Post by mainframetechPost by CaeruleoPost by mainframetechPost by CaeruleoPost by mainframetechAs a new entrant to the subject, I'll give you a few things to
contemplate. The forum is mostly what's called LNs, which are hidebound
folks that can't get away from the government story of the killing, and
it's supposedly all laid down in a document called the WCR.
Fascinating. I've been posting here since October 6, 2002, and this
entire time it has seemed to me that there are an approximately equal
number of CTs and LNs who post to this newsgroup, so I find your claim
that it is "mostly what's called LNs" to be, well, rather novel. And as
far as "hidebound" I have noticed that equally often with CTs and LNs;
both, about equally often, espouse their "pet theories" to explain this or
that aspect of the assassination.
Well, my experience is that there are more LNs, though it may be they
are more vocal, so more easily recognized.
That also I find to be nonsensical. I've seen plenty of "vocal" CTs here,
and you yourself are every bit as "vocal" as any LN here, unless you are
using a very different definition of "vocal" than the majority of
English-speakers worldwide.
Fortunately, I'm mostly immune to opinions that take shots.
Translation: you ***BLATANTLY*** ***REFUSE*** to even ***TRY*** to
address, directly and in detail, at least some of the challenges that are
raised to your statements. When have you ever seen me do that? Oh that's
right, never, unless it was at a time when I was neither ***READING***
this newsgroup or ***POSTNG*** ***ARTICLES*** to this newsgroup.
Remember carefully: unless I ***REPLIED*** to a certain article, it can
never, ever, ever be "proven" that I even saw the article.
Post by mainframetechWhat
you've seen is like me, purely opinion.
Yet again, pot/kettle. You have expressed pure opinion hundreds of times
in this newsgroup, whether you admit it or not, whether you realize it or
not.
Post by mainframetechI am indeed very vocal, but I'm
only one.
Quote me verbatim (that means in my exact words without the slightest
imaginable alteration) saying you are the "only one." I never said
anything even remotely similar, ever. And I have been, since October,
2002, been at least as vocal about my own views as you have about yours,
if not more so.
Post by mainframetechI converse or defend to many LNs almost every day that think
I'm wrong for one reason or another.
As have I, and I told you such, ***BEFORE*** you posted this article of
yours that I am now replying to. If Google took "too long" to post my
articles, that is not even slightly my fault, not even slightly, since I
not only do not work for Google, I also do not even know the real first
and last names of even one person who works for Google, unless that person
has been reported, by real first and last names, in the mainstream media
many times. Not a "few" times. Many times.
Post by mainframetechIt's not a new thing for me.
Nor is it for me, and I have posting here far longer than you have.
Post by mainframetechPost by CaeruleoPost by mainframetechBut we're both going with out
opinions.
I have no idea what to make of that sentence since you yourself have
expressed your opinions many times.
I will on occasion state an opinion,
HAHAHA, "on occasion"??? You have, very obviously, expressed mere
opinion, at least as often as I have, if not more often.
Post by mainframetechbut usually I stick to statements
that I believe have been proven,
Yep, there it is: look at it everybody, most *especially* you CTs: that
he "believes" are proven. Apparently Chris is using a very different
definition of the English word "proven" than the majority of
English-speakers worldwide, and also a very different definition than in
the majority of printed English dictionaries, and also in a very different
definition from the majority of English teachers worldwide (of which I
myself was one, and my father was another). It doesn't count when just
one person, in their opinion only, says some such thing or other is
"proven" for reasons so obvious I am totally embarrassed to type or speak
those reasons to any other human.
Oh ok, embarrassed as I am (meaning I should never, ever, ever have to
explain this to any human who has lived on this planet for at least a
decade, unless that human does not understand English, or that human is
very obviously mentally retarded, or unless that human has lived for
her/his entire live outside of modern culture, such as in the jungles of
Borneo) I will still explain it anyway. Totally unnecessary to have to
explain this to any human with even *average* intelligence, or even
*average* contact with the modern world, but I shall now do so anyway,
since many of us saw with this most recent presidential election how
absurdly often both Conservatives and Liberals, both Democrats and
Republicans, mindlessly repeated fake news, and who very obviously did not
even ***TRY*** to track down these claims to their original sources..
