info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Kevin Barrett Wants to Change the Subject
42 views
Skip to first unread message
John McAdams
Mar 21, 2012, 9:54:58 AM3/21/12
to
I got *this* e-mail in response to my e-mail to Jim Fetzer.
<Quote on>
Hi John,
I'm glad to see you are beginning to recognize that controversial issues
of potentially momentous importance - issues so controversial they terrify
most scholars into looking the other way - need to be debated. Perhaps you
are now willing to admit that if there is only a modest (say, 5%) chance
that 9/11 or the JFK hit were inside jobs, these claims would still
deserve a tremendous amount of attention and debate, due to their
overwhelming importance if they did turn out to be true.
In that spirit, may I suggest that you do Marquette University proud, and
stand in for the 10,000-plus UW system teachers who are afraid to defend
the 9/11 Commission Report in a debate with me. By debating me, you will
be sending $2,000 to two very worthy 9/11 501c3 charities. See:
http://debate911.blogspot.com/
Can you commit to defending the 9/11 Commission Report in a debate with me
here at the University of Wisconsin-Madison on or about Tuesday, September
11th, 2012? The debate would be sponsored by a student organization, the
UW-Madison Sifting and Winnowing Club.
Best
Kevin Barrett
Advisor, UW-Madison Sifting and Winnowing Club:
http://uwsw.blogspot.com/
http://debate911.blogspot.com/
On Mar 20, 2012, at 9:45 PM, jmca...@datasync.com wrote:
> Hi, Jim,
>
> I'm not at all keen to debate you, but let me make a counter offer.
>
> You folks invite David Wrone to Madison and set up a debate at pits me
> against Wrone.
>
> In fact, I just talked to Wrone and he was quite open to the idea.
>
> So you can have the debate, but with Wrone (a very well-respected conspiracy
> researcher) on the "conspiracy" side.
>
> Let me know if you accept my counter offer.
>
> .John
>
>
>
>> John,
>>
>> Ralph sent this on the basis of my having extended an invitation to debate
>> to Gary Mack, which
>> he promply declined, and then during an exchange on amazon.com to S.V.
>> Anderson, whom a
>> number of students have supposed was you publishing under a pseudonym.
>> Regardless, I do
>> think it would be a great idea in recognition of the 50th observance of
>> the
>> death of JFK to have
>> a public debate between you and me, where we are (or were) both faculty,
>> me
>> in philosophy and
>> you in political science, where we both have a certain degree of
>> prominence, have published one
>> or more books about the assassination, and represent diametrically
>> opposing
>> points of view. I
>> have though about this since I moved to Madison in 2006, so I hope you
>> like
>> this proposal, too.
>>
>> I am sure that S.V. Anderson, whomever he may be, will neither identify
>> himself nor make more
>> than a pseudo-acceptance, which he has already done, but where, in the
>> absence of identifying
>> himself and allowing *bona fide* access to his location and such, this is
>> simply one more cowardly
>> act from someone with a widespread reputation for spreading
>> misinformation,
>> disinformation and
>> lies across the internet. I think you and I would make a far more
>> interesting combination, where
>> I propose a two-hour public debate divided into 15-minute segments, where
>> I
>> go first, you reply,
>> and so on, which leads to your having the last word. If one of us does
>> not
>> use his whole time,
>> the remainder will devolve to this opponent. We will tape the debate and
>> post it on the internet.
>>
>> Kevin Barrett, whom you may or may not know, chairs the "Sifting and
>> Winnowing Club" on the
>> UW-Madison campus, where, by copying him on this email, I am inquiring
>> whether he and the
>> club would like to sponsor this event. Since 2012 is not the 50th year
>> since the assassination,
>> but is in close proximity, I would propose that we set it up in close
>> proximity to the 22nd, which
>> however happens to be Thanksgiving this year. So perhaps Wednesday, the
>> 21st, would be a
>> suitable occasion. Let me know if this works for you. If you prefer
>> Marquette, we could do that,
>> too. But I believe it is highly appropriate for persons like us to debate
>> issues of this magnitude.
>>
>> Warm regards,
>>
>> Jim
>>
>> James H. Fetzer, Ph.D.
>> McKnight Professor Emeritus
>> University of Minnesota Duluth
>> http://www.d.umn.edu/~jfetzer/
>>
>> On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 2:22 PM, Dr. Ralph Cinque
>> <doctor...@hotmail.com>wrote:
>>
>>> Separeately, I sent him your email address to respond to you directly
>>> if
>>> he is so inclined.
>>>
>>> ------------------------------
>>> From: doctor...@hotmail.com
>>> To: jmca...@datasync.com
>>> Subject: debate invitation
>>> Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2012 13:33:37 -0500
>>>
>>> Professor McAdams,
>>>
>>> My name is Ralph Cinque, and I am the originator of a youtube series
>>> entitled: *Visible Proof That Oswald Was Innocent *which you can find
>>> here:
>>>
>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G_3sCGPQ3zk&feature=youtu.be
>>>
>>> I am also a friend of Professor James Fetzer, and I have been authorized
>>> by him to extend to you an invitation, which follows:
>>>
>>> To Professor John McAdams of Marquette University,
>>>
>>> Let me advance the following challenge:
>>>
>>> Since I am in Madison and you are in Milwaukee, I hereby challenge you
>>> to
>>> a two-hour, public debate about the assassination of JFK. I will use a
>>> Powerpoint presentation to show the evidence that substantiates my
>>> points,
>>> while you are welcome to do the same. We will divide the two hours into
>>> 15-minute segments, where I will take the first and you the last.
>>>
>>> This is the same challenge I extended to Gary Mack, the Curator of The
>>> 6th
>>> Floor Museum. He declined, just as I expect you to decline.
>>> Nevertheless, I
>>> am extending the invitation, and it is a serious offer. There is a power
>>> to
>>> truth that no end of deceit, deception and prevarication can overcome.
>>> We
>>> could do it at UW-Madison or at Marquette- whichever you prefer.
>>>
>>> If you want to learn more about "The Great JFK Non-Debate: Jim Fetzer
>>> vs.
>>> Gary Mack", then visit
>>> http://www.veteranstoday.com/2012/03/06/t**
>>> he-great-jfk-non-debate-jim-fetzer-vs-gar**y-mack/<http://www.veteranstoday.com/2012/03/06/the-great-jfk-non-debate-jim-fetzer-vs-gary-mack/>
>>>
>>> It is obvious that we are at opposite poles of an important public
>>> issue,
>>> and it is high time we debated the issue in public, and I hope you
>>> agree.
>>>
>>> Sincerely,
>>>
>>> James Fetzer
>>>
>>
>
>
Kevin Barrett
Staff Writer, VeteransToday.com
Radio Journalist, AmericanFreedomRadio.com, NoLiesRadio.org
Website: www.TruthJihad.com
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
<Quote on>
Hi John,
I'm glad to see you are beginning to recognize that controversial issues
of potentially momentous importance - issues so controversial they terrify
most scholars into looking the other way - need to be debated. Perhaps you
are now willing to admit that if there is only a modest (say, 5%) chance
that 9/11 or the JFK hit were inside jobs, these claims would still
deserve a tremendous amount of attention and debate, due to their
overwhelming importance if they did turn out to be true.
In that spirit, may I suggest that you do Marquette University proud, and
stand in for the 10,000-plus UW system teachers who are afraid to defend
the 9/11 Commission Report in a debate with me. By debating me, you will
be sending $2,000 to two very worthy 9/11 501c3 charities. See:
http://debate911.blogspot.com/
Can you commit to defending the 9/11 Commission Report in a debate with me
here at the University of Wisconsin-Madison on or about Tuesday, September
11th, 2012? The debate would be sponsored by a student organization, the
UW-Madison Sifting and Winnowing Club.
Best
Kevin Barrett
Advisor, UW-Madison Sifting and Winnowing Club:
http://uwsw.blogspot.com/
http://debate911.blogspot.com/
On Mar 20, 2012, at 9:45 PM, jmca...@datasync.com wrote:
> Hi, Jim,
>
> I'm not at all keen to debate you, but let me make a counter offer.
>
> You folks invite David Wrone to Madison and set up a debate at pits me
> against Wrone.
>
> In fact, I just talked to Wrone and he was quite open to the idea.
>
> So you can have the debate, but with Wrone (a very well-respected conspiracy
> researcher) on the "conspiracy" side.
>
> Let me know if you accept my counter offer.
>
> .John
>
>
>
>> John,
>>
>> Ralph sent this on the basis of my having extended an invitation to debate
>> to Gary Mack, which
>> he promply declined, and then during an exchange on amazon.com to S.V.
>> Anderson, whom a
>> number of students have supposed was you publishing under a pseudonym.
>> Regardless, I do
>> think it would be a great idea in recognition of the 50th observance of
>> the
>> death of JFK to have
>> a public debate between you and me, where we are (or were) both faculty,
>> me
>> in philosophy and
>> you in political science, where we both have a certain degree of
>> prominence, have published one
>> or more books about the assassination, and represent diametrically
>> opposing
>> points of view. I
>> have though about this since I moved to Madison in 2006, so I hope you
>> like
>> this proposal, too.
>>
>> I am sure that S.V. Anderson, whomever he may be, will neither identify
>> himself nor make more
>> than a pseudo-acceptance, which he has already done, but where, in the
>> absence of identifying
>> himself and allowing *bona fide* access to his location and such, this is
>> simply one more cowardly
>> act from someone with a widespread reputation for spreading
>> misinformation,
>> disinformation and
>> lies across the internet. I think you and I would make a far more
>> interesting combination, where
>> I propose a two-hour public debate divided into 15-minute segments, where
>> I
>> go first, you reply,
>> and so on, which leads to your having the last word. If one of us does
>> not
>> use his whole time,
>> the remainder will devolve to this opponent. We will tape the debate and
>> post it on the internet.
>>
>> Kevin Barrett, whom you may or may not know, chairs the "Sifting and
>> Winnowing Club" on the
>> UW-Madison campus, where, by copying him on this email, I am inquiring
>> whether he and the
>> club would like to sponsor this event. Since 2012 is not the 50th year
>> since the assassination,
>> but is in close proximity, I would propose that we set it up in close
>> proximity to the 22nd, which
>> however happens to be Thanksgiving this year. So perhaps Wednesday, the
>> 21st, would be a
>> suitable occasion. Let me know if this works for you. If you prefer
>> Marquette, we could do that,
>> too. But I believe it is highly appropriate for persons like us to debate
>> issues of this magnitude.
>>
>> Warm regards,
>>
>> Jim
>>
>> James H. Fetzer, Ph.D.
>> McKnight Professor Emeritus
>> University of Minnesota Duluth
>> http://www.d.umn.edu/~jfetzer/
>>
>> On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 2:22 PM, Dr. Ralph Cinque
>> <doctor...@hotmail.com>wrote:
>>
>>> Separeately, I sent him your email address to respond to you directly
>>> if
>>> he is so inclined.
>>>
>>> ------------------------------
>>> From: doctor...@hotmail.com
>>> To: jmca...@datasync.com
>>> Subject: debate invitation
>>> Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2012 13:33:37 -0500
>>>
>>> Professor McAdams,
>>>
>>> My name is Ralph Cinque, and I am the originator of a youtube series
>>> entitled: *Visible Proof That Oswald Was Innocent *which you can find
>>> here:
>>>
>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G_3sCGPQ3zk&feature=youtu.be
>>>
>>> I am also a friend of Professor James Fetzer, and I have been authorized
>>> by him to extend to you an invitation, which follows:
>>>
>>> To Professor John McAdams of Marquette University,
>>>
>>> Let me advance the following challenge:
>>>
>>> Since I am in Madison and you are in Milwaukee, I hereby challenge you
>>> to
>>> a two-hour, public debate about the assassination of JFK. I will use a
>>> Powerpoint presentation to show the evidence that substantiates my
>>> points,
>>> while you are welcome to do the same. We will divide the two hours into
>>> 15-minute segments, where I will take the first and you the last.
>>>
>>> This is the same challenge I extended to Gary Mack, the Curator of The
>>> 6th
>>> Floor Museum. He declined, just as I expect you to decline.
>>> Nevertheless, I
>>> am extending the invitation, and it is a serious offer. There is a power
>>> to
>>> truth that no end of deceit, deception and prevarication can overcome.
>>> We
>>> could do it at UW-Madison or at Marquette- whichever you prefer.
>>>
>>> If you want to learn more about "The Great JFK Non-Debate: Jim Fetzer
>>> vs.
>>> Gary Mack", then visit
>>> http://www.veteranstoday.com/2012/03/06/t**
>>> he-great-jfk-non-debate-jim-fetzer-vs-gar**y-mack/<http://www.veteranstoday.com/2012/03/06/the-great-jfk-non-debate-jim-fetzer-vs-gary-mack/>
>>>
>>> It is obvious that we are at opposite poles of an important public
>>> issue,
>>> and it is high time we debated the issue in public, and I hope you
>>> agree.
>>>
>>> Sincerely,
>>>
>>> James Fetzer
>>>
>>
>
>
Kevin Barrett
Staff Writer, VeteransToday.com
Radio Journalist, AmericanFreedomRadio.com, NoLiesRadio.org
Website: www.TruthJihad.com
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
John McAdams
Mar 21, 2012, 10:05:11 AM3/21/12
to
I just sent this e-mail to Kevin Barrett:
<Quote on>
Kevin,
Now you are trying to change the subject. I don't "do" 9/11. I "do" the
JFK assassination.
If you want a debate, simply invite David Wrone to Madison for a debate
with me, sponsored by the Sifting and Winnowing Club.
.John
[snipping]
<Quote on>
Kevin,
Now you are trying to change the subject. I don't "do" 9/11. I "do" the
JFK assassination.
If you want a debate, simply invite David Wrone to Madison for a debate
with me, sponsored by the Sifting and Winnowing Club.
.John
John McAdams
Mar 21, 2012, 12:35:02 PM3/21/12
to
Two e-mails I just got:
<Quote on>
John,
You have repeatedly publicly insulted me because you disagree with my
views on 9/11.
Either stand up and defend your views, or hang a "coward" sign around your
neck.
Kevin
On Mar 21, 2012, at 9:06 AM, jmca...@datasync.com wrote:
> Kevin,
>
> Now you are trying to change the subject. I don't "do" 9/11. I "do" the
> JFK assassination.
>
> If you want a debate, simply invite David Wrone to Madison for a debate
> with me, sponsored by the Sifting and Winnowing Club.
>
> .John
>
>
>
Now, one from Fetzer:
<Quote on>
And you can set up your own "patsies" for faux-debates, John. If you had
the courage of your convictions, you would debate me, not some pussy like
Wrone. But you will not debate me or Kevin, which speaks volumes about
your integrity.
On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 9:17 AM, Kevin Barrett <kbar...@merr.com>
wrote:
> John,
>
> You have repeatedly publicly insulted me because you disagree with my
> views on 9/11.
>
> Either stand up and defend your views, or hang a "coward" sign around your
> neck.
>
> Kevin
>
<Quote off>
On 21 Mar 2012 09:54:58 -0400, John McAdams
--
The Kennedy Assassination Home Page
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
<Quote on>
John,
You have repeatedly publicly insulted me because you disagree with my
views on 9/11.
Either stand up and defend your views, or hang a "coward" sign around your
neck.
Kevin
On Mar 21, 2012, at 9:06 AM, jmca...@datasync.com wrote:
> Kevin,
>
> Now you are trying to change the subject. I don't "do" 9/11. I "do" the
> JFK assassination.
>
> If you want a debate, simply invite David Wrone to Madison for a debate
> with me, sponsored by the Sifting and Winnowing Club.
>
> .John
>
>
>
>> Hi John,
>>
>> I'm glad to see you are beginning to recognize that controversial issues
>> of potentially momentous importance - issues so controversial they terrify
>> most scholars into looking the other way - need to be debated. Perhaps you
>> are now willing to admit that if there is only a modest (say, 5%) chance
>> that 9/11 or the JFK hit were inside jobs, these claims would still
>> deserve a tremendous amount of attention and debate, due to their
>> overwhelming importance if they did turn out to be true.
>>
>> In that spirit, may I suggest that you do Marquette University proud, and
>> stand in for the 10,000-plus UW system teachers who are afraid to defend
>> the 9/11 Commission Report in a debate with me. By debating me, you will
>> be sending $2,000 to two very worthy 9/11 501c3 charities.
>> See:
>> http://debate911.blogspot.com/
>>
>> Can you commit to defending the 9/11 Commission Report in a debate with me
>> here at the University of Wisconsin-Madison on or about Tuesday, September
>> 11th, 2012? The debate would be sponsored by a student organization, the
>> UW-Madison Sifting and Winnowing Club.
>>
>> Best
>>
>> Kevin Barrett
>> Advisor, UW-Madison Sifting and Winnowing Club: http://uwsw.blogspot.com/
>>
>> http://debate911.blogspot.com/
<Quote off>
>>
>> I'm glad to see you are beginning to recognize that controversial issues
>> of potentially momentous importance - issues so controversial they terrify
>> most scholars into looking the other way - need to be debated. Perhaps you
>> are now willing to admit that if there is only a modest (say, 5%) chance
>> that 9/11 or the JFK hit were inside jobs, these claims would still
>> deserve a tremendous amount of attention and debate, due to their
>> overwhelming importance if they did turn out to be true.
