Latest From Tink Thompson

[John McAdams]

http://jfkfacts.org/assassination/experts/josiah-thompsons/

Tink says that, in virtually every murder case, we quickly know what
happened and who did it.

But, he says, the JFK assassination is an exception.

Of course, I don't think it's an exception. I think it was figured
out when Oswald arrived under arrest at Dallas Police headquarters,
and it was noticed that he was the employee reported missing from the
TSBD.

The problem is that a huge number of peopls simply won't accept that
solution.

.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

[David Von Pein]

Absolutely, John.

When Captain Fritz told the press on November 23 that the case against
Oswald was "cinched", he was 100% correct.

Now, it was probably unwise of Fritz to make that statement on Sat.,
11/23 when Oswald was still alive and would be going on trial soon for
Kennedy's murder, but Fritz had it right nonetheless. And that case is
still "cinched" against Oswald 50 years later. It hasn't unraveled at
all. The case against Oswald isn't in shreds, as many CTers would like
the world to believe.

Every piece of evidence against Lee Oswald for the 2 murders he
committed 50 years ago is still there on the table and proving to the
world who it was who killed JFK and J.D. Tippit in '63. And not a
single piece of that evidence has been proven to be fake or planted or
tampered with. Not a single piece. There might be a weak "chain" of
custody for some of the evidence, but the vast sum total of ALL of the
evidence certainly indicates that NONE of it was planted or phony.

I ask -- Why would there be any NEED to plant and/or fake ANY evidence
when ALL of the evidence points to the same man (Oswald)--even the
evidence that CTers can agree is legitimate?*

* Or am I making the mistake of assuming that a conspiracy theorist
will admit that ANY of the evidence against Oswald is actually
"legitimate"? Or is that too much to hope for here in 2013, to expect
an Internet CTer to actually admit that even ONE piece of evidence in
the JFK & Tippit cases has not been faked or manufactured?

Well, I can always dream about the day when Internet conspiracists
become reasonable....can't I? :-)

[David Von Pein]

GARY MACK SAID:

Dave, when Fritz made that ["cinched"] comment Saturday afternoon,
Oswald had already been charged with killing Kennedy. Oswald would
not have been charged if the DPD did not have evidence to convict him,
so Fritz' comment didn't jeopardize the case at all.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Well, yes Gary, I know that Oswald had already been charged with JFK's
murder late on Friday night, but do you REALLY think it was a good
idea for the homicide captain to announce to the potential jury pool
on live TV that the case against the defendant is "cinched"? Probably
not a good idea (in hindsight). Would YOU have done that on live TV?

Even Jesse Curry, who was in the DPD hallways giving press conferences
every time you turned around, didn't put such a definitive stamp (such
as "cinched") on the case he knew was building up against Oswald.
However, Curry did say on Nov. 23 that he thought Oswald was guilty
--- "I think this is the man that killed the President." (J.E. Curry)

http://dvp-video-audio-archive.blogspot.com/2012/03/interviews-with-jesse-curry.html

David V.P.

[tray...@gmail.com]

The HSCA released a report to a global audience asserting there were 2
people shooting at JFK 22 Nov 1963. it reviewed the work of the WC and
found it to be not credible.

To not accept the HSCA report indicates a lack of faith in the US
government.

Proof that a shooter from the TSBD could clear the SS follow-up car's
windshield, its hood & front fenders plus the guards standing on the
running boards has never been accurately established by federal
investigators or any of the TV re-enactment documentaries. All one has to
do is stand or sit on a box at the headshot X on Elm Street in Dallas with
a slightly taller person positioned a few feet behind them (closer to the
TSBD) to see the problem: the taller person blocks the smaller person's
view from the sniper's window.

Until an honest and accurate re-enactment is scientifically performed
using scaled replica vehicles with actor stand-ins the public is not going
to ever accept one person committed this crime.

Based on what the HSCA told the public, a more plausible explanation of
the crime is the forward shooter (knoll fence) went for JFK while the rear
shooter (TSBD sniper's nest window)was supposed to take out JFK. Something
went wrong and the rear shooter joined the knoll shooter.

You can tell kids until you are blue in the face that Santa brought the
gifts or the tooth fairy brought the change but when they hear you
unloading the goods from the attic or feel you hand under the pillow they
know what your game is.

I would hope to see the DPD & Hoover groupies give it up and join the
global audience in looking at this as a crime that involved multiple
persons, one of which may have been Oswald and get on with life while
there's still some of left to enjoy.

Just sayin'

[Anthony Marsh]

On 5/25/2013 4:51 PM, David Von Pein wrote:
> On May 25, 11:01 am, John McAdams <john.mcad...@marquette.edu> wrote:
>> http://jfkfacts.org/assassination/experts/josiah-thompsons/
>>
>> Tink says that, in virtually every murder case, we quickly know what
>> happened and who did it.
>>
>> But, he says, the JFK assassination is an exception.
>>
>> Of course, I don't think it's an exception. I think it was figured
>> out when Oswald arrived under arrest at Dallas Police headquarters,
>> and it was noticed that he was the employee reported missing from the
>> TSBD.
>>
>> The problem is that a huge number of peopls simply won't accept that
>> solution.
>>
>> .John
>> --------------http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
>
> Absolutely, John.
>
> When Captain Fritz told the press on November 23 that the case against
> Oswald was "cinched", he was 100% correct.
>

And when Curry said maybe one of the shots came from the grassy knoll,
you WC defender won't accept that. When Curry admitted that they
couldn't put Oswald in that window with a rifle, you guys couldn't
accept that.

> Now, it was probably unwise of Fritz to make that statement on Sat.,
> 11/23 when Oswald was still alive and would be going on trial soon for
> Kennedy's murder, but Fritz had it right nonetheless. And that case is
> still "cinched" against Oswald 50 years later. It hasn't unraveled at
> all. The case against Oswald isn't in shreds, as many CTers would like
> the world to believe.
>
> Every piece of evidence against Lee Oswald for the 2 murders he
> committed 50 years ago is still there on the table and proving to the
> world who it was who killed JFK and J.D. Tippit in '63. And not a
> single piece of that evidence has been proven to be fake or planted or

Simply not true.
Where is the chrome topping now. Where is JFK's brain now?
No answers? How telling.

> tampered with. Not a single piece. There might be a weak "chain" of
> custody for some of the evidence, but the vast sum total of ALL of the
> evidence certainly indicates that NONE of it was planted or phony.
>
> I ask -- Why would there be any NEED to plant and/or fake ANY evidence
> when ALL of the evidence points to the same man (Oswald)--even the
> evidence that CTers can agree is legitimate?*
>

Maybe because the evidence didn't say what they wanted it to say.

> * Or am I making the mistake of assuming that a conspiracy theorist
> will admit that ANY of the evidence against Oswald is actually
> "legitimate"? Or is that too much to hope for here in 2013, to expect

Maybe you haven't noticed that I have always said that almost all the
evidence is actually legitimate. Maybe you didn't notice that I was the
one who proved that the Zapruder film is authentic. Or maybe you just
like to smear all conspiracy believers because you can't debate the
facts. Just Poison the Well and kill your opponent before he can make it
up to the rostrum.

> an Internet CTer to actually admit that even ONE piece of evidence in
> the JFK & Tippit cases has not been faked or manufactured?
>

Phony argument as usual.

> Well, I can always dream about the day when Internet conspiracists
> become reasonable....can't I? :-)
>

That's not what you want. You want everyone to surrender and agree to
your fiction. Ain't gonna happen.

[John McAdams]

On 25 May 2013 21:38:44 -0400, Anthony Marsh

<anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:

>On 5/25/2013 4:51 PM, David Von Pein wrote:
>> On May 25, 11:01 am, John McAdams <john.mcad...@marquette.edu> wrote:
>>> http://jfkfacts.org/assassination/experts/josiah-thompsons/
>>>
>

>And when Curry said maybe one of the shots came from the grassy knoll,
>you WC defender won't accept that.

Why should anybody accept that?

He wasn't a witness. He was giving an opinion, apparently based on
the experience of Bobby Hargis.

>When Curry admitted that they
>couldn't put Oswald in that window with a rifle, you guys couldn't
>accept that.
>

Again, that's just Curry's opinion. Just because he was police chief,
that doesn't mean he's right about everything.

>
>Simply not true.
>Where is the chrome topping now.

In the National Aarchives.

>Where is JFK's brain now?

Bobby got it, but nobody knows for sure what he did with it.


>No answers? How telling.
>

How telling that you don't *know* the answers.

.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

[mainframetech]

You can say the sky is bright brown, and someone will believe you. But
when over 40 people see the large hole in the back of the head of JFK, and
some see the small entry wound in the right temple/forehead in the
hairline, then they know what happened. A bullet came from the front and
through the head and exploded out the back. The evidence and testimony
released through the ARRB was a godsend and has opened up much truth that
was being hidden in the past. It's a new ball game now, and interest has
not gone away.

Chris

[John Canal]

In article <26c7dad6-8fa7-43a7...@q8g2000vbl.googlegroups.com>,
mainframetech says...
>
>On May 25, 4:51=A0pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:

>> On May 25, 11:01=A0am, John McAdams <john.mcad...@marquette.edu> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >http://jfkfacts.org/assassination/experts/josiah-thompsons/
>>
>> > Tink says that, in virtually every murder case, we quickly know what
>> > happened and who did it.
>>
>> > But, he says, the JFK assassination is an exception.
>>

>> > Of course, I don't think it's an exception. =A0I think it was figured

There certainly was a hole in the BOH with a small entry wound along its
lower margin.

The question is how big was the hole above the entry? From what I've read,
ut of all the PH docs, Grossman and Kemp Clark had the best look and Clark
said the wound there was about the size of a quarter.

You do realize that none of them washed the gore off the BOH (to see
exactly how large it was) and then measured it, right?

>and
>some see the small entry wound in the right temple/forehead in the
>hairline, then they know what happened.

Gee move your temple entry over a few inches and Bingo, you've got Marsh's
entry.

In any case, did any of the autopsists see such an entry in his temple?

Of course not.

Did the autopsists report seeing a pathway through the brain consistent
with a bullet entering in his temple and exiting the BOH?

Of course not.

So were the autopsists actually just janitors or in on a huge cover-up?

Do you understand how wacky your wacky theory really is?

>A bullet came from the front and
>through the head and exploded out the back.

In your dreams and very wild imagination.

>The evidence and testimony
>released through the ARRB was a godsend and has opened up much truth that
>was being hidden in the past.

Yes, the ARRB helped answer a ot of questions.

>It's a new ball game now,

I'm sure you think it is.

>and interest has
>not gone away.

A lot of it has because reasonable individuals are tired of reading about
so many different wacky theories (speaking of which where the heck did
your bullet go after it supposedly blew out his BOH....huh?)...that assume
the medical and other evidence was fabricated.

Oh, let me take a stab at your answer to that question (if you've evn
bothered with an explanation for the lack of lead found behind JFK)....the
consirators confiscated the bullet that supposedly exited his BOH and
placed large fragments in the front of the limo....is that close?

Good grief!


--
John Canal
jca...@webtv.net

[Anthony Marsh]

40 people did not see a large hole in the back of the head of JFK.
No one saw a small entry hole in the right temple. The forehead is not
the temple.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 5/25/2013 9:43 PM, John McAdams wrote:
> On 25 May 2013 21:38:44 -0400, Anthony Marsh
> <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> On 5/25/2013 4:51 PM, David Von Pein wrote:
>>> On May 25, 11:01 am, John McAdams <john.mcad...@marquette.edu> wrote:
>>>> http://jfkfacts.org/assassination/experts/josiah-thompsons/
>>>>
>>
>> And when Curry said maybe one of the shots came from the grassy knoll,
>> you WC defender won't accept that.
>
> Why should anybody accept that?
>
> He wasn't a witness. He was giving an opinion, apparently based on
> the experience of Bobby Hargis.
>

You don't know that for sure. Maybe he got it from all the witnesses who
said the shots came from the grassy knoll. Or maybe he got it from a
conspiracy author.

>
>
>> When Curry admitted that they
>> couldn't put Oswald in that window with a rifle, you guys couldn't
>> accept that.
>>
>
> Again, that's just Curry's opinion. Just because he was police chief,
> that doesn't mean he's right about everything.
>

Exactly. That's my point. Same for Wade. Just because someone in
authority says something does not make it true. Did you think it was
true when Nixon said he wasn't a crook? Did you believe Bush when he
said that Saddam Hussein has nuclear weapons?
I know you want to always believe the government, but when the
government says it was a conspiracy you cling to your non-conspiracy.

>>
>> Simply not true.
>> Where is the chrome topping now.
>
> In the National Aarchives.
>

Not true. It was destroyed during the Quick Fix.

>
>> Where is JFK's brain now?
>
> Bobby got it, but nobody knows for sure what he did with it.
>

You can't prove it was ever in RFK's hands.
And you don't call that tampering with evidence. Oh, I know, you don't
consider the brain of someone killed by a shot to the head to be evidence.
But you do consider pubic hairs evidence.
But it's ok with you when the National Archives loses or throws away
evidence in the crime of the century.

>
>> No answers? How telling.
>>
>
> How telling that you don't *know* the answers.
>

How telling that you guessed and you guessed wrong.

> .John
> --------------
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
>

[Anthony Marsh]

On 5/25/2013 9:36 PM, tray...@gmail.com wrote:
> The HSCA released a report to a global audience asserting there were 2
> people shooting at JFK 22 Nov 1963. it reviewed the work of the WC and
> found it to be not credible.
>
> To not accept the HSCA report indicates a lack of faith in the US
> government.
>
> Proof that a shooter from the TSBD could clear the SS follow-up car's
> windshield, its hood & front fenders plus the guards standing on the
> running boards has never been accurately established by federal
> investigators or any of the TV re-enactment documentaries. All one has to
> do is stand or sit on a box at the headshot X on Elm Street in Dallas with
> a slightly taller person positioned a few feet behind them (closer to the
> TSBD) to see the problem: the taller person blocks the smaller person's
> view from the sniper's window.
>

Oh, no, not you again. We went through this on the other board. I showed
you that the angle was at least 11 degrees to the right of the midline of
the limo and drew a line showing that it would miss the SS car. Why do you
make up silly theories? If you believe the HSCA they proved that the shot
that hit Kennedy's back was fired from the sniper's nest. BTW, the X is in
the wrong place.

> Until an honest and accurate re-enactment is scientifically performed
> using scaled replica vehicles with actor stand-ins the public is not going
> to ever accept one person committed this crime.
>

You mean you don't have your own limo replica and replica Dealey Plaza?

> Based on what the HSCA told the public, a more plausible explanation of
> the crime is the forward shooter (knoll fence) went for JFK while the rear
> shooter (TSBD sniper's nest window)was supposed to take out JFK. Something
> went wrong and the rear shooter joined the knoll shooter.
>

Obviously you never bothered to read the HSCA. The grassy knoll shooter
waited until the last second to fire.

> You can tell kids until you are blue in the face that Santa brought the
> gifts or the tooth fairy brought the change but when they hear you
> unloading the goods from the attic or feel you hand under the pillow they
> know what your game is.
>
> I would hope to see the DPD & Hoover groupies give it up and join the
> global audience in looking at this as a crime that involved multiple
> persons, one of which may have been Oswald and get on with life while
> there's still some of left to enjoy.
>

Hoover said three shots, three hits, no misses, no damn stinkin SBT.

> Just sayin'
>
>

[David Von Pein]

MAINFRAME SAID:

...and some see the small entry wound in the right temple/forehead in
the hairline...


DVP SAYS:

Name just ONE witness who said they saw a small entry wound in the
"right temple/forehead".

Good luck. Because I don't think you're going to be able find even one
such witness.

[David Von Pein]

ANTHONY MARSH SAID:

I have always said that almost all the evidence is actually
legitimate.

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

"Almost" all of it, but not quite all of it. Right, Tony?

Bud's 2006 observations need to be repeated here (after Tony's
"almost" remark):

"When kooks look at the evidence, anything involving Oz's
culpability is "almost, but not quite". He can almost make this shot,
but not quite. He can almost make it downstairs from the 6th floor in
time to encounter Baker, but not quite. He can almost make it to 10th
& Patton from the boardinghouse in time to shoot Tippit, but not
quite. So close, but yet so far, as kooks judge things." -- Bud; June
18, 2006

Please tell me, Tony, why there would have been a need to fake or
plant ANY evidence in the JFK and Tippit murder cases if, in fact,
"almost all the evidence is actually legitimate"?

If "almost all" of that stuff is real and legit, then Oswald's guilty--
plain as day. You surely can't deny that type of logic, can you
Anthony? So why gild the lily and start planting evidence against an
ALREADY OBVIOUSLY GUILTY MURDERER? That's just stupid.

Think: "O.J. case". It makes no sense to start planting evidence to
frame a GUILTY man in that murder case either. But Johnnie Cochran's
defense team actually argued that theory in front of the jury.

But if the LAPD cops really thought Simpson WAS guilty (as Cochran
said), then those cops must have had SOME good reason to believe he
was guilty PRIOR to going around and planting still MORE evidence to
frame the guilty party, right? Or are we supposed to believe that the
LAPD thought O.J. was guilty based on NO EVIDENCE at all? Silly.

Same with Lee Oswald. What made Jesse Curry and Will Fritz tell the
live television audience on 11/23/63 that Oswald was guilty and "this
case is cinched"? Did Curry and Fritz base their opinions on "almost
all the evidence [that] is actually legitimate"? Or was it being based
on lies and planted evidence only?

Inquiring minds would like to know.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 5/25/2013 9:27 PM, David Von Pein wrote:
>
> GARY MACK SAID:
>
> Dave, when Fritz made that ["cinched"] comment Saturday afternoon,
> Oswald had already been charged with killing Kennedy. Oswald would
> not have been charged if the DPD did not have evidence to convict him,
> so Fritz' comment didn't jeopardize the case at all.
>

Nonsense. I guess you think that when someone is charged that means that
he must be guilty.
Ever hear of the Innocence Project?

>
> DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
>
> Well, yes Gary, I know that Oswald had already been charged with JFK's
> murder late on Friday night, but do you REALLY think it was a good
> idea for the homicide captain to announce to the potential jury pool
> on live TV that the case against the defendant is "cinched"? Probably
> not a good idea (in hindsight). Would YOU have done that on live TV?
>

This discussion is not about Fritz's indiscretion,
it is about whether we MUST believe something only because an authority
figure says it.

[Robert Harris]

John McAdams wrote:
>
> http://jfkfacts.org/assassination/experts/josiah-thompsons/
>
> Tink says that, in virtually every murder case, we quickly know what
> happened and who did it.
>
> But, he says, the JFK assassination is an exception.
>
> Of course, I don't think it's an exception.

You are correct but not in the way you claim. A simple analysis of the
reactions in the Zapruder film by people who were closest to JFK would
have settled this immediately.

The Zapruder film was indeed, silent but the people we see in the film,
heard the shots. They told us when audible shots were fired and they
told us how loud they were. Their reactions and nonreactions to those
shots matched fully corroborated what they said.

NO ONE was startled prior to frame 285 and only one of those early shots
was even noticed by most witnesses. Of the two early shots, the one
circa 160 was audible, though not loud enough to startle anyone. It was
heard by Mrs. Kennedy, who turned to her right then and others, who
reacted similarly. She described it as no different than other noises
she had heard that day.

The next shot at 223 was virtually silent and heard by no one, including
Gov. Connally, who was hit then. That's why almost no one heard more
than a single shot prior to the very end of the attack.

The ones at 285 and 313 were typically loud and provoked exactly the
kind of reactions we should expect from high powered rifle shots.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7GH5pGQy6yI

The shots that were fired at the President did not all come from the
same weapon, John.






Robert Harris

[Robert Harris]

I think one of the primary reasons that DPD chief Curry always believed
this was a conspiracy, was that the DPD was convinced that Oswald was an
informant for the FBI. Curry told reporters that Oswald met with the FBI
on 11/16/63 - the Saturday prior to the assassination.

It was just after midnight that night that FBI security clerk, William
Walter said he saw a teletype come in, stating that an informant had
warned of an assassination attempt on 11/22/63. He also saw an informant
file on Oswald, which disappeared after the assassination.

There is a LOT of other evidence which confirms that fact, from people
like Oresta Pena, who was a confirmed FBI informant and Oswald's friend,
Adrian Alba. That was also verified by John Elrod, who overheard Oswald
giving the feds information about a weapons heist and Jack Ruby's
involvement in it.

Obviously, his warning about the upcoming assassination was not taken
seriously, but Oswald may have been acting undercover or what he
perceived to be undercover on 11/22. As I pointed out in one of my
videos, he may have fired the shot at 285, which passing about 15 feet
above the limo, would have struck the concrete surrounding the south
storm drain where officer J.W. Foster testified that he saw a bullet
strike. If so, that bullet could have broken apart and caused James
Tague's tiny wound and a chunk of lead to smear on the Main St. curbing.

Passing high above the limo, that would have been a warning shot, trying
to get the driver to hightail it out of there. Of course, what it
actually did was startle Greer and cause him to slow the limo.

After the assassination, Oswald went home, grabbed a pistol and headed
straight for Ruby's apartment. His attempt to be a hero had failed in
Dealey Plaza and would fail again when he went after Ruby.

The other, less probable IMO, alternative is that Oswald just went to
the dark side and let Ferrie talk him into really taking part in the
shooting.

But either way, he did not act alone.




Robert Harris

[mainframetech]

I'm sure we could find 40 people somewhere that didn't see the
large hole in the BOH of JFK, but of curse, the 40 I spoke of did and
they corroborate each other so that you can't try the 'liar' gambit.

Some people stated clearly they saw the small wound in the temple/
forehead. Clint Hill, Tom Robinson and Dennis David:
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=708&relPageId=4

I think if I said that publicly I would be terribly embarrassed
when the testimony (under oath) appeared from these people who
corroborate each other's statements. It can only be foolishness or
religious faith in the WC that would bring that on.

Chris

Chris

[mainframetech]

On May 26, 2:14 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:

I apologize for my previous post. I said that Clint Hill saw the
small entry wound in the right temple/forehead, but that was
incorrect, he saw the large wound at the BOH. It was Dr. Charles
Crenshaw that saw the small temple/forehead entry wound.

Chris

[Anthony Marsh]

On 5/26/2013 2:18 PM, David Von Pein wrote:
>
> MAINFRAME SAID:
>
> ...and some see the small entry wound in the right temple/forehead in
> the hairline...
>
>
> DVP SAYS:
>
> Name just ONE witness who said they saw a small entry wound in the
> "right temple/forehead".
>

Don't accept his errors. He originally said right temple then he added
forehead which is not the same thing.

> Good luck. Because I don't think you're going to be able find even one
> such witness.
>

He thinks he has one, but it's only an orderly. You can find a doctor
who said the entrance wound was in the left temple. Then you too can
become a kook.

[mainframetech]

On May 25, 10:36 pm, John Canal <John_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> In article <26c7dad6-8fa7-43a7-a54f-292ab07fe...@q8g2000vbl.googlegroups.com>,

I realize that Tom Robinson was one of the morticians that prepared the
body for burial. His statement is very clear as to what he saw at the
BOH, and he was one of the 3 guys preparing the body. Robinson stated
that a piece of rubber had to be used to patch the hole in the BOH and the
rubber patch was only slightly larger than the hole in the head, and the
rubber patch was the size of a "large orange" which he demonstrated by
making a circle with his index fingers and thumbs of both hands.

http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=711&relPageId=4

He also drew on a picture of a skull:
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/md88/html/md88_0003a.htm
On the image above, look carefully at the BOH for the crescent he
drew in black pen.

Many people have seen the large hole in the BOH of JFK. You can talk
all you like about a bullet hole near the large wound, (some say right on
the periphery) but there is no doubt based on the large number of
witnesses to the large hole that it was there. That alone makes the
autopsy suspect, since they failed to report that, while other people at
the autopsy DID see the hole. One of those was Paul O'Connor, a morgue
assistant who placed the body on the table. He was pictured with all the
Parkland trained medical personnel that made it clear they had also seen
the hole:

http://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php?topic=3930.0

To see the people, go down a bit more than halfway on the page.
One noted the size as that of a baseball.

> >and
> >some see the small entry wound in the right temple/forehead in the
> >hairline, then they know what happened.
>
> Gee move your temple entry over a few inches and Bingo, you've got Marsh's
> entry.
>

I spent days poking at March to get his placement of his temple/
forehead small wound. The reason I use the slash ('/') is to allow my and
his words to both be used to describe the position because after getting
him to describe what he was talking about, I determined that we were
speaking of the same small bullet sized wound in the temple/ forehead.
The problem arose because temple and forehead overlap one another.

> In any case, did any of the autopsists see such an entry in his temple?
>
> Of course not.
>

If others see it and the autopsists can't see it, why do you assume
they weren't ordered to make sure that only shots from high and behind
were discussed? There were so many other things wrong with the goings- on
at the autopsy that anyone would be leery of ANY findings that came out of
it. A short probe was put into the back wound, and only went an inch or
two. One of the assistants saw the probe pushing at the pleura in front,
but not going through. That means that the bullet that made that hole was
first, missing, and second, was an entry wound, and third, that the throat
wound was also an entry, since it couldn't be the exit of the back wound.

