Tim Brennan Asked For It... Why Does He Run???
Ben Holmes
Then let's take a simple example, and see if you can defend it:
"Although Carrico was unable to determine whether the throat wound was an
entrance or exit wound, he did observe that the wound was "ragged," virtually a
sure sign of an exit wound as opposed to an entrance wound, which is usually
round and devoid of ragged edges." (Bugliosi, p.413)
Now, was the wound in the throat actually "ragged"? Did Carrico actually *say*
this anywhere?
What is the ACTUAL evidence show that neck wound description to be?
Now, you can either find Carrico describing the throat wound as "ragged",
or you can admit that Bugliosi lied, or you can run away...
Which will it be?
T
("
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ben Holmes
Learn to Make Money with a Website - http://www.burningknife.com
timstter
Hi Ben,
Say, didn't Bugliosi cite a footnote, number 202, to support his claim
re Carrico?
Why haven't you detailed what that note says if you want to refute
what Bugliosi said re Carrico?
The ball is in your court, I would have thought.
Regards,
Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup(s) Commentator*
Walt
That may be right, because there certainly aren't any balls on your
side of the court.... However, It is a fact that Carrico wrote in his
memo (see page 519 WR) .. Quote.... "Two external wounds were
noticed. One small PENETRATING of the anterior neck in the lower
1/3 ......... a ragged wound of the trachea was seen immediately below
the larynx "......unquote
Dr Carrico and Dr. Perry testified that the wound in JFK's throat was
a tiny clearly defined punctuate wound like a bullet entry wound. In
his written memo (written a couple of hours after JFK's death) Dr
Carrico described the wound as a PENETRATING wound...... Do you know
what the word "PENETRATE" means?...... Or do we need to provide you
with a dictionary definition?
I'm betting that Ben has judged you correctly, and you'll run away
like a yellow cur dog........
>
> Regards,
>
> Tim Brennan
> Sydney, Australia
> *Newsgroup(s) Commentator*- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Gil Jesus
> Hi Ben,
>
> Say, didn't Bugliosi cite a footnote, number 202, to support his claim
> re Carrico?
>
> Why haven't you detailed what that note says if you want to refute
> what Bugliosi said re Carrico?
>
> The ball is in your court, I would have thought.
WRONG AGAIN.
YOU'VE been asked to support Bugliosi's claim.
If you know the footnote, then your SHOULD know what it says.
Why can't you use it to support your side ?
THE BALL'S IN YOUR COURT, MITE.
Ben Holmes
Walt says...
>
>On May 24, 7:26=A0am, timstter <timst...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On May 24, 9:55=A0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>>
>> > Then let's take a simple example, and see if you can defend it:
>>
>an
>> > entrance or exit wound, he did observe that the wound was "ragged," vir=
>tually a
>> > sure sign of an exit wound as opposed to an entrance wound, which is us=
>ually
>> > round and devoid of ragged edges." (Bugliosi, p.413)
>>
>y *say*
>> > this anywhere?
>>
>> > What is the ACTUAL evidence show that neck wound description to be?
>>
>",
>> > or you can admit that Bugliosi lied, or you can run away...
>>
>> > Which will it be?
>>
>> > T
>> > ("
>>
>>
>> Say, didn't Bugliosi cite a footnote, number 202, to support his claim
>> re Carrico?
And just like Bugliosi did, you're lying.
You're implying that his citation actually said what he's claiming...
You CANNOT cite Carrico describing the throat wound as "ragged"
Is it any wonder that people know you to be a liar?
>> Why haven't you detailed what that note says if you want to refute
>> what Bugliosi said re Carrico?
Feel free to post it.
You can EQUALLY cite the Constitution... it says *just* as much about the
description of the throat wound.
What you CANNOT do, is provide any statement of Carrico's that supports what
Bugliosi lied about.
(And clearly, what YOU'RE lying about...)
>> The ball is in your court, I would have thought.
>
>That may be right, because there certainly aren't any balls on your
>side of the court.... However, It is a fact that Carrico wrote in his
>memo (see page 519 WR) .. Quote.... "Two external wounds were
>noticed. One small PENETRATING of the anterior neck in the lower
>1/3 ......... a ragged wound of the trachea was seen immediately below
>the larynx "......unquote
>
>
>Dr Carrico and Dr. Perry testified that the wound in JFK's throat was
>a tiny clearly defined punctuate wound like a bullet entry wound. In
>his written memo (written a couple of hours after JFK's death) Dr
>Carrico described the wound as a PENETRATING wound...... Do you know
>what the word "PENETRATE" means?...... Or do we need to provide you
>with a dictionary definition?
>
>I'm betting that Ben has judged you correctly, and you'll run away
>like a yellow cur dog........
It's an easy prediction... the trolls don't have the honesty to admit that
Bugliosi lied.
>> Regards,
>>
>> Tim Brennan
>> Sydney, Australia
>> *Newsgroup(s) Commentator*- Hide quoted text -
Walt
> In article <265faa6f-d109-48d0-aca8-a3e8977b4...@l26g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
Oh C'mon Ben, ....... A troll wouldn't be a troll if he was honest now
would he. Dishonest is one of the identifing characteristics of a
troll. Trolls lie.... tis that simple.
>
> >> Regards,
>
> >> Tim Brennan
> >> Sydney, Australia
> >> *Newsgroup(s) Commentator*- Hide quoted text -
>
> --
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Ben Holmes
> Learn to Make Money with a Website -http://www.burningknife.com- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Ben Holmes
Walt says...
>
>On May 24, 10:13=A0am, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>> In article <265faa6f-d109-48d0-aca8-a3e8977b4...@l26g2000yqm.googlegroups=
>.com>,
>> Walt says...
>>
>> >On May 24, 7:26=3DA0am, timstter <timst...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> On May 24, 9:55=3DA0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> > Then let's take a simple example, and see if you can defend it:
>>
>as =3D
>> >an
>> >> > entrance or exit wound, he did observe that the wound was "ragged," =
>vir=3D
>> >tually a
>> >> > sure sign of an exit wound as opposed to an entrance wound, which is=
> us=3D
>> >ually
>> >> > round and devoid of ragged edges." (Bugliosi, p.413)
>>
>all=3D
>> >y *say*
>> >> > this anywhere?
>>
>> >> > What is the ACTUAL evidence show that neck wound description to be?
>>
>ged=3D
>> >his written memo (written a couple of hours after JFK's death) Dr
>> >Carrico described the wound as a PENETRATING wound...... Do you know
>> >what the word "PENETRATE" means?...... Or do we need to provide you
>> >with a dictionary definition?
>>
>> >I'm betting that Ben has judged you correctly, and you'll run away
>> >like a yellow cur dog........
>>
>t
>> Bugliosi lied.
>
>Oh C'mon Ben, ....... A troll wouldn't be a troll if he was honest now
>would he. Dishonest is one of the identifing characteristics of a
>troll. Trolls lie.... tis that simple.
I took the words right out of my mouth (As Rob Caprio would assert...)
You're right, "Tim Brennan" can't help but to be dishonest...
As the rest of the trolls & LNT'ers are...
Bugliosi has been nailed in an *OBVIOUS* lie here, but "Tim" will continue to
refuse to admit it. He can't do otherwise...
And when McAdam's book comes out, it will have provable lies in it as well...
Bud
> Then let's take a simple example, and see if you can defend it:
>
> "Although Carrico was unable to determine whether the throat wound was an
> entrance or exit wound, he did observe that the wound was "ragged," virtually a
> sure sign of an exit wound as opposed to an entrance wound, which is usually
> round and devoid of ragged edges." (Bugliosi, p.413)
>
> Now, was the wound in the throat actually "ragged"? Did Carrico actually *say*
> this anywhere?
Yah. He said "...immediately below the larynx was seen the ragged
tracheal injury."
Bud
Don`t let Ben see this, he claims Carrico didn`t use the word
"ragged".
> Dr Carrico and Dr. Perry testified that the wound in JFK's throat was
> a tiny clearly defined punctuate wound like a bullet entry wound.
Carrico testified that it could have been either an entrance or an
exit.
> In
> his written memo (written a couple of hours after JFK's death) Dr
> Carrico described the wound as a PENETRATING wound...... Do you know
> what the word "PENETRATE" means?...... Or do we need to provide you
> with a dictionary definition?
Now all you need to do is establish what he meant by that. He may
have been saying it was a hole that went into the body as opposed to a
surface wound.
> I'm betting that Ben has judged you correctly, and you'll run away
> like a yellow cur dog........
I bet you run away from the FACT that Carrico said it could have
been an entrance or exit.
Bud
> On May 24, 8:26 am, timstter <timst...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Hi Ben,
>
> > Say, didn't Bugliosi cite a footnote, number 202, to support his claim
> > re Carrico?
>
> > Why haven't you detailed what that note says if you want to refute
> > what Bugliosi said re Carrico?
>
> > The ball is in your court, I would have thought.
>
> WRONG AGAIN.
>
> YOU'VE been asked to support Bugliosi's claim.
So if Ben takes something out of context or leaves out pertinent
information it`s up to Tim to correct the record? How much does Tim
get paid for this?
Bud
I looked into it and it is as I surmised, "penetrating wound" is non-
directional in medical jargon.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penetrating_wound
mucher1
> Then let's take a simple example, and see if you can defend it:
>
> "Although Carrico was unable to determine whether the throat wound was an
> entrance or exit wound, he did observe that the wound was "ragged," virtually a
> sure sign of an exit wound as opposed to an entrance wound, which is usually
> round and devoid of ragged edges." (Bugliosi, p.413)
>
> Now, was the wound in the throat actually "ragged"? Did Carrico actually *say*
> this anywhere?
>
> What is the ACTUAL evidence show that neck wound description to be?
>
> Now, you can either find Carrico describing the throat wound as "ragged",
> or you can admit that Bugliosi lied, or you can run away...
>
> Which will it be?
>
> T
> ("
Ben seems to have read this essay by Milicent Cranor:
http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/index.php/Essay_-_A_Crime_Scene_Between_Two_Hard_Covers
This portion in particular:
<Cranor ON>
Specimen 2:
Although Carrico was unable to determine whether the throat wound was
an entrance or exit wound, he did observe that the wound was
“ragged,” (202) virtually a sure sign of an exit wound as opposed to
an entrance wound, which is usually round and devoid of ragged
edges.” (Bugliosi, p.413)
Bugliosi’s reference for the above is page 517 of the Warren Report
where Charles J. Carrico described a “ragged wound of the
trachea,” (emphasis mine). Yet, in the above context, Bugliosi seems
to want the reader to assume “the wound” refers to the one in the skin
-- the only kind that counts in the context of entrance versus exit.
(Almost any wound in a trachea would be ragged because of the
stiffness of cartilage.) Elsewhere, in a different context, Bugliosi
mentions Carrico’s description of the raggedness of the trachea
(Bugliosi, p.60), and so it is unlikely that he has confused this with
the wound in the skin.
Significant omission: Carrico testified in at least two places the
wound was “rather round and there were no jagged edges or stellate
lacerations.” (6 WCH 3); “fairly round, had no jagged edges.” (3 WCH
362)
<Cranor OFF>
Ben is infamous for his "liar, liar" games, but not being an original
thinker, he seems to have just copy/pasted the Bugiosi quote (sans
note #s) from Cranor's essay, without acknowledging her research.
Cranor makes good points, though, and Bugliosi really does seem to
have misinterpreted Carrico and overstated his case.
Ironically: Does Ben honestly believe that conspiracy authors never
overstate the case for the throat wound being an entrance wound? At
least Cranor has the intellectual fortitude to admit that exit wounds
can be small and that the Parkland descriptions are not without
ambiguities.
Walt
Ha,ha,ha,hahee,hee,hee..... ROTFLMAO!!..... Thanks for displaying
you're dishonest stupidity once aqgain....
Here's the first sentences of the definition that you linked to.....
Quote....."Penetrating trauma is an injury that occurs when an object
pierces the skin and enters a tissue of the body, creating an open
wound. In blunt, or non-penetrating trauma, there may be an impact,
but the skin is not necessarily broken." ...unquote
Now I guess you'll have to look up the words "PIERCES" and
"ENTERS".......Hee,hee,hee...Watta Dumbass!
>
>
>
> > > I'm betting that Ben has judged you correctly, and you'll run away
> > > like a yellow cur dog........
>
> > I bet you run away from the FACT that Carrico said it could have
> > been an entrance or exit.
>
> > > > Regards,
>
> > > > Tim Brennan
> > > > Sydney, Australia
> > > > *Newsgroup(s) Commentator*- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Walt
> On 24 Maj, 13:55, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Then let's take a simple example, and see if you can defend it:
>
> > "Although Carrico was unable to determine whether the throat wound was an
> > entrance or exit wound, he did observe that the wound was "ragged," virtually a
> > sure sign of an exit wound as opposed to an entrance wound, which is usually
> > round and devoid of ragged edges." (Bugliosi, p.413)
>
> > Now, was the wound in the throat actually "ragged"? Did Carrico actually *say*
> > this anywhere?
>
> > What is the ACTUAL evidence show that neck wound description to be?
>
> > Now, you can either find Carrico describing the throat wound as "ragged",
> > or you can admit that Bugliosi lied, or you can run away...
>
> > Which will it be?
>
> > T
> > ("
>
> Ben seems to have read this essay by Milicent Cranor:
>
SEEM TO HAVE MISINTERPRETED???..... If Da Bug "misinterpreted" what
Dr Carrico wtote and said, then he's the worlds worst lawyer,because
even the village idiot would understand that Dr Carrico said the that
"PENETRATING" wound had " NO JAGGED EDGES".
" Carrico testified in at least two places the wound was “rather round
and there were no jagged edges or stellate lacerations.” (6 WCH 3);
“fairly round, had no jagged edges.” (3 WCH 362) " ....Cranor
Once again you display your cowardly aversion to facing harsh
reality....Bugliosi is a liar, as was the Warren Commission.
>
> Ironically: Does Ben honestly believe that conspiracy authors never
> overstate the case for the throat wound being an entrance wound? At
> least Cranor has the intellectual fortitude to admit that exit wounds
> can be small and that the Parkland descriptions are not without
> ambiguities.- Hide quoted text -
timstter
> In article <265faa6f-d109-48d0-aca8-a3e8977b4...@l26g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
Well did he, or did not cite a footnote? He supplied # 202.
> You're implying that his citation actually said what he's claiming...
>
No, I just said that he footnoted to # 202. The rest is an imputation
by you.
> You CANNOT cite Carrico describing the throat wound as "ragged"
>
Well it sure looks as if Walt just did, LOL!
> Is it any wonder that people know you to be a liar?
>
These people are proven liars like you, Holmes.
> >> Why haven't you detailed what that note says if you want to refute
> >> what Bugliosi said re Carrico?
>
> Feel free to post it.
>
You're making the argument, Benny. Why don't YOU post it?
> You can EQUALLY cite the Constitution... it says *just* as much about the
> description of the throat wound.
>
So you say. Why not simply post it,then?
> What you CANNOT do, is provide any statement of Carrico's that supports what
> Bugliosi lied about.
>
Well then why has Walt provided a cite that says Carrico used the word
ragged?
> (And clearly, what YOU'RE lying about...)
>
No, at this stage I'm simply asking why you didn't detail the contents
of Bugliosi's footnote. If you want to flame up into ad hominen then
that is a choice you make, though I think nobody around here would be
surprised at your antics.
>
>
> >> The ball is in your court, I would have thought.
>
> >That may be right, because there certainly aren't any balls on your
> >side of the court.... However, It is a fact that Carrico wrote in his
> >memo (see page 519 WR) .. Quote.... "Two external wounds were
> >noticed. One small PENETRATING of the anterior neck in the lower
> >1/3 ......... a ragged wound of the trachea was seen immediately below
> >the larynx "......unquote
>
> >Dr Carrico and Dr. Perry testified that the wound in JFK's throat was
> >a tiny clearly defined punctuate wound like a bullet entry wound. In
> >his written memo (written a couple of hours after JFK's death) Dr
> >Carrico described the wound as a PENETRATING wound...... Do you know
> >what the word "PENETRATE" means?...... Or do we need to provide you
> >with a dictionary definition?
>
> >I'm betting that Ben has judged you correctly, and you'll run away
> >like a yellow cur dog........
>
> It's an easy prediction... the trolls don't have the honesty to admit that
> Bugliosi lied.
>
LOL! I don't have a vested interest in endorsing everything Bugliosi
says. I only had to open his book and look at the photo pages to
realise that he had made some mistakes. Looks, though,as if he got his
*ragged* quote from the WC, Benny. That doesn't translate into him
lying, though. We leave that to your hero, Mark Lane.
Uncordial Regards,
Walt
Duh!..... Hee,hee,hee,hee..... Watta dumbass! Walt did NOT cite
Carrico as saying the wound on the SURFACE was ragged. Here's what I
wrote.....
It is a fact that Carrico wrote in his memo (see page 519 WR) ..
Quote.... "Two external wounds were noticed. One small PENETRATING of
the anterior neck in the lower 1/3 ......... a ragged wound of the
trachea was seen immediately below the larynx "......unquote
It's clear that Dr Carrico was writing about two EXTERNAL
wounds....One was a "small PENETRATING of the anterior neck in the
lower 1/3", and the other EXTERNAL wound was at the back of JFK's
skull. He described the INTERNAL damage to the treachea as "ragged"
when he wrote..."a ragged wound of the trachea was seen immediately
below the larynx "......
Please keep posting your nonsense, it's very revealing to any lurkers
that you are a liar. And the only reason a person like you lies is to
conceal the truth. It's very obvious that you KNOW that Dr Carrico
said the the wound on JFK's throat was a small PENETRATING (entrance)
wound, but you're to damned dishonest and cowardly to admit it. LBJ's
Warren Commission was just as cowardly and dishonest.
Dr Carrico's observation that the wound on JFK's throat was a bullet
ENTRY wound caused LBJ and JEH to squirm in panic, until some slimey
lawyer ( Arlen Spector ?) suggested that they could explain the bullet
ENTRY wound in JFK's throat by lying and making people believe that
JFK had turned around and was facing the TSBD when he was shot in the
throat. ( That lie was actually printed and broadcast before it was
pointed out that at no time did JFK turn around and face the TSBD
during the shooting. But since the "EXPERTS" had already broadcast
that outrageous lie many ignorant assholes (LNers) took it as gospel
and cited the "experts" in arguing that Oswald shot JFK in the throat
when JFK turned around to wave at someone to his rear.
> *Newsgroup(s) Commentator*- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Ben Holmes
Walt says...
>
>On May 24, 8:20=A0pm, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>> On May 24, 8:56=A0pm, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On May 24, 9:44=A0am, Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote:
>>
>> > > On May 24, 7:26=A0am, timstter <timst...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > > On May 24, 9:55=A0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > > > Then let's take a simple example, and see if you can defend it:
>>
>d was an
>> > > > > entrance or exit wound, he did observe that the wound was "ragged=
>," virtually a
>> > > > > sure sign of an exit wound as opposed to an entrance wound, which=
> is usually
>> > > > > round and devoid of ragged edges." (Bugliosi, p.413)
>>
>ctually *say*
>> > > > > this anywhere?
>>
>> > > > > What is the ACTUAL evidence show that neck wound description to b=
>e?
>>
>> > > > > Now, you can either find Carrico describing the throat wound as "=
>ragged",
>> > > > > or you can admit that Bugliosi lied, or you can run away...
>>
>> > > > > Which will it be?
>>
>> > > > > T
>> > > > > ("
>>
>> > > > > --
>-------
>> > > > > Ben Holmes
>> > > > > Learn to Make Money with a Website -http://www.burningknife.com
>>
>> > > > Hi Ben,
>>
>aim
>> > > > re Carrico?
>>
>> > > > Why haven't you detailed what that note says if you want to refute
>> > > > what Bugliosi said re Carrico?
>>
>> > > > The ball is in your court, I would have thought.
>>
>> > > That may be right, because there certainly aren't any balls on your
>his
>> > > memo =A0(see page 519 WR) =A0 .. Quote.... "Two external wounds were
>> > > noticed. One small PENETRATING of the anterior neck in the lower
>w
>> > > the larynx "......unquote
>>
>> > =A0 Don`t let Ben see this, he claims Carrico didn`t use the word
>> > "ragged".
With regards to the throat wound, he didn't.
Bud is caught in another lie...
>> > > Dr Carrico and Dr. Perry testified that the wound in JFK's throat was
>> > > a tiny clearly defined punctuate wound like a bullet entry wound.
>>
>> > =A0 Carrico testified that it could have been either an entrance or an
>> > exit.
>>
>> > >=A0In
>> > > his written memo (written a couple of hours after JFK's death) Dr
>> > > Carrico described the wound as a PENETRATING wound...... Do you know
>> > > what the word "PENETRATE" means?...... Or do we need to provide you
>> > > with a dictionary definition?
>>
>> > =A0 Now all you need to do is establish what he meant by that. He may
>> > have been saying it was a hole that went into the body as opposed to a
>> > surface wound.
>>
>> =A0 I looked into it and it is as I surmised, "penetrating wound" is non-
>> directional in medical jargon.
>>
>> =A0http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penetrating_wound
>
>
>Ha,ha,ha,hahee,hee,hee..... ROTFLMAO!!..... Thanks for displaying
>you're dishonest stupidity once aqgain....
>
>Here's the first sentences of the definition that you linked to.....
>
>Quote....."Penetrating trauma is an injury that occurs when an object
>pierces the skin and enters a tissue of the body, creating an open
>wound. In blunt, or non-penetrating trauma, there may be an impact,
>but the skin is not necessarily broken." ...unquote
>
>Now I guess you'll have to look up the words "PIERCES" and
>"ENTERS".......Hee,hee,hee...Watta Dumbass!
>
>
>
>
>>
>>
>>
>> > > I'm betting that Ben has judged you correctly, and you'll run away
>> > > like a yellow cur dog........
>>
>> > =A0 I bet you run away from the FACT that Carrico said it could have
>> > been an entrance or exit.
>>
>> > > > Regards,
>>
>> > > > Tim Brennan
>> > > > Sydney, Australia
>> > > > *Newsgroup(s) Commentator*- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
Ben Holmes
Walt says...
>
>On May 25, 3:53=A0am, mucher1 <much...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 24 Maj, 13:55, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > Then let's take a simple example, and see if you can defend it:
>>
>an
>> > entrance or exit wound, he did observe that the wound was "ragged," vir=
>tually a
>> > sure sign of an exit wound as opposed to an entrance wound, which is us=
>ually
>> > round and devoid of ragged edges." (Bugliosi, p.413)
>>
>y *say*
>> > this anywhere?
>>
>> > What is the ACTUAL evidence show that neck wound description to be?
>>
>",
>> > or you can admit that Bugliosi lied, or you can run away...
>>
>> > Which will it be?
>>
>> > T
>> > ("
>>
>> Ben seems to have read this essay by Milicent Cranor:
>>
>>
>> This portion in particular:
>>
>> <Cranor ON>
>>
>> Specimen 2:
>> Although Carrico was unable to determine whether the throat wound was
>> an entrance or exit wound, he did observe that the wound was
>> an entrance wound, which is usually round and devoid of ragged
>>
>> Bugliosi=92s reference for the above is page 517 of the Warren Report
>> where Charles J. Carrico described a =93ragged wound of the
>> trachea,=94 (emphasis mine). Yet, in the above context, Bugliosi seems
>> to want the reader to assume =93the wound=94 refers to the one in the ski=
>n
>> -- the only kind that counts in the context of entrance versus exit.
>> (Almost any wound in a trachea would be ragged because of the
>> stiffness of cartilage.) Elsewhere, in a different context, Bugliosi
>> (Bugliosi, p.60), and so it is unlikely that he has confused this with
>> the wound in the skin.
>>
>> Significant omission: Carrico testified in at least two places the
>> lacerations.=94 (6 WCH 3); =93fairly round, had no jagged edges.=94 (3 WC=
>H
>> 362)
>>
>> <Cranor OFF>
>>
>> Ben is infamous for his "liar, liar" games, but not being an original
>> thinker, he seems to have just copy/pasted the Bugiosi quote (sans
>> note #s) from Cranor's essay, without acknowledging her research.
>>
>> Cranor makes good points, though, and Bugliosi really does seem to
>> have misinterpreted Carrico and overstated his case.
Come on, you can do it...
Simply admit that Bugliosi lied.
It's simple to do...
>> Ironically: Does Ben honestly believe that conspiracy authors never
>> overstate the case for the throat wound being an entrance wound? At
>> least Cranor has the intellectual fortitude to admit that exit wounds
>> can be small and that the Parkland descriptions are not without
>> ambiguities.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
Ben Holmes
Walt says...
>
>On May 25, 8:15=A0am, timstter <timst...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On May 25, 1:13=A0am, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > In article <265faa6f-d109-48d0-aca8-a3e8977b4...@l26g2000yqm.googlegrou=
>ps.com>,
>> > Walt says...
>>
>> > >On May 24, 7:26=3DA0am, timstter <timst...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > >> On May 24, 9:55=3DA0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>>
>> > >> > Then let's take a simple example, and see if you can defend it:
>>
> was =3D
>> > >an
>> > >> > entrance or exit wound, he did observe that the wound was "ragged,=
>" vir=3D
>> > >tually a
>> > >> > sure sign of an exit wound as opposed to an entrance wound, which =
>is us=3D
>> > >ually
>> > >> > round and devoid of ragged edges." (Bugliosi, p.413)
>>
>tuall=3D
>> > >y *say*
>> > >> > this anywhere?
>>
>> > >> > What is the ACTUAL evidence show that neck wound description to be=
>?
>>
>> > >> > Now, you can either find Carrico describing the throat wound as "r=
>agged=3D
>> > >",
>> > >> > or you can admit that Bugliosi lied, or you can run away...
>>
>> > >> > Which will it be?
>>
>> > >> > T
>> > >> > ("
>>
>> > >> Hi Ben,
>>
>im
>> > >> re Carrico?
>>
>> > And just like Bugliosi did, you're lying.
>>
>> Well did he, or did not cite a footnote? He supplied # 202.
>>
>> > You're implying that his citation actually said what he's claiming...
>>
>> No, I just said that he footnoted to # 202. The rest is an imputation
>> by you.
>>
>> > You CANNOT cite Carrico describing the throat wound as "ragged"
>>
>> Well it sure looks as if Walt just did, LOL!
You see? Trolls can't tell the truth to save their lives...
Of course, I'm telling the truth, and anyone who bothers to research Carrico's
testimony knows that *YOU'RE* lying... (and of course, Bugliosi)
>> > >> Why haven't you detailed what that note says if you want to refute
>> > >> what Bugliosi said re Carrico?
>>
>> > Feel free to post it.
>>
>> You're making the argument, Benny. Why don't YOU post it?
Can't post what doesn't exist.
>> > You can EQUALLY cite the Constitution... it says *just* as much about t=
>he
>> > description of the throat wound.
>>
>> So you say. Why not simply post it,then?
Can't post what doesn't exist.
It's up to *YOU* to provide it, not I.
>> > What you CANNOT do, is provide any statement of Carrico's that supports=
> what
>> > Bugliosi lied about.
>>
>> Well then why has Walt provided a cite that says Carrico used the word
>> ragged?
With regards to the throat wound, he didn't.
It wouldn't surprise me to learn that Carrico described the back of the head
wound as "ragged" either.
But Bugliosi was speaking of the throat wound.
You're lying, and YOU KNOW THAT YOU'RE LYING!!
>> > (And clearly, what YOU'RE lying about...)
>>
>> No, at this stage I'm simply asking why you didn't detail the contents
>> of Bugliosi's footnote. If you want to flame up into ad hominen then
>> that is a choice you make, though I think nobody around here would be
>> surprised at your antics.
Why can't you provide what Bugliosi couldn't?
Or admit that Bugliosi lied?
>> > >> The ball is in your court, I would have thought.
>>
>> > >That may be right, because there certainly aren't any balls on your
>> > >side of the court.... =A0However, It is a fact that Carrico wrote in h=
>is
>> > >memo =A0(see page 519 WR) =A0 .. Quote.... "Two external wounds were
>> > >noticed. One small PENETRATING of the anterior neck in the lower
>> > >1/3 ......... a ragged wound of the trachea was seen immediately below
>> > >the larynx "......unquote
>>
>> > >Dr Carrico and Dr. Perry testified that the wound in JFK's throat was
>> > >a tiny clearly defined punctuate wound like a bullet entry wound. =A0I=
>n
>> > >his written memo (written a couple of hours after JFK's death) Dr
>> > >Carrico described the wound as a PENETRATING wound...... Do you know
>> > >what the word "PENETRATE" means?...... Or do we need to provide you
>> > >with a dictionary definition?
>>
>> > >I'm betting that Ben has judged you correctly, and you'll run away
>> > >like a yellow cur dog........
>>
>> > It's an easy prediction... the trolls don't have the honesty to admit t=
>hat
>> > Bugliosi lied.
>>
>> LOL! I don't have a vested interest in endorsing everything Bugliosi
>> says. I only had to open his book and look at the photo pages to
>> realise that he had made some mistakes. Looks, though,as if he got his
>> *ragged* quote from the WC, Benny. That doesn't translate into him
>> lying, though. We leave that to your hero, Mark Lane.
He lied. It's simple.
You're lying. (But then again, that's what trolls do.)
>> Uncordial Regards,
>>
>> Tim Brennan
>> Sydney, Australia
>> *Newsgroup(s) Commentator*
Walt
> In article <c6d44f82-3cca-459e-a136-ca6831234...@v8g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
Ben, Dr Carrico's description of the throat wound as an ENTRANCE wound
is a KEY piece of information.
The original lying LNer's with LBJ
knew...repeat ...."KNEW" (recognized Dr. Carrico's description of the
throat wound was a bullet ENTRY wound ) that the throat wound
presented an irrefutable FACT that there was an assassin positioned
somewhere in front of JFK. They KNEW that JFK had been shot in the
throat by an assassin who was NOT Lee Oswald, and he was NOT in the
TSBD, but they had previously set Oswald up as the patsy and were
determined to create a case against Oswald. Hence they decided that
they would hand the public the lie that JFK had turned around to wave
at someone to his rear and he then faced Oswald who shot him in the
throat. We both know that they actually attempted this dump this COS
on the public and they managed to convince the gullble that it was
true.
The FACT that the liars tried to explain away the throat wound, by
saying JFK turned around, is an open admission that they KNEW the
throat wound was a bullet ENTRY wound.
Though there aren't very many who will continue to support the lie
that JFK turned around anymore, there are still a lot of gutless
gullible suckers who will argue to their last breath that the throat
wound was an exit wound.
( I can't really blame them... After all their entire belief system is
built on this lie, and to admit the throat wound was a bullet entry
wound would raise havoc at the core of their being)
> Learn to Make Money with a Website -http://www.burningknife.com- Hide quoted text -
Ben Holmes
Walt says...
>
>On May 25, 10:42=A0am, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>> In article <c6d44f82-3cca-459e-a136-ca6831234...@v8g2000yqb.googlegroups.=
>com>,
>> Walt says...
>>
>> >On May 25, 8:15=3DA0am, timstter <timst...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> On May 25, 1:13=3DA0am, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> > In article <265faa6f-d109-48d0-aca8-a3e8977b4...@l26g2000yqm.googleg=
>rou=3D
>> >ps.com>,
>> >> > Walt says...
>>
>> >> > >On May 24, 7:26=3D3DA0am, timstter <timst...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> > >> On May 24, 9:55=3D3DA0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wro=
>te:
>>
>> >> > >> > Then let's take a simple example, and see if you can defend it:
>>
>und=3D
>> > was =3D3D
>> >> > >an
>> >> > >> > entrance or exit wound, he did observe that the wound was "ragg=
>ed,=3D
>> >" vir=3D3D
>> >> > >tually a
>> >> > >> > sure sign of an exit wound as opposed to an entrance wound, whi=
>ch =3D
>> >is us=3D3D
>> >> > >ually
>> >> > >> > round and devoid of ragged edges." (Bugliosi, p.413)
>>
> ac=3D
>> >tuall=3D3D
>> >> > >y *say*
>> >> > >> > this anywhere?
>>
>> >> > >> > What is the ACTUAL evidence show that neck wound description to=
> be=3D
>> >?
>>
>> >> > >> > Now, you can either find Carrico describing the throat wound as=
> "r=3D
>> >agged=3D3D
>> >> > >",
>> >> > >> > or you can admit that Bugliosi lied, or you can run away...
>>
>> >> > >> > Which will it be?
>>
>> >> > >> > T
>> >> > >> > ("
>>
>> >> > >> Hi Ben,
>>
>cla=3D
>> >im
>> >> > >> re Carrico?
>>
>> >> > And just like Bugliosi did, you're lying.
>>
>> >> Well did he, or did not cite a footnote? He supplied # 202.
>>
>.
>>
>> >> No, I just said that he footnoted to # 202. The rest is an imputation
>> >> by you.
>>
>> >> > You CANNOT cite Carrico describing the throat wound as "ragged"
>>
>> >> Well it sure looks as if Walt just did, LOL!
>>
>> You see? Trolls can't tell the truth to save their lives...
And interestingly enough, even though "Tim" asked for it, he can't admit it.
Nor defend Bugliosi's lie.
>> >Duh!..... Hee,hee,hee,hee..... Watta dumbass! =A0Walt did NOT cite
>> >Carrico as saying the wound on the SURFACE was ragged. Here's what I
>> >wrote.....
>>
>> >It is a fact that Carrico wrote in his memo =A0(see page 519 WR) =A0 ..
>> >Quote.... "Two external wounds were noticed. One small PENETRATING of
>> >the anterior neck in the lower 1/3 ......... a ragged wound of the
>> >trachea was seen immediately below the larynx "......unquote
>>
>> >It's clear that Dr Carrico was writing about two EXTERNAL
>> >wounds....One was a "small PENETRATING of the anterior neck in the
>> >lower 1/3", and the other EXTERNAL wound was at the back of JFK's
>> >skull. =A0He described the INTERNAL damage to the treachea as "ragged"
>> >when he wrote..."a ragged wound of the trachea was seen immediately
>> >below the larynx "......
>>
>> >Please keep posting your nonsense, it's very revealing to any lurkers
>> >that you are a liar. =A0And the only reason a person like you lies is to
>> >conceal the truth. =A0It's very obvious that you KNOW that Dr Carrico
>> >said the the wound on JFK's throat was a small PENETRATING (entrance)
>> >wound, but you're to damned dishonest and cowardly to admit it. LBJ's
>> >Warren Commission was just as cowardly and dishonest.
>>
>> >Dr Carrico's observation that the wound on JFK's throat was a bullet
>> >ENTRY wound caused LBJ and JEH to squirm in panic, until some slimey
>> >lawyer ( Arlen Spector ?) suggested that they could explain the bullet
>> >ENTRY wound in JFK's throat by lying and making people believe that
>> >JFK had turned around and was facing the TSBD when he was shot in the
>> >throat. =A0( That lie was actually printed and broadcast before it was
>> >pointed out that at no time did JFK turn around and face the TSBD
>> >during the shooting. =A0 But since the "EXPERTS" had already broadcast
>> >that outrageous lie many ignorant assholes (LNers) took it as gospel
>> >and cited the "experts" in arguing that Oswald shot JFK in the throat
>> >when JFK turned around to wave at someone to his rear.
>
>Dr Carrico's observation that the wound on JFK's throat was a bullet
>ENTRY wound caused LBJ and JEH to squirm in panic, until some slimey
>lawyer ( Arlen Spector ?) suggested that they could explain the
>bullet
>ENTRY wound in JFK's throat by lying and making people believe that
>JFK had turned around and was facing the TSBD when he was shot in the
>throat. ( That lie was actually printed and broadcast before it was
>pointed out that at no time did JFK turn around and face the TSBD
>during the shooting. But since the "EXPERTS" had already broadcast
>that outrageous lie many ignorant assholes (LNers) took it as gospel
>and cited the "experts" in arguing that Oswald shot JFK in the throat
>when JFK turned around to wave at someone to his rear.
>
>
>Ben, Dr Carrico's description of the throat wound as an ENTRANCE wound
>is a KEY piece of information.
Which is why, of course, the WC and Bugliosi had to lie about it.
>The original lying LNer's with LBJ
>knew...repeat ...."KNEW" (recognized Dr. Carrico's description of the
>throat wound was a bullet ENTRY wound ) that the throat wound
>presented an irrefutable FACT that there was an assassin positioned
>somewhere in front of JFK. They KNEW that JFK had been shot in the
>throat by an assassin who was NOT Lee Oswald, and he was NOT in the
>TSBD, but they had previously set Oswald up as the patsy and were
>determined to create a case against Oswald. Hence they decided that
>they would hand the public the lie that JFK had turned around to wave
>at someone to his rear and he then faced Oswald who shot him in the
>throat. We both know that they actually attempted this dump this COS
>on the public and they managed to convince the gullble that it was
>true.
>
>
>The FACT that the liars tried to explain away the throat wound, by
>saying JFK turned around, is an open admission that they KNEW the
>throat wound was a bullet ENTRY wound.
>
>Though there aren't very many who will continue to support the lie
>that JFK turned around anymore, there are still a lot of gutless
>gullible suckers who will argue to their last breath that the throat
>wound was an exit wound.
Arguing that it's an exit wound (via the argument that the "exit" wound was
supported by the collar) is one thing... but to present an outright lie about
the evidence to support an argument demonstrates nothing other than that the
person is a liar.
Bugliosi either was so incredibly ignorant of the medical evidence that he
didn't understand Carrico, or he lied.
I think it's going to be a difficult task to show that Bugliosi was ignorant.
So the average person will understand that he simply lied while trying to make
his case.
Of course, lawyers don't operate on a moral plane of right & wrong... they
operate on what can be proven to a jury. I do believe that David Lifton was the
first to make that observation...
Bugliosi obviously thought he could sell that lie to a jury (his readers), and
doesn't consider it a lie.
But it *is* a lie.
>( I can't really blame them... After all their entire belief system is
>built on this lie, and to admit the throat wound was a bullet entry
>wound would raise havoc at the core of their being)
>
>
>> >> > Is it any wonder that people know you to be a liar?