Refusing, very obviously on purpose, to even *try* to do that is
absolutely shameful. They can at least *try* to do it. Refusing to even
try, is absolutely shameful.
I've never once, not even once, blatantly refused to even try, in this
newsgroup. (Me being absent from all Usenet posting for months at a time
very obviously does not qualify as a "purposeful" refusal.) If just
someone, just anyone, were to dispute me in the slightest on this, I will
of course produce my own past articles here in support of Andrew Mason,
Clark Wilkins, John Hill, Ricky Tobias, Bsrb Junkkarinen, not one of
which, not one, totally subscribed to the WC's version of the events.
Post by mainframetechand I also stick to quotes usually that I
get from the ARRB files.
Yes, I've noticed you many times sticking to quotes which have still not
yet been irrefutably proven to be accurate. Oh and I'll thank you in
advance to never again reply to me with your trademark "WRONG!" You have
overused that reply far too often. I've seen you do it to many other
posters besides me. You can't truthfully say that I've used such a
standard reply nearly as often as you have.
In addition, it's not "WRONG!" when you in your opinion only say it is.
Also, even when others share your opinion, it still isn't "WRONG!" when
you people say it is, in your opinions only.
Post by mainframetechPost by CaeruleoPost by mainframetechPost by CaeruleoPost by mainframetechThe Zapruder film, called the 'Z-film', was altered. This was proven
by witnesses and by independent analyses.
I have seen you many times claim that it is "proven" that the Zapruder
film was altered, and every single time I've seen you say that, whenever
you've supplied any "evidence" for it, I've only seen you "cite"
"evidence" that I have found to be, shall we say, extremely tenuous. For
example, before I lifted you from my killfile, I saw that another poster
had quoted you as naming some CIA dude as claiming, more than three
decades later, that the "version" of the Zapruder film most often seen by
then conflicted with his recollection of what the head wounding looked
like when he saw the film more than three decades earlier. That hardly
amounts to "proof" of alteration.
That was one of the CIA film Analysts, who was interviewed by Douglass
Horne. But he was NOT the only evidence, so please don't get hung up on
that.
It's still worth addressing though. A CIA film analyst, saying
approximately three decades after the assassination that what is now most
often presented as the Zapruder film is not what he recalled from three
decades earlier is hardly anything even remotely close to "solid" evidence
that the film was altered.
That's your opinion.
Just like it's your opinion that the film was altered. Yet again, as you
have done so many times before, you are criticizing me for something you
have done at least as often as me, if not more often.
Indeed. Finally, at last, you admit that. ;-)
Post by mainframetechWhen a situation is emotional
or very important in some way, memory is enhanced.
http://psychcentral.com/news/2012/08/21/emotion-can-heighten-memories/43437.html
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/learning-by-surprise/
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959438804000479
http://www.nature.com/neuro/journal/v2/n3/abs/nn0399_289.html
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11166493
https://www2.bc.edu/elizabeth-kensinger/Kensinger_JML06.pdf
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10072696
I am, shall we say, "writhing with curiosity" for you to explain exactly
how, in at least 50% as much detail as I have almost always explained my
points of view, these links support your argument. Not anywhere close to
"all" witnesses who testified, in any context, in any year, in any decade,
were especially "emotional" at the time of their testimony. I find it,
shall we say, "fascinating," that you, ah, "conveniently omitted" posting
these links as well:
http://www.newyorker.com/science/maria-konnikova/idea-happened-memory-recollection
http://www.writerology.net/blog/post/2014/04/false-memories-in-fiction-how-emotional-scenes-can-create-unreliable-narrators
http://theconversation.com/the-instability-of-memory-how-your-brain-edits-your-recollections-22737
https://www.wired.com/2012/03/are-emotions-prophetic/
https://www.umass.edu/pbs/sites/default/files/memory_lab/dougal_and_rotello_2007.pdf
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2265099/
https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2013/11/how-many-of-your-memories-are-fake/281558/
https://www.psychologistworld.com/emotion/emotion-memory-psychology
Oh, but that's right, I "forgot" (actually I didn't, I've noticed this
about you for years): far more often than me, you post only the links
which support your point of view, and omit links which don't support your
point of view.
