JFK Debate -- John McAdams Vs. Tom Rossley (Via YouTube)
David Von Pein
4/5/09 JFK-assassination debate between John McAdams and Tom Rossley
(via host Anton Batey's YouTube channel):
www.youtube.com/profile?user=AntonBatey&view=videos&query=jfk+assassination+mcadams
David Von Pein
www.youtube.com/profile?user=AntonBatey&view=videos&query=jfk+assassination+mcadams
COMMENTS ABOUT THE TOM ROSSLEY/JOHN McADAMS RADIO DEBATE ON WHPR-RADIO
(HIGHLAND PARK, MICHIGAN) ON APRIL 5, 2009:
First off -- great job! Both of you. It was cordial, but still hard-
hitting in many spots from both participants. It was really a pleasure
to listen to. I enjoyed the whole thing.
And kudos to the host, Anton Batey, who I think did a very good job of
moderating and asking some good questions that covered a wide variety
of areas. And additional kudos to Anton for also riding the fence very
nicely too. He certainly did not show any bias whatsoever toward one
side or the other. Excellent job.
RANDOM OBSERVATIONS:
The biggest oversight on Prof. McAdams' part, IMO, was when the "back
and to the left" topic cropped up a couple of times during the
debate...with Prof. McAdams not ONCE mentioning the initial FORWARD
movement of President Kennedy's head on the Zapruder Film at the
critical moment of impact when Oswald's bullet was crashing into the
back of JFK's head.
Now, it's possible that John did mention the forward head movement in
the UNCUT debate (which, as I understand it from Tom Rossley, was 3
hours and 20 minutes in total length, which was then edited down by
Anton Batey to 1 hour and 45 minutes for the 11-part YouTube version
linked above).
So, I suppose perhaps a mention of the initial forward movement of
JFK's head could have been mentioned by John and then subsequently cut
out of Anton's trimmed-down version.
But I think that John McAdams would agree that any discussion about
the movements of JFK's head during the key head-shot frames of the
Zapruder Film should certainly include some remarks about the very
important forward movement of the President's head at the critical
IMPACT point.
Tom Rossley came up with a brand-new crackpot idea regarding Governor
John Connally's wounds that I don't think I have ever heard any other
conspiracy theorist dish up in the past -- and that's when Tom stated
during the WHPR radio debate that Governor Connally had NOT been shot
in the back by a bullet at all....but, instead, had been shot in the
CHEST from the FRONT by a bullet. And this bullet evidently exited the
UPPER BACK of John B. Connally.
Now that's a hot (new) one on me!
Maybe Tom has proposed that silly theory here at these Internet forums
in the past, but I sure don't recall reading it.
Tom bases his "Connally Was Shot In The Chest" nuttiness on the
initial news reports (and some statements by Connally's doctor that
Rossley has totally misinterpreted, as per his norm) that said that
Connally had, indeed, been shot "in the chest".
But even a first-grader should be able to figure this one out -- it's
obvious that the initial "shot in the chest" reports (which were
stated on national TV, no doubt about that) were erroneous and were,
in large part being based on the area of Connally's body where some
witnesses observed the most blood pouring out of the Governor--which
was, of course, in his chest.
This "in the chest" nonsense is very similar in nature to the
erroneous early reports (like Bill Newman's) which stated that JFK had
been shot "in the temple".
Since the temple area at the RIGHT-FRONT of Kennedy's head (i.e., the
EXIT point for Lee Harvey Oswald's bullet) was the place where
witnesses, naturally, saw all of the blood on the President, they
incorrectly asserted that Kennedy had been shot IN the "temple" area.
But, quite obvious, Newman nor anyone else in Dealey Plaza could have
possibly seen the exact ENTRY HOLE on Kennedy's head to make a
conclusive determination about where precisely the point of entry was
located on JFK's head.
Back to Connally's "chest" for a moment longer -- It appears then, per
Mr. Rossley, that apparently the gunman who fired that bullet into
Connally's chest from the front must have been lying on the
floorboards of the limousine (seeing as how such a bullet would have
been moving UPWARD through Governor Connally's body, per Rossley's
impossible theory).
Maybe Brian David Andersen (author of the JFK fantasy book "My God,
I'm Hit!") was right after all. Maybe there WAS a secret compartment
somewhere in the President's SS-100-X limousine where a midget shooter
could hide himself and from where he could have popped up and fired
some bullets at JBC and JFK on November 22nd.
