Does Bugliosi cover how Oswald was able to tamper with JFK's body?
brightwinger
If that's correct, how exactly did Oswald sever the 17 attachments to
JFK's brain so that no surgery was required to remove JFK's brain?
While Vinnie is at it, perhaps he could tell us how Oswald was able to
peel back JFK's scalp without massive bruising to the scalp?
And how did Oswald come out of the grave 44 years later to get E.
Howard Hunt to confess to being a benchwarmer in the murder of JFK,
thereby confirming Haldemann's written admission that when Nixon was
talking about the Bay of Pigs and getting $500,000 to keep Hunt quiet,
he was actually speaking code for the JFK assassination.
David Von Pein
Boswell (et al) was merely referring to NO MAJOR SURGERY OF THE SKULL
being required to remove the brain....you silly kook!
This, of course, due to the large exit wound in Kennedy's head on the
right side and top portions of the head.
Where is the testimony by Humes (et al) that says ALL of "17
attachments" were completely severed before the autopsy and,
therefore, no cord-snipping was needed to be done?
Where is that said ANYWHERE...by ANYBODY? Where?
Answer: Nowhere. It can't be said anywhere...because IT'S STUPID!
Humes merely was talking about the shattered SKULL of JFK in the "no
surgery needed" regard.
But just let me get this straight in my own head -- You're claiming
that "17 attachments" to JFK's brain were severed by this group of
idiot plotters, who supposedly had pre-autopsy access to the
President's body, cut all of this "brain wiring", and then PUT
KENNEDY'S LOOSE BRAIN BACK INTO HIS HEAD, HOPING THAT NO DOCTORS WOULD
EVEN BOTHER TO NOTICE THE HANKY-PANKY (or hoping they'd all just shut
the fuck up for the remainder of their lives)??
Is that about it??
And your next stupid theory is??
Ah, yes, E. Howard Hunt.
Pure second-hand garbage from Hunt's son. No corroboration whatsoever.
The "confession" might as well have come from one of the CT-Kooks in
this joint...it'd be just as reliable if it had...which, of course,
means it's pretty much worthless, like all kook theories.
Next hunk of kookcrap please?? You've surely got several more, right?
Your CT well of idiocy never runs dry, we all know that.
brightwinger
> The "no surgery needed to remove JFK's brain" testimony made by Humes,
> Boswell (et al) was merely referring to NO MAJOR SURGERY OF THE SKULL
> being required to remove the brain....you silly kook!
>
> This, of course, due to the large exit wound in Kennedy's head on the
> right side and top portions of the head.
>
>Where is the testimony by Humes (et al) that says ALL of "17
>attachments" were completely severed before the autopsy and,
>therefore, no cord-snipping was needed to be done?
>
>Where is that said ANYWHERE...by ANYBODY? Where?
>
>Answer: Nowhere. It can't be said anywhere...because IT'S STUPID!
Thank you for confirming the fact that all the 17 attachments were
already severed. Hume, as would any autopsy pathologist ONLY records
what they do, not what they didn't do.
>
> Humes merely was talking about the shattered SKULL of JFK in the "no
> surgery needed" regard.
>
> But just let me get this straight in my own head -- You're claiming
> that "17 attachments" to JFK's brain were severed by this group of
> idiot plotters, who supposedly had pre-autopsy access to the
> President's body, cut all of this "brain wiring", and then PUT
> KENNEDY'S LOOSE BRAIN BACK INTO HIS HEAD, HOPING THAT NO DOCTORS WOULD
> EVEN BOTHER TO NOTICE THE HANKY-PANKY (or hoping they'd all just shut
> the fuck up for the remainder of their lives)??
Dr. Hume, M.D., was no dummy...he could see quite obviously what was
'going down.' He saw a hit on the President with the hit being covered
up by tampering of the forensic evidence. Do the math...if you can
kill the President and tamper with the evidence, then killing the
pathologist would be a piece of cake.
> Is that about it??
>
> And your next stupid theory is??
>
> Ah, yes, E. Howard Hunt.
>
>Pure second-hand garbage from Hunt's son.
Sorry to break this to you, but neither Nixon nor Haldeman were sons
of E. Howard Hunt. Of course you had to snip the original message in
your attempt to obfuscate. See, the original part of the thread you're
refering to had THREE names other than Oswald's: Hunt, Nixon and
Haldeman.
>No corroboration whatsoever.
> The "confession" might as well have come from one of the CT-Kooks in
> this joint...it'd be just as reliable if it had...which, of course,
> means it's pretty much worthless, like all kook theories.
>
>Next hunk of kookcrap please??
So far you've pooped on yourself trying to discount the points made in
this thread. First, you single handedly confirmed that NONE of the
attachments were cut by Hume, BECAUSE HE MADE NO RECORD OF DOING SO.
Thanks for your help in convicting yourself.
Next, you confused the familial lineage of Hunt vis-a-vis Nixon and
Haldeman. Oops! You're going to need more than toilet paper to clean
up your mess.
>You've surely got several more, right?
No more evidence is needed...you've splattered yourself more than
enough already.
David Von Pein
Gee, I wonder when I did that? I must've missed that.
~searching all drawers for such a statement~
~zero appear~
~shrug~
>>> "Hume [sic] ONLY records what they do, not what they didn't do." <<<
LOL. As if each individual "snip" of the brain cords would need to be
noted in the post-mortem exam report.
Kooky.
>>> "No more evidence is needed...you've splattered yourself more than enough already." <<<
More kookiness from a master kook. Nice job.
brightwinger
> >>> "Thank you for confirming the fact that all the 17 attachments were already severed." <<<
>
> Gee, I wonder when I did that? I must've missed that.
Yes, you did...again...whose fault is that? BTW you snipped the part
you 'MISSED.'
>
> ~searching all drawers for such a statement~
> ~zero appear~
> ~shrug~
>
> >>> "Hume [sic] ONLY records what they do, not what they didn't do." <<<
>
> LOL. As if each individual "snip" of the brain cords would need to be
> noted in the post-mortem exam report.
Yes, actually they do record each and every one. That's how autopsies
are done. So the absence of any record of any surgical snips is
evidence...glaring evidence of tampering. Humes didn't want to join
JFK on that table, otherwise he would have called the cops! LOL
> Kooky.
>
>>"No more evidence is needed...you've splattered yourself more than enough already." <<<
>
> More kookiness from a master kook. Nice job.
You've snipped the part about Nixon and Haldeman implicating Hunt.
Do you always snip when you're stumped and unwilling to admit facts
into your thought processes?
David Von Pein
hoping Humes, etc., wouldn't notice or would cover up stuff" theory.
