The man who shot jfk from the grassy knoll is in these pictures
bobr
http://img6.imageshack.us/img6/5880/betznerbadgelessmanpng.png
http://img822.imageshack.us/img822/6941/badgemanagain.jpg
http://img130.imageshack.us/img130/4762/bmanbdwomanbabycrop.jpg
davidemerling
> The man who jfk from the grassy knoll is in these pictures
These are nothing more than Rorschach inkblot tests. It's like looking at
cloud formations. One person sees a "poodle" whereas another person sees
an "elephant". In that maze of shadows, branches, and leaves - if you're
predisposed to see a mysterious figure, you'll see it. If you're
predisposed to be anti-conspiracy - there is nothing there.
One thing is for sure - it is far from conclusive. Even if there WAS a
person back there - how can you know that it was a gunman?
David Emerling
Memphis, TN
Grizzlie Antagonist
> The man who jfk from the grassy knoll is in these pictures
>
> http://img6.imageshack.us/img6/5880/betznerbadgelessmanpng.pnghttp://img822.imageshack.us/img822/6941/badgemanagain.jpghttp://img130.imageshack.us/img130/4762/bmanbdwomanbabycrop.jpg
And in this one, as well.
bobr
wrote:
> On Aug 5, 9:34 am, bobr <neok...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > The man who jfk from the grassy knoll is in these pictures
>
>
> And in this one, as well.
>
Your image is no comparison to the image i posted. According to you
sitzman and zapruder would look like that also.
In case you didnt notice, siztman and zapruder are in this pictrure as
well. The man I am concerned with is as clear as the image of
zapruder. Most people will know that what you posted is not remotely
close to what you posted.
http://img819.imageshack.us/img819/8150/betznerbadgelesszapcirc.png
bobr
They are are no more rorschach pictures than are the images of
zapruder and sitzman in the same photo. He is just as clear as
zapruder. If you didnt know zapruder was there you would have said he
was a rorschach test.
http://img819.imageshack.us/img819/8150/betznerbadgelesszapcirc.png
bobr
>
> > The man who jfk from the grassy knoll is in these pictures
>
>
> And in this one, as well.
>
This image is clear enough to be able to say he was not wearing a tie.
Not wearing a hat. Not wearing a badge. Had on a white tshirt
underneath and looks like he was wearing a walkie talkie type radio on
his right shoulder. His head is cocked to the left and his arms are
wide open.
http://img130.imageshack.us/img130/4762/bmanbdwomanbabycrop.jpg
timstter
> The man who jfk from the grassy knoll is in these pictures
>
> http://img6.imageshack.us/img6/5880/betznerbadgelessmanpng.pnghttp://img822.imageshack.us/img822/6941/badgemanagain.jpghttp://img130.imageshack.us/img130/4762/bmanbdwomanbabycrop.jpg
Trouble is, there is no medical evidence that he was hit by a bullet
from the Grassy Knoll, is there?
So this guy couldn't have shot JFK from there, despite your claims.
BTW, people could hardly get an ID on those grainy images, LOL!
Regards,
Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup(s) Commentator*
VinnyVoom444
> The man who jfk from the grassy knoll is in these pictures
>
> http://img6.imageshack.us/img6/5880/betznerbadgelessmanpng.pnghttp://img822.imageshack.us/img822/6941/badgemanagain.jpghttp://img130.imageshack.us/img130/4762/bmanbdwomanbabycrop.jpg
For a analysis of the Moorman photo, see the video 'Death in Dealey
Plaza' ........
She forgot to apply the finishing solution to her photo after taking
it out of the camera, destroying the resolution forever.
Nix used the wrong film, added to this he didn't use the adjusting
filter for outdoor use, ensuring that the grassy knoll would be a sea
of darkness.
DC
Peter Fokes
Let me guess:
If one measures 35 mm up from the lower left hand corner (when looking
at photo) and then across 25 mm, you are positioned smack dab on this
guy's nose. Right?
Peter Fokes,
Toronto
claviger
http://img6.imageshack.us/img6/5880/betznerbadgelessmanpng.png
In the above photo I can see Edgar Allen Poe next to Cyrano de
Bergerac above the Stemmons sign. They appear to be watching Zapruder
and Sitzman. To the far left I can see Daniel Webster peering over the
fence, more obvious in this photo inside the circle on the lower left.
bigdog
> The man who jfk from the grassy knoll is in these pictures
>
> http://img6.imageshack.us/img6/5880/betznerbadgelessmanpng.pnghttp://img822.imageshack.us/img822/6941/badgemanagain.jpghttp://img130.imageshack.us/img130/4762/bmanbdwomanbabycrop.jpg
<snicker>
I am guessing this is the online way of showing we are trying to stifle
laughter. Let me give you a hint. If you ever want to be taken seriously
on this board again, don't EVER bring up badgeman again. The idea that
"badgeman" is a cop firing the fatal head shot from the GK has been
debunked in so many ways that most CTs are too embarassed to even bring it
up, and that is saying something. Badgeman is so 1990s. A creation of The
Men Who Killed Kennedy series. Most CTs would rather see TMWKK disappear
along with badgeman. TMWKK is one of the reasons Bill Kurtis went from
being a serious journalist to a pitchman for high speed internet.
bobr
> On Aug 6, 2:34 am, bobr <neok...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > The man who jfk from the grassy knoll is in these pictures
>
>
> Trouble is, there is no medical evidence that he was hit by a bullet
> from the Grassy Knoll, is there?
>
> So this guy couldn't have shot JFK from there, despite your claims.
>
> BTW, people could hardly get an ID on those grainy images, LOL!
>
> Regards,
>
> Tim Brennan
> Sydney, Australia
> *Newsgroup(s) Commentator*
You see that round hole in jfk's skull?
http://img27.imageshack.us/img27/8678/jfkskullpng.png
Grizzlie Antagonist
> On Aug 5, 2:52 pm, Grizzlie Antagonist <lloydsofhanf...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
> > On Aug 5, 9:34 am, bobr <neok...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > The man who jfk from the grassy knoll is in these pictures
>
> > >http://img6.imageshack.us/img6/5880/betznerbadgelessmanpng.pnghttp://...
>
> > And in this one, as well.
>
> >http://us.123rf.com/400wm/400/400/kgtoh/kgtoh0904/kgtoh090401466/4698...
>
> Your image is no comparison to the image i posted. According to you
> sitzman and zapruder would look like that also.
> In case you didnt notice, siztman and zapruder are in this pictrure as
> well.
Really? And there's a gunman breathing down their necks?
> The man I am concerned with is as clear as the image of
> zapruder.
You know, just because every brown snake in the woods is subject to being
mistaken for a stick, it doesn't thereby follow that every stick- like
figure in the woods is really a brown snake.