Dennis David - Bethesda morgue assistant, stated that he was shown
photos of the autopsy by Lt. Cmdr. Pitzer and he saw the "gaping wound" in
the BOH and that the photos made it clear to him that the president was
hit from the front as well as the back. He could also see a "round or
oval wound" 1/4 to 3/8ths of an inch in diameter in the right front
temporal area just below the hairline which he immediately interpreted as
an entry wound.

http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=708&rel
PageId=4


James Jenkins - morgue assistant - saw the probe being used to no
avail in the back wound:
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=329&relPageId=5

> Did the autopsists report seeing a pathway through the brain consistent
> with a bullet entering in his temple and exiting the BOH?
>
> Of course not.
>

They dug around in the head and brain and picked out a few bullet
fragments, but no one did the proper work of sectioning or probing the
brain to determine the path. They managed to damage the skull at the top
of the head with their hunting around in there. This was seen by Tom
Robinson and mentioned in his ARRB testimony.

> So were the autopsists actually just janitors or in on a huge cover-up?
>

If you're asking for an opinion, they were under orders as to what
they should find and they followed those orders.

> Do you understand how wacky your wacky theory really is?
>

Not when I'm presenting backup to what I'm saying. Then it's not
theory. Of course you have to look at the proof. But you might avoid
looking at those links and so not gain the benefit of my information.
To me, the wacky theories were the 'lone nut' and the 'Single Bullet'
theories.

> >A bullet came from the front and
> >through the head and exploded out the back.
>
> In your dreams and very wild imagination.
>

Or you've been suckered into believing wacky theories of the WC.
Look into the ARRB information and you'll find an awful lot of new
information that was kept from us all years ago.

> >The evidence and testimony
> >released through the ARRB was a godsend and has opened up much truth that
> >was being hidden in the past.
>
> Yes, the ARRB helped answer a ot of questions.
>
> >It's a new ball game now,
>
> I'm sure you think it is.
>
> >and interest has
> >not gone away.
>
> A lot of it has because reasonable individuals are tired of reading about
> so many different wacky theories (speaking of which where the heck did
> your bullet go after it supposedly blew out his BOH....huh?)...that assume
> the medical and other evidence was fabricated.
>

If you take an unbiased view of the ARRB information from the
autopsy, and then compare it with much of the First stories you were
told, you might find some problems with that autopsy yourself.

> Oh, let me take a stab at your answer to that question (if you've evn
> bothered with an explanation for the lack of lead found behind JFK)....the
> consirators confiscated the bullet that supposedly exited his BOH and
> placed large fragments in the front of the limo....is that close?
> Good grief!

Nope. It looks like you've gone off the reservation on your wacky
ideas. Better if you use links and some backup before pushing those
crazy ideas.

Now, I would suggest that the height of the BOH of JFK was such that a
bullet could go past the limo and be lost along the way. Or the bullet
might have been a 'frangible' bullet and there was little left of it.
The autopsy got out a goodly bunch of metal from the head, and Dennis
David was asked to type a report for an FBI agent (Sibert) that said there
was more than a bullet found, but less than 2 bullets. he agent then
confiscated the copies, the carbon paper and the ribbon from the
typewriter for security:

http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=708&rel
PageId=4


John,
Everything I've said above is backed up by testimony and I've passed
the links for you. If I've missed any that concern you, let me know
and I'll find the needed backup.

Chris

[Research]

"David Von Pein" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:cf66703e-b489-4168...@g3g2000yqg.googlegroups.com...

You and the WC Defenders say it was Oswald in the window. You say he
bought the rifle through the PO Box. You didn't even look at the Walden
exhibit. Just relied on it as it was. Had you even considered the factual
evidence staring you in the face. The Walden exhibit is a complete fake.
Even the Post Office could not provide the application form Oswald has
supposedly signed, even though federal law requires it be kept for two
years AFTER it was closed. He was also accuesed of the Walker shooting. No
one saw him with a rifle but Marina. The whole case was built around
Marina's hearsay evidence alone. Yet she could not identify the rifle or
bullets at the hearings.

And the DAY palmprint. That's another problem in its own. DPD late night
visit to the furneral home and fingerprinted the body. And THEN Day has
discovered a palmprint. Not provabal.

The cab driver claimed he drove Oswald to his rooming house. But his
description did not fit. Mrs Bledsoe claimed Oswald was on a bus. The bus
driver said it was a teenager. The bus was traveling in the wrong
direction. And the line-ups. He was placed in line-up with cops and
teenagers. It was obvious the keystoners were framing Oswald. Even the eye
witnesses stated it wasn't Oswald but the record shows they had ID Oswald.

Out of the 550 Dealey Plaza witnesses, only two came forward to say they
saw a rifle being fired. They described the rifle sticking out the window
approximately the entire length of the rifle, but neither saw the large
scope factory mounted on it. Humm... But the WC sadly accepted them on the
face value. Out of the other 548 witnesses, the WC found something wrong
with their statements and disregarded them. Three hundred witnesses
stormed the knoll, not the depository. Close Dealey eye witnesses and
building eye witnesses claimed the shots came from the knoll. They were
immediately disowned.

Just point in a direction of any of the evidence. Not just the doctored
photo evidence. But its easier to turn blind and STILL claim the WC was
right.

[mainframetech]

No problem, old fellow. First we have Tom Robinson (mortician who
handled the body), then Dennis David (Bethesda assistant), then Dr.
Charles Crenshaw. Some of them said so under oath too in their testimony.
I believe there were others, but those are the three that immediately come
to mind.

Chris

[Anthony Marsh]

On 5/26/2013 2:18 PM, David Von Pein wrote:
>
> ANTHONY MARSH SAID:
>
> I have always said that almost all the evidence is actually
> legitimate.
>
>
> DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
>
> "Almost" all of it, but not quite all of it. Right, Tony?
>

Nothing is 100%. I pointed out where evidence is missing or was altered
or thrown away. You never have any rebuttal when I have.

> Bud's 2006 observations need to be repeated here (after Tony's
> "almost" remark):
>
> "When kooks look at the evidence, anything involving Oz's
> culpability is "almost, but not quite". He can almost make this shot,
> but not quite. He can almost make it downstairs from the 6th floor in
> time to encounter Baker, but not quite. He can almost make it to 10th
> & Patton from the boardinghouse in time to shoot Tippit, but not
> quite. So close, but yet so far, as kooks judge things." -- Bud; June
> 18, 2006

More false charges. I have never said those things so don't lump me in
with people who have.

>
> Please tell me, Tony, why there would have been a need to fake or
> plant ANY evidence in the JFK and Tippit murder cases if, in fact,
> "almost all the evidence is actually legitimate"?
>

I never said there was anything wrong with the evidence in the Tippit
murder. Just more of your false charges. I even praised your hero Dale
Myers for his work on the Tippit murder. I have always said that Oswald
killed Tippit.

In the JFK case they would want to get rid of evidence which did not fit
their theories. The WC report was all set to say three shots, three hits,
then Specter invented the SBT. Then Ford had to lie about the back wound.
And Boswell had to lie about the back wound.

> If "almost all" of that stuff is real and legit, then Oswald's guilty--
> plain as day. You surely can't deny that type of logic, can you
> Anthony? So why gild the lily and start planting evidence against an
> ALREADY OBVIOUSLY GUILTY MURDERER? That's just stupid.

I do deny that logic. I believe he was framed.

>
> Think: "O.J. case". It makes no sense to start planting evidence to
> frame a GUILTY man in that murder case either. But Johnnie Cochran's
> defense team actually argued that theory in front of the jury.
>

That's a good example. They did frame a guilty man because they would
not have had enough evidence otherwise.

> But if the LAPD cops really thought Simpson WAS guilty (as Cochran
> said), then those cops must have had SOME good reason to believe he
> was guilty PRIOR to going around and planting still MORE evidence to
> frame the guilty party, right? Or are we supposed to believe that the
> LAPD thought O.J. was guilty based on NO EVIDENCE at all? Silly.
>

Of course they did, because in most cases it is the husband who kills
the wife. And in that case it turned out to be true again.

> Same with Lee Oswald. What made Jesse Curry and Will Fritz tell the
> live television audience on 11/23/63 that Oswald was guilty and "this
> case is cinched"? Did Curry and Fritz base their opinions on "almost
> all the evidence [that] is actually legitimate"? Or was it being based
> on lies and planted evidence only?
>

Hubris. You should know a lot about that.
I never said all the evidence was planted in either case. All you need
to do is be selective about what you plant.
It's not a good idea to pore blood from test vials on the evidence
because it has EDTA in it to preserve it and OJ did not have EDTA in his
blood.

> Inquiring minds would like to know.
>

Not yours. All you want to do is attack anyone who dares to dissent.

[mainframetech]

On May 26, 11:08 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On 5/26/2013 2:18 PM, David Von Pein wrote:
>
>
>
> > MAINFRAME SAID:
>
> > ...and some see the small entry wound in the right temple/forehead in
> > the hairline...
>
> > DVP SAYS:
>
> > Name just ONE witness who said they saw a small entry wound in the
> > "right temple/forehead".
>
> Don't accept his errors. He originally said right temple then he added
> forehead which is not the same thing.
>

The term temple/forehead was used by me because of Marsh! He
complained that temple and forehead were different, and I pointed out
that they overlapped. It wasn't like a person's head was a cube with
a forehead on one face and a temple on another. The two overlap at
their border. It was during his attempt to make his small wound in
the forehead/temple be different from the one that I had spoken of
that was seen by Tom Robinson, Dennis David, and Dr. Charles Crenshaw.

> > Good luck. Because I don't think you're going to be able find even one
> > such witness.
>

I've just named 3 and I believe there are more if we wanted to look
for them.

> He thinks he has one, but it's only an orderly. You can find a doctor
> who said the entrance wound was in the left temple. Then you too can
> become a kook.

So now your calling names? Funny McAdams hasn't warned you about
that. If it's allowed, I've got a few dillies to use...:)

Marsh, it looks like you've made yet another error. Dennis David
was NOT an orderly. He was (at the time) a 1st class petty officer
and a hospital corpsman. He became an ensign in 1965 and left the
Navy as a Lt. Cmdr. He was NOT an orderly. He was acting as 'Chief
of the Day' for Bethesda medical school.

With you trying to fill in DVP, you can appreciate the humor...:)

Chris

[John Canal]

In article <050253c9-ae29-46e8...@bz1g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>,
mainframetech says...
>
>On May 25, 10:36=A0pm, John Canal <John_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>> In article <26c7dad6-8fa7-43a7-a54f-292ab07fe...@q8g2000vbl.googlegroups.=
>com>,
>> mainframetech says...
>>
>>
>> >On May 25, 4:51=3DA0pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>> >> On May 25, 11:01=3DA0am, John McAdams <john.mcad...@marquette.edu> wro=

>te:
>>
>> >> >http://jfkfacts.org/assassination/experts/josiah-thompsons/
>>
>> >> > Tink says that, in virtually every murder case, we quickly know what
>> >> > happened and who did it.
>>
>> >> > But, he says, the JFK assassination is an exception.
>>

>> >> > Of course, I don't think it's an exception. =3DA0I think it was figu=

>red
>> >> > out when Oswald arrived under arrest at Dallas Police headquarters,

>> >> > and it was noticed that he was the employee reported missing from th=

>> > =A0You can say the sky is bright brown, and someone will believe you. B=

>ut
>> >when over 40 people see the large hole in the back of the head of JFK,
>>
>> There certainly was a hole in the BOH with a small entry wound along its
>> lower margin.
>>

>> The question is how big was the hole above the entry? From what I've read=
>,
>> ut of all the PH docs, Grossman and Kemp Clark had the best look and Clar=

>k
>> said the wound there was about the size of a quarter.
>>
>> You do realize that none of them washed the gore off the BOH (to see
>> exactly how large it was) and then measured it, right?
>>
> I realize that Tom Robinson was one of the morticians that prepared the
>body for burial. His statement is very clear as to what he saw at the
>BOH, and he was one of the 3 guys preparing the body.

I noticed you didn't mention that he said he didn't help reconstruct the
head.

>Robinson stated
>that a piece of rubber had to be used to patch the hole in the BOH and the
>rubber patch was only slightly larger than the hole in the head, and the
>rubber patch was the size of a "large orange" which he demonstrated by
>making a circle with his index fingers and thumbs of both hands.
>

>http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=3D711&rel=
>PageId=3D4

Here's the probem for your scenario. By the time the body was turned over
to the morticians, the entire BOH skull on the right side was out. All of
that skull which was fragmented had been removed to facilitate the removal
of the brain (again, done early in the evening).

> He also drew on a picture of a skull:

>http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/md88/html/md=

>88_0003a.htm
> On the image above, look carefully at the BOH for the crescent he
>drew in black pen.

The problem again is that by the time the body was turned over to the
morticians the head was in a totally different state than what it was when
the body was first received.

> Many people have seen the large hole in the BOH of JFK.

There's no denying that there was a hole (besides the small entry) in the
BOH....it's just the size is debateable, noting that the PH doc who had
the best look at it said it was only the size of a quarter.

Do you think he lied?

Why?

>You can talk
>all you like about a bullet hole near the large wound, (some say right on
>the periphery) but there is no doubt based on the large number of
>witnesses to the large hole that it was there.

Duh, there was a hole larger than the entry, but the size is debateable.

So you think the X-rays were faked? All of them?

>That alone makes the
>autopsy suspect, since they failed to report that, while other people at
>the autopsy DID see the hole.

You need to do more readng. The autopsists agreed there was a BOH hole,
besides the entry.

>One of those was Paul O'Connor, a morgue
>assistant who placed the body on the table. He was pictured with all the
>Parkland trained medical personnel that made it clear they had also seen
>the hole:

Yes, for the seemingy 1000th time, there was a BOH hole besides the entry.

>http://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php?topic=3D3930.0

>
> To see the people, go down a bit more than halfway on the page.
>One noted the size as that of a baseball.

The size is debateable....remember the X-rays?

>> >and
>> >some see the small entry wound in the right temple/forehead in the
>> >hairline, then they know what happened.
>>

>> Gee move your temple entry over a few inches and Bingo, you've got Marsh'=

>s
>> entry.
>>
> I spent days poking at March to get his placement of his temple/
>forehead small wound. The reason I use the slash ('/') is to allow my and
>his words to both be used to describe the position because after getting
>him to describe what he was talking about, I determined that we were
>speaking of the same small bullet sized wound in the temple/ forehead.
>The problem arose because temple and forehead overlap one another.

Huh? Where Marsh palces the entry is far from the temple.

>> In any case, did any of the autopsists see such an entry in his temple?
>>
>> Of course not.
>>
> If others see it and the autopsists can't see it, why do you assume
>they weren't ordered to make sure that only shots from high and behind
>were discussed? There were so many other things wrong with the goings- on
>at the autopsy that anyone would be leery of ANY findings that came out of
>it. A short probe was put into the back wound, and only went an inch or
>two. One of the assistants saw the probe pushing at the pleura in front,
>but not going through. That means that the bullet that made that hole was
>first, missing, and second, was an entry wound, and third, that the throat
>wound was also an entry, since it couldn't be the exit of the back wound.
>
> Dennis David - Bethesda morgue assistant, stated that he was shown
>photos of the autopsy by Lt. Cmdr. Pitzer and he saw the "gaping wound" in
>the BOH and that the photos made it clear to him that the president was
>hit from the front as well as the back.

So he was a wound ballistics expert? How did he know that the BOH wound
wasn't caused by the bullet fired from behind?

You do realize that the rear brain damage was minimal compared to the
damage in the front, right?

IOW the bullet started to tumble and then fragmented causing the mojor
damage in the front of the brain.

Unless you think there were two brains?

Do you?

My oh my, in addition to any fragments that would have had to have been
confiscated in back of JFK (if a bullet exited his BOH), you have x-rays
being forged and the brain switched...evidently.

Pretty large undertaking for the conspirators, no?

>He could also see a "round or
>oval wound" 1/4 to 3/8ths of an inch in diameter in the right front
>temporal area just below the hairline which he immediately interpreted as
>an entry wound.

Oh, so he was a wound-ballistics expert?

Again, the skull was fractured and fragmented and as oon as the scalp was
reflected early, the head was in a totally different state from when it
was when it first arrived at the morgue.

>http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=3D708&rel=
>PageId=3D4

>
>
> James Jenkins - morgue assistant - saw the probe being used to no
>avail in the back wound:

>http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=3D329&rel=
>PageId=3D5

>> Did the autopsists report seeing a pathway through the brain consistent
>> with a bullet entering in his temple and exiting the BOH?
>>
>> Of course not.
>>
> They dug around in the head and brain and picked out a few bullet
>fragments, but no one did the proper work of sectioning or probing the
>brain to determine the path.

So they lied or guessed when they said the only complete pathway through
the brain extended from the tip of the occipital lobe to the tip of the
frontal lobe?

They saidthat pathway went just above the thalamus...how did they know
that unless they sectioned the brain?

Sure they said they didn't bread-loaf cut the brain, but dont you think
it's possible they were just being sensitive to the family b saying that?

Again how could they have known that the pathway passed just above the
thalamus without sectioning the brain?

>They managed to damage the skull at the top
>of the head with their hunting around in there. This was seen by Tom
>Robinson and mentioned in his ARRB testimony.

So you do think they lied about the pathway through the brain?

>> So were the autopsists actually just janitors or in on a huge cover-up?
>>
> If you're asking for an opinion, they were under orders as to what
>they should find and they followed those orders.

OIC, so we can throw out the autopsy?

Now your theory is starting to fit.

Throw out the autopsy, plant and remove fragments, forger X-rays, forge
brain photos,.......what else?

>> Do you understand how wacky your wacky theory really is?
>>
> Not when I'm presenting backup to what I'm saying. Then it's not
>theory. Of course you have to look at the proof. But you might avoid
>looking at those links and so not gain the benefit of my information.
>To me, the wacky theories were the 'lone nut' and the 'Single Bullet'
>theories.

You cherry-pick the record to find things that seem to fit your wacky
theory.

>> >A bullet came from the front and
>> >through the head and exploded out the back.
>>
>> In your dreams and very wild imagination.
>>
> Or you've been suckered into believing wacky theories of the WC.
>Look into the ARRB information and you'll find an awful lot of new
>information that was kept from us all years ago.

I'm not the one who dismisses the autopsy, and assumes other evidence was
fabricated, you are.

>> >The evidence and testimony
>> >released through the ARRB was a godsend and has opened up much truth tha=

>t
>> >was being hidden in the past.
>>
>> Yes, the ARRB helped answer a ot of questions.
>>
>> >It's a new ball game now,
>>
>> I'm sure you think it is.
>>
>> >and interest has
>> >not gone away.
>>
>> A lot of it has because reasonable individuals are tired of reading about
>> so many different wacky theories (speaking of which where the heck did

>> your bullet go after it supposedly blew out his BOH....huh?)...that assum=

>e
>> the medical and other evidence was fabricated.
>>
> If you take an unbiased view of the ARRB information from the
>autopsy, and then compare it with much of the First stories you were
>told, you might find some problems with that autopsy yourself.

What was gleened from the ARRB is consistent with what was found during
the autopsy.

>> Oh, let me take a stab at your answer to that question (if you've evn

>> bothered with an explanation for the lack of lead found behind JFK)....th=

>e
>> consirators confiscated the bullet that supposedly exited his BOH and
>> placed large fragments in the front of the limo....is that close?
>> Good grief!
>
> Nope. It looks like you've gone off the reservation on your wacky
>ideas. Better if you use links and some backup before pushing those
>crazy ideas.

Okay, so what happened to the fragments in back of JFK....from your
imaginary BOH exiting bullet? Okay, I'll read on.

> Now, I would suggest that the height of the BOH of JFK was such that a
>bullet could go past the limo and be lost along the way.

Oh, so we have the old "My dog ate my homework" excuse.

And the large fragments in the front of the limo...what bullet were they
from?

Or were they just placed there?

>Or the bullet
>might have been a 'frangible' bullet and there was little left of it.

Oh of course, the old frangible bullet...why did I not think of that
myself?....but even with such a bullet the fragments didn't vanish,
vaporize, or disappear right? Remember none, zilcho, zero, fragments were
found behind JFK!!!!!!!!!

>The autopsy got out a goodly bunch of metal from the head, and Dennis
>David was asked to type a report for an FBI agent (Sibert) that said there
>was more than a bullet found, but less than 2 bullets. he agent then
>confiscated the copies, the carbon paper and the ribbon from the
>typewriter for security:

There's that wound-ballistics expert again......and more evidence being
tampered with.

Good grief where does it stop?

>http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=3D708&rel=
>PageId=3D4

>
>
>John,
> Everything I've said above is backed up by testimony and I've passed
>the links for you.

You've backed up nothing......except to your own satisfaction.

>If I've missed any that concern you, let me know
>and I'll find the needed backup.

Don't bother, your wacky position is obviously hopelessly cemented in the
best concrete known to man.

I need to learn to not engage certain people about their wacky
theories....it'd be more interesting arguing with the wacko who advanced
the "Greer shot JFK" theory.

Sorry for replying...I'll try harder to ignore your posts.

>Chris
>


--
John Canal
jca...@webtv.net

[Ace Kefford]

We quickly knew what happened. PLUS as time went on and the evidence was
subjected to greater certainty, the evidence became STRONGER that Oswald
was the lone shooter. Even if it were true that we did not quickly have a
good idea who did it and how, we now know even more pointing to that
conclusion.

[Anthony Marsh]

Yes, we immediately knew that it was a conspiracy. But no one wanted to
catch the conspirators.

[Anthony Marsh]

What arrogance. Of course there is denying. That's why we're here.

> Do you think he lied?
>
> Why?
>

Why do we have to prove why everyone lied?

>> You can talk
>> all you like about a bullet hole near the large wound, (some say right on
>> the periphery) but there is no doubt based on the large number of
>> witnesses to the large hole that it was there.
>
> Duh, there was a hole larger than the entry, but the size is debateable.
>
> So you think the X-rays were faked? All of them?
>

None. But YOU mus think something is fake.

>> That alone makes the
>> autopsy suspect, since they failed to report that, while other people at
>> the autopsy DID see the hole.
>
> You need to do more readng. The autopsists agreed there was a BOH hole,
> besides the entry.
>

No, TOH.

>> One of those was Paul O'Connor, a morgue
>> assistant who placed the body on the table. He was pictured with all the
>> Parkland trained medical personnel that made it clear they had also seen
>> the hole:
>
> Yes, for the seemingy 1000th time, there was a BOH hole besides the entry.
>

SHOW me.

>> http://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php?topic=3D3930.0
>>
>> To see the people, go down a bit more than halfway on the page.
>> One noted the size as that of a baseball.
>
> The size is debateable....remember the X-rays?
>
>>>> and
>>>> some see the small entry wound in the right temple/forehead in the
>>>> hairline, then they know what happened.
>>>
>>> Gee move your temple entry over a few inches and Bingo, you've got Marsh'=
>> s
>>> entry.
>>>
>> I spent days poking at March to get his placement of his temple/
>> forehead small wound. The reason I use the slash ('/') is to allow my and
>> his words to both be used to describe the position because after getting
>> him to describe what he was talking about, I determined that we were
>> speaking of the same small bullet sized wound in the temple/ forehead.
>> The problem arose because temple and forehead overlap one another.
>
> Huh? Where Marsh palces the entry is far from the temple.
>

He doesn't know the different between frontal bone and temple.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 5/27/2013 11:52 AM, mainframetech wrote:
> On May 26, 11:08 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On 5/26/2013 2:18 PM, David Von Pein wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> MAINFRAME SAID:
>>
>>> ...and some see the small entry wound in the right temple/forehead in
>>> the hairline...
>>
>>> DVP SAYS:
>>
>>> Name just ONE witness who said they saw a small entry wound in the
>>> "right temple/forehead".
>>
>> Don't accept his errors. He originally said right temple then he added
>> forehead which is not the same thing.
>>
> The term temple/forehead was used by me because of Marsh! He
> complained that temple and forehead were different, and I pointed out
> that they overlapped. It wasn't like a person's head was a cube with
> a forehead on one face and a temple on another. The two overlap at
> their border. It was during his attempt to make his small wound in
> the forehead/temple be different from the one that I had spoken of
> that was seen by Tom Robinson, Dennis David, and Dr. Charles Crenshaw.
>

Don't try to blame me, dude. You were grasping at straws trying to
salvage your nutty theory.

>>> Good luck. Because I don't think you're going to be able find even one
>>> such witness.
>>
> I've just named 3 and I believe there are more if we wanted to look
> for them.
>
>> He thinks he has one, but it's only an orderly. You can find a doctor
>> who said the entrance wound was in the left temple. Then you too can
>> become a kook.
>
> So now your calling names? Funny McAdams hasn't warned you about
> that. If it's allowed, I've got a few dillies to use...:)
>

Wrong. McAdams specifically said we are allowed to call people names as
long as they don't post here. Does Robinson post here?

Not under his own name, so how am I supposed to figure out what his
alias is? Was humes posting here as BigFart?

> Marsh, it looks like you've made yet another error. Dennis David
> was NOT an orderly. He was (at the time) a 1st class petty officer
> and a hospital corpsman. He became an ensign in 1965 and left the
> Navy as a Lt. Cmdr. He was NOT an orderly. He was acting as 'Chief
> of the Day' for Bethesda medical school.
>

He wasn't a doctor. He wasn't a forensic pathologist. Lucky I didn't
call him a janitor.

[Anthony Marsh]

NO ONE said temple/forehead except you. Because there is no such thing.
Is it temple or forehead. Not both.