And Rossley thinks that Connally's chest wound was SMALLER than JBC's
back wound. More fantasy from Tom's desk, I see.
Of course, as we all know, Dr. Shaw (one of Connally's surgeons at
Parkland Hospital) appeared on live television within hours of the
shooting on 11/22/63 and told the world that Connally had very likely
been struck by only "one" bullet, with that bullet positively coming
from behind Governor Connally, with the back wound being undeniably a
wound of ENTRY, not exit.
For Rossley to go on the radio and actually make the absurd claim that
John Connally's chest wound was a wound of ENTRY is beyond ridiculous
(given the mountains of evidence indicating just exactly the
opposite).
So, Rossley's got Kennedy AND Connally being shot from the front -- a
sort of "SBT in reverse", it would seem (although Rossley thinks they
were hit by separate FRONTAL bullets; and Rossley also has Connally
being hit by TWO bullets, which means his anti-SBT theory has to
account for FOUR disappearing bullets, in order to replace the SBT's
one single bullet). LOL.
Like always, a conspiracy theorist gets everything 100% backwards.
Another "new one" that I had never once heard before was when Tom
Rossley said that there's evidence of some kind to indicate that Dan
Rather was in Jack Ruby's Carousel Club on Thursday, November 21st
(the night before the assassination), and that Rather saw Lee Oswald
together with Ruby that night.
Well, just as I thought, Mr. Rossley has misrepresented the crux and
meat of this misunderstanding regarding Dan Rather. It took me just a
couple of minutes to clear up this matter in my own mind, via taking a
look at Warren Commission Exhibit #2983 (linked below):
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh26/html/WH_Vol26_0259a.htm
As we can easily see in CE2983, it was a simple mix-up regarding WHO
it was who claimed to have seen Oswald in the Carousel Club. That
Commission Exhibit clears it up nicely, with the end result being that
Dan Rather never claimed to have seen Oswald at the Carousel Club at
all. Instead, it was Bill DeMar (an entertainer who occasionally
worked for Ruby at the Carousel) who said he might very well have seen
Oswald in the audience one night at some time prior to the
assassination.
Also -- CE2983 mentions nothing about the exact DATE when DeMar
supposedly saw Oswald there, which means Rossley is stretching the
truth once again when Tom said that Rather supposedly saw LHO at
Ruby's club on 11/21/63.
In addition, CE2983 says absolutely nothing about DeMar (or Rather)
having seen Oswald TOGETHER WITH RUBY at any time prior to November
22nd. That exhibit only mentions a potential Oswald sighting, but
nothing about Oswald and Ruby being seen TOGETHER at any point in
time.
And in Dan Rather's televised interview with Bill DeMar on November
24, 1963 (which is currently available to watch in its entirety on my
YouTube channel), DeMar doesn't mention a thing about Oswald being
WITH RUBY when DeMar supposedly saw LHO in the Carousel. In fact,
DeMar says exactly the opposite when asked about it by Dan Rather,
indicating that Oswald was positively NOT with Ruby in the club.
DeMar merely said that he thought Oswald was "in the audience" during
one of DeMar's performances at the Carousel at some point prior to
November 22nd.
So, once again, Rossley is stretching the facts to the breaking point
to meet his pro-conspiracy requirements. As always.
Another great "Rossley Moment Of Hilarity" during the radio debate was
when Tom R. declared that the negative paraffin test result on Lee
Harvey Oswald's cheek meant (conclusively!) that Oswald positively did
not fire a rifle on November 22, 1963.
Rossley, naturally, totally discounts two critical facts regarding
paraffin tests when he declares Oswald to be completely innocent of
assassinating JFK based on just the negative paraffin result to LHO's
cheek, to wit:
Tom, even though he says otherwise, disregards the fact that paraffin
tests are wholly unreliable (as testified to by multiple law-
enforcement officials after the assassination).
As Prof. McAdams explained to Rossley during the radio debate, the
main reason that police departments even use the paraffin test at all
is mainly for "intimidation" purposes (at least in circa 1963 at any
rate). The police hope they can trick a suspect (although I think Mr.
McAdams used the wrong word in the debate when he said "witness"
instead of "suspect") into a confession through the use of such a test
(and, similarly, with the use of the lie detector test as well).
