BUGLIOSI'S BLUSTER

[John Fiorentino]

In the radio debate between Vince Bugliosi and Cyril Wecht Bugliosi calls
his own book, "a book for the ages" and refers to Wecht as a "scholar."

He also screws up the single bullet theory by referring to the contrived
HSCA 1.66 seconds between shots.

And agrees with Wecht's notion that the bullet which transited JFK was
moving upwards by 11 degrees.

Some evidence that Bugliosi may not be as familiar with the evidence as he
would like us to believe.

And of course calling your own work "Reclaiming History" "a book for the
ages" is well...............you put a name to it.

Bugliosi of course also wrote: "The Prosecution of George W. Bush for
Murder"

Ya got to wonder a little about Vince.

John F.

[David Von Pein]

>>> "And agrees with Wecht's notion that the bullet which transited JFK
was moving upwards by 11 degrees." <<<

Vince probably doesn't really believe that silly "11 degrees upwards"
crap. But it's kind of hard to tell which side of the fence Vince is on
regarding this issue:

http://reclaiminghistory.blogspot.com/#JFK-Wounds-Pages-423-And-424

[Anthony Marsh]

He's not even sure when the SBT was. Most WC defenders are not.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 3/31/2013 6:05 PM, John Fiorentino wrote:
> In the radio debate between Vince Bugliosi and Cyril Wecht Bugliosi calls
> his own book, "a book for the ages" and refers to Wecht as a "scholar."
>
> He also screws up the single bullet theory by referring to the contrived
> HSCA 1.66 seconds between shots.
>

How so? Explain.

> And agrees with Wecht's notion that the bullet which transited JFK was
> moving upwards by 11 degrees.
>

Sorta.

> Some evidence that Bugliosi may not be as familiar with the evidence as he
> would like us to believe.
>
> And of course calling your own work "Reclaiming History" "a book for the
> ages" is well...............you put a name to it.
>

Delusions of Grandeur.

[John Fiorentino]

David:

Unless I've missed something that link goes to your review of Bugliosi's
book.

I admittedly did not read the whole thing, but saw nothing specific about
the "upwards" trajectory through JFK.

In any event, if Vince thinks it's "silly" he should have said so when he
had the chance in the interview with Wecht.

Vince is also confused on the NAA evidence.

John F.





"David Von Pein" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:7b51815e-bcc8-48df...@u20g2000yqj.googlegroups.com...

[John Fiorentino]

Oh yes, I forgot, Vince thinks (according to the interview with Wecht)
that JFK was hit at z-frame 210.


John F.



"John Fiorentino" <jefior...@optimum.net> wrote in message news:...

> In the radio debate between Vince Bugliosi and Cyril Wecht Bugliosi calls
> his own book, "a book for the ages" and refers to Wecht as a "scholar."
>
> He also screws up the single bullet theory by referring to the contrived
> HSCA 1.66 seconds between shots.
>

> And agrees with Wecht's notion that the bullet which transited JFK was
> moving upwards by 11 degrees.
>

> Some evidence that Bugliosi may not be as familiar with the evidence as he
> would like us to believe.
>
> And of course calling your own work "Reclaiming History" "a book for the
> ages" is well...............you put a name to it.
>

[John Fiorentino]

Anthony asks..............

"How so? Explain."

But Anthony believes the acoustic evidence is valid.

1.66 seconds is crap. Read HOW and by WHOM is was done.

John F.





"Anthony Marsh" <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:5159438c$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...

[Anthony Marsh]

On 4/1/2013 10:07 PM, John Fiorentino wrote:
> Anthony asks..............
>
> "How so? Explain."
>
> But Anthony believes the acoustic evidence is valid.
>
> 1.66 seconds is crap. Read HOW and by WHOM is was done.
>
> John F.
>

Excuse me? WC defenders have fired two shots within 1.66 seconds.
A couple of Ayoob's mercenaries did it. The kook in the desert fired 7
shots in 6 seconds.

http://the-puzzle-palace.com/Ayoob%204.jpg

[Anthony Marsh]

On 4/1/2013 9:48 PM, John Fiorentino wrote:
> Oh yes, I forgot, Vince thinks (according to the interview with Wecht)
> that JFK was hit at z-frame 210.
>

And also at frame 225. He just can't make up his mind. It depends on
whether the day is an odd number or an even number.

[pjsp...@aol.com]

On Sunday, March 31, 2013 3:05:06 PM UTC-7, John Fiorentino wrote:
> In the radio debate between Vince Bugliosi and Cyril Wecht Bugliosi calls
>
> his own book, "a book for the ages" and refers to Wecht as a "scholar."
>
>
>
> He also screws up the single bullet theory by referring to the contrived
>
> HSCA 1.66 seconds between shots.
>
>
>
> And agrees with Wecht's notion that the bullet which transited JFK was
>
> moving upwards by 11 degrees.
>
>
>
> Some evidence that Bugliosi may not be as familiar with the evidence as he
>
> would like us to believe.
>
>
>
> And of course calling your own work "Reclaiming History" "a book for the
>
> ages" is well...............you put a name to it.

It's even worse than you suspect, John. Bugliosi gave an interview in
which he said he hoped his book would be considered a "book for the ages."
Within days of this interview, Jim Newton--who'd just published a
biography on Earl Warren--published a review of Bugliosi's book in the
L.A. Times in which he called the book a "book for the ages". Bugliosi
then traveled around the country telling people the L.A. Times called his
book a "book for the ages." The whole thing reeked of a set-up designed to
boost Bugliosi's ego.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 3/31/2013 7:23 PM, David Von Pein wrote:
>

Why are you so clueless? The Bug wants to defer to the expert, Dr.
Michael Baen, who claims that JFK was leaning over by 18 degrees.
That changes an upward wound path into a downward trajectory.

http://the-puzzle-palace.com/Baden%5B1%5D.jpg

[John Fiorentino]

Publish the data Tony and provide the citations.

I am referring specifically to the HSCA Carcano rifle tests.

John F.

"Anthony Marsh" <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote in message

news:515a4833$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...

[John Fiorentino]

Well an ego can be a very productive thing. The trick is to ride it,
rather than let it ride you.

John F.

"pjsp...@AOL.COM" <pjsp...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:feba2e9b-6075-4ea3...@googlegroups.com...

[David Von Pein]

TONY M.:

>>> "The Bug wants to defer to the expert, Dr. Michael Ba[d]en, who claims

that JFK was leaning over by 18 degrees." <<<

DVP:

But "The Bug" cannot possibly be doing any such deferring since he's
relying on this autopsy photo below for the truth (which, of course, is
the best evidence there is to verify that there is no way in Hades that
JFK's neck wound was anatomically higher than his back wound):

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-SsPcIgX-pRs/UURG4x70gjI/AAAAAAAAt4I/VvLIzg3fqFQ/s622/00a.+JFK+Autopsy+Photo.jpg

And this paragraph in Vince's book (which is VB's last salvo, so to speak,
on this subject in the main text, after totally contradicting what he just
told his readers on page #423) certainly indicates that Vince does not
believe that Kennedy was leaning over by 18 degrees when he was shot in
the back:

"Perhaps the clearest visual evidence of the fact that the entrance
wound in the [President's] back was definitely above the exit wound in the
throat appears in one of [the autopsy] photos taken of the left side of
the president's head as he is lying on his back, his head on a metal
headrest. Only the wound to the throat is visible, not the wound to his
upper right back. However, it couldn't be clearer from this photo that the
wound to the back was definitely above the exit wound in the throat." --
Vincent B.; Page 424 of "RH"

[John Fiorentino]

Then why did he agree with Wecht in the interview??

