For all the extreme high risk of 19 people
sneaking in and out Dealey Plaza for a very risky coordinated
ambush with bulky weapons, this plan was a complete failure.
This is an extreme plan that could only be developed by an LN. It had
nothing to do with CTs.
Post by claviger
Why would the planners even need that many shooters? If the
idea was to frame a patsy with an older bolt action rifle, a dead
victim with 20 bullet wounds might cause people to doubt that
explanation.
I sure do. At most I've heard of only 6 shooters as a maximum amount.

Chris
bigdog
2018-07-29 01:30:14 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
The majority of earwitnesses in Dealey Plaza heard 3 shots.
One CT supports a theory there were 20 shooters around
the plaza who fired a shot at the Limousine.
There are NO CTs who think there were 20 shooters to do the murder of
JFK. Where do you get this stuff?
Post by claviger
Another version is fewer than 20 shooters but some of them
fired more than one shot, adding up to 20 shots fired. There
is no explanation why a majority of witnesses only heard the
sound of 3 shots.
Same as above. No one I know of said there were 20 shots fired.
Post by claviger
The only logical explanation can be 3 shots were fired from a
rifle with no silencer and 19 other shots were fired from rifles
with silencers.
Why did the majority of these snipers miss the primary target?
Apparently the patsy did all the damage with his loud milsurp
rifle and no silencer. Does this mean silenced rifles are not as
accurate?
Another problem is silencers in the 60s were large and bulky.
Was this the primary reason why all those shooters using the
silencers missed a primary target?
The extreme irony of this ostensible theory, only the patsy hit
the primary target. For all the extreme high risk of 19 people
sneaking in and out Dealey Plaza for a very risky coordinated
ambush with bulky weapons, this plan was a complete failure.
This is an extreme plan that could only be developed by an LN. It had
nothing to do with CTs.
Post by claviger
Why would the planners even need that many shooters? If the
idea was to frame a patsy with an older bolt action rifle, a dead
victim with 20 bullet wounds might cause people to doubt that
explanation.
I sure do. At most I've heard of only 6 shooters as a maximum amount.
WOW!!! ONLY 6. According to you only two of them hit the target. Your
plotters obviously didn't go through Murder Incorporated to find their
shooters. Must have decided to go with a discount house.
mainframetech
2018-07-30 01:53:45 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
The majority of earwitnesses in Dealey Plaza heard 3 shots.
One CT supports a theory there were 20 shooters around
the plaza who fired a shot at the Limousine.
There are NO CTs who think there were 20 shooters to do the murder of
JFK. Where do you get this stuff?
Post by claviger
Another version is fewer than 20 shooters but some of them
fired more than one shot, adding up to 20 shots fired. There
is no explanation why a majority of witnesses only heard the
sound of 3 shots.
Same as above. No one I know of said there were 20 shots fired.
Post by claviger
The only logical explanation can be 3 shots were fired from a
rifle with no silencer and 19 other shots were fired from rifles
with silencers.
Why did the majority of these snipers miss the primary target?
Apparently the patsy did all the damage with his loud milsurp
rifle and no silencer. Does this mean silenced rifles are not as
accurate?
Another problem is silencers in the 60s were large and bulky.
Was this the primary reason why all those shooters using the
silencers missed a primary target?
The extreme irony of this ostensible theory, only the patsy hit
the primary target. For all the extreme high risk of 19 people
sneaking in and out Dealey Plaza for a very risky coordinated
ambush with bulky weapons, this plan was a complete failure.
This is an extreme plan that could only be developed by an LN. It had
nothing to do with CTs.
Post by claviger
Why would the planners even need that many shooters? If the
idea was to frame a patsy with an older bolt action rifle, a dead
victim with 20 bullet wounds might cause people to doubt that
explanation.
I sure do. At most I've heard of only 6 shooters as a maximum amount.
WOW!!! ONLY 6. According to you only two of them hit the target. Your
plotters obviously didn't go through Murder Incorporated to find their
shooters. Must have decided to go with a discount house.
You're not too swift about these things, I see. First, I've said that
EITHER 2or 3 shooters fired and struck the target. That could be up to 50
% of all shooters that hit the target. Second, anyone would have to a
dummy to think that Murder Inc. was the solution to the problem of
distance. Most Mafia killings were done by the killer walking up to the
target and firing a shot into their head, and when they fell, a shot too
the heart. This comes from a mafia killer himself who talked while his
face was hidden. That is not 80 yards away, which is a bit tougher.

Chris
bigdog
2018-07-31 01:23:22 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
The majority of earwitnesses in Dealey Plaza heard 3 shots.
One CT supports a theory there were 20 shooters around
the plaza who fired a shot at the Limousine.
There are NO CTs who think there were 20 shooters to do the murder of
JFK. Where do you get this stuff?
Post by claviger
Another version is fewer than 20 shooters but some of them
fired more than one shot, adding up to 20 shots fired. There
is no explanation why a majority of witnesses only heard the
sound of 3 shots.
Same as above. No one I know of said there were 20 shots fired.
Post by claviger
The only logical explanation can be 3 shots were fired from a
rifle with no silencer and 19 other shots were fired from rifles
with silencers.
Why did the majority of these snipers miss the primary target?
Apparently the patsy did all the damage with his loud milsurp
rifle and no silencer. Does this mean silenced rifles are not as
accurate?
Another problem is silencers in the 60s were large and bulky.
Was this the primary reason why all those shooters using the
silencers missed a primary target?
The extreme irony of this ostensible theory, only the patsy hit
the primary target. For all the extreme high risk of 19 people
sneaking in and out Dealey Plaza for a very risky coordinated
ambush with bulky weapons, this plan was a complete failure.
This is an extreme plan that could only be developed by an LN. It had
nothing to do with CTs.
Post by claviger
Why would the planners even need that many shooters? If the
idea was to frame a patsy with an older bolt action rifle, a dead
victim with 20 bullet wounds might cause people to doubt that
explanation.
I sure do. At most I've heard of only 6 shooters as a maximum amount.
WOW!!! ONLY 6. According to you only two of them hit the target. Your
plotters obviously didn't go through Murder Incorporated to find their
shooters. Must have decided to go with a discount house.
You're not too swift about these things, I see. First, I've said that
EITHER 2or 3 shooters fired and struck the target. That could be up to 50
% of all shooters that hit the target. Second, anyone would have to a
dummy to think that Murder Inc. was the solution to the problem of
distance. Most Mafia killings were done by the killer walking up to the
target and firing a shot into their head, and when they fell, a shot too
the heart. This comes from a mafia killer himself who talked while his
face was hidden. That is not 80 yards away, which is a bit tougher.
Aren't you the guy that's been claiming the Mafia supplied the shooters?
mainframetech
2018-08-01 03:27:13 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
The majority of earwitnesses in Dealey Plaza heard 3 shots.
One CT supports a theory there were 20 shooters around
the plaza who fired a shot at the Limousine.
There are NO CTs who think there were 20 shooters to do the murder of
JFK. Where do you get this stuff?
Post by claviger
Another version is fewer than 20 shooters but some of them
fired more than one shot, adding up to 20 shots fired. There
is no explanation why a majority of witnesses only heard the
sound of 3 shots.
Same as above. No one I know of said there were 20 shots fired.
Post by claviger
The only logical explanation can be 3 shots were fired from a
rifle with no silencer and 19 other shots were fired from rifles
with silencers.
Why did the majority of these snipers miss the primary target?
Apparently the patsy did all the damage with his loud milsurp
rifle and no silencer. Does this mean silenced rifles are not as
accurate?
Another problem is silencers in the 60s were large and bulky.
Was this the primary reason why all those shooters using the
silencers missed a primary target?
The extreme irony of this ostensible theory, only the patsy hit
the primary target. For all the extreme high risk of 19 people
sneaking in and out Dealey Plaza for a very risky coordinated
ambush with bulky weapons, this plan was a complete failure.
This is an extreme plan that could only be developed by an LN. It had
nothing to do with CTs.
Post by claviger
Why would the planners even need that many shooters? If the
idea was to frame a patsy with an older bolt action rifle, a dead
victim with 20 bullet wounds might cause people to doubt that
explanation.
I sure do. At most I've heard of only 6 shooters as a maximum amount.
WOW!!! ONLY 6. According to you only two of them hit the target. Your
plotters obviously didn't go through Murder Incorporated to find their
shooters. Must have decided to go with a discount house.
You're not too swift about these things, I see. First, I've said that
EITHER 2or 3 shooters fired and struck the target. That could be up to 50
% of all shooters that hit the target. Second, anyone would have to a
dummy to think that Murder Inc. was the solution to the problem of
distance. Most Mafia killings were done by the killer walking up to the
target and firing a shot into their head, and when they fell, a shot too
the heart. This comes from a mafia killer himself who talked while his
face was hidden. That is not 80 yards away, which is a bit tougher.
Aren't you the guy that's been claiming the Mafia supplied the shooters?
Nope. I haven't "claimed" that. I've suggested it though.

Chris
Jason Burke
2018-08-02 02:10:40 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
The majority of earwitnesses in Dealey Plaza heard 3 shots.
One CT supports a theory there were 20 shooters around
the plaza who fired a shot at the Limousine.
There are NO CTs who think there were 20 shooters to do the murder of
JFK. Where do you get this stuff?
Post by claviger
Another version is fewer than 20 shooters but some of them
fired more than one shot, adding up to 20 shots fired. There
is no explanation why a majority of witnesses only heard the
sound of 3 shots.
Same as above. No one I know of said there were 20 shots fired.
Post by claviger
The only logical explanation can be 3 shots were fired from a
rifle with no silencer and 19 other shots were fired from rifles
with silencers.
Why did the majority of these snipers miss the primary target?
Apparently the patsy did all the damage with his loud milsurp
rifle and no silencer. Does this mean silenced rifles are not as
accurate?
Another problem is silencers in the 60s were large and bulky.
Was this the primary reason why all those shooters using the
silencers missed a primary target?
The extreme irony of this ostensible theory, only the patsy hit
the primary target. For all the extreme high risk of 19 people
sneaking in and out Dealey Plaza for a very risky coordinated
ambush with bulky weapons, this plan was a complete failure.
This is an extreme plan that could only be developed by an LN. It had
nothing to do with CTs.
Post by claviger
Why would the planners even need that many shooters? If the
idea was to frame a patsy with an older bolt action rifle, a dead
victim with 20 bullet wounds might cause people to doubt that
explanation.
I sure do. At most I've heard of only 6 shooters as a maximum amount.
WOW!!! ONLY 6. According to you only two of them hit the target. Your
plotters obviously didn't go through Murder Incorporated to find their
shooters. Must have decided to go with a discount house.
You're not too swift about these things, I see. First, I've said that
EITHER 2or 3 shooters fired and struck the target. That could be up to 50
% of all shooters that hit the target. Second, anyone would have to a
dummy to think that Murder Inc. was the solution to the problem of
distance. Most Mafia killings were done by the killer walking up to the
target and firing a shot into their head, and when they fell, a shot too
the heart. This comes from a mafia killer himself who talked while his
face was hidden. That is not 80 yards away, which is a bit tougher.
Aren't you the guy that's been claiming the Mafia supplied the shooters?
Nope. I haven't "claimed" that. I've suggested it though.
Chris
Yeah. You've "suggested" a load of sh*t that isn't even remotely
possibly true.

So, what's your point?
Steve M. Galbraith
2018-07-30 01:59:24 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
The majority of earwitnesses in Dealey Plaza heard 3 shots.
One CT supports a theory there were 20 shooters around
the plaza who fired a shot at the Limousine.
There are NO CTs who think there were 20 shooters to do the murder of
JFK. Where do you get this stuff?
Post by claviger
Another version is fewer than 20 shooters but some of them
fired more than one shot, adding up to 20 shots fired. There
is no explanation why a majority of witnesses only heard the
sound of 3 shots.
Same as above. No one I know of said there were 20 shots fired.
Post by claviger
The only logical explanation can be 3 shots were fired from a
rifle with no silencer and 19 other shots were fired from rifles
with silencers.
Why did the majority of these snipers miss the primary target?
Apparently the patsy did all the damage with his loud milsurp
rifle and no silencer. Does this mean silenced rifles are not as
accurate?
Another problem is silencers in the 60s were large and bulky.
Was this the primary reason why all those shooters using the
silencers missed a primary target?
The extreme irony of this ostensible theory, only the patsy hit
the primary target. For all the extreme high risk of 19 people
sneaking in and out Dealey Plaza for a very risky coordinated
ambush with bulky weapons, this plan was a complete failure.
This is an extreme plan that could only be developed by an LN. It had
nothing to do with CTs.
Post by claviger
Why would the planners even need that many shooters? If the
idea was to frame a patsy with an older bolt action rifle, a dead
victim with 20 bullet wounds might cause people to doubt that
explanation.
I sure do. At most I've heard of only 6 shooters as a maximum amount.
WOW!!! ONLY 6. According to you only two of them hit the target. Your
plotters obviously didn't go through Murder Incorporated to find their
shooters. Must have decided to go with a discount house.
Six shooters, all planted in broad daylight among a crowd of 200-300
people many with cameras.