>>
>> In that spirit, may I suggest that you do Marquette University proud, and
>> stand in for the 10,000-plus UW system teachers who are afraid to defend
>> the 9/11 Commission Report in a debate with me. By debating me, you will
>> be sending $2,000 to two very worthy 9/11 501c3 charities.
>> See:
>> http://debate911.blogspot.com/
>>
>> Can you commit to defending the 9/11 Commission Report in a debate with me
>> here at the University of Wisconsin-Madison on or about Tuesday, September
>> 11th, 2012? The debate would be sponsored by a student organization, the
>> UW-Madison Sifting and Winnowing Club.
>>
>> Best
>>
>> Kevin Barrett
>> Advisor, UW-Madison Sifting and Winnowing Club: http://uwsw.blogspot.com/
>>
>> http://debate911.blogspot.com/
Now, one from Fetzer:
<Quote on>
And you can set up your own "patsies" for faux-debates, John. If you had
the courage of your convictions, you would debate me, not some pussy like
Wrone. But you will not debate me or Kevin, which speaks volumes about
your integrity.
On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 9:17 AM, Kevin Barrett <kbar...@merr.com>
wrote:
> John,
>
> You have repeatedly publicly insulted me because you disagree with my
> views on 9/11.
>
> Either stand up and defend your views, or hang a "coward" sign around your
> neck.
>
> Kevin
>
<Quote off>
On 21 Mar 2012 09:54:58 -0400, John McAdams
The Kennedy Assassination Home Page
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Bud
Mar 21, 2012, 2:23:07 PM3/21/12
to
On Mar 21, 12:35 pm, john.mcad...@marquette.edu (John McAdams) wrote:
> Two e-mails I just got:
>
> <Quote on>
>
> John,
>
> You have repeatedly publicly insulted me because you disagree with my
> views on 9/11.
>
> Either stand up and defend your views, or hang a "coward" sign around your
> neck.
>
> Kevin
>
> Two e-mails I just got:
>
> <Quote on>
>
> John,
>
> You have repeatedly publicly insulted me because you disagree with my
> views on 9/11.
>
> Either stand up and defend your views, or hang a "coward" sign around your
> neck.
>
> Kevin
>
>
> >>>> Separeately, I sent him your email address to respond to you directly
> >>>> if
> >>>> he is so inclined.
>
> >>>> ------------------------------
> >>>> From: doctorcin...@hotmail.com
> >>>> Separeately, I sent him your email address to respond to you directly
> >>>> if
> >>>> he is so inclined.
>
> >>>> ------------------------------
> >>>> To: jmcad...@datasync.com
>
> >>>> It is obvious that we are at opposite poles of an important public
> >>>> issue,
> >>>> and it is high time we debated the issue in public, and I hope you
> >>>> agree.
>
> >>>> Sincerely,
>
> >>>> James Fetzer
>
> >Kevin Barrett
> >Staff Writer, VeteransToday.com
> >Radio Journalist, AmericanFreedomRadio.com, NoLiesRadio.org
> >Website:www.TruthJihad.com
> >.John
> >--------------
> >http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
>
> --
> The Kennedy Assassination Home Pagehttp://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Boy, they went right off the deep end, didn`t they?
> >>>> It is obvious that we are at opposite poles of an important public
> >>>> issue,
> >>>> and it is high time we debated the issue in public, and I hope you
> >>>> agree.
>
> >>>> Sincerely,
>
> >>>> James Fetzer
>
> >Kevin Barrett
> >Staff Writer, VeteransToday.com
> >Radio Journalist, AmericanFreedomRadio.com, NoLiesRadio.org
> >Website:www.TruthJihad.com
> >.John
> >--------------
> >http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
>
> --
> The Kennedy Assassination Home Pagehttp://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Seems they used all their own credibility and are forced to beg for
other people`s.
markusp
Mar 21, 2012, 5:56:09 PM3/21/12
to
On Wednesday, March 21, 2012 1:23:07 PM UTC-5, Bud wrote:
> Seems they used all their own credibility and are forced to beg for
> other people`s.
"Credibility" is certainly a subjective term, eh? I'm not going to stir
> Seems they used all their own credibility and are forced to beg for
> other people`s.
the pot on this one, but how does clinging to the WC's conclusion of a
lone assassin gain someone this elusive credibility? Conspiracy
researchers have to practically beg for recognition, and then only when we
offer legitimate citation and support.
On the defender side, do you receive automatic credibility for taking that
stance?
~Mark
Bud
Mar 21, 2012, 10:08:31 PM3/21/12
to
On Mar 21, 5:56 pm, markusp <markina...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Wednesday, March 21, 2012 1:23:07 PM UTC-5, Bud wrote:
> > Seems they used all their own credibility and are forced to beg for
> > other people`s.
>
> "Credibility" is certainly a subjective term, eh?
Of course, just like "facts" and "truth" to those who "think out of
> On Wednesday, March 21, 2012 1:23:07 PM UTC-5, Bud wrote:
> > Seems they used all their own credibility and are forced to beg for
> > other people`s.
>
> "Credibility" is certainly a subjective term, eh?
the box".
> I'm not going to stir
> the pot on this one, but how does clinging to the WC's conclusion of a
> lone assassin gain someone this elusive credibility?
> Conspiracy
> researchers have to practically beg for recognition, and then only when we
> offer legitimate citation and support.
any more is if they debate an LNer who brings credibility to the table.
> On the defender side, do you receive automatic credibility for taking that
> stance?
Believing a silly proposition like "Oswald was a patsy" (or the twin
towers were brought down by space lasers) loses you credibility. The idea
that evidence and testimony that incriminates Oswald is all contrived to
frame him is an intellectually bankrupt position where the most incredible
and extraordinary is supported by the weak and meager.
> ~Mark
David Von Pein
Mar 21, 2012, 10:59:53 PM3/21/12
to
James H. Fetzer is a total joke, even amongst most of the outer-fringe
CTers. And I can understand why John McAdams doesn't want to waste his
time debating a complete joke. Although it would definitely be fun to
watch, as Fetzer would be forced to claim that all the evidence against
Oswald is fake, just as all of the other loony Anybody-But- Oswald quacks
have to claim.
Incredibly, Fetzer is a guy who thinks JFK and Connally were hit by a
minimum of SEVEN separate bullets. Seven!
But what do you think Fetzer's answer is to this question -- "Where did
all of those bullets go, Jim?"
He has no reasonable answer for that question, of course, since his theory
is utter fantasy--and always has been. Just as his "Z-Film Hoax" is a
fantasy as well.
But if CTers didn't have their fantasies, they'd have nothing to argue at
all.
Anthony Marsh
Mar 22, 2012, 11:50:30 AM3/22/12
to
On 3/21/2012 10:59 PM, David Von Pein wrote:
>
> James H. Fetzer is a total joke, even amongst most of the outer-fringe
> CTers. And I can understand why John McAdams doesn't want to waste his
> time debating a complete joke. Although it would definitely be fun to
> watch, as Fetzer would be forced to claim that all the evidence against
> Oswald is fake, just as all of the other loony Anybody-But- Oswald quacks
> have to claim.
Just as an exercise in logic why can't some of the
>
> James H. Fetzer is a total joke, even amongst most of the outer-fringe
> CTers. And I can understand why John McAdams doesn't want to waste his
> time debating a complete joke. Although it would definitely be fun to
> watch, as Fetzer would be forced to claim that all the evidence against
> Oswald is fake, just as all of the other loony Anybody-But- Oswald quacks
> have to claim.
Oswald-Was-Part-of-The-Conspiracy kooks just as easily claim that all
the evidence is fake?
Do you envision that every real assassin has been caught and convicted?
None got away because of sloppy police work or damaged evidence?
>
> Incredibly, Fetzer is a guy who thinks JFK and Connally were hit by a
> minimum of SEVEN separate bullets. Seven!
>
> But what do you think Fetzer's answer is to this question -- "Where did
> all of those bullets go, Jim?"
>
shot, Where did that bullet go?"
> He has no reasonable answer for that question, of course, since his theory
> is utter fantasy--and always has been. Just as his "Z-Film Hoax" is a
> fantasy as well.
>
> But if CTers didn't have their fantasies, they'd have nothing to argue at
> all.
>
believers have some as well?
markusp
Mar 22, 2012, 12:32:28 PM3/22/12
to
On Wednesday, March 21, 2012 9:08:31 PM UTC-5, Bud wrote:
> > "Credibility" is certainly a subjective term, eh?
>
> Of course, just like "facts" and "truth" to those who "think out of
> the box".
>
> > I'm not going to stir
> > the pot on this one, but how does clinging to the WC's conclusion of a
> > lone assassin gain someone this elusive credibility?
>
> Because believing things that are true to be true lends credibility.
Can that apply to persons believing a conspiracy was at least possible
> > "Credibility" is certainly a subjective term, eh?
>
> Of course, just like "facts" and "truth" to those who "think out of
> the box".
>
> > I'm not going to stir
> > the pot on this one, but how does clinging to the WC's conclusion of a
> > lone assassin gain someone this elusive credibility?
>
> Because believing things that are true to be true lends credibility.
through circumstantial evidence? A lot of us believe it to be a
conspiracy.
> > Conspiracy
> > researchers have to practically beg for recognition, and then only when we
> > offer legitimate citation and support.
>
> My point exactly. The only way they can get someone to listen to them
> any more is if they debate an LNer who brings credibility to the table.
stereotypical opinion-by-default is that if it's not the LN perspective
= no credibility. We can't even get to the table without pre-conceived
notions.
> > On the defender side, do you receive automatic credibility for taking that
> > stance?
>
> Yes, taking a reasonable and supportable position gains you credibility.
> Believing a silly proposition like "Oswald was a patsy"
innocent patsy. I do believe he was involved, and still made to be the
fall guy. Can we get any credible traction with that?
> (or the twin
> towers were brought down by space lasers) loses you credibility.
considered only within the context of his murder. Not all of us blindly
accept the foolish conjecture of an inside 9-11 hoax. The anthrax
mailings, however, should be scrutinized much more deeply, especially with
respect to the FBI's handling of it.
> The idea
> that evidence and testimony that incriminates Oswald is all contrived to
> frame him is an intellectually bankrupt position where the most incredible
> and extraordinary is supported by the weak and meager.
with an open mindedness that places the damning evidence directly onto
Oswald as a co-conspirator? Your position is clearly very supportable, and
I appreciate that.
There are aspects that, IMO, are not as weak and meager as you believe.
One of these is the photo that was alleged to be LHO in Mexico City, but
clearly was not. Then there is the audio tape recording, of which Hoover
was aware, that was also alleged to be LHO and obviously was not.
Can it be considered weak and meager from our perspective that the Pentagon destroyed their file(s)? Also, I apologize for being the "broken record" on this, but the loss of the Harper Fragment I find very difficult to simply dismiss. Dr. McAdams' bolsters his LN position by stating there that Billy Harper's identified location of discovery supports LHO firing from above & behind. No problem, right? Wrong -- .john's phrasing there alludes that the fragment landed there and remained, then makes the leap of "animals may have moved it" but it's doubtful. With all of the human activity in DP, not even a squirrel would have shown its face there. This is notwithstanding the throngs of people in DP after the shooting that could have easily relocated that fragment.
We're reminded quite often to dismiss testimony of eye witnesses, or ear witnesses. The multiple claims of testimony under oath that at least two of the audible shots were nearly on top of each other must be explained by echoes. But if echoes can't explain it properly, is it weak and meager to suspect two separate shots at nearly the same moment?
Before you hogtie me for the two-headshot theory and a possible GK shooter, I remain unconvinced, but I'm not expert. I try to reconcile existing evidence with conjecture, and I strongly feel a conspiracy was afoot, completely disregarding any GK shooter. In their defense, however, the dictabelt issue can be argued credibly from either viewpoint, as well as Tony Marsh's strong conviction of a right-temple inshoot, after viewing the originals at NARA.
Thanks, Bud. Respectfully,
~Mark
John Canal
Mar 22, 2012, 3:15:21 PM3/22/12
to
In article <1164574.316.1332433147684.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@yncs14>,
markusp says...
>notions.
>
>> > On the defender side, do you receive automatic credibility for taking t=
>hat
>> > stance?
>>=20
>> Yes, taking a reasonable and supportable position gains you credibility=
the assassination the motorcade would have been traveling eastward off the
Stemmons (from Love Field) on Main to the Women's Center where the
luncheon was originally supposed to be. The point is that there would have
been no clear shot from the TSBD at JFK...in fact Jackie would have been
between JFK and the TSBD.
Now, to squeeze that fact into a conspiracy theory in which Oswald was
involved maybe you could offer one of these explanations [?]:
1. The conspiracy had other shooters originally positioned at strategic
locations along the route to the Women's Center...but din't need them in
the end....so they were swon to secrecy?
Hmmm, so they got lucky and had one of their shooters [LHO] right there to
make the shot when the route was changed to go to the Trade Mart?
How does that work for you?
2. The conspiracy knew the Trade Mart would be the final choice for the
luncheon because they had insiders make that change?
Problem there is that Gov. Connally was the person most responsible for
making the change for the luncheon from the Women's center to the Trade
Mart....do you think JBC was involved?
Also, more in on the conspiracy to make the change? Their numbers are
piling up, eh...tough to keep them all quiet for decades, no? Unless they
were silenced...for good?
3. The conspiracy could have had Oswald pack up his trusty Carcano and
move from the TSBD to wherever he was needed?
How that work for you?
See my point? Of course you don't and Marsh will come to your rescue on
this...just wait for his reply. Yah, he'll rescue you by throwing you both
ends of the rope.
>> (or the twin >> towers were brought down by space lasers) loses you
credibility. > >The JFK murder's conspiracy supporters, in all fairness,
should be >considered only within the context of his murder. Not all of us
blindly >accept the foolish conjecture of an inside 9-11 hoax. The anthrax
>mailings, however, should be scrutinized much more deeply, especially
with >respect to the FBI's handling of it. > >> The idea >> that evidence
and testimony that incriminates Oswald is all contrived to >> frame him is
an intellectually bankrupt position where the most incredibl= >e >> and
this conspiracy was pretty big, eh? Hard to keep one that size from
exposing itself considering how long it's been, doncha think?
>Then there is the audio tape recording, of which Hoover >was aware, that
was also alleged to be LHO and obviously was not.
Do you file that under "Hard evidence there was an assassination
conspiracy"...or under "Suspicious events"?
>Can it be considered weak and meager from our perspective that the
Pentagon= > destroyed their file(s)?
More conspirators?...a small army of them, eh?
>Also, I apologize for being the "broken record" o=
>n this, but the loss of the Harper Fragment I find very difficult to simply=
> dismiss.
Do you really...honestly now, find it totally inconceivable that out of
respect and sensitivity for his fallen brother RFK had parts of his
[JFK's] body, including his brain, etc. confiscated and destroyed as
opposed to being kept (even if they were evidence) in the archives to be
examined every time there was a re-examinaton of the evidence?
You just can't buy that, can you? Am I being unreasonable by suggesting
that? Really?
>Dr. McAdams' bolsters his LN position by stating there that Billy=
> Harper's identified location of discovery supports LHO firing from above &=
> behind. No problem, right? Wrong -- .john's phrasing there alludes that th=
>e fragment landed there and remained, then makes the leap of "animals may h=
>ave moved it" but it's doubtful. With all of the human activity in DP, not =
>even a squirrel would have shown its face there. This is notwithstanding th=
>e throngs of people in DP after the shooting that could have easily relocat=
>ed that fragment.
>
>We're reminded quite often to dismiss testimony of eye witnesses, or ear wi=
>tnesses. The multiple claims of testimony under oath that at least two of t=
>he audible shots were nearly on top of each other must be explained by echo=
>es. But if echoes can't explain it properly, is it weak and meager to suspe=
through the brain and only one entry and one exit defect noted (not to
mention there was no fragments found behind JFK) was fabricated?
Ah ha....more conspirators involved....the conspiracy was huge, eh?
>Before you hogtie me for the two-headshot theory and a possible GK shooter,=
> I remain unconvinced, but I'm not expert. I try to reconcile existing evid=
>ence with conjecture, and I strongly feel a conspiracy was afoot, completel=
>y disregarding any GK shooter.
Based on_______? Fill that in with all the hard evidence you have
please....again that would be "hard" evidence.
>In their defense, however, the dictabelt iss=
>ue can be argued credibly from either viewpoint, as well as Tony Marsh's st=
of the argument...after all you guys have a ton of other "hard" evidence
there was a conspiracy, right?
>after viewing the originals at N=
>ARA.
Tony examined the original autopsy photos etc. at the NA? Really?
I understood him to say he's "seen" the original Fox set. If you believe
him fine, but obviously he doesn't have them in his possession to examine
whenever he wants, right?
He claims that JFK wasn't hit once in the BOH...yes, not once anywhere
there!
In support of that "theory", he claims that the photo of JFK's BOH scalp
really doesn't show the entry in the scalp, but just shows a blood clot or
some other defect....meaning the autopsists took a picture of a blood clot
or whatever and tried to sell the idea it was the scalp entry. I guess
Tony thinks they hoped no one would ever be able to closely examine that
photo and see indications (as the HSCA did) that that "blood clot" (or
whatever) had an abrasion collar?
Hmmm, a blood clot with an abrasion collar...why not...makes good CT
sense...just ask Tony.