[Anthony Marsh]

> http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=708&rel=

> PageId=4
>
>
> James Jenkins - morgue assistant - saw the probe being used to no
> avail in the back wound:
> http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=329&relPageId=5
>
>
>> Did the autopsists report seeing a pathway through the brain consistent
>> with a bullet entering in his temple and exiting the BOH?
>>
>> Of course not.
>>
> They dug around in the head and brain and picked out a few bullet
> fragments, but no one did the proper work of sectioning or probing the
> brain to determine the path. They managed to damage the skull at the top
> of the head with their hunting around in there. This was seen by Tom
> Robinson and mentioned in his ARRB testimony.
>

"Probing the brain"? What are you on?
The did section the brain later, but did not do a proper examination.

No frangible bullet was fired from behind. Only FMJ.

> http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=708&rel=

[Anthony Marsh]

Please quote for me where he said that. You don't even have his book. I
do. You never talked to him, did you? I did.

> Chris
>

[David Von Pein]

>>> "DPD late night visit to the furneral home and fingerprinted the body

[of LHO]." <<<

Prove it.

This is just another of the hundreds of CT myths that refuse to die.

[mainframetech]

On May 27, 11:55 am, John Canal <John_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> In article <050253c9-ae29-46e8-80d6-bf03c05f7...@bz1g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>,

There were 3 morticians that did the work on the body. Robinson saw
another team member do the job on the BOH and how it was done. And he
not only saw the BOH then, but he witnessed the autopsy from a good
seat in the gallery. He saw and described the BOH as did over 40
people, including a large portion of the medically trained Parkland
personnel.

> >Robinson stated
> >that a piece of rubber had to be used to patch the hole in the BOH and the
> >rubber patch was only slightly larger than the hole in the head, and the
> >rubber patch was the size of a "large orange" which he demonstrated by
> >making a circle with his index fingers and thumbs of both hands.
>

> >http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=3D7...

> >PageId=3D4
>
> Here's the probem for your scenario. By the time the body was turned over
> to the morticians, the entire BOH skull on the right side was out. All of
> that skull which was fragmented had been removed to facilitate the removal
> of the brain (again, done early in the evening).
>

Nope. Won't do. Robinson also witnessed the autopsists break into
the skull and damage the top od the skull too. The point that he
marked out as being a hole in the BOH is the same as the many people
that saw that large hole from the Parkland personnel:
http://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php?topic=3930.0
Go down a bit more than halfway to see the collage of medically
trained personnel indicating the large hole in the BOH. We can add to
that Clint Hill, who saw the damage to the BOH first from immediately
over the president on the limo. There were at least 12 people that
corroborate each other as to the large hole in the BOH of JFK before
the body ever got near Bethesda, and many from Bethesda that also saw
it. Some when the body was unwrapped and put on the table. There is
no way to escape it. The small entry wound was present in the
forehead/temple in the hairline, and the large exit wound was at the
BOH. As Dr. Crenshaw said, It was a frontal shot that killed him.

> >   He also drew on a picture of a skull:

> >http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/md88/h...

> >88_0003a.htm
> >   On the image above, look carefully at the BOH for the crescent he
> >drew in black pen.
>
> The problem again is that by the time the body was turned over to the
> morticians the head was in a totally different state than what it was when
> the body was first received.
>

You saw the hole as drawn by Tom Robinson at the BOH. Are you
saying that the autopsists damaged the BOH more than it was when it
left Parkland and during the time at Bethesda? Tom Robinson speaks of
the autopsists doing the damage to the TOP of the head, not the back.
I know of NO one that mentions any work done on the BOH by the autopsy
team.

> >   Many people have seen the large hole in the BOH of JFK.
>
> There's no denying that there was a hole (besides the small entry) in the
> BOH....it's just the size is debateable, noting that the PH doc who had
> the best look at it said it was only the size of a quarter.
>
> Do you think he lied?
>

I have not seen that said anywhere by a doctor at Parkland. Can you
point me to it? I've seen many at Parkland describe the hole as large
at over 2 inches in diameter. Here are some of the trained doctors
and nurses commenting on the size of the hole. Many say that brain
matter was exuding from the hole. If the hole was the size of a
bullet, that wouldn't be seen, the hole would be too small for that to
happen as described. If you're able to find one doctor that said such
a thing, then compare it with the many that said otherwise.

> Why?
>
> >You can talk
> >all you like about a bullet hole near the large wound, (some say right on
> >the periphery) but there is no doubt based on the large number of
> >witnesses to the large hole that it was there.
>
> Duh, there was a hole larger than the entry, but the size is debateable.
>

Nope. Many have described it as a LARGE hole. Far more than you
can find that say otherwise.

> So you think the X-rays were faked? All of them?
>

I think at the least that some of them were odd. They show bone
missing from the right side of the skull in the forehead area. If the
photos were taken of the head at that time, the whole right front of
the head would cave in from the lack of bone to support the skin.
Doctors much more knowledgeable than me say the X-rays were wrong, and
it fits with so much other evidence that I choose to take their word.
http://assassinationresearch.com/v2n2/pittsburgh.pdf

> >That alone makes the
> >autopsy suspect, since they failed to report that, while other people at
> >the autopsy DID see the hole.
>
> You need to do more readng. The autopsists agreed there was a BOH hole,
> besides the entry.
>

The 3 autopsists were all military and subject to military orders,
making what they said suspect. As well, 2 of them had no real
experience in what they were doing, and they botched the procedures
badly based on what other experienced prosectors have said. The X-
rays were reviewed by Mantik who was not under orders.

> >One of those was Paul O'Connor, a morgue
> >assistant who placed the body on the table.  He was pictured with all the
> >Parkland trained medical personnel that made it clear they had also seen
> >the hole:
>
> Yes, for the seemingy 1000th time, there was a BOH hole besides the entry.
>

Yes, but the size wasn't in doubt based on the sheer number of
medically trained people that said it was a "large" hole. If there
were even one trained person that said the hole was as small as a
quarter, quote him/her now please.

> >http://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php?topic=3D3930.0
>
> >   To see the people, go down a bit more than halfway on the page.
> >One noted the size as that of a baseball.
>
> The size is debateable....remember the X-rays?
>

The X-rays were proven to be faked, so why do you depend on them?
Pat of the fakery was noted to be the rear of the skull where much of
it was 'whited' out to make it look like the skull was there, when a
large chunk was missing as per the witnesses from before the autopsy.
If you can find any work being done on the BOH that wound enlarge the
hole there, please quote it here.

> >> >and
> >> >some see the small entry wound in the right temple/forehead in the
> >> >hairline, then they know what happened.
>
> >> Gee move your temple entry over a few inches and Bingo, you've got Marsh'=
> >s
> >> entry.
>
> >  I spent days poking at March to get his placement of his temple/
> >forehead small wound.  The reason I use the slash ('/') is to allow my and
> >his words to both be used to describe the position because after getting
> >him to describe what he was talking about, I determined that we were
> >speaking of the same small bullet sized wound in the temple/forehead.
> >The problem arose because temple and forehead overlap one another.
>
> Huh? Where Marsh palces the entry is far from the temple.
>

Please say where you think Marsh placed his small bullet hole. You
see, there can't be 2 small holes in that area can there? I'm not
talking about over the right ear where Robinson puts a triangular hole
but forward of that area, more on the front of the head.

> >> In any case, did any of the autopsists see such an entry in his temple?
>
> >> Of course not.
>
> >   If others see it and the autopsists can't see it, why do you assume
> >they weren't ordered to make sure that only shots from high and behind
> >were discussed?  There were so many other things wrong with the goings- on
> >at the autopsy that anyone would be leery of ANY findings that came out of
> >it.  A short probe was put into the back wound, and only went an inch or
> >two.  One of the assistants saw the probe pushing at the pleura in front,
> >but not going through.  That means that the bullet that made that hole was
> >first, missing, and second, was an entry wound, and third, that the throat
> >wound was also an entry, since it couldn't be the exit of the back wound.
>
> >   Dennis David - Bethesda morgue assistant, stated that he was shown
> >photos of the autopsy by Lt. Cmdr. Pitzer and he saw the "gaping wound" in
> >the BOH and that the photos made it clear to him that the president was
> >hit from the front as well as the back.
>
> So he was a wound ballistics expert? How did he know that the BOH wound
> wasn't caused by the bullet fired from behind?
>

We must use our common sense in such cases, and a 'ballistics
expert' isn't necessary to determine which is the entry and which is
the exit when one is 2 inches and more across, and the other is bullet
sized.

> You do realize that the rear brain damage was minimal compared to the
> damage in the front, right?
>

I realize nothing of the kind. Are you relying on the Ida Dox
drawings, which are not drawn from the body, but from the photos that
were faked? The damage to the brain can be read from the testimony of
Tom Robinson, who said that a large percentage of it was gone "in the
back" from the "medulla" and the portion that was missing was the size
of a "closed fist". He described the condition of the brain in that
area as having the consistency of "soup".

> IOW the bullet started to tumble and then fragmented causing the mojor
> damage in the front of the brain.
>

That's a hope and a guess like you have said the CTs would try to
put together when they get their backs to a wall.

> Unless you think there were two brains?
>
> Do you?
>

Nope. But there were 2 autopsies, one of which was spent mostly on
probing and modifying the brain and skull. At that one most of the
personnel were sent out of the room. That's in their statements that
they were asked to leave the room!!

> My oh my, in addition to any fragments that would have had to have been
> confiscated in back of JFK (if a bullet exited his BOH), you have x-rays
> being forged and the brain switched...evidently.
>
> Pretty large undertaking for the conspirators, no?
>

Nope, and I didn't say anything about there being 2 brains, which I
don't believe. I also didn't say anything about looking for a
fragment that came out the BOH. And I didn't say anything about
brains being switched. There was a bullet that landed near the edge
of Elm street in the grass at the time of the shots that may be
involved, but it conveniently disappeared and couldn't be found. It
was in the best position and was said to be a .45 bullet, but that's
not necessarily the bullet that made the entry and exit in the skull
of JFK, only a possibility.

> >He could also see a "round or
> >oval wound" 1/4 to 3/8ths of an inch in diameter in the right front
> >temporal area just below the hairline which he immediately interpreted as
> >an entry wound.
>
> Oh, so he was a wound-ballistics expert?
>

Don't be silly. Anyone can assume a wound is a bullet hole, doesn't
make them right or wrong, it's just something people will do. You
don't need an expert to know there was a hole in the head...:)

> Again, the skull was fractured and fragmented and as oon as the scalp was
> reflected early, the head was in a totally different state from when it
> was when it first arrived at the morgue.
>

That I agree with. Tom Robinson said the doctors made damage to the
TOP of the head of JFK whole looking for a bullet or fragments of
one. They also used a saw to cut part of the skull at the forehead.

> >http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=3D7...

> >PageId=3D4
>
> >  James Jenkins - morgue assistant - saw the probe being used to no
> >avail in the back wound:

> >http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=3D3...

> >PageId=3D5
> >> Did the autopsists report seeing a pathway through the brain consistent
> >> with a bullet entering in his temple and exiting the BOH?
>
> >> Of course not.
>
> >  They dug around in the head and brain and picked out a few bullet
> >fragments, but no one did the proper work of sectioning or probing the
> >brain to determine the path.
>
> So they lied or guessed when they said the only complete pathway through
> the brain extended from the tip of the occipital lobe to the tip of the
> frontal lobe?
>

If they chose that direction, they were wrong. Whether they were
lying at that point, I don't know.

> They saidthat pathway went just above the thalamus...how did they know
> that unless they sectioned the brain?
>

If you assume where the bullet went in and where it came out, then
you can assume what it passed in the head as it made its way through.
You don't need to section the brain to do that. And if you assume a
path, then it can go in either direction as well, forward or back.

> Sure they said they didn't bread-loaf cut the brain, but dont you think
> it's possible they were just being sensitive to the family b saying that?
>

I think the excuse for not sectioning the brain was the family
interest, but I'm sure they didn't want that done. It might unveil
more than they wanted to see.

> Again how could they have known that the pathway passed just above the
> thalamus without sectioning the brain?
>

Easy. you know where you think the bullet started into the head and
where you think it came out, and you can pretty much decide what it
goes past on its way. Did they say HOW CLOSE it came to the
thalamus? If not, then it could be an inch or a foot.

> >They managed to damage the skull at the top
> >of the head with their hunting around in there.  This was seen by Tom
> >Robinson and mentioned in his ARRB testimony.
>
> So you do think they lied about the pathway through the brain?
>

I think they guessed that it was what they were ordered to find. The
proof of the large BOH wound and the tiny entry wound in the forehead/
temple make it clear which way the bullet traveled.

> >> So were the autopsists actually just janitors or in on a huge cover-up?
>

No, they were ordered to carry it off themselves, or at least 2 of
them were. Finke I'm not so sure of. I think Humes and Boswell were
busy making it look like a rear sniper for him too.

> >  If you're asking for an opinion, they were under orders as to what
> >they should find and they followed those orders.
>
> OIC, so we can throw out the autopsy?
>

No, but it was still a lot of fakery. Some beforehand, some during,
and some after. One gain was that the short probe that was used to
look into the back wound showed it to be a shallow wound ending only
an inch or two in. That alone said volumes. If the back wound was an
entry and did NOT go through the body, then the throat was also and
entry wound and was from the front.

> Now your theory is starting to fit.
>
> Throw out the autopsy, plant and remove fragments, forger X-rays, forge
> brain photos,.......what else?
>

I didn't agree to throw out the autopsy, you're answering your own
points. I also didn't say plant fragments (if you mean in the body).
I wasn't the one that had the background to look at the X-rays and
discredit them. Why is it you can't accept an expert's opinion?

> >> Do you understand how wacky your wacky theory really is?
>

Nope. Only the things YOU say are in the theory. Remember, I did
NOT say most of those things, YOU did. You have just invalidated your
own theory.

> >  Not when I'm presenting backup to what I'm saying.  Then it's not
> >theory.  Of course you have to look at the proof.  But you might avoid
> >looking at those links and so not gain the benefit of my information.
> >To me, the wacky theories were the 'lone nut' and the 'Single Bullet'
> >theories.
>
> You cherry-pick the record to find things that seem to fit your wacky
> theory.
>

No, I believe that certain people, especially the FBI, cherry picked
the facts to present to the WC. Many witnesses complained of their
efforts to have witnesses say what they wanted. I found evidence that
also makes it clear that the CE399 'magic' bullet was a fake and was
replaced while in the hands of the FBI, it was there for anyone to
see. All the evidence that everyone else saw is included with my
view, just that some of it was manipulated to fool the suckers, and it
worked. At least 30% of the public thinks there was only a 'lone nut'
assassin as per the wacky theories of the WC.

> >> >A bullet came from the front and
> >> >through the head and exploded out the back.
>
> >> In your dreams and very wild imagination.
>
> >  Or you've been suckered into believing wacky theories of the WC.
> >Look into the ARRB information and you'll find an awful lot of new
> >information that was kept from us all years ago.
>
> I'm not the one who dismisses the autopsy, and assumes other evidence was
> fabricated, you are.
>

I don't dismiss the autopsy. You keep making that mistake. I
believe there are facts there that give us some solid evidence of
manipulation of evidence.

> >> >The evidence and testimony
> >> >released through the ARRB was a godsend and has opened up much truth tha=
> >t
> >> >was being hidden in the past.
>
> >> Yes, the ARRB helped answer a ot of questions.
>
> >> >It's a new ball game now,
>
> >> I'm sure you think it is.
>
> >> >and interest has
> >> >not gone away.
>
> >> A lot of it has because reasonable individuals are tired of reading about
> >> so many different wacky theories (speaking of which where the heck did
> >> your bullet go after it supposedly blew out his BOH....huh?)...that assum=
> >e
> >> the medical and other evidence was fabricated.
>
> >  If you take an unbiased view of the ARRB information from the
> >autopsy, and then compare it with much of the First stories you were
> >told, you might find some problems with that autopsy yourself.
>
> What was gleened from the ARRB is consistent with what was found during
> the autopsy.
>

Nope. The testimony of Tom Robinson was in the ARRB information,
along with Dennis David and Paul O'Connor and many others that I have
quoted. Most of those people were under an order of silence for many
years of the case. Until the law was changed, and even some agencies
have kept their information secret anyway, ignoring the law.

> >> Oh, let me take a stab at your answer to that question (if you've evn
> >> bothered with an explanation for the lack of lead found behind JFK)....th=
> >e
> >> consirators confiscated the bullet that supposedly exited his BOH and
> >> placed large fragments in the front of the limo....is that close?
> >> Good grief!
>
> >  Nope.  It looks like you've gone off the reservation on your wacky
> >ideas.  Better if you use links and some backup before pushing those
> >crazy ideas.
>
> Okay, so what happened to the fragments in back of JFK....from your
> imaginary BOH exiting bullet? Okay, I'll read on.
>

That's been discussed above, but the BOH was above the back odf the
seat and the bullet could have come out and been lost. Also there was
a bullet, said to be a .45 that was seen at the edge of the grass
right where the BOH bullet might have gone, but that's not a
guarantee.

> >   Now, I would suggest that the height of the BOH of JFK was such that a
> >bullet could go past the limo and be lost along the way.
>
> Oh, so we have the old "My dog ate my homework" excuse.
>

Don't be silly. Bullets get lost in shooting cases. And there was
a bullet seen in the right place, but it wasn't there when they went
back to look for it.

> And the large fragments in the front of the limo...what bullet were they
> from?
>

Two possibilities, first, they were from the bullet that hit the
chrome header over the windshield. If someone fired the MC rifle from
the TSBD down toward the limo, it could get there that way, or if test
bullets were saved from the FBI testing, (that explains the
replacement of CE399) the fragments could be left by the FBI in the
middle of the night when they 'found' them in the middle of the seat
of the limo. If you look it up, you find that Robert Frazier (who was
in charge of much of the evidence) went to the W.H. garage and found
the fragments, one of which was in the 'middle of the front seat'.
This while the Secret service stole the limo from Parkland and drove
it to the airport, took off and landed at Washington area, drove the
limo to the W.H. and missed the bullet on the front seat until Frazier
got there and found it in the middle of the night.

> Or were they just placed there?
>

Two possibilities above, pick one.

> >Or the bullet
> >might have been a 'frangible' bullet and there was little left of it.
>
> Oh of course, the old frangible bullet...why did I not think of that
> myself?....but even with such a bullet the fragments didn't vanish,
> vaporize, or disappear right? Remember none, zilcho, zero, fragments were
> found behind JFK!!!!!!!!!
>

Though many were found IN JFK. There was an FBI agent that showed
Tom Robinson a vial with 10 fragments in it that were found by the
autopsists. I mentioned it earlier that one of the assistants at the
autopsy (Dennis David) saw enough fragments to make more than one
bullet and less than two (see below). Tom Robinson saw the
prosectors digging around in the head for fragments, and damaging the
skull in the process.

> >The autopsy got out a goodly bunch of metal from the head, and Dennis
> >David was asked to type a report for an FBI agent (Sibert) that said there

> >was more than a bullet found, but less than 2 bullets.  The agent then

> >confiscated the copies, the carbon paper and the ribbon from the
> >typewriter for security:
>
> There's that wound-ballistics expert again......and more evidence being
> tampered with.
>

No expert needed. Anyone in the FBI would know the approximate size
of a bullet and could make that statement. But here's something just
for you:
Sibert & O'Neill's report mentions that "The chief pathologist
advised that 40 particles of disintegrated bullet and smudges
indicated that the projectile had fragmented while passing through the
skull."
From: http://jfklancer.com/docs.maps/S-O-3.GIF

> Good grief where does it stop?
>

Yes, when will you begin to listen to the evidence and the links and
begin to wonder what did they do to you with their wacky theories!

> >http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=3D7...

> >PageId=3D4
>
> >John,
> >  Everything I've said above is backed up by testimony and I've passed
> >the links for you.
>
> You've backed up nothing......except to your own satisfaction.
>

That sounds like someone that refused to look at some or all of the
links, all of which back up what I've said.

> >If I've missed any that concern you, let me know
> >and I'll find the needed backup.
>
> Don't bother, your wacky position is obviously hopelessly cemented in the
> best concrete known to man.
>

Ah... You refuse to delve any further into it. You're put off by
too much evidence that goes against your beliefs of so many years.
But it's not your fault, the info was hidden until the ARRB got into
it after the law change.

> I need to learn to not engage certain people about their wacky
> theories....it'd be more interesting arguing with the wacko who advanced
> the "Greer shot JFK" theory.
>

Now see? You and I agree that the 'Greer' idea is baloney...:)

> Sorry for replying...I'll try harder to ignore your posts.
>

Suit yourself. Apparently you were unable to invalidate my information
and you don't want to get any closer to reality and the damage it will do
to so many years of thinking a certain way. No problem.

Chris

[John Canal]

In article <6aca4e13-0fd6-46cf...@bz1g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>,
mainframetech says...
>
>On May 27, 11:55=A0am, John Canal <John_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>> In article <050253c9-ae29-46e8-80d6-bf03c05f7...@bz1g2000vbb.googlegroups=
>.com>,
>> mainframetech says...
>>
>>
>>
>> >On May 25, 10:36=3DA0pm, John Canal <John_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>> >> In article <26c7dad6-8fa7-43a7-a54f-292ab07fe...@q8g2000vbl.googlegrou=
>ps.=3D
>> >com>,
>> >> mainframetech says...
>>
>> >> >On May 25, 4:51=3D3DA0pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>> >> >> On May 25, 11:01=3D3DA0am, John McAdams <john.mcad...@marquette.edu=
>> wro=3D
>> >te:
>>
>> >> >> >http://jfkfacts.org/assassination/experts/josiah-thompsons/
>>
>> >> >> > Tink says that, in virtually every murder case, we quickly know w=

>hat
>> >> >> > happened and who did it.
>>
>> >> >> > But, he says, the JFK assassination is an exception.
>>

>> >> >> > Of course, I don't think it's an exception. =3D3DA0I think it was=
> figu=3D
>> >red
>> >> >> > out when Oswald arrived under arrest at Dallas Police headquarter=
>s,
>> >> >> > and it was noticed that he was the employee reported missing from=
> th=3D
>> >e
>> >> >> > TSBD.
>>
>> >> >> > The problem is that a huge number of peopls simply won't accept t=

>hat
>> >> >> > solution.
>>
>> >> >> > .John
>> >> >> > --------------http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
>>
>> >> >> Absolutely, John.
>>

>> >> >> When Captain Fritz told the press on November 23 that the case agai=

>nst
>> >> >> Oswald was "cinched", he was 100% correct.
>>

>> >> >> Now, it was probably unwise of Fritz to make that statement on Sat.=
>,
>> >> >> 11/23 when Oswald was still alive and would be going on trial soon =
>for
>> >> >> Kennedy's murder, but Fritz had it right nonetheless. And that case=
> is
>> >> >> still "cinched" against Oswald 50 years later. It hasn't unraveled =
>at
>> >> >> all. The case against Oswald isn't in shreds, as many CTers would l=

>ike
>> >> >> the world to believe.
>>
>> >> >> Every piece of evidence against Lee Oswald for the 2 murders he

>> >> >> committed 50 years ago is still there on the table and proving to t=

>he
>> >> >> world who it was who killed JFK and J.D. Tippit in '63. And not a

>> >> >> single piece of that evidence has been proven to be fake or planted=

> or
>> >> >> tampered with. Not a single piece. There might be a weak "chain" of

>> >> >> custody for some of the evidence, but the vast sum total of ALL of =

>the
>> >> >> evidence certainly indicates that NONE of it was planted or phony.
>>

>> >> >> I ask -- Why would there be any NEED to plant and/or fake ANY evide=

>nce
>> >> >> when ALL of the evidence points to the same man (Oswald)--even the
>> >> >> evidence that CTers can agree is legitimate?*
>>
>> >> >> * Or am I making the mistake of assuming that a conspiracy theorist
>> >> >> will admit that ANY of the evidence against Oswald is actually

>> >> >> "legitimate"? Or is that too much to hope for here in 2013, to expe=
>ct
>> >> >> an Internet CTer to actually admit that even ONE piece of evidence =

>in
>> >> >> the JFK & Tippit cases has not been faked or manufactured?
>>
>> >> >> Well, I can always dream about the day when Internet conspiracists
>> >> >> become reasonable....can't I? :-)
>>

>> >> > =3DA0You can say the sky is bright brown, and someone will believe y=
>ou. B=3D
>> >ut
>> >> >when over 40 people see the large hole in the back of the head of JFK=
>,
>>
>> >> There certainly was a hole in the BOH with a small entry wound along i=
>ts
>> >> lower margin.
>>
>> >> The question is how big was the hole above the entry? From what I've r=
>ead=3D
>> >,
>> >> ut of all the PH docs, Grossman and Kemp Clark had the best look and C=
>lar=3D

>> >k
>> >> said the wound there was about the size of a quarter.
>>
>> >> You do realize that none of them washed the gore off the BOH (to see
>> >> exactly how large it was) and then measured it, right?
>>

>> > =A0I realize that Tom Robinson was one of the morticians that prepared =
>the
>> >body for burial. =A0His statement is very clear as to what he saw at the

>> >BOH, and he was one of the 3 guys preparing the body.
>>
>> I noticed you didn't mention that he said he didn't help reconstruct the
>> head.
>>
> There were 3 morticians that did the work on the body. Robinson saw
>another team member do the job on the BOH and how it was done. And he
>not only saw the BOH then, but he witnessed the autopsy from a good
>seat in the gallery. He saw and described the BOH as did over 40
>people, including a large portion of the medically trained Parkland
>personnel.
>
>> >Robinson stated

>> >that a piece of rubber had to be used to patch the hole in the BOH and t=

>he
>> >rubber patch was only slightly larger than the hole in the head, and the
>> >rubber patch was the size of a "large orange" which he demonstrated by
>> >making a circle with his index fingers and thumbs of both hands.
>>

>> >http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=3D3D7.=
>..
>> >PageId=3D3D4

>>
>> Here's the probem for your scenario. By the time the body was turned over
>> to the morticians, the entire BOH skull on the right side was out. All of

>> that skull which was fragmented had been removed to facilitate the remova=

>l
>> of the brain (again, done early in the evening).
>>
> Nope. Won't do. Robinson also witnessed the autopsists break into
>the skull and damage the top od the skull too. The point that he
>marked out as being a hole in the BOH is the same as the many people
>that saw that large hole from the Parkland personnel:

> http://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php?topic=3D3930.0

Grossman and Clark lifted his head to get a point blank look at the
BOH...yes there was a BOH wound, but Grossman said it was about the size
of a quearter.

