LNers, Please Post A...
robcap...@netscape.com
to support your claim of a SBT.
IF this can't be done, you are ADMITTING JFK was killed by a
conspiracy since one man could not cause the wounds in JFK and JBC
with 2 bullets.
I'll wait for the picture.
Gil Jesus
wrote:
Hey Rob:
They couldn't answer the 45
They got burned by the 16 smoking guns
They couldn't even answer my questions
Do you REALLY think they'll post pictures ?
Don't hold your breath
robcap...@netscape.com
I won't Gil, but this request is different. Why? Because we know
from those there that THREE probe pictures were taken at the autopsy,
the WC claimed (based on this autopsy) that the back wound and the
throat wound were connected, thus is it too much to expect one of the
three photos taken would show this?
I'm not asking them to answer a question of mine, but simply provide
the PROOF the WC claimed existed. Why can't they do this?
Harry
wrote:
> the PROOF the WC claimed existed. Why can't they do this?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Where's Von Pine-for-a-dead-mule and his buddies?
I asked for ONE witness that saw LHO shoot JFK last night and DVP
admitted there were none, yet INSISTS!! that Oswald did it based on
questionable circumstantial evidence. Do these idiots actually trust
J. Edgar Hoover and Lyndon Johnson to tell the truth when they both
had so much to gain?
The way these LONE-GUNMAN JERKS "think" is incredible!
Bud
A fine display of fallacious thinking. Perhaps you can point to a
murder case where the lack of a probe photo led to a suspect`s
exoneration.
> I'll wait for the picture.
I`ve never seen Kennedy`s legs in any of the autopsy photos, should
I assume he was legless?
Bud
Doubtful, DVP knows of Brennan.
> yet INSISTS!! that Oswald did it based on
> questionable circumstantial evidence.
Only idiots think the evidence is questionable. Idiots can question
whether the sun is hot. They`d ask stupid questions like "how can you
be sure, have you touched it?" They ask similar idiotic questions in
this case. That doesn`t mean the evidence is questionable, it means
you people are idiots.
> Do these idiots actually trust
> J. Edgar Hoover and Lyndon Johnson to tell the truth when they both
> had so much to gain?
Hoover was in an as powerful position after Kennedy was killed as
before. If Johnson wanted the position that fell into his lap so
badly, why did he decline to run?
> The way these LONE-GUNMAN JERKS "think" is incredible!
Using your kook reasoning, you must believe Biden was behind the
recent attempt at Obama, eh?
Bud
wrote:
> On Aug 27, 9:09 am, Gil Jesus <gjjm...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Aug 27, 12:02 pm, "robcap...@netscape.com" <robcap...@netscape.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > > Probe picture showing the back wound was connected to the throat wound
> > > to support your claim of a SBT.
>
> > > IF this can't be done, you are ADMITTING JFK was killed by a
> > > conspiracy since one man could not cause the wounds in JFK and JBC
> > > with 2 bullets.
>
> > > I'll wait for the picture.
>
> > Hey Rob:
>
> > They couldn't answer the 45
>
> > They got burned by the 16 smoking guns
>
> > They couldn't even answer my questions
>
> > Do you REALLY think they'll post pictures ?
>
> > Don't hold your breath
>
> I won't Gil, but this request is different. Why? Because we know
> from those there that THREE probe pictures were taken at the autopsy,
So, those same witnesses must have seen a probe put through those
two wounds, right?
> the WC claimed (based on this autopsy) that the back wound and the
> throat wound were connected, thus is it too much to expect one of the
> three photos taken would show this?
Are you saying you have witnesses to a probe going from the back
wound and out the neck?
robcap...@netscape.com
Where is the picture? You are claiming the wounds connected for a
pass through shot, and we know they took photos at the autopsy so -
why are there NO photos of this?
robcap...@netscape.com
> On Aug 27, 12:40 pm, "robcap...@netscape.com" <robcap...@netscape.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Aug 27, 9:09 am, Gil Jesus <gjjm...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Aug 27, 12:02 pm, "robcap...@netscape.com" <robcap...@netscape.com>
> > > wrote:
>
> > > > Probe picture showing the back wound was connected to the throat wound
> > > > to support your claim of a SBT.