Also the autopsists took a picture of a circular defect in JFK's rear
skull...or that's the official story anyway.
So if it was a lie I guess Tony is saying there again that the autopsists
just took a picture of some circular skull defect (that wasn't the entry)?
Another blood clot?
Interesting that the HSCA saw the beveling inward of the skull around that
defect isn't it....if it wasn't an entry defect?
Also interesting that, if that circular defect was not the entry how a
trail of tiny opacities (tiny skull fragments) on the lateral X-ray
matches the location of that circular defect?
Of course Tony surely must think the autopsists made up the story that
they sectioned the tissue around the entry and saw microsopic pieces of
skull. He wants to see the slides for himself.....sure the lab techs were
in on the conspiracy too....in fact who wasn't?
He also claims that the autopsists were so incompetent and stupid I guess
that they didn't see an entry wound in the forehead above JFK's right
eye...but took a picture of JFK's skull so CTs, like Tony, could find it
and claim it was caused by a bullet fired from other than JFK's rear.
Now, he'll point out that Dr. Angel said that defect was an exit wound
(not an entry like Tony says, but who's to nitpick)...but what he won't
tell you is that Angel clearly said to the FPP the exit was just forward
of the coronal suture near the Stephanion process....and that defect
(Tony's entry) above JFK's right eye is medical miles from the coronbal
suture.
IOW Angel goofed when he said Tony's entry was a bullet wound and even
corrected himself in front of the FPP...but Tony exploited his mistake and
won't ever forgive him for making it....because Tony needs "evidence" to
support his silly "no-hits-to-JFK's-BOH" theory.
Also note that an enlargement of Tony's forehead entry shows it to look
nothing like a bullet wound...that's a photo Tony doesn't like.
Hang in there...and maybe work on that list of hard evidence there was a
conspiracy?
>Thanks, Bud. Respectfully,
>~Mark
--
John Canal
jca...@webtv.net
markusp says...
>
>On Wednesday, March 21, 2012 9:08:31 PM UTC-5, Bud wrote:
>> > "Credibility" is certainly a subjective term, eh?
>>=20
>On Wednesday, March 21, 2012 9:08:31 PM UTC-5, Bud wrote:
>> > "Credibility" is certainly a subjective term, eh?
>> Of course, just like "facts" and "truth" to those who "think out of
>> the box".
>>=20
>> the box".
>> > I'm not going to stir
>> > the pot on this one, but how does clinging to the WC's conclusion of a
>> > lone assassin gain someone this elusive credibility?
>>=20
>> > the pot on this one, but how does clinging to the WC's conclusion of a
>> > lone assassin gain someone this elusive credibility?
>> Because believing things that are true to be true lends credibility.
>
>Can that apply to persons believing a conspiracy was at least possible
>through circumstantial evidence? A lot of us believe it to be a
>conspiracy.
>
>> > Conspiracy
>> > researchers have to practically beg for recognition, and then only when=
>
>Can that apply to persons believing a conspiracy was at least possible
>through circumstantial evidence? A lot of us believe it to be a
>conspiracy.
>
>> > Conspiracy
> we
>> > offer legitimate citation and support.
>>=20
>> > offer legitimate citation and support.
>> My point exactly. The only way they can get someone to listen to them
>> any more is if they debate an LNer who brings credibility to the table.
>
>And there's my point exactly, Bud, respectfully. It seems as though the
>stereotypical opinion-by-default is that if it's not the LN perspective
>=3D no credibility. We can't even get to the table without pre-conceived
>> any more is if they debate an LNer who brings credibility to the table.
>
>And there's my point exactly, Bud, respectfully. It seems as though the
>stereotypical opinion-by-default is that if it's not the LN perspective
>notions.
>
>> > On the defender side, do you receive automatic credibility for taking t=
>hat
>> > stance?
>>=20
>> Yes, taking a reasonable and supportable position gains you credibility=
>.
>
>I cannot argue against that, surely.
>
>> Believing a silly proposition like "Oswald was a patsy"
>
>I am a conspiracy believer, but I don't subscribe to Oswald being an
>innocent patsy. I do believe he was involved, and still made to be the
>fall guy. Can we get any credible traction with that?
But Oswald was hired at the TSBD in Sept. and up until a week or so before
>
>I cannot argue against that, surely.
>
>> Believing a silly proposition like "Oswald was a patsy"
>
>I am a conspiracy believer, but I don't subscribe to Oswald being an
>innocent patsy. I do believe he was involved, and still made to be the
>fall guy. Can we get any credible traction with that?
the assassination the motorcade would have been traveling eastward off the
Stemmons (from Love Field) on Main to the Women's Center where the
luncheon was originally supposed to be. The point is that there would have
been no clear shot from the TSBD at JFK...in fact Jackie would have been
between JFK and the TSBD.
Now, to squeeze that fact into a conspiracy theory in which Oswald was
involved maybe you could offer one of these explanations [?]:
1. The conspiracy had other shooters originally positioned at strategic
locations along the route to the Women's Center...but din't need them in
the end....so they were swon to secrecy?
Hmmm, so they got lucky and had one of their shooters [LHO] right there to
make the shot when the route was changed to go to the Trade Mart?
How does that work for you?
2. The conspiracy knew the Trade Mart would be the final choice for the
luncheon because they had insiders make that change?
Problem there is that Gov. Connally was the person most responsible for
making the change for the luncheon from the Women's center to the Trade
Mart....do you think JBC was involved?
Also, more in on the conspiracy to make the change? Their numbers are
piling up, eh...tough to keep them all quiet for decades, no? Unless they
were silenced...for good?
3. The conspiracy could have had Oswald pack up his trusty Carcano and
move from the TSBD to wherever he was needed?
How that work for you?
See my point? Of course you don't and Marsh will come to your rescue on
this...just wait for his reply. Yah, he'll rescue you by throwing you both
ends of the rope.
>> (or the twin >> towers were brought down by space lasers) loses you
credibility. > >The JFK murder's conspiracy supporters, in all fairness,
should be >considered only within the context of his murder. Not all of us
blindly >accept the foolish conjecture of an inside 9-11 hoax. The anthrax
>mailings, however, should be scrutinized much more deeply, especially
with >respect to the FBI's handling of it. > >> The idea >> that evidence
and testimony that incriminates Oswald is all contrived to >> frame him is
extraordinary is supported by the weak and meager. > >I agree fully, Bud.
Can I ask that you consider the same evidence, but >with an open
mindedness that places the damning evidence directly onto >Oswald as a
co-conspirator? Your position is clearly very supportable, and >I
appreciate that. > >There are aspects that, IMO, are not as weak and
meager as you believe. >One of these is the photo that was alleged to be
LHO in Mexico City, but >clearly was not.
Clearly? So all the evidence that says he was there was manufactured? Hmmm
Can I ask that you consider the same evidence, but >with an open
mindedness that places the damning evidence directly onto >Oswald as a
co-conspirator? Your position is clearly very supportable, and >I
appreciate that. > >There are aspects that, IMO, are not as weak and
meager as you believe. >One of these is the photo that was alleged to be
LHO in Mexico City, but >clearly was not.
this conspiracy was pretty big, eh? Hard to keep one that size from
exposing itself considering how long it's been, doncha think?
>Then there is the audio tape recording, of which Hoover >was aware, that
was also alleged to be LHO and obviously was not.
conspiracy"...or under "Suspicious events"?
>Can it be considered weak and meager from our perspective that the
More conspirators?...a small army of them, eh?
>Also, I apologize for being the "broken record" o=
>n this, but the loss of the Harper Fragment I find very difficult to simply=
> dismiss.
Do you really...honestly now, find it totally inconceivable that out of
respect and sensitivity for his fallen brother RFK had parts of his
[JFK's] body, including his brain, etc. confiscated and destroyed as
opposed to being kept (even if they were evidence) in the archives to be
examined every time there was a re-examinaton of the evidence?
You just can't buy that, can you? Am I being unreasonable by suggesting
that? Really?
>Dr. McAdams' bolsters his LN position by stating there that Billy=
> Harper's identified location of discovery supports LHO firing from above &=
> behind. No problem, right? Wrong -- .john's phrasing there alludes that th=
>e fragment landed there and remained, then makes the leap of "animals may h=
>ave moved it" but it's doubtful. With all of the human activity in DP, not =
>even a squirrel would have shown its face there. This is notwithstanding th=
>e throngs of people in DP after the shooting that could have easily relocat=
>ed that fragment.
>
>We're reminded quite often to dismiss testimony of eye witnesses, or ear wi=
>tnesses. The multiple claims of testimony under oath that at least two of t=
>he audible shots were nearly on top of each other must be explained by echo=
>es. But if echoes can't explain it properly, is it weak and meager to suspe=
>ct two separate shots at nearly the same moment?
So the medical evidence that shows there was only one channel-like path
through the brain and only one entry and one exit defect noted (not to
mention there was no fragments found behind JFK) was fabricated?
Ah ha....more conspirators involved....the conspiracy was huge, eh?
>Before you hogtie me for the two-headshot theory and a possible GK shooter,=
> I remain unconvinced, but I'm not expert. I try to reconcile existing evid=
>ence with conjecture, and I strongly feel a conspiracy was afoot, completel=
>y disregarding any GK shooter.
Based on_______? Fill that in with all the hard evidence you have
please....again that would be "hard" evidence.
>In their defense, however, the dictabelt iss=
>ue can be argued credibly from either viewpoint, as well as Tony Marsh's st=
>rong conviction of a right-temple inshoot,
So you think the dictabelt matter is disputable...fine, just throw it out
of the argument...after all you guys have a ton of other "hard" evidence
there was a conspiracy, right?
>after viewing the originals at N=
>ARA.
Tony examined the original autopsy photos etc. at the NA? Really?
I understood him to say he's "seen" the original Fox set. If you believe
him fine, but obviously he doesn't have them in his possession to examine
whenever he wants, right?
He claims that JFK wasn't hit once in the BOH...yes, not once anywhere
there!
In support of that "theory", he claims that the photo of JFK's BOH scalp
really doesn't show the entry in the scalp, but just shows a blood clot or
some other defect....meaning the autopsists took a picture of a blood clot
or whatever and tried to sell the idea it was the scalp entry. I guess
Tony thinks they hoped no one would ever be able to closely examine that
photo and see indications (as the HSCA did) that that "blood clot" (or
whatever) had an abrasion collar?
Hmmm, a blood clot with an abrasion collar...why not...makes good CT
sense...just ask Tony.
Also the autopsists took a picture of a circular defect in JFK's rear
skull...or that's the official story anyway.
So if it was a lie I guess Tony is saying there again that the autopsists
just took a picture of some circular skull defect (that wasn't the entry)?
Another blood clot?
Interesting that the HSCA saw the beveling inward of the skull around that
defect isn't it....if it wasn't an entry defect?
Also interesting that, if that circular defect was not the entry how a
trail of tiny opacities (tiny skull fragments) on the lateral X-ray
matches the location of that circular defect?
Of course Tony surely must think the autopsists made up the story that
they sectioned the tissue around the entry and saw microsopic pieces of
skull. He wants to see the slides for himself.....sure the lab techs were
in on the conspiracy too....in fact who wasn't?
He also claims that the autopsists were so incompetent and stupid I guess
that they didn't see an entry wound in the forehead above JFK's right
eye...but took a picture of JFK's skull so CTs, like Tony, could find it
and claim it was caused by a bullet fired from other than JFK's rear.
Now, he'll point out that Dr. Angel said that defect was an exit wound
(not an entry like Tony says, but who's to nitpick)...but what he won't
tell you is that Angel clearly said to the FPP the exit was just forward
of the coronal suture near the Stephanion process....and that defect
(Tony's entry) above JFK's right eye is medical miles from the coronbal
suture.
IOW Angel goofed when he said Tony's entry was a bullet wound and even
corrected himself in front of the FPP...but Tony exploited his mistake and
won't ever forgive him for making it....because Tony needs "evidence" to
support his silly "no-hits-to-JFK's-BOH" theory.
Also note that an enlargement of Tony's forehead entry shows it to look
nothing like a bullet wound...that's a photo Tony doesn't like.
Hang in there...and maybe work on that list of hard evidence there was a
conspiracy?
>Thanks, Bud. Respectfully,
>~Mark
--
John Canal
jca...@webtv.net
bigdog
Mar 22, 2012, 6:50:36 PM3/22/12
to
On Mar 22, 12:32 pm, markusp <markina...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Wednesday, March 21, 2012 9:08:31 PM UTC-5, Bud wrote:
> > > "Credibility" is certainly a subjective term, eh?
>
> > Of course, just like "facts" and "truth" to those who "think out of
> > the box".
>
> > > I'm not going to stir
> > > the pot on this one, but how does clinging to the WC's conclusion of a
> > > lone assassin gain someone this elusive credibility?
>
> > Because believing things that are true to be true lends credibility.
>
> Can that apply to persons believing a conspiracy was at least possible
> through circumstantial evidence? A lot of us believe it to be a
> conspiracy.
>
Faith based belief.
> On Wednesday, March 21, 2012 9:08:31 PM UTC-5, Bud wrote:
> > > "Credibility" is certainly a subjective term, eh?
>
> > Of course, just like "facts" and "truth" to those who "think out of
> > the box".
>
> > > I'm not going to stir
> > > the pot on this one, but how does clinging to the WC's conclusion of a
> > > lone assassin gain someone this elusive credibility?
>
> > Because believing things that are true to be true lends credibility.
>
> Can that apply to persons believing a conspiracy was at least possible
> through circumstantial evidence? A lot of us believe it to be a
> conspiracy.
>
> > > Conspiracy
> > > researchers have to practically beg for recognition, and then only when we
> > > offer legitimate citation and support.
>
> > My point exactly. The only way they can get someone to listen to them
> > any more is if they debate an LNer who brings credibility to the table.
>
> And there's my point exactly, Bud, respectfully. It seems as though the
> stereotypical opinion-by-default is that if it's not the LN perspective
> = no credibility. We can't even get to the table without pre-conceived
> notions.
>
> > > On the defender side, do you receive automatic credibility for taking that
> > > stance?
>
> > Yes, taking a reasonable and supportable position gains you credibility.
>
> I cannot argue against that, surely.
>
> > Believing a silly proposition like "Oswald was a patsy"
>
> I am a conspiracy believer, but I don't subscribe to Oswald being an
> innocent patsy. I do believe he was involved, and still made to be the
> fall guy. Can we get any credible traction with that?
>
involved.
> > (or the twin
> > towers were brought down by space lasers) loses you credibility.
>
> The JFK murder's conspiracy supporters, in all fairness, should be
> considered only within the context of his murder. Not all of us blindly
> accept the foolish conjecture of an inside 9-11 hoax. The anthrax
> mailings, however, should be scrutinized much more deeply, especially with
> respect to the FBI's handling of it.
>
> > The idea
> > that evidence and testimony that incriminates Oswald is all contrived to
> > frame him is an intellectually bankrupt position where the most incredible
> > and extraordinary is supported by the weak and meager.
>
> I agree fully, Bud. Can I ask that you consider the same evidence, but
> with an open mindedness that places the damning evidence directly onto
> Oswald as a co-conspirator? Your position is clearly very supportable, and
> I appreciate that.
>
was involved. They have only presented their suspiscions.
> There are aspects that, IMO, are not as weak and meager as you believe.
> One of these is the photo that was alleged to be LHO in Mexico City, but
> clearly was not. Then there is the audio tape recording, of which Hoover
> was aware, that was also alleged to be LHO and obviously was not.
>
use the photograph of someone who so obviously was not Oswald?
> Can it be considered weak and meager from our perspective that the Pentagon destroyed their file(s)? Also, I apologize for being the "broken record" on this, but the loss of the Harper Fragment I find very difficult to simply dismiss. Dr. McAdams' bolsters his LN position by stating there that Billy Harper's identified location of discovery supports LHO firing from above & behind. No problem, right? Wrong -- .john's phrasing there alludes that the fragment landed there and remained, then makes the leap of "animals may have moved it" but it's doubtful. With all of the human activity in DP, not even a squirrel would have shown its face there. This is notwithstanding the throngs of people in DP after the shooting that could have easily relocated that fragment.
>
bureaucratic bungling. It doesn't strengthen or weaken either position in
regard to the issue of conspiracy. You want to assume because it is
missing, it must have been because it proved something. When there are
other non-conspiratorial explainations that are possible, this hardly is
compelling evidence of anything. The medical evidence we do have
overwhelmingly supports the fact that the shots that hit JFK were fired
from above and behind him.
> We're reminded quite often to dismiss testimony of eye witnesses, or ear witnesses. The multiple claims of testimony under oath that at least two of the audible shots were nearly on top of each other must be explained by echoes. But if echoes can't explain it properly, is it weak and meager to suspect two separate shots at nearly the same moment?
>
sounds. A single shot can produce multiple sounds. The muzzle blast is the
most obvious. Other possibilities are the crack a supersonic bullet
produces as it passes through the air. Then we have the sound of the
bullet's impact. In the case of the head shot, we not only had the impact
on the skull but also the fragment hitting the windshield frame after
exiting JFK's skull. The latter would be consistent with Clint Hill's
description of that shot have a metallic sound to it.
