Final Proof There Was a Conspiracy
robc...@netscape.com
I thought I'd put it in a new post.
How can ammo from the same source perform so differently? This
question is so basic yet it could be the proverbial "smoking
gun" (pardon the pun).
How can one bullet cause 7 major wounds in two men and come out intact
after hitting bones (wrist, rib)? That has been argued for 44 years.
While the other hand we have another bullet coming supposedly from the
same gun that just hits a less thick bone (skull), brain matter and
tissue and yet it totally comes apart? How is this possible?
It isn't possible for the same type of ammo to perform so totally
different. Therefore, this proves without a doubt another type of
ammo was used for the head shot. Thus there was a second gunmen
because they found 3 shells of the same type in the supposed "gunman's
nest".
Now LNers have a quandry. They can't backtrack and say the SBT did in
fact disengrate also, because that blows their 44 year lie out of the
water.
justm...@gmail.com
Yep Rob that sure is all the proof we need to prove conspiracy
ROFLMAO, if that held any water you idiots would have solved this case
and stopped talking about it 40 yrs ago. Nice try Jesus, curses foiled
again!
Bigot Boy!
robc...@netscape.com
wrote:
> Yep Rob that sure is all the proof we need to prove conspiracy
> ROFLMAO, if that held any water you idiots would have solved this case
> and stopped talking about it 40 yrs ago. Nice try Jesus, curses foiled
> again!
There have been many sound alternate theories over the year and
therefore, for most people with a working brain it has been solved.
It is hard to get it officially solved when parts of the government
were involved in the whole thing to begin with. How can you be in IT?
That field requires logical thinking. I haven't seen any from your
posts. Thank goodness you're not in charge of my computers.
lazu...@webtv.net
dsappears like magic. The second does all the impossible things required
of it in the SBST, yet remains virtually unscathed. And the third after
penetrating only one layer of bone promptly disintegrates into a
cloudstorm of fine particles seen on X ray (has to be pure magic,
because this result has never been seen before from an FMJ bullet), plus
at least five fragments, two of them quite large, all exiting the head.
Two entirely different effects, two entirely different kinds of ammo.
two different shooters. It's so easy to understand!
Hey Nutters, did LHO save a frangible bullet for the coup de grace
shot?----
Old Laz, who knows at least one headshot came from the front.
Ben Holmes
robc...@netscape.com says...
>
>On Oct 23, 10:08 pm, "justme1...@gmail.com" <justme1...@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>> Yep Rob that sure is all the proof we need to prove conspiracy
>> ROFLMAO, if that held any water you idiots would have solved this case
>> and stopped talking about it 40 yrs ago. Nice try Jesus, curses foiled
>> again!
>
>There have been many sound alternate theories over the year and
>therefore, for most people with a working brain it has been solved.
>It is hard to get it officially solved when parts of the government
>were involved in the whole thing to begin with. How can you be in IT?
Hmmm... I'm a certified "Convergent Technologies Professional" ("This CTP
certificate validates core competency in data networking, telephone networking
and convergence technologies, and entitles the certificate holder to all the
rights, privileges and duties appertaining to that certification on this
day"...) I guess that means that my "logical thinking" can be trusted...
Right?
David Von Pein
Why haven't you LEARNED THE PARTICULARS regarding these issues?
Particulars that (without question) favor the likelihood of Oswald's
WCC/MC bullets acting just EXACTLY as they did on 11/22/63 .... i.e.,
CE399 reacting just like it did on 11/22 after being slowed
sufficiently by JFK's body before entering Connally....and then slowed
a whole lot more when it did what it did inside JBC's thorax/chest.
The bullet pictured below is EXACTLY like CE399 (it's a WCC/MC/6.5mm/
FMJ missile from one of the exact same four lots of bullets that
Oswald's CE399 came from)....and this bullet has just gone through
many layers of simulated human flesh and body tissue, and has just
broken two ribs in a (mock) Connally torso, and has just fractured a
simulated wrist bone too.
And Voila! It emerges completely intact! (Doesn't this impress ANY
anti-SBT conspiracy lovers? If not...why the hell not?).....
http://216.122.129.112/dc/user_files/6735.jpg
As for the head-shot bullet from Oswald's gun, that too is a bullet
which reacted just exactly like several test bullets reacted after
hitting human skulls at full speed (about 2,100fps).
Dr. Alfred Olivier did tests to confirm this fact for the WC in 1964;
and then Dr. John Lattimer did the same type of tests in the 1970s.
And just take a look at the results (the top photos in this chart
pictured below {which comes from Lattimer's excellent 1980 book} are
the two front-seat bullet fragments from Oswald's gun, which are
fragments that almost certainly are from the bullet that struck JFK in
the head; and those limo fragments look very, very similar to the
fragments from the two test bullets that were fired through human
skulls).....
http://i1.tinypic.com/44t3b0n.jpg
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0056a.htm
Dr. Lattimer offered up these observations following his skull
tests.....
"This bullet {a 6.5mm Mannlicher-Carcano missile like CE399} can
penetrate four feet of solid wood or three pine telephone poles side
by side and come out looking completely undeformed.
"On the other hand, if it is fired into the thick bone of the
back of a human skull, the jacket and core of the bullet will separate
{see the link provided above for verifiable proof of this}, releasing
a myriad of additional fragments of many different sizes." -- Dr. John
K. Lattimer; Page 277 of "Kennedy And Lincoln: Medical And Ballistic
Comparisons Of Their Assassinations" (c.1980)
=====================
Therefore, as can be seen, the very same type of WCC/MC bullet CAN,
and does, accommodate BOTH the SBT/CE399 and the fragmented bullet
that hit JFK in the head at full velocity.
tomnln
<justm...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1193191685....@q5g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
robc...@netscape.com
> >>> "Why did two bullets from supposedly the same gun act so differently? One causes 7 wounds and comes intact and another one just hits skull bone, brain matter and tissue but totally disengrates [sic] on contact? Why? How can the same ammo act so differently? Good luck with that one, because there is no explanation. There were different gunmen with different types of guns and ammo, that's why." <<<
>
> Why haven't you LEARNED THE PARTICULARS regarding these issues?
> Particulars that (without question) favor the likelihood of Oswald's
> WCC/MC bullets acting just EXACTLY as they did on 11/22/63 .... i.e.,
>
> CE399 reacting just like it did on 11/22 after being slowed
> sufficiently by JFK's body before entering Connally....and then slowed
> a whole lot more when it did what it did inside JBC's thorax/chest.
>
> The bullet pictured below is EXACTLY like CE399 (it's a WCC/MC/6.5mm/
> FMJ missile from one of the exact same four lots of bullets that
> Oswald's CE399 came from)....and this bullet has just gone through
> many layers of simulated human flesh and body tissue, and has just
> broken two ribs in a (mock) Connally torso, and has just fractured a
> simulated wrist bone too.
>
> And Voila! It emerges completely intact! (Doesn't this impress ANY
> anti-SBT conspiracy lovers? If not...why the hell not?).....
No. This same scenario has never occured in the history of firearms
before. In all the wars fought there has never been a bullet that
caused seven wounds in two people and came out intact. Like I said
before the military should be all over this as we could save millions
in recycling bullets if this is possible.
> As for the head-shot bullet from Oswald's gun, that too is a bullet
> which reacted just exactly like several test bullets reacted after
> hitting human skulls at full speed (about 2,100fps).
This is a more normal reaction. So your saying because the SBT bullet
supposedly turned a little it could then crash into a rib bone and
think wrist bone and come out intact? And we are the Kooks.
>
> Dr. Alfred Olivier did tests to confirm this fact for the WC in 1964;
> and then Dr. John Lattimer did the same type of tests in the 1970s.
I'm sure this were real valid tests too, just like the WC. See this
document regarding altering testimony by the WC/FBI.
http://home.wi.rr.com/harveyandlee/Ely.htm
http://home.wi.rr.com/harveyandlee/Dingle.htm
Blah, blah, blah. Two bullets from the same gun would never react so
differently. Accept it as it is fact.
tomnln
You're the one who Refuses to address your own evidence/testimony.
http://www.whokilledjfk.net/mexcity.htm
http://www.whokilledjfk.net/Walker.htm
http://www.whokilledjfk.net/tippit.htm
"chuck schuyler" <chu...@am-mtg.com> wrote in message
news:1193199948.3...@v23g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
> Rob...
>
> Why don't you run some tests?
>
> There are video examples available for free on YouTube that validate
> the WC findings about how the bullets behaved and the damage they
> inflicted. Many documentaries over the years have run their own
> simulations.
>
> CT'ers don't run tests-they just poo-poo the tests performed over the
> years by dozens of agencies and individuals that tend to produce
> results that are remarkably consistent with what the WC found.
>
> All CT'ers ever do is ask questions.
>
> Answer a kook question, and all you get is another kook question.
>
Walt
FOUR FEET!!... of solid wood... The fact that you would believe this
and post it reveals just how uninformed and gullible you are. Even if
a FMJ 6.5mm bullet was fired from a 300 magnum rifle ( using a sabot)
the little 150 grain bullet would not have enough inertia to penetrate
FOUR FEET of solid wood ....Thank you for exposing your ignorance, and
damaging your credibility.
Walt
Walt
> On Oct 23, 11:56 pm, "tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Hey KOOK-SUCKER;
>
> > You're the one who Refuses to address your own evidence/testimony.
>
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> I've answered those three a whole bunch of times.
>
> Got any other ones?
I've got one......... What makes you so obtuse? Is it because you
"think" your smart? Or is it because you're so gullible and trusting
that you refuse to think for yourself?
Actually that's three questions, but they are all based on the key
question of why you accept "the big lie" as the truth.
Aren't you aware that some very evil men have ascribed to the idea
that;... If a lie is big enough, and it appeals to the sucker's basic
beliefs, then the gullible sucker will swallow it without
question.
I believe Adolph Hitler was one of the men who ascribed to that
idea.... There are also many American men who ascribe to the idea....
Lyndon Johnson and J. Edgar Hoover were two of the key men that sold
the big lie to the gullible trusting public.
Walt
- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
tomnln
"chuck schuyler" <chu...@am-mtg.com> wrote in message
news:1193203670....@q5g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> On Oct 23, 11:56 pm, "tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote:
>> Hey KOOK-SUCKER;
>>
>> You're the one who Refuses to address your own evidence/testimony.
>>
robc...@netscape.com
> Rob...
>
> Why don't you run some tests?
Because I'm aversed to things that waste my time. Experts could not
duplicate LHO's supposed shooting spree in WC tests. It took most of
them 4 or more attempts to come close, and as we all know, LHO
wouldn't have the luxury of multiple attempts. He would have one
attempt only. So, if they couldn't even back this up why should I
believe in the SBT theory? I have read things written by men who have
served our country and are experts in firearms and not one said it was
just not possible to shatter dense bones and come out intact. IF
perhaps the bullet had not hit bone maybe the SBT would be a more
plausible scenario, but given the parameters laid by the WC it is just
a fairy tale to make a lone assassin theory work.
I don't need to see rigged experiments to make me believe this. It is
totally unthinkable in my mind to believe this theory. End of story.
You tend to listen to what the government spoon feeds you verbatim.
It is your choice, not knocking you.
> CT'ers don't run tests-they just poo-poo the tests performed over the
> years by dozens of agencies and individuals that tend to produce
> results that are remarkably consistent with what the WC found.
This isn't true as many tests have been done including Texas A&M that
I posted earlier. Of course LNers immediately tried to say it was
fixed. This is a university and I was surprised they would release
this report because the majority of folks workind in academia do not
publicly say they believe in any theory beyond the WC.
>
> All CT'ers ever do is ask questions.
All LNers ever do is never answer any questions.
Gil Jesus
> I've got one......... What makes you so obtuse? Is it because you
> "think" your smart? Or is it because you're so gullible and trusting
> that you refuse to think for yourself?
> Walt
Walt, it's a little of A and a little of B.
David Von Pein
You'd better cue up the Discovery Channel "Beyond The Magic Bullet"
program then....because on that program they SHOW a Carcano bullet
just like CE399 penetrating multiple feet of a solid (pine) wood log
and coming out looking perfect...not a scratch on it.
The Discovery Channel test bullet didn't quite go through four feet of
wood, but it was close (3.6 feet to be exact).
To refresh my memory, I just now watched the "log test" portion of the
2004 Discovery Channel JFK Special ("Beyond The Magic Bullet") on my
DVD copy that I have, and here are the facts with respect to the "Log
Test" (which occurs approximately 55 minutes into the program,
btw).....
The 6.5mm. WCC/MC bullet used for the test (from Lot No. 6000, one of
the four lot numbers that included Oswald's 1963 ammunition; and, btw,
the box with "6000" stamped on it is shown in the hands of the gunman
who fired the test bullet into the wooden log) penetrated 43.5 inches
(3.6 feet) of the solid pine log. (To clarify further, the nose of the
bullet extended to the 43.5-inch mark. The base end of the bullet
ended up about 42.25 inches deep into the wood.)
The test bullet was then dug out of the log ON CAMERA, and the bullet
almost looked like it had never even been fired. The only damage to
that bullet was a slight extrusion of lead from the base, just exactly
like Commission Exhibit 399.
If someone who also has the DVD version of the "Beyond The Magic
Bullet" program has the capabilities of posting a Screen Capture from
that DVD, it would serve useful to this discussion. I, however, don't
have the capability to do that type of thing.
But if anyone else does, the image on the DVD at exactly the "56:15"
mark of the program (elapsed time), would be an excellent freeze-frame
image to post. That exact moment on the DVD shows the bullet just as
it is being extracted from the wood log....and you can tell from that
freeze-frame image that the bullet is completely intact and free from
any damage whatsoever.
But, I suppose conspiracy theorists must think that that log test was
"fake" too....huh, Walt-Kook?
YoHarvey
Blah, blah, blah. Two bullets from the same gun would never react so
differently. Accept it as it is fact.
Oh, this will be fun. Here we have our resident lunatic Jesus
repeating over and over the same issues of 44 years. He still just
"doesn't get it". He believes "we" LN"s are simply victims of our own
government concealing the truth from us.
And, if we accept the premise LHO killed JFK alone, then we are fools
for believing anything the government tells us.
The purpose of education is for one to "think" about a subject in a
variety of ways and then reach a conclusion. Jesus, as we know, has
no education. He's one dimensional as is his thinking. He offers no
rationale. He'll use the same axiom time after time such as: "nobody
has duplicated the LHO shooting even one time". In science and the
scientific method, this doesn't matter. The mere FACT, it was
accomplished even once PROVES beyond a doubt that it can be done. The
limited intellect Jesus contually exhibits here is rudimentary. He
wants you to believe, that despite every single piece of scientific
evidence backing the SBT and no althernative, that the STB could never
have happened even though it's been endorsed by the majority of
forennsic pathologists on the WC, HSCA. Rockefeller Commission, the
American Academy of Science and the American Medical Association.