I've yet to hear a single other person claim the same goofball theory.
Not one. Not even Groden.
Why do you enjoy being a kook so much, i.e., a person who believes
some crazy shit that obviously never happened?
(Just curious.)
Walt
Hey Pea Brain,that's the same old worn out rebuttal you use every time
I post the DESCRIPTION of the sixth floor shooter.
I'm sure you remember the description, but I'll remind you anyway. The
gunman that was about seven years older, and 35 pounds heavier, than
Lee Oswald. The gunman who was dressed in light color clothing while
Lee was dressed in dark colored clothing.
Walt
David Von Pein
There was only one shooter in Dealey Plaza on 11/22...and it was Lee
Harvey Oswald, firing C2766 from the SN window in the SE corner of the
6th Floor of the TSBD.
EVERYTHING LEE HARVEY OSWALD DID ON 11/22/63 SAYS "I'M GUILTY!":
http://google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/8845d85a86407d31
RE-CONSTRUCTING THE STEPS OF A PRESIDENTIAL ASSASSIN:
http://google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/aaeb4a1389e69938
LEE "I COULDN'T CARE LESS" OSWALD:
http://google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/99273e0516a90afe
aeffects
> Short answer for Walt "West End Killer" Nutcase.......
>
> There was only one shooter in Dealey Plaza on 11/22...and it was Lee
> Harvey Oswald, firing C2766 from the SN window in the SE corner of the
> 6th Floor of the TSBD.
it's coming apart, David... rest well.... you'll need it!
<snip the Nutter nonsense>
tomnln
"brightwinger" <awthr...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1180035916.7...@m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
tomnln
Do you advocate Nazi Justice Only?
http://www.whokilledjfk.net/spy.htm
http://www.whokilledjfk.net/danrather.htm
http://www.whokilledjfk.net/horne__report.htm
http://www.whokilledjfk.net/officer_m.htm
http://www.whokilledjfk.net/RACE%20TO%20TSBD.htm
http://www.whokilledjfk.net/mexcity.htm
http://www.whokilledjfk.net/Walker.htm
http://www.whokilledjfk.net/tippit.htm
http://www.whokilledjfk.net/Rifle.htm
http://www.whokilledjfk.net/single_bullet.htm
http://www.whokilledjfk.net/media_page.htm
http://www.whokilledjfk.net/Lattimer.htm
"David Von Pein" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1180059580.4...@m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
brightwinger
> Note how "winger" is flying alone re. his "Brain placed back in head
> hoping Humes, etc., wouldn't notice or would cover up stuff" theory.
David, girls fight in groups...are you a girl? Why would anyone need
to join in when I've been able to KO you on my own?
Did you notice that no one came in to defend you, when you put your
family jewels on the frozen metal? It was too painful to watch. In
case you've forgotten, you were the one who pointed out, there were NO
entries made by Humes regarding severing the 17 attachments.
Wow, that's got to be embarassing! After all these years, you got
dropped kicked down a flight of stairs...and all your buddies could
was say, "MAN, THAT'S GOT TO HURT!"
>
> I've yet to hear a single other person claim the same goofball theory.
> Not one. Not even Groden.
"Best Evidence" Try reading it sometime.
>
>Why do you enjoy being a kook so much, i.e., a person who believes
>some crazy shit that obviously never happened?
One of the things that NEVER HAPPENED that we both agree on is that
Humes didn't record severing a single attachment. ROFL!! at you.
Where we disagree is that I don't think Nixon and Haldemen were
children of Hunt. Rather Nixon was President of the United States when
he made that impeachable slip of the tongue.
> (Just curious.)
eca...@tx.rr.com
"Best Evidence" Try reading it sometime."
Lifton is perceived as a baffoon by both sides
of the aisle Bright.. His theories died an
abrupt death shortly after they were read by
folks with an IQ above rock life. I bought the
book myself.. Hardback no less..
We were roughing up BE about 4 yrs ago and
one of the cHucKLe:-)heaDS thought they should
bring in Lifton himself to defend/explain his
almost comical book. Yes Lifton posted in here
(AA) for about 3 weeks in circa 2003.. Not a
pretty sight Not-So-Bright.
We spliced and diced the poor guy.. He never
took a stand on anything other than to say he
"would not discuss anything but the facts" which
pretty well left 95% of his book "Best Evidence"
(har-har) out in the cold..
He was BBQ'd.
Google up in AA:
Lifton Best Evidence Ed
if you doubt me.
Regards,
Ed Cage
0358May2507
> > (Just curious.)- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
muc...@gmail.com
> Let me get this straight...according to Bugsie, Oswald acted alone.
>
> If that's correct, how exactly did Oswald sever the 17 attachments to
> JFK's brain so that no surgery was required to remove JFK's brain?
According to this website...
http://pages.prodigy.net/whiskey99/chapter4.htm
...Boswell told Josiah Thompson in a 11/1/67 interview that the brain
was "quite easily removed without recourse to surgery." I assume the
quote is correct, and that it's what you refer to above, but could you
provide more context, please? It's been a while since I read "Six
Seconds", and my modest library is inaccessible at the moment.
You can't really believe that a pre-autopsy detachment of the brain is
the only possible (or even most likely) interpretation(?) The result
would have been difficult to overlook, and what purpose would it have
served? Is your theory that Boswell was trying to hint at something
sinister, and that Thompson missed the hint?
You also seem suspicious of the fact that the procedure for the
removal of the brain isn't documented in the autopsy report. Then I
wonder what you make of the lack of description of how the lungs and
the liver were removed. Were all the internal organs detached prior to
autopsy?
-Mark
lazu...@webtv.net
comparison between Best evidence & Bugliosi's trash, you see Lifton
understands JFK was pulling out of Vietnam, Oswald was framed, he didn't
kill JFK, The SBT is a bad joke, and so is this neuromuscular boomerang
jet effect from the rear, and Lifton's book- when published..even his
harshst ct critics( I don't really care what Lone nutters say) will say
it's a better book than Bugliosi's...
P.S. I wish they had been published at the same time...it would have
been very interesting.
Ben Holmes
muc...@gmail.com says...
>
>On 24 Maj, 07:10, brightwinger <awthraw...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Let me get this straight...according to Bugsie, Oswald acted alone.
>>
>> If that's correct, how exactly did Oswald sever the 17 attachments to
>> JFK's brain so that no surgery was required to remove JFK's brain?
>
>According to this website...