>
> > > > IF this can't be done, you are ADMITTING JFK was killed by a
> > > > conspiracy since one man could not cause the wounds in JFK and JBC
> > > > with 2 bullets.
>
> > > > I'll wait for the picture.
>
> > > Hey Rob:
>
> > > They couldn't answer the 45
>
> > > They got burned by the 16 smoking guns
>
> > > They couldn't even answer my questions
>
> > > Do you REALLY think they'll post pictures ?
>
> > > Don't hold your breath
>
> > I won't Gil, but this request is different. Why? Because we know
> > from those there that THREE probe pictures were taken at the autopsy,
>
> So, those same witnesses must have seen a probe put through those
> two wounds, right?
You lies are showing through!! Why would anyone beyond a liar make
this so complicated? The WC claimed the two wounds connected, the
witnesses at the autopsy (doctors too) said three pictures of probes
were taken. So, why is there NONE of this happening (a probe of the
two wounds connecting)? This is a MAJOR part of your case. Where is
the photo (proof)?
>
> > the WC claimed (based on this autopsy) that the back wound and the
> > throat wound were connected, thus is it too much to expect one of the
> > three photos taken would show this?
>
> Are you saying you have witnesses to a probe going from the back
> wound and out the neck?
>
>
>
> > I'm not asking them to answer a question of mine, but simply provide
> > the PROOF the WC claimed existed. Why can't they do this?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
robcap...@netscape.com
I missed this one. NO, I'm saying you WC apologists are saying the
two wounds were connected, and I'm saying you could prove this by
simply showing a probe picture. Why can't you?
>
> > I'm not asking them to answer a question of mine, but simply provide
David Von Pein
>>> "I asked for ONE witness that saw LHO shoot JFK last night and DVP admitted there were none..." <<<
Another lie from Harry The Mega-Idiot.
In that other thread, in fact, I specifically said this:
"And, of course, you told a lie when you said nobody saw LHO
firing from the 6th Floor (but you know this, of course; you just feel
like being a stupid kook tonight...like always)." -- DVP
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/f63027d01351a087
curtjester1
As long as your into murder case scenarios, Bud, why don't you pull
down the file of all the murder cases that two people were felled by
one bullet?
CJ
Bud
Did those people you are referring to say the probes went into the
back wound and out the neck wound?
Bud
Why would you think this is impossible? A bullet might only expend
a small portion of it`s energy going through a human body, depending
on where it passed through.
> CJ
curtjester1
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
What is so highly improbable is by what is observed when guns are
fired. They've been fired in crowds, and something like that would
be very noteworthy, yet there are not any that I know of where we hear
of it. Yet, you think it sounds almost probable when it comes to the
JFK assassination. So, by your response you are experssing 'outrage'
at virtually the impossible. Of course, if you look at the evidence,
it becomes absurd, then.
CJ
Harry
> On Aug 27, 2:10 pm, Harry <harryfreeloa...@yahoo.com> wrote:
I love the line below. Get this, Von Pin-Head states Brennan saw LHO
shoot JFK so Bud believes it's a historical fact now. Duh! Are we
watching the Simpsons here, or what?
Doubtful, DVP knows of Brennan.>>>>>>>
The evidence is circumstantial at BEST, Heir Douche-bag.
Hoover was on his way OUT. He would reach mandatory retirement age on
Jan. 1, 1965, and JFK was going to get rid of the blackmailing queer
then and nothing Hoover could do would save his job.
LBJ was VP, as John Nance Garner once noted--a bucket of warm spit. He
was powerless as VP.
You tell me why LBJ decided not to run. You KOOKS seem to know
everything. IDIOT!!
Harry
>>> "State the name of person(s) who saw LHO on the sixth floor firing a rifle. You can't. There are none." <<<
State the name of the person(s) who saw O.J. Simpson thrust a knife
into the bodies of Nicole Brown and Ron Goldman on 6/12/94?