Yet they forgot to plant eyewitnesses who could identify Oswald as the
shooter. Oops.

And forgot to plan doctors at Parkland who would cover their shooting of
JFK from the front.

I mean.....

One of our problems is correcting claims that are made up of whole clothe.
There's no evidence to counter since they produce no evidence at all. It's
like proving leprechauns didn't shoot JFK. Where does one begin?
mainframetech
2018-07-31 01:27:01 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
The majority of earwitnesses in Dealey Plaza heard 3 shots.
One CT supports a theory there were 20 shooters around
the plaza who fired a shot at the Limousine.
There are NO CTs who think there were 20 shooters to do the murder of
JFK. Where do you get this stuff?
Post by claviger
Another version is fewer than 20 shooters but some of them
fired more than one shot, adding up to 20 shots fired. There
is no explanation why a majority of witnesses only heard the
sound of 3 shots.
Same as above. No one I know of said there were 20 shots fired.
Post by claviger
The only logical explanation can be 3 shots were fired from a
rifle with no silencer and 19 other shots were fired from rifles
with silencers.
Why did the majority of these snipers miss the primary target?
Apparently the patsy did all the damage with his loud milsurp
rifle and no silencer. Does this mean silenced rifles are not as
accurate?
Another problem is silencers in the 60s were large and bulky.
Was this the primary reason why all those shooters using the
silencers missed a primary target?
The extreme irony of this ostensible theory, only the patsy hit
the primary target. For all the extreme high risk of 19 people
sneaking in and out Dealey Plaza for a very risky coordinated
ambush with bulky weapons, this plan was a complete failure.
This is an extreme plan that could only be developed by an LN. It had
nothing to do with CTs.
Post by claviger
Why would the planners even need that many shooters? If the
idea was to frame a patsy with an older bolt action rifle, a dead
victim with 20 bullet wounds might cause people to doubt that
explanation.
I sure do. At most I've heard of only 6 shooters as a maximum amount.
WOW!!! ONLY 6. According to you only two of them hit the target. Your
plotters obviously didn't go through Murder Incorporated to find their
shooters. Must have decided to go with a discount house.
Six shooters, all planted in broad daylight among a crowd of 200-300
people many with cameras.
I don't know of any plan to have shooters "among a crowd". They would
be mostly on the surrounding buildings, like the TSBD.
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Yet they forgot to plant eyewitnesses who could identify Oswald as the
shooter. Oops.
Have you forgotten Howard Brennan?
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
And forgot to plan doctors at Parkland who would cover their shooting of
JFK from the front.
No need. That would be taken care of at Bethesda by the prosectors, in
this case Humes and Boswell.
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
I mean.....
One of our problems is correcting claims that are made up of whole clothe.
There's no evidence to counter since they produce no evidence at all. It's
like proving leprechauns didn't shoot JFK. Where does one begin?
Start with Irish Whiskey! See above for answers to points.

Chris
claviger
2018-08-02 02:45:20 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
The majority of earwitnesses in Dealey Plaza heard 3 shots.
One CT supports a theory there were 20 shooters around
the plaza who fired a shot at the Limousine.
There are NO CTs who think there were 20 shooters to do the
murder of JFK. Where do you get this stuff?
Post by claviger
Another version is fewer than 20 shooters but some of them
fired more than one shot, adding up to 20 shots fired. There
is no explanation why a majority of witnesses only heard the
sound of 3 shots.
Same as above. No one I know of said there were 20 shots fired.
Post by claviger
The only logical explanation can be 3 shots were fired from a
rifle with no silencer and 19 other shots were fired from rifles
with silencers.
Why did the majority of these snipers miss the primary target?
Apparently the patsy did all the damage with his loud milsurp
rifle and no silencer. Does this mean silenced rifles are not as
accurate?
Another problem is silencers in the 60s were large and bulky.
Was this the primary reason why all those shooters using the
silencers missed a primary target?
The extreme irony of this ostensible theory, only the patsy hit
the primary target. For all the extreme high risk of 19 people
sneaking in and out Dealey Plaza for a very risky coordinated
ambush with bulky weapons, this plan was a complete failure.
This is an extreme plan that could only be developed by an LN.
It had nothing to do with CTs.
Post by claviger
Why would the planners even need that many shooters? If the
idea was to frame a patsy with an older bolt action rifle, a dead
victim with 20 bullet wounds might cause people to doubt that
explanation.
I sure do. At most I've heard of only 6 shooters as a maximum amount.
WOW!!! ONLY 6. According to you only two of them hit the target. Your
plotters obviously didn't go through Murder Incorporated to find their
shooters. Must have decided to go with a discount house.
Six shooters, all planted in broad daylight among a crowd of 200-300
people many with cameras.
I don't know of any plan to have shooters "among a crowd". They would
be mostly on the surrounding buildings, like the TSBD.
Which buildings?
Post by mainframetech
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Yet they forgot to plant eyewitnesses who could identify Oswald as the
shooter. Oops.
Have you forgotten Howard Brennan?
Are you accusing Howard Brennan of being part of a conspiracy?
What evidence do you have to make this slanderous accusation?
Post by mainframetech
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
And forgot to plan doctors at Parkland who would cover their shooting of
JFK from the front.
No need. That would be taken care of at Bethesda by the prosectors, in
this case Humes and Boswell.
The most experienced Pathologist was Dr Finck. He was there to observe and
take measurements of the wounds. You basically slander all three of these
professional Pathology Doctors as participants in a conspiracy to murder
the President. What proof do you have to make this accusation? Actual
proof, not one of your fantasy scenarios.
Post by mainframetech
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
I mean.....
One of our problems is correcting claims that are made up of whole clothe.
There's no evidence to counter since they produce no evidence at all. It's
like proving leprechauns didn't shoot JFK. Where does one begin?
Start with Irish Whiskey! See above for answers to points.
Chris
mainframetech
2018-08-03 02:35:39 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
The majority of earwitnesses in Dealey Plaza heard 3 shots.
One CT supports a theory there were 20 shooters around
the plaza who fired a shot at the Limousine.
There are NO CTs who think there were 20 shooters to do the
murder of JFK. Where do you get this stuff?
Post by claviger
Another version is fewer than 20 shooters but some of them
fired more than one shot, adding up to 20 shots fired. There
is no explanation why a majority of witnesses only heard the
sound of 3 shots.
Same as above. No one I know of said there were 20 shots fired.
Post by claviger
The only logical explanation can be 3 shots were fired from a
rifle with no silencer and 19 other shots were fired from rifles
with silencers.
Why did the majority of these snipers miss the primary target?
Apparently the patsy did all the damage with his loud milsurp
rifle and no silencer. Does this mean silenced rifles are not as
accurate?
Another problem is silencers in the 60s were large and bulky.
Was this the primary reason why all those shooters using the
silencers missed a primary target?
The extreme irony of this ostensible theory, only the patsy hit
the primary target. For all the extreme high risk of 19 people
sneaking in and out Dealey Plaza for a very risky coordinated
ambush with bulky weapons, this plan was a complete failure.
This is an extreme plan that could only be developed by an LN.
It had nothing to do with CTs.
Post by claviger
Why would the planners even need that many shooters? If the
idea was to frame a patsy with an older bolt action rifle, a dead
victim with 20 bullet wounds might cause people to doubt that
explanation.
I sure do. At most I've heard of only 6 shooters as a maximum amount.
WOW!!! ONLY 6. According to you only two of them hit the target. Your
plotters obviously didn't go through Murder Incorporated to find their
shooters. Must have decided to go with a discount house.
Six shooters, all planted in broad daylight among a crowd of 200-300
people many with cameras.
I don't know of any plan to have shooters "among a crowd". They would
be mostly on the surrounding buildings, like the TSBD.
Which buildings?
Various buildings around the plaza. The TSBD is one.
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Yet they forgot to plant eyewitnesses who could identify Oswald as the
shooter. Oops.
Have you forgotten Howard Brennan?
Are you accusing Howard Brennan of being part of a conspiracy?
What evidence do you have to make this slanderous accusation?
What tells you that there was no eyewitnesses planted around the
building who could identify Oswald? I answered your comment, but there
was a lot of fishiness about Brennan and his ability to recognize a person
on the 6th floor of a building when a boy within 10 feet of him couldn't
even tell if the man was black or white.
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
And forgot to plan doctors at Parkland who would cover their shooting of
JFK from the front.
No need. That would be taken care of at Bethesda by the prosectors, in
this case Humes and Boswell.
The most experienced Pathologist was Dr Finck. He was there to observe and
take measurements of the wounds. You basically slander all three of these
professional Pathology Doctors as participants in a conspiracy to murder
the President. What proof do you have to make this accusation? Actual
proof, not one of your fantasy scenarios.
Oh, stop playing the injured patriot! Finck was there to help as
Humes called him in to do. I don't slander 3 military pathologists that
were given orders from higher up to do certain things. They were
following orders. No one is slandering them, and that should be OBVIOUS
to anyone.
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
I mean.....
One of our problems is correcting claims that are made up of whole clothe.
There's no evidence to counter since they produce no evidence at all. It's
like proving leprechauns didn't shoot JFK. Where does one begin?
Start with Irish Whiskey! See above for answers to points.
Chris
bigdog
2018-08-09 01:59:39 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
The majority of earwitnesses in Dealey Plaza heard 3 shots.
One CT supports a theory there were 20 shooters around
the plaza who fired a shot at the Limousine.
There are NO CTs who think there were 20 shooters to do the
murder of JFK. Where do you get this stuff?
Post by claviger
Another version is fewer than 20 shooters but some of them
fired more than one shot, adding up to 20 shots fired. There
is no explanation why a majority of witnesses only heard the
sound of 3 shots.
Same as above. No one I know of said there were 20 shots fired.
Post by claviger
The only logical explanation can be 3 shots were fired from a
rifle with no silencer and 19 other shots were fired from rifles
with silencers.
Why did the majority of these snipers miss the primary target?
Apparently the patsy did all the damage with his loud milsurp
rifle and no silencer. Does this mean silenced rifles are not as
accurate?
Another problem is silencers in the 60s were large and bulky.
Was this the primary reason why all those shooters using the
silencers missed a primary target?
The extreme irony of this ostensible theory, only the patsy hit
the primary target. For all the extreme high risk of 19 people
sneaking in and out Dealey Plaza for a very risky coordinated
ambush with bulky weapons, this plan was a complete failure.
This is an extreme plan that could only be developed by an LN.
It had nothing to do with CTs.
Post by claviger
Why would the planners even need that many shooters? If the
idea was to frame a patsy with an older bolt action rifle, a dead
victim with 20 bullet wounds might cause people to doubt that
explanation.
I sure do. At most I've heard of only 6 shooters as a maximum amount.
WOW!!! ONLY 6. According to you only two of them hit the target. Your
plotters obviously didn't go through Murder Incorporated to find their
shooters. Must have decided to go with a discount house.
Six shooters, all planted in broad daylight among a crowd of 200-300
people many with cameras.
I don't know of any plan to have shooters "among a crowd". They would
be mostly on the surrounding buildings, like the TSBD.
Which buildings?
Various buildings around the plaza. The TSBD is one.
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Yet they forgot to plant eyewitnesses who could identify Oswald as the
shooter. Oops.
Have you forgotten Howard Brennan?
Are you accusing Howard Brennan of being part of a conspiracy?
What evidence do you have to make this slanderous accusation?
What tells you that there was no eyewitnesses planted around the
building who could identify Oswald? I answered your comment, but there
was a lot of fishiness about Brennan and his ability to recognize a person
on the 6th floor of a building when a boy within 10 feet of him couldn't
even tell if the man was black or white.
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
And forgot to plan doctors at Parkland who would cover their shooting of
JFK from the front.
No need. That would be taken care of at Bethesda by the prosectors, in
this case Humes and Boswell.
The most experienced Pathologist was Dr Finck. He was there to observe and
take measurements of the wounds. You basically slander all three of these
professional Pathology Doctors as participants in a conspiracy to murder
the President. What proof do you have to make this accusation? Actual
proof, not one of your fantasy scenarios.
Oh, stop playing the injured patriot! Finck was there to help as
Humes called him in to do. I don't slander 3 military pathologists that
were given orders from higher up to do certain things. They were
following orders. No one is slandering them, and that should be OBVIOUS
to anyone.
Of course you are slandering them. You have accused them of committing a
criminal act by participating in a cover up of the assassination of the
POTUS. That would be a clear cut case of obstruction of justice and
probably even an act of treason. It would not have been a legal defense
that they were just acting under orders. That would not have gotten them
off the hook.
mainframetech
2018-08-10 02:21:23 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
The majority of earwitnesses in Dealey Plaza heard 3 shots.
One CT supports a theory there were 20 shooters around
the plaza who fired a shot at the Limousine.
There are NO CTs who think there were 20 shooters to do the
murder of JFK. Where do you get this stuff?
Post by claviger
Another version is fewer than 20 shooters but some of them
fired more than one shot, adding up to 20 shots fired. There
is no explanation why a majority of witnesses only heard the
sound of 3 shots.
Same as above. No one I know of said there were 20 shots fired.
Post by claviger
The only logical explanation can be 3 shots were fired from a
rifle with no silencer and 19 other shots were fired from rifles
with silencers.
Why did the majority of these snipers miss the primary target?
Apparently the patsy did all the damage with his loud milsurp
rifle and no silencer. Does this mean silenced rifles are not as
accurate?
Another problem is silencers in the 60s were large and bulky.
Was this the primary reason why all those shooters using the
silencers missed a primary target?
The extreme irony of this ostensible theory, only the patsy hit
the primary target. For all the extreme high risk of 19 people
sneaking in and out Dealey Plaza for a very risky coordinated
ambush with bulky weapons, this plan was a complete failure.
This is an extreme plan that could only be developed by an LN.
It had nothing to do with CTs.
Post by claviger
Why would the planners even need that many shooters? If the
idea was to frame a patsy with an older bolt action rifle, a dead
victim with 20 bullet wounds might cause people to doubt that
explanation.
I sure do. At most I've heard of only 6 shooters as a maximum amount.
WOW!!! ONLY 6. According to you only two of them hit the target. Your
plotters obviously didn't go through Murder Incorporated to find their
shooters. Must have decided to go with a discount house.
Six shooters, all planted in broad daylight among a crowd of 200-300
people many with cameras.
I don't know of any plan to have shooters "among a crowd". They would
be mostly on the surrounding buildings, like the TSBD.
Which buildings?
Various buildings around the plaza. The TSBD is one.
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Yet they forgot to plant eyewitnesses who could identify Oswald as the
shooter. Oops.
Have you forgotten Howard Brennan?
Are you accusing Howard Brennan of being part of a conspiracy?
What evidence do you have to make this slanderous accusation?
What tells you that there was no eyewitnesses planted around the
building who could identify Oswald? I answered your comment, but there
was a lot of fishiness about Brennan and his ability to recognize a person
on the 6th floor of a building when a boy within 10 feet of him couldn't
even tell if the man was black or white.
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
And forgot to plan doctors at Parkland who would cover their shooting of
JFK from the front.
No need. That would be taken care of at Bethesda by the prosectors, in
this case Humes and Boswell.
The most experienced Pathologist was Dr Finck. He was there to observe and
take measurements of the wounds. You basically slander all three of these
professional Pathology Doctors as participants in a conspiracy to murder
the President. What proof do you have to make this accusation? Actual
proof, not one of your fantasy scenarios.
Oh, stop playing the injured patriot! Finck was there to help as
Humes called him in to do. I don't slander 3 military pathologists that
were given orders from higher up to do certain things. They were
following orders. No one is slandering them, and that should be OBVIOUS
to anyone.
Of course you are slandering them. You have accused them of committing a
criminal act by participating in a cover up of the assassination of the
POTUS. That would be a clear cut case of obstruction of justice and
probably even an act of treason. It would not have been a legal defense
that they were just acting under orders. That would not have gotten them
off the hook.
LOL! Now it's the guru lawyer! You want me to slander someone, ask
me about LBJ. But the prosectors were not guilty of anything except
following orders, which seemed legitimate at the time.

