Discussion:
The WC and WC Buffs Give Me a Chuckle..
(too old to reply)
elmjack44
2005-04-02 04:33:28 UTC
Permalink
The funniest thing about dealing with rabid WC adherents is the
complete lack of basic logic. It never fails to amaze me how much
chutzpah these "true-believers" have instead of just using the
intelligence with which they were born.

Every time there's a new round of TV specials and/or new books
relegating LHO to history's doghouse I just have to laugh. Here's why.
They all do the same thing, namely try to shoehorn all the 'evidence'
into the ridiculous WC scenario. If any witness disagrees with their
'evidence', they are simply said to be wrong. If the ballistic
'evidence' doesn't match up...hey, let's hammer it into a scenario
that'll work with the WC conclusions, no matter how ridiculous it is.
My goodness!!

Of course, the most hilarious part of these efforts are the
junk-psychology wrap-ups at the end of the program or book. You know,
how people believe in a conspiracy because they simply can't accept the
fact that some young, 'smirking' man could've caused this much grief on
a nation. Um...OK. You're right, (add narrator name like Dan Rather or
Peter Jennings here), there is no evidence of a conspiracy. I just
can't emotionally come to terms with it. You got me!!

Here's what I would like to see. How about an investigation that
doesn't attempt to make everything fit into a pre-existing WC scenario.
Look at everything from a fresh perspective with no biases.

Step One:
Interview as many witnesses from Dealey Plaza as possible. Police
statements, FBI statements, newspaper interviews and so on and so
forth. What do you get?
A. It seems a ton of people heard shots originating from behind the
President. For instance, Howard Brennan said they came from the TSBD.
B. It seems a ton of other people heard shots originating from in front
of the President. For instance, Abe Zapruder and the Newman family said
the shots seemed to come from behind them--tantamount to the Grassy
Knoll area.
There are many, many more witnesses who point to either the front or
the back scenarios. You can't simply dismiss one of these groups of
people. A single person can certainly be mistaken, but it is completely
illogical to say ALL who saw/heard the same thing are wrong. Also, a
large percentage of witnesses heard 2 shots that were very close
together. Bang! Bang! LHO's rifle could not have fired both.

Conclusion: Shots came from a minimum of 2 different locations.

Step Two:
Earnestly interview the doctors and medical personnel from Parkland
Hospital in Dallas. First, they are the ONLY PEOPLE to see the neck
wound before it was obliterated. This is of unbelievable importance.
Every account I have seen puts the wound as an extremely small hole of
entrance. It is a FACT that the autopsy doctors did not know there was
a bullet wound in the neck. They made no efforts to track it. Witnesses
to the autopsy say the back wound was very shallow, only as deep as the
tip of the autopsist's finger. Speaking of the back wound. It was well
below the base of the neck. The WC used incredibly deceptive
illustrations of a bullet wound in the base of the NECK, not lower down
the BACK.
NOTHING, I mean NOTHING, connects the back wound with the neck wound.
The only reason it was invented was to make it fir the WC 3 bullet
scenario. The autopsists did nothing to tie the two wounds to the same
bullet.

Conclusion: The bullet hole to the neck was one of entrance. The ONLY
people who saw it described it as such. Shots came from a minimum of 2
different locations.

Step Three:
Examine the Zapruder film. Emerging from the Stemmons sign, JFK is
already reacting to his neck wound. Connally is then struck with a
bullet. His reaction at the moment he is hit is right there for
everyone to see. Connally was adamant that he was shot by a different
bullet than the one that hit JFK. He never backed down from that and
the Zapruder film proves him correct. What's so hard to understand? The
only reason the SBT was born was to fit the shooting into the WC
scenario. Logic dictates that one bullet hit JFK in the back and a
separate bullet hit Connally.

At one point (forgot which Z frame) JFK moves unnaturally forward in
1/18 of a second. It is very logical to assume he has, at that moment,
been struck in the back. It's a very simple concept.
Just before the head shot at Z313, JFK again moves unnaturally forward
in 1/18 of a second. He is then driven violently backward as his head
seemingly explodes. This fits in perfectly with witnesses hearing 2
almost simultaneous shots. One hits JFK from behind and one hits him
from the front. Again, this is simple logic. The BS of 'jet effect' is
laughable. It was created to try to make things fit the WC scenario. It
doesn't stand up to reason. In a couple of Z frames you can see the
'volcano' area at the back of JFK's head--hair pointed outward.
Obviously an exit wound.

Conclusion: Shots came from a minimum of 2 different locations.

I could go on and on, but I'll stop with these 3 steps. Simple facts.
Simple conclusions. If the true-believing WC buffoons would just start
looking at the evidence with a clean slate, maybe we would get somewhat
closer to what happened that terrible day.
t***@hotmail.com
2005-04-02 06:17:49 UTC
Permalink
I couldn't agree with you more, and I have to listen to the witnesses
concerning the quick double shots. I had thought that since Kennedy's
head was down, a shot to the top of his head would initially make his chin
dip before the bullet ripped out the back of his skull in a larger wad of
lead, which would impel him backwards until the bullet left his head.
The resistence of the head is what makes the bullet become so greatly
deformed, so that resistence could account for his momentary dipping
downward of his head. Are we absolutely certain that the witnesses said
the double shots came last? I am more inclined to think that Kennedy was
hit in the back and the throat at the same time. The last shot, from my
research comes from agent Kellerman. Think about it: How could two
seasoned professional hitmen both fire low and miss? It couldn't happen.
It was deliberate. It is obvious to me that the mafia double-crossed the
CIA in the matter, by instructing their hitmen to aim low. They didn't
want to kill Kennedy, but they did like the idea of sending a message to
him. Kellerman, sizing up the situation immediately reached for a pistol
near the dash, raised and fired over his left shoulder to finish the work.
It's been in front of our noses for over 30 years.

voice from the past
m***@hotmail.com
2005-04-02 15:39:09 UTC
Permalink
Have you seen the enhanced and zoomed-in versions of the Zapruder film?
It shows that the "gun" that you claim Kellerman used to shoot JFK is
nothing more than glare from Greer's forhead and hair. Even Robert
Groden confirms this in his publication "JFK - The Case For Conspriacy"
on page 42.

Michael
t***@hotmail.com
2005-04-03 02:23:39 UTC
Permalink
Well, this information is from me: It's a 45 caliber pistol near his ear
at the exact moment he lifted his hand to that position in the Zapruder
film: No phone over his ear.

voice from the past
m***@hotmail.com
2005-04-08 21:30:24 UTC
Permalink
Greer was the driver and would not have the phone (radio). It was
Kellerman who on the radio to get help. I believe this was after the
head shot. Please look at the MPI enhanced frames of Z312-Z315 and
tell me if you still think there is a gun in Greer's hands.

You can find them here if you don't already have them.
http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/

Michael
m***@hotmail.com
2005-04-02 15:38:36 UTC
Permalink
A few questions:
Step two: If the the neck wound is a wound of entrance -
1) where is the exit wound?
2) what was the trajectory of the bullet?
3) where was the shooter that fired this shot?
4) when was the shot fired (Z-frame#)?
If the the wound on the back did not exit the neck, then where is the
exit wound?

Thanks,
Michael
t***@yahoo.com
2005-04-03 02:25:09 UTC
Permalink
While I understand how you feel Elmjack, I do not agree that calling
people who accept the WC version of events 'buffoons'. The official story
does have a lot of evidence to support it after all. I do not agree with
it either but I respect their opinion.

For me the WC is in and of itself an important 'crime scene'. We know for
a fact that elements of the Federal Government kept things hidden from the
Commission. It is tainted. The question for me is what else was done,
there are questions about much of the physical evidence, documents that
may have been destroyed, and some documents that def were destroyed along
the way.

I reject the WC's conculsion because of what we now know it did not know,
subversoin from the very Commissioners themselves, and because I listened
to LBJ's voice, all he wanted the WC to do was rubber-stamp the FBI
report. He did not want the truth, he wanted the easiest way out.


Darque
(-)
elmjack44
2005-04-03 14:51:18 UTC
Permalink
Hi Darque.
You misunderstood me. You said "I do not agree that calling people who
accept the WC version of events 'buffoons'."

I am calling certain parties buffoons, not all LNers or WC advocates.
That is not my style at all. This appears in a follow-up here by
"John."
The annoying thing about some of the LNTs is that they write their
conclusions as if it is just so obvious that LHO acted alone and the
rest
of us are just to blind to see the truth.

These are the folks I'm talking about. He nailed it.

Simple logic, as espoused in my post, shows that a conspiracy was
present.
Russ Burr
2005-04-03 16:40:34 UTC
Permalink
In article <***@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, elmjack44
says...
Post by elmjack44
Hi Darque.
You misunderstood me. You said "I do not agree that calling people who
accept the WC version of events 'buffoons'."
I am calling certain parties buffoons, not all LNers or WC advocates.
That is not my style at all. This appears in a follow-up here by
"John."
The annoying thing about some of the LNTs is that they write their
conclusions as if it is just so obvious that LHO acted alone and the
rest
of us are just to blind to see the truth.
These are the folks I'm talking about. He nailed it.
Simple logic, as espoused in my post, shows that a conspiracy was
present.
I was a CT for over 20 years. I've read practically every conspiracy book on the
market. They are terribly interesting and promote a great deal of discussion.
But all I had was pieces of a puzzle where few of the pieces fit together. Than
I re-read the WCR and the Hearings (as I did in 1964). I continued to read
primary source citations from the Archives. I did interviews with some of the
last remaining credible witnesses. I continued to read LDT books. Guess what?
The pieces started to fit together...not entirely but more than CT.

I became what you call a *buffoon*:-) Cute. And I'm very comfortable with my
position as a LN'er.

If you want the key to Oswald's life study his history and personality
development. Not only was he capable of the shooting but he had the means and
motive to do it.

Russ
elmjack44
2005-04-03 17:41:06 UTC
Permalink
You need to re-read my original post. There is too much information
pointing to a conspiracy. And I never called you a buffoon, so give me
a break.

So all the people who heard shots from the front are *NOT* credible?
All the medical personnel in Dallas are *NOT* credible?
All the people who saw a large wound in the back of JFK's head are
*NOT* credible?
The Zapruder film (read the info from my first post) is *NOT*
credible?

That's a whole lot of people who all mistakenly saw the wrong thing.
Interesting.
Anthony Marsh
2005-04-04 03:05:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by elmjack44
You need to re-read my original post. There is too much information
pointing to a conspiracy. And I never called you a buffoon, so give me
a break.
So all the people who heard shots from the front are *NOT* credible?
All the medical personnel in Dallas are *NOT* credible?
All the people who saw a large wound in the back of JFK's head are
*NOT* credible?
The Zapruder film (read the info from my first post) is *NOT*
credible?
That's a whole lot of people who all mistakenly saw the wrong thing.
Interesting.
Assuming arguendo that ALL of those could be true, we still have the
physical evidence that there was a conspiracy and that the head shot
came from the grassy knoll. We need not depend solely on which witnesses
we like.
James K. Olmstead
2005-04-03 19:26:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Russ Burr
If you want the key to Oswald's life study his history and personality
development. Not only was he capable of the shooting but he had the means and
motive to do it.
Interesting conclusion Russ....mind sharing the "motive" with the rest of
the
world?

Means, Ability and Opportunity do not equal Motive.

jko
Post by Russ Burr
says...
Post by elmjack44
Hi Darque.
You misunderstood me. You said "I do not agree that calling people who
accept the WC version of events 'buffoons'."
I am calling certain parties buffoons, not all LNers or WC advocates.
That is not my style at all. This appears in a follow-up here by
"John."
The annoying thing about some of the LNTs is that they write their
conclusions as if it is just so obvious that LHO acted alone and the
rest
of us are just to blind to see the truth.
These are the folks I'm talking about. He nailed it.
Simple logic, as espoused in my post, shows that a conspiracy was
present.
I was a CT for over 20 years. I've read practically every conspiracy book on the
market. They are terribly interesting and promote a great deal of discussion.
But all I had was pieces of a puzzle where few of the pieces fit together. Than
I re-read the WCR and the Hearings (as I did in 1964). I continued to read
primary source citations from the Archives. I did interviews with some of the
last remaining credible witnesses. I continued to read LDT books. Guess what?
The pieces started to fit together...not entirely but more than CT.
I became what you call a *buffoon*:-) Cute. And I'm very comfortable with my
position as a LN'er.
If you want the key to Oswald's life study his history and personality
development. Not only was he capable of the shooting but he had the means and
motive to do it.
Russ
Ricky Tobias
2005-04-03 02:29:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by m***@hotmail.com
Step two: If the the neck wound is a wound of entrance -
1) where is the exit wound?
The back wound which does look like an exit. See WC exhibit 850.
Post by m***@hotmail.com
2) what was the trajectory of the bullet?
Probably from the knoll fence through JFK and on to the pavement or
grass.
Post by m***@hotmail.com
3) where was the shooter that fired this shot?
4) when was the shot fired (Z-frame#)?
A round Z 222 as JFK goes behind the sign.
Post by m***@hotmail.com
If the the wound on the back did not exit the neck, then where is the
exit wound?
The neck wound and the back wound are connected by a blood trial as
noted in the autopsy report. The question is which is entry or exit?
Post by m***@hotmail.com
Thanks,
Michael
Ricky

"Ballistic Findings in the JFK Autopsy Photos".
An early draft with some errors is posted at:
http://karws.gso.uri.edu/JFK/Issues_and_evidence/Frontal_shot(s)/Tobias_frontal_shots/Tobias--Ballistics_Findings.html
Problems try:
http://karws.gso.uri.edu/JFK/JFK.html
Then go to: Issues and evidence
Then go to: Frontal shot(s)
or
go to: Notices and recent additions to the site
Then find above title posted April 11, 2001.
elmjack44
2005-04-03 15:05:29 UTC
Permalink
I forgot to mention. Although my point was pretty basic--seeing how
logic dictates what really happened in Dealey Plaza that day--some
people have mentioned ballistics and "where did the neck/back bullet(s)
go?" questions.

It's important to note that at the autopsy, FBI agents Sibert and
O'Neill (sp?) received a bullet (missle) from the autopsists. This
bullet doesn't appear anywhere in the record. Are the 2 agents wrong,
Chad? That doesn't fit the WC scenario, so they must be.

Logic dictates this bullet came from one of the wounds. Who knows if
even more bullets/fragments were found.
Anthony Marsh
2005-04-04 03:05:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by elmjack44
I forgot to mention. Although my point was pretty basic--seeing how
logic dictates what really happened in Dealey Plaza that day--some
people have mentioned ballistics and "where did the neck/back bullet(s)
go?" questions.
It's important to note that at the autopsy, FBI agents Sibert and
O'Neill (sp?) received a bullet (missle) from the autopsists. This
bullet doesn't appear anywhere in the record. Are the 2 agents wrong,
Chad? That doesn't fit the WC scenario, so they must be.
That is an old story. The actually received two lead core bullet
fragments removed from the head.
Post by elmjack44
Logic dictates this bullet came from one of the wounds. Who knows if
even more bullets/fragments were found.
Quite possibly more fragments were found. I seriously doubt that another
intact bullet was found.
Chad Zimmerman
2005-04-04 03:12:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by elmjack44
I forgot to mention. Although my point was pretty basic--seeing how
logic dictates what really happened in Dealey Plaza that day--some
people have mentioned ballistics and "where did the neck/back bullet(s)
go?" questions.
It's important to note that at the autopsy, FBI agents Sibert and
O'Neill (sp?) received a bullet (missle) from the autopsists. This
bullet doesn't appear anywhere in the record. Are the 2 agents wrong,
Chad?
Define missile. 'Missile' doesn't have to mean an entire bullet. It is
simply a projectile...which could be of any size.

Chad
Anthony Marsh
2005-04-04 03:07:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ricky Tobias
Post by m***@hotmail.com
Step two: If the the neck wound is a wound of entrance -
1) where is the exit wound?
The back wound which does look like an exit. See WC exhibit 850.
Nope. The back wound has an abrasion collar indicative of an entrance wound.
Post by Ricky Tobias
Post by m***@hotmail.com
2) what was the trajectory of the bullet?
Probably from the knoll fence through JFK and on to the pavement or
grass.
That trajectory does not work. The throat wound was on the left of the
midline while the back wound was 1-3/4 inches to the right of the
midline. A shot from the fence area would not produce such a path.
The throat wound was at about the same height as the back wound, so a
shot from the grassy knoll would exit lower than the wound we see on his
back.
Post by Ricky Tobias
Post by m***@hotmail.com
3) where was the shooter that fired this shot?
4) when was the shot fired (Z-frame#)?
A round Z 222 as JFK goes behind the sign.
Post by m***@hotmail.com
If the the wound on the back did not exit the neck, then where is the
exit wound?
The neck wound and the back wound are connected by a blood trial as
noted in the autopsy report. The question is which is entry or exit?
Post by m***@hotmail.com
Thanks,
Michael
Ricky
"Ballistic Findings in the JFK Autopsy Photos".
http://karws.gso.uri.edu/JFK/Issues_and_evidence/Frontal_shot(s)/Tobias_frontal_shots/Tobias--Ballistics_Findings.html
http://karws.gso.uri.edu/JFK/JFK.html
Then go to: Issues and evidence
Then go to: Frontal shot(s)
or
go to: Notices and recent additions to the site
Then find above title posted April 11, 2001.
Ricky Tobias
2005-04-04 05:31:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Ricky Tobias
Post by m***@hotmail.com
Step two: If the the neck wound is a wound of entrance -
1) where is the exit wound?
The back wound which does look like an exit. See WC exhibit 850.
Nope. The back wound has an abrasion collar indicative of an entrance wound.
Prove it. By size and shape in the public photo it appears like an
exit. I cannot identify an abrasion collar.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Ricky Tobias
Post by m***@hotmail.com
2) what was the trajectory of the bullet?
Probably from the knoll fence through JFK and on to the pavement or
grass.
That trajectory does not work. The throat wound was on the left of the
midline while the back wound was 1-3/4 inches to the right of the
midline. A shot from the fence area would not produce such a path.
The throat wound was at about the same height as the back wound, so a
shot from the grassy knoll would exit lower than the wound we see on his
back.
The shot does work if JFK is in the right position on the slope.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Ricky Tobias
Post by m***@hotmail.com
3) where was the shooter that fired this shot?
4) when was the shot fired (Z-frame#)?
A round Z 222 as JFK goes behind the sign.
Post by m***@hotmail.com
If the the wound on the back did not exit the neck, then where is the
exit wound?
The neck wound and the back wound are connected by a blood trial as
noted in the autopsy report. The question is which is entry or exit?
Post by m***@hotmail.com
Thanks,
Michael
Ricky
"Ballistic Findings in the JFK Autopsy Photos".
http://karws.gso.uri.edu/JFK/Issues_and_evidence/Frontal_shot(s)/Tobias_frontal_shots/Tobias--Ballistics_Findings.html
http://karws.gso.uri.edu/JFK/JFK.html
Then go to: Issues and evidence
Then go to: Frontal shot(s)
or
go to: Notices and recent additions to the site
Then find above title posted April 11, 2001.
Ricky

"Ballistic Findings in the JFK Autopsy Photos".
An early draft with some errors is posted at:
http://karws.gso.uri.edu/JFK/Issues_and_evidence/Frontal_shot(s)/Tobias_frontal_shots/Tobias--Ballistics_Findings.html
Problems try:
http://karws.gso.uri.edu/JFK/JFK.html
Then go to: Issues and evidence
Then go to: Frontal shot(s)
or
go to: Notices and recent additions to the site
Then find above title posted April 11, 2001.
Anthony Marsh
2005-04-05 00:30:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ricky Tobias
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Ricky Tobias
Post by m***@hotmail.com
Step two: If the the neck wound is a wound of entrance -
1) where is the exit wound?
The back wound which does look like an exit. See WC exhibit 850.
Nope. The back wound has an abrasion collar indicative of an entrance wound.
Prove it. By size and shape in the public photo it appears like an
exit. I cannot identify an abrasion collar.
An exit for what? A BB? The size is 4 mm x 7 mm. Too small for an exit
wound of an approximately .22 caliber bullet. The photograph shows an
abrasion at the lower margin. See Spitz:

Rockefeller consultant Werner Spitz, MD wrote that, “There is no doubt
that the bullet which struck the President’s back penetrated the skin in
a sharply upward direction, as is evident from the width of the abrasion
at the lower half of the bullet wound of entrance. The term ‘sharply
upward direction’ (sic) is used because it is evident from this injury
that the missile traveled upwards within the body.”[249] (Author’s
emphasis.) To explain how a downward-sloping bullet had tunneled upward
through JFK, Spitz offered two possibilities: “Any small [forward]
inclination of the back will increase the downward angle significantly.”
In essence, he was suggesting that JFK must have been leaning forward at
the moment the missile struck, and so the bullet merely appeared to go
upward while it actually continued downward. The other possibility he
offered to the upward path through JFK was that the bullet was deviated
from its course when it cracked one of the transverse processes of JFK’s
spine.
Post by Ricky Tobias
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Ricky Tobias
Post by m***@hotmail.com
2) what was the trajectory of the bullet?
Probably from the knoll fence through JFK and on to the pavement or
grass.
That trajectory does not work. The throat wound was on the left of the
midline while the back wound was 1-3/4 inches to the right of the
midline. A shot from the fence area would not produce such a path.
The throat wound was at about the same height as the back wound, so a
shot from the grassy knoll would exit lower than the wound we see on his
back.
The shot does work if JFK is in the right position on the slope.
You'll have to diagram what you mean. Having JFK lean over at all makes
it worse for a bullet coming in from the front at an elevation.
Post by Ricky Tobias
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Ricky Tobias
Post by m***@hotmail.com
3) where was the shooter that fired this shot?
4) when was the shot fired (Z-frame#)?
A round Z 222 as JFK goes behind the sign.
Post by m***@hotmail.com
If the the wound on the back did not exit the neck, then where is the
exit wound?
The neck wound and the back wound are connected by a blood trial as
noted in the autopsy report. The question is which is entry or exit?
Post by m***@hotmail.com
Thanks,
Michael
Ricky
"Ballistic Findings in the JFK Autopsy Photos".
http://karws.gso.uri.edu/JFK/Issues_and_evidence/Frontal_shot(s)/Tobias_frontal_shots/Tobias--Ballistics_Findings.html
http://karws.gso.uri.edu/JFK/JFK.html
Then go to: Issues and evidence
Then go to: Frontal shot(s)
or
go to: Notices and recent additions to the site
Then find above title posted April 11, 2001.
Ricky
"Ballistic Findings in the JFK Autopsy Photos".
http://karws.gso.uri.edu/JFK/Issues_and_evidence/Frontal_shot(s)/Tobias_frontal_shots/Tobias--Ballistics_Findings.html
http://karws.gso.uri.edu/JFK/JFK.html
Then go to: Issues and evidence
Then go to: Frontal shot(s)
or
go to: Notices and recent additions to the site
Then find above title posted April 11, 2001.
tomnln
2005-04-05 14:22:13 UTC
Permalink
A "Simpler" explanation would be that the Upward path in JFK's back would
be from an Entrance wound in the throat.
Post by Ricky Tobias
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Ricky Tobias
Post by m***@hotmail.com
Step two: If the the neck wound is a wound of entrance -
1) where is the exit wound?
The back wound which does look like an exit. See WC exhibit 850.
Nope. The back wound has an abrasion collar indicative of an entrance wound.
Prove it. By size and shape in the public photo it appears like an
exit. I cannot identify an abrasion collar.
An exit for what? A BB? The size is 4 mm x 7 mm. Too small for an exit
wound of an approximately .22 caliber bullet. The photograph shows an
abrasion at the lower margin. See Spitz:

