>On Saturday, November 10, 2012 7:11:55 PM UTC-8, John McAdams wrote:
>> On 10 Nov 2012 22:08:37 -0500, "pjspe...@AOL.COM" <pjspe...@aol.com>
>> wrote:
>> So you think the throat wound was an entrance wound?
>Nope.
>> If so, do you think the back wound was an exit wound?
>Nope.
>> If not, then two bullets were in Kennedy's body.
>Nope. The throat wound could have been an exit for a bullet or bone >fragment traveling down Kennedy's neck, from his skull. This was proposed >within days of the shooting by members of the media and the FBI. It's >never been disproved, and is more in keeping with the medical evidence >than the single-bullet theory.
It was proposed by McClelland on the day of the assassination.
>> No, I am pointing out that the official conclusion of the last medical
>> panel to study this matter was that the bullet went upwards in Kennedy's
>> body. They explained this by suggesting he'd been leaning forward when
>> struck. The HSCA determined, however, that he was struck when he wasn't
>> leaning over to the degree the medical panel indicated. It is an
>> historical FACT, then, that the conclusions of the HSCA forensic pathology
>> panel are at odds with the single-assassin conclusion offered up by both
>> the HSCA, and the Lattimerites and Posnerites that followed. Historians
>> will notice this, even if today's single-bullet theorists will not.
> I don't follow your conclusion. Are you saying the HSCA is at odds with
> itself? Please explain how this would indicate more than one sniper? You
> seem to be saying the source of the bullet trajectory was not above the
> Limousine, so another sniper fired the shot from a position below and
> behind the Limousine. I don't understand how that could happen.
Several things. First, there were two different HSCA committees. The first was looking for conspiracy. The second was trying to cover one up.
On the second HSCA there were competing factions. Almost half the committee was made up of conspiracy believers, the other half of WC defenders. Most of the experts were WC defenders while most of the consultants were conspiracy believers.
The biggest problem for the HSCA designing a SBT was the fact that their interpretation of the acoustical evidence placed the shot at Z-190. And we can clearly see that JFK is seated erect. Baden tried to explain away the angles by claiming that JFK was leaning over by 18 degrees. That might work if they had picked a frame when we can't see JFK or Connally behind the sign. That's what the WC did.
There is an alternative interpretation which you can see on my Web site that places the shot at Z-210.
Even Specter was smart enough to know that if there were no SBT there must be two snipers firing two separate shots. JFK can not be hit before Z-210 and Connally can not be hit after Z-240, so the WC knew there was not enough time for one person to fire both shots from Oswald's bolt action rifle. So Specter had to invent the SBT or admit conspiracy. And that would cause WWIII and the end of all life on Earth.
Specter might have been evil, but he was not stupid and he was not crazy. The SBT is the only way out of the inevitable conclusion.
> On 10 Nov 2012 22:08:37 -0500, "pjspe...@AOL.COM" <pjspe...@aol.com>
> wrote:
>> Not true. You are assuming the bullet exited the throat. I see no reason
>> to assume that. The wound as described does not fit the description of a
>> wound created by a high-velocity bullet.
> So you think the throat wound was an entrance wound?
Yea, Pat believes the witnesses. Because the wound was a mess by the time of the autopsy. So if 20 witnesses each say 20 different things he believes the witnesses are always 100% accurate so he believes 20 different things all at the same time.
> If so, do you think the back wound was an exit wound?
He probably thinks Humes was a genius to know about ice bullets.
> If not, then two bullets were in Kennedy's body. But the x-rays don't
> show that. The autopsy didn't find that.
Humes said the bullet probably fell out during heart massage. And who are we mere mortals to disagree with an expert?
> So were the x-rays faked for forged? Were the autopsists lying?
Of course that autopsists were lying. But about what? They can't be lying about everything. They have to pick and choose what to lie about.
And certain Humes was making stuff up as he went to cover up his incompetence. Ice bullets? 45 to 6-0 degree angle? Brain weight?
> On Saturday, November 10, 2012 9:59:19 AM UTC-8, claviger wrote:
>> Pat,
>>> No, I am pointing out that the official conclusion of the last medical
>>> panel to study this matter was that the bullet went upwards in Kennedy's
>>> body. They explained this by suggesting he'd been leaning forward when
>>> struck. The HSCA determined, however, that he was struck when he wasn't
>>> leaning over to the degree the medical panel indicated. It is an
>>> historical FACT, then, that the conclusions of the HSCA forensic pathology
>>> panel are at odds with the single-assassin conclusion offered up by both
>>> the HSCA, and the Lattimerites and Posnerites that followed. Historians
>>> will notice this, even if today's single-bullet theorists will not.
>> You have me confused. There are only 3 possible choices for the
>> trajectory of the bullet that entered the back of President Kennedy.
>> Either it was a downward trajectory as the WCR and HSCA concluded, a
>> flat trajectory from street level, or an upward trajectory.
> Not true. You are assuming the bullet exited the throat. I see no reason
> to assume that. The wound as described does not fit the description of a
> wound created by a high-velocity bullet.
Then you need to explain the bruised tip of the lung and the torn trachea. The bullet went back to front, right to left through the trachea.
>On Saturday, November 10, 2012 7:11:55 PM UTC-8, John McAdams wrote:
>> On 10 Nov 2012 22:08:37 -0500, "pjspe...@AOL.COM" <pjspe...@aol.com>
>>=20
>> wrote:
>>=20
>>=20
>>=20
>>=20
>> >Not true. You are assuming the bullet exited the throat. I see no reason=
>=20
>>=20
>> >to assume that. The wound as described does not fit the description of a=
>=20
>>=20
>> >wound created by a high-velocity bullet.
>>=20
>>=20
>>=20
>>=20
>>=20
>> So you think the throat wound was an entrance wound?
>Nope.
>>=20
>>=20
>>=20
>> If so, do you think the back wound was an exit wound?
>Nope.
>>=20
>>=20
>>=20
>> If not, then two bullets were in Kennedy's body.=20
>Nope. The throat wound could have been an exit for a bullet
or bone >fragment traveling down Kennedy's neck, from his skull.
OMG. Are you actually trying to insult our intelligence by attempting to sell that ultra-ridiculous scenario to us?
You're trying to say a bullet or bone fragment entered the rear skull, passed under the cerebellum, and didn't significantly damage the medula, but made its way out the throat?
Really?
Are you so desperate that you have to propose such silliness as that?
And you post on the Education Forum?
As far as bone fragments go, the autopsists completed the partial circumference by fitting a bone piece (see the one Boswell drew at the bottom of his face sheet) so there wasn't a piece of bone from the skull around the entry that could have traveled the wacky path you propose.
And the autopsists mentioned no pathway from the rear skull entrance even close to being consistent with your silly path towards the throat.
You should realize that there was so much evidence the bullet that entered his back exited his throat you, yes you, could have concluded that night with 100% certainty it did.
>This was proposed >within days of the shooting by members of the media
Oh, the media...then that makes your proposal a slam dunk....yikes.
>and the FBI.
The FBI wasn't told about any bullet wound in the throat where the tracheostomy was performed.
More star witnesses, eh, Pat?
Who's next...the janitors?
Moe, Larry, and Curly?
What's especially amazing to me is how your fellow CTs stay silent even though most of them are rolling their eyes and shaking their heads over your "suggestions".
By staying silent are they endorsing your theories?
Marsh?
Herbert?
>It's
>never been disproved, and is more in keeping with the medical evidence >than the single-bullet theory.
Unbelievable that you'd push that wackiness....spare us please.
>> But the x-rays don't
>>=20
>> show that. The autopsy didn't find that.
>>=20
>>=20
>>=20
>> So were the x-rays faked for forged? Were the autopsists lying?
>There was no wound channel connecting the back wound with the throat >wound. No evidence was ever offered for it. The bruised strap muscles were >on the front of the throat, not the back of the neck.
You do realize that the back wound, debris around, and possible fracture to, the transverse process (C7), the bruised pleura, and laceration to the right side of his trachea pretty much formed a straight line.....don't you?
