Myths that never die
Jean Davison
* Marina's uncle was a prominent KGB officer (He wasn't KGB)
* In the official version, Oswald supposedly fired 3 shots in "6.3
seconds" (wrong) and he had to fire through a tree (wrong again)
* Gerald Ford "admitted" that he changed the Report "to make the
[single bullet] theory more plausible" (He didn't say that, and that's
not what he did)
There were other myths in the show that I didn't write down.
However, I did enjoy Professor Fetzer's comment on the Education
Forum: "Marina's claim that she took the backyard photos cannot be true,
yet she seems to believe it. The only hypothesis that comes to my mind is
that she may have been induced to believe that, possibly by means of
hypnotic suggestions." It doesn't get any better than that, folks.
Jean
Anthony Marsh
How about the threat of deportation? Is that also a joke?
How about the threat of having her children taken away from her?
Is that also a joke. Maybe you're not a mother so such things wouldn't
mean anything to you. You'd be surprised what a mother will do to
protect her children.
timstter
wrote:
LOL! You are DEAD RIGHT there, Jean!.
It's almost American Grotesque all over again with this absurd Fetzer
character and his hideous JFK nonsense, not to mention the ridiculous
*9/11 Scholars For Truth* garbage, LOL!
It sure don't get better than that!
Regards,
Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup(s) Commentator*
paul...@comcast.net
wrote:
Jean, the more frightening aspect is Fetzer actually believes what he
types.
curtjester1
Hmmm... I do believe the tree was in the way during the Willis photo
wasn't it? And how about the missed shot?
Marina had to be on assignment whatever label you want to put on her
relatives. She hounded 'defectorS' and went many, many miles to
accomplish that.
While Jesse isn't the best CT to be given a national audience by far,
I would suggest that his talk with Marina says a lot. She says, what
would YOU do, when it comes to protecting your children."??. Then, he
takes her word that the BY are true. She HAS to say that in order to
keep her profile and protection alive it that were the case!! The BY
Photos are doctored, and true, meticulous, investigation would make
her extremely unlikely to have taken any photo at all.
Look at the trajectory from a bird's eye view from the Sniper's Nest.
It will show that the wound in JFK's back depicted correctly would not
have any change to hit a JBC. It would have needed a major deflection
to not go straight and hit the seat in front of JFK.
CJ
Coondog
>
> - Show quoted text -
Does this mean you are a mother?
Bill Clarke
James K. Olmstead
"Jean Davison" <jjdavison...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:4ce8ab3c$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
Hey Jean.....I watched the show as well....noted the same errors....I get a
kick out of the Fetzer comment
( It shows the "OJ Defense Line" if it don't fit...MY story it's not
true.
It was the first time I did see Hunt's confession and if in fact the video
was not edited and there was no audio
editing I will be looking into the entire confession abit more.
The last rose is off the bush..I prepared the last flower bed for winter and
I'm ready to head south and west.....but if you
would like to discuss the Hunt confession in detail keep in touch with me
over the next few months.
Happy Holidays to you
jko
Bud
Now all you need to do is show that someone told Marina that if she
didn`t say she took the BY photos she would be deported and you might
actually be able to support this idea.
bigdog
I think that bird crapped on you. I don't know what bird's eye view you
are looking at. The recreations done for the WC show that at Z210, JBC is
a half a body width left of JFK as viewed from the SN. At Z225, they are
directly in line with the SN. These two frames bracket the the time of the
the single bullet, which struck at or about Z222. Had JBC not been turned
to his right, the bullet exiting JFK's throat would probably have hit near
his spine. His rightward rotation of his torso, placed his right armpit in
line with the bullet trajectory. At Z210, Z225, and every frame in
between, it would have taken a major deflection for a bullet exiting from
JFK's throat to NOT hit JBC.
tomnln
"bigdog" <jecorb...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:eeedbe98-7111-49c3...@l17g2000yqe.googlegroups.com...
Here's a great way to determine bigdog's"Credibility">>>
http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/
TC
wrote:
Jean I would like your opinion on the beginning of the show when
Ventura interviews Newman and the fact the WC didn't call him as a
witness despite being pretty much the closest bystander to the head
shot. Now thats supicious and would not be a simple oversight. Could
it be that Newman signed a statement declaring he believed the shot
came from behind, in the vicinity of the grassy knoll? Sometimes, its
these simple, often overlooked facts that pack the biggest punch.
Anthony Marsh
No, I don't. All we need to know is that someone made a generalized
threat that if she didn't cooperate she might be deported. We don't need
a written list of everything they told her to say.
claviger
where she was fluent in the language, familiar with the culture, and
had both family and friends. The Soviet Union was a Communist
government dedicated to Socialist ideals, the antithesis to the US
political system so despised by her husband. So what's the problem
going home to Russia? Why would that be a threat?
Bud
You do if you want to support the idea.
> All we need to know is that someone made a generalized
> threat that if she didn't cooperate she might be deported. We don't need
> a written list of everything they told her to say.
If you want to support the idea that she was told to say she took
the backyard photos or she and her children would be deported you
would need her saying such a thing to support the idea. You don`t
think imagining it is good enough, do you?
bigdog
> bottom post;
>
> "bigdog" <jecorbett1...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> - Show quoted text -
OMG. Rossley and I agree on something. That website is a great way to
determine my credibility. Although by agreeing with you, my
credibility does take a hit.
Jean Davison
The WC called other "knoll witnesses," e.g, Jean Hill, Frank
Reilly, and S.M. Holland. Since the earwitness testimony was all over the
place, the WC didn't rely on it to locate the source of the shots.
Newman thought the fatal shot came from "the garden directly
behind me." On the Ventura video you can see that directly behind him was
the concrete pergola, not the fence. The video then switches quickly to a
view of the fence, which is misleading. That segment can be seen here,
after an ad:
http://www.trutv.com/video/conspiracy-theory/jfk-assassination-witness.html
Newman told CT author Josiah Thompson that his opinion was based
partly on his belief that the large head wound was an entry wound. He
said, "Well, of course, the President's being shot in the side of the head
by the third shot--I thought the shot was fired from directly behind where
we were standing...." [Six Seconds in Dallas, p. 165, paper] IOW, his
opinion wasn't based on sound alone.
Jean
Jean Davison
> "Jean Davison" <jjdavison2000NO...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
Hi Jim,
Good to hear from you. I haven't heard the whole "confession," but I
noticed that on Ventura's show no one actually said that the "Big Event"
was the JFK assassination. Everything depends on context, and we don't
have it.
Happy Holidays to you, too!
Jean
markusp
> Gee, that's terrible, being forced to return to the land of her birth
> where she was fluent in the language, familiar with the culture, and
> had both family and friends. The Soviet Union was a Communist
> government dedicated to Socialist ideals, the antithesis to the US
> political system so despised by her husband. So what's the problem
> going home to Russia? Why would that be a threat?
I understand how you could view it this way, but this perspective merely
treats the situation without the maternal instinct of protecting her
children, especially with a newborn. If the FBI or other agents issued
either a direct threat or veiled hint at deportation, this may have been
synonymous in Marina's mind of separation from her kids. Surely, if that
indeed happened, there would be no obvious documentation about it. The
fear of losing custody of children can be an extremely powerful motivator,
even when that fear may be entirely unwarranted. This is also easily
blended into the confusion regarding her official testimony that
inculpated her husband, versus her public comments in later years that may
be at direct odds. Thanks!