Plus, as Mr. Rossley should know full well, the FBI did tests with
Oswald's Mannlicher-Carcano rifle after the assassination, with an FBI
agent being given a paraffin test very shortly after firing multiple
shots from CE139 (Oswald's very own rifle), with that test resulting
in a "negative" reading for nitrates on BOTH the agent's hands and
CHEEK.
Therefore, via such a test conducted by the FBI, we KNOW that a FALSE
NEGATIVE is possible. And yet Mr. Rossley has the gall to declare that
Oswald never fired a rifle on 11/22/63 based solely on the results of
the paraffin test.
And here's another lulu from the lips of Thomas Rossley --- Tom
suggested to the radio audience that Oswald couldn't possibly have
used his Italian miltary Carcano rifle to murder John F. Kennedy in
November of 1963 because he had no bullets available to put into his
Carcano in November of 1963 (alluding to the silly factoid about how
the manufacturing of MC ammunition had been discontinued years prior
to 1963)!
How about that, folks?
Of course, to a reasonable person looking into JFK's assassination, it
becomes rather obvious that since Oswald purchased his Mannlicher-
Carcano rifle from a mail-order firm in Chicago, Illinois, in March of
1963 (Klein's Sporting Goods Co.)....it stands to reason that Klein's
Sporting Goods Company was probably not selling rifles to customers if
NO AMMUNITION FOR THOSE RIFLES WAS READILY AVAILABLE!
I guess Rossley wants to believe that Klein's was advertising (and
selling) WW2 Army surplus Carcano rifles to the public -- but nobody
could ever hope to use these rifles because no ammo could be purchased
to put into these guns!
But (again) to a reasonable person, a different truth emerges -- i.e.,
Klein's was selling people Mannlicher-Carcanos via mail-order, so it's
quite obvious that bullets for those Carcanos was certainly available
to purchase.
In fact, in the very same magazine ad that Oswald used to purchase his
rifle, Klein's also offered the ammunition for that rifle (108 rounds
for $7.50):
The above February 1963 magazine ad is the one that Oswald used to
order his rifle. The advertisement below is the similar November 1963
Klein's ad, which also features the "6.5 Italian Carbine", and the one
linked below shows (in easier-to-read blow-up form) the area of the ad
which offers "6.5MM ITALIAN MILITARY AMMO; 108 ROUNDS; 6-SHOT CLIP
FREE; $7.50" (and the exact same "ammo" purchasing option can also be
seen at the bottom of the February '63 ad that Oswald used):
Oswald decided not to spend the extra $7.50 for the bullets when he
ordered his rifle and scope from Klein's in March of '63, but it's
fairly obvious that Carcano bullets WERE being made available to
customers by Klein's in 1963.
Oswald must have purchased his bullets someplace other than Klein's;
but if Klein's had the ammo available in 1963, it stands to reason
that other places had them for sale as well.
Rossley no doubt disagrees. But such is the way with conspiracy-happy
theorists. They'll grasp for any crazy straw they can latch onto...all
the while throwing ordinary common sense out the window in the
process.
Debate Winner -- Professor John McAdams (naturally).
David Von Pein
April 9, 2009
a1e...@verizon.net
> www.youtube.com/profile?user=AntonBatey&view=videos&query=jfk+assassi...
>
> COMMENTS ABOUT THE TOM ROSSLEY/JOHN McADAMS RADIO DEBATE ON WHPR-RADIO
> (HIGHLAND PARK, MICHIGAN) ON APRIL 5, 2009:
Hello, David.
What does stacking the deck mean to you?
Herbert
> http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh26/html/WH_Vol26_0...
> How about ...
>
> read more »
David Von Pein
Addendum/Correction:
When I said this above....
"So, Rossley's got Kennedy AND Connally being shot from the front --
a sort of "SBT in reverse", it would seem (although Rossley thinks they
were hit by separate FRONTAL bullets; and Rossley also has Connally being
hit by TWO bullets, which means his anti-SBT theory has to account for
FOUR disappearing bullets, in order to replace the SBT's one single
bullet)."
....I was slightly in error, because I just remembered that Rossley only
needs a mere THREE bullets to replace the SBT, and that's because Rossley
believes (and said so during the 4/5/09 radio debate) that the shot that
he says hit JFK in his throat from the front EXITED the President's upper
back and then struck the pavement on Elm Street.
But even a "mere" 3-bullet SBT replacement is absurd and everyone with
some common sense should know why.