Rockefeller consultant Werner Spitz, MD wrote that, “There is no doubt
that the bullet which struck the President’s back penetrated the skin in
a sharply upward direction, as is evident from the width of the abrasion
at the lower half of the bullet wound of entrance. The term ‘sharply
upward direction’ (sic) is used because it is evident from this injury
that the missile traveled upwards within the body.”[249] (Author’s
emphasis.) To explain how a downward-sloping bullet had tunneled upward
through JFK, Spitz offered two possibilities: “Any small [forward]
inclination of the back will increase the downward angle significantly.”
In essence, he was suggesting that JFK must have been leaning forward at
the moment the missile struck, and so the bullet merely appeared to go
upward while it actually continued downward. The other possibility he
offered to the upward path through JFK was that the bullet was deviated
from its course when it cracked one of the transverse processes of JFK’s
spine.
Post by Ricky Tobias
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Ricky Tobias
Post by m***@hotmail.com
2) what was the trajectory of the bullet?
Probably from the knoll fence through JFK and on to the pavement or
grass.
That trajectory does not work. The throat wound was on the left of the
midline while the back wound was 1-3/4 inches to the right of the midline.
A shot from the fence area would not produce such a path.
The throat wound was at about the same height as the back wound, so a shot
from the grassy knoll would exit lower than the wound we see on his back.
The shot does work if JFK is in the right position on the slope.
You'll have to diagram what you mean. Having JFK lean over at all makes
it worse for a bullet coming in from the front at an elevation.
Post by Ricky Tobias
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Ricky Tobias
Post by m***@hotmail.com
3) where was the shooter that fired this shot?
4) when was the shot fired (Z-frame#)?
A round Z 222 as JFK goes behind the sign.
Post by m***@hotmail.com
If the the wound on the back did not exit the neck, then where is the
exit wound?
The neck wound and the back wound are connected by a blood trial as
noted in the autopsy report. The question is which is entry or exit?
Post by m***@hotmail.com
Thanks,
Michael
Ricky
"Ballistic Findings in the JFK Autopsy Photos".
http://karws.gso.uri.edu/JFK/Issues_and_evidence/Frontal_shot(s)/Tobias_frontal_shots/Tobias--Ballistics_Findings.html
http://karws.gso.uri.edu/JFK/JFK.html
Then go to: Issues and evidence
Then go to: Frontal shot(s)
or
go to: Notices and recent additions to the site
Then find above title posted April 11, 2001.
Ricky
"Ballistic Findings in the JFK Autopsy Photos".
http://karws.gso.uri.edu/JFK/Issues_and_evidence/Frontal_shot(s)/Tobias_frontal_shots/Tobias--Ballistics_Findings.html
http://karws.gso.uri.edu/JFK/JFK.html
Then go to: Issues and evidence
Then go to: Frontal shot(s)
or
go to: Notices and recent additions to the site
Then find above title posted April 11, 2001.
Anthony Marsh
2005-04-06 03:46:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by tomnln
A "Simpler" explanation would be that the Upward path in JFK's back would
be from an Entrance wound in the throat.
No, you'd have an impossible angle from an impossible firing location.
Post by tomnln
Post by Ricky Tobias
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Ricky Tobias
Post by m***@hotmail.com
Step two: If the the neck wound is a wound of entrance -
1) where is the exit wound?
The back wound which does look like an exit. See WC exhibit 850.
Nope. The back wound has an abrasion collar indicative of an entrance wound.
Prove it. By size and shape in the public photo it appears like an
exit. I cannot identify an abrasion collar.
An exit for what? A BB? The size is 4 mm x 7 mm. Too small for an exit
wound of an approximately .22 caliber bullet. The photograph shows an
Rockefeller consultant Werner Spitz, MD wrote that, “There is no doubt
that the bullet which struck the President’s back penetrated the skin in
a sharply upward direction, as is evident from the width of the abrasion
at the lower half of the bullet wound of entrance. The term ‘sharply
upward direction’ (sic) is used because it is evident from this injury
that the missile traveled upwards within the body.”[249] (Author’s
emphasis.) To explain how a downward-sloping bullet had tunneled upward
through JFK, Spitz offered two possibilities: “Any small [forward]
inclination of the back will increase the downward angle significantly.”
In essence, he was suggesting that JFK must have been leaning forward at
the moment the missile struck, and so the bullet merely appeared to go
upward while it actually continued downward. The other possibility he
offered to the upward path through JFK was that the bullet was deviated
from its course when it cracked one of the transverse processes of JFK’s
spine.
Post by Ricky Tobias
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Ricky Tobias
Post by m***@hotmail.com
2) what was the trajectory of the bullet?
Probably from the knoll fence through JFK and on to the pavement or
grass.
That trajectory does not work. The throat wound was on the left of the
midline while the back wound was 1-3/4 inches to the right of the midline.
A shot from the fence area would not produce such a path.
The throat wound was at about the same height as the back wound, so a shot
from the grassy knoll would exit lower than the wound we see on his back.
The shot does work if JFK is in the right position on the slope.
You'll have to diagram what you mean. Having JFK lean over at all makes
it worse for a bullet coming in from the front at an elevation.
Post by Ricky Tobias
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Ricky Tobias
Post by m***@hotmail.com
3) where was the shooter that fired this shot?
4) when was the shot fired (Z-frame#)?
A round Z 222 as JFK goes behind the sign.
Post by m***@hotmail.com
If the the wound on the back did not exit the neck, then where is the
exit wound?
The neck wound and the back wound are connected by a blood trial as
noted in the autopsy report. The question is which is entry or exit?
Post by m***@hotmail.com
Thanks,
Michael
Ricky
"Ballistic Findings in the JFK Autopsy Photos".
http://karws.gso.uri.edu/JFK/Issues_and_evidence/Frontal_shot(s)/Tobias_frontal_shots/Tobias--Ballistics_Findings.html
http://karws.gso.uri.edu/JFK/JFK.html
Then go to: Issues and evidence
Then go to: Frontal shot(s)
or
go to: Notices and recent additions to the site
Then find above title posted April 11, 2001.
Ricky
"Ballistic Findings in the JFK Autopsy Photos".
http://karws.gso.uri.edu/JFK/Issues_and_evidence/Frontal_shot(s)/Tobias_frontal_shots/Tobias--Ballistics_Findings.html
http://karws.gso.uri.edu/JFK/JFK.html
Then go to: Issues and evidence
Then go to: Frontal shot(s)
or
go to: Notices and recent additions to the site
Then find above title posted April 11, 2001.
Anthony Marsh
2005-04-09 04:13:16 UTC
Permalink
WRONG again Tony......see attached photo.
I've seen it before. What does it have to do with the point I was making?
Nothing. I never said that a person could not shoot from the grassy knoll.
In fact, if you'd pay attention, you'd notice the many times that I talk
about such a shot hitting JFK in the head. Such a shot was indeed possible
at Z-313. That is NOT the throat wound you are speculating about. That
would be much earlier. And you are not taking into account the angle to
the car and the fact that the throat wound was to the left of the midline
while the back wound was to the right of the midline.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by tomnln
A "Simpler" explanation would be that the Upward path in JFK's back would
be from an Entrance wound in the throat.
No, you'd have an impossible angle from an impossible firing location.
Ricky Tobias
2005-04-06 03:44:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Ricky Tobias
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Ricky Tobias
Post by m***@hotmail.com
Step two: If the the neck wound is a wound of entrance -
1) where is the exit wound?
The back wound which does look like an exit. See WC exhibit 850.
Nope. The back wound has an abrasion collar indicative of an entrance wound.
Prove it. By size and shape in the public photo it appears like an
exit. I cannot identify an abrasion collar.
An exit for what? A BB? The size is 4 mm x 7 mm. Too small for an exit
wound of an approximately .22 caliber bullet. The photograph shows an
A 6.5 mm. See the goat skin tests WC ex. 850. I have seen Spitz and
it is debatable if an abrasion collar is present.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Rockefeller consultant Werner Spitz, MD wrote that, “There is no doubt
that the bullet which struck the President’s back penetrated the skin in
a sharply upward direction, as is evident from the width of the abrasion
at the lower half of the bullet wound of entrance. The term ‘sharply
upward direction’ (sic) is used because it is evident from this injury
that the missile traveled upwards within the body.”[249] (Author’s
emphasis.) To explain how a downward-sloping bullet had tunneled upward
through JFK, Spitz offered two possibilities: “Any small [forward]
inclination of the back will increase the downward angle significantly.”
In essence, he was suggesting that JFK must have been leaning forward at
the moment the missile struck, and so the bullet merely appeared to go
upward while it actually continued downward. The other possibility he
offered to the upward path through JFK was that the bullet was deviated
from its course when it cracked one of the transverse processes of JFK’s
spine.
And I disagree with him. Writing some thing does not make it so. I
do not see it in the public photo and I have not seen all the photos.
I reject or question any opinion based upon photos that I cannot see.
I discussed this with him many years ago.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Ricky Tobias
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Ricky Tobias
Post by m***@hotmail.com
2) what was the trajectory of the bullet?
Probably from the knoll fence through JFK and on to the pavement or
grass.
That trajectory does not work. The throat wound was on the left of the
midline while the back wound was 1-3/4 inches to the right of the
midline. A shot from the fence area would not produce such a path.
The throat wound was at about the same height as the back wound, so a
shot from the grassy knoll would exit lower than the wound we see on his
back.
The shot does work if JFK is in the right position on the slope.
You'll have to diagram what you mean. Having JFK lean over at all makes
it worse for a bullet coming in from the front at an elevation.
I do not need him to lean over. I have watched Elm from the knoll for
many hours with a 4X scope. The shot is possible even as seen in the
films.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Ricky Tobias
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Ricky Tobias
Post by m***@hotmail.com
3) where was the shooter that fired this shot?
4) when was the shot fired (Z-frame#)?
A round Z 222 as JFK goes behind the sign.
Post by m***@hotmail.com
If the the wound on the back did not exit the neck, then where is the
exit wound?
The neck wound and the back wound are connected by a blood trial as
noted in the autopsy report. The question is which is entry or exit?
Post by m***@hotmail.com
Thanks,
Michael
Ricky
"Ballistic Findings in the JFK Autopsy Photos".
http://karws.gso.uri.edu/JFK/Issues_and_evidence/Frontal_shot(s)/Tobias_frontal_shots/Tobias--Ballistics_Findings.html
http://karws.gso.uri.edu/JFK/JFK.html
Then go to: Issues and evidence
Then go to: Frontal shot(s)
or
go to: Notices and recent additions to the site
Then find above title posted April 11, 2001.
Ricky
"Ballistic Findings in the JFK Autopsy Photos".
http://karws.gso.uri.edu/JFK/Issues_and_evidence/Frontal_shot(s)/Tobias_frontal_shots/Tobias--Ballistics_Findings.html
http://karws.gso.uri.edu/JFK/JFK.html
Then go to: Issues and evidence
Then go to: Frontal shot(s)
or
go to: Notices and recent additions to the site
Then find above title posted April 11, 2001.
Ricky

"Ballistic Findings in the JFK Autopsy Photos".
An early draft with some errors is posted at:
http://karws.gso.uri.edu/JFK/Issues_and_evidence/Frontal_shot(s)/Tobias_frontal_shots/Tobias--Ballistics_Findings.html
Problems try:
http://karws.gso.uri.edu/JFK/JFK.html
Then go to: Issues and evidence
Then go to: Frontal shot(s)
or
go to: Notices and recent additions to the site
Then find above title posted April 11, 2001.
Anthony Marsh
2005-04-06 18:45:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ricky Tobias
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Ricky Tobias
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Ricky Tobias
Post by m***@hotmail.com
Step two: If the the neck wound is a wound of entrance -
1) where is the exit wound?
The back wound which does look like an exit. See WC exhibit 850.
Nope. The back wound has an abrasion collar indicative of an entrance wound.
Prove it. By size and shape in the public photo it appears like an
exit. I cannot identify an abrasion collar.
An exit for what? A BB? The size is 4 mm x 7 mm. Too small for an exit
wound of an approximately .22 caliber bullet. The photograph shows an
A 6.5 mm. See the goat skin tests WC ex. 850. I have seen Spitz and
it is debatable if an abrasion collar is present.
6.5 mm? Really? Then how do you explain that one dimension is only 4 mm
(measured)? You really can't see the abrasion collar?
Post by Ricky Tobias
Post by Anthony Marsh
Rockefeller consultant Werner Spitz, MD wrote that, “There is no doubt
that the bullet which struck the President’s back penetrated the skin in
a sharply upward direction, as is evident from the width of the abrasion
at the lower half of the bullet wound of entrance. The term ‘sharply
upward direction’ (sic) is used because it is evident from this injury
that the missile traveled upwards within the body.”[249] (Author’s
emphasis.) To explain how a downward-sloping bullet had tunneled upward
through JFK, Spitz offered two possibilities: “Any small [forward]
inclination of the back will increase the downward angle significantly.”
In essence, he was suggesting that JFK must have been leaning forward at
the moment the missile struck, and so the bullet merely appeared to go
upward while it actually continued downward. The other possibility he
offered to the upward path through JFK was that the bullet was deviated
from its course when it cracked one of the transverse processes of JFK’s
spine.
And I disagree with him. Writing some thing does not make it so. I
Sure, I will grant you that. Experts are not always correct.
I just wanted to make sure that you were aware of his opinions.
Post by Ricky Tobias
do not see it in the public photo and I have not seen all the photos.
I reject or question any opinion based upon photos that I cannot see.
I discussed this with him many years ago.
Another good argument for releasing all the photos. Have you seen all
the Fox originals?
Post by Ricky Tobias
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Ricky Tobias
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Ricky Tobias
Post by m***@hotmail.com
2) what was the trajectory of the bullet?
Probably from the knoll fence through JFK and on to the pavement or
grass.
That trajectory does not work. The throat wound was on the left of the
midline while the back wound was 1-3/4 inches to the right of the
midline. A shot from the fence area would not produce such a path.
The throat wound was at about the same height as the back wound, so a
shot from the grassy knoll would exit lower than the wound we see on his
back.
The shot does work if JFK is in the right position on the slope.
You'll have to diagram what you mean. Having JFK lean over at all makes
it worse for a bullet coming in from the front at an elevation.
I do not need him to lean over. I have watched Elm from the knoll for
many hours with a 4X scope. The shot is possible even as seen in the
films.
Many shots are possible, but you are assuming a specific trajectory
through the body. This does not work at certain times. And your on the
site observations are limited by the fact that they do not take into
account the real life situations such as JFK's posture and the angle to
the limousine.
For example, a shot from the storm drain is possible if you just stand
in the storm drain and look out. However, at Z-313 which some people
theorize as the head shot from the storm drain, the side glass of the
limousine prevents a bullet from hitting JFK's head.
Post by Ricky Tobias
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Ricky Tobias
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Ricky Tobias
Post by m***@hotmail.com
3) where was the shooter that fired this shot?
4) when was the shot fired (Z-frame#)?
A round Z 222 as JFK goes behind the sign.
Post by m***@hotmail.com
If the the wound on the back did not exit the neck, then where is the
exit wound?
The neck wound and the back wound are connected by a blood trial as
noted in the autopsy report. The question is which is entry or exit?
Post by m***@hotmail.com
Thanks,
Michael
Ricky
"Ballistic Findings in the JFK Autopsy Photos".
http://karws.gso.uri.edu/JFK/Issues_and_evidence/Frontal_shot(s)/Tobias_frontal_shots/Tobias--Ballistics_Findings.html
http://karws.gso.uri.edu/JFK/JFK.html
Then go to: Issues and evidence
Then go to: Frontal shot(s)
or
go to: Notices and recent additions to the site
Then find above title posted April 11, 2001.
Ricky
"Ballistic Findings in the JFK Autopsy Photos".
http://karws.gso.uri.edu/JFK/Issues_and_evidence/Frontal_shot(s)/Tobias_frontal_shots/Tobias--Ballistics_Findings.html
http://karws.gso.uri.edu/JFK/JFK.html
Then go to: Issues and evidence
Then go to: Frontal shot(s)
or
go to: Notices and recent additions to the site
Then find above title posted April 11, 2001.
Ricky
"Ballistic Findings in the JFK Autopsy Photos".
http://karws.gso.uri.edu/JFK/Issues_and_evidence/Frontal_shot(s)/Tobias_frontal_shots/Tobias--Ballistics_Findings.html
http://karws.gso.uri.edu/JFK/JFK.html
Then go to: Issues and evidence
Then go to: Frontal shot(s)
or
go to: Notices and recent additions to the site
Then find above title posted April 11, 2001.
Ricky Tobias
2005-04-07 03:54:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Ricky Tobias
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Ricky Tobias
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Ricky Tobias
Post by m***@hotmail.com
Step two: If the the neck wound is a wound of entrance -
1) where is the exit wound?
The back wound which does look like an exit. See WC exhibit 850.
Nope. The back wound has an abrasion collar indicative of an entrance wound.
Prove it. By size and shape in the public photo it appears like an
exit. I cannot identify an abrasion collar.
An exit for what? A BB? The size is 4 mm x 7 mm. Too small for an exit
wound of an approximately .22 caliber bullet. The photograph shows an
A 6.5 mm. See the goat skin tests WC ex. 850. I have seen Spitz and
it is debatable if an abrasion collar is present.
6.5 mm? Really? Then how do you explain that one dimension is only 4 mm
(measured)? You really can't see the abrasion collar?
Bullets do not usually make perfectly round wounds and the skin at the
time of measurement may be obstructed or pulled. No I do not see an
abrasion collar.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Ricky Tobias
Post by Anthony Marsh
Rockefeller consultant Werner Spitz, MD wrote that, “There is no doubt
that the bullet which struck the President’s back penetrated the skin in
a sharply upward direction, as is evident from the width of the abrasion
at the lower half of the bullet wound of entrance. The term ‘sharply
upward direction’ (sic) is used because it is evident from this injury
that the missile traveled upwards within the body.”[249] (Author’s
emphasis.) To explain how a downward-sloping bullet had tunneled upward
through JFK, Spitz offered two possibilities: “Any small [forward]
inclination of the back will increase the downward angle significantly.”
In essence, he was suggesting that JFK must have been leaning forward at
the moment the missile struck, and so the bullet merely appeared to go
upward while it actually continued downward. The other possibility he
offered to the upward path through JFK was that the bullet was deviated
from its course when it cracked one of the transverse processes of JFK’s
spine.
And I disagree with him. Writing some thing does not make it so. I
Sure, I will grant you that. Experts are not always correct.
I just wanted to make sure that you were aware of his opinions.
Post by Ricky Tobias
do not see it in the public photo and I have not seen all the photos.
I reject or question any opinion based upon photos that I cannot see.
I discussed this with him many years ago.
Another good argument for releasing all the photos. Have you seen all
the Fox originals?
Yes but I am missing one from my set.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Ricky Tobias
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Ricky Tobias
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Ricky Tobias
Post by m***@hotmail.com
2) what was the trajectory of the bullet?
Probably from the knoll fence through JFK and on to the pavement or
grass.
That trajectory does not work. The throat wound was on the left of the
midline while the back wound was 1-3/4 inches to the right of the
midline. A shot from the fence area would not produce such a path.
The throat wound was at about the same height as the back wound, so a
shot from the grassy knoll would exit lower than the wound we see on his
back.
The shot does work if JFK is in the right position on the slope.
You'll have to diagram what you mean. Having JFK lean over at all makes
it worse for a bullet coming in from the front at an elevation.
I do not need him to lean over. I have watched Elm from the knoll for
many hours with a 4X scope. The shot is possible even as seen in the
films.
Many shots are possible, but you are assuming a specific trajectory
through the body. This does not work at certain times. And your on the
site observations are limited by the fact that they do not take into
account the real life situations such as JFK's posture and the angle to
the limousine.
True but I do not have a limo and a JFK stand in nor the ability to
stop traffic on Elm.
Post by Anthony Marsh
For example, a shot from the storm drain is possible if you just stand
in the storm drain and look out. However, at Z-313 which some people
theorize as the head shot from the storm drain, the side glass of the
limousine prevents a bullet from hitting JFK's head.
More importantly the limo at Z 313 cannot be seen from the drain.
People have taken photos from the drain with people and cars on the
313 X
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Ricky Tobias
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Ricky Tobias
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Ricky Tobias
Post by m***@hotmail.com
3) where was the shooter that fired this shot?
4) when was the shot fired (Z-frame#)?
A round Z 222 as JFK goes behind the sign.
Post by m***@hotmail.com
If the the wound on the back did not exit the neck, then where is the
exit wound?
The neck wound and the back wound are connected by a blood trial as
noted in the autopsy report. The question is which is entry or exit?
Post by m***@hotmail.com
Thanks,
Michael
Ricky
"Ballistic Findings in the JFK Autopsy Photos".
http://karws.gso.uri.edu/JFK/Issues_and_evidence/Frontal_shot(s)/Tobias_frontal_shots/Tobias--Ballistics_Findings.html
http://karws.gso.uri.edu/JFK/JFK.html
Then go to: Issues and evidence
Then go to: Frontal shot(s)
or
go to: Notices and recent additions to the site
Then find above title posted April 11, 2001.
Ricky
"Ballistic Findings in the JFK Autopsy Photos".
http://karws.gso.uri.edu/JFK/Issues_and_evidence/Frontal_shot(s)/Tobias_frontal_shots/Tobias--Ballistics_Findings.html
http://karws.gso.uri.edu/JFK/JFK.html
Then go to: Issues and evidence
Then go to: Frontal shot(s)
or
go to: Notices and recent additions to the site
Then find above title posted April 11, 2001.
Ricky
"Ballistic Findings in the JFK Autopsy Photos".
http://karws.gso.uri.edu/JFK/Issues_and_evidence/Frontal_shot(s)/Tobias_frontal_shots/Tobias--Ballistics_Findings.html
http://karws.gso.uri.edu/JFK/JFK.html
Then go to: Issues and evidence
Then go to: Frontal shot(s)
or
go to: Notices and recent additions to the site
Then find above title posted April 11, 2001.
Ricky