Scientific evidence TRUMPS everything else. Everything. Let's use
NAA as an example. Rahn and Sturdivan endorse Vicent Guinns statement
that the ballistics in this case PROVE LHO and nobody else could have
assassinated JFK on 11/22. Recently, other scientists have come
forward disagreeing with this position. Rahn, on his website has
offered a rebuttal. Who's right? Who cares. After 44 years, nobody
can produce an alternative to the SBT. The scientific evidence agrees
with the majority of witness testimony (which I personally don't care
about whether pro or con conspiracy) that ONLY 3 shots were fired. If
there were theoretically 6, 7, 8 shooters firing that day, then
mysteriously EVERY single piece of evidence indicating this
mysteriously dispeared. Which again leads us back to the scientific
evidence. Are their anomolies in science? Absolutely. But not in
this case; the evidence is simply to strong. The WC interviewed some
26,000 people in attempting to reach their truth. Had they only
interviewed 10 people in total I believe they'd have gotten different
stories. Different experts produce different suppositions. The point
is, this investigation was conducted by human beings who make
mistakes. Were the case to be reopened once again, mistakes would be
made once again. Unfortunately for the conspiracy crowd, mistakes are
not evidence as they would have you believe. This is why nothing has
demonstrably changed in 44 years. The SBT and three shots remains,
based on the evidence the only way this assassination could have
occurred and regardless of the Gil Jesus conspiracy freaks trying to
sell you crap, the SBT has done one more thing that's terribly
important:
It has stood the test of time. And it always will.
bigdog
>
> Blah, blah, blah. Two bullets from the same gun would never react so
>
> - Show quoted text -
robocrap, you really need to get up to speed before you start popping
off. First of all, the illogic of your claim that in all the wars ever
fought, no bullet had ever caused 7 wounds in two people and come out
intact is laughable. You could only make that claim if every bullet
that had ever caused 7 wounds in 2 people had been recovered and
examined. I think it is safe to say that in warfare, people are a
little too busy to gather up bullets for a forensic examination.
As for the condition of the two recovered bullets, it is not hard for
someone to understand who is intelligent enough to know that a bullet
striking the dense bone of a skull at about 2100 fps is going to come
out in considerably different condition than a bullet that passes
through soft tissue of two torsos and tumbles before striking any bone
at all. Why would you expect these bullets too look alike?
Burly...@gmail.com
Sir,
I know for a fact that this is not true, due to the fact that I
confronted Mr. Jesus concerning the Muchmore film and his accusations
in another thread that the film is worthless as evidence because of a
"splice" in the film. I described to him that there are intact copies
out there--one of which is featured in the Robert J. Groden VHS/DVD.
The Assassination Films/Files. He accused me of ''sarcasm'' when I
answered his question" Did the limo stop?".
It seems that some of the people just do not like the responses they
receive, and then in turn accuse the "LNer" of ''running/ducking/
dancing. etc.
Many of your questions are answered, but you simply don't like the
answers.
robc...@netscape.com
> robocrap, you really need to get up to speed before you start popping
> off. First of all, the illogic of your claim that in all the wars ever
> fought, no bullet had ever caused 7 wounds in two people and come out
> intact is laughable. You could only make that claim if every bullet
> that had ever caused 7 wounds in 2 people had been recovered and
> examined. I think it is safe to say that in warfare, people are a
> little too busy to gather up bullets for a forensic examination.
JumboMutt, I can make the claim then because it has never happened.
If it did the military would have written papers and there would have
been research on it. How would they know? Nurses, doctors, morgue
personnel and the people who recover the bodies is a good place to
start.
>
> As for the condition of the two recovered bullets, it is not hard for
> someone to understand who is intelligent enough to know that a bullet
> striking the dense bone of a skull at about 2100 fps is going to come
> out in considerably different condition than a bullet that passes
> through soft tissue of two torsos and tumbles before striking any bone
> at all. Why would you expect these bullets too look alike?
You better find someone then (who is intelligent enough) because if
you think the skull is thicker than a rib or a wrist bone your off
base. Smashed would be a good guess.
Go back to the kennel.
robc...@netscape.com
Well, if LNers can make exaggerated claims to encompass every CTer I
guess I can too in regards to LNers. If you have answered questions,
my apologies.
Bud
robcap...@netscape.com wrote:
> On Oct 24, 12:25 am, chuck schuyler <chu...@am-mtg.com> wrote:
>
> > Rob...
> >
> > Why don't you run some tests?
>
> Because I'm aversed to things that waste my time.
Yah, why back up your claims...
> Experts could not
> duplicate LHO's supposed shooting spree in WC tests.
What were they trying to duplicate? Did Oz`s feat duplicate of of
the test firers? Did any of the test shooters duplicate the shooting
of the other shooters? Why are you such a purposeful idiot?
> It took most of
> them 4 or more attempts to come close, and as we all know, LHO
> wouldn't have the luxury of multiple attempts.
How much practicing did Oz do with his rifle? How much practice did
the test firers get?
> He would have one
> attempt only.
And if he hit with the first, missed with the second, and hit with
the third, that would be what the requirement would be. If Oz only hit
with his third shot, that would be the requirement. Do you see that
you are demanding the same exact results in an act that is strewn with
viaribles? A hundred people can gutshot a hundred other people, and
still not produce the same wounds Ruby inflicted on Oz. The call for
duplication is just another kook objection, with no basis in criminal
investigation.
> So, if they couldn't even back this up why should I
> believe in the SBT theory?
Have you seen a contending theory?
> I have read things written by men who have
> served our country and are experts in firearms and not one said it was
> just not possible to shatter dense bones and come out intact.
Then where are the fragments of the bullet that shattered Connaly`s
wrist? According to you, that bullet must shatter, why weren`t the
fragments of it found in the limo?
> IF
> perhaps the bullet had not hit bone maybe the SBT would be a more
> plausible scenario, but given the parameters laid by the WC it is just
> a fairy tale to make a lone assassin theory work.
Wound ballistic experts said it was possible. You say it isn`t. You
make it an easy choice.
> I don't need to see rigged experiments to make me believe this. It is
> totally unthinkable in my mind to believe this theory.
Perhaps your mind isn`t cut out for thinking.
> End of story.
> You tend to listen to what the government spoon feeds you verbatim.
> It is your choice, not knocking you.
The lack of any feasible alternatives forces me to accept the
conclusions the government came to. You kooks just don`t put anything
on the table that gives the govermental conclusions a run for the
money.
> > CT'ers don't run tests-they just poo-poo the tests performed over the
> > years by dozens of agencies and individuals that tend to produce
> > results that are remarkably consistent with what the WC found.
>
> This isn't true as many tests have been done including Texas A&M that
> I posted earlier. Of course LNers immediately tried to say it was
> fixed. This is a university and I was surprised they would release
> this report because the majority of folks workind in academia do not
> publicly say they believe in any theory beyond the WC.
> >
> > All CT'ers ever do is ask questions.
>
> All LNers ever do is never answer any questions.
Why are you even asking us anything? You have a conspiracy to
prove, hop to it.
Ben Holmes
robc...@netscape.com says...
>
>On Oct 24, 6:09 pm, bigdog <jecorbett1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> robocrap, you really need to get up to speed before you start popping
>> off. First of all, the illogic of your claim that in all the wars ever
>> fought, no bullet had ever caused 7 wounds in two people and come out
>> intact is laughable. You could only make that claim if every bullet
>> that had ever caused 7 wounds in 2 people had been recovered and
>> examined. I think it is safe to say that in warfare, people are a
>> little too busy to gather up bullets for a forensic examination.
>
>JumboMutt, I can make the claim then because it has never happened.
>If it did the military would have written papers and there would have
>been research on it. How would they know? Nurses, doctors, morgue
>personnel and the people who recover the bodies is a good place to
>start.
>>
>> As for the condition of the two recovered bullets, it is not hard for
>> someone to understand who is intelligent enough to know that a bullet
>> striking the dense bone
How "dense" is it compared to the rib? Is the skull bone magically "denser?"
Compare for the lurkers the *width* of the bone that was destroyed in each case.
>> of a skull at about 2100 fps is going to come
>> out in considerably different condition than a bullet that passes
>> through soft tissue of two torsos
Sadly, there's *NO* medical evidence based on a primary examination of JFK's
body that demonstrates transit. In fact, *DURING* the examination of JFK's body
- ALL THE EVIDENCE SHOWED THAT NO BULLET WENT ENTIRELY THROUGH JFK'S BODY.
Them's the facts... lap it up.
>> and tumbles before striking any bone
>> at all. Why would you expect these bullets too look alike?
>
>You better find someone then (who is intelligent enough) because if
>you think the skull is thicker than a rib or a wrist bone your off
>base. Smashed would be a good guess.
>
>Go back to the kennel.
Tis true... the rib, and bones in the wrist are easily a match for the skull.
Bigdog wants you to believe that the skull would have posed a greater barrier to
the bullet - yet the facts are exactly the opposite. And tests done by
ballistics experts couldn't produce a bullet that was as pristine as CE399 when
they attempted to replicate...
Bigdog is really just a puppy when it comes to the evidence.
Ben Holmes
robc...@netscape.com says...
And *I* know from experience that it is. Of course, you could always simply
cite the questions that you've answered... let's examine them.
LNT'ers simply *CAN'T* answer most questions - because there is *NO*
non-conspiratorial answer that can be given.
tomnln
"David Von Pein" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1193261702.8...@k35g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
>>>> "FOUR FEET!!...of solid wood. The fact that you would believe this and
>>>> post it reveals just how uninformed and gullible you are. Even if a FMJ
>>>> 6.5mm bullet was fired from a 300 magnum rifle (using a sabot) the
>>>> little 150 grain bullet would not have enough inertia to penetrate FOUR
>>>> FEET of solid wood." <<<
>
> You'd better cue up the Discovery Channel "Beyond The Magic Bullet"
> program then....because on that program they SHOW a Carcano bullet
> just like CE399 penetrating a solid (pine) wood log and coming out
> looking perfect...not a scratch on it.
>
David Von Pein
Which means that the log test done on TV in 2004 was all a fraud & a
fake, right Tom?
IOW -- I didn't REALLY see a Carcano bullet being dug out of 3.6 feet
of solid wood in front of my very eyes, with that bullet coming out in
pristine condition...did I Mr. Kook?
It was all a dream!
(Somebody tie a rope around that kook named Thomas. It's time that his
hands were lassoed to keep him from typing any more of the kookshit he
feels compelled to spew.)
tomnln
It's time that his hands were lassoed so he can't give hand jobs to other
LN's.
ps;
Don't forget your own evidence/testimony>>>
http://www.whokilledjfk.net/mexcity.htm
http://www.whokilledjfk.net/Walker.htm
http://www.whokilledjfk.net/tippit.htm
"David Von Pein" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1193292268.7...@q5g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
bigdog
robocrap, you are actually getting to be entertaining. First of all,
full metal jacketed bullets which are commonly used in warfare
generally pass completely through the victim(as it did through JFK and
JBC) and are not recovered. If a bullet was recovered by medical
personnel, their sole interest would be removing it from the victim.
They would have no idea if a bullet had first passed through another
victim, and no reason to care if it did. There is no way these people
or anyone else is going to do the type of exhaustive recreation of the
path of the bullet as was done in the JFK assassination. Your claim
that no bullet has ever passed through two bodies and remained in the
condition of CE399 remains totally baseless and is something you and
many other CTs have cooked up because it sounds good to you.
Lastly, you conveniently ignore the fact that the bullet that struck
JFK's skull did so at near muzzle velocity while the bullet which
struck JBC's rib and wrist bones had been slowed considerably by
passing through the soft tissue of two torsos and had tumbled so that
it did not smash nose first into these bones. That is why CE399 is
flattened not at its nose but at its base.
Now I really have no idea whether you are actually Jesus writing under
another alias or not but your train of thought, which has obviously
jumped the rails, certainly gives that indication. Whoever you are,
don't stop writing this crap. I can always use a good laugh.
bigdog
> In article <1193266783.270433.77...@y27g2000pre.googlegroups.com>,
> robcap...@netscape.com says...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Oct 24, 6:09 pm, bigdog <jecorbett1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >> robocrap, you really need to get up to speed before you start popping
> >> off. First of all, the illogic of your claim that in all the wars ever
> >> fought, no bullet had ever caused 7 wounds in two people and come out
> >> intact is laughable. You could only make that claim if every bullet
> >> that had ever caused 7 wounds in 2 people had been recovered and
> >> examined. I think it is safe to say that in warfare, people are a
> >> little too busy to gather up bullets for a forensic examination.
>
> >JumboMutt, I can make the claim then because it has never happened.
> >If it did the military would have written papers and there would have
> >been research on it. How would they know? Nurses, doctors, morgue
> >personnel and the people who recover the bodies is a good place to
> >start.
>
> >> As for the condition of the two recovered bullets, it is not hard for
> >> someone to understand who is intelligent enough to know that a bullet
> >> striking the dense bone
>
> How "dense" is it compared to the rib? Is the skull bone magically "denser?"
>
> Compare for the lurkers the *width* of the bone that was destroyed in each case.
>
> Bigdog wants you to believe that the skull would have posed a greater barrier to
> the bullet - yet the facts are exactly the opposite. And tests done by
> ballistics experts couldn't produce a bullet that was as pristine as CE399 when
> they attempted to replicate...
>
Holmes, I am violating one of my own rules by even responding to you
but this last diatribe is just too laughable to ignore. Are you
honestly going to take the position that rib bones are as hard as a
skull? No one said anything about width or thickness. The word I used
was density. I am certainly no medical expert but I think I am safe in
saying skulls are much harder than ribs. Ribs need to be flexible to
allow for the expansion and contraction of the lungs as we breath. If
they aren't the softest bones in the body, I would wager they are
pretty close. The skull on the other hand protects the most vital
organ in the body and so it must be very hard. It has evolved that way
over hundreds of millions of years in skeletal animals. A skull is in
effect, nature's helmet.
Now I have never eaten a skull but have have eaten ribs. When my dogs
get a hold of rib bones, they will crunch them up and eat them which
is why I take care not to let them have those bones. I don't think I
would have that same concern if they ever got hold of a skull. In fact
they have on a number of occassions got hold of racoons, ground hogs,
and squirrels. Often the only thing they leave is the head.
Walt
> On Oct 24, 8:17 am, Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > I've got one......... What makes you so obtuse? Is it because you
> > "think" your smart? Or is it because you're so gullible and trusting
> > that you refuse to think for yourself?
>
> > Actually that's three questions, but they are all based on the key
> > question of why you accept "the big lie" as the truth.
> > Aren't you aware that some very evil men have ascribed to the idea
> > that;... If a lie is big enough, and it appeals to the sucker's basic
> > beliefs, then the gullible sucker will swallow it without
> > question.
>
> > I believe Adolph Hitler was one of the men who ascribed to that
> > idea.... There are also many American men who ascribe to the idea....
> > Lyndon Johnson and J. Edgar Hoover were two of the key men that sold
> > the big lie to the gullible trusting public.
>
> > Walt
>
> thousands of men plotted, concealed and continue to cover-up the
> murder of a President.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Tousands and thousands??!!...... I named TWO men. Many others went
along with them because they WANTED to believe the big lie, just as
you do. Many were convinced that we would be engulfed in a nuclear
holocaust if we opened accused confronted any of the nations of the
communist alliance. They took what they thought was the best path for
national security. ( Let Oswald take the blame, and let sleeping dogs
lie)
Walt
Walt
> >>> "FOUR FEET!!...of solid wood. The fact that you would believe this and post it reveals just how uninformed and gullible you are. Even if a FMJ 6.5mm bullet was fired from a 300 magnum rifle (using a sabot) the little 150 grain bullet would not have enough inertia to penetrate FOUR FEET of solid wood." <<<
>
> You'd better cue up the Discovery Channel "Beyond The Magic Bullet"
> program then....because on that program they SHOW a Carcano bullet
> just like CE399 penetrating multiple feet of a solid (pine) wood log
> and coming out looking perfect...not a scratch on it.
