All THE EVIDENCE HAS BEEN FAKED
Phil Ossofee
Disney Studio. A blob has been added to the right front of Kennedy's
head that is worthy of" best animation for a short subject", The Limo
in the foreground, is just like an old time movie where when it was shot
in the studio, actors were used against a backscreen( behind the limo is
all backscreen) instead of on location.
Fake Oswalds, Fake Autopsy Photos, Fake X-Rays, Fake SS Men, Fake
Tramps, Fake Cops,Fake Rifle, Fake Pistol, Fake Autopsy, every damn bit
of it Faked.
David VP
tongue firmly planted in the cheek area (or at least I THINK that's the
case, because if the Phil-ster is serious he needs some help).
But many people do believe in a variety of the above-mentioned hunks of
"fakery"...autopsy pics, Oswalds, SS men, et al.
But if ALL of the above was "faked", then the Real World in which we
live (which very rarely, if ever, features conspiracies of such an
all-encompassing, all-inclusive nature of evidence forgery) has been
transported into Rod Serling's make-believe world of time travel,
ghostly happenings, and other such unexplainables.
And just think --- ALL of these hunks of "fakery" could have so easily
been totally eliminated if the plotters/assassins/henchmen had just had
the sense to do the obvious ---
I.E.: Shoot JFK with just Oswald's rifle from the Oswald window and be
done with it.
But, then again, why go the "Occam's" way, when you can keep the
Groden-like "researchers" busy for decades by shooting the President
from a gob of different places so that the "patsy plot" would then
require coming up with all this impossible-to-accomplish and
never-ending list of "JFK Murder Fake Stuff".
Makes perfect sense to me. I'd certainly want to frame any Patsy of
mine by shooting my one and only target from the exact opposite
direction from where my Patsy was supposed to be located. Who wouldn't
do it like that, for Pete's sake?!
curtj...@webtv.net
> Quite obviously, Phil's post above was done with all of his large
> tongue firmly planted in the cheek area (or at least I THINK that's the
> case, because if the Phil-ster is serious he needs some help).
>
> But many people do believe in a variety of the above-mentioned hunks of
> "fakery"...autopsy pics, Oswalds, SS men, et al.
>
> But if ALL of the above was "faked", then the Real World in which we
> live (which very rarely, if ever, features conspiracies of such an
> all-encompassing, all-inclusive nature of evidence forgery) has been
> transported into Rod Serling's make-believe world of time travel,
> ghostly happenings, and other such unexplainables.
>
the tooth fairy. Maybe a guided tour of Langley, where one can see
first hand what it takes to be an agent and what James Bond tactics and
technology must actually be learned. Or better yet, one can just read
some of the ex-CIA's folk who have 'traitorously' ventured into
explaining that, or maybe pick up 'The Man Who Knew Too Much', and see
how he operated and met up with 'Oswald' in Mexico City, and Atsugi,
and claimed to have actually handled him. I don't think that hit the
radar for Occam Investigators as they must only take the evidence that
immediately surrounds them, planted or not.
> And just think --- ALL of these hunks of "fakery" could have so easily
> been totally eliminated if the plotters/assassins/henchmen had just had
> the sense to do the obvious ---
>
> I.E.: Shoot JFK with just Oswald's rifle from the Oswald window and be
> done with it.
>
One would as it would have been the easiest shot in the world coming
down Houston with plenty of time just to make one shot of instead of
three. No, but we must be in need of a trick shooter that can shoot
between an Evergreen with an incompetent, outdated weapon, with an over
45% angle, to get off the 3 never-duplicated, luckiest shots in the
history of man.
> But, then again, why go the "Occam's" way, when you can keep the
> Groden-like "researchers" busy for decades by shooting the President
> from a gob of different places so that the "patsy plot" would then
> require coming up with all this impossible-to-accomplish and
> never-ending list of "JFK Murder Fake Stuff".
>
I am sure Occam's Way takes into account assassinations too. I am sure
Ettu Brut stifled Mr. Occam, but don't let that get in anybody's way.
> Makes perfect sense to me. I'd certainly want to frame any Patsy of
> mine by shooting my one and only target from the exact opposite
> direction from where my Patsy was supposed to be located. Who wouldn't
> do it like that, for Pete's sake?!
In other words, all crimes are committed on a catch me as you can
basis, not hiring somebody, or having somebody take the fall.
David VP
Lousy argument in this case, and anyone can easily detect why. -- LHO
waiting until the SS car had also turned the corner (with ALL the heavy
fire-power of the USSS now with its BACK TO THE ASSASSIN) was a very
smart decision by Oswald. Not to mention the fact that shooting on
Houston would "open" Oswald up more to the FRONT of his "perch" in the
SN.
>> "...to get off the 3 never-duplicated, luckiest shots in the history of man."
And just how does a 66.6% accurate shooting event figure into those
"THREE luckiest shots in the world"? Why is a missed shot such a
"lucky" one?
This reminds me of what I heard another very-astute researcher say
recently re. the ability to "duplicate" to perfection Oswald's feat, or
ANYONE'S shooting scenario on any given day, 11/22/63 or otherwise (and
it makes perfect sense, in a common-sense fashion) .....
Suppose I went out into the woods and fired a rifle two times into two
trees, creating two separate holes. Now, could YOU (or anybody) go out
to the same location, with the same rifle, and duplicate my feat to
perfection? (I.E.: Could you fire two bullets directly INTO those two
holes I made earlier?)
Answer: Yes. But what are the odds?
curtj...@webtv.net
David VP wrote:
> >> "One would {shoot with just LHO's weapon from LHO's "window"} as it would have been the easiest shot in the world coming down Houston with plenty of time just to make one shot..."
>
> Lousy argument in this case, and anyone can easily detect why. -- LHO
> waiting until the SS car had also turned the corner (with ALL the heavy
> fire-power of the USSS now with its BACK TO THE ASSASSIN) was a very
> smart decision by Oswald. Not to mention the fact that shooting on
> Houston would "open" Oswald up more to the FRONT of his "perch" in the
> SN.
>
>
>
> >> "...to get off the 3 never-duplicated, luckiest shots in the history of man."
>
> And just how does a 66.6% accurate shooting event figure into those
> "THREE luckiest shots in the world"? Why is a missed shot such a
> "lucky" one?
>
by inches but by yards, and then being able to miraculously fire in how
many seconds to get the first hit when there was an evergreen in the
way? What powers of recuperation! Oh let's get in a huddle here, we
have that Tague shot. Ahhhh it's coming to me now....ohhhhhh A THEORY!
Ohhhhh if our guy would have just blown him to bit's when he was right
below him...we wouldn't have this headache!
> This reminds me of what I heard another very-astute researcher say
> recently re. the ability to "duplicate" to perfection Oswald's feat, or
> ANYONE'S shooting scenario on any given day, 11/22/63 or otherwise (and
> it makes perfect sense, in a common-sense fashion) .....
>
> Suppose I went out into the woods and fired a rifle two times into two
> trees, creating two separate holes. Now, could YOU (or anybody) go out
> to the same location, with the same rifle, and duplicate my feat to
> perfection? (I.E.: Could you fire two bullets directly INTO those two
> holes I made earlier?)
>
> Answer: Yes. But what are the odds?
What are the odds of the second shot zigzagging through two men and
falling out somewhere in a hospital. All you need to do is get a
couple of bodies and make sure the bullet does what it's supposed to do
and barely get to the end and just be at skin's edge? Oh wait a minute
that bullet has to come out like it didn't hit a tree, but went through
a vat of water. Oh wait a minute, a bullet fell out during the putting
of the body from the coffin to the table at Bethesda according to three
witnesses. Oh well, the more bullets the merrier right?
ADulles_HeroRtrtr?
men who train every day with automatic weapons and are much better
shots with the finest sniper rifles, etc. tuned by the world's top
armorers, and I'll tell you, if I live past acquiring the target in the
scope.
David VP
preferred).....because Curt seems to be stuck in the silly "The Bullet
HAD To Zig-Zag" era.
Does your horse-&-buggy allow you to get you around alright these days,
Curt? Perhaps you had oughta upgrade to at least a Model-T.
ADulles_HeroRtrtr?
EVERYTHINGwas faked, because it wouldmake the WCR even MORE difficult
to sell.
David VP
shots with the finest sniper rifles, etc. tuned by the world's top
armorers, and I'll tell you, if I live past acquiring the target in the
scope. "
Your flippant comments here are -- in a way -- making my point for me
to a degree.
Because when ALL THAT OTHER STUFF (moving car, IMPOSSIBLE
TO PINPOINT LOCATION of TWO people in that moving car, etc.) is
factored in -- then the shooting becomes infinitely MORE difficult to
"duplicate".
No possible way anyone can EXACTLY DUPLICATE the entire Oswald
shooting, right down to the SBT. No way.
And your top-rated SS guards now ALL have their backs to the killer,
don't forget. Locating the exact place of the gunfire AND being able to
locate the person doing the firing AND being able to gun the bastard
down (all in 8.2 seconds from Shot #1) would be miraculous on even the
SS Agents' best and most-perfect day at the practice range.
aeffects
of success diminish when sighting in on a moving target from above,
moving away from the shooter position same AFTER same shooter missed
the 1st shot...
btw, I suspect the SS knew exactly where the rounds came from -- I also
suspect collateral damage THESE days is tolerated...