Chris
bigdog
2018-08-11 04:13:27 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
The majority of earwitnesses in Dealey Plaza heard 3 shots.
One CT supports a theory there were 20 shooters around
the plaza who fired a shot at the Limousine.
There are NO CTs who think there were 20 shooters to do the
murder of JFK. Where do you get this stuff?
Post by claviger
Another version is fewer than 20 shooters but some of them
fired more than one shot, adding up to 20 shots fired. There
is no explanation why a majority of witnesses only heard the
sound of 3 shots.
Same as above. No one I know of said there were 20 shots fired.
Post by claviger
The only logical explanation can be 3 shots were fired from a
rifle with no silencer and 19 other shots were fired from rifles
with silencers.
Why did the majority of these snipers miss the primary target?
Apparently the patsy did all the damage with his loud milsurp
rifle and no silencer. Does this mean silenced rifles are not as
accurate?
Another problem is silencers in the 60s were large and bulky.
Was this the primary reason why all those shooters using the
silencers missed a primary target?
The extreme irony of this ostensible theory, only the patsy hit
the primary target. For all the extreme high risk of 19 people
sneaking in and out Dealey Plaza for a very risky coordinated
ambush with bulky weapons, this plan was a complete failure.
This is an extreme plan that could only be developed by an LN.
It had nothing to do with CTs.
Post by claviger
Why would the planners even need that many shooters? If the
idea was to frame a patsy with an older bolt action rifle, a dead
victim with 20 bullet wounds might cause people to doubt that
explanation.
I sure do. At most I've heard of only 6 shooters as a maximum amount.
WOW!!! ONLY 6. According to you only two of them hit the target. Your
plotters obviously didn't go through Murder Incorporated to find their
shooters. Must have decided to go with a discount house.
Six shooters, all planted in broad daylight among a crowd of 200-300
people many with cameras.
I don't know of any plan to have shooters "among a crowd". They would
be mostly on the surrounding buildings, like the TSBD.
Which buildings?
Various buildings around the plaza. The TSBD is one.
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Yet they forgot to plant eyewitnesses who could identify Oswald as the
shooter. Oops.
Have you forgotten Howard Brennan?
Are you accusing Howard Brennan of being part of a conspiracy?
What evidence do you have to make this slanderous accusation?
What tells you that there was no eyewitnesses planted around the
building who could identify Oswald? I answered your comment, but there
was a lot of fishiness about Brennan and his ability to recognize a person
on the 6th floor of a building when a boy within 10 feet of him couldn't
even tell if the man was black or white.
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
And forgot to plan doctors at Parkland who would cover their shooting of
JFK from the front.
No need. That would be taken care of at Bethesda by the prosectors, in
this case Humes and Boswell.
The most experienced Pathologist was Dr Finck. He was there to observe and
take measurements of the wounds. You basically slander all three of these
professional Pathology Doctors as participants in a conspiracy to murder
the President. What proof do you have to make this accusation? Actual
proof, not one of your fantasy scenarios.
Oh, stop playing the injured patriot! Finck was there to help as
Humes called him in to do. I don't slander 3 military pathologists that
were given orders from higher up to do certain things. They were
following orders. No one is slandering them, and that should be OBVIOUS
to anyone.
Of course you are slandering them. You have accused them of committing a
criminal act by participating in a cover up of the assassination of the
POTUS. That would be a clear cut case of obstruction of justice and
probably even an act of treason. It would not have been a legal defense
that they were just acting under orders. That would not have gotten them
off the hook.
LOL! Now it's the guru lawyer! You want me to slander someone, ask
me about LBJ. But the prosectors were not guilty of anything except
following orders, which seemed legitimate at the time.
Whether they were under orders or not, if they falsified the autopsy
report they would have been guilty of obstruction of justice at a minimum.
It could also be argued they were guilty of treason having been complicit
after the fact in a coup d'état against the POTUS.
mainframetech
2018-08-11 22:27:35 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
The majority of earwitnesses in Dealey Plaza heard 3 shots.
One CT supports a theory there were 20 shooters around
the plaza who fired a shot at the Limousine.
There are NO CTs who think there were 20 shooters to do the
murder of JFK. Where do you get this stuff?
Post by claviger
Another version is fewer than 20 shooters but some of them
fired more than one shot, adding up to 20 shots fired. There
is no explanation why a majority of witnesses only heard the
sound of 3 shots.
Same as above. No one I know of said there were 20 shots fired.
Post by claviger
The only logical explanation can be 3 shots were fired from a
rifle with no silencer and 19 other shots were fired from rifles
with silencers.
Why did the majority of these snipers miss the primary target?
Apparently the patsy did all the damage with his loud milsurp
rifle and no silencer. Does this mean silenced rifles are not as
accurate?
Another problem is silencers in the 60s were large and bulky.
Was this the primary reason why all those shooters using the
silencers missed a primary target?
The extreme irony of this ostensible theory, only the patsy hit
the primary target. For all the extreme high risk of 19 people
sneaking in and out Dealey Plaza for a very risky coordinated
ambush with bulky weapons, this plan was a complete failure.
This is an extreme plan that could only be developed by an LN.
It had nothing to do with CTs.
Post by claviger
Why would the planners even need that many shooters? If the
idea was to frame a patsy with an older bolt action rifle, a dead
victim with 20 bullet wounds might cause people to doubt that
explanation.
I sure do. At most I've heard of only 6 shooters as a maximum amount.
WOW!!! ONLY 6. According to you only two of them hit the target. Your
plotters obviously didn't go through Murder Incorporated to find their
shooters. Must have decided to go with a discount house.
Six shooters, all planted in broad daylight among a crowd of 200-300
people many with cameras.
I don't know of any plan to have shooters "among a crowd". They would
be mostly on the surrounding buildings, like the TSBD.
Which buildings?
Various buildings around the plaza. The TSBD is one.
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Yet they forgot to plant eyewitnesses who could identify Oswald as the
shooter. Oops.
Have you forgotten Howard Brennan?
Are you accusing Howard Brennan of being part of a conspiracy?
What evidence do you have to make this slanderous accusation?
What tells you that there was no eyewitnesses planted around the
building who could identify Oswald? I answered your comment, but there
was a lot of fishiness about Brennan and his ability to recognize a person
on the 6th floor of a building when a boy within 10 feet of him couldn't
even tell if the man was black or white.
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
And forgot to plan doctors at Parkland who would cover their shooting of
JFK from the front.
No need. That would be taken care of at Bethesda by the prosectors, in
this case Humes and Boswell.
The most experienced Pathologist was Dr Finck. He was there to observe and
take measurements of the wounds. You basically slander all three of these
professional Pathology Doctors as participants in a conspiracy to murder
the President. What proof do you have to make this accusation? Actual
proof, not one of your fantasy scenarios.
Oh, stop playing the injured patriot! Finck was there to help as
Humes called him in to do. I don't slander 3 military pathologists that
were given orders from higher up to do certain things. They were
following orders. No one is slandering them, and that should be OBVIOUS
to anyone.
Of course you are slandering them. You have accused them of committing a
criminal act by participating in a cover up of the assassination of the
POTUS. That would be a clear cut case of obstruction of justice and
probably even an act of treason. It would not have been a legal defense
that they were just acting under orders. That would not have gotten them
off the hook.
LOL! Now it's the guru lawyer! You want me to slander someone, ask
me about LBJ. But the prosectors were not guilty of anything except
following orders, which seemed legitimate at the time.
Whether they were under orders or not, if they falsified the autopsy
report they would have been guilty of obstruction of justice at a minimum.
It could also be argued they were guilty of treason having been complicit
after the fact in a coup d'état against the POTUS.
If you wanted to nitpick at it, you might get away with saying the
prosectors were guilty, but they were innocent dupes in my eyes. They had
been convinced that the orders they got to fake the results of the autopsy
were legitimate.

Chris
claviger
2018-08-13 05:50:29 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Of course you are slandering them. You have accused them of committing a
criminal act by participating in a cover up of the assassination of the
POTUS. That would be a clear cut case of obstruction of justice and
probably even an act of treason. It would not have been a legal defense
that they were just acting under orders. That would not have gotten them
off the hook.
LOL! Now it's the guru lawyer! You want me to slander someone, ask
me about LBJ. But the prosectors were not guilty of anything except
following orders, which seemed legitimate at the time.
Whether they were under orders or not, if they falsified the autopsy
report they would have been guilty of obstruction of justice at a minimum.
It could also be argued they were guilty of treason having been complicit
after the fact in a coup d'état against the POTUS.
If you wanted to nitpick at it, you might get away with saying the
prosectors were guilty, but they were innocent dupes in my eyes. They
had been convinced that the orders they got to fake the results of the
autopsy were legitimate.
Chris
Since nobody had seen the Zapruder film yet how would they
know what to fake?
mainframetech
2018-08-14 01:06:09 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Of course you are slandering them. You have accused them of committing a
criminal act by participating in a cover up of the assassination of the
POTUS. That would be a clear cut case of obstruction of justice and
probably even an act of treason. It would not have been a legal defense
that they were just acting under orders. That would not have gotten them
off the hook.
LOL! Now it's the guru lawyer! You want me to slander someone, ask
me about LBJ. But the prosectors were not guilty of anything except
following orders, which seemed legitimate at the time.
Whether they were under orders or not, if they falsified the autopsy
report they would have been guilty of obstruction of justice at a minimum.
It could also be argued they were guilty of treason having been complicit
after the fact in a coup d'état against the POTUS.
If you wanted to nitpick at it, you might get away with saying the
prosectors were guilty, but they were innocent dupes in my eyes. They
had been convinced that the orders they got to fake the results of the
autopsy were legitimate.
Chris
Since nobody had seen the Zapruder film yet how would they
know what to fake?
The film had been viewed by Zapruder, his lawyer and a few other
people by late that afternoon, after Zapruder got it processed right there
in Dallas.