David Von Pein
>>> "What does stacking the deck mean to you?" <<<
I haven't the foggiest idea what you're talking about.
tomnln
"David Von Pein" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:bf7518f4-89fd-4006...@m24g2000vbp.googlegroups.com...
Proof that Davis does NOT know what the 26 volumes contains.
It appears that David accepts a report he ghas NOT read.
NO wonder he RAN from the radio debate.
John McAdams
wrote:
He didn't seem aware that there was an abrasion collar on Kennedy's
back, showing that that was a wound of entry.
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
tomnln
"John McAdams" <john.m...@marquette.edu> wrote in message
news:neftt4t8p64q9dps9...@4ax.com...
When you folks don't like the official evidence/testimony states, you
claim it False & attribute it to me.
SEE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/
McAdams sunk himself last Sunday evening during our debate by NOT giving
official Citations.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
David Von Pein
>>> "McAdams sunk himself last Sunday evening during our debate by NOT
giving official Citations." <<<
Yeah...since McAdams didn't "cite" exact page numbers from the 26 volumes,
that means that the dozens of pieces of evidence against Rossley's
favorite patsy have suddenly disappeared altogether. Right, Tom R.?
And I love how Rossley thinks his citation leading to CE2983 somehow
buttresses his argument that it WAS Dan Rather, after all, who saw Oswald
at Ruby's club prior to the assassination....when, in point of fact,
CE2983 proves just the OPPOSITE, with that exhibit showing that Rather
never claimed to be inside the Carousel Club at any time--ever.
The upside-down world of a CTer must be a real bitch. How can you go to
the bathroom while contorted in an upside-down manner like that all the
time, Tom?
John McAdams
Explain to us what you believe, Tom.
The stuff about Connally being hit from the front was a real hoot.
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
David Von Pein
The host/moderator of the 4/5/09 McAdams/Rossley debate, Anton Batey,
wanted me to inform people that he plans on posting the entire uncut
debate sometime soon.
pjspeare
> www.youtube.com/profile?user=AntonBatey&view=videos&query=jfk+assassi...
>
>
> read more »
David, while I agree with many of your other comments, your understanding
of the paraffin tests (which are identical to Buglosi's, no surprise) is
limited to what the WC wanted you to believe. I conducted quite a bit of
research on this topic, and found the truth to be far different than as
presented by the WC. The NAA analysis of Oswald's paraffin casts suggested
he did not fire a rifle on that day, it's that simple. They did not prove
it, but suggested it.
You can learn more about this, here:
http://www.patspeer.com/chapter4c%3Aca stsofcontention
tomnln
"David Von Pein" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:e7b0ccd3-d623-46dd...@o6g2000yql.googlegroups.com...
David Hates the fact that everything I post comes from HIS OWN 26 volumes.
tomnln
McAdams wrote;
> Explain to us what you believe, Tom.
>
> The stuff about Connally being hit from the front was a real hoot.
>
> .John
> --------------
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
I write;
Now you know WHY I suggest that you get a copy of the 26 volumes John ! ! !
Do you Deny what I said about JBC being shot in the chest came from YOUR
26 Volumes???
----------------------------------------------------------------------
John McAdams
He was shot in the chest, *from behind.*
You can't find a single doctor who says he was shot from the front.
You whole MO is to pull isolated words and phrases out of context.
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
justm...@gmail.com
> On 9 Apr 2009 23:07:26 -0400, "tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
I think Rossley sleeps with the 26 volumes next to his pillow instead
of his wife LOL
tomnln
"John McAdams" <john.m...@marquette.edu> wrote in message
news:du10u4lvkcp3cij5j...@4ax.com...
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Are you Denying thsat JBC's Dr. said JBC was shot "in the right chest"???
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
tomnln
>
>
> The host/moderator of the 4/5/09 McAdams/Rossley debate, Anton Batey,
> wanted me to inform people that he plans on posting the entire uncut
> debate sometime soon.
>
McAdams assured us that that wouldn't ever happen ! ! !
HAHAHAHA
John McAdams
You have two *different* debates confused.
Please pay attention.
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
tomnln
"John McAdams" <john.m...@marquette.edu> wrote in message
news:bljvt45cmjtovlpoc...@4ax.com...
Are you Denying what I quoted about JBS is found in the 26 Volumes
John????
Let'sd see just how well read you are John.
You didn't sound too well read on the debate did you.
For your Listening Pleasure>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/radio_debate.htm
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
tomnln
Oh My GOD !
