Mark Fuhrman-What's The Problem Lone Nutters?
lazu...@webtv.net
guy with all your heart.Oh, I just forgot lone nutters don't have
hearts( well whatever you use for brains).Even Fuhrman can see the SBT
is dead in the water and anybody backpedaling on it to gussie it up,
with a lotta 10 dollar words and re-sell it is beneath contempt.
A few quick thoughts!- Jesus Christ what an ego! No acknowledgements and
a full back cover portrait of himself.
There are many good photos and graphics- amazing, when you see Arlen
Specter in reenactments showing the bullet entry in JFK is in the back,
using a long pointer well below the neck, and later on with selected
weasel words stating it was in the neck. Then we have FBI Agent Lyndal
Shaneyfelt using a tripod, standing up, with a totally open window
supposedly reenacting Oswald's shots! What incredible BS. Of course, the
Autopsy face sheet is shown and the autopsy photo showng the wound
clearly several inches down on the neck.
Steve
You have just shown your own stupidity.
Bud
lazu...@webtv.net wrote:
> Fuhrman is as good as a lone nutter can get.You ought to embrace this
> guy with all your heart.
If you like him so much, why don`t you marry him?
>Oh, I just forgot lone nutters don't have
> hearts( well whatever you use for brains).Even Fuhrman can see the SBT
> is dead in the water and anybody backpedaling on it to gussie it up,
He offered an alternative scenario, kook. Nothing to be alarmed
about.
> with a lotta 10 dollar words and re-sell it is beneath contempt.
Another kook who missed the Australian re-enactment.
> A few quick thoughts!- Jesus Christ what an ego! No acknowledgements and
> a full back cover portrait of himself.
Is that why you bought it, for the photo of the N-man??
> There are many good photos and graphics- amazing, when you see Arlen
> Specter in reenactments showing the bullet entry in JFK is in the back,
> using a long pointer well below the neck, and later on with selected
> weasel words stating it was in the neck. Then we have FBI Agent Lyndal
> Shaneyfelt using a tripod, standing up, with a totally open window
> supposedly reenacting Oswald's shots!
So, you think there was someone firing from the SN that couldn`t see
what he was shooting at? Kooky.
> What incredible BS. Of course, the
> Autopsy face sheet is shown and the autopsy photo showng the wound
> clearly several inches down on the neck.
<snicker> This trumps the actual photo showing the bullet wound to
JFK`s back? A drawing?
lazu...@webtv.net
"on the neck". Sorry about that!
Steve
lazu...@webtv.net wrote:
> That last sentence should read "several inches down from the neck", not
> "on the neck". Sorry about that!
Oh brother. If this doesnt take the cake.
You represent the conspiracy kooks just fine laz. Great work!
Grizzlie Antagonist
> Fuhrman is as good as a lone nutter can get.You ought to embrace this
> guy with all your heart
This makes about as much sense as arguing that all CT's are bound to
support whatever any one CT has to say and that all CT's must embrace
each other with all of their hearts.
Would you like to be charged with the responsibility of defending
George Johnson's contention that there were twenty-six shots fired by
eight gunmen, one of whom was Lyndon Johnson firing from the triple
underpass at J.D. Tippit, who had taken JFK's place in the presidential
limousine while the real JFK was hustled away (and might still be alive
somewhere)?
You can't deny that like you, this man sees major problems with the
official story.
lazu...@webtv.net
David VP
tons of guesses and offhand, unsupportable assumptions re. trajectories
and what bullets supposedly did.
His "anti-SBT but pro-LN" theory is not any more solid and believable
than is the WC's pro-SBT version. In fact, Fuhrman's theory is much
more UNbelievable in many ways. Fuhrman totally ignores the Z-Film
reactions of JBC prior to when MF thinks JBC was hit (circa Z231). And
Mark also totally ignores the WC expert testimony (Robert Frazier in
particular) with respect to the possibilities/probabilities of the
exiting bullet from Kennedy's neck being able to cause the dented
chrome in the limo (which Frazier said was not possible).
Fuhrman wants to remain an LNer; but wanted a "twist" in his
story/book....so he came up with one -- all by himself -- without a
single solid piece of factual evidence to back up his anti-SBT
guesswork.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/4c7616a35ac60e22
Grizzlie Antagonist
> Are you nuts still here? I thought I told you to go to hell.