> Most people will know that what you posted is not remotely
> close to what you
> posted.http://img819.imageshack.us/img819/8150/betznerbadgelesszapcirc.png
No, I will dispute that with every breath in my body. I think that most
people will figure out that what I posted is pretty darn close to what I
posted.
John Blubaugh
> On Aug 6, 2:34 am, bobr <neok...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > The man who jfk from the grassy knoll is in these pictures
>
>
> Trouble is, there is no medical evidence that he was hit by a bullet
> from the Grassy Knoll, is there?
>
> So this guy couldn't have shot JFK from there, despite your claims.
>
> BTW, people could hardly get an ID on those grainy images, LOL!
>
> Regards,
>
> Tim Brennan
> Sydney, Australia
> *Newsgroup(s) Commentator*
Of course there is medical evidence. There is an entrance wound in
JFK's forehead.
JB
Grizzlie Antagonist
> On Aug 5, 2:52 pm, Grizzlie Antagonist <lloydsofhanf...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
> > On Aug 5, 9:34 am, bobr <neok...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > The man who jfk from the grassy knoll is in these pictures
>
> > >http://img6.imageshack.us/img6/5880/betznerbadgelessmanpng.pnghttp://...
>
> > And in this one, as well.
>
> >http://us.123rf.com/400wm/400/400/kgtoh/kgtoh0904/kgtoh090401466/4698...
>
> This image is clear enough to be able to say he was not wearing a tie.
> Not wearing a hat. Not wearing a badge. Had on a white tshirt
> underneath and looks like he was wearing a walkie talkie type radio on
> his right shoulder. His head is cocked to the left
What? With the walkie talkie type radio on his RIGHT shoulder?
> and his arms are
> wide open.http://img130.imageshack.us/img130/4762/bmanbdwomanbabycrop.jpg
And he's taking a piss. You can tell from the color of the urine that
he's got the clap.
rwalker
wrote:
>On Aug 5, 11:34 am, bobr <neok...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> The man who jfk from the grassy knoll is in these pictures
>
>These are nothing more than Rorschach inkblot tests.
No! I swear, I can see my great great aunt Minnie in there.
Peter Fokes
>On Aug 5, 12:34 pm, bobr <neok...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> The man who jfk from the grassy knoll is in these pictures
>>
>> http://img6.imageshack.us/img6/5880/betznerbadgelessmanpng
>
><snicker>
>
>I am guessing this is the online way of showing we are trying to stifle
>laughter. Let me give you a hint. If you ever want to be taken seriously
>on this board again, don't EVER bring up badgeman again. The idea that
>"badgeman" is a cop firing the fatal head shot from the GK has been
>debunked in so many ways that most CTs are too embarassed to even bring it
>up, and that is saying something. Badgeman is so 1990s. A creation of The
>Men Who Killed Kennedy series. Most CTs would rather see TMWKK disappear
>along with badgeman. TMWKK is one of the reasons Bill Kurtis went from
>being a serious journalist to a pitchman for high speed internet.
Badgeman?
BobR is not discussing badgeman.
PF
Peter Fokes
wrote:
Despite the wisecracks from other posters, BobR, could you let me know
if this is the spot you see someone?
>
>Peter Fokes,
>Toronto
PF
>
>
Peter Fokes
wrote:
How can you be so sure those figures are Zapruder and Sitzman?
Probably because you know they were there, eh?
Otherwise you might think they were the Cowardly Lion and Dorothy.
Do you notice any difference between your images of Edgar or Cyrano or
Daniel compared to Zapruder and Sitzman?
If you do, then why is it so impossible that someone you did not know
was there, is there and visible?
Peter Fokes,
Toronto
Grizzlie Antagonist
>On Aug 5, 12:34 pm, bobr <neok...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> The man who jfk from the grassy knoll is in these pictures
>>
>> http://img6.imageshack.us/img6/5880/betznerbadgelessmanpng.pnghttp://img822.imageshack.us/img822/6941/badgemanagain.jpghttp://img130.imageshack.us/img130/4762/bmanbdwomanbabycrop.jpg
>
><snicker>
>
>I am guessing this is the online way of showing we are trying to stifle
>laughter. Let me give you a hint. If you ever want to be taken seriously
>on this board again, don't EVER bring up badgeman again. The idea that
>"badgeman" is a cop firing the fatal head shot from the GK has been
>debunked in so many ways that most CTs are too embarassed to even bring it
>up, and that is saying something.
Really, bigdog? You have actually seen a conspiracy theorist display
shame?
Grizzlie Antagonist
I'm not sure, but I think it's called an eye socket.
That red square is pretty intriguing, though. Was that caused by the
fatal head shot? What's the most likely medico-legal explanation for
it?
Peter Fokes
<lloydso...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On 5 Aug 2010 22:48:23 -0400, bigdog <jecorb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>On Aug 5, 12:34 pm, bobr <neok...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> The man who jfk from the grassy knoll is in these pictures
>>>
>>> http://img6.imageshack.us/img6/5880/betznerbadgelessmanpng.pnghttp://img822.imageshack.us/img822/6941/badgemanagain.jpghttp://img130.imageshack.us/img130/4762/bmanbdwomanbabycrop.jpg
>>
>><snicker>
>>
>>I am guessing this is the online way of showing we are trying to stifle
>>laughter. Let me give you a hint. If you ever want to be taken seriously
>>on this board again, don't EVER bring up badgeman again. The idea that
>>"badgeman" is a cop firing the fatal head shot from the GK has been
>>debunked in so many ways that most CTs are too embarassed to even bring it
>>up, and that is saying something.
>
>
>
>Really, bigdog? You have actually seen a conspiracy theorist display
>shame?
Well, maybe bigdog can show us how an LN displays shame by admitting
he is talking about badgeman!
No one else is.
PF
Peter Fokes
<lloydso...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Have you ever seen the grainy shots some LNs use when furiously
debating among themselves the autopsy and head wounds?
They go on forever. They fight like tigers caged too long.
Oh well, to each their own I guess.
Peter Fokes,
Toronto
bobr
> On Aug 5, 12:34 pm, bobr <neok...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > The man who jfk from the grassy knoll is in these pictures
>
>
> <snicker>
>
> I am guessing this is the online way of showing we are trying to stifle
> laughter. Let me give you a hint. If you ever want to be taken seriously
> on this board again, don't EVER bring up badgeman again. The idea that
> "badgeman" is a cop firing the fatal head shot from the GK has been
> debunked in so many ways that most CTs are too embarassed to even bring it
> up, and that is saying something. Badgeman is so 1990s. A creation of The
> Men Who Killed Kennedy series. Most CTs would rather see TMWKK disappear
> along with badgeman. TMWKK is one of the reasons Bill Kurtis went from
> being a serious journalist to a pitchman for high speed internet.
