The 45 Questions that LNT'ers Run From...
Ben Holmes
Back by popular demand - the 45 Questions that terrify those who try to defend
the Warren Commission Report. In the past, there have been only two semi-serious
attempts to answer them, one by John McAdams, and one by 'Bud' (the troll listed
below) - Both responses were basically denials of the facts in most of the
'answers'.
But first, an important note:
**********************************************************************
Important Note for Lurkers - there are many trolls on this forum who's only
purpose is to obstruct debate, deny the evidence, and attempt to change message
threads from discussing the evidence, to personal insults and attacks.
These trolls include (but are not limited to):
Baldoni
Bigdog
Bill
Brokedad
Bud
Burlyguard
Cdddraftsman
Chuck Schuyler
Chu...@amcmn.com
Curious
David Von Pein
Ed Dolan *
Grizzlie Antagonist
Justme1952
Martyb...@gmail.com
Miss Rita
muc...@hotmail.com
muc...@gmail.com
Sam Brown
Spiffy_one
Tims...@Gmail.com
Todd W. Vaughan
YoHarvey
Please beware when seeing their responses, and note that they will simply deny
the facts I mention, demand citations that I've provided before, or simply run
with insults. These trolls are only good material for the kill files.
* Eddie 'Disgrace' Dolan is an exception - he *should* be killfiled, but he's
amusing! And being a former Marine, even a disgraced one, is a plus.
**********************************************************************
Another repost in it's entirety of the evidential questions that LNT'ers and
trolls can't provide answers for:
1. 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 - can you explain why JFK’s face was
virtually untouched, and certainly showed no signs of an exiting bullet?
Lurkers might try to envision this - find the 'knot' of bone in the back of your
head, rather low... this is the external occipital protuberance (EOP). And as
Dr. Humes testified "...(the skull entrance wound is) just to the right and
below by a centimeter and maybe a centimeter to the right and maybe 2
centimeters below the midpoint of the external occipital protuberance. And when
the scalp was reflected from there, there was virtually an identical wound in
the occipital bone." (HSCA. Vol. 7: 246)
Now that you have the entry firmly in mind - remember that the presumed assassin
was in the 6th floor window - see if you can imagine such a trajectory *NOT*
exiting the face.
This was the problem faced by the Clark Panel and the HSCA - so they simply
moved the entry wound to one that would not create such an impossible
trajectory.
2. Why do LNT’ers refuse to admit that there was a wound in the back of the
head, when the autopsy report clearly states: "1. There is a large irregular
defect of the scalp and skull on the right involving chiefly the parietal bone
but extending somewhat into the temporal and occipital regions. In this region
there is an actual absence of scalp and bone producing a defect which measures
approximately 13 cm. in greatest diameter."? There is *no* part of the
Occipital which is *not* located in the back of the head - yet LNT'ers will not
admit to a large BOH wound - as described in the Autopsy Report and by dozens of
medical witnesses. I've repeatedly asked LNT'ers to point to any part of the
Occipital that CANNOT be seen in the famous BOH photo - I've never had a reply,
even though the answer is simple - "no part".
There are few areas of this murder where there's such a large number of
corroborating eyewitnesses. (The limo slowdown is another example that strikes
my memory...) LNT'ers have nowhere to go but to argue that these dozens of
eyewitnesses didn't really say what they said (This seems a favorite of John
McAdams), or couldn't have seen reliably what they said they saw - due to the
pressures of a short viewing time... or simply the old fall back of "eyewitness
testimony is the least reliable... etc" None of these excuses work when you
have dozens of corroborating eyewitnesses. Amazingly, you can't seem to draw
the admission out of any LNT'er that they don't believe the autopsy report, yet
they *can't* believe it. It clearly places a large wound in the back of JFK's
head - using medical terminology.
This boils down to a very simple issue - either the eyewitnesses and autopsy
report are accurate, or the BOH photo is. They cannot be reconciled, despite
the efforts of some to argue that the scalp was 'pulled up' for the photo. It's
clear why LNT'ers put their faith in the photos - they clearly support the lone
assassin theory. Either over 40 plus eyewitnesses, most of whom had medical
training; and the autopsy report are correct - or a photo that cannot be tied to
a camera, and has no chain of custody, and that shows signs of alteration - is
correct.
3. Why can no LNT'er explain the evidence that Robert Harris has developed to
demonstrate that two bullets were fired in a span of time shorter than the MC
was capable of? The pattern of LNT'ers ducking Robert's obvious example is
almost funny to watch...
4. Why did so many credible eyewitnesses point to the front of the limo as the
source of shots being fired? If eyewitness testimony is unreliable, and the
claim is made that echoes were what was being heard, why were so many
eyewitnesses specific to the location? IOW’s, why didn’t anyone specify a shot
from the left?
It won't surprise most people to understand that all the eyewitness reports put
the shot origins in locations that can be understood as the TSBD and the Grassy
Knoll. But what the LNT'ers can't do is point to all those people who *must*
have described shots coming from *other* directions... after all, one of their
favorite explanations for the second location is "echoes"... where would real
echoes be coming from? Buildings, of course. So where are they?
And most damaging of all, how can they explain those few eyewitnesses who
reported shots from both locations? (They can't... all they seem capable of
doing is pointing out how few of them did so - a sad argument when it's obvious
that so many people were *NOT* asked where the shots came from.)
Once again the evidence points directly to a conspiracy, and contradicts the
Warren Commission's Report.
5. Can you explain why the bullets at the Tippit scene, identified as Automatic,
changed to revolver? Sgt Hill was holding the shells in his hand, and asserts
that it was his *examination* of those shells that led to his radio report. How
could an experienced Police Sergeant make such a dumb error in the shooting of a
fellow police officer?
6. James Chaney, a police motorcycle officer was less than a dozen feet away,
and looking directly at JFK during the shooting (according to both his
statements, and the Altgen's photo of him). We *KNOW* that his testimony would
have been devastating to the SBT - since we know that Chaney asserted that the
bullet that struck JFK was a different one than the one that struck Connally.
Mr. BELIN - What other officers did you talk to and what did they say that you
remember?
Mr. BAKER - I talked to Jim Chaney, and he made the statement that the two shots
hit Kennedy first and then the other one hit the Governor.
Mr. BELIN - Where was he?
Mr. BAKER - He was on the right rear of the car or to the side, and then at that
time the chief of police, he didn't know anything about this, and he moved up
and told him, and then that was during the time that the Secret Service men were
trying to get in the car, and at the time, after the shooting, from the time the
first shot rang out, the car stopped completely, pulled to the left and stopped.
Mr. BELIN - The President's car?
Mr. BAKER - Yes, sir. Now, I have heard several of them say that, Mr. Truly was
standing out there, he said it stopped. Several officers said it stopped
completely.
Mr. DULLES - You saw it stop, did you?
Mr. BAKER - No, sir; I didn't see it stop.
Mr. DULLES - You just heard from others that it had stopped?
Mr. BAKER - Yes, sir; that it had completely stopped, and then for a moment
there, and then they rushed on out to Parkland.
Knowing, from this testimony, that Chaney would have testified to a pattern of
shots that would have contradicted their SBT theory, can anyone defend the
Warren Commission's honesty in failing to question James Chaney directly? Why
was he never questioned by the FBI or Warren Commission prior to the release of
the WCR?
7. The previous testimony brings us to a new point - dozens of people testified
or asserted that the limo either slowed dramatically, or actually came to a very
brief stop. Why can't this be seen in the extant Zapruder film by the casual
viewer?
Recently, the lie was put forth that those closest to the limo never asserted
that the limo stopped - the implication being that only those far away reported
a limo stop. Yet it's striking that a limo stop *WAS* reported by those closest
to the limo, as well as those further away. Can anyone offer an explanation
that don't involve Z-film alteration?
8. Why was there no close-up photographs ever made of the limo? John McAdams has
asserted otherwise, but cannot produce any such photos. Considering that Secret
Service agents are college educated, and well aware of general crime scene
procedures, why was the limo being washed within minutes of the assassination?
Can anyone defend this, since the timing would tend to indicate a pre-planned
action?
9. Why were the NAA results buried by the WC? John McAdams has denied that this
meant anything - although it's quite clear that McAdams is trying to put the
best spin on the facts to make such an assertion. The Warren Commission had no
reason whatsoever to hide any evidence of Oswald's guilt - AND PROVABLY HID
EXCULPATORY EVIDENCE, so can anyone defend the Warren Commission's actions in
burying the NAA data?
10. Why was the Justice Department concerned enough to spy on the Garrison
trial, and attempt to influence it by sending Boswell to counteract what Finck
was testifying to? John McAdams has put forth the silly idea that Garrison was
'attacking' the Federal Government - but seriously, can anyone provide a
*reasonable* reason for the Justice Department to interfere in a state
prosecution?
11. Why did Baker come up with so many different versions of meeting up with
Oswald, and why did the WC dishonestly move Baker’s time of arrival back so far,
and the alleged assassin up so much? They did so by false statements, why was
this needed?
12. "Tests were also made with a nuclear reactor on the cast of Oswald's cheek
Dr. Vincent P. Guinn, head of the activation analysis program of the general
atomic division of General Dynamics Corporation, made an analysis of the
paraffin cast, the results of which were presented to the Commission. Dr. Guinn
said that he hand his colleagues reasoned 'that if a gun was fired and some of
the powder came back on the hands and cheek, some of the bullet primer should
also come back'. They decided to try looking for elements by putting the wax
impressions of hands and cheeks into a nuclear reactor.' Guinn said the had
informed the FBI that it would be worth-while to utilize 'activation analysis'
because the Dallas police had merely used the chemical paraffin test.
'We bought a similar rifle from the same shop as Oswald and conducted two
parallel tests,' Guinn said. 'One person fired the rifle on eight occasions.'
The scientist stated that paraffin casts were made and when tested by means of
radioactivity, 'it was positive in all eight cases and showed a primer on both
hands and both cheeks. [Weisberg, who has seen Guinn's report, quotes "heavy
deposits" on the cheek casts] Then we took the casts of Oswald's cheek and put
them in a nuclear reactor.' Guinn added, 'I cannot say what we found out about
Oswald because it is secret until the publication of the Warren Commission
Report." - Mark Lane's Rush to Judgment, pg 152-153
These comparative tests, which were done by a recognized expert - were
contradicted by Cunningham's testimony on pg 561 of the WCR (despite the fact
that Cunningham had *NO* experience with NAA) - but the Warren Commission was
not honest enough to present Guinn's evidence... This evidence is *exculpatory*
for Oswald...
Why was the WC dishonest enough to present Cunningham's testimony, without
allowing readers to know about Guinn's testing results?
Why were those test results of firing a rifle at Oak Ridge buried, and are still
denied by most LNT'ers today?
13. "in a discussion after the conference Drs. Light and Dolce (two wound
ballistics experts from Edgewood Arsenal) expressed themselves as being very
strongly of the opinion that Connally had been hit by two different bullets,
principally on the ground that the bullet recovered from Connally's stretcher
could not have broken his radius without having suffered more distortion. Dr.
Olivier (another wound ballistics expert) withheld a conclusion until he has had
the opportunity to make tests on animal tissue and bone with the actual rifle."
"Memorandum for the Record," dated April 22, 1964, written by Melvin Eisenberg
about a conference held on April 21, 1964.
Why was a ballistics expert hired by the WC (Dr. Joseph Dolce) fired when he
refused to endorse their theory? (Or, more correctly - the WC refused to allow
him to testify, and eliminated any reference to his opinions in the WCR.)
In 'picking & choosing' the evidence they wished to present, the Warren
Commission acted solely in the role of prosecutor rather than as an impartial
fact finding body.
14. Why did the FBI engage in a pattern of eyewitness intimidation to get the
statements they wanted? Dave Powers, for example, or Tomlinson? Why do LNT'ers
refuse to admit this simple historical fact of FBI intimidation of eyewitnesses?
(Toddy, for example, has been running from this since 2005... even though he
*requested* the supporting evidence - simply do a Google Groups search for "FBI
Intimidation")
"Most private citizens who had cooperated with newsmen reporting the crime have
refused to give further help after being interviewed by agents of the Federal
Bureau of Investigation." - New York Times, 6Dec63.
Is there any *non* conspiratorial explanation for this pattern of FBI
intimidation?
15. What is the 6.5mm virtually round object that no-one saw in the AP X-ray on
the night of the Autopsy... and why was everyone so blind on the night of the
autopsy? Any idea why John McAdams, as well as all other LNT'ers - keep running
away from this topic? When it was pointed out that the size of this object was
twice the size of the one that Dr. Humes asserted in testimony was the largest
fragment, here's what John McAdams was forced to do:
*******************************************
> I'd say a 6.5mm virtually round object was big enough,
> wouldn't you? Particularly when it's twice the size of what
> Dr. Humes thought was the largest fragment found.
John McAdams:
We don't know it's more than twice the mass, because it's
apparently just a sliver.
******************************************
Why did McAdams dishonestly try changing from "size" to "mass"?
Until LNT'ers can satisfactorily explain this 6.5mm virtually round object, the
best explanation remains that this was a failed attempt to frame Oswald.
16. "I also found some surprising results based on the chest X-ray. I made
accurate measurements of the width of the spine directly on the X-ray. The
front to back thickness of the body at this site (14 cm) as well as the distance
of the back wound from the midline (4.5 to 5.0 cm) were supplied by the HSCA.
Since this latter distance can be measured independently on photographs of the
back, I also did this. The so-called exit site at the front of [the] throat was
described by the Parkland doctors as being very near the midline.
When I placed these measurements onto a cross section of the body and then
connected the bullet entry and exit sites by a straight line, I immediately saw
that the "magic" bullet had to go right through the spine. This path would have
caused major damage to the spine and would have been very obvious on the chest
X-ray. In fact, there is no major trauma like this anywhere in the spine.
Because of the impenetrable vertical barrier produced by the transverse
processes up and down the entire cervical spine and because of the total width
of the cervical spine, there is no place for the bullet to pass through anywhere
in the neck and still exit through the midline of the throat. If, instead, the
upper chest is considered as a possible bullet trajectory site, then another
problem arises. The bullet would have to go right through the lung. But no lung
damage of this type was seen by the pathologists and none is seen on the X-rays
either. This "magic bullet simply cannot enter through the back wound and then
exit through the throat wound without hitting the spine - or else causing major
lung trauma. It is odd that this rather simple reconstruction with exact
measurements has never been done before. Its very simplicity, however, proves
direct evidence that the object which entered the back could not have exited at
the front of the throat." Dr. Mantik, Assassination Science, pg 157-158
Why has no-one been able to step up to the plate and show that this *is*
possible?
17. Col. Finck testified during the Shaw trial:
Q: I will ask you the question one more time: Why did you not
dissect the track of the bullet wound that you have described
today and you saw at the time of the autopsy at the time you
examined the body? Why? I ask you to answer that question.
A: As I recall I was told not to, but I don't remember by whom.
Q: You were told not to but you don't remember by whom?
A: Right.
Q: Could it have been one of the Admirals or one of the Generals in the room?
A: I don't recall.
Q: Do you have any particular reason why you cannot recall at this time?
A: Because we were told to examine the head and the chest cavity, and that
doesn't include the removal of the organs of the neck.
Why was dissection of the bullet track, and neck wound, forbidden to the
prosectors? Why were they allowed to dissect the chest incisions, which were
clearly *not* bullet wounds, but not allowed to dissect the bullet wounds? Even
John McAdams has run away from answering this simple question.
18. Why were the prosectors not allowed to examine JFK's clothing, a routine and
completely ordinary procedure in an autopsy, despite the fact that the clothes
were certainly within reach? John McAdams has attempted to assert that this was
done on orders of the Kennedy family, despite the fact that Col Finck detailed
in a contemporary memo who had prevented him from examining the clothing:
"I was denied the opportunity to examine the clothing of Kennedy. One officer
who outranked me told me that my request was only of academic interest. The same
officer did not agree to state in the autopsy report that the autopsy was
incomplete, as I suggested to indicate. I saw the clothing of Kennedy, for the
first time, on 16 March 1964, at the Warren Commission, before my testimony,
more than three months after the autopsy."
Why would McAdams, who certainly knows of this memo, lie about such a simple
historical fact?
19. Why have photographs and X-rays disappeared out of the inventory? Only the
government had control of them... John McAdams has denied that any photo or
X-ray have disappeared, but to do so; he must call the eyewitnesses liars - and
beg ordinary people to suspend common sense. The prosectors described only
*TWO* injuries inside the body - one to the trachea, which they were prevented
from removing, and one to the tip of the lung - WHICH THEY STATE THAT THEY
PHOTOGRAPHED. A photograph that has never been seen. (Interestingly, this also
happened in the RFK case, missing photographs... although the controlling agency
in this case was the LAPD)
20. Why did the CIA have a program of harassment of CT authors, and why did they
actively promote the WCR through their friendly news contacts? (Interestingly,
this same pattern happened again in the RFK murder case - although here it was
the LAPD that took to harassing CT journalists and researchers.)
See
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=9547&relPageId=1
for citation...
Everyone knows that intelligence consists of finding out what the other
government doesn't want you to know, but the other side of the coin that isn't
as well known is that intelligence *ALSO* consists of putting out the story that
you want the other side to believe. So what interest did the CIA have in
promoting the WCR, and harrassing CT authors? Does anyone believe their
essentially "patriotic" excuse? Can anyone propose a reasonable
non-conspiratorial explanation for their interest and involvement?