>
> The Discovery Channel test bullet didn't quite go through four feet of
> wood, but it was close (3.6 feet to be exact).
>
> To refresh my memory, I just now watched the "log test" portion of the
> 2004 Discovery Channel JFK Special ("Beyond The Magic Bullet") on my
> DVD copy that I have, and here are the facts with respect to the "Log
> Test" (which occurs approximately 55 minutes into the program,
> btw).....
And I just watched David Copperfield make the Queen Mary disappear
into thin air.....and three men on a sofa float 8 feet off the stage
floor.
Walt
lazu...@webtv.net
will penetrate just under four feet of pine and remain unscathed, yet
penetrate a half inch of cranial bone and then break up into a snowstorm
of minute particles (seen on Xray), plus five larger fragments, two of
which were quite large (the ones found in the limo's front compartment).
The rational mind will ask,"what's wrong with this picture?"------Old
Laz knows that FMJ bullets don't behave like exploding ammo.
aeffects
> On 24 Oct, 16:55, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > >>> "FOUR FEET!!...of solid wood. The fact that you would believe this and post it reveals just how uninformed and gullible you are. Even if a FMJ 6.5mm bullet was fired from a 300 magnum rifle (using a sabot) the little 150 grain bullet would not have enough inertia to penetrate FOUR FEET of solid wood." <<<
>
> > You'd better cue up the Discovery Channel "Beyond The Magic Bullet"
> > program then....because on that program they SHOW a Carcano bullet
> > just like CE399 penetrating multiple feet of a solid (pine) wood log
> > and coming out looking perfect...not a scratch on it.
>
> > The Discovery Channel test bullet didn't quite go through four feet of
> > wood, but it was close (3.6 feet to be exact).
>
> > To refresh my memory, I just now watched the "log test" portion of the
> > 2004 Discovery Channel JFK Special ("Beyond The Magic Bullet") on my
> > DVD copy that I have, and here are the facts with respect to the "Log
> > Test" (which occurs approximately 55 minutes into the program,
> > btw).....
>
> And I just watched David Copperfield make the Queen Mary disappear
> into thin air.....and three men on a sofa float 8 feet off the stage
> floor.
they have a moron out this direction (Las Vegas) who has steam roller
roll half way up his back, people actually fainted when they watched
the act -- they gotta be Lone Nutter's...
aeffects
> What I find incredible is that the nutters believe that an FMJ bullet
> will penetrate just under four feet of pine and remain unscathed, yet
> penetrate a half inch of cranial bone and then break up into a snowstorm
> of minute particles (seen on Xray), plus five larger fragments, two of
> which were quite large (the ones found in the limo's front compartment).
> The rational mind will ask,"what's wrong with this picture?"
absolutely....
muc...@gmail.com
Yes. Great minds instinctively know how bullets will behave under
different circumstances.
David Von Pein
Of course, anybody who wants to can easily PROVE and SEE that such a
thing re. FMJ/WCC/MC bullets like CE399 is positively
possible....because the PROOF IS ON FILM AND IN PHOTOGRAPHS.
The log test is ON FILM 55 minutes into the 2004 Discovery Channel
program, where we can SEE a pristine WCC/MC bullet being dug out of
the log. And the other half of the equation (a very damage WCC bullet)
has been proven several times, with the bullets photographed, right
here:
http://i1.tinypic.com/44t3b0n.jpg
Go figure kooks.
Bud
Are you applying all the applicable laws of physics, and are you
considering all the aspects of test? Wood has grain, and going with
the grain is a lot easier than across it. Also, the wood could have
the effect of helping the bullet keep it`s shape, by keeping an equal
pressure around the bullet as it travels.
As far as you finding a FMJ fragmenting from hitting a skull
incredible, the WC showed that occurring decades ago.
robc...@netscape.com
> > > Rob...
>
> > > Why don't you run some tests?
>
> > Because I'm aversed to things that waste my time.
>
> Yah, why back up your claims...
Sure, if I really took the time to do this only to prove that a bullet
cannot cause seven wounds (hitting 2 major bones) and come out intact,
what do you think you LNers would say? That it was rigged. Why waste
my time?
>
> > Experts could not
> > duplicate LHO's supposed shooting spree in WC tests.
>
> What were they trying to duplicate? Did Oz`s feat duplicate of of
> the test firers? Did any of the test shooters duplicate the shooting
> of the other shooters? Why are you such a purposeful idiot?
What were they trying to duplicate? How about 3 shots in 5.6 seconds,
two hits, moving target (although the WC used a stationary target),
hard to move bolt action rifle and a big tree in the way (again no
tree for the WC shooters).
>
> > It took most of
> > them 4 or more attempts to come close, and as we all know, LHO
> > wouldn't have the luxury of multiple attempts.
>
> How much practicing did Oz do with his rifle? How much practice did
> the test firers get?
Oz got verry little to no practice as he didn't own a Carcano rifle.
Experts practice all the time. Fair comparison, right?
>
> > He would have one
> > attempt only.
>
> And if he hit with the first, missed with the second, and hit with
> the third, that would be what the requirement would be. If Oz only hit
> with his third shot, that would be the requirement. Do you see that
> you are demanding the same exact results in an act that is strewn with
> viaribles? A hundred people can gutshot a hundred other people, and
> still not produce the same wounds Ruby inflicted on Oz. The call for
> duplication is just another kook objection, with no basis in criminal
> investigation.
No I'm not. I'm requiring expert riflmen to match the incredible
shooting LHO supposedly did. That is the point. If experts can't do
it how could an average shooter at best do it? He had more than just
hitting the target to deal with too. He had to move into place in a
just a few minutes due to someone still eating near the window as late
as 12:20 PM. He had adrenaline and nerves to deal with. He had a
tree in the way. He had a bent scope. Get it? It was an incredible
feat no professional has matched in one attempt.
>
> > So, if they couldn't even back this up why should I
> > believe in the SBT theory?
>
> Have you seen a contending theory?
Of course I do!!!!!! Multiple gunmen with real good guns.
>
> > I have read things written by men who have
> > served our country and are experts in firearms and not one said it was
> > just not possible to shatter dense bones and come out intact.
>
> Then where are the fragments of the bullet that shattered Connaly`s
> wrist? According to you, that bullet must shatter, why weren`t the
> fragments of it found in the limo?
They were found in his wrist, that's why they know there was more of
the bullet in the wrist than missing from CE399.
>
> > IF
> > perhaps the bullet had not hit bone maybe the SBT would be a more
> > plausible scenario, but given the parameters laid by the WC it is just
> > a fairy tale to make a lone assassin theory work.
>
> Wound ballistic experts said it was possible. You say it isn`t. You
> make it an easy choice.
List here which would wound ballistic experts said a bullet can hit
two major bones and come out virtually intact. I want proof on this.
The head of the Army testing grounds said it wasn't possible.
>
> > I don't need to see rigged experiments to make me believe this. It is
> > totally unthinkable in my mind to believe this theory.
>
> Perhaps your mind isn`t cut out for thinking.
Typical LNer, no proof or facts, so they get insulting.
>
> > End of story.
> > You tend to listen to what the government spoon feeds you verbatim.
> > It is your choice, not knocking you.
>
> The lack of any feasible alternatives forces me to accept the
> conclusions the government came to. You kooks just don`t put anything
> on the table that gives the govermental conclusions a run for the
> money.
You're telling me you have read all the things out there regarding the
case? And you still think the government is the best option? There
are many sources who are not pro-JFK or anti-government but they still
come up with a big whole in the governments case. It was one of the
worst investigations (and I use this term lightly) in the history of
modern man.
> > > All CT'ers ever do is ask questions.
>
> > All LNers ever do is never answer any questions.
>
> Why are you even asking us anything? You have a conspiracy to
> prove, hop to it.
If this is too difficult for you then you don't have to respond. Go
back to your X-box and continue to rot your brain out.
robc...@netscape.com
> robocrap, you are actually getting to be entertaining. First of all,
> full metal jacketed bullets which are commonly used in warfare
> generally pass completely through the victim(as it did through JFK and
> JBC) and are not recovered. If a bullet was recovered by medical
> personnel, their sole interest would be removing it from the victim.
> They would have no idea if a bullet had first passed through another
> victim, and no reason to care if it did. There is no way these people
> or anyone else is going to do the type of exhaustive recreation of the
> path of the bullet as was done in the JFK assassination. Your claim
> that no bullet has ever passed through two bodies and remained in the
> condition of CE399 remains totally baseless and is something you and
> many other CTs have cooked up because it sounds good to you.
JumboMutt, they do when they don't hit bone. They were designed by
the military (in accordance with the Geneva convention) to injure and
not kill. Once a bullet (full-jacketed or not) hits bone all bets are
off. IF, making common sense and not hearing a peep from the military
about this is my opinion. Don't you think the military would love a
bullet like this? Read this (if you can) for more details.
http://www.history-matters.com/essays/jfkmed/Breakability/Breakability.htm
>
> Lastly, you conveniently ignore the fact that the bullet that struck
> JFK's skull did so at near muzzle velocity while the bullet which
> struck JBC's rib and wrist bones had been slowed considerably by
> passing through the soft tissue of two torsos and had tumbled so that
> it did not smash nose first into these bones. That is why CE399 is
> flattened not at its nose but at its base.
Prove it was slowed enough to damage bone and not injure itself. Good
luck. No one has proven this. Larry Sturdivan couldn't prove it so
his "research" wasn't included in the HSCA report. Read the above
article. He was asked to review Sturdivan's book and made a million
changes because it was so off the mark.
>
> Now I really have no idea whether you are actually Jesus writing under
> another alias or not but your train of thought, which has obviously
> jumped the rails, certainly gives that indication. Whoever you are,
> don't stop writing this crap. I can always use a good laugh.
I'm sure you can use a good laugh since you give everyone else one
when you open your mouth. I am not Gil, but you are so clueless like
the rest of them this just doesn't sink in.
bigdog
A human skull is considerably harder than pine board.
bigdog
> On Oct 25, 7:44 am, bigdog <jecorbett1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > robocrap, you are actually getting to be entertaining. First of all,
> > full metal jacketed bullets which are commonly used in warfare
> > generally pass completely through the victim(as it did through JFK and
> > JBC) and are not recovered. If a bullet was recovered by medical
> > personnel, their sole interest would be removing it from the victim.
> > They would have no idea if a bullet had first passed through another
> > victim, and no reason to care if it did. There is no way these people
> > or anyone else is going to do the type of exhaustive recreation of the
> > path of the bullet as was done in the JFK assassination. Your claim
> > that no bullet has ever passed through two bodies and remained in the
> > condition of CE399 remains totally baseless and is something you and
> > many other CTs have cooked up because it sounds good to you.
>
> JumboMutt, they do when they don't hit bone. They were designed by
> the military (in accordance with the Geneva convention) to injure and
> not kill. Once a bullet (full-jacketed or not) hits bone all bets are
> off. IF, making common sense and not hearing a peep from the military
> about this is my opinion. Don't you think the military would love a
> bullet like this? Read this (if you can) for more details.
>
>
>
>
> > Lastly, you conveniently ignore the fact that the bullet that struck
> > JFK's skull did so at near muzzle velocity while the bullet which
> > struck JBC's rib and wrist bones had been slowed considerably by
> > passing through the soft tissue of two torsos and had tumbled so that
> > it did not smash nose first into these bones. That is why CE399 is
> > flattened not at its nose but at its base.
>
> Prove it was slowed enough to damage bone and not injure itself. Good
> luck. No one has proven this. Larry Sturdivan couldn't prove it so
> his "research" wasn't included in the HSCA report. Read the above
> article. He was asked to review Sturdivan's book and made a million
> changes because it was so off the mark.
>
>
>
> > Now I really have no idea whether you are actually Jesus writing under
> > another alias or not but your train of thought, which has obviously
> > jumped the rails, certainly gives that indication. Whoever you are,
> > don't stop writing this crap. I can always use a good laugh.
>
> I'm sure you can use a good laugh since you give everyone else one
> when you open your mouth. I am not Gil, but you are so clueless like
> the rest of them this just doesn't sink in.
I don't have to prove a bullet will slow down when passing through a
substance. It is a simple law of physics. It's called friction. Even
passing through air slows a bullet down. The greater the resistance
the bullet meets, the more it will be slowed. Since the bullet was
going sideways as it went through JBCs torso it would have met more
resistance than when it went through JFK's neck because there was more
surface exposed in the direction the bullet was traveling. The slowing
of the bullet prevented the bullet from shattering the way the head
shot bullet did. While it did not shatter it did flatten at its
base.
Now if you don't think CE399 was flattened when it hit JBC's wrist
bone, then please explain what it did hit to cause its curious shape.
Gil Jesus
exit hole in the front of Connally's jacket.
http://links.pictures.aol.com/pic/41602cXrkH0*ic1Lb0imwIK1LzpBNDbi0S2Bv4xQp5Fd3Ig=_l.jpg
That exit hole doesn't look like the bullet was "tumbling" before it
hit his wrist.
When exactly did it start and stop "tumbling" ?
Could CE399 have struck bone ?
Connally's doctor says no
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cnawDAp_zKM
Government's ballistics expert says no
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qgzjW4gdMaQ
Forensic pathologist says no
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OV5d4p4FKsY
You can believe the bullshit, or you can believe the EXPERTS
bigdog
> Funny Bigdog, how a "tumbling" bullet could leave such a nice ROUND
> exit hole in the front of Connally's jacket.
>
>
> That exit hole doesn't look like the bullet was "tumbling" before it
> hit his wrist.
>
> When exactly did it start and stop "tumbling" ?
>
> Could CE399 have struck bone ?
>
> Connally's doctor says no
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cnawDAp_zKM
>
> Government's ballistics expert says no
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qgzjW4gdMaQ
>
> Forensic pathologist says no
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OV5d4p4FKsY
>
> You can believe the bullshit, or you can believe the EXPERTS
>
> http://www.youtube.com/GJJdude
It didn't stop tumbling. It continued to tumbling as it went through
JBC's torso. As a result, it was traveling backward when it came out
the front of JBC's jacket. That is why it deposited lead fragments in
JBC's wrist, fragments from the lead core of the bullet that was only
exposed at the base. Had the hole in the front JBC's jacket been
eliptical, like the hole in his back, this would have indicated the
bullet had stopped tumbling and that would have been hard to explain.
bigdog
> exit hole in the front of Connally's jacket.
>
>
> That exit hole doesn't look like the bullet was "tumbling" before it
> hit his wrist.
>
> When exactly did it start and stop "tumbling" ?
>
> Could CE399 have struck bone ?
>
> Connally's doctor says no
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cnawDAp_zKM
>
> Government's ballistics expert says no
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qgzjW4gdMaQ
>
> Forensic pathologist says no
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OV5d4p4FKsY
>
> You can believe the bullshit, or you can believe the EXPERTS
>
> http://www.youtube.com/GJJdude
Please explain what expertise either the doctor or pathologist has in
the area of ballistics.
robc...@netscape.com
> Please explain what expertise either the doctor or pathologist has in
> the area of ballistics.
About as much as a lawyer on the WC!!!
