Where did LHO learn to shoot?
claviger
of the CAP training program. Later he may have hunted rabbits with a .
22 rifle which is common for teenagers in Texas and Louisiana. The .
22 rifle is perfect for learning to shoot because it doesn't kick and
the student can focus on accuracy. Young kids start learning about 10
years old and womenfolk who live in the country shoot snakes with a .
22 that get too close to the house. So LHO was likely an average shot
with a rifle before he joined the Marine Corp. An average shooter can
hit a bull's eye at short range.
John Blubaugh
May have, could have, perhaps, the fact is he couldn't hit a rabbit with a
shotgun in Russia much less with a .22. You have no proof that LHO every
fired a shot at all before he went into the Marines. Just more of you
endless speculation. The facts are that people who observed him said he
couldn't shoot at all. The Russians made fun of his shooting.... Only
hardcore nutter fanatics believe he was competent.
JB
Anthony Marsh
May have? Probably?
We KNOW that he did those things and those with him reported that he was
a very poor shooter.
The FBI's top experts couldn't even hit the bullseye at 100 yards using
his rifle.
Mr. Eisenberg.
This test was performed at 15 yards, did you say, Mr. Frazier?
Mr. Frazier.
Yes, sir. And this series of shots we fired to determine actually
the speed at which the rifle could be fired, not being overly familiar
with this particular firearm, and also to determine the accuracy of the
weapon under those conditions.
Mr. Eisenberg.
And could you give us the names of the three agents who participated?
Mr. Frazier.
Yes, sir. Charles Killion, Cortlandt Cunningham, and myself.
Mr. Eisenberg.
And the date?
Mr. Frazier.
November 27, 1963.
Mr. Eisenberg.
How many shots did each agent fire?
Mr. Frazier.
Killion fired three, Cunningham fired three, and I fired three.
Mr. Eisenberg.
And do you have the times within which each agent fired the three
shots?
Mr. Frazier.
Yes, sir. Killion fired his three shots in nine seconds, and they
are shown--the three shots are interlocking, shown on Commission Exhibit
No. 549.
Cunningham fired three shots--I know the approximate number of
seconds was seven.
Cunningham's time was approximately seven seconds.
Mr. Eisenberg.
Can you at a later date confirm the exact time?
Mr. Frazier.
Yes, sir.
Mr. Eisenberg.
And you will do that by letter to the Commission, or if you happen
to come back by oral testimony?
Mr. Frazier.
Yes, sir.
Mr. Eisenberg.
And your time, Mr. Frazier?
Mr. Frazier.
For this series, was six seconds, for my three shots, which also
were on the target at which Mr. Cunningham fired, which is Exhibit 548.
Mr. Eisenberg.
Could you characterize the dispersion of the shots on the two
targets which you have been showing us, 548 and 549?
Mr. Frazier.
The bullets landed approximately--in Killion's target, No. 549,
approximately 2 1/2 inches high, and 1 inch to the right, in the area
about the size of a dime, interlocking in the paper, all three shots.
On Commission Exhibit 548, Cunningham fired three shots. These
shots were interlocking, or within an eighth of an inch of each other,
and were located approximately 4 inches high and 1 inch to the right of
the aiming point. The three shots which I fired were landed in a
three-quarter inch circle, two of them interlocking with Cunningham's
shots, 4 inches high, and approximately 1 inch to the right of the
aiming point.
Mr. Eisenberg.
Can you describe the second series of tests?
Mr. Frazier.
The second test which was performed was two series of three shots
at 25 yards, instead of 15 yards. I fired both of these tests, firing
them at a cardboard target, in an effort to determine how fast the
weapon could be fired primarily, with secondary purpose accuracy.
We did not attempt- I did not attempt to maintain in that test an
accurate rate of fire.
This is the actual target which I fired.
Mr. Eisenberg.
And that target has all six holes in it?
Mr. Frazier.
Yes, sir--two series of three holes, the first three holes being
marked with the No. 1, and the second series being marked No. 2.
Mr. Eisenberg.
Mr. Chairman, I would like this introduced as 550.
Mr. McCloy.
That will be admitted.
(The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 550, and
received in evidence.)
Mr. Eisenberg.
Could you describe for the record the dispersion on the two series?
Mr. Frazier.
Yes, sir. The first series of three shots were approximately--from
4 to 5 inches high and from 1 to 2 inches to the right of the aiming
point, and landed within a 2-inch circle. These three shots were fired
in 4.8 seconds. The second series of shots landed--one was about 1 inch
high, and the other two about 4 or 5 inches high, and the maximum spread
was 5 inches.
That series was fired in 4.6 seconds.
Mr. Eisenberg.
And do you have the date?
Mr. Frazier.
That also was on the 27th of November.
Mr. Eisenberg.
Same date as the first tests?
Mr. Frazier.
Yes, sir.
Mr. Eisenberg.
And you performed one more test, I believe?
Mr. Frazier.
Yes, sir. We fired additional targets at 100 yards on the range at
Quantico, Va., firing groups of three shots. And 1 have the four targets
we fired here.
Mr. Eisenberg.
Mr. Chairman, I would like these admitted as 551, 552, 553, and 554.
Mr. McCloy.
They may be admitted.
(The documents referred to were marked Commission Exhibits Nos. 551
through 554, and received in evidence.)
Mr. Eisenberg.
Who fired these shots, Mr. Frazier?
Mr. Frazier.
I fired them.
Mr. Eisenberg.
Can you characterize the dispersion on each of the four targets?
Mr. Frazier.
Yes, sir.
On Commission Exhibit 551 the three shots landed approximately 5
inches high and within a 3 1/2-inch circle, almost on a line
horizontally across the target. This target and the other targets were
fired on March 16, 1964 at Quantico, Va. These three shots were fired in
5.9 seconds.
The second target fired is Commission Exhibit 552, consisting of
three shots fired in 6.2 seconds, which landed in approximately a 4 1/2
to 5-inch circle located 4 inches high and 3 or 4 inches to the right of
the aiming point.
Commission Exhibit No. 553 is the third target fired, consisting of
three shots which landed in a 3-inch circle located about 2 1/2 inches
high and 2 inches to the right of the aiming point.
These three shots were fired in 5.6 seconds.
And Commission Exhibit No. 554, consisting of three shots fired in
6.5 seconds, which landed approximately 5 inches high and 5 inches to
the right of the aiming point, all within a 3 1/2-inch circle.
Mr. McCloy.
The first one is not exactly 5 inches to the right, is it?
Mr. Frazier.
No, sir. The center of the circle in which they all landed would be
about 5 inches high and 5 inches to the right.
Mr. Eisenberg.
Mr. Frazier, could you tell us why, in your opinion, all the shots,
virtually all the shots, are grouped high and to the right of the aiming
point?
Mr. Frazier.
Yes, sir. When we attempted to sight in this rifle at Quantico, we
found that the elevation adjustment in the telescopic sight was not
sufficient to bring the point of impact to the aiming point. In
attempting to adjust and sight-in the rifle, every time we changed the
adjusting screws to move the crosshairs in the telescopic sight in one
direction-it also affected the movement of the impact or the point of
impact in the other direction. That is, if we moved the crosshairs in
the telescope to the left it would also affect the elevation setting of
the telescope. And when we had sighted-in the rifle approximately, we
fired several shots and found that the shots were not all landing in the
same place, but were gradually moving away from the point of impact.
This was apparently due to the construction of the telescope, which
apparently did not stabilize itself--that is, the spring mounting in the
crosshair ring did not stabilize until we had fired five or six shots.
Mr. Eisenberg.
Pardon me, Mr. Frazier. Have you prepared a diagram of the
telescopic sight?
Mr. Frazier.
Yes, sir.
Mr. Eisenberg.
I wonder whether you could show us that now to help illustrate the
point you are making.
Let me mark that.
This diagram was prepared by you?
Mr. Frazier.
Yes; it was.
Mr. Eisenberg.
And illustrated.
Mr. Frazier.
Excuse me. The actual diagram was copied by me from a textbook,
showing a diagrammatic view of how a telescopic crosshair ring is
mounted in a telescope.
Mr. Eisenberg.
This is a generalized diagram, rather than a diagram of the
specific scope on Exhibit 139?
Mr. Frazier.
Yes; it is. However, I have checked the scope on Exhibit 139 and
found it to be substantially the same as this diagram.
Mr. Eisenberg.
Mr. Chairman, may I have this admitted as 555?
Mr. McCloy.
It may be admitted.
(The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 555, and
received in evidence.)
Mr. Frazier.
Commission Exhibit No. 555 is a diagrammatic drawing of the manner
in which the crosshair ring is mounted in Exhibit 139, showing on the
right-hand side of the diagram a circular drawing indicating the outer
part of the tube, with an inner circle with a crossed line in it
representing the crosshairs in the telescope.
There is an elevation-adjusting screw at the top, which pushes the
crosshair ring down against a spring located in the lower left-hand
portion of the circle, or which allows the crosshair ring to come up,
being pushed by the spring on the opposite side of the ring. There is a
windage screw on the right-hand side of the scope tube circle which
adjusts the crosshair ring laterally for windage adjustments.
The diagram at the left side of Commission's Exhibit 555 shows
diagrammatically the blade spring mounted in the telescope tube which
causes the ring to be pressed against the adjusting screws.
We found in this telescopic sight on this rifle that this ring was
shifting in the telescope tube 80 that the gun could not be sighted-in
merely by changing the screws. It was necessary to adjust it, and then
fire several shots to stabilize the crosshair ring by causing this
spring to press tightly against the screws, to the point that we decided
it would not be feasible to completely sight the weapon inasfar as
windage goes, and in addition found that the elevation screw could not
be adjusted sufficiently to bring the point of impact on the targets
down to the sighting point.