~Mark
tomnln
"Anthony Marsh" <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:4cea073b$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
tomnln
"claviger" <histori...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:97c81c7c-5652-498f...@v12g2000vbh.googlegroups.com...
Because her daughters were American Citizens they would stay in the U. S.
A.
John McAdams
wrote:
She had been seduced by the vulgar materialism of American life.
Even though she and Lee had very little money, there was a Montgomery
Ward store near where they lived (at one point), and Marina simply
loved the availability of material goods.
I think it's extremely hard for us Americans to understand what living
under a socialist economy is like.
.John
--
The Kennedy Assassination Home Page
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Anthony Marsh
Again, I never said that she was told specifically what to say. Just to
cooperate.
Anthony Marsh
She would be seen as a traitor who had defected to the US. You do know
what the KGB does with traitors, don't you?
Bud
Telling what she knows to be true would be cooperating.
claviger
HSCA Testimony:
Mrs. PORTER - Well, if he did, it was understood if he can go to Cuba
right away, he will go, but if he can't, then he come back to Texas.
Mr. McDONALD - If he had been successful in getting to Cuba right
away, what was your plan? What were you to do?
Mrs. PORTER - Well, he said that he will be in touch with me and send
for me to follow him to Cuba.
Mr. McDONALD - Did he ever discuss if he were unsuccessful in getting
into Cuba, that he would try to go back to the Soviet Union from
Mexico City?
Mrs. PORTER - Yes, that was discussed, too.
Mr. McDONALD - At that point was he willing to go back to the Soviet
Union?
Mrs. PORTER - As far as I remember right now, I think, yes.
Mr. McDONALD - At that time were you willing to go back to the Soviet
Union?
Mrs. PORTER - Well, our living conditions were not very nice and Lee
might not be capable of handling job for a long time and there would
be more security if I go back home.
Doesn't sound like she was against returning home to Russia. The US
government would not automatically prevent her taking the children
with her.
tomnln
"Jean Davison" <jean.d...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:abc09b01-791d-4bb2...@k11g2000vbf.googlegroups.com...
http://www.trutv.com/video/conspiracy-theory/jfk-assassination-witness.html
Jean
-------------------------------------------------------------------
There was another witness closer than Bill/Gail Newman
motorcycle officer Chaney was within 4 feet of JFK and, looking at him at
the time.
Chaney was never called by the WC.
Chaney told officer Baker that he saw JFK & JBC HIT BY "Separate shots.
Baker's testimony, volume III page 266.
Anthony Marsh
Misleading. Newman did not know a fancy word like pergola and anyway the
pergola in Dealey Plaza was made of concrete. A garden is made of plants.
He may have meant the area of the pergola, but not just the pergola
itself. You are injecting your own spin.
> http://www.trutv.com/video/conspiracy-theory/jfk-assassination-witness.html
>
> Newman told CT author Josiah Thompson that his opinion was based
> partly on his belief that the large head wound was an entry wound. He
> said, "Well, of course, the President's being shot in the side of the head
> by the third shot--I thought the shot was fired from directly behind where
> we were standing...." [Six Seconds in Dallas, p. 165, paper] IOW, his
> opinion wasn't based on sound alone.
>
Sure. How many years later? Ever read Loftus? Go to the earliest
statements. Have you looked at the TV interview?
From patspeer.com, chapter 7:
William Newman was standing on the north side of Elm Street with his wife
and two kids and can be seen in the Muchmore film. (11-22-63 interview on
WFAA, prior to the announcement of the President's death, at approximately
12:45) ?We were, we just come from Love Field after seeing the President
and First Lady, and we were just in front of the triple underpass on Elm
Street at the edge of the curb, getting ready to wave at the President.
(After being asked to clarify his position) We were halfway in between the
triple underpass. We were at the curb when this incident happened. But the
President?s car was some fifty feet in front of us still yet in front of
us coming toward us when we heard the first shot and the President. I
don't know who was hit first but the President jumped up in his seat, and
I thought it scared him, I thought it was a firecracker, cause he looked,
you know, fear. And then as the car got directly in front of us well a
gunshot apparently from behind us hit the President in the side of the
temple.? (When asked if he thought the first shot came form the same
location) "I think it came from the same location apparently back up on
the mall, whatchacallit." (When asked if he thought the shot came from the
viaduct) "Yes, sir, no, no, not on the viaduct itself but up on top of the
hill, on the mound, of ground, in the garden." (When asked from how far
away the shots were fired) "I have no idea. I didn't see where the
gunshots come from. I believe we was looking directly at the President
when he was hit. He was more or less directly in front of us. We didn't
realize what happened until we seen the side of his head, when the bullet
hit him. (When asked if he saw blood) "Yes sir, we seen it. I seen it"
(11-22-63 second interview on WFAA, prior to the announcement of Kennedy's
death, at approximately 1:00 PM) (When asked if he felt the shots came
from different directions) "No sir, actually I feel that they both come
from directly behind where we were standing. The President, it looked like
he was looking in that direction. I don't know whether he was hit first.
Apparently he wasn't. It looked like he jumped up in his seat, and when he
jumped up he was shot directly in his head. I don't know
whatchacallit--the mall behind us--but apparently (interviewer Bill Lord
finishing his thought) "that's where he was." (11-22-63 third interview on
WFAA, at approximately 1:10 PM)
> Jean
John McAdams
<anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:
But there were plants in front of the pergola -- between Zapruder's
pedestal and the Retaining Wall, for example.
But there was a walkway up in the pergola, so calling it a "mall" was
quite reasonable.
He apparently *didn't* believe the shots came from the Stockade Fence.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/mall
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
James K. Olmstead
"Big Event" that Hunt associates himself to....if in fact he associates
himself to any major event, connected to any action, dealing with killing
JFK. As to Operation 40 team members, he may have had a role in their
efforts to kill Castro.
Although many disagree the only logical connection would have to deal with
the "Dear Mr. Hunt" letter....which many consider faked to connect Hunt
for some reason.
The handwriting in that letter matches Oswald's and one has to wonder why
Oswald's name is spelled wrong in an othewise perfect writing against such
a man as Hunt....a dangerous individual to try and pin a presidential
murder on with one letter.
"Jean Davison" <jean.d...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:ee574834-9f97-4b70...@h21g2000vbh.googlegroups.com...
Jean Davison
Who said that Newman used the word "pergola"? Not me. Here's his
11/22/63 statement, in which he mentions a "concrete standard":
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/images/newman.gif
Newman said the shots came from "directly behind" him, and the
pergola *was* directly behind him, even though he didn't use that word.
Here are the Newmans, lying on the ground:
Notice where the fence is -- NOT directly behind them. Do you
dispute that?
>> http://www.trutv.com/video/conspiracy-theory/jfk-assassination-witness.html
>>
>> Newman told CT author Josiah Thompson that his opinion was
>> based
>> partly on his belief that the large head wound was an entry wound. He
>> said, "Well, of course, the President's being shot in the side of the
>> head
>> by the third shot--I thought the shot was fired from directly behind
>> where
>> we were standing...." [Six Seconds in Dallas, p. 165, paper] IOW, his
>> opinion wasn't based on sound alone.
>>
>
> Sure. How many years later? Ever read Loftus? Go to the earliest
> statements. Have you looked at the TV interview?
Of course, and there's nothing in it that contradicts what I said.