>> There was no wound channel connecting the back wound with the throat
>> wound. No evidence was ever offered for it. The bruised strap muscles were
>> on the front of the throat, not the back of the neck.
> You do realize that the back wound, debris around, and possible fracture
> to, the transverse process (C7), the bruised pleura, and laceration to the
> right side of his trachea pretty much formed a straight line.....don't
> you?
> In article <5c92338f-946d-4801-a8a9-b00d72d72c5c@googlegroups.com>,
> pjspe...@AOL.COM says...
>> On Saturday, November 10, 2012 7:11:55 PM UTC-8, John McAdams wrote:
>>> On 10 Nov 2012 22:08:37 -0500, "pjspe...@AOL.COM" <pjspe...@aol.com>
>>> =20
>>> wrote:
>>> =20
>>> =20
>>> =20
>>> =20
>>>> Not true. You are assuming the bullet exited the throat. I see no reason=
>> =20
>>> =20
>>>> to assume that. The wound as described does not fit the description of a=
>> =20
>>> =20
>>>> wound created by a high-velocity bullet.
>>> =20
>>> =20
>>> =20
>>> =20
>>> =20
>>> So you think the throat wound was an entrance wound?
>> Nope.
>>> =20
>>> =20
>>> =20
>>> If so, do you think the back wound was an exit wound?
>> Nope.
>>> =20
>>> =20
>>> =20
>>> If not, then two bullets were in Kennedy's body.=20
>> Nope. The throat wound could have been an exit for a bullet
> or bone
>> fragment traveling down Kennedy's neck, from his skull.
> OMG. Are you actually trying to insult our intelligence by attempting to
> sell that ultra-ridiculous scenario to us?
> You're trying to say a bullet or bone fragment entered the rear skull,
> passed under the cerebellum, and didn't significantly damage the medula,
> but made its way out the throat?
> Really?
That was one of the first theories advanced by the LNers before they knew what was in the autopsy report.
> Are you so desperate that you have to propose such silliness as that?
> And you post on the Education Forum?
> As far as bone fragments go, the autopsists completed the partial
> circumference by fitting a bone piece (see the one Boswell drew at the
> bottom of his face sheet) so there wasn't a piece of bone from the skull
> around the entry that could have traveled the wacky path you propose.
So? There would still be a HOLE after fitting in that piece. What happened to that plug of skull bone that was where that hole was created? Didn't think of that, did you?
> And the autopsists mentioned no pathway from the rear skull entrance even
> close to being consistent with your silly path towards the throat.
Because they didn't even know about the throat wound yet.
> You should realize that there was so much evidence the bullet that entered
> his back exited his throat you, yes you, could have concluded that night
> with 100% certainty it did.
No one did. YOU didn't.
>> This was proposed
>> within days of the shooting by members of the media
> Oh, the media...then that makes your proposal a slam dunk....yikes.
>> and the FBI.
> The FBI wasn't told about any bullet wound in the throat where the
> tracheostomy was performed.
Then how do you conclude that ANYONE could have figure it out that night?
YOU didn't.
> More star witnesses, eh, Pat?
> Who's next...the janitors?
> Moe, Larry, and Curly?
Yes, the Three Stooges were Humes, Boswell, and Fink.
"Hey Moe, I thought you were supposed to section the brain."
> What's especially amazing to me is how your fellow CTs stay silent even
> though most of them are rolling their eyes and shaking their heads over
> your "suggestions".
> By staying silent are they endorsing your theories?
> Marsh?
I have never supported his theory because I know the wound was back to front.
> Herbert?
>> It's
>> never been disproved, and is more in keeping with the medical evidence
>> than the single-bullet theory.
> Unbelievable that you'd push that wackiness....spare us please.
>>> But the x-rays don't
>>> =20
>>> show that. The autopsy didn't find that.
>>> =20
>>> =20
>>> =20
>>> So were the x-rays faked for forged? Were the autopsists lying?
>> About what they saw on the x-rays? Probably not.
> On 11 Nov 2012 13:58:01 -0500, "pjspe...@AOL.COM" <pjspe...@aol.com>
> wrote:
>> On Saturday, November 10, 2012 7:11:55 PM UTC-8, John McAdams wrote:
>>> On 10 Nov 2012 22:08:37 -0500, "pjspe...@AOL.COM" <pjspe...@aol.com>
>>> wrote:
>>> So you think the throat wound was an entrance wound?
>> Nope.
>>> If so, do you think the back wound was an exit wound?
>> Nope.
>>> If not, then two bullets were in Kennedy's body.
>> Nope. The throat wound could have been an exit for a bullet or bone
>> fragment traveling down Kennedy's neck, from his skull. This was proposed
>> within days of the shooting by members of the media and the FBI. It's
>> never been disproved, and is more in keeping with the medical evidence
>> than the single-bullet theory.
> It was proposed by McClelland on the day of the assassination.
Is this the same Dr. McClelland who claimed that there was a huge exit wound on the back of the head and an entrance wound in the left temple? Or do you mean the Civil War general?
>> > No, I am pointing out that the official conclusion of the last medical
>> > panel to study this matter was that the bullet went upwards in
>> Kennedy's
>> > body. They explained this by suggesting he'd been leaning forward when
>> > struck. The HSCA determined, however, that he was struck when he wasn't
>> > leaning over to the degree the medical panel indicated. It is an
>> > historical FACT, then, that the conclusions of the HSCA forensic >
>> pathology
>> > panel are at odds with the single-assassin conclusion offered up by
>> both
>> > the HSCA, and the Lattimerites and Posnerites that followed. Historians
>> > will notice this, even if today's single-bullet theorists will not.
>> You have me confused. There are only 3 possible choices for the
>> trajectory of the bullet that entered the back of President Kennedy.
>> Either it was a downward trajectory as the WCR and HSCA concluded, a
>> flat trajectory from street level, or an upward trajectory.
> Not true. You are assuming the bullet exited the throat. I see no reason
> to assume that. The wound as described does not fit the description of a
> wound created by a high-velocity bullet.
>> Where could the last possibly come from? Only a ricochet could do that.
>> JFK like any normal human being has a curve in his upper back,
>> although his appears more pronounced. If you study the profile photos
>> I provided to Squinty you can see what I mean. The human spine is a
>> long S-curve. The lower part is concave (Lumbar curve) and the upper
>> part is convex (Thoratic curve) and the neck is a slight concave shape
>> (Cervical curve). The medical names for these curves are Kyphosis and
>> Lordosis.
>> Thoracic Spine Anatomy, Spine Curves: Kyphosis and Lordosis
> Several things. First, there were two different HSCA committees. The
> first was looking for conspiracy. The second was trying to cover one up.
The second was definitely looking for conspiracy, a belief that guided
their whole investigation. Blakey and Cornwell were experts on
organized crime in the USA. They believed domestic crime bosses were
behind this assassination in retaliation for the Kennedy
Administration's crackdown on organized crime involvement with unions
and other illegal activities.
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKblakey.htm
> On the second HSCA there were competing factions. Almost half the
> committee was made up of conspiracy believers, the other half of WC
> defenders. Most of the experts were WC defenders while most of the
> consultants were conspiracy believers.
Sounds like a good balance of opinions to guide the investigation and
debate the evidence. With all the lawyers involved they knew
speculation was not enough. They were looking for evidence that would
hold up in court. Failing to find convincing evidence implicating a
specific group of conspirators, they took a chance on the Dictabelt
evidence to at least insinuate conspiracy. They gambled on the
analysis of acoustic evidence to make their dubious conclusion there
was a fourth shot from the GK, even though there was no corroborating
evidence to support that conclusion. The gamble failed when other
scientific opinions rejected the so-called acoustic evidence. Shots
from two different directions would indicate multiple enemies, not
conclusive evidence of conspiracy.
