New Years Resolution for WC defenders: Just stop lying

[Anthony Marsh]

This year can you just stop lying about the evidence and being
hypocritical about what the evidence means?
For example.
The bullet wounds.
The autopsy photos show that the wound from behind JFK was in his back,
but WC defenders keep saying neck. Or is it possible that the WC
defenders don't know the difference between the back and the neck.

WC defenders lie about the elongation of Connally's back wound and claim
that their elongated version proves that their Single Bullet was tumbling.
They also claim that There was no way for Connally to be hit by a
separate bullet, but the Dale Myers diagram shows that there was plenty
of room for a bullet to go over JFK's right shoulder and hit Connally's
right armpit. WC defenders lie and claim that their bullet hit the
middle of Connally's back.
We have one kook who claims that a bullet hit JFK in the back and just
stopped only an inch or so into the back. The WC defenders rightly claim
that was physically impossible, but then they have CE 399 penetrate only
an inch into Connally's thigh and then magically just fall out when they
removed Connally's cloths in the ER. It's like a hypocrisy contest to
see which WC defender can be more dishonest.

[Robert Harris]

On Wednesday, January 3, 2018 at 9:42:04 AM UTC-5, Anthony Marsh wrote:
> This year can you just stop lying about the evidence and being
> hypocritical about what the evidence means?
> For example.
> The bullet wounds.
> The autopsy photos show that the wound from behind JFK was in his back,
> but WC defenders keep saying neck.

I have never heard a nutter claim that the shot entered his neck - not in
the last 20 years anyway, but I'm sure they appreciate your softballs
which make them look like the ones who are rational.

> Or is it possible that the WC
> defenders don't know the difference between the back and the neck.

What an incredibly lame argument:-)

Strange, that when I present legitimate arguments they can't answer, you
accuse me of bullying them.

>
> WC defenders lie about the elongation of Connally's back wound and claim
> that their elongated version proves that their Single Bullet was tumbling.

Of course it was tumbling. How else could the wound be elongated?

> They also claim that There was no way for Connally to be hit by a
> separate bullet, but the Dale Myers diagram shows that there was plenty
> of room for a bullet to go over JFK's right shoulder and hit Connally's
> right armpit. WC defenders lie and claim that their bullet hit the
> middle of Connally's back.

I have never heard a nutter make that claim either. The bullet struck just
below his right armpit, as the WC claimed - not in the middle of his back.

You make the nutters look like geniuses, Tony. How many more softballs are
coming?

> We have one kook who claims that a bullet hit JFK in the back and just
> stopped only an inch or so into the back.

That is not impossible, which I suppose is why you call him a kook. Like
the Connally wound, the entry wound in JFK's back is also elongated, 4x7
mm, almost twice as tall as it was wide.

I cannot prove it, but it is entirely possible that a misfire from a low
caliber, automatic weapon caused a tumbling bullet to hit JFK in the back,
which was followed almost instantly by a second shot from the same weapon
that passed over Kennedy's shoulder, also tumbling and striking Connally.

We know for a fact that suppressed weapons can cause misfires, which would
explain the two tumbling bullets and elongated wounds, as well as as
underpowered shot going only a short distance into Kennedy's back.

> The WC defenders rightly claim
> that was physically impossible

I have never heard a nutter make that claim. Who was it that you heard say
it?

> but then they have CE 399 penetrate only
> an inch into Connally's thigh and then magically just fall out when they
> removed Connally's cloths in the ER.

It DID fall out. As Connally himself stated, the bullet fell to the floor
from his stretcher and was recovered by a nurse. Shortly after that DA
Henry Wade encountered that nurse, who showed him the bullet and said it
came from Connally's gurney.

Officer Bobby Nolan heard her say exactly the same thing. Interested
lurkers can read about this in detail.

http://jfkhistory.com/bell/bellarticle/BellArticle.html




Robert Harris

[claviger]

On Wednesday, January 3, 2018 at 8:42:04 AM UTC-6, Anthony Marsh wrote:
> This year can you just stop lying about the evidence and being
> hypocritical about what the evidence means?

Look in the mirror and ask the same question.

> For example.
> The bullet wounds.
> The autopsy photos show that the wound from behind JFK was in his back,
> but WC defenders keep saying neck. Or is it possible that the WC
> defenders don't know the difference between the back and the neck.

The bullet wound in the upper torso punctured the trapezoid muscle in the
upper back.

> WC defenders lie about the elongation of Connally's back wound and claim
> that their elongated version proves that their Single Bullet was tumbling.

An elongated wound in the torso is one indication of a tumbling projectile.

> They also claim that There was no way for Connally to be hit by a
> separate bullet, but the Dale Myers diagram shows that there was plenty
> of room for a bullet to go over JFK's right shoulder and hit Connally's
> right armpit. WC defenders lie and claim that their bullet hit the
> middle of Connally's back.

Explain the trajectory of the elongated wound on the back of Gov. Connally.
Where did it come from? What kind of rifle was used?

> We have one kook who claims that a bullet hit JFK in the back and just
> stopped only an inch or so into the back. The WC defenders rightly claim
> that was physically impossible, but then they have CE 399 penetrate only
> an inch into Connally's thigh and then magically just fall out when they
> removed Connally's cloths in the ER. It's like a hypocrisy contest to
> see which WC defender can be more dishonest.

How many shots were fired at the Limousine? Where did they come from
and what kind of ammo was used? Did the first shot miss and hit a curb?

[claviger]

Trapezius muscle
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trapezius_muscle
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Trapezius_animation_small2.gif
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Trapezius_Gray409.PNG

[Steve Barber]

On Wednesday, January 3, 2018 at 9:42:04 AM UTC-5, Anthony Marsh wrote:

I think that it's interesting that you call "WC defenders" "liars". You
claim that the Dale Myers "diagram" shows that "there was plenty of room

for a bullet to go over JFK's right shoulder and hit Connally's right
armpit. WC defenders lie and claim that their bullet hit the middle of

Connally's back." That is an absolute false statement on your part. There
is no "room" and there is no way any bullet flew over President Kennedy's
right shoulder and struck the governor's armpit! If you actually believe
that, then post the Dale Myers diagram to which you refer, immediately.

[Bud]

On Wednesday, January 3, 2018 at 9:42:04 AM UTC-5, Anthony Marsh wrote:

> This year can you just stop lying about the evidence and being
> hypocritical about what the evidence means?
> For example.
> The bullet wounds.
> The autopsy photos show that the wound from behind JFK was in his back,
> but WC defenders keep saying neck. Or is it possible that the WC
> defenders don't know the difference between the back and the neck.

This illustration shows a guy putting his hands very close to where
Kennedy was hit. But it doesn`t say his hands are on his back...


https://www.dreamstime.com/stock-photo-neck-pain-male-hurt-cervical-spine-isolated-white-real-anatomy-concept-image64702237

Perhaps the vertebrae of the neck go down into what is commonly
considered by layman to be the back...


https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/71mxM0jIuxL._SX522_.jpg

Looks that way. Perhaps either is correct in that region. Perhaps
instead of it being dishonesty on the parts of others, it is merely
another case of ignorance on Tony`s part.

> WC defenders lie about the elongation of Connally's back wound and claim
> that their elongated version proves that their Single Bullet was tumbling.

"indicates", not "proves".

> They also claim that There was no way for Connally to be hit by a
> separate bullet, but the Dale Myers diagram shows that there was plenty
> of room for a bullet to go over JFK's right shoulder and hit Connally's
> right armpit. WC defenders lie and claim that their bullet hit the
> middle of Connally's back.

Go to 3:48 and show this room...

https://youtu.be/-nUvSPFKJ3o

> We have one kook who claims that a bullet hit JFK in the back and just
> stopped only an inch or so into the back. The WC defenders rightly claim
> that was physically impossible, but then they have CE 399 penetrate only
> an inch into Connally's thigh and then magically just fall out

No wonder these conspiracy folks can`t figure anything out, simple
physics looks like magic to them.

>when they
> removed Connally's cloths in the ER. It's like a hypocrisy contest to
> see which WC defender can be more dishonest.

What made that wound in Connally`s thigh, Tony? Did Nellie stab him with
a pen?

[Anthony Marsh]

On 1/4/2018 4:23 PM, Robert Harris wrote:
> On Wednesday, January 3, 2018 at 9:42:04 AM UTC-5, Anthony Marsh wrote:
>> This year can you just stop lying about the evidence and being
>> hypocritical about what the evidence means?
>> For example.
>> The bullet wounds.
>> The autopsy photos show that the wound from behind JFK was in his back,
>> but WC defenders keep saying neck.
>
> I have never heard a nutter claim that the shot entered his neck - not in
> the last 20 years anyway, but I'm sure they appreciate your softballs
> which make them look like the ones who are rational.
>

They have several times. Maybe you didn't know that the WC said neck
because Ford changed BACK to NECK.

>> Or is it possible that the WC
>> defenders don't know the difference between the back and the neck.
>
> What an incredibly lame argument:-)
>

I was giving them the benefit of doubt because I am not allowed to call
the liars or stupid.

> Strange, that when I present legitimate arguments they can't answer, you
> accuse me of bullying them.
>

You do it all the time which is one reason why they don't answer your
questions.

>>
>> WC defenders lie about the elongation of Connally's back wound and claim
>> that their elongated version proves that their Single Bullet was tumbling.
>
> Of course it was tumbling. How else could the wound be elongated?
>

Silly. It was not elongated when it was treated. Was JFK's supposed head
wound of 6x15 mm "elongated"? So you should say that was caused by a
tumbling bullet too. But you don't because that would be silly. There are
other reasons why a wound can be slightly elongated such as striking at an
angle or striking a curved surface. Real researchers know that. Kooks
don't.

>> They also claim that There was no way for Connally to be hit by a
>> separate bullet, but the Dale Myers diagram shows that there was plenty
>> of room for a bullet to go over JFK's right shoulder and hit Connally's
>> right armpit. WC defenders lie and claim that their bullet hit the
>> middle of Connally's back.
>
> I have never heard a nutter make that claim either. The bullet struck just
> below his right armpit, as the WC claimed - not in the middle of his back.
>

You don't get out much, do you? I mention these things because I have
heard and read WC defenders saying them. You could see it for yourself
if you knew how to use Google.

> You make the nutters look like geniuses, Tony. How many more softballs are
> coming?
>
>> We have one kook who claims that a bullet hit JFK in the back and just
>> stopped only an inch or so into the back.
>
> That is not impossible, which I suppose is why you call him a kook. Like

I didn't say it was impossible in other cases, but it was impossible in
this case.

> the Connally wound, the entry wound in JFK's back is also elongated, 4x7
> mm, almost twice as tall as it was wide.
>

How do you get 4x7 mm from a 6.8 bullet? SHOW Me instead of making up
crap.

> I cannot prove it, but it is entirely possible that a misfire from a low
> caliber, automatic weapon caused a tumbling bullet to hit JFK in the back,

Silly guessing. Now you have inttoduced another caliber. You could try
claiming it was a .22.

> which was followed almost instantly by a second shot from the same weapon
> that passed over Kennedy's shoulder, also tumbling and striking Connally.
>

Almost instantly? How? Name the weapon.

> We know for a fact that suppressed weapons can cause misfires, which would
> explain the two tumbling bullets and elongated wounds, as well as as

No, WE don't. You think that is so only to fit your kook theory.

> underpowered shot going only a short distance into Kennedy's back.
>

Not possible.

>> The WC defenders rightly claim
>> that was physically impossible
>
> I have never heard a nutter make that claim. Who was it that you heard say
> it?
>

Read their messages to the guy who keeps proposing the idea.

>> but then they have CE 399 penetrate only
>> an inch into Connally's thigh and then magically just fall out when they
>> removed Connally's cloths in the ER.
>
> It DID fall out. As Connally himself stated, the bullet fell to the floor
> from his stretcher and was recovered by a nurse. Shortly after that DA
> Henry Wade encountered that nurse, who showed him the bullet and said it
> came from Connally's gurney.
>

More lies. Connally did not say that. It was the ghostwriter who lied
and made up that phony story.

> Officer Bobby Nolan heard her say exactly the same thing. Interested
> lurkers can read about this in detail.
>
> http://jfkhistory.com/bell/bellarticle/BellArticle.html
>

You've only posted that 100,000 times. Get something better.

>
>
>
> Robert Harris
>

[David Von Pein]

ANTHONY MARSH TURNS THE TRUTH ON ITS HEAD BY SAYING:

...but WC defenders keep saying neck.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Why are you stating that LNers "keep saying neck"? They do no such thing.
LNers know the wound was in JFK's upper "back" (14 cm. below the mastoid),
not in the "neck".

Can you, Tony, post some messages of LNers saying "neck" repeatedly, in
order to back up your statement that LNers "keep saying neck"? (I doubt
you can.)

[Jason Burke]

Watch for the whimpering and ignoring!

[Steve BH]

On Thursday, January 4, 2018 at 1:23:03 PM UTC-8, Robert Harris wrote:
> On Wednesday, January 3, 2018 at 9:42:04 AM UTC-5, Anthony Marsh wrote:
> > This year can you just stop lying about the evidence and being
> > hypocritical about what the evidence means?
> > For example.
> > The bullet wounds.
> > The autopsy photos show that the wound from behind JFK was in his back,
> > but WC defenders keep saying neck.
>
> I have never heard a nutter claim that the shot entered his neck - not in
> the last 20 years anyway, but I'm sure they appreciate your softballs
> which make them look like the ones who are rational.

Y'all do know the neck connects to the back, don't you? When you are
off-center, in the upper back the division between the base of neck and
upper back is not obvious.

The last cervical vertebrae (C7) is the one most prominent in the back of
the neck (usually) and anything below that is thoraic spine (back). The
JFK bullet hit JUST at the top of the back, at the level of T1 (which it
clipped). So don't laugh at people who aren't sure. JKF was beginning to
get some Cushinoid fat buildup on his back, and it's not so easy to tell
where the prominence of his C7 is.

>
> > WC defenders lie about the elongation of Connally's back wound and claim
> > that their elongated version proves that their Single Bullet was tumbling.
>
> Of course it was tumbling. How else could the wound be elongated?

The coat and shirt also show elongated entrance holes. Certainly less
round than the corresponding ones in JFK's shirt and coat.

> > They also claim that There was no way for Connally to be hit by a
> > separate bullet, but the Dale Myers diagram shows that there was plenty
> > of room for a bullet to go over JFK's right shoulder and hit Connally's
> > right armpit. WC defenders lie and claim that their bullet hit the
> > middle of Connally's back.

Connally is somewhat rotated. A bullet in his armpit exits below nipple
without puncturing his lung, just bouncing off a rib. You do need a
diagram to see this.

> I have never heard a nutter make that claim either. The bullet struck just
> below his right armpit, as the WC claimed - not in the middle of his back.

No, not the middle of his back. But out the middle of his right chest.

>
> You make the nutters look like geniuses, Tony. How many more softballs are
> coming?
>
> > We have one kook who claims that a bullet hit JFK in the back and just
> > stopped only an inch or so into the back.
>
> That is not impossible, which I suppose is why you call him a kook. Like
> the Connally wound, the entry wound in JFK's back is also elongated, 4x7
> mm, almost twice as tall as it was wide.

It is certainly rounder than that in the photos and drawing.

> I cannot prove it, but it is entirely possible that a misfire from a low
> caliber, automatic weapon caused a tumbling bullet to hit JFK in the back,
> which was followed almost instantly by a second shot from the same weapon
> that passed over Kennedy's shoulder, also tumbling and striking Connally.

Complicated. Then what bruises and hemorrhages the top of JFK's right
lung? What clips off T1 and makes the hole in his throat?

> We know for a fact that suppressed weapons can cause misfires, which would
> explain the two tumbling bullets and elongated wounds, as well as as
> underpowered shot going only a short distance into Kennedy's back.

A shot that underpowered would drop a LOT. You'd never get it sighted
right WRT a standard velocity bullet at mach 2.

> > but then they have CE 399 penetrate only
> > an inch into Connally's thigh and then magically just fall out when they
> > removed Connally's cloths in the ER.

Why not? It's been through a lot flesh and bone and has slowed a lot. In
the recreation Beyond the Magic Bullet for the History Channell a bullet
that started full speed BOUNCED off the thigh of the manikin at this
point.

> It DID fall out. As Connally himself stated, the bullet fell to the floor
> from his stretcher and was recovered by a nurse. Shortly after that DA
> Henry Wade encountered that nurse, who showed him the bullet and said it
> came from Connally's gurney.
>
> Officer Bobby Nolan heard her say exactly the same thing. Interested
> lurkers can read about this in detail.
>
> http://jfkhistory.com/bell/bellarticle/BellArticle.html
>
>
> Robert Harris

I wouldn't believe Wade if he said hello.

Connally said something metallic dropped on the floor and the nurse picked
it up and put it in her pocket. He didn't see it and PRESUMED it was a
bullet.

I think I know what that was: his right golden cuff-link. He had two gold
cuff links made of antique gold Mexican pesos. The right one was shot off,
or fell off when they cut off the right sleeve to look at his wrist, and
it was never recovered. Even Connally never seemed to consider that the
metalic thing might have been his cuff link and not a bullet. It was gold
and the nurse just kept it.

As for his magic bullet, it was recovered later from his gurney, never
having moved. And not by a nurse.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 1/5/2018 10:47 AM, Bud wrote:
> On Wednesday, January 3, 2018 at 9:42:04 AM UTC-5, Anthony Marsh wrote:
>> This year can you just stop lying about the evidence and being
>> hypocritical about what the evidence means?
>> For example.
>> The bullet wounds.
>> The autopsy photos show that the wound from behind JFK was in his back,
>> but WC defenders keep saying neck. Or is it possible that the WC
>> defenders don't know the difference between the back and the neck.
>
> This illustration shows a guy putting his hands very close to where
> Kennedy was hit. But it doesn`t say his hands are on his back...
>
>
> https://www.dreamstime.com/stock-photo-neck-pain-male-hurt-cervical-spine-isolated-white-real-anatomy-concept-image64702237
>

That STOCK photo is nonsense. It clearly says:


NECK Pain - Male Hurt Cervical Spine isolated on white - REAL Anatomy
concept

Photo Taken On: June 12th, 2015


Cervical means NECK.
The bullet hit T-1 which is in the BACK.
Simple anatomy.
And I am not talking about cartoons.
I am talking about what some WC defenders say. Not all WC defenders lie.
SOme admit that the bullet hit the BACK not the NECK. WHich camp do YOU
want to be in?

> Perhaps the vertebrae of the neck go down into what is commonly
> considered by layman to be the back...
>

Now, wait a damn minute.
You are missing the kookiest argument that some WC defenders make.
They say that everyone's body is slightly different and maybe where the
bullet hit would indeed be on someone's back, but just for JFK it would
be his neck. Then we have McAdams who says the neck is the same thing as
the back.

>
> https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/71mxM0jIuxL._SX522_.jpg
>
> Looks that way. Perhaps either is correct in that region. Perhaps
> instead of it being dishonesty on the parts of others, it is merely
> another case of ignorance on Tony`s part.
>

Perhaps all the forensic pathologists don't know the difference between
the back and the neck. But I do and Dr. Michael Baden does.
'

>
>> WC defenders lie about the elongation of Connally's back wound and claim
>> that their elongated version proves that their Single Bullet was tumbling.
>
> "indicates", not "proves".
>
>> They also claim that There was no way for Connally to be hit by a
>> separate bullet, but the Dale Myers diagram shows that there was plenty
>> of room for a bullet to go over JFK's right shoulder and hit Connally's
>> right armpit. WC defenders lie and claim that their bullet hit the
>> middle of Connally's back.
>
> Go to 3:48 and show this room...
>
> https://youtu.be/-nUvSPFKJ3o
>

I am not interested in your cartoons. We have the body and we have the
X-rays. The bullet hit T-1. That is the back.

>> We have one kook who claims that a bullet hit JFK in the back and just
>> stopped only an inch or so into the back. The WC defenders rightly claim
>> that was physically impossible, but then they have CE 399 penetrate only
>> an inch into Connally's thigh and then magically just fall out
>
> No wonder these conspiracy folks can`t figure anything out, simple
> physics looks like magic to them.
>

So, you don't even see the hypocrisy?

>> when they
>> removed Connally's cloths in the ER. It's like a hypocrisy contest to
>> see which WC defender can be more dishonest.
>
> What made that wound in Connally`s thigh, Tony? Did Nellie stab him with
> a pen?
>

A FRAGMENT not a bullet. Can you understand the difference?
Can you SEE the fragment?

[Anthony Marsh]

False. I SHOW you that there was plenty of room:

http://www.the-puzzle-palace.com/Toaster94.jpg

See the white dot? That's where Connally's entrance wound was.
The HSCA drawing shows the top of JFK shoulder. Plenty of room to go
above his right shoulder and hit Connally.

You of all people have absolutely no standing to call anyone a liar.
You are a slave to the greatest lie of all, the Warren Commission Report.
You can't even think for yourself with a grade school education.
Worse than Trump.

> is no "room" and there is no way any bullet flew over President Kennedy's
> right shoulder and struck the governor's armpit! If you actually believe
> that, then post the Dale Myers diagram to which you refer, immediately.
>

I never said that is what actually happened. I just pointed out that it
is possible, to show the hypocrisy of the WC defenders. Stop trying to
put words in my mouth after you've lost the argument.

Pretend that you have never seen the file I just posted for the
thousandth time.
Go ahead.

[Anthony Marsh]

Yeah, my Trapezius hurts, but what does that have to do with the JFK
assassination? We are not supposed to be using this newsgroup to discuss
personal matters. I just put some Absorbine Jr. Plus on it and it feels
better.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 1/4/2018 8:10 PM, claviger wrote:

> On Wednesday, January 3, 2018 at 8:42:04 AM UTC-6, Anthony Marsh wrote:
>> This year can you just stop lying about the evidence and being
>> hypocritical about what the evidence means?
>
> Look in the mirror and ask the same question.
>

So McAdams allows you to call me a liar in violation of the rules
because you are one of his minions.

>> For example.
>> The bullet wounds.
>> The autopsy photos show that the wound from behind JFK was in his back,
>> but WC defenders keep saying neck. Or is it possible that the WC
>> defenders don't know the difference between the back and the neck.
>
> The bullet wound in the upper torso punctured the trapezoid muscle in the
> upper back.
>
>> WC defenders lie about the elongation of Connally's back wound and claim
>> that their elongated version proves that their Single Bullet was tumbling.
>
> An elongated wound in the torso is one indication of a tumbling projectile.
>

Not necessarily.

>> They also claim that There was no way for Connally to be hit by a
>> separate bullet, but the Dale Myers diagram shows that there was plenty
>> of room for a bullet to go over JFK's right shoulder and hit Connally's
>> right armpit. WC defenders lie and claim that their bullet hit the
>> middle of Connally's back.
>
> Explain the trajectory of the elongated wound on the back of Gov. Connally.
> Where did it come from? What kind of rifle was used?
>

Carcano at an angle from the right hitting the curved surface of the
armpit.

>> We have one kook who claims that a bullet hit JFK in the back and just
>> stopped only an inch or so into the back. The WC defenders rightly claim
>> that was physically impossible, but then they have CE 399 penetrate only
>> an inch into Connally's thigh and then magically just fall out when they
>> removed Connally's cloths in the ER. It's like a hypocrisy contest to
>> see which WC defender can be more dishonest.
>
> How many shots were fired at the Limousine? Where did they come from

I personally do not think that the limousine was the intended target.
I think JFK was the target but they kept missing.
I know about 4 shots, but I suspect a 5th. The government is withholding
the evidence about the 5th shot so I can't be sure where it was fired
from. I think it came from the TSBD.

> and what kind of ammo was used? Did the first shot miss and hit a curb?
>

All Carcanos. But the grassy knoll shot was an explosive bullet based on
the modified WCC ammo.


I know the curb was not a direct hit. Some people think it was a
fragment from another shot. But again, the government has covered up so
much evidence that we can't be sure.

[Steve Barber]

Which couldn't have been a bullet. Bullets don't make a metallic sound
when they hit the floor. Empty shell casings, yes, bullets, no.

[Steve BH]

On Friday, January 5, 2018 at 6:04:06 PM UTC-8, Anthony Marsh wrote:

> False. I SHOW you that there was plenty of room:
>
> http://www.the-puzzle-palace.com/Toaster94.jpg
>
> See the white dot? That's where Connally's entrance wound was.
> The HSCA drawing shows the top of JFK shoulder. Plenty of room to go
> above his right shoulder and hit Connally.

But not from the 6th floor corner TSBD window at the right time. Oswald
has to be higher than where he was (like on the roof) or to the right of
where he was (which would put him many windows west).

That, of course, is if you think Connally is hit at Z-224 where the angles
project right up to a cone around Oswald's window.

If you don't think Connally was hit then, and his right arm jerk is a
noise reaction, and he's hit half a second later, as he's twisting further
right to see JFK, then all bets are off.

But (here is irony) YOU are the one to point out that Connally starts out
turning his head to the right to look for gunshot noises, and we actually
see him do that TWICE before the car disappears behind the Stemmons sign.
When next we see him, he is looking forward as he emerges from behind the
sign. We might at this point take his word that he is in the process of
rotating to look over his LEFT shoulder at that second, and never makes
it, because --- arm jerk and he's in trouble from that moment. EVERY
CONNALLY movment from that arm jerk movement on (the hat is just a passive
marker for what forearm and hand do), is rotation to the RIGHT, not left.
He even manages to rotate to the right so much he is looking at JFK with
head turned right, just before he lies back into his wife' lap. But he's
hit LONG before than.