You might have, but conspiracy theorists, of all people, should be able
to appreciate non-conformity.
lazu...@webtv.net
does make some very good points and thinks out of the box.Of course,he
also makes some dubious comments and contradicts himself on the big
issues more than once or twice, but he is more accurate overall than
Bugliosi will be, no matter how much more in depth Vince B's book will
be when it comes out.
David VP
Well, now you're just being plain silly.
A quick VB reminder from the past (just to refresh a CTer's
memory).......
"Polls reveal that 85 percent of Americans believe there was a
conspiracy behind Lee Harvey Oswald - some even believe Oswald had
nothing to do with it - and in this astonishingly encylopedic and
readable book, Vincent Bugliosi shows how we have come to believe such
lies.
Bugliosi's book is a narrative compendium of fact, ballistic evidence,
re-examination of key witnesses, and, above all, common sense. Every
detail and nuance is accounted for, every conspiracy theory revealed as
a fraud upon the American public. While reading it we have the eerie
feeling that we are in Dallas the day a lone gunman changed the course
of history. Bugliosi's irresistible logic and absolute command of the
evidence shed fresh light on this peculiarly American nightmare."
~~~~~~~~
For effect:
"Every detail and nuance is accounted for, every conspiracy theory
revealed as a fraud upon the American public."
"Every detail and nuance is accounted for, every conspiracy theory
revealed as a fraud upon the American public."
~~~~~~~~
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/39e65a14bc704f39
Thanks....and Godspeed. :)
DVP
lazu...@webtv.net
claimed to be a part of a conspiracy or knew something related, and
weren't initially seeking attention nor monetary gain.
I bet unlike Fuhrman, Vince has actually interviewed somebody.... I'll
say that for him. Problem with Vince irregardless of his brilliance, is
he had his mind made up a long time ago..and that was his biggest
mistake- so much has came out since the ARRB and so much evidence of
conspiracy in William Law-Joan Mellon & Waldron's book it will make yer
head spin.
David VP
Mister Bugliosi knows all about those "head-spinning" "revelations"
(not) in the books mentioned. And, without question, the reason VB's
book was delayed in 1998 was due to the new ARRB stuff that came out
then.
But, quite obviously, given this late 2005 article with VB quotes
included.....
http://www.lawcrossing.com/article/index.php?id=1283
.....The ARRB records that came to light circa '98 have not changed
Vince's "Oswald's Guilty" mind one single bit.
And using Ms. Mellen's pro-Garrison book in your "head-spinning"
examples is utterly laughable. Anyone silly enough to jump on
Garrison's trashed bandwagon (circa 2005) is someone who certainly
hasn't produced any evidence that's gonna make VB's (or anyone's) head
"spin".
Ben Holmes
says...
>
>>>"So much has came out since the ARRB and so much evidence of conspiracy in
>>>William Law, Joan Mellon [sic], & Waldron's book{s} it will make yer head spin."
>
>Mister Bugliosi knows all about those "head-spinning" "revelations"
>(not) in the books mentioned. And, without question, the reason VB's
>book was delayed in 1998 was due to the new ARRB stuff that came out
>then.
>
>But, quite obviously, given this late 2005 article with VB quotes
>included.....
>
>http://www.lawcrossing.com/article/index.php?id=1283
>
>.....The ARRB records that came to light circa '98 have not changed
>Vince's "Oswald's Guilty" mind one single bit.
Facts never do. Why would this be a revelation?
For most people, facts *do* matter. This no doubt explains the ever increasing
percentage of the American population that accepts that a conspiracy took the
life of JFK.
>And using Ms. Mellen's pro-Garrison book in your "head-spinning"
>examples is utterly laughable. Anyone silly enough to jump on
>Garrison's trashed bandwagon (circa 2005) is someone who certainly
>hasn't produced any evidence that's gonna make VB's (or anyone's) head
>"spin".
*If* Bugliosi's book ever comes out, he's going to have it trashed no less
thoroughly than Posner's was. And for the same reason... the facts simply
aren't there - and a strong defense of the WC theory *requires* ommission,
misrepresentation, and for many, outright lies.
I wonder what will happen to Davey-Boy if and when Bugliosi's book comes out?
He'll have to hope that there's another book on the horizon...
lazu...@webtv.net
subject?2nd- the longer it is the more the evidence will contradict him
in every critical area and make his arguments even weaker.
Ben Holmes
lazu...@webtv.net says...
>
>Right Ben-first of all who is going to read a 1500 pg. book on any
>subject?
