info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Re: Mark Lane #41
29 views
Skip to first unread message
John McAdams
Jul 10, 2012, 1:33:29 AM7/10/12
to
On 9 Jul 2012 06:20:07 -0700, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com>
wrote:
>In the previous quote, Mark Lane showed how the Commission ignored physical
>evidence for the originating direction of the head shot...
>
>"Immediately after the bullet struck the President's head, Mrs. Kennedy, who was
>riding at her husband's left in the rear seat of the open limousine, jumped up
>onto the trunk and began to move toward the rear of the car. An examination of a
>motion picture film taken by Orville O. Nix, a spectator in Dealey Plaza,
>provides graphic evidence that she apparently was reaching for a portion of the
>President's skull that seemed to be driven over the back of the automobile.
There is absolutely no evidence in the Nix film of any such thing.
If there were any such fragment, it should show in the Zapruder film,
which shows the limo with vastly better resolution than the Nix film.
>This
>possibility is supported by the testimony of Clinton J. Hill, a Secret Service
>agent, who ran from the left running board of the 'followup' car and pushed Mrs.
>Kennedy back into the limousine. He told the Commission that it appeared to him
>that Mrs. Kennedy was 'reaching for something' flying over the rear of the car."
>
Hill appears to have *inferred* that.
He never said he *saw* any such fragment.
>Mark Lane is showing that the Warren Commission ignored even the closest
>eyewitnesses who could testify to the physical direction of the President's
>brain, blood, and bone after the head shot.
But the Zapruder film shows the mass of blood, brain matter and skull
fragments going upward or forward.
Lane has simply lied.
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
wrote:
>In the previous quote, Mark Lane showed how the Commission ignored physical
>evidence for the originating direction of the head shot...
>
>"Immediately after the bullet struck the President's head, Mrs. Kennedy, who was
>riding at her husband's left in the rear seat of the open limousine, jumped up
>onto the trunk and began to move toward the rear of the car. An examination of a
>motion picture film taken by Orville O. Nix, a spectator in Dealey Plaza,
>provides graphic evidence that she apparently was reaching for a portion of the
>President's skull that seemed to be driven over the back of the automobile.
There is absolutely no evidence in the Nix film of any such thing.
If there were any such fragment, it should show in the Zapruder film,
which shows the limo with vastly better resolution than the Nix film.
>This
>possibility is supported by the testimony of Clinton J. Hill, a Secret Service
>agent, who ran from the left running board of the 'followup' car and pushed Mrs.
>Kennedy back into the limousine. He told the Commission that it appeared to him
>that Mrs. Kennedy was 'reaching for something' flying over the rear of the car."
>
Hill appears to have *inferred* that.
He never said he *saw* any such fragment.
>Mark Lane is showing that the Warren Commission ignored even the closest
>eyewitnesses who could testify to the physical direction of the President's
>brain, blood, and bone after the head shot.
But the Zapruder film shows the mass of blood, brain matter and skull
fragments going upward or forward.
Lane has simply lied.
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
David Von Pein
Jul 10, 2012, 2:16:11 AM7/10/12
to
RE: BRAIN TISSUE ON THE TRUNK.....
Any brain matter that might have been thrown onto the limo's trunk could
easily have gotten there as a result of Oswald's shot from the rear.
Since we all know that JFK's head was, indeed, thrown violently to the
rear after Oswald's shot hit the President's head (and the medical
evidence indicates, beyond all doubt, that only shots from the REAR struck
JFK's body), then why would anyone think it was impossible for a piece of
loose skull or brain tissue to have been tossed in the direction of the
trunk?
So, conspiracy theorists don't have a leg to stand on when they continue
to argue that ONLY a shot from the front could have resulted in brain
tissue ending up on the trunk of the car.
Anthony Marsh
Jul 10, 2012, 1:40:27 PM7/10/12
to
On 7/9/2012 10:16 PM, David Von Pein wrote:
>
> RE: BRAIN TISSUE ON THE TRUNK.....
>
> Any brain matter that might have been thrown onto the limo's trunk could
> easily have gotten there as a result of Oswald's shot from the rear.
>
> Since we all know that JFK's head was, indeed, thrown violently to the
> rear after Oswald's shot hit the President's head (and the medical
> evidence indicates, beyond all doubt, that only shots from the REAR struck
> JFK's body), then why would anyone think it was impossible for a piece of
> loose skull or brain tissue to have been tossed in the direction of the
> trunk?
>
You fail to offer the explanation that all WC defenders are required to
>
> RE: BRAIN TISSUE ON THE TRUNK.....
>
> Any brain matter that might have been thrown onto the limo's trunk could
> easily have gotten there as a result of Oswald's shot from the rear.