Post by mainframetechPost by CaeruleoPost by mainframetechThere is quire a long list of evidence you'll find in the 4th
volume of 5 on the ARRB, written by Douglas Horne.
And I have seen many people (including at least a few CTs) say that they
find Douglas Horne to be extremely biased or some such thing.
I'm sure he's biased,
Wow, you finally, at last, see the light.
Post by mainframetechsince he was on the ARRB, and was very close to
the many proofs available there.
Oh, never mind, you are still in darkness. He was biased only because he
was on the AARB and was very close to what you very biased CTs only call
"many proofs"??
It's not who or what a person is associated with that determines whether
or not that person is biased, it is instead that person's overall attitude
towards evidence that determines that. My gawd, Chris, you have already
admitted you are far older than me, yet I already knew all this no later
than 1988 and you still appear to not know it? And if you did know it,
please explain why, in at least 50% as much detail as I almost always do
in similar circumstances, you didn't give any indication of knowing it in
this article that I am now replying to.
Post by mainframetechI'm sure that he was convinced by the
evidence that he saw daily that we're dealing with a plot, and not a 'lone
nut' theory from the WCR.
So was Mark Lane convinced "daily" of such a thing and so was Jim
Garrison, yet many of your own fellow CTs stopped taking either of those
men seriously decades ago.
Post by mainframetechOthers with opinions of him are welcome to
them, I have my own.
Ah, so you *DO* go by your own opinions after all.
:P
Post by mainframetechPost by CaeruleoPost by mainframetechIt uses hundreds of
pages of proofs that the film was taken to the CIA film lab in Rochester,
NY and altered there.
Ah, but exactly *which* *copy* of the film was taken to the CIA film lab?
Are you going to claim that at the time it was the *only* copy of the
film? Because if there was even *one* other copy of the film at that
time, then "they" would run the risk of an *unaltered* copy of the film
surfacing publicly.
The other copies were also replaced by copies of the altered film.
According to who???
Post by mainframetechThat may have been facilitated by Life magazine.
"may have been"??? So, very obviously, by your own unequivocal admission,
you don't actually know for sure. You are instead engaging in wild,
unfounded speculation.
Post by mainframetechI'm not sure of the
method,
I'll say. Meaning also that you don't know for certain if there even WAS
such a method in 1963/1964.
Wild speculation.
You do this, not "somewhat" more often than I do, but *far* more often
than I do.
Post by mainframetechthough I believe that Horne dealt with it.
You "believe" Horne dealt with it? You mean you don't know for sure?
Post by mainframetechPost by CaeruleoPost by mainframetechPost by CaeruleoAnd I've never asked you this question before, I don't think, but I will
do so now, and this applies to *anyone* who claims the film was, ah, um,
It isn't the appearance of wounding in the film, almost all of which is
forward of JFK's right ear, that has caused millions of people to believe
that there was a shot from the right front; it is instead the "back and to
the left" motion of his head.
That is incorrect.
No, it is *not* incorrect. The vast majority of people I have ever talked
to about the assassination, and thousands upon thousands of people I've
never talked to, but whose statements I have heard or seen on the
internet, in newspapers, magazines, on the radio and on television have
said that either the *primary* reason or one of the *main* reasons that
they believe there was a shot from the right front is because of the back
and to the left motion of his head. Nothing else. Just that. Or else
very little except for that motion.
It's interesting how you come by knowledge.
You have heard it from many
people, none of whom are named.
Nope, what is *genuinely* interesting is why you make the silly claim that
nothing is "true" unless people are named. Oh, so unless every single one
of the ***MILLIONS*** of people who have very obviously said what I claim
they have said are named, it "isn't true" that they said what they said??