>>
>> >> These people are proven liars like you, Holmes.
>>
>> Of course, I'm telling the truth, and anyone who bothers to research Carr=
>ico's
>> testimony knows that *YOU'RE* lying... (and of course, Bugliosi)
>>
>> >> > >> Why haven't you detailed what that note says if you want to refut=
>e
>> >> > >> what Bugliosi said re Carrico?
>>
>> >> > Feel free to post it.
>>
>> >> You're making the argument, Benny. Why don't YOU post it?
>>
>> Can't post what doesn't exist.
>>
>> >> > You can EQUALLY cite the Constitution... it says *just* as much abou=
>t t=3D
>> >he
>> >> > description of the throat wound.
>>
>> >> So you say. Why not simply post it,then?
>>
>> Can't post what doesn't exist.
>>
>> It's up to *YOU* to provide it, not I.
>>
>> >> > What you CANNOT do, is provide any statement of Carrico's that suppo=
>rts=3D
>> > what
>> >> > Bugliosi lied about.
>>
>> >> Well then why has Walt provided a cite that says Carrico used the word
>> >> ragged?
>>
>> With regards to the throat wound, he didn't.
>>
>> It wouldn't surprise me to learn that Carrico described the back of the h=
>ead
>> wound as "ragged" either.
>>
>> But Bugliosi was speaking of the throat wound.
>>
>> You're lying, and YOU KNOW THAT YOU'RE LYING!!
>>
>> >> > (And clearly, what YOU'RE lying about...)
>>
>> >> No, at this stage I'm simply asking why you didn't detail the contents
>> >> of Bugliosi's footnote. If you want to flame up into ad hominen then
>> >> that is a choice you make, though I think nobody around here would be
>> >> surprised at your antics.
>>
>> Why can't you provide what Bugliosi couldn't?
>>
>> Or admit that Bugliosi lied?
>>
>>
>> >> > >> The ball is in your court, I would have thought.
>>
>> >> > >That may be right, because there certainly aren't any balls on your
>> >> > >side of the court.... =3DA0However, It is a fact that Carrico wrote=
> in h=3D
>> >is
>> >> > >memo =3DA0(see page 519 WR) =3DA0 .. Quote.... "Two external wounds=
> were
>> >> > >noticed. One small PENETRATING of the anterior neck in the lower
>> >> > >1/3 ......... a ragged wound of the trachea was seen immediately be=
>low
>> >> > >the larynx "......unquote
>>
>> >> > >Dr Carrico and Dr. Perry testified that the wound in JFK's throat w=
>as
>> >> > >a tiny clearly defined punctuate wound like a bullet entry wound. =
>=3DA0I=3D
>> >n
>> >> > >his written memo (written a couple of hours after JFK's death) Dr
>> >> > >Carrico described the wound as a PENETRATING wound...... Do you kno=
>w
>> >> > >what the word "PENETRATE" means?...... Or do we need to provide you
>> >> > >with a dictionary definition?
>>
>> >> > >I'm betting that Ben has judged you correctly, and you'll run away
>> >> > >like a yellow cur dog........
>>
>> >> > It's an easy prediction... the trolls don't have the honesty to admi=
>t t=3D
timstter
>
> "Although Carrico was unable to determine whether the throat wound was an
> entrance or exit wound, he did observe that the wound was "ragged," virtually a
> sure sign of an exit wound as opposed to an entrance wound, which is usually
> round and devoid of ragged edges." (Bugliosi, p.413)
>
> Now, was the wound in the throat actually "ragged"? Did Carrico actually *say*
> this anywhere?
>
Yes, he definitely said, in at least two places in the WC, that the
wound in Kennedy's throat was ragged.
> What is the ACTUAL evidence show that neck wound description to be?
>
Why have you changed the description to neck? Bugliosi made the
comment about the throat wound.
> Now, you can either find Carrico describing the throat wound as "ragged",
> or you can admit that Bugliosi lied, or you can run away...
>
Well just look it up in the WC, like here:
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0014b.htm
> Which will it be?
>
Well, I guess you got your answer.
> T
> ("
Not sure what this bit is.
>
> --
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Ben Holmes
> Learn to Make Money with a Website -http://www.burningknife.com
Regards,
timstter
Bugliosi particularly discusses with Carrico what he means by
penetrating wound. He SPECIFICALLY states that he uses the term to
differentiate from a blunt trauma wound.
The dumbass is YOU, Walt, too stupid and lazy to even read the book
you're trying to debunk.
Informative Regards,
Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup(s) Commentator*
ps Let's enjoy Carrico introducing the word ragged to the debate:
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0014b.htm
TB
Jason Burke
Well, I think right there is says all we need to know about Wally's
little World. Of course, Wally World has no basis in anything resembling
reality.
Walt
> On May 24, 9:55 pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>
> > Then let's take a simple example, and see if you can defend it:
>
> > "Although Carrico was unable to determine whether the throat wound was an
> > entrance or exit wound, he did observe that the wound was "ragged," virtually a
> > sure sign of an exit wound as opposed to an entrance wound, which is usually
> > round and devoid of ragged edges." (Bugliosi, p.413)
>
> > Now, was the wound in the throat actually "ragged"? Did Carrico actually *say*
> > this anywhere?
>
> Yes, he definitely said, in at least two places in the WC, that the
> wound in Kennedy's throat was ragged.
No he didn't ya stupid bastard!...... Dr Carrico did NOT described the
"PENTRATING" wound on the SURFACE of JFK's throat as "ragged". He
said.... Quote...." Carrico testified in at least two places the
wound was “rather round and there were no jagged edges or stellate
lacerations.” (6 WCH 3); “fairly round, had no jagged edges.” (3 WCH
362)
Dr Carrico said the damage to JFK's TRACHEA was a ragged hole....
I'll post a sentence for the document that you provided a link
to....Here's what the Warren Commission said that Dr Carrico
reported.
Quote...." Dr Carrico inserted a cuffed endo tracheal tube (into
JFK's trachea ) and while doing so ne noted a ragged wound OF THE
TRACHEA.".... unquote (The parenthetical insert and the caps are
mine, added for clarification.)
I'll type this real slow so even you can understand..... Dr Carrico
said that the PENETRATING wound on the skin of JFK's throat was a smal
puncture wound with clearly defined edges and NOT ragged. WHEN HE
EXPANDED THAT WOUND TO ENABLE HIM TO INSERT A CUFFED TRACH TUBE HE SAW
THE RAGGED HOLE IN JFK'S TRACHEA.
Ya dig??
>
> > What is the ACTUAL evidence show that neck wound description to be?
>
> Why have you changed the description to neck? Bugliosi made the
> comment about the throat wound.
>
> > Now, you can either find Carrico describing the throat wound as "ragged",
> > or you can admit that Bugliosi lied, or you can run away...
>
> Well just look it up in the WC, like here:
>
> http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol...
Ben Holmes
Walt says...
>
>On May 25, 4:35=A0pm, timstter <timst...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On May 24, 9:55=A0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>>
>> > Then let's take a simple example, and see if you can defend it:
>>
>an
>> > entrance or exit wound, he did observe that the wound was "ragged," vir=
>tually a
>> > sure sign of an exit wound as opposed to an entrance wound, which is us=
>ually
>> > round and devoid of ragged edges." (Bugliosi, p.413)
>>
>y *say*
>> > this anywhere?
>>
>> Yes, he definitely said, in at least two places in the WC, that the
>> wound in Kennedy's throat was ragged.
Yes, "Tim Brennan" is lying again.
If Carrico ever said that, why not simply QUOTE it with the source citation?
>No he didn't ya stupid bastard!...... Dr Carrico did NOT described the
>"PENTRATING" wound on the SURFACE of JFK's throat as "ragged". He
>said.... Quote...." Carrico testified in at least two places the
>wound was =93rather round and there were no jagged edges or stellate
>lacerations.=94 (6 WCH 3); =93fairly round, had no jagged edges.=94 (3 WCH
>362)
>
> Dr Carrico said the damage to JFK's TRACHEA was a ragged hole....
>I'll post a sentence for the document that you provided a link
>to....Here's what the Warren Commission said that Dr Carrico
>reported.
>
> Quote...." Dr Carrico inserted a cuffed endo tracheal tube (into
>JFK's trachea ) and while doing so ne noted a ragged wound OF THE
>TRACHEA.".... unquote (The parenthetical insert and the caps are
>mine, added for clarification.)
Trolls, LNT'ers, and Bugliosi are simply too dishonest to admit the truth...
hence, they need to lie about the evidence.
The fact that this troll can't admit that Bugliosi simply lied just goes to show
this troll's dishonesty... nothing else...
>I'll type this real slow so even you can understand..... Dr Carrico
>said that the PENETRATING wound on the skin of JFK's throat was a smal
>puncture wound with clearly defined edges and NOT ragged. WHEN HE
>EXPANDED THAT WOUND TO ENABLE HIM TO INSERT A CUFFED TRACH TUBE HE SAW
>THE RAGGED HOLE IN JFK'S TRACHEA.
>
>Ya dig??
Trolls lie, that's what trolls do.
>> > What is the ACTUAL evidence show that neck wound description to be?
>>
>> Why have you changed the description to neck? Bugliosi made the
>> comment about the throat wound.
>>
>> > Now, you can either find Carrico describing the throat wound as "ragged",
>> > or you can admit that Bugliosi lied, or you can run away...
>>
>> Well just look it up in the WC, like here:
>>
>> http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol...
I'm guessing that you chose option #4... lie like hell, *THEN* run away...
>> > Which will it be?
>>
>> Well, I guess you got your answer.
Yep... I did. You're a liar.
>> > T
>> > ("
>>
>> Not sure what this bit is.
>>
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Tim Brennan
>> Sydney, Australia
>> *Newsgroup(s) Commentator*
I wonder if "Tim Brennan" is fooling anyone with his lie.
Does anyone else want to step forward and try to defend Bugliosi's lie?
Anyone?
Bud
<snicker> Yes, you are a dumbass. Most of these wounds are caused by
some foreign body entering the body. But the word "penetrating wound"
is not meant to imply the direction the object that penetrated the
body was travelling. It`s meant to designate it as a wound that breaks
the skin and goes into the tissue below. They have two designations,
"penetrating" and "non-penetrating". A penetrating wound is one that
breaks the skin and goes down into the tissue, and a non-penetrating
wound is one that doesn`t break the skin, and doesn`t go down into the
tissue. If you stab someone with a sword that goes in the front and
out the back of the victim, the back wound and the front wound would
both be "penetrating wounds", i.e. wounds that go down into the
tissue. It`s a non-directional designation. Dunce.
Walt
Nice try liar......Dr Carrico recognized the PENETRATING wound on
JFK's throat as an ENTRY wound.
Here's the definition that you posted a link to.....
Quote....."Penetrating trauma is an injury that occurs when an object
pierces the skin and enters a tissue of the body, creating an open
wound. In blunt, or non-penetrating trauma, there may be an impact,
but the skin is not necessarily broken." ...unquote
Notice that the definition DOES in fact indicate a
DIRECTION.... ....."Penetrating trauma is an injury that occurs when
an object pierces the skin and enters a tissue of the body,.... Find
someone with an IQ greater than a common garden slug and have them
explain to you what the words "pierce" and "enter" mean.
The definition goes on to contrast a PENETRATING wound trauma with a
NON-PENETRATING trauma. It says :
Quote... " In blunt, or non-penetrating trauma, there may be an
impact, but the skin is not necessarily broken." ...unquote
Now all you have to do is find out what the word "impact" means......
Stupid bastard!
mucher1
Pay attention. Bugliosi was referring to Carroco's observation of a
RAGGED WOUND OF THE TRACHEA.
> " Carrico testified in at least two places the wound was “rather round
> and there were no jagged edges or stellate lacerations.” (6 WCH 3);
> “fairly round, had no jagged edges.” (3 WCH 362) " ....Cranor
I quoted that bit above, stupid. Where did I disagree with Cranor's
assessment that it was a "significant omission" not to take these
statements into account?
> Once again you display your cowardly aversion to facing harsh
> reality....Bugliosi is a liar, as was the Warren Commission.
Diehard CTs like you and Ben are spouting sloppy, one-sided research,
harebrained ideas, idle speculation, misleading statements, outright
falsehoods & personal insults like your very existence depended on it.
What are we supposed to infer from that? What personal traits do you
think you're displaying?
> > Ironically: Does Ben honestly believe that conspiracy authors never
> > overstate the case for the throat wound being an entrance wound? At
> > least Cranor has the intellectual fortitude to admit that exit wounds
> > can be small and that the Parkland descriptions are not without
> > ambiguities.
No comments?
Ben Holmes
Walt says...
>
>On May 25, 8:27=A0pm, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>> On May 25, 8:36=A0am, Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On May 24, 8:20=A0pm, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>>
>> > > On May 24, 8:56=A0pm, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>>
>> > > > On May 24, 9:44=A0am, Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote:
>>
>> > > > > On May 24, 7:26=A0am, timstter <timst...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > > > > On May 24, 9:55=A0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote=
>:
>>
>> > > > > > > Then let's take a simple example, and see if you can defend i=
>t:
>>
>> > > > > > > "Although Carrico was unable to determine whether the throat =
>wound was an
>> > > > > > > entrance or exit wound, he did observe that the wound was "ra=
>gged," virtually a
>> > > > > > > sure sign of an exit wound as opposed to an entrance wound, w=
>hich is usually
>> > > > > > > round and devoid of ragged edges." (Bugliosi, p.413)
>>
>co actually *say*
>> > > > > > > this anywhere?
>>
>to be?
>>
>> > > > > > > Now, you can either find Carrico describing the throat wound =
>as "ragged",
>> > > > > > > or you can admit that Bugliosi lied, or you can run away...
>>
>> > > > > > > Which will it be?
>>
>> > > > > > > T
>> > > > > > > ("
>>
>> > > > > > > --
>-----------
>> > > > > > > Ben Holmes
>> > > > > > > Learn to Make Money with a Website -http://www.burningknife.c=
>om
>>
>> > > > > > Hi Ben,
>>
>> > > > > > Say, didn't Bugliosi cite a footnote, number 202, to support hi=
>s claim
>> > > > > > re Carrico?
>>
>> > > > > > Why haven't you detailed what that note says if you want to ref=
>ute
>> > > > > > what Bugliosi said re Carrico?
>>
>> > > > > > The ball is in your court, I would have thought.
>>
>ur
>> > > > > side of the court.... =A0However, It is a fact that Carrico wrote=
> in his
>> > > > > memo =A0(see page 519 WR) =A0 .. Quote.... "Two external wounds w=
>ere
>> > > > > noticed. One small PENETRATING of the anterior neck in the lower
>below
>> > > > > the larynx "......unquote
>>
>> > > > =A0 Don`t let Ben see this, he claims Carrico didn`t use the word
>> > > > "ragged".
>>
>> > > > > Dr Carrico and Dr. Perry testified that the wound in JFK's throat=
> was
>> > > > > a tiny clearly defined punctuate wound like a bullet entry wound.
>>
> an
>> > > > exit.
>>
>> > > > >=A0In
>> > > > > his written memo (written a couple of hours after JFK's death) Dr
>now
>> > > > > what the word "PENETRATE" means?...... Or do we need to provide y=
>ou
>> > > > > with a dictionary definition?
>>
>ay
>> > > > have been saying it was a hole that went into the body as opposed t=
>o a
>> > > > surface wound.
>>
>> > > =A0 I looked into it and it is as I surmised, "penetrating wound" is =
>non-
>> > > directional in medical jargon.
>>
>>
>> > Ha,ha,ha,hahee,hee,hee..... ROTFLMAO!!..... Thanks for displaying
>> > you're dishonest stupidity once aqgain....
>>
>> > Here's the first sentences of the definition that you linked to.....
>>
>> > Quote....."Penetrating trauma is an injury that occurs when an object
>> > pierces the skin and enters a tissue of the body, creating an open
>> > wound. In blunt, or non-penetrating trauma, there may be an impact,
>> > but the skin is not necessarily broken." ...unquote
>>
>> > Now I guess you'll have to look up the words "PIERCES" and
>> > "ENTERS".......Hee,hee,hee...Watta Dumbass!
>>
The trolls are running from the topic. They're changing it, and dodging all over
the place.
What they CANNOT do is provide a quote from Carrico saying what Bugliosi said
that he said.
It's really just that simple. While it would be comforting to believe that the
trolls really don't understand the difference between the neck and the trachea,
the truth is that they do... they're simply dishonest.
Bugliosi provably lied, and not a *SINGLE* LNT'er or troll has yet admitted that
fact.
>> > > > > I'm betting that Ben has judged you correctly, and you'll run awa=
>y
>> > > > > like a yellow cur dog........
>>
>> > > > =A0 I bet you run away from the FACT that Carrico said it could hav=
>e
>> > > > been an entrance or exit.
>>
>> > > > > > Regards,
>>
>> > > > > > Tim Brennan
>> > > > > > Sydney, Australia
>> > > > > > *Newsgroup(s) Commentator*
Walt
Yes that's right, He refers to the wound of the treachea and the hole
in the skin of JFK's throat as if it's the same wound.
"Although Carrico was unable to determine whether the throat wound was
an
entrance or exit wound, he did observe that the wound was "ragged,"
virtually a
sure sign of an exit wound as opposed to an entrance wound, which is
usually
round and devoid of ragged edges." (Bugliosi, p.413)
Being the slimey lawyer he is, Bugliosi trys to confuse the issue by
saying that Dr Carrico was referring to the ragged wound of the
treachea as an exit wound, when in reality Dr Carrico was referring
to the small smooth edged PENETRATING wound on JFK's skin. Don't play
dumb Mark......You know exactly what Bugliosi was attempting.
It's clear that Dr Carrico saw an ENTRY wound on JFK's throat, and
when he enlarged that small bullet entry wound he saw a ragged hole in
JFK's trachea where the bullet had struck the side of the treachea and
tore a ragged hole in it.
You know that it's true, why don't you man up and admit it?
>
> > " Carrico testified in at least two places the wound was “rather round
> > and there were no jagged edges or stellate lacerations.” (6 WCH 3);
> > “fairly round, had no jagged edges.” (3 WCH 362) " ....Cranor
>
> I quoted that bit above, stupid. Where did I disagree with Cranor's
> assessment that it was a "significant omission" not to take these
> statements into account?
>
> > Once again you display your cowardly aversion to facing harsh
> > reality....Bugliosi is a liar, as was the Warren Commission.
>
> Diehard CTs like you and Ben are spouting sloppy, one-sided research,
> harebrained ideas, idle speculation, misleading statements, outright
> falsehoods & personal insults like your very existence depended on it.
> What are we supposed to infer from that? What personal traits do you
> think you're displaying?
>
> > > Ironically: Does Ben honestly believe that conspiracy authors never
> > > overstate the case for the throat wound being an entrance wound? At
> > > least Cranor has the intellectual fortitude to admit that exit wounds
> > > can be small and that the Parkland descriptions are not without
> > > ambiguities.
>
> No comments?- Hide quoted text -
Ben Holmes
Walt says...
>
>On May 26, 5:59=A0am, mucher1 <much...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 25 Maj, 14:51, Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On May 25, 3:53 am, mucher1 <much...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > On 24 Maj, 13:55, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > > Then let's take a simple example, and see if you can defend it:
>>
>was an
>> > > > entrance or exit wound, he did observe that the wound was "ragged,"=
> virtually a
>> > > > sure sign of an exit wound as opposed to an entrance wound, which i=
>s usually
>> > > > round and devoid of ragged edges." (Bugliosi, p.413)
>>
>ually *say*
>> > > > this anywhere?
>>
>> > > > What is the ACTUAL evidence show that neck wound description to be?
>>
>gged",
>> > > > or you can admit that Bugliosi lied, or you can run away...
>>
>> > > > Which will it be?
>>
>> > > > T
>> > > > ("
>>
>> > > Ben seems to have read this essay by Milicent Cranor:
>>
>..
>>
>> > > This portion in particular:
>>
>> > > <Cranor ON>
>>
>> > > Specimen 2:
>> > > Although Carrico was unable to determine whether the throat wound was
>> > > an entrance or exit wound, he did observe that the wound was
> to
>> > > an entrance wound, which is usually round and devoid of ragged
>>
>> > > Bugliosi=92s reference for the above is page 517 of the Warren Report
>> > > where Charles J. Carrico described a =93ragged wound of the
>s
>> > > to want the reader to assume =93the wound=94 refers to the one in the=
> skin
>> > > -- the only kind that counts in the context of entrance versus exit.
>> > > (Almost any wound in a trachea would be ragged because of the
>> > > stiffness of cartilage.) Elsewhere, in a different context, Bugliosi
>> > > (Bugliosi, p.60), and so it is unlikely that he has confused this wit=
>h
>> > > the wound in the skin.
>>
>> > > Significant omission: Carrico testified in at least two places the
>3 WCH
>> > > 362)
>>
>> > > <Cranor OFF>
>>
>> > > Ben is infamous for his "liar, liar" games, but not being an original
>> > > thinker, he seems to have just copy/pasted the Bugiosi quote (sans
>> > > note #s) from Cranor's essay, without acknowledging her research.
>>
>> > > Cranor makes good points, though, and Bugliosi really does seem to
>> > > have misinterpreted Carrico and overstated his case.
>>
>> > overstated his case."
>>
>> > SEEM TO HAVE MISINTERPRETED???..... =A0 =A0If Da Bug "misinterpreted" w=
>hat
>> > Dr Carrico wtote and said, then he's the worlds worst lawyer,because
>> > even the village idiot would understand that Dr Carrico said the that
>> > "PENETRATING" wound had " NO JAGGED EDGES".
>>
>> Pay attention. Bugliosi was referring to Carroco's observation of a
>> RAGGED WOUND OF THE TRACHEA.
Pay attention. Bugliosi was referring to Carrico's observation of a RAGGED WOUND
OF THE TRACHEA - and applied that observation TO ANOTHER PART OF JFK'S BODY.
Trolls lie, that's what trolls do.
>Yes that's right, He refers to the wound of the treachea and the hole
>in the skin of JFK's throat as if it's the same wound.
Exactly correct... Bugliosi lied.
>"Although Carrico was unable to determine whether the throat wound was
>an
>entrance or exit wound, he did observe that the wound was "ragged,"
>virtually a
>sure sign of an exit wound as opposed to an entrance wound, which is
>usually
>round and devoid of ragged edges." (Bugliosi, p.413)
>
>
>Being the slimey lawyer he is, Bugliosi trys to confuse the issue by
>saying that Dr Carrico was referring to the ragged wound of the
>treachea as an exit wound, when in reality Dr Carrico was referring
>to the small smooth edged PENETRATING wound on JFK's skin. Don't play
>dumb Mark......You know exactly what Bugliosi was attempting.
He knows... he's just too dishonest to admit that Bugliosi provably lied.
>It's clear that Dr Carrico saw an ENTRY wound on JFK's throat, and
>when he enlarged that small bullet entry wound he saw a ragged hole in
>JFK's trachea where the bullet had struck the side of the treachea and
>tore a ragged hole in it.
>
>You know that it's true, why don't you man up and admit it?
He can't. He's a liar just like Bugliosi is.
>> > " Carrico testified in at least two places the wound was =93rather roun=
>d
>> > and there were no jagged edges or stellate lacerations.=94 (6 WCH 3);
>> > =93fairly round, had no jagged edges.=94 (3 WCH 362) " ....Cranor
>>
>> I quoted that bit above, stupid. Where did I disagree with Cranor's
>> assessment that it was a "significant omission" not to take these
>> statements into account?
>>
>> > =A0Once again you display your cowardly aversion to facing harsh
>> > reality....Bugliosi is a liar, as was the Warren Commission.
>>
>> Diehard CTs like you and Ben are spouting sloppy, one-sided research,
>> harebrained ideas, idle speculation, misleading statements, outright
>> falsehoods & personal insults like your very existence depended on it.
>> What are we supposed to infer from that? What personal traits do you
>> think you're displaying?
>>
>> > > Ironically: Does Ben honestly believe that conspiracy authors never
>> > > overstate the case for the throat wound being an entrance wound? At
>> > > least Cranor has the intellectual fortitude to admit that exit wounds
>> > > can be small and that the Parkland descriptions are not without
>> > > ambiguities.
>>
>> No comments?
A nonsensical statement. It would only be possible to "overstate" the case if
you lied about the evidence. CT'ers don't need to do that.
So why don't you simply cite an example of such "overstating", and let's examine
it.
*AFTER*, of course, you admit that Bugliosi simply lied.
Walt
> In article <29aff2b6-aeb2-4aed-9613-323f56363...@h12g2000pro.googlegroups.com>,
Mark the mucher wrote:....."Bugliosi really does seem to have
misinterpreted Carrico and overstated his case."
This not exactly an admission that Bugliosi lied. but it's about all
you can expect from a cowardly liar.....
It's obvious that Mark recognizes that Bugliosi was lying, and trying
to confuse the issue by morphing the ragged wound of the trachea and
the smoth edged punctuate entry wound of the skin into a "ragged edged
exit wound" , but he simply don't have the balls to admit it.
>
> --
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Ben Holmes
> Learn to Make Money with a Website -http://www.burningknife.com- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Ben Holmes
Walt says...
>
>On May 26, 9:29=A0am, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>> In article <29aff2b6-aeb2-4aed-9613-323f56363...@h12g2000pro.googlegroups=
>.com>,
>> Walt says...
>>
>> >On May 26, 5:59=3DA0am, mucher1 <much...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> On 25 Maj, 14:51, Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote:
>>
>> >> > On May 25, 3:53 am, mucher1 <much...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> > > On 24 Maj, 13:55, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> > > > Then let's take a simple example, and see if you can defend it:
>>
>nd =3D
>> >was an
>> >> > > > entrance or exit wound, he did observe that the wound was "ragge=
>d,"=3D
>> > virtually a
>> >> > > > sure sign of an exit wound as opposed to an entrance wound, whic=
>h i=3D
>> >s usually
>> >> > > > round and devoid of ragged edges." (Bugliosi, p.413)
>>
>act=3D
>> >ually *say*
>> >> > > > this anywhere?
>>
>> >> > > > What is the ACTUAL evidence show that neck wound description to =
>be?
>>
>> >> > > > Now, you can either find Carrico describing the throat wound as =
>"ra=3D
>> >gged",
>> >> > > > or you can admit that Bugliosi lied, or you can run away...
>>
>> >> > > > Which will it be?
>>
>> >> > > > T
>> >> > > > ("
>>
>> >> > > Ben seems to have read this essay by Milicent Cranor:
>>
>we.=3D
>> >..
>>
>> >> > > This portion in particular:
>>
>> >> > > <Cranor ON>
>>
>> >> > > Specimen 2:
>was
>> >> > > an entrance or exit wound, he did observe that the wound was
>opposed=3D
>> > to
>> >> > > an entrance wound, which is usually round and devoid of ragged
>>
>> >> > > Bugliosi=3D92s reference for the above is page 517 of the Warren R=
>eport
>> >> > > where Charles J. Carrico described a =3D93ragged wound of the
>> >> > > trachea,=3D94 (emphasis mine). Yet, in the above context, Bugliosi=
> seem=3D
>> >s
>> >> > > to want the reader to assume =3D93the wound=3D94 refers to the one=
> in the=3D
>> > skin
>> >> > > -- the only kind that counts in the context of entrance versus exi=
>t.
>> >> > > (Almost any wound in a trachea would be ragged because of the
>si
>> >> > > mentions Carrico=3D92s description of the raggedness of the trache=
>a
>> >> > > (Bugliosi, p.60), and so it is unlikely that he has confused this =
>wit=3D
>> >h
>> >> > > the wound in the skin.
>>
>> >> > > Significant omission: Carrico testified in at least two places the
>late
>> >> > > lacerations.=3D94 (6 WCH 3); =3D93fairly round, had no jagged edge=
>s.=3D94 (=3D
>> >3 WCH
>> >> > > 362)
>>
>> >> > > <Cranor OFF>
>>
>nal
>> >> > > thinker, he seems to have just copy/pasted the Bugiosi quote (sans
>> >> > > note #s) from Cranor's essay, without acknowledging her research.
>>
>> >> > > Cranor makes good points, though, and Bugliosi really does seem to
>> >> > > have misinterpreted Carrico and overstated his case.
>>
>> >> > overstated his case."
>>
>> >> > SEEM TO HAVE MISINTERPRETED???..... =3DA0 =3DA0If Da Bug "misinterpr=
>eted" w=3D
>> >hat
>> >> > Dr Carrico wtote and said, then he's the worlds worst lawyer,because
>t
>> >> > "PENETRATING" wound had " NO JAGGED EDGES".
>>
>> >> Pay attention. Bugliosi was referring to Carroco's observation of a
>> >> RAGGED WOUND OF THE TRACHEA.
>>
>D WOUND
>> OF THE TRACHEA - and applied that observation TO ANOTHER PART OF JFK'S BO=
>DY.
>>
>> Trolls lie, that's what trolls do.
>>
>> >Yes that's right, He refers to the wound of the treachea and the hole
>> >in the skin of JFK's throat as if it's the same wound.
>>
>> Exactly correct... Bugliosi lied.
>>
>> >"Although Carrico was unable to determine whether the throat wound was
>> >an
>> >entrance or exit wound, he did observe that the wound was "ragged,"
>> >virtually a
>> >sure sign of an exit wound as opposed to an entrance wound, which is
>> >usually
>> >round and devoid of ragged edges." (Bugliosi, p.413)
>>
>> >Being the slimey lawyer he is, Bugliosi trys to confuse the issue by
>> >saying that Dr Carrico was referring to the ragged wound of the
>> >to the small smooth edged PENETRATING wound on JFK's skin. =A0Don't play
>> >dumb Mark......You know exactly what Bugliosi was attempting.
>>
>> He knows... he's just too dishonest to admit that Bugliosi provably lied.
>>
>> >It's clear that Dr Carrico saw an ENTRY wound on JFK's throat, and
>> >when he enlarged that small bullet entry wound he saw a ragged hole in
>> >JFK's trachea where the bullet had struck the side of the treachea and
>> >tore a ragged hole in it.
>>
>> >You know that it's true, why don't you man up and admit it?
>>
>> He can't. He's a liar just like Bugliosi is.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
> roun=3D
>> >d
>> >> > and there were no jagged edges or stellate lacerations.=3D94 (6 WCH =
>3);
>> >> > =3D93fairly round, had no jagged edges.=3D94 (3 WCH 362) " ....Crano=
>r
>>
>> >> I quoted that bit above, stupid. Where did I disagree with Cranor's
>> >> assessment that it was a "significant omission" not to take these
>> >> statements into account?
>>
>> >> > reality....Bugliosi is a liar, as was the Warren Commission.
>>
>> >> Diehard CTs like you and Ben are spouting sloppy, one-sided research,
>> >> harebrained ideas, idle speculation, misleading statements, outright
>> >> falsehoods & personal insults like your very existence depended on it.
>> >> What are we supposed to infer from that? What personal traits do you
>> >> think you're displaying?
>>
>r
>> >> > > overstate the case for the throat wound being an entrance wound? A=
>t
>> >> > > least Cranor has the intellectual fortitude to admit that exit wou=
>nds
>> >> > > can be small and that the Parkland descriptions are not without
>> >> > > ambiguities.
>>
>> >> No comments?
>>
>e if
>> you lied about the evidence. CT'ers don't need to do that.
>>
>examine
>> it.
>>
>> *AFTER*, of course, you admit that Bugliosi simply lied.
>
>Mark the mucher wrote:....."Bugliosi really does seem to have
>misinterpreted Carrico and overstated his case."
>
>This not exactly an admission that Bugliosi lied. but it's about all
>you can expect from a cowardly liar.....
>It's obvious that Mark recognizes that Bugliosi was lying, and trying
>to confuse the issue by morphing the ragged wound of the trachea and
>the smoth edged punctuate entry wound of the skin into a "ragged edged
>exit wound" , but he simply don't have the balls to admit it.
And what's really great about this example is that it doesn't take a tremendous
knowledge of the ins & outs of the evidence in this case to recognize the lie.
Yet the trolls are forced to cover up the lie, and refuse to admit that it's a
lie... notice how "Tim Brennan" has all but vacated this topic...
He ran away with his tail tucked between his legs...
Bugliosi lied blatantly, and the LNT'er camp cannot admit it.
Just as they couldn't admit that Posner lied.
aeffects
> In article <906ede2f-1441-4b1e-a082-6ca87458e...@s41g2000prb.googlegroups.com>,
yes, excellent example... *WHY* the lying? Now that's a good question
-- see below definition
ly·ing 2 (lng)
v. :Present participle of lie2.
adj. :Disposed to or characterized by untruth: a lying witness. See
Synonyms at dishonest.
...
Ben Holmes
aeffects says...
>
>On May 26, 9:21=A0am, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>> In article <906ede2f-1441-4b1e-a082-6ca87458e...@s41g2000prb.googlegroups=
>.com>,
>> Walt says...
>>
>> >On May 26, 9:29=3DA0am, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>> >> In article <29aff2b6-aeb2-4aed-9613-323f56363...@h12g2000pro.googlegro=
>ups=3D
>> >.com>,
>> >> Walt says...
>>
>> >> >On May 26, 5:59=3D3DA0am, mucher1 <much...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >> On 25 Maj, 14:51, Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote:
>>
>> >> >> > On May 25, 3:53 am, mucher1 <much...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> >> > > On 24 Maj, 13:55, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>>
>t:
>>
>> >> >> > > > "Although Carrico was unable to determine whether the throat =
>wou=3D
>> >nd =3D3D
>> >> >was an
>> >> >> > > > entrance or exit wound, he did observe that the wound was "ra=
>gge=3D
>> >d,"=3D3D
>> >> > virtually a
>> >> >> > > > sure sign of an exit wound as opposed to an entrance wound, w=
>hic=3D
>> >h i=3D3D
>> >> >s usually
>> >> >> > > > round and devoid of ragged edges." (Bugliosi, p.413)
>>
>co =3D
>> >act=3D3D
>> >> >ually *say*
>> >> >> > > > this anywhere?
>>
>> >> >> > > > What is the ACTUAL evidence show that neck wound description =
>to =3D
>> >be?
>>
>> >> >> > > > Now, you can either find Carrico describing the throat wound =
>as =3D
>> >"ra=3D3D
>> >> >gged",
>> >> >> > > > or you can admit that Bugliosi lied, or you can run away...
>>
>> >> >> > > > Which will it be?
>>
>> >> >> > > > T
>> >> >> > > > ("
>>
>> >> >> > > Ben seems to have read this essay by Milicent Cranor:
>>
>Bet=3D
>> >we.=3D3D
>> >> >..
>>
>> >> >> > > This portion in particular:
>>
>> >> >> > > <Cranor ON>
>>
>> >> >> > > Specimen 2:
>nd =3D
>> >was
>> >> >> > > an entrance or exit wound, he did observe that the wound was
>und as =3D
>> >opposed=3D3D
>> >> > to
>> >> >> > > an entrance wound, which is usually round and devoid of ragged
>>
>> >> >> > > Bugliosi=3D3D92s reference for the above is page 517 of the War=
>ren R=3D
>> >eport
>> >> >> > > where Charles J. Carrico described a =3D3D93ragged wound of the
>> >> >> > > trachea,=3D3D94 (emphasis mine). Yet, in the above context, Bug=
>liosi=3D
>> > seem=3D3D
>> >> >s
>> >> >> > > to want the reader to assume =3D3D93the wound=3D3D94 refers to =
>the one=3D
>> > in the=3D3D
>> >> > skin
>> >> >> > > -- the only kind that counts in the context of entrance versus =
>exi=3D
>> >t.
>> >> >> > > (Almost any wound in a trachea would be ragged because of the
>lio=3D
>> >si
>> >> >> > > mentions Carrico=3D3D92s description of the raggedness of the t=
>rache=3D
>> >a
>> >> >> > > (Bugliosi, p.60), and so it is unlikely that he has confused th=
>is =3D
>> >wit=3D3D
>> >> >h
>> >> >> > > the wound in the skin.
>>
>the
>> >> >> > > wound was =3D3D93rather round and there were no jagged edges or=
> stel=3D
>> >late
>> >> >> > > lacerations.=3D3D94 (6 WCH 3); =3D3D93fairly round, had no jagg=
>ed edge=3D
>> >s.=3D3D94 (=3D3D
>> >> >3 WCH
>> >> >> > > 362)
>>
>> >> >> > > <Cranor OFF>
>>
>igi=3D
>> >nal
>> >> >> > > thinker, he seems to have just copy/pasted the Bugiosi quote (s=
>ans
>> >> >> > > note #s) from Cranor's essay, without acknowledging her researc=
>h.
>>
>> >> >> > > Cranor makes good points, though, and Bugliosi really does seem=
> to
>> >> >> > > have misinterpreted Carrico and overstated his case.
>>
>and
>> >> >> > overstated his case."
>>
>> >> >> > SEEM TO HAVE MISINTERPRETED???..... =3D3DA0 =3D3DA0If Da Bug "mis=
>interpr=3D
>> >eted" w=3D3D
>> >> >hat
>> >> >> > Dr Carrico wtote and said, then he's the worlds worst lawyer,beca=
>use
>> >> >> > even the village idiot would understand that Dr Carrico said the =
>tha=3D
>> >t
>> >> >> > "PENETRATING" wound had " NO JAGGED EDGES".
>>
>> >> >> Pay attention. Bugliosi was referring to Carroco's observation of a
>> >> >> RAGGED WOUND OF THE TRACHEA.
>>
>GGE=3D
>> >D WOUND
>> >> OF THE TRACHEA - and applied that observation TO ANOTHER PART OF JFK'S=
> BO=3D
>> >DY.
>>
>> >> Trolls lie, that's what trolls do.
>>
>> >> >Yes that's right, He refers to the wound of the treachea and the hole
>> >> >in the skin of JFK's throat as if it's the same wound.
>>
>> >> Exactly correct... Bugliosi lied.