>
> Since we all know that JFK's head was, indeed, thrown violently to the
> rear after Oswald's shot hit the President's head (and the medical
> evidence indicates, beyond all doubt, that only shots from the REAR struck
> JFK's body), then why would anyone think it was impossible for a piece of
> loose skull or brain tissue to have been tossed in the direction of the
> trunk?
>
offer. The ejecta flew straight up and got caught in the wind so by the
time it fell the limo had already moved several feet forward so falling
straight down it lands on the trunk. They're going to take away your
decoder ring if you don't straighten up.
> So, conspiracy theorists don't have a leg to stand on when they continue
> to argue that ONLY a shot from the front could have resulted in brain
> tissue ending up on the trunk of the car.
>
Ben Holmes
Jul 10, 2012, 4:01:48 PM7/10/12
to
In article <397da91e-7153-47b7...@l5g2000vbo.googlegroups.com>,
David Von Pein says...
The reply to this can be found in the open forum.
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ben Holmes
Learn to Make Money with a Website - http://www.burningknife.com
David Von Pein says...
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ben Holmes
Learn to Make Money with a Website - http://www.burningknife.com
Ben Holmes
Jul 10, 2012, 4:02:34 PM7/10/12
to
In article <tc1nv79ub733nld3o...@4ax.com>, John McAdams says...
Tell us John, which eyewitness did he lie about?
Your choices are:
Altgens
Brehm
Weitzman
Martin
Hargis
Hill
Unfortunately, I'll be unable to respond to anything you say in this
censored forum...
For obvious reasons.
Your choices are:
Altgens
Brehm
Weitzman
Martin
Hargis
Hill
Unfortunately, I'll be unable to respond to anything you say in this
censored forum...
For obvious reasons.
David Von Pein
Jul 11, 2012, 3:49:26 AM7/11/12
to
DVP SAID:
>>> "So, conspiracy theorists don't have a leg to stand on when they
continue to argue that ONLY a shot from the front could have resulted in
brain tissue ending up on the trunk of the car." <<<
TONY MARSH SAID:
>>> "Name and quote the conspiracy theorists who say that." <<<
DVP SAYS:
>>> "Name and quote the conspiracy theorists who say that." <<<
Who are you kidding, Anthony?
Almost all CTers say that. You know that, Tony. That's one of their big
items of "conspiracy" -- i.e., Jackie went to retrieve a skull fragment on
the trunk...ergo...the head shot had to have come from the front.
All the while, those same conspiracy theorists, as always, totally ignore
the autopsy report and the statements of the autopsy physicians.
John McAdams
Jul 11, 2012, 3:58:46 AM7/11/12
to
On 10 Jul 2012 12:02:34 -0400, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com>
Yep.
>Brehm
Yep.
>Weitzman
I don't know what he said about Weitzman.
>Martin
>Hargis
Yes for both.
>Hill
>
Jean Hill? I don't remember what he said about her.
>Unfortunately, I'll be unable to respond to anything you say in this
>censored forum...
>
>For obvious reasons.
Yep, the reasons are obvious.
You can't function unless you can drive anybody responding to you away
with "liar, liar" rhetoric.
You just can't function in a civil discussion.
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
>Brehm
Yep.
>Weitzman
I don't know what he said about Weitzman.
>Martin
>Hargis
Yes for both.
>Hill
>
Jean Hill? I don't remember what he said about her.
>Unfortunately, I'll be unable to respond to anything you say in this
>censored forum...
>
>For obvious reasons.
You can't function unless you can drive anybody responding to you away
with "liar, liar" rhetoric.
You just can't function in a civil discussion.
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
John McAdams
Jul 11, 2012, 4:00:03 AM7/11/12
to
On 10 Jul 2012 12:01:48 -0400, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com>
wrote:
>In article <397da91e-7153-47b7...@l5g2000vbo.googlegroups.com>,
>David Von Pein says...
>>
>>
>>RE: BRAIN TISSUE ON THE TRUNK.....
>>
>>Any brain matter that might have been thrown onto the limo's trunk could
>>easily have gotten there as a result of Oswald's shot from the rear.
>>
>>Since we all know that JFK's head was, indeed, thrown violently to the
>>rear after Oswald's shot hit the President's head (and the medical
>>evidence indicates, beyond all doubt, that only shots from the REAR struck
>>JFK's body), then why would anyone think it was impossible for a piece of
>>loose skull or brain tissue to have been tossed in the direction of the
>>trunk?
>>
>>So, conspiracy theorists don't have a leg to stand on when they continue
>>to argue that ONLY a shot from the front could have resulted in brain
>>tissue ending up on the trunk of the car.
>
>
>The reply to this can be found in the open forum.
Because you lack the courage to respond here.
Lane knew perfectly well that the Zapruder film shows Kennedy's brain
matter was ejected upward and forward.