Your assignment is to watch the Z film 10 times through that two seconds
after Connally comes out from behind the sign. DO not watch slow-mo. Watch
it is real time to get the effect of the relatively enormous right arm
jerk. Say to yourself BANG just before that moment just as you see JFK.
All will become clear.

[Bud]

On Friday, January 5, 2018 at 9:01:10 PM UTC-5, Anthony Marsh wrote:
> On 1/5/2018 10:47 AM, Bud wrote:
> > On Wednesday, January 3, 2018 at 9:42:04 AM UTC-5, Anthony Marsh wrote:
> >> This year can you just stop lying about the evidence and being
> >> hypocritical about what the evidence means?
> >> For example.
> >> The bullet wounds.
> >> The autopsy photos show that the wound from behind JFK was in his back,
> >> but WC defenders keep saying neck. Or is it possible that the WC
> >> defenders don't know the difference between the back and the neck.
> >
> > This illustration shows a guy putting his hands very close to where
> > Kennedy was hit. But it doesn`t say his hands are on his back...
> >
> >
> > https://www.dreamstime.com/stock-photo-neck-pain-male-hurt-cervical-spine-isolated-white-real-anatomy-concept-image64702237
> >
>
> That STOCK photo is nonsense. It clearly says:
>
>
> NECK Pain - Male Hurt Cervical Spine isolated on white - REAL Anatomy
> concept
>
> Photo Taken On: June 12th, 2015
>
>
> Cervical means NECK.
> The bullet hit T-1 which is in the BACK.

And it is connected to C7, which is the neck, so he was shot where the
neck meets the back. Just saying Kennedy was shot in the back doesn`t tell
you anything as far as location. It is just as accurate to say lower neck
as it would be to say upper back to place the wound.

> Simple anatomy.
> And I am not talking about cartoons.
> I am talking about what some WC defenders say. Not all WC defenders lie.
> SOme admit that the bullet hit the BACK not the NECK. WHich camp do YOU
> want to be in?

The side that doesn`t make silly semantics arguments. You seem to be
making the argument that the wound was a very, very short distance from
the neck, therefore it is horrible to use the neck as a reference point.

> > Perhaps the vertebrae of the neck go down into what is commonly
> > considered by layman to be the back...
> >
>
> Now, wait a damn minute.
> You are missing the kookiest argument that some WC defenders make.

And you are running from the argument I did make.

> They say that everyone's body is slightly different and maybe where the
> bullet hit would indeed be on someone's back, but just for JFK it would
> be his neck. Then we have McAdams who says the neck is the same thing as
> the back.

Where the bullet hit the terms are interchangeable. This would not be
true for the vast majority of the back but it is for that location.

> >
> > https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/71mxM0jIuxL._SX522_.jpg
> >
> > Looks that way. Perhaps either is correct in that region. Perhaps
> > instead of it being dishonesty on the parts of others, it is merely
> > another case of ignorance on Tony`s part.
> >
>
> Perhaps all the forensic pathologists don't know the difference between
> the back and the neck. But I do and Dr. Michael Baden does.

I doubt Baden would strenuously object to someone saying Kennedy was
shot in the lower neck. It does a better job of accurately placing the
wound than just saying "back".

>
> >
> >> WC defenders lie about the elongation of Connally's back wound and claim
> >> that their elongated version proves that their Single Bullet was tumbling.
> >
> > "indicates", not "proves".
> >
> >> They also claim that There was no way for Connally to be hit by a
> >> separate bullet, but the Dale Myers diagram shows that there was plenty
> >> of room for a bullet to go over JFK's right shoulder and hit Connally's
> >> right armpit. WC defenders lie and claim that their bullet hit the
> >> middle of Connally's back.
> >
> > Go to 3:48 and show this room...
> >
> > https://youtu.be/-nUvSPFKJ3o
> >
>
> I am not interested in your cartoons.

You invoked Myer`s work. You claimed it was supportive of you. I showed
it wasn`t.

> We have the body and we have the
> X-rays. The bullet hit T-1. That is the back.
>
> >> We have one kook who claims that a bullet hit JFK in the back and just
> >> stopped only an inch or so into the back. The WC defenders rightly claim
> >> that was physically impossible, but then they have CE 399 penetrate only
> >> an inch into Connally's thigh and then magically just fall out
> >
> > No wonder these conspiracy folks can`t figure anything out, simple
> > physics looks like magic to them.
> >
>
> So, you don't even see the hypocrisy?

You invoked magic, not me. I understood it to be a simple matter of
physics. Connally had a bullet wound in his thigh. The bullet didn`t
transit and it wasn`t in his body when the wound was examined. You can
think it magically disappeared if you like, I`ll consider more reasonable
explanations, like it falling out.

> >> when they
> >> removed Connally's cloths in the ER. It's like a hypocrisy contest to
> >> see which WC defender can be more dishonest.
> >
> > What made that wound in Connally`s thigh, Tony? Did Nellie stab him with
> > a pen?
> >
>
> A FRAGMENT not a bullet. Can you understand the difference?
> Can you SEE the fragment?

Can you show it?

[Bud]

Where are the people? And why are they both bald? And who is driving?

And how does that white dot in any way show what was visible from the
SN?

> That's where Connally's entrance wound was.

I see the TSBD ahead. If Oswald shot then we might have had a reverse
SBT, with Connally struck first.

> The HSCA drawing shows the top of JFK shoulder.

This is a HSCA drawing?

> Plenty of room to go
> above his right shoulder and hit Connally.

This is not Myers`s work. I produced Myers`s work. I doesn`t show the
room you claimed was there.

> You of all people have absolutely no standing to call anyone a liar.

I allowed that you were merely ignorant.

> You are a slave to the greatest lie of all, the Warren Commission Report.

They did what conspiracy hobbyists cannot. Put a reasonable and
supportable explanation for this event on the table for consideration.

> You can't even think for yourself with a grade school education.

In which case he should be easy to sway with your persuasive arguments.
Except you don`t have any.

> Worse than Trump.

Trump`s thinking seems very much on a par with the thinking I see
exhibited by conspiracy folk.

[Steve Barber]

On Friday, January 5, 2018 at 9:04:06 PM UTC-5, Anthony Marsh wrote:

You have hit an all time low, Marsh. For someone who brags about his IQ,
you really blew it with this post!

[Anthony Marsh]

Point?

> As for his magic bullet, it was recovered later from his gurney, never
> having moved. And not by a nurse.
>

Which magic bullet.
Prove it was HIS gurney.
You know absolutely nothing about this case.

[Anthony Marsh]

WTF are you talking about? We had this long discussion about how Gerald
Ford had changed it from Upper Back to NECK. Didn't you see the document?

http://www.the-puzzle-palace.com/FORD%20Lie.jpg

Or maybe you never read the WC.
NECK

The President's Neck Wounds

The President's Neck Wounds

During the autopsy at Bethesda Naval Hospital another bullet wound was
observed near the base of the back of President Kennedy's neck slightly
to the right of his spine which provides further enlightenment as to the
source of the shots. The hole was located approximately

Page 88

5 1/2 inches (14 centimeters) from the tip of the right shoulder joint
and approximately the same distance below the tip of the right mastoid
process, the bony point immediately behind the ear.162 The wound was
approximately one-fourth by one-seventh of an inch (7 by 4 millimeters),
had clean edges, was sharply delineated, and had margins similar in all
respects to those of the entry wound in the skull.163 Commanders Humes
and Boswell agreed with Colonel Finck's testimony that this hole.

... is a wound of entrance... The basis for that conclusion is that
this wound was relatively small with clean edges. It was not a jagged
wound, and that is what we see in wound of entrance at a long range.164

The autopsy examination further disclosed that, after entering the
President, the bullet passed between two large muscles, produced a
contusion on the upper part of the pleural cavity (without penetrating
that cavity), bruised the top portion of the right lung and ripped the
windpipe (trachea) in its path through the President's neck.165 The
examining surgeons concluded that the wounds were caused by the bullet
rather than the tracheotomy performed at Parkland Hospital. The nature
of the bruises indicated that the President's heart and lungs were
functioning when the bruises were caused, whereas there was very little
circulation in the President's body when incisions on the President's
chest were made to insert tubes during the tracheotomy.166 No bone was
struck by the bullet which passed through the President's body.167 By
projecting from a point of entry on the rear of the neck and proceeding
at a slight downward angle through the bruised interior portions, the
doctors concluded that the bullet exited from the front portion of the
President's neck that had been cut away by the tracheotomy.168

Concluding that a bullet passed through the President's neck, the
doctors at Bethesda Naval Hospital rejected a theory that the bullet
lodged in the large muscles in the back of his neck and fell out through
the point of entry when external heart massage was applied at Parkland
Hospital. In the earlier stages of the autopsy, the surgeons were unable
to find a path into any large muscle in the back of the neck. At that
time they did not know that there had been a bullet hole in the front of
the President's neck when he arrived at Parkland Hospital because the
tracheotomy incision had completely eliminated that evidence.169 While
the autopsy was being performed, surgeons learned that a whole bullet
had been found at Parkland Hospital on a stretcher which, at that time,
was thought to be the stretcher occupied by the President. This led to
speculation that the bullet might have penetrated a short distance into
the back of the neck and then dropped out onto the stretcher as a result
of the external heart massage.170

Further exploration during the autopsy disproved that theory. The
surgeons determined that the bullet had passed between two large strap
muscles and bruised them without leaving any channel, since the bullet

Page 89

merely passed between them.171 Commander Humes, who believed that a
tracheotomy had been performed from his observations at the autopsy,
talked by telephone with Dr. Perry early on the morning of November 23,
and learned that his assumption was correct and that Dr. Perry had used
the missile wound in the neck as the point to make the incision.172 This
confirmed the Bethesda surgeons' conclusion that the bullet had exited
from the front part of the neck.

The findings of the doctors who conducted the autopsy were consistent
with the observations of the doctors who treated the President. at
Parkland Hospital. Dr. Charles S. Carrico, a resident surgeon at
Parkland, noted a small wound approximately one-fourth of an inch in
diameter (5 to 8 millimeters) in the lower third of the neck below the
Adam's apple.173 Dr. Malcolm O. Perry, who performed the tracheotomy,
described the wound as approximately one-fifth of an inch in diameter (5
millimeters) and exuding blood which partially hid edges that were
"neither cleancut, that is, punched out, nor were they very ragged."174
Dr. Carrico testified as follows:

Q. Based on your observations on the neck wound alone did have a
sufficient basis to form an opinion as to whether it was entrance or an
exit wound?

A. No, sir; we did not. Not having completely evaluated all the
wounds, traced out the course of the bullets, this wound would have been
compatible with either entrance or exit wound depending upon the size,
the velocity, the tissue structure and so forth.175

The same response was made by Dr. Perry to a similar query:

Q. Based on the appearance of the neck wound alone, could it have
been either an entrance or an exit wound?

A. It could have been either.176

Then each doctor was asked to take into account the other known facts,
such as the autopsy findings, the approximate distance the bullet
traveled and tested muzzle velocity of the assassination weapon. With
these additional factors, the doctors commented on the wound on the
front of the President's neck as follows:

Dr. Carrico. With those facts and the fact. as I understand it no
other bullet was found this would be, this was, I believe, was an exit
wound.177

Dr. Perry. A full jacketed bullet without deformation passing
through skin would leave a similar wound for an exit and entrance wound
and with the facts which yon have made available and with these
assumptions, I believe that it was an exit wound.178

Other doctors at Parkland Hospital who observed the wound prior to the
tracheotomy agreed with the observations of Drs. Perry and Carrico.179
The bullet wound in the neck could be seen for only a short time, since
Dr. Perry eliminated evidence of it when he performed

Page 90

the tracheotomy. He selected that spot since it was the point where such
an operation was customarily performed, and it was one of the safest and
easiest spots from which to reach the trachea. In addition, there was
possibly an underlying wound to the muscles in the neck, the carotid
artery or the jugular vein, and Dr. Perry concluded that the incision,
therefore, had to be low in order to maintain respiration.180

Considerable confusion has arisen because of comments attributed to Dr.
Perry concerning the nature of the neck wound. Immediately after the
assassination, many people reached erroneous conclusions about the
source of the shots because of Dr. Perry's observations to the press. On
the afternoon of November 22, a press conference was organized at
Parkland Hospital by members of the White House press staff and a
hospital administrator. Newsmen with microphones and cameras were
crowded into a room to hear statements by Drs. Perry and William Kemp
Clark, chief neurosurgeon at Parkland, who had attended to President
Kennedy's head injury. Dr. Perry described the situation as "bedlam."181
The confusion was compounded by the fact that some questions were only
partially answered before other questions were asked.182

At the news conference, Dr. Perry answered a series of hypothetical
questions and stated to the press that a variety of possibilities could
account for the President's wounds. He stated that a single bullet could
have caused the President's wounds by entering through the throat,
striking the spine, and being deflected upward with the point of exit
being through the head.183 This would have accounted for the two wounds
he observed, the hole in the front of the neck and the large opening in
the skull. At that time, Dr. Perry did not know about either the wound
on the back of the President's neck or the small bullet-hole wound in
the back of the head. As described in chapter II, the President was
lying on his back during his entire time at Parkland. The small hole in
the head was also hidden from view by the large quantity of blood which
covered the President's head. Dr. Perry said his answers at the press
conference were intended to convey his theory about what could have
happened, based on his limited knowledge at the time, rather than his
professional opinion about what did happen.184 Commenting on his answers
at the press conference, Dr. Perry testified before the Commission:

I expressed it [his answers] as a matter of speculation that this
was conceivable. But, again, Dr. Clark [who also answered questions at
the conference] and I emphasized that we had no way of knowing.185

Dr. Perry's recollection of his comments is corroborated by some of the
news stories after the press conference. The New York Herald Tribune on
November 23, 1963, reported as follows:

Dr. Malcolm Perry, 34, attendant surgeon at Parkland Hospital who
attended the President, said he saw two wounds--

Page 91

one below the Adam's apple, the other at the back of the head. He said
he did not know if two bullets were involved. It is possible, he said,
that the neck wound was the entrance and the other the exit of the
missile.186

According to this report, Dr. Perry stated merely that it was "possible"
that the neck wound was a wound of entrance. This conforms with his
testimony before the Commission, where he stated that by themselves the
characteristics of the neck wound were consistent with being either a
point of entry or exit.

Wound ballistics tests.--Experiments performed by the Army Wound
Ballistics experts at Edgewood Arsenal, Md. (discussed in app. X, p.
582) showed that under simulated conditions entry and exit wounds are
very similar in appearance. After reviewing the path of the bullet
through the President's neck, as disclosed in the autopsy report, the
experts simulated the neck by using comparable material with a thickness
of approximately 5½ inches (13½ to 14½ centimeters), which was the
distance traversed by the bullet. Animal skin was placed on each side,
and Western Cartridge Co. 6.5 bullets were fired from the C2766
Mannlicher-Carcano rifle from a distance of 180 feet. The animal skin on
the entry side showed holes which were regular and round. On the exit
side two holes were only slightly elongated, indicating that the bullet
had become only a little unstable at the point of exit.187 A third exit
hole was round, although not quite as regular as the entry holes.188 The
exit holes, especially the one most nearly round, appeared similar to
the descriptions given by Drs. Perry and Carrico of the hole in the
front of the President's neck.189

The autopsy disclosed that the bullet which entered the back of the
President's neck hit no bony structure and proceeded in a slightly
downward angle. The markings on the President's clothing indicate that
the bullet moved in a slight right to left lateral direction as it
passed through the President's body.190 After the examining doctors
expressed the thought that a bullet would have lost very little velocity
in passing through the soft tissue of the neck, wound ballistics experts
conducted tests to measure the exit velocity of the bullet.191 The tests
were the same as those used to create entry and exit holes, supplemented
by the use of break-type screens which measured the velocity of bullets.
The entrance velocity of the bullet fired from the rifle averaged 1,904
feet per second after it traveled 180 feet. The exit velocity averaged
1,772 to 1,798 feet per second, depending upon the substance through
which the bullet passed. A photograph of the path of the bullet
traveling through the simulated neck showed that it proceeded in a
straight line and was stable.192

Examination of clothing.--The clothing worn by President Kennedy on
November 22 had holes and tears which showed that a missile entered the
back of his clothing in the vicinity of his lower neck and exited
through the front of his shirt immediately behind his tie, nicking the
knot of his tie in its forward flight.193 Although the caliber of the
bullet could not be determined and some of the clothing items

Page 92

precluded a positive determination that some tears were made by a
bullet, all the defects could have been caused by a 6.5-millimeter
bullet entering the back of the President's lower neck and exiting in
the area of the knot of his tie.194

An examination of the suit jacket worn by the President by FBI Agent
Frazier revealed a roughly circular hole approximately one-fourth of an
inch in diameter on the rear of the coat, 5 3/8 inches below the top of
the collar and 1 3/4 inches to the right of the center back seam of the
coat.195 The hole was visible on the upper rear of the coat slightly to
the right of center. Traces of copper were found in the margins of the
hole and the cloth fibers around the margins were pushed inward.196
Those characteristics established that the hole was caused by an
entering bullet.197 Although the precise size of the bullet could not be
determined from the hole, it was consistent with having been made by a
6.5-millimeter bullet.198

The shirt worn by the President contained a hole on the back side 5 3/4
inches below the top of the collar and 1 1/8 inches to the right of the
middle of the back of the shirt.199 The hole on the rear of the shirt
was approximately circular in shape and about one-fourth of an inch in
diameter, with the fibers pressed inward.200 These factors established
it as a bullet entrance hole.201 The relative position of the hole in
the back of the suit jacket to the hole in the back of the shirt
indicated that both were caused by the same penetrating missile.202

On the front of the shirt, examination revealed a hole seven-eighths of
an inch below the collar button and a similar opening seven-eighths of
an inch below the buttonhole. These two holes fell into alinement on
overlapping positions when the shirt was buttoned.203 Each hole was a
vertical, ragged slit approximately one-half of an inch in height, with
the cloth fibers protruding outward. Although the characteristics of the
slit established that the missile had exited to the front, the irregular
nature of the slit precluded a positive determination that it was a
bullet hole.204 However, the hole could have been caused by a round
bullet although the characteristics were not sufficiently clear to
enable the examining expert to render a conclusive opinion.205

When the President's clothing was removed at Parkland Hospital, his tie
was cut. off by severing the loop immediately to the wearer's left of
the knot, leaving the knot in its original condition.206 The tie had a
nick on the left side of the knot.207 The nick was elongated
horizontally, indicating that the tear was made by some object moving
horizontally, but the fibers were not affected in a manner which would
shed light on the direction or the nature of the missile.208

Return to Top

The Governor's Wounds

While riding in the right jump seat of the Presidential limousine on
November 22, Governor Connally sustained wounds of the back, chest,
right wrist and left thigh. Because of the small size and dean-cut edges
of the wound on the Governor's back, Dr. Robert Shaw concluded that it
was an entry wound.209 The bullet traversed the Governor's

Page 93

chest in a downward angle, shattering his fifth rib, and exited below
the right nipple.210 The ragged edges of the 2-inch (5 centimeters)
opening on the front of the chest led Dr. Shaw to conclude that it was
the exit point of the bullet.211 When Governor Connally testified before
the Commission 5 months after the assassination, on April 21, 1964, the
Commission observed the Governor's chest wounds, as well as the injuries
to his wrist and thigh and watched Dr. Shaw measure with a caliper an
angle of declination of 25° from the point of entry on the back to the
point of exit on the front of the Governor's chest.212

At the time of the shooting, Governor Connally was unaware that he had
sustained any injuries other than his chest wounds.213 On the back of
his arm, about 2 inches (5 centimeters) above the wrist joint on the
thumb side, Dr. Charles F. Gregory observed a linear perforating wound
approximately one-fifth of an inch (one-half centimeter) wide and 1 inch
(2 1/2 centimeters) long.214 During his operation on this injury, the
doctor concluded that this ragged wound was the point of entry because
thread and cloth had been carried into the wound to the region of the
bone.215 Dr. Gregory's conclusions were also based upon the location in
the Governor's wrist, as revealed by X-ray, of small fragments of metal
shed by the missile upon striking the firm surface of the bone.216
Evidence of different amounts of air in the tissues of the wrist gave
further indication that the bullet passed from the back to the front of
the wrist.217 An examination of the palm surface of the wrist showed a
wound approximately one-fifth of an inch (one-half centimeter) long and
approximately three-fourths of an inch (2 centimeters) above the crease
of the right wrist.218 Dr. Shaw had initially believed that the missile
entered on the palm side of the Governor's wrist and exited on the back
side.219 After reviewing the factors considered by Dr. Gregory, however,
Dr. Shaw withdrew his earlier opinion. He deferred to the judgment of
Dr. Gregory, who had more closely examined that wound during the wrist
operation.220

In addition, Governor Connally suffered a puncture wound in the left
thigh that was approximately two-fifths of an inch (1 centimeter) in
diameter and located approximately 5 or 6 inches above the Governor's
left knee.221 On the Governor's leg, very little soft-tissue damage was
noted, which indicated a tangential wound or the penetration of a larger
missile entering at low velocity and stopping after entering the
skin.222 X-ray examination disclosed a tiny metallic fragment embedded
in the Governor's leg.223 The surgeons who attended the Governor
concluded that the thigh wound was not caused by the small fragment in
the thigh but resulted from the impact of a larger missile.224

Examination of clothing.--The clothing worn by Governor Connally on
November 22, 1963, contained holes which matched his wounds. On the back
of the Governor's coat, a hole was found 1 1/8 inches from the seam
where the right sleeve attached to the coat and 7 1/4 inches to the
right of the midline.225 This hole was elongated in a horizontal
direction approximately five-eighths of an inch in length

Page 94

and one-fourth of an inch in height.226 The front side of the Governor's
coat contained a circular hole three-eighths of an inch in diameter,
located 5 inches to the right of the front right edge of the coat
slightly above the top button.227 A rough hole approximately
five-eighths of an inch in length and three-eighths of an inch in width
was found near the end of the right sleeve.228 Each of these holes could
have been caused by a bullet, but a positive determination of this fact
or the direction of the missile was not possible because the garment had
been cleaned and pressed prior to any opportunity for a scientific
examination.229

An examination of the Governor's shirt disclosed a very ragged tear
five-eighths of an inch long horizontally and one-half of an inch
vertically on the back of the shirt near the right sleeve 2 inches from
the line where the sleeve attaches.230 Immediately to the right was
another small tear, approximately three-sixteenths of an inch long.231
The two holes corresponded in position to the hole in the back of the
Governor's coat.232 A very irregular tear in the form of an "H" was
observed on the front side of the Governor's shirt, approximately 1 1/2
inches high, with a crossbar tear approximately 1 inch wide, located 5
inches from the right side seam and 9 inches from the top of the right
sleeve.233 Because the shirt had been laundered, there were insufficient
characteristics for the expert examiner to form a conclusive opinion on
the direction or nature of the object causing the holes.234 The rear
hole could have been caused by the entrance of a 6.5-millimeter bullet
and the front hole by the exit of such a bullet.235

On the French cuff of the right sleeve of the Governor's shirt was a
ragged, irregularly shaped hole located 1 1/2 inches from the end of the
sleeve and 5 1/2 inches from the outside cuff-link hole.236 The
characteristics after laundering did not permit positive conclusions but
these holes could have been caused by a bullet passing through the
Governor's right wrist from the back to the front sides.237 The
Governor's trousers contained a hole approximately one-fourth of an inch
in diameter in the region of the left knee.238 The roughly circular
shape of the hole and the slight tearing away from the edges gave the
hole the general appearance of a bullet hole but it was not possible to
determine the direction of the missile which caused the hole.239

Course of bullet.--Ballistics experiments and medical findings
established that the missile which passed through the Governor's wrist
and penetrated his thigh had first traversed his chest. The Army Wound
Ballistics experts conducted tests which proved that the Governor's
wrist wound was not caused by a pristine bullet. (See app. X, pp.
582-585.) A bullet is pristine immediately on exiting from a rifle
muzzle when it moves in a straight line with a spinning motion and
maintains its uniform trajectory with but a minimum of nose surface
striking the air through which it passes.240 When the straight line of
flight of a bullet is deflected by striking some object, it starts to
wobble or become irregular in flight, a condition called yaw.241 A
bullet with yaw has a greater surface exposed to the striking material
or air, since the target or air is struck not only by the nose of the
bullet, its smallest striking surface, but also by the bullet's sides.242

Page 95

The ballistics experts learned the exact nature of the Governor's wrist
wound by examining Parkland Hospital records and X-rays and conferring
with Dr. Gregory. The C2766 Mannlicher-Carcano rifle found in the
Depository was fired with bullets of the same type as the bullet found
on the Governor's stretcher and the fragments found in the Presidential
limousine. Shots were fired from a distance of 70 yards at comparable
flesh and bone protected by material similar to the clothing worn by the
Governor.243 One of the test shots wounded the comparable flesh and bone
structure in virtually the same place and from the same angle as the
wound inflicted on Governor Connally's wrist. An X-ray and photograph of
the simulated wrist confirmed the similarity.244 The bullet which
inflicted that injury during the tests had a nose which was
substantially flattened from striking the material.245 The striking
velocity at 70 yards of seven shots fired during the tests averaged
1,858 feet per second; the average exit velocity of five shots was 1,776
feet per second.246

The conclusion that the Governor's wrist was not struck by a pristine
bullet was based upon the following: ( 1 ) greater damage was inflicted
on the test material than on the Governor's wrist; 247 (2) the test
material had a smaller entry wound and a larger exit wound,
characteristic of a pristine bullet, while the Governor's wrist had a
larger entry wound as compared with its exit wound, indicating a bullet
which was tumbling;248 (3) cloth was carried into the wrist wound, which
is characteristic of an irregular missile;249 (4) the partial cutting of
a radial nerve and tendon leading to the Governor's thumb further
suggested that the bullet which struck him was not pristine, since such
a bullet would merely push aside a tendon and nerve rather than catch
and tear them;250 (5) the bullet found on the Governor's stretcher
probably did not pass through the wrist as a pristine bullet because its
nose was not considerably flattened, as was the case with the pristine
bullet which struck the simulated wrist;251 and (6) the bullet which
caused the Governor's thigh injury and then fell out of the wound had a
"very low velocity," whereas the pristine bullets fired during the tests
possessed a very high exit velocity.252

All the evidence indicated that the bullet found on the Governor's
stretcher could have caused all his wounds. The weight of the whole
bullet prior to firing was approximately 160-161 grains and that of the
recovered bullet was 158.6 grains.253 An X-ray of the Governor's wrist
showed very minute metallic fragments, and two or three of these
fragments were removed from his wrist.254 All these fragments were
sufficiently small and light so that the nearly whole bullet found on
the stretcher could have deposited those pieces of metal as it tumbled
through his wrist.255 In their testimony, the three doctors who attended
Governor Connally at Parkland Hospital expressed independently their
opinion that a single bullet had passed through his chest; tumbled
through his wrist with very little exit velocity, leaving small metallic
fragments from the rear portion of the bullet; punctured his left thigh
after the bullet had lost virtually all of its velocity; and had fallen
out of the thigh wound.256

Page 96

Governor Connally himself thought it likely that all his wounds were
caused by a single bullet. In his testimony before the Commission, he
repositioned himself as he recalled his position on the jump seat, with
his right palm on his left thigh, and said:

I ... wound up the next day realizing I was hit in three places,
and I was not conscious of having been hit but by one bullet, so I tried
to reconstruct how I could have been hit in three places by the same
bullet, and I merely, I know it penetrated from the back through the
chest first.
I assumed that I had turned as I described a moment ago, placing my
right hand on my left leg, that it hit my wrist, went out the center of
the wrist, the underside, and then into my leg, but it might not have
happened that way at all.257

The Governor's posture explained how a single missile through his body
would cause all his wounds. His doctors at Parkland Hospital had
recreated his position, also, but they placed his right arm somewhat
higher than his left thigh although in the same alinement.258 The wound
ballistics experts concurred in the opinion that a single bullet caused
all the Governor's wounds.259

Try lying about what the WC said.
Either that or admit that the WC lied and that make you a conspiracy kook.