And, therefore, we left the rifle as soon as it became stabilized
and fired all of our shots with the point of impact actually high and to
the right.
Mr. Eisenberg.
As I understand it, the construction of the scope is such that
after the elevation or windage screw has been moved, the scope does
not--is not--automatically pushed up by the blade spring as it should
be, until you have fired several shots?
Mr. Frazier.
Yes; that is true when the crosshairs are largely out of the center
of the tube. And in this case it is necessary to move the crosshairs
completely up into the upper portion of the tube, which causes this
spring to bear in a position out of the ordinary, and for this windage
screw to strike the side or the sloping surface of the ring rather than
at 90 degrees, as it shows in Exhibit 555. With this screw being off
center, both in windage and elevation, the spring is not strong enough
to center the crosshair ring by itself, and it is necessary to jar it
several times, which we did by firing, to bring it to bear tightly so as
to maintain the same position then for the next shots.
Mr. Eisenberg.
And because of the difficulty you had stabilizing the crosshair,
you did not wish to pursue it to a further refinement, is that correct?
Mr. Frazier.
We sighted the scope in relatively close, fired it, and decided
rather than fire more ammunition through the weapon, we would use these
targets which we had fired.
Mr. Eisenberg.
Now, once the crosshairs had been stabilized, did you find that
they stayed, remained stabilized?
Mr. Frazier.
Yes; they did.
Mr. Eisenberg.
How long do you think the crosshairs would remain stabilized in
Exhibit 139, assuming no violent jar?
Mr. Frazier.
They should remain stabilized continuously.
Mr. Eisenberg.
Do you know when the defect in this scope, which causes you not to
be able to adjust the elevation crosshair in the manner it should be do
you know when this defect was introduced into the scope?
Mr. Frazier.
No; I do not. However, on the back end of the scope tube there is a
rather severe scrape which was on this weapon when we received it in the
laboratory, in which some of the metal has been removed, and the scope
tube could have been bent or damaged.
Mr. Eisenberg.
Did you first test the weapon for accuracy on November 27th?
Mr. Frazier.
Yes, sir.
Mr. Eisenberg.
Have you any way of determining whether the defect pre-existed
November 27th?
Mr. Frazier.
When we fired on November 27th, the shots were landing high and
slightly to the right. However, the scope was apparently fairly well
stabilized at that time, because three shots would land in an area the
size of a dime under rapid-fire conditions, which would not have
occurred if the interior mechanism of the scope was shifting.
Mr. Eisenberg.
But you are unable to say whether--or are you able to say
whether--the defect existed before November 27th? That is, precisely
when it was, introduced?
Mr. Frazier.
As far as to be unable to adjust the scope, actually, I could not
say when it had been introduced. I don't know actually what the cause
is. It may be that the mount has been bent or the crosshair ring shifted.
Mr. Eisenberg.
Mr. Frazier, when you were running, let's say, the last test, could
you have compensated for this defect?
Mr. Frazier.
Yes; you could take an aiming point low and to the left and have
the shots strike a predetermined point. But it would be no different
from taking these targets and putting an aiming point in the center of
the bullet-impact area. Here that would be the situation you would
have--- an aiming point off to the side and an impact area at the high
right corner.
Mr. Eisenberg.
If you had been shooting to score bulls-eyes, in a bulls-eye
pattern, what would you have what action, if any, would you have taken,
to improve your score?
Mr. Frazier.
I would have aimed low and to the left--after finding how high the
bullets were landing; you would compensate by aiming low left, or
adjusting the mount of the scope in a manner which would cause the
hairlines to coincide with the point of impact.
Mr. Eisenberg.
How much practice had you had with the rifle before the last series
of four targets were shot by you?
Mr. Frazier.
I had fired it possibly 20 rounds, 15 to 20 rounds, and in addition
had operated the bolt repeatedly.
Mr. Eisenberg.
Does practice with this weapon--or would practice with this
weapon--materially shorten the time in which three shots could be
accurately fired?
Mr. Frazier.
Yes, sir; very definitely.
Mr. Eisenberg.
Would practice without actually firing the weapon be helpful--that
is, a dry-run practice?
Mr. Frazier.
That would be most helpful, particularly in a bolt-action weapon,
where it is necessary to shift your hand from the trigger area to the
bolt, operate the bolt, and go back to the trigger after closing the bolt.
Mr. Eisenberg.
Based on your experience with the weapon, do you think three shots
could be fired accurately within 5 1/2 seconds if no rest was utilized?
Mr. Frazier.
That would depend on the accuracy which was necessary or needed-or
which you desired. I think you could fire the shots in that length of
time, but whether you could place them, say, in a 3- or 4-inch circle
without either resting or possibly using the sling as a support--I doubt
that you could accomplish that.
Mr. Eisenberg.
How--these targets at which you fired stationary at 100 yards--how
do you think your time would have been affected by use of a moving target?
Mr. Frazier.
It would have slowed down the shooting. It would have lengthened
the time to the extent of allowing the crosshairs to pass over the
moving target.
Mr. Eisenberg.
Could you give an amount?
Mr. Frazier.
Approximately 1 second. It would depend on how fast the target was
moving, and whether it was moving away from you or towards you or at
right angles.
Mr. Eisenberg.
Do you think you could shorten your time with further practice with
the weapon?
Mr. Frazier.
Oh, yes.
Mr. Eisenberg.
Could you give us an estimate on that?
Mr. Frazier.
I fired three shots in 4.6 seconds at 25 yards with approximately a
3-inch spread, which is the equivalent of a 12-inch spread at a hundred
yards. And I feel that a 12-inch relative circle could be reduced to 6
inches or even less with considerable practice with the weapon.
Mr. Eisenberg.
That is in the 4.6-second time?
Mr. Frazier.
Yes. I would say from 4.8 to 5 seconds, in that area 4.6 is firing
this weapon as fast as the bolt can be operated, I think.
Jason Burke
So way back in '56 the evil government was forging documents about
Oswald's shooting ability, I suppose.
They knew then. They just knew!
bigdog
If you could ask JFK, he would probably tell you Oswald was pretty
good.
Anthony Marsh
Apparently they were also forging documents about his VD also.
John Blubaugh
>
> - Show quoted text -
Then lets exhume him and ask with an international team of independent
forensic experts. The body will tell then where he was hit and from
what direction.
JB
John Blubaugh
>
Nah, they just did it for every unfortunate that couldn't shoot a
lick.
JB
bigdog
> On Jan 25, 11:21 pm, bigdog <jecorbett1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jan 25, 7:18 pm, John Blubaugh <jbluba...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jan 25, 11:03 am, claviger <historiae.fi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > LHO probably learned to shoot in the CAP. Marksmanship is still part
> > > > of the CAP training program. Later he may have hunted rabbits with a .
> > > > 22 rifle which is common for teenagers in Texas and Louisiana. The .
> > > > 22 rifle is perfect for learning to shoot because it doesn't kick and
> > > > the student can focus on accuracy. Young kids start learning about 10
> > > > years old and womenfolk who live in the country shoot snakes with a .
> > > > 22 that get too close to the house. So LHO was likely an average shot
> > > > with a rifle before he joined the Marine Corp. An average shooter can
> > > > hit a bull's eye at short range.
>
> > > May have, could have, perhaps, the fact is he couldn't hit a rabbit with a
> > > shotgun in Russia much less with a .22. You have no proof that LHO every
> > > fired a shot at all before he went into the Marines. Just more of you
> > > endless speculation. The facts are that people who observed him said he
> > > couldn't shoot at all. The Russians made fun of his shooting.... Only
> > > hardcore nutter fanatics believe he was competent.
>
> > > JB
>
> > If you could ask JFK, he would probably tell you Oswald was pretty
> > good.- Hide quoted text -
>
>
> forensic experts. The body will tell then where he was hit and from
> what direction.
>
What do you expect to learn from an exhumation that we didn't learn from
the autopsy. You have claimed repeatedly that the autopsy was botched so
we can't trust the information it provided. Specifically, what additional
information do you think we would learn by digging up JFK's remains that
wasn't learned the evening of 11/22/63?
Anthony Marsh
Three things specifically. The fracture of T-1. The path of the bullet
through his body. The exact wounds on the head. And if we are very
lucky, chemical residue from the explosive bullet.
Chuck Schuyler
> Then lets exhume him and ask with an international team of independent
> forensic experts. The body will tell then where he was hit and from
> what direction.
>
> JB-
I thought you had this figured out already and that according to
polls, only ten percent of us unenlightened knuckle-draggers believe
Oswald acted alone. The HSCA said there was a fourth shot, remember?
Let JFK rot in peace, please.
I guess this would be a new, fun way of continuing The Hobby. Dig up
JFK with an international team of "independent" forensic experts.
John Blubaugh
>
It can be determined if the wound in the back of his head was entrance or
exit and place it exactly so that it could be determined if the shot that
caused it came from the TSBD. That has been in dispute for years. People
post here all of the time claiming that the wound was not where the
autopsy doctors said it was and some of these posters are nutters. They
could examine the entrance wound on the temple and declare it as such.
Possible bullet residue may also exist even thought the brain was removed.
Nothing was learned on the evening of 11/22/63 because the autopsy was
unprofessional and incompetent. Bring in an international team of
independent forensic experts to set the record straight. I will live with
how ever it goes, will you? Of course not, you will just claim that you
cannot "see" whatever they discover.
JB
John Blubaugh
On another thread one of your fellow nutters says that the world
overwhelmingly believes that LHO alone murdered JFK. Now you say that only
10% believe that. I always find it amusing that nutters like to defend the
WC but not many of them have any interest in exhuming JFK. It will happen
eventually, probably when Caroline passes on. I do agree with you on one
thing. Nutter fanatics are indeed unenlightened knuckle-draggers......
JB
bigdog
Yes it can and has already been done. It was done the night of 11/22/63.