>>
>s
>> >> >an
>> >> >entrance or exit wound, he did observe that the wound was "ragged,"
>> >> >virtually a
>> >> >sure sign of an exit wound as opposed to an entrance wound, which is
>> >> >usually
>> >> >round and devoid of ragged edges." (Bugliosi, p.413)
>>
>> >> >Being the slimey lawyer he is, Bugliosi trys to confuse the issue by
>> >> >saying that Dr Carrico was referring to the ragged wound of the
>ing
>> >> >to the small smooth edged PENETRATING wound on JFK's skin. =3DA0Don't=
> play
>> >> >dumb Mark......You know exactly what Bugliosi was attempting.
>>
>ed.
>>
>> >> >It's clear that Dr Carrico saw an ENTRY wound on JFK's throat, and
>n
>> >> >JFK's trachea where the bullet had struck the side of the treachea an=
>d
>> >> >tore a ragged hole in it.
>>
>> >> >You know that it's true, why don't you man up and admit it?
>>
>> >> He can't. He's a liar just like Bugliosi is.
>>
>ather=3D
>> > roun=3D3D
>> >> >d
>> >> >> > and there were no jagged edges or stellate lacerations.=3D3D94 (6=
> WCH =3D
>> >3);
>> >> >> > =3D3D93fairly round, had no jagged edges.=3D3D94 (3 WCH 362) " ..=
>..Crano=3D
>> >r
>>
>> >> >> I quoted that bit above, stupid. Where did I disagree with Cranor's
>> >> >> assessment that it was a "significant omission" not to take these
>> >> >> statements into account?
>>
>rsh
>> >> >> > reality....Bugliosi is a liar, as was the Warren Commission.
>>
>h,
>> >> >> harebrained ideas, idle speculation, misleading statements, outrigh=
>t
>> >> >> falsehoods & personal insults like your very existence depended on =
>it.
>> >> >> What are we supposed to infer from that? What personal traits do yo=
>u
>> >> >> think you're displaying?
>>
>eve=3D
>> >r
>> >> >> > > overstate the case for the throat wound being an entrance wound=
>? A=3D
>> >t
>> >> >> > > least Cranor has the intellectual fortitude to admit that exit =
>wou=3D
>> >nds
>> >> >> > > can be small and that the Parkland descriptions are not without
>> >> >> > > ambiguities.
>>
>> >> >> No comments?
>>
>cas=3D
>> >e if
>> >> you lied about the evidence. CT'ers don't need to do that.
>>
>'s =3D
>> >examine
>> >> it.
>>
>> >> *AFTER*, of course, you admit that Bugliosi simply lied.
>>
>> >Mark the mucher wrote:....."Bugliosi really does seem to have
>> >misinterpreted Carrico and overstated his case."
>>
>> >This not exactly an admission that Bugliosi lied. but it's about all
>> >you can expect from a cowardly liar.....
>> >It's obvious that Mark recognizes that Bugliosi was lying, and trying
>> >to confuse the issue by morphing the ragged wound of the trachea and
>> >the smoth edged punctuate entry wound of the skin into a "ragged edged
>> >exit wound" , but he simply don't have the balls to admit it.
>>
>endous
>> knowledge of the ins & outs of the evidence in this case to recognize the=
> lie.
>>
>> Yet the trolls are forced to cover up the lie, and refuse to admit that i=
>t's a
>> lie... notice how "Tim Brennan" has all but vacated this topic...
>>
>> He ran away with his tail tucked between his legs...
>>
>> Bugliosi lied blatantly, and the LNT'er camp cannot admit it.
>>
>> Just as they couldn't admit that Posner lied.
>
>yes, excellent example... *WHY* the lying? Now that's a good question
>-- see below definition
>
>v. :Present participle of lie2.
>adj. :Disposed to or characterized by untruth: a lying witness. See
>Synonyms at dishonest.
> ...
They cannot admit that Posner or Bugliosi (or, for that matter, the WC & HSCA)
lied about the evidence, because it would demonstrate that their theory isn't
correct.
So even when a specific example is provided, they can only run away...
Real facts don't need lies to support 'em... and the LNT'er camp is intelligent
enough to understand that.
aeffects
> In article <22a3486d-7f4e-485f-a686-7fcef2493...@q14g2000prh.googlegroups.com>,
you're shredding the last vestige of hope I have for lone nut trolls
hereabouts. They can't be educated concerning real case evidence...
only obstruct?
ves·tige (vstj)
n.
1. A visible trace, evidence, or sign of something that once existed
but exists or appears no more.
timstter
Huh? I didn't see the word SURFACE in Benny's original post. He said
throat and the trachea is in the throat, dumbass. Carrico said the
wound in the trachea was ragged, dumbass, ie it indicates an EXITING
bullet.
> It is a fact that Carrico wrote in his memo (see page 519 WR) ..
> Quote.... "Two external wounds were noticed. One small PENETRATING of
> the anterior neck in the lower 1/3 ......... a ragged wound of the
> trachea was seen immediately below the larynx "......unquote
>
And pentrating means as opposed to blunt trauma, you know that now,
don't you dumbass. It is not an indicator one way or another of
entrance or exit.
> It's clear that Dr Carrico was writing about two EXTERNAL
> wounds....One was a "small PENETRATING of the anterior neck in the
> lower 1/3", and the other EXTERNAL wound was at the back of JFK's
> skull. He described the INTERNAL damage to the treachea as "ragged"when he wrote..."a ragged wound of the trachea was seen immediately
>
So he said the wound in JFK's thraot was ragged, right? Thanks for
providing the cite, dumbass!
> below the larynx "......
>
> Please keep posting your nonsense, it's very revealing to any lurkers
> that you are a liar. And the only reason a person like you lies is to
> conceal the truth. It's very obvious that you KNOW that Dr Carrico
> said the the wound on JFK's throat was a small PENETRATING (entrance)
> wound, but you're to damned dishonest and cowardly to admit it. LBJ's
> Warren Commission was just as cowardly and dishonest.
>
LOL! You dumbass! Carrico SPECIFICALLY says he uses the word
PENETRATING to differentiate between a wound of BLUNT trauma. It's not
an indicator of entrance or exit, dumbass. You've been reading too
many dumbass conspiracy books, dumbass.
> Dr Carrico's observation that the wound on JFK's throat was a bullet
> ENTRY wound caused LBJ and JEH to squirm in panic, until some slimey
Where's your citation for that, dumbass?
> lawyer ( Arlen Spector ?) suggested that they could explain the bullet
> ENTRY wound in JFK's throat by lying and making people believe that
> JFK had turned around and was facing the TSBD when he was shot in the
> throat. ( That lie was actually printed and broadcast before it was
> pointed out that at no time did JFK turn around and face the TSBD
> during the shooting. But since the "EXPERTS" had already broadcast
> that outrageous lie many ignorant assholes (LNers) took it as gospel
> and cited the "experts" in arguing that Oswald shot JFK in the throat
> when JFK turned around to wave at someone to his rear.
>
LOL! Things have moved on since 1963, dumbass. Only an idiot is going
to posit in this day and age that an FMJ, hitting Kennedy where it
did, wouldn't transit his body and go on to hit something else. It
transited his body and exited his trachea, leaving the ragged wound of
exit that Carrico saw.
Even a dumbass like you should be able to blunder to that conclusion,
dumbass.
LMFAO Regards,
Bud
No retard, what Carrico said was that it could have been either an
entrance or an exit.
> Here's the definition that you posted a link to.....
> Quote....."Penetrating trauma is an injury that occurs when an object
> pierces the skin and enters a tissue of the body, creating an open
> wound. In blunt, or non-penetrating trauma, there may be an impact,
> but the skin is not necessarily broken." ...unquote
>
> Notice that the definition DOES in fact indicate a
> DIRECTION.... ....."Penetrating trauma is an injury that occurs when
> an object pierces the skin and enters a tissue of the body,.... Find
> someone with an IQ greater than a common garden slug and have them
> explain to you what the words "pierce" and "enter" mean.
Jeez, you are dense. Of course whatever pierces the body has to be
moving in a particular direction, retard. But the term "penetrating
wound" in medical jargon is nondirectional , it isn`t used to
designate the direction the object that pierced the body was moving,
only that it broke the skin and exposed the tissue below. As I
explained to you, if a person is stabbed with a sword that goes in one
side of the body and out the other, both the exit and the entrance are
penetrating wounds. The term isn`t used to designate which way the
item doing the piercing was travelling, it`s used to designate the
type of wound that resulted (a wound that breaks the skin and goes
down into the tissue). I suppose it`s possible to have a non-
penetrating wound in the front made by blunt force that broke off a
piece of bone and caused the bone to exit the skin in the back. In
this case the initial wound wound be non-penetrating wound that
precipitated a penetrating wound.
> The definition goes on to contrast a PENETRATING wound trauma with a
> NON-PENETRATING trauma. It says :
>
> Quote... " In blunt, or non-penetrating trauma, there may be an
> impact, but the skin is not necessarily broken." ...unquote
>
> Now all you have to do is find out what the word "impact" means......
> Stupid bastard!
I`ve explained it to you twice and you are still stumped. You are a
dunce, Walt.
Bud
> In article <d4cc5787-5c44-423a-b949-4cc6661e3...@y19g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>,
Actually you are running from your own words. You claimed that
Carrico never called the throat wound "ragged". You were either wrong
or lying, with the second one being the better bet.
If you are going to nitpick wording you better make sure your own
wording is precise. Because Carrico did indeed call the wound to
Kennedy`s throat made by a bullet "ragged".
> What they CANNOT do is provide a quote from Carrico saying what Bugliosi said
> that he said.
But we can show Carrico saying what you said he never did.
> It's really just that simple. While it would be comforting to believe that the
> trolls really don't understand the difference between the neck and the trachea,
> the truth is that they do... they're simply dishonest.
<snicker> WE`RE dishonest? Ben`s initial claim was...
"Now, was the wound in the throat actually "ragged"? Did Carrico
actually say this anywhere"?
As has been shown, the answer to both Ben`s questions is "YES". So
now he dishonestly changes the wording, and inserts "neck" where he
was previously saying "throat", and WE are somehow to blame that he is
caught in a lie.
> Bugliosi provably lied, and not a *SINGLE* LNT'er or troll has yet admitted that
> fact.
Actually, it was you who has been caught in a lie. Will you retract
your earlier claim? History tells me you will just tell bigger lies to
cover up your previous ones. And that you will continue to run from
the evidence that shows you to be a liar.
Bud
> In article <29aff2b6-aeb2-4aed-9613-323f56363...@h12g2000pro.googlegroups.com>,
Pay attention, retard. You said "THROAT". The trachea is in the
throat, not in another part of the body.
> Trolls lie, that's what trolls do.
And you got caught, didn`t you? You claimed that Carrico never
called the wound in Kennedy`s throat "ragged" when in fact he did.
Will you retract or continue to lie?
> >Yes that's right, He refers to the wound of the treachea and the hole
> >in the skin of JFK's throat as if it's the same wound.
>
> Exactly correct... Bugliosi lied.
You lied when you said Carrico didn`t use the word "ragged".
> >"Although Carrico was unable to determine whether the throat wound was
> >an
> >entrance or exit wound, he did observe that the wound was "ragged,"
> >virtually a
> >sure sign of an exit wound as opposed to an entrance wound, which is
> >usually
> >round and devoid of ragged edges." (Bugliosi, p.413)
>
> >Being the slimey lawyer he is, Bugliosi trys to confuse the issue by
> >saying that Dr Carrico was referring to the ragged wound of the
> >treachea as an exit wound, when in reality Dr Carrico was referring
> >to the small smooth edged PENETRATING wound on JFK's skin. Don't play
> >dumb Mark......You know exactly what Bugliosi was attempting.
>
> He knows... he's just too dishonest to admit that Bugliosi provably lied.
You don`t have enough character to admit you didn`t word your claim
precisely.
> >It's clear that Dr Carrico saw an ENTRY wound on JFK's throat, and
> >when he enlarged that small bullet entry wound he saw a ragged hole in
> >JFK's trachea where the bullet had struck the side of the treachea and
> >tore a ragged hole in it.
>
> >You know that it's true, why don't you man up and admit it?
>
> He can't. He's a liar just like Bugliosi is.
Did Carrico actually say "ragged" anywhere, retard?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >> > " Carrico testified in at least two places the wound was =93rather roun=
> >d
> >> > and there were no jagged edges or stellate lacerations.=94 (6 WCH 3);
> >> > =93fairly round, had no jagged edges.=94 (3 WCH 362) " ....Cranor
>
> >> I quoted that bit above, stupid. Where did I disagree with Cranor's
> >> assessment that it was a "significant omission" not to take these
> >> statements into account?
>
> >> > =A0Once again you display your cowardly aversion to facing harsh
> >> > reality....Bugliosi is a liar, as was the Warren Commission.
>
> >> Diehard CTs like you and Ben are spouting sloppy, one-sided research,
> >> harebrained ideas, idle speculation, misleading statements, outright
> >> falsehoods & personal insults like your very existence depended on it.
> >> What are we supposed to infer from that? What personal traits do you
> >> think you're displaying?
>
> >> > > Ironically: Does Ben honestly believe that conspiracy authors never
> >> > > overstate the case for the throat wound being an entrance wound? At
> >> > > least Cranor has the intellectual fortitude to admit that exit wounds
> >> > > can be small and that the Parkland descriptions are not without
> >> > > ambiguities.
>
> >> No comments?
>
> A nonsensical statement. It would only be possible to "overstate" the case if
> you lied about the evidence. CT'ers don't need to do that.
>
> So why don't you simply cite an example of such "overstating", and let's examine
> it.
Carrico told the WC that the wound he saw in Kennedy`s neck could
have been either an entrance or exit. Why do conspiracy retards always
run from the evidence?
> *AFTER*, of course, you admit that Bugliosi simply lied.
When will you admit you did?
Bud
re tard (noun)
A person who is stupid, obtuse or ineffective in some way; a
conspiracy theorist.
Walt
Liar..... Dr Carrico did NOT say the hole in the skin of the throat
was ragged, he said the hole in the trachea was ragged....
You know that, and so does anybody with a IQ greater than a common
garden slug.....
> > Learn to Make Money with a Website -http://www.burningknife.com- Hide quoted text -
Bud
You don`t think a hole in the trachea caused by a bullet is a wound
to the throat, retard?
> > > Learn to Make Money with a Website -http://www.burningknife.com-Hide quoted text -
Bud
> In article <4555fd1d-cc93-43aa-b0e5-df144cdf9...@v10g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,
> Walt says...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >On May 24, 8:20=A0pm, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
> >> On May 24, 8:56=A0pm, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>
> >> > On May 24, 9:44=A0am, Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote:
>
> >> > > On May 24, 7:26=A0am, timstter <timst...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> >> > > > > Then let's take a simple example, and see if you can defend it:
>
> >> > > > > "Although Carrico was unable to determine whether the throat woun=
> >d was an
> >> > > > > entrance or exit wound, he did observe that the wound was "ragged=
> >," virtually a
> >> > > > > sure sign of an exit wound as opposed to an entrance wound, which=
> > is usually
> >> > > > > round and devoid of ragged edges." (Bugliosi, p.413)
>
> >ctually *say*
> >> > > > > this anywhere?
>
> >> > > > > What is the ACTUAL evidence show that neck wound description to b=
> >e?
>
> >> > > > > Now, you can either find Carrico describing the throat wound as "=
> >ragged",
> >> > > > > or you can admit that Bugliosi lied, or you can run away...
>
> >> > > > > Which will it be?
>
> >> > > > > T
> >> > > > > ("
>
> >> > > > > --
> >-------
> >> > > > > Ben Holmes
> >> > > > > Learn to Make Money with a Website -http://www.burningknife.com
>
> >> > > > Hi Ben,
>
> >> > > > Say, didn't Bugliosi cite a footnote, number 202, to support his cl=
> >aim
> >> > > > re Carrico?
>
> >> > > > Why haven't you detailed what that note says if you want to refute
> >> > > > what Bugliosi said re Carrico?
>
> >> > > > The ball is in your court, I would have thought.
>
> >> > > side of the court.... =A0However, It is a fact that Carrico wrote in =
> >his
> >> > > memo =A0(see page 519 WR) =A0 .. Quote.... "Two external wounds were
> >> > > noticed. One small PENETRATING of the anterior neck in the lower
> >w
> >> > > the larynx "......unquote
>
> >> > =A0 Don`t let Ben see this, he claims Carrico didn`t use the word
> >> > "ragged".
>
>
<snicker> Ben the Retard doesn`t even know basic anatomy. Carrico
certainly did call a wound in Kennedy`s throat "ragged". Will he
retract, offer me an apology? No, he will continue to do what comes
naturally to him, he will lie.
> >> > > Dr Carrico and Dr. Perry testified that the wound in JFK's throat was
> >> > > a tiny clearly defined punctuate wound like a bullet entry wound.
>
> >> > =A0 Carrico testified that it could have been either an entrance or an
> >> > exit.
>
> >> > >=A0In
> >> > > his written memo (written a couple of hours after JFK's death) Dr
> >> > > Carrico described the wound as a PENETRATING wound...... Do you know
> >> > > what the word "PENETRATE" means?...... Or do we need to provide you
> >> > > with a dictionary definition?
>
> >> > =A0 Now all you need to do is establish what he meant by that. He may
> >> > have been saying it was a hole that went into the body as opposed to a
> >> > surface wound.
>
> >> =A0 I looked into it and it is as I surmised, "penetrating wound" is non-
> >> directional in medical jargon.
>
> >> =A0http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penetrating_wound
>
> >Ha,ha,ha,hahee,hee,hee..... ROTFLMAO!!..... Thanks for displaying
> >you're dishonest stupidity once aqgain....
>
> >Here's the first sentences of the definition that you linked to.....
>
> >Quote....."Penetrating trauma is an injury that occurs when an object
> >pierces the skin and enters a tissue of the body, creating an open
> >wound. In blunt, or non-penetrating trauma, there may be an impact,
> >but the skin is not necessarily broken." ...unquote
>
> >Now I guess you'll have to look up the words "PIERCES" and
> >"ENTERS".......Hee,hee,hee...Watta Dumbass!
>
> >> > > I'm betting that Ben has judged you correctly, and you'll run away
> >> > > like a yellow cur dog........
>
> >> > =A0 I bet you run away from the FACT that Carrico said it could have
> >> > been an entrance or exit.
>
> >> > > > Regards,
>
> >> > > > Tim Brennan
> >> > > > Sydney, Australia
> >> > > > *Newsgroup(s) Commentator*- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> - Show quoted text -
>
Ben Holmes
Walt says...
>
>On May 26, 4:48=A0pm, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>> On May 26, 10:17=A0am, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>>
>> > In article <d4cc5787-5c44-423a-b949-4cc6661e3...@y19g2000yqk.googlegrou=
>ps.com>,
>> > Walt says...
>>
>> > >On May 25, 8:27=3DA0pm, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>> > >> On May 25, 8:36=3DA0am, Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote:
>>
>> > >> > On May 24, 8:20=3DA0pm, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>>
>> > >> > > On May 24, 8:56=3DA0pm, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>>
>> > >> > > > On May 24, 9:44=3DA0am, Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrot=
>e:
>>
>> > >> > > > > On May 24, 7:26=3DA0am, timstter <timst...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > >> > > > > > On May 24, 9:55=3DA0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com=
>> wrote=3D
>> > >:
>>
>> > >> > > > > > > Then let's take a simple example, and see if you can def=
>end i=3D
>> > >t:
>>
>> > >> > > > > > > "Although Carrico was unable to determine whether the th=
>roat =3D
>> > >wound was an
>> > >> > > > > > > entrance or exit wound, he did observe that the wound wa=
>s "ra=3D
>> > >gged," virtually a
>> > >> > > > > > > sure sign of an exit wound as opposed to an entrance wou=
>nd, w=3D
>> > >hich is usually
>> > >> > > > > > > round and devoid of ragged edges." (Bugliosi, p.413)
>>
>Carri=3D
>> > >co actually *say*
>> > >> > > > > > > this anywhere?
>>
>tion =3D
>> > >to be?
>>
>> > >> > > > > > > Now, you can either find Carrico describing the throat w=
>ound =3D
>> > >as "ragged",
>> > >> > > > > > > or you can admit that Bugliosi lied, or you can run away=
>...
>>
>> > >> > > > > > > Which will it be?
>>
>> > >> > > > > > > T
>> > >> > > > > > > ("
>>
>>
>>
>> > >> > > > > > Say, didn't Bugliosi cite a footnote, number 202, to suppo=
>rt hi=3D
>> > >s claim
>> > >> > > > > > re Carrico?
>>
>> > >> > > > > > Why haven't you detailed what that note says if you want t=
>o ref=3D
>> > >ute
>> > >> > > > > > what Bugliosi said re Carrico?
>>
>> > >> > > > > > The ball is in your court, I would have thought.
>>
>on yo=3D
>> > >ur
>> > >> > > > > side of the court.... =3DA0However, It is a fact that Carric=
>o wrote=3D
>> > > in his
>> > >> > > > > memo =3DA0(see page 519 WR) =3DA0 .. Quote.... "Two external=
> wounds w=3D
>> > >ere
>> > >> > > > > noticed. One small PENETRATING of the anterior neck in the l=
>ower
>> > >> > > > > 1/3 ......... a ragged wound of the trachea was seen immedia=
>tely =3D
>> > >below
>> > >> > > > > the larynx "......unquote
>>
>> > >> > > > =3DA0 Don`t let Ben see this, he claims Carrico didn`t use the=
> word
>> > >> > > > "ragged".
>>
>> > >> > > > > Dr Carrico and Dr. Perry testified that the wound in JFK's t=
>hroat=3D
>> > > was
>> > >> > > > > a tiny clearly defined punctuate wound like a bullet entry w=
>ound.
>>
>> > >> > > > =3DA0 Carrico testified that it could have been either an entr=
>ance or=3D
>> > > an
>> > >> > > > exit.
>>
>> > >> > > > >=3DA0In
>> > >> > > > > his written memo (written a couple of hours after JFK's deat=
>h) Dr
>> > >> > > > > Carrico described the wound as a PENETRATING wound...... Do =
>you k=3D
>> > >now
>> > >> > > > > what the word "PENETRATE" means?...... Or do we need to prov=
>ide y=3D
>> > >ou
>> > >> > > > > with a dictionary definition?
>>
>t. He m=3D
>> > >ay
>> > >> > > > have been saying it was a hole that went into the body as oppo=
>sed t=3D
>> > >o a
>> > >> > > > surface wound.
>>
>> > >> > > =3DA0 I looked into it and it is as I surmised, "penetrating wou=
>nd" is =3D
>> > >non-
>> > >> > > directional in medical jargon.
>>
>>
>> > >> > Ha,ha,ha,hahee,hee,hee..... ROTFLMAO!!..... Thanks for displaying
>> > >> > you're dishonest stupidity once aqgain....
>>
>..
>>
>> > >> > Quote....."Penetrating trauma is an injury that occurs when an obj=
>ect
>> > >> > pierces the skin and enters a tissue of the body, creating an open
>,
>> > >> > but the skin is not necessarily broken." ...unquote
>>
>> > >> > Now I guess you'll have to look up the words "PIERCES" and
>> > >> > "ENTERS".......Hee,hee,hee...Watta Dumbass!
>>
>sed by
>> > >> some foreign body entering the body. But the word "penetrating wound=
>"
>> > >> is not meant to imply the direction the object that penetrated the
>ks
>> > >> the skin and goes into the tissue below. They have two designations,
>> > >> "penetrating" and "non-penetrating". A penetrating wound is one that
>> > >> breaks the skin and goes down into the tissue, and a non-penetrating
>he
>> > >> tissue. If you stab someone with a sword that goes in the front and
>> > >> out the back of the victim, the back wound and the front wound would
>> > >> both be "penetrating wounds", i.e. wounds that go down into the
>> > >> tissue. It`s a non-directional designation. Dunce.
>>
>> > >Nice try liar......Dr Carrico recognized the PENETRATING wound on
>> > >JFK's throat as an ENTRY wound.
>>
>> > >Here's the definition that you posted a link to.....
>> > >Quote....."Penetrating trauma is an injury that occurs when an object
>> > >pierces the skin and enters a tissue of the body, creating an open
>> > >wound. In blunt, or non-penetrating trauma, there may be an impact,
>> > >but the skin is not necessarily broken." ...unquote
>>
>> > >Notice that the definition DOES in fact indicate a
>n
>> > >an object pierces the skin and enters a tissue of the body,.... Find
>> > >someone with an IQ greater than a common garden slug and have them
>> > >explain to you what the words "pierce" and "enter" mean.
>>
>> > >The definition goes on to contrast a PENETRATING wound trauma with a
>>
>> > >Quote... =A0" =A0In blunt, or non-penetrating trauma, there may be an
>> > >impact, but the skin is not necessarily broken." ...unquote
>>
>> > >Now all you have to do is find out what the word "impact" means......
>> > >Stupid bastard!
>>
>> > The trolls are running from the topic. They're changing it, and
>> > dodging all over the place.
>>
>> Actually you are running from your own words.
How can I be? I've never changed what I've been saying all along.
Carrico *NEVER* stated what Bugliosi claimed he had, and in fact testified
contrary...
You're lying again.
>> You claimed that
>> Carrico never called the throat wound "ragged". You were either wrong
>> or lying, with the second one being the better bet.
Carrico never did.
I've yet to see any troll QUOTE Carrico saying that... Bugliosi certainly
didn't.
You're lying again. Blatantly...
>> If you are going to nitpick wording you better make sure your own
>> wording is precise. Because Carrico did indeed call the wound to
>> Kennedy`s throat made by a bullet "ragged".
You're lying.
He *NEVER* said that.
And more importantly, you're not stupid enough to fail to understand the
difference between the throat and the trachea, so you *KNOW* that you're lying.
(and as I point out at the bottom of this post, you previously held a different
stance)
>Liar..... Dr Carrico did NOT say the hole in the skin of the throat
>was ragged, he said the hole in the trachea was ragged....
Bud knows this... he's just too perverse to tell the truth.
>You know that, and so does anybody with a IQ greater than a common
>garden slug.....
Yep... I killfiled Bud a long time ago because he just can't tell the truth to
save his life.
He's now pretending that Carrico said what he not only did not say, BUT
SPECIFICALLY CONTRADICTED.
>> > What they CANNOT do is provide a quote from Carrico saying what Bugliosi
>> > said that he said.
>>
>> But we can show Carrico saying what you said he never did.
Strangely enough, I keep seeing liars *ASSERT* that they can... but still no
quote from Carrico saying what Bugliosi claimed he said.
>> > It's really just that simple. While it would be comforting to believe t=
>hat the
>> > trolls really don't understand the difference between the neck and the =
>trachea,
>> > the truth is that they do... they're simply dishonest.
>>
>> <snicker> WE`RE dishonest? Ben`s initial claim was...
>>
>> "Now, was the wound in the throat actually "ragged"? Did Carrico
>> actually say this anywhere"?
And quite clearly, he didn't.
Indeed, he was even quite specific that the wound was not 'ragged': "This was
probably a 4-7 ram. wound, almost in the midline, maybe a little to the right of
the midline, and below the thyroid cartilage. It was, as I recall, rather round
and there were no jagged edges or stellate lacerations."
A wound can hardly be "ragged" at the same time as it is "rather round", and has
"no jagged edges or stellate lacerations."
But Bud is willing to lie. That's what trolls do, they lie.
Strangely enough, LNT'ers ALSO argue that the wound in the throat was a "shored"
wound, thus explaining why it *looks* like an entry wound. So Bud clearly hasn't
read the 17th chapter in the "LNT'ers Handbook".
>> As has been shown, the answer to both Ben`s questions is "YES".
You're lying again.
Nor has it been "shown"... still no quote stating what Bugliosi lied about...
>> So now he dishonestly changes the wording, and inserts "neck" where he
>> was previously saying "throat", and WE are somehow to blame that he is
>> caught in a lie.
Still lying...
Trolls lie, you really can't blame them, they're just too dishonest to know any
better.
>> > Bugliosi provably lied, and not a *SINGLE* LNT'er or troll has yet admi=
>tted that
>> > fact.
>>
>> Actually, it was you who has been caught in a lie.
Then you should be able to QUOTE AND CITE the evidence that my statements
contradict.
But you can't... you're lying again.
>> Will you retract
>> your earlier claim? History tells me you will just tell bigger lies to
>> cover up your previous ones. And that you will continue to run from
>> the evidence that shows you to be a liar.
How can I retract the truth? And why would I want to?
You *know* you're lying, and you don't particularly care...
>> > >> > > > > I'm betting that Ben has judged you correctly, and you'll ru=
>n awa=3D
>> > >y
>> > >> > > > > like a yellow cur dog........
>>
>> > >> > > > =3DA0 I bet you run away from the FACT that Carrico said it co=
>uld hav=3D
>> > >e
>> > >> > > > been an entrance or exit.
>>
>> > >> > > > > > Regards,
>>
>> > >> > > > > > Tim Brennan
>> > >> > > > > > Sydney, Australia
>> > >> > > > > > *Newsgroup(s) Commentator*
Just for the fun of it, I thought I'd take a look around, and see what Bud is
already on record as asserting about this throat wound... in the following, Bud
is answering Laz:
***********************************************************
> Drs. Carrico, Clark, McClelland, and others all thought it was an
> entrance wound. It had none of the characteristics of an exit wound.
Because unchracteristic ammunition was used to make that wound.
Like you kooks like to point out, CE399 was in very good shape.
> So, if you believe the autopsists' determination that the back wound was
> an entrance, why dismiss the Parkland Drs' determination, when the
> latter were much more familar with gunshot wounds than Humes ever
> dreamed of having?
For the two reasons I just gave. The autopists primary task was to
gather information about the wounds. Perry`s primary task was to treat
his patient.
And the familiarity of Parkland doctors to gunshot wounds can work
against them when they observe a gunshot wound made by unusual ammo.
Like you quoted the nurse saying (from memory) that the wound wasn`t
blown out like most of the exit wounds she had seen. Likely that the
exit wounds she was used to seeing were those produced by soft pointed
handgun ammo. It was an apple that looked like the oranges they were
used to seeing.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/2689e0cfefef0046?hl=en
***********************************************************
As is quite clear, Bud understood *then* that the throat wound was *NOT*
"ragged" and looking like an exit. (I'll disregard his ignorance shown here of
ballistic matters)
But because I point out that Bugliosi lied, it's time for Bud to 'change his
mind' and 'lie for the team' so to speak.
Easy for Bud to do, since he's a natural liar.
But here's another example of Bud demonstrating his knowledge of the medical
testimony and what the throat wound *ACTUALLY* looked like (not Carrico
obviously, but the description of the wound is important):
***********************************************************
This is how it would play out in court...
Prosecutor: How did you determine it was an entrance wound?
Perry: I assumed it was an entrance wound basically because it
looked like one, small and round. Usually when a bullet enters a body
it causes a small round hole, and flattens and distorts when
traversing a body, causes a larger and irregular shaped exit.
Prosecutor: Is this always the case?
Perry: No, if a bullet doesn`t distort or flatten, an exit can look
like an entrance.
Prosecutor: Is just looking at a wound a sure way of determining
whether a wound is an entrance or exit?
Perry: No.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/98d3b4d9d39f3e37?hl=en
***********************************************************
So tell us Bud, how do you reconcile your earlier acceptance of a small round
'neat' wound that *LOOKS* like an entrance wound with your new version of a
"ragged" one?
Can you give us a credible and believable explanation for your contradictory
statements?
Or are you simply lying again?
mainframetech
>That's what trolls do, they lie.
::: chuckle ::: So boringly repetitive. As Head Troll around here, I
want to make it clear that I have never lied on this forum and anyone
saying I lied is lying...:)
Now I think I'll go lie down...:)
Chris
Walt
> In article <b35e8dfa-e50a-4c6e-9908-a31c0ad04...@j23g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>,
Ha,ha,ha,ha,hee,hee,hee.....ROTFLMAO!.. This is hilarious!....The
Warren Report has only eight chapters, and no LNer has the attention
span necessary to read that book...... A LNer handbook with 17
chapters!... I didn't know that the book .... " The Kennedy
Assassination for Dummies"...had 17 chapters, and I've never seen a Dr
Zuess book with more than ten pages.....But I have seen a few Dr Zuess
books in used book stores that some LNer has " autographed" with his
color crayons
>
> >> As has been shown, the answer to both Ben`s questions is "YES".
>
> You're lying again.
>
> Nor has it been "shown"... still no quote stating what Bugliosi lied about...
>
>
>
> >> So now he dishonestly
>
> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
Bud
> In article <b35e8dfa-e50a-4c6e-9908-a31c0ad04...@j23g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>,
<snicker> Looks like my crystal ball is working perfectly, I knew
Ben would heap more lies on top of his previous lies rather than
retract his previous lies.
Ben starting using the word "throat". Yesterday he tried to change
this to "neck". Now he is going with he ambiguous "what Bugliosi
claimed".
> Carrico *NEVER* stated what Bugliosi claimed he had, and in fact testified
> contrary...
>
> You're lying again.
You`re retarded again. Carrico did say the throat wound was
"ragged". It`s been cited many times in posts you responded to, so
it`s clear you are just lying about this.
> >> You claimed that
> >> Carrico never called the throat wound "ragged". You were either wrong
> >> or lying, with the second one being the better bet.
>
> Carrico never did.
>
> I've yet to see any troll QUOTE Carrico saying that... Bugliosi certainly
> didn't.
Here where mainframetech quoted the passage to you a week or so
back...
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/779742cd259f0007
"Through the larynzo scope there seemed to be some hematoma around
the larynx and immediately below the larynx was seen the tracheal
injury."
I don`t know why you bother to lie like this when you know these
things are archived.
> You're lying again. Blatantly...
>
> >> If you are going to nitpick wording you better make sure your own
> >> wording is precise. Because Carrico did indeed call the wound to
> >> Kennedy`s throat made by a bullet "ragged".
>
> You're lying.
>
> He *NEVER* said that.
He has been quoted many times saying this retard, I don`t know why
you bother to continue telling this lie.
> And more importantly, you're not stupid enough to fail to understand the
> difference between the throat and the trachea,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Throat
The trachea is a part of the throat, possibly an organ of the
throat. A wound to the trachea is a throat wound. Are you too stupid
to understand this?
> so you *KNOW* that you're lying.
> (and as I point out at the bottom of this post, you previously held a different
> stance)
No, my stance all along has been that you were lying. I may have
taken different approaches to show this. Not having read down to this
part I look forward to your misrepresentation of my "stances".
> >Liar..... Dr Carrico did NOT say the hole in the skin of the throat
> >was ragged, he said the hole in the trachea was ragged....
>
> Bud knows this... he's just too perverse to tell the truth.
<snicker> A perfect example of the dishonesty and lying of the
conspiracy retards. I said...
"Because Carrico did indeed call the wound to Kennedy`s throat made
by a bullet "ragged".
This is a 100% true statement. Then Walt comes along and lies about
what I asserted...
"Liar... Dr Carrico did NOT say the hole in the skin of the throat
was ragged..."
Notice I didn`t say one fucking word about "skin". So Waly changes
what I said, and then calls me a liar for something I never said.
And then Ben comes along and agrees with Walt`s misrepresentation of
what I said. This is why it really is a waste of time trying to
discuss the case with conspiracy retards, you spend all your time
trying to untangle their lies and misrepresentations.
> >You know that, and so does anybody with a IQ greater than a common
> >garden slug.....
>
> Yep... I killfiled Bud a long time ago because he just can't tell the truth to
> save his life.
How am I the liar. Your claim was that Carrico never said that the
wound in Kennedy`s throat was "ragged". Carrico clearly did say the
wound to Kennedy`s throat was ragged as the trachea is a part of the
throat. And this is why you did killfile me, because I call you on it
when you tell lies like this.
> He's now pretending that Carrico said what he not only did not say, BUT
> SPECIFICALLY CONTRADICTED.
Heres a pop quiz, retard, how many wound were there in Kennedy`s
throat? If you say only one you are either an idiot or lying. You
didn`t specify WHICH wound you were referring to. If you are going to
nitpick other people`s words you better make sure your own wording is
precise.
> >> > What they CANNOT do is provide a quote from Carrico saying what Bugliosi
> >> > said that he said.
>
> >> But we can show Carrico saying what you said he never did.
>
> Strangely enough, I keep seeing liars *ASSERT* that they can... but still no
> quote from Carrico saying what Bugliosi claimed he said.
But you have seen Carrico quotes as saying Kennedy`s throat wound
was "ragged", which is what you were asking for. Why do you continue
to lie that this hasn`t been provided?
> >> > It's really just that simple. While it would be comforting to believe t=
> >hat the
> >> > trolls really don't understand the difference between the neck and the =
> >trachea,
> >> > the truth is that they do... they're simply dishonest.
>
> >> <snicker> WE`RE dishonest? Ben`s initial claim was...
>
> >> "Now, was the wound in the throat actually "ragged"? Did Carrico
> >> actually say this anywhere"?
>
> And quite clearly, he didn't.
Then you are willfully ignorant of anatomy.
> Indeed, he was even quite specific that the wound was not 'ragged': "This was
> probably a 4-7 ram. wound, almost in the midline, maybe a little to the right of
> the midline, and below the thyroid cartilage. It was, as I recall, rather round
> and there were no jagged edges or stellate lacerations."
What about the tracheal wound, retard, what did he say about that
throat wound?
> A wound can hardly be "ragged" at the same time as it is "rather round", and has
> "no jagged edges or stellate lacerations."
Your are getting close to the truth. The bullet caused more than one
wound to Kennedy`s throat.
> But Bud is willing to lie. That's what trolls do, they lie.
Theres no use beating this dead horse, you clearly lied when you
claimed that Carrico never called the wound in Kennedy`s throat
"ragged". You will never be man enough to admit this, so you project
your own character flaws on others.
> Strangely enough, LNT'ers ALSO argue that the wound in the throat was a "shored"
> wound, thus explaining why it *looks* like an entry wound. So Bud clearly hasn't
> read the 17th chapter in the "LNT'ers Handbook".