[Anthony Marsh]

Shell casings falling in the ER? Did they legalize pot in Ohio?
It was his cuff link.

>
>>
>> I think I know what that was: his right golden cuff-link. He had two gold
>> cuff links made of antique gold Mexican pesos. The right one was shot off,
>> or fell off when they cut off the right sleeve to look at his wrist, and
>> it was never recovered. Even Connally never seemed to consider that the
>> metalic thing might have been his cuff link and not a bullet. It was gold
>> and the nurse just kept it.
>>
>> As for his magic bullet, it was recovered later from his gurney, never
>> having moved. And not by a nurse.
>

Prove it was HIS gurney.

It was found on the floor.

>

[claviger]

On Saturday, January 6, 2018 at 10:32:25 AM UTC-6, Anthony Marsh wrote:
> On 1/4/2018 8:10 PM, claviger wrote:
> > On Wednesday, January 3, 2018 at 8:42:04 AM UTC-6, Anthony Marsh wrote:
> >> This year can you just stop lying about the evidence and being
> >> hypocritical about what the evidence means?
> > Look in the mirror and ask the same question.
> So McAdams allows you to call me a liar in violation of the rules
> because you are one of his minions.

How wrong you are. He has deleted a dozen in kind responses by me as a
reaction to insulting messages by you. It's like football where the guy
who got punched retaliated. The second punch always draws the penalty.
Life's not fair. I don't whine about it like you do, I just move on.

> >> For example.
> >> The bullet wounds.
> >> The autopsy photos show that the wound from behind JFK was in his back,
> >> but WC defenders keep saying neck. Or is it possible that the WC
> >> defenders don't know the difference between the back and the neck.
> > The bullet wound in the upper torso punctured the trapezoid muscle in the
> > upper back.
> >> WC defenders lie about the elongation of Connally's back wound and claim
> >> that their elongated version proves that their Single Bullet was tumbling.
> > An elongated wound in the torso is one indication of a tumbling projectile.
> Not necessarily.

It can also be an indication of oblique or tangental wounds.

> >> They also claim that There was no way for Connally to be hit by a
> >> separate bullet, but the Dale Myers diagram shows that there was plenty
> >> of room for a bullet to go over JFK's right shoulder and hit Connally's
> >> right armpit. WC defenders lie and claim that their bullet hit the
> >> middle of Connally's back.
> > Explain the trajectory of the elongated wound on the back of Gov. Connally.
> > Where did it come from? What kind of rifle was used?
> Carcano at an angle from the right hitting the curved surface of the
> armpit.

Location and trajectory?

> >> We have one kook who claims that a bullet hit JFK in the back and just
> >> stopped only an inch or so into the back. The WC defenders rightly claim
> >> that was physically impossible, but then they have CE 399 penetrate only
> >> an inch into Connally's thigh and then magically just fall out when they
> >> removed Connally's cloths in the ER. It's like a hypocrisy contest to
> >> see which WC defender can be more dishonest.
> > How many shots were fired at the Limousine? Where did they come from
> I personally do not think that the limousine was the intended target.

What a brilliant deduction!

> I think JFK was the target but they kept missing.

Malcolm Kilduff said JFK was not the target.

> I know about 4 shots, but I suspect a 5th.

Howard Donahue considered a 4 shot situation too. He gave serious thought
to the theory of simultaneous shots at Z313 as presented by Dr Cyril
Wecht. Donahue thought it was a possible alternative of two shots at the
same instant from behind the Limousine.

> The government is withholding the evidence about the 5th shot so I can't
> be sure where it was fired from. I think it came from the TSBD.

So you're at a loss to explain which window or trajectory?

> > and what kind of ammo was used? Did the first shot miss and hit a curb?
> All Carcanos. But the grassy knoll shot was an explosive bullet based on
> the modified WCC ammo.

An explosive bullet with reverse detonation, correct? How does that work?

> I know the curb was not a direct hit. Some people think it was a fragment
> from another shot. But again, the government has covered up so much
> evidence that we can't be sure.

What do you mean by not a direct hit?

[Anthony Marsh]

Typical cover-up. You demand the proof. I provie the proof. You deny the
facts. You attack me. Can you even admit that you looked at the link?

[Anthony Marsh]

Well, usually anatomical figures are depicted as bald.
Don't blame me or Myers.

> And how does that white dot in any way show what was visible from the
> SN?
>

Similar angle from above and to the right.
That was why he drew it. To show the relative positions.

>> That's where Connally's entrance wound was.
>
> I see the TSBD ahead. If Oswald shot then we might have had a reverse
> SBT, with Connally struck first.
>

I didn't say it was at the time of the shot.
It only shows the relative positions.

>> The HSCA drawing shows the top of JFK shoulder.
>
> This is a HSCA drawing?
>

Yes, silly.
Don't try to flatter me and claim that I drew it.
You can see where I taped it over the Mysers drawing.

>> Plenty of room to go
>> above his right shoulder and hit Connally.
>
> This is not Myers`s work. I produced Myers`s work. I doesn`t show the
> room you claimed was there.
>

You did not produce Myer's work. The file name says it: Toaster Magazine.
Anyone can see that there is plenty of room for a bullet to go over
Kennedy's right shoulder and hit Connally.
Any HONEST person.

>> You of all people have absolutely no standing to call anyone a liar.
>
> I allowed that you were merely ignorant.
>

So McAdams allows you to call me ignorant, but he won't allow me to call
you stupid. Hard to debate anything when he holds my arms behind my back
to allow you to punch me.

>> You are a slave to the greatest lie of all, the Warren Commission Report.
>
> They did what conspiracy hobbyists cannot. Put a reasonable and
> supportable explanation for this event on the table for consideration.
>

Silly.

>> You can't even think for yourself with a grade school education.
>
> In which case he should be easy to sway with your persuasive arguments.
> Except you don`t have any.
>

Sway? A closed mind can not be swayed.
He can't admit any facts.

>> Worse than Trump.
>
> Trump`s thinking seems very much on a par with the thinking I see
> exhibited by conspiracy folk.
>

Trump IS a conspiracy folk!

[Anthony Marsh]

On 1/6/2018 7:44 PM, Bud wrote:
> On Friday, January 5, 2018 at 9:01:10 PM UTC-5, Anthony Marsh wrote:
>> On 1/5/2018 10:47 AM, Bud wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, January 3, 2018 at 9:42:04 AM UTC-5, Anthony Marsh wrote:
>>>> This year can you just stop lying about the evidence and being
>>>> hypocritical about what the evidence means?
>>>> For example.
>>>> The bullet wounds.
>>>> The autopsy photos show that the wound from behind JFK was in his back,
>>>> but WC defenders keep saying neck. Or is it possible that the WC
>>>> defenders don't know the difference between the back and the neck.
>>>
>>> This illustration shows a guy putting his hands very close to where
>>> Kennedy was hit. But it doesn`t say his hands are on his back...
>>>
>>>
>>> https://www.dreamstime.com/stock-photo-neck-pain-male-hurt-cervical-spine-isolated-white-real-anatomy-concept-image64702237
>>>
>>
>> That STOCK photo is nonsense. It clearly says:
>>
>>
>> NECK Pain - Male Hurt Cervical Spine isolated on white - REAL Anatomy
>> concept
>>
>> Photo Taken On: June 12th, 2015
>>
>>
>> Cervical means NECK.
>> The bullet hit T-1 which is in the BACK.
>
> And it is connected to C7, which is the neck, so he was shot where the

Nonsense. The vertebrae are not CONNECTED.
T-1 is BELOW C-7. C-7 is the neck. T-1 iw the back. Simple anatomy.

> neck meets the back. Just saying Kennedy was shot in the back doesn`t tell

I never said just back. I specifically said the top of T-1.

> you anything as far as location. It is just as accurate to say lower neck
> as it would be to say upper back to place the wound.
>

No, no one ever said lower back.

>> Simple anatomy.
>> And I am not talking about cartoons.
>> I am talking about what some WC defenders say. Not all WC defenders lie.
>> SOme admit that the bullet hit the BACK not the NECK. WHich camp do YOU
>> want to be in?
>
> The side that doesn`t make silly semantics arguments. You seem to be
> making the argument that the wound was a very, very short distance from
> the neck, therefore it is horrible to use the neck as a reference point.
>
>

What? I didn't say side. JFK's back wound was in the UPPER back which is
right next to the neck.

But the Neck is not the Back and the wound was NOT in the NECK.
That was a lie to deceive the public and make the SBT sound plausible.

>>> Perhaps the vertebrae of the neck go down into what is commonly
>>> considered by layman to be the back...
>>>
>>
>> Now, wait a damn minute.
>> You are missing the kookiest argument that some WC defenders make.
>
> And you are running from the argument I did make.
>

No, I am saying you are silly.

>> They say that everyone's body is slightly different and maybe where the
>> bullet hit would indeed be on someone's back, but just for JFK it would
>> be his neck. Then we have McAdams who says the neck is the same thing as
>> the back.
>
> Where the bullet hit the terms are interchangeable. This would not be
> true for the vast majority of the back but it is for that location.
>

False. You can't say that the back is the same thing as the neck.
That is where WC defenders lie.

>
>>>
>>> https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/71mxM0jIuxL._SX522_.jpg
>>>
>>> Looks that way. Perhaps either is correct in that region. Perhaps
>>> instead of it being dishonesty on the parts of others, it is merely
>>> another case of ignorance on Tony`s part.
>>>
>>
>> Perhaps all the forensic pathologists don't know the difference between
>> the back and the neck. But I do and Dr. Michael Baden does.
>
> I doubt Baden would strenuously object to someone saying Kennedy was
> shot in the lower neck. It does a better job of accurately placing the
> wound than just saying "back".
>

Yes, he did. Did you ever talk to Baden? No. I did.
He told me in person that the bullet grazed the tip of T-1. That is the
BACK.

>>
>>>
>>>> WC defenders lie about the elongation of Connally's back wound and claim
>>>> that their elongated version proves that their Single Bullet was tumbling.
>>>
>>> "indicates", not "proves".
>>>
>>>> They also claim that There was no way for Connally to be hit by a
>>>> separate bullet, but the Dale Myers diagram shows that there was plenty
>>>> of room for a bullet to go over JFK's right shoulder and hit Connally's
>>>> right armpit. WC defenders lie and claim that their bullet hit the
>>>> middle of Connally's back.
>>>
>>> Go to 3:48 and show this room...
>>>
>>> https://youtu.be/-nUvSPFKJ3o
>>>
>>
>> I am not interested in your cartoons.
>
> You invoked Myer`s work. You claimed it was supportive of you. I showed
> it wasn`t.
>

False. I copied his diagram and showed how there is room for a bullet to
go over JFK's right shoulder and hit Connally's armpit. I did not say
that Dale Myers made such a claim.
And again, this is not about me or you. This is about the truth, about
the facts. The bullet hit T-1.

>> We have the body and we have the
>> X-rays. The bullet hit T-1. That is the back.
>>
>>>> We have one kook who claims that a bullet hit JFK in the back and just
>>>> stopped only an inch or so into the back. The WC defenders rightly claim
>>>> that was physically impossible, but then they have CE 399 penetrate only
>>>> an inch into Connally's thigh and then magically just fall out
>>>
>>> No wonder these conspiracy folks can`t figure anything out, simple
>>> physics looks like magic to them.
>>>
>>
>> So, you don't even see the hypocrisy?
>
> You invoked magic, not me. I understood it to be a simple matter of
> physics. Connally had a bullet wound in his thigh. The bullet didn`t

What bullet didn't transit? Now you are talking about a different bullet.

> transit and it wasn`t in his body when the wound was examined. You can
> think it magically disappeared if you like, I`ll consider more reasonable
> explanations, like it falling out.
>

YOU have a magic bullet. I don't.
Dr. Humes said it just fell out. So why don't you believe him?
What are you, some type of conspiracy kook?
If the bullet just fell out of JFK then it couldn't go on to hit Connally.

>
>>>> when they
>>>> removed Connally's cloths in the ER. It's like a hypocrisy contest to
>>>> see which WC defender can be more dishonest.
>>>
>>> What made that wound in Connally`s thigh, Tony? Did Nellie stab him with
>>> a pen?
>>>
>>
>> A FRAGMENT not a bullet. Can you understand the difference?
>> Can you SEE the fragment?
>
> Can you show it?

Sure.

https://www.maryferrell.org/archive/photos/HSCA-EXHIBITS/Photo_hsca_ex_89.jpg

Not the black arrow. That is just the black magic marker someone used to
point to the fragment. Can you tell from just the X-ray how big the
fragment was a how much it weighed?
I'll give you a hint. It weighed more than was missing from CE 399.
Is is lead or copper?

>

Point of personal privilege:
Why is it that you can't find the evidence on any WC defender Web site
and the only place you can find it is on a conspiracy Web site?

[Anthony Marsh]

Is that how real scientists do it?

[Steve Barber]

They have help for people with reading comprehension problems, Marsh, you should seek it.

I didn't say it was a shell casing. I was pointing out that a shell casing hitting the surface of the floor will make a metallic sound as a comparison to a bullet which will not. That you couldn't even comprehend what I said and twist and turn it into something off the wall says it all about you.

> >
> >>
> >> I think I know what that was: his right golden cuff-link. He had two gold
> >> cuff links made of antique gold Mexican pesos. The right one was shot off,
> >> or fell off when they cut off the right sleeve to look at his wrist, and
> >> it was never recovered. Even Connally never seemed to consider that the
> >> metalic thing might have been his cuff link and not a bullet. It was gold
> >> and the nurse just kept it.
> >>
> >> As for his magic bullet, it was recovered later from his gurney, never
> >> having moved. And not by a nurse.
> >
>
> Prove it was HIS gurney.
> It was found on the floor.
>
> >

I didn't say anything about a gurney.

[Anthony Marsh]

Not sure yet. Maybe window #10 and the rajectory would be coming in from
the right. I've written about this before

Figure 3. Two comparisons of jiggle analysis to acoustical data
Frames Group
158-159 D
191-197 B Note that the start of a jiggle group may not
227 C coincide with the firing or impact of a bullet.
290-291 E In most cases, it takes several frames before
313-318 A1 Zapruder reacts to a stimulus.
331-332 A2

HSCA Z-# hit? origin jiggle Marsh Z-# hit? origin jiggle
137.70 161 miss TSBD D 137.702 179 miss TSBD VI#1 B
139.27 191 JFK/JBC TSBD B 139.268 209 JFK TSBD VI#1
[140.32] 140.339 230 Connally TSBD VI#10 C
144.90 297 miss knoll E 144.895 312.6 JFK knoll A1
145.61 312 JFK TSBD A1 145.608 328 Connally TSBD VI#1 A2

>>>> We have one kook who claims that a bullet hit JFK in the back and just
>>>> stopped only an inch or so into the back. The WC defenders rightly claim
>>>> that was physically impossible, but then they have CE 399 penetrate only
>>>> an inch into Connally's thigh and then magically just fall out when they
>>>> removed Connally's cloths in the ER. It's like a hypocrisy contest to
>>>> see which WC defender can be more dishonest.
>>> How many shots were fired at the Limousine? Where did they come from
>> I personally do not think that the limousine was the intended target.
>
> What a brilliant deduction!
>
>> I think JFK was the target but they kept missing.
>
> Malcolm Kilduff said JFK was not the target.

I can't buy his theory.
There were plenty of other chanced to shoot Connally.

>
>> I know about 4 shots, but I suspect a 5th.
>
> Howard Donahue considered a 4 shot situation too. He gave serious thought
> to the theory of simultaneous shots at Z313 as presented by Dr Cyril
> Wecht. Donahue thought it was a possible alternative of two shots at the
> same instant from behind the Limousine.
>
>> The government is withholding the evidence about the 5th shot so I can't
>> be sure where it was fired from. I think it came from the TSBD.
>
> So you're at a loss to explain which window or trajectory?
>

No. I suspect window #10. Read my damn article.

>>> and what kind of ammo was used? Did the first shot miss and hit a curb?
>> All Carcanos. But the grassy knoll shot was an explosive bullet based on
>> the modified WCC ammo.
>
> An explosive bullet with reverse detonation, correct? How does that work?
>

What do you mean reverse detonation. The tip usually detonates on
contact. You just make up crap to try to attack me.

>> I know the curb was not a direct hit. Some people think it was a fragment
>> from another shot. But again, the government has covered up so much
>> evidence that we can't be sure.
>
> What do you mean by not a direct hit?
>
>

Not hit by an intact bullet, hit by a fragment. Ken Rahn and Larry
Sturdivan think it was a fragment from the head shot.

[GKnoll]

Well I am not afraid to say it, a second bullet did certainly miss JFK and
strike Connally in his right armpit. The video evidence confirms it

Here is the Zapruder film which shows that there were two closely spaced
shots fired. The first one struck JFK in the back, ricocheted off his
spine, exited his throat and struck or grazed Connally in his left
shoulder area. That bullet became CE399. A SECOND bullet fired about a
second later, missed JFK completely and struck Connally in his right
armpit area.

Video of Connally reacting to two closely spaced shots...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wEwbtP_9lPY

[Bud]

On Monday, January 8, 2018 at 12:42:35 PM UTC-5, Anthony Marsh wrote:
> On 1/6/2018 7:44 PM, Bud wrote:
> > On Friday, January 5, 2018 at 9:01:10 PM UTC-5, Anthony Marsh wrote:
> >> On 1/5/2018 10:47 AM, Bud wrote:
> >>> On Wednesday, January 3, 2018 at 9:42:04 AM UTC-5, Anthony Marsh wrote:
> >>>> This year can you just stop lying about the evidence and being
> >>>> hypocritical about what the evidence means?
> >>>> For example.
> >>>> The bullet wounds.
> >>>> The autopsy photos show that the wound from behind JFK was in his back,
> >>>> but WC defenders keep saying neck. Or is it possible that the WC
> >>>> defenders don't know the difference between the back and the neck.
> >>>
> >>> This illustration shows a guy putting his hands very close to where
> >>> Kennedy was hit. But it doesn`t say his hands are on his back...
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> https://www.dreamstime.com/stock-photo-neck-pain-male-hurt-cervical-spine-isolated-white-real-anatomy-concept-image64702237
> >>>
> >>
> >> That STOCK photo is nonsense. It clearly says:
> >>
> >>
> >> NECK Pain - Male Hurt Cervical Spine isolated on white - REAL Anatomy
> >> concept
> >>
> >> Photo Taken On: June 12th, 2015
> >>
> >>
> >> Cervical means NECK.
> >> The bullet hit T-1 which is in the BACK.
> >
> > And it is connected to C7, which is the neck, so he was shot where the
>
> Nonsense. The vertebrae are not CONNECTED.

Of course they are, they interlock and are connected by ligaments. The
lower ones are fused.

> T-1 is BELOW C-7. C-7 is the neck. T-1 iw the back. Simple anatomy.

The bullet could enter the neck region and still chip T1.

> > neck meets the back. Just saying Kennedy was shot in the back doesn`t tell
>
> I never said just back.

You should keep better track of what you say, you said "back" several
times above.

> I specifically said the top of T-1.

You said "back", also.

> > you anything as far as location. It is just as accurate to say lower neck
> > as it would be to say upper back to place the wound.
> >
>
> No, no one ever said lower back.

"back" is a general, nonspecific place.

> >> Simple anatomy.
> >> And I am not talking about cartoons.
> >> I am talking about what some WC defenders say. Not all WC defenders lie.
> >> SOme admit that the bullet hit the BACK not the NECK. WHich camp do YOU
> >> want to be in?
> >
> > The side that doesn`t make silly semantics arguments. You seem to be
> > making the argument that the wound was a very, very short distance from
> > the neck, therefore it is horrible to use the neck as a reference point.
> >
> >
>
> What? I didn't say side. JFK's back wound was in the UPPER back which is
> right next to the neck.

So it could be said that Kennedy was hit where the lower neck meets the
upper back.

> But the Neck is not the Back and the wound was NOT in the NECK.
> That was a lie to deceive the public and make the SBT sound plausible.

Because the general public are so on top of things regarding the
assassination that they know the exact trajectories and whether the small
difference between T1 and C7 makes or breaks the SBT? Not your worst idea.

> >>> Perhaps the vertebrae of the neck go down into what is commonly
> >>> considered by layman to be the back...
> >>>
> >>
> >> Now, wait a damn minute.
> >> You are missing the kookiest argument that some WC defenders make.
> >
> > And you are running from the argument I did make.
> >
>
> No, I am saying you are silly.

So you admit I am right.

> >> They say that everyone's body is slightly different and maybe where the
> >> bullet hit would indeed be on someone's back, but just for JFK it would
> >> be his neck. Then we have McAdams who says the neck is the same thing as
> >> the back.
> >
> > Where the bullet hit the terms are interchangeable. This would not be
> > true for the vast majority of the back but it is for that location.
> >
>
> False. You can't say that the back is the same thing as the neck.

But I can say that when it comes to that particular wound it is as
accurate to say it is located in the lower neck as it is to say it is
located in the upper back. By just using words a person would have a much
better idea where Kennedy`s wound actually was if you said lower neck than
upper back.

> That is where WC defenders lie.

CTer merely wish to mislead people into thinking Kennedy was shot in the
shoulder. That is why they fight so hard for "back".

> >>>
> >>> https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/71mxM0jIuxL._SX522_.jpg
> >>>
> >>> Looks that way. Perhaps either is correct in that region. Perhaps
> >>> instead of it being dishonesty on the parts of others, it is merely
> >>> another case of ignorance on Tony`s part.
> >>>
> >>
> >> Perhaps all the forensic pathologists don't know the difference between
> >> the back and the neck. But I do and Dr. Michael Baden does.
> >
> > I doubt Baden would strenuously object to someone saying Kennedy was
> > shot in the lower neck. It does a better job of accurately placing the
> > wound than just saying "back".
> >
>
> Yes, he did. Did you ever talk to Baden? No. I did.

Did you ask him if it was inaccurate to say Kennedy was hit in the lower
neck?

> He told me in person that the bullet grazed the tip of T-1. That is the
> BACK.

