Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

Take The Kook Test #3

6 views
Skip to first unread message

Phil Ossofee

unread,
Oct 25, 2007, 4:00:03 PM10/25/07
to
If you believe the single bullet theory you are one gullible dumb
sonofabitch.The angles are all wrong, they weren't hit at the same time,
Gov. Connally is still holding onto his ten gallon White Stetson after a
magical bullet just passed through his wrist! All bullets are deformed
in reenactment tests using human, or animal bone! Firing into Ponderosa
Pine doesn't mean jackfucking shit!

bigdog

unread,
Oct 25, 2007, 4:47:03 PM10/25/07
to

Christ, have you been in a coma the last 20 years. These same tired
arguments have been around for decades and every last one of then has
been debunked time and time again.

Let's start with the angles. They are only wrong if you buy into the
bullshit recreation which was the center piece of Oliver Stone's JFK
movie. Of course if you put Connally directly in front of JFK and at
the same height and facing straight ahead, the angles are wrong. But
if you put them in the positions they were actually in at the time the
bullet hit, with Connally sitting slightly left and below JFK and
turned looking over his right shoulder, the wounds line up perfectly.
That has been demonstrated very capably through the 3-D computer
recreation done by Dale Myers. You can find it on YouTube if you are
interested in learning something. Don't bother if you're committed to
believing in the conspiracy fairy tales.

Yes, bullets do deform when striking bone and CE399, the single
bullet, is deformed. It is flattened at its base and banana shaped.
This is indicative of a bullet that hit something hard while flying
sideways, which is exactly what this bullet did. It began tumbling as
it exited JFK's throat making an eliptical entrance wound in JBC's
back. If the bullet had not been tumbling, it would have made a round
entrance wound. And what could have caused that bullet to start
tumbling? It would have had to have been something behind Connally.
I'll give you a hint. Its initials are JFK.

JFK and JBC were hit at the same time, at almost the instant JFK
reemerged from behind the freeway sign. If you watch JBC in real time
you will see he begins twisting in pain beginning just as JFK
reemerges from behind the sign. His right arm does jerk upward in a
reflex response to being hit in the wrist. He does hang onto the
Stetson and there is no reason to believe he would not.

Now if you still think the SBT is impossible, why don't you try
constructing an alternate scenario of how the wounds to JFK and JBC
were caused. Use as many shooters as you want from any direction you
want. See if you can come up with an expaination from the wounds that
can't be shot down in five minutes using the available evidence. If
you are able to do so, you will be the first person in 43 years to
have done it.

David Von Pein

unread,
Oct 25, 2007, 5:02:14 PM10/25/07
to
I guess Phil thinks Gov. Connally wasn't shot through his wrist at all
then....because JBC never dropped his hat all the way to Parkland. (Or
is Nellie a lying bitch too, Phil?)......

"And he also, he has... he has... his hat in his hand. He always had
that hat somewhere. He had the hat in his hand when I pulled him over
and crouched him down and he was holding that hat up against him. He
closed up that wound that would've killed him before we got to the
hospital." -- Nellie Connally

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/nellie.txt

http://www.jfklancerforum.com/dc/dcboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=3&topic_id=27444&mesg_id=27444&page=&topic_page=12#28133

But, even though thoroughly debunked a million times before, this
argument will be new again in two more days in a kook's eyes.

tomnln

unread,
Oct 25, 2007, 6:18:29 PM10/25/07
to
JBC said he was hit between frames 231-234.
Volume IV page 145.

JBC's Doctors said he was hit at frame 236.
Volume IV page 114.

bye-bye little puppy.


"bigdog" <jecorb...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1193345223....@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com...

tomnln

unread,
Oct 25, 2007, 6:22:14 PM10/25/07
to
NOT in her testimony David.

Nellie said in testimony she saw JFK hit after the first shot.
Second shot hit her husband.

You Always use outside sources.

We BOTH know your own evidence/testimony won't support your lone assassin
bullshit.


"David Von Pein" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1193346134.2...@o3g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...

bigdog

unread,
Oct 25, 2007, 6:25:53 PM10/25/07
to
On Oct 25, 6:18 pm, "tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote:
> JBC said he was hit between frames 231-234.
> Volume IV page 145.
>
> JBC's Doctors said he was hit at frame 236.
> Volume IV page 114.
>
> bye-bye little puppy.
>
> "bigdog" <jecorbett1...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > have done it.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Rossley, I've asked you this before. Why don't your two star witnesses
agree on the time JBC was hit.

Herbert Blenner

unread,
Oct 25, 2007, 6:57:45 PM10/25/07
to
On Oct 25, 4:47 pm, bigdog <jecorbett1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Oct 25, 4:00 pm, summersalmostg...@webtv.net (Phil Ossofee) wrote:
>
> > If you believe the single bullet theory you are one gullible dumb
> > sonofabitch.The angles are all wrong, they weren't hit at the same time,
> > Gov. Connally is still holding onto his ten gallon White Stetson after a
> > magical bullet just passed through his wrist! All bullets are deformed
> > in reenactment tests using human, or animal bone! Firing into Ponderosa
> > Pine doesn't mean jackfucking shit!
>
> Christ, have you been in a coma the last 20 years. These same tired
> arguments have been around for decades and every last one of then has
> been debunked time and time again.
>
> Let's start with the angles. They are only wrong if you buy into the
> bullshit recreation which was the center piece of Oliver Stone's JFK
> movie. Of course if you put Connally directly in front of JFK and at
> the same height and facing straight ahead, the angles are wrong. But
> if you put them in the positions they were actually in at the time the
> bullet hit, with Connally sitting slightly left and below JFK and
> turned looking over his right shoulder, the wounds line up perfectly.
> That has been demonstrated very capably through the 3-D computer
> recreation done by Dale Myers. You can find it on YouTube if you are
> interested in learning something. Don't bother if you're committed to
> believing in the conspiracy fairy tales.

The 45-degree angle from chest to thigh is totally inconsistent with a
single bullet event.


>
> Yes, bullets do deform when striking bone and CE399, the single
> bullet, is deformed. It is flattened at its base and banana shaped.
> This is indicative of a bullet that hit something hard while flying
> sideways, which is exactly what this bullet did. It began tumbling as
> it exited JFK's throat making an eliptical entrance wound in JBC's
> back. If the bullet had not been tumbling, it would have made a round
> entrance wound. And what could have caused that bullet to start
> tumbling? It would have had to have been something behind Connally.
> I'll give you a hint. Its initials are JFK.

A bullet flying sideways never has and never will punch an elliptical
hole. Instead a bullet with a yaw angle of just more than a few
degrees punches a rectangular hole with rounded corners. An elliptical
hole results from a tangential entry by a bullet with a circular
striking or displacement area.

Now are you going to tell us the opinions of the WC yes men supercede
Euclid?


>
> JFK and JBC were hit at the same time, at almost the instant JFK
> reemerged from behind the freeway sign. If you watch JBC in real time
> you will see he begins twisting in pain beginning just as JFK
> reemerges from behind the sign. His right arm does jerk upward in a
> reflex response to being hit in the wrist. He does hang onto the
> Stetson and there is no reason to believe he would not.

Tell us how the thigh stopped the magic bullet and allowed a tiny
fragment to continue much farther in the wrong direction.

>
> Now if you still think the SBT is impossible, why don't you try
> constructing an alternate scenario of how the wounds to JFK and JBC
> were caused. Use as many shooters as you want from any direction you
> want. See if you can come up with an expaination from the wounds that
> can't be shot down in five minutes using the available evidence. If
> you are able to do so, you will be the first person in 43 years to
> have done it.