Ben Holmes
robc...@netscape.com says...
Of course, Bigdog can't accept the ballistics experts either...
tomnln
"bigdog" <jecorb...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1193350302.2...@50g2000hsm.googlegroups.com...
The doctors at Parkland handle an average of 1,271 gunshot cases per year.
Good enough for you?
Gil Jesus
> Please explain what expertise either the doctor or pathologist has in
> the area of ballistics.
Gee, Bigdog, who do you think removes bullets from living victims ?
Maybe doctors ?
Who do you think removes bullets from dead victims ? Forensic
Pathologists ?
Having spent a career removing bullets from human bodies, do you think
that makes them experts in what bullets should look like when they hit
bone ?
Knowing you and your ilk, probably not.
Oh, by the way, the doctor was also a doctor in the army during World
War II. Do you think he saw any gunshot wounds ?
PS: Feels free to answer my question as to when the bullet started
"tumbling" and when it stopped. And please also explain why the exit
hole in Connally's coat is not elongated if the bullet was tumbling.
Walt
> lazuli...@webtv.net wrote:
> > What I find incredible is that the nutters believe that an FMJ bullet
> > will penetrate just under four feet of pine and remain unscathed, yet
> > penetrate a half inch of cranial bone and then break up into a snowstorm
> > of minute particles (seen on Xray), plus five larger fragments, two of
> > which were quite large (the ones found in the limo's front compartment).
> > The rational mind will ask,"what's wrong with this picture?"------Old
> > Laz knows that FMJ bullets don't behave like exploding ammo.
>
> Are you applying all the applicable laws of physics, and are you
> considering all the aspects of test? Wood has grain, and going with
> the grain is a lot easier than across it.
That's correct..... and I suppose it's possible for a FMJ 6.5 bullet
to travel through a couple of feet of an old dried out soft pine
log...... Thereby giving the connivers grounds for making claims that
are not realistic. When a person says the bullet will penetrate FOUR
FEET of solid wood the natural assumption is that they are referring a
standing ( across the grain ) stump.
Also, the wood could have the effect of helping the bullet keep it`s
shape, by keeping an equal
> pressure around the bullet as it travels.
Excellent.....That's exactly right ( especially if the bullet is
traveling with the grain of the wood)
HOWEVER.....using the same laws of physics.... There is no reason a
FMJ bullet should shatter when it it strikes a human skull with a soft
tissue brain inside. An FMJ bullet striking a human skull should
simple penetrate the skull, slip through the soft tissue brain and
exit out the reverse side of the skull. There should be very little
deforming of the bullet.
The 6.5mm bullet has been used for hunting elephants because the long
length ( 1.25") of the bullet gives it excellent penetrating ability
on an elephants skull.
>
> As far as you finding a FMJ fragmenting from hitting a skull
> incredible, the WC showed that occurring decades ago.
Yes.... and David Cooperfield routinely shows heavy objects floating
in midair.
Walt
Walt
> On Oct 25, 5:33 pm, Gil Jesus <gjjm...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Funny Bigdog, how a "tumbling" bullet could leave such a nice ROUND
> > exit hole in the front of Connally's jacket.
>
> >http://links.pictures.aol.com/pic/41602cXrkH0*ic1Lb0imwIK1LzpBNDbi0S2...
>
> > That exit hole doesn't look like the bullet was "tumbling" before it
> > hit his wrist.
>
> > When exactly did it start and stop "tumbling" ?
>
> > Could CE399 have struck bone ?
>
> > Connally's doctor says no
>
> >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cnawDAp_zKM
>
> > Government's ballistics expert says no
>
> >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qgzjW4gdMaQ
>
> > Forensic pathologist says no
>
> >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OV5d4p4FKsY
>
> > You can believe the bullshit, or you can believe the EXPERTS
>
> >http://www.youtube.com/GJJdude
>
> It didn't stop tumbling. It continued to tumbling as it went through
> JBC's torso. As a result, it was traveling backward when it came out
> the front of JBC's jacket.
Is this logical???... Do you know anything about ballistics??? A
bullet traveling BACKWARDS would have ripped apart when it struck a
very dense wrist bone.....because there was no jacket covering the
lead core. Therefore the copper jacket would have expanded and
stopped, while the heavier lead core would have slipped from the
jacket continued it's flight.
Walt
That is why it deposited lead fragments in
> JBC's wrist, fragments from the lead core of the bullet that was only
> exposed at the base. Had the hole in the front JBC's jacket been
> eliptical, like the hole in his back, this would have indicated the
> bullet had stopped tumbling and that would have been hard to explain.- Hide quoted text -
lazu...@webtv.net
bullets (re: the headshot), Mucher made this brilliant observation:
"Yes. Great minds instinctively know how bullets will behave under
different circumstances."
Wow, spoken like a true ballestician, --er bullshitician. I guess you
think bullets are like God--that they "move in mysterious ways"? Haven't
you heard that FMJ's are specifically designed to go on through the body
without breaking up into a myriad of tiny fragments? Cite one test
example where this has been duplicated, or is this like the jet effect,
where it only happened once in the history of the world?----Old Laz, who
relies on science rather than "instinct".
aeffects
you're getting sloppy, Dave....
muc...@gmail.com
> When I stated factually that FMJ bullets don't behave like exploding
> bullets (re: the headshot), Mucher made this brilliant observation:
>
> "Yes. Great minds instinctively know how bullets will behave under
> different circumstances."
>
> Wow, spoken like a true ballestician, --er bullshitician. I guess you
> think bullets are like God--that they "move in mysterious ways"?
Not quite. Terminal ballistics is (to quote Wikipedia) the study of
the behavior of a projectile when it hits its target. I *think* this
depends on velocity and type of target, and that tests need to be
performed.
Have you read Dr. Olivier's WC testimony? He was surprised by the
amount of damage his test skulls sustained. He had expected small
entrance and exit wounds - and he presumably knew more about
ballistics than you do.
> Haven't you heard that FMJ's are specifically designed to go on through
> the body without breaking up into a myriad of tiny fragments?
But here we are talking about skull bone, not bodies.
> Cite one test
> example where this has been duplicated, or is this like the jet effect,
> where it only happened once in the history of the world?
Why don't you pull out your copy of the Army ballistics report and
turn to page 14?
"Ten skulls were shot at [90 yd] range, and extensive damage was
produced in each instance. The bullets broke up to a greater or lesser
degree in at least nine of the skulls."
Also take a look at figures A9 through A12.
> ----Old Laz, who relies on science rather than "instinct".
Frankly, it seems to be the other way around.
Gil Jesus
>
> It didn't stop tumbling. It continued to tumbling as it went through
> JBC's torso. As a result, it was traveling backward when it came out
> the front of JBC's jacket. That is why it deposited lead fragments in
> JBC's wrist, fragments from the lead core of the bullet that was only
> exposed at the base. Had the hole in the front JBC's jacket been
> eliptical, like the hole in his back, this would have indicated the
> bullet had stopped tumbling and that would have been hard to explain
That's bullshit.
let's see if the EXACT SAME LOT NUMBER AMMUNITION tumbles when it's
fired into some ballistic gelatin and cow bones ( replicating human
flesh and bones ) :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tFxt_ChhcgQ
and let's compare the condition of the bullet when removed.
Ever hear of a bullet going through two men and having no trace of
either victim's blood on it ?
tomnln
out.
<muc...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1193428869....@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com...
lazu...@webtv.net
"Have you read Dr. Olivier's testimony? He was surprised by the amount
of damage his test skulls sustained."
If they were dried out skulls filled with gelatin, I don't see why he
should be surprised. They are bound to shatter to pieces. There is no
comparison. That is a far cry from a live human head composed of scalp,
bone, dura mater, brain and blood.
"He had expected small entrance and exit wounds--and he presumably knew
more about ballistics than you do."
Not if he expected both entrance and exit wounds to be small. Hell, I'm
no ballestician but I know that's a crock!
"Why don't you pull out your copy of the Army Ballistics Report, and
turn to pg. 14?
'Ten skulls were shot at (90 yds) range and extensive damage was
produced in each instance. The bullets broke up to a greater or lesser
degree in at least 9 of the skulls.'
Well, thank you for a cite, which actually doesn't address my contention
that FMJ bullets are not designed to spray lead, whether it be in a
human head or not. Did you find any source regarding at least 40 minute
fragments along with major fragmenting found in any of that extensive
testing you cite? I didn't claim that an FMJ wouldn't grossly fragment,
but you still haven't quoted anything in the literature, I guarantee,
that duplicates the blizzard of fine particles seen on X ray in the JFK
case. Not from an FMJ bullet. But from a frangible or exploding
bullet---that's another matter.-----Old Laz, exploding the myths
Bud
lazuli...@webtv.net wrote:
> Mucher is too much, asking:
>
> "Have you read Dr. Olivier's testimony? He was surprised by the amount
> of damage his test skulls sustained."
>
> If they were dried out skulls filled with gelatin, I don't see why he
> should be surprised. They are bound to shatter to pieces. There is no
> comparison. That is a far cry from a live human head composed of scalp,
> bone, dura mater, brain and blood.
<snicker> A few weeks ago, Ben was making the case that Oliver`s
test results were representative of the actual even, and Mark was
arguing the same missing components you state.
muc...@gmail.com
> lazuli...@webtv.net wrote:
> > Mucher is too much, asking:
>
> > "Have you read Dr. Olivier's testimony? He was surprised by the amount
> > of damage his test skulls sustained."
>
> > If they were dried out skulls filled with gelatin, I don't see why he
> > should be surprised. They are bound to shatter to pieces. There is no
> > comparison. That is a far cry from a live human head composed of scalp,
> > bone, dura mater, brain and blood.
>
> <snicker> A few weeks ago, Ben was making the case that Oliver`s
> test results were representative of the actual even, and Mark was
> arguing the same missing components you state.
Refreshingly candid of Laz to (finally) admit that he disagrees with
Ben.
> > "He had expected small entrance and exit wounds--and he presumably knew
> > more about ballistics than you do."
>
> > Not if he expected both entrance and exit wounds to be small. Hell, I'm
> > no ballestician but I know that's a crock!
Olivier tested his assumptions by experiment and observation. That's
how science works. Did you completely miss the sarcasm in my first
reply?
> > "Why don't you pull out your copy of the Army Ballistics Report, and
> > turn to pg. 14?
> > 'Ten skulls were shot at (90 yds) range and extensive damage was
> > produced in each instance. The bullets broke up to a greater or lesser
> > degree in at least 9 of the skulls.'
>
> > Well, thank you for a cite, which actually doesn't address my contention
> > that FMJ bullets are not designed to spray lead, whether it be in a
> > human head or not. Did you find any source regarding at least 40 minute
> > fragments along with major fragmenting found in any of that extensive
> > testing you cite? I didn't claim that an FMJ wouldn't grossly fragment,
> > but you still haven't quoted anything in the literature, I guarantee,
> > that duplicates the blizzard of fine particles seen on X ray in the JFK
> > case. Not from an FMJ bullet. But from a frangible or exploding
> > bulet---that's another matter.-----Old Laz, exploding the myths
Creating myths seems more like it. Minute particles were indeed
recovered from Olivier's test skulls. But, if you feel that previous
tests are inadequate, why don't you run some of your own?
Ben Holmes
muc...@gmail.com says...
>
>On 27 Okt., 12:13, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>> lazuli...@webtv.net wrote:
>> > Mucher is too much, asking:
>>
>> > "Have you read Dr. Olivier's testimony? He was surprised by the amount
>> > of damage his test skulls sustained."
>>
>> > If they were dried out skulls filled with gelatin, I don't see why he
>> > should be surprised. They are bound to shatter to pieces. There is no
>> > comparison. That is a far cry from a live human head composed of scalp,
>> > bone, dura mater, brain and blood.
>>
>> <snicker> A few weeks ago, Ben was making the case that Oliver`s
>> test results were representative of the actual even, and Mark was
>> arguing the same missing components you state.
>
>Refreshingly candid of Laz to (finally) admit that he disagrees with
>Ben.
It wouldn't bother me if Laz disagreed with me... but I'd be interested to know
just what the disagreement is.
muc...@gmail.com
> On 27 Okt., 12:13, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>
> > lazuli...@webtv.net wrote:
> > > Mucher is too much, asking:
>
> > > "Have you read Dr. Olivier's testimony? He was surprised by the amount
> > > of damage his test skulls sustained."
>
> > > If they were dried out skulls filled with gelatin, I don't see why he
> > > should be surprised. They are bound to shatter to pieces. There is no
> > > comparison. That is a far cry from a live human head composed of scalp,
> > > bone, dura mater, brain and blood.
>
> > <snicker> A few weeks ago, Ben was making the case that Oliver`s
> > test results were representative of the actual even, and Mark was
> > arguing the same missing components you state.
>
> Refreshingly candid of Laz to (finally) admit that he disagrees with
> Ben.
>
> > > "He had expected small entrance and exit wounds--and he presumably knew
> > > more about ballistics than you do."
>
> > > Not if he expected both entrance and exit wounds to be small. Hell, I'm
> > > no ballestician but I know that's a crock!
>
> Olivier tested his assumptions by experiment and observation. That's
> how science works. Did you completely miss the sarcasm in my first
> reply?
I could also have quoted from the Army ballistics report:
"The human-skull studies were conducted to see if the 6.5-mm
Mannlicher-Carcano bullet would inflict massive skull wounds, such as
the President received. A full-jacketed blunt-nosed bullet of this
type tends to be very stable and should not cause such massive wounds
unless the nose of the bullet were to flatten or deform severely,
causing rapid slowdown with a resultant increase in kinetic-energy
expenditure within the cranium. Before conducting these tests, the
experimenters were of the opinion that only an unstable bullet or a
soft-nosed hunting bullet could produce such damage."
> > > "Why don't you pull out your copy of the Army Ballistics Report, and
> > > turn to pg. 14?
> > > 'Ten skulls were shot at (90 yds) range and extensive damage was
> > > produced in each instance. The bullets broke up to a greater or lesser
> > > degree in at least 9 of the skulls.'
>
> > > Well, thank you for a cite, which actually doesn't address my contention
> > > that FMJ bullets are not designed to spray lead, whether it be in a
> > > human head or not. Did you find any source regarding at least 40 minute
> > > fragments along with major fragmenting found in any of that extensive
> > > testing you cite? I didn't claim that an FMJ wouldn't grossly fragment,
> > > but you still haven't quoted anything in the literature, I guarantee,
> > > that duplicates the blizzard of fine particles seen on X ray in the JFK
> > > case. Not from an FMJ bullet. But from a frangible or exploding
> > > bulet---that's another matter.-----Old Laz, exploding the myths
>
> Creating myths seems more like it. Minute particles were indeed
> recovered from Olivier's test skulls. But, if you feel that previous
> tests are inadequate, why don't you run some of your own?
No clever rejoinder this time?
Bud
Ben Holmes wrote:
> In article <1193512783.1...@19g2000hsx.googlegroups.com>,
> muc...@gmail.com says...
> >
> >On 27 Okt., 12:13, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
> >> lazuli...@webtv.net wrote:
> >> > Mucher is too much, asking:
> >>
> >> > "Have you read Dr. Olivier's testimony? He was surprised by the amount
> >> > of damage his test skulls sustained."
> >>
> >> > If they were dried out skulls filled with gelatin, I don't see why he
> >> > should be surprised. They are bound to shatter to pieces. There is no
> >> > comparison. That is a far cry from a live human head composed of scalp,
> >> > bone, dura mater, brain and blood.
> >>
> >> <snicker> A few weeks ago, Ben was making the case that Oliver`s
> >> test results were representative of the actual even, and Mark was
> >> arguing the same missing components you state.
> >
> >Refreshingly candid of Laz to (finally) admit that he disagrees with
> >Ben.
>
> It wouldn't bother me if Laz disagreed with me... but I'd be interested to know
> just what the disagreement is.
You see Laz`s words above, don`t you? I could be wrong, but it
seemed you were arguing against what Laz is saying above in your
discussions with Mark found here...
But, I guess you were being decietful there, because you now claim
not to be in disagreement with Laz`s opinions expressed above that the
test skulls are "bound to shatter to pieces", and that "there is no
comparison". It seemed to this casual observer that Ben was making
direct comparisons to the test skull and the actual wounds on
Kennedy`s skull in his discussions with Mark 4-5 weeks back, yet Laz
says it can`t be done. Now, to further confuse things, Ben claims not
to be in disagreement with Laz. Whats a lurker to think?
gwmcc...@earthlink.net
> On 24 Oct, 00:27, chuck schuyler <chu...@am-mtg.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Oct 23, 11:56 pm, "tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> > > Hey KOOK-SUCKER;
>
> > > You're the one who Refuses to address your own evidence/testimony.
>
> > >http://www.whokilledjfk.net/mexcity.htmhttp://www.whokilledjfk.net/Wa...
>
> > > "chuck schuyler" <chu...@am-mtg.com> wrote in message
>
> > >news:1193199948.3...@v23g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
>
> > > > On Oct 23, 9:02 pm, robcap...@netscape.com wrote:
> > > >> I wrote this in answer to another post, but do to the importance of it
> > > >> I thought I'd put it in a new post.
>
> > > >> How can ammo from the same source perform so differently? This
> > > >> question is so basic yet it could be the proverbial "smoking
> > > >> gun" (pardon the pun).
>
> > > >> How can one bullet cause 7 major wounds in two men and come out intact
> > > >> after hitting bones (wrist, rib)? That has been argued for 44 years.
> > > >> While the other hand we have another bullet coming supposedly from the
> > > >> same gun that just hits a less thick bone (skull), brain matter and
> > > >> tissue and yet it totally comes apart? How is this possible?
>
> > > >> It isn't possible for the same type of ammo to perform so totally
> > > >> different. Therefore, this proves without a doubt another type of
> > > >> ammo was used for the head shot. Thus there was a second gunmen
> > > >> because they found 3 shells of the same type in the supposed "gunman's
> > > >> nest".
>
> > > >> Now LNers have a quandry. They can't backtrack and say the SBT did in
> > > >> fact disengrate also, because that blows their 44 year lie out of the
> > > >> water.
>
> > > > Rob...
>
> > > > Why don't you run some tests?
>
> > > > There are video examples available for free on YouTube that validate
> > > > the WC findings about how the bullets behaved and the damage they
> > > > inflicted. Many documentaries over the years have run their own
> > > > simulations.
>
> > > > CT'ers don't run tests-they just poo-poo the tests performed over the
> > > > years by dozens of agencies and individuals that tend to produce
> > > > results that are remarkably consistent with what the WC found.
>
> > > > All CT'ers ever do is ask questions.
>
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
>
> > Got any other ones?
>
> I've got one......... What makes you so obtuse? Is it because you
> "think" your smart? Or is it because you're so gullible and trusting
> that you refuse to think for yourself?
>
> Actually that's three questions, but they are all based on the key
> question of why you accept "the big lie" as the truth.
> Aren't you aware that some very evil men have ascribed to the idea
> that;... If a lie is big enough, and it appeals to the sucker's basic
> beliefs, then the gullible sucker will swallow it without
> question.
>
> I believe Adolph Hitler was one of the men who ascribed to that
> idea.... There are also many American men who ascribe to the idea....
> Lyndon Johnson and J. Edgar Hoover were two of the key men that sold
> the big lie to the gullible trusting public.
>
> Walt
>
> - Hide quoted text -
>
>
>
> > - Show quoted text -
Wow. You sure told 'im. I bet you were hard to beat in "Am not!"/"Are
too!" arguments in kindergarten.
You don't even know how to spell Hitler's first name.
Here are only a couple of the many Big Lies the CT community has been
passing off as Gospel Truth:
the fictitious depiction of Connally and Kennedy's respective
positions in the motorcade, and that the bullet said to have passed
through both their bodies was "intact."
sandy
gwmcc...@earthlink.net
> >>> "FOUR FEET!!...of solid wood. The fact that you would believe this and post it reveals just how uninformed and gullible you are. Even if a FMJ 6.5mm bullet was fired from a 300 magnum rifle (using a sabot) the little 150 grain bullet would not have enough inertia to penetrate FOUR FEET of solid wood." <<<
>
> You'd better cue up the Discovery Channel "Beyond The Magic Bullet"
> program then....because on that program they SHOW a Carcano bullet
> just like CE399 penetrating multiple feet of a solid (pine) wood log
> and coming out looking perfect...not a scratch on it.
>
> The Discovery Channel test bullet didn't quite go through four feet of
> wood, but it was close (3.6 feet to be exact).
>
> To refresh my memory, I just now watched the "log test" portion of the
> 2004 Discovery Channel JFK Special ("Beyond The Magic Bullet") on my
> DVD copy that I have, and here are the facts with respect to the "Log
> Test" (which occurs approximately 55 minutes into the program,
> btw).....
>
> The 6.5mm. WCC/MC bullet used for the test (from Lot No. 6000, one of
> the four lot numbers that included Oswald's 1963 ammunition; and, btw,
> the box with "6000" stamped on it is shown in the hands of the gunman
> who fired the test bullet into the wooden log) penetrated 43.5 inches
> (3.6 feet) of the solid pine log. (To clarify further, the nose of the
> bullet extended to the 43.5-inch mark. The base end of the bullet
> ended up about 42.25 inches deep into the wood.)
>
> The test bullet was then dug out of the log ON CAMERA, and the bullet
> almost looked like it had never even been fired. The only damage to
> that bullet was a slight extrusion of lead from the base, just exactly
> like Commission Exhibit 399.
>
> If someone who also has the DVD version of the "Beyond The Magic
> Bullet" program has the capabilities of posting a Screen Capture from
> that DVD, it would serve useful to this discussion. I, however, don't
> have the capability to do that type of thing.
>
> But if anyone else does, the image on the DVD at exactly the "56:15"
> mark of the program (elapsed time), would be an excellent freeze-frame
> image to post. That exact moment on the DVD shows the bullet just as
> it is being extracted from the wood log....and you can tell from that
> freeze-frame image that the bullet is completely intact and free from
> any damage whatsoever.
>
> But, I suppose conspiracy theorists must think that that log test was
> "fake" too....huh, Walt-Kook?
And on the other hand, the misnamed "magic bullet" in question did
show some damage.
"Reclaiming History,' V. Bugliosi, pg. 808-809:
"In 1978, the public got its first good look at the so-called pristine
bullet during the televised hearings of the HSCA. Later published as
part of the committee's exhibits, the HSCA photographs depict the
bullet from four views (not just one)--two sides, one frontal, and one
base. The base view (see photo section) shows the base of the bullet
badly smashed into an ovoid shape. It is also evident that lead is
slightly extruding from the base, like toothpaste from a tube. Indeed,
a portion of the lead is missing, causing the bullet to weigh less,
158.6 grams, than in its original state, 161 grams. So much for the
pristine bullet. But the myth has long survived the public hearings
(which few watched) right up to the present day."
Gil Jesus
> Here are only a couple of the many Big Lies the CT community has been
> passing off as Gospel Truth:
> the fictitious depiction of Connally and Kennedy's respective
> positions in the motorcade, and that the bullet said to have passed
> through both their bodies was "intact."
>
> sandy-
Sandy, can I assume that the GWM in your e-mail address stands for Gay
White Male ? Many of the LNers here are heterophobes, so your position
is understandable. When there's nothing left in the gas tank, they
like to find fault with spelling. To us it's "chickenshit", but I
suppose to your kind it's a way of making yourself seem superior.
You appear to be the product of a worldwide search to find the most
ridiculous and unknowledgeable trolls on the Kennedy assassination.
I commend your sponsor McAdams for a job well done.
We say that the bullet was "nearly intact", and by that we mean that
the bullet was not deformed to the degree that it should be for the
damage it was alleged to have done.
http://links.pictures.aol.com/pic/41602cXrkH0*ic1Lb0imwIK1L6XVJvPKi2w9v4xQp5Fd3Ig=_l.jpg
In addition, it passed through two human beings without even a trace
of blood from either victim on it. How did that happen ?
It blew out four inches of Connally's fifth rib without picking up any
particles of bone on it.
How did that happen ?
It passed through 12 or 13 layers of clothing without picking up a
fiber of either victim's coat, shirt, tie or trousers. How did that
happen ?
How do you account for the government's own ballistics expert
concluding that CE 399 never struck bone ?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qgzjW4gdMaQ
How do you account for the opinion of Connally's doctor, who was a
medic in world war II and an expert on removing bullets from LIVING
bodies, that CE 399 could never have struck bone ?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cnawDAp_zKM
How do you account for the opinion of a medical pathologist and a man
who was an expert in removing bullets from DEAD bodies that CE 399
could never have struck bone ? How do you explain the ballistics
testing with Oswald's rifle that showed that his ammunition would have
deformed had it struck Connally's wrist ?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OV5d4p4FKsY
Your just another irrelevent troll around here Sandy. Perhaps you
should go to the doctor and see if he can give you something for that
nasty hit you took on the head from your surfboard.
muc...@gmail.com
> > much...@gmail.com says...
>
> > >On 27 Okt., 12:13, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
> > >> lazuli...@webtv.net wrote:
> > >> > Mucher is too much, asking:
>
> > >> > "Have you read Dr. Olivier's testimony? He was surprised by the amount
> > >> > of damage his test skulls sustained."
>
> > >> > If they were dried out skulls filled with gelatin, I don't see why he
> > >> > should be surprised. They are bound to shatter to pieces. There is no
> > >> > comparison. That is a far cry from a live human head composed of scalp,
> > >> > bone, dura mater, brain and blood.
>
> > >> <snicker> A few weeks ago, Ben was making the case that Oliver`s
> > >> test results were representative of the actual even, and Mark was
> > >> arguing the same missing components you state.
>
> > >Refreshingly candid of Laz to (finally) admit that he disagrees with
> > >Ben.
>
> > It wouldn't bother me if Laz disagreed with me... but I'd be interested to know
> > just what the disagreement is.
>
> You see Laz`s words above, don`t you? I could be wrong, but it
> seemed you were arguing against what Laz is saying above in your
> discussions with Mark found here...
>
>
> But, I guess you were being decietful there, because you now claim
> not to be in disagreement with Laz`s opinions expressed above that the
> test skulls are "bound to shatter to pieces", and that "there is no
> comparison". It seemed to this casual observer that Ben was making
> direct comparisons to the test skull and the actual wounds on
> Kennedy`s skull in his discussions with Mark 4-5 weeks back, yet Laz
> says it can`t be done. Now, to further confuse things, Ben claims not
> to be in disagreement with Laz. Whats a lurker to think?
Thanks, Bud. That was my impression as well. Since the original
discussion with Ben came to an end when he started to talk about
shooting me in the head, I'll take this opportunity to throw in an
additional observation or two.
1) In the thread you linked to, number one in his long series of inane
questions, Ben asserted:
"When the WC had ballistics tests done, shooting a bullet into the
entry location of the head specified by the autopsy report, the bullet
invariably exited the forehead or face of the target."
Ben was never really able to support that assertion, was he? Sure, CE
861 and 862 show a skull with most of the right side (including the
orbital region) missing, but what about the nine other skulls?
Actually, figures A11 and A12 in the Army ballistics report (depicting
five of the ten skulls) show a great deal of variation in location,
size and shape of the wound patterns. One of the skulls is just
(severely) fractured, with what appears to be an exit hole in the
right temple.
2) He then asked:
"Can you explain why JFK's face was virtually untouched, and certainly
showed no signs of an exiting bullet?"
The implication being that the test was supposed to accurately
replicate the conditions on 11/22/63. In the ensuing discussion, Ben
attempted to blur the distinction between location and size, and
minimize the possible significance of factors such as brittleness,
absence of scalp and dura, degree of fragmentation and deflection of
bullet/fragments, etc.
Actually, the test was conducted mainly to see *if* the bullet would
inflict massive skull wounds, not in an attempt to accurately
replicate the wound(s) in Kennedy's skull. The test skulls were,
however, oriented so that the path through the skull would be from the
occipital region to the right supraorbital ridge. Ironically, this
leaves Ben with the unenviable task of having to explain how it can be
that some of the test wounds extended well into the facial area,
without contradicting himself.
lazu...@webtv.net
"Minute particles were indeed recovered from Olivier's test skulls."
Do you have a specific cite for that claim, Mark? How many minute
particles were found, were they distributed along the bullet's path only
or distributed widely within the simulated brain/gelatin, and was their
size, roughly equivalent, i.e. as minute as the "blizzard" of particles
seen on JFK's X ray? The reason I ask is obvious, this spraying of fine
lead particles is highly uncharacteristic of an FMJ bullet, and I've yet
to see convincing test results demonstrating it's possible----Old Laz
cdddraftsman
> Mucher said:
>
> "Minute particles were indeed recovered from Olivier's test skulls."
>
> Do you have a specific cite for that claim, Mark? How many minute
> particles were found, were they distributed along the bullet's path only
> or distributed widely within the simulated brain/gelatin, and was their
> size, roughly equivalent, i.e. as minute as the "blizzard" of particles
> seen on JFK's X ray? The reason I ask is obvious, this spraying of fine
> to see convincing test results demonstrating it's possible----Old Laz
What tests wre done to determine that it " is highly uncharacteristic
of an
FMJ bullet " that accurately replicates the conditions on Nov. 22
nd ?????
Without this your statement is virtually useless ..............tl
OLD LAZY BRAINS !
tl
PS : I recommend early retirement to the conspiracy coo-coo clinic of
your
next of kin's choice !
Ben Holmes
gwmcc...@earthlink.net says...
Gospel Truth?
>the fictitious depiction of Connally and Kennedy's respective
>positions in the motorcade,
Yep... somewhat distorted in many CT'er books.
>and that the bullet said to have passed
>through both their bodies was "intact."
I don't recall *anyone* saying it was "intact"... however, it *WAS* virtually
pristine. The best and most accurate comparison is between CE399 and a bullet
fired into a water tank.
I wonder if you're willing to defend the lies told by LNT'ers?
>sandy
Ben Holmes
gwmcc...@earthlink.net says...
Indeed it did. It closely matches bullets fired into a water tank.
>"Reclaiming History,' V. Bugliosi, pg. 808-809:
>"In 1978, the public got its first good look at the so-called pristine
>bullet during the televised hearings of the HSCA. Later published as
>part of the committee's exhibits, the HSCA photographs depict the
>bullet from four views (not just one)--two sides, one frontal, and one
>base. The base view (see photo section) shows the base of the bullet
>badly smashed into an ovoid shape.
"badly smashed?" So perhaps Bugliosi would use the same sort of language on a
bullet that had merely been fired into a water tank?
I wonder how he would describe the condition of the bullets that were fired into
cadaver wrists during the ballistics tests conducted by the WC? (Even though
most of them no longer exist)
>It is also evident that lead is
>slightly extruding from the base, like toothpaste from a tube. Indeed,
>a portion of the lead is missing,
A portion of lead was removed by the FBI for testing. There is *NO* definitive
proof that any lead is actually missing from CE399 other than the part that was
removed by the FBI.
>causing the bullet to weigh less,
>158.6 grams, than in its original state, 161 grams.
This is at best misleading - but I'll assign it as a lie on Bugliosi's part,
since he certainly knew the truth. Would you care to defend Bugliosi's lie at
this point? (since you quoted it)
Mr. EISENBERG - Mr. Frazier, did you determine the weight of the exhibit-that
is, 399?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir. Exhibit 399 weighs 158.6 grains.
Mr. EISENBERG - How much weight loss does that show from the original bullet
weight?
Mr. FRAZIER - We measured several standard bullets, and their weights varied,
which is a normal situation, a portion of a grain, or two grains, from 161
grains--that is, they were all in the vicinity of 161 grains. One weighed---
160.85, 161.5, 161.1 grains.
Mr. EISENBERG - In your opinion, was there any weight loss?
Mr. FRAZIER - There did not necessarily have to be any weight loss to the
bullet. There may be a slight amount of lead missing from the base of the
bullet, since it is exposed at the base, and the bullet is slightly flattened;
there could be a slight weight loss from the end of the bullet, but it would not
amount to more than 4 grains, because 158.6 is only a grain and a half less than
the normal weight, and at least a 2 grain variation would be allowed. So it
would be approximately 3 or 4 grains.
>So much for the
>pristine bullet. But the myth has long survived the public hearings
>(which few watched) right up to the present day."
Which "public hearings" are *you* referring to? The work of the WC, Clark
Panel, and HSCA were conducted in secret.
Ben Holmes
muc...@gmail.com says...
>
>On 28 Okt., 13:40, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>> Ben Holmes wrote:
>> > In article <1193512783.143417.315...@19g2000hsx.googlegroups.com>,
>> > much...@gmail.com says...
>>
>> > >On 27 Okt., 12:13, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>> > >> lazuli...@webtv.net wrote:
>> > >> > Mucher is too much, asking:
>>
>> > >> > "Have you read Dr. Olivier's testimony? He was surprised by the amount
>> > >> > of damage his test skulls sustained."
>>
>> > >> > If they were dried out skulls filled with gelatin, I don't see why he
>> > >> > should be surprised. They are bound to shatter to pieces. There is no
>>> >> > comparison. That is a far cry from a live human head composed of scalp,
>> > >> > bone, dura mater, brain and blood.
>>
>> > >> <snicker> A few weeks ago, Ben was making the case that Oliver`s
>> > >> test results were representative of the actual even, and Mark was
>> > >> arguing the same missing components you state.
>>
>> > >Refreshingly candid of Laz to (finally) admit that he disagrees with
>> > >Ben.
>>
>> > It wouldn't bother me if Laz disagreed with me... but I'd be interested
>> > to know just what the disagreement is.
>>
>> You see Laz`s words above, don`t you? I could be wrong, but it
>> seemed you were arguing against what Laz is saying above in your
>> discussions with Mark found here...
>>
>> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/browse_thread/threa...
How silly!
>> But, I guess you were being decietful there, because you now claim
>> not to be in disagreement with Laz`s opinions expressed above that the
>> test skulls are "bound to shatter to pieces", and that "there is no
>> comparison".
There isn't. Laz is right on that part. The tests were not realistic enough to
draw more than generalized conclusions. But one of those conclusions is that
bullets travel in straight lines.
Not an unexpected conclusion.
>> It seemed to this casual observer that Ben was making
>> direct comparisons to the test skull and the actual wounds on
>> Kennedy`s skull in his discussions with Mark 4-5 weeks back, yet Laz
>> says it can`t be done. Now, to further confuse things, Ben claims not
>> to be in disagreement with Laz. Whats a lurker to think?
>
>Thanks, Bud. That was my impression as well. Since the original
>discussion with Ben came to an end when he started to talk about
>shooting me in the head,
And when Mark kept lying...
>I'll take this opportunity to throw in an
>additional observation or two.
>
>1) In the thread you linked to, number one in his long series of inane
>questions, Ben asserted:
>
>"When the WC had ballistics tests done, shooting a bullet into the
>entry location of the head specified by the autopsy report, the bullet
>invariably exited the forehead or face of the target."
Yep... tis true.
>Ben was never really able to support that assertion, was he?
Of course I did. Using the SAME exhibits that the WC used.
>Sure, CE
>861 and 862 show a skull with most of the right side (including the
>orbital region) missing, but what about the nine other skulls?
>Actually, figures A11 and A12 in the Army ballistics report (depicting
>five of the ten skulls) show a great deal of variation in location,
>size and shape of the wound patterns. One of the skulls is just
>(severely) fractured, with what appears to be an exit hole in the
>right temple.
Oh? Are you going to provide a citation to a skull that had a bullet entering
near the EOP, and failing to exit forehead or face?
By all means, DO SO!
But you won't.
>2) He then asked:
>
>"Can you explain why JFK's face was virtually untouched, and certainly
>showed no signs of an exiting bullet?"
A question that no LNT'er can provide a reasonable answer for...
>The implication being that the test was supposed to accurately
>replicate the conditions on 11/22/63. In the ensuing discussion, Ben
>attempted to blur the distinction between location and size, and
>minimize the possible significance of factors such as brittleness,
>absence of scalp and dura, degree of fragmentation and deflection of
>bullet/fragments, etc.
None of which bear on the issue of the tendency of a bullet to maintain a
straight-line trajectory.
Yet *DO* bear on the supposed "disagreement" between me and Laz.
>Actually, the test was conducted mainly to see *if* the bullet would
>inflict massive skull wounds, not in an attempt to accurately
>replicate the wound(s) in Kennedy's skull. The test skulls were,
>however, oriented so that the path through the skull would be from the
>occipital region to the right supraorbital ridge. Ironically, this
>leaves Ben with the unenviable task of having to explain how it can be
>that some of the test wounds extended well into the facial area,
>without contradicting himself.
ROTFLMAO!!!
You want *ME* to explain this apparent impossibility? That of fitting the known
experimental facts to what supposedly happened to JFK???
That's YOUR PROBLEM, and always has been.
That was indeed, another way to express *MY* question that you can't answer.
For I can explain it quite simply - but it wouldn't be in terms that a LNT'er
would accept.
gwmcc...@earthlink.net
> In article <1193580290.588209.119...@z9g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
> gwmccros...@earthlink.net says...
>
>
> >So much for the
> >pristine bullet. But the myth has long survived the public hearings
> >(which few watched) right up to the present day."
>
> Which "public hearings" are *you* referring to? The work of the WC, Clark
> Panel, and HSCA were conducted in secret.
>From the context it is implicit, understood, obvious, that Bugliosi
(not me) is referring there to the House Select Committee on
Assassinations--which held public hearings in 1978.
gwmcc...@earthlink.net
>>
> I don't recall *anyone* saying it was "intact"...
Google "magic bullet" + intact:
What is the Single Bullet Theory?
Some dubbed it a "magic bullet," since it would have had to perform a
number of ... The total weight of the intact bullet combined with the
weight of ...
www.wisegeek.com/what-is-the-single-bullet-theory.htm - 23k - Cached -
Similar pages
MySpace.com - magic bullet theory - Metal / Electronica / Hardcore ...
MySpace music profile for magic bullet theory with tour dates, songs,
videos, ... Its copper jacket was completely intact. The bullet's nose
appeared normal ...
profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.
viewprofile&friendID=173639036 - 118k - Cached - Similar pages
PHANTOM IDENTIFICATION OF THE MAGIC BULLET CE399
PHANTOM IDENTIFICATION. OF THE MAGIC BULLET: E. L. TODD AND CE-399 ...
The suspiciously intact bullet's bona fides do look good on the first
pass. ...
jfklancer.com/hunt/phantom.htm - 18k - Cached - Similar pages
Discovery Channel Program JFK Beyond The Magic Bullet, page 1
The whole thing about the 'magic bullet' was not just the incredible
amount .... length after stiking a bit more bone in the targets, but
was still intact. ...
www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread97516/pg1 - 66k - Cached - Similar
pages
Magic bullets reviewed - Topic Powered by eve community
After watching the magic bullet episode exploring possible bullets
that could have .... This would keep the bullet intact from the
initial firing but would ...
community.discovery.com/eve/ forums/a/tpc/f/9401967776/m/4571987009 -
105k - Cached - Similar pages
Yahoo! Answers - JFK Assassination: What was the Magic Bullet theory?
The Single Bullet Theory (pejoratively referred to as the magic bullet
theory ... Its copper jacket was completely intact. The bullet's nose
appeared normal ...
ph.answers.yahoo.com/question/ index?qid=20070422143826AApKMr6 - 73k -
Cached - Similar pages
Amazon.com: Reviews for Magic Bullet Express 17-Piece High-Speed ...
... but dont pull the product down towards them, leaving the top
layers intact. ... The magic bullet is great! We use it almost every
day for making protein ...
www.amazon.com/ Magic-Bullet-Express-17-Piece-High-Speed/dp/customer-
reviews/B000AEZVRS - 111k - Cached - Similar pages
Warren Commission Exhibit CE-399 - The Magic Bullet
... that this missile is basically intact; its jacket appears to me to
be intact, ..... Are there enough "defects" in the "magic bullet" to
account for all ...
www.jfk-info.com/fragment.htm - 33k - Cached - Similar pages
aeffects
> On Oct 28, 2:34 pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@websitewealthcollege.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > I don't recall *anyone* saying it was "intact"...
>
> Google "magic bullet" + intact:
>
> What is the Single Bullet Theory?
> Some dubbed it a "magic bullet," since it would have had to perform a
> number of ... The total weight of the intact bullet combined with the
> Similar pages
> MySpace.com - magic bullet theory - Metal / Electronica / Hardcore ...
> MySpace music profile for magic bullet theory with tour dates, songs,
> videos, ... Its copper jacket was completely intact. The bullet's nose
> appeared normal ...
> profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.
> viewprofile&friendID=173639036 - 118k - Cached - Similar pages
> PHANTOM IDENTIFICATION OF THE MAGIC BULLET CE399
> PHANTOM IDENTIFICATION. OF THE MAGIC BULLET: E. L. TODD AND CE-399 ...
> The suspiciously intact bullet's bona fides do look good on the first
> pass. ...
> jfklancer.com/hunt/phantom.htm - 18k - Cached - Similar pages
> Discovery Channel Program JFK Beyond The Magic Bullet, page 1
> The whole thing about the 'magic bullet' was not just the incredible
> amount .... length after stiking a bit more bone in the targets, but
> pages
> Magic bullets reviewed - Topic Powered by eve community
> After watching the magic bullet episode exploring possible bullets
> that could have .... This would keep the bullet intact from the
> initial firing but would ...
> community.discovery.com/eve/ forums/a/tpc/f/9401967776/m/4571987009 -
> 105k - Cached - Similar pages
> Yahoo! Answers - JFK Assassination: What was the Magic Bullet theory?
> The Single Bullet Theory (pejoratively referred to as the magic bullet
> theory ... Its copper jacket was completely intact. The bullet's nose
> appeared normal ...
> ph.answers.yahoo.com/question/ index?qid=20070422143826AApKMr6 - 73k -
> Cached - Similar pages
> Amazon.com: Reviews for Magic Bullet Express 17-Piece High-Speed ...
> ... but dont pull the product down towards them, leaving the top
> layers intact. ... The magic bullet is great! We use it almost every
> day for making protein ...www.amazon.com/Magic-Bullet-Express-17-Piece-High-Speed/dp/customer-
> reviews/B000AEZVRS - 111k - Cached - Similar pages
> Warren Commission Exhibit CE-399 - The Magic Bullet
> ... that this missile is basically intact; its jacket appears to me to
> be intact, ..... Are there enough "defects" in the "magic bullet" to
looks like we got another newbie here....
Ben Holmes
gwmcc...@earthlink.net says...
Sorry... much of their work, particularly the more important work, was done in
total secrecy.
Surely you know this.
Ben Holmes
Snipping context isn't going to help you...
In article <1193601469.3...@y42g2000hsy.googlegroups.com>,
gwmcc...@earthlink.net says...
>
>On Oct 28, 2:34 pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@websitewealthcollege.com> wrote:
>>>
>> I don't recall *anyone* saying it was "intact"...
>
>Google "magic bullet" + intact:
Kindly list specific authors, and specific page numbers...
That's the way a citation is generally provided. If you're serious about using
website citations, then let me know, and I'll be happy to allow you to use them
- provided you accept *MY* website citations.
I note that some of your "cites" below speak of the intact copper jacket - which
was, of course, completely accurate.
So why would you provide them as examples? Dishonesty so fast? Why not *try*
to pretend honestly long enough to actually make a point or two?
Ben Holmes
says...
I just reposted all that Sandy snipped without responding to.
aeffects
fuckoff shit for brains, you're about as worthless as tits on the
Nutter lesbians that hang out here
Bud
A lot of what you had to say was, yah.
> >> But, I guess you were being decietful there, because you now claim
> >> not to be in disagreement with Laz`s opinions expressed above that the
> >> test skulls are "bound to shatter to pieces", and that "there is no
> >> comparison".
>
> There isn't.
Yet you were drawing comparisons in the discussion I linked to. Yet
you agree with Laz that there is *no* comparison.
> Laz is right on that part. The tests were not realistic enough to
> draw more than generalized conclusions. But one of those conclusions is that
> bullets travel in straight lines.
Well, thats not entirely true, especially when they strike hard
surfaces, and when they travel through semi-solid material. But, even
if it were true, the angle the rifle was in relation to the skull in
Oliver`s testing would need to be known, as well as the exact exit
point. Do you know these things, Ben?
> Not an unexpected conclusion.
Can you produce the data from Oliver`s testing to make those
conclusions?
> >> It seemed to this casual observer that Ben was making
> >> direct comparisons to the test skull and the actual wounds on
> >> Kennedy`s skull in his discussions with Mark 4-5 weeks back, yet Laz
> >> says it can`t be done. Now, to further confuse things, Ben claims not
> >> to be in disagreement with Laz. Whats a lurker to think?
> >
> >Thanks, Bud. That was my impression as well. Since the original
> >discussion with Ben came to an end when he started to talk about
> >shooting me in the head,
>
>
> And when Mark kept lying...
You lie all the time, and I`ve never seen such a threa temployed
agaisnt you.
> >I'll take this opportunity to throw in an
> >additional observation or two.
> >
> >1) In the thread you linked to, number one in his long series of inane
> >questions, Ben asserted:
> >
> >"When the WC had ballistics tests done, shooting a bullet into the
> >entry location of the head specified by the autopsy report, the bullet
> >invariably exited the forehead or face of the target."
>
>
> Yep... tis true.
>
>
> >Ben was never really able to support that assertion, was he?
>
>
> Of course I did. Using the SAME exhibits that the WC used.
Did you pinpoint the exit?
> >Sure, CE
> >861 and 862 show a skull with most of the right side (including the
> >orbital region) missing, but what about the nine other skulls?
> >Actually, figures A11 and A12 in the Army ballistics report (depicting
> >five of the ten skulls) show a great deal of variation in location,
> >size and shape of the wound patterns. One of the skulls is just
> >(severely) fractured, with what appears to be an exit hole in the
> >right temple.
>
> Oh? Are you going to provide a citation to a skull that had a bullet entering
> near the EOP, and failing to exit forehead or face?
>
> By all means, DO SO!
>
> But you won't.
And you wouldn`t commit to the accuracy of the angles Oliver was
using were representative of the actual event, either. Oliver was not
trying to replicate the event of JFK being shot in the head, he was
testing to see what type of damage this bullet does to a skull, and
what type of damage is done to this type of bullet by striking a
skull. Both things were determined, that the bullet does "blow out"
damage, it doesn`t just make a round hole, and it was also determined
that the bullet does indeed break up (despite kooks finding this
incredible).
> >2) He then asked:
> >
> >"Can you explain why JFK's face was virtually untouched, and certainly
> >showed no signs of an exiting bullet?"
>
>
> A question that no LNT'er can provide a reasonable answer for...
The answer is simple. Oliver didn`t have or apply the data
necessary to replicate the actual event. He likely didn`t know how
high up Oz was from the street, how far a way, the pitch of the
street, ect. Not using this data would explain the differing reults
easily, Oliver wasn`t trying to apply any particular shooting position
in his testing. The fact is, what Ben is attempting to use these tests
to establish isn`t what the tests were designed to determine.
> >The implication being that the test was supposed to accurately
> >replicate the conditions on 11/22/63. In the ensuing discussion, Ben
> >attempted to blur the distinction between location and size, and
> >minimize the possible significance of factors such as brittleness,
> >absence of scalp and dura, degree of fragmentation and deflection of
> >bullet/fragments, etc.
>
>
> None of which bear on the issue of the tendency of a bullet to maintain a
> straight-line trajectory.
But might effect the resulting damage, which was part of the
discussion. But Ben has yet to establish where the bullet extted in
Oliver`s test skull.
> Yet *DO* bear on the supposed "disagreement" between me and Laz.
No, you are merely lying by saying that the dispute between you and
Mark was solely a trajectory dispute. Marks points were near identicle
to Laz`s.
> >Actually, the test was conducted mainly to see *if* the bullet would
> >inflict massive skull wounds, not in an attempt to accurately
> >replicate the wound(s) in Kennedy's skull. The test skulls were,
> >however, oriented so that the path through the skull would be from the
> >occipital region to the right supraorbital ridge. Ironically, this
> >leaves Ben with the unenviable task of having to explain how it can be
> >that some of the test wounds extended well into the facial area,
> >without contradicting himself.
>
>
> ROTFLMAO!!!
>
> You want *ME* to explain this apparent impossibility? That of fitting the known
> experimental facts to what supposedly happened to JFK???
>
> That's YOUR PROBLEM, and always has been.
You used this evidence in support of a concept. Not you say the
evidence is unreliable. You are a slimy, treacherous hypocrite.
And you didn`t touch Mark`s point that if the skull is alligned so
a bullet shot into the rear entry area would come out at the right
ridge would end up coming out the face. How do straight flying bullets
accomplish this?
> That was indeed, another way to express *MY* question that you can't answer.
>
> For I can explain it quite simply - but it wouldn't be in terms that a LNT'er
> would accept.
Ben wouldn`t put his "explaination" here because that is what a
person engaging in an honest discussion would do.
Sam Brown
why dont you learn to
shut your yap?
There are no "heterophobes" on this group. I love hetero's , my parents are
two of the finest examples available. Unfortunately there are the frightened
bigotted variety, which thankfully are in the minority. Just like yourself
Gilly. Lynched any black people today? Oh thats right, you dont advocate
violence against "people of color", do you Gilly?
"Gil Jesus" <gjj...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1193581839.0...@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
justm...@gmail.com
> Mr Peace & Love spews more hatred and bigotry below. Gil "the bigot" Jesus,
> why dont you learn to
> shut your yap?
>
> There are no "heterophobes" on this group. I love hetero's , my parents are
> two of the finest examples available. Unfortunately there are the frightened
> bigotted variety, which thankfully are in the minority. Just like yourself
> Gilly. Lynched any black people today? Oh thats right, you dont advocate
> violence against "people of color", do you Gilly?
>
>
> news:1193581839.0...@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > On Oct 28, 9:47?am, gwmccros...@earthlink.net wrote:
>
> >> Here are only a couple of the many Big Lies the CT community has been
> >> passing off as Gospel Truth:
> >> the fictitious depiction of Connally and Kennedy's respective
> >> positions in the motorcade, and that the bullet said to have passed
> >> through both their bodies was "intact."
>
> >> sandy-
>
> > Sandy, can I assume that the GWM in your e-mail address stands for Gay
> > White Male ? Many of the LNers here are heterophobes, so your position
> > is understandable. When there's nothing left in the gas tank, they
> > like to find fault with spelling. To us it's "chickenshit", but I
> > suppose to your kind it's a way of making yourself seem superior.
>
> > You appear to be the product of a worldwide search to find the most
> > ridiculous and unknowledgeable trolls on the Kennedy assassination.
>
> > I commend your sponsor McAdams for a job well done.
>
> > We say that the bullet was "nearly intact", and by that we mean that
> > the bullet was not deformed to the degree that it should be for the
> > damage it was alleged to have done.
>
>
> > In addition, it passed through two human beings without even a trace
> > of blood from either victim on it. How did that happen ?
>
> > It blew out four inches of Connally's fifth rib without picking up any
> > particles of bone on it.
> > How did that happen ?
>
> > It passed through 12 or 13 layers of clothing without picking up a
> > fiber of either victim's coat, shirt, tie or trousers. How did that
> > happen ?
>
> > How do you account for the government's own ballistics expert
> > concluding that CE 399 never struck bone ?
>
> >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qgzjW4gdMaQ
>
> > How do you account for the opinion of Connally's doctor, who was a
> > medic in world war II and an expert on removing bullets from LIVING
> > bodies, that CE 399 could never have struck bone ?
>
> >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cnawDAp_zKM
>
> > How do you account for the opinion of a medical pathologist and a man
> > who was an expert in removing bullets from DEAD bodies that CE 399
> > could never have struck bone ? How do you explain the ballistics
> > testing with Oswald's rifle that showed that his ammunition would have
> > deformed had it struck Connally's wrist ?
>
> >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OV5d4p4FKsY
>
> > Your just another irrelevent troll around here Sandy. Perhaps you
> > should go to the doctor and see if he can give you something for that
>
> - Show quoted text -
Bigot Boy is at it again:
Sandy, can I assume that the GWM in your e-mail address stands for
Gay
White Male ? Many of the LNers here are heterophobes, so your
position
is understandable. When there's nothing left in the gas tank, they
like to find fault with spelling. To us it's "chickenshit", but I
suppose to your kind it's a way of making yourself seem superior.
Hey Sandy? Get used to the homophobic, pathalogical liar, bigot Gil
Jesus. He has nothing in his life to be proud of and he's afraid of
"gay" people. He preaches the bible and tries to save souls as he
steals peoples identities and has numerous alias names that he talks
to himself with in posts so he can praise himself.
Hes a lowlife scum, and he knows it. He scarfs videos off the net and
then edits them and calls them his own, adding misleading comments to
the videos. He's the laughing stock of the LN's and not worth
conversation unless you're going to humiliate him, thats all he
deserves.
As for you Healy with this comment:
fuckoff shit for brains, you're about as worthless as tits on the
Nutter lesbians that hang out here
What's wrong Healy? Is someone rubbing Tatoos nose in the shit he
tries to push on this newsgroup?
You poor baby, don't worry Bennie the dwarf will still change your
diapers before you go to bed. You sad pathetic cheerleader....poor Ben
is taking a beating and a well deserved one. Your stupid comments
aren't going to save him. Maybe you can talk father Gil Jesus into
preaching a little bible on his behalf. Did God ever say "Da Plane, Da
Plane, here comes da plane boss?" Imbecile!
gwmcc...@earthlink.net
> On Oct 28, 2:34 pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@websitewealthcollege.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > I don't recall *anyone* saying it was "intact"...
>
> Google "magic bullet" + intact:
>
> What is the Single Bullet Theory?
> Some dubbed it a "magic bullet," since it would have had to perform a
> number of ... The total weight of the intact bullet combined with the
> Similar pages
> MySpace.com - magic bullet theory - Metal / Electronica / Hardcore ...
> MySpace music profile for magic bullet theory with tour dates, songs,
> videos, ... Its copper jacket was completely intact. The bullet's nose
> appeared normal ...
> profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.
> viewprofile&friendID=173639036 - 118k - Cached - Similar pages
> PHANTOM IDENTIFICATION OF THE MAGIC BULLET CE399
> PHANTOM IDENTIFICATION. OF THE MAGIC BULLET: E. L. TODD AND CE-399 ...
> The suspiciously intact bullet's bona fides do look good on the first
> pass. ...
> jfklancer.com/hunt/phantom.htm - 18k - Cached - Similar pages
> Discovery Channel Program JFK Beyond The Magic Bullet, page 1
> The whole thing about the 'magic bullet' was not just the incredible
> amount .... length after stiking a bit more bone in the targets, but
> pages
> Magic bullets reviewed - Topic Powered by eve community
> After watching the magic bullet episode exploring possible bullets
> that could have .... This would keep the bullet intact from the
> initial firing but would ...
> community.discovery.com/eve/ forums/a/tpc/f/9401967776/m/4571987009 -
> 105k - Cached - Similar pages
> Yahoo! Answers - JFK Assassination: What was the Magic Bullet theory?
> The Single Bullet Theory (pejoratively referred to as the magic bullet
> theory ... Its copper jacket was completely intact. The bullet's nose
> appeared normal ...
> ph.answers.yahoo.com/question/ index?qid=20070422143826AApKMr6 - 73k -
> Cached - Similar pages
> Amazon.com: Reviews for Magic Bullet Express 17-Piece High-Speed ...
> ... but dont pull the product down towards them, leaving the top
> layers intact. ... The magic bullet is great! We use it almost every
> day for making protein ...www.amazon.com/Magic-Bullet-Express-17-Piece-High-Speed/dp/customer-
> reviews/B000AEZVRS - 111k - Cached - Similar pages
> Warren Commission Exhibit CE-399 - The Magic Bullet
> ... that this missile is basically intact; its jacket appears to me to
> be intact, ..... Are there enough "defects" in the "magic bullet" to
"Pristine" (short for "in pristine condition") and "intact" are
synonymous.
I used the word "intact" in specific reference to the OPENING POST in
this very THREAD.
Frm: robcap...@netscape.com
Oct 23, 10:02 pm
"[...]
How can one bullet cause 7 major wounds in two men and come out
intact
after hitting bones (wrist, rib)? That has been argued for 44 years.
"
The Google references were just a way of saying, "Ya gotta be
kidding."
/sandy
gwmcc...@earthlink.net
> In article <1193601300.462998.32...@o3g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>,
> gwmccros...@earthlink.net says...
However that may be, it's not relevant here.
Bugliosi's point was that the photographs of the so-called "magic
bullet," taken from four different angles, were presented to the
public in the HSCA hearings.
And now a couple of them are featured in his book.
/sandy
Sam Brown
"aeffects" <aeff...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1193608176....@i13g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
Not quite as useless as the brain you were born with tho Grandad.
>
gwmcc...@earthlink.net
> Snipping context isn't going to help you...
>
> gwmccros...@earthlink.net says...
>
>
>
> >On Oct 28, 2:34 pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@websitewealthcollege.com> wrote:
>
> >> I don't recall *anyone* saying it was "intact"...
>
> >Google "magic bullet" + intact:
>
> Kindly list specific authors, and specific page numbers...
>
> That's the way a citation is generally provided. If you're serious about using
> website citations, then let me know, and I'll be happy to allow you to use them
> - provided you accept *MY* website citations.
>
> I note that some of your "cites" below speak of the intact copper jacket - which
> was, of course, completely accurate.
>
> So why would you provide them as examples? Dishonesty so fast? Why not *try*
> to pretend honestly long enough to actually make a point or two?
>
> >What is the Single Bullet Theory?
> >Some dubbed it a "magic bullet," since it would have had to perform a
> >number of ... The total weight of the intact bullet combined with the
> >weight of ...
> >Similar pages
> >MySpace.com - magic bullet theory - Metal / Electronica / Hardcore ...
> >MySpace music profile for magic bullet theory with tour dates, songs,
> >videos, ... Its copper jacket was completely intact. The bullet's nose
> >appeared normal ...
> >profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.
> >viewprofile&friendID=173639036 - 118k - Cached - Similar pages
> >PHANTOM IDENTIFICATION OF THE MAGIC BULLET CE399
> >PHANTOM IDENTIFICATION. OF THE MAGIC BULLET: E. L. TODD AND CE-399 ...
> >The suspiciously intact bullet's bona fides do look good on the first
> >pass. ...
> >jfklancer.com/hunt/phantom.htm - 18k - Cached - Similar pages
> >Discovery Channel Program JFK Beyond The Magic Bullet, page 1
> >The whole thing about the 'magic bullet' was not just the incredible
> >amount .... length after stiking a bit more bone in the targets, but
> >was still intact. ...
> >pages
> >Magic bullets reviewed - Topic Powered by eve community
> >After watching the magic bullet episode exploring possible bullets
> >that could have .... This would keep the bullet intact from the
> >initial firing but would ...
> >community.discovery.com/eve/ forums/a/tpc/f/9401967776/m/4571987009 -
> >105k - Cached - Similar pages
> >Yahoo! Answers - JFK Assassination: What was the Magic Bullet theory?
> >The Single Bullet Theory (pejoratively referred to as the magic bullet
> >theory ... Its copper jacket was completely intact. The bullet's nose
> >appeared normal ...
> >ph.answers.yahoo.com/question/ index?qid=20070422143826AApKMr6 - 73k -
> >Cached - Similar pages
> >Amazon.com: Reviews for Magic Bullet Express 17-Piece High-Speed ...
> >... but dont pull the product down towards them, leaving the top
> >layers intact. ... The magic bullet is great! We use it almost every
> >day for making protein ...
> >www.amazon.com/Magic-Bullet-Express-17-Piece-High-Speed/dp/customer-
> >reviews/B000AEZVRS - 111k - Cached - Similar pages
> >Warren Commission Exhibit CE-399 - The Magic Bullet
> >... that this missile is basically intact; its jacket appears to me to
> >be intact, ..... Are there enough "defects" in the "magic bullet" to
> >account for all ...
Just to (try to) make a point, I pulled all those references from the
middle of the first Google page that came up on a rudimentary search.
I did notice that some of the references referred to only the jacket
specifically as "intact."
But--and I should have made this clearer in my first post in this
thread--the point isn't so much the condition of the bullet as what is
typically *argued* from its condition, however that is depicted.
Even Bugliosi refers to the bullet as "nearly intact" (pg. 808).
The *relatively* unscathed condition of CE 399 became the myth of the
bullet's being in such pristine condition that it couldn't have passed
through the bodies of two men.
/sandy
robc...@netscape.com
> Just to (try to) make a point, I pulled all those references from the
> middle of the first Google page that came up on a rudimentary search.
> I did notice that some of the references referred to only the jacket
> specifically as "intact."
> But--and I should have made this clearer in my first post in this
> thread--the point isn't so much the condition of the bullet as what is
> typically *argued* from its condition, however that is depicted.
> Even Bugliosi refers to the bullet as "nearly intact" (pg. 808).
> The *relatively* unscathed condition of CE 399 became the myth of the
> bullet's being in such pristine condition that it couldn't have passed
> through the bodies of two men.
> /sandy
Sandy, you are okay with intact. It was only missing 2.4 grains and
some experts say this could have been missing to start with as every
bullet doesn't weigh exactly the same. Pristine is the common term,
but intact describes it okay. What I don't agree with was that the
bullet is mishapen or bent, because the pictures I've seen of CE399 it
looks normal to me. Also, try to read more than VB's account because
he is just supporting what the WC said 44 years ago and many new
things have come to light due to research over the years. You would
think it is 1964 all over again to read VB's book.
Ben Holmes
gwmcc...@earthlink.net says...
>
>On Oct 28, 5:27 pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@websitewealthcollege.com> wrote:
>> In article <1193601300.462998.32...@o3g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>,
>> gwmccros...@earthlink.net says...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >On Oct 28, 2:45 pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@websitewealthcollege.com> wrote:
>> >> In article <1193580290.588209.119...@z9g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
>> >> gwmccros...@earthlink.net says...
>>
>> >> >So much for the
>> >> >pristine bullet. But the myth has long survived the public hearings
>> >> >(which few watched) right up to the present day."
>>
>> >> Which "public hearings" are *you* referring to? The work of the WC,
>> >> Clark Panel, and HSCA were conducted in secret.
>>
>> >From the context it is implicit, understood, obvious, that Bugliosi
>> >(not me) is referring there to the House Select Committee on
>> >Assassinations--which held public hearings in 1978.
>>
>> Sorry... much of their work, particularly the more important work, was
>> done in total secrecy.
>>
>> Surely you know this.
>
>However that may be, it's not relevant here.
Of course it is. You've tried to create a deceptive atmosphere for their
investigations - and it's simply not true.
You tried to imply that "few watched" the "public hearings", without telling
lurkers that there were virtually *NO* public hearings when it came to the
actual evidence.
Most of which was classified BY EACH AND EVERY GOVERNMENT "INVESTIGATION" AS
SOON AS THEY WERE FINISHED.
What's wrong with the truth, Sandy?
>Bugliosi's point was that the photographs of the so-called "magic
>bullet," taken from four different angles, were presented to the
>public in the HSCA hearings.
No, that isn't the point that *I* took issue with, was it?
>And now a couple of them are featured in his book.
You're sadly out of date, they've been featured not *only* in his book.
>/sandy
Ben Holmes
>
>
>Snipping context isn't going to help you...
>
>
>In article <1193601469.3...@y42g2000hsy.googlegroups.com>,
>gwmcc...@earthlink.net says...
>>
>>On Oct 28, 2:34 pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@websitewealthcollege.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>> I don't recall *anyone* saying it was "intact"...
>>
>>Google "magic bullet" + intact:
>
>
>Kindly list specific authors, and specific page numbers...
>
> That's the way a citation is generally provided. If you're serious about
> using website citations, then let me know, and I'll be happy to allow you
> to use them - provided you accept *MY* website citations.
Sandy has implicitly agreed... by refusing to respond to this.
So here's the citation that proves Sandy wrong:
http://www.scam-info.com/bugliosi.html
> I note that some of your "cites" below speak of the intact copper jacket -
> which was, of course, completely accurate.
Dead silence...
> So why would you provide them as examples? Dishonesty so fast? Why not
> *try* to pretend honestly long enough to actually make a point or two?
No comments? No defense???
Ben Holmes
robc...@netscape.com says...
>
>On Oct 28, 8:49 pm, gwmccros...@earthlink.net wrote:
>
>> Just to (try to) make a point, I pulled all those references from the
>> middle of the first Google page that came up on a rudimentary search.
>> I did notice that some of the references referred to only the jacket
>> specifically as "intact."
>> But--and I should have made this clearer in my first post in this
>> thread--the point isn't so much the condition of the bullet as what is
>> typically *argued* from its condition, however that is depicted.
>> Even Bugliosi refers to the bullet as "nearly intact" (pg. 808).
>> The *relatively* unscathed condition of CE 399 became the myth of the
>> bullet's being in such pristine condition that it couldn't have passed
>> through the bodies of two men.
No "myth"... merely the results of ballistics tests conducted by the WC.
aeffects
> On Oct 25, 6:11 pm, bigdog <jecorbett1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Please explain what expertise either the doctor or pathologist has in
> > the area of ballistics.
>
> About as much as a lawyer on the WC!!!
LMAO! To quote Fast Eddy Cage "^5"
muc...@gmail.com
> Mucher said:
>
> "Minute particles were indeed recovered from Olivier's test skulls."
>
> Do you have a specific cite for that claim, Mark? How many minute
http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/pdf/WH17_CE_857.pdf
http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/pdf/WH17_CE_859.pdf
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh5/html/WC_Vol5_0049b.htm
There's also a couple of X-rays in the ballistics report, but they
didn't reproduce too well (at least in my copy).
> particles were found, were they distributed along the bullet's path only
> or distributed widely within the simulated brain/gelatin, and was their
> size, roughly equivalent, i.e. as minute as the "blizzard" of particles
> seen on JFK's X ray? The reason I ask is obvious, this spraying of fine
> lead particles is highly uncharacteristic of an FMJ bullet, and I've yet
> to see convincing test results demonstrating it's possible----Old Laz
What do you base "highly uncharacteristic" on, Laz?
muc...@gmail.com
> > much...@gmail.com says...
Logical thinker he ain't.
> > Laz is right on that part. The tests were not realistic enough to
> > draw more than generalized conclusions. But one of those conclusions is that
> > bullets travel in straight lines.
>
> Well, thats not entirely true, especially when they strike hard
> surfaces, and when they travel through semi-solid material. But, even
> if it were true, the angle the rifle was in relation to the skull in
> Oliver`s testing would need to be known, as well as the exact exit
> point. Do you know these things, Ben?
Ben seems to base his above "conclusíon" on nothing more than his:
1) assumptions about the orientation of test skulls relative to
shooter
2) interpretation of one test result (CE 861 + 862)
3) assumptions about the other nine test results
> > Not an unexpected conclusion.
>
> Can you produce the data from Oliver`s testing to make those
> conclusions?
Can you, Ben?
> > >> It seemed to this casual observer that Ben was making
> > >> direct comparisons to the test skull and the actual wounds on
> > >> Kennedy`s skull in his discussions with Mark 4-5 weeks back, yet Laz
> > >> says it can`t be done. Now, to further confuse things, Ben claims not
> > >> to be in disagreement with Laz. Whats a lurker to think?
>
> > >Thanks, Bud. That was my impression as well. Since the original
> > >discussion with Ben came to an end when he started to talk about
> > >shooting me in the head,
>
> > And when Mark kept lying...
>
> You lie all the time, and I`ve never seen such a threa temployed
> agaisnt you.
Exposing his dishonesty usually has the same effect.
> > >I'll take this opportunity to throw in an
> > >additional observation or two.
>
> > >1) In the thread you linked to, number one in his long series of inane
> > >questions, Ben asserted:
>
> > >"When the WC had ballistics tests done, shooting a bullet into the
> > >entry location of the head specified by the autopsy report, the bullet
> > >invariably exited the forehead or face of the target."
>
> > Yep... tis true.
>
> > >Ben was never really able to support that assertion, was he?
>
> > Of course I did. Using the SAME exhibits that the WC used.
>
> Did you pinpoint the exit?
Did you, Ben? Or an exit location in any of the other nine skulls?
> > >Sure, CE
> > >861 and 862 show a skull with most of the right side (including the
> > >orbital region) missing, but what about the nine other skulls?
> > >Actually, figures A11 and A12 in the Army ballistics report (depicting
> > >five of the ten skulls) show a great deal of variation in location,
> > >size and shape of the wound patterns. One of the skulls is just
> > >(severely) fractured, with what appears to be an exit hole in the
> > >right temple.
>
> > Oh? Are you going to provide a citation to a skull that had a bullet entering
> > near the EOP, and failing to exit forehead or face?
>
> > By all means, DO SO!
Why don't you take a look at the Army ballistics report? In particular
Figure A12, bottom right...
> > But you won't.
>
> And you wouldn`t commit to the accuracy of the angles Oliver was
> using were representative of the actual event, either. Oliver was not
> trying to replicate the event of JFK being shot in the head, he was
> testing to see what type of damage this bullet does to a skull, and
> what type of damage is done to this type of bullet by striking a
> skull. Both things were determined, that the bullet does "blow out"
> damage, it doesn`t just make a round hole, and it was also determined
> that the bullet does indeed break up (despite kooks finding this
> incredible).
Ben seems to be committed mainly to his own (biased) assumptions.
> > >2) He then asked:
>
> > >"Can you explain why JFK's face was virtually untouched, and certainly
> > >showed no signs of an exiting bullet?"
>
> > A question that no LNT'er can provide a reasonable answer for...
>
> The answer is simple. Oliver didn`t have or apply the data
> necessary to replicate the actual event. He likely didn`t know how
> high up Oz was from the street, how far a way, the pitch of the
> street, ect. Not using this data would explain the differing reults
> easily, Oliver wasn`t trying to apply any particular shooting position
> in his testing. The fact is, what Ben is attempting to use these tests
> to establish isn`t what the tests were designed to determine.
True. The question is misleading (as Ben's usually are).
> > >The implication being that the test was supposed to accurately
> > >replicate the conditions on 11/22/63. In the ensuing discussion, Ben
> > >attempted to blur the distinction between location and size, and
> > >minimize the possible significance of factors such as brittleness,
> > >absence of scalp and dura, degree of fragmentation and deflection of
> > >bullet/fragments, etc.
>
> > None of which bear on the issue of the tendency of a bullet to maintain a
> > straight-line trajectory.
Hitting a hard surface, deforming & fragmenting does.
> But might effect the resulting damage, which was part of the
> discussion. But Ben has yet to establish where the bullet extted in
> Oliver`s test skull.
Anyone can see that part of the "face" is missing in CE 861 & 862, but
actually pointing out where the two large fragments exited is a bit of
a challenge. Too big even for Ben.
> > Yet *DO* bear on the supposed "disagreement" between me and Laz.
>
> No, you are merely lying by saying that the dispute between you and
> Mark was solely a trajectory dispute. Marks points were near identicle
> to Laz`s.
Ben is still trying to blur the distinction between size and
location :-)
> > >Actually, the test was conducted mainly to see *if* the bullet would
> > >inflict massive skull wounds, not in an attempt to accurately
> > >replicate the wound(s) in Kennedy's skull. The test skulls were,
> > >however, oriented so that the path through the skull would be from the
> > >occipital region to the right supraorbital ridge. Ironically, this
> > >leaves Ben with the unenviable task of having to explain how it can be
> > >that some of the test wounds extended well into the facial area,
> > >without contradicting himself.
>
> > ROTFLMAO!!!
>
> > You want *ME* to explain this apparent impossibility? That of fitting the known
> > experimental facts to what supposedly happened to JFK???
>
> > That's YOUR PROBLEM, and always has been.
>
> You used this evidence in support of a concept. Not you say the
> evidence is unreliable. You are a slimy, treacherous hypocrite.
>
> And you didn`t touch Mark`s point that if the skull is alligned so
> a bullet shot into the rear entry area would come out at the right
> ridge would end up coming out the face. How do straight flying bullets
> accomplish this?
They were aiming for an exit above the right eye. Ben claimed that all
the bullets exited through the forehead or face, but he'd rather feign
illiteracy than admit he has an explanatory problem :-)
> > That was indeed, another way to express *MY* question that you can't answer.
>
> > For I can explain it quite simply - but it wouldn't be in terms that a LNT'er
> > would accept.
>
> Ben wouldn`t put his "explaination" here because that is what a
> person engaging in an honest discussion would do.
How embarrasing.
gwmcc...@earthlink.net
wrote:
> On Oct 28, 9:06 pm, "Sam Brown" <samjbrow...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Mr Peace & Love spews more hatred and bigotry below. Gil "the bigot" Jesus,
> > why dont you learn to
> > shut your yap?
>
> > There are no "heterophobes" on this group. I love hetero's , my parents are
> > two of the finest examples available. Unfortunately there are the frightened
> > bigotted variety, which thankfully are in the minority. Just like yourself
> > Gilly. Lynched any black people today? Oh thats right, you dont advocate
> > violence against "people of color", do you Gilly?
>
> > "Gil Jesus" <gjjm...@aol.com> wrote in message
>
> >news:1193581839.0...@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>
> > > On Oct 28, 9:47?am, gwmccros...@earthlink.net wrote:
>
> > >> Here are only a couple of the many Big Lies the CT community has been
> > >> passing off as Gospel Truth:
> > >> the fictitious depiction of Connally and Kennedy's respective
> > >> positions in the motorcade, and that the bullet said to have passed
> > >> through both their bodies was "intact."
>
> > >> sandy-
>
> > > Sandy, can I assume that the GWM in your e-mail address stands for Gay
> > > White Male ?
Nope. My first name is George, my middle name is William, and my last
name starts with an "M":GWMccroskey.
Dope.
gwmcc...@earthlink.net
wrote:
> In article <1193621599.608934.134...@50g2000hsm.googlegroups.com>,
> gwmccros...@earthlink.net says...
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Oct 28, 5:27 pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@websitewealthcollege.com> wrote:
> >> In article <1193601300.462998.32...@o3g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>,
> >> gwmccros...@earthlink.net says...
>
> >> >On Oct 28, 2:45 pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@websitewealthcollege.com> wrote:
> >> >> In article <1193580290.588209.119...@z9g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
> >> >> gwmccros...@earthlink.net says...
>
> >> >> >So much for the
> >> >> >pristine bullet. But the myth has long survived the public hearings
> >> >> >(which few watched) right up to the present day."
>
> >> >> Which "public hearings" are *you* referring to? The work of the WC,
> >> >> Clark Panel, and HSCA were conducted in secret.
>
> >> >From the context it is implicit, understood, obvious, that Bugliosi
> >> >(not me) is referring there to the House Select Committee on
> >> >Assassinations--which held public hearings in 1978.
>
> >> Sorry... much of their work, particularly the more important work, was
> >> done in total secrecy.
>
> >> Surely you know this.
>
> >However that may be, it's not relevant here.
>
> Of course it is. You've tried to create a deceptive atmosphere for their
> investigations - and it's simply not true.
>
> You tried to imply that "few watched" the "public hearings", without telling
> lurkers that there were virtually *NO* public hearings when it came to the
> actual evidence.
Again, this is from the quote from Bugliosi. This was clear the first
time (in my line of work, I'm pretty careful with quotation marks) and
I repeated it.
Whatever evidence wasn't presented, as you claim, these photographs
were.
Ben Holmes
gwmcc...@earthlink.net says...
Sadly - and as I'm sure you can figure out - it left the impression that the
government investigations were open to the public.
They were *NOT*... as anyone even slightly familiar with this case well knows.
>Whatever evidence wasn't presented, as you claim,
It's not a claim... it's merely the historical truth. Feel free to actually
check up on it.