"Ballistic Findings in the JFK Autopsy Photos".
An early draft with some errors is posted at:
http://karws.gso.uri.edu/JFK/Issues_and_evidence/Frontal_shot(s)/Tobias_frontal_shots/Tobias--Ballistics_Findings.html
Problems try:
http://karws.gso.uri.edu/JFK/JFK.html
Then go to: Issues and evidence
Then go to: Frontal shot(s)
or
go to: Notices and recent additions to the site
Then find above title posted April 11, 2001.
Anthony Marsh
2005-04-09 04:17:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ricky Tobias
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Ricky Tobias
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Ricky Tobias
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Ricky Tobias
Post by m***@hotmail.com
Step two: If the the neck wound is a wound of entrance -
1) where is the exit wound?
The back wound which does look like an exit. See WC exhibit 850.
Nope. The back wound has an abrasion collar indicative of an entrance wound.
Prove it. By size and shape in the public photo it appears like an
exit. I cannot identify an abrasion collar.
An exit for what? A BB? The size is 4 mm x 7 mm. Too small for an exit
wound of an approximately .22 caliber bullet. The photograph shows an
A 6.5 mm. See the goat skin tests WC ex. 850. I have seen Spitz and
it is debatable if an abrasion collar is present.
6.5 mm? Really? Then how do you explain that one dimension is only 4 mm
(measured)? You really can't see the abrasion collar?
Bullets do not usually make perfectly round wounds and the skin at the
time of measurement may be obstructed or pulled. No I do not see an
abrasion collar.
Yet you think the throat wound was an entrance wound because it was so
small and round. I have no idea what you mean about the back wound being
"obstructed or pulled" at the time it was measured.
Post by Ricky Tobias
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Ricky Tobias
Post by Anthony Marsh
Rockefeller consultant Werner Spitz, MD wrote that, “There is no doubt
that the bullet which struck the President’s back penetrated the skin in
a sharply upward direction, as is evident from the width of the abrasion
at the lower half of the bullet wound of entrance. The term ‘sharply
upward direction’ (sic) is used because it is evident from this injury
that the missile traveled upwards within the body.”[249] (Author’s
emphasis.) To explain how a downward-sloping bullet had tunneled upward
through JFK, Spitz offered two possibilities: “Any small [forward]
inclination of the back will increase the downward angle significantly.”
In essence, he was suggesting that JFK must have been leaning forward at
the moment the missile struck, and so the bullet merely appeared to go
upward while it actually continued downward. The other possibility he
offered to the upward path through JFK was that the bullet was deviated
from its course when it cracked one of the transverse processes of JFK’s
spine.
And I disagree with him. Writing some thing does not make it so. I
Sure, I will grant you that. Experts are not always correct.
I just wanted to make sure that you were aware of his opinions.
Post by Ricky Tobias
do not see it in the public photo and I have not seen all the photos.
I reject or question any opinion based upon photos that I cannot see.
I discussed this with him many years ago.
Another good argument for releasing all the photos. Have you seen all
the Fox originals?
Yes but I am missing one from my set.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Ricky Tobias
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Ricky Tobias
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Ricky Tobias
Post by m***@hotmail.com
2) what was the trajectory of the bullet?
Probably from the knoll fence through JFK and on to the pavement or
grass.
That trajectory does not work. The throat wound was on the left of the
midline while the back wound was 1-3/4 inches to the right of the
midline. A shot from the fence area would not produce such a path.
The throat wound was at about the same height as the back wound, so a
shot from the grassy knoll would exit lower than the wound we see on his
back.
The shot does work if JFK is in the right position on the slope.
You'll have to diagram what you mean. Having JFK lean over at all makes
it worse for a bullet coming in from the front at an elevation.
I do not need him to lean over. I have watched Elm from the knoll for
many hours with a 4X scope. The shot is possible even as seen in the
films.
Many shots are possible, but you are assuming a specific trajectory
through the body. This does not work at certain times. And your on the
site observations are limited by the fact that they do not take into
account the real life situations such as JFK's posture and the angle to
the limousine.
True but I do not have a limo and a JFK stand in nor the ability to
stop traffic on Elm.
Then drafting would come in handy.
Post by Ricky Tobias
Post by Anthony Marsh
For example, a shot from the storm drain is possible if you just stand
in the storm drain and look out. However, at Z-313 which some people
theorize as the head shot from the storm drain, the side glass of the
limousine prevents a bullet from hitting JFK's head.
More importantly the limo at Z 313 cannot be seen from the drain.
People have taken photos from the drain with people and cars on the
313 X
The limo could be seen at Z-313 and such a shot was possible, but it
would be blocked from hitting JFK's head by the side glass.
Post by Ricky Tobias
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Ricky Tobias
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Ricky Tobias
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Ricky Tobias
Post by m***@hotmail.com
3) where was the shooter that fired this shot?
4) when was the shot fired (Z-frame#)?
A round Z 222 as JFK goes behind the sign.
Post by m***@hotmail.com
If the the wound on the back did not exit the neck, then where is the
exit wound?
The neck wound and the back wound are connected by a blood trial as
noted in the autopsy report. The question is which is entry or exit?
Post by m***@hotmail.com
Thanks,
Michael
Ricky
"Ballistic Findings in the JFK Autopsy Photos".
http://karws.gso.uri.edu/JFK/Issues_and_evidence/Frontal_shot(s)/Tobias_frontal_shots/Tobias--Ballistics_Findings.html
http://karws.gso.uri.edu/JFK/JFK.html
Then go to: Issues and evidence
Then go to: Frontal shot(s)
or
go to: Notices and recent additions to the site
Then find above title posted April 11, 2001.
Ricky
"Ballistic Findings in the JFK Autopsy Photos".
http://karws.gso.uri.edu/JFK/Issues_and_evidence/Frontal_shot(s)/Tobias_frontal_shots/Tobias--Ballistics_Findings.html
http://karws.gso.uri.edu/JFK/JFK.html
Then go to: Issues and evidence
Then go to: Frontal shot(s)
or
go to: Notices and recent additions to the site
Then find above title posted April 11, 2001.
Ricky
"Ballistic Findings in the JFK Autopsy Photos".
http://karws.gso.uri.edu/JFK/Issues_and_evidence/Frontal_shot(s)/Tobias_frontal_shots/Tobias--Ballistics_Findings.html
http://karws.gso.uri.edu/JFK/JFK.html
Then go to: Issues and evidence
Then go to: Frontal shot(s)
or
go to: Notices and recent additions to the site
Then find above title posted April 11, 2001.
Ricky
"Ballistic Findings in the JFK Autopsy Photos".
http://karws.gso.uri.edu/JFK/Issues_and_evidence/Frontal_shot(s)/Tobias_frontal_shots/Tobias--Ballistics_Findings.html
http://karws.gso.uri.edu/JFK/JFK.html
Then go to: Issues and evidence
Then go to: Frontal shot(s)
or
go to: Notices and recent additions to the site
Then find above title posted April 11, 2001.
Ricky Tobias
2005-04-09 14:31:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Ricky Tobias
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Ricky Tobias
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Ricky Tobias
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Ricky Tobias
Post by m***@hotmail.com
Step two: If the the neck wound is a wound of entrance -
1) where is the exit wound?
The back wound which does look like an exit. See WC exhibit 850.
Nope. The back wound has an abrasion collar indicative of an entrance wound.
Prove it. By size and shape in the public photo it appears like an
exit. I cannot identify an abrasion collar.
An exit for what? A BB? The size is 4 mm x 7 mm. Too small for an exit
wound of an approximately .22 caliber bullet. The photograph shows an
A 6.5 mm. See the goat skin tests WC ex. 850. I have seen Spitz and
it is debatable if an abrasion collar is present.
6.5 mm? Really? Then how do you explain that one dimension is only 4 mm
(measured)? You really can't see the abrasion collar?
Bullets do not usually make perfectly round wounds and the skin at the
time of measurement may be obstructed or pulled. No I do not see an
abrasion collar.
Yet you think the throat wound was an entrance wound because it was so
small and round. I have no idea what you mean about the back wound being
"obstructed or pulled" at the time it was measured.
You need to do some autopsies or skin some gun shot animals. WC ex.
850 is clear and demonstrates a 6.5 mm.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Ricky Tobias
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Ricky Tobias
Post by Anthony Marsh
Rockefeller consultant Werner Spitz, MD wrote that, “There is no doubt
that the bullet which struck the President’s back penetrated the skin in
a sharply upward direction, as is evident from the width of the abrasion
at the lower half of the bullet wound of entrance. The term ‘sharply
upward direction’ (sic) is used because it is evident from this injury
that the missile traveled upwards within the body.”[249] (Author’s
emphasis.) To explain how a downward-sloping bullet had tunneled upward
through JFK, Spitz offered two possibilities: “Any small [forward]
inclination of the back will increase the downward angle significantly.”
In essence, he was suggesting that JFK must have been leaning forward at
the moment the missile struck, and so the bullet merely appeared to go
upward while it actually continued downward. The other possibility he
offered to the upward path through JFK was that the bullet was deviated
from its course when it cracked one of the transverse processes of JFK’s
spine.
And I disagree with him. Writing some thing does not make it so. I
Sure, I will grant you that. Experts are not always correct.
I just wanted to make sure that you were aware of his opinions.
Post by Ricky Tobias
do not see it in the public photo and I have not seen all the photos.
I reject or question any opinion based upon photos that I cannot see.
I discussed this with him many years ago.
Another good argument for releasing all the photos. Have you seen all
the Fox originals?
Yes but I am missing one from my set.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Ricky Tobias
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Ricky Tobias
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Ricky Tobias
Post by m***@hotmail.com
2) what was the trajectory of the bullet?
Probably from the knoll fence through JFK and on to the pavement or
grass.
That trajectory does not work. The throat wound was on the left of the
midline while the back wound was 1-3/4 inches to the right of the
midline. A shot from the fence area would not produce such a path.
The throat wound was at about the same height as the back wound, so a
shot from the grassy knoll would exit lower than the wound we see on his
back.
The shot does work if JFK is in the right position on the slope.
You'll have to diagram what you mean. Having JFK lean over at all makes
it worse for a bullet coming in from the front at an elevation.
I do not need him to lean over. I have watched Elm from the knoll for
many hours with a 4X scope. The shot is possible even as seen in the
films.
Many shots are possible, but you are assuming a specific trajectory
through the body. This does not work at certain times. And your on the
site observations are limited by the fact that they do not take into
account the real life situations such as JFK's posture and the angle to
the limousine.
True but I do not have a limo and a JFK stand in nor the ability to
stop traffic on Elm.
Then drafting would come in handy.
Yes and I have.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Ricky Tobias
Post by Anthony Marsh
For example, a shot from the storm drain is possible if you just stand
in the storm drain and look out. However, at Z-313 which some people
theorize as the head shot from the storm drain, the side glass of the
limousine prevents a bullet from hitting JFK's head.
More importantly the limo at Z 313 cannot be seen from the drain.
People have taken photos from the drain with people and cars on the
313 X
The limo could be seen at Z-313 and such a shot was possible, but it
would be blocked from hitting JFK's head by the side glass.
Bull shit. If the X on the road is correct to 10' the shot cannot
occur. The X has to be moved some 54' from its position across from
th placard.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Ricky Tobias
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Ricky Tobias
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Ricky Tobias
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Ricky Tobias
Post by m***@hotmail.com
3) where was the shooter that fired this shot?
4) when was the shot fired (Z-frame#)?
A round Z 222 as JFK goes behind the sign.
Post by m***@hotmail.com
If the the wound on the back did not exit the neck, then where is the
exit wound?
The neck wound and the back wound are connected by a blood trial as
noted in the autopsy report. The question is which is entry or exit?
Post by m***@hotmail.com
Thanks,
Michael
Ricky
"Ballistic Findings in the JFK Autopsy Photos".
http://karws.gso.uri.edu/JFK/Issues_and_evidence/Frontal_shot(s)/Tobias_frontal_shots/Tobias--Ballistics_Findings.html
http://karws.gso.uri.edu/JFK/JFK.html
Then go to: Issues and evidence
Then go to: Frontal shot(s)
or
go to: Notices and recent additions to the site
Then find above title posted April 11, 2001.
Ricky
"Ballistic Findings in the JFK Autopsy Photos".
http://karws.gso.uri.edu/JFK/Issues_and_evidence/Frontal_shot(s)/Tobias_frontal_shots/Tobias--Ballistics_Findings.html
http://karws.gso.uri.edu/JFK/JFK.html
Then go to: Issues and evidence
Then go to: Frontal shot(s)
or
go to: Notices and recent additions to the site
Then find above title posted April 11, 2001.
Ricky
"Ballistic Findings in the JFK Autopsy Photos".
http://karws.gso.uri.edu/JFK/Issues_and_evidence/Frontal_shot(s)/Tobias_frontal_shots/Tobias--Ballistics_Findings.html
http://karws.gso.uri.edu/JFK/JFK.html
Then go to: Issues and evidence
Then go to: Frontal shot(s)
or
go to: Notices and recent additions to the site
Then find above title posted April 11, 2001.
Ricky
"Ballistic Findings in the JFK Autopsy Photos".
http://karws.gso.uri.edu/JFK/Issues_and_evidence/Frontal_shot(s)/Tobias_frontal_shots/Tobias--Ballistics_Findings.html
http://karws.gso.uri.edu/JFK/JFK.html
Then go to: Issues and evidence
Then go to: Frontal shot(s)
or
go to: Notices and recent additions to the site
Then find above title posted April 11, 2001.
Ricky

"Ballistic Findings in the JFK Autopsy Photos".
An early draft with some errors is posted at:
http://karws.gso.uri.edu/JFK/Issues_and_evidence/Frontal_shot(s)/Tobias_frontal_shots/Tobias--Ballistics_Findings.html
Problems try:
http://karws.gso.uri.edu/JFK/JFK.html
Then go to: Issues and evidence
Then go to: Frontal shot(s)
or
go to: Notices and recent additions to the site
Then find above title posted April 11, 2001.
charles wallace
2005-04-06 18:48:55 UTC
Permalink
Tony,
I can understand why you use Spitz's explanation of an Oswald rifle
bullet's course upwardly through JFK's back and then supposedly out his
throat. It supports what you think happened. Of the two reasons Spitz
puts forth for the UPWARD direction of the hypothetical bullet path, we
can both rule out JFK leaning forward and downward as a cause. This is
because we can see in the Zapruder film that JFK was sitting upright.
You think the fractured bone in the spine is the reason. There is not
enough evidence to be sure that this line on JFK's back bone X-ray was
involved in the assassination at all. JFK had a history of back
problems and could have sustained an injury to this bone years earlier
if it really was a fracture line and not some anomaly in the X-ray.
CTers and LNTers can't even agree where the entry point on JFK's back
is. The real evidence from the autopsy doctors and the FBI observers is
that the bullet entered DOWNWARD and stopped. E. Forrest Chapman a
forensic scientist said one of the empty shells indicates a partial dud.
So Spitz's statement of "there is no doubt" is just wrong. It is my
belief that you are VERY wrong in your shooting scenario.



Tony Marsh wrote:
Rockefeller consultant Werner Spitz, MD wrote that, "There is no doubt
that the bullet which struck the President's back penetrated the skin in
a sharply upward direction, as is evident from the width of the abrasion
at the lower half of the bullet wound of entrance. The term 'sharply
upward direction' (sic) is used because it is evident from this injury
that the missile traveled upwards within the body."[249] (Author's
emphasis.) To explain how a downward-sloping bullet had tunneled upward
through JFK, Spitz offered two possibilities: "Any small [forward]
inclination of the back will increase the downward angle significantly."
In essence, he was suggesting that JFK must have been leaning forward at
the moment the missile struck, and so the bullet merely appeared to go
upward while it actually continued downward. The other possibility he
offered to the upward path through JFK was that the bullet was deviated
from its course when it cracked one of the transverse processes of JFK's
spine.

Case Wide Open: A JFK Murder Investigation
http://community.webtv.net/ccwallace/CaseWideOpenAJFK
Anthony Marsh
2005-04-07 03:52:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by charles wallace
Tony,
I can understand why you use Spitz's explanation of an Oswald rifle
bullet's course upwardly through JFK's back and then supposedly out his
throat. It supports what you think happened. Of the two reasons Spitz
Yes, but that is not why I brought up Spitz. He only offers that as one
possibility. I actually think it is what happened. It took me several
years to come to this conclusion. Independent of Spitz or anyone else.
Post by charles wallace
puts forth for the UPWARD direction of the hypothetical bullet path, we
can both rule out JFK leaning forward and downward as a cause. This is
because we can see in the Zapruder film that JFK was sitting upright.
Correct, if we know EXACTLY when the bullet hit him.
Post by charles wallace
You think the fractured bone in the spine is the reason. There is not
enough evidence to be sure that this line on JFK's back bone X-ray was
involved in the assassination at all. JFK had a history of back
problems and could have sustained an injury to this bone years earlier
if it really was a fracture line and not some anomaly in the X-ray.
I can not accept any theory about pre-existing damage. Did he have a
pre-existing bullet hole in his head and fractures there also?
Post by charles wallace
CTers and LNTers can't even agree where the entry point on JFK's back
is. The real evidence from the autopsy doctors and the FBI observers is
Each group has an agenda to move up or down the bullet wound because of
the SBT.
Post by charles wallace
that the bullet entered DOWNWARD and stopped. E. Forrest Chapman a
That was only a guess and a stupid one at that.
Post by charles wallace
forensic scientist said one of the empty shells indicates a partial dud.
But he is wrong. And no partial dud would be going so slowly that the
bullet could stop within an inch or two.
Post by charles wallace
So Spitz's statement of "there is no doubt" is just wrong. It is my
belief that you are VERY wrong in your shooting scenario.
Several people have fired hundreds of rounds of WCC ammunition and there
is never a partial dud.
Post by charles wallace
Rockefeller consultant Werner Spitz, MD wrote that, "There is no doubt
that the bullet which struck the President's back penetrated the skin in
a sharply upward direction, as is evident from the width of the abrasion
at the lower half of the bullet wound of entrance. The term 'sharply
upward direction' (sic) is used because it is evident from this injury
that the missile traveled upwards within the body."[249] (Author's
emphasis.) To explain how a downward-sloping bullet had tunneled upward
through JFK, Spitz offered two possibilities: "Any small [forward]
inclination of the back will increase the downward angle significantly."
In essence, he was suggesting that JFK must have been leaning forward at
the moment the missile struck, and so the bullet merely appeared to go
upward while it actually continued downward. The other possibility he
offered to the upward path through JFK was that the bullet was deviated
from its course when it cracked one of the transverse processes of JFK's
spine.
Case Wide Open: A JFK Murder Investigation
http://community.webtv.net/ccwallace/CaseWideOpenAJFK
elmjack44
2005-04-05 02:56:16 UTC
Permalink
You guys are missing the point. There is nothing that ties the neck wound
and back wound together. The autopsists didn't do it.

JFK was clearly visible to a right/front assassin for a good period of
time. After all, Elm Street curves to the right, so he was very vulnerable
to that location. One of the Willis pictures (the one with 'black dog
man') illustrates this.

Since JFK emerges from the sign reaching for his throat AND later (forgot
which Z frame) he moves unnaturally forward in 1/18 of a second, it is
quite logical to suppose that separate shots caused the 2 wounds. Nothing
ties these wounds together except for hindsight and a need to make them
fit into a one shooter/3 shot scenario. Nothing.
Russ Burr
2005-04-05 22:33:33 UTC
Permalink
In article <***@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, elmjack44
says...
Post by elmjack44
You guys are missing the point. There is nothing that ties the neck wound
and back wound together. The autopsists didn't do it.
Yeah they did, with X-ray.

What they couldn't do was probe the missile tract. There is a benign reason for
that:

QUOTE: The following is a quote from the Forensic Pathology Panel of the House
Select Committee on Assassinations:

(430) The panel believes that the difficulty which Drs. Humes, Finck, and
Boswell experienced in trying to place a soft probe through the bullet pathway
in President Kennedy’s neck probably resulted from their failure or inability to
manipulate this portion of the body into the same position it was in when the
missile penetrated. Rigor mortis may have hindered this manipulation. Such
placement would have enabled reconstruction of the relationships of the neck and
shoulder when the missile struck. It is customary, however, to dissect missile
tracks to determine damage and pathway. Probing a track blindly may produce
false tracks and misinformation.

END QUOTE

The autopsy X-rays revealed the interior damage:

QUOTE the WR:

The bullet after entering the President,the bullet passed through two large
muscles, produced a contusion on the upper part of the pleural cavity (without
penetrating that cavity), bruised the top portion of the right lung and ripped
the windpipe (trachea) in it's path through the President's neck......No bone
was struck by the bullet which passed through the President. By projecting from
a form of entry on the rear of the neck and proceeding at a slight downward
angle through the bruised interior portions, the doctors concluded that bullet
exited from the front portion of the President's neck that had been cut away by
the tracheotomy.

ENDQUOTE

They didn't have to dissect the President's neck to tie the front and back wound
together. And I recall that the Kennedy family wanted only examination of the
head wound.

Add to that was the fiber evidence. The coat and shirt on the rear had clothing
fibers going inward around the bullet entrance, suggesting an entry wound and
the fibers on the front of his shirt were pointed outward suggecting an exit
wound.

Now if you care to refute this as you have in the past by using the overused
dicotomy between WC defenders and CT, than you're wasting your time on dealing
with this issue. Just present any alternative explanation backed up by evidence.
And that goes for anyone else. Hell, if I'm wrong than someone will point it
out, assuming it's backed by credible evidence and I'll modify my judgement and
learn something new.

***************************************************************
Your "critique" of the WC apologists.

Most if not all the WC defenders know full well that the WCR, was in part, a
cover-up by the FBI and CIA to protect the information about the Kennedy
assassination plots and sabtotage toward Castro and his government. Had that
come out given Lee Oswald's documented affinity and support for the Cuban cause
including his threats to kill the President while in Mexico City at the Cuban
Consulate just less than a month and a half before the shooting in Dallas, there
would have existed a great deal of pressure by the JCS and a lot of American
people to associate Oswald's Cuban leanings and the Kennedy brothers
assassination plots toward Castro as a Cuban conspiracy to kill the President.
And given the events of the previous year when we came to the brink of nuclear
disaster, it doesn't take a dummy to figure out that the cover-up accomplished.
It restored the stability of the country, which is what LBJ and others wanted to
accomplish. It also served LBJ as a political tool leading up to the '64
elections.

Trouble was, by excluding the tie between Oswald's Cuban and Marxist leanings
and our government's Executive Branch's attitude and actions toward Cuban, the
WC eliminated our knowledge of Oswald's possible motives for assassinating
Kennedy.

Sure, you'll find inconsistencies in the WCT but you'll find that the case in
any murder investigation. Ask any homicide detective. But you'll also find a lot
of concurrance as far as the evidence presented in the WCR.

Where did the shots come from you ask? Mrs. Cabell, Euins, Brennan, Couch and
Jackson all identified a rifle barrel from the TSBD SE upper floors. The DPD
found three spent cartridges in the TSBD SE 6th floor window and a high powered
rifle with an unused shell in it's breech later identified as a MC and much
later tied to Lee Oswald. CE 399 and other bullet fragements found in the limo
and the President's brain where all matched to Oswald's rifle to the exclusion
of others.

So, I ask you did they find any such scene with that kind of evidence anywhere
else in DP that day?

This is all provided by the WCR. If you use it as a tool and a reference instead
of only dwelling on it's mistakes what are you left with? Conspiracy books to
lead the way;-)
Post by elmjack44
JFK was clearly visible to a right/front assassin for a good period of
time. After all, Elm Street curves to the right, so he was very vulnerable
to that location. One of the Willis pictures (the one with 'black dog
man') illustrates this.
Since JFK emerges from the sign reaching for his throat AND later (forgot
which Z frame) he moves unnaturally forward in 1/18 of a second, it is
quite logical to suppose that separate shots caused the 2 wounds. Nothing
ties these wounds together except for hindsight and a need to make them
fit into a one shooter/3 shot scenario. Nothing.
And I see both being struck simultaneously by the same shot. Probably by Z-223.
Try watching the reactions in Connally's body, face and his subsequent hat flip
after the bullet went through his torso and wrist between Z-224 and Z-229.
That's five frames and since Zapruder's camera shot at an average of 18 fps
that's only .27 seconds. That's .27 seconds from the time he was hit by the
bullet that passed through Kennedy that all thses reactions took place.

Take care.

Russ
elmjack44
2005-04-06 03:45:20 UTC
Permalink
I started to read your post and I had to stop. Give me a break. The
autopsists had no idea there was a bullet wound in the
neck!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Are you denying this??????? Here we go again...another WC proponent
trying to shoehorn evidence into their homemade one gun/3 bullets
scenario. I can only imagine what the rest of your post espouses.

They found out later, after placing a call to Parkland, that there was
a bullet wound to the neck. It is completely disingenuous to say they
tied the back wound to the neck wound. Come on!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! It
was never properly examined. It's all guesswork to fit the WC
conclusion. Pure and simple.
Russ Burr
2005-04-06 15:04:01 UTC
Permalink
In article <***@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>, elmjack44
says...
Post by elmjack44
I started to read your post and I had to stop. Give me a break. The
autopsists had no idea there was a bullet wound in the
neck!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Are you denying this??????? Here we go again...another WC proponent
trying to shoehorn evidence into their homemade one gun/3 bullets
scenario. I can only imagine what the rest of your post espouses.
They found out later, after placing a call to Parkland, that there was
a bullet wound to the neck. It is completely disingenuous to say they
tied the back wound to the neck wound. Come on!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! It
was never properly examined. It's all guesswork to fit the WC
conclusion. Pure and simple.
I explained it with multiple sources that are well known and accepted by LN'ers
and most CT's. As long as you continue to pit WC supporters against CT's, you'll
never accept any evidence as true.

I could have predicted your answer as being another example of your
close-mindeness to any explanation that you don't want to hear. Particularly,
from anyone who believes Oswald did it on his own.

All you had to do was to use evidence to refute what I said that I got from both
the WCR and the HSCA findings.

As long as you are stuck in polarizing this case you'll never benefit from
anyone's research that doesn't agree with yours.

And BTW, I have yet to see any evidence whatsoever from you proving that WC
followers are wrong;-)

Good luck on your one man quest.

Russ
elmjack44
2005-04-06 18:42:05 UTC
Permalink
Nice comments. I always enjoy a good chuckle.

Did you even read the original post that started this thread???
Apparently not, because you're using your giant WC shoehorn.

And as to my personal beliefs...I don't recall stating them. Only
pointing to the fact that it's obvious shots were coming from at least
2 directions if you look at the evidence unbiasedly. Something you have
made very clear that you CANNOT do.

Case in point, the neck wound. Parkland personnel are the only ones to
have seen it. They described it as an entrance wound. The autopsists
didn't even know there was a bullet wound there and did nothing to
track it or examine it properly. You ignore that and go on your WC path
all the way to the last stop--one shooter/3 shots Boulevard.

How is anyone supposed to discuss the topic of this thread when you
post follow-ups that are fraught only with WC talking points??? Nothing
you say has anything to do with this thread and you try to insult me,
Russ. You're going to have to try harder.
Russ Burr
2005-04-06 19:34:49 UTC
Permalink
In article <***@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>, elmjack44
says...
Post by elmjack44
Nice comments. I always enjoy a good chuckle.
I'm glad I made you smile;-)
Post by elmjack44
Did you even read the original post that started this thread???
No, I can't possibly read all the posts.
Post by elmjack44
Apparently not, because you're using your giant WC shoehorn.
And as to my personal beliefs...I don't recall stating them. Only
pointing to the fact that it's obvious shots were coming from at least
2 directions if you look at the evidence unbiasedly.
Ear witnesses heard shots fired from the knoll, the RR tracks and the TSBD. Ear
witness testimony is one of the most unreliable forms of evidence. You should
know that. But since all the evidence for a shooting was found on the 6th floor
and no where else, my logic dictates that is where the shooting took place. And
as I said Euins, Mrs. Cabell, Couch, Jackson and Brennan all saw a rifle poking
out of that window or near it. Add to that was Junior Jarman, who heard right
above him the bolt being worked in concert with the shots. And Jarman was right
below the shooter, who I strongly believe was Oswald.