John F.


"David Von Pein" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message

news:bfec3783-1dcb-4d6e...@f5g2000yqp.googlegroups.com...

[John Fiorentino]

Geez, I wonder if ol Vinny ripped ol Johnny (me) off?

anyway, no further comment for now, other than I had (have) this same
comparison in my ist draft manuscript copyright 1993.

I also discovered that the HSCA FPP used only the scans of the X-rays in
making their determinations.

Vince asked for confirmation of that fact and this went from me through
Steve Barber to Vince.

I wonder if Steve still remembers this??

Steve.......you there??

John F.




"David Von Pein" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:bfec3783-1dcb-4d6e...@f5g2000yqp.googlegroups.com...
>

[John Canal]

In article <bfec3783-1dcb-4d6e...@f5g2000yqp.googlegroups.com>,
David Von Pein says...

Hi David,

Just because I know how much you and my friend, Vince, enjoy discussing
the medical evidence with me, I decided to help at least you make your day
by briefly responding to this....with a couple of simple questions.

If the aforementioned autopsy photo so clearly shows that the throat wound
was below the back wound doesn't it make you wonder--even a tiny bit--why
Humes had Rydberg fudge the location of the back wound in CEs 385 and 388
(please see the links)?

http://img593.imageshack.us/img593/9234/ce3852.jpg

http://imageshack.us/a/img861/7946/ce388.jpg

Surely you don't think the wound was drawn well above where it was on the
body just because, "the drawings weren't intended to be accurate"....IOW,
because of an innocent error.....right?

Also, if that photo made it so clear the throat wound was below the back
wound doesn't it make you wonder why Gerald Ford had the original wording
of the WC description of the back wound location (which read, "in his
uppermost back") changed to read, "at the back of his neck"?

And lastly, if that photo made it so clear the throat wound was below the
back wound, doesn't it make you wonder why Baden came up with his theory
the back wound, when JFK was erect, was actually somewhat below the throat
wound (re. the graphic in this link)?

http://imageshack.us/a/img838/1670/bulletpaths1hsca231.jpg

You don't think, Baden thinks (for once) like I do that the head rest
undermines any attempt to accurately gleen from that photo whether (when
he was erect--no stirrup--sort of like when he was shot) the back wound
was higher than the throat wound or vise-versa, do you?

Not even a tiny bit?

Thanks for your, per usual, honest answers.

Cheers.

John C.


--
John Canal
jca...@webtv.net

[Anthony Marsh]

You are forgetting a couple of things. First, the autopsy doctors were
not allowed to see the autopsy photos and did everything from memory.
Second, everyone was assured that the public would never be allowed the
see the autopsy photos.

> Also, if that photo made it so clear the throat wound was below the back
> wound doesn't it make you wonder why Gerald Ford had the original wording
> of the WC description of the back wound location (which read, "in his
> uppermost back") changed to read, "at the back of his neck"?
>

Only AFTER Specter came out with his Single-Bullet Theory.

> And lastly, if that photo made it so clear the throat wound was below the
> back wound, doesn't it make you wonder why Baden came up with his theory
> the back wound, when JFK was erect, was actually somewhat below the throat
> wound (re. the graphic in this link)?
>

Now you know why Baden had to demonstrate leaning over by 18 degrees.
Unfortunately the acoustical evidence stuck them with frame 190 for
THEIR SBT.

[David Von Pein]

JOHN CANAL SAID:

If that photo made it so clear the throat wound was below the back

wound, doesn't it make you wonder why Baden came up with his theory
the back wound, when JFK was erect, was actually somewhat below the

throat wound.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

It makes me wonder if the HSCA/FPP ever even bothered to turn this
autopsy sideways, such as below:

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-SsPcIgX-pRs/UURG4x70gjI/AAAAAAAAt4I/VvLIzg3fqFQ/s622/00a.+JFK+Autopsy+Photo.jpg

If they had, do you think ANYONE could have really thought that
visible throat wound was HIGHER on the body than the back wound?
Impossible.


JOHN CANAL SAID:

You don't think Baden thinks (for once) like I do that the head rest

undermines any attempt to accurately gleen from that photo whether
(when he was erect--no stirrup--sort of like when he was shot) the
back wound was higher than the throat wound or vise-versa, do you? Not
even a tiny bit?

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

No. Not even a tiny bit.

Do you REALLY think that if the metal headrest was removed from this
picture, it would mean that the upper back of JFK (and, hence, the
place where the bullet hole in his back was located) would DROP a
considerable distance when compared with the wound that is fully
visible in Kennedy's throat?:

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-SsPcIgX-pRs/UURG4x70gjI/AAAAAAAAt4I/VvLIzg3fqFQ/s622/00a.+JFK+Autopsy+Photo.jpg

If the headrest were to be removed, then JFK's head (which is attached
to a pivoting neck) would fall flat against the autopsy table, yes.
But would the removal of the headrest affect his UPPER BACK a great
deal--if at all?

Also: Do you think JFK's BACK is touching the table in that photo? I
say it is. How could it NOT be (unless somebody was physically
propping it up off the table--which nobody is doing in that autopsy
photograph)?

That throat wound is LOWER than the back wound--without a speck of a
doubt, IMO. The HSCA was wrong on this point.

And even Dr. Humes, in 1964, said the back wound was higher (although,
granted, he never measured the height difference of the two wounds)--
but Humes did say this to the Warren Commission:

"The wound in the anterior portion of the lower neck is
physically lower than the point of entrance posteriorly." -- J.J.
Humes

Should everybody just IGNORE the above testimony, which comes from one
of the very few people in the world who actually had the opportunity
to SEE President Kennedy on the autopsy table on the night of
11/22/63?

If I am supposed to just toss aside Dr. James Humes' above testimony
about the throat wound being "physically lower" than the upper-back
wound, please tell me WHY I should toss it in the trash.

[David Von Pein]

JOHN FIORENTINO ASKED:

Then why did he [Vincent Bugliosi] agree with Wecht in the
interview??


DAVID VON PEIN SAYS:

Probably because Vince's memory sucks. (And mine is getting almost as
bad, and I'm only 51.) :(

In short, Vince just flat-out doesn't remember that he wrote these
words on page 424 of his book:

"Perhaps the clearest visual evidence of the fact that the
entrance wound in the [President's] back was definitely above the exit
wound in the throat appears in one of [the autopsy] photos taken of
the left side of the president's head as he is lying on his back, his
head on a metal headrest. Only the wound to the throat is visible, not
the wound to his upper right back. However, it couldn't be clearer
from this photo that the wound to the back was definitely above the
exit wound in the throat."

-------

Mr. Bugliosi suffers brain cramps quite often. To illustrate that
fact, have you heard Vincent's extremely embarrassing gaffe during a
radio interview in November 2007? It's a dilly. I talk about it here:

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2011/07/reclaiming-history-errors.html#11-21-07-Radio-Interview

[David Von Pein]

JOHN FIORENTINO SAID:

Geez, I wonder if ol Vinny ripped ol Johnny (me) off?

