45 Questions that Scare LNT'ers...
Ben Holmes
top-posting now...) Look near the bottom for a new question in honor of
Bugliosi.
[Any killfiled trolls: don't worry, if you *actually* make a valid point,
someone (Aeffects, Walt, Gil, Toddy... whoever) will be sure to respond - and
I'll see your response.]
I've updated a number of the questions with more information.
But these should illustrate the point that LNT'ers *can't* answer'em... they're
in no particular order:
1. When the WC had ballistics tests done, shooting a bullet into the entry
location of the head specified by the autopsy report,the bullet invariably
exited the forehead or face of the target - can you explain why JFK’s face was
virtually untouched, and certainly showed no signs of an exiting bullet?
2. Why do LNT’ers refuse to admit that there was a wound in the back of the
head, when the autopsy report clearly states: "1. There is a large irregular
defect of the scalp and skull on the right involving chiefly the parietal bone
but extending somewhat into the temporal and occipital regions. In this region
there is an actual absence of scalp and bone producing a defect which measures
approximately 13 cm. in greatest diameter.?" There is *no* part of the
Occipital which is *not* located in the back of the head - yet LNT'ers will not
admit to a large BOH wound - as described in the Autopsy Report and by dozens of
medical witnesses.
3. Why can no LNT'er explain the evidence that Robert Harris has developed to
demonstrate that two bullets were fired in a span of time shorter than the MC
was capable of? The pattern of LNT'ers ducking Robert's obvious example is
almost funny to watch...
4. Why did so many credible eyewitnesses point to the front of the limo as the
source of shots being fired? If eyewitness testimony is unreliable, and the
claim is made that echoes were what was being heard, why were so many
eyewitnesses specific to the location? IOW’s, why didn’t anyone specify a shot
from the left?
5. Can you explain why the bullets at the Tippit scene, identified as Automatic,
changed to revolver? Sgt Hill was holding the shells in his hand, and asserts
that it was his *examination* of those shells that led to his radio report. How
could an experienced Police Sergeant make such a dumb error in the shooting of a
fellow police officer?
6. James Chaney, a police motorcycle officer was less than a dozen feet away,
and looking directly at JFK during the shooting (according to both his
statements, and the Altgen's photo of him). We *KNOW* that his testimony would
have been devastating to the SBT - since we know that Chaney asserted that the
bullet that struck JFK was a different one than the one that struck Connally.
Mr. BELIN - What other officers did you talk to and what did they say that you
remember?
Mr. BAKER - I talked to Jim Chaney, and he made the statement that the two shots
hit Kennedy first and then the other one hit the Governor.
Mr. BELIN - Where was he?
Mr. BAKER - He was on the right rear of the car or to the side, and then at that
time the chief of police, he didn't know anything about this, and he moved up
and told him, and then that was during the time that the Secret Service men were
trying to get in the car, and at the time, after the shooting, from the time the
first shot rang out, the car stopped completely, pulled to the left and stopped.
Mr. BELIN - The President's car?
Mr. BAKER - Yes, sir. Now, I have heard several of them say that, Mr. Truly was
standing out there, he said it stopped. Several officers said it stopped
completely.
Mr. DULLES - You saw it stop, did you?
Mr. BAKER - No, sir; I didn't see it stop.
Mr. DULLES - You just heard from others that it had stopped?
Mr. BAKER - Yes, sir; that it had completely stopped, and then for a moment
there, and then they rushed on out to Parkland.
Knowing, from this testimony, that Chaney would have testified to a pattern of
shots that would have contradicted their SBT theory, can anyone defend the
Warren Commission's honesty in failing to question James Chaney directly? Why
was he never questioned by the FBI or Warren Commission prior to the release of
the WCR?
7. The previous testimony brings us to a new point - dozens of
people testified or asserted that the limo either slowed
dramatically, or actually came to a very brief stop. Why can't this be seen in
the extant Zapruder film?
8. Why was there no close-up photographs ever made of the limo? John McAdams has
asserted otherwise, but cannot produce any such photos. Considering that Secret
Service agents are college educated, and well aware of general crime scene
procedures, why was the limo being washed within minutes of the assassination?
Can anyone defend this, since the timing would tend to indicate a pre-planned
action?
9. Why were the NAA results buried by the WC? John McAdams has denied that this
meant anything - although it's quite clear that McAdams is trying to put the
best spin on the facts to make such an assertion. The Warren Commission had no
reason whatsoever to hide any evidence of Oswald's guilt - AND PROVABLY HID
EXCULPATORY EVIDENCE, so can anyone defend the Warren Commission's actions in
burying the NAA data?
10. Why was the Justice Department concerned enough to spy on the Garrison
trial, and attempt to influence it by sending Boswell to counteract what Finck
was testifying to? John McAdams has put forth the silly idea that Garrison was
'attacking' the Federal Government - but seriously, can anyone provide a
*reasonable* reason for the Justice Department to interfere in a state
prosecution?
11. Why did Baker come up with so many different versions of
meeting up with Oswald, and why did the WC dishonestly move
Baker’s time of arrival back so far, and the alleged assassin up so much? They
did so by false statements, why was this needed?