21. Why did the Secret Service remove the limo from the jurisdiction of the DPD?
Perhaps an argument can be made for removing JFK's body - as Johnson needed
Jackie with him to provide an aura of legitimacy, but there was *NO* valid
reason to remove the scene of the crime from Dallas - or was there? Can you
provide it?
22. Why is there no 'chain of evidence' on so much of the evidence in this case?
CE399, for example, almost no-one who originally handled it will identify it.
The shells at the Tippet scene, for another. Why were autopsy technicians
forbidden from doing ordinary marking for X-ray identification?
"Secrecy, deception, dissembling, and suppression characterized the official
investigations, not to mention careless haphazard handling of evidence. The
failure of the authorities to seal off the scene of the crime, to photograph
vital evidence in place, to provide an unbroken chain of possession of the
evidence, and their ability to 'lose' or 'misplace' such crucial evidence as the
president's brain and the Harper fragment, necessarily leave numerous questions
unanswered. It should be emphasized that the assassination was a crime under
Texas state law. To ensure the accuracy of the above remarks, I discussed the
evidence at length with two acknowledged authorities on both Texas and United
States law, former U.S. Supreme Court Justice Abe Fortas and former Watergate
special prosecutor and assistant Texas attorney general Leon Jaworski. After
reviewing the evidence and its handling by the authorities, both Fortas and
Jaworski unhesitatingly declared that VIRTUALLY ALL OF THE EVIDENCE GATHERED BY
THE AUTHORITIES WOULD EVENTUALLY HAVE BEEN DISALLOWED BECAUSE OF THE SHAMEFULLY
INCOMPETENT AND SINISTER MANNER IN WHICH IT WAS HANDLED." - The JFK
Assassination Debates by Michael Kurtz, pg 49-50, emphasis mine.
Can any LNT'ers defend the official actions of the DPD, FBI, and Secret Service
in this case?
23. "I spoke to Gus Rose concerning the camera. He told me that he did find the
small camera. He told me that 'the FBI came back three times trying to convince
me and Captain Fritz that what I had found was a light meter. Captain Fritz
told them on the third visit not to come to him again about the camera.' Fritz
stood behind his man and today is vindicated through Rusty's photograph." -
First Day Evidence, pg 212
"The agent-in-charge of the Dallas FBI office during the assassination
investigation was J. Gordon Shanklin. He claimed that he could not recall the
camera incident. However, an inventory list was made in his Dallas FBI office
on November 26th, 1963, of the evidence obtained from the Dallas police. It
listed "one Minox camera" under item number 375, which was witnessed by De
Brueys himself as well as Dallas Police Captain J. M. English of the Property
Bureau.
However, upon arrival in Washington, a SECOND inventory list was made by De
Brueys and another agent, Vince Drain. Item number 375 at that point became a
'Minox light meter.' Still included among the evidence were two rolls of
'apparently exposed' and two rolls of undeveloped Minox film, supporting the
fact that there must have been a camera to take the photographs." First Day
Evidence, pg 214
Why did the FBI seem so insistent on erasing the record of a Minox camera owned
by LHO? Why did he own one? This was not an inexpensive camera... and it
seems cruel to mention that these were favored by intelligence operatives
because of their small size.
LNT'ers will almost certainly fall back on "simple denial" for this question,
should they be brave enough to attempt it. They may attempt to argue that the
Minox camera found in November actually belonged to Michael Paine, who at the
behest of the FBI went into his garage in Jan '64 and "found" a Minox camera -
although this raw anachronism won't affect LNT'ers...
Any LNT'er honest enough to admit that Oswald owned a Minox, and that the FBI
went to extraordinary efforts to hide that fact?
24. Why were military intelligence files on LHO never released... even to
government investigators?
25. Why did both the WC and HSCA find it necessary to *LIE* about their own
collected evidence in order to support their conclusions? In the case of the
HSCA, it's not even disputable - they lied blatantly about the medical
testimony... why??
26. Why have so many *new* "scientific" theories been developed for this case?
Never before heard - such as the "jet effect" and "eyewitness unreliability" and
"photographs trump eyewitnesses"? "Scientific" theories that aren't used in any
other legal case in America. Or can you point to these "theories" being used in
any prior or later legal case?
These "theories" were needed, of course; to bypass what the evidence so clearly
pointed towards...
27. Why does Altgens show Chaney in a position that he's *never* seen in the
extant Z-film?
Simple denial seems to be the most frequent response from the trolls & LNT'er
camp - yet with over 40 years to do so, no LNT'er has ever used a telephoto
lense from Altgen's reported position to duplicate the photo with Chaney in the
same position as Hargis (on the other side of the followup limo)
Nor has any troll or LNT'er explained the shadow from Chaney's motorcycle that
is seen. So many of the photos/X-rays in this case simply don't match up - and
there appears to be deafening silence from the "photos/videos/X-rays are
authentic" crowd.
28. LNT'ers get really nervous and never seem to have any explanation for the
reported Limo slowdown/stop that took place in Dealey Plaza.
With dozens of eyewitnesses all reporting the slowdown/stop - and many of them
*highly* credible (such as the motorcycle cops who were *with* the limo),
LNT'ers really can't deny what happened.
So when it's pointed out that this *IS NOT SEEN* in the extant Z-Film - they all
immediately jump into a chorus of "Hallelujah Alvarez"... pointing out that
Alvarez found a slowdown in the film.
BUT IT CAN'T BE SEEN BY THE CASUAL VIEWER!!!
And Tony Marsh ran screaming away - and starting talking about something else
(ghost images) and refused to explain this... as *no* LNT'er has been able to
do.
LNT'ers just *hate* the eyewitnesses - even when they are forced to imagine the
eyewitnesses being correct, as in this case.
Any LNT'ers care to explain what Tony ducked? Why is a slowdown *NOT SEEN IN THE
EXTANT Z-FILM TO THE CASUAL VIEWER?*
29. Why do over 40 eyewitnesses agree with each other on the location of the
large wound on the back of JFK's head, in contradiction to the BOH photo? Dr.
Mantik has reported that using stereo viewing, the "hair patch" shows 2D,
contrary to everything else, which shows in 3D. Many have noted the "wet"
appearance of the hair patch. Interestingly, the lateral X-ray also has a "white
patch" at this same location - Dr. Mantik reports that optical density
measurements of this "patch" show that JFK was a "bonehead"... solid bone all
the way across. Why is there such a distinct and common pattern among
eyewitnesses, BOH photo, and Lateral X-ray?
30. Somewhat related to the previous question, why does the Autopsy Report
contradict the BOH photo? (The Autopsy Report stated that the wound extended to
the occipital, and was *devoid* of bone and scalp... this simply cannot be seen
in the BOH photo.) No LNT'er has been able to point to *any* part of the
Occipital that cannot be seen in the BOH photo - yet the autopsy report, *all*
prosectors, and over 40 eyewitnesses place a large wound here that was devoid of
bone and scalp.
31. Why did the WC misrepresent so much of their evidence, even to the point of
outright lies at some points? The statements about Mrs. Tice, for example, or
the date that Oswald left England...
32. There were known assassination attempts in both Chicago and Tampa in the
weeks before the successful assassination attempt in Dallas. Although the
Chicago attempt was successfully kept out of the papers, this isn't true of the
Tampa attempt - which made it into one article. Why did the Secret Service not
inform the WC of these past attempts, and what can explain the WC's "ignorance"
of these previous assassination attempts? Why do LNT'ers refuse to even *admit*
that these attempts are historical and known?
33. Why did the WCR never deal with the unidentified finger-print found in the
Sniper’s Nest? This pattern of burying and disregarding any exculpatory evidence
is troubling at best, and dishonest to those who study more deeply how the
Warren Commission operated.
34. Why did the WC simply lie about the first press conference with Dr. Perry?
We all know that they certainly had the power to get film of the conference, and
they refused to do so... why?
35. From the Jan 27th Executive Session:
***************************************
Mr. Rankin. Then there is a great range of material in regard to the wounds, and
the autopsy and this point of exit or entrance of the bullet in the front of the
neck, and that all has to be developed much more than we have at the present
time.
We have an explanation there in the autopsy that probably a fragment came out
the front of the neck, but with the elevation other shot must have come from,
and the angle, it seems quite apparent now, since we have the picture of where
the bullet entered in the back, that the bullet entered below the shoulder blade
to the right of the backbone, which is below the place where the picture shows
the bullet came out in the neckband of the shirt in front, and the bullet,
according to the autopsy didn't strike any bone at all, that particular bullet,
and go through.
*****************************************
"Below the shoulder blades?"
"probably a fragment came out the front of the neck?"
Can you point to any statement in the current existing Autopsy report that would
support these statements?
Was Rankin simply mistaken? Under what conditions could he come up with such a
mistaken impression of what the Autopsy Report said?
36. Why was their such an amazing amount of clumsiness when it came to the
assassination films? The Z-film being broke in several places, the Muchmore film
being broke right at one of the head shots, the Nix Film reportedly returning in
a different condition from when it was taken from him? This isn't to mention
the number of eyewitnesses who reported their film taken *and never returned*
37. "The significance of Givens' observation that Oswald was carrying his
clipboard became apparent on December 2, 1963, when an employee, Frankie Kaiser,
found a clipboard hidden by book cartons in the northwest corner of the sixth
floor at the west wall a few feet from where the rifle had been found." (WCR
143)
Mr. KAISER. I was over there looking for the Catholic edition--teacher's
edition.
Mr. BALL. Where did you see the clipboard?
Mr. KAISER. It was Just laying there in the plain open--and just the plain open
boxes-you see, we've got a pretty good space back there and I just noticed it
laying over there.
Mr. BALL. Laying. on the floor?
Mr. KAISER. Yes, it was laying on the floor.
Mr. BALL. It was on the floor?
Mr. KAISER. It was on the floor.
Mr. BALL. How close was it to the wall?
Mr. KAISER. It was about---oh--I would say, just guessing, about 5 or 6 inches,
something like that.
Mr. BALL. From the wall and on the floor?
Mr. KAISER. Laying on the floor.
Mr. BALL. And were there any boxes between the wall and the clipboard?
Mr. KAISER. No, not between the wall and the clipboard--there wasn't.
Mr. BALL. Were there boxes between the stairway and the clipboard?
Mr. KAISER. No, you see, here's---let me see just a second---here's the stairs
right here, and we went down this way and here's the stairs this way going up
and here's the and it was laying fight in here by the cards--there are about
four or five cards, I guess, running in front of it--just laying between the
part you go down and the part you go up.
Mr. BALL. You mean laying between the stairway up and the stairway down?
Mr. KAISER. Yes, right there in the corner. (6H 343)
BALL. How long did you stay up on the sixth floor? After you found the location
of the three cartridges?
Mr. MOONEY. Well, I stayed up there not over 15 or 20 minutes longer--after
Captain Will Fritz and his officers came over there, Captain Fritz picked up the
cartridges, began to examine them, of course I left that particular area. By
that time there was a number of officers up there. The floor was covered with
officers. And we were searching, trying to find the weapon at that time. (3H
289)
The WC simply lied, when trying to disguise the fact that the many policemen
that swamped the sixth floor (See Mooney's statement) couldn't find a clipboard
that Kaiser clearly states was in plain sight, and not hidden at all. The
clipboard was *NOT* hidden - and an entire working week went by before it was
"discovered". Can anyone defend this curious lie of the Warren Commission?
38. "... but there is no evidence that an "A. J. Hidell" existed." (WCR 292)
"Because Oswald's use of this pseudonym became known quickly after the
assassination, investigations were conducted with regard to persons using the
name Hidell or names similar to it." (WCR 313)
"Hidell was a favorite alias used by Oswald on a number of occasions. Diligent
search has failed to reveal any person in Dallas or New Orleans by that name."
(WCR 645)
But the actual evidence shows otherwise:
"I, John Rene Heindel, 812 Belleville Street, New Orleans, Louisiana, being
first duly sworn, depose and say:
...While in the Marine Corps, I was often referred to as "Hidell"--pronounced so
as to rhyme with "Rydell" rather than "Fidel." This was a nickname and not
merely an inadvertent mispronunciation. It is possible that Oswald might have
heard me being called by this name; indeed he may himself have called me
"Hidell." However, I have no specific recollection of his either using or
hearing this name." (8H 318)
If a LNT'er wishes to argue that the staff was unaware of this deposition,
they'll need to face this:
Mr. JENNER. Do you remember a marine by the name of John Heindel?
Mr. POWERS. No, sir.
Mr. JENNER. Sometimes called Hidell? This is Atsugi now.
Mr. POWERS. No. (8H 288)
The WCR once again, simply lied. And although John R. Heindel was known from a
Secret Service investigation conducted in New Orleans from 22Nov - 2Dec; (See
CE3119 pg 12) no other research has been presented... presumably, the FBI,
Secret Service, and WC simply declined to investigate Heindel.
Interestingly enough, the Dallas Police list of property seized on Nov 23rd at
the Paine residence includes the following: "four 3 x 5 cards bearing
respectively names G. Hall; A.J. Hidell; B. Davis; and V.T. Lee" (CE 2003 pg
269)
Gus Hall, Benjamin Davis, and Vincent T. Lee are real people of prominence in
the leftist political movement. If A. J. Hidell is a fake name invented by
Oswald, the subtlety of preparing an index card for Hidell, and putting it in
with known real people was certainly nothing less than brilliant. (to paraphrase
Silvia Meagher)
Can anyone explain why the WCR simply disregarded and misrepresented the
evidence in the case of this 'alias'?
39. "Oswald disembarked at Le Havre on October 8. He left for England that same
day, and arrived on October 9. He told English customs officials in Southampton
that he had $700 and planned to remain in the United Kingdom for 1 week before
proceeding to a school in Switzerland. But on the same day, he flew to Helsinki,
Finland, where he registered at the Torni Hotel; on the following day, he moved
to the Klaus Kurki Hotel." (WCR 690)
Any normal reading of that paragraph will give you the idea that Oswald left
England for Helsinki on October 9th. But once again, it's a lie that is in
provable conflict with their own evidence:
Anyone can turn to CE 946 pg 7:
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh18/html/WH_Vol18_0088b.htm
and read the stamp which states: "Embarked 10 October 1959" But this wouldn't be
good for the WC - for as they discovered, there were no commercial flights from
London to Helsinki that Oswald could have taken in order to get to his hotel in
Helsinki on the 10th. (See CE 2677) The WC knew that the only alternative was a
non-commercial flight - such as a military flight. This wouldn't do at all - so
the simple solution of the Warren Commission? Simply lie about the day Oswald
left London...
Why does the "truth" require a lie to support it?
40. The only other person besides Kantor who recalled seeing Ruby at the
hospital did not make known her observation until April 1964, had never seen
Ruby before, allegedly saw him only briefly then, had an obstructed view, and
was uncertain of the time. (WCR 336)
But, let's take a look at Mrs. Tice's actual testimony - to see if the WC was
telling the truth or not:
Mr. GRIFFIN. How long did this man that you think was Jack Ruby, how long did he
stand out there next to you?
Mrs. TICE. I was standing about 3 feet from them.
Mr. GRIFFIN. Where was he standing in relation to you. Was he in front of you or
behind you, or off to the side, or where was he?
Mrs. TICE. I was standing about like this, and they were standing there, but I
was being nosey and listening.
Mr. GRIFFIN. In other words, this man was off to the side 4 or 5 feet distant
from you, the distance from you to me?
Mrs. TICE. This man that I say was Jack Ruby was about 3 feet from me, I guess,
about as far as you are from me.
Mr. GRIFFIN. You could only see the side of his face, I take it?
Mrs. TICE. Jack Ruby's?
Mr. GRIFFIN. Yes. (15H 392)
Mr. GRIFFIN. So Jack actually was a little bit in front of you?
Mrs. TICE. Yes; I guess.
Mr. GRIFFIN. Would you put an R where Ruby was?
(Mrs. Tice marks.)
Mr. GRIFFIN. Now, a man walked up to him and tapped him on the shoulder?
Mrs. TICE. The man came right down this way, over this way and slapped him on
the shoulder and asked him how he was doing.
Mr. GRIFFIN. And at that point Jack turned around?
Mrs. TICE. At that point Jack turned around and started talking to him. At the
time, he was facing right toward me. (15H 394)
The Warren Commission simply lied about Mrs. Tice's view of Ruby - attempting to
state that it was obstructed, when the actual testimony shows that Ruby was just
3 feet away, and at one point, *facing* Mrs. Tice. The WC *cited* her
testimony, so they couldn't have been unaware that their own evidence
contradicted their assertion. Amusing that the WC would argue that Mrs. Tice
had never seen Jack Ruby before... they didn't appear to be embarrassed that
Brennan had never seen Oswald before...
Once again, the question becomes why did the Warren Commission feel that it
needed to lie about it's own collected evidence in order to 'prove' the truth?
When does the truth need a lie to support it?
41. The fact that the HSCA also chose to lie about the medical testimony and the
BOH photo is another troubling issue that LNT'ers simply cannot deal with.