McAdams LOST Two Debates ! ! !
Well, you have at least one more to go John.
tomnln
"David Von Pein" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:e7b0ccd3-d623-46dd...@o6g2000yql.googlegroups.com...
I Love it when you Reject your own evidence/testimony.
>
tims...@gmail.com
> "John McAdams" <john.mcad...@marquette.edu> wrote in message
>
> news:neftt4t8p64q9dps9...@4ax.com...
>
>
>
> > On 9 Apr 2009 20:22:52 -0400, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com>
LOL! Say, tomnln, YOU turn your back on evidence/testimony in the form CE
2121!
Your OWN website claims that Mrs Duran only identified Oswald on 11.25.63
as the person she met in September of 1963.
CE 2121 CLEARLY shows she signed a document the evening of 11.23.63,
stating that Oswald was the person she met.
I found it quite laughable that you cited your adherence to *evidence/
testimony* at the start of the radio debate, tomnln.
I only pointed out that *error* in your website a whole YEAR ago, tomnln
and you've done NOTHING to fix it in the meantime.
Do you have any explanation, tomnln?
I'd be interested to hear it, LOL!
Regards,
Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup(s) Commentator*
jblubaugh
wrote:
>
Have you seen his wife ;-)
JB
snl1...@yahoo.com
> "David Von Pein" <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote in messagenews:e689b200-9e4b-4fb6...@c9g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > The host/moderator of the 4/5/09 McAdams/Rossley debate, Anton Batey,
> > wanted me to inform people that he plans on posting the entire uncut
> > debate sometime soon.
>
> McAdams assured us that that wouldn't ever happen ! ! !
>
> HAHAHAHA
He did? Where did he say this? Please refer us to where John said
this.
justm...@gmail.com
> "David Von Pein" <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote in messagenews:e7b0ccd3-d623-46dd...@o6g2000yql.googlegroups.com...
Is anyone else sick and tired of these boring pats on the back Rossley
keeps giving himself?
It's old Rossley....you didn't win any prize, you didn't win a debate.
With any luck your head will keep swelling and explode. You'd think he won
the Nobel Peace Prize LOL
WhiskyJoe
> Tom Rossley:
> Do you Deny what I said
> the chest came from YOUR
> 26 Volumes???
Actually, Tom and David both
are misinterpreting what the
doctors meant by the saying
Connally was shot in his chest.
Tom thinks it means that
Connally was shot from the
front. That the word "chest"
is used as in "He tapped me
on the chest to get my
attention. In this case,
"chest" only refers to the
frontal surface of the upper
torso.
David thinks they are talking
about his entire chest,
i.e. upper torso, like
"I have a chest cold".
Obviously, this is not to mean
just the frontal surface of
the upper torso has a cold but
that the cold is spread
throughout the interior of the
upper torso, in this case,
the lungs. That is what David
thinks they mean by "shot in
his chest", a shot through
the interior of the upper torso.
In this case, the shot may have
come from the front and exited
the back or from the back and
exited the front. So David
does not believe that "he was
shot in the chest" implies a
shot from the front, through
the entire chest and out the
back.
But what the doctors really
meant was that Connally was
shot in the chest. Like a
treasure chest. When someone
wishes steal from a chest but
they don't have a key, they
shoot the lock off and the
chest is often ends up being
shot as well. It is very
common for pirates to do
this. I don't know what
Connally's connection with
piracy was or how he got the
treasure was but then again,
there is a lot we don't about
a lot of the shady people
involved in this case.
The treasure may have been
buried on a beach and was
intended to finance the
assassination of Castro.
This makes sense because
Cuba is a part of the
Caribbean. So what the
doctors said correlates
with Judith Baker's story
very well.
******************************
Tom's argument is beyond lame.
For over forty years the
Warren Commission has said
that Connally was shot in
the chest. Everyone knew what
they meant. No one ever made
a big deal of the phrase.
Then, forty years later,
Tom makes his big discovery.
And announces that the Warren
Commission said that Connally
was shot from the front.
He has the gall to use this
argument in a radio debate
and then brings it up here
repeated as if bringing up
this point in the debate
with McAdams was a great
coup for him. It's ridiculous.
And by the way, to save a post:
No, I do not deny that the
Warren Commission said that
Connally was shot in his chest.
Nor do I deny that they said
he was shot in the right
chest.
tomnln
"WhiskyJoe" <jr...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:aa1417c7-0d7b-4571...@x31g2000prc.googlegroups.com...