Notice everyone, especially you CTs, that Chris "conveniently omits" the
obvious: not nearly all of the people I've talked to have given me their
permission to mention their names, in any context, even if that context
has nothing to do with this assassination, publicly on the internet.
Notice carefully that Chris *also* doesn't mention that many people
consider doing such a thing to be very inappropriate, to put it mildly.
Notice also everyone, that Chris has ***BLATANTLY*** ***IGNORED*** what
***ELSE*** I said, that I have not gotten this only from people I have
talked to myself. He is acting as if he, um, "didn't see" everything
***ELSE*** I said, most especially this part:
"...and thousands upon thousands of people I've never talked to, but whose
statements I have heard or seen on the internet, in newspapers, magazines,
on the radio and on television have said that either the *primary* reason
or one of the *main* reasons that hey believe there was a shot from the
right front is because of the back and to the left motion of his head."
Post by mainframetechAnd again you speak of a "majority" which
has nothing to do with truth.
Nonsense. It is very obviously the truth. You alone say it isn't. The
majority of your own fellow CTs would strongly disagree with you on that.
Post by mainframetechPost by CaeruleoPost by mainframetechIf you will bear with me, I'll show you why it's
believed that the kill shot was from the right front.
Even before I look, I already know that what you're about to show me has
nothing to do with why the *majority* of people who believe in a GK gunman
say they believe this. Remember that the majority of people worldwide who
have any opinion whatsoever on this matter, regardless of what that
opinion is, have not studied the assassination nearly as thoroughly as we
here in this newsgroup. The vast majority have, at the most, in their
entire lives, seen no more than one or two or three documentaries about
the assassination, and/or have read no more than one or two or three
complete testimonies to the WC, and/or have only read, at the most, one or
two or three books about the assassination, and/or get all or most of
their information about the assassination from the movie "JFK." Stop at
least ten adults at random on the street and ask them what their opinion
is about the assassination and if they express any opinion at all, then
ask them how much they have actually studied the assassination, what their
exact reasons are for believing whatever they believe, and what their
sources of information are. I guarantee you that it is a 99% certainty
that you will find that the majority of them give away the fact that
they've barely studied the assassination at all.
On and on about the "majority". It would be useful for you to listen
Yet again, pot/kettle, Chris: you fail to "listen" at least as often as
me, if not more often. It is you, much more than me, who badly needs to
listen, "for a change," as you so quaintly put it.
Post by mainframetechPost by CaeruleoPost by mainframetechIf you look closely
at the 'stare-of-death' photo, and ENLARGE it, look just under the hair
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/e8/db/db/e8dbdb83da587af5c8d2450fa574908f.jpg
It would be helpful to post a much larger and more high-resolution scan of
http://www.jfkmurdersolved.com/images/BE3_HI.jpg
That photo's fine, you can use that one if you like. Just follow the
instructions I gave
You gave me practically no instructions at all, other than near the
hairline or whatever it was.
Post by mainframetechand let me know what you think.
I already told you what I think in this very article to which you are now
replying. You didn't see all that before you started composing your
reply?
Post by mainframetechPost by CaeruleoPost by mainframetechI've shown that to many people outside of this forum and most of them
see the same thing, and it's something surprising.
I'm assuming that what you are talking about is the sort of "jagged edge"
that appears to the right (JFK's right, that is, our "left" when viewing
the image) and somewhat above his right eye. If that's what you're
talking about (and it may not be) the unfortunate thing about both scans
of that photo that you and I produced is that that part of his head is so
much in shadow that it is difficult to make out what, exactly, it is.
Maybe to you. But it has to be ENLARGED more than that photo does it.
Dude, I already did that very thing, years before the first day in your
life that you ever posted to this newsgroup.
Post by mainframetechAnd I'm surprised that you see a "jagged edge". When you see it under
magnification, it is a clear bullet hole.
You mean it's a clear bullet hole in your opinion.