12. "Tests were also made with a nuclear reactor on the cast of Oswald's cheek
Dr. Vincent P. Guinn, head of the activation analysis program of the general
atomic division of General Dynamics Corporation, made an analysis of the
paraffin cast, the results of which were presented to the Commmission. Dr. Guinn
said that he hand his colleagues reasoned 'that if a gun was fired and some of
the powder came back on the hands and cheek, some of the bullet primer should
also come back'. They decided to try looking for elements by putting the wax
impressions of hands and cheeks into a nuclear reactor.' Guinn said the had
informed the FBI that it would be worth-while to utilize 'activation analysis'
because the Dallas police had merely used the chemical paraffin test.
'We bought a similar rifle from the same shop as Oswald and
conducted two parallel tests,' Guinn said. 'One person fired the rifle on eight
occasions.' The scientist stated that paraffin casts were made and when tested
by means of radioactivity, 'it was positive in all eight cases and showed a
primer on both hands and both cheeks. [Weisberg, who has seen Guinn's report,
quotes "heavy deposits" on the cheek casts] Then we took the casts of Oswald's
cheek and put them in a nuclear reactor.' Guinn added, 'I cannot say what we
found out about Oswald becuase it is secret until the publication of the Warren
Commission Report." - Mark Lane's Rush to Judgement, pg 152-153
These comparative tests, which were done by a recognized expert - were
contradicted by Cunningham's testimony on pg 561 of the WCR (despite the fact
that Cunningham had *NO* experience with NAA) - but the Warren Commission was
not honest enough to present Guinn's evidence... This evidence is *exculpatory*
for Oswald...
Why was the WC dishonest enough to present Cunningham's testimony, without
allowing readers to know about Guinn's testing results?
Why were those test results of firing a rifle at Oak Ridge buried, and are still
denied by most LNT'ers today?
13. "in a discussion after the conference Drs. Light and Dolce
(two wound ballistics experts from Edgewood Arsenal) expressed
themselves as being very strongly of the opinion that Connally had been hit by
two different bullets, principally on the ground that the bullet recovered from
Connally's stretcher could not have broken his radius without having suffered
more distortion. Dr. Olivier (another wound ballistics expert) withheld a
conclusion until he has had the opportunity to make tests on animal tissue and
bone with the actual rifle." "Memorandum for the Record," dated April 22, 1964,
written by Melvin Eisenberg about a conference held on April 21, 1964.
Why was a ballistics expert hired by the WC (Dr. Joseph Dolce)
fired when he refused to endorse their theory? (Or, more correctly - the WC
refused to allow him to testify, and eliminated any reference to his opinions in
the WCR.)
14. Why did the FBI engage in a pattern of eyewitness intimidation to get the
statements they wanted? Dave Powers, for example, or Tomlinson? Why do LNT'ers
refuse to admit this simple historical fact of FBI intimidation of eyewitnesses?
(Toddy, for example, has been running from this since 2005... even though he
*requested* the supporting evidence)
15. What is the 6.5mm virtually round object that no-one saw in the AP X-ray on
the night of the Autopsy... and why was everyone so blind on the night of the
autopsy? Any idea why John McAdams, as well as all other LNT'ers - keep running
away from this topic? When it was pointed out that the size of this object was
twice the size of the one that Dr. Humes asserted in testimony was the largest
fragment, here's what John McAdams was forced to do:
*******************************************
> I'd say a 6.5mm virtually round object was big enough,
> wouldn't you? Particularly when it's twice the size of what
> Dr. Humes thought was the largest fragment found.
John McAdams:
We don't know it's more than twice the mass, because it's
apparently just a sliver.
******************************************
Why did McAdams dishonestly try changing from "size" to "mass"?
Until LNT'ers can satisfactorily explain this 6.5mm virtually
round object, the best explanation remains that this was a failed attempt to
frame Oswald.
16. "I also found some surpising results based on the chest X-ray. I made
accurate measurements of the width of the spine directly on the X-ray. The
front to back thickness of the body at this site (14 cm) as well as the distance
of the back wound from the midline (4.5 to 5.0 cm) were supplied by the HSCA.
Since this latter distance can be measured independently on photographs of the
back, I also did this. The so-called exit site at the front of [the] throat was
described by the Parkland doctors as being very near the midline.
When I placed these measurements onto a cross section of the body and then
connected the bullet entry and exit sites by a straight line, I immediately saw
that the "magic" bullet had to go right through the spine. This path would have
caused major damage to the spine and would have been very obvious on the chest
X-ray. In fact, there is no major trauma like this anywhere in the spine.
Because of the impenetrable vertical barrier produced by the transverse
processes up and down the entire cervical spine and because of the total width
of the cervical spine, there is no place for the bullet to pass through anywhere
in the neck and still exit through the midline of the throat. If, instead, the
upper chest is considered as a possible bullet trajectory site, then another
problem arises. The bullet would have to go right through the lung. But no lung
damage of this type was seen by the pathologsts and none is seen on the X-rays
either. This "magic bullet simply cannot enter through the back wound and then
exit through the throat wound without hitting the spine - or else causing major
lung trauma. It is odd that this rather simple reconstruction with exact
measurements has never been done before. Its very simplicity, however, proves
direct evidence that the object which entered the back could not have exited at
the front of the throat." Dr. Mantik, Assassination Science, pg 157-158
Why has no-one been able to step up to the plate and show that
this *is* possible?