And it looks like a bullet entering at the level of C7 could graze T1...

https://media1.britannica.com/eb-media/57/54757-004-1C3783CC.jpg

> >>
> >>>
> >>>> WC defenders lie about the elongation of Connally's back wound and claim
> >>>> that their elongated version proves that their Single Bullet was tumbling.
> >>>
> >>> "indicates", not "proves".
> >>>
> >>>> They also claim that There was no way for Connally to be hit by a
> >>>> separate bullet, but the Dale Myers diagram shows that there was plenty
> >>>> of room for a bullet to go over JFK's right shoulder and hit Connally's
> >>>> right armpit. WC defenders lie and claim that their bullet hit the
> >>>> middle of Connally's back.
> >>>
> >>> Go to 3:48 and show this room...
> >>>
> >>> https://youtu.be/-nUvSPFKJ3o
> >>>
> >>
> >> I am not interested in your cartoons.
> >
> > You invoked Myer`s work. You claimed it was supportive of you. I showed
> > it wasn`t.
> >
>
> False. I copied his diagram

Are you claiming this is Myers`s diagram?

http://www.the-puzzle-palace.com/Toaster94.jpg

> and showed how there is room for a bullet to
> go over JFK's right shoulder and hit Connally's armpit. I did not say
> that Dale Myers made such a claim.
> And again, this is not about me or you. This is about the truth, about
> the facts. The bullet hit T-1.
>
> >> We have the body and we have the
> >> X-rays. The bullet hit T-1. That is the back.
> >>
> >>>> We have one kook who claims that a bullet hit JFK in the back and just
> >>>> stopped only an inch or so into the back. The WC defenders rightly claim
> >>>> that was physically impossible, but then they have CE 399 penetrate only
> >>>> an inch into Connally's thigh and then magically just fall out
> >>>
> >>> No wonder these conspiracy folks can`t figure anything out, simple
> >>> physics looks like magic to them.
> >>>
> >>
> >> So, you don't even see the hypocrisy?
> >
> > You invoked magic, not me. I understood it to be a simple matter of
> > physics. Connally had a bullet wound in his thigh. The bullet didn`t
>
> What bullet didn't transit?

You having a senior moment? You can`t follow what bullet is being
discussed?

> Now you are talking about a different bullet.
>
> > transit and it wasn`t in his body when the wound was examined. You can
> > think it magically disappeared if you like, I`ll consider more reasonable
> > explanations, like it falling out.
> >
>
> YOU have a magic bullet.

No, I don`t. I have a bullet doing the things bullets do, no magic
needed.

> I don't.
> Dr. Humes said it just fell out. So why don't you believe him?

Because I have the ability to think critically. I understand that he
thought he only had an entrance wound, no exit and no bullet in the body.
Erroneous information in, erroneous speculation out.

> What are you, some type of conspiracy kook?
> If the bullet just fell out of JFK then it couldn't go on to hit Connally.

My, you have yourself all confused, don`t you?

> >
> >>>> when they
> >>>> removed Connally's cloths in the ER. It's like a hypocrisy contest to
> >>>> see which WC defender can be more dishonest.
> >>>
> >>> What made that wound in Connally`s thigh, Tony? Did Nellie stab him with
> >>> a pen?
> >>>
> >>
> >> A FRAGMENT not a bullet. Can you understand the difference?
> >> Can you SEE the fragment?
> >
> > Can you show it?
>
> Sure.
>
> https://www.maryferrell.org/archive/photos/HSCA-EXHIBITS/Photo_hsca_ex_89.jpg

Does anyone who`s opinion matters think that tiny fragment caused the
wound in Connally`s thigh?

> Not the black arrow. That is just the black magic marker someone used to
> point to the fragment. Can you tell from just the X-ray how big the
> fragment was a how much it weighed?
> I'll give you a hint. It weighed more than was missing from CE 399.
> Is is lead or copper?
>
> >
>
> Point of personal privilege:
> Why is it that you can't find the evidence on any WC defender Web site
> and the only place you can find it is on a conspiracy Web site?

Perhaps by "evidence" you mean "nonsense".

[Bud]

Perhaps it was drawn to bait conspiracy hobbyists into taking silly

positions.

> >> That's where Connally's entrance wound was.
> >
> > I see the TSBD ahead. If Oswald shot then we might have had a reverse
> > SBT, with Connally struck first.
> >
>
> I didn't say it was at the time of the shot.
> It only shows the relative positions.

If the shooting occurred on Houston Street.

> >> The HSCA drawing shows the top of JFK shoulder.
> >
> > This is a HSCA drawing?
> >
>
> Yes, silly.

Why does it look like the cover of a magazine?

> Don't try to flatter me and claim that I drew it.
> You can see where I taped it over the Mysers drawing.
>
> >> Plenty of room to go
> >> above his right shoulder and hit Connally.
> >
> > This is not Myers`s work. I produced Myers`s work. I doesn`t show the
> > room you claimed was there.
> >
>
> You did not produce Myer's work.

Yes, I did.

> The file name says it: Toaster Magazine.
> Anyone can see that there is plenty of room for a bullet to go over
> Kennedy's right shoulder and hit Connally.

Nobody cares about your cartoons.

> Any HONEST person.

No true Scotsman fallacy.

> >> You of all people have absolutely no standing to call anyone a liar.
> >
> > I allowed that you were merely ignorant.
> >
>
> So McAdams allows you to call me ignorant, but he won't allow me to call
> you stupid. Hard to debate anything when he holds my arms behind my back
> to allow you to punch me.

You are ignorant to the fact that "stupid" is an insult and "ignorant"
is not.

> >> You are a slave to the greatest lie of all, the Warren Commission Report.
> >
> > They did what conspiracy hobbyists cannot. Put a reasonable and
> > supportable explanation for this event on the table for consideration.
> >
>
> Silly.

Yet there it is.

> >> You can't even think for yourself with a grade school education.
> >
> > In which case he should be easy to sway with your persuasive arguments.
> > Except you don`t have any.
> >
>
> Sway? A closed mind can not be swayed.
> He can't admit any facts.

You are blaming other people for your lack of persuasive arguments.

> >> Worse than Trump.
> >
> > Trump`s thinking seems very much on a par with the thinking I see
> > exhibited by conspiracy folk.
> >
>
> Trump IS a conspiracy folk!

That explains it then.

[Steve BH]

I know it far too well. It was recovered by the senior engineer of the
hospital D. Tomlinson.

You know David Von Pein is here on the forum, don't you?

You could learn something from his animations, if you'd look.

http://single-bullet-theory.blogspot.com/

As for Tomlinson you believe him or not.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aJ1ecDXbkRs

He said the stretcher was on the elevator, and that this elevator was the
one that went up to surgery from the trauma room, as Connally did. The
gurney had come off the elevator and was sitting in a line. A doctor
disturbed it every time he passed it, so Tomlinson gave it a kick to get
it back into the the line of gurneys, and the bullet rolled out. Tomlinson
put it into his pocket. Then went to the personnel director Wright, and
they found a secret service agent. No, the chain of custody is not
perfect. The bullet might have come from the gurney of child Ronnie
Fuller, who was also near the presidental limo, and could have been shot
by the Oswald's Carcano, which this bullet certainly came from. (Just
kidding).

The problem with conspiracy theorists (CTs) is that every time human
testimony disagrees with other human testimony, which social psychology
studies show will always happen, CTs will always decide that there is no
way to save the situation but to build a duplicate item of reality or a
duplicate person. Thus, we have duplicate Oswalds, duplicate shooters, at
least twice the number of three shots, duplicate pistol brass from Tippet,
duplicate Tippet assassins, and (not least) duplicate CE399 bullets. One
pointed, one not. Indeed, one from the hospital gurney and one from
somewhere else.

None of this phases me, for I have investigated historical shootings, and
they all have this problem. At the O.K. Corral, some saw one side shoot
first, and others did not. Some had the Clantons/McLaurys with hands up,
others not. This happened right on one of two main streets at the West end
of Tombstone, in a site a lot like Dealey Plaza (did you know Doc Holliday
had a dental office in Dallas on Elm Street, not far from the JFK
assassination site? Yep, in 1874). It was seen by dozens of people, but at
the later trial, their testimonies would conflict.

Tom McLaury had been beaten up by Wyatt Earp the previous day over his
associations, and had his pistol in his pocket in contravention to city
ordinance. So he had left his pistol in a saloon up the street, where it
was later recovered after his death at the OK Corral the next day. He had
no holster. Problem. Some people, including Wyatt, saw Tom shoot a pistol
in the gunfight. From behind a horse (Tom didn't have one). To the end of
his life, Wyatt (and his supporters) thought Tom had picked up a pistol
from SOMEWHERE ELSE (not gotten his own from the saloon) and used it that
day from behind his brother Frank's horse. And that somebody had picked up
the pistol from in front of the dead Tom at the corner, and spirited it
away after the gunfight. In a conspiracy to make Holliday (who had
certainly killed Tom McLaury with a shotgun) look bad. You see? Duplicate
McLaury pistols. Even though Tom had a brother there in the gunfight who
certainly had a pistol and a horse. So there you are. Conspiracy theory,
1883. Some eighty years before Oswald and his problems, but human nature
does not change.

[Steve BH]

The part where "real scientists" make a theory, is the art. It's a mix of
common sense and creativity. Scientists have these is varying amounts.

"Normal science" is when you test various theories later against whatever
evidence can gather, and see which ones fit the data best.

There is also Occam's razor. I can explain what happened in Dallas better
with three different shooters and three different weapons. I just multiply
shots and weapons, suppressed and not, by the number of different
testimonies I need to cover. And I have various people scattering bullets
of various different kinds-- spire point, FMJ round-point, dum-dum, etc.,
to cover all of that. By the time I get done I have dozens of actors, all
acting in a fantastically coordinated fashion.

But there is where the experimental psychology comes in. In controlled
experiments, where an unexpected "crime" is played out in front of a class
of people and their testimony taken, you find most of it is missing or
wrong, and it it is hopelessly conflicting. You cannot use testimony that
way.

https://agora.stanford.edu/sjls/Issue%20One/fisher&tversky.htm

Do you know how many people clearly remember they saw a re-play of the
airplane hit the first tower on TV the day it happened, on 9/11? But that
was never broadcast that day. Every last one of those people is wrong. At
best, we all saw a replay of the airplane hit the un-hit tower, with the
first one still smoking.

[Anthony Marsh]

Then why did you bring up shell casings? Why not a coin? He might have
had coins in his pockets. You know what kind of coin makes a noise when
it falls to the floor? A Mexican peso, which is what his cufflink was
made from.

>>>
>>>>
>>>> I think I know what that was: his right golden cuff-link. He had two gold
>>>> cuff links made of antique gold Mexican pesos. The right one was shot off,
>>>> or fell off when they cut off the right sleeve to look at his wrist, and
>>>> it was never recovered. Even Connally never seemed to consider that the
>>>> metalic thing might have been his cuff link and not a bullet. It was gold
>>>> and the nurse just kept it.
>>>>
>>>> As for his magic bullet, it was recovered later from his gurney, never
>>>> having moved. And not by a nurse.
>>>
>>
>> Prove it was HIS gurney.
>> It was found on the floor.
>>
>>>
>
> I didn't say anything about a gurney.
>

Someone said gurney. What do you call it, table? BFD.

[Anthony Marsh]

No, you are not listed as having any association with Video Toaster.

>> The file name says it: Toaster Magazine.
>> Anyone can see that there is plenty of room for a bullet to go over
>> Kennedy's right shoulder and hit Connally.
>
> Nobody cares about your cartoons.
>

I did not draw that cartoon.

>> Any HONEST person.
>
> No true Scotsman fallacy.
>
>>>> You of all people have absolutely no standing to call anyone a liar.
>>>
>>> I allowed that you were merely ignorant.
>>>
>>
>> So McAdams allows you to call me ignorant, but he won't allow me to call
>> you stupid. Hard to debate anything when he holds my arms behind my back
>> to allow you to punch me.
>
> You are ignorant to the fact that "stupid" is an insult and "ignorant"
> is not.
>

You are ignorant of the fact that McAams censors my messages to protect
his minions and yet allows his minions to insult me.

[Anthony Marsh]

Yes, T-1 is the back. Thoracic means back.

>>> you anything as far as location. It is just as accurate to say lower neck
>>> as it would be to say upper back to place the wound.
>>>
>>
>> No, no one ever said lower back.
>
> "back" is a general, nonspecific place.
>

Yeah, so what? Humes said UPPER BACK which is correct.
The WC (Ford) changed that to BACK OF THE NECK, which is a lie.

>>>> Simple anatomy.
>>>> And I am not talking about cartoons.
>>>> I am talking about what some WC defenders say. Not all WC defenders lie.
>>>> SOme admit that the bullet hit the BACK not the NECK. WHich camp do YOU
>>>> want to be in?
>>>
>>> The side that doesn`t make silly semantics arguments. You seem to be
>>> making the argument that the wound was a very, very short distance from
>>> the neck, therefore it is horrible to use the neck as a reference point.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> What? I didn't say side. JFK's back wound was in the UPPER back which is
>> right next to the neck.
>
> So it could be said that Kennedy was hit where the lower neck meets the
> upper back.
>

You could say that if you were a sophist like McAdams but you're too
much of a gentleman to do that.

>> But the Neck is not the Back and the wound was NOT in the NECK.
>> That was a lie to deceive the public and make the SBT sound plausible.
>
> Because the general public are so on top of things regarding the
> assassination that they know the exact trajectories and whether the small
> difference between T1 and C7 makes or breaks the SBT? Not your worst idea.

The general public may wander in here sometimes with questions like
that, but usually it's all the same regulars from both sides.
I can have a SBT without needing the buillet to hit T-1, but when it
does hit T-1 it gets much more difficult to make it work and requires
too much lying which I refuse to do.
How about a Modified Single Bullet Theory?

>
>>>>> Perhaps the vertebrae of the neck go down into what is commonly
>>>>> considered by layman to be the back...
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Now, wait a damn minute.
>>>> You are missing the kookiest argument that some WC defenders make.
>>>
>>> And you are running from the argument I did make.
>>>
>>
>> No, I am saying you are silly.
>
> So you admit I am right.

No, you are silly.
You don't have an argument, only silliness.

>
>>>> They say that everyone's body is slightly different and maybe where the
>>>> bullet hit would indeed be on someone's back, but just for JFK it would
>>>> be his neck. Then we have McAdams who says the neck is the same thing as
>>>> the back.
>>>
>>> Where the bullet hit the terms are interchangeable. This would not be
>>> true for the vast majority of the back but it is for that location.
>>>
>>
>> False. You can't say that the back is the same thing as the neck.
>
> But I can say that when it comes to that particular wound it is as
> accurate to say it is located in the lower neck as it is to say it is
> located in the upper back. By just using words a person would have a much

No, don't be a Sophist.

> better idea where Kennedy`s wound actually was if you said lower neck than
> upper back.
>

No, I refuse to lie. I leave that to the WC defenders.

>> That is where WC defenders lie.
>
> CTer merely wish to mislead people into thinking Kennedy was shot in the
> shoulder. That is why they fight so hard for "back".
>

The shoulder is impossible. Too far to the right and the shoulder blade
was not hit.

>
>>>>>
>>>>> https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/71mxM0jIuxL._SX522_.jpg
>>>>>
>>>>> Looks that way. Perhaps either is correct in that region. Perhaps
>>>>> instead of it being dishonesty on the parts of others, it is merely
>>>>> another case of ignorance on Tony`s part.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Perhaps all the forensic pathologists don't know the difference between
>>>> the back and the neck. But I do and Dr. Michael Baden does.
>>>
>>> I doubt Baden would strenuously object to someone saying Kennedy was
>>> shot in the lower neck. It does a better job of accurately placing the
>>> wound than just saying "back".
>>>
>>
>> Yes, he did. Did you ever talk to Baden? No. I did.
>
> Did you ask him if it was inaccurate to say Kennedy was hit in the lower
> neck?
>

No, silly. No onw would be stupid enough to say that.

>> He told me in person that the bullet grazed the tip of T-1. That is the
>> BACK.
>
> And it looks like a bullet entering at the level of C7 could graze T1...
>

Depends on the bullet.

> https://media1.britannica.com/eb-media/57/54757-004-1C3783CC.jpg
>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> WC defenders lie about the elongation of Connally's back wound and claim
>>>>>> that their elongated version proves that their Single Bullet was tumbling.
>>>>>
>>>>> "indicates", not "proves".
>>>>>
>>>>>> They also claim that There was no way for Connally to be hit by a
>>>>>> separate bullet, but the Dale Myers diagram shows that there was plenty
>>>>>> of room for a bullet to go over JFK's right shoulder and hit Connally's
>>>>>> right armpit. WC defenders lie and claim that their bullet hit the
>>>>>> middle of Connally's back.
>>>>>
>>>>> Go to 3:48 and show this room...
>>>>>
>>>>> https://youtu.be/-nUvSPFKJ3o
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I am not interested in your cartoons.
>>>
>>> You invoked Myer`s work. You claimed it was supportive of you. I showed
>>> it wasn`t.
>>>
>>
>> False. I copied his diagram
>
> Are you claiming this is Myers`s diagram?
>

The base is the Myers diagram fom the cover of Video Toaster.
I overlaid JFK to show where HIS entrance wound was.

> http://www.the-puzzle-palace.com/Toaster94.jpg
>
>> and showed how there is room for a bullet to
>> go over JFK's right shoulder and hit Connally's armpit. I did not say
>> that Dale Myers made such a claim.
>> And again, this is not about me or you. This is about the truth, about
>> the facts. The bullet hit T-1.
>>
>>>> We have the body and we have the
>>>> X-rays. The bullet hit T-1. That is the back.
>>>>
>>>>>> We have one kook who claims that a bullet hit JFK in the back and just
>>>>>> stopped only an inch or so into the back. The WC defenders rightly claim
>>>>>> that was physically impossible, but then they have CE 399 penetrate only
>>>>>> an inch into Connally's thigh and then magically just fall out
>>>>>
>>>>> No wonder these conspiracy folks can`t figure anything out, simple
>>>>> physics looks like magic to them.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> So, you don't even see the hypocrisy?
>>>
>>> You invoked magic, not me. I understood it to be a simple matter of
>>> physics. Connally had a bullet wound in his thigh. The bullet didn`t
>>
>> What bullet didn't transit?
>
> You having a senior moment? You can`t follow what bullet is being
> discussed?
>

I want to get your opinion. Do you think an intact bullet hit Connally's
left thigh?

>> Now you are talking about a different bullet.
>>
>>> transit and it wasn`t in his body when the wound was examined. You can
>>> think it magically disappeared if you like, I`ll consider more reasonable
>>> explanations, like it falling out.
>>>
>>
>> YOU have a magic bullet.
>
> No, I don`t. I have a bullet doing the things bullets do, no magic
> needed.
>

Then why do we call it the Magic Bulllet? Because you ask too much of it.

>> I don't.
>> Dr. Humes said it just fell out. So why don't you believe him?
>
> Because I have the ability to think critically. I understand that he

No, you don't. You just accept whatever authority tells you.

> thought he only had an entrance wound, no exit and no bullet in the body.
> Erroneous information in, erroneous speculation out.

> GIGO.
He had little choice because he was not allowed ti dissect and examine
the wound.

>> What are you, some type of conspiracy kook?
>> If the bullet just fell out of JFK then it couldn't go on to hit Connally.
>
> My, you have yourself all confused, don`t you?

No, I am showing you the fallacy.

>
>>>
>>>>>> when they
>>>>>> removed Connally's cloths in the ER. It's like a hypocrisy contest to
>>>>>> see which WC defender can be more dishonest.
>>>>>
>>>>> What made that wound in Connally`s thigh, Tony? Did Nellie stab him with
>>>>> a pen?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> A FRAGMENT not a bullet. Can you understand the difference?
>>>> Can you SEE the fragment?
>>>
>>> Can you show it?
>>
>> Sure.
>>
>> https://www.maryferrell.org/archive/photos/HSCA-EXHIBITS/Photo_hsca_ex_89.jpg
>
> Does anyone who`s opinion matters think that tiny fragment caused the
> wound in Connally`s thigh?
>

Yes.
The fragment is in Connally's thigh. Explain it.

>
>> Not the black arrow. That is just the black magic marker someone used to
>> point to the fragment. Can you tell from just the X-ray how big the
>> fragment was a how much it weighed?
>> I'll give you a hint. It weighed more than was missing from CE 399.
>> Is is lead or copper?
>>

<crickets>

>>>
>>
>> Point of personal privilege:
>> Why is it that you can't find the evidence on any WC defender Web site
>> and the only place you can find it is on a conspiracy Web site?
>
> Perhaps by "evidence" you mean "nonsense".
>

Evidence:
Files
Documents
Physical objects

[Anthony Marsh]

On 1/9/2018 1:21 PM, Bud wrote:

Because it IS the cover of Video Toaster Magazine. Look at the filename.

>> Don't try to flatter me and claim that I drew it.
>> You can see where I taped it over the Mysers drawing.
>>
>>>> Plenty of room to go
>>>> above his right shoulder and hit Connally.
>>>
>>> This is not Myers`s work. I produced Myers`s work. I doesn`t show the
>>> room you claimed was there.
>>>
>>
>> You did not produce Myer's work.
>
> Yes, I did.
>

No, show me your name in the credits.

>> The file name says it: Toaster Magazine.
>> Anyone can see that there is plenty of room for a bullet to go over
>> Kennedy's right shoulder and hit Connally.
>
> Nobody cares about your cartoons.
>

It's not MY carttoon. It's Dale Myers cartoon.

[Anthony Marsh]

Nice try, trying to outkook everybody.
Tell us the frame number when it hit Connally.
And then where did the bullet go that hit JFK and exited his throat?

> Here is the Zapruder film which shows that there were two closely spaced
> shots fired. The first one struck JFK in the back, ricocheted off his
> spine, exited his throat and struck or grazed Connally in his left
> shoulder area. That bullet became CE399. A SECOND bullet fired about a
> second later, missed JFK completely and struck Connally in his right
> armpit area.

OK, but that would still be a Modified Single Bullet Theory.
I see no wounds to Connally's left torso. No holes in his clothes there.
How do you explain that?

[Steve Barber]

No matter what I would have said, you would bitch about it. Had I said
"coin", you would have bitched about it, so knock it off with the 3rd
degree.

No matter what, I will say it again. You really blew it with this thread.

Using an image with little dots on it showing Kennedy and Connally's
position within the limousine while the car is anywhere but where it was
at the time of the first shot to strike Kennedy doesn't cut it it. What
Oswald would have seen while aiming at the President's back with his rifle
and what is shown in your little "file" are two completely different
things.

I don't see any of Connally's armpit or shoulder in Dale Myers "file", as
you call it. I think others would agree that they can't either when they
see what Dale's "file" shows:

http://america.aljazeera.com/content/ajam/articles/2013/11/20/secret-service-agentstillwondersifonesecondwouldhavesavedjfk/jcr:content/mainpar/textimage_2/image.adapt.990.high.clint_hill_112013.1384978571433.jpg

>
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>> I think I know what that was: his right golden cuff-link. He had two gold
> >>>> cuff links made of antique gold Mexican pesos. The right one was shot off,
> >>>> or fell off when they cut off the right sleeve to look at his wrist, and
> >>>> it was never recovered. Even Connally never seemed to consider that the
> >>>> metalic thing might have been his cuff link and not a bullet. It was gold
> >>>> and the nurse just kept it.
> >>>>
> >>>> As for his magic bullet, it was recovered later from his gurney, never
> >>>> having moved. And not by a nurse.
> >>>
> >>
> >> Prove it was HIS gurney.
> >> It was found on the floor.
> >>
> >>>
> >
> > I didn't say anything about a gurney.
> >
>
> Someone said gurney. What do you call it, table? BFD.

Obviously, it wasn't me. You were addressing me in this particular
post. That "someone" who said "gurney" wasn't me. If it's such a "BFD",
then why did you ask?! Get it together Marsh.

[Steve Barber]

Whaaaaaaaaa-uh-haaaaaa--haaaaaaaa! Stop whining, Marsh, you poor,
mistreated, thing. You are ignorant of the fact that you talk down to
everyone in here, dishing out insult after insult to people constantly and
none of those posts are "censored". You dish plenty of it out, but you
can't take it when some of it's dished out to you!

[Steve BH]

Metallic fragment in subcutaneous tissue of Connally left thigh. Depth is
not as long as CE399. Fragment may be from base of bullet. No way to judge
with type of plain film X-ray if this fragment represents too much lead
for the 2 or 3 grains missing from CE399.

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=82#relPageId=170&tab=page

[Bud]

"I never said just back." - Tony Marsh

> Thoracic means back.
>
> >>> you anything as far as location. It is just as accurate to say lower neck
> >>> as it would be to say upper back to place the wound.
> >>>
> >>
> >> No, no one ever said lower back.
> >
> > "back" is a general, nonspecific place.
> >
>
> Yeah, so what? Humes said UPPER BACK which is correct.
> The WC (Ford) changed that to BACK OF THE NECK, which is a lie.

Despite all the schooling Jean Davison has given conspiracy hobbyists on
this point they still continue to try to propagate this myth.

> >>>> Simple anatomy.
> >>>> And I am not talking about cartoons.
> >>>> I am talking about what some WC defenders say. Not all WC defenders lie.
> >>>> SOme admit that the bullet hit the BACK not the NECK. WHich camp do YOU
> >>>> want to be in?
> >>>
> >>> The side that doesn`t make silly semantics arguments. You seem to be
> >>> making the argument that the wound was a very, very short distance from
> >>> the neck, therefore it is horrible to use the neck as a reference point.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >> What? I didn't say side. JFK's back wound was in the UPPER back which is
> >> right next to the neck.
> >
> > So it could be said that Kennedy was hit where the lower neck meets the
> > upper back.
> >
>
> You could say that if you were a sophist like McAdams but you're too
> much of a gentleman to do that.

