Croft Trajectory through the throat for Walt (graphic)
John Hunt
John Hunt <jm...@efortress.com> wrote in message
news:_gol4.7994$ox5.2...@tw11.nn.bcandid.com...
>
> Test
>
>
>
This message applies to the graphic in the previous post entitled "Test."
Walt's reply should be interesting.
The "W" is the trajectory from the "badge Man" position to the limo at
Z-161. That bullet would be headed for the limousine from a position 15
degree to the North of the limo centerline. That is where Walt thinks (I
think) a "Croft #3" shot pierced Kennedy. The line Marked HSCA is the
trajectory through the holes in Kennedy's torso. A frontal throat shot at
Z-161 would have to travel along the black HSCA line, i.e. through the
windshield before it could hit Kennedy. If Walt's ludicrous and untenable
"Croft #3 fontal throat shot from behind the GK" were actually what happened
that day, Kennedy's back wound would have been 2+ inches the left of his
spine. Of course it was not. Nighty-night, Walt.
John Hunt
DAnde9348
>From: jm...@efortress.com
>Date: 1/31/00 12:56 PM Pacific Standard Time
Dear Mr. Hunt.... I don't know what you posted because I never downloaded
it....
I'm sure it's just more of your nonsense, attempting to prove that the throat
shot couldn't have been from the front, but anybodt who looks at page 20, 21,
22 of TKOAP can see that it was in FACT possible for a gunman on the GK to hit
JFK in the throat....
Walt
John Hunt
DAnde9348 <dand...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20000131191900...@ng-bg1.aol.com...
Bury your head in the sand again if you want to, Walt, but you will still be
wrong. You just won't know it. That seems to be your MO.
Nighty-night.
John Hunt
SKeat97
>Date: 1/31/00 1:56 PM Mount
SKeat97
>Dear Mr. Hunt.... I don't know what you posted because I never downloaded
>it....
You now have another opportunity, Walt. I put it back up. I think you will
really want to see it. Regards.
Steve K.
DAnde9348
>From: ske...@aol.com (SKeat97)
>Date: 2/2/00 9:14 AM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <20000202121439...@ng-bd1.aol.com>
>
Why don't you describe Johnny's post Parrot..... I'm sure it's going to be
something that will attempt to show that the shot that hit JFK in the throat
could not have been fired from the front....Of course it's utterly ridiculous,
to think a man could be shot in the throat from anywhere but the front, but
that doesn't stop the LNers from trying.
The early frames of the Z film show the same basic scene that a gunman on the
GK would have seen and it's quite obvious that a gunman on the knoll could
easily have hit JFK in the throat....
Walt
attempting to
John Hunt
DAnde9348 <dand...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20000202171017...@ng-fd1.aol.com...
But that bullet would come out the wrong side of JFK's back, and much lower
than the existing hole. Unfortunately for your bizzare theory, there is no
hole on that side of the back.
John Hunt
>
> Walt
>
>
> attempting to
>
John Hunt
SKeat97 <ske...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20000202121439...@ng-bd1.aol.com...
> >From: dand...@aol.com
>
> >Dear Mr. Hunt.... I don't know what you posted because I never
downloaded
> >it....
>
> You now have another opportunity, Walt. I put it back up. I think you will
> really want to see it. Regards.
He definitely does not want to see it. It might upset his rickety apple
cart. Can't have pesky facts getting in the way of a perfectly bad theory,
now can we. I don't think Walt is looking for the truth.
Joh Hunt
PS I know that Mr. Trajectory CAN NOT tell us how far above JFK's head his
frontal throat assassin was. Or what the angle of said assassin was
relative to the centerline of the Limo. Or where JFK's head was in DP at
Z-161. Or what the angle through JFK's throat would be, both direction and
slope. Walt is superficial at best. If he asked me the answers to those
questions, and any serious and thorough researcher should know the specifics
of a trajectory they claim is fact, I would gladly provide them. It would
take me ten minutes, tops. Walt does not know and does not want to know.
>
> Steve K.
>
>
SKeat97
>Why don't you describe Johnny's post Parrot..... I'm sure it's going to be
>something that will attempt to show that the shot that hit JFK in the throat
>could not have been fired from the front....Of course it's utterly
>ridiculous,
>to think a man could be shot in the throat from anywhere but the front, but
>that doesn't stop the LNers from trying.
>The early frames of the Z film show the same basic scene that a gunman on the
>GK would have seen and it's quite obvious that a gunman on the knoll could
>easily have hit JFK in the throat....
Its real simple, Walt. The medical evidence shows no exit wound in the back or
back of the neck, and the trajectory absolutely does not work out in any way,
shape, or form for a frontal shot.
Steve K.
>
>Walt
>
>
>attempting to
>
>
>
>
>
>
tomnln
If you look at the back wound as one of EXIT, it would explain the 10 degree
"Upward" trajectory.
It would also explain the witnesses seeing a bullet hit the Street behind
the Limo.
"SKeat97" <ske...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20000203152600...@ng-fp1.aol.com...
John Hunt
tomnln <tom...@home.com> wrote in message
news:wLmm4.7699$MZ2.1...@news1.wwck1.ri.home.com...
> It SURE in heck DOES work out for the trajectory.
Except for the pesky little fact that the back wound was to the left of
JFK's spine as seen from the front. Under your scenario, it would have to
be on the right. It was not.
Here is what I wrote for Walt;
PS I know that Mr. Trajectory CAN NOT tell us how far above JFK's head his
frontal throat assassin was. Or what the angle of said assassin was
relative to the centerline of the Limo. Or where JFK's head was in DP at
Z-161. Or what the angle through JFK's throat would be, both direction and
slope. Walt is superficial at best. If he asked me the answers to those
questions, and any serious and thorough researcher should know the specifics
of a trajectory they claim is fact, I would gladly provide them. It would
take me ten minutes, tops.
Can you answer these most basic of trajectory questions??
John Hunt
DAnde9348
>Date: 2/3/00 2:08 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <t%mm4.20279$ox5.4...@tw11.nn.bcandid.com>
>> It SURE in heck DOES work out for the trajectory.
>
>Except for the pesky little fact that the back wound was to the left of
>JFK's spine as seen from the front. Under your scenario, it would have to
>be on the right. It was not.
>
>
>Here is what I wrote for Walt;
>
>PS I know that Mr. Trajectory CAN NOT tell us how far above JFK's head his
>frontal throat assassin was. Or what the angle of said assassin was
>relative to the centerline of the Limo. Or where JFK's head was in DP at
>Z-161. Or what the angle through JFK's throat would be, both direction and
>slope. Walt is superficial at best. If he asked me the answers to those
>questions, and any serious and thorough researcher should know the specifics
>of a trajectory they claim is fact, I would gladly provide them. It would
>take me ten minutes, tops.
>
>Can you answer these most basic of trajectory questions??
>
>
> John Hunt
>
Well now the shoe's on the other foot isn't it Mr. Runt......
Just a few months ago you were posting that the trajectory of a bullet through
the body cannot be predicted.... I agree that that is a true statement up to a
point...
A big heavy high velocity bullet is not easily deflected and it will usually
travel in a straight path through a body. However a small light weight bullet
can be easily deflected. We can be sure the bullet that hit JFK in the throat
was a small caliber because Dr Carrico described it as a tiny neatly punched
penetrating wound. We don't know the weight, but since it was a small caliber (
.22) we can assume it didn't weight more than 60 grains...
A 60 grain bullet is easily deflected and unpredictable concerning it's path
through a body.... So simply because the bullet did not emerge exactly where
your little pea brain would like it to have emerged does not refute the shot
from the front.