As long as the faking covered a shot from the 6th floor of the TSBD
(therefore above and behind JFK) they knew generally what to say and the
changes to make to the body.

Chris
Anthony Marsh
2018-08-14 15:27:03 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Of course you are slandering them. You have accused them of committing a
criminal act by participating in a cover up of the assassination of the
POTUS. That would be a clear cut case of obstruction of justice and
probably even an act of treason. It would not have been a legal defense
that they were just acting under orders. That would not have gotten them
off the hook.
LOL! Now it's the guru lawyer! You want me to slander someone, ask
me about LBJ. But the prosectors were not guilty of anything except
following orders, which seemed legitimate at the time.
Whether they were under orders or not, if they falsified the autopsy
report they would have been guilty of obstruction of justice at a minimum.
It could also be argued they were guilty of treason having been complicit
after the fact in a coup d'??tat against the POTUS.
If you wanted to nitpick at it, you might get away with saying the
prosectors were guilty, but they were innocent dupes in my eyes. They
had been convinced that the orders they got to fake the results of the
autopsy were legitimate.
Chris
Since nobody had seen the Zapruder film yet how would they
know what to fake?
Not my argument, but the alterationists would say that they knew from
studying the angles that Zapruder was the only one filming from an angle
which might accidentally show the shooter on the grassy knoll. So they
would want alter those frames by adding more trees and bushes to replace
the shooter.
claviger
2018-08-15 02:11:11 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Of course you are slandering them. You have accused them of committing a
criminal act by participating in a cover up of the assassination of the
POTUS. That would be a clear cut case of obstruction of justice and
probably even an act of treason. It would not have been a legal defense
that they were just acting under orders. That would not have gotten them
off the hook.
LOL! Now it's the guru lawyer! You want me to slander someone, ask
me about LBJ. But the prosectors were not guilty of anything except
following orders, which seemed legitimate at the time.
Whether they were under orders or not, if they falsified the autopsy
report they would have been guilty of obstruction of justice at a minimum.
It could also be argued they were guilty of treason having been complicit
after the fact in a coup d'??tat against the POTUS.
If you wanted to nitpick at it, you might get away with saying the
prosectors were guilty, but they were innocent dupes in my eyes. They
had been convinced that the orders they got to fake the results of the
autopsy were legitimate.
Chris
Since nobody had seen the Zapruder film yet how would they
know what to fake?
Not my argument, but the alterationists would say that they knew from
studying the angles that Zapruder was the only one filming from an angle
which might accidentally show the shooter on the grassy knoll. So they
would want alter those frames by adding more trees and bushes to replace
the shooter.
How would the pathology team know how to rearrange wounds
to match a film they haven'r seen yet?
mainframetech
2018-08-15 23:06:56 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Of course you are slandering them. You have accused them of committing a
criminal act by participating in a cover up of the assassination of the
POTUS. That would be a clear cut case of obstruction of justice and
probably even an act of treason. It would not have been a legal defense
that they were just acting under orders. That would not have gotten them
off the hook.
LOL! Now it's the guru lawyer! You want me to slander someone, ask
me about LBJ. But the prosectors were not guilty of anything except
following orders, which seemed legitimate at the time.
Whether they were under orders or not, if they falsified the autopsy
report they would have been guilty of obstruction of justice at a minimum.
It could also be argued they were guilty of treason having been complicit
after the fact in a coup d'??tat against the POTUS.
If you wanted to nitpick at it, you might get away with saying the
prosectors were guilty, but they were innocent dupes in my eyes. They
had been convinced that the orders they got to fake the results of the
autopsy were legitimate.
Chris
Since nobody had seen the Zapruder film yet how would they
know what to fake?
Not my argument, but the alterationists would say that they knew from
studying the angles that Zapruder was the only one filming from an angle
which might accidentally show the shooter on the grassy knoll. So they
would want alter those frames by adding more trees and bushes to replace
the shooter.
How would the pathology team know how to rearrange wounds
to match a film they haven'r seen yet?
Simple. Think it through. They were told that the shooter was above
and to the rear. That gave all the info needed to alter wounds in the
body.

Chris
claviger
2018-08-16 22:34:00 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
How would the pathology team know how to rearrange wounds
to match a film they haven'r seen yet?
Simple. Think it through. They were told that the shooter was above
and to the rear. That gave all the info needed to alter wounds in the
body.
Chris
You make a distinction between snipers and shooters. There was a sniper
above and to the rear. Eyewitnesses saw him. Earwitnesses heard him.
He hid the rifle on the 6th floor and didn't bother to pickup the empty
shells since the evil deed was done and it really didn't matter. He
was probably gloating and laughing how easy it was to defeat the
hated FBI and clueless SSA.
Anthony Marsh
2018-08-17 20:49:01 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Of course you are slandering them. You have accused them of committing a
criminal act by participating in a cover up of the assassination of the
POTUS. That would be a clear cut case of obstruction of justice and
probably even an act of treason. It would not have been a legal defense
that they were just acting under orders. That would not have gotten them
off the hook.
LOL! Now it's the guru lawyer! You want me to slander someone, ask
me about LBJ. But the prosectors were not guilty of anything except
following orders, which seemed legitimate at the time.
Whether they were under orders or not, if they falsified the autopsy
report they would have been guilty of obstruction of justice at a minimum.
It could also be argued they were guilty of treason having been complicit
after the fact in a coup d'??tat against the POTUS.
If you wanted to nitpick at it, you might get away with saying the
prosectors were guilty, but they were innocent dupes in my eyes. They
had been convinced that the orders they got to fake the results of the
autopsy were legitimate.
Chris
Since nobody had seen the Zapruder film yet how would they
know what to fake?
Not my argument, but the alterationists would say that they knew from
studying the angles that Zapruder was the only one filming from an angle
which might accidentally show the shooter on the grassy knoll. So they
would want alter those frames by adding more trees and bushes to replace
the shooter.
How would the pathology team know how to rearrange wounds
to match a film they haven'r seen yet?
Simple. Think it through. They were told that the shooter was above
and to the rear. That gave all the info needed to alter wounds in the
body.
Chris
Stop falling for their childish straw man arguments.
No one said match the Zapruder film. The Zapruder film did not show the
other wounds on film, only the headshot.
bigdog
2018-08-13 05:59:42 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
LOL! Now it's the guru lawyer! You want me to slander someone, ask
me about LBJ. But the prosectors were not guilty of anything except
following orders, which seemed legitimate at the time.
Whether they were under orders or not, if they falsified the autopsy
report they would have been guilty of obstruction of justice at a minimum.
It could also be argued they were guilty of treason having been complicit
after the fact in a coup d'état against the POTUS.
If you wanted to nitpick at it, you might get away with saying the
prosectors were guilty, but they were innocent dupes in my eyes. They had
been convinced that the orders they got to fake the results of the autopsy
were legitimate.
And you know that how? Oh, that's right. The same way you know they were
given those orders. You just assumed it. Never mind.
mainframetech
2018-08-14 01:05:04 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
LOL! Now it's the guru lawyer! You want me to slander someone, ask
me about LBJ. But the prosectors were not guilty of anything except
following orders, which seemed legitimate at the time.
Whether they were under orders or not, if they falsified the autopsy
report they would have been guilty of obstruction of justice at a minimum.
It could also be argued they were guilty of treason having been complicit
after the fact in a coup d'état against the POTUS.
If you wanted to nitpick at it, you might get away with saying the
prosectors were guilty, but they were innocent dupes in my eyes. They had
been convinced that the orders they got to fake the results of the autopsy
were legitimate.
And you know that how? Oh, that's right. The same way you know they were
given those orders. You just assumed it. Never mind.
WRONG again! The orders were shown to have been given and you were the
recipient of that information. No doubt forgotten by now.

Chris
bigdog
2018-08-15 00:46:17 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
LOL! Now it's the guru lawyer! You want me to slander someone, ask
me about LBJ. But the prosectors were not guilty of anything except
following orders, which seemed legitimate at the time.
Whether they were under orders or not, if they falsified the autopsy
report they would have been guilty of obstruction of justice at a minimum.
It could also be argued they were guilty of treason having been complicit
after the fact in a coup d'état against the POTUS.
If you wanted to nitpick at it, you might get away with saying the
prosectors were guilty, but they were innocent dupes in my eyes. They had
been convinced that the orders they got to fake the results of the autopsy
were legitimate.
And you know that how? Oh, that's right. The same way you know they were
given those orders. You just assumed it. Never mind.
WRONG again! The orders were shown to have been given and you were the
recipient of that information. No doubt forgotten by now.
Oh, brother, here we go again. Claiming something happened and actually
showing it aren't the same thing. You have often done the former and never
done the latter. You have never offered proof for this assumption. Instead
you offer other assumptions you have made as if one assumption can prove
another.
mainframetech
2018-08-15 23:07:57 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
LOL! Now it's the guru lawyer! You want me to slander someone, ask
me about LBJ. But the prosectors were not guilty of anything except
following orders, which seemed legitimate at the time.
Whether they were under orders or not, if they falsified the autopsy
report they would have been guilty of obstruction of justice at a minimum.
It could also be argued they were guilty of treason having been complicit
after the fact in a coup d'état against the POTUS.
If you wanted to nitpick at it, you might get away with saying the
prosectors were guilty, but they were innocent dupes in my eyes. They had
been convinced that the orders they got to fake the results of the autopsy
were legitimate.
And you know that how? Oh, that's right. The same way you know they were
given those orders. You just assumed it. Never mind.
WRONG again! The orders were shown to have been given and you were the
recipient of that information. No doubt forgotten by now.
Oh, brother, here we go again. Claiming something happened and actually
showing it aren't the same thing. You have often done the former and never
done the latter. You have never offered proof for this assumption. Instead
you offer other assumptions you have made as if one assumption can prove
another.
More false information! You seem to be full of it. Since what the
autopsy team saw inside the body was clear, what the prosectors (Humes)
wrote down in the AR was baloney and didn't match. Therefore they either
made it up, or were ordered to put it in the AR. Humes was not someone
who would take a chance like that and falsify an autopsy report of the
POTUS, he had to have orders. Simple.

Chris
Anthony Marsh
2018-08-14 19:46:27 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
LOL! Now it's the guru lawyer! You want me to slander someone, ask
me about LBJ. But the prosectors were not guilty of anything except
following orders, which seemed legitimate at the time.
Whether they were under orders or not, if they falsified the autopsy
report they would have been guilty of obstruction of justice at a minimum.
It could also be argued they were guilty of treason having been complicit
after the fact in a coup d'état against the POTUS.
If you wanted to nitpick at it, you might get away with saying the
prosectors were guilty, but they were innocent dupes in my eyes. They had
been convinced that the orders they got to fake the results of the autopsy
were legitimate.
And you know that how? Oh, that's right. The same way you know they were
given those orders. You just assumed it. Never mind.
Stover.
claviger
2018-08-11 04:16:58 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
LOL! Now it's the guru lawyer! You want me to slander someone,
ask me about LBJ. But the prosectors were not guilty of anything
except following orders, which seemed legitimate at the time.
Chris
The Kennedy family controlled the autopsy. Robert Kennedy was in control.
Admiral Burkley and General McHugh took direct orders orders from HQ on
the 17th floor. Secretary of Defense McNamara was up there too to make
sure all military personnel followed orders.
mainframetech
2018-08-11 22:27:01 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
LOL! Now it's the guru lawyer! You want me to slander someone,
ask me about LBJ. But the prosectors were not guilty of anything
except following orders, which seemed legitimate at the time.
Chris
The Kennedy family controlled the autopsy. Robert Kennedy was in control.
Admiral Burkley and General McHugh took direct orders orders from HQ on
the 17th floor. Secretary of Defense McNamara was up there too to make
sure all military personnel followed orders.
It was easy enough for the family to state their desires, but there was
also certain regulations that had to be observed. The result as a
compromise between them. RFK was not 'in charge'. Burkley was the most
senior officer there, and one of my suspects for the killing.