> Before you hogtie me for the two-headshot theory and a possible GK shooter, I remain unconvinced, but I'm not expert. I try to reconcile existing evidence with conjecture, and I strongly feel a conspiracy was afoot, completely disregarding any GK shooter. In their defense, however, the dictabelt issue can be argued credibly from either viewpoint, as well as Tony Marsh's strong conviction of a right-temple inshoot, after viewing the originals at NARA.
>
compelling if he could find a recognized expert who supported that
finding?
timstter
Mar 22, 2012, 6:56:54 PM3/22/12
to
On Mar 22, 3:35 am, john.mcad...@marquette.edu (John McAdams) wrote:
> Two e-mails I just got:
>
> <Quote on>
>
> John,
>
> You have repeatedly publicly insulted me because you disagree with my
> views on 9/11.
>
> Either stand up and defend your views, or hang a "coward" sign around your
> neck.
>
> Kevin
>
> Two e-mails I just got:
>
> <Quote on>
>
> John,
>
> You have repeatedly publicly insulted me because you disagree with my
> views on 9/11.
>
> Either stand up and defend your views, or hang a "coward" sign around your
> neck.
>
> Kevin
>
>
> >>>> Separeately, I sent him your email address to respond to you directly
> >>>> if
> >>>> he is so inclined.
>
> >>>> ------------------------------
> >>>> From: doctorcin...@hotmail.com
> >>>> Separeately, I sent him your email address to respond to you directly
> >>>> if
> >>>> he is so inclined.
>
> >>>> ------------------------------
> >>>> To: jmcad...@datasync.com
>
> >>>> It is obvious that we are at opposite poles of an important public
> >>>> issue,
> >>>> and it is high time we debated the issue in public, and I hope you
> >>>> agree.
>
> >>>> Sincerely,
>
> >>>> James Fetzer
>
> >Kevin Barrett
> >Staff Writer, VeteransToday.com
> >Radio Journalist, AmericanFreedomRadio.com, NoLiesRadio.org
> >Website:www.TruthJihad.com
> >.John
> >--------------
> >http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
>
> --
> The Kennedy Assassination Home Pagehttp://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Why doesn't Fetzer bring along Judyth and her latest advocate, that
> >>>> It is obvious that we are at opposite poles of an important public
> >>>> issue,
> >>>> and it is high time we debated the issue in public, and I hope you
> >>>> agree.
>
> >>>> Sincerely,
>
> >>>> James Fetzer
>
> >Kevin Barrett
> >Staff Writer, VeteransToday.com
> >Radio Journalist, AmericanFreedomRadio.com, NoLiesRadio.org
> >Website:www.TruthJihad.com
> >.John
> >--------------
> >http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
>
> --
> The Kennedy Assassination Home Pagehttp://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
guy who makes the Lee Harvey Oswald dolls, Paul S Wilson?
It would be like something out of a Bob Dylan song! :-)
Regards,
Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup(s) Commentator*
Anthony Marsh
Mar 22, 2012, 9:15:16 PM3/22/12
to
>>
>
> The missing Harper fragment is not evidence of anything except
> bureaucratic bungling. It doesn't strengthen or weaken either position in
> regard to the issue of conspiracy. You want to assume because it is
> missing, it must have been because it proved something. When there are
> other non-conspiratorial explainations that are possible, this hardly is
> compelling evidence of anything. The medical evidence we do have
> overwhelmingly supports the fact that the shots that hit JFK were fired
> from above and behind him.
>
>> We're reminded quite often to dismiss testimony of eye witnesses, or ear witnesses. The multiple claims of testimony under oath that at least two of the audible shots were nearly on top of each other must be explained by echoes. But if echoes can't explain it properly, is it weak and meager to suspect two separate shots at nearly the same moment?
>>
>
> Echos is not the only possible explaination for two nearly simultaneous
> sounds. A single shot can produce multiple sounds. The muzzle blast is the
> most obvious. Other possibilities are the crack a supersonic bullet
> produces as it passes through the air. Then we have the sound of the
> bullet's impact. In the case of the head shot, we not only had the impact
> on the skull but also the fragment hitting the windshield frame after
> exiting JFK's skull. The latter would be consistent with Clint Hill's
> description of that shot have a metallic sound to it.
>
>> Before you hogtie me for the two-headshot theory and a possible GK shooter, I remain unconvinced, but I'm not expert. I try to reconcile existing evidence with conjecture, and I strongly feel a conspiracy was afoot, completely disregarding any GK shooter. In their defense, however, the dictabelt issue can be argued credibly from either viewpoint, as well as Tony Marsh's strong conviction of a right-temple inshoot, after viewing the originals at NARA.
>>
>
> Wouldn't you find Marsh's theory of a temple entrance wound more
> compelling if he could find a recognized expert who supported that
> finding?
>
I never said temple. Stop making up crap. I said forehead.
>
> The missing Harper fragment is not evidence of anything except
> bureaucratic bungling. It doesn't strengthen or weaken either position in
> regard to the issue of conspiracy. You want to assume because it is
> missing, it must have been because it proved something. When there are
> other non-conspiratorial explainations that are possible, this hardly is
> compelling evidence of anything. The medical evidence we do have
> overwhelmingly supports the fact that the shots that hit JFK were fired
> from above and behind him.
>
>> We're reminded quite often to dismiss testimony of eye witnesses, or ear witnesses. The multiple claims of testimony under oath that at least two of the audible shots were nearly on top of each other must be explained by echoes. But if echoes can't explain it properly, is it weak and meager to suspect two separate shots at nearly the same moment?
>>
>
> Echos is not the only possible explaination for two nearly simultaneous
> sounds. A single shot can produce multiple sounds. The muzzle blast is the
> most obvious. Other possibilities are the crack a supersonic bullet
> produces as it passes through the air. Then we have the sound of the
> bullet's impact. In the case of the head shot, we not only had the impact
> on the skull but also the fragment hitting the windshield frame after
> exiting JFK's skull. The latter would be consistent with Clint Hill's
> description of that shot have a metallic sound to it.
>
>> Before you hogtie me for the two-headshot theory and a possible GK shooter, I remain unconvinced, but I'm not expert. I try to reconcile existing evidence with conjecture, and I strongly feel a conspiracy was afoot, completely disregarding any GK shooter. In their defense, however, the dictabelt issue can be argued credibly from either viewpoint, as well as Tony Marsh's strong conviction of a right-temple inshoot, after viewing the originals at NARA.
>>
>
> Wouldn't you find Marsh's theory of a temple entrance wound more
> compelling if he could find a recognized expert who supported that
> finding?
>
Anthony Marsh
Mar 22, 2012, 9:18:09 PM3/22/12
to
to kill Castro dozens of times and several people involved were sworn to
secrecy. Did they talk? Yes. And what happened when they talked? One was
shot several times in the head with a silenced pistol in his kitchen. One
was killed and found floating in an oil barrel.
> Hmmm, so they got lucky and had one of their shooters [LHO] right there to
> make the shot when the route was changed to go to the Trade Mart?
>
that person is the mastermind?
> How does that work for you?
>
> 2. The conspiracy knew the Trade Mart would be the final choice for the
> luncheon because they had insiders make that change?
>
> Problem there is that Gov. Connally was the person most responsible for
> making the change for the luncheon from the Women's center to the Trade
> Mart....do you think JBC was involved?
>
> Also, more in on the conspiracy to make the change? Their numbers are
> piling up, eh...tough to keep them all quiet for decades, no? Unless they
> were silenced...for good?
>
who rides in which car, etc.
> 3. The conspiracy could have had Oswald pack up his trusty Carcano and
> move from the TSBD to wherever he was needed?
>
> How that work for you?
>
> See my point? Of course you don't and Marsh will come to your rescue on
> this...just wait for his reply. Yah, he'll rescue you by throwing you both
> ends of the rope.
>
>> Also, I apologize for being the "broken record" o=
>> n this, but the loss of the Harper Fragment I find very difficult to simply=
>> dismiss.
>
> Do you really...honestly now, find it totally inconceivable that out of
> respect and sensitivity for his fallen brother RFK had parts of his
> [JFK's] body, including his brain, etc. confiscated and destroyed as
> opposed to being kept (even if they were evidence) in the archives to be
> examined every time there was a re-examinaton of the evidence?
>
that they wouldn't go on public display. As a devout Catholic I think he
might be against destroying body parts.
I really enjoyed how you added that parenthetical statement, "even if
they were evidence." Even if? If not then why are autopsy doctors
examining them? Did the autopsy doctors examine the lunch served that
day? Was that evidence?
> You just can't buy that, can you? Am I being unreasonable by suggesting
> that? Really?
>
>> Dr. McAdams' bolsters his LN position by stating there that Billy=
>> Harper's identified location of discovery supports LHO firing from above&=
>> behind. No problem, right? Wrong -- .john's phrasing there alludes that th=
>> e fragment landed there and remained, then makes the leap of "animals may h=
>> ave moved it" but it's doubtful. With all of the human activity in DP, not =
>> even a squirrel would have shown its face there. This is notwithstanding th=
>> e throngs of people in DP after the shooting that could have easily relocat=
>> ed that fragment.
>>
>> We're reminded quite often to dismiss testimony of eye witnesses, or ear wi=
>> tnesses. The multiple claims of testimony under oath that at least two of t=
>> he audible shots were nearly on top of each other must be explained by echo=
>> es. But if echoes can't explain it properly, is it weak and meager to suspe=
>> ct two separate shots at nearly the same moment?
>
> So the medical evidence that shows there was only one channel-like path
> through the brain and only one entry and one exit defect noted (not to
> mention there was no fragments found behind JFK) was fabricated?
>
with your entrance wound near the EOP?
Where exactly where these fragments not found behind JFK? Did you go
down there and search for them with a metal detector?
> Of course Tony surely must think the autopsists made up the story that
> they sectioned the tissue around the entry and saw microsopic pieces of
> skull. He wants to see the slides for himself.....sure the lab techs were
> in on the conspiracy too....in fact who wasn't?
>
> He also claims that the autopsists were so incompetent and stupid I guess
> that they didn't see an entry wound in the forehead above JFK's right
> eye...but took a picture of JFK's skull so CTs, like Tony, could find it
> and claim it was caused by a bullet fired from other than JFK's rear.
>
> Now, he'll point out that Dr. Angel said that defect was an exit wound
> (not an entry like Tony says, but who's to nitpick)...but what he won't
> tell you is that Angel clearly said to the FPP the exit was just forward
> of the coronal suture near the Stephanion process....and that defect
> (Tony's entry) above JFK's right eye is medical miles from the coronbal
> suture.
>
> IOW Angel goofed when he said Tony's entry was a bullet wound and even
> corrected himself in front of the FPP...but Tony exploited his mistake and
> won't ever forgive him for making it....because Tony needs "evidence" to
> support his silly "no-hits-to-JFK's-BOH" theory.
>
a bullet wound.
> Also note that an enlargement of Tony's forehead entry shows it to look
> nothing like a bullet wound...that's a photo Tony doesn't like.
>
wounds with external beveling.
Anthony Marsh
Mar 22, 2012, 10:21:23 PM3/22/12
to
>
>> (or the twin
>> towers were brought down by space lasers) loses you credibility.
>
> The JFK murder's conspiracy supporters, in all fairness, should be
of the conspiracy who supported murdering Kennedy?
Or do you mean the WC defenders who support the conspirators?
> considered only within the context of his murder. Not all of us blindly
> accept the foolish conjecture of an inside 9-11 hoax. The anthrax
> mailings, however, should be scrutinized much more deeply, especially with
> respect to the FBI's handling of it.
>
Raiser to make the argument that the department should not be cut
because biological weapons are still a big threat. Maybe it was a test
by the CIA to see how well the system detects biological weapons.
>> The idea
>> that evidence and testimony that incriminates Oswald is all contrived to
>> frame him is an intellectually bankrupt position where the most incredible
>> and extraordinary is supported by the weak and meager.
>
> I agree fully, Bud. Can I ask that you consider the same evidence, but
> with an open mindedness that places the damning evidence directly onto
> Oswald as a co-conspirator? Your position is clearly very supportable, and
> I appreciate that.
>
> There are aspects that, IMO, are not as weak and meager as you believe.
> One of these is the photo that was alleged to be LHO in Mexico City, but
> clearly was not. Then there is the audio tape recording, of which Hoover
> was aware, that was also alleged to be LHO and obviously was not.
>
David Von Pein
Mar 22, 2012, 10:24:02 PM3/22/12
to
>>> I can't keep up with his [Fetzer's] books. Which book was that in and
what page?" <<<
I have no idea. I've never touched a book by Fetzer--and never will. The
"seven bullets" theory comes straight from Fetzer's lips on several of his
radio podcasts (including the clip linked below, from January 23, 2012).
He thinks Kennedy was hit by four separate bullets, and he also posits
anywhere from one to three different bullets hitting Connally (and in
various radio shows, he's made it clear that he certainly believes that
JBC was hit by more than just one bullet).
http://box.com/s/7c5zjhtv81d0xqoebb9o
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/6515d319c3201462
Anthony Marsh
Mar 23, 2012, 10:39:06 AM3/23/12
to
On 3/22/2012 10:24 PM, David Von Pein wrote:
>
>>>> I can't keep up with his [Fetzer's] books. Which book was that in and
> what page?"<<<
>
> I have no idea. I've never touched a book by Fetzer--and never will. The
> "seven bullets" theory comes straight from Fetzer's lips on several of his
> radio podcasts (including the clip linked below, from January 23, 2012).
>
> He thinks Kennedy was hit by four separate bullets, and he also posits
> anywhere from one to three different bullets hitting Connally (and in
> various radio shows, he's made it clear that he certainly believes that
> JBC was hit by more than just one bullet).
>
Did he actually say all that or did he just ask rhetorical questions?
>
>>>> I can't keep up with his [Fetzer's] books. Which book was that in and
> what page?"<<<
>
> I have no idea. I've never touched a book by Fetzer--and never will. The
> "seven bullets" theory comes straight from Fetzer's lips on several of his
> radio podcasts (including the clip linked below, from January 23, 2012).
>
> He thinks Kennedy was hit by four separate bullets, and he also posits
> anywhere from one to three different bullets hitting Connally (and in
> various radio shows, he's made it clear that he certainly believes that
> JBC was hit by more than just one bullet).
>
Wow, so Connally being hit by more than just one bullet means he was hit
by 3 bullets? You just admitted that he wasn't specific about how many
bullets hit Connally when he said it could be anywhere from one to three
bullets. So anyone who says that Connally could have been hit by more
than one bullet must be a conspiracy kook? Does that include all the
doctors who presented their own SBT to the WC on April 15, 1964?
> http://box.com/s/7c5zjhtv81d0xqoebb9o
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/6515d319c3201462
>
John Canal
Mar 23, 2012, 10:39:46 AM3/23/12
to
In article <4f6b...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...
>And it doesn't bother you that the channel-like path does not line up
>with your entrance wound near the EOP?
You reveal once again how little you know about the medical evidence.
>Where exactly where these fragments not found behind JFK? Did you go
>down there and search for them with a metal detector?
Are you suggesting there were metal fragments behind JFK? No one looked for
them, is that it? Or do you posit that more conspirators confiscated them? My my
how busy they were. Your "baker's dozen" [conspirators] were busier than a
family of beavers on dam building day.
[...]
>> Also interesting that, if that circular defect was not the entry how a
>> trail of tiny opacities (tiny skull fragments) on the lateral X-ray
>> matches the location of that circular defect?
>>
>
>No, they don't. They are much higher in the head.
I was talking about tiny bone fragments near the EOP seen on the lateral X-ray,
not the tiny metal fragments high in his head.
Also, Angel contradicted himself, about the defect over JFK's right eye....there
was only one exit so either he had to be wrong about the forehead defect (you
ridiculously think was an entry) being a bullet wound or he had to be wrong when
he said the exit was just forward or the coronal suture at the Stephanion.
The bottom line is clear. His placement of the beveled out corner of the large
late arriving skull pieces (with the meatllic residue on it) sealed the deal
about where the exit was.......which was, like he told the FPP, "just forward of
the coronal suture" (which, again--not that you care--is medical miles from
above the right eye).
You're so busy looking back over your shoulder for CIA hit men that you
didn't/don't have time to study the medical evidence....but what CT needs to
study the medical evidence to come up with their ridiculous theories? You're no
exception, IMO.
A blood clot with an abrasion collar?
LOL.
A circular defect in JFK's rear skull that's not the entry even though that
circular defect is below the ruler and 2.5 cm from the its edge [the ruler edge]
and centered in the pictue titled, "Missile wound in occipital skull..."?
You're cracking me up...funny man.
Oh, BTW, I was a little paranoid too once when Marcello's Granddaughter wrote
me, using some concerning [to me] language saying she read in my book where I
made a case for her Grandfather sanctioning LHO's murder....even though I'd
wrote that I was speculating.
Yup, I was looking over my shoulder for a while until she wrote back saying I
had it right....then I got over it and was able, unlike you (and just about
every other researcher and author I know of, except maybe Barb), to meticulously
study, almost exclusively, for about 12 years perhaps the most important
evidence in this case--the medical evidence.
--
John Canal
jca...@webtv.net
>
>On 3/22/2012 3:15 PM, John Canal wrote:
[...]
>On 3/22/2012 3:15 PM, John Canal wrote:
>And it doesn't bother you that the channel-like path does not line up
>with your entrance wound near the EOP?