17. Col. Finck testified during the Shaw trial:
Q: I will ask you the question one more time: Why did you not
dissect the track of the bullet wound that you have described
today and you saw at the time of the autopsy at the time you
examined the body? Why? I ask you to answer that question.
A: As I recall I was told not to, but I don't remember by whom.
Q: You were told not to but you don't remember by whom?
A: Right.
Q: Could it have been one of the Admirals or one of the Generals in the room?
A: I don't recall.
Q: Do you have any particular reason why you cannot recall at this time?
A: Because we were told to examine the head and the chest cavity, and that
doesn't include the removal of the organs of the neck.
Why was dissection of the bullet track, and neck wound, forbidden to the
prosectors? Why were they allowed to dissect the chest incisions, which were
clearly *not* bullet wounds, but not allowed to dissect the bullet wounds? Even
John McAdams has run away from answering this simple question.
18. Why were the prosectors not allowed to examine JFK's clothing, a routine and
completely ordinary procedure in an autopsy, despite the fact that the clothes
were certainly within reach? John McAdams has attempted to assert that this was
done on orders of the Kennedy family, despite the fact that Col Finck detailed
in a contemporary memo who had prevented him from examining the clothing:
"I was denied the opportunity to examine the clothing of Kennedy. One officer
who outranked me told me that my request was only of academic interest. The same
officer did not agree to statein the autopsy report that the autopsy was
incomplete, as I suggested to indicate. I saw the clothing of Kennedy, for the
first time, on 16 March 1964, at the Warren Commission, before my testimony,
more than three months after the autopsy."
Why would McAdams, who certainly knows of this memo, lie about such a simple
historical fact?
19. Why have photographs and X-rays disappeared out of the
inventory? Only the government had control of them... John McAdams has denied
that any photo or X-ray have disappeared, but to do so; he must call the
eyewitnesses liars - and beg ordinary people to suspend common sense. The
prosectors described only *TWO* injuries inside the body - one to the trachea,
which they were prevented from removing, and one to the tip of the lung - WHICH
THEY STATE THAT THEY PHOTOGRAPHED. A photograph that has never been seen.
(Interestingly, this also happened in the RFK case, missing photographs...
although the controlling agency in this case was the LAPD)
20. Why did the CIA have a program of harassment of CT authors, and why did they
actively promote the WCR through their friendly news contacts? (Interestingly,
this same pattern happened again in the RFK murder case - although here it was
the LAPD that took to harrassing CT journalists and researchers.)
21. Why did the Secret Service remove the limo from the jurisdiction of the DPD?
Perhaps an argument can be made for removing JFK's body - as Johnson needed
Jackie with him to provide an aura of legitimacy, but there was *NO* valid
reason to remove the scene of the crime from Dallas - or was there? Can you
provide it?
22. Why is there no 'chain of evidence' on so much of the evidence in this case?
CE399, for example, almost no-one who originally handled it will identify it.
The shells at the Tippet scene, for another. Why were autopsy technicians
forbidden from doing ordinary marking for X-ray identification?
23. "I spoke to Gus Rose concerning the camera. He told me that he did find the
small camera. He told me that 'the FBI came back three times trying to convince
me and Captain Fritz that what I had found was a light meter. Captain Fritz
told them on the third visit not to come to him again about the camera.' Fritz
stood behind his man and today is vindicated through Rusty's photograph." -
First Day Evidence, pg 212
"The agent-in-charge of the Dallas FBI office during the assassination
investigation wa J. Gordon Shanklin. He claimed that he could not recall the
camera incident. However, an inventory list was made in his Dallas FBI office
on November 26th, 1963, of the evidence obtained from the Dallas police. It
listed "one Minox camera" under item number 375, which was witnessed by De
Brueys himself as well as Dallas Police Captain J. M. English of the Property
Bureau.
However, upon arrival in Washington, a SECOND inventory list was made by De
Brueys and another agent, Vince Drain. Item number 375 at that point became a
'Minox light meter.' Still included among the evidence were two rolls of
'apparently exposed' and two rolls of undeveloped Minox film, supporting the
fact that there must have been a camera to take the photographs." First Day
Evidence, pg 214
Why did the FBI seem so insistent on erasing the record of a Minox camera owned
by LHO? Why did he own one? This was not an inexpensive
camera... and it seems cruel to mention that these were favored by intelligence
operatives because of their small size.
24. Why were military intelligence files on LHO never released... even to
government investigators?
25. Why did both the WC and HSCA find it necessary to *LIE* about their own
collected evidence in order to support their conclusions? In the case of the
HSCA, it's not even disputable - they lied blatantly about the medical
testimony... why??
26. Why have so many *new* "scientific" theories been developed for this case?
Never before heard - such as the "jet effect" and "eyewitness unreliability" and
"photographs trump eyewitnesses"? Or can you point to these "theories" being
used in any prior legal case...
27. Why does Altgens show Chaney in a position that he's *never* seen in the
extant Z-film?
28. LNT'ers get really nervous and never seem to have any explanation for the
reported Limo slowdown/stop that took place in Dealey Plaza.
With dozens of eyewitnesses all reporting the slowdown/stop - and many of them
*highly* credible (such as the motorcycle cops who were *with* the limo),
LNT'ers really can't deny what happened.