>
>http://pages.prodigy.net/whiskey99/chapter4.htm
>
>...Boswell told Josiah Thompson in a 11/1/67 interview that the brain
>was "quite easily removed without recourse to surgery." I assume the
>quote is correct, and that it's what you refer to above, but could you
>provide more context, please? It's been a while since I read "Six
>Seconds", and my modest library is inaccessible at the moment.
>
>You can't really believe that a pre-autopsy detachment of the brain is
>the only possible (or even most likely) interpretation(?) The result
>would have been difficult to overlook, and what purpose would it have
>served? Is your theory that Boswell was trying to hint at something
>sinister, and that Thompson missed the hint?
>
>You also seem suspicious of the fact that the procedure for the
>removal of the brain isn't documented in the autopsy report. Then I
>wonder what you make of the lack of description of how the lungs and
>the liver were removed. Were all the internal organs detached prior to
>autopsy?
>
>-Mark
I'm surprised that you're still around!
Now that Bugliosi's book is out, you seem to be strangely silent about it, even
though my predictions are beginning to turn out to be 100% accurate.
muc...@gmail.com
> In article <1180090950.320774.287...@w5g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
> much...@gmail.com says...
I don't recall that I promised you anything. So you have found
something in Bugliosi's book to complain about? What a surprise. I
hope to pick up my own copy within the next couple of weeks.
Ben Holmes
muc...@gmail.com says...
No, you didn't. You evaded, ducked, and ran from any statement that you *WOULD*
defend your remarks AFTER Bugliosi's book was published.
I pointed out how hypocritical that position was, and how there was *no*
downside to such a position.
I'm merely pointing out now that it's turning out that my prediction is 100%
correct, and that there are indeed "omissions, misrepresentations", and yes,
even outright lies about the evidence contained in his book.
You aren't willing to address that.
>So you have found
>something in Bugliosi's book to complain about? What a surprise. I
>hope to pick up my own copy within the next couple of weeks.
I've quoted, IN DETAIL, one example... there's *NOTHING* left out that you'd be
able to find should you pick up your own copy... yet you've said not a word.
What a surprise...
aeffects
> Not-So-Bright ON:
> "Best Evidence" Try reading it sometime."
>
> Lifton is perceived as a baffoon by both sides
> of the aisle Bright.. His theories died an
> abrupt death shortly after they were read by
> folks with an IQ above rock life. I bought the
> book myself.. Hardback no less..
> We were roughing up BE about 4 yrs ago and
> one of the cHucKLe:-)heaDS thought they should
> bring in Lifton himself to defend/explain his
> almost comical book. Yes Lifton posted in here
> (AA) for about 3 weeks in circa 2003.. Not a
> pretty sight Not-So-Bright.
>
> We spliced and diced the poor guy.. He never
> took a stand on anything other than to say he
> "would not discuss anything but the facts" which
> pretty well left 95% of his book "Best Evidence"
> (har-har) out in the cold..
>
> He was BBQ'd.
> Google up in AA:
yep, all those alt.assassination.jfk weanies were slicing, dicing and
mincing DLifton.....my ass, LMAO! None of them...
What you hear here is jealousy, plain and simple... Not many have
written NYT Best Sellers concerning the JFK assassination. Thompson,
Lifton and Manchester do come to mind. How'd the Warren Commission
Report rate on that list?
> Lifton Best Evidence Ed
>
> if you doubt me.
you debated Lifton, or pissed on his pantleg? Tell us/lurkers all
about your 'Lifton' encounter[s]... I'll verify your claim with David
Lifton
aeffects
> "Best Evidence" Try reading it sometime."
>
> Lifton is perceived as a baffoon by both sides
> of the aisle Bright.. His theories died an
> abrupt death shortly after they were read by
> folks with an IQ above rock life. I bought the
> book myself.. Hardback no less..
> We were roughing up BE about 4 yrs ago and
> one of the cHucKLe:-)heaDS thought they should
> bring in Lifton himself to defend/explain his
> almost comical book. Yes Lifton posted in here
> (AA) for about 3 weeks in circa 2003.. Not a
> pretty sight Not-So-Bright.
>
> We spliced and diced the poor guy.. He never
> took a stand on anything other than to say he
> "would not discuss anything but the facts" which
> pretty well left 95% of his book "Best Evidence"
> (har-har) out in the cold..
>
> He was BBQ'd.
> Google up in AA:
yep, all those alt.assassination.jfk weanies were slicing, dicing and
mincing DLifton.....my ass, LMAO! None of them...
What you hear here is jealousy, plain and simple... Not many have
written NYT Best Sellers concerning the JFK assassination. Thompson,
Lifton and Manchester do come to mind. How'd the Warren Commission
Report rate on that list?
> Lifton Best Evidence Ed
>
> if you doubt me.
you debated Lifton, or pissed on his pantleg? Tell us/lurkers all
about your 'Lifton' encounter[s]... I'll verify your claim with David
Lifton
> Regards,
aeffects
> "Best Evidence" Try reading it sometime."
>
> Lifton is perceived as a baffoon by both sides
> of the aisle Bright.. His theories died an
> abrupt death shortly after they were read by
> folks with an IQ above rock life. I bought the
> book myself.. Hardback no less..
> We were roughing up BE about 4 yrs ago and
> one of the cHucKLe:-)heaDS thought they should
> bring in Lifton himself to defend/explain his
> almost comical book. Yes Lifton posted in here
> (AA) for about 3 weeks in circa 2003.. Not a
> pretty sight Not-So-Bright.
>
> We spliced and diced the poor guy.. He never
> took a stand on anything other than to say he
> "would not discuss anything but the facts" which
> pretty well left 95% of his book "Best Evidence"
> (har-har) out in the cold..
>
> He was BBQ'd.
> Google up in AA:
yep, all those alt.assassination.jfk weanies were slicing, dicing and
mincing DLifton.....my ass, LMAO! None of them...
What you hear here is jealousy, plain and simple... Not many have
written NYT Best Sellers concerning the JFK assassination. Thompson,
Lifton and Manchester do come to mind. How'd the Warren Commission
Report rate on that list?
> Lifton Best Evidence Ed
>
> if you doubt me.
you debated Lifton, or pissed on his pantleg? Tell us/lurkers all
about your 'Lifton' encounter[s]... I'll verify your claim with David
Lifton
> Regards,
David Von Pein
You couldn't KO a dead ant when it comes to your idiotic theory about
JFK's brain. And I doubt very seriously that there's even a single
mega-kook in this place who believes that a group of nutty plotters
placed the loose brain of JFK back into his head before Humes'
autopsy. (And these kooks will believe about anything.)*
* = Or do you merely believe Paul O'Connor's story ("No brain in head
at all")? Which, if true, means that Humes & Co. were all liars and
they just PRETENDED that the brain was removed at autopsy. Which also
means (if you're correct about every single "cut" of a brain cord
being ultra-important on an autopsy report) that Humes & Co. were
utter fools for not CONTINUING THEIR CHARADE when they failed to say
they cut these cords in their report. (Pretty stupid of them, huh?)