> The biggest problem for the HSCA designing a SBT was the fact that their
> interpretation of the acoustical evidence placed the shot at Z-190. And
> we can clearly see that JFK is seated erect. Baden tried to explain away
> the angles by claiming that JFK was leaning over by 18 degrees. That
> might work if they had picked a frame when we can't see JFK or Connally
> behind the sign. That's what the WC did.
There was significant scientific criticism of the proposed acoustic
evidence. This theoretical evidence lacked any corroboration, so any
conclusion based on it would not hold up in the scientific community
or a court of law.
> There is an alternative interpretation which you can see on my Web site
> that places the shot at Z-210.
> Even Specter was smart enough to know that if there were no SBT there
> must be two snipers firing two separate shots. JFK can not be hit before
> Z-210 and Connally can not be hit after Z-240, so the WC knew there was
> not enough time for one person to fire both shots from Oswald's bolt
> action rifle. So Specter had to invent the SBT or admit conspiracy. And
> that would cause WWIII and the end of all life on Earth.
Not if the conspiracy was connected to organized crime, the CIA, a
jealous ex-husband, or any domestic group of enemies. Are you
assuming the Soviet Union or Cuba was behind this conspiracy? What
proof do you have to make that assumption?
> Specter might have been evil, but he was not stupid and he was not
> crazy. The SBT is the only way out of the inevitable conclusion.
So you're saying Specter was evil for preventing WWIII?
>>> You have me confused. There are only 3 possible choices for the
>>> trajectory of the bullet that entered the back of President Kennedy.
>>> Either it was a downward trajectory as the WCR and HSCA concluded, a
>>> flat trajectory from street level, or an upward trajectory. Where
>>> could the last possibly come from? Only a ricochet could do that.
>> No. Once again you are falsely assuming a perfectly straight line with
>> no deflections. Bullets deflect when they hit bone.
> Yes bullets sometimes deflect when they hit bone. What's your point?
> The bullet that wounded the President did not smash into a hard bone.
> It barely grazed a bone before exiting the neck.
>>> JFK like any normal human being has a curve in his upper back,
>>> although his appears more pronounced. If you study the profile photos
>> No. If you study the autopsy photos his back was flat, not humped. You
>> are falling for Lattimer's lies.
>> He had to lie to support the SBT.
> No part of the human spine is straight or flat. President Kennedy had
> a normal back that curved because the spine curves. In fact the S-
> shaped human spine is made up of 3 curves.
Not the same thing as Lattimer's lie that JFK was a hunchback.
>>> Thoracic Spine Anatomy, Spine Curves: Kyphosis and Lordosis
>>> http://www.eorthopod.com/content/thoracic-spine-anatomy >>> "From the side, the spine forms three curves. The neck, called the
>>> cervical spine, curves slightly inward. The thoracic spine curves
>>> outward. The low back, also called the lumbar spine, curves slightly
>>> inward. An inward curve in the spine is called lordosis. An outward
>>> curve, as in the thoracic spine, is called kyphosis. The kyphosis is
>>> shaped like a "C" with the opening in front."
>> On every man or just on the examples they picked out?
> Of course on every man because the human spine is a long S-curve. Why
> don't you do a little research before making such ignorant comments.
Silly. This is not about the S curve. This is about Lattimer's lie that JFK was a hunchback.
>> Seems you forgot about the example I uploaded about how to find T-1 on
>> someone's back to measure the fit for a backpack.
> Upload it again.
How would you ever find ANYTHING on the Web if I were not here to spoon feed you? You would not know to use the keywords: vertebra Prominens backpack. And you don't realize that Bing and Google will search for images.
>>> The human neck extends from the external occipital protuberance down
>>> to the bump at C7/T1. Sitting normally as he was at the time,
>>> approximately 6-8 inches of the curved part of his upper back is above
>>> the seat cushion. His shirt collar is approximately a 45? downward
>> Fun to guess, isn't it?
>> You have no way to measure.
> Notice the word approximately. The collar is easy to estimate from
> photographs. I estimate no more than 12 inches of the President's
> back was exposed above the seat.
My point is that you constantly guess your way through life because you refuse to do any research.
>>> angle from back to front. All this geometry proves the upper back is
>>> higher than the lower throat.
>> Imprecise landmarks. You're worse than the autopsy doctors.
> You obviously know nothing about human anatomy as your sophomoric
> comments reveal.
>On 11/11/2012 5:46 PM, John Canal wrote:
>> In article <5c92338f-946d-4801-a8a9-b00d72d72c5c@googlegroups.com>,
>> pjspe...@AOL.COM says...
>>> On Saturday, November 10, 2012 7:11:55 PM UTC-8, John McAdams wrote:
>>>> On 10 Nov 2012 22:08:37 -0500, "pjspe...@AOL.COM" <pjspe...@aol.com>
>>>> =20
>>>> wrote:
>>>> =20
>>>> =20
>>>> =20
>>>> =20
>>>>> Not true. You are assuming the bullet exited the throat. I see no reason=
>>> =20
>>>> =20
>>>>> to assume that. The wound as described does not fit the description of a=
>>> =20
>>>> =20
>>>>> wound created by a high-velocity bullet.
>>>> =20
>>>> =20
>>>> =20
>>>> =20
>>>> =20
>>>> So you think the throat wound was an entrance wound?
>>> Nope.
>>>> =20
>>>> =20
>>>> =20
>>>> If so, do you think the back wound was an exit wound?
>>> Nope.
>>>> =20
>>>> =20
>>>> =20
>>>> If not, then two bullets were in Kennedy's body.=20
>>> Nope. The throat wound could have been an exit for a bullet
>> or bone
>>> fragment traveling down Kennedy's neck, from his skull.
>> OMG. Are you actually trying to insult our intelligence by attempting to
>> sell that ultra-ridiculous scenario to us?
>> You're trying to say a bullet or bone fragment entered the rear skull,
>> passed under the cerebellum, and didn't significantly damage the medula,
>> but made its way out the throat?
>> Really?
>That was one of the first theories advanced by the LNers before they >knew what was in the autopsy report.
If ANYONE came up with a theory like that before the autopsy results were known, no one should have paid any attention to them.
Just like I shouldn't be wasting my time paying any attention to you.
>> Are you so desperate that you have to propose such silliness as that?
>> And you post on the Education Forum?
>> As far as bone fragments go, the autopsists completed the partial
>> circumference by fitting a bone piece (see the one Boswell drew at the
>> bottom of his face sheet) so there wasn't a piece of bone from the skull
>> around the entry that could have traveled the wacky path you propose.
>So? There would still be a HOLE after fitting in that piece. What >happened to that plug of skull bone that was where that hole was >created? Didn't think of that, did you?
Sure, but I laughed that off too....you think a plug of bone could have blasted through the floor of the skull and continued on to exit the throat?
Tell me even you don't think that.
Do you think the lunar landing was staged too?
How about the 9-11 attacks?
>> And the autopsists mentioned no pathway from the rear skull entrance even
>> close to being consistent with your silly path towards the throat.
>Because they didn't even know about the throat wound yet.
If you were even a tiny bit familiar with the medical evidence you'd know they all admitted later knowing about the throat wound and that the bullet [that hit him in the bacK] transited that night.....and don't even ask for citations...I'll not do your research for you.
You should have done your research before you came up with your wacky frontal shot theory where the bullet and/or large fragments blew back towads the shooter.
>> You should realize that there was so much evidence the bullet that entered
>> his back exited his throat you, yes you, could have concluded that night
>> with 100% certainty it did.
>No one did. YOU didn't.
They said they did...did they lie?
Marsh, you need for them to be lying or for them to be dumber than a bag of hammers for your wacky theories to float.....but if they were that dumb then practically all the medical evidence must be thrown out.
How is anyone supposed to argue with someone who supports that position?
I'd much rather argue with some guy who claimed he was abducted by aliens than someone like you who esentally throws out virtually all the medical evidence discovered during the autopsy.
>>> This was proposed
>>> within days of the shooting by members of the media
>> Oh, the media...then that makes your proposal a slam dunk....yikes.
>>> and the FBI.