So when it's pointed out that this *IS NOT SEEN* in the extant Z-Film - they all
immediately jump into a chorus of "Hallelujah Alvarez"... pointing out that
Alvarez found a slowdown in the film.
BUT IT CAN'T BE SEEN BY THE CASUAL VIEWER!!!
And Tony Marsh ran screaming away - and starting talking about something else
(ghost images) and refused to explain this... as *no* LNT'er has been able to
do.
LNT'ers just *hate* the eyewitnesses - even when they are forced to imagine the
eyewitnesses being correct, as in this case.
Any LNT'ers care to explain what Tony ducked? Why is a slowdown *NOT SEEN IN THE
EXTANT Z-FILM TO THE CASUAL VIEWER?*
29. Why do over 40 eyewitnesses agree with each other on the location of the
large wound on the back of JFK's head, in contradiction to the BOH photo? Dr.
Mantik has reported that using stereo viewing, the "hair patch" shows 2D,
contrary to everything else, which shows in 3D. Many have noted the "wet"
appearance of the hair patch. Interestingly, the lateral X-ray also has a "white
patch" at this same location - Dr. Mantik reports that optical density
measurements of this "patch" show that JFK was a "bonehead"... solid bone all
the way across. Why is there such a distinct and common pattern among
eyewitnesses, BOH photo, and Lateral X-ray?
30. Somewhat related to the previous question, why does the Autopsy Report
contradict the BOH photo? (The Autopsy Report stated that the wound extended to
the occipital, and was *devoid* of bone and scalp... this simply cannot be seen
in the BOH photo.) No LNT'er has been able to point to *any* part of the
Occipital that cannot be seen in the BOH photo - yet the autopsy report, *all*
prosectors, and over 40 eyewitnesses place a large wound here that was devoid of
bone and scalp.
31. Why did the WC misrepresent so much of their evidence, even to the point of
outright lies at some points? The statements about Mrs. Tice, for example, or
the date that Oswald left England...
32. There were known assassination attempts in both Chicago and Tampa in the
weeks before the successful assassination attempt in Dallas. Although the
Chicago attempt was successfully kept out of the papers, this isn't true of the
Tampa attempt - which made it into one article. Why did the Secret Service not
inform the WC of these past attempts, and what can explain the WC's "ignorance"
of these previous assassination attempts? Why do LNT'ers refuse to even *admit*
that these attempts are historical and known?
33. Why did the WCR never deal with the unidentified finger-print found in the
Sniper’s Nest? This pattern of burying and disregarding any exculpatory evidence
is troubling at best, and dishonest to those who study more deeply how the
Warren Commission operated.
34. Why did the WC simply lie about the first press conference with Dr. Perry?
We all know that they certainly had the power to get film of
the conference, and they refused to do so... why?
35. From the Jan 27th Executive Session:
***************************************
Mr. Rankin. Then there is a great range of material in regard to the wounds, and
the autopsy and this point of exit or entrance of the bullet in the front of the
neck, and that all has to be developed much more than we have at the present
time.
We have an explanation there in the autopsy that probably a fragment came out
the front of the neck, but with the elevation other shot must have come from,
and the angle, it seems quite apparent now, since we have the picture of where
the bullet entered in the back, that the bullet entered below the shoulder blade
to the right of the backbone, which is below the place where the picture shows
the bullet came out in the neckband of the shirt in front, and the bullet,
according to the autopsy didn't strike any bone at all, that particular bullet,
and go through.
*****************************************
"Below the shoulder blades?"
"probably a fragment came out the front of the neck?"
Can you point to any statement in the current existing Autopsy
report that would support these statements?
Was Spector simply mistaken? Under what conditions could he come up with such a
mistaken impression of what the Autopsy Report said?
36. Why was their such an amazing amount of clumsiness when it came to the
assassination films? The Z-film being broke in several places, the Muchmore film
being broke right at one of the head shots, the Nix Film reportedly returning in
a different condition from when it was taken from him? This isn't to mention the
number of eyewitnesses who reported their film taken *and never returned*
37. "The significance of Givens' observation that Oswald was carrying his
clipboard became apparent on December 2, 1963, when an employee, Frankie Kaiser,
found a clipboard hidden by book cartons in the northwest corner of the sixth
floor at the west wall a few feet from where the rifle had been found." (WCR
143)
Mr. KAISER. I was over there looking for the Catholic edition--teacher's
edition.
Mr. BALL. Where did you see the clipboard?
Mr. KAISER. It was Just laying there in the plain open--and just the plain open
boxes-you see, we've got a pretty good space back there and I just noticed it
laying over there.
Mr. BALL. Laying. on the floor?
Mr. KAISER. Yes, it was laying on the floor.
Mr. BALL. It was on the floor?
Mr. KAISER. It was on the floor.
Mr. BALL. How close was it to the wall?
Mr. KAISER. It was about---oh--I would say, just guessing, about 5 or 6 inches,
something like that.
Mr. BALL. From the wall and on the floor?
Mr. KAISER. Laying on the floor.
Mr. BALL. And were there any boxes between the wall and the clipboard?
Mr. KAISER. No, not between the wall and the clipboard--there wasn't.
Mr. BALL. Were there boxes between the stairway and the clipboard?