Chris
claviger
2018-08-13 05:50:21 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
LOL! Now it's the guru lawyer! You want me to slander someone,
ask me about LBJ. But the prosectors were not guilty of anything
except following orders, which seemed legitimate at the time.
Chris
The Kennedy family controlled the autopsy. Robert Kennedy was in control.
Admiral Burkley and General McHugh took direct orders orders from HQ on
the 17th floor. Secretary of Defense McNamara was up there too to make
sure all military personnel followed orders.
It was easy enough for the family to state their desires, but there
was also certain regulations that had to be observed. The result as a
compromise between them. RFK was not 'in charge'. Burkley was the
most senior officer there, and one of my suspects for the killing.
Chris
Burkley is one of your suspects for murder! What proof do you have
to make this shocking accusation about the President's doctor?
mainframetech
2018-08-14 01:06:58 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
LOL! Now it's the guru lawyer! You want me to slander someone,
ask me about LBJ. But the prosectors were not guilty of anything
except following orders, which seemed legitimate at the time.
Chris
The Kennedy family controlled the autopsy. Robert Kennedy was in control.
Admiral Burkley and General McHugh took direct orders orders from HQ on
the 17th floor. Secretary of Defense McNamara was up there too to make
sure all military personnel followed orders.
It was easy enough for the family to state their desires, but there
was also certain regulations that had to be observed. The result as a
compromise between them. RFK was not 'in charge'. Burkley was the
most senior officer there, and one of my suspects for the killing.
Chris
Burkley is one of your suspects for murder! What proof do you have
to make this shocking accusation about the President's doctor?
Oh, relax yourself! Now isn't the time for a patriotic rage. And to
a CT, it isn't so "shocking". First, Burkley was made the president's
physician for LBJ, a job which usually goes to a new person with a new
president. Second, the prosectors needed someone in higher authority than
Captain Stover, the head of the hospital. Burkley was JFK's physician,
and so carried a certain amount of weight when he gave orders. He could
give orders referring to the autopsy where it would be useful. Being made
LBJ's physician was his reward for his efforts during the coup.

Chris
Mark
2018-08-14 19:52:29 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
LOL! Now it's the guru lawyer! You want me to slander someone,
ask me about LBJ. But the prosectors were not guilty of anything
except following orders, which seemed legitimate at the time.
Chris
The Kennedy family controlled the autopsy. Robert Kennedy was in control.
Admiral Burkley and General McHugh took direct orders orders from HQ on
the 17th floor. Secretary of Defense McNamara was up there too to make
sure all military personnel followed orders.
It was easy enough for the family to state their desires, but there
was also certain regulations that had to be observed. The result as a
compromise between them. RFK was not 'in charge'. Burkley was the
most senior officer there, and one of my suspects for the killing.
Chris
Burkley is one of your suspects for murder! What proof do you have
to make this shocking accusation about the President's doctor?
Oh, relax yourself! Now isn't the time for a patriotic rage. And to
a CT, it isn't so "shocking". First, Burkley was made the president's
physician for LBJ, a job which usually goes to a new person with a new
president. Second, the prosectors needed someone in higher authority than
Captain Stover, the head of the hospital. Burkley was JFK's physician,
and so carried a certain amount of weight when he gave orders. He could
give orders referring to the autopsy where it would be useful. Being made
LBJ's physician was his reward for his efforts during the coup.
Chris
I don't think you or Alex Jones will ever find a reputable publisher for
your version of history.

Mark
mainframetech
2018-08-15 23:08:51 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Mark
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
LOL! Now it's the guru lawyer! You want me to slander someone,
ask me about LBJ. But the prosectors were not guilty of anything
except following orders, which seemed legitimate at the time.
Chris
The Kennedy family controlled the autopsy. Robert Kennedy was in control.
Admiral Burkley and General McHugh took direct orders orders from HQ on
the 17th floor. Secretary of Defense McNamara was up there too to make
sure all military personnel followed orders.
It was easy enough for the family to state their desires, but there
was also certain regulations that had to be observed. The result as a
compromise between them. RFK was not 'in charge'. Burkley was the
most senior officer there, and one of my suspects for the killing.
Chris
Burkley is one of your suspects for murder! What proof do you have
to make this shocking accusation about the President's doctor?
Oh, relax yourself! Now isn't the time for a patriotic rage. And to
a CT, it isn't so "shocking". First, Burkley was made the president's
physician for LBJ, a job which usually goes to a new person with a new
president. Second, the prosectors needed someone in higher authority than
Captain Stover, the head of the hospital. Burkley was JFK's physician,
and so carried a certain amount of weight when he gave orders. He could
give orders referring to the autopsy where it would be useful. Being made
LBJ's physician was his reward for his efforts during the coup.
Chris
I don't think you or Alex Jones will ever find a reputable publisher for
your version of history.
Mark
UGH! Alex Jones is no friend of mine! He's a phony that generates
phony conspiracies.

Chris
bigdog
2018-08-16 22:30:37 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by Mark
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
LOL! Now it's the guru lawyer! You want me to slander someone,
ask me about LBJ. But the prosectors were not guilty of anything
except following orders, which seemed legitimate at the time.
Chris
The Kennedy family controlled the autopsy. Robert Kennedy was in control.
Admiral Burkley and General McHugh took direct orders orders from HQ on
the 17th floor. Secretary of Defense McNamara was up there too to make
sure all military personnel followed orders.
It was easy enough for the family to state their desires, but there
was also certain regulations that had to be observed. The result as a
compromise between them. RFK was not 'in charge'. Burkley was the
most senior officer there, and one of my suspects for the killing.
Chris
Burkley is one of your suspects for murder! What proof do you have
to make this shocking accusation about the President's doctor?
Oh, relax yourself! Now isn't the time for a patriotic rage. And to
a CT, it isn't so "shocking". First, Burkley was made the president's
physician for LBJ, a job which usually goes to a new person with a new
president. Second, the prosectors needed someone in higher authority than
Captain Stover, the head of the hospital. Burkley was JFK's physician,
and so carried a certain amount of weight when he gave orders. He could
give orders referring to the autopsy where it would be useful. Being made
LBJ's physician was his reward for his efforts during the coup.
Chris
I don't think you or Alex Jones will ever find a reputable publisher for
your version of history.
Mark
UGH! Alex Jones is no friend of mine! He's a phony that generates
phony conspiracies.
Could the irony get any thicker?
Jason Burke
2018-08-17 21:01:23 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by Mark
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
LOL! Now it's the guru lawyer! You want me to slander someone,
ask me about LBJ. But the prosectors were not guilty of anything
except following orders, which seemed legitimate at the time.
Chris
The Kennedy family controlled the autopsy. Robert Kennedy was in control.
Admiral Burkley and General McHugh took direct orders orders from HQ on
the 17th floor. Secretary of Defense McNamara was up there too to make
sure all military personnel followed orders.
It was easy enough for the family to state their desires, but there
was also certain regulations that had to be observed. The result as a
compromise between them. RFK was not 'in charge'. Burkley was the
most senior officer there, and one of my suspects for the killing.
Chris
Burkley is one of your suspects for murder! What proof do you have
to make this shocking accusation about the President's doctor?
Oh, relax yourself! Now isn't the time for a patriotic rage. And to
a CT, it isn't so "shocking". First, Burkley was made the president's
physician for LBJ, a job which usually goes to a new person with a new
president. Second, the prosectors needed someone in higher authority than
Captain Stover, the head of the hospital. Burkley was JFK's physician,
and so carried a certain amount of weight when he gave orders. He could
give orders referring to the autopsy where it would be useful. Being made
LBJ's physician was his reward for his efforts during the coup.
Chris
I don't think you or Alex Jones will ever find a reputable publisher for
your version of history.
Mark
UGH! Alex Jones is no friend of mine! He's a phony that generates
phony conspiracies.
Could the irony get any thicker?
Actually, I *was* drinking a beer this time.
You owe me a new monitor.
bigdog
2018-08-18 12:19:01 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Jason Burke
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by Mark
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
LOL! Now it's the guru lawyer! You want me to slander someone,
ask me about LBJ. But the prosectors were not guilty of anything
except following orders, which seemed legitimate at the time.
Chris
The Kennedy family controlled the autopsy. Robert Kennedy was in control.
Admiral Burkley and General McHugh took direct orders orders from HQ on
the 17th floor. Secretary of Defense McNamara was up there too to make
sure all military personnel followed orders.
It was easy enough for the family to state their desires, but there
was also certain regulations that had to be observed. The result as a
compromise between them. RFK was not 'in charge'. Burkley was the
most senior officer there, and one of my suspects for the killing.
Chris
Burkley is one of your suspects for murder! What proof do you have
to make this shocking accusation about the President's doctor?
Oh, relax yourself! Now isn't the time for a patriotic rage. And to
a CT, it isn't so "shocking". First, Burkley was made the president's
physician for LBJ, a job which usually goes to a new person with a new
president. Second, the prosectors needed someone in higher authority than
Captain Stover, the head of the hospital. Burkley was JFK's physician,
and so carried a certain amount of weight when he gave orders. He could
give orders referring to the autopsy where it would be useful. Being made
LBJ's physician was his reward for his efforts during the coup.
Chris
I don't think you or Alex Jones will ever find a reputable publisher for
your version of history.
Mark
UGH! Alex Jones is no friend of mine! He's a phony that generates
phony conspiracies.
Could the irony get any thicker?
Actually, I *was* drinking a beer this time.
You owe me a new monitor.
I hate when that happens.

Anthony Marsh
2018-08-17 20:49:32 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by Mark
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
LOL! Now it's the guru lawyer! You want me to slander someone,
ask me about LBJ. But the prosectors were not guilty of anything
except following orders, which seemed legitimate at the time.
Chris
The Kennedy family controlled the autopsy. Robert Kennedy was in control.
Admiral Burkley and General McHugh took direct orders orders from HQ on
the 17th floor. Secretary of Defense McNamara was up there too to make
sure all military personnel followed orders.
It was easy enough for the family to state their desires, but there
was also certain regulations that had to be observed. The result as a
compromise between them. RFK was not 'in charge'. Burkley was the
most senior officer there, and one of my suspects for the killing.
Chris
Burkley is one of your suspects for murder! What proof do you have
to make this shocking accusation about the President's doctor?
Oh, relax yourself! Now isn't the time for a patriotic rage. And to
a CT, it isn't so "shocking". First, Burkley was made the president's
physician for LBJ, a job which usually goes to a new person with a new
president. Second, the prosectors needed someone in higher authority than
Captain Stover, the head of the hospital. Burkley was JFK's physician,
and so carried a certain amount of weight when he gave orders. He could
give orders referring to the autopsy where it would be useful. Being made
LBJ's physician was his reward for his efforts during the coup.
Chris
I don't think you or Alex Jones will ever find a reputable publisher for
your version of history.
Mark
UGH! Alex Jones is no friend of mine! He's a phony that generates
phony conspiracies.
Chris
Alex Jones is an extreme rightwinger and pal of Trump.
claviger
2018-08-15 00:26:39 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
LOL! Now it's the guru lawyer! You want me to slander someone,
ask me about LBJ. But the prosectors were not guilty of anything
except following orders, which seemed legitimate at the time.
Chris
The Kennedy family controlled the autopsy. Robert Kennedy was in control.
Admiral Burkley and General McHugh took direct orders orders from HQ on
the 17th floor. Secretary of Defense McNamara was up there too to make
sure all military personnel followed orders.
It was easy enough for the family to state their desires, but there
was also certain regulations that had to be observed. The result as a
compromise between them. RFK was not 'in charge'. Burkley was the
most senior officer there, and one of my suspects for the killing.
Chris
Burkley is one of your suspects for murder! What proof do you have
to make this shocking accusation about the President's doctor?
Oh, relax yourself! Now isn't the time for a patriotic rage. And to
a CT, it isn't so "shocking". First, Burkley was made the president's
physician for LBJ, a job which usually goes to a new person with a new
president. Second, the prosectors needed someone in higher authority
than Captain Stover, the head of the hospital. Burkley was JFK's physician,
and so carried a certain amount of weight when he gave orders. He could
give orders referring to the autopsy where it would be useful. Being made
LBJ's physician was his reward for his efforts during the coup.
Chris
So as usual you have no facts, no proof, all opinion with fantasy
scenarios.
mainframetech
2018-08-15 23:09:37 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
LOL! Now it's the guru lawyer! You want me to slander someone,
ask me about LBJ. But the prosectors were not guilty of anything
except following orders, which seemed legitimate at the time.
Chris
The Kennedy family controlled the autopsy. Robert Kennedy was in control.
Admiral Burkley and General McHugh took direct orders orders from HQ on
the 17th floor. Secretary of Defense McNamara was up there too to make
sure all military personnel followed orders.
It was easy enough for the family to state their desires, but there
was also certain regulations that had to be observed. The result as a
compromise between them. RFK was not 'in charge'. Burkley was the
most senior officer there, and one of my suspects for the killing.
Chris
Burkley is one of your suspects for murder! What proof do you have
to make this shocking accusation about the President's doctor?
Oh, relax yourself! Now isn't the time for a patriotic rage. And to
a CT, it isn't so "shocking". First, Burkley was made the president's
physician for LBJ, a job which usually goes to a new person with a new
president. Second, the prosectors needed someone in higher authority
than Captain Stover, the head of the hospital. Burkley was JFK's physician,
and so carried a certain amount of weight when he gave orders. He could
give orders referring to the autopsy where it would be useful. Being made
LBJ's physician was his reward for his efforts during the coup.
Chris
So as usual you have no facts, no proof, all opinion with fantasy
scenarios.
Apparently you don't know a fact from a fart. It is a fact that
Burkley was made president's physician after the murder. It is a fact
that he was an admiral and could order anyone in the autopsy around if he
chose. It's a fact that he was near the seat of power for a good while
and may have heard of or been recruited by the plotters. I made it clear
that it was my belief, for the reasons I specified that he was one of my
suspects.