So, which is it? ---
1.) Believe O'Connor's nutty story and also, by necessity, believe
Humes is "double the fool/cover-upper" for just forgetting to put
something in the report about "brain snips".
Or:
2.) Believe that some idiot henchmen removed JFK's brain and then
decided to put it back into the head before the autopsy. (And, via
this option, Humes is an honest man...but still fails to say a word
about the brain just lying loose in the President's skull. Nor does
anyone else.)
You're dead either way, Mr. Kook. Neither version makes a lick of
sense. But keep on a-tryin'. Somebody'll come along and lap up your
silliness. Some day.
Also (re. #2 option above) ---
Of course, there's no possible TIMEFRAME available for which this team
of idiots to have accomplished this grisly task prior to Humes, et al,
opening that casket at Bethesda at approx. 7:35 PM ET on 11/22/63.
But don't let that little "time" problem bother you. After all, it's
never made David Lifton flinch for a minute either. He's not sure when
or how the body was swiped...but by golly he KNOWS it was swiped! So
you can believe that too...if you wanna remain a Mega-Kook.
>>> "Did you notice that no one came in to defend you..." <<<
So? There's no need. Any sane person knows your theory is loony and
outlandish to begin with. There's no real need to reinforce that fact.
And I took note of this many people defending your insanity --- Zero.
Nice.
>>> "One of the things that NEVER HAPPENED that we both agree on is that Humes didn't record severing a single attachment." <<<
So what? Who the hell cares?
Show me proof that EVERY AUTOPSY report ever written makes specific
mention in its written report of the cutting of EVERY single brain-
holding cord.
I want that proof on my desk, by noon, May 31st. Good luck. (Kook.)
muc...@gmail.com
> In article <1180103784.199894.261...@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
> much...@gmail.com says...
I don't recall having made any claims about the content of RH. Or the
accuracy of your "predictions" regarding the content of RH for that
matter. Are you referring to my remarks about judging a book before
vs. after it is published?
> I pointed out how hypocritical that position was, and how there was *no*
> downside to such a position.
Does there have to be a downside to pointing things out to you?
> I'm merely pointing out now that it's turning out that my prediction is 100%
> correct, and that there are indeed "omissions, misrepresentations", and yes,
> even outright lies about the evidence contained in his book.
>
> You aren't willing to address that.
Then why keep demanding me to?
> >So you have found
> >something in Bugliosi's book to complain about? What a surprise. I
> >hope to pick up my own copy within the next couple of weeks.
>
> I've quoted, IN DETAIL, one example... there's *NOTHING* left out that you'd be
> able to find should you pick up your own copy... yet you've said not a word.
Ah, I have found your thread about Bugliosi's treatment of the Whaley
incident. I think you have a point regarding the use of the phrase
"frenzied flight" and characterization of Oswald as looking like a
wino, but I also think you overstate it a bit.
> What a surprise...
Are you just hi-jacking the thread, or are you going to address the
questions I posed to "brightwinger" above?
Ben Holmes
muc...@gmail.com says...
Please don't act the fool and pretend that you don't remember... I can requote
your statements if you wish - in particular, the fact that I pointed out a
number of times that my statements were *PREDICTIONS*, and *always* asserted as
such.
Now that my predictions are coming true, you aren't willing to bite the bullet,
are you?
>> I pointed out how hypocritical that position was, and how there was *no*
>> downside to such a position.
>
>Does there have to be a downside to pointing things out to you?
Not if you were pointing out something legitimate. But *you* know, and I know,
and any interested lurker knows, THAT I ALWAYS STATED THAT MY ASSERTIONS ABOUT
BUGLIOSI'S BOOK WERE PREDICTIONS.
And now that they're proving to be true... you disappear.
>> I'm merely pointing out now that it's turning out that my prediction is 100%
>> correct, and that there are indeed "omissions, misrepresentations", and yes,
>> even outright lies about the evidence contained in his book.
>>
>> You aren't willing to address that.
>
>Then why keep demanding me to?
Because you were willing to overlook the fact that I always labeled my
predictions as precisely that... as you castigated me.
>> >So you have found
>> >something in Bugliosi's book to complain about? What a surprise. I
>> >hope to pick up my own copy within the next couple of weeks.
>>
>> I've quoted, IN DETAIL, one example... there's *NOTHING* left out that
>> you'd be able to find should you pick up your own copy... yet you've said
>> not a word.
>
>Ah, I have found your thread about Bugliosi's treatment of the Whaley
>incident. I think you have a point regarding the use of the phrase
>"frenzied flight" and characterization of Oswald as looking like a
>wino, but I also think you overstate it a bit.
This is really simple, Mark... did Bugliosi give us *ALL* the evidence... or
not? It's just that simple.
If this is the best defense you can give, then the CT world has nothing to fear
from the likes of you.
You even fail to understand... the "frenzied flight" isn't the issue. The issue
is that Bugliosi omitted evidence, and misrepresented the evidence. Those are,
if you'll recall, two of the three charges I predicted would be laid at his
book.
Nor do I recall saying anything at all about the characterization of Oswald as
looking like a wino... for unlike what other things Bugliosi asserted about the
testimony - THIS IS ABSOLUTELY THE WORDS OF WHALEY. There was nothing to say on
that point, Bugliosi correctly portrayed Whaley's testimony on that point.
>> What a surprise...
>
>Are you just hi-jacking the thread, or are you going to address the
>questions I posed to "brightwinger" above?
Brightwinger has solid points, ones that have been long known about the autopsy.
Feel free to keep trying to impugn them.
I'm far more interested in pointing out to lurkers that you and Toddy - while
perfectly willing to castigate me for my predictions about Bugliosi's book, are
now remaining perfectly silent as those predictions are turning true.
brightwinger
> >> "Why would anyone need to join in when I've been able to KO you on my own?" <<<
>
> You couldn't KO a dead ant when it comes to your idiotic theory about
> JFK's brain.
Ask the fire ants who tried to take up residence next to my home about
KO'ing ants. ;-) Hot water and habeneros tincture = KO'ed. I didn't
use the strong stuff on you, 'cuz it wasn't necessary to put you down
for the count.