Anyway, no further comment for now, other than I had (have) this same
comparison in my 1st draft manuscript copyright 1993.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

I don't think Vince had to "rip off" anyone. He has had access to the
same autopsy photo that everyone else has. He could have merely come
to the same conclusion on his own after just turning that autopsy
picture sideways. Heck, who WOULDN'T come to the conclusion that the
throat wound was anatomically lower than the back wound after just one
brief glance at that picture?

In fact, several months prior to Bugliosi's book being published, I
wrote the post below regarding the wound locations. I hope you don't
think that *I*, too, ripped you off, John. :-) I certainly haven't
been privy to your book manuscript, have I?.....

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/d1d7ea222703d800

What is it they say --- Great minds.... :-)

JOHN FIORENTINO SAID:

I also discovered that the HSCA FPP used only the scans of the X-rays
in making their determinations.

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Which is all the more reason to suspect that the HSCA people never
even bothered to turn this autopsy picture sideways:

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-SsPcIgX-pRs/UURG4x70gjI/AAAAAAAAt4I/VvLIzg3fqFQ/s1600/00a.+JFK+Autopsy+Photo.jpg

[mainframetech]

On Apr 3, 11:47 pm, John Canal <John_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> In article <bfec3783-1dcb-4d6e-bf04-eb2e288ac...@f5g2000yqp.googlegroups.com>,

> David Von Pein says...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >TONY M.:
>
> >>>> "The Bug wants to defer to the expert, Dr. Michael Ba[d]en, who claims
> >that JFK was leaning over by 18 degrees." <<<
>
> >DVP:
>
> >But "The Bug" cannot possibly be doing any such deferring since he's
> >relying on this autopsy photo below for the truth (which, of course, is
> >the best evidence there is to verify that there is no way in Hades that
> >JFK's neck wound was anatomically higher than his back wound):
>

> >http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-SsPcIgX-pRs/UURG4x70gjI/AAAAAAAAt4I/VvLIzg3...

A note from Douglas Horne from "Inside the ARRB Vol. 4" is that
James Jenkins, a Bethesda navy corpsman assisting at the autopsy, saw
the autopsists use a short steel rod to probe the back wound and it
pointed upward to what was probably the 6th floor SN. However, he was
able to see the end of the probe from inside the chest cavity rubbing
against the pleura. This means the bullet that entered the back
didn't go but an inch or two at most. The orders from the sidelines
(from where the autopsy was being controlled) were to not dig for the
bullet and move on. That would be too embarrassing.

Unfortunately, before the probe was used, Humes (in his lack of
experience) stuck his little finger into the back wound and poked
around, ruining any forensic value the probe might have had.

If this information is correct, then the throat and back wounds
were not from the same bullet and we go back to having too many
bullets for the wacky WC theories to work. It also states that the
throat wound was definitely an entry wound.

Chris

[John Fiorentino]

Yeah, but you're not privy to the whole story.

It's small potatoes to me anyway.

However, the scans I refer to pertain to the X-rays only, NOT the photos.
So, it's an entirely different subject.

You will excuse my sometimes paranoid thinking, as in FACT I have been
"ripped-off" several times in the past.

The last was by Spiegelman, et al. And I have the documentation to prove
it.

John F.




"David Von Pein" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message

news:08651dbc-eb85-471c...@v20g2000yqj.googlegroups.com...

[John Fiorentino]

You'll also have to excuse my questioning of Bugliosi when he hurled
retorts about Posner (who of course did turn out to be a hound) snuggles
up to Wecht, who is crazier than a three dollar bill (to paraphrase the
Bug) and thinks George Bush should be put on trial for "war crimes."


I'm sorry, but I question his mental state.

John F.

"David Von Pein" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message

news:08651dbc-eb85-471c...@v20g2000yqj.googlegroups.com...

[Anthony Marsh]

On 4/4/2013 10:37 AM, John Fiorentino wrote:
> You'll also have to excuse my questioning of Bugliosi when he hurled
> retorts about Posner (who of course did turn out to be a hound) snuggles
> up to Wecht, who is crazier than a three dollar bill (to paraphrase the
> Bug) and thinks George Bush should be put on trial for "war crimes."
>
>
> I'm sorry, but I question his mental state.
>

That's out of bounds. Just because you disagree with his politics. We went
through this with the ant-war movement and the attacks on conspiracy
believers. It has no place in a civilized debate. Sure, he lied, but
prosecutors are allowed to lie. There is no canon of ethics for WC
defenders. Defenders of the Faith are given a special dispensation to lie
as needed to defend the faith.

And just like Republicans, WC defenders eat their own.

[John Canal]

In article <688af64c-b19a-402d...@p5g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>,
David Von Pein says...
>
>

>JOHN CANAL SAID:
>
>If that photo made it so clear the throat wound was below the back
>wound, doesn't it make you wonder why Baden came up with his theory
>the back wound, when JFK was erect, was actually somewhat below the
>throat wound.
>
>
>DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
>
>It makes me wonder if the HSCA/FPP ever even bothered to turn this
>autopsy sideways, such as below:
>
>http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-SsPcIgX-pRs/UURG4x70gjI/AAAAAAAAt4I/VvLIzg3fqFQ/s622/00a.+JFK+Autopsy+Photo.jpg
>
>If they had, do you think ANYONE could have really thought that
>visible throat wound was HIGHER on the body than the back wound?
>Impossible.

Are you suggesting the FPP was negligent or lying?

Their take comports with Humes' deceptive efforts re. Rydberg's drawings,
that is the back wound was obviously drawn.

Their take also comports with Ford's "adjustments" to the WC's wording re.
the back wound location.

>JOHN CANAL SAID:
>
>You don't think Baden thinks (for once) like I do that the head rest
>undermines any attempt to accurately gleen from that photo whether
>(when he was erect--no stirrup--sort of like when he was shot) the
>back wound was higher than the throat wound or vise-versa, do you? Not
>even a tiny bit?
>
>
>DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
>
>No. Not even a tiny bit.

Your opinion is what it is, your opinion...and that differs from the
opinions of some experts.

>Do you REALLY think that if the metal headrest was removed from this
>picture, it would mean that the upper back of JFK (and, hence, the
>place where the bullet hole in his back was located) would DROP a
>considerable distance when compared with the wound that is fully
>visible in Kennedy's throat?:
>
>http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-SsPcIgX-pRs/UURG4x70gjI/AAAAAAAAt4I/VvLIzg3fqFQ/s622/00a.+JFK+Autopsy+Photo.jpg
>
>If the headrest were to be removed, then JFK's head (which is attached
>to a pivoting neck) would fall flat against the autopsy table, yes.
>But would the removal of the headrest affect his UPPER BACK a great
>deal--if at all?

So you're admitting it would make a difference...good for you.....but I
guess you're conclding the difference would be insignificant.

Again, there has to be a reason for why the FPP concluded the back wound
was actually lower than the throat wound. And again why would Humes have
the back wound moved up in the drawings if the wound he saw on JFK's upper
back was higher than the throat wound?

Makes no sense.

>Also: Do you think JFK's BACK is touching the table in that photo?

Hard to tell. I don't like to draw conclusions based on what I think I see
in copies of the autopsy photographs......I prefer to base my conclusions
on what the individuals who saw the body or the originals stereoscopically
concluded.

Anyway, I'm just telling you that it's a fact your take is not consistent
with what some others theorized.