The photos and x-rays from that procedure were preserved. The top forensic
pathologists in the country have reviewed those materials and concluded
without a doubt that the wound in the back of the skull was an entrance
and the wound in the temple was an exit. But that isn't the answer you
want because it doesn't fit your belief that the shot came from the front
right. If the evidence conflicts with your beliefs, the evidence must be
wrong. It couldn't possibly be that your beliefs are wrong. So now you
want to dig up JFK and have an international team look at those same
wounds our people looked at. Apparently you don't believe that the best
forensic pathologists in this country were competent enough to determine
an entrance from ane exit wound.
> That has been in dispute for years.
Not by anyone who bases their beliefs in hard evidence.
> People
> post here all of the time claiming that the wound was not where the
> autopsy doctors said it was and some of these posters are nutters.
There is some dispute about the precise location of entrance wound because
the FPP disagreed with the autopsy team's findings on that point. There is
no dispute about the direction of the shot or that the back of the head
wound was an entrance.
> They
> could examine the entrance wound on the temple and declare it as such.
> Possible bullet residue may also exist even thought the brain was removed.
>
Bullet fragments were detected on the x-rays and showed a pattern of
dispersal consistent with an entrance in the back of the head. With the
removal of the brain, any fragments which might still remain couldn't
possibly be determined to still be in their original location.
> Nothing was learned on the evening of 11/22/63 because the autopsy was
> unprofessional and incompetent.
Which demonstrates the fallacy of your position. Yes, errors were made but
it is ridiculous to take the position that because we didn't learn
everything we should have, we have to disregard what was learned. That
would be like a team of paleontologists uncovering the bones of a
dinosaur, assembling them only to discover that some of the bones were
missing, and then throwing up their hands and declaring the find was
worthless because they didn't have all the pieces. It would have been nice
to have had a perfect autopsy but that didn't happen so we have to make
the best of what we do have. It would have been nice if the brain had been
properly sectioned but that didn't happen and diggin up JFK isn't going to
correct that mistake. Your position is we have to disregard the 95% that
we did learn from the autopsy because of the 5% we didn't get.
> Bring in an international team of
> independent forensic experts to set the record straight. I will live with
> how ever it goes, will you? Of course not, you will just claim that you
> cannot "see" whatever they discover.
>
Are international pathologists better qualified than ours? This is just a
red herring proposal you have floated because it gives you cover to
disregard the medical evidence. You can claim you would accept the results
of a new autopsy because you know it is not going to happen. Until then
you can continue with your silly claim that the medical evidence we have
is worthless.
I really don't care if they dig up JFK or not, but I'm also realistic
enough to know it isn't going to happen. Caroline Kennedy is not going to
give permission to exhume her father's body which would also disturb the
grave of her mother. No court is going to order it to happen unless
someone can produce probable cause that there is relevant evidence to a
criminal investigation that could be obtained. In light of the fact that
no such criminal investigation is going on and the unanimous opinions of
every qualified person who has reviewed the medical evidence, no such
probable cause exists. The courts are not going to order an exhumation of
JFK just to satisfy your curiosity. That's a good thing for you because if
it ever happened, you would have to invent a whole new set of excuses for
dismissing the evidence against Oswald.
bigdog
As I pointed out in my previous post, the courts could order an exhumation
with or without Caroline Kennedy's permission if there was probable cause
that relevant evidence to a criminal investigation could be obtained. If
such probable cause existed, that could be done now. We would not have to
wait until Caroline Kennedy dies. Nothing will change after she exits.
There will still be no probable cause for an exhumation.
PS. I wouldn't count on Caroline croaking any time soon. If my arithmetic
is correct, she is 53 and the woman in her family tend to live long lives.
Her grandmother lived to be over 100 and most of her aunts lived well into
their 80s. She had the good sense to stay out of planes her brother flew,
which no doubt greatly improved her chances of a long life.
John Blubaugh
It will happen eventually. It may be 50 years from now but it will happen.
JB
John Blubaugh
They were not the best or they wouldn't have let the military people
dictate to them what they could and could not do. Saying they were the
best is a complete joke.
> > That has been in dispute for years.
>
> Not by anyone who bases their beliefs in hard evidence.
>
> > People
> > post here all of the time claiming that the wound was not where the
> > autopsy doctors said it was and some of these posters are nutters.
>
> There is some dispute about the precise location of entrance wound because
> the FPP disagreed with the autopsy team's findings on that point. There is
> no dispute about the direction of the shot or that the back of the head
> wound was an entrance.
>
There is a great deal of dispute about it outside of the nutter
community.
> > They
> > could examine the entrance wound on the temple and declare it as such.
> > Possible bullet residue may also exist even thought the brain was removed.
>
> Bullet fragments were detected on the x-rays and showed a pattern of
> dispersal consistent with an entrance in the back of the head. With the
> removal of the brain, any fragments which might still remain couldn't
> possibly be determined to still be in their original location.
>
That isn't true either.
> > Nothing was learned on the evening of 11/22/63 because the autopsy was
> > unprofessional and incompetent.
>
> Which demonstrates the fallacy of your position. Yes, errors were made but
> it is ridiculous to take the position that because we didn't learn
> everything we should have, we have to disregard what was learned. That
> would be like a team of paleontologists uncovering the bones of a
> dinosaur, assembling them only to discover that some of the bones were
> missing, and then throwing up their hands and declaring the find was
> worthless because they didn't have all the pieces. It would have been nice
> to have had a perfect autopsy but that didn't happen so we have to make
> the best of what we do have. It would have been nice if the brain had been
> properly sectioned but that didn't happen and diggin up JFK isn't going to
> correct that mistake. Your position is we have to disregard the 95% that
> we did learn from the autopsy because of the 5% we didn't get.
>
Again, you reverse those numbers. Only about 5% of what we learned is
worth anything. 95% should be disregarded because of all of the
errors.
> > Bring in an international team of
> > independent forensic experts to set the record straight. I will live with
> > how ever it goes, will you? Of course not, you will just claim that you
> > cannot "see" whatever they discover.
>
> Are international pathologists better qualified than ours? This is just a
> red herring proposal you have floated because it gives you cover to
> disregard the medical evidence. You can claim you would accept the results
> of a new autopsy because you know it is not going to happen. Until then
> you can continue with your silly claim that the medical evidence we have
> is worthless.
>
You forget that "independent" part and that is why international
pathologists are the way to go. The fact is the original autopsy was
incompetent and was influenced by military officials. The medical evidence
you have is worthless because the doctors used were not independent. The
rest of the world would not believe the results if another group of
government pathologists was allowed to conduct a new autopsy. Anything
that is reasonable and right is a silly claim to you. You don't care if
the medical evidence was flawed or the rest of the evidence was
compromised. You don't care about anything but pinning this on LHO alone.
Well, it hasn't and it won't fly.
> I really don't care if they dig up JFK or not, but I'm also realistic
> enough to know it isn't going to happen. Caroline Kennedy is not going to
> give permission to exhume her father's body which would also disturb the
> grave of her mother. No court is going to order it to happen unless
> someone can produce probable cause that there is relevant evidence to a
> criminal investigation that could be obtained. In light of the fact that
> no such criminal investigation is going on and the unanimous opinions of
> every qualified person who has reviewed the medical evidence, no such
> probable cause exists. The courts are not going to order an exhumation of
> JFK just to satisfy your curiosity. That's a good thing for you because if
> it ever happened, you would have to invent a whole new set of excuses for
> dismissing the evidence against Oswald.
>
It will eventually happen. History and justice will demand it. Great
men have been exhumed before and they will be again.
JB
Anthony Marsh
> On Jan 28, 9:46 pm, John Blubaugh<jbluba...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Jan 28, 12:24 pm, Chuck Schuyler<chu...@am-mtg.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Jan 27, 6:12 pm, John Blubaugh<jbluba...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> Then lets exhume him and ask with an international team of independent
>>>> forensic experts. The body will tell then where he was hit and from
>>>> what direction.
>>
>>>> JB-
>>
>>> I thought you had this figured out already and that according to
>>> polls, only ten percent of us unenlightened knuckle-draggers believe
>>> Oswald acted alone. The HSCA said there was a fourth shot, remember?
>>> Let JFK rot in peace, please.
>>
>>> I guess this would be a new, fun way of continuing The Hobby. Dig up
>>> JFK with an international team of "independent" forensic experts.
>>
>> On another thread one of your fellow nutters says that the world
>> overwhelmingly believes that LHO alone murdered JFK. Now you say that only
>> 10% believe that. I always find it amusing that nutters like to defend the
>> WC but not many of them have any interest in exhuming JFK. It will happen
>> eventually, probably when Caroline passes on. I do agree with you on one
>> thing. Nutter fanatics are indeed unenlightened knuckle-draggers......
>>
>> JB
>
> As I pointed out in my previous post, the courts could order an exhumation
> with or without Caroline Kennedy's permission if there was probable cause
> that relevant evidence to a criminal investigation could be obtained. If
What criminal investigation? The FBI officially closed the case.
Anthony Marsh
No, the trail of fragments is much too high to line up with either the
WC theory or the HSCA. That's why the X-rays were kept secret.
http://the-puzzle-palace.com/rgbskull.gif
>> Nothing was learned on the evening of 11/22/63 because the autopsy was
>> unprofessional and incompetent.
>
> Which demonstrates the fallacy of your position. Yes, errors were made but
> it is ridiculous to take the position that because we didn't learn
> everything we should have, we have to disregard what was learned. That
> would be like a team of paleontologists uncovering the bones of a
> dinosaur, assembling them only to discover that some of the bones were
> missing, and then throwing up their hands and declaring the find was
Or like assembling the bones not realizing that they came from two
different species. Or letting the janitor assemble them backwards.
bigdog
I was referring to the FPP, which was comprised of the best forensic
pathologists available at the time. While they found fault with the
original autopsy, they could still figure out that much valuable evidence
was obtained by the autopsy and it clearly indicated the shots came from
behind JFK. That trumps any of your amateurish observations made in
absence of any of the available medical evidence.