Explaining the reports of Governor Connally's wounds by the Parkland
doctors is easy. They told us what might have happened and ignored
what did happen.

Herbert

lazu...@webtv.net

unread,
Oct 25, 2007, 7:08:17 PM10/25/07
to
Looks like the lone nutters failed this kook test. Not as if that's any
big surprise...

bigdog

unread,
Oct 25, 2007, 7:13:26 PM10/25/07
to
> Herbert- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

Brilliant observation, Herbert. So it was a tangential entry wound in
JBC's back? And then after making that tangential entry, the bullet,
without striking any bone in JBC's back, then turns sharply to the
right to exit just below his nipple. And you guys refer to the SBT as
a magic bullet? That's nothing compared with the ballistic gymnastics
altenative scenarios require us to accept.

YoHarvey

unread,
Oct 25, 2007, 7:40:48 PM10/25/07
to
> altenative scenarios require us to accept.- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

bullet flying sideways never has and never will punch an elliptical


hole. Instead a bullet with a yaw angle of just more than a few
degrees punches a rectangular hole with rounded corners. An
elliptical
hole results from a tangential entry by a bullet with a circular
striking or displacement area.

An absolutely and completely irresponsible and false statement.

Herbert Blenner

unread,
Oct 25, 2007, 7:51:54 PM10/25/07
to
> altenative scenarios require us to accept.- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

I recognize and decline your gambits.

I said , "An elliptical hole results from a tangential entry by a
bullet with a circular striking or displacement area." Now perhaps you
can tell us where you get the nonsense that a bullet flying sideways
makes an elliptical hole.

Meanwhile perhaps you care to discuss how a bullet transiting the
chest somehow acquires a 20-degree deflection and alters course for
the thigh. A single bullet event requires this magical feat since the
wrist being between the thigh and chest was in the wrong place to have
deflected the bullet.

Now are you going to evade these issues by pretending I said something
else?

Herbert

robc...@netscape.com

unread,
Oct 25, 2007, 8:15:35 PM10/25/07
to
On Oct 25, 5:02 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> I guess Phil thinks Gov. Connally wasn't shot through his wrist at all
> then....because JBC never dropped his hat all the way to Parkland. (Or
> is Nellie a lying bitch too, Phil?)......

You said it. I wouldn't be rude like you and call her a bitch, but
she is lying. She was a politicians wife, she knew how the game was
played. I noticed she doesn't mentioned that he held it all the way
to the hospital in his right hand! Do you have a picture of this?

robc...@netscape.com

unread,
Oct 25, 2007, 8:19:35 PM10/25/07
to
On Oct 25, 7:13 pm, bigdog <jecorbett1...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Brilliant observation, Herbert. So it was a tangential entry wound in
> JBC's back? And then after making that tangential entry, the bullet,
> without striking any bone in JBC's back, then turns sharply to the
> right to exit just below his nipple. And you guys refer to the SBT as
> a magic bullet? That's nothing compared with the ballistic gymnastics
> altenative scenarios require us to accept.

You can't even get this right. We are not debating another version of
the fairy tale, we are saying the fairy tale never occured. Like when
your parents told that you would grow up to be a smart guy, didn't
happen. We are saying JFK and JBC were hit by "multiple" bullets from
different guns. Get it now?

Herbert Blenner

unread,
Oct 25, 2007, 8:30:40 PM10/25/07
to
> An absolutely and completely irresponsible and false statement.- Hide quoted text -

>From an old post:

Recently I have been discussing the elliptical wounds on President
Kennedy and Governor Connally. I explained these wounds as arising
from a strike by a bullet without yaw whose direction was not
perpendicular to the victim. In particular geometric analysis shows
that the bullet punches an elliptical surface hole whose smaller or
minor axis equals the diameter the bullet and the larger or major axis
equals the diameter of the bullet divided by the cosine of the
incidence angle between the direction of the striking bullet and the
perpendicular to the wound.

As a test of this analysis, I conducted the following experiment.

1. I carefully held a drill perpendicular to the surface of
reconstituted wood as the bit bore a hole. This cylindrical hole
represents a simple wound track produced by a bullet without yaw.

2. Lacking a mitterbox, I eyeballed a plane at an approximate angle of
45 degree from the axis of the cylindrical hole and cut the wood.

3. I sanded the faces of the wood and eliminated burs and lumps then
scanned the surfaces of the wood with the circular and the elliptical
holes.

http://mysite.verizon.net/a1eah71/temps/bulkhole.bmp

Shading prohibits exact measurement of the diameter of the round hole.
However, several measurements place the diameter in the range of 81 to
84 pixel.

http://mysite.verizon.net/a1eah71/temps/surfacehole.bmp

The length of the minor axis measures 82 pixel and the major axis has
a length of 129 pixel.

4. Measurement of the angle of incline required securing the wood to
the edge of my desk, positioning a protractor and leaning a ruler on
the incline plane as I read the simulated angle of incidence. In this
manner I measured 51 degree.

The geometric analysis calculates the length of the major axis as 82
pixel divided by cos (51) or 130 pixel and a direct measurement gives
a length of 129 pixel.

This experiment shows the relationship between the striking or
incidence angle of a bullet without yaw and dimensions of the
elliptical hole punched in a rigid material.

When a forensic analyst knows the diameter of the bullet they can
calculate the incidence angle from the shrunken dimensions of the
bullet hole. Assuming that elastic relaxation or swelling of tissue
does not change the contribution of distance along the wound track
toward making the major axis longer the minor enables a repeated use
of the Pythagorean theorem to solve this problem.

For an elliptical hole with shrunken dimensions of 7 mm by 4 mm the
square of distance along the wound track is 49 mm2 - 16 mm2 or 33 mm2.
When the bullet has a diameter of 6.5 mm the original lengths of the
minor and major axes of the elliptical hole become 6.5 mm and the
square root of 33 mm2 plus the square of 6.5 mm or 8.7 mm. So the
angle of incidence being the inverse cosine of 6.5 mm divided by 8.7
mm equals 42 degree.

Herbert

David Von Pein

unread,
Oct 25, 2007, 9:01:33 PM10/25/07
to
>>> "I wouldn't be rude like you and call her a bitch, but she {Nellie C.} is lying." <<<

Oh, naturally. To you "ABO" kooks, everybody in Dallas and Washington
lied about the facts of the case. (Except, of course, people like Jean
Hill and Ed Hoffman and Gordy Arnold and Carolyn Arnold, etc.)

Per the CTers -- the police lied, the WC lied, the HSCA lied, the
autopsy doctors lied, and many witnesses lied (including Nellie
Connally, per Rob-Kook).

Interesting, though, re. Nellie ..... What do ya bet that tomorrow Rob
will be only too eager to prop up Nellie's account of seeing JFK hit
with a separate shot from JBC?

Did she lie about seeing JFK hit by a separate bullet too, Rob?

Plus: If Nellie "knew how the game was played" (as you claim), why in
the heck didn't she tow the "SBT" Govt. line?

Please note the scatterbrained, contradictory approach that Rob takes
to the JFK case. It can be seen in almost every recent post he writes.