I consider the act of murdering a duly elected guy; shooting him in the
back - in broad daylight; who dies in his wifes arms, a bit more
flippant, thus a cowardly act. Now THAT bothers me more than any
posters comments -- knock off your holier than thou - Lone Neuter bull
hsit
ADulles_HeroRtrtr?
standing protocol the detail of SS roof or at least trailing-motorcade
counter-snipers? BTW,what was JFK (not?)thinking? Wasn't he an Harvard
History major? Did they forget to tell him about Ferdinand and Sophie,
G.Princep? Open Car?, etc. Maybe he was so high on Amphetamine or
Opiates --
ADulles_HeroRtrtr?
curtj...@webtv.net
I swear I got an A in Geometry the second time around. The angle that
it JFK's back was what? Where would it have gone if it continued in a
straight path? I don't need the DMV and their co-conspirators. I
would rather be an outlaw, TY.
curtj...@webtv.net
I swear I got an A in Geometry the second time around. The angle that
aeffects
them in the same position looking over their shoulders --
As to what JFK was thinking, who knows - the trip was meant to mend
some party differences -- the murdering dolts should of waited -- in my
estimation it was a tossup if he'd win another 4 years...
Hell, I got through the 60's intact as did most of us - I doubt his
medications imparred him.
ADulles_HeroRtrtr?
.223s, bullets and laws against liberty to sell. Hoover might have been
exposed as a drag-queen by Bobby. I think he had some trouble in L.A.
before the '68 election.
ADulles_HeroRtrtr?
be an Investment Banker (for the NAZis AND W's Grandfather--I kid you
NOT!-Googleit!), newly-ex-DCI accumulate by aidin'-n--abettin', i.e.
running the WCs *investigation*, of the murder of the guy who fired
him? Golley, haven't big-time lawyers heard of CONFLICT-of-INTEREST?
Ben Holmes
says...
Lurkers may wonder where Phil was during all the posts I made giving just some
of the evidence of Zapruder film alteration.
It seems that ridicule is easier for some than actually dealing with the
evidence. Perhaps this is why up to 90% of Americans believe that there *was* a
conspiracy... they aren't as stupid as many LNT'ers claim.
LoneN...@gmail.com
it every chance they get.
Anthony Marsh
Are you hypothesizing or genuinely asking what was SOP then in 1963?
SOP was not to have SS agents counter-sniping on the roof. There is a
story about a cop being on one roof for that purpose, but never the SS.
The trailing agents were in the follow-up car only 5 feet behind the
limo to be close enough to swarm it if there was any trouble.
Anthony Marsh
Not this case, but I did read about another assassination attempt where
the bodyguard riding on the car shot the assassin before he could get
off his shot.
Anthony Marsh
> David VP wrote:
>>>> "One would {shoot with just LHO's weapon from LHO's "window"} as it would have been the easiest shot in the world coming down Houston with plenty of time just to make one shot..."
>> Lousy argument in this case, and anyone can easily detect why. -- LHO
>> waiting until the SS car had also turned the corner (with ALL the heavy
>> fire-power of the USSS now with its BACK TO THE ASSASSIN) was a very
>> smart decision by Oswald. Not to mention the fact that shooting on
>> Houston would "open" Oswald up more to the FRONT of his "perch" in the
>> SN.
>>
>>
>>
>>>> "...to get off the 3 never-duplicated, luckiest shots in the history of man."
>> And just how does a 66.6% accurate shooting event figure into those
>> "THREE luckiest shots in the world"? Why is a missed shot such a
>> "lucky" one?
>>
> Wouldn't that make the feat all the more incredible missing the car not
> by inches but by yards, and then being able to miraculously fire in how
> many seconds to get the first hit when there was an evergreen in the
Now you've lost me. I can see the oak tree in the way, but I can't see
any evergreen there.
Anthony Marsh
>>> "One would {shoot with just LHO's weapon from LHO's "window"} as it would have been the easiest shot in the world coming down Houston with plenty of time just to make one shot..."
>
> Lousy argument in this case, and anyone can easily detect why. -- LHO
> waiting until the SS car had also turned the corner (with ALL the heavy
> fire-power of the USSS now with its BACK TO THE ASSASSIN) was a very
> smart decision by Oswald. Not to mention the fact that shooting on
> Houston would "open" Oswald up more to the FRONT of his "perch" in the
> SN.
>
Not much of a wait. The SS car was only 5 feet behind the limousine.
Sam
news:26972-43C...@storefull-3236.bay.webtv.net...
not all the evidence is fake, just some of it
remember rule 9. of The Ten Commandments of Propaganda
as expanded and updated by Mark Johnson, (c)
1999, from the original Seven Rules of Propaganda, identified by the
Institute For Propaganda Analysis in 1937.
9. a confused people are easily led
When a person hears the truth, he won't know it, because it will be
lumped together with disinformation, half-truths, and
lies.
Bud
aeffects wrote:
> does that mean you concede a shooters marksmanship ability and chances
> of success diminish when sighting in on a moving target from above,
> moving away from the shooter position same AFTER same shooter missed
> the 1st shot...
>
> btw, I suspect the SS knew exactly where the rounds came from -- I also
> suspect collateral damage THESE days is tolerated...
You`re a suspicious guy.
> I consider the act of murdering a duly elected guy; shooting him in the
> back - in broad daylight; who dies in his wifes arms, a bit more
> flippant, thus a cowardly act. Now THAT bothers me more than any
> posters comments -- knock off your holier than thou - Lone Neuter bull
> hsit
What is this rant but the usual "I`m holier than thou, my position
is superior because I know better than you, I am more compasionate for
Jackies suffering and am more committed to justice than LNT" CT
bullshit? The simple truth is that kooks have been covering for the
assassin that committed this cowardly act for over forty years.
ADulles_HeroRtrtr?
NWO/CFR/Rothschild thing, but I *do* believe there is an ugly
realpolitik shadow lurking, and I think that they think like Damien
Thorne, Pazuzu characters in their deliberate inclusion of a pinch of
truth. Modified-Goebbels-style.
ADulles_HeroRtrtr?
far out on your smoke break, and you might fall off. So get back to
work. Mere citizens don't have the right to question authority. Go too
far out on your *pot*-smoke break and you might fall in...to jail.
ADulles_HeroRtrtr?
is CT/LN-neutral. But, adding the dented cartridge, makes CT more
likely as employing a single shooter in such a lousy opportunity is
unreliable and risks tipping-off the victim. So if you fall back to
LoneNut, you have to ask yourself "wouldn't it all work much better if
you had one already chambered?"
Sam
news:1137287078.3...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
in 1832 skull and bones sprung off a german secret organization
they have kept in touch ever since
they practice eugenics and they inbreed
during ww2 they were nazis
they collaborated on the jfk assassination
now they are neonazis
they take oaths of loyalty to lucifer
you decide
ADulles_HeroRtrtr?
audio archives at Mises.org are pretty convincing about realpolitik. No
luciferian conspiracy assertions there, just the broad strokes outlined
regarding the secular plan to take over the world. I remember the first
time a friend told me about William Cooper. I thought my friend needed
Haloperidol. How Naeive I was! William Cooper was shot dead in his
home by an AZ swat team. He got one of them before he was down,
though. BTW, your site is in my favorites.
tomnln
Because you snip, Nobody has any idea who/what your repling to.
<LoneN...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1137283835.7...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
tomnln
Ask Nixon.
Quote from Founding Father Thomas Jefferson;
"Dissent is the Highest Form of Patriotism"
"ADulles_HeroRtrtr?" <g...@charter.net> wrote in message
news:1137288345.6...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
ADulles_HeroRtrtr?
importantly-- intel&analysis? I read a blurb today attributed to
Richard Helms in which Mr Helms evades Senator Dodd's inquiry regarding
the state of inter-agency co-operation during the pre-asassination era.
It seems CI deliberately witheld from SS. And I believe it was Mr
Helms who provided an M3 with ammo in a diplomatic pouch. Gen.Schnieder
was killed to unseat Pres. Allende of Guatemala, a socialist elected in
Mr Helms' era. IT&Ts Copper mines were to be nationalized. ADulles
had orchestrated a Coup d' Etat earlier in '54, when brother John
Foster, Sec. of State was a board member of United Fruit, which had
business ops in Guatemala.
Ben Holmes
LoneN...@gmail.com says...
>
>I would love to see where you get 90% from. The CT'ers seem to inflate
>it every chance they get.
Polling data, where else?
And if CT'ers are "inflating" it, its because it's been going *up* each year,
although the CT viewpoint has *ALWAYS* been a majority... from the very
beginning of polling on this topic.
You'll just have to face the truth on this newsgroup.
Take the time to look up the polls on the topic... they're not difficult to
find.
Or, you could simply ask Bud. I whacked him over the head with the cites a few
times.
lazu...@webtv.net
Robinson's observance of a large hole squarely in the back of JFK's
head> Von Pein paraphrasing said something like oh that's ridiculous
someone would have to shoot from the center of the overpass! Then later
denied to Holmes there was a hole in the back of Pres. Kennedy's head.
Which is it David? Most likely Robinson was off about an inch or so and
the BOH blowout was more to the right. Isn't it just like Dr.
McClelland's drawing from 1966: He could be off an inch or two any
direction and there still would be a huge exit wound in Kennedy's head
that is not seen in the photo's.