>I say it is. How could it NOT be (unless somebody was physically
>propping it up off the table--which nobody is doing in that autopsy
>photograph)?

Rigor?

>That throat wound is LOWER than the back wound--without a speck of a
>doubt, IMO. The HSCA was wrong on this point.

And if they were wrong I guess you're saying Ford was a complete idiot for
changing the WC's wording re. the location of the back wound and Humes had
a brain cramp when he told Rydberg where to draw the back wound?

>And even Dr. Humes, in 1964, said the back wound was higher (although,
>granted, he never measured the height difference of the two wounds)--
>but Humes did say this to the Warren Commission:
>
> "The wound in the anterior portion of the lower neck is
>physically lower than the point of entrance posteriorly." -- J.J.
>Humes

Of course he did....he'd be nuts if he didn't.

>Should everybody just IGNORE the above testimony, which comes from one
>of the very few people in the world who actually had the opportunity
>to SEE President Kennedy on the autopsy table on the night of
>11/22/63?

Are you naive? Do you think Humes never lied during his testimony...not
even once?

He said what Specter wanted him to say....and he did that several times.

>If I am supposed to just toss aside Dr. James Humes' above testimony
>about the throat wound being "physically lower" than the upper-back
>wound, please tell me WHY I should toss it in the trash.

Because he didn't always tell the truth when he testified.

I'd give you examples but it'd be a waste of time trying to convince you
that you're wrong...because you've invested seemingly half your life
putting your beliefs in stone on your website and it'd be too awkward, too
embarrassing and too much trouble to change anything on it...IMO.

Think about this. Let's say for argument's sake that JFK'S was somewhat
hunched over when he was hit and you're correct, that in the erect
position the back wound was higher than the throat wound....might those
circumstances result in the trajectory back pointing "above" the SN?

Baden et al seemed to think he was hunched over...you obviously
disagree...can you prove the FPP was wrong about that?

[Anthony Marsh]

On 4/4/2013 10:36 AM, John Fiorentino wrote:
> Yeah, but you're not privy to the whole story.
>
> It's small potatoes to me anyway.
>
> However, the scans I refer to pertain to the X-rays only, NOT the
> photos. So, it's an entirely different subject.
>
> You will excuse my sometimes paranoid thinking, as in FACT I have been
> "ripped-off" several times in the past.
>
> The last was by Spiegelman, et al. And I have the documentation to prove
> it.
>
> John F.
>
>

When you lie down with dogs you get up with fleas.

[John Canal]

In article <515d0f22$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...

I never said they saw the photos...although I believe they probably did. I
can also prove (but won't bother here) Humes saw the X-rays before his WC
testimony....even though he said he didn't.

In any case they saw where the wounds were on the body and the photos show
where those wounds were on the body.

My point is that they must have known from what they saw on the body that
they needed to be deceptive about where they had Rydberg draw the back
wound.

>> Also, if that photo made it so clear the throat wound was below the back
>> wound doesn't it make you wonder why Gerald Ford had the original wording
>> of the WC description of the back wound location (which read, "in his
>> uppermost back") changed to read, "at the back of his neck"?
>>
>
>Only AFTER Specter came out with his Single-Bullet Theory.
>
>> And lastly, if that photo made it so clear the throat wound was below the
>> back wound, doesn't it make you wonder why Baden came up with his theory
>> the back wound, when JFK was erect, was actually somewhat below the throat
>> wound (re. the graphic in this link)?
>>
>
>Now you know why Baden had to demonstrate leaning over by 18 degrees.
>Unfortunately the acoustical evidence stuck them with frame 190 for
>THEIR SBT.
>
>> http://imageshack.us/a/img838/1670/bulletpaths1hsca231.jpg
>>
>> You don't think, Baden thinks (for once) like I do that the head rest
>> undermines any attempt to accurately gleen from that photo whether (when
>> he was erect--no stirrup--sort of like when he was shot) the back wound
>> was higher than the throat wound or vise-versa, do you?
>>
>> Not even a tiny bit?
>>
>> Thanks for your, per usual, honest answers.
>>
>> Cheers.
>>
>> John C.
>>
>>
>
>

--
John Canal
jca...@webtv.net

[Anthony Marsh]

On 4/4/2013 7:26 AM, David Von Pein wrote:
>
> JOHN FIORENTINO SAID:
>
> Geez, I wonder if ol Vinny ripped ol Johnny (me) off?
>
> Anyway, no further comment for now, other than I had (have) this same
> comparison in my 1st draft manuscript copyright 1993.
>
>
> DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
>
> I don't think Vince had to "rip off" anyone. He has had access to the
> same autopsy photo that everyone else has. He could have merely come

I doubt the accuracy of that statement. He did not have the complete Fox
set. And Steve Barber says that Groden has an autopsy photo which was
not seen by the public.

> to the same conclusion on his own after just turning that autopsy
> picture sideways. Heck, who WOULDN'T come to the conclusion that the
> throat wound was anatomically lower than the back wound after just one
> brief glance at that picture?
>

So you are proving what?

> In fact, several months prior to Bugliosi's book being published, I
> wrote the post below regarding the wound locations. I hope you don't
> think that *I*, too, ripped you off, John. :-) I certainly haven't
> been privy to your book manuscript, have I?.....
>

Maybe you have.

> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/d1d7ea222703d800
>
> What is it they say --- Great minds.... :-)
>
>
> JOHN FIORENTINO SAID:
>
> I also discovered that the HSCA FPP used only the scans of the X-rays
> in making their determinations.
>

Only to remove the teeth.

>
> DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
>
> Which is all the more reason to suspect that the HSCA people never
> even bothered to turn this autopsy picture sideways:
>
> http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-SsPcIgX-pRs/UURG4x70gjI/AAAAAAAAt4I/VvLIzg3fqFQ/s1600/00a.+JFK+Autopsy+Photo.jpg
>

Silly. They were not all Liftonites.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 4/4/2013 7:25 AM, David Von Pein wrote:
>
> JOHN FIORENTINO ASKED:
>
> Then why did he [Vincent Bugliosi] agree with Wecht in the
> interview??
>
>
> DAVID VON PEIN SAYS:
>
> Probably because Vince's memory sucks. (And mine is getting almost as
> bad, and I'm only 51.) :(
>

No, it's called sucking up. To lull someone into a false sense of
security before you stab him in the back.

> In short, Vince just flat-out doesn't remember that he wrote these
> words on page 424 of his book:
>

Maybe HE didn't write them. Maybe his minions got confused.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 4/4/2013 7:25 AM, David Von Pein wrote:
>

You are forgetting that the HSCA was talking about two different sets of
conditions. One, the theoretical anatomically neutral position of the
body, and two, the actual position of the body at the time of the shot.

> That throat wound is LOWER than the back wound--without a speck of a
> doubt, IMO. The HSCA was wrong on this point.
>
> And even Dr. Humes, in 1964, said the back wound was higher (although,
> granted, he never measured the height difference of the two wounds)--
> but Humes did say this to the Warren Commission:
>

There's your answer. In 1964 after Specter had to invent the SBT.
Not in 1963 when everyone said three shots, three hits.

> "The wound in the anterior portion of the lower neck is
> physically lower than the point of entrance posteriorly." -- J.J.
> Humes
>
> Should everybody just IGNORE the above testimony, which comes from one
> of the very few people in the world who actually had the opportunity
> to SEE President Kennedy on the autopsy table on the night of
> 11/22/63?