You can't. There are none.
It looks like you said there were no witnesses who saw LHO shoot JFK,
Liar.
When are you going to just admit you're wrong and stop with the silly
little games, David?
robcap...@netscape.com
> On Aug 27, 1:53 pm, "robcap...@netscape.com" <robcap...@netscape.com>
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> picture of a tunnel thru JFK like some sort of Bugs Bunny cartoon.
Chuck - "I lie for a living and cause people to be homeless" - can't
produce a singel picture showing the two wounds connecting!!! Why?
> Rob, you're well known at this forum as being the dumbest of the dumb-
> even Walt Cupcake and Ben think you're nuts- but certainly you know
> that JFK's body was x-rayed and that no bullets were found, right? And
> certainly you are aware that JFK's back wound was initially probed by
> hand and that there was speculation that the bullet had fallen out at
> some point, right? Being the crackerjack researcher you are, I'm sure
> you are aware that inserting a 'probe' through a body, especially
> after the body has shifted, etc. isn't always possible and nor is it
> usually needed to reach a conclusion, right?
Nice try at trying to chane the topic but where is the picture of the
probe of the two wounds you contend were connected? This is SOP for
any autopsy. You are lying again as probes are done all the time in
autopsies, you just CAN'T produce one. Why? I'll tell you why, NONE
exists because the two wounds were NEVER CONNECTED!
> Certainly you are aware that the 'mystery' was solved once Parkland
> and Bethesda talked to each other the next morning, right? Certainly
> you are aware that the clothing on Kennedy indicates, via displacement
> of the fibers, that the bullet wound in the neck was an exit wound,
> right?
They talked to each other the night of the autopsy, don't you ever
stop lying? I know no such thing, the wound in the throat was one of
ENTRY!
> Why should I trust you over the doctors that performed the autopsy?
> Why are you better qualified? Did you sleep at a Holiday Inn Express
> last night?
Why are you trusting them when they can't do a simple probe connecting
to allegedly connecting wounds? They could have made your theory of a
SBT (not LHO being the assassin) being valid, aren't you mad at them?
robcap...@netscape.com
Of course NOT, that is the whole point!! They were NEVER CONNECTED,
it was made up to make your silly SBT seem possible (if that could
ever happen). Your total lack of being able to post a picture proves
this, because if they did connect you can damn well bet they would
have photographed it.
Bud
wrote:
> On Aug 27, 5:56 pm,Bud<sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Aug 27, 2:56 pm, "robcap...@netscape.com" <robcap...@netscape.com>
> > wrote:
>
Ok, what did the witnesses who said they saw probing report what
they saw? The probes went how far?
> They were NEVER CONNECTED,
> it was made up to make your silly SBT seem possible (if that could
> ever happen). Your total lack of being able to post a picture proves
> this, because if they did connect you can damn well bet they would
> have photographed it.
We still have the witnesses. What did they report regarding probing?
Bud
> On Aug 27, 12:37 pm,Bud<sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>
> > On Aug 27, 2:10 pm, Harry <harryfreeloa...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> I love the line below. Get this, Von Pin-Head states Brennan saw LHO
You said "I asked for ONE witness that saw LHO shoot JFK last
night and DVP admitted there were none". I knew that to be a lie, and
I called you on it. See ho quickly you change it to DVP asserting that
Brennan saw LHO shoot JFK, and me accepting it without question. But,
I guess that the best thing about being a CT, you don`t need
credibility so it doesn`t matter what you claim.
>Duh! Are we
> watching the Simpsons here, or what?
I`m sure I`ll find no posting from you here while that program is
on.
> Doubtful, DVP knows of Brennan.>>>>>>>
>
> The evidence is circumstantial at BEST, Heir Douche-bag.
>
> Hoover was on his way OUT. He would reach mandatory retirement age on
> Jan. 1, 1965, and JFK was going to get rid of the blackmailing queer
> then and nothing Hoover could do would save his job.