IOW -- He doesn't have the slightest idea who to believe. (He also
doesn't have the slightest idea what the hell he's talking about
either.)

robc...@netscape.com

unread,
Oct 25, 2007, 9:36:36 PM10/25/07
to
On Oct 25, 9:01 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> >>> "I wouldn't be rude like you and call her a bitch, but she {Nellie C.} is lying."
>
> Oh, naturally. To you "ABO" kooks, everybody in Dallas and Washington
> lied about the facts of the case. (Except, of course, people like Jean
> Hill and Ed Hoffman and Gordy Arnold and Carolyn Arnold, etc.)
>
> Per the CTers -- the police lied, the WC lied, the HSCA lied, the
> autopsy doctors lied, and many witnesses lied (including Nellie
> Connally, per Rob-Kook).

Let's give the autopsy doctors a break, they had no choice if they
wanted to keep their careers in tact. I can only try to imagine the
stress they were under, especially given the fact they had no forensic
experience. People lie for all reasons, not all of them terrible. I
don't think Nellie saw much that day. I can't say I would either with
bullets whizzing by my face. I think she was perhaps told what
happened and it became reality for her. I'm not saying she was a
rotten liar, just human.


>
> Interesting, though, re. Nellie ..... What do ya bet that tomorrow Rob
> will be only too eager to prop up Nellie's account of seeing JFK hit
> with a separate shot from JBC?

I don't need Nellie for this as JBC said to the day he died he was hit
with a seperate bullet than JFK.


>
> Did she lie about seeing JFK hit by a separate bullet too, Rob?

No, because he was.


>
> Plus: If Nellie "knew how the game was played" (as you claim), why in
> the heck didn't she tow the "SBT" Govt. line?

I don't know. I just think it would be humanly impossible to hold a
hat when your wrist is broken. I'd be happy to test this with you
though. I'll give you a hat.... :-)


>
> Please note the scatterbrained, contradictory approach that Rob takes
> to the JFK case. It can be seen in almost every recent post he writes.

Well thank you Dave. At least I'm growing on you. A few weeks ago
this would have been worse. IT can be seen only if one looks through
rose colored SBT/LHO alone eyes.


>
> IOW -- He doesn't have the slightest idea who to believe. (He also
> doesn't have the slightest idea what the hell he's talking about
> either.)

I know not to believe you, Posner, Bugman/you and Specter. That is a
good start.


David Von Pein

unread,
Oct 25, 2007, 10:23:35 PM10/25/07
to
>>> "Let's give the autopsy doctors a break..." <<<

Yes, let's. So, why won't you do so?


>>> "...They had no choice if they wanted to keep their careers intact. I can only try to imagine the stress they were under, especially given the fact they had no forensic experience." <<<

Pierre Finck had plenty of experience with gunshot victims. Why do you
ignore his presence at the autopsy? (In fact, he was called in by
Humes and Boswell for pretty much that very reason...because of his
experience in that field.)

BTW, was Dr. Boswell lying through his teeth when he said this at his
ARRB session in late February of 1996?.....

QUESTION -- "Are you aware of any person connected with the autopsy
who received any orders not to discuss any matters relating to the
autopsy?"

DR. BOSWELL -- "No, because they blabbed from day one. Some of those
corpsmen did. And they made some terrible mistakes and statements."

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/boswella.htm


>>> "People lie for all reasons, not all of them terrible. I don't think Nellie saw much that day. I can't say I would either with bullets whizzing by my face. I think she was perhaps told what happened and it became reality for her. I'm not saying she was a rotten liar, just human." <<<


I think you're mixing up your terms (or definitions)....you're
confusing "lies" with "mistakes". They're certainly not the same
thing. But it seems as though many CTers want every single innocent
"mistake" to equal a "lie" when it comes to the JFK case. And that's
just....silly.

And you're right...Nellie (like us all) was "human". And she merely
was "mistaken" (innocently so) when she said she thought her husband
and JFK were struck by different bullets.

If you'll examine the Z-Film closely (and the stabilized version
linked below is the best copy of the film I have ever come across,
including the 1998 MPI Home Video digital version), and keep an eye on
Nellie Connally, you'll note that she wasn't even looking at JFK at
the critical bullet-striking moments in question.*

* = Disclaimer -- Granted, Nellie is partially screened out during
some of the key frames, but IMO it doesn't appear that Nellie is even
looking anywhere near JFK's direction at the critical moments in order
to definitely say that Kennedy was hit by a different bullet from the
one she thinks later hit JBC. .....

www.jfkmurdersolved.com/film/Zapruderstable.mov


>>> "I don't need Nellie for this, as JBC said to the day he died he was hit with a separate bullet than JFK." <<<


Rob, you need to get some of the "Connally Facts" straight. JBC always
maintained that he NEVER EVEN SAW KENNEDY after the shooting began.

So, how on Earth could he be certain of WHEN the President was hit by
the bullet that struck JFK in the back? In short...it's impossible.
JBC was one of THE WORST EYEwitnesses in Dealey Plaza, because he
readily admitted (on many different occasions) that he never saw the
murder victim (JFK) during the whole shooting timeline. (His bedside
"he slumped" remark notwithstanding.)

But even in that bedside interview with Martin Agronsky, Connally
didn't specifically say that he, himself (JBC), SAW Kennedy "slump".
He had to have gotten that info from his wife, based on EVERY
interview JBC ever gave after he got out of the hospital.

More.....

WHAT DID JOHN CONNALLY SEE ON 11/22/63? AND WHAT DIDN'T HE SEE?:
www.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/1cc5d266271efb4b


>>> "I just think it would be humanly impossible to hold a hat when your wrist is broken." <<<

Don't believe every CT-Kookbook you read re. this matter. Connally's
RIGHT arm/hand goes flying skyward just after being hit by Oswald's
bullet #399 (as can be seen over and over again in the toggling Z-Film
clip provided below).....

http://users.skynet.be/mar/SBT/Images2/222-262%20full-small.gif

.....And as can be seen, the hand that goes flying up and down in the
space of just a very few Z-Film frames is the same RIGHT hand that is
holding JBC's white Stetson hat.

The hat is still in JBC's RIGHT hand (the same one that has just been
hit by a bullet) several frames later on the Z-Film. And Nellie stated
that John C. held that hat in his hand all the way to Parkland. (And I
kinda doubt he SWITCHED hat-holding hands after he was shot.)

The "He Couldn't Have Held His Hat" argument brought up continuously
by CTers is just another of the many pieces of piecemeal chaff that
CTers love to toss up against the wall in the desperate hope that some
of these things will stick and (somehow) prove the conspiracy they so
desperately want to prove. Unfortunately for those conspiracists, none
of that chaff seems to stick to the "CT wall" at all.

>>> "I know not to believe you, Posner, Bugman/you and Specter. That is a good start." <<<


Yeah. Why dine on wheat, when a buffet of half-baked chaff is
available in the CT dining room?

(Please don't ever ask me to eat dinner over at your house, Rob. I
hate my food half-baked.) ;)

Herbert Blenner

unread,
Oct 25, 2007, 10:44:00 PM10/25/07
to
On Oct 25, 10:23 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> >>> "Let's give the autopsy doctors a break..." <<<
>
> Yes, let's. So, why won't you do so?
>
> >>> "...They had no choice if they wanted to keep their careers intact. I can only try to imagine the stress they were under, especially given the fact they had no forensic experience." <<<
>
> Pierre Finck had plenty of experience with gunshot victims. Why do you
> ignore his presence at the autopsy? (In fact, he was called in by
> Humes and Boswell for pretty much that very reason...because of his
> experience in that field.)
>
> BTW, was Dr. Boswell lying through his teeth when he said this at his
> ARRB session in late February of 1996?.....
>
> QUESTION -- "Are you aware of any person connected with the autopsy
> who received any orders not to discuss any matters relating to the
> autopsy?"
>
> DR. BOSWELL -- "No, because they blabbed from day one. Some of those
> corpsmen did. And they made some terrible mistakes and statements."

http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/pdf/md76.pdf

So what excuse do you have for your pal, Boswell?