>> The FBI wasn't told about any bullet wound in the throat where the
>> tracheostomy was performed.
>Then how do you conclude that ANYONE could have figure it out that night?
>YOU didn't.
Read man read...for a change istead of trying to draw attention to yourself by posting your wacky theories and silly comments.
>> More star witnesses, eh, Pat?
>> Who's next...the janitors?
>> Moe, Larry, and Curly?
>Yes, the Three Stooges were Humes, Boswell, and Fink.
>"Hey Moe, I thought you were supposed to section the brain."
You need for them to be that dumb or incompetent so your wacky theories work.
>> What's especially amazing to me is how your fellow CTs stay silent even
>> though most of them are rolling their eyes and shaking their heads over
>> your "suggestions".
>> By staying silent are they endorsing your theories?
>> Marsh?
>I have never supported his theory because I know the wound was back to >front.
>> Herbert?
>>> It's
>>> never been disproved, and is more in keeping with the medical evidence
>>> than the single-bullet theory.
>> Unbelievable that you'd push that wackiness....spare us please.
>> Read the autopsy report.
>The one Humes burned?
Is that why you've never read the published autopsy report?
>> Several things. First, there were two different HSCA committees. The
>> first was looking for conspiracy. The second was trying to cover one up.
> The second was definitely looking for conspiracy, a belief that guided
> their whole investigation. Blakey and Cornwell were experts on
> organized crime in the USA. They believed domestic crime bosses were
> behind this assassination in retaliation for the Kennedy
> Administration's crackdown on organized crime involvement with unions
> and other illegal activities.
> http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKblakey.htm
You know nothing about the HSCA. I was one of the people who lobbied for it's formation and followed the investigation every day. Many of us were convinced halfway through 1978 that the HSCA was going to rubberstamp the WC. Those who had been looking for conspiracy were purged. All the scientific work went into endorsing the WC, even inventing their own SBT. It was only when they had to analyze the DPD tape and accidentally found a fourth shot. That became known as Blakey Problem and they had to scramble to come up with a conspiracy to explain the two directions. But still almost half of the committee, who were die-hard WC defenders, rejected conspiracy and invented the TWo Lone Nut Theory. Blakey chose the Mafia as the villain because he wanted to protect the CIA.
>> On the second HSCA there were competing factions. Almost half the
>> committee was made up of conspiracy believers, the other half of WC
>> defenders. Most of the experts were WC defenders while most of the
>> consultants were conspiracy believers.
> Sounds like a good balance of opinions to guide the investigation and
> debate the evidence. With all the lawyers involved they knew
No, it was a compromise to keep the committee alive after the WC defenders closed down the first committee for looking too hard for the conspiracy.
> speculation was not enough. They were looking for evidence that would
> hold up in court. Failing to find convincing evidence implicating a
Are you so naive? There was never going to be a court case and they knew it. They hoped to silence all conspiracy talk by bashing the conspiracy believers over the head with science.
> specific group of conspirators, they took a chance on the Dictabelt
> evidence to at least insinuate conspiracy. They gambled on the
They did not want to look at the Dictabelt, but Blakey knew that he could not just ignore it. He was convinced there were no shots on the tape. He was horrified when Barger called him up and told him that they had found FOUR shots. They couldn't cover it up. Too many people knew. So he had to scramble and cobble together a conspiracy theory based on Oswald being childhood friends with some relative who had six degrees of separation from a Mafia family. But notice that they never even tried to get the FBI wiretaps and they were forbidden from interviewing any FBI or CIA agents who dealt with the Mafia.
> analysis of acoustic evidence to make their dubious conclusion there
> was a fourth shot from the GK, even though there was no corroborating
> evidence to support that conclusion. The gamble failed when other
> scientific opinions rejected the so-called acoustic evidence. Shots
> from two different directions would indicate multiple enemies, not
> conclusive evidence of conspiracy.
Nice to see you are desperate enough to bring up the Two Lone Nut Theory.
>> The biggest problem for the HSCA designing a SBT was the fact that their
>> interpretation of the acoustical evidence placed the shot at Z-190. And
>> we can clearly see that JFK is seated erect. Baden tried to explain away
>> the angles by claiming that JFK was leaning over by 18 degrees. That
>> might work if they had picked a frame when we can't see JFK or Connally
>> behind the sign. That's what the WC did.
> There was significant scientific criticism of the proposed acoustic
> evidence. This theoretical evidence lacked any corroboration, so any
> conclusion based on it would not hold up in the scientific community
> or a court of law.
>> There is an alternative interpretation which you can see on my Web site
>> that places the shot at Z-210.
>> Even Specter was smart enough to know that if there were no SBT there
>> must be two snipers firing two separate shots. JFK can not be hit before
>> Z-210 and Connally can not be hit after Z-240, so the WC knew there was
>> not enough time for one person to fire both shots from Oswald's bolt
>> action rifle. So Specter had to invent the SBT or admit conspiracy. And
>> that would cause WWIII and the end of all life on Earth.
> Not if the conspiracy was connected to organized crime, the CIA, a
> jealous ex-husband, or any domestic group of enemies. Are you
> assuming the Soviet Union or Cuba was behind this conspiracy? What
> proof do you have to make that assumption?
Is this a personality defect of yours or do you not understand plain English? I was not explaining MY conspiracy theory. I was explaining what LBJ, Hoover, the CIA and the WC assumed at the time. The raison d'etre for the formation of the WC. It was not created to cover up a Mafia conspiracy.
>> Specter might have been evil, but he was not stupid and he was not
>> crazy. The SBT is the only way out of the inevitable conclusion.
> So you're saying Specter was evil for preventing WWIII?
No, I am saying that always misinterpret anything I say to try to deny conspiracy.
On Oct 25, 3:12 pm, "pjspe...@AOL.COM" <pjspe...@aol.com> wrote:
> On Wednesday, October 24, 2012 7:26:59 PM UTC-7, claviger wrote:
> > It doesn't take a genius to figure out the SBT. Any hunter, cop, or
> > combat veteran could have told Specter what happened. Through-and-through
> > wounds are nothing new. The SBT has been proved conclusively using the
> > Scientific Method in high tech field testing. CTs lost this argument a
> > long time ago.
> Nonsense. Find us a case history in which a high-velocity bullet entered the back and exited from the middle of the throat in which no bones were struck and no blood vessels torn. I've looked. I've studied the wound ballistics. This doesn't happen.
Pat,
Do you think it nonsense an aerodynamic missile made of lead weighing 160 grains moving over 2000 feet per second can penetrate a bag of water inside a soft outer lining only 0.07 inches (2 mm) thick? The human body is basically a bag of fluid with a skeleton inside to act as a coat hanger. Lead is over 10 times more dense than water and the adult human body is 60% water. If the missile mentioned above misses any hard structure there is little to impede its progress. It may slow down the missile somewhat but not prevent it from puncturing all the way approximately 8" of this liquid filled balloon. This is why I find it amazing so many CTs think it impossible for a military FMJ missile to penetrate two human being sitting closely together in tandem.
> In article <50a061a...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...
Why the Hell are you responding to my message? I asked you politely three times to killfile me again. What is this, a protection racket and you expect me to PAY you off so that you won't reply to my messages? It's clear that you never do so to comply with my requests for you to prove your wacky theories or explain what you are babbling about. You used them only as a springboard to attack all conspiracy believers and make yourself look like a hero to the WC defenders.
>> On 11/11/2012 5:46 PM, John Canal wrote:
>>> In article <5c92338f-946d-4801-a8a9-b00d72d72c5c@googlegroups.com>,
>>> pjspe...@AOL.COM says...
>>>> On Saturday, November 10, 2012 7:11:55 PM UTC-8, John McAdams wrote:
>>>>> On 10 Nov 2012 22:08:37 -0500, "pjspe...@AOL.COM" <pjspe...@aol.com>
>>>>> =20
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>> =20
>>>>> =20
>>>>> =20
>>>>> =20
>>>>>> Not true. You are assuming the bullet exited the throat. I see no reason=
>>>> =20
>>>>> =20
>>>>>> to assume that. The wound as described does not fit the description of a=
>>>> =20
>>>>> =20
>>>>>> wound created by a high-velocity bullet.