The Thompson interview was in 1966, but Newman's basic story has never
changed, so far as I know.
And what is your point, if any?
Jean
>
>> Jean
>
>
claviger
Yes, but Marilyn Sitzman was on top of that hill in perfect position
to see everything and hear any shot from up there. There was no shot
from that area.
Anthony Marsh
Exactly, but again we wouldn't expect a guy like Newman to say the
Pyracantha. "Whatchacallit" is the closest he got to naming anything by
title.
Well, certainly by "mall" he didn't mean a shopping mall. In the
old-fashioned sense of the word it would be a promenade. A pergola is not
a necessary design element for a promenade. Some people have pergolas in
their back yards.
> He apparently *didn't* believe the shots came from the Stockade Fence.
>
He could not be that precise. Neither could Zapruder. Just behind him
was enough.
And up there on the hill.
How many people on 11/22/63 knew to call it The Grassy Knoll?
Do you think he meant the TSBD because you think the TSBD is on The
Grassy Knoll?
TC
> Gerald Ford "admitted" that he changed the Report "to make the
> [single bullet] theory more plausible" (He didn't say that, and that's
> not what he did)
>
Just what did he do it for Jean?? he basically lied or at the very
least grossly misrepresented the truth.
TC
>
> Newman told CT author Josiah Thompson that his opinion was based
> partly on his belief that the large head wound was an entry wound. He
> said, "Well, of course, the President's being shot in the side of the head
> by the third shot--I thought the shot was fired from directly behind where
> we were standing...." [Six Seconds in Dallas, p. 165, paper] IOW, his
> opinion wasn't based on sound alone.
>
>
"was based partly on his belief" yes and???? What else was it based
on, that he felt the bullet whiz past and heard the rifle crack?
TC
>
> Newman told CT author Josiah Thompson that his opinion was based
> partly on his belief that the large head wound was an entry wound. He
> said, "Well, of course, the President's being shot in the side of the head
> by the third shot--I thought the shot was fired from directly behind where
> we were standing...." [Six Seconds in Dallas, p. 165, paper] IOW, his
> opinion wasn't based on sound alone.
>
>
Newman had been in the miltary hadn't he? Wouldn't that make him a pretty
good witness regarding where the bullet came from? Much more than Jean
Hill. Its inexcusable not to call him and I do not understand why anyone
thinks it is acceptable.
TC
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Whether it was the pergola or the stockage fence it is clearly not the
TSBD.
TC
>
Many witnesses say there was a shot from the pergola/knoll area and
"Marilyn Sitzman" says there wasn't. One witness does not discount all the
others. Just the fact that there was a natural, spontaneous reaction of
people running up the "grassy knoll* should tell you something.
markusp
> Mrs. PORTER - Well, our living conditions were not very nice and Lee
> might not be capable of handling job for a long time and there would
> be more security if I go back home.
>
> Doesn't sound like she was against returning home to Russia. The US
> government would not automatically prevent her taking the children
> with her.
To me it reads as though she did not want to return, and .John pegged it
with his "vulgar materialism" insight. Tony's right too, in that the KGB
wouldn't exactly roll out the red carpet for her. Although I took notice
of "Lee might not be capable of handling job for a long time". That can be
interpreted a number of ways. Thanks!
~Mark
tomnln
years.
She has alwys returned to her home in "Ameria".
"claviger" <histori...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:c0b0c477-9308-4312...@w21g2000vby.googlegroups.com...
HSCA Testimony:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
THERE WAS NO POSSIBL REASON TO DEPORT THE CHILDREN
Anthony Marsh
Yes, she was and apparently she couldn't even see Black Dog Man only a
few feet in front of her. And how is she supposed to see someone behind
her when the photos prove she was looking at the President?
>
>
tomnln
"TC" <ciakille...@y7mail.com> wrote in message
news:06f6de6c-8e2a-492c...@p1g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
Bud
>
>
> Whether it was the pergola or the stockage fence it is clearly not the
> TSBD.
Is it your intent to make the case that Newman is not a good witness
to where the shots were fired from?
Bud
Bullet? Newman said three shots. Do you think three shots were fired
from the knoll?
Anthony Marsh
Sure, but I think it is a little sexist to say that he is a good witness
only because he is a man and Jean Hill is a kook because she is a woman.
You also have to remember that different people standing in different
-positions would see and hear it differently.
tomnln
"markusp" <marki...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:b115f6bc-f31f-4252...@d20g2000yqg.googlegroups.com...
Jean Davison
Not so. Ford's explanation for his revision was that he tried to
clarify the meaning of this sentence:
"A bullet had entered his back at a point slightly above the shoulder
to the right of the spine."
http://www.jfklancer.com/docs.maps/ford1.gif
Do you see why that sentence needed rewriting? (Obviously, anything
"above the shoulder" can't also be in someone's back.)
The final version in the WR reads, "A bullet had entered
the base of the back of his neck...."
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0014a.htm
Please note that this is only one sentence in an introductory
section of the Report. In its detailed discussion of the medical evidence,
the WR placed the back wound *exactly where the autopsy report placed it*--
approximately 5 1/2 inches below the tip of the right mastoid process, the
bony point behind the ear, which puts it in the upper back, not in the neck:
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0056b.htm
The notion that Ford "moved the wound" is a myth.
Jean
Anthony Marsh
No. Do I think any witness is perfect? No.
Jean Davison
> BOTTOM POST;
>
> "Jean Davison" <jean.davis...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> Newman told CT author Josiah Thompson that his opinion was based
> partly on his belief that the large head wound was an entry wound. He
> said, "Well, of course, the President's being shot in the side of the head
> by the third shot--I thought the shot was fired from directly behind where
> we were standing...." [Six Seconds in Dallas, p. 165, paper] IOW, his
> opinion wasn't based on sound alone.
>
> Jean
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> There was another witness closer than Bill/Gail Newman
>
> motorcycle officer Chaney was within 4 feet of JFK and, looking at him at
> the time.
>
> Chaney was never called by the WC.
>
> Chaney told officer Baker that he saw JFK & JBC HIT BY "Separate shots.
>
>
"Mr. BAKER - I talked to Jim Chaney, and he made the statement
that the two shots hit Kennedy first and then the other one hit the
Governor."
Sounds to me as if he's saying that Connally was hit after the
head shot. Is that what you think happened, Tom?
Jean
claviger
Mr. McDONALD - At that time were you willing to go back to the Soviet
Union?
Mrs. PORTER - Well, our living conditions were not very nice and Lee
might not be capable of handling job for a long time and there would
be more security if I go back home.
Her answer contains two negatives and a positive. The two negatives
refer to the current situation in the USA and the one positive is
about Russia. I'm not saying she was anxious to get back to the USSR,
but the thought of returning obviously did not intimidate her. As for
her children the oldest was born in Russia and the youngest in
Dallas. I see no reason for the US government to care if she took her
children back to Russia. She never indicated in all her testimony
that anyone threatened to to send her back without her children.
Marina also had a good lawyer representing her. Eventually she
married and had a son and is now divorced living in Dallas. So no
hurry to go back to Russia but no fear either.
claviger
> > Yes, but Marilyn Sitzman was on top of that hill in perfect position
> > to see everything and hear any shot from up there. There was no shot
> > from that area.
> Yes, she was and apparently she couldn't even see Black Dog Man only a
> few feet in front of her.
That's because there was no Black Dog Man. She did see a black couple
in that area. Bobr figured out who BDM really was, and it wasn't a
man.