It would be accurate and would give anyone not actually seeing the wound
the best idea where it was.

> >> But the Neck is not the Back and the wound was NOT in the NECK.
> >> That was a lie to deceive the public and make the SBT sound plausible.
> >
> > Because the general public are so on top of things regarding the
> > assassination that they know the exact trajectories and whether the small
> > difference between T1 and C7 makes or breaks the SBT? Not your worst idea.
>
> The general public may wander in here sometimes with questions like
> that, but usually it's all the same regulars from both sides.

You claimed a concerted effort by the government to deceive the public.
Your claim assumed a precise knowledge about the particulars of the SBT,
something you can`t begin to show.

> I can have a SBT without needing the buillet to hit T-1, but when it
> does hit T-1 it gets much more difficult to make it work and requires
> too much lying which I refuse to do.

<snicker> Like water refuses to be wet.

> How about a Modified Single Bullet Theory?
>
> >
> >>>>> Perhaps the vertebrae of the neck go down into what is commonly
> >>>>> considered by layman to be the back...
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Now, wait a damn minute.
> >>>> You are missing the kookiest argument that some WC defenders make.
> >>>
> >>> And you are running from the argument I did make.
> >>>
> >>
> >> No, I am saying you are silly.
> >
> > So you admit I am right.
>
> No, you are silly.
> You don't have an argument, only silliness.

You started it.

> >
> >>>> They say that everyone's body is slightly different and maybe where the
> >>>> bullet hit would indeed be on someone's back, but just for JFK it would
> >>>> be his neck. Then we have McAdams who says the neck is the same thing as
> >>>> the back.
> >>>
> >>> Where the bullet hit the terms are interchangeable. This would not be
> >>> true for the vast majority of the back but it is for that location.
> >>>
> >>
> >> False. You can't say that the back is the same thing as the neck.
> >
> > But I can say that when it comes to that particular wound it is as
> > accurate to say it is located in the lower neck as it is to say it is
> > located in the upper back. By just using words a person would have a much
>
> No, don't be a Sophist.

No, don`t use ad hominem to avoid the point.

> > better idea where Kennedy`s wound actually was if you said lower neck than
> > upper back.
> >
>
> No, I refuse to lie.

Do you refuse to breathe also?

> I leave that to the WC defenders.
>
> >> That is where WC defenders lie.
> >
> > CTer merely wish to mislead people into thinking Kennedy was shot in the
> > shoulder. That is why they fight so hard for "back".
> >
>
> The shoulder is impossible.

But that was the wording that Ford was striving to correct...

"in the back slightly above the shoulders."

Ford saw this wording would cause confusion, and sought better wording.

> Too far to the right and the shoulder blade
> was not hit.
>
> >
> >>>>>
> >>>>> https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/71mxM0jIuxL._SX522_.jpg
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Looks that way. Perhaps either is correct in that region. Perhaps
> >>>>> instead of it being dishonesty on the parts of others, it is merely
> >>>>> another case of ignorance on Tony`s part.
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Perhaps all the forensic pathologists don't know the difference between
> >>>> the back and the neck. But I do and Dr. Michael Baden does.
> >>>
> >>> I doubt Baden would strenuously object to someone saying Kennedy was
> >>> shot in the lower neck. It does a better job of accurately placing the
> >>> wound than just saying "back".
> >>>
> >>
> >> Yes, he did. Did you ever talk to Baden? No. I did.
> >
> > Did you ask him if it was inaccurate to say Kennedy was hit in the lower
> > neck?
> >
>
> No, silly. No onw would be stupid enough to say that.

Why not? The bullet could have entered at the level of C7 and still
chipped T1.

> >> He told me in person that the bullet grazed the tip of T-1. That is the
> >> BACK.
> >
> > And it looks like a bullet entering at the level of C7 could graze T1...
> >
>
> Depends on the bullet.

Also depends on where the bullet entered.

>
> > https://media1.britannica.com/eb-media/57/54757-004-1C3783CC.jpg
> >
> >>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> WC defenders lie about the elongation of Connally's back wound and claim
> >>>>>> that their elongated version proves that their Single Bullet was tumbling.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> "indicates", not "proves".
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> They also claim that There was no way for Connally to be hit by a
> >>>>>> separate bullet, but the Dale Myers diagram shows that there was plenty
> >>>>>> of room for a bullet to go over JFK's right shoulder and hit Connally's
> >>>>>> right armpit. WC defenders lie and claim that their bullet hit the
> >>>>>> middle of Connally's back.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Go to 3:48 and show this room...
> >>>>>
> >>>>> https://youtu.be/-nUvSPFKJ3o
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> I am not interested in your cartoons.
> >>>
> >>> You invoked Myer`s work. You claimed it was supportive of you. I showed
> >>> it wasn`t.
> >>>
> >>
> >> False. I copied his diagram
> >
> > Are you claiming this is Myers`s diagram?
> >
>
> The base is the Myers diagram fom the cover of Video Toaster.

How is this a "diagram"?

> I overlaid JFK to show where HIS entrance wound was.

So this is your work, not his.

> > http://www.the-puzzle-palace.com/Toaster94.jpg
> >
> >> and showed how there is room for a bullet to
> >> go over JFK's right shoulder and hit Connally's armpit. I did not say
> >> that Dale Myers made such a claim.
> >> And again, this is not about me or you. This is about the truth, about
> >> the facts. The bullet hit T-1.
> >>
> >>>> We have the body and we have the
> >>>> X-rays. The bullet hit T-1. That is the back.
> >>>>
> >>>>>> We have one kook who claims that a bullet hit JFK in the back and just
> >>>>>> stopped only an inch or so into the back. The WC defenders rightly claim
> >>>>>> that was physically impossible, but then they have CE 399 penetrate only
> >>>>>> an inch into Connally's thigh and then magically just fall out
> >>>>>
> >>>>> No wonder these conspiracy folks can`t figure anything out, simple
> >>>>> physics looks like magic to them.
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> So, you don't even see the hypocrisy?
> >>>
> >>> You invoked magic, not me. I understood it to be a simple matter of
> >>> physics. Connally had a bullet wound in his thigh. The bullet didn`t
> >>
> >> What bullet didn't transit?
> >
> > You having a senior moment? You can`t follow what bullet is being
> > discussed?
> >
>
> I want to get your opinion. Do you think an intact bullet hit Connally's
> left thigh?

Hard to say. Whatever did it, it wasn`t in the wound (that speck you
offered didn`t cause the wound). Might have been the edge of the ass end
of the bullet that broke the skin, the small fragment supports this.

> >> Now you are talking about a different bullet.
> >>
> >>> transit and it wasn`t in his body when the wound was examined. You can
> >>> think it magically disappeared if you like, I`ll consider more reasonable
> >>> explanations, like it falling out.
> >>>
> >>
> >> YOU have a magic bullet.
> >
> > No, I don`t. I have a bullet doing the things bullets do, no magic
> > needed.
> >
>
> Then why do we call it the Magic Bulllet?

Conspiracy folk coined the phrase to deceive the public.

> Because you ask too much of it.

I didn`y ask it to do anything. Oswald is the one who imbued it with
purpose.

> >> I don't.
> >> Dr. Humes said it just fell out. So why don't you believe him?
> >
> > Because I have the ability to think critically. I understand that he
>
> No, you don't.

Then how is it so easy for me to tell who killed Kennedy, a simple thing
that seems to have you stumped?

> You just accept whatever authority tells you.

What else is there? You guys aren`t putting anything on the table for
consideration.

> > thought he only had an entrance wound, no exit and no bullet in the body.
> > Erroneous information in, erroneous speculation out.
> > GIGO.
> He had little choice because he was not allowed ti dissect and examine
> the wound.
>
> >> What are you, some type of conspiracy kook?
> >> If the bullet just fell out of JFK then it couldn't go on to hit Connally.
> >
> > My, you have yourself all confused, don`t you?
>
> No, I am showing you the fallacy.

By employing a strawman?

> >
> >>>
> >>>>>> when they
> >>>>>> removed Connally's cloths in the ER. It's like a hypocrisy contest to
> >>>>>> see which WC defender can be more dishonest.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> What made that wound in Connally`s thigh, Tony? Did Nellie stab him with
> >>>>> a pen?
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> A FRAGMENT not a bullet. Can you understand the difference?
> >>>> Can you SEE the fragment?
> >>>
> >>> Can you show it?
> >>
> >> Sure.
> >>
> >> https://www.maryferrell.org/archive/photos/HSCA-EXHIBITS/Photo_hsca_ex_89.jpg
> >
> > Does anyone who`s opinion matters think that tiny fragment caused the
> > wound in Connally`s thigh?
> >
>
> Yes.

Who?

> The fragment is in Connally's thigh. Explain it.

It came from the nearly spent bullet that hit there.

> >
> >> Not the black arrow. That is just the black magic marker someone used to
> >> point to the fragment. Can you tell from just the X-ray how big the
> >> fragment was a how much it weighed?
> >> I'll give you a hint. It weighed more than was missing from CE 399.
> >> Is is lead or copper?
> >>
>
> <crickets>

What was the weight of the fragment you are referring to? Exactly how
much weight was missing from CE399? With those two facts in hand you can
make established claims, not before.

> >>>
> >>
> >> Point of personal privilege:
> >> Why is it that you can't find the evidence on any WC defender Web site
> >> and the only place you can find it is on a conspiracy Web site?
> >
> > Perhaps by "evidence" you mean "nonsense".
> >
>
> Evidence:
> Files
> Documents
> Physical objects

Whenever I go on conspiracy web sites all I see is nonsense.

[Anthony Marsh]

Including George Bush.

[Anthony Marsh]

I would rather believe Tomlinson than DVP. But you won't because he might
say something indicating conspiracy. Then what do you do, throw him under
the bus?

> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aJ1ecDXbkRs
>
> He said the stretcher was on the elevator, and that this elevator was the
> one that went up to surgery from the trauma room, as Connally did. The

How come you are never brave enough to actually quote him? I have,
several times.

> gurney had come off the elevator and was sitting in a line. A doctor
> disturbed it every time he passed it, so Tomlinson gave it a kick to get
> it back into the the line of gurneys, and the bullet rolled out. Tomlinson

On the floor. No proof which gurney it came from. But not likely
Connally's because it had doctor things on it.

> put it into his pocket. Then went to the personnel director Wright, and
> they found a secret service agent. No, the chain of custody is not
> perfect. The bullet might have come from the gurney of child Ronnie

Doesn't bother me. Just no proof it came from Connally.

> Fuller, who was also near the presidental limo, and could have been shot
> by the Oswald's Carcano, which this bullet certainly came from. (Just
> kidding).
>

Well, I say Roonnie Fuller just to tease the WC defenders. I also
pretend he was hit by the missed shot.

> The problem with conspiracy theorists (CTs) is that every time human
> testimony disagrees with other human testimony, which social psychology
> studies show will always happen, CTs will always decide that there is no
> way to save the situation but to build a duplicate item of reality or a
> duplicate person. Thus, we have duplicate Oswalds, duplicate shooters, at
> least twice the number of three shots, duplicate pistol brass from Tippet,
> duplicate Tippet assassins, and (not least) duplicate CE399 bullets. One
> pointed, one not. Indeed, one from the hospital gurney and one from
> somewhere else.
>

Sure, I think they're called Alterationists and I atack them all the time.

> None of this phases me, for I have investigated historical shootings, and
> they all have this problem. At the O.K. Corral, some saw one side shoot
> first, and others did not. Some had the Clantons/McLaurys with hands up,
> others not. This happened right on one of two main streets at the West end
> of Tombstone, in a site a lot like Dealey Plaza (did you know Doc Holliday
> had a dental office in Dallas on Elm Street, not far from the JFK
> assassination site? Yep, in 1874). It was seen by dozens of people, but at
> the later trial, their testimonies would conflict.
>

I expect that. That is why I constantly tell both sides to never rely on
witnesses. Have you ever studied Loftus?

> Tom McLaury had been beaten up by Wyatt Earp the previous day over his
> associations, and had his pistol in his pocket in contravention to city
> ordinance. So he had left his pistol in a saloon up the street, where it
> was later recovered after his death at the OK Corral the next day. He had
> no holster. Problem. Some people, including Wyatt, saw Tom shoot a pistol

Sure. Doesn't mean it was HIS pistol or that he brought a pistol.

> in the gunfight. From behind a horse (Tom didn't have one). To the end of

OK, so which movie do you think came closest to failfully repolicating
the shootout? TV shows?

> his life, Wyatt (and his supporters) thought Tom had picked up a pistol
> from SOMEWHERE ELSE (not gotten his own from the saloon) and used it that
> day from behind his brother Frank's horse. And that somebody had picked up
> the pistol from in front of the dead Tom at the corner, and spirited it
> away after the gunfight. In a conspiracy to make Holliday (who had
> certainly killed Tom McLaury with a shotgun) look bad. You see? Duplicate
> McLaury pistols. Even though Tom had a brother there in the gunfight who
> certainly had a pistol and a horse. So there you are. Conspiracy theory,
> 1883. Some eighty years before Oswald and his problems, but human nature
> does not change.
>

Did anyone come up with a conspiracy theory that the Illuninati were
behind it? Slackers! Too early for aliens?

[Steve Barber]

On Wednesday, January 3, 2018 at 9:42:04 AM UTC-5, Anthony Marsh wrote:
> This year can you just stop lying about the evidence and being
> hypocritical about what the evidence means?
> For example.
> The bullet wounds.
> The autopsy photos show that the wound from behind JFK was in his back,

> but WC defenders keep saying neck. Or is it possible that the WC
> defenders don't know the difference between the back and the neck.
>

> WC defenders lie about the elongation of Connally's back wound and claim
> that their elongated version proves that their Single Bullet was tumbling.

> They also claim that There was no way for Connally to be hit by a
> separate bullet, but the Dale Myers diagram shows that there was plenty
> of room for a bullet to go over JFK's right shoulder and hit Connally's
> right armpit.

Where is Governor Connally's shoulder in this Dale Myers "Diagram"?
This is what Oswald would have seen through the scope.


https://i.pinimg.com/564x/ae/b7/37/aeb737b978ae478a6d5b45ea75849ac3--the-sniper-kennedy-assassination.jpg

It's hidden from view by President Kennedy's head and upper body.

WC defenders lie and claim that their bullet hit the
> middle of Connally's back.

> We have one kook who claims that a bullet hit JFK in the back and just

> stopped only an inch or so into the back. The WC defenders rightly claim

> that was physically impossible, but then they have CE 399 penetrate only

> an inch into Connally's thigh and then magically just fall out when they

> removed Connally's cloths in the ER. It's like a hypocrisy contest to
> see which WC defender can be more dishonest.

Where is Governor Connally's shoulder in this Dale Myers "Diagram"?

https://i.pinimg.com/564x/ae/b7/37/aeb737b978ae478a6d5b45ea75849ac3--the-sniper-kennedy-assassination.jpg

[Steve BH]

On Wednesday, January 10, 2018 at 6:27:25 PM UTC-8, Steve Barber wrote:

> >
> > Someone said gurney. What do you call it, table? BFD.
>
> Obviously, it wasn't me. You were addressing me in this particular
> post. That "someone" who said "gurney" wasn't me. If it's such a "BFD",
> then why did you ask?! Get it together Marsh.

I probably said "gurney." A hospital gurney aka patient transport gurney
is a wheeled cart with side-rails used for transporting patients from
place to place in a hospital. Necessarily narrower and lighter than a
hospital bed.

One of these was used to pick Connally up in Trauma and take him upstairs
for surgery. That patient elevator was thereafter guarded by Secret
Service.

Gurneys with blood bandages aren't usually allowed to rattle around
hospital elevators. But this one was being guarded and there was nobody to
clean up. A doctor shoved the thing out, and it sat by the elevator for a
time, getting in people's way, until the hospital's supervisor of
engineering D. Tomlinson, noticed it was in the way, and kicked it back
into place. He heard a rattle when he did, and discovered a bullet in it.

Here is his story at the time:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aJ1ecDXbkRs

Now, it gets more complicated. The personnel director gets into the act,
and the bullet does not have a straight nor chain-of-evidence defense
attorney-proof route to the FBI after that. Worse still, several people do
not recognize CE399 as the bullet they found, later.

https://www.history-matters.com/essays/frameup/EvenMoreMagical/EvenMoreMagical.htm

It's maddening, but that's how history is, in the grainy detail. It NEVER
fits perfectly. It doesn't matter what you do, somebody will not see it
the way everybody else does. And this is where we either say Elvis is
still alive, and no airplane hit the pentagon, or else we realize that 10%
of humans are fucking nuts, and another fraction have terrible memories
and make stuff up, and it's amazing they function at all. And all the rest
of us don't have great memories, either. Memory isn't like a videocamera
with bad resolution. It's more like a photocopy of a photocopy of a tall
story your Uncle told you years ago, which you weren't paying attention
to.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 1/10/2018 11:09 PM, Steve BH wrote:
> Metallic fragment in subcutaneous tissue of Connally left thigh. Depth is
> not as long as CE399. Fragment may be from base of bullet. No way to judge

Slight correction. The fragment MUST be from the base of the bullet if
you mean CE 399. I could be from the middle of a different bullet such
as the one which left two large fragments in the front seat of the limo.

> with type of plain film X-ray if this fragment represents too much lead
> for the 2 or 3 grains missing from CE399.
>
> https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=82#relPageId=170&tab=page
>

Maybe, maybe not.
We can't prove exactly how much lead is missing from CE399 and you have
to remember that some was drilled out from the base for testing. Look at
Guinn's tables for estimates.
Plus there was another fragment which they never acknowledged where it
came from and how much it weighed.

[Anthony Marsh]

As usual, you ignore the point and complain about being corrected. Stop
whining like a little kid getting corrected in class.
The point was that the bit about a bullet falling to the floor did NOT
come from Connally. It is fiction made up by his ghostwriter. What nurse
said she picked up a bullet from the floor?

>
> No matter what, I will say it again. You really blew it with this thread.
>

You are out of your depth. Stick to hearing ghost voices on a tape.

> Using an image with little dots on it showing Kennedy and Connally's
> position within the limousine while the car is anywhere but where it was
> at the time of the first shot to strike Kennedy doesn't cut it it. What

The seating is the same and the downward angle is very similar.

> Oswald would have seen while aiming at the President's back with his rifle
> and what is shown in your little "file" are two completely different
> things.
>

It's not my drawing. It's Dale Myers. Attack him.

> I don't see any of Connally's armpit or shoulder in Dale Myers "file", as
> you call it. I think others would agree that they can't either when they

File name tells you the source. You mean you don't have of copy of his
article from the magazine Video Toaster? Oh, that's right you're not a
researcher.

> see what Dale's "file" shows:
>
> http://america.aljazeera.com/content/ajam/articles/2013/11/20/secret-service-agentstillwondersifonesecondwouldhavesavedjfk/jcr:content/mainpar/textimage_2/image.adapt.990.high.clint_hill_112013.1384978571433.jpg
>
>

Phony. That URL shows Altgens 7, not the Vodeo Toaster magazine.
Why don't you just admit that you are out of yours depth and had never
seen his article. Ask for help.

>
>
>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I think I know what that was: his right golden cuff-link. He had two gold
>>>>>> cuff links made of antique gold Mexican pesos. The right one was shot off,
>>>>>> or fell off when they cut off the right sleeve to look at his wrist, and
>>>>>> it was never recovered. Even Connally never seemed to consider that the
>>>>>> metalic thing might have been his cuff link and not a bullet. It was gold
>>>>>> and the nurse just kept it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> As for his magic bullet, it was recovered later from his gurney, never
>>>>>> having moved. And not by a nurse.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Prove it was HIS gurney.
>>>> It was found on the floor.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>> I didn't say anything about a gurney.
>>>
>>
>> Someone said gurney. What do you call it, table? BFD.
>
> Obviously, it wasn't me. You were addressing me in this particular
> post. That "someone" who said "gurney" wasn't me. If it's such a "BFD",
> then why did you ask?! Get it together Marsh.
>

BFD means it is NOT a BFD.

[Steve Barber]

( I guess maybe .John rejected this response from Tony to me?

Tony Marsh sent this to me through email. Now people can see first hand
why it is that so many of Tony Marsh's posts are rejected. Now he is
comparing me to the Nazi's for bawling him out! Anyone who wants to see
the actual message as it came to me in email form is welcome to view it):

QUOTE ON > That's the type of thing the Nazis said to the Jews as they
pushed them into the gas chambers. Stop whining and take your punishment.
Please dish out more to prove to everyone what kind of person you are.
Never debate honestly. Always insult. <QUOTE OFF

[Steve BH]

On Thursday, January 11, 2018 at 5:52:02 AM UTC-8, Anthony Marsh wrote:

> > gurney had come off the elevator and was sitting in a line. A doctor
> > disturbed it every time he passed it, so Tomlinson gave it a kick to get
> > it back into the the line of gurneys, and the bullet rolled out. Tomlinson
>
> On the floor. No proof which gurney it came from. But not likely
> Connally's because it had doctor things on it.

Tomlinson was never sure which gurney it came from, and therefore we
aren't either.

I don't recall him ever using the world "floor." Though he does call
gurneys "stretchers."

[Anthony Marsh]

On 1/11/2018 8:54 PM, Steve BH wrote:
> On Wednesday, January 10, 2018 at 6:27:25 PM UTC-8, Steve Barber wrote:
>
>>>
>>> Someone said gurney. What do you call it, table? BFD.
>>
>> Obviously, it wasn't me. You were addressing me in this particular
>> post. That "someone" who said "gurney" wasn't me. If it's such a "BFD",
>> then why did you ask?! Get it together Marsh.
>
>
> I probably said "gurney." A hospital gurney aka patient transport gurney
> is a wheeled cart with side-rails used for transporting patients from
> place to place in a hospital. Necessarily narrower and lighter than a
> hospital bed.
>

Yes, exactly. As I said, BFD. I don't care if you used the wrong word.
We know what you meant.

> One of these was used to pick Connally up in Trauma and take him upstairs
> for surgery. That patient elevator was thereafter guarded by Secret
> Service.
>
> Gurneys with blood bandages aren't usually allowed to rattle around
> hospital elevators. But this one was being guarded and there was nobody to
> clean up. A doctor shoved the thing out, and it sat by the elevator for a
> time, getting in people's way, until the hospital's supervisor of
> engineering D. Tomlinson, noticed it was in the way, and kicked it back
> into place. He heard a rattle when he did, and discovered a bullet in it.
>

IN it?

[Anthony Marsh]

You mean Cartoon? You can't see it very well, but I think the highlight
above the black line is supposed to be the top of his sholder. Mayers had
changed his cartoons several times over the years. I believe he did this
one for ABC and was trying to make it look more realistic. Dale Myers does
lie, but not always.

> https://i.pinimg.com/564x/ae/b7/37/aeb737b978ae478a6d5b45ea75849ac3--the-sniper-kennedy-assassination.jpg
>

[Anthony Marsh]

No, silly. I am replying to a thread in this newsgroup. You are replying
to yourself. Maybe you need a class on how this internet thingie works.

> why it is that so many of Tony Marsh's posts are rejected. Now he is

Shame on you. You just admitted that you KNOW that so many of my posts
are rejected. Your buddy the Troll says that my posts are not rejected.

> comparing me to the Nazi's for bawling him out! Anyone who wants to see
> the actual message as it came to me in email form is welcome to view it):
>

You mean it wasn't posted here? WHy not? Is McAdams censoring my
messages again?

[Bud]

Leftists are almost always hypocrites. They have a victim mentality, but
they don`t mind if members of groups they don`t like are victimized. They
rail against being censored but they are the biggest enemies to free
speech out there.