>>>>> =20
>>>>> =20
>>>>> =20
>>>>> =20
>>>>> =20
>>>>> So you think the throat wound was an entrance wound?
>>>> Nope.
>>>>> =20
>>>>> =20
>>>>> =20
>>>>> If so, do you think the back wound was an exit wound?
>>>> Nope.
>>>>> =20
>>>>> =20
>>>>> =20
>>>>> If not, then two bullets were in Kennedy's body.=20
>>>> Nope. The throat wound could have been an exit for a bullet
>>> or bone
>>>> fragment traveling down Kennedy's neck, from his skull.
>>> OMG. Are you actually trying to insult our intelligence by attempting to
>>> sell that ultra-ridiculous scenario to us?
>>> You're trying to say a bullet or bone fragment entered the rear skull,
>>> passed under the cerebellum, and didn't significantly damage the medula,
>>> but made its way out the throat?
>>> Really?
>> That was one of the first theories advanced by the LNers before they
>> knew what was in the autopsy report.
> If ANYONE came up with a theory like that before the autopsy results were
> known, no one should have paid any attention to them.
> Just like I shouldn't be wasting my time paying any attention to you.
Where is your letter to the editor of the Boston Globe pointing out their stupidity?
You knew nothing and said nothing the week after the assassination. You waited for the WC and endorsed it when it came out. Even the ridiculous EOP entrance wound. You may be the last living being in this quadrant of the known universe who believes the entrance wound was near the EOP. By the same measure no one should pay any attention to you.
I know I am wasting my time replying to you, but no one else is brave enough to do it.
>>> Are you so desperate that you have to propose such silliness as that?
>>> And you post on the Education Forum?
>>> As far as bone fragments go, the autopsists completed the partial
>>> circumference by fitting a bone piece (see the one Boswell drew at the
>>> bottom of his face sheet) so there wasn't a piece of bone from the skull
>>> around the entry that could have traveled the wacky path you propose.
>> So? There would still be a HOLE after fitting in that piece. What
>> happened to that plug of skull bone that was where that hole was
>> created? Didn't think of that, did you?
> Sure, but I laughed that off too....you think a plug of bone could have
> blasted through the floor of the skull and continued on to exit the
> throat?
What is it about you WC defenders? Did you all flunk out of the same kindergarten? When I explain someone else's theory you claim it is my theory.
> Tell me even you don't think that.
Don't try to dump other people's theories on me.
> Do you think the lunar landing was staged too?
No, I believe you are Bigfoot.
> How about the 9-11 attacks?
How about them?
5 seconds after the second plane hit I said it was Osama bin Laden. 18 years before that I was proposing that we sponsor military action against the Taliban, while you and the other Reagan conservatives were praising al Qaeda as "freedom fighters." Disgusting.
>>> And the autopsists mentioned no pathway from the rear skull entrance even
>>> close to being consistent with your silly path towards the throat.
>> Because they didn't even know about the throat wound yet.
> If you were even a tiny bit familiar with the medical evidence you'd know
> they all admitted later knowing about the throat wound and that the bullet
> [that hit him in the bacK] transited that night.....and don't even ask for
> citations...I'll not do your research for you.
Not true and you have never cited anything to prove your wacky theory.
You can't do any research.
> You should have done your research before you came up with your wacky
> frontal shot theory where the bullet and/or large fragments blew back
> towads the shooter.
>>> You should realize that there was so much evidence the bullet that entered
>>> his back exited his throat you, yes you, could have concluded that night
>>> with 100% certainty it did.
>> No one did. YOU didn't.
> They said they did...did they lie?
They didn't. You didn't.
> Marsh, you need for them to be lying or for them to be dumber than a bag
> of hammers for your wacky theories to float.....but if they were that dumb
> then practically all the medical evidence must be thrown out.
Why the false dichotomy? There were both at the same time. Morons and liars. And under military orders.
> How is anyone supposed to argue with someone who supports that position?
> I'd much rather argue with some guy who claimed he was abducted by aliens
> than someone like you who esentally throws out virtually all the medical
> evidence discovered during the autopsy.
Wrong. I am the one who argues that all the medical evidence is genuine. I just complain about the lies by the autopsy doctors and WC defenders.
>>> What's especially amazing to me is how your fellow CTs stay silent even
>>> though most of them are rolling their eyes and shaking their heads over
>>> your "suggestions".
>>> By staying silent are they endorsing your theories?
>>> Marsh?
>> I have never supported his theory because I know the wound was back to
>> front.
>>> Herbert?
>>>> It's
>>>> never been disproved, and is more in keeping with the medical evidence
>>>> than the single-bullet theory.
>>> Unbelievable that you'd push that wackiness....spare us please.
>>> Read the autopsy report.
>> The one Humes burned?
> Is that why you've never read the published autopsy report?
Is that why I've published it and quoted it thousands of times?
Doesn't mean I have to believe it.
> On Oct 25, 3:12 pm, "pjspe...@AOL.COM" <pjspe...@aol.com> wrote:
>> On Wednesday, October 24, 2012 7:26:59 PM UTC-7, claviger wrote:
>>> It doesn't take a genius to figure out the SBT. Any hunter, cop, or
>>> combat veteran could have told Specter what happened. Through-and-through
>>> wounds are nothing new. The SBT has been proved conclusively using the
>>> Scientific Method in high tech field testing. CTs lost this argument a
>>> long time ago.
>> Nonsense. Find us a case history in which a high-velocity bullet entered the back and exited from the middle of the throat in which no bones were struck and no blood vessels torn. I've looked. I've studied the wound ballistics. This doesn't happen.
> Pat,
> Do you think it nonsense an aerodynamic missile made of lead weighing 160
> grains moving over 2000 feet per second can penetrate a bag of water
What about the copper jacket. How come you have never once mentioned the fact that Oswald's bullets had an unusually thick copper jacket?
> inside a soft outer lining only 0.07 inches (2 mm) thick? The human body
> is basically a bag of fluid with a skeleton inside to act as a coat
> hanger. Lead is over 10 times more dense than water and the adult human
So you are saying that humans never evolved muscles and bones? Is this what you mean by "created in God's Image"? A bag of water?
> body is 60% water. If the missile mentioned above misses any hard
> structure there is little to impede its progress. It may slow down the
> missile somewhat but not prevent it from puncturing all the way
> approximately 8" of this liquid filled balloon. This is why I find it
That's why FMJ bullets are not legal for deer hunting in most locales.
> amazing so many CTs think it impossible for a military FMJ missile to
> penetrate two human being sitting closely together in tandem.
So many? Yeah, all 6 of them.
Not a very big straw man.
In article <50a1b0e...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...
>On 11/12/2012 8:05 PM, John Canal wrote:
>> In article <50a061a...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...
>Why the Hell are you responding to my message?
Did you forget that you responded to my repl to Speer's post?
>I asked you politely three >times to killfile me again.
When you attack me I need to repond...even though most here know about your wacky theories....just in case there's an odd one here that believes your nonsense.
>What is this, a protection racket and you >expect me to PAY you off so that you won't reply to my messages?
How about another CIA orchestrated conspiracy?
>It's >clear that you never do so to comply with my requests for you to prove >your wacky theories or explain what you are babbling about.
It's difficult to tutor someone like you who knows so little about the medical evidence.
>You used them >only as a springboard to attack all conspiracy believers and make yourself >look like a hero to the WC defenders.
You're wrong...as usual. I'm looked down upon by most LNs here...they hate my theories, like you do.
>>> On 11/11/2012 5:46 PM, John Canal wrote:
>>>> In article <5c92338f-946d-4801-a8a9-b00d72d72c5c@googlegroups.com>,
>>>> pjspe...@AOL.COM says...