> > > That has been in dispute for years.
>
> > Not by anyone who bases their beliefs in hard evidence.
>
> > > People
> > > post here all of the time claiming that the wound was not where the
> > > autopsy doctors said it was and some of these posters are nutters.
>
> > There is some dispute about the precise location of entrance wound because
> > the FPP disagreed with the autopsy team's findings on that point. There is
> > no dispute about the direction of the shot or that the back of the head
> > wound was an entrance.
>
> There is a great deal of dispute about it outside of the nutter
> community.
>
Of course there is. The people outside the "nutter community" are people
who prefer to base their beliefs on their fantasies rather than the
evidence.
> > > They
> > > could examine the entrance wound on the temple and declare it as such.
> > > Possible bullet residue may also exist even thought the brain was removed.
>
> > Bullet fragments were detected on the x-rays and showed a pattern of
> > dispersal consistent with an entrance in the back of the head. With the
> > removal of the brain, any fragments which might still remain couldn't
> > possibly be determined to still be in their original location.
>
> That isn't true either.
>
What isn't true. Since JFK's brain was removed and not replaced, the skull
that is buried in his grave is hollow. If there are any bullet fragments
that originally embedded in his brain but are now inside that empty skull,
they couldn't possibly still be in their original position.
>
>
>
>
> > > Nothing was learned on the evening of 11/22/63 because the autopsy was
> > > unprofessional and incompetent.
>
> > Which demonstrates the fallacy of your position. Yes, errors were made but
> > it is ridiculous to take the position that because we didn't learn
> > everything we should have, we have to disregard what was learned. That
> > would be like a team of paleontologists uncovering the bones of a
> > dinosaur, assembling them only to discover that some of the bones were
> > missing, and then throwing up their hands and declaring the find was
> > worthless because they didn't have all the pieces. It would have been nice
> > to have had a perfect autopsy but that didn't happen so we have to make
> > the best of what we do have. It would have been nice if the brain had been
> > properly sectioned but that didn't happen and diggin up JFK isn't going to
> > correct that mistake. Your position is we have to disregard the 95% that
> > we did learn from the autopsy because of the 5% we didn't get.
>
> Again, you reverse those numbers. Only about 5% of what we learned is
> worth anything. 95% should be disregarded because of all of the
> errors.
>
I don't suppose you have any interest in being specific either about
what should be accepted or what should be disregarded.
> > > Bring in an international team of
> > > independent forensic experts to set the record straight. I will live with
> > > how ever it goes, will you? Of course not, you will just claim that you
> > > cannot "see" whatever they discover.
>
> > Are international pathologists better qualified than ours? This is just a
> > red herring proposal you have floated because it gives you cover to
> > disregard the medical evidence. You can claim you would accept the results
> > of a new autopsy because you know it is not going to happen. Until then
> > you can continue with your silly claim that the medical evidence we have
> > is worthless.
>
> You forget that "independent" part and that is why international
> pathologists are the way to go. The fact is the original autopsy was
> incompetent and was influenced by military officials. The medical evidence
> you have is worthless because the doctors used were not independent. The
> rest of the world would not believe the results if another group of
> government pathologists was allowed to conduct a new autopsy.
Are we supposed to give a shit about what the rest of the world
believes?
> Anything
> that is reasonable and right is a silly claim to you. You don't care if
> the medical evidence was flawed or the rest of the evidence was
> compromised. You don't care about anything but pinning this on LHO alone.
> Well, it hasn't and it won't fly.
>
Actually, I wish a perfect autopsy had been performed but since that
didn't happen and that can't be corrected, we have to make do with what we
have. That autopsy, while imperfect and incomplete, still provided us with
a lot of useful information which you want to disregard but people who are
interested in the truth want to look at.
> > I really don't care if they dig up JFK or not, but I'm also realistic
> > enough to know it isn't going to happen. Caroline Kennedy is not going to
> > give permission to exhume her father's body which would also disturb the
> > grave of her mother. No court is going to order it to happen unless
> > someone can produce probable cause that there is relevant evidence to a
> > criminal investigation that could be obtained. In light of the fact that
> > no such criminal investigation is going on and the unanimous opinions of
> > every qualified person who has reviewed the medical evidence, no such
> > probable cause exists. The courts are not going to order an exhumation of
> > JFK just to satisfy your curiosity. That's a good thing for you because if
> > it ever happened, you would have to invent a whole new set of excuses for
> > dismissing the evidence against Oswald.
>
> It will eventually happen. History and justice will demand it. Great
> men have been exhumed before and they will be again.
>
Right. They dug up Zachary Taylor and the only thing they found out
was that he was still dead.
claviger
> They were not the best or they wouldn't have let the military people
> dictate to them what they could and could not do. Saying they were the
> best is a complete joke.
This myth was busted a long time ago. The only General who had influence
over this autopsy was the Attorney General. The only people who dictated
what they could and could not do were Robert F Kennedy and Jackie Kennedy.
Rear Admiral George G Burkley relayed their wishes to the pathology team.
Since the autopsy was at a Naval Hospital and he was Physician to the
President he had ranking authority to give directions to the pathology
team. Certain procedures not done were at the request of the family.
Navy pathologists would not be the best prosectors on gunshot wounds. Army
pathologists at Walter Reed Army Medical Center are experts in dealing
with and analyzing bullet wounds. It was a mistake in judgement to not
have the autopsy preformed at WRAMC. However, during this autopsy a US
Army pathologist from WRAMC was present as observer and consultant to
assist the Navy pathology team. While the work of this Navy team was not
the best it was adequate to determine two bullets wounded the President.
Both wounds were caused by shots fired from behind the Limousine which
struck the President in the upper back and the back of the skull. Both
shots caused through-and-through wounds.
This US Army observer, who was a specialist in rifle wounds, concurred
with this medical conclusion. There was no wound found on the body of the
President that came from a direction other than behind the Limousine.
Subsequent panels of medical experts agreed with these findings. Your
theory about a shot from the GK is totally devoid of any medical or
forensic evidence.
timstter
But of course let's include a JFK-CT blowhard like Dr Wecht, eh, John?
LOL!
KUTGW, Blubaugh!
Regards,
Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup(s) Commentator*
Anthony Marsh
> On Jan 27, 6:12 pm, John Blubaugh<jbluba...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> Then lets exhume him and ask with an international team of independent
>> forensic experts. The body will tell then where he was hit and from
>> what direction.
>>
>> JB-
>
> I thought you had this figured out already and that according to
> polls, only ten percent of us unenlightened knuckle-draggers believe
> Oswald acted alone. The HSCA said there was a fourth shot, remember?
> Let JFK rot in peace, please.
>
Of course you would like that as a WC defender and leader of the
cover-up. You would prefer that all the evidence be destroyed so that
there is no proof left.
Anthony Marsh
> JB,
>
>> They were not the best or they wouldn't have let the military people
>> dictate to them what they could and could not do. Saying they were the
>> best is a complete joke.
>
> This myth was busted a long time ago. The only General who had influence
> over this autopsy was the Attorney General. The only people who dictated
Silly. Bobby was not in the room. He telephoned the order or sent a
representative. He was staying upstairs with Jackie. We were talking about
the unnameable ARMY general who told Finck to not dissect the back wound.
> what they could and could not do were Robert F Kennedy and Jackie Kennedy.
> Rear Admiral George G Burkley relayed their wishes to the pathology team.
> Since the autopsy was at a Naval Hospital and he was Physician to the
> President he had ranking authority to give directions to the pathology
> team. Certain procedures not done were at the request of the family.
>
A US Navy Admiral is not an Army General. Are these things too hard for
you to understand?
> Navy pathologists would not be the best prosectors on gunshot wounds. Army
> pathologists at Walter Reed Army Medical Center are experts in dealing
> with and analyzing bullet wounds. It was a mistake in judgement to not
> have the autopsy preformed at WRAMC. However, during this autopsy a US
> Army pathologist from WRAMC was present as observer and consultant to
> assist the Navy pathology team. While the work of this Navy team was not
And that is why he was the only one smart enough to know to dissect the
back wound and they were ordered by the military to stop.
> the best it was adequate to determine two bullets wounded the President.
> Both wounds were caused by shots fired from behind the Limousine which
> struck the President in the upper back and the back of the skull. Both
> shots caused through-and-through wounds.
>
They didn't know or determine that at the end of the night. Humes though
the back wound was only an entrance with no exit.
John Blubaugh
>
They exhumed Napoleon and found that he had been murdered.
JB
John Blubaugh
Not true. You keep ignoring that entrance wound in JFK's temple.
JB
John Blubaugh
>
No. I would not include him. I think I used the word independent and
international partly to exclude people like Wecht and people on your side
who have preconceived notions. I might even think have an Australian on
the panel might be good if he or she didn't drink too much beer....
JB
bigdog
There seems to be no conspiracy theory you won't believe.
bigdog
exit.
John Blubaugh
And you don't seem to think any conspiracy can happen. But I don't really
believe in any other conspiracy that I can think of other than the JFK
assassination. Oh, I agree Lincoln died as a result of a conspiracy but
not the silly stuff you guys bring up all the time. Have gotten those eyes
checked yet?
JB
Jason Burke
> On 1/28/2011 12:24 PM, Chuck Schuyler wrote:
>> On Jan 27, 6:12 pm, John Blubaugh<jbluba...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Then lets exhume him and ask with an international team of independent
>>> forensic experts. The body will tell then where he was hit and from
>>> what direction.