This man is not wearing a badge. It is obvious.
You cannot debunk this man because he is real.
claviger
> On 5 Aug 2010 22:47:06 -0400, claviger <historiae.fi...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >bobr,
>
> >http://img6.imageshack.us/img6/5880/betznerbadgelessmanpng.png
>
> >In the above photo I can see Edgar Allen Poe next to Cyrano de
> >Bergerac above the Stemmons sign. They appear to be watching Zapruder
> >and Sitzman. To the far left I can see Daniel Webster peering over the
> >fence, more obvious in this photo inside the circle on the lower left.
>
> >http://img822.imageshack.us/img822/6941/badgemanagain.jpg
>
> How can you be so sure those figures are Zapruder and Sitzman?
> Probably because you know they were there, eh?
> Otherwise you might think they were the Cowardly Lion and Dorothy.
That is an interesting comparison.
> Do you notice any difference between your images of Edgar or Cyrano or
> Daniel compared to Zapruder and Sitzman?
They were much larger. You don't see them?
> If you do, then why is it so impossible that someone you did not know
> was there, is there and visible?
I looked closely at the photo and that is what I saw. They were the
only shapes that looked human to me. I point out where in the photo I
see these faces. By now you should have found them.
Peter Fokes
wrote:
I'm afraid not.
Guess I am programmed only to see what is really there.
Lol
Peter Fokes,
Toronto
>
>
>
bobr
>
> > The man who jfk from the grassy knoll is in these pictures
>
>
> <snicker>
>
> I am guessing this is the online way of showing we are trying to stifle
> laughter. Let me give you a hint. If you ever want to be taken seriously
> on this board again, don't EVER bring up badgeman again. The idea that
> "badgeman" is a cop firing the fatal head shot from the GK has been
> debunked in so many ways that most CTs are too embarassed to even bring it
> up, and that is saying something. Badgeman is so 1990s. A creation of The
> Men Who Killed Kennedy series. Most CTs would rather see TMWKK disappear
> along with badgeman. TMWKK is one of the reasons Bill Kurtis went from
> being a serious journalist to a pitchman for high speed internet.
I am not bill kurtis and that man is not wearing a badge, you can
clearly see he is not wearing a badge.
If you want to debunk the image then debunk the image but you will not
be able to do it because that is an image of a real person.
bobr
>
> > The man who jfk from the grassy knoll is in these pictures
>
>
> <snicker>
>
> I am guessing this is the online way of showing we are trying to stifle
> laughter. Let me give you a hint. If you ever want to be taken seriously
> on this board again, don't EVER bring up badgeman again. The idea that
> "badgeman" is a cop firing the fatal head shot from the GK has been
> debunked in so many ways that most CTs are too embarassed to even bring it
> up, and that is saying something. Badgeman is so 1990s. A creation of The
> Men Who Killed Kennedy series. Most CTs would rather see TMWKK disappear
> along with badgeman. TMWKK is one of the reasons Bill Kurtis went from
> being a serious journalist to a pitchman for high speed internet.
The pictures I posted are from a high resolution (> 2000 dpi )scan of
the betzner3 photo that was published in Life Magazine in 1967.
Anyone who has that magazine and a high resolution scanner and a good
descreener can duplicate this image. Here is a link to a photoshop
descreen plug-in
http://www.descreen.net/eng/help/descreen/home/descreen_manual.htm
It is widely published.
The reproduction that i have been using was created by John Costella
and descreened using his descreening software.
I suggest that you obtain a copy of this issue of Life Magazine from
1967 because it is going to become a collectors item.
bigdog
If only you could get a qualified person to agree with you. Funny how you
want to dismiss all the medical evidence on the grounds the autopsy was
botched but then you turn around and tell us there is an entrance wound in
JFK's forehead. I guess if you have a screwed up autopsy, you need a
screwed up analysis of it. For that, I can think of no one more qualified.
bigdog
> On 6 Aug 2010 00:17:05 -0400, Grizzlie Antagonist
>
>
>
>
>
> >On 5 Aug 2010 22:48:23 -0400, bigdog <jecorbett1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >>On Aug 5, 12:34 pm, bobr <neok...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> The man who jfk from the grassy knoll is in these pictures
>
>
> >><snicker>
>
> >>I am guessing this is the online way of showing we are trying to stifle
> >>laughter. Let me give you a hint. If you ever want to be taken seriously
> >>on this board again, don't EVER bring up badgeman again. The idea that
> >>"badgeman" is a cop firing the fatal head shot from the GK has been
> >>debunked in so many ways that most CTs are too embarassed to even bring it
> >>up, and that is saying something.
>
> >Really, bigdog? You have actually seen a conspiracy theorist display
> >shame?
>
> Well, maybe bigdog can show us how an LN displays shame by admitting
> he is talking about badgeman!
>
> No one else is.
>
> PF
>
It must have been the link to the photo titled BADGEMANAGAIN!!!
What was I thinking?
>
>
>
>
> >> Badgeman is so 1990s. A creation of The
> >>Men Who Killed Kennedy series. Most CTs would rather see TMWKK disappear
> >>along with badgeman. TMWKK is one of the reasons Bill Kurtis went from
> >>being a serious journalist to a pitchman for high speed internet.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
bigdog
So what was the purpose of including the link to badgeman?
>
> You cannot debunk this man because he is real.- Hide quoted text -
>
I'm sure you have convinced yourself of this.
bobr
That image does contain reflections of the faces of people close to the
camera lens. betzner was looking into the sun when he took that picture.
Reflections of nearby people in the crowd have gotten into the picture.
However, luckily for us, not all of the important information has been
obscured by that noise. We see zapruder, sitzman, blackdog woman and her
baby and the badgeless man.
bobr
If you can see the faces then you can see this man.
Grizzlie Antagonist
So was the Velveteen Rabbit.
bigdog
>
> - Show quoted text -
I agree that man is not wearing a badge. In fact, it is not a man at
all. It is the Loch Ness Monster. You can clearly see that.
Anthony Marsh
You can't debunk Black Dog Man because photographic experts proved HE is
real. But that doesn't prove he was a shooter. Just a spectator.
I can debunk Badge Man because he is not real.
But you can't claim that a shot from there was physically impossible
because I proved there was a clear trajectory.
bobr
What convinced me is that i was able to defend against all the attacks so
far. And it is that process of someone makeing a real challenge to the
image and my research to defend against it that has convinced me we are
seeing the image of a real person.