Herbert

Message has been deleted

David Von Pein

unread,
Oct 25, 2007, 11:17:04 PM10/25/07
to

Why do I need an "excuse" for my pal Boswell?

Herbert Blenner

unread,
Oct 26, 2007, 1:07:54 AM10/26/07
to
On Oct 25, 11:17 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> Why do I need an "excuse" for my pal Boswell?

You do not need to make excuses for Boswell's failed memory if you are
ready to admit he lied about the Orders of Silence.

Herbert

tomnln

unread,
Oct 26, 2007, 1:39:18 AM10/26/07
to
Is 2/18th of a second to much for you to hold your breath?

No wonder you Refuse to address the official records.

http://www.whokilledjfk.net/mexcity.htm
http://www.whokilledjfk.net/Walker.htm
http://www.whokilledjfk.net/tippit.htm

"bigdog" <jecorb...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

news:1193351153.9...@o3g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...

tomnln

unread,
Oct 26, 2007, 1:41:14 AM10/26/07
to

"YoHarvey" <bail...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1193355648.9...@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...

How do you explain a round penis making a SQUARE Asshole on You?


tomnln

unread,
Oct 26, 2007, 1:43:26 AM10/26/07
to
3rd one down from top is Boswell's Orders of Silence Bonzo.

http://whokilledjfk.net/orders_of_silence.htm


"David Von Pein" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message

news:1193367982.6...@z9g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>
> Huh? Why do I need an "excuse" for my pal Boswell?
>
> Are you implying I need an "excuse" for Boswell's talking even though
> it's his (ARRB) testimony that nobody ever gave any orders to NOT talk
> about any autopsy details?
>
>

tomnln

unread,
Oct 26, 2007, 1:43:56 AM10/26/07
to
http://whokilledjfk.net/orders_of_silence.htm

3rd 1 down from the top.

"Herbert Blenner" <a1e...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1193375274.4...@o80g2000hse.googlegroups.com...

bigdog

unread,
Oct 26, 2007, 6:25:15 AM10/26/07
to

Herbert, you used the word tangential to describe the entry wound.
This is the stock reply from the CT camp to explain the elongated
entry wound in JBC's back, but it makes absolutely no sense. If you
draw a line from the exit wound through to the entry wound, you do not
get a tangential angle of entry. The tangential entry explaination for
the elongated entry wound in JBC's back just doesn't wash. That
elongated wound was almost exactly the length of CE399.

On top of that you ignore several key points when arguing that the 45
degree angle from the chest wound to the thigh is inconsistent with
the SBT. First of all, that angle assumes JBC was sitting facing
straight ahead. In fact his torso was rotated to the right. That
changes the geometetry. Secondly, the bullet hit bone not once but
twice after transiting JBC's chest. That's two opportunities for
deflection. Bullets do deflect when hitting any surface. The harder
the surface the greater the deflection.

Now if you want to argue JBC was hit by two separate shots, you have a
lot of explaining to do. JBC insisted from the beginning and
throughout his life that he was hit by one bullet and one bullet only,
the second shot. Second, what happened to the two bullets that hit
JBC? There should have been one more bullet recovered from the limo.
And if you are in the camp that claims CE399 is a plant, then you have
two missing bullets to explain. Finally, the clear consensus from the
very beginning was that there were three shots fired. If two of them
struck JBC, then you have only one left and JFK was shot twice. More
magic bullets for the CTs to explain.

bigdog

unread,
Oct 26, 2007, 6:35:35 AM10/26/07
to
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

You seem to be following the old adage that says "If you can't dazzle
them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit". Just answer one
simple question. When you drilled that hole at the shallow angle to
produce the eliptical hole, did your drill bit change directions.
Because that is what the bullet would have to have done to make that
tangential angle of entry below JBC's armpit and exit from below his
right nipple. I have asked every CT who has argued for a tangential
entry wound to explain the remarkable geometry that produced the exit
below the right nipple. To date, not one has even attempted and
explaination. Dazzle me, Herbert.

bigdog

unread,
Oct 26, 2007, 6:39:23 AM10/26/07
to
On Oct 26, 1:39 am, "tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote:
> Is 2/18th of a second to much for you to hold your breath?
>
> No wonder you Refuse to address the official records.
>
> http://www.whokilledjfk.net/mexcity.htmhttp://www.whokilledjfk.net/Walker.htmhttp://www.whokilledjfk.net/tippit.htm
>
> > agree on the time JBC was hit.- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

Rossley, what does Mexico City have to do with the SBT? What does the
Walker shooting have to do with the SBT?
What does the Tippit shooting have to do with the SBT? Why do throw
this horseshit into every discussion?

tomnln

unread,
Oct 26, 2007, 1:17:52 PM10/26/07
to
Just to point out thyat you refuse to address ANY of the Official Records.

We'll take them one at a time>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/single_bullet.htm

"bigdog" <jecorb...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

news:1193395163.3...@v3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...

robc...@netscape.com

unread,
Oct 26, 2007, 1:54:29 PM10/26/07
to
On Oct 25, 4:47 pm, bigdog <jecorbett1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Oct 25, 4:00 pm, summersalmostg...@webtv.net (Phil Ossofee) wrote:
>
> > If you believe the single bullet theory you are one gullible dumb
> > sonofabitch.The angles are all wrong, they weren't hit at the same time,
> > Gov. Connally is still holding onto his ten gallon White Stetson after a
> > magical bullet just passed through his wrist! All bullets are deformed
> > in reenactment tests using human, or animal bone! Firing into Ponderosa
> > Pine doesn't mean jackfucking shit!
>
> Christ, have you been in a coma the last 20 years. These same tired
> arguments have been around for decades and every last one of then has
> been debunked time and time again.

Same tired arguments = the truth and I don't want to accept it. I
want to believe a disgruntled, warped, commie lovin" bastard shot JFK
with 2 shots from a piece of junk gun with a bent scope through a huge
tree while driving away from me. I also want to believe the man smart
enough to pull this off and leave no prints on the gun somehow
"smudges his palm print" on the stock, leaves the "bag" he carried it
in with, scatters all three shells right below the window (because it
may have take like a second or two to pick them up and he wasted alot
of time thoroughly removing any prints whatsoever from the gun or
scope and besides, he already had the clip in his pocket), stash the
gun behind the boxes (whoops, what are the other guns doing here? :-0,
why is there a Mauser here also?) and then he moves all the way down
to the 2nd floor and purchases a coke but is not in the slighest bit
flushed from exertion or excitement (I mean he just wasted the
president!!!!) and seems quite calm to the cop who stops him.


>
> Let's start with the angles. They are only wrong if you buy into the
> bullshit recreation which was the center piece of Oliver Stone's JFK
> movie. Of course if you put Connally directly in front of JFK and at
> the same height and facing straight ahead, the angles are wrong. But
> if you put them in the positions they were actually in at the time the
> bullet hit, with Connally sitting slightly left and below JFK and
> turned looking over his right shoulder, the wounds line up perfectly.
> That has been demonstrated very capably through the 3-D computer
> recreation done by Dale Myers. You can find it on YouTube if you are
> interested in learning something. Don't bother if you're committed to
> believing in the conspiracy fairy tales.