Nix and Muchmore show the same thing.
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
wrote:
>In article <397da91e-7153-47b7...@l5g2000vbo.googlegroups.com>,
>David Von Pein says...
>>
>>
>>RE: BRAIN TISSUE ON THE TRUNK.....
>>
>>Any brain matter that might have been thrown onto the limo's trunk could
>>easily have gotten there as a result of Oswald's shot from the rear.
>>
>>Since we all know that JFK's head was, indeed, thrown violently to the
>>rear after Oswald's shot hit the President's head (and the medical
>>evidence indicates, beyond all doubt, that only shots from the REAR struck
>>JFK's body), then why would anyone think it was impossible for a piece of
>>loose skull or brain tissue to have been tossed in the direction of the
>>trunk?
>>
>>So, conspiracy theorists don't have a leg to stand on when they continue
>>to argue that ONLY a shot from the front could have resulted in brain
>>tissue ending up on the trunk of the car.
>
>
>The reply to this can be found in the open forum.
Lane knew perfectly well that the Zapruder film shows Kennedy's brain
matter was ejected upward and forward.
Nix and Muchmore show the same thing.
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Anthony Marsh
Jul 11, 2012, 5:15:41 AM7/11/12
to
On 7/10/2012 11:49 PM, David Von Pein wrote:
>
> DVP SAID:
>
>>>> "So, conspiracy theorists don't have a leg to stand on when they
> continue to argue that ONLY a shot from the front could have resulted in
> brain tissue ending up on the trunk of the car." <<<
>
> TONY MARSH SAID:
>
>>>> "Name and quote the conspiracy theorists who say that." <<<
>
>
> DVP SAYS:
>
> Who are you kidding, Anthony?
>
> Almost all CTers say that. You know that, Tony. That's one of their big
> items of "conspiracy" -- i.e., Jackie went to retrieve a skull fragment on
> the trunk...ergo...the head shot had to have come from the front.
>
Only a few say that and no one said brain tissue. Now you say skull
>
> DVP SAID:
>
>>>> "So, conspiracy theorists don't have a leg to stand on when they
> continue to argue that ONLY a shot from the front could have resulted in
> brain tissue ending up on the trunk of the car." <<<
>
> TONY MARSH SAID:
>
>>>> "Name and quote the conspiracy theorists who say that." <<<
>
>
> DVP SAYS:
>
> Who are you kidding, Anthony?
>
> Almost all CTers say that. You know that, Tony. That's one of their big
> items of "conspiracy" -- i.e., Jackie went to retrieve a skull fragment on
> the trunk...ergo...the head shot had to have come from the front.
>
fragment. As always you change your argument after you have lost.
> All the while, those same conspiracy theorists, as always, totally ignore
> the autopsy report and the statements of the autopsy physicians.
>
David Von Pein
Jul 11, 2012, 1:27:48 PM7/11/12
to
T. MARSH SAID:
>>> "Only a few say that and no one said brain tissue. Now you say skull fragment." <<<
What's the difference? It would still equate to a hunk of JFK's head
being tossed backward. And, of course, Jackie did hand Pepper Jenkins
a piece of brain tissue at Parkland. So why on Earth you claim that
"no one said brain tissue" is a mystery. Just part of your usual
"Argue No Matter What" rule of thumb evidently.
>>> "As always you change your argument after you have lost." <<<
tissue--and you also know that most CTers insist that Jackie retrieved
that hunk of brain on the trunk. And yet somehow this adds up to a
defeat for DVP in this discussion. A curious conclusion.
You're a hoot, Tony. And a very strange hoot, to boot.
Ben Holmes
Jul 11, 2012, 9:51:36 PM7/11/12
to
In article <8gupv79c04uk4fnuj...@4ax.com>, John McAdams says...
>Lane knew perfectly well that the Zapruder film shows Kennedy's brain
>matter was ejected upward and forward.
>
>Nix and Muchmore show the same thing.
>
>.John
>--------------
>http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
>
>On 10 Jul 2012 12:01:48 -0400, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com>
>wrote:
>
>>In article <397da91e-7153-47b7...@l5g2000vbo.googlegroups.com>,
>>David Von Pein says...
>>>
>>>
>>>RE: BRAIN TISSUE ON THE TRUNK.....
>>>
>>>Any brain matter that might have been thrown onto the limo's trunk could
>>>easily have gotten there as a result of Oswald's shot from the rear.
>>>
>>>Since we all know that JFK's head was, indeed, thrown violently to the
>>>rear after Oswald's shot hit the President's head (and the medical
>>>evidence indicates, beyond all doubt, that only shots from the REAR struck
>>>JFK's body), then why would anyone think it was impossible for a piece of
>>>loose skull or brain tissue to have been tossed in the direction of the
>>>trunk?