Ben Holmes
lazu...@webtv.net says...
>
>To another poster that DVP was responding too regarding Mortician
>Robinson's observance of a large hole squarely in the back of JFK's
>head> Von Pein paraphrasing said something like oh that's ridiculous
>someone would have to shoot from the center of the overpass!
As I recall, I mentioned what the *medical* opinion of at least one Parkland
doctor, that DID NOT arrive at that conclusion. I don't recall seeing any
response.
But, of course, that's normal. When you put facts in front of LNT'ers, there's
nothing left for them to do... but stoop to personal insult.
>Then later
>denied to Holmes there was a hole in the back of Pres. Kennedy's head.
>Which is it David? Most likely Robinson was off about an inch or so and
>the BOH blowout was more to the right. Isn't it just like Dr.
>McClelland's drawing from 1966: He could be off an inch or two any
>direction and there still would be a huge exit wound in Kennedy's head
>that is not seen in the photo's.
Those who deny that JFK had a large hole in the back of his head must do so by
calling over 40 eyewitness AND the official autopsy report liars...
They have merely *one* piece of evidence - a photograph. And they think
everyone else is a wacko!!
Particularly when there's so much evidence of photographic alteration in this
case.
Sam
> I'm not as far along as you, Sam, but the Denson, DiLorenzo and Hoppe
> audio archives at Mises.org are pretty convincing about realpolitik. No
> luciferian conspiracy assertions there, just the broad strokes outlined
> regarding the secular plan to take over the world.
skull and bones is the core group trying to take over the world with
hitler's "new world order"
David VP
WHY is it necessary to call the Autopsy Report a "lie"? The official
autopsy summary/conclusion specifically says that only two bullets
struck JFK....with one bullet EXITING his throat (thus the beginning of
the SBT is RIGHT THERE IN THE AUTOPSY REPORT; it doesn't lie solely in
Specter's lap; never did) -- plus one bullet striking JFK in the rear
of the head.
The official final autopsy report is totally unambiguous...and saying
it was otherwise is disingenuous at best.
>> "They have merely *one* piece of evidence - a photograph. And they think everyone else is a wacko!"
"One" piece of evidence (that favors the LN position re. the head
wound)? You're crazy if you think this. ..... To believe that, you'll
have to ignore the autopsy report (which claims no frontal head shot);
plus you'd have to ignore the Z-Film (which certainly doesn't favor a
BOH wound on JFK); and you'd have to ignore EVERY SINGLE AUTOPSY
DOCTOR'S OFFICIAL TESTIMONY (via several Govt. inquiries from 1964
through the 1970s), where all the doctors testified to NO LARGE BOH
WOUND. The only BOH wound was the small entry wound near the cowlick.
Regardless of EXACT placement of that entrance wound, it's obvious that
there was NO LARGE BOH WOUND on the President, per EVERY autopsy
doctor's testimony.
Bud
Ben Holmes wrote:
> In article <1137283835.7...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
> LoneN...@gmail.com says...
> >
> >I would love to see where you get 90% from. The CT'ers seem to inflate
> >it every chance they get.
>
> Polling data, where else?
<snicker> Cowardly dodge.
> And if CT'ers are "inflating" it, its because it's been going *up* each year,
Liar. Lets see you produce a string of polls taken every year from
one polling source showing the belief in conspiracy going up every
year.
> although the CT viewpoint has *ALWAYS* been a majority... from the very
> beginning of polling on this topic.
Liar. A poll taken a week after the assassination showed a majority
were fairly convinced that Oz did it alone.
> You'll just have to face the truth on this newsgroup.
The truth is that the average person doesn`t know much about the
details of this case.
> Take the time to look up the polls on the topic... they're not difficult to
> find.
And even though these polls claim a small degree of error, you see
that the numbers are all over the place when you compare the polls from
one source with the polls of another.
> Or, you could simply ask Bud. I whacked him over the head with the cites a few
> times.
I`ve never seen a poll where 90% of the respondents said they
believed more than one person shot JFK.
LoneN...@gmail.com
reply in the box. Must be Google.
I was referring to the claim that 90% of the population believes the
CT'ers.
Bud
Ben Holmes wrote:
> In article <26972-43C...@storefull-3236.bay.webtv.net>, Phil Ossofee
> says...
> >
> >Zapruder Film is nothing more than a cartoon, Probably, courtesy of
> >Disney Studio. A blob has been added to the right front of Kennedy's
> >head that is worthy of" best animation for a short subject", The Limo
> >in the foreground, is just like an old time movie where when it was shot
> >in the studio, actors were used against a backscreen( behind the limo is
> >all backscreen) instead of on location.
> >
> >Fake Oswalds, Fake Autopsy Photos, Fake X-Rays, Fake SS Men, Fake
> >Tramps, Fake Cops,Fake Rifle, Fake Pistol, Fake Autopsy, every damn bit
> >of it Faked.
Kooks claim all of the above, in various combinations. Look at the
list and get a rough idea how many experts and technicians are needed
to perform these tasks of fakery and alteration. Has any of these folks
come forward to say they were involved in such evidence alteration?
What is their incentive to keep silent about the work they did to
misrepresent evidence in this case? The 9-11 kooks do the same thing,
say that the engineers for NIST are only producing data that supports
the government position. All these technicians need only be approached
with a simple "Hey, I need you to produce some fake data for me" and
the reply always seems to be "Sure", and never to run to the newspapers
and blab.
> Lurkers may wonder where Phil was during all the posts I made giving just some
> of the evidence of Zapruder film alteration.
Whatever he was doing was time better spent.
> It seems that ridicule is easier for some than actually dealing with the
> evidence.
What better response to nonsense than ridicule?
> Perhaps this is why up to 90% of Americans believe that there *was* a
> conspiracy... they aren't as stupid as many LNT'ers claim.
Yet you keep citing a poll that supports that they are.
Bud
aeffects wrote:
> most images I've seen had most SS facing down Elm Street, a few have
> them in the same position looking over their shoulders --
>
> As to what JFK was thinking, who knows - the trip was meant to mend
> some party differences -- the murdering dolts should of waited -- in my
> estimation it was a tossup if he'd win another 4 years...
>
> Hell, I got through the 60's intact
Except for all the brain cells left behind.
> as did most of us - I doubt his
> medications imparred him.
Ben Holmes
says...
>
>>>"Those who deny that JFK had a large hole in the back of his head must do so by
>>>calling over 40 eyewitness AND the official autopsy report liars..."
>
>WHY is it necessary to call the Autopsy Report a "lie"?
Because the Autopsy Report *does* place a large hole in the back of JFK's
head...
You simply can't spin it, or get around it.
>The official
>autopsy summary/conclusion specifically says that only two bullets
>struck JFK....with one bullet EXITING his throat (thus the beginning of
>the SBT is RIGHT THERE IN THE AUTOPSY REPORT; it doesn't lie solely in
>Specter's lap; never did) -- plus one bullet striking JFK in the rear
>of the head.
Another discussion entirely, but the "exit" at the throat was a speculation made
*after* the autopsy, and *not* based on any examination of that wound. The
*ONLY* medical statements about that neck wound made by those who'd actually
*seen* it was that it was an entry wound.
>The official final autopsy report is totally unambiguous...and saying
>it was otherwise is disingenuous at best.
Yep... and the autopsy report *UNAMBIGUOUSLY* places a large wound ON THE BACK
OF JFK'S HEAD.
Or are you going to assert that "occipital" really means something else?
>>>"They have merely *one* piece of evidence - a photograph. And they think
>>>everyone else is a wacko!"
>
>"One" piece of evidence (that favors the LN position re. the head
>wound)?
Yep... or can you cite *anything* else that puts the wound on the back of JFK's
head in another location?
>You're crazy if you think this. ..... To believe that, you'll
>have to ignore the autopsy report (which claims no frontal head shot);
I'm speaking of the large wound in the back of JFK's head... what do you think
*you're* talking about?
Why would you try shifting the topic? We can discuss the front wound later, but
right now, you're going to have to defend the topic of *THIS* post, which is the
large BOH wound.
Here, perhaps you simply forgot: "Those who deny that JFK had a large hole in
the back of his head must do so by calling over 40 eyewitness AND the official
autopsy report liars..." (note: no discussion of the frontal shot mentioned)
>plus you'd have to ignore the Z-Film (which certainly doesn't favor a
>BOH wound on JFK);
Of course it does. This has been pointed out by others. If the best you have
is a grainy film shot from as far away as the alleged Z-Film was shot, then you
certainly don't have much, do you?
>and you'd have to ignore EVERY SINGLE AUTOPSY
>DOCTOR'S OFFICIAL TESTIMONY (via several Govt. inquiries from 1964
>through the 1970s), where all the doctors testified to NO LARGE BOH
>WOUND.
Untrue. In fact, the HSCA was forced to simply *lie* about the medical
testimony in the case - which came out when their testimony was finally released
by the ARRB.
Here's merely one quote:
Mr. DULLES - Just one other question.
Am I correct in assuming from what you have said that this wound is entirely
inconsistent with a wound that might have been administered if the shot were
fired from in front or the side of the President: it had to be fired from behind
the President?
Commander HUMES - Scientifically, sir, it is impossible for it to have been
fired from other than behind. Or to have exited from other than behind.
How can a bullet "exit" from behind and not leave an exit hole *BEHIND* the
head?
