Shrapnel wounds on face

[claviger]

Mortician noticed shrapnel wounds on right side of the face.


JFK MURDER SOLVED - THE DOCUMENT THATTHE ARRB ...
http://jfkmurdersolved.com/EMBALMER.htm - 16k - similar pagesInterview Jada Judyth Oswald and CIA Teethmarks Terrormasters Nixon-Ruby ... a telephone interview with Thomas Evan Robinson, one of the JFK embalmers.

[claviger]

On Monday, July 8, 2013 10:22:31 AM UTC-5, claviger wrote:
> Mortician noticed shrapnel wounds on right side of the face.
>
>

> JFK MURDER SOLVED - THE DOCUMENT THAT THE ARRB ...

>
> http://jfkmurdersolved.com/EMBALMER.htm - 16k - similar pagesInterview Jada Judyth Oswald and CIA Teethmarks Terrormasters Nixon-Ruby ... a telephone interview with Thomas Evan Robinson, one of the JFK embalmers.

The President had a number of shrapnel wounds on his head and face
according to the morticians. One in the temple, one near the right eye,
three on the right cheek, and one in the hairline on the forehead. Also,
a possible round shrapnel object imbedded in the back of the head that
showed up in X-rays. That is a possible seven different shrapnel
fragments that injured the President. Mary Woodward claimed the President
was turned to the right waving to the crowd when the first shot miss took
place. These shrapnel wounds would explain the exclamation, "My God, I've
been hit!" heard by SSA Kellerman.

[elpdr...@gmail.com]

No one else heard President Kennedy say what Kellerman claims he said,
and there is absolutely no mouth movement by the President in the Zapruder
film, other than the smile that comes across his face as he waves to the
people on his right, before disappearing behind the sign. Surely, had he
said " My God, I'm hit", Mrs. Kennedy would have heard him, and she stated
that he never said a word.

[mainframetech]

The insert asks the question: "HOW COULD THE ASSASSINATION RECORDS
REVIEW BOARD NOT SUBPOENA THOMAS EVAN ROBINSON AND HEAR THIS CRUCIAL
EVIDENCE THAT PROVES, BEYOND ANY REASONABLE DOUBT, THAT THE MURDER OF JOHN
F. KENNEDY WAS A CONSPIRACY?"

In actuality the ARRB DID swear in Tom Robinson and review with him his
experience with the autopsy and the preparation of the body. I have spent
some time reviewing this information and putting it out here for anyone
and everyone that has the nerve to read my posts. If anyone is interested
in reading a summary of Tom Robinson's testimony, go here:

http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=711

To view Robinson's drawings (2) of the Large hole in the BOH of JFK, go
here:

http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=350&relPageId=3

There are 2 drawings that show marks by Robinson displaying the large
hole in rear and side view.

Here is the testimony word for word from Robinson:
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=327

Naturally he remembers the turning over of the body to view the back
for those that think the body wasn't turned over by the morticians.

Chris

[mainframetech]

On Monday, July 8, 2013 5:50:41 PM UTC-4, claviger wrote:

Interesting comment from a man whose throat and voice box were injured
by a bullet.

Shrapnel was mentioned twice in Robinson's statement, but not in
relation to the large wound in the BOH.

Chris

[David Von Pein]

CLAVIGER SAID:

These shrapnel wounds would explain the exclamation, "My God, I've been
hit!" heard by SSA Kellerman.

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

And yet not a single other person (inside or outside the limousine) heard
JFK make any such statement.

How would it be possible for Jackie to have not heard JFK utter such a
remark if he had indeed uttered it? And Nellie too?

J. LEE RANKIN -- "Do you recall anyone saying anything else during the
time of the shooting?"

JACQUELINE KENNEDY -- "No; there weren't any words. There was just
Governor Connally's. And then I suppose Mrs. Connally was sort of crying
and covering her husband. But I don't remember any words."

[John Fiorentino]

Robinson testified before the ARRB, so as usual, this is just a crock.


John F.


"claviger" <histori...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:d0d5dd88-6bee-462f...@googlegroups.com...

[Anthony Marsh]

JFK never said those words. Stop believing liars.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 7/8/2013 8:04 PM, John Fiorentino wrote:
> Robinson testified before the ARRB, so as usual, this is just a crock.
>
>

Are you attempting to use some type of logic that we've never heard of
before? Just because anyone testified before the ARRB that makes
everything they said automatically correct?

[Anthony Marsh]

On 7/8/2013 8:01 PM, David Von Pein wrote:
> CLAVIGER SAID:
>
> These shrapnel wounds would explain the exclamation, "My God, I've been
> hit!" heard by SSA Kellerman.
>
>
> DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
>
> And yet not a single other person (inside or outside the limousine) heard
> JFK make any such statement.
>

Kinda hard to say anything with a torn trachea and a hole in this throat.

[John Fiorentino]

ONE "LITTLE THING" THAT THE ASSASSINATION
RECORDS REVIEW BOARD OVERLOOKED

That's what it says when you click the link Tony.

That's why I said what I did. I'm not going to waste any more time
responding to your "perceptions."

John F.





"Anthony Marsh" <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:51db55f3$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...

[claviger]

elpdr,

> No one else heard President Kennedy say what Kellerman claims he said,
> and there is absolutely no mouth movement by the President in the Zapruder
> film, other than the smile that comes across his face as he waves to the
> people on his right, before disappearing behind the sign. Surely, had he
> said " My God, I'm hit", Mrs. Kennedy would have heard him, and she stated
> that he never said a word.

Formal Logic: "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence". Positive
proof is more compelling. All that we know is no one else heard it, but
that is not absolute proof it wasn't said. Given the situation with
visual distractions of the crowd yelling for attention from Jackie and the
President and the collateral sounds of cheering, applause, wind, engine
noise, the rumble of motorcycles, and occasional backfires adds to the
cacophony of noise surrounding the Limousine. Sometimes we hear a voice
but not the words in a crowded room.

There is no reason for SSA Kellerman to make this up, because it does not
reflect well on him or Greer that they did not react immediately. The
first shot miss hit the pavement and sprayed the nearest passenger, the
President. His body absorbed most of the shrapnel thereby protecting the
other passengers. These had to be painful injuries but survivable. Had
the Limousine taken evasive action the President would have survived.
The next shot penetrated the throat and prevented any further voice
communication. The first shot ricochet off the street is the logical
cause for this exclamation by the wounded President.

[claviger]

Mainframetech,

You're now down 2-1 on this point at "The Conspiracy Myths Continue".

[David Von Pein]

Of course, in the final analysis, it doesn't make a bit of difference
whether JFK said "My God, I'm hit!" or not.

We **know** he **was** "hit" at about that time by the rifle fire that was
taking place in Dealey Plaza. So it's really a "So what?" situation
anyway.

Whether John Kennedy said anything at all after the gunfire started is
immaterial in the long run. And there's no possible way to pin down the
EXACT moment that Kellerman thinks Kennedy made his statement. We can't
possibly micro-manage those few seconds on Elm Street to reach a level of
exactitude and certainty that some people seem to think can be achieved
via such micro-analysis (e.g., think: "Robert Harris" and "Z285").

But at the end of the day, it doesn't change a single bit of evidence in
the case. Lee Harvey Oswald is still just as guilty whether the President
made an audible statement during the shooting or not. (I happen to believe
he did *not* make any statement or utterance at all.)

Plus, as Steve Barber correctly pointed out in a prior post, there is
certainly "no mouth movement" discernible in the Zapruder Film as it
pertains to President Kennedy.

I suppose a person could argue that JFK made his "My God" statement during
the one brief second he was hidden behind the road sign--and that's the
reason we don't see his mouth moving at frames Z225 and up. But that would
be an amazing piece of timing for Mr. Kennedy's utterance, wouldn't it?

But, then too, I happen to believe that the President WAS hit by the SBT
bullet when he was behind that sign (at Z224). So I'm just asking to be
labelled a hypocrite when I talk about "amazing" things occurring behind
that damn Stemmons sign....aren't I? :-)

[mainframetech]

On Monday, July 8, 2013 8:04:44 PM UTC-4, John Fiorentino wrote:
> Robinson testified before the ARRB, so as usual, this is just a crock.
>
>

How does testifying for the ARRB become a crock? Are you going to ignore everything said under oath for the ARRB?

And Robinson also testified for the HSCA.

[mainframetech]

We need to picture the situation more clearly. First, where does the information come from that says a missed shot hit the pavement, and where are the comments of the authorities about the probable gouge in the pavement that would prove the shot? Second, picture JFK's position surrounded mostly by the limo and back a bit from the edge of the limo, with his right hand often raised in front of his face. Not an easy ricochet shot, for sure. No solid evidence for JFK saying anything. While some would use the word shrapnel for some wounds suffered by JFK, they may have also been made by bullets, since there were many shooters in Dealey Plaza that day.

Chris

[mainframetech]

If you're referring to the testimony of Robinson and the large rubber patch that was placed on the BOH of JFK to cover the wound "the size of an orange", I refer you to testimony of Robinson mentioning that the body was turned over for examination and to place the rubber patch over the sizable hole in the BOH. And time didn't manufacture a memory of a rubber patch being used to cover a large hole in the BOH of the president of the USA.
>
If your referring to some other point, then say so and I'll happily supply all the backup needed to change that result. I'm not keeping score, I'm trying to convince people of facts and their obvious meaning.

Chris

[elpdr...@gmail.com]

On Monday, July 8, 2013 9:32:33 PM UTC-4, claviger wrote:

We will just have to agree to disagree on this.

[John Fiorentino]

Refer to my post of 7/8/13............then try and pay more attention.

John F.



"mainframetech" <mainfr...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:0400d56d-a3e9-4995...@googlegroups.com...

[Anthony Marsh]

How many?


> Chris
>

[Anthony Marsh]

On 7/8/2013 11:54 PM, David Von Pein wrote:
> Of course, in the final analysis, it doesn't make a bit of difference
> whether JFK said "My God, I'm hit!" or not.
>
> We **know** he **was** "hit" at about that time by the rifle fire that was
> taking place in Dealey Plaza. So it's really a "So what?" situation
> anyway.

You're not trying hard enough. Why can't you come up with a theory he
was shot BEFORE Dealey Plaza? So you think it is ok for a WC defender
just to say the JFK was shot somewhere on Elm? And yet you demand
absolute accuracy from conspiracy believers? Why do you always argue
using a double standard?
You keep changing your SBT frame every month.

>
> Whether John Kennedy said anything at all after the gunfire started is
> immaterial in the long run. And there's no possible way to pin down the
> EXACT moment that Kellerman thinks Kennedy made his statement. We can't
> possibly micro-manage those few seconds on Elm Street to reach a level of
> exactitude and certainty that some people seem to think can be achieved
> via such micro-analysis (e.g., think: "Robert Harris" and "Z285").
>

Oh, you mean like picking an exact frame for YOUR SBT? Like your hero
Bugliosi, any frame will do, somewhere from 210 to 240.

> But at the end of the day, it doesn't change a single bit of evidence in
> the case. Lee Harvey Oswald is still just as guilty whether the President
> made an audible statement during the shooting or not. (I happen to believe
> he did *not* make any statement or utterance at all.)
>

So no matter how many shots were fired from how many direction and
exactly when Oswald is always guilty? Then why not just admit that you
don't know how many shots were fire, from where, and when, but facts
like that are not important to you as long as you can claim that Oswald
was a shooter. Hell, maybe he missed all his shots, but as long as he's
in the TSBD he must be part of the conspiracy, right?

> Plus, as Steve Barber correctly pointed out in a prior post, there is
> certainly "no mouth movement" discernible in the Zapruder Film as it
> pertains to President Kennedy.
>

Correct, same with Connally.
Loftus calls this telescoping memory.

> I suppose a person could argue that JFK made his "My God" statement during
> the one brief second he was hidden behind the road sign--and that's the
> reason we don't see his mouth moving at frames Z225 and up. But that would
> be an amazing piece of timing for Mr. Kennedy's utterance, wouldn't it?
>

But that shot would be too early for your theories.

> But, then too, I happen to believe that the President WAS hit by the SBT
> bullet when he was behind that sign (at Z224). So I'm just asking to be
> labelled a hypocrite when I talk about "amazing" things occurring behind
> that damn Stemmons sign....aren't I? :-)
>

How would the shooter know the exact frames when the Zapruder film can
not see Kennedy and Connally behind the sign?

[Anthony Marsh]

On 7/8/2013 9:32 PM, claviger wrote:
> elpdr,
>

How rude! Why did you address him as "elpdr" when you know his name is
Steve? Should I refer to you as "Fides"?
You don't even know what "elpdr" means, do you? It is an abbreviation
for Emerson, Lake, and Palmer Drummer. Please don't be so rude as to
call it a Rock Band. Steve fancies himself as a stylist, not a rock drummer.

>> No one else heard President Kennedy say what Kellerman claims he said,
>> and there is absolutely no mouth movement by the President in the Zapruder
>> film, other than the smile that comes across his face as he waves to the
>> people on his right, before disappearing behind the sign. Surely, had he
>> said " My God, I'm hit", Mrs. Kennedy would have heard him, and she stated
>> that he never said a word.
>
> Formal Logic: "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence". Positive
> proof is more compelling. All that we know is no one else heard it, but
> that is not absolute proof it wasn't said. Given the situation with
> visual distractions of the crowd yelling for attention from Jackie and the
> President and the collateral sounds of cheering, applause, wind, engine
> noise, the rumble of motorcycles, and occasional backfires adds to the
> cacophony of noise surrounding the Limousine. Sometimes we hear a voice
> but not the words in a crowded room.
>

You are assuming things not in evidence. There is no evidence of
occasional backfires in Dealey Plaza. I suppose if you have an over
active imagination you could claim that all the shots on the Dicabelt
are merely motorcycle backfires.

> There is no reason for SSA Kellerman to make this up, because it does not
> reflect well on him or Greer that they did not react immediately. The
> first shot miss hit the pavement and sprayed the nearest passenger, the
> President. His body absorbed most of the shrapnel thereby protecting the

No proof for that. Pure speculation.

[Anthony Marsh]

No, he has nothing but his imagination.
Don't coddle people like this. This is the guy who think a Secret
Service agent shot JFK in the head.

[claviger]

mainframetech,

> We need to picture the situation more clearly. First, where does
> the information come from that says a missed shot hit the pavement,

Witnesses to first shot miss:

SSA Glen Bennett
SSA Warren W Taylor
Sherrif Bill Decker
DPD Stavis "Steve" Ellis
Mrs. Donald Baker
Royce G Skelton
Harry D. Holmes
Mary Woodward

Witnesses to early first shot:

Governor John B Connally
Victoria Elizabeth Adams
Mrs. Donald Baker (Virgie Rachley)
Mrs. Jack Franzen
Mrs. Alvin Hopson
Patricia Ann Lawrence
Rosemary Willis
Jack Franzen
Emmett J Hudson
Arnold Louis Rowland
Tina Towner
Steven F Wilson
DPD MO R W Hargis
DPD MO B J Martin
DPD MO J M Chaney
DPD MO D L Jackson

> and where are the comments of the authorities about the probable
> gouge in the pavement that would prove the shot?

They looked but a busy street like Elm Street would have many rough spots and gouges so it may be impossible to tell a bullet mark from any other scratch on the street.

> Second, picture JFK's position surrounded mostly by the limo
> and back a bit from the edge of the limo, with his right hand
> often raised in front of his face. Not an easy ricochet shot,
> for sure.

He was turned waving to the crowd on the right side of the street. His right profile would be exposed to any ricochet impacting the pavement or curb to the right rear of the vehicle. All the shrapnel wounds were on the right side of the face and head, according to your favorite witness, Tom Robinson.

> No solid evidence for JFK saying anything. While some would
> use the word shrapnel for some wounds suffered by JFK,

The description used by Robinson.

> they may have also been made by bullets,

Most were too small to be bullets. Could have been shotgun pellets. Are you suggesting a shotgun was fired at the motorcade? If so, from what location?

> since there were many shooters in Dealey Plaza that day.

Only sniper seen by witnesses was in the 6th floor window. No snipers behind the wooden fence and none on the GK. No witness mention the Dal-Tex building. Where were these other snipers located and what kind of weapons did they use?

[claviger]

On Tuesday, July 9, 2013 9:46:06 AM UTC-5, mainframetech wrote:
> On Monday, July 8, 2013 9:32:48 PM UTC-4, claviger wrote:
>
> > Mainframetech,
>
> > You're now down 2-1 on this point at "The Conspiracy Myths Continue".
>
> > > Naturally he remembers the turning over of the body to view the back
> > > for those that think the body wasn't turned over by the morticians.
>
> If you're referring to the testimony of Robinson and the large rubber
> patch that was placed on the BOH of JFK to cover the wound "the size
> of an orange", I refer you to testimony of Robinson mentioning that the
> body was turned over for examination and to place the rubber patch
> over the sizable hole in the BOH. And time didn't manufacture a memory
> of a rubber patch being used to cover a large hole in the BOH of the
> president of the USA.

Yes, if anyone should know exactly where the head wound was located it would be Tom Robinson, but four doctors from TR1 thought they knew exactly where the wound was until seeing X-rays for the first time in 1988. They all realized their mistake and agreed with the X-rays. If the wound is where Robinson indicated he would have a difficult time working on that part of the skull and would need help from the other morticians. The fact they don't remember turning the body over suggests Robinson worked on the skull with the body in supine position, which means the wound was not low on the back of the head where he drew it. There is also something curious about that drawing that may be a clue.

> If your referring to some other point, then say so and I'll
> happily supply all the backup needed to change that result.
> I'm not keeping score, I'm trying to convince people of facts
> and their obvious meaning.

I'm talking about simple math. Three morticians gave statements and two of them don't remember turning the body over. You are the one who likes to play the numbers game. It's not a problem for me because I would expect morticians to examine the backside of the victim, but the fundamental statistic is 2 to 1. Again this shows witnesses to the same event have different impressions and memories. Also, just because two didn't notice doesn't mean he didn't turn the body on the side. Curious that two of these morticians including Robinson didn't notice the back wound. How could they miss it?

[Anthony Marsh]

On 7/9/2013 10:45 AM, mainframetech wrote:
> On Monday, July 8, 2013 8:04:44 PM UTC-4, John Fiorentino wrote:
>> Robinson testified before the ARRB, so as usual, this is just a crock.
>>
>>
> How does testifying for the ARRB become a crock? Are you going to ignore everything said under oath for the ARRB?
>

Notice that he would never say that about the WC. WC defenders have a
double standard.

[Anthony Marsh]

Is this going to be like the games people play with the earwitnesses?

[mainframetech]

That's nice, but it still leaves the question unanswered. Where did
such information come from that a pavement hit sent shrapnel into the limo
and it ONLY hit JFK, protecting all other riders? Did you make it up or
is it posted somewhere, or part of testimony somewhere?

Chris

[mainframetech]

I didn't count...I was too busy ducking...:)

>
>
>
>
> > Chris
>
> >

[mainframetech]

On Tuesday, July 9, 2013 8:37:19 PM UTC-4, claviger wrote:
> mainframetech,
>
>
>
>
>
> > We need to picture the situation more clearly. First, where does
>
> > the information come from that says a missed shot hit the pavement,
>
>
>
> Witnesses to first shot miss:
>
>
>
> SSA Glen Bennett
>
> SSA Warren W Taylor
>
> Sherrif Bill Decker
>
> DPD Stavis "Steve" Ellis
>
> Mrs. Donald Baker
>
> Royce G Skelton
>
> Harry D. Holmes
>
> Mary Woodward
>

Thank you for your quick response. L found an entry that said that
Sheriff Bill Decker saw something hit the pavement, but it wasn't clear
about where. The story was attributed to Fetzer and Marrs. However, I
found a better story on 'Steve' Ellis, the motorcycle cop. It was said
that he:

"reported seeing a bullet strike the pavement "alongside the first car in
the motorcade, approximately 100 to 125 feet in front of the car carrying
Presi-dent Kennedy. Ellis said that just as he started down the hill of
Elm Street, he looked back toward President Kennedy's car and saw debris
come up from the ground at a nearby curb. Ellis thought it was a fragment
grenade. Ellis said also that President Kennedy turned around and looked
over his shoulder."

From: http://www.assassinationresearch.com/v4n2/v4n2part5.pdf

So the pavement strike was 100-125 feet in front of JFK's car and was
not a problem with shrapnel, however, a bullet hitting the dirt/grass just
above the curb fits with other stories from other witnesses that saw a
number of police and FBI people around a place just up over the curb.
One was seen picking up something, but nothing was ever turned in. It's
doubtful that dirt/grass would be too dangerous as shrapnel.

In the case of SSA Glen Bennett, he made a statement of the days
events, but left out anything to do with a pavement strike. Another place
where he was spoken of also had nothing about him witnessing a pavement
strike. See:

http://www.jfk-online.com/bennett.html

SSA Warren W. Taylor's statement doesn't mention any pavement strikes:

http://www.jfk-online.com/wtaylor.html

From the witnesses I checked out there seems to be a corroboration that
something hit the pavement. At what point though, gives various answers.
The position of JFK surrounded by the limo and with his right hand raised
often gives one the impression that a bullet hitting the pavement would
probably not cause any 'shrapnel' to hit JFK. It would be as easy to hit
any person in the back of the limo too if shrapnel were flying around.
We must face the facts that not only did this pavement strike occur, but
that others occurred as well. The Tague strike a good ways away, the 2
gouges on the dirt/grass seen by the Hartmans that pointed to the GK, the
through-and-through hole in the windshield of the limo, attested to by 6
people including a Ford plant manager, the complete bullet that struck the
chrome overhead support of the limo. Many bullets flying around that day,
meaning a number of shooters.