>>>
>>>So, conspiracy theorists don't have a leg to stand on when they continue
>>>to argue that ONLY a shot from the front could have resulted in brain
>>>tissue ending up on the trunk of the car.
>>
>>
>>The reply to this can be found in the open forum.
>
>Because you lack the courage to respond here.
Your lack of courage to respond in an open forum is noted.
>On 10 Jul 2012 12:01:48 -0400, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com>
>wrote:
>
>>In article <397da91e-7153-47b7...@l5g2000vbo.googlegroups.com>,
>>David Von Pein says...
>>>
>>>
>>>RE: BRAIN TISSUE ON THE TRUNK.....
>>>
>>>Any brain matter that might have been thrown onto the limo's trunk could
>>>easily have gotten there as a result of Oswald's shot from the rear.
>>>
>>>Since we all know that JFK's head was, indeed, thrown violently to the
>>>rear after Oswald's shot hit the President's head (and the medical
>>>evidence indicates, beyond all doubt, that only shots from the REAR struck
>>>JFK's body), then why would anyone think it was impossible for a piece of
>>>loose skull or brain tissue to have been tossed in the direction of the
>>>trunk?
>>>
>>>So, conspiracy theorists don't have a leg to stand on when they continue
>>>to argue that ONLY a shot from the front could have resulted in brain
>>>tissue ending up on the trunk of the car.
>>
>>
>>The reply to this can be found in the open forum.
>
>Because you lack the courage to respond here.
>Lane knew perfectly well that the Zapruder film shows Kennedy's brain
>matter was ejected upward and forward.
>
>Nix and Muchmore show the same thing.
>
>.John
>--------------
>http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Ben Holmes
Jul 11, 2012, 9:51:55 PM7/11/12
to
In article <ubupv71acbuj6e2aa...@4ax.com>, John McAdams says...
As I thought, I needed to respond to this in the open forum. John made a
WHOPPER of a mistake, and I wouldn't be allowed to point out a few things
here.
WHOPPER of a mistake, and I wouldn't be allowed to point out a few things
here.
John McAdams
Jul 11, 2012, 9:53:07 PM7/11/12
to
On 11 Jul 2012 17:51:36 -0400, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com>
All he knows how to do is holler "liar! liar" like a child.
.John
--
The Kennedy Assassination Home Page
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
wrote:
>In article <8gupv79c04uk4fnuj...@4ax.com>, John McAdams says...
>>
>>On 10 Jul 2012 12:01:48 -0400, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>In article <397da91e-7153-47b7...@l5g2000vbo.googlegroups.com>,
>>>David Von Pein says...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>RE: BRAIN TISSUE ON THE TRUNK.....
>>>>
>>>>Any brain matter that might have been thrown onto the limo's trunk could
>>>>easily have gotten there as a result of Oswald's shot from the rear.
>>>>
>>>>Since we all know that JFK's head was, indeed, thrown violently to the
>>>>rear after Oswald's shot hit the President's head (and the medical
>>>>evidence indicates, beyond all doubt, that only shots from the REAR struck
>>>>JFK's body), then why would anyone think it was impossible for a piece of
>>>>loose skull or brain tissue to have been tossed in the direction of the
>>>>trunk?
>>>>
>>>>So, conspiracy theorists don't have a leg to stand on when they continue
>>>>to argue that ONLY a shot from the front could have resulted in brain
>>>>tissue ending up on the trunk of the car.
>>>
>>>
>>>The reply to this can be found in the open forum.
>>
>>Because you lack the courage to respond here.
>
>
>Your lack of courage to respond in an open forum is noted.
>
>
>>Lane knew perfectly well that the Zapruder film shows Kennedy's brain
>>matter was ejected upward and forward.
>>
>>Nix and Muchmore show the same thing.
>>
Ben lacks the courage to actually deal with these points.
>In article <8gupv79c04uk4fnuj...@4ax.com>, John McAdams says...
>>
>>On 10 Jul 2012 12:01:48 -0400, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>In article <397da91e-7153-47b7...@l5g2000vbo.googlegroups.com>,
>>>David Von Pein says...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>RE: BRAIN TISSUE ON THE TRUNK.....
>>>>
>>>>Any brain matter that might have been thrown onto the limo's trunk could
>>>>easily have gotten there as a result of Oswald's shot from the rear.
>>>>
>>>>Since we all know that JFK's head was, indeed, thrown violently to the
>>>>rear after Oswald's shot hit the President's head (and the medical
>>>>evidence indicates, beyond all doubt, that only shots from the REAR struck
>>>>JFK's body), then why would anyone think it was impossible for a piece of
>>>>loose skull or brain tissue to have been tossed in the direction of the
>>>>trunk?