Quoting from the History-Matters website, here's an example:
"At least as troubling is the HSCA's handling of the medical evidence. The HSCA
had a tougher row to hoe, there having been several well-written critiques of
the Warren Commission which required answering. One "problem" that presented
itself was the stark contrast between the statements of physicians who treated
Kennedy at Parkland Hospital in Dallas, who almost uniformly described a large
rear head wound (which would tend to indicate a shot from the front), and the
autopsy report, which asserted a right-side head wound which did not reach the
back of the head. The HSCA met this problem head on, explaining why they sided
with the autopsy doctors: "In disagreement with the observations of the Parkland
doctors are the 26 people present at the autopsy. All of those interviewed who
attended the autopsy corroborated the general location of the wounds as depicted
in the photographs. None had differing accounts."
This written statement, it turns out, is utterly false. With the release in the
1990s of the HSCA's files, which include transcripts of these unpublished
interviews (complete with drawings made by the witnesses), we now know that
several autopsy witnesses indeed corroborated the Dallas doctors' observations.
See the Medical Coverup topic on this website for the transcripts and audiotapes
of the interviews. More recent medical interviews, conducted in 1996 and 1998 by
the Assassination Records Review Board, contain even starker indications of a
medical coverup to conceal evidence of a frontal shot, and therefore a second
shooter."
http://history-matters.com/essays/jfkgen/LastingQuestions/Lasting_Questions_2.htm
This brings to mind the question that I've asked many times, yet no LNT'er has
undertaken a serious reply... Why, if the WCR is correct, did both the WC and
HSCA need to lie about their own evidence to make their case?
42. Just a few days after the assassination, an anonymous caller told the DPD
that Oswald had had a rifle sighted at the Irving Sports Shop. Interestingly,
no one at the shop remembered anything about this, nor did anyone step up to the
plate to admit that they had called. However, in checking their records, they
came up with paperwork showing that work had been performed on a rifle for a
customer named "Oswald" between November 4th-8th. And even though no-one
remembered the specific person, the ticket proved that it could *not* have been
Oswald's rifle... the ticket specified the drilling of *three* holes to mount a
telescopic sight. The MC only had *two* holes. Anthony Summer's, in recounting
this - specifies that there were other, unstated, reasons that the ticket could
*not* have referenced Oswald's MC.
The question that this incident clearly raises is just who was it that was
attempting to frame LHO?
There are many other instances of "Oswald sightings" that intentionally frame
him as an arrogant man with an MC. And although Oswald normally only specified
his name as "Lee Oswald", a number of these sightings had the man specifying his
name as "Lee Harvey Oswald". Rather puzzling for the LNT'er crowd...
Another interesting incident had taken place several years earlier, when Oswald
was provably in Russia. Immediately after the assassination, a manager of a
Ford Motors franchise, Oscar Deslatte, contacted the FBI - stating that the name
"Oswald" seemed familiar... so he'd gone back through his order files, and found
a prospective purchaser from 1961. The "Oswald" from 1961, along with a Cuban,
had tried to purchase 10 trucks. Deslatte recalled that "Oswald" first
identified himself as "Joseph Moore", but asked that the name "Oswald" go on the
purchase documents.
Interestingly, when the carbon copy of this old purchase order was finally
released by the FBI in 1979 - it turned out that the name of the Anti-Castro
group that was trying to purchase the trucks was the "Friends of Democratic
Cuba"... an organization that Guy Bannister was a key member of.
Hmmm... anyone ever connect Guy Bannister with LHO before?
There are a number of other interesting "impersonations" of Oswald, (The most
famous of which were in Mexico City - long buried by the WC) and the question
becomes - "Who was impersonating Oswald, and for what reason?"
So the question becomes... who was 'impersonating' Oswald in the weeks before
the assassination?
43. Admiral George Burkley was the only medically trained doctor to be present
at both Parkland and Bethesda, yet was strangely absent from any questioning by
the WC.
When the HSCA rolled around, despite a letter from Burkley's attorney, stating
that Burkley "has information in the Kennedy assassination indicating that
others besides Oswald must have participated.", the HSCA waited close to a year
before interviewing Dr. Burkley. Then, strangely enough, evidently never
questioned Dr. Burkley on his assertion that others must have participated in
the assassination.
Can anyone explain these curious facts in light of a *real* investigation?
44. "This shouldn't be in the damn record!" - the infamous outburst of Dr.
George Loquvam, during the HSCA forensic panel discussion.
A most revealing statement - why was the good doctor concerned with eyewitness
statements being put into written form, even though the HSCA classified it?
It matters little, since the written record doesn't really indicate anything
that *should* be kept hidden - thereby leading any careful reader into
concluding that someone has been busy doctoring the transcripts.
In fact, a note written by Andy Purdy about a phone call from Dr. Michael Baden,
the chairman of the HSCA medical panel - Baden told Purdy that he was almost
finished with the Humes and Boswell transcript, and that he believed that it
"can be cleaned up enough to be in evidence."
"can be cleaned up enough to be in evidence"???
Looks like Loquvam got his wish... the "damn record" was indeed "cleaned up", so
that today we don't know what was really said. But someone forgot to take
Loquvam's revealing statement out.
Why does the truth require lies to support it?
And why hasn't *any* LNT'er been able to either answer this question, or refute
that the WC and HSCA *LIED* in their reports?
45. Despite being widely hailed by the media as an "exhaustive study produced by
honorable and prestigious men", the Warren Commission Report was unable to find
any room in its 888 page report, or 26 volumes of supporting evidence for the
very first piece of paperwork generated in any murder case - the death
certificate.
Perhaps they just didn't have any room left? Can anyone defend this?
It's the evidence which shows two conspiracies - the initial one to murder JFK,
and a secondary conspiracy to cover up the facts in this case. Because it's the
evidence, LNT'ers don't have much answer to questions such as these.
The most common response seems to be to deny the basic underlying information,
but this simply won't do for the honest lurker. These questions *must* be
answered if the theory of a "Lone Nut" (Two of them), is to survive the light of
day.
It's also interesting to see how many similar questions can be put together for
another conspiracy that Bugliosi proved - that of RFK. (Yes, for those unaware,
it was Vincent Bugliosi that proved a conspiracy in the RFK case... if more than
8 shots were fired, then ipso facto, a conspiracy existed.)
In many ways, it seems as if the conspiracy that took the life of RFK 'learned'
from the mistakes of the JFK conspiracy. They still made mistakes, of course...
*********************************
Ben, you may have already incorporated these questions in your list of 45, but
in case you haven't, the following are offered for your consideration, each in a
separate posting.
1. Why didn't the WC receive the original Autopsy Face Sheet signed "Verified G.
Burkley"?
Admiral (and Doctor) Burkley personally wrote the above inscription on the Body
Diagram of the Autopsy Face Sheet, confirming that the wounds on the diagram
were accurately positioned. But on the copies supplied to the WC, his signature
does not appear. As a result, the WC dismissed the Face Sheet as showing only
rough locations for the wounds, especially the back wound which is clearly
marked at T3.
It wasn't until an FOIA suit in 1975, brought by Harold Weisberg, when the
original "Verified" Face Sheet was brought to light.
According to Dr. Humes' testimony the autopsy report was submitted to "higher
authority" on November 24. This could only mean up the chain of command, i.e.
Humes' military superiors. This top brass, either as an individual or a group,
must be responsible for the withholding of the original Face Sheet from the WC,
resulting in their dismissal of the correct wound placements. Is there an
innocent reason for this withholding of evidence from the WC?
On p.62 of Shaw and Harris' Cover-up can be found both versions of the Face
Sheet.-----Old Laz
*********************************
Only two half-serious efforts were ever made to answer these, one by our
resident troll, Buddy... and one by McAdams. If anyone is interested, and
cannot locate the best answers the LNT'er crowd has been able to present, I'll
be happy to locate these previous efforts and cite or repost 'em.
In the meantime, are there *any* honest LNT'ers who'd like to try? You won't be
able to stop the landslide of conspiracy belief until issues like these are
explained.
Bud
Top Post:
Real investigation and research is shown by the ability to answer
questions, not ask them.
In the past, most responses to these questions have shown a very
predictable pattern. Ben shows himself not interested in honest dialog
on the issues he raises, doesn`t address, or even seem to understand
counter points made, and just basically exposes himself as a linear,
johnny one note, "this is all I need to know" thinker. All the kooks
here are, not one of them can maintain a real discussion of the case.
cdddraftsman
> Top Post:
>
> Real investigation and research is shown by the ability to answer
> questions, not ask them.
>
> In the past, most responses to these questions have shown a very
> predictable pattern. Ben shows himself not interested in honest dialog
> on the issues he raises, doesn`t address, or even seem to understand
> counter points made, and just basically exposes himself as a linear,
> johnny one note, "this is all I need to know" thinker. All the kooks
> here are, not one of them can maintain a real discussion of the case.
>
>
Yo Harvey :
Conspiracy Theory is very entertaining....
You get to meet the dumbest people in the country.....all at the same
time !
roflmao
Healy >>>Holmes<<< Jesus/Robcap Rossley Lone Curtjester
end ..........
Say Hallaula Brother !
tl
David Von Pein
ANSWERING 21 QUESTIONS ASKED BY A CONSPIRACY-HAPPY KOOK [which is a
number that has now grown to the "Absurd 45" of Ben "Mega-Kook"
Holmes].......
=======================================================
>>> "(1) Why was the closest police eyewitness to the murder, who just coincidently would have testified in contradiction to the SBT, was never questioned by the FBI or WC prior to the release of the WCR?" <<<
DVP: It's rather remarkable, isn't it, that the author of the above
question somehow knows for a fact what Mr. Chaney's testimony would
have been, even though no testimony exists?
Many of the closest witnesses were questioned at length about the
shooting, including other motorcycle officers, plus John & Nellie
Connally, Jackie Kennedy, Kellerman, and Greer.
The CTer who wrote this question seems to think that the Warren
Commission KNEW for a fact that Officer Chaney was going to say
something the WC desperately didn't want to have in the record of the
WR. Any chance of providing any proof that the WC didn't call Chaney
specifically because Chaney was going to say something that was
"conspiracy" oriented?
No, of course there's no proof of this. And this # 1 question here
only illustrates a rabid CT-Kook's desire to paint everything as
"hinky" and "shady" and "hidden" in some manner...despite any proof to
back up such notions.
Why did the WC call S.M. Holland...or Jean Hill...or various other
witnesses whose testimony didn't aid the "LN" scenario? Many witnesses
weren't called that could have been called, sure; but 552 people did
testify (or were interviewed). Why some CTers think Chaney's testimony
would have suddenly changed all the physical evidence in the case, or
would have somehow nullified the perfectly-logical SBT is a crazy CT
notion indeed.
Jackie Kennedy could (and should) have been questioned in a more in-
depth manner by the Commission, IMO. But she wasn't -- which was no
doubt out of deference to the grieving widow's feelings. The WC didn't
want to upset Jackie any more than was absolutely necessary. Although
I think she should at least have been asked, in a tactful manner,
where the wounds on JFK were located (seeing as how Jackie was
certainly the very best eyewitness to Mr. Kennedy's head wounds, as
she was literally holding his head during the ride to the hospital).
But Jackie wasn't asked such questions, and that leaves a bit of a
hole in the record concerning Mrs. Kennedy's 11/22 observations. But
it's something we'll just have to live with and accept. The same
applies to James Chaney and his lack of any official WC testimony.
I will say, however, that Chaney's "unofficial" comments made to ABC-
TV on 11/22/63 certainly do nothing at all (overall) to harm the SBT/
LHO/LN case. Chaney told ABC that he heard "three shots", and that
these shots all came from "over my right shoulder", which is
information that perfectly aligns with three Oswald shots coming from
the Book Depository.
Chaney's remark about seeing JFK being "hit in the face" is an
understandable misrepresentation of the true nature of the JFK head
wound (given the confusion and suddenness of the crime)....and is an
obvious error on the part of Mr. Chaney, since everybody knows that
President Kennedy was NOT struck "in the face" by any bullet that day.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_M._Chaney
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>> "(2) Why were the NAA results buried by the WC?" <<<
DVP: Did they dig a hole in the backyard for them or something? Was
JFK's brain placed in this hole too?
This # 2 question is another of those inquiries that a CTer demands a
perfect pro-LN answer to....and if such an LN answer isn't forthcoming
(or known), then that CTer thinks he gets to believe a bunch of kooky
shit with respect to the inquiry at hand. And (naturally) the answer
that a CTer provides in lieu of any FACTUAL data is an answer that
always leads to something "hinky", "conspiratorial", and "coverup-
related".
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>> "(3) Why were the test results of firing a rifle at Oak Ridge buried, and are still denied by most LNT'ers today?" <<<
DVP: See answer to # 2.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>> "(4) Why was a ballistics expert hired by the WC fired when he refused to endorse their theory?" <<<
DVP: Proof please. Names please. Who was fired? And who exactly did
the firing? And provide the precise reason(s) for such a "firing"
please. (And CT paranoid guesswork is not good enough.)
Any chance that a CTer can provide these needed hunks of verification
regarding this matter? Highly doubtful, as per the norm in such
instances of CTers who accuse people of doing things that are
perceived to be conspiratorial in nature, when a perfectly-logical
non-
conspiratorial explanation is just as likely (and probably more so).
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>> "(5) Why did the FBI engage in a pattern of eyewitness intimidation to get the statements they wanted?" <<<
DVP: Please provide ONE solitary example of KNOWN and verifiable
"intimidation" by the FBI in order to "get the statements they
wanted".
Number five here is merely more CT hogwash...much like the silliness
that was purported in Oliver Stone's high-handed 1991 motion
picture. .... E.G. (a fanciful conversation between Jean Hill and a
scary "Gummint" guy of some ilk): "Echoes! You heard ECHOES!! We have
three shots coming from the Book Depository! And that's all we're
willing to say!"
~LOL~ (That scene always induces a large laugh whenever it's cued
up.) :-)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>> "(6) What is the 6.5mm virtually-round object that no one saw in the AP X-ray on the night of the Autopsy? And why was everyone so blind on the night of the autopsy?" <<<
DVP: Didn't Ebersole say he DID see this "object" on 11/22...and
mentioned to a colleague it was nothing but an "artifact"? I believe
this is the case. And if so, why isn't this explanation good enough to
calm the CTers in this regard?
Does a "6.5mm artifact" of some kind automatically indicate
"conspiracy"? If so...please say how you arrived at that fantastic
leap-of-faith judgment?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>> "(7) How can a bullet transit without breaking the spine, as has been conclusively demonstrated with CAT scans?" <<<
DVP: In some cases, I suppose the spine might have been damaged by the
passing bullet. But in THIS (JFK) case, that did not happen (the CAT
scan stuff notwithstanding).
Does the CAT scan analysis prove that a bullet transiting in the way
CE399 is said to have transited JFK's body (via the AR doctors
themselves) MUST always hit JFK's spine in particular? If so...how was
this "proven"?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>> "(8) Why was dissection of the bullet track, and neck wound, forbidden to the prosectors? Why were they allowed to dissect the chest incisions, which were clearly *not* bullet wounds, but not allowed to dissect the bullet wounds?" <<<
DVP: Show me proof-positive that the doctors were FORBIDDEN to dissect
the neck/back wounds.
Humes stated that further probing of the back wound (after his stupid
pinky probe) might have caused a "false passage through the
body"...therefore he testified that no further probing was done.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>> "(9) Why have photographs and X-rays disappeared out of the inventory? Only the government had control of them." <<<
DVP: How do you know anything about stuff that apparently
"disappeared"? (The same way you assume that several bullets were made
to "disappear" on 11/22 too, perhaps? How can something that never
existed in the first place all of a sudden "disappear"?)
Also -- Do you truly believe another photo or X-ray (or two) would
undo what the other pictures and X-rays depict? Seems like a curious
notion if you think that. Which makes this pretty much another in a
series of moot CT points being raised in this "JFK quiz". Par for the
CT course (of course).
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>> "(10) Why did the CIA have a program of harrassment of CT authors, and why did they actively promote the WCR through their friendly news contacts?" <<<
DVP: Huh?? I'll toss up my hands on this one and admit I haven't the
foggiest idea what this craziness is all about. (But, yeah, it sounds
like some more kooky CT-created crappola. But, who knows. And who
really cares? Does it somehow wipe Oswald's slate clean...yet again?)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>> "(11) Why did the Secret Service remove the limo from the jurisdiction of the DPD? Perhaps an argument can be made for removing JFK's body -- as Johnson needed Jackie with him to provide an aura of legitimacy, but there was NO valid reason to remove the scene of the crime from Dallas -- or was there? Can you provide it?" <<<
DVP: Sure. All of the other evidence (save the Book Depository
Building itself) in the case was being released to the FBI on 11/22.
The main FBI HQ was in Washington, and while killing the President
wasn't officially a "Federal" crime in 1963, I'm not surprised the
Feds took control of the case to a great extent. Why wouldn't they
have done so? And the limo was one of those pieces of evidence that
was "turned over" to the FBI in Washington.
The "jurisdiction" question is only hinky if one wishes to believe
that a massive cover-up was put into place almost immediately
following the shooting. But is that truly a "reasonable" assumption to
make? IMO...no, it is not.