It is real easy to see that image cannot be an illusion. All you have to
do is look at his legs relative to the two portions of the retaining wall
that are hiding each one of his legs. Its almost like a dna signature. The
right leg is obscured by the dogleg in the retaining wall and the left leg
is obscured by the front section of the retaining wall. The right angle
geometry of the retaining wall and the location of man agree perfectly
with respect to how much of each leg should be invisible(behind the
retaining wall) I realized that when defending this image to people making
honest questions.
Oh, and something else i forgot to mention, i have another picture of him!
John Blubaugh
>
> - Show quoted text -
The entry wound in JFK's head is misidentified as an exit would. Exit
to where? You use the tried and true LN axiom that if the autopsy was
botched, there is nothing to be done about it so just ignore it.
JB
claviger
I just spotted the Loch Ness Monster, or is it a dinosaur? It is
facing to the right, just left of Daniel Webster. Amazing!
claviger
bigdog,
Look to the right of Nessie and see the head of a giant seahorse. To
the right of the seahorse is a topless mermaid with a flower in her
hair. This photo is frigging amazing!!!
http://img822.imageshack.us/img822/6941/badgemanagain.jpg
Here is photo of Daniel Webster. He is behind the fence looking over
his right shoulder at the street. You can see his black coat, white
shirt, and old fashioned bow tie. The left side of the face is in
shadow. You can see another face behind him, and a giant face to the
right with a huge nose and eyes closed.
http://img130.imageshack.us/img130/4762/bmanbdwomanbabycrop.jpg
timstter
> On 6 Aug 2010 00:17:14 -0400, Grizzlie Antagonist
>
>
>
The autopsy photos are FAR clearer than the grainy images supplied by
bobr, Peter.
His whole notion that this image is a knoll shooter is unsupported by
other evidence.
Peter Fokes
Well, ah perhaps an overdrawn analogy ...
>The
>right leg is obscured by the dogleg in the retaining wall and the left leg
>is obscured by the front section of the retaining wall. The right angle
>geometry of the retaining wall and the location of man agree perfectly
>with respect to how much of each leg should be invisible(behind the
>retaining wall) I realized that when defending this image to people making
>honest questions.
>
>Oh, and something else i forgot to mention, i have another picture of him!
I can hear the howls of LNs already. Get ready!
Oh well ... in such circumstances it is popular nowadays among the
youger set to advise the stressed person to "chill"
So, relax ....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S0wcZxX6kq0&feature=related
PF
Grizzlie Antagonist
>On Aug 6, 2:48 pm, bigdog <jecorbett1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Aug 6, 10:24 am, bobr <neok...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Aug 5, 9:48 pm, bigdog <jecorbett1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > On Aug 5, 12:34 pm, bobr <neok...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > > The man who jfk from the grassy knoll is in these pictures
>>
>> > > >http://img6.imageshack.us/img6/5880/betznerbadgelessmanpng.pnghttp://...
>>
>> > > <snicker>
>>
>> > > I am guessing this is the online way of showing we are trying to stifle
>> > > laughter. Let me give you a hint. If you ever want to be taken seriously
>> > > on this board again, don't EVER bring up badgeman again. The idea that
>> > > "badgeman" is a cop firing the fatal head shot from the GK has been
>> > > debunked in so many ways that most CTs are too embarassed to even bring it
>> > > up, and that is saying something. Badgeman is so 1990s. A creation of The
>> > > Men Who Killed Kennedy series. Most CTs would rather see TMWKK disappear
>> > > along with badgeman. TMWKK is one of the reasons Bill Kurtis went from
>> > > being a serious journalist to a pitchman for high speed internet.
>>
>> > This man is not wearing a badge. It is obvious.
>>
>> So what was the purpose of including the link to badgeman?
>>
>>
>>
>> > You cannot debunk this man because he is real.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> I'm sure you have convinced yourself of this.
>
>What convinced me is that i was able to defend against all the attacks so
>far.
I know what you mean.
When my point of view is under attack and I am the judge of how well I
have withstood the attacks, I almost always award the gold medal to
myself.
> And it is that process of someone makeing a real challenge to the
>image and my research to defend against it that has convinced me we are
>seeing the image of a real person.
Yes, I'm also one of those people who's always right.
>
>It is real easy to see that image cannot be an illusion. All you have to
>do is look at his legs relative to the two portions of the retaining wall
>that are hiding each one of his legs. Its almost like a dna signature.
DNA signature, hell! It's almost like a written confession.
> The
>right leg is obscured by the dogleg in the retaining wall and the left leg
>is obscured by the front section of the retaining wall. The right angle
>geometry of the retaining wall and the location of man agree perfectly
>with respect to how much of each leg should be invisible(behind the
>retaining wall) I realized that when defending this image to people making
>honest questions.
>
>Oh, and something else i forgot to mention, i have another picture of him!
Be still, my beating heart! He has another picture of him!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JFUabzkAjBQ&feature=related
Now -- even if it's really true -- all you have to do is to prove that
he's an assassin or a conspirator and not a mere spectator.
Grizzlie Antagonist
wrote:
Not completely inconceivable, though perhaps more likely in New England
than in Dallas.
"Yes, Danl Webster's dead or, at least, they buried him. But every time
theres a thunderstorm around Marshfield, they say you can hear his rolling
voice in the hollows of the sky. And they say that if you go to his grave
and speak loud and clear," Danl Webster! Danl Webster"! the ground'll
begin to shiver and the trees begin to shake. And after a while youll hear
a deep voice saying, "Neighbor, how stands the Union?" Then you better
answer the Union stands as she stood, rock-bottomed and copper-sheathed,
one and indivisible, or he's liable to rear right out of the ground. At
least, that's what I was told when I was a youngster."
Stephen Vincent Benet
Peter Fokes
Betzner's photo is quite clear too.
I have seen blow ups of the autopsy photos with red lines, blue lines,
yellow circles and annotations superimposed on them by combative LNs
that would make any optometrist cringe.
And some LNs are still at exact others throats.
If the pictures are so clear, why the endless debate?
>
>His whole notion that this image is a knoll shooter is unsupported by
>other evidence.
Let me know the moment there is unanimity of opinion on the evidence.
>
>Regards,
>
>Tim Brennan
>Sydney, Australia
>*Newsgroup(s) Commentator*
PF
>
bobr
Just saying he is not real does not prove he is not real. That man is
real. He is as real as the hester statements that you also ignore.
claviger
> On 6 Aug 2010 10:25:04 -0400, claviger <historiae.fi...@gmail.com>
So what do you see that is really there, shrubbery or sniper?
bigdog
one can debunk what is in your mind.
