A Reason that LNs might avoid the ARRB findings

Post by mainframetech
The ARRB is a word that is rarely used by the conspiracy denialists. Almost as if it were a dirty word that should not be discussed in public. Yet it has yielded great evidence that hadn't been brought out previously.
"Doubts about the Warren Commission's findings were not restricted to ordinary Americans. Well before 1978, President Johnson, Robert Kennedy, and four of the seven members of the Warren Commission all articulated, if sometimes off the record, some level of skepticism about the Commission's basic findings."
From: http://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/review-board/report/chapter-01.pdf
Page 11, note 17

The ARRB did not make any findings. They simple made information available
to the public. It gave the conspiracy hobbyists new toys to play with.

mainframetech

2015-05-20 04:25:35 UTC

The ARRB did not make any findings. They simple made information available
to the public. It gave the conspiracy hobbyists new toys to play with.

WRONG! I sure have news for you! The ARB made some findings in their
Final Report,and here 's one:

"Doubts about the Warren Commission's findings were not restricted to
ordinary Americans. Well before 1978, President Johnson, Robert Kennedy,
and four of the seven members of the Warren Commission all articulated, if
sometimes off the record, some level of skepticism about the Commission's
basic findings."

From: http://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/review-board/report/chapter-01.pdf

Chapter 1, Endnoters #17

Chris

bigdog

2015-05-20 19:37:56 UTC

The ARRB did not make any findings. They simple made information available
to the public. It gave the conspiracy hobbyists new toys to play with.

WRONG! I sure have news for you! The ARB made some findings in their
"Doubts about the Warren Commission's findings were not restricted to
ordinary Americans. Well before 1978, President Johnson, Robert Kennedy,
and four of the seven members of the Warren Commission all articulated, if
sometimes off the record, some level of skepticism about the Commission's
basic findings."
From: http://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/review-board/report/chapter-01.pdf
Chapter 1, Endnoters #17

They are stating the obvious. They are taking no position as to whether
there was any validity to those doubts and they never took a position as
to whether or not there was a conspiracy. Their sole mission was to make
as much information available to the public as possible.

mainframetech

2015-05-21 16:30:50 UTC

The ARRB did not make any findings. They simple made information available
to the public. It gave the conspiracy hobbyists new toys to play with.

What they made public in that note was that certain people thought the
WCR was bull. That wasn't in their mission statement...:)

Chris

bigdog

2015-05-21 22:27:55 UTC

The ARRB did not make any findings. They simple made information available
to the public. It gave the conspiracy hobbyists new toys to play with.

What they made public in that note was that certain people thought the
WCR was bull. That wasn't in their mission statement...:)

Do you think we needed the ARRB to tell us that. Conspiracy hobbyists have
been around a lot longer than the ARRB.

mainframetech

2015-05-22 20:48:57 UTC

The ARRB did not make any findings. They simple made information available
to the public. It gave the conspiracy hobbyists new toys to play with.

What they made public in that note was that certain people thought the
WCR was bull. That wasn't in their mission statement...:)

Do you think we needed the ARRB to tell us that. Conspiracy hobbyists have
been around a lot longer than the ARRB.

So you've been told for 51 years that the WCR is bull. But the ARRB
said it in an official document, not in a JFK forum. It was also stated
about certain people who may not have made their feelings known before
that. To have RFK finally officially say that the WCR was bull was
significant, but so were 4 of the panel members too...:) When they said
it was bull, those 4 were a majority of the 7, and it really discredits
the whole WCR!!!

Think about it! The Warren Commission discredits itself by a
majority!!!

Chris

bigdog

2015-05-23 15:48:24 UTC

The ARRB did not make any findings. They simple made information available
to the public. It gave the conspiracy hobbyists new toys to play with.

What they made public in that note was that certain people thought the
WCR was bull. That wasn't in their mission statement...:)

Do you think we needed the ARRB to tell us that. Conspiracy hobbyists have
been around a lot longer than the ARRB.

So you've been told for 51 years that the WCR is bull. But the ARRB
said it in an official document, not in a JFK forum.

Damn, your reading comprehension is as bad as Marsh's. Nowhere in the ARRB
do they say that. The ARRB took no position as to whether Oswald acted
alone or not. It wasn't there mission to reinvestigate the crime and reach
conclusions. Their mission was to make as much information available to
the public as possible. They pointed out the rather obvious fact that some
have doubted the conclusions of the WCR while taking no position as to
whether or not those doubts had any validity. In short, nowhere does the
ARRB indicate the WCR was bull. You made that up out of thin air.

Post by mainframetech
It was also stated
about certain people who may not have made their feelings known before
that. To have RFK finally officially say that the WCR was bull was
significant, but so were 4 of the panel members too...:)

Cite?

Post by mainframetech
When they said
it was bull, those 4 were a majority of the 7, and it really discredits
the whole WCR!!!

All seven members of the WC signed the report.

Post by mainframetech
Think about it! The Warren Commission discredits itself by a
majority!!!

That's a good idea. One of us needs to do some thinking.

Anthony Marsh

2015-05-24 02:34:58 UTC

The ARRB did not make any findings. They simple made information available
to the public. It gave the conspiracy hobbyists new toys to play with.

What they made public in that note was that certain people thought the
WCR was bull. That wasn't in their mission statement...:)

Do you think we needed the ARRB to tell us that. Conspiracy hobbyists have
been around a lot longer than the ARRB.

So you've been told for 51 years that the WCR is bull. But the ARRB
said it in an official document, not in a JFK forum.

Damn, your reading comprehension is as bad as Marsh's. Nowhere in the ARRB

You read like a kindergartner. He didn't claim that the ARRB said that
Oswald acted alone or not. Just that they said the WC investigation was
flawed.

Post by bigdog
do they say that. The ARRB took no position as to whether Oswald acted
alone or not. It wasn't there mission to reinvestigate the crime and reach
conclusions. Their mission was to make as much information available to
the public as possible. They pointed out the rather obvious fact that some
have doubted the conclusions of the WCR while taking no position as to
whether or not those doubts had any validity. In short, nowhere does the
ARRB indicate the WCR was bull. You made that up out of thin air.

Cite?

Post by mainframetech
When they said
it was bull, those 4 were a majority of the 7, and it really discredits
the whole WCR!!!

All seven members of the WC signed the report.

So what? Just signed PRESENT.
Only 7 on the HSCA voted for conspiracy, but all their names are on the
report. Learn to think some year.

Post by mainframetech
Think about it! The Warren Commission discredits itself by a
majority!!!

That's a good idea. One of us needs to do some thinking.

bigdog

2015-05-24 22:37:58 UTC

The ARRB did not make any findings. They simple made information available
to the public. It gave the conspiracy hobbyists new toys to play with.

What they made public in that note was that certain people thought the
WCR was bull. That wasn't in their mission statement...:)

Do you think we needed the ARRB to tell us that. Conspiracy hobbyists have
been around a lot longer than the ARRB.

So you've been told for 51 years that the WCR is bull. But the ARRB
said it in an official document, not in a JFK forum.

Damn, your reading comprehension is as bad as Marsh's. Nowhere in the ARRB

You read like a kindergartner. He didn't claim that the ARRB said that
Oswald acted alone or not. Just that they said the WC investigation was
flawed.

He wrote, "But the ARRB said it in an official document, not in a JFK
forum.". The ARRB said no such thing. The ARRB did not challenge the
findings of the WC.

Cite?

Post by mainframetech
When they said
it was bull, those 4 were a majority of the 7, and it really discredits
the whole WCR!!!

All seven members of the WC signed the report.

So what? Just signed PRESENT.
Only 7 on the HSCA voted for conspiracy, but all their names are on the
report. Learn to think some year.

Name one member of the WC who is on record as saying he believed there was
a conspiracy.

Post by mainframetech
Think about it! The Warren Commission discredits itself by a
majority!!!

That's a good idea. One of us needs to do some thinking.

mainframetech

2015-05-25 18:12:52 UTC

The ARRB did not make any findings. They simple made information available
to the public. It gave the conspiracy hobbyists new toys to play with.

What they made public in that note was that certain people thought the
WCR was bull. That wasn't in their mission statement...:)

Do you think we needed the ARRB to tell us that. Conspiracy hobbyists have
been around a lot longer than the ARRB.

So you've been told for 51 years that the WCR is bull. But the ARRB
said it in an official document, not in a JFK forum.

Damn, your reading comprehension is as bad as Marsh's. Nowhere in the ARRB

You read like a kindergartner. He didn't claim that the ARRB said that
Oswald acted alone or not. Just that they said the WC investigation was
flawed.

He wrote, "But the ARRB said it in an official document, not in a JFK
forum.". The ARRB said no such thing. The ARRB did not challenge the
findings of the WC.

By noting that LBJ, RFK and 4 of the WC members had doubts about the
WCR, the ARRB was making a negative point about the WCR using the voice of
others.

"Doubts about the Warren Commission's findings were not restricted to
ordinary Americans. Well before 1978, President Johnson, Robert Kennedy,
and four of the seven members of the Warren Commission all articulated, if
sometimes off the record, some level of skepticism about the Commission's
basic findings."

The ARRB made it clear when publishing the "doubts" of the detractors,
that there was trouble with the WCR.

Cite?

Post by mainframetech
When they said
it was bull, those 4 were a majority of the 7, and it really discredits
the whole WCR!!!

All seven members of the WC signed the report.

So what? Just signed PRESENT.
Only 7 on the HSCA voted for conspiracy, but all their names are on the
report. Learn to think some year.

Name one member of the WC who is on record as saying he believed there was
a conspiracy.

Post by mainframetech
Think about it! The Warren Commission discredits itself by a
majority!!!

That's a good idea. One of us needs to do some thinking.

It wouldn't be the first time that one government agency disagreed with
another. At one point, the EPA had said that ANY amount of mercury was
bad for the human body. But the FDA was saying that the mercury in
Thimerasol (used in vaccines) was just fine to be ingested by humans and
posed no danger. I'm sure many have said the same about the WCR. That it
would cause no harm to humans!

Chris

mainframetech

2015-05-24 02:51:23 UTC

The ARRB did not make any findings. They simple made information available
to the public. It gave the conspiracy hobbyists new toys to play with.

What they made public in that note was that certain people thought the
WCR was bull. That wasn't in their mission statement...:)

Do you think we needed the ARRB to tell us that. Conspiracy hobbyists have
been around a lot longer than the ARRB.

So you've been told for 51 years that the WCR is bull. But the ARRB
said it in an official document, not in a JFK forum.

Actually, it looks like your comprehension is failing. I've already put
out what the ARRB said in its Final Report, and it used RFK and 4 of the
WC panel to say it. They said:

"Doubts about the Warren Commission's findings were not restricted to
ordinary Americans. Well before 1978, President Johnson, Robert Kennedy,
and four of the seven members of the Warren Commission all articulated, if
sometimes off the record, some level of skepticism about the Commission's
basic findings."

From: http://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/review-board/report/chapter-01.pdf
Chapter 1, Endnotes #17"

Cite?

Easy. See above.

Post by mainframetech
When they said
it was bull, those 4 were a majority of the 7, and it really discredits
the whole WCR!!!

All seven members of the WC signed the report.

LOL! "Signed the report"...You're a riot! where have I heard that
before?

Looks like they changed their minds. People do that, you know. And 4
out of seven is a majority, so the WCR voted itself into bullshit
territory! :))

Post by mainframetech
Think about it! The Warren Commission discredits itself by a
majority!!!

That's a good idea. One of us needs to do some thinking.

It must have ben the 4 out of 7 that di some thinking, and came to the
conclusion that the WCR was bull puckey!

Chris

Ace Kefford

2015-05-27 00:22:32 UTC

The ARRB did not make any findings. They simple made information available
to the public. It gave the conspiracy hobbyists new toys to play with.

What they made public in that note was that certain people thought the
WCR was bull. That wasn't in their mission statement...:)

Do you think we needed the ARRB to tell us that. Conspiracy hobbyists have
been around a lot longer than the ARRB.

Some of their theories are so old they are now eligible to be members of
the AARP!

mainframetech

2015-05-27 23:36:22 UTC

The ARRB did not make any findings. They simple made information available
to the public. It gave the conspiracy hobbyists new toys to play with.

What they made public in that note was that certain people thought the
WCR was bull. That wasn't in their mission statement...:)

Do you think we needed the ARRB to tell us that. Conspiracy hobbyists have
been around a lot longer than the ARRB.

Some of their theories are so old they are now eligible to be members of
the AARP!

Actually, the ARRB reported that not only LBJ and RFK distrusted the
findings of the WCR, but also 4 of its members!!! That makes a majority
out of the 7 members! So the WC has rules against itself!

Chris

Jason Burke

2015-05-28 11:48:52 UTC

The ARRB did not make any findings. They simple made information available
to the public. It gave the conspiracy hobbyists new toys to play with.

What they made public in that note was that certain people thought the
WCR was bull. That wasn't in their mission statement...:)

Do you think we needed the ARRB to tell us that. Conspiracy hobbyists have
been around a lot longer than the ARRB.

Some of their theories are so old they are now eligible to be members of
the AARP!

Yet much to your embarrassment, the WCR has withstood the test of time.
Bummer to be you.

Anthony Marsh

2015-05-29 02:19:31 UTC

Post by mainframetech
The ARRB is a word that is rarely used by the conspiracy
denialists. Almost as if it were a dirty word that should not
be discussed in public. Yet it has yielded great evidence that
hadn't been brought out previously.
I've found at least one reason why that might be. In
"Doubts about the Warren Commission's findings were not
restricted to ordinary Americans. Well before 1978, President
Johnson, Robert Kennedy, and four of the seven members of the
Warren Commission all articulated, if sometimes off the record,
some level of skepticism about the Commission's basic findings."
http://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/review-board/report/chapter-01.pdf
Page 11, note 17

The ARRB did not make any findings. They simple made information available
to the public. It gave the conspiracy hobbyists new toys to play with.

WRONG! I sure have news for you! The ARB made some findings in their
"Doubts about the Warren Commission's findings were not restricted to
ordinary Americans. Well before 1978, President Johnson, Robert Kennedy,
and four of the seven members of the Warren Commission all articulated, if
sometimes off the record, some level of skepticism about the Commission's
basic findings."
http://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/review-board/report/chapter-01.pdf
Chapter 1, Endnoters #17

What they made public in that note was that certain people thought the
WCR was bull. That wasn't in their mission statement...:)

Do you think we needed the ARRB to tell us that. Conspiracy
hobbyists have
been around a lot longer than the ARRB.

Some of their theories are so old they are now eligible to be members of
the AARP!

Yet much to your embarrassment, the WCR has withstood the test of time.
Bummer to be you.

The public rejected it immediately.

mainframetech

2015-05-29 17:24:13 UTC

The ARRB did not make any findings. They simple made information available
to the public. It gave the conspiracy hobbyists new toys to play with.

What they made public in that note was that certain people thought the
WCR was bull. That wasn't in their mission statement...:)

Do you think we needed the ARRB to tell us that. Conspiracy hobbyists have
been around a lot longer than the ARRB.

Some of their theories are so old they are now eligible to be members of
the AARP!

Yet much to your embarrassment, the WCR has withstood the test of time.
Bummer to be you.

Actually, it was shown to have errors all over the place early on, and
as an information tool, it was really a prosecution without an adversarial
procedure on a dead man that couldn't respond or defend himself.

Chris

bigdog

2015-05-30 00:49:27 UTC

Post by mainframetech
Actually, it was shown to have errors all over the place early on, and
as an information tool, it was really a prosecution without an adversarial
procedure on a dead man that couldn't respond or defend himself.

The Warren Commision was not a prosecution. It was a fact finding body. It
had no power to take away anyone's life, liberty, or property.

mainframetech

2015-05-30 22:13:31 UTC

The Warren Commision was not a prosecution. It was a fact finding body. It
had no power to take away anyone's life, liberty, or property.

What life did they want to take away? Where in the world are you? We
know the purpose of the WC. And it had a great deal of power to do all
they if they prosecuted someone as strongly as they did to Oswald.
Choosing what evidence they would show and consider and what would be kept
out of sight. Making sure he had no representation. Intimidation of
witnesses, etc. It was a prosecution more unjust than any real trial. A
public trial with NO defense for the person assumed to be guilty from the
beginning. The WC members were assembled to do in Oswald and give the
conspirators a good life without any worry by making sure that everyone
believed that Oswald was guilty of everything.

Chris

bigdog

2015-05-31 21:25:35 UTC

The Warren Commision was not a prosecution. It was a fact finding body. It
had no power to take away anyone's life, liberty, or property.

What life did they want to take away?

No one's.

Post by mainframetech
Where in the world are you?

Ohio.

Post by mainframetech
We
know the purpose of the WC. And it had a great deal of power to do all
they if they prosecuted someone as strongly as they did to Oswald.

They never prosecuted Oswald. That can only be done in a court of law.

Post by mainframetech
Choosing what evidence they would show and consider and what would be kept
out of sight.

Funny how you guys are accusing the WC of keeping evidence out of sight
when much of what you use to attack them is information contained in the
26 volumes which they made available to the public.

Post by mainframetech
Making sure he had no representation.

He didn't need any. He was dead.

Post by mainframetech
Intimidation of
witnesses, etc.

Horseshit?

Post by mainframetech
It was a prosecution more unjust than any real trial.

It wasn't a prosecution. It was a fact finding body. You still don't
understand the difference.

Post by mainframetech
A
public trial with NO defense for the person assumed to be guilty from the
beginning.

It wasn't a trial.

Post by mainframetech
The WC members were assembled to do in Oswald and give the
conspirators a good life without any worry by making sure that everyone
believed that Oswald was guilty of everything.

More horseshit. As Richard Pryor once observed, flies don't even mess with
horseshit.

mainframetech

2015-06-01 15:28:12 UTC

The Warren Commision was not a prosecution. It was a fact finding body. It
had no power to take away anyone's life, liberty, or property.

What life did they want to take away?

No one's.

Post by mainframetech
Where in the world are you?

Ohio.

Post by mainframetech
We
know the purpose of the WC. And it had a great deal of power to do all
they if they prosecuted someone as strongly as they did to Oswald.

They never prosecuted Oswald. That can only be done in a court of law.

I'm glad you agree with me. So when they DID indeed prosecute him and
didn't allow him any spokesman to defend his reputation and freedom, you
believe they were in the wrong and were committing a crime. Right?

Post by mainframetech
Choosing what evidence they would show and consider and what would be kept
out of sight.

Funny how you guys are accusing the WC of keeping evidence out of sight
when much of what you use to attack them is information contained in the
26 volumes which they made available to the public.

an example was some people that saw contradicting evidence to Oswald
being in the window with a rifle. Those people weren't allowed to
testify. And that is many people.

Post by mainframetech
Making sure he had no representation.

He didn't need any. He was dead.

Better look through a few legal books. His estate might have been
affected by his status as a convicted killer or an innocent man. But each
person has to be asked whether they want to die with a court guilty
verdict hanging over them and their family.

Post by mainframetech
Intimidation of
witnesses, etc.

Horseshit?

Not on your life. But it's expected that you would support such doings
as long as they came from the WC.

Post by mainframetech
It was a prosecution more unjust than any real trial.

It wasn't a prosecution. It was a fact finding body. You still don't
understand the difference.

I understand very well. Apparently YOU fail to understand that they
were crucifying a man just to save a few conspirators. It wouldn't have
been so bad if they had someone speaking for him, but they were doing a
prosecution, no matter what you want to call it to cover it up.

Post by mainframetech
A
public trial with NO defense for the person assumed to be guilty from the
beginning.

It wasn't a trial.

It was a public trial and hanging in one operation. It may not have
had that name, but that's what it was.