Mr. KAISER. No, you see, here's---let me see just a second---here's the stairs
right here, and we went down this way and here's the stairs this way going up
and here's the and it was laying fight in here by the cards--there are about
four or five cards, I guess, running in front of it--just laying between the
part you go down and the part you go up.
Mr. BALL. You mean laying between the stairway up and the stairway down?
Mr. KAISER. Yes, right there in the corner. (6H 343)
BALL. How long did you stay up on the sixth floor? After you found the location
of the three cartridges?
Mr. MOONEY. Well, I stayed up there not over 15 or 20 minutes longer--after
Captain Will Fritz and his officers came over there, Captain Fritz picked up the
cartridges, began to examine them, of course I left that particular area. By
that time there was a number of officers up there. The floor was covered with
officers. And we were searching, trying to find the weapon at that time. (3H
289)
The WC simply lied, when trying to disguise the fact that the many policemen
that swamped the sixth floor (See Mooney's statement) couldn't find a clipboard
that Kaiser clearly states was in plain sight, and not hidden at all. The
clipboard was *NOT* hidden - and an entire working week went by before it was
"discovered". Can anyone defend this curious lie of the Warren Commission?
38. "... but there is no evidence that an "A. J. Hidell" existed." (WCR 292)
"Because Oswald's use of this pseudonym became known quickly after the
assassination, investigations were conducted with regard to persons using the
name Hidell or names similar to it." (WCR 313)
"Hidell was a favorite alias used by Oswald on a number of occasions. Diligent
search has failed to reveal any person in Dallas or New Orleans by that name."
(WCR 645)
But the actual evidence shows otherwise:
"I, John Rene Heindel, 812 Belleville Street, New Orleans, Louisiana, being
first duly sworn, depose and say: ...While in the Marine Corps, I was often
referred to as "Hidell"--pronounced so as to rhyme with "Rydell" rather than
"Fidel." This was a nickname and not merely an inadvertent mispronounciation. It
is possible that Oswald might have heard me being called by this name; indeed he
may himself have called me "Hidell." However, I have no specific recollection of
his either using or hearing this name." (8H 318)
If a LNT'er wishes to argue that the staff was unaware of this deposition,
they'll need to face this:
Mr. JENNER. Do you remember a marine by the name of John Heindel?
Mr. POWERS. No, sir.
Mr. JENNER. Sometimes called Hidell? This is Atsugi now.
Mr. POWERS. No. (8H 288)
The WCR once again, simply lied. And although John R. Heindel was known from a
Secret Service investigation conducted in New Orleans from 22Nov - 2Dec; (See
CE3119 pg 12) no other research has been presented... presumably, the FBI,
Secret Service, and WC simply declined to investigate Heindel.
Interestingly enough, the Dallas Police list of property seized on Nov 23rd at
the Paine residence includes the following: "four 3 x 5 cards bearing
respectively names G. Hall; A.J. Hidell; B. Davis; and V.T. Lee" (CE 2003 pg
269)
Gus Hall, Benjamin Davis, and Vincent T. Lee are real people of prominence in
the leftist political movement. If A. J. Hidell is a fake name invented by
Oswald, the subtlety of preparing an index card for Hidell, and putting it in
with known real people was certainly nothing less than brilliant. (to paraphrase
Silvia Meagher)
Can anyone explain why the WCR simply disregarded and misrepresented the
evidence in the case of this 'alias'?
39. "Oswald disembarked at Le Havre on October 8. He left for England that same
day, and arrived on October 9. He told English customs officials in Southampton
that he had $700 and planned to remain in the United Kingdom for 1 week before
proceeding to a school in Switzerland. But on the same day, he flew to Helsinki,
Finland, where he registered at the Torni Hotel; on the following day, he moved
to the Klaus Kurki Hotel." (WCR 690)
Any normal reading of that paragraph will give you the idea that Oswald left
England for Helsinki on October 9th. But once again, it's a lie that is in
provable conflict with their own evidence:
Anyone can turn to CE 946 pg 7:
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh18/html/WH_Vol18_0088b.htm
and read the stamp which states: "Embarked 10 October 1959"
But this wouldn't be good for the WC - for as they discovered, there were no
commercial flights from London to Helsinki that Oswald could have taken in order
to get to his hotel in Helsinki on the 10th. (See CE 2677) The WC knew that the
only alternative was a non-commercial flight - such as a military flight. This
wouldn't do at all - so the simple solution of the Warren Commission? Simply
lie about the day Owald left London...
Why does the "truth" require a lie to support it?
40. The only other person besides Kantor who recalled seeing Ruby at the
hospital did not make known her observation until April 1964, had never seen
Ruby before, allegedly saw him only briefly then, had an obstructed view, and
was uncertain of the time. (WCR 336)
But, let's take a look at Mrs. Tice's actual testimony - to see if the WC was
telling the truth or not:
Mr. GRIFFIN. How long did this man that you think was Jack Ruby, how long did he
stand out there next to you?
Mrs. TICE. I was standing about 3 feet from them.
Mr. GRIFFIN. Where was he standing in relation to you. Was he in front of you or
behind you, or off to the side, or where was he?
Mrs. TICE. I was standing about like this, and they were standing there, but I
was being nosey and listening.
Mr. GRIFFIN. In other words, this man was off to the side 4 or 5 feet distant
from you, the distance from you to me?