Are you going to have the audacity and nerve and recklessness to tell me
now that Robinson, from the damn gallery, good seat or not, saw the BOH
wound better than Grossman?

Are you kidding me?

OMG!

>Go down a bit more than halfway to see the collage of medically
>trained personnel indicating the large hole in the BOH. We can add to
>that Clint Hill, who saw the damage to the BOH first from immediately
>over the president on the limo. There were at least 12 people that
>corroborate each other as to the large hole in the BOH of JFK before
>the body ever got near Bethesda, and many from Bethesda that also saw
>it. Some when the body was unwrapped and put on the table. There is
>no way to escape it. The small entry wound was present in the
>forehead/temple in the hairline, and the large exit wound was at the
>BOH. As Dr. Crenshaw said, It was a frontal shot that killed him.

Forehead/temple...that covers a pretty large area...what kind of research
are you doing? Heck, maybe you can stretch that area a litte more to cover
the BOH?

>> > =A0 He also drew on a picture of a skull:
>> >http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/md88/h...
>> >88_0003a.htm
>> > =A0 On the image above, look carefully at the BOH for the crescent he

>> >drew in black pen.
>>
>> The problem again is that by the time the body was turned over to the

>> morticians the head was in a totally different state than what it was whe=

>n
>> the body was first received.
>>
> You saw the hole as drawn by Tom Robinson at the BOH. Are you
>saying that the autopsists damaged the BOH more than it was when it
>left Parkland and during the time at Bethesda?

The entire BOH on the right side was shattered and came loose all the way
down to the EOP leaving only the bottom half of the entry.

Look at the copy of F8 linked here.

http://imageshack.us/a/img138/3410/f8entryblowupsized.jpg

See the entry....I hope so...it's in the BOH skull near the EOP. If you
can't see it then you need to go to the archives and see the originals,
stereoscopically if possible. I understand the originals are remarkably
clear.

Anyway, the skull above the entry, mostly on the right side is gone...it
came out in pieces when they reflected the scalp. When Robinson got his
first up close look at the body that's what he saw....all the BOH skull on
the right side missing.

Got it?

Of course Not.

[...]


--
John Canal
jca...@webtv.net

[mainframetech]

On May 27, 11:20 pm, John Canal <John_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> In article <6aca4e13-0fd6-46cf-a6a3-0e6e99ae3...@bz1g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>,

> >> >http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=3D3...

> >..
> >> >PageId=3D3D4
>
> >> Here's the probem for your scenario. By the time the body was turned over
> >> to the morticians, the entire BOH skull on the right side was out. All of
> >> that skull which was fragmented had been removed to facilitate the remova=
> >l
> >> of the brain (again, done early in the evening).
>
> >  Nope.  Won't do.  Robinson also witnessed the autopsists break into
> >the skull and damage the top od the skull too.  The point that he
> >marked out as being a hole in the BOH is the same as the many people
> >that saw that large hole from the Parkland personnel:
> >http://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php?topic=3D3930.0
>
> Grossman and Clark lifted his head to get a point blank look at the
> BOH...yes there was a BOH wound, but Grossman said it was about the size
> of a quearter.
>

I have some news for you. It appears that Grossman wasn't even in the
ER when JFK was there. No one registered him being there other than
Salyer in his WC testimony, and he never filed a report which the other
doctors there had done. The WC never asked him to testify.

Salyer's comments under oath about Grossman were:
"Dr. SALYER - No; I really did not. I think there were a lot of
people--a lot of doctors more closely around him. I might mention
also, I think just right after I came in the room Dr. Clark and Dr.
Grossman also arrived.
Mr. SPECTER - Doctor who?
Dr. SALYER - Dr. Grossman, just briefly. He's a neurosurgeon also.
Mr. SPECTER - What is his name?
Dr. SALYER - Dr. Grossman--Bob Grossman He was just there, I think,
briefly.
Mr. SPECTER - How long was he there?
Dr. SALYER - I couldn't say--I'm not sure he came in the room. I know
they were together--I cannot say that for sure."

Specter didn't even know his name until it was mentioned. Yet later in
his career Grossman cashed in on telling everyone he was there and looked
at the head of JFK before he died. He made money on speaking engagements
and a book, and had all sorts of TV appearances. David Lifton came across
him many times and was not impressed and wrote up something on his
experienced with Grossman:

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/grossman.htm

While he says he was there, I believe he wasn't and just made some
money off saying he was there. I don't trust his 'recollections', and he
was the only doctor that saw the BOH and said the wound was as small as a
quarter, but larger than a bullet.

> Are you going to have the audacity and nerve and recklessness to tell me
> now that Robinson, from the damn gallery, good seat or not, saw the BOH
> wound better than Grossman?
>

Given Grossman's history and probably not even being present, yes.
However, Robinson had a very good seat in the gallery, and as a mortician
has as close a view of the body as anyone, including watching the patching
of the large hole in the BOH. Have you looked for any mention of the
prosectors doing any messing with the BOH yet? I don't know of anything
that was done from that position, only from the top and side where they
extracted the brain.

> Are you kidding me?
>
> OMG!
>

I don't think that drama conveys any information.

> >Go down a bit more than halfway to see the collage of medically
> >trained personnel indicating the large hole in the BOH.  We can add to
> >that Clint Hill, who saw the damage to the BOH first from immediately
> >over the president on the limo.  There were at least 12 people that
> >corroborate each other as to the large hole in the BOH of JFK before
> >the body ever got near Bethesda, and many from Bethesda that also saw
> >it.  Some when the body was unwrapped and put on the table.  There is
> >no way to escape it.  The small entry wound was present in the
> >forehead/temple in the hairline, and the large exit wound was at the
> >BOH.  As Dr. Crenshaw said, It was a frontal shot that killed him.
>
> Forehead/temple...that covers a pretty large area...what kind of research
> are you doing? Heck, maybe you can stretch that area a litte more to cover
> the BOH?
>

As explained to you before, I use that term to reconcile the difficulty
I had in extracting any information from Marsh on his insistence that he
was speaking of a 'different' small wound. One of us used 'temple' and
one used 'forehead', so I simply put them together to avoid the constant
argument. It appeared to me in conversation with him that we were talking
of the same small wound, but using different words in our descriptions.
The temple and the forehead adjoin each other and there is some overlap at
about where the small wound was located. Checking the autopsy photos, the
wound can be seen, though it has been messed with. It was described by at
least 3 people as a small hole about bullet sized.

> >> > =A0 He also drew on a picture of a skull:
> >> >http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/md88/h...
> >> >88_0003a.htm
> >> > =A0 On the image above, look carefully at the BOH for the crescent he
> >> >drew in black pen.
>
> >> The problem again is that by the time the body was turned over to the
> >> morticians the head was in a totally different state than what it was whe=
> >n
> >> the body was first received.
>
> >  You saw the hole as drawn by Tom Robinson at the BOH.  Are you
> >saying that the autopsists damaged the BOH more than it was when it
> >left Parkland and during the time at Bethesda?
>
> The entire BOH on the right side was shattered and came loose all the way
> down to the EOP leaving only the bottom half of the entry.
>

That was the wound seen by Clint Hill and the Parkland medically
trained staff before Bethesda. Here's Clint Hill's WC testimony:

"Mr. SPECTER. What did you observe as to President Kennedy's condition
on arrival at the hospital?
Mr. HILL. The right rear portion of his head was missing. It was lying
in the rear seat of the car. His brain was exposed. There was blood
and bits of brain all over the entire rear portion of the car. Mrs.
Kennedy was completely covered with blood. There was so much blood you
could not tell if there had been any other wound or not, except for
the one large gaping wound in the right rear portion of the head."

So the "large gaping wound" in the head was there from the
beginning.

> Look at the copy of F8 linked here.
>

Ah...the infamous bullet hole. I can't make out what position that bit
of skull is in, nor does it matter. IF that's a bullet hole (and it could
be other things) then it was created separately from the small wound in
the temple/forehead leading to the large gaping wound at the BOH that
everyone saw (except Grossman).

> http://imageshack.us/a/img138/3410/f8entryblowupsized.jpg
>
> See the entry....I hope so...it's in the BOH skull near the EOP. If you
> can't see it then you need to go to the archives and see the originals,
> stereoscopically if possible. I understand the originals are remarkably
> clear.
>

Let's assume for a moment that the "bullet hole" you've found in the
midst of chaotic material is really an entry for a bullet. It has no
bearing on the large hole seen at the BOH by so many people. If the
'bullet hole' was an entry, the large hole wasn't any 'blowback' from it.
A high speed bullet has to travel a ways before it causes expansion and
damage to surrounding body parts. Here's an image explaining that:

http://ars.els-cdn.com/content/image/1-s2.0-S0196064496700628-gr1.jpg

As you can see, the bullet enters from the left and travels a ways
before expansion and before tumbling occurs for an FMJ bullet. The
distance in this case was a bit more than 8 inches, which is about the
distance from the front to the back of the head, where it would expand
causing the BOH to blow off...as we know it did based on Clint Hills' (and
so many others) statements.

> Anyway, the skull above the entry, mostly on the right side is gone...it
> came out in pieces when they reflected the scalp. When Robinson got his
> first up close look at the body that's what he saw....all the BOH skull on
> the right side missing.
>
> Got it?
>
> Of course Not.
>

Correct, since Robinson had an excellent view, but then so did so
many others that said it was a large 'gaping' wound before the body
ever got to Bethesda:
http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/boh/parkland_boh/parkland_wound.htm

Above are the statements from medically trained people mostly from
Parkland who saw the body before anyone did anything to it. Some
added their own drawings as well. Naturally you will say they are all
lying, or mistaken, yes?

Chris

[John Canal]

In article <29917f44-35db-4a96...@dl10g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>,
mainframetech says...
>
>On May 27, 11:20=A0pm, John Canal <John_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>> In article <6aca4e13-0fd6-46cf-a6a3-0e6e99ae3...@bz1g2000vbb.googlegroups=
>.com>,
>> mainframetech says...
>>
>>
>> >On May 27, 11:55=3DA0am, John Canal <John_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>> >> In article <050253c9-ae29-46e8-80d6-bf03c05f7...@bz1g2000vbb.googlegro=
>ups=3D
>> >.com>,
>> >> mainframetech says...
>>
>> >> >On May 25, 10:36=3D3DA0pm, John Canal <John_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote=
>:
>> >> >> In article <26c7dad6-8fa7-43a7-a54f-292ab07fe...@q8g2000vbl.googleg=
>rou=3D
>> >ps.=3D3D
>> >> >com>,
>> >> >> mainframetech says...
>>
>> >> >> >On May 25, 4:51=3D3D3DA0pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> w=
>rote:
>> >> >> >> On May 25, 11:01=3D3D3DA0am, John McAdams <john.mcad...@marquett=
>e.edu=3D
>> >> wro=3D3D
>> >> >te:
>>
>> >> >> >> >http://jfkfacts.org/assassination/experts/josiah-thompsons/
>>
>> >> >> >> > Tink says that, in virtually every murder case, we quickly kno=
>w w=3D

>> >hat
>> >> >> >> > happened and who did it.
>>
>> >> >> >> > But, he says, the JFK assassination is an exception.
>>

>> >> >> >> > Of course, I don't think it's an exception. =3D3D3DA0I think i=
>t was=3D
>> > figu=3D3D
>> >> >red
>> >> >> >> > out when Oswald arrived under arrest at Dallas Police headquar=
>ter=3D
>> >s,
>> >> >> >> > and it was noticed that he was the employee reported missing f=
>rom=3D
>> > th=3D3D
>> >> >e
>> >> >> >> > TSBD.
>>
>> >> >> >> > The problem is that a huge number of peopls simply won't accep=
>t t=3D

>> >hat
>> >> >> >> > solution.
>>
>> >> >> >> > .John
>> >> >> >> > --------------http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
>>
>> >> >> >> Absolutely, John.
>>

>> >> >> >> When Captain Fritz told the press on November 23 that the case a=
>gai=3D

>> >nst
>> >> >> >> Oswald was "cinched", he was 100% correct.
>>

>> >> >> >> Now, it was probably unwise of Fritz to make that statement on S=
>at.=3D
>> >,
>> >> >> >> 11/23 when Oswald was still alive and would be going on trial so=
>on =3D
>> >for
>> >> >> >> Kennedy's murder, but Fritz had it right nonetheless. And that c=
>ase=3D
>> > is
>> >> >> >> still "cinched" against Oswald 50 years later. It hasn't unravel=
>ed =3D
>> >at
>> >> >> >> all. The case against Oswald isn't in shreds, as many CTers woul=
>d l=3D

>> >ike
>> >> >> >> the world to believe.
>>
>> >> >> >> Every piece of evidence against Lee Oswald for the 2 murders he

>> >> >> >> committed 50 years ago is still there on the table and proving t=
>o t=3D
>> >he
>> >> >> >> world who it was who killed JFK and J.D. Tippit in '63. And not =
>a
>> >> >> >> single piece of that evidence has been proven to be fake or plan=
>ted=3D
>> > or
>> >> >> >> tampered with. Not a single piece. There might be a weak "chain"=
> of
>> >> >> >> custody for some of the evidence, but the vast sum total of ALL =
>of =3D
>> >the
>> >> >> >> evidence certainly indicates that NONE of it was planted or phon=
>y.
>>
>> >> >> >> I ask -- Why would there be any NEED to plant and/or fake ANY ev=
>ide=3D
>> >nce
>> >> >> >> when ALL of the evidence points to the same man (Oswald)--even t=

>he
>> >> >> >> evidence that CTers can agree is legitimate?*
>>

>> >> >> >> * Or am I making the mistake of assuming that a conspiracy theor=

>ist
>> >> >> >> will admit that ANY of the evidence against Oswald is actually

>> >> >> >> "legitimate"? Or is that too much to hope for here in 2013, to e=
>xpe=3D
>> >ct
>> >> >> >> an Internet CTer to actually admit that even ONE piece of eviden=
>ce =3D

>> >in
>> >> >> >> the JFK & Tippit cases has not been faked or manufactured?
>>

>> >> >> >> Well, I can always dream about the day when Internet conspiracis=

>ts
>> >> >> >> become reasonable....can't I? :-)
>>

>> >> >> > =3D3DA0You can say the sky is bright brown, and someone will beli=
>eve y=3D
>> >ou. B=3D3D
>> >> >ut
>> >> >> >when over 40 people see the large hole in the back of the head of =
>JFK=3D
>> >,
>>
>> >> >> There certainly was a hole in the BOH with a small entry wound alon=
>g i=3D
>> >ts
>> >> >> lower margin.
>>
>> >> >> The question is how big was the hole above the entry? From what I'v=
>e r=3D
>> >ead=3D3D
>> >> >,
>> >> >> ut of all the PH docs, Grossman and Kemp Clark had the best look an=
>d C=3D
>> >lar=3D3D

>> >> >k
>> >> >> said the wound there was about the size of a quarter.
>>

>> >> >> You do realize that none of them washed the gore off the BOH (to se=

>e
>> >> >> exactly how large it was) and then measured it, right?
>>

>> >> > =3DA0I realize that Tom Robinson was one of the morticians that prep=
>ared =3D
>> >the
>> >> >body for burial. =3DA0His statement is very clear as to what he saw a=

>t the
>> >> >BOH, and he was one of the 3 guys preparing the body.
>>

>> >> I noticed you didn't mention that he said he didn't help reconstruct t=
>he
>> >> head.
>>
>> > =A0There were 3 morticians that did the work on the body. =A0Robinson s=
>aw
>> >another team member do the job on the BOH and how it was done. =A0And he

>> >not only saw the BOH then, but he witnessed the autopsy from a good

>> >seat in the gallery. =A0He saw and described the BOH as did over 40

>> >people, including a large portion of the medically trained Parkland
>> >personnel.
>>
>> >> >Robinson stated

>> >> >that a piece of rubber had to be used to patch the hole in the BOH an=
>d t=3D
>> >he
>> >> >rubber patch was only slightly larger than the hole in the head, and =
>the
>> >> >rubber patch was the size of a "large orange" which he demonstrated b=

>y
>> >> >making a circle with his index fingers and thumbs of both hands.
>>

>> >> >http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=3D3=
>D3...
>> >..
>> >> >PageId=3D3D3D4
>>
>> >> Here's the probem for your scenario. By the time the body was turned o=
>ver
>> >> to the morticians, the entire BOH skull on the right side was out. All=
> of
>> >> that skull which was fragmented had been removed to facilitate the rem=
>ova=3D

>> >l
>> >> of the brain (again, done early in the evening).
>>

>> > =A0Nope. =A0Won't do. =A0Robinson also witnessed the autopsists break i=
>nto
>> >the skull and damage the top od the skull too. =A0The point that he

>> >marked out as being a hole in the BOH is the same as the many people
>> >that saw that large hole from the Parkland personnel:

>> >http://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php?topic=3D3D3930.0

>>
>> Grossman and Clark lifted his head to get a point blank look at the
>> BOH...yes there was a BOH wound, but Grossman said it was about the size
>> of a quearter.
>>
> I have some news for you.

That'll be the day.

>It appears that Grossman wasn't even in the
>ER when JFK was there.

It appears?

You don't sound too sure.

Funny, if he wasn't there, that he was interviewed about his exeriences in
TR1 by Ben Bradlee of the Boston Globe, and Larry King (CNN), not to
mention the ARRB, eh?

You don't think they checked him out before reporting his story?

Do you think he'd dare to say in public that he and Dr. Clark lifted JFK's
head if it weren't true?

Do you think Salyer was hallucinating?

He was a neurosurgeon at PH...when other doctors rushed to try to help
save the President's life, why wouldn't he have done the same? Do you
think he just didn't like Kennedy or something?

Dulaney said "somebody" lifted JFK's head....do think that might have been
Clark and Grossman....or do you think the TR1 docs took turns lifting his
head?

The prestigious Medical Journal, Neurosurgeon published his two-part
article...don't you think they'd make sure he wasn't a fake before doing
that?

>No one registered him being there other than
>Salyer in his WC testimony, and he never filed a report which the other
>doctors there had done.

And that proves what?

How about nothing?

JAMA and several PH docs ridiculed Crenshaw too saying he wasn't in TR1,
but JAMA ended up losing a law suit for making those false claims.

Some people didn't want to get involved and didn't unless ordered to.

>The WC never asked him to testify.

The WC didn't ask a lot of witnesses to testify, so what? Have you ever
heard of Chester Boyers? I have, I've interviewed him twice and taken his
signed statement about the BOH entry wound...but the WC didn't interview
him.

He was there in the morgue though and had enlightening statements to make
re. this case.

> Salyer's comments under oath about Grossman were:
>"Dr. SALYER - No; I really did not. I think there were a lot of
>people--a lot of doctors more closely around him. I might mention
>also, I think just right after I came in the room Dr. Clark and Dr.
>Grossman also arrived.
>Mr. SPECTER - Doctor who?
>Dr. SALYER - Dr. Grossman, just briefly. He's a neurosurgeon also.
>Mr. SPECTER - What is his name?
>Dr. SALYER - Dr. Grossman--Bob Grossman He was just there, I think,
>briefly.
>Mr. SPECTER - How long was he there?
>Dr. SALYER - I couldn't say--I'm not sure he came in the room. I know
>they were together--I cannot say that for sure."
>
> Specter didn't even know his name until it was mentioned. Yet later in
>his career Grossman cashed in on telling everyone he was there and looked
>at the head of JFK before he died. He made money on speaking engagements
>and a book, and had all sorts of TV appearances. David Lifton came across
>him many times and was not impressed and wrote up something on his
>experienced with Grossman:
>
>http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/grossman.htm
>
> While he says he was there, I believe he wasn't

Gee, that's a shocker...you don't think that's because he had something to
say that conflicts with your wacky theory, do you?

>and just made some
>money off saying he was there. I don't trust his 'recollections',

Well, then that nails it...I'll call Neurosurgeon and tell them they
published a large article by someone you don't trust.

>and he
>was the only doctor that saw the BOH and said the wound was as small as a
>quarter, but larger than a bullet.

Hmmmm, maybe that's because he and Clark lifted JFK's head and got a
better look at the wound than the others....how many times do you think
they lifted his head? He wasn't a "Bobble-head" doll you know, he was the
POTUS!

Get real.

>> Are you going to have the audacity and nerve and recklessness to tell me
>> now that Robinson, from the damn gallery, good seat or not, saw the BOH
>> wound better than Grossman?
>>
> Given Grossman's history and probably not even being present, yes.

Probably?

But you're sure enough to keep trumpeting your wacky theory, right?

Like it was Gospel?

>However, Robinson had a very good seat in the gallery, and as a mortician
>has as close a view of the body as anyone,

As anyone? How about several PH docs? How about the autopsists and those
who assisted them. I've personally interviewed several who were beside the
body in the morgue....Robinson was not beside the body until nearly
midnight...JFK's head was in a completely different state then from what
it was when he was first brought to the morgue.

Robinson didn't even recall skull fragments arriving from Dallas.

>including watching the patching
>of the large hole in the BOH. Have you looked for any mention of the
>prosectors doing any messing with the BOH yet? I don't know of anything
>that was done from that position, only from the top and side where they
>extracted the brain.

The autopsists helped do a lot to the BOH.

[...]

[Anthony Marsh]

Thousands.

[mainframetech]

On May 28, 8:02 pm, John Canal <John_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> In article <29917f44-35db-4a96-9863-30f37c0a1...@dl10g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>,

The story was all over the papers and TV. He could have picked it
up anywhere. And some of the things he said didn't fit with what some
of the other doctors said.

> You don't think they checked him out before reporting his story?
>

Not very well.

> Do you think he'd dare to say in public that he and Dr. Clark lifted JFK's
> head if it weren't true?
>

Yep.

> Do you think Salyer was hallucinating?
>

Nope.
\

> He was a neurosurgeon at PH...when other doctors rushed to try to help
> save the President's life, why wouldn't he have done the same? Do you
> think he just didn't like Kennedy or something?
>

I have no idea why he didn't jump in, but he was a junior apprentice
neurosurgeon at that point next to Kemp Clark. For all I know he
avoided the ER because he didn't want to make a mistake on the
president and ruin his career forevermore. But that's just a guess,
not a fact.

> Dulaney said "somebody" lifted JFK's head....do think that might have been
> Clark and Grossman....or do you think the TR1 docs took turns lifting his
> head?
>

Welp, we know that Perry lifted the head for Audrey Bell.

> The prestigious Medical Journal, Neurosurgeon published his two-part
> article...don't you think they'd make sure he wasn't a fake before doing
> that?
>

And how would they do that? Use a fakometer? No one remembered if
he was there, but he might have been, and no one was going to nail him
in public when it was possible he was there.

> >No one registered him being there other than

> >Salyer in his WC testimony, and Grossman never filed a report which the other

> >doctors there had done.
>
> And that proves what?
>
> How about nothing?
>

The doctors have to file reports on what they do no matter the
case. It's for legal protection for the hospital. But Grossman
didn't file one. Obviously because he didn't join in the work.

> JAMA and several PH docs ridiculed Crenshaw too saying he wasn't in TR1,
> but JAMA ended up losing a law suit for making those false claims.
>

So he was proved to be there then. And he said he saw the small
temple/forehead wound that would fit as an entry wound for a bullet.

> Some people didn't want to get involved and didn't unless ordered to.
>

I'm surprised that there were some that wouldn't voluntarily jump in
to help.

> >The WC never asked him to testify.
>
> The WC didn't ask a lot of witnesses to testify, so what? Have you ever
> heard of Chester Boyers? I have, I've interviewed him twice and taken his
> signed statement about the BOH entry wound...but the WC didn't interview
> him.
>
> He was there in the morgue though and had enlightening statements to make
> re. this case.
>

He was in the autopsy room for a while at the end to type up some
stuff. He gave similar testimony to the prosectors, so they didn't
need his info. He probably heard the little bit he was quoted as
saying from the prosectors. If they had Humes and Boswell saying what
they wanted to hear, why would they listen to Boyers?