More horseshit. As Richard Pryor once observed, flies don't even mess with
horseshit.

Then why do you keep messing with it? Face the facts for a change.
You can't keep running away all the time form anything that makes you
unhappy.

Chris

bigdog

2015-06-02 01:49:06 UTC

The Warren Commision was not a prosecution. It was a fact finding body. It
had no power to take away anyone's life, liberty, or property.

What life did they want to take away?

No one's.

Post by mainframetech
Where in the world are you?

Ohio.

Post by mainframetech
We
know the purpose of the WC. And it had a great deal of power to do all
they if they prosecuted someone as strongly as they did to Oswald.

They never prosecuted Oswald. That can only be done in a court of law.

You deserve a Marshie award for you poor reading comprehension.

Post by mainframetech
Choosing what evidence they would show and consider and what would be kept
out of sight.

Funny how you guys are accusing the WC of keeping evidence out of sight
when much of what you use to attack them is information contained in the
26 volumes which they made available to the public.

an example was some people that saw contradicting evidence to Oswald
being in the window with a rifle. Those people weren't allowed to
testify. And that is many people.

Such as...???

Post by mainframetech
Making sure he had no representation.

He didn't need any. He was dead.

Better look through a few legal books. His estate might have been
affected by his status as a convicted killer or an innocent man.

Since he was never convicted, that is a moot point. An estate is a legal
entity seperate from the deceased who has no legal standing. The estate
has an executor whether that person be named in a will or appointed by the
court. It is the executor's job to look out for the interest of the estate
and that person can obtain legal counsel. In addition the heirs have legal
standing and they can also obtain counsel. The deceased as no standing in
the matter.

Post by mainframetech
But each
person has to be asked whether they want to die with a court guilty
verdict hanging over them and their family.

HUH??? Where did you get that idea? It is also irrelevant to Oswald since
he died before being found guilty of a crime and there for had no verdict
hanging over him.

It has already been legally established that the Warren Commision findings
were not a verdict. Clay Shaw's attorneys tried to get the case against
him dismissed on the grounds the WC had already adjudicated the case and
that trying Shaw would amount to double jeopardy. The court rejected the
argument of course because Shaw was never in jeopardy durng the WC
investigation. Nobody was.

Post by mainframetech
Intimidation of
witnesses, etc.

Horseshit?

Not on your life. But it's expected that you would support such doings
as long as they came from the WC.

I don't support it because it didn't happen in the JFK case.

Post by mainframetech
It was a prosecution more unjust than any real trial.

It wasn't a prosecution. It was a fact finding body. You still don't
understand the difference.

I understand very well. Apparently YOU fail to understand that they
were crucifying a man just to save a few conspirators.

You understand a lot of silly things.

Post by mainframetech
It wouldn't have
been so bad if they had someone speaking for him, but they were doing a
prosecution, no matter what you want to call it to cover it up.

A prosecution is a legal proceeding in which criminal charges are brought
against a defendent for the purpose of depriving him of life, liberty, or
property. That wasn't happening to Oswald. He was never sentenced as a
result of the WC findings.

Post by mainframetech
A
public trial with NO defense for the person assumed to be guilty from the
beginning.

It wasn't a trial.

It was a public trial and hanging in one operation.

It was neither.

Post by mainframetech
It may not have
had that name, but that's what it was.

Not even close.

More horseshit. As Richard Pryor once observed, flies don't even mess with
horseshit.

Then why do you keep messing with it? Face the facts for a change.
You can't keep running away all the time form anything that makes you
unhappy.

If I wanted to face facts, I wouldn't waste my time with your drivel. I do
that for amusement only.

mainframetech

2015-06-02 18:11:15 UTC

The Warren Commision was not a prosecution. It was a fact finding body. It
had no power to take away anyone's life, liberty, or property.

What life did they want to take away?

No one's.

Post by mainframetech
Where in the world are you?

Ohio.

Post by mainframetech
We
know the purpose of the WC. And it had a great deal of power to do all
they if they prosecuted someone as strongly as they did to Oswald.

They never prosecuted Oswald. That can only be done in a court of law.

You deserve a Marshie award for you poor reading comprehension.

Post by mainframetech
Choosing what evidence they would show and consider and what would be kept
out of sight.

Funny how you guys are accusing the WC of keeping evidence out of sight
when much of what you use to attack them is information contained in the
26 volumes which they made available to the public.

an example was some people that saw contradicting evidence to Oswald
being in the window with a rifle. Those people weren't allowed to
testify. And that is many people.

Such as...???

Such as Carolyn Walther, who saw 2 men with guns at 12:25pm. She
thought it was on the 4-5th floor, but it was probably the 6th. Couldn't
be 2 people with guns and not be on the 6th.

Such as John Powell, who looked across from a nearby building and saw 2
men with a gun at 12:15pm.

Such as Carolyn Arnold, TSBD employee, who saw Oswald in the lunchroom
at about 12:25 having lunch.

Such as Arnold Rowland who saw a man with a rifle at 12:15 in the
window of the 6th floor.

All these people seeing men with guns in the TSBD, while Oswald is
eating lunch in the lunchroom. The statement of Carolyn Arnold (to the
FBI) was too damaging to the WC lawyers theory of the 'lone gunman', so
she never got to testify for the WC. Yet she could have proved that
Oswald was innocent. The WC couldn't have that. They knew they were
there to take in the suckers that Oswald was guilty. Yet another error(?)
of the WC.

Post by mainframetech
Making sure he had no representation.

He didn't need any. He was dead.

Better look through a few legal books. His estate might have been
affected by his status as a convicted killer or an innocent man.

Were you aware that people that have lost a loved one, or who have
suffered in some way can sue the estate of someone they think was guilty
of whatever crime was committed, after their death? Proving the guilt of
Oswald would make it worse for his wife if he was destroyed without anyone
to speak for him. And we know it was a railroading.

Post by mainframetech
But each
person has to be asked whether they want to die with a court guilty
verdict hanging over them and their family.

HUH??? Where did you get that idea? It is also irrelevant to Oswald since
he died before being found guilty of a crime and there for had no verdict
hanging over him.

There was a finding of guilt for Oswald. If later someone sued Oswald
or his estate, that goes against him and his wife and kids.

Post by bigdog
It has already been legally established that the Warren Commision findings
were not a verdict. Clay Shaw's attorneys tried to get the case against
him dismissed on the grounds the WC had already adjudicated the case and
that trying Shaw would amount to double jeopardy. The court rejected the
argument of course because Shaw was never in jeopardy durng the WC
investigation. Nobody was.

The estate of Oswald was in jeopardy.

Post by mainframetech
Intimidation of
witnesses, etc.

Horseshit?

Not on your life. But it's expected that you would support such doings
as long as they came from the WC.

I don't support it because it didn't happen in the JFK case.

You're actually saying that 'intimidation' didn't occur during the JFK
case? Oh let me at you. First, Acquilla Clemmons was told to shut up and
not tell her story that Oswald didn't shoot Tippit or she'd be sorry. It
was the FBI that did it.

Here's some more:

http://dealeyintimidation.tripod.com/

Post by mainframetech
It was a prosecution more unjust than any real trial.

It wasn't a prosecution. It was a fact finding body. You still don't
understand the difference.

I understand very well. Apparently YOU fail to understand that they
were crucifying a man just to save a few conspirators.

You understand a lot of silly things.

Post by mainframetech
It wouldn't have
been so bad if they had someone speaking for him, but they were doing a
prosecution, no matter what you want to call it to cover it up.

You can play legal all you want. It was a crucifixion of the 'patsy'.
He was found guilty of the crime at the end.

Post by mainframetech
A
public trial with NO defense for the person assumed to be guilty from the
beginning.

It wasn't a trial.

It was a public trial and hanging in one operation.

It was neither.

You're just unaware or pretending to be dense. He was found guilty, and
it was necessary for the conspirators to have a guilty 'verdict' to let
the be free to go about their lives without anyone tracking them.

Post by mainframetech
It may not have
had that name, but that's what it was.

Not even close.

More horseshit. As Richard Pryor once observed, flies don't even mess with
horseshit.

Then why do you keep messing with it? Face the facts for a change.
You can't keep running away all the time from anything that makes you
unhappy.

If I wanted to face facts, I wouldn't waste my time with your drivel. I do
that for amusement only.

LOL! I seem to get more fun out of using you than the other way
around...:)

Chris

Bud

2015-06-03 01:47:17 UTC

The Warren Commision was not a prosecution. It was a fact finding body. It
had no power to take away anyone's life, liberty, or property.

What life did they want to take away?

No one's.

Post by mainframetech
Where in the world are you?

Ohio.

Post by mainframetech
We
know the purpose of the WC. And it had a great deal of power to do all
they if they prosecuted someone as strongly as they did to Oswald.

They never prosecuted Oswald. That can only be done in a court of law.

You deserve a Marshie award for you poor reading comprehension.

Post by mainframetech
Choosing what evidence they would show and consider and what would be kept
out of sight.

Funny how you guys are accusing the WC of keeping evidence out of sight
when much of what you use to attack them is information contained in the
26 volumes which they made available to the public.

an example was some people that saw contradicting evidence to Oswald
being in the window with a rifle. Those people weren't allowed to
testify. And that is many people.

Such as...???

Conspiracy hobbyists are funny, always pretending they have facts when
they don`t even know what a fact is.

Post by mainframetech
The statement of Carolyn Arnold (to the
FBI) was too damaging to the WC lawyers theory of the 'lone gunman', so
she never got to testify for the WC. Yet she could have proved that
Oswald was innocent.

Her statement can be found here...

http://www.history
matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh22/pdf/WH22_CE_1381.pdf

The only thing in it about Oswald is that she didn`t see Oswald at the
time of the shooting.

Post by mainframetech
The WC couldn't have that. They knew they were
there to take in the suckers that Oswald was guilty. Yet another error(?)
of the WC.

Post by mainframetech
Making sure he had no representation.

He didn't need any. He was dead.

Better look through a few legal books. His estate might have been
affected by his status as a convicted killer or an innocent man.

We know you can`t come to grips with his guilt.

Post by mainframetech
But each
person has to be asked whether they want to die with a court guilty
verdict hanging over them and their family.

HUH??? Where did you get that idea? It is also irrelevant to Oswald since
he died before being found guilty of a crime and there for had no verdict
hanging over him.

There was a finding of guilt for Oswald. If later someone sued Oswald
or his estate, that goes against him and his wife and kids.

The estate of Oswald was in jeopardy.

Post by mainframetech
Intimidation of
witnesses, etc.

Horseshit?

Not on your life. But it's expected that you would support such doings
as long as they came from the WC.

I don't support it because it didn't happen in the JFK case.

You are making stuff up again, she didn`t say it was the FBI.

Post by mainframetech
http://youtu.be/aaCCd0hzLsY
http://dealeyintimidation.tripod.com/

Post by mainframetech
It was a prosecution more unjust than any real trial.

It wasn't a prosecution. It was a fact finding body. You still don't
understand the difference.

I understand very well. Apparently YOU fail to understand that they
were crucifying a man just to save a few conspirators.

You understand a lot of silly things.

Post by mainframetech
It wouldn't have
been so bad if they had someone speaking for him, but they were doing a
prosecution, no matter what you want to call it to cover it up.

You can play legal all you want. It was a crucifixion of the 'patsy'.
He was found guilty of the crime at the end.

Post by mainframetech
A
public trial with NO defense for the person assumed to be guilty from the
beginning.

It wasn't a trial.

It was a public trial and hanging in one operation.

It was neither.

Post by mainframetech
It may not have
had that name, but that's what it was.

Not even close.

More horseshit. As Richard Pryor once observed, flies don't even mess with
horseshit.

Then why do you keep messing with it? Face the facts for a change.
You can't keep running away all the time from anything that makes you
unhappy.

If I wanted to face facts, I wouldn't waste my time with your drivel. I do
that for amusement only.

LOL! I seem to get more fun out of using you than the other way
around...:)
Chris

bigdog

2015-06-03 01:51:39 UTC

The Warren Commision was not a prosecution. It was a fact finding body. It
had no power to take away anyone's life, liberty, or property.

What life did they want to take away?

No one's.

Post by mainframetech
Where in the world are you?

Ohio.

Post by mainframetech
We
know the purpose of the WC. And it had a great deal of power to do all
they if they prosecuted someone as strongly as they did to Oswald.

They never prosecuted Oswald. That can only be done in a court of law.

You deserve a Marshie award for you poor reading comprehension.

Post by mainframetech
Choosing what evidence they would show and consider and what would be kept
out of sight.

Funny how you guys are accusing the WC of keeping evidence out of sight
when much of what you use to attack them is information contained in the
26 volumes which they made available to the public.

an example was some people that saw contradicting evidence to Oswald
being in the window with a rifle. Those people weren't allowed to
testify. And that is many people.

Such as...???

Such as Carolyn Walther, who saw 2 men with guns at 12:25pm. She
thought it was on the 4-5th floor, but it was probably the 6th. Couldn't
be 2 people with guns and not be on the 6th.
Such as John Powell, who looked across from a nearby building and saw 2
men with a gun at 12:15pm.
Such as Carolyn Arnold, TSBD employee, who saw Oswald in the lunchroom
at about 12:25 having lunch.
Such as Arnold Rowland who saw a man with a rifle at 12:15 in the
window of the 6th floor.
All these people seeing men with guns in the TSBD, while Oswald is
eating lunch in the lunchroom. The statement of Carolyn Arnold (to the
FBI) was too damaging to the WC lawyers theory of the 'lone gunman', so
she never got to testify for the WC. Yet she could have proved that
Oswald was innocent. The WC couldn't have that. They knew they were
there to take in the suckers that Oswald was guilty. Yet another error(?)
of the WC.

Amazing how all those people saw men with rifles where the President was
about to arrive and not one of them thought to alert the police about
it.

As for Carolyn Arnold, even if her dubious tale were true, it would not
preclude Oswald being in the sniper's nest at 12:30 since it doesn't take
five miinutes to go from the lunchroom to the sniper's nest. Oswald
claimed he was in the domino room, not the lunchroom, so how do you square
those two tales.

Post by mainframetech
Making sure he had no representation.

He didn't need any. He was dead.

Better look through a few legal books. His estate might have been
affected by his status as a convicted killer or an innocent man.

Were you aware that people that have lost a loved one, or who have
suffered in some way can sue the estate of someone they think was guilty
of whatever crime was committed, after their death?

That's right, they sue the ESTATE, not the person who committed the crime.
At death all of the deceased's earthly possesions pass to the estate. In
the case of a married couple, the deceased owned half of the community
property and that hald passes to the estate. A person can then sue the
estate for alleged damages caused by the deceased prior to death.

Post by mainframetech
Proving the guilt of
Oswald would make it worse for his wife if he was destroyed without anyone
to speak for him. And we know it was a railroading.

In most states if not all, if there is no will the assets of the estate
would pass to the surviving spouse so Marina would have standing if Jackie
or her kids were to have sued Oswald's estate for wrongful death. She
could have obtained counsel to protect her interests since she might
suffer financially with a civil judgement against Oswald's estate. Of
course it would have been a rather pointless gesture for anyone from the
Kennedy family to sue Oswald's estate for the paltry amount that could
have been collected from it.

Post by mainframetech
But each
person has to be asked whether they want to die with a court guilty
verdict hanging over them and their family.

HUH??? Where did you get that idea? It is also irrelevant to Oswald since
he died before being found guilty of a crime and there for had no verdict
hanging over him.

There was a finding of guilt for Oswald. If later someone sued Oswald
or his estate, that goes against him and his wife and kids.

Anyone suing Oswald's estate for wrongful death would have to establish in
court through a preponderence of evidence that Oswald caused JFK's or
Tippit's death. Whether the court would admit as evidence the findings of
the WC I have no idea. A lawyer would need to weigh in on that. In any
case, the defendant's in such a civil action, Oswald's estate or Marina
could challenge any and all evidence presented by the plaintiff's that
Oswald was responsible for the death's of either or both men. In any case,
Oswald would not be a party to the lawsuit. His estate would. It may be a
legal technicality but there is a difference between suing a dead man and
suing his estate. It would be pointless to sue a dead man since he has no
assets.

The estate of Oswald was in jeopardy.

No, it wasn't. Nothing the WC did could have resulted in assets of
Oswald's estate being seized. That would have to be done in court through
a civil suit. The WC had no power to award damages against Oswald's
estate.

Post by mainframetech
Intimidation of
witnesses, etc.

Horseshit?

Not on your life. But it's expected that you would support such doings
as long as they came from the WC.

I don't support it because it didn't happen in the JFK case.

Lot's of people claim intimidation. In fact, it is routine for
investigators to tell material witnesses not to divulge what they saw or
heard during the course of investigation. If some people viewed that as
intimidation, that is their problem.

The reason for that is obvious. In any high profile case investigators
become inundated with false leads from crackpots. The less information
these crackpots have available the easier it is for authorities to wee
them out. If on the other hand lots these crackpots have access to
material details of the case it makes it easier for them to spin a tale
that fits with that information and harder for investigators to weed out
the crackpots.

Post by mainframetech
It was a prosecution more unjust than any real trial.

It wasn't a prosecution. It was a fact finding body. You still don't
understand the difference.

I understand very well. Apparently YOU fail to understand that they
were crucifying a man just to save a few conspirators.

You understand a lot of silly things.

Post by mainframetech
It wouldn't have
been so bad if they had someone speaking for him, but they were doing a
prosecution, no matter what you want to call it to cover it up.

You can play legal all you want. It was a crucifixion of the 'patsy'.
He was found guilty of the crime at the end.

You can bluster all you want, the WC findings were not a verdict. Oswald
was not legally found guilty and the government could take no action
against him or his estate as a result of those findings.

Post by mainframetech
A
public trial with NO defense for the person assumed to be guilty from the
beginning.

It wasn't a trial.

It was a public trial and hanging in one operation.

It was neither.

You're just unaware or pretending to be dense. He was found guilty,

No, he wasn't. Guilt can only be legally established through a criminal
conviction in a court of law.

Post by mainframetech
and
it was necessary for the conspirators to have a guilty 'verdict' to let
the be free to go about their lives without anyone tracking them.

This so called "verdict" you are claiming in no way would give immunity to
your alleged conspirators since they could still be charged with the crime
if there was any evidence to bring charges against them. Despite the
findings of the WC, Garrison was still able to bring charges against Clay
Shaw and the argument by Shaw's defense team that the WC had adjudicated
the case was of course rejected by the court.

Post by mainframetech
It may not have
had that name, but that's what it was.

Not even close.

More horseshit. As Richard Pryor once observed, flies don't even mess with
horseshit.

Then why do you keep messing with it? Face the facts for a change.
You can't keep running away all the time from anything that makes you
unhappy.

If I wanted to face facts, I wouldn't waste my time with your drivel. I do
that for amusement only.

LOL! I seem to get more fun out of using you than the other way
around...:)

Nobody cares about your fantasies.

mainframetech

2015-06-03 18:55:37 UTC

The Warren Commision was not a prosecution. It was a fact finding body. It
had no power to take away anyone's life, liberty, or property.

What life did they want to take away?

No one's.

Post by mainframetech
Where in the world are you?

Ohio.

Post by mainframetech
We
know the purpose of the WC. And it had a great deal of power to do all
they if they prosecuted someone as strongly as they did to Oswald.

They never prosecuted Oswald. That can only be done in a court of law.

You deserve a Marshie award for you poor reading comprehension.

Post by mainframetech
Choosing what evidence they would show and consider and what would be kept
out of sight.

Funny how you guys are accusing the WC of keeping evidence out of sight
when much of what you use to attack them is information contained in the
26 volumes which they made available to the public.

an example was some people that saw contradicting evidence to Oswald
being in the window with a rifle. Those people weren't allowed to
testify. And that is many people.