Mrs. TICE. This man that I say was Jack Ruby was about 3 feet from me, I guess,
about as far as you are from me.
Mr. GRIFFIN. You could only see the side of his face, I take it?
Mrs. TICE. Jack Ruby's?
Mr. GRIFFIN. Yes. (15H 392)
Mr. GRIFFIN. So Jack actually was a little bit in front of you?
Mrs. TICE. Yes; I guess.
Mr. GRIFFIN. Would you put an R where Ruby was?
(Mrs. Tice marks.)
Mr. GRIFFIN. Now, a man walked up to him and tapped him on the shoulder?
Mrs. TICE. The man came right down this way, over this way and slapped him on
the shoulder and asked him how he was doing.
Mr. GRIFFIN. And at that point Jack turned around?
Mrs. TICE. At that point Jack turned around and started talking to him. At the
time, he was facing right toward me. (15H 394)
The Warren Commission simply lied about Mrs. Tice's view of Ruby - attempting to
state that it was obstructed, when the actual testimony shows that Ruby was just
3 feet away, and at one point, *facing* Mrs. Tice. The WC *cited* her
testimony, so they couldn't have been unaware that their own evidence
contradicted their assertion. Amusing that the WC would argue that Mrs. Tice
had never seen Jack Ruby before... they didn't appear to be embarrassed that
Brennan had never seen Oswald before...
Once again, the question becomes why did the Warren Commission feel that it
needed to lie about it's own collected evidence in order to 'prove' the truth?
When does the truth need a lie to support it?
41. The fact that the HSCA also chose to lie about the medical testimony and the
BOH photo is another troubling issue that LNT'ers simply cannot deal with.
Quoting from the History-Matters website, here's an example:
"At least as troubling is the HSCA's handling of the medical evidence. The HSCA
had a tougher row to hoe, there having been several well-written critiques of
the Warren Commission which required answering. One "problem" that presented
itself was the stark contrast between the statements of physicians who treated
Kennedy at Parkland Hospital in Dallas, who almost uniformly described a large
rear head wound (which would tend to indicate a shot from the front), and the
autopsy report, which asserted a right-side head wound which did not reach the
back of the head. The HSCA met this problem head on, explaining why they sided
with the autopsy doctors: "In disagreement with the observations of the Parkland
doctors are the 26 people present at the autopsy. All of those interviewed who
attended the autopsy corroborated the general location of the wounds as depicted
in the photographs. None had differing accounts."
This written statement, it turns out, is utterly false. With the release in the
1990s of the HSCA's files, which include transcripts of these unpublished
interviews (complete with drawings made by the witnesses), we now know that
several autopsy witnesses indeed corroborated the Dallas doctors' observations.
See the Medical Coverup topic on this website for the transcripts and audiotapes
of the interviews. More recent medical interviews, conducted in 1996 and 1998 by
the Assassination Records Review Board, contain even starker indications of a
medical coverup to conceal evidence of a frontal shot, and therefore a second
shooter."
http://history-matters.com/essays/jfkgen/LastingQuestions/Lasting_Questions_2.htm
This brings to mind the question that I've asked many times, yet no LNT'er has
undertaken a serious reply... Why, if the WCR is correct, did both the WC and
HSCA need to lie about their own evidence to make their case?
42. Just a few days after the assassination, an anonymous caller told the DPD
that Oswald had had a rifle sighted at the Irving Sports Shop. Interestingly,
no one at the shop remembered anything about this, nor did anyone step up to the
plate to admit that they had called. However, in checking their records, they
came up with paperwork showing that work had been performed on a rifle for a
customer named "Oswald" between November 4th-8th. And even though no-one
remembered the specific person, the ticket proved that it could *not* have been
Oswald's rifle... the ticket specified the drilling of *three* holes to mount a
telescopic sight. The MC only had *two* holes. Anthony Summer's, in recounting
this - specifies that there were other, unstated, reasons that the ticket could
*not* have referenced Oswald's MC.
The question that this incident clearly raises is just who was it that was
attempting to frame LHO?
There are many other instances of "Oswald sightings" that intentionally frame
him as an arrogant man with an MC. And although Oswald normally only specified
his name as "Lee Oswald", a number of these sightings had the man specifying his
name as "Lee Harvey Oswald". Rather puzzling for the LNT'er crowd...
Another interesting incident had taken place several years earlier, when Oswald
was provably in Russia. Immediately after the assassination, a manager of a
Ford Motors franchise, Oscar Deslatte, contacted the FBI - stating that the name
"Oswald" seemed familiar... so he'd gone back through his order files, and found
a prospective purchaser from 1961. The "Oswald" from 1961, along with a Cuban,
had tried to purchase 10 trucks. Deslatte recalled that "Oswald" first
identified himself as "Joseph Moore", but asked that the name "Oswald" go on the
purchase documents.
Interestingly, when the carbon copy of this old purchase order was finally
released by the FBI in 1979 - it turned out that the name of the Anti-Castro
group that was trying to purchase the trucks was the "Friends of Democratic
Cuba"... an organization that Guy Bannister was a key member of.
Hmmm... anyone ever connect Guy Bannister with LHO before?
There are a number of other interesting "impersonations" of Oswald, (The most
famous of which were in Mexico City - long buried by the WC) and the question
becomes - "Who was impersonating Oswald, and for what reason?"