>>>>> On Saturday, November 10, 2012 7:11:55 PM UTC-8, John McAdams wrote:
>>>>>> On 10 Nov 2012 22:08:37 -0500, "pjspe...@AOL.COM" <pjspe...@aol.com>
>>> That was one of the first theories advanced by the LNers before they
>>> knew what was in the autopsy report.
>> If ANYONE came up with a theory like that before the autopsy results were
>> known, no one should have paid any attention to them.
>> Just like I shouldn't be wasting my time paying any attention to you.
>Where is your letter to the editor of the Boston Globe pointing out their >stupidity?
Wow, you wrote a letter? So what? Anyway, you should have been doing research instead of trying to draw more attention to yourself....if you'd done more research maybe you wouldn't have conjured up your wacky theory that a bullet hit him above his right eye and most of it blew back towards the shooter.
McAdams should take a poll here...who has the wackiest theory, you Harris, or Speer.
I'd vote for a toss-up.
>You knew nothing and said nothing the week after the assassination. You >waited for the WC and endorsed it when it came out. Even the ridiculous >EOP entrance wound.
I was serving my country when JFK was assassinated...we went to high alert....most all of our bombers were airborn....we couldn't be sure there was no Soviet or Cuban conspiracy.
>You may be the last living being in this quadrant of >the known universe who believes the entrance wound was near the EOP.
You've said some pretty wacky things, but that's near the top. It shows just how little you've researched the medical evidence.
>By >the same measure no one should pay any attention to you.
Most of the CTs as well as the LNs here wish I'd go away...I wonder if that's because they know I'm right?
>I know I am wasting my time replying to you, but no one else is brave >enough to do it.
You're not being brave...you just want the attention.
>>>> Are you so desperate that you have to propose such silliness as that?
>>>> And you post on the Education Forum?
>>>> As far as bone fragments go, the autopsists completed the partial
>>>> circumference by fitting a bone piece (see the one Boswell drew at the
>>>> bottom of his face sheet) so there wasn't a piece of bone from the skull
>>>> around the entry that could have traveled the wacky path you propose.
>>> So? There would still be a HOLE after fitting in that piece. What
>>> happened to that plug of skull bone that was where that hole was
>>> created? Didn't think of that, did you?
>> Sure, but I laughed that off too....you think a plug of bone could have
>> blasted through the floor of the skull and continued on to exit the
>> throat?
>What is it about you WC defenders? Did you all flunk out of the same >kindergarten? When I explain someone else's theory you claim it is my >theory.
I lump all the CT theories into one wacky group...it's hard to distinguish one from another.
>Don't try to dump other people's theories on me.
>> Do you think the lunar landing was staged too?
>No, I believe you are Bigfoot.
>> How about the 9-11 attacks?
>How about them?
>5 seconds after the second plane hit I said it was Osama bin Laden. 18 >years before that I was proposing that we sponsor military action >against the Taliban, while you and the other Reagan conservatives were >praising al Qaeda as "freedom fighters." Disgusting.
And with all that insight you still believe a bullet hit JFK above the right eye and most of it blew back towards the shooter?
Did you have a relapse or something after you proposed military action against al Qaeda?
>>>> And the autopsists mentioned no pathway from the rear skull entrance even
>>>> close to being consistent with your silly path towards the throat.
>>> Because they didn't even know about the throat wound yet.
>> If you were even a tiny bit familiar with the medical evidence you'd know
>> they all admitted later knowing about the throat wound and that the bullet
>> [that hit him in the bacK] transited that night.....and don't even ask for
>> citations...I'll not do your research for you.
>Not true and you have never cited anything to prove your wacky theory.
>You can't do any research.
If there was a way to make you pay up I'd bet you the ciations are there.
But no one here is held accountable for anything they say...no matter how
wacky...like your theories.
>> You should have done your research before you came up with your wacky
>> frontal shot theory where the bullet and/or large fragments blew back
>> towads the shooter.
>>>> You should realize that there was so much evidence the bullet that entered
>>>> his back exited his throat you, yes you, could have concluded that night
>>>> with 100% certainty it did.
>>> No one did. YOU didn't.
>> They said they did...did they lie?
>They didn't. You didn't.
How would you know?...you haven't read what they said.
>> Marsh, you need for them to be lying or for them to be dumber than a bag
>> of hammers for your wacky theories to float.....but if they were that dumb
>> then practically all the medical evidence must be thrown out.
>Why the false dichotomy? There were both at the same time. Morons and >liars. And under military orders.
Again, that's just an excuse for you not reading what they said or any of the other medical evidence...that's why you hink I'm the only one who supports the autopsists' near-EOP entry.
Did you forget about Zimmerman, Sturdivan, and Joe Davis...for starters?
Oh, that's right their either incompetent of liars, right?
Gee how did I gues what you were thinking?
>> How is anyone supposed to argue with someone who supports that position?
>> I'd much rather argue with some guy who claimed he was abducted by aliens
>> than someone like you who esentally throws out virtually all the medical
>> evidence discovered during the autopsy.
>Wrong. I am the one who argues that all the medical evidence is genuine.
Except the autopsy report....gee, that's just a trivial part of the medical
evidence anyway, right?
>I just complain about the lies by the autopsy doctors and WC defenders.
Well I guess I couldn't say you're lying, just fantasizing.
>>> Yes, the Three Stooges were Humes, Boswell, and Fink.
>>> "Hey Moe, I thought you were supposed to section the brain."
>> You need for them to be that dumb or incompetent so your wacky theories
>> work.
>No. Others can cover up their mistakes.
>> Good luck with that.
>>>> What's especially amazing to me is how your fellow CTs stay silent even
>>>> though most of them are rolling their eyes and shaking their heads over
>>>> your "suggestions".
>>>> By staying silent are they endorsing your theories?
>>>> Marsh?
>>> I have never supported his theory because I know the wound was back to
>>> front.
>>>> Herbert?
>>>>> It's
>>>>> never been disproved, and is more in keeping with the medical evidence
>>>>> than the single-bullet theory.
>>>> Unbelievable that you'd push that wackiness....spare us please.
>>>> Read the autopsy report.
>>> The one Humes burned?
>> Is that why you've never read the published autopsy report?
>Is that why I've published it and quoted it thousands of times?
>Doesn't mean I have to believe it.
Maybe you just don't undertand it? Where did they say a bullet hit him above the right eye but didn't cause a brain laceration extending inward or through the brain
...
On Sunday, November 11, 2012 11:00:21 AM UTC-8, John Fiorentino wrote:
> I'll repost this........
> Your attacks on the now deceased Dr. John K. Lattimer are scurrilous and
> without merit.
> As with most assassination critics you get things about 1/2 right and
> embellish the rest with the fairy dust of incomprehension.
> I can assure you that the path of the bullet through JFK was DOWNWARD
> irrespective of Baden's "anatomic position" crapola.
You can assure me no such thing. Besides, that's not the point. My beef with Lattimer is not that he said the path was downward but that he said it was sharply downward, and that the grossly inaccurate Rydberg drawings presented a much shallower trajectory than the actual trajectory as demonstrated by the autopsy photos and x-rays. It seems clear to me he was lying.
In 1974, after viewing the autopsy photos, after all, he'd told Medical Times the bullet "had entered the top of the prominent roll of soft tissue across the back of President Kennedy's neck..."
Now, you've seen the autopsy photos. You were even given one by Belin. is the bullet wound on Kennedy's back, or "at the top of a roll of soft tissue across the back of Kennedy's neck"? Inquiring minds want to know.
On Monday, November 12, 2012 5:46:03 PM UTC-8, claviger wrote:
> On Oct 25, 3:12 pm, "pjspe...@AOL.COM" <pjspe...@aol.com> wrote:
> > On Wednesday, October 24, 2012 7:26:59 PM UTC-7, claviger wrote:
> > > It doesn't take a genius to figure out the SBT. Any hunter, cop, or
> > > combat veteran could have told Specter what happened. Through-and-through
> > > wounds are nothing new. The SBT has been proved conclusively using the
> > > Scientific Method in high tech field testing. CTs lost this argument a
> > > long time ago.