Such as...???

Such as Carolyn Walther, who saw 2 men with guns at 12:25pm. She
thought it was on the 4-5th floor, but it was probably the 6th. Couldn't
be 2 people with guns and not be on the 6th.
Such as John Powell, who looked across from a nearby building and saw 2
men with a gun at 12:15pm.
Such as Carolyn Arnold, TSBD employee, who saw Oswald in the lunchroom
at about 12:25 having lunch.
Such as Arnold Rowland who saw a man with a rifle at 12:15 in the
window of the 6th floor.
All these people seeing men with guns in the TSBD, while Oswald is
eating lunch in the lunchroom. The statement of Carolyn Arnold (to the
FBI) was too damaging to the WC lawyers theory of the 'lone gunman', so
she never got to testify for the WC. Yet she could have proved that
Oswald was innocent. The WC couldn't have that. They knew they were
there to take in the suckers that Oswald was guilty. Yet another error(?)
of the WC.

Amazing how all those people saw men with rifles where the President was
about to arrive and not one of them thought to alert the police about
it.

I see it bothers you to see proof that Oswald was innocent of the
shooting of JFK. But that's the way it goes. You've hitched your wagon
to a falling star, and it fell. Most people would think the same thing,
that out brave SS was on duty covering the motorcade in defense of our
president.

Post by bigdog
As for Carolyn Arnold, even if her dubious tale were true, it would not
preclude Oswald being in the sniper's nest at 12:30 since it doesn't take
five miinutes to go from the lunchroom to the sniper's nest. Oswald
claimed he was in the domino room, not the lunchroom, so how do you square
those two tales.

AHA! The old LN whine comes into play! She lied! But you forget...if
Oswald was supposed to be the gunman at the window on the 6th floor, who
were the gunmen with rifles on the 6th floor? More of your fairy tales?
Or real shooters who were the guilty parties to the murder of JFK? If
Oswald ran up to the 6th floor window, would he have to fight these other
shooters for a place by the window? ROFLMAO!!! Give it up! The killer
taking his time over his lunch, unconcerned that he might miss being at
the window when the target rode by...:)

Post by mainframetech
Making sure he had no representation.

He didn't need any. He was dead.

Better look through a few legal books. His estate might have been
affected by his status as a convicted killer or an innocent man.

Were you aware that people that have lost a loved one, or who have
suffered in some way can sue the estate of someone they think was guilty
of whatever crime was committed, after their death?

Suing the estate when the dead person was found guilty of some crime
makes it more difficulty for the person that needs to have money to live
and support children. The result of a 'prosecution' like the WC could
have that effect.

Post by mainframetech
Proving the guilt of
Oswald would make it worse for his wife if he was destroyed without anyone
to speak for him. And we know it was a railroading.

Post by mainframetech
But each
person has to be asked whether they want to die with a court guilty
verdict hanging over them and their family.

HUH??? Where did you get that idea? It is also irrelevant to Oswald since
he died before being found guilty of a crime and there for had no verdict
hanging over him.

There was a finding of guilt for Oswald. If later someone sued Oswald
or his estate, that goes against him and his wife and kids.

BULL! Don't give me that LN whine that we need an 'expert' because
we're all too dumb to figure it out. The "preponderance of evidence"
would include the results of the WC.

The estate of Oswald was in jeopardy.

I didn't say anything about being "seized"! I said "in jeopardy". As
explained above.

Post by mainframetech
Intimidation of
witnesses, etc.

Horseshit?

Not on your life. But it's expected that you would support such doings
as long as they came from the WC.

I don't support it because it didn't happen in the JFK case.

"claim"? So now your covering for the crimes of the FBI! Amazing!
When does the USG give you your medal for volunteering for them?

When the FBI threatens the life of safety or health of a witness if
they don't keep quiet, that's a bit different. Here's another item to add
to FBI crimes:

Post by bigdog
The reason for that is obvious. In any high profile case investigators
become inundated with false leads from crackpots. The less information
these crackpots have available the easier it is for authorities to wee
them out. If on the other hand lots these crackpots have access to
material details of the case it makes it easier for them to spin a tale
that fits with that information and harder for investigators to weed out
the crackpots.

Stop selling crap. I'm speaking of true intimidation to witnesses.
As you go through witness statements and testimony, you come across many
times when the FBI tried to intimidate a witness illegally.

Post by mainframetech
It was a prosecution more unjust than any real trial.

It wasn't a prosecution. It was a fact finding body. You still don't
understand the difference.

I understand very well. Apparently YOU fail to understand that they
were crucifying a man just to save a few conspirators.

You understand a lot of silly things.

Post by mainframetech
It wouldn't have
been so bad if they had someone speaking for him, but they were doing a
prosecution, no matter what you want to call it to cover it up.

You can play legal all you want. It was a crucifixion of the 'patsy'.
He was found guilty of the crime at the end.

You can bluster all you want, the WC findings were not a verdict. Oswald
was not legally found guilty and the government could take no action
against him or his estate as a result of those findings.

I've already explained how the WC could go after a person, if they
chose. And their final report is the same as finding Oswald guilty of
murdering JFK. Don't bother to try to clean it up, he was found guilty,
whether those were the words used or not.

Post by mainframetech
A
public trial with NO defense for the person assumed to be guilty from the
beginning.

It wasn't a trial.

It was a public trial and hanging in one operation.

It was neither.

You're just unaware or pretending to be dense. He was found guilty,

No, he wasn't. Guilt can only be legally established through a criminal
conviction in a court of law.

Crap. Try as you might to change it, Oswald was found guilty of
murdering JFK. And though the words weren't the same, that was the
result! From that point everyone would refer to Oswald as the killer of
JFK. Without a legal trial. The person assigned to speak for Oswald
never showed up for a single day's work with the WC.

Post by mainframetech
and
it was necessary for the conspirators to have a guilty 'verdict' to let
them be free to go about their lives without anyone tracking them.

All cases closed, all law enforcement groups no longer caring about
chasing anyone, since the killer was found and is dead. Use your head.
What kind of baloney are you selling now?

Post by mainframetech
It may not have
had that name, but that's what it was.

Not even close.

More horseshit. As Richard Pryor once observed, flies don't even mess with
horseshit.

Then why do you keep messing with it? Face the facts for a change.
You can't keep running away all the time from anything that makes you
unhappy.

If I wanted to face facts, I wouldn't waste my time with your drivel. I do
that for amusement only.

LOL! I seem to get more fun out of using you than the other way
around...:)

Nobody cares about your fantasies.

Ah, but my proofs and truth go over pretty well in some quarters...:)

Chris

bigdog

2015-06-04 18:50:56 UTC

The Warren Commision was not a prosecution. It was a fact finding body. It
had no power to take away anyone's life, liberty, or property.

What life did they want to take away?

No one's.

Post by mainframetech
Where in the world are you?

Ohio.

Post by mainframetech
We
know the purpose of the WC. And it had a great deal of power to do all
they if they prosecuted someone as strongly as they did to Oswald.

They never prosecuted Oswald. That can only be done in a court of law.

You deserve a Marshie award for you poor reading comprehension.

Post by mainframetech
Choosing what evidence they would show and consider and what would be kept
out of sight.

Funny how you guys are accusing the WC of keeping evidence out of sight
when much of what you use to attack them is information contained in the
26 volumes which they made available to the public.

an example was some people that saw contradicting evidence to Oswald
being in the window with a rifle. Those people weren't allowed to
testify. And that is many people.

Such as...???

Such as Carolyn Walther, who saw 2 men with guns at 12:25pm. She
thought it was on the 4-5th floor, but it was probably the 6th. Couldn't
be 2 people with guns and not be on the 6th.
Such as John Powell, who looked across from a nearby building and saw 2
men with a gun at 12:15pm.
Such as Carolyn Arnold, TSBD employee, who saw Oswald in the lunchroom
at about 12:25 having lunch.
Such as Arnold Rowland who saw a man with a rifle at 12:15 in the
window of the 6th floor.
All these people seeing men with guns in the TSBD, while Oswald is
eating lunch in the lunchroom. The statement of Carolyn Arnold (to the
FBI) was too damaging to the WC lawyers theory of the 'lone gunman', so
she never got to testify for the WC. Yet she could have proved that
Oswald was innocent. The WC couldn't have that. They knew they were
there to take in the suckers that Oswald was guilty. Yet another error(?)
of the WC.

Amazing how all those people saw men with rifles where the President was
about to arrive and not one of them thought to alert the police about
it.

AHA! The old LN whine comes into play! She lied!

Where did I use the word "lie"?

Post by mainframetech
But you forget...if
Oswald was supposed to be the gunman at the window on the 6th floor, who
were the gunmen with rifles on the 6th floor?

There is evidence of one gunman on the 6th floor and that guy's name was
Oswald.

Post by mainframetech
More of your fairy tales?
Or real shooters who were the guilty parties to the murder of JFK? If
Oswald ran up to the 6th floor window, would he have to fight these other
shooters for a place by the window?

There were no other shooters.

Post by mainframetech
ROFLMAO!!! Give it up! The killer
taking his time over his lunch, unconcerned that he might miss being at
the window when the target rode by...:)

He was where he needed to be when he needed to be there. That's all that
matters. You are simply presenting a red herring.

Post by mainframetech
Making sure he had no representation.

He didn't need any. He was dead.

Better look through a few legal books. His estate might have been
affected by his status as a convicted killer or an innocent man.

Were you aware that people that have lost a loved one, or who have
suffered in some way can sue the estate of someone they think was guilty
of whatever crime was committed, after their death?

You keep saying it was a prosecution when it was no such thing. Their
findings weren't legally binding in any court.

Post by mainframetech
Proving the guilt of
Oswald would make it worse for his wife if he was destroyed without anyone
to speak for him. And we know it was a railroading.

Post by mainframetech
But each
person has to be asked whether they want to die with a court guilty
verdict hanging over them and their family.

HUH??? Where did you get that idea? It is also irrelevant to Oswald since
he died before being found guilty of a crime and there for had no verdict
hanging over him.

There was a finding of guilt for Oswald. If later someone sued Oswald
or his estate, that goes against him and his wife and kids.

BULL! Don't give me that LN whine that we need an 'expert' because
we're all too dumb to figure it out. The "preponderance of evidence"
would include the results of the WC.

Actually we do need a lawyer because neither you nor I has the legal
background to say whether the WC findings would even be admissable in
court. Certainly the evidence on which the WC based its findings would be
admissable but I don't see how their findings would be considered
evidence, but then again, I am not a lawyer.

The estate of Oswald was in jeopardy.

I didn't say anything about being "seized"! I said "in jeopardy". As
explained above.

They weren't in jeopardy either. You are making up ridiculous claims, but
we've come to expect that from you.

Post by mainframetech
Intimidation of
witnesses, etc.

Horseshit?

Not on your life. But it's expected that you would support such doings
as long as they came from the WC.

I don't support it because it didn't happen in the JFK case.

"claim"? So now your covering for the crimes of the FBI!

What crime? Telling a witness not to speak publicly about a case that is
being investigated is hardly a crime.

Post by mainframetech
Amazing!
When does the USG give you your medal for volunteering for them?
When the FBI threatens the life of safety or health of a witness if
they don't keep quiet, that's a bit different. Here's another item to add
http://youtu.be/ODXoISgU-0M

I don't look at youtube videos because I'm on a limited data plan and
videos eat those up rather quickly. Without even looking, I'm betting
there is nothing on them that would be considered a crime.

Stop selling crap. I'm speaking of true intimidation to witnesses.
As you go through witness statements and testimony, you come across many
times when the FBI tried to intimidate a witness illegally.

Horseshit.

Post by mainframetech
It was a prosecution more unjust than any real trial.

It wasn't a prosecution. It was a fact finding body. You still don't
understand the difference.

I understand very well. Apparently YOU fail to understand that they
were crucifying a man just to save a few conspirators.

You understand a lot of silly things.

Post by mainframetech
It wouldn't have
been so bad if they had someone speaking for him, but they were doing a
prosecution, no matter what you want to call it to cover it up.

You can play legal all you want. It was a crucifixion of the 'patsy'.
He was found guilty of the crime at the end.

You can bluster all you want, the WC findings were not a verdict. Oswald
was not legally found guilty and the government could take no action
against him or his estate as a result of those findings.

I've already explained how the WC could go after a person,
if they chose.

Yes you did and as is typical you were wrong. They had no powers to do
that. Had they found evidence that others were involved they would have
had to turn it over to a prosecutor to bring charges against those
parties.

Post by mainframetech
And their final report is the same as finding Oswald guilty of
murdering JFK.

No it isn't. Not even close. There is nothing about the WC findings which
are binding or resulted in anyone being deprived of life, liberty, or
property.

Post by mainframetech
Don't bother to try to clean it up, he was found guilty,
whether those were the words used or not.

Oh, so you make a mess but you won't let me clean it up.

Post by mainframetech
A
public trial with NO defense for the person assumed to be guilty from the
beginning.

It wasn't a trial.

It was a public trial and hanging in one operation.

It was neither.

You're just unaware or pretending to be dense. He was found guilty,

No, he wasn't. Guilt can only be legally established through a criminal
conviction in a court of law.

Crap. Try as you might to change it, Oswald was found guilty of
murdering JFK.

What was his punishment? That usually follows a guilty verdict. Especially
in a murder case.

Post by mainframetech
And though the words weren't the same, that was the
result! From that point everyone would refer to Oswald as the killer of
JFK.

So? He was.

Post by mainframetech
Without a legal trial. The person assigned to speak for Oswald
never showed up for a single day's work with the WC.

Oswald didn't need anybody to speak for him. He was dead.

Post by mainframetech
and
it was necessary for the conspirators to have a guilty 'verdict' to let
them be free to go about their lives without anyone tracking them.

All cases closed, all law enforcement groups no longer caring about
chasing anyone, since the killer was found and is dead. Use your head.
What kind of baloney are you selling now?

No cases are closed. If evidence were to surface today that some living
person was involved in the assassination of JFK, that person could still
have murder charges brought against him/her and no finding of the WC could
prevent that from happening. That person would have to be charged with
murder under Texas state law because it was a state crime at the time.
That person also wouldn't face the death penalty since the SCOTUS
invalidated all existing death penalty laws in the early 1970s, but that
person could still be charged with murder. There is no statute of
limitations on murder.

Post by mainframetech
It may not have
had that name, but that's what it was.

Not even close.

More horseshit. As Richard Pryor once observed, flies don't even mess with
horseshit.

Then why do you keep messing with it? Face the facts for a change.
You can't keep running away all the time from anything that makes you
unhappy.

If I wanted to face facts, I wouldn't waste my time with your drivel. I do
that for amusement only.

LOL! I seem to get more fun out of using you than the other way
around...:)

Nobody cares about your fantasies.

Ah, but my proofs and truth go over pretty well in some quarters...:)

Those quarters all being in Conspiracyland.

mainframetech

2015-06-05 15:00:28 UTC

The Warren Commision was not a prosecution. It was a fact finding body. It
had no power to take away anyone's life, liberty, or property.

What life did they want to take away?

No one's.

Post by mainframetech
Where in the world are you?

Ohio.

Post by mainframetech
We
know the purpose of the WC. And it had a great deal of power to do all
they if they prosecuted someone as strongly as they did to Oswald.

They never prosecuted Oswald. That can only be done in a court of law.

You deserve a Marshie award for you poor reading comprehension.

Post by mainframetech
Choosing what evidence they would show and consider and what would be kept
out of sight.

Funny how you guys are accusing the WC of keeping evidence out of sight
when much of what you use to attack them is information contained in the
26 volumes which they made available to the public.

an example was some people that saw contradicting evidence to Oswald
being in the window with a rifle. Those people weren't allowed to
testify. And that is many people.

Such as...???

Such as Carolyn Walther, who saw 2 men with guns at 12:25pm. She
thought it was on the 4-5th floor, but it was probably the 6th. Couldn't
be 2 people with guns and not be on the 6th.
Such as John Powell, who looked across from a nearby building and saw 2
men with a gun at 12:15pm.
Such as Carolyn Arnold, TSBD employee, who saw Oswald in the lunchroom
at about 12:25 having lunch.
Such as Arnold Rowland who saw a man with a rifle at 12:15 in the
window of the 6th floor.
All these people seeing men with guns in the TSBD, while Oswald is
eating lunch in the lunchroom. The statement of Carolyn Arnold (to the
FBI) was too damaging to the WC lawyers theory of the 'lone gunman', so
she never got to testify for the WC. Yet she could have proved that
Oswald was innocent. The WC couldn't have that. They knew they were
there to take in the suckers that Oswald was guilty. Yet another error(?)
of the WC.

Amazing how all those people saw men with rifles where the President was
about to arrive and not one of them thought to alert the police about
it.

AHA! The old LN whine comes into play! She lied!

Where did I use the word "lie"?

When you said "even if her dubious tale were true", meaning it was either
a lie or a mistake, and you acted more like it was a lie.

Post by mainframetech
But you forget...if
Oswald was supposed to be the gunman at the window on the 6th floor, who
were the gunmen with rifles on the 6th floor?

There is evidence of one gunman on the 6th floor and that guy's name was
Oswald.

WRONG! Seems like you didn't read the timing list.

There were no other shooters.

LOL! You're really in trouble now, when you deny the very facts...:)
Aside from the fact that there were many shooters that day, there were men
with rifles in the window of the TSBD BEFORE Oswald got there, IF he was
going to try to get there...:)

Post by mainframetech
ROFLMAO!!! Give it up! The killer
taking his time over his lunch, unconcerned that he might miss being at
the window when the target rode by...:)

He was where he needed to be when he needed to be there. That's all that
matters. You are simply presenting a red herring.

I see...:) You have tried to pretend that Oswald went to the window on
the 6th floor and walked through the men with rifles that were already
there like a ghost, and as they were standing there with their rifles in
their hands, he banged away at the limo in the street...suuuure!!! How do
you have the nerve to bring on embarrassment for coming up with that one?

Post by mainframetech
Making sure he had no representation.

He didn't need any. He was dead.

Better look through a few legal books. His estate might have been
affected by his status as a convicted killer or an innocent man.

Were you aware that people that have lost a loved one, or who have
suffered in some way can sue the estate of someone they think was guilty
of whatever crime was committed, after their death?

You keep saying it was a prosecution when it was no such thing. Their
findings weren't legally binding in any court.

Depends on how they were used. I explained why it was a 'prosecution'
even though it wasn't officially one. And although Oswald wasn't found
guilty, he was found guilty in the eyes of the world, except the wise CTs.

Post by mainframetech
Proving the guilt of
Oswald would make it worse for his wife if he was destroyed without anyone
to speak for him. And we know it was a railroading.

Post by mainframetech
But each
person has to be asked whether they want to die with a court guilty
verdict hanging over them and their family.

HUH??? Where did you get that idea? It is also irrelevant to Oswald since
he died before being found guilty of a crime and there for had no verdict
hanging over him.

There was a finding of guilt for Oswald. If later someone sued Oswald
or his estate, that goes against him and his wife and kids.

BULL! Don't give me that LN whine that we need an 'expert' because
we're all too dumb to figure it out. The "preponderance of evidence"
would include the results of the WC.

Right, you're certainly not a lawyer, but I'm not thinking like an LN
that says that we're so dumb that we need an expert here...:)

The estate of Oswald was in jeopardy.

I didn't say anything about being "seized"! I said "in jeopardy". As
explained above.

They weren't in jeopardy either. You are making up ridiculous claims, but
we've come to expect that from you.

blah, blah, blah.

Post by mainframetech
Intimidation of
witnesses, etc.

Horseshit?