Do you know anyone in DP that day that saw a rifle being fired?


Something you have
Post by elmjack44
made very clear that you CANNOT do.
Sure I can;-)
Post by elmjack44
Case in point, the neck wound. Parkland personnel are the only ones to
have seen it. They described it as an entrance wound.
They (the Parkland doctors) never turned the body over, so they assumed it was
an entry wound.


The autopsists
Post by elmjack44
didn't even know there was a bullet wound there
Since the Parkland doctors had obliterated the wound with a trach incision,
Humes, et al, had no idea there was a bullet wound there until Humes talked to
Perry the following day.


and did nothing to
Post by elmjack44
track it or examine it properly.
Ever hear of X-rays???

You ignore that and go on your WC path
Post by elmjack44
all the way to the last stop--one shooter/3 shots Boulevard.
How is anyone supposed to discuss the topic of this thread when you
post follow-ups that are fraught only with WC talking points???
Hardly...their facts have been repeatedly stated over and over again by all the
doctors concerned, once they communicated with one another.

I suggest you increase your readings in a number of areas. You're still at a
elementary level when it comes to this issue.


Nothing
Post by elmjack44
you say has anything to do with this thread and you try to insult me,
Russ. You're going to have to try harder.
Sorry if you felt insulted...that's not my style.

Russ
elmjack44
2005-04-06 20:48:05 UTC
Permalink
"I suggest you increase your readings in a number of areas. You're
still at a
elementary level when it comes to this issue."

I just love your arrogance!! Woo hoo!! You obviously hold yourself in
very high esteem. Why don't you tone it down a bit.

You don't even read the original post that created this thread, you
trot in all your WC nonsense and you completely ignore basic facts,
then you condescend to me. My goodness!!!!!!

Let's see if you can understand a simple fact. The Parkland personnel
were the only ones to see the throat wound. So under your scenario,
EVERYONE in Dallas was wrong. All of them. Every last one.

The autopsists didn't know there was a bullet wound in the neck. They
did an entire autopsy and didn't know this fact. Now here you are
saying they 'proved' a bullet went through JFK's back and out his neck
based on x-rays??????????

Let me ask you this, Mr. Elementary. If these wounds, etc., were on the
x-rays, how did the freakin' autopsists account for them if they didn't
know there was a bullet wound to the neck??
Did they conclude that a bullet entered the back, started going through
the body and simply disappeared?? "Hey, there's no bullet in the body.
Guess it must've vanished." That's a real thorough autopsy you got
there.

You also talk about the back wound and probes and what not. According
to the autopsists, the back wound was extremely shallow. What follows
is the WC drivel about muscles being in the wrong position, etc. Isn't
it more likely, and logical (see, this thread was about logical
conclusions, but you didn't bother reading it) that they are right and
the bullet stopped without going through and through????

WC adherents like you want it both ways. Apparently the autopsists did
such a horrible job--missing the neck wound even though there was x-ray
'evidence' and concluding the back wound was shallow--but all their
conclusions (changed after the body was long gone) are 100% correct.

Add to that the fact that if the back wound did stop as the autopsists
originally reported, then the neck wound was one of entrance and
matched exactly what the Parkland personnel said.

Gee...to an unbiased mind, which do you think makes more sense??
Anthony Marsh
2005-04-07 03:51:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by elmjack44
"I suggest you increase your readings in a number of areas. You're
still at a
elementary level when it comes to this issue."
I just love your arrogance!! Woo hoo!! You obviously hold yourself in
very high esteem. Why don't you tone it down a bit.
You don't even read the original post that created this thread, you
trot in all your WC nonsense and you completely ignore basic facts,
then you condescend to me. My goodness!!!!!!
Let's see if you can understand a simple fact. The Parkland personnel
were the only ones to see the throat wound. So under your scenario,
EVERYONE in Dallas was wrong. All of them. Every last one.
When you claim that "all of them" said exactly the same thing, you need
to back it up with some facts. They did not "all of them" say exactly
the same thing.
Post by elmjack44
The autopsists didn't know there was a bullet wound in the neck. They
did an entire autopsy and didn't know this fact. Now here you are
saying they 'proved' a bullet went through JFK's back and out his neck
based on x-rays??????????
Not proved. Presumed. That is specifically why they inserted the
language "presumably."
Post by elmjack44
Let me ask you this, Mr. Elementary. If these wounds, etc., were on the
x-rays, how did the freakin' autopsists account for them if they didn't
know there was a bullet wound to the neck??
They didn't. They dare not explain them.
Post by elmjack44
Did they conclude that a bullet entered the back, started going through
the body and simply disappeared?? "Hey, there's no bullet in the body.
Guess it must've vanished." That's a real thorough autopsy you got
there.
Humes thought that a bullet hit the back and penetrated only an inch or
two, then stopped, and was later worked out during cardiac massage.
Post by elmjack44
You also talk about the back wound and probes and what not. According
to the autopsists, the back wound was extremely shallow. What follows
According to the very inept autopsists. You don't probe a bullet wound
with your little finger. At that caliber, you can only get the tip of
your little finger into such a bullet wound.
Post by elmjack44
is the WC drivel about muscles being in the wrong position, etc. Isn't
it more likely, and logical (see, this thread was about logical
conclusions, but you didn't bother reading it) that they are right and
the bullet stopped without going through and through????
No, that is physically impossible. It is impossible for a WCC bullet to
stop in the back within an inch or two. And that does not explain the
bruising of the top of the lung.
Post by elmjack44
WC adherents like you want it both ways. Apparently the autopsists did
such a horrible job--missing the neck wound even though there was x-ray
'evidence' and concluding the back wound was shallow--but all their
conclusions (changed after the body was long gone) are 100% correct.
WC defenders MUST argue that way. Even if all the supporting data is
incorrect, they MUST claim that the conclusion is correct. Lest they
allow even the tiniest possibility of conspiracy.
Post by elmjack44
Add to that the fact that if the back wound did stop as the autopsists
originally reported, then the neck wound was one of entrance and
matched exactly what the Parkland personnel said.
No.
Post by elmjack44
Gee...to an unbiased mind, which do you think makes more sense??
David VP
2005-04-07 03:55:27 UTC
Permalink
Chad's arguments are perfectly logical -- in fact, you'd think I wrote
them myself, for every point he's made I agree with and was saying aloud
to myself before ever reading them.

Another point re. any miraculous "3 Shots Line Up Perfectly To Seem Like A
SBT" bull that the CTers wish to believe --- I've yet to hear EVEN ONE
CTer explain the likelihood of THREE DIFFERENT GUNMEN AND THREE SEPARATE
BULLETS causing the wounds in JFK & JBC and miraculously having ALL of
these wounds LINE UP to perfection in order to (apparently, per CTers)
"fool" Specter & the WC into just THINKING that maybe these THREE separate
shots by THREE gunmen (2 rear; 1 in front) were actually caused by just a
single LHO missile.

The odds of the above occurring if three riflemen had performed this
amazing CONNECT-THE-WOUNDS feat is so low as to be totally dismissed after
one second of thought time.

PLUS -- There's the fact that NONE of these THREE missiles are ever seen
again! And the fact that JFK had NO whole bullets left in his neck/back.

And CTers actually think this THREE GUNMEN & THREE BULLETS CAUSING A
PERFECT "SBT RUSE" makes MORE logical sense than just one bullet
traversing JFK/JBC. Absolutely incredible CT idiocy!

Vincent Bugliosi will pull no punches in "FINAL VERDICT: THE SIMPLE TRUTH
IN THE KILLING OF JFK" for the sake of softening the blow for the silly
CTers. Vince will hammer the CTs hard; and rightly so.

Dale Myers' DVD Preview below (excellent stuff) ........

http://www.jfkfiles.com/jfk/html/video_preview.htm
elmjack44
2005-04-07 19:14:07 UTC
Permalink
That's right. The SBT works perfectly well with your huge WC shoehorn.

By the way:
PLUS -- There's the fact that NONE of these THREE missiles are ever
seen
again! And the fact that JFK had NO whole bullets left in his
neck/back.

What happened to the 'missile' recovered at autopsy, as reported by
Sibert and O'Neill?????????????????
You have the audacity to say that no missiles were ever seen
again!!!!!!!!!!! Yet it's right there in the evidence. I guess, silly
me, that like everyone else they must've been wrong. Instead of handing
them a bullet, it was actually a bag of potato chips. Their mistake.

You ignore any evidence you can't twist and distort into the WC
scenario. My God!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
David VP
2005-04-08 03:51:47 UTC
Permalink
I want to see a "re-creation" of the CT alternative to the SBT. And I want
to see if the THREE-BULLETS-MERGING-INTO-ONE scenario can be duplicated.

You'll need THREE riflemen firing from rear & front; and then firing THREE
separate bullets into the bodies of JFK & JBC; and then you'll need these
THREE separate bullet wounds miraculously LINING UP to near perfection to
align nicely so as to mirror the SBT, and FOOL EVERYBODY ON EARTH into
believing your three-shooter, three-bullets scenario could SEEM like just
one missile had caused all this damage.

Odds please?

Obviously it'll be impossible. (Or certainly VERY highly improbable.)
Peter Fokes
2005-04-08 21:45:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by David VP
I want to see a "re-creation" of the CT alternative to the SBT.
No, what you are really saying is that you want to see a re-creation
of a very "specific CT scenario" as outlined "by you" below.
Post by David VP
And I want
to see if the THREE-BULLETS-MERGING-INTO-ONE scenario can be duplicated.
An rather fanciful idea. What postulate something you know cannot be
true? To create a strawman? Do you beat up scarecrows when you are
bored too? Lol!
Post by David VP
You'll need THREE riflemen firing from rear & front;
No, "you'll" need three rifleman since it is your scenario.
Post by David VP
and then firing THREE
separate bullets into the bodies of JFK & JBC; and then you'll need these
THREE separate bullet wounds miraculously LINING UP to near perfection to
align nicely so as to mirror the SBT, and FOOL EVERYBODY ON EARTH into
believing your three-shooter, three-bullets scenario could SEEM like just
one missile had caused all this damage.
No, "you'll" need to ask for these things because you want to suggest
a foolish scenario so you can then ask "Odds please?" and get the
answer you want.
Post by David VP
Odds please?
Obviously it'll be impossible. (Or certainly VERY highly improbable.)
So why suggest such a scenario or ask anyone to offer odds?

Bizarre reasoning.

A CT scenario with all shots from behind by one shooter is perfectly
reasonable.

PF
Peter Fokes
2005-04-08 22:05:43 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 08 Apr 2005 17:45:46 -0400, Peter Fokes
Post by Peter Fokes
Post by David VP
I want to see a "re-creation" of the CT alternative to the SBT.
No, what you are really saying is that you want to see a re-creation
of a very "specific CT scenario" as outlined "by you" below.
Post by David VP
And I want
to see if the THREE-BULLETS-MERGING-INTO-ONE scenario can be duplicated.
Excuse me...long day....corrected typos
Post by Peter Fokes
A rather fanciful idea. Why postulate something you know cannot be
true? To create a strawman? Do you beat up scarecrows when you are
bored too? Lol!
Post by David VP
You'll need THREE riflemen firing from rear & front;
No, "you'll" need three rifleman since it is your scenario.
Post by David VP
and then firing THREE
separate bullets into the bodies of JFK & JBC; and then you'll need these
THREE separate bullet wounds miraculously LINING UP to near perfection to
align nicely so as to mirror the SBT, and FOOL EVERYBODY ON EARTH into
believing your three-shooter, three-bullets scenario could SEEM like just
one missile had caused all this damage.
No, "you'll" need to ask for these things because you want to suggest
a foolish scenario so you can then ask "Odds please?" and get the
answer you want.
Post by David VP
Odds please?
Obviously it'll be impossible. (Or certainly VERY highly improbable.)
So why suggest such a scenario or ask anyone to offer odds?
Bizarre reasoning.
A CT scenario with all shots from behind by one shooter is perfectly
reasonable.
PF
r***@gmail.com
2005-04-09 04:11:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Fokes
On Fri, 08 Apr 2005 17:45:46 -0400, Peter Fokes
Post by Peter Fokes
Post by David VP
I want to see a "re-creation" of the CT alternative to the SBT.
No, what you are really saying is that you want to see a re-creation
of a very "specific CT scenario" as outlined "by you" below.
Post by David VP
And I want
to see if the THREE-BULLETS-MERGING-INTO-ONE scenario can be
duplicated.
Post by Peter Fokes
Excuse me...long day....corrected typos
Post by Peter Fokes
A rather fanciful idea. Why postulate something you know cannot be
true? To create a strawman? Do you beat up scarecrows when you are
bored too? Lol!
Post by David VP
You'll need THREE riflemen firing from rear & front;
No, "you'll" need three rifleman since it is your scenario.
Post by David VP
and then firing THREE
separate bullets into the bodies of JFK & JBC; and then you'll need these
THREE separate bullet wounds miraculously LINING UP to near
perfection to
Post by Peter Fokes
Post by Peter Fokes
Post by David VP
align nicely so as to mirror the SBT, and FOOL EVERYBODY ON EARTH into
believing your three-shooter, three-bullets scenario could SEEM like just
one missile had caused all this damage.
No, "you'll" need to ask for these things because you want to
suggest
Post by Peter Fokes
Post by Peter Fokes
a foolish scenario so you can then ask "Odds please?" and get the
answer you want.
Post by David VP
Odds please?
Obviously it'll be impossible. (Or certainly VERY highly
improbable.)
Post by Peter Fokes
Post by Peter Fokes
So why suggest such a scenario or ask anyone to offer odds?
Bizarre reasoning.
A CT scenario with all shots from behind by one shooter is perfectly
reasonable.
PF
This guy sounds very familiar. Is that you Snork?

Rob
f***@aol.com
2005-04-09 04:18:41 UTC
Permalink
Say, David, that's the first time I've seen the supposed title of
Bugliosi's book. Do you have any more information about it? I've come
across brief asides pertaining to it Bugliosi's book "Outrage" and an
episode of "Unsolved History", but that's it. What else do you know
about it?

Many thanks!
David VP
2005-04-09 04:08:15 UTC
Permalink
"No, "you'll" need three rifleman since it is your scenario."
Bull!
The wounds in the two men ARE where they ARE! I didn't MAKE UP where
the wounds are. We can easily SEE where the wounds are located on the
two victims.

YOU will need an alternate scenario to place the KNOWN WOUND LOCATIONS
into a NON-SBT scenario. And it can ONLY be done if you wish to believe
that THREE separate gunmen and THREE separate bullets dotted the two
victims with wounds that incredibly LINE UP to near perfection to make
a SBT even a possibility. (Even to have these three shots make a SBT
even REMOTELY probable/possible is highly unlikely, and anyone with
more than 0.1 oz. of gray matter knows it.)
"A CT scenario with all shots from behind by one shooter is
perfectly reasonable."

LOL! Then you obviously believe in the SBT. You can't have just ONE
rear shooter (LHO or otherwise), with no frontal gunman, and NOT have a
SBT. The timing via the Z-Film will not permit this obviously. Plus the
fact that no whole bullets were found in JFK.

ANY idiotic morons planning a "hit" on the President who would be
STUPID enough to fire not one, but TWO, low-powered rounds into JFK
(back & neck wounds which CTers say never exited) deserve the "BOOBS OF
THE YEAR" award for 1963!

What IDIOTS would desire to use non-lethal low-powered weapons that
fire bullets just inches into the back of the victim?? ANY pro "hit" on
JFK would have utilized high-powered (if not automatic) weaponry to
ensure success within seconds of the shooting's beginning.
Anthony Marsh
2005-04-09 04:16:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by elmjack44
That's right. The SBT works perfectly well with your huge WC shoehorn.
PLUS -- There's the fact that NONE of these THREE missiles are ever seen
again! And the fact that JFK had NO whole bullets left in his
neck/back.
What happened to the 'missile' recovered at autopsy, as reported by
Sibert and O'Neill?????????????????
The 'missle' [sic] recovered turned out to be two lead core bullet
fragments removed from the brain.
Post by elmjack44
You have the audacity to say that no missiles were ever seen
again!!!!!!!!!!! Yet it's right there in the evidence. I guess, silly
me, that like everyone else they must've been wrong. Instead of handing
them a bullet, it was actually a bag of potato chips. Their mistake.
No one said it was a bullet. Missile is not the same thing as bullet.
That's why they said missile and not bullet.
Post by elmjack44
You ignore any evidence you can't twist and distort into the WC
scenario. My God!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
elmjack44
2005-04-09 14:30:03 UTC
Permalink
Bull. You know it. I know it.
elmjack44
2005-04-09 14:31:04 UTC
Permalink
Did Sibert and O'Neill use the word "missle"?????????

Here's the stupid quote from the post again, for you shoehorning WC
Post by David VP
PLUS -- There's the fact that NONE of these THREE missiles are ever
seen again! And the fact that JFK had NO whole bullets left in his
neck/back.

You make blatant false statements like that and then try to explain it
away days later.

This is just your baseless shoehorning opinion:
The 'missle' [sic] recovered turned out to be two lead core bullet
fragments removed from the brain.
Anthony Marsh
2005-04-12 18:39:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by elmjack44
Did Sibert and O'Neill use the word "missle"?????????
Here's the stupid quote from the post again, for you shoehorning WC
Post by David VP
PLUS -- There's the fact that NONE of these THREE missiles are ever
seen again! And the fact that JFK had NO whole bullets left in his
neck/back.
You make blatant false statements like that and then try to explain it
away days later.
The 'missle' [sic] recovered turned out to be two lead core bullet
fragments removed from the brain.
Learn to quote correctly. We have no idea what you are talking about,
who said what and what YOU are adding.
The two FBI agents who took possession of the 'missle' testified that it
was indeed two fragments removed from the brain, as did everyone else
involved.
elmjack44
2005-04-12 22:22:08 UTC
Permalink
What are YOU talking about, buddy????

The quotes are in blue and my text is in black. What exactly is the
problem here?????????
Anthony Marsh
2005-04-13 05:09:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by elmjack44
What are YOU talking about, buddy????
The quotes are in blue and my text is in black. What exactly is the
problem here?????????
There, you did it again. You are not quoting and identifying who said
what. Use my reply as a guide.
Anthony Marsh
2005-04-09 04:17:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by David VP
them myself, for every point he's made I agree with and was saying aloud
to myself before ever reading them.
Another point re. any miraculous "3 Shots Line Up Perfectly To Seem Like A
SBT" bull that the CTers wish to believe --- I've yet to hear EVEN ONE
CTer explain the likelihood of THREE DIFFERENT GUNMEN AND THREE SEPARATE
BULLETS causing the wounds in JFK & JBC and miraculously having ALL of
these wounds LINE UP to perfection in order to (apparently, per CTers)
"fool" Specter & the WC into just THINKING that maybe these THREE separate
shots by THREE gunmen (2 rear; 1 in front) were actually caused by just a
single LHO missile.
You seem a little confused. The FBI and every other investigation before
the WC had concluded that the President and Governor Connally were hit
by separate bullets. The WC itself was prepared to endorse that
conclusion in its final report. Then Specter realized that there was not
enough time for the lone shooter to have fired the two separate shots,
so he dreamed up the SBT.

And the wounds do not line up to perfection. That is fiction. Connally's
wound was far to the right of Kennedy's, indicating the shot came from a
different window.
And it is not really necessary to have three gunmen from the rear or 2
gunmen from the rear and one from the front just for the torso wounds.
They can all be caused by two gunmen from the rear.
Post by David VP
The odds of the above occurring if three riflemen had performed this
amazing CONNECT-THE-WOUNDS feat is so low as to be totally dismissed after
one second of thought time.
Of course they are if you artificially construct a strawman argument
designed to be impossible.
Post by David VP
PLUS -- There's the fact that NONE of these THREE missiles are ever seen
again! And the fact that JFK had NO whole bullets left in his neck/back.
And WHO says that these missiles are never seen again? What about CE
399? Do you think it was a plant? It does not have to be the Specter
Single Bullet.
And I notice that YOU do not account for the bullet which the WC said
missed. Neither will Bugliosi.
Post by David VP
And CTers actually think this THREE GUNMEN & THREE BULLETS CAUSING A
PERFECT "SBT RUSE" makes MORE logical sense than just one bullet
traversing JFK/JBC. Absolutely incredible CT idiocy!
Vincent Bugliosi will pull no punches in "FINAL VERDICT: THE SIMPLE TRUTH
IN THE KILLING OF JFK" for the sake of softening the blow for the silly
CTers. Vince will hammer the CTs hard; and rightly so.
Keep dreaming.
Post by David VP
Dale Myers' DVD Preview below (excellent stuff) ........
http://www.jfkfiles.com/jfk/html/video_preview.htm
David VP
2005-04-09 14:28:26 UTC
Permalink
"And I notice that YOU do not account for the bullet which the WC
said missed. Neither will Bugliosi."

I'm not following you here. It makes no sense if you're referring to
the "accounting" of a MISSED (lost) bullet. Of course we don't have
that PHYSICAL bullet. The chances of that stray bullet being recovered
(which struck no victims) would be very low (and obviously was).

As for "accounting" for it in the sense of the shooting timeline -- of
course it IS "accounted" for -- it was Shot #1, which either was fired
too quickly by Oswald when his rifle was in a "too high" position
(accounting for the Tague strike) -- or: more likely, it hit the Oak
Tree branch/limb and was deflected.

Why do you say I haven't "accounted" for it?

And Mr. Bugliosi will undoubtedly be purporting something very similar
to what I just relayed above.
"And WHO says that these missiles are never seen again? What about
CE399? Do you think it was a plant?"

Obviously I do not. When I said ALL THREE missiles go AWOL, it was for
the ALTERNATE CT purposes (because in a CT theory lacking the CE399
SBT, ALL THREE bullets DO go AWOL, with NOT one of what the CTers think
are the REAL bullets in the case getting into the official record.
"The FBI and every other investigation before the WC had concluded
that the President and Governor Connally were hit by separate bullets."

Yes, but newer (better) enhancements of the Z-Film have VERIFIED that
Specter's "Theory" is more-than-likely the correct one (without fail).

The WC was hamstrung, yes -- by the STUPID fact of not being allowed to
see the autopsy X-rays and photos (except Earl Warren that is -- but I
assume he DID NOT see anything on those pics that spelled out
"Conspiracy") -- and the "Election '64" deadline that they adhered to
-- and the lack of present-day enhancements that have unquestionably
led researchers to the fact that the SBT is certainly a DOABLE act, and
probably the ONLY way the shooting occurred.

But even though HAMSTRUNG by all these setbacks -- further study into
the case still hasn't refuted Specter's theory, or the LN Theory as a
whole.