"All" the "shrapnel" wounds? There were 2 or three cuts in the cheek.
No shrapnel found in them as far as I know. And if he was waving to the
crowd on the right, then his hand was also in the way of anything heading
for his cheek. It's not critical to the proving of conspiracy, but a
point that needs more light shed on it. Unfortunately, no one I've looked
into saw the cuts on the cheek anytime until Robinson at the autopsy.
The BE3 autopsy photo doesn't show the cuts either. I wonder if someone
was loose with a scalpel or other sharp instrument around embalming time.

>
>
> > No solid evidence for JFK saying anything. While some would
>
> > use the word shrapnel for some wounds suffered by JFK,
>
>
>
> The description used by Robinson.
>
>
>
> > they may have also been made by bullets,
>
>
>
> Most were too small to be bullets. Could have been shotgun pellets. Are you suggesting a shotgun was fired at the motorcade? If so, from what location?
>

No, no shotgun that I know of.

>
>
> > since there were many shooters in Dealey Plaza that day.
>
>
>
> Only sniper seen by witnesses was in the 6th floor window. No snipers behind the wooden fence and none on the GK. No witness mention the Dal-Tex building. Where were these other snipers located and what kind of weapons did they use?

There was at least one witness that saw shooters behind the picket fence
with a rifle. A suspicious character with previous record was found in
the Dal Tex building with a flimsy reason for being there.

Chris

[elpdr...@gmail.com]

Sorry, but you have me confused with others. I do not believe that the
President was struck in the face from a bullet striking the pavement.

[Anthony Marsh]

Not only that, but left no mark on the pavement and left no road debris
in the limo and no damage to the limo. It's pure fantasy.
He didn't make it up. We've discussed it before. And it has been
published before.

[Anthony Marsh]

So someone said that. Does that make it true?

> So the pavement strike was 100-125 feet in front of JFK's car and was
> not a problem with shrapnel, however, a bullet hitting the dirt/grass just
> above the curb fits with other stories from other witnesses that saw a
> number of police and FBI people around a place just up over the curb.
> One was seen picking up something, but nothing was ever turned in. It's
> doubtful that dirt/grass would be too dangerous as shrapnel.
>

No it wasn't. And it can't even be the source of shrapnel hitting JFK.
You need to come up with a theory that one of the janitors saw grass on
JFK's face. After hours in Parkland Hospital and his face and head being
washed by the autopsy doctors.

> In the case of SSA Glen Bennett, he made a statement of the days
> events, but left out anything to do with a pavement strike. Another place
> where he was spoken of also had nothing about him witnessing a pavement
> strike. See:
>
> http://www.jfk-online.com/bennett.html
>
> SSA Warren W. Taylor's statement doesn't mention any pavement strikes:
>
> http://www.jfk-online.com/wtaylor.html
>
> From the witnesses I checked out there seems to be a corroboration that
> something hit the pavement. At what point though, gives various answers.
> The position of JFK surrounded by the limo and with his right hand raised
> often gives one the impression that a bullet hitting the pavement would
> probably not cause any 'shrapnel' to hit JFK. It would be as easy to hit
> any person in the back of the limo too if shrapnel were flying around.
> We must face the facts that not only did this pavement strike occur, but
> that others occurred as well. The Tague strike a good ways away, the 2
> gouges on the dirt/grass seen by the Hartmans that pointed to the GK, the
> through-and-through hole in the windshield of the limo, attested to by 6
> people including a Ford plant manager, the complete bullet that struck the
> chrome overhead support of the limo. Many bullets flying around that day,
> meaning a number of shooters.
>

If you search the kook books enough you can come up with any kooky
theory you want.

So what? Theorize that there are hidden autopsy photographs you've never
been allowed to see which show pieces of shrapnel sticking out of his
face. I wonder if Robinson was drunk again at the time. (this is what's
known as an ad hominem in the business)

>>
>>
>>> No solid evidence for JFK saying anything. While some would
>>
>>> use the word shrapnel for some wounds suffered by JFK,
>>
>>
>>
>> The description used by Robinson.
>>
>>
>>
>>> they may have also been made by bullets,
>>
>>
>>
>> Most were too small to be bullets. Could have been shotgun pellets. Are you suggesting a shotgun was fired at the motorcade? If so, from what location?
>>
> No, no shotgun that I know of.
>>
>>
>>> since there were many shooters in Dealey Plaza that day.
>>
>>
>>
>> Only sniper seen by witnesses was in the 6th floor window. No snipers behind the wooden fence and none on the GK. No witness mention the Dal-Tex building. Where were these other snipers located and what kind of weapons did they use?
>
> There was at least one witness that saw shooters behind the picket fence
> with a rifle. A suspicious character with previous record was found in

Nonsense. Name him. Quote him. Cite your source. We don't need loose
cannons like you on our side making up crap just so that the WC
defenders can shoot it down easily.

> the Dal Tex building with a flimsy reason for being there.
>

A known criminal who may have had a very good criminal reason for being
there totally unrelated to JFK.

> Chris
>

[claviger]

Anthony,

> You are assuming things not in evidence. There is no evidence of
> occasional backfires in Dealey Plaza. I suppose if you have an over
> active imagination you could claim that all the shots on the Dicabelt
> are merely motorcycle backfires.

NO MORE SILENCE
Larry A Sneed

W G “BILL” LUMKIN, Motorcycle Police Officer

page 155
When the shots occurred, I thought it was a morocycle backfiring.
The motors were running really hot becasue we had been going slowly for so
long. They would have a tendency to backfire when they were running hot,
and running slow for a long period would cause them to run hot.

page 156

I heard three distinct bangs with none of them being together or
anything like that. There’s been conflicting reports where all the
noise came from. From where I was it was behind me. I’ve heard people
say a lot of different things over the years, but when you have buildings
and other obstructions, you’re going to have an echo factor and
different opinions.

The shots came from behind where I was and, as I mentioned, I
thought it was a mororcycle backfiring at first, till I turned back and
saw the commotion in the President’s convertible.

[mainframetech]

There you go again making mistakes. Fortunately I'm here to correct
them. I don't haunt, and hardly ever visit, 'kook' sites by MY
definition, and probably not by most other people's definition as well.
So that mistake is straightened out. And the information I impart is
generally from testimony or a recognized JFK site. Of course I don't
doubt you got your mistaken thought from John who keeps trying to use that
excuse to discredit some of my statements.

>
>
> >> Witnesses to early first shot:
>
>
> >> Governor John B Connally
>
> >>
>
> >> Victoria Elizabeth Adams
>
> >>
>
> >> Mrs. Donald Baker (Virgie Rachley)
>
> >>
>
> >> Mrs. Jack Franzen
>
> >>
>
> >> Mrs. Alvin Hopson
>
> >>
>
> >> Patricia Ann Lawrence
>
> >>
>
> >> Rosemary Willis
>
> >>
>
> >> Jack Franzen
>
> >>
>
> >> Emmett J Hudson
>
> >>
>
> >> Arnold Louis Rowland
>
> >>
>
> >> Tina Towner
>
> >>
>
> >> Steven F Wilson
>
> >>
>
> >> DPD MO R W Hargis
>
> >>
>
> >> DPD MO B J Martin
>
> >>
>
> >> DPD MO J M Chaney
>
> >>
>
> >> DPD MO D L Jackson
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>> and where are the comments of the authorities about the probable
>
> >>
>
> >>> gouge in the pavement that would prove the shot?
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> They looked but a busy street like Elm Street would have many rough spots and gouges so it may be impossible to tell a bullet mark from any other scratch on the street.
>

I believe they found the Tague smear.

> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>> Second, picture JFK's position surrounded mostly by the limo
>
> >>
>
> >>> and back a bit from the edge of the limo, with his right hand
>
> >>
>
> >>> often raised in front of his face. Not an easy ricochet shot,
>
> >>
>
> >>> for sure.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> He was turned waving to the crowd on the right side of the street. His right profile would be exposed to any ricochet impacting the pavement or curb to the right rear of the vehicle. All the shrapnel wounds were on the right side of the face and head, according to your favorite witness, Tom Robinson.
>
> >>
>
> >
>
> > "All" the "shrapnel" wounds? There were 2 or three cuts in the cheek.
>
> > No shrapnel found in them as far as I know. And if he was waving to the
>
> > crowd on the right, then his hand was also in the way of anything heading
>
> > for his cheek. It's not critical to the proving of conspiracy, but a
>
> > point that needs more light shed on it. Unfortunately, no one I've looked
>
> > into saw the cuts on the cheek anytime until Robinson at the autopsy.
>
> > The BE3 autopsy photo doesn't show the cuts either. I wonder if someone
>
> > was loose with a scalpel or other sharp instrument around embalming time.
>
> >
>
>
>
> So what? Theorize that there are hidden autopsy photographs you've never
>
> been allowed to see which show pieces of shrapnel sticking out of his
>
> face. I wonder if Robinson was drunk again at the time. (this is what's
>
> known as an ad hominem in the business)
>

I don't have to theorize. We have testimony that there was a whole set
of autopsy photos that showed everything properly, without the coverup
work for the BOH. See testimony of Saundra Kay Spencer, and her drawing
of the BOH from the autopsy photo set she developed. Here's her
testimony:

http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=797&relPageId=3

And here's the drawing she made from the special autopsy photo set she
developed:

http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=679

>
>
> >>> No solid evidence for JFK saying anything. While some would
>
> >>
>
> >>> use the word shrapnel for some wounds suffered by JFK,
>

> >> It's not in the description used by Robinson.

>
>
> >>> they may have also been made by bullets,
>
>
> >> Most were too small to be bullets. Could have been shotgun pellets. Are you suggesting a shotgun was fired at the motorcade? If so, from what location?
>
> >>
>
> > No, no shotgun that I know of.
>
>
> >>> since there were many shooters in Dealey Plaza that day.
>
>
> >> Only sniper seen by witnesses was in the 6th floor window. No snipers behind the wooden fence and none on the GK. No witness mention the Dal-Tex building. Where were these other snipers located and what kind of weapons did they use?
>
> >
>
> > There was at least one witness that saw shooters behind the picket fence
>
> > with a rifle. A suspicious character with previous record was found in
>

> Nonsense. Name him. Quote him. Cite your source. We don't need loose
>
> cannons like you on our side making up crap just so that the WC
>
> defenders can shoot it down easily.
>

Take your insults and put 'em where the sun don't shine. I'm not
insulting you, so stop the personal insults and try discussing the topic
at hand. Now, listen carefully and learn. Here is a bit of information
clipped fr om an article:

"Another suspicious person detained in the Dal-Tex building was Jim
Braden, a career-criminal with Mafia ties who had recently changed his
name and was thus released by authorities. Furthermore, the Dal-Tex
building aligns directly with the trajectory of the bullet that hit the
curb, injuring bystander James Tague.

From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dal-Tex_Building

Here's more info on the suspect:
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKbrading.htm

You'll see that his history certainly makes him a candidate, and if he
hadn't changed his name they may have held on to him and asked more
questions. They didn't have his history on file under the name he was
using, and his excuse for being in the Dal Tex building was flimsy. He
went in there to make a phone call.

>
>
> A known criminal who may have had a very good criminal reason for being
>
> there totally unrelated to JFK.
>

Or a perfectly good reason, to join in the killing of the president.

>
>
Chris

[claviger]

mainframetech,

>   Thank you for your quick response.  L found an entry that said
> that Sheriff Bill Decker saw something hit the pavement, but it
> wasn't clear about where.  The story was attributed to Fetzer and
> Marrs.  However, I found a better story on 'Steve' Ellis, the motorcycle
> cop.  It was said that he:
>  "reported seeing a bullet strike the pavement "alongside the first
> car in the motorcade, approximately 100 to 125 feet in front of the

> car carrying President Kennedy. Ellis said that just as he started

> down the hill of Elm Street, he looked back toward President
> Kennedy's car and saw debris come up from the ground at a nearby
> curb. Ellis thought it was a fragment grenade. Ellis said also that
> President Kennedy turned around and looked over his shoulder."

Sgt. Ellis is saying his motorcycle was positioned 100-125 feet in front
of the Limousine. “Ellis said that just as he started down the hill of

Elm Street, he looked back toward President Kennedy's car and saw debris

come up from the ground at a nearby curb.” He saw something burst next
to the Limousine that got a reaction from the President who “turned
around and looked over his shoulder.” This proves the ricochet was to
the right and behind the Limousine.

Very interesting observation: “Ellis thought it was a fragment
grenade.” Shrapnel is caused by fragmentation.

> From: http://www.assassinationresearch.com/v4n2/v4n2part5.pdf

>   So the pavement strike was 100-125 feet in front of JFK's
> car and was not a problem with shrapnel, however, a bullet
> hitting the dirt/grass just above the curb fits with other stories
> from other witnesses that saw a number of police and FBI
> people around a place just up over the curb. One was seen
> picking up something, but nothing was ever turned in.  It's
> doubtful that dirt/grass would be too dangerous as shrapnel.

That happened on the opposite side of the street.

>    In the case of SSA Glen Bennett, he made a statement of
> the days events, but left out anything to do with a pavement
> strike.  Another place where he was spoken of also had nothing
> about him witnessing a pavement strike. See:
> http://www.jfk-online.com/bennett.html

This list was comprised of witnesses to a first shot miss and an early
first shot.

Some of them saw an impact on the street, curb, or grass.

>   SSA Warren W. Taylor's statement doesn't mention any pavement strikes:
> http://www.jfk-online.com/wtaylor.html

How did you miss this part?

“Our automobile had just turned a corner (the names of the streets are
unknown to me) when I heard a bang which sounded to me like a possible
firecracker--the sound coming from my right rear. Out of the corner of my
eye and off slightly to the right rear of our car, I noticed what now
seems to me might have been a short piece of streamer flying in the air
close to the ground, but due to the confusion of the moment, I thought
that it was a firecracker going off.”

>  From the witnesses I checked out there seems to be a
> corroboration that something hit the pavement.

I agree. 

> The position of JFK surrounded by the limo and with his right
> hand raised often gives one the impression that a bullet hitting
> the pavement would probably not cause any 'shrapnel' to hit JFK.  

The limo was a convertible with the top removed. There was nothing
surrounding the President from the shoulders up but thin air. He was to
the far right of the convertible with his arm on the window frame. If a
ricochet to the right rear of the Limousine caused the projectile to
splinter the President is the nearest passenger to this burst of lead
fragmentation and his body obviously absorbed some of the small pieces of
the broken bullet. Robinson thought so. He said the fragments were too
small to be bullets.

> It would be as easy to hit any person in the back of
> the limo too if shrapnel were flying around.

If a hand grenade yes. How complete the fragmentation of the FMJ
projectile we can’t be sure. Howard Donahue has an interesting theory
on what happended to the larger part of that bullet.

> We must face the facts that not only did this pavement strike
> occur, but that others occurred as well.

A couple of witnesses thought they saw more than one projectile bounce off
the street. 

> The Tague strike a good ways away, the 2 gouges on the
> dirt/grass seen by the Hartmans that pointed to the GK,

Where stood eight witnesses who neither heard nor saw a sniper anywhere on
the GK.

> the through-and-through hole in the windshield of the limo,
> attested to by 6 people including a Ford plant manager,

There is a difference of opinion by witnesses about this crack in the
windshield.

> the complete bullet that struck the chrome overhead support
> of the limo.

How do you know it is a complete bullet and not a large fragment? 

> Many bullets flying around that day, meaning a number of shooters.

So which CT do you agree with on that theory? Fetzer has as many as 16
snipers in Dealey Plaza. Do you believe that? Keep in mind if you
advocate several snipers firing on the Limousine to have any credibilty
you have an obligation to locate positions and explain what kind of
weapons were used and what angles intersected the Limousine, and why so
many missed.

> > and where are the comments of the authorities about the
> > probable gouge in the pavement that would prove the shot?
> They looked but a busy street like Elm Street would have
> many rough spots and gouges so it may be impossible to
> tell a bullet mark from any other scratch on the street.

Or maybe not:

“After the assassination, the FBI did their investigative work on the
curb where I had seen the shot hit and cut off the section to analyze.
However, they cut off the wrong section. We later found the place where
it hit. Sergeant Harkness knows. He was a three wheel sergeant who worked
traffic downtown.”

No More Silnece, p. 152

> > Second, picture JFK's position surrounded mostly by the limo
> > and back a bit from the edge of the limo, with his right hand
> > often raised in front of his face.  Not an easy ricochet shot,
> > for sure.  
> He was turned waving to the crowd on the right side of the street.  
> His right profile would be exposed to any ricochet impacting the
> pavement or curb to the right rear of the vehicle.  All the shrapnel
> wounds were on the right side of the face and head, according to
> your favorite witness, Tom Robinson.
>
>   "All" the "shrapnel" wounds?  There were 2 or three cuts in
> the cheek. No shrapnel found in them as far as I know.  

Robinson made no effort to probe or pluck them out. They penetrated all
the way through because they were leaking fluid.

> And if he was waving to the crowd on the right, then
> his hand was also in the way of anything heading for
> his cheek.  

Are you serious?

> It's not critical to the proving of conspiracy, but a point
> that needs more light shed on it.  Unfortunately, no one
> I've looked into saw the cuts on the cheek anytime until
> Robinson at the autopsy.

So are you now impeaching your favorite witness as to his ability to
recognize small wounds, or his honesty? He was the mortician in charge of
applying make-up to the face and comb the hair, so he would be the one to
notice smaller defects in the face and scalp. However, one other
mortician noticed fluid leaking from the same small puncture wounds in the
right cheek.

> The BE3 autopsy photo doesn't show the cuts either.  I wonder
> if someone was loose with a scalpel or other sharp instrument
> around embalming time.

For what purpose?

> > No solid evidence for JFK saying anything.  

The senior SS Agent in the Limousine on the same side directly in front of
the President and whose primary duty was to focus on him and listen for
the sound of his voice at any moment, heard the President exclaim that he
was “hit”. That sounds solid to me. Why would he lie about it? As I
pointed out before it exposes him to criticism of not reacting quick
enough. Robinson’s testimony proves the President was indeed wounded on
the right side of his head and face by fragments too small to be
bullets.

> > While some would use the word shrapnel for some wounds
> > suffered by JFK,
> The description used by Robinson.

> > they may have also been made by bullets,

He was asked about that and he said they were too small for bullets.

> There was at least one witness that saw shooters behind
> the picket fence with a rifle.

Arnord or Hoffman have both been discredited.  You are the only CT I
know of that believe them.

> A suspicious character with previous record was found in
> the Dal Tex building with a flimsy reason for being there.

He would have to use a silencer because several employees were in windows
and some on the fire escape ladder. None of them heard shots from the
building. Several witnesses on the street below. No reports from them
hearing gunshots from the building above and behind them.

[mainframetech]

On Wednesday, July 10, 2013 11:33:44 PM UTC-4, Anthony Marsh wrote:

As to the picket fence witness, (now don't all knee jerk at once) it was
Ed Hoffman, who has been belittled and as usual with people with clear
evidence of conspiracy, has been insulted and downgraded by all the
faithful WC believers. Unbeknown to many LNers, Hofffman tried to tell
his story to the authorities immediately after seeing what he did (SS,
DPD, FBI). He was told by some to go away because they didn't understand
him. Hid family was afraid for his life and told him not to tell anyone
his story. Here's the full story:

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKhoffman.htm

There is no reason to think that Hoffman made up the story that he was
willing to tell the same day it all happened. Though there have been a
few changes in the story, as some here have said in the past, witnesses
will change their story a bit now and then. A key point is that
authorities made note that he had come to them, so we know he did that.
As well, Hoffman's story told the same day as the event, fit perfectly
with the scenario of the GK shooter that had been suggested from other
sourced.

There is a thinner story from a friend of Lee Bowers who said that
Bowers had much more to say about what he saw, but was convinced to go
silent after he had lost the end of one of his fingers, and they couldn't
find out how. The friend was Walter Rishel:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vNivLlyMneU



Many have tried to put down this story by saying that Walter didn't know
the family that well, and he never had any loss of fingers, but a note in
the Ferrell database suggests otherwise:

http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/marysdb/showRec.do?mode=searchResult&id=1347


Notice that the information above doesn't come from 'kook' websites.

Chris

[Anthony Marsh]

You are not qualified to correct me.

> definition, and probably not by most other people's definition as well.

Most people can see that you always cite kook sites.

> So that mistake is straightened out. And the information I impart is
> generally from testimony or a recognized JFK site. Of course I don't

Testimony is not always reliable and you specifically seek out the most
unreliable testimony you can find.

> doubt you got your mistaken thought from John who keeps trying to use that
> excuse to discredit some of my statements.
>

Which John? Yet again someone else who sees your tricks.

>>
>>
>>>> Witnesses to early first shot:
>>
>>
>>>> Governor John B Connally
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>> Victoria Elizabeth Adams
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>> Mrs. Donald Baker (Virgie Rachley)
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>> Mrs. Jack Franzen
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>> Mrs. Alvin Hopson
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>> Patricia Ann Lawrence
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>> Rosemary Willis
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>> Jack Franzen
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>> Emmett J Hudson
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>> Arnold Louis Rowland
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>> Tina Towner
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>> Steven F Wilson
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>> DPD MO R W Hargis
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>> DPD MO B J Martin
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>> DPD MO J M Chaney
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>> DPD MO D L Jackson
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>> and where are the comments of the authorities about the probable
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>> gouge in the pavement that would prove the shot?
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>> They looked but a busy street like Elm Street would have many rough spots and gouges so it may be impossible to tell a bullet mark from any other scratch on the street.
>>
>
> I believe they found the Tague smear.
>

You are responding to someone else. We know that the FBI eventually was
FORCED to find the mark on the curb and analyze it. Just as they finally
were forced to find the bodies of the three dead civil rights workers.