Not on your life. But it's expected that you would support such doings
as long as they came from the WC.

I don't support it because it didn't happen in the JFK case.

"claim"? So now your covering for the crimes of the FBI!

What crime? Telling a witness not to speak publicly about a case that is
being investigated is hardly a crime.

I've explained the intimidation and it has nothing to do with keeping
quiet for ongoing procedures. It has to do with scaring a witness into
silence, which is illegal. Stop creating problems.

I don't look at youtube videos because I'm on a limited data plan and
videos eat those up rather quickly. Without even looking, I'm betting
there is nothing on them that would be considered a crime.

It is 3 cases of the FBI intentionally repeating 3 witnesses stories
incorrectly to support the 'lone gunman' theory, when it had nothing to do
with what they actually said. You might try to get Cablevision fiber
optics, they can give you unlimited data. And the price isn't that high.
Not if you take the 3-way option, and get phone (unlimited time anywhere
in the USA and possessions), internet, and TV.

Stop selling crap. I'm speaking of true intimidation to witnesses.
As you go through witness statements and testimony, you come across many
times when the FBI tried to intimidate a witness illegally.

Horseshit.

Nope, I'm a witness, and I've seen it in the records. Or are you going
to use the LN kook's whine that I'm lying or mistaken?

Post by mainframetech
It was a prosecution more unjust than any real trial.

It wasn't a prosecution. It was a fact finding body. You still don't
understand the difference.

I understand very well. Apparently YOU fail to understand that they
were crucifying a man just to save a few conspirators.

You understand a lot of silly things.

Post by mainframetech
It wouldn't have
been so bad if they had someone speaking for him, but they were doing a
prosecution, no matter what you want to call it to cover it up.

You can play legal all you want. It was a crucifixion of the 'patsy'.
He was found guilty of the crime at the end.

You can bluster all you want, the WC findings were not a verdict. Oswald
was not legally found guilty and the government could take no action
against him or his estate as a result of those findings.

I've already explained how the WC could go after a person,
if they chose.

They had all the power in the world to do damage to a person if they
chose. And through recommendations to other branches of Government, they
can have the person arrested and all sort of unpleasant things. But this
has all been explained to you.

Post by mainframetech
And their final report is the same as finding Oswald guilty of
murdering JFK.

No it isn't. Not even close. There is nothing about the WC findings which
are binding or resulted in anyone being deprived of life, liberty, or
property.

I didn't say that they HAD done the damage, only that they could, if
they chose. And by finding him guilty, some damage to his reputation has
already been wished upon him.

Post by mainframetech
Don't bother to try to clean it up, he was found guilty,
whether those were the words used or not.

Oh, so you make a mess but you won't let me clean it up.

You're not going to clan it up in any same way. Let it be. You know
what I was saying, and I know what you were complaining about.

Post by mainframetech
A
public trial with NO defense for the person assumed to be guilty from the
beginning.

It wasn't a trial.

It was a public trial and hanging in one operation.

It was neither.

You're just unaware or pretending to be dense. He was found guilty,

No, he wasn't. Guilt can only be legally established through a criminal
conviction in a court of law.

Crap. Try as you might to change it, Oswald was found guilty of
murdering JFK.

What was his punishment? That usually follows a guilty verdict. Especially
in a murder case.

If it was a legitimate case, he would have been freed, since he did
nothing and all the evidence was weak, and the body and limo were stolen
out of the proper venue, and would be disallowed.

Post by mainframetech
And though the words weren't the same, that was the
result! From that point everyone would refer to Oswald as the killer of
JFK.

So? He was.

Naah. Evidence says otherwise. Like the timings at the 6th floor
window.

Post by mainframetech
Without a legal trial. The person assigned to speak for Oswald
never showed up for a single day's work with the WC.

Oswald didn't need anybody to speak for him. He was dead.

They assigned someone anyway, and the guy never showed.

Post by mainframetech
and
it was necessary for the conspirators to have a guilty 'verdict' to let
them be free to go about their lives without anyone tracking them.

All cases closed, all law enforcement groups no longer caring about
chasing anyone, since the killer was found and is dead. Use your head.
What kind of baloney are you selling now?

I'm sure that the case could be re-opened.

Post by mainframetech
It may not have
had that name, but that's what it was.

Not even close.

More horseshit. As Richard Pryor once observed, flies don't even mess with
horseshit.

Then why do you keep messing with it? Face the facts for a change.
You can't keep running away all the time from anything that makes you
unhappy.

If I wanted to face facts, I wouldn't waste my time with your drivel. I do
that for amusement only.

LOL! I seem to get more fun out of using you than the other way
around...:)

Nobody cares about your fantasies.

Ah, but my proofs and truth go over pretty well in some quarters...:)

Those quarters all being in Conspiracyland.

Naah. What I have learned here and in the ARRB files, I have passed on
elsewhere. This is not my only speaking place.

Chris

bigdog

2015-06-06 00:44:07 UTC

The Warren Commision was not a prosecution. It was a fact finding body. It
had no power to take away anyone's life, liberty, or property.

What life did they want to take away?

No one's.

Post by mainframetech
Where in the world are you?

Ohio.

Post by mainframetech
We
know the purpose of the WC. And it had a great deal of power to do all
they if they prosecuted someone as strongly as they did to Oswald.

They never prosecuted Oswald. That can only be done in a court of law.

You deserve a Marshie award for you poor reading comprehension.

Post by mainframetech
Choosing what evidence they would show and consider and what would be kept
out of sight.

Funny how you guys are accusing the WC of keeping evidence out of sight
when much of what you use to attack them is information contained in the
26 volumes which they made available to the public.

an example was some people that saw contradicting evidence to Oswald
being in the window with a rifle. Those people weren't allowed to
testify. And that is many people.

Such as...???

Such as Carolyn Walther, who saw 2 men with guns at 12:25pm. She
thought it was on the 4-5th floor, but it was probably the 6th. Couldn't
be 2 people with guns and not be on the 6th.
Such as John Powell, who looked across from a nearby building and saw 2
men with a gun at 12:15pm.
Such as Carolyn Arnold, TSBD employee, who saw Oswald in the lunchroom
at about 12:25 having lunch.
Such as Arnold Rowland who saw a man with a rifle at 12:15 in the
window of the 6th floor.
All these people seeing men with guns in the TSBD, while Oswald is
eating lunch in the lunchroom. The statement of Carolyn Arnold (to the
FBI) was too damaging to the WC lawyers theory of the 'lone gunman', so
she never got to testify for the WC. Yet she could have proved that
Oswald was innocent. The WC couldn't have that. They knew they were
there to take in the suckers that Oswald was guilty. Yet another error(?)
of the WC.

Amazing how all those people saw men with rifles where the President was
about to arrive and not one of them thought to alert the police about
it.

AHA! The old LN whine comes into play! She lied!

Where did I use the word "lie"?

When you said "even if her dubious tale were true", meaning it was either
a lie or a mistake, and you acted more like it was a lie.

Post by mainframetech
But you forget...if
Oswald was supposed to be the gunman at the window on the 6th floor, who
were the gunmen with rifles on the 6th floor?

There is evidence of one gunman on the 6th floor and that guy's name was
Oswald.

WRONG! Seems like you didn't read the timing list.

Seems like I did which is why I know how silly it is.

There were no other shooters.

Which of your witnesses claimed there was more than one rifle?

Post by mainframetech
ROFLMAO!!! Give it up! The killer
taking his time over his lunch, unconcerned that he might miss being at
the window when the target rode by...:)

He was where he needed to be when he needed to be there. That's all that
matters. You are simply presenting a red herring.

No I am claiming Oswald was the man on the 6th floor with the rifle.
Bonnie Ray Williams testified he had been on the 6th floor eating his
lunch shortly after 12:00 so that would square with witnesses who saw more
than one man on the floor.

Post by mainframetech
Making sure he had no representation.

He didn't need any. He was dead.

Better look through a few legal books. His estate might have been
affected by his status as a convicted killer or an innocent man.

Were you aware that people that have lost a loved one, or who have
suffered in some way can sue the estate of someone they think was guilty
of whatever crime was committed, after their death?

You keep saying it was a prosecution when it was no such thing. Their
findings weren't legally binding in any court.

Depends on how they were used. I explained why it was a 'prosecution'
even though it wasn't officially one.

You explain a lot of things that are just plain wrong.

Post by mainframetech
And although Oswald wasn't found
guilty, he was found guilty in the eyes of the world, except the wise CTs.

Well you will have to blame the eyes of the world rather than the WC since
they didn't render a guilty verdict against Oswald.

Post by mainframetech
Proving the guilt of
Oswald would make it worse for his wife if he was destroyed without anyone
to speak for him. And we know it was a railroading.

Post by mainframetech
But each
person has to be asked whether they want to die with a court guilty
verdict hanging over them and their family.

HUH??? Where did you get that idea? It is also irrelevant to Oswald since
he died before being found guilty of a crime and there for had no verdict
hanging over him.

There was a finding of guilt for Oswald. If later someone sued Oswald
or his estate, that goes against him and his wife and kids.

BULL! Don't give me that LN whine that we need an 'expert' because
we're all too dumb to figure it out. The "preponderance of evidence"
would include the results of the WC.

Right, you're certainly not a lawyer, but I'm not thinking like an LN
that says that we're so dumb that we need an expert here...:)

It's not that we're dumb. It's that we lack the training and experience to
do the jobs of professionals who have had the training and the experience
in these varous fields.

The estate of Oswald was in jeopardy.

I didn't say anything about being "seized"! I said "in jeopardy". As
explained above.

They weren't in jeopardy either. You are making up ridiculous claims, but
we've come to expect that from you.

blah, blah, blah.

Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.

Post by mainframetech
Intimidation of
witnesses, etc.

Horseshit?

Not on your life. But it's expected that you would support such doings
as long as they came from the WC.

I don't support it because it didn't happen in the JFK case.

"claim"? So now your covering for the crimes of the FBI!

What crime? Telling a witness not to speak publicly about a case that is
being investigated is hardly a crime.

I've explained the intimidation and it has nothing to do with keeping
quiet for ongoing procedures. It has to do with scaring a witness into
silence, which is illegal. Stop creating problems.

Really. What law is broken when an investigator tells a material witness
not to speak publicly about what he knows?

I don't look at youtube videos because I'm on a limited data plan and
videos eat those up rather quickly. Without even looking, I'm betting
there is nothing on them that would be considered a crime.

I was going to say "I'll have to take your word for it" but then I
realized there is not much I would take your word for.

Stop selling crap. I'm speaking of true intimidation to witnesses.
As you go through witness statements and testimony, you come across many
times when the FBI tried to intimidate a witness illegally.

Horseshit.

Nope, I'm a witness, and I've seen it in the records. Or are you going
to use the LN kook's whine that I'm lying or mistaken?

One of those.

Post by mainframetech
It was a prosecution more unjust than any real trial.

It wasn't a prosecution. It was a fact finding body. You still don't
understand the difference.

I understand very well. Apparently YOU fail to understand that they
were crucifying a man just to save a few conspirators.

You understand a lot of silly things.

Post by mainframetech
It wouldn't have
been so bad if they had someone speaking for him, but they were doing a
prosecution, no matter what you want to call it to cover it up.

You can play legal all you want. It was a crucifixion of the 'patsy'.
He was found guilty of the crime at the end.

You can bluster all you want, the WC findings were not a verdict. Oswald
was not legally found guilty and the government could take no action
against him or his estate as a result of those findings.

I've already explained how the WC could go after a person,
if they chose.

And since they found no evidence that anybody but a guy who was by then
dead, there was no reason for them to have anyone arrested or prosecuted.

Post by mainframetech
And their final report is the same as finding Oswald guilty of
murdering JFK.

No it isn't. Not even close. There is nothing about the WC findings which
are binding or resulted in anyone being deprived of life, liberty, or
property.

I didn't say that they HAD done the damage, only that they could, if
they chose.

So they could have abused their power but they didn't. Got it.

Post by mainframetech
And by finding him guilty, some damage to his reputation has
already been wished upon him.

He was dead. I don't think he was concerned about his reputation.

Post by mainframetech
Don't bother to try to clean it up, he was found guilty,
whether those were the words used or not.

Oh, so you make a mess but you won't let me clean it up.

You're not going to clan it up in any same way. Let it be. You know
what I was saying, and I know what you were complaining about.

And I know what you were saying was wrong.

Post by mainframetech
A
public trial with NO defense for the person assumed to be guilty from the
beginning.

It wasn't a trial.

It was a public trial and hanging in one operation.

It was neither.

You're just unaware or pretending to be dense. He was found guilty,

No, he wasn't. Guilt can only be legally established through a criminal
conviction in a court of law.

Crap. Try as you might to change it, Oswald was found guilty of
murdering JFK.

What was his punishment? That usually follows a guilty verdict. Especially
in a murder case.

If it was a legitimate case, he would have been freed, since he did
nothing and all the evidence was weak, and the body and limo were stolen
out of the proper venue, and would be disallowed.

Post by mainframetech
And though the words weren't the same, that was the
result! From that point everyone would refer to Oswald as the killer of
JFK.

So? He was.

Naah. Evidence says otherwise. Like the timings at the 6th floor
window.

Post by mainframetech
Without a legal trial. The person assigned to speak for Oswald
never showed up for a single day's work with the WC.

Oswald didn't need anybody to speak for him. He was dead.

They assigned someone anyway, and the guy never showed.

Post by mainframetech
and
it was necessary for the conspirators to have a guilty 'verdict' to let
them be free to go about their lives without anyone tracking them.

All cases closed, all law enforcement groups no longer caring about
chasing anyone, since the killer was found and is dead. Use your head.
What kind of baloney are you selling now?

I'm sure that the case could be re-opened.

If there was any evidence that somebody other than Oswald was involved it
would be but that is purely hypothetical since there is no evidence
anybody else was involved.

Post by mainframetech
It may not have
had that name, but that's what it was.

Not even close.

More horseshit. As Richard Pryor once observed, flies don't even mess with
horseshit.

Then why do you keep messing with it? Face the facts for a change.
You can't keep running away all the time from anything that makes you
unhappy.

If I wanted to face facts, I wouldn't waste my time with your drivel. I do
that for amusement only.

LOL! I seem to get more fun out of using you than the other way
around...:)

Nobody cares about your fantasies.

Ah, but my proofs and truth go over pretty well in some quarters...:)

Those quarters all being in Conspiracyland.

Naah. What I have learned here and in the ARRB files, I have passed on
elsewhere. This is not my only speaking place.

And your efforts have resulted in people calling their congressmen
demanding the JFK investigation be reopened. Oh wait. That isn't
happening. The silence is deafening.

Anthony Marsh

2015-05-31 13:58:06 UTC

The Warren Commision was not a prosecution. It was a fact finding body. It
had no power to take away anyone's life, liberty, or property.

So all those exhibits and documents were donated?

bigdog

2015-05-31 23:45:34 UTC

The Warren Commision was not a prosecution. It was a fact finding body. It
had no power to take away anyone's life, liberty, or property.

So all those exhibits and documents were donated?

It is truly amazing how illogically your mind works. What does the
gathering of evidence have to do with the fact the WC was not prosecuting
anyone. They had no power to do that. They did have the power of subpoena.
Two different powers.

mainframetech

2015-06-01 19:10:14 UTC

The Warren Commision was not a prosecution. It was a fact finding body. It
had no power to take away anyone's life, liberty, or property.

So all those exhibits and documents were donated?

Any commission like the WC can cause great damage to an individual and
often cause them to be arrested on this or that charge if they handle it
correctly. They can turn information over to authorities that DO have the
arrest ability, but you can be sure that the event was caused by the
commission itself.

Chris

bigdog

2015-06-02 14:43:26 UTC

The Warren Commision was not a prosecution. It was a fact finding body. It
had no power to take away anyone's life, liberty, or property.

So all those exhibits and documents were donated?

Any commission like the WC can cause great damage to an individual

Not after they're dead.

Post by mainframetech
and
often cause them to be arrested on this or that charge if they handle it
correctly.

Too late to do that to Oswald. If they found evidence of the involvement
of others, that would be a good thing if they got them arrested.

Post by mainframetech
They can turn information over to authorities that DO have the
arrest ability, but you can be sure that the event was caused by the
commission itself.

Why would that be a bad thing?

mainframetech

2015-06-03 02:43:49 UTC

The Warren Commision was not a prosecution. It was a fact finding body. It
had no power to take away anyone's life, liberty, or property.

So all those exhibits and documents were donated?

Any commission like the WC can cause great damage to an individual

Not after they're dead.

You don't listen well. And I know you know the word 'estate'.

Post by mainframetech
and
often cause them to be arrested on this or that charge if they handle it
correctly.

Too late to do that to Oswald. If they found evidence of the involvement
of others, that would be a good thing if they got them arrested.

Post by mainframetech
They can turn information over to authorities that DO have the
arrest ability, but you can be sure that the event was caused by the
commission itself.

Why would that be a bad thing?

Since they lied and saw to falsifying records and chose only certain
witnesses and did other things, like trying to have testimony changed to
better suit a wacky theory of the WC lawyers, Whatever they would do would
be suspect. Even if YOU are a strong believer in them and their works.

Chris

Anthony Marsh

2015-06-01 22:21:35 UTC

The Warren Commision was not a prosecution. It was a fact finding body. It
had no power to take away anyone's life, liberty, or property.

So all those exhibits and documents were donated?

You said property. What legal authority did the WC have to collect
evidence?

bigdog

2015-06-02 15:51:33 UTC

The Warren Commision was not a prosecution. It was a fact finding body. It
had no power to take away anyone's life, liberty, or property.

So all those exhibits and documents were donated?

You said property.

That's right. The WC had no power to deprive Oswald or anyone else of
life, liberty, or property. The Bill or Rights prohibits the government
from depriving anyone of life, liberty, or property without due process.
Since they weren't doing that, no one needed to be given due process.

Post by Anthony Marsh
What legal authority did the WC have to collect
evidence?

I'm surprised you didn't know this given your obsession with the minutia
of the case.

http://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/warren-commission-report/intro.html

"On December 13, 1963, Congress passed Senate Joint Resolution 137 (Public
Law 88-202) authorizing the Commission to subpoena witnesses and obtain
evidence concerning any matter relating to the investigation. The
resolution also gave the Commission the power to compel the testimony of
witnesses by granting immunity from prosecution to witnesses testifying
under compulsion. The Commission, however, did not grant immunity to any
witness during the investigation.".

Anthony Marsh

2015-06-03 01:48:07 UTC

The Warren Commision was not a prosecution. It was a fact finding body. It
had no power to take away anyone's life, liberty, or property.

So all those exhibits and documents were donated?

You said property.

Post by Anthony Marsh
What legal authority did the WC have to collect
evidence?

I'm surprised you didn't know this given your obsession with the minutia
of the case.
http://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/warren-commission-report/intro.html
"On December 13, 1963, Congress passed Senate Joint Resolution 137 (Public
Law 88-202) authorizing the Commission to subpoena witnesses and obtain
evidence concerning any matter relating to the investigation. The
resolution also gave the Commission the power to compel the testimony of
witnesses by granting immunity from prosecution to witnesses testifying
under compulsion. The Commission, however, did not grant immunity to any
witness during the investigation.".

The bill says SUBPENA. Show me the subpenas.

bigdog

2015-06-03 18:46:02 UTC

The Warren Commision was not a prosecution. It was a fact finding body. It
had no power to take away anyone's life, liberty, or property.

So all those exhibits and documents were donated?

You said property.

Post by Anthony Marsh
What legal authority did the WC have to collect
evidence?