And if the FBI was above-board with the evidence, moving things to
Washington for examination is not the least bit out of line...or, as
mentioned, the least bit surprising to me. I would have expected that
to happen in the case of a murdered POTUS.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>> "(12) Why is there no 'chain of evidence' on so much of the evidence in this case? CE399, for example, almost no-one who originally handled it will identify it." <<<
DVP: This is pure crap...plain and simple. The chain of evidence is
only weak because a CTer NEEDS the chain to be weak. No other reason.
Because if there IS a "chain" (and there is...for every single piece
of evidence in this case, including Tippit's murder), then Oswald is
guilty as sin, and even CT-Kooks must realize this is true.
Darrell Tomlinson has stated in the past that CE399 "looked like the
same bullet" he found at Parkland on 11/22/63. Why this isn't good
enough for some CTers is anybody's guess. (But, of course, not much is
good enough for those guys.)
Tomlinson stated that CE399 "looked like" the same stretcher bullet
that he found...period. And common sense alone tells any reasonable
person that CE399 HAD to have been inside John Connally on 11/22. Any
other explanation pales by comparison, and is laughable in every way.
More on that here.....
Vince Bugliosi sums it up nicely in the quotes below (and these words
come from an ex-prosecutor who knows of what he speaks re. "chain of
evidence" matters and what would be admissible vs. inadmissible in a
court of law):
"Oswald's rifle, to the exclusion of all other weapons, was determined
by firearms experts to be the rifle that fired the two bullets that
struck down President Kennedy. .... There may have been fifty people
firing at President Kennedy that day; but if there were, they all
missed; only bullets fired from Oswald's Carcano rifle hit the
President." -- V. Bugliosi
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>> "(13) Why did the FBI seem so insistent on erasing the record of a Minox camera owned by LHO?" <<<
DVP: This is more CT guesswork (and shows a CTer at work as he
attempts to sidestep the major issues of LHO's guilt by turning the
focus of attention on something peripheral and meaningless).
Does this "FBI"/"camera" stuff wipe out all of the evidence that tells
the world Lee Oswald was a double-murderer on 11/22/63? If it's of
major importance, please let us know why?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>> "(14) Why were military intelligence files on LHO never released...even to government investigators?" <<<
DVP: What files (specifically)? And if something has never been
"released", please tell the world how you even know they exist?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>> "(15) Why did both the WC and HSCA find it necessary to LIE about their own collected evidence in order to support their conclusions? In the case of the HSCA, it's not even disputable -- they lied blatantly about the medical testimony...why??" <<<
DVP: It's not "disputable", eh? Please give one such example of a
verified "lie" from the HSCA. (A "mistake" does not qualify.)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>> "(16) Why have so many new "scientific" theories been developed for this case? Never before heard -- such as the "jet effect" and "eyewitness unreliability" and "photographs trump eyewitnesses"?" <<<
DVP: Those last two items had "never before" been heard of?? That's a
rather odd statement about the unreliable witness thing and the fact
that genuine photos WILL, in fact, most of the time trump sometimes-
unclear, hazy eyewitness recollections. Those things aren't "new" in
the slightest. They're basic common-sense things.
And the "jet effect" item is perfectly reasonable as well...except to
the CTers who will look for any excuse to dismiss certain "experts".
And if you want to bring up stuff that has "never before been heard
of", then we could go into several items on the pro-CT table that had
never before been seen in any case in history prior to the JFK murder
--- e.g.: the "Let's Frame A Lone Patsy By Shooting The One Slow-
Moving Target With Multiple Guns And Then Expect To Have All Of The
Unwanted Evidence To Magically Disappear Immediately" theory.
And then there's the theory that has two killers being needed to
murder J.D. Tippit on 10th Street (even though it's a point-blank
killing, requiring just one gunman)...with all of the evidence
surrounding this murder expected to also fall neatly into the "It Was
Oswald" pile.
Plus: There's the famous theory that has these silly plotters planting
the wrong rifle on the 6th Floor (they must have forgotten that their
Patsy didn't own a Mauser I guess).
And the smile-inducing "Umbrella Man Shoots JFK With A Poisoned
Projectile While Standing Out In Plain Sight For All To See And Film"
hunk of nonsense.
And lots more to be found here:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>> "(17) Why does Altgens show Chaney in a position that he's *never* seen in the extant Z-film?" <<<
DVP: This is CT-Kookshit and nothing more. The Altgens photo and the
Z-
Film are certainly genuine articles....so this silly question is a
moot one. This CTer obviously is purporting that the Z-Film is fake in
some manner.
Conspiracy Kook Rule #16B applies here, which states -- "When all else
fails, just say something is "fake" or "phony" or "doesn't look quite
right", and the CTer is off the hook".
As Vince Bugliosi would say -- You can tell when someone has a very
weak physical-evidence case....because they'll start arguing
impossible-to-prove theories re. evidence manipulation or
contamination or cover-up, etc. This invariably occurs when there
simply is nothing else for the defense TO argue.
Attempts to deflect attention away from the basic core of ballistics
(and other) evidence in the JFK case (which all leads inexorably to
Lee Oswald) by crying "It's All Fake" is a sign of a patently-weak
case with which these kooks try to combat the physical evidence.
And, I'm sorry, but the "Nothing Is What It Seems To Be" argument with
respect to virtually everything surrounding the JFK assassination is
about as likely to be true (and provable) as a blizzard in Phoenix.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>> "(18) How is it possible to not have a "first frame flash" at Z-133, as the engineers who designed the camera assert must happen?" <<<
DVP: If somebody can tell me what the heck this has to do with pretty
much anything relating to the question of "Who Shot JFK?", please let
me know. It's another attempt, I guess, at a "Z-Film Hoax" allegation.
But I've never heard of such an argument heretofore. Must be a new
kook-invented theory (circa 21st century) or something. Beats me.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>> "(19) Why do *dozens* of eyewitnesses agree on a slowdown or stop of the limo, yet we can't see it in the Z-film?" <<<
DVP: There was a "slowdown". There's no disputing this fact. The limo
never stopped however. Some witnesses might have thought the limo had
fully stopped due to its already-slow (then slower) speed at about the
time of the head shot, and due to the fact that the motorcycles
"overtook" the limousine to an extent at around that time, making it
appear to some witnesses the limo had completely stopped.
But one look at the Nix Film proves the limo did not fully stop. It's
very hard to see the "slowdown" on the Z-Film, because the whole film
frame (left-to-right) is taken up by the limo itself, with Zapruder
panning with his camera and keeping the limo centered. But Nix proves
without question the limo "slowdown", but not a full stop. (Or is Nix
supposedly "faked" too?)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>> "(20) Why do *dozens* of eyewitnesses agree with each other on the location of the large wound on the back of JFK's head, in contradiction to the BOH photo?" <<<
DVP: A possible explanation is that they all saw blood and gore
"pooling" to the very back of the head, which obviously did occur.
Are we to actually believe that McClelland, Peters, Dulany, and
Jenkins were all "in" on the "plot" to conceal the truth concerning
JFK's head wounds when they all said that the photos they examined at
the National Archives in 1988 for "NOVA" television showed no signs of
tampering...i.e., the photos depict JFK the way he looked to each of
these doctors in '63 at Parkland.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/novadocs.htm
I will readily admit that I don't have all the answers to this odd
"BOH" matter re. the witnesses who said they saw a BOH hole in JFK's
head. It's my #1 "mystery" in the whole case. But it's not something
that must equate to conspiracy, IMO....because there are many things
contradicting these witnesses, including the Z-Film, which shows no
such BOH wound at all; plus the Z-Film shows no blood at the supposed
"exit" (BOH) point on JFK's head; not a bit of "spray" at the so-
called exit point. Impossible, if JFK had been hit from the front,
causing a massive BOH exit wound.
Plus there are the "authenticated by the HSCA and Clark Panel" autopsy
photos and X-rays.
Plus there's the huge "clue" of there being only ONE single entry hole
on the back of JFK's head (regardless of the exact millimeter on the
head this wound was located). There was no frontal entry hole, period.
That fact in itself (backed up by the autopsy report and the three
autopsists who signed that AR and testified multiple times to this
"One Entry Hole" effect) disproves the long-held CTer notion that
President Kennedy was hit in the head from the front -- regardless of
what ANY of the witnesses say about the location of JFK's wounds.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>> "(21) Why does the Autopsy Report contradict the BOH photo?" <<<
DVP: The autopsy report does no such thing. The autopsy "Summary" is
perfectly consistent with the photos and the X-rays (and the SBT as
well). In fact, the autopsy report itself is really the genesis to the
SBT, with the writing of these words:
"The missile contused the strap muscles of the right side of the
neck, damaged the trachea and made its exit through the anterior
surface of the neck. As far as can be ascertained this missile struck
no bony structures in its path through the body."
Re. the BOH question specifically, we find this in the autopsy
Summary:
"The fatal missile entered the skull above and to the right of
the external occipital protuberance. A portion of the projectile
traversed the cranial cavity in a posterior-anterior direction (see
lateral skull roentgenograms) depositing minute particles along its
path. A portion of the projectile made its exit through the parietal
bone on the right carrying with it portions of cerebrum, skull and
scalp. The two wounds of the skull combined with the force of the
missile produced extensive fragmentation of the skull, laceration of
the superior saggital sinus, and of the right cerebral hemisphere."
The author of Question 21 is no doubt, though, referring to this
passage in the AR (which also does not contradict the autopsy photo of
JFK's head; the CTer who poses the inquiry needs to look up the word
"somewhat"):
"There is a large irregular defect of the scalp and skull on the
right involving chiefly the parietal bone but extending somewhat into
the temporal and occipital regions. In this region there is an actual
absence of scalp and bone producing a defect which measures
approximately 13 cm. in greatest diameter."
http://www.jfklancer.com/autopsyrpt.html
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
DVP Post-Script:
In the final analysis, no matter how hard a CTer tries, that
conspiracist cannot debunk this statement made by my main man, Vincent
T. Bugliosi, in 1986:
"Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone in the assassination of President
Kennedy. The evidence is absolutely overwhelming that he carried out
the tragic shooting all by himself. In fact, you could throw 80% of
the evidence against him out the window and there would still be more
than enough left to convince any reasonable person of his sole role in
the crime." -- Vince Bugliosi
The hard physical evidence in total (coupled with a ten-mile-high pile
of circumstantial evidence, including Oswald's own actions before and
after 12:30 PM on 11/22/63) does NOT lead to multiple gunmen in Dealey
Plaza.
No matter what spin a conspiracy theorist wants to utilize regarding
this physical evidence (e.g., guns, bullets, fragments, shells,
prints, fibers, and eyewitnesses who saw Oswald kill two men on Nov.
22), the physical evidence will still remain on the table in the JFK
and Tippit murder cases. And it's evidence that points directly at one
man -- Lee Harvey Oswald. And it's evidence that undeniably points to
only Oswald's weaponry being used to murder John Kennedy and Officer
Tippit.
And anyone saying differently is only fooling themselves into
believing that many, many police officers, FBI agents, and SS agents
would have all possessed a UNIFIED DESIRE to want to frame an innocent
man for two 1963 first-degree murders.
And even if we were to accept the absurd notion that all of those DPD
officers would want to frame a man named Oswald for JFK's killing, and
possibly (per many CTers) the death of Officer Tippit as well (all the
while not giving a damn that the real killer/killers of their fellow
police officer was getting away scot-free with the murder of J.D.
Tippit), the amount of "real" (non-Oswald-implicating) evidence that
would have needed to be magically turned into "All Oswald" evidence in
very short order (times two murders) on 11/22 is pretty hefty.
And it defies logic to think that this could have been so perfectly
orchestrated on the spur of the moment by any number of "Let's Frame
Oswald" operatives...operatives from multiple law-enforcement agencies
as well.
It's just plain nonsense to think that such a massive switcheroo of
evidence could have been performed so perfectly -- from the bullets,
to the bullet shells, to the guns, to the witnesses who fingered only
Oswald (and they can't ALL be Government shills, can they?), to
somehow "controlling" the actions of a very guilty-acting "Patsy"
named Oswald just after 12:30 PM on 11/22, and right on down to
Oswald's many lies that he told to the nation on Live TV after his
arrest.
Larry Sturdivan possibly said it best in his book when he wrote this
excellent passage in that publication......
"While one of the pieces of physical evidence could conceivably
have been faked by an expert, there is no possibility that an expert,
or team of super-experts, could have fabricated the perfectly
coordinated whole...with superhuman abilities to fake physical
evidence that is in complete agreement with all the other faked
evidence." -- L. Sturdivan; Page 246 of "The JFK Myths"
Vincent Bugliosi, too, knows that the CTers are full of nothing but
empty theories and piecemeal guesswork:
"No one has produced one piece of evidence to support a
conspiracy theory. And the thing about a conspiracy is, you can't keep
it secret. More than 25,000 interviews have been conducted by the FBI,
the Warren Commission, and independent investigators. No one has come
up with one piece of solid evidence {to support a conspiracy theory}.
Just theories and motives." -- Vincent Bugliosi
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Allow me to close with a mini 1-question quiz of my own for CTers to
ponder......
Can anyone tell me why in the world ANY sane person (who wants to
succeed with their covert plan) would deliberately concoct a "1-Patsy"
assassination plot that involves multiple gunmen located in various
locations throughout Dealey Plaza in Dallas, all aiming at the same
target at pretty much the very same time?
How could any reasonable person planning such a crackpot plot think
for a single second that such a plan could have a prayer of
succeeding? Were these conspirators ALL high on some type of "Miracles
Are Possible" drugs?
And yet many CTers (including the likes of Oliver Stone and the late
"Conspiracy Kook Extraordinaire" Jim Garrison) actually believe(d)
that such a Multi-Gun, One-Patsy plot was planned ahead of time in
1963, and was somehow pulled off successfully to boot. Go figure out
that mindset. I sure haven't been able to.
===================================================
16 "SMOKING GUNS"? OR 16 MISFIRES?:
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/43b260d8af96ca00
===================================================
Bud
(hope he doesn`t mind). The reason I`m doing this is because Ben is
too big a pussy to support his words, and hides behind his killfilter,
so I have to exchange ideas with people who have he courage of their
convictions.
David Von Pein wrote:
> ANSWERING 21 QUESTIONS ASKED BY A CONSPIRACY-HAPPY KOOK [which is a
> number that has now grown to the "Absurd 45" of Ben "Mega-Kook"
> Holmes].......
>
> =======================================================
>
> >>> "(1) Why was the closest police eyewitness to the murder, who just coincidently would have testified in contradiction to the SBT, was never questioned by the FBI or WC prior to the release of the WCR?" <<<
>
>
> DVP: It's rather remarkable, isn't it, that the author of the above
> question somehow knows for a fact what Mr. Chaney's testimony would
> have been, even though no testimony exists?
>
> Many of the closest witnesses were questioned at length about the
> shooting, including other motorcycle officers, plus John & Nellie
> Connally, Jackie Kennedy, Kellerman, and Greer.
>
> The CTer who wrote this question seems to think that the Warren
> Commission KNEW for a fact that Officer Chaney was going to say
> something the WC desperately didn't want to have in the record of the
> WR. Any chance of providing any proof that the WC didn't call Chaney
> specifically because Chaney was going to say something that was
> "conspiracy" oriented?
The CTer who wrote this often assumes as fact that which he cannot
prove. Since Ben can`t prove that Chaney wasn`t called because what he
said was harmful to the SBT, he challenges LNTers to "unprove" it.
I think you missed including a key word that Chaney used. He said
"back over my right shoulder". I think "back" makes it even more
specific, if I just the pointer finger of my left hand to point back
over my right shoulder, I am pointing towards what is behind me. This
concept is corroborated by what Marion Baker said Chaney told him....
Dulles: Officer Baker, did Officer Chaney say anything else about,
for instance, where he thought the source of the shots were?
Baker: Not -- he knew they came from behind him, but he didn`t know
where.
> Chaney's remark about seeing JFK being "hit in the face" is an
> understandable misrepresentation of the true nature of the JFK head
> wound (given the confusion and suddenness of the crime)....and is an
> obvious error on the part of Mr. Chaney, since everybody knows that
> President Kennedy was NOT struck "in the face" by any bullet that day.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_M._Chaney
>
>
> www.amazon.com/gp/customer-reviews/discussions/start-thread.html/?ASIN=1413475221&reviewID=RL0C7XHOJKVR7&iid=&displayType=ReviewDetail
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> >>> "(2) Why were the NAA results buried by the WC?" <<<
>
>
> DVP: Did they dig a hole in the backyard for them or something? Was
> JFK's brain placed in this hole too?
Again, Ben assumes what he can`t prove. To establish motivation,
he`d need evidence he doesn`t have, like a memo or something.
In any case, I think the NAA results he is referring to are test
results that kook author Harold Weisburg (Wiesburg?) got as the result
of a FOIA request. Weisburg mades claims about the information, but
never produced it, lkely because it didn`t help the conspiracy cause.
> This # 2 question is another of those inquiries that a CTer demands a
> perfect pro-LN answer to....and if such an LN answer isn't forthcoming
> (or known), then that CTer thinks he gets to believe a bunch of kooky
> shit with respect to the inquiry at hand. And (naturally) the answer
> that a CTer provides in lieu of any FACTUAL data is an answer that
> always leads to something "hinky", "conspiratorial", and "coverup-
> related".
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> >>> "(3) Why were the test results of firing a rifle at Oak Ridge buried, and are still denied by most LNT'ers today?" <<<
>
>
> DVP: See answer to # 2.
Yah, I think this is the testing Weisburg supposedly got, the Oak
Ridge testing done by ERDA.
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> >>> "(4) Why was a ballistics expert hired by the WC fired when he refused to endorse their theory?" <<<
>
>
> DVP: Proof please. Names please. Who was fired? And who exactly did
> the firing? And provide the precise reason(s) for such a "firing"
> please. (And CT paranoid guesswork is not good enough.)
I think Ben is reffering to the Army wound ballistic expert, who
was firing bullets directly in cadaver wrosts, and producing greatly
distorted bullets. Problem was, the WC didn`t conclude that Connally`s
wrist was hit by a bullet that struck it directly, so this information
was useless.
> Any chance that a CTer can provide these needed hunks of verification
> regarding this matter? Highly doubtful, as per the norm in such
> instances of CTers who accuse people of doing things that are
> perceived to be conspiratorial in nature, when a perfectly-logical
> non-
> conspiratorial explanation is just as likely (and probably more so).
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> >>> "(5) Why did the FBI engage in a pattern of eyewitness intimidation to get the statements they wanted?" <<<
>
>
> DVP: Please provide ONE solitary example of KNOWN and verifiable
> "intimidation" by the FBI in order to "get the statements they
> wanted".
Ben can`t show one witness who believed one thing, and was coerced
to say something different. That is what kook theory requires, not
people not liked how they were handled by the FBI.
> Number five here is merely more CT hogwash...much like the silliness
> that was purported in Oliver Stone's high-handed 1991 motion
> picture. .... E.G. (a fanciful conversation between Jean Hill and a
> scary "Gummint" guy of some ilk): "Echoes! You heard ECHOES!! We have
> three shots coming from the Book Depository! And that's all we're
> willing to say!"
>
> ~LOL~ (That scene always induces a large laugh whenever it's cued
> up.) :-)
>
> www.amazon.com/gp/customer-reviews/discussions/start-thread.html/?ASIN=0882899228&reviewID=R1IP8ODVIT6YOA&iid=&displayType=ReviewDetail
>
>
> www.amazon.com/gp/customer-reviews/discussions/start-thread.html/?ASIN=B000E1A32K&reviewID=R11BVG8L8NOWSC&iid=&displayType=ReviewDetail
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> >>> "(6) What is the 6.5mm virtually-round object that no one saw in the AP X-ray on the night of the Autopsy? And why was everyone so blind on the night of the autopsy?" <<<
>
>
> DVP: Didn't Ebersole say he DID see this "object" on 11/22...and
> mentioned to a colleague it was nothing but an "artifact"? I believe
> this is the case. And if so, why isn't this explanation good enough to
> calm the CTers in this regard?
It was Jerrol Cutler (Custer?), the x-ray tech who took the x-rays
who said he brought it to Ebersole`s attention, and that Ebersole
declared it an artifact. Since it was Ebersole`s job to interpret the
x-rays for the autopists (the wrong word, but I prefer it over
prosector because it causes less confusion), if he told the autopists
to ignore it as an artifact, they may have done just that.
> Does a "6.5mm artifact" of some kind automatically indicate
> "conspiracy"? If so...please say how you arrived at that fantastic
> leap-of-faith judgment?
Another possiblity for that object is that it wasn`t there when the
x-ray was originally taken. The x-rays were given to an artist doing a
bust of Kennedy.
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> >>> "(7) How can a bullet transit without breaking the spine, as has been conclusively demonstrated with CAT scans?" <<<
>
>
> DVP: In some cases, I suppose the spine might have been damaged by the
> passing bullet. But in THIS (JFK) case, that did not happen (the CAT
> scan stuff notwithstanding).
>
> Does the CAT scan analysis prove that a bullet transiting in the way
> CE399 is said to have transited JFK's body (via the AR doctors
> themselves) MUST always hit JFK's spine in particular? If so...how was
> this "proven"?
I think it was Mantic who drew a line through an x-ray, some
conclusive proof. The x-ray was of subject whos head and body were
positioned straight ahead. If JFK was positioned exactly as th subject
Mantik used, this demonstration is useless.
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> >>> "(8) Why was dissection of the bullet track, and neck wound, forbidden to the prosectors? Why were they allowed to dissect the chest incisions, which were clearly *not* bullet wounds, but not allowed to dissect the bullet wounds?" <<<
>
>
> DVP: Show me proof-positive that the doctors were FORBIDDEN to dissect
> the neck/back wounds.
Ben again assumes what he can`t prove. That it was "forbidden", and
"not allowed" (In fact, their superior officer, the man running the
base, ordered them to conduct a full autopsy). The truth, as Ben well
knows, is that the Kennedy family used it`s influence, in the form af
a ranking navy admiral (Burkley), to limit the cutting up of the body.
> Humes stated that further probing of the back wound (after his stupid
> pinky probe) might have caused a "false passage through the
> body"...therefore he testified that no further probing was done.
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> >>> "(9) Why have photographs and X-rays disappeared out of the inventory? Only the government had control of them." <<<
As I pointed out, it wasn`t only the government that had control of
them, an artist making a bust of Kennedy had them (I think it was
Finck or Boswell who said this). In any case, them disappearing is
based on decades old recollections to the HSCA of their existance.
> DVP: How do you know anything about stuff that apparently
> "disappeared"? (The same way you assume that several bullets were made
> to "disappear" on 11/22 too, perhaps? How can something that never
> existed in the first place all of a sudden "disappear"?)
>
> Also -- Do you truly believe another photo or X-ray (or two) would
> undo what the other pictures and X-rays depict? Seems like a curious
> notion if you think that. Which makes this pretty much another in a
> series of moot CT points being raised in this "JFK quiz". Par for the
> CT course (of course).
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> >>> "(10) Why did the CIA have a program of harrassment of CT authors, and why did they actively promote the WCR through their friendly news contacts?" <<<
This happened, it turned up in a memo or report or something.
Bureaucrats under attack, they thought they should fight back Silly
idea, they should have just ignored the idiots. It`s what brought
Nixon down, his inability to ignore his critics.
> DVP: Huh?? I'll toss up my hands on this one and admit I haven't the
> foggiest idea what this craziness is all about. (But, yeah, it sounds
> like some more kooky CT-created crappola. But, who knows. And who
> really cares? Does it somehow wipe Oswald's slate clean...yet again?)
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> >>> "(11) Why did the Secret Service remove the limo from the jurisdiction of the DPD?
They took a lot of evidence.
> Perhaps an argument can be made for removing JFK's body -- as Johnson needed Jackie with him to provide an aura of legitimacy,
Again, Ben assumes motivations he can`t prove.
> but there was NO valid reason to remove the scene of the crime from Dallas -- or was there? Can you provide it?"
<snicker> In one breath he claims it can`t be justified (not to him,
anyway), in the next breath, he makes a challenge that it be
justified. As pointed out, the limo was evidence that needed
processing, which could best be down at FBI headquarters. But they
didn`t take Dealy Plaza, the actual scene of the crime, with them.
<<<
>
>
> DVP: Sure. All of the other evidence (save the Book Depository
> Building itself) in the case was being released to the FBI on 11/22.
> The main FBI HQ was in Washington, and while killing the President
> wasn't officially a "Federal" crime in 1963, I'm not surprised the
> Feds took control of the case to a great extent. Why wouldn't they
> have done so? And the limo was one of those pieces of evidence that
> was "turned over" to the FBI in Washington.
>
> The "jurisdiction" question is only hinky if one wishes to believe
> that a massive cover-up was put into place almost immediately
> following the shooting. But is that truly a "reasonable" assumption to
> make? IMO...no, it is not.
>
> And if the FBI was above-board with the evidence, moving things to
> Washington for examination is not the least bit out of line...or, as
> mentioned, the least bit surprising to me. I would have expected that
> to happen in the case of a murdered POTUS.
>
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> >>> "(12) Why is there no 'chain of evidence' on so much of the evidence in this case?
Most CT "chain of custudy" complaints are bogus.
> CE399, for example, almost no-one who originally handled it will identify it." <<<
How does Ben think any of the witnesses who didn`t mark CE399 could
make a positive ID of it?
Ben mischracterizes their intentions. Their intention was to correct
the mistake that there was a Minox camera. It isn`t shown in the photo
of the evidence seized.
> DVP: This is more CT guesswork (and shows a CTer at work as he
> attempts to sidestep the major issues of LHO's guilt by turning the
> focus of attention on something peripheral and meaningless).
>
> Does this "FBI"/"camera" stuff wipe out all of the evidence that tells
> the world Lee Oswald was a double-murderer on 11/22/63? If it's of
> major importance, please let us know why?
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> >>> "(14) Why were military intelligence files on LHO never released...even to government investigators?" <<<
>
>
> DVP: What files (specifically)? And if something has never been
> "released", please tell the world how you even know they exist?
Exactly. The military said that the older such files of all marines
were destroyed. This doesn`t establish that there was an Oswald file
amongst them.
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> >>> "(15) Why did both the WC and HSCA find it necessary to LIE about their own collected evidence in order to support their conclusions? In the case of the HSCA, it's not even disputable -- they lied blatantly about the medical testimony...why??" <<<
>
>
> DVP: It's not "disputable", eh? Please give one such example of a
> verified "lie" from the HSCA. (A "mistake" does not qualify.)
Yah, once more Ben assumes what he can`t prove. I could as easily
make a blanket "why do all conspiracy writers find it necessary to lie
about the evidence if what their conclusions about conspiracty are
true."
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> >>> "(16) Why have so many new "scientific" theories been developed for this case? Never before heard -- such as the "jet effect" and "eyewitness unreliability" and "photographs trump eyewitnesses"?" <<<
Shakespeare wrote about witness unreliability, it isn`t a new
concept. There is a Japanese play whos name escapes me that I think
was written a few hundred years ago about three witnesses to the same
event seeing it completely different. The "jet effect" isn`t new,
either, that has been known for sometime, the Greeks heated Brass
balls and noted the jet effect eminating from them. As for
"photographs trump eyewitnesses", dw had been using a photo showing an
already opened window to discredit the witnesses who claim to have
opened it.
> DVP: Those last two items had "never before" been heard of?? That's a
> rather odd statement about the unreliable witness thing and the fact
> that genuine photos WILL, in fact, most of the time trump sometimes-
> unclear, hazy eyewitness recollections. Those things aren't "new" in
> the slightest. They're basic common-sense things.
>
> And the "jet effect" item is perfectly reasonable as well...except to
> the CTers who will look for any excuse to dismiss certain "experts".
>
> And if you want to bring up stuff that has "never before been heard
> of", then we could go into several items on the pro-CT table that had
> never before been seen in any case in history prior to the JFK murder
> --- e.g.: the "Let's Frame A Lone Patsy By Shooting The One Slow-
> Moving Target With Multiple Guns And Then Expect To Have All Of The
> Unwanted Evidence To Magically Disappear Immediately" theory.
How about calling damaged bullets "pristine"?
> And then there's the theory that has two killers being needed to
> murder J.D. Tippit on 10th Street (even though it's a point-blank
> killing, requiring just one gunman)...with all of the evidence
> surrounding this murder expected to also fall neatly into the "It Was
> Oswald" pile.
Ben claims witnesses are reliable, then finds reasons to disregard
all the witnesses giving damning eyewitness evidence against Oz in the
Tippit murder. Typical hypocritical kook thinking.
> Plus: There's the famous theory that has these silly plotters planting
> the wrong rifle on the 6th Floor (they must have forgotten that their
> Patsy didn't own a Mauser I guess).
>
> And the smile-inducing "Umbrella Man Shoots JFK With A Poisoned
> Projectile While Standing Out In Plain Sight For All To See And Film"
> hunk of nonsense.
>
> And lots more to be found here:
>
> www.amazon.com/gp/customer-reviews/discussions/start-thread.html/?ASIN=081269547X&reviewID=R229R23VW1NJF7&iid=&displayType=ReviewDetail
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> >>> "(17) Why does Altgens show Chaney in a position that he's *never* seen in the extant Z-film?" <<<
Altgens was taken witha telephoto lens that tends to distort the
viewers perception of depth in the photo (called "foreshortening").
Chaney said he was riding the "rear right bumper" during the
motorcade, but Ben has to call this witness a liar.
> DVP: This is CT-Kookshit and nothing more. The Altgens photo and the
> Z-
> Film are certainly genuine articles....so this silly question is a
> moot one. This CTer obviously is purporting that the Z-Film is fake in
> some manner.
The truth is that Chaney is out of the picture in the z-film when
Altgens is snapped.
> Conspiracy Kook Rule #16B applies here, which states -- "When all else
> fails, just say something is "fake" or "phony" or "doesn't look quite
> right", and the CTer is off the hook".
>
> As Vince Bugliosi would say -- You can tell when someone has a very
> weak physical-evidence case....because they'll start arguing
> impossible-to-prove theories re. evidence manipulation or
> contamination or cover-up, etc. This invariably occurs when there
> simply is nothing else for the defense TO argue.
>
> Attempts to deflect attention away from the basic core of ballistics
> (and other) evidence in the JFK case (which all leads inexorably to
> Lee Oswald) by crying "It's All Fake" is a sign of a patently-weak
> case with which these kooks try to combat the physical evidence.
>
> And, I'm sorry, but the "Nothing Is What It Seems To Be" argument with
> respect to virtually everything surrounding the JFK assassination is
> about as likely to be true (and provable) as a blizzard in Phoenix.
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> >>> "(18) How is it possible to not have a "first frame flash" at Z-133, as the engineers who designed the camera assert must happen?" <<<
Life had the film, maybe they took the "flash" out.
> DVP: If somebody can tell me what the heck this has to do with pretty
> much anything relating to the question of "Who Shot JFK?", please let
> me know. It's another attempt, I guess, at a "Z-Film Hoax" allegation.
> But I've never heard of such an argument heretofore. Must be a new
> kook-invented theory (circa 21st century) or something. Beats me.
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> >>> "(19) Why do *dozens* of eyewitnesses agree on a slowdown or stop of the limo, yet we can't see it in the Z-film?" <<<
People who have studied the film have detected a slowdown.
> DVP: There was a "slowdown". There's no disputing this fact. The limo
> never stopped however. Some witnesses might have thought the limo had
> fully stopped due to its already-slow (then slower) speed at about the
> time of the head shot, and due to the fact that the motorcycles
> "overtook" the limousine to an extent at around that time, making it
> appear to some witnesses the limo had completely stopped.
>
> But one look at the Nix Film proves the limo did not fully stop. It's
> very hard to see the "slowdown" on the Z-Film, because the whole film
> frame (left-to-right) is taken up by the limo itself, with Zapruder
> panning with his camera and keeping the limo centered.
Exactly. You need surrounding landmarks to notice a change in
speed.
> But Nix proves
> without question the limo "slowdown", but not a full stop. (Or is Nix
> supposedly "faked" too?)
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> >>> "(20) Why do *dozens* of eyewitnesses agree with each other on the location of the large wound on the back of JFK's head, in contradiction to the BOH photo?" <<<
Kennedy`s head wound was not a static one, it was in a state of
flux (read Jerrol custer, who cradled Kennedys head lifting him onto
the table). Moving the body around could make such a wound appear
different (thats why autopsies are performed, because casual
observations aren`t a very good way to make precise determinations)
Boswell explains that it is his hand holing it together for the BOH
photo (which was taken to show the bullet hole, not skull damage). I`m
sure you kooks know all this, and are only pretending these things are
some kind of mystery.
> DVP: A possible explanation is that they all saw blood and gore
> "pooling" to the very back of the head, which obviously did occur.
>
> Are we to actually believe that McClelland, Peters, Dulany, and
> Jenkins were all "in" on the "plot" to conceal the truth concerning
> JFK's head wounds when they all said that the photos they examined at
> the National Archives in 1988 for "NOVA" television showed no signs of
> tampering...i.e., the photos depict JFK the way he looked to each of
> these doctors in '63 at Parkland.
>
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/novadocs.htm
>
> I will readily admit that I don't have all the answers to this odd
> "BOH" matter re. the witnesses who said they saw a BOH hole in JFK's
> head. It's my #1 "mystery" in the whole case.
Have you ever visited Paul Seaton`s site. He tries to explain
things. I think his position is that there were a number of "flaps",
where skull attached to skin opened like little doors (of course the
exploding skull would lacerate the skin). Kennedy head was like a wet
paper bag filled with broken china. All the structural integrity of
the skull was gone, and just moving his head around might change how
the wounds appeared to observers. People who looked briefly got an
impression, and assuming that their impressions were correct isn`t
science, autopsies are.
> But it's not something
> that must equate to conspiracy, IMO....because there are many things
> contradicting these witnesses, including the Z-Film, which shows no
> such BOH wound at all; plus the Z-Film shows no blood at the supposed
> "exit" (BOH) point on JFK's head; not a bit of "spray" at the so-
> called exit point. Impossible, if JFK had been hit from the front,
> causing a massive BOH exit wound.
>
> Plus there are the "authenticated by the HSCA and Clark Panel" autopsy
> photos and X-rays.
>
> Plus there's the huge "clue" of there being only ONE single entry hole
> on the back of JFK's head (regardless of the exact millimeter on the
> head this wound was located). There was no frontal entry hole, period.
> That fact in itself (backed up by the autopsy report and the three
> autopsists who signed that AR and testified multiple times to this
> "One Entry Hole" effect) disproves the long-held CTer notion that
> President Kennedy was hit in the head from the front -- regardless of
> what ANY of the witnesses say about the location of JFK's wounds.
>
> www.amazon.com/gp/customer-reviews/discussions/start-thread.html/?ASIN=0965658287&reviewID=R2AIDTHV5M8XP4&iid=&displayType=ReviewDetail
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> >>> "(21) Why does the Autopsy Report contradict the BOH photo?" <<<
The reason the skull damage can`t be seen is because the skin
Boswell is holding up covers it (as Boswell explained).
robcap...@netscape.com
> Top Post:
>
> Real investigation and research is shown by the ability to answer
> questions, not ask them.
>
"In the past, most responses to these questions have shown a very
predictable pattern. Ben shows himself not interested in honest dialog
on the issues he raises, doesn`t address, or even seem to understand
counter points made, and just basically exposes himself as a linear,
johnny one note, "this is all I need to know" thinker. All the kooks
here are, not one of them can maintain a real discussion of the case."
More priceless stuff from a man who is NOT even familar with the WCR
or the 26 volumes he defends.
> > Martybaugh...@gmail.com
> > Miss Rita
> > much...@hotmail.com
> > much...@gmail.com
> > Sam Brown
> > Spiffy_one
> > Timst...@Gmail.com
> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Ben Holmes
robcap...@netscape.com says...
>
>On Jun 8, 3:47=C2=A0pm, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>> Top Post:
>>
>> Real investigation and research is shown by the ability to answer
>> questions, not ask them.
Ah! But this indicts YOU, not me. I can answer each and every one of these
questions, and place them in an understandable historical framework.
Unfortunately for you, each explanation will *NOT* be contrary to the conspiracy
that took place.
I *can* answer the questions, and you can't. Embarrassing, isn't it?
>"In the past, most responses to these questions have shown a very
>predictable pattern. Ben shows himself not interested in honest dialog
>on the issues he raises, doesn`t address, or even seem to understand
>counter points made, and just basically exposes himself as a linear,
>johnny one note, "this is all I need to know" thinker. All the kooks
>here are, not one of them can maintain a real discussion of the case."
>
>More priceless stuff from a man who is NOT even familar with the WCR
>or the 26 volumes he defends.
>
>
>
>> Ben Holmes wrote:
>> > Back by popular demand - the 45 Questions that terrify those who try to =
>defend
>> > the Warren Commission Report. In the past, there have been only two semi=
>-serious
>> > attempts to answer them, one by John McAdams, and one by 'Bud' (the trol=
>l listed
>> > below) - Both responses were basically denials of the facts in most of t=
>he
>> > 'answers'.
>>
>> > But first, an important note:
>>
>> > **********************************************************************
>> > Important Note for Lurkers - there are many trolls on this forum who's o=
>nly
>> > purpose is to obstruct debate, deny the evidence, and attempt to change =
>> > Please beware when seeing their responses, and note that they will simpl=
>y deny
>> > the facts I mention, demand citations that I've provided before, or simp=
>ly run
>> > with insults. These trolls are only good material for the kill files.
>>
>> > * Eddie 'Disgrace' Dolan is an exception - he *should* be killfiled, but=
> he's
>> > amusing! And being a former Marine, even a disgraced one, is a plus.
>> > **********************************************************************
>>
>> > Another repost in it's entirety of the evidential questions that LNT'ers=
> and
>> > trolls can't provide answers for:
>>
>> > 1. When the WC had ballistics tests done, shooting a bullet into the ent=
>ry
>> > location of the head specified by the autopsy report,the bullet invariab=
>ly
>> > exited the forehead or face of the target - can you explain why JFK=EF=
>=BF=BDs face was
>> > virtually untouched, and certainly showed no signs of an exiting bullet?=
>
>>
>> > Lurkers might try to envision this - find the 'knot' of bone in the back=
> of your
>> > head, rather low... this is the external occipital protuberance (EOP). =
>=C2=A0And as
>> > Dr. Humes testified "...(the skull entrance wound is) just to the right =
>and
>> > below by a centimeter and maybe a centimeter to the right and maybe 2
>> > centimeters below the midpoint of the external occipital protuberance. A=
>nd when
>> > the scalp was reflected from there, there was virtually an identical wou=
>nd in
>> > the occipital bone." (HSCA. Vol. 7: 246)
>>
>> > Now that you have the entry firmly in mind - remember that the presumed =
>assassin
>> > was in the 6th floor window - see if you can imagine such a trajectory *=
>NOT*
>> > exiting the face.
>>
>> > This was the problem faced by the Clark Panel and the HSCA - so they sim=
>ply
>> > moved the entry wound to one that would not create such an impossible
>> > trajectory.
>>
>> > 2. Why do LNT=EF=BF=BDers refuse to admit that there was a wound in the =
>back of the
>> > head, when the autopsy report clearly states: "1. There is a large irreg=
>ular
>> > defect of the scalp and skull on the right involving chiefly the parieta=
>l bone
>> > but extending somewhat into the temporal and occipital regions. In this =
>region
>> > there is an actual absence of scalp and bone producing a defect which me=
>asures
>> > approximately 13 cm. in greatest diameter."? =C2=A0There is *no* part of=
> the
>> > Occipital which is *not* located in the back of the head - yet LNT'ers w=
>ill not
>> > admit to a large BOH wound - as described in the Autopsy Report and by d=
>ozens of
>> > medical witnesses. =C2=A0I've repeatedly asked LNT'ers to point to any p=
>art of the
>> > Occipital that CANNOT be seen in the famous BOH photo - I've never had a=
> reply,
>> > even though the answer is simple - "no part".
>>
>> > There are few areas of this murder where there's such a large number of
>> > corroborating eyewitnesses. (The limo slowdown is another example that s=
>trikes
>> > my memory...) LNT'ers have nowhere to go but to argue that these dozens =
>of
>> > eyewitnesses didn't really say what they said (This seems a favorite of =
>John
>> > McAdams), or couldn't have seen reliably what they said they saw - due t=
>o the
>> > pressures of a short viewing time... or simply the old fall back of "eye=
>witness
>> > testimony is the least reliable... etc" =C2=A0None of these excuses work=
> when you
>> > have dozens of corroborating eyewitnesses. =C2=A0Amazingly, you can't se=
>em to draw
>> > the admission out of any LNT'er that they don't believe the autopsy repo=
>rt, yet
>> > they *can't* believe it. =C2=A0It clearly places a large wound in the ba=
>ck of JFK's
>> > head - using medical terminology.
>>
>> > This boils down to a very simple issue - either the eyewitnesses and aut=
>opsy
>> > report are accurate, or the BOH photo is. =C2=A0They cannot be reconcile=
>d, despite
>> > the efforts of some to argue that the scalp was 'pulled up' for the phot=
>o. =C2=A0It's
>> > clear why LNT'ers put their faith in the photos - they clearly support t=
>he lone
>> > assassin theory. =C2=A0Either over 40 plus eyewitnesses, most of whom ha=
>d medical
>> > training; and the autopsy report are correct - or a photo that cannot be=
> tied to
>> > a camera, and has no chain of custody, and that shows signs of alteratio=
>n - is
>> > correct.
>>
>> > 3. Why can no LNT'er explain the evidence that Robert Harris has develop=
>ed to
>> > demonstrate that two bullets were fired in a span of time shorter than t=
>he MC
>> > was capable of? The pattern of LNT'ers ducking Robert's obvious example =
>is
>> > almost funny to watch...
>>
>> > 4. Why did so many credible eyewitnesses point to the front of the limo =
>as the
>> > source of shots being fired? If eyewitness testimony is unreliable, and =
>the
>> > claim is made that echoes were what was being heard, why were so many
>> > eyewitnesses specific to the location? IOW=EF=BF=BDs, why didn=EF=BF=BDt=
> anyone specify a shot
>> > from the left?
>>
>> > It won't surprise most people to understand that all the eyewitness repo=
>rts put
>> > the shot origins in locations that can be understood as the TSBD and the=
> Grassy
>> > Knoll. =C2=A0But what the LNT'ers can't do is point to all those people =
>who *must*
>> > have described shots coming from *other* directions... after all, one of=
> their
>> > favorite explanations for the second location is "echoes"... where would=
> real
>> > echoes be coming from? =C2=A0Buildings, of course. =C2=A0So where are th=
>ey?
>>
>> > And most damaging of all, how can they explain those few eyewitnesses wh=
>o
>> > reported shots from both locations? =C2=A0(They can't... all they seem c=
>apable of
>> > doing is pointing out how few of them did so - a sad argument when it's =
>obvious
>> > that so many people were *NOT* asked where the shots came from.)
>>
>> > Once again the evidence points directly to a conspiracy, and contradicts=
> the
>> > Warren Commission's Report.
>>
>> > 5. Can you explain why the bullets at the Tippit scene, identified as Au=
>tomatic,
>> > changed to revolver? Sgt Hill was holding the shells in his hand, and as=
>serts
>> > that it was his *examination* of those shells that led to his radio repo=
>rt. =C2=A0How
>> > could an experienced Police Sergeant make such a dumb error in the shoot=
>ing of a
>> > fellow police officer?
>>
>> > 6. James Chaney, a police motorcycle officer was less than a dozen feet =
>away,
>> > and looking directly at JFK during the shooting (according to both his
>> > statements, and the Altgen's photo of him). We *KNOW* that his testimony=
> would
>> > have been devastating to the SBT - since we know that Chaney asserted th=
>at the
>> > bullet that struck JFK was a different one than the one that struck Conn=
>ally.
>>
>> > Mr. BELIN - What other officers did you talk to and what did they say th=
>at you
>> > remember?
>> > Mr. BAKER - I talked to Jim Chaney, and he made the statement that the t=
>wo shots
>> > hit Kennedy first and then the other one hit the Governor.
>> > Mr. BELIN - Where was he?
>> > Mr. BAKER - He was on the right rear of the car or to the side, and then=
> at that
>> > time the chief of police, he didn't know anything about this, and he mov=
>ed up
>> > and told him, and then that was during the time that the Secret Service =
>men were
>> > trying to get in the car, and at the time, after the shooting, from the =
>time the
>> > first shot rang out, the car stopped completely, pulled to the left and =
>stopped.
>> > Mr. BELIN - The President's car?
>> > Mr. BAKER - Yes, sir. Now, I have heard several of them say that, Mr. Tr=
>uly was
>> > standing out there, he said it stopped. Several officers said it stopped=
>
>> > completely.
>> > Mr. DULLES - You saw it stop, did you?
>> > Mr. BAKER - No, sir; I didn't see it stop.
>> > Mr. DULLES - You just heard from others that it had stopped?
>> > Mr. BAKER - Yes, sir; that it had completely stopped, and then for a mom=
>ent
>> > there, and then they rushed on out to Parkland.
>>
>> > Knowing, from this testimony, that Chaney would have testified to a patt=
>ern of
>> > shots that would have contradicted their SBT theory, can anyone defend t=
>he
>> > Warren Commission's honesty in failing to question James Chaney directly=
>? =C2=A0Why
>> > was he never questioned by the FBI or Warren Commission prior to the rel=
>ease of
>> > the WCR?
>>
>> > 7. The previous testimony brings us to a new point - dozens of people te=
>stified
>> > or asserted that the limo either slowed dramatically, or actually came t=
>o a very
>> > brief stop. =C2=A0Why can't this be seen in the extant Zapruder film by =
>the casual
>> > viewer?
>>
>> > Recently, the lie was put forth that those closest to the limo never ass=
>erted
>> > that the limo stopped - the implication being that only those far away r=
>eported
>> > a limo stop. =C2=A0Yet it's striking that a limo stop *WAS* reported by =
>those closest
>> > to the limo, as well as those further away. =C2=A0Can anyone offer an ex=
>planation
>> > that don't
>>
>> ...
justm...@gmail.com
> In article <08e6c960-45dc-490c-a3f9-ce23c884c...@79g2000hsk.googlegroups.com>,
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
You answer the questions with what you want to hear. ANY LN gives an
answer and it's not acceptable to you therefore you think you're the
winner. Think again Holmes. Answer your questions all you want
too...you have no proof to back up your answers only your speculation,
which is what your questions are made up of in the first place. What a
joke you are.
aeffects
from them... KUTGW, Ben
Bud
Ben Holmes wrote:
> In article <08e6c960-45dc-490c...@79g2000hsk.googlegroups.com>,
> robcap...@netscape.com says...
> >
> >On Jun 8, 3:47=C2=A0pm, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
> >> Top Post:
> >>
> >> Real investigation and research is shown by the ability to answer
> >> questions, not ask them.
>
>
> Ah! But this indicts YOU, not me.
No, it really doesn`t. You don`t see the WC`s investigation, a real
investigation, sitting around compiling lists like this. It it an
idiot`s exercise.
> I can answer each and every one of these
> questions, and place them in an understandable historical framework.
You can put answers under them, like I have. What you can`t do is
establish your answers as the truth. If you could do that, you
wouldn`t need to approach it in this silly game-playing manner.
> Unfortunately for you, each explanation will *NOT* be contrary to the conspiracy
> that took place.
Whatever that means. If you could establish these things as acts of
conspiracy, your post would be "The 45 Indisputable Acts of
Conspiracy", not this "questions Ben asks and judges the answers to"
bullshit.
> I *can* answer the questions, and you can't. Embarrassing, isn't it?
In the post you said I had. Now you are back to saying I haven`t.
You should stick to one side of your mouth when talking.
Bud
aeffects wrote:
> evidently the 45 questions are so..... absurd, DVP can't wait to run
> from them... KUTGW, Ben
David and I both took a stab at answering some of them. Why hasn`t
Ben commented on our responses? Oh, thats right, he is a pussy too
afraid to defend his ideas.
Sam Brown
"aeffects" <aeffe...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:d3526786-094d-4c53...@r37g2000prm.googlegroups.com...
> evidently the 45 questions are so..... absurd, DVP can't wait to run
> from them... KUTGW, Ben
Oh dear Junkie! What a pathetic attempt to avoid acknowledging Bud and
David's posts. Were you THIS big a chicken in Vietnam? How embarrassing for
your family.
David Von Pein
>>> "David and I both took a stab at answering some of them." <<<
Not to mention the fact I've provided Ben The Kook with many excerpts
from Mr. Bugliosi's JFK book that show VB addressing Fetzer's silly
"Smoking Guns". Ben previously posted a rebuttal to my rebuttal about
this, with Ben still insisting that VB hadn't properly responded to
ANY (not one!) of Dr. Fetzer's anemic "Smokers".
Of course, once I proved Ben wrong, the kook then had two choices---he
could crawl back under his "killfilter" and play pussy and pretend
that he hadn't seen any of the VB answers I provided in the "Smoking"
post re-printed below .... or the conspiracy-giddy kook named Benjamin
could do what most CTers do in a case like this: Say that the answers
provided just aren't good enough to meet his stringent kook
requirements.
Ben chose the latter (pussy-like) option.
====================
"SMOKING GUNS" REPLAY:
====================
"James Fetzer...wrote me on January 23, 2001:...[Quoting
Fetzer:] "What would it take to convince you of the existence of a
conspiracy and cover-up in the death of JFK? .... Are none of our
[Fetzer's and Dr. David Mantik's] major discoveries--our '16 smoking
guns,' for example--convincing? And, if not, why? And, if not, then
WHAT WOULD IT TAKE?" [End Fetzer quote.]
"Only evidence, Drs. Fetzer and Mantik. Only evidence." --
VINCENT T. BUGLIOSI; PAGE #974 of "RECLAIMING HISTORY" (c.2007)
www.amazon.com/DVP-REVIEW-RECLAIMING-HISTORY/review/RZD82270D69E8
==============================================
BEN HOLMES SAID THIS ON AUGUST 22, 2007:
>>> "DVP will continue to run from posting any citations whatsoever. He can't. Bugliosi did *NOT* address the 16 smoking guns, so there's no page number *to* cite." <<<
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/6d550fa4cb5c8792
AND KOOK HOLMES SAID THIS ON NOVEMBER 4, 2007:
>>> "Sadly, even though Bugliosi clearly recognized the "16 Smoking Guns", and surely knew that they had to be dealt with - ran in the opposite direction. DVP, Bugliosi's mouthpiece, has lied and stated that Bugliosi *DID* answer the 16 smoking guns, but can't cite it." <<<
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/2a45aaa342d10998
DVP SAID THIS ON AUGUST 19, 2007:
>>> "Upon looking over that silly James Fetzer-created list of conjecture and outright lies, it's obvious to anyone who has read "Reclaiming History" that Vincent Bugliosi HAS, indeed, responded to and refuted every single one of those so-called "16 Smoking Guns". .... Why on Earth Ben Holmes thinks Bugliosi hasn't responded to the items on Fetzer's list is anyone's guess. But, then too, it's hard to figure out a CT-Kook from one day to the next. I guess since Vince didn't have a chapter labelled "I'M RESPONDING TO FETZER'S 16 SMOKING GUNS", that must mean to Ben-Kook that VB has IGNORED all of Fetzer's silliness. But VB hasn't ignored those items. They are all answered very well in various places throughout "Reclaiming History"." <<<
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/17f7219e09435dfb
==============================================
The so-called "16 SMOKING GUNS" (by James H. Fetzer):
www.assassinationscience.com/prologue.html
==============================================
Each of Fetzer's supposedly-conspiracy-proving "Smoking Guns" is
discussed and thoroughly dealt with and refuted/debunked within
Vincent Bugliosi's 2007 masterwork "RECLAIMING HISTORY: THE
ASSASSINATION OF PRESIDENT JOHN F. KENNEDY". (Book title hereafter in
this post shortened to "RH".)
Here now are some citations and excerpts from Mr. Bugliosi's book
which directly deal with the above-linked "Smoking Guns"....which are
"Guns" that a Super-Kook named Holmes insists that "Bugliosi did NOT
address" anywhere in "RH":
======================
SMOKING GUN #1:
"[Per the WC and the HSCA] JFK was hit at the base of the back
of his neck by a bullet that traversed his neck without hitting any
bony structures and exited his throat at the level of his tie. [This]
is an anatomical impossibility, because the bullet would have had to
impact bony structures."
"RH" BOOK CITATIONS:
"The bruises in the neck region [of JFK]...COULDN'T have been
caused by the tracheotomy because the circulation of blood in the body
was nearly nonexistent at that point. Without blood, there could be no
bruise--that is, there could only be damage to tissue, not
discoloration of the tissue.
"The bruising of the neck muscles and right lung HAD to have
been caused while the president's heart and lungs were still operating
sufficiently to permit a bruise to occur. [Source Note #132 = Dr.
Humes' WC testimony @ 2 H 368.]
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh2/html/WC_Vol2_0188b.htm
"In short, these bruises, which lay along a path between the
president's back and his throat wound, COULD ONLY HAVE OCCURRED PRIOR
TO THE INCISIONS THAT WERE MADE AT PARKLAND HOSPITAL (i.e., they had
to have been made at the time of the shooting), and hence, the damage
found there had to have been the result of a bullet ENTERING THE
PRESIDENT'S BACK AND EXITING THE THROAT. [All emphasis Bugliosi's.]
"Based on the testimony of Dr. Humes, which was agreed upon by
fellow pathologists Boswell and Finck in the autopsy report, the
Warren Commission concluded that the bullet that entered the
president's back "proceeded in a straight line" on a "downward angle"
through the "soft tissue of the neck," moving in a "slight right to
left lateral direction," hitting "no bony structure" before emerging
in the front of the president's neck. ....
"This conclusion of the Warren Commission on the track of the
bullet was "unanimously" confirmed by all nine of the HSCA's panel of
forensic pathologists, who noted that the straight path of the bullet
was "adjacent to the spine," though not touching it." [Source Note
#134 = 1 HSCA 230-231.] -- V. Bugliosi; Page 402
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol1/html/HSCA_Vol1_0117b.htm
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol1/html/HSCA_Vol1_0118a.htm
~~~~~~
"The autopsy finding as to the track of the bullet that entered
the president's back was buttressed by the HSCA forensic pathology
panel's 1978 examination of the X-rays taken during the autopsy.
"The panel agreed, based largely on consultation with four
radiologists, that X-rays of the president's neck and chest showed
evidence of air and gas shadows in the right side of the neck (likely
a result of air seeping into the bullet track after the tracheotomy
incision was made), as well as a fracture of the right transverse
process (a bony knob protrusion) of the first thoracic vertebra,
located at the base of the neck (1 HSCA 199; JFK Exhibit F-32, 1 HSCA
202-203; JFK Exhibit F-33, 1 HSCA 206; JFK Exhibit F-34, 1 HSCA 211).
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol1/html/HSCA_Vol1_0102a.htm
"The panel concluded that the fracture of the first thoracic
vertebra could have been caused by the bullet striking it directly or
by the force of the bullet passing very near to it, and the majority
of the panel concluded that the bullet did not strike the vertebral
bone (1 HSCA 305, 317).
"Dr. Baden testified that the X-rays showed "no evidence of any
metal or bone...fragments in the neck area" (1 HSCA 305). Although the
1968 Clark Panel and one member of the 1975 Rockefeller Commission
stated that X-rays showed radiopaque particles (believed to be metal
fragments) left behind by the bullet that passed through the
president's neck, the HSCA forensic pathology panel concluded that
these white particles were, in fact, artifacts caused by dirt getting
into the X-ray cassette or produced during the developing process--a
rather common occurrence (1 HSCA 304-305; ARRB MD 59, Clark Panel
Report, pp.13, 15)." -- V. Bugliosi; Pages 244-245 of Endnotes (on CD-
ROM)
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol1/html/HSCA_Vol1_0154b.htm
======================
SMOKING GUN #2:
"The head shot trajectory is inconsistent with the position of
[President Kennedy's] head at the time of the shot."
"RH" BOOK CITATIONS:
"A straight line was...drawn between the entrance and exit
wounds [on JFK's head] and extended rearward from Kennedy's position
in the limousine at Z312. [Thomas] Canning found that line tracked
back to a point approximately eleven feet west of the southeast corner
of the Texas School Book Depository Building and fifteen feet above
the sixth-floor windowsill. [Source Note #224 = 6 HSCA 41.] -- V.
Bugliosi; Page 500
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol6/html/HSCA_Vol6_0024a.htm
~~~~~~
"Rydberg's drawing of Kennedy's head tilted sharply downward (CE
388, 16 H 984) is not compatible with the orientation of Kennedy's
head at Zapruder frames 312 and 313 (the moment of the shot to the
head). .... The HSCA's drawing of the president's head orientation at
frames 312 and 313 (7 HSCA 126) is closer to the actual orientation."
-- V. Bugliosi; Page 257 of Endnotes
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/html/HSCA_Vol7_0068b.htm
======================
SMOKING GUN #3:
"The weapon, which was not even a rifle [??? LOL], could not
have fired the bullets that killed the president."
[DVP Interjection --- This "Smoking Gun" is so incredibly stupid and
ridiculous it doesn't even amount to a wet sparkler. But, I'll deal
with it anyway. Bugliosi, in various places throughout his book,
easily refutes this third of Fetzer's silly "Guns", particularly
within Chapters 6 and 7, entitled "Oswald's Ownership And Possession
Of The Rifle Found On The Sixth Floor" and "Identification Of The
Murder Weapon".]
"RH" BOOK CITATION:
"I hate to reduce myself to talking about such silliness, but if
Oswald wasn't the one who fired his Carcano that day...wouldn't the
automatic and natural thing for him to say be, "Yes, that's of course
my rifle, but some SOB stole it from me about a week or so ago. You
find the person who stole it from me and you'll find the person who
killed the president." Instead, Oswald told one lie after another
about his own rifle because he knew, of course, that it was the murder
weapon." -- V. Bugliosi; Page 815
======================
SMOKING GUN #4:
"The [Mannlicher-Carcano] bullets, which were standard copper-
jacketed World War II-vintage military ammunition, could not have
caused the explosive damage. .... This kind of ammunition...does not
explode. .... [An] X-ray of the President's head (the image of his
head taken from the side), however, displays a pattern of metallic
debris as effects of the impact of an exploding bullet, which could
not have been caused by ammunition of the kind Oswald was alleged to
have used, thereby exonerating him."
"RH" BOOK CITATION:
"Dr. Charles Petty of the HSCA forensic pathology panel
responded to Dr. Wecht's frangible-bullet theory in his testimony
before the committee. [Quoting Petty:] "I happen to be the coauthor of
the only paper that has ever been written about the wounding
capabilities of frangible bullets. .... Such bullets and the breakup
products of [these] bullets are easy to detect in X-rays. There are no
such fragments in the X-ray of the late president's head. There was no
frangible bullet fired. I might also add that frangible bullets are
produced in .22 caliber loads and they are not produced [for] larger
weapons." [End Petty quote.]
"In fact, all eight of Dr. Wecht's colleagues on the HSCA
forensic pathology panel rejected his frangible-bullet hypothesis as
well as any hypothesis concerning a bullet striking the president's
head in the area of the exit wound [i.e., in the right-front portion
of JFK's head]. ....
"Additionally, the HSCA's wound ballistics expert, Larry
Sturdivan, concluded that the bullet was not a frangible one. [Source
Note #14 = 1 HSCA 401.]
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol1/html/HSCA_Vol1_0203a.htm
"Dr. James Humes also dismissed the frangible-bullet theory for
the head wound. [Quoting Humes:] "Had this wound...been inflicted by a
dumdum [frangible] bullet, I would anticipate that the [wound] would
not have anything near the regular contour and outline which it
had" [End Baden quote]." [Source Note #15 = Dr. Humes' WC testimony @
2 H 356.] -- V. Bugliosi; Page 863
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh2/html/WC_Vol2_0182b.htm
======================
SMOKING GUN #5:
"The axis of metallic debris [in JFK's head] is inconsistent
with a shot from behind, but consistent with a shot that entered the
area of the right temple."
"RH" BOOK CITATION:
"When I also reminded Dr. Wecht that the autopsy X-rays of the
president's head did not show any metallic fragments from a bullet
proceeding from the right side of Kennedy's head to the left, only
from the back to the front, he conceded this was another problem with
the theory postulating a shot from the president's right side." -- V.
Bugliosi; Page 863
======================
SMOKING GUN #6:
"The official autopsy report was contradicted by more than 40
eyewitness reports and was inconsistent with HSCA diagrams and
photographs."
"RH" BOOK CITATIONS:
"Dr. Michael Baden has what I believe to be the answer, one
whose logic is solid. [Quoting Baden:] "The head exit wound was not in
the parietal-occipital area, as the Parkland doctors said. They were
wrong," [Baden] told me. "Since the thick growth of hair on Kennedy's
head hadn't been shaved at Parkland, there's no way for the doctors to
have seen the margins of the wound in the skin of the scalp. All they
saw was blood and brain tissue adhering to the hair. And that may have
been mostly in the occipital area because he was lying on his back and
gravity would push his hair, blood, and brain tissue backward, so many
of them probably assumed the exit wound was in the back of the
head" [End Baden quote]." -- V. Bugliosi; Pages 407-408
~~~~~~
"The entire photographic panel of the HSCA concluded that "the
autopsy photographs and X-rays were taken of President Kennedy at the
time of his autopsy and that they had not been altered in any manner."
This fact alone demolishes the conspiracy theorists' allegations that
photographic fakery was used to conceal the plot to kill the
president.
"It also destroys another prime conspiracy belief--that the
eyewitness descriptions of the president's wounds that were offered by
the Parkland Hospital doctors (and later by some eyewitnesses to the
autopsy) are proof that the autopsy photographs had been altered.
"Obviously, if the autopsy photographs are genuine and unaltered
(which all the experts agree), then eyewitness descriptions of the
president's wounds that contradict those photographs are not proof of
alteration, as some critics claim, but nothing more than examples of
understandable, mistaken recollections, or if not that, then
deliberate and outright falsehoods." -- V. Bugliosi; Page 224 of
Endnotes
~~~~~~
"On the Ida Dox drawing of the autopsy photograph of the back of
the president's head showing the entrance wound (see 7 HSCA 104), the
numbers on the ruler are not visible, even with a magnifying glass,
but the entrance wound does not seem to be four inches above where I
would imagine the external occipital protuberance was on the
president's head, and does not appear as high up as the round black
circle signifying the entrance wound on the HSCA sketch (see 1 HSCA
406).
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/html/HSCA_Vol7_0057b.htm
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol1/html/HSCA_Vol1_0205b.htm
"It may be that the location of the entrance wound was somewhere
between where the autopsy surgeons and the later pathologists said it
was. But if, indeed, the autopsy surgeons were correct on the lower
location of the head entrance wound, how this would affect the
trajectory analyses, and be compatible with the minute missile
fragments traversing on a line from back to front higher up on the
head, is beyond my knowledge and expertise.
"However, we mustn't forget that since the president's head was
inclined slightly forward at the time of the head shot, a bullet
traveling on a downward trajectory would be proceeding on a higher
path, anatomically, through the president's head. (See discussion on
this issue in main text with respect to the president's back wound.)"
-- V. Bugliosi; Page 231 of Endnotes
======================
SMOKING GUN #7:
"These eyewitness reports were rejected on the basis of the X-
rays, which have been fabricated in at least two different ways."
"RH" BOOK CITATION (Replay from above):
"The entire photographic panel of the HSCA concluded that "the
autopsy photographs and X-rays were taken of President Kennedy at the
time of his autopsy and that they had not been altered in any
manner" (7 HSCA 41)." -- V. Bugliosi; Page 224 of Endnotes
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/html/HSCA_Vol7_0026a.htm
======================
SMOKING GUN #8:
"Diagrams and photos of a brain in the National Archives are of
the brain of someone other than JFK."
[DVP Interjection --- This "Gun" is yet another incredibly-stupid one,
with absolutely zero granules of truth in it whatsoever, and is a
theory that should make anyone purporting it turn various shades of
crimson due to the embarrassment at having even written it down.
Mr. Bugliosi handily and humorously (and with ample citations to
testimony from Humes, Boswell, Finck, and other sources), deals with
the "Two Brains" idiocy on pages 434 to 447 of the main text in "RH";
and pages 282 to 287 of the CD's endnotes. A few excerpts follow.....]
"RH" BOOK CITATION:
"Easily one of the most obscenely irresponsible documents ever
promulgated in the assassination debate, and yet one whose contention
is being hailed and widely accepted today in the conspiracy community,
is the one written by Douglas P. Horne, the ARRB's chief analyst for
military records. ....
"Unbelievably, Horne said that the depositions taken by the ARRB
caused him to conclude that there were two (not one) supplemental
brain examinations following the autopsy, and the second one--are you
ready?--wasn't on the president's brain, but on another brain from
some anonymous third party. ....
"Now why would Humes and Boswell, who testified that there was
only one supplementary brain exam, have conducted a second one of a
different brain?
"Of course, Horne has an answer, in effect accusing Humes and
Boswell of being a part of a vast conspiracy to cover up the true
facts of the assassination. ....
"Horne does his best to protect his credibility on his
memorandum by burying in a footnote near the very end of it some
information that severely damages the credibility of his star witness,
autopsy photographer John Stringer. (But it's too late. There is
nothing that can possibly restore the credibility of Doug Horne for
the main conclusions he sets forth in the body of his memorandum.)" --
V. Bugliosi; Pages 434-435, 439, and 441
======================
SMOKING GUN #9:
"Those who took and processed the autopsy photographs claim that
parts of the photographic record have been altered, created, or
destroyed."
"RH" BOOK CITATIONS (with many more conspiracy-smashing cites
concerning this sub-topic to be found on pages 260-280 of the CD's
endnotes):
"What does Doug Horne conclude from all of this? For Horne, the
implications are staggering. If the navy was correct in saying that
the camera it provided "was indeed the camera used at the
autopsy" (the navy only said the camera was "believed to be" the
autopsy camera), then either, he says, (1) all the autopsy photographs
are authentic and were indeed taken by John Stringer, and a benign but
unknown explanation exists for why the HSCA photographic experts
believed the autopsy photographs could not have been taken by the navy
camera they examined (e.g., the lens of the camera used to take the
photographs was different from the 135-millimeter Zeiss Jena Tessar
lens supplied by the navy)...
"...or (2) many or all of the autopsy photographs were taken by
a photographer other than John Stringer, and the photographs Stringer
said he took were removed from the official autopsy photographic
collection (Doug Horne's memorandum for file, pp.5-6).
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/staff_memos/DH_BrainExams/html/d130_0001a.htm
"This second possibility is apparently meant to conjure up
images of a mysterious, unknown photographer shooting a second set of
autopsy photographs after the autopsy was completed (a set of images
that presumably concealed the true nature of the president's wounds),
which were then substituted for the official set of photographs taken
by Stringer.
"Horne's memo suggests that the latter is true (i.e., the
autopsy photographs are substitutes, taken by someone other than
Stringer). But this suggestion makes absolutely no sense at all.
"We know through stereoscopic analysis that the photographs in
evidence (even if they are substitute photographs of the autopsy taken
by someone other than Stringer) are authentic and unaltered. We also
know from the HSCA anthropologists and the odontologist that the skull
is that of John F. Kennedy.
"What this all means is that irrespective of the camera and
lens, whatever the photographs show must be the true condition of the
president's body at the time of the autopsy. Since the photographs
clearly show that the president was struck from behind by two bullets,
what possible purpose could be served by substituting or removing
photographs? Neither Horne nor [Gary] Aguilar say.
"The authentication of the existing photographic collection
eliminates the possibility that any photographs that might have
disappeared from the collection, either by removal or by substitution,
could show anything other than what we now see.
"After all, there was only one body and the wounds in that body
either show that shots were fired from the front or they don't, no
matter how many photographs are substituted or removed. Surprisingly,
this obvious fact seems to have escaped the conspiracy theorists." --
V. Bugliosi; Pages 226-227 of Endnotes
~~~~~~
"There are several other tales of photographs allegedly taken
during the autopsy that critics claim have since vanished, but I
should emphasize that even if these alleged missing photographs exist
somewhere (or did exist at one time), they can't possibly show
something that contradicts what we already know to be true about the
president's wounds.
"How do we know this? Again, simply by virtue of the fact that
the autopsy photographs and X-rays that are available are authentic
and unaltered and depict the condition of President Kennedy's body on
the night of the autopsy. So, any additional photographs or X-rays
that might exist (or might have existed) can't depict something else.
"Therefore, when someone comes forward with a story about
photographs that supposedly showed something other than what we know
to be true (i.e., the president was struck from behind by two shots),
we know, of necessity, that the person telling the story is either
honestly mistaken or deliberately lying. One hundred or one thousand
sworn testimonies about missing photographs would not change this
unshakable truth.
"One of these other tales that critics are convinced is evidence
of a completely different (and unusual) set of autopsy photographs was
told by Saundra Spencer, an E-6 photographer's mate first class who
was in charge of the White House photo lab, a small room located
inside the three-story facilities of the Naval Photographic Center
(NPC) at Anacostia, Maryland, across the river from Washington,
D.C. ....
"Spencer said that none of the photos showed the scalp peeled
back on the skull. Also, unlike the photographs in the National
Archives inventory today, Spencer said that the president's eyes and
mouth were closed and that he appeared to be in "a rest position."
Spencer said that other than the wound to the back of the president's
head, she saw no other wound to the head. "The prints that we printed
did not have the massive head damages" shown in the official autopsy
photos. ....
"Spencer's testimony, of course, has raised the question in the
conspiracy community of whether there was a second set of photographs
taken of Kennedy's body at the time of the autopsy (a set conspiracy
theorists presume showed the "true" nature of the president's wounds)
and that this second set was squirreled away as part of the cover-
up. ....
"But was Spencer's testimony accurate? For starters, keep in
mind that Spencer's recollection of events was thirty-four years after
the fact. But more importantly, her recollection is at odds with
almost the entire official record. While the official autopsy
photographs were processed, as Spencer remembered, at the NPC, the
rest of the documentary record details a completely different and
rather divergent series of events which, I think you'll agree, is
quite unlike Spencer's account. ....
"In this case, like many others where eyewitnesses are
confronted with hard documentary or physical evidence, Saundra
Spencer's memory is no match for the facts. We know she's wrong when
she says the photographs she saw show a "blownout chunk" in the center
of the back of the president's head.
"Why? Because apart from the observations of all three autopsy
surgeons, the official autopsy photographs and X-rays conclusively,
and without question, depict the body of President Kennedy at the time
of the autopsy and show none of what Spencer described. ....
"[Robert L.] Knudsen's version of events has been tarnished as
well. .... In May 1996, Gloria Knudsen, widow of Knudsen, and two of
his four surviving children were interviewed by the ARRB. .... They
said that Robert Knudsen told them sometime after the assassination
that he alone had photographed the autopsy.
"Knudsen also told them that he witnessed and photographed
probes inserted in the president's body, and that the Secret Service
took his film as soon as he had exposed it. (ARRB MD 230, Meeting
Report, Interview of Gloria Knudsen and children Terri and Bob, May
13, 1996, p.1)" -- V. Bugliosi; Pages 263-266, 268, and 272 of
Endnotes
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/md230/html/md230_0004a.htm
======================
SMOKING GUN #10:
"The Zapruder film, among others, has been extensively edited
using highly sophisticated techniques."
[DVP Interjection --- Bugliosi spends a good deal of time and devotes
quite a few pages to the "Z-Film Alteration" nonsense. Here are the
"RH" page numbers associated with the "Zapruder Film Fakery" topic:
Pages 452 and 504 through 512 of the main text in the hardcover book;
plus Pages 347 and 348 through 359 of the CD's endnotes. Excerpts
below.....]
"RH" BOOK CITATIONS:
"The conspiracy alterationists are so incredibly zany that they
have now gone beyond their allegation that key frames of the Zapruder
film were altered by the conspirators to support their false story of
what took place, to claiming that the conspirators altered all manner
of people and objects in Dealey Plaza that couldn't possibly have any
bearing on the president's murder. ....
"The alterationists have even claimed that at some point after
the assassination, all the curbside lampposts in Dealey Plaza were
moved to different locations and/or replaced with poles of different
height. .... I know that conspiracy theorists have a sweet tooth for
silliness, but is there absolutely nothing that is too silly for their
palate?" -- V. Bugliosi; Pages 506-507
~~~~~~
"Assuming, just for the sake of argument, that some supersecret
technology did exist in 1963, when would the conspirators have
accomplished all these tasks? Not even the conspiracy theorists who
hold to the alteration theory agree on a time frame. ....
"As set forth in the main text, the master or original Zapruder
film never left the physical possession of [Abraham] Zapruder until
some time after 9:00 a.m. in his office, on Saturday, November 23,
1963, the day after the assassination. .... So we see that the
original Zapruder film, which the forgers would have had to have as a
sine qua non to their alteration plans, was never out of the physical
possession of Abraham Zapruder and Life magazine during the period
when the alteration supposedly took place. ....
"One exception among the steadily increasing number of
alterationists is David Lifton, who acknowledges that "it is
implausible, if not impossible, to believe that, if the Zapruder film
was altered, that other films were not also altered...the complete
photo record had to be altered, not just one record [the Zapruder
film]" (David W. Lifton, "Pig on a Leash, a Question of Authenticity,"
in Fetzer, Great Zapruder Film Hoax, p.416).
"But then Lifton, who had written in numbing detail about the
complexities of altering the Zapruder film and where it was altered,
doesn't go on to write one paragraph, one sentence, or even one word
about the forgers actually coming into possession of all or any one of
these other films, and where and when they altered them. I can't
imagine why he didn't." -- V. Bugliosi; Pages 352, 356-357, and 359 of
Endnotes
======================
SMOKING GUN #11:
"The official conclusion contradicts widely-broadcasted reports
on radio and television about two shots fired from the front."
[DVP Interjection --- Here are the "RH" page numbers that focus
attention on the allegation of "SHOTS FIRED FROM GRASSY KNOLL":
Main Text: Pages xxii, xxxv, 377, 380, 390, 394, 398, 406, 412,
439-440, 445, 483, 506, 1003, 1004, 1005, and 1057-1058.
Endnotes: Pages 18, 153, 236, 250, 313-314, 331, and 345.
Many additional pages, mainly between pages 847 and 887 of the main
text, cover the sub-topic of "WITNESSES AND THE GRASSY KNOLL".]
"RH" BOOK CITATION:
"If, indeed, a fourth shot was fired that day, why did only 6
witnesses hear four shots according to two studies and only 8
witnesses according to another, whereas the vast majority of witnesses
heard only three shots? .... If you had to wager your home on who is
right, whose opinion would you endorse? Can there really be any
question? ....
"[And] if a second gunman was firing at the presidential
limousine that day from the grassy knoll, why is it that only 4 of
[Josiah] Thompson's 172 witnesses, 4 of the HSCA's 178, and 5 of
London Weekend Television's 189 thought they heard bullets being fired
from two directions?" -- V. Bugliosi; Page 849
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/7b06a89bd4042363
======================
SMOKING GUN #12:
"The (fabricated) X-rays, (altered) autopsy photographs, and
even the (edited) Zapruder film were improperly used to discredit
eyewitness reports."
[DVP Interjection --- This twelfth idiotic "Gun" has already been
covered thoroughly via the cites for "Guns" numbered 7, 9, and 10.
Since it's been proven beyond all possible doubt that NONE of the
things Kook Fetzer claims have been "fabricated", "altered", and/or
"edited" have actually been fabricated, altered, or edited, this 12th
"Gun" is a moot (and worthless) item....just like all 15 of the others
too, for that matter.]
"RH" BOOK CITATION:
"The reality is that even today, it is highly doubtful that any
of the most modern technological advances available in film and
photography could do what the buffs said was done [to the Zapruder
Film] over four decades ago. It unquestionably could not have been
done back then. ....
"But all of this is irrelevant, since the NPIC [National
Photographic Interpretation Center in Washington, D.C.] was not
equipped...to duplicate any kind of color motion picture film, which
the Zapruder 8-millimeter home movie was. Over the course of well over
40 years, no evidence has ever emerged to dispute this fact." -- V.
Bugliosi; Pages 352 and 355 of Endnotes
======================
SMOKING GUN #13:
"The motorcade route was changed at the last minute and yet the
assassination occurred on the part that had been changed."
[DVP Interjection --- Why Mr. Fetzer still believes in this ridiculous
conspiracy myth is anyone's guess. But, it is indeed difficult at
times to figure out the mindset of an "Anybody But Oswald" conspiracy
theorist.] .....
WAS THE MOTORCADE ROUTE CHANGED AT THE LAST MINUTE?:
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/fbacd51dfe2f074c
"RH" BOOK CITATION:
"On Tuesday, November 19, 1963, three days before the shooting,
the Dallas Morning News described the route as passing through
downtown Dallas on "Harwood to Main, Main to Houston, Houston to Elm,
Elm under the Triple Underpass to Stemmons Expressway and on to the
Trade Mart" (CE 1363, 22 H 615). The afternoon Dallas Times Herald
provided a nearly identical description the same day (CE 1362, 22 H
614). ....
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh22/html/WH_Vol22_0322b.htm
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh22/html/WH_Vol22_0323a.htm
"However, on the morning of the assassination, the Dallas
Morning News published a map of the route which seemed to show the
motorcade entering the freeway from Main Street, without making the
jog north on Houston to Elm, then west on Elm, past the Depository, to
Stemmons Freeway (Dallas Morning News, November 22, 1963, p.1A). (It
was this map that led some to believe that the motorcade route had
been changed when, in fact, the map was simply inaccurate in its
detail.)" -- V. Bugliosi; Page 460 of Endnotes
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/dmnmap2.gif
======================
SMOKING GUN #14:
"Secret Service policies for the protection of the President
were massively violated during the motorcade in Dallas."
"RH" BOOK CITATION:
"The Fromme, Moore, and Hinkley [sic] cases [referring to the
two 1975 assassination attempts against Gerald Ford and John
Hinckley's 1981 attempt against Ronald Reagan] are far more egregious
examples of a lack of adequate Secret Service protection than the
Kennedy assassination, yet the conspiracy theorists remain silent
about them.
"Although there is absolutely no evidence that the Secret
Service was involved in the assassination, its performance left
something to be desired, the HSCA concluding that "the Secret Service
was deficient in the performance of its duties."
"Warren Commission assistant counsel Arlen Specter put it
better: "The Secret Service had the responsibility to protect the
president and they did not protect the president." -- V. Bugliosi;
Page 1245
======================
SMOKING GUN #15:
"Neither the Mafia, pro- or anti-Castro Cubans, or the KGB could
have fabricated autopsy X-rays; substituted the brain of someone else
for the brain of JFK; created, altered, or destroyed autopsy
photographs; or subjected motion pictures, such as the Zapruder film,
to extensive editing using highly sophisticated techniques. Nor could
any of these things have been done by the alleged assassin, Lee
Oswald, who was either incarcerated or already dead. The only theories
that are remotely plausible, given these evidentiary findings, are
those that implicate various elements of the government. It was a
crime of such monstrous proportions and immense consequences that the
clearly most reasonable explanation is that elements of the government
covered up the crime because those same elements of the government
committed the crime."
[DVP Interjection --- Once again, Fetzer's redundancy factor rears its
ugly (and unsupportable) head. These "fabricated", "substituted", and
"altered" issues have already been tackled earlier on Fetzer's
"Smokers" list.
But I guess if the CTer repeats the same unprovable allegation two or
three different times, it's supposed to acquire additional validity.
But these things, of course, are all still "misfires" from Mr.
Fetzer's supposedly-smoldering conspiracy gun. A few bonus conspiracy-
debunking VB quotes follow.....]
"RH" BOOK CITATIONS:
"The single most important discovery, and one that establishes
with absolute and irrefutable certainty that the autopsy photographs
have not been altered, is the fact that many of the photographs, when
combined in pairs, produce stereoscopic images. ....
"The only way a forger can successfully alter a detailed
stereoscopic image...without detection is to alter both images
identically, which is, [photographic expert and HSCA panel member
Frank] Scott said, "essentially impossible." ....
"The entire photographic panel of the HSCA concluded that "the
autopsy photographs and X-rays were taken of President Kennedy at the
time of his autopsy and that they had not been altered in any manner."
This fact alone demolishes the conspiracy theorists' allegations that
photographic fakery was used to conceal the plot to kill the
president." -- V. Bugliosi; Pages 223-224 of Endnotes
~~~~~~
"For years conspiracy theorists have charged that the "missing"
autopsy photographs are, in their minds, one more indication of a
conspiracy in the assassination. .... But...with literally hundreds of
people from various official investigative agencies...examining and
working with the photos throughout the years, I not only don't find it
suspicious, I find it completely predictable that one or more
photographs ended up missing, misplaced, or expropriated by people
through whose hands they passed." -- V. Bugliosi; Page 275 of Endnotes
~~~~~~
"The president's brain did not lose much brain matter. .... As
[Dr. Michael] Baden said in his [HSCA] testimony, the [Ida Dox]
diagram "represents extensive damage and injury to the right top of
the brain." Note the words "damage and injury" as opposed to saying a
large part of the brain was "missing." And, indeed, the autopsy report
says nothing about any significant part of the brain being
missing. ....
"[Baden said:] "Basically, the president's whole brain was still
there. The right hemisphere was severely damaged and torn, but less
than an ounce or two of his brain was actually missing from the
cranial cavity" [End Baden quote]." -- V. Bugliosi; Pages 283-284 of
Endnotes
~~~~~~
"The notion that LBJ would actually decide to have Kennedy
murdered (or be a party to such a plot by others) is not one that, to
my knowledge, any rational and sensible student of the assassination
has ever entertained for a moment. But conspiracy theorists are not
rational and sensible when it comes to the Kennedy assassination." --
V. Bugliosi; Pages 1274-1275
~~~~~~
"No one, ever, has produced one piece of evidence connecting
[FBI Director] J. Edgar Hoover with Kennedy's death, and your more
responsible conspiracy theorists don't devote any space to the charge.
Indeed, the very thought that J. Edgar Hoover decided to murder
President John F. Kennedy is too far-fetched for any but the most
suspicious and irrational minds." -- V. Bugliosi; Page 1238
~~~~~~
"Since it has been established beyond all doubt that Oswald
killed Kennedy, the conspiracy theorists who propound the idea of the
CIA being behind Oswald's act are necessarily starting out in a very
deep hole before they even take their first breath of air. This is so
because Oswald was a Marxist, and a Marxist being in league with U.S.
intelligence just doesn't ring true." -- V. Bugliosi; Page 1195
~~~~~~
"Even if it could be shown that the Secret Service was
responsible for the selection of the luncheon site and the motorcade
route [which was not the case for JFK's trip to Dallas in 1963], the
notion that the Secret Service was behind the assassination is, like
virtually all the conspiracy theories, ridiculous on its face.
"What conceivable motive would the Secret Service have had? In
fact, even if Secret Service agents got away with it, it would only
hurt their individual careers in the Secret Service that the president
had been killed on their watch." -- V. Bugliosi; Pages 1241-1242
======================
SMOKING GUN #16:
"Many individuals knew details about the assassination before
and after the fact, all of whom viewed Lee Oswald as no more [than] a
patsy."
"RH" BOOK CITATION:
"The more Joseph Milteer talked, the more it became obvious that
before the assassination, he knew as much about what was going to
happen as you or I (though William Somersett tended to believe that
Milteer had foreknowledge, not believing Milteer would be able to
guess that Kennedy would be shot with a rifle from a window).
"Milteer now, after the assassination, wanted to lead Somersett
to believe that he was part of the group that was behind it. He said
he was connected to a group Somersett had never heard of, the
International Underground, an organization, he said, of American
patriots, and this group had infiltrated Oswald's pro-Castro group in
New Orleans. (By now Milteer had undoubtedly already heard over the
news that Oswald was a member of the Fair Play for Cuba Committee in
New Orleans. What no one knew at this point, including Milteer, was
that that committee, or group, only had one member, Oswald, so
Milteer's organization could not have infiltrated a group that did not
exist.) ....
"When Milteer and Somersett met the following day, Sunday, with
the four members of the Ku Klux Klan...he also told them about his
group being behind the assassination. ....
"Somersett was of the opinion that the four Klansmen had never
met Milteer before and met with him because he had asked for the
meeting. So here we have Milteer confessing to being part of the
conspiracy to murder Kennedy not only to his friend Somersett, but
also to four virtual strangers.
"Somersett didn't say whether or not he heard Milteer confess to
the waiter at the restaurant." [~LOL Break~] -- V. Bugliosi; 724-725
of Endnotes
[DVP Interjection --- Also see "RH" Pages 1265-1272 for lots more
debunking of the "Joseph Milteer Knew About The Assassination In
Advance" theory.
Bugliosi's book also contains ample cites regarding Santo Trafficante,
Carlos Marcello, Johnny Roselli, and Sam Giancana (among others of
this "Gangster/Mob" ilk) and the various conspiracy theories that
those individuals have been implicated in.
==============================================
FINAL "SMOKING GUNS" ANALYSIS:
When all is said and done (and evaluated), James H. Fetzer's sixteen
"Smoking Guns" have very little (if any) firepower behind them at all
when compared with the hard evidence that is presented in massive
doses in "RECLAIMING HISTORY" by author and former Los Angeles
prosecutor Vincent T. Bugliosi.
In fact, "substance"-wise, I don't think it's unreasonable to say that
Mr. Fetzer's 16 "Smoking Guns" have gone....up in smoke.
==============================================