> > Nonsense. Find us a case history in which a high-velocity bullet entered the back and exited from the middle of the throat in which no bones were struck and no blood vessels torn. I've looked. I've studied the wound ballistics. This doesn't happen.
> Pat,
> Do you think it nonsense an aerodynamic missile made of lead weighing 160
> grains moving over 2000 feet per second can penetrate a bag of water
> inside a soft outer lining only 0.07 inches (2 mm) thick? The human body
> is basically a bag of fluid with a skeleton inside to act as a coat
> hanger. Lead is over 10 times more dense than water and the adult human
> body is 60% water. If the missile mentioned above misses any hard
> structure there is little to impede its progress. It may slow down the
> missile somewhat but not prevent it from puncturing all the way
> approximately 8" of this liquid filled balloon. This is why I find it
> amazing so many CTs think it impossible for a military FMJ missile to
> penetrate two human being sitting closely together in tandem.
> Water properties: The water in you (Water Science for Schools)
That's not the problem. The problem is that the internal damage to the neck makes no sense. When a high velocity FMJ bullet tears through a neck it creates a lot more damage than was done to Kennedy's neck.
On Sunday, November 11, 2012 11:00:21 AM UTC-8, John Fiorentino wrote:
> I'll repost this........
> Your attacks on the now deceased Dr. John K. Lattimer are scurrilous and
> without merit.
> As with most assassination critics you get things about 1/2 right and
> embellish the rest with the fairy dust of incomprehension.
> I can assure you that the path of the bullet through JFK was DOWNWARD
> irrespective of Baden's "anatomic position" crapola.
You can assure me no such thing. Besides, that's not the point. My beef with Lattimer is not that he said the path was downward but that he said it was sharply downward, and that the grossly inaccurate Rydberg drawings presented a much shallower trajectory than the actual trajectory as demonstrated by the autopsy photos and x-rays. It seems clear to me he was lying.
In 1974, after viewing the autopsy photos, after all, he'd told Medical Times the bullet "had entered the top of the prominent roll of soft tissue across the back of President Kennedy's neck..."
Now, you've seen the autopsy photos. You were even given one by Belin. is the bullet wound on Kennedy's back, or "at the top of a roll of soft tissue across the back of Kennedy's neck"? Inquiring minds want to know.
>On Monday, November 12, 2012 5:46:03 PM UTC-8, claviger wrote:
>> On Oct 25, 3:12=A0pm, "pjspe...@AOL.COM" <pjspe...@aol.com> wrote:
>>=20
>> > On Wednesday, October 24, 2012 7:26:59 PM UTC-7, claviger wrote:
>>=20
>> > > It doesn't take a genius to figure out the SBT. =A0Any hunter, cop, o=
>r
>>=20
>>=20
>> > > combat veteran could have told Specter what happened. Through-and-thr=
>ough
>>=20
>>=20
>> > > wounds are nothing new. =A0The SBT has been proved conclusively using=
> the
>>=20
>>=20
>> > > Scientific Method in high tech field testing. CTs lost this argument =
>a
>>=20
>>=20
>> > > long time ago.
>>=20
>>=20
>> > Nonsense. Find us a case history in which a high-velocity bullet entere=
>d the back and exited from the middle of the throat in which no bones were =
>struck and no blood vessels torn. I've looked. I've studied the wound balli=
>stics. This doesn't happen.
>>=20
>>=20
>>=20
>> Pat,
>>=20
>>=20
>>=20
>> Do you think it nonsense an aerodynamic missile made of lead weighing 160
>>=20
>> grains moving over 2000 feet per second can penetrate a bag of water
>>=20
>> inside a soft outer lining only 0.07 inches (2 mm) thick? The human body
>>=20
>> is basically a bag of fluid with a skeleton inside to act as a coat
>>=20
>> hanger. Lead is over 10 times more dense than water and the adult human
>>=20
>> body is 60% water. If the missile mentioned above misses any hard
>>=20
>> structure there is little to impede its progress. It may slow down the
>>=20
>> missile somewhat but not prevent it from puncturing all the way
>>=20
>> approximately 8" of this liquid filled balloon. This is why I find it
>>=20
>> amazing so many CTs think it impossible for a military FMJ missile to
>>=20
>> penetrate two human being sitting closely together in tandem.
>>=20
>>=20
>>=20
>> Water properties: The water in you (Water Science for Schools)
>>=20
>> http://ga.water.usgs.gov/edu/propertyyou.html
>That's not the problem. The problem is that the internal damage to the neck=
> makes no sense. When a high velocity FMJ bullet tears through a neck it cr=
>eates a lot more damage than was done to Kennedy's neck.
No, the problem is that you've devoted seemingly half your life trumpeting your wacky theories and you've got too much time invested in writing articles for your website to face up to the fact those theories are debunked.
IOW your so far past the point of no return on those wacky theories it's sad.
Cripes, that type of round was designed to penetrate enemy soldiers, IOW to cripple vs. kill on the battlefield...where the hell do you think it went after entering JFK's back?
Now as far as damage you seek so much goes:
1. There was air in the tissue bewteen the back and throat wounds.
2. The apex of the right lung and pleura were bruised.
3. Slight fracture of the tip of the transverse process of T1.
4. There was debris seen near C7/T1.
5. The right side of his larynx was contused.
6. There was a nick to the right side of his trachea.
7. The strap muscles on the right side of his neck were bruised.
8. "Free air & blood" was observed in the area of the throat wound, indicative of a wound in the upper right hemithorax (mediastinum).
....not to mention the holes/nick in the clothes/tie bent outward as if a bullet exited there causing those holes/that nick.
What do you want Pat to believe a bullet entered the back/upper neck, transited, and exited his throat where the tracheostomy was performed....a damn picture of a tunnel like hole through his body there big enough to put your fist through???????
Man up Pat and admit you've wasted a kajillion hours trumpeting a debunked theory, and leading newbies down your yellow-brick road!
> In article <540f5eb1-b46a-45d6-8442-f1533eb47b7e@googlegroups.com>,
> pjspe...@AOL.COM says...
>> On Monday, November 12, 2012 5:46:03 PM UTC-8, claviger wrote:
>>> On Oct 25, 3:12=A0pm, "pjspe...@AOL.COM" <pjspe...@aol.com> wrote:
>>> =20
>>>> On Wednesday, October 24, 2012 7:26:59 PM UTC-7, claviger wrote:
>>> =20
>>>>> It doesn't take a genius to figure out the SBT. =A0Any hunter, cop, o=
>> r
>>> =20
>>> =20
>>>>> combat veteran could have told Specter what happened. Through-and-thr=
>> ough
>>> =20
>>> =20
>>>>> wounds are nothing new. =A0The SBT has been proved conclusively using=
>> the
>>> =20
>>> =20
>>>>> Scientific Method in high tech field testing. CTs lost this argument =
>> a
>>> =20
>>> =20
>>>>> long time ago.
>>> =20
>>> =20
>>>> Nonsense. Find us a case history in which a high-velocity bullet entere=
>> d the back and exited from the middle of the throat in which no bones were =
>> struck and no blood vessels torn. I've looked. I've studied the wound balli=
>> stics. This doesn't happen.
>>> =20
>>> =20
>>> =20
>>> Pat,
>>> =20
>>> =20
>>> =20
>>> Do you think it nonsense an aerodynamic missile made of lead weighing 160
>>> =20
>>> grains moving over 2000 feet per second can penetrate a bag of water
>>> =20
>>> inside a soft outer lining only 0.07 inches (2 mm) thick? The human body
>>> =20
>>> is basically a bag of fluid with a skeleton inside to act as a coat
>>> =20
>>> hanger. Lead is over 10 times more dense than water and the adult human
>>> =20
>>> body is 60% water. If the missile mentioned above misses any hard
>>> =20
>>> structure there is little to impede its progress. It may slow down the
>>> =20
>>> missile somewhat but not prevent it from puncturing all the way
>>> =20
>>> approximately 8" of this liquid filled balloon. This is why I find it
>>> =20
>>> amazing so many CTs think it impossible for a military FMJ missile to
>>> =20
>>> penetrate two human being sitting closely together in tandem.