>>>>
>>>>So, conspiracy theorists don't have a leg to stand on when they continue
>>>>to argue that ONLY a shot from the front could have resulted in brain
>>>>tissue ending up on the trunk of the car.
>>>
>>>
>>>The reply to this can be found in the open forum.
>>
>>Because you lack the courage to respond here.
>
>
>Your lack of courage to respond in an open forum is noted.
>
>
>>Lane knew perfectly well that the Zapruder film shows Kennedy's brain
>>matter was ejected upward and forward.
>>
>>Nix and Muchmore show the same thing.
>>
All he knows how to do is holler "liar! liar" like a child.
.John
--
The Kennedy Assassination Home Page
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Anthony Marsh
Jul 11, 2012, 9:54:07 PM7/11/12
to
On 7/11/2012 9:27 AM, David Von Pein wrote:
>
> T. MARSH SAID:
>
>>>> "Only a few say that and no one said brain tissue. Now you say skull
fragment." <<<
>
>
> D. VON PEIN SAID:
>
> What's the difference? It would still equate to a hunk of JFK's head
You don't know the difference between skull and brain? Then why are you
>
> T. MARSH SAID:
>
>>>> "Only a few say that and no one said brain tissue. Now you say skull
fragment." <<<
>
>
> D. VON PEIN SAID:
>
> What's the difference? It would still equate to a hunk of JFK's head
even debating the JFK assassination. Why don't you try debating in the
astronomy forum and tell them that you never heard of a black hole?
> being tossed backward. And, of course, Jackie did hand Pepper Jenkins
> a piece of brain tissue at Parkland. So why on Earth you claim that
not pick up anything from the trunk. You are starting to sound like Jim
Marrs.
> "no one said brain tissue" is a mystery. Just part of your usual
> "Argue No Matter What" rule of thumb evidently.
>
>
>>>> "As always you change your argument after you have lost." <<<
>
> You know darn well that Jackie handed Dr. Jenkins a piece of brain
> tissue--and you also know that most CTers insist that Jackie retrieved
> that hunk of brain on the trunk. And yet somehow this adds up to a
What next, Zapruder film alterationist? Driver did it theory?
> defeat for DVP in this discussion. A curious conclusion.
>
> You're a hoot, Tony. And a very strange hoot, to boot.
>
David Von Pein
Jul 12, 2012, 1:18:29 PM7/12/12
to
>>> "Jackie picked up that brain tissue while she was in the seat. She did
not pick up anything from the trunk. You are starting to sound like Jim
Marrs." <<<
You're really confused, aren't you Tony?
not pick up anything from the trunk. You are starting to sound like Jim
Marrs." <<<
I don't think Jackie retrieved anything off the trunk. You know that. I merely said that IF she did, it got there as a result of a rear gunshot. And that's a fact. Because no bullets struck JFK from the front.
Ben Holmes
Jul 12, 2012, 7:05:21 PM7/12/12
to
In article <4ffdf59c....@news.supernews.com>, John McAdams says...
7ee557...@l5g2000vbo.googlegroups.com>,
noted.
I can, and *have* dealt with this issue before.
>All he knows how to do is holler "liar! liar" like a child.
Amazingly, those who don't lie about the evidence never hear the word.
>.John
>
>On 11 Jul 2012 17:51:36 -0400, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com>
>wrote:
>
>>In article <8gupv79c04uk4fnuj...@4ax.com>, John McAdams says...
>>>
>>>On 10 Jul 2012 12:01:48 -0400, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>In article <397da91e-7153-47b7-9c3c-
>On 11 Jul 2012 17:51:36 -0400, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com>
>wrote:
>
>>In article <8gupv79c04uk4fnuj...@4ax.com>, John McAdams says...
>>>
>>>On 10 Jul 2012 12:01:48 -0400, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com>
>>>wrote:
>>>
7ee557...@l5g2000vbo.googlegroups.com>,
>>>>David Von Pein says...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>RE: BRAIN TISSUE ON THE TRUNK.....
>>>>>
>>>>>Any brain matter that might have been thrown onto the limo's trunk could
>>>>>easily have gotten there as a result of Oswald's shot from the rear.
>>>>>
>>>>>Since we all know that JFK's head was, indeed, thrown violently to the
>>>>>rear after Oswald's shot hit the President's head (and the medical
>>>>>evidence indicates, beyond all doubt, that only shots from the REAR struck
>>>>>JFK's body), then why would anyone think it was impossible for a piece of
>>>>>loose skull or brain tissue to have been tossed in the direction of the
>>>>>trunk?
>>>>>
>>>>>So, conspiracy theorists don't have a leg to stand on when they continue
>>>>>to argue that ONLY a shot from the front could have resulted in brain
>>>>>tissue ending up on the trunk of the car.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>The reply to this can be found in the open forum.