>Where exactly where these fragments not found behind JFK? Did you go
>down there and search for them with a metal detector?
them, is that it? Or do you posit that more conspirators confiscated them? My my
how busy they were. Your "baker's dozen" [conspirators] were busier than a
family of beavers on dam building day.
[...]
>> Also interesting that, if that circular defect was not the entry how a
>> trail of tiny opacities (tiny skull fragments) on the lateral X-ray
>> matches the location of that circular defect?
>>
>
>No, they don't. They are much higher in the head.
not the tiny metal fragments high in his head.
Also, Angel contradicted himself, about the defect over JFK's right eye....there
was only one exit so either he had to be wrong about the forehead defect (you
ridiculously think was an entry) being a bullet wound or he had to be wrong when
he said the exit was just forward or the coronal suture at the Stephanion.
The bottom line is clear. His placement of the beveled out corner of the large
late arriving skull pieces (with the meatllic residue on it) sealed the deal
about where the exit was.......which was, like he told the FPP, "just forward of
the coronal suture" (which, again--not that you care--is medical miles from
above the right eye).
You're so busy looking back over your shoulder for CIA hit men that you
didn't/don't have time to study the medical evidence....but what CT needs to
study the medical evidence to come up with their ridiculous theories? You're no
exception, IMO.
A blood clot with an abrasion collar?
LOL.
A circular defect in JFK's rear skull that's not the entry even though that
circular defect is below the ruler and 2.5 cm from the its edge [the ruler edge]
and centered in the pictue titled, "Missile wound in occipital skull..."?
You're cracking me up...funny man.
Oh, BTW, I was a little paranoid too once when Marcello's Granddaughter wrote
me, using some concerning [to me] language saying she read in my book where I
made a case for her Grandfather sanctioning LHO's murder....even though I'd
wrote that I was speculating.
Yup, I was looking over my shoulder for a while until she wrote back saying I
had it right....then I got over it and was able, unlike you (and just about
every other researcher and author I know of, except maybe Barb), to meticulously
study, almost exclusively, for about 12 years perhaps the most important
evidence in this case--the medical evidence.
--
John Canal
jca...@webtv.net
GV
Mar 23, 2012, 7:38:00 PM3/23/12
to
only that, but "provably" so. This is what Fetzer claims in his latest
presentations in front of his audiences when speaking live about the
JFK assassination.
//GV
markusp
Mar 23, 2012, 7:38:09 PM3/23/12
to
On Thursday, March 22, 2012 5:56:54 PM UTC-5, timstter wrote:
> It would be like something out of a Bob Dylan song! :-)
"Everybody's beneath the trees,
> It would be like something out of a Bob Dylan song! :-)
conspiracy's on the limb,
but when Lee Harvey Oswald gets here
all the pigeons gonna...errr....uhhh....fly off the roof of the TSBD?"
hehehe Sorry, Tim. I had to run with it!
~Mark
markusp
Mar 23, 2012, 7:39:22 PM3/23/12
to
On Thursday, March 22, 2012 9:21:23 PM UTC-5, Anthony Marsh wrote:
> And some WC defenders think that Oswald was working for Castro.
I guess it's possible that, at the time of the murder, by claiming that
> And some WC defenders think that Oswald was working for Castro.
Oswald did not work for Castro, the seed was planted to create that very
suspicion. Kind of a "mental false flag" thing.
> > The JFK murder's conspiracy supporters, in all fairness, should be
>
> Not sure which you mean by conspiracy supporters. Do you mean the member
> of the conspiracy who supported murdering Kennedy?
> Or do you mean the WC defenders who support the conspirators?
(Sorry, Bigdog -- I couldn't resist!)
> > considered only within the context of his murder. Not all of us blindly
> > accept the foolish conjecture of an inside 9-11 hoax. The anthrax
> > mailings, however, should be scrutinized much more deeply, especially with
> > respect to the FBI's handling of it.
> >
>
> Maybe the Anthrax mailings were only a hoax. Maybe they were a Fund
> Raiser to make the argument that the department should not be cut
> because biological weapons are still a big threat. Maybe it was a test
> by the CIA to see how well the system detects biological weapons.
senators, a liberal television personality, and a few innocent, dead
shmucks to deceive us into accepting it as random.
~Mark
markusp
Mar 23, 2012, 7:51:58 PM3/23/12
to
On Thursday, March 22, 2012 2:15:21 PM UTC-5, John Canal wrote:
> >I am a conspiracy believer, but I don't subscribe to Oswald being an
> >innocent patsy. I do believe he was involved, and still made to be the
> >fall guy. Can we get any credible traction with that?
>
> But Oswald was hired at the TSBD in Sept. and up until a week or so before
> the assassination the motorcade would have been traveling eastward off the
> Stemmons (from Love Field) on Main to the Women's Center where the
> luncheon was originally supposed to be. The point is that there would have
> been no clear shot from the TSBD at JFK...in fact Jackie would have been
> between JFK and the TSBD.
I see your points, John, and I accept them. Humor me here, but the
> >I am a conspiracy believer, but I don't subscribe to Oswald being an
> >innocent patsy. I do believe he was involved, and still made to be the
> >fall guy. Can we get any credible traction with that?
>
> But Oswald was hired at the TSBD in Sept. and up until a week or so before
> the assassination the motorcade would have been traveling eastward off the
> Stemmons (from Love Field) on Main to the Women's Center where the
> luncheon was originally supposed to be. The point is that there would have
> been no clear shot from the TSBD at JFK...in fact Jackie would have been
> between JFK and the TSBD.
speculation surrounding advance placement of Oswald seems to be conflated,
IMO. If he had a handler, he could have been contacted somehow on
Thursday, prompting him to hitch a ride with Buell Frazier out to the
Paine's that evening. A little more humor here -- his status as operative
had him believe he would be experiencing time away from Marina, so he left
cash and his ring. Concerning the alignment with Jackie, that particular
point I would counter-argue that her safety would merely be secondary, if
considered at all. They did shoot John Kennedy, with her sitting right
there.
>
> Now, to squeeze that fact into a conspiracy theory in which Oswald was
> involved maybe you could offer one of these explanations [?]:
>
> 1. The conspiracy had other shooters originally positioned at strategic
> locations along the route to the Women's Center...but din't need them in
> the end....so they were swon to secrecy?
the loop of knowledge. The only sure way to swear these secret backup
shooters to secrecy is to simply kill them too. You made up this scenario,
then expect me to defend it as my own. That dog won't hunt.
> Hmmm, so they got lucky and had one of their shooters [LHO] right there to
> make the shot when the route was changed to go to the Trade Mart?
>
> How does that work for you?
though.
> 2. The conspiracy knew the Trade Mart would be the final choice for the
> luncheon because they had insiders make that change?
(Means, method, motive, and money) could have had Oswald there, and they
simply got very lucky. I can easily counter that with this: If he didn't
get the chance to shoot, oh well, they'll try again elsewhere.
> Problem there is that Gov. Connally was the person most responsible for
> making the change for the luncheon from the Women's center to the Trade
> Mart....do you think JBC was involved?
WAS involved, he may have found the courage to sit in that car. But I
highly doubt that he'd even remotely consider the dangers to his wife.
> Also, more in on the conspiracy to make the change?
Their numbers are
> piling up, eh...tough to keep them all quiet for decades, no?
was poised to tell the HSCA, and through his lawyer, he let us know that
he had either information or direct evidence of others' involvement. I
will continue to take that aspect to task with LN's.
> Unless they
> were silenced...for good?
> 3. The conspiracy could have had Oswald pack up his trusty Carcano and
> move from the TSBD to wherever he was needed?
the CIA or FBI had operatives other than Oswald? Even if LHO was NOT an
operative, obviously they needed people in that role.
> How that work for you?
> See my point? Of course you don't and Marsh will come to your rescue on
> this...just wait for his reply. Yah, he'll rescue you by throwing you both
> ends of the rope.
understand your points, John. I give you that much respect, and I expect
it in return.
Also, I don't need Tony Marsh to defend my positions. He is the most
abrasive person I've never met. But his information is solid, and I
appreciate it when he does back me up. One thing that the LN's posting
here will not admit is that they also appreciate Tony's information, data,
resources, and experience. We'd all be doing a disservice in dismissing
his points.
> >> (or the twin >> towers were brought down by space lasers) loses you
> credibility. > >The JFK murder's conspiracy supporters, in all fairness,
> should be >considered only within the context of his murder. Not all of us
> blindly >accept the foolish conjecture of an inside 9-11 hoax. The anthrax
> >mailings, however, should be scrutinized much more deeply, especially
> with >respect to the FBI's handling of it. > >> The idea >> that evidence
> and testimony that incriminates Oswald is all contrived to >> frame him is
> an intellectually bankrupt position where the most incredibl= >e >> and
> extraordinary is supported by the weak and meager. > >I agree fully, Bud.
> Can I ask that you consider the same evidence, but >with an open
> mindedness that places the damning evidence directly onto >Oswald as a
> co-conspirator? Your position is clearly very supportable, and >I
> appreciate that. > >There are aspects that, IMO, are not as weak and
> meager as you believe. >One of these is the photo that was alleged to be
> LHO in Mexico City, but >clearly was not.
>
> Clearly? So all the evidence that says he was there was manufactured?
>Hmmm this conspiracy was pretty big, eh?
> Hard to keep one that size from
> exposing itself considering how long it's been, doncha think?
which is why I subscribe to a very few people in a very few key positions
of power, such as POTUS, FBI Director, and former CIA director. Those
three positions could conceive and implement a conspiracy, "doncha think"?
> >Then there is the audio tape recording, of which Hoover >was aware, that
> was also alleged to be LHO and obviously was not.
>
> Do you file that under "Hard evidence there was an assassination
> conspiracy"...or under "Suspicious events"?
> >Can it be considered weak and meager from our perspective that the
> Pentagon= > destroyed their file(s)?
>
> More conspirators?...a small army of them, eh?
How many do you believe it would involve if, for example, the former CIA
director simply gave a nod to someone to retrieve the file and destroy it?
Maybe he knew where the file was and did it himself? A small army of ONE
to rid themselves of that pesky trail.
> >Also, I apologize for being the "broken record" o=
> >n this, but the loss of the Harper Fragment I find very difficult to simply=
> > dismiss.
>
> Do you really...honestly now, find it totally inconceivable that out of
> respect and sensitivity for his fallen brother RFK had parts of his
> [JFK's] body, including his brain, etc. confiscated and destroyed as
> opposed to being kept (even if they were evidence) in the archives to be
> examined every time there was a re-examinaton of the evidence?
You're the best medical expert we have on this forum, IMO. But let me
counter this way: They took out the brain for examination at a date that
was later than the funeral. What would the disposition of the brain be
when that was done? What would have been the official method to deal with
this human remains subsequent to that examination? I asked this question a
couple of years ago, if I recall.
> You just can't buy that, can you?
so rigid in my own theory that I couldn't believe that. Be careful that
your stereotyping of CT's doesn't cloud your opinion of my own personal
intellect.
Am I being unreasonable by suggesting
> that? Really?
it's ridiculous, because it actually IS reasonable, John.
> >We're reminded quite often to dismiss testimony of eye witnesses, or ear wi=
> >tnesses. The multiple claims of testimony under oath that at least two of t=
> >he audible shots were nearly on top of each other must be explained by echo=
> >es. But if echoes can't explain it properly, is it weak and meager to suspe=
> >ct two separate shots at nearly the same moment?
>
> So the medical evidence that shows there was only one channel-like path
> through the brain and only one entry and one exit defect noted (not to
> mention there was no fragments found behind JFK) was fabricated?
behind, likely Dal-Tex. I've got Oswald firing from the SL. I don't need
the GK shooter whatsoever, but I acknowledge the very credible arguments
therein.
> Ah ha....more conspirators involved....the conspiracy was huge, eh?
indigestion, at best.
> >Before you hogtie me for the two-headshot theory and a possible GK shooter,=
> > I remain unconvinced, but I'm not expert. I try to reconcile existing evid=
> >ence with conjecture, and I strongly feel a conspiracy was afoot, completel=
> >y disregarding any GK shooter.
>
> Based on_______? Fill that in with all the hard evidence you have
> please....again that would be "hard" evidence.
you concede that my interpretation of a bullet impact to JFK's back at
precisely Z-230 is indeed possible?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&list=FL1eQXUDI5E_xRo-1SMrH42Q&v=g-hrPPy6fgI
It's hard evidence, and my interpretation is in terms of film and video is
as good as your interpretations of medical evidence. I give you this
credibility, and all I ask in return is consideration of possibility.
> >In their defense, however, the dictabelt iss=
> >ue can be argued credibly from either viewpoint, as well as Tony Marsh's st=
> >rong conviction of a right-temple inshoot,
>
> So you think the dictabelt matter is disputable...fine, just throw it out
> of the argument...after all you guys have a ton of other "hard" evidence
> there was a conspiracy, right?
inclusive.
> Tony examined the original autopsy photos etc. at the NA? Really?
>
> I understood him to say he's "seen" the original Fox set. If you believe
> him fine, but obviously he doesn't have them in his possession to examine
> whenever he wants, right?
want to know his ideas about what he saw. I think you would too.
> He claims that JFK wasn't hit once in the BOH...yes, not once anywhere
> there!
at least one headshot from above & behind. I should say, however, I have a
very difficult quandary about that pesky 6.5mm opacity on the A/P X-ray. I
have yet to read anyone's conjecture that seems reasonable about it. That
includes yours.
> In support of that "theory", he claims that the photo of JFK's BOH scalp
> really doesn't show the entry in the scalp, but just shows a blood clot or
> some other defect....meaning the autopsists took a picture of a blood clot
> or whatever and tried to sell the idea it was the scalp entry. I guess
> Tony thinks they hoped no one would ever be able to closely examine that
> photo and see indications (as the HSCA did) that that "blood clot" (or
> whatever) had an abrasion collar?
so I won't.
> Hmmm, a blood clot with an abrasion collar...why not...makes good CT
> sense...just ask Tony.
collar. Bullet wounds produce abrasion collars, not blood clots.
> Also the autopsists took a picture of a circular defect in JFK's rear
> skull...or that's the official story anyway.
> So if it was a lie I guess Tony is saying there again that the autopsists
> just took a picture of some circular skull defect (that wasn't the entry)?
> Another blood clot?
the precise numbers and measurements that we see on the Boswell face sheet
to the protocol? If not, why not?
> Interesting that the HSCA saw the beveling inward of the skull around that
> defect isn't it....if it wasn't an entry defect?
> Also interesting that, if that circular defect was not the entry how a
> trail of tiny opacities (tiny skull fragments) on the lateral X-ray
> matches the location of that circular defect?
metallic in nature. Were they skull fragments? A combination of both,
maybe?
> Of course Tony surely must think the autopsists made up the story that
> they sectioned the tissue around the entry and saw microsopic pieces of
> skull. He wants to see the slides for himself.....sure the lab techs were
> in on the conspiracy too....in fact who wasn't?
anyone else. Although I get that question quite frequently, or at least
speculation that the conspiracy absolutely had to involve those people. An
example of my point: You are a lowly, military lab tech. You may have a
General or Admiral take you aside and say something like, "We need those
slides to pin it on that little bastard Oswald, 'cause if you don't,
you'll be guilty in allowing him to get away with murdering our
president." If that was YOU, what would your options be?
> He also claims that the autopsists were so incompetent and stupid I guess
> that they didn't see an entry wound in the forehead above JFK's right
> eye...but took a picture of JFK's skull so CTs, like Tony, could find it
> and claim it was caused by a bullet fired from other than JFK's rear.
were competent doctors in their own respects. Now take the hypothetical
scenario I issued, and replace the lowly technician with Humes.
> Now, he'll point out that Dr. Angel said that defect was an exit wound
> (not an entry like Tony says, but who's to nitpick)...but what he won't
> tell you is that Angel clearly said to the FPP the exit was just forward
> of the coronal suture near the Stephanion process....and that defect
> (Tony's entry) above JFK's right eye is medical miles from the coronbal
> suture.
that he had to "presume" forensic connection between the back wound, and
the front wound that he claimed to not know about. Call it what you will,
but Humes guessed about that connection, and I'm expected to accept that
without a body to confirm it, that the default opinion is connection? Not
a chance! The default should have been simply one shallow penetrating back
wound. He knew THAT much for certain, with the corpse right in front of
him.
> Also note that an enlargement of Tony's forehead entry shows it to look
> nothing like a bullet wound...that's a photo Tony doesn't like.
precisely what we should expect, complete with identifiers. There's a
right way, and then there's the Humes way.
> Hang in there...and maybe work on that list of hard evidence there was a
> conspiracy?
~Mark
John Canal
Mar 23, 2012, 10:52:21 PM3/23/12
to
In article <29826377.260.1332525311529.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@ynlx41>,
markusp says...
>> >innocent patsy. I do believe he was involved, and still made to be the=
>=20
>> But Oswald was hired at the TSBD in Sept. and up until a week or so befor=
>e=20
>> the assassination the motorcade would have been traveling eastward off th=
>e=20
>> Stemmons (from Love Field) on Main to the Women's Center where the=20
>> luncheon was originally supposed to be. The point is that there would hav=
>e=20
>> been no clear shot from the TSBD at JFK...in fact Jackie would have been=
>=20
If, however, the motorcade had traveled off the Stemmons onto Main (if the
luncheon site hadn't been changed from the Womens' Center to the Trade
Mart) Jackie would have been between the TSBD SN and JFK. What kind of
conspiracy would have planned for that shot? Was Larry, Moe and Curley in
charge of it?