Walt
DAnde9348
>From: "John Hunt" jm...@efortress.com
>Message-id: <Eigm4.19659$ox5.4...@tw11.nn.bcandid.com>
>I know that Mr. Trajectory CAN NOT tell us how far above JFK's head his
>frontal throat assassin was. Or what the angle of said assassin was
>relative to the centerline of the Limo. Or where JFK's head was in DP at
>Z-161. Or what the angle through JFK's throat would be, both direction and
>slope. Walt is superficial at best. If he asked me the answers to those
>questions, and any serious and thorough researcher should know the specifics
>of a trajectory they claim is fact, I would gladly provide them. It would
>take me ten minutes, tops. Walt does not know and does not want to know.
>
>
Dear Mr Hunt....Since you've posted this twice ....you must be champing at the
bit to expose yer ignorance. So why don't you prove that the old adage is
true, that it is better to remain quiet and thought to be a fool..... than to
open yer mouth and remove all doubt.
Walt
tomnln
"Mid-Line" viewed from the rear.
Had JFK been slightly turned while looking to His Right (as depicted prior
to his going behind the sign) the alignment from a throat Entry wound & a
Back Exit wound would have the neccessary alignment for a trajectory for a
shot eminating from the right front
"John Hunt" <jm...@efortress.com> wrote in message
news:t%mm4.20279$ox5.4...@tw11.nn.bcandid.com...
>
>
> tomnln <tom...@home.com> wrote in message
> news:wLmm4.7699$MZ2.1...@news1.wwck1.ri.home.com...
> > It SURE in heck DOES work out for the trajectory.
>
> Except for the pesky little fact that the back wound was to the left of
> JFK's spine as seen from the front. Under your scenario, it would have to
> be on the right. It was not.
>
>
> Here is what I wrote for Walt;
>
> PS I know that Mr. Trajectory CAN NOT tell us how far above JFK's head
his
> frontal throat assassin was. Or what the angle of said assassin was
> relative to the centerline of the Limo. Or where JFK's head was in DP at
> Z-161. Or what the angle through JFK's throat would be, both direction
and
> slope. Walt is superficial at best. If he asked me the answers to those
> questions, and any serious and thorough researcher should know the
specifics
> of a trajectory they claim is fact, I would gladly provide them. It would
> take me ten minutes, tops.
>
> Can you answer these most basic of trajectory questions??
>
>
> John Hunt
>
>
>
>
>
> >
> > If you look at the back wound as one of EXIT, it would explain the 10
> degree
> > "Upward" trajectory.
> > It would also explain the witnesses seeing a bullet hit the Street
behind
> > the Limo.
> >
> >
> >
> > "SKeat97" <ske...@aol.com> wrote in message
> > news:20000203152600...@ng-fp1.aol.com...
> > > >From: dand...@aol.com
> > >
> > > >Why don't you describe Johnny's post Parrot..... I'm sure it's going
> to
> > be
> > > >something that will attempt to show that the shot that hit JFK in the
> > throat
tomnln
I don't know where your located. But, should you ever be in the CT area, I'd
love gettin together with you over a cup of coffee to compare notes on the
"Biggest Crime" in American History.
ps...Keep Punchin...We'll just form a circle.......Tom
"DAnde9348" <dand...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20000203175642...@ng-bg1.aol.com...
> >It SURE in heck DOES work out for the trajectory.
> >
> >If you look at the back wound as one of EXIT, it would explain the 10
degree
> >"Upward" trajectory.
> >It would also explain the witnesses seeing a bullet hit the Street behind
> >the Limo.
> >
>
> Thanks for jumpin in Tom....I really appreciate the support. I wouldn't
expect
> any support for something that didn't make sense. You and I obviously see
eye
> to eye on this point. It's beyond me how folks can believe something as
> ludicrious as the SBT, and reject something much more sensible, but the
LNers
> support each other on that nonsense SBT theory.
>
> Regards..... Walt
>
>
>
SR111255
>>something that will attempt to show that the shot that hit JFK in the throat
>>could not have been fired from the front....Of course it's utterly
>>ridiculous,
>>to think a man could be shot in the throat from anywhere but the front, but
>>that doesn't stop the LNers from trying.
>>The early frames of the Z film show the same basic scene that a gunman on
>the
>>GK would have seen and it's quite obvious that a gunman on the knoll could
>>easily have hit JFK in the throat....
>
>Its real simple, Walt. The medical evidence shows no exit wound in the back
>or
>back of the neck, and the trajectory absolutely does not work out in any way,
>shape, or form for a frontal shot.
>
>Steve K.
>>
>>Walt
>>
>>
>>attempting to
Walt, if that was a frontal entry wound in JFK's throat.........where did the
bullet go?
It would have to be a Grassy Knoll shot.....which would of be sideways through
the throat. As Steve K says.....exiting where on the body?
Where did it Go?
Steve R.
Jerry
dand...@aol.com (DAnde9348) wrote:
> >Subject: Re: Croft Trajectory through the throat for Walt (graphic)
> >From: "John Hunt" jm...@efortress.com
> >Date: 2/3/00 6:31 AM Pacific Standard Time
> >Message-id: <Eigm4.19659$ox5.4...@tw11.nn.bcandid.com>
>
his
> >frontal throat assassin was. Or what the angle of said assassin was
> >relative to the centerline of the Limo. Or where JFK's head was in
DP at
> >Z-161. Or what the angle through JFK's throat would be, both
direction and
> >slope. Walt is superficial at best. If he asked me the answers to
those
> >questions, and any serious and thorough researcher should know the
specifics
> >of a trajectory they claim is fact, I would gladly provide them. It
would
know.
> >
> >
> Dear Mr Hunt....Since you've posted this twice ....you must be
champing at the
> bit to expose yer ignorance.
Walt,
Walt wrote: >So why don't you prove that the old adage is true, that
it is better to remain quiet and thought to be a fool..... than to open
yer mouth and remove all doubt.
This is an adage that you prove each day. As you cannot keep your
mouth shut, your rantings leave no doubt in anybody's mind that you are
indeed a fool.
Jerry
> Walt
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
John Hunt
DAnde9348 <dand...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20000203173811...@ng-bg1.aol.com...
> >Subject: Re: Croft Trajectory through the throat for Walt (graphic)
> >From: "John Hunt" jm...@efortress.com
> >Date: 2/3/00 2:08 PM Pacific Standard Time
> >Message-id: <t%mm4.20279$ox5.4...@tw11.nn.bcandid.com>
>
> >> It SURE in heck DOES work out for the trajectory.
> >
> >Except for the pesky little fact that the back wound was to the left of
> >JFK's spine as seen from the front. Under your scenario, it would have
to
> >be on the right. It was not.
> >
> >
> >Here is what I wrote for Walt;
> >
> >PS I know that Mr. Trajectory CAN NOT tell us how far above JFK's head
his
> >frontal throat assassin was. Or what the angle of said assassin was
> >relative to the centerline of the Limo. Or where JFK's head was in DP at
> >Z-161. Or what the angle through JFK's throat would be, both direction
and
> >slope. Walt is superficial at best. If he asked me the answers to those
> >questions, and any serious and thorough researcher should know the
specifics
> >of a trajectory they claim is fact, I would gladly provide them. It
would
> >take me ten minutes, tops.
> >
> >Can you answer these most basic of trajectory questions??
> >
> >
> > John Hunt
> >
> Well now the shoe's on the other foot isn't it Mr. Runt......
Not yet, Wart.
>
> Just a few months ago you were posting that the trajectory of a bullet
through
> the body cannot be predicted.... I agree that that is a true statement up
to a
> point...
Quote me in full and in context. I could have been talking about bullet
striking bone. That is different than bullet piercing 14cm. of flesh. Nice
try. Back up what you claim I said, if you can.
>
> A big heavy high velocity bullet is not easily deflected and it will
usually
> travel in a straight path through a body. However a small light weight
bullet
> can be easily deflected. We can be sure the bullet that hit JFK in the
throat
> was a small caliber because Dr Carrico described it as a tiny neatly
punched
> penetrating wound. We don't know the weight, but since it was a small
caliber (
> .22) we can assume it didn't weight more than 60 grains...
>
> A 60 grain bullet is easily deflected and unpredictable concerning it's
path
> through a body.... So simply because the bullet did not emerge exactly
where
> your little pea brain would like it to have emerged does not refute the
shot
> from the front.