There's No Profit when a Businessman consumes his own product; (WhiskyJoe)
My quote that JBC was shot "in the right chest" came from JBC's Dr's
TESTIMONY"
WhiskyJoe
> from Tom Rossley:
> My quote that JBC was shot
> "in the right chest" came
But does not the testimony of Connally's doctor, Dr. Robert Roeder
Shaw:
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/shaw1.htm
And the diagram, Commission Exhibit 689:
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0186b.htm
which Specter and Shaw discussed, which Dr. Shaw had initialed
himself, make it abundantly clear that Dr. Shaw believe the bullet
came from behind?
Note the following exchange between Specter and Shaw:
Mr. SPECTER - Looking at Commission Exhibit No. 689, is that a drawing
which was prepared, after consultation with you, representing the
earlier theory of all of the Governor's wounds having been inflicted
by a single missile?
Dr. SHAW - That is Correct.
Granted, Commission Exhibit 689 is not a perfect diagram. Dr. Shaw had
not examined Kennedy's wounds. He probably did not know the exact
positions of Kennedy and Connally at the time a bullet struck both. He
had not carefully surveyed Dealey Plaza. So his diagram shows the
bullet coming down at a steeper angle than it would have in reality.
But the diagram makes it abundantly clear that Dr. Shaw though the
bullet came from behind.
*******************************
Question for Tom Rossley:
Given the testimony of Dr. Shaw, given Commission Exhibit 689, given
Dr. Shaw's initials on Commission Exhibit 689,
what excuse do you have for saying that Dr. Shaw's use of the word
"chest" implies a shot from the front?
claviger
Whisky Joe,
There are only 3 choices for a frontal shot to the chest of JBC: the
trajectory would either be ascending, flat, or descending. There is
no possibility of a rising or flat trajectory. If it was a downward
trajectory where did it come from? Not the Triple Underpass, there
were too many witnesses up there and none of them heard or saw a
shooter on the RR tracks above Elm Street. No one saw a shooter in
front of the stockade fence. No one saw a shooter behind the stockade
fence. So where did this bullet come from that caused an entrance
wound in front of his chest?
Most CTs seem to think there was only one shot from the GK, but that
was the head shot according to them. The HSCA said there was a shot
from the GK but it missed. Furthermore, if the shot entered the chest
from the front where did the bullet go? How could it turn and exit the
torso above the entrance wound? To do that it would have to defy the
laws of physics. I wonder if CTs think this bullet caused the throat
wound on the passenger behind JBC? If so, what happened to this
bouncing bullet?
tomnln
"claviger" <histori...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:ea880f07-e1ef-4073...@v35g2000pro.googlegroups.com...
Whisky Joe,
Maybe you should look where the REST of the MISSING evidence is located !
! !
tomnln
Mr. SPECTER. Focusing on the time sequence---what did Governor Connally say as to the timing, number one, the time he was hit, and number two, the time he had heard a sound, and number three, the time he turned-those three factors? In what sequence did he relate them?
Dr. SHIRES. As he recalled it, he heard a shot, he turned to the right and felt himself receiving a shot--in that order--in a matter of a few seconds
Mr. SPECTER. Where did he feel himself receive a shot?
Dr. SHIRES. In the right chest.
Anthony Marsh
> Dr. Shires Volume VI page 109>>>
>
> Mr. SPECTER. Focusing on the time sequence---what did Governor Connally
> say as to the timing, number one, the time he was hit, and number two,
> the time he had heard a sound, and number three, the time he
> turned-those three factors? In what sequence did he relate them?
>
> Dr. SHIRES. As he recalled it, he heard a shot, he turned to the right
> and felt himself receiving a shot--in that order--in a matter of a few
> seconds
>
> Mr. SPECTER. Where did he feel himself receive a shot?
>
> Dr. SHIRES. In the right chest.
>
Again, you misrepresent the official record. YOU said it was the doctor's
opinion. All the doctor did was say what CONNALLY's opinion was.
> YOUR Official Record
> "WhiskyJoe" <jr...@pacbell.net <mailto:jr...@pacbell.net>> wrote in
> message
> news:3896c259-94a3-4309...@f1g2000prb.googlegroups.com
> <news:3896c259-94a3-4309...@f1g2000prb.googlegroups..com>...
Anthony Marsh
Yeah but said nothing about that bullet going through Kennedy first.