Oh, I will. If only for amusement.
>2nd- the longer it is the more the evidence will contradict him
>in every critical area and make his arguments even weaker.
Absolutely. The only way the WCR can be upheld is to keep it brief. But then,
you are forced not to deal with the evidence.
Perhaps Bugliosi thinks he can drown people in minutia... Posner tried this to
some extent... but it doesn't work.
David VP
Oh brother. If this isn't a pot/kettle sentence here.
As if the CTers don't try to drown everybody in minutia.
Give us an everlasting break!
LOL.
Bud
Ben Holmes wrote:
> In article <1151142402.5...@b68g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, David VP
> says...
> >
> >>>"So much has came out since the ARRB and so much evidence of conspiracy in
> >>>William Law, Joan Mellon [sic], & Waldron's book{s} it will make yer head spin."
> >
> >Mister Bugliosi knows all about those "head-spinning" "revelations"
> >(not) in the books mentioned. And, without question, the reason VB's
> >book was delayed in 1998 was due to the new ARRB stuff that came out
> >then.
> >
> >But, quite obviously, given this late 2005 article with VB quotes
> >included.....
> >
> >http://www.lawcrossing.com/article/index.php?id=1283
> >
> >.....The ARRB records that came to light circa '98 have not changed
> >Vince's "Oswald's Guilty" mind one single bit.
>
>
> Facts never do. Why would this be a revelation?
>
> For most people, facts *do* matter.
They matter more when viewed in the proper context, something kooks
can`t seem to be able to do.
> This no doubt explains the ever increasing
> percentage of the American population that accepts that a conspiracy took the
> life of JFK.
<snicker> The way Ben used to tell this lie was to say that belief
was going up yearly. When I challenged that assertion, he niether
supported it, or retracted it. Now he tells the same lie worded
differently. He should just stop commenting on polls, he has no idea
how to read them.
> >And using Ms. Mellen's pro-Garrison book in your "head-spinning"
> >examples is utterly laughable. Anyone silly enough to jump on
> >Garrison's trashed bandwagon (circa 2005) is someone who certainly
> >hasn't produced any evidence that's gonna make VB's (or anyone's) head
> >"spin".
>
>
> *If* Bugliosi's book ever comes out, he's going to have it trashed no less
> thoroughly than Posner's was. And for the same reason...
Kooks don`t want to accept the obvious. They will attack anything
that goes against thier fantasies. Just like they will attack any
witness that implicates Oz.
> the facts simply
> aren't there - and a strong defense of the WC theory *requires* ommission,
> misrepresentation, and for many, outright lies.
Of course, the kooks can`t put a theory on the table. They can only
criticize what others do.
> I wonder what will happen to Davey-Boy if and when Bugliosi's book comes out?
> He'll have to hope that there's another book on the horizon...
I think this book will just give CT something to attack. And I
suspect DVP will be disappointed at the lack of results Bugliosi`s book
will have. Of course here you find the hardcore kooks, possibly some of
the general public could be swayed, but I doubt much of that group will
be interested enough to pick it up to read.
lazu...@webtv.net
anoher deliberate idiot that doesn't accept Specter's theory. Vince
should have lotta fun with Zimmerman and Canal's crazy entry near the
eop which could never explain the damage to the top of the head with an
FMJ.
Ben Holmes
Snip and run... snip and run...
In article <1151216961.5...@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>, David VP
says...
David VP
Of course, as we all know, the "EOP" vs. "Cowlick" vs. "Where Else Can
This Wound Be Located?" debate is totally meaningless and moot ---
because there was only ONE WOUND OF ENTRY ON THE BACK OF JOHN KENNEDY'S
HEAD --- Period!
Regardless of exactly what square-inch of territory it resided on the
head (EOP, cowlick, wherever), there was just one entry wound on JFK's
head -- and it was IN THE BACK OF HIS HEAD, perfectly consistent with
the LN/LHO/TSBD scenario.
All the autopsy doctors saw ONE SMALL WOUND OF ENTRANCE on the back of
JFK's head at the 11/22 autopsy. The precise place where this hole was
located can be debated for generations to come...but common sense
should take hold at some point (even for most of the rabid CT kooks).
And common sense says that JFK was shot ONE time in the head, from
BEHIND, resulting in the ONE small entry hole in the back of his head.