And just for the fun of it, let me pile insult on top of injury with MD209,
which was the medical document showing Boswell's testimony to the ARRB showing
where the wound was: http://www.burningknife.com/jfk/md209.pdf (473K)
But you go ahead, and locate AND *CITE* any such denial of a BOH wound? Quotes
will work quite nicely as well.
>The only BOH wound was the small entry wound near the cowlick.
Not what the autopsy report stated:
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.
Now, I'm sure that *you* don't like the fact that the occipital bone is located
on the back of the head, but it's merely a fact of life, and you're going to
have to live with it.
>Regardless of EXACT placement of that entrance wound, it's obvious that
>there was NO LARGE BOH WOUND on the President, per EVERY autopsy
>doctor's testimony.
Can you quote *ANY* prosector's statement asserting that? And considering that
they *did* place the BOH wound "chiefly ... parietal ... but extending somewhat
into the temporal and occipital regions", you're going to have to call them
contradictory *at best*. (Making the very large assumption that you could
actually *produce* any statement by the prosectors that there was no large BOH
wound.)
David VP
gagging on your dinner tonight.
You ACTUALLY think that the words "CHIEFLY PARIETAL" and "EXTENDING
SOMEWHAT INTO..." indicate a LARGE GAPING WOUND *ALL* IN THE BACK OF
THE HEAD?
One word comes to mind if you so think -- Goofy.
You're simply misinterpreting the words "in this region". When the
Report says "in this region", they're obviously talking about the
"LARGE IRREGULAR DEFECT" that is referred to at the first part of that
sentence....which was a defect that was "CHIEFLY PARIETAL".
Try to wiggle your way out of that one. And while you're at it why not
read the "A thru D" portions of Page 540 of the WR (Autopsy Report
section) -- where it breaks down the head wound, and there's no mention
of "occipital" at all in the "A-D Breakdown" of the head wound. ONLY
the word "pariteal" appears in that more-detailed breakdown. .....
Here's the breakdown:
"From the irregular margins of the above scalp defect tears extend in
stellate fashion into the more or less intact scalp as follows:
a. From the right inferior temporo-parietal margin anterior to the
right
ear to a point slightly above the tragus.
b. From the anterior parietal margin anteriorly on the forehead to
approximately 4 cm. above the right orbital ridge.
c. From the left margin of the main defect across the midline
antero-laterally for a distance of approximately 8 cm.
d. From the same starting point as c. 10 cm. postero-laterally." -- JFK
Autopsy Report
Ben Holmes
says...
>
>>>"Because the Autopsy Report *does* place a large hole in the back of JFK's
>>>head..."
>
>anything remotely close to that? Care to provide some documented proof
>that counters the following (verbatim) words of the Autopsy Report as
>published in the WCR in 1964? ...........
>
>"There is a large irregular defect of the scalp and skull on the right
>involving chiefly the parietal bone but extending somewhat into the
As I've already *quoted* the exact words coming *directly* from the autopsy
report, it seems strange that you're quoting this. Perhaps you don't have
access to the autopsy report?
And yes, this is *exactly* the back of the head...
Why not tell all the lurkers here where the "occipital" is located?
Or, lurkers can look for themselves, on a diagram that Boswell provided for the
ARRB: http://www.burningknife.com/jfk/md209.pdf (473K)
David VP
read the A-thru-D breakdown of the head wound, PLUS use some common
sense that God should have distributed your way when reading the words
"Chiefly Parietal" and "Extending SOMEWHAT Into" (emphasis my own for
Ben-boy's benefit), which are stated plain-as-ever-loving-day right
there in the WR.
I also like the idea that Ben seems to think the Autopsy Report must be
a "genuine" (i.e., non-faked and non-lying) document -- and yet many
CTers like to spout the theory that this VERY SAME document has been
phonied-up by Humes, et al, to eliminate all references to a frontal
shooter.
It's yet one more example (among dozens) where the CTers directly
contradict one another.
What a crowd that CT crowd is. They don't know who to dance with, or
what drummer to march to.
Must be hard trying to "solve" a crime with "CT Tools", which are all
as dull as C-SPAN in the afternoon.
Ben Holmes
says...
>
>Ben...If you slice the baloney any thicker, you'll be in danger of
>gagging on your dinner tonight.
Why? Can you actually *QUOTE* any words of mine that I can't immediately supply
a cite for?
So far, you've been unable to rebut anything I've stated.
>You ACTUALLY think that the words "CHIEFLY PARIETAL" and "EXTENDING
>SOMEWHAT INTO..." indicate a LARGE GAPING WOUND *ALL* IN THE BACK OF
>THE HEAD?
Why? I've never stated this. When you need to create a strawman argument, it's
clear that you can't deal with the *real* facts.
Did the wound extend along the top and side? Of *course* it did. At least at
the autopsy it did.
Was it on the back of the head? The evidence is *overwhelming* that it was.
Why do you keep ducking the question of where the "occipital" is located?
>One word comes to mind if you so think -- Goofy.
Me, I'd use the word "dishonest". As in: "You're dishonest if you claim I've
stated that the large wound was *ONLY* on the back of the head."
>You're simply misinterpreting the words "in this region". When the
>Report says "in this region", they're obviously talking about the
>"LARGE IRREGULAR DEFECT"
Of course! Why would you think I'd read it any other way?
>that is referred to at the first part of that
>sentence....which was a defect that was "CHIEFLY PARIETAL".
Why stop there? Read the *rest* of that statement...
And, of course, anyone who's taken the time to look will know that because
something is described as being in the parietal, doesn't mean it can't be in the
back of the head. For where the parietal meets the occipital - is *CLEARLY* in
the back of the head.
But, medical expertise that you have... tell us... where is the occipital
located?
>Try to wiggle your way out of that one. And while you're at it why not
>read the "A thru D" portions of Page 540 of the WR
Been there, done that. Many times.
>(Autopsy Report
>section) -- where it breaks down the head wound, and there's no mention
>of "occipital" at all in the "A-D Breakdown" of the head wound. ONLY
>the word "pariteal" appears in that more-detailed breakdown. .....
Considering that *this* part is discussing the tears in the scalp, one could
legitimately wonder if you're literate. It states that "FROM THE IRREGULAR
MARGINS OF THE ABOVE SCALP DEFECT..." which make it clear that these tears
*start* on the outside bounds of the previously described
Parietal-Occipital-Temporal defect.
Of course, they'd *have* to start there... since there was an *absence* of scalp
*inside* the defect.
Care to try again?
>Here's the breakdown:
>
>"From the irregular margins of the above scalp defect tears extend in
>stellate fashion into the more or less intact scalp as follows:
>
>a. From the right inferior temporo-parietal margin anterior to the
>right
>ear to a point slightly above the tragus.
>
>b. From the anterior parietal margin anteriorly on the forehead to
>approximately 4 cm. above the right orbital ridge.
>
>c. From the left margin of the main defect across the midline
>antero-laterally for a distance of approximately 8 cm.
>
>d. From the same starting point as c. 10 cm. postero-laterally." -- JFK
> Autopsy Report
Yep... try *understanding* what you're quoting. You are, of course, only
helping me. The *facts* are there, you can't work your way around them. The
only way you can claim that the large wound wasn't in the BOH is to *deny* what
the autopsy report clearly stated. Or what Dr. Humes testified to. Or what
most people who saw the wound testified to.
So, where exactly, is the occipital located???
And why do you keep snipping and not responding? For example, I don't see your
response to this assertion you made last time:
>and you'd have to ignore EVERY SINGLE AUTOPSY
>DOCTOR'S OFFICIAL TESTIMONY (via several Govt. inquiries from 1964
>through the 1970s), where all the doctors testified to NO LARGE BOH
>WOUND.
I challenged you to provide cites for this assertion, and you haven't yet done
so.
Snipping and not responding isn't going to get you very far on this newsgroup...
I'll simply keep pointing out the points you refuse to respond to.
David VP
Yeah, that must be why these words are in the same paragraph of the AR:
"There is a large irregular defect of the scalp and skull on the
RIGHT..."
"ON THE RIGHT". Not "IN THE BACK" ... but, instead, the word "RIGHT" is
indicated, without the "back" used at all. Not at all.
Arrange a hair-splitter's argument to battle the undeniable "RIGHT"
reference to where the wound "Chiefly" was located on JFK's head.
These CTers kill me. Absolutely amazing....John and Ken, how can you
stand this crowd day-in, day-out? You must have cast-iron stomachs.
lazu...@webtv.net
Groden's book on pg86-88 are photos of many of the Parkland and
Bethesda personnel-Dr. Dulaney, Carrico, Salyer, Peters,McClelland,
Jones, Crenshaw, Nurse Bell, & at Bethesda-Custer, Rike, Riebe, O'Neill,
O'conner- all of them wth the exception of Theran Ward who puts the
wound over he right ear are distinctly puttin their cupped hand in the
right rear quadrant of JFK's head. You and Bugliosi I'm sure would go
with Ward who is vague pointing with one finger over his ear. Throw in
Robinson and it is undeniable-a huge gaping wound in the right rear of
Kennedy's skull is fact. To deny it you must ignore all these witnesses
which means deliberate misrepresentation, this means in plain english
lying.
David VP
My comments re. that matter are here........
http://216.122.129.112/dc/dcboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=3&topic_id=32807&mesg_id=33688&page=4
David VP
Ben Holmes
says...