>>
>> Now, to squeeze that fact into a conspiracy theory in which Oswald was=20
>> 1. The conspiracy had other shooters originally positioned at strategic=
>=20
>> locations along the route to the Women's Center...but din't need them in=
>=20
>The fewer the better that are in
>the loop of knowledge. The only sure way to swear these secret backup
>shooters to secrecy is to simply kill them too. You made up this scenario,
>then expect me to defend it as my own. That dog won't hunt.
Good for you.
>> Hmmm, so they got lucky and had one of their shooters [LHO] right there t=
>o=20
United States needed incredible luck to be successful?
If that washes for you, fine....we just have completely different thought
prosesses.
>=20
>> 2. The conspiracy knew the Trade Mart would be the final choice for the=
>=20
more chances they'd have of being exposed...and once exposed security
would have buttoned up around JFK tighter than a drum and their (the
conspirators) aspirations for a different President would have vanished.
>> Problem there is that Gov. Connally was the person most responsible for=
>=20
>> making the change for the luncheon from the Women's center to the Trade=
>=20
:-)
>But I
>highly doubt that he'd even remotely consider the dangers to his wife.
Now there's a thought.
>> Also, more in on the conspiracy to make the change?
>
>Why are you piling up the numbers? I'm not doing that. You are.
>
> Their numbers are=20
believed there had been a shot from the front? I do. Remember, about 25
mostly medically trained eyewitnesses said they saw a BOH wound, including
two neurosurgeons and the autopsists.
And remember also the announcement on national TV that afternoon...the
fatal shot entered the throat and exited the backside? Burkley made
statements that indicated he was never sure if one bullet or two bullets
hit JFK in the head. It's likely that the information he had was that he
saw wounds on JFK that suggested there had been a conspiracy.
But you've taken that nugget as some strong ev. there was a conspiracy.
You really need better reason to spend the rest of your life chasing your
tail on this...or maybe you just enjoy doing that?
>> Unless they=20
>> 3. The conspiracy could have had Oswald pack up his trusty Carcano and=20
bother answering that, I know what it is.
>No. That would have exposed him as the operative he was. Do you doubt that
>the CIA or FBI had operatives other than Oswald? Even if LHO was NOT an
>operative, obviously they needed people in that role.
Are you holding back some hard ev. there was an assassination
conspiracy...or do you just want to list all the suspicious things that
happened and assume it all pointed to a conspiracy?
>> How that work for you?
>
>It didn't work for me.
>> See my point? Of course you don't and Marsh will come to your rescue on=
>=20
>> this...just wait for his reply. Yah, he'll rescue you by throwing you bot=
>h=20
they are to you worth their weight in B/S...ya, if that's respect, I'd
hate to see your disrespect.
>Also, I don't need Tony Marsh to defend my positions. He is the most
>abrasive person I've never met. But his information is solid, and I
>appreciate it when he does back me up. One thing that the LN's posting
>here will not admit is that they also appreciate Tony's information, data,
>resources, and experience.
Yes, I appreciate his vast knowledge of the minutia in this case, but it's
his bottom line conclusions, like JFK wasn't hit anywhere in the
BOH......or that the autopsists missed seeing or covered up a bullet entry
in JFK's forehead, but still took a picture of it so peolpe like Tony
could see that they [the autopsists] covered it up or missed seeing
it....or that the defect in the rear scalp in the BOH photos is not a
bullet entry wound even though it has an abrasion collar, etc., etc.
>We'd all be doing a disservice in dismissing
>his points.
I'm not surprised at your opinion.
>> >> (or the twin >> towers were brought down by space lasers) loses you=20
>> credibility. > >The JFK murder's conspiracy supporters, in all fairness,=
>=20
>> should be >considered only within the context of his murder. Not all of u=
>s=20
>> blindly >accept the foolish conjecture of an inside 9-11 hoax. The anthra=
>x=20
>> >mailings, however, should be scrutinized much more deeply, especially=20
>> with >respect to the FBI's handling of it. > >> The idea >> that evidence=
>=20
>> and testimony that incriminates Oswald is all contrived to >> frame him i=
>s=20
>> an intellectually bankrupt position where the most incredibl=3D >e >> and=
>=20
>> extraordinary is supported by the weak and meager. > >I agree fully, Bud.=
>=20
>> Can I ask that you consider the same evidence, but >with an open=20
>> mindedness that places the damning evidence directly onto >Oswald as a=20
>> co-conspirator? Your position is clearly very supportable, and >I=20
>> appreciate that. > >There are aspects that, IMO, are not as weak and=20
>> meager as you believe. >One of these is the photo that was alleged to be=
>=20
you say he "clearly" wasn't there?
>>Hmmm this conspiracy was pretty big, eh?
>
>In your mind, apparently. Not in mine.=20
>
Then you must theorize that a small no. of conspirators were very very
busy.
>> Hard to keep one that size from=20
twice from above and behind and if just that evidence was planted or
falsified it would have taken several conspirators to pull that off...too
many to keep quiet all these years.
>> >Then there is the audio tape recording, of which Hoover >was aware, that=
>=20
>> Do you file that under "Hard evidence there was an assassination=20
>> >Can it be considered weak and meager from our perspective that the=20
>> Pentagon=3D > destroyed their file(s)?
>>=20
to have been done...and the no. of conspirators needed to do all that
keeps piling up....and you're smart enough to realize that means too many
to make any sense.
>Maybe he knew where the file was and did it himself? A small army of ONE
>to rid themselves of that pesky trail.
>> >Also, I apologize for being the "broken record" o=3D
>> >n this, but the loss of the Harper Fragment I find very difficult to sim=
>ply=3D
>> > dismiss.
>>=20
>> Do you really...honestly now, find it totally inconceivable that out of=
>=20
>> respect and sensitivity for his fallen brother RFK had parts of his=20
>> [JFK's] body, including his brain, etc. confiscated and destroyed as=20
>> opposed to being kept (even if they were evidence) in the archives to be=
>=20
who's ever written about this case who knows it better. Yes, I've been
obsessed with it for over 12 years...and soon enough, thanks to my
publisher, this entire aspect of the case will be in print.
>But let me
>counter this way: They took out the brain for examination at a date that
>was later than the funeral. What would the disposition of the brain be
>when that was done? What would have been the official method to deal with
>this human remains subsequent to that examination? I asked this question a
>couple of years ago, if I recall.
Technically it should have been secured for a long long time as evidence
by the justice department. But if I had been RFK it wouldn't have lasted
as long as it did out of my personal control or the control of a trusted
few. IOW, I would have done somehing respectfull with it and all the other
pieces of his body that were evidence.
Has there ever been in history a case where the brother of a murder victim
had so much power as RFK did in the JFK case?
>> You just can't buy that, can you?
>
>Of course I can buy your scenario of Bobby ensuring it's disposal. I'm not
>so rigid in my own theory that I couldn't believe that. Be careful that
>your stereotyping of CT's doesn't cloud your opinion of my own personal
>intellect.
Ok, I just get frustrated when you say I make good points but at the same
time don't waiver one tiny bit re. your posiion...IOW, you still are 100%
certain there was an assassination conspiracy, right?
>Am I being unreasonable by suggesting=20
You're too hard to argue with...you're too darn polite...I don't have the
heart.
No need to respond...I think we're done.
I got what I wanted to say off my chest...I'll not bother you again.
Thanks for "listening", though.
:-)
Take care.
John C.
markusp says...
>
>On Thursday, March 22, 2012 2:15:21 PM UTC-5, John Canal wrote:
>
>> >I am a conspiracy believer, but I don't subscribe to Oswald being an=20
>On Thursday, March 22, 2012 2:15:21 PM UTC-5, John Canal wrote:
>
>> >innocent patsy. I do believe he was involved, and still made to be the=
>=20
>> >fall guy. Can we get any credible traction with that?
>>=20
>> But Oswald was hired at the TSBD in Sept. and up until a week or so befor=
>e=20
>> the assassination the motorcade would have been traveling eastward off th=
>e=20
>> Stemmons (from Love Field) on Main to the Women's Center where the=20
>> luncheon was originally supposed to be. The point is that there would hav=
>e=20
>> been no clear shot from the TSBD at JFK...in fact Jackie would have been=
>=20
>> between JFK and the TSBD.
>
>I see your points, John, and I accept them. Humor me here, but the
>speculation surrounding advance placement of Oswald seems to be conflated,
>IMO. If he had a handler, he could have been contacted somehow on
>Thursday, prompting him to hitch a ride with Buell Frazier out to the
>Paine's that evening. A little more humor here -- his status as operative
>had him believe he would be experiencing time away from Marina, so he left
>cash and his ring. Concerning the alignment with Jackie, that particular
>point I would counter-argue that her safety would merely be secondary, if
>considered at all. They did shoot John Kennedy, with her sitting right
>there.
But she was sitting to his left when "LHO" shot him.
>
>I see your points, John, and I accept them. Humor me here, but the
>speculation surrounding advance placement of Oswald seems to be conflated,
>IMO. If he had a handler, he could have been contacted somehow on
>Thursday, prompting him to hitch a ride with Buell Frazier out to the
>Paine's that evening. A little more humor here -- his status as operative
>had him believe he would be experiencing time away from Marina, so he left
>cash and his ring. Concerning the alignment with Jackie, that particular
>point I would counter-argue that her safety would merely be secondary, if
>considered at all. They did shoot John Kennedy, with her sitting right
>there.
If, however, the motorcade had traveled off the Stemmons onto Main (if the
luncheon site hadn't been changed from the Womens' Center to the Trade
Mart) Jackie would have been between the TSBD SN and JFK. What kind of
conspiracy would have planned for that shot? Was Larry, Moe and Curley in
charge of it?
>>
>> Now, to squeeze that fact into a conspiracy theory in which Oswald was=20
>> involved maybe you could offer one of these explanations [?]:
>>=20
>> 1. The conspiracy had other shooters originally positioned at strategic=
>=20
>> locations along the route to the Women's Center...but din't need them in=
>=20
>> the end....so they were swon to secrecy?
>
>Respectfully, John, that's ridiculous.
Exactly my point.
>
>Respectfully, John, that's ridiculous.
>The fewer the better that are in
>the loop of knowledge. The only sure way to swear these secret backup
>shooters to secrecy is to simply kill them too. You made up this scenario,
>then expect me to defend it as my own. That dog won't hunt.
>> Hmmm, so they got lucky and had one of their shooters [LHO] right there t=
>o=20
>> make the shot when the route was changed to go to the Trade Mart?
>>=20
>> How does that work for you?
>
>Yes, that works perfectly for me. I don't think it's doing much for you
>though.
You've got that right. So a conpiracy to assassinate the President of the
>
>Yes, that works perfectly for me. I don't think it's doing much for you
>though.
United States needed incredible luck to be successful?
If that washes for you, fine....we just have completely different thought
prosesses.
>=20
>> 2. The conspiracy knew the Trade Mart would be the final choice for the=
>=20
>> luncheon because they had insiders make that change?
>
>I doubt it. A small conspiracy of a very few people with the four "M's"
>(Means, method, motive, and money) could have had Oswald there, and they
>simply got very lucky. I can easily counter that with this: If he didn't
>get the chance to shoot, oh well, they'll try again elsewhere.
But that doesn't make too much sense either. The more times they try the
>
>I doubt it. A small conspiracy of a very few people with the four "M's"
>(Means, method, motive, and money) could have had Oswald there, and they
>simply got very lucky. I can easily counter that with this: If he didn't
>get the chance to shoot, oh well, they'll try again elsewhere.
more chances they'd have of being exposed...and once exposed security
would have buttoned up around JFK tighter than a drum and their (the
conspirators) aspirations for a different President would have vanished.
>> Problem there is that Gov. Connally was the person most responsible for=
>=20
>> making the change for the luncheon from the Women's center to the Trade=
>=20
>> Mart....do you think JBC was involved?
>
>No chance of Connally's involvement. I suppose we could think that if he
>WAS involved, he may have found the courage to sit in that car.
Not a real big stretch for you, eh?
>
>No chance of Connally's involvement. I suppose we could think that if he
>WAS involved, he may have found the courage to sit in that car.
:-)
>But I
>highly doubt that he'd even remotely consider the dangers to his wife.
>> Also, more in on the conspiracy to make the change?
>
>Why are you piling up the numbers? I'm not doing that. You are.
>
>> piling up, eh...tough to keep them all quiet for decades, no?
>
>Yes, and they weren't successful at keeping them quiet. Admiral Burkley
>was poised to tell the HSCA, and through his lawyer, he let us know that
>he had either information or direct evidence of others' involvement. I
>will continue to take that aspect to task with LN's.
Gee, ya think he, like a whole lot of those who saw the wounds, honestly
>
>Yes, and they weren't successful at keeping them quiet. Admiral Burkley
>was poised to tell the HSCA, and through his lawyer, he let us know that
>he had either information or direct evidence of others' involvement. I
>will continue to take that aspect to task with LN's.
believed there had been a shot from the front? I do. Remember, about 25
mostly medically trained eyewitnesses said they saw a BOH wound, including
two neurosurgeons and the autopsists.
And remember also the announcement on national TV that afternoon...the
fatal shot entered the throat and exited the backside? Burkley made
statements that indicated he was never sure if one bullet or two bullets
hit JFK in the head. It's likely that the information he had was that he
saw wounds on JFK that suggested there had been a conspiracy.
But you've taken that nugget as some strong ev. there was a conspiracy.
You really need better reason to spend the rest of your life chasing your
tail on this...or maybe you just enjoy doing that?
>> Unless they=20
>> were silenced...for good?
>
>Precisely. Oswald was the first.
>=20
>
>Precisely. Oswald was the first.
>> 3. The conspiracy could have had Oswald pack up his trusty Carcano and=20
>> move from the TSBD to wherever he was needed?
Is that more hard ev. of a conspiracy...or just your speculation? Don't
bother answering that, I know what it is.
>No. That would have exposed him as the operative he was. Do you doubt that
>the CIA or FBI had operatives other than Oswald? Even if LHO was NOT an
>operative, obviously they needed people in that role.
conspiracy...or do you just want to list all the suspicious things that
happened and assume it all pointed to a conspiracy?
>> How that work for you?
>
>It didn't work for me.
>=20
>> this...just wait for his reply. Yah, he'll rescue you by throwing you bot=
>h=20
>> ends of the rope.
>
>I hate to burst your preconceived notion regarding my ability to
>understand your points, John. I give you that much respect, and I expect
>it in return.
But evidently my points don't affect your position one iota....meaning
>
>I hate to burst your preconceived notion regarding my ability to
>understand your points, John. I give you that much respect, and I expect
>it in return.
they are to you worth their weight in B/S...ya, if that's respect, I'd
hate to see your disrespect.
>Also, I don't need Tony Marsh to defend my positions. He is the most
>abrasive person I've never met. But his information is solid, and I
>appreciate it when he does back me up. One thing that the LN's posting
>here will not admit is that they also appreciate Tony's information, data,
>resources, and experience.
his bottom line conclusions, like JFK wasn't hit anywhere in the
BOH......or that the autopsists missed seeing or covered up a bullet entry
in JFK's forehead, but still took a picture of it so peolpe like Tony
could see that they [the autopsists] covered it up or missed seeing
it....or that the defect in the rear scalp in the BOH photos is not a
bullet entry wound even though it has an abrasion collar, etc., etc.
>We'd all be doing a disservice in dismissing
>his points.
>> >> (or the twin >> towers were brought down by space lasers) loses you=20
>> credibility. > >The JFK murder's conspiracy supporters, in all fairness,=
>=20
>> should be >considered only within the context of his murder. Not all of u=
>s=20
>> blindly >accept the foolish conjecture of an inside 9-11 hoax. The anthra=
>x=20
>> >mailings, however, should be scrutinized much more deeply, especially=20
>> with >respect to the FBI's handling of it. > >> The idea >> that evidence=
>=20
>> and testimony that incriminates Oswald is all contrived to >> frame him i=
>s=20
>> an intellectually bankrupt position where the most incredibl=3D >e >> and=
>=20
>> extraordinary is supported by the weak and meager. > >I agree fully, Bud.=
>=20
>> Can I ask that you consider the same evidence, but >with an open=20
>> mindedness that places the damning evidence directly onto >Oswald as a=20
>> co-conspirator? Your position is clearly very supportable, and >I=20
>> appreciate that. > >There are aspects that, IMO, are not as weak and=20
>> meager as you believe. >One of these is the photo that was alleged to be=
>=20
>> LHO in Mexico City, but >clearly was not.
>>=20
>> Clearly? So all the evidence that says he was there was manufactured?
>
>Are you asking me that question? My answer is honestly: I do not know.
If you don't know if the ev. for him being there was manufactured, how can
>
>Are you asking me that question? My answer is honestly: I do not know.
you say he "clearly" wasn't there?
>>Hmmm this conspiracy was pretty big, eh?
>
>
Then you must theorize that a small no. of conspirators were very very
busy.
>> Hard to keep one that size from=20
>> exposing itself considering how long it's been, doncha think?
>
>In fact, I actually DO think that. I've considered it for many years,
>which is why I subscribe to a very few people in a very few key positions
>of power, such as POTUS, FBI Director, and former CIA director. Those
>three positions could conceive and implement a conspiracy, "doncha think"?