Vince Bugliosi will undoubtedly be using his own top-notch and
impossible-to-combat brand of CS&L when it comes to this "EOP/BOH"
matter...and he'll no doubt have a very good argument for his position
(as always).
lazu...@webtv.net
of the omniscient Vince ( maybe he's your alter ego?), I have a couple
hundred questions I'd like for you to pass on to him, but will settle
for only two at this time. I trust he won't chicken out and tell me to
wait for his book. I don't think any of us are going to live that long!
Anyway, here goes, Vince.
# 1. Do you think LHO saved an exploding bullet for the killshot?
Clearly, at least one of the headshots was perpetrated by a bullet which
immediately shed its copper jacketing upon entering the head after
penetrating only one layer of bone, the cranium, and then leaving a
blizzard of small particles in the head, as verified on Xray.
Offically, at least five fragments exited the cranium, including two
large ones which wound up in the front compartment of the limo, one of
which represents the base of a bullet, consisting primarily of copper
jacketing, and the other, representing the nose of a bullet, and
composed primarily of lead This is, as you know, not characteristic of
an FMJ bullet, which is designed to penetrate without severely breaking
up into several dozen minute particles as well as large fragments. So
is this a historical first, or did LHO keep in reserve a dum-dum or like
round? I know you don't believe in conspiracy, but as David's mentor,
you certainly believe in common sense. Common sense to me suggests,
that in this bit of evidence, not to mention many other bits, strongly
that someone else was shooting at the president, and with a different
type of ammo.
#2. In your extensive prosecutorial experience involving gunshot wounds,
have you ever seen a bullet which transited one body, let alone two (the
virtually pristine condition notwithstandin), yet was entirely devoid of
organic material?
The cannelure near the base of any round is especially notorious for the
residue of blood, or other tissue adhering to the tiny grooves. But as
you know, CE 399 was squeaky clean. as if it had jst emerged from a
water bath. Another first in history , do you suppose?
lazu...@webtv.net
from the tiny enty hole in the rear of the head?
Ben Holmes
says...
>
>>>"Vince should have lotta fun with Zimmerman and Canal's crazy entry near the
>>>eop which could never explain the damage to the top of the head with an FMJ."
>
>Of course, as we all know, the "EOP" vs. "Cowlick" vs. "Where Else Can
>This Wound Be Located?" debate is totally meaningless and moot ---
>because there was only ONE WOUND OF ENTRY ON THE BACK OF JOHN KENNEDY'S
>HEAD --- Period!
And one wound of exit.
>Regardless of exactly what square-inch of territory it resided on the
>head (EOP, cowlick, wherever), there was just one entry wound on JFK's
>head -- and it was IN THE BACK OF HIS HEAD, perfectly consistent with
>the LN/LHO/TSBD scenario.
Actually, the original location given is *not* consistent with the LNT'er
theory. This is no doubt why it was moved up beginning with the Clark Panel.
>All the autopsy doctors saw ONE SMALL WOUND OF ENTRANCE on the back of
>JFK's head at the 11/22 autopsy. The precise place where this hole was
>located can be debated for generations to come...but common sense
>should take hold at some point (even for most of the rabid CT kooks).
Why? Do you suppose that three doctors can't describe a specific location on
the skull? Is the EOP difficult to locate?
>And common sense says that JFK was shot ONE time in the head, from
>BEHIND, resulting in the ONE small entry hole in the back of his head.
Why does "common sense" say this? What does the *EVIDENCE* say?
Why are you relying on "common sense" rather than the evidence?
>Vince Bugliosi will undoubtedly be using his own top-notch and
>impossible-to-combat brand of CS&L
This is amusing!! There's no way that Bugliosi can spout off defending the
LNT'er theory for 1500 pages without being *easily* rebutted.
But, should his book ever actually be published, you'll duck and run when people
post rebuttals of his book.
>when it comes to this "EOP/BOH"
>matter...and he'll no doubt have a very good argument for his position
>(as always).
It doesn't matter *what* he says. If he argues that the three doctors can't
possibly be mistaken about the location of the EOP, and their placing of the
entry wound immediately next to it - the WC's own recreations show that such an
entry wound exits THE FACE.
If Bugliosi takes the tack that the Clark Panel was correct, he invokes the same
speculation that the Clark Panel engaged in, with *zero* evidence for an entry
wound 10 cm higher.
Of course, should he be able to lay his hands on the *original* x-rays and
photos...
Ben Holmes
lazu...@webtv.net says...