>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>> Second, picture JFK's position surrounded mostly by the limo
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>> and back a bit from the edge of the limo, with his right hand
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>> often raised in front of his face. Not an easy ricochet shot,
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>> for sure.
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>> He was turned waving to the crowd on the right side of the street. His right profile would be exposed to any ricochet impacting the pavement or curb to the right rear of the vehicle. All the shrapnel wounds were on the right side of the face and head, according to your favorite witness, Tom Robinson.
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>> "All" the "shrapnel" wounds? There were 2 or three cuts in the cheek.
>>
>>> No shrapnel found in them as far as I know. And if he was waving to the
>>
>>> crowd on the right, then his hand was also in the way of anything heading
>>
>>> for his cheek. It's not critical to the proving of conspiracy, but a
>>
>>> point that needs more light shed on it. Unfortunately, no one I've looked
>>
>>> into saw the cuts on the cheek anytime until Robinson at the autopsy.
>>
>>> The BE3 autopsy photo doesn't show the cuts either. I wonder if someone
>>
>>> was loose with a scalpel or other sharp instrument around embalming time.
>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> So what? Theorize that there are hidden autopsy photographs you've never
>>
>> been allowed to see which show pieces of shrapnel sticking out of his
>>
>> face. I wonder if Robinson was drunk again at the time. (this is what's
>>
>> known as an ad hominem in the business)
>>
> I don't have to theorize. We have testimony that there was a whole set
> of autopsy photos that showed everything properly, without the coverup
> work for the BOH. See testimony of Saundra Kay Spencer, and her drawing
> of the BOH from the autopsy photo set she developed. Here's her
> testimony:
>

But when you read that testimony you jump to conclusions based on your
bias to push a political agenda.

> http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=797&relPageId=3
>
> And here's the drawing she made from the special autopsy photo set she
> developed:
>
> http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=679
>

Old news.

>>
>>
>>>>> No solid evidence for JFK saying anything. While some would
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>> use the word shrapnel for some wounds suffered by JFK,
>>
>>>> It's not in the description used by Robinson.
>>
>>
>>>>> they may have also been made by bullets,
>>
>>
>>>> Most were too small to be bullets. Could have been shotgun pellets. Are you suggesting a shotgun was fired at the motorcade? If so, from what location?
>>
>>>>
>>
>>> No, no shotgun that I know of.
>>
>>
>>>>> since there were many shooters in Dealey Plaza that day.
>>
>>
>>>> Only sniper seen by witnesses was in the 6th floor window. No snipers behind the wooden fence and none on the GK. No witness mention the Dal-Tex building. Where were these other snipers located and what kind of weapons did they use?
>>
>>>
>>
>>> There was at least one witness that saw shooters behind the picket fence
>>
>>> with a rifle. A suspicious character with previous record was found in
>>
>
>> Nonsense. Name him. Quote him. Cite your source. We don't need loose
>>
>> cannons like you on our side making up crap just so that the WC
>>
>> defenders can shoot it down easily.
>>
>
> Take your insults and put 'em where the sun don't shine. I'm not
> insulting you, so stop the personal insults and try discussing the topic
> at hand. Now, listen carefully and learn. Here is a bit of information

> clipped fr=m an article:
>

So when someone asks you to back up your statements you beg for mercy
and claim it's a personal attack?

> "Another suspicious person detained in the Dal-Tex building was Jim
> Braden, a career-criminal with Mafia ties who had recently changed his
> name and was thus released by authorities. Furthermore, the Dal-Tex
> building aligns directly with the trajectory of the bullet that hit the
> curb, injuring bystander James Tague.
>

Someone's speculation. Almost any trajectory could hit the curb.

> From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dal-Tex_Building
>
> Here's more info on the suspect:
> http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKbrading.htm
>

Kook site as usual.

> You'll see that his history certainly makes him a candidate, and if he
> hadn't changed his name they may have held on to him and asked more
> questions. They didn't have his history on file under the name he was
> using, and his excuse for being in the Dal Tex building was flimsy. He
> went in there to make a phone call.
>

There were literally thousands of people whose histories made them
candidates. There is no proof that shots were fired from the Dal-Tex.

>
>>
>>
>> A known criminal who may have had a very good criminal reason for being
>>
>> there totally unrelated to JFK.
>>
>
> Or a perfectly good reason, to join in the killing of the president.
>

Millions of people had a perfectly good reason to join in the killing of
the President. That does not mean they all were.

>>
>>
> Chris
>

[Anthony Marsh]

On 7/11/2013 9:45 AM, claviger wrote:
> Anthony,
>
>> You are assuming things not in evidence. There is no evidence of
>> occasional backfires in Dealey Plaza. I suppose if you have an over
>> active imagination you could claim that all the shots on the Dicabelt
>> are merely motorcycle backfires.
>
> NO MORE SILENCE
> Larry A Sneed
>
> W G “BILL” LUMKIN, Motorcycle Police Officer
>
> page 155
> When the shots occurred, I thought it was a morocycle backfiring.
> The motors were running really hot becasue we had been going slowly for so
> long. They would have a tendency to backfire when they were running hot,
> and running slow for a long period would cause them to run hot.
>

Something like that. A lot of witnesses thought the first sound they
heard was a backfire or a firecracker. FIRST SOUND.
I am talking about all sounds recorded on the tape identified as shots
being assumed to be backfires.
As far as I have been able to determine there was no motorcycle running
in the sniper's nest. I constructed the argument to be as ludicrous as
possible and you totally missed that Reductio ad Absurdum and embraced
it as fact.

> page 156
>
> I heard three distinct bangs with none of them being together or
> anything like that. There’s been conflicting reports where all the
> noise came from. From where I was it was behind me. I’ve heard people
> say a lot of different things over the years, but when you have buildings
> and other obstructions, you’re going to have an echo factor and
> different opinions.
>

Yeah, pretend that we've never heard the ridiculous arguments about
echoes off the overpass before. This is not our first dance.

[Anthony Marsh]

We knew that already. But you misrepresent him. He did not say he saw
the man firing.

> evidence of conspiracy, has been insulted and downgraded by all the
> faithful WC believers. Unbeknown to many LNers, Hofffman tried to tell
> his story to the authorities immediately after seeing what he did (SS,
> DPD, FBI). He was told by some to go away because they didn't understand
> him. Hid family was afraid for his life and told him not to tell anyone
> his story. Here's the full story:
>
> http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKhoffman.htm
>

Your usual kook site.

> There is no reason to think that Hoffman made up the story that he was
> willing to tell the same day it all happened. Though there have been a
> few changes in the story, as some here have said in the past, witnesses
> will change their story a bit now and then. A key point is that
> authorities made note that he had come to them, so we know he did that.
> As well, Hoffman's story told the same day as the event, fit perfectly
> with the scenario of the GK shooter that had been suggested from other
> sourced.

No one should claim that he made up a story. But he may not have had a
clear enough view to see exactly what he claims.

>
> There is a thinner story from a friend of Lee Bowers who said that
> Bowers had much more to say about what he saw, but was convinced to go
> silent after he had lost the end of one of his fingers, and they couldn't
> find out how. The friend was Walter Rishel:
>

Suggestive, but not probative.

[mainframetech]

On Thursday, July 11, 2013 12:00:36 PM UTC-4, claviger wrote:
> mainframetech,
>
>
>
> >   Thank you for your quick response.  L found an entry that said
>
> > that Sheriff Bill Decker saw something hit the pavement, but it
>
> > wasn't clear about where.  The story was attributed to Fetzer and
>
> > Marrs.  However, I found a better story on 'Steve' Ellis, the motorcycle
>
> > cop.  It was said that he:
>
> >  "reported seeing a bullet strike the pavement "alongside the first
>
> > car in the motorcade, approximately 100 to 125 feet in front of the
>
> > car carrying President Kennedy. Ellis said that just as he started
>
> > down the hill of Elm Street, he looked back toward President
>
> > Kennedy's car and saw debris come up from the ground at a nearby
>
> > curb. Ellis thought it was a fragment grenade. Ellis said also that
>
> > President Kennedy turned around and looked over his shoulder."
>
>
>
> Sgt. Ellis is saying his motorcycle was positioned 100-125 feet in front
>
> of the Limousine. “Ellis said that just as he started down the hill of
>
> Elm Street, he looked back toward President Kennedy's car and saw debris
>
> come up from the ground at a nearby curb.” He saw something burst next
>
> to the Limousine that got a reaction from the President who “turned
>
> around and looked over his shoulder.” This proves the ricochet was to
>
> the right and behind the Limousine.
>

Please that I used quotes round the text that Ellis said. He said he saw something hit the pavement alongside the first car in the motorcade. That's ahead of JFK's car. and he says ahead by 100-125 feet.

>
>
> Very interesting observation: “Ellis thought it was a fragment
>
> grenade.” Shrapnel is caused by fragmentation.
>

Also a cloud of dirt and grass being uplifted.

>
>
> > From: http://www.assassinationresearch.com/v4n2/v4n2part5.pdf
>
>
>
> >   So the pavement strike was 100-125 feet in front of JFK's
>
> > car and was not a problem with shrapnel, however, a bullet
>
> > hitting the dirt/grass just above the curb fits with other stories
>
> > from other witnesses that saw a number of police and FBI
>
> > people around a place just up over the curb. One was seen
>
> > picking up something, but nothing was ever turned in.  It's
>
> > doubtful that dirt/grass would be too dangerous as shrapnel.
>
>
>
> That happened on the opposite side of the street.
>

Are you saying that TWO bullets hit the pavement, or the bullet I'm
talking about hit opposite something? Not sure what though. If the bullet
strike was what the cops and SS agent were looking for in the grass, then
it was the left side of the limo and not much danger to JFK. Of course,
we still have to consider the autopsy photos, one of which shows the right
cheek of JFK with nothing there that I can see. That suggests that
someone messed up at the later half of the autopsy and accidentally slid a
scalpel along the cheek.

>
>
> >    In the case of SSA Glen Bennett, he made a statement of
>
> > the days events, but left out anything to do with a pavement
>
> > strike.  Another place where he was spoken of also had nothing
>
> > about him witnessing a pavement strike. See:
>
> > http://www.jfk-online.com/bennett.html
>
>
>
> This list was comprised of witnesses to a first shot miss and an early
>
> first shot.
>
>
>
> Some of them saw an impact on the street, curb, or grass.
>
>
>
> >   SSA Warren W. Taylor's statement doesn't mention any pavement strikes:
>
> > http://www.jfk-online.com/wtaylor.html
>
>
>
> How did you miss this part?
>

Sorry, you're right. I saw 'streamer' and thought of something else.

>
>
> “Our automobile had just turned a corner (the names of the streets are
>
> unknown to me) when I heard a bang which sounded to me like a possible
>
> firecracker--the sound coming from my right rear. Out of the corner of my
>
> eye and off slightly to the right rear of our car, I noticed what now
>
> seems to me might have been a short piece of streamer flying in the air
>
> close to the ground, but due to the confusion of the moment, I thought
>
> that it was a firecracker going off.”
>
>
>
> >  From the witnesses I checked out there seems to be a
>
> > corroboration that something hit the pavement.
>
>
>
> I agree. 
>
>
>
> > The position of JFK surrounded by the limo and with his right
>
> > hand raised often gives one the impression that a bullet hitting
>
> > the pavement would probably not cause any 'shrapnel' to hit JFK.  
>
>
>
> The limo was a convertible with the top removed. There was nothing
>
> surrounding the President from the shoulders up but thin air. He was to
>
> the far right of the convertible with his arm on the window frame. If a
>
> ricochet to the right rear of the Limousine caused the projectile to
>
> splinter the President is the nearest passenger to this burst of lead
>
> fragmentation and his body obviously absorbed some of the small pieces of
>
> the broken bullet. Robinson thought so. He said the fragments were too
>
> small to be bullets.
>

But the bullet strike hit the pavement near of on the grass where the
cops and SS agent were looking for the bullet. How did it get over to the
right side? Or are we dealing with 2 bullet strikes and therefore a
conspiracy with the TSBD and GK, and maybe the Dal Tex building?

>
>
> > It would be as easy to hit any person in the back of
>
> > the limo too if shrapnel were flying around.
>

I can see a shot from the 6th floor or GK, but shrapnel flying around?
Naah.

>
>
> If a hand grenade yes. How complete the fragmentation of the FMJ
>
> projectile we can’t be sure. Howard Donahue has an interesting theory
>
> on what happended to the larger part of that bullet.
>

I believe a grenade of that type would be extremely loud and obvious.
Can't put a silencer on it.

>
>
> > We must face the facts that not only did this pavement strike
>
> > occur, but that others occurred as well.
>
>
>
> A couple of witnesses thought they saw more than one projectile bounce off
>
> the street. 
>

We know that they did.

>
>
> > The Tague strike a good ways away, the 2 gouges on the
>
> > dirt/grass seen by the Hartmans that pointed to the GK,
>
>
>
> Where stood eight witnesses who neither heard nor saw a sniper anywhere on
>
> the GK.
>

And some witnesses that heard shots going over their heads from the
Knoll and picket fence.

>
>
> > the through-and-through hole in the windshield of the limo,
>
> > attested to by 6 people including a Ford plant manager,
>
>
> There is a difference of opinion by witnesses about this crack in the
>
> windshield.
>

Yep, but I'll be happy to back up my view on it and why it WAS a hole
through and not the crack. The dates for instance were mistaken in a memo
from a Ford person and that helped cover it up, but they got caught by
dating in the garage log and by the dating elsewhere when the limo was
missing for a day and a night while being worked on at the Ford plant at
Rouge, where the manager that knew the car saw the windshield and saw the
hole which type of thing he was very familiar with.

>
>
> > the complete bullet that struck the chrome overhead support
>
> > of the limo.
>
>
>
> How do you know it is a complete bullet and not a large fragment? 
>

By the damage it left and the fact that I can't figure out where the
bullet would have hit to send a fragment up there with enough velocity to
cause that kind of damage. The first strike location would have been
found. Looking at it shows a very complete strike.

>
>
> > Many bullets flying around that day, meaning a number of shooters.
>
>
>
> So which CT do you agree with on that theory? Fetzer has as many as 16
>
> snipers in Dealey Plaza. Do you believe that? Keep in mind if you
>
> advocate several snipers firing on the Limousine to have any credibilty
>
> you have an obligation to locate positions and explain what kind of
>
> weapons were used and what angles intersected the Limousine, and why so
>
> many missed.
>

I don't much car about Fetzer or any of the others. I build my own
facts and come to my own conclusions. Fetzer and Specter and others are
welcome to interview folks and get information in that I will be happy to
use, but not their own conclusions.

>
>
> > > and where are the comments of the authorities about the
>
> > > probable gouge in the pavement that would prove the shot?
>
> > They looked but a busy street like Elm Street would have
>
> > many rough spots and gouges so it may be impossible to
>
> > tell a bullet mark from any other scratch on the street.
>
>
>
> Or maybe not:
>
>
>
> “After the assassination, the FBI did their investigative work on the
>
> curb where I had seen the shot hit and cut off the section to analyze.
>
> However, they cut off the wrong section. We later found the place where
>
> it hit. Sergeant Harkness knows. He was a three wheel sergeant who worked
>
> traffic downtown.”
>
>
>
> No More Silnece, p. 152
>
>
>
> > > Second, picture JFK's position surrounded mostly by the limo
>
> > > and back a bit from the edge of the limo, with his right hand
>
> > > often raised in front of his face.  Not an easy ricochet shot,
>
> > > for sure.  
>
> > He was turned waving to the crowd on the right side of the street.  
>
> > His right profile would be exposed to any ricochet impacting the
>
> > pavement or curb to the right rear of the vehicle.  All the shrapnel
>
> > wounds were on the right side of the face and head, according to
>
> > your favorite witness, Tom Robinson.
>
> >

He saw 2 or 3 slits in the cheek, which weren't on the autopsy photos
that were taken before Robinson saw the body.

>
> >   "All" the "shrapnel" wounds?  There were 2 or three cuts in
>
> > the cheek. No shrapnel found in them as far as I know.  
>
>
>
> Robinson made no effort to probe or pluck them out. They penetrated all
>
> the way through because they were leaking fluid.
>

They could leak fluids without going all the way through, but either way
that doesn't mean that 'shrapnel' was involved.

>
>
> > And if he was waving to the crowd on the right, then
>
> > his hand was also in the way of anything heading for
>
> > his cheek.  
>
>
>
> Are you serious?
>

Yep. It's one more thing to make it a bit harder. I can't see the
whole idea of shrapnel, and with the missing cuts in the autopsy photo,
I'm not sure when the cuts were made after the autopsy photo, but there
was no 'shrapnel' flying around the autopsy room.

>
>
> > It's not critical to the proving of conspiracy, but a point
>
> > that needs more light shed on it.  Unfortunately, no one
>
> > I've looked into saw the cuts on the cheek anytime until
>
> > Robinson at the autopsy.
>
>
>
> So are you now impeaching your favorite witness as to his ability to
>
> recognize small wounds, or his honesty? He was the mortician in charge of
>
> applying make-up to the face and comb the hair, so he would be the one to
>
> notice smaller defects in the face and scalp. However, one other
>
> mortician noticed fluid leaking from the same small puncture wounds in the
>
> right cheek.
>

Impeaching? When did you jump to that conclusion? See above. He said
he saw them, and they're not on the autopsy photo I mentioned, so they had
to have happened after the photo was taken, right? Where's the
impeachment?

>
>
> > The BE3 autopsy photo doesn't show the cuts either.  I wonder
>
> > if someone was loose with a scalpel or other sharp instrument
>
> > around embalming time.
>
>
>
> For what purpose?
>

To cut things open like they do at an autopsy. A slip of the blade by
one of the incompetents would do it.

>
>
> > > No solid evidence for JFK saying anything.  
>
>
>
> The senior SS Agent in the Limousine on the same side directly in front of
>
> the President and whose primary duty was to focus on him and listen for
>
> the sound of his voice at any moment, heard the President exclaim that he
>
> was “hit”. That sounds solid to me. Why would he lie about it? As I
>
> pointed out before it exposes him to criticism of not reacting quick
>
> enough. Robinson’s testimony proves the President was indeed wounded on
>
> the right side of his head and face by fragments too small to be
>
> bullets.
>

Sounds like it might give him a few seconds to marshal his thoughts.
That was Kellerman, wasn't it? For me he's one of the 2 guys I would
suspect of helping the conspirators. Kellerman and Frazier.

>
>
> > > While some would use the word shrapnel for some wounds
>
> > > suffered by JFK,
>
> > The description used by Robinson.
>
>
>
> > > they may have also been made by bullets,
>
>
>
> He was asked about that and he said they were too small for bullets.
>
>
>
> > There was at least one witness that saw shooters behind
>
> > the picket fence with a rifle.
>
>
>
> Arnord or Hoffman have both been discredited.  You are the only CT I
>
> know of that believe them.
>

They weren't discredited, but there was a serious effort to do just that
by the LNers who would say or do anything to get that kind of evidence out
of the limelight. It's like they attack anything that offers any kind of
good evidence that it was a conspiracy, yet that fact is clear from all
the evidence laying around that they couldn't fix. Like the large hole in
the BOH. NO ONE has come forward with a list of all the people that saw
only a 'small hole' in the BOH, but there will be attacks on my saying
there are over 40 that saw the hole.

>
>
> > A suspicious character with previous record was found in
>
> > the Dal Tex building with a flimsy reason for being there.
>
>
>
> He would have to use a silencer because several employees were in windows
>
> and some on the fire escape ladder. None of them heard shots from the
>
> building. Several witnesses on the street below. No reports from them
>
> hearing gunshots from the building above and behind them.

No problem. At first you didn't even believe there was a suspect there.
It was all too flimsy for you. But the guy is a good candidate. He could
well have used a silencer, since the distance wasn't that great. But by
going back in a room and shooting from way back, it might kill some of the
sound that way. Either way, the guy is a good candidate to be one of the
shooters. His excuse for being there is baloney. He had Mafia
connections, and he saw Jack Ruby at his hotel that night.

Chris

[mainframetech]

LOL! We're ALL qualified to correct you and often do. You need watching
or you begin to make stuff up...:)

>
>
> > definition, and probably not by most other people's definition as well.
>
>
>
> Most people can see that you always cite kook sites.
>

Odd you would make a mistake right after I corrected you, and here you
go again, but it's OK, I'm her and can handle this one. First, prove that
I "always" cite 'kook' sites. Second, remember that we're talking about
general belief that a site is a 'kook' site. Your belief isn't valid in
this situation and so is discarded. Third, you will have a difficult time
because you will discover if you're not too lazy to research it, that I
actually use testimony and accepted sites to quote from. Rare that I will
use a site other than those to quote from. Try and beat that record
yourself, and I mean just cite something...anything...:)

>
>
> > So that mistake is straightened out. And the information I impart is
>
> > generally from testimony or a recognized JFK site. Of course I don't
>
>
>
> Testimony is not always reliable and you specifically seek out the most
>
> unreliable testimony you can find.
>

Now I have to correct you all over again. You can't help yourself from
making constant mistakes. Do you wonder why you're not believed often?
Here we go...I do NOT seek out sites with the most unreliable testimony on
them. If it is 'testimony' that means it is sworn (under oath) statements
usually in court or before a panel like the WC. You should try it some
time instead of just blathering out some insult or other.

>
>
> > doubt you got your mistaken thought from John who keeps trying to use that
>
> > excuse to discredit some of my statements.
>
> >
>
>
>
> Which John? Yet again someone else who sees your tricks.
>
>

McAdams. Check out his posts and you'll see that he uses that excuse.