> >   Salyer's comments under oath about Grossman were:
> >"Dr. SALYER - No; I really did not. I think there were a lot of
> >people--a lot of doctors more closely around him. I might mention
> >also, I think just right after I came in the room Dr. Clark and Dr.
> >Grossman also arrived.
> >Mr. SPECTER - Doctor who?
> >Dr. SALYER - Dr. Grossman, just briefly. He's a neurosurgeon also.
> >Mr. SPECTER - What is his name?
> >Dr. SALYER - Dr. Grossman--Bob Grossman He was just there, I think,
> >briefly.
> >Mr. SPECTER - How long was he there?
> >Dr. SALYER - I couldn't say--I'm not sure he came in the room. I know
> >they were together--I cannot say that for sure."
>
> >   Specter didn't even know his name until it was mentioned.  Yet later in
> >his career Grossman cashed in on telling everyone he was there and looked
> >at the head of JFK before he died.  He made money on speaking engagements
> >and a book, and had all sorts of TV appearances. David Lifton came across
> >him many times and was not impressed and wrote up something on his
> >experienced with Grossman:
>
> >http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/grossman.htm
>
> >   While he says he was there, I believe he wasn't
>
> Gee, that's a shocker...you don't think that's because he had something to
> say that conflicts with your wacky theory, do you?
>

Tch, Tch! I have no wacky theory. Wacky theories are for the WC.
I have facts. I've presented many facts, some of them pointing out
that Grossman wasn't around at the work on JFK. Kemp Clark was the
top neurosurgeon at Parkland and Grossman was his 'apprentice'.
Grossman said he 'raced in' with Clark and was by his side the whole
time he was in Trauma Room 1. However, if you read Clark's WC
testimony, when Clark is asked who was in the room when, he mentions
everyone EXCEPT Grossman. In his whole testimony Clark never mentions
Grossman. At the point that Grossman says he helped Clark lift the
head and look at the wound, Clark says on the record:

"I then examined the wound in the back of the President's head. This
was a large, gaping wound in the right posterior part, with cerebral
and cerebellar tissue being damaged and exposed."

So not only did Clark not have any help from Grossman, he himself
saw the "large, gaping wound" at the BOH. Clearly, Grossman wasn't
anywhere near the TR1.

> >and just made some
> >money off saying he was there. I don't trust his 'recollections',
>
> Well, then that nails it...I'll call Neurosurgeon and tell them they
> published a large article by someone you don't trust.
>

It doesn't change the facts I've presented that you don't want to
argue with or listen to, that you make comments that are no part of
the discussion. As well, I have the feeling that you refused to read
the article I linked to:
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/grossman.htm

> >and he
> >was the only doctor that saw the BOH and said the wound was as small as a
> >quarter, but larger than a bullet.
>
> Hmmmm, maybe that's because he and Clark lifted JFK's head and got a
> better look at the wound than the others....how many times do you think
> they lifted his head? He wasn't a "Bobble-head" doll you know, he was the
> POTUS!
>
> Get real.
>

Yep. Good advice for us all. See above. Clark himself didn't see
Grossman at the head of JFK based on WC testimony.

> >> Are you going to have the audacity and nerve and recklessness to tell me
> >> now that Robinson, from the damn gallery, good seat or not, saw the BOH
> >> wound better than Grossman?
>
> >  Given Grossman's history and probably not even being present, yes.
>
> Probably?
>

Sorry. Guaranteed absence from the TR1. I fall into that
politically proper mode at times.

> But you're sure enough to keep trumpeting your wacky theory, right?
>

As noted before, I've trumpeted facts and given backup for them,
which you have done little of. And (as you know) the wacky theories
belong to the WC.

> Like it was Gospel?
>
Yep. Obvious and clear. Factual.

> >However, Robinson had a very good seat in the gallery, and as a mortician
> >has as close a view of the body as anyone,
>
> As anyone? How about several PH docs? How about the autopsists and those
> who assisted them. I've personally interviewed several who were beside the
> body in the morgue....Robinson was not beside the body until nearly
> midnight...JFK's head was in a completely different state then from what
> it was when he was first brought to the morgue.
>

False. Apparently you haven't read Robinson's testimony. He states
that he arrived "early" in the autopsy prior to the chest incision
being made, and just as the gross examination of the head was
starting.
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=711&relPageId=2

That means the work on the head hadn't started yet. While Robinson
was not at the side of the body, the ones that were those under
orders. His place in the gallery was on the anatomical left of the
body, while the prosectors were on the right. He called his position
a "50 yard line seat". He also said that the "gallery observers" were
behind him. He noted that when the brain was removed, the damage to
it was 'at the back', so the rest of the brain must have been in good
order, which would fit the FMJ bullet striking the forehead.

Robinson described 3 major areas of damage to the head before any
damage done by the autopsists, ands those he drew on forms of the
skull as:
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=350&relPageId=3
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=350&relPageId=4

Robinson also saw them doing "saw cuts" to remove the brain, so
that would be some of the damage to the skull front. He also
mentioned that every bone in the skull was broken, and he said you
couldn't see it just looking at him. That means that he handled the
head at some point, and I know that from personal experience. I've
handled a head liker that and you can feel the bones in the
head ,moving and rubbing on each other. That show that Robinson was
as close as you can get to the body. In all this work done on the
body, nowhere does it say that ANY work was done on the rear of the
skull, where the large hole was that was seen by most everyone at
Parkland and most at Bethesda.

> Robinson didn't even recall skull fragments arriving from Dallas.
>

Ah! So you admit that skull fragments were missing. And where do
you think they were missing from? The one at the right side over the
ear was attached and hanging out, so it wasn't that one.

> >including watching the patching
> >of the large hole in the BOH.  Have you looked for any mention of the
> >prosectors doing any messing with the BOH yet? I don't know of anything
> >that was done from that position, only from the top and side where they
> >extracted the brain.
>
> The autopsists helped do a lot to the BOH.
>

Nope. The morticians were left to do their work on their own. No
help that I know of. If you have any mention of that, I'd love to see
it. Robinson was asked whether the pathologists stayed during the
embalming and reconstructive work, and he said they did not.

Chris

[John Canal]

In article <6d19f7a6-4f6c-4fa7...@l5g2000vbn.googlegroups.com>,
mainframetech says...
>
>On May 28, 8:02=A0pm, John Canal <John_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:

[...]

>> >> Grossman and Clark lifted his head to get a point blank look at the

>> >> BOH...yes there was a BOH wound, but Grossman said it was about the si=
>ze
>> >> of a quearter.
>>
>> > =A0 I have some news for you.

>>
>> That'll be the day.
>>
>> >It appears that Grossman wasn't even in the
>> >ER when JFK was there.
>>
>> It appears?
>>
>> You don't sound too sure.
>>

>> Funny, if he wasn't there, that he was interviewed about his exeriences i=

>n
>> TR1 by Ben Bradlee of the Boston Globe, and Larry King (CNN), not to
>> mention the ARRB, eh?
>>
> The story was all over the papers and TV. He could have picked it
>up anywhere. And some of the things he said didn't fit with what some
>of the other doctors said.

My oh my, just how many witnesses do you need to be lying for your wacky
theory to work?

>> You don't think they checked him out before reporting his story?
>>
> Not very well.

And how many to be incompetent?

>> Do you think he'd dare to say in public that he and Dr. Clark lifted JFK'=

>s
>> head if it weren't true?
>>
> Yep.

So he was stupid enough to take the chance Clark wouldn't publicly correct
him?

Now you've got liars, incompentent, and idiots.

What's next? Deaf mutes?

>> Do you think Salyer was hallucinating?
>>
> Nope.

So he just brought up Grossman's name for fun?

>> He was a neurosurgeon at PH...when other doctors rushed to try to help
>> save the President's life, why wouldn't he have done the same? Do you
>> think he just didn't like Kennedy or something?
>>
> I have no idea why he didn't jump in,

So now you've got doctors who don't want to do what they took an oath to
do...to save lives?

>but he was a junior apprentice
>neurosurgeon at that point next to Kemp Clark. For all I know

Whaich about this subject isn't much.

>he
>avoided the ER because he didn't want to make a mistake on the
>president and ruin his career forevermore.

Now you've got scared doctors?

>But that's just a guess,
>not a fact.

You do a lot of guessing.

>> Dulaney said "somebody" lifted JFK's head....do think that might have bee=

>n
>> Clark and Grossman....or do you think the TR1 docs took turns lifting his
>> head?
>>
> Welp, we know that Perry lifted the head for Audrey Bell.

Read more closely...she said he "turned the head"...different from
lifting. There's only one account of anyone "lifting" the head....Grossman
saying Clark and he did it.

>> The prestigious Medical Journal, Neurosurgeon published his two-part
>> article...don't you think they'd make sure he wasn't a fake before doing
>> that?
>>
> And how would they do that? Use a fakometer?

So prestigious journals don't check the background or credibility of those
whose articles they publish...maybe they'd publish yours?

>No one remembered if
>he was there, but he might have been, and no one was going to nail him
>in public when it was possible he was there.

It was chaotic in TR1....many have concluded Bell and Crenshaw weren't
there but haven't been able to prove they weren't.

>> >No one registered him being there other than
>> >Salyer in his WC testimony,

So why did Salyer even mention Grossman......were they gay and Grossman
was on his mind?

>and Grossman never filed a report which the =

>other
>> >doctors there had done.

He was with Clark...perhaps he felt he had nothing to add that Clark
didn't report.

>> And that proves what?
>>
>> How about nothing?
>>
> The doctors have to file reports on what they do no matter the
>case. It's for legal protection for the hospital. But Grossman
>didn't file one. Obviously because he didn't join in the work.

That doesn't prove he lied and that Salyer picked his name out of thin
air.

Does it?????????????????????????????

Yes or no?????????

>> JAMA and several PH docs ridiculed Crenshaw too saying he wasn't in TR1,
>> but JAMA ended up losing a law suit for making those false claims.
>>
> So he was proved to be there then. And he said he saw the small
>temple/forehead wound that would fit as an entry wound for a bullet.

So the PH docs who said Crenshaw wasn't there were wrong....that's because
it was chaotic in TR1....there's zero proof Grossman wasn't there.

>> Some people didn't want to get involved and didn't unless ordered to.
>>
> I'm surprised that there were some that wouldn't voluntarily jump in
>to help.
>
>> >The WC never asked him to testify.
>>
>> The WC didn't ask a lot of witnesses to testify, so what? Have you ever
>> heard of Chester Boyers? I have, I've interviewed him twice and taken his
>> signed statement about the BOH entry wound...but the WC didn't interview
>> him.
>>
>> He was there in the morgue though and had enlightening statements to make
>> re. this case.
>>
> He was in the autopsy room for a while at the end to type up some
>stuff. He gave similar testimony to the prosectors, so they didn't
>need his info.

He was an eyewitness as to where the entry was and had other info.....the
point is the WC didn't interview many witnesses. Bell...Crenshaw, etc.

>He probably heard the little bit he was quoted as
>saying from the prosectors.

He was an eyewitness to where the entry was.

>If they had Humes and Boswell saying what
>they wanted to hear, why would they listen to Boyers?

I guess you need Boyers to be a liar too?

>
>> > =A0 Salyer's comments under oath about Grossman were:

>> >"Dr. SALYER - No; I really did not. I think there were a lot of
>> >people--a lot of doctors more closely around him. I might mention
>> >also, I think just right after I came in the room Dr. Clark and Dr.
>> >Grossman also arrived.
>> >Mr. SPECTER - Doctor who?
>> >Dr. SALYER - Dr. Grossman, just briefly. He's a neurosurgeon also.
>> >Mr. SPECTER - What is his name?
>> >Dr. SALYER - Dr. Grossman--Bob Grossman He was just there, I think,
>> >briefly.
>> >Mr. SPECTER - How long was he there?
>> >Dr. SALYER - I couldn't say--I'm not sure he came in the room. I know
>> >they were together--I cannot say that for sure."
>>

>> > =A0 Specter didn't even know his name until it was mentioned. =A0Yet la=
>ter in
>> >his career Grossman cashed in on telling everyone he was there and looke=
>d
>> >at the head of JFK before he died. =A0He made money on speaking engageme=
>nts
>> >and a book, and had all sorts of TV appearances. David Lifton came acros=

>s
>> >him many times and was not impressed and wrote up something on his
>> >experienced with Grossman:
>>
>> >http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/grossman.htm
>>

>> > =A0 While he says he was there, I believe he wasn't
>>
>> Gee, that's a shocker...you don't think that's because he had something t=

>o
>> say that conflicts with your wacky theory, do you?
>>
> Tch, Tch! I have no wacky theory.

Take a vote among those on this NG.

>Wacky theories are for the WC.
>I have facts.

Twisted.

>I've presented many facts, some of them pointing out
>that Grossman wasn't around at the work on JFK.

You've gone from saying it appears he wasn't in TR1 to now being sure he
wasn't.

How did you do that?

Kind of like the temple thing morphing to the twmple/forehead?

>Kemp Clark was the
>top neurosurgeon at Parkland and Grossman was his 'apprentice'.
>Grossman said he 'raced in' with Clark and was by his side the whole
>time he was in Trauma Room 1. However, if you read Clark's WC
>testimony, when Clark is asked who was in the room when, he mentions
>everyone EXCEPT Grossman.

Was he asked specifically if Grossman ever entered TR1?

No.

People don't always volunteer information unless they're asked about it.

>In his whole testimony Clark never mentions
>Grossman. At the point that Grossman says he helped Clark lift the
>head and look at the wound, Clark says on the record:
>
>"I then examined the wound in the back of the President's head. This
>was a large, gaping wound in the right posterior part, with cerebral
>and cerebellar tissue being damaged and exposed."

He did examine the BOH.....where in that statement does he say Grossman
wasn't with him or even there?

Huh?

Where?

Where's the absolute conclusive proof that might stand up in a court of
law that Grossman was lying?

Where?

Write it here:_____________________________________


--
John Canal
jca...@webtv.net

[mainframetech]

On May 29, 5:18 pm, John Canal <John_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> In article <6d19f7a6-4f6c-4fa7-b9b2-742c0168c...@l5g2000vbn.googlegroups.com>,

> mainframetech says...
>
>
>
> >On May 28, 8:02=A0pm, John Canal <John_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>
>
> >> >> Grossman and Clark lifted his head to get a point blank look at the
> >> >> BOH...yes there was a BOH wound, but Grossman said it was about the si=
> >ze
> >> >> of a quearter.
>
> >> > =A0 I have some news for you.
>
> >> That'll be the day.
>
> >> >It appears that Grossman wasn't even in the
> >> >ER when JFK was there.
>
> >> It appears?
>
> >> You don't sound too sure.
>
> >> Funny, if he wasn't there, that he was interviewed about his exeriences i=
> >n
> >> TR1 by Ben Bradlee of the Boston Globe, and Larry King (CNN), not to
> >> mention the ARRB, eh?
>
> >   The story was all over the papers and TV.  He could have picked it
> >up anywhere. And some of the things he said didn't fit with what some
> >of the other doctors said.
>
> My oh my, just how many witnesses do you need to be lying for your wacky
> theory to work?
>

Note that I told you that the wacky theories are the realm of the
WC. First the 'lone nut' then the Single Bullet' theories. So now
you take refuge in Marsh's hiding place and yell that the witnesses
all lied? Or is that what CTs say when logically cornered?

> >> You don't think they checked him out before reporting his story?
>
> >  Not very well.
>
> And how many to be incompetent?
>

Are you suggesting that the witnesses were incompetent? Which ones,
and why? You need to back up some of those insults to people's
reputations.

> >> Do you think he'd dare to say in public that he and Dr. Clark lifted JFK'=
> >s
> >> head if it weren't true?
>
> >  Yep.
>
> So he was stupid enough to take the chance Clark wouldn't publicly correct
> him?
>

Looks like it. And Clark didn't as far as I know. Probably didn't
want to be the ruin of the fellows career.

> Now you've got liars, incompentent, and idiots.
>

Nope. Many are trained medical personnel. But which ones are the
ones that you're insulting? You need to name them and say what they
are wrong about. That's normal debate practice. Be specific, mot
general like the CTs.

> What's next? Deaf mutes?
>

Ah! You're referring to Ed Hoffman? Yes, don't leave out the deaf
mute. He went to the FBI with his story the same day it happened and
the FBI tried to buy him off, then they warned him not to tell his
story. He was quiet for a few years If I remember correctly, before
he let the cat out of the bag.

> >> Do you think Salyer was hallucinating?
>
> >  Nope.
>
> So he just brought up Grossman's name for fun?
>

Nope. He was trying to name the people he had seen. Since Grossman
was always following Clark, Salyer thought he ,might have seen him,
but he wasn't too sure and let it go. We know Clark was there, but he
failed to mention his 'apprentice' at all!

> >> He was a neurosurgeon at PH...when other doctors rushed to try to help
> >> save the President's life, why wouldn't he have done the same? Do you
> >> think he just didn't like Kennedy or something?
>
> >  I have no idea why he didn't jump in,
>
> So now you've got doctors who don't want to do what they took an oath to
> do...to save lives?
>

I said I don't know why he didn't jump in. I would only be guessing
that he didn't want a mistake with the president on his record.

> >but he was a junior apprentice
> >neurosurgeon at that point next to Kemp Clark.  For all I know
>
> Whaich about this subject isn't much.
>
> >he
> >avoided the ER because he didn't want to make a mistake on the
> >president and ruin his career forevermore.
>
> Now you've got scared doctors?
>

LOL! Doctors are human, believe it or not. They may or may not
show it, but they're plenty human.

> >But that's just a guess,
> >not a fact.
>
> You do a lot of guessing.
>

I state clearly when I'm guessing. How about you?

> >> Dulaney said "somebody" lifted JFK's head....do think that might have bee=
> >n
> >> Clark and Grossman....or do you think the TR1 docs took turns lifting his
> >> head?
>
> >   Welp, we know that Perry lifted the head for Audrey Bell.
>
> Read more closely...she said he "turned the head"...different from
> lifting. There's only one account of anyone "lifting" the head....Grossman
> saying Clark and he did it.
>

True as far as it goes. Perry turned the head. Lifting it might
let more brains fall out.

> >> The prestigious Medical Journal, Neurosurgeon published his two-part
> >> article...don't you think they'd make sure he wasn't a fake before doing
> >> that?
>
> >  And how would they do that?  Use a fakometer?
>
> So prestigious journals don't check the background or credibility of those
> whose articles they publish...maybe they'd publish yours?
>

If an article was made up with all the right things said, there
were very few that could say it was false, and most of those might not
be absolutely sure that Grossman wasn't there and wouldn't want to say
anything for fear of making a ruckus for nothing.

> >No one remembered if
> >he was there, but he might have been, and no one was going to nail him
> >in public when it was possible he was there.
>
> It was chaotic in TR1....many have concluded Bell and Crenshaw weren't
> there but haven't been able to prove they weren't.
>

Crenshaw even proved it with by suing those that said otherwise.
Bell didn't have the monetary resources and didn't seem bothered by a
few fools. She wasn't after money or fame, proven by her lack of TV
deals and books and speaking tours like Grossman had.

> >> >No one registered him being there other than
> >> >Salyer in his WC testimony,
>
> So why did Salyer even mention Grossman......were they gay and Grossman
> was on his mind?
>

Nope, not to our knowledge. But Clark was there and Grossman was
always tagging along with him, so Salyer wasn't sure if Grossman was
there, though he didn't really see him.

> >and Grossman never filed a report which the =
> >other
> >> >doctors there had done.
>
> He was with Clark...perhaps he felt he had nothing to add that Clark
> didn't report.
>

It's not a mater of that. The report foiled is from every doctor
that did anything for a particular patient. Nothing to do with not
having anything to report. And you've said he was "with Clark"...were
you there, or were you reading minds? Or just guessing?

> >> And that proves what?
>
> >> How about nothing?
>
> >  The doctors have to file reports on what they do no matter the
> >case.  It's for legal protection for the hospital.  But Grossman
> >didn't file one.  Obviously because he didn't join in the work.
>
> That doesn't prove he lied and that Salyer picked his name out of thin
> air.
>
> Does it?????????????????????????????
>
> Yes or no?????????
>

That by itself says he either wasn't there or violated procedure
failing to make out a report. But overall, he wasn't there. That's
why Specter didn't know his name when Salyer mentioned it.

> >> JAMA and several PH docs ridiculed Crenshaw too saying he wasn't in TR1,
> >> but JAMA ended up losing a law suit for making those false claims.
>
> >   So he was proved to be there then.  And he said he saw the small
> >temple/forehead wound that would fit as an entry wound for a bullet.
>
> So the PH docs who said Crenshaw wasn't there were wrong....that's because
> it was chaotic in TR1....there's zero proof Grossman wasn't there.
>

There's more tan zero proof. There is first that no one remembers
him...on its own that's not enough, but his failure to follow
procedure and file a report says a lot, and his failure to be at the
meeting of all doctors and nurses that assisted in TR1. "On December
11, two Secret Service agents met with the doctors who had been with
the President. The purpose of the meeting was to show them the
Bethesda autopsy report. Dr. Grossman was not at that meeting."
From: http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/grossman.htm

>
>
> >> Some people didn't want to get involved and didn't unless ordered to.
>
> >  I'm surprised that there were some that wouldn't voluntarily jump in
> >to help.
>
> >> >The WC never asked him to testify.
>
> >> The WC didn't ask a lot of witnesses to testify, so what? Have you ever
> >> heard of Chester Boyers? I have, I've interviewed him twice and taken his
> >> signed statement about the BOH entry wound...but the WC didn't interview
> >> him.
>
> >> He was there in the morgue though and had enlightening statements to make
> >> re. this case.
>
> >  He was in the autopsy room for a while at the end to type up some
> >stuff.  He gave similar testimony to the prosectors, so they didn't
> >need his info.
>
> He was an eyewitness as to where the entry was and had other info.....the
> point is the WC didn't interview many witnesses. Bell...Crenshaw, etc.
>
> >He probably heard the little bit he was quoted as
> >saying from the prosectors.
>
> He was an eyewitness to where the entry was.
>

I didn't see that anywhere. Cites please, that he did more than
type up some reports. And if the reports were those from the autopsy
or Humes or Boswell, then they may well say the same stuff as those
fellows. He may also have been in a position to overhear wheat those
doctors said while they were under orders.

> >If they had Humes and Boswell saying what
> >they wanted to hear, why would they listen to Boyers?
>
> I guess you need Boyers to be a liar too?
>

I've only suggested one guy was lying, Grossman. I doubt Boyers
would be lying, but he may repeat what he heard Humes and Boswell said
and repeated it.

A vote on the NG would only tell us who was an LNer or CT, and they
outnumber the few fact based persons like myself.

> >Wacky theories are for the WC.
> >I have facts.
>
> Twisted.
>

Nope. You have seen all the facts and have a perfect opportunity to
bring up any of them and make a point that shows they mean something
else, or are false, or whatever. Now's your chance, but I'm not
hearing much debate.

> >I've presented many facts, some of them pointing out
> >that Grossman wasn't around at the work on JFK.
>
> You've gone from saying it appears he wasn't in TR1 to now being sure he
> wasn't.
>
> How did you do that?
>

I explained that. Weren't you reading here? I said that I tend to
get into the socially polite mode, and your reminder got me back to
reality. That socially polite or correct mode is miserable, but some
people expect it in debate. My apologies.

> Kind of like the temple thing morphing to the twmple/forehead?
>

I don't think of it that way. March had hos way of saying it and I
had mine. I put them together to come up with less conflict. I've
given you the quote from the ARRB on Tom Robinson's words.

> >Kemp Clark was the
> >top neurosurgeon at Parkland and Grossman was his 'apprentice'.
> >Grossman said he 'raced in' with Clark and was by his side the whole
> >time he was in Trauma Room 1.  However, if you read Clark's WC
> >testimony, when Clark is asked who was in the room when, he mentions
> >everyone EXCEPT Grossman.
>
> Was he asked specifically if Grossman ever entered TR1?
>
> No.
>

He was asked specifically to name the doctors that WERE there when
he got there. Grossman wasn't one of them, but he named many doctors.

Later, when asked about the throat wound, Salyer had a thought and
mentioned Clark, and then Grossman as per the testimony you've seen
here.

> People don't always volunteer information unless they're asked about it.
>

see above.

> >In his whole testimony Clark never mentions
> >Grossman.  At the point that Grossman says he helped Clark lift the
> >head and look at the wound, Clark says on the record:
>
> >"I then examined the wound in the back of the President's head. This
> >was a large, gaping wound in the right posterior part, with cerebral
> >and cerebellar tissue being damaged and exposed."
>
> He did examine the BOH.....where in that statement does he say Grossman
> wasn't with him or even there?
>
> Huh?
>
> Where?
>

He failed to say that Grossman helped him lift the head, as Grossman
had told his story. And yet Grossman was his 'apprentice'. The whole
time he never mentioned Grossman.

> Where's the absolute conclusive proof that might stand up in a court of
> law that Grossman was lying?
>
> Where?
>
> Write it here:_____________________________________
>

We're not in a court. And that's sort of a CT escape, isn't it? In
looking at witnesses we have to be a bit like a jury and read the
person using our experience of people.

Chris

[John Canal]

In article <7f062b09-41dc-44c2...@k3g2000vbn.googlegroups.com>,
mainframetech says...
>
>On May 29, 5:18=A0pm, John Canal <John_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>> In article <6d19f7a6-4f6c-4fa7-b9b2-742c0168c...@l5g2000vbn.googlegroups.=

>com>,
>> mainframetech says...
>>
>>
>>
>> >On May 28, 8:02=3DA0pm, John Canal <John_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> >> >> Grossman and Clark lifted his head to get a point blank look at the

>> >> >> BOH...yes there was a BOH wound, but Grossman said it was about the=
> si=3D
>> >ze
>> >> >> of a quearter.
>>
>> >> > =3DA0 I have some news for you.