>>>
>>> JB-
>>
>> I thought you had this figured out already and that according to
>> polls, only ten percent of us unenlightened knuckle-draggers believe
>> Oswald acted alone. The HSCA said there was a fourth shot, remember?
>> Let JFK rot in peace, please.
>>
>
> Of course you would like that as a WC defender and leader of the
> cover-up. You would prefer that all the evidence be destroyed so that
> there is no proof left.
Let's back up here just a minute, Marsh. *All the evidence* points
toward Oswald. Sooo, you're saying that if it's destroyed it will point
towards someone else???
Come on, be serious!
bigdog
> On Jan 30, 5:55 pm, bigdog <jecorbett1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jan 30, 2:33 pm, John Blubaugh <jbluba...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jan 29, 9:22 pm, bigdog <jecorbett1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > > It will eventually happen. History and justice will demand it. Great
> > > > > men have been exhumed before and they will be again.
>
> > > > Right. They dug up Zachary Taylor and the only thing they found out
> > > > was that he was still dead.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > They exhumed Napoleon and found that he had been murdered.
>
> > > JB
>
> > There seems to be no conspiracy theory you won't believe.
>
> >http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/2371187.stm
>
> And you don't seem to think any conspiracy can happen.
I don't??? That's strange. I don't recall ever saying that, writing
that, or thinking that. That would be a pretty stupid thing to say or
think. About as stupid as the idea that Oswald was innocent.
> But I don't really
> believe in any other conspiracy that I can think of other than the JFK
> assassination. Oh, I agree Lincoln died as a result of a conspiracy but
> not the silly stuff you guys bring up all the time. Have gotten those eyes
> checked yet?
>
Come up for an explaination for how JFK went left after the head shot
yet?
John Blubaugh
> On Jan 31, 12:42 am, John Blubaugh <jbluba...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jan 30, 5:55 pm, bigdog <jecorbett1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jan 30, 2:33 pm, John Blubaugh <jbluba...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Jan 29, 9:22 pm, bigdog <jecorbett1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > > > It will eventually happen. History and justice will demand it. Great
> > > > > > men have been exhumed before and they will be again.
>
> > > > > Right. They dug up Zachary Taylor and the only thing they found out
> > > > > was that he was still dead.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > They exhumed Napoleon and found that he had been murdered.
>
> > > > JB
>
> > > There seems to be no conspiracy theory you won't believe.
>
> > >http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/2371187.stm
>
> > And you don't seem to think any conspiracy can happen.
>
> I don't??? That's strange. I don't recall ever saying that, writing
> that, or thinking that. That would be a pretty stupid thing to say or
> think. About as stupid as the idea that Oswald was innocent.
>
Oh, I forgot you believe everything is a coincidence.
> > But I don't really
> > believe in any other conspiracy that I can think of other than the JFK
> > assassination. Oh, I agree Lincoln died as a result of a conspiracy but
> > not the silly stuff you guys bring up all the time. Have gotten those eyes
> > checked yet?
>
> Come up for an explaination for how JFK went left after the head shot
> yet?- Hide quoted text -
>
I have given it many times. It was a reaction to being hit in the temple
by a shot from the knoll. Have you seen that "back and to the left"
reaction yet?
JB
John Blubaugh
> LHO probably learned to shoot in the CAP. Marksmanship is still part
> of the CAP training program. Later he may have hunted rabbits with a .
> 22 rifle which is common for teenagers in Texas and Louisiana. The .
> 22 rifle is perfect for learning to shoot because it doesn't kick and
> the student can focus on accuracy. Young kids start learning about 10
> years old and womenfolk who live in the country shoot snakes with a .
> 22 that get too close to the house. So LHO was likely an average shot
> with a rifle before he joined the Marine Corp. An average shooter can
> hit a bull's eye at short range.
Maybe his mother bought him a BB gun and he learned to shoot that way.
Probably a Roy Rogers model.
JB
claviger
> Of course you would like that as a WC defender and leader of the
> cover-up. You would prefer that all the evidence be destroyed so that
> there is no proof left.
Chuck is the leader of the cover-up?! WOW! So he's Mr. Big, the
mastermind pulling all the strings! He must have graduated with a MCT
from the University of Spectre Technological Institute, called SpekTek
by the younger graduates.
claviger
> Not true. You keep ignoring that entrance wound in JFK's temple.
OK, so what happened to that bullet? Did it exit the cranium? If
not, the bullet should show up on the Xrays? Some of your fellow CTs
claim it came out the back of the head. Do you want to explain how
your bullet made a 90º left turn inside the brain cavity to defy the
law of physics and exit that direction? And where did this magic
bullet land?
Sandy McCroskey
Everybody catch that crack about Australians?
We're dealing with a very refined sensibility here.
/sm
Sandy McCroskey
It appears that you *still* don't understand Corbett's question.
He has asked you to describe, to characterize, the leftward motion you
see.
Of course he sees the backward motion (which happens much too slowly
to be the result of the impact of any projectile with enough force to
move the whole upper body, whether that be an exploding bullet or a
guided missile).
But he thinks the leftward motion is a misperception.
Since you claim to see this backward motion so clearly, he's merely
asked you (in the thread "Oswald's Shooting Ability: A Moot Point,"
Jan. 28) whether you would describe JFK's torso and head as
(a) tilting,
(b) rotating
or
(c) sliding
to the left?
Or is there another word more precise for what you see?
/sm
Anthony Marsh
> On 1/30/2011 9:29 AM, Anthony Marsh wrote:
>> On 1/28/2011 12:24 PM, Chuck Schuyler wrote:
>>> On Jan 27, 6:12 pm, John Blubaugh<jbluba...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Then lets exhume him and ask with an international team of independent
>>>> forensic experts. The body will tell then where he was hit and from
>>>> what direction.
>>>>
>>>> JB-
>>>
>>> I thought you had this figured out already and that according to
>>> polls, only ten percent of us unenlightened knuckle-draggers believe
>>> Oswald acted alone. The HSCA said there was a fourth shot, remember?
>>> Let JFK rot in peace, please.
>>>
>>
>> Of course you would like that as a WC defender and leader of the
>> cover-up. You would prefer that all the evidence be destroyed so that
>> there is no proof left.
>
> Let's back up here just a minute, Marsh. *All the evidence* points
> toward Oswald. Sooo, you're saying that if it's destroyed it will point
> towards someone else???
>
The evidence points to conspiracy. Hurry up and destroy it all so that
we can't prove it to you.
bigdog
not once have you attempted to explain in what manner he moved left.
You can't explain it because it didn't happen and if you even tried,
you would demonstrate just how silly it is, so you just keep parroting
"back and to the left". Of course I haven't seen "back and to the
left" because it never happened. JFK went straight back. He did not go
left. Your inability to articulate any leftward movement demonstrates
that quite nicely.
Coondog
It was a Red Rider. I see you didn't have one.
Bill Clarke
claviger
a .22, and finally a hunting rifle before they went into the
military. LHO would have the same training in the CAP as he would in
ROTC. The CAP simply adopted the same training regimen as high school
ROTC programs. So LHO was not unfamiliar with rifles before the
Marine Corp. His scores in quals may have been more a reflection of
attitude than ability. When he decided to focus he shot Sharpsman and
obviously was proud of that accomplishment, since that medal was one
of his few keepsakes.
Sandy McCroskey
I meant to write (of course) "Since you claim to see this LEFTward
motion so clearly,"
/sm
John Blubaugh
It may have been an explosive bullet. I am sure you have heard that
mentioned before..
JB
claviger
> So LHO was not unfamiliar with rifles before the Marine Corp. His
> scores in quals may have been more a reflection of attitude than ability.
> When he decided to focus he shot Sharpsman and obviously was proud
> of that accomplishment, since that medal was one of his few keepsakes.
Make that 'Sharpshooter', although in LHO's case "Sharpsman" is a good
description!
bigdog
Not fair. I wanted to be Mr. Big. I called it years ago.
bigdog
>
Thanks for the help, Sandy, but I'm afraid it is futile. JB will continue
to claim JFK moved leftward following the head shot even though neither he
nor anyone else can articulate what form that leftward movement took. If
it is as obvious as he claims, it should be a simple task, but one he does
not seem to be up to.
John Blubaugh
>
Why bother to explain something that is so obvious to see. I just
elect not to play your silly little game. Watch the Z-film.
JB
claviger
One thing might help. The President bounced off the back cushion before
falling into Jackie,s lap. So he did go back and to the left. JB has him
going left and to the back, in which case he should have bounced off
Jackie not the seat cushion. Does that help any? Another film clearly
shows the President going straight back, bouncing off the seat cushion,
then collapsing to his left. Keep in mind he was leaning toward Jackie
when the bullet struck the back of his head. His head tilts forward, then
explodes, driving his torso back into the seat cushion. The bounce off
the cushion pushes him forward as he falls left.
bigdog
But it only exploded at a 90 degree angle to its flight. That is one
magic exploding bullet.
bigdog
The fall to the left has never been in dispute. That happened after
the rearward lurch which was the initial movement following the head
shot. "Back and to the left" as presented by Oliver Stone was the
immediate movement following the head shot as that is the only clip
from the Z-film Stone showed as Costner repeated "back and to the
left" several times.
> Does that help any? Another film clearly
> shows the President going straight back, bouncing off the seat cushion,
> then collapsing to his left. Keep in mind he was leaning toward Jackie
> when the bullet struck the back of his head. His head tilts forward, then
> explodes, driving his torso back into the seat cushion. The bounce off
> the cushion pushes him forward as he falls left.- Hide quoted text -
bigdog
>
> Why bother to explain something that is so obvious to see. I just
> elect not to play your silly little game. Watch the Z-film.
>
leftward movement yourself and not just repeating what Oliver Stone
told you. If it is so obvious, why are you unable to describe it?
Anthony Marsh
NO ONE said left and to the back. NO ONE. You are hallucinating.