Yes, don't listen to professional liars who have been threatened.

>
> If I am supposed to just toss aside Dr. James Humes' above testimony
> about the throat wound being "physically lower" than the upper-back
> wound, please tell me WHY I should toss it in the trash.
>

Because you know it is a lie.

[John Fiorentino]

Well, I agree with you in principle and also in fact.

As to Humes though, I think we can toss much of it out.

John F.

"David Von Pein" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message

news:688af64c-b19a-402d...@p5g2000yqj.googlegroups.com...

[Robert Harris]

John Fiorentino wrote:
> In the radio debate between Vince Bugliosi and Cyril Wecht Bugliosi calls
> his own book, "a book for the ages" and refers to Wecht as a "scholar."
>
> He also screws up the single bullet theory by referring to the contrived
> HSCA 1.66 seconds between shots.
>
> And agrees with Wecht's notion that the bullet which transited JFK was
> moving upwards by 11 degrees.
>
> Some evidence that Bugliosi may not be as familiar with the evidence as he
> would like us to believe.

He's written about the crime for 20 years, but never studied it. Very
few people have.



Robert Harris

[Anthony Marsh]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the Rydberg drawings were no done
until after Specter dreamed up his SBT.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 4/4/2013 4:41 PM, John Canal wrote:
> In article <688af64c-b19a-402d...@p5g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>,
> David Von Pein says...
>>
>>
>> JOHN CANAL SAID:
>>
>> If that photo made it so clear the throat wound was below the back
>> wound, doesn't it make you wonder why Baden came up with his theory
>> the back wound, when JFK was erect, was actually somewhat below the
>> throat wound.
>>
>>
>> DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
>>
>> It makes me wonder if the HSCA/FPP ever even bothered to turn this
>> autopsy sideways, such as below:
>>
>> http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-SsPcIgX-pRs/UURG4x70gjI/AAAAAAAAt4I/VvLIzg3fqFQ/s622/00a.+JFK+Autopsy+Photo.jpg
>>
>> If they had, do you think ANYONE could have really thought that
>> visible throat wound was HIGHER on the body than the back wound?
>> Impossible.
>
> Are you suggesting the FPP was negligent or lying?
>

Are those the only two chose we have? How about both.

> Their take comports with Humes' deceptive efforts re. Rydberg's drawings,
> that is the back wound was obviously drawn.
>
> Their take also comports with Ford's "adjustments" to the WC's wording re.
> the back wound location.
>

The FPP did not try to move the back wound up. Only your heroes, the WC
and the autopsy doctors. Why do you think Finck fled to Switzerland?

Especially when they are professional liars.

> Anyway, I'm just telling you that it's a fact your take is not consistent
> with what some others theorized.
>
>> I say it is. How could it NOT be (unless somebody was physically
>> propping it up off the table--which nobody is doing in that autopsy
>> photograph)?
>
> Rigor?

Slight rigor.

>
>> That throat wound is LOWER than the back wound--without a speck of a
>> doubt, IMO. The HSCA was wrong on this point.
>
> And if they were wrong I guess you're saying Ford was a complete idiot for
> changing the WC's wording re. the location of the back wound and Humes had
> a brain cramp when he told Rydberg where to draw the back wound?

No, he was not a COMPLETE idiot. He went along to get along.
And it paid off. He became President.

>
>> And even Dr. Humes, in 1964, said the back wound was higher (although,
>> granted, he never measured the height difference of the two wounds)--
>> but Humes did say this to the Warren Commission:
>>
>> "The wound in the anterior portion of the lower neck is
>> physically lower than the point of entrance posteriorly." -- J.J.
>> Humes
>
> Of course he did....he'd be nuts if he didn't.
>
>> Should everybody just IGNORE the above testimony, which comes from one
>> of the very few people in the world who actually had the opportunity
>> to SEE President Kennedy on the autopsy table on the night of
>> 11/22/63?
>
> Are you naive? Do you think Humes never lied during his testimony...not
> even once?
>

Then why do you cite him, a known liar. You like the government lying to
you.

> He said what Specter wanted him to say....and he did that several times.
>
>> If I am supposed to just toss aside Dr. James Humes' above testimony
>> about the throat wound being "physically lower" than the upper-back
>> wound, please tell me WHY I should toss it in the trash.
>
> Because he didn't always tell the truth when he testified.
>

So that makes you a conspiracy believer.

> I'd give you examples but it'd be a waste of time trying to convince you
> that you're wrong...because you've invested seemingly half your life
> putting your beliefs in stone on your website and it'd be too awkward, too
> embarrassing and too much trouble to change anything on it...IMO.
>
> Think about this. Let's say for argument's sake that JFK'S was somewhat
> hunched over when he was hit and you're correct, that in the erect
> position the back wound was higher than the throat wound....might those
> circumstances result in the trajectory back pointing "above" the SN?
>

Hunched over? You mean the way that Baden demonstrated? Then you need to
move your SBT to a frame where we can't see him behind the sign.

> Baden et al seemed to think he was hunched over...you obviously
> disagree...can you prove the FPP was wrong about that?
>

When was he hunched over? Maybe at the airport. Move the SBT to that frame.

> John C.
>
>

[John Fiorentino]

Really rather of nasty of you Marsh.

And you pretend to champion the truth do you?

Your civility is sorely lacking.

John F.



"Anthony Marsh" <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote in message

news:515d9c41$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...

[John Fiorentino]

I rather think you're "out of bounds" my good friend.

John F.

"Anthony Marsh" <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote in message

news:515d9bde$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...

[John Fiorentino]

John:

Why not try posting some *facts* to go along with your fantasy?

John F.





"John Canal" <John_...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:kjk74...@drn.newsguy.com...

[John Fiorentino]

Yes, John, you can prove them wrong by simply looking at the picture.

Remember, that is all the great minds of the pathologists, or should I say
the great pathological minds (Baden) on the HSCA did. THERE WAS NO BODY
John, Just pictures.

My good friend Dr. Lattimer also concurred that the back wound was
ABSOLUTELY above the exit wound in the neck. So do I, for what it's worth.
And so did David Belin, who urged me to publish the photos.

As for Humes, his "expertise" speaks for itself.

There was no conspiracy to move any wounds or alter any pictures.

Or let me rightly put it. There was NO EVIDENCE of that.

John F.



"John Canal" <John_...@newsguy.com> wrote in message

news:kjk67...@drn.newsguy.com...

[mainframetech]

On Apr 4, 4:41 pm, John Canal <John_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> In article <688af64c-b19a-402d-9d53-d547d88a6...@p5g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>,

> David Von Pein says...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >JOHN CANAL SAID:
>
> >If that photo made it so clear the throat wound was below the back
> >wound, doesn't it make you wonder why Baden came up with his theory
> >the back wound, when JFK was erect, was actually somewhat below the
> >throat wound.
>
> >DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
>
> >It makes me wonder if the HSCA/FPP ever even bothered to turn this
> >autopsy sideways, such as below:
>

> >http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-SsPcIgX-pRs/UURG4x70gjI/AAAAAAAAt4I/VvLIzg3...