But the autopsy photos (BE3) didn't show the cuts in the cheek, so they
had to happen after the photos were taken and not in Dealey Plaza.

>
> >>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>
>
> >>
>
> >>> "All" the "shrapnel" wounds? There were 2 or three cuts in the cheek.
>
> >>
>
> >>> No shrapnel found in them as far as I know. And if he was waving to the
>
> >>
>
> >>> crowd on the right, then his hand was also in the way of anything heading
>
> >>
>
> >>> for his cheek. It's not critical to the proving of conspiracy, but a
>
> >>
>
> >>> point that needs more light shed on it. Unfortunately, no one I've looked
>
> >>
>
> >>> into saw the cuts on the cheek anytime until Robinson at the autopsy.
>
> >>
>
> >>> The BE3 autopsy photo doesn't show the cuts either. I wonder if someone
>
> >>
>
> >>> was loose with a scalpel or other sharp instrument around embalming time.
>
>
> >> So what? Theorize that there are hidden autopsy photographs you've never
>
> >>
>
> >> been allowed to see which show pieces of shrapnel sticking out of his
>
> >>
>
> >> face. I wonder if Robinson was drunk again at the time. (this is what's
>
> >>
>
> >> known as an ad hominem in the business)
>
> >>
>
> > I don't have to theorize. We have testimony that there was a whole set
>
> > of autopsy photos that showed everything properly, without the coverup
>
> > work for the BOH. See testimony of Saundra Kay Spencer, and her drawing
>
> > of the BOH from the autopsy photo set she developed. Here's her
>
> > testimony:
>

> But when you read that testimony you jump to conclusions based on your
>
> bias to push a political agenda.
>

Where do you get this phony stuff? You still haven't said WHAT
political agenda, yet you wander around saying agenda. Do you have any
idea what you're talking about, or do you just like to hear your own voice
in your head?

>
>
> > http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=797&relPageId=3
>
> >
>
> > And here's the drawing she made from the special autopsy photo set she
>
> > developed:
>
>
> > http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=679
>
>
> Old news.
>

LOL! Old news yes! But old news that I provided to you and you were
unable to comment on...:) Because if you faced it, you would have to admit
things you don't want to consider, and face facts that will change your
scenario.

>
>
> >>>>> No solid evidence for JFK saying anything. While some would
>
> >>
>
> >>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>> use the word shrapnel for some wounds suffered by JFK,
>
> >>
>
> >>>> It's not in the description used by Robinson.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>> they may have also been made by bullets,
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>>> Most were too small to be bullets. Could have been shotgun pellets. Are you suggesting a shotgun was fired at the motorcade? If so, from what location?
>
>
> >>> No, no shotgun that I know of.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>> since there were many shooters in Dealey Plaza that day.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>>> Only sniper seen by witnesses was in the 6th floor window. No snipers behind the wooden fence and none on the GK. No witness mention the Dal-Tex building. Where were these other snipers located and what kind of weapons did they use?
>
>
> >>> There was at least one witness that saw shooters behind the picket fence
>
> >>
>
> >>> with a rifle. A suspicious character with previous record was found in
>
> >>
>
> >
>
> >> Nonsense. Name him. Quote him. Cite your source. We don't need loose
>
> >>
>
> >> cannons like you on our side making up crap just so that the WC
>
> >>
>
> >> defenders can shoot it down easily.
>
> >>
>
> >
>
> > Take your insults and put 'em where the sun don't shine. I'm not
>
> > insulting you, so stop the personal insults and try discussing the topic
>
> > at hand. Now, listen carefully and learn. Here is a bit of information
>

> > clipped from an article:

>
> >
>
>
>
> So when someone asks you to back up your statements you beg for mercy
>
> and claim it's a personal attack?
>

Give it up. You know for a fact that I provide any backup needed when
asked. And I never need to beg for any mercy of any kind, since I'm
careful about the things I state. Se below for the information you asked
for, not that you'll ever remember it. You don't dare.

>
>
> > "Another suspicious person detained in the Dal-Tex building was Jim
>
> > Braden, a career-criminal with Mafia ties who had recently changed his
>
> > name and was thus released by authorities. Furthermore, the Dal-Tex
>
> > building aligns directly with the trajectory of the bullet that hit the
>
> > curb, injuring bystander James Tague.
>
> >
>
>
>
> Someone's speculation. Almost any trajectory could hit the curb.
>

Apparently you don't know anything about the Tague incident, eh? He and
Buddy Walthers decided that the bullet may have come from the TSBD or the
Dal Tex building based on his position, and the curb where the bullet
struck.

>
>
> > From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dal-Tex_Building
>
> >
>
> > Here's more info on the suspect:
>
> > http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKbrading.htm
>
>
> Kook site as usual.
>

Nope. Won't do. That is a recognized information site and not your
kind of site. Another mistake corrected! Yes!!

>
>
> > You'll see that his history certainly makes him a candidate, and if he
>
> > hadn't changed his name they may have held on to him and asked more
>
> > questions. They didn't have his history on file under the name he was
>
> > using, and his excuse for being in the Dal Tex building was flimsy. He
>
> > went in there to make a phone call.
>
> >
>
>
>
> There were literally thousands of people whose histories made them
>
> candidates. There is no proof that shots were fired from the Dal-Tex.
>
>

LOL! No proof they weren't either. And of the thousands you think
might qualify, how many of them were in a building on Dealey Plaza while
the murder was going on, and had a visit from Jack Ruby late at night in
their hotel room?

I',m waiting.........

>
>
> >> A known criminal who may have had a very good criminal reason for being
>
> >>
>
> >> there totally unrelated to JFK.
>
> >>
>
> >
>
> > Or a perfectly good reason, to join in the killing of the president.
>
> >
>
>
>
> Millions of people had a perfectly good reason to join in the killing of
>
> the President. That does not mean they all were.

Oh lordee! Millions of people weren't in the Dal Tex building on a
flimsy excuse with a history of crime and mafia connections, and visited
by Jack Ruby in the middle of the night either...:)

Chris

[John McAdams]

On 11 Jul 2013 23:44:15 -0400, mainframetech <mainfr...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

What??!! And what was his "flimsy excuse?"

>with a history of crime and mafia connections, and visited
>by Jack Ruby in the middle of the night either...:)
>

Oh, my! What evidence do you have that Braden *ever* crossed paths
with Ruby?

But hey, you don't need no stinkin' evidence!

.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

[John McAdams]

On 11 Jul 2013 12:02:31 -0400, mainframetech <mainfr...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

It says that Bowers lost part of a finger in a "swimming party
accident."

It wasn't cut off by some goons to intimidate Bowers.

Of course, Dave Perry knew this long ago.

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/bowers.txt

You are posting stuff from kook sites.

.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

[mainframetech]

So that's where you got your ideas? 'Fess up! Tell all! :)

We don't know if he experienced any 'shrapnel' wounds, but if so, the
autopsy photos prove that the cuts to the cheek happened after the photos
were made...if you believe the photos, of course.

> >>
> >>
>
> >>> "All" the "shrapnel" wounds? There were 2 or three cuts in the cheek.
>
> >>
>
> >>> No shrapnel found in them as far as I know. And if he was waving to the
>
> >>
>
> >>> crowd on the right, then his hand was also in the way of anything heading
>
> >>
>
> >>> for his cheek. It's not critical to the proving of conspiracy, but a
>
> >>
>
> >>> point that needs more light shed on it. Unfortunately, no one I've looked
>
> >>
>
> >>> into saw the cuts on the cheek anytime until Robinson at the autopsy.
>
> >>
>
> >>> The BE3 autopsy photo doesn't show the cuts either. I wonder if someone
>
> >>
>
> >>> was loose with a scalpel or other sharp instrument around embalming time.
>
>
> >> So what? Theorize that there are hidden autopsy photographs you've never
>
> >>

I can easily believe in autopsy photos that we've never seen because the
photographers have pointed that out. The photo that Saundra Kay Spencer
saw that was a legitimate photo of the BOH, proved that. Her drawing of
the large hole in the BOH in the 'special' set of autopsy photos destined
for the W.H. (or somewhere related) proves it. I would love to know who
got that set of photos. It was ordered to be made separately with all the
scenes cleaned up. Was it the Kennedy family, to document privately the
proof of conspiracy?

>
> >> been allowed to see which show pieces of shrapnel sticking out of his
>
> >>
>
> >> face. I wonder if Robinson was drunk again at the time. (this is what's
>
> >>
>
> >> known as an ad hominem in the business)
>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>> No solid evidence for JFK saying anything. While some would
>
> >>
>
> >>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>> use the word shrapnel for some wounds suffered by JFK,
>
> >>
>
>
> >>>> The description used by Robinson.
>
> >>
>
> >>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>> they may have also been made by bullets,
>
>
> >>>> Most were too small to be bullets. Could have been shotgun pellets. Are you suggesting a shotgun was fired at the motorcade? If so, from what location?
>
> >>
>
> >>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>> No, no shotgun that I know of.
>
>
> >>>>> since there were many shooters in Dealey Plaza that day.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>>> Only sniper seen by witnesses was in the 6th floor window. No snipers behind the wooden fence and none on the GK. No witness mention the Dal-Tex building. Where were these other snipers located and what kind of weapons did they use?
>
> >>
>
> >>>
>
> >>
>
> >>> There was at least one witness that saw shooters behind the picket fence
>
> >>
>
> >>> with a rifle. A suspicious character with previous record was found in
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> Nonsense. Name him. Quote him. Cite your source. We don't need loose
>
> >>
>
> >> cannons like you on our side making up crap just so that the WC
>
> >>
>
> >> defenders can shoot it down easily.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>> the Dal Tex building with a flimsy reason for being there.
>
> >>
>
> >>>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> A known criminal who may have had a very good criminal reason for being
>
> >>
>
> >> there totally unrelated to JFK.
>

Now that's clever. Think about it.

> >>
>
> >>
>
> > As to the picket fence witness, (now don't all knee jerk at once) it was
>
> > Ed Hoffman, who has been belittled and as usual with people with clear
>
>
>
> We knew that already. But you misrepresent him. He did not say he saw
>
> the man firing.
>

True, but close enough. And Bowers friend Walter Rishel said that
Bowers saw 2 men shooting from behind the fence.

>
>
> > evidence of conspiracy, has been insulted and downgraded by all the
>
> > faithful WC believers. Unbeknown to many LNers, Hofffman tried to tell
>
> > his story to the authorities immediately after seeing what he did (SS,
>
> > DPD, FBI). He was told by some to go away because they didn't understand
>
> > him. Hid family was afraid for his life and told him not to tell anyone
>
> > his story. Here's the full story:
>
> >
>
> > http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKhoffman.htm
>
> >
>
>
>
> Your usual kook site.
>

False. A generally accepted site for JFK information. You should try
it instead of reading book after book.

>
>
> > There is no reason to think that Hoffman made up the story that he was
>
> > willing to tell the same day it all happened. Though there have been a
>
> > few changes in the story, as some here have said in the past, witnesses
>
> > will change their story a bit now and then. A key point is that
>
> > authorities made note that he had come to them, so we know he did that.
>
> > As well, Hoffman's story told the same day as the event, fit perfectly
>
> > with the scenario of the GK shooter that had been suggested from other
>

> > sources.

>
>
>
> No one should claim that he made up a story. But he may not have had a
>
> clear enough view to see exactly what he claims.
>

Then why claim it? Saying that doesn't tell us anything. The trees and
brush weren't in the way back then, and I would think the seeing of a
deaf-mute might be more acute than the average person.

>
>
> >
>
> > There is a thinner story from a friend of Lee Bowers who said that
>
> > Bowers had much more to say about what he saw, but was convinced to go
>
> > silent after he had lost the end of one of his fingers, and they couldn't
>
> > find out how. The friend was Walter Rishel:
>
> >
>
>
>
> Suggestive, but not probative.
>

The statement was clear and though the family tried to pretend they had
nothing to do with Rishel, there was later proof that they DID know him
and dealt with him on occasion. They also admitted to knowing of his loss
of finger, which info all fits the story.

[Anthony Marsh]

That's all he has.

> .John
> --------------
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
>

[Anthony Marsh]

On 7/11/2013 11:36 PM, mainframetech wrote:
> On Thursday, July 11, 2013 12:00:36 PM UTC-4, claviger wrote:
>> mainframetech,
>>
>>
>>
>>> Thank you for your quick response. L found an entry that said
>>
>>> that Sheriff Bill Decker saw something hit the pavement, but it
>>
>>> wasn't clear about where. The story was attributed to Fetzer and
>>
>>> Marrs. However, I found a better story on 'Steve' Ellis, the motorcycle
>>
>>> cop. It was said that he:
>>
>>> "reported seeing a bullet strike the pavement "alongside the first
>>
>>> car in the motorcade, approximately 100 to 125 feet in front of the
>>
>>> car carrying President Kennedy. Ellis said that just as he started
>>
>>> down the hill of Elm Street, he looked back toward President
>>
>>> Kennedy's car and saw debris come up from the ground at a nearby
>>
>>> curb. Ellis thought it was a fragment grenade. Ellis said also that
>>
>>> President Kennedy turned around and looked over his shoulder."
>>
>>
>>
>> Sgt. Ellis is saying his motorcycle was positioned 100-125 feet in front
>>

>> of the Limousine. ?Ellis said that just as he started down the hill of

>>
>> Elm Street, he looked back toward President Kennedy's car and saw debris
>>

>> come up from the ground at a nearby curb.? He saw something burst next
>>
>> to the Limousine that got a reaction from the President who ?turned
>>
>> around and looked over his shoulder.? This proves the ricochet was to

>>
>> the right and behind the Limousine.
>>
> Please that I used quotes round the text that Ellis said. He said he saw something hit the pavement alongside the first car in the motorcade. That's ahead of JFK's car. and he says ahead by 100-125 feet.

How does that fly up hit only JFK?

>>
>>
>> Very interesting observation: ?Ellis thought it was a fragment
>>
>> grenade.? Shrapnel is caused by fragmentation.

>> ?Our automobile had just turned a corner (the names of the streets are

>>
>> unknown to me) when I heard a bang which sounded to me like a possible
>>
>> firecracker--the sound coming from my right rear. Out of the corner of my
>>
>> eye and off slightly to the right rear of our car, I noticed what now
>>
>> seems to me might have been a short piece of streamer flying in the air
>>
>> close to the ground, but due to the confusion of the moment, I thought
>>

>> that it was a firecracker going off.?

>>
>>
>>
>>> From the witnesses I checked out there seems to be a
>>
>>> corroboration that something hit the pavement.
>>
>>
>>
>> I agree.
>>
>>
>>
>>> The position of JFK surrounded by the limo and with his right
>>
>>> hand raised often gives one the impression that a bullet hitting
>>
>>> the pavement would probably not cause any 'shrapnel' to hit JFK.
>>
>>
>>
>> The limo was a convertible with the top removed. There was nothing
>>
>> surrounding the President from the shoulders up but thin air. He was to
>>
>> the far right of the convertible with his arm on the window frame. If a
>>
>> ricochet to the right rear of the Limousine caused the projectile to
>>
>> splinter the President is the nearest passenger to this burst of lead
>>
>> fragmentation and his body obviously absorbed some of the small pieces of
>>
>> the broken bullet. Robinson thought so. He said the fragments were too
>>
>> small to be bullets.
>>
> But the bullet strike hit the pavement near of on the grass where the
> cops and SS agent were looking for the bullet. How did it get over to the
> right side? Or are we dealing with 2 bullet strikes and therefore a
> conspiracy with the TSBD and GK, and maybe the Dal Tex building?
>
>>
>>
>>> It would be as easy to hit any person in the back of
>>
>>> the limo too if shrapnel were flying around.
>>
> I can see a shot from the 6th floor or GK, but shrapnel flying around?
> Naah.
>
>>
>>
>> If a hand grenade yes. How complete the fragmentation of the FMJ
>>

>> projectile we can?t be sure. Howard Donahue has an interesting theory

So your theory is that Ford had to remove the windshield with a hole in
it and create and install a windshield with a crack?
How did they create the crack with Oswald's bullet lead in it?

>>
>>
>>> the complete bullet that struck the chrome overhead support
>>
>>> of the limo.
>>
>>
>>
>> How do you know it is a complete bullet and not a large fragment?
>>
> By the damage it left and the fact that I can't figure out where the
> bullet would have hit to send a fragment up there with enough velocity to
> cause that kind of damage. The first strike location would have been
> found. Looking at it shows a very complete strike.
>
>>
>>
>>> Many bullets flying around that day, meaning a number of shooters.
>>
>>
>>
>> So which CT do you agree with on that theory? Fetzer has as many as 16
>>
>> snipers in Dealey Plaza. Do you believe that? Keep in mind if you
>>
>> advocate several snipers firing on the Limousine to have any credibilty
>>
>> you have an obligation to locate positions and explain what kind of
>>
>> weapons were used and what angles intersected the Limousine, and why so
>>
>> many missed.
>>
>
> I don't much car about Fetzer or any of the others. I build my own
> facts and come to my own conclusions. Fetzer and Specter and others are
> welcome to interview folks and get information in that I will be happy to
> use, but not their own conclusions.
>

You get your nutty ideas from the Fetzerites.

>
>>
>>
>>>> and where are the comments of the authorities about the
>>
>>>> probable gouge in the pavement that would prove the shot?
>>
>>> They looked but a busy street like Elm Street would have
>>
>>> many rough spots and gouges so it may be impossible to
>>
>>> tell a bullet mark from any other scratch on the street.
>>
>>
>>
>> Or maybe not:
>>
>>
>>

>> ?After the assassination, the FBI did their investigative work on the

>>
>> curb where I had seen the shot hit and cut off the section to analyze.
>>
>> However, they cut off the wrong section. We later found the place where
>>
>> it hit. Sergeant Harkness knows. He was a three wheel sergeant who worked
>>

>> traffic downtown.?

>> was ?hit?. That sounds solid to me. Why would he lie about it? As I

>>
>> pointed out before it exposes him to criticism of not reacting quick
>>

>> enough. Robinson?s testimony proves the President was indeed wounded on

>>
>> the right side of his head and face by fragments too small to be
>>
>> bullets.
>>
>
> Sounds like it might give him a few seconds to marshal his thoughts.
> That was Kellerman, wasn't it? For me he's one of the 2 guys I would
> suspect of helping the conspirators. Kellerman and Frazier.
>
>>
>>
>>>> While some would use the word shrapnel for some wounds
>>
>>>> suffered by JFK,
>>
>>> The description used by Robinson.
>>
>>
>>
>>>> they may have also been made by bullets,
>>
>>
>>
>> He was asked about that and he said they were too small for bullets.
>>
>>
>>
>>> There was at least one witness that saw shooters behind
>>
>>> the picket fence with a rifle.
>>
>>
>>
>> Arnord or Hoffman have both been discredited. You are the only CT I
>>
>> know of that believe them.
>>
> They weren't discredited, but there was a serious effort to do just that
> by the LNers who would say or do anything to get that kind of evidence out
> of the limelight. It's like they attack anything that offers any kind of
> good evidence that it was a conspiracy, yet that fact is clear from all
> the evidence laying around that they couldn't fix. Like the large hole in
> the BOH. NO ONE has come forward with a list of all the people that saw
> only a 'small hole' in the BOH, but there will be attacks on my saying
> there are over 40 that saw the hole.
>

We don't have to. It is not an either/or situation.

>>
>>
>>> A suspicious character with previous record was found in
>>
>>> the Dal Tex building with a flimsy reason for being there.
>>
>>
>>
>> He would have to use a silencer because several employees were in windows
>>
>> and some on the fire escape ladder. None of them heard shots from the
>>
>> building. Several witnesses on the street below. No reports from them
>>
>> hearing gunshots from the building above and behind them.
>
> No problem. At first you didn't even believe there was a suspect there.

False. Everyone knew about Braden. You could call anyone a suspect. Why
not mention Milteer too? Or George Bush? Or Jack Ruby?

> It was all too flimsy for you. But the guy is a good candidate. He could
> well have used a silencer, since the distance wasn't that great. But by
> going back in a room and shooting from way back, it might kill some of the
> sound that way. Either way, the guy is a good candidate to be one of the
> shooters. His excuse for being there is baloney. He had Mafia
> connections, and he saw Jack Ruby at his hotel that night.
>

Silly speculation. You know nothing about rifles.

> Chris
>

[mainframetech]

On Friday, July 12, 2013 2:14:19 PM UTC-4, Anthony Marsh wrote:
> On 7/11/2013 11:57 PM, John McAdams wrote:
>
> > On 11 Jul 2013 12:02:31 -0400, mainframetech <mainfr...@yahoo.com>
>
> > wrote:
>
> >
>
> >> On Wednesday, July 10, 2013 11:33:44 PM UTC-4, Anthony Marsh wrote:
>
> >>> On 7/10/2013 5:54 PM, mainframetech wrote:
>
> >>>
>
> >>
>
> >> There is a thinner story from a friend of Lee Bowers who said that
>
> >> Bowers had much more to say about what he saw, but was convinced to go
>
> >> silent after he had lost the end of one of his fingers, and they couldn't
>
> >> find out how. The friend was Walter Rishel:
>
> >>
>
> >> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vNivLlyMneU
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> Many have tried to put down this story by saying that Walter didn't know
>
> >> the family that well, and he never had any loss of fingers, but a note in
>
> >> the Ferrell database suggests otherwise:
>
> >>
>
> >> http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/marysdb/showRec.do?mode=searchResult&id=1347
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> Notice that the information above doesn't come from 'kook' websites.
>
> >>
>
> >
>
> > It says that Bowers lost part of a finger in a "swimming party
>
> > accident."
>
> >
>
> > It wasn't cut off by some goons to intimidate Bowers.
>

So you believe anything in print? You should stop going to those kook
sites you visit all the time. The family didn't want Lee Bowers to let on
that he saw more than it was thought behind the picket fence on the GK.
For his own safety they wanted to be quiet on that score. So I believe
they made up the swimming accident business. Remember that at first they
had said they didn't even know Rishel, and yet they did, and then they
said they knew nothing about Lee having a finger taken off. The finger
scared them enough to make up any story to keep people away from the facts
in my estimation.