And I doubt very seriously that there's even a single
> mega-kook in this place who believes that a group of nutty plotters
> placed the loose brain of JFK back into his head before Humes'
> autopsy. (And these kooks will believe about anything.)*
>
> * = Or do you merely believe Paul O'Connor's story ("No brain in head
> at all")? Which, if true, means that Humes & Co. were all liars and
> they just PRETENDED that the brain was removed at autopsy.
Maybe you're dizzy from the beating you've been taking. The brain was
still there at the start of the autopsy. See Best Evidence for what
happened later.
> Which also
> means (if you're correct about every single "cut" of a brain cord
> being ultra-important on an autopsy report) that Humes & Co. were
> utter fools for not CONTINUING THEIR CHARADE when they failed to say
> they cut these cords in their report. (Pretty stupid of them, huh?)
Humes didn't want to get shot in the head after seeing what it looks
like to get shot in the head. Remember, Humes was a medical doctor,
which means he was no dummy. He added things up pretty darn quickly
and came to a proper conclusion: keep your head down if you know
what's good for you.
>
> So, which is it? ---
>
> 1.) Believe O'Connor's nutty story and also, by necessity, believe
> Humes is "double the fool/cover-upper" for just forgetting to put
> something in the report about "brain snips".
Are you still waging 'war' against your own phantom arguments??
>
> Or:
>
> 2.) Believe that some idiot henchmen removed JFK's brain and then
> decided to put it back into the head before the autopsy. (And, via
> this option, Humes is an honest man...but still fails to say a word
> about the brain just lying loose in the President's skull. Nor does
> anyone else.)
Yup, you are. Maybe some ice on your neck and some ammonia in your
snoot will help.
>
> You're dead either way, Mr. Kook. Neither version makes a lick of
> sense. But keep on a-tryin'. Somebody'll come along and lap up your
> silliness. Some day.
>
> Also (re. #2 option above) ---
>
> Of course, there's no possible TIMEFRAME available for which this team
> of idiots to have accomplished this grisly task prior to Humes, et al,
> opening that casket at Bethesda at approx. 7:35 PM ET on 11/22/63.
Let's see, you got nothing to retort the forensic facts, so you're
looking for the ref to save you with an early bell. As if the clock is
better evidence than the body. As if!
>
> But don't let that little "time" problem bother you. After all, it's
> never made David Lifton flinch for a minute either. He's not sure when
> or how the body was swiped...but by golly he KNOWS it was swiped! So
> you can believe that too...if you wanna remain a Mega-Kook.
>
> >>> "Did you notice that no one came in to defend you..." <<<
>
> So? There's no need. Any sane person knows your theory is loony and
> outlandish to begin with. There's no real need to reinforce that fact.
>
> And I took note of this many people defending your insanity --- Zero.
>
> Nice.
>
> >>> "One of the things that NEVER HAPPENED that we both agree on is that Humes didn't record severing a single attachment." <<<
>
> So what? Who the hell cares?
>
> Show me proof that EVERY AUTOPSY report ever written makes specific
> mention in its written report of the cutting of EVERY single brain-
> holding cord.
Umm, David, this was not an autopsy by a drunken coroner on the town
drunk who froze to death under the viaduct. This was an autopsy on the
President of the United States. But you want me to compare whether
somewhere at some time a pathologist with an early tee time might have
cut corners. That's quite a strong argument you have there. Keep with
it.
>
> I want that proof on my desk, by noon, May 31st. Good luck. (Kook.)
Sure that makes sense. I wanted a pony one Christmas. Yet you think
I'm the kook when you come up with utterdumbshit like that. ROFL!
David Von Pein
oxymoron (or maybe just a moron, period).
And what more proof does one need to support a kook's official
categorization as a SUPER-MEGA-KOOK than the following utterance by
"Brightwinger"?:
"See Best Evidence for what happened later."
The above quote being yet another oxymoron (and a beaut at that) --
i.e., using Lifton's book and "what happened" in the same sentence. A
true contradiction if one ever existed.
The next wonderfully-idiotic retort by Brightwinger-Kook is eagerly
being anticipated by the masses.....
brightwinger
Since you've run out of your mediocre stuff and are now resorting
drivel, you can have the last word. Maybe you could add
"Supercalifragilistic-expialidocious-kook." That ought to impress
everyone. Ta ta.
David Von Pein
Thanks. I think I'll take it this time. And there is no better last
word when ending all conversations with a total idiot than this one:
Kook.
Sam Brown
"Ben Holmes" <bnho...@rain.org> wrote in message
news:f37vq...@drn.newsguy.com...
Much like you did afetr our conversation re: Iraq. Hypocrite
Pot meet kettle. Pathetic. But you wont read this will you Ben? Perhaps your
parasite Healy will bring this to your attention.
>
tomnln
"David Von Pein" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1180145966....@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
eca...@tx.rr.com
Okay, I'll bite..
WHO ( gULp ) "FRAMED" Oz?
MR ;~D
1823May2607 framedoz
muc...@gmail.com
> In article <1180134461.378290.120...@q66g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
> much...@gmail.com says...
>
> >On 25 Maj, 18:06, Ben Holmes <bnhol...@rain.org> wrote:
> >> In article <1180103784.199894.261...@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
> >> much...@gmail.com says...
>
> >> >On 25 Maj, 16:11, Ben Holmes <bnhol...@rain.org> wrote:
> >> >> In article <1180090950.320774.287...@w5g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
> >> >> much...@gmail.com says...
>
> >> >> >On 24 Maj, 07:10, brightwinger <awthraw...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> >> >> Let me get this straight...according to Bugsie, Oswald acted alone.
>
> >> >> >> If that's correct, how exactly did Oswald sever the 17 attachments to
> >> >> >> JFK's brain so that no surgery was required to remove JFK's brain?
>
> >> >> >According to this website...
>
> >> >> >http://pages.prodigy.net/whiskey99/chapter4.htm
>
> >> >> >...Boswell told Josiah Thompson in a 11/1/67 interview that the brain
> >> >> >was "quite easily removed without recourse to surgery." I assume the
> >> >> >quote is correct, and that it's what you refer to above, but could you
> >> >> >provide more context, please? It's been a while since I read "Six
> >> >> >Seconds", and my modest library is inaccessible at the moment.
Ben?
> >> >> >You can't really believe that a pre-autopsy detachment of the brain is
> >> >> >the only possible (or even most likely) interpretation(?) The result
> >> >> >would have been difficult to overlook, and what purpose would it have
> >> >> >served? Is your theory that Boswell was trying to hint at something
> >> >> >sinister, and that Thompson missed the hint?
Ben?