>>> =20
>>> =20
>>> =20
>>> Water properties: The water in you (Water Science for Schools)
>>> =20
>>> http://ga.water.usgs.gov/edu/propertyyou.html
>> That's not the problem. The problem is that the internal damage to the neck=
>> makes no sense. When a high velocity FMJ bullet tears through a neck it cr=
>> eates a lot more damage than was done to Kennedy's neck.
You should not be accepting his false premises. It was not a high velocity bullet and that FMJ can easily go through tissue without causing a lot of damage.
> No, the problem is that you've devoted seemingly half your life trumpeting
> your wacky theories and you've got too much time invested in writing
> articles for your website to face up to the fact those theories are
> debunked.
> IOW your so far past the point of no return on those wacky theories it's
> sad.
> Cripes, that type of round was designed to penetrate enemy soldiers, IOW
> to cripple vs. kill on the battlefield...where the hell do you think it
> went after entering JFK's back?
> 1. There was air in the tissue bewteen the back and throat wounds.
> 2. The apex of the right lung and pleura were bruised.
> 3. Slight fracture of the tip of the transverse process of T1.
> 4. There was debris seen near C7/T1.
> 5. The right side of his larynx was contused.
> 6. There was a nick to the right side of his trachea.
> 7. The strap muscles on the right side of his neck were bruised.
> 8. "Free air & blood" was observed in the area of the throat wound,
> indicative of a wound in the upper right hemithorax (mediastinum).
> ....not to mention the holes/nick in the clothes/tie bent outward as if a
> bullet exited there causing those holes/that nick.
> What do you want Pat to believe a bullet entered the back/upper neck,
> transited, and exited his throat where the tracheostomy was performed....a
> damn picture of a tunnel like hole through his body there big enough to
> put your fist through???????
The wound seen in the autopsy photos did not look like that at Parkland.
> On Monday, November 12, 2012 5:46:03 PM UTC-8, claviger wrote:
>> On Oct 25, 3:12 pm, "pjspe...@AOL.COM" <pjspe...@aol.com> wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, October 24, 2012 7:26:59 PM UTC-7, claviger wrote:
>>>> It doesn't take a genius to figure out the SBT. Any hunter, cop, or
>>>> combat veteran could have told Specter what happened. Through-and-through
>>>> wounds are nothing new. The SBT has been proved conclusively using the
>>>> Scientific Method in high tech field testing. CTs lost this argument a
>>>> long time ago.
>>> Nonsense. Find us a case history in which a high-velocity bullet entered the back and exited from the middle of the throat in which no bones were struck and no blood vessels torn. I've looked. I've studied the wound ballistics. This doesn't happen.
>> Pat,
>> Do you think it nonsense an aerodynamic missile made of lead weighing 160
>> grains moving over 2000 feet per second can penetrate a bag of water
>> inside a soft outer lining only 0.07 inches (2 mm) thick? The human body
>> is basically a bag of fluid with a skeleton inside to act as a coat
>> hanger. Lead is over 10 times more dense than water and the adult human
>> body is 60% water. If the missile mentioned above misses any hard
>> structure there is little to impede its progress. It may slow down the
>> missile somewhat but not prevent it from puncturing all the way
>> approximately 8" of this liquid filled balloon. This is why I find it
>> amazing so many CTs think it impossible for a military FMJ missile to
>> penetrate two human being sitting closely together in tandem.
>> Water properties: The water in you (Water Science for Schools)
> That's not the problem. The problem is that the internal damage to the neck makes no sense. When a high velocity FMJ bullet tears through a neck it creates a lot more damage than was done to Kennedy's neck.
What high velocity bullet? The Carcano was not high velocity. The FMJ is designed to not cause horrific wounds.
> In article <540f5eb1-b46a-45d6-8442-f1533eb47b7e@googlegroups.com>,
> pjspe...@AOL.COM says...
>>On Monday, November 12, 2012 5:46:03 PM UTC-8, claviger wrote:
>>> On Oct 25, 3:12=A0pm, "pjspe...@AOL.COM" <pjspe...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>=20
>>> > On Wednesday, October 24, 2012 7:26:59 PM UTC-7, claviger wrote:
>>>=20
>>> > > It doesn't take a genius to figure out the SBT. =A0Any hunter, cop, >>> > > o=
>>r
>>>=20
>>>=20
>>> > > combat veteran could have told Specter what happened. >>> > > Through-and-thr=
>>ough
>>>=20
>>>=20
>>> > > wounds are nothing new. =A0The SBT has been proved conclusively >>> > > using=
>> the
>>>=20
>>>=20
>>> > > Scientific Method in high tech field testing. CTs lost this argument >>> > > =
>>a
>>>=20
>>>=20
>>> > > long time ago.
>>>=20
>>>=20
>>> > Nonsense. Find us a case history in which a high-velocity bullet >>> > entere=
>>d the back and exited from the middle of the throat in which no bones were >>=
>>struck and no blood vessels torn. I've looked. I've studied the wound >>balli=
>>stics. This doesn't happen.
>>>=20
>>>=20
>>>=20
>>> Pat,
>>>=20
>>>=20
>>>=20
>>> Do you think it nonsense an aerodynamic missile made of lead weighing >>> 160
>>>=20
>>> grains moving over 2000 feet per second can penetrate a bag of water
>>>=20
>>> inside a soft outer lining only 0.07 inches (2 mm) thick? The human >>> body
>>>=20
>>> is basically a bag of fluid with a skeleton inside to act as a coat
>>>=20
>>> hanger. Lead is over 10 times more dense than water and the adult human
>>>=20
>>> body is 60% water. If the missile mentioned above misses any hard
>>>=20
>>> structure there is little to impede its progress. It may slow down the
>>>=20
>>> missile somewhat but not prevent it from puncturing all the way
>>>=20
>>> approximately 8" of this liquid filled balloon. This is why I find it
>>>=20
>>> amazing so many CTs think it impossible for a military FMJ missile to
>>>=20
>>> penetrate two human being sitting closely together in tandem.
>>>=20
>>>=20
>>>=20
>>> Water properties: The water in you (Water Science for Schools)
>>>=20
>>> http://ga.water.usgs.gov/edu/propertyyou.html
>>That's not the problem. The problem is that the internal damage to the >>neck=
>> makes no sense. When a high velocity FMJ bullet tears through a neck it >> cr=
>>eates a lot more damage than was done to Kennedy's neck.
> No, the problem is that you've devoted seemingly half your life trumpeting
> your wacky theories and you've got too much time invested in writing
> articles for your website to face up to the fact those theories are
> debunked.
> IOW your so far past the point of no return on those wacky theories it's
> sad.
> Cripes, that type of round was designed to penetrate enemy soldiers, IOW
> to cripple vs. kill on the battlefield...where the hell do you think it
> went after entering JFK's back?
> Now as far as damage you seek so much goes:
> 1. There was air in the tissue bewteen the back and throat wounds.
> 2. The apex of the right lung and pleura were bruised.
> 3. Slight fracture of the tip of the transverse process of T1.
> 4. There was debris seen near C7/T1.
> 5. The right side of his larynx was contused.
> 6. There was a nick to the right side of his trachea.
> 7. The strap muscles on the right side of his neck were bruised.
> 8. "Free air & blood" was observed in the area of the throat wound,
> indicative of a wound in the upper right hemithorax (mediastinum).
> ....not to mention the holes/nick in the clothes/tie bent outward as if a
> bullet exited there causing those holes/that nick.
> What do you want Pat to believe a bullet entered the back/upper neck,
> transited, and exited his throat where the tracheostomy was performed....a
> damn picture of a tunnel like hole through his body there big enough to
> put your fist through???????
> Man up Pat and admit you've wasted a kajillion hours trumpeting a debunked
> theory, and leading newbies down your yellow-brick road!