>>
>> >> That'll be the day.
>>
>> >> >It appears that Grossman wasn't even in the
>> >> >ER when JFK was there.
>>
>> >> It appears?
>>
>> >> You don't sound too sure.
>>

>> >> Funny, if he wasn't there, that he was interviewed about his exerience=
>s i=3D

>> >n
>> >> TR1 by Ben Bradlee of the Boston Globe, and Larry King (CNN), not to
>> >> mention the ARRB, eh?
>>

>> > =A0 The story was all over the papers and TV. =A0He could have picked i=

>t
>> >up anywhere. And some of the things he said didn't fit with what some
>> >of the other doctors said.
>>
>> My oh my, just how many witnesses do you need to be lying for your wacky
>> theory to work?
>>
> Note that I told you that the wacky theories are the realm of the
>WC. First the 'lone nut' then the Single Bullet' theories.

Is that a fact? And after almost 50 years no proof against either fact.

>So now
>you take refuge in Marsh's hiding place and yell that the witnesses
>all lied?

Huh? You're the one who's claiming witnesses like Grossman lied and Salyer
was hallucianting.

>Or is that what CTs say when logically cornered?

>> >> You don't think they checked him out before reporting his story?
>>

>> > =A0Not very well.

>>
>> And how many to be incompetent?
>>
> Are you suggesting that the witnesses were incompetent?

No you were suggesting that powerful media like the Boston Globe and CNN
weren't competent enough to make sure Grossman was credible before
interviewing him.

>Which ones,
>and why? You need to back up some of those insults to people's
>reputations.

No what I need to do is stop wasting my time discussing this case with
someone advancing such wacky theories.

>> >> Do you think he'd dare to say in public that he and Dr. Clark lifted J=
>FK'=3D

>> >s
>> >> head if it weren't true?
>>

>> > =A0Yep.
>>
>> So he was stupid enough to take the chance Clark wouldn't publicly correc=
>t
>> him?
>>
> Looks like it.

There you go again....you think so many were incompetent, untruthful or
stupid, you ought to make a list and see just how long it is.

Add me to the stupid part for engaging you.

>And Clark didn't as far as I know. Probably didn't
>want to be the ruin of the fellows career.

So he was untruthful too?

>> Now you've got liars, incompentent, and idiots.
>>
> Nope. Many are trained medical personnel. But which ones are the
>ones that you're insulting? You need to name them and say what they
>are wrong about. That's normal debate practice. Be specific, mot
>general like the CTs.

Do you read English?

Thereare very few eyewitnesses I think lied and very few who were
incompetent.

Read slowly: there was a BOH wound...I've been arguing for that scenario
years before you started trumpeting your temple (make that your
temple/forehead) hit, and BOH wound.

>> What's next? Deaf mutes?
>>
> Ah! You're referring to Ed Hoffman? Yes, don't leave out the deaf
>mute. He went to the FBI with his story the same day it happened and
>the FBI tried to buy him off, then they warned him not to tell his
>story. He was quiet for a few years If I remember correctly, before
>he let the cat out of the bag.
>
>> >> Do you think Salyer was hallucinating?
>>

>> > =A0Nope.

>>
>> So he just brought up Grossman's name for fun?
>>
> Nope. He was trying to name the people he had seen. Since Grossman
>was always following Clark, Salyer thought he ,might have seen him,

Oh, the image of Clark and Grossman together more or less was in Salyer's
mind when he testified he thought Grossman was there, eh?

That's your solid reasoning at work....again.

>but he wasn't too sure and let it go. We know Clark was there, but he
>failed to mention his 'apprentice' at all!

But no one asked him to say under oath if Grossman was there.

Let that sink in....on second thought, don't bother....after all even if
you're not making sense, you seem to be having fun.

You know what, I'm going to give you the last shot....I've wasted far too
much of my time already trying to wake you up.

Go ahead and say anything ridiculous...I'll not respond.

You've worn me out with your wacky conclusions.

Someone has advised me before not to engage posters like you...I should
have listened.

And good luck with your temple/forehead entry and
vanishing/vaporizing/disappearing bullet fragments from your frangible
bullet that left no pathway through the brain consistent with the wacky
trajectory you argue for.

I leave you with one last image (re. the link below). See that circular
hole-looking defect in JFK's lower rear skull? If not get some glasses.

http://imageshack.us/a/img138/3410/f8entryblowupsized.jpg

In any case that's where the only bullet that hit JFK in the head entered.

Bye.

[mainframetech]

On May 30, 12:05 am, John Canal <John_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> In article <7f062b09-41dc-44c2-bf79-c45008b2a...@k3g2000vbn.googlegroups.com>,

I agree.

> >So now
> >you take refuge in Marsh's hiding place and yell that the witnesses
> >all lied?
>
> Huh? You're the one who's claiming witnesses like Grossman lied and Salyer
> was hallucianting.
>

And you have not suggested that anyone was lying? I haven't
suggested that Salyer was hallucinating, only that he saw Clark and
may have assumed that Grossman was with him as he often was. But
thinking it over, he came out not remembering if Grossman was there.
We know from all the other information mentioned that he wasn't. The
failure to file a report, missing from the meeting of all in the ER,
etc.

> >Or is that what CTs say when logically cornered?
> >> >> You don't think they checked him out before reporting his story?
>
> >> > =A0Not very well.
>
> >> And how many to be incompetent?
>
> >  Are you suggesting that the witnesses were incompetent?
>
> No you were suggesting that powerful media like the Boston Globe and CNN
> weren't competent enough to make sure Grossman was credible before
> interviewing him.
>

I haven't suggested anything of the sort. At that time I think the
news media were dying to get more JFK articles, and checking out
Grossman would be impossible to disqualify him because no one would
rat him out. Doctors still support doctors...:)

> >Which ones,
> >and why?  You need to back up some of those insults to people's
> >reputations.
>
> No what I need to do is stop wasting my time discussing this case with
> someone advancing such wacky theories.
>

Well, that got you out of that backup, didn't it? You know that I
have backed up anything you needed me to. Are you simply going on
your beliefs that you obviously hold dear to your heart, regardless of
facts?

> >> >> Do you think he'd dare to say in public that he and Dr. Clark lifted J=
> >FK'=3D
> >> >s
> >> >> head if it weren't true?
>
> >> > =A0Yep.
>
> >> So he was stupid enough to take the chance Clark wouldn't publicly correc=
> >t
> >> him?
>
> >  Looks like it.
>
> There you go again....you think so many were incompetent, untruthful or
> stupid, you ought to make a list and see just how long it is.
>

I've spoken against ONE person in this dialog, and you hear many.
A problem of perception.

> Add me to the stupid part for engaging you.
>

That's up to you to volunteer. I understand heartfelt beliefs and
faith.

> >And Clark didn't as far as I know.  Probably didn't
> >want to be the ruin of the fellows career.
>
> So he was untruthful too?
>

Nope. I haven't said that. I surmised that Clark decided to let it
go, that it would be unseemly to make a noise about it.

> >> Now you've got liars, incompentent, and idiots.
>
> >  Nope.  Many are trained medical personnel.  But which ones are the
> >ones that you're insulting?  You need to name them and say what they
> >are wrong about.  That's normal debate practice.  Be specific, mot
> >general like the CTs.
>
> Do you read English?
>

Just enough to answer your question yes.

> There are very few eyewitnesses I think lied and very few who were

> incompetent.
>
> Read slowly: there was a BOH wound...I've been arguing for that scenario
> years before you started trumpeting your temple (make that your
> temple/forehead) hit, and BOH wound.
>

I'm glad to see that we agree there was a wound at the BOH. Now we
just need to settle on the size of it. And as to the forehead/temple
bullet entry, well, I have a feeling you won't go along with that one
because it says conspiracy.

>
> >> What's next? Deaf mutes?
>
> >  Ah!  You're referring to Ed Hoffman?  Yes, don't leave out the deaf
> >mute.  He went to the FBI with his story the same day it happened and
> >the FBI tried to buy him off, then they warned him not to tell his
> >story.  He was quiet for a few years If I remember correctly, before
> >he let the cat out of the bag.
>
> >> >> Do you think Salyer was hallucinating?
>
> >> > =A0Nope.
>
> >> So he just brought up Grossman's name for fun?
>
> >  Nope.  He was trying to name the people he had seen.  Since Grossman
> >was always following Clark, Salyer thought he ,might have seen him,
>
> Oh, the image of Clark and Grossman together more or less was in Salyer's
> mind when he testified he thought Grossman was there, eh?
>

I suspect so, it explains his testimony that he wasn't sure that
Grossman was anywhere around the ER.

> That's your solid reasoning at work....again.
>

Thanks, I wasn't sure you had noticed.

> >but he wasn't too sure and let it go.  We know Clark was there, but he
> >failed to mention his 'apprentice' at all!
>
> But no one asked him to say under oath if Grossman was there.
>

Correct. Since Specter had no reason to question him, he didn't
care that much when he heard there was a Grossman. He just let it
go. He never went back and had Grossman come in for questions.

> Let that sink in....on second thought, don't bother....after all even if
> you're not making sense, you seem to be having fun.
>

Nope. It's not what I call fun to dash someone's long term beliefs.

> You know what, I'm going to give you the last shot....I've wasted far too
> much of my time already trying to wake you up.
>

Hmm. A mutual waking party!

> Go ahead and say anything ridiculous...I'll not respond.
>

No problem. I've said my piece and given my backup for my comments.
Now you have to reconcile all that with your own faith in the WC. Not
an easy task unless you're among the blindly faithful.

> You've worn me out with your wacky conclusions.
>

And you weren't worn out trying to fight for the WC wacky theories?

> Someone has advised me before not to engage posters like you...I should
> have listened.
>
> And good luck with your temple/forehead entry and
> vanishing/vaporizing/disappearing bullet fragments from your frangible
> bullet that left no pathway through the brain consistent with the wacky
> trajectory you argue for.
>

You seem to think that Humes and Boswell did the proper thing and
found out how to follow the path of the bullet from the temple/
forehead to the BOH blowout.

> I leave you with one last image (re. the link below). See that circular
> hole-looking defect in JFK's lower rear skull? If not get some glasses.
>
> http://imageshack.us/a/img138/3410/f8entryblowupsized.jpg
>
> In any case that's where the only bullet that hit JFK in the head entered.
>

Nope. That may or may not be one of the holes made by a bullet.
The ones that are more obvious have been pointed out by a number of
people.

> Bye.
>
Bye.
>
Chris

[Anthony Marsh]

Oh. you mean like both of them working for the CIA?

>> Which ones,
>> and why? You need to back up some of those insults to people's
>> reputations.
>
> No what I need to do is stop wasting my time discussing this case with
> someone advancing such wacky theories.
>

You shouldn't be discussing this case with anyone. You have to be very
careful, you might learn something.

Can you not see all the fragments left behind in JFK's brain?
Many more than were left in James Brady's brain from the explosive bullet.

[John Canal]

In article <51a76ad1$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...

[...]

>> And good luck with your temple/forehead entry and
>> vanishing/vaporizing/disappearing bullet fragments from your frangible
>> bullet that left no pathway through the brain consistent with the wacky
>> trajectory you argue for.

Marsh :contributes":

>Can you not see all the fragments left behind in JFK's brain?
>Many more than were left in James Brady's brain from the explosive >bullet.

I was obviously asking him what happened to the fragments "behind" (not in
the brain) JFK's head that came from his imaginary frangible bullet that
he thinks EXITED JFK's rear skull.

If you can't read please don't chime in.

Now, Marsh, while we're "lucky" enough to have you grace this thread with
your presence, insight and oh so constructive comments, please continue to
enlighten the group (re. the graphic the link below is to) on what the
circular-looking defect below the ruler is in the rear skull IF IT'S "NOT"
A BULLET HOLE.

Note: This graphic is a copy of autopsy photo #45, titled, Missile wound
in posterior skull with the brain removed.

http://imageshack.us/a/img138/3410/f8entryblowupsized.jpg

Folks, I hope you appreciate and will benefit from Marsh's insight on
this, after all he's been researching this case for decades and is a
self-proclaimed expert.

Thanks Marsh.

Choke.

BTW, that aforementioned defect has been confirmed as the entry in JFK's
BOH by long-time researcher, Chad Zimmerman and wound-ballistics exert,
Larry Sturdivan.....who both examined the un-cropped originals (which they
said were "remarkably" clear) stereoscopically.


--
John Canal
jca...@webtv.net

[Anthony Marsh]

On 5/31/2013 10:40 AM, John Canal wrote:
> In article <51a76ad1$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...
>
> [...]
>
>
>>> And good luck with your temple/forehead entry and
>>> vanishing/vaporizing/disappearing bullet fragments from your frangible
>>> bullet that left no pathway through the brain consistent with the wacky
>>> trajectory you argue for.
>
> Marsh :contributes":
>
>> Can you not see all the fragments left behind in JFK's brain?
>> Many more than were left in James Brady's brain from the explosive >bullet.
>
> I was obviously asking him what happened to the fragments "behind" (not in
> the brain) JFK's head that came from his imaginary frangible bullet that
> he thinks EXITED JFK's rear skull.
>

Obviously you assume things that people never say. Maybe he doesn't assume
any bullet fragments exiting the brain. No one said anything about a
BULLET exiting the rear skull. The whole idea of a frangible bullet is
that it doesn' exit. You always show what a tough guy you are by building
a man out of straw and blowing him over.

> If you can't read please don't chime in.
>

If you can't think clearly then stop posting.

> Now, Marsh, while we're "lucky" enough to have you grace this thread with
> your presence, insight and oh so constructive comments, please continue to
> enlighten the group (re. the graphic the link below is to) on what the
> circular-looking defect below the ruler is in the rear skull IF IT'S "NOT"
> A BULLET HOLE.
>

There is no circular looking anything and there is no defect. Just your
imagination. Another Badge Man.

> Note: This graphic is a copy of autopsy photo #45, titled, Missile wound
> in posterior skull with the brain removed.
>
> http://imageshack.us/a/img138/3410/f8entryblowupsized.jpg
>
> Folks, I hope you appreciate and will benefit from Marsh's insight on
> this, after all he's been researching this case for decades and is a
> self-proclaimed expert.
>
> Thanks Marsh.
>
> Choke.
>
> BTW, that aforementioned defect has been confirmed as the entry in JFK's
> BOH by long-time researcher, Chad Zimmerman and wound-ballistics exert,
> Larry Sturdivan.....who both examined the un-cropped originals (which they
> said were "remarkably" clear) stereoscopically.
>
>

Both unqualified and biased. WC defenders not forensic pathologists.

[John Canal]

In article <51a8...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...

>
>On 5/31/2013 10:40 AM, John Canal wrote:
>> In article <51a76ad1$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...
>>
>> [...]
>>
>>
>>>> And good luck with your temple/forehead entry and
>>>> vanishing/vaporizing/disappearing bullet fragments from your frangible
>>>> bullet that left no pathway through the brain consistent with the wacky
>>>> trajectory you argue for.
>>
>> Marsh :contributes":
>>
>>> Can you not see all the fragments left behind in JFK's brain?
>>> Many more than were left in James Brady's brain from the explosive >bullet.
>>
>> I was obviously asking him what happened to the fragments "behind" (not in
>> the brain) JFK's head that came from his imaginary frangible bullet that
>> he thinks EXITED JFK's rear skull.
>>
>
>Obviously you assume things that people never say. Maybe he doesn't assume
>any bullet fragments exiting the brain.

You definately have a reading comprehension problem.

He advances that the fragments from his frangible bullet blew a hole in
the rear skull.

I've asked and could not get an answer to the question, "did those
fragments just disappear or vanish or vaporize...because noe were found
behind JFK.

Better read that again a couple of times slowly so you get my point this
time...okay?

>No one said anything about a
>BULLET exiting the rear skull.

See above and again read it slowly.

>The whole idea of a frangible bullet is
>that it doesn' exit.

So what does he think blew a large hole in JFK's BOH, air?

I'll tell you....the fragments from the frangible bullet.

>You always show what a tough guy you are by building
>a man out of straw and blowing him over.

Well, I've been called tough before (6' 5" and 300 lbs and the 1963 all
Southeast Conference defensive end--Massachusetts), but no, I only have to
show how illogical yours and his wacky theories are...not how tough I was
or still am.

And a third grader could do that [show how illogical your theory is].

>> If you can't read please don't chime in.
>>
>
>If you can't think clearly then stop posting.

If you thought my thinking was clear, I'd be worried.

>> Now, Marsh, while we're "lucky" enough to have you grace this thread with
>> your presence, insight and oh so constructive comments, please continue to
>> enlighten the group (re. the graphic the link below is to) on what the
>> circular-looking defect below the ruler is in the rear skull IF IT'S "NOT"
>> A BULLET HOLE.
>>
>
>There is no circular looking anything and there is no defect. Just your
>imagination. Another Badge Man.

You haven't seen the originals, much less stereo-scopially...how would you
know they (Sturdivan and Zimmerman) didn't correctly identify that defect
as a bullet wound?

You deny there's a circular-looking defect there because you've been
trumpeting another part of your wacky theory which is that JFK wasn't hit
anywhere in the BOH.....don't you?

Now, if you can't see that defect, at least give your seeing eye dog a
treat.

>> Note: This graphic is a copy of autopsy photo #45, titled, Missile wound
>> in posterior skull with the brain removed.
>>
>> http://imageshack.us/a/img138/3410/f8entryblowupsized.jpg
>>
>> Folks, I hope you appreciate and will benefit from Marsh's insight on
>> this, after all he's been researching this case for decades and is a
>> self-proclaimed expert.
>>
>> Thanks Marsh.
>>
>> Choke.

Again, that aforementioned defect has been confirmed as the entry in JFK's

BOH by long-time researcher, Chad Zimmerman and wound-ballistics exert,
Larry Sturdivan.....who both examined the un-cropped originals (which they
said were "remarkably" clear) stereoscopically.

>>
>
>
>Both unqualified and biased. WC defenders not forensic pathologists.

Again, you haven't seen the originals, much less stereo-scopially...how
would you know they didn't correctly identify that defect as a bullet
wound?

And don't give us this crap about you seeing the Fox set...they are hardly
as clear as the color prints in the archives...which you'd avoid seeing at
all costs...because if you did see them you'd have to admit you've been
wrong about your "no hits to the BOH" wacky theory for decades.


--
John Canal
jca...@webtv.net

[Anthony Marsh]

On 5/31/2013 11:38 PM, John Canal wrote:
> In article <51a8...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...
>>
>> On 5/31/2013 10:40 AM, John Canal wrote:
>>> In article <51a76ad1$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...
>>>
>>> [...]
>>>
>>>
>>>>> And good luck with your temple/forehead entry and
>>>>> vanishing/vaporizing/disappearing bullet fragments from your frangible
>>>>> bullet that left no pathway through the brain consistent with the wacky
>>>>> trajectory you argue for.
>>>
>>> Marsh :contributes":
>>>
>>>> Can you not see all the fragments left behind in JFK's brain?
>>>> Many more than were left in James Brady's brain from the explosive >bullet.
>>>
>>> I was obviously asking him what happened to the fragments "behind" (not in
>>> the brain) JFK's head that came from his imaginary frangible bullet that
>>> he thinks EXITED JFK's rear skull.
>>>
>>
>> Obviously you assume things that people never say. Maybe he doesn't assume
>> any bullet fragments exiting the brain.
>
> You definately have a reading comprehension problem.
>
> He advances that the fragments from his frangible bullet blew a hole in
> the rear skull.
>

Where does he explicitly say "bullet fragments"?
Maybe you are just assuming that's what he meant.

> I've asked and could not get an answer to the question, "did those
> fragments just disappear or vanish or vaporize...because noe were found
> behind JFK.

Maybe you don't know what a frangible bullet does.

>
> Better read that again a couple of times slowly so you get my point this
> time...okay?
>
>> No one said anything about a
>> BULLET exiting the rear skull.
>
> See above and again read it slowly.
>
>> The whole idea of a frangible bullet is
>> that it doesn' exit.
>
> So what does he think blew a large hole in JFK's BOH, air?
>

Overpressure, not fragments. Most of the fragments stayed in the head.
The head exploded.

> I'll tell you....the fragments from the frangible bullet.
>
>> You always show what a tough guy you are by building
>> a man out of straw and blowing him over.
>
> Well, I've been called tough before (6' 5" and 300 lbs and the 1963 all
> Southeast Conference defensive end--Massachusetts), but no, I only have to
> show how illogical yours and his wacky theories are...not how tough I was
> or still am.
>
> And a third grader could do that [show how illogical your theory is].
>
>>> If you can't read please don't chime in.
>>>
>>
>> If you can't think clearly then stop posting.
>
> If you thought my thinking was clear, I'd be worried.
>
>>> Now, Marsh, while we're "lucky" enough to have you grace this thread with
>>> your presence, insight and oh so constructive comments, please continue to
>>> enlighten the group (re. the graphic the link below is to) on what the
>>> circular-looking defect below the ruler is in the rear skull IF IT'S "NOT"
>>> A BULLET HOLE.
>>>
>>
>> There is no circular looking anything and there is no defect. Just your
>> imagination. Another Badge Man.
>
> You haven't seen the originals, much less stereo-scopially...how would you
> know they (Sturdivan and Zimmerman) didn't correctly identify that defect
> as a bullet wound?
>

I've seen the Fox set, which you haven't.

> You deny there's a circular-looking defect there because you've been
> trumpeting another part of your wacky theory which is that JFK wasn't hit
> anywhere in the BOH.....don't you?
>
> Now, if you can't see that defect, at least give your seeing eye dog a
> treat.
>
>>> Note: This graphic is a copy of autopsy photo #45, titled, Missile wound
>>> in posterior skull with the brain removed.
>>>
>>> http://imageshack.us/a/img138/3410/f8entryblowupsized.jpg
>>>
>>> Folks, I hope you appreciate and will benefit from Marsh's insight on
>>> this, after all he's been researching this case for decades and is a
>>> self-proclaimed expert.
>>>
>>> Thanks Marsh.
>>>
>>> Choke.
>
> Again, that aforementioned defect has been confirmed as the entry in JFK's
> BOH by long-time researcher, Chad Zimmerman and wound-ballistics exert,
> Larry Sturdivan.....who both examined the un-cropped originals (which they
> said were "remarkably" clear) stereoscopically.
>

Once again, they are professional liars.

[John Canal]

In article <51a97afa$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...

Overpressure? Are you really saying no fragments from your imaginary frangible
bullet hit the rear skull?

>Most of the fragments stayed in the head.

Huh?

But the total weight of the fragments seen on the head x-ray would have been
only a small percentage of the total weight of the bullet you imagine entered in
the front of his head, frangible bullet or not.

While physics wasn't my best subject, I believe that, while the properties of
matter can be altered, matter cannot disappear off the face of the earth...it'd
have to exit in its original form or another.

While you've trumpeted some real doozy theories, your "overpressure blew a hole
in JFK's BOH" explanation is right up there with your most bizarre ones.

So a rear hole in the skull opened up because of overpressure, but NO fragments
that came from your imaginary frangible exited that opening?

They simply stopped short of the hole in the skull?

They braked?

And that's why there were NO fragments found behind JFK?

Is that it?

No kidding?

Really?

OMG!

Okay, I'll make a hard copy of that and file it with the other wacky
pronouncements in the folder I have on you.

>The head exploded.

>> I'll tell you....the fragments from the frangible bullet.
>>
>>> You always show what a tough guy you are by building
>>> a man out of straw and blowing him over.
>>
>> Well, I've been called tough before (6' 5" and 300 lbs and the 1963 all
>> Southeast Conference defensive end--Massachusetts), but no, I only have to
>> show how illogical yours and his wacky theories are...not how tough I was
>> or still am.
>>
>> And a third grader could do that [show how illogical your theory is].
>>
>>>> If you can't read please don't chime in.
>>>>
>>>
>>> If you can't think clearly then stop posting.
>>
>> If you thought my thinking was clear, I'd be worried.
>>
>>>> Now, Marsh, while we're "lucky" enough to have you grace this thread with
>>>> your presence, insight and oh so constructive comments, please continue to
>>>> enlighten the group (re. the graphic the link below is to) on what the
>>>> circular-looking defect below the ruler is in the rear skull IF IT'S "NOT"
>>>> A BULLET HOLE.
>>>>
>>>
>>> There is no circular looking anything and there is no defect. Just your
>>> imagination. Another Badge Man.
>>
>> You haven't seen the originals, much less stereo-scopially...how would you
>> know they (Sturdivan and Zimmerman) didn't correctly identify that defect
>> as a bullet wound?
>>
>
>I've seen the Fox set, which you haven't.

See below. You need to see the color originals which are much clearer than the
Fox set.

But you're scared to, aren't you, Marsh.

What's the old saying, "If you don't want to see something, then don't look".

IMO, you're afraid that if you examined the color originals you'd see the small
entry in JFK's rear skull and that would mean you've been trumpeting B/S for
decades.....how sad would that be for you.

Take another look at the cropped copy:

http://imageshack.us/a/img138/3410/f8entryblowupsized.jpg

Do you think that circular-looking defect is really Sturdivan's and Zimmerman's
imagination?