It is always back and to the left. BACK and to the LEFT.
BACK AND TO THE LEFT.
And now you finally have admitted that JFK went back and to the left.
So shut up already and cut your losses.
John Blubaugh
I have never been unable to describe it. You don't understand the
difference between unable and unwilling. There is no need to explain
it, it speaks for itself.
JB
John Blubaugh
>
If I had meant that, I would have said "left and to the back". I have
never said that. You are just making things up again.
JB
John Blubaugh
>
Well, you have at least one magic bullet in your theories, I should be
allowed to have one too......
JB
Sandy McCroskey
Obviously, Marsh. But what they mean by "back and to the left" is that
JFK moved in both directions simultaneously. Otherwise this couldn't
have been taken as evidence that a bullet came from the front and the
right.
/sm
claviger
> NO ONE said left and to the back. NO ONE. You are hallucinating.
> It is always back and to the left. BACK and to the LEFT.
> BACK AND TO THE LEFT.
> And now you finally have admitted that JFK went back and to the left.
> So shut up already and cut your losses.
He goes back into the seat cushion and bounces up then falls left onto
Jackie. Two films show this bounce off the back cushion: the Zapruder
film and the Nix film. What you and others are claiming is the
President's body goes back and to the left in the same motion at an
oblique angle. That is different than back and then to the left. If he
went the way you claim he would collide with Jackie which never happened.
He collapsed sideways into her lap.
Sandy McCroskey
You say you can, but we don't believe you.
It would be so easy to prove, if you could.
Anyway, it's back first and *then* to the left.
/sm
Jason Burke
In other words, Blubaugh can't explain it.
Like we didn't know that already.
claviger
Here is where you can see what happened. It is obvious on the Z-film,
even more so on the Nix film.
http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/index.php/Video_Clips_-_Motorcade_Films
claviger
> >> They were not the best or they wouldn't have let the military people
> >> dictate to them what they could and could not do. Saying they were the
> >> best is a complete joke.
> > This myth was busted a long time ago. The only General who had influence
> > over this autopsy was the Attorney General. The only people who dictated
> Silly. Bobby was not in the room. He telephoned the order or sent a
> representative. He was staying upstairs with Jackie.
Yes, the Kennedy family stayed in a suite on the 17th floor. Admiral
Burkley made a couple of visits to the operating room and RFK made one
trip down, but remained in the hallway. What you fail to mention is
there were two FBI agents inside the operating room who monitored all
persons who came and went. There was also a Presidential Aide who
observed the activities in the room. If a mystery General had barged
in on the operating room both RFK and Adm. Burkley would have been
notified immediately.
> We were talking about the unnameable ARMY general who told Finck to not
> dissect the back wound.
There was no unnameable Army general in the room. The FBI made sure
of that. The only person who would have authority to instruct a Navy
pathology team at a Navy hospital would be Admiral Burkley. He
explained the various procedures to the family and they would decide
if they wanted it done or not. They preferred the least amount of
dissection to the President's body, which are completely
understandable feelings by family members. Admiral Burkley complied
with their wishes as much as possible.
> > what they could and could not do were Robert F Kennedy and Jackie Kennedy.
> > Rear Admiral George G Burkley relayed their wishes to the pathology team.
> > Since the autopsy was at a Naval Hospital and he was Physician to the
> > President he had ranking authority to give directions to the pathology
> > team. Certain procedures not done were at the request of the family.
> A US Navy Admiral is not an Army General. Are these things too hard for
> you to understand?
That is why only a US Navy Admiral had authority at a US Navy
Hospital, not an Army General. The Navy pathology team would
immediately notify Admiral Burkley if some uninvited General showed up
and tried to take over the autopsy. I'm sure the FBI would also make
a note of it.
> > Navy pathologists would not be the best prosectors on gunshot wounds. Army
> > pathologists at Walter Reed Army Medical Center are experts in dealing
> > with and analyzing bullet wounds. It was a mistake in judgement to not
> > have the autopsy preformed at WRAMC. However, during this autopsy a US
> > Army pathologist from WRAMC was present as observer and consultant to
> > assist the Navy pathology team. While the work of this Navy team was not
> And that is why he was the only one smart enough to know to dissect the
> back wound and they were ordered by the military to stop.
Requested by the Kennedy family.
> > the best it was adequate to determine two bullets wounded the President.
> > Both wounds were caused by shots fired from behind the Limousine which
> > struck the President in the upper back and the back of the skull. Both
> > shots caused through-and-through wounds.
> They didn't know or determine that at the end of the night. Humes though
> the back wound was only an entrance with no exit.
No bullet showed up in the X-rays.
This fantasy you cling to never happened and it is preposterous to
imagine that it did. General Maxwell D Taylor, who was Chairman of
the JCOS at the time, was a close friend of the Kennedy brothers. One
call to him would have any General causing problems arrested and court-
martialed for attempting to interfere with this autopsy.
The President's autopsy: Oliver Stone's JFK: The JFK 100: JFK ...
http://www.jfk-online.com/jfk100autopsy.html
bigdog
A huge mistake. Since when does the victim's family get to direct the
autopsy. The people making the decisions were too deferential to the
Kennedys' wishes. That is one of the legitimate criticisms of the autopsy.
> > > what they could and could not do were Robert F Kennedy and Jackie Kennedy.
> > > Rear Admiral George G Burkley relayed their wishes to the pathology team.
> > > Since the autopsy was at a Naval Hospital and he was Physician to the
> > > President he had ranking authority to give directions to the pathology
> > > team. Certain procedures not done were at the request of the family.
> > A US Navy Admiral is not an Army General. Are these things too hard for
> > you to understand?
>
> That is why only a US Navy Admiral had authority at a US Navy
> Hospital, not an Army General. The Navy pathology team would
> immediately notify Admiral Burkley if some uninvited General showed up
> and tried to take over the autopsy. I'm sure the FBI would also make
> a note of it.
>
> > > Navy pathologists would not be the best prosectors on gunshot wounds. Army
> > > pathologists at Walter Reed Army Medical Center are experts in dealing
> > > with and analyzing bullet wounds. It was a mistake in judgement to not
> > > have the autopsy preformed at WRAMC. However, during this autopsy a US
> > > Army pathologist from WRAMC was present as observer and consultant to
> > > assist the Navy pathology team. While the work of this Navy team was not
> > And that is why he was the only one smart enough to know to dissect the
> > back wound and they were ordered by the military to stop.
>
> Requested by the Kennedy family.
>
Again, it should not have been their choice.
John Blubaugh
>
More nutter nonsense.
JB
bigdog
You must have worn out your dancing shoes trying to avoid describing JFK's
leftward movement following the head shot. You can't describe it for one
simple reason. It didn't happen. Oliver Stone told you a long time ago JFK
went "back and to the left" following the head shot. You accepted that as
an article of faith upon which you based your entire belief system. Now
you find yourself trying to defend something that is indefensible.
Doesn't it give you pause when you realize you are unable to defend
something that is so fundamental to what you believe. It's rather sad that
your beliefs are faith based and the Oliver Stone is the one who you put
your faith in.
Jason Burke
Excellent response, JB! Your careful, well thought out, and impeccably
displayed analysis is starting to convince me.
John Blubaugh
>
I am not trying to convince anyone of anything. I do enjoy pointing
out how downright silly nutters really are.
JB
imsam2021
Mr Blubaugh,
> I am not trying to convince anyone of anything. I do enjoy pointing
> out how downright silly nutters really are.
In reality, the pointing out has been directed at you as to how downright
silly your arguments are and the evidence you choose to give great weight
in your final analysis. That you choose to place great weight on
unsupported eyewitnesses versus actual documentation that shows otherwise.
That you place great weight on Oswald's performance in riflery 5 years
before the event, which as pointed out by Mr. Schuyler already, his Marine
performance is practically moot as to his ability on 11/22/63.
imsam
Anthony Marsh
> Anthony,
>
>>>> They were not the best or they wouldn't have let the military people
>>>> dictate to them what they could and could not do. Saying they were the
>>>> best is a complete joke.
>>> This myth was busted a long time ago. The only General who had influence
>>> over this autopsy was the Attorney General. The only people who dictated
>> Silly. Bobby was not in the room. He telephoned the order or sent a
>> representative. He was staying upstairs with Jackie.
> Yes, the Kennedy family stayed in a suite on the 17th floor. Admiral
> Burkley made a couple of visits to the operating room and RFK made one
> trip down, but remained in the hallway. What you fail to mention is
> there were two FBI agents inside the operating room who monitored all
> persons who came and went. There was also a Presidential Aide who
Almost, but not quite. S&O were not there all the time and did not
document everyone. They got some of the names wrong.
> observed the activities in the room. If a mystery General had barged
> in on the operating room both RFK and Adm. Burkley would have been
> notified immediately.
>
I never said the mystery General barged in.
>> We were talking about the unnameable ARMY general who told Finck to not
>> dissect the back wound.
> There was no unnameable Army general in the room. The FBI made sure
> of that. The only person who would have authority to instruct a Navy
> pathology team at a Navy hospital would be Admiral Burkley. He
No, they were ordered by their commanding officer to obey the general as
if he were their commanding officer.
> explained the various procedures to the family and they would decide
> if they wanted it done or not. They preferred the least amount of
> dissection to the President's body, which are completely
> understandable feelings by family members. Admiral Burkley complied
> with their wishes as much as possible.
>
Yeah, especially when they wanted to cover up the Addison's Disease and
any other embarrassing diseases.
>>> what they could and could not do were Robert F Kennedy and Jackie Kennedy.
>>> Rear Admiral George G Burkley relayed their wishes to the pathology team.
>>> Since the autopsy was at a Naval Hospital and he was Physician to the
>>> President he had ranking authority to give directions to the pathology
>>> team. Certain procedures not done were at the request of the family.