> It is real easy to see that image cannot be an illusion. All you have to
> do is look at his legs relative to the two portions of the retaining wall
> that are hiding each one of his legs. Its almost like a dna signature. The
> right leg is obscured by the dogleg in the retaining wall and the left leg
> is obscured by the front section of the retaining wall. The right angle
> geometry of the retaining wall and the location of man agree perfectly
> with respect to how much of each leg should be invisible(behind the
> retaining wall) I realized that when defending this image to people making
> honest questions.
>
> Oh, and something else i forgot to mention, i have another picture of him!- Hide quoted text -
>
Oh, goody. I sure hope that are as clear as the ones you've already
showed us.
bobr
one can debunk what is in your mind." - bigdog
How true. I am showing real data of a real person on grassy knoll.
Basically, this data should debunk what is your mind, but as you , no
one can debunk what is your mind.
At least what is in my mind is consistant with the data.
bigdog
>
> - Show quoted text -
Talk about bait-and-switch! Everytime we bring up the medical evidence
and the unanimous conclusions of the experts, you claim the autopsy
was botched and that no conclusions can be drawn from it. Now you want
to claim the bullet hole in the temple is an entrance wound and that
we are ignoring the medical evidence. Nice job of switching horses in
midstream. Sorry, but you can't have it both ways. You can't claim the
autopsy was so botched that the conclusions are invalid and then turn
around and say the autopsy revealed an entrance wound in the head.
So now you have changed your tune about the usefullness of the medical
evidence and want to claim that the wound in the temple is not an exit
wound but an entrance. Just how did you make that determination, Dr.
Blubaugh? What characteristics are there in that wound that indicate
it is an entrance and not an exit? And why should we accept your
anaylsis of this wound and reject the opinions of experts who know
what they are talking about?
bigdog
> Here is photo of Daniel Webster. He is behind the fence looking over
> his right shoulder at the street. You can see his black coat, white
> shirt, and old fashioned bow tie. The left side of the face is in
> shadow. You can see another face behind him, and a giant face to the
> right with a huge nose and eyes closed.http://img130.imageshack.us/img130/4762/bmanbdwomanbabycrop.jpg- Hide quoted text -
>
Funny, but I never notice Danny Boy there before but you are
absolutely right.
Anthony Marsh
Why do you assume that is it only the LNers who dare to debunk the wacky
theories?
Haven't I argued strongly enough yet against this newbie? Or maybe you are
deleting my messages to protect him because you agree with his wacky
theory.
Anthony Marsh
Nonsense. You are trying to rationalize your wacky beliefs by falsely
believing that no one has refuted them. Zealotry.
> It is real easy to see that image cannot be an illusion. All you have to
> do is look at his legs relative to the two portions of the retaining wall
> that are hiding each one of his legs. Its almost like a dna signature. The
> right leg is obscured by the dogleg in the retaining wall and the left leg
> is obscured by the front section of the retaining wall. The right angle
> geometry of the retaining wall and the location of man agree perfectly
> with respect to how much of each leg should be invisible(behind the
> retaining wall) I realized that when defending this image to people making
> honest questions.
>
Silly.
Anthony Marsh
> On Aug 5, 9:48 pm, bigdog<jecorbett1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Aug 5, 12:34 pm, bobr<neok...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> The man who jfk from the grassy knoll is in these pictures
>>
>>> http://img6.imageshack.us/img6/5880/betznerbadgelessmanpng.pnghttp://...
>>
>> <snicker>
>>
>> I am guessing this is the online way of showing we are trying to stifle
>> laughter. Let me give you a hint. If you ever want to be taken seriously
>> on this board again, don't EVER bring up badgeman again. The idea that
>> "badgeman" is a cop firing the fatal head shot from the GK has been
>> debunked in so many ways that most CTs are too embarassed to even bring it
>> up, and that is saying something. Badgeman is so 1990s. A creation of The
>> Men Who Killed Kennedy series. Most CTs would rather see TMWKK disappear
>> along with badgeman. TMWKK is one of the reasons Bill Kurtis went from
>> being a serious journalist to a pitchman for high speed internet.
>
> the betzner3 photo that was published in Life Magazine in 1967.
>
> Anyone who has that magazine and a high resolution scanner and a good
> descreener can duplicate this image. Here is a link to a photoshop
> descreen plug-in
> http://www.descreen.net/eng/help/descreen/home/descreen_manual.htm
>
> It is widely published.
>
> The reproduction that i have been using was created by John Costella
> and descreened using his descreening software.
>
> I suggest that you obtain a copy of this issue of Life Magazine from
> 1967 because it is going to become a collectors item.
>
What you are doing is Voodoo. You can create any illusion you want in
Photoshop. That does not mean it is real.
bobr
When you say that you see the faces and then you say you don't see the man
it makes me wonder if you just don't want to see that man who is much
clearer than the faces.
claviger
>
> Here is photo of Daniel Webster. He is behind the fence looking over
> his right shoulder at the street. You can see his black coat, white
> shirt, and old fashioned bow tie. The left side of the face is in
> shadow. You can see another face behind him, and a giant face to the
> right with a huge nose and eyes closed.http://img130.imageshack.us/img130/4762/bmanbdwomanbabycrop.jpg
bigdog,
Now I can see a giant monkey looking over the fence! This photo is the
gift that keeps on giving!!
John Blubaugh
>
> - Show quoted text -
Big Dog has this vision problem. He can't see JFK's violent "back and to
the left" reaction in the Z-film either. He will never admit to seeing
anything. That is the way he keeps his WCR fantasy alive, refuse to see
anything that suggests it is wrong. He will then proudly say that he
hasn't seen anything in 47 years to refute the WCR. I have been through it
dozens of times with him on different issues.
JB
John Blubaugh
> On Aug 6, 11:28 pm, John Blubaugh <jbluba...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Aug 6, 3:46 pm, bigdog <jecorbett1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Aug 5, 10:54 pm, John Blubaugh <jbluba...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Aug 5, 9:08 pm, timstter <timst...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Aug 6, 2:34 am, bobr <neok...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > The man who jfk from the grassy knoll is in these pictures
>
> > > > > >http://img6.imageshack.us/img6/5880/betznerbadgelessmanpng.pnghttp://...
>
> > > > > Trouble is, there is no medical evidence that he was hit by a bullet
> > > > > from the Grassy Knoll, is there?
>
> > > > > So this guy couldn't have shot JFK from there, despite your claims.
>
> > > > > BTW, people could hardly get an ID on those grainy images, LOL!
>
> > > > > Regards,
>
> > > > > Tim Brennan
> > > > > Sydney, Australia
> > > > > *Newsgroup(s) Commentator*
>
> > > > Of course there is medical evidence. There is an entrance wound in
> > > > JFK's forehead.