Let's start with angles, the ones bullshit lawyer Specter came up with
he couldn't even reproduce to the WC. I love this argument -
Connally's seating position. The LNers always refer to the photo
before the motorcade started to show they were lined up. They never
stop to think that in the ensuing 15-20 minutes someone may have
moved! This is all smoke. They get you to debate the alignment of the
two men instead of talking facts. Fact: The bullet entered the front
of of JFK's neck (source: every doctor/nurse at Parkland). Fact: A
bullet cannot strike two bones and emerge intact, whether it is
"Yawing" or not (source: any sane, honest ballistic expert). Fact:
JFK suffered a lower back wound, below the shoulders, that failed to
penetrate very far and with cardiac massage fell out onto his
stretcher (source: FBI agents Siebert & O'Neill, Dr. Humes & Hoover -
memo to LBJ). This is the real CE399!!!!! Fact: Third wound to JFK =
conspiracy. Fact: Explosive bullet to head and FMJ bullet to other
wounds = multiple gunmen = conspiracy.


>
> Yes, bullets do deform when striking bone and CE399, the single
> bullet, is deformed. It is flattened at its base and banana shaped.
> This is indicative of a bullet that hit something hard while flying
> sideways, which is exactly what this bullet did. It began tumbling as
> it exited JFK's throat making an eliptical entrance wound in JBC's
> back. If the bullet had not been tumbling, it would have made a round
> entrance wound. And what could have caused that bullet to start
> tumbling? It would have had to have been something behind Connally.
> I'll give you a hint. Its initials are JFK.

It is barley deformed. I wouldn't call it banana shaped.


>
> JFK and JBC were hit at the same time, at almost the instant JFK
> reemerged from behind the freeway sign. If you watch JBC in real time
> you will see he begins twisting in pain beginning just as JFK
> reemerges from behind the sign. His right arm does jerk upward in a
> reflex response to being hit in the wrist. He does hang onto the
> Stetson and there is no reason to believe he would not.

Yeah if you're clueless. This is a test I would happily try on any
LNer (already proposed it to DVP). I'll hand you a hat, you hold it
in your right hand and I'll break you wrist with a hammer! If you
hold onto the hat you'll have my apologies for being wrong. If not,
you are wrong and we'll call 911.


>
> Now if you still think the SBT is impossible, why don't you try
> constructing an alternate scenario of how the wounds to JFK and JBC
> were caused. Use as many shooters as you want from any direction you
> want. See if you can come up with an expaination from the wounds that
> can't be shot down in five minutes using the available evidence. If
> you are able to do so, you will be the first person in 43 years to
> have done it.

With multiple shooters involved it is virtually impossible to
duplicate. We don't know how many and want sequence they went in.
Correct me if I'm wrong CTers.


Ben Holmes

unread,
Oct 26, 2007, 2:25:55 PM10/26/07
to
In article <1193421269.0...@i38g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
robc...@netscape.com says...

>
>On Oct 25, 4:47 pm, bigdog <jecorbett1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Oct 25, 4:00 pm, summersalmostg...@webtv.net (Phil Ossofee) wrote:
>>
>> > If you believe the single bullet theory you are one gullible dumb
>> > sonofabitch.The angles are all wrong, they weren't hit at the same time,
>> > Gov. Connally is still holding onto his ten gallon White Stetson after a
>> > magical bullet just passed through his wrist! All bullets are deformed
>> > in reenactment tests using human, or animal bone! Firing into Ponderosa
>> > Pine doesn't mean jackfucking shit!
>>
>> Christ, have you been in a coma the last 20 years. These same tired
>> arguments have been around for decades and every last one of then has
>> been debunked time and time again.

And yet, Bigdog can't *cite* or quote these "debunkings."

Were these facts actually "debunked", no LNT'er would keep running away from the
evidence in this case.

Many of the questions have been around for 40+ years, and aren't going away.


>Same tired arguments = the truth and I don't want to accept it. I
>want to believe a disgruntled, warped, commie lovin" bastard shot JFK
>with 2 shots from a piece of junk gun with a bent scope through a huge
>tree while driving away from me. I also want to believe the man smart
>enough to pull this off and leave no prints on the gun somehow
>"smudges his palm print" on the stock, leaves the "bag" he carried it
>in with, scatters all three shells right below the window (because it
>may have take like a second or two to pick them up and he wasted alot
>of time thoroughly removing any prints whatsoever from the gun or
>scope and besides, he already had the clip in his pocket), stash the
>gun behind the boxes (whoops, what are the other guns doing here? :-0,
>why is there a Mauser here also?) and then he moves all the way down
>to the 2nd floor and purchases a coke but is not in the slighest bit
>flushed from exertion or excitement (I mean he just wasted the
>president!!!!) and seems quite calm to the cop who stops him.


This is just the beginning, unfortunately...

>> Let's start with the angles. They are only wrong if you buy into the
>> bullshit recreation which was the center piece of Oliver Stone's JFK
>> movie. Of course if you put Connally directly in front of JFK and at
>> the same height and facing straight ahead, the angles are wrong. But
>> if you put them in the positions they were actually in at the time the
>> bullet hit, with Connally sitting slightly left and below JFK and
>> turned looking over his right shoulder, the wounds line up perfectly.

No, they don't. Even the HSCA finally admitted that the trajectory through the
body was moving slightly *UPWARD* when you accept that the bullet transited
JFK's body from the back wound to the front of the neck.

But transit has never been demonstrated by anything other than sheer
speculation. The medical *EVIDENCE* is against it.


>> That has been demonstrated very capably through the 3-D computer
>> recreation done by Dale Myers.


GIGO.


>> You can find it on YouTube if you are
>> interested in learning something. Don't bother if you're committed to
>> believing in the conspiracy fairy tales.
>
>Let's start with angles, the ones bullshit lawyer Specter came up with
>he couldn't even reproduce to the WC. I love this argument -
>Connally's seating position. The LNers always refer to the photo
>before the motorcade started to show they were lined up. They never
>stop to think that in the ensuing 15-20 minutes someone may have
>moved! This is all smoke. They get you to debate the alignment of the
>two men instead of talking facts. Fact: The bullet entered the front
>of of JFK's neck (source: every doctor/nurse at Parkland). Fact: A
>bullet cannot strike two bones and emerge intact, whether it is
>"Yawing" or not (source: any sane, honest ballistic expert). Fact:
>JFK suffered a lower back wound, below the shoulders, that failed to
>penetrate very far and with cardiac massage fell out onto his
>stretcher (source: FBI agents Siebert & O'Neill, Dr. Humes & Hoover -
>memo to LBJ). This is the real CE399!!!!! Fact: Third wound to JFK =
>conspiracy. Fact: Explosive bullet to head and FMJ bullet to other
>wounds = multiple gunmen = conspiracy.
>>
>> Yes, bullets do deform when striking bone and CE399, the single
>> bullet, is deformed. It is flattened at its base and banana shaped.
>> This is indicative of a bullet that hit something hard while flying
>> sideways,


No, it isn't. It's EXACTLY the same sort of 'damage' seen when a bullet is
fired into a water tank.


>> which is exactly what this bullet did. It began tumbling as
>> it exited JFK's throat making an eliptical entrance wound in JBC's
>> back. If the bullet had not been tumbling, it would have made a round
>> entrance wound.


Untrue... as any ballistics expert, or medical doctor, will be happy to explain
to you.