>>>
>>>Because you lack the courage to respond here.
>>
>>
>>Your lack of courage to respond in an open forum is noted.
>>
>>
>>>Lane knew perfectly well that the Zapruder film shows Kennedy's brain
>>>matter was ejected upward and forward.
>>>
>>>Nix and Muchmore show the same thing.
>>>
>
>Ben lacks the courage to actually deal with these points.
Your inability to deal with the points I raise in an uncensored arena is
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>RE: BRAIN TISSUE ON THE TRUNK.....
>>>>>
>>>>>Any brain matter that might have been thrown onto the limo's trunk could
>>>>>easily have gotten there as a result of Oswald's shot from the rear.
>>>>>
>>>>>Since we all know that JFK's head was, indeed, thrown violently to the
>>>>>rear after Oswald's shot hit the President's head (and the medical
>>>>>evidence indicates, beyond all doubt, that only shots from the REAR struck
>>>>>JFK's body), then why would anyone think it was impossible for a piece of
>>>>>loose skull or brain tissue to have been tossed in the direction of the
>>>>>trunk?
>>>>>
>>>>>So, conspiracy theorists don't have a leg to stand on when they continue
>>>>>to argue that ONLY a shot from the front could have resulted in brain
>>>>>tissue ending up on the trunk of the car.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>The reply to this can be found in the open forum.
>>>
>>>Because you lack the courage to respond here.
>>
>>
>>Your lack of courage to respond in an open forum is noted.
>>
>>
>>>Lane knew perfectly well that the Zapruder film shows Kennedy's brain
>>>matter was ejected upward and forward.
>>>
>>>Nix and Muchmore show the same thing.
>>>
>
>Ben lacks the courage to actually deal with these points.
noted.
I can, and *have* dealt with this issue before.
>All he knows how to do is holler "liar! liar" like a child.
>.John
Ben Holmes
Jul 12, 2012, 7:05:35 PM7/12/12
to
In article <4ffd8766$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...
> And yet somehow this adds up to a
>
>Some kooks claim that. Not I. You want to join them?
>What next, Zapruder film alterationist? Driver did it theory?
>
>> defeat for DVP in this discussion. A curious conclusion.
>>
>> You're a hoot, Tony. And a very strange hoot, to boot.
>>
>
>
>Hey, you're a poet and you don't even know it.
>
>
>
>
>On 7/11/2012 9:27 AM, David Von Pein wrote:
>>
>> T. MARSH SAID:
>>
>
>>>>> "Only a few say that and no one said brain tissue. Now you say skull
>fragment." <<<
>
>>
>>
>> D. VON PEIN SAID:
>>
>> What's the difference? It would still equate to a hunk of JFK's head
>
>You don't know the difference between skull and brain? Then why are you
>even debating the JFK assassination. Why don't you try debating in the
>astronomy forum and tell them that you never heard of a black hole?
>
>> being tossed backward. And, of course, Jackie did hand Pepper Jenkins
>> a piece of brain tissue at Parkland. So why on Earth you claim that
>
>Jackie picked up that brain tissue while she was in the seat. She did
>not pick up anything from the trunk. You are starting to sound like Jim
>Marrs.
>
>> "no one said brain tissue" is a mystery. Just part of your usual
>> "Argue No Matter What" rule of thumb evidently.
>>
>
>Then why did you say brain tissue? Just to spread disinformation as usual?
>
>>
>>>>> "As always you change your argument after you have lost." <<<
>>
>> You know darn well that Jackie handed Dr. Jenkins a piece of brain
>> tissue--and you also know that most CTers insist that Jackie retrieved
>> that hunk of brain on the trunk.
Actually, that's what the evidence shows.
>On 7/11/2012 9:27 AM, David Von Pein wrote:
>>
>> T. MARSH SAID:
>>
>
>>>>> "Only a few say that and no one said brain tissue. Now you say skull
>fragment." <<<
>
>>
>>
>> D. VON PEIN SAID:
>>
>> What's the difference? It would still equate to a hunk of JFK's head
>
>You don't know the difference between skull and brain? Then why are you
>even debating the JFK assassination. Why don't you try debating in the
>astronomy forum and tell them that you never heard of a black hole?
>
>> being tossed backward. And, of course, Jackie did hand Pepper Jenkins
>> a piece of brain tissue at Parkland. So why on Earth you claim that
>
>Jackie picked up that brain tissue while she was in the seat. She did
>not pick up anything from the trunk. You are starting to sound like Jim
>Marrs.
>
>> "no one said brain tissue" is a mystery. Just part of your usual
>> "Argue No Matter What" rule of thumb evidently.
>>
>
>Then why did you say brain tissue? Just to spread disinformation as usual?