This is all as seen from the front:
The bullet enters on a left to right trajectory to the right of centerline
of the neck. Yet it pierces the left side of the trachea. How ??
I knew you would not address the tough trajectory questions because you
haven't a clue. You should know exactly what you are talking about...but
you don't. You should be able to justify your position in detail...but you
can't. You expect us to just blindly follow you to Valhalla. Not today.
John Hunt
>
> Walt
John Hunt
DAnde9348 <dand...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20000203174457...@ng-bg1.aol.com...
> >Subject: Re: Croft Trajectory through the throat for Walt (graphic)
> >From: "John Hunt" jm...@efortress.com
> >Date: 2/3/00 6:31 AM Pacific Standard Time
> >Message-id: <Eigm4.19659$ox5.4...@tw11.nn.bcandid.com>
>
> >I know that Mr. Trajectory CAN NOT tell us how far above JFK's head his
> >frontal throat assassin was. Or what the angle of said assassin was
> >relative to the centerline of the Limo. Or where JFK's head was in DP at
> >Z-161. Or what the angle through JFK's throat would be, both direction
and
> >slope. Walt is superficial at best. If he asked me the answers to those
> >questions, and any serious and thorough researcher should know the
specifics
> >of a trajectory they claim is fact, I would gladly provide them. It
would
> >take me ten minutes, tops. Walt does not know and does not want to know.
> >
> >
> Dear Mr Hunt....Since you've posted this twice ....you must be champing at
the
> bit to expose yer ignorance. So why don't you prove that the old adage is
> true, that it is better to remain quiet and thought to be a fool..... than
to
> open yer mouth and remove all doubt.
You don't know the answers to the questions so you dance and you dodge.
That makes you "Research-Lite........All the Theory, One Third the Facts."
I'm giving you credit for 1/3 the facts but I doubt the number is that high.
You haven't shown me any yet.
John Hunt
>
> Walt
SKeat97
>It SURE in heck DOES work out for the trajectory.
>
>If you look at the back wound as one of EXIT, it would explain the 10 degree
>"Upward" trajectory.
>It would also explain the witnesses seeing a bullet hit the Street behind
>the Limo.
The trajectory is not correct in either the vertical or horizontal planes, not
to mention the fact that JFK's back wound had the normal abraison collar
indicative of an entry wound. Regards.
Steve K.
DAnde9348
>From: "John Hunt" jm...@efortress.com
>Message-id: <bzym4.21538$ox5.4...@tw11.nn.bcandid.com>
Mr. Hunt wrote:
>This is all as seen from the front:
>The bullet enters on a left to right trajectory to the right of centerline
>of the neck. Yet it pierces the left side of the trachea. How ??
So you acknowledge that a bullet struck JFK in the throat.... well that's a
start....
I don't know where you got the idea that it hit to the right of the trachea but
passed to it's left but the fact that you acknowledge the shot from the front
is enough for now.
Walt
DAnde9348
>From: "John Hunt" jm...@efortress.com
>Message-id: <zKym4.21540$ox5.4...@tw11.nn.bcandid.com>
>You don't know the answers to the questions so you dance and you dodge.
>That makes you "Research-Lite........All the Theory, One Third the Facts."
>
>I'm giving you credit for 1/3 the facts but I doubt the number is that high.
>You haven't shown me any yet.
>
>John Hunt
Dear Mr Hunt.... I've tried to show you facts.....and I've suggested you get a
porthole installed in yer navel...so you can see them...
Walt
John Hunt
DAnde9348 <dand...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20000204103642...@ng-cq1.aol.com...
> >Subject: Re: Croft Trajectory through the throat for Walt (graphic)
> >From: "John Hunt" jm...@efortress.com
> >Date: 2/4/00 3:17 AM Pacific Standard Time
> >Message-id: <bzym4.21538$ox5.4...@tw11.nn.bcandid.com>
>
> Mr. Hunt wrote:
>
> >This is all as seen from the front:
> >The bullet enters on a left to right trajectory to the right of
centerline
> >of the neck. Yet it pierces the left side of the trachea. How ??
>
> So you acknowledge that a bullet struck JFK in the throat.... well that's
a
> start....
You are not that stupid. Right??
>
> I don't know where you got the idea that it hit to the right of the
trachea but
> passed to it's left but the fact that you acknowledge the shot from the
front
> is enough for now.
You are a waste of time, Wart.
Bye bye
John Hunt
.
John Hunt
SKeat97 <ske...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20000204101801...@ng-bd1.aol.com...
Steve,
This tomlin gut does not realize that BM is within 1' of being horizontal
with Kennedy's head at Z-161. BM elevation 101.7'. The top of Kennedy's
head at Z-161 = 101.7' - 11" to the throat = 100.78'. 101.7' -
100.78' = 0.92' At a range of 200' that is a downward slope of about .5
degrees.
Nor does he realize the trajectory would pierce JFK's throat at 19 degrees
to the right of the limo centerline and exit the back on the wrong side of
the spine. But it can't even get that far. Of necessarily, that trajectory
would hit the spinal column square. Where is the resultant damage??
John Hunt
DAnde9348
>From: "John Hunt" jm...@efortress.com
>Message-id: <LCCm4.22007$ox5.5...@tw11.nn.bcandid.com>
>> Mr. Hunt wrote:
>>
>> >This is all as seen from the front:
>> >The bullet enters on a left to right trajectory to the right of
>centerline
>> >of the neck. Yet it pierces the left side of the trachea. How ??
>>
>> So you acknowledge that a bullet struck JFK in the throat.... well that's
>a start....
>
>You are not that stupid. Right??
>>
>> I don't know where you got the idea that it hit to the right of the trachea
but
>> passed to it's left but the fact that you acknowledge the shot from the
>front is enough for now.
But Mr. Hunt ....The Clinical Summary printed in the Warren Report , refutes
your absurd idea....
The Clinical Summary was signed by Humes, Boswell, and Finck....
The fourth paragraph of the summary says...
Quote..." Dr. Perry noted the massive wound of the head and a second much
smaller wound of the low anterior neck in approximately the midline. A
tracheostomy was performed by extending the latter wound. At this point bloody
air was noted bubbling from the wound and an injury to the RIGHT LATERAL wall
of the trachea was observed." ..unquote.
So Mr. Hunt... The doctors said the small bullet wound was "near" the midline
..NOT on the right as you claimed. However I'll give you the bennefit of the
doubt because of the word "near" the centerline. So I'l agree that the wound
was slightly to the right of midline....However I cannot agree with your claim
that the bullet entered the throat from the front and passed to the LEFT of the
trachea and damaged the LEFT side of the trachea...because the doctors clearly
said they saw an "injury to the RIGHT lateral wall of the trachea"...
Mr. Hunt why do you make up things that are so easily refuted by the facts?
Walt
>
>You are a waste of time, Wart.
Translation.... I can't pull the wool over yer eyes, Walt....So I give up...
>
>Bye bye
>
>John Hunt
John Hunt
DAnde9348 <dand...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20000204123505...@ng-cq1.aol.com...
Go back and read what I wrote. You are sloppy as ever.
JH
DAnde9348
>Date: 2/4/00 6:01 AM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <87em3s$5n9$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>
>
Jelly whined....
>you cannot keep your mouth shut,
I'm well aware that your most fervent desire is finding a way to shut me up...
Let me give you a tip...Jelly. You could easily shut me up, and stop me from
making a fool outta you.... All you have to do is stop giving me the ammo.
The only person who can make a fool out of a man ....is that man himself.
Walt
DAnde9348
>Date: 2/4/00 9:45 AM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <gfEm4.22183$ox5.5...@tw11.nn.bcandid.com>
>> So Mr. Hunt... The doctors said the small bullet wound was "near" the
>midline
>> ..NOT on the right as you claimed.
>Go back and read what I wrote. You are sloppy as ever.