>
> > > If only you could get a qualified person to agree with you. Funny how you
> > > want to dismiss all the medical evidence on the grounds the autopsy was
> > > botched but then you turn around and tell us there is an entrance wound in
> > > JFK's forehead. I guess if you have a screwed up autopsy, you need a
> > > screwed up analysis of it. For that, I can think of no one more qualified.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > The entry wound in JFK's head is misidentified as an exit would. Exit
> > to where? You use the tried and true LN axiom that if the autopsy was
> > botched, there is nothing to be done about it so just ignore it.
>
>
> Talk about bait-and-switch! Everytime we bring up the medical evidence
> and the unanimous conclusions of the experts, you claim the autopsy
> was botched and that no conclusions can be drawn from it. Now you want
> to claim the bullet hole in the temple is an entrance wound and that
> we are ignoring the medical evidence. Nice job of switching horses in
> midstream. Sorry, but you can't have it both ways. You can't claim the
> autopsy was so botched that the conclusions are invalid and then turn
> around and say the autopsy revealed an entrance wound in the head.
That is precisely the reason JFK should be exhumes to solve these
issues.
>
JB
timstter
> On Aug 5, 8:08 pm, timstter <timst...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Aug 6, 2:34 am, bobr <neok...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > The man who jfk from the grassy knoll is in these pictures
>
> > >http://img6.imageshack.us/img6/5880/betznerbadgelessmanpng.pnghttp://...
>
> > Trouble is, there is no medical evidence that he was hit by a bullet
> > from the Grassy Knoll, is there?
>
> > So this guy couldn't have shot JFK from there, despite your claims.
>
> > BTW, people could hardly get an ID on those grainy images, LOL!
>
> > Regards,
>
> > Tim Brennan
> > Sydney, Australia
> > *Newsgroup(s) Commentator*
>
LOL! Er, Bob, the autopsists found no wound of entrance on the side of
JFK's head; the entrance wound was in the back of the head. The HSCA
FPP confirmed their findings.
Do you have some kind of medical training that would allow you to
conclude that he was hit from the right side? I didn't think so...
timstter
You have some kind of medical training that allows you to conclude
this?
Even Wecht says that on the avilable medical evidence he was hit by
two shots from behind.
You have no idea what you are talking about, John.
timstter
If you look at other versions of Betzner it is quite clear that
Zapruder and Sitzman are present as human figues.
The same can't be said for the space where BobR is positing a figure,
let alone a shooter.
claviger
> I see the seahorse but I'm still looking for that damn mermaid.
http://img822.imageshack.us/img822/6941/badgemanagain.jpg
Look at the circle. The top of the circle is at her waist. Above she
is topless and looking to her right at the seahorse. She has a flower
in her hair. The fish tail part is below the top of the circle.
To the right of the circle is the head of a giant monkey looking over
the fence.
bigdog
>
> - Show quoted text -
Exhuming JFK won't solve anything because it will show the same thing
every previous investigation has shown and diehard CTs like yourself
aren't going to accept the conclusions. You will continue to dream up
excuses to deny the obvious just as you have been doing for the past
46 years.
I noticed you deftly dodged the issue of why you are able to reach
conclusions based on the medical evidence while at the same time
rejecting the ability of qualified experts to do the same. Why did you
claim it is the LNs who dismiss the medical evidence?The medical
evidence is on our side.
Oldman08/15
Hello Mr. Marsh, I would like to ask you some question reg. your
Jackal AR7 but you emai-adress seems to be not valid. So please
contact me via email.
Regards, MK
bobr
It is dead nuts obvious that he was struck from the right side.
The round hole in jfk's skull is an entry wound that was created AFTER
the large exit wound in the forehead. It is obvious.
I do not know what the autopsy report says about that round hole.
Please post what the autopsy report says about that round hole.
http://img27.imageshack.us/img27/8678/jfkskullpng.png
John Blubaugh
>
> - Show quoted text -
And you do? Available medical evidence was the key phrase. No experts
opinion means anything if the medical evidence cannot be trusted and
it certainly cannot be relied upon.
JB
b r
Here is an enhancement.
http://img192.imageshack.us/img192/4043/betzerlargecropautoleve.png
b r
You are having trouble adjusting to reality mr. marsh.
bigdog
I have seen lots of things that suggest the WCR is wrong. I have never
seen anything that demonstrates it is wrong. I don't have to refuse to see
anything. You are right that I don't see JFK's violent "back and to the
left" reaction because it never happened. He went straight back from his
position at Z312. JFK was already leaning hard to his left prior to the
head shot as both the Nix and Muchmore films show. He didn't move farther
to the left. He didn't lean farther to the left. He didn't rotate to his
left. There is no leftward movement following the head shot. Several
months ago I challenged you to articulate what form the the leftward
movement took. You passed on that challenge. You just kept repeating "back
and to the left", "back and to the left", "back and to the left", like a
trained parrot. Blubaugh want a cracker?
bigdog
Yes, I think I see her now. Nice rack.
b r
The truth is stranger than fiction and in this case it certainly is
going to turn out that way!
b r
Just calling it whacky does not make it whacky. You have to show why
it is whacky, which you fail to on every occasion. So me why that
person could not be real? Make you argument why he cant be real.
b r
No, no one has refuted them, least of all you. All you do is try to label.
You attack the messenger not the message. I have never seen someone so
afraid of the truth as you appear to be.
b r
I am a researher jb and i am active in the game. i guess i am the only one
looking in this area and i tell you it is rich with information. i know
what happened on the grassy knoll.
John Blubaugh
I will certainly accept the conclusions if it is formed by an
international panel of experts and not goverment lackies. But, as
always, you say and exhumation would be a waste of time. Later you
will deny that you ever said this.
> I noticed you deftly dodged the issue of why you are able to reach
> conclusions based on the medical evidence while at the same time
> rejecting the ability of qualified experts to do the same. Why did you
> claim it is the LNs who dismiss the medical evidence?The medical
> evidence is on our side.- Hide quoted text -
>
There is not medical evidence because the autopsy was botched. I noted the
wound in the forehead but nothing conclusive can be determined without an
exhumation. I will admit that you are correct that I should not have
mentioned that wound since the data is unreliable.
JB
John Blubaugh
You are really a hoot. I don't want to see something so I just swear that
it doesn't exist. Well, millions of other people see it easily but then
again, they don't have WCR blinders on.
He went straight back from his
> position at Z312. JFK was already leaning hard to his left prior to the
> head shot as both the Nix and Muchmore films show. He didn't move farther
> to the left. He didn't lean farther to the left. He didn't rotate to his
> left. There is no leftward movement following the head shot. Several
> months ago I challenged you to articulate what form the the leftward
> movement took. You passed on that challenge. You just kept repeating "back
> and to the left", "back and to the left", "back and to the left", like a
> trained parrot. Blubaugh want a cracker?- Hide quoted text -
>
Let me help you here. "Back and to the left," "back and to the left,"
"back and to the left".......... It happened. Everyone but you
acknowledges it. I refuse to answer any nonsense from anyone who claims it
never happened.