Sadly, we live in a 3 dimensional world, and bullets do not always strike
perpendicular to the body.


>> And what could have caused that bullet to start
>> tumbling? It would have had to have been something behind Connally.
>> I'll give you a hint. Its initials are JFK.
>
>It is barley deformed. I wouldn't call it banana shaped.
>
>> JFK and JBC were hit at the same time, at almost the instant JFK
>> reemerged from behind the freeway sign.

Sadly, the very person who *WAS* injured, and surely knew his own 'reactions',
didn't put it at the same location as you believe.


>> If you watch JBC in real time
>> you will see he begins twisting in pain beginning just as JFK
>> reemerges from behind the sign. His right arm does jerk upward in a
>> reflex response to being hit in the wrist. He does hang onto the
>> Stetson and there is no reason to believe he would not.


Denial is a favorite tactic of LNT'ers... isn't it?


>Yeah if you're clueless. This is a test I would happily try on any
>LNer (already proposed it to DVP). I'll hand you a hat, you hold it
>in your right hand and I'll break you wrist with a hammer! If you
>hold onto the hat you'll have my apologies for being wrong. If not,
>you are wrong and we'll call 911.
>>
>> Now if you still think the SBT is impossible, why don't you try
>> constructing an alternate scenario of how the wounds to JFK and JBC
>> were caused.


Simple... and the same as both the FBI and Secret Service believed and stated in
their reports... and as the closest non-limo eyewitness reported - separate
bullets.

LNT'ers often act as if once CE399 was fired, no other bullet *could* have been
fired... but this is sheer lunacy.


>> Use as many shooters as you want from any direction you
>> want. See if you can come up with an expaination from the wounds that
>> can't be shot down in five minutes using the available evidence.

Start 'shooting it down' - hasn't been done in over 40 years, I doubt if you're
capable of it now.

You may start with the scenario that's been in print since 1967 - SSID.

You may begin...


>> If you are able to do so, you will be the first person in 43 years to
>> have done it.


Untrue. As I've just shown. Of course, you're welcome to CITE THE EVIDENCE
THAT DISPROVES SSID'S THEORY.

But you won't.


>With multiple shooters involved it is virtually impossible to
>duplicate. We don't know how many and want sequence they went in.
>Correct me if I'm wrong CTers.

Providing a reasonable scenario of the shooting of three men has been done a
number of times... as I said, try SSID first. There are other scenarios... but
no need to confuse the LNT'ers any more than necessary.

robc...@netscape.com

unread,
Oct 26, 2007, 2:29:09 PM10/26/07
to
On Oct 25, 10:23 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> >>> "Let's give the autopsy doctors a break..." <<<
>
> Yes, let's. So, why won't you do so?

Because their actions were horrible. I realize they were told what to
do, but still it was a poorly conducted autopsy - issue of lying
aside.


>
> >>> "...They had no choice if they wanted to keep their careers intact. I can only try to imagine the stress they were under, especially given the fact they had no forensic experience." <<<
>
> Pierre Finck had plenty of experience with gunshot victims. Why do you
> ignore his presence at the autopsy? (In fact, he was called in by
> Humes and Boswell for pretty much that very reason...because of his
> experience in that field.)

I know he was there and he should have been more active, but he
basically guided Humes and Boswell. That's like someone guiding me on
landing a jumbo jet. I don't know how to fly a jumbo jet. So do you
think I'm really going to be successful? Probably not. Same here.
The guy with the experience was doing the least. They had no
experience with bullet wounds so a little guidance is not going to
solve much and this is the way the conspirators wanted it. That's why
they picked to inexperienced men to do the autopsy in the first
place. Think about the resources available to the military. You're
telling me they didn't have anyone better suited for this? If not,
they should have left the body in TX where law required the autopsy to
be done. This is why people doubt the official theory Dave, it is not
just kookiness. Why remove a body from the area where a crime is
commited only to bring it somewhere else and do a rotten job? Don't
you see this looks suspicious?


>
> BTW, was Dr. Boswell lying through his teeth when he said this at his
> ARRB session in late February of 1996?.....

Any testimony he gave at official hearings was not the truth. No doubt
about that. Who was going to punish him for perjury? They were
telling him not to tell everything he saw.


>
> QUESTION -- "Are you aware of any person connected with the autopsy
> who received any orders not to discuss any matters relating to the
> autopsy?"

They all were. I have read in numerous sources were they had orders
not to discuss this case beyond the official scenarios set up for
them.


>
> DR. BOSWELL -- "No, because they blabbed from day one. Some of those
> corpsmen did. And they made some terrible mistakes and statements."
>

They didn't blab much in the way of the truth. They were blabbing
stuff to support the official theory. The truth didn't come out for
many years as finally independent doctors were allowed to view the
phots and X-rays and it was noticed they were altered or did not
depict the wounds described by the Parkland doctors and nurses.

> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/boswella.htm

Another McAdams post, huh? Don't you know all secondary sources are
false per John.

> >>> "People lie for all reasons, not all of them terrible. I don't think Nellie saw much that day. I can't say I would either with bullets whizzing by my face. I think she was perhaps told what happened and it became reality for her. I'm not saying she was a rotten liar, just human." <<<
>
> I think you're mixing up your terms (or definitions)....you're
> confusing "lies" with "mistakes". They're certainly not the same
> thing. But it seems as though many CTers want every single innocent
> "mistake" to equal a "lie" when it comes to the JFK case. And that's
> just....silly.

I'm not mixing anything up. Someone can be told something and they
think they are repeating the truth (when it comes from a source they
trust), but in fact they are wrong when it is compared to what really
happened. They are called lairs by many, but they didn't realize they
were being untruthful. This has happened to everyone in the course of
our lives.


>
> And you're right...Nellie (like us all) was "human". And she merely
> was "mistaken" (innocently so) when she said she thought her husband
> and JFK were struck by different bullets.

Quit making Nellie so important. Another smoke screen. JBC was the
victim and he swore until the day he died he was NOT his by the same
bullet as JFK. He is primary, Nellie is secondary.


>
> If you'll examine the Z-Film closely (and the stabilized version
> linked below is the best copy of the film I have ever come across,
> including the 1998 MPI Home Video digital version), and keep an eye on
> Nellie Connally, you'll note that she wasn't even looking at JFK at
> the critical bullet-striking moments in question.*

Exactly, so why are you giving so much credence to what she said? He
liked her when she supposedly said he held the hat all the way to the
hospital. Now who is playing both sides?

> >>> "I don't need Nellie for this, as JBC said to the day he died he was hit with a separate bullet than JFK." <<<
>
> Rob, you need to get some of the "Connally Facts" straight. JBC always
> maintained that he NEVER EVEN SAW KENNEDY after the shooting began.

It doesn't matter, show me a source where he said he was hit by the
same bullet (i.e. the first one) as JFK. You can't because he
wasn't. He said he was laying on top of Nellie when he "heard" the
fatal shot to JFK's head. How come he could hear that one without
seeing it but not the first one?


>
> So, how on Earth could he be certain of WHEN the President was hit by
> the bullet that struck JFK in the back? In short...it's impossible.
> JBC was one of THE WORST EYEwitnesses in Dealey Plaza, because he
> readily admitted (on many different occasions) that he never saw the
> murder victim (JFK) during the whole shooting timeline. (His bedside
> "he slumped" remark notwithstanding.)

You are using a CT word - impossible - and it isn't when you consider
the truth. JBC and JFK were never hit by the same bullet.