>> You deny there's a circular-looking defect there because you've been
>> trumpeting another part of your wacky theory which is that JFK wasn't hit
>> anywhere in the BOH.....don't you?
>>
>> Now, if you can't see that defect, at least give your seeing eye dog a
>> treat.
>>
>>>> Note: This graphic is a copy of autopsy photo #45, titled, Missile wound
>>>> in posterior skull with the brain removed.
>>>>
>>>> http://imageshack.us/a/img138/3410/f8entryblowupsized.jpg
>>>>
>>>> Folks, I hope you appreciate and will benefit from Marsh's insight on
>>>> this, after all he's been researching this case for decades and is a
>>>> self-proclaimed expert.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks Marsh.
>>>>
>>>> Choke.
>>
>> Again, that aforementioned defect has been confirmed as the entry in JFK's
>> BOH by long-time researcher, Chad Zimmerman and wound-ballistics exert,
>> Larry Sturdivan.....who both examined the un-cropped originals (which they
>> said were "remarkably" clear) stereoscopically.
>>
>
>Once again, they are professional liars.

But how can you say they didn't correctly identify the entry in the original
color prints when they examined them stereoscopically, and you've only seen the
less clear B&W Fox set?

Were you there in the room at College Park looking over their shoulders when
they examined the originals?

>>> Both unqualified and biased. WC defenders not forensic pathologists.
>>
>> Again, you haven't seen the originals, much less stereo-scopially...how
>> would you know they didn't correctly identify that defect as a bullet
>> wound?
>>
>> And don't give us this crap about you seeing the Fox set...they are hardly
>> as clear as the color prints in the archives...which you'd avoid seeing at
>> all costs...because if you did see them you'd have to admit you've been
>> wrong about your "no hits to the BOH" wacky theory for decades.

What's the old saying, "If you don't want to see something, then don't look".

That's one heck of a bizarre post, Marsh...legendary.

Too bad McAdams doesn't have a Hall of Fame for the most bizarre posts...this
one by you would make it in hands down.


--
John Canal
jca...@webtv.net

From aa...@panix.com Sat Jun 1 07:02:10 2013
Status: R
X-Status:
X-Keywords:
>From ne...@google.com Sat Jun 1 07:02:10 2013
Lines: 13
Return-Path: <ne...@google.com>
X-Original-To: aa...@panix.com
Delivered-To: aa...@panix.com
Received: from mail1.panix.com (mail1.panix.com [166.84.1.72])
by mailbackend.panix.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4D27C28FAA
for <aa...@panix.com>; Sat, 1 Jun 2013 07:02:10 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from mod-relay.xvm.mit.edu (unknown [18.181.2.90])
by mail1.panix.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 02BF71F087
for <aa...@panix.com>; Sat, 1 Jun 2013 07:02:09 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by mod-relay.xvm.mit.edu (Postfix)
id E078221AA9; Sat, 1 Jun 2013 07:02:09 -0400 (EDT)
Delivered-To: alt-assass...@moderators.isc.org
Received: from mail-yh0-f69.google.com (mail-yh0-f69.google.com [209.85.213.69])
by mod-relay.xvm.mit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id C7931207A7
for <alt-assass...@moderators.isc.org>; Sat, 1 Jun 2013 07:02:09 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by mail-yh0-f69.google.com with SMTP id z20so3238198yhz.4
for <alt-assass...@moderators.isc.org>; Sat, 01 Jun 2013 04:02:09 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=google.com; s=20120113;
h=mime-version:path:newsgroups:date:complaints-to:injection-info
:nntp-posting-host:references:user-agent:x-http-useragent:message-id
:subject:from:injection-date:to:content-type
:content-transfer-encoding;
bh=IoDmJWwTmGNWvKBBy9kITEll8e1wzxQ/dQriNEv7Q7I=;
b=WL687GK6ZEx5OwfqKtY+2uSLVZCo0Osuh7R7ifapBOUh9o8+bgjzY6ac/5GiVBwWBv
/XBXiesG7fWUj6ddSzFBRsbWrTQOtrlA2/a2/+heK5XrQOfG2sR1QZoFGNiFc/QsFL3B
IMF3K8qkBl0/b1pa5ZSs8QJmrXimFmcn4TBeH2PmpJ05tTHwQnNNMc9t26Gdh8AsV12x
i/8HywSe+bcobvZ1ZAeNjjMoOcst6saaRaak9PqnpnoffCTp4HcSPYXSbcvMHwjrK70Q
eoCS1O6NtoycYLivPYDPSmL3MrD9gUT6AD81NapW4rap8DWeCs18G07Rbk6SadBkCQ/w
UmZA==
X-Received: by 10.224.42.141 with SMTP id s13mr8776259qae.3.1370084529521;
Sat, 01 Jun 2013 04:02:09 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.49.6.201 with SMTP id d9mr1244326qea.12.1370084529479; Sat,
01 Jun 2013 04:02:09 -0700 (PDT)
Path: p1no266086qaj.0!postnews.google.com!t9g2000yqd.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk,alt.assassination.jfk
Date: Sat, 1 Jun 2013 04:02:09 -0700 (PDT)
Complaints-To: groups...@google.com
Injection-Info: t9g2000yqd.googlegroups.com; posting-host=173.3.68.100; posting-account=j6NPUAoAAAC9KUDIlxo2HDrcC9qwJ827
NNTP-Posting-Host: 173.3.68.100
References: <32ad5f3f-e91d-4112...@a8g2000yqp.googlegroups.com> <e31436f3-076b-421e...@b2g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (compatible; MSIE 10.0; Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; Trident/6.0),gzip(gfe)
Message-ID: <2adeb09b-15b8-4945...@t9g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Picket Fence Man - Z Zoom
From: mainframetech <mainfr...@yahoo.com>
Injection-Date: Sat, 01 Jun 2013 11:02:09 +0000
To: alt-assass...@moderators.isc.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Jun 1, 12:57=A0am, claviger <historiae.fi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 31, 10:33=A0pm, curtjester1 <curtjest...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3DvqRe8FYnbGg
>
> > CJ
>
> If there is a man standing there he's about 10' tall or sitting in a
> tree.

How 'bout if he's standing on a car bumper?

Chris

[mainframetech]

On Jun 1, 12:56 am, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On 5/31/2013 11:38 PM, John Canal wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

> > In article <51a8c...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...

>
> >> On 5/31/2013 10:40 AM, John Canal wrote:

> >>> In article <51a76ad...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...

Or simply misled by the manipulations of Humes and Boswell. Any
juxtaposition of bone can accidentally make a semicircular spot on an
X-ray.
>
It's just as possible for a FMJ bullet to go through the brain and
blow out a hole in the BOH and go further and be lost, or picked up
and spirited away as a souvenir. There was a situation where a bullet
hit the grass to the left of the limo just as the limo went by. That
was examined by Buddy Walthers of the DPD. Some say he picked it up,
but he never turned anything in. It would make a perfect line from
the GK to JFK to the left of the limo.
http://img217.imageshack.us/img217/989/manholecoverclodcomposi.jpg

>
>
>
> >> Both unqualified and biased. WC defenders not forensic pathologists.
>
> > Again, you haven't seen the originals, much less stereo-scopially...how
> > would you know they didn't correctly identify that defect as a bullet
> > wound?
>
> > And don't give us this crap about you seeing the Fox set...they are hardly
> > as clear as the color prints in the archives...which you'd avoid seeing at
> > all costs...because if you did see them you'd have to admit you've been
> > wrong about your "no hits to the BOH" wacky theory for decades.

Chris

[Anthony Marsh]

What semicircular spot on an X-ray? Show me.

I thought we are talking about a hole in the autopsy photographs.

Are you changing the subject? If so, start a new thread.

>>
> It's just as possible for a FMJ bullet to go through the brain and
> blow out a hole in the BOH and go further and be lost, or picked up
> and spirited away as a souvenir. There was a situation where a bullet
> hit the grass to the left of the limo just as the limo went by. That
> was examined by Buddy Walthers of the DPD. Some say he picked it up,
> but he never turned anything in. It would make a perfect line from
> the GK to JFK to the left of the limo.
> http://img217.imageshack.us/img217/989/manholecoverclodcomposi.jpg

So let me see if I understand this theory. A bullet hits the grass and
just stops and a cop picks it up? Man, they sure have tough grass down
in Texas. Able to stop bullets like Kevlar.

[Anthony Marsh]

You are talking to the wrong person again. I am not the one with a
theory about a frangible bullet. Ask him.

>> Most of the fragments stayed in the head.
>
> Huh?
>
> But the total weight of the fragments seen on the head x-ray would have been
> only a small percentage of the total weight of the bullet you imagine entered in
> the front of his head, frangible bullet or not.
>

You don't know the weight of the fragments left behind or the original
bullet.

> While physics wasn't my best subject, I believe that, while the properties of
> matter can be altered, matter cannot disappear off the face of the earth...it'd
> have to exit in its original form or another.
>
> While you've trumpeted some real doozy theories, your "overpressure blew a hole
> in JFK's BOH" explanation is right up there with your most bizarre ones.
>

It's what happens when a bullet explodes.

> So a rear hole in the skull opened up because of overpressure, but NO fragments
> that came from your imaginary frangible exited that opening?
>

There was no rear hole in the skull. Look at the Dox drawing of the head
wound to see where the hole on the top of the head was. You'll notice that
the HSCA did not have any bullet or fragments exiting where the skull
fragments exited. So how did the skull fragments get blown out of the top
if the head if it wasn't caused by bullet fragments or bullets? Well,
genius? No answer now?

> They simply stopped short of the hole in the skull?
>
> They braked?
>
> And that's why there were NO fragments found behind JFK?
>
> Is that it?
>
> No kidding?
>
> Really?
>
> OMG!
>

Not my theory.

> Okay, I'll make a hard copy of that and file it with the other wacky
> pronouncements in the folder I have on you.
>

You have whole folder of false allegations you have made about me.

What circular-looking defect? It's supposed to be semi-circular
according to your theory.

>>> You deny there's a circular-looking defect there because you've been
>>> trumpeting another part of your wacky theory which is that JFK wasn't hit
>>> anywhere in the BOH.....don't you?
>>>
>>> Now, if you can't see that defect, at least give your seeing eye dog a
>>> treat.
>>>
>>>>> Note: This graphic is a copy of autopsy photo #45, titled, Missile wound
>>>>> in posterior skull with the brain removed.
>>>>>
>>>>> http://imageshack.us/a/img138/3410/f8entryblowupsized.jpg
>>>>>
>>>>> Folks, I hope you appreciate and will benefit from Marsh's insight on
>>>>> this, after all he's been researching this case for decades and is a
>>>>> self-proclaimed expert.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks Marsh.
>>>>>
>>>>> Choke.
>>>
>>> Again, that aforementioned defect has been confirmed as the entry in JFK's
>>> BOH by long-time researcher, Chad Zimmerman and wound-ballistics exert,
>>> Larry Sturdivan.....who both examined the un-cropped originals (which they
>>> said were "remarkably" clear) stereoscopically.
>>>
>>
>> Once again, they are professional liars.
>
> But how can you say they didn't correctly identify the entry in the original
> color prints when they examined them stereoscopically, and you've only seen the
> less clear B&W Fox set?
>

Because they are known liars.

> Were you there in the room at College Park looking over their shoulders when
> they examined the originals?
>

Silly. How do you know I wasn't there was watching on camera?

>>>> Both unqualified and biased. WC defenders not forensic pathologists.
>>>
>>> Again, you haven't seen the originals, much less stereo-scopially...how
>>> would you know they didn't correctly identify that defect as a bullet
>>> wound?
>>>
>>> And don't give us this crap about you seeing the Fox set...they are hardly
>>> as clear as the color prints in the archives...which you'd avoid seeing at
>>> all costs...because if you did see them you'd have to admit you've been
>>> wrong about your "no hits to the BOH" wacky theory for decades.
>
>
> What's the old saying, "If you don't want to see something, then don't look".
>
> That's one heck of a bizarre post, Marsh...legendary.
>

Yes, it is bizarre considering that you made up half of it.
But that's what you do. That's all that you can do.

[mainframetech]

Let me correct your misimpression. This would be a bullet that
went through a person's skull. which would tends to slow it down some,
and grass and dirt do fine for stopping bullets.

Chris

[Research]

Geez! It is so simple.
The bullet fragments exited out the back of the skull and landed on the
road. Then was picked up by the tires of the follow-up cars and disappeared
forever.

[mainframetech]

On Jun 1, 11:28 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On 6/1/2013 11:34 AM, John Canal wrote:
>

> > In article <51a97af...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...

>
> >> On 5/31/2013 11:38 PM, John Canal wrote:

> >>> In article <51a8c...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...

>
> >>>> On 5/31/2013 10:40 AM, John Canal wrote:

> >>>>> In article <51a76ad...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...

Possible, but who knows. It was just another possibility. However,
a fellow named Cheater Boyers (CPO) typed up a report for Sibert that
said there were found more fragments than a bullet, but less than 2
bullets. Also Tom Robinson said that an agent showed him a glass vial
of 10 fragments that they had taken out of the skull.

> You are talking to the wrong person again. I am not the one with a
> theory about a frangible bullet. Ask him.
>
> >> Most of the fragments stayed in the head.
>
> > Huh?
>
> > But the total weight of the fragments seen on the head x-ray would have been
> > only a small percentage of the total weight of the bullet you imagine entered in
> > the front of his head, frangible bullet or not.
>
> You don't know the weight of the fragments left behind or the original
> bullet.
>

See above 'Boyers'.

> > While physics wasn't my best subject, I believe that, while the properties of
> > matter can be altered, matter cannot disappear off the face of the earth...it'd
> > have to exit in its original form or another.
>

Or in someone's pocket...:)

> > While you've trumpeted some real doozy theories, your "overpressure blew a hole
> > in JFK's BOH" explanation is right up there with your most bizarre ones.
>
> It's what happens when a bullet explodes.
>

It is also what happens when a FMJ bullet hits the skull. It goes
straight through for a bit then the pressure builds up and it blows
out whatever is in front of it. If a bullet hit the front of the head
and passed to the rear of the skull, it would exactly do what is
predicted by the science. The distance in the example before
expansion is 6.3 inches. Here is an example:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0196064496700628
http://ars.els-cdn.com/content/image/1-s2.0-S0196064496700628-gr1.jpg

The bullet tunnels in then the pressure builds up and blows out
whatever is in front of it. In the case of JFK, if the bullet hit the
temple/forehead it would follow the example and blow out the back of
the skull.

> > So a rear hole in the skull opened up because of overpressure, but NO fragments
> > that came from your imaginary frangible exited that opening?
>
> There was no rear hole in the skull. Look at the Dox drawing of the head
> wound to see where the hole on the top of the head was. You'll notice that
> the HSCA did not have any bullet or fragments exiting where the skull
> fragments exited. So how did the skull fragments get blown out of the top
> if the head if it wasn't caused by bullet fragments or bullets? Well,
> genius? No answer now?
>

Why look at a drawing? They can be whatever the artist wants them
to be, or what the customer wants them to be. In this case I believe
she drew from the autopsy photos we're all familiar with. Since the
one of the BOH was faked, the Dox drawings carry no weight. However,
over 40 people that saw a large hole at the BOH make the fakery
clear. I take the word of the over 40 people. And now all has been
explained. As the detractor, what do you say now?

> > They simply stopped short of the hole in the skull?
>
> > They braked?
>
> > And that's why there were NO fragments found behind JFK?
>
> > Is that it?
>
> > No kidding?
>
> > Really?
>
> > OMG!
>

After the explanation has been made, don't you think that drama is
overdone? Remember, that scenario fits the facts.

> Not my theory.
>
> > Okay, I'll make a hard copy of that and file it with the other wacky
> > pronouncements in the folder I have on you.
>
> You have whole folder of false allegations you have made about me.
>

If you're speaking to me, I don't bother recording your errors.
They occur too frequently to do all that work. I just handle them as
they come.

> > But you're scared too, aren't you, Marsh.

Chris

[Anthony Marsh]

But the front of the head wasn't blown out. The TOP of the head was
blown out.
And no your logic does not follow.

>
>>> So a rear hole in the skull opened up because of overpressure, but NO fragments
>>> that came from your imaginary frangible exited that opening?
>>
>> There was no rear hole in the skull. Look at the Dox drawing of the head
>> wound to see where the hole on the top of the head was. You'll notice that
>> the HSCA did not have any bullet or fragments exiting where the skull
>> fragments exited. So how did the skull fragments get blown out of the top
>> if the head if it wasn't caused by bullet fragments or bullets? Well,
>> genius? No answer now?
>>
> Why look at a drawing? They can be whatever the artist wants them
> to be, or what the customer wants them to be. In this case I believe
> she drew from the autopsy photos we're all familiar with. Since the
> one of the BOH was faked, the Dox drawings carry no weight. However,
> over 40 people that saw a large hole at the BOH make the fakery
> clear. I take the word of the over 40 people. And now all has been
> explained. As the detractor, what do you say now?
>

I say witnesses are unreliable.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 6/2/2013 1:05 PM, mainframetech wrote:

Not true.

It was the TOP of the head which was blown out.
Therefore you must think the bullet came from under the car.

[Anthony Marsh]

You didn't mention dirt before. You just added dirt when I pointed out
how silly your idea is. Do you really think that grass can stop bullets?

> Chris
>

[Jean Davison]

> a fellow namedCheater Boyers(CPO) typed up a report for Sibert that

> said there were found more fragments than a bullet, but less than 2
> bullets.

I'm wondering where you got that, because that's not what
Boyers said. He reporting several fragments from "a missile."

Jean

[Anthony Marsh]

Where does it say "missile"? Please post the document that says,
"missile." Oh, I forgot. You're a WC defender so you don't have
documents. You might get your hands dusty.

> Jean
>

[lone gunman]

On Saturday, May 25, 2013 4:01:31 PM UTC+1, John McAdams wrote:
> http://jfkfacts.org/assassination/experts/josiah-thompsons/
>
>
>

> Tink says that, in virtually every murder case, we quickly know what

>
> happened and who did it.
>
>
>
> But, he says, the JFK assassination is an exception.
>
>
>

> Of course, I don't think it's an exception. I think it was figured
>
> out when Oswald arrived under arrest at Dallas Police headquarters,
>
> and it was noticed that he was the employee reported missing from the
>
> TSBD.
>
>
>
> The problem is that a huge number of peopls simply won't accept that
>
> solution.
>
>
>
> .John
>
> --------------
>
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

so true. It's nearly 50 years and people are still debating it, writing stupid books and coming up with crazy theories !

It's madness !

[mainframetech]

Ah me. Again with the errors. OK, here's the problem. While you
believe something different than me, I've laid out my views a number of
times, which include a large hole (seen by over 40 people) in the BOH of
JFK. The back of the head was blown out by pressure coming from the
bullet that hit the front of the head and blew out the chunk of skull at
the BOH, causing the large hole. Looking at it from only your own belief
will mess you up when talking with someone who holds different opinions.

>
>
> >>> So a rear hole in the skull opened up because of overpressure, but NO fragments
> >>> that came from your imaginary frangible exited that opening?
>
> >> There was no rear hole in the skull. Look at the Dox drawing of the head
> >> wound to see where the hole on the top of the head was. You'll notice that
> >> the HSCA did not have any bullet or fragments exiting where the skull
> >> fragments exited. So how did the skull fragments get blown out of the top
> >> if the head if it wasn't caused by bullet fragments or bullets? Well,
> >> genius? No answer now?
>
> >    Why look at a drawing?   They can be whatever the artist wants them
> > to be, or what the customer wants them to be.  In this case I believe
> > she drew from the autopsy photos we're all familiar with.  Since the
> > one of the BOH was faked, the Dox drawings carry no weight.  However,
> > over 40 people that saw a large hole at the BOH make the fakery
> > clear.  I take the word of the over 40 people.  And now all has been
> > explained.  As the detractor, what do you say now?
>
> I say witnesses are unreliable.

Yes, you often do say that. I think you believe that because so
many witnesses go against your theories.

[mainframetech]

Or picked up by an authority never to be seen again.

Chris

[mainframetech]

> a fellow named Chester Boyers (CPO) typed up a report for Sibert that

> said there were found more fragments than a bullet, but less than 2
> bullets.  Also Tom Robinson said that an agent showed him a glass vial
> of 10 fragments that they had taken out of the skull.
>
> > You are talking to the wrong person again. I am not the one with a
> > theory about a frangible bullet. Ask him.
>

Both scenarios are possible, just not at the same time.

> > >> Most of the fragments stayed in the head.
>
> > > Huh?
>
> > > But the total weight of the fragments seen on the head x-ray would have been
> > > only a small percentage of the total weight of the bullet you imagine entered in
> > > the front of his head, frangible bullet or not.
>
> > You don't know the weight of the fragments left behind or the original
> > bullet.
>
>   See above 'Boyers'.
>
> > > While physics wasn't my best subject, I believe that, while the properties of
> > > matter can be altered, matter cannot disappear off the face of the earth...it'd
> > > have to exit in its original form or another.
>
>   Or in someone's pocket...:)
>
> > > While you've trumpeted some real doozy theories, your "overpressure blew a hole
> > > in JFK's BOH" explanation is right up there with your most bizarre ones.
>
> > It's what happens when a bullet explodes.
>
>   It is also what happens when a FMJ bullet hits the skull.  It goes
> straight through for a bit then the pressure builds up and it blows
> out whatever is in front of it.  If a bullet hit the front of the head
> and passed to the rear of the skull, it would exactly do what is
> predicted by the science.  The distance in the example before

> expansion is 6.3 inches.   Here is an example:http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0196064496700628http://ars.els-cdn.com/content/image/1-s2.0-S0196064496700628-gr1.jpg

>
>   The bullet tunnels in then the pressure builds up and blows out
> whatever is in front of it.  In the case of JFK, if the bullet hit the
> temple/forehead it would follow the example and blow out the back of
> the skull.
>
> > > So a rear hole in the skull opened up because of overpressure, but NO fragments
> > > that came from your imaginary frangible exited that opening?
>

I have no idea if any fragments came out of the large hole in the
BOH IF it was a frangible bullet.

[mainframetech]

Read it here's the text: "Robinson said the same agent claimed to be a
ballistics expert and showed him a glass vial similar to a test tube
(which may have had a cork stopper on it). When asked Robinson said there
were about 10 fragments in the vial.

http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?mode=searchResult&absPageId=67231

Shameful ignoring of evidence! Over 40 people saw the large hole in the
BOH of JFK. As to the breakup of the TOP of the head, Robinson watched
the prosectors break up the top of the skull while searching for bullets
and fragments, He saw them use a saw to open the top of the skull to
search, and was clear on there being damage to the skull done by the
'pathologists'.

http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=711&relPageId=3

[mainframetech]

You mean you didn't know that grass grows often in dirt? And a
bullet going slower than usual could easily be the one they appear to
have found in the picture:
http://img217.imageshack.us/img217/989/manholecoverclodcomposi.jpg

Chris

[mainframetech]

Yes, I agree. I came across it while searching out Boyers. I felt it
was clear, but I've looked for it again and I can't find it, so consider
it 'not proved'. You must have come across his mention of 2 fragments
though.

Chris

[Jean Davison]

> Chris-

Yes, the receipt said "a missile" but it was actually two
fragments Humes removed from the brain. Boyers' HSCA interview is
here:

http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/pdf/md62.pdf

Jean

[Anthony Marsh]

The saying is true. Immediately after the shooting everyone knew that it
was a conspiracy. The Dallas authorities were preparing to charge Oswald
with killing the President "in furtherance of an International
Communist conspiracy."

[Anthony Marsh]

You originally only said grass and only mentioned the dirt when I pointed
out your error. So do you really think that grass can stop a bullet.

> bullet going slower than usual could easily be the one they appear to
> have found in the picture:
> http://img217.imageshack.us/img217/989/manholecoverclodcomposi.jpg
>

Sure, if someone threw it on the ground.
You really can't tell what's in that photo.

> Chris
>
>

[Anthony Marsh]

Never rely on witnesses. Especially a janitor.

No, they didn't.

[Sandy McCroskey]

On 6/4/13 10:35 PM, Anthony Marsh wrote:
> On 6/4/2013 9:53 AM, lone gunman wrote:
>> On Saturday, May 25, 2013 4:01:31 PM UTC+1, John McAdams wrote:
>>> http://jfkfacts.org/assassination/experts/josiah-thompsons/
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Tink says that, in virtually every murder case, we quickly know what
>>>
>>> happened and who did it.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> But, he says, the JFK assassination is an exception.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Of course, I don't think it's an exception. I think it was figured
>>>
>>> out when Oswald arrived under arrest at Dallas Police headquarters,
>>>
>>> and it was noticed that he was the employee reported missing from the
>>>
>>> TSBD.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> The problem is that a huge number of peopls simply won't accept that
>>>
>>> solution.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> .John
>>>
>>> --------------
>>>
>>> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
>>
>> so true. It's nearly 50 years and people are still debating it,
>> writing stupid books and coming up with crazy theories !
>>
>> It's madness !
>>
>
>
> The saying is true. Immediately after the shooting everyone knew that it
> was a conspiracy.

Do you know what "know" means?
Even if it had been a conspiracy (which it wasn't), the people who
*suspected* that it was (surely in the majority) couldn't at that point
have *known* that it was.

[Anthony Marsh]

Hoover knew because he had the proof in his hands. Just like Bush talked
us into war because he knew Saddam had nuclear weapons. I didn't see you
complaining about that at the time.

[Sandy McCroskey]

Hypothetically, according to your own theory (which pins the assassination
on Richard Helms--and Hoover surely didn't suspect *that*), Hoover could
only have thought he knew something.