BELIEVE!!! Have faith, and High Priest Bugliosi will answer *all* your prayers
in due time.
David VP
An "exploding" bullet was most certainly not required to account for
the damage done to the head-shot missile (which was fired from the same
gun that fired CE399). This is fully explained within the Warren
Report. But the CTers just don't want to accept those WC/WR words.
CTers would rather interject their own (false) belief that a MC bullet
like CE399 could never result in a head wound like JFK suffered, or
fragmentation to the missile that we find as a result of this head
shot.
But the extensive fragmentation of a WCC 6.5 MC missile, after hitting
a very hard object at full velocity (like JFK's cranium), is not out of
the ordinary. And why CT kooks think it is out of ther ordinary is
anybody's guess. It hit JFK's head at full speed and fragmented inside
the skull. Period. Nothing supernatural there; and no "exploding"
bullet was/is needed to achieve such fragmentation.
You need look no further than Page #87 of the Warren Report to find a
more-than-satisfactory answer to this (per CTers) alleged "snafu" re.
the head-shot bullet fragmentation.
I quote from Page 87:
"One series of tests, performed on reconstructed inert human skulls,
demonstrated that the President's head wound could have been caused by
the rifle and bullets fired by the assassin from the sixth-floor
window. The results of this series were illustrated by the findings on
one skull which was struck at a point closely approximating the wound
of entry on President Kennedy's head. That bullet blew out the right
side of the reconstructed skull in a manner very similar to the head
wound of the President."
Dr. Alfred Olivier even said that those skull tests "surprised me very
much, because this type of stable bullet I didn't think would cause a
massive head wound".
Dr. Olivier further stated to the WC that .... "The recovered {test
shot} fragments were very similar to the ones recovered on the front
seat and on the floor of the car. This, to me, indicates that those
fragments did come from the bullet that wounded the President in the
head".
Vincent Bugliosi shall have no trouble debunking the useless,
unsupportable CT argument re. this head-shot bullet matter. That CT
argument has, in fact, been completely trashed already. The WC did it
on Page 87, as noted just a second ago.
>> "Have you ever seen a bullet which transited one body, let alone two, yet was entirely devoid of organic material?"
Coincidentally, you've touched upon my second-most looked-forward-to VB
explanation surrounding the whole JFK case -- i.e., the lack of blood,
tissue, and fiber on Bullet CE399. (#1 for me being: the BOH matter.)
I mention this very subject within the discussion on the webpage below:
It does, indeed, seem surprising that no tissue/blood/etc. would be
present on CE399.....but, folks, that's the way it is. Bullet CE399 is
a part of this murder case, like it or not. It was scientifically
linked to both Oswald's gun and to one of the victims in the shooting.
And the very fact that 399 was found where it was found (within the
very same hospital where the victims were transported) tells us, beyond
any and ALL doubt, that Bullet CE399 (fired from Oswald's C2766 MC
rifle 'to the exclusion') WAS positively transported into that hospital
by one of the two victims.
And since neither JFK nor his stretcher was ever present on the second
floor of Parkland Hospital after arriving there....that fact most
certainly indicates that CE399 was inside Governor Connally on
11/22/63. (Unless Oswald's rifle just happened to be used to fire that
bullet into another victim, unrelated to the JFK case, and that victim
just happened to be taken to Parkland Hospital on Nov. 22nd. Anybody
buying that tale?)
But, yes, I'm anxious to read Mr. Bugliosi's take on the lack of blood
(etc.) on that bullet. Very weird indeed. I cannot deny that. But I
also cannot deny the absolute FACT that 399 got into that hospital on
11/22/63 via the only logical method possible -- and that is by way of
John Connally transporting it into that hospital himself after he was
shot.
To think anything else is to believe in something that defies logic
(and the evidence surrounding CE399, and the one & only gun it had to
have come out of; which was a gun that was located in a building on Elm
Street in Dealey Plaza at the exact moment JFK & JBC were being shot
at).
Bud
Didn`t Tomlinson put the bullet in his pocket after he found it?
lazu...@webtv.net
particles tracking thru the brain. Whatever you or he claims re:
fragmentation of an FMJ into major pieces, there has never been a study
conducted to prove that flaking off of a myriad of fine particles from
an FMJ is remotely possible. This is a faith based theory only.