>
>I know damn well that "occipital" = "back of head".
Good! Then you're stuck, aren't you? The autopsy report *clearly* states that
the large wound extends into the occipital.
End of story.
>Now why don't YOU
>read the A-thru-D breakdown of the head wound,
It's *not* the "A-thru-D breakdown of the head wound"... its the description of
the tears in the scalp THAT *START* at the outside boundary of the already
located large wound.
Learn to read, then come back and try again...
>PLUS use some common
>sense that God should have distributed your way when reading the words
>"Chiefly Parietal" and "Extending SOMEWHAT Into"
A wound could not have merely *touched* the boundary of the parietal and
occipital without being in the back of the head.
That's not "common sense", it's merely a fact.
>(emphasis my own for Ben-boy's benefit), which are stated plain-as-ever-
>loving-day right there in the WR.
Common sense is what you clearly lack. Everyone can look at Boswell's diagram,
located here: http://www.burningknife/jfk/md109.pdf and see that the wound is
*clearly* located in the back of the head. It certainly extends along the side
and top - but to deny that the back of the head was involved is merely silly.
"Occipital", remember?
Looks like you're getting desperate. You can always tell ... it's about this
point that LNT'ers sink to personal insults.
>I also like the idea that Ben seems to think the Autopsy Report must be
>a "genuine" (i.e., non-faked and non-lying) document
It wasn't the first autopsy report - we know *that* from the testimony. So it
would depend on what you mean by "genuine". I've *never* asserted that the
autopsy report is an accurate depiction of the autopsy. *BUT YOU HAVE TO
BELIEVE THAT IT WAS*. What's the problem, Dave? Can't find anything to rebut,
so you have to create imaginary ones?
But no matter *what* you call it - it clearly puts the large wound on the back
of the head... extending along the top and side, to be sure...
So you can argue that the wound was *NOT* on the back of the head only by
calling the autopsy report a lie. Feel free to do so at any time...
>-- and yet many
>CTers like to spout the theory that this VERY SAME document has been
>phonied-up by Humes, et al, to eliminate all references to a frontal
>shooter.
It demonstrably *was* changed from the original. Humes testified to it. He
burned the first autopsy report... (or rather, what *would* have constituted
the autopsy report.)
Thanks to a slip in one of the executive sessions, we know that one of the
autopsy reports originally stated the conclusion that the neck wound was caused
by a fragment from the head shot.
It's quite probable that this same report stated that the bullet striking the
back "worked it's way back out". You can reference Siebert & ONeill's report
for support.
>It's yet one more example (among dozens) where the CTers directly
>contradict one another.
Where's the contradiction? You create the hypothesis that I believe the Autopsy
Report is "genuine", and feel that this is a conflict with the actual facts???
How silly!! Why not actually *quote* my statements on the "genuineness" of the
autopsy report...
But if you did, you wouldn't have anything to say, would you?
>What a crowd that CT crowd is. They don't know who to dance with, or
>what drummer to march to.
The facts... evidence... eyewitness testimony...
>Must be hard trying to "solve" a crime with "CT Tools", which are all
>as dull as C-SPAN in the afternoon.
Why haven't you cited for your assertions yet? I'm still waiting for a cite
from any of the prosectors stating that there was *no* BOH wound. You asserted
it, yet you are still ducking my rebuttal.
Ben Holmes
says...
>
>>>"And, of course, anyone who's taken the time to look will know that because
>>>something is described as being in the parietal, doesn't mean it can't be in the
>>>back of the head. For where the parietal meets the occipital - is *CLEARLY* in
>>>the back of the head."
>
>Yeah, that must be why these words are in the same paragraph of the AR:
>
>"There is a large irregular defect of the scalp and skull on the
>RIGHT..."
Yep... it *WAS* on the right. No-one described it as being on the left.
Nor did anyone describe it as being *in the front*. But they *DID* describe it
as being in the back. Even *you* admit that the occipital is located in the
back.
How embarrassing for you!
>"ON THE RIGHT". Not "IN THE BACK" ... but, instead, the word "RIGHT" is
>indicated, without the "back" used at all. Not at all.
Did you think that the prosectors would be using "starboard" and "port"?
When they described the left or right side of the head, they correctly noted
that it was on the right side.
When they positioned the wound with reference to its EXACT ANATOMICAL LOCATION,
it is at least partially located in the back. That *is* where the occipital is
located, even according to you.
Why fight it?
>Arrange a hair-splitter's argument to battle the undeniable "RIGHT"
>reference to where the wound "Chiefly" was located on JFK's head.
No, the prosectors *DO NOT* state that the wound was "chiefly" on the right,
although it was. They state that it was "chiefly" in the parietal... and it
could have been *ENTIRELY* in the parietal, and still been in the back of the
head. (assuming a smaller defect, of course...)
There's no "hair-splitting" here at all. The prosectors precisely orient, using
anatomical references, this large wound. And even *YOU* admit that the
occipital is in the back of the head.
Case closed.
>These CTers kill me. Absolutely amazing....John and Ken, how can you
>stand this crowd day-in, day-out? You must have cast-iron stomachs.
Oops... looks like I hit another LNT'er with too much specific evidence all at
once... he'll be running away soon...
I *do* hope you'll provide *any citation whatsoever* that supports your claim
that the prosectors stated that the wound was *NOT* located in the back of the
head.
It's beginning to look like you simply lied.
Perhaps this is why David keeps snipping everything.
Ben Holmes
lazu...@webtv.net says...
David has already read what the autopsy report says... he's already admitted
that the occipital is located in the back of the head, yet he's *STILL* denying
that the wound was located in the back of the head.
Why bother to swat David with the eyewitness atomic bomb when he's still trying
to recover from the autopsy report .45?
David VP
Read the freakin' "Summary" of the autopsy and then try to re-assert
the silliness of your above quote.
>> "It {the Autopsy Report} demonstrably *was* changed from the original. Humes testified to it. He burned the first autopsy report... (or rather, what *would* have constituted the autopsy report.)"
And, quite rightly, the ORIGINAL 11/22 report SHOULD have been torn up
(or burned in Humes' fireplace). Why? Because it was obviously WRONG,
being based on inaccurate data. The "prosectors" didn't even know of
the throat wound until 11/23.
So to place that original INCORRECT autopsy report in the final record
would have been totally wrong and STUPID too.
The LATER, CORRECT Report was the accurate one, with the reference to
all the wounds (including the Perry/Trach wound in the throat).
The Final Report also states the following (that I guess CTers the
world over must believe is nothing but a pack of worthless lies from a
team of lying bastards named Humes, Boswell, and Finck...right?).......
"Based on the above observations it is our opinion that the deceased
died as a result of two perforating gunshot wounds inflicted by high
velocity projectiles fired by a person or persons unknown. The
projectiles were fired from a point behind and somewhat above the
level of the deceased. The observations and available information do
not permit a satisfactory estimate as to the sequence of the two
wounds.
The fatal missile entered the skull above and to the right of the
external occipital protuberance. A portion of the projectile traversed
the cranial cavity in a posterior-anterior direction (see lateral skull
roentgenograms) depositing minute particles along its path. A portion
of the projectile made its exit through the parietal bone on the right
carrying with it portions of cerebrum, skull and scalp. The two
wounds of the skull combined with the force of the missile produced
extensive fragmentation of the skull, laceration of the superior
saggital sinus, and of the right cerebral hemisphere."
Is that summary by the doctors all lies? Because if you say it IS full
of lies, then you've got a big problem....because you're going to have
to believe that the earlier ("occipital"-referencing) portion of the
very same Report is TRUE (and you seem to think it is, even though you
refuse to read the words correctly, as any 2-year-old could probably do
better than you have exhibited), but the "Summary" is chock full of
crap about the shots all coming from above and behind.
Guess you want it to be BOTH truthful AND a lie at the same time.
Typical CT wishful-thinking.
Anthony Marsh
>>> "But no matter *what* you call it - it clearly puts the large wound on the back of the head... extending along the top and side, to be sure...So you can argue that the wound was *NOT* on the back of the head only by calling the autopsy report a lie."
>
> Read the freakin' "Summary" of the autopsy and then try to re-assert
> the silliness of your above quote.
>
>
>>> "It {the Autopsy Report} demonstrably *was* changed from the original. Humes testified to it. He burned the first autopsy report... (or rather, what *would* have constituted the autopsy report.)"
>
> And, quite rightly, the ORIGINAL 11/22 report SHOULD have been torn up
> (or burned in Humes' fireplace). Why? Because it was obviously WRONG,
> being based on inaccurate data. The "prosectors" didn't even know of
> the throat wound until 11/23.
>
Now you're starting to catch on. Tell Bud.
> So to place that original INCORRECT autopsy report in the final record
> would have been totally wrong and STUPID too.
>
> The LATER, CORRECT Report was the accurate one, with the reference to
> all the wounds (including the Perry/Trach wound in the throat).
>
Not CORRECT. CORRECTED. As in his superiors ordering him to make certain
changes.
> The Final Report also states the following (that I guess CTers the
> world over must believe is nothing but a pack of worthless lies from a
> team of lying bastards named Humes, Boswell, and Finck...right?).......
>
> "Based on the above observations it is our opinion that the deceased
> died as a result of two perforating gunshot wounds inflicted by high
> velocity projectiles fired by a person or persons unknown. The
Persons? Plural? Hints of conspiracy. They could not prove that all the
shots came from only one location.