> >> >> >You also seem suspicious of the fact that the procedure for the
> >> >> >removal of the brain isn't documented in the autopsy report. Then I
> >> >> >wonder what you make of the lack of description of how the lungs and
> >> >> >the liver were removed. Were all the internal organs detached prior to
> >> >> >autopsy?
Ben?
> >> >> >-Mark
>
> >> >> I'm surprised that you're still around!
>
> >> >> Now that Bugliosi's book is out, you seem to be strangely silent about
> >> >> it, even though my predictions are beginning to turn out to be 100%
> >> >> accurate.
>
> >> >I don't recall that I promised you anything.
>
> >>No, you didn't. You evaded, ducked, and ran from any statement that you *WOULD*
> >> defend your remarks AFTER Bugliosi's book was published.
>
> >I don't recall having made any claims about the content of RH. Or the
> >accuracy of your "predictions" regarding the content of RH for that
> >matter. Are you referring to my remarks about judging a book before
> >vs. after it is published?
>
> Please don't act the fool and pretend that you don't remember... I can requote
> your statements if you wish - in particular, the fact that I pointed out a
> number of times that my statements were *PREDICTIONS*, and *always* asserted as
> such.
How silly. That was never the question. Your statements had to be
predictive, BECAUSE YOU HADN'T READ THE BOOK YET. The question is what
rational purpose it serves to make uninformed guesses like that.
> Now that my predictions are coming true, you aren't willing to bite the bullet,
> are you?
Please quote me as making any predictions about the accuracy of your
predictions.
> >> I pointed out how hypocritical that position was, and how there was *no*
> >> downside to such a position.
>
> >Does there have to be a downside to pointing things out to you?
>
> Not if you were pointing out something legitimate. But *you* know, and I know,
> and any interested lurker knows, THAT I ALWAYS STATED THAT MY ASSERTIONS ABOUT
> BUGLIOSI'S BOOK WERE PREDICTIONS.
See above.
> And now that they're proving to be true... you disappear.
>
> >> I'm merely pointing out now that it's turning out that my prediction is 100%
> >> correct, and that there are indeed "omissions, misrepresentations", and yes,
> >> even outright lies about the evidence contained in his book.
>
> >> You aren't willing to address that.
>
> >Then why keep demanding me to?
>
> Because you were willing to overlook the fact that I always labeled my
> predictions as precisely that... as you castigated me.
See above.
> >> >So you have found
> >> >something in Bugliosi's book to complain about? What a surprise. I
> >> >hope to pick up my own copy within the next couple of weeks.
>
> >> I've quoted, IN DETAIL, one example... there's *NOTHING* left out that
> >> you'd be able to find should you pick up your own copy... yet you've said
> >> not a word.
>
> >Ah, I have found your thread about Bugliosi's treatment of the Whaley
> >incident. I think you have a point regarding the use of the phrase
> >"frenzied flight" and characterization of Oswald as looking like a
> >wino, but I also think you overstate it a bit.
>
> This is really simple, Mark... did Bugliosi give us *ALL* the evidence... or
> not? It's just that simple.
All the evidence? In a 1600 page book? I'm beginning to understand how
you're able to predict "omissions" with such uncanny precision.
> If this is the best defense you can give, then the CT world has nothing to fear
> from the likes of you.
I can imagine what a relief that must be. On the other hand, if the
Whaley example is your best shot, then perhaps you don't really belong
in the CT world.
> You even fail to understand... the "frenzied flight" isn't the issue. The issue
> is that Bugliosi omitted evidence, and misrepresented the evidence. Those are,
> if you'll recall, two of the three charges I predicted would be laid at his
> book.
Excuse me? You argued that Bugliso had omitted part of Whaley's WC
testimony to be able to set up an argument about Oswald being in a
"frenzied flight" from the scene of the crime. An apparent (but
probably rather insignificant) discrepancy between something argued on
page 959 and something not quoted on page 65...
I think the phrase "frenzied flight" is a bit misleading, and, had
Bugliosi used "state of mind" instead of "flight", your argument would
have collapsed completely (since Whaley didn't claim to be a mind
reader).
> Nor do I recall saying anything at all about the characterization of Oswald as
> looking like a wino... for unlike what other things Bugliosi asserted about the
> testimony - THIS IS ABSOLUTELY THE WORDS OF WHALEY. There was nothing to say on
> that point, Bugliosi correctly portrayed Whaley's testimony on that point.
Is it too late in life for you to learn how to read? You complained
about Bugliosi using that characterization of Oswald without stating
what it was about his appearance that gave Whaley that impression of
him. You actually had a point there.
> >> What a surprise...
>
> >Are you just hi-jacking the thread, or are you going to address the
> >questions I posed to "brightwinger" above?
>
> Brightwinger has solid points, ones that have been long known about the autopsy.
So "solid" that neither of you want to defend them? Does this also
mean that *I* am allowed to respond to *your* questions with a
"Bugliosi has solid points, ones that have been long known about the
assassination" from now on?
> Feel free to keep trying to impugn them.
But you'll continue to dodge my questions? Chicken. Gutless coward.
> I'm far more interested in pointing out to lurkers that you and Toddy - while
> perfectly willing to castigate me for my predictions about Bugliosi's book, are
> now remaining perfectly silent as those predictions are turning true.
OK, Ben. Should you ever decide to write a book about the JFK case, I
promise to make some predictions about it. Will that do?
eca...@tx.rr.com
of *objectivity* on the description of the man seen
in the window doing the shooting.. Both the
outermost extreme end of the age range along with
the extreme end of heights and weights were
intentionally selected by you.
It was intentional deception by a kook albeit a
brain damaged kook, in a pathetic attempt to sway
the facts of the description that was actually
given.. No "ranges" for lovable nut Walt.. Never
mind that's what the descriptions were.. Not for
Walt and his second grader attempts to deceive and
intentionally omit the "range" part to such a
blatant extent that in my view at least, it became
a series of lies.. Nobody can booGGer things up
across the board on 3 different fronts.. Each time
omitting the outer edge of the range estimates that
were closer to Oswald and instead consistently and
intentionally going with the range end furthest
from Oswald..
Pathetic.. And you hoped nobody would ever notice..
Well somebody did notice Walt and your credibility
(har-har) has been even more damaged as a result.
Ed
0549May2707
aresult
On May 24, 8:22 pm, Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote:
> On 24 May, 18:12, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > Note how "winger" is flying alone re. his "Brain placed back in head
> > hoping Humes, etc., wouldn't notice or would cover up stuff" theory.
>
> > I've yet to hear a single other person claim the same goofball theory.
> > Not one. Not even Groden.
>
> > Why do you enjoy being a kook so much, i.e., a person who believes
> > some crazy shit that obviously never happened?