David VP
Given the absolute FACT that such a MC/FMJ bullet COULD indeed fragment
extensively inside a human head, such a proposed "study" would be an
undertaking that only a CT Kook of the first order would insist be
carried out.
CT kooks aren't happy with Dr. Olivier's conclusion
(obviously)....which was an "It Was Possible" conclusion spelled out in
so many sentences in my prior post -- so, the CT Kook Brigade must look
elsewhere for their hidden conspiracy.
If the band doesn't play a kook's tune...then they'll just hire another
band that will play it to their liking (no matter how many decades they
take doing so).
Bud's right -- Quite a unique breed...these CT Kooks. Quite a unique
breed indeed.
>> "This is a faith based theory only."
Bullshit. It's not at all merely "faith based". It's a fact. It
happened. One of Oswald's 6.5 MC bullets DID extensively fragment
within a human skull. Like it or not. It occurred. CT kook-dom
notwithstanding.
Period. Mark VII. Katie, bar the door. Stick a fork in that baby...it's
done!
A fragment from a bullet conclusively proven to have been fired from
Oswald's C2766 MC rifle came out of John Kennedy's head. .... And: Only
ONE single bullet struck John Kennedy's head on November 22nd -- that
is a fact that's not even debatable IMO; unless you're prepared to
prove that ALL THREE autopsy doctors who signed off on the AR are lying
bastards...ALL OF 'EM.
Are you ready to travel that far down CT Kooksville Lane? For real?
Let me just re-post this VB gem again re. the above "Only Oswald's
Bullets" subject matter (it's always good to spread some VB CS&L as
often as humanly possible...it makes this pig-sty of a nuthouse smell
better).......
"There may have been fifty people firing at President Kennedy that day;
but if there were, they ALL missed; only bullets fired from Oswald's
Carcano rifle hit the President; is that correct?" -- Vincent T.
Bugliosi
"That's a correct statement; yes." -- Dr. Vincent P. Guinn
lazu...@webtv.net
Bullet, Neuromuscular reaction, jet effect-this four flushin' dog and
pony show was made up by Republicans- Alvarez on the headshot ,echoed
by,Belin & then Specter( the key lawyerly hatchet men for changing
witnessess statements) that slimeballer and a half the father of the
magic bullet!. Republican Warren wouldn't allow Ruby to go to Washington
and tell what he knew, which is a helluva lot more than people used to
think according to Ultimate sacrifice-Republican Dulles handed out a
book to all the commissioners saying Assassinations are done by lone
nuts-& it's fine not to disclose to the world if Oswald is a paid Govt.
Agent-Republican Ford raised the back wound & Republican McCloy was
instrumental in the1967SEEBSSeveral night special which delibrately
slanted and distorted it's findings, & we have memoranda on this.
Republicans haven't changed any- the powerful ones that is....
David VP
Kook Hall-Of-Fame" yet. You had-oughta be proud.
Another 20,221 posts like the one above and you'll have matched
Ben-kook and Tomlnlnln-nut for the most outrageously-absurd CT
commentary.
Anthony Marsh
>>> "There has never been a study conducted to prove that flaking off of a myriad of fine particles from an FMJ is remotely possible."
>
> Given the absolute FACT that such a MC/FMJ bullet COULD indeed fragment
> extensively inside a human head, such a proposed "study" would be an
> undertaking that only a CT Kook of the first order would insist be
> carried out.
>
That is not what needs to be proven. We already know that a WCC FMJ
bullet can break up. We have two fragments of one from the front seat.
What seems impossible is the trail in the top of the head of many small
fragments and the snowstorm of tiny dustlike fragments scattered
throughout the brain.
> CT kooks aren't happy with Dr. Olivier's conclusion
> (obviously)....which was an "It Was Possible" conclusion spelled out in
> so many sentences in my prior post -- so, the CT Kook Brigade must look
> elsewhere for their hidden conspiracy.
>
> If the band doesn't play a kook's tune...then they'll just hire another
> band that will play it to their liking (no matter how many decades they
> take doing so).
>
> Bud's right -- Quite a unique breed...these CT Kooks. Quite a unique
> breed indeed.
>
>
>>> "This is a faith based theory only."
>
> Bullshit. It's not at all merely "faith based". It's a fact. It
> happened. One of Oswald's 6.5 MC bullets DID extensively fragment
> within a human skull. Like it or not. It occurred. CT kook-dom
> notwithstanding.
>
> Period. Mark VII. Katie, bar the door. Stick a fork in that baby...it's
> done!