I'm surprised you didn't know this given your obsession with the minutia
of the case.
http://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/warren-commission-report/intro.html
"On December 13, 1963, Congress passed Senate Joint Resolution 137 (Public
Law 88-202) authorizing the Commission to subpoena witnesses and obtain
evidence concerning any matter relating to the investigation. The
resolution also gave the Commission the power to compel the testimony of
witnesses by granting immunity from prosecution to witnesses testifying
under compulsion. The Commission, however, did not grant immunity to any
witness during the investigation.".

The bill says SUBPENA. Show me the subpenas.

You asked for what their legal authority was an I showed you which you
apparently didn't know. Now to save face you want to move the goalposts.

mainframetech

2015-06-03 02:40:01 UTC

The Warren Commision was not a prosecution. It was a fact finding body. It
had no power to take away anyone's life, liberty, or property.

So all those exhibits and documents were donated?

You said property.

A foolish comment. This is the real world. Put away your patriotic
philosophizing and face reality. The WC could have easily had someone
arrested if they did it correctly as a recommendation and supplied
evidence that would back it up. And there was a lot of phony evidence
floating around them, for sure.

Post by Anthony Marsh
What legal authority did the WC have to collect
evidence?

I'm surprised you didn't know this given your obsession with the minutia
of the case.
http://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/warren-commission-report/intro.html
"On December 13, 1963, Congress passed Senate Joint Resolution 137 (Public
Law 88-202) authorizing the Commission to subpoena witnesses and obtain
evidence concerning any matter relating to the investigation. The
resolution also gave the Commission the power to compel the testimony of
witnesses by granting immunity from prosecution to witnesses testifying
under compulsion. The Commission, however, did not grant immunity to any
witness during the investigation.".

Chris

bigdog

2015-06-03 18:46:23 UTC

The Warren Commision was not a prosecution. It was a fact finding body. It
had no power to take away anyone's life, liberty, or property.

So all those exhibits and documents were donated?

You said property.

Point to the section of the law authorizing the formation of the WC that
gave them powers of arrest. Otherwise we can just add this to the
neverending list of things you just made up.

Herbert Blenner

2015-06-04 14:32:44 UTC

The Warren Commision was not a prosecution. It was a fact finding body. It
had no power to take away anyone's life, liberty, or property.

So all those exhibits and documents were donated?

You said property.

Point to the section of the law authorizing the formation of the WC that
gave them powers of arrest. Otherwise we can just add this to the
neverending list of things you just made up.

The phrase, "could have easily had someone arrested," asserts that the WC
itself did not have arrest power.

s***@yahoo.com

2015-06-02 15:52:47 UTC

The Warren Commision was not a prosecution. It was a fact finding body. It
had no power to take away anyone's life, liberty, or property.

So all those exhibits and documents were donated?

You said property. What legal authority did the WC have to collect
evidence?

Congress gave it to them:
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/STATUTE-77/pdf/STATUTE-77-Pg362.pdf

Anthony Marsh

2015-06-03 01:47:32 UTC

Post by s***@yahoo.com

The Warren Commision was not a prosecution. It was a fact finding body. It
had no power to take away anyone's life, liberty, or property.

So all those exhibits and documents were donated?

You said property. What legal authority did the WC have to collect
evidence?

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/STATUTE-77/pdf/STATUTE-77-Pg362.pdf

Fine. Show me the subpenas.
What, no witty comeback?

bigdog

2015-05-29 02:00:41 UTC

The ARRB did not make any findings. They simple made information available
to the public. It gave the conspiracy hobbyists new toys to play with.

What they made public in that note was that certain people thought the
WCR was bull. That wasn't in their mission statement...:)

Do you think we needed the ARRB to tell us that. Conspiracy hobbyists have
been around a lot longer than the ARRB.

Some of their theories are so old they are now eligible to be members of
the AARP!

Actually, the ARRB reported that not only LBJ and RFK distrusted the
findings of the WCR, but also 4 of its members!!! That makes a majority
out of the 7 members! So the WC has rules against itself!

Name one member of the WC who disputes that Oswald fired the shots that
killed JFK. Name one member of the WC who believes they found any evidence
of a conspiracy. Name one statement by RFK on the record in which he
disputes the findings of the WC. We do have a recordings of LBJ expressing
misgivings about the WCR. That just makes him the
conspiracy-hobbyist-in-chief.

mainframetech

2015-05-29 17:32:22 UTC

The ARRB did not make any findings. They simple made information available
to the public. It gave the conspiracy hobbyists new toys to play with.

What they made public in that note was that certain people thought the
WCR was bull. That wasn't in their mission statement...:)

Do you think we needed the ARRB to tell us that. Conspiracy hobbyists have
been around a lot longer than the ARRB.

Some of their theories are so old they are now eligible to be members of
the AARP!

Actually, the ARRB reported that not only LBJ and RFK distrusted the
findings of the WCR, but also 4 of its members!!! That makes a majority
out of the 7 members! So the WC has rules against itself!

I've already given you a statement from the ARRB final report showing
that not only LBJ, but also RFK and 4 members of the WC itself had
skepticism about the findings of the WC. That's a majority ruling...:)

"Doubts about the Warren Commission's findings were not restricted to
ordinary Americans. Well before 1978, President Johnson, Robert Kennedy,
and four of the seven members of the Warren Commission all articulated, if
sometimes off the record, some level of skepticism about the Commission's
basic findings."

Chapter 1, endnotes #17

Chris

Anthony Marsh

2015-05-29 20:47:51 UTC

The ARRB did not make any findings. They simple made information available
to the public. It gave the conspiracy hobbyists new toys to play with.

What they made public in that note was that certain people thought the
WCR was bull. That wasn't in their mission statement...:)

Do you think we needed the ARRB to tell us that. Conspiracy hobbyists have
been around a lot longer than the ARRB.

Some of their theories are so old they are now eligible to be members of
the AARP!

Actually, the ARRB reported that not only LBJ and RFK distrusted the
findings of the WCR, but also 4 of its members!!! That makes a majority
out of the 7 members! So the WC has rules against itself!

Russell.

Anthony Marsh

2015-05-21 00:07:44 UTC

The ARRB did not make any findings. They simple made information available
to the public. It gave the conspiracy hobbyists new toys to play with.

They also FOUND the destroyed autopsy photos. Not that we'll ever be
allow to see them.

Bud

2015-05-21 20:32:21 UTC

The ARRB did not make any findings. They simple made information available
to the public. It gave the conspiracy hobbyists new toys to play with.

They also FOUND the destroyed autopsy photos.

How do you find a destroyed photo?

Post by Anthony Marsh
Not that we'll ever be
allow to see them.

Herbert Blenner

2015-05-22 15:53:54 UTC

The ARRB did not make any findings. They simple made information available
to the public. It gave the conspiracy hobbyists new toys to play with.

The ARRB published highly significant medical testimonies. In particular
they reported that Humes renounced the 7 mm by 4 mm longitudinal back
wound.

Source: ARRB deposition of Dr. James Joseph Humes

http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/medical_testimony/Humes_2-13-96/html/Humes_0091a.htm

Q Were there any other injuries on the back of President Kennedy other than
those that are exposed to--
A Well, you say those. I don't know what this little dot down below is.
Q Let's take them one at a time. There is one mark that appears to be high
at approximately
the second-centimeter line.
A Yes.
Q Is that the wound that you were identifying as the wound of entry?
A Yes, sir.
Q And when you were referring to the mark somewhat below, you were referring
to something at approximately the six-centimeter mark?
A Yeah, I don't know what that is. A little drop of blood or what, I have
no idea.
Q Was there more than one wound of entry--
A No, there was not.
Q And you're reasonably confident that the wound of entry is the one that
is at the higher--
A Yes, sir, I am.
Q Is that correct?
A Yes, sir.

Fox 5 shows that approximately four centimeters separated the transverse
back wound discussed by the medical panels and the longitudinal wound
originally reported by Humes.

Anthony Marsh

2015-05-23 01:16:18 UTC

The ARRB did not make any findings. They simple made information available
to the public. It gave the conspiracy hobbyists new toys to play with.

The ARRB published highly significant medical testimonies. In particular
they reported that Humes renounced the 7 mm by 4 mm longitudinal back
wound.

Then why do you keep referencing it? Just to mislead people.
Just ignore the Three Stooges.

Post by Herbert Blenner
Source: ARRB deposition of Dr. James Joseph Humes
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/medical_testimony/Humes_2-13-96/html/Humes_0091a.htm
Q Were there any other injuries on the back of President Kennedy other than
those that are exposed to--
A Well, you say those. I don't know what this little dot down below is.
Q Let's take them one at a time. There is one mark that appears to be high
at approximately
the second-centimeter line.
A Yes.
Q Is that the wound that you were identifying as the wound of entry?
A Yes, sir.
Q And when you were referring to the mark somewhat below, you were referring
to something at approximately the six-centimeter mark?
A Yeah, I don't know what that is. A little drop of blood or what, I have
no idea.

And when I say bloodclot you call me a kook. Go figure.

Post by Herbert Blenner
Q Was there more than one wound of entry--
A No, there was not.
Q And you're reasonably confident that the wound of entry is the one that
is at the higher--
A Yes, sir, I am.
Q Is that correct?
A Yes, sir.

Yet YOU who has never seen the body and only seen very poor copies of
the autopsy photo claim that there is a second back wound. But you still
can't decide if it is an entrance wound or an exit wound.
If you are afraid to debate these issues don't even bother logging on.
Try to sell your kook theories to the Fox Network.

Post by Herbert Blenner
Fox 5 shows that approximately four centimeters separated the transverse
back wound discussed by the medical panels and the longitudinal wound
originally reported by Humes.

Only in your overactive imagination.

bigdog

2015-05-23 01:22:17 UTC

The ARRB did not make any findings. They simple made information available
to the public. It gave the conspiracy hobbyists new toys to play with.

The ARRB published highly significant medical testimonies. In particular
they reported that Humes renounced the 7 mm by 4 mm longitudinal back
wound.
Source: ARRB deposition of Dr. James Joseph Humes
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/medical_testimony/Humes_2-13-96/html/Humes_0091a.htm
Q Were there any other injuries on the back of President Kennedy other than
those that are exposed to--
A Well, you say those. I don't know what this little dot down below is.
Q Let's take them one at a time. There is one mark that appears to be high
at approximately
the second-centimeter line.
A Yes.
Q Is that the wound that you were identifying as the wound of entry?
A Yes, sir.
Q And when you were referring to the mark somewhat below, you were referring
to something at approximately the six-centimeter mark?
A Yeah, I don't know what that is. A little drop of blood or what, I have
no idea.
Q Was there more than one wound of entry--
A No, there was not.
Q And you're reasonably confident that the wound of entry is the one that
is at the higher--
A Yes, sir, I am.
Q Is that correct?
A Yes, sir.
Fox 5 shows that approximately four centimeters separated the transverse
back wound discussed by the medical panels and the longitudinal wound
originally reported by Humes.

Apparently only desperate conspiracy hobbyists find any of this
significant. Nobody else thought anything that came out of the ARRB was a
game changer.

mainframetech

2015-05-23 18:25:09 UTC

The ARRB did not make any findings. They simple made information available
to the public. It gave the conspiracy hobbyists new toys to play with.

The ARRB published highly significant medical testimonies. In particular
they reported that Humes renounced the 7 mm by 4 mm longitudinal back
wound.
Source: ARRB deposition of Dr. James Joseph Humes
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/medical_testimony/Humes_2-13-96/html/Humes_0091a.htm
Q Were there any other injuries on the back of President Kennedy other than
those that are exposed to--
A Well, you say those. I don't know what this little dot down below is.
Q Let's take them one at a time. There is one mark that appears to be high
at approximately
the second-centimeter line.
A Yes.
Q Is that the wound that you were identifying as the wound of entry?
A Yes, sir.
Q And when you were referring to the mark somewhat below, you were referring
to something at approximately the six-centimeter mark?
A Yeah, I don't know what that is. A little drop of blood or what, I have
no idea.
Q Was there more than one wound of entry--
A No, there was not.
Q And you're reasonably confident that the wound of entry is the one that
is at the higher--
A Yes, sir, I am.
Q Is that correct?
A Yes, sir.
Fox 5 shows that approximately four centimeters separated the transverse
back wound discussed by the medical panels and the longitudinal wound
originally reported by Humes.

Apparently only desperate conspiracy hobbyists find any of this
significant. Nobody else thought anything that came out of the ARRB was a
game changer.

Which shows how long you've been out of action. You've been away.
The ARRB is the premier place for learning what happened in may instances.
They were able to finally get sworn testimony from many places that the WC
fools ignored. They brought out the clandestine surgery of Humes and
Boswell on the body of JFK. They showed the testimony that showed that
the Autopsy Report was a phony. Many researchers found fertile soil
there. Gary Aguilar, MD, David Mantik, MD., PhD, Douglas Horne and many
others have found many glitches in the conspiracy that were there but not
found until the ARRB files were available.

To this day they are still mining the ARRB files for more information.
I would rather say that the desperation is felt more at what the ARRB has
wrought has caused so many LNs to feel put upon.

Chris

bigdog

2015-05-24 02:46:02 UTC

The ARRB did not make any findings. They simple made information available
to the public. It gave the conspiracy hobbyists new toys to play with.

The ARRB published highly significant medical testimonies. In particular
they reported that Humes renounced the 7 mm by 4 mm longitudinal back
wound.
Source: ARRB deposition of Dr. James Joseph Humes
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/medical_testimony/Humes_2-13-96/html/Humes_0091a.htm
Q Were there any other injuries on the back of President Kennedy other than
those that are exposed to--
A Well, you say those. I don't know what this little dot down below is.
Q Let's take them one at a time. There is one mark that appears to be high
at approximately
the second-centimeter line.
A Yes.
Q Is that the wound that you were identifying as the wound of entry?
A Yes, sir.
Q And when you were referring to the mark somewhat below, you were referring
to something at approximately the six-centimeter mark?
A Yeah, I don't know what that is. A little drop of blood or what, I have
no idea.
Q Was there more than one wound of entry--
A No, there was not.
Q And you're reasonably confident that the wound of entry is the one that
is at the higher--
A Yes, sir, I am.
Q Is that correct?
A Yes, sir.
Fox 5 shows that approximately four centimeters separated the transverse
back wound discussed by the medical panels and the longitudinal wound
originally reported by Humes.

Apparently only desperate conspiracy hobbyists find any of this
significant. Nobody else thought anything that came out of the ARRB was a
game changer.

As I noted a few days ago, all the ARRB did was give the conspiracy
hobbyists a few new toys to play with. The evidence of conspiracy that
they were sure would be in the information that was made available to the
public wasn't there, much to the chagrin. Not to be dscouraged, a few
enterprising conspiracy hobbyists, like Horne, saw the potential for using
the ARRB data to polish up some old turds and recycle them. Amazingly
enough, they found a few suc......excuse me, disciples.

Post by mainframetech
To this day they are still mining the ARRB files for more information.
I would rather say that the desperation is felt more at what the ARRB has
wrought has caused so many LNs to feel put upon.

The only people doing that are the ones who aren't aware there is nothing
in the ARRB files that shows there was a conspiracy. If there had been,
the conspiracy hobbyists would have been popping the champagne corks two
decades ago. You act as if you are discovering something in going over
that old ground. Sorry. The Easter Egg hunt was 20 years ago and the
conspiracy hobbyists all came away with empty baskets. You're only kidding
yourself if you think you're going to find something they missed.

mainframetech

2015-05-24 23:50:10 UTC

The ARRB did not make any findings. They simple made information available
to the public. It gave the conspiracy hobbyists new toys to play with.

The ARRB published highly significant medical testimonies. In particular
they reported that Humes renounced the 7 mm by 4 mm longitudinal back
wound.
Source: ARRB deposition of Dr. James Joseph Humes
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/medical_testimony/Humes_2-13-96/html/Humes_0091a.htm
Q Were there any other injuries on the back of President Kennedy other than
those that are exposed to--
A Well, you say those. I don't know what this little dot down below is.
Q Let's take them one at a time. There is one mark that appears to be high
at approximately
the second-centimeter line.
A Yes.
Q Is that the wound that you were identifying as the wound of entry?
A Yes, sir.
Q And when you were referring to the mark somewhat below, you were referring
to something at approximately the six-centimeter mark?
A Yeah, I don't know what that is. A little drop of blood or what, I have
no idea.
Q Was there more than one wound of entry--
A No, there was not.
Q And you're reasonably confident that the wound of entry is the one that
is at the higher--
A Yes, sir, I am.
Q Is that correct?
A Yes, sir.
Fox 5 shows that approximately four centimeters separated the transverse
back wound discussed by the medical panels and the longitudinal wound
originally reported by Humes.

Apparently only desperate conspiracy hobbyists find any of this
significant. Nobody else thought anything that came out of the ARRB was a
game changer.

LOL! For that attempt to cover up a source of endless new information,
you get a 'bd' award!!! You know that if everyone went to the ARRB for
their information instead of your silly WCR, they'd get far more truthful
info. You can't have that...:)

The conspiracy is shown all over the ARRB files. If there was no
conspiracy, there'd be no reason to do all the subterfuge at the autopsy.
No reason for Humes and Boswell to do their clandestine surgery on the
body.

Chris

Jason Burke

2015-05-25 17:20:31 UTC

The ARRB did not make any findings. They simple made information available
to the public. It gave the conspiracy hobbyists new toys to play with.

The ARRB published highly significant medical testimonies. In particular
they reported that Humes renounced the 7 mm by 4 mm longitudinal back
wound.
Source: ARRB deposition of Dr. James Joseph Humes
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/medical_testimony/Humes_2-13-96/html/Humes_0091a.htm
Q Were there any other injuries on the back of President Kennedy other than
those that are exposed to--
A Well, you say those. I don't know what this little dot down below is.
Q Let's take them one at a time. There is one mark that appears to be high
at approximately
the second-centimeter line.
A Yes.
Q Is that the wound that you were identifying as the wound of entry?
A Yes, sir.
Q And when you were referring to the mark somewhat below, you were referring
to something at approximately the six-centimeter mark?
A Yeah, I don't know what that is. A little drop of blood or what, I have
no idea.
Q Was there more than one wound of entry--
A No, there was not.
Q And you're reasonably confident that the wound of entry is the one that
is at the higher--
A Yes, sir, I am.
Q Is that correct?
A Yes, sir.
Fox 5 shows that approximately four centimeters separated the transverse
back wound discussed by the medical panels and the longitudinal wound
originally reported by Humes.

Apparently only desperate conspiracy hobbyists find any of this
significant. Nobody else thought anything that came out of the ARRB was a
game changer.

You SERIOUSLY still believe all your nonsense?

Anthony Marsh

2015-05-25 20:31:34 UTC

Post by mainframetech
The ARRB is a word that is rarely used by the conspiracy
denialists. Almost as if it were a dirty word that should not
be discussed in public. Yet it has yielded great evidence that
hadn't been brought out previously.
I've found at least one reason why that might be. In
"Doubts about the Warren Commission's findings were not
restricted to ordinary Americans. Well before 1978, President
Johnson, Robert Kennedy, and four of the seven members of the
Warren Commission all articulated, if sometimes off the record,
some level of skepticism about the Commission's basic findings."
http://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/review-board/report/chapter-01.pdf
Page 11, note 17

The ARRB did not make any findings. They simple made information available
to the public. It gave the conspiracy hobbyists new toys to play with.