It's only been STRENGTHENED by present-day technology, in fact.
Anthony Marsh
2005-04-12 22:15:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by David VP
"And I notice that YOU do not account for the bullet which the WC
said missed. Neither will Bugliosi."
I'm not following you here. It makes no sense if you're referring to
the "accounting" of a MISSED (lost) bullet. Of course we don't have
that PHYSICAL bullet. The chances of that stray bullet being recovered
(which struck no victims) would be very low (and obviously was).
It's called a double standard. WC defenders demand that conspiracy
believers account for all their bullets. Yet they can not account for
the shot which the WC said missed. Where is that bullet?
Post by David VP
As for "accounting" for it in the sense of the shooting timeline -- of
course it IS "accounted" for -- it was Shot #1, which either was fired
too quickly by Oswald when his rifle was in a "too high" position
(accounting for the Tague strike) -- or: more likely, it hit the Oak
Tree branch/limb and was deflected.
Prove that it was shot #1. You know that the WC was not sure which shot
it was.
Show me on the Oak tree where it was hit. And tell me at which frame
number the shooter would be shooting through the tree to hit the
President. Surely you don't fall for the Magic Twig theory where the
tree branch strips off the jacket entirely so that the lead core hits
near Tague? That is physically impossible and no one has ever replicated
such a wacky idea.
Post by David VP
Why do you say I haven't "accounted" for it?
Because you are a WC defender and you try to get away with guessing and
then demand that everyone accept your guesses at the absolute truth.
Post by David VP
And Mr. Bugliosi will undoubtedly be purporting something very similar
to what I just relayed above.
Bugliosi is very good at guessing.
Post by David VP
"And WHO says that these missiles are never seen again? What about
CE399? Do you think it was a plant?"
Obviously I do not. When I said ALL THREE missiles go AWOL, it was for
the ALTERNATE CT purposes (because in a CT theory lacking the CE399
SBT, ALL THREE bullets DO go AWOL, with NOT one of what the CTers think
are the REAL bullets in the case getting into the official record.
That is not true. Many CT theories include CE 399 and the fragments.
Post by David VP
"The FBI and every other investigation before the WC had concluded
that the President and Governor Connally were hit by separate bullets."
Yes, but newer (better) enhancements of the Z-Film have VERIFIED that
Specter's "Theory" is more-than-likely the correct one (without fail).
Wrong. False assumptions.
Post by David VP
The WC was hamstrung, yes -- by the STUPID fact of not being allowed to
see the autopsy X-rays and photos (except Earl Warren that is -- but I
assume he DID NOT see anything on those pics that spelled out
How in the hell could Earl Warren know if the autopsy photos and X-rays
spelled out conspiracy? Especially when all the "experts" have made so
many mistakes over the years?
Post by David VP
"Conspiracy") -- and the "Election '64" deadline that they adhered to
-- and the lack of present-day enhancements that have unquestionably
led researchers to the fact that the SBT is certainly a DOABLE act, and
probably the ONLY way the shooting occurred.
All SBTs proposed so far are physically impossible. Wrong angles. Wrong
times.
Post by David VP
But even though HAMSTRUNG by all these setbacks -- further study into
the case still hasn't refuted Specter's theory, or the LN Theory as a
whole.
It's only been STRENGTHENED by present-day technology, in fact.
Only in your imagination.
David VP
2005-04-13 05:14:35 UTC
Permalink
"Because you are a WC defender and you try to get away with guessing
and then demand that everyone accept your guesses at the absolute truth."

Oh sure. Like NO CTer has ever "guessed" about a certain CT scenario. LOL!
LOL!

Give me a friggin' break!

ALL the CTers do is "guess" -- night and day -- day and night.

EVERY conspiracy theory is a "guess", pure & simple. As opposed to
rock-solid logical FACTS and solid evidence (like 399 and C2766 and Oswald
HIMSELF).

The CTs have --- NO bullets; NO gunman/gunmen; NO gun(s); NO witnesses who
saw ANY other shooter OTHER than Oswald; NO nothing!

Why should ANYONE buy ANY CT over the WC version? I cannot fathom such a
mindset. It's hilarious!
"That is not true. Many CT theories include CE 399 and the
fragments."

Really? I've yet to hear ONE. In fact, I'm usually laughed at at length by
even MENTIONING the term "CE399".

NO CTer I've ever run across believes that bullet 399 was involved in the
actual shooting (mainly due to the lack of trace evidence on it -- which,
I admit, is odd -- and is one of the top things I'm anxious to hear Mr.
Bugliosi's take on -- which will, unquestionably, be a valid and
well-thought-out and well-researched POV).
Anthony Marsh
2005-04-13 19:21:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by David VP
"Because you are a WC defender and you try to get away with guessing
and then demand that everyone accept your guesses at the absolute truth."
Oh sure. Like NO CTer has ever "guessed" about a certain CT scenario. LOL!
LOL!
Give me a friggin' break!
Nope. If you complain about Cters guessing about things, then I will
complain about WC defenders guessing about things.
Post by David VP
ALL the CTers do is "guess" -- night and day -- day and night.
Not true.
Post by David VP
EVERY conspiracy theory is a "guess", pure & simple. As opposed to
rock-solid logical FACTS and solid evidence (like 399 and C2766 and Oswald
HIMSELF).
No, conspiracy is a physical fact, not a guess. We can speculate about
WHO was behind the conspiracy, as the WC defenders secretly do all the time.
Post by David VP
The CTs have --- NO bullets; NO gunman/gunmen; NO gun(s); NO witnesses who
saw ANY other shooter OTHER than Oswald; NO nothing!
CTers have the bullets and gun. Many witnesses. You want to argue about
which witnesses are perfect and which are nuts?
Post by David VP
Why should ANYONE buy ANY CT over the WC version? I cannot fathom such a
mindset. It's hilarious!
ANYONE? You mean, like, 90% of the population?
Post by David VP
"That is not true. Many CT theories include CE 399 and the
fragments."
Really? I've yet to hear ONE. In fact, I'm usually laughed at at length by
even MENTIONING the term "CE399".
Oh really? You mean that you never heard of the Modified Single Bullet
Theory (now public domain)?
Post by David VP
NO CTer I've ever run across believes that bullet 399 was involved in the
actual shooting (mainly due to the lack of trace evidence on it -- which,
I admit, is odd -- and is one of the top things I'm anxious to hear Mr.
Bugliosi's take on -- which will, unquestionably, be a valid and
well-thought-out and well-researched POV).
Well, just goes to prove that you haven't been around much. The HSCA
conspiracy conclusion REQUIRES that CE 399 be the SB.
The lack of trace evidence is not odd at all when you consider the
sloppiness of the FBI's evidence handling. How many fragments have been
LOST or DESTROYED over the years?
David VP
2005-04-15 03:02:22 UTC
Permalink
" We can speculate about WHO was behind the conspiracy, as the WC
defenders secretly do all the time."

You think that I am "secretly" discussing who was involved in a conspiracy
I'm sure never existed in the first place, eh?

Most curious notion indeed.
Anthony Marsh
2005-04-16 03:10:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by David VP
" We can speculate about WHO was behind the conspiracy, as the WC
defenders secretly do all the time."
You think that I am "secretly" discussing who was involved in a conspiracy
I'm sure never existed in the first place, eh?
Did I say YOU? I said as the WC defenders secretly do all the time. They
think Castro was behind it.
Post by David VP
Most curious notion indeed.
t***@yahoo.com
2005-04-06 14:40:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Russ Burr
Most if not all the WC defenders know full well that the WCR, was in part, a
cover-up by the FBI and CIA to protect the information about the Kennedy
assassination plots and sabtotage toward Castro and his government. Had that
I have to admit that is the best explaination of the WC I have heard,
one that takes into account the things we now know for sure. But I also
remember a day when any mention of cover-up was dismissed.

As far as what you said in that section I agree, I just believe there
is more to it.


Darque
(-)
Russ Burr
2005-04-06 15:42:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Russ Burr
Post by Russ Burr
Most if not all the WC defenders know full well that the WCR, was in
part, a
Post by Russ Burr
cover-up by the FBI and CIA to protect the information about the
Kennedy
Post by Russ Burr
assassination plots and sabtotage toward Castro and his government.
Had that
I have to admit that is the best explaination of the WC I have heard,
one that takes into account the things we now know for sure. But I also
remember a day when any mention of cover-up was dismissed.
As far as what you said in that section I agree, I just believe there
is more to it.
Perhaps there is. Do you have any ideas that we can discuss?

Russ
Post by Russ Burr
Darque
(-)
tomnln
2005-04-06 19:37:59 UTC
Permalink
If you read Book V of the Church Committee you will find that the plans to
kill
Castro belonged to the CIA, NOT Kennedy.
Post by Russ Burr
Post by Russ Burr
Most if not all the WC defenders know full well that the WCR, was in
part, a
Post by Russ Burr
cover-up by the FBI and CIA to protect the information about the
Kennedy
Post by Russ Burr
assassination plots and sabtotage toward Castro and his government.
Had that
I have to admit that is the best explaination of the WC I have heard,
one that takes into account the things we now know for sure. But I also
remember a day when any mention of cover-up was dismissed.
As far as what you said in that section I agree, I just believe there
is more to it.
Darque
(-)
elmjack44
2005-04-03 14:50:24 UTC
Permalink
Hi Michael.
See, the point of my posting was only to show how obvious it is that
there was a conspiracy if you didn't try to shoehorn everything into
the WC scenario.

Since there was never a full and proper examination of the neck wound,
we have no way of answering your questions except with supposition. The
most important detail, though, is simple. Again, the only medical
personnel to see the wound described it as a wound of entrance. NOT A
SINGLE ONE described it as an exit wound. The autopsists deemed it an
exit wound after JFK's body was already gone. They never examined it
properly--seeing it only as a tracheostomy (sp?) incision.

As for when the shot was fired, JFK comes out of the Stemmons sign
reacting, so it occured within that time frame.
Chad Zimmerman
2005-04-03 02:21:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by elmjack44
The funniest thing about dealing with rabid WC adherents is the
complete lack of basic logic. It never fails to amaze me how much
chutzpah these "true-believers" have instead of just using the
intelligence with which they were born.
Every time there's a new round of TV specials and/or new books
relegating LHO to history's doghouse I just have to laugh. Here's why.
They all do the same thing, namely try to shoehorn all the 'evidence'
into the ridiculous WC scenario. If any witness disagrees with their
'evidence', they are simply said to be wrong. If the ballistic
'evidence' doesn't match up...hey, let's hammer it into a scenario
that'll work with the WC conclusions, no matter how ridiculous it is.
My goodness!!
Of course, the most hilarious part of these efforts are the
junk-psychology wrap-ups at the end of the program or book. You know,
how people believe in a conspiracy because they simply can't accept the
fact that some young, 'smirking' man could've caused this much grief on
a nation. Um...OK. You're right, (add narrator name like Dan Rather or
Peter Jennings here), there is no evidence of a conspiracy. I just
can't emotionally come to terms with it. You got me!!
Here's what I would like to see. How about an investigation that
doesn't attempt to make everything fit into a pre-existing WC scenario.
Look at everything from a fresh perspective with no biases.
Interview as many witnesses from Dealey Plaza as possible. Police
statements, FBI statements, newspaper interviews and so on and so
forth. What do you get?
A. It seems a ton of people heard shots originating from behind the
President. For instance, Howard Brennan said they came from the TSBD.
B. It seems a ton of other people heard shots originating from in front
of the President. For instance, Abe Zapruder and the Newman family said
the shots seemed to come from behind them--tantamount to the Grassy
Knoll area.
There are many, many more witnesses who point to either the front or
the back scenarios. You can't simply dismiss one of these groups of
people. A single person can certainly be mistaken, but it is completely
illogical to say ALL who saw/heard the same thing are wrong. Also, a
large percentage of witnesses heard 2 shots that were very close
together. Bang! Bang! LHO's rifle could not have fired both.
Conclusion: Shots came from a minimum of 2 different locations.
How many of those witnesses reported hearing shots from 2 different
locations? Or, did almost all of them report ALL the shots from one
location? If they heard shots only at one location and you say there were
shots from another location, then how'd they mask the effect of shots
originating from multiple locations?
Post by elmjack44
Earnestly interview the doctors and medical personnel from Parkland
Hospital in Dallas. First, they are the ONLY PEOPLE to see the neck
wound before it was obliterated. This is of unbelievable importance.
Every account I have seen puts the wound as an extremely small hole of
entrance. It is a FACT that the autopsy doctors did not know there was
a bullet wound in the neck. They made no efforts to track it.
Untrue. They tried to probe the wound in upper back and the probe would
not transit. This isn't unusual. They were unaware of the anterior wound
because of the tracheotomy. However, given the lack of metallic debris,
you can reasonably assume that the projectile fully transited the spine.
The other consideration is that he was hit once in the back, once in the
neck and nary a trace of either bullet was found. That is unreasonable.

The wound was small because the shirt collar prevented the expansion of
the tissue necessary for creating the larger wound. This is not
unexpected, yet often overlooked.

Emergency physicians get the wounds wrong 50% of the time.

Witnesses
Post by elmjack44
to the autopsy say the back wound was very shallow, only as deep as the
tip of the autopsist's finger.
Yep, there are several muscles in one's body in that area. Kennedy was in
one position when shot and in another when autopsied. Those muscles moved
and the path with them. Again, not an unreasonable event.

Speaking of the back wound. It was well
Post by elmjack44
below the base of the neck.
How do you know that? Shoulders move and JFK's were quite elevated when
his x-rays were taken.

The WC used incredibly deceptive
Post by elmjack44
illustrations of a bullet wound in the base of the NECK, not lower down
the BACK.
That's because that's where it was.
Post by elmjack44
NOTHING, I mean NOTHING, connects the back wound with the neck wound.
Except a straight line of damage from one point to the other: Bullet hole
at the base of the neck, bruised strap muscles, bruised apex of the right
lung, fractured right transverse process of T1, a nick in the trachea at
the level of the third or fourth tracheal ring and another bullet hole in
the anterior neck.

Except for all that, you're right.
Post by elmjack44
The only reason it was invented was to make it fir the WC 3 bullet
scenario. The autopsists did nothing to tie the two wounds to the same
bullet.
Baloney, see above.
Post by elmjack44
Conclusion: The bullet hole to the neck was one of entrance. The ONLY
people who saw it described it as such. Shots came from a minimum of 2
different locations.
Yep, and that is the primary reasons why autopsies are performed, because
emergency personel don't get that right- they are in the business of
saving lives, not documenting and probing wounds.
Post by elmjack44
Examine the Zapruder film. Emerging from the Stemmons sign, JFK is
already reacting to his neck wound.
That is debateable. His elbow actually drops for one frame before his arms
raise up. The first obvious sign is when his arms begin raising, which is
within one frame of Connally's first obvious reaction.

Connally is then struck with a
Post by elmjack44
bullet. His reaction at the moment he is hit is right there for
everyone to see. Connally was adamant that he was shot by a different
bullet than the one that hit JFK.
No, he was adamant that he wasn't hit by the first bullet. He never saw
JFK, so he wouldn't know.

He never backed down from that and
Post by elmjack44
the Zapruder film proves him correct.
You have your facts a bit skewed.

What's so hard to understand? The
Post by elmjack44
only reason the SBT was born was to fit the shooting into the WC
scenario.
Yeah, it was borne to fit the evidence. Funny thing how that works like
that in almost every single case ever tried in the United States.
Post by elmjack44
Logic dictates that one bullet hit JFK in the back and a
separate bullet hit Connally.
Logic also puts it the other way. It is a matter of whose logic you prefer.
Post by elmjack44
At one point (forgot which Z frame) JFK moves unnaturally forward in
1/18 of a second. It is very logical to assume he has, at that moment,
been struck in the back.
People don't move forward noticeably (especially in that grainy Zfilm)
when hit in the torso by a projectile.

It's a very simple concept.
Post by elmjack44
Just before the head shot at Z313, JFK again moves unnaturally forward
in 1/18 of a second.
Huh? His head moves forward, then his head, neck and back all move
backwards at the same rate.

He is then driven violently backward as his head
Post by elmjack44
seemingly explodes.
Yes, this magic bullet that hit his head made his entire torso fly
backwards, and yet all the large debris was blown forward of JFK. That's
quite a magic bullet.

This fits in perfectly with witnesses hearing 2
Post by elmjack44
almost simultaneous shots.
Yet no evidence exists of that scenario.

One hits JFK from behind and one hits him
Post by elmjack44
from the front. Again, this is simple logic. The BS of 'jet effect' is
laughable. It was created to try to make things fit the WC scenario.
It was created to explain something that happened where the alternate
explanation of a shot from the front was laughable and does not fit known
ballistic or spatter principles.

It
Post by elmjack44
doesn't stand up to reason. In a couple of Z frames you can see the
'volcano' area at the back of JFK's head--hair pointed outward.
Obviously an exit wound.
You need to stop reading Groden's dialogue.
Post by elmjack44
Conclusion: Shots came from a minimum of 2 different locations.
And yet the witnesses reported that the shots originated from one
location, not two.
Post by elmjack44
I could go on and on, but I'll stop with these 3 steps. Simple facts.
Not as simple as you think.
Post by elmjack44
Simple conclusions. If the true-believing WC buffoons would just start
looking at the evidence with a clean slate, maybe we would get somewhat
closer to what happened that terrible day.
It's all simple when you ignore so much- then bother to call others
baffoons simply because you've chosen to limit the information that you've
used to arrive at a conclusion.

Chad
elmjack44
2005-04-03 14:53:03 UTC
Permalink
Ha! Ha! Ha!
This guy, Chad, is exactly who I am talking about. For those who
questioned who the WC buffs were. It's all WC all the time.

I'll be brief while discussing his ridiculous statements:

"Emergency physicians get the wounds wrong 50% of the time."
Really??? Wow, WC apologists are opening up whole new areas of facts.
In the face of that fact, it's funny how all the doctors and medical
personnel "mis-saw" the wounds in the same way. What an wonderful
coincidence. But, of course, they must all be wrong. That's logical.

"> NOTHING, I mean NOTHING, connects the back wound with the neck
wound.

Except a straight line of damage from one point to the other: Bullet
hole
at the base of the neck, bruised strap muscles, bruised apex of the
right
lung, fractured right transverse process of T1, a nick in the trachea
at
the level of the third or fourth tracheal ring and another bullet hole
in
the anterior neck."

Bull!! Once again, the autopsists DID NOT properly examine the wound
and had no idea of a bullet wound to the neck!!! This is a FACT, Chad.

The rest of your post is just filled with nonsense. I talk about
logical conclusions from a variety of different angles and you just
trot out the WC mantra again. You even claim the bullet wound is in the
back of his neck, NOT in his back. How can anyone talk to someone who
can't accept basic facts? According to you, JFK must have been taking
off his shirt over his head at the time of the shooting. That would
make the holes in his shirt and jacket match up to your WC scenario.

I was hoping to post this thread for some good conversation. Obviously
I was wrong. If anyone else has actual insight to offer, and not WC BS,
please feel free to keep the thread going...
Anthony Marsh
2005-04-04 03:06:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by elmjack44
Ha! Ha! Ha!
This guy, Chad, is exactly who I am talking about. For those who
questioned who the WC buffs were. It's all WC all the time.
You have to forgive Chad. He "got religion." He claims that he was
originally a conspiracy believer, but recently saw the error of his
ways. So he overcompensates and claims that the WC was perfect.
Some of his statements are ridiculous, but some are quite correct.
Post by elmjack44
"Emergency physicians get the wounds wrong 50% of the time."
Really??? Wow, WC apologists are opening up whole new areas of facts.
Well, guess what? It's true. Studies have shown that ER doctors are
wrong about half the time in judging gunshot wounds.
Post by elmjack44
In the face of that fact, it's funny how all the doctors and medical
personnel "mis-saw" the wounds in the same way. What an wonderful
coincidence. But, of course, they must all be wrong. That's logical.
Not "all" the doctors and medical personnel saw the wounds exactly in
the same way. Many thought that the throat wound was an entrance wound,
because it was so neat and small. But that it typical of that type of
exit wound from the WCC ammo.
And as a side note, sometimes many people will be wrong in exactly the
same way, because they all share the same preconceived notion. The same
training.
Post by elmjack44
"> NOTHING, I mean NOTHING, connects the back wound with the neck
wound.
Except a straight line of damage from one point to the other: Bullet hole
at the base of the neck, bruised strap muscles, bruised apex of the right
lung, fractured right transverse process of T1, a nick in the trachea at
the level of the third or fourth tracheal ring and another bullet hole in
the anterior neck."
Bull!! Once again, the autopsists DID NOT properly examine the wound
and had no idea of a bullet wound to the neck!!! This is a FACT, Chad.
Correct, but he is pointing out what later investigations concluded, not
what the autopsy doctors concluded from their flawed examination.
Post by elmjack44
The rest of your post is just filled with nonsense. I talk about
logical conclusions from a variety of different angles and you just
trot out the WC mantra again. You even claim the bullet wound is in the
back of his neck, NOT in his back. How can anyone talk to someone who
Have you bothered reading his Web page? Chad is on a mission to verbally
move up the back wound in order to make the SBT possible.
Post by elmjack44
can't accept basic facts? According to you, JFK must have been taking
off his shirt over his head at the time of the shooting. That would
make the holes in his shirt and jacket match up to your WC scenario.
At least he doesn't make JFK a hunchback the way Lattimer did.
Post by elmjack44
I was hoping to post this thread for some good conversation. Obviously
I was wrong. If anyone else has actual insight to offer, and not WC BS,
please feel free to keep the thread going...
That's why I am here.
For at least two reasons, the throat wound can NOT be an entrance wound.
First, there is no decent angle for a shot from the front which could
get around the windshield. Second, the acoustical evidence points to
only one shot from the front, the one which hit the head.
Chad Zimmerman
2005-04-04 03:11:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by elmjack44
Ha! Ha! Ha!
This guy, Chad, is exactly who I am talking about. For those who
questioned who the WC buffs were. It's all WC all the time.
"Emergency physicians get the wounds wrong 50% of the time."
Really??? Wow, WC apologists are opening up whole new areas of facts.
I didn't open it up, Vincent DiMaio published it in 'Gunshot Wounds:
Practical Aspects of Firearms, Ballistics, and Forensic Techniques', 2nd
Edition, 1999, page 256.

"In a study of 46 cases of fatal multiple or exiting gunshot wounds by
Collins and Lantz, 24 (52.2%) were misinterpreted by trauma specialists
(emergency medicine, trauma surgery and neurosurgery physicians."

Go take it up with them.
Post by elmjack44
In the face of that fact, it's funny how all the doctors and medical
personnel "mis-saw" the wounds in the same way.
Yes, they saw a small wound in the low anterior neck. Small wounds are
considered to be entrance wounds. No wonder they thought that. However,
small wounds can also be exit wounds.

And, they all didn't necessarily agree to the location of the head wound.
Some were occipital and temporal. Some were parietal. Basically, they all
saw the right side of his head blown out. No qualms there. It was.

What an wonderful
Post by elmjack44
coincidence. But, of course, they must all be wrong. That's logical.
The fact is that they very well may have been wrong as to the specifics.
That is the primary reason why autopsies are done- because the life saving
physicians and staff make mistakes. They are human. Treat them as such.
Post by elmjack44
"> NOTHING, I mean NOTHING, connects the back wound with the neck
wound.
Except a straight line of damage from one point to the other: Bullet hole
at the base of the neck, bruised strap muscles, bruised apex of the right
lung, fractured right transverse process of T1, a nick in the trachea at
the level of the third or fourth tracheal ring and another bullet hole in
the anterior neck."
Bull!!
Really? You have evidence that none of that really existed? Post it.

Once again, the autopsists DID NOT properly examine the wound
Post by elmjack44
and had no idea of a bullet wound to the neck!!! This is a FACT, Chad.
They could not probe the wound for fear of making a false passage and
obscuring the wounds. Again, not uncommon. They should've dissected the
neck, but didn't. There were lots of things that they should've done, but
didn't. However, none of that means that they made up findings out of thin
air or falsified their report for the sake of some conspiracy.

The facts are as I stated. There was a wound track evidenced by a
correlation of damage. After finally hearing that there was a wound in the
front, the rest made perfect sense. It is sure more plausible than any
alternative scenario that I've ever read. Why don't you provide one that
leaves zero traces of metallic debris and a straight line correlation of
wound damage.
Post by elmjack44
The rest of your post is just filled with nonsense.
That usually means that you cannot refute it so you don't bother with
trying.
Post by elmjack44
I talk about
logical conclusions
Huh? Your logic with your conclusions and rife with problems that you
don't want to address.

from a variety of different angles and you just
Post by elmjack44
trot out the WC mantra again.
Yep. I've studied this far more than you.

You even claim the bullet wound is in the
Post by elmjack44
back of his neck, NOT in his back.
It is at the anatomical base of his neck- C7/T1. Call it whatever you
wish. Either 'upper back' or 'lower neck' works just fine.
Post by elmjack44
How can anyone talk to someone who
can't accept basic facts?
And you are familiar with the work I've done relating to these very issues?
Post by elmjack44
According to you, JFK must have been taking
off his shirt over his head at the time of the shooting.
Nope. Do you always put words in other people's mouths?
Post by elmjack44
That would
make the holes in his shirt and jacket match up to your WC scenario.
Not needed.
Post by elmjack44
I was hoping to post this thread for some good conversation. Obviously
I was wrong.
Not really, you just keep telling me what I think and erase the pertinent
discussion while crying that nobody wants to talk to you. You just don't
want to hear anything that contradicts your original post.
Post by elmjack44
If anyone else has actual insight to offer, and not WC BS,
please feel free to keep the thread going...
LOL. If the WC said it, then it is automatically wrong, eh? Nice approach.
You are going to have a hard time finding solutions if you throw out the
entire 26 volumes in favor of Hollywood ballistics.