Don`t assign me positions, we are addressing your claim here.
> >> As has been shown, the answer to both Ben`s questions is "YES".
>
> You're lying again.
>
> Nor has it been "shown"... still no quote stating what Bugliosi lied about...
Don`t make it about Bugliosi, he didn`t make you claim that Carrico
never called the throat wound "ragged".
> >> So now he dishonestly changes the wording, and inserts "neck" where he
> >> was previously saying "throat", and WE are somehow to blame that he is
> >> caught in a lie.
>
> Still lying...
You didn`t try to replace "throat" with "neck" yesterday, and this
wasn`t done purposely to change the argument? Your words are archived
Ben, and I know that you know that "throat" and "neck" aren`t
synonymous.
> Trolls lie, you really can't blame them, they're just too dishonest to know any
> better.
Where is the trachea if NOT in the throat, retard?
> >> > Bugliosi provably lied, and not a *SINGLE* LNT'er or troll has yet admi=
> >tted that
> >> > fact.
>
> >> Actually, it was you who has been caught in a lie.
>
> Then you should be able to QUOTE AND CITE the evidence that my statements
> contradict.
>
> But you can't... you're lying again.
It`s been done many times, this is just the latest example. To
recap...
Ben wanted it to be shown that Carrico called the throat wound
"ragged".
Carrico called the wound to Kennedy`s trachea "ragged".
The trachea is part of the throat, therefore a wound to the trachea
is a throat wound.
This is just like other times Ben has been caught lying, he just
doesn`t acknowledge his lies. But the lurkers can see, even Healy
might be able to see this one. I hope he doesn`t take it too hard.
> >> Will you retract
> >> your earlier claim? History tells me you will just tell bigger lies to
> >> cover up your previous ones. And that you will continue to run from
> >> the evidence that shows you to be a liar.
>
> How can I retract the truth? And why would I want to?
I know you aren`t man enough to admit your lies and retract them. I
just relish pointing it out.
> You *know* you're lying, and you don't particularly care...
An honest man would say "I spoke imprecisely, I was referring to the
outer wound to Kennedy`s skin". But you can`t muster such honesty, can
you?
That should have read "The autopists primary task is *NOT* to gather
information about the wounds." I should proofread, but I never do.
> And the familiarity of Parkland doctors to gunshot wounds can work
> against them when they observe a gunshot wound made by unusual ammo.
> Like you quoted the nurse saying (from memory) that the wound wasn`t
> blown out like most of the exit wounds she had seen. Likely that the
> exit wounds she was used to seeing were those produced by soft pointed
> handgun ammo. It was an apple that looked like the oranges they were
> used to seeing.http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/2689e0cfefef004...
> ***********************************************************
>
> As is quite clear, Bud understood *then* that the throat wound was *NOT*
> "ragged" and looking like an exit. (I'll disregard his ignorance shown here of
> ballistic matters)
Where did I ever take the stance that the outer wound to Kennedy`s
throat was ragged? Carrico called the inner, tracheal throat wound
"ragged". How can you miss a point that has been repeatedly made? I
don`t think you are that stupid, so it must be dishonesty.
> But because I point out that Bugliosi lied, it's time for Bud to 'change his
> mind' and 'lie for the team' so to speak.
>
> Easy for Bud to do, since he's a natural liar.
Bud can understand that TWO ENTIRELY DIFFERENT WOUNDS CAN LOOK
DIFFERENTLY. Why can`t you, retard?
Look, if a bullet goes through my arm and enters my side, how many
wounds is that?
> But here's another example of Bud demonstrating his knowledge of the medical
> testimony and what the throat wound *ACTUALLY* looked like (not Carrico
> obviously, but the description of the wound is important):
The point there was that most of the bullet wounds that these
doctors see are from handguns, and handgun bullets are often designed
to flatten and distort, causing nasty exits. They don`t see a lot of
wounds caused by military ammunition that is designed (as mandated by
the Geneva convention) not to break up or distort. So their
inclination might be to assume that a small round hole is an entry
hole because in their experience it almost always is. But this has
nothing to do with any argument I made in this discussion, I was just
point out that you lied when you said that Carrico never called the
wound to Kennedy`s throat "ragged".
> ***********************************************************
> This is how it would play out in court...
>
> Prosecutor: How did you determine it was an entrance wound?
>
> Perry: I assumed it was an entrance wound basically because it
> looked like one, small and round. Usually when a bullet enters a body
> it causes a small round hole, and flattens and distorts when
> traversing a body, causes a larger and irregular shaped exit.
>
> Prosecutor: Is this always the case?
>
> Perry: No, if a bullet doesn`t distort or flatten, an exit can look
> like an entrance.
>
> Prosecutor: Is just looking at a wound a sure way of determining
> whether a wound is an entrance or exit?
>
> Perry: No.http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/98d3b4d9d39f3e3...
> ***********************************************************
Thanks for supplying testimony that supports the point I was making.
> So tell us Bud, how do you reconcile your earlier acceptance of a small round
> 'neat' wound that *LOOKS* like an entrance wound with your new version of a
> "ragged" one?
Two different wounds. The hole in the skin and the injury to the
trachea. Two different wounds to the throat, why must they look the
same?
> Can you give us a credible and believable explanation for your contradictory
> statements?
See above.
Ben Holmes
Walt says...
>
>On May 26, 11:31=A0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>> In article <b35e8dfa-e50a-4c6e-9908-a31c0ad04...@j23g2000yqc.googlegroups=
>.com>,
>> Walt says...
>>
>> >On May 26, 4:48=3DA0pm, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>> >> On May 26, 10:17=3DA0am, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> > In article <d4cc5787-5c44-423a-b949-4cc6661e3...@y19g2000yqk.googleg=
>rou=3D
>> >ps.com>,
>> >> > Walt says...
>>
>> >> > >On May 25, 8:27=3D3DA0pm, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>> >> > >> On May 25, 8:36=3D3DA0am, Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote=
>:
>>
>> >> > >> > On May 24, 8:20=3D3DA0pm, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>>
>> >> > >> > > On May 24, 8:56=3D3DA0pm, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>>
>> >> > >> > > > On May 24, 9:44=3D3DA0am, Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net>=
> wrot=3D
>> >e:
>>
>> >> > >> > > > > On May 24, 7:26=3D3DA0am, timstter <timst...@gmail.com> w=
>rote:
>>
>> >> > >> > > > > > On May 24, 9:55=3D3DA0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknif=
>e.com=3D
>> >> wrote=3D3D
>> >> > >:
>>
>> >> > >> > > > > > > Then let's take a simple example, and see if you can =
>def=3D
>> >end i=3D3D
>> >> > >t:
>>
>> >> > >> > > > > > > "Although Carrico was unable to determine whether the=
> th=3D
>> >roat =3D3D
>> >> > >wound was an
>> >> > >> > > > > > > entrance or exit wound, he did observe that the wound=
> wa=3D
>> >s "ra=3D3D
>> >> > >gged," virtually a
>> >> > >> > > > > > > sure sign of an exit wound as opposed to an entrance =
>wou=3D
>> >nd, w=3D3D
>> >> > >hich is usually
>> >> > >> > > > > > > round and devoid of ragged edges." (Bugliosi, p.413)
>>
>id =3D
>> >Carri=3D3D
>> >> > >co actually *say*
>> >> > >> > > > > > > this anywhere?
>>
>rip=3D
>> >tion =3D3D
>> >> > >to be?
>>
>> >> > >> > > > > > > Now, you can either find Carrico describing the throa=
>t w=3D
>> >ound =3D3D
>> >> > >as "ragged",
>> >> > >> > > > > > > or you can admit that Bugliosi lied, or you can run a=
>way=3D
>> >...
>>
>> >> > >> > > > > > > Which will it be?
>>
>> >> > >> > > > > > > T
>> >> > >> > > > > > > ("
>>
>> >> > >> > > > > > Hi Ben,
>>
>ppo=3D
>> >rt hi=3D3D
>> >> > >s claim
>> >> > >> > > > > > re Carrico?
>>
>> >> > >> > > > > > Why haven't you detailed what that note says if you wan=
>t t=3D
>> >o ref=3D3D
>> >> > >ute
>> >> > >> > > > > > what Bugliosi said re Carrico?
>>
>> >> > >> > > > > > The ball is in your court, I would have thought.
>>
>ls =3D
>> >on yo=3D3D
>> >> > >ur
>> >> > >> > > > > side of the court.... =3D3DA0However, It is a fact that C=
>arric=3D
>> >o wrote=3D3D
>> >> > > in his
>> >> > >> > > > > memo =3D3DA0(see page 519 WR) =3D3DA0 .. Quote.... "Two e=
>xternal=3D
>> > wounds w=3D3D
>> >> > >ere
>> >> > >> > > > > noticed. One small PENETRATING of the anterior neck in th=
>e l=3D
>> >ower
>> >> > >> > > > > 1/3 ......... a ragged wound of the trachea was seen imme=
>dia=3D
>> >tely =3D3D
>> >> > >below
>> >> > >> > > > > the larynx "......unquote
>>
>> >> > >> > > > =3D3DA0 Don`t let Ben see this, he claims Carrico didn`t us=
>e the=3D
>> > word
>> >> > >> > > > "ragged".
>>
>> >> > >> > > > > Dr Carrico and Dr. Perry testified that the wound in JFK'=
>s t=3D
>> >hroat=3D3D
>> >> > > was
>> >> > >> > > > > a tiny clearly defined punctuate wound like a bullet entr=
>y w=3D
>> >ound.
>>
>> >> > >> > > > =3D3DA0 Carrico testified that it could have been either an=
> entr=3D
>> >ance or=3D3D
>> >> > > an
>> >> > >> > > > exit.
>>
>> >> > >> > > > >=3D3DA0In
>> >> > >> > > > > his written memo (written a couple of hours after JFK's d=
>eat=3D
>> >h) Dr
>> >> > >> > > > > Carrico described the wound as a PENETRATING wound...... =
>Do =3D
>> >you k=3D3D
>> >> > >now
>> >> > >> > > > > what the word "PENETRATE" means?...... Or do we need to p=
>rov=3D
>> >ide y=3D3D
>> >> > >ou
>> >> > >> > > > > with a dictionary definition?
>>
>y tha=3D
>> >t. He m=3D3D
>> >> > >ay
>> >> > >> > > > have been saying it was a hole that went into the body as o=
>ppo=3D
>> >sed t=3D3D
>> >> > >o a
>> >> > >> > > > surface wound.
>>
>> >> > >> > > =3D3DA0 I looked into it and it is as I surmised, "penetratin=
>g wou=3D
>> >nd" is =3D3D
>> >> > >non-
>> >> > >> > > directional in medical jargon.
>>
>>
>> >> > >> > Ha,ha,ha,hahee,hee,hee..... ROTFLMAO!!..... Thanks for displayi=
>ng
>> >> > >> > you're dishonest stupidity once aqgain....
>>
>...=3D
>> >..
>>
>> >> > >> > Quote....."Penetrating trauma is an injury that occurs when an =
>obj=3D
>> >ect
>> >> > >> > pierces the skin and enters a tissue of the body, creating an o=
>pen
>> >> > >> > wound. In blunt, or non-penetrating trauma, there may be an imp=
>act=3D
>> >,
>> >> > >> > but the skin is not necessarily broken." ...unquote
>>
>> >> > >> > Now I guess you'll have to look up the words "PIERCES" and
>> >> > >> > "ENTERS".......Hee,hee,hee...Watta Dumbass!
>>
>e cau=3D
>> >sed by
>> >> > >> some foreign body entering the body. But the word "penetrating wo=
>und=3D
>> >"
>> >> > >> is not meant to imply the direction the object that penetrated th=
>e
>> >> > >> body was travelling. It`s meant to designate it as a wound that b=
>rea=3D
>> >ks
>> >> > >> the skin and goes into the tissue below. They have two designatio=
>ns,
>> >> > >> "penetrating" and "non-penetrating". A penetrating wound is one t=
>hat
>> >> > >> breaks the skin and goes down into the tissue, and a non-penetrat=
>ing
>> >> > >> wound is one that doesn`t break the skin, and doesn`t go down int=
>o t=3D
>> >he
>> >> > >> tissue. If you stab someone with a sword that goes in the front a=
>nd
>> >> > >> out the back of the victim, the back wound and the front wound wo=
>uld
>> >> > >> both be "penetrating wounds", i.e. wounds that go down into the
>> >> > >> tissue. It`s a non-directional designation. Dunce.
>>
>> >> > >Nice try liar......Dr Carrico recognized the PENETRATING wound on
>> >> > >JFK's throat as an ENTRY wound.
>>
>> >> > >Here's the definition that you posted a link to.....
>ct
>> >> > >pierces the skin and enters a tissue of the body, creating an open
>> >> > >wound. In blunt, or non-penetrating trauma, there may be an impact,
>> >> > >but the skin is not necessarily broken." ...unquote
>>
>> >> > >Notice that the definition DOES in fact indicate a
>s whe=3D
>> >n
>> >> > >an object pierces the skin and enters a tissue of the body,.... Fin=
>d
>> >> > >someone with an IQ greater than a common garden slug and have them
>> >> > >explain to you what the words "pierce" and "enter" mean.
>>
>a
>> >> > >NON-PENETRATING trauma. =3DA0It says :
>>
>> >> > >Quote... =3DA0" =3DA0In blunt, or non-penetrating trauma, there may=
> be an
>> >> > >impact, but the skin is not necessarily broken." ...unquote
>>
>..
>> >> > >Stupid bastard!
>>
>> >> > The trolls are running from the topic. They're changing it, and
>> >> > dodging all over the place.
>>
>> >> Actually you are running from your own words.
>>
>> How can I be? I've never changed what I've been saying all along.
>>
>d
>> contrary...
>>
>> You're lying again.
>>
>> >> You claimed that
>> >> Carrico never called the throat wound "ragged". You were either wrong
>> >> or lying, with the second one being the better bet.
>>
>> Carrico never did.
>>
>> I've yet to see any troll QUOTE Carrico saying that... Bugliosi certainly
>> didn't.
>>
>> You're lying again. Blatantly...
>>
>> >> If you are going to nitpick wording you better make sure your own
>> >> wording is precise. Because Carrico did indeed call the wound to
>> >> Kennedy`s throat made by a bullet "ragged".
>>
>> You're lying.
>>
>> He *NEVER* said that.
>>
>> And more importantly, you're not stupid enough to fail to understand the
>lying.
>> (and as I point out at the bottom of this post, you previously held a dif=
>ferent
>> stance)
>>
>> >Liar..... Dr Carrico did NOT say the hole in the skin of the throat
>> >was ragged, he said the hole in the trachea was ragged....
>>
>> Bud knows this... he's just too perverse to tell the truth.
>>
>> >You know that, and so does anybody with a IQ greater than a common
>> >garden slug.....
>>
>th to
>> save his life.
>>
>> He's now pretending that Carrico said what he not only did not say, BUT
>> SPECIFICALLY CONTRADICTED.
>>
>iosi
>> >> > said that he said.
>>
>> >> But we can show Carrico saying what you said he never did.
>>
> no
>> quote from Carrico saying what Bugliosi claimed he said.
>>
>e t=3D
>> >hat the
>> >> > trolls really don't understand the difference between the neck and t=
>he =3D
>> >trachea,
>> >> > the truth is that they do... they're simply dishonest.
>>
>> >> <snicker> WE`RE dishonest? Ben`s initial claim was...
>>
>> >> "Now, was the wound in the throat actually "ragged"? Did Carrico
>> >> actually say this anywhere"?
>>
>> And quite clearly, he didn't.
>>
> was
>> probably a 4-7 ram. wound, almost in the midline, maybe a little to the r=
>ight of
>> the midline, and below the thyroid cartilage. It was, as I recall, rather=
> round
>> and there were no jagged edges or stellate lacerations."
>>
>and has
>> "no jagged edges or stellate lacerations."
>>
>> But Bud is willing to lie. That's what trolls do, they lie.
>>
>shored"
>> wound, thus explaining why it *looks* like an entry wound. So Bud clearly=
> hasn't
>> read the 17th chapter in the "LNT'ers Handbook".
>
>
>
>Bud clearly hasn't read the 17th chapter in the "LNT'ers Handbook".
>
>
>Ha,ha,ha,ha,hee,hee,hee.....ROTFLMAO!.. This is hilarious!....The
>Warren Report has only eight chapters, and no LNer has the attention
>span necessary to read that book...... A LNer handbook with 17
>chapters!... I didn't know that the book .... " The Kennedy
>Assassination for Dummies"...had 17 chapters, and I've never seen a Dr
>Zuess book with more than ten pages.....But I have seen a few Dr Zuess
>books in used book stores that some LNer has " autographed" with his
>color crayons
It just seems amusing that the LNT'er camp has made such efforts ("shored
wounds") to explain why the throat wound *looked* like an entry, but was really
an exit - and here comes Bugliosi, Tim Brennan, and Bud to claim that the throat
wound really *did* look like an exit wound...
>> >> As has been shown, the answer to both Ben`s questions is "YES".
>>
>> You're lying again.
>>
>> Nor has it been "shown"... still no quote stating what Bugliosi lied abou=
>t...
>>
>>
>>
>> >> So now he dishonestly
>>
>> ...
Bud
Two conspiracy retards apply their medical expertise to the
assassination. One spouts off about "penetrating wounds" when he has
no idea what the term means and the other doesn`t know the trachea is
in the throat. As always, it isn`t the evidence that is the problem,
it`s the conspiracy retards.
Walt
Duh!...Watta Dumbass!...... Let me ask you a question that may help
you understand.
Would a bullet that made a hole in the trachea have to pass through
the skin of the throat before striking the trachea?
This is a very simply question,Dud...... But I'm betting that you
can't answer it.
> > > > Learn to Make Money with a Website -http://www.burningknife.com-Hidequoted text -
Ben Holmes
Walt says...
>
>On May 26, 9:06=A0pm, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>> On May 26, 9:24=A0pm, Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On May 26, 4:48=A0pm, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>>
>> > > On May 26, 10:17=A0am, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > > In article <d4cc5787-5c44-423a-b949-4cc6661e3...@y19g2000yqk.google=
>groups.com>,
>> > > > Walt says...
>>
>> > > > >On May 25, 8:27=3DA0pm, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>> > > > >> On May 25, 8:36=3DA0am, Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote:
>>
>> > > > >> > On May 24, 8:20=3DA0pm, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>>
>> > > > >> > > On May 24, 8:56=3DA0pm, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>>
>> > > > >> > > > On May 24, 9:44=3DA0am, Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net> =
>wrote:
>>
>> > > > >> > > > > On May 24, 7:26=3DA0am, timstter <timst...@gmail.com> wr=
>ote:
>>
>> > > > >> > > > > > On May 24, 9:55=3DA0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife=
>.com> wrote=3D
>> > > > >:
>>
>> > > > >> > > > > > > Then let's take a simple example, and see if you can=
> defend i=3D
>> > > > >t:
>>
>> > > > >> > > > > > > "Although Carrico was unable to determine whether th=
>e throat =3D
>> > > > >wound was an
>> > > > >> > > > > > > entrance or exit wound, he did observe that the woun=
>d was "ra=3D
>> > > > >gged," virtually a
>> > > > >> > > > > > > sure sign of an exit wound as opposed to an entrance=
> wound, w=3D
>> > > > >hich is usually
>> > > > >> > > > > > > round and devoid of ragged edges." (Bugliosi, p.413)
>>
>Did Carri=3D
>> > > > >co actually *say*
>> > > > >> > > > > > > this anywhere?
>>
>cription =3D
>> > > > >to be?
>>
>> > > > >> > > > > > > Now, you can either find Carrico describing the thro=
>at wound =3D
>> > > > >as "ragged",
>> > > > >> > > > > > > or you can admit that Bugliosi lied, or you can run =
>away...
>>
>> > > > >> > > > > > > Which will it be?
>>
>> > > > >> > > > > > > T
>> > > > >> > > > > > > ("
>>
>> > > > >> > > > > > > --
>---------=3D
>> > > > >-----------
>> > > > >> > > > > > > Ben Holmes
>> > > > >> > > > > > > Learn to Make Money with a Website -http://www.burni=
>ngknife.c=3D
>> > > > >om
>>
>> > > > >> > > > > > Hi Ben,
>>
>> > > > >> > > > > > Say, didn't Bugliosi cite a footnote, number 202, to s=
>upport hi=3D
>> > > > >s claim
>> > > > >> > > > > > re Carrico?
>>
>> > > > >> > > > > > Why haven't you detailed what that note says if you wa=
>nt to ref=3D
>> > > > >ute
>> > > > >> > > > > > what Bugliosi said re Carrico?
>>
>> > > > >> > > > > > The ball is in your court, I would have thought.
>>
>lls on yo=3D
>> > > > >ur
>> > > > >> > > > > side of the court.... =3DA0However, It is a fact that Ca=
>rrico wrote=3D
>> > > > > in his
>> > > > >> > > > > memo =3DA0(see page 519 WR) =3DA0 .. Quote.... "Two exte=
>rnal wounds w=3D
>> > > > >ere
>> > > > >> > > > > noticed. One small PENETRATING of the anterior neck in t=
>he lower
>> > > > >> > > > > 1/3 ......... a ragged wound of the trachea was seen imm=
>ediately =3D
>> > > > >below
>> > > > >> > > > > the larynx "......unquote
>>
>> > > > >> > > > =3DA0 Don`t let Ben see this, he claims Carrico didn`t use=
> the word
>> > > > >> > > > "ragged".
>>
>> > > > >> > > > > Dr Carrico and Dr. Perry testified that the wound in JFK=
>'s throat=3D
>> > > > > was
>> > > > >> > > > > a tiny clearly defined punctuate wound like a bullet ent=
>ry wound.
>>
>> > > > >> > > > =3DA0 Carrico testified that it could have been either an =
>entrance or=3D
>> > > > > an
>> > > > >> > > > exit.
>>
>> > > > >> > > > >=3DA0In
>> > > > >> > > > > his written memo (written a couple of hours after JFK's =
>death) Dr
>> > > > >> > > > > Carrico described the wound as a PENETRATING wound......=
> Do you k=3D
>> > > > >now
>> > > > >> > > > > what the word "PENETRATE" means?...... Or do we need to =
>provide y=3D
>> > > > >ou
>> > > > >> > > > > with a dictionary definition?
>>
> that. He m=3D
>> > > > >ay
>> > > > >> > > > have been saying it was a hole that went into the body as =
>opposed t=3D
>> > > > >o a
>> > > > >> > > > surface wound.
>>
>> > > > >> > > =3DA0 I looked into it and it is as I surmised, "penetrating=
> wound" is =3D
>> > > > >non-
>> > > > >> > > directional in medical jargon.
>>
>>
>> > > > >> > Ha,ha,ha,hahee,hee,hee..... ROTFLMAO!!..... Thanks for display=
>ing
>> > > > >> > you're dishonest stupidity once aqgain....
>>
>o.....
>>
>> > > > >> > Quote....."Penetrating trauma is an injury that occurs when an=
> object
>> > > > >> > pierces the skin and enters a tissue of the body, creating an =
>open
>> > > > >> > wound. In blunt, or non-penetrating trauma, there may be an im=
>pact,
>> > > > >> > but the skin is not necessarily broken." ...unquote
>>
>> > > > >> > Now I guess you'll have to look up the words "PIERCES" and
>> > > > >> > "ENTERS".......Hee,hee,hee...Watta Dumbass!
>>
> caused by
>> > > > >> some foreign body entering the body. But the word "penetrating w=
>ound"
>> > > > >> is not meant to imply the direction the object that penetrated t=
>he
>> > > > >> body was travelling. It`s meant to designate it as a wound that =
>breaks
>> > > > >> the skin and goes into the tissue below. They have two designati=
>ons,
>> > > > >> "penetrating" and "non-penetrating". A penetrating wound is one =
>that
>> > > > >> breaks the skin and goes down into the tissue, and a non-penetra=
>ting
>> > > > >> wound is one that doesn`t break the skin, and doesn`t go down in=
>to the
>> > > > >> tissue. If you stab someone with a sword that goes in the front =
>and
>> > > > >> out the back of the victim, the back wound and the front wound w=
>ould
>> > > > >> both be "penetrating wounds", i.e. wounds that go down into the
>> > > > >> tissue. It`s a non-directional designation. Dunce.
>>
>> > > > >Nice try liar......Dr Carrico recognized the PENETRATING wound on
>> > > > >JFK's throat as an ENTRY wound.
>>
>> > > > >Here's the definition that you posted a link to.....
>ect
>> > > > >pierces the skin and enters a tissue of the body, creating an open
>,
>> > > > >but the skin is not necessarily broken." ...unquote
>>
>> > > > >Notice that the definition DOES in fact indicate a
> when
>> > > > >an object pierces the skin and enters a tissue of the body,.... Fi=
>nd
>> > > > >someone with an IQ greater than a common garden slug and have them
>> > > > >explain to you what the words "pierce" and "enter" mean.
>>
> a
>> > > > >NON-PENETRATING trauma. =A0It says :
>>
> an
>> > > > >impact, but the skin is not necessarily broken." ...unquote
>>
>...
>> > > > >Stupid bastard!
>>
>> > > > The trolls are running from the topic. They're changing it, and dod=
>ging all over
>> > > > the place.
>>
>> > > Actually you are running from your own words. You claimed that
>> > > Carrico never called the throat wound "ragged". You were either wrong
>> > > or lying, with the second one being the better bet.
>>
>> > > If you are going to nitpick wording you better make sure your own
>> > > wording is precise. Because Carrico did indeed call the wound to
>> > > Kennedy`s throat made by a bullet "ragged".
>>
>> > Liar..... Dr Carrico did NOT say the hole in the skin of the throat
>> > was ragged, he said the hole in the trachea was ragged....
>>
>> You don`t think a hole in the trachea caused by a bullet is a wound
>> to the throat, retard?
Of course it is. But the topic is what the wound looked like... did it look like
an entry wound? Or did it look like an exit wound?
You apparently believe that doctors routinely say to themselves "Gee, I don't
know whether that bullet hole in the chest is an entry or an exit, let's cut 'em
open and look at the lungs..."
>Duh!...Watta Dumbass!...... Let me ask you a question that may help
>you understand.
>
>Would a bullet that made a hole in the trachea have to pass through
>the skin of the throat before striking the trachea?
>
>This is a very simply question,Dud...... But I'm betting that you
>can't answer it.
Bud is lying again... I made a very simple assertion: "Dr Carrico did NOT say
the hole in the skin of the throat was ragged, he said the hole in the trachea
was ragged...."
That's merely a fact.
But rather than acknowledging it, the troll runs again. Of course, he *CAN'T*
acknowledge that fact, because to do so is virtually equivalent to stating that
Bugliosi lied.
Bugliosi tried to assert that Carrico had described the throat wound as
"ragged", and that's STILL a lie.
Despite Bud's lies, and Tim's running...
>> > You know that, and so does anybody with a IQ greater than a common
>> > garden slug.....
>>
>> > > > What they CANNOT do is provide a quote from Carrico saying what Bug=
>liosi said
>> > > > that he said.
>>
>> > > =A0 But we can show Carrico saying what you said he never did.
>>
>> > > > It's really just that simple. While it would be comforting to belie=
>ve that the
>> > > > trolls really don't understand the difference between the neck and =
>the trachea,
>> > > > the truth is that they do... they're simply dishonest.
>>
>> > > =A0 <snicker> WE`RE dishonest? Ben`s initial claim was...
>>
>> > > =A0 "Now, was the wound in the throat actually "ragged"? Did Carrico
>> > > actually say this anywhere"?
>>
>> > > =A0 As has been shown, the answer to both Ben`s questions is "YES". S=
>o
>> > > now he dishonestly changes the wording, and inserts "neck" where he
>> > > was previously saying "throat", and WE are somehow to blame that he i=
>s
>> > > caught in a lie.
>>
>> > > > Bugliosi provably lied, and not a *SINGLE* LNT'er or troll has yet =
>admitted that
>> > > > fact.
>>
>> > > =A0 Actually, it was you who has been caught in a lie. Will you retra=
>ct
>> > > your earlier claim? History tells me you will just tell bigger lies t=
>o
>> > > cover up your previous ones. And that you will continue to run from
>> > > the evidence that shows you to be a liar.
>>
>> > > > >> > > > > I'm betting that Ben has judged you correctly, and you'l=
>l run awa=3D
>> > > > >y
>> > > > >> > > > > like a yellow cur dog........
>>
>> > > > >> > > > =3DA0 I bet you run away from the FACT that Carrico said i=
>t could hav=3D
Walt
> In article <02b34b91-639f-440d-9dbb-fd1bb1b02...@y27g2000prb.googlegroups.com>,
Ben wrote:.... "It just seems amusing that the LNT'er camp has made
such efforts ("shored wounds") to explain why the throat wound
*looked* like an entry, but was really an exit - and here comes
Bugliosi, Tim Brennan, and Bud to claim that the throat wound really
*did* look like an exit wound..."
Excellent point, Ben..... I'll repeat a previous observation... The
throat wound is a KEY point, The Lner's know it and the CT's know it.
The Lner's are compelled to lie about that wound which Dr carrico saw
and recorded at 4:00pm that afternoon. Dr Carrico said he saw a small
smooth edged round hole in the skin of JFK's throat. He noted that
foamy blood was oozing from the small round hole that he described as
a PENETRATING wound. He correctly assumed that the frothy blood
indicated an injury to the airway, and decided to insert a trach tube
to allow JFK to breathe. When he enlarged the tiny smooth edged round
hole by incising it he exposed the treachea and saw a ragged hole in
the treachea.
The first LNer's realized that they needed a good explanation for a
PIERCING (puncture) entry wound on JFK's anterior throat. They had
planned ( plotted) to set Oswald up as the patsy but Oswald was seen
by a DPD officer in the TSBD, which was to the rear of JFK's position
at the time of the murder. Therefore they had to make it appear that
Oswald had shot JFK in the throat. In their desperation,they invented
a very stupid lie that JFK had turned around to wave at someone behind
him when Oswald fired. This prevarication was an open admission that
the throat wound was an ENTRY wound. When it was pointed out that JFK
at no time had turned around to face the TSBD they started casting
about for some other lie that they could feed the public. Thus they
came up with another absurd idea that the wound was an exit wound that
only looked like an entry wound, and claimed that it looked like an
entry wound because the flesh of JFK's throat was was "shored" by his
necktie. This idea is nearly as absurd as the idea that JFK turned
around to face the TSBD!!...... A exit wound "might" have the
appearance of an entry wound under very limited conditions. And the
"shoring of the flesh would be one of those
conditions....HOWEVER.....The shoring would have to be created by a
stiff piece of clothing like a leather belt cinched tightly against
the body. JFK's nectie was NOT a stiff piece of clothing and if he
would have had it tied so tight that it would have shored the wound he
wouldn't have been able to breathe.
The fact that the liars desperately tried to invent explanations to
explain away the bullet entry wound in JFK's throat is in fact
tantamount to admitting that they KNOW the throat wound was created by
a bullet fired from in front of JFK.
What everybody reading this needs to understand is that many of the
posters who are desperately denying that the throat wound was an entry
wound are on a government payroll. They are dependent on the
government for their paychecks and have a vested interest in covering
up the truth.
They know that the truth could destroy the government.....so they lie
and deny.
Bud
Yes. Did Carrico describe TWO different wounds. Yes. Did Carrico say
one of the throat wounds was "ragged". Yes. Did Ben Holmes lie when he
said that Carrico never called a wound to Kennedy`s throat "ragged"?
Yes.
> This is a very simply question,Dud...... But I'm betting that you
> can't answer it.
It wasn`t hard. It`s just that you don`t understand the point I`m
contesting and you keep trying to make it about something else. Ben
said that Carrico never used the word "ragged" to describe the wound
to Kennedy`s throat. Ben lied.
> > > > > Learn to Make Money with a Website -http://www.burningknife.com-Hidequotedtext -
Bud
> In article <1509826b-9858-42ff-a8e0-cd16b74b7...@34g2000pru.googlegroups.com>,
And it merely a fact that you also claimed...
"Now, was the wound in the throat actually "ragged"?
And it`s a fact that the answer to this question is "yes". And it`s
a fact that you will continue to lie about this.
And it`s a fact that you asked...
"Did Carrico actually *say* this anywhere?"
And it`s merely a fact that the answer to this is also "yes".
And it merely a fact that you will continue to lie about this also.
> But rather than acknowledging it, the troll runs again. Of course, he *CAN'T*
> acknowledge that fact, because to do so is virtually equivalent to stating that
> Bugliosi lied.
Why are you trying to misdirect to me or Bugliosi? Your claim was
that Carrico never called the wound in Kennedy`s throat "ragged". Why
don`t you just retract your lie?
Walt
Yes.
Well I'll be dipped!..... Dud was able to answer the question.....and
he clearly acknowledged that there was a wound in the skin of JFK's
throat, and another wound to the trachea which was caused by the same
bullet. It is a FACT that Dr Carrico said that the wound of the skin
was a tiny smooth edged, round wound with no stellate or ragged edges.
And furthermore he described the surface wound on the skin of the
throat as a PENETRATING (entry) wound.
Now then Dud, can you man up and admit that Dr Carrico was describing
a wound that was created by a gunman to the FRONT of JFK?..... Or are
you still short in the testicular department?
> > This is a very simply question,Dud...... But I'm betting that you
> > can't answer it.
>
> It wasn`t hard. It`s just that you don`t understand the point I`m
> contesting and you keep trying to make it about something else. Ben
> said that Carrico never used the word "ragged" to describe the wound
> to Kennedy`s throat. Ben lied.
>
>
>
> > > > You know that, and so does anybody with a IQ greater than a common
> > > > garden slug.....
>
> > > > > > What they CANNOT do is provide a quote from Carrico saying what Bugliosi said
> > > > > > that he said.
>
> > > > > But we can show Carrico saying what you said he never did.
>
> > > > > > It's really just that simple. While it would be comforting to believe that the
> > > > > > trolls really don't understand the difference between the neck and the trachea,
> > > > > > the truth is that they do... they're simply dishonest.
>
> > > > > <snicker> WE`RE dishonest? Ben`s initial claim was...
>
> > > > > "Now, was the wound in the throat actually "ragged"? Did Carrico
> > > > > actually say this anywhere"?
>
> > > > > As has been shown, the answer to both Ben`s questions is "YES". So
> > > > > now he dishonestly changes the wording, and inserts "neck" where he
> > > > > was previously saying "throat", and WE are somehow to blame that he is
> > > > > caught
>
> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
aeffects
itself... very informative.... consider it,please.... yourself and
Ben, EXCELLENT! ! ! !
Bud
This should have been singular; "wound".
> Well I'll be dipped!..... Dud was able to answer the question.....and
> he clearly acknowledged that there was a wound in the skin of JFK's
> throat, and another wound to the trachea which was caused by the same
> bullet.
Duh, you finally just got that? The outer wound had nothing to do
with what I was challenging Ben on. I was challenging Ben on his claim
that Carrico never called the throat wound "ragged". If he is going to
nitpick words he should choose his own better.
> It is a FACT that Dr Carrico said that the wound of the skin
> was a tiny smooth edged, round wound with no stellate or ragged edges.
> And furthermore he described the surface wound on the skin of the
> throat as a PENETRATING (entry) wound.
Dumbass, I explained to you that "penetrating wound" in medical
parlance has nothing to do with direction, it only designates a type
of wound (one that breaks the skin and extends into the tissue). It
isn`t used to indicate which way that object that broke the skin and
caused the wound was travelling. You are beyond schooling, like all
conspiracy retards you cling to your errors long after you`ve been
shown wrong.
> Now then Dud, can you man up and admit that Dr Carrico was describing
> a wound that was created by a gunman to the FRONT of JFK?..... Or are
> you still short in the testicular department?
Lets let Carrico himself answer...
Spector: Did it look to be more one than the other [entrance or
exit]?
Carrico: No, it could have been either.
Why do conspiracy retards run from the evidence?
Walt
> Top Post... Walt, your last response deserves a new thread all by
> itself... very informative.... consider it,please.... yourself and
> Ben, EXCELLENT! ! ! !
Thank you...... Perhaps Ben, will consider summerizing, and posting,
the information posted on the throat wound. He's more articulate than
I...... and he doesn't make as many grammatical, and tyographical
errors, or mis-spell as many words.
And he doesn't resort to calling a stupid bastard a "Stupid Bastard".
Ben Holmes
Walt says...
>
>On May 27, 11:35=A0am, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>> On May 27, 10:03=A0am, Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On May 26, 9:06=A0pm, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>>
>> > > On May 26, 9:24=A0pm, Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote:
>>
>> > > > On May 26, 4:48=A0pm, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>>
>> > > > > On May 26, 10:17=A0am, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > > > > In article <d4cc5787-5c44-423a-b949-4cc6661e3...@y19g2000yqk.go=
>oglegroups.com>,
>> > > > > > Walt says...
>>
>> > > > > > >On May 25, 8:27=3DA0pm, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>> > > > > > >> On May 25, 8:36=3DA0am, Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wr=
>ote:
>>
>> > > > > > >> > On May 24, 8:20=3DA0pm, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>>
>> > > > > > >> > > On May 24, 8:56=3DA0pm, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>>
>> > > > > > >> > > > On May 24, 9:44=3DA0am, Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.n=
>et> wrote:
>>
>> > > > > > >> > > > > On May 24, 7:26=3DA0am, timstter <timst...@gmail.com=
>> wrote:
>>
>> > > > > > >> > > > > > On May 24, 9:55=3DA0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningk=
>nife.com> wrote=3D
>> > > > > > >:
>>
>> > > > > > >> > > > > > > Then let's take a simple example, and see if you=
> can defend i=3D
>> > > > > > >t:
>>
>> > > > > > >> > > > > > > "Although Carrico was unable to determine whethe=
>r the throat =3D
>> > > > > > >wound was an
>> > > > > > >> > > > > > > entrance or exit wound, he did observe that the =
>wound was "ra=3D
>> > > > > > >gged," virtually a
>> > > > > > >> > > > > > > sure sign of an exit wound as opposed to an entr=
>ance wound, w=3D
>> > > > > > >hich is usually
>> > > > > > >> > > > > > > round and devoid of ragged edges." (Bugliosi, p.=
>413)
>>
>> > > > > > >> > > > > > > Now, was the wound in the throat actually "ragge=
>d"? Did Carri=3D
>> > > > > > >co actually *say*
>> > > > > > >> > > > > > > this anywhere?