>
> >If they had, do you think ANYONE could have really thought that
> >visible throat wound was HIGHER on the body than the back wound?
> >Impossible.
>
> Are you suggesting the FPP was negligent or lying?
>
> Their take comports with Humes' deceptive efforts re. Rydberg's drawings,
> that is the back wound was obviously drawn.
>
> Their take also comports with Ford's "adjustments" to the WC's wording re.
> the back wound location.
>
> >JOHN CANAL SAID:
>
> >You don't think Baden thinks (for once) like I do that the head rest
> >undermines any attempt to accurately gleen from that photo whether
> >(when he was erect--no stirrup--sort of like when he was shot) the
> >back wound was higher than the throat wound or vise-versa, do you? Not
> >even a tiny bit?
>
> >DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
>
> >No. Not even a tiny bit.
>
> Your opinion is what it is, your opinion...and that differs from the
> opinions of some experts.
>
> >Do you REALLY think that if the metal headrest was removed from this
> >picture, it would mean that the upper back of JFK (and, hence, the
> >place where the bullet hole in his back was located) would DROP a
> >considerable distance when compared with the wound that is fully
> >visible in Kennedy's throat?:
>

> >http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-SsPcIgX-pRs/UURG4x70gjI/AAAAAAAAt4I/VvLIzg3...

>
> >If the headrest were to be removed, then JFK's head (which is attached
> >to a pivoting neck) would fall flat against the autopsy table, yes.
> >But would the removal of the headrest affect his UPPER BACK a great
> >deal--if at all?
>

Just as a note here...both James Jenkins and Paul O'Connor (navy
corpsman, helpers at the autopsy) did not understand the autopsy photos
with the headrest showing under the head. They had always used a small
stepped block that allowed the head to be adjusted to any height, and they
know it was used on the JFK autopsy. It was a common device and they used
it at many autopsies at Bethesda that they witnessed and assisted at.
This suggests that the photos weren't taken when they were assumed to be,
and that some setup was required to take the photos. As well, both
assistants remember clearly a large hole in the BOH of JFK and wondered
why the photos had none except a tiny bullet hole where the large hole had
been. Of course these statements will be ignored by those that want to
support the WC faith.

> So you're admitting it would make a difference...good for you.....but I
> guess you're conclding the difference would be insignificant.
>
> Again, there has to be a reason for why the FPP concluded the back wound
> was actually lower than the throat wound. And again why would Humes have
> the back wound moved up in the drawings if the wound he saw on JFK's upper
> back was higher than the throat wound?
>
> Makes no sense.
>
> >Also: Do you think JFK's BACK is touching the table in that photo?
>
> Hard to tell. I don't like to draw conclusions based on what I think I see
> in copies of the autopsy photographs......I prefer to base my conclusions
> on what the individuals who saw the body or the originals stereoscopically
> concluded.
>
> Anyway, I'm just telling you that it's a fact your take is not consistent
> with what some others theorized.
>
> >I say it is. How could it NOT be (unless somebody was physically
> >propping it up off the table--which nobody is doing in that autopsy
> >photograph)?
>
> Rigor?
>
> >That throat wound is LOWER than the back wound--without a speck of a
> >doubt, IMO. The HSCA was wrong on this point.
>
> And if they were wrong I guess you're saying Ford was a complete idiot for
> changing the WC's wording re. the location of the back wound and Humes had
> a brain cramp when he told Rydberg where to draw the back wound?
>

A bigger problem would be how many OTHER transcripts did Ford change
and get away with before getting caught that one time?

> >And even Dr. Humes, in 1964, said the back wound was higher (although,
> >granted, he never measured the height difference of the two wounds)--
> >but Humes did say this to the Warren Commission:
>
> >      "The wound in the anterior portion of the lower neck is
> >physically lower than the point of entrance posteriorly." -- J.J.
> >Humes
>
> Of course he did....he'd be nuts if he didn't.
>

Except a number of people witnessed Humes put a short probe into the
back wound and was only able to go an inch or two before being stopped.
An assistant saw the pleura inside the chest cavity move as the probe was
moved, so the bullet didn't go all the way through. Before that (in his
inexperience) Humes stuck his little finger in the hole and wiggled it
around, ruining any forensic value that may have been had.

[John Fiorentino]

There is another autopsy photo.

John F.


"Anthony Marsh" <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote in message

news:515da50f$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...

[John Canal]

In article <515df849$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, John Fiorentino says...

>
>John:
>
>Why not try posting some *facts* to go along with your fantasy?

Just calling what I posted a fantasy is not exactly a substantive
argument....it's your opinion.

Are not these facts:

1. The back wound as shown in CEs 385 and 388 was drawn too high.

2. G. Ford admitted changing the original wording the WC intended to use
for the location of the "upper back" wound to "near the base of the back
of President Kennedy's neck".

3. The FPP concluded JFK was somewhat hunched over when he was shot and
that the throat wound was actually somewhat above the back wound (with JFK
in the erect position).

Which of those is not factual?

Please back up your broad claims, e.g. "Why not try posting some *facts*
to go along with your fantasy?" with some facts of your own...for a
change?

John C.

--
John Canal
jca...@webtv.net

[Anthony Marsh]

On 4/4/2013 11:18 PM, John Fiorentino wrote:
> There is another autopsy photo.
>

Yeah, so what? I've seen another autopsy photo that none of you have
seen. So what? Did you know that the recovered the 5 autopsy photos
which had been destroyed? We will never be allowed to see those.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 4/4/2013 11:12 PM, John Fiorentino wrote:
> Yes, John, you can prove them wrong by simply looking at the picture.
>
> Remember, that is all the great minds of the pathologists, or should I
> say the great pathological minds (Baden) on the HSCA did. THERE WAS NO
> BODY John, Just pictures.
>
> My good friend Dr. Lattimer also concurred that the back wound was
> ABSOLUTELY above the exit wound in the neck. So do I, for what it's
> worth. And so did David Belin, who urged me to publish the photos.
>

Lattimer did that only by lying and showing JFK as a hunchback.
That's why you liked Lattimer, because he was a liar.

> As for Humes, his "expertise" speaks for itself.
>
> There was no conspiracy to move any wounds or alter any pictures.
>

Or destroy pictures?

[Anthony Marsh]

On 4/4/2013 11:11 PM, John Fiorentino wrote:
> I rather think you're "out of bounds" my good friend.
>

I forget what the name of that trick is. So when I say that someone is
an anti-Semite, you can turn it around and say no, that I am the
anti-Semite for daring to call someone an anti-Semite? Is that the
Pee-Wee Herman gambit? I know you are, but what am I?

[John Fiorentino]

1. I don't have the CE's in front of me. So I won't comment right now.

2. Yes, he did that

3. The photos ARE the evidence.

John F.


"John Canal" <John_...@newsguy.com> wrote in message

news:kjlpt...@drn.newsguy.com...

[John Fiorentino]

You know what Tony.....................I am sick and tired of your "liar"
remarks.

Since you can't seem to refrain from using your despicable verbal assaults,
I will simply ignore you from now on.

Which is what I should have done from the beginning.

John F.




"Anthony Marsh" <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote in message

news:515f...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...

[John Fiorentino]

No, the name of the trick is..........my response will be to your every
post that I wish to comment on.

"Anthony likes to call everyone a liar"

John F..

"Anthony Marsh" <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote in message

news:515f10ec$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...

[John Canal]

In article <515f5eae$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, John Fiorentino says...

>
> 1. I don't have the CE's in front of me. So I won't comment right now.

Let me help.