>
>JH
Ok Mr. Hunt....I re-read your post and it seems to me you claimed the bullet
entered on the right of the trachea and damaged the LEFT side of the trachea.
I'll repost what you wrote and you can explain where I have misintrepreted yer
post..
Mr. I didn't say that Hunt wrote:
This is all as seen from the front:
The bullet enters ........ to the right of centerline of the neck. Yet it
pierces the left side of the trachea. How ??
Seems pretty clear to me....Mr. Hunt....You've allowed yer alligator mouth to
overlaod yer polliwog ass....
Walt
Jerry
dand...@aol.com (DAnde9348) wrote:
> >Subject: Re: Croft Trajectory through the throat for Walt (graphic)
> >Date: 2/4/00 6:01 AM Pacific Standard Time
> >Message-id: <87em3s$5n9$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>
> >
> Jelly whined....
>
> >you cannot keep your mouth shut,
>
> I'm well aware that your most fervent desire is finding a way to shut
me up...
>
> Let me give you a tip...Jelly. You could easily shut me up, and stop
me from
> making a fool outta you.... All you have to do is stop giving me the
ammo.
Walt,
> The only person who can make a fool out of a man ....is that man
himself.
And you prove that every day by making a total fool, jackass, figure
of fun out of YOURSELF every day with your "alligator mouth," your
crazy theories and your very bad manners.
Jerry
John Hunt
Once again, read what I wrote conscerning the shear improbability of your
"theory."
"This is all as seen from the front:
The bullet enters on a left to right trajectory to the right of centerline
of the neck. Yet it pierces the left side of the trachea. How ??"
John Hunt
Jane
tell the viewers that a bullet can do *anything* once it encounters
flesh. He gave an example of a child being shot in the throat and
the bullet corkscrewed down into the lung and was found only
by Xray. I think I remember the weapon as being a Glock (sp)
It is my sincere hope that I have not contributed to the deterioratiom
of this thread.
Jane
DAnde9348 <dand...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20000203173811...@ng-bg1.aol.com...
> >Subject: Re: Croft Trajectory through the throat for Walt (graphic)
> >From: "John Hunt" jm...@efortress.com
> >Date: 2/3/00 2:08 PM Pacific Standard Time
> >Message-id: <t%mm4.20279$ox5.4...@tw11.nn.bcandid.com>
>
> >> It SURE in heck DOES work out for the trajectory.
> >
> >Except for the pesky little fact that the back wound was to the left of
> >JFK's spine as seen from the front. Under your scenario, it would have
to
> >be on the right. It was not.
> >
> >
> >Here is what I wrote for Walt;
> >
> >PS I know that Mr. Trajectory CAN NOT tell us how far above JFK's head
his
> >frontal throat assassin was. Or what the angle of said assassin was
> >relative to the centerline of the Limo. Or where JFK's head was in DP at
> >Z-161. Or what the angle through JFK's throat would be, both direction
and
> >slope. Walt is superficial at best. If he asked me the answers to those
> >questions, and any serious and thorough researcher should know the
specifics
> >of a trajectory they claim is fact, I would gladly provide them. It
would
> >take me ten minutes, tops.
> >
> >Can you answer these most basic of trajectory questions??
> >
> >
> > John Hunt
> >
> Well now the shoe's on the other foot isn't it Mr. Runt......
>
> Just a few months ago you were posting that the trajectory of a bullet
through
> the body cannot be predicted.... I agree that that is a true statement up
to a
> point...
>
> A big heavy high velocity bullet is not easily deflected and it will
usually
> travel in a straight path through a body. However a small light weight
bullet
> can be easily deflected. We can be sure the bullet that hit JFK in the
throat
> was a small caliber because Dr Carrico described it as a tiny neatly
punched
> penetrating wound. We don't know the weight, but since it was a small
caliber (
> .22) we can assume it didn't weight more than 60 grains...
>
> A 60 grain bullet is easily deflected and unpredictable concerning it's
path
> through a body.... So simply because the bullet did not emerge exactly
where
> your little pea brain would like it to have emerged does not refute the
shot
> from the front.
>
> Walt
DAnde9348
>From: "John Hunt" jm...@efortress.com
>Date: 2/4/00 12:57 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <a3Hm4.22450$ox5.5...@tw11.nn.bcandid.com>
>"This is all as seen from the front:
>The bullet enters on a left to right trajectory to the right of centerline
>of the neck. Yet it pierces the left side of the trachea. How ??"
>
>
>John Hunt
Dear Mr. Runt....
It's clear to me that you said the bullet struck " TO THE RIGHT OF CENTERLINE
OF THE NECK"....There is no doubt you said that.... The Clinical Summary in
the W.R. confirms there was an injury to the RIGHT LATERAL WALL of the
trachea..
so the injury agrees with yer statement I have no idea why you think the injury
was on the LEFT side of the trachea...Are you standing on yer head??
Walt
John Hunt
DAnde9348 <dand...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20000204191517...@ng-bg1.aol.com...
As seen from the front, it would be on the left side. Are you really so
dense that you can't understand that or are you playing a game??
John Hunt
>
> Walt
DAnde9348
>From: "John Hunt" jm...@efortress.com
>Date: 2/4/00 4:53 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <4wKm4.22752$ox5.5...@tw11.nn.bcandid.com>
>As seen from the front, it would be on the left side. Are you really so
>dense that you can't understand that or are you playing a game??
>
>John Hunt
Forget the games Mr. Runt...let's just refer to JFK's right or left.....The
wound was on the right side of JFK's trachea...a small light weight bullet
fired from the GK and striking the trachea could easily have been deflected
and exited exactly where it is seen exiting JFK's back in the Croft photo...
Walt
DAnde9348
>Date: 2/4/00 3:43 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <87fo6i$i3$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>
>And you prove that every day by making a total fool, jackass, figure
>of fun out of YOURSELF every day with your "alligator mouth," your
>crazy theories and your very bad manners.
>
>Jerry
Hmmmm ....You seem to be in the minority Jelly.... I frequently receive E mail
from lurkers who express shock at your obscene posts....and they wonder why you
are so ill informed, that you can only resort to ad hominem attacks. So I'm
grateful that I don't measure down to your standards...
It was one of those lurkers that informed me that you like to talk about
homsexuality on alt. public sex.com.
Walt
Haizen Paige
>
> Recently these newsgroups have seen an extraordinary number of personal
> attacks posted about me from a small handful of people, many of them
> posting anonymously. Some allege that I post articles that have been
> refuted, but in every case they decline to repost these alleged rebuttals.
Excuse me, but your articles, or points therein, have been refuted any
number of times on these newsgroups. You don't accept them as rebuttals
because you don't accept the conclusions these contributors have come
to. It's as if these rebuttals fall into a dark black hole as far as
your recollection is concerned, and you wander off hurt and confused. If
these authors fail to rebut you on every tedious point, you view this as
no rebuttal at all. You obviously have nothing but time on your hands to
devote to these issues, and the rest of us have lives to live but have
made our points along the way.
As far as I'm concerned, you accept the opinions of researchers such a
Phelan, who ridicules the idea of political conspiracies in general --
though history is rife with them since Rome and before -- and you trot
right along never examine such basic attitudes and how it might
contribute to one's conclusions about this case and the people involved,
whether it's someone such as Garrison, Oswald, Banister, Ruby, Shaw,
Andrews, Ferrie and so on. This is just one example why some researchers
discount your entire, obsessive rantings, your hatred of Jim Garrison,
your membership in a Garrison "hate group" (according to Shinley) and
your attempted deification of indelibly and justifiable tainted suspects
such as Ferrie and Shaw. So your articles end up sounding like words
about words about words, theoretical at best, and then going way out
into the deep end. The deep end? That the witnesses in Clinton were
lying or influenced by people who had Nazi connections! I'm sure there
are some Nazis in the deep South but I've yet to see the connection with
the assassination of JFK, except in the case of Clay Shaw who was in
Europe after WW2 and may have started his sordid career of secret
political alliances and intrigue at the point, and continued in his
errant ways all the way to '63 -- and got justifiable burned for it.