So the question becomes... who was 'impersonating' Oswald in the weeks before
the assassination?
43. Admiral George Burkley was the only medically trained doctor to be present
at both Parkland and Bethesda, yet was strangely absent from any questioning by
the WC.
When the HSCA rolled around, despite a letter from Burkley's attorney, stating
that Burkley "has information in the Kennedy assassination indicating that
others besides Oswald must have participated.", the HSCA waited close to a year
before interviewing Dr. Burkley. Then, strangely enough, evidently never
questioned Dr. Burkley on his assertion that others must have participated in
the assassination.
Can anyone explain these curious facts in light of a *real* investigation?
44. "This shouldn't be in the damn record!" - the infamous outburst of Dr.
George Loquvam, during the HSCA forensic panel discussion.
A most revealing statement - why was the good doctor concerned with eyewitness
statements being put into written form, even though the HSCA classified it?
It matters little, since the written record doesn't really indicate anything
that *should* be kept hidden - thereby leading any careful reader into
concluding that someone has been busy doctoring the transcripts.
In fact, a note written by Andy Purdy about a phone call from Dr. Michael Baden,
the chairman of the HSCA medical panel - Baden told Purdy that he was almost
finished with the Humes and Boswell transcript, and that he believed that it
"can be cleaned up enough to be in evidence."
"can be cleaned up enough to be in evidence"???
Looks like Loquvam got his wish... the "damn record" was indeed "cleaned up", so
that today we don't know what was really said. But someone forgot to take
Loquvam's revealing statement out.
Why does the truth require lies to support it?
And why hasn't *any* LNT'er been able to either answer this question, or refute
that the WC and HSCA *LIED* in their reports?
45. Despite being widely hailed by the media as an "exhaustive study produced by
honorable and prestigious men", the Warren Commission Report was unable to find
any room in its 888 page report, or 26 volumes of supporting evidence for the
very first piece of paperwork generated in any murder case - the death
certificate.
Perhaps they just didn't have any room left? Can anyone defend this?
NEW!!! *******************************************
46. In honor of all the hoopla surrounding the latest entry to the WC apologist
camp - Vincent Bugliosi: can anyone explain why Bugliosi (as all previous LNT'er
authors have done) was required to omit, misrepresent, and lie about the
evidence to make his case?
This isn't about facts which honest people can have disagreements about, this is
the twisting of the evidence in a dishonest manner to put together a one-sided
case. Why is this necessary?
NEW!! ********************************************
It's the evidence which shows two conspiracies - the initial one to murder JFK,
and a secondary conspiracy to cover up the facts in this case. Because it's the
evidence, LNT'ers don't have much answer to questions such as these.
The most common response seems to be to deny the basic underlying information,
but this simply won't do for the honest lurker. These questions *must* be
answered if the theory of a "Lone Nut" (Two of them), is to survive the light of
day.
It's also interesting to see how many similar questions can be put together for
another conspiracy that Bugliosi proved - that of RFK. (Yes, for those unaware,
it was Vincent Bugliosi that proved a conspiracy in the RFK case... if more than
8 shots were fired, then ipso facto, a conspiracy existed.)
In many ways, it seems as if the conspiracy that took the life of RFK 'learned'
from the mistakes of the JFK conspiracy. They still made mistakes, of course...
David Von Pein
by now? You've had plenty of time to reach triple digits, Mr. Kook.
What's the matter with you?
Kooks like Ben Holmes are quick to ask questions about wholly-
meaningless and trivial details (like most of the above "Ben 46"). But
CTers aren't so good at coming up with any answers themselves to the
big-ticket questions LNers have for them...e.g.:
Where are those other non-C2766 bullets? Who hid those bullets? When
did they hide them?
What other weapons were used?
Why is it that out of all the bullets & fragments connected with the
murder of JFK, not a ONE of the presumed-to-exist non-C2766 bullets/
fragments turned out to be large enough to be tested so as to
eliminate CE139 as the weapon that fired those bullets/fragments? More
good fortune for the ever-lucky plotters?
If the SBT is false, what anti-SBT theory replaces it? And if the
throat shot was a frontal shot, how could two bullets fail to go
through JFK's soft flesh without damaging any parts of JFK's back/neck
to account for the double-stoppage of the bullets? Can the anti-SBT
theories get any sillier? If so, how?
Where could a frontal gunman have been located to have caused the BOH
wound that CTers think existed (but really did not exist, of course)?
Why does everything lead to Oswald if LHO was really innocent? A patsy
plot, right? Then why doesn't LHO name names, instead of saying the
DPD framed him via his totally-misunderstood "patsy" declaration,
which is aiming the blame at the DPD and not the Mob, CIA, etc.?
If a "patsy" plot really existed prior to 11/22/63 (as per the plot
proposed by kooks Jim Garrison & Oliver Stone), why on Earth did the
conspirators use multiple guns from different angles to kill JFK? Were
those plotters just playing it safe? Or were they merely FUCKING
IDIOTS WHO WANTED THE PLOT TO BE UNCOVERED WITHIN MINUTES OF SHOOTING
KENNEDY FROM SO MANY ANGLES?