JB
Jason Burke
Now you're just becoming a parody of yourself.
Jason Burke
Do tell. Please??
bobr
Good for you JB, you are right about the back and to the left. You can see
the second shot to the head , the one that made the round hole in jfk's
skull in this video at frame 317. I am with you , I am losing patience
with all this nonsense that completely disregards the evidence.
bigdog
I have consistently said it is a waste of time because it will show
exactly what every previous examination has shown and people of your ilk
are going to continue to deny the results no matter who performs it. I
have also consistently said I have no objection to this excercise in
futility if you are able to get approval for it.
bigdog
It is only obvious to amateur hacks who have never done an autopsy in
their life. No qualifed person believes it is an entrance wound.
> I do not know what the autopsy report says about that round hole.
> Please post what the autopsy report says about that round hole.http://img27.imageshack.us/img27/8678/jfkskullpng.png- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Why does every qualified expert who has seen the evidence call it an
exit?
bigdog
>
> - Show quoted text -
You can't explain what form the leftward movement took so you fall
back on your lame everyone-else-sees-it claim. If there was any
leftward movement following the head shot, you should have no trouble
explain in what manner JFK moved leftward and how you determine that
from the Z-film. There was no leftward movement until after JFK had
gone straight back in his seat at which time JFK fell over to his
left. The leftward movement is nothing but an illusion created by the
fact that JFK was leaning hard to his left prior to the head shot. The
illusion was reinforced in the public's mind by Kevin Costner
repeating "back and to the left" as he showed the footage in Oliver
Stone's piece of shit movie, a mantra you continue to parrot because
you are unable to articulate how JFK moved leftward. Costner and Stone
fed you a line of shit and you at it up. Zapruder's elevated position
hides the degree to which JFK was leaning leftward prior to the head
shot. The Muchmore and Nix films as well as the Moorman photo, all
taken from ground level, show how severe this leftward lean was. Had
JFK moved leftward from this position, he would have flown right into
Jackie, but that didn't happen. He went straight back from that
position. When his shoulder blades contacted the seat back, he was
still on the far right hand side of the limo. You can continue to
chant "back and to the left" like a trained parrot and it won't change
the fact that JFK went straight back after the head shot.
bobr
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Why does every qualified expert who has seen the evidence call it an
> exit?
It is an entrance wound. There is no doubt about it.
How can that be an exit wound? It is almost perfectly round. And if
that is an exit wound what caused the irregular large wound in the
forehead area? There are two wounds. One is a very large exit wound
and the other is the perfectly round hole that is an entry wound.
bobr
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Why does every qualified expert who has seen the evidence call it an
> exit?
Please post your supporting evidence for that statement.
bigdog
Maybe you can explain something JB has never been able to. What form
did JFK's leftward movement take? Did his body slide leftward? Did it
tilt farther leftward? Did it rotate leftward? Everyone sees the
backward movement. I'm still waiting for someone to explain how this
alleged leftward movement manifiested itself.
> You can see
> the second shot to the head , the one that made the round hole in jfk's
> skull in this video at frame 317. I am with you , I am losing patience
> with all this nonsense that completely disregards the evidence.
>
Exactly what do you see in Z317 that indicates a second head shot.
This claim is really amazing in light of the fact that JFK began
rocking backward at Z314. Are you claiming he started backward 3 full
frames before he was shot from the front?
bigdog
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > Why does every qualified expert who has seen the evidence call it an
> > exit?
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
The medical evidence was reviewed by the Clark Panel and the HSCA. The
HSCA assembled a team of the most highly regarded forensic
pathologists in the country. All agreed that the medical evidence
indicated that JFK had been shot twice from behind, once in the back
and once in the head. Only Cyril Wecht has claimed that there was also
a frontal shot but he bases that belief not on any medical evidence
but on his observation of JFK's backward movement in the Z-film. When
making this judgement, Wecht is venturing outside his expertise in the
area of forensic medicine and into the realm of amateur hack in his
analysis of the Z-film.
If you disagree with my statement that the medical professionals who
have examined the evidence are unanimous in their belief the shots
came from behind, please name one qualified expert who believes there
is medical evidence of a frontal shot.
bobr
>
> > > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > > Why does every qualified expert who has seen the evidence call it an
> > > exit?
>
> > Please post your supporting evidence for that statement.
>
> HSCA assembled a team of the most highly regarded forensic
> pathologists in the country. All agreed that the medical evidence
> indicated that JFK had been shot twice from behind, once in the back
> and once in the head. Only Cyril Wecht has claimed that there was also
> a frontal shot but he bases that belief not on any medical evidence
> but on his observation of JFK's backward movement in the Z-film. When
> making this judgement, Wecht is venturing outside his expertise in the
> area of forensic medicine and into the realm of amateur hack in his
> analysis of the Z-film.
>
> If you disagree with my statement that the medical professionals who
> have examined the evidence are unanimous in their belief the shots
> came from behind, please name one qualified expert who believes there
> is medical evidence of a frontal shot.
Its a bunch of crapola. You dont have to have a degree in medical
science to see that a shot entered from the right front and created
that perfectly round hole.
I asked you to provide the part argument where they address that round
hole. You are unable , or unwilling to provide that link.
It does take a degree in medical science however, to turn the obvious
truth into a fabrication.
Show me the words that address that round hole. Or go back to your dog
house.
http://img27.imageshack.us/img27/8678/jfkskullpng.png
bobr
>
> > > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > > Why does every qualified expert who has seen the evidence call it an
> > > exit?
>
> > Please post your supporting evidence for that statement.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> The medical evidence was reviewed by the Clark Panel and the HSCA. The
> HSCA assembled a team of the most highly regarded forensic
> pathologists in the country. All agreed that the medical evidence
> indicated that JFK had been shot twice from behind, once in the back
> and once in the head. Only Cyril Wecht has claimed that there was also
> a frontal shot but he bases that belief not on any medical evidence
> but on his observation of JFK's backward movement in the Z-film. When
> making this judgement, Wecht is venturing outside his expertise in the
> area of forensic medicine and into the realm of amateur hack in his
> analysis of the Z-film.
>
> If you disagree with my statement that the medical professionals who
> have examined the evidence are unanimous in their belief the shots
> came from behind, please name one qualified expert who believes there
> is medical evidence of a frontal shot.
I don't give a hoot about a frontal shot. The shot came from the right
side and entered close to his ear. There was just a very minor frontal
component to the trajectory. It was almost 90° as this map indicates.
jfk was struck by two bullets , from perpendicular directions within on
quarter second of each other. That explains the complex movements of jfk's
body. He was hit from the back and the side almost simulataneously.