>
> A fragment from a bullet conclusively proven to have been fired from
> Oswald's C2766 MC rifle came out of John Kennedy's head. .... And: Only
> ONE single bullet struck John Kennedy's head on November 22nd -- that
> is a fact that's not even debatable IMO; unless you're prepared to
> prove that ALL THREE autopsy doctors who signed off on the AR are lying
> bastards...ALL OF 'EM.
>
Yes, all three autopsy doctors are lying bastards. We just have to
figure out when they were lying and when they were telling the truth.
> Are you ready to travel that far down CT Kooksville Lane? For real?
>
> Let me just re-post this VB gem again re. the above "Only Oswald's
> Bullets" subject matter (it's always good to spread some VB CS&L as
> often as humanly possible...it makes this pig-sty of a nuthouse smell
> better).......
>
> "There may have been fifty people firing at President Kennedy that day;
> but if there were, they ALL missed; only bullets fired from Oswald's
> Carcano rifle hit the President; is that correct?" -- Vincent T.
> Bugliosi
>
> "That's a correct statement; yes." -- Dr. Vincent P. Guinn
>
And if there had been fifty people firing at President Kennedy that day,
Bugliosi still wouldn't call it a conspiracy. Maybe he'd call it a
"wardrobe malfunction."
Bud
lazu...@webtv.net wrote:
> Hey david- nobody ever heard of any of this shit before or since-Magic
> Bullet,
A term coined by crackpot conspiracy writers.
> Neuromuscular reaction,
You`ve never had your knee hit by the little hammer?
> jet effect
Shhh... all those jets will fall out of the sky if kooks stop
believing in them.
>-this four flushin' dog and
> pony show was made up by Republicans- Alvarez on the headshot ,echoed
> by,Belin & then Specter( the key lawyerly hatchet men for changing
> witnessess statements) that slimeballer and a half the father of the
> magic bullet!. Republican Warren wouldn't allow Ruby to go to Washington
> and tell what he knew, which is a helluva lot more than people used to
> think according to Ultimate sacrifice-Republican Dulles handed out a
> book to all the commissioners saying Assassinations are done by lone
> nuts-& it's fine not to disclose to the world if Oswald is a paid Govt.
> Agent-Republican Ford raised the back wound & Republican McCloy was
> instrumental in the1967SEEBSSeveral night special which delibrately
> slanted and distorted it's findings, & we have memoranda on this.
> Republicans haven't changed any- the powerful ones that is....
Hmmm... wasn`t Warren a liberal Democrat? No matter. You should do
a better job of concealing the fact that your belief in conspiracy is
fueled by your political orientation a little better, though. Some
might conclude that it is mere desire to see people on the other side
of the political spectrum as being culpable for this deed which drives
you to divert attention from the suspect with the similar political
perspective as your own.
tomnln
"Bud" <sirs...@fast.net> wrote in message
news:1151357904....@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
>
> lazu...@webtv.net wrote:
>> Hey david- nobody ever heard of any of this shit before or since-Magic
>> Bullet,
>
> A term coined by crackpot conspiracy writers.
>
>> Neuromuscular reaction,
>
> You`ve never had your knee hit by the little hammer?
>
>> jet effect
>
> Shhh... all those jets will fall out of the sky if kooks stop
> believing in them.
>
>>-this four flushin' dog and
>> pony show was made up by Republicans- Alvarez on the headshot ,echoed
>> by,Belin & then Specter( the key lawyerly hatchet men for changing
>> witnessess statements) that slimeballer and a half the father of the
>> magic bullet!. Republican Warren wouldn't allow Ruby to go to Washington
>> and tell what he knew, which is a helluva lot more than people used to
>> think according to Ultimate sacrifice-Republican Dulles handed out a
>> book to all the commissioners saying Assassinations are done by lone
>> nuts-& it's fine not to disclose to the world if Oswald is a paid Govt.
>> Agent-Republican Ford raised the back wound & Republican McCloy was
>> instrumental in the1967SEEBSSeveral night special which delibrately
>> slanted and distorted it's findings, & we have memoranda on this.
>> Republicans haven't changed any- the powerful ones that is....
========================================================================
> Hmmm... wasn`t Warren a liberal Democrat? No matter. You should do
> a better job of concealing the fact that your belief in conspiracy is
> fueled by your political orientation a little better, though. Some
> might conclude that it is mere desire to see people on the other side
> of the political spectrum as being culpable for this deed which drives
> you to divert attention from the suspect with the similar political
> perspective as your own.