Post by mainframetechThe raised rim was described by
Vincent DiMaio, and expert in the field of forensics
You asked me for names, now I will ask you: why aren't you naming the
LARGER number of experts who DISAGREE with DiMaio?
Post by mainframetechas a fleshy rim that
is present in a bullet wound during hours after the shot went in. The
whole bullet hole also matches an example from his book "Gunshot Wounds"
in Chapter 4 figure 4.16. It is also an entry wound, and not an exit.
In your opinion and his. The majority of experts do not agree with either
you or him.
Post by mainframetechThe exit is the 'large hole' in the BOH of JFK.
The one and only way you can support that is to all too conveniently claim
that the Zapruder film was "faked" or "altered" where it plainly shows the
vast majority of the exit damage being on the right side of his head and
also being forward of his right ear, and you also have to claim that all
of the autopsy photos were faked and all of the x-rays were faked.
Typical CT evasion: when the CT is confronted with things like this, all
the CT has to do is just "say" the evidence was "altered" or "faked."
Post by mainframetechThe bullet went in the
forehead, and went through the skull, and blasted out the BOH. The old
story, small going in, large going out.
A bullet from the right front blasts out the *right* rear of his head???
Nope, it would have blasted out the LEFT side of his head and the MAJORITY
of the exit damage would have been in the LEFT hemisphere of his skull.
The one and only way you can dispute me in the slightest is to directly
contradict what you said above.
Oh, but of course, you'll come up with some sort of typical CT evasion:
you'll claim it was a "frangible bullet" (don't even try to deny it, I've
seen you say this exact thing before), or even more ludicrous, an "ice
bullet" (don't even try to deny it; many of us, including your fellow CTs,
have seen you say that before also).
Post by mainframetechI've shown that photo to many people outside this forum and I did NOT
tell them anything. They immediately said oh, it's a bullet hole, and
that's JFK!
And these people were well-educated about the JFK assassination...how,
exactly?
And notice, everyone (most especially you CTs) how Chris didn't NAME these
people, yet above he criticized me for failing to do exactly the same
thing, with no difference whatsoever, that he also failed to do.
My goodness, how many pot/kettle statements will this man make before we
are done?
So once again, as you have done many times before, you criticize me for
something you have done at least as often as I have, if not more often.
Post by mainframetechBut inside this forum, most folks see all kinds of things
Yes, you included.
Post by mainframetechexcept one guy that saw nothing out of place at all, but there's always an
outlier.
And who is this "one guy"? That can't even *maybe* be me, since I am
nowhere even remotely close to the only poster who has said what I've said
about that.
Post by mainframetechPost by CaeruleoAnd I could show that photo to people outside of this forum too,
especially to people who have never seen any *other* photos from the
autopsy, and they might naturally say it is "surprising" also.
But of course, since I *have* seen *all* photos of the autopsy that ever
been made public many times in my life, I knew exactly what that was
within the first three seconds of the first time I looked at the link you
provided. It is of course seen far more clearly in this color photo taken
http://images.slideplayer.com/24/6963534/slides/slide_18.jpg
Absolutely wrong!
According to you, in your opinion.
Post by mainframetechThat photo is not showing the item I pointed out.
And now you are blatantly ignoring (as you have done many more times than
I have) that I freely and unequivocally said that I wasn't entirely clear
on what, exactly, you were "pointing out." Shall I quote myself,
verbatim, saying that exact thing, or will you? Your integrity will drop,
dreadfully, if you don't quote it first.
Post by mainframetechAnd just for the sake of interest, most of the autopsy photos we all have
seen were 'leaked',
Quote me verbatim saying they were "leaked" or else please admit, in the
very next reply you post to me, that you made a strawman argument.
Post by mainframetechand I believe on purpose to shut up some people.
Yes. You believe. You.
Post by mainframetechI
can go through some of them and prove they are altered.
So you say. The English word "prove" does not revolve on your opinion
only of what that word means: the definition instead is determined by
majority usage, at least to some extent. I have long ago lost count of
how many times you claimed to have "proven" this or that thing, and then
upon close scrutiny it turned out that it was nowhere even remotely close
to what most people would call "proven."