>
>>
>>>>> "As always you change your argument after you have lost." <<<
>>
>> You know darn well that Jackie handed Dr. Jenkins a piece of brain
>> tissue--and you also know that most CTers insist that Jackie retrieved
>> that hunk of brain on the trunk.
> And yet somehow this adds up to a
>
>Some kooks claim that. Not I. You want to join them?
>What next, Zapruder film alterationist? Driver did it theory?
>
>> defeat for DVP in this discussion. A curious conclusion.
>>
>> You're a hoot, Tony. And a very strange hoot, to boot.
>>
>
>
>Hey, you're a poet and you don't even know it.
>
>
>
Anthony Marsh
Jul 13, 2012, 1:04:48 PM7/13/12
to
On 7/12/2012 3:05 PM, Ben Holmes wrote:
> In article <4ffd8766$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...
>>
>> On 7/11/2012 9:27 AM, David Von Pein wrote:
>>>
>>> T. MARSH SAID:
>>>
>>
>>>>>> "Only a few say that and no one said brain tissue. Now you say skull
>> fragment." <<<
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> D. VON PEIN SAID:
>>>
>>> What's the difference? It would still equate to a hunk of JFK's head
>>
>> You don't know the difference between skull and brain? Then why are you
>> even debating the JFK assassination. Why don't you try debating in the
>> astronomy forum and tell them that you never heard of a black hole?
>>
>>> being tossed backward. And, of course, Jackie did hand Pepper Jenkins
>>> a piece of brain tissue at Parkland. So why on Earth you claim that
>>
>> Jackie picked up that brain tissue while she was in the seat. She did
>> not pick up anything from the trunk. You are starting to sound like Jim
>> Marrs.
>>
>>> "no one said brain tissue" is a mystery. Just part of your usual
>>> "Argue No Matter What" rule of thumb evidently.
>>>
>>
>> Then why did you say brain tissue? Just to spread disinformation as usual?
>>
>>>
>>>>>> "As always you change your argument after you have lost." <<<
>>>
>>> You know darn well that Jackie handed Dr. Jenkins a piece of brain
>>> tissue--and you also know that most CTers insist that Jackie retrieved
>>> that hunk of brain on the trunk.
>
>
> Actually, that's what the evidence shows.
>
Her hand is FLAT on the trunk. She never grasps anything.
> In article <4ffd8766$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...
>>
>> On 7/11/2012 9:27 AM, David Von Pein wrote:
>>>
>>> T. MARSH SAID:
>>>
>>
>>>>>> "Only a few say that and no one said brain tissue. Now you say skull
>> fragment." <<<
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> D. VON PEIN SAID:
>>>
>>> What's the difference? It would still equate to a hunk of JFK's head
>>
>> You don't know the difference between skull and brain? Then why are you
>> even debating the JFK assassination. Why don't you try debating in the
>> astronomy forum and tell them that you never heard of a black hole?
>>
>>> being tossed backward. And, of course, Jackie did hand Pepper Jenkins
>>> a piece of brain tissue at Parkland. So why on Earth you claim that
>>
>> Jackie picked up that brain tissue while she was in the seat. She did
>> not pick up anything from the trunk. You are starting to sound like Jim
>> Marrs.
>>
>>> "no one said brain tissue" is a mystery. Just part of your usual
>>> "Argue No Matter What" rule of thumb evidently.
>>>
>>
>> Then why did you say brain tissue? Just to spread disinformation as usual?
>>
>>>
>>>>>> "As always you change your argument after you have lost." <<<
>>>
>>> You know darn well that Jackie handed Dr. Jenkins a piece of brain
>>> tissue--and you also know that most CTers insist that Jackie retrieved
>>> that hunk of brain on the trunk.
>
>
> Actually, that's what the evidence shows.
>
Anthony Marsh
Jul 13, 2012, 5:03:31 PM7/13/12
to
On 7/12/2012 9:18 AM, David Von Pein wrote:
>>>> "Jackie picked up that brain tissue while she was in the seat. She did
> not pick up anything from the trunk. You are starting to sound like Jim
> Marrs." <<<
>
> You're really confused, aren't you Tony?
You're the one who's really confused. Someone else suggested the idea. I
>>>> "Jackie picked up that brain tissue while she was in the seat. She did
> not pick up anything from the trunk. You are starting to sound like Jim
> Marrs." <<<
>
> You're really confused, aren't you Tony?
refuted it. So you agree with me. That's why you attack me. Knee jerk
reaction. Always attack Tony no matter what he says.
DVP: Apple pie is nice.
AM: Apple pie is nice.
DVP: Wrong. Only a kook would say something that stupid.
>
> I don't think Jackie retrieved anything off the trunk. You know that. I
> merely said that IF she did, it got there as a result of a rear gunshot.