>
> But even in that bedside interview with Martin Agronsky, Connally
> didn't specifically say that he, himself (JBC), SAW Kennedy "slump".
> He had to have gotten that info from his wife, based on EVERY
> interview JBC ever gave after he got out of the hospital.

Again, back to Nellie. JFK never slumped until after the head shot.
The back brace he wore prevented this. He is not slumping after the
neck shot, and that blows the SBT apart as slumping is required to
make it work (along with moving wounds around).

> >>> "I just think it would be humanly impossible to hold a hat when your wrist is broken." <<<
>
> Don't believe every CT-Kookbook you read re. this matter. Connally's
> RIGHT arm/hand goes flying skyward just after being hit by Oswald's
> bullet #399 (as can be seen over and over again in the toggling Z-Film
> clip provided below).....

But do you see him dropping the hat? It is a simultaneous action.
Bump your funny bone and what happens? Your hand goes numb. With the
wrist shattered it isn't just the bone that causes you to not hang
onto anything it is the nerve damage that numbs everything. I'd be
happy to test this with you. :-)

> .....And as can be seen, the hand that goes flying up and down in the
> space of just a very few Z-Film frames is the same RIGHT hand that is
> holding JBC's white Stetson hat.

That action is more likely due to the shot that hit him in the back as
it caused his lungs to puff up and thus causing the arm to shoot up.


>
> The hat is still in JBC's RIGHT hand (the same one that has just been
> hit by a bullet) several frames later on the Z-Film. And Nellie stated
> that John C. held that hat in his hand all the way to Parkland. (And I
> kinda doubt he SWITCHED hat-holding hands after he was shot.)

Because he was not hit by the first shot. I doubt she could remember
anything so unimportant in a moment like that.


>
> The "He Couldn't Have Held His Hat" argument brought up continuously
> by CTers is just another of the many pieces of piecemeal chaff that
> CTers love to toss up against the wall in the desperate hope that some
> of these things will stick and (somehow) prove the conspiracy they so
> desperately want to prove. Unfortunately for those conspiracists, none
> of that chaff seems to stick to the "CT wall" at all.

We have so much to toss against the wall because the official theory
was so poorly investigated and concluded. They brought this on
themselves.


>
> >>> "I know not to believe you, Posner, Bugman/you and Specter. That is a good start." <<<
>
> Yeah. Why dine on wheat, when a buffet of half-baked chaff is
> available in the CT dining room?

No, all of these men and commissions have been shown to use faulty
evidence or ignore evidence to make their cases. The WC make the L.A.
police look evective.


>
> (Please don't ever ask me to eat dinner over at your house, Rob. I
> hate my food half-baked.) ;)

You would love the food I'd serve. We could watch "The Men Who Killed
Kennedy" marathon too. :-)


Ben Holmes

unread,
Oct 26, 2007, 4:28:19 PM10/26/07
to
In article <1193423349.7...@t8g2000prg.googlegroups.com>,
robc...@netscape.com says...

>
>On Oct 25, 10:23 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>> >>> "Let's give the autopsy doctors a break..." <<<
>>
>> Yes, let's. So, why won't you do so?
>
>Because their actions were horrible. I realize they were told what to
>do, but still it was a poorly conducted autopsy - issue of lying
>aside.

Dr. Karnei was there - he did autopsies quite routinely.

I quite doubt if any perceived problems with the autopsy can be traced to
anything *OTHER* than the military control of the autopsy.


>>>>> "...They had no choice if they wanted to keep their careers intact. I can
>>only try to imagine the stress they were under, especially given the fact they
>>had no forensic experience." <<<
>>
>> Pierre Finck had plenty of experience with gunshot victims. Why do you
>> ignore his presence at the autopsy? (In fact, he was called in by
>> Humes and Boswell for pretty much that very reason...because of his
>> experience in that field.)
>
>I know he was there and he should have been more active,

According to at least one eyewitness, he virtually took over when he arrived.
How much more active could you get?

>but he
>basically guided Humes and Boswell. That's like someone guiding me on
>landing a jumbo jet. I don't know how to fly a jumbo jet. So do you
>think I'm really going to be successful? Probably not. Same here.
>The guy with the experience was doing the least. They had no
>experience with bullet wounds so a little guidance is not going to
>solve much and this is the way the conspirators wanted it. That's why
>they picked to inexperienced men to do the autopsy in the first
>place.

They should have kept Dr. Karnei out then, wouldn't you say?

>Think about the resources available to the military. You're
>telling me they didn't have anyone better suited for this? If not,
>they should have left the body in TX where law required the autopsy to
>be done. This is why people doubt the official theory Dave, it is not
>just kookiness. Why remove a body from the area where a crime is
>commited only to bring it somewhere else and do a rotten job? Don't
>you see this looks suspicious?
>
>> BTW, was Dr. Boswell lying through his teeth when he said this at his
>> ARRB session in late February of 1996?.....
>
>Any testimony he gave at official hearings was not the truth. No doubt
>about that. Who was going to punish him for perjury? They were
>telling him not to tell everything he saw.
>>
>> QUESTION -- "Are you aware of any person connected with the autopsy
>> who received any orders not to discuss any matters relating to the
>> autopsy?"
>
>They all were. I have read in numerous sources were they had orders
>not to discuss this case beyond the official scenarios set up for
>them.


Both orally on the night of the autopsy, and later in writing.

So also said the closest eyewitness on the side of the limo - who for some
strange inexplicable reason was never asked any official questions or called to
testify.

Sadly, LNT'ers must discount *ALL* eyewitnesses.

>Quit making Nellie so important. Another smoke screen. JBC was the
>victim and he swore until the day he died he was NOT his by the same
>bullet as JFK. He is primary, Nellie is secondary.


Corroborated by James Chaney.

A presumption, of course. The doctors did *NOT* presume this... in fact,
according to testimony, up to *THREE* bullets could have struck Connally.

>> And Nellie stated
>> that John C. held that hat in his hand all the way to Parkland. (And I
>> kinda doubt he SWITCHED hat-holding hands after he was shot.)
>
>Because he was not hit by the first shot. I doubt she could remember
>anything so unimportant in a moment like that.
>>
>> The "He Couldn't Have Held His Hat" argument brought up continuously
>> by CTers is just another of the many pieces of piecemeal chaff


Like the 45 questions?


>> that
>> CTers love to toss up against the wall in the desperate hope that some
>> of these things will stick and (somehow) prove the conspiracy they so
>> desperately want to prove. Unfortunately for those conspiracists, none
>> of that chaff seems to stick to the "CT wall" at all.
>
>We have so much to toss against the wall because the official theory
>was so poorly investigated and concluded. They brought this on
>themselves.


Yep... absolutely true.

Herbert Blenner

unread,
Oct 26, 2007, 4:38:43 PM10/26/07
to

On this point, I call your bluff. A student can prove that the
intersection of a circular cylinder representing the wound track of a
bullet with a negligible yaw angle with the inclined surface of the
skin is an ellipse.

Now it is your turn to back up your charge of "bullshit"and post
support for your contention that a sideways entry by a bullet makes an
elliptical wound.


> Just answer one
> simple question. When you drilled that hole at the shallow angle to
> produce the eliptical hole, did your drill bit change directions.
> Because that is what the bullet would have to have done to make that
> tangential angle of entry below JBC's armpit and exit from below his
> right nipple. I have asked every CT who has argued for a tangential
> entry wound to explain the remarkable geometry that produced the exit
> below the right nipple. To date, not one has even attempted and

> explaination. Dazzle me, Herbert.- Hide quoted text -


>
> - Show quoted text -

Your question is too simple. It assumes that the Parkland reports on
Connally's torso wounds are consistent with transit by a bullet. They
are inconsistent and for this reason Mr. Specter did not press the
issue with Dr. Shaw.