Post by mainframetechParticularly the
one showing the BOH as only hair with no holes or other abnormal
conditions.
EXACTLY!!! And when, exactly, during the autopsy was that photo taken?
You have no earthly idea, correct?
Oh, and please do not insult my intelligence, or the intelligence of the majority of your own fellow CTs by replying that it, um, "doesn't matter," or some such nonsense, when that photo was taken. The exact timing of that photo is utterly and fundamentally crucial to this entire issue. I and several other posters have explained, in considerable detail, precisely why this must be so, years ago. I have yet to see you, for the first time ever, explain it in even 10% as much detail as we have.
Perhaps it was in some of your articles that I've "missed"?
Post by mainframetechPost by CaeruleoIt is shaped, somewhat, like a triangle, which is more or less "pointing"
toward his right eye, and it is quite obviously an area where part of his
skull is missing, and it goes through part of his right eyebrow. More or
less the same thing is shown in the frontal x-ray of his skull, in which
part of the right side of the skull of his forehead is missing down to
There was a flap shaped like a triangle that was in front of the right
ear,
Which was very obviously what I was talking about. In the article to which I was here replying, you gave practically no indication whatsoever that you were talking about anything different, as I noted repeatedly in my reply, in addition to ***UNEQUIVOCALLY*** admitting that I might have been talking about something different from what you were talking about. It is not even slightly my fault, not even slightly, that you were abysmally vague.
Post by mainframetechnot over the eye like the bullet hole.
I do not see anything that looks even remotely similar to a bullet hole over the eye. Honestly, I don't.
Post by mainframetechAnd the flap was far too
large based on descriptions of folks that saw it, like Tom Robinson, the
mortician.
"...far too large" for what, exactly?
Post by mainframetechHe described the bullet hole as a small 1/4 inch hole.
A mortician does not come within one-million light-years of being an expert in ballistics, as I assume you already knew perfectly well years before you posted this article.
Post by mainframetechThere
is also a list of people that saw the bullet hole and commented.
Yes, I already saw all that years before you posted your earliest article to this newsgroup.
Post by mainframetechPost by Caeruleohttp://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/apxray.jpg
So, if that's what you're talking about (and I've already admitted that it
might not be)
Yep, right there, see it in parenthesis? Right there, very obviously, I said I ***ALREADY*** admitted (meaning it was not the first time in my article) that I may have misunderstood what you were talking about. Why did you not mention my *repeated* admissions to this effect in your reply?
Post by mainframetechI don't see how that indicates that the Zapruder film was
Post by Caeruleoaltered. Just like in the film, the majority of the damage is shown to be
in the right hemisphere of his head, and also to be forward of his ear.
Notice I didn't say "all" of the damage; I said the "majority" of the
damage.
The "damage" as it was in Parkland was very different from what the
descriptions were in Bethesda at the autopsy. In Parkland, they noticed
only the large hole in the BOH where the bullet blasted it out. No flap
in front of the right ear.
Of course not. Jackie closed all those flaps during the race to the hospital. Or have you, ah, "conveniently forgotten" that she told the WC that she was trying to hold his head together?
Post by mainframetechThe head was handled by a nurse Diana Bowron
Who didn't see JFK's head *before* Clint Hill urged Jackie to get back into her seat.
Post by mainframetechwho washed the hair and the head and the body.
Who washed the head and the body many, many minutes *after* Jackie climbed back into the limo and closed the gory flaps on the right side of his head.
Post by mainframetechShe handled the head,
Jackie handled the head long, long before Diana Bowron did.
Post by mainframetechand
if the skull had been cracked like the X-rays show, it would have been
obvious.
I strongly disagree. It is a well-known fact that JFK had very thick hair which could have *easily* obscured a large opening in the skull. Tell me exactly when Diana Bowron *peeled" *back* *all* of his hair and scalp, all the way, and directly examined the *full* extent of the damge to his skull, when she washed his head. The woman herself never said she did anything even remotely similar to that.