I think just the medical evidence and ballistics alone prove JFK was shot
>
>In fact, I actually DO think that. I've considered it for many years,
>which is why I subscribe to a very few people in a very few key positions
>of power, such as POTUS, FBI Director, and former CIA director. Those
>three positions could conceive and implement a conspiracy, "doncha think"?
twice from above and behind and if just that evidence was planted or
falsified it would have taken several conspirators to pull that off...too
many to keep quiet all these years.
>> >Then there is the audio tape recording, of which Hoover >was aware, that=
>=20
>> was also alleged to be LHO and obviously was not.
>>=20
>> Do you file that under "Hard evidence there was an assassination=20
>> conspiracy"...or under "Suspicious events"?
>
>Well, it's there. Where would you have me file it?
Well I can't really say here.
>
>Well, it's there. Where would you have me file it?
>> >Can it be considered weak and meager from our perspective that the=20
>> Pentagon=3D > destroyed their file(s)?
>>=20
>> More conspirators?...a small army of them, eh?
>
>No, and you are vastly more intelligent that to expect me to accept that.
>How many do you believe it would involve if, for example, the former CIA
>director simply gave a nod to someone to retrieve the file and destroy it?
Not many, you're right, but there are tons of other things that would have
>
>No, and you are vastly more intelligent that to expect me to accept that.
>How many do you believe it would involve if, for example, the former CIA
>director simply gave a nod to someone to retrieve the file and destroy it?
to have been done...and the no. of conspirators needed to do all that
keeps piling up....and you're smart enough to realize that means too many
to make any sense.
>Maybe he knew where the file was and did it himself? A small army of ONE
>to rid themselves of that pesky trail.
>> >n this, but the loss of the Harper Fragment I find very difficult to sim=
>ply=3D
>> > dismiss.
>>=20
>> Do you really...honestly now, find it totally inconceivable that out of=
>=20
>> respect and sensitivity for his fallen brother RFK had parts of his=20
>> [JFK's] body, including his brain, etc. confiscated and destroyed as=20
>> opposed to being kept (even if they were evidence) in the archives to be=
>=20
>> examined every time there was a re-examinaton of the evidence?
>
>I have not suggested that they keep that fragment forever as evidence.
>You're the best medical expert we have on this forum, IMO.
Thank you, but, not to be pompous, I believe there's no one on this planet
>
>I have not suggested that they keep that fragment forever as evidence.
>You're the best medical expert we have on this forum, IMO.
who's ever written about this case who knows it better. Yes, I've been
obsessed with it for over 12 years...and soon enough, thanks to my
publisher, this entire aspect of the case will be in print.
>But let me
>counter this way: They took out the brain for examination at a date that
>was later than the funeral. What would the disposition of the brain be
>when that was done? What would have been the official method to deal with
>this human remains subsequent to that examination? I asked this question a
>couple of years ago, if I recall.
by the justice department. But if I had been RFK it wouldn't have lasted
as long as it did out of my personal control or the control of a trusted
few. IOW, I would have done somehing respectfull with it and all the other
pieces of his body that were evidence.
Has there ever been in history a case where the brother of a murder victim
had so much power as RFK did in the JFK case?
>> You just can't buy that, can you?
>
>Of course I can buy your scenario of Bobby ensuring it's disposal. I'm not
>so rigid in my own theory that I couldn't believe that. Be careful that
>your stereotyping of CT's doesn't cloud your opinion of my own personal
>intellect.
time don't waiver one tiny bit re. your posiion...IOW, you still are 100%
certain there was an assassination conspiracy, right?
>Am I being unreasonable by suggesting=20
>> that? Really?
>
>It is well within reason that you can suggest that. I cannot argue that
>it's ridiculous, because it actually IS reasonable, John.
[...]
>
>It is well within reason that you can suggest that. I cannot argue that
>it's ridiculous, because it actually IS reasonable, John.
You're too hard to argue with...you're too darn polite...I don't have the
heart.
No need to respond...I think we're done.
I got what I wanted to say off my chest...I'll not bother you again.
Thanks for "listening", though.
:-)
Take care.
John C.
Anthony Marsh
Mar 24, 2012, 7:30:48 PM3/24/12
to
they would have to go east on Main because they'd want to go through
Dealey Plaza. Fine. Put a sniper on the grassy knoll and one on the roof
of the Post Office Annex. Then pay all the witnesses to say that the shot
came from the TSBD. Maybe even fire a couple of shots from there.
At least take out the tires.
did the OAS try to kill de Gaulle?
bullet hole in the forehead. They were too stupid to notice it.
>>> Hard to keep one that size from=20
>>> exposing itself considering how long it's been, doncha think?
>>
>> In fact, I actually DO think that. I've considered it for many years,
>> which is why I subscribe to a very few people in a very few key positions
>> of power, such as POTUS, FBI Director, and former CIA director. Those
>> three positions could conceive and implement a conspiracy, "doncha think"?
>
> I think just the medical evidence and ballistics alone prove JFK was shot
> twice from above and behind and if just that evidence was planted or
> falsified it would have taken several conspirators to pull that off...too
> many to keep quiet all these years.
>
people can keep a secret if two of them are dead."
How many people kept the Castro plots secret for how many years.
Same with Operation Mongoose? Same with Operation Northwoods.
How many years do we have to keep things from WWI Top Secret?
100 years, 300 years? 3,000 years?
>>>> Then there is the audio tape recording, of which Hoover>was aware, that=
>> =20
>>> was also alleged to be LHO and obviously was not.
>>> =20
>>> Do you file that under "Hard evidence there was an assassination=20
>>> conspiracy"...or under "Suspicious events"?
>>
>> Well, it's there. Where would you have me file it?
>
> Well I can't really say here.
>
>>>> Can it be considered weak and meager from our perspective that the=20
>>> Pentagon=3D> destroyed their file(s)?
>>> =20
>>> More conspirators?...a small army of them, eh?
>>
>> No, and you are vastly more intelligent that to expect me to accept that.
>> How many do you believe it would involve if, for example, the former CIA
>> director simply gave a nod to someone to retrieve the file and destroy it?
>
> Not many, you're right, but there are tons of other things that would have
> to have been done...and the no. of conspirators needed to do all that
> keeps piling up....and you're smart enough to realize that means too many
> to make any sense.
>
where they only assigned 10 officers originally? And you consider that
an insurmountable problem?
>> Maybe he knew where the file was and did it himself? A small army of ONE
>> to rid themselves of that pesky trail.
>
>>>> Also, I apologize for being the "broken record" o=3D
>>>> n this, but the loss of the Harper Fragment I find very difficult to sim=
>> ply=3D
>>>> dismiss.
>>> =20
>>> Do you really...honestly now, find it totally inconceivable that out of=
>> =20
>>> respect and sensitivity for his fallen brother RFK had parts of his=20
>>> [JFK's] body, including his brain, etc. confiscated and destroyed as=20
>>> opposed to being kept (even if they were evidence) in the archives to be=
>> =20
>>> examined every time there was a re-examinaton of the evidence?
>>
>> I have not suggested that they keep that fragment forever as evidence.
>> You're the best medical expert we have on this forum, IMO.
>
> Thank you, but, not to be pompous, I believe there's no one on this planet
> who's ever written about this case who knows it better. Yes, I've been
> obsessed with it for over 12 years...and soon enough, thanks to my
> publisher, this entire aspect of the case will be in print.
>
Was your book a best seller? Did the President praise it?
>> But let me
>> counter this way: They took out the brain for examination at a date that
>> was later than the funeral. What would the disposition of the brain be
>> when that was done? What would have been the official method to deal with
>> this human remains subsequent to that examination? I asked this question a
>> couple of years ago, if I recall.
>
> Technically it should have been secured for a long long time as evidence
> by the justice department. But if I had been RFK it wouldn't have lasted
> as long as it did out of my personal control or the control of a trusted
> few. IOW, I would have done somehing respectfull with it and all the other
> pieces of his body that were evidence.
>
> Has there ever been in history a case where the brother of a murder victim
> had so much power as RFK did in the JFK case?
>
comparison.
Anthony Marsh
Mar 24, 2012, 7:33:50 PM3/24/12
to
On 3/23/2012 7:51 PM, markusp wrote:
> On Thursday, March 22, 2012 2:15:21 PM UTC-5, John Canal wrote:
>
>>> I am a conspiracy believer, but I don't subscribe to Oswald being an
>>> innocent patsy. I do believe he was involved, and still made to be the
>>> fall guy. Can we get any credible traction with that?
>>
>> But Oswald was hired at the TSBD in Sept. and up until a week or so before
>> the assassination the motorcade would have been traveling eastward off the
>> Stemmons (from Love Field) on Main to the Women's Center where the
>> luncheon was originally supposed to be. The point is that there would have
>> been no clear shot from the TSBD at JFK...in fact Jackie would have been
>> between JFK and the TSBD.
>
> I see your points, John, and I accept them. Humor me here, but the
> speculation surrounding advance placement of Oswald seems to be conflated,
> IMO. If he had a handler, he could have been contacted somehow on
> Thursday, prompting him to hitch a ride with Buell Frazier out to the
> Paine's that evening. A little more humor here -- his status as operative
There are two possibilities, each of which would take different paths. If
> On Thursday, March 22, 2012 2:15:21 PM UTC-5, John Canal wrote:
>
>>> I am a conspiracy believer, but I don't subscribe to Oswald being an
>>> innocent patsy. I do believe he was involved, and still made to be the
>>> fall guy. Can we get any credible traction with that?
>>
>> But Oswald was hired at the TSBD in Sept. and up until a week or so before
>> the assassination the motorcade would have been traveling eastward off the
>> Stemmons (from Love Field) on Main to the Women's Center where the
>> luncheon was originally supposed to be. The point is that there would have
>> been no clear shot from the TSBD at JFK...in fact Jackie would have been
>> between JFK and the TSBD.
>
> I see your points, John, and I accept them. Humor me here, but the
> speculation surrounding advance placement of Oswald seems to be conflated,
> IMO. If he had a handler, he could have been contacted somehow on
> Thursday, prompting him to hitch a ride with Buell Frazier out to the
> Paine's that evening. A little more humor here -- his status as operative
Oswald was somebody's agent his handler might only contact him less than
once a month, certainly not every day. If he were a sleeper agent he would
not be contacted at all until the moment he was needed. He'd be having
lunch one day and then receive a phone call and assigned to kill someone
that afternoon or night.
> had him believe he would be experiencing time away from Marina, so he left
> cash and his ring. Concerning the alignment with Jackie, that particular
> point I would counter-argue that her safety would merely be secondary, if
> considered at all. They did shoot John Kennedy, with her sitting right
> there.
>
bank account.
He only left the ring when Marina refused to move back in with him. It was
meant as a signal that the separation would be permanent.
>>
>> Now, to squeeze that fact into a conspiracy theory in which Oswald was
>> involved maybe you could offer one of these explanations [?]:
>>
>> 1. The conspiracy had other shooters originally positioned at strategic
>> locations along the route to the Women's Center...but din't need them in
>> the end....so they were swon to secrecy?
>
> Respectfully, John, that's ridiculous. The fewer the better that are in
> the loop of knowledge. The only sure way to swear these secret backup
> shooters to secrecy is to simply kill them too. You made up this scenario,
> then expect me to defend it as my own. That dog won't hunt.
>
today? Every member of Team 6 must be killed to ensure secrecy?
>> Hmmm, so they got lucky and had one of their shooters [LHO] right there to
>> make the shot when the route was changed to go to the Trade Mart?
>>
>> How does that work for you?
>
> Yes, that works perfectly for me. I don't think it's doing much for you
> though.
>
>
>> 2. The conspiracy knew the Trade Mart would be the final choice for the
>> luncheon because they had insiders make that change?
>
> I doubt it. A small conspiracy of a very few people with the four "M's"
> (Means, method, motive, and money) could have had Oswald there, and they
> simply got very lucky. I can easily counter that with this: If he didn't
> get the chance to shoot, oh well, they'll try again elsewhere.
>
use for a patsy. They had my father's name on file and just called him up
and told him to be at a certain place at a certain time to use him for a
decoy since the opposition already knew he was an agent.
>> Problem there is that Gov. Connally was the person most responsible for
>> making the change for the luncheon from the Women's center to the Trade
>> Mart....do you think JBC was involved?
>
> No chance of Connally's involvement. I suppose we could think that if he
> WAS involved, he may have found the courage to sit in that car. But I
> highly doubt that he'd even remotely consider the dangers to his wife.
>
>> Also, more in on the conspiracy to make the change?
>
> Why are you piling up the numbers? I'm not doing that. You are.
>
> Their numbers are
>> piling up, eh...tough to keep them all quiet for decades, no?
>
> Yes, and they weren't successful at keeping them quiet. Admiral Burkley
> was poised to tell the HSCA, and through his lawyer, he let us know that
> he had either information or direct evidence of others' involvement. I
> will continue to take that aspect to task with LN's.
>
He just had suspicions about different shots.
>> Unless they
>> were silenced...for good?
>
> Precisely. Oswald was the first.
>
conspirators within hours and executed them all.
the Castro plots entirely within his own little department. It was not a
top down operation.
it should have been preserved just like the windshield, or the clothing or
the Zapruder film.
If someone decided to not store it at the National Archives there are
brain collections where it could be donated to. Such as Harvard.
Einstein's brain was preserved in 1955 and is still being studied today.
Supposedly if anyone was telling the truth President Kennedy's brain was
fixed in formalin and coronally sliced less than two weeks after his
death. I personally believe his brain is still being preserved in private
hands to keep it safe from government hands.
> very difficult quandary about that pesky 6.5mm opacity on the A/P X-ray. I
> have yet to read anyone's conjecture that seems reasonable about it. That
> includes yours.
>
>> In support of that "theory", he claims that the photo of JFK's BOH scalp
>> really doesn't show the entry in the scalp, but just shows a blood clot or
>> some other defect....meaning the autopsists took a picture of a blood clot
>> or whatever and tried to sell the idea it was the scalp entry. I guess
>> Tony thinks they hoped no one would ever be able to closely examine that
>> photo and see indications (as the HSCA did) that that "blood clot" (or
>> whatever) had an abrasion collar?
>
> I'd be entering into a losing argument with you on those aspects. I can't,
> so I won't.
>
>> Hmmm, a blood clot with an abrasion collar...why not...makes good CT
>> sense...just ask Tony.
>
> I believe that Tony would not speculate that a blood clot has an abrasion
> collar. Bullet wounds produce abrasion collars, not blood clots.
>
What I said was that Michael Baden ordered Ida Dox to draw in an
> have yet to read anyone's conjecture that seems reasonable about it. That
> includes yours.
>
>> In support of that "theory", he claims that the photo of JFK's BOH scalp
>> really doesn't show the entry in the scalp, but just shows a blood clot or
>> some other defect....meaning the autopsists took a picture of a blood clot
>> or whatever and tried to sell the idea it was the scalp entry. I guess
>> Tony thinks they hoped no one would ever be able to closely examine that
>> photo and see indications (as the HSCA did) that that "blood clot" (or
>> whatever) had an abrasion collar?
>
> I'd be entering into a losing argument with you on those aspects. I can't,
> so I won't.
>
>> Hmmm, a blood clot with an abrasion collar...why not...makes good CT
>> sense...just ask Tony.
>
> I believe that Tony would not speculate that a blood clot has an abrasion
> collar. Bullet wounds produce abrasion collars, not blood clots.
>
abrasion collar around the blood clot.
>> Also the autopsists took a picture of a circular defect in JFK's rear
>> skull...or that's the official story anyway.
>
> No, the official autopsy story was fuel in Humes' fireplace.
>
>> So if it was a lie I guess Tony is saying there again that the autopsists
>> just took a picture of some circular skull defect (that wasn't the entry)?
>> Another blood clot?
>
> A respectful question to you about autopsy notes, John: Did Humes transfer
> the precise numbers and measurements that we see on the Boswell face sheet
> to the protocol? If not, why not?
>
>> Interesting that the HSCA saw the beveling inward of the skull around that
>> defect isn't it....if it wasn't an entry defect?
>
> It was an entry defect they saw. I believe it.
>
>> Also interesting that, if that circular defect was not the entry how a
>> trail of tiny opacities (tiny skull fragments) on the lateral X-ray
>> matches the location of that circular defect?
>
> Another respectful question, John: I thought the trail of opacities were
> metallic in nature. Were they skull fragments? A combination of both,
> maybe?
>
see in the top of the head and then skull fragments which only he can see
in the bottom of the head. Then he claims both divegent trails were caused
by the same bullet.
>> Of course Tony surely must think the autopsists made up the story that
>> they sectioned the tissue around the entry and saw microsopic pieces of
>> skull. He wants to see the slides for himself.....sure the lab techs were
>> in on the conspiracy too....in fact who wasn't?
>
> I can assuredly state that I was not in the conspiracy. I cannot vouch for
> anyone else. Although I get that question quite frequently, or at least
> speculation that the conspiracy absolutely had to involve those people. An
> example of my point: You are a lowly, military lab tech. You may have a
> General or Admiral take you aside and say something like, "We need those
> slides to pin it on that little bastard Oswald, 'cause if you don't,
> you'll be guilty in allowing him to get away with murdering our
> president." If that was YOU, what would your options be?