>>
> description =3D
>> > > > > > >to be?
>>
>> > > > > > >> > > > > > > Now, you can either find Carrico describing the =
>throat wound =3D
>> > > > > > >as "ragged",
>> > > > > > >> > > > > > > or you can admit that Bugliosi lied, or you can =
>run away...
>>
>> > > > > > >> > > > > > > Which will it be?
>>
>> > > > > > >> > > > > > > T
>> > > > > > >> > > > > > > ("
>>
>> > > > > > >> > > > > > > --
>-------------=3D
>> > > > > > >-----------
>> > > > > > >> > > > > > > Ben Holmes
>> > > > > > >> > > > > > > Learn to Make Money with a Website -http://www.b=
>urningknife.c=3D
>> > > > > > >om
>>
>> > > > > > >> > > > > > Hi Ben,
>>
>> > > > > > >> > > > > > Say, didn't Bugliosi cite a footnote, number 202, =
>to support hi=3D
>> > > > > > >s claim
>> > > > > > >> > > > > > re Carrico?
>>
>> > > > > > >> > > > > > Why haven't you detailed what that note says if yo=
>u want to ref=3D
>> > > > > > >ute
>> > > > > > >> > > > > > what Bugliosi said re Carrico?
>>
>> > > > > > >> > > > > > The ball is in your court, I would have thought.
>>
>y balls on yo=3D
>> > > > > > >ur
>> > > > > > >> > > > > side of the court.... =3DA0However, It is a fact tha=
>t Carrico wrote=3D
>> > > > > > > in his
>> > > > > > >> > > > > memo =3DA0(see page 519 WR) =3DA0 .. Quote.... "Two =
>external wounds w=3D
>> > > > > > >ere
>> > > > > > >> > > > > noticed. One small PENETRATING of the anterior neck =
>in the lower
>> > > > > > >> > > > > 1/3 ......... a ragged wound of the trachea was seen=
> immediately =3D
>> > > > > > >below
>> > > > > > >> > > > > the larynx "......unquote
>>
>> > > > > > >> > > > =3DA0 Don`t let Ben see this, he claims Carrico didn`t=
> use the word
>> > > > > > >> > > > "ragged".
>>
> JFK's throat=3D
>> > > > > > > was
>> > > > > > >> > > > > a tiny clearly defined punctuate wound like a bullet=
> entry wound.
>>
>> > > > > > >> > > > =3DA0 Carrico testified that it could have been either=
> an entrance or=3D
>> > > > > > > an
>> > > > > > >> > > > exit.
>>
>> > > > > > >> > > > >=3DA0In
>> > > > > > >> > > > > his written memo (written a couple of hours after JF=
>K's death) Dr
>> > > > > > >> > > > > Carrico described the wound as a PENETRATING wound..=
>.... Do you k=3D
>> > > > > > >now
>> > > > > > >> > > > > what the word "PENETRATE" means?...... Or do we need=
> to provide y=3D
>> > > > > > >ou
>> > > > > > >> > > > > with a dictionary definition?
>>
>t by that. He m=3D
>> > > > > > >ay
>> > > > > > >> > > > have been saying it was a hole that went into the body=
> as opposed t=3D
>> > > > > > >o a
>> > > > > > >> > > > surface wound.
>>
>> > > > > > >> > > =3DA0 I looked into it and it is as I surmised, "penetra=
>ting wound" is =3D
>> > > > > > >non-
>> > > > > > >> > > directional in medical jargon.
>>
>>
>> > > > > > >> > Ha,ha,ha,hahee,hee,hee..... ROTFLMAO!!..... Thanks for dis=
>playing
>> > > > > > >> > you're dishonest stupidity once aqgain....
>>
>ed to.....
>>
>> > > > > > >> > Quote....."Penetrating trauma is an injury that occurs whe=
>n an object
>> > > > > > >> > pierces the skin and enters a tissue of the body, creating=
> an open
>> > > > > > >> > wound. In blunt, or non-penetrating trauma, there may be a=
>n impact,
>> > > > > > >> > but the skin is not necessarily broken." ...unquote
>>
>> > > > > > >> > Now I guess you'll have to look up the words "PIERCES" and
>> > > > > > >> > "ENTERS".......Hee,hee,hee...Watta Dumbass!
>>
> are caused by
>> > > > > > >> some foreign body entering the body. But the word "penetrati=
>ng wound"
>> > > > > > >> is not meant to imply the direction the object that penetrat=
>ed the
>> > > > > > >> body was travelling. It`s meant to designate it as a wound t=
>hat breaks
>> > > > > > >> the skin and goes into the tissue below. They have two desig=
>nations,
>> > > > > > >> "penetrating" and "non-penetrating". A penetrating wound is =
>one that
>> > > > > > >> breaks the skin and goes down into the tissue, and a non-pen=
>etrating
>> > > > > > >> wound is one that doesn`t break the skin, and doesn`t go dow=
>n into the
>> > > > > > >> tissue. If you stab someone with a sword that goes in the fr=
>ont and
>> > > > > > >> out the back of the victim, the back wound and the front wou=
>nd would
>> > > > > > >> both be "penetrating wounds", i.e. wounds that go down into =
>the
>> > > > > > >> tissue. It`s a non-directional designation. Dunce.
>>
> on
>> > > > > > >JFK's throat as an ENTRY wound.
>>
>> > > > > > >Here's the definition that you posted a link to.....
> object
>> > > > > > >pierces the skin and enters a tissue of the body, creating an =
>open
>> > > > > > >wound. In blunt, or non-penetrating trauma, there may be an im=
>pact,
>> > > > > > >but the skin is not necessarily broken." ...unquote
>>
>> > > > > > >Notice that the definition DOES in fact indicate a
>curs when
>> > > > > > >an object pierces the skin and enters a tissue of the body,...=
>. Find
>> > > > > > >someone with an IQ greater than a common garden slug and have =
>them
>> > > > > > >explain to you what the words "pierce" and "enter" mean.
>>
>with a
>> > > > > > >NON-PENETRATING trauma. =A0It says :
>>
>> > > > > > >Quote... =A0" =A0In blunt, or non-penetrating trauma, there ma=
>y be an
>> > > > > > >impact, but the skin is not necessarily broken." ...unquote
>>
>s......
>> > > > > > >Stupid bastard!
>>
>> > > > > > The trolls are running from the topic. They're changing it, and=
> dodging all over
>> > > > > > the place.
>>
>t
>> > > > > Carrico never called the throat wound "ragged". You were either w=
>rong
>> > > > > or lying, with the second one being the better bet.
>>
> own
>> > > > > wording is precise. Because Carrico did indeed call the wound to
>> > > > > Kennedy`s throat made by a bullet "ragged".
>>
>> > > > Liar..... Dr Carrico did NOT say the hole in the skin of the throat
>> > > > was ragged, he said the hole in the trachea was ragged....
>>
>nd
>> > > to the throat, retard?
>>
>> > Duh!...Watta Dumbass!...... Let me ask you a question that may help
>> > you understand.
>>
>> > Would a bullet that made a hole in the trachea have to pass through
>> > the skin of the throat before striking the trachea?
>>
>> Yes. Did Carrico describe TWO different wounds. Yes.
And which wound was the one that Bugliosi was referring to?
>> Did Carrico say
>> one of the throat wounds was "ragged". Yes.
You're lying again.
The PROOF that you're lying is shown by the fact that you STILL can't quote
Carrico saying what Bugliosi claimed he'd said.
>> Did Ben Holmes lie when he
>> said that Carrico never called a wound to Kennedy`s throat "ragged"?
>> Yes.
If that were actually true, then the easy and simple way to prove it beyond all
doubt IS TO SIMPLY QUOTE CARRICO SAYING THAT JFK'S THROAT WOUND WAS "RAGGED".
But you haven't been able to up until now, and you won't *EVER* demonstrate it
with a citation.
You're a liar.
>Would a bullet that made a hole in the trachea have to pass through
>the skin of the throat before striking the trachea?
>
> Yes.
>
> Did Carrico describe TWO different wounds. Yes.
>
> Did Carrico say one of the throat wounds was "ragged". Yes.
>
>Well I'll be dipped!..... Dud was able to answer the question.....and
>he clearly acknowledged that there was a wound in the skin of JFK's
>throat, and another wound to the trachea which was caused by the same
>bullet.
What he *WON'T* admit is that the wound to the throat was what Bugliosi was
speaking of.
Or how the mere fact that the tracheal wound was "ragged" shows any direction of
the bullet WHATSOEVER.
Bud's a serial liar...
>It is a FACT that Dr Carrico said that the wound of the skin
>was a tiny smooth edged, round wound with no stellate or ragged edges.
>And furthermore he described the surface wound on the skin of the
>throat as a PENETRATING (entry) wound.
>
>Now then Dud, can you man up and admit that Dr Carrico was describing
>a wound that was created by a gunman to the FRONT of JFK?..... Or are
>you still short in the testicular department?
My crystal ball says he won't.
My crystal ball says that rather than rely on an eyewitnesses' EARLIEST
statements, Bud won't.
>> > This is a very simply question,Dud...... But I'm betting that you
>> > can't answer it.
>>
>> It wasn`t hard. It`s just that you don`t understand the point I`m
>> contesting and you keep trying to make it about something else. Ben
>> said that Carrico never used the word "ragged" to describe the wound
>> to Kennedy`s throat. Ben lied.
And yet, you *STILL* can't quote Carrico saying that.
Nor can you defend your rather stupid implication that the direction of a bullet
can be determined merely by knowing the fact that the trachea wound was
"ragged".
Takes a bit more than that.
In fact, let's play a game...
I just took my copy of Bugliosi's "Reclaiming History" out to the back yard, and
shot a hole clean through it.
Now I'll tell you up front that the content page has a ragged hole in it. The
Introduction has a ragged hole in it. All the pictures starting after page 434
have a ragged hole in it. Page 1612 has a ragged hole in it.
Now tell us, did I fire at the front of the book, or the rear of the book?
Was I a frontal shooter or someone that fired from behind?
I'd love to tell you what the hole on the front looked like, compared to the
hole in the back ... but that wouldn't do *YOU* any good - since you like to
make decisions based on a lack of information...
So tell us, which side of the book did I fire at?
I grant you that this is a two dimensional game, but that should only make it
easier, right?
Be sure that you *JUSTIFY* your answer...
Make it credible and convincing.
>> > > > You know that, and so does anybody with a IQ greater than a common
>> > > > garden slug.....
>>
>> > > > > > What they CANNOT do is provide a quote from Carrico saying what=
> Bugliosi said
>> > > > > > that he said.
>>
>> > > > > =A0 But we can show Carrico saying what you said he never did.
>>
>> > > > > > It's really just that simple. While it would be comforting to b=
>elieve that the
>> > > > > > trolls really don't understand the difference between the neck =
>and the trachea,
>> > > > > > the truth is that they do... they're simply dishonest.
>>
>> > > > > =A0 <snicker> WE`RE dishonest? Ben`s initial claim was...
>>
>> > > > > =A0 "Now, was the wound in the throat actually "ragged"? Did Carr=
>ico
>> > > > > actually say this anywhere"?
>>
>> > > > > =A0 As has been shown, the answer to both Ben`s questions is "YES=
>". So
>> > > > > now he dishonestly changes the wording, and inserts "neck" where =
>he
>> > > > > was previously saying "throat", and WE are somehow to blame that =
>he is
>> > > > > caught
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ben Holmes
Learn to Make Money with a Website - http://www.burningknife.com
Ben Holmes
Walt says...
>
>On May 27, 1:41=A0pm, aeffects <aeffect...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Top Post... Walt, your last response deserves a new thread all by
>> itself... very informative.... consider it,please.... yourself and
>> Ben, EXCELLENT! ! ! !
>
>Thank you...... Perhaps Ben, will consider summerizing, and posting,
>the information posted on the throat wound. He's more articulate than
>I...... and he doesn't make as many grammatical, and tyographical
>errors, or mis-spell as many words.
>
>And he doesn't resort to calling a stupid bastard a "Stupid Bastard".
Perhaps when I get to this one in the new 'Bugliosi Lies' series, I'll make sure
it's expanded with the material you've added.
>> On May 27, 7:48=A0am, Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> > On May 27, 8:33=A0am, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > In article <02b34b91-639f-440d-9dbb-fd1bb1b02...@y27g2000prb.googlegr=
>oups.com>,
>> > > Walt says...
>>
>> > > >On May 26, 11:31=3DA0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>> > > >> In article <b35e8dfa-e50a-4c6e-9908-a31c0ad04...@j23g2000yqc.googl=
>egroups=3D
>> > > >.com>,
>> > > >> Walt says...
>>
>> > > >> >On May 26, 4:48=3D3DA0pm, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>> > > >> >> On May 26, 10:17=3D3DA0am, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> =
>wrote:
>>
>> > > >> >> > In article <d4cc5787-5c44-423a-b949-4cc6661e3...@y19g2000yqk.=
>googleg=3D
>> > > >rou=3D3D
>> > > >> >ps.com>,
>> > > >> >> > Walt says...
>>
>> > > >> >> > >On May 25, 8:27=3D3D3DA0pm, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>> > > >> >> > >> On May 25, 8:36=3D3D3DA0am, Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.n=
>et> wrote=3D
>> > > >:
>>
>> > > >> >> > >> > On May 24, 8:20=3D3D3DA0pm, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrot=
>e:
>>
>> > > >> >> > >> > > On May 24, 8:56=3D3D3DA0pm, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wr=
>ote:
>>
>> > > >> >> > >> > > > On May 24, 9:44=3D3D3DA0am, Walt <papakochenb...@eve=
>rtek.net>=3D
>> > > > wrot=3D3D
>> > > >> >e:
>>
>> > > >> >> > >> > > > > On May 24, 7:26=3D3D3DA0am, timstter <timst...@gma=
>il.com> w=3D
>> > > >rote:
>>
>> > > >> >> > >> > > > > > On May 24, 9:55=3D3D3DA0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@bu=
>rningknif=3D
>> > > >e.com=3D3D
>> > > >> >> wrote=3D3D3D
>> > > >> >> > >:
>>
>> > > >> >> > >> > > > > > > Then let's take a simple example, and see if y=
>ou can =3D
>> > > >def=3D3D
>> > > >> >end i=3D3D3D
>> > > >> >> > >t:
>>
>> > > >> >> > >> > > > > > > "Although Carrico was unable to determine whet=
>her the=3D
>> > > > th=3D3D
>> > > >> >roat =3D3D3D
>> > > >> >> > >wound was an
>> > > >> >> > >> > > > > > > entrance or exit wound, he did observe that th=
>e wound=3D
>> > > > wa=3D3D
>> > > >> >s "ra=3D3D3D
>> > > >> >> > >gged," virtually a
>> > > >> >> > >> > > > > > > sure sign of an exit wound as opposed to an en=
>trance =3D
>> > > >wou=3D3D
>> > > >> >nd, w=3D3D3D
>> > > >> >> > >hich is usually
>> > > >> >> > >> > > > > > > round and devoid of ragged edges." (Bugliosi, =
>p.413)
>>
>> > > >> >> > >> > > > > > > Now, was the wound in the throat actually "rag=
>ged"? D=3D
>> > > >id =3D3D
>> > > >> >Carri=3D3D3D
>> > > >> >> > >co actually *say*
>> > > >> >> > >> > > > > > > this anywhere?
>>
>> > > >> >> > >> > > > > > > What is the ACTUAL evidence show that neck wou=
>nd desc=3D
>> > > >rip=3D3D
>> > > >> >tion =3D3D3D
>> > > >> >> > >to be?
>>
>> > > >> >> > >> > > > > > > Now, you can either find Carrico describing th=
>e throa=3D
>> > > >t w=3D3D
>> > > >> >ound =3D3D3D
>> > > >> >> > >as "ragged",
>> > > >> >> > >> > > > > > > or you can admit that Bugliosi lied, or you ca=
>n run a=3D
>> > > >way=3D3D
>> > > >> >...
>>
>> > > >> >> > >> > > > > > > Which will it be?
>>
>> > > >> >> > >> > > > > > > T
>> > > >> >> > >> > > > > > > ("
>>
>> > > >> >> > >> > > > > > Hi Ben,
>>
>> > > >> >> > >> > > > > > Say, didn't Bugliosi cite a footnote, number 202=
>, to su=3D
>> > > >ppo=3D3D
>> > > >> >rt hi=3D3D3D
>> > > >> >> > >s claim
>> > > >> >> > >> > > > > > re Carrico?
>>
>> > > >> >> > >> > > > > > Why haven't you detailed what that note says if =
>you wan=3D
>> > > >t t=3D3D
>> > > >> >o ref=3D3D3D
>> > > >> >> > >ute
>> > > >> >> > >> > > > > > what Bugliosi said re Carrico?
>>
>> > > >> >> > >> > > > > > The ball is in your court, I would have thought.
>>
>> > > >> >> > >> > > > > That may be right, because there certainly aren't =
>any bal=3D
>> > > >ls =3D3D
>> > > >> >on yo=3D3D3D
>> > > >> >> > >ur
>> > > >> >> > >> > > > > side of the court.... =3D3D3DA0However, It is a fa=
>ct that C=3D
>> > > >arric=3D3D
>> > > >> >o wrote=3D3D3D
>> > > >> >> > > in his
>> > > >> >> > >> > > > > memo =3D3D3DA0(see page 519 WR) =3D3D3DA0 .. Quote=
>.... "Two e=3D
>> > > >xternal=3D3D
>> > > >> > wounds w=3D3D3D
>> > > >> >> > >ere
>> > > >> >> > >> > > > > noticed. One small PENETRATING of the anterior nec=
>k in th=3D
>> > > >e l=3D3D
>> > > >> >ower
>> > > >> >> > >> > > > > 1/3 ......... a ragged wound of the trachea was se=
>en imme=3D
>> > > >dia=3D3D
>> > > >> >tely =3D3D3D
>> > > >> >> > >below
>> > > >> >> > >> > > > > the larynx "......unquote
>>
>> > > >> >> > >> > > > =3D3D3DA0 Don`t let Ben see this, he claims Carrico =
>didn`t us=3D
>> > > >e the=3D3D
>> > > >> > word
>> > > >> >> > >> > > > "ragged".
>>
>> > > >> >> > >> > > > > Dr Carrico and Dr. Perry testified that the wound =
>in JFK'=3D
>> > > >s t=3D3D
>> > > >> >hroat=3D3D3D
>> > > >> >> > > was
>> > > >> >> > >> > > > > a tiny clearly defined punctuate wound like a bull=
>et entr=3D
>> > > >y w=3D3D
>> > > >> >ound.
>>
>> > > >> >> > >> > > > =3D3D3DA0 Carrico testified that it could have been =
>either an=3D
>> > > > entr=3D3D
>> > > >> >ance or=3D3D3D
>> > > >> >> > > an
>> > > >> >> > >> > > > exit.
>>
>> > > >> >> > >> > > > >=3D3D3DA0In
>> > > >> >> > >> > > > > his written memo (written a couple of hours after =
>JFK's d=3D
>> > > >eat=3D3D
>> > > >> >h) Dr
>> > > >> >> > >> > > > > Carrico described the wound as a PENETRATING wound=
>...... =3D
>> > > >Do =3D3D
>> > > >> >you k=3D3D3D
>> > > >> >> > >now
>> > > >> >> > >> > > > > what the word "PENETRATE" means?...... Or do we ne=
>ed to p=3D
>> > > >rov=3D3D
>> > > >> >ide y=3D3D3D
>> > > >> >> > >ou
>> > > >> >> > >> > > > > with a dictionary definition?
>>
>> > > >> >> > >> > > > =3D3D3DA0 Now all you need to do is establish what h=
>e meant b=3D
>> > > >y tha=3D3D
>> > > >> >t. He m=3D3D3D
>> > > >> >> > >ay
>> > > >> >> > >> > > > have been saying it was a hole that went into the bo=
>dy as o=3D
>> > > >ppo=3D3D
>> > > >> >sed t=3D3D3D
>> > > >> >> > >o a
>> > > >> >> > >> > > > surface wound.
>>
>> > > >> >> > >> > > =3D3D3DA0 I looked into it and it is as I surmised, "p=
>enetratin=3D
>> > > >g wou=3D3D
>> > > >> >nd" is =3D3D3D
>> > > >> >> > >non-
>> > > >> >> > >> > > directional in medical jargon.
>>
>> > > >> >> > >> > > =3D3D3DA0http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penetrating_woun=
>d
>>
>> > > >> >> > >> > Ha,ha,ha,hahee,hee,hee..... ROTFLMAO!!..... Thanks for d=
>isplayi=3D
>> > > >ng
>> > > >> >> > >> > you're dishonest stupidity once aqgain....
>>
>> > > >> >> > >> > Here's the first sentences of the definition that you li=
>nked to=3D
>> > > >...=3D3D
>> > > >> >..
>>
>> > > >> >> > >> > Quote....."Penetrating trauma is an injury that occurs w=
>hen an =3D
>> > > >obj=3D3D
>> > > >> >ect
>> > > >> >> > >> > pierces the skin and enters a tissue of the body, creati=
>ng an o=3D
>> > > >pen
>> > > >> >> > >> > wound. In blunt, or non-penetrating trauma, there may be=
> an imp=3D
>> > > >act=3D3D
>> > > >> >,
>> > > >> >> > >> > but the skin is not necessarily broken." ...unquote
>>
>> > > >> >> > >> > Now I guess you'll have to look up the words "PIERCES" a=
>nd
>> > > >> >> > >> > "ENTERS".......Hee,hee,hee...Watta Dumbass!
>>
>> > > >> >> > >> =3D3D3DA0 <snicker> Yes, you are a dumbass. Most of these =
>wounds ar=3D
>> > > >e cau=3D3D
>> > > >> >sed by
>> > > >> >> > >> some foreign body entering the body. But the word "penetra=
>ting wo=3D
>> > > >und=3D3D
>> > > >> >"
>> > > >> >> > >> is not meant to imply the direction the object that penetr=
>ated th=3D
>> > > >e
>> > > >> >> > >> body was travelling. It`s meant to designate it as a wound=
> that b=3D
>> > > >rea=3D3D
>> > > >> >ks
>> > > >> >> > >> the skin and goes into the tissue below. They have two des=
>ignatio=3D
>> > > >ns,
>> > > >> >> > >> "penetrating" and "non-penetrating". A penetrating wound i=
>s one t=3D
>> > > >hat
>> > > >> >> > >> breaks the skin and goes down into the tissue, and a non-p=
>enetrat=3D
>> > > >ing
>> > > >> >> > >> wound is one that doesn`t break the skin, and doesn`t go d=
>own int=3D
>> > > >o t=3D3D
>> > > >> >he
>> > > >> >> > >> tissue. If you stab someone with a sword that goes in the =
>front a=3D
>> > > >nd
>> > > >> >> > >> out the back of the victim, the back wound and the front w=
>ound wo=3D
>> > > >uld
>> > > >> >> > >> both be "penetrating wounds", i.e. wounds that go down int=
>o the
>> > > >> >> > >> tissue. It`s a non-directional designation. Dunce.
>>
>> > > >> >> > >Nice try liar......Dr Carrico recognized the PENETRATING wou=
>nd on
>> > > >> >> > >JFK's throat as an ENTRY wound.
>>
>> > > >> >> > >Here's the definition that you posted a link to.....
>> > > >> >> > >Quote....."Penetrating trauma is an injury that occurs when =
>an obje=3D
>> > > >ct
>> > > >> >> > >pierces the skin and enters a tissue of the body, creating a=
>n open
>> > > >> >> > >wound. In blunt, or non-penetrating trauma, there may be an =
>impact,
>> > > >> >> > >but the skin is not necessarily broken." ...unquote
>>
>> > > >> >> > >Notice that the definition DOES in fact indicate a
>> > > >> >> > >DIRECTION.... =3D3DA0....."Penetrating trauma is an injury t=
>hat occur=3D
>> > > >s whe=3D3D
>> > > >> >n
>> > > >> >> > >an object pierces the skin and enters a tissue of the body,.=
>... Fin=3D
>> > > >d
>> > > >> >> > >someone with an IQ greater than a common garden slug and hav=
>e them
>> > > >> >> > >explain to you what the words "pierce" and "enter" mean.
>>
>> > > >> >> > >The definition goes on to contrast a PENETRATING wound traum=
>a with =3D
>> > > >a
>> > > >> >> > >NON-PENETRATING trauma. =3D3DA0It says :
>>
>> > > >> >> > >Quote... =3D3DA0" =3D3DA0In blunt, or non-penetrating trauma=
>, there may=3D
>> > > > be an
>> > > >> >> > >impact, but the skin is not necessarily broken." ...unquote
>>
>> > > >> >> > >Now all you have to do is find out what the word "impact" me=
>ans....=3D
>> > > >..
>> > > >> >> > >Stupid bastard!
>>
>> > > >> >> > The trolls are running from the topic. They're changing it, a=
>nd
>> > > >> >> > dodging all over the place.
>>
>> > > >> >> Actually you are running from your own words.
>>
>> > > >> How can I be? I've never changed what I've been saying all along.
>>
>> > > >> Carrico *NEVER* stated what Bugliosi claimed he had, and in fact t=
>estifie=3D
>> > > >d
>> > > >> contrary...
>>
>> > > >> You're lying again.
>>
>> > > >> >> You claimed that
>> > > >> >> Carrico never called the throat wound "ragged". You were either=
> wrong
>> > > >> >> or lying, with the second one being the better bet.
>>
>> > > >> Carrico never did.
>>
>> > > >> I've yet to see any troll QUOTE Carrico saying that... Bugliosi ce=
>rtainly
>> > > >> didn't.
>>
>> > > >> You're lying again. Blatantly...
>>
>> > > >> >> If you are going to nitpick wording you better make sure your o=
>wn
>> > > >> >> wording is precise. Because Carrico did indeed call the wound t=
>o
>> > > >> >> Kennedy`s throat made by a bullet "ragged".
>>
>> > > >> You're lying.
>>
>> > > >> He *NEVER* said that.
>>
>> > > >> And more importantly, you're not stupid enough to fail to understa=
>nd the
>> > > >> difference between the throat and the trachea, so you *KNOW* that =
>you're =3D
>> > > >lying.
>> > > >> (and as I point out at the
>>
>> ...
>>
>> read more =BB- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
timstter
> > re Carrico?
>
> > Why haven't you detailed what that note says if you want to refute
> > what Bugliosi said re Carrico?
>
> > The ball is in your court, I would have thought.
>
>
If I'd wanted your worthless opinion I would've asked for it. I don't
want it.
> YOU'VE been asked to support Bugliosi's claim.
>
Yeah, so? I can't ask lil' Benny Holmes for a bit of clarification?
> If you know the footnote, then your SHOULD know what it says.
> Why can't you use it to support your side ?
>
Well I don't know the footnote as I haven't read it yet. I simply
pointed out that Holmes dishonestly DID NOT reference the footnote
when he made his claim about Bugliosi. The fact that Holmes is till
ducking the footnote points to the likelihood that he doesn't like
what is in there.
> THE BALL'S IN YOUR COURT, MITE.
MITE? LOL! KUTGW, Verm!
Smilin' Regards,
timstter
LOL! This must be one of the STUPIDEST posts I have ever read!
Say, Walt, if the hole in Kennedy's skin was an entrance wound, AS YOU
CLAIM, why would the hole in the trachea be ragged, Walt?
The bullet would have to come out of the back of Kennedy's trachea and
leave a ragged wound, wouldn't it? Not to mention his back.
I'll post the text of your pathetic summary here, so people can see
how ineffably STUPID and deluded you are:
QUOTE ON:
QUOTE OFF
It's telling that the befuddled Healy greets your nonsense with
effusive praise but Holmes is lukewarm, as he knows what an IDIOT
you've just made of yourself! You're here to pass messages to Benny,
Walt, not bore him with your insane conclusions.
KUTGW!
LMFAO Regards,
Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup(s) Commentator*
> ...
>
> read more »
timstter
> In article <c6d44f82-3cca-459e-a136-ca6831234...@v8g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
> Walt says...
>
>
>
>
>
> >On May 25, 8:15=A0am, timstter <timst...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On May 25, 1:13=A0am, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>
> >> > In article <265faa6f-d109-48d0-aca8-a3e8977b4...@l26g2000yqm.googlegrou=
> >ps.com>,
> >> > Walt says...
>
> >> > >On May 24, 7:26=3DA0am, timstter <timst...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > >> On May 24, 9:55=3DA0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>
> >> > >> > Then let's take a simple example, and see if you can defend it:
>
> >> > >> > "Although Carrico was unable to determine whether the throat wound=
> > was =3D
> >> > >an
> >> > >> > entrance or exit wound, he did observe that the wound was "ragged,=
> >" vir=3D
> >> > >tually a
> >> > >> > sure sign of an exit wound as opposed to an entrance wound, which =
> >is us=3D
> >> > >ually
> >> > >> > round and devoid of ragged edges." (Bugliosi, p.413)
>
> >tuall=3D
> >> > >y *say*
> >> > >> > this anywhere?
>
> >> > >> > What is the ACTUAL evidence show that neck wound description to be=
> >?
>
> >> > >> > Now, you can either find Carrico describing the throat wound as "r=
> >agged=3D
> >> > >",
> >> > >> > or you can admit that Bugliosi lied, or you can run away...
>
> >> > >> > Which will it be?
>
> >> > >> > T
> >> > >> > ("
>
> >> > >> Hi Ben,
>
> >im
> >> > >> re Carrico?
>
> >> > And just like Bugliosi did, you're lying.
>
> >> Well did he, or did not cite a footnote? He supplied # 202.
>
> >> > You're implying that his citation actually said what he's claiming...
>
> >> No, I just said that he footnoted to # 202. The rest is an imputation
> >> by you.
>
> >> > You CANNOT cite Carrico describing the throat wound as "ragged"
>
> >> Well it sure looks as if Walt just did, LOL!
>
> You see? Trolls can't tell the truth to save their lives...
>
LOL! The trachea is part of the throat, Benny. Dr Carrico describes
the wound in the trachea as being ragged, just as Bugliosi asserts.
>
>
> >Duh!..... Hee,hee,hee,hee..... Watta dumbass! Walt did NOT cite
> >Carrico as saying the wound on the SURFACE was ragged. Here's what I
> >wrote.....
>
> >It is a fact that Carrico wrote in his memo (see page 519 WR) ..
> >Quote.... "Two external wounds were noticed. One small PENETRATING of
> >the anterior neck in the lower 1/3 ......... a ragged wound of the
> >trachea was seen immediately below the larynx "......unquote
>
> >It's clear that Dr Carrico was writing about two EXTERNAL
> >wounds....One was a "small PENETRATING of the anterior neck in the
> >lower 1/3", and the other EXTERNAL wound was at the back of JFK's
> >skull. He described the INTERNAL damage to the treachea as "ragged"
> >when he wrote..."a ragged wound of the trachea was seen immediately
> >below the larynx "......
>
> >Please keep posting your nonsense, it's very revealing to any lurkers
> >that you are a liar. And the only reason a person like you lies is to
> >conceal the truth. It's very obvious that you KNOW that Dr Carrico
> >said the the wound on JFK's throat was a small PENETRATING (entrance)
> >wound, but you're to damned dishonest and cowardly to admit it. LBJ's
> >Warren Commission was just as cowardly and dishonest.
>
> >Dr Carrico's observation that the wound on JFK's throat was a bullet
> >ENTRY wound caused LBJ and JEH to squirm in panic, until some slimey
> >lawyer ( Arlen Spector ?) suggested that they could explain the bullet
> >ENTRY wound in JFK's throat by lying and making people believe that
> >JFK had turned around and was facing the TSBD when he was shot in the
> >throat. ( That lie was actually printed and broadcast before it was
> >pointed out that at no time did JFK turn around and face the TSBD
> >during the shooting. But since the "EXPERTS" had already broadcast
> >that outrageous lie many ignorant assholes (LNers) took it as gospel
> >and cited the "experts" in arguing that Oswald shot JFK in the throat
> >when JFK turned around to wave at someone to his rear.
>
> >> > Is it any wonder that people know you to be a liar?
>
> >> These people are proven liars like you, Holmes.
>
> Of course, I'm telling the truth, and anyone who bothers to research Carrico's
> testimony knows that *YOU'RE* lying... (and of course, Bugliosi)
>
You're simply lying again. In at least three published places Carrici
describes the wound in JFK's trachea, part of his thraot, as being
ragged.
> >> > >> Why haven't you detailed what that note says if you want to refute
> >> > >> what Bugliosi said re Carrico?
>
> >> > Feel free to post it.
>
> >> You're making the argument, Benny. Why don't YOU post it?
>
> Can't post what doesn't exist.
>
You can't post note # 202? It clearly exists so you just lied again.
> >> > You can EQUALLY cite the Constitution... it says *just* as much about t=
> >he
> >> > description of the throat wound.
>
> >> So you say. Why not simply post it,then?
>
> Can't post what doesn't exist.
>
It appears that you FEAR note # 202. Why is that?
> It's up to *YOU* to provide it, not I.
>
If your argument had been an honest one in the first place you would
have referenced the note and debunked it. Looks like your argument has
got the legs you thought it had, Yellow Pants.
> >> > What you CANNOT do, is provide any statement of Carrico's that supports=
> > what
> >> > Bugliosi lied about.
>
> >> Well then why has Walt provided a cite that says Carrico used the word
> >> ragged?
>
> With regards to the throat wound, he didn't.
>
Yes he did. The trachea is part of the throat and he described the
wound in the trachea as ragged. From the Texas State Journal of
Medicine, Volume 60, January, 1964, Page 61 states Dr Carrico reported
on 22 November, 1963:
QUOTE ON:
A cuffed endotracheal tube was inserted through the laryngoscope. A
ragged wound of the trachea was seen immediately below the larynx.
QUOTE OFF
> It wouldn't surprise me to learn that Carrico described the back of the head
> wound as "ragged" either.
>
It wouldn't surprise me to learn you were mentally ill.
> But Bugliosi was speaking of the throat wound.
>
So was Carrico, since the trachea is part of the throat.
> You're lying, and YOU KNOW THAT YOU'RE LYING!!
>
Huh? No, I think you'll find the trachea is part of the throat. It had
a ragged wound in it, according to Dr Carrico. It indicates that
something came throgh from behind and exited the front of the trachea,
Holmes. That would be Oswald's bullet.
> >> > (And clearly, what YOU'RE lying about...)
>
> >> No, at this stage I'm simply asking why you didn't detail the contents
> >> of Bugliosi's footnote. If you want to flame up into ad hominen then
> >> that is a choice you make, though I think nobody around here would be
> >> surprised at your antics.
>
> Why can't you provide what Bugliosi couldn't?
>
Provided above, Yellow Pants. Texas State Journal of Medicine.
> Or admit that Bugliosi lied?
>
Because he didn't. You simply misinterpreted what he said because
you're a stupid, lying troll. Bugliosi describes the throat wound and
the trachea is part of the the throat. It had a ragged wound in it.
>
>
> >> > >> The ball is in your court, I would have thought.
>
> >> > >That may be right, because there certainly aren't any balls on your
> >> > >side of the court.... =A0However, It is a fact that Carrico wrote in h=
> >is
> >> > >memo =A0(see page 519 WR) =A0 .. Quote.... "Two external wounds were
> >> > >noticed. One small PENETRATING of the anterior neck in the lower
> >> > >1/3 ......... a ragged wound of the trachea was seen immediately below
> >> > >the larynx "......unquote
>
> >> > >Dr Carrico and Dr. Perry testified that the wound in JFK's throat was
> >> > >a tiny clearly defined punctuate wound like a bullet entry wound. =A0I=
> >n
> >> > >his written memo (written a couple of hours after JFK's death) Dr
> >> > >Carrico described the wound as a PENETRATING wound...... Do you know
> >> > >what the word "PENETRATE" means?...... Or do we need to provide you
> >> > >with a dictionary definition?
>
> >> > >I'm betting that Ben has judged you correctly, and you'll run away
> >> > >like a yellow cur dog........
>
> >> > It's an easy prediction... the trolls don't have the honesty to admit t=
> >hat
> >> > Bugliosi lied.
>
> >> LOL! I don't have a vested interest in endorsing everything Bugliosi
> >> says. I only had to open his book and look at the photo pages to
> >> realise that he had made some mistakes. Looks, though,as if he got his
> >> *ragged* quote from the WC, Benny. That doesn't translate into him
> >> lying, though. We leave that to your hero, Mark Lane.
>
> He lied. It's simple.
>
> You're lying. (But then again, that's what trolls do.)
>
> >> Uncordial Regards,
>
> >> Tim Brennan
> >> Sydney, Australia
> >> *Newsgroup(s) Commentator*
>
> --
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Ben Holmes
> Learn to Make Money with a Website -http://www.burningknife.com
I miss the days when John Leyden used to mock your cheesy *make money*
promotions, Holmes. The idea of you labouring away over Bugliosi's
book, nitpicking some irrelevancy on page 413 amuses me though. What
an empty little life you must lead.
Concerned Regards,
Bud
> In article <95419aad-925c-4c56-a8ba-8bff964f1...@f15g2000pro.googlegroups.com>,
I don`t have his book, and I don`t really care. I was focusing on
the lie you told.
> >> Did Carrico say
> >> one of the throat wounds was "ragged". Yes.
>
> You're lying again.
I knew you wouldn`t have enough character to reword or clarify your
assertion. Carrico said...
"Through the laryno scope [sp] there seemed to be some hematoma
around the larynx and immediately below the larynx was seen the ragged
tracheal injury".
Now how can it possibly be a lie to say that Carrico said the throat
wound was "ragged"? Do you think the larynx is located at the knee?