The ARRB published highly significant medical testimonies. In particular
they reported that Humes renounced the 7 mm by 4 mm longitudinal back
wound.
Source: ARRB deposition of Dr. James Joseph Humes
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/medical_testimony/Humes_2-13-96/html/Humes_0091a.htm
Q Were there any other injuries on the back of President Kennedy other than
those that are exposed to--
A Well, you say those. I don't know what this little dot down below is.
Q Let's take them one at a time. There is one mark that appears to be high
at approximately
the second-centimeter line.
A Yes.
Q Is that the wound that you were identifying as the wound of entry?
A Yes, sir.
Q And when you were referring to the mark somewhat below, you were referring
to something at approximately the six-centimeter mark?
A Yeah, I don't know what that is. A little drop of blood or what, I have
no idea.
Q Was there more than one wound of entry--
A No, there was not.
Q And you're reasonably confident that the wound of entry is the one that
is at the higher--
A Yes, sir, I am.
Q Is that correct?
A Yes, sir.
Fox 5 shows that approximately four centimeters separated the transverse
back wound discussed by the medical panels and the longitudinal wound
originally reported by Humes.

Apparently only desperate conspiracy hobbyists find any of this
significant. Nobody else thought anything that came out of the ARRB was a
game changer.

LOL! For that attempt to cover up a source of endless new
information,
you get a 'bd' award!!! You know that if everyone went to the ARRB for
their information instead of your silly WCR, they'd get far more truthful
info. You can't have that...:)

You SERIOUSLY still believe all your nonsense?

Says the man who hasn't even looked at the ARRB files.

mainframetech

2015-05-26 02:45:20 UTC

The ARRB did not make any findings. They simple made information available
to the public. It gave the conspiracy hobbyists new toys to play with.

The ARRB published highly significant medical testimonies. In particular
they reported that Humes renounced the 7 mm by 4 mm longitudinal back
wound.
Source: ARRB deposition of Dr. James Joseph Humes
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/medical_testimony/Humes_2-13-96/html/Humes_0091a.htm
Q Were there any other injuries on the back of President Kennedy other than
those that are exposed to--
A Well, you say those. I don't know what this little dot down below is.
Q Let's take them one at a time. There is one mark that appears to be high
at approximately
the second-centimeter line.
A Yes.
Q Is that the wound that you were identifying as the wound of entry?
A Yes, sir.
Q And when you were referring to the mark somewhat below, you were referring
to something at approximately the six-centimeter mark?
A Yeah, I don't know what that is. A little drop of blood or what, I have
no idea.
Q Was there more than one wound of entry--
A No, there was not.
Q And you're reasonably confident that the wound of entry is the one that
is at the higher--
A Yes, sir, I am.
Q Is that correct?
A Yes, sir.
Fox 5 shows that approximately four centimeters separated the transverse
back wound discussed by the medical panels and the longitudinal wound
originally reported by Humes.

Apparently only desperate conspiracy hobbyists find any of this
significant. Nobody else thought anything that came out of the ARRB was a
game changer.

You SERIOUSLY still believe all your nonsense?

I show you sworn testimony and you fail to believe it. I show you
information from official files and records, and you fail to believe them.
I've done what can be expected to be reasonable, and now its in your
court. You will or you won't believe it, and if not, you will fall back
on your 51 year old tired WCR.

Chris

Anthony Marsh

2015-05-27 11:33:36 UTC

The ARRB did not make any findings. They simple made information available
to the public. It gave the conspiracy hobbyists new toys to play with.

The ARRB published highly significant medical testimonies. In particular
they reported that Humes renounced the 7 mm by 4 mm longitudinal back
wound.
Source: ARRB deposition of Dr. James Joseph Humes
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/medical_testimony/Humes_2-13-96/html/Humes_0091a.htm
Q Were there any other injuries on the back of President Kennedy other than
those that are exposed to--
A Well, you say those. I don't know what this little dot down below is.
Q Let's take them one at a time. There is one mark that appears to be high
at approximately
the second-centimeter line.
A Yes.
Q Is that the wound that you were identifying as the wound of entry?
A Yes, sir.
Q And when you were referring to the mark somewhat below, you were referring
to something at approximately the six-centimeter mark?
A Yeah, I don't know what that is. A little drop of blood or what, I have
no idea.
Q Was there more than one wound of entry--
A No, there was not.
Q And you're reasonably confident that the wound of entry is the one that
is at the higher--
A Yes, sir, I am.
Q Is that correct?
A Yes, sir.
Fox 5 shows that approximately four centimeters separated the transverse
back wound discussed by the medical panels and the longitudinal wound
originally reported by Humes.

Apparently only desperate conspiracy hobbyists find any of this
significant. Nobody else thought anything that came out of the ARRB was a
game changer.

You SERIOUSLY still believe all your nonsense?

Ahem. Your nonsense does not come from the official files and records.
It comes only from your imagination.

Post by mainframetech
Chris

bigdog

2015-05-25 18:02:15 UTC

Post by mainframetech
The conspiracy is shown all over the ARRB files. If there was no
conspiracy, there'd be no reason to do all the subterfuge at the autopsy.
No reason for Humes and Boswell to do their clandestine surgery on the
body.

There was no reason to do any subterfuge and there was no clandestine
surgery on the body. Products of your overly active imagination.

mainframetech

2015-05-26 02:44:39 UTC

There was no reason to do any subterfuge and there was no clandestine
surgery on the body. Products of your overly active imagination.

As usual you're WRONG! The clandestine 'surgery' was witnessed by 3
people, and much of the information given was from sworn testimony.
Humes gave it away when he tried to distance himself from the 'surgery'
and let on he was the one that did it. Conspiracy Denial is your problem,
not mine.

When you avoid solid proof, you must fall back on your tired old
WCR...51 years old and counting, and proven wrong many years ago.

Chris

Jason Burke

2015-05-27 00:04:00 UTC

There was no reason to do any subterfuge and there was no clandestine
surgery on the body. Products of your overly active imagination.

As usual you're WRONG! The clandestine 'surgery' was witnessed by 3
people, and much of the information given was from sworn testimony.
Humes gave it away when he tried to distance himself from the 'surgery'
and let on he was the one that did it. Conspiracy Denial is your problem,
not mine.
When you avoid solid proof, you must fall back on your tired old
WCR...51 years old and counting, and proven wrong many years ago.
Chris

Yeah, Chris. 51 years and you STILL have bupkiss.

mainframetech

2015-05-27 23:36:51 UTC

There was no reason to do any subterfuge and there was no clandestine
surgery on the body. Products of your overly active imagination.

As usual you're WRONG! The clandestine 'surgery' was witnessed by 3
people, and much of the information given was from sworn testimony.
Humes gave it away when he tried to distance himself from the 'surgery'
and let on he was the one that did it. Conspiracy Denial is your problem,
not mine.
When you avoid solid proof, you must fall back on your tired old
WCR...51 years old and counting, and proven wrong many years ago.
Chris

Yeah, Chris. 51 years and you STILL have bupkiss.

The typical LN whine. Yet the ARRB was only 18 years ago and proved how
the body had ben altered with witnesses, and proved the kill shot was from
the front and hit the forehead/temple, and many other things in the case.
You just missed it all while memorizing the WCR.

Chris

Jason Burke

2015-05-28 11:48:43 UTC

There was no reason to do any subterfuge and there was no clandestine
surgery on the body. Products of your overly active imagination.

As usual you're WRONG! The clandestine 'surgery' was witnessed by 3
people, and much of the information given was from sworn testimony.
Humes gave it away when he tried to distance himself from the 'surgery'
and let on he was the one that did it. Conspiracy Denial is your problem,
not mine.
When you avoid solid proof, you must fall back on your tired old
WCR...51 years old and counting, and proven wrong many years ago.
Chris

Yeah, Chris. 51 years and you STILL have bupkiss.

The typical LN whine. Yet the ARRB was only 18 years ago and proved how
the body had ben altered with witnesses,

Nope.

Post by mainframetech
and proved the kill shot was from
the front and hit the forehead/temple,

Nope.

Post by mainframetech
and many other things in the case.

Nope. Though I hear they had better refreshments that the WC. I'll give
you that.

Post by mainframetech
You just missed it all while memorizing the WCR.
Chris

Wow. You're just incredible, Chris.
Do you HONESTLY believe any of drivel you repeat over and over again?
Methinks you're up for a Harris Award.

mainframetech

2015-05-29 17:24:30 UTC

There was no reason to do any subterfuge and there was no clandestine
surgery on the body. Products of your overly active imagination.

As usual you're WRONG! The clandestine 'surgery' was witnessed by 3
people, and much of the information given was from sworn testimony.
Humes gave it away when he tried to distance himself from the 'surgery'
and let on he was the one that did it. Conspiracy Denial is your problem,
not mine.
When you avoid solid proof, you must fall back on your tired old
WCR...51 years old and counting, and proven wrong many years ago.
Chris

Yeah, Chris. 51 years and you STILL have bupkiss.

The typical LN whine. Yet the ARRB was only 18 years ago and proved how
the body had ben altered with witnesses,

Nope.

Post by mainframetech
and proved the kill shot was from
the front and hit the forehead/temple,

Nope.

Post by mainframetech
and many other things in the case.

Nope. Though I hear they had better refreshments that the WC. I'll give
you that.

Post by mainframetech
You just missed it all while memorizing the WCR.
Chris

Wow. You're just incredible, Chris.
Do you HONESTLY believe any of drivel you repeat over and over again?
Methinks you're up for a Harris Award.

As usual, you have forgotten that much of the things I bring to you are
from the sworn testimony from official records. Of course, that probably
means little to you. It's the tired, 51 year old WCR that makes it for
you...:)

Chris

Alex Foyle

2015-06-03 01:41:15 UTC

Post by mainframetech
The typical LN whine. Yet the ARRB was only 18 years ago and proved how
the body had ben altered with witnesses, and proved the kill shot was from
the front and hit the forehead/temple, and many other things in the case.
You just missed it all while memorizing the WCR.

The ARRB proved all this? Kindly point me to the pages in their final
report where they proved what you claimed above.

http://www.fas.org/sgp/advisory/arrb98/

http://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/review-board/report/

mainframetech

2015-06-03 18:56:38 UTC

The ARRB proved all this? Kindly point me to the pages in their final
report where they proved what you claimed above.
http://www.fas.org/sgp/advisory/arrb98/
http://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/review-board/report/

I can either point you to the Autopsy Report (AR), or the places where
the truth is proven, but they are not the same. The AR was in complete
conflict with the findings DURING the autopsy, and had many errors. It
was so bad that it was obvious that it was ordered from higher up as to
its conclusions, which were 180 degrees out from the findings DURING the
autopsy.

An example is that ALL of the prosectors said that "There's NO EXIT"
for the back wound bullet from the body of JFK. That means that there was
NO exit through the throat wound for that bullet, and so there was NO SBT.
Yet the AR brazenly says that the bullet went through the body and came
out the throat wound! Of course it was completely unable to prove that.
Autopsies are supposed to show exactly where and how the bullet traveled
by dissecting the PATH of the bullets, but the AR in this case simply said
the path basically couldn't be found. It also said that the "pleura was
INTACT", (covering around the lungs) which means that no bullet ever got
past that point. The bullet was a 'weak' bullet and never penetrated more
than an inch or so.

To finish up the phony AR, an X-ray technician, Jerrol Custer, said he
was raising the body to get a better shot, when he saw a 'fragment' 3-4
centimeters long fall out of the BACK to the table and be grabbed by
Finck, and he never saw it again. So much for the phony AR.

Chris

Alex Foyle

2015-06-04 21:36:17 UTC

The ARRB proved all this? Kindly point me to the pages in their final
report where they proved what you claimed above.
http://www.fas.org/sgp/advisory/arrb98/
http://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/review-board/report/

I can either point you to the Autopsy Report (AR), or the places where
the truth is proven, but they are not the same. The AR was in complete
conflict with the findings DURING the autopsy, and had many errors. It
was so bad that it was obvious that it was ordered from higher up as to
its conclusions, which were 180 degrees out from the findings DURING the
autopsy.
An example is that ALL of the prosectors said that "There's NO EXIT"
for the back wound bullet from the body of JFK. That means that there was
NO exit through the throat wound for that bullet, and so there was NO SBT.
Yet the AR brazenly says that the bullet went through the body and came
out the throat wound! Of course it was completely unable to prove that.
Autopsies are supposed to show exactly where and how the bullet traveled
by dissecting the PATH of the bullets, but the AR in this case simply said
the path basically couldn't be found. It also said that the "pleura was
INTACT", (covering around the lungs) which means that no bullet ever got
past that point. The bullet was a 'weak' bullet and never penetrated more
than an inch or so.
To finish up the phony AR, an X-ray technician, Jerrol Custer, said he
was raising the body to get a better shot, when he saw a 'fragment' 3-4
centimeters long fall out of the BACK to the table and be grabbed by
Finck, and he never saw it again. So much for the phony AR.

Bla, bla, bla, more hot air and tiresome repetition of your debunked
prosector fantasy. So the final report of the ARRB did not prove what you
claimed, as usual. The ARRB did not prove that "the body had ben altered"
and neither did they prove that "the kill shot was from the front and hit
the forehead/temple". If they had proved this, don't you think they would
have included that vital info in their final report?

mainframetech

2015-06-05 14:57:41 UTC

The ARRB proved all this? Kindly point me to the pages in their final
report where they proved what you claimed above.
http://www.fas.org/sgp/advisory/arrb98/
http://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/review-board/report/

I can either point you to the Autopsy Report (AR), or the places where
the truth is proven, but they are not the same. The AR was in complete
conflict with the findings DURING the autopsy, and had many errors. It
was so bad that it was obvious that it was ordered from higher up as to
its conclusions, which were 180 degrees out from the findings DURING the
autopsy.
An example is that ALL of the prosectors said that "There's NO EXIT"
for the back wound bullet from the body of JFK. That means that there was
NO exit through the throat wound for that bullet, and so there was NO SBT.
Yet the AR brazenly says that the bullet went through the body and came
out the throat wound! Of course it was completely unable to prove that.
Autopsies are supposed to show exactly where and how the bullet traveled
by dissecting the PATH of the bullets, but the AR in this case simply said
the path basically couldn't be found. It also said that the "pleura was
INTACT", (covering around the lungs) which means that no bullet ever got
past that point. The bullet was a 'weak' bullet and never penetrated more
than an inch or so.
To finish up the phony AR, an X-ray technician, Jerrol Custer, said he
was raising the body to get a better shot, when he saw a 'fragment' 3-4
centimeters long fall out of the BACK to the table and be grabbed by
Finck, and he never saw it again. So much for the phony AR.

Which "final report" are you speaking of? The prosectors final report?
The Sibert and O'Neill report? Which one?

And which statement do you find to be "fantasy", since you're using
bd's terminology?

And to help you complain better, try to be more specific and prove
something wrong, so I can see what it is and then explain it for you.

Indeed, the bullet from the front couldn't have been anything else but
that, and the prosectors have said exactly what I said they did. If you
need the actual text from the ARRB files or from statements of the
witnesses, I'll be happy to provide them, but I need to know which things
you're complaining about. Be specific, unless you were trying to
generalize so I couldn't reply...:)

Chris

Alex Foyle

2015-06-05 21:48:41 UTC

Post by Alex Foyle
Bla, bla, bla, more hot air and tiresome repetition of your debunked
prosector fantasy. So the final report of the ARRB did not prove what you
claimed, as usual. The ARRB did not prove that "the body had ben altered"
and neither did they prove that "the kill shot was from the front and hit
the forehead/temple". If they had proved this, don't you think they would
have included that vital info in their final report?

Which "final report" are you speaking of? The prosectors final report?
The Sibert and O'Neill report? Which one?

Are you kidding or as inattentive as Marsh? I gave you two links further
up of the final ARRB report. Maybe slowly reread my posts to you and then
answer the question I posed twice, i.e. where in the final report of the
ARRB do they prove your claims?

Post by mainframetech
And which statement do you find to be "fantasy", since you're using
bd's terminology?

Not a statement is a fantasy, please read more carefully, but your
interpretation of the prosectors statements, as has been explained to you
countless times, yet evidently to no avail.

Post by mainframetech
And to help you complain better, try to be more specific and prove
something wrong, so I can see what it is and then explain it for you.

Wrong is your claim that the ARRB proved that "the body had ben altered"
and that "the kill shot was from the front and hit the forehead/temple". I
ask you for the third time to show me where in their report they proved
it.

Post by mainframetech
Indeed, the bullet from the front couldn't have been anything else but
that, and the prosectors have said exactly what I said they did. If you
need the actual text from the ARRB files or from statements of the
witnesses, I'll be happy to provide them, but I need to know which things
you're complaining about. Be specific, unless you were trying to
generalize so I couldn't reply...:)

Be specific? Chris, you're turning into Marsh junior. Again, if the ARRB
proved such a thing, don't you think it would have been included in their
final report? Show me where they proved that in their report. Specific
enough for you now?

mainframetech

2015-06-06 14:35:56 UTC

Which "final report" are you speaking of? The prosectors final report?
The Sibert and O'Neill report? Which one?

Since the ARRB disagrees with the findings of the prosectors DURING the
autopsy, I don't pay much attention to it. It appears to have been
ordered to say what it does because it goes against everything that the
prosectors found DURING the autopsy. It has conflicts and errors that are
beyond stupid, and I don't believe Humes was THAT incompetent.

Post by mainframetech
And which statement do you find to be "fantasy", since you're using
bd's terminology?

Not a statement is a fantasy, please read more carefully, but your
interpretation of the prosectors statements, as has been explained to you
countless times, yet evidently to no avail.

Are you talking about the prosectors statements DURING the autopsy, or
what you THINK are their statements in the Autopsy Report (AR)?

Post by mainframetech
And to help you complain better, try to be more specific and prove
something wrong, so I can see what it is and then explain it for you.

Wrong is your claim that the ARRB proved that "the body had been altered"
and that "the kill shot was from the front and hit the forehead/temple". I
ask you for the third time to show me where in their report they proved
it.

If you keep trying to get me to show you things in a report that I know
was 180 degrees out from what the prosectors thought, I won't do it. I
don't believe in that report and I DO believe in the comments that the
prosectors made DURING the autopsy as they encountered various situations
with the body.

I will repeat, hopefully for the last time. The AR was a phony, set up
by higher ups to say what as ordered to be said. It was supposed to
support the 'lone gunman' theory. It had many conflicts and errors in it,
and wasn't worth the paper it was printed on. I will gladly argue with
you on any thing using the findings of the prosectors DURING the autopsy.
If you want to bone up onthe data, check out the ARRB testimony of James
Sibert, FBI agent, who obseved the whole autopsy, took notes and wrote up
those notes a couple days later.

As well as the sworn testimony of James Sibert, you can also check out
the sworn testimony of the various enlisted men at Bethesda that assisted
at the autopsy, and saw or heard much of the goings on.

Edward Reed
Jerrol Custer
James C. Jenkins
Dennis David
Tom Robinson (mortician with Gawler's)

I'll be here.

Chris

Anthony Marsh

2015-05-27 18:18:34 UTC

There was no reason to do any subterfuge and there was no clandestine
surgery on the body. Products of your overly active imagination.

It wasn't HIS. Humes said it.

Anthony Marsh

2015-05-25 17:00:24 UTC

The ARRB did not make any findings. They simple made information available
to the public. It gave the conspiracy hobbyists new toys to play with.

The ARRB published highly significant medical testimonies. In particular
they reported that Humes renounced the 7 mm by 4 mm longitudinal back
wound.
Source: ARRB deposition of Dr. James Joseph Humes
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/medical_testimony/Humes_2-13-96/html/Humes_0091a.htm
Q Were there any other injuries on the back of President Kennedy other than
those that are exposed to--
A Well, you say those. I don't know what this little dot down below is.
Q Let's take them one at a time. There is one mark that appears to be high
at approximately
the second-centimeter line.
A Yes.
Q Is that the wound that you were identifying as the wound of entry?
A Yes, sir.
Q And when you were referring to the mark somewhat below, you were referring
to something at approximately the six-centimeter mark?
A Yeah, I don't know what that is. A little drop of blood or what, I have
no idea.
Q Was there more than one wound of entry--
A No, there was not.
Q And you're reasonably confident that the wound of entry is the one that
is at the higher--
A Yes, sir, I am.
Q Is that correct?
A Yes, sir.
Fox 5 shows that approximately four centimeters separated the transverse
back wound discussed by the medical panels and the longitudinal wound
originally reported by Humes.