I haven't heard the 'swimming accident' story, has anyone else? I'd
love to know how you lose part of a finger in a 'swimming party accident'.
Maybe a piece of cake falls off the table and cuts a finger off.

> >
>
> > Of course, Dave Perry knew this long ago.
>
> >
>
> > http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/bowers.txt
>
> >
>
> > You are posting stuff from kook sites.
>

It ain't me that posted it, and I wouldn't say that McAdams's site was a
kook site, but I will say that the Perry story has an awful lot of
conjecture in it. It doesn't sound right to me.

I mean listen to the excuse given for the partial finger being lost
because the hand was hanging over the edge of the pool and someone jumped
in and injured the finger. How does that take off part of the finger?
At most it might bang up the finger, but I can't even picture that the way
it's described.

[mainframetech]

On Friday, July 12, 2013 4:10:56 PM UTC-4, Anthony Marsh wrote:
> On 7/11/2013 11:36 PM, mainframetech wrote:
>
> > On Thursday, July 11, 2013 12:00:36 PM UTC-4, claviger wrote:
>
> >> mainframetech,
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>> Thank you for your quick response. L found an entry that said
>
> >>
>
> >>> that Sheriff Bill Decker saw something hit the pavement, but it
>
> >>
>
> >>> wasn't clear about where. The story was attributed to Fetzer and
>
> >>
>
> >>> Marrs. However, I found a better story on 'Steve' Ellis, the motorcycle
>
> >>
>
> >>> cop. It was said that he:
>
> >>
>
> >>> "reported seeing a bullet strike the pavement "alongside the first
>
> >>
>
> >>> car in the motorcade, approximately 100 to 125 feet in front of the
>
> >>
>
> >>> car carrying President Kennedy. Ellis said that just as he started
>
> >>
>
> >>> down the hill of Elm Street, he looked back toward President
>
> >>
>
> >>> Kennedy's car and saw debris come up from the ground at a nearby
>
> >>
>
> >>> curb. Ellis thought it was a fragment grenade. Ellis said also that
>
> >>
>
> >>> President Kennedy turned around and looked over his shoulder."
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> Sgt. Ellis is saying his motorcycle was positioned 100-125 feet in front
>
> >>
>
> >> of the Limousine. ?Ellis said that just as he started down the hill of
>
> >>
>
> >> Elm Street, he looked back toward President Kennedy's car and saw debris
>
> >>
>
> >> come up from the ground at a nearby curb.? He saw something burst next
>
> >>
>
> >> to the Limousine that got a reaction from the President who ?turned
>
> >>
>
> >> around and looked over his shoulder.? This proves the ricochet was to
>
> >>
>
> >> the right and behind the Limousine.
>
> >>
>

> > Please note that I used quotes round the text that Ellis said. He said he saw something hit the pavement alongside the first car in the motorcade. That's ahead of JFK's car. and he says ahead by 100-125 feet.

>
>
>
> How does that fly up hit only JFK?
>

Right. My thought exactly.

>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> Very interesting observation: ?Ellis thought it was a fragment
>
> >>
>
> >> grenade.? Shrapnel is caused by fragmentation.
>
> >>
>
> > Also a cloud of dirt and grass being uplifted.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>> From: http://www.assassinationresearch.com/v4n2/v4n2part5.pdf
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>> So the pavement strike was 100-125 feet in front of JFK's
>
> >>
>
> >>> car and was not a problem with shrapnel, however, a bullet
>
> >>
>
> >>> hitting the dirt/grass just above the curb fits with other stories
>
> >>
>
> >>> from other witnesses that saw a number of police and FBI
>
> >>
>
> >>> people around a place just up over the curb. One was seen
>
> >>
>
> >>> picking up something, but nothing was ever turned in. It's
>
> >>
>
> >>> doubtful that dirt/grass would be too dangerous as shrapnel.
>
>
> >> That happened on the opposite side of the street.
>

It was to the left of the limo. Not dangerous to JFK.

> > Can't put a silencer on it. I would give up that whole line of thought.

>
> >
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>> We must face the facts that not only did this pavement strike
>
> >>
>
> >>> occur, but that others occurred as well.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> A couple of witnesses thought they saw more than one projectile bounce off
>
> >>
>
> >> the street.
>
> >>
>
> >
>
> > We know that they did.
>
>
> >>> The Tague strike a good ways away, the 2 gouges on the
>
> >>
>
> >>> dirt/grass seen by the Hartmans that pointed to the GK,
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> Where stood eight witnesses who neither heard nor saw a sniper anywhere on
>
> >>
>
> >> the GK.
>
> >>
>
> > And some witnesses that heard shots going over their heads from the
>

> > Knoll and picket fence. Some who turned to the GK and went up it to the top to see who might be there shooting. Many say a crowd of people ran up the hill.

>
>
> >>> the through-and-through hole in the windshield of the limo,
>
> >>
>
> >>> attested to by 6 people including a Ford plant manager,
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> There is a difference of opinion by witnesses about this crack in the
>
> >>
>
> >> windshield.
>
> >>
>
> >
>
> > Yep, but I'll be happy to back up my view on it and why it WAS a hole
>
> > through and not the crack. The dates for instance were mistaken in a memo
>
> > from a Ford person and that helped cover it up, but they got caught by
>
> > dating in the garage log and by the dating elsewhere when the limo was
>
> > missing for a day and a night while being worked on at the Ford plant at
>
> > Rouge, where the manager that knew the car saw the windshield and saw the
>
> > hole which type of thing he was very familiar with.
>
> >
>
>
>
> So your theory is that Ford had to remove the windshield with a hole in
>
> it and create and install a windshield with a crack?
>
> How did they create the crack with Oswald's bullet lead in it?
>

I didn't propose a theory. I reported facts. I don't believe you can show
me where they found 'Oswald's' bullet lead in the hole in the limo windshield,
but it could be put there if they wanted. When the limo came back from
the Ford plant, they had to make a crack in it to make it look like it
was NOT a through-and-through hole. The way they did it, they made a mistake.
They did it from the outside towards the inside. Safety glass cracks
from a strike by cratering inward, losing material on the opposite side of
the side that was hit. The new crack in the limo windshield showed the
mistake as if the fragment or whatever had struck from the outside...:)

If they wanted to put some lead from a particular bullet on a
windshield, they had plenty examples from testing the MC rifle and could
take any one bullet and rub it where needed. But I still doubt they went
to that trouble.

Remember that the memo from the Ford guy that did the work of putting in
a new windshield in the W.H. garage said it was done on the 26th, but NO
ONE from outside came to the garage and signed in. That day it was as if
the limo wasn't there, and really, it wasn't. It was in Rouge at the Ford
plant being seen by George Whitaker.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/2012/06/douglas-p-horne/photographic-evidence-of-bullet-hole-in-jfk-limousine-windshield-hiding-in-plain-sight/

>
>
> >>> the complete bullet that struck the chrome overhead support
>
> >>
>
> >>> of the limo.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> How do you know it is a complete bullet and not a large fragment?
>
> >>
>
> > By the damage it left and the fact that I can't figure out where the
>
> > bullet would have hit to send a fragment up there with enough velocity to
>
> > cause that kind of damage. The first strike location would have been
>
> > found. Looking at it shows a very complete strike.
>
> >
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>> Many bullets flying around that day, meaning a number of shooters.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> So which CT do you agree with on that theory? Fetzer has as many as 16
>
> >>
>
> >> snipers in Dealey Plaza. Do you believe that? Keep in mind if you
>
> >>
>
> >> advocate several snipers firing on the Limousine to have any credibilty
>
> >>
>
> >> you have an obligation to locate positions and explain what kind of
>
> >>
>
> >> weapons were used and what angles intersected the Limousine, and why so
>
> >>
>
> >> many missed.
>
> >>

Don't be a fool. Positions are easy, since the shooters weren't
apprehended, we won't know what weapons they used. That's a ridiculous
request.

For locations, the TSBD 6th or other floor. The Dal Tex building, the
Grassy Knoll, the other Grassy Knoll, a train car on the overpass, and
many other sites were available, but those will do for starters. As to
why many missed, perhaps they used just general shooters and not fully
trained snipers. Some skill, but not absolutely perfect, which might
explain why so many shooters.

>
> >
>
> > I don't much car about Fetzer or any of the others. I build my own
>
> > facts and come to my own conclusions. Fetzer and Specter and others are
>
> > welcome to interview folks and get information in that I will be happy to
>
> > use, but not their own conclusions.
>
> >
>
>
>
> You get your nutty ideas from the Fetzerites.
>

I guess you don't read too much, do you. Look just above your silly
comment. Time for me to correct you once again. Do you EVER speak the
truth, or do you go through life with everyone around you having to
straighten out your silly sayings?

>
>
> >>>> and where are the comments of the authorities about the
>
> >>
>
> >>>> probable gouge in the pavement that would prove the shot?
>
> >>
>
> >>> They looked but a busy street like Elm Street would have
>
> >>
>
> >>> many rough spots and gouges so it may be impossible to
>
> >>
>
> >>> tell a bullet mark from any other scratch on the street.
>
> >>

Well the bullet gouges that the Hartmans saw on the grass (2 of them)
were aligned from the GK, and it was obvious.

> > was no 'shrapnel' flying around the autopsy room. Hard for me to understand why you're unable to read the words 'autopsy photos' and deal with it. Easy to check.

No. Robinson's statements merely say that somewhere before Robinson
noticed the cuts on the cheek, they were made. Since they weren't on the
autopsy photos, they had to have been done late in the autopsy after the
photos were taken. Try and face it.

> >>
>
> >
>
> > Sounds like it might give him a few seconds to marshal his thoughts.
>
> > That was Kellerman, wasn't it? For me he's one of the 2 guys I would
>
> > suspect of helping the conspirators. Kellerman and Frazier.
>
> >
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>>> While some would use the word shrapnel for some wounds
>
> >>
>
> >>>> suffered by JFK,
>
> >>
>
> >>> The description used by Robinson.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>>> they may have also been made by bullets,
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> He was asked about that and he said they were too small for bullets.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>> There was at least one witness that saw shooters behind
>
> >>
>
> >>> the picket fence with a rifle.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>

> >> Arnold or Hoffman have both been discredited. You are the only CT I

>
> >>
>
> >> know of that believe them.
>
> >>
>
> > They weren't discredited, but there was a serious effort to do just that
>
> > by the LNers who would say or do anything to get that kind of evidence out
>
> > of the limelight. It's like they attack anything that offers any kind of
>
> > good evidence that it was a conspiracy, yet that fact is clear from all
>
> > the evidence laying around that they couldn't fix. Like the large hole in
>
> > the BOH. NO ONE has come forward with a list of all the people that saw
>
> > only a 'small hole' in the BOH, but there will be attacks on my saying
>
> > there are over 40 that saw the hole.
>
> >
>
>
>
> We don't have to. It is not an either/or situation.
>

Ah! An excuse to avoid making a list that you know won't be more than
3-4 people long...:) But think about it. If you say that the large hole
in the BOH that was seen by over 40 people was NOT there, then it is an OR
situation where there must have been a 'SMALL HOLE' there, right? And if
so, then there must be a list of people that saw a small hole. So it
could be done. I think the reason for the excuse to avoid the list of
'small hole' people is because it would be too embarrassing to have to
face the truth that there was a shot from the GK that caused the BOH to be
blown out back and to the left, as the brain, gore and blood flew as per
those behind the limo who were rained on with the stuff.

>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>> A suspicious character with previous record was found in
>
> >>
>
> >>> the Dal Tex building with a flimsy reason for being there.
>
>
> >> He would have to use a silencer because several employees were in windows
>
> >>
>
> >> and some on the fire escape ladder. None of them heard shots from the
>
> >>
>
> >> building. Several witnesses on the street below. No reports from them
>
> >>
>
> >> hearing gunshots from the building above and behind them.
>
> >
>
> > No problem. At first you didn't even believe there was a suspect there.
>
>
>
> False. Everyone knew about Braden. You could call anyone a suspect. Why
>
> not mention Milteer too? Or George Bush? Or Jack Ruby?
>

Because I doubt that Geo. Bush would get his hands dirty with that job.
Milteer the same. If the picture of him being there were true, it was
only so that he could witness it all. Jack Ruby now, that's another
story. He was seen by a DPD detective on the opposite side of the Elm
street underpass putting something in his car that was parked there,
immediately after the limo went by. Here's the story:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lx0VXD7LMxU

This guy is very believable, so of course certain elements have
attacked him with vigor. He didn't try to write a book or do anything to
profit from his experience, or bother about it. He tried to report his
sighting to the DPD detective group right away.

>
>
> > It was all too flimsy for you. But the guy is a good candidate. He could
>
> > well have used a silencer, since the distance wasn't that great. But by
>
> > going back in a room and shooting from way back, it might kill some of the
>
> > sound that way. Either way, the guy is a good candidate to be one of the
>
> > shooters. His excuse for being there is baloney. He had Mafia
>
> > connections, and he saw Jack Ruby at his hotel that night.
>
> >
>
>
>
> Silly speculation. You know nothing about rifles.
>

As usual, wrong again. Mr. Mistake strikes again.

>
>
Chris

[mainframetech]

On Friday, July 12, 2013 4:10:56 PM UTC-4, Anthony Marsh wrote:

Apparently you're trying to get me bugged, but it's not working. It
just shows your interest in trying to get attention.

>
Chris
>
> >

[Anthony Marsh]

He didn't claim to see the shooter in the act of shooting.

[Anthony Marsh]

I'll say it once again in case you're deaf. You issued a phony challenge.
You asked me to prove something that I never asserted. A straw man
argument. I am tired of your games.
I don't believe in a small hole. I don't care who does.
BTW, what about the Connallys who were covered with blood and brains?
Did you conveniently forget about them? And the blood on the windshield
and on the hood?

[mainframetech]

On Tuesday, July 9, 2013 8:37:25 PM UTC-4, claviger wrote:
> On Tuesday, July 9, 2013 9:46:06 AM UTC-5, mainframetech wrote:
>
> > On Monday, July 8, 2013 9:32:48 PM UTC-4, claviger wrote:
>
> >
>
> > > Mainframetech,
>
> >
>
> > > You're now down 2-1 on this point at "The Conspiracy Myths Continue".
>
> >
>
> > > > Naturally he remembers the turning over of the body to view the back
>
> > > > for those that think the body wasn't turned over by the morticians.
>
> >
>
> > If you're referring to the testimony of Robinson and the large rubber
>
> > patch that was placed on the BOH of JFK to cover the wound "the size
>
> > of an orange", I refer you to testimony of Robinson mentioning that the
>
> > body was turned over for examination and to place the rubber patch
>
> > over the sizable hole in the BOH. And time didn't manufacture a memory
>
> > of a rubber patch being used to cover a large hole in the BOH of the
>
> > president of the USA.
>
>
>
> Yes, if anyone should know exactly where the head wound was located it would be Tom Robinson, but four doctors from TR1 thought they knew exactly where the wound was until seeing X-rays for the first time in 1988. They all realized their mistake and agreed with the X-rays. If the wound is where Robinson indicated he would have a difficult time working on that part of the skull and would need help from the other morticians. The fact they don't remember turning the body over suggests Robinson worked on the skull with the body in supine position, which means the wound was not low on the back of the head where he drew it. There is also something curious about that drawing that may be a clue.
>
>
>
> > If your referring to some other point, then say so and I'll
>
> > happily supply all the backup needed to change that result.
>
> > I'm not keeping score, I'm trying to convince people of facts
>
> > and their obvious meaning.
>
>
>
> I'm talking about simple math. Three morticians gave statements and two of them don't remember turning the body over. You are the one who likes to play the numbers game. It's not a problem for me because I would expect morticians to examine the backside of the victim, but the fundamental statistic is 2 to 1. Again this shows witnesses to the same event have different impressions and memories. Also, just because two didn't notice doesn't mean he didn't turn the body on the side. Curious that two of these morticians including Robinson didn't notice the back wound. How could they miss it?

I found John Van Hoesen's statements to the ARRB people. He said about
turning the body over, "I'm not sure if we ever turned the body over".
The ARRB staff said that he was the worst for memory of all their
subjects. So I don't think that qualifies as 'not turning the body over',
and Van Hoesen also said he was a 'service man' that did the odd jobs like
dressing the body and that sort of thing. I wasn't able to locate a
reference to Ed Stroble, so I'll be appreciative if you would pass on your
link to his statement. I found a statement by Hagan who was more of a
supervisor and said he remembered little of the work done,. and said that
he had been 'in and out' during the work, so he can't be depended on for
information.

All in all, I can't go along with the '2 to 1' count you've concocted
until I see all the info, namely Ed Stroble. Van Hoesen was a dead issue
making the count 1-2.

Chris

[mainframetech]

On Tuesday, July 9, 2013 8:37:25 PM UTC-4, claviger wrote:
> On Tuesday, July 9, 2013 9:46:06 AM UTC-5, mainframetech wrote:
>
> > On Monday, July 8, 2013 9:32:48 PM UTC-4, claviger wrote:
>
> >
>
> > > Mainframetech,
>
> >
>
> > > You're now down 2-1 on this point at "The Conspiracy Myths Continue".
>
> >
>
> > > > Naturally he remembers the turning over of the body to view the back
>
> > > > for those that think the body wasn't turned over by the morticians.
>
> >
>
> > If you're referring to the testimony of Robinson and the large rubber
>
> > patch that was placed on the BOH of JFK to cover the wound "the size
>
> > of an orange", I refer you to testimony of Robinson mentioning that the
>
> > body was turned over for examination and to place the rubber patch
>
> > over the sizable hole in the BOH. And time didn't manufacture a memory
>
> > of a rubber patch being used to cover a large hole in the BOH of the
>
> > president of the USA.
>
>
>
> Yes, if anyone should know exactly where the head wound was located it would be Tom Robinson, but four doctors from TR1 thought they knew exactly where the wound was until seeing X-rays for the first time in 1988. They all realized their mistake and agreed with the X-rays. If the wound is where Robinson indicated he would have a difficult time working on that part of the skull and would need help from the other morticians. The fact they don't remember turning the body over suggests Robinson worked on the skull with the body in supine position, which means the wound was not low on the back of the head where he drew it. There is also something curious about that drawing that may be a clue.
>

Please name the doctors that thought the X-rays were giving them the
straight info about the BOH. Mantik, and expert in the field felt that
the X-rays were faked. The supposed 4 doctors would have NO bearing on
Robinson's work or memories, which were very good.

[John McAdams]

On 12 Jul 2013 21:17:18 -0400, mainframetech <mainfr...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>On Friday, July 12, 2013 2:14:19 PM UTC-4, Anthony Marsh wrote:
>> On 7/11/2013 11:57 PM, John McAdams wrote:
>>
>>
>> > It says that Bowers lost part of a finger in a "swimming party
>>
>> > accident."
>>
>> >
>>
>> > It wasn't cut off by some goons to intimidate Bowers.
>>
>
> So you believe anything in print? You should stop going to those kook
>sites you visit all the time. The family didn't want Lee Bowers to let on
>that he saw more than it was thought behind the picket fence on the GK.
>For his own safety they wanted to be quiet on that score. So I believe
>they made up the swimming accident business.

Translation: I will *never* accept the debunking of a conspiracy
factoid.

I have a choice of believing Bowers on-the-record testimony, and the
testimony of his family, or some fellow who barely knew him and came
up with wind stories.

>Remember that at first they
>had said they didn't even know Rishel, and yet they did, and then they
>said they knew nothing about Lee having a finger taken off. The finger
>scared them enough to make up any story to keep people away from the facts
>in my estimation.
>

But you have no evidence of this. You just *assume* away any evidence
that contradicts some conspiracy factoid you are atteched to.

> I haven't heard the 'swimming accident' story, has anyone else? I'd
>love to know how you lose part of a finger in a 'swimming party accident'.
>Maybe a piece of cake falls off the table and cuts a finger off.
>

From Dave Perry's article:

<Quote on>

Rishel is a self proclaimed close friend of Monty and Lee
Bowers. Monty's widow and her brothers don't recall him. I cannot
prove Rishel's friendship with Lee through Lee's mother and father.
Both died earlier. At any rate, the family finds Rishel's story
inaccurate. They assert Lee lost only the tip of a finger, if that.
Bowers injured the finger at a swimming pool party sponsored by the
Green Clinic of Oak Cliff. He had his hand draped over the edge of
the pool. Someone jumped into the water feet first crushing the
finger against the side of the pool.

<Quote off>

>> >
>>
>> > Of course, Dave Perry knew this long ago.
>>
>> >
>>
>> > http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/bowers.txt
>>
>> >
>>
>> > You are posting stuff from kook sites.
>>
>
> It ain't me that posted it, and I wouldn't say that McAdams's site was a
>kook site, but I will say that the Perry story has an awful lot of
>conjecture in it. It doesn't sound right to me.
>

Huh? You, objecting to *conjecture??!!

> I mean listen to the excuse given for the partial finger being lost
>because the hand was hanging over the edge of the pool and someone jumped
>in and injured the finger. How does that take off part of the finger?
>At most it might bang up the finger, but I can't even picture that the way
>it's described.
>

You aren't an expert on pool accidents. All kinds of crazy things
injure people.

BTW, the Mary Ferrell document you linked to says the same thing.