> And that's a fact. Because no bullets struck JFK from the front.
>
for 40 years.
Newbie!
Ben Holmes
Jul 13, 2012, 5:03:45 PM7/13/12
to
In article <4fff...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...
How silly!
See answer posted in open forum...
>>> And yet somehow this adds up to a
>>>
>>> Some kooks claim that. Not I. You want to join them?
>>> What next, Zapruder film alterationist? Driver did it theory?
>>>
>>>> defeat for DVP in this discussion. A curious conclusion.
>>>>
>>>> You're a hoot, Tony. And a very strange hoot, to boot.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Hey, you're a poet and you don't even know it.
See answer posted in open forum...
>>> And yet somehow this adds up to a
>>>
>>> Some kooks claim that. Not I. You want to join them?
>>> What next, Zapruder film alterationist? Driver did it theory?
>>>
>>>> defeat for DVP in this discussion. A curious conclusion.
>>>>
>>>> You're a hoot, Tony. And a very strange hoot, to boot.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Hey, you're a poet and you don't even know it.
John McAdams
Jul 13, 2012, 8:40:30 PM7/13/12
to
On 13 Jul 2012 13:03:45 -0400, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com>
wrote:
It's a simple fact that the Altgens photo shows Jackie's hand on the
trunk of the limo, and it is *flat.*
It is not balled up as though she is holding something, and not
clinched.
Jackie could easily have gotten brain matter from the inside of the
limo. It was scattered all over.
wrote:
trunk of the limo, and it is *flat.*
It is not balled up as though she is holding something, and not
clinched.
Jackie could easily have gotten brain matter from the inside of the
limo. It was scattered all over.
Ben Holmes
Jul 14, 2012, 12:58:11 AM7/14/12
to
In article <5000875b....@news.supernews.com>, John McAdams says...
Response to be found in the open forum. The truth would be censored here.
John McAdams
Jul 14, 2012, 1:15:34 AM7/14/12
to
On 13 Jul 2012 20:58:11 -0400, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com>
No, it would not be censored.
And you know that. You just can't engage in civil debate.
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
And you know that. You just can't engage in civil debate.
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
John McAdams
Jul 14, 2012, 1:17:20 AM7/14/12
to
On 12 Jul 2012 15:05:21 -0400, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com>
wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>
>>All he knows how to do is holler "liar! liar" like a child.
>
>
>Amazingly, those who don't lie about the evidence never hear the word.
>
>
You think use "liar, liar" rhetoric to drive off everybody who
disagrees with you.
Everybody knows that's your tactic. You don't fool people.
You simply lose when engaged in a civil debate, and it's obvious to
everybody.
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>The reply to this can be found in the open forum.
>>>>
>>>>Because you lack the courage to respond here.
>>>
>>>
>>>Your lack of courage to respond in an open forum is noted.
>>>
>>>
>>>>Lane knew perfectly well that the Zapruder film shows Kennedy's brain
>>>>matter was ejected upward and forward.
>>>>
>>>>Nix and Muchmore show the same thing.
>>>>
>>
>>Ben lacks the courage to actually deal with these points.
>
>
>Your inability to deal with the points I raise in an uncensored arena is
>noted.
>
>I can, and *have* dealt with this issue before.
>
No, you have not.
>>>>
>>>>Because you lack the courage to respond here.
>>>
>>>
>>>Your lack of courage to respond in an open forum is noted.
>>>
>>>
>>>>Lane knew perfectly well that the Zapruder film shows Kennedy's brain
>>>>matter was ejected upward and forward.
>>>>
>>>>Nix and Muchmore show the same thing.
>>>>
>>
>>Ben lacks the courage to actually deal with these points.
>
>
>Your inability to deal with the points I raise in an uncensored arena is
>noted.
>
>I can, and *have* dealt with this issue before.
>
>
>>All he knows how to do is holler "liar! liar" like a child.
>
>
>Amazingly, those who don't lie about the evidence never hear the word.
>
>
disagrees with you.
Everybody knows that's your tactic. You don't fool people.
You simply lose when engaged in a civil debate, and it's obvious to
everybody.
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Ben Holmes
Jul 14, 2012, 2:19:56 AM7/14/12
to
In article <32i108d44d7k16e1f...@4ax.com>, John McAdams says...
You refuse to debate in a forum that you don't control. I have no problem
doing so - BECAUSE I CAN CITE THE EVIDENCE THAT SUPPORTS WHAT I SAY.
I've pointed out in the past that this isn't true for many denizens of the
this censored forum.
doing so - BECAUSE I CAN CITE THE EVIDENCE THAT SUPPORTS WHAT I SAY.
I've pointed out in the past that this isn't true for many denizens of the
this censored forum.
0 new messages