>
> > (Just curious.)
>
> Hey Pea Brain,that's the same old worn out rebuttal you use every time
> I post the DESCRIPTION of the sixth floor shooter.
>
> I'm sure you remember the description, but I'll remind you anyway. The
> gunman that was about seven years older, and 35 pounds heavier, than
> Lee Oswald. The gunman who was dressed in light color clothing while
> Lee was dressed in dark colored clothing.
>
> Walt
Ben Holmes
muc...@gmail.com says...
>
>On 26 Maj, 02:42, Ben Holmes <bnhol...@rain.org> wrote:
>> In article <1180134461.378290.120...@q66g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
>> much...@gmail.com says...
>>
>> >On 25 Maj, 18:06, Ben Holmes <bnhol...@rain.org> wrote:
>> >> In article <1180103784.199894.261...@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
>> >> much...@gmail.com says...
>>
>> >> >On 25 Maj, 16:11, Ben Holmes <bnhol...@rain.org> wrote:
>> >> >> In article <1180090950.320774.287...@w5g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
>> >> >> much...@gmail.com says...
>>
>> >> >> >On 24 Maj, 07:10, brightwinger <awthraw...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >> >> >> Let me get this straight...according to Bugsie, Oswald acted alone.
>>
>>>> >> >> If that's correct, how exactly did Oswald sever the 17 attachments to
>> >> >> >> JFK's brain so that no surgery was required to remove JFK's brain?
>>
>> >> >> >According to this website...
>>
>> >> >> >http://pages.prodigy.net/whiskey99/chapter4.htm
>>
>> >> >> >...Boswell told Josiah Thompson in a 11/1/67 interview that the brain
>> >> >> >was "quite easily removed without recourse to surgery." I assume the
>> >> >> >quote is correct, and that it's what you refer to above, but could you
>> >> >> >provide more context, please? It's been a while since I read "Six
>> >> >> >Seconds", and my modest library is inaccessible at the moment.
>
>Ben?
Rather illiterate, aren't you? I was quite precise when I stated:
"Brightwinger has solid points, ones that have been long known about the
autopsy. ... I'm far more interested in pointing out to lurkers that you and
Toddy - while perfectly willing to castigate me for my predictions about
Bugliosi's book, are now remaining perfectly silent as those predictions are
turning true."
What part of that statement did you fail to understand?
>> >> >> >You can't really believe that a pre-autopsy detachment of the brain is
>> >> >> >the only possible (or even most likely) interpretation(?) The result
>> >> >> >would have been difficult to overlook, and what purpose would it have
>> >> >> >served? Is your theory that Boswell was trying to hint at something
>> >> >> >sinister, and that Thompson missed the hint?
>
>Ben?
Answered above.
>> >> >> >You also seem suspicious of the fact that the procedure for the
>> >> >> >removal of the brain isn't documented in the autopsy report. Then I
>> >> >> >wonder what you make of the lack of description of how the lungs and
>> >> >> >the liver were removed. Were all the internal organs detached prior to
>> >> >> >autopsy?
>
>Ben?
Answered above...
>> >> >> >-Mark
>>
>> >> >> I'm surprised that you're still around!
>>
>> >> >> Now that Bugliosi's book is out, you seem to be strangely silent about
>> >> >> it, even though my predictions are beginning to turn out to be 100%
>> >> >> accurate.
>>
>> >> >I don't recall that I promised you anything.
>>
>>>>No, you didn't. You evaded, ducked, and ran from any statement that you
>>*WOULD*
>> >> defend your remarks AFTER Bugliosi's book was published.
>>
>> >I don't recall having made any claims about the content of RH. Or the
>> >accuracy of your "predictions" regarding the content of RH for that
>> >matter. Are you referring to my remarks about judging a book before
>> >vs. after it is published?
>>
>> Please don't act the fool and pretend that you don't remember... I can
>> requote your statements if you wish - in particular, the fact that I
>> pointed out a number of times that my statements were *PREDICTIONS*,
>> and *always* asserted as such.
>
>How silly. That was never the question. Your statements had to be
>predictive, BECAUSE YOU HADN'T READ THE BOOK YET. The question is what
>rational purpose it serves to make uninformed guesses like that.
They *weren't* uninformed. They've proven to be accurate, as well. You're now
too embarrassed to try to defend Bugliosi's errors.
>> Now that my predictions are coming true, you aren't willing to bite the
>> bullet, are you?
>
>Please quote me as making any predictions about the accuracy of your
>predictions.
You certainly criticized my predictions *BEFORE* the book was published... now
you don't even have the honesty to admit that my predictions were correct.
In fact, let's reread your first critism: "Have you read the book? You're seem
to be making comments about the honesty or dishonesty of the author."
You clearly failed to understand the term "prediction" when you made that
statement.
>> >> I pointed out how hypocritical that position was, and how there was *no*
>> >> downside to such a position.
>>
>> >Does there have to be a downside to pointing things out to you?
>>
>> Not if you were pointing out something legitimate. But *you* know, and
>> I know, and any interested lurker knows, THAT I ALWAYS STATED THAT MY
>> ASSERTIONS ABOUT BUGLIOSI'S BOOK WERE PREDICTIONS.
>
>See above.
"Have you read the book? You're seem to be making comments about the honesty or
dishonesty of the author."
Your own words demonstrate that you can't tell the difference between a
prediction, and an unwarranted attack on a book not yet read.
>> And now that they're proving to be true... you disappear.
>>
>> >> I'm merely pointing out now that it's turning out that my prediction
>> >> is 100% correct, and that there are indeed "omissions,
>> >> misrepresentations", and yes, even outright lies about the evidence
>> >> contained in his book.
>>
>> >> You aren't willing to address that.
>>
>> >Then why keep demanding me to?
>>
>> Because you were willing to overlook the fact that I always labeled my
>> predictions as precisely that... as you castigated me.
>
>See above.
"Have you read the book? You're seem to be making comments about the honesty or
dishonesty of the author."
Tell us Mark... when does a "prediction" require prior knowledge? You *do*
understand, do you not, that a "prediction" PRESUMES that you've not read the
book?
>> >> >So you have found
>> >> >something in Bugliosi's book to complain about? What a surprise. I
>> >> >hope to pick up my own copy within the next couple of weeks.
>>
>> >> I've quoted, IN DETAIL, one example... there's *NOTHING* left out that
>> >> you'd be able to find should you pick up your own copy... yet you've said
>> >> not a word.
>>
>> >Ah, I have found your thread about Bugliosi's treatment of the Whaley
>> >incident. I think you have a point regarding the use of the phrase
>> >"frenzied flight" and characterization of Oswald as looking like a
>> >wino, but I also think you overstate it a bit.