Link to CE-385:

http://img593.imageshack.us/img593/9234/ce3852.jpg

Link to CE-388:

http://imageshack.us/a/img861/7946/ce388.jpg

>2. Yes, he did that
>
>3. The photos ARE the evidence.

Look I also believe the photo you posted with JFK's head in the stirrup
appears to definitely show the throat wound is below the back wound....but
just not the angle (very very roughly 27 degrees) that Lattimer
demonstrates in his graphic [Fig. 73].

IMO, the major problem with Figure 73, is that he has the back wound at
the base of the neck. I think even you'll agree it's not that high. It's
possible he was misled by CE-385...I don't think he was trying to be
deceptive.

In any case, I also don't believe JFK was hunched over to the extent that
Baden claims he was.

All that said, however, I haven't seen the originals and Baden et al
have....stereoscopically.

I'm also disappointed that, even though the stirrup shouldn't make a
decisive difference in the matter, I feel those who trot out that photo as
absolute proof the back wound was well above the throat wound, in all
fairness, should point out the photo (because of the stirrup and the fact
JFK's BOH is not touching the table) doesn't "exactly" show JFK in the
100% erect position.

In fact, if the trajectory pointing back were as Lattimer shows in Figure
73 [again very very roughly 27 degrees]....and JFK was hunched over even
one-third the extent Baden claims he was, then, IMO, Lattimer's trajectory
would be pointing probably at the rooftop of the TSBD vs. the sixth floor.

Anyway, because Humes had Rydberg draw the back wound at the base of the
neck (instead in the upper back where it should have been) I can only
conclude he felt that where he saw the wounds [back & throat] on the body,
as far as the trajectory back based on the relative level of those back
and throat wounds, was not consistent with a shot from the SN.

Of course he didn't know if JFK was erect or hunched over when he was
shot.

I think, and this is simply my opinion FWIW, based on CEs 385 & 388,
Ford's changing of the WC's wording, what Baden et al saw on the
originals, plus other things (too numerous to list here), JFK must have
been at least a little hunched over....and that combined with the back
wound being a little to somewhat above the throat wound (erect position)
the back to throat wound trajectory back pointed at the SN.

BTW, regardless of whether or not the record shows G. Ford saw the photos,
I believe he did and that's why he had the language the WC used to
describe the location of the "upper back" wound changed to read "near the
base of the neck".

I don't know if you've read what I wrote...after all the exchanges we've
had over the years I've learned one thing about you...that is that you
hardly ever read any replies to you (at least from me) that are longer
than a few sentences....and this one might be one of those.

If you did read this far and you're willing to go a little bit further
there's one more comment I want to get off my chest.

When I merely present a few facts (e.g. CEs 385 & 388, Baden's take on the
issue, and Ford's adjustment of the WC's wording) in response to DVP's or
your posts I think it's crossing the line for you to suggest I'm
fantasizing.

I've been awarded two Air Force Meritorious Service and several other less
prestigious medals, had one JFK book published and might well have another
on the medical evidence published soon enough, credited with ensuring the
radar that controled many of the B-52s going into and out of Viet Nam in
early 1968 was fully operational at "critical" times [remember Khe
Sanh?..my guess is not, you're probably too young...Bill Clark does], and
am the co-owner of a patent for a video tape timing device. None of that
would have been possible if I was prone to fantasize....so I'll respect
you if you'll show some respect for me if we are to continue to exchange
thoughts re. this case.

--
John Canal
jca...@webtv.net

[Anthony Marsh]

On 4/5/2013 10:47 PM, John Fiorentino wrote:
> No, the name of the trick is..........my response will be to your every
> post that I wish to comment on.
>
> "Anthony likes to call everyone a liar"
>

No, sometimes I am forbidden from calling them a liar so all I can is
call them a WC defender.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 4/5/2013 9:26 PM, John Fiorentino wrote:
> You know what Tony.....................I am sick and tired of your
> "liar" remarks.
>

I never called you a "liar." You know that McAdams would not permit that.
He won't even let me call someone a Nazis. He even rejected a message
where I said that the other poster's hero was Adolf Hitler.

> Since you can't seem to refrain from using your despicable verbal
> assaults, I will simply ignore you from now on.
>

Don't do that. Then I can post anything I want and you have no way to
challenge it. So I would win by default. That's no fun. Then I don't get
to bash you over the head with the evidence.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 4/5/2013 9:25 PM, John Fiorentino wrote:
> 1. I don't have the CE's in front of me. So I won't comment right now.
>

You never do. And you can't find them with Google. Try Bing instead.

> 2. Yes, he did that
>
> 3. The photos ARE the evidence.
>

Drawings by government hacks are not evidence.

[John Fiorentino]

John:

It is not a personal issue. At least not with me. I'm sure you're a fine
upstanding citizen.

But that isn't the issue here. We are all prone to fantasize at one point
or the other. It's not a crime.

I just think you've created scenarios that are not supported by the
evidence.

I think the JFK autopsy photo speaks for itself. I have named others who
agree. It's really that simple.

Baden's "anatomic position" aside from being a load of crap is merely the
mutterings of an incompetent.

He looked at the pictures (maybe he did anyway) You couldn't prove it by
me. The HSCA was just another part-time job to Mr. Asphyxiation.

The fact is he apparently can't tell up from down, nor how to orient F8,
(which he amply demonstrated)

He was nauseating at the OJ Trial and his numbers (of performed autopsies)
defies proper protocol.

I have no respect for him or his buddy Wecht. And I'll throw Henry Lee in
for good measure.

John F.





"John Canal" <John_...@newsguy.com> wrote in message

news:kjo47...@drn.newsguy.com...

[John Canal]

In article <5160c4b5$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, John Fiorentino says...
>
>John:
>

>It is not a personal issue. At least not with me. I'm sure you're a fine
>upstanding citizen.
>
>But that isn't the issue here. We are all prone to fantasize at one point
>or the other. It's not a crime.

So you're saying this is my time to fantasize, eh?

You've got some nerve.

Typically, you didn't even have the courtesy to read or address my points.

If I make some questions simple will you answer them?

Do you admit that in Figure 73 in his book, Lattimer has the back wound
too high?

Am I fantasizing when I say it is?

The link to it is in this thread.

Did you even look at CE-385?

Do you think Humes had Rydberg draw the back wound too high?

Why?

And lastly, why do you think Ford changed the WC's wording to "near the
base of the neck"?

Bonus question:

About six years ago you said you were going to study the 6.5 mm object
issue and tell us what you found (whether it's a real bullet fragment or
not)....are you still studying it?

What are your conclusions and what evidence are they based on?

Frankly John, I don't care for your evasiveness or B/S, not to mention
your insults...it's actually impossible to carry on a fruitful debate with
you.

You seem to think you have all the answers and anyone who disagrees with
you is fantasizing or just plain wrong......but then you have the gall to
make fantaszing seem like that's not so bad....after all, according to
you: "We are all prone to fantasize at one point or the other. It's not a
crime."

I'd appreciate it if you'd add me to your killfile.

Thanks in advance.

John Canal

--
John Canal
jca...@webtv.net

[John Fiorentino]

"Anthony likes to call everyone a liar"

John F.

"Anthony Marsh" <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote in message

news:51606ff4$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...

[John Fiorentino]

I don't know how you got so mad based on my earlier post.

I wasn't directing any disparaging remarks toward you.