[David Von Pein]

On Sunday, January 7, 2018 at 8:06:03 PM UTC-5, Anthony Marsh wrote:
> On 1/5/2018 3:06 PM, David Von Pein wrote:
> > ANTHONY MARSH TURNS THE TRUTH ON ITS HEAD BY SAYING:
> >
> > ...but WC defenders keep saying neck.
> >
> >
> > DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
> >
> > Why are you stating that LNers "keep saying neck"? They do no such thing.
> > LNers know the wound was in JFK's upper "back" (14 cm. below the mastoid),
> > not in the "neck".
> >
> > Can you, Tony, post some messages of LNers saying "neck" repeatedly, in
> > order to back up your statement that LNers "keep saying neck"? (I doubt
> > you can.)
> >
>
>
>
> WTF are you talking about? We had this long discussion about how Gerald
> Ford had changed it from Upper Back to NECK. Didn't you see the document?
>
> http://www.the-puzzle-palace.com/FORD%20Lie.jpg
>
> Or maybe you never read the WC.
> NECK
>
> The President's Neck Wounds
>
> The President's Neck Wounds
>
> During the autopsy at Bethesda Naval Hospital another bullet wound was
> observed near the base of the back of President Kennedy's neck slightly
> to the right of his spine which provides further enlightenment as to the
> source of the shots. The hole was located approximately
>
> Page 88
>
> 5 1/2 inches (14 centimeters) from the tip of the right shoulder joint
> and approximately the same distance below the tip of the right mastoid
> process, the bony point immediately behind the ear.162 The wound was
> approximately one-fourth by one-seventh of an inch (7 by 4 millimeters),
> had clean edges, was sharply delineated, and had margins similar in all
> respects to those of the entry wound in the skull.163 Commanders Humes
> and Boswell agreed with Colonel Finck's testimony that this hole.
>
> ... is a wound of entrance... The basis for that conclusion is that
> this wound was relatively small with clean edges. It was not a jagged
> wound, and that is what we see in wound of entrance at a long range.164
>
> The autopsy examination further disclosed that, after entering the
> President, the bullet passed between two large muscles, produced a
> contusion on the upper part of the pleural cavity (without penetrating
> that cavity), bruised the top portion of the right lung and ripped the
> windpipe (trachea) in its path through the President's neck.165 The
> examining surgeons concluded that the wounds were caused by the bullet
> rather than the tracheotomy performed at Parkland Hospital. The nature
> of the bruises indicated that the President's heart and lungs were
> functioning when the bruises were caused, whereas there was very little
> circulation in the President's body when incisions on the President's
> chest were made to insert tubes during the tracheotomy.166 No bone was
> struck by the bullet which passed through the President's body.167 By
> projecting from a point of entry on the rear of the neck and proceeding
> at a slight downward angle through the bruised interior portions, the
> doctors concluded that the bullet exited from the front portion of the
> President's neck that had been cut away by the tracheotomy.168
>
> Concluding that a bullet passed through the President's neck, the
> doctors at Bethesda Naval Hospital rejected a theory that the bullet
> lodged in the large muscles in the back of his neck and fell out through
> the point of entry when external heart massage was applied at Parkland
> Hospital. In the earlier stages of the autopsy, the surgeons were unable
> to find a path into any large muscle in the back of the neck. At that
> time they did not know that there had been a bullet hole in the front of
> the President's neck when he arrived at Parkland Hospital because the
> tracheotomy incision had completely eliminated that evidence.169 While
> the autopsy was being performed, surgeons learned that a whole bullet
> had been found at Parkland Hospital on a stretcher which, at that time,
> was thought to be the stretcher occupied by the President. This led to
> speculation that the bullet might have penetrated a short distance into
> the back of the neck and then dropped out onto the stretcher as a result
> of the external heart massage.170
>
> Further exploration during the autopsy disproved that theory. The
> surgeons determined that the bullet had passed between two large strap
> muscles and bruised them without leaving any channel, since the bullet
>
> Page 89
>
> merely passed between them.171 Commander Humes, who believed that a
> tracheotomy had been performed from his observations at the autopsy,
> talked by telephone with Dr. Perry early on the morning of November 23,
> and learned that his assumption was correct and that Dr. Perry had used
> the missile wound in the neck as the point to make the incision.172 This
> confirmed the Bethesda surgeons' conclusion that the bullet had exited
> from the front part of the neck.
>
> The findings of the doctors who conducted the autopsy were consistent
> with the observations of the doctors who treated the President. at
> Parkland Hospital. Dr. Charles S. Carrico, a resident surgeon at
> Parkland, noted a small wound approximately one-fourth of an inch in
> diameter (5 to 8 millimeters) in the lower third of the neck below the
> Adam's apple.173 Dr. Malcolm O. Perry, who performed the tracheotomy,
> described the wound as approximately one-fifth of an inch in diameter (5
> millimeters) and exuding blood which partially hid edges that were
> "neither cleancut, that is, punched out, nor were they very ragged."174
> Dr. Carrico testified as follows:
>
> Q. Based on your observations on the neck wound alone did have a
> sufficient basis to form an opinion as to whether it was entrance or an
> exit wound?
>
> A. No, sir; we did not. Not having completely evaluated all the
> wounds, traced out the course of the bullets, this wound would have been
> compatible with either entrance or exit wound depending upon the size,
> the velocity, the tissue structure and so forth.175
>
> The same response was made by Dr. Perry to a similar query:
>
> Q. Based on the appearance of the neck wound alone, could it have
> been either an entrance or an exit wound?
>
> A. It could have been either.176
>
> Then each doctor was asked to take into account the other known facts,
> such as the autopsy findings, the approximate distance the bullet
> traveled and tested muzzle velocity of the assassination weapon. With
> these additional factors, the doctors commented on the wound on the
> front of the President's neck as follows:
>
> Dr. Carrico. With those facts and the fact. as I understand it no
> other bullet was found this would be, this was, I believe, was an exit
> wound.177
>
> Dr. Perry. A full jacketed bullet without deformation passing
> through skin would leave a similar wound for an exit and entrance wound
> and with the facts which yon have made available and with these
> assumptions, I believe that it was an exit wound.178
>
> Other doctors at Parkland Hospital who observed the wound prior to the
> tracheotomy agreed with the observations of Drs. Perry and Carrico.179
> The bullet wound in the neck could be seen for only a short time, since
> Dr. Perry eliminated evidence of it when he performed
>
> Page 90
>
> the tracheotomy. He selected that spot since it was the point where such
> an operation was customarily performed, and it was one of the safest and
> easiest spots from which to reach the trachea. In addition, there was
> possibly an underlying wound to the muscles in the neck, the carotid
> artery or the jugular vein, and Dr. Perry concluded that the incision,
> therefore, had to be low in order to maintain respiration.180
>
> Considerable confusion has arisen because of comments attributed to Dr.
> Perry concerning the nature of the neck wound. Immediately after the
> assassination, many people reached erroneous conclusions about the
> source of the shots because of Dr. Perry's observations to the press. On
> the afternoon of November 22, a press conference was organized at
> Parkland Hospital by members of the White House press staff and a
> hospital administrator. Newsmen with microphones and cameras were
> crowded into a room to hear statements by Drs. Perry and William Kemp
> Clark, chief neurosurgeon at Parkland, who had attended to President
> Kennedy's head injury. Dr. Perry described the situation as "bedlam."181
> The confusion was compounded by the fact that some questions were only
> partially answered before other questions were asked.182
>
> At the news conference, Dr. Perry answered a series of hypothetical
> questions and stated to the press that a variety of possibilities could
> account for the President's wounds. He stated that a single bullet could
> have caused the President's wounds by entering through the throat,
> striking the spine, and being deflected upward with the point of exit
> being through the head.183 This would have accounted for the two wounds
> he observed, the hole in the front of the neck and the large opening in
> the skull. At that time, Dr. Perry did not know about either the wound
> on the back of the President's neck or the small bullet-hole wound in
> the back of the head. As described in chapter II, the President was
> lying on his back during his entire time at Parkland. The small hole in
> the head was also hidden from view by the large quantity of blood which
> covered the President's head. Dr. Perry said his answers at the press
> conference were intended to convey his theory about what could have
> happened, based on his limited knowledge at the time, rather than his
> professional opinion about what did happen.184 Commenting on his answers
> at the press conference, Dr. Perry testified before the Commission:
>
> I expressed it [his answers] as a matter of speculation that this
> was conceivable. But, again, Dr. Clark [who also answered questions at
> the conference] and I emphasized that we had no way of knowing.185
>
> Dr. Perry's recollection of his comments is corroborated by some of the
> news stories after the press conference. The New York Herald Tribune on
> November 23, 1963, reported as follows:
>
> Dr. Malcolm Perry, 34, attendant surgeon at Parkland Hospital who
> attended the President, said he saw two wounds--
>
> Page 91
>
> one below the Adam's apple, the other at the back of the head. He said
> he did not know if two bullets were involved. It is possible, he said,
> that the neck wound was the entrance and the other the exit of the
> missile.186
>
> According to this report, Dr. Perry stated merely that it was "possible"
> that the neck wound was a wound of entrance. This conforms with his
> testimony before the Commission, where he stated that by themselves the
> characteristics of the neck wound were consistent with being either a
> point of entry or exit.
>
> Wound ballistics tests.--Experiments performed by the Army Wound
> Ballistics experts at Edgewood Arsenal, Md. (discussed in app. X, p.
> 582) showed that under simulated conditions entry and exit wounds are
> very similar in appearance. After reviewing the path of the bullet
> through the President's neck, as disclosed in the autopsy report, the
> experts simulated the neck by using comparable material with a thickness
> of approximately 5½ inches (13½ to 14½ centimeters), which was the
> distance traversed by the bullet. Animal skin was placed on each side,
> and Western Cartridge Co. 6.5 bullets were fired from the C2766
> Mannlicher-Carcano rifle from a distance of 180 feet. The animal skin on
> the entry side showed holes which were regular and round. On the exit
> side two holes were only slightly elongated, indicating that the bullet
> had become only a little unstable at the point of exit.187 A third exit
> hole was round, although not quite as regular as the entry holes.188 The
> exit holes, especially the one most nearly round, appeared similar to
> the descriptions given by Drs. Perry and Carrico of the hole in the
> front of the President's neck.189
>
> The autopsy disclosed that the bullet which entered the back of the
> President's neck hit no bony structure and proceeded in a slightly
> downward angle. The markings on the President's clothing indicate that
> the bullet moved in a slight right to left lateral direction as it
> passed through the President's body.190 After the examining doctors
> expressed the thought that a bullet would have lost very little velocity
> in passing through the soft tissue of the neck, wound ballistics experts
> conducted tests to measure the exit velocity of the bullet.191 The tests
> were the same as those used to create entry and exit holes, supplemented
> by the use of break-type screens which measured the velocity of bullets.
> The entrance velocity of the bullet fired from the rifle averaged 1,904
> feet per second after it traveled 180 feet. The exit velocity averaged
> 1,772 to 1,798 feet per second, depending upon the substance through
> which the bullet passed. A photograph of the path of the bullet
> traveling through the simulated neck showed that it proceeded in a
> straight line and was stable.192
>
> Examination of clothing.--The clothing worn by President Kennedy on
> November 22 had holes and tears which showed that a missile entered the
> back of his clothing in the vicinity of his lower neck and exited
> through the front of his shirt immediately behind his tie, nicking the
> knot of his tie in its forward flight.193 Although the caliber of the
> bullet could not be determined and some of the clothing items
>
> Page 92
>
> precluded a positive determination that some tears were made by a
> bullet, all the defects could have been caused by a 6.5-millimeter
> bullet entering the back of the President's lower neck and exiting in
> the area of the knot of his tie.194
>
> An examination of the suit jacket worn by the President by FBI Agent
> Frazier revealed a roughly circular hole approximately one-fourth of an
> inch in diameter on the rear of the coat, 5 3/8 inches below the top of
> the collar and 1 3/4 inches to the right of the center back seam of the
> coat.195 The hole was visible on the upper rear of the coat slightly to
> the right of center. Traces of copper were found in the margins of the
> hole and the cloth fibers around the margins were pushed inward.196
> Those characteristics established that the hole was caused by an
> entering bullet.197 Although the precise size of the bullet could not be
> determined from the hole, it was consistent with having been made by a
> 6.5-millimeter bullet.198
>
> The shirt worn by the President contained a hole on the back side 5 3/4
> inches below the top of the collar and 1 1/8 inches to the right of the
> middle of the back of the shirt.199 The hole on the rear of the shirt
> was approximately circular in shape and about one-fourth of an inch in
> diameter, with the fibers pressed inward.200 These factors established
> it as a bullet entrance hole.201 The relative position of the hole in
> the back of the suit jacket to the hole in the back of the shirt
> indicated that both were caused by the same penetrating missile.202
>
> On the front of the shirt, examination revealed a hole seven-eighths of
> an inch below the collar button and a similar opening seven-eighths of
> an inch below the buttonhole. These two holes fell into alinement on
> overlapping positions when the shirt was buttoned.203 Each hole was a
> vertical, ragged slit approximately one-half of an inch in height, with
> the cloth fibers protruding outward. Although the characteristics of the
> slit established that the missile had exited to the front, the irregular
> nature of the slit precluded a positive determination that it was a
> bullet hole.204 However, the hole could have been caused by a round
> bullet although the characteristics were not sufficiently clear to
> enable the examining expert to render a conclusive opinion.205
>
> When the President's clothing was removed at Parkland Hospital, his tie
> was cut. off by severing the loop immediately to the wearer's left of
> the knot, leaving the knot in its original condition.206 The tie had a
> nick on the left side of the knot.207 The nick was elongated
> horizontally, indicating that the tear was made by some object moving
> horizontally, but the fibers were not affected in a manner which would
> shed light on the direction or the nature of the missile.208
>
> Return to Top
>
> The Governor's Wounds
>
> While riding in the right jump seat of the Presidential limousine on
> November 22, Governor Connally sustained wounds of the back, chest,
> right wrist and left thigh. Because of the small size and dean-cut edges
> of the wound on the Governor's back, Dr. Robert Shaw concluded that it
> was an entry wound.209 The bullet traversed the Governor's
>
> Page 93
>
> chest in a downward angle, shattering his fifth rib, and exited below
> the right nipple.210 The ragged edges of the 2-inch (5 centimeters)
> opening on the front of the chest led Dr. Shaw to conclude that it was
> the exit point of the bullet.211 When Governor Connally testified before
> the Commission 5 months after the assassination, on April 21, 1964, the
> Commission observed the Governor's chest wounds, as well as the injuries
> to his wrist and thigh and watched Dr. Shaw measure with a caliper an
> angle of declination of 25° from the point of entry on the back to the
> point of exit on the front of the Governor's chest.212
>
> At the time of the shooting, Governor Connally was unaware that he had
> sustained any injuries other than his chest wounds.213 On the back of
> his arm, about 2 inches (5 centimeters) above the wrist joint on the
> thumb side, Dr. Charles F. Gregory observed a linear perforating wound
> approximately one-fifth of an inch (one-half centimeter) wide and 1 inch
> (2 1/2 centimeters) long.214 During his operation on this injury, the
> doctor concluded that this ragged wound was the point of entry because
> thread and cloth had been carried into the wound to the region of the
> bone.215 Dr. Gregory's conclusions were also based upon the location in
> the Governor's wrist, as revealed by X-ray, of small fragments of metal
> shed by the missile upon striking the firm surface of the bone.216
> Evidence of different amounts of air in the tissues of the wrist gave
> further indication that the bullet passed from the back to the front of
> the wrist.217 An examination of the palm surface of the wrist showed a
> wound approximately one-fifth of an inch (one-half centimeter) long and
> approximately three-fourths of an inch (2 centimeters) above the crease
> of the right wrist.218 Dr. Shaw had initially believed that the missile
> entered on the palm side of the Governor's wrist and exited on the back
> side.219 After reviewing the factors considered by Dr. Gregory, however,
> Dr. Shaw withdrew his earlier opinion. He deferred to the judgment of
> Dr. Gregory, who had more closely examined that wound during the wrist
> operation.220
>
> In addition, Governor Connally suffered a puncture wound in the left
> thigh that was approximately two-fifths of an inch (1 centimeter) in
> diameter and located approximately 5 or 6 inches above the Governor's
> left knee.221 On the Governor's leg, very little soft-tissue damage was
> noted, which indicated a tangential wound or the penetration of a larger
> missile entering at low velocity and stopping after entering the
> skin.222 X-ray examination disclosed a tiny metallic fragment embedded
> in the Governor's leg.223 The surgeons who attended the Governor
> concluded that the thigh wound was not caused by the small fragment in
> the thigh but resulted from the impact of a larger missile.224
>
> Examination of clothing.--The clothing worn by Governor Connally on
> November 22, 1963, contained holes which matched his wounds. On the back
> of the Governor's coat, a hole was found 1 1/8 inches from the seam
> where the right sleeve attached to the coat and 7 1/4 inches to the
> right of the midline.225 This hole was elongated in a horizontal
> direction approximately five-eighths of an inch in length
>
> Page 94
>
> and one-fourth of an inch in height.226 The front side of the Governor's
> coat contained a circular hole three-eighths of an inch in diameter,
> located 5 inches to the right of the front right edge of the coat
> slightly above the top button.227 A rough hole approximately
> five-eighths of an inch in length and three-eighths of an inch in width
> was found near the end of the right sleeve.228 Each of these holes could
> have been caused by a bullet, but a positive determination of this fact
> or the direction of the missile was not possible because the garment had
> been cleaned and pressed prior to any opportunity for a scientific
> examination.229
>
> An examination of the Governor's shirt disclosed a very ragged tear
> five-eighths of an inch long horizontally and one-half of an inch
> vertically on the back of the shirt near the right sleeve 2 inches from
> the line where the sleeve attaches.230 Immediately to the right was
> another small tear, approximately three-sixteenths of an inch long.231
> The two holes corresponded in position to the hole in the back of the
> Governor's coat.232 A very irregular tear in the form of an "H" was
> observed on the front side of the Governor's shirt, approximately 1 1/2
> inches high, with a crossbar tear approximately 1 inch wide, located 5
> inches from the right side seam and 9 inches from the top of the right
> sleeve.233 Because the shirt had been laundered, there were insufficient
> characteristics for the expert examiner to form a conclusive opinion on
> the direction or nature of the object causing the holes.234 The rear
> hole could have been caused by the entrance of a 6.5-millimeter bullet
> and the front hole by the exit of such a bullet.235
>
> On the French cuff of the right sleeve of the Governor's shirt was a
> ragged, irregularly shaped hole located 1 1/2 inches from the end of the
> sleeve and 5 1/2 inches from the outside cuff-link hole.236 The
> characteristics after laundering did not permit positive conclusions but
> these holes could have been caused by a bullet passing through the
> Governor's right wrist from the back to the front sides.237 The
> Governor's trousers contained a hole approximately one-fourth of an inch
> in diameter in the region of the left knee.238 The roughly circular
> shape of the hole and the slight tearing away from the edges gave the
> hole the general appearance of a bullet hole but it was not possible to
> determine the direction of the missile which caused the hole.239
>
> Course of bullet.--Ballistics experiments and medical findings
> established that the missile which passed through the Governor's wrist
> and penetrated his thigh had first traversed his chest. The Army Wound
> Ballistics experts conducted tests which proved that the Governor's
> wrist wound was not caused by a pristine bullet. (See app. X, pp.
> 582-585.) A bullet is pristine immediately on exiting from a rifle
> muzzle when it moves in a straight line with a spinning motion and
> maintains its uniform trajectory with but a minimum of nose surface
> striking the air through which it passes.240 When the straight line of
> flight of a bullet is deflected by striking some object, it starts to
> wobble or become irregular in flight, a condition called yaw.241 A
> bullet with yaw has a greater surface exposed to the striking material
> or air, since the target or air is struck not only by the nose of the
> bullet, its smallest striking surface, but also by the bullet's sides.242
>
> Page 95
>
> The ballistics experts learned the exact nature of the Governor's wrist
> wound by examining Parkland Hospital records and X-rays and conferring
> with Dr. Gregory. The C2766 Mannlicher-Carcano rifle found in the
> Depository was fired with bullets of the same type as the bullet found
> on the Governor's stretcher and the fragments found in the Presidential
> limousine. Shots were fired from a distance of 70 yards at comparable
> flesh and bone protected by material similar to the clothing worn by the
> Governor.243 One of the test shots wounded the comparable flesh and bone
> structure in virtually the same place and from the same angle as the
> wound inflicted on Governor Connally's wrist. An X-ray and photograph of
> the simulated wrist confirmed the similarity.244 The bullet which
> inflicted that injury during the tests had a nose which was
> substantially flattened from striking the material.245 The striking
> velocity at 70 yards of seven shots fired during the tests averaged
> 1,858 feet per second; the average exit velocity of five shots was 1,776
> feet per second.246
>
> The conclusion that the Governor's wrist was not struck by a pristine
> bullet was based upon the following: ( 1 ) greater damage was inflicted
> on the test material than on the Governor's wrist; 247 (2) the test
> material had a smaller entry wound and a larger exit wound,
> characteristic of a pristine bullet, while the Governor's wrist had a
> larger entry wound as compared with its exit wound, indicating a bullet
> which was tumbling;248 (3) cloth was carried into the wrist wound, which
> is characteristic of an irregular missile;249 (4) the partial cutting of
> a radial nerve and tendon leading to the Governor's thumb further
> suggested that the bullet which struck him was not pristine, since such
> a bullet would merely push aside a tendon and nerve rather than catch
> and tear them;250 (5) the bullet found on the Governor's stretcher
> probably did not pass through the wrist as a pristine bullet because its
> nose was not considerably flattened, as was the case with the pristine
> bullet which struck the simulated wrist;251 and (6) the bullet which
> caused the Governor's thigh injury and then fell out of the wound had a
> "very low velocity," whereas the pristine bullets fired during the tests
> possessed a very high exit velocity.252
>
> All the evidence indicated that the bullet found on the Governor's
> stretcher could have caused all his wounds. The weight of the whole
> bullet prior to firing was approximately 160-161 grains and that of the
> recovered bullet was 158.6 grains.253 An X-ray of the Governor's wrist
> showed very minute metallic fragments, and two or three of these
> fragments were removed from his wrist.254 All these fragments were
> sufficiently small and light so that the nearly whole bullet found on
> the stretcher could have deposited those pieces of metal as it tumbled
> through his wrist.255 In their testimony, the three doctors who attended
> Governor Connally at Parkland Hospital expressed independently their
> opinion that a single bullet had passed through his chest; tumbled
> through his wrist with very little exit velocity, leaving small metallic
> fragments from the rear portion of the bullet; punctured his left thigh
> after the bullet had lost virtually all of its velocity; and had fallen
> out of the thigh wound.256
>
> Page 96
>
> Governor Connally himself thought it likely that all his wounds were
> caused by a single bullet. In his testimony before the Commission, he
> repositioned himself as he recalled his position on the jump seat, with
> his right palm on his left thigh, and said:
>
> I ... wound up the next day realizing I was hit in three places,
> and I was not conscious of having been hit but by one bullet, so I tried
> to reconstruct how I could have been hit in three places by the same
> bullet, and I merely, I know it penetrated from the back through the
> chest first.
> I assumed that I had turned as I described a moment ago, placing my
> right hand on my left leg, that it hit my wrist, went out the center of
> the wrist, the underside, and then into my leg, but it might not have
> happened that way at all.257
>
> The Governor's posture explained how a single missile through his body
> would cause all his wounds. His doctors at Parkland Hospital had
> recreated his position, also, but they placed his right arm somewhat
> higher than his left thigh although in the same alinement.258 The wound
> ballistics experts concurred in the opinion that a single bullet caused
> all the Governor's wounds.259
>
> Try lying about what the WC said.
> Either that or admit that the WC lied and that make you a conspiracy kook.

I thought you were implying that "WC defenders" ON THE INTERNET "keep
saying neck", which is not true at all (of course).

Yes, I *know* the WC kept calling it a "NECK" wound (as did Arlen Specter
for years in his TV interviews and debates). But mostly the WC (and
Specter) were referring to the COMBINATION of the BACK and NECK (THROAT)
wounds when they used the word "neck" (and the bullet DID, in fact, pass
through an area that would qualify as the NECK, so in that regard, the WC
was correct to say neck when they talked about the entry and exit holes as
a UNIT).

I think the WC should have used the words "upper back" more often (to
differentiate between the entry wound in the upper back and the exit wound
in the neck/throat), but regardless of the words utilized, the WC knew the
entry wound was "14 cm. below the mastoid", and that's not the neck, it's
the upper back.

If it makes you happy to think the WC lied when it constantly said "NECK"
in the WCR when "upper back" is probably technically more appropriate for
the entry wound ALONE, go ahead and do cartwheels. But the entry wound
never moved---it was always "14 cm. below the mastoid"---and the WC knew
this full well.

IMO, it's been a 50-year debate over semantics for the most part.

[Steve Barber]

Ok, MArsh. I'll just post the entire exchange and allow people to see
that no, Steve Barber isn't responding to himself, he posted Marsh's own
words.

>
>
> > why it is that so many of Tony Marsh's posts are rejected. Now he is
>
> Shame on you. You just admitted that you KNOW that so many of my posts
> are rejected. Your buddy the Troll says that my posts are not rejected.

LOL! The jokes on you! How can **ANYONE** not know about your constant
posts being rejected. IT'S ALL YOU WHINE ABOUT, MARSH!!!!!!

> > comparing me to the Nazi's for bawling him out! Anyone who wants to see
> > the actual message as it came to me in email form is welcome to view it):
> >
>
> You mean it wasn't posted here? WHy not? Is McAdams censoring my
> messages again?

Isn't that why you emailed the entire exchange to me, Marsh because you
didn't think it would be posted? Hint: If you think that by saying
something questionable that it might be rejected, DON'T SEND IT! It's
that simple. I know that's difficult for you since your goal in life is
to talk down to people, but do try to control yourself.

[Steve Barber]

No, I don't mean "cartoon". I mean exactly the word *you* used to
describe Dale's work. "Diagram". That's why there are quotation marks
around the word. Because that's what you called it and I quoted you!

You can't see it very well, but I think the highlight
> above the black line is supposed to be the top of his sholder.

You are making things up again. That makes no sense at all, and isn't
even close to what we see in the frame from Dale's frame.

Mayers had
> changed his cartoons several times over the years.

"Several"? Really? When? Where? Point me to the changes made in the
positions of the figures representing the bodies of Kennedy and Connally.

I believe he did this
> one for ABC and was trying to make it look more realistic. Dale Myers does
> lie, but not always.

Really? Please post his"lie[s]" re: his animation.



>
> > https://i.pinimg.com/564x/ae/b7/37/aeb737b978ae478a6d5b45ea75849ac3--the-sniper-kennedy-assassination.jpg
> >

[Steve Barber]

"Whining"? I stated a fact known by all who read your posts, Marsh.
If we say white, you say black. If we say green, you say red. Everyone can
read you like the back of their hand, Marsh. Do yourself a favor. Don't go
there!