>>
>> This is really simple, Mark... did Bugliosi give us *ALL* the evidence... or
>> not? It's just that simple.
>
>All the evidence? In a 1600 page book? I'm beginning to understand how
>you're able to predict "omissions" with such uncanny precision.
Trying to be stupid, and succeeding wonderfully, Mark.
When a particular *topic* is brought up, I expect to see the evidence. Or at
least a citation to the evidence. Bugliosi *FAILED* on both parts. Bugliosi
simply omitted and misrepresented what the evidence stated.
You refuse to *SPECIFICALLY* address it... which is normal for LNT'ers... for
when you get *SPECIFC*, you lose.
>> If this is the best defense you can give, then the CT world has nothing
>> to fear from the likes of you.
>
>I can imagine what a relief that must be. On the other hand, if the
>Whaley example is your best shot, then perhaps you don't really belong
>in the CT world.
How silly! I've not even gone though the whole book yet. As well, many
examples would simply be beyond you, as they presume a *detailed* knowledge of
the evidence.
I provided a *simple* one, that any lurker can look up on the Internet in
moments.
And if you assert that I "don't belong in the CT world", then perhaps you'd like
to try your hand at the 45 Questions post.
But I won't hold my breath.
>> You even fail to understand... the "frenzied flight" isn't the issue.
>> The issue is that Bugliosi omitted evidence, and misrepresented the
>> evidence. Those are, if you'll recall, two of the three charges I
>> predicted would be laid at his book.
>
>Excuse me? You argued that Bugliso had omitted part of Whaley's WC
>testimony to be able to set up an argument about Oswald being in a
>"frenzied flight" from the scene of the crime. An apparent (but
>probably rather insignificant) discrepancy between something argued on
>page 959 and something not quoted on page 65...
You *still* don't get it!!
I could care less what words an author uses to describe a situation - I AM
concerned about the evidence he cites, or fails to cite, to support their
proposed scenario.
You keep your eyes focused on the scenario - and keep running away from the
evidence.
But this is what *all* LNT'ers do, so I suppose you really can't help it.
>I think the phrase "frenzied flight" is a bit misleading, and, had
>Bugliosi used "state of mind" instead of "flight", your argument would
>have collapsed completely (since Whaley didn't claim to be a mind
>reader).
My "argument" doesn't depend on *HOW* Bugliosi described the scenario - only
that the evidence *DOESN'T SUPPORT IT*. And Bugliosi omitted the evidence that
destroys his theory, and misrepresents some of the evidence he *does* give.
>> Nor do I recall saying anything at all about the characterization of
>> Oswald as looking like a wino... for unlike what other things Bugliosi
>> asserted about the testimony - THIS IS ABSOLUTELY THE WORDS OF WHALEY.
>> There was nothing to say on that point, Bugliosi correctly portrayed
>> Whaley's testimony on that point.
>
>Is it too late in life for you to learn how to read? You complained
>about Bugliosi using that characterization of Oswald without stating
>what it was about his appearance that gave Whaley that impression of
>him. You actually had a point there.
Illiteracy simply drives you crazy, doesn't it? The characterization of Oswald
as appearing like a "wino" is absolutely correct... but Bugliosi OMITTED THE
TESTIMONY THAT PROVIDED THE BACKGROUND FOR THAT STATEMENT.
You did notice the term "omitted", didn't you?
Omission, misrepresentation, and probable outright lies... that was the
prediction.
Your inability to admit that my prediction is correct demonstrates your
character better than anything I could assert.
>> >> What a surprise...
>>
>> >Are you just hi-jacking the thread, or are you going to address the
>> >questions I posed to "brightwinger" above?
>>
>> Brightwinger has solid points, ones that have been long known about the
>> autopsy.
>
>So "solid" that neither of you want to defend them? Does this also
>mean that *I* am allowed to respond to *your* questions with a
>"Bugliosi has solid points, ones that have been long known about the
>assassination" from now on?
How silly! I jumped into this thread *BECAUSE YOU WERE HERE*.
Just to point out how cowardly you've been running from my post that is a
beginning demonstration of "omissions, misrepresentations, and probable outright
lies".
You enjoyed criticizing my prediction BEFORE the publishing of Bugliosi's tome,
now you can't defend him, or admit that my prediction was correct.
How embarrassing!
>> Feel free to keep trying to impugn them.
>
>But you'll continue to dodge my questions? Chicken. Gutless coward.
You apparently feel that such is a one-way street. You feel that you can duck
and run away, yet demand that I defend a post that I agree with.
My preference is for topics that don't have so much leeway. Such as the 6.5mm
virtually round object. Or the entry wound in JFK's neck. Or the fake BOH
photos.
None of which I predict you'll debate me.
>> I'm far more interested in pointing out to lurkers that you and Toddy -
>> while perfectly willing to castigate me for my predictions about Bugliosi's
>> book, are now remaining perfectly silent as those predictions are turning
>> true.
>
>OK, Ben. Should you ever decide to write a book about the JFK case, I
>promise to make some predictions about it. Will that do?
Certainly... you're always welcome to make any prediction you wish. Should I
criticize you for them, *I WILL DEFEND MY CRITICISMS AFTER THE BOOK IS ACTUALLY
PUBLISHED*.
You see, unlike you, I believe one should stand behind what one says.
brightwinger
Humes testified at the HAC, "It was great - it was a tearing type of
disruption that basically [you] had to go back to our description. The
corpus callosum was TORN, was it not Jay? [refering to J. Thorton
Boswell, who was also present]. And the midbrain was VIRTUALLY TORN
FROM THE PONS." [CAPS ADDED]
Please inform the curious reader how it was that JFK showed up
breathing audibly (agonally) at Parkland with his brain torn in those
two places, with the midbrain virtually torn from the pons?
muc...@gmail.com
> In article <1180261511.369035.189...@h2g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
> much...@gmail.com says...
OK. Will get back to you when you've made the announcement.
muc...@gmail.com
But Humes' reference to aspects of the brain injury doesn't really
support your claim that the brain was deattached in 17 different
places, does it?
> Please inform the curious reader how it was that JFK showed up
> breathing audibly (agonally) at Parkland with his brain torn in those
> two places, with the midbrain virtually torn from the pons?
The curious reader will have to ask an expert. As a layman, I would
almost expect an abnormal breathing pattern in patients that are dying
as a result of massive brain damage.
Ben Holmes
muc...@gmail.com says...
Good to see that you're unwilling to defend Bugliosi.
I've posted just two examples so far, but there will be more to come.