>
> LBJ was VP, as John Nance Garner once noted--a bucket of warm spit. He
> was powerless as VP.
>
> You tell me why LBJ decided not to run. You KOOKS seem to know
> everything. IDIOT!!
Idiots believe he would kill to get the job, but his actions
clearly show he didn`t want it. He fulfilled Kennedy`s mandate and
legacy, and got out.
robcap...@netscape.com
You are missing the whole point (or probe?), there was NO probe of the
two wounds!!! There couldn't be since the back wound only penetrated
one or two inches. The SBT is a crock!
> > They were NEVER CONNECTED,
> > it was made up to make your silly SBT seem possible (if that could
> > ever happen). Your total lack of being able to post a picture proves
> > this, because if they did connect you can damn well bet they would
> > have photographed it.
>
> We still have the witnesses. What did they report regarding probing?- Hide quoted text -
Bud
Why would you think this would be so noteworthy as to be unable to
escape your attention? Two people struck by one bullet is something
that has doubtlessly occurred thousands of times since the invention
of firearms. Heres an instance where a person was gutshot, and a woman
found in a nearby home wounded by the same bullet...
> Yet, you think it sounds almost probable when it comes to the
> JFK assassination. So, by your response you are experssing 'outrage'
> at virtually the impossible. Of course, if you look at the evidence,
> it becomes absurd, then.
The evidence is that bullets don`t always lose a lot of their energy
going through a human body, and are sometimes still very dangerous
when they emerge.
> CJ
worthless_...@yahoo.com
I'd bet $10,000 to a donut you never went beyond the third grade in
school.
And don't tell me I'd lose. This would be a sure bet.
You know NOTHING of history.
Bud
You don`t have $10,000. You`ve never had $10,000. You couldn`t even
afford the donut.
Bud
wrote:
Why did you claim that witnesses reported this? You said "...the
witnesses at the autopsy (doctors too) said three pictures of probes
were taken." Why did you invoke the authority of these witnesses only
to deny what you say they reported?
Harry
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
You're still a third grade mentality no matter what.
Bud
Keep track of what name you are posting under, Worthless Harry.
Harry
Why? Are you getting confused? Maybe you're CONFUSED about who really
shot Kennedy too.
curtjester1
>
This is a blurb with no specifics and no ballistics. And this is one
case...not "thousands' of cases.
> > Yet, you think it sounds almost probable when it comes to the
> > JFK assassination. So, by your response you are experssing 'outrage'
> > at virtually the impossible. Of course, if you look at the evidence,
> > it becomes absurd, then.
>
> The evidence is that bullets don`t always lose a lot of their energy
> going through a human body, and are sometimes still very dangerous
> when they emerge.
>
I'm sure you'll have to go looking a little further to back yourself
on that one.
CJ
Bud
Just because something happens a thousand times doesn`t mean you
can find a thousand instances of it reported on the internet.
> > > Yet, you think it sounds almost probable when it comes to the
> > > JFK assassination. So, by your response you are experssing 'outrage'
> > > at virtually the impossible. Of course, if you look at the evidence,
> > > it becomes absurd, then.
>
> > The evidence is that bullets don`t always lose a lot of their energy
> > going through a human body, and are sometimes still very dangerous
> > when they emerge.
>
> I'm sure you'll have to go looking a little further to back yourself
> on that one.
I think I`ll wait for you to produce something that does harm to my
contention first.
Bud
> On Aug 28, 6:25 pm,Bud<sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Aug 28, 6:44 pm, Harry <harryfreeloa...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
I`d hate to see you get into an argument with one of your sock
puppets, and lose.
Harry
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
I-D-I-O-T!!!!!
robcap...@netscape.com
You are either not getting the message or lying. I said witnesses
said there were three probes performed and photographed. I then said
if the back wound and the throat wound were connected surely one of
these must be of this probe.
The problems are: NO probe pictures exist at the N.A., why? This
means there is NO picture of the two wounds you LNers claim connected
exists. Therefore, we have to go with the report, the Sibert and
O'Neill report, the original Boswell autopsy diagram, the autopsy
report and the witnesses there and say these two wounds WERE NEVER
CONNECTED! Thus the SBT is impossible.