Imo, his blatant, obvious perjury on the witness stand about having no
ties with the CIA, "non whatsoever," turned the tide of his trial and
the role the CIA was likely to have played in illegally and violently
removing Jack Kennedy from completing his presidency. I have never
considered that you have any insight into such matters.
Let me quickly add that not everyone is in such grave doubt about what
happened in Dallas in '63 as you are. The lies, the misinformation, the
confusion emanated from the Federal gov't and is *still* coming from the
Federal gov't, whether from statements and the tampering of evidence by
a Gerald Ford, or someone else. So not everyone is in the dark like you
are about who was behind this murder; and your continual statements that
"One day we might know precisely what happened on November 22, 1963"
sound empty and hollow to those who lived through that period of history
-- and being born in '66, you weren't. Some of us understand perfectly
well that the people of this country know what happened, but they're not
ready to do anything about it. What they are doing watching and waiting
for these outright lies and fabrications to surface. It's just a matter
of time. I, and others, have gone into the reasons why we hold our views
any number of times, so stop wasting *our* time by decreeing that no
rebuttals to your arguments have ever been presented. You are all fire
and furry on behalf of a cause you apparently don't even understand.
It's called political corruption and the death of genuine democracy in
the US of A and the ascension of an invisible, secret gov't.
Atlasrecrd
>Date: Sat, Feb 5, 2000 5:59 PM
>Let the record show that I have now been attacked
Dave, you got caught fudging stuff again. Calling it an "attack" is cowardly.
The simple fact is people are starting to call you on stuff, and you're getting
caught fabricating about once a week now.
Maybe it's time to pack it in.
John Hunt
--
John Hunt
John Hunt <jm...@efortress.com> wrote in message news:...
>
> DAnde9348 <dand...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:20000204232656...@ng-ci1.aol.com...
> Enjoy, Walt
>
> John Hunt
>
>
Dave Reitzes
>Drei...@aol.com wrote:
>>
>> Recently these newsgroups have seen an extraordinary number of personal
>> attacks posted about me from a small handful of people, many of them
>> posting anonymously. Some allege that I post articles that have been
>> refuted, but in every case they decline to repost these alleged rebuttals.
>
>Excuse me, but your articles, or points therein, have been refuted any
>number of times on these newsgroups. You don't accept them as rebuttals
>because you don't accept the conclusions these contributors have come
>to. It's as if these rebuttals fall into a dark black hole as far as
>your recollection is concerned, and you wander off hurt and confused. If
>these authors fail to rebut you on every tedious point, you view this as
>no rebuttal at all.
Haizen, if you are not inventing this allegation out of thin air, kindly repost
some of these "rebuttals." You yourself have never even a single time responded
to any of the questions I've asked you. All you know how to do is attack
people.
I'm waiting for those reposts, Haizen.
Dave
Check out my Web site:
http://www4.50megs.com/reitzes
Martin Shackelford
What if Garrison and the Warren Commission were both equally
wrong?
Martin
--
Martin Shackelford
"You're going to find that many of the truths we
cling to depend greatly on our own point of view."
-Obi-Wan Kenobi
"You must unlearn what you have learned." --Yoda
Haizen Paige
Martin Shackelford wrote:
>
> Haizen:
>
> What if Garrison and the Warren Commission were both equally
> wrong?
Who had more incentive to dig out the truth? -- Garrison or the WC? Who
put his life on the line the most? If Garrison had nothing, no one would
have bothered with him, imo. But there was ample evidence of evidence
being destroyed, tampered with, moved, altered, distorted, disappearing.
I won't go into all of this. And none of this can be dumped at the feet
of Garrison, because he never would have been a player in the
investigating if the WC had done its job. If the WC had done its job,
the Garrison investigation would never have occurred. And yet so much
garbage has been dumped at his feet.
The conclusions of the WC weren't satisfying to me either or I wouldn't
be wasting my time posting every now and then on this newsgroup. The WC
was not a real investigation because it was primarily politically
motivated to preserve the entirely false image of America being a true
democracy. Actually, there was a complete mental and political breakdown
that was occurring in this country which, imo, motivated the
assassination. The breakdown was between Kennedy and his cabinet, the US
and Cuba, the US and Soviet Union, the leadership, on one hand, and the
Joint Chiefs of Staff on the other, and worst of all, between the
leadership and the public at large. A complete breakdown, from which
this country has yet to face. How sick is it to kill one's own president
and then lie about it for 36 years, all in the name of truth, justice,
and the American Way? But one has to see and understand the
misinformation coming from the top on down to understand that the murder
of Jack Kennedy was planned.
The WC wasn't not interested in doing its job; it reads like fiction
because it never seriously considered the inheritors of Kennedy's power
as bona fide suspects in this assassination. How many of you researchers
have ever dealt with that point? Hardly any! -- except Garrison, who
tried to put people like Dulles and Johnson himself on the witness
stand. But he was blocked. So much for no one being above the law, huh?
And he was blocked, not because these gov't officials were squeaky clean
-- far from it! -- but because they had the power to do so. And yet the
very commission these men set up, and it conclusions, are still taken as
gospel by people who'll accept anything written on official gov't
stationary.
And let me add one more point: Some forget that certain people, because
of their experience, because they truly have faith in the law, have the
instinct to tell when someone is simply just outright lying, or not, in
a face-to-face interview. What gives it away can be the eye contact, the
voice inflection, body posture, tension or anxiety. Words themselves are
only about 17 % of the actual communication between people; the rest has
to do with voice and mannerisms. Some people can read others this way
and I consider that Garrison was one of them: that when he meet Shaw,
that when he meet Ferrie, that because of Garrison experience as D.A.
and having a high rate of successful prosecutions, he had the instinct
to know that they were lying through their teeth -- but he was unable to
prove this in a court of law. Those who say that all that matters is
what can be proven in a court of law miss the point, certainly in this
case, because Oswald never lived long enough to be brought to trial. Yet
there have been so many unanswered questions.
And, as far as Garrison is concerned, he did the best he could with what
evidence was available to him, but I believe that he was too trusting of
some of the people he let into his inner circle and this caused him
numerous problems. He did this because he decided he'd rather error on
being too open rather than being too manipulative and secretive like
what the Fed. gov't was doing by withholding evidence from the public.
He banked everything on that! But the country had gone too far down hill
to respond to the challenged and trusted the media and the elected
officials blindly.
That's why he did was he did, and failed, but I accept his view that
Ferrie and Shaw were serious suspects in this case and should both have
been brought to trial. And, as far as Shaw was concerned, he was really
one of the final links, imo, with the inner circle that helped to plan
and fund the assassination itself and do the legal mop-up work after it
was over. Shaw popped up in Europe with his political shenanigans and he
popped up at the Trade Mart, knew the Cabell brothers, was photoed with
Ferrie, and Ferrie photoed with Shaw, Ferrie photoed with Oswald in the
Marine Corp. and then Ferrie pops up again as a suspect when Oswald
becomes the accused assassinated of JFK. Mostly all from New Orleans! So
after Garrison reads the whitewash of Oswald in the WC, he's just
supposed to lie down and die and not dig into the background of these
characters? That would have been some D.A. Instead, he went after Shaw
tooth and nail, and I'm convinced that if Ferrie had lived, he would
have spilled the beans on the whole operation, including his association
with Shaw. But we'll never know on that point, will we? And, as far as
I'm concerned, the timeliness of Ferrie's death and its benefits to
Shaw, is simply one more factor that points in the direction of their
complicity and guilt.