> Just like Bush talked
> us into war because he knew Saddam had nuclear weapons. I didn't see you
> complaining about that at the time.
>

And I didn't hear a peep out of you back then, either. I didn't even know
your name.

I was always opposed to and even marched against the invasion of Iraq. But
I'm sure I've told you that before. Your mind must be wandering.

/sandy

[Anthony Marsh]

No, it didn't. Why do you misrepresent historical documents to push a
political agenda? Maybe you are afraid to show the original document so
that people can see what it actually said, so I will:

http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/md69/pages/md69_0001a.gif

It says "a missle" [sic].

[mdltd...@gmail.com]

Sorry but I have to disagree that the case was cinched. Knowing what we
know now about the multiple casket arrivals, body bag (or shroud if you
will), the military honor guard "losing" the casket. A good attorney
would probably be able to have the autopsy report, x-rays & photos and the
clothing excluded due to chain of custody issues.

Secondly, the rifle, spent casings and the palm print also have chain of
custody issues. Vincent Drain (FBI agent who took the DPD's "evidence" to
DC that night) told me in 1981 that he was only given 2 spent casings and
that he was not told that a palm print had been discovered on the barrel.
The FBI found no fingerprints anywhere on that rifle.

No body, no weapon, no case.

[claviger]

Anthony,

> Hoover knew because he had the proof in his hands. Just like Bush talked
> us into war because he knew Saddam had nuclear weapons. I didn't see you
> complaining about that at the time.

Saddam did have WMDs and used them against his enemies. He used up his
supply of mustard gas on the Kurds and was in the process of making more.
He fired Scud missiles at Israel. Nose cones were discovered by UN
inspectors fitted for chemical weapons. The only reason Saddam did not
already have nuclear weapons was the Israelis bombed the Osirak nuclear
reactor capable of producing weapons. Hussein tried to acquire poison gas
and nuclear materials and demonstrated he was not afraid to use them.
Could any US President take the chance Saddam did have tactical nuclear
weapons or poison gas with short range delivery systems? Would the US
wait until Hussein took out a major Israeli city before reacting? If Iraq
did fire a nuclear or poison gas missile at Israel the IDF would be forced
to respond in kind if they had similar weapons. If they have neither then
a major conventional weapons attack on Bagdad would be required. Either
response might light the fuse for WWIII.

[mainframetech]

Jean,

That's an interesting document. Boyers said in it that he
submitted 3-4 'missile fragments', not 2.

Chris

[mainframetech]

No error. It was assumed that you knew that grass grew in dirt, as
most people would know.

> > bullet going slower than usual could easily be the one they appear to
> > have found in the picture:
http://img217.imageshack.us/img217/989/manholecoverclodcomposi.jpg
>
> Sure, if someone threw it on the ground.
> You really can't tell what's in that photo.
>

You mean that you can't tell that they are interested in something
on the ground? And that the possibility is that it was the bullet
that went through JFK's head?

Mind you, it's only a possibility, but answers the question of
where did the bullet go if it was an FMJ type bullet. Of course, with
all the fragments on the X-rays, it could also have been a frangible
bullet that broke up when hitting the skull.

> > Chris

[mainframetech]

Here we go again. Another error. It was explained to you, and you
can check it, that Robinson was one of the mortuary people that would
prepare the body for burial when they were finished with the autopsy.
He was far from a janitor. You made that same error when we were
discussing Tomlinson, who was a 'senior engineer' at Parkland.

> >http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?mode=sear...

Ah. You want to alter the record! Is that what an 'alterationist'
does? The 'saw cuts' testimony is here:
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do;jsessionid=72ED4E76F77276A1DA8836C7A8E3799E?docId=711&relPageId=4

[mainframetech]

What doesn't follow is you. Let me try again. Here is an example
of the path of a FMJ bullet:
http://ars.els-cdn.com/content/image/1-s2.0-S0196064496700628-gr1.jpg

In the example the FMJ bullet is traveling from left to right,
whereas in the case of JFK it was from right to left. Still, you can
see that the expansion begins at a bit more than 15 centimeters = 6
inches into the head. That's just about right for a temple shot that
goes through the head and blows out the BOH as seen by over 40 people.

>
>
> >>> So a rear hole in the skull opened up because of overpressure, but NO fragments
> >>> that came from your imaginary frangible exited that opening?
>
> >> There was no rear hole in the skull. Look at the Dox drawing of the head
> >> wound to see where the hole on the top of the head was. You'll notice that
> >> the HSCA did not have any bullet or fragments exiting where the skull
> >> fragments exited. So how did the skull fragments get blown out of the top
> >> if the head if it wasn't caused by bullet fragments or bullets? Well,
> >> genius? No answer now?
>
> >    Why look at a drawing?   They can be whatever the artist wants them
> > to be, or what the customer wants them to be.  In this case I believe
> > she drew from the autopsy photos we're all familiar with.  Since the
> > one of the BOH was faked, the Dox drawings carry no weight.  However,
> > over 40 people that saw a large hole at the BOH make the fakery
> > clear.  I take the word of the over 40 people.  And now all has been
> > explained.  As the detractor, what do you say now?
>
> I say witnesses are unreliable.

That must be why you don't have a solid scenario that you think is
what happened.

[mainframetech]

Of course it later turned out that Saddam didn't have WMD, just like
Hoover's 'lone nut' scenario was just another wacky WC theory.

> >> The Dallas authorities were preparing to charge Oswald
> >> with killing the President "in furtherance of an International
> >> Communist conspiracy."

Chris

[Anthony Marsh]

On 6/5/2013 11:33 AM, mdltd...@gmail.com wrote:
> Sorry but I have to disagree that the case was cinched. Knowing what we
> know now about the multiple casket arrivals, body bag (or shroud if you
> will), the military honor guard "losing" the casket. A good attorney
> would probably be able to have the autopsy report, x-rays & photos and the
> clothing excluded due to chain of custody issues.
>

You don't know anything now about the multiple casket arrivals, body bag
and the militarty honor guard "losing" the casket. You have not
researched it. All you have done is read a couple of kook web sites.

> Secondly, the rifle, spent casings and the palm print also have chain of
> custody issues. Vincent Drain (FBI agent who took the DPD's "evidence" to

Yes. Sloppiness and incompetence is not the same thing as conspiracy.

> DC that night) told me in 1981 that he was only given 2 spent casings and
> that he was not told that a palm print had been discovered on the barrel.
> The FBI found no fingerprints anywhere on that rifle.
>

That part has no been solved. Fritz was withholding the third spend
casing. And Day had lifted the palmprint from the rifle so the FBI saw
nothing. The wooden stock was too rough to hold prints. Lt. Day knew
that within seconds of picking up the rifle. You can see him in the
Alyea film examining it with a loupe.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 6/5/2013 11:48 AM, claviger wrote:
> Anthony,
>
>> Hoover knew because he had the proof in his hands. Just like Bush talked
>> us into war because he knew Saddam had nuclear weapons. I didn't see you
>> complaining about that at the time.
>
> Saddam did have WMDs and used them against his enemies. He used up his
> supply of mustard gas on the Kurds and was in the process of making more.

You are not cleared for that information. He wanted to make more
chemical weapons. Just as North Korea wants to make an ICBM.

> He fired Scud missiles at Israel. Nose cones were discovered by UN

But did any of the Scud missiles which actually hit Israel contain any
chemical weapons?> You are not cleared for that information.

> inspectors fitted for chemical weapons. The only reason Saddam did not

Many such cones in the arsenal of many countries in the region,
including Israel have that. Israel actually has nuclear weapons and has
threatened to us them on their neighbors, so shouldn't we invade Israel?

> already have nuclear weapons was the Israelis bombed the Osirak nuclear
> reactor capable of producing weapons. Hussein tried to acquire poison gas

You are partially correct about that, but there is a lot more to the
back story than you'll ever know.

> and nuclear materials and demonstrated he was not afraid to use them.

Beware of compound predicates. Where did Saddam use nuclear weapons?
You are using one of Bush's tricks.

> Could any US President take the chance Saddam did have tactical nuclear
> weapons or poison gas with short range delivery systems? Would the US

Could any US President take the chance that Cuba still has Frog missiles
they didn't return? Therefore we must start WWIII and end all life on
Earth. What about Iceland? If we don't nuke them tomorrow the
eco-terrorists might develop a clean nuclear bomb in 3000 years.

> wait until Hussein took out a major Israeli city before reacting? If Iraq

Why didn't the US just nuke Iraq the moment they saw the missile being
launched?
Remember the Stark. The US did nothing.
Remember the Liberty? The US did nothing.
Remember the Maine. Its boiler blew up so we started the
Spanish-American War.

> did fire a nuclear or poison gas missile at Israel the IDF would be forced
> to respond in kind if they had similar weapons. If they have neither then
> a major conventional weapons attack on Bagdad would be required. Either
> response might light the fuse for WWIII.
>

You are not dealing with reality. Israel has endured many attacks
without retaliating fully.
The patience of Job.

[Anthony Marsh]

You are not making any sense. SHOW me where your rifle was and diagram
your right to left trajectory. How do you know your bullet was FMJ?

> see that the expansion begins at a bit more than 15 centimeters = 6
> inches into the head. That's just about right for a temple shot that
> goes through the head and blows out the BOH as seen by over 40 people.

That's not right to left. That's a 90 degree turn.

>>
>>
>>>>> So a rear hole in the skull opened up because of overpressure, but NO fragments
>>>>> that came from your imaginary frangible exited that opening?
>>
>>>> There was no rear hole in the skull. Look at the Dox drawing of the head
>>>> wound to see where the hole on the top of the head was. You'll notice that
>>>> the HSCA did not have any bullet or fragments exiting where the skull
>>>> fragments exited. So how did the skull fragments get blown out of the top
>>>> if the head if it wasn't caused by bullet fragments or bullets? Well,
>>>> genius? No answer now?
>>
>>> Why look at a drawing? They can be whatever the artist wants them
>>> to be, or what the customer wants them to be. In this case I believe
>>> she drew from the autopsy photos we're all familiar with. Since the
>>> one of the BOH was faked, the Dox drawings carry no weight. However,
>>> over 40 people that saw a large hole at the BOH make the fakery
>>> clear. I take the word of the over 40 people. And now all has been
>>> explained. As the detractor, what do you say now?
>>
>> I say witnesses are unreliable.
>
> That must be why you don't have a solid scenario that you think is
> what happened.
>

I have outlined my scenario several times.

[Jean Davison]

That's how he remembered it 15 years later. The best (earliest)
evidence says it was two. E.g., the autopsy report, and the Sibert &
O'Neill report seen here:

http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=625&relPageId=5

Jean

[Anthony Marsh]

In a gelatin block simulating the torso. Not the head.

[Anthony Marsh]

It wasn't a FMJ bullet. Not all bullets are FMJ. Where did the bullet go
which hit James Brady in the forehead? It exploded into tiny fragments,
only 4 of which went into his brain. One of the shots was a wild miss and
hit a window in the building across the street. Where did that bullet go
when it broke the glass? The front of the bullet was found as hundreds of
fragments inside. The base of the bullet was blown backwards and was found
on the sidewalk.

[r2bz...@sbcglobal.net]

On Saturday, May 25, 2013 8:01:31 AM UTC-7, John McAdams wrote:
> http://jfkfacts.org/assassination/experts/josiah-thompsons/
>
>
>
> Tink says that, in virtually every murder case, we quickly know what
>
> happened and who did it.
>
>
>
> But, he says, the JFK assassination is an exception.
>
>
>
> Of course, I don't think it's an exception. I think it was figured
>
> out when Oswald arrived under arrest at Dallas Police headquarters,
>
> and it was noticed that he was the employee reported missing from the
>
> TSBD.
>
>
>
> The problem is that a huge number of peopls simply won't accept that
>
> solution.
>
>
>
> .John
>
> --------------
>
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

***What % is virtually? On the KTTV 10 o'clock news on Saturday night,
after America's Most Wanted, they ran a segment on local unsolved murders,
one each week.

The TV show First 48, chronicles the detective work during the first 48
hours after a murder, considered to be the critical time frame within
which to identify a suspect. Oswald was charged within 24 hours.

***Ron Judge

[r2bz...@sbcglobal.net]

On Saturday, May 25, 2013 6:36:17 PM UTC-7, tray...@gmail.com wrote:
> The HSCA released a report to a global audience asserting there were 2
>
> people shooting at JFK 22 Nov 1963. it reviewed the work of the WC and
>
> found it to be not credible.
>
>
>
> To not accept the HSCA report indicates a lack of faith in the US
>
> government.
>
>
>
> Proof that a shooter from the TSBD could clear the SS follow-up car's
>
> windshield, its hood & front fenders plus the guards standing on the
>
> running boards has never been accurately established by federal
>
> investigators or any of the TV re-enactment documentaries. All one has to
>
> do is stand or sit on a box at the headshot X on Elm Street in Dallas with
>
> a slightly taller person positioned a few feet behind them (closer to the
>
> TSBD) to see the problem: the taller person blocks the smaller person's
>
> view from the sniper's window.
>
>
>
> Until an honest and accurate re-enactment is scientifically performed
>
> using scaled replica vehicles with actor stand-ins the public is not going
>
> to ever accept one person committed this crime.
>
>
>
> Based on what the HSCA told the public, a more plausible explanation of
>
> the crime is the forward shooter (knoll fence) went for JFK while the rear
>
> shooter (TSBD sniper's nest window)was supposed to take out JFK. Something
>
> went wrong and the rear shooter joined the knoll shooter.
>
>
>
> You can tell kids until you are blue in the face that Santa brought the
>
> gifts or the tooth fairy brought the change but when they hear you
>
> unloading the goods from the attic or feel you hand under the pillow they
>
> know what your game is.
>
>
>
> I would hope to see the DPD & Hoover groupies give it up and join the
>
> global audience in looking at this as a crime that involved multiple
>
> persons, one of which may have been Oswald and get on with life while
>
> there's still some of left to enjoy.
>
>
>
> Just sayin'


***From a few feet a taller person would block the view. But how many
feet long was the trunk of the limo, the space between the two vehicles
and how many feet was the front bumper of the SS vehicle from the forward
agent on the running board? A bit more than a few feet.

From watching cars drive down Elm street on the Earth Cam in the 6th floor
window, one can determine that a bullet would fly over the windshield of
the SS car and be able to hit someone in the back seat of the limo.

Those who choose not to believe the Warren Report are going to do so
regardless of how many re-enactments are done. How many re-enactments has
the Discovery Channel done?

The HSCA report conclusion was based on analysis of a dictabelt recording,
which to my understanding had no actual gunshot sounds on it. Audible and
inaudible impulses. How does an audible impulse become translated into a
gunshot, to a 95% certainty, no less?

***Ron Judge

[r2bz...@sbcglobal.net]

On Sunday, May 26, 2013 11:36:32 AM UTC-7, Robert Harris wrote:
> John McAdams wrote:
>
> >
>
> > http://jfkfacts.org/assassination/experts/josiah-thompsons/
>
> >
>
> > Tink says that, in virtually every murder case, we quickly know what
>
> > happened and who did it.
>
> >
>
> > But, he says, the JFK assassination is an exception.
>
> >
>
> > Of course, I don't think it's an exception.
>
>
>

> You are correct but not in the way you claim. A simple analysis of the
>
> reactions in the Zapruder film by people who were closest to JFK would
>
> have settled this immediately.
>
>
>
> The Zapruder film was indeed, silent but the people we see in the film,
>
> heard the shots. They told us when audible shots were fired and they
>
> told us how loud they were. Their reactions and nonreactions to those
>
> shots matched fully corroborated what they said.
>
>
>
> NO ONE was startled prior to frame 285 and only one of those early shots
>
> was even noticed by most witnesses. Of the two early shots, the one
>
> circa 160 was audible, though not loud enough to startle anyone. It was
>
> heard by Mrs. Kennedy, who turned to her right then and others, who
>
> reacted similarly. She described it as no different than other noises
>
> she had heard that day.
>
>
>
> The next shot at 223 was virtually silent and heard by no one, including
>
> Gov. Connally, who was hit then. That's why almost no one heard more
>
> than a single shot prior to the very end of the attack.
>
>
>
> The ones at 285 and 313 were typically loud and provoked exactly the
>
> kind of reactions we should expect from high powered rifle shots.
>
>
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7GH5pGQy6yI
>
>
>
> The shots that were fired at the President did not all come from the
>
> same weapon, John.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Robert Harris


***Zapruder said he heard a shot and saw JFK slump over to his left.
Zapruder's camera jumped at Z227. I believe he was startled by the sound
of the gunshot.

***Ron Judge

[Anthony Marsh]

6 feet from JFK to the back bumper.
The SS car was staying back by about 5 feet.
Clint Hill was standing about 6 feet back from the front bumper of the
SS car.
The diagram in Mortal Error is fairly accurate.

> From watching cars drive down Elm street on the Earth Cam in the 6th floor
> window, one can determine that a bullet would fly over the windshield of
> the SS car and be able to hit someone in the back seat of the limo.
>

The bullet does not have to fly over the windshield of the SS car. The
TSBD shots came in from an angle of at least 11 degrees to the midline
of the limo and would miss the SS car's windshield.

> Those who choose not to believe the Warren Report are going to do so
> regardless of how many re-enactments are done. How many re-enactments has
> the Discovery Channel done?
>
> The HSCA report conclusion was based on analysis of a dictabelt recording,
> which to my understanding had no actual gunshot sounds on it. Audible and
> inaudible impulses. How does an audible impulse become translated into a
> gunshot, to a 95% certainty, no less?
>

Mathematical analysis. How do you find a Russian sub which is running
silent?


Just because you can't hear anything does not mean there is no sound.
Turn on your TV and turn the sound all the way down until you can't hear it.

In college we had a decibel meter which would display the different
decibels with ascending colors. I use to practice playing as softly as
possible in different ranges to see when I could see the colors change
but not be loud enough to hear the note. Around 10 decibels for some
notes. It was good for breath control and also for testing instruments.


> ***Ron Judge
>

[r2bz...@sbcglobal.net]

***Mathematical analysis. Or subjective analysis? It was claimed at the
time of the HSCA that there was a shot from the grassy knoll. The
circumstantial evidence and eyewitness testimony was that there was a
shooter in the 6th floor corner window. An image in the Moorman photo
appeared to show what looked like a Dallas police officer with a puff of
smoke in front of his face. A witness said he saw a puff of smoke near a
tree behind the fence.

Test shots were fired in Dealey Plaza from the 6th floor window and grassy
knoll, with various microphones picking up the sound. As far as i am
aware the Dallas police radio system and a dictabelt recorder were not
part of the signal path. Apples should be compared to apples.

W&A said that McClain was the source of open mike. The motorcade was
assigned channel 2 and McClain, listening to a recording of channel one
after he testified, said he did not recall any of the chatter on channel
one.

W&A stated to that to a 95% certainty that there were 4 gunshots on the
dictabelt recording. Three from the 6th floor window and one from the
grassy knoll. I forget the W&A shot timing, but there were two shots
close together, a pause and two shots close together. Frasier was able to
fire 2 shots, with aiming in 2.3 seconds. I believe the two W&A pairs
were less than that. The timing of two shots by two people is irrelevant,
but not that of one person firing a bolt action rifle twice.

W&A also said that the grassy knoll shot missed, which i don't know how
they could determine that from the dictabelt recording.

***Ron Judge

[Anthony Marsh]

Mathematical analysis. Any high school student would be able to do it
once he understand the concept.
Since you know nothing about acoustics you shouldn't be discussing this
at all.

> circumstantial evidence and eyewitness testimony was that there was a
> shooter in the 6th floor corner window. An image in the Moorman photo
> appeared to show what looked like a Dallas police officer with a puff of
> smoke in front of his face. A witness said he saw a puff of smoke near a
> tree behind the fence.
>

No there was no image of a cop on the grassy knoll.

> Test shots were fired in Dealey Plaza from the 6th floor window and grassy
> knoll, with various microphones picking up the sound. As far as i am
> aware the Dallas police radio system and a dictabelt recorder were not
> part of the signal path. Apples should be compared to apples.
>

When doing a test or a simulation you should also use the best quality.

> W&A said that McClain was the source of open mike. The motorcade was

W&A did not pick McLain. BBN did. W&A only analyzed the grassy knoll
shot. They didn't care who had the microphone. This is why you should
not even be discussing this when you haven't done your homework.

> assigned channel 2 and McClain, listening to a recording of channel one
> after he testified, said he did not recall any of the chatter on channel
> one.
>

Meaningless. McLain said he couldn't remember what channel he was on or
changing from channel one to channel two.

> W&A stated to that to a 95% certainty that there were 4 gunshots on the
> dictabelt recording. Three from the 6th floor window and one from the

Something like that. You don't even know the difference between W&A and BBN.

> grassy knoll. I forget the W&A shot timing, but there were two shots
> close together, a pause and two shots close together. Frasier was able to
> fire 2 shots, with aiming in 2.3 seconds. I believe the two W&A pairs

So what? Blakey was able to fire 2 shot, without aiming, in 1.66 seconds.

> were less than that. The timing of two shots by two people is irrelevant,
> but not that of one person firing a bolt action rifle twice.
>

You know nothing about bolt action rifles.

> W&A also said that the grassy knoll shot missed, which i don't know how
> they could determine that from the dictabelt recording.
>

Not exactly. At the time they said they could not be sure. After they
submitted their report they did more analysis and told a reporter that
it hit.
You don't even understand how BBN could determine the rifle was fired in
the direction of the limo, because you know nothing about shock waves.

> ***Ron Judge
>

[mainframetech]

On Wednesday, June 5, 2013 5:58:12 PM UTC-4, Anthony Marsh wrote:
> On 6/5/2013 11:33 AM, mdltd...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > Sorry but I have to disagree that the case was cinched. Knowing what we
>
> > know now about the multiple casket arrivals, body bag (or shroud if you
>
> > will), the military honor guard "losing" the casket. A good attorney
>
> > would probably be able to have the autopsy report, x-rays & photos and the
>
> > clothing excluded due to chain of custody issues.
>
> >
>
>
>
> You don't know anything now about the multiple casket arrivals, body bag
>
> and the militarty honor guard "losing" the casket. You have not
>
> researched it. All you have done is read a couple of kook web sites.
>

Always an accusation. When are you going to realize your behavior is
only to attract attention?

At this link, go down to "The Three Casket Entries (Summarized)"
http://insidethearrb.livejournal.com/
The statement of USMC Sergeant Boyajian is here documenting the 6:30pm arrival:
http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/pdf/md236.pdf


When the body was stolen, whatever evidence that was in it might have
been invalidated by the body being out of sight for periods of time and
while various agents were around it with no logging or assumption of
responsibility. For example, a few minutes in the plane would allow
someone to dig bullets out of the throat and back wounds to remove
evidence of guns other than the MC.

>
>
> > Secondly, the rifle, spent casings and the palm print also have chain of
>
> > custody issues. Vincent Drain (FBI agent who took the DPD's "evidence" to
>
>
>
> Yes. Sloppiness and incompetence is not the same thing as conspiracy.
>

The discussion was 'would Oswald get off with a good defense lawyer'.

[Robert Harris]

In article <16896917-68ec-470f...@googlegroups.com>,

Zapruder only heard two shots, the first of which, he said was when the
limo was about halfway down to the overpass. He later told the WC that the
limo was in line with his position, which could only have meant that a
line from him to the limo was roughly perpendicular with Elm St.

Frame 285 is a perfect match with his statements. It and 313 were the ONLY
shots which were loud enough to provoke startle reactions by the limo
passengers.

No one heard 223, not even Connally, who was hit then. A number of
witnesses heard the shot circa 160 but many others, like Zapruder either
never heard it or never perceived it to be a gunshot.

I hope you will consider looking at this presentation, Ron. It is
different than what you have been told in the past, but it is solidly
supported by the known facts and evidence.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cvqCtaBkyyE


Robert Harris

[Sandy McCroskey]

Well, your source for that can't be the December 22, 1978, Washington
Post, which came out on the day the HSCA was to "meet in special session
to try to assess the reliability" of the so-called acoustical evidence...
http://the-puzzle-palace.com/WH12_22_78p1.jpg
...because what George Lardner actually says there is that "[a]ccording
to informed sources, the acoustical experts hired by the committee"
determined that the bullet merely "ended up close to or in Kennedy?s
Lincoln."

<quote>

"It seemed to have stopped in the presidential limousine," one source
said. Another source said it would be more accurate to say that it
apparently landed "in the area of the presidential limousine, plus or
minus 10 feet."

</quote>

The timing of this supposed fourth shot, which would have been third in
chronological sequence, was what ruled it out as the kill shot, which is
why you won't accept your esteemed scientists' calculations on that.
Either.

/sm

[Anthony Marsh]

English please. I said "at the time." You were asking about their study
and report. At the time of their study and report they couldn't be sure.
Then they did further analysis and were able to confirm that the bullet
hit.

> The timing of this supposed fourth shot, which would have been third in
> chronological sequence, was what ruled it out as the kill shot, which is
> why you won't accept your esteemed scientists' calculations on that.
> Either.
>

The HSCA did that, specifically the FPP and Blakey who ruled that the only
shot that hit the head came from the rear. They did that by a combination
of ignorance and lies about the medical evidence.

> /sm

[Sandy McCroskey]

What is your source for that?

I've just cited the Lardner report, which does not support your claim.

/sm

[Sandy McCroskey]

Maybe you didn't hear the question: