Kennedy and Lincoln - Lattimer
cdddraftsman
Medical and Ballistics Comparisons Of Their Assassination
Harcourt Brace Jovanovich
ISBN 0-15-152281-2
http://tinypic.com/view/?pic=4hsr2p3
Dr.Lattimer Firing MC Rifle
http://tinypic.com/view/?pic=2e5sdwo
Accuracy and Rapid Firing of MC Rifle
http://tinypic.com/view/?pic=2s82w78
Tracking of Shifting Targets Not Difficult
http://tinypic.com/view/?pic=346m1zl
Penatrating Ability of MC Round
http://tinypic.com/view/?pic=47lajyw
Oswalds Sling
http://tinypic.com/view/?pic=473lmog
Marine Rifle Score Card
http://tinypic.com/view/?pic=450vomc
BOH Wound
http://tinypic.com/view/?pic=2mzz3io
Skull Wound Diagram
http://tinypic.com/view/?pic=2cxc2ae
Skull Wound Description
http://tinypic.com/view/?pic=4dw9ljk
Skull Wound Fragments
http://tinypic.com/view/?pic=3z7i99x
http://tinypic.com/view/?pic=34ffzv4
Final Disposition of JFK's Brain ?
http://tinypic.com/view/?pic=2uq19hh
http://tinypic.com/view/?pic=2wd0wnb
The Back Wound
http://tinypic.com/view/?pic=2lne3aa
The Back and Throat Wound
http://tinypic.com/view/?pic=2lne3aa
The Throat Wound
http://tinypic.com/view/?pic=3zlbuk1
The Throat Wound
http://tinypic.com/view/?pic=30nkpsg
The Throat Wound
http://tinypic.com/view/?pic=48xzdie
Tio of Vertebrae Struck
http://tinypic.com/view/?pic=33mu5jm
http://tinypic.com/view/?pic=4htkmkw
Thorburn Position
http://tinypic.com/view/?pic=42jfbpk
41 Fragments of Lead
http://tinypic.com/view/?pic=2s7vnk0
Lead Extrudes out MC Round
http://tinypic.com/view/?pic=3ys6m3o
Nick in Shirt and Tie
http://tinypic.com/view/?pic=2ms3seg
Bullet Path Thru LHO
http://tinypic.com/view/?pic=4hk7p5y
The Autopsy of Booth and Oswald
http://tinypic.com/view/?pic=2yuh6ci
cdddraftsman
SDL
make a typo.
Steve L.
tomnln wrote:
> Urologist John Lattimer Reveals his Stupidity with his own words on page
> 250 of his book Lincoln and Kennedy.
>
> See attached scan of that page.
>
> OR, find it HERE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/Lattimer.htm
>
> He states that he owns a Manlicher-Carcano rifle model 91-30 with Serial
> Number 2766.
>
>
> "cdddraftsman" <cdddra...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1166294905.1...@j72g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Chad Zimmerman
"tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:%U2hh.124413$G87....@newsfe14.lga...
> Urologist John Lattimer Reveals his Stupidity with his own words on page
> 250 of his book Lincoln and Kennedy.
>
> See attached scan of that page.
>
> OR, find it HERE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/Lattimer.htm
>
> He states that he owns a Manlicher-Carcano rifle model 91-30 with Serial
> Number 2766.
Yeah, he made a mental mistake, probably thinking of C2766 when writing that
sentence.
You might use this example of *ruining credibility* when reading some of
your own posts.
Chad
>
>
> "cdddraftsman" <cdddra...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1166294905.1...@j72g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Anthony Marsh
> "tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote in message
> news:%U2hh.124413$G87....@newsfe14.lga...
>> Urologist John Lattimer Reveals his Stupidity with his own words on page
>> 250 of his book Lincoln and Kennedy.
>>
>> See attached scan of that page.
>>
>> OR, find it HERE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/Lattimer.htm
>>
>> He states that he owns a Manlicher-Carcano rifle model 91-30 with Serial
>> Number 2766.
>
> Yeah, he made a mental mistake, probably thinking of C2766 when writing that
> sentence.
>
Is that what he said? How come there is not an errata or a correction
printed somewhere?
> You might use this example of *ruining credibility* when reading some of
> your own posts.
>
You might consider that it is typical of a pattern of WC defenders
conveniently overlooking errors by their own, while lambasting any
conspiracy writer error.
tomnln
http://whokilledjfk.net/Lattimer.htm
"Chad Zimmerman" <Doc...@cableone.net> wrote in message
news:4586...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
tomnln
"SDL" <sdl...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:4586f038$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
SDL
Steve L.
Chad Zimmerman
> Was his use of a LARGE Lapel from the 1940's also a "Typo"?
Nope, that was a mistake. Mistakes happen, Tom. Heaven knows even you have
been the victim of making mistakes.
Chad
Chad Zimmerman
"Anthony Marsh" <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:fYOdnflnuJGQtBrY...@comcast.com...
> Chad Zimmerman wrote:
>> "tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote in message
>> news:%U2hh.124413$G87....@newsfe14.lga...
>>> Urologist John Lattimer Reveals his Stupidity with his own words on page
>>> 250 of his book Lincoln and Kennedy.
>>>
>>> See attached scan of that page.
>>>
>>> OR, find it HERE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/Lattimer.htm
>>>
>>> He states that he owns a Manlicher-Carcano rifle model 91-30 with Serial
>>> Number 2766.
>>
>> Yeah, he made a mental mistake, probably thinking of C2766 when writing
>> that sentence.
>>
>
> Is that what he said? How come there is not an errata or a correction
> printed somewhere?
I asked him about it and he wrote to me that he had just made a mistake.
The book only had one printing. However, if you ask him, he'd tell you the
same.
>
>> You might use this example of *ruining credibility* when reading some of
>> your own posts.
>>
>
> You might consider that it is typical of a pattern of WC defenders
> conveniently overlooking errors by their own, while lambasting any
> conspiracy writer error.
Baloney. The problem here is defining something material vs. immaterial.
His error was immaterial. Taking an immaterial thing and trying to make it
material is, in effect, a reflection on one's credibility.
Kind of like trying to make seperate definitions of 'a chiropractic' and
'a chiropractor', eh Tony?
Chad
Chad Zimmerman
> Was his use of a LARGE Lapel from the 1940's also a "Typo"?
>
> http://whokilledjfk.net/Lattimer.htm
Nope, that was one of the mistakes of his that I already acknowledged and
you can keep acting as though it hasn't been.
IOW, keep changing the subject...but don't ever change your webpage!
Chad
Mitch Todd
"Chad Zimmerman" <Doc...@cableone.net> wrote:
> "tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote:
>> Urologist John Lattimer Reveals his Stupidity with his own words on page 250
>> of his book Lincoln and Kennedy.
>>
>> See attached scan of that page.
>>
>> OR, find it HERE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/Lattimer.htm
>>
>> He states that he owns a Manlicher-Carcano rifle model 91-30 with Serial
>> Number 2766.
>
> Yeah, he made a mental mistake, probably thinking of C2766 when writing that
> sentence.
>
> You might use this example of *ruining credibility* when reading some of your
> own posts.
Silly me. I thought that the standard CT take on the serial number of
Oswald's rifle was that several M-C's could have the same serial number.
This was because the various arms factories assigned their own serial
numbers without any coordinationbetween them. I think both Lane and
Meagher brought this up in the '60's. Of course, these aren't
O-F-F-I-C-I-A-L R-E-C-O-R-D-S, so citing them could possibly somehow be a
F-E-L-O-N-Y in some jurisdictions.
M-S-T, hyphenized and capitalated, even!
PS. Any leads on those I-talian curtain rods, Chad?
tomnln
Good for you steverino.
http://whokilledjfk.net/Lattimer.htm
"SDL" <sdl...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:45882b7f$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
tomnln
Compare the lapels of BOTH jackets to see it was an Intent to Deceive.
http://whokilledjfk.net/Lattimer.htm
One would have to HUNT quite a while to find a Jacket that old.
The hole in JBC's jacket clearly why he used the BIG Lapel,
"Chad Zimmerman" <Doc...@cableone.net> wrote in message
news:45886413$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
>
> "tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote in message
> news:g4Hhh.1739$RJ....@newsfe17.lga...
>> Was his use of a LARGE Lapel from the 1940's also a "Typo"?
>
> Nope, that was a mistake. Mistakes happen, Tom. Heaven knows even you have
> been the victim of making mistakes.
>
> Chad
>
>
>>
>>
In case McAdams don't post this one.
Are you Claiming his statement of HIS MC model 91/38 with Serial Number as
NOT being Material?
Does that mean the WCR info on Oswald's MC model 91/38 with Serial Number
2766 NOT Material?
Either BOTH are Yes OR, BOTH are NO.
"Chad Zimmerman" <Doc...@cableone.net> wrote in message
news:4588...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
>
> "tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote in message
> news:0tLhh.7091$a14...@newsfe24.lga...
>> http://whokilledjfk.net/Lattimer.htm
>>
>> Lattimer Destroys himself with the Bullshit in his book.
>
> Did you actually bother to look at anything material in the book, Tom? Or,
> did you only get to the typo and then stop?
>
> Chad
tomnln
BALONEY CHAD;
It WAS "Material".
His intent was to show how the lapel would Move from a bullet strike.
http://whokilledjfk.net/Lattimer.htm
"Chad Zimmerman" <Doc...@cableone.net> wrote in message
news:4588...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
>
tomnln
Lattimer's own book Proves his Intention to Deceive.
http://whokilledjfk.net/Lattimer.htm
He tried to prove the lapel moved from a bullet.
To Buttress the Single Bullet "THEORY".
"Chad Zimmerman" <Doc...@cableone.net> wrote in message
news:4588...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
Chad Zimmerman
> In case McAdams don't post this one.
>
>
> BALONEY CHAD;
>
> It WAS "Material".
How? How did a typo change the effect of the bullets on his target media?
>
> His intent was to show how the lapel would Move from a bullet strike.
Tom, I know this can be quite hard, but try to follow along in this thread.
My last
post on this had to do with your FIRST point, not your second.
Chad
Anthony Marsh
> "Anthony Marsh" <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:fYOdnflnuJGQtBrY...@comcast.com...
>> Chad Zimmerman wrote:
>>> "tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote in message
>>> news:%U2hh.124413$G87....@newsfe14.lga...
>>>> Urologist John Lattimer Reveals his Stupidity with his own words on page
>>>> 250 of his book Lincoln and Kennedy.
>>>>
>>>> See attached scan of that page.
>>>>
>>>> OR, find it HERE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/Lattimer.htm
>>>>
>>>> He states that he owns a Manlicher-Carcano rifle model 91-30 with Serial
>>>> Number 2766.
>>> Yeah, he made a mental mistake, probably thinking of C2766 when writing
>>> that sentence.
>>>
>> Is that what he said? How come there is not an errata or a correction
>> printed somewhere?
>
> I asked him about it and he wrote to me that he had just made a mistake.
> The book only had one printing. However, if you ask him, he'd tell you the
> same.
>
I think we covered this before. My point was and remains that his
retraction is only hearsay. Nothing public. Nothing official. Nothing
from the publisher. What I'd like to see him do is blame it on the
publisher. That happens a lot. Sometimes all it is is a printer error.
Like Posner's book. When it was printed erroneously saying that Oswald
shot President Kennedy because they had mistakenly left out the word "not."
Anthony Marsh
> "tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote in message
> news:g4Hhh.1739$RJ....@newsfe17.lga...
>> Was his use of a LARGE Lapel from the 1940's also a "Typo"?
>
> Nope, that was a mistake. Mistakes happen, Tom. Heaven knows even you have
> been the victim of making mistakes.
>
Then don't cite Lattimer and his tests as if they prove anything.
Chad Zimmerman
> In case McAdams don't post this one.
Why would he do that?
>
> Compare the lapels of BOTH jackets to see it was an Intent to Deceive.
>
> http://whokilledjfk.net/Lattimer.htm
Tom, if it so plainly obvious with the pictures that HE provided in the
book, just how do you think he was deceiving anyone?
Deception would've been to not include the picture of JBC's jacket.
> One would have to HUNT quite a while to find a Jacket that old.
Or not. John Lattimer is about 90 years old now. In the 1940's he was in
the US military and WWII. It could've been one of his old suits.
No point there, Tom.
>
> The hole in JBC's jacket clearly why he used the BIG Lapel,
Why don't you ask him and see if your conjecture is true?
Chad
Chad Zimmerman
> In case McAdams don't post this one.
>
> Lattimer's own book Proves his Intention to Deceive.
>
> http://whokilledjfk.net/Lattimer.htm
>
> He tried to prove the lapel moved from a bullet.
>
> To Buttress the Single Bullet "THEORY".
Actually, the buttressing of the SBT comes from his shooting tests related
to the SBT, something I highly doubt you'll try to tackle on your
site...;-)
Chad
Chad Zimmerman
"Mitch Todd" <jeremiad_at_c...@shell.core.com> wrote in message
news:4588aa80$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
>
> "Chad Zimmerman" <Doc...@cableone.net> wrote:
>> "tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>>> Urologist John Lattimer Reveals his Stupidity with his own words on page
>>> 250 of his book Lincoln and Kennedy.
>>>
>>> See attached scan of that page.
>>>
>>> OR, find it HERE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/Lattimer.htm
>>>
>>> He states that he owns a Manlicher-Carcano rifle model 91-30 with Serial
>>> Number 2766.
>>
>> Yeah, he made a mental mistake, probably thinking of C2766 when writing
>> that sentence.
>>
>> You might use this example of *ruining credibility* when reading some of
>> your own posts.
>
> Silly me. I thought that the standard CT take on the serial number of
> Oswald's rifle was that several M-C's could have the same serial number.
Actually, I have heard that before. I saw a post somewhere where a guy
claimed to
have the same serial number...but I've never actually seen a picture of one.
> This was because the various arms factories assigned their own serial
> numbers without any coordinationbetween them. I think both Lane and
> Meagher brought this up in the '60's. Of course, these aren't
> O-F-F-I-C-I-A-L R-E-C-O-R-D-S, so citing them could possibly somehow be a
> F-E-L-O-N-Y in some jurisdictions.
LOL.
>
> M-S-T, hyphenized and capitalated, even!
>
> PS. Any leads on those I-talian curtain rods, Chad?
Nope...but I'm turning every stone I see!
Chad
Chad Zimmerman
Go complain to Lattimer then. He's already cleared it up with me.
Chad
David Von Pein
>>> "He {Dr. John K. Lattimer} states that he owns a Manlicher-Carcano
[sic] rifle model 91-30 with Serial Number 2766." <<<
~~~~
As I said before, Lattimer's "C2766" remark was obviously an
error....because (as I shall provide below) Lattimer tells us MULTIPLE
times elsewhere in his book "Kennedy And Lincoln" that he was NOT using
Oswald's exact rifle. Heck, even the very page cited by Tom R. (Page 250)
contains info that contradicts Tom's "C2766" claims.....
"...Exactly like Oswald's. This {scope} was mounted exactly as on the
rifle from the same lot (Warren Commission Exhibit 139) that was
demonstrated unequivocally by the Warren Commission to have been used to
fire both of the bullets..." -- John K. Lattimer; Page 250 of "Kennedy And
Lincoln" (c.1980)
The overall language used on the VERY PAGE TOM R. SAYS PROVES LATTIMER IS
A LIAR shows a reasonable person that Mr. Lattimer was merely in error re.
his one "C2766" remark.
And when coupled with the following FOUR additional rifle references
scattered throughout Lattimer's K&L publication, it's quite clear that
Lattimer wasn't using Oswald's exact rifle.....
"I used a 6.5mm Mannlicher-Carcano carbine of the same model as that used
by Oswald (model 91-38)..." -- JKL; Page 232
"I had examined Oswald's rifle at the National Archives..." -- JKL;
Page 292
"We had procured four rifles of exactly the same type used by Oswald. ....
We then selected, from our four sample rifles, the one that most closely
resembled his {Oswald's}, in both condition and ease of operation, for use
in our firing tests." -- JKL; Page 295
"Although we had to be content with four rifles of the same model as used
by Oswald, the FBI used his actual rifle, and always with the same
results: none of the bullets ever tumbled {unless they struck something
else prior to striking a simulated Connally target}." -- JKL; Pages 271 &
276
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Tom R.,
What do you have to say about the above-referenced passages from Dr.
Lattimer re. the rifle that you claim that Lattimer claimed was Oswald's
exact C2766 weapon?
Based on these additional quotes from "K&L", do you honestly still think
Lattimer was insisting he was using "C2766" for his experiments?
BTW, Tom (incorrectly) said "model 91-30" above, when referring to the MC
rifle. I think this error gives me the right (per Tom's own rules) to call
Tom R. a "liar" and a scheming "cover-up agent"....seeing as how he said
"91-30" instead of the correct model number of "91-38". Right? Right.
Anthony Marsh
> Tom R. wrote:
>
>>>> "He {Dr. John K. Lattimer} states that he owns a Manlicher-Carcano
> [sic] rifle model 91-30 with Serial Number 2766." <<<
>
> ~~~~
>
> As I said before, Lattimer's "C2766" remark was obviously an
> error....because (as I shall provide below) Lattimer tells us MULTIPLE
> times elsewhere in his book "Kennedy And Lincoln" that he was NOT using
> Oswald's exact rifle. Heck, even the very page cited by Tom R. (Page 250)
> contains info that contradicts Tom's "C2766" claims.....
>
Please try to pay attention. No one was accusing Lattimer of claiming
that he used Oswald's rifle. He claimed that his rifle was EXACTLY like
Oswald's. And he said the serial number was C2766. So such a weapon
could be another similar model with the same serial number, not EXACTLY
like Oswald's.
> "...Exactly like Oswald's. This {scope} was mounted exactly as on the
> rifle from the same lot (Warren Commission Exhibit 139) that was
> demonstrated unequivocally by the Warren Commission to have been used to
> fire both of the bullets..." -- John K. Lattimer; Page 250 of "Kennedy And
> Lincoln" (c.1980)
>
> The overall language used on the VERY PAGE TOM R. SAYS PROVES LATTIMER IS
> A LIAR shows a reasonable person that Mr. Lattimer was merely in error re.
> his one "C2766" remark.
>
Oh please. When I point out such obvious errors, you WC defenders demand
proof.
> And when coupled with the following FOUR additional rifle references
> scattered throughout Lattimer's K&L publication, it's quite clear that
> Lattimer wasn't using Oswald's exact rifle.....
>
Duh! No one ever said that.
> "I used a 6.5mm Mannlicher-Carcano carbine of the same model as that used
> by Oswald (model 91-38)..." -- JKL; Page 232
>
>
There's the problem. Was Lattimer lying again or is this another obvious
error that you also overlooked? Lattimer says "carbine." Oswald bought a
short rifle. Do you know the difference?
> "I had examined Oswald's rifle at the National Archives..." -- JKL;
> Page 292
>
>
> "We had procured four rifles of exactly the same type used by Oswald. ....
> We then selected, from our four sample rifles, the one that most closely
> resembled his {Oswald's}, in both condition and ease of operation, for use
> in our firing tests." -- JKL; Page 295
>
>
> "Although we had to be content with four rifles of the same model as used
> by Oswald, the FBI used his actual rifle, and always with the same
> results: none of the bullets ever tumbled {unless they struck something
> else prior to striking a simulated Connally target}." -- JKL; Pages 271 &
> 276
>
There is no need for a tumbling bullet. Only in his mind when he lies
and claims that Connally's back wound was 3 cm long.
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> Tom R.,
>
> What do you have to say about the above-referenced passages from Dr.
> Lattimer re. the rifle that you claim that Lattimer claimed was Oswald's
> exact C2766 weapon?
>
What do you have to say about the difference between a carbine and a
short rifle?
Do you know how Riva produced some of the short barrels for export? Do
you understand the implications?
> Based on these additional quotes from "K&L", do you honestly still think
> Lattimer was insisting he was using "C2766" for his experiments?
>
That's what he said.
> BTW, Tom (incorrectly) said "model 91-30" above, when referring to the MC
> rifle. I think this error gives me the right (per Tom's own rules) to call
> Tom R. a "liar" and a scheming "cover-up agent"....seeing as how he said
> "91-30" instead of the correct model number of "91-38". Right? Right.
>
>
Are you talking about your typo or his typo?
And usually it is referred to by "91/38."
tomnln
Your defense of those Lies speak of You.
"Chad Zimmerman" <Doc...@cableone.net> wrote in message
news:4589...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
tomnln
Thanks for the Reminder.
Was Lattimer a "World Class Shot"?
Was Lattimer an NRA "Master"?
Did Lattimer's M-C have a 2 stage Trigger?
Did Lattimer's scope Require adding 3 shims just to test it?
Was Lattimer's scope STILL off after 3 shims?
Did Lattimer's buddies "Alter" his score to make the unit look Good?
ALL of these official records will look GREAT on my website.
I Thank You SOOOOO Much for the Reminder.
Look for it on my website SOON.
Being a Humble man myself, I will Certainly credit You with the Idea.
"Chad Zimmerman" <Doc...@cableone.net> wrote in message
news:4589...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
tomnln
"Chad Zimmerman" <Doc...@cableone.net> wrote in message
news:4589a594$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
tomnln
NOW, about those Lapels.....
http://whokilledjfk.net/Lattimer.htm
Sure Chad Sure;
Everyone STILL has suits 65 years old.
Everyone STILL has those OLD suits FIT them.
Sure Chad Sure.
"Chad Zimmerman" <Doc...@cableone.net> wrote in message
news:4589...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
tomnln
NOR does the use of a 1940's style jacket for the Lapel Flip from a bullet
strike.
http://whokilledjfk.net/Lattimer.htm
"Chad Zimmerman" <Doc...@cableone.net> wrote in message
news:458968d4$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
tomnln
Was his use of a 1940's style jacket ALSO amount to a Mistake?
You Accept EVERY "mistake" by ALL LN's
You Reject EVERY "mistake" by CT's.
At the very Minimum this establishes "Reasonable doubt".
Lattimer's intent was to Deceive.
http://whokilledjfk.net/Lattimer.htm
"David Von Pein" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1166679588....@t46g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Chad Zimmerman
> Lattimer's own words Prove him a LIAR.
...or mistaken....or a typo....or....?
Your world is just black and white.
...time to get back to the real world, Tom.
>
> Your defense of those Lies speak of You.
Your use of typos to accuse others speaks of you...
Chad
Chad Zimmerman
> You're Easily Satisfied.
Actually, I try to look at multiple reasons for why mistakes might be made
with things, while
you just call them all dishonest liars...
Thus, it appears that the only one easily satisfied is you.
My curiousity actually caused me to go so far as to obtain my own rifle and
period ammunition to
conduct ballistics tests, synthetic ballistic skulls from Europe, obtaining
permission to examine the
original autopsy materials...etc.
Let me know when you've bothered to do any of that, then you can call me
"easily satisfied"...
even in capital letters!?!...;-)
Chad
Chad Zimmerman
> To Protect Lone Nutters from answering Embarrassing Questions.
>
> NOW, about those Lapels.....
>
> http://whokilledjfk.net/Lattimer.htm
>
> Sure Chad Sure;
>
> Everyone STILL has suits 65 years old.
90 year olds do...
> Everyone STILL has those OLD suits FIT them.
Huh? Who said it fit him?
>
> Sure Chad Sure.
Blah. Kill the parrot.
Chad
Chad Zimmerman
> WRONG AGAIN CHAD;
>
> Thanks for the Reminder.
> Was Lattimer a "World Class Shot"?
Oswald was pretty good.
> Was Lattimer an NRA "Master"?
Ask him.
> Did Lattimer's M-C have a 2 stage Trigger?
Possibly.
> Did Lattimer's scope Require adding 3 shims just to test it?
Nope.
> Was Lattimer's scope STILL off after 3 shims?
Nope. Now remind me where they proved it was that way when Oswald fired
it.
> Did Lattimer's buddies "Alter" his score to make the unit look Good?
When was Oswald's altered?
>
> ALL of these official records will look GREAT on my website.
Something needs to spruce its looks...
>
> I Thank You SOOOOO Much for the Reminder.
>
> Look for it on my website SOON.
Can I COUNT on that in capital letters?
>
> Being a Humble man myself, I will Certainly credit You with the Idea.
Thanks,
Chad
Chad Zimmerman
> This doesn't do much for Lattimer's Credibility.
>
> NOR does the use of a 1940's style jacket for the Lapel Flip from a bullet
> strike.
>
> http://whokilledjfk.net/Lattimer.htm
Nor does your handling of history...
Chad
David Von Pein
rifle." <<<
Maybe you'd better pay better attention, Tony.
Yes, a CTer most certainly WAS saying exactly that...with that CTer being
Tom R., of course....to whom every post of mine in this silly regard has
been aimed....not toward you or anyone else. I've been talking to a CTer
named Tom and HIS claims re. Lattimer, which are right on his website to
read...which state:
"In an attempt tp prove that Oswald could indeed fire 3 rounds in 5.6
seconds, Lattimer states that he has performed tests with His Rifle. He
claims that he owns the same rifle. REPEAT..."THE SAME RIFLE"." -- Tom
R.; Via his site
So, obviously, Rossley is saying that Lattimer is saying that Lattimer was
using Oswald's EXACT RIFLE.
That's been my WHOLE POINT of bantering with Tom R. about this stupid
matter! Because he (Tom) was claiming that Oswald's rifle was being used
by Lattimer, per Lattimer's one "C2766" comment, which, as I've said a
dozen times now, was proven a simple error via the FOUR OTHER PLACES in
his book (at least) that say he wasn't using C2766.
David Von Pein
>>> "My curiousity actually caused me to go so far as to obtain my own
rifle and period ammunition to conduct ballistics tests, synthetic
ballistic skulls from Europe, obtaining permission to examine the original
autopsy materials...etc. Let me know when you've bothered to do any of
that, then you can call me "easily satisfied"...even in capital
letters!?!" <<<
Fabulous post! I loved it!
And I'd still like to know why Tom R. thinks that Lattimer's LN-favoring
experiments (which are documented in his book with lots of photographs)
are to be completely flushed down the toilet even if Lattimer HAD, in
fact, been using Oswald's actual Carcano?
And I'm also wondering why Tom R. thinks a "1940s-style lapel" being used
by Lattimer means we're supposed to totally trash ALL of Lattimer's tests
re. the backward head movement, the "collar band resulted in small exit
wound" tests, the "bullet never tumbled into a JBC target unless it went
through a JFK mock-up first", etc., etc.?
Even if he used a different type of lapel...does that fact negate ALL of
his other LN-leaning tests?
If so...why?
I suppose every one of JKL's pics in his book is "fake" too, eh?*
* = Oops, but if THAT were true, WHY wouldn't Lattimer have "faked" the
photo of the lapel in some way (in order to trim some of the large lapel
out of the photo). Not to say that the lapel photos are even in K&L,
because they aren't...even though Tom R. says they are.
So many conspiracy/cover-up theories.....so stupid-sounding they all
remain to this day.
tomnln
Typo's are NOT Felonies.
Messing with evidence IS a Felony.
"Chad Zimmerman" <Doc...@cableone.net> wrote in message
news:458af66a$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
tomnln
of Markham?
of Benevides?
etc etc
"Chad Zimmerman" <Doc...@cableone.net> wrote in message
news:458a...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
tomnln
I use official records or, the words of those I call to answer for their
Lies.
You use your Opinions.
http://whokilledjfk.net/Lattimer.htm
"Chad Zimmerman" <Doc...@cableone.net> wrote in message
news:458a...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
tomnln
There were Several 90+ year old members of both sides of my family.
NONE of them ever kept clothing for 65 years.
Lattimer's Intent was to Decieve.
http://whokilledjfk.net/Lattimer.htm
"Chad Zimmerman" <Doc...@cableone.net> wrote in message
news:458a...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
tomnln
David is admitting that there was more than one rifle with the SAME Errol
Number.
http://whokilledjfk.net/Lattimer.htm
I always read/listen to my adversaries.
I Love the verbal Suicide.
I didn't think David would ever catch on.
"David Von Pein" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1166750145....@i12g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
tomnln
lapel flap was caused by a bullet.
In an attempt to legitamize the Single bullet Theory.
Like most LN's Lattimer is a LIAR.
http://whokilledjfk.net/Lattimer.htm
http://whokilledjfk.net/single_bullet.htm
"David Von Pein" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1166759032.0...@48g2000cwx.googlegroups.com...
Anthony Marsh
> CHAD ZIMMERMAN WROTE:
>
>>>> "My curiousity actually caused me to go so far as to obtain my own
> rifle and period ammunition to conduct ballistics tests, synthetic
> ballistic skulls from Europe, obtaining permission to examine the original
> autopsy materials...etc. Let me know when you've bothered to do any of
> that, then you can call me "easily satisfied"...even in capital
> letters!?!" <<<
>
>
> Fabulous post! I loved it!
>
> And I'd still like to know why Tom R. thinks that Lattimer's LN-favoring
> experiments (which are documented in his book with lots of photographs)
> are to be completely flushed down the toilet even if Lattimer HAD, in
> fact, been using Oswald's actual Carcano?
>
No one said that. We are talking about Lattimer's lie that his M-C had
the same serial number as Oswald's.
> And I'm also wondering why Tom R. thinks a "1940s-style lapel" being used
> by Lattimer means we're supposed to totally trash ALL of Lattimer's tests
> re. the backward head movement, the "collar band resulted in small exit
> wound" tests, the "bullet never tumbled into a JBC target unless it went
> through a JFK mock-up first", etc., etc.?
>
Because Lattimer could not get the lapel to flip with an exit a couple
of inches away from the lapel. He had to have the exit right next to the
edge of the lapel.
> Even if he used a different type of lapel...does that fact negate ALL of
> his other LN-leaning tests?
>
Hmm, could be.
> If so...why?
>
If you know he lied to you about a dozen things then how can you trust
everything? But he did get a few things right occasionally.
> I suppose every one of JKL's pics in his book is "fake" too, eh?*
>
Maybe the drawings.
Anthony Marsh
>>>> "No one was accusing Lattimer of claiming that he used Oswald's
> rifle." <<<
>
> Maybe you'd better pay better attention, Tony.
>
> Yes, a CTer most certainly WAS saying exactly that...with that CTer being
> Tom R., of course....to whom every post of mine in this silly regard has
> been aimed....not toward you or anyone else. I've been talking to a CTer
> named Tom and HIS claims re. Lattimer, which are right on his website to
> read...which state:
>
I don't think so. I think we are making fun of Lattimer.
David Von Pein
Please point to the text where I "admitted" to any such nonsensical
thing? I'd like to see that.
"Errol" number?? WTF??
Chad Zimmerman
> No matter WHAT you call it Chad....He Lied.
Or it was a simple typo. Those don't EXIST in your WORLD?
>
> Typo's are NOT Felonies.
No kidding.
>
> Messing with evidence IS a Felony.
Depends upon what *messing* was done.
Chad
Chad Zimmerman
there are hundreds of different CT theories out there, don't you think
then that most CT's are liars?
Or, could it be that they're just *mistaken* (WhIcH iSn'T a FeLoNy).
Chad
"tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:nXKih.13276$RR4...@newsfe22.lga...
Chad Zimmerman
> Did you look at the "Mistakes/Lies" of Brennan?
> of Markham?
> of Benevides?
Not nearly as much as I've looked at the PhYsIcAL EviDenCe.
Chad
Chad Zimmerman
> CHAD;
>
> There were Several 90+ year old members of both sides of my family.
>
> NONE of them ever kept clothing for 65 years.
>
> Lattimer's Intent was to Decieve.
That's a possibility, Tom. It is also a possibility that he does things
differently than those in YouR FaMiLy.
And, Tom...he wouldn't need to keep it for 65 years. 1940 + 65 = 2005. He
conducted his tests in the 1970's.
I have things from my childhood. Some of those things are more than 30
years old.
Chad
Chad Zimmerman
> Chad;
> I use official records or, the words of those I call to answer for their
> Lies.
Tom, you use *Official Records* from people you think are liars...to call
others liars.
>
> You use your Opinions.
Yes, I do...probably because I've conducted a lot of research looking at
*Official Records*, such as the actual autopsy photographs and x-rays,
etc.
Tell me, Tom, do your opinions play into your presentation of the
*Official Records*? Kind of like taking a simple typo and calling someone
a liar?
Chad
David Von Pein
Wrong. Oswald bought a carbine and everybody knows it. The
Klein's order form used by Oswald to purchase the gun even says "6.5
Italian Carbine"...plain as day. .....
http://www.johnkennedy.it/imm32big.jpg
Mitch Todd
shooting experiments were conducted in '74 and '75, which would have made
a '40's suit about 30 years old at the time, not 65.
Not to mention that wide lapels were heap-o'-stylin' during the Me Decade,
which could make the suit contemporary to the experiments.
All this time travel is making my head spin. Call the Doctor!
MST.a.r.d.i.s.
ps. You'd always be very surprised what people keep. My parents still have
the wheels to granddad's connestoga.
"tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:Z8Jih.25838$Rj....@newsfe19.lga...
tomnln
3 shots 3 hits
shot 1 JFK.s back shot 2 JBC shot 3 fatal (no tague) (no throat)
THEN Miracle "SBT" Totally Impossible proven HERE>>>
http://whokilledjfk.net/single_bullet.htm
Below shoulders
Above shoulders
Back
Back of neck
How many stories did YOUR side propose?
"Chad Zimmerman" <doc...@netzero.net> wrote in message
news:458c5406$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
tomnln
Oswald supposedly received a 42 inch rifle.
http://whokilledjfk.net/Rifle.htm
"David Von Pein" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1166751082.7...@80g2000cwy.googlegroups.com...
Anthony Marsh
> Your own web page shows a page from Lattimer's book claiming that his
> shooting experiments were conducted in '74 and '75, which would have made
> a '40's suit about 30 years old at the time, not 65.
>
Boy, that certainly is reassuring. So we can ignore the fact that
Lattimer deliberately used the wrong style of jacket because at least it
was only 30 years old and not 65. Great.
> Not to mention that wide lapels were heap-o'-stylin' during the Me Decade,
> which could make the suit contemporary to the experiments.
>
So you think science should be driven by fashion?
Anthony Marsh
Wrong. Oswald THOUGHT he was going to get the carbine, but what Klein's
actually sent him was the short rifle.
Hey, I thought you were supposed to be a WC defender?
And you'd include mistakes like this in your long promised book?
Anthony Marsh
> Since only ONE series of events for 11-22-63 can be correct, and since
> there are hundreds of different CT theories out there, don't you think
> then that most CT's are liars?
>
> Or, could it be that they're just *mistaken* (WhIcH iSn'T a FeLoNy).
>
This is a common misunderstanding, characteristic of the WC defenders.
You think theories are mutually exclusive. So one theorist claims that
the Mafia did it and another says the CIA did it. You conclude that one
must be correct and the other wrong. But in real life, sometimes both
are correct, as both the Mafia and the CIA conspired to kill Fidel Castro.
tomnln
"Chad Zimmerman" <doc...@netzero.net> wrote in message
news:458c5450$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
tomnln
http://whokilledjfk.net/Lattimer.htm
Your Hero is a Whore.
"Chad Zimmerman" <doc...@netzero.net> wrote in message
news:458c537f$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
eca...@comcast.net
I've been thinking essentially
the opposite. Seriously, I think
part of your problem(s) can be
addressed in two areas:
1) What the WC found has less
to do with it than you may think
Tony..
The WC and HSCA reports
were both excellent foundations
from which to start with. They
are arguably the best two
individual studies. But few
researchers in the last 43 years
have used them as some sort of
absolute "Bible" as you seem to
believe. That's why so many books
(3000+) were written on the
subject; to attempt to fill in gaps
and submit new information and
lines of thought.
2) IMO, another significant problem
you personally have is
*underestimating the intelligence*
of others. Here you fail dramatically
Marsh. I have found flaws in "Case Closed"
which was long a target of the ever
diminishing "There's Something Fishy Here"
clan. I'm also aware of errors and
controversial interpretations by both
the WC and HSCA reports. However
that does not
disqualify them from submitting an
otherwise vast sum of accurate
evidence and well substantiated
conclusions.
**********
But the LN faction has an
*evidence pattern*
You don't, and that's the
DIFFERENCE.
**********
Merry Christmas & HNY!
MR ;~D 1707Dec2106 1208Dec2306
Anthony Marsh wrote:
> Chad Zimmerman wrote:
> > "tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote in message
> > news:%U2hh.124413$G87....@newsfe14.lga...
> >> Urologist John Lattimer Reveals his Stupidity with his own words on page
> >> 250 of his book Lincoln and Kennedy.
> >>
> >> See attached scan of that page.
> >>
> >> OR, find it HERE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/Lattimer.htm
> >>
> >> He states that he owns a Manlicher-Carcano rifle model 91-30 with Serial
> >> Number 2766.
> >
> > Yeah, he made a mental mistake, probably thinking of C2766 when writing that
> > sentence.
> >
>
> Is that what he said? How come there is not an errata or a correction
> printed somewhere?
>
> > You might use this example of *ruining credibility* when reading some of
> > your own posts.
> >
>
> You might consider that it is typical of a pattern of WC defenders
> conveniently overlooking errors by their own, while lambasting any
> conspiracy writer error.
>
> > Chad
> >
> >>
> >> "cdddraftsman" <cdddra...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >> news:1166294905.1...@j72g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >>> Kennedy and Lincoln Dr. John K. Lattimer
> >>> Medical and Ballistics Comparisons Of Their Assassination
> >>> Harcourt Brace Jovanovich
> >>> ISBN 0-15-152281-2
> >>> http://tinypic.com/view/?pic=4hsr2p3
> >>>
> >>> Dr.Lattimer Firing MC Rifle
> >>> http://tinypic.com/view/?pic=2e5sdwo
> >>> Accuracy and Rapid Firing of MC Rifle
> >>> http://tinypic.com/view/?pic=2s82w78
> >>> Tracking of Shifting Targets Not Difficult
> >>> http://tinypic.com/view/?pic=346m1zl
> >>> Penatrating Ability of MC Round
> >>> http://tinypic.com/view/?pic=47lajyw
> >>> Oswalds Sling
> >>> http://tinypic.com/view/?pic=473lmog
> >>> Marine Rifle Score Card
> >>> http://tinypic.com/view/?pic=450vomc
> >>> BOH Wound
> >>> http://tinypic.com/view/?pic=2mzz3io
> >>> Skull Wound Diagram
> >>> http://tinypic.com/view/?pic=2cxc2ae
> >>> Skull Wound Description
> >>> http://tinypic.com/view/?pic=4dw9ljk
> >>> Skull Wound Fragments
> >>> http://tinypic.com/view/?pic=3z7i99x
> >>> http://tinypic.com/view/?pic=34ffzv4
> >>> Final Disposition of JFK's Brain ?
> >>> http://tinypic.com/view/?pic=2uq19hh
> >>> http://tinypic.com/view/?pic=2wd0wnb
> >>> The Back Wound
> >>> http://tinypic.com/view/?pic=2lne3aa
> >>> The Back and Throat Wound
> >>> http://tinypic.com/view/?pic=2lne3aa
> >>> The Throat Wound
> >>> http://tinypic.com/view/?pic=3zlbuk1
> >>> The Throat Wound
> >>> http://tinypic.com/view/?pic=30nkpsg
> >>> The Throat Wound
> >>> http://tinypic.com/view/?pic=48xzdie
> >>> Tio of Vertebrae Struck
> >>> http://tinypic.com/view/?pic=33mu5jm
> >>> http://tinypic.com/view/?pic=4htkmkw
> >>> Thorburn Position
> >>> http://tinypic.com/view/?pic=42jfbpk
> >>> 41 Fragments of Lead
> >>> http://tinypic.com/view/?pic=2s7vnk0
> >>> Lead Extrudes out MC Round
> >>> http://tinypic.com/view/?pic=3ys6m3o
> >>> Nick in Shirt and Tie
> >>> http://tinypic.com/view/?pic=2ms3seg
> >>>
> >>> Bullet Path Thru LHO
> >>> http://tinypic.com/view/?pic=4hk7p5y
> >>> The Autopsy of Booth and Oswald
> >>> http://tinypic.com/view/?pic=2yuh6ci
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
eca...@comcast.net
pretty well done on
this subject. We can
stick a fork in ya..
You've had yet another
really bad day Tony.
But take this pearl of
wisdom from the BBQ
Chad & DVP just put
on you so you can learn
from this experience:
***********************
Your "WC Defender"
line will only take you
so far in life.
***********************
MC & HNY!
MR ;~D
1933Dec2306
Chad Zimmerman
> Sounds like the others may have gotten changing stories from your side.
Doubtful, but nice try.
>
> 3 shots 3 hits
>
> shot 1 JFK.s back shot 2 JBC shot 3 fatal (no tague) (no throat)
You seem to have the SBT all wrong.
1. Missed
2. Hit JFK and JBC
3. Headshot
The throat wound was an exit that was smaller than usual because the skin
could not expand very much due to the constriction of the collar.
(Careful, you might not be able to find that in the *Official
Records*...or maybe you will and ignore it.)
Regarding Tague, nobody knows exactly which bullet or fragment may have
caused his scratch.
>
> THEN Miracle "SBT" Totally Impossible proven HERE>>>
You're SBT page is lacking.
> http://whokilledjfk.net/single_bullet.htm
>
> Below shoulders
> Above shoulders
> Back
> Back of neck
In which position relative to the anatomically neutral one?
>
> How many stories did YOUR side propose?
Basically the same one with variations as the inevitable issues are
risen and discussed.
Chad
Chad Zimmerman
> Chad Zimmerman wrote:
> > Since only ONE series of events for 11-22-63 can be correct, and since
> > there are hundreds of different CT theories out there, don't you think
> > then that most CT's are liars?
> >
> > Or, could it be that they're just *mistaken* (WhIcH iSn'T a FeLoNy).
> >
>
> This is a common misunderstanding, characteristic of the WC defenders.
> You think theories are mutually exclusive. So one theorist claims that
> the Mafia did it and another says the CIA did it. You conclude that one
> must be correct and the other wrong. But in real life, sometimes both
> are correct, as both the Mafia and the CIA conspired to kill Fidel Castro.
Nice try.
That has absolutely no relevance to what I was getting at. The point is
that there can only be ONE correct theory, thus the vast majority are
wrong. Since Tom doesn't like mistakes, I was wondering if all the CT's
(save for one possible correct one) are liars. In effect, I was using his
rationale to pin his own logic to the floor.
Chad
Mitch Todd
"Anthony Marsh" <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:
> Mitch Todd wrote:
>> Your own web page shows a page from Lattimer's book claiming that his
>> shooting experiments were conducted in '74 and '75, which would have made a
>> '40's suit about 30 years old at the time, not 65.
>>
>
> Boy, that certainly is reassuring. So we can ignore the fact that Lattimer
> deliberately used the wrong style of jacket because at least it was only 30
> years old and not 65. Great.
If Lattimer filmed his lapel flip while performing his mid-70's, there is
no way that he could have deliberately used the wrong anything --the lapel
flip wouldn't become an issue for another fifteen or so years.
>> Not to mention that wide lapels were heap-o'-stylin' during the Me Decade,
>> which could make the suit contemporary to the experiments.
>
> So you think science should be driven by fashion?
Never said that, just responded to yet another a apoplexic gyration about
the age of a suit.
MST
David Von Pein
Please define what you mean by "short rifle"?
Do you literally mean the rifle was "short"....as in probably well
under 40.2 inches in overall length? Or does "short" mean something
else I'm unfamiliar with?
Robert Frazier of the FBI said this to the WC, btw....
"The overall length {of CE139} is 40.2 inches."
That length is 4.2 inches LONGER, in fact, than what the Klein's ad
says for the "6.5 Carbine"....
http://www.johnkennedy.it/imm32big.jpg
The word "carbine", btw, is never once mentioned by Bob Frazier in his
testimony...but, by the same token, the words "short rifle" do not
exist in his testimony either.
I think Tony's trying to kill me with semantics here. Because, by
definition, a "carbine" is described in Webster's as "a short-barreled
lightweight firearm".....
http://webster.com/dictionary/carbine
tomnln
of the following official records do you disagree with Ed?
http://whokilledjfk.net/single_bullet.htm
Do you Deny that the original official record said "3 shots, 3 hits"???
"Chad Zimmerman" <doc...@netzero.net> wrote in message
news:458ddf3c$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
Anthony Marsh
>>>> "Oswald THOUGHT he was going to get the carbine, but what Klein's actually sent him was the short rifle." <<<
>
> Please define what you mean by "short rifle"?
>
You should already know the definition if you are discussing the
Mannlicher-Carcano. Many rifles, and especially the Mannlicher-Carcano
come in several lengths.
> Do you literally mean the rifle was "short"....as in probably well
> under 40.2 inches in overall length? Or does "short" mean something
> else I'm unfamiliar with?
>
Yes, you are unfamiliar with basic ballistics. The type of rifle is
determined by the length of the BARREL. The carbine is typically about 18
inches long. Remember that often we are converting from metric units to
English measurements for discussions in America. Anything shorter than
16-1/4 would be a pistol instead of a rifle. The short rifle's barrel is
typically about 21 inches long. The long rifle's barrel is typically about
30 inches long.
> Robert Frazier of the FBI said this to the WC, btw....
>
> "The overall length {of CE139} is 40.2 inches."
>
> That length is 4.2 inches LONGER, in fact, than what the Klein's ad
> says for the "6.5 Carbine"....
>
Correct. When they decided to import the Mannlicher-Carcano they thought
that the American hunters would not want a long rifle which can get
tangled in the bushes. So they specified that all the rifles have shorter
barrels. They had on hand thousands of carbines which had barrels of about
18 inches. They had some short rifles which had barrels of about 21
inches. They paid a guy named Riva to cut the long barrels down to about
21 inches and sometimes lengthen a short barrel to about 21 inches for
uniformity.
Klein's originally got a lot of carbines and that is what they advertised.
Remember that the lead time for their ad was probably a few months. So,
after a couple of months of sales they started running out of the carbines
and substituted the short rifle. Most people would not know the
difference.
> http://www.johnkennedy.it/imm32big.jpg
>
> The word "carbine", btw, is never once mentioned by Bob Frazier in his
> testimony...but, by the same token, the words "short rifle" do not
> exist in his testimony either.
>
> I think Tony's trying to kill me with semantics here. Because, by
> definition, a "carbine" is described in Webster's as "a short-barreled
> lightweight firearm".....
>
I certainly hope so. You are not supposed to know the very subtle
differences between the carbine and the short rifle. A good source for
more information specific to the Mannlicher-Carcano can be found at:
Anthony Marsh
You are not allowed to call other posters here liars.
> Chad
Anthony Marsh
> "tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote in message
> news:7v2jh.215$923...@newsfe17.lga...
>> Sounds like the others may have gotten changing stories from your side.
>
> Doubtful, but nice try.
>
>> 3 shots 3 hits
>>
>> shot 1 JFK.s back shot 2 JBC shot 3 fatal (no tague) (no throat)
>
> You seem to have the SBT all wrong.
>
> 1. Missed
> 2. Hit JFK and JBC
> 3. Headshot
>
> The throat wound was an exit that was smaller than usual because the skin
> could not expand very much due to the constriction of the collar.
The smallness of the throat wound has nothing to do with reinforcement
by the collar. Maybe you read Lattimer and didn't understand his point.
David Von Pein
Why is this even an issue at all? Semantics only? I can't think of any
other reason.
David Von Pein
reinforcement by the collar. Maybe you read Lattimer and didn't understand
his point." <<<
Maybe YOU didn't understand Lattimer's experiments re. the "collar bands"
and what they proved via his tests......
Directly from Dr. Lattimer's mouth.......
"These experiments {involving the firing of MC/WCC bullets at a simulated
JFK upper back and neck} confirmed beyond all of my doubts that the
smallness of the exit hole in the front of Kennedy's neck was due to the
fact that the skin was supported by a firm collar band, which restrained
it from bulging and bursting open ahead of the exiting bullet. .... If the
bullet had not exited from the President's neck just AT the collar band,
the exit wound might have been much larger." -- J.K. Lattimer; Page 239 of
"Kennedy & Lincoln"
Lattimer also mentions the fact that EVERY time he shot at a simulated
"JFK neck" WITHOUT a collar and tie in place, the exit wound was always
larger. But WITH the collar in place, it was ALWAYS a small round exit
hole.
It's not higher mathematics. Lattimer's tests PROVED that an EXIT wound
can be small like an entry wound if a collar & tie are there to restrain
the skin/exit point.
So, you're wrong when you say "the smallness of the throat wound has
nothing to do with reinforcement by the collar".
You might want to BELIEVE the above statement of yours, Anthony....but
Lattimer's tests certainly prove you'd have lots of competition should you
take your theory to court.
Chad Zimmerman
serial number, not which jacket was used.
Chad
"tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:Tn2jh.116$923...@newsfe17.lga...
Chad Zimmerman
Sigh.
Chad
"tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:d%qjh.1658$am5....@newsfe16.lga...
Chad Zimmerman
> Chad Zimmerman wrote:
> > "tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote in message
> > news:7v2jh.215$923...@newsfe17.lga...
> >> Sounds like the others may have gotten changing stories from your side.
> >
> > Doubtful, but nice try.
> >
> >> 3 shots 3 hits
> >>
> >> shot 1 JFK.s back shot 2 JBC shot 3 fatal (no tague) (no throat)
> >
> > You seem to have the SBT all wrong.
> >
> > 1. Missed
> > 2. Hit JFK and JBC
> > 3. Headshot
> >
> > The throat wound was an exit that was smaller than usual because the skin
> > could not expand very much due to the constriction of the collar.
>
> The smallness of the throat wound has nothing to do with reinforcement
> by the collar. Maybe you read Lattimer and didn't understand his point.
Maybe it is you that is confused. His experiments showed that the further
the wound was from the collar, the larger the wound became.
Now, do you need anyone to tell you why?
Chad
Chad Zimmerman
Which poster did I call a liar?
None specifically.
Nice try. Do tell me that you actually succeed once in a while with making
a point.
Chad
Chad Zimmerman
> Looks like ALL of your chosen heroes are LIARS.
>
Oh yes, please do tell me who my heroes are, Tom...as if you knew me that
well.
Could you please try to respond with something of substance once in awhile
without repeating your web address to pages you don't like to discuss
rationally?
Chad
Anthony Marsh
>>>> "The smallness of the throat wound has nothing to do with
> reinforcement by the collar. Maybe you read Lattimer and didn't understand
> his point." <<<
>
> Maybe YOU didn't understand Lattimer's experiments re. the "collar bands"
> and what they proved via his tests......
>
> Directly from Dr. Lattimer's mouth.......
>
> "These experiments {involving the firing of MC/WCC bullets at a simulated
> JFK upper back and neck} confirmed beyond all of my doubts that the
> smallness of the exit hole in the front of Kennedy's neck was due to the
> fact that the skin was supported by a firm collar band, which restrained
> it from bulging and bursting open ahead of the exiting bullet. .... If the
> bullet had not exited from the President's neck just AT the collar band,
> the exit wound might have been much larger." -- J.K. Lattimer; Page 239 of
> "Kennedy & Lincoln"
>
He is talking about the appearance of the wound looking more like an
entrance wound than an exit wound. The reinforcement of the collar does
not make the wound smaller. It prevents the bulging out of the hole as in
a typical exit wound. But exit wounds are not always larger than the
entrance wound. There are many factors at work. The shirt collar is just
one element.
> Lattimer also mentions the fact that EVERY time he shot at a simulated
> "JFK neck" WITHOUT a collar and tie in place, the exit wound was always
> larger. But WITH the collar in place, it was ALWAYS a small round exit
> hole.
>
> It's not higher mathematics. Lattimer's tests PROVED that an EXIT wound
> can be small like an entry wound if a collar & tie are there to restrain
> the skin/exit point.
>
Not all entrance wounds are small. Again it depends on many factors. Dr.
Henry Lee solved a case where the wife was charged with murder because the
chest wound was much bigger than the back wound. He was able to
demonstrate that the chest wound was an entrance which was much larger due
to close contact with the barrel. It was ruled a suicide. Not to rain on
your parade, but remember that originally one theory was that the throat
wound was so small because it was caused by a fragment of skull from the
head shot.
> So, you're wrong when you say "the smallness of the throat wound has
> nothing to do with reinforcement by the collar".
>
> You might want to BELIEVE the above statement of yours, Anthony....but
> Lattimer's tests certainly prove you'd have lots of competition should you
> take your theory to court.
>
I'll take Dr. Henry Lee over Dr. Lattimer any time. Even Cyril Wecht.
How many times has Dr. Lattimer testified in court?
>
Anthony Marsh
Good, you are not supposed to know the difference between a carbine and
a short rifle. You are a WC defender. Maybe VB will explain it to you.
David Von Pein
Yeah. Maybe when he does, I'll figure out what the hell difference it
makes re. anything in this case. Ya think?
David Von Pein
I'm not sure which to use here....
A "WTF?"
or
a "Huh?"
What you just said is going round in circles. The LACK of "bulging out"
keeps the wound "smaller" in appearance on the skin with a collar in
place to keep the "bulge" down.
Semantics again Tony? You seem to like to argue these meaningless
things. Have at it.
Anthony Marsh
ALL, save one. That includes all of them here, save one. Simple logic.
> None specifically.
>
> Nice try. Do tell me that you actually succeed once in a while with making
> a point.
>
I've made my point for the lurkers.
I did not name a specific person here a Christian who is also a
right-wing nut. I just noted that many supposed Christians are
right-wing nuts.
> Chad
Chad Zimmerman
So, based upon your reply, all that are wrong are liars and not simply
mistaken?
Did you forget that possibility before making such an accusation about my
opinion?
>
>> None specifically.
>>
>> Nice try. Do tell me that you actually succeed once in a while with
>> making a point.
>>
>
> I've made my point for the lurkers.
What point? That you jump to conclusions?
> I did not name a specific person here a Christian who is also a right-wing
> nut. I just noted that many supposed Christians are right-wing nuts.
Tactless effort to single out someone without naming them...and way off
topic.
Chad
>
>> Chad
>
tomnln
> WRONG AGAIN CHAD;
>
> Thanks for the Reminder.
> Was Lattimer a "World Class Shot"?
========================================================================
Oswald was pretty good.
WRONG;
The testimony proving you wrong is in Volume VIII pages 236-239.
Testimony from Nelson Delgado. Oswald's Sgt.
ALSO, in Volume V page 405. All about Oswald'sHuntingClub whilein Russia.
One can NOT own a rifle in Russia. With a "shotgun" Oswald Never hit
anything he aimed at.
=====================================================================
> Was Lattimer an NRA "Master"?
Ask him. Sarcasism in place of Answers?? (typical)
> Did Lattimer's M-C have a 2 stage Trigger?
Possibly. "Conjecture" AGAIN??
> Did Lattimer's scope Require adding 3 shims just to test it?
Nope. No Duplication then is it?
> Was Lattimer's scope STILL off after 3 shims?
>
====================================================================
Nope. Now remind me where they proved it was that way when Oswald fired
it.
Because the rifle was "Carefully Placed" between boxes, trigger Down/Scope
UP, they didn't DARE discuss that subject.
It was a "Given" that the rifle never changed condition.
==============================================================================
> Did Lattimer's buddies "Alter" his score to make the unit look Good?
>
When was Oswald's altered?
Sgt Nelson Delgado's testimony. Volume VIII pages 236-239.
=====================================================================
> ALL of these official records will look GREAT on my website.
Something needs to spruce its looks... JEALOUSY???
===================================================================
>>
> I Thank You SOOOOO Much for the Reminder.
>
> Look for it on my website SOON.
Can I COUNT on that in capital letters?
YES Indeed, because I Love proving you WRONG.
===================================================================
> Being a Humble man myself, I will Certainly credit You with the Idea.
Thanks,
ENTIRELY MY PLEASURE.
Chad
===================================================================
>> "Chad Zimmerman" <Doc...@cableone.net> wrote in message
>> news:4589...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
>>>
>>> "tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote in message
>>> news:Q83ih.42024$FJ4....@newsfe18.lga...
>>>> In case McAdams don't post this one.
>>>>
>>>> Lattimer's own book Proves his Intention to Deceive.
>>>>
>>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/Lattimer.htm
>>>>
>>>> He tried to prove the lapel moved from a bullet.
>>>>
>>>> To Buttress the Single Bullet "THEORY".
>>>
>>> Actually, the buttressing of the SBT comes from his shooting tests
>>> related to the SBT, something I highly doubt you'll try to tackle on
>>> your site...;-)
>>>
>>> Chad
>>
>>
>
>
>
Chad Zimmerman
>
> "Chad Zimmerman" <Doc...@cableone.net> wrote in message
> news:458a...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
>>
>> "tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote in message
>> news:ccBih.12815$RR4....@newsfe22.lga...
>> WRONG AGAIN CHAD;
>>
>> Thanks for the Reminder.
>> Was Lattimer a "World Class Shot"?
> ========================================================================
> Oswald was pretty good.
> WRONG;
> The testimony proving you wrong is in Volume VIII pages 236-239.
> Testimony from Nelson Delgado. Oswald's Sgt.
>
> ALSO, in Volume V page 405. All about Oswald'sHuntingClub whilein
> Russia.
> One can NOT own a rifle in Russia. With a "shotgun" Oswald Never hit
> anything he aimed at.
See Oswald's Marine scorebook...for when memories fail...
> =====================================================================
>
>
>
>> Was Lattimer an NRA "Master"?
>
> Ask him. Sarcasism in place of Answers?? (typical)
How the hell should I know. Ask Lattimer.
>
>> Did Lattimer's M-C have a 2 stage Trigger?
>
> Possibly. "Conjecture" AGAIN??
Ask Lattimer.
>
>> Did Lattimer's scope Require adding 3 shims just to test it?
>
> Nope. No Duplication then is it?
Nobody proved that it was that way when he fired it. Conjecture, Tom?
>
>> Was Lattimer's scope STILL off after 3 shims?
>>
> ====================================================================
> Nope. Now remind me where they proved it was that way when Oswald fired
> it.
>
> Because the rifle was "Carefully Placed" between boxes, trigger Down/Scope
> UP, they didn't DARE discuss that subject.
> It was a "Given" that the rifle never changed condition.
Nobody saw it placed, carried or fired. You don't know. Stop guessing.
> ==============================================================================
>
>> Did Lattimer's buddies "Alter" his score to make the unit look Good?
>>
> When was Oswald's altered?
>
> Sgt Nelson Delgado's testimony. Volume VIII pages 236-239.
LOL. People's memories better than the actual Marine scorebook, eh?
> =====================================================================
>> ALL of these official records will look GREAT on my website.
>
> Something needs to spruce its looks... JEALOUSY???
Now I know you're kidding.
> ===================================================================
>
>>>
>> I Thank You SOOOOO Much for the Reminder.
>>
>> Look for it on my website SOON.
>
> Can I COUNT on that in capital letters?
>
> YES Indeed, because I Love proving you WRONG.
You don't. You only think you do.
> ===================================================================
>
>> Being a Humble man myself, I will Certainly credit You with the Idea.
>
> Thanks,
> ENTIRELY MY PLEASURE.
Wonderful.
Chad
tomnln
>
> "tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote in message
> news:fSclh.18978$4w4....@newsfe13.lga...
>>
>> "Chad Zimmerman" <Doc...@cableone.net> wrote in message
>> news:458a...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
>>>
>>> "tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote in message
>>> news:ccBih.12815$RR4....@newsfe22.lga...
>>> WRONG AGAIN CHAD;
>>>
>>> Thanks for the Reminder.
>>> Was Lattimer a "World Class Shot"?
>> ========================================================================
>> Oswald was pretty good.
>> WRONG;
>> The testimony proving you wrong is in Volume VIII pages 236-239.
>> Testimony from Nelson Delgado. Oswald's Sgt.
>>
>> ALSO, in Volume V page 405. All about Oswald'sHuntingClub whilein
>> Russia.
>> One can NOT own a rifle in Russia. With a "shotgun" Oswald Never hit
>> anything he aimed at.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> See Oswald's Marine scorebook...for when memories fail...
See Sgt. Nelson's testimony.....Sometimes scores were ALTERED.
>> =====================================================================
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> Was Lattimer an NRA "Master"?
>>
>> Ask him. Sarcasism in place of Answers?? (typical)
>
> How the hell should I know. Ask Lattimer.
>
>>
>>> Did Lattimer's M-C have a 2 stage Trigger?
>>
>> Possibly. "Conjecture" AGAIN??
>
> Ask Lattimer.
ONLY a Fool would ask a "Discredited Urologist"
ALL in hias own words found in his book.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> Did Lattimer's scope Require adding 3 shims just to test it?
>>
>> Nope. No Duplication then is it?
>
> Nobody proved that it was that way when he fired it. Conjecture, Tom?
>
>>
>>> Was Lattimer's scope STILL off after 3 shims?
>>>
>> ====================================================================
>> Nope. Now remind me where they proved it was that way when Oswald fired
>> it.
>>
>> Because the rifle was "Carefully Placed" between boxes, trigger
>> Down/Scope
>> UP, they didn't DARE discuss that subject.
>> It was a "Given" that the rifle never changed condition.
>
> Nobody saw it placed, carried or fired. You don't know. Stop guessing.
SEE official Photo showing rifle AS FOUND.
==============================================================================>>>>> Did Lattimer's buddies "Alter" his score to make the unit look Good?>>>>> When was Oswald's altered?>>>> Sgt Nelson Delgado's testimony. Volume VIII pages 236-239.>> LOL. People's memories better than the actual Marine scorebook, eh?Scorebooks are Made Out according to those People's Memories Chad.----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------->> =================
====================================================>>> ALL of these official records will look GREAT on my website.>>>> Something needs to spruce its looks... JEALOUSY???>> Now I know you're kidding.>>> ===================================================================>>>>>>>>> I Thank You SOOOOO Much for the Reminder.>>>>>> Look for it on my website SOON.>>>> Can I COUNT on that in capital letters?>>>> YES Indeed, because I Love proving you WRONG.>> You don't.!
You only think you do.I STAND CORRECTEDTHE OFFICIAL RECORDS PROVE YOU WRONG>> ===================================================================>>>>> Being a Humble man myself, I will Certainly credit You with the Idea.>>>> Thanks,>> ENTIRELY MY PLEASURE.>> Wonderful.>> Chad
Chad Zimmerman
>
> "Chad Zimmerman" <doc...@netzero.net> wrote in message
> news:45998952$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
>>
>> "tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote in message
>> news:fSclh.18978$4w4....@newsfe13.lga...
>>>
>>> "Chad Zimmerman" <Doc...@cableone.net> wrote in message
>>> news:458a...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
>>>>
>>>> "tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote in message
>>>> news:ccBih.12815$RR4....@newsfe22.lga...
>>>> WRONG AGAIN CHAD;
>>>>
>>>> Thanks for the Reminder.
>>>> Was Lattimer a "World Class Shot"?
>>> ========================================================================
>>> Oswald was pretty good.
>>> WRONG;
>>> The testimony proving you wrong is in Volume VIII pages 236-239.
>>> Testimony from Nelson Delgado. Oswald's Sgt.
>>>
>>> ALSO, in Volume V page 405. All about Oswald'sHuntingClub whilein
>>> Russia.
>>> One can NOT own a rifle in Russia. With a "shotgun" Oswald Never hit
>>> anything he aimed at.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> See Sgt. Nelson's testimony.....Sometimes scores were ALTERED.
Sometimes memories are altered....
I'll take the scorebook until someone steps forward and admits to altering
that scorebook.
>>> =====================================================================
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
>
>>>> Was Lattimer an NRA "Master"?
>>>
>>> Ask him. Sarcasism in place of Answers?? (typical)
>>
>> How the hell should I know. Ask Lattimer.
>>
>>>
>>>> Did Lattimer's M-C have a 2 stage Trigger?
>>>
>>> Possibly. "Conjecture" AGAIN??
>>
>> Ask Lattimer.
>
> ONLY a Fool would ask a "Discredited Urologist"
Glad to see you don't make mistakes...;-)
I guess you just might be in the same boat as Lattimer then, since your
Zapruder page is full of errors that you stand by. At least Lattimer has
acknowledged the idiotic serial number typo.
> ALL in hias own words found in his book.
ALL in your own words found on your *website*.
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> Did Lattimer's scope Require adding 3 shims just to test it?
>>>
>>> Nope. No Duplication then is it?
>>
>> Nobody proved that it was that way when he fired it. Conjecture, Tom?
>>
>>>
>>>> Was Lattimer's scope STILL off after 3 shims?
>>>>
>>> ====================================================================
>>> Nope. Now remind me where they proved it was that way when Oswald fired
>>> it.
>>>
>>> Because the rifle was "Carefully Placed" between boxes, trigger
>>> Down/Scope
>>> UP, they didn't DARE discuss that subject.
>>> It was a "Given" that the rifle never changed condition.
>>
>> Nobody saw it placed, carried or fired. You don't know. Stop guessing.
>
> SEE official Photo showing rifle AS FOUND.
Yep, and why couldn't the scope on the rifle have been damaged between the
window and its final resting place?
>
> ===================================================================
> Did Lattimer's buddies "Alter" his score to make the unit look Good?>>>>>
> When was Oswald's altered?>>>> Sgt Nelson Delgado's testimony. Volume VIII
> pages 236-239.>> LOL. People's memories better than the actual Marine
> scorebook, eh?Scorebooks are Made Out according to those People's Memories
> Chad.
Scorebooks are made at the time the shooting takes place. Memories shift
and change over time. You have no proof that it was altered or forged in
any capacity and are reaching to try and save yourself once again, imo.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
=================
> ====================================================>>> ALL of these
> official records will look GREAT on my website.>>>> Something needs to
> spruce its looks... JEALOUSY???>> Now I know you're kidding.>>>
Your website is full of misinterpretations.
===================================================================>>>>>>>>>
I Thank You SOOOOO Much for the Reminder.>>>>>> Look for it on my website
SOON.>>>> Can I COUNT on that in capital letters?>>>> YES Indeed, because I
Love proving you WRONG.>> You don't.!
> You only think you do.I STAND CORRECTEDTHE OFFICIAL RECORDS PROVE YOU
> WRONG>>
No, your interpretation claimed as fact proves them wrong...which still
doesn't make you correct.
Interesting posting style...
Chad
tomnln
"Chad Zimmerman" <Doc...@cableone.net> wrote in message
news:459e...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Sometimes memories are altered....
PROVE Delgado's memory Failed.
> I'll take the scorebook until someone steps forward and admits to altering
> that scorebook.
You MUST reject Testimony to Fit your Theory.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>>> Was Lattimer an NRA "Master"?
>>>>
>>>> Ask him. Sarcasism in place of Answers?? (typical)
>>>
>>> How the hell should I know. Ask Lattimer.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Did Lattimer's M-C have a 2 stage Trigger?
>>>>
>>>> Possibly. "Conjecture" AGAIN??
>>>
>>> Ask Lattimer.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> ONLY a Fool would ask a "Discredited Urologist"
>
> Glad to see you don't make mistakes...;-)
They are NOT Mistakes when someone makes $$$ over them.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> I guess you just might be in the same boat as Lattimer then, since your
> Zapruder page is full of errors that you stand by. At least Lattimer has
> acknowledged the idiotic serial number typo.
SHOW us Lattimer's Ackowledgements?
>> ALL in hias own words found in his book.
> ALL in your own words found on your *website*.
My website consists of Official Records.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>>>>> Did Lattimer's scope Require adding 3 shims just to test it?>>>>>>>> Nope. No Duplication then is it?>>>>>> Nobody proved that it was that way when he fired it. Conjecture, Tom?>>>>>>>>>>>> Was Lattimer's scope STILL off after 3 shims?>>>>>>>>> ====================================================================>>>> Nope. Now remind me where they proved it was that way when Oswald fired>>>> it.>>>>>>>> Because the rifle was "Carefully Placed" between boxes, triggerDown/Scope>>>> UP, they didn't DARE discuss that subject.>>>> It was a "Given" that the rifle never changed condition.>>>>>> Nobody saw it placed, carried or fired. You don't know. Stop guessing.>>>> SEE official Photo showing rifle AS FOUND.xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Yep, and why couldn't the scope on the rifle have been damaged between thewindow and its!
final resting place?PROVE IT.Even the Warren Commission never questioned it.xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>> Did Lattimer's buddies "Alter" his score to make the unit look Good?>>>>>When was Oswald's altered?>>>> Sgt Nelson Delgado's testimony. Volume VIIIpages 236-239.>> LOL. People's memories better than the actual Marinescorebook, eh?Scorebooks are Made Out according to those People's MemoriesChad.>> Scorebooks are made at the time the shooting takes place. Memories shiftand change over time. You have no proof that it was altered or forged in anycapacity and are reaching to try and save yourself once again, imo.>>ALL of these official records will look GREAT on my website.>>>> Somethingneeds to spruce its looks... JEALOUSY???>> Now I know you'rekidding.>>> XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX> Your website is full of misinterpretations.The website contains official records....!
..the "interterpretations" areYOURSXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX!
XXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX> I Thank You SOOOOO Much for the Reminder.>>>>>> Look for it on my website SOON.>>>> Can I COUNT on that in capital letters?>>>> YES Indeed, because I Love proving you WRONG.>> You don't.!>> You only think you do.I STAND CORRECTEDTHE OFFICIAL RECORDS PROVE YOU WRONG>>xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> No, your interpretation claimed as fact proves them wrong...which stilldoesn't make you correct.Glad to see that you Disagree with the Official Records Chad. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Interesting posting style...>>> Chad
Anthony Marsh
You seem to have picked up Tom's bad habit of claiming that a crime is
not a crime unless someone admits it. Therefore no one assassinated
President Kennedy because Oswald did not admit it?
And people can "accidentally" misread the hits inside the circles,
thinking a 6 is a 7.
Chad Zimmerman
> FOLLOW ALONG;
I have, but thanks.
PROVE someone altered the scorebook.
>
>> I'll take the scorebook until someone steps forward and admits to
>> altering that scorebook.
>
> You MUST reject Testimony to Fit your Theory.
Yep, just like every CT has to reject testimony that doesn't fit their
theory. Why? Because not everyone's testimony can be correct. Why? Because
witness testimony is all over the place.
Some hear 2 shots. Some hear 4. Some hear 6.
Which do you throw out?
> xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>>>> Was Lattimer an NRA "Master"?
>>>>>
>>>>> Ask him. Sarcasism in place of Answers?? (typical)
>>>>
>>>> How the hell should I know. Ask Lattimer.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Did Lattimer's M-C have a 2 stage Trigger?
>>>>>
>>>>> Possibly. "Conjecture" AGAIN??
>>>>
>>>> Ask Lattimer.
> xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>> ONLY a Fool would ask a "Discredited Urologist"
>>
>> Glad to see you don't make mistakes...;-)
> They are NOT Mistakes when someone makes $$$ over them.
Interesting logic. If someone makes money on a book, and that book
contains typos, the typos are intentional lies because they made money,
right?
Your logic boggles the mind.
> xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> I guess you just might be in the same boat as Lattimer then, since your
>> Zapruder page is full of errors that you stand by. At least Lattimer has
>> acknowledged the idiotic serial number typo.
>
> SHOW us Lattimer's Ackowledgements?
I have his letter in a box somewhere. Would it actually suffice to scan
and post that letter? Or, would you come up with some other excuse to
continue with what you've posted on your site?
>>> ALL in hias own words found in his book.
>
>> ALL in your own words found on your *website*.
>
> My website consists of Official Records.
Yep, and lots and lots of subjective interpretation.
> xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>>>>>
> Did Lattimer's scope Require adding 3 shims just to test it?>>>>>>>> Nope.
> No Duplication then is it?>>>>>> Nobody proved that it was that way when
> he fired it. Conjecture, Tom?>>>>>>>>>>>> Was Lattimer's scope STILL off
> after 3 shims?>>>>>>>>>
> ====================================================================>>>>
> Nope. Now remind me where they proved it was that way when Oswald
> fired>>>> it.>>>>>>>> Because the rifle was "Carefully Placed" between
> boxes, triggerDown/Scope>>>> UP, they didn't DARE discuss that
> subject.>>>> It was a "Given" that the rifle never changed
> condition.>>>>>> Nobody saw it placed, carried or fired. You don't know.
> Stop guessing.>>>> SEE official Photo showing rifle AS
> FOUND.xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Yep, and why couldn't the scope on the rifle have been damaged between
> thewindow and its!
> final resting place?PROVE IT.Even the Warren Commission never questioned
> it.
Why don't you prove that the scope wasn't damaged between the nest and the
resting place? You can't. Just like I can't prove that it was. At least I
admit that.
Are you now citing the WC as proof of something? Aren't they part of the
grand cover-up by a bunch of crooks, felons and liars?
**********^^^^^^^^^^^^^^&&&&&&&&&&&&&&%%%%%%%%%%%%$$$$$$$$$$$$$$############@@@@@@@@@@@@@@!!!!!!!!!
The bazillion idiotic symbols must be your way of obfuscating when you're
not doing so well in a debate, eh Tom?
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>>
Did Lattimer's buddies "Alter" his score to make the unit look
Good?>>>>>When was Oswald's altered?>>>> Sgt Nelson Delgado's testimony.
Volume VIIIpages 236-239.>> LOL. People's memories better than the actual
Marinescorebook, eh?Scorebooks are Made Out according to those People's
MemoriesChad.>> Scorebooks are made at the time the shooting takes place.
Memories shiftand change over time. You have no proof that it was altered or
forged in anycapacity and are reaching to try and save yourself once again,
imo.>>ALL of these official records will look GREAT on my website.>>>>
Somethingneeds to spruce its looks... JEALOUSY???>> Now I know
you'rekidding.>>>
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX> Your
website is full of misinterpretations.The website contains official
records....!
Yep, complete with YOUR interpretation of them!
> ..the "interterpretations" areYOURSXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX!
> XXXXXXXX
> XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX> I Thank You SOOOOO Much for the
> Reminder.>>>>>> Look for it on my website SOON.>>>> Can I COUNT on that
> in capital letters?>>>> YES Indeed, because I Love proving you WRONG.>>
> You don't.!>> You only think you do.I STAND CORRECTEDTHE OFFICIAL RECORDS
> PROVE YOU WRONG
No, just your interpretation of those records, Tom.
>>xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>No, your interpretation claimed as fact proves them wrong...which
>>stilldoesn't make you correct.Glad to see that you Disagree with the
>>Official Records Chad.
So do you. You don't post any that go against whatever theory you might
have.
Chad
Chad Zimmerman
In order to claim a crime, you have to have evidence of one. There is
nothing to show that Oswald or anyone else forged his scorebook. Apples
and oranges, Tony.
At least with JFK, we can see his head explode...
Yes, they can.