> projectiles were fired from a point behind and somewhat above the
> level of the deceased. The observations and available information do
> not permit a satisfactory estimate as to the sequence of the two
> wounds.
>
> The fatal missile entered the skull above and to the right of the
> external occipital protuberance. A portion of the projectile traversed
> the cranial cavity in a posterior-anterior direction (see lateral skull
> roentgenograms) depositing minute particles along its path. A portion
ALONG ITS PATH. But Canal must think this is a lie when the X-rays show
the path of the minute particles was much higher in the head.
> of the projectile made its exit through the parietal bone on the right
> carrying with it portions of cerebrum, skull and scalp. The two
> wounds of the skull combined with the force of the missile produced
> extensive fragmentation of the skull, laceration of the superior
> saggital sinus, and of the right cerebral hemisphere."
>
>
> Is that summary by the doctors all lies? Because if you say it IS full
> of lies, then you've got a big problem....because you're going to have
> to believe that the earlier ("occipital"-referencing) portion of the
> very same Report is TRUE (and you seem to think it is, even though you
> refuse to read the words correctly, as any 2-year-old could probably do
> better than you have exhibited), but the "Summary" is chock full of
> crap about the shots all coming from above and behind.
>
> Guess you want it to be BOTH truthful AND a lie at the same time.
> Typical CT wishful-thinking.
>
I don't know who the "you" is, but I do not believe that the autopsy
doctors could lie about every single fact.
Anthony Marsh
> Ben Holmes wrote:
>> In article <26972-43C...@storefull-3236.bay.webtv.net>, Phil Ossofee
>> says...
>>> Zapruder Film is nothing more than a cartoon, Probably, courtesy of
>>> Disney Studio. A blob has been added to the right front of Kennedy's
>>> head that is worthy of" best animation for a short subject", The Limo
>>> in the foreground, is just like an old time movie where when it was shot
>>> in the studio, actors were used against a backscreen( behind the limo is
>>> all backscreen) instead of on location.
>>>
>>> Fake Oswalds, Fake Autopsy Photos, Fake X-Rays, Fake SS Men, Fake
>>> Tramps, Fake Cops,Fake Rifle, Fake Pistol, Fake Autopsy, every damn bit
>>> of it Faked.
>
> Kooks claim all of the above, in various combinations. Look at the
> list and get a rough idea how many experts and technicians are needed
> to perform these tasks of fakery and alteration. Has any of these folks
> come forward to say they were involved in such evidence alteration?
> What is their incentive to keep silent about the work they did to
> misrepresent evidence in this case? The 9-11 kooks do the same thing,
> say that the engineers for NIST are only producing data that supports
> the government position. All these technicians need only be approached
> with a simple "Hey, I need you to produce some fake data for me" and
> the reply always seems to be "Sure", and never to run to the newspapers
> and blab.
>
Please cite for me even one time that a lab tech ran to the newspapers
and blabbed. If you want to see what happens to a lab tech who tries to
run to the newspapers to blab, look at the Frank Olsen case.
Anthony Marsh
> To another poster that DVP was responding too regarding Mortician
> Robinson's observance of a large hole squarely in the back of JFK's
> head> Von Pein paraphrasing said something like oh that's ridiculous
> someone would have to shoot from the center of the overpass! Then later
> denied to Holmes there was a hole in the back of Pres. Kennedy's head.
> Which is it David? Most likely Robinson was off about an inch or so and
> the BOH blowout was more to the right. Isn't it just like Dr.
> McClelland's drawing from 1966: He could be off an inch or two any
Which drawing are you thinking about? If you mean the drawing in Six
Seconds in Dallas, that was not done by Dr. McClelland. It was drawn by
someone else based on a description by Dr. McClelland. The person who
drew it had a frontal head shot agenda, not realizing that a shot from
the front does not have to produce such a massive wound in the back of
the head.
> direction and there still would be a huge exit wound in Kennedy's head
> that is not seen in the photo's.
>
That is simply not true. James Brady was shot in the front of the head
and there was no exit wound at all.
Anthony Marsh
> I would love to see where you get 90% from. The CT'ers seem to inflate
> it every chance they get.
>
OK, ok. You caught us. It was not actually 90%. It was only 89%. Happy now?
aeffects
same ballpark as Kennedy assassination related calibers
Bud
Exactly my point. All the technicians needed to perform all the
alterations and evidence manufacturing, and none went to the newspapers
when approached to perform these tasks, and have all kept quiet since.
> If you want to see what happens to a lab tech who tries to
> run to the newspapers to blab, look at the Frank Olsen case.
In what way do you think this addresses what I said? Many alleged
incidents of forgery and evidence tampering needs many technical
experts in many diverse fields (x-ray, ballistics, photography, ect) to
perform. Is it your point that it is irrelevant how many people are
approached to commit crimes, that they will all just do it, and keep
quiet about it forevermore?
Bud
No, actually in the poll Ben has been using as is source for that
90% figure all this time is only 76%. The highest figure I saw in
looking at a dozen or more polls was 81% for conspiracy. I surfed and
scribbled down a bunch of poll results, I might as well put them here.
First, the 1998 CBS poll Ben was using as his source...
Did Oswald Act Alone? Yes 10% No 76%
(Note: Ben clearly assumed that the remainder after the 10% who gave
the opinion of "yes" were all of the opinion of "no". He assumes a
lot, and his assumptions are wrong a lot.)
A few Gallup polls...
one man others involved
11/03 19% 75%
3/01 13% 81%
11/93 15% 75%
ABC`s 2003 poll...
one man broader plot
11/03 22% 70%
only Oswald another gunman Oswald not
involved
11.03 32% 51% 7%
Fox News (opinion dynamics corporation performed the poll for them)
66% think assassination is "part of a larger conspiracy"
25% think it was the "act of one individual"
Some Harris polls...
Individual larger conspiracy
1981 21% 67%
1975 20% 66%
1967 19% 66%
And from McNeil Lehrer, some Gallup polls....
conspiracy
1963 52%
1976 81%
1983 74%
1993 75%
2003 75%
These are poll results I found with little effort, there are
probably more. The ones I produced show a few things. One, some CT have
benn misrepresenting the poll results. Two, Ben was wrong/lying when he
said that the percentage of people who believe in conspiracy has been
increasing yearly.
Ben Holmes
First, let's look at everything you snipped:
In article <dqedo...@drn.newsguy.com>, Ben Holmes says...
>
>In article <1137356993.6...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, David VP
>says...
>>
>>I know damn well that "occipital" = "back of head".
>
>
>Good! Then you're stuck, aren't you? The autopsy report *clearly* states
>that the large wound extends into the occipital.
>
>End of story.
No response!!! Dead silence... one could legitimately wonder why?
>>Now why don't YOU
>>read the A-thru-D breakdown of the head wound,
>
>It's *not* the "A-thru-D breakdown of the head wound"... its the
>description of the tears in the scalp THAT *START* at the outside
>boundary of the already located large wound.
>
>Learn to read, then come back and try again...
AGAIN!!! No response. Presumably David is busy learning how to read.
>>PLUS use some common
>>sense that God should have distributed your way when reading the words
>>"Chiefly Parietal" and "Extending SOMEWHAT Into"
>
>
>A wound could not have merely *touched* the boundary of the parietal and
>occipital without being in the back of the head.
>
>That's not "common sense", it's merely a fact.
Once again, David has no response!
>>(emphasis my own for Ben-boy's benefit), which are stated plain-as-ever-
>>loving-day right there in the WR.
>
>
>Common sense is what you clearly lack. Everyone can look at Boswell's
>diagram, located here: http://www.burningknife/jfk/md109.pdf and see
>that the wound is *clearly* located in the back of the head. It certainly
>extends along the side and top - but to deny that the back of the head was
>involved is merely silly. "Occipital", remember?
>
>Looks like you're getting desperate. You can always tell ... it's about this
>point that LNT'ers sink to personal insults.
Dead Silence again. Was Boswell's diagram uninformative? Did you believe him
to be lying on the topic?
>>I also like the idea that Ben seems to think the Autopsy Report must be
>>a "genuine" (i.e., non-faked and non-lying) document
>
>It wasn't the first autopsy report - we know *that* from the testimony. So it
>would depend on what you mean by "genuine". I've *never* asserted that the
>autopsy report is an accurate depiction of the autopsy. *BUT YOU HAVE TO
>BELIEVE THAT IT WAS*. What's the problem, Dave? Can't find anything to
>rebut, so you have to create imaginary ones?
Looks like David once more just has *nothing* to say.
>But no matter *what* you call it - it clearly puts the large wound on the back
>of the head... extending along the top and side, to be sure...
>
>So you can argue that the wound was *NOT* on the back of the head only by
>calling the autopsy report a lie. Feel free to do so at any time...
Ah! Finally!! David responds to this... below.
>>-- and yet many
>>CTers like to spout the theory that this VERY SAME document has been
>>phonied-up by Humes, et al, to eliminate all references to a frontal
>>shooter.
>
>
>It demonstrably *was* changed from the original. Humes testified to it. He
>burned the first autopsy report... (or rather, what *would* have constituted
>the autopsy report.)
>
>Thanks to a slip in one of the executive sessions, we know that one of the
>autopsy reports originally stated the conclusion that the neck wound was
>caused by a fragment from the head shot.