But, if you wish to think that I can't stop you. If you want no further
communication, that is ok also.

Regards,

John F.




"John Canal" <John_...@newsguy.com> wrote in message

news:kjqlc...@drn.newsguy.com...

[John Fiorentino]

"Anthony likes to call everyone a liar"

John F.

"Anthony Marsh" <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote in message

news:51607ec0$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...

[John Fiorentino]

"Anthony likes to call everyone a liar"

John F.

"Anthony Marsh" <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote in message

news:51607e27$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...

[Anthony Marsh]

On 4/6/2013 11:47 PM, John Canal wrote:
> In article <5160c4b5$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, John Fiorentino says...
>>
>> John:
>>
>> It is not a personal issue. At least not with me. I'm sure you're a fine
>> upstanding citizen.
>>
>> But that isn't the issue here. We are all prone to fantasize at one point
>> or the other. It's not a crime.
>
> So you're saying this is my time to fantasize, eh?
>
> You've got some nerve.
>
> Typically, you didn't even have the courtesy to read or address my points.
>
> If I make some questions simple will you answer them?
>

How come you will never answer any questions?

> Do you admit that in Figure 73 in his book, Lattimer has the back wound
> too high?
>

Do you admit that Lattimer is lying by showing JFK as a hunchback?

> Am I fantasizing when I say it is?
>
> The link to it is in this thread.
>
> Did you even look at CE-385?
>
> Do you think Humes had Rydberg draw the back wound too high?
>
> Why?
>
> And lastly, why do you think Ford changed the WC's wording to "near the
> base of the neck"?
>

Ford admitted it. Do you think he was lying about admitting it?

> Bonus question:
>
> About six years ago you said you were going to study the 6.5 mm object
> issue and tell us what you found (whether it's a real bullet fragment or
> not)....are you still studying it?
>

Do you understand that the diameter of the WCC bullet is actually 6.8
mm, not 6.5 mm?

> What are your conclusions and what evidence are they based on?
>
> Frankly John, I don't care for your evasiveness or B/S, not to mention
> your insults...it's actually impossible to carry on a fruitful debate with
> you.
>

And we're tried of your phony Argument by Authority.

> You seem to think you have all the answers and anyone who disagrees with
> you is fantasizing or just plain wrong......but then you have the gall to
> make fantaszing seem like that's not so bad....after all, according to
> you: "We are all prone to fantasize at one point or the other. It's not a
> crime."
>
> I'd appreciate it if you'd add me to your killfile.
>

Please put everyone in your killfile.

[John Fiorentino]

"Anthony likes to call everyone a liar"

John F.


"Anthony Marsh" <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote in message

news:5161...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...

[Anthony Marsh]

On 4/7/2013 8:02 PM, John Fiorentino wrote:
> "Anthony likes to call everyone a liar"
>
> John F.
>

I am not allowed to call you a liar. You are protected.

[John Fiorentino]

SPAM

John F.

"Anthony Marsh" <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote in message

news:5162dfc9$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...

[Anthony Marsh]

On 4/8/2013 9:31 PM, John Fiorentino wrote:
> SPAM
>
> John F.
>

Back to the schooolyard tactics again. I know you are, but what am I?

[John Fiorentino]

I'm just following your fine example.

John F.


"Anthony Marsh" <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote in message

news:5163f799$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...

[Anthony Marsh]

On 4/8/2013 8:42 PM, John Fiorentino wrote:
> "Anthony likes to call everyone a liar"
>
> John F.
>

SPAM

[John Fiorentino]

"Anthony likes to call everyone a liar"

John F.

"Anthony Marsh" <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote in message

news:516400be$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...

[Anthony Marsh]

On 4/9/2013 7:39 PM, John Fiorentino wrote:
> "Anthony likes to call everyone a liar"
>

Just SPAM.

[John Fiorentino]

Just SPAM

John F.


"Anthony Marsh" <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote in message

news:5164e0aa$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...

[Dave Garofalo]

The guy is an arrogant d-bag. He did the research; he's confident in his findings, and he thinks he's arrived at the correct conclusions. Likewise, _we_ have done the research, are confident in _our_ findings, and think _we've_ arrived at the correct conclusions. We both think we're right.

So let's talk about it--let's have a spirited debate, even if neither side gives an inch, and let's keep it respectful. But that's not good enough for Bugliosi, who has to personally insult everyone who disagrees with him.

On Sunday, March 31, 2013 6:05:06 PM UTC-4, John Fiorentino wrote:
> In the radio debate between Vince Bugliosi and Cyril Wecht Bugliosi calls
>
> his own book, "a book for the ages" and refers to Wecht as a "scholar."
>
>
>
> He also screws up the single bullet theory by referring to the contrived
>
> HSCA 1.66 seconds between shots.
>
>
>
> And agrees with Wecht's notion that the bullet which transited JFK was
>
> moving upwards by 11 degrees.
>
>
>
> Some evidence that Bugliosi may not be as familiar with the evidence as he
>
> would like us to believe.
>
>
>
> And of course calling your own work "Reclaiming History" "a book for the
>
> ages" is well...............you put a name to it.
>
>
>
> Bugliosi of course also wrote: "The Prosecution of George W. Bush for
>
> Murder"
>
>
>
> Ya got to wonder a little about Vince.
>
>
>
> John F.

[Dave Reitzes]

On Wednesday, November 13, 2013 1:51:33 PM UTC-5, Dave Garofalo wrote:
> The guy is an arrogant d-bag. He did the research; he's confident in his findings, and he thinks he's arrived at the correct conclusions. Likewise, _we_ have done the research, are confident in _our_ findings, and think _we've_ arrived at the correct conclusions. We both think we're right.
>
>
>
> So let's talk about it--let's have a spirited debate, even if neither side gives an inch, and let's keep it respectful. But that's not good enough for Bugliosi, who has to personally insult everyone who disagrees with him.

On this point I agree with you. I have criticized Bugliosi for the ad hominem and sarcasm in his book, which is distasteful and counterproductive.

Dave

[tray...@gmail.com]

As much as I admired Vince Bugliosi for his work & analysis of the
horrendous Charles Manson serial murders & his analysis of why he believes
OJ Simpson killed his wife & bystander Ron Goldman, I now believe he dove
into the deep end when he took on God in one of his books. He lost me then
& there.

Vince's most recent interview on Geraldo's JFK investigative special last
week was another disaster; I thought he was going to self implode/explode
at any moment.

I suppose arguing tainted evidence & BS & the global public rejecting it
has gotten to the man. When my time has expired here in the giant cesspool
& I (hopefully) make it inside the Pearly Gates, if I don't bump into
Vince there I'll know why. Wouldn't it be something if Lee Oswald is
inside the gates & Vince isn't?

Best,

Hans Trayne

[stevemg...@yahoo.com]

Yes, I agree. There's no need in the book for the language and mocking and
ridicule.

In a debate? Well, things can get heated so the bar is lower. But in
print? No excuse for it.

But I've heard him on shows use the same tone when people just ask an
innocent question. Not just someone who challenges him.

[John Fiorentino]

<tray...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:b4afdf4d-ee55-420e...@googlegroups.com...

I worry about Vince.

John F.

[Anthony Marsh]

Speaking of which O'Reilly has run out of victims for his series of
Killing __________ books, so his next novel will be Killing God.