>> A US Navy Admiral is not an Army General. Are these things too hard for
>> you to understand?
> That is why only a US Navy Admiral had authority at a US Navy
> Hospital, not an Army General. The Navy pathology team would
Not quite true. General Philip C. Wehle was the COMMANDING officer for
the entire Military District of Washington.
> immediately notify Admiral Burkley if some uninvited General showed up
> and tried to take over the autopsy. I'm sure the FBI would also make
> a note of it.
>
The FBI noted some things, but not all things.
>>> Navy pathologists would not be the best prosectors on gunshot wounds. Army
>>> pathologists at Walter Reed Army Medical Center are experts in dealing
>>> with and analyzing bullet wounds. It was a mistake in judgement to not
>>> have the autopsy preformed at WRAMC. However, during this autopsy a US
>>> Army pathologist from WRAMC was present as observer and consultant to
>>> assist the Navy pathology team. While the work of this Navy team was not
>> And that is why he was the only one smart enough to know to dissect the
>> back wound and they were ordered by the military to stop.
> Requested by the Kennedy family.
>
Ordered by an unnamed Army General.
>>> the best it was adequate to determine two bullets wounded the President.
>>> Both wounds were caused by shots fired from behind the Limousine which
>>> struck the President in the upper back and the back of the skull. Both
>>> shots caused through-and-through wounds.
>> They didn't know or determine that at the end of the night. Humes though
>> the back wound was only an entrance with no exit.
> No bullet showed up in the X-rays.
>
Try to pay attention. His theory was that it worked its way out during
the heart massage at Parkland Hospital.
> This fantasy you cling to never happened and it is preposterous to
> imagine that it did. General Maxwell D Taylor, who was Chairman of
It's not my fantasy. It's what Finck said happened. Call him a liar.
> the JCOS at the time, was a close friend of the Kennedy brothers. One
> call to him would have any General causing problems arrested and court-
> martialed for attempting to interfere with this autopsy.
>
We speculate on who the unnamed General was and he probably outranked or
outmuscled Taylor.
bigdog
That's good, because you aren't.
> I do enjoy pointing
> out how downright silly nutters really are.
>
We enjoy it too.
John Blubaugh
>
> - Show quoted text -
Well, I just don't believe that one and I never have. What kind of
practice schedule did he use to get so much better? Is there any
record that he ever fired the MC at all except at Walker and, of
course, he missed. So you folks can keep pointing it out all you like
but it will do you no good with me or the general public. You lost
those battles long ago.
JB
Sandy McCroskey
Yes, indeed, there is.
Why don't you Google it?
Don't *want* to know, do you?
/sm
Sandy McCroskey
That explains why you've never put up any good arguments, let alone
any documentation, citations or proof.
/sm
imsam2021
Mr. Blubaugh,
>What kind of practice schedule did he use to get so much better?
There is no data in this regard. Seeing that there is no data in this
regard,
how can one state that he got better? or worse?
The question you raise doesn't need to be answered. It would be nice
to
possibly add yet another piece of evidence, albeit a history of his
ability,
but it's just not there. No Big Deal! There is a vast amount of
evidence
that when reconciled correctly concludes that Oswald acted alone.
Yet, you are making this a very big deal in an attempt to support
your
conspiracy claim. That until this question is answered along with 100s
more
unanswerabke questions, you will continue to believe in a conspiracy
and continue to downright ignore the evidence that shows Oswlad
acted alone.
You are coming up subjectively short and nowhere near being
objectively short. Either way, you are way short on evidence,
and the reason why CTers have yet to proclaim a sort
of CV DAY. Conspiracy Victory Day to celebrate the finding
of that evidence that fully supports a conspiracy.
imsam
>Is there any
> record that he ever fired the MC at all except at Walker and, of
> course, he missed. So you folks can keep pointing it out all you like
> but it will do you no good with me or the general public. You lost
> those battles long ago.
>
> JB- Hide quoted text -
Anthony Marsh
I think we can infer that Oswald test fired 15 rounds with his new rifle
because the ammo is sold in boxes of 20 and he only had 4 rounds left by
11/22/63.
Oswald must have fired hundreds of rounds in the Marines to become
familiar with his rifle, but I think he was too cheap to buy hundreds of
rounds for his new rifle.
bigdog
> practice schedule did he use to get so much better? Is there any
> record that he ever fired the MC at all except at Walker and, of
> course, he missed. So you folks can keep pointing it out all you like
> but it will do you no good with me or the general public. You lost
> those battles long ago.
>
That's because the general public is as uninformed as you are. They
believe the same myths you do. Their beliefs aren't based on any hard
evidence, just like yours.
Coondog
Like the Claps?
At the time Taylor was Chairman of the JCS so he wasn't outranked,
General.
Taylor was not the type to be outmuscled. So probably the reason your
general is "unnamed" is because he doesn't exist.
Bill Clarke
Anthony Marsh
He was unnamed because Finck didn't know who he was.
> Bill Clarke
>
Anthony Marsh
Oh, I see. So the vast majority of the public are stupid and only you in
the ruling elite are smart. Is that how it works?
Jason Burke
Actually, the vast majority of the general public could not care less
one way or the other.
However, the vast majority of folks who have done the teensiest bit of
research on the subject come to the only logical conclusion. Just so
that those us not in that cohort know:
It was LHO from the TBS with the MC.
And no one else.
John Blubaugh
>
> - Show quoted text -
Blah, blah, blah (insert standard nutter nonsense and insults and say
absolutely nothing).
JB
bigdog
> absolutely nothing).
>
Well maybe if you would ever cite evidence when asked to do so, we
wouldn't say things like your beliefs not being based on evidence. As it
is, you make claims without ever trying to support them with actual
evidence and expect to be taken seriously. If you would change your
tactics, you would get a little more respect.
Anthony Marsh
Well maybe if you would pay attention the first time we wouldn't have to
post the same evidence 1,000 times just for you.
Anthony Marsh
Conspiracy theories vastly outnumber WC defenders. When was the last
time the WC defenders held a research conference and how many of them
showed up? Maybe 10? As compared to 400-500 conspiracy researchers.
Coondog
Then why didn't Finck look at this unnamed general's name plate on his
uniform? A name tag is on every uniform a soldier wears, from his
fatigues to his Class A to his Dress Blues. Remember?
On top of that the number of full bull genereals is rather small (12 or so
I believe), especially back then. Easy to pick out of a photo line-up.
Even the lesser generals would have been easy to pick out of a photo
line-up.
Makes one wonder why Finck didn't identify him, isn't it? Makes me wonder
if he ever existed.
Bill Clarke
Jason Burke
And nutjobs in this arena vastly outnumber researchers who look at the
science and evidence and come to conclusions based on that. Why would "WC
defenders" (instead try "people who used reason to figure out what
happened") have a conference? It's like having a conference to prove the
world is not flat.
So what?
Jason Burke
The problem is:
What you've posted 1,000 times isn't evidence. Especially Blubaugh's
thousands of "evidence" related posts which ALL boil down to 'look it up
on google'.
Every single one of them.
Anthony Marsh
Maybe because he wasn't in uniform. Why is it that you discuss topics
without knowing anything about them?
> On top of that the number of full bull genereals is rather small (12 or so
> I believe), especially back then. Easy to pick out of a photo line-up.
> Even the lesser generals would have been easy to pick out of a photo
> line-up.
>
Garrison did not think beforehand to prepare a chart of generals because
this came out unexpectedly.
> Makes one wonder why Finck didn't identify him, isn't it? Makes me wonder
> if he ever existed.
>
Are you calling Finck a liar? Is that your only way out?
> Bill Clarke
>
Coondog
Then this bring up the even bigger question; How the hell did Finck how
the man was a general? He take his word for it? Pretty weak. Now the
unnamed general could have shown Finck his military ID whiich has his
picture on it but, alas, it also has his name and rank on it. Pretty weak
again.
> > On top of that the number of full bull genereals is rather small (12 or so
> > I believe), especially back then. Easy to pick out of a photo line-up.
> > Even the lesser generals would have been easy to pick out of a photo
> > line-up.
>
> Garrison did not think beforehand to prepare a chart of generals because
> this came out unexpectedly.
Pretty weak again. What about preparing a chart afterhand?
> > Makes one wonder why Finck didn't identify him, isn't it? Makes me wonder
> > if he ever existed.
>
> Are you calling Finck a liar?
No, not really. I'd just like to know how Finck knew the man was a
general and why he didn't know the name of the general before he obeyed
such an order. With your vast and far reaching knowledge can you tell me
the answer? I hope so.
Bill Clarke
Jean Davison
"Anthony Marsh" <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:4d4d...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
From the HSCA's Volume 7, Section II:
QUOTE:
(78) The committee determined that it was Dr. Humes and not any army
general or other person who made the decision not to dissect the back
entry wound. The following exchange between one of the medical consultants
for the committee and Dr. Humes supports this conclusion:
Dr. BADEN. Now, for example, not exploring the wound from
the back to the neck, that was not done. I mean, cutting it
open completely. That wasn't done specifically; was that
because somebody said, "Don't do it"?
Dr. HUMES. Now wait a minute, that wound was excised.
Dr. BADEN. The back wound?
Dr. HUMES. Yes, sir. The back of the neck, and there are
microscopic slides of that wound.
Dr. BADEN. I see. The skin was taken out. And then was --
Dr. HUMES. It was probed.
Dr. BADEN. Was it opened up?
Dr. HUMES. It was not laid open.
Dr. BADEN. Now that was your decision as opposed to somebody
else's decision?
Dr. HUMES. Yes. It was mine. (101)
UNQUOTE
More context is here:
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/autopsy3.txt
or here:
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/html/HSCA_Vol7_0012b.htm
Jean
John McAdams
<jjdavison...@yahoo.com> wrote:
While I don't think Humes was lying about this, there is an important
bit of context.