>
>It's quite probable that this same report stated that the bullet striking the
>back "worked it's way back out". You can reference Siebert & ONeill's report
>for support.
>
>
>>It's yet one more example (among dozens) where the CTers directly
>>contradict one another.
>
>
>Where's the contradiction? You create the hypothesis that I believe the Autopsy
>Report is "genuine", and feel that this is a conflict with the actual facts???
>How silly!! Why not actually *quote* my statements on the "genuineness" of the
>autopsy report...
>
>But if you did, you wouldn't have anything to say, would you?
>
>
>>What a crowd that CT crowd is. They don't know who to dance with, or
>>what drummer to march to.
>
>
>The facts... evidence... eyewitness testimony...
>
>
>>Must be hard trying to "solve" a crime with "CT Tools", which are all
>>as dull as C-SPAN in the afternoon.
>
>
>Why haven't you cited for your assertions yet? I'm still waiting for a cite
>from any of the prosectors stating that there was *no* BOH wound. You
>asserted it, yet you are still ducking my rebuttal.
Once again, David has decided to be silent. I think it's time to point out that
David is a liar who can't support his own lies.
Congratulations, David! You've been outed as a liar!
In article <1137363393.3...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, David VP
says...
>
>>>"But no matter *what* you call it - it clearly puts the large wound on the back
>>>of the head... extending along the top and side, to be sure...So you can argue
>>>that the wound was *NOT* on the back of the head only by calling the autopsy
>>>report a lie."
>
>Read the freakin' "Summary" of the autopsy and then try to re-assert
>the silliness of your above quote.
Did you think that the summary is going to *contradict* the far more specific
information and location contained in the body of the autopsy report?
Getting desperate, I can see... but you're simply going to have to accept the
fact that the autopsy report stated "occipital"... and ever *you* admit where
that is.
>>>"It {the Autopsy Report} demonstrably *was* changed from the original. Humes
>>>testified to it. He burned the first autopsy report... (or rather, what *would*
>>>have constituted the autopsy report.)"
>
>And, quite rightly, the ORIGINAL 11/22 report SHOULD have been torn up
>(or burned in Humes' fireplace). Why? Because it was obviously WRONG,
>being based on inaccurate data. The "prosectors" didn't even know of
>the throat wound until 11/23.
The evidence on that is rather conflicting. It's certainly *one* possible
explanation. The timing would indicate that the other possibility is at least
as valid.
>So to place that original INCORRECT autopsy report in the final record
>would have been totally wrong and STUPID too.
Destroying the first one was a felony... or are you going to defend that action
as well?
>The LATER, CORRECT Report was the accurate one, with the reference to
>all the wounds (including the Perry/Trach wound in the throat).
Actually, the one we have now is based on speculation. The conclusions
regarding transit, and direction of the bullet causing the throat wound are not
based on medical examination, but speculation.
>The Final Report also states the following (that I guess CTers the
>world over must believe is nothing but a pack of worthless lies from a
>team of lying bastards named Humes, Boswell, and Finck...right?).......
>
>"Based on the above observations it is our opinion that the deceased
>died as a result of two perforating gunshot wounds inflicted by high
>velocity projectiles fired by a person or persons unknown. The
>projectiles were fired from a point behind and somewhat above the
>level of the deceased. The observations and available information do
>not permit a satisfactory estimate as to the sequence of the two
>wounds.
Since this has *nothing* to do with the location of the large head wound, why
bother?
Are you going to admit that the wound was in the back of the head? Or continue
to spin, duck, and sway?
>The fatal missile entered the skull above and to the right of the
>external occipital protuberance. A portion of the projectile traversed
>the cranial cavity in a posterior-anterior direction (see lateral skull
>roentgenograms) depositing minute particles along its path. A portion
>of the projectile made its exit through the parietal bone on the right
>carrying with it portions of cerebrum, skull and scalp. The two
>wounds of the skull combined with the force of the missile produced
>extensive fragmentation of the skull, laceration of the superior
>saggital sinus, and of the right cerebral hemisphere."
>
>
>Is that summary by the doctors all lies?
I don't see anything there about the large wound not being in the back of the
head...
Why don't you limit yourself to proving what you assert?
>Because if you say it IS full
>of lies, then you've got a big problem....because you're going to have
>to believe that the earlier ("occipital"-referencing) portion of the
>very same Report is TRUE (and you seem to think it is,
Yep... it's supported by *all* the eyewitnesses to JFK's head wound in their
initial statements & testimony.
>even though you
>refuse to read the words correctly,
Oh? You mean "occipital" is not "occipital"??
>as any 2-year-old could probably do
>better than you have exhibited), but the "Summary" is chock full of
>crap about the shots all coming from above and behind.
And says nothing that contradicts the large wound being in the back of the head.
I realize that you'd like to change the subject, but you *FIRST* have to discuss
this one.
>Guess you want it to be BOTH truthful AND a lie at the same time.
>Typical CT wishful-thinking.
Once again, you've created a fantasy to debate. But I'm far more interested in
the fact that you asserted that the prosectors had stated that the wound was
*NOT* in the back of the head. And you haven't responded directly to that
statement ever since. You keep snipping it, as a matter of fact.
David, you're a liar.
Ben Holmes
Tony, you can claim whatever you want to. I have a poll that puts it at 90%.
David VP
And Ben-boy is a certifiable NUT! That is my considered diagnosis after
reading his last piece of CT-skewed tripe and utter crappola.
Ben is without doubt a Grade-A, gold-plated, CT-lovin'-at-any-cost
(even if it means deliberately skewing the evidence on the table)
"nutcase".
Good luck in getting the help you so desperately need.
Ben Holmes
says...
>
>>> "David, you're a liar."
>
>And Ben-boy is a certifiable NUT! That is my considered diagnosis after
>reading his last piece of CT-skewed tripe and utter crappola.
As a doctor, you'd make your patients rich from incompetence insurance claims.
You're too ignorant to correctly place a wound where *real* doctors place it.
You can't tell the difference between the description of a wound location and
*scalp tear" locations.
>Ben is without doubt a Grade-A, gold-plated, CT-lovin'-at-any-cost
>(even if it means deliberately skewing the evidence on the table)
>"nutcase".
Then why not simply point out, using the evidence, where I'm wrong? Or are you
having problems doing that?
>Good luck in getting the help you so desperately need.
Why snip everything and not respond to it? This will prove that you're not only
a liar, but a coward as well....
But, as I've often admitted, I'd *hate* to have to defend the Warren
Commission... It would be exceptionally hard to do and remain honest.
Now... on to everything that you snipped:
*************************************************************************
David, you're a liar.
David VP
It's his lover. It's his friend. It's (seemingly) his life. And it's
also a useless theory, which is mixed with misunderstood semantics
about the real location of the MAJORITY of the wound that Ben cannot,
or will not, face. Because facing it means he must divorce his
wife/lover.
Sure, the wound "extended somewhat" into the occipital (rear). And the
doctors admitted as much. So what?
What Ben is attempting to do is now move the bulk of the wound as SEEN
AT AUTOPSY ON NOVEMBER 22, 1963 (not at a much-later date) to the
FAR-RIGHT-REAR of the head...where it never was at all. And the autopsy
report and autopsy summary clearly indicate that the wound was more
"parietal/right side".
Hey, Ben....check out Lancer today....perhaps you can jump on the
bandwagon of Wim Dankbaar's new "throat-wound theory". Wim now says the
HEAD SHOT caused an EXITING throat wound!
It must be great to be able to switch gears so smoothly and
effortlessly in mid-CT-stream, like Wim has done,and like many others
CTers have done in the past as well.
Although WHY having 1,001 different variations (with dozens of
different shooters to choose from in Dealey Plaza) is considered an
advantage toward "solving" the case....is beyond my understanding. But
the CTers like variety. You make more $$ that way I guess.
Ben Holmes
David, like many LNT'ers, is in love with snipping. So here's the post that
David can't respond to...
David's latest snipping:
In article <dqgu8...@drn.newsguy.com>, Ben Holmes says...
*********************************************************************
In article <1137446275....@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>, David VP
says...
>
>Ben is in love with his CT "BOH" theory.
It is, of course, the only thing supported by the evidence. The only
*contradicting* evidence, as I've pointed out before, is the BOH photograph.
>He embraces it to his bosom.
>It's his lover. It's his friend. It's (seemingly) his life. And it's
>also a useless theory,
It's *not* a theory. It's the assertion of the autopsy report, as well as
dozens of eyewitnesses, many of whom are medically trained.
That makes it an official *fact*.
This is why I've asserted several times that you *MUST* acknowledge that the
autopsy report is a lie - because *IT* says that the wound is in the back of the
head.
Nor, I note, have you said a *SINGLE WORD* about Dr. Boswell's diagram, where he
graphically draws the wound, again, DISTINCTLY in the rear of the head -
although also extending along the top and side.
In fact, you lied by stating that *all* the prosectors had denied that the wound
is on the BOH... yet you refuse to supply any citation for that lie.
>which is mixed with misunderstood semantics
"Occipital"... go ahead, David, you can say it.
>about the real location of the MAJORITY of the wound that Ben cannot,
"Parietal"... go ahead, David, you can say it.
>or will not, face. Because facing it means he must divorce his
>wife/lover.
Actually, it would mean that I'd be just like you - dishonest with the evidence.