Some of the people researching this case never give sufficient credit
where it's deserved, and my feeling is that the Garrison investigation
should have been backed all the way. The reasons why he was unable to
prove his case is not because he was a corrupt, misguided man, but for
reasons that he was virtually ONE MAN STANDING ALONE against an
incredibly paranoid gov't that was so worried about Cuba and the
encroachment of Communism that they removed a president they thought had
sold out this country. Garrison's belief in open gov't, an open
investigation, and this made him vulnerable to back stabbing off all
kinds. This country is *still* asleep in the deification of the media
and too trusting of its corrupt leadership, so it simply cannot
appreciate the efforts of one man standing alone who simply wanted to
know the truth. And the thesis that Garrison and the WC are both wrong,
so one can clear the ground and sort through the scraps of truth that
are left over, throws out the investigatory work of the D.A. of New
Orleans -- the one man who had either direct contact with many of the
principle suspects in this case, or knew about them. I view such a point
of view as a way of appeasing the LNer's who have elevated senseless
details into an art form to prove that Oswald was simply a nutcase who
got off 3 lucky shots that day.
Regards.
Martin Shackelford
Ferrie was never photographed with Shaw, nor was Ferrie
photographed with Oswald in the Marines (he was photographed with Oswald
at a CAP picnic).
AnthonyMarsh
>
> >Subject: Re: Croft Trajectory through the throat for Walt (graphic)
There is no evidence of an exit wound in JFK's back to coincide with
your supposed throat entrance wound.
--
Anthony Marsh
The Puzzle Palace http://www.boston.quik.com/amarsh
DAnde9348
>Date: 2/6/00 4:20 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <389E0D0B...@quik.com
>There is no evidence of an exit wound in JFK's back to coincide with
>your supposed throat entrance wound.
>
>--
>Anthony Marsh
On the contrary...Agent Mush,
The back wound is FAR more compatable as an EXIT wound for the bullet that
struck JFK in the throat than it is an a wound of entry. You Liars have tried
all kinds of bizarre explanations, to explain how a bullet fired from 62 feet
above JFK, could exit his throat at a point that was HIGHER than the back
wound. It simply defies the laws of physics for a bullet traveling at a steep
down angle to exit at a point HIGHER the it's entry point...
On the other hand.... It makes perfect sense for a bullet striking JFK in the
thoat to exit a slightly lower point than it's point of entry....
Give up the lie Agent Mush....It was a poor excuse to start with....
Walt
DAnde9348
>From: Haizen Paige hai...@sedona.net
>Date: 2/5/00 9:44 AM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <389C6185...@sedona.ne
> The lies, the misinformation, the
>confusion emanated from the Federal gov't and is *still* coming from the
>Federal gov't, whether from statements and the tampering of evidence by
>a Gerald Ford, or someone else.
...................................................
>You are all fire
>and furry on behalf of a cause you apparently don't even understand.
>It's called political corruption and the death of genuine democracy in
>the US of A and the ascension of an invisible, secret gov't.
excellent post Haizen.....
walt
bytem...@my-deja.com
not the other? I don't think so.
In article <t52m4.17156$ox5.4...@tw11.nn.bcandid.com>,
"John Hunt" <jm...@efortress.com> wrote:
>
>
> DAnde9348 <dand...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:20000202171017...@ng-fd1.aol.com...
> > >Subject: Re: Croft Trajectory through the throat for Walt (graphic)
> > >From: ske...@aol.com (SKeat97)
> > >Date: 2/2/00 9:14 AM Pacific Standard Time
> > >Message-id: <20000202121439...@ng-bd1.aol.com>
> > >
> >
> > >>Dear Mr. Hunt.... I don't know what you posted because I never
> downloaded
> > >>it....
> > >
> > >You now have another opportunity, Walt. I put it back up. I think
you
> will
> > >really want to see it. Regards.
> > >
> > >Steve K.
> > >
> > Why don't you describe Johnny's post Parrot..... I'm sure it's
going to
> be
> > something that will attempt to show that the shot that hit JFK in
the
> throat
> > could not have been fired from the front....Of course it's utterly
> ridiculous,
> > to think a man could be shot in the throat from anywhere but the
front,
> but
> > that doesn't stop the LNers from trying.
> > The early frames of the Z film show the same basic scene that a
gunman on
> the
> > GK would have seen and it's quite obvious that a gunman on the
knoll could
> > easily have hit JFK in the throat....
>
> But that bullet would come out the wrong side of JFK's back, and much
lower
> than the existing hole. Unfortunately for your bizzare theory, there
is no
> hole on that side of the back.
>
> John Hunt
>
> >
> > Walt
> >
> >
> > attempting to
Cakehauz
>Date: 2/8/00 6:42 PM EST
>Message-id: <87q9l9$af7$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>
>What kind of argument is this? The holes match up one direction, but
>not the other? I don't think so.
An excellent point sir....The LNer's would have us believe that the shot from
the back to front makes more sense than the shot from front to back, but when
it is examined logically, the front to back shot is much more reasonable.
Thank you for pointing out, that they will argue that the wounds were made by
one bullet, if that bullet went from back to front, but they will argue
vociferiously against the wounds being made by the same bullet, if it suggested
that the bullet went from front to back....
Walt
AEFFECTS
>>not the other? I don't think so.
>
>An excellent point sir....The LNer's would have us believe that the shot from
>the back to front makes more sense than the shot from front to back, but when
>it is examined logically, the front to back shot is much more reasonable.
>
> Thank you for pointing out, that they will argue that the wounds were made by
>one bullet, if that bullet went from back to front, but they will argue
>vociferiously against the wounds being made by the same bullet, if it
suggested
>that the bullet went from front to back....
>
>Walt
If this wasn't so serious it would be down right entertaining... I'm awash in
PosnerISM's
DavidH
John Hunt
Cakehauz <cake...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20000208235657...@ng-ce1.aol.com...
> >Subject: Re: Croft Trajectory through the throat for Walt (graphic)
> >From: bytem...@my-deja.com
> >Date: 2/8/00 6:42 PM EST
> >Message-id: <87q9l9$af7$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>
>
> >What kind of argument is this? The holes match up one direction, but
> >not the other? I don't think so.
>
> An excellent point sir....The LNer's would have us believe that the shot
from
> the back to front makes more sense than the shot from front to back, but
when
> it is examined logically, the front to back shot is much more reasonable.
> Thank you for pointing out, that they will argue that the wounds were
made by
> one bullet, if that bullet went from back to front, but they will argue
> vociferiously against the wounds being made by the same bullet, if it
suggested
> that the bullet went from front to back....
You disregard the wound locations because your "theory", such as it is,
requires it. You would not know a trajectory if it bit you in your doughy
non-researching ass. "Believe me, 'cause I say it is so" is your battle
cry. Are you and Varnell twins separated at...."birth" is the words that
comes to mind, yet seems, somehow, inappropriate.
You know what would be fun, Wart.... and this goes for Varnell too 'cause I
know the lying asshole is fond of your brand of logic, and is lurking as we
speak...
Getting you to present ANY of your "theories" in front of a panel of your
peers! That would be a gas. You would be humiliated so badly even I would
pity you. Same goes for Varnell and his "sweat" article.
John Hunt
>
> Walt
John Hunt
Cakehauz <cake...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20000208235657...@ng-ce1.aol.com...
> >Subject: Re: Croft Trajectory through the throat for Walt (graphic)
> >From: bytem...@my-deja.com
> >Date: 2/8/00 6:42 PM EST
> >Message-id: <87q9l9$af7$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>
>
> >What kind of argument is this? The holes match up one direction, but
> >not the other? I don't think so.
cakehauz?? Is that your name?? How fun it will be to mutilate your name in
the same manner as you have mine(Mr. Runt), and that I have Spam McDung's.
>
> An excellent point sir....The LNer's would have us believe that the shot
from
> the back to front makes more sense than the shot from front to back, but
when
> it is examined logically, the front to back shot is much more reasonable.
> Thank you for pointing out, that they will argue that the wounds were
made by
> one bullet, if that bullet went from back to front, but they will argue
> vociferiously against the wounds being made by the same bullet, if it
suggested
> that the bullet went from front to back....
>
> Walt
bytem...@my-deja.com
elementary, yet you offer no explanation to support your assertion.