So you are now linking to documents you don't believe?

.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

[John McAdams]

On 12 Jul 2013 21:21:45 -0400, mainframetech <mainfr...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>On Friday, July 12, 2013 4:10:56 PM UTC-4, Anthony Marsh wrote:
>> On 7/11/2013 11:36 PM, mainframetech wrote:
>>
>>
>
> I didn't propose a theory. I reported facts. I don't believe you can show
>me where they found 'Oswald's' bullet lead in the hole in the limo windshield,
>but it could be put there if they wanted. When the limo came back from
>the Ford plant, they had to make a crack in it to make it look like it
>was NOT a through-and-through hole. The way they did it, they made a mistake.
> They did it from the outside towards the inside. Safety glass cracks
>from a strike by cratering inward, losing material on the opposite side of
>the side that was hit. The new crack in the limo windshield showed the
>mistake as if the fragment or whatever had struck from the outside...:)
>
> If they wanted to put some lead from a particular bullet on a
>windshield, they had plenty examples from testing the MC rifle and could
>take any one bullet and rub it where needed. But I still doubt they went
>to that trouble.
>
> Remember that the memo from the Ford guy that did the work of putting in
>a new windshield in the W.H. garage said it was done on the 26th, but NO
>ONE from outside came to the garage and signed in. That day it was as if
>the limo wasn't there, and really, it wasn't. It was in Rouge at the Ford
>plant being seen by George Whitaker.
>
>http://www.lewrockwell.com/2012/06/douglas-p-horne/photographic-evidence-of-bullet-hole-in-jfk-limousine-windshield-hiding-in-plain-sight/
>

He doesn't include any photographic evidence.

He just cites the (conveniently unavailable) History Channel
documentary.

P.S. Lew Rockwell is a kook site.

.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

[John McAdams]

On 13 Jul 2013 21:04:53 -0400, mainframetech <mainfr...@yahoo.com>

wrote:

>On Tuesday, July 9, 2013 8:37:25 PM UTC-4, claviger wrote:
>> On Tuesday, July 9, 2013 9:46:06 AM UTC-5, mainframetech wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Yes, if anyone should know exactly where the head wound was located it would be Tom Robinson, but four doctors from TR1 thought they knew exactly where the wound was until seeing X-rays for the first time in 1988. They all realized their mistake and agreed with the X-rays. If the wound is where Robinson indicated he would have a difficult time working on that part of the skull and would need help from the other morticians. The fact they don't remember turning the body over suggests Robinson worked on the skull with the body in supine position, which means the wound was not low on the back of the head where he drew it. There is also something curious about that drawing that may be a clue.
>>
>
> Please name the doctors that thought the X-rays were giving them the
>straight info about the BOH. Mantik, and expert in the field felt that
>the X-rays were faked. The supposed 4 doctors would have NO bearing on
>Robinson's work or memories, which were very good.
>

Mantik is a hobbyist who has no expertise in analyzing x-rays for
fakery.

He's not even a radiologist. He's a radiation oncologist.

The real experts, retained by the HSCA, said the x-rays were
authentic.

But you aren't going to read what *they* had to say, are you?

.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

[Anthony Marsh]

On 7/13/2013 9:04 PM, mainframetech wrote:
> On Tuesday, July 9, 2013 8:37:25 PM UTC-4, claviger wrote:
>> On Tuesday, July 9, 2013 9:46:06 AM UTC-5, mainframetech wrote:
>>
>>> On Monday, July 8, 2013 9:32:48 PM UTC-4, claviger wrote:
>>
>>>
>>
>>>> Mainframetech,
>>
>>>
>>
>>>> You're now down 2-1 on this point at "The Conspiracy Myths Continue".
>>
>>>
>>
>>>>> Naturally he remembers the turning over of the body to view the back
>>
>>>>> for those that think the body wasn't turned over by the morticians.
>>
>>>
>>
>>> If you're referring to the testimony of Robinson and the large rubber
>>
>>> patch that was placed on the BOH of JFK to cover the wound "the size
>>
>>> of an orange", I refer you to testimony of Robinson mentioning that the
>>
>>> body was turned over for examination and to place the rubber patch
>>
>>> over the sizable hole in the BOH. And time didn't manufacture a memory
>>
>>> of a rubber patch being used to cover a large hole in the BOH of the
>>
>>> president of the USA.
>>
>>
>>
>> Yes, if anyone should know exactly where the head wound was located it would be Tom Robinson, but four doctors from TR1 thought they knew exactly where the wound was until seeing X-rays for the first time in 1988. They all realized their mistake and agreed with the X-rays. If the wound is where Robinson indicated he would have a difficult time working on that part of the skull and would need help from the other morticians. The fact they don't remember turning the body over suggests Robinson worked on the skull with the body in supine position, which means the wound was not low on the back of the head where he drew it. There is also something curious about that drawing that may be a clue.
>>
>
> Please name the doctors that thought the X-rays were giving them the
> straight info about the BOH. Mantik, and expert in the field felt that
> the X-rays were faked. The supposed 4 doctors would have NO bearing on
> Robinson's work or memories, which were very good.
>

All the HSCA forensic pathologists.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 7/13/2013 10:11 PM, John McAdams wrote:
> On 13 Jul 2013 21:04:53 -0400, mainframetech <mainfr...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On Tuesday, July 9, 2013 8:37:25 PM UTC-4, claviger wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, July 9, 2013 9:46:06 AM UTC-5, mainframetech wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Yes, if anyone should know exactly where the head wound was located it would be Tom Robinson, but four doctors from TR1 thought they knew exactly where the wound was until seeing X-rays for the first time in 1988. They all realized their mistake and agreed with the X-rays. If the wound is where Robinson indicated he would have a difficult time working on that part of the skull and would need help from the other morticians. The fact they don't remember turning the body over suggests Robinson worked on the skull with the body in supine position, which means the wound was not low on the back of the head where he drew it. There is also something curious about that drawing that may be a clue.
>>>
>>
>> Please name the doctors that thought the X-rays were giving them the
>> straight info about the BOH. Mantik, and expert in the field felt that
>> the X-rays were faked. The supposed 4 doctors would have NO bearing on
>> Robinson's work or memories, which were very good.
>>
>
> Mantik is a hobbyist who has no expertise in analyzing x-rays for
> fakery.
>

So that's the new WC defender mantra. Anyone who believes it was a
conspiracy is a hobbyist. You guys used to say buffs as the standard
insult. Why the change? And of course you will censor me when I tell you
what I think you guys are. But it's ok for you to insult conspiracy
believers.

> He's not even a radiologist. He's a radiation oncologist.
>

Wow, so what?
He measures X-rays and examines the filmstock.

> The real experts, retained by the HSCA, said the x-rays were
> authentic.
>

Yeah, so what?

[claviger]

Anthony,

> > Formal Logic: "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence". Positive
> > proof is more compelling. All that we know is no one else heard it, but
> > that is not absolute proof it wasn't said. Given the situation with
> > visual distractions of the crowd yelling for attention from Jackie and the
> > President and the collateral sounds of cheering, applause, wind, engine
> > noise, the rumble of motorcycles, and occasional backfires adds to the
> > cacophony of noise surrounding the Limousine. Sometimes we hear a
> > voice but not the words in a crowded room.

>
> You are assuming things not in evidence. There is no evidence of
> occasional backfires in Dealey Plaza. I suppose if you have an over
> active imagination you could claim that all the shots on the Dicabelt
> are merely motorcycle backfires.

34) First Lady Jackie Bouvier Kennedy (Onassis) [deceased 5/19/94]:
d) 11/29/63 interview with writer Theodore H. White: his notes released 5/26/95 [wrote "The Making of the Presdient 1960" , the "Camelot" article for the 12/6/63 "Life" magazine, and his own memoirs entitled "In Search of History", among others]---RE: the motorcade/ the assassination: "They were gunning the motorcycles; there were these little backfires; there was one noise like that; I thought it was a backfire. Then next I saw Connally grabbing his arms and saying no no nonononon,'
http://www.assassinationresearch.com/v4n2/v4n2part1.pdf

[mainframetech]

On Saturday, July 13, 2013 10:01:31 PM UTC-4, John McAdams wrote:
> On 12 Jul 2013 21:17:18 -0400, mainframetech <mainfr...@yahoo.com>
>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >On Friday, July 12, 2013 2:14:19 PM UTC-4, Anthony Marsh wrote:
>
> >> On 7/11/2013 11:57 PM, John McAdams wrote:
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> > It says that Bowers lost part of a finger in a "swimming party
>
> >>
>
> >> > accident."
>
> >>
>
> >> >
>
> >>
>
> >> > It wasn't cut off by some goons to intimidate Bowers.
>
> >>
>
> >
>
> > So you believe anything in print? You should stop going to those kook
>
> >sites you visit all the time. The family didn't want Lee Bowers to let on
>
> >that he saw more than it was thought behind the picket fence on the GK.
>
> >For his own safety they wanted to be quiet on that score. So I believe
>
> >they made up the swimming accident business.
>
>
>
> Translation: I will *never* accept the debunking of a conspiracy
>
> factoid.
>
>
>
> I have a choice of believing Bowers on-the-record testimony, and the
>
> testimony of his family, or some fellow who barely knew him and came
>
> up with wind stories.
>

Sadly, the stories of the family were proven to be just that, stories,
and the obvious reason was to keep quiet and cause no further difficulty
for themselves. The Ferrell information proves that the family lied about
knowing Rishel, and about Bowers losing a part of a finger. We just can't
gloss over facts so that we don't have to deal with them and pretend they
mean nothing.

>
>
> >Remember that at first they
>
> >had said they didn't even know Rishel, and yet they did, and then they
>
> >said they knew nothing about Lee having a finger taken off. The finger
>
> >scared them enough to make up any story to keep people away from the facts
>
> >in my estimation.
>
>
>
> But you have no evidence of this. You just *assume* away any evidence
>
> that contradicts some conspiracy factoid you are atteched to.
>

I take the Ferrell evidence to be legitimate. I've seen where YOU have
taken evidence to be legitimate, the only difference is that we choose to
go with different information.

>
>
>
>
> > I haven't heard the 'swimming accident' story, has anyone else? I'd
>
> >love to know how you lose part of a finger in a 'swimming party accident'.
>
> >Maybe a piece of cake falls off the table and cuts a finger off.
>
>
> From Dave Perry's article:
>
>
>
> <Quote on>
>
>
>
> Rishel is a self proclaimed close friend of Monty and Lee
>
> Bowers. Monty's widow and her brothers don't recall him. I cannot
>
> prove Rishel's friendship with Lee through Lee's mother and father.
>
> Both died earlier. At any rate, the family finds Rishel's story
>
> inaccurate. They assert Lee lost only the tip of a finger, if that.
>
> Bowers injured the finger at a swimming pool party sponsored by the
>
> Green Clinic of Oak Cliff. He had his hand draped over the edge of
>
> the pool. Someone jumped into the water feet first crushing the
>
> finger against the side of the pool.
>
>
>
> <Quote off>
>

Yeah. Picture that accident and how it could lead to a part of a finger
being taken off! Not much of a chance on that. But some people will
believe anything so they don't have to deal with the bigger responsibility
of there being a crime committed and the perpetrators being allowed to
escape while we make ourselves comfy with odd stories of swimming party
accidents that take off fingers.

>
>
> >> > Of course, Dave Perry knew this long ago.
>

From the story he told, he didn't know very much. I go with the Ferrell
story, not Dave Perry. But that's an individual choice. The story that
makes sense is the one for me.

> >>
>
> >> >
>
> >>
>
> >> > http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/bowers.txt
>
> >>
>
> >> >
>
> >>
>
> >> > You are posting stuff from kook sites.
>
> >>
>
> >
>
> > It ain't me that posted it, and I wouldn't say that McAdams's site was a
>
> >kook site, but I will say that the Perry story has an awful lot of
>
> >conjecture in it. It doesn't sound right to me.
>
> >
>
>
>
> Huh? You, objecting to *conjecture??!!
>
>
>
>
>
> > I mean listen to the excuse given for the partial finger being lost
>
> >because the hand was hanging over the edge of the pool and someone jumped
>
> >in and injured the finger. How does that take off part of the finger?
>
> >At most it might bang up the finger, but I can't even picture that the way
>
> >it's described.
>
> >
>
>
>
> You aren't an expert on pool accidents. All kinds of crazy things
>
> injure people.
>

Everyone has common sense, and applying it to ridiculous pool stories is
useful to separate the wheat from the chaff.

>
>
> BTW, the Mary Ferrell document you linked to says the same thing.
>
>
>
> So you are now linking to documents you don't believe?
>

Why would you say such a thing after my comments above? I believe the
document, but I tend not to believe the family's reasons for telling the
story of the swimming party taking off part of a finger. The document
shows they lied when they said they didn't know Rishel, and it says they
knew about the finger wound when they were saying it didn't happen.
There have been others that were afraid to say anything at times because
of fear for themselves, and that's perfectly possible here.

Chris

[mainframetech]

See below, it was provided.

>
>
> He just cites the (conveniently unavailable) History Channel
>
> documentary.
>

There's more there and calling names won't change facts.

>
>
> P.S. Lew Rockwell is a kook site.
>

LOL! You mean YOU deem it a kook site because of the dangers of people
reading anything by Doug Horne. The article stands and wasn't written by
Lew Rockwell, but by Horne. So why not just say Horne is a kook? As a
kook, he sure documents well though...:) In this particular part of the
case of the bullet hole in the windshield, I also looked into the White
House garage log and the site by Pamela McElwain-Brown about SSX-100 as
well as the memo supposedly from Ferguson. Also the story written out by
George Whitaker, the Ford plant manager who saw the bullet hole on
11/25/63. As well, I listened to the story of Doug Weldon, who had done
research on the windshield bullet hole.

As it turns out, the Ferguson memo mentions that workers went to the
W.H. garage and worked on the windshield on 11/25/63. Sadly, the W.H.
garage log notes NO visitors there that day, so that's misleading whether
intentional or not. I saw the log entries and Ferguson and some others
with him came to the garage on the 26th. I saw their login entry.

Also the article notes that photographic proof is also available.
>

As well, we must consider the 4-5 witnesses that were very sure they saw
a through-and-through hole in the windshield, some of them police
officers.

Here's the updated story with the parts included by Doug Weldon
(researcher) with the George Whitaker story, showing George Whitaker and
wife and his written statement. Why would he make up such a convoluted
story? He never tried to cash in on it, and he tried to remain anonymous
until his death, when he allowed it to be public information. The story
begins at 13:40 on this video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Dn5h0AGNZw

Chris

[mainframetech]

On Sunday, July 14, 2013 2:53:27 PM UTC-4, Anthony Marsh wrote:
> On 7/13/2013 10:11 PM, John McAdams wrote:
>
> > On 13 Jul 2013 21:04:53 -0400, mainframetech <mainfr...@yahoo.com>
>
> > wrote:
>
> >
>
> >> On Tuesday, July 9, 2013 8:37:25 PM UTC-4, claviger wrote:
>
> >>> On Tuesday, July 9, 2013 9:46:06 AM UTC-5, mainframetech wrote:
>
> >>>
>
> >>>
>
> >>>
>
> >>>
>
> >>> Yes, if anyone should know exactly where the head wound was located it would be Tom Robinson, but four doctors from TR1 thought they knew exactly where the wound was until seeing X-rays for the first time in 1988. They all realized their mistake and agreed with the X-rays. If the wound is where Robinson indicated he would have a difficult time working on that part of the skull and would need help from the other morticians. The fact they don't remember turning the body over suggests Robinson worked on the skull with the body in supine position, which means the wound was not low on the back of the head where he drew it. There is also something curious about that drawing that may be a clue.
>
> >>>

You have not proved to me that the other 2 morticians were SURE they
didn't turn over the body. Please show some proof of that. I found the
comments of one of them, but he couldn't remember much of anything. The
other I found no comments from.

>
> >>
>
> >> Please name the doctors that thought the X-rays were giving them the
>

> >> straight info about the BOH. Mantik, an expert in the field felt that

>
> >> the X-rays were faked. The supposed 4 doctors would have NO bearing on
>
> >> Robinson's work or memories, which were very good.
>
> >>
>
> >
>
> > Mantik is a hobbyist who has no expertise in analyzing x-rays for
>
> > fakery.
>

Ah! It must bother you that a knowledgeable person is able to show
fakery in such 'evidence'. But even YOU could see the fakery if you were
open minded about it. Look at the X-rays and notice that the whole right
forepart of the skull is missing. If the photos of the heads were made
they should have shown the skin caving in to the skull with so much
material missing. And the X-ray shows the left side of the patient's head
without problem, so why not the right? Because it's faked. Mantik is far
more an expert than anyone here, and he says 'fakes'.

> >
>
>
>
> So that's the new WC defender mantra. Anyone who believes it was a
>
> conspiracy is a hobbyist. You guys used to say buffs as the standard
>
> insult. Why the change? And of course you will censor me when I tell you
>
> what I think you guys are. But it's ok for you to insult conspiracy
>
> believers.
>
>
>
> > He's not even a radiologist. He's a radiation oncologist.
>

Thank you. Do you think that teaches him less about faked X-rays?

> >
>
>
>
> Wow, so what?
>
> He measures X-rays and examines the filmstock.
>
>
>
> > The real experts, retained by the HSCA, said the x-rays were
>
> > authentic.
>

Well of course! That's what they were supposed to do.

> >
>
>
>
> Yeah, so what?
>
>
>
> > But you aren't going to read what *they* had to say, are you?
>
> >
>
> > .John
>
> > --------------
>
> > http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
>
> >

The whole issue of having panels of people look into the murder and the
evidence generated by factors in the case was to shut people up about the
murder and any conspiracy. That's why the HSCA decided it was 'probably'
a conspiracy. Funny though, after deciding that, they never recommended
reopening the case to search for the conspirators that hadn't been caught
yet. They just quietly went away into the night. They weren't supposed
to find anything and they weren't going to make it worse by opening up the
case again.

Chris

[Anthony Marsh]

Pamela and I have poked that story full of holes.
You really think that Ford took out a windshield with a bullet hole in
it and put in a windshield with a crack which contained bullet lead from
Oswald's bullets?

> As it turns out, the Ferguson memo mentions that workers went to the
> W.H. garage and worked on the windshield on 11/25/63. Sadly, the W.H.
> garage log notes NO visitors there that day, so that's misleading whether
> intentional or not. I saw the log entries and Ferguson and some others
> with him came to the garage on the 26th. I saw their login entry.
>
> Also the article notes that photographic proof is also available.
>>
>
> As well, we must consider the 4-5 witnesses that were very sure they saw
> a through-and-through hole in the windshield, some of them police
> officers.
>

Nonsense. People standing right next to them told them they were nuts.
Show me the photograph of the limo parked at Parkland which shows a hole.

> Here's the updated story with the parts included by Doug Weldon
> (researcher) with the George Whitaker story, showing George Whitaker and
> wife and his written statement. Why would he make up such a convoluted
> story? He never tried to cash in on it, and he tried to remain anonymous
> until his death, when he allowed it to be public information. The story
> begins at 13:40 on this video:
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Dn5h0AGNZw
>

People make up stories to seem important, not just for money.

> Chris
>

[Anthony Marsh]

Not proof. Not relevant to Dealey Plaza.

[mainframetech]

You and Pamela haven't done anything of the kind or you would be able to
say how you did it right here and now. Since you have nothing to say on
the subject of 'debunking' the evidence, you shouldn't open your mouth,
you'll only make a mistake. Now, to eliminate your one little comment, no
one at Ford needed to put any bullet lead on the windshield. That could
be done (if it was done at all) back at the W.H. garage when they
pretended to replace the windshield, after someone foolishly put a ding in
the good windshield from the outside and it showed by the loss of material
on the inside of the safety glass.

>
>
> > As it turns out, the Ferguson memo mentions that workers went to the
>
> > W.H. garage and worked on the windshield on 11/25/63. Sadly, the W.H.
>
> > garage log notes NO visitors there that day, so that's misleading whether
>
> > intentional or not. I saw the log entries and Ferguson and some others
>
> > with him came to the garage on the 26th. I saw their login entry.
>
> >
>
> > Also the article notes that photographic proof is also available.
>
> >>
>
> >
>
> > As well, we must consider the 4-5 witnesses that were very sure they saw
>
> > a through-and-through hole in the windshield, some of them police
>
> > officers.
>
> >
>
>
>
> Nonsense. People standing right next to them told them they were nuts.
>
> Show me the photograph of the limo parked at Parkland which shows a hole.
>

You're a great one for demanding evidence and proof, but you show none
for your insulting comments and wander on like an amnesiac. No one could
see a hole in a windshield in the pictures of the limo, but those that
were right there next to it and knew what a through-and-through hole was
saw it clearly and said so. That was proof of a shooter from the front
and that was critical and had to be dealt with at any cost. Of course,
the conspirators had the full resources of the US government at their
disposal, so no problem there. And among them a medical student and a
couple cops. Not your flighty type of folks.

>
>
> > Here's the updated story with the parts included by Doug Weldon
>
> > (researcher) with the George Whitaker story, showing George Whitaker and
>
> > wife and his written statement. Why would he make up such a convoluted
>
> > story? He never tried to cash in on it, and he tried to remain anonymous
>
> > until his death, when he allowed it to be public information. The story
>
> > begins at 13:40 on this video:
>
> >
>
> > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Dn5h0AGNZw
>
> >
>
>
>
> People make up stories to seem important, not just for money.
>

Oh baloney. Whitaker kept himself anonymous until his death!! No ego
trip there. You make up more stories than Whitaker did. So on with your
next effort to 'debunk' the facts.