> The PROOF that you're lying is shown by the fact that you STILL can't quote
> Carrico saying what Bugliosi claimed he'd said.
But I can (and have) shown that what you said was a lie. And now you
are showing that you aren`t man enough to admit your mistake. Of
course being dishonest comes natural to you.
> >> Did Ben Holmes lie when he
> >> said that Carrico never called a wound to Kennedy`s throat "ragged"?
> >> Yes.
>
> If that were actually true, then the easy and simple way to prove it beyond all
> doubt IS TO SIMPLY QUOTE CARRICO SAYING THAT JFK'S THROAT WOUND WAS "RAGGED".
You need it repeated a dozen times before it sinks in?
> But you haven't been able to up until now, and you won't *EVER* demonstrate it
> with a citation.
It doesn`t matter how many times I cite it, you will just lie and
claim I never did. It the same tact you take whenever anyone answers a
question you ask. You just lie and say the question hasn`t been
answered.
> You're a liar.
You`re retarded.
> >Would a bullet that made a hole in the trachea have to pass through
> >the skin of the throat before striking the trachea?
>
> > Yes.
>
> > Did Carrico describe TWO different wounds. Yes.
>
> > Did Carrico say one of the throat wounds was "ragged". Yes.
>
> >Well I'll be dipped!..... Dud was able to answer the question.....and
> >he clearly acknowledged that there was a wound in the skin of JFK's
> >throat, and another wound to the trachea which was caused by the same
> >bullet.
>
> What he *WON'T* admit is that the wound to the throat was what Bugliosi was
> speaking of.
And what you won`t see is Ben retract his initial claim that Carrico
never called a wound to Kennedy`s throat "ragged". Now that it has
been show that Carrico DID call a wound to Kennedy`s throat "ragged",
why does Ben insist on lying about this?
> Or how the mere fact that the tracheal wound was "ragged" shows any direction of
> the bullet WHATSOEVER.
Where did I make any kind of assertion that it did? What is with you
and these strawmen?
> Bud's a serial liar...
You and your retarded buddy Walt keep putting words in my mouth and
then call me a liar for things I never said. You are both retarded.
You don`t understand that a wound to the trachea is a throat wound and
Walt doesn`t understand that when medical people refer to a
penetrating wound, they aren`t using this term to indicate the
direction the object hat caused the wound was travelling, they are
using it to designate the type of wound caused.
> >It is a FACT that Dr Carrico said that the wound of the skin
> >was a tiny smooth edged, round wound with no stellate or ragged edges.
> >And furthermore he described the surface wound on the skin of the
> >throat as a PENETRATING (entry) wound.
>
> >Now then Dud, can you man up and admit that Dr Carrico was describing
> >a wound that was created by a gunman to the FRONT of JFK?..... Or are
> >you still short in the testicular department?
>
> My crystal ball says he won't.
You better get Healy to polish that for you.
> My crystal ball says that rather than rely on an eyewitnesses' EARLIEST
> statements, Bud won't.
Did Carrico call the outside wound to Kennedy`s throat an entry
wound in his earliest statements?
> >> > This is a very simply question,Dud...... But I'm betting that you
> >> > can't answer it.
>
> >> It wasn`t hard. It`s just that you don`t understand the point I`m
> >> contesting and you keep trying to make it about something else. Ben
> >> said that Carrico never used the word "ragged" to describe the wound
> >> to Kennedy`s throat. Ben lied.
>
> And yet, you *STILL* can't quote Carrico saying that.
Keep lying retard, it does wonders for your credibility.
Here it is once more Gump...
"Through the larynzo scope [actually, it`s laryngroscope] there
seemed to be some hemotoma around the larynx and immediately below the
larynx was seen the ragged tracheal injury"
Does anyone here not understand that Carrico is speaking about a
bullet wound to Kennedy`s throat here?
> Nor can you defend your rather stupid implication that the direction of a bullet
> can be determined merely by knowing the fact that the trachea wound was
> "ragged".
Stop playing with strawmen and address what I`m actually saying for
once.
> Takes a bit more than that.
>
> In fact, let's play a game...
>
> I just took my copy of Bugliosi's "Reclaiming History" out to the back yard, and
> shot a hole clean through it.
You must have a powerful gun.
What caused you to take up arms against it, did it threaten your
faith? Did it whisper to you "Oswald alone"?
> Now I'll tell you up front that the content page has a ragged hole in it. The
> Introduction has a ragged hole in it. All the pictures starting after page 434
> have a ragged hole in it. Page 1612 has a ragged hole in it.
>
> Now tell us, did I fire at the front of the book, or the rear of the book?
>
> Was I a frontal shooter or someone that fired from behind?
>
> I'd love to tell you what the hole on the front looked like, compared to the
> hole in the back ... but that wouldn't do *YOU* any good - since you like to
> make decisions based on a lack of information...
>
> So tell us, which side of the book did I fire at?
What the fuck does this have to do with anything. You think Kennedy
swallowed a book, and thats what Carrico was calling "ragged"?
> I grant you that this is a two dimensional game, but that should only make it
> easier, right?
>
> Be sure that you *JUSTIFY* your answer...
Oh, thats easy. You`re retarded.
> Make it credible and convincing.
Gump-ass bitch.
For no particular reason except to illustrate some gunshot wounds,
I`ll try to link to a book with some pictures. It has a long url, so
it may not work.
Walt
> TOP POST
>
> LOL! This must be one of the STUPIDEST posts I have ever read!
>
> Say, Walt, if the hole in Kennedy's skin was an entrance wound, AS YOU
> CLAIM, why would the hole in the trachea be ragged, Walt?
Friar the liar asked;......"if the hole in Kennedy's skin was an
entrance wound, AS YOU CLAIM, why would the hole in the trachea be
ragged, Walt?"
That's an excellent question, and thank you for asking the question.
The answer is:....The bullet penetrated the skin of JFK's throat,
making a tiny neat smooth edged hole. It then struck the side of JFK's
trachea. Since the trachea is cartilage ( a plastic like substance) It
is a tough substance and it wasn't struck squarely by the bullet, the
bullet tore a hole in the side of the trachea. (kinda like a bullet
hitting the side of a tree rather than hitting it squarely. A bullet
striking the side of a tree leaves a jagged tear in the bark while a
bullet that strikes the tree squarely simply makes a small hole.
I'm sure that you won't like this logical explanation and will reply
with an ad hominem attack, because you're devoid of any other way to
support the lie.
Ben Holmes
Walt says...
>
>On May 27, 10:27=A0pm, timstter <timst...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> TOP POST
>>
>> LOL! This must be one of the STUPIDEST posts I have ever read!
>>
>> Say, Walt, if the hole in Kennedy's skin was an entrance wound, AS YOU
>> CLAIM, why would the hole in the trachea be ragged, Walt?
>
>
>
>Friar the liar asked;......"if the hole in Kennedy's skin was an
>entrance wound, AS YOU CLAIM, why would the hole in the trachea be
>ragged, Walt?"
And, of course, the "hole in Kennedy's skin" *LOOKED* like an entrance wound...
despite the lies of Bugliosi and the trolls...
>That's an excellent question, and thank you for asking the question.
>
>The answer is:....The bullet penetrated the skin of JFK's throat,
>making a tiny neat smooth edged hole.
As *ALL* the testimony makes quite clear.
>It then struck the side of JFK's
>trachea. Since the trachea is cartilage ( a plastic like substance) It
>is a tough substance and it wasn't struck squarely by the bullet, the
>bullet tore a hole in the side of the trachea. (kinda like a bullet
>hitting the side of a tree rather than hitting it squarely. A bullet
>striking the side of a tree leaves a jagged tear in the bark while a
>bullet that strikes the tree squarely simply makes a small hole.
>
>I'm sure that you won't like this logical explanation and will reply
>with an ad hominem attack, because you're devoid of any other way to
>support the lie.
Excellent description.
"Tim" hasn't addressed the obvious fact that you CANNOT state the direction of
the bullet based on the sole fact that the trachea wound was "ragged".
Yet he must believe it... that *was* the argument that he's claiming that
Bugliosi made...
>> The bullet would have to come out of the back of Kennedy's trachea and
>> leave a ragged wound, wouldn't it? Not to mention his back.
>>
>> I'll post the text of your pathetic summary here, so people can see
>> how ineffably STUPID and deluded you are:
>>
>> QUOTE ON:
>>
>> Excellent point, Ben..... =A0I'll repeat a previous observation... The
>> throat wound is a KEY point, The Lner's know it and the CT's know it.
>> The Lner's are compelled to lie about that wound which Dr carrico saw
>> and recorded at 4:00pm that afternoon. =A0Dr Carrico said he saw a small
>> smooth edged round hole in the skin of JFK's throat. =A0He noted that
>> foamy blood was oozing from the small round hole that he described as
>> a PENETRATING wound. He correctly assumed that the frothy blood
>> indicated an injury to the airway, and decided to insert a trach tube
>> to allow JFK to breathe. =A0When he enlarged the tiny smooth edged round
>> hole by incising it he exposed the treachea and saw a ragged hole in
>> the treachea.
>>
>> The first LNer's realized that they needed a good explanation for a
>> PIERCING (puncture) entry wound on JFK's anterior throat. =A0They had
>> planned ( plotted) to set Oswald up as the patsy but Oswald was seen
>> by a DPD officer in the TSBD, which was to the rear of JFK's position
>> at the time of the murder. Therefore they had to make it appear that
>> Oswald had shot JFK in the throat. In their desperation,they invented
>> a very stupid lie that JFK had turned around to wave at someone behind
>> him when Oswald fired. =A0This prevarication was an open admission that
>> the throat wound was an ENTRY wound. =A0When it was pointed out that JFK
>> at no time had turned around to face the TSBD they started casting
>> about for some other lie that they could feed the public. =A0Thus they
>> came up with another absurd idea that the wound was an exit wound that
>> only looked like an entry wound, and claimed that it looked like an
>> entry wound because the flesh of JFK's throat was was "shored" by his
>> necktie. =A0This idea is nearly as absurd as the idea that JFK turned
>> around to face the TSBD!!...... A exit wound "might" have the
>> appearance of an entry wound under very limited conditions. =A0And the
>> "shoring of the flesh would be one of those
>> conditions....HOWEVER.....The shoring would have to be created by a
>> stiff piece of clothing like a leather belt cinched tightly against
>> the body. =A0JFK's nectie was NOT a stiff piece of clothing and if he
>> would have had it tied so tight that it would have shored the wound he
>> wouldn't have been able to breathe.
>>
>> The fact that the liars desperately tried to invent explanations to
>> explain away the bullet entry wound in JFK's throat is in fact
>> tantamount to admitting that they KNOW the throat wound was created by
>> a bullet fired from in front of JFK.
>>
>> What everybody reading this needs to understand is that many of the
>> posters who are desperately denying that the throat wound was an entry
>> wound are on a government payroll. =A0They are dependent on the
>> government for their paychecks and have a vested interest in covering
>> up the truth.
>>
>> They know that the truth could destroy the government.....so they lie
>> and deny.
>>
>> QUOTE OFF
>>
>> It's telling that the befuddled Healy greets your nonsense with
>> effusive praise but Holmes is lukewarm, as he knows what an IDIOT
>> you've just made of yourself! You're here to pass messages to Benny,
>> Walt, not bore him with your insane conclusions.
>>
>> KUTGW!
>>
>> LMFAO Regards,
>>
>> Tim Brennan
>> Sydney, Australia
>> *Newsgroup(s) Commentator*
>>
>> On May 28, 12:48=A0am, Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> > On May 27, 8:33=A0am, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > In article <02b34b91-639f-440d-9dbb-fd1bb1b02...@y27g2000prb.googlegr=
>oups.com>,
>> > > Walt says...
>>
>> > > >On May 26, 11:31=3DA0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>> > > >> In article <b35e8dfa-e50a-4c6e-9908-a31c0ad04...@j23g2000yqc.googl=
>egroups=3D
>> > > >.com>,
>> > > >> Walt says...
>>
>> > > >> >On May 26, 4:48=3D3DA0pm, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>> > > >> >> On May 26, 10:17=3D3DA0am, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> =
>wrote:
>>
>> > > >> >> > In article <d4cc5787-5c44-423a-b949-4cc6661e3...@y19g2000yqk.=
>googleg=3D
>> > > >rou=3D3D
>> > > >> >ps.com>,
>> > > >> >> > Walt says...
>>
>> > > >> >> > >On May 25, 8:27=3D3D3DA0pm, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>> > > >> >> > >> On May 25, 8:36=3D3D3DA0am, Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.n=
>et> wrote=3D
>> > > >:
>>
>> > > >> >> > >> > On May 24, 8:20=3D3D3DA0pm, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrot=
>e:
>>
>> > > >> >> > >> > > On May 24, 8:56=3D3D3DA0pm, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wr=
>ote:
>>
>> > > >> >> > >> > > > On May 24, 9:44=3D3D3DA0am, Walt <papakochenb...@eve=
>rtek.net>=3D
>> > > > wrot=3D3D
>> > > >> >e:
>>
>> > > >> >> > >> > > > > On May 24, 7:26=3D3D3DA0am, timstter <timst...@gma=
>il.com> w=3D
>> > > >rote:
>>
>> > > >> >> > >> > > > > > On May 24, 9:55=3D3D3DA0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@bu=
>rningknif=3D
>> > > >e.com=3D3D
>> > > >> >> wrote=3D3D3D
>> > > >> >> > >:
>>
>> > > >> >> > >> > > > > > > Then let's take a simple example, and see if y=
>ou can =3D
>> > > >def=3D3D
>> > > >> >end i=3D3D3D
>> > > >> >> > >t:
>>
>> > > >> >> > >> > > > > > > "Although Carrico was unable to determine whet=
>her the=3D
>> > > > th=3D3D
>> > > >> >roat =3D3D3D
>> > > >> >> > >wound was an
>> > > >> >> > >> > > > > > > entrance or exit wound, he did observe that th=
>e wound=3D
>> > > > wa=3D3D
>> > > >> >s "ra=3D3D3D
>> > > >> >> > >gged," virtually a
>> > > >> >> > >> > > > > > > sure sign of an exit wound as opposed to an en=
>trance =3D
>> > > >wou=3D3D
>> > > >> >nd, w=3D3D3D
>> > > >> >> > >hich is usually
>> > > >> >> > >> > > > > > > round and devoid of ragged edges." (Bugliosi, =
>p.413)
>>
>> > > >> >> > >> > > > > > > Now, was the wound in the throat actually "rag=
>ged"? D=3D
>> > > >id =3D3D
>> > > >> >Carri=3D3D3D
>> > > >> >> > >co actually *say*
>> > > >> >> > >> > > > > > > this anywhere?
>>
>> > > >> >> > >> > > > > > > What is the ACTUAL evidence show that neck wou=
>nd desc=3D
>> > > >rip=3D3D
>> > > >> >tion =3D3D3D
>> > > >> >> > >to be?
>>
>> > > >> >> > >> > > > > > > Now, you can either find Carrico describing th=
>e throa=3D
>> > > >t w=3D3D
>> > > >> >ound =3D3D3D
>> > > >> >> > >as "ragged",
>> > > >> >> > >> > > > > > > or you can admit that Bugliosi lied, or you ca=
>n run a=3D
>> > > >way=3D3D
>> > > >> >...
>>
>> > > >> >> > >> > > > > > > Which will it be?
>>
>> > > >> >> > >> > > > > > > T
>> > > >> >> > >> > > > > > > ("
>>
>> > > >> >> > >> > > > > > Hi Ben,
>>
>> > > >> >> > >> > > > > > Say, didn't Bugliosi cite a footnote, number 202=
>, to su=3D
>> > > >ppo=3D3D
>> > > >> >rt hi=3D3D3D
>> > > >> >> > >s claim
>> > > >> >> > >> > > > > > re Carrico?
>>
>> > > >> >> > >> > > > > > Why haven't you detailed what that note says if =
>you wan=3D
>> > > >t t=3D3D
>> > > >> >o ref=3D3D3D
>> > > >> >> > >ute
>> > > >> >> > >> > > > > > what Bugliosi said re Carrico?
>>
>> > > >> >> > >> > > > > > The ball is in your court, I would have thought.
>>
>> > > >> >> > >> > > > > That may be right, because there certainly aren't =
>any bal=3D
>> > > >ls =3D3D
>> > > >> >on yo=3D3D3D
>> > > >> >> > >ur
>> > > >> >> > >> > > > > side of the court.... =3D3D3DA0However, It is a fa=
>ct that C=3D
>> > > >arric=3D3D
>> > > >> >o wrote=3D3D3D
>> > > >> >> > > in his
>> > > >> >> > >> > > > > memo =3D3D3DA0(see page 519 WR) =3D3D3DA0 .. Quote=
>.... "Two e=3D
>> > > >xternal=3D3D
>> > > >> > wounds w=3D3D3D
>> > > >> >> > >ere
>> > > >> >> > >> > > > > noticed. One small PENETRATING of the anterior nec=
>k in th=3D
>> > > >e l=3D3D
>> > > >> >ower
>> > > >> >> > >> > > > > 1/3 ......... a ragged wound of the trachea was se=
>en imme=3D
>> > > >dia=3D3D
>> > > >> >tely =3D3D3D
>> > > >> >> > >below
>> > > >> >> > >> > > > > the larynx "......unquote
>>
>> > > >> >> > >> > > > =3D3D3DA0 Don`t let Ben see this, he claims Carrico =
>didn`t us=3D
>> > > >e the=3D3D
>> > > >> > word
>> > > >> >> > >> > > > "ragged".
>>
>> > > >> >> > >> > > > > Dr Carrico and Dr. Perry testified that the wound =
>in JFK'=3D
>> > > >s t=3D3D
>> > > >> >hroat=3D3D3D
>> > > >> >> > > was
>> > > >> >> > >> > > > > a tiny clearly defined punctuate wound like a bull=
>et entr=3D
>> > > >y w=3D3D
>> > > >> >ound.
>>
>> > > >> >> > >> > > > =3D3D3DA0 Carrico testified that it could have been =
>either an=3D
>> > > > entr=3D3D
>> > > >> >ance or=3D3D3D
>> > > >> >> > > an
>> > > >> >> > >> > > > exit.
>>
>> > > >> >> > >> > > > >=3D3D3DA0In
>> > > >> >> > >> > > > > his written memo (written a couple of hours after =
>JFK's d=3D
>> > > >eat=3D3D
>> > > >> >h) Dr
>> > > >> >> > >> > > > > Carrico described the wound as a PENETRATING wound=
>...... =3D
>> > > >Do =3D3D
>> > > >> >you k=3D3D3D
>> > > >> >> > >now
>> > > >> >> > >> > > > > what the word "PENETRATE" means?...... Or do we ne=
>ed to p=3D
>> > > >rov=3D3D
>> > > >> >ide y=3D3D3D
>> > > >> >> > >ou
>> > > >> >> > >> > > > > with a dictionary definition?
>>
>> > > >> >> > >> > > > =3D3D3DA0 Now all you need to do is establish what h=
>e meant b=3D
>> > > >y tha=3D3D
>> > > >> >t. He m=3D3D3D
>> > > >> >> > >ay
>> > > >> >> > >> > > > have been saying it was a hole that went into the bo=
>dy as o=3D
>> > > >ppo=3D3D
>> > > >> >sed t=3D3D3D
>> > > >> >> > >o a
>> > > >> >> > >> > > > surface wound.
>>
>> > > >> >> > >> > > =3D3D3DA0 I looked into it and it is as I surmised, "p=
>enetratin=3D
>> > > >g wou=3D3D
>> > > >> >nd" is =3D3D3D
>> > > >> >> > >non-
>> > > >> >> > >> > > directional in medical jargon.
>>
>> > > >> >> > >> > > =3D3D3DA0http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penetrating_woun=
>d
>>
>> > > >> >> > >> > Ha,ha,ha,hahee,hee,hee..... ROTFLMAO!!..... Thanks for d=
>isplayi=3D
>> > > >ng
>> > > >> >> > >> > you're dishonest stupidity once aqgain....
>>
>> > > >> >> > >> > Here's the first sentences of the definition that you li=
>nked to=3D
>> > > >...=3D3D
>> > > >> >..
>>
>> > > >> >> > >> > Quote....."Penetrating trauma is an injury that occurs w=
>hen an =3D
>> > > >obj=3D3D
>> > > >> >ect
>> > > >> >> > >> > pierces the skin and enters a tissue of the body, creati=
>ng an o=3D
>> > > >pen
>> > > >> >> > >> > wound. In blunt, or non-penetrating trauma, there may be=
> an imp=3D
>> > > >act=3D3D
>> > > >> >,
>> > > >> >> > >> > but the skin is not necessarily broken." ...unquote
>>
>> > > >> >> > >> > Now I guess you'll have to look up the words "PIERCES" a=
>nd
>> > > >> >> > >> > "ENTERS".......Hee,hee,hee...Watta Dumbass!
>>
>> > > >> >> > >> =3D3D3DA0 <snicker> Yes, you are a dumbass. Most of these =
>wounds ar=3D
>> > > >e cau=3D3D
>> > > >> >sed by
>> > > >> >> > >> some foreign body entering the body. But the word
>>
>> ...
>>
>> read more =BB- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
Bud
> In article <c9397fc3-8ec5-413d-8c91-25ba30785...@q30g2000vbs.googlegroups.com>,
> Walt says...
>
>
>
> >On May 27, 10:27=A0pm, timstter <timst...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> TOP POST
>
> >> LOL! This must be one of the STUPIDEST posts I have ever read!
>
> >> Say, Walt, if the hole in Kennedy's skin was an entrance wound, AS YOU
> >> CLAIM, why would the hole in the trachea be ragged, Walt?
>
> >Friar the liar asked;......"if the hole in Kennedy's skin was an
> >entrance wound, AS YOU CLAIM, why would the hole in the trachea be
> >ragged, Walt?"
>
> And, of course, the "hole in Kennedy's skin" *LOOKED* like an entrance wound...
> despite the lies of Bugliosi and the trolls...
The person in question who actually saw the wound said that it could
have been either an entrance or an exit. Why do you feel the need to
lie about the evidence, is it because it doesn`t support your faith?
> >That's an excellent question, and thank you for asking the question.
>
> >The answer is:....The bullet penetrated the skin of JFK's throat,
> >making a tiny neat smooth edged hole.
>
> As *ALL* the testimony makes quite clear.
Carrico`s testimony makes it clear that he thought the wound could
have been an exit or an entrance.
> >It then struck the side of JFK's
> >trachea. Since the trachea is cartilage ( a plastic like substance) It
> >is a tough substance and it wasn't struck squarely by the bullet, the
> >bullet tore a hole in the side of the trachea. (kinda like a bullet
> >hitting the side of a tree rather than hitting it squarely. A bullet
> >striking the side of a tree leaves a jagged tear in the bark while a
> >bullet that strikes the tree squarely simply makes a small hole.
>
> >I'm sure that you won't like this logical explanation and will reply
> >with an ad hominem attack, because you're devoid of any other way to
> >support the lie.
>
> Excellent description.
>
> "Tim" hasn't addressed the obvious fact that you CANNOT state the direction of
> the bullet based on the sole fact that the trachea wound was "ragged".
And you can`t state the direction of the bullet based on the outside
skin not being ragged.
Bud
> On May 27, 10:27 pm, timstter <timst...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > TOP POST
>
> > LOL! This must be one of the STUPIDEST posts I have ever read!
>
> > Say, Walt, if the hole in Kennedy's skin was an entrance wound, AS YOU
> > CLAIM, why would the hole in the trachea be ragged, Walt?
>
> Friar the liar asked;......"if the hole in Kennedy's skin was an
> entrance wound, AS YOU CLAIM, why would the hole in the trachea be
> ragged, Walt?"
>
> That's an excellent question, and thank you for asking the question.
>
> The answer is:....The bullet penetrated the skin of JFK's throat,
And went where, Walt?
timstter
> On May 27, 10:27 pm, timstter <timst...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > TOP POST
>
> > LOL! This must be one of the STUPIDEST posts I have ever read!
>
> > Say, Walt, if the hole in Kennedy's skin was an entrance wound, AS YOU
> > CLAIM, why would the hole in the trachea be ragged, Walt?
>
> Friar the liar asked;......"if the hole in Kennedy's skin was an
> entrance wound, AS YOU CLAIM, why would the hole in the trachea be
> ragged, Walt?"
>
> That's an excellent question, and thank you for asking the question.
>
> The answer is:....The bullet penetrated the skin of JFK's throat,
> making a tiny neat smooth edged hole. It then struck the side of JFK's
> trachea. Since the trachea is cartilage ( a plastic like substance) It
Oh, sure. This post is even STUPIDER than your last one...
> is a tough substance and it wasn't struck squarely by the bullet, the
> bullet tore a hole in the side of the trachea. (kinda like a bullet
> hitting the side of a tree rather than hitting it squarely. A bullet
> striking the side of a tree leaves a jagged tear in the bark while a
> bullet that strikes the tree squarely simply makes a small hole.
>
More Walt Cakebread amateur hour style reasoning on display...
> I'm sure that you won't like this logical explanation and will reply
> with an ad hominem attack, because you're devoid of any other way to
> support the lie.
>
Let's see, fifteen forensic pathologists have looked at the evidence
in this case, including the three who examined the actual body, and
ALL of them concluded that the wound in the throat was one of exit.
Yet Walt Cakbread, poster down @ alt.conspiracy.jfk, knows better than
them, does he? Can you point to any special training you might have
had that would lead us to conclude we should discard the opinion of
qualified medical personnel and accept your nonsense? I'm not aware of
any.
As for ad hominen, you don't recall introducing the word dumbass to
the debate? I do.
Informative Regards,
> ...
>
> read more »
timstter
> In article <c9397fc3-8ec5-413d-8c91-25ba30785...@q30g2000vbs.googlegroups.com>,
> Walt says...
>
>
>
> >On May 27, 10:27=A0pm, timstter <timst...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> TOP POST
>
> >> LOL! This must be one of the STUPIDEST posts I have ever read!
>
> >> Say, Walt, if the hole in Kennedy's skin was an entrance wound, AS YOU
> >> CLAIM, why would the hole in the trachea be ragged, Walt?
>
> >Friar the liar asked;......"if the hole in Kennedy's skin was an
> >entrance wound, AS YOU CLAIM, why would the hole in the trachea be
> >ragged, Walt?"
>
> And, of course, the "hole in Kennedy's skin" *LOOKED* like an entrance wound...
> despite the lies of Bugliosi and the trolls...
>
Pity about the fifteen forensic pathologists that concluded that it
was an exit wound, Benny.
Besides which, some of the Parkland doctors said it could be an
entrance OR an exit, Benny.
> >That's an excellent question, and thank you for asking the question.
>
> >The answer is:....The bullet penetrated the skin of JFK's throat,
> >making a tiny neat smooth edged hole.
>
> As *ALL* the testimony makes quite clear.
>
LOL! I don't think that that is quite true, Benny. Of course, lying is
second nature to a troll like you.
> >It then struck the side of JFK's
> >trachea. Since the trachea is cartilage ( a plastic like substance) It
> >is a tough substance and it wasn't struck squarely by the bullet, the
> >bullet tore a hole in the side of the trachea. (kinda like a bullet
> >hitting the side of a tree rather than hitting it squarely. A bullet
> >striking the side of a tree leaves a jagged tear in the bark while a
> >bullet that strikes the tree squarely simply makes a small hole.
>
> >I'm sure that you won't like this logical explanation and will reply
> >with an ad hominem attack, because you're devoid of any other way to
> >support the lie.
>
> Excellent description.
>
LOL! What a STUPID statement. This idiot's hack conclusion betters
that of fifteen forensic pathologists?!! Where did Walt's throat
entering bullet go, Benny?
> "Tim" hasn't addressed the obvious fact that you CANNOT state the direction of
> the bullet based on the sole fact that the trachea wound was "ragged".
>
No, you add in other factors, like that the murder weapon was found to
the rear, there were only three shots and three shells were found to
the rear etc etc.
No one is stating the direction of the bullet SOLELY on the ragged
trachea wound, Benny. But it's a strong indicator.
> Yet he must believe it... that *was* the argument that he's claiming that
> Bugliosi made...
>
The only argument I recall making about Bugliosi was that he said the
wound in the thoat was ragged, which it was, given the condition of
the trachea.
Corrective Regards,
> ...
>
> read more »
Bud
> On May 28, 9:25 am, Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 27, 10:27 pm, timstter <timst...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > TOP POST
>
> > > LOL! This must be one of the STUPIDEST posts I have ever read!
>
> > > Say, Walt, if the hole in Kennedy's skin was an entrance wound, AS YOU
> > > CLAIM, why would the hole in the trachea be ragged, Walt?
>
> > Friar the liar asked;......"if the hole in Kennedy's skin was an
> > entrance wound, AS YOU CLAIM, why would the hole in the trachea be
> > ragged, Walt?"
>
> > That's an excellent question, and thank you for asking the question.
>
> > The answer is:....The bullet penetrated the skin of JFK's throat,
>
> And went where, Walt?
Nothing Walt? That the problem with the ideas you retards favor, you
can`t go anywhere from them. This is why you retards will never be
able to put an explanation on the table (although Ben the Retard will
lie and claim this has been done).
> ...
>
> read more »
Walt
Hey Dumbass.....When you display the mentality of the village idiot,
I'm compelled to conclude that you're a "dumbass"
Thank you for confirming my observation..........
> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Walt
> On May 28, 9:25 am, Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote:
>
> > On May 27, 10:27 pm, timstter <timst...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > TOP POST
>
> > > LOL! This must be one of the STUPIDEST posts I have ever read!
>
> > > Say, Walt, if the hole in Kennedy's skin was an entrance wound, AS YOU
> > > CLAIM, why would the hole in the trachea be ragged, Walt?
>
> > Friar the liar asked;......"if the hole in Kennedy's skin was an
> > entrance wound, AS YOU CLAIM, why would the hole in the trachea be
> > ragged, Walt?"
>
> > That's an excellent question, and thank you for asking the question.
>
> > The answer is:....The bullet penetrated the skin of JFK's throat,
>
>
And went where, Walt?
Duh.....I've explained all of this to you several times.....Do you
have ADD?
There is a PICTURE that you can look at,( when you get your head outta
yer ass) on page 225 of Trask's "Pics of the Pain" I understand your
reading comprehension is subpar, but even the village idiot can look
at pictures. The photo on Page 225 was taken at the very second that
JFK was hit in the throat, and the bullet has just exited his back. A
tiny piece of JFK's white shirt can be seen being blown out through
his jacket.Photo experts who have studied this photo, which the FBI
kept hidden from the public for many years, have reported that there
is also droplets of blood being carried along the trail of the exiting
bullet.
Ben Holmes
Walt says...
>
>On May 28, 11:32=A0pm, timstter <timst...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On May 28, 11:25=A0pm, Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote:
>>
>> > On May 27, 10:27=A0pm, timstter <timst...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > TOP POST
>>
>> > > LOL! This must be one of the STUPIDEST posts I have ever read!
>>
>> > > Say, Walt, if the hole in Kennedy's skin was an entrance wound, AS YOU
>> > > CLAIM, why would the hole in the trachea be ragged, Walt?
>>
>> > Friar the liar asked;......"if the hole in Kennedy's skin was an
>> > entrance wound, AS YOU CLAIM, why would the hole in the trachea be
>> > ragged, Walt?"
>>
>> > That's an excellent question, and thank you for asking the question.
>>
>> > The answer is:....The bullet penetrated the skin of JFK's throat,
>> > making a tiny neat smooth edged hole. It then struck the side of JFK's
>> > trachea. Since the trachea is cartilage ( a plastic like substance) It
>>
>> Oh, sure. This post is even STUPIDER than your last one...
When you can't refute the facts, simply jump to ad hominem attacks.
>> > is a tough substance and it wasn't struck squarely by the bullet, the
>> > bullet tore a hole in the side of the trachea. (kinda like a bullet
>> > hitting the side of a tree rather than hitting it squarely. A bullet
>> > striking the side of a tree leaves a jagged tear in the bark while a
>> > bullet that strikes the tree squarely simply makes a small hole.
>>
>> More Walt Cakebread amateur hour style reasoning on display...
Note the complete lack of any refutation.
Nor any explanation of how you can determine direction of a bullet from the
description of the trachea given by Carrico.
Trolls run... that's all they *can* do when facing the evidence...
>> > I'm sure that you won't like this logical explanation and will reply
>> > with an ad hominem attack, because you're devoid of any other way to
>> > support the lie.
Your crystal ball is working as well as mine does. You nailed it!
>> Let's see, fifteen forensic pathologists have looked at the evidence
>> in this case, including the three who examined the actual body, and
>> ALL of them concluded that the wound in the throat was one of exit.
NONE of them made any such conclusion based on a primary examination of the
wound, and *NONE* of them made any such conclusion based on the condition of the
trachea.
Why not argue that Santa Claus wears red? It would have the *SAME* significance
as evidence compared to your assertion...
>> Yet Walt Cakbread, poster down @ alt.conspiracy.jfk, knows better than
>> them, does he? Can you point to any special training you might have
>> had that would lead us to conclude we should discard the opinion of
>> qualified medical personnel and accept your nonsense? I'm not aware of
>> any.
Which one of these "qualified medical personnel" stated that Carrico had
described the throat wound as "ragged"
Which one of these "qualified medical personnel" stated that the throat wound
was one of exit based on the condition of the trachea?
Trolls lie, that's what trolls do... they also like to change the topic.
>> As for ad hominen, you don't recall introducing the word dumbass to
>> the debate? I do.
>
>Hey Dumbass.....When you display the mentality of the village idiot,
>I'm compelled to conclude that you're a "dumbass"
>
>Thank you for confirming my observation..........
You'll note that they are desperately trying to change the topic as well.
Why can't any of them simply quote & cite Carrico describing the throat wound as
"ragged"???
Or simply admit that Bugliosi lied?
>> Informative Regards,
>>
>> Tim Brennan
>> Sydney, Australia
>> *Newsgroup(s) Commentator*
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > > The bullet would have to come out of the back of Kennedy's trachea an=
>d
>> > > leave a ragged wound, wouldn't it? Not to mention his back.
>>
>> > > I'll post the text of your pathetic summary here, so people can see
>> > > how ineffably STUPID and deluded you are:
>>
>> > > QUOTE ON:
>>
>> > > Excellent point, Ben..... =A0I'll repeat a previous observation... Th=
>e
>> > > throat wound is a KEY point, The Lner's know it and the CT's know it.
>> > > The Lner's are compelled to lie about that wound which Dr carrico saw
>> > > and recorded at 4:00pm that afternoon. =A0Dr Carrico said he saw a sm=
>all
>> > > smooth edged round hole in the skin of JFK's throat. =A0He noted that
>> > > foamy blood was oozing from the small round hole that he described as
>> > > a PENETRATING wound. He correctly assumed that the frothy blood
>> > > indicated an injury to the airway, and decided to insert a trach tube
>> > > to allow JFK to breathe. =A0When he enlarged the tiny smooth edged ro=
>und
>> > > hole by incising it he exposed the treachea and saw a ragged hole in
>> > > the treachea.
>>
>> > > The first LNer's realized that they needed a good explanation for a
>> > > PIERCING (puncture) entry wound on JFK's anterior throat. =A0They had
>> > > planned ( plotted) to set Oswald up as the patsy but Oswald was seen
>> > > by a DPD officer in the TSBD, which was to the rear of JFK's position
>> > > at the time of the murder. Therefore they had to make it appear that
>> > > Oswald had shot JFK in the throat. In their desperation,they invented
>> > > a very stupid lie that JFK had turned around to wave at someone behin=
>d
>> > > him when Oswald fired. =A0This prevarication was an open admission th=
>at
>> > > the throat wound was an ENTRY wound. =A0When it was pointed out that =
>JFK
>> > > at no time had turned around to face the TSBD they started casting
>> > > about for some other lie that they could feed the public. =A0Thus the=
>y
>> > > came up with another absurd idea that the wound was an exit wound tha=
>t
>> > > only looked like an entry wound, and claimed that it looked like an
>> > > entry wound because the flesh of JFK's throat was was "shored" by his
>> > > necktie. =A0This idea is nearly as absurd as the idea that JFK turned
>> > > around to face the TSBD!!...... A exit wound "might" have the
>> > > appearance of an entry wound under very limited conditions. =A0And th=
>e
>> > > "shoring of the flesh would be one of those
>> > > conditions....HOWEVER.....The shoring would have to be created by a
>> > > stiff piece of clothing like a leather belt cinched tightly against
>> > > the body. =A0JFK's nectie was NOT a stiff piece of clothing and if he
>> > > would have had it tied so tight that it would have shored the wound h=
>e
>> > > wouldn't have been able to breathe.
>>
>> > > The fact that the liars desperately tried to invent explanations to
>> > > explain away the bullet entry wound in JFK's throat is in fact
>> > > tantamount to admitting that they KNOW the throat wound was created b=
>y
>> > > a bullet fired from in front of JFK.
>>
>> > > What everybody reading this needs to understand is that many of the
>> > > posters who are desperately denying that the throat wound was an entr=
>y
>> > > wound are on a government payroll. =A0They are dependent on the
>> > > government for their paychecks and have a vested interest in covering
>> > > up the truth.
>>
>> > > They know that the truth could destroy the government.....so they lie
>> > > and deny.
>>
>> > > QUOTE OFF
>>
>> > > It's telling that the befuddled Healy greets your nonsense with
>> > > effusive praise but Holmes is lukewarm, as he knows what an IDIOT
>> > > you've just made of yourself! You're here to pass messages to Benny,
>> > > Walt, not bore him with your insane conclusions.
>>
>> > > KUTGW!
>>
>> > > LMFAO Regards,
>>
>> > > Tim Brennan
>> > > Sydney, Australia
>> > > *Newsgroup(s) Commentator*
>>
>> > > On May 28, 12:48=A0am, Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote:
>>
>> > > > On May 27, 8:33=A0am, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > > > In article <02b34b91-639f-440d-9dbb-fd1bb1b02...@y27g2000prb.goog=
>legroups.com>,
>> > > > > Walt says...