As to fantasies, look t your own novels that you put out now and then.

Chris
bigdog
2018-08-16 22:30:00 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
LOL! Now it's the guru lawyer! You want me to slander someone,
ask me about LBJ. But the prosectors were not guilty of anything
except following orders, which seemed legitimate at the time.
Chris
The Kennedy family controlled the autopsy. Robert Kennedy was in control.
Admiral Burkley and General McHugh took direct orders orders from HQ on
the 17th floor. Secretary of Defense McNamara was up there too to make
sure all military personnel followed orders.
It was easy enough for the family to state their desires, but there
was also certain regulations that had to be observed. The result as a
compromise between them. RFK was not 'in charge'. Burkley was the
most senior officer there, and one of my suspects for the killing.
Chris
Burkley is one of your suspects for murder! What proof do you have
to make this shocking accusation about the President's doctor?
Oh, relax yourself! Now isn't the time for a patriotic rage. And to
a CT, it isn't so "shocking". First, Burkley was made the president's
physician for LBJ, a job which usually goes to a new person with a new
president. Second, the prosectors needed someone in higher authority
than Captain Stover, the head of the hospital. Burkley was JFK's physician,
and so carried a certain amount of weight when he gave orders. He could
give orders referring to the autopsy where it would be useful. Being made
LBJ's physician was his reward for his efforts during the coup.
Chris
So as usual you have no facts, no proof, all opinion with fantasy
scenarios.
Apparently you don't know a fact from a fart. It is a fact that
Burkley was made president's physician after the murder. It is a fact
that he was an admiral and could order anyone in the autopsy around if he
chose. It's a fact that he was near the seat of power for a good while
and may have heard of or been recruited by the plotters. I made it clear
that it was my belief, for the reasons I specified that he was one of my
suspects.
As to fantasies, look t your own novels that you put out now and then.
There isn't a shred of evidence that Burkley conspired to assassinate JFK.
Your hunches don't count.
claviger
2018-08-17 20:45:03 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
LOL! Now it's the guru lawyer! You want me to slander someone,
ask me about LBJ. But the prosectors were not guilty of anything
except following orders, which seemed legitimate at the time.
Chris
The Kennedy family controlled the autopsy. Robert Kennedy was in control.
Admiral Burkley and General McHugh took direct orders orders from HQ on
the 17th floor. Secretary of Defense McNamara was up there too to make
sure all military personnel followed orders.
It was easy enough for the family to state their desires, but there
was also certain regulations that had to be observed. The result as a
compromise between them. RFK was not 'in charge'. Burkley was the
most senior officer there, and one of my suspects for the killing.
Chris
Burkley is one of your suspects for murder! What proof do you have
to make this shocking accusation about the President's doctor?
Oh, relax yourself! Now isn't the time for a patriotic rage. And to
a CT, it isn't so "shocking". First, Burkley was made the president's
physician for LBJ, a job which usually goes to a new person with a new
president. Second, the prosectors needed someone in higher authority
than Captain Stover, the head of the hospital. Burkley was JFK's physician,
and so carried a certain amount of weight when he gave orders. He could
give orders referring to the autopsy where it would be useful. Being made
LBJ's physician was his reward for his efforts during the coup.
Chris
So as usual you have no facts, no proof, all opinion with fantasy
scenarios.
Apparently you don't know a fact from a fart.
You lack expertise with the first, but much experience with the second.
Your brain farts of this debate forum are a source of entertainment.
Post by mainframetech
It is a fact that Burkley was made president's physician after the murder.
He was the President's physician prior to the murder and remained in
that duty station after the tragedy. Why would be fired for doing his
job?
Post by mainframetech
It is a fact that he was an admiral and could order anyone in the
autopsy around if he chose.
He was is a Triple braid status that night: Rear Admiral,
Physician to CIC, and Spokesman for Kennedy Family
at the Autopsy. He served 3 Presidents in a row.

George Gregory Burkley
Vice Admiral, United States Navy
https://www.google.com/?client=safari&channel=mac_bm
Post by mainframetech
It's a fact that he was near the seat of power for a good while
and may have heard of or been recruited by the plotters.
What evidence do you have for making this serious accusation
of treason?
Post by mainframetech
I made it clear that it was my belief, for the reasons I specified
that he was one of my suspects.
As usual you have beliefs with no facts whatsoever.
Post by mainframetech
As to fantasies, look to your own novels that you put out
now and then.
Chris
What is novel about you is corybantic imagination.
Was the White House gardener in on the plot too?
claviger
2018-08-15 00:33:15 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
LOL! Now it's the guru lawyer! You want me to slander someone,
ask me about LBJ. But the prosectors were not guilty of anything
except following orders, which seemed legitimate at the time.
Chris
The Kennedy family controlled the autopsy. Robert Kennedy was in control.
Admiral Burkley and General McHugh took direct orders orders from HQ on
the 17th floor. Secretary of Defense McNamara was up there too to make
sure all military personnel followed orders.
It was easy enough for the family to state their desires, but there
was also certain regulations that had to be observed. The result as a
compromise between them. RFK was not 'in charge'. Burkley was the
most senior officer there, and one of my suspects for the killing.
Chris
Burkley is one of your suspects for murder! What proof do you have
to make this shocking accusation about the President's doctor?
Oh, relax yourself! Now isn't the time for a patriotic rage. And to
a CT, it isn't so "shocking". First, Burkley was made the president's
physician for LBJ, a job which usually goes to a new person with a new
president. Second, the prosectors needed someone in higher authority than
Captain Stover, the head of the hospital. Burkley was JFK's physician,
and so carried a certain amount of weight when he gave orders. He could
give orders referring to the autopsy where it would be useful. Being made
LBJ's physician was his reward for his efforts during the coup.
Chris
You recommended a theory you found. When I read it
the author claimed 20 snipers fired at the motorcade.
mainframetech
2018-08-15 23:08:15 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
LOL! Now it's the guru lawyer! You want me to slander someone,
ask me about LBJ. But the prosectors were not guilty of anything
except following orders, which seemed legitimate at the time.
Chris
The Kennedy family controlled the autopsy. Robert Kennedy was in control.
Admiral Burkley and General McHugh took direct orders orders from HQ on
the 17th floor. Secretary of Defense McNamara was up there too to make
sure all military personnel followed orders.
It was easy enough for the family to state their desires, but there
was also certain regulations that had to be observed. The result as a
compromise between them. RFK was not 'in charge'. Burkley was the
most senior officer there, and one of my suspects for the killing.
Chris
Burkley is one of your suspects for murder! What proof do you have
to make this shocking accusation about the President's doctor?
Oh, relax yourself! Now isn't the time for a patriotic rage. And to
a CT, it isn't so "shocking". First, Burkley was made the president's
physician for LBJ, a job which usually goes to a new person with a new
president. Second, the prosectors needed someone in higher authority than
Captain Stover, the head of the hospital. Burkley was JFK's physician,
and so carried a certain amount of weight when he gave orders. He could
give orders referring to the autopsy where it would be useful. Being made
LBJ's physician was his reward for his efforts during the coup.
Chris
You recommended a theory you found. When I read it
the author claimed 20 snipers fired at the motorcade.
Oh? Where was that, it's interesting that someone would believe such a
silly thing.

Chris
claviger
2018-08-16 22:34:26 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
LOL! Now it's the guru lawyer! You want me to slander someone,
ask me about LBJ. But the prosectors were not guilty of anything
except following orders, which seemed legitimate at the time.
Chris
The Kennedy family controlled the autopsy. Robert Kennedy was in control.
Admiral Burkley and General McHugh took direct orders orders from HQ on
the 17th floor. Secretary of Defense McNamara was up there too to make
sure all military personnel followed orders.
It was easy enough for the family to state their desires, but there
was also certain regulations that had to be observed. The result as a
compromise between them. RFK was not 'in charge'. Burkley was the
most senior officer there, and one of my suspects for the killing.
Chris
Burkley is one of your suspects for murder! What proof do you have
to make this shocking accusation about the President's doctor?
Oh, relax yourself! Now isn't the time for a patriotic rage. And to
a CT, it isn't so "shocking". First, Burkley was made the president's
physician for LBJ, a job which usually goes to a new person with a new
president. Second, the prosectors needed someone in higher authority than
Captain Stover, the head of the hospital. Burkley was JFK's physician,
and so carried a certain amount of weight when he gave orders. He could
give orders referring to the autopsy where it would be useful. Being made
LBJ's physician was his reward for his efforts during the coup.
Chris
You recommended a theory you found. When I read it
the author claimed 20 snipers fired at the motorcade.
Oh? Where was that, it's interesting that someone would
believe such a silly thing.
Chris
I didn't believe it you did. Do you even read the stuff you post?
bigdog
2018-08-15 00:47:17 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
LOL! Now it's the guru lawyer! You want me to slander someone,
ask me about LBJ. But the prosectors were not guilty of anything
except following orders, which seemed legitimate at the time.
Chris
The Kennedy family controlled the autopsy. Robert Kennedy was in control.
Admiral Burkley and General McHugh took direct orders orders from HQ on
the 17th floor. Secretary of Defense McNamara was up there too to make
sure all military personnel followed orders.
It was easy enough for the family to state their desires, but there
was also certain regulations that had to be observed. The result as a
compromise between them. RFK was not 'in charge'. Burkley was the
most senior officer there, and one of my suspects for the killing.
Chris
Burkley is one of your suspects for murder! What proof do you have
to make this shocking accusation about the President's doctor?
Oh, relax yourself! Now isn't the time for a patriotic rage. And to
a CT, it isn't so "shocking". First, Burkley was made the president's
physician for LBJ, a job which usually goes to a new person with a new
president. Second, the prosectors needed someone in higher authority than
Captain Stover, the head of the hospital. Burkley was JFK's physician,
and so carried a certain amount of weight when he gave orders. He could
give orders referring to the autopsy where it would be useful. Being made
LBJ's physician was his reward for his efforts during the coup.
Burkley didn't get a promotion as a result of the assassination. He simply
kept the job he already had. Why would that be an incentive for him to
take part in the assassination of a President, a court martial as well as
a capital offense?
mainframetech
2018-08-15 23:07:21 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
LOL! Now it's the guru lawyer! You want me to slander someone,
ask me about LBJ. But the prosectors were not guilty of anything
except following orders, which seemed legitimate at the time.
Chris
The Kennedy family controlled the autopsy. Robert Kennedy was in control.
Admiral Burkley and General McHugh took direct orders orders from HQ on
the 17th floor. Secretary of Defense McNamara was up there too to make
sure all military personnel followed orders.
It was easy enough for the family to state their desires, but there
was also certain regulations that had to be observed. The result as a
compromise between them. RFK was not 'in charge'. Burkley was the
most senior officer there, and one of my suspects for the killing.
Chris
Burkley is one of your suspects for murder! What proof do you have
to make this shocking accusation about the President's doctor?
Oh, relax yourself! Now isn't the time for a patriotic rage. And to
a CT, it isn't so "shocking". First, Burkley was made the president's
physician for LBJ, a job which usually goes to a new person with a new
president. Second, the prosectors needed someone in higher authority than
Captain Stover, the head of the hospital. Burkley was JFK's physician,
and so carried a certain amount of weight when he gave orders. He could
give orders referring to the autopsy where it would be useful. Being made
LBJ's physician was his reward for his efforts during the coup.
Burkley didn't get a promotion as a result of the assassination. He simply
kept the job he already had. Why would that be an incentive for him to
take part in the assassination of a President, a court martial as well as
a capital offense?
Sad that you can't figure that out. Yes, he kept the same job, which
usually changed with the news president. And second, he as on the inside
and was not in a position to be fired, since he knew the ins and outs of
the plot.