Anthony Marsh
And expert opinion can be wrong and change over time.
bobr
Its clear as a bell. Watch his head and neck after frame 317. You see it
accelerate back and to the left. That was caused by the bullet that hit
him on frame 317. But you dont want to see it, that is the problem you
have.
bobr
>
> > > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > > Why does every qualified expert who has seen the evidence call it an
> > > exit?
>
> > Please post your supporting evidence for that statement.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> The medical evidence was reviewed by the Clark Panel and the HSCA. The
> HSCA assembled a team of the most highly regarded forensic
> pathologists in the country. All agreed that the medical evidence
> indicated that JFK had been shot twice from behind, once in the back
> and once in the head. Only Cyril Wecht has claimed that there was also
> a frontal shot but he bases that belief not on any medical evidence
> but on his observation of JFK's backward movement in the Z-film. When
> making this judgement, Wecht is venturing outside his expertise in the
> area of forensic medicine and into the realm of amateur hack in his
> analysis of the Z-film.
>
> If you disagree with my statement that the medical professionals who
> have examined the evidence are unanimous in their belief the shots
> came from behind, please name one qualified expert who believes there
> is medical evidence of a frontal shot.
I want you to post the the exact place where that round hole is being
discussed by your medical experts. Then we will have something to talk
about. I present evidence for my statements but I don't see you doing
that.
Jason Burke
You're dreaming. How can YOU make that decision when every *qualified*
medical scientist says the opposite?
John Blubaugh
>
> > > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > > Why does every qualified expert who has seen the evidence call it an
> > > exit?
>
> > Please post your supporting evidence for that statement.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> The medical evidence was reviewed by the Clark Panel and the HSCA. The
> HSCA assembled a team of the most highly regarded forensic
> pathologists in the country. All agreed that the medical evidence
> indicated that JFK had been shot twice from behind, once in the back
> and once in the head. Only Cyril Wecht has claimed that there was also
> a frontal shot but he bases that belief not on any medical evidence
> but on his observation of JFK's backward movement in the Z-film. When
> making this judgement, Wecht is venturing outside his expertise in the
> area of forensic medicine and into the realm of amateur hack in his
> analysis of the Z-film.
>
> If you disagree with my statement that the medical professionals who
> have examined the evidence are unanimous in their belief the shots
> came from behind, please name one qualified expert who believes there
> is medical evidence of a frontal shot.
It doesn't matter what they agree on. They didn't do the autopsy and it is
obvious to all but a few WCR defenders that the autopsy was botched.
Experts cannot make anything out of bad or contrieved data. That is why an
exhumation is essential to learn the truth. If we are all wrong and the
autopsy doctors got it all right, case closed. But most believe do not
believe that will be the outcome if there is an independent international
panel examining the remains.
JB
bigdog
You're right. I don't and neither do you. The difference between us is
that I have the good sense to realize it and to trust the opinions of
people who are qualified to make such judgements, especially when the
qualified people are unanimous in their conclusions.
> I asked you to provide the part argument where they address that round
> hole. You are unable , or unwilling to provide that link.
>
Are you really going to take the position that it was not the unanimous
verdict of the HSCA forensic panel that the hole in JFK's temple was an
exit. Please do. Make my day.
> It does take a degree in medical science however, to turn the obvious
> truth into a fabrication.
>
> Show me the words that address that round hole. Or go back to your dog
> house.http://img27.imageshack.us/img27/8678/jfkskullpng.png
I'm sure there are many things that are obvious to you in that strange
little world you seem to inhabit. It must be a fascinatiing place.
bigdog
Alright. Now you've done it. Did you read that, Blubaugh. This guy is
claiming the shot came from the right, not the front right. Next thing you
know he will be claiming JFK did not go "back and to the left". Are you
going to let him get away with this?
> http://img716.imageshack.us/img716/6258/forummap2.jpg- Hide quoted text -
>
bigdog
The problem you have is that you don't want to confront the question.
JFK's head was moving backward 3 frames before you claim it was hit. His
head started going backward before you claimed he was hit. How do you
explain that one? And if that head shot came from almost 90 degrees to the
right, why didn't JFK go almost 90 degrees to his left?
bigdog
The experts believe they can. The experts saw more than enough useful
medical evidence to make a positive determination about the direction
of the shots. So who should we believe. The people who are qualified
or you and bobr? Let me ponder that one.
> That is why an
> exhumation is essential to learn the truth.
If you can't figure out the truth with the wealth of information that
is available about the JFK assassination, digging him up won't help
you. The JFK assassination is the most investigated and researched
crime in history and all you can do is tell us you don't have enough
information to figure it out.
> If we are all wrong...
No ifs about it
> ...and the
> autopsy doctors got it all right, case closed.
Cue Buddy Holly, "That'll be the day..."
> But most believe do not
> believe that will be the outcome if there is an independent international
> panel examining the remains.
>
Any relation to what most people believe and what is actually true is
purely coincidental.
John Blubaugh
>
> >>> - Show quoted text -
>
> >> Why does every qualified expert who has seen the evidence call it an
> >> exit?
>
> > It is an entrance wound. There is no doubt about it.
>
> > How can that be an exit wound? It is almost perfectly round. And if
> > that is an exit wound what caused the irregular large wound in the
> > forehead area? There are two wounds. One is a very large exit wound
> > and the other is the perfectly round hole that is an entry wound.
>
> You're dreaming. How can YOU make that decision when every *qualified*
>
Did all of those other scientists work for the government?
JB
John Blubaugh
>
> - Show quoted text -
The medical evidence has all been manipulated and altered. No expert
opinion on it means a damn thing. Dig him up and have an international
panel of experts do the autopsy and we can all live with their
determinations.
JB
bigdog
>
> > >>> - Show quoted text -
>
> > >> Why does every qualified expert who has seen the evidence call it an
> > >> exit?
>
> > > It is an entrance wound. There is no doubt about it.
>
> > > How can that be an exit wound? It is almost perfectly round. And if
> > > that is an exit wound what caused the irregular large wound in the
> > > forehead area? There are two wounds. One is a very large exit wound
> > > and the other is the perfectly round hole that is an entry wound.
>
> > You're dreaming. How can YOU make that decision when every *qualified*
> > medical scientist says the opposite?- Hide quoted text -
>
> Did all of those other scientists work for the government?
>
Just about every forensic pathologist does work for the government,
usually in a coroner's office. Their purpose is to determine the cause of
death so a determination can be made whether foul play was involved in a
person's death. If you don't want to trust people simply because they work
for the government, you have greatly reduced the pool of qualified people
from whom to choose.