In particular, Shaw reported inserting a Penrose drain to the side of
the back wound and felling this drain beneath a hole in a muscle.
These details require a tangential entry. However, the locations of
wounds require a physically impossible 60-degree deflection for a
bullet that exits with significant speed.

Specter ignored these contradictions in the testimonies for the simple
reason that he knew Shaw reported what he thought would have happened
if Connally were upright when shot. So Specter could not have
challenge the inconsistencies in Shaw's report without letting the cat
out of the bag.

Herbert

Herbert Blenner

unread,
Oct 26, 2007, 4:49:21 PM10/26/07
to

Evasion of the evidence is the mark of the LN camp. Doctor Shaw
described the shape of the wound in Connally's back as elliptical. He
stated that the wound had a shorter and a longer diameter of 15 mm. By
no stretch of the imaginary does 15 mm almost exactly match the 30-mm
length of CE 399.

Further a straight line connecting entry and exit wounds coincides
with the trajectory of a bullet that transits without a net
deflection. This condition is inconsistent with a single bullet event
that required an approximate 20-degree deflection while transiting the
torso.

>
> On top of that you ignore several key points when arguing that the 45
> degree angle from the chest wound to the thigh is inconsistent with
> the SBT. First of all, that angle assumes JBC was sitting facing
> straight ahead. In fact his torso was rotated to the right. That
> changes the geometetry. Secondly, the bullet hit bone not once but
> twice after transiting JBC's chest. That's two opportunities for
> deflection. Bullets do deflect when hitting any surface. The harder
> the surface the greater the deflection.

The Parkland doctors who diagramed the 45-degree angle ignored the
lateral dimensions. So the geometry was correct for a torso rotated to
the right. However, it does not really matter because the lateral
deflection of the bullet would have a small effect upon the dominant
vertical deflection.

A surface deflects a bullet under special circumstances. Namely the
bullet strikes tangentially without breaking the surface. Under these
conditions the direction of the force upon the bullet is perpendicular
to the unbroken surface and differs from the direction of the striking
bullet. However, this force acts only as long as the surface is
unbroken. Hence a grazing collision has the potential to produce a
considerable deflection while a penetrating entry produces a
negligible deflection.


>
> Now if you want to argue JBC was hit by two separate shots, you have a
> lot of explaining to do. JBC insisted from the beginning and
> throughout his life that he was hit by one bullet and one bullet only,
> the second shot. Second, what happened to the two bullets that hit
> JBC? There should have been one more bullet recovered from the limo.
> And if you are in the camp that claims CE399 is a plant, then you have
> two missing bullets to explain. Finally, the clear consensus from the
> very beginning was that there were three shots fired. If two of them
> struck JBC, then you have only one left and JFK was shot twice. More

> magic bullets for the CTs to explain.- Hide quoted text -


>
> - Show quoted text -

Now if you want to setup straws then go argue with yourself.


Herbert

bigdog

unread,
Oct 26, 2007, 7:32:41 PM10/26/07
to

robocrap, I'm starting to believe you really are Gil Jesus because
this is typical of his dipshit arguments. You make the ridiculous
statement that LNers want to talk about the allignment of the men
instead of the facts. The allignment is one of the facts, asswipe. It
is one of the most important facts. Then you make the ridiculous
suggestion that they changed allignment since the picture at the start
of the motorcade. No evidence this happened but you dream this up to
bolster your feable position. Here are some more inconvenient facts
for you. Connally's seat was inboard from JFK. If he had moved to the
right, he would have had one cheek hanging off the seat. Why the hell
would he do that? JFK did not move to his left. He can be seen with
his elbow resting on the side of the car, waving to the crowd, just
seconds before he was hit. In short, JFK and JBC were alligned exactly
the way they were when the picture was taken at the start of the
motorcade.

Then you are so desparate as to suggest we let you smash our wrists
with a hammer to see if we could hang on to a hat. I've got a better
idea. If you think a Mannlicher-Carcano rifle is such a junk weapon,
how about I take three shots at you with one from 90 yards. If it's as
bad as you say it is, you should have nothing to worry about.

Lastly you take the typical CT tact of ducking the challenge to
explain how the wounds to JFK and JBC could have been caused if not by
the SBT. I didn't ask you to prove how it was caused. All I asked for
was any other possible explaination other than the SBT that is
compatible with the evidence. You and all other CTs duck this
challenge every time one of us makes it because you know it can't be
done. The SBT is the ONLY rational explaination. It is the only
explaination that does NOT require a magic bullet.

bigdog

unread,
Oct 26, 2007, 7:45:26 PM10/26/07
to

Yes Herbert, it is a simple question which is why you seem unable to
answer it. You are either unwilling or incapable of saying what you
mean in simple language. You prefer to use a lot of verbage to say
absolutely nothing of relevance. Vagueness is your forte. It's really
this simple, a line through the entrance wound in JBC's back and the
exit wound in his chest does not yield a tangential strike. You can
use all fancy words you want to try to dance around this issue. The
angle of entry for such a bullet is not going to create the elongated
entry wound on JBC's back. That line is a near perpendicular strike to
JBC's back. It is not even close to being tangential. You can throw
around all the fancy phrases you want. You can't change that one
simple fact.

Herbert Blenner

unread,
Oct 26, 2007, 10:31:35 PM10/26/07
to

Hey, -------, a tangential entry is other than perpendicular, not at a
tangent. A child could try you that a tangent touches at one point and
therefore cannot represent an entry.

Now I suggest you address the points I raise, otherwise your bottom
posting will reenforce what everyone knows. Bigdog has no rebuttals.

Herbert

Ben Holmes

unread,
Oct 27, 2007, 10:30:17 AM10/27/07
to
In article <1193452295....@19g2000hsx.googlegroups.com>, Herbert
Blenner says...


Actually, it *PROVES* that it must have been.


>>You can
>> use all fancy words you want to try to dance around this issue. The
>> angle of entry for such a bullet is not going to create the elongated
>> entry wound on JBC's back. That line is a near perpendicular strike to
>> JBC's back. It is not even close to being tangential. You can throw
>> around all the fancy phrases you want. You can't change that one
>> simple fact.
>
>Hey, -------, a tangential entry is other than perpendicular, not at a
>tangent. A child could try you that a tangent touches at one point and
>therefore cannot represent an entry.
>
>Now I suggest you address the points I raise, otherwise your bottom
>posting will reenforce what everyone knows. Bigdog has no rebuttals.
>
>Herbert

Of course, any intelligent person can instantly see that the wound, GIVEN IT'S
ENTRY AND EXIT POINTS, *had* to have been tangential in entry. For if it were
perpendicular to the entry location, the exit would be over by Connally's LEFT
nipple.

Trolls clearly believe that the back of a person is a flat plane. :)

aeffects

unread,
Oct 27, 2007, 3:33:29 PM10/27/07
to
On Oct 27, 7:30 am, Ben Holmes <ad...@websitewealthcollege.com> wrote:
> In article <1193452295.479911.48...@19g2000hsx.googlegroups.com>, Herbert

perhaps someone will notify Dale Myer's (of Z-film cartoon central) of
that little gem.... LMAO!

0 new messages