Chad
John
2005-04-03 02:29:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by elmjack44
The funniest thing about dealing with rabid WC adherents is the
complete lack of basic logic. It never fails to amaze me how much
chutzpah these "true-believers" have instead of just using the
intelligence with which they were born.
Every time there's a new round of TV specials and/or new books
relegating LHO to history's doghouse I just have to laugh. Here's why.
They all do the same thing, namely try to shoehorn all the 'evidence'
into the ridiculous WC scenario. If any witness disagrees with their
'evidence', they are simply said to be wrong. If the ballistic
'evidence' doesn't match up...hey, let's hammer it into a scenario
that'll work with the WC conclusions, no matter how ridiculous it is.
My goodness!!
Of course, the most hilarious part of these efforts are the
junk-psychology wrap-ups at the end of the program or book. You know,
how people believe in a conspiracy because they simply can't accept the
fact that some young, 'smirking' man could've caused this much grief on
a nation. Um...OK. You're right, (add narrator name like Dan Rather or
Peter Jennings here), there is no evidence of a conspiracy. I just
can't emotionally come to terms with it. You got me!!
Here's what I would like to see. How about an investigation that
doesn't attempt to make everything fit into a pre-existing WC scenario.
Look at everything from a fresh perspective with no biases.
Interview as many witnesses from Dealey Plaza as possible. Police
statements, FBI statements, newspaper interviews and so on and so
forth. What do you get?
A. It seems a ton of people heard shots originating from behind the
President. For instance, Howard Brennan said they came from the TSBD.
B. It seems a ton of other people heard shots originating from in front
of the President. For instance, Abe Zapruder and the Newman family said
the shots seemed to come from behind them--tantamount to the Grassy
Knoll area.
There are many, many more witnesses who point to either the front or
the back scenarios. You can't simply dismiss one of these groups of
people. A single person can certainly be mistaken, but it is completely
illogical to say ALL who saw/heard the same thing are wrong. Also, a
large percentage of witnesses heard 2 shots that were very close
together. Bang! Bang! LHO's rifle could not have fired both.
Conclusion: Shots came from a minimum of 2 different locations.
Earnestly interview the doctors and medical personnel from Parkland
Hospital in Dallas. First, they are the ONLY PEOPLE to see the neck
wound before it was obliterated. This is of unbelievable importance.
Every account I have seen puts the wound as an extremely small hole of
entrance. It is a FACT that the autopsy doctors did not know there was
a bullet wound in the neck. They made no efforts to track it. Witnesses
to the autopsy say the back wound was very shallow, only as deep as the
tip of the autopsist's finger. Speaking of the back wound. It was well
below the base of the neck. The WC used incredibly deceptive
illustrations of a bullet wound in the base of the NECK, not lower down
the BACK.
NOTHING, I mean NOTHING, connects the back wound with the neck wound.
The only reason it was invented was to make it fir the WC 3 bullet
scenario. The autopsists did nothing to tie the two wounds to the same
bullet.
Conclusion: The bullet hole to the neck was one of entrance. The ONLY
people who saw it described it as such. Shots came from a minimum of 2
different locations.
Examine the Zapruder film. Emerging from the Stemmons sign, JFK is
already reacting to his neck wound. Connally is then struck with a
bullet. His reaction at the moment he is hit is right there for
everyone to see. Connally was adamant that he was shot by a different
bullet than the one that hit JFK. He never backed down from that and
the Zapruder film proves him correct. What's so hard to understand? The
only reason the SBT was born was to fit the shooting into the WC
scenario. Logic dictates that one bullet hit JFK in the back and a
separate bullet hit Connally.
At one point (forgot which Z frame) JFK moves unnaturally forward in
1/18 of a second. It is very logical to assume he has, at that moment,
been struck in the back. It's a very simple concept.
Just before the head shot at Z313, JFK again moves unnaturally forward
in 1/18 of a second. He is then driven violently backward as his head
seemingly explodes. This fits in perfectly with witnesses hearing 2
almost simultaneous shots. One hits JFK from behind and one hits him
from the front. Again, this is simple logic. The BS of 'jet effect' is
laughable. It was created to try to make things fit the WC scenario. It
doesn't stand up to reason. In a couple of Z frames you can see the
'volcano' area at the back of JFK's head--hair pointed outward.
Obviously an exit wound.
Conclusion: Shots came from a minimum of 2 different locations.
I could go on and on, but I'll stop with these 3 steps. Simple facts.
Simple conclusions. If the true-believing WC buffoons would just start
looking at the evidence with a clean slate, maybe we would get somewhat
closer to what happened that terrible day.
The annoying thing about some of the LNTs is that they write their
conclusions as if it is just so obvious that LHO acted alone and the rest
of us are just to blind to see the truth. There is so much evidence
contradicotng the WC conclusions that it is not obvious that LHO acted
alone.

Even if LHO was what the WC said he was, any rational person who thought
about the evidence would have to conclude that the conspiracy could have
been a possibility.

John
t***@yahoo.com
2005-04-09 04:06:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by John
The annoying thing about some of the LNTs is that they write their
conclusions as if it is just so obvious that LHO acted alone and the rest
of us are just to blind to see the truth. There is so much evidence
contradicting the WC conclusions that it is not obvious that LHO acted
alone.
I think that is just the natural result of believing in the official
story. They can stand up and scoff since they have the WC, HSCA, and
other 'august bodies' backing up their claims. The burden of proof
remains on us, those who do not accept the official story to prove that
we are correct and they are wrong.

The LNTs I appreciate are those who at least admit there are reasons to
doubt, and who are willing to look at any new evidence with an open
mind.
Post by John
Even if LHO was what the WC said he was, any rational person who thought
about the evidence would have to conclude that the conspiracy could have
been a possibility.
I would say Probable. This is especially true given what we now know,
evidence destroyed! (by the FBI, the Oswald note to Hosty), vital
information kept from the WC (all the Castro activities which provide
one hell of a potential motive), the witnesses not interviewed who saw
things differently than the official story, and most of all, LBJ's
private phone calls where he never asked anyone to get to the Truth.

In fact I would like to toss out a challenge. Does anyone know of any
phone converstation that LBJ had following the murder where he told
anyone involved in the WC to be sure that we knew the truth. When I
first started listening I expected to hear him say something along the
lines of 'We need to be sure we have the full truth, we must know
beyond a shadow of a doubt that LHO was the lone killer'. Since I never
heard/read anything like that it leaves me with the feeling that all he
wanted was a rubber-stamp on the FBI report which, again from his own
words, we know decided that LHO acted alone within days of the murder.



Darque
(-)
t***@yahoo.com
2005-04-09 04:06:59 UTC
Permalink
I missed your comment to me Russ but to respond to your question I
think the key element not investigated was the Anti-Castro Cubans who
were in this country to be trained. I would imagine you are aware of
much of that history.

We had in this country a bunch of people who we trained to fight, this
same bunch felt great anger towards President Kennedy as a result both
of the Bay of Pigs and the events that followed. They had motive,
training, weapons, and information from the CIA to guide them. They
were a weapon, and one that wanted to throw itself against Castro but
could not because we would not let them try a second time. That makes
them a perfect instrument to use to kill the President. They were not
citizens of the USA, they have little in the way of paper-trail, and
were protected by the CIA.

I believe that involvement by the Anti-Castro Cubans would be
covered-up by people in the Intelligence community to protect
themselves. We know that things were being done back then that were
both illegal and immoral.


Darque
(-)
David VP
2005-04-09 14:29:44 UTC
Permalink
"Say, David, that's the first time I've seen the supposed title of
Bugliosi's book. Do you have any more information about it?"

The publisher has reported that it should be published by May 2006.
However, this webpage ........

http://www.pmalitfilm.com/2005.html

......... indicates it'll see the light of day in November 2005.
(Scroll all the way to the very bottom of that page above.)

Either way -- it's coming. And it'll END all the CT talk IMO. (Well,
probably not -- but it'll end it for all "reasonable thinking"
individuals, IMO.) :)

This webpage (scroll down to "Picks Of The Week" for November 22,
2004)........

http://www.jagnew.com/200411.htm

....... also hints at a 11/2005 release (and that obviously came from
Vince himself, who had just been interviewed that day by Michael
Dresser, radio talk-show host; so THAT info should be quite accurate,
coming from the author himself as it no doubt did).

Here's an Amazon link to Mr. Bugliosi's upcoming JFK Bible. They still
have the 1998 title listed (which, apparently, has been revised to "THE
SIMPLE TRUTH IN THE KILLING OF JFK" subtitle).

My pre-release thoughts are also listed there, along with some V.B.
quotes over the years. ........

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0393045250/102-9264632-9063316?v=glance&ref=ed_oe_h&st=*
Anthony Marsh
2005-04-12 22:15:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by David VP
"Say, David, that's the first time I've seen the supposed title of
Bugliosi's book. Do you have any more information about it?"
The publisher has reported that it should be published by May 2006.
However, this webpage ........
And you kept telling us that you had the authoritative word on when it
would be coming out. And you keep changing the date.
Post by David VP
http://www.pmalitfilm.com/2005.html
......... indicates it'll see the light of day in November 2005.
(Scroll all the way to the very bottom of that page above.)
Don't hold your breath.
Post by David VP
Either way -- it's coming. And it'll END all the CT talk IMO. (Well,
probably not -- but it'll end it for all "reasonable thinking"
individuals, IMO.) :)
This webpage (scroll down to "Picks Of The Week" for November 22,
2004)........
http://www.jagnew.com/200411.htm
....... also hints at a 11/2005 release (and that obviously came from
Vince himself, who had just been interviewed that day by Michael
Dresser, radio talk-show host; so THAT info should be quite accurate,
coming from the author himself as it no doubt did).
Of course it will be linked to the anniversary of the assassination, to
make money off of the tragedy. Exactly how many millions of dollars did
Bugliosi get for the advance, to live off of for the past 25 years?
Post by David VP
Here's an Amazon link to Mr. Bugliosi's upcoming JFK Bible. They still
have the 1998 title listed (which, apparently, has been revised to "THE
SIMPLE TRUTH IN THE KILLING OF JFK" subtitle).
My pre-release thoughts are also listed there, along with some V.B.
quotes over the years. ........
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0393045250/102-9264632-9063316?v=glance&ref=ed_oe_h&st=*
Brandon Alexander
2005-04-14 02:32:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by elmjack44
Look at everything from a fresh perspective with no biases.
It is not bias to accept good evidence. There is no attitude we can
have that will make good evidence bad or vice versa.
Post by elmjack44
Interview as many witnesses from Dealey Plaza as possible. Police
statements, FBI statements, newspaper interviews and so on and so
forth. What do you get?
A. It seems a ton of people heard shots originating from behind the
President. For instance, Howard Brennan said they came from the TSBD.
B. It seems a ton of other people heard shots originating from in front
of the President. For instance, Abe Zapruder and the Newman family said
the shots seemed to come from behind them--tantamount to the Grassy
Knoll area.
There are many, many more witnesses who point to either the front or
the back scenarios. You can't simply dismiss one of these groups of
people.
Nor can one simply dismiss the evidence, hard, verifiable evidence,
that proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that the shots killing Kennedy
came form the rear and only from the rear.

The difference is the evidence we have is solid; the recollections of
the groups of people you refer to are not as reliable.
Post by elmjack44
A single person can certainly be mistaken, but it is completely
illogical to say ALL who saw/heard the same thing are wrong.
There is no limit on the number of people whose recollections can be
in error. The notion that there is is illogical.
Post by elmjack44
Also, a
large percentage of witnesses heard 2 shots that were very close
together. Bang! Bang! LHO's rifle could not have fired both.
Percentages don't make facts. It's not a popularity contest or an
election. We shouldn't say these many people saw or heard something or
other so therefore it must be true.

Eyewitness recollection is the least dependable kind of evidence.

If you have a man lying in they alley with a bloody gunshot to the
head, and one eyewitness says he was shot; but there are 2
eyewitnesses say he was hit by a car, which do you rely on?
Post by elmjack44
Conclusion: Shots came from a minimum of 2 different locations.
Earnestly interview the doctors and medical personnel from Parkland
Hospital in Dallas.
Are you saying the doctors weren't "earnestly" interviewed? If so,
what does that mean? Of course you realize they have been interviewed
over and over again, and none of them has ever said anything that
would alter the forensic evidence we now have.
Post by elmjack44
First, they are the ONLY PEOPLE to see the neck
wound before it was obliterated. This is of unbelievable importance.
Every account I have seen puts the wound as an extremely small hole of
entrance. It is a FACT that the autopsy doctors did not know there was
a bullet wound in the neck. They made no efforts to track it.
They did know there had been a bullet wound there. They did not track
it, correct. But they did realize that a wound had been there. And you
have to understand, once the wound was obliterated by the tracheotomy
no one could ever see it again.
Post by elmjack44
Witnesses
to the autopsy say the back wound was very shallow, only as deep as the
tip of the autopsist's finger.
The notion that "witnesses" to that autopsy could have any more
accurate information about the autopsy than the doctors themselves is
lunatic.
Post by elmjack44
Speaking of the back wound. It was well
below the base of the neck. The WC used incredibly deceptive
illustrations of a bullet wound in the base of the NECK, not lower down
the BACK.
NOTHING, I mean NOTHING, connects the back wound with the neck wound.
The only reason it was invented was to make it fir the WC 3 bullet
scenario. The autopsists did nothing to tie the two wounds to the same
bullet.
Conclusion: The bullet hole to the neck was one of entrance. The ONLY
people who saw it described it as such.
Wrong. The Parkland doctor who said that has repeatedly retracted it
over the years.
Post by elmjack44
Shots came from a minimum of 2
different locations.
Examine the Zapruder film. Emerging from the Stemmons sign, JFK is
already reacting to his neck wound. Connally is then struck with a
bullet. His reaction at the moment he is hit is right there for
everyone to see. Connally was adamant that he was shot by a different
bullet than the one that hit JFK.
Wrong. He was adamant he was not hit by the first shot he heard. In
fact in his later years he admitted that if he and Kennedy were hit by
the same shot it would have to be the second shot, not the first which
he heard and had time to react to.
Post by elmjack44
He never backed down from that
In point of fact he did back down; but only because so many people,
including apparently you, had misinterpreted his statement.
Post by elmjack44
and
the Zapruder film proves him correct. What's so hard to understand? The
only reason the SBT was born was to fit the shooting into the WC
scenario. Logic dictates that one bullet hit JFK in the back and a
separate bullet hit Connally.
No logic does not. Logic dictates that the shot that hit Kennedy in
the neck from the rear must have gone somewhere. Logic dictates that
it did not simply vanish. And logic dictates that its final
destination was somewhere in the car. That's what logic dictates.
Post by elmjack44
At one point (forgot which Z frame) JFK moves unnaturally forward in
1/18 of a second. It is very logical to assume he has, at that moment,
been struck in the back. It's a very simple concept.
Just before the head shot at Z313, JFK again moves unnaturally forward
in 1/18 of a second. He is then driven violently backward as his head
seemingly explodes. This fits in perfectly with witnesses hearing 2
almost simultaneous shots. One hits JFK from behind and one hits him
from the front. Again, this is simple logic. The BS of 'jet effect' is
laughable. It was created to try to make things fit the WC scenario. It
doesn't stand up to reason. In a couple of Z frames you can see the
'volcano' area at the back of JFK's head--hair pointed outward.
Obviously an exit wound.
Conclusion: Shots came from a minimum of 2 different locations.
I could go on and on, but I'll stop with these 3 steps. Simple facts.
You have not come in with facts. You have come in with suppositions.
When one recognizes the facts one is forced to agree with the Warren
Commission's conclusions. Remember, please, the facts don't belong to
the WC. They belong to all of us.
Post by elmjack44
Simple conclusions. If the true-believing WC buffoons would just start
looking at the evidence with a clean slate, maybe we would get somewhat
closer to what happened that terrible day.
Not so simple, and definitely not conclusive. You can't look at
evidence with a "clean slate." The evidence is there. There is nothing
in our attitude or approach to it that can change it one way or the
other. It's a fact that Lee Oswald's rifle was the only one found, and
ammunitions traced to it were the only ballistics found. Those are
facts. There is no eraser big enough to wipe them out; nor should
there be. What you are asking for is what CT's have always attempted
to achieve; a revision of history. What you are asking for is neither
prudent nor possible.

Why don't you go back and study that work instead of taking pot-shots
based on things you've heard and read?

You know what I've found? And it's no wonder: 85% or so of the
American public believes in a conspiracy...and only 7% of the American
public has studied "earnestly" the Warren Commission Hearings.

If you have read, learned, marked, and inwardly digested more than two
of the 36 volumes I'll eat my hat. Give it a try. You might sleep
better. Even if you don't, you'll realize it was above all fair and
exhaustive. They got it right. Time has proven that.

Al.






.
tomnln
2005-04-14 04:51:15 UTC
Permalink
TOTALLY WRONG

The 26 volumes PROVE that the authorities & Medis Lied & Destroyed
Evidence.

FELONIES
Post by Brandon Alexander
Post by elmjack44
Look at everything from a fresh perspective with no biases.
It is not bias to accept good evidence. There is no attitude we can
have that will make good evidence bad or vice versa.
Post by elmjack44
Interview as many witnesses from Dealey Plaza as possible. Police
statements, FBI statements, newspaper interviews and so on and so
forth. What do you get?
A. It seems a ton of people heard shots originating from behind the
President. For instance, Howard Brennan said they came from the TSBD.
B. It seems a ton of other people heard shots originating from in front
of the President. For instance, Abe Zapruder and the Newman family said
the shots seemed to come from behind them--tantamount to the Grassy
Knoll area.
There are many, many more witnesses who point to either the front or
the back scenarios. You can't simply dismiss one of these groups of
people.
Nor can one simply dismiss the evidence, hard, verifiable evidence,
that proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that the shots killing Kennedy
came form the rear and only from the rear.
The difference is the evidence we have is solid; the recollections of
the groups of people you refer to are not as reliable.
Post by elmjack44
A single person can certainly be mistaken, but it is completely
illogical to say ALL who saw/heard the same thing are wrong.
There is no limit on the number of people whose recollections can be
in error. The notion that there is is illogical.
Post by elmjack44
Also, a
large percentage of witnesses heard 2 shots that were very close
together. Bang! Bang! LHO's rifle could not have fired both.
Percentages don't make facts. It's not a popularity contest or an
election. We shouldn't say these many people saw or heard something or
other so therefore it must be true.
Eyewitness recollection is the least dependable kind of evidence.
If you have a man lying in they alley with a bloody gunshot to the
head, and one eyewitness says he was shot; but there are 2
eyewitnesses say he was hit by a car, which do you rely on?
Post by elmjack44
Conclusion: Shots came from a minimum of 2 different locations.
Earnestly interview the doctors and medical personnel from Parkland
Hospital in Dallas.
Are you saying the doctors weren't "earnestly" interviewed? If so,
what does that mean? Of course you realize they have been interviewed
over and over again, and none of them has ever said anything that
would alter the forensic evidence we now have.
Post by elmjack44
First, they are the ONLY PEOPLE to see the neck
wound before it was obliterated. This is of unbelievable importance.
Every account I have seen puts the wound as an extremely small hole of
entrance. It is a FACT that the autopsy doctors did not know there was
a bullet wound in the neck. They made no efforts to track it.
They did know there had been a bullet wound there. They did not track
it, correct. But they did realize that a wound had been there. And you
have to understand, once the wound was obliterated by the tracheotomy
no one could ever see it again.
Post by elmjack44
Witnesses
to the autopsy say the back wound was very shallow, only as deep as the
tip of the autopsist's finger.
The notion that "witnesses" to that autopsy could have any more
accurate information about the autopsy than the doctors themselves is
lunatic.
Post by elmjack44
Speaking of the back wound. It was well
below the base of the neck. The WC used incredibly deceptive
illustrations of a bullet wound in the base of the NECK, not lower down
the BACK.
NOTHING, I mean NOTHING, connects the back wound with the neck wound.
The only reason it was invented was to make it fir the WC 3 bullet
scenario. The autopsists did nothing to tie the two wounds to the same
bullet.
Conclusion: The bullet hole to the neck was one of entrance. The ONLY
people who saw it described it as such.
Wrong. The Parkland doctor who said that has repeatedly retracted it
over the years.
Post by elmjack44
Shots came from a minimum of 2
different locations.
Examine the Zapruder film. Emerging from the Stemmons sign, JFK is
already reacting to his neck wound. Connally is then struck with a
bullet. His reaction at the moment he is hit is right there for
everyone to see. Connally was adamant that he was shot by a different
bullet than the one that hit JFK.
Wrong. He was adamant he was not hit by the first shot he heard. In
fact in his later years he admitted that if he and Kennedy were hit by
the same shot it would have to be the second shot, not the first which
he heard and had time to react to.
Post by elmjack44
He never backed down from that
In point of fact he did back down; but only because so many people,
including apparently you, had misinterpreted his statement.
Post by elmjack44
and
the Zapruder film proves him correct. What's so hard to understand? The
only reason the SBT was born was to fit the shooting into the WC
scenario. Logic dictates that one bullet hit JFK in the back and a
separate bullet hit Connally.
No logic does not. Logic dictates that the shot that hit Kennedy in
the neck from the rear must have gone somewhere. Logic dictates that
it did not simply vanish. And logic dictates that its final
destination was somewhere in the car. That's what logic dictates.
Post by elmjack44
At one point (forgot which Z frame) JFK moves unnaturally forward in
1/18 of a second. It is very logical to assume he has, at that moment,
been struck in the back. It's a very simple concept.
Just before the head shot at Z313, JFK again moves unnaturally forward
in 1/18 of a second. He is then driven violently backward as his head
seemingly explodes. This fits in perfectly with witnesses hearing 2
almost simultaneous shots. One hits JFK from behind and one hits him
from the front. Again, this is simple logic. The BS of 'jet effect' is
laughable. It was created to try to make things fit the WC scenario. It
doesn't stand up to reason. In a couple of Z frames you can see the
'volcano' area at the back of JFK's head--hair pointed outward.
Obviously an exit wound.
Conclusion: Shots came from a minimum of 2 different locations.
I could go on and on, but I'll stop with these 3 steps. Simple facts.
You have not come in with facts. You have come in with suppositions.
When one recognizes the facts one is forced to agree with the Warren
Commission's conclusions. Remember, please, the facts don't belong to
the WC. They belong to all of us.
Post by elmjack44
Simple conclusions. If the true-believing WC buffoons would just start
looking at the evidence with a clean slate, maybe we would get somewhat
closer to what happened that terrible day.
Not so simple, and definitely not conclusive. You can't look at
evidence with a "clean slate." The evidence is there. There is nothing
in our attitude or approach to it that can change it one way or the
other. It's a fact that Lee Oswald's rifle was the only one found, and
ammunitions traced to it were the only ballistics found. Those are
facts. There is no eraser big enough to wipe them out; nor should
there be. What you are asking for is what CT's have always attempted
to achieve; a revision of history. What you are asking for is neither
prudent nor possible.
Why don't you go back and study that work instead of taking pot-shots
based on things you've heard and read?
You know what I've found? And it's no wonder: 85% or so of the
American public believes in a conspiracy...and only 7% of the American
public has studied "earnestly" the Warren Commission Hearings.
If you have read, learned, marked, and inwardly digested more than two
of the 36 volumes I'll eat my hat. Give it a try. You might sleep
better. Even if you don't, you'll realize it was above all fair and
exhaustive. They got it right. Time has proven that.
Al.
.
tomnln
2005-04-14 04:52:50 UTC
Permalink
TOTALLY WRONG.