>>
>> > > > > >On May 26, 11:31=3DA0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wro=
>te:
>> > > > > >> In article <b35e8dfa-e50a-4c6e-9908-a31c0ad04...@j23g2000yqc.g=
>ooglegroups=3D
>> > > > > >.com>,
>> > > > > >> Walt says...
>>
>> > > > > >> >On May 26, 4:48=3D3DA0pm, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>> > > > > >> >> On May 26, 10:17=3D3DA0am, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.c=
>om> wrote:
>>
>> > > > > >> >> > In article <d4cc5787-5c44-423a-b949-4cc6661e3...@y19g2000=
>yqk.googleg=3D
>> > > > > >rou=3D3D
>> > > > > >> >ps.com>,
>> > > > > >> >> > Walt says...
>>
>> > > > > >> >> > >On May 25, 8:27=3D3D3DA0pm, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrot=
>e:
>> > > > > >> >> > >> On May 25, 8:36=3D3D3DA0am, Walt <papakochenb...@evert=
>ek.net> wrote=3D
>> > > > > >:
>>
>> > > > > >> >> > >> > On May 24, 8:20=3D3D3DA0pm, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> =
>wrote:
>>
>> > > > > >> >> > >> > > On May 24, 8:56=3D3D3DA0pm, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net=
>> wrote:
>>
>> > > > > >> >> > >> > > > On May 24, 9:44=3D3D3DA0am, Walt <papakochenb...=
>@evertek.net>=3D
>> > > > > > wrot=3D3D
>> > > > > >> >e:
>>
>> > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > On May 24, 7:26=3D3D3DA0am, timstter <timst...=
>@gmail.com> w=3D
>> > > > > >rote:
>>
>> > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > > On May 24, 9:55=3D3D3DA0pm, Ben Holmes <ad..=
>.@burningknif=3D
>> > > > > >e.com=3D3D
>> > > > > >> >> wrote=3D3D3D
>> > > > > >> >> > >:
>>
>> > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > > > Then let's take a simple example, and see =
>if you can =3D
>> > > > > >def=3D3D
>> > > > > >> >end i=3D3D3D
>> > > > > >> >> > >t:
>>
>> > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > > > "Although Carrico was unable to determine =
>whether the=3D
>> > > > > > th=3D3D
>> > > > > >> >roat =3D3D3D
>> > > > > >> >> > >wound was an
>> > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > > > entrance or exit wound, he did observe tha=
>t the wound=3D
>> > > > > > wa=3D3D
>> > > > > >> >s "ra=3D3D3D
>> > > > > >> >> > >gged," virtually a
>> > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > > > sure sign of an exit wound as opposed to a=
>n entrance =3D
>> > > > > >wou=3D3D
>> > > > > >> >nd, w=3D3D3D
>> > > > > >> >> > >hich is usually
>> > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > > > round and devoid of ragged edges." (Buglio=
>si, p.413)
>>
>> > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > > > Now, was the wound in the throat actually =
>"ragged"? D=3D
>> > > > > >id =3D3D
>> > > > > >> >Carri=3D3D3D
>> > > > > >> >> > >co actually *say*
>> > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > > > this anywhere?
>>
>> > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > > > What is the ACTUAL evidence show that neck=
> wound desc=3D
>> > > > > >rip=3D3D
>> > > > > >> >tion =3D3D3D
>> > > > > >> >> > >to be?
>>
>> > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > > > Now, you can either find Carrico describin=
>g the throa=3D
>> > > > > >t w=3D3D
>> > > > > >> >ound =3D3D3D
>> > > > > >> >> > >as "ragged",
>> > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > > > or you can admit that Bugliosi lied, or yo=
>u can run a=3D
>> > > > > >way=3D3D
>> > > > > >> >...
>>
>> > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > > > Which will it be?
>>
>> > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > > > T
>> > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > > > ("
>>
>> > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > > Hi Ben,
>>
>> > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > > Say, didn't Bugliosi cite a footnote, number=
> 202, to su=3D
>> > > > > >ppo=3D3D
>> > > > > >> >rt hi=3D3D3D
>> > > > > >> >> > >s claim
>> > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > > re Carrico?
>>
>> > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > > Why haven't you detailed what that note says=
> if you wan=3D
>> > > > > >t t=3D3D
>> > > > > >> >o ref=3D3D3D
>> > > > > >> >> > >ute
>> > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > > what Bugliosi said re Carrico?
>>
>> > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > > The ball is in your court, I would have thou=
>ght.
>>
>> > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > That may be right, because there certainly are=
>n't any bal=3D
>> > > > > >ls =3D3D
>> > > > > >> >on yo=3D3D3D
>> > > > > >> >> > >ur
>> > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > side of the court.... =3D3D3DA0However, It is =
>a fact that C=3D
>> > > > > >arric=3D3D
>> > > > > >> >o wrote=3D3D3D
>> > > > > >> >> > > in his
>> > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > memo =3D3D3DA0(see page 519 WR) =3D3D3DA0 .. Q=
>uote.... "Two e=3D
>> > > > > >xternal=3D3D
>> > > > > >> > wounds w=3D3D3D
>> > > > > >> >> > >ere
>> > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > noticed. One small PENETRATING of the anterior=
> neck in th=3D
>> > > > > >e l=3D3D
>> > > > > >> >ower
>> > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > 1/3 ......... a ragged wound of the trachea wa=
>s seen imme=3D
>> > > > > >dia=3D3D
>> > > > > >> >tely =3D3D3D
>> > > > > >> >> > >below
>> > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > the
>>
>> ...
>>
>> read more
Ben Holmes
Walt says...
>
>On May 28, 2:25=A0pm, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>> On May 28, 9:25=A0am, Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote:
>>
>> > On May 27, 10:27=A0pm, timstter <timst...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > TOP POST
>>
>> > > LOL! This must be one of the STUPIDEST posts I have ever read!
>>
>U
>> > > CLAIM, why would the hole in the trachea be ragged, Walt?
>>
>> > Friar the liar asked;......"if the hole in Kennedy's skin was an
>> > entrance wound, AS YOU CLAIM, why would the hole in the trachea be
>> > ragged, Walt?"
>>
>> > That's an excellent question, and thank you for asking the question.
>>
>> > The answer is:....The bullet penetrated the skin of JFK's throat,
>>
>
>And went where, Walt?
Here's another troll desperately trying to change the topic, even though he's
never been able to quote Carrico describing the throat wound as "ragged".
Nor was he able to refute the very simple answer that Walt gave for why the
trachea was "ragged".
Still no answer to the question of how you determine bullet direction from the
mere description of the wound to the TRACHEA as "ragged".
Run away, trolls... that's all you can do when facing the evidence.
>Duh.....I've explained all of this to you several times.....Do you
>have ADD?
>
>There is a PICTURE that you can look at,( when you get your head outta
>yer ass) on page 225 of Trask's "Pics of the Pain" I understand your
>reading comprehension is subpar, but even the village idiot can look
>at pictures. The photo on Page 225 was taken at the very second that
>JFK was hit in the throat, and the bullet has just exited his back. A
>tiny piece of JFK's white shirt can be seen being blown out through
>his jacket.Photo experts who have studied this photo, which the FBI
>kept hidden from the public for many years, have reported that there
>is also droplets of blood being carried along the trail of the exiting
>bullet.
Until the trolls are willing to admit that Carrico said *NOTHING* about the
throat wound being ragged, and that Bugliosi simply lied - all they're managing
to do is deflect attention to the main topic.
>> making a tiny neat smooth edged hole. It then struck the side of JFK's
>> > trachea. Since the trachea is cartilage ( a plastic like substance) It
>> > is a tough substance and it wasn't struck squarely by the bullet, the
>> > bullet tore a hole in the side of the trachea. (kinda like a bullet
>> > hitting the side of a tree rather than hitting it squarely. =A0A bullet
>> > striking the side of a tree leaves a jagged tear in the bark while a
>> > bullet that strikes the tree squarely simply makes a small hole.
>>
>> > I'm sure that you won't like this logical explanation and will reply
>> > with an ad hominem attack, because you're devoid of any other way to
>> > support the lie.
>>
>> > > The bullet would have to come out of the back of Kennedy's trachea an=
>d
>> > > leave a ragged wound, wouldn't it? Not to mention his back.
>>
>> > > I'll post the text of your pathetic summary here, so people can see
>> > > how ineffably STUPID and deluded you are:
>>
>> > > QUOTE ON:
>>
>> > > Excellent point, Ben..... =A0I'll repeat a previous observation... Th=
>e
>> > > throat wound is a KEY point, The Lner's know it and the CT's know it.
>> > > The Lner's are compelled to lie about that wound which Dr carrico saw
>> > > and recorded at 4:00pm that afternoon. =A0Dr Carrico said he saw a sm=
>all
>> > > smooth edged round hole in the skin of JFK's throat. =A0He noted that
>> > > foamy blood was oozing from the small round hole that he described as
>> > > a PENETRATING wound. He correctly assumed that the frothy blood
>> > > indicated an injury to the airway, and decided to insert a trach tube
>> > > to allow JFK to breathe. =A0When he enlarged the tiny smooth edged ro=
>und
>> > > hole by incising it he exposed the treachea and saw a ragged hole in
>> > > the treachea.
>>
>> > > The first LNer's realized that they needed a good explanation for a
>> > > PIERCING (puncture) entry wound on JFK's anterior throat. =A0They had
>> > > planned ( plotted) to set Oswald up as the patsy but Oswald was seen
>> > > by a DPD officer in the TSBD, which was to the rear of JFK's position
>> > > at the time of the murder. Therefore they had to make it appear that
>> > > Oswald had shot JFK in the throat. In their desperation,they invented
>> > > a very stupid lie that JFK had turned around to wave at someone behin=
>d
>> > > him when Oswald fired. =A0This prevarication was an open admission th=
>at
>> > > the throat wound was an ENTRY wound. =A0When it was pointed out that =
>JFK
>> > > at no time had turned around to face the TSBD they started casting
>> > > about for some other lie that they could feed the public. =A0Thus the=
>y
>> > > came up with another absurd idea that the wound was an exit wound tha=
>t
>> > > only looked like an entry wound, and claimed that it looked like an
>> > > entry wound because the flesh of JFK's throat was was "shored" by his
>> > > necktie. =A0This idea is nearly as absurd as the idea that JFK turned
>> > > around to face the TSBD!!...... A exit wound "might" have the
>> > > appearance of an entry wound under very limited conditions. =A0And th=
>e
>> > > "shoring of the flesh would be one of those
>> > > conditions....HOWEVER.....The shoring would have to be created by a
>> > > stiff piece of clothing like a leather belt cinched tightly against
>> > > the body. =A0JFK's nectie was NOT a stiff piece of clothing and if he
>> > > would have had it tied so tight that it would have shored the wound h=
>e
>> > > wouldn't have been able to breathe.
>>
>> > > The fact that the liars desperately tried to invent explanations to
>> > > explain away the bullet entry wound in JFK's throat is in fact
>> > > tantamount to admitting that they KNOW the throat wound was created b=
>y
>> > > a bullet fired from in front of JFK.
>>
>> > > What everybody reading this needs to understand is that many of the
>> > > posters who are desperately denying that the throat wound was an entr=
>y
>> > > wound are on a government payroll. =A0They are dependent on the
>> > > government for their paychecks and have a vested interest in covering
>> > > up the truth.
>>
>> > > They know that the truth could destroy the government.....so they lie
>> > > and deny.
>>
>> > > QUOTE OFF
>>
>> > > It's telling that the befuddled Healy greets your nonsense with
>> > > effusive praise but Holmes is lukewarm, as he knows what an IDIOT
>> > > you've just made of yourself! You're here to pass messages to Benny,
>> > > Walt, not bore him with your insane conclusions.
>>
>> > > KUTGW!
>>
>> > > LMFAO Regards,
>>
>> > > Tim Brennan
>> > > Sydney, Australia
>> > > *Newsgroup(s) Commentator*
>>
>> > > On May 28, 12:48=A0am, Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote:
>>
>> > > > On May 27, 8:33=A0am, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > > > In article <02b34b91-639f-440d-9dbb-fd1bb1b02...@y27g2000prb.goog=
>legroups.com>,
>> > > > > Walt says...
>>
>> > > > > >On May 26, 11:31=3DA0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wro=
>te:
>> > > > > >> In article <b35e8dfa-e50a-4c6e-9908-a31c0ad04...@j23g2000yqc.g=
>ooglegroups=3D
>> > > > > >.com>,
>> > > > > >> Walt says...
>>
>> > > > > >> >On May 26, 4:48=3D3DA0pm, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>> > > > > >> >> On May 26, 10:17=3D3DA0am, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.c=
>om> wrote:
>>
>> > > > > >> >> > In article <d4cc5787-5c44-423a-b949-4cc6661e3...@y19g2000=
>yqk.googleg=3D
>> > > > > >rou=3D3D
>> > > > > >> >ps.com>,
>> > > > > >> >> > Walt says...
>>
>> > > > > >> >> > >On May 25, 8:27=3D3D3DA0pm, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrot=
>e:
>> > > > > >> >> > >> On May 25, 8:36=3D3D3DA0am, Walt <papakochenb...@evert=
>ek.net> wrote=3D
>> > > > > >:
>>
>> > > > > >> >> > >> > On May 24, 8:20=3D3D3DA0pm, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> =
>wrote:
>>
>> > > > > >> >> > >> > > On May 24, 8:56=3D3D3DA0pm, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net=
>> wrote:
>>
>> > > > > >> >> > >> > > > On May 24, 9:44=3D3D3DA0am, Walt <papakochenb...=
>@evertek.net>=3D
>> > > > > > wrot=3D3D
>> > > > > >> >e:
>>
>> > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > On May 24, 7:26=3D3D3DA0am, timstter <timst...=
>@gmail.com> w=3D
>> > > > > >rote:
>>
>> > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > > On May 24, 9:55=3D3D3DA0pm, Ben Holmes <ad..=
>.@burningknif=3D
>> > > > > >e.com=3D3D
>> > > > > >> >> wrote=3D3D3D
>> > > > > >> >> > >:
>>
>> > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > > > Then let's take a simple example, and see =
>if you can =3D
>> > > > > >def=3D3D
>> > > > > >> >end i=3D3D3D
>> > > > > >> >> > >t:
>>
>> > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > > > "Although Carrico was unable to determine =
>whether the=3D
>> > > > > > th=3D3D
>> > > > > >> >roat =3D3D3D
>> > > > > >> >> > >wound was an
>> > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > > > entrance or exit wound, he did observe tha=
>t the wound=3D
>> > > > > > wa=3D3D
>> > > > > >> >s "ra=3D3D3D
>> > > > > >> >> > >gged," virtually a
>> > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > > > sure sign of an exit wound as opposed to a=
>n entrance =3D
>> > > > > >wou=3D3D
>> > > > > >> >nd, w=3D3D3D
>> > > > > >> >> > >hich is usually
>> > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > > > round and devoid of ragged edges." (Buglio=
>si, p.413)
>>
>> > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > > > Now, was the wound in the throat actually =
>"ragged"? D=3D
>> > > > > >id =3D3D
>> > > > > >> >Carri=3D3D3D
>> > > > > >> >> > >co actually *say*
>> > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > > > this anywhere?
>>
>> > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > > > What is the ACTUAL evidence show that neck=
> wound desc=3D
>> > > > > >rip=3D3D
>> > > > > >> >tion =3D3D3D
>> > > > > >> >> > >to be?
>>
>> > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > > > Now, you can either find Carrico describin=
>g the throa=3D
>> > > > > >t w=3D3D
>> > > > > >> >ound =3D3D3D
>> > > > > >> >> > >as "ragged",
>> > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > > > or you can admit that Bugliosi lied, or yo=
>u can run a=3D
>> > > > > >way=3D3D
>> > > > > >> >...
>>
>> > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > > > Which will it be?
>>
>> > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > > > T
>> > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > > > ("
>>
>> > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > > Hi Ben,
>>
>> > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > > Say, didn't Bugliosi cite a footnote, number=
> 202, to su=3D
>> > > > > >ppo=3D3D
>> > > > > >> >rt hi=3D3D3D
>> > > > > >> >> > >s claim
>> > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > > re Carrico?
>>
>> > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > > Why haven't you detailed what that note says=
> if you wan=3D
>> > > > > >t t=3D3D
>> > > > > >> >o ref=3D3D3D
>> > > > > >> >> > >ute
>> > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > > what Bugliosi said re Carrico?
>>
>> > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > > The ball is in your court, I would have thou=
>ght.
>>
>> > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > That may be right, because there certainly are=
>n't any bal=3D
>> > > > > >ls =3D3D
>> > > > > >> >on yo=3D3D3D
>> > > > > >> >> > >ur
>> > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > side of the court.... =3D3D3DA0However, It is =
>a fact that C=3D
>> > > > > >arric=3D3D
>> > > > > >> >o wrote=3D3D3D
>> > > > > >> >> > > in his
>> > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > memo =3D3D3DA0(see page 519 WR) =3D3D3DA0 .. Q=
>uote.... "Two e=3D
>> > > > > >xternal=3D3D
>> > > > > >> > wounds w=3D3D3D
>> > > > > >> >> > >ere
>> > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > noticed. One small PENETRATING of the anterior=
> neck in th=3D
>> > > > > >e l=3D3D
>> > > > > >> >ower
>> > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > 1/3 ......... a ragged wound of the trachea wa=
>s seen imme=3D
>> > > > > >dia=3D3D
>> > > > > >> >tely =3D3D3D
>> > > > > >> >> > >below
>> > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > the larynx "......unquote
>>
>> > > > > >> >> > >> > > > =3D3D3DA0 Don`t let Ben see this, he claims Carr=
>ico didn`t us=3D
>> > > > > >e the=3D3D
>> > > > > >> > word
>> > > > > >> >> > >> > > > "ragged".
>>
>> > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > Dr Carrico and Dr. Perry testified that the wo=
>und in JFK'=3D
>> > > > > >s t=3D3D
>> > > > > >> >hroat=3D3D3D
>> > > > > >> >> > > was
>> > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > a tiny clearly defined punctuate wound like a =
>bullet entr=3D
>> > > > > >y w=3D3D
>> > > > > >> >ound.
>>
>> > > > > >> >> > >> > > > =3D3D3DA0 Carrico testified that it could have b=
>een either an=3D
>> > > > > > entr=3D3D
>> > > > > >> >ance or=3D3D3D
>> > > > > >> >> > > an
>> > > > > >> >> > >> > > > exit.
>>
>> > > > > >> >> > >> > > > >=3D3D3DA0In
>> > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > his written memo (written a couple of hours af=
>ter JFK's d=3D
>> > > > > >eat=3D3D
>> > > > > >> >h) Dr
>> > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > Carrico described the wound as a PENETRATING w=
>ound...... =3D
>> > > > > >Do =3D3D
>> > > > > >> >you k=3D3D3D
>> > > > > >> >> > >now
>> > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > what the word "PENETRATE" means?...... Or do w=
>e need to p=3D
>> > > > > >rov=3D3D
>> > > > > >> >ide y=3D3D3D
>> > > > > >> >> > >ou
>> > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > with a dictionary definition?
>>
>> > > > > >> >> > >> > > > =3D3D3DA0 Now all you need to do is establish wh=
>at he meant b=3D
>> > > > > >y tha=3D3D
>> > > > > >> >t. He m=3D3D3D
>> > > > > >> >> > >ay
>> > > > > >> >> > >> > > > have been saying it was a hole that went into th=
>e body as o=3D
>> > > > > >ppo=3D3D
>> > > > > >> >sed t=3D3D3D
>> > > > > >> >> > >o a
>> > > > > >> >> > >> > > > surface wound.
>>
>> > > > > >> >> > >> > > =3D3D3DA0 I looked into it and it is as I surmised=
>, "penetratin=3D
>> > > > > >g wou=3D3D
>> > > > > >> >nd" is =3D3D3D
>> > > > > >> >> > >non-
>> > > > > >> >> > >> > > directional in medical jargon.
>>
>> > > > > >> >> > >> > > =3D3D3DA0http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penetrating_=
>wound
>>
>> > > > > >> >> > >> > Ha,ha,ha,hahee,hee,hee..... ROTFLMAO!!..... Thanks f=
>or displayi=3D
>> > > > > >ng
>> > > > > >> >> > >> > you're dishonest stupidity once aqgain....
>>
>> > > > > >> >> > >> > Here's the first sentences of the definition that yo=
>u linked to=3D
>> > > > > >...=3D3D
>> > > > > >> >..
>>
>> > > > > >> >> > >> > Quote....."Penetrating trauma is an injury that occu=
>rs when an =3D
>> > > > > >obj=3D3D
>> > > > > >> >ect
>> > > > > >> >> > >> > pierces the skin and enters a tissue of the body, cr=
>eating an o=3D
>> > > > > >pen
>> > > > > >> >> > >> > wound. In blunt, or non-penetrating trauma, there ma=
>y be an imp=3D
>> > > > > >act=3D3D
>> > > > > >> >,
>> > > > > >> >> > >> > but the skin is not necessarily broken." ...unquote
>>
>> > > > > >> >> > >> > Now I guess you'll have to look up the words "PIERCE=
>S" and
>> > > > > >> >> > >> > "ENTERS".......Hee,hee,hee...Watta Dumbass!
>>
>> > > > > >> >> > >> =3D3D3DA0 <snicker> Yes, you are a dumbass. Most of th=
>ese wounds ar=3D
>> > > > > >e cau=3D3D
>> > > > > >> >sed by
>> > > > > >> >> > >> some foreign body entering the body. But the word
>>
>> > > ...
>>
>> > > read more =BB- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> > > - Show quoted text -
>
Bud
As usual it comes down to what a conspiracy retard swears he can see
in a blurry photo. Besides the fact that a bullet could never blow
away a sizable piece of fabric the could be seen from a distance
(fabric just tears and allows the bullet to pass through), this stupid
idea is unsupportable as far as trajectory. Where could such a shot be
fired from? A bullet that went though Kennedy`s throat and out his
back (especially as low as the conspiracy retards want to say he came
out of Kennedy`s back) would be at such a downward trajectory it would
be buried in the backseat or trunk.You think you can challenge the
WC`s version with such stupid unsupportable ideas?
Bud
> In article <4dab1acb-c4a6-48c3-9913-a805b087f...@c26g2000vbq.googlegroups.com>,
> Walt says...
>
>
>
> >On May 28, 2:25=A0pm, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
> >> On May 28, 9:25=A0am, Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote:
>
> >> > On May 27, 10:27=A0pm, timstter <timst...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> > > TOP POST
>
> >> > > LOL! This must be one of the STUPIDEST posts I have ever read!
>
> >> > > Say, Walt, if the hole in Kennedy's skin was an entrance wound, AS YO=
> >U
> >> > > CLAIM, why would the hole in the trachea be ragged, Walt?
>
> >> > Friar the liar asked;......"if the hole in Kennedy's skin was an
> >> > entrance wound, AS YOU CLAIM, why would the hole in the trachea be
> >> > ragged, Walt?"
>
> >> > That's an excellent question, and thank you for asking the question.
>
> >> > The answer is:....The bullet penetrated the skin of JFK's throat,
>
> >And went where, Walt?
>
> Here's another troll desperately trying to change the topic, even though he's
> never been able to quote Carrico describing the throat wound as "ragged".
Keep lying retard, there might be someone left in this newsgroup who
doesn`t know the trachea is a part of the throat (Healy, for example),
and that Carrico did in fact call this throat wound "ragged".
> Nor was he able to refute the very simple answer that Walt gave for why the
> trachea was "ragged".
Didn`t read it. Walt is too stupid to realize that a penetrating
wound in medical jargon has nothing to do with direction, why would I
rely on his opinion on medical matters?
> Still no answer to the question of how you determine bullet direction from the
> mere description of the wound to the TRACHEA as "ragged".
>
> Run away, trolls... that's all you can do when facing the evidence.
The evidence isn`t the problem. It`s you conspiracy retards that is
the problem.
> >Duh.....I've explained all of this to you several times.....Do you
> >have ADD?
>
> >There is a PICTURE that you can look at,( when you get your head outta
> >yer ass) on page 225 of Trask's "Pics of the Pain" I understand your
> >reading comprehension is subpar, but even the village idiot can look
> >at pictures. The photo on Page 225 was taken at the very second that
> >JFK was hit in the throat, and the bullet has just exited his back. A
> >tiny piece of JFK's white shirt can be seen being blown out through
> >his jacket.Photo experts who have studied this photo, which the FBI
> >kept hidden from the public for many years, have reported that there
> >is also droplets of blood being carried along the trail of the exiting
> >bullet.
>
> Until the trolls are willing to admit that Carrico said *NOTHING* about the
> throat wound being ragged,
He called the trachea wound "ragged", the trachea IS THE THROAT,
dumbass.
>and that Bugliosi simply lied - all they're managing
> to do is deflect attention to the main topic.
Certainly the more you expand on your ideas the more dishonesty is
exposed. This would not be so if you had an honest position.
Walt
DUH!!...... A bullet striking JFK just below his larynx and exiting
51/2 inches below the top of JFK's shirt collar, would not be
traveling a pronounced downward trajectory. It's difficult to
determine exactly where the bullet was fired from because of the short
distance between the entry and exit wounds. And I won't offer an
opinion at this time because you're too damned dumb to understand
anything........ and you'd only offer some dumb, irrational
rebuttal.
I will say that I don't believe the shot was fired from above the
stockade fence.
> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Ben Holmes
Walt says...
>
>On May 29, 12:05=A0pm, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>> On May 29, 12:31=A0pm, Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On May 28, 2:25=A0pm, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>>
>> > > On May 28, 9:25=A0am, Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote:
>>
>> > > > On May 27, 10:27=A0pm, timstter <timst...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > > > TOP POST
>>
>> > > > > LOL! This must be one of the STUPIDEST posts I have ever read!
>>
>S YOU
>> > > > > CLAIM, why would the hole in the trachea be ragged, Walt?
>>
>> > > > Friar the liar asked;......"if the hole in Kennedy's skin was an
>> > > > entrance wound, AS YOU CLAIM, why would the hole in the trachea be
>> > > > ragged, Walt?"
>>
>.
>>
>> > > > The answer is:....The bullet penetrated the skin of JFK's throat,
>>
>>
>> > And went where, Walt?
>>
>> > Duh.....I've explained all of this to you several times.....Do you
>> > have ADD?
>>
>> > There is a PICTURE that you can look at,( when you get your head outta
>> > reading comprehension is subpar, but even the village idiot can look
>> > JFK was hit in the throat, and the bullet has just exited his back. =A0=
>A
>> > tiny piece of JFK's white shirt can be seen being blown out through
>> > his jacket.Photo experts who have studied this photo, which the FBI
>> > kept hidden from the public for many years, have reported that there
>> > is also droplets of blood being carried along the trail of the exiting
>> > bullet.
>>
>> As usual it comes down to what a conspiracy retard swears he can see
>> in a blurry photo.
Does it?
You mean you've actually supplied a quote & cite of Carrico describing the
throat wound as "ragged", as Bugliosi claimed?
Or, as is quite obvious, have you run away from that original topic, and tried
desperately to switch it to something you can debate?
>> Besides the fact that a bullet could never blow
>> away a sizable piece of fabric the could be seen from a distance
>> (fabric just tears and allows the bullet to pass through), this stupid
>> idea is unsupportable as far as trajectory. Where could such a shot be
>> fired from? A bullet that went though Kennedy`s throat and out his
>> back (especially as low as the conspiracy retards want to say he came
>> out of Kennedy`s back) would be at such a downward trajectory it would
>> be buried in the backseat or trunk.
This EXACT SAME TRAJECTORY is what you're claiming, albeit with a reversal of
direction. Amazing how the trajectory goes *down* - no matter *which* direction
you claim...
Hypocrisy, thy name is legion (among trolls)
>DUH!!...... A bullet striking JFK just below his larynx and exiting
>51/2 inches below the top of JFK's shirt collar, would not be
>traveling a pronounced downward trajectory. It's difficult to
>determine exactly where the bullet was fired from because of the short
>distance between the entry and exit wounds. And I won't offer an
>opinion at this time because you're too damned dumb to understand
>anything........ and you'd only offer some dumb, irrational
>rebuttal.
>
>I will say that I don't believe the shot was fired from above the
>stockade fence.
>
>
>
>
>> You think you can challenge the
>> WC`s version with such stupid unsupportable ideas?
Not surprising that trolls have run away from defending Bugliosi's lie.
They can't.
>> > making a tiny neat smooth edged hole. It then struck the side of JFK's
>> > > > trachea. Since the trachea is cartilage ( a plastic like substance)=
> It
>> > > > is a tough substance and it wasn't struck squarely by the bullet, t=
>he
>> > > > bullet tore a hole in the side of the trachea. (kinda like a bullet
>> > > > hitting the side of a tree rather than hitting it squarely. =A0A bu=
>llet
>> > > > striking the side of a tree leaves a jagged tear in the bark while =
>a
>> > > > bullet that strikes the tree squarely simply makes a small hole.
>>
>> > > > I'm sure that you won't like this logical explanation and will repl=
>y
>> > > > with an ad hominem attack, because you're devoid of any other way t=
>o
>> > > > support the lie.
>>
>> > > > > The bullet would have to come out of the back of Kennedy's trache=
>a and
>> > > > > leave a ragged wound, wouldn't it? Not to mention his back.
>>
>> > > > > I'll post the text of your pathetic summary here, so people can s=
>ee
>> > > > > how ineffably STUPID and deluded you are:
>>
>> > > > > QUOTE ON:
>>
>> > > > > Excellent point, Ben..... =A0I'll repeat a previous observation..=
>. The
>> > > > > throat wound is a KEY point, The Lner's know it and the CT's know=
> it.
>> > > > > The Lner's are compelled to lie about that wound which Dr carrico=
> saw
>> > > > > and recorded at 4:00pm that afternoon. =A0Dr Carrico said he saw =
>a small
>> > > > > smooth edged round hole in the skin of JFK's throat. =A0He noted =
>that
>> > > > > foamy blood was oozing from the small round hole that he describe=
>d as
>> > > > > a PENETRATING wound. He correctly assumed that the frothy blood
>> > > > > indicated an injury to the airway, and decided to insert a trach =
>tube
>> > > > > to allow JFK to breathe. =A0When he enlarged the tiny smooth edge=
>d round
>> > > > > hole by incising it he exposed the treachea and saw a ragged hole=
> in
>> > > > > the treachea.
>>
>> > > > > The first LNer's realized that they needed a good explanation for=
> a
>> > > > > PIERCING (puncture) entry wound on JFK's anterior throat. =A0They=
> had
>> > > > > planned ( plotted) to set Oswald up as the patsy but Oswald was s=
>een
>> > > > > by a DPD officer in the TSBD, which was to the rear of JFK's posi=
>tion
>> > > > > at the time of the murder. Therefore they had to make it appear t=
>hat
>> > > > > Oswald had shot JFK in the throat. In their desperation,they inve=
>nted
>> > > > > a very stupid lie that JFK had turned around to wave at someone b=
>ehind
>> > > > > him when Oswald fired. =A0This prevarication was an open admissio=
>n that
>> > > > > the throat wound was an ENTRY wound. =A0When it was pointed out t=
>hat JFK
>> > > > > at no time had turned around to face the TSBD they started castin=
>g
>> > > > > about for some other lie that they could feed the public. =A0Thus=
> they
>> > > > > came up with another absurd idea that the wound was an exit wound=
> that
>> > > > > only looked like an entry wound, and claimed that it looked like =
>an
>> > > > > entry wound because the flesh of JFK's throat was was "shored" by=
> his
>> > > > > necktie. =A0This idea is nearly as absurd as the idea that JFK tu=
>rned
>> > > > > around to face the TSBD!!...... A exit wound "might" have the
>> > > > > appearance of an entry wound under very limited conditions. =A0An=
>d the
>> > > > > "shoring of the flesh would be one of those
>> > > > > conditions....HOWEVER.....The shoring would have to be created by=
> a
>> > > > > stiff piece of clothing like a leather belt cinched tightly again=
>st
>> > > > > the body. =A0JFK's nectie was NOT a stiff piece of clothing and i=
>f he
>> > > > > would have had it tied so tight that it would have shored the wou=
>nd he
>> > > > > wouldn't have been able to breathe.
>>
>> > > > > The fact that the liars desperately tried to invent explanations =
>to
>> > > > > explain away the bullet entry wound in JFK's throat is in fact
>> > > > > tantamount to admitting that they KNOW the throat wound was creat=
>ed by
>> > > > > a bullet fired from in front of JFK.
>>
>> > > > > What everybody reading this needs to understand is that many of t=
>he
>> > > > > posters who are desperately denying that the throat wound was an =
>entry
>> > > > > wound are on a government payroll. =A0They are dependent on the
>> > > > > government for their paychecks and have a vested interest in cove=
>ring
>> > > > > up the truth.
>>
>> > > > > They know that the truth could destroy the government.....so they=
> lie
>> > > > > and deny.
>>
>> > > > > QUOTE OFF
>>
>> > > > > It's telling that the befuddled Healy greets your nonsense with
>> > > > > effusive praise but Holmes is lukewarm, as he knows what an IDIOT
>> > > > > you've just made of yourself! You're here to pass messages to Ben=
>ny,
>> > > > > Walt, not bore him with your insane conclusions.
>>
>> > > > > KUTGW!
>>
>> > > > > LMFAO Regards,
>>
>> > > > > Tim Brennan
>> > > > > Sydney, Australia
>> > > > > *Newsgroup(s) Commentator*
>>
>> > > > > On May 28, 12:48=A0am, Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote:
>>
>> > > > > > On May 27, 8:33=A0am, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote=
>:
>>
>> > > > > > > In article <02b34b91-639f-440d-9dbb-fd1bb1b02...@y27g2000prb.=
>googlegroups.com>,
>> > > > > > > Walt says...
>>
>> > > > > > > >On May 26, 11:31=3DA0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com>=
> wrote:
>> > > > > > > >> In article <b35e8dfa-e50a-4c6e-9908-a31c0ad04...@j23g2000y=
>qc.googlegroups=3D
>> > > > > > > >.com>,
>> > > > > > > >> Walt says...
>>
>> > > > > > > >> >On May 26, 4:48=3D3DA0pm, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>> > > > > > > >> >> On May 26, 10:17=3D3DA0am, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningkni=
>fe.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > > > > > >> >> > In article <d4cc5787-5c44-423a-b949-4cc6661e3...@y19g=
>2000yqk.googleg=3D
>> > > > > > > >rou=3D3D
>> > > > > > > >> >ps.com>,
>> > > > > > > >> >> > Walt says...
>>
>> > > > > > > >> >> > >On May 25, 8:27=3D3D3DA0pm, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> =
>wrote:
>> > > > > > > >> >> > >> On May 25, 8:36=3D3D3DA0am, Walt <papakochenb...@e=
>vertek.net> wrote=3D
>> > > > > > > >:
>>
>> > > > > > > >> >> > >> > On May 24, 8:20=3D3D3DA0pm, Bud <sirsl...@fast.n=
>et> wrote:
>>
>> > > > > > > >> >> > >> > > On May 24, 8:56=3D3D3DA0pm, Bud <sirsl...@fast=
>.net> wrote:
>>
>> > > > > > > >> >> > >> > > > On May 24, 9:44=3D3D3DA0am, Walt <papakochen=
>b...@evertek.net>=3D
>> > > > > > > > wrot=3D3D
>> > > > > > > >> >e:
>>
>> > > > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > On May 24, 7:26=3D3D3DA0am, timstter <tims=
>t...@gmail.com> w=3D
>> > > > > > > >rote:
>>
>> > > > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > > On May 24, 9:55=3D3D3DA0pm, Ben Holmes <=
>ad...@burningknif=3D
>> > > > > > > >e.com=3D3D
>> > > > > > > >> >> wrote=3D3D3D
>> > > > > > > >> >> > >:
>>
>> > > > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > > > Then let's take a simple example, and =
>see if you can =3D
>> > > > > > > >def=3D3D
>> > > > > > > >> >end i=3D3D3D
>> > > > > > > >> >> > >t:
>>
>> > > > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > > > "Although Carrico was unable to determ=
>ine whether the=3D
>> > > > > > > > th=3D3D
>> > > > > > > >> >roat =3D3D3D
>> > > > > > > >> >> > >wound was an
>> > > > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > > > entrance or exit wound, he did observe=
> that the wound=3D
>> > > > > > > > wa=3D3D
>> > > > > > > >> >s "ra=3D3D3D
>> > > > > > > >> >> > >gged," virtually a
>> > > > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > > > sure sign of an exit wound as opposed =
>to an entrance =3D
>> > > > > > > >wou=3D3D
>> > > > > > > >> >nd, w=3D3D3D
>> > > > > > > >> >> > >hich is usually
>> > > > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > > > round and devoid of ragged edges." (Bu=
>gliosi, p.413)
>>
>> > > > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > > > Now, was the wound in the throat actua=
>lly "ragged"? D=3D
>> > > > > > > >id =3D3D
>> > > > > > > >> >Carri=3D3D3D
>> > > > > > > >> >> > >co actually *say*
>> > > > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > > > this anywhere?
>>
>> > > > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > > > What is the ACTUAL evidence show that =
>neck wound desc=3D
>> > > > > > > >rip=3D3D
>> > > > > > > >> >tion =3D3D3D
>> > > > > > > >> >> > >to be?
>>
>> > > > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > > > Now, you can either find Carrico descr=
>ibing the throa=3D
>> > > > > > > >t w=3D3D
>> > > > > > > >> >ound =3D3D3D
>> > > > > > > >> >> > >as "ragged",
>> > > > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > > > or you can admit that Bugliosi lied, o=
>r you can run a=3D
>> > > > > > > >way=3D3D
>> > > > > > > >> >...
>>
>> > > > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > > > Which will
>>
>> ...
>>
>> read more
mainframetech
To try and help us past this incessant arguing over ragged and
trachea and stellate and on and on, here's part of Carrico's statement
from
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/carrico2.htm:
"Through the larynzo scope there seemed to be some hematoma around
the larynx and immediately below the larynx was seen the ragged
tracheal injury."