Why would I do that?
>Sure, the wound "extended somewhat" into the occipital (rear).
Bingo! And, of course, even part of the parietal bone is in the back of the
head. See http://face-and-emotion.com/dataface/anatomy/cranium.jsp to judge for
yourself.
>And the doctors admitted as much.
You've asserted otherwise.
>So what?
You lied when you asserted that "and you'd have to ignore EVERY SINGLE AUTOPSY
DOCTOR'S OFFICIAL TESTIMONY (via several Govt. inquiries from 1964
through the 1970s), where all the doctors testified to NO LARGE BOH
WOUND.", didn't you? You're now stating that the "doctors admitted as much [the
wound "extended somewhat" into the occipital (rear)]
Those two statements are contradictory. Which one would you like to defend?
And will you retract the other?
>What Ben is attempting to do is now move the bulk of the wound as SEEN
>AT AUTOPSY ON NOVEMBER 22, 1963 (not at a much-later date) to the
>FAR-RIGHT-REAR of the head...where it never was at all.
Actually, it's been there all along. Even a good part of the parietal bone is
in the back of the head.
So both the eyewitnesses and the autopsy report place it in the same place,
parietal-occipital-temporal.
And as much as this must pain you - that description *accurately* places the
wound on the back of the head.
>And the autopsy
>report and autopsy summary clearly indicate that the wound was more
>"parietal/right side".
No, it doesn't. Why bother to lie about it, David?
Here it is again:
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.
Strangely enough, the *ONE* word that David snipped was once again, "occipital".
And, as I've pointed out, and David ignored, you could merely be *touching* the
occipital bone, and still be well into the back of the head. You could be
ENTIRELY parietal, and be on the back of the head (presuming, of course, that
the wound was small enough to fit in the back third of the parietal bone...)
>Hey, Ben....check out Lancer today....perhaps you can jump on the
>bandwagon of Wim Dankbaar's new "throat-wound theory". Wim now says the
>HEAD SHOT caused an EXITING throat wound!
Actually, this was one of the very *first* ideas proposed. It was in an autopsy
report that no longer exists. This is hardly "new"... as I posted years ago:
********************************************
By the way... let's not forget the Jan 27th Executive session, during which Mr.
Rankin stated:
"We have an explanation there in the autopsy that probably a
fragment came out the front of the neck,"
*********************************************
So what's new about it? That you didn't know the evidence and testimony well
enough to know this previously???
>It must be great to be able to switch gears so smoothly and
>effortlessly in mid-CT-stream, like Wim has done,and like many others
>CTers have done in the past as well.
He's clearly simply following where the Warren Commission *HAS ALREADY BEEN*.
>Although WHY having 1,001 different variations (with dozens of
>different shooters to choose from in Dealey Plaza) is considered an
>advantage toward "solving" the case....is beyond my understanding. But
>the CTers like variety. You make more $$ that way I guess.
Actually, most CT authors don't make all that much, if any... from what I
understand. But why don't you actually *respond* to the points raised about the
actual evidence? Why do you keep snipping it and failing to respond?
AND WHERE IS THE CITATION FOR YOUR ASSERTION ABOUT THE PROSECTORS DENYING THAT
THERE WAS A BOH WOUND???
Anthony Marsh
You need to learn to use Google groups to look back through the old
messages. We have discussed the polls many times.
Anthony Marsh
I asked you to cite even one example for me and you can't. Proves my point.
>> If you want to see what happens to a lab tech who tries to
>> run to the newspapers to blab, look at the Frank Olsen case.
>
> In what way do you think this addresses what I said? Many alleged
> incidents of forgery and evidence tampering needs many technical
> experts in many diverse fields (x-ray, ballistics, photography, ect) to
> perform. Is it your point that it is irrelevant how many people are
> approached to commit crimes, that they will all just do it, and keep
> quiet about it forevermore?
>
The Frank Olsen case is an example of why people do not run to the
newspapers and blab. Which is why my father resigned in protest and did
not run to the newspapers.
Anthony Marsh
> Tony, what caliber weapon was Brady shot with, .22 correct? Not in the
> same ballpark as Kennedy assassination related calibers
>
Yes, a .22 caliber revolver, using Devastator explosive bullets.
Now, please explain to us how you are privy to which type of weapon was
used from the grassy knoll. And how do you know which ammo it used?
Bud
And I`ve produced some of them, in an effort to curtail CT lying
about them.
Bud
When I was a kid, I asked God for a bike, When I didn`t get one, I
took that as proof he didn`t exist. In any case, my point was that if
out of all the technicians needed to do all of these instances of
trickery and tomfoolery the kooks assert occurred, then none of them
went to the authorities or newspapers when approached, and all have
kept quiet ever since. Care to dispute what I said? Or was my
chracterization of the CT position accurate, and in your view the
technicians all just say "sure", and never run to the newspapers and
blab?
> >> If you want to see what happens to a lab tech who tries to
> >> run to the newspapers to blab, look at the Frank Olsen case.
> >
> > In what way do you think this addresses what I said? Many alleged
> > incidents of forgery and evidence tampering needs many technical
> > experts in many diverse fields (x-ray, ballistics, photography, ect) to
> > perform. Is it your point that it is irrelevant how many people are
> > approached to commit crimes, that they will all just do it, and keep
> > quiet about it forevermore?
> >
>
> The Frank Olsen case is an example of why people do not run to the
> newspapers and blab. Which is why my father resigned in protest and did
> not run to the newspapers.
In what way do you think this addresses what I said? I am aware of
the biiterness you have, and how it colors your thinking. But is it
accurate to say that your position is that there were all kinds of
technicians involved in altering evidence in this case, and that none
of them have come forward? Yes or No?
Phil Ossofee
above" yet you can't answer the basic statements I made : OK, what in
the world was a fake Secret Service Agent doing on the Knoll? I'm
talking about the guy Policeman Joe Smith ran into right after the
shooting behind the picket fence where no Agents were posted. What are
you gonna say Smith made it up?That's the only thing a liar can do is
lie, otherwise there is no innocent explanation.Notice that Smith said
"his hands were dirty like a mechanic" which rules out anybody in
officialdom, hey, and besides these guys were immaculate they weren't
the tramps.
Kenneth A. Rahn
"David VP" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1137357553.8...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>>> "And, of course, anyone who's taken the time to look will know that
>>> because something is described as being in the parietal, doesn't mean it
>>> can't be in the back of the head. For where the parietal meets the
>>> occipital - is *CLEARLY* in the back of the head."
>
> Yeah, that must be why these words are in the same paragraph of the AR:
>
> "There is a large irregular defect of the scalp and skull on the
> RIGHT..."
>
> "ON THE RIGHT". Not "IN THE BACK" ... but, instead, the word "RIGHT" is
> indicated, without the "back" used at all. Not at all.
>
> Arrange a hair-splitter's argument to battle the undeniable "RIGHT"
> reference to where the wound "Chiefly" was located on JFK's head.
>
> These CTers kill me. Absolutely amazing....John and Ken, how can you
> stand this crowd day-in, day-out? You must have cast-iron stomachs.
That's why I have given up trying to interact with most of them.
Ken Rahn
P.S. You must have gobs of spare time.
Bud
Phil Ossofee wrote:
> Hey there Bud Shit Fer Brains
Hi Phil!
> you can go on about"kooks claim all of the
> above" yet you can't answer the basic statements I made : OK, what in
> the world was a fake Secret Service Agent doing on the Knoll?
I give up, tell me.
> I'm
> talking about the guy Policeman Joe Smith ran into right after the
> shooting behind the picket fence where no Agents were posted. What are
> you gonna say Smith made it up?
No, I wouldn`t say that.
>That's the only thing a liar can do is
> lie, otherwise there is no innocent explanation.
Aren`t you only saying that you have decided that there can be no
innocent explaination possible?
>Notice that Smith said
> "his hands were dirty like a mechanic" which rules out anybody in
> officialdom, hey, and besides these guys were immaculate they weren't
> the tramps.
Good point. Why would conspirators go to the trouble of making sure
this guy had a realistic looking Secret Service badge, and then give
that badge to a guy who`s hands are so dirty, it is a dead giveaway
that he isn`t a Secret Service agent?
tomnln
Different shapes/colors which "Changed Daily".
"Bud" <sirs...@fast.net> wrote in message
news:1137533544.8...@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Ben Holmes
Yep... supporting your own assertions isn't possible, is it, Ken?
The wound is anatomically located... I know that bothers LNT'ers, but those are
the facts.
Just imagine the problems you'd have had if the autopsy had used the correct
anatomical landmarks to place the back wound. Perhaps this is why the death
certificate was buried by the Warren Commission.
>Ken Rahn
>P.S. You must have gobs of spare time.
It doesn't take any time at all to *cite* the evidence for your assertion. I do
it all the time.
Sam
news:2Ddzf.292518$0l5.260014@dukeread06...
> Secret Service I D was in the form of "Lapel Pins".
>
> Different shapes/colors which "Changed Daily".
perhaps that explains why joe smith let his guard down upon seeing someone
as dirty as lawrence behind the fence right after the head shot,
the right shape and color lapel pin
Anthony Marsh
Has anyone ever reproduced exactly which lapel pin the SS used in Dallas?
tomnln
"Anthony Marsh" <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:wJGdnW0GFpA...@comcast.com...