The 26 volumes prove the authorities & media lied & destroyed evidence.

there are 26 supplemental volumes to the warren commission hearings NOT
36.
Post by Brandon Alexander
Post by elmjack44
Look at everything from a fresh perspective with no biases.
It is not bias to accept good evidence. There is no attitude we can
have that will make good evidence bad or vice versa.
Post by elmjack44
Interview as many witnesses from Dealey Plaza as possible. Police
statements, FBI statements, newspaper interviews and so on and so
forth. What do you get?
A. It seems a ton of people heard shots originating from behind the
President. For instance, Howard Brennan said they came from the TSBD.
B. It seems a ton of other people heard shots originating from in front
of the President. For instance, Abe Zapruder and the Newman family said
the shots seemed to come from behind them--tantamount to the Grassy
Knoll area.
There are many, many more witnesses who point to either the front or
the back scenarios. You can't simply dismiss one of these groups of
people.
Nor can one simply dismiss the evidence, hard, verifiable evidence,
that proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that the shots killing Kennedy
came form the rear and only from the rear.
The difference is the evidence we have is solid; the recollections of
the groups of people you refer to are not as reliable.
Post by elmjack44
A single person can certainly be mistaken, but it is completely
illogical to say ALL who saw/heard the same thing are wrong.
There is no limit on the number of people whose recollections can be
in error. The notion that there is is illogical.
Post by elmjack44
Also, a
large percentage of witnesses heard 2 shots that were very close
together. Bang! Bang! LHO's rifle could not have fired both.
Percentages don't make facts. It's not a popularity contest or an
election. We shouldn't say these many people saw or heard something or
other so therefore it must be true.
Eyewitness recollection is the least dependable kind of evidence.
If you have a man lying in they alley with a bloody gunshot to the
head, and one eyewitness says he was shot; but there are 2
eyewitnesses say he was hit by a car, which do you rely on?
Post by elmjack44
Conclusion: Shots came from a minimum of 2 different locations.
Earnestly interview the doctors and medical personnel from Parkland
Hospital in Dallas.
Are you saying the doctors weren't "earnestly" interviewed? If so,
what does that mean? Of course you realize they have been interviewed
over and over again, and none of them has ever said anything that
would alter the forensic evidence we now have.
Post by elmjack44
First, they are the ONLY PEOPLE to see the neck
wound before it was obliterated. This is of unbelievable importance.
Every account I have seen puts the wound as an extremely small hole of
entrance. It is a FACT that the autopsy doctors did not know there was
a bullet wound in the neck. They made no efforts to track it.
They did know there had been a bullet wound there. They did not track
it, correct. But they did realize that a wound had been there. And you
have to understand, once the wound was obliterated by the tracheotomy
no one could ever see it again.
Post by elmjack44
Witnesses
to the autopsy say the back wound was very shallow, only as deep as the
tip of the autopsist's finger.
The notion that "witnesses" to that autopsy could have any more
accurate information about the autopsy than the doctors themselves is
lunatic.
Post by elmjack44
Speaking of the back wound. It was well
below the base of the neck. The WC used incredibly deceptive
illustrations of a bullet wound in the base of the NECK, not lower down
the BACK.
NOTHING, I mean NOTHING, connects the back wound with the neck wound.
The only reason it was invented was to make it fir the WC 3 bullet
scenario. The autopsists did nothing to tie the two wounds to the same
bullet.
Conclusion: The bullet hole to the neck was one of entrance. The ONLY
people who saw it described it as such.
Wrong. The Parkland doctor who said that has repeatedly retracted it
over the years.
Post by elmjack44
Shots came from a minimum of 2
different locations.
Examine the Zapruder film. Emerging from the Stemmons sign, JFK is
already reacting to his neck wound. Connally is then struck with a
bullet. His reaction at the moment he is hit is right there for
everyone to see. Connally was adamant that he was shot by a different
bullet than the one that hit JFK.
Wrong. He was adamant he was not hit by the first shot he heard. In
fact in his later years he admitted that if he and Kennedy were hit by
the same shot it would have to be the second shot, not the first which
he heard and had time to react to.
Post by elmjack44
He never backed down from that
In point of fact he did back down; but only because so many people,
including apparently you, had misinterpreted his statement.
Post by elmjack44
and
the Zapruder film proves him correct. What's so hard to understand? The
only reason the SBT was born was to fit the shooting into the WC
scenario. Logic dictates that one bullet hit JFK in the back and a
separate bullet hit Connally.
No logic does not. Logic dictates that the shot that hit Kennedy in
the neck from the rear must have gone somewhere. Logic dictates that
it did not simply vanish. And logic dictates that its final
destination was somewhere in the car. That's what logic dictates.
Post by elmjack44
At one point (forgot which Z frame) JFK moves unnaturally forward in
1/18 of a second. It is very logical to assume he has, at that moment,
been struck in the back. It's a very simple concept.
Just before the head shot at Z313, JFK again moves unnaturally forward
in 1/18 of a second. He is then driven violently backward as his head
seemingly explodes. This fits in perfectly with witnesses hearing 2
almost simultaneous shots. One hits JFK from behind and one hits him
from the front. Again, this is simple logic. The BS of 'jet effect' is
laughable. It was created to try to make things fit the WC scenario. It
doesn't stand up to reason. In a couple of Z frames you can see the
'volcano' area at the back of JFK's head--hair pointed outward.
Obviously an exit wound.
Conclusion: Shots came from a minimum of 2 different locations.
I could go on and on, but I'll stop with these 3 steps. Simple facts.
You have not come in with facts. You have come in with suppositions.
When one recognizes the facts one is forced to agree with the Warren
Commission's conclusions. Remember, please, the facts don't belong to
the WC. They belong to all of us.
Post by elmjack44
Simple conclusions. If the true-believing WC buffoons would just start
looking at the evidence with a clean slate, maybe we would get somewhat
closer to what happened that terrible day.
Not so simple, and definitely not conclusive. You can't look at
evidence with a "clean slate." The evidence is there. There is nothing
in our attitude or approach to it that can change it one way or the
other. It's a fact that Lee Oswald's rifle was the only one found, and
ammunitions traced to it were the only ballistics found. Those are
facts. There is no eraser big enough to wipe them out; nor should
there be. What you are asking for is what CT's have always attempted
to achieve; a revision of history. What you are asking for is neither
prudent nor possible.
Why don't you go back and study that work instead of taking pot-shots
based on things you've heard and read?
You know what I've found? And it's no wonder: 85% or so of the
American public believes in a conspiracy...and only 7% of the American
public has studied "earnestly" the Warren Commission Hearings.
If you have read, learned, marked, and inwardly digested more than two
of the 36 volumes I'll eat my hat. Give it a try. You might sleep
better. Even if you don't, you'll realize it was above all fair and
exhaustive. They got it right. Time has proven that.
Al.
.
Brandon Alexander
2005-04-16 03:14:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by tomnln
TOTALLY WRONG.
The 26 volumes prove the authorities & media lied & destroyed evidence.
there are 26 supplemental volumes to the warren commission hearings NOT
36.
As I said before if I make a mistake I'll own up to it.

Yes I was wrong. I should have said 27 volumes.

BTW, you are terribly in error as well.

1) It's not correct to say supplemental volumes to; they are the basis
on which the Report is authored
2) the volumes are not supplemental to the hearings, the hearings ARE
in the 26 volumes, along with the exhibits, depositions and other
evidence
3) the Report is one volume. A more correct way to phrase it might be,
"the WC Report and its 26 volumes of hearings and exhibits."
4) Referring to the Warren Commission as "the authorities" is too
broad a brushstroke. How about defining what you mean by that moniker?

and

5) Name one instance where the Warren Commission destroyed evidence
pertinent to the assassination of President Kennedy. Or anybody else in
law enforcement, or in "authority," for that matter. And while you are at
it, make sure you don't just CLAIM THAT THEY DID. Support it with evidence
that can be independently verified by you, me, or anyone else. And if by
some stretch of the imagination you are able to do that, which I know darn
well you can't, then you'd have to show how it changes the facts we
already know about the Kennedy assassination.

That last task's your real problem. In order for what you say to be of any
import, all the facts we know must be eliminated. But they cannot be.

For instance, the fact that Oswald's rifle was found in a place where the
shots were determined to have come from, above and to the rear. The fact
that Oswald worked in the TSBD. The fact that he purchased the rifle...it
belonged to him. The fact that the only munitions found in and around the
motorcade that day came from his rifle. The fact that he was fleeing after
the shooting. The fact that the bullets that killed Tippit came from
Oswald's revolver. The fact that Oswald was depicted in photography taken
by his own camera to the exclusion of all others ever made brandishing
both those same weapons. And, the fact that on the morning of the
assassinatioin, Lee Oswald did something his wife Marina said he'd never
done before; he left behind his wedding ring.

These are all facts that can be independently verified by anyone wishing
to do so. The notion that they can be impuned is spurious.

They are facts that are quite ominously difficult to reconcile if one
starts to postulate Oswald had no major role in the assassination. They
are facts that cannot be changed. And moreover, they are facts which
cannot be dismissed in any investigation of the killing.

Good luck.

Al.
tomnln
2005-04-16 13:50:19 UTC
Permalink
Try these for Openers.....
1. Destroying Oswald's note to Dallas FBI.


2. Destroying Walker back yard photo.


3. Changing Walker bullet from "Steel-Jacketed" to Copper Jacketed.


4. Changing transcript of Oswald's radio debate.


5. Lying when claiming Paper for gun bag matched TSBD paper.


6. Lying by stating Oswald had NO connection to CIA.


7. Lying about Oswald going to Mexico City.


8. Stealing body from Dallas jusisdiction under Gunpoint.


9. Stealing Limo from Dallas Jurisdiction.


etc. etc. etc.
Post by Brandon Alexander
Post by tomnln
TOTALLY WRONG.
The 26 volumes prove the authorities & media lied & destroyed evidence.
there are 26 supplemental volumes to the warren commission hearings NOT
36.
As I said before if I make a mistake I'll own up to it.
Yes I was wrong. I should have said 27 volumes.
BTW, you are terribly in error as well.
1) It's not correct to say supplemental volumes to; they are the basis
on which the Report is authored
2) the volumes are not supplemental to the hearings, the hearings ARE
in the 26 volumes, along with the exhibits, depositions and other
evidence
3) the Report is one volume. A more correct way to phrase it might be,
"the WC Report and its 26 volumes of hearings and exhibits."
4) Referring to the Warren Commission as "the authorities" is too
broad a brushstroke. How about defining what you mean by that moniker?
and
5) Name one instance where the Warren Commission destroyed evidence
pertinent to the assassination of President Kennedy. Or anybody else in
law enforcement, or in "authority," for that matter. And while you are at
it, make sure you don't just CLAIM THAT THEY DID. Support it with evidence
that can be independently verified by you, me, or anyone else. And if by
some stretch of the imagination you are able to do that, which I know darn
well you can't, then you'd have to show how it changes the facts we
already know about the Kennedy assassination.
That last task's your real problem. In order for what you say to be of any
import, all the facts we know must be eliminated. But they cannot be.
For instance, the fact that Oswald's rifle was found in a place where the
shots were determined to have come from, above and to the rear. The fact
that Oswald worked in the TSBD. The fact that he purchased the rifle...it
belonged to him. The fact that the only munitions found in and around the
motorcade that day came from his rifle. The fact that he was fleeing after
the shooting. The fact that the bullets that killed Tippit came from
Oswald's revolver. The fact that Oswald was depicted in photography taken
by his own camera to the exclusion of all others ever made brandishing
both those same weapons. And, the fact that on the morning of the
assassinatioin, Lee Oswald did something his wife Marina said he'd never
done before; he left behind his wedding ring.
These are all facts that can be independently verified by anyone wishing
to do so. The notion that they can be impuned is spurious.
They are facts that are quite ominously difficult to reconcile if one
starts to postulate Oswald had no major role in the assassination. They
are facts that cannot be changed. And moreover, they are facts which
cannot be dismissed in any investigation of the killing.
Good luck.
Al.
Anthony Marsh
2005-04-16 19:29:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by tomnln
Try these for Openers.....
1. Destroying Oswald's note to Dallas FBI.
2. Destroying Walker back yard photo.
We can't be sure who destroyed what. Marina may have destroyed some of
the photos.
Post by tomnln
3. Changing Walker bullet from "Steel-Jacketed" to Copper Jacketed.
No change. It was always a copper jacketed WCC. The reports of steel
jacketed were in error.
Post by tomnln
4. Changing transcript of Oswald's radio debate.
Who and how?
Post by tomnln
5. Lying when claiming Paper for gun bag matched TSBD paper.
6. Lying by stating Oswald had NO connection to CIA.
7. Lying about Oswald going to Mexico City.
8. Stealing body from Dallas jusisdiction under Gunpoint.
National Security.
Post by tomnln
9. Stealing Limo from Dallas Jurisdiction.
National Security.
Post by tomnln
etc. etc. etc.
Post by Brandon Alexander
Post by tomnln
TOTALLY WRONG.
The 26 volumes prove the authorities & media lied & destroyed evidence.
there are 26 supplemental volumes to the warren commission hearings NOT
36.
As I said before if I make a mistake I'll own up to it.
Yes I was wrong. I should have said 27 volumes.
BTW, you are terribly in error as well.
1) It's not correct to say supplemental volumes to; they are the basis
on which the Report is authored
2) the volumes are not supplemental to the hearings, the hearings ARE
in the 26 volumes, along with the exhibits, depositions and other
evidence
3) the Report is one volume. A more correct way to phrase it might be,
"the WC Report and its 26 volumes of hearings and exhibits."
4) Referring to the Warren Commission as "the authorities" is too
broad a brushstroke. How about defining what you mean by that moniker?
and
5) Name one instance where the Warren Commission destroyed evidence
pertinent to the assassination of President Kennedy. Or anybody else in
law enforcement, or in "authority," for that matter. And while you are at
it, make sure you don't just CLAIM THAT THEY DID. Support it with evidence
that can be independently verified by you, me, or anyone else. And if by
some stretch of the imagination you are able to do that, which I know darn
well you can't, then you'd have to show how it changes the facts we
already know about the Kennedy assassination.
That last task's your real problem. In order for what you say to be of any
import, all the facts we know must be eliminated. But they cannot be.
For instance, the fact that Oswald's rifle was found in a place where the
shots were determined to have come from, above and to the rear. The fact
that Oswald worked in the TSBD. The fact that he purchased the rifle...it
belonged to him. The fact that the only munitions found in and around the
motorcade that day came from his rifle. The fact that he was fleeing after
the shooting. The fact that the bullets that killed Tippit came from
Oswald's revolver. The fact that Oswald was depicted in photography taken
by his own camera to the exclusion of all others ever made brandishing
both those same weapons. And, the fact that on the morning of the
assassinatioin, Lee Oswald did something his wife Marina said he'd never
done before; he left behind his wedding ring.
These are all facts that can be independently verified by anyone wishing
to do so. The notion that they can be impuned is spurious.
They are facts that are quite ominously difficult to reconcile if one
starts to postulate Oswald had no major role in the assassination. They
are facts that cannot be changed. And moreover, they are facts which
cannot be dismissed in any investigation of the killing.
Good luck.
Al.
tomnln
2005-04-17 01:34:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by tomnln
Try these for Openers.....
1. Destroying Oswald's note to Dallas FBI.
2. Destroying Walker back yard photo.
We can't be sure who destroyed what. Marina may have destroyed some of the
photos.
SEE ATTACHED FBI REPORT & MARINA'S TESTIMONY AND CURRY'S BOOK
Post by tomnln
3. Changing Walker bullet from "Steel-Jacketed" to Copper Jacketed.
No change. It was always a copper jacketed WCC. The reports of steel
jacketed were in error.
SEE ORIGINAL DPD REPORT XXIV 39
Post by tomnln
4. Changing transcript of Oswald's radio debate.
Who and how?
SEE XXI 639
Post by tomnln
5. Lying when claiming Paper for gun bag matched TSBD paper.
6. Lying by stating Oswald had NO connection to CIA.
7. Lying about Oswald going to Mexico City.
8. Stealing body from Dallas jusisdiction under Gunpoint.
National Security.
MORE LIKE "COVER YOUR ASS" Remember Watergate?
Post by tomnln
9. Stealing Limo from Dallas Jurisdiction.
National Security.
MORE LIKE "COVER YOUR ASS" Remember Watergate?
Post by tomnln
etc. etc. etc.
Post by Brandon Alexander
Post by tomnln
TOTALLY WRONG.
The 26 volumes prove the authorities & media lied & destroyed evidence.
there are 26 supplemental volumes to the warren commission hearings NOT
36.
As I said before if I make a mistake I'll own up to it.
Yes I was wrong. I should have said 27 volumes.
BTW, you are terribly in error as well.
1) It's not correct to say supplemental volumes to; they are the basis
on which the Report is authored
2) the volumes are not supplemental to the hearings, the hearings ARE
in the 26 volumes, along with the exhibits, depositions and other
evidence
3) the Report is one volume. A more correct way to phrase it might be,
"the WC Report and its 26 volumes of hearings and exhibits."
4) Referring to the Warren Commission as "the authorities" is too
broad a brushstroke. How about defining what you mean by that moniker?
and
5) Name one instance where the Warren Commission destroyed evidence
pertinent to the assassination of President Kennedy. Or anybody else in
law enforcement, or in "authority," for that matter. And while you are at
it, make sure you don't just CLAIM THAT THEY DID. Support it with evidence
that can be independently verified by you, me, or anyone else. And if by
some stretch of the imagination you are able to do that, which I know darn
well you can't, then you'd have to show how it changes the facts we
already know about the Kennedy assassination.
That last task's your real problem. In order for what you say to be of any
import, all the facts we know must be eliminated. But they cannot be.
For instance, the fact that Oswald's rifle was found in a place where the
shots were determined to have come from, above and to the rear. The fact
that Oswald worked in the TSBD. The fact that he purchased the rifle...it
belonged to him. The fact that the only munitions found in and around the
motorcade that day came from his rifle. The fact that he was fleeing after
the shooting. The fact that the bullets that killed Tippit came from
Oswald's revolver. The fact that Oswald was depicted in photography taken
by his own camera to the exclusion of all others ever made brandishing
both those same weapons. And, the fact that on the morning of the
assassinatioin, Lee Oswald did something his wife Marina said he'd never
done before; he left behind his wedding ring.
These are all facts that can be independently verified by anyone wishing
to do so. The notion that they can be impuned is spurious.
They are facts that are quite ominously difficult to reconcile if one
starts to postulate Oswald had no major role in the assassination. They
are facts that cannot be changed. And moreover, they are facts which
cannot be dismissed in any investigation of the killing.
Good luck.
Al.
Brandon Alexander
2005-04-16 19:43:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by tomnln
Try these for Openers.....
1. Destroying Oswald's note to Dallas FBI.
Didn't change a thing. In fact, the FBI looked even worse because of
it. And it was revealed long after the fact. And it wasn't done by
anybody other than Hosty and Shanklin. And the reason it was done was
not to conceal Oswald's involvement in the assassination...just the
FBI's knowledge of him. WRONG.
Post by tomnln
2. Destroying Walker back yard photo.
I don't even know if that's true and neither do you. What difference
does it make? We still know Oswald shot at Walker.
Post by tomnln
3. Changing Walker bullet from "Steel-Jacketed" to Copper Jacketed.
Didn't happen, and even if it had, it didn't matter. We still have the
rifle, the CE's of Walker's environs taken by Oswald's camera to the
exclusion of all others ever made. We still have Oswald's notebook. We
still have Marina's testimony, the testimony of the DeMohrenschildts,
CE 1, et cetera, et cetera. You're way off base on the Walker
incident. The data we have makes the conclusion Oswald shot at Walker
the inevitable one.
Post by tomnln
4. Changing transcript of Oswald's radio debate.
What the devil does that have to do with anything?
Post by tomnln
5. Lying when claiming Paper for gun bag matched TSBD paper.
Oh gees, this is nuts.
Post by tomnln
6. Lying by stating Oswald had NO connection to CIA.
7. Lying about Oswald going to Mexico City.
8. Stealing body from Dallas jusisdiction under Gunpoint.
9. Stealing Limo from Dallas Jurisdiction.
These aren't worth responding to. First of all, none of them are even
close to the truth. Second, you cannot provide one iota of
corroborative proof to support any of these claims. And third, as I
warned you, none of them refute or change in any way, form, shape or
fashion, the facts we already know are true.

Don't bother. I'm out of this thread.

Al.


.
tomnln
2005-04-17 01:33:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Brandon Alexander
Post by tomnln
Try these for Openers.....
1. Destroying Oswald's note to Dallas FBI.
Didn't change a thing. In fact, the FBI looked even worse because of
it. And it was revealed long after the fact. And it wasn't done by
anybody other than Hosty and Shanklin. And the reason it was done was
not to conceal Oswald's involvement in the assassination...just the
FBI's knowledge of him. WRONG!
THEN WHY LIE? 3 DIFFERENT STORIES OF WHAT THE LETTER CONTAINED:
HOSTY, supervisor Howe & Sec. Nannie Fenner.
Post by Brandon Alexander
Post by tomnln
2. Destroying Walker back yard photo.
I don't even know if that's true and neither do you. What difference
does it make? We still know Oswald shot at Walker.
SEE ATTACHED FBI REPORT & MARINA'S TESTIMONY & CURRY'S BOOK
Post by Brandon Alexander
Post by tomnln
3. Changing Walker bullet from "Steel-Jacketed" to Copper Jacketed.
Didn't happen, and even if it had, it didn't matter. We still have the
rifle, the CE's of Walker's environs taken by Oswald's camera to the
exclusion of all others ever made. We still have Oswald's notebook. We
still have Marina's testimony, the testimony of the DeMohrenschildts,
CE 1, et cetera, et cetera. You're way off base on the Walker
incident. The data we have makes the conclusion Oswald shot at Walker
the inevitable one.
SEE ORIGINAL DPD REPORT XXIV 39
Post by Brandon Alexander
Post by tomnln
4. Changing transcript of Oswald's radio debate.
What the devil does that have to do with anything?
BECAUSE OSWALD "BLEW" HIS COVER.
Post by Brandon Alexander
Post by tomnln
5. Lying when claiming Paper for gun bag matched TSBD paper.
Oh gees, this is nuts.
SEE VI 94, 96 & 97.
Post by Brandon Alexander
Post by tomnln
6. Lying by stating Oswald had NO connection to CIA.
7. Lying about Oswald going to Mexico City.
8. Stealing body from Dallas jusisdiction under Gunpoint.
9. Stealing Limo from Dallas Jurisdiction.
These aren't worth responding to. First of all, none of them are even
close to the truth. Second, you cannot provide one iota of
corroborative proof to support any of these claims. And third, as I
warned you, none of them refute or change in any way, form, shape or
fashion, the facts we already know are true.
Don't bother. I'm out of this thread.
Al.
APPARENTLY YOU HAVEN'T EVEN READ THE REPORT THAT YOU ACCEPT.
Russ Burr
2005-04-17 01:43:03 UTC
Permalink
In article <***@4ax.com>, Brandon Alexander
says...
Post by Brandon Alexander
Post by tomnln
Try these for Openers.....
1. Destroying Oswald's note to Dallas FBI.
Didn't change a thing. In fact, the FBI looked even worse because of
it. And it was revealed long after the fact. And it wasn't done by
anybody other than Hosty and Shanklin. And the reason it was done was
not to conceal Oswald's involvement in the assassination...just the
FBI's knowledge of him. WRONG.
Turned out to bad for Hosty. He was sent to Kansas City just to be the
sacrificial lamb just because of an angry letter written by Oswald,
telling him to stop harassing his wife and little else. And that's a fact,
as well.

And Shanklin was the guy who told Hosty after the assassination to destroy
the note. That was a mistake. But it had no relation to the assassination,
other than to define Oswald's state of mind at that point of time. Lee
liked to have his "show-downs", which he wrote in his Historic Diary more
than once. That's all this was for Oswald. Nothing more. It was certainly
not anything to do with a warning of an assassination. Oswald was no CI of
the FBI as some like to contend.
Post by Brandon Alexander
Post by tomnln
2. Destroying Walker back yard photo.
I don't even know if that's true and neither do you. What difference
does it make? We still know Oswald shot at Walker.
I believe only one was burned. And there were a few still out there.
Oswald didn't ask Marina to take only one photo. His ego wouldn't allow
for that;-)
Post by Brandon Alexander
Post by tomnln
3. Changing Walker bullet from "Steel-Jacketed" to Copper Jacketed.
Didn't happen, and even if it had, it didn't matter. We still have the
rifle, the CE's of Walker's environs taken by Oswald's camera to the
exclusion of all others ever made. We still have Oswald's notebook. We
still have Marina's testimony, the testimony of the DeMohrenschildts,
CE 1, et cetera, et cetera. You're way off base on the Walker
incident. The data we have makes the conclusion Oswald shot at Walker
the inevitable one.
Without a doubt. Not one piece of credible evidence to say otherwise.
Post by Brandon Alexander
Post by tomnln
4. Changing transcript of Oswald's radio debate.
What the devil does that have to do with anything?
Whom and what did they change about it? And why? That's a new one for me.
Post by Brandon Alexander
Post by tomnln
5. Lying when claiming Paper for gun bag matched TSBD paper.
Oh gees, this is nuts.
Post by tomnln
6. Lying by stating Oswald had NO connection to CIA.
7. Lying about Oswald going to Mexico City.
8. Stealing body from Dallas jusisdiction under Gunpoint.
9. Stealing Limo from Dallas Jurisdiction.
These aren't worth responding to. First of all, none of them are even
close to the truth. Second, you cannot provide one iota of
corroborative proof to support any of these claims. And third, as I
warned you, none of them refute or change in any way, form, shape or
fashion, the facts we already know are true.
Don't bother. I'm out of this thread.
Al.
Too bad Al. I was just getting into your posts. Succient and to the point!
And I agree with you 100%. The facts are the facts. You can't deny the
obvious truth of Oswald's past behaviors.