The folks on the 17th floor (Jackie, Bobby, McNamara, and quite a lot
of loyal Kennedy people) were calling down every so often asking, in
effect "when will this be over?"
So the autopsists were indeed pressured. And not for any nefarious
reason, but because the folks on the 17th floor didn't know how long a
good forensic autopsy takes, and wanted to get JFK fixed up for an
open casket viewing.
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Anthony Marsh
You really have no idea what you are talking about because you never did
your homework and read Finck's testimony.
Q: Was Dr. Humes running the show?
A: Well, I heard Dr. Humes stating that -- he said, "Who is in charge
here?" and I heard an Army General, I don't remember his name, stating, I
am." You must understand that in those circumstances, there were law
enforcement officers, military people with various ranks, and you have to
co-ordinate the operation according to directions.
Q: But you were one of the three qualified pathologists standing at that
autopsy table, were you not, Doctor?
A: Yes, I am.
Q: Was this Army General a qualified pathologist?
A: No.
Q: Was he a doctor?
A: No, not to my knowledge.
Q: Can you give me his name, Colonel?
A: No, I can't. I don't remember.
Q: Do you happened to have the photographs and X-rays taken of President
Kennedy's body at the time of the autopsy and shortly thereafter? Do you?
A: I do not have X-rays or photographs of President Kennedy with me.
Q: What time did you arrive at Bethesda Naval Hospital in regard to the
autopsy? By that I mean was the autopsy already begun?
A: When I arrived, X-rays had been taken of the head. I had been told so
over the phone by Dr. Humes when he called me at home, and I arrived, I
would say, a short time after the beginning of the autopsy, I can't give
you an exact time, it was approximately 8:00 o'clock at night.
Q: Had any work been done on President Kennedy's body in regard to the
performing of the autopsy by the time you got there?
A: As I recall, the brain had been removed. Dr. Humes told me that to
remove the brain he did not have to carry out the procedure you carry out
when there is no wound in the skull. The wound was of such an extent, over
five inches in diameter, that it was not of a great difficulty for him to
remove this brain, and this is the best of my recollection. There were no
removals of the wound of entry in the back of the eck, no removal of the
wound of entry in the back of the head prior to my arrival, and I made a
positive identification of both wounds of entry. At this time I might, for
the sake of clarity, say that in the autopsy report we may have called the
first wound the one in the head and the second wound the one in the neck,
because we did not know the sequence of shots at that time. Again, the
sequence of shots was determined by the Zapruder film, so what we did, we
determined the entry of the bullet wound and stated that there were two
bullet wounds, one in the back of the neck and the other in the back of
the head, without giving a sequence.
Q: How many other military personnel were present at the autopsy in the
autopsy room?
A: That autopsy room was quite crowded. It is a small autopsy room, and
when you are called in circumstances like that to look at the wound of the
President of the United States who is dead, you don't look around too much
to ask people for their names and take notes on who they are and how many
there are. I did not do so. The room was crowded with military and
civilian personnel and federal agents, Secret Service agents, FBI agents,
for part of the autopsy, but I cannot give you a precise breakdown as
regards the attendance of the people in that autopsy room at Bethesda
Naval Hospital.
Q: Colonel, did you feel that you had to take orders from this Army
General that was there directing the autopsy?
A: No, because there were others, there were Admirals.
Q: There were Admirals?
A: Oh, yes, there were Admirals, and when you are a Lieutenant Colonel in
the Army you just follow orders, and at the end of the autopsy we were
specifically told -- as I recall it, it was by Admiral Kinney, the Surgeon
General of the Navy -- this is sub- ject to verification -- we were
specifically told not to discuss the case.
Q: You were told not to discuss the case?
A: -- to discuss the case without coordination with the Attorney General.
> unnamed general could have shown Finck his military ID whiich has his
> picture on it but, alas, it also has his name and rank on it. Pretty weak
> again.
>
That never came up.
>
>>> On top of that the number of full bull genereals is rather small (12 or so
>>> I believe), especially back then. Easy to pick out of a photo line-up.
>>> Even the lesser generals would have been easy to pick out of a photo
>>> line-up.
>>
>> Garrison did not think beforehand to prepare a chart of generals because
>> this came out unexpectedly.
>
> Pretty weak again. What about preparing a chart afterhand?
>
>
>>> Makes one wonder why Finck didn't identify him, isn't it? Makes me wonder
>>> if he ever existed.
>>
>> Are you calling Finck a liar?
>
> No, not really. I'd just like to know how Finck knew the man was a
> general and why he didn't know the name of the general before he obeyed
> such an order. With your vast and far reaching knowledge can you tell me
> the answer? I hope so.
>
Not if Finck was not brave enough to say it.
> Bill Clarke
>
Jean Davison
"John McAdams" <john.m...@marquette.edu> wrote in message
news:2virk651p9dc1s92o...@4ax.com...
True, and the HSCA mentioned that:
QUOTE:
(80) While General McHugh or others may not have stated or implied that
the doctors should limit the autopsy, their remarks no doubt caused
consternation, although they may not have substantively affected the
autopsy. The following passage explains this view:
(81) Dr. HUMES. There were no questions but we were being urged to
expedite this examination as quickly as possible, that members of the
President's family were in the building, that they refused to leave the
premises until the President's body was ready to be moved; and similar
remarks of the vein which we made every effort to put aside and approach
the investigation in as scientific a manner as we could. But did it
harass us and cause difficulty--of course it did, how could it not!
UNQUOTE
Jean
Coondog
> On 2/5/2011 3:26 PM, Coondog wrote:
>
> > On Feb 5, 12:48 pm, Anthony Marsh<anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >> On 2/4/2011 8:28 PM, Coondog wrote:
>
> >>> On Feb 3, 9:52 pm, Anthony Marsh<anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >>>> On 2/3/2011 8:18 PM, Coondog wrote:
>
> >>>>> On Feb 3, 7:47 am, Anthony Marsh<anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >>>>>> On 2/2/2011 1:26 PM, claviger wrote:
>
> You really have no idea what you are talking about because you never did
> your homework and read Finck's testimony.
Actually I have read it Marsh. I point out that Finck said he couldn't
remember the general's name which is different from not knowing the
general as you claim.
He also says this unnamed general didn't cut a lot of ice since there were
Admirals in the room. Did you catch this?
Bill Clarke
Anthony Marsh
> On Feb 5, 6:40 pm, Anthony Marsh<anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On 2/5/2011 3:26 PM, Coondog wrote:
>>
>>> On Feb 5, 12:48 pm, Anthony Marsh<anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>> On 2/4/2011 8:28 PM, Coondog wrote:
>>
>>>>> On Feb 3, 9:52 pm, Anthony Marsh<anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/3/2011 8:18 PM, Coondog wrote:
>>
>>>>>>> On Feb 3, 7:47 am, Anthony Marsh<anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2/2/2011 1:26 PM, claviger wrote:
>>
>> You really have no idea what you are talking about because you never did
>> your homework and read Finck's testimony.
>
> Actually I have read it Marsh. I point out that Finck said he couldn't
> remember the general's name which is different from not knowing the
> general as you claim.
>
At the time the question was asked it is the same thing.
It's also obvious that Finck was coached and committing perjury.
> He also says this unnamed general didn't cut a lot of ice since there were
> Admirals in the room. Did you catch this?
>
It was not the admiral who told Humes that he was in charge.
> Bill Clarke
Bud
Bill,
Boswell also mentions an army general claiming to be in charge. You can
find it on page 40 here in Boswell`s ARRB deposition...
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/franzen.htm
The major points are the same in both accounts (Army general saying "I`m
in charge"), but the Boswell account has it happening outside when
Kennedy`s body is being delivered. This would be before Finck had arrived.
But there is a possible explanation how Finck could have incorporated the
exchange into his account. Boswell says during the Clay Shaw trial this
incident made the papers. Perhaps Finck read about the exchange and it got
incorporated into his memory as if he was there. Since Finck got there
later, after the autopsy had already started it doesn`t make sense that
Humes would be asking THEN who was in charge. Boswell`s account makes more
sense. CTers just like the sound of mysterious unnamed generals pulling
strings behind the scenes better.
John Blubaugh
If he had known the general, he would have recalled his name.
JB
Bud
Boswell has Humes asking the people outside who brought Kennedy body who
was in charge, and a general came forward and said he was. Page 40 here...
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/boswella.htm
> Bill Clarke
Bud
> On Feb 6, 3:12 pm, Coondog <billcla...@live.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 5, 6:40 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > > On 2/5/2011 3:26 PM, Coondog wrote:
>
> > > > On Feb 5, 12:48 pm, Anthony Marsh<anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > > >> On 2/4/2011 8:28 PM, Coondog wrote:
>
> > > >>> On Feb 3, 9:52 pm, Anthony Marsh<anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > > >>>> On 2/3/2011 8:18 PM, Coondog wrote:
>
> > > >>>>> On Feb 3, 7:47 am, Anthony Marsh<anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > > >>>>>> On 2/2/2011 1:26 PM, claviger wrote:
>
> > > You really have no idea what you are talking about because you never did
> > > your homework and read Finck's testimony.
>
> > Actually I have read it Marsh. I point out that Finck said he couldn't
> > remember the general's name which is different from not knowing the
> > general as you claim.
>
> > He also says this unnamed general didn't cut a lot of ice since there were
> > Admirals in the room. Did you catch this?
>
> > Bill Clarke
>
> Bill,
>
> Boswell also mentions an army general claiming to be in charge. You can
> find it on page 40 here in Boswell`s ARRB deposition...
>
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/franzen.htm
Sorry, wrong link, heres the correct one...
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/boswella.htm
Coondog
>
> - Show quoted text -
Thanks Bud.
Bill Clarke