> The point was that the bit about a bullet falling to the floor did NOT
> come from Connally. It is fiction made up by his ghostwriter. What nurse
> said she picked up a bullet from the floor?

I am way ahead of you, Marsh. I don't need you to tell me.

>
> >
> > No matter what, I will say it again. You really blew it with this thread.
> >
>
> You are out of your depth. Stick to hearing ghost voices on a tape.

No, I am not "out of my depth". You are out of your league, though Whatsa
matter, Marsh? Still won't admit that the acoustics tests are wrong. Get
with the times. There are no gunshots on the Dictabelt. I proved this.
Scientists confirmed it. Live with it.

>
> > Using an image with little dots on it showing Kennedy and Connally's
> > position within the limousine while the car is anywhere but where it was
> > at the time of the first shot to strike Kennedy doesn't cut it it. What
>
> The seating is the same and the downward angle is very similar.

Only in your fantasy world.

>
> > Oswald would have seen while aiming at the President's back with his rifle
> > and what is shown in your little "file" are two completely different
> > things.
> >
>
> It's not my drawing. It's Dale Myers. Attack him.

But you posted an image that has no bearing on this particular point,
so I am "attacking" you!

>
>
> > I don't see any of Connally's armpit or shoulder in Dale Myers "file", as
> > you call it. I think others would agree that they can't either when they
>
> File name tells you the source. You mean you don't have of copy of his
> article from the magazine Video Toaster? Oh, that's right you're not a
> researcher.

Nice try, Marsh. You fail again.

>
> > see what Dale's "file" shows:
> >
> > http://america.aljazeera.com/content/ajam/articles/2013/11/20/secret-service-agentstillwondersifonesecondwouldhavesavedjfk/jcr:content/mainpar/textimage_2/image.adapt.990.high.clint_hill_112013.1384978571433.jpg
> >
> >
>
> Phony. That URL shows Altgens 7, not the Vodeo Toaster magazine.
> Why don't you just admit that you are out of yours depth and had never
> seen his article. Ask for help.

Yeah, I know. I clicked on the wrong URL. Using your own term "BFD". I
posted the correct image after I caught my mistake, which is more than I
can say for you.

[Anthony Marsh]

I would not criticize him for that. If you are talking about Tomlinson,
how come you never actually quote him?
Testimony Of Darrell C. Tomlinson
The testimony of Darrell C. Tomlinson was taken on March 20, 1964, at
Parkland Memorial Hospital, Dallas, Tex., by Mr. Arlen Specter,
assistant counsel of the President's Commission.

Mr. Specter.
Mr. Tomlinson, this is Miss Oliver, and she is the court reporter.
Will you stand up and hold up your right hand and take the oath, please?
Do you solemnly swear that in the taking of your deposition in
these proceedings, you will tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing
but the truth, so help you God?
Mr. Tomlinson.
I do.
Mr. Specter.
Would you state your full name, for the record?
Mr. Tomlinson.
Darrell Carlisle Tomlinson.
Mr. Specter.
Mr. Tomlinson, the purpose of this deposition proceeding is to take
your deposition in connection with an inquiry made by the President's
Commission in connection with the Assassination of President Kennedy to
determine from you all the facts, if any, which you know concerning the
events surrounding the assassination of President Kennedy and any
treatment which was given at Parkland Memorial Hospital to either
President Kennedy or Governor Connally, or anything that happened to any
physical objects connected with either one of those men.
First of all, did you receive a letter advising you that the
Commission was interested in having one of its staff lawyers take your
deposition concerning this matter?
Mr. Tomlinson.
Yes.
Mr. Specter.
And did that letter include in it a copy of the Executive order
creating the Commission?
Mr. Tomlinson.
Yes.
Mr. Specter.
And a copy of the congressional resolution concerning the creation
of the President's Commission?
Mr. Tomlinson.
Yes.
Mr. Specter.
And a copy of the resolution governing questioning of witnesses by
members of the Commission's staff?
Mr. Tomlinson.
Yes.
Mr. Specter.
And are you willing today for me to ask you some questions about
what you observed or know about this matter?
Mr. Tomlinson.
Yes, sir.
Mr. Specter.
And it is satisfactory with you to proceed today rather than to
have 3 days from the time you got the letter, which was yesterday?
Mr. Tomlinson.
It's immaterial.
Mr. Specter.
It's immaterial to you?
Mr. Tomlinson.
It's immaterial---it's at your convenience.
Mr. Specter.
That's fine. We appreciate that, Mr. Tomlinson.
The reason is, that you have the right to a 3-day notice, but if it
doesn't matter to you, then we would like to go ahead and take your
information today.
Mr. Tomlinson.
Yes.
Mr. Specter.
We call that a waiver under the law, if it is all right with you to
talk with you today, then I want to go ahead and do that; is that all
right?
Mr. Tomlinson.
Yes.
Mr. Specter.
Well, where are you employed, Mr. Tomlinson?
Mr. Tomlinson.
Parkland Hospital.
Mr. Specter.
And what is your capacity?
Mr. Tomlinson.
I am classed as the senior engineer.
Mr. Specter.
And what duties are involved in general?
Mr. Tomlinson.
I'm in charge of the powerplant here at the hospital, which takes
care of the heating and air- conditioning services for the building.
Mr. Specter.
Will you describe the general physical layout relating to the
emergency area and how you get from the emergency area, say, to the
second Floor emergency operating rooms of Parkland Memorial Hospital?
Mr. Tomlinson.
You mean just the general lay?
Mr. Specter.
Yes, sir; please.
Mr. Tomlinson.
Well, we have one elevator that goes from the basement to the third
floor, that's what we call the emergency elevator. It's in the south
section of the hospital and that would be your most direct route to go
from the ground floor, which emergency is on, to the operating rooms on
two.
Mr. Specter.
Now, did you have anything to do with that elevator on November 22,
sometime around the noon hour?
Mr. Tomlinson.
Yes.
Mr. Specter.
And what did you have to do with that elevator?
Mr. Tomlinson.
Well, we received a call in the engineer's office, the chief
engineer's office, and he requested someone to operate the elevator.
Mr. Specter.
Was there any problem with the elevator with respect to a
mechanical difficulty of any sort?
Mr. Tomlinson.
No, sir; it was an ordinary type elevator, and if it isn't keyed
off it. will stop every time somebody pushes a button, and they
preferred it to go only to the second floor and to the ground floor
unless otherwise instructed by the administrator.
Mr. Specter.
So, what were you to do with this elevator?
Mr. Tomlinson.
Key it off the ground, between ground and second floor.
Mr. Specter.
So that you would operate it in that way?
Mr. Tomlinson.
Yes; make a manual operation out of it.
Mr. Specter.
When you came upon that elevator, what time was it, to the best of
your recollection?
Mr. Tomlinson.
It was around 1 o'clock.
Mr. Specter.
Was there anything on the elevator at that time?
Mr. Tomlinson.
There was one stretcher.
Mr. Specter.
And describe the appearance of that stretcher, if you will, please.
Mr. Tomlinson.
I believe that stretcher had sheets on it and had a white covering
on the pad.
Mr. Specter.
What did you say about the covering on the pad, excuse me?
Mr. Tomlinson.
I believe it was a white sheet that was on the pad.
Mr. Specter.
And was there anything else on that?
Mr. Tomlinson.
I don't believe there was on that one, I'm not sure, but I don't
believe there was.
Mr. Specter.
What, if anything, did you do with that stretcher?
Mr. Tomlinson.
I took it off of the elevator and put it over against the south wall.
Mr. Specter.
On what floor?
Mr. Tomlinson.
The ground floor.
Mr. Specter.
Was there any other stretcher in that area at that time?
Mr. Tomlinson.
There was a stretcher about 2 feet from the wall already there.

(Indicating on drawing to which the witness referred.)

Mr. Specter.
Now, you have just pointed to a drawing which you have made of this
situation, have you not, while we were talking a few minutes before the
court reporter started to take down your testimony?
Mr. Tomlinson.
Yes, sir.
Mr. Specter.
Now, would you mark in ink with my pen the stretcher which you
pushed off of the elevator?
Mr. Tomlinson.
I think that it was this one right here (indicating).
Mr. Specter.
Will you draw the outline of it in ink and mark an "A" right in the
center of that?

(Witness complied with request of Counsel Specter.)

Mr. Specter.
Now, would you mark in ink the position of the stretcher which was
already on the first floor?
Mr. Tomlinson.
This was the ground floor.
Mr. Specter.
Pardon me, on the ground floor? Is there a different designation
for the first floor?
Mr. Tomlinson.
Yes.
Mr. Specter.
Where is the first floor?
Mr. Tomlinson.
One above the ground. We have basement, ground, first, second, and
third on that elevator.
Mr. Specter.
What floor was Governor Connally taken to, if you know?
Mr. Tomlinson.
He was on two, he was in the operating rooms up on two. That's our
surgical suites up there.
Mr. Specter.
And what level is the emergency entrance of the hospital on?
Mr. Tomlinson.
Well, it's the ground floor---it's there at the back of the
hospital, you see, it's built on the incline there.
Mr. Specter.
And the elevator which you found in this area was on the ground floor?
Mr. Tomlinson.
The elevator?
Mr. Specter.
The stretcher.
Mr. Tomlinson.
Yes.
Mr. Specter.
Will you mark with a "B" the stretcher which was present at the
time you pushed stretcher "A" off of the elevator?
Mr. Tomlinson.
(Witness complied with the request of Counsel Specter.) I believe
that's it.
Mr. Specter.
Now, what, if anything, did you later observe as to stretcher
Mr. Tomlinson.
Well, sir; I don't recall how long it had been exactly, but an
intern or doctor, I didn't know which, came to use the men's room there
in the elevator lobby.
Mr. Specter.
Where is the men's room located on this diagram?
Mr. Tomlinson.
It would be right there (indicating) beside the "B" stretcher.
Mr. Specter.
Would you draw in ink there the outline of that room in a general way?
Mr. Tomlinson.
Well, I really don't know.
Mr. Specter.
And would you mark that with the letter "C"?

(Witness complied with request of Counsel Specter.)

Mr. Specter.
That's fine. What happened when that gentleman came to use the
men's room?
Mr. Tomlinson.
Well, he pushed the stretcher out from the wall to get in, and then
when he came out he just walked off and didn't push the stretcher back
up against the wall, so I pushed it out of the way where we would have
clear area in front of the elevator.
Mr. Specter.
And where did you push it to?
Mr. Tomlinson.
I pushed it back up against the wall.
Mr. Specter.
What, if anything, happened then?
Mr. Tomlinson.
I bumped the wall and a spent cartridge or bullet rolled out that
apparently had been lodged under the edge of the mat.
Mr. Specter.
And that was from which stretcher?
Mr. Tomlinson.
I believe that it was "B".
Mr. Specter.
And what was on "B", if you recall; if anything?
Mr. Tomlinson.
Well, at one end they had one or two sheets rolled up; I didn't
examine them. They were bloody. They were rolled up on the east end of
it and there were a few surgical instruments on, the opposite end and a
sterile pack or so.
Mr. Specter.
A sterile what?
Mr. Tomlinson.
A sterile pack.
Mr. Specter.
What do you mean by that?
Mr. Tomlinson.
Like gauze or something like that.
Mr. Specter.
Was there an alcohol sponge?
Mr. Tomlinson.
There could have been.
Mr. Specter.
Was there a roll of 1-inch tape?
Mr. Tomlinson.
No; I don't think so.
Mr. Specter.
Were there any empty packets from hypodermic needles?
Mr. Tomlinson.
Well, now, it had some paper there but I don't know what they came
from.
Mr. Specter.
Now, Mr. Tomlinson, are you sure that it was stretcher "A" that you
took out of the elevator and not stretcher "B"?
Mr. Tomlinson.
Well, really, I can't be positive, just to be perfectly honest
about it, I can't be positive, because I really didn't pay that much
attention to it. The stretcher was on the elevator and I pushed it off
of there and I believe we made one or two calls up before I straightened
out the stretcher up against the wall.
Mr. Specter.
When you say "one or two calls," what do you mean by that?
Mr. Tomlinson.
Went to pick up the technician from the second floor to bring him
down to the ground floor to get blood.
Mr. Specter.
And when you say before you straightened the stretcher up, what do
you mean by that?
Mr. Tomlinson.
Well, we Just rolled them out of the way where we had some room on
the elevator-that's a small elevator.
Mr. Specter.
So, when you rolled them out of the elevator, when you rolled the
stretcher out of the elevator, did you place it against the wall at
'that time?
Mr. Tomlinson.
No.
Mr. Specter.
Were both of these stretchers constructed in the same way?
Mr. Tomlinson.
Similar--yes.
Mr. Specter.
Will you describe the appearance of the stretcher with reference to
what it was made of and how many shelves it had, and that sort of thing?
Mr. Tomlinson.
Well, it's made of tubed steel with a fiat iron frame on the top
where you lay the patient and it has one shelf down between the four
wheels.
Mr. Specter.
Does it have any bumpers on it?
Mr. Tomlinson.
Yes, and it has rubber bumpers.
Mr. Specter.
Does it have any rail to keep the patient on?
Mr. Tomlinson.
Yes; they have the rails on the side made of tubed steel. The
majority of them have those.
Mr. Specter.
Now, just before we started this deposition, before I placed you
under oath and before the court reporter started to take down my
questions and your answers, you and I had a brief talk, did we not?
Mr. Tomlinson.
Yes.
Mr. Specter.
And we discussed in a general way the information which you have
testified about, did we not?
Mr. Tomlinson.
Yes, sir.
Mr. Specter.
And at the time we started our discussion, it was your recollection
at that point that the bullet came off of stretcher A, was it not?
Mr. Tomlinson.
B.
Mr. Specter.
Pardon me, stretcher B, but it was stretcher A that you took off of
the elevator.
Mr. Tomlinson.
I believe that's right.
Mr. Specter.
But there is no question but that at the time we started our
discussion a few minutes before the court reporter started to take it
down, that your best recollection was that it was stretcher A which came
off of the elevator?
Mr. Tomlinson.
Yes, I believe that was it--yes.
Mr. Specter.
Have you been interviewed about this matter by any other Federal
representative?
Mr. Tomlinson.
Yes.
Mr. Specter.
Who interviewed you about it?
Mr. Tomlinson.
I don't remember the name of either one of them, but one was the
FBI man and one was the Secret Service man.
Mr. Specter.
How many times did the FBI interview you?
Mr. Tomlinson.
Once.
Mr. Specter.
How many times did the Secret Service interview you?
Mr. Tomlinson.
Once.
Mr. Specter.
When did the FBI interview you?
Mr. Tomlinson.
I believe they were the first to do it.
Mr. Specter.
Approximately when was that?
Mr. Tomlinson.
I think that was the latter part of November.
Mr. Specter.
And when did the Secret Service interview you?
Mr. Tomlinson.
Approximately a week later, the first part of December.
Mr. Specter.
Now, do you recollect what the FBI man asked you about?
Mr. Tomlinson.
Just about where I found the bullet.
Mr. Specter.
Did he ask you about these stretchers?
Mr. Tomlinson.
Well, he asked me about the stretchers, yes, just about the same
thing we've gone over here.
Mr. Specter.
What did the Secret Service man ask you about?
Mr. Tomlinson.
Approximately the same thing, only, we've gone into more detail here.
Mr. Specter.
What did you tell the Secret Service man about which stretcher you
took off of the elevator?
Mr. Tomlinson.
I told him that I was not sure, and I am not--I'm not sure of it,
but as I said, I would be going against the oath which I took a while
ago, because I am definitely not sure.
Mr. Specter.
Do you remember if you told the Secret Service man which stretcher
you thought you took off of the elevator?
Mr. Tomlinson.
Well, we talked about taking a stretcher off of the elevator, but
then when it comes down on an oath, I wouldn't say for sure, I really
don't remember.
Mr. Specter.
And do you recollect whether or not you told the Secret Service man
which stretcher you took off of the elevator?
Mr. Tomlinson.
What do you mean?
Mr. Specter.
You say you can't really take an oath today to be sure whether it
was stretcher A or stretcher B that you took off the elevator?
Mr. Tomlinson.
Well, today or any other day, I'm just not sure of it, whether it
was A or B that I took off.
Mr. Specter.
Well, has your recollection always been the same about the
situation, that is, today, and when you talked to the Secret Service man
and when you talked to the FBI man?
Mr. Tomlinson.
Yes; I told him that I wasn't sure.
Mr. Specter.
So, what you told the Secret Service man was just about the same
thing as you have told me today?
Mr. Tomlinson.
Yes, sir.
Mr. Specter.
When I first started to ask you about this, Mr. Tomlinson, you
initially identified stretcher A as the one which came off of the
elevator car?
Mr. Tomlinson.
Yes; I think it's just like that
Mr. Specter.
And, then, when
Mr. Tomlinson.
(interrupting). Here's the deal--I rolled that thing off, we got a
call, and went to second floor, picked the man up and brought him down.
He went on over across, to clear out of the emergency area, but across
from it, and picked up two pints of, I believe it was, blood. He told me
to hold for him, he had to get right back to the operating room, so I
held, and the minute he hit there, we took off for the second floor and
I came. back to the ground. Now, I don't know how many people went
through that---I don't know how many people hit them--I don't know
anything about what could have happened to them in between the time I
was gone, and I made several trips before I discovered the bullet on the
end of it there.
Mr. Specter.
You think, then, that this could have been either, you took out of
the elevator as you sit here at the moment, or you just can't be sure?
Mr. Tomlinson.
It could be, but I can't be positive or positively sure I think it
was A, but I'm not sure.
Mr. Specter.
That you took off of the elevator?
Mr. Tomlinson.
Yes.
Mr. Specter.
Now, before I started to ask you questions under oath, which have
been taken down here, I told you, did I not, that the Secret Service man
wrote a report where he said that the bullet was found on the stretcher
which you took off of the elevator---I called that to your attention,
didn't I?
Mr. Tomlinson.
Yes; you told me that.
Mr. Specter.
Now, after I tell you that, does that have any effect on refreshing
your recollection of what you told the Secret Service man?
Mr. Tomlinson.
No it really doesn't---it really doesn't.
Mr. Specter.
So, would it be a fair summary to say that when I first started to
talk to you about it, your first view was that the stretcher you took
off of the elevator was stretcher A, and then I told you that the Secret
Service man said it was---that you had said the stretcher you took off
of the elevator was the one that you found the bullet off, and when we
talked about the whole matter and talked over the entire situation, you
really can't be completely sure about which stretcher you took off of
the elevator, because you didn't push the stretcher that you took off of
the elevator right against the wall at first?
Mr. Tomlinson.
That's right.
Mr. Specter.
And, there was a lot of confusion that day, which is what you told
me before?
Mr. Tomlinson.
Absolutely. And now, honestly, I don't remember telling him
definitely-I know we talked about it, and I told him that it could have
been. Now, he might have drawed his own conclusion on that.
Mr. Specter.
You told the Secret Service agent that you didn't know where---
Mr. Tomlinson.
(interrupting). He asked me if it could have been brought down from
the second floor.
Mr. Specter.
You got the stretcher from where the bullet came from, whether it
was brought down from the second floor?
Mr. Tomlinson.
It could have been--I'm not sure whether it was A I took off.
Mr. Specter.
But did you tell the Secret Service man which one you thought it
was you took off of the elevator?
Mr. Tomlinson.
I'm not clear on that---whether I absolutely made a positive
statement to that effect.
Mr. Specter.
You told him that it could have been B you took off of the elevator?
Mr. Tomlinson.
That's right.
Mr. Specter.
But, you don't remember whether you told him it was A you took off
of the elevator?
Mr. Tomlinson.
I think it was A---I'm not really sure.
Mr. Specter.
Which did you tell the Secret Service agent--that you thought it
was A that you took off of the elevator?
Mr. Tomlinson.
Really, I couldn't be real truthful in saying I told him this or that.
Mr. Specter.
You just don't remember for sure whether you told him you thought
it was A or not?
Mr. Tomlinson.
No, sir; I really don't remember. I'm not accustomed to being
questioned by the Secret Service and the FBI and by you and they are
writing down everything, I mean.
Mr. Specter.
That's all right. I understand exactly what you are saying and I
appreciate it and I really just want to get your best recollection.
We understand it isn't easy to remember all that went on, on a day
like November 22d, and that a man's recollection is not perfect like
every other part of a man, but I want you to tell me just what you
remember, and that's the best you can do today, and I appreciate that,
and so does the President's Commission, and that's all we can ask a man.
Mr. Tomlinson.
Yes, I'm going to tell you all I can, and I'm not going to tell you
something I can't lay down and sleep at night with either.
Mr. Specter.
Do you know where the stretcher came from that you found on the
elevator?
Mr. Tomlinson.
No, sir; I do not. It could have come from two, it could have come
from three, it could have come from some other place.
Mr. Specter.
You didn't see anybody put it there?
Mr. Tomlinson.
No, sir--it was on the elevator when I got there. There wasn't
anyone on the elevator at the time when I keyed it off.
Mr. Specter.
And when you say "keyed it off," you mean?
Mr. Tomlinson.
Put it in manual operation.
Mr. Specter.
Mr. Tomlinson, does it make any difference to you whether you sign
this deposition at the end or not?
Mr. Tomlinson.
No.
Mr. Specter.
We very much appreciate your coming, Mr. Tomlinson. Thank you very
much. Those are all the questions I have.
Mr. Tomlinson.
All right. Thank you.
Mr. Specter.
Off the record.

(Discussion between counsel and the witness Tomlinson regarding a
proposed exhibit.)

Mr. Specter.
On the record.
Now that the deposition of Mr. Tomlinson has been concluded, I am
having the paper marked as Tomlinson Exhibit No. 2.

(Instrument marked by the reporter as Tomlinson Exhibit No. 2, for
identification.)

Mr. Specter.
May the record show that Mr. Tomlinson is present, and will you
identify this paper marked Tomlinson Exhibit No. 2 as the one which
contains the diagram of the emergency room and the letters A and B of
the stretchers we have been discussing?
Mr. Tomlinson.
That's just the elevator lobby in emergency.
Mr. Specter.
And this is the diagram which you drew for us?
Mr. Tomlinson.
Yes.
Mr. Specter.
That's all, and thank you very much.

Source:
Warren Commission Hearings, Vol. VI, p. 128.
This page has been built by RTF2HTM

[Anthony Marsh]

Silly. I have never victimized anybody and I was not the one making a
paranoid rant about being persecuted.

I am always in favor of Free Speech. The Nazis are not.

[David Von Pein]

Amen!

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/gerald-ford-and-sbt.html

[Anthony Marsh]

If it's the correct word then why would you need to put it in quotes? How
dare you quote me. You think others can't simply READ what I said? You are
insulting all the other readers of this thread.

>
> You can't see it very well, but I think the highlight
>> above the black line is supposed to be the top of his sholder.
>
> You are making things up again. That makes no sense at all, and isn't
> even close to what we see in the frame from Dale's frame.
>
> Mayers had
>> changed his cartoons several times over the years.
>
> "Several"? Really? When? Where? Point me to the changes made in the
> positions of the figures representing the bodies of Kennedy and Connally.
>

Yes, I have posted several of his versions of the SBT here. You'd have
known that if you had been paying attention.

http://www.the-puzzle-palace.com/31.png

NB: Look at where JFK's shoes are as compared to where Connally's shoes are.
And see where JFK's right hand is: Up in front of his throat, thus
blocking the SB from hitting Connally.


http://www.the-puzzle-palace.com/jbctrbig.bmp

Here he's gotten more sophisticated, but the hand is still in the way.



http://www.the-puzzle-palace.com/M0T7P0IF.GIF

Now Myers has clothes on the men and hair, but the bullet now has to go
through JFK's left hand.


http://www.the-puzzle-palace.com/con_pic.gif

Now he has JFK holding one hand with the other and Connally dropped his
hat into his lap so that he could put his right hand onto the side of
the limo. Maybe he's pushing the window down?

http://www.the-puzzle-palace.com/myersSBT.jpg

Here Myers has a little bit better software, but still no clothes.
Notice that he has to move JFK's left hand DOWN to avoid getting hit by
the bullet. That took split second timing.


The more sophisticated his software got, the more sophisticated his
drawings got.
Maybe he got paid big bucks by ABC to get the best software to create
something that would LOOK good on TV.



http://www.the-puzzle-palace.com/myers_~5.jpg

At one time Myers had the bullet hitting JFK's NECK instead of his back.
We just went over this folks. You can SEE the white line going ABOVE
JFK's shoulders. I think even Myers eventually realized how wrong this
was. Do YOU?

>
> I believe he did this
>> one for ABC and was trying to make it look more realistic. Dale Myers does
>> lie, but not always.
>
> Really? Please post his"lie[s]" re: his animation.
>
>

I have written about them many times. Pay attention.

>
>>
>>> https://i.pinimg.com/564x/ae/b7/37/aeb737b978ae478a6d5b45ea75849ac3--the-sniper-kennedy-assassination.jpg
>>>
>
>

[Anthony Marsh]

No, silly. You replied in this thread to a message you had posted.