Explain to us how a bullet cannot possibly make the appropriate angle
if traversing from front to back and yet can quite logically make the
same angle if traversing from back to front, bearing in mind that it is
the same angle in either direction and also bearing in mind that
redirected paths within the body are a lot different from flight
trajectories. If this is not a general question, then explain to us the
special circumstances known to exist in this case. Let's talk facts.
In article <fQIo4.37128$ox5.9...@tw11.nn.bcandid.com>,
"John Hunt" <jm...@efortress.com> wrote:
>
>
> Cakehauz <cake...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:20000208235657...@ng-ce1.aol.com...
> > >Subject: Re: Croft Trajectory through the throat for Walt (graphic)
> > >From: bytem...@my-deja.com
> > >Date: 2/8/00 6:42 PM EST
> > >Message-id: <87q9l9$af7$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>
> >
> > >What kind of argument is this? The holes match up one direction,
but
> > >not the other? I don't think so.
> >
> > An excellent point sir....The LNer's would have us believe that the
shot
> from
> > the back to front makes more sense than the shot from front to
back, but
> when
> > it is examined logically, the front to back shot is much more
reasonable.
> > Thank you for pointing out, that they will argue that the wounds
were
> made by
> > one bullet, if that bullet went from back to front, but they will
argue
> > vociferiously against the wounds being made by the same bullet, if
it
> suggested
> > that the bullet went from front to back....
>
> You disregard the wound locations because your "theory", such as it
is,
> requires it. You would not know a trajectory if it bit you in your
doughy
> non-researching ass. "Believe me, 'cause I say it is so" is your
battle
> cry. Are you and Varnell twins separated at...."birth" is the words
that
> comes to mind, yet seems, somehow, inappropriate.
>
> You know what would be fun, Wart.... and this goes for Varnell
too 'cause I
> know the lying asshole is fond of your brand of logic, and is
lurking as we
> speak...
>
> Getting you to present ANY of your "theories" in front of a panel of
your
> peers! That would be a gas. You would be humiliated so badly even I
would
> pity you. Same goes for Varnell and his "sweat" article.
>
> John Hunt
>
> >
> > Walt
>
>
Cakehauz
>Date: 2/10/00 7:36 PM EST
>Message-id: <fQIo4.37128$ox5.9...@tw11.nn.bcandid.com>
>
>"Believe me, 'cause I say it is so" is your battle
>cry.
Dear Mr. Runt....You could not be more full of sh.....Yourself.....I would
NEVER want anybody to accept something I say without checking the facts...Since
you are an egotist and a liar, I doubt that you will admit it ...but you have
to know that I always give reference to check against my posts.....And even if
you won't admit it most lurkers know that this is a fact...
Now here's a kleenex....dry yer tears...
Walt
Cakehauz
>From: "John Hunt" jm...@efortress.com
>Message-id: <yUIo4.37140$ox5.9...@tw11.nn.bcandid.com>
>How fun it will be to mutilate your name in
>the same manner as you have mine(Mr. Runt),
Oh I'm sorry Mr Hunt.... I use word association to remember a person, and since
your posts indicate your not yet an adult, I guess my subconscious mind
inadvertantly took over.
When you grow up.... perhaps I'll remember you with a different word
association ...
Walt
AnthonyMarsh
>
> OK, let's get past the personal attacks. You say trajectories should be
> elementary, yet you offer no explanation to support your assertion.
> Explain to us how a bullet cannot possibly make the appropriate angle
> if traversing from front to back and yet can quite logically make the
> same angle if traversing from back to front, bearing in mind that it is
> the same angle in either direction and also bearing in mind that
> redirected paths within the body are a lot different from flight
> trajectories. If this is not a general question, then explain to us the
> special circumstances known to exist in this case. Let's talk facts.
>
My ISP lost this thread, so I can only reply to what I see here. You
have a false premise. People who argue for a throat entrance wound do
not assume the bullet would take the same path as a bullet which hit the
back. Some even argue for two separate shots, with both bullets
miraculously stopping within an inch or so.
> In article <fQIo4.37128$ox5.9...@tw11.nn.bcandid.com>,
> "John Hunt" <jm...@efortress.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Cakehauz <cake...@aol.com> wrote in message
> > news:20000208235657...@ng-ce1.aol.com...
> > > >Subject: Re: Croft Trajectory through the throat for Walt (graphic)
> > non-researching ass. "Believe me, 'cause I say it is so" is your
> battle
> > cry. Are you and Varnell twins separated at...."birth" is the words
> that
> > comes to mind, yet seems, somehow, inappropriate.
> >
> > You know what would be fun, Wart.... and this goes for Varnell
> too 'cause I
> > know the lying asshole is fond of your brand of logic, and is
> lurking as we
> > speak...
> >
> > Getting you to present ANY of your "theories" in front of a panel of
> your
> > peers! That would be a gas. You would be humiliated so badly even I
> would
> > pity you. Same goes for Varnell and his "sweat" article.
> >
> > John Hunt
> >
> > >
> > > Walt
> >
> >
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
Jerry
cake...@aol.com (Cakehauz) wrote:
> >Subject: Re: Croft Trajectory through the throat for Walt (graphic)
> >Date: 2/10/00 7:41 PM EST
> >Message-id: <yUIo4.37140$ox5.9...@tw11.nn.bcandid.com>
>
> >How fun it will be to mutilate your name in
> >the same manner as you have mine(Mr. Runt),
>
> Oh I'm sorry Mr Hunt.... I use word association to remember a
person,
Yeah, me, too ....what do we associate with Walt?
Walt -->asphalt! .as in Cement-Head,
Walt -->halt! ....as in his brain has halted and it can't get up!
Walt -->assault .. he is a nasty rascal with the badmouth at the ready.
Jerry
DAnde9348
>Date: 2/11/00 12:57 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <881t3l$r0d$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>
>> Oh I'm sorry Mr Hunt.... I use word association to remember a
>person,
>
>Yeah, me, too ....what do we associate with Walt?
>Walt -->asphalt! .as in Cement-Head,
Oh c'mon .....you can do better than that...no on the second thought perhaps
you can't ...considering the source.
Asphalt....cement head?? Isn't asphalt some kind of a rectal problem ?
walt
bytem...@my-deja.com
AnthonyMarsh <ama...@quik.com> wrote:
> bytem...@my-deja.com wrote:
> >
> > OK, let's get past the personal attacks. You say trajectories
should be
> > elementary, yet you offer no explanation to support your assertion.
> > Explain to us how a bullet cannot possibly make the appropriate
angle
> > if traversing from front to back and yet can quite logically make
the
> > same angle if traversing from back to front, bearing in mind that
it is
> > the same angle in either direction and also bearing in mind that
> > redirected paths within the body are a lot different from flight
> > trajectories. If this is not a general question, then explain to us
the
> > special circumstances known to exist in this case. Let's talk facts.
> >
>
> My ISP lost this thread, so I can only reply to what I see here. You
> have a false premise. People who argue for a throat entrance wound do
> not assume the bullet would take the same path as a bullet which hit
the
> back. Some even argue for two separate shots, with both bullets
> miraculously stopping within an inch or so.
Thank you for your reply. While I realize that many other possibilities
exist, the assertion in this thread was that a bullet could not go
front to back and exit through the back hole, but a bullet from back to
front could exit through the throat hole. It is the same path, the same
angle within the body. That is ludicrous and there hasn't been anyone
come forward with an explanation. An attempt was made to lay it off on
trajectories, which doesn't nearly tell all of the story about angles
within the body.
If you're interested, you can review the thread on Deja News.
>
> > In article <fQIo4.37128$ox5.9...@tw11.nn.bcandid.com>,
> > "John Hunt" <jm...@efortress.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > Cakehauz <cake...@aol.com> wrote in message
> > > news:20000208235657...@ng-ce1.aol.com...
> > > > >Subject: Re: Croft Trajectory through the throat for Walt
(graphic)
> > > > Walt
> > >
> > >
> >
> > Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> > Before you buy.