> And how is she supposed to see someone behind her when
> the photos prove she was looking at the President?
She could turn and look around, which she did. Also she could hear if
any shots came from near where she was standing. Sitzman scanned the
area and saw no one with a rifle.
There were at least six witnesses on top of the GK. Sitzman,
Zapruder, the Hesters, and the black couple. There were 3 more
witnesses on the sidewalk leading up to the parking area. None of
these witnesses reported to the police seeing or hearing a shot from
the GK.
claviger
> Many witnesses say there was a shot from the pergola/knoll area
> and "Marilyn Sitzman" says there wasn't.
A sniper cannot disappear into thin air. How many witnesses saw and
heard a shot from the GK? How many saw a man with a rifle on the GK?
How many saw a man with a rifle leaving the GK?
> One witness does not discount all the others.
One well placed witness certainly can. Bowers, Sitzman, and the
Hesters were in the best position to see and hear what happened on and
behind the GK. None of them saw a man with a rifle firing at the
motorcade or leaving the area with gun in hand. None of them heard a
shot from close by where they were standing.
> Just the fact that there was a natural, spontaneous reaction of
> people running up the "grassy knoll* should tell you something.
Yes, it tells me there were echos in Dealey Plaza, which several
witnesses confirm. What Newman heard was an echo off the curved
cement walls of the pergola. Newman was not on the GK. He and his
family had moved down to the sidewalk next to the street. The
witnesses who remained on top of the GK did not hear or see a sniper
anywhere in that area.
markusp
> Are you denying that marina was threatened with "Deportation?
>> To me it reads as though she did not want to return, and .John pegged it
>>with his "vulgar materialism" insight. Tony's right too, in that the KGB
>> wouldn't exactly roll out the red carpet for her. Although I took notice
>>of "Lee might not be capable of handling job for a long time". That can be
>>interpreted a number of ways. Thanks!
>
> ~Mark
I am unsure of any direct or veiled threats of deportation against
Marina. I do not focus on that portion of the assassination, although
I do have a cursory knowledge of her official, incriminating
testimony. I certainly would not argue against the statement that
she'd been threatened with deportation, and even possibly threatened
with separation from her children.
Here's a question: Do we know if she was possibly even threatened with
being charged as an accomplice or accessory? Did the FBI rule out any
possible involvement of Marina right away? Could fear of being accused
herself have been a driving motive for her testimony? I don't know,
and that's why I ask. Thanks!
~Mark
markusp
wrote:
> approximately 5 1/2 inches below the tip of the right mastoid process, the
> bony point behind the ear, which puts it in the upper back, not in the neck:
Hi Jean,
Something that I've always found peculiar is that the mastoid process
was used as a fixed landmark. On someone's head, it is, but if we
measure a distance from the mastoid to other parts of the body, and
then move our head, that distance changes. Is the mastoid a common
landmark in autopsies (at the time) to accurately locate back wounds?
It seems as though this particular landmark offers variability in
distance. Thanks!
~Mark
Bud
The point is that many conspiracy believers seem to think that any
witness that indicated the knoll is a conspiracy witness, even though
most "knoll witnesses" conflict with what seems to be the commonly
held beliefs they hold.
David Von Pein
The best Christmas gift I could possibly receive this year would be
this one:
A debate between LN genius Jean Davision and conspiracy kook James
DiEugenio. (With the debate being available online, for downloading
purposes, of course. Which would mean I'd be able to save a copy of
Jean's trouncing of DiEugenio on my blogs for future reference.)
How about it, Jean? :)
John Canal
markusp says...
>
>On Nov 24, 8:08=A0am, "Jean Davison" <jjdavison2000NO...@yahoo.com>
>wrote:
>
>> approximately 5 1/2 inches below the tip of the right mastoid process, th=
>e
>> bony point behind the ear, which puts it in the upper back, not in the ne=
>ck:
>
>Hi Jean,
>
>Something that I've always found peculiar is that the mastoid process
>was used as a fixed landmark. On someone's head, it is, but if we
>measure a distance from the mastoid to other parts of the body, and
>then move our head, that distance changes. Is the mastoid a common
>landmark in autopsies (at the time) to accurately locate back wounds?
>It seems as though this particular landmark offers variability in
>distance. Thanks!
You're right, the landmarks for the back wound were inappropriate. That
said, if I told you they did that intentionally, you'd think like most
others here that I've lost my mind.
The back story for why I think that is too long...but, again, yes the
mastoid shouldn't have been used....same goes for the scapula and acromion
process.
I can't resist dropping a hint, though. Ask yourself this....with the
useless reference points, if the photos wouldn't have been available until
God knows how long post Nov. 22, 1963, there would have been no problem
(until whatever year the photos were to be available) reconciling the the
location of the backwound on the face sheet, death certificate and
clothes....would there?
One more. Do you really think Greer gave the clothes to SSA Rybka to stuff
in his [Greer's] locker at the White House before he spent the night at
Bethesda and told the autopsists the clothes were unavailable?
Interesting, isn't it that no one from the WC ever asked Greer why he
didn't give the clothes to HB&F?
You hardliners really ought to read between the lines of what was written
pertaining to the medical evidence...it's a fascinating read....really.
:-)
--
John Canal
jca...@webtv.net
tomnln
Mark,
Marina and, Kenneth Porter are "NOT" Divorced.
You STILL don't know what you're talking about !
tomnln
SEE>>> http://www.whokilledjfk.net/deport_marina.htm
"markusp" <marki...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:28882a06-01d9-480c...@e20g2000vbn.googlegroups.com...
Anthony Marsh
Huh? You say that conspiracy believers who think a shot came from the
grassy knoll don't like witnesses who said that a shot came from the
grassy knoll? Explain your logic or lack thereof.
Anthony Marsh
Of course it isn't. The autopsy doctors were incompetent.
Anthony Marsh
> TC,
>
>> Many witnesses say there was a shot from the pergola/knoll area
>> and "Marilyn Sitzman" says there wasn't.
> A sniper cannot disappear into thin air. How many witnesses saw and
> heard a shot from the GK? How many saw a man with a rifle on the GK?
> How many saw a man with a rifle leaving the GK?
>
You are being silly again. How many people saw a man with a rifle in the
sniper's nest? If you can only cite one does that mean it didn't happen?
Do you need to cite 400 for it to be true? Silly.
Price saw something. Ed Hoffman saw something. Jean Hill saw something.
Summers saw something.
tomnln
"tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:4ced9469$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
THE THREATS WERE CONFIRMED BY ROBERT OSWALD ! ! !
Jean Davison
The mastoid wasn't the best landmark, I've heard. My point was
that the WC placed the wound where the autopsy report placed it --
nobody "moved" it. The wound was in the upper back, as seen in the
autopsy photo:
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/html/HSCA_Vol7_0048a.htm
Jean
Jean Davison
"David Von Pein" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:db6f2b55-9552-4fde...@k13g2000vbq.googlegroups.com...
That's very flattering, David, but I'd rather just post here. He
and I debated on the old Prodigy forum, and I'd be glad to see him turn up
here, though I doubt he will.
Jean
David Von Pein
I just realized that I misspelled Jean Davison's last name in my last
post.
Sorry, Jean.
I HATE mistakes like that. But, hey, at least it wasn't the usual
"Davidson" misspelling. I was unique, and added an "i". ;)
Happy Turkey Day everybody!