> >There couldn't be since the back wound only penetrated
> > one or two inches. The SBT is a crock!
>
> > > > They were NEVER CONNECTED,
> > > > it was made up to make your silly SBT seem possible (if that could
> > > > ever happen). Your total lack of being able to post a picture proves
> > > > this, because if they did connect you can damn well bet they would
> > > > have photographed it.
>
> > > We still have the witnesses. What did they report regarding probing?- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
David Von Pein
>>> "NO probe pictures exist at the N.A., why? This means there is NO picture of the two wounds you LNers claim connected exists. Therefore, we have to go with the report, the Sibert and O'Neill report, the original Boswell autopsy diagram, the autopsy report and the witnesses there and say these two wounds WERE NEVER CONNECTED! Thus the SBT is impossible." <<<
Rob,
If a kook falls on his ass in the forest (after consuming his usual
quantity of 10 six-packs for the day)....and nobody else except the
drunken kook is there to hear him fall....does he make a sound when he
hits the ground?
Apply the above analogy to the President's autopsy with respect to the
wound in JFK's upper back and the throat wound -- the latter which was
a wound that NOBODY AT BETHESDA EVEN KNEW EXISTED AS OF THE END OF THE
AUTOPSY:
If two wounds were never connected via "probes" (mainly because one of
the wounds wasn't even recognized as a bullet hole until the following
day)....does this mean that the 2 wounds can never logically be
"connected" when utilizing the post-11/22 knowledge gained by the
autopsy surgeons (and others investigating the case, like the Warren
Commission and its staff)?
Let's watch Robby go into "Mega Kook" mode now. That's always fun to
observe as the weekend nears.
robcap...@netscape.com
> >>> "NO probe pictures exist at the N.A., why? This means there is NO picture of the two wounds you LNers claim connected exists. Therefore, we have to go with the report, the Sibert and O'Neill report, the original Boswell autopsy diagram, the autopsy report and the witnesses there and say these two wounds WERE NEVER CONNECTED! Thus the SBT is impossible." <<<
>
> Rob,
>
> If a kook falls on his ass in the forest (after consuming his usual
> quantity of 10 six-packs for the day)....and nobody else except the
> drunken kook is there to hear him fall....does he make a sound when he
> hits the ground?
Dave - cut the crap and produce something that shows your claim the
two wounds are connected or move on. I know, and most rational people
know, these two wounds (the back and the throat) were NEVER
CONNECTED. IF they were the traitor Ford woundn't have had to move
the wound in the back up to the base of the neck now would he?
> Apply the above analogy to the President's autopsy with respect to the
> wound in JFK's upper back and the throat wound -- the latter which was
> a wound that NOBODY AT BETHESDA EVEN KNEW EXISTED AS OF THE END OF THE
> AUTOPSY:
You are liar Dave! The actions of the doctors show they knew the true
nature of the throat wound during the autopsy or they would not have
had tissue samples taken of a tracheotomy! Dr. Perry told us he told
Dr. Humes as well and he was very truthful so you will have to PROVE
he was a liar to make your case. Good luck with that.
> If two wounds were never connected via "probes" (mainly because one of
> the wounds wasn't even recognized as a bullet hole until the following
> day)....does this mean that the 2 wounds can never logically be
> "connected" when utilizing the post-11/22 knowledge gained by the
> autopsy surgeons (and others investigating the case, like the Warren
> Commission and its staff)?
Why are you lying so much? If the SBT is possible, and the way it
really occured, why don't you have proof of it's existence? You also
have the problem of many sources noting the back wound NEVER
TRANSVERED THE BODY either, so you have to PROVE all of them false.
Goold luck with that also.
> Let's watch Robby go into "Mega Kook" mode now. That's always fun to
> observe as the weekend nears.