>
> --
> Anthony Marsh
> The Puzzle Palace http://www.boston.quik.com/amarsh
>
bytem...@my-deja.com
AnthonyMarsh <ama...@quik.com> wrote:
> bytem...@my-deja.com wrote:
> >
> > OK, let's get past the personal attacks. You say trajectories
should be
> > elementary, yet you offer no explanation to support your assertion.
> > Explain to us how a bullet cannot possibly make the appropriate
angle
> > if traversing from front to back and yet can quite logically make
the
> > same angle if traversing from back to front, bearing in mind that
it is
> > the same angle in either direction and also bearing in mind that
> > redirected paths within the body are a lot different from flight
> > trajectories. If this is not a general question, then explain to us
the
> > special circumstances known to exist in this case. Let's talk facts.
> >
>
> My ISP lost this thread, so I can only reply to what I see here. You
> have a false premise. People who argue for a throat entrance wound do
> not assume the bullet would take the same path as a bullet which hit
the
> back. Some even argue for two separate shots, with both bullets
> miraculously stopping within an inch or so.
Another point. Once again, we have an effort to direct the discussion
to a particular direction. With the assumption that the back wound and
the front wound must be connected by a path, we would therefore have to
conclude that they were caused by the same bullet to the exclusion of
all other possibilities. There's a lot of people here who would not
concede such an argument.
AnthonyMarsh
>
> In article <38A41811...@quik.com>,
> AnthonyMarsh <ama...@quik.com> wrote:
> > bytem...@my-deja.com wrote:
> > >
> > > OK, let's get past the personal attacks. You say trajectories
> should be
> > > elementary, yet you offer no explanation to support your assertion.
> > > Explain to us how a bullet cannot possibly make the appropriate
> angle
> > > if traversing from front to back and yet can quite logically make
> the
> > > same angle if traversing from back to front, bearing in mind that
> it is
> > > the same angle in either direction and also bearing in mind that
> > > redirected paths within the body are a lot different from flight
> > > trajectories. If this is not a general question, then explain to us
> the
> > > special circumstances known to exist in this case. Let's talk facts.
> > >
> >
> > My ISP lost this thread, so I can only reply to what I see here. You
> > have a false premise. People who argue for a throat entrance wound do
> > not assume the bullet would take the same path as a bullet which hit
> the
> > back. Some even argue for two separate shots, with both bullets
> > miraculously stopping within an inch or so.
>
> exist, the assertion in this thread was that a bullet could not go
> front to back and exit through the back hole, but a bullet from back to
> front could exit through the throat hole. It is the same path, the same
> angle within the body. That is ludicrous and there hasn't been anyone
> come forward with an explanation. An attempt was made to lay it off on
> trajectories, which doesn't nearly tell all of the story about angles
> within the body.
>
You can not consider this only in terms of the ability of a bullet being
able to transect the same path going from forward to back as
hypothesized for back to front. You also need to consider the practical
consideration of where such a path would lead back to. In the case of
the back to front wound, it could lead back to the TSBD or another
building, depending on when it hit and the position of the body at the
time. There was room for a bullet to hit the back where it did. But with
the throat as an entrance wound, you need to see where such a shot could
have come from to complete that trajectory. Depending on whether you
believe the WC version or the HSCA version, you still are stuck with a
trajectory which would have a very hard time clearing all obstacles in
order to be able to hit the throat at all, and then almost impossibly to
transect that angle. The windshield is in the way most of the time.
After a while when the windshield may not be in the way, it appears that
the President has already been hit and his hand is up in front of his
neck so that he could not possibly be hit in the throat from the front
at any later frame. This limits the time when the President could have
possibly received his neck wound. And working out a backward trajectory
there is no possible firing location which could clear the windshield.
> If you're interested, you can review the thread on Deja News.
>
> >
John Hunt
Cakehauz <cake...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20000211002856...@ng-fb1.aol.com...
> >Subject: Re: Croft Trajectory through the throat for Walt (graphic)
> >From: "John Hunt" jm...@efortress.com
> >Date: 2/10/00 7:36 PM EST
> >Message-id: <fQIo4.37128$ox5.9...@tw11.nn.bcandid.com>
> >
>
> >"Believe me, 'cause I say it is so" is your battle
> >cry.
>
> Dear Mr. Runt....You could not be more full of sh.....Yourself.....I
would
> NEVER want anybody to accept something I say without checking the facts
What facts?? I couldn't help but notice you avoided discusing the elaborate
graphic I made for you. If I were you I would be eger to refute it.
Hmmm...??
:-)
John Hunt
<bytem...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:883t63$596$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
Wrong! The point was that a frontal shot could not go through th eneck and
back wounds front to back from the "BM" position. It does not work. You
would have to shoot upwards through JFK's throat to have the shot come out
the back hole. Was there an assassin lurking between the Governor and his
lovely wife??
John Hunt
John Hunt
<bytem...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:883tg2$5bn$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> In article <38A41811...@quik.com>,
> AnthonyMarsh <ama...@quik.com> wrote:
> > bytem...@my-deja.com wrote:
<snip>
>
> Another point. Once again, we have an effort to direct the discussion
> to a particular direction. With the assumption that the back wound and
> the front wound must be connected by a path, we would therefore have to
> conclude that they were caused by the same bullet to the exclusion of
> all other possibilities. There's a lot of people here who would not
> concede such an argument.
And not one of those people who believe Kennedy was shot once from behind by
a bullet which did not transit the body, and once from the front by a bullet
which did not transit the body can offer a shred of evidence as to;
Where those alleged bullets went.
Why the resultant internal damage one would expect was not found.
When were the alleged bullets removed and by whom.
If the supposed bullet was removed at the autopsy, everyone involved with
that procedure has been lying for 37 years.
That Kennedy was killed as the result of a conspiracy is a certainty. But
that does not mean it is OK to engage in wild speculation.
Joh Hutn
bytem...@my-deja.com
> > In article <38A41811...@quik.com>,
> > AnthonyMarsh <ama...@quik.com> wrote:
> > > bytem...@my-deja.com wrote:
> > > >
For the SBT to work, the position that has typically been presented was
that a back to front shot went about level through the throat. Many
conspiracy theorists assert that the neck wound is above the back
wound. Now, when someone starts talking about the throat wound,
suddenly the throat wound is below the back wound. Unless JFK was
removing his shoes at the time, I don't think his Adam's Apple was
below the back wound pictured in autopsy photos. Besides, it is all
moot since there is no evidence that the two wounds are connected.
bytem...@my-deja.com
> > In article <38A41811...@quik.com>,
> > AnthonyMarsh <ama...@quik.com> wrote:
> > > bytem...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
There was no chain of possession of evidence for many of the key pieces
of evidence to which you refer, including the bullets and the body.
And, we cannot know if there were any bullets that were not recovered
or were recovered and not disclosed. The autopsy did not have the back
wound transiting the body and the autopsy doctors didn't even know the
throat wound existed, so I have a lot of difficulty with being certain
there was a back to throat path.
bytem...@my-deja.com
ske...@aol.com (SKeat97) wrote:
> >From: dand...@aol.com
>
> >Why don't you describe Johnny's post Parrot..... I'm sure it's
going to be
> >something that will attempt to show that the shot that hit JFK in
the throat
> >could not have been fired from the front....Of course it's utterly
> >ridiculous,
> >to think a man could be shot in the throat from anywhere but the
front, but
> >that doesn't stop the LNers from trying.
> >The early frames of the Z film show the same basic scene that a
gunman on the
> >GK would have seen and it's quite obvious that a gunman on the knoll
could
> >easily have hit JFK in the throat....
>
the back or
> back of the neck, and the trajectory absolutely does not work out in
any way,
> shape, or form for a frontal shot.
>
> Steve K.
The medical evidence doesn't show the back wound transiting the body.
Now, explain the throat wound.
> >
> >Walt
> >
> >
> >attempting to