Looks like Bud has "Outdone" Rip Van Winkle by sleeping through
8 consecutive Administrations.
3 of which were Demorcatic.
5 of which were Republican.
ALL of whom participated in the cover-up of a conspiracy.
=====================================================================
Bud
I was referring to Lazy`s politics, not the country`s, crackers.
tomnln
"Bud" <sirs...@fast.net> wrote in message
news:1151377506.0...@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Bud
tomnln wrote:
> Is that the best you can do?
You didn`t give me much to work with. Go on a longer insane rant
next time, and I`ll try to do better.
Todd W. Vaughan
I don't know about Tomlinson, but Secret Service agent Johnson did.
RicBi...@aol.com
David VP wrote:
> Bugliosi's book is a narrative compendium of fact, ballistic evidence,
> re-examination of key witnesses, and, above all, common sense. Every
> detail and nuance is accounted for, every conspiracy theory revealed as
> a fraud upon the American public. While reading it we have the eerie
> feeling that we are in Dallas the day a lone gunman changed the course
> of history. Bugliosi's irresistible logic and absolute command of the
> evidence shed fresh light on this peculiarly American nightmare."
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/39e65a14bc704f39
> DVP
If Bugliosi had accomplished all of the above by the time the review
was written, why does the link you provide say the book will be out by
the fall of 1998? As far as I can tell, it *still* hasn't been
published? ;-) Thanks in advance.
- /< /\ /> -
RicBi...@aol.com
David VP wrote:
> Mister Bugliosi knows all about those "head-spinning" "revelations"
> (not) in the books mentioned. And, without question, the reason VB's
> book was delayed in 1998 was due to the new ARRB stuff that came out
> then.
> http://www.lawcrossing.com/article/index.php?id=1283
*This* link says he's been working on the book since *1986*, and that
it won't be out until 2007 (and even that is listed as "tentative").
What's taking him so long? Nine years on the "new ARRB stuff"?
cdddraftsman
the autopsy face sheet ? He talks as if those diagrams where meant to
be drawn to scale . Silly Boy ! The Single Bullet Fact remains intact ,
thats more than I can say for lazulu's reasoning . Tom lowry
Steve wrote:
> lazuli...@webtv.net wrote:
> > Fuhrman is as good as a lone nutter can get.You ought to embrace this
> > guy with all your heart.Oh, I just forgot lone nutters don't have
> > hearts( well whatever you use for brains).Even Fuhrman can see the SBT
> > is dead in the water and anybody backpedaling on it to gussie it up,
> > with a lotta 10 dollar words and re-sell it is beneath contempt.
> >
> > A few quick thoughts!- Jesus Christ what an ego! No acknowledgements and
> > a full back cover portrait of himself.
> >
> > There are many good photos and graphics- amazing, when you see Arlen
> > Specter in reenactments showing the bullet entry in JFK is in the back,
> > using a long pointer well below the neck, and later on with selected
> > weasel words stating it was in the neck. Then we have FBI Agent Lyndal
> > Shaneyfelt using a tripod, standing up, with a totally open window
> > supposedly reenacting Oswald's shots! What incredible BS. Of course, the
> > Autopsy face sheet is shown and the autopsy photo showng the wound
> > clearly several inches down on the neck.
>
> You have just shown your own stupidity.
David VP
The ARRB stuff is obviously part of the lengthy delay...but certainly
not the whole explanation for it. VB's written at least one other book
in that interim, plus he made a 12-hour video documentary on the O.J.
fiasco, plus probably other projects as well.
lazu...@webtv.net
Anthony Marsh
> How could anyone , with an once of brains , still be blathering about
> the autopsy face sheet ? He talks as if those diagrams where meant to
> be drawn to scale . Silly Boy ! The Single Bullet Fact remains intact ,
> thats more than I can say for lazulu's reasoning . Tom lowry
>
Not to scale, but at least some of us can tell the difference between
ABOVE and BELOW.
Bud
Tomlinson did also, apparently. In a 1966 interview with Raymond
Marcus (supplied by Jean Davison, kudos to her), Tomlinson had this to
say...
I just glanced at the (damned- removed by RM for publicaion) bullet
so I put it in my pocket and the first time the security chief stopped
by, Mr Wright, I turned it over to him-- first time by."