Chris
Jason Burke
2018-08-16 22:27:05 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
LOL! Now it's the guru lawyer! You want me to slander someone,
ask me about LBJ. But the prosectors were not guilty of anything
except following orders, which seemed legitimate at the time.
Chris
The Kennedy family controlled the autopsy. Robert Kennedy was in control.
Admiral Burkley and General McHugh took direct orders orders from HQ on
the 17th floor. Secretary of Defense McNamara was up there too to make
sure all military personnel followed orders.
It was easy enough for the family to state their desires, but there
was also certain regulations that had to be observed. The result as a
compromise between them. RFK was not 'in charge'. Burkley was the
most senior officer there, and one of my suspects for the killing.
Chris
Burkley is one of your suspects for murder! What proof do you have
to make this shocking accusation about the President's doctor?
Oh, relax yourself! Now isn't the time for a patriotic rage. And to
a CT, it isn't so "shocking". First, Burkley was made the president's
physician for LBJ, a job which usually goes to a new person with a new
president. Second, the prosectors needed someone in higher authority than
Captain Stover, the head of the hospital. Burkley was JFK's physician,
and so carried a certain amount of weight when he gave orders. He could
give orders referring to the autopsy where it would be useful. Being made
LBJ's physician was his reward for his efforts during the coup.
Burkley didn't get a promotion as a result of the assassination. He simply
kept the job he already had. Why would that be an incentive for him to
take part in the assassination of a President, a court martial as well as
a capital offense?
Sad that you can't figure that out. Yes, he kept the same job, which
usually changed with the news president. And second, he as on the inside
and was not in a position to be fired, since he knew the ins and outs of
the plot.
Chris
Amazing how many people managed to keep their pie-holes shut for half a
century.
bigdog
2018-08-16 22:28:27 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
LOL! Now it's the guru lawyer! You want me to slander someone,
ask me about LBJ. But the prosectors were not guilty of anything
except following orders, which seemed legitimate at the time.
Chris
The Kennedy family controlled the autopsy. Robert Kennedy was in control.
Admiral Burkley and General McHugh took direct orders orders from HQ on
the 17th floor. Secretary of Defense McNamara was up there too to make
sure all military personnel followed orders.
It was easy enough for the family to state their desires, but there
was also certain regulations that had to be observed. The result as a
compromise between them. RFK was not 'in charge'. Burkley was the
most senior officer there, and one of my suspects for the killing.
Chris
Burkley is one of your suspects for murder! What proof do you have
to make this shocking accusation about the President's doctor?
Oh, relax yourself! Now isn't the time for a patriotic rage. And to
a CT, it isn't so "shocking". First, Burkley was made the president's
physician for LBJ, a job which usually goes to a new person with a new
president. Second, the prosectors needed someone in higher authority than
Captain Stover, the head of the hospital. Burkley was JFK's physician,
and so carried a certain amount of weight when he gave orders. He could
give orders referring to the autopsy where it would be useful. Being made
LBJ's physician was his reward for his efforts during the coup.
Burkley didn't get a promotion as a result of the assassination. He simply
kept the job he already had. Why would that be an incentive for him to
take part in the assassination of a President, a court martial as well as
a capital offense?
Sad that you can't figure that out. Yes, he kept the same job, which
usually changed with the news president.
You still haven't answered what incentive there would be for him to take
part in the plot to kill JFK. Had JFK not been killed he would have kept
his same job and not have had to worry about whether the next president
would keep him or not. He gained nothing by JFK being assassinated.
Post by mainframetech
And second, he as on the inside
and was not in a position to be fired, since he knew the ins and outs of
the plot.
So again you use one of your silly baseless assumptions to support another
of your silly baseless assumptions. SOP!!!
Anthony Marsh
2018-08-14 15:27:11 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
LOL! Now it's the guru lawyer! You want me to slander someone,
ask me about LBJ. But the prosectors were not guilty of anything
except following orders, which seemed legitimate at the time.
Chris
The Kennedy family controlled the autopsy. Robert Kennedy was in control.
Admiral Burkley and General McHugh took direct orders orders from HQ on
the 17th floor. Secretary of Defense McNamara was up there too to make
sure all military personnel followed orders.
It was easy enough for the family to state their desires, but there
was also certain regulations that had to be observed. The result as a
compromise between them. RFK was not 'in charge'. Burkley was the
most senior officer there, and one of my suspects for the killing.
Chris
Burkley is one of your suspects for murder! What proof do you have
to make this shocking accusation about the President's doctor?
It's silly. Burkley was not close enough to get off a shot.
Jason Burke
2018-08-13 05:50:52 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
LOL! Now it's the guru lawyer! You want me to slander someone,
ask me about LBJ. But the prosectors were not guilty of anything
except following orders, which seemed legitimate at the time.
Chris
The Kennedy family controlled the autopsy. Robert Kennedy was in control.
Admiral Burkley and General McHugh took direct orders orders from HQ on
the 17th floor. Secretary of Defense McNamara was up there too to make
sure all military personnel followed orders.
It was easy enough for the family to state their desires, but there was
also certain regulations that had to be observed. The result as a
compromise between them. RFK was not 'in charge'. Burkley was the most
senior officer there, and one of my suspects for the killing.
Chris
As usual, when you make shh*t up, you can believe anything you want.
bigdog
2018-08-13 05:59:09 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
LOL! Now it's the guru lawyer! You want me to slander someone,
ask me about LBJ. But the prosectors were not guilty of anything
except following orders, which seemed legitimate at the time.
Chris
The Kennedy family controlled the autopsy. Robert Kennedy was in control.
Admiral Burkley and General McHugh took direct orders orders from HQ on
the 17th floor. Secretary of Defense McNamara was up there too to make
sure all military personnel followed orders.
It was easy enough for the family to state their desires, but there was
also certain regulations that had to be observed. The result as a
compromise between them. RFK was not 'in charge'. Burkley was the most
senior officer there, and one of my suspects for the killing.
Funny how you deny Oswald's guilt despite overwhelming evidence but have
no problem implicating Burkley on nothing more than one of your hunches.
mainframetech
2018-08-14 01:05:43 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
LOL! Now it's the guru lawyer! You want me to slander someone,
ask me about LBJ. But the prosectors were not guilty of anything
except following orders, which seemed legitimate at the time.
Chris
The Kennedy family controlled the autopsy. Robert Kennedy was in control.
Admiral Burkley and General McHugh took direct orders orders from HQ on
the 17th floor. Secretary of Defense McNamara was up there too to make
sure all military personnel followed orders.
It was easy enough for the family to state their desires, but there was
also certain regulations that had to be observed. The result as a
compromise between them. RFK was not 'in charge'. Burkley was the most
senior officer there, and one of my suspects for the killing.
Funny how you deny Oswald's guilt despite overwhelming evidence but have
no problem implicating Burkley on nothing more than one of your hunches.
Funny how you can't seem to hear me when I tell you the evidence is
thin and doesn't nail Oswald at all.

Chris
bigdog
2018-08-15 00:46:46 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
LOL! Now it's the guru lawyer! You want me to slander someone,
ask me about LBJ. But the prosectors were not guilty of anything
except following orders, which seemed legitimate at the time.
Chris
The Kennedy family controlled the autopsy. Robert Kennedy was in control.
Admiral Burkley and General McHugh took direct orders orders from HQ on
the 17th floor. Secretary of Defense McNamara was up there too to make
sure all military personnel followed orders.
It was easy enough for the family to state their desires, but there was
also certain regulations that had to be observed. The result as a
compromise between them. RFK was not 'in charge'. Burkley was the most
senior officer there, and one of my suspects for the killing.
Funny how you deny Oswald's guilt despite overwhelming evidence but have
no problem implicating Burkley on nothing more than one of your hunches.
Funny how you can't seem to hear me when I tell you the evidence is
thin and doesn't nail Oswald at all.
Oh, I hear you alright and I laugh every time you make this ridiculous
statement. I'm sure I'm not the only one. Nobody but the most ardent
Oswald deniers could look at the evidence without coming to the conclusion
that Oswald was the assassin whether they believed he had accomplices or
not.
mainframetech
2018-08-15 23:07:30 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
LOL! Now it's the guru lawyer! You want me to slander someone,
ask me about LBJ. But the prosectors were not guilty of anything
except following orders, which seemed legitimate at the time.
Chris
The Kennedy family controlled the autopsy. Robert Kennedy was in control.
Admiral Burkley and General McHugh took direct orders orders from HQ on
the 17th floor. Secretary of Defense McNamara was up there too to make
sure all military personnel followed orders.
It was easy enough for the family to state their desires, but there was
also certain regulations that had to be observed. The result as a
compromise between them. RFK was not 'in charge'. Burkley was the most
senior officer there, and one of my suspects for the killing.
Funny how you deny Oswald's guilt despite overwhelming evidence but have
no problem implicating Burkley on nothing more than one of your hunches.
Funny how you can't seem to hear me when I tell you the evidence is
thin and doesn't nail Oswald at all.
Oh, I hear you alright and I laugh every time you make this ridiculous
statement. I'm sure I'm not the only one. Nobody but the most ardent
Oswald deniers could look at the evidence without coming to the conclusion
that Oswald was the assassin whether they believed he had accomplices or
not.
That's what you were supposed to think, so it worked on you at least.

Chris
bigdog
2018-08-16 22:29:15 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
LOL! Now it's the guru lawyer! You want me to slander someone,
ask me about LBJ. But the prosectors were not guilty of anything
except following orders, which seemed legitimate at the time.
Chris
The Kennedy family controlled the autopsy. Robert Kennedy was in control.
Admiral Burkley and General McHugh took direct orders orders from HQ on
the 17th floor. Secretary of Defense McNamara was up there too to make
sure all military personnel followed orders.
It was easy enough for the family to state their desires, but there was
also certain regulations that had to be observed. The result as a
compromise between them. RFK was not 'in charge'. Burkley was the most
senior officer there, and one of my suspects for the killing.
Funny how you deny Oswald's guilt despite overwhelming evidence but have
no problem implicating Burkley on nothing more than one of your hunches.
Funny how you can't seem to hear me when I tell you the evidence is
thin and doesn't nail Oswald at all.
Oh, I hear you alright and I laugh every time you make this ridiculous
statement. I'm sure I'm not the only one. Nobody but the most ardent
Oswald deniers could look at the evidence without coming to the conclusion
that Oswald was the assassin whether they believed he had accomplices or
not.
That's what you were supposed to think, so it worked on you at least.
That is what everybody is supposed to think because that is the only
conclusion which the evidence indicates.
Anthony Marsh
2018-08-12 19:04:29 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
LOL! Now it's the guru lawyer! You want me to slander someone,
ask me about LBJ. But the prosectors were not guilty of anything
except following orders, which seemed legitimate at the time.
Chris
The Kennedy family controlled the autopsy. Robert Kennedy was in control.
How would RFK know what to control? He was not a doctor. Did he order
them to lie about the weight of the brain, when some of it had been
blown out? Was he the Army General who ordered them to NOT dissect the
back wound? I need some answers for you or you're just bullshitting.
Post by claviger
Admiral Burkley and General McHugh took direct orders orders from HQ on
the 17th floor. Secretary of Defense McNamara was up there too to make
sure all military personnel followed orders.
Was McNamara an Army General?
John McAdams
2018-08-12 19:10:22 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 12 Aug 2018 15:04:28 -0400, Anthony Marsh
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
LOL! Now it's the guru lawyer! You want me to slander someone,
ask me about LBJ. But the prosectors were not guilty of anything
except following orders, which seemed legitimate at the time.
Chris
The Kennedy family controlled the autopsy. Robert Kennedy was in control.
How would RFK know what to control? He was not a doctor.
Calling down from the 17th floor and demanding "when will this be
over" (or such) resulted in a rush job.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Did he order
them to lie about the weight of the brain, when some of it had been
blown out? Was he the Army General who ordered them to NOT dissect the
back wound? I need some answers for you or you're just bullshitting.
It wasn't any "Army general." You are doing the usual buff thing and
obsessing on the Finch testimony and ignoring multiple HSCA
interviews, and Manchester.

Burkley was the key person rushing the autopsy.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Was McNamara an Army General?
He was Secretary of Defense. That outranks any Army general.

.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Anthony Marsh
2018-08-13 19:09:56 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by John McAdams
On 12 Aug 2018 15:04:28 -0400, Anthony Marsh
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
LOL! Now it's the guru lawyer! You want me to slander someone,
ask me about LBJ. But the prosectors were not guilty of anything
except following orders, which seemed legitimate at the time.
Chris
The Kennedy family controlled the autopsy. Robert Kennedy was in control.
How would RFK know what to control? He was not a doctor.
Calling down from the 17th floor and demanding "when will this be
over" (or such) resulted in a rush job.
Deflection. I was asking about how RFK would KNOW what to control, not
how he could contro. Again, he was not a doctor.
Post by John McAdams
Post by Anthony Marsh
Did he order
them to lie about the weight of the brain, when some of it had been
blown out? Was he the Army General who ordered them to NOT dissect the
back wound? I need some answers for you or you're just bullshitting.
It wasn't any "Army general." You are doing the usual buff thing and
obsessing on the Finch testimony and ignoring multiple HSCA
interviews, and Manchester.
Finck said it was an Army General. Are you calling Fink a liar when you
need to rely on his testimony about the autopsy?
Post by John McAdams
Burkley was the key person rushing the autopsy.
Yes, I know that. So why didn't they rush the autopsy and not remove the
brain and all the organs? Your excuse rings hollow.
Post by John McAdams
Post by Anthony Marsh
Was McNamara an Army General?
He was Secretary of Defense. That outranks any Army general.
Typical deflection. I was not asking about outranking.
I was asking about the mystery man who told them to not dissect the back
wound. Tell us his name.