Apparently only desperate conspiracy hobbyists find any of this
significant. Nobody else thought anything that came out of the ARRB was a
game changer.

Yeah, we did and you guys went into hiding.

bigdog

2015-05-26 23:53:57 UTC

The ARRB did not make any findings. They simple made information available
to the public. It gave the conspiracy hobbyists new toys to play with.

The ARRB published highly significant medical testimonies. In particular
they reported that Humes renounced the 7 mm by 4 mm longitudinal back
wound.
Source: ARRB deposition of Dr. James Joseph Humes
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/medical_testimony/Humes_2-13-96/html/Humes_0091a.htm
Q Were there any other injuries on the back of President Kennedy other than
those that are exposed to--
A Well, you say those. I don't know what this little dot down below is.
Q Let's take them one at a time. There is one mark that appears to be high
at approximately
the second-centimeter line.
A Yes.
Q Is that the wound that you were identifying as the wound of entry?
A Yes, sir.
Q And when you were referring to the mark somewhat below, you were referring
to something at approximately the six-centimeter mark?
A Yeah, I don't know what that is. A little drop of blood or what, I have
no idea.
Q Was there more than one wound of entry--
A No, there was not.
Q And you're reasonably confident that the wound of entry is the one that
is at the higher--
A Yes, sir, I am.
Q Is that correct?
A Yes, sir.
Fox 5 shows that approximately four centimeters separated the transverse
back wound discussed by the medical panels and the longitudinal wound
originally reported by Humes.

Apparently only desperate conspiracy hobbyists find any of this
significant. Nobody else thought anything that came out of the ARRB was a
game changer.

Yeah, we did and you guys went into hiding.

Hiding from what? The ARRB files which the conspiracy hobbyists thought
would reveal the smoking gun but turned out to be a dud. It was about as
exciting as the contents of Al Capone's secret vault which Geraldo
revealed on a live TV. It was a snoozer too.

Herbert Blenner

2015-05-27 18:22:06 UTC

The ARRB did not make any findings. They simple made information available
to the public. It gave the conspiracy hobbyists new toys to play with.

The ARRB published highly significant medical testimonies. In particular
they reported that Humes renounced the 7 mm by 4 mm longitudinal back
wound.
Source: ARRB deposition of Dr. James Joseph Humes
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/medical_testimony/Humes_2-13-96/html/Humes_0091a.htm
Q Were there any other injuries on the back of President Kennedy other than
those that are exposed to--
A Well, you say those. I don't know what this little dot down below is.
Q Let's take them one at a time. There is one mark that appears to be high
at approximately
the second-centimeter line.
A Yes.
Q Is that the wound that you were identifying as the wound of entry?
A Yes, sir.
Q And when you were referring to the mark somewhat below, you were referring
to something at approximately the six-centimeter mark?
A Yeah, I don't know what that is. A little drop of blood or what, I have
no idea.
Q Was there more than one wound of entry--
A No, there was not.
Q And you're reasonably confident that the wound of entry is the one that
is at the higher--
A Yes, sir, I am.
Q Is that correct?
A Yes, sir.
Fox 5 shows that approximately four centimeters separated the transverse
back wound discussed by the medical panels and the longitudinal wound
originally reported by Humes.

Apparently only desperate conspiracy hobbyists find any of this
significant. Nobody else thought anything that came out of the ARRB was a
game changer.

Yeah, we did and you guys went into hiding.

How many times did you need to tell yourself that the ARRB uncovered
nothing significant until you believed it?

bigdog

2015-05-29 02:00:10 UTC

The ARRB did not make any findings. They simple made information available
to the public. It gave the conspiracy hobbyists new toys to play with.

The ARRB published highly significant medical testimonies. In particular
they reported that Humes renounced the 7 mm by 4 mm longitudinal back
wound.
Source: ARRB deposition of Dr. James Joseph Humes
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/medical_testimony/Humes_2-13-96/html/Humes_0091a.htm
Q Were there any other injuries on the back of President Kennedy other than
those that are exposed to--
A Well, you say those. I don't know what this little dot down below is.
Q Let's take them one at a time. There is one mark that appears to be high
at approximately
the second-centimeter line.
A Yes.
Q Is that the wound that you were identifying as the wound of entry?
A Yes, sir.
Q And when you were referring to the mark somewhat below, you were referring
to something at approximately the six-centimeter mark?
A Yeah, I don't know what that is. A little drop of blood or what, I have
no idea.
Q Was there more than one wound of entry--
A No, there was not.
Q And you're reasonably confident that the wound of entry is the one that
is at the higher--
A Yes, sir, I am.
Q Is that correct?
A Yes, sir.
Fox 5 shows that approximately four centimeters separated the transverse
back wound discussed by the medical panels and the longitudinal wound
originally reported by Humes.

Apparently only desperate conspiracy hobbyists find any of this
significant. Nobody else thought anything that came out of the ARRB was a
game changer.

Yeah, we did and you guys went into hiding.

How many times did you need to tell yourself that the ARRB uncovered
nothing significant until you believed it?

Once.

Herbert Blenner

2015-05-29 17:29:29 UTC

The ARRB did not make any findings. They simple made information available
to the public. It gave the conspiracy hobbyists new toys to play with.

The ARRB published highly significant medical testimonies. In particular
they reported that Humes renounced the 7 mm by 4 mm longitudinal back
wound.
Source: ARRB deposition of Dr. James Joseph Humes
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/medical_testimony/Humes_2-13-96/html/Humes_0091a.htm
Q Were there any other injuries on the back of President Kennedy other than
those that are exposed to--
A Well, you say those. I don't know what this little dot down below is.
Q Let's take them one at a time. There is one mark that appears to be high
at approximately
the second-centimeter line.
A Yes.
Q Is that the wound that you were identifying as the wound of entry?
A Yes, sir.
Q And when you were referring to the mark somewhat below, you were referring
to something at approximately the six-centimeter mark?
A Yeah, I don't know what that is. A little drop of blood or what, I have
no idea.
Q Was there more than one wound of entry--
A No, there was not.
Q And you're reasonably confident that the wound of entry is the one that
is at the higher--
A Yes, sir, I am.
Q Is that correct?
A Yes, sir.
Fox 5 shows that approximately four centimeters separated the transverse
back wound discussed by the medical panels and the longitudinal wound
originally reported by Humes.

Apparently only desperate conspiracy hobbyists find any of this
significant. Nobody else thought anything that came out of the ARRB was a
game changer.

Yeah, we did and you guys went into hiding.

How many times did you need to tell yourself that the ARRB uncovered
nothing significant until you believed it?

Once.

Once is not enough especially when the medical disclosures by the ARRB
contradicted previous findings.

bigdog

2015-05-30 00:50:12 UTC

The ARRB did not make any findings. They simple made information available
to the public. It gave the conspiracy hobbyists new toys to play with.

The ARRB published highly significant medical testimonies. In particular
they reported that Humes renounced the 7 mm by 4 mm longitudinal back
wound.
Source: ARRB deposition of Dr. James Joseph Humes
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/medical_testimony/Humes_2-13-96/html/Humes_0091a.htm
Q Were there any other injuries on the back of President Kennedy other than
those that are exposed to--
A Well, you say those. I don't know what this little dot down below is.
Q Let's take them one at a time. There is one mark that appears to be high
at approximately
the second-centimeter line.
A Yes.
Q Is that the wound that you were identifying as the wound of entry?
A Yes, sir.
Q And when you were referring to the mark somewhat below, you were referring
to something at approximately the six-centimeter mark?
A Yeah, I don't know what that is. A little drop of blood or what, I have
no idea.
Q Was there more than one wound of entry--
A No, there was not.
Q And you're reasonably confident that the wound of entry is the one that
is at the higher--
A Yes, sir, I am.
Q Is that correct?
A Yes, sir.
Fox 5 shows that approximately four centimeters separated the transverse
back wound discussed by the medical panels and the longitudinal wound
originally reported by Humes.

Apparently only desperate conspiracy hobbyists find any of this
significant. Nobody else thought anything that came out of the ARRB was a
game changer.

Yeah, we did and you guys went into hiding.

How many times did you need to tell yourself that the ARRB uncovered
nothing significant until you believed it?

Once.

Once is not enough especially when the medical disclosures by the ARRB
contradicted previous findings.

Nothing came out of the ARRB which refutes the WC conclusion that Oswald
fired the shots that killed JFK and that there was no evidence he had
accomplices.

mainframetech

2015-05-30 22:12:58 UTC

The ARRB did not make any findings. They simple made information available
to the public. It gave the conspiracy hobbyists new toys to play with.

The ARRB published highly significant medical testimonies. In particular
they reported that Humes renounced the 7 mm by 4 mm longitudinal back
wound.
Source: ARRB deposition of Dr. James Joseph Humes
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/medical_testimony/Humes_2-13-96/html/Humes_0091a.htm
Q Were there any other injuries on the back of President Kennedy other than
those that are exposed to--
A Well, you say those. I don't know what this little dot down below is.
Q Let's take them one at a time. There is one mark that appears to be high
at approximately
the second-centimeter line.
A Yes.
Q Is that the wound that you were identifying as the wound of entry?
A Yes, sir.
Q And when you were referring to the mark somewhat below, you were referring
to something at approximately the six-centimeter mark?
A Yeah, I don't know what that is. A little drop of blood or what, I have
no idea.
Q Was there more than one wound of entry--
A No, there was not.
Q And you're reasonably confident that the wound of entry is the one that
is at the higher--
A Yes, sir, I am.
Q Is that correct?
A Yes, sir.
Fox 5 shows that approximately four centimeters separated the transverse
back wound discussed by the medical panels and the longitudinal wound
originally reported by Humes.

Apparently only desperate conspiracy hobbyists find any of this
significant. Nobody else thought anything that came out of the ARRB was a
game changer.

Yeah, we did and you guys went into hiding.

How many times did you need to tell yourself that the ARRB uncovered
nothing significant until you believed it?

Once.

Once is not enough especially when the medical disclosures by the ARRB
contradicted previous findings.

Nothing came out of the ARRB which refutes the WC conclusion that Oswald
fired the shots that killed JFK and that there was no evidence he had
accomplices.

WRONG! You can't cover this up. The ARRB gave proof in Sworn
testimony of the complete failure of the WC to do the job right. It
proved that the bullets weren't from above and behind, and the kill shot
was from the front. It proved that there was a conspiracy, and that
Oswald wasn't one of them. It proved why Bethesda was chosen to do the
autopsy, and why the body had to be stolen from Dallas, along with the
limousine.

From the info there, it showed the stealing of material that was
evidence for the case, including X-rays, photographs and bullets.

and I don't think we're through seeing things come out of the ARRRB yet.

Chris

bigdog

2015-05-31 21:25:01 UTC

The ARRB did not make any findings. They simple made information available
to the public. It gave the conspiracy hobbyists new toys to play with.

The ARRB published highly significant medical testimonies. In particular
they reported that Humes renounced the 7 mm by 4 mm longitudinal back
wound.
Source: ARRB deposition of Dr. James Joseph Humes
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/medical_testimony/Humes_2-13-96/html/Humes_0091a.htm
Q Were there any other injuries on the back of President Kennedy other than
those that are exposed to--
A Well, you say those. I don't know what this little dot down below is.
Q Let's take them one at a time. There is one mark that appears to be high
at approximately
the second-centimeter line.
A Yes.
Q Is that the wound that you were identifying as the wound of entry?
A Yes, sir.
Q And when you were referring to the mark somewhat below, you were referring
to something at approximately the six-centimeter mark?
A Yeah, I don't know what that is. A little drop of blood or what, I have
no idea.
Q Was there more than one wound of entry--
A No, there was not.
Q And you're reasonably confident that the wound of entry is the one that
is at the higher--
A Yes, sir, I am.
Q Is that correct?
A Yes, sir.
Fox 5 shows that approximately four centimeters separated the transverse
back wound discussed by the medical panels and the longitudinal wound
originally reported by Humes.

Apparently only desperate conspiracy hobbyists find any of this
significant. Nobody else thought anything that came out of the ARRB was a
game changer.

Yeah, we did and you guys went into hiding.

How many times did you need to tell yourself that the ARRB uncovered
nothing significant until you believed it?

Once.

Once is not enough especially when the medical disclosures by the ARRB
contradicted previous findings.

Nothing came out of the ARRB which refutes the WC conclusion that Oswald
fired the shots that killed JFK and that there was no evidence he had
accomplices.

It proved you are really bad at weighing evidence.

Post by mainframetech
From the info there, it showed the stealing of material that was
evidence for the case, including X-rays, photographs and bullets.

It showed you imagine all sorts of silly things.

Post by mainframetech
and I don't think we're through seeing things come out of the ARRRB yet.

I'm pretty sure we are through with things coming out of the ARRB because
they closed shop in the 1990s.

mainframetech

2015-06-01 15:28:58 UTC

The ARRB did not make any findings. They simple made information available
to the public. It gave the conspiracy hobbyists new toys to play with.

The ARRB published highly significant medical testimonies. In particular
they reported that Humes renounced the 7 mm by 4 mm longitudinal back
wound.
Source: ARRB deposition of Dr. James Joseph Humes
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/medical_testimony/Humes_2-13-96/html/Humes_0091a.htm
Q Were there any other injuries on the back of President Kennedy other than
those that are exposed to--
A Well, you say those. I don't know what this little dot down below is.
Q Let's take them one at a time. There is one mark that appears to be high
at approximately
the second-centimeter line.
A Yes.
Q Is that the wound that you were identifying as the wound of entry?
A Yes, sir.
Q And when you were referring to the mark somewhat below, you were referring
to something at approximately the six-centimeter mark?
A Yeah, I don't know what that is. A little drop of blood or what, I have
no idea.
Q Was there more than one wound of entry--
A No, there was not.
Q And you're reasonably confident that the wound of entry is the one that
is at the higher--
A Yes, sir, I am.
Q Is that correct?
A Yes, sir.
Fox 5 shows that approximately four centimeters separated the transverse
back wound discussed by the medical panels and the longitudinal wound
originally reported by Humes.

Apparently only desperate conspiracy hobbyists find any of this
significant. Nobody else thought anything that came out of the ARRB was a
game changer.

Yeah, we did and you guys went into hiding.

How many times did you need to tell yourself that the ARRB uncovered
nothing significant until you believed it?

Once.

Once is not enough especially when the medical disclosures by the ARRB
contradicted previous findings.

Nothing came out of the ARRB which refutes the WC conclusion that Oswald
fired the shots that killed JFK and that there was no evidence he had
accomplices.

It proved you are really bad at weighing evidence.

Post by mainframetech
From the info there, it showed the stealing of material that was
evidence for the case, including X-rays, photographs and bullets.

It showed you imagine all sorts of silly things.

Doesn't it embarrass to say stuff like that when most of what I say
comes from Sworn Testimony?

Post by mainframetech
and I don't think we're through seeing things come out of the ARRB yet.

I'm pretty sure we are through with things coming out of the ARRB because
they closed shop in the 1990s.

Yeah, but you seem to forget (or you hope) that their information is
still being culled right up to today.

Chris

bigdog

2015-06-02 01:49:55 UTC

The ARRB did not make any findings. They simple made information available
to the public. It gave the conspiracy hobbyists new toys to play with.

The ARRB published highly significant medical testimonies. In particular
they reported that Humes renounced the 7 mm by 4 mm longitudinal back
wound.
Source: ARRB deposition of Dr. James Joseph Humes
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/medical_testimony/Humes_2-13-96/html/Humes_0091a.htm
Q Were there any other injuries on the back of President Kennedy other than
those that are exposed to--
A Well, you say those. I don't know what this little dot down below is.
Q Let's take them one at a time. There is one mark that appears to be high
at approximately
the second-centimeter line.
A Yes.
Q Is that the wound that you were identifying as the wound of entry?
A Yes, sir.
Q And when you were referring to the mark somewhat below, you were referring
to something at approximately the six-centimeter mark?
A Yeah, I don't know what that is. A little drop of blood or what, I have
no idea.
Q Was there more than one wound of entry--
A No, there was not.
Q And you're reasonably confident that the wound of entry is the one that
is at the higher--
A Yes, sir, I am.
Q Is that correct?
A Yes, sir.
Fox 5 shows that approximately four centimeters separated the transverse
back wound discussed by the medical panels and the longitudinal wound
originally reported by Humes.

Apparently only desperate conspiracy hobbyists find any of this
significant. Nobody else thought anything that came out of the ARRB was a
game changer.

Yeah, we did and you guys went into hiding.

How many times did you need to tell yourself that the ARRB uncovered
nothing significant until you believed it?

Once.

Once is not enough especially when the medical disclosures by the ARRB
contradicted previous findings.

Nothing came out of the ARRB which refutes the WC conclusion that Oswald
fired the shots that killed JFK and that there was no evidence he had
accomplices.

It proved you are really bad at weighing evidence.

Post by mainframetech
From the info there, it showed the stealing of material that was
evidence for the case, including X-rays, photographs and bullets.

It showed you imagine all sorts of silly things.

Doesn't it embarrass to say stuff like that when most of what I say
comes from Sworn Testimony?

Now you are starting to sound like Rossley. And there is no need to
capitalize "sworn testimony".

Post by mainframetech
and I don't think we're through seeing things come out of the ARRB yet.

I'm pretty sure we are through with things coming out of the ARRB because
they closed shop in the 1990s.

Yeah, but you seem to forget (or you hope) that their information is
still being culled right up to today.

It was poured over by conspiracy hobbyists all over the country and beyond
as soon as it was released and to their dismay it didn't contain the
smoking gun they had hoped for. It is laughable to think that the ARRB
information has just been sitting there being ignored until you came along
to inform the world about it.

mainframetech

2015-06-02 18:09:38 UTC

The ARRB did not make any findings. They simple made information available
to the public. It gave the conspiracy hobbyists new toys to play with.

The ARRB published highly significant medical testimonies. In particular
they reported that Humes renounced the 7 mm by 4 mm longitudinal back
wound.
Source: ARRB deposition of Dr. James Joseph Humes
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/medical_testimony/Humes_2-13-96/html/Humes_0091a.htm
Q Were there any other injuries on the back of President Kennedy other than
those that are exposed to--
A Well, you say those. I don't know what this little dot down below is.
Q Let's take them one at a time. There is one mark that appears to be high
at approximately
the second-centimeter line.
A Yes.
Q Is that the wound that you were identifying as the wound of entry?
A Yes, sir.
Q And when you were referring to the mark somewhat below, you were referring
to something at approximately the six-centimeter mark?
A Yeah, I don't know what that is. A little drop of blood or what, I have
no idea.
Q Was there more than one wound of entry--
A No, there was not.
Q And you're reasonably confident that the wound of entry is the one that
is at the higher--
A Yes, sir, I am.
Q Is that correct?
A Yes, sir.
Fox 5 shows that approximately four centimeters separated the transverse
back wound discussed by the medical panels and the longitudinal wound
originally reported by Humes.

Apparently only desperate conspiracy hobbyists find any of this
significant. Nobody else thought anything that came out of the ARRB was a
game changer.

Yeah, we did and you guys went into hiding.

How many times did you need to tell yourself that the ARRB uncovered
nothing significant until you believed it?

Once.