Herbert Blenner
> In article <97ddf8b7-dfab-43e5-8217-55880a29d...@l20g2000vbd.googlegroups.com>,
Humes specified location as distances from two fixed points. This
method gives two, not one, location for the back wound. Perhaps Humes
did this on purpose.
During his WC testimony J.J. Humes described an oval bullet hole with
its longer axis roughly parallel to the long axis of the body.
However, more than a decade later the FPP described the back wound as
having its longer axis nearly perpendicular to the long axis of the
body.
The unofficial release of Fox photograph five shows two objects whose
dimensions and orientations coincide with the bullet hole reported by
Humes and the abrasion surrounding the back wound described the Clark
and the Forensic Pathology Panels.
http://mysite.verizon.net/a1eah71/temps/rotatedf5.jpg
Not surprisingly, the position of the bullet hole described by Humes
appears nearer the location shown on the face sheet while the abrasion
reported by the following panels is nearer the location of the wound
on the Rydberg drawing.
I conclude that two back wounds presented a dilemma for the prosectors
so they buried their problem under a pile of engineered confusion.
Herbert
>
> --
> John Canal
> jca...@webtv.net- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Herbert Blenner
>
> Jean
The wound shown on the Dox drawing is not the bullet hole described by
Humes during his WC testimony. In particular, the Dox drawing shows
the longer axis of the 7 mm by 10 mm elliptical abrasion as nearly
perpendicular to the long axis of the body. By contrast, Humes
described the longer axis of the bullet hole as roughly parallel to
the same long axis of the body.
Herbert
Bud
You do struggle with the English language. Do you see anything about
the likes and dislikes of conspiracy believers in what I wrote?
Explain your logic or lack thereof.
I suppose the key to understanding my point for you would be to find
what the commonly held beliefs are that conspiracy believers hold
about the knoll shooter. My understanding is that they generally don`t
believe that three shots were taken from the knoll (at least I`ve
never seen one champion this idea) like Newman indicates. This is what
I mean by the conflict between what most knoll witnesses indicate and
what most conspiracy believers seem to believe.
Anthony Marsh
Nobody moved it? So I guess you are calling Boswell a "nobody."
http://the-puzzle-palace.com/sun.gif
>
>
>
>
bigdog
>
> You do struggle with the English language. Do you see anything about
> the likes and dislikes of conspiracy believers in what I wrote?
>
> Explain your logic or lack thereof.
>
> I suppose the key to understanding my point for you would be to find
> what the commonly held beliefs are that conspiracy believers hold
> about the knoll shooter. My understanding is that they generally don`t
> believe that three shots were taken from the knoll (at least I`ve
> never seen one champion this idea) like Newman indicates. This is what
> I mean by the conflict between what most knoll witnesses indicate and
> what most conspiracy believers seem to believe.
>
I don't think Tony's problem is understanding the English language as much
as it is his propensity for making knee jerk responses that seem to
indicate he didn't even bother to read the post he is replying to. It is
quite common to see him make a response that is not even remotely relevant
to the argument he is responding to. He disagrees for the sake of being
disagreeable, even when he doesn't even seem to know what it is he is
disagreeing with.
John Canal
Herbert Blenner says...
>
>On Nov 24, 10:16=A0pm, John Canal <John_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>> In article <97ddf8b7-dfab-43e5-8217-55880a29d...@l20g2000vbd.googlegroups=
>.com>,
>> markusp says...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >On Nov 24, 8:08=3DA0am, "Jean Davison" <jjdavison2000NO...@yahoo.com>
>> >wrote:
>>
>> >> approximately 5 1/2 inches below the tip of the right mastoid process,=
> th=3D
>> >e
>> >> bony point behind the ear, which puts it in the upper back, not in the=
> ne=3D
>> >ck:
>>
>> >Hi Jean,
>>
>> >Something that I've always found peculiar is that the mastoid process
>> >was used as a fixed landmark. On someone's head, it is, but if we
>> >measure a distance from the mastoid to other parts of the body, and
>> >then move our head, that distance changes. Is the mastoid a common
>> >landmark in autopsies (at the time) to accurately locate back wounds?
>> >It seems as though this particular landmark offers variability in
>> >distance. Thanks!
>>
>> You're right, the landmarks for the back wound were inappropriate. That
>> said, if I told you they did that intentionally, you'd think like most
>> others here that I've lost my mind.
>>
>> The back story for why I think that is too long...but, again, yes the
>n
>> process.
>>
>> I can't resist dropping a hint, though. Ask yourself this....with the
>l
>> God knows how long post Nov. 22, 1963, there would have been no problem
>> (until whatever year the photos were to be available) reconciling the the
>> location of the backwound on the face sheet, death certificate and
>> clothes....would there?
>>
Well, we partially agree, My theory has been that they most certainly had
a delemma, but it was because the hole in the clothes didn't come close to
matching the hole in the body.....and they just didn't have time to deal
with it [the delemma]. Thus the useless reference points. They were happy
that the photos were confiscated...and of course without the body, there
was no evidence of a conflict...of course that was after they mismarked
the face sheet and took care of the death certificate.
IOW, their delemma was deferred until the photos showed up.
Boswell's revelation to JAMA in 1992 strongly support this theory. Going
from memory, he said he deeply regretted the problems he caused by marking
the entry where he did on his face sheet.
Hello...earth to Boswell, if you'd simply have marked the entry to match
the hole on the body, instead of to where it was on the clothes, there
would have been no "problems".
--
John Canal
jca...@webtv.net
tomnln
"Jean Davison" <jean.d...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:0bcfc792-3600-4a23...@e4g2000vbi.googlegroups.com...
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/html/HSCA_Vol7_0048a.htm
Jean
FORD CHANGED IT TO "BACK OF THE NECK".
Anthony Marsh
As usual you misrepresent what conspiracy believers think and what the
witnesses said. Very few witnesses said that three shots were fired from
the grassy knoll. That is your false spin.
Jean Davison
> "Jean Davison" <jean.davis...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
>
> FORD CHANGED IT TO "BACK OF THE NECK".
Maybe it's time you read the Warren Report, Tom.
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0056b.htm
Jean
Jean Davison
It appears to me that in the photo the lower dots are too small to
be bullet holes.
http://mysite.verizon.net/a1eah71/temps/rotatedf5.jpg
Jean
Jean Davison
> BOTTOM POST;> news:abc09b01-791d-4bb2...@k11g2000vbf.googlegroups.com...
>
> There was another witness closer than Bill/Gail Newman
>
> motorcycle officer Chaney was within 4 feet of JFK and, looking at him at
> the time.
>
> Chaney was never called by the WC.
>
> Chaney told officer Baker that he saw JFK & JBC HIT BY "Separate shots.
>
> Baker's testimony, volume III page 266.- Hide quoted text -
>
Are you there, Tom?
"Mr. BAKER - I talked to Jim Chaney, and he made the statement
that the two shots hit Kennedy first and then the other one hit the
Governor."
Sounds to me as if he's saying that Connally was hit after the
head shot. Is that what you think happened?
Chaney was "within 4 feet of JFK." He couldn't be wrong, could
he?
Jean
Bud
I wrote "as I understand it". Instead of huffing and puffing, why not
correct me? How many shots does the conspiracy crowd figure were fired
from the knoll, Tony? And while you are at it you can look at the list I`m
going to provide a link to, and see if that number is in concert with what
the information the knoll witnesses indicated or in conflict with it.