Russ
jessie
2005-04-16 13:57:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Brandon Alexander
Post by tomnln
TOTALLY WRONG.
The 26 volumes prove the authorities & media lied & destroyed evidence.
there are 26 supplemental volumes to the warren commission hearings NOT
36.
As I said before if I make a mistake I'll own up to it.
Yes I was wrong. I should have said 27 volumes.
BTW, you are terribly in error as well.
1) It's not correct to say supplemental volumes to; they are the basis
on which the Report is authored
2) the volumes are not supplemental to the hearings, the hearings ARE
in the 26 volumes, along with the exhibits, depositions and other
evidence
3) the Report is one volume. A more correct way to phrase it might be,
"the WC Report and its 26 volumes of hearings and exhibits."
4) Referring to the Warren Commission as "the authorities" is too
broad a brushstroke. How about defining what you mean by that moniker?
and
5) Name one instance where the Warren Commission destroyed evidence
pertinent to the assassination of President Kennedy. Or anybody else in
law enforcement, or in "authority," for that matter. And while you are at
it, make sure you don't just CLAIM THAT THEY DID. Support it with evidence
that can be independently verified by you, me, or anyone else. And if by
some stretch of the imagination you are able to do that, which I know darn
well you can't, then you'd have to show how it changes the facts we
already know about the Kennedy assassination.
That last task's your real problem. In order for what you say to be of any
import, all the facts we know must be eliminated. But they cannot be.
For instance, the fact that Oswald's rifle was found in a place where the
shots were determined to have come from, above and to the rear. The fact
that Oswald worked in the TSBD. The fact that he purchased the rifle...it
belonged to him. The fact that the only munitions found in and around the
motorcade that day came from his rifle. The fact that he was fleeing after
the shooting. The fact that the bullets that killed Tippit came from
Oswald's revolver. The fact that Oswald was depicted in photography taken
by his own camera to the exclusion of all others ever made brandishing
both those same weapons. And, the fact that on the morning of the
assassinatioin, Lee Oswald did something his wife Marina said he'd never
done before; he left behind his wedding ring.
These are all facts that can be independently verified by anyone wishing
to do so. The notion that they can be impuned is spurious.
They are facts that are quite ominously difficult to reconcile if one
starts to postulate Oswald had no major role in the assassination. They
are facts that cannot be changed. And moreover, they are facts which
cannot be dismissed in any investigation of the killing.
Good luck.
Al.
Did Oswald have his pistol on him when he was captured?

jessie
Brandon Alexander
2005-04-18 21:37:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by jessie
Did Oswald have his pistol on him when he was captured?
jessie
Yes he did. In fact he tried to use it. An officer named Nick McDonald
got his hand caught in the hammer when Oswald attempted to fire at him
during a struggle between the two in the Texas theatre. McDonald was
able to wrestle the weapon away.

Al.


.
tomnln
2005-04-19 02:49:57 UTC
Permalink
REALLY???
Please explain McDonald's MULTIPLE descriptions of his encounter with
Oswald In the Texas Theatere???

It appears that McDonald is Guilty of PERJURY.
Post by Brandon Alexander
Post by jessie
Did Oswald have his pistol on him when he was captured?
jessie
Yes he did. In fact he tried to use it. An officer named Nick McDonald
got his hand caught in the hammer when Oswald attempted to fire at him
during a struggle between the two in the Texas theatre. McDonald was
able to wrestle the weapon away.
Al.
.
tomnln
2005-04-19 04:22:10 UTC
Permalink
GREAT

I just LOVE discussing this subject with someone as well read as your
self.

Please explain WHY McDonald gave TWO (2) different accounts of his
encounter with Oswald inside the Texas Theater??

A "Credible Witness" usually has ONE (1) story ONLY.
Post by Brandon Alexander
Post by jessie
Did Oswald have his pistol on him when he was captured?
jessie
Yes he did. In fact he tried to use it. An officer named Nick McDonald
got his hand caught in the hammer when Oswald attempted to fire at him
during a struggle between the two in the Texas theatre. McDonald was
able to wrestle the weapon away.
Al.
.
Brandon Alexander
2005-04-23 15:12:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by tomnln
GREAT
I just LOVE discussing this subject with someone as well read as your
self.
Please explain WHY McDonald gave TWO (2) different accounts of his
encounter with Oswald inside the Texas Theater??
A "Credible Witness" usually has ONE (1) story ONLY.
What are you talking about? As if I really care.

Whatever it is, I can tell you that the record is unmistakably clear;
Oswald had a pistol on him when he was apprehended in the Texas
Theater.

What in the would are you talking about tomnln?

Al.


.
tomnln
2005-04-24 04:34:31 UTC
Permalink
Thanks for asking;
1. McDonald said someone on stage pointed Oswald out to him.

2. McDonald said someone seated in the audience pointed Oswald out to him.

Witness Applin said the first time he saw a gun, it was in a hand with a
bare arm.
Oswald was wearing a Long Sleeved Shirt.
Post by Brandon Alexander
Post by tomnln
GREAT
I just LOVE discussing this subject with someone as well read as your
self.
Please explain WHY McDonald gave TWO (2) different accounts of his
encounter with Oswald inside the Texas Theater??
A "Credible Witness" usually has ONE (1) story ONLY.
What are you talking about? As if I really care.
Whatever it is, I can tell you that the record is unmistakably clear;
Oswald had a pistol on him when he was apprehended in the Texas
Theater.
What in the would are you talking about tomnln?
Al.
.
Brandon Alexander
2005-05-03 14:59:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by tomnln
Thanks for asking;
1. McDonald said someone on stage pointed Oswald out to him.
2. McDonald said someone seated in the audience pointed Oswald out to him.
Witness Applin said the first time he saw a gun, it was in a hand with a
bare arm.
Oswald was wearing a Long Sleeved Shirt.
And?


.
t***@yahoo.com
2005-04-14 11:14:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Brandon Alexander
It is not bias to accept good evidence. There is no attitude we can
have that will make good evidence bad or vice versa.
Hello Brandon,

I agree with your first statement, but not the second. Most evidence is
not as simple as the distance from point A to B. Most requires a series
of judgements as to how good, or perhaps accurate is a better word, it
is.

A preconception of the conclusion has a very powerful influence on
judgement.

It has been proven to me that in the very formation of the WC there was
preconception, and most importantly in the FBI as it was investigating
they were not looking with open minds. This does not mean the entire
output of the WC is invalid, most of what they did was honest. But
motive is one of the fundamentals of any criminal case and in that area
there were many untruths spoken and sworn to. I believe that at least
one of the actual members of the WC, Mr. Dulles contributed to this
distortion of the process.

So it is a percentage thing, some amount of the evidence and testimony
is correct, but a reasonable question is how much.
Post by Brandon Alexander
What you are asking for is what CT's have always attempted
to achieve; a revision of history. What you are asking for is neither
prudent nor possible.
Indeed we are seeking a revision of History but not in the way I think
you mean the phrase. What happened happened and cannot be changed, what
we believe happened can, and possibly might need to alter. A revision
of History can be a correction.

I kinda wonder if by 'prudent' you are hinting at the magnitude of the
change we are talking about, something that troubles me as well.
Somehow I think you mean 'prudent' as 'common sense' or 'reasonable'
though.


Darque
(-)
Brandon Alexander
2005-04-16 14:03:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by t***@yahoo.com
Post by Brandon Alexander
It is not bias to accept good evidence. There is no attitude we can
have that will make good evidence bad or vice versa.
Hello Brandon,
I agree with your first statement, but not the second. Most evidence is
not as simple as the distance from point A to B.
Evidence is always the same. Either it is or it isn't competent.
Post by t***@yahoo.com
Most requires a series
of judgements as to how good, or perhaps accurate is a better word, it
is.
That's right. And when evidence is found to be competent, or as you
say accurate, one is foolish not to accept it.
Post by t***@yahoo.com
A preconception of the conclusion has a very powerful influence on
judgement.
That's also correct. Take me for example. When I began to study the
Kennedy assassination, I had a preconceived notion that Oswald was
innocent. Wrong.
Post by t***@yahoo.com
It has been proven to me that in the very formation of the WC there was
preconception, and most importantly in the FBI as it was investigating
they were not looking with open minds.
You're confusing an open mind with ignoring evidence. When the WC was
formed a great portion of the evidence against Oswald was ALREADY IN
HAND. They would have been foolish not to start with it. That would
have been like beginning an investigation into the raid on the chicken
coup and not including the local fox.
Post by t***@yahoo.com
This does not mean the entire
output of the WC is invalid, most of what they did was honest. But
motive is one of the fundamentals of any criminal case and in that area
there were many untruths spoken and sworn to. I believe that at least
one of the actual members of the WC, Mr. Dulles contributed to this
distortion of the process.
Dulles protected the CIA at every turn. But if you have evidence that
what he did altered the other evidence, you must put it before the
world or desist referring to it.
Post by t***@yahoo.com
So it is a percentage thing, some amount of the evidence and testimony
is correct, but a reasonable question is how much.
Post by Brandon Alexander
What you are asking for is what CT's have always attempted
to achieve; a revision of history. What you are asking for is neither
prudent nor possible.
Indeed we are seeking a revision of History but not in the way I think
you mean the phrase. What happened happened and cannot be changed, what
we believe happened can, and possibly might need to alter. A revision
of History can be a correction.
That statement borders on the ridiculous. It's so duplicitous it
doesn't warrant consideration. You can 't have it both ways. Either
the data is good or it isn't. If it's good, Oswald is guilty. Why is
that so difficult to understand?
Post by t***@yahoo.com
I kinda wonder if by 'prudent' you are hinting at the magnitude of the
change we are talking about, something that troubles me as well.
Somehow I think you mean 'prudent' as 'common sense' or 'reasonable'
though.
You're absolutely correct. By prudent I do mean reasonable. If one
uses reason one is able to see perfectly clearly that the WC got it
right.

Al.

.
t***@yahoo.com
2005-04-22 01:50:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Brandon Alexander
You're confusing an open mind with ignoring evidence. When the
WC was formed a great portion of the evidence against Oswald
was ALREADY IN HAND. They would have been foolish not to
start with it. That would have been like beginning an investigation
into the raid on the chicken coup and not including the local fox.
No I accept that any investigation or review of one would start with
the primary subpect, this is a given. When I say preconception I am
taking about the decision about what the Conclusion of the review
in advance. While allow some leeway for real investigation it made
sure nothing would go too deep.
Post by Brandon Alexander
Dulles protected the CIA at every turn. But if you have evidence
that what he did altered the other evidence, you must put it before
the world or desist referring to it.
The WC was a legal process, not budget wrangling on the Hill,
'protected'
is a somewhat obscene term in this context. Motive is one of the few
main keys in a crime and it was not open for investigation. I was not
talking about altering the evidence as much as shaping what form the
evidence took a little different but effective in reaching the desired
conculsions.
Post by Brandon Alexander
That statement borders on the ridiculous. It's so duplicitous it
doesn't warrant consideration. You can 't have it both ways. Either
the data is good or it isn't. If it's good, Oswald is guilty. Why is
that so difficult to understand?
That is not difficult to understand, for anybody. It just seems to be
that more people discount the WC than agree with it.

I think I can say it best when I say that some percentage of the
data from the WC is good. The overall conclusion may or may
not be correct put the process was tainted. Since what I would
like to know is who all was involved in the murder of the President
the WC at most proves who pulled a trigger. Even that part of the
conclusion is suspect in most people's eyes.

I do think the strength of this particular part of the message shows
how big this subject really is. I realize the ripples that would come
from something conclusive about this case. I think the massive
nature of such a revision drives some people to resist the idea
just out of fear of the change itself, not a totally irrational fear I
agree.

I do not think Oswald was even a shooter, but I am quite prepared
to learn that he really was. But what that will have to come along
with is the full story of everyone involved. Stealing a line from
another
area of mystery, he was not alone.
Post by Brandon Alexander
You're absolutely correct. By prudent I do mean reasonable. If one
uses reason one is able to see perfectly clearly that the WC got it
right.
Maybe, partially right perhaps.


Darque
(-)
Brandon Alexander
2005-05-04 17:53:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by t***@yahoo.com
No I accept that any investigation or review of one would start with
the primary subpect, this is a given. When I say preconception I am
taking about the decision about what the Conclusion of the review
in advance. While allow some leeway for real investigation it made
sure nothing would go too deep.
If you can prove that you will be doing something no one else has been
able to do. And the primary reason no one has done it, it seems to me,
is that it's just not correct.

There was no preconception...and BTW, who are 'they'? Who are we
talking about here? I have forgotten...but it doesn't matter. Nobody
preconceived anything. Again, the evidence is what led to the
identification, capture and arrest of Lee Oswald; and, it would have
led to his conviction in my view, had he survived.

Even if someone did preconceive something, it wasn't the preconception
which made Oswald suspect. It was the likelihood he fired the shots
that killed Kennedy which made him suspect.

You're missing it seems a point of logistics. If there were some way
to dispense with all the evidence against Oswald someone would have
done it years ago. But the fact is the evidence against Oswald is ROCK
SOLID, and there has been no way to dispense with it. So no matter
what preconceptions there were, their effect on the reality of
Oswald's very apparent guilt is negligible.
Post by t***@yahoo.com
Post by Brandon Alexander
Dulles protected the CIA at every turn. But if you have evidence
that what he did altered the other evidence, you must put it before
the world or desist referring to it.
The WC was a legal process, not budget wrangling on the Hill,
'protected'
is a somewhat obscene term in this context. Motive is one of the few
main keys in a crime and it was not open for investigation.
What do you mean it was not open for investigation? Of course it was.
And it was investigated. Oswald's motivation is covered banally,
sometimes convincingly and sometimes not. Nontheless it was
investigated. The WC went overboard trying to anaylze his motivation
(and his pubic hairs). Other authors have as well. If you need
references I'll be happy to provide them.
Post by t***@yahoo.com
I was not
talking about altering the evidence as much as shaping what form the
evidence took a little different but effective in reaching the desired
conculsions.
The notion that evidence can be "shaped" is scurrilous. "Spin" is the
word bandied about nowadays. But "spin" is only in the eyes of the
beholder. When reasonable people look beyond the "spin" true facts
cannot be hidden, changed, or interpreted. They simply exist. Oswald
ordered that rifle. There is no way to spin that.
Post by t***@yahoo.com
That is not difficult to understand, for anybody. It just seems to be
that more people discount the WC than agree with it.
You're probably right about that. But the reason for that is lack of
understanding, in fact lack of study. Few people who discount it have
any serious familiarity with the Commission's work. Some study a few
years ago revealed that less than 20% of Americans have even read the
Report, let alone studied the accompanying volumes of hearings and
exhibits.
Post by t***@yahoo.com
I think I can say it best when I say that some percentage of the
data from the WC is good. The overall conclusion may or may
not be correct put the process was tainted. Since what I would
like to know is who all was involved in the murder of the President
the WC at most proves who pulled a trigger. Even that part of the
conclusion is suspect in most people's eyes.
Plurality does not equal veracity. It's not a popularity contest or an
election, where you can poll people and find the truth. You have to do
your homework to find it. Once you do you'll find, just as I did, that
the WC was on its most firm ground in the basic conclusion that Oswald
was the assassin.
Post by t***@yahoo.com
I do think the strength of this particular part of the message shows
how big this subject really is. I realize the ripples that would come
from something conclusive about this case. I think the massive
nature of such a revision drives some people to resist the idea
just out of fear of the change itself, not a totally irrational fear I
agree.
I do not think Oswald was even a shooter, but I am quite prepared
to learn that he really was. But what that will have to come along
with is the full story of everyone involved. Stealing a line from
another
area of mystery, he was not alone.
You can think what you like, but unless you have some data to back up
your beliefs they are shallow at best.
Post by t***@yahoo.com
Maybe, partially right perhaps.
Darque
(-)
When you have studied the subject some more things will become clearer
to you. Try this:

http://www.historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh16/html/WH_Vol16_0014b.htm

Do you know what that is? That is a picture taken by Lee Harvey
Oswald's camera, to the exclusion of all other cameras ever made;
which is compelling evidence that the photo was taken by Lee Harvey
Oswald himself. It depicts an alley to the rear of the home of General
Edwin A. Walker, U.S. Army Resigned (who I'm guessing is now also
deceased). The date the photograph was taken can be determined by the
status of the work being done on a skyscraper in the background. With
this piece of evidence the WC was able to conclude that within a month
of the attempt on Walker's life, Oswald was in his backyard, near the
spot from which the sniper fired, taking pictures.

This is just one, terribly small instance of how pervasive and
persuasive the work of the Commission was...and still is.

Al.



.

t***@yahoo.com
2005-04-23 13:32:45 UTC
Permalink
I am sure I responded to this message, not sure what happened to it.
Post by Brandon Alexander
You're confusing an open mind with ignoring evidence. When the WC was
formed a great portion of the evidence against Oswald was ALREADY IN
HAND. They would have been foolish not to start with it. That would
have been like beginning an investigation into the raid on the
chicken
Post by Brandon Alexander
coup and not including the local fox.
No I agree that they had to start with Oswald and that has nothing
to do with what I feel were the original directives. The WC was
specifically
tasked with validating the FBI's report. In no sense was the WC created
as an investigation, they themselves at first did not want to talk to a
single witness.
Post by Brandon Alexander
Dulles protected the CIA at every turn. But if you have evidence that
what he did altered the other evidence, you must put it before the
world or desist referring to it.
Protected? what does that have to do with a criminal proceeding?
What can protected possibily mean other than keeping vital facts
hidden and otherwise not living up to the spirit that should have
been honored in the WC. Is there not evidence that Dulles knew
something about Cuba that he not only did not share, he let the
info slip past when witnesses who SHOULD have testified about
the matters fail to do so? Maybe my personal standards are not
realistic but I feel Mr. Dulles actions were not in the best interest
of the people of the United States of America, of which I happen
to be one.
Post by Brandon Alexander
That statement borders on the ridiculous. It's so duplicitous it
doesn't warrant consideration. You can 't have it both ways. Either
the data is good or it isn't. If it's good, Oswald is guilty. Why is
that so difficult to understand?
Such a strong reaction here, that tells me that you at least understand
the magnitude of the effect if we should ever prove that the WC really
did not get it right. A lot of history to revisit, a lot of personal
struggle
to put it all into perspective. Soooo much easier if it never happened.

This sort of thing is not black and white, each indivdual piece of
evidence has to be judged on it's own. So it is not just a matter
of the data being good or not, the data is tainted to some degree,
few will argue that the WC was done perfectly.

People who do not tell the whole truth will sometimes destroy
evidence. People who have destroyed evidence can also create
new evidence. And since the people who did these things
also have a hand in keeping the documents about it a secret
we do not get to find out until many years later.

This is in no way difficult to understand, I simply see it from a
different point of view than you do. I respect yours even as I
disagree with it.


Darque
(-)
r***@sbcglobal.net
2005-04-23 19:01:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by elmjack44
The funniest thing about dealing with rabid WC adherents is the
complete lack of basic logic. It never fails to amaze me how much
chutzpah these "true-believers" have instead of just using the
intelligence with which they were born.
Every time there's a new round of TV specials and/or new books
relegating LHO to history's doghouse I just have to laugh. Here's why.
They all do the same thing, namely try to shoehorn all the 'evidence'
into the ridiculous WC scenario. If any witness disagrees with their
'evidence', they are simply said to be wrong. If the ballistic
'evidence' doesn't match up...hey, let's hammer it into a scenario
that'll work with the WC conclusions, no matter how ridiculous it is.
My goodness!!
Of course, the most hilarious part of these efforts are the
junk-psychology wrap-ups at the end of the program or book. You know,
how people believe in a conspiracy because they simply can't accept the
fact that some young, 'smirking' man could've caused this much grief on
a nation. Um...OK. You're right, (add narrator name like Dan Rather or
Peter Jennings here), there is no evidence of a conspiracy. I just
can't emotionally come to terms with it. You got me!!
Here's what I would like to see. How about an investigation that
doesn't attempt to make everything fit into a pre-existing WC
scenario.
Post by elmjack44
Look at everything from a fresh perspective with no biases.
Interview as many witnesses from Dealey Plaza as possible. Police
statements, FBI statements, newspaper interviews and so on and so
forth. What do you get?
A. It seems a ton of people heard shots originating from behind the
President. For instance, Howard Brennan said they came from the TSBD.
B. It seems a ton of other people heard shots originating from in front
of the President. For instance, Abe Zapruder and the Newman family said
the shots seemed to come from behind them--tantamount to the Grassy
Knoll area.
There are many, many more witnesses who point to either the front or
the back scenarios. You can't simply dismiss one of these groups of
people. A single person can certainly be mistaken, but it is
completely
Post by elmjack44
illogical to say ALL who saw/heard the same thing are wrong. Also, a
large percentage of witnesses heard 2 shots that were very close
together. Bang! Bang! LHO's rifle could not have fired both.
Conclusion: Shots came from a minimum of 2 different locations.
Earnestly interview the doctors and medical personnel from Parkland
Hospital in Dallas. First, they are the ONLY PEOPLE to see the neck
wound before it was obliterated. This is of unbelievable importance.
Every account I have seen puts the wound as an extremely small hole of
entrance. It is a FACT that the autopsy doctors did not know there was
a bullet wound in the neck. They made no efforts to track it.
Witnesses
Post by elmjack44
to the autopsy say the back wound was very shallow, only as deep as the
tip of the autopsist's finger. Speaking of the back wound. It was well
below the base of the neck. The WC used incredibly deceptive
illustrations of a bullet wound in the base of the NECK, not lower down
the BACK.
NOTHING, I mean NOTHING, connects the back wound with the neck wound.
The only reason it was invented was to make it fir the WC 3 bullet
scenario. The autopsists did nothing to tie the two wounds to the same
bullet.
Conclusion: The bullet hole to the neck was one of entrance. The ONLY
people who saw it described it as such. Shots came from a minimum of 2
different locations.
Examine the Zapruder film. Emerging from the Stemmons sign, JFK is
already reacting to his neck wound. Connally is then struck with a
bullet. His reaction at the moment he is hit is right there for
everyone to see. Connally was adamant that he was shot by a different
bullet than the one that hit JFK. He never backed down from that and
the Zapruder film proves him correct. What's so hard to understand? The
only reason the SBT was born was to fit the shooting into the WC
scenario. Logic dictates that one bullet hit JFK in the back and a
separate bullet hit Connally.
At one point (forgot which Z frame) JFK moves unnaturally forward in
1/18 of a second. It is very logical to assume he has, at that
moment,
Post by elmjack44
been struck in the back. It's a very simple concept.
Just before the head shot at Z313, JFK again moves unnaturally
forward
Post by elmjack44
in 1/18 of a second. He is then driven violently backward as his head
seemingly explodes. This fits in perfectly with witnesses hearing 2
almost simultaneous shots. One hits JFK from behind and one hits him
from the front. Again, this is simple logic. The BS of 'jet effect' is
laughable. It was created to try to make things fit the WC scenario. It
doesn't stand up to reason. In a couple of Z frames you can see the
'volcano' area at the back of JFK's head--hair pointed outward.
Obviously an exit wound.
Conclusion: Shots came from a minimum of 2 different locations.
I could go on and on, but I'll stop with these 3 steps. Simple facts.
Simple conclusions. If the true-believing WC buffoons would just start
looking at the evidence with a clean slate, maybe we would get
somewhat
Post by elmjack44
closer to what happened that terrible day.
***The term buffoon is not scientific.

The front of the shirt had a torn ragged vertical slit. The indication
is that the bullet exited he throat, tearing the fabric as it pushed it
out away from the body. The hole in the back of the shirt has a
rounded hole, indicating that the skin supported the fabric as the
bullet punched through it, into the back of the body.

When the head moves backward it is not leading the body. JFK's right
arm jumps up and falls down after he is shot in the head, indicating a
muscle spasm.

***Ron Judge
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...