Why can't you just tell the Truth?
Post by John McAdams
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Anthony Marsh
2018-08-10 13:25:37 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
The majority of earwitnesses in Dealey Plaza heard 3 shots.
One CT supports a theory there were 20 shooters around
the plaza who fired a shot at the Limousine.
There are NO CTs who think there were 20 shooters to do the
murder of JFK. Where do you get this stuff?
Post by claviger
Another version is fewer than 20 shooters but some of them
fired more than one shot, adding up to 20 shots fired. There
is no explanation why a majority of witnesses only heard the
sound of 3 shots.
Same as above. No one I know of said there were 20 shots fired.
Post by claviger
The only logical explanation can be 3 shots were fired from a
rifle with no silencer and 19 other shots were fired from rifles
with silencers.
Why did the majority of these snipers miss the primary target?
Apparently the patsy did all the damage with his loud milsurp
rifle and no silencer. Does this mean silenced rifles are not as
accurate?
Another problem is silencers in the 60s were large and bulky.
Was this the primary reason why all those shooters using the
silencers missed a primary target?
The extreme irony of this ostensible theory, only the patsy hit
the primary target. For all the extreme high risk of 19 people
sneaking in and out Dealey Plaza for a very risky coordinated
ambush with bulky weapons, this plan was a complete failure.
This is an extreme plan that could only be developed by an LN.
It had nothing to do with CTs.
Post by claviger
Why would the planners even need that many shooters? If the
idea was to frame a patsy with an older bolt action rifle, a dead
victim with 20 bullet wounds might cause people to doubt that
explanation.
I sure do. At most I've heard of only 6 shooters as a maximum amount.
WOW!!! ONLY 6. According to you only two of them hit the target. Your
plotters obviously didn't go through Murder Incorporated to find their
shooters. Must have decided to go with a discount house.
Six shooters, all planted in broad daylight among a crowd of 200-300
people many with cameras.
I don't know of any plan to have shooters "among a crowd". They would
be mostly on the surrounding buildings, like the TSBD.
Which buildings?
Various buildings around the plaza. The TSBD is one.
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Yet they forgot to plant eyewitnesses who could identify Oswald as the
shooter. Oops.
Have you forgotten Howard Brennan?
Are you accusing Howard Brennan of being part of a conspiracy?
What evidence do you have to make this slanderous accusation?
What tells you that there was no eyewitnesses planted around the
building who could identify Oswald? I answered your comment, but there
was a lot of fishiness about Brennan and his ability to recognize a person
on the 6th floor of a building when a boy within 10 feet of him couldn't
even tell if the man was black or white.
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
And forgot to plan doctors at Parkland who would cover their shooting of
JFK from the front.
No need. That would be taken care of at Bethesda by the prosectors, in
this case Humes and Boswell.
The most experienced Pathologist was Dr Finck. He was there to observe and
take measurements of the wounds. You basically slander all three of these
professional Pathology Doctors as participants in a conspiracy to murder
the President. What proof do you have to make this accusation? Actual
proof, not one of your fantasy scenarios.
Oh, stop playing the injured patriot! Finck was there to help as
Humes called him in to do. I don't slander 3 military pathologists that
were given orders from higher up to do certain things. They were
following orders. No one is slandering them, and that should be OBVIOUS
to anyone.
Of course you are slandering them. You have accused them of committing a
criminal act by participating in a cover up of the assassination of the
Prove that. Take me to court and back up your sleazy accusations.
Post by bigdog
POTUS. That would be a clear cut case of obstruction of justice and
probably even an act of treason. It would not have been a legal defense
None Dare Call it Treason.
How can it be obstruction if there was never any trial?
The DOJ closed the case.
Post by bigdog
that they were just acting under orders. That would not have gotten them
off the hook.
Anthony Marsh
2018-07-30 15:08:28 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
The majority of earwitnesses in Dealey Plaza heard 3 shots.
One CT supports a theory there were 20 shooters around
the plaza who fired a shot at the Limousine.
There are NO CTs who think there were 20 shooters to do the murder of
JFK. Where do you get this stuff?
Post by claviger
Another version is fewer than 20 shooters but some of them
fired more than one shot, adding up to 20 shots fired. There
is no explanation why a majority of witnesses only heard the
sound of 3 shots.
Same as above. No one I know of said there were 20 shots fired.
Post by claviger
The only logical explanation can be 3 shots were fired from a
rifle with no silencer and 19 other shots were fired from rifles
with silencers.
Why did the majority of these snipers miss the primary target?
Apparently the patsy did all the damage with his loud milsurp
rifle and no silencer. Does this mean silenced rifles are not as
accurate?
Another problem is silencers in the 60s were large and bulky.
Was this the primary reason why all those shooters using the
silencers missed a primary target?
The extreme irony of this ostensible theory, only the patsy hit
the primary target. For all the extreme high risk of 19 people
sneaking in and out Dealey Plaza for a very risky coordinated
ambush with bulky weapons, this plan was a complete failure.
This is an extreme plan that could only be developed by an LN. It had
nothing to do with CTs.
Post by claviger
Why would the planners even need that many shooters? If the
idea was to frame a patsy with an older bolt action rifle, a dead
victim with 20 bullet wounds might cause people to doubt that
explanation.
I sure do. At most I've heard of only 6 shooters as a maximum amount.
WOW!!! ONLY 6. According to you only two of them hit the target. Your
No. According to YOU. YOUR ASSuMPTION. Some people think more than 2
shots hit.
Post by bigdog
plotters obviously didn't go through Murder Incorporated to find their
shooters. Must have decided to go with a discount house.
Yes, that's the standard CIA practice.
claviger
2018-07-31 14:38:48 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Why would the planners even need that many shooters? If the
idea was to frame a patsy with an older bolt action rifle, a dead
victim with 20 bullet wounds might cause people to doubt that
explanation.
I sure do. At most I've heard of only 6 shooters as a maximum amount.
WOW!!! ONLY 6. According to you only two of them hit the target. Your
No. According to YOU. YOUR ASSuMPTION. Some people think more than 2
shots hit.
Who are those "some people"? Why do they think "more than 2 shots hit"?
Do they realize there was an autopsy with a team of 3 pathologists?
Anthony Marsh
2018-08-01 16:03:02 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Why would the planners even need that many shooters? If the
idea was to frame a patsy with an older bolt action rifle, a dead
victim with 20 bullet wounds might cause people to doubt that
explanation.
I sure do. At most I've heard of only 6 shooters as a maximum amount.
WOW!!! ONLY 6. According to you only two of them hit the target. Your
No. According to YOU. YOUR ASSuMPTION. Some people think more than 2
shots hit.
Who are those "some people"? Why do they think "more than 2 shots hit"?
Do they realize there was an autopsy with a team of 3 pathologists?
Several people have written about more than 2 shots. Ever use Google?
What team? You The Three Stooges? Did they say that the SS agent fired
the fatal shot to JFK's head?
claviger
2018-08-02 16:29:55 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Why would the planners even need that many shooters? If the
idea was to frame a patsy with an older bolt action rifle, a dead
victim with 20 bullet wounds might cause people to doubt that
explanation.
I sure do. At most I've heard of only 6 shooters as a maximum amount.
WOW!!! ONLY 6. According to you only two of them hit the target. Your
No. According to YOU. YOUR ASSuMPTION. Some people think more than 2
shots hit.
Who are those "some people"? Why do they think "more than 2 shots hit"?
Do they realize there was an autopsy with a team of 3 pathologists?
Several people have written about more than 2 shots. Ever use Google?
What team? You The Three Stooges?
No, three trained and experienced military Doctors of Pathology. Coroner
Dr Earl Rose of Dallas concurred with their findings as did the Ramsey
Clark Panel and HSCA panel of experts.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Did they say that the SS agent fired the fatal shot to JFK's head?
Yes they did without realizing it until the Q&A before the WC panel.
Anthony Marsh
2018-08-08 05:48:21 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Why would the planners even need that many shooters? If the
idea was to frame a patsy with an older bolt action rifle, a dead
victim with 20 bullet wounds might cause people to doubt that
explanation.
I sure do. At most I've heard of only 6 shooters as a maximum amount.
WOW!!! ONLY 6. According to you only two of them hit the target. Your
No. According to YOU. YOUR ASSuMPTION. Some people think more than 2
shots hit.
Who are those "some people"? Why do they think "more than 2 shots hit"?
Do they realize there was an autopsy with a team of 3 pathologists?
Several people have written about more than 2 shots. Ever use Google?
What team? You The Three Stooges?
No, three trained and experienced military Doctors of Pathology. Coroner
Dr Earl Rose of Dallas concurred with their findings as did the Ramsey
Clark Panel and HSCA panel of experts.
Maybe you never read the Clark panel or the HSCA. They both criticized
The Three Stooges.
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Did they say that the SS agent fired the fatal shot to JFK's head?
Yes they did without realizing it until the Q&A before the WC panel.
Silly. You can twist ANYTHING to prove that the Easter bunny exists.
Jason Burke
2018-08-02 17:33:46 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bigdog
Why would the planners even need that many shooters?  If the
idea was to frame a patsy with an older bolt action rifle, a dead
victim with 20 bullet wounds might cause people to doubt that
explanation.
      I sure do.  At most I've heard of only 6 shooters as a
maximum amount.
WOW!!! ONLY 6. According to you only two of them hit the target. Your
No. According to YOU. YOUR ASSuMPTION. Some people think more than 2
shots hit.
Who are those "some people"?  Why do they think "more than 2 shots hit"?
Do they realize there was an autopsy with a team of 3 pathologists?
Several people have written about more than 2 shots. Ever use Google?
What team? You The Three Stooges? Did they say that the SS agent fired
the fatal shot to JFK's head?
Well, you're clearly one of the Stooges. Who are the other two?
Anthony Marsh
2018-08-08 05:48:36 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Jason Burke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bigdog
Why would the planners even need that many shooters?  If the
idea was to frame a patsy with an older bolt action rifle, a dead
victim with 20 bullet wounds might cause people to doubt that
explanation.
      I sure do.  At most I've heard of only 6 shooters as a
maximum amount.
WOW!!! ONLY 6. According to you only two of them hit the target. Your
No. According to YOU. YOUR ASSuMPTION. Some people think more than 2
shots hit.
Who are those "some people"?  Why do they think "more than 2 shots hit"?
Do they realize there was an autopsy with a team of 3 pathologists?
Several people have written about more than 2 shots. Ever use Google?
What team? You The Three Stooges? Did they say that the SS agent fired
the fatal shot to JFK's head?
Well, you're clearly one of the Stooges. Who are the other two?
I wasn't at the JFK autopsy. Don't blame me.
Anthony Marsh
2018-07-29 18:18:50 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
The majority of earwitnesses in Dealey Plaza heard 3 shots.
One CT supports a theory there were 20 shooters around
the plaza who fired a shot at the Limousine.
There are NO CTs who think there were 20 shooters to do the murder of
JFK. Where do you get this stuff?
He is so simple-minded that he thinks 20 bullets means 20 shooters.
No, ACTUALLY it'd called a Straw Man Argument.
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Another version is fewer than 20 shooters but some of them
fired more than one shot, adding up to 20 shots fired. There
is no explanation why a majority of witnesses only heard the
sound of 3 shots.
Same as above. No one I know of said there were 20 shots fired.
Post by claviger
The only logical explanation can be 3 shots were fired from a
rifle with no silencer and 19 other shots were fired from rifles
with silencers.
Why did the majority of these snipers miss the primary target?
Apparently the patsy did all the damage with his loud milsurp
rifle and no silencer. Does this mean silenced rifles are not as
accurate?
Another problem is silencers in the 60s were large and bulky.
Was this the primary reason why all those shooters using the
silencers missed a primary target?
The extreme irony of this ostensible theory, only the patsy hit
the primary target. For all the extreme high risk of 19 people
sneaking in and out Dealey Plaza for a very risky coordinated
ambush with bulky weapons, this plan was a complete failure.
This is an extreme plan that could only be developed by an LN. It had
nothing to do with CTs.
Post by claviger
Why would the planners even need that many shooters? If the
idea was to frame a patsy with an older bolt action rifle, a dead
victim with 20 bullet wounds might cause people to doubt that
explanation.
I sure do. At most I've heard of only 6 shooters as a maximum amount.
Chris
Loading...