>
>
Chris
>
> >

[Anthony Marsh]

That is simply not true. You just read it on some kook web site. You did
not look at the original X-ray.

>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> So that's the new WC defender mantra. Anyone who believes it was a
>>
>> conspiracy is a hobbyist. You guys used to say buffs as the standard
>>
>> insult. Why the change? And of course you will censor me when I tell you
>>
>> what I think you guys are. But it's ok for you to insult conspiracy
>>
>> believers.
>>
>>
>>
>>> He's not even a radiologist. He's a radiation oncologist.
>>
>
> Thank you. Do you think that teaches him less about faked X-rays?
>

Try to learn how to post correctly in a thread.

>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Wow, so what?
>>
>> He measures X-rays and examines the filmstock.
>>
>>
>>
>>> The real experts, retained by the HSCA, said the x-rays were
>>
>>> authentic.
>>
>
> Well of course! That's what they were supposed to do.
>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Yeah, so what?
>>
>>
>>
>>> But you aren't going to read what *they* had to say, are you?
>>
>>>
>>
>>> .John
>>
>>> --------------
>>
>>> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
>>
>>>
>
>
> The whole issue of having panels of people look into the murder and the
> evidence generated by factors in the case was to shut people up about the
> murder and any conspiracy. That's why the HSCA decided it was 'probably'
> a conspiracy. Funny though, after deciding that, they never recommended
> reopening the case to search for the conspirators that hadn't been caught
> yet. They just quietly went away into the night. They weren't supposed
> to find anything and they weren't going to make it worse by opening up the
> case again.
>

They sent recommendations to the DOJ which were ignored. The DOJ closed
the case.

> Chris
>
>

[mainframetech]

Oh, stop the baloney. Are you saying that the copies of the X-rays
we've seen are invalid? That's what Mantik said. Are you now agreeing
with him? Or just making noises?

>
> >> So that's the new WC defender mantra. Anyone who believes it was a
>
> >>
>
> >> conspiracy is a hobbyist. You guys used to say buffs as the standard
>
> >>
>
> >> insult. Why the change? And of course you will censor me when I tell you
>
> >>
>
> >> what I think you guys are. But it's ok for you to insult conspiracy
>
> >>
>
> >> believers.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>> He's not even a radiologist. He's a radiation oncologist.
>

Think a bit what that means.

> >>
>
> >
>
> > Thank you. Do you think that teaches him less about faked X-rays?
>
> Try to learn how to post correctly in a thread.
>

If it doesn't suit you, ignore it.

> >>
>
> >> Wow, so what?
>
> >>
>
> >> He measures X-rays and examines the filmstock.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>> The real experts, retained by the HSCA, said the x-rays were
>
> >>
>
> >>> authentic.
>
> >>
>
> >
>
> > Well of course! That's what they were supposed to do.
>
>
> >> Yeah, so what?
>
>
> >>> But you aren't going to read what *they* had to say, are you?
>
>
> >>> .John
>

I read it, but didn't think they carried much weight since they were
selected to a government panel.

> >>
>
> >>> --------------
>
> >>
>
> >>> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
>
>
> > The whole issue of having panels of people look into the murder and the
>
> > evidence generated by factors in the case was to shut people up about the
>
> > murder and any conspiracy. That's why the HSCA decided it was 'probably'
>
> > a conspiracy. Funny though, after deciding that, they never recommended
>
> > reopening the case to search for the conspirators that hadn't been caught
>
> > yet. They just quietly went away into the night. They weren't supposed
>
> > to find anything and they weren't going to make it worse by opening up the
>
> > case again.
>
> >
>
>
>
> They sent recommendations to the DOJ which were ignored. The DOJ closed
>
> the case.
>

I'm glad to hear that. I'll look that up and see what the excuse was to
ignore it all.

Chris

[John McAdams]

On 15 Jul 2013 18:49:47 -0400, mainframetech <mainfr...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>On Monday, July 15, 2013 2:23:49 PM UTC-4, Anthony Marsh wrote:
>> On 7/14/2013 8:18 PM, mainframetech wrote:

>>=20
>>=20
>> > open minded about it. Look at the X-rays and notice that the whole rig=
>ht
>>=20

>> > forepart of the skull is missing. If the photos of the heads were made

>>=20

>> > they should have shown the skin caving in to the skull with so much

>>=20
>> > material missing. And the X-ray shows the left side of the patient's h=
>ead
>>=20
>> > without problem, so why not the right? Because it's faked. Mantik is f=
>ar
>>=20

>> > more an expert than anyone here, and he says 'fakes'.

>>=20
>> >
>>=20
>>=20
>>=20

>> That is simply not true. You just read it on some kook web site. You did
>> not look at the original X-ray.

>>=20

>
> Oh, stop the baloney. Are you saying that the copies of the X-rays
>we've seen are invalid? That's what Mantik said. Are you now agreeing
>with him? Or just making noises?
>

You are really *slow* gettibg this.

The HSCA had digitally enhanced scans of the x-rays made. The process
radically increased the contrast (but also showed fracture lines much
better).

In the *enhanced* copies, the thin bone of the temple area drops out,
leaving a jagged looking edge.

But in the *original* x-rays, the temple bone shows the normal
thinning.

You would not read HSCA Volume 7 about this, would you?

No, you would not.

>>=20

>> >>> He's not even a radiologist. He's a radiation oncologist.
>>
>
> Think a bit what that means.
>

It means he shoots x-rays at tumors to kill or reduce them.

That does *not* make him an expert on forensic evaluation of x-rays.

>> > Thank you. Do you think that teaches him less about faked X-rays?

>>=20

Of course. In his professional life, he never *sees* a faked x-ray.

.John

--
The Kennedy Assassination Home Page
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

[John Fiorentino]

I just want to comment here about some of this.

First off, the HSCA Panel worked exclusively with the scans and NOT the
original X-Rays.

The process of verifying the authenticity of the X-rays was substantially
different than that used to verify the photos.

I do not think you need to be an "expert on forensic evaluation of x-rays"
to investigate these issues.

I am not saying the X-rays were faked or tampered with, only that it's a
legitimate line of inquiry - much more so than the photos.

I know this, because I've looked at the issue myself. In fact, I still am.

Personally, I really think we need to broaden our horizons on the issue of
"experts" in *any* field. I'm not knocking experts, in fact they usually
do a good job, but they are not the "end-all" by any means.

Look at the HSCA acoustics fiasco.

John F.



"John McAdams" <john.m...@marquette.edu> wrote in message
news:51e47d18....@news.supernews.com...

[Anthony Marsh]

On 7/15/2013 8:31 PM, John Fiorentino wrote:
> I just want to comment here about some of this.
>
> First off, the HSCA Panel worked exclusively with the scans and NOT the
> original X-Rays.
>

Not quite true The HSCA had the originals in its safe and examined them.
Out of deference to the Kennedy family they did not publish the original
X-rays. Instead they published the enhanced X-rays.
Cyril Wecht had examined the originals before.

> The process of verifying the authenticity of the X-rays was
> substantially different than that used to verify the photos.
>
> I do not think you need to be an "expert on forensic evaluation of
> x-rays" to investigate these issues.
>

It would help. Especially when you are not examining the originals.

> I am not saying the X-rays were faked or tampered with, only that it's a
> legitimate line of inquiry - much more so than the photos.
>

No it isn't. It'a diversionary tactic. ANY time you don't like the
evidence you claim it is fake. What other choice do you have?

> I know this, because I've looked at the issue myself. In fact, I still am.
>

Nope.

> Personally, I really think we need to broaden our horizons on the issue
> of "experts" in *any* field. I'm not knocking experts, in fact they
> usually do a good job, but they are not the "end-all" by any means.
>

Even experts make mistakes and some of them lie. The evidence does not.

[John Fiorentino]

You should pay more attention.

I'm quite aware the HSCA had the originals.

The point is, in determining the location and extent of the wounds they
relied entirely on the scans.

I don't know what "nope" means, but I do know what "dope" means.

John F.




"Anthony Marsh" <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:51e49f32$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...

[Anthony Marsh]

This can't be addressed to me. I have always said that the X-rays are
genuine. Randy Robertson saw them.
I am just making fun of you. It is so easy to do.
I have talked to Mantik several times about the X-rays. Have you?
No. Because you are not a researcher.

>>
>>>> So that's the new WC defender mantra. Anyone who believes it was a
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>> conspiracy is a hobbyist. You guys used to say buffs as the standard
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>> insult. Why the change? And of course you will censor me when I tell you
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>> what I think you guys are. But it's ok for you to insult conspiracy
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>> believers.
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>> He's not even a radiologist. He's a radiation oncologist.
>>
>
> Think a bit what that means.
>

Nonsense. I didn't say that. Learn how to post correctly.

>>>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>> Thank you. Do you think that teaches him less about faked X-rays?
>>
>> Try to learn how to post correctly in a thread.
>>
> If it doesn't suit you, ignore it.
>
>>>>
>>
>>>> Wow, so what?
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>> He measures X-rays and examines the filmstock.
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>> The real experts, retained by the HSCA, said the x-rays were
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>> authentic.
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>> Well of course! That's what they were supposed to do.
>>
>>
>>>> Yeah, so what?
>>
>>
>>>>> But you aren't going to read what *they* had to say, are you?
>>
>>
>>>>> .John
>>
> I read it, but didn't think they carried much weight since they were
> selected to a government panel.
>

So you think you should listen to only kooks?

>>>>
>>
>>>>> --------------
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
>>
>>
>>> The whole issue of having panels of people look into the murder and the
>>
>>> evidence generated by factors in the case was to shut people up about the
>>
>>> murder and any conspiracy. That's why the HSCA decided it was 'probably'
>>
>>> a conspiracy. Funny though, after deciding that, they never recommended
>>
>>> reopening the case to search for the conspirators that hadn't been caught
>>
>>> yet. They just quietly went away into the night. They weren't supposed
>>
>>> to find anything and they weren't going to make it worse by opening up the
>>
>>> case again.
>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> They sent recommendations to the DOJ which were ignored. The DOJ closed
>>
>> the case.
>>
>
> I'm glad to hear that. I'll look that up and see what the excuse was to
> ignore it all.
>

Lack of funds. They needed that money to defend CIA agents accused of
torturing children.

> Chris
>

[Anthony Marsh]

We did it right here and you are not smart enough to find the old
messages.

[mainframetech]

Or it is too full of theory for me. I like facts and the X-rays we can
see are loaded with them. Why should I entertain theories when I can see
the facts in front of me by looking at the X-rays?

>
>
> The HSCA had digitally enhanced scans of the x-rays made. The process
>
> radically increased the contrast (but also showed fracture lines much
>
> better).
>
>
>
> In the *enhanced* copies, the thin bone of the temple area drops out,
>
> leaving a jagged looking edge.
>
>
>
> But in the *original* x-rays, the temple bone shows the normal
>
> thinning.
>

So you're saying the copies are bad. Why do we bother looking at them?

>
>
> You would not read HSCA Volume 7 about this, would you?
>

A full volume? Nope. Just to hear the prattling of paid politicians?

>
>
> No, you would not.
>
>
>
> >>=20
>
> >> >>> He's not even a radiologist. He's a radiation oncologist.
>
> >>
>
> >
>
> > Think a bit what that means.
>
> >
>
>
>
> It means he shoots x-rays at tumors to kill or reduce them.
>
>
>
> That does *not* make him an expert on forensic evaluation of x-rays.
>
>
>
>
>
> >> > Thank you. Do you think that teaches him less about faked X-rays?
>
> >>=20
>
>
>
> Of course. In his professional life, he never *sees* a faked x-ray.
>

Nor does anyone else unless they look at the JFK X-rays. Have you read
Mantik's statements about the X-rays? Or are you looked in to the
'official' theories on all of it?

[mainframetech]

On Monday, July 15, 2013 11:30:54 PM UTC-4, Anthony Marsh wrote:
> On 7/15/2013 6:49 PM, mainframetech wrote:
>
> > On Monday, July 15, 2013 2:23:49 PM UTC-4, Anthony Marsh wrote:
>
> >> On 7/14/2013 8:18 PM, mainframetech wrote:
>
> >>
>
> >>> On Sunday, July 14, 2013 2:53:27 PM UTC-4, Anthony Marsh wrote:
>
> >>
>
> >>>> On 7/13/2013 10:11 PM, John McAdams wrote:
>
> >>
>
> >>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>> On 13 Jul 2013 21:04:53 -0400, mainframetech <mainfr...@yahoo.com>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>> wrote:
>
> >>
>
> >>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>>> On Tuesday, July 9, 2013 8:37:25 PM UTC-4, claviger wrote:
>
> >>
>
> >>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>>>> On Tuesday, July 9, 2013 9:46:06 AM UTC-5, mainframetech wrote:
>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>>>> Yes, if anyone should know exactly where the head wound was located it would be Tom Robinson, but four doctors from TR1 thought they knew exactly where the wound was until seeing X-rays for the first time in 1988. They all realized their mistake and agreed with the X-rays. If the wound is where Robinson indicated he would have a difficult time working on that part of the skull and would need help from the other morticians. The fact they don't remember turning the body over suggests Robinson worked on the skull with the body in supine position, which means the wound was not low on the back of the head where he drew it. There is also something curious about that drawing that may be a clue.
>
> >>
>
> >>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>
>
> >>
>
> >>> You have not proved to me that the other 2 morticians were SURE they
>
> >>
>
> >>> didn't turn over the body. Please show some proof of that. I found the
>
> >>
>
> >>> comments of one of them, but he couldn't remember much of anything. The
>
> >>
>
> >>> other I found no comments from.
>
>
> >>>>>> Please name the doctors that thought the X-rays were giving them the
>
> >>
>
> >>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>>> straight info about the BOH. Mantik, an expert in the field felt that
>
>
> >>>>>> the X-rays were faked. The supposed 4 doctors would have NO bearing on
>
>
> >>>>>> Robinson's work or memories, which were very good.
>
> >>
>
> >>>>> Mantik is a hobbyist who has no expertise in analyzing x-rays for
>
> >>>>> fakery.
>

How easy to make a label and use it to dismiss evidence that turns your
theories on their head.

> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>> Ah! It must bother you that a knowledgeable person is able to show
>
> >>
>
> >>> fakery in such 'evidence'. But even YOU could see the fakery if you were
>
> >>
>
> >>> open minded about it. Look at the X-rays and notice that the whole right
>
> >>
>
> >>> forepart of the skull is missing. If the photos of the heads were made
>
> >>
>
> >>> they should have shown the skin caving in to the skull with so much
>
> >>
>
> >>> material missing. And the X-ray shows the left side of the patient's head
>
> >>
>
> >>> without problem, so why not the right? Because it's faked. Mantik is far
>
> >>
>
> >>> more an expert than anyone here, and he says 'fakes'.
>
> >>
>
> >> That is simply not true. You just read it on some kook web site. You did
>
> >> not look at the original X-ray.
>

Another mistake for me to correct. I did NOT read it on a 'kook'
website like the WC site. I looked at the X-ray copies myself and decided
for myself that certain parts of them were faked. It can be seen by
anyone. Excuses that they made a mistake making the copies and that's why
the copies look faked doesn't sound too real to me.

> >>
>
> >
>
> > Oh, stop the baloney. Are you saying that the copies of the X-rays
>
> > we've seen are invalid? That's what Mantik said. Are you now agreeing
>
> > with him? Or just making noises?
>
> >
>
>
>
> This can't be addressed to me. I have always said that the X-rays are
>
> genuine. Randy Robertson saw them.
>
> I am just making fun of you. It is so easy to do.
>

I could use that tactic on you, but I don't consider it very adult in
the middle of debate. You have left openings for a train to go through,
but it's not proper arguing to discredit the speaker and not the topic.

> I have talked to Mantik several times about the X-rays. Have you?
>
> No. Because you are not a researcher.
>

Hmm. You answered your question before I had a chance to. Are you
working with preconceived notions? Now, I take it you were unable to
convince Mantik he was wrong, since you believe the X-rays were true to
life. What was the outcome of your dialog with him? It would be of
interest to many here if you were open about those chats.

>
>
> >>
>
> >>>> So that's the new WC defender mantra. Anyone who believes it was a
>
>
> >>>> conspiracy is a hobbyist. You guys used to say buffs as the standard
>
>
> >>>> insult. Why the change? And of course you will censor me when I tell you
>

'Buff' too often has come to mean in good physical shape and
condition...:)

> >>
>
> >>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>> what I think you guys are. But it's ok for you to insult conspiracy
>
> >>
>
> >>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>> believers.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>> He's not even a radiologist. He's a radiation oncologist.
>
> >>
>
> >
>

> > Think a bit what that means. He speaks knowledgeably about the area.
He's bound to pick up some knowledge just from association.

>
> >
>
>
>
> Nonsense. I didn't say that. Learn how to post correctly.
>

I didn't say you said that. Learn not to take everything to mean you.

>
> >>
>
> >>> Thank you. Do you think that teaches him less about faked X-rays?
>
> >>
>
> >> Try to learn how to post correctly in a thread.
>
> >>
>
> > If it doesn't suit you, ignore it.
>
> >
>
> >>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>> Wow, so what?
>
> >>
>
> >>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>> He measures X-rays and examines the filmstock.
>
> >>
> >>
>
> >>>>> The real experts, retained by the HSCA, said the x-rays were
>
>
> >>>>> authentic.
>
>
> >>> Well of course! That's what they were supposed to do.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>>> Yeah, so what?
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>> But you aren't going to read what *they* had to say, are you?
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>> .John
>
> >>
>
> > I read it, but didn't think they carried much weight since they were
>
> > selected to a government panel.
>
> >
>
>
>
> So you think you should listen to only kooks?
>

That's a ridiculous assumption with NO backup. You've been told time
and again that I don't pick up information from what you call 'kook'
sites, and I make it clear where each file is from when I use one for
backup. You've been able to see those sources and it bothers me that you
still keep saying I get my info from 'kook' sites. That is a general
statement and a way to discredit the information, because the site may be
perfectly legitimate, but not saying what YOU like to hear, so you use the
term 'kook'. The other readers don't really know whether the site is
legitimate or not because you haven't named the sites you call 'kook' and
stated why you believe that about them, and so people have only the
negative connotation from you.

Now, as to reading the X-ray specialists on the HSCA panel, I read the
statements of Dr. Ebersole, the acting head of Radiology that made the
X-rays at the autopsy. An interesting thing he said was that "the back of
the head was missing"! That suggests a 'large hole' to me. He then said
a piece of the occiput was received from Dallas while he was there and he
X-rayed it. The occiput is the lowest rear part of the skull. He will be
added to the list of over 40 people that saw a 'large hole' at the BOH of
JFK.

Ebersole made it clear that the X-rays were taken with a portable
machine and that it was only done to locate bullets, which they were not
able to do. TRhety did the set twice. He was also clear that the quality
of the X-rays would be low given the machine type and purpose. So he had
little faith in the X-rays and they were only for locating any hard
missiles that may have been left in the body. They were surprised they
found none except fragments in the skull. It was as if someone dug around
in the body and removed the bullets before the autopsy.

>
> >>
>
> >>>>> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>> The whole issue of having panels of people look into the murder and the
>
> >>
>
> >>> evidence generated by factors in the case was to shut people up about the
>
> >>
>
> >>> murder and any conspiracy. That's why the HSCA decided it was 'probably'
>
> >>
>
> >>> a conspiracy. Funny though, after deciding that, they never recommended
>
> >>
>
> >>> reopening the case to search for the conspirators that hadn't been caught
>
> >>
>
> >>> yet. They just quietly went away into the night. They weren't supposed
>
> >>
>
> >>> to find anything and they weren't going to make it worse by opening up the
>
> >>
>
> >>> case again.
>
> >>
>
>
> >> They sent recommendations to the DOJ which were ignored. The DOJ closed
>
> >>
>
> >> the case.
>
> >>
>
> >
>
> > I'm glad to hear that. I'll look that up and see what the excuse was to
>
> > ignore it all.
>

In looking up the recommendations of the HSCA, it was obvious that they
left it to the DOJ to decide to go further or not. But they were negative
in their belief that anything would come of it, giving a lead-in to
dismissing the whole thing.

[Anthony Marsh]

No, you didn't. The National Archives would not even let you into the
building, much less examine the original X-rays.

They did not make a mistake making copies. You could only get that from
a kook Web site.

>>>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>> Oh, stop the baloney. Are you saying that the copies of the X-rays
>>
>>> we've seen are invalid? That's what Mantik said. Are you now agreeing
>>
>>> with him? Or just making noises?
>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> This can't be addressed to me. I have always said that the X-rays are
>>
>> genuine. Randy Robertson saw them.
>>
>> I am just making fun of you. It is so easy to do.
>>
> I could use that tactic on you, but I don't consider it very adult in
> the middle of debate. You have left openings for a train to go through,
> but it's not proper arguing to discredit the speaker and not the topic.
>
>
>> I have talked to Mantik several times about the X-rays. Have you?
>>
>> No. Because you are not a researcher.
>>
>
> Hmm. You answered your question before I had a chance to. Are you
> working with preconceived notions? Now, I take it you were unable to
> convince Mantik he was wrong, since you believe the X-rays were true to
> life. What was the outcome of your dialog with him? It would be of
> interest to many here if you were open about those chats.
>

I answered because I already knew the answer and you refuse to answer my
question. I want everyone to know just how out of touch you are.

>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>>> So that's the new WC defender mantra. Anyone who believes it was a
>>
>>
>>>>>> conspiracy is a hobbyist. You guys used to say buffs as the standard
>>
>>
>>>>>> insult. Why the change? And of course you will censor me when I tell you
>>
>
> 'Buff' too often has come to mean in good physical shape and
> condition...:)
>

That is not how they used it.
Words have several different meanings.