Post by mainframetechI've had the experience of handling a head broken up like that,
and you know it immediately that you hold the head. Bowron noted no such
problem, only the 'large hole' in the BOH seen by so many witnesses.
You are omitting a great deal here. She did indeed say this:
**********
Miss BOWRON - He was very pale, he was lying across Mrs. Kennedy's knee and there seemed to be blood everywhere. When I went around to the other side of the car I saw the condition of his head.
Mr. SPECTER - You saw the condition of his what?
Miss BOWRON - The back of his head.
Mr. SPECTER - And what was that condition?
Miss BOWRON - Well, it was very bad---you know.
Mr. SPECTER - How many holes did you see?
Miss BOWRON - I just saw one large hole.
Mr. SPECTER - Did you see a small bullet hole beneath that one large hole?
Miss BOWRON - No, sir.
Mr. SPECTER - Did you notice any other wound on the President's body?
Miss BOWRON - No, sir.
**********
Well of course she noticed a hole in the back of his head, since that was merely the rearmost portion of the much larger hole in his skull, the majority of which was covered up by his thick hair and his scalp. Still don't see her saying specifically that when she washed his head, she peeled his hair and scalp back to look at the *overall* damage to his skull. Also she said she didn't notice any other wound on his body. ANY other wound. Not even the wound in his back, which nearly all of your fellow CTs agree was there, even if they don't agree with the LNs on which direction the bullet was traveling which caused that wound, and even when they don't agree with the LNs on the exact position of that wound, almost none of your fellow CTs have ever, even once, said there was no bullet hole in his back, EVEN the ones who say it was an exit rather than an entrance.
Post by mainframetechPost by CaeruleoPost by mainframetechPost by CaeruleoSo why on earth would "they" "alter" the
part of the film (the sudden appearance of damage forward of his right
ear) that DIDN'T make millions of people think there was a shot from his
right and in front of him, but NOT "alter" the part which HAS made
millions of people think there was a shot from the GK, the "back and to
the left" motion of his head? Why didn't "they" "alter" THAT part, and
make his head look as if it was rocketing FORWARD??
You're asking the wrong person about their motives for some of their
alterations, but some make perfect sense. It was critical to the plotters
that the case rest completely on a single 'lone nut' shooter, and Hoover
was after that result from the beginning. So it had to be a hit from
above and behind, and the wounds seem to echo that.
That still does not address what I said. The aspect of the film that is
most *likely* to convince the average person that there was a shot from
the right front is the back and to the left motion of his head, and this
has been borne out ever since the film was first seen by the general
public in 1975. Once again, the vast majority of people who have ever
expressed the opinion that there was a shot from the GK have specifically
said that it is either mainly, or exclusively, because they see his head
go back and to the left. A much smaller percentage mention anything about
the appearance of the damage to his head as their main reason for
believing there was a shot from the GK.
I remember myself that many people made that assumption that back and
to the left and that a shooter had to be coming from the front.
Oh, so now you admit it. Earlier in this article you denied it.
Post by mainframetechWell,
they couldn't have that and quickly they were putting together proof that
the head would go in any direction or even back and to the left based on
where the bullet hit an not where it came from.
Totally irrelevant to the point I made. You are talking only about the people who *disputed* that the back and to the left motion indicated a shot from the GK. You are talking about a totally different group of people that the ones I was talking about.
Post by mainframetechNervous effect, or other
foolish ideas were put forward, and after a while they got many people to
accept that the shooter had struck from above and behind, so that Oswald
was implicated.
Totally irrelevant to what I was talking about. Once again, evasion, evasion, evasion on your part. I told you, over and over and over, plain as day, that I was talking about the people who ***DO*** believe that the back and to the left motion indicates a shot from the GK, not the people who don't believe that. Yet another example, to be added to so many previous ones, of you blatantly ignoring what I actually said.
And you, of all people, said above, "It would be useful for you to listen for a change."
That is, quite obviously, advice you need to follow far more than I do.