>and what the
> witnesses said. Very few witnesses said that three shots were fired from
> the grassy knoll. That is your false spin.
Really? Heres a list, maybe you should get up to speed on the
evidence of this case so you don`t embarrass yourself in the future...
http://www.history-matters.com/analysis/witness/index.htm
David Von Pein
http://DVP-Potpourri.blogspot.com/2010/02/interviews-with-bill-and-gayle-newman.html
Bill Newman, btw, is not a "three shots" witness. In the second of his
two interviews on WFAA-TV on November 22 (see the video above), Mr.
Newman said he heard only two shots.
And in his 11/22/63 affidavit, Newman said that the "shot" (singular)
had come from "directly behind me"....which, of course, is NOT the
picket fence area of the grassy knoll.
As the Charles Bronson slide below illustrates, "directly behind" Bill
Newman would have put a shooter a little to the LEFT of Abraham
Zapruder in the pergola area. And nobody I've ever encountered thinks
any shots came from there.
Obviously, Bill Newman was confused and was wrong about two major
things: The number of shots that were fired and the location of the
gunman who was firing those shots that he heard.
tomnln
Are you there, Tom?
HE blows your SBT outta the water jean.
Herbert Blenner
Humes described the oval bullet hole in the back as having dimensions
of 4 mm by 7 mm. Did you object to the smallness of the hole in the
decade preceding the FPP?
bigdog
>
> - Show quoted text -
He would if he was right, but he was clearly wrong.
Jean Davison
Only if he is correct.
You didn't answer my question, Tom. Was Connally
hit after the head shot? Or was Chaney wrong about that?
Jean
Jean Davison
No, I don't have the expertise to object. The HSCA panel didn't
agree with Humes' measurement, apparently.
Could you estimate the size of the spot that you consider to be a
bullet hole?
Jean
Anthony Marsh
Most believe that one shot was fired from the grassy knoll. Some believe
that two were fired from the grassy knoll. I've never seen any claim
that three were shot from the grassy knoll.
> going to provide a link to, and see if that number is in concert with what
> the information the knoll witnesses indicated or in conflict with it.
>
>> and what the
>> witnesses said. Very few witnesses said that three shots were fired from
>> the grassy knoll. That is your false spin.
>
> Really? Heres a list, maybe you should get up to speed on the
> evidence of this case so you don`t embarrass yourself in the future...
>
Whose list? A biased list? As I suggested a long time ago you should
start with the list in Six Seconds in Dallas. We were discussing this
long before you even heard of the Kennedy assassination.
> http://www.history-matters.com/analysis/witness/index.htm
>
Just a top page. Did you bother reading any of the articles? Such as this
one: How the Warren Commission and the House Select Committee on
Assassinations minipulated evidence to dismiss witness accounts of the
assassination.
http://www.history-matters.com/analysis/witness/artScience.htm
Over six hundred people witnessed the assassination of President Kennedy.
The FBI acting on behalf of the Warren Commission interviewed at least two
hundred of them.
Regrettably, the Commission seemed unconcerned that the FBI reports on
seventy of these interviews did not reveal if the witness had an opinion
on the source of the shots. Nor did the Commission conduct an analysis of
witness accounts or give any credence to those accounts of witnesses who
thought the shots came from the grassy knoll.
Analysis of 178 Witnesses
In 1978 the House Select Committee on Assassinations analyzed the accounts
of the witnesses taken by the Warren Commmission and from FBI reports
publised in the 26 Volumes of Hearings and Exhibits that accompanied the
Warren Report. In analyzing witness accounts, a diligent investigator
would consider various issues that the House Committee faild to address.
Accommodating Witnesses
One delicate issue to confront is the truthfulness of some of the
witnesses. James Altgens, Associated Press photographer, told the Warren
Commission he thought the shots came from behind the Presidential
limousine (i.e., the direction of the Depository). (7H517) But on November
22, he wrote in an AP dispatch, "At first I thought the shots came from
the opposite side of the street [i.e., the knoll]. I ran over there to see
if I could get some pictures . . . I did not know until later where the
shots came from." (See Document 28 in Cover-up)
Jesse Curry, the Dallas chief of police, told reporters on November 23
that although he was driving the lead car of the motorcade, he "could tell
from the sound of the three shots that they had come from the book
company?s building near downtown Dallas." (The New York Times, 11/24/63)
However, when confronted with the transcript of the police radio
transmissions, Curry admitted that just after the shots were fired, he
broadcast over his car radio: "Get a man on top of that triple underpass
and see what happened up there." (23H913; 4H161)
Bill Decker, the Dallas Sheriff, was riding with Curry in the lead car,
and according to the police transcript, Decker called over Curry?s radio:
"Have my office move all available men out of my office into the railroad
yard to try to determine what happened in there and hold everything secure
until Homicide and other investigators should get there." (23H913) When
Decker testified to the Warren Commission, he did not reveal, nor was he
asked, where he thought the shots came from.
House Speaker Tip O?Neill revealed in his autobiography that five years
after the assassination:
"I was surprised to hear [Presidential aide Kenneth] O?Donnell say that he
was sure he had heard two shots that came from behind the fence. "That?s
not what you told the Warren Commission," I said. "You?re right," he
replied. "I told the FBI what I had heard, but they said it couldn?t have
happened that way and that I must have been imagining things. So I
testified the way they wanted me to. I just didn?t want to stir up any
more pain and trouble for the family." "Dave Powers [another Kennedy aide]
was with us at dinner that night, and his recollection of the shots was
the same as O?Donnell?s." (Man of the House,178)
Erroneous Reports
Another issue to consider is whether or not the Dallas Police and the
FBI submitted erroneous reports to the Warren Commission.
Robert Edwards testified before counsel for the Warren Commission, David
Belin, that the Dallas Police affidavit he made out on November 22, 1963
contained a statement he did not make.
Mr. Belin. Where do you think the shots came from?
Mr. Edwards. I have no idea.
Mr. Belin. In the affidavit you stated that the shots seemed to come
from the building there. Did you really say that or not?
Mr. Edwards. No; I didn?t say that. (6H205)
Richard Dodd, a railroad track supervisor who was standing on the overpass
during the assassination, was interviewed by two FBI agents. In their
report to the Warren Commission, the FBI agents said that Dodd "did not
know where the shots came from." (22H835) Several witnesses contradicted
what was in their FBI reports, and Dodd was one of them. Dodd told Mark
Lane in a filmed interview that he told federal agents that "the shots,
the smoke came from behind the hedge on the north side of the plaza." (The
film Rush to Judgment)
James Simmons, another railroad worker, was interviewed by two agents of
the FBI, who reported that "Simmons advised that it was his opinion the
shots came from the direction of the Texas School Book Depository
Building." (22H833) One of the main flaws of the Committee?s analysis is
its unquestioning reliance on hearsay reports of FBI agents. Simmons has
contradicted what was in his FBI reports, and in a filmed interview, he
told Mark Lane, "It sounded like it came from the left and in front of us
towards the wooden fence. And there was a puff of smoke that came
underneath the trees on the embankment. . . . It was right directly in
front of the wooden fence." Simmons went on to say that he told the FBI
agents who interviewed him that he had seen a puff of smoke on the knoll.