>
>> He also claims that the autopsists were so incompetent and stupid I guess
>> that they didn't see an entry wound in the forehead above JFK's right
>> eye...but took a picture of JFK's skull so CTs, like Tony, could find it
>> and claim it was caused by a bullet fired from other than JFK's rear.
>
> I'm not sure about his opinion of the autopsists. Myself, I believe they
> were competent doctors in their own respects. Now take the hypothetical
> scenario I issued, and replace the lowly technician with Humes.
>
by a higher authority and then did their patriotic duty by lying.
Anthony Marsh
Mar 24, 2012, 7:34:32 PM3/24/12
to
On 3/23/2012 7:39 PM, markusp wrote:
> On Thursday, March 22, 2012 9:21:23 PM UTC-5, Anthony Marsh wrote:
>
>> And some WC defenders think that Oswald was working for Castro.
>
> I guess it's possible that, at the time of the murder, by claiming that
> Oswald did not work for Castro, the seed was planted to create that very
> suspicion. Kind of a "mental false flag" thing.
>
>
>>> The JFK murder's conspiracy supporters, in all fairness, should be
>>
>> Not sure which you mean by conspiracy supporters. Do you mean the member
>> of the conspiracy who supported murdering Kennedy?
>> Or do you mean the WC defenders who support the conspirators?
>
> Neither, Tony. I meant conspiracy supporters like you, me, and Bigdog!
> (Sorry, Bigdog -- I couldn't resist!)
>
Well, I was confused by the way you phrased it. But for the record I do
> On Thursday, March 22, 2012 9:21:23 PM UTC-5, Anthony Marsh wrote:
>
>> And some WC defenders think that Oswald was working for Castro.
>
> I guess it's possible that, at the time of the murder, by claiming that
> Oswald did not work for Castro, the seed was planted to create that very
> suspicion. Kind of a "mental false flag" thing.
>
>
>>> The JFK murder's conspiracy supporters, in all fairness, should be
>>
>> Not sure which you mean by conspiracy supporters. Do you mean the member
>> of the conspiracy who supported murdering Kennedy?
>> Or do you mean the WC defenders who support the conspirators?
>
> Neither, Tony. I meant conspiracy supporters like you, me, and Bigdog!
> (Sorry, Bigdog -- I couldn't resist!)
>
not support ANY conspiracies. I investigate conspiracies. I support some
conspiracy theories.
>>> considered only within the context of his murder. Not all of us blindly
>>> accept the foolish conjecture of an inside 9-11 hoax. The anthrax
>>> mailings, however, should be scrutinized much more deeply, especially with
>>> respect to the FBI's handling of it.
>>>
>>
>> Maybe the Anthrax mailings were only a hoax. Maybe they were a Fund
>> Raiser to make the argument that the department should not be cut
>> because biological weapons are still a big threat. Maybe it was a test
>> by the CIA to see how well the system detects biological weapons.
>
> Maybe it was a test to see how lethally effective it was on liberal
> senators, a liberal television personality, and a few innocent, dead
> shmucks to deceive us into accepting it as random.
>
Anthrax so that it only kills Liberals? I remember some CIA tests to
develop biological weapons which would only kill black people.
> ~Mark
>
Anthony Marsh
Mar 24, 2012, 7:35:37 PM3/24/12
to
On 3/23/2012 10:39 AM, John Canal wrote:
> In article<4f6b...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...
>>
>> On 3/22/2012 3:15 PM, John Canal wrote:
>
> [...]
>
>> And it doesn't bother you that the channel-like path does not line up
>> with your entrance wound near the EOP?
>
> You reveal once again how little you know about the medical evidence.
>
>> Where exactly where these fragments not found behind JFK? Did you go
>> down there and search for them with a metal detector?
>
> Are you suggesting there were metal fragments behind JFK? No one looked for
> them, is that it? Or do you posit that more conspirators confiscated them? My my
> how busy they were. Your "baker's dozen" [conspirators] were busier than a
> family of beavers on dam building day.
>
I simply don't know what you mean by that. You have something in your
> In article<4f6b...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...
>>
>> On 3/22/2012 3:15 PM, John Canal wrote:
>
> [...]
>
>> And it doesn't bother you that the channel-like path does not line up
>> with your entrance wound near the EOP?
>
> You reveal once again how little you know about the medical evidence.
>
>> Where exactly where these fragments not found behind JFK? Did you go
>> down there and search for them with a metal detector?
>
> Are you suggesting there were metal fragments behind JFK? No one looked for
> them, is that it? Or do you posit that more conspirators confiscated them? My my
> how busy they were. Your "baker's dozen" [conspirators] were busier than a
> family of beavers on dam building day.
>
head, but you can't figure out how to write it down into an intelligible
question.
FYI it didn't take every person in the CIA to shoot at Castro.
> [...]
>
>>> Also interesting that, if that circular defect was not the entry how a
>>> trail of tiny opacities (tiny skull fragments) on the lateral X-ray
>>> matches the location of that circular defect?
>>>
>>
>> No, they don't. They are much higher in the head.
>
> I was talking about tiny bone fragments near the EOP seen on the lateral X-ray,
> not the tiny metal fragments high in his head.
>
> Also, Angel contradicted himself, about the defect over JFK's right eye....there
> was only one exit so either he had to be wrong about the forehead defect (you
> ridiculously think was an entry) being a bullet wound or he had to be wrong when
> he said the exit was just forward or the coronal suture at the Stephanion.
>
as just one possible exit of many.
"An" exit not "the" exit.
There could be an additional exit just forward of the coronal suture.
> The bottom line is clear. His placement of the beveled out corner of the large
> late arriving skull pieces (with the meatllic residue on it) sealed the deal
> about where the exit was.......which was, like he told the FPP, "just forward of
> the coronal suture" (which, again--not that you care--is medical miles from
> above the right eye).
>
Quote where he said there was only one exit point.
> You're so busy looking back over your shoulder for CIA hit men that you
> didn't/don't have time to study the medical evidence....but what CT needs to
> study the medical evidence to come up with their ridiculous theories? You're no
> exception, IMO.
>
you even heard about this case.
> A blood clot with an abrasion collar?
>
collar around the blood clot.
> LOL.
>
> A circular defect in JFK's rear skull that's not the entry even though that
> circular defect is below the ruler and 2.5 cm from the its edge [the ruler edge]
> and centered in the pictue titled, "Missile wound in occipital skull..."?
>
Oh, so now you're calling it a "circular" defect even though the autopsy
>
> A circular defect in JFK's rear skull that's not the entry even though that
> circular defect is below the ruler and 2.5 cm from the its edge [the ruler edge]
> and centered in the pictue titled, "Missile wound in occipital skull..."?
>
doctors supposedly measured it as being 15 x 6 mm. And you call that
cicular? You can't even keep your cover up straight. So which of these two
figures is the circular one and which is the oval one?
o O
John Canal
Mar 24, 2012, 11:45:49 PM3/24/12
to
In article <4f6e4d76$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...
>> [...]
>>
>>>> Also interesting that, if that circular defect was not the entry how a
>>>> trail of tiny opacities (tiny skull fragments) on the lateral X-ray
>>>> matches the location of that circular defect?
>>>>
>>>
>>> No, they don't. They are much higher in the head.
>>
>>I was talking about tiny bone fragments near the EOP seen on the lateral X-ray,
>> not the tiny metal fragments high in his head.
>>
>
>There are none. You are making up things from your imagination.
It's sad that you've spent most of your life studying this case and still
are ignorant about the medical evidence.
No wonder you're a CT, you came to conclusions without knowing the
important evidence.
>>Also, Angel contradicted himself, about the defect over JFK's right eye....there
>> was only one exit so either he had to be wrong about the forehead defect (you
>>ridiculously think was an entry) being a bullet wound or he had to be wrong when
>> he said the exit was just forward or the coronal suture at the Stephanion.
>>
>
>No, he did not say there was ONE exit. He saw the semi-circular defect
>as just one possible exit of many.
>"An" exit not "the" exit.
>There could be an additional exit just forward of the coronal suture.
Don't you get tired of demonstrating to everyone how little you know about
the medical evidence? And not to sound pompous but when I say "everyone"
that means a lot more individuals here than you think--because many read
my posts to learn things about the medical evidence]
The FPP and the autopsists agreed there was only one principal exit!
They determined that because they extrapolated from the portion of the
circular defect (at the corner of the late-rriving skull piece where the
metallicresidue was) forward of the coronal suture to estimate its
diameter. Their estimate was appx. 2.5 cm...too large for there to have
been another exit of any significat size. The defect (your imaginary
entry) above his right eye was significant....IWO too large for another
exit!
Take notes to remember this stuff...otherwise you'll invaribly keep
repeating your mistakes.
>>The bottom line is clear. His placement of the beveled out corner of the large
>> late arriving skull pieces (with the meatllic residue on it) sealed the deal
>>about where the exit was.......which was, like he told the FPP, "just forward of
>> the coronal suture" (which, again--not that you care--is medical miles from
>> above the right eye).
>>
>
>HIS? Quote where Dr. Angel said that.
>Quote where he said there was only one exit point.
Read, man read!!!!!!
>> You're so busy looking back over your shoulder for CIA hit men that you
>> didn't/don't have time to study the medical evidence....but what CT needs to
>>study the medical evidence to come up with their ridiculous theories? You're no
>> exception, IMO.
>>
>
>I was studying and documenting the medical evidence in this case before
>you even heard about this case.
And you must have stopped studying it a long time ago...either that or
your memory is deplorable. Bottom line is that you lack a clear
understanding of this aspect of the case...and you constantly, ad nauseam,
prove that to us.
>> A blood clot with an abrasion collar?
>>
>
>I didn't say that. I said that Baden had Ida Dox draw in the abrasion
>collar around the blood clot.
So, Marsh, if the defect in the scalp in the BOH photos is not a blood
clot......and it has an abrasion collar....and the autopsists reported
seeing microscopic bone fragments in the tissue surrounding it....and it's
centered in the photo titled missile wound in occipital scalp, then what
the bleep is it Marsh????????
But you can't admit it's an entry because you're committed to your
ultra-ridiculous off-the-charts wacky theory that JFK wasn't hit anywhere
in the BOH...aren't you?
LOL!
You've painted yourself in a corner...again.
So, what is it Marsh, if it's not the entry? As I brace myself for a real
wopper of an answer.
>> LOL.
>>
>> A circular defect in JFK's rear skull that's not the entry even though that
>>circular defect is below the ruler and 2.5 cm from the its edge [the ruler edge]
>> and centered in the pictue titled, "Missile wound in occipital skull..."?
>>
>
>Oh, so now you're calling it a "circular" defect even though the autopsy
>doctors supposedly measured it as being 15 x 6 mm.
That's it, you've worn out my patience....JFK medical evidence school's
out for you...you flunked and your silly insinuations and comments are
holding up the progress of the rest of the class!
Pay attention and read for comprehension:
The defect in the #####SKULL##### was circular (6-7 mm in diameter
according to Humes)...Boswell testified that the top hemisphere was in a
bone piece that came out when they reflected the scalp. That left a
"semicircular beveled defect" (7HSCA, para 300) along the skull edge as
seen in F8.
The defect in the #####SCALP##### when they photographed it was 15 x 6 mm.
You're dismissed and you are set back two grades to medical evidence
pre-school.
[...]
--
John Canal
jca...@webtv.net
>
>On 3/23/2012 10:39 AM, John Canal wrote:
>> In article<4f6b...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...
>>>
>>> On 3/22/2012 3:15 PM, John Canal wrote:
>>
>> [...]
>>
>>> And it doesn't bother you that the channel-like path does not line up
>>> with your entrance wound near the EOP?
>>
>> You reveal once again how little you know about the medical evidence.
>>
>>> Where exactly where these fragments not found behind JFK? Did you go
>>> down there and search for them with a metal detector?
>>
>> Are you suggesting there were metal fragments behind JFK? No one looked for
>>them, is that it? Or do you posit that more conspirators confiscated them? My my
>> how busy they were. Your "baker's dozen" [conspirators] were busier than a
>> family of beavers on dam building day.
>>
>
>I simply don't know what you mean by that. You have something in your
>head, but you can't figure out how to write it down into an intelligible
>question.
>
>FYI it didn't take every person in the CIA to shoot at Castro.
Logistics, planning, cover-up, etc....duh, not just the shooter!
>On 3/23/2012 10:39 AM, John Canal wrote:
>> In article<4f6b...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...
>>>
>>> On 3/22/2012 3:15 PM, John Canal wrote:
>>
>> [...]
>>
>>> And it doesn't bother you that the channel-like path does not line up
>>> with your entrance wound near the EOP?
>>
>> You reveal once again how little you know about the medical evidence.
>>
>>> Where exactly where these fragments not found behind JFK? Did you go
>>> down there and search for them with a metal detector?
>>
>> Are you suggesting there were metal fragments behind JFK? No one looked for
>>them, is that it? Or do you posit that more conspirators confiscated them? My my
>> how busy they were. Your "baker's dozen" [conspirators] were busier than a
>> family of beavers on dam building day.
>>
>
>I simply don't know what you mean by that. You have something in your
>head, but you can't figure out how to write it down into an intelligible
>question.
>
>FYI it didn't take every person in the CIA to shoot at Castro.
>> [...]
>>
>>>> Also interesting that, if that circular defect was not the entry how a
>>>> trail of tiny opacities (tiny skull fragments) on the lateral X-ray
>>>> matches the location of that circular defect?
>>>>
>>>
>>> No, they don't. They are much higher in the head.
>>
>>I was talking about tiny bone fragments near the EOP seen on the lateral X-ray,
>> not the tiny metal fragments high in his head.
>>
>
>There are none. You are making up things from your imagination.
are ignorant about the medical evidence.
No wonder you're a CT, you came to conclusions without knowing the
important evidence.
>>Also, Angel contradicted himself, about the defect over JFK's right eye....there
>> was only one exit so either he had to be wrong about the forehead defect (you
>>ridiculously think was an entry) being a bullet wound or he had to be wrong when
>> he said the exit was just forward or the coronal suture at the Stephanion.
>>
>
>No, he did not say there was ONE exit. He saw the semi-circular defect
>as just one possible exit of many.
>"An" exit not "the" exit.
>There could be an additional exit just forward of the coronal suture.
the medical evidence? And not to sound pompous but when I say "everyone"
that means a lot more individuals here than you think--because many read
my posts to learn things about the medical evidence]
The FPP and the autopsists agreed there was only one principal exit!
They determined that because they extrapolated from the portion of the
circular defect (at the corner of the late-rriving skull piece where the
metallicresidue was) forward of the coronal suture to estimate its
diameter. Their estimate was appx. 2.5 cm...too large for there to have
been another exit of any significat size. The defect (your imaginary
entry) above his right eye was significant....IWO too large for another
exit!
Take notes to remember this stuff...otherwise you'll invaribly keep
repeating your mistakes.
>>The bottom line is clear. His placement of the beveled out corner of the large
>> late arriving skull pieces (with the meatllic residue on it) sealed the deal
>>about where the exit was.......which was, like he told the FPP, "just forward of
>> the coronal suture" (which, again--not that you care--is medical miles from
>> above the right eye).
>>
>
>HIS? Quote where Dr. Angel said that.
>Quote where he said there was only one exit point.
>> You're so busy looking back over your shoulder for CIA hit men that you
>> didn't/don't have time to study the medical evidence....but what CT needs to
>>study the medical evidence to come up with their ridiculous theories? You're no
>> exception, IMO.
>>
>
>I was studying and documenting the medical evidence in this case before
>you even heard about this case.
your memory is deplorable. Bottom line is that you lack a clear
understanding of this aspect of the case...and you constantly, ad nauseam,
prove that to us.
>> A blood clot with an abrasion collar?
>>
>
>I didn't say that. I said that Baden had Ida Dox draw in the abrasion
>collar around the blood clot.
clot......and it has an abrasion collar....and the autopsists reported
seeing microscopic bone fragments in the tissue surrounding it....and it's
centered in the photo titled missile wound in occipital scalp, then what
the bleep is it Marsh????????
But you can't admit it's an entry because you're committed to your
ultra-ridiculous off-the-charts wacky theory that JFK wasn't hit anywhere
in the BOH...aren't you?
LOL!
You've painted yourself in a corner...again.
So, what is it Marsh, if it's not the entry? As I brace myself for a real
wopper of an answer.
>> LOL.
>>
>> A circular defect in JFK's rear skull that's not the entry even though that
>>circular defect is below the ruler and 2.5 cm from the its edge [the ruler edge]
>> and centered in the pictue titled, "Missile wound in occipital skull..."?
>>
>
>Oh, so now you're calling it a "circular" defect even though the autopsy
>doctors supposedly measured it as being 15 x 6 mm.
out for you...you flunked and your silly insinuations and comments are
holding up the progress of the rest of the class!
Pay attention and read for comprehension:
The defect in the #####SKULL##### was circular (6-7 mm in diameter
according to Humes)...Boswell testified that the top hemisphere was in a
bone piece that came out when they reflected the scalp. That left a
"semicircular beveled defect" (7HSCA, para 300) along the skull edge as
seen in F8.
The defect in the #####SCALP##### when they photographed it was 15 x 6 mm.
You're dismissed and you are set back two grades to medical evidence
pre-school.
[...]
--
John Canal
jca...@webtv.net
0 new messages