It is always "Let's watch" with Dave, when all the liar has to do is
produce real evidence to PROVE his assertions! What a novel concept,
prove your assertions. It is novel for Dave since he has never done
it before, and won't do it now because there is NO PROOF TO BACK UP
THE SINGLE BULLET THEORY. NONE!
David Von Pein
Nice. It only took the Ultra-Kook named Robby 8 minutes to start
acting like an idiot once again. (He could do better though...his
record is 3 minutes.)
Harry
He pulled out of his ass where he keeps his brain on ice.
Harry
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
I almost forgot to insult you. My apologies for the oversight.
IDIOT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
There. Now I'm sure we both feel better.
robcap...@netscape.com
IT ONLY took Dave 3 minutes to NOT produce any evidence or proof for
his crazy assertions! Just like Dave, long on hot air and lies, and
VERY SHORT on proof.
robcap...@netscape.com
wrote:
> On Aug 29, 1:50 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > >>> "NO probe pictures exist at the N.A., why? This means there is NO picture of the two wounds you LNers claim connected exists. Therefore, we have to go with the report, the Sibert and O'Neill report, the original Boswell autopsy diagram, the autopsy report and the witnesses there and say these two wounds WERE NEVER CONNECTED! Thus the SBT is impossible." <<<
>
> > Rob,
>
> > If a kook falls on his ass in the forest (after consuming his usual
> > quantity of 10 six-packs for the day)....and nobody else except the
> > drunken kook is there to hear him fall....does he make a sound when he
> > hits the ground?
>
> Dave - cut the crap and produce something that shows your claim the
> two wounds are connected or move on. I know, and most rational people
> know, these two wounds (the back and the throat) were NEVER
> CONNECTED. IF they were the traitor Ford woundn't have had to move
> the wound in the back up to the base of the neck now would he?
>
> > Apply the above analogy to the President's autopsy with respect to the
> > wound in JFK's upper back and the throat wound -- the latter which was
> > a wound that NOBODY AT BETHESDA EVEN KNEW EXISTED AS OF THE END OF THE
> > AUTOPSY:
>
> You are liar Dave! The actions of the doctors show they knew the true
> nature of the throat wound during the autopsy or they would not have
> had tissue samples taken of a tracheotomy! Dr. Perry told us he told
> Dr. Humes as well and he was very truthful so you will have to PROVE
> he was a liar to make your case. Good luck with that.
I made a mistake here, I was thinking of Perry for another issue, it
was actually Dr. Livingstone who said he told Dr. Humes of the entry
wound on the night of the autopsy.
Bud
You just said "You are missing the point (or probe?), there was NO
probe of the two wounds." Now you are back saying there were probes.
Which is it, probes or no probes?
> I then said
> if the back wound and the throat wound were connected surely one of
> these must be of this probe.
Ah, it`s only a kook assumption, I`m familiar with those.
> The problems are: NO probe pictures exist at the N.A., why?
But you claim there are three witnesses to probing.
> This
> means there is NO picture of the two wounds you LNers claim connected
> exists. Therefore, we have to go with the report, the Sibert and
> O'Neill report, the original Boswell autopsy diagram, the autopsy
> report and the witnesses there and say these two wounds WERE NEVER
> CONNECTED! Thus the SBT is impossible.
Thats silly. It`s the only reasonable explanation. It is the
conclusion of the autopsy report that the shots entered from the rear.
The way they were aligned, and the closeness they react to being hit
makes this the only reasonable explanation. It has been confirmed by
computer analysis. It has been field tested using live ammo.Kooks will
never accept it, because they desperately want to believe someone
other than their precious patsy killed Kennedy. They have a whole
martyr/political/delusional agenda that requires Oswald to be
innocent.
robcap...@netscape.com
ANY proof, that the back wound and the throat wound were connected.
He is NOT alone, as the WC, the HSCA, the Clark Panel, the Rockefeller
Commission, Bugliosi, Posner, et. al. have NOT either. In fact, NOT
one entity who supports the "Single Bullet Theory" has provided any
proof that it was possible. They simple said "It is possible and you
will believe us."
Why can't they provide proof if this is what really happened?