Once is not enough especially when the medical disclosures by the ARRB
contradicted previous findings.

Nothing came out of the ARRB which refutes the WC conclusion that Oswald
fired the shots that killed JFK and that there was no evidence he had
accomplices.

It proved you are really bad at weighing evidence.

Post by mainframetech
From the info there, it showed the stealing of material that was
evidence for the case, including X-rays, photographs and bullets.

It showed you imagine all sorts of silly things.

Doesn't it embarrass to say stuff like that when most of what I say
comes from Sworn Testimony?

Now you are starting to sound like Rossley. And there is no need to
capitalize "sworn testimony".

Unlike you, I have a reason for doing that. It is to draw your
attention and to accentuate the phrase.

Post by mainframetech
and I don't think we're through seeing things come out of the ARRB yet.

I'm pretty sure we are through with things coming out of the ARRB because
they closed shop in the 1990s.

Yeah, but you seem to forget (or you hope) that their information is
still being culled right up to today.

Actually, you're not too far wrong this time. I believe that many
people didn't have the stomach for research, and some thought it might be
another repeat of the panels that turned up nothing but more baloney.
Only Horne and a few others kept at it, using the ARRB information because
he was involved in the creating of the information and knew what
bombshells were there. I came later, but I still have a lot to go
through, and I'm finding out stuff frequently. A lot of stuff that
disproves most of what you say, for instance, and much of what happened at
the autopsy, which alone proves conspiracy.

Chris

Herbert Blenner

2015-05-30 22:17:33 UTC

The ARRB did not make any findings. They simple made information available
to the public. It gave the conspiracy hobbyists new toys to play with.

The ARRB published highly significant medical testimonies. In particular
they reported that Humes renounced the 7 mm by 4 mm longitudinal back
wound.
Source: ARRB deposition of Dr. James Joseph Humes
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/medical_testimony/Humes_2-13-96/html/Humes_0091a.htm
Q Were there any other injuries on the back of President Kennedy other than
those that are exposed to--
A Well, you say those. I don't know what this little dot down below is.
Q Let's take them one at a time. There is one mark that appears to be high
at approximately
the second-centimeter line.
A Yes.
Q Is that the wound that you were identifying as the wound of entry?
A Yes, sir.
Q And when you were referring to the mark somewhat below, you were referring
to something at approximately the six-centimeter mark?
A Yeah, I don't know what that is. A little drop of blood or what, I have
no idea.
Q Was there more than one wound of entry--
A No, there was not.
Q And you're reasonably confident that the wound of entry is the one that
is at the higher--
A Yes, sir, I am.
Q Is that correct?
A Yes, sir.
Fox 5 shows that approximately four centimeters separated the transverse
back wound discussed by the medical panels and the longitudinal wound
originally reported by Humes.

Apparently only desperate conspiracy hobbyists find any of this
significant. Nobody else thought anything that came out of the ARRB was a
game changer.

Yeah, we did and you guys went into hiding.

How many times did you need to tell yourself that the ARRB uncovered
nothing significant until you believed it?

Once.

Once is not enough especially when the medical disclosures by the ARRB
contradicted previous findings.

Nothing came out of the ARRB which refutes the WC conclusion that Oswald
fired the shots that killed JFK and that there was no evidence he had
accomplices.

That right. The medical panels of the sixties and the seventies
discredited the wounds attributed to shots from the rear.

mainframetech

2015-05-27 23:37:38 UTC

The ARRB did not make any findings. They simple made information available
to the public. It gave the conspiracy hobbyists new toys to play with.

The ARRB published highly significant medical testimonies. In particular
they reported that Humes renounced the 7 mm by 4 mm longitudinal back
wound.
Source: ARRB deposition of Dr. James Joseph Humes
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/medical_testimony/Humes_2-13-96/html/Humes_0091a.htm
Q Were there any other injuries on the back of President Kennedy other than
those that are exposed to--
A Well, you say those. I don't know what this little dot down below is.
Q Let's take them one at a time. There is one mark that appears to be high
at approximately
the second-centimeter line.
A Yes.
Q Is that the wound that you were identifying as the wound of entry?
A Yes, sir.
Q And when you were referring to the mark somewhat below, you were referring
to something at approximately the six-centimeter mark?
A Yeah, I don't know what that is. A little drop of blood or what, I have
no idea.
Q Was there more than one wound of entry--
A No, there was not.
Q And you're reasonably confident that the wound of entry is the one that
is at the higher--
A Yes, sir, I am.
Q Is that correct?
A Yes, sir.
Fox 5 shows that approximately four centimeters separated the transverse
back wound discussed by the medical panels and the longitudinal wound
originally reported by Humes.

Apparently only desperate conspiracy hobbyists find any of this
significant. Nobody else thought anything that came out of the ARRB was a
game changer.

Yeah, we did and you guys went into hiding.

Trying to to cover up the importance of the ARRB files so no one will go
there has failed, But you get a 'bd' award anyway for trying to make a
cover up of the truth.

The ARRB files have indeed proven that it was a conspiracy, and also
showed how the autopsy evidence was faked, and how the body was altered t
o look like it was hit from above and behind.

The sworn testimony of the FBI agents was part of it, and the sworn
testimony of other assistants to the autopsy also helped. And the hits
keep on coming...:)

Chris

Jason Burke

2015-05-28 11:49:05 UTC

The ARRB did not make any findings. They simple made information available
to the public. It gave the conspiracy hobbyists new toys to play with.

The ARRB published highly significant medical testimonies. In particular
they reported that Humes renounced the 7 mm by 4 mm longitudinal back
wound.
Source: ARRB deposition of Dr. James Joseph Humes
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/medical_testimony/Humes_2-13-96/html/Humes_0091a.htm
Q Were there any other injuries on the back of President Kennedy other than
those that are exposed to--
A Well, you say those. I don't know what this little dot down below is.
Q Let's take them one at a time. There is one mark that appears to be high
at approximately
the second-centimeter line.
A Yes.
Q Is that the wound that you were identifying as the wound of entry?
A Yes, sir.
Q And when you were referring to the mark somewhat below, you were referring
to something at approximately the six-centimeter mark?
A Yeah, I don't know what that is. A little drop of blood or what, I have
no idea.
Q Was there more than one wound of entry--
A No, there was not.
Q And you're reasonably confident that the wound of entry is the one that
is at the higher--
A Yes, sir, I am.
Q Is that correct?
A Yes, sir.
Fox 5 shows that approximately four centimeters separated the transverse
back wound discussed by the medical panels and the longitudinal wound
originally reported by Humes.

Apparently only desperate conspiracy hobbyists find any of this
significant. Nobody else thought anything that came out of the ARRB was a
game changer.

Yeah, we did and you guys went into hiding.

Pretty impressive, Chris. I don't think I've seen *one* sentence with
more flat-out wrong information in a while.

You put Rossley to shame.

Post by mainframetech
The sworn testimony of the FBI agents was part of it, and the sworn
testimony of other assistants to the autopsy also helped. And the hits
keep on coming...:)
Chris

mainframetech

2015-05-29 17:23:52 UTC

The ARRB did not make any findings. They simple made information available
to the public. It gave the conspiracy hobbyists new toys to play with.

The ARRB published highly significant medical testimonies. In particular
they reported that Humes renounced the 7 mm by 4 mm longitudinal back
wound.
Source: ARRB deposition of Dr. James Joseph Humes
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/medical_testimony/Humes_2-13-96/html/Humes_0091a.htm
Q Were there any other injuries on the back of President Kennedy other than
those that are exposed to--
A Well, you say those. I don't know what this little dot down below is.
Q Let's take them one at a time. There is one mark that appears to be high
at approximately
the second-centimeter line.
A Yes.
Q Is that the wound that you were identifying as the wound of entry?
A Yes, sir.
Q And when you were referring to the mark somewhat below, you were referring
to something at approximately the six-centimeter mark?
A Yeah, I don't know what that is. A little drop of blood or what, I have
no idea.
Q Was there more than one wound of entry--
A No, there was not.
Q And you're reasonably confident that the wound of entry is the one that
is at the higher--
A Yes, sir, I am.
Q Is that correct?
A Yes, sir.
Fox 5 shows that approximately four centimeters separated the transverse
back wound discussed by the medical panels and the longitudinal wound
originally reported by Humes.

Apparently only desperate conspiracy hobbyists find any of this
significant. Nobody else thought anything that came out of the ARRB was a
game changer.

Yeah, we did and you guys went into hiding.

Pretty impressive, Chris. I don't think I've seen *one* sentence with
more flat-out wrong information in a while.
You put Rossley to shame.

Well, if you feel that way, why is it that you have failed to challenge
things I've said that you disagree with? Is it because you know I'll come
out with tons of sworn testimony from the official records, and beat down
all your points? Or is it too hard to go research it and come back with a
point to argue?

Chris

Anthony Marsh

2015-05-31 21:28:24 UTC

The ARRB did not make any findings. They simple made information available
to the public. It gave the conspiracy hobbyists new toys to play with.

The ARRB published highly significant medical testimonies. In particular
they reported that Humes renounced the 7 mm by 4 mm longitudinal back
wound.
Source: ARRB deposition of Dr. James Joseph Humes
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/medical_testimony/Humes_2-13-96/html/Humes_0091a.htm
Q Were there any other injuries on the back of President Kennedy other than
those that are exposed to--
A Well, you say those. I don't know what this little dot down below is.
Q Let's take them one at a time. There is one mark that appears to be high
at approximately
the second-centimeter line.
A Yes.
Q Is that the wound that you were identifying as the wound of entry?
A Yes, sir.
Q And when you were referring to the mark somewhat below, you were referring
to something at approximately the six-centimeter mark?
A Yeah, I don't know what that is. A little drop of blood or what, I have
no idea.
Q Was there more than one wound of entry--
A No, there was not.
Q And you're reasonably confident that the wound of entry is the one that
is at the higher--
A Yes, sir, I am.
Q Is that correct?
A Yes, sir.
Fox 5 shows that approximately four centimeters separated the transverse
back wound discussed by the medical panels and the longitudinal wound
originally reported by Humes.

Apparently only desperate conspiracy hobbyists find any of this
significant. Nobody else thought anything that came out of the ARRB was a
game changer.

Yeah, we did and you guys went into hiding.

Pretty impressive, Chris. I don't think I've seen *one* sentence with
more flat-out wrong information in a while.
You put Rossley to shame.

Some of these wimps have to sleep a couple of hours each day. Since we
changed our clocks there is not enough time in the day to refute all
your nonsense 100 times a day.

Herbert Blenner

2015-05-23 16:00:12 UTC

The ARRB did not make any findings. They simple made information available
to the public. It gave the conspiracy hobbyists new toys to play with.

The ARRB published highly significant medical testimonies. In particular
they reported that Humes renounced the 7 mm by 4 mm longitudinal back
wound.
Source: ARRB deposition of Dr. James Joseph Humes
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/medical_testimony/Humes_2-13-96/html/Humes_0091a.htm
Q Were there any other injuries on the back of President Kennedy other than
those that are exposed to--
A Well, you say those. I don't know what this little dot down below is.
Q Let's take them one at a time. There is one mark that appears to be high
at approximately
the second-centimeter line.
A Yes.
Q Is that the wound that you were identifying as the wound of entry?
A Yes, sir.
Q And when you were referring to the mark somewhat below, you were referring
to something at approximately the six-centimeter mark?
A Yeah, I don't know what that is. A little drop of blood or what, I have
no idea.
Q Was there more than one wound of entry--
A No, there was not.
Q And you're reasonably confident that the wound of entry is the one that
is at the higher--
A Yes, sir, I am.
Q Is that correct?
A Yes, sir.
Fox 5 shows that approximately four centimeters separated the transverse
back wound discussed by the medical panels and the longitudinal wound
originally reported by Humes.

I refer open-minded readers to the following link.

http://hdblenner.com/coldfusion.htm

Anthony Marsh

2015-05-23 21:15:18 UTC

The ARRB did not make any findings. They simple made information available
to the public. It gave the conspiracy hobbyists new toys to play with.

The ARRB published highly significant medical testimonies. In particular
they reported that Humes renounced the 7 mm by 4 mm longitudinal back
wound.
Source: ARRB deposition of Dr. James Joseph Humes
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/medical_testimony/Humes_2-13-96/html/Humes_0091a.htm
Q Were there any other injuries on the back of President Kennedy other than
those that are exposed to--
A Well, you say those. I don't know what this little dot down below is.
Q Let's take them one at a time. There is one mark that appears to be high
at approximately
the second-centimeter line.
A Yes.
Q Is that the wound that you were identifying as the wound of entry?
A Yes, sir.
Q And when you were referring to the mark somewhat below, you were referring
to something at approximately the six-centimeter mark?
A Yeah, I don't know what that is. A little drop of blood or what, I have
no idea.
Q Was there more than one wound of entry--
A No, there was not.
Q And you're reasonably confident that the wound of entry is the one that
is at the higher--
A Yes, sir, I am.
Q Is that correct?
A Yes, sir.
Fox 5 shows that approximately four centimeters separated the transverse
back wound discussed by the medical panels and the longitudinal wound
originally reported by Humes.

I refer open-minded readers to the following link.
http://hdblenner.com/coldfusion.htm

You do know that Cold Fusion is a hoax, don't you?

Herbert Blenner

2015-05-24 12:25:42 UTC

The ARRB did not make any findings. They simple made information available
to the public. It gave the conspiracy hobbyists new toys to play with.

The ARRB published highly significant medical testimonies. In particular
they reported that Humes renounced the 7 mm by 4 mm longitudinal back
wound.
Source: ARRB deposition of Dr. James Joseph Humes
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/medical_testimony/Humes_2-13-96/html/Humes_0091a.htm
Q Were there any other injuries on the back of President Kennedy other than
those that are exposed to--
A Well, you say those. I don't know what this little dot down below is.
Q Let's take them one at a time. There is one mark that appears to be high
at approximately
the second-centimeter line.
A Yes.
Q Is that the wound that you were identifying as the wound of entry?
A Yes, sir.
Q And when you were referring to the mark somewhat below, you were referring
to something at approximately the six-centimeter mark?
A Yeah, I don't know what that is. A little drop of blood or what, I have
no idea.
Q Was there more than one wound of entry--
A No, there was not.
Q And you're reasonably confident that the wound of entry is the one that
is at the higher--
A Yes, sir, I am.
Q Is that correct?
A Yes, sir.
Fox 5 shows that approximately four centimeters separated the transverse
back wound discussed by the medical panels and the longitudinal wound
originally reported by Humes.

I refer open-minded readers to the following link.
http://hdblenner.com/coldfusion.htm

You do know that Cold Fusion is a hoax, don't you?

I named my article "Cold Fusion" for two reasons. The autopsy was a hoax
of the post-mortem kind.

Ace Kefford

2015-05-19 01:28:09 UTC

Yeah, it's pretty important that "new information" like that be suppressed
or at least ignored.

mainframetech

2015-05-20 04:24:58 UTC

Yeah, it's pretty important that "new information" like that be suppressed
or at least ignored.

LOL! Depends on who reads it...:)

Chris

Ralph Cinque

2015-05-19 01:34:18 UTC

Considering that LBJ was in on it, it's safe to assume that he was just
being shrewd. You know he ducked. Take a look at this picture. It shows
where he should be seen.

http://tinypic.com/r/10yiamf/8

Anthony Marsh

2015-05-20 14:05:10 UTC

Post by Ralph Cinque
Considering that LBJ was in on it, it's safe to assume that he was just
being shrewd. You know he ducked. Take a look at this picture. It shows
where he should be seen.

No, that is follishness. He didn't duck until after the head shot.

Post by Ralph Cinque
http://tinypic.com/r/10yiamf/8

Ace Kefford

2015-05-21 16:44:59 UTC

Post by Ralph Cinque
Considering that LBJ was in on it, it's safe to assume that he was just
being shrewd. You know he ducked. Take a look at this picture. It shows
where he should be seen.
http://tinypic.com/r/10yiamf/8

LBJ was not being screwed. No matter what you and Jim Garrison may think
he's not part of THAT alleged plot.

mainframetech

2015-05-22 02:03:44 UTC

LBJ was not being screwed. No matter what you and Jim Garrison may think
he's not part of THAT alleged plot.

He was getting screwed from his mistress Madeleine Duncan Brown, and
then she screwed him further by implicating him in the murder of JFK!

Chris

Anthony Marsh

2015-05-23 03:10:28 UTC

LBJ was not being screwed. No matter what you and Jim Garrison may think
he's not part of THAT alleged plot.

He was getting screwed from his mistress Madeleine Duncan Brown, and
then she screwed him further by implicating him in the murder of JFK!

Revenge served by a cold dish.

Post by mainframetech
Chris

b***@aol.com

2015-05-31 23:44:30 UTC

A couple of thoughts on the Assassination Records Review Board:

The volume and breadth of the documentary record forced out by the ARRB is
astounding. One can assemble those records in chronological order and see
exactly how aspects of the investigation actually played out. Did the FBI
honestly investigate so-and-so? Was such-and-such deliberately covered-up?
The mass of documents allows us to cross-reference to check the validity
of certain contested documents and other evidence.

A Ferrie example: Every person in this field KNOWS that, after Garrison
detained Ferrie in 1963 and turned him over to the Feds, the FBI conducted
no investigation and held a press conference to "clear" Ferrie. But the
ARRB releases prove this to be completely untrue. The FBI spent a lot of
time investigating the charges against Ferrie. After an overzealous
Garrison assistant told the press that Ferrie had been detained ON BEHALF
OF the FBI, the FBI quietly responded to reporters that the Bureau had not
asked for his arrest.

One of the negatives of this huge release of documents is the ability to
CHERRY-PICK. A determined person with a strong predisposition can find
sentences and assertions which seem to support their theories. (A detailed
analysis of the larger contextual mass of documents can show when
cherry-picking has occurred.) Since I'm familiar with the the New Orleans
aspects of the ARRB, I can see clearly how a couple of well-known
researchers in that field have done this and omitted some very relevant
contextual information. Consider what they write, but don't take it as the
final word.

It's a vast collection and the evidence goes in many directions.

mainframetech

2015-06-01 19:10:36 UTC

Post by b***@aol.com
The volume and breadth of the documentary record forced out by the ARRB is
astounding. One can assemble those records in chronological order and see
exactly how aspects of the investigation actually played out. Did the FBI
honestly investigate so-and-so? Was such-and-such deliberately covered-up?
The mass of documents allows us to cross-reference to check the validity
of certain contested documents and other evidence.
A Ferrie example: Every person in this field KNOWS that, after Garrison
detained Ferrie in 1963 and turned him over to the Feds, the FBI conducted
no investigation and held a press conference to "clear" Ferrie. But the
ARRB releases prove this to be completely untrue. The FBI spent a lot of
time investigating the charges against Ferrie. After an overzealous
Garrison assistant told the press that Ferrie had been detained ON BEHALF
OF the FBI, the FBI quietly responded to reporters that the Bureau had not
asked for his arrest.
One of the negatives of this huge release of documents is the ability to
CHERRY-PICK. A determined person with a strong predisposition can find
sentences and assertions which seem to support their theories. (A detailed
analysis of the larger contextual mass of documents can show when
cherry-picking has occurred.) Since I'm familiar with the the New Orleans
aspects of the ARRB, I can see clearly how a couple of well-known
researchers in that field have done this and omitted some very relevant
contextual information. Consider what they write, but don't take it as the
final word.
It's a vast collection and the evidence goes in many directions.

If you see a post here that takes a meaning out of context, it would
be good for everyone if you corrected the problem. I know I'd appreciate
it. I don't much care for folks that like to scam to make their point.

Chris

Sandy McCroskey

2015-06-02 14:43:05 UTC