Evidently, they chose to hand in a false report instead. (The film Rush to
Judgment)
Puff of Smoke
At least seven witnesses saw a puff of smoke on the grassy knoll.
o In May of 1966 I spoke with railroad workers Thomas Murphy and Walter
Winborn, who were standing on the triple overpass at the time of the
assassination. I asked Murphy, "Could you tell me where you thought the
shots came from?"
Murphy. Yeah, they come from a tree to the left, of my left, which is to
the immediate right of the site of the assassination.
Galanor. That would be on that grassy hill up there.
Murphy. Yeah, on the hill up there. There are two or three hackberry and
elm trees. And I say it come from there.
Galanor. Well, was there anything that led you to believe that the shots
came from there?
Murphy. Yeah, smoke.
Galanor. You saw smoke?
Murphy. Sure did.
Galanor. Could you tell me exactly where you saw the smoke?
Murphy. Yeah, in that tree. (See Cover-up, 59)
Walter Winborn told me he saw "smoke that come out from under the trees on
the right hand side of the motorcade." The FBI agents who interviewed
Winborn for the Warren Commission, however, did not mention in their
report that he had seen smoke on the knoll.
Galanor. Did you tell them about that, that you saw smoke on the grassy
knoll?
Winborn. Oh yes. Oh yes.
Galanor. They didn?t include it in their report.
Winborn. Well.
Galanor. Do you have any idea why they didn?t?
Winborn. I don?t have any idea. They are specialists in their field, and
I?m just an amateur. (See Cover-up, 60)
S. M. Holland, a railroad signal supervisor, was standing on the overpass
watching the motorcade move toward him. "I looked over toward the arcade
and trees [the knoll] and saw a puff of smoke come from the trees."
(19H480) Later Holland told the Warren Commission, "A puff of smoke came
out about 6 or 8 feet above the ground right out from under those trees."
(6H243) The Warren Commission ignored Holland?s testimony and never
addressed the fact that five other railroad workers claimed to have seen
smoke on the knoll at the time of the shots.
Deficient Interrogations
Seymour Weitzman, a Dallas Police Officer, wrote in a statement made out
the day after the assassination, "I ran in a Northwest direction and
scaled a fence towards where we thought the shots came from." (24H228) The
record shows that when Weitzman was interviewed by the FBI the next day
and when he testified before counsel for the Warren Commission four months
later, he was not asked where he thought the shots came from.
Austin Miller, in a sworn statement to the Dallas Sheriff?s Department on
November 22, said, "I saw something which I thought was smoke or steam
coming from a group of trees north of Elm off the railroad tracks."
(19H485) Apologists for the Warren Commission have pointed out that what
Miller saw was steam, so that, most likely, any smoke seen by other
witnesses was in fact steam. The closest steam pipe, however, was over 100
feet away. If a steam pipe had been the source of smoke, one would expect
the steam to have been seen again. No such sightings have occurred. When
Miller was questioned four and a half months later by a Warren Commission
counsel, he was not asked one question about the smoke or steam he
observed.
The Committee?s analysis ignores lapses of this sort and neglects to
mention that 70 FBI reports were handed over to the Commission with no
indication that the witnesses were ever asked their opinion on the origin
of the shots.
Witnesses Not Called
According to the HSCA, 692 witnesses "were present in the Plaza during the
assassination." Most of them were never called to testify by either the
Warren Commission or the HSCA. (8HSCA139)
Ed Johnson, a reporter for the Fort Worth Star-Telegram who was riding in
the motorcade, wrote for his paper the next day, "Some of us saw little
puffs of white smoke that seemed to hit the grassy area in the esplanade
that divides Dallas? main downtown streets." He was never interviewed by
any government agency.
Overzealous Analysis
Any analysis of the 216 witnesses is inherently biased towards producing
an unrealistically high percentage of Depository witnesses. Of the 216
witnesses who were interviewed by the FBI or the Warren Commission, 73 of
them were Dallas Police Officers, Dallas Deputy Sheriffs, Secret Service
Agents and other government employees who traditionally tend to identify
with the government?s case. Thus, the tabulation of 216 witnesses (culled
from the Warren Commission?s 26 Volumes and from Commission Documents
stored in the National Archives) does not constitute a random sample of
the witnesses to the assassination. Hence, it cannot be the basis for an
accurate statistical analysis of witness accounts. What happens if we
separate out the 73 government employees from the 143 nongovernment
employees?
143 Nongovernment Employees 73 Government Employees
Depository 22 Depository 26
Knoll 44
Knoll 8
In the nongovernment group, the number of Knoll witnesses is two times
larger than the Depository witnesses, while in the government group, the
number of Depository witnesses is three times larger than the number of
Knoll witnesses.
The House Committee's analysis of witness accounts is a disingenuous
attempt to dismiss and discredit evidence that the shots were fired from
at least two locations. The evidence of a shooter firing from behind the
fence is staggering, not least of which is the testimony of witnesses
who heard shots or saw smoke on the grassy knoll.
Anthony Marsh
Maybe it's time you read the internal memos and the Top Secret
transcripts of their executive sessions which they thought they had
destroyed.
Anthony Marsh
Do you have any witness who was 100% right about everything?
jas
> > Gerald Ford "admitted" that he changed the Report "to make the
> > [single bullet] theory more plausible" (He didn't say that, and that's
> > not what he did)
>
> least grossly misrepresented the truth.
He didn't lie, and he didn't "grossly misrepresent the truth."
Ford was simply trying clarify a point about the upper back wound because
Bufferites like you were/are asserting that the entrance wound was lower
than the neck wound, which was proven not true.
If he felt he had to raise the entrance wound in an attempt to clarify
what had already been proven, so what? It still doesn't change the
original facts.
And most importantly, the conspiracy/cover-up logic once again fails
miserably here. If part of the cover-up, why would Ford do such a
blundering thing as to suddenly draw attention to a conspiracy by his
"moving the wound" actions?
You Buffs really don't give much credit in the brain department to your
conspirators, do you?
Bud
<snicker> I said "My understanding is that they generally don`t
believe three shots were taken from the knoll".
You claimed I was misrepresenting what conspiracy believers think.
I asked you what they think.
You say the same thing I said, that they don`t generally believe
three shots were taken from the knoll.
> > going to provide a link to, and see if that number is in concert with what
> > the information the knoll witnesses indicated or in conflict with it.
>
> >> and what the
> >> witnesses said. Very few witnesses said that three shots were fired from
> >> the grassy knoll. That is your false spin.
>
> > Really? Heres a list, maybe you should get up to speed on the
> > evidence of this case so you don`t embarrass yourself in the future...
>
> Whose list?
I provided a link.
> A biased list? As I suggested a long time ago you should
> start with the list in Six Seconds in Dallas. We were discussing this
> long before you even heard of the Kennedy assassination.
Just address the idea I presented, it`s not that difficult. If you
continue to misdirect away from the idea I presented people might get
the idea you are afraid to address it.
<snipping the misdirection>
tomnln
"Anthony Marsh" <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:4cf01e4d$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
> On 11/26/2010 2:44 PM, Jean Davison wrote:
>>
>> "tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote in message
>> news:4cef5410$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
>>>
>>> "Jean Davison" <jean.d...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:af7f942d-98bc-4ec4...@n30g2000vbb.googlegroups.com...
>>> On Nov 22, 8:22 pm, "tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote:
>>>> BOTTOM POST;
>>>>
>>>> "Jean Davison" <jean.davis...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>
>>>> news:abc09b01-791d-4bb2...@k11g2000vbf.googlegroups.com...