Why was Oswald willing to remain so tight-lipped for 46 hours if he
truly WAS a "patsy" and knew at least SOMETHING about the plot
swirling around him; or was he truly the bonehead to end all boneheads
and either (somehow) knew NOTHING of any "plot", or was willing to
take the lone rap for 2 murders he never committed?
And the biggie that no one can answer logically.....
Why are all CT-Kooks so fucking kooky? (Should we blame it all on
Garrison? If I were you...I would. He'd be a good escape hatch for the
CT nuts.)
BTW, most of Ben's series of meaningless questions have already been
answered (below); but when a new day dawns, all questions become
unanswered once more. Go figure. .....
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/6db9ac1c27e26e32
David Von Pein
aeffects
> Bump....to alert the kooks.
shit you moron, if you can't answer and/or debate 45.... you're dead
meat. Who needs 100+ ?
tomnln
"David Von Pein" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1183582089.4...@r34g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...
> Bump....to alert the kooks.
BUMP;
To all KOOK-SUCKERS who;
Condone Assassination
Condone Murder
Condone Destruction of Evidence
Condone Withholding Evidence
Condone the Alteration of Evidence
Condone Suborning Perjury
Condone Eliminating Trial by Jury
Condone Eliminating the Adversary Procedure
David Von Pein
tomnln
"David Von Pein" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1183584792.0...@r34g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...
> Kook Alert! Times two.....
>
David Von Pein
tomnln
> Tom-Kook --- Where are the bullets?
>
Look where they put the note Oswald delivered to the Dallas FBI office.
Look where they put the 4 fragments they took outta JBC's wrist.
Look where they put the Mauser.
Look where they put part 3 of the P O Box application.
There's MORE.
David Von Pein
In the trash. And then the silly-willy "plotters" allowed Mr. Hosty to
ADMIT THAT HE THREW THE NOTE DOWN THE TOILET.
Great cover-up plot there.
Didn't Hosty get the "We're Framing Oswald, So Keep Your Fucking Mouth
Shut" memo after Nov. 22nd?
Or was Hosty just a freaking moron?
Anyway, what's the Hosty note got to do with the CTer-perceived
"missing bullets" in this case? Or did the bullets end up in the trash
too, Mr. Kook?
If so, why didn't they bother telling Katzenbach to NOT PUT THE
CONSPIRACY IN WRITING (per the kook-skewed version of what the Nov. 25
Katz memo means)?
So much brilliance....and yet so much internal ignorance at the VERY
SAME TIME.
Go figure.
>>> "Look where they put the 4 fragments they took outta JBC's wrist." <<<
The Government trash dumpster again?? Is that it? (That dumpster's
getting full of trashed evidence, isn't it? I wonder who's dumping all
of this stuff? Any clue, Mister Kook? Or would you rather remain wishy-
washy and goofy-sounding, as per the norm?)
Back to reality for a minute.....
Dr. Charles Gregory never took four fragments out of Connally. He took
"2 or 3" fragments out of the wrist. Even he wasn't sure how many it
was. But he never said he took as many as "four".
But even if it had been four fragments, the TOTAL amount of bullet
lead taken out of JBC (and LEFT IN Connally) weighed "less than a
postage stamp".
Next?.....
>>> "Look where they put the Mauser." <<<
No Mauser ever existed, of course. But, being the Mega-Kook you are,
you are forced to believe it did exist.
But in order to believe a Mauser was found on the 6th Floor and also
believe in the "Patsy" plot you have embraced so dearly, you must also
join the "CT Insanity Club" (of which you are Vice President; Jim
Garrison remains the Prez)....which means, as a member, you must
believe that a band of brilliant plotters pre-arranged a ONE-patsy
plot (with the one patsy owning a CARCANO), but then went ahead and
planted a MAUSER on the 6th Floor to implicate (somehow) their one
patsy named Oswald.
Can any assassination plot get any more inane and/or insane than this?
If so...how?*
* = I'll answer my own question: It can be done by buying into Oliver
Stone's "SHOOT FROM MANY LOCATIONS WITHIN THE CONTEXT OF A SINGLE-
PATSY PLOT" premise. Yeah, that takes the "insane" CT prize
alright....even eclipsing the "Let's Plant A Mauser" hunk of
stupidity.
>>> "Look where they put part 3 of the P.O. Box application." <<<
File 13 again? Naturally.
That dumpster REALLY needs emptied now, doesn't it?
Don't forget JFK's brain too. That's in the same dumpster.
And yet the silly plotters leave gobs of documents scattered hither
and yon that prove there was a plot of some kind going on....right?
Were the conspirators/cover-uppers just being nice and fair to future
assassination researchers of the world? Or: Were they just fucking
morons?
>>> "There's more..." <<<
Oh, of course there is. The evidence that DOESN'T exist is always more
important to you kooks than the stuff that is in evidence.
I'll ask again....just for the heck of it:
Where are all the non-Oswald bullets?
aeffects
> >>> "There's more..." <<<
>
> Oh, of course there is. The evidence that DOESN'T exist is always more
> important to you kooks than the stuff that is in evidence.
>
> I'll ask again....just for the heck of it:
>
> Where are all the non-Oswald bullets?
re-read that question -- and you wonder, why you're not taken
seriously, why you can't convince anyone of anything and as the USNET-
Internet rep for Bugliosi you take him AND his book down with you....