The term 'larynzo scope' is not any kind of medical terminology,
but probably a stenograqpher's error upon hearing 'laryngoscope',
which is displayed here being used:
http://www.hiwtc.com/products/truview-optical-view-laryngoscope-2836-11641.htm
The purpose of the device is to view areas in the throat that may
not otherwise be available to view. Carrico says in part "Through the
larynzo scope" meaning the 'ragged tracheal injury' was seen through
the laryngoscope and not through the throat wound on the outside,
which appeared to be "rather round and there were no jagged edges or
stellate lacerations".
Carrico's testimony makes it clear which injury was seen where,
either in the 'scope or outside in the skin. I would suspect the
tracheal injury might be difficult to see from the outside given how
entry wounds can close up to some degree, but Carrico has made it
clear for us.
Head Troll Chris
Bud
Like I said, you have nothing reasonable to challenge the WC`s
conclusions. This is what happens when you cling to bad information as
if it is rock solid, you can`t go anywhere with it.
Bud
> In article <14f3a546-3c1b-4b59-a80b-1af99e2f2...@x1g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
Yes, retard. You see, Walt offered an idea. I realize you don`t have
much use for them, but they are necessary to conduct an inquiry. In
support of his idea he offered some of this much vaunted evidence you
retards like to crow about. But the evidence is much too weak and
subjective to support the claim he is making (which is almost always
the case with conspiracy retards). This is why I say the problem isn`t
the evidence. The CTer position is based on ridiculous and retarded
ideas, so bad they usually do what you do and keep them secret,
because they are ashamed to admit what they believe. Walt has no
shame, he doesn`t care who knows he is retarded.
> You mean you've actually supplied a quote & cite of Carrico describing the
> throat wound as "ragged", as Bugliosi claimed?
Carrico has been quoted many times here calling the throat wound
"ragged".
> Or, as is quite obvious, have you run away from that original topic, and tried
> desperately to switch it to something you can debate?
You`ve had numerous opportunities to reword or retract your lie that
Carrico never called the throat wound "ragged". You`ve opted to stick
to you lie because you haven`t the charcter to admit your mistake and
correct it.
> >> Besides the fact that a bullet could never blow
> >> away a sizable piece of fabric the could be seen from a distance
> >> (fabric just tears and allows the bullet to pass through), this stupid
> >> idea is unsupportable as far as trajectory. Where could such a shot be
> >> fired from? A bullet that went though Kennedy`s throat and out his
> >> back (especially as low as the conspiracy retards want to say he came
> >> out of Kennedy`s back) would be at such a downward trajectory it would
> >> be buried in the backseat or trunk.
>
> This EXACT SAME TRAJECTORY is what you're claiming, albeit with a reversal of
> direction. Amazing how the trajectory goes *down* - no matter *which* direction
> you claim...
>
> Hypocrisy, thy name is legion (among trolls)
You are absolutely right, that was not thought out and was mistaken
(see, thats how it`s done). The back wound was clearly much higher
than the throat wound, so Walt`s bullet could avoid hitting the seat
or trunk. Now, he needs either a very low shooting position or a major
deflection caused by the trachea, which isn`t even bone.
> >DUH!!...... A bullet striking JFK just below his larynx and exiting
> >51/2 inches below the top of JFK's shirt collar, would not be
> >traveling a pronounced downward trajectory. It's difficult to
> >determine exactly where the bullet was fired from because of the short
> >distance between the entry and exit wounds. And I won't offer an
> >opinion at this time because you're too damned dumb to understand
> >anything........ and you'd only offer some dumb, irrational
> >rebuttal.
>
> >I will say that I don't believe the shot was fired from above the
> >stockade fence.
>
> >> You think you can challenge the
> >> WC`s version with such stupid unsupportable ideas?
>
> Not surprising that trolls have run away from defending Bugliosi's lie.
You`ve been lying about the evidence since your first post. You
STILL won`t correct your lies. Dishonest comes naturally to you.
> They can't.
<SNIP>
Walt
You are a damned liar......Chris stated the case perfectly when he
wrote....
Quote..." Carrico says in part "Through the larynzo scope" meaning the
'ragged tracheal injury' was seen through
the laryngoscope and not through the throat wound on the outside,
which appeared to be "rather round and there were no jagged edges or
stellate lacerations".
Carrico's testimony makes it clear which injury was seen where, either
in the 'scope or outside in the skin. I would suspect the tracheal
injury might be difficult to see from the outside given how entry
wounds can close up to some degree, but Carrico has made it clear for
us.
Chris is exactly right.....The tiny bullet hole in the skin of JFK's
throat was oozing foamy blood and Dr Carrico couldn't possibly have
seen the trachea through that tiny 4mm ( less than 1/4 inch) hole.
AFTER he encised that hole and enlarged it to enable him to insert the
laryngoscope THEN he saw the ragged hole in the TREACHEA.
This is not a debate about whether the trachea is in the throat,
( though you'd like to make that the point under discussion) It is a
FACT that Dr Carrico saw a tint smooth edged PENETRATING (entry) wound
on the skin of JFK's throat........ And Bugliosi and anybody who
supports him are damned liars.
> <SNIP>- Hide quoted text -
Ben Holmes
Walt says...
>
>On May 30, 7:06=A0am, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>> On May 29, 11:15=A0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > In article <14f3a546-3c1b-4b59-a80b-1af99e2f2...@x1g2000yqb.googlegroup=
>s.com>,
>> > Walt says...
>>
>> > >On May 29, 12:05=3DA0pm, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>> > >> On May 29, 12:31=3DA0pm, Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote:
>>
>> > >> > On May 28, 2:25=3DA0pm, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>>
>> > >> > > On May 28, 9:25=3DA0am, Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote:
>>
>> > >> > > > On May 27, 10:27=3DA0pm, timstter <timst...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > >> > > > > TOP POST
>>
>d!
>>
>> > >> > > > > Say, Walt, if the hole in Kennedy's skin was an entrance wou=
>nd, A=3D
>> > >S YOU
>> > >> > > > > CLAIM, why would the hole in the trachea be ragged, Walt?
>>
>an
>> > >> > > > entrance wound, AS YOU CLAIM, why would the hole in the trache=
>a be
>> > >> > > > ragged, Walt?"
>>
>> > >> > > > That's an excellent question, and thank you for asking the que=
>stion=3D
>> > >.
>>
>> > >> > > > The answer is:....The bullet penetrated the skin of JFK's thro=
>at,
>>
>> > >> > > =3DA0
>>
>> > >> > And went where, Walt?
>>
>> > >> > Duh.....I've explained all of this to you several times.....Do you
>> > >> > have ADD?
>>
>utta
>> > >> > yer ass) on page 225 of Trask's "Pics of the Pain" =3DA0I understa=
>nd your
>> > >> > reading comprehension is subpar, but even the village idiot can lo=
>ok
>> > >> > at pictures. =3DA0The photo on Page 225 was taken at the very seco=
>nd that
>> > >> > JFK was hit in the throat, and the bullet has just exited his back=
>. =3DA0=3D
>> > >A
>> > >> > tiny piece of JFK's white shirt can be seen being blown out throug=
>h
>> > >> > his jacket.Photo experts who have studied this photo, which the FB=
>I
>> > >> > kept hidden from the public for many years, have reported that the=
>re
>> > >> > is also droplets of blood being carried along the trail of the exi=
>ting
>> > >> > bullet.
>>
>> > >> As usual it comes down to what a conspiracy retard swears he can see
>> > >> in a blurry photo.
>>
>> > Does it?
>>
>> Yes, retard. You see, Walt offered an idea. I realize you don`t have
>> much use for them, but they are necessary to conduct an inquiry. In
>> support of his idea he offered some of this much vaunted evidence you
>> retards like to crow about. But the evidence is much too weak and
>> subjective to support the claim he is making (which is almost always
>> the case with conspiracy retards). This is why I say the problem isn`t
>> the evidence. The CTer position is based on ridiculous and retarded
>> ideas, so bad they usually do what you do and keep them secret,
>> because they are ashamed to admit what they believe. Walt has no
>> shame, he doesn`t care who knows he is retarded.
You stated "as usual it comes down to..."
But the FACT is that it's the evidence in this case. *THAT'S* what it's "come
down to..."
You STILL can't provide any quote of Carrico stating that the throat wound was
"ragged".
And you know it.
You're lying, and Bugliosi lied.
>> > You mean you've actually supplied a quote & cite of Carrico describing the
>> > throat wound as "ragged", as Bugliosi claimed?
>>
>> Carrico has been quoted many times here calling the throat wound
>> "ragged".
You're lying... blatantly. You've *NEVER* quoted him doing so.
> Carrico has been quoted many times here calling the throat wound
>"ragged".
>
>You are a damned liar......Chris stated the case perfectly when he
>wrote....
>
>Quote..." Carrico says in part "Through the larynzo scope" meaning the
>'ragged tracheal injury' was seen through
>the laryngoscope and not through the throat wound on the outside,
>which appeared to be "rather round and there were no jagged edges or
>stellate lacerations".
>
>Carrico's testimony makes it clear which injury was seen where, either
>in the 'scope or outside in the skin. I would suspect the tracheal
>injury might be difficult to see from the outside given how entry
>wounds can close up to some degree, but Carrico has made it clear for
>us.
It would be virtually *IMPOSSIBLE*. I invite interested lurkers to look up what
the *ACTUAL* wound description was...
"Ragged", it was not. Nor was it large enough to peer into and see the trachea.
>Chris is exactly right.....The tiny bullet hole in the skin of JFK's
>throat was oozing foamy blood and Dr Carrico couldn't possibly have
>seen the trachea through that tiny 4mm ( less than 1/4 inch) hole.
>AFTER he encised that hole and enlarged it to enable him to insert the
>laryngoscope THEN he saw the ragged hole in the TREACHEA.
>
>This is not a debate about whether the trachea is in the throat,
>( though you'd like to make that the point under discussion) It is a
>FACT that Dr Carrico saw a tint smooth edged PENETRATING (entry) wound
>on the skin of JFK's throat........ And Bugliosi and anybody who
>supports him are damned liars.
That's why Bud is on my killfilter... it's rather boring to keep pointing out
obvious lies... particularly when they are INTENTIONAL lies.
>> > Or, as is quite obvious, have you run away from that original topic,
>> > and tried desperately to switch it to something you can debate?
>>
>> You`ve had numerous opportunities to reword or retract your lie that
>> Carrico never called the throat wound "ragged". You`ve opted to stick
>> to you lie because you haven`t the charcter to admit your mistake and
>> correct it.
Sorry... can't retract the truth. You're lying again.
Where's this mythical quote you keep referring to of Carrico labeling the throat
wound as "ragged"?
Why can't you provide it?
>> > >> Besides the fact that a bullet could never blow
>> > >> away a sizable piece of fabric the could be seen from a distance
>> > >> (fabric just tears and allows the bullet to pass through), this stup=
>id
>> > >> idea is unsupportable as far as trajectory. Where could such a shot =
>be
>> > >> fired from? A bullet that went though Kennedy`s throat and out his
>> > >> back (especially as low as the conspiracy retards want to say he cam=
>e
>> > >> out of Kennedy`s back) would be at such a downward trajectory it wou=
>ld
>> > >> be buried in the backseat or trunk.
>>
>> > This EXACT SAME TRAJECTORY is what you're claiming, albeit with
>> > a reversal of direction. Amazing how the trajectory goes *down*
>> > - no matter *which* direction you claim...
>>
>> > Hypocrisy, thy name is legion (among trolls)
>>
>> You are absolutely right, that was not thought out and was mistaken
>> (see, thats how it`s done). The back wound was clearly much higher
>> than the throat wound,
You're lying again...
>> so Walt`s bullet could avoid hitting the seat
>> or trunk. Now, he needs either a very low shooting position or a major
>> deflection caused by the trachea, which isn`t even bone.
Still no quote from Carrico describing the throat wound as "ragged", or an
admission that Bugliosi simply lied...
>> > >DUH!!...... A bullet striking JFK just below his larynx and exiting
>> > >51/2 inches below the top of JFK's shirt collar, would not be
>> > >traveling a pronounced downward trajectory. It's difficult to
>> > >determine exactly where the bullet was fired from because of the short
>> > >distance between the entry and exit wounds. And I won't offer an
>> > >opinion at this time because you're too damned dumb to understand
>> > >anything........ and you'd only offer some dumb, irrational
>> > >rebuttal.
>>
>> > >I will say that I don't believe the shot was fired from above the
>> > >stockade fence.
>>
>> > >> You think you can challenge the
>> > >> WC`s version with such stupid unsupportable ideas?
>>
>> > Not surprising that trolls have run away from defending Bugliosi's lie.
>>
>> You`ve been lying about the evidence since your first post. You
>> STILL won`t correct your lies. Dishonest comes naturally to you.
It would be incredibly simple to prove. Just provide the quote from Carrico
describing the throat wound as "ragged".
Why can't you do it?
>> > They can't.
>>
>> =A0 <SNIP>
aeffects
> In article <102bea60-1855-4c04-82ce-f74d6a211...@d19g2000prh.googlegroups.com>,
Dudster, where's the Carrico quote? What's the problem? Why the lies?
Ahhh, maybe Von Pein has it... Bugliosi, perhaps?
aeffects
you're running, not providing the Carrico "ragged wound" quote...
what's up with that, son?
> ...
>
> read more »
aeffects
> On May 29, 11:15 pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>
> To try and help us past this incessant arguing over ragged and
> trachea and stellate and on and on, here's part of Carrico's statement
> fromhttp://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/carrico2.htm:
whose website?
> "Through the larynzo scope there seemed to be some hematoma around
> the larynx and immediately below the larynx was seen the ragged
> tracheal injury."
>
> The term 'larynzo scope' is not any kind of medical terminology,
> but probably a stenograqpher's error upon hearing 'laryngoscope',
> which is displayed here being used:http://www.hiwtc.com/products/truview-optical-view-laryngoscope-2836-...
Bud
You are retard that doesn`t understand that the injury to the
trachea is a throat wound.
>Chris stated the case perfectly when he
> wrote....
>
> Quote..." Carrico says in part "Through the larynzo scope" meaning the
> 'ragged tracheal injury'
See, Carrico did call a throat wound "ragged". Yet you call me a
liar for saying that he did. You do this because you are retarded.
>was seen through
> the laryngoscope and not through the throat wound on the outside,
Ben didn`t specify "outside", retard. Ben just said...
"Now, was the wound to the throat actually "ragged"? Did Carrico
actually *say* this anywhere?"
The answer to both his question is "yes", but you retards keep
saying I`m lying when I state this simple truth.
> which appeared to be "rather round and there were no jagged edges or
> stellate lacerations".
>
> Carrico's testimony makes it clear which injury was seen where, either
> in the 'scope or outside in the skin. I would suspect the tracheal
> injury might be difficult to see from the outside given how entry
> wounds can close up to some degree, but Carrico has made it clear for
> us.
>
> Chris is exactly right.....The tiny bullet hole in the skin of JFK's
> throat was oozing foamy blood and Dr Carrico couldn't possibly have
> seen the trachea through that tiny 4mm ( less than 1/4 inch) hole.
> AFTER he encised that hole and enlarged it to enable him to insert the
> laryngoscope THEN he saw the ragged hole in the TREACHEA.
The larynoscope goes in the mouth, Walt.
http://healthguide.howstuffworks.com/laryngoscope-picture.htm
> This is not a debate about whether the trachea is in the throat,
> ( though you'd like to make that the point under discussion) It is a
> FACT that Dr Carrico saw a tint smooth edged PENETRATING (entry) wound
> on the skin of JFK's throat........ And Bugliosi and anybody who
> supports him are damned liars.
As shown, you are a damned liar when you say "penetrating wound"
mean a wound of entry when medical personnel use the phrase.
Bud
> In article <102bea60-1855-4c04-82ce-f74d6a211...@d19g2000prh.googlegroups.com>,
No, and Walt gives a fine example of this here. Walt has decided
that a photo in evidence shows a swatch of cloth that has been blown
out by the bullet that he says hit Kennedy from the front. The photo
is evidence, the conspiracy retard`s claim of what that evidence shows
is just retard opinion. This is why I say that it isn`t the evidence
that is the problem, it`s the retards looking at the evidence and
fancy themselves some kind of sleuth that is the problem.
> You STILL can't provide any quote of Carrico stating that the throat wound was
> "ragged".
Keep lying retard. Maybe you explain to the lurkers where you think
the trachea is located.
> And you know it.
>
> You're lying, and Bugliosi lied.
>
> >> > You mean you've actually supplied a quote & cite of Carrico describing the
> >> > throat wound as "ragged", as Bugliosi claimed?
>
> >> Carrico has been quoted many times here calling the throat wound
> >> "ragged".
>
> You're lying... blatantly. You've *NEVER* quoted him doing so.
I haven`t provided the quote many times where Carrico calls the
wound to the trachea "ragged"? And trachea isn`t located in the
throat?
> > Carrico has been quoted many times here calling the throat wound
> >"ragged".
>
> >You are a damned liar......Chris stated the case perfectly when he
> >wrote....
>
> >Quote..." Carrico says in part "Through the larynzo scope" meaning the
> >'ragged tracheal injury'
Look Ben, Walt is quoting Carrico calling an injury to Kennedy`s
throat "ragged".
>was seen through
> >the laryngoscope and not through the throat wound on the outside,
> >which appeared to be "rather round and there were no jagged edges or
> >stellate lacerations".
>
> >Carrico's testimony makes it clear which injury was seen where, either
> >in the 'scope or outside in the skin. I would suspect the tracheal
> >injury might be difficult to see from the outside given how entry
> >wounds can close up to some degree, but Carrico has made it clear for
> >us.
>
> It would be virtually *IMPOSSIBLE*. I invite interested lurkers to look up what
> the *ACTUAL* wound description was...
>
> "Ragged", it was not. Nor was it large enough to peer into and see the trachea.
>
> >Chris is exactly right.....The tiny bullet hole in the skin of JFK's
> >throat was oozing foamy blood and Dr Carrico couldn't possibly have
> >seen the trachea through that tiny 4mm ( less than 1/4 inch) hole.
> >AFTER he encised that hole and enlarged it to enable him to insert the
> >laryngoscope THEN he saw the ragged hole in the TREACHEA.
>
> >This is not a debate about whether the trachea is in the throat,
> >( though you'd like to make that the point under discussion) It is a
> >FACT that Dr Carrico saw a tint smooth edged PENETRATING (entry) wound
> >on the skin of JFK's throat........ And Bugliosi and anybody who
> >supports him are damned liars.
>
> That's why Bud is on my killfilter... it's rather boring to keep pointing out
> obvious lies... particularly when they are INTENTIONAL lies.
You just don`t think the words YOU use should be held against you.
> >> > Or, as is quite obvious, have you run away from that original topic,
> >> > and tried desperately to switch it to something you can debate?
>
> >> You`ve had numerous opportunities to reword or retract your lie that
> >> Carrico never called the throat wound "ragged". You`ve opted to stick
> >> to you lie because you haven`t the charcter to admit your mistake and
> >> correct it.
>
> Sorry... can't retract the truth. You're lying again.
>
> Where's this mythical quote you keep referring to of Carrico labeling the throat
> wound as "ragged"?
As explained a dozen times, a wound to the trachea is a wound to the
throat, Gump.
> Why can't you provide it?
You`re just lying for practice now.
> >> > >> Besides the fact that a bullet could never blow
> >> > >> away a sizable piece of fabric the could be seen from a distance
> >> > >> (fabric just tears and allows the bullet to pass through), this stup=
> >id
> >> > >> idea is unsupportable as far as trajectory. Where could such a shot =
> >be
> >> > >> fired from? A bullet that went though Kennedy`s throat and out his
> >> > >> back (especially as low as the conspiracy retards want to say he cam=
> >e
> >> > >> out of Kennedy`s back) would be at such a downward trajectory it wou=
> >ld
> >> > >> be buried in the backseat or trunk.
>
> >> > This EXACT SAME TRAJECTORY is what you're claiming, albeit with
> >> > a reversal of direction. Amazing how the trajectory goes *down*
> >> > - no matter *which* direction you claim...
>
> >> > Hypocrisy, thy name is legion (among trolls)
>
> >> You are absolutely right, that was not thought out and was mistaken
> >> (see, thats how it`s done). The back wound was clearly much higher
> >> than the throat wound,
>
> You're lying again...
You`re retarded still.
And you`ll notice I advanced an idea, but Ben is unable to counter
it. He terrible with ideas, all his ideas are retarded and he is
ashamed of them.
> >> so Walt`s bullet could avoid hitting the seat
> >> or trunk. Now, he needs either a very low shooting position or a major
> >> deflection caused by the trachea, which isn`t even bone.
>
> Still no quote from Carrico describing the throat wound as "ragged", or an
> admission that Bugliosi simply lied...
I was busy focusing on your lie. You still haven`t corrected
yourself, just can`t muster up the character.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >> > >DUH!!...... A bullet striking JFK just below his larynx and exiting
> >> > >51/2 inches below the top of JFK's shirt collar, would not be
> >> > >traveling a pronounced downward trajectory. It's difficult to
> >> > >determine exactly where the bullet was fired from because of the short
> >> > >distance between the entry and exit wounds. And I won't offer an
> >> > >opinion at this time because you're too damned dumb to understand
> >> > >anything........ and you'd only offer some dumb, irrational
> >> > >rebuttal.
>
> >> > >I will say that I don't believe the shot was fired from above the
> >> > >stockade fence.
>
> >> > >> You think you can challenge the
> >> > >> WC`s version with such stupid unsupportable ideas?
>
> >> > Not surprising that trolls have run away from defending Bugliosi's lie.
>
> >> You`ve been lying about the evidence since your first post. You
> >> STILL won`t correct your lies. Dishonesty comes naturally to you.
>
> It would be incredibly simple to prove. Just provide the quote from Carrico
> describing the throat wound as "ragged".
*Again*?
> Why can't you do it?
I can do it all day long but you`ll never be able to muster the
honesty to admit it.
Where do you think the trachea is, Ben?
Bud
My guess is that Ben is naturally dishonest.
> Ahhh, maybe Von Pein has it... Bugliosi, perhaps?
For every Gump theres a Bubba. How many ways is there to cook
shrimp, retard?
Bud
Where is the trachea, retard? Stomach? Elbow? I`ll give you a clue,
when Carrico is talking about a ragged injury to the trachea is is
referring to a throat wound. Read it until it sinks in.
> ...
>
> read more »
mainframetech
> On May 30, 4:21 am, mainframetech <mainframet...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On May 29, 11:15 pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>
> > To try and help us past this incessant arguing over ragged and
> > trachea and stellate and on and on, here's part of Carrico's statement
> > fromhttp://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/carrico2.htm:
>
> whose website?
>
from a different site and the two agree. "Through the larynzo scope
there seemed to be some hematoma around the larynx and immediately
below the larynx was seen the ragged tracheal injury."
The second text copy is from:
http://www.jfk-assassination.de/warren/wch/vol6/page3.php
Run by: Ralph Schuster of Germany.
Chris
Walt
Oh WOW!!....That's even better...... So you now know that the wound
that Dr Carrico described as ragged was an INTERNAL injury. Dr
Carrico did not see any ragged wound to the EXTERNAL throat. He said
he saw a tiny PENETRATING wound in the skin of JFK's throat, and saw a
ragged hole on JFK's trachea when he looked through the
laryngoscope.
It should be obvious to you now that JFK was hit in the throat by a
killer that was to the front of JFK's Limo. Surely you're not going
to continue to argue that JFK was shot in the anterior throat from
behind.....Are you??
Ben Holmes
Walt says...
>
>On May 30, 12:38=A0pm, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>> On May 30, 9:17=A0am, Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote:
>>
>> > On May 30, 7:06=A0am, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>>
>> > > On May 29, 11:15=A0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > > In article <14f3a546-3c1b-4b59-a80b-1af99e2f2...@x1g2000yqb.googleg=
>roups.com>,
>> > > > Walt says...
>>
>> > > > >On May 29, 12:05=3DA0pm, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>> > > > >> On May 29, 12:31=3DA0pm, Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote=
>:
>>
>> > > > >> > On May 28, 2:25=3DA0pm, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>>
>> > > > >> > > On May 28, 9:25=3DA0am, Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wr=
>ote:
>>
>> > > > >> > > > On May 27, 10:27=3DA0pm, timstter <timst...@gmail.com> wro=
>te:
>>
>> > > > >> > > > > TOP POST
>>
>> > > > >> > > > > LOL! This must be one of the STUPIDEST posts I have ever=
> read!
>>
>> > > > >> > > > > Say, Walt, if the hole in Kennedy's skin was an entrance=
> wound, A=3D
>> > > > >S YOU
>> > > > >> > > > > CLAIM, why would the hole in the trachea be ragged, Walt=
>?
>>
>> > > > >> > > > Friar the liar asked;......"if the hole in Kennedy's skin =
>was an
>> > > > >> > > > entrance wound, AS YOU CLAIM, why would the hole in the tr=
>achea be
>> > > > >> > > > ragged, Walt?"
>>
>> > > > >> > > > That's an excellent question, and thank you for asking the=
> question=3D
>> > > > >.
>>
>> > > > >> > > > The answer is:....The bullet penetrated the skin of JFK's =
>throat,
>>
>> > > > >> > > =3DA0
>>
>> > > > >> > And went where, Walt?
>>
>> > > > >> > Duh.....I've explained all of this to you several times.....Do=
> you
>> > > > >> > have ADD?
>>
>> > > > >> > There is a PICTURE that you can look at,( when you get your he=
>ad outta
>> > > > >> > yer ass) on page 225 of Trask's "Pics of the Pain" =3DA0I unde=
>rstand your
>> > > > >> > reading comprehension is subpar, but even the village idiot ca=
>n look
>> > > > >> > at pictures. =3DA0The photo on Page 225 was taken at the very =
>second that
>> > > > >> > JFK was hit in the throat, and the bullet has just exited his =
>back. =3DA0=3D
>> > > > >A
>> > > > >> > tiny piece of JFK's white shirt can be seen being blown out th=
>rough
>> > > > >> > his jacket.Photo experts who have studied this photo, which th=
>e FBI
>> > > > >> > kept hidden from the public for many years, have reported that=
> there
>> > > > >> > is also droplets of blood being carried along the trail of the=
> exiting
>> > > > >> > bullet.
>>
>> > > > >> As usual it comes down to what a conspiracy retard swears he can=
> see
>> > > > >> in a blurry photo.
>>
>> > > > Does it?
>>
>ave
>> > > much use for them, but they are necessary to conduct an inquiry. In
>> > > support of his idea he offered some of this much vaunted evidence you
>> > > retards like to crow about. But the evidence is much too weak and
>> > > subjective to support the claim he is making (which is almost always
>t
>> > > the evidence. The CTer position is based on ridiculous and retarded
>> > > ideas, so bad they usually do what you do and keep them secret,
>> > > because they are ashamed to admit what they believe. Walt has no
>> > > shame, he doesn`t care who knows he is retarded.
>>
>ing the
>> > > > throat wound as "ragged", as Bugliosi claimed?
>>
>> > > "ragged".
>>
>> > Carrico has been quoted many times here calling the throat wound
>> > "ragged".
>>
>> > You are a damned liar......
>>
>> You are retard that doesn`t understand that the injury to the
>> trachea is a throat wound.
I think Walt hit the nail on the head... you're a brazen liar.
You *KNOW* that Bugliosi lied, yet you'd rather lie in support of him than tell
the truth.
>> >Chris stated the case perfectly when he
>> > wrote....
>>
>> > Quote..." Carrico says in part "Through the larynzo scope" meaning the
>> > 'ragged tracheal injury'
>>
>> See, Carrico did call a throat wound "ragged". Yet you call me a
>> liar for saying that he did. You do this because you are retarded.
You're lying again.
>> >was seen through
>> > the laryngoscope and not through the throat wound on the outside,
>>
>> Ben didn`t specify "outside", retard. Ben just said...
Even as stupid a troll as you are, you *surely* realize that Bugliosi was
speaking of the appearance of the throat wound.
And, of course, you STILL haven't produced any statement of Carrico describing
the throat wound as "ragged".
>> "Now, was the wound to the throat actually "ragged"? Did Carrico
>> actually *say* this anywhere?"
>>
>> The answer to both his question is "yes", but you retards keep
>> saying I`m lying when I state this simple truth.
You're lying again.
Why can't you QUOTE this mythical statement?
>> > which appeared to be "rather round and there were no jagged edges or
>> > stellate lacerations".
>>
>> > Carrico's testimony makes it clear which injury was seen where, either
>> > in the 'scope or outside in the skin. =A0I would suspect the tracheal
>> > injury might be difficult to see from the outside given how entry
>> > wounds can close up to some degree, but Carrico has made it clear for
>> > us.
>>
>> > Chris is exactly right.....The tiny bullet hole in the skin of JFK's
>> > throat was oozing foamy blood and Dr Carrico couldn't =A0possibly have
>> > seen the trachea through that tiny 4mm ( less than 1/4 inch) hole.
>> > AFTER he encised that hole and enlarged it to enable him to insert the
>> > laryngoscope THEN he saw the ragged hole in the TREACHEA.
>>
>> The larynoscope goes in the mouth, Walt.
>
>Oh WOW!!....That's even better...... So you now know that the wound
>that Dr Carrico described as ragged was an INTERNAL injury. Dr
>Carrico did not see any ragged wound to the EXTERNAL throat. He said
>he saw a tiny PENETRATING wound in the skin of JFK's throat, and saw a
>ragged hole on JFK's trachea when he looked through the
>laryngoscope.
>
>It should be obvious to you now that JFK was hit in the throat by a
>killer that was to the front of JFK's Limo. Surely you're not going
>to continue to argue that JFK was shot in the anterior throat from
>behind.....Are you??
More importantly, is the troll going to continue to lie about Carrico's
description of the throat wound?
>> http://healthguide.howstuffworks.com/laryngoscope-picture.htm
>>
>> > This is not a debate about whether the trachea is in the throat,
>> > ( though you'd like to make that the point under discussion) It is a
>> > FACT that Dr Carrico saw a tint smooth edged PENETRATING (entry) wound
>> > on the skin of JFK's throat........ And Bugliosi and anybody who
>> > supports him are damned liars.
>>
>> As shown, you are a damned liar when you say "penetrating wound"
>> mean a wound of entry when medical personnel use the phrase.
Still no quote of Carrico...
>> > > > Or, as is quite obvious, have you run away from that original topic=
>, and tried
>> > > > desperately to switch it to something you can debate?
>>
>> > > =A0 You`ve had numerous opportunities to reword or retract your lie t=
>hat
>> > > Carrico never called the throat wound "ragged". You`ve opted to stick
>> > > to you lie because you haven`t the charcter to admit your mistake and
>> > > correct it.
>>
>> > > > >> Besides the fact that a bullet could never blow
>> > > > >> away a sizable piece of fabric the could be seen from a distance
>> > > > >> (fabric just tears and allows the bullet to pass through), this =
>stupid
>> > > > >> idea is unsupportable as far as trajectory. Where could such a s=
>hot be
>> > > > >> fired from? A bullet that went though Kennedy`s throat and out h=
>is
>> > > > >> back (especially as low as the conspiracy retards want to say he=
> came
>> > > > >> out of Kennedy`s back) would be at such a downward trajectory it=
> would
>> > > > >> be buried in the backseat or trunk.
>>
>> > > > This EXACT SAME TRAJECTORY is what you're claiming, albeit with a r=
>eversal of
>> > > > direction. Amazing how the trajectory goes *down* - no matter *whic=
>h* direction
>> > > > you claim...
>>
>> > > > Hypocrisy, thy name is legion (among trolls)
>>
>> > > =A0 You are absolutely right, that was not thought out and was mistak=
>en
>> > > (see, thats how it`s done). The back wound was clearly much higher
>> > > than the throat wound, so Walt`s bullet could avoid hitting the seat
>> > > or trunk. Now, he needs either a very low shooting position or a majo=
>r
>> > > deflection caused by the trachea, which isn`t even bone.
>>
>> > > > >DUH!!...... A bullet striking JFK just below his larynx and exitin=
>g
>> > > > >51/2 inches below the top of JFK's shirt collar, would not be
>> > > > >traveling a pronounced downward trajectory. =A0It's difficult to
>> > > > >determine exactly where the bullet was fired from because of the s=
>hort
>> > > > >distance between the entry and exit wounds. =A0And I won't offer a=
>n
>> > > > >opinion at this time because you're too damned dumb to understand
>> > > > >anything........ and you'd only offer some dumb, irrational
>> > > > >rebuttal.
>>
>> > > > >I will say that I don't believe the shot was fired from above the
>> > > > >stockade fence.
>>
>> > > > >> You think you can challenge the
>> > > > >> WC`s version with such stupid unsupportable ideas?
>>
>> > > > Not surprising that trolls have run away from defending Bugliosi's =
>lie.
>>
>> > > =A0 You`ve been lying about the evidence since your first post. You
>> > > STILL won`t correct your lies. Dishonest comes naturally to you.
>>
>> > > > They can't.
>>
Bud
Now know? I looked up the laryngoscope over a week ago. I always
knew it was and internal injury, I`ve never seen a trachea on the
outside of someone.
> Dr
> Carrico did not see any ragged wound to the EXTERNAL throat.
Never, ever, ever once said he did, retard. I`ve explained my
position numerous times. Apparently you stumps are too stupid to grasp
the words I`m using. I`ve clearly said all along that I was only
challenging Ben`s claim that Carrico never called the throat wound
"ragged". The wound to the trachea was in the throat, so Carrico did
call *a* throat wound "ragged". Ben has declined several opportunities
to correct his lie, but has instead opted to keep repeating it.
> He said
> he saw a tiny PENETRATING wound in the skin of JFK's throat,
But as you now know "penetrating" has nothing to do with whatever
direction the item that caused the wound was moving.
And as you also know Carrico said it could have been either an exit
or entrance.
> and saw a
> ragged hole on JFK's trachea when he looked through the
> laryngoscope.
>
> It should be obvious to you now that JFK was hit in the throat by a
> killer that was to the front of JFK's Limo.
Only an idiot would believe this. I gave you the chance to put
something reasonable on the table explaining how such a thing could be
possible. You couldn`t.
> Surely you're not going
> to continue to argue that JFK was shot in the anterior throat from
> behind.....Are you??
You mean I`m not going to argue in favor of the fact that a bullet
hit Kennedy in the back and exited his throat? Yes, I think I`ll stick
to the truth over retard fantasy.
Bud
> In article <26f8fd84-976a-4201-a23e-388ff0627...@j13g2000pro.googlegroups.com>,
Walt could hit his head with a nail.
> You *KNOW* that Bugliosi lied, yet you'd rather lie in support of him than tell
> the truth.
No, what I`d rather do is show that what you claimed was untrue. And
since you have no reason but sheer dishonesty to stick to this lie
you`ve established yourself for all to see as a liar.
> >> >Chris stated the case perfectly when he
> >> > wrote....
>
> >> > Quote..." Carrico says in part "Through the larynzo scope" meaning the
> >> > 'ragged tracheal injury'
>
> >> See, Carrico did call a throat wound "ragged". Yet you call me a
> >> liar for saying that he did. You do this because you are retarded.
>
> You're lying again.
Walt supplied it, not me. Tell him that the wound Carrico saw in the
laryngoscope was not in Kennedy`s throat.
> >> >was seen through
> >> > the laryngoscope and not through the throat wound on the outside,
>
> >> Ben didn`t specify "outside", retard. Ben just said...
>
> Even as stupid a troll as you are, you *surely* realize that Bugliosi was
> speaking of the appearance of the throat wound.
And as stupid as you are you must realize the trachea is in the
throat. And knowing that Carrico described two wounds it was incumbent
upon you to specify which one you were referring to.
> And, of course, you STILL haven't produced any statement of Carrico describing
> the throat wound as "ragged".
Why do you continue to tell this lie?
> >> "Now, was the wound to the throat actually "ragged"? Did Carrico
> >> actually *say* this anywhere?"
>
> >> The answer to both his question is "yes", but you retards keep
> >> saying I`m lying when I state this simple truth.
>
> You're lying again.
>
> Why can't you QUOTE this mythical statement?
Why would I bother it again. So you can lie and say I didn`t again?
Carrico called the wound to Kennedy`s trachea "ragged". This is a
throat wound caused by a bullet.
> >>http://healthguide.howstuffworks.com/laryngoscope-picture.htm
>
> >> > This is not a debate about whether the trachea is in the throat,
> >> > ( though you'd like to make that the point under discussion) It is a
> >> > FACT that Dr Carrico saw a tint smooth edged PENETRATING (entry) wound
> >> > on the skin of JFK's throat........ And Bugliosi and anybody who
> >> > supports him are damned liars.
>
> >> As shown, you are a damned liar when you say "penetrating wound"
> >> mean a wound of entry when medical personnel use the phrase.
>
> Still no quote of Carrico...
I was commenting on a different lie that Walt has been pushing. The
lies of conspiracy retards breed like rabbits.
<SNIP>
aeffects
lmao.... sheeeeeet you've never stepped out dside of a dorm room, who
the hell you trying to kid..... no sense puffing up that chest of
yours...
> > Dr
> > Carrico did not see any ragged wound to the EXTERNAL throat.
>
> Never, ever, ever once said he did, retard. I`ve explained my
> position numerous times. Apparently you stumps are too stupid to grasp
> the words I`m using. I`ve clearly said all along that I was only
> challenging Ben`s claim that Carrico never called the throat wound
> "ragged". The wound to the trachea was in the throat, so Carrico did
> call *a* throat wound "ragged". Ben has declined several opportunities
> to correct his lie, but has instead opted to keep repeating it.
focus studley... the WCR lied!
> > He said
> > he saw a tiny PENETRATING wound in the skin of JFK's throat,
>
> But as you now know "penetrating" has nothing to do with whatever
> direction the item that caused the wound was moving.
>
> And as you also know Carrico said it could have been either an exit
> or entrance.
and Bugliosi's take on things?
> ...
>
> read more »