>>>>
>>>> On Nov 22, 6:58 am, TC <ciakilledkenn...@y7mail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
Chaney made it clear that JFK was it by 2 bullets & JBC was hit by 1
bullet>>>>
Herbert Blenner
The HSCA disagreed with more than Humes' measurements. On an upright
victim, the wound described by the FPP had horizontal elongation while
Humes reported a bullet hole with vertical elongation.
>
> Could you estimate the size of the spot that you consider to be a
> bullet hole?
Taking the dimensions of the HSCA wound as 7 mm by 10 mm gives the
dimensions of the WC hole as something reasonably close to the
reported 4 mm by 7 mm.
Herbert
tomnln
SEE>>> http://www.whokilledjfk.net/FORD_SOLD_DIARY_TO_LIFE.gif
"jas" <lle...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:a304dc12-9ddf-42f2...@n32g2000prc.googlegroups.com...
Jean Davison
I've read them.
Jean
Anthony Marsh
Your link was not to a specific analysis. However that page did have an
article explaining the very problem we were talking about, WC defenders
misrepresenting the ear witnesses. But you didn't bother reading that.
McAdams has a complete list of the witnesses which we have often pointed
to.
>
>> A biased list? As I suggested a long time ago you should
>> start with the list in Six Seconds in Dallas. We were discussing this
>> long before you even heard of the Kennedy assassination.
>
> Just address the idea I presented, it`s not that difficult. If you
> continue to misdirect away from the idea I presented people might get
> the idea you are afraid to address it.
>
You didn't present an idea. You pretended to respond because you couldn't
really.
Maybe you're afraid to read that article on the page you cited. You might
accidentally learn something.
> <snipping the misdirection>
>
Anthony Marsh
> On Nov 23, 12:08 pm, TC<ciakilledkenn...@y7mail.com> wrote:
>>> Gerald Ford "admitted" that he changed the Report "to make the
>>> [single bullet] theory more plausible" (He didn't say that, and that's
>>> not what he did)
>>
>> Just what did he do it for Jean?? he basically lied or at the very
>> least grossly misrepresented the truth.
>
> He didn't lie, and he didn't "grossly misrepresent the truth."
>
> Ford was simply trying clarify a point about the upper back wound because
> Bufferites like you were/are asserting that the entrance wound was lower
> than the neck wound, which was proven not true.
>
Tell us the exact date that he did this? Do you even realize that in
late April the WC internal memos were talking about three shots three
hits and Specter didn't come up with his SBT until the end of April?
Ford's rewrite was of the already prepared draft of the report.
> If he felt he had to raise the entrance wound in an attempt to clarify
> what had already been proven, so what? It still doesn't change the
> original facts.
>
Nothing had already been proven. They were still trying to figure out
the exact angles and positions.
> And most importantly, the conspiracy/cover-up logic once again fails
> miserably here. If part of the cover-up, why would Ford do such a
> blundering thing as to suddenly draw attention to a conspiracy by his
> "moving the wound" actions?
>
Draw attention how? They kept it secret.
> You Buffs really don't give much credit in the brain department to your
> conspirators, do you?
>
Well, some of the cover-up artists like Ford were not that smart.
Jean Davison
>
> "Anthony Marsh" <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:4cf01e4d$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
>> On 11/26/2010 2:44 PM, Jean Davison wrote:
>>>
>>> "tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote in message
>>> news:4cef5410$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
>>>>
>>>> "Jean Davison" <jean.d...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:af7f942d-98bc-4ec4...@n30g2000vbb.googlegroups.com...
>>>> On Nov 22, 8:22 pm, "tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote:
>>>>> BOTTOM POST;
>>>>>
>>>>> "Jean Davison" <jean.davis...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>>
>>>>> news:abc09b01-791d-4bb2...@k11g2000vbf.googlegroups.com...
>>>>>
>>>>> On Nov 22, 6:58 am, TC <ciakilledkenn...@y7mail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>
> Chaney made it clear that JFK was it by 2 bullets & JBC was hit by 1
> bullet>>>>
He made it clear that that was his *opinion*. But Tom, since he
thought Connally was wounded after the head shot, he clearly didn't know
when JBC was hit.
Jean
Jean Davison
> Ford should' a Died in PRISON ! ! !
>
> SEE>>> http://www.whokilledjfk.net/FORD_SOLD_DIARY_TO_LIFE.gif
Ford didn't sell the diary to Life. The evidence points to
someone else, according to the documents in post 21 of this old thread:
This is another myth that will apparently never die.
Jean
tomnln
"Jean Davison" <jjdavison...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:4cf0...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
David Von Pein
>>> "Do you have any witness who was 100% right about everything?" <<<
Do you, Tony?
Jean Davison
> AYNESWORTH DIDN'T HAVE POSSESSION, THE WC did ! ! !
The WC had the original, but the Dallas PD and the D.A. had copies.
The FBI determined that Life's copy matched the copy held by the Dallas
D.A.'s office. Life bought the copy from Aynesworth and his wife for
$2500. Read the documents I linked to, Tom, post 21 here:
Jean
Bud
Maybe you need someone to do you thinking for you. What I supplied a
link to was information. Information supplied by witnesses that largely
runs contrary to CTer ideas.
> However that page did have an
> article explaining the very problem we were talking about, WC defenders
> misrepresenting the ear witnesses.
See, once more you don`t even understand the topic you are discussing.
The idea I presented that you challenged (sort of) was whether the
earwitnesses are supportive or in conflict with CTer ideas in general. As
usual, when you don`t like an idea you try to change it, or misdirect to
something else.
The idea is that CTers claim this information is significant. They
pretend it is supportive of their viewpoints. On examination, it is
seen to not really be supportive of their ideas. This is a fairly
simple concept I`m sure you will not address.
> But you didn't bother reading that.
> McAdams has a complete list of the witnesses which we have often pointed
> to.
I`m not looking to get into this person or that person`s
interpretation of what witness is indicating what location, thats a
completely different issue.
Lets compare a standard CTer belief, that the last shot was fired from
the knoll, and the rest from elsewhere. How many earwitnesses can you
produce that are truly supportive of that scenario? (For one thing, if
this is professional hit, shouldn`t a silenced weapon be used, why alert
people needlessly where the shot or shots came from?) What I would expect
to be in evidence if this CTer shooting scenario was actually what
occurred would be witnesses saying the last shot sounded different from
the others, was from a different direction from the others, ect. This type
of support is nearly nonexistant in the information provided by the
witnesses (sure, some indicated multiple directions, but how many said
"first two shots from "x", last shot from knoll"?).
> >> A biased list? As I suggested a long time ago you should
> >> start with the list in Six Seconds in Dallas. We were discussing this
> >> long before you even heard of the Kennedy assassination.
>
> > Just address the idea I presented, it`s not that difficult. If you
> > continue to misdirect away from the idea I presented people might get
> > the idea you are afraid to address it.
>
> You didn't present an idea.
Sure I did. I even elaborated on it above. You`ll avoid it again, of
course.
> You pretended to respond because you couldn't
> really.
>
> Maybe you're afraid to read that article on the page you cited. You might
> accidentally learn something.
Why do CTers feel that their beliefs should not be scrutinized or
compared with the information in evidence to see if they are valid? Can
you show that the information supplied by the earwitnesses is supportive
of your beliefs, Tony?
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > <snipping the misdirection>