>>>>
>>
>>>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>>> what I think you guys are. But it's ok for you to insult conspiracy
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>>> believers.
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>>>> He's not even a radiologist. He's a radiation oncologist.
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>> Think a bit what that means. He speaks knowledgeably about the area.
> He's bound to pick up some knowledge just from association.
>
>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Nonsense. I didn't say that. Learn how to post correctly.
>>
>
> I didn't say you said that. Learn not to take everything to mean you.
>

Well, learn how to post correctly. You are replying to me, not someone
else.

We've seen you constantly citing kook web sites. You've never learn from
any researcher or expert.

> Now, as to reading the X-ray specialists on the HSCA panel, I read the
> statements of Dr. Ebersole, the acting head of Radiology that made the
> X-rays at the autopsy. An interesting thing he said was that "the back of
> the head was missing"! That suggests a 'large hole' to me. He then said
> a piece of the occiput was received from Dallas while he was there and he
> X-rayed it. The occiput is the lowest rear part of the skull. He will be
> added to the list of over 40 people that saw a 'large hole' at the BOH of
> JFK.

You need much more than that. You refuse to do your homework.
And you make up numbers from your imagination.

>
> Ebersole made it clear that the X-rays were taken with a portable
> machine and that it was only done to locate bullets, which they were not
> able to do. TRhety did the set twice. He was also clear that the quality

We know of only 2 x-rays of the head and they did not repeat them. One
from the front and one from the side. Standard procedure.

> of the X-rays would be low given the machine type and purpose. So he had
> little faith in the X-rays and they were only for locating any hard
> missiles that may have been left in the body. They were surprised they
> found none except fragments in the skull. It was as if someone dug around
> in the body and removed the bullets before the autopsy.
>

Ridiculous. Why would you expect to find whole bullets in the head?

[mainframetech]

Of course. Why do you think I'm talking about copies? The set I've been using is here:
http://www.jfklancer.com/photos/autopsy_slideshow/index.html

Now are you going to insult the people that run that site by calling it
a 'kook' site? What's your personal opinion of the site? And is there a
different site that can be used to view the copies of the X-rays that
won't offend your delicate sensibilities?

>
>
> They did not make a mistake making copies. You could only get that from
>
> a kook Web site.
>

Lordee! Round and round. No answers to questions, and nothing said but
'kook' this and 'kook' that. Name the 'kook' web sites that I use and
visit regularly or give up the continuing attack, which his probably due
to my making more sense than many CTs.

>
>
> >>
>
> >>> Oh, stop the baloney. Are you saying that the copies of the X-rays
>
> >>
>
> >>> we've seen are invalid? That's what Mantik said. Are you now agreeing
>
> >>
>
> >>> with him? Or just making noises?
>
> >>
>
> >> This can't be addressed to me. I have always said that the X-rays are
>
> >>
>
> >> genuine. Randy Robertson saw them.
>
> >>
>
> >> I am just making fun of you. It is so easy to do.
>
> >>
>
> > I could use that tactic on you, but I don't consider it very adult in
>
> > the middle of debate. You have left openings for a train to go through,
>
> > but it's not proper arguing to discredit the speaker and not the topic.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >> I have talked to Mantik several times about the X-rays. Have you?
>
> >>
>
> >> No. Because you are not a researcher.
>
> >>
>
> >
>
> > Hmm. You answered your question before I had a chance to. Are you
>
> > working with preconceived notions? Now, I take it you were unable to
>
> > convince Mantik he was wrong, since you believe the X-rays were true to
>
> > life. What was the outcome of your dialog with him? It would be of
>
> > interest to many here if you were open about those chats.
>
> >
>
>
>
> I answered because I already knew the answer and you refuse to answer my
>
> question. I want everyone to know just how out of touch you are.
>

Oh brother! I don't know what question it is, but if you have the
strength to ask it now, I'll be glad to answer it, if possible. Note that
I've asked questions above to which YOU have not answered at all, showing
your inability to remember anything about this case.

>
>
> >>>>>> So that's the new WC defender mantra. Anyone who believes it was a
>
> >>>>>> conspiracy is a hobbyist. You guys used to say buffs as the standard
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>>> insult. Why the change? And of course you will censor me when I tell you
>
> >>
>
> >
>
> > 'Buff' too often has come to mean in good physical shape and
>
> > condition...:)
>
> >
>
>
>
> That is not how they used it.
>
> Words have several different meanings.
>

I'm giving a reason for why they might abandon the word. It may be too
complimentary.

Name the sites that YOU think are 'kook' sites. Some of my information
comes from your own site, is that also a 'kook' site?

>
>
> > Now, as to reading the X-ray specialists on the HSCA panel, I read the
>
> > statements of Dr. Ebersole, the acting head of Radiology that made the
>
> > X-rays at the autopsy. An interesting thing he said was that "the back of
>
> > the head was missing"! That suggests a 'large hole' to me. He then said
>
> > a piece of the occiput was received from Dallas while he was there and he
>
> > X-rayed it. The occiput is the lowest rear part of the skull. He will be
>
> > added to the list of over 40 people that saw a 'large hole' at the BOH of
>
> > JFK.
>
>
>
> You need much more than that. You refuse to do your homework.
>
> And you make up numbers from your imagination.
>

Nope. Won't do. I've already listed my numbers and proved them. It's
more than over 40, but I like the sound of it. And with Ebersole's
addition, it's one more. Are you going to even attempt to invalidate him
as a contributor to the over 40 list? I don't think so. And it's getting
to be just attempts at ridicule, which is usually the last defense of the
LNer backed into a corner. Anything to avoid admitting the probability
that a bullet from the front killed JFK.

> > Ebersole made it clear that the X-rays were taken with a portable
>
> > machine and that it was only done to locate bullets, which they were not
>

> > able to do. They did the set twice. He was also clear that the quality

>
>
>
> We know of only 2 x-rays of the head and they did not repeat them. One
>
> from the front and one from the side. Standard procedure.
>

Then you better check the statements of Dr. Ebersole for the HSCA
medical panel. He said he repeated all the X-rays because they didn't
find any bullets on the first pass. The second set was requested by the
Secret Service agents:

http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=324&relPageId=5

Is that a 'kook' site I used above? Let me know.

>
>
> > of the X-rays would be low given the machine type and purpose. So he had
>
> > little faith in the X-rays and they were only for locating any hard
>
> > missiles that may have been left in the body. They were surprised they
>
> > found none except fragments in the skull. It was as if someone dug around
>
> > in the body and removed the bullets before the autopsy.
>
> >
>
>
>
> Ridiculous. Why would you expect to find whole bullets in the head?
>

They X-rayed everywhere, not just the head, and for your info, they
found fragments in the head on an X-ray. See Ebersole's interview by the
HSCA above.

[Anthony Marsh]

You have never documented your 40. You just make up numbers from your
imagination.

>

>>> Ebersole made it clear that the X-rays were taken with a portable
>>
>>> machine and that it was only done to locate bullets, which they were not
>>
>>> able to do. They did the set twice. He was also clear that the quality
>>
>>
>>
>> We know of only 2 x-rays of the head and they did not repeat them. One
>>
>> from the front and one from the side. Standard procedure.
>>
> Then you better check the statements of Dr. Ebersole for the HSCA
> medical panel. He said he repeated all the X-rays because they didn't
> find any bullets on the first pass. The second set was requested by the
> Secret Service agents:
>

Because the SS agents suspected that the bullets could get deflected far
from the entrance wounds."

> http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=324&relPageId=5
>
> Is that a 'kook' site I used above? Let me know.
>
>>
>>
>>> of the X-rays would be low given the machine type and purpose. So he had
>>
>>> little faith in the X-rays and they were only for locating any hard
>>
>>> missiles that may have been left in the body. They were surprised they
>>
>>> found none except fragments in the skull. It was as if someone dug around
>>
>>> in the body and removed the bullets before the autopsy.
>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Ridiculous. Why would you expect to find whole bullets in the head?
>>
> They X-rayed everywhere, not just the head, and for your info, they
> found fragments in the head on an X-ray. See Ebersole's interview by the
> HSCA above.
>

Don't try to lecture me, grasshopper. I was debating these issues when
you were still in diapers.

[mainframetech]

On Wednesday, July 17, 2013 10:20:35 PM UTC-4, Anthony Marsh wrote:
> On 7/16/2013 10:15 PM, mainframetech wrote:
>
> > On Tuesday, July 16, 2013 4:53:28 PM UTC-4, Anthony Marsh wrote:
>
> >> On 7/16/2013 11:47 AM, mainframetech wrote:
>
> >>
>
> >>> On Monday, July 15, 2013 11:30:54 PM UTC-4, Anthony Marsh wrote:
>
> >>
>
> >>>> On 7/15/2013 6:49 PM, mainframetech wrote:
>
> >>
>
> >>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>> On Monday, July 15, 2013 2:23:49 PM UTC-4, Anthony Marsh wrote:
>
> >>
>
> >>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>>> On 7/14/2013 8:18 PM, mainframetech wrote:
>
> >>
>
> >>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>>>> On Sunday, July 14, 2013 2:53:27 PM UTC-4, Anthony Marsh wrote:
>
> >>
>
> >>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>>>>> On 7/13/2013 10:11 PM, John McAdams wrote:
>
> >>
>
> >>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>>>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>>>>>> On 13 Jul 2013 21:04:53 -0400, mainframetech <mainfr...@yahoo.com>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>>>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>>>>>> wrote:
>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, July 9, 2013 8:37:25 PM UTC-4, claviger wrote:
>
>
> >>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, July 9, 2013 9:46:06 AM UTC-5, mainframetech wrote:
>
>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Yes, if anyone should know exactly where the head wound was located it would be Tom Robinson, but four doctors from TR1 thought they knew exactly where the wound was until seeing X-rays for the first time in 1988. They all realized their mistake and agreed with the X-rays. If the wound is where Robinson indicated he would have a difficult time working on that part of the skull and would need help from the other morticians. The fact they don't remember turning the body over suggests Robinson worked on the skull with the body in supine position, which means the wound was not low on the back of the head where he drew it. There is also something curious about that drawing that may be a clue.
>
> >>
>
>
> >>>>>>> You have not proved to me that the other 2 morticians were SURE they
>
>
> >>>>>>> didn't turn over the body. Please show some proof of that. I found the
>
>
> >>>>>>> comments of one of them, but he couldn't remember much of anything. The
>
>
> >>>>>>> other I found no comments from.
>

Since there has ben no reply to my question for proof, I have to assume
that the comment that 2 morticians did NOT turn the body over, to be
merely made up and should be ignored.

> > visit regularly or give up the continuing attack, which is probably due

>
> > to my making more sense than many CTs.
>
>
> >>>>> Oh, stop the baloney. Are you saying that the copies of the X-rays
>
>
> >>>>> we've seen are invalid? That's what Mantik said. Are you now agreeing
>
> >>
>
> >>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>> with him? Or just making noises?
>
> >>
>
> >>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>> This can't be addressed to me. I have always said that the X-rays are
>
> >>
>
> >>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>> genuine. Randy Robertson saw them.
>
> >>
>
> >>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>> I am just making fun of you. It is so easy to do.
>
> >>
>
> >>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>> I could use that tactic on you, but I don't consider it very adult in
>
> >>
>
> >>> the middle of debate. You have left openings for a train to go through,
>
> >>
>
> >>> but it's not proper arguing to discredit the speaker and not the topic.
>
>
> >>>> I have talked to Mantik several times about the X-rays. Have you?
>
>
> >>>> No. Because you are not a researcher.
>

Obviously you're not a researcher, with all your bluster. A good
researcher reports to others what they find and proof of its validity.
I've done more of that than you.

>
> >>> Hmm. You answered your question before I had a chance to. Are you
>
> >>
>
> >>> working with preconceived notions? Now, I take it you were unable to
>
> >>
>
> >>> convince Mantik he was wrong, since you believe the X-rays were true to
>
> >>
>
> >>> life. What was the outcome of your dialog with him? It would be of
>
> >>
>
> >>> interest to many here if you were open about those chats.
>
>
> >> I answered because I already knew the answer and you refuse to answer my
>
> >>
>
> >> question. I want everyone to know just how out of touch you are.
>

>
> > Oh brother! I don't know what question it is, but if you have the
>
> > strength to ask it now, I'll be glad to answer it, if possible. Note that
>
> > I've asked questions above to which YOU have not answered at all, showing
>
> > your inability to remember anything about this case.
>
>
> >>>>>>>> So that's the new WC defender mantra. Anyone who believes it was a
>
> >>
>
> >>>>>>>> conspiracy is a hobbyist. You guys used to say buffs as the standard
>
>
> >>>>>>>> insult. Why the change? And of course you will censor me when I tell you
>
>
> >>> 'Buff' too often has come to mean in good physical shape and
>
> >>
>
> >>> condition...:)
>
>
> >> That is not how they used it.
>
> >>
>
> >> Words have several different meanings.
>
> >>
>
> > I'm giving a reason for why they might abandon the word. It may be too
>
> > complimentary.
>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>>>>> what I think you guys are. But it's ok for you to insult conspiracy
>
>
> >>>>>>>> believers.
>
> >>
>
> >>>>>>>>> He's not even a radiologist. He's a radiation oncologist.
>
>

> >>>>> Think a bit what that means. He speaks knowledgeably about the area. You think he hasn't worked with X-rays and knows a heck of a lot more than you?

>
> >>
>
> >>> He's bound to pick up some knowledge just from association.
>
>
> >>>> Nonsense. I didn't say that. Learn how to post correctly.
>

Get a grip on yourself and answer the questions above that were asked of
you. Your days of blatting out anything and getting away with it are
over. If you debate, you have an end to hold up or you go away in
disgrace.

> >>
>
> >>> I didn't say you said that. Learn not to take everything to mean you.
>
> >>
>
> >> Well, learn how to post correctly. You are replying to me, not someone
>
> >>
>
> >> else.
>
>
> >>>>>>> Thank you. Do you think that teaches him less about faked X-rays?
>
>
> >>>>>> Try to learn how to post correctly in a thread.
>
>

> >>>>> If it doesn't suit you, ignore it. You do it anyway.

>
> >>
>
> >>>>>>>> Wow, so what?
>
>
> >>>>>>>> He measures X-rays and examines the filmstock.
>
>
> >>>>>>>>> The real experts, retained by the HSCA, said the x-rays were
>

>
> >>>>>>>>> authentic.
>
> >>
>
>
> >>>>>>> Well of course! That's what they were supposed to do.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>>>>> Yeah, so what?
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>>>>>> But you aren't going to read what *they* had to say, are you?
>
>

> >>>>> I read it, but didn't think they carried much weight since they were
>
>
> >>>>> selected to a government panel.
>
>
> >>>> So you think you should listen to only kooks?
>
>
> >>> That's a ridiculous assumption with NO backup. You've been told time
>
> >>
>
> >>> and again that I don't pick up information from what you call 'kook'
>
> >>
>
> >>> sites, and I make it clear where each file is from when I use one for
>
> >>
>
> >>> backup. You've been able to see those sources and it bothers me that you
>
> >>
>
> >>> still keep saying I get my info from 'kook' sites. That is a general
>
> >>
>
> >>> statement and a way to discredit the information, because the site may be
>
> >>
>
> >>> perfectly legitimate, but not saying what YOU like to hear, so you use the
>
> >>
>
> >>> term 'kook'. The other readers don't really know whether the site is
>
> >>
>
> >>> legitimate or not because you haven't named the sites you call 'kook' and
>
> >>
>
> >>> stated why you believe that about them, and so people have only the
>
> >>
>
> >>> negative connotation from you.
>
>
> >> We've seen you constantly citing kook web sites. You've never learn from
>
> >>
>
> >> any researcher or expert.
>
> >>
>
> >
>
> > Name the sites that YOU think are 'kook' sites. Some of my information
>
> > comes from your own site, is that also a 'kook' site?
>

No answer to that question so far. I'm Still waiting for the list of
kook sites I use. Mary Ferrell? John McAdams site? WC testimony sites?
Which ones are 'kook' sites?

>
> >>> Now, as to reading the X-ray specialists on the HSCA panel, I read the
>
> >>
>
> >>> statements of Dr. Ebersole, the acting head of Radiology that made the
>
> >>
>
> >>> X-rays at the autopsy. An interesting thing he said was that "the back of
>
> >>
>
> >>> the head was missing"! That suggests a 'large hole' to me. He then said
>
> >>
>
> >>> a piece of the occiput was received from Dallas while he was there and he
>
> >>
>
> >>> X-rayed it. The occiput is the lowest rear part of the skull. He will be
>
> >>
>
> >>> added to the list of over 40 people that saw a 'large hole' at the BOH of
>
> >>
>
> >>> JFK.
>
>
> >> You need much more than that. You refuse to do your homework.
>
> >>
>
> >> And you make up numbers from your imagination.
>

I've listed my proof of the number of 'over 40' in another thread. If
you kept track you would have the list by now. But notice that while
you're busy attacking me, you have been completely unable to list ANYONE
that has said there was a 'small hole' in the BOH and NOT a 'large hole'.
Hiding from that challenge shows me that NO ONE here can do it, and they
know it so they just increase the attack on me hoping I will go away.
Well, I don't run away, and I'm following all the rules of the forum,
which I can't say for some people here that are allowed to insult many
people often and get away with it.

>
> > Nope. Won't do. I've already listed my numbers and proved them. It's
>
> > more than over 40, but I like the sound of it. And with Ebersole's
>
> > addition, it's one more. Are you going to even attempt to invalidate him
>
> > as a contributor to the over 40 list? I don't think so. And it's getting
>
> > to be just attempts at ridicule, which is usually the last defense of the
>
> > LNer backed into a corner. Anything to avoid admitting the probability
>
> > that a bullet from the front killed JFK.
>
> >
>
>
>
> You have never documented your 40. You just make up numbers from your
>
> imagination.
>

I HAVE documented the 'over 40' in a thread speaking with YOU. Funny
you can't remember it. Or do you need that crutch to avoid making a list
of the 'small hole' people, which we both know you CANNOT do?

>
>
> >>> Ebersole made it clear that the X-rays were taken with a portable
>
> >>
>
> >>> machine and that it was only done to locate bullets, which they were not
>
> >>
>
> >>> able to do. They did the set twice. He was also clear that the quality
>
>
> >> We know of only 2 x-rays of the head and they did not repeat them. One
>
> >>
>
> >> from the front and one from the side. Standard procedure.
>
> >>
>
> > Then you better check the statements of Dr. Ebersole for the HSCA
>
> > medical panel. He said he repeated all the X-rays because they didn't
>
> > find any bullets on the first pass. The second set was requested by the
>

> > Secret Service agents, and Ebersole said the set covered the whole body, even thighs. He spoke as if the X-rays were as many as 12 or more in the set:

>
>
> Because the SS agents suspected that the bullets could get deflected far
>
> from the entrance wounds."
>
>
>
> > http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=324&relPageId=5
>
> >
>
> > Is that a 'kook' site I used above? Let me know.
>
>
> >>> of the X-rays would be low given the machine type and purpose. So he had
>
> >>
>
> >>> little faith in the X-rays and they were only for locating any hard
>
> >>
>
> >>> missiles that may have been left in the body. They were surprised they
>
> >>
>
> >>> found none except fragments in the skull. It was as if someone dug around
>
> >>
>
> >>> in the body and removed the bullets before the autopsy.
>
> >>
>
> >> Ridiculous. Why would you expect to find whole bullets in the head?
>
> >>
>
> > They X-rayed everywhere, not just the head, and for your info, they
>
> > found fragments in the head on an X-ray. See Ebersole's interview by the
>
> > HSCA above.
>
>
> Don't try to lecture me, grasshopper. I was debating these issues when
>
> you were still in diapers.
>

Well old fella, you've just filled up your Depends. Because you were
debating something long ago doesn't mean you did it intelligently or
convinced anyone of your odd theories. You're here now and have a topic
on the table. Put in your 2 cents and let's see what you've got (after
you change your Depends, of course).

Now a quick check of the Ebersole interview by the HSCA 'experts' will
show what work he did, including bullet fragments found in the skull.
And if you think there were only 2 X-rays made of JFK during the autopsy,
check Ebersole again. The link is above. I found reading his interview
to be useful.

>
> >>
>
> >>>>>>> The whole issue of having panels of people look into the murder and the
>
>
> >>>>>>> evidence generated by factors in the case was to shut people up about the
>
>
> >>>>>>> murder and any conspiracy. That's why the HSCA decided it was 'probably'
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>>>> a conspiracy. Funny though, after deciding that, they never recommended
>
>
> >>>>>>> reopening the case to search for the conspirators that hadn't been caught
>
>
> >>>>>>> yet. They just quietly went away into the night. They weren't supposed
>
>
> >>>>>>> to find anything and they weren't going to make it worse by opening up the
>
>
> >>>>>>> case again.
>
>
> >>>>>> They sent recommendations to the DOJ which were ignored. The DOJ closed
>
> >>>>>> the case.
>
>
> >>>>> I'm glad to hear that. I'll look that up and see what the excuse was to
>
>
> >>>>> ignore it all.
>
>
> >>> In looking up the recommendations of the HSCA, it was obvious that they
>
> >>
>
> >>> left it to the DOJ to decide to go further or not. But they were negative
>
> >>
>
> >>> in their belief that anything would come of it, giving a lead-in to
>
> >>
>
> >>> dismissing the whole thing.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>>> Lack of funds. They needed that money to defend CIA agents accused of
>
>
> >>>> torturing children.
>
>

So we still have questions outstanding from this chat.

1. What are the names of the 'kook' sites that I'm supposed to
frequent and use as proof of anything here?
2. Where is the list of people that say there was ONLY a 'small hole'
in the BOH of JFK?

Chris