>>
>>
>>> why it is that so many of Tony Marsh's posts are rejected. Now he is
>>
>> Shame on you. You just admitted that you KNOW that so many of my posts
>> are rejected. Your buddy the Troll says that my posts are not rejected.
>
> LOL! The jokes on you! How can **ANYONE** not know about your constant
> posts being rejected. IT'S ALL YOU WHINE ABOUT, MARSH!!!!!!
>

Well, our resident troll says that I am lying when I complain that my
posts are rejected, and now you say that everyone knows that is the case.

>
>
>>> comparing me to the Nazi's for bawling him out! Anyone who wants to see
>>> the actual message as it came to me in email form is welcome to view it):
>>>
>>
>> You mean it wasn't posted here? WHy not? Is McAdams censoring my
>> messages again?
>
>
> Isn't that why you emailed the entire exchange to me, Marsh because you

Again, I never sent you an e-mail. I posted a message here in this
newsgroup. It was about you, but not to you. When posting in a newsgroup
like this I can not send a message just to you that no one else can read.

> didn't think it would be posted? Hint: If you think that by saying
> something questionable that it might be rejected, DON'T SEND IT! It's

So you think you have the right to censor me and tell me I should not send
any reply here which you might not like? Ever hear of Democracy? Ever hear
of Freedom of Speech? Maybe not, but I believe in them even if you don't.
Do you even know what a killfile is? If you don't like the Truth, use a
killfile. Others might like to hear the Truth.

> that simple. I know that's difficult for you since your goal in life is
> to talk down to people, but do try to control yourself.
>

You mean talk down to people with a lesser education. So easy to do here.

[Anthony Marsh]

>> of approximately 5?? inches (13?? to 14?? centimeters), which was the

>> angle of declination of 25?? from the point of entry on the back to the

But the mastoid moves. That's the point. Relying on The Three Stooges for
anything leads to errors. Forget the Mastoid. Baden said the bullet hit

T-1. That is the back.

And the WC ignored the mastoid and verbally moved the wound up to the
neck. And WC defenders keep repeating that lie to make their SBT work.
Look at Myers for example:

http://www.the-puzzle-palace.com/myers_~5.jpg

Does THAT look like the white line is going through his back to you? No,
it's going through his NECK. Well above his shoulders.

> IMO, it's been a 50-year debate over semantics for the most part.
>

Propaganda.

If you really think any SBT can work when you place the back wound
correctly in the back hitting the tip of T-1 please diagram it for me. I
don't expect you to do anything like Myers would with $4,000 software.
Just anything. Take one of my old drawings and draw a new line in red.

[OHLeeRedux]

Anthony Marsh
- show quoted text -

Yeah. Only one person here went to bus driving school, so the rest of us
dummies need to listen to him.

[Bud]

But the back is a large area, too imprecise a wording to use to make the average person understand where the bullet struck. Even saying "upper back" and the wound could be several inches down from its actual location and still qualify. I see from what DVP linked to that the WC said "near the base of the back of President Kennedy's neck", which is probably as good a wording as possible.

> And the WC ignored the mastoid and verbally moved the wound up to the
> neck. And WC defenders keep repeating that lie to make their SBT work.
> Look at Myers for example:
>
> http://www.the-puzzle-palace.com/myers_~5.jpg
>
> Does THAT look like the white line is going through his back to you? No,
> it's going through his NECK. Well above his shoulders.
>
> > IMO, it's been a 50-year debate over semantics for the most part.
> >
>
> Propaganda.
>
> If you really think any SBT can work when you place the back wound
> correctly in the back hitting the tip of T-1 please diagram it for me. I
> don't expect you to do anything like Myers would with $4,000 software.
> Just anything. Take one of my old drawings and draw a new line in red.

Or you could do what Jean suggested, and just draw a line 18 degrees up
from the throat wound. Even you could do this, Tony.

[David Von Pein]

ANTHONY MARSH SAID:

But the mastoid moves.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

No, it doesn't. ....

QUESTION FROM THE ARRB -- "When you recorded it a being from the right
mastoid process, was it your understanding that the right mastoid process
was a fixed body landmark?"

DR. JAMES J. HUMES -- "Oh, sure. It doesn't move around in most people.
You're really in trouble if it does."

[Steve Barber]

Because I knew it would annoy you.

>
> >
> > You can't see it very well, but I think the highlight
> >> above the black line is supposed to be the top of his sholder.
> >
> > You are making things up again. That makes no sense at all, and isn't
> > even close to what we see in the frame from Dale's frame.
> >
> > Mayers had
> >> changed his cartoons several times over the years.
> >
> > "Several"? Really? When? Where? Point me to the changes made in the
> > positions of the figures representing the bodies of Kennedy and Connally.
> >
>
> Yes, I have posted several of his versions of the SBT here. You'd have
> known that if you had been paying attention.
>
> http://www.the-puzzle-palace.com/31.png

Don't flatter yourself. I don't read every one of your posts here. Only
when I am feeling ornery, or a thread title catches my eye.

>
> NB: Look at where JFK's shoes are as compared to where Connally's shoes are.
> And see where JFK's right hand is: Up in front of his throat, thus
> blocking the SB from hitting Connally.

OH! So now you think you know *exactly* where Kennedy's hands were in
front of him at the time of the first shot to hit him. So, not only do you
believe you are a mind reader, you think that you can determine from an
8mm film *exactly* where Kennedy's hands are as he is struck with the
first bullet.

>
>
> http://www.the-puzzle-palace.com/jbctrbig.bmp
>
> Here he's gotten more sophisticated, but the hand is still in the way.
>
>
>
> http://www.the-puzzle-palace.com/M0T7P0IF.GIF
>
> Now Myers has clothes on the men and hair, but the bullet now has to go
> through JFK's left hand.
>
>
> http://www.the-puzzle-palace.com/con_pic.gif
>
> Now he has JFK holding one hand with the other and Connally dropped his
> hat into his lap so that he could put his right hand onto the side of
> the limo. Maybe he's pushing the window down?
>
> http://www.the-puzzle-palace.com/myersSBT.jpg



>
> Here Myers has a little bit better software, but still no clothes.
> Notice that he has to move JFK's left hand DOWN to avoid getting hit by
> the bullet. That took split second timing.
>
>
> The more sophisticated his software got, the more sophisticated his
> drawings got.
> Maybe he got paid big bucks by ABC to get the best software to create
> something that would LOOK good on TV.
>
>
>
> http://www.the-puzzle-palace.com/myers_~5.jpg
>
> At one time Myers had the bullet hitting JFK's NECK instead of his back.
> We just went over this folks. You can SEE the white line going ABOVE
> JFK's shoulders. I think even Myers eventually realized how wrong this
> was. Do YOU?

Ask him.

>
> >
> > I believe he did this
> >> one for ABC and was trying to make it look more realistic. Dale Myers does
> >> lie, but not always.
> >
> > Really? Please post his"lie[s]" re: his animation.
> >
> >
>
> I have written about them many times. Pay attention.

See above.

>
> >
> >>
> >>> https://i.pinimg.com/564x/ae/b7/37/aeb737b978ae478a6d5b45ea75849ac3--the-sniper-kennedy-assassination.jpg
> >>>
> >
> >

[Steve Barber]

Knock it off, Marsh. I posted the portion of your response to what I
said in this thread (that you sent to me in email form) which obviously
was rejected because of your comparing me to Nazi's( a prime example of
your lack of self control). I quoted what *you* said to me in the post
that .John rejected, rather than post the entire thread here. It looks
like I am going to have to share it with the newsgroup so you can't wiggle
out of this. Stop trying to change the subject.

>
> >>
> >>
> >>> why it is that so many of Tony Marsh's posts are rejected. Now he is
> >>
> >> Shame on you. You just admitted that you KNOW that so many of my posts
> >> are rejected. Your buddy the Troll says that my posts are not rejected.
> >
> > LOL! The jokes on you! How can **ANYONE** not know about your constant
> > posts being rejected. IT'S ALL YOU WHINE ABOUT, MARSH!!!!!!
> >
>
> Well, our resident troll says that I am lying when I complain that my
> posts are rejected, and now you say that everyone knows that is the case.

The only one around here trolling is Anthony Marsh. Trolling is your
expertise. It's why you were banned for two weeks from Duncan McRae's JFK
Assassination Forum. You took it so hard that you never went back there.
Furthermore, I have never said that you were lying about your posts being
rejected. EVERYONE and everyone KNOWS that your many of posts are often
rejected because you let everyone know it. You want everyone to believe
you are being picked on when you aren't being picked on, so you whine and
carry on about .John.

>
> >
> >
> >>> comparing me to the Nazi's for bawling him out! Anyone who wants to see
> >>> the actual message as it came to me in email form is welcome to view it):
> >>>
> >>
> >> You mean it wasn't posted here? WHy not? Is McAdams censoring my
> >> messages again?

No, it wasn't posted here by .John and you know why that is, but you
sent the entire thread--including what you wrote in your comment (which in
turn turned out to be a rejected post) to my email address as a precaution
that it wouldn't be posted because of what you said. You knew it wouldn't
get posted, but you sent it to .John anyway.

> >
> >
> > Isn't that why you emailed the entire exchange to me, Marsh because you
>
> Again, I never sent you an e-mail. I posted a message here in this
> newsgroup. It was about you, but not to you. When posting in a newsgroup
> like this I can not send a message just to you that no one else can read.

"Again", You sent me an email, Marsh. Your post is not here, Marsh. If
you do not believe me, ask .John. I received an email from you in my gmail
account dated January 11, 2018 from your email
address:<anthon...@comcast.net>. Are you going to deny that you sent
it to me? I have it right here. Why do you play these silly games,
Marsh?

>
> > didn't think it would be posted? Hint: If you think that by saying
> > something questionable that it might be rejected, DON'T SEND IT! It's
>
> So you think you have the right to censor me and tell me I should not send
> any reply here which you might not like? Ever hear of Democracy? Ever hear
> of Freedom of Speech? Maybe not, but I believe in them even if you don't.
> Do you even know what a killfile is? If you don't like the Truth, use a
> killfile. Others might like to hear the Truth.

Man you are such a piece of work, Marsh.

>
> > that simple. I know that's difficult for you since your goal in life is
> > to talk down to people, but do try to control yourself.
> >
>
> You mean talk down to people with a lesser education. So easy to do here.

At least you admit it. You get gratification by doing such an immature
things, of course.

[Steve BH]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:HSCA-JFK-neck2-6-43.jpg

I don’t know why Marsh cannot simply look at the HSVA report
drawing. The total angle of declination in the drawing is far over 17
degrees, but JFK wasn’t leaning that much in Z 223 either.
Straighten him up till the angle is 17 degrees and it’s about
right.

[Anthony Marsh]

That is your only reason to be here. Not to seek the truth.
Thanks for admitting it.

>
>>
>>>
>>> You can't see it very well, but I think the highlight
>>>> above the black line is supposed to be the top of his sholder.
>>>
>>> You are making things up again. That makes no sense at all, and isn't
>>> even close to what we see in the frame from Dale's frame.
>>>
>>> Mayers had
>>>> changed his cartoons several times over the years.
>>>
>>> "Several"? Really? When? Where? Point me to the changes made in the
>>> positions of the figures representing the bodies of Kennedy and Connally.
>>>
>>
>> Yes, I have posted several of his versions of the SBT here. You'd have
>> known that if you had been paying attention.
>>
>> http://www.the-puzzle-palace.com/31.png
>
> Don't flatter yourself. I don't read every one of your posts here. Only
> when I am feeling ornery, or a thread title catches my eye.
>

So, your only purpose in life is to feel ornery?
No more gigs, no more rehearsals?

>>
>> NB: Look at where JFK's shoes are as compared to where Connally's shoes are.
>> And see where JFK's right hand is: Up in front of his throat, thus
>> blocking the SB from hitting Connally.
>
> OH! So now you think you know *exactly* where Kennedy's hands were in
> front of him at the time of the first shot to hit him. So, not only do you

I don't claim to and neither should Myers. But he does and then he makes
little mistakes which are clues.

> believe you are a mind reader, you think that you can determine from an
> 8mm film *exactly* where Kennedy's hands are as he is struck with the
> first bullet.
>

I never claimed that. But I did prove that the 8mm film is authentic.
I can't see through the sign. Can you? Can Myers?

>>
>>
>> http://www.the-puzzle-palace.com/jbctrbig.bmp
>>
>> Here he's gotten more sophisticated, but the hand is still in the way.
>>
>>
>>
>> http://www.the-puzzle-palace.com/M0T7P0IF.GIF
>>
>> Now Myers has clothes on the men and hair, but the bullet now has to go
>> through JFK's left hand.
>>
>>
>> http://www.the-puzzle-palace.com/con_pic.gif
>>
>> Now he has JFK holding one hand with the other and Connally dropped his
>> hat into his lap so that he could put his right hand onto the side of
>> the limo. Maybe he's pushing the window down?
>>
>> http://www.the-puzzle-palace.com/myersSBT.jpg
>
>
>
>>
>> Here Myers has a little bit better software, but still no clothes.
>> Notice that he has to move JFK's left hand DOWN to avoid getting hit by
>> the bullet. That took split second timing.
>>
>>
>> The more sophisticated his software got, the more sophisticated his
>> drawings got.
>> Maybe he got paid big bucks by ABC to get the best software to create
>> something that would LOOK good on TV.
>>
>>
>>
>> http://www.the-puzzle-palace.com/myers_~5.jpg
>>
>> At one time Myers had the bullet hitting JFK's NECK instead of his back.
>> We just went over this folks. You can SEE the white line going ABOVE
>> JFK's shoulders. I think even Myers eventually realized how wrong this
>> was. Do YOU?
>
> Ask him.

Ask him if YOU think he realized how wrong it was? Maybe if he kept
changing things in his cartoons he did realize that he was getting some
things wrong. You don't care if he got anything wrong.

>
>>
>>>
>>> I believe he did this
>>>> one for ABC and was trying to make it look more realistic. Dale Myers does
>>>> lie, but not always.
>>>
>>> Really? Please post his"lie[s]" re: his animation.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> I have written about them many times. Pay attention.
>
> See above.
>

See all the messages you missed.

>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> https://i.pinimg.com/564x/ae/b7/37/aeb737b978ae478a6d5b45ea75849ac3--the-sniper-kennedy-assassination.jpg
>>>>>
>>>
>>>
>
>

[Steve BH]

LOL. You're only "really in trouble" if your cervical vertebrae pulls off
your skull. Perhaps that is what he means.

If so, I'm afraid Dr. Humes is here confusing the occipital condyles
(articulations of skull with C1), with the near-by mastoid processes
(attachment of muscles to skull-- easily felt as bumps behind each ear).
Of course they both move, as the head turns. Both are fixed with regard to
the skull, but not the rest of the body.

And both are at the base of the skull.

I think he wanted the parietal eminence (the bumps that mark the widest
diameter of the back of your head, above your ears)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parietal_eminence

That's about where the scalp hole is, and I think we see the lambdoidal
suture area in the shot taken "looking down the path of the bullet" inside
the skull.

But he screwed up and named the right protuberance on the outside skull as
a "mastoid process," which is quite a ways downward of where the hole is,
as the HCSA noted.

[Bud]

The problem is that it is a landmark on the head and the head moves. It
is like using the nose. The distance from my nose to my belly button
changes by a good three or four inches depending on whether my head is
inclined all the way it can be or declined all the way it can be. Likewise
the mastoid process. But it seems likely if they were using the mastoid
process as a landmark they would position the head looking straight ahead.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 1/16/2018 2:10 PM, David Von Pein wrote:
> ANTHONY MARSH SAID:
>
> But the mastoid moves.
>
>
> DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
>
> No, it doesn't. ....
>

Yes, it does. It moves relative to the back. When you tilt your head.

> QUESTION FROM THE ARRB -- "When you recorded it a being from the right
> mastoid process, was it your understanding that the right mastoid process
> was a fixed body landmark?"
>
> DR. JAMES J. HUMES -- "Oh, sure. It doesn't move around in most people.
> You're really in trouble if it does."
>

That is not nice. To show off how stupid Humes was and make fun of him.
Hope he's not still alive to sue you.

[Steve BH]

I've read all that, but what's the point of posting it, except to make
Specter look like an Asperger asshole? A, B stretchers. Why not call them
Ubuntu and Firefox stretchers, just to fuzz things further? Would it have
killed anybody to cell them "elevator" and "bloody bandage" stretchers, or
to speculate if these were the same?

I have used the common American term for a wheeled stretcher used in
hospitals, elsewhere called a cart or even pram.

In any case, the man could not remember, and Specter didn't get his
support for his magic bullet. So what? The idea that this bullet was
planted is even more insane than that the guy couldn't remember which
stretcher it came from. Perhaps it came from the one that did NOT have the
blood on it, and was thus was NOT Ronnie Fuller's (for cognoscenti--
Fuller is a toddler who proceeds to fall on glass from a milk bottle his
mother drops while viewing the assassination, and gash his chin. He is
stitched up at Parkland, and the materials are abandoned when Connally
needs transportation upstairs.) What else is going to give us all those
bullet holes in JFK and Connally, and no bullet? Some missile went into
Connally's leg, and not very far. Clearly, it later worked its way out. We
are in need of a bullet, which could just as easily have stayed in
Connally (how would the conspirators plan otherwise?). Here it is.

[OHLeeRedux]

Marsh sent me an email once. I ignored it, of course, because I value my
computer.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 1/16/2018 9:32 PM, Steve BH wrote:
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:HSCA-JFK-neck2-6-43.jpg
>
> I don???t know why Marsh cannot simply look at the HSVA report

> drawing. The total angle of declination in the drawing is far over 17

> degrees, but JFK wasn???t leaning that much in Z 223 either.
> Straighten him up till the angle is 17 degrees and it???s about
> right.
>



I criticized the HSCA exhibit at the time.

It's total fiction.

You have to learn the context and how that was created. There were 2
different HSCAs. The first one was actively looking for conspiracy. So it
was shut down and replaced by WC defenders to rubber stamp the WC. So when
they started making their drawings of the SBT they ASSuMEd it would happen
at about frame 224 when JFK was hidden behind the sign and they could lean
him over by as much as needed to get a downward angle. When they actually
identified that the bullet had hit T-1 and the bullet had exited the
throat, the angle worked out to almost 4 degrees UP. That ruined the
alignment for a SBT. So they figured that JFK having his arm up on the
side of the car would reduce the angle to about 0. Then to get it to hit
Connally they imagined that JFK was leaning over by about 17 degrees.
Everything looked perfect, because we can't see JFK through the sign. So
they could lie and pick frame 224 at random and their SBT would work
perfectly. OOPS. Then the acoustical evidence came back and moved their
SBT frame to Z-190. The problem is that then the nosy public could look at
frame Z-190 for themselves and SEE for themselves that JFK was seated
upright at frame Z-190. But it was too late to fix it and the committee
shut down and they had to put out that fiction and hope that no one
noticed it. Obviously I noticed it right away and wrote to them to tell
them of the error, but it was too late to fix it for the report.

[Anthony Marsh]

False. Why do you keep saying false things to slander me? I never sent you
an e-mail. I posted a message to the newsgroup as part of a thread.

> was rejected because of your comparing me to Nazi's( a prime example of

How do you know it was rejected? Did McAadams tell you that he rejected
it to protect you?

> your lack of self control). I quoted what *you* said to me in the post
> that .John rejected, rather than post the entire thread here. It looks

Prove that it was rejected. How can you quote the rejected part and post
it here? Wouldn't McAdams just reject it again? Or does this reveal that
he allows YOU to post things that he won't allow me to post? You just gave
away the whole game. Loose lips sink ships.

> like I am going to have to share it with the newsgroup so you can't wiggle
> out of this. Stop trying to change the subject.
>

What is the subject?
The subject line says it all the subject remains WC defenders lying.
Do you want to self identify as a WC defender? Why don't you just call
yourself a neutral researcher?

>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> why it is that so many of Tony Marsh's posts are rejected. Now he is
>>>>
>>>> Shame on you. You just admitted that you KNOW that so many of my posts
>>>> are rejected. Your buddy the Troll says that my posts are not rejected.
>>>
>>> LOL! The jokes on you! How can **ANYONE** not know about your constant
>>> posts being rejected. IT'S ALL YOU WHINE ABOUT, MARSH!!!!!!
>>>
>>
>> Well, our resident troll says that I am lying when I complain that my
>> posts are rejected, and now you say that everyone knows that is the case.
>
> The only one around here trolling is Anthony Marsh. Trolling is your

I guess you're new to the Internet and never looked up the definition of
Trolling. It is something that NEW posters so to attack REGULAR posters.
The Troll is new. I have been a regular here long before you.

> expertise. It's why you were banned for two weeks from Duncan McRae's JFK

He didn't tell me that. I assumed I was banned forever.

> Assassination Forum. You took it so hard that you never went back there.

I assumed I was banned forever.
Did He put up that ridiculous picture and claim it was me?
Or was that you?

> Furthermore, I have never said that you were lying about your posts being
> rejected. EVERYONE and everyone KNOWS that your many of posts are often

I didn't say YOU. Stop making false claims to play the hero in your
imagination. I said the TROLL keeps saying it. You can not admit to being
the Troll. You use your real name to post here. You've given up all your
silly aliases. I still miss paradiddle.

> rejected because you let everyone know it. You want everyone to believe
> you are being picked on when you aren't being picked on, so you whine and
> carry on about .John.
>

Picked on? YOU just admitted that I have been picked on because my
messages are rejected while McAdams allows YOU to say the same things.

>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>> comparing me to the Nazi's for bawling him out! Anyone who wants to see
>>>>> the actual message as it came to me in email form is welcome to view it):
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> You mean it wasn't posted here? WHy not? Is McAdams censoring my
>>>> messages again?
>
> No, it wasn't posted here by .John and you know why that is, but you

If if wasn't posted here then how did you get those texts?
Guccifer 2.1?

Every time you attack me you spill the beans and let everyone here know
what is going on behind the scenes. Loose lips.

> sent the entire thread--including what you wrote in your comment (which in
> turn turned out to be a rejected post) to my email address as a precaution
> that it wouldn't be posted because of what you said. You knew it wouldn't
> get posted, but you sent it to .John anyway.
>

I don't need precautions. I use Thunderbird, which keeps a copy of every
message sent. In fact, to prove it, I will pull up a copy of a message
that I know will be rejected and rewrite it in a different way to sneak
it past McAdams.

Maybe I'll even use one of your old aliases that he can't even remember.

>
>
>>>
>>>
>>> Isn't that why you emailed the entire exchange to me, Marsh because you
>>
>> Again, I never sent you an e-mail. I posted a message here in this
>> newsgroup. It was about you, but not to you. When posting in a newsgroup
>> like this I can not send a message just to you that no one else can read.
>
> "Again", You sent me an email, Marsh. Your post is not here, Marsh. If

False.

> you do not believe me, ask .John. I received an email from you in my gmail
> account dated January 11, 2018 from your email
> address:<anthon...@comcast.net>. Are you going to deny that you sent
> it to me? I have it right here. Why do you play these silly games,
> Marsh?
>

Maybe McAdams sent it to you as a courtesy. Did you ask him? Afraid?

>>
>>> didn't think it would be posted? Hint: If you think that by saying

I post hundreds of messages that I KNOW will not be posted. They are
archived and remain as evidence of the censorship here and favoritism in
favor of the WC defenders and against the conspiracy believers. I could
compose exactly the same message and send it once as you and it would be
posted then send it as me and it would get rejected.

>>> something questionable that it might be rejected, DON'T SEND IT! It's
>>

McAdams rejects things without any good reason. Sometimes his filter
rejects MY message for using a certain word, but then allows yours using
the same word. And he changes the rules daily base on what he had for
lunch.

>> So you think you have the right to censor me and tell me I should not send
>> any reply here which you might not like? Ever hear of Democracy? Ever hear
>> of Freedom of Speech? Maybe not, but I believe in them even if you don't.
>> Do you even know what a killfile is? If you don't like the Truth, use a
>> killfile. Others might like to hear the Truth.
>
>
> Man you are such a piece of work, Marsh.
>
>>
>>> that simple. I know that's difficult for you since your goal in life is
>>> to talk down to people, but do try to control yourself.
>>>
>>
>> You mean talk down to people with a lesser education. So easy to do here.
>
>
> At least you admit it. You get gratification by doing such an immature
> things, of course.
>

This is what I am talking about. Singular adjective with a plural noun?

You are in such a hurry to attack anyone who doesn't agree with you that
you can't even check your grammar.

I say that not to be a grammar Nazi, but to remind you to think before
you hit SEND.

[Anthony Marsh]

SHH! Don't tell him that. He still thinks you're a WC defender. Now
he'll think that you defected to my side.

>

[Anthony Marsh]

On 1/17/2018 2:41 PM, Steve BH wrote:
> On Tuesday, January 16, 2018 at 11:10:12 AM UTC-8, David Von Pein wrote:
>> ANTHONY MARSH SAID:
>>
>> But the mastoid moves.
>>
>>
>> DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
>>
>> No, it doesn't. ....
>>
>> QUESTION FROM THE ARRB -- "When you recorded it a being from the right
>> mastoid process, was it your understanding that the right mastoid process
>> was a fixed body landmark?"
>>
>> DR. JAMES J. HUMES -- "Oh, sure. It doesn't move around in most people.
>> You're really in trouble if it does."
>
>
> LOL. You're only "really in trouble" if your cervical vertebrae pulls off
> your skull. Perhaps that is what he means.
>

I like that analogy. I think I saw it in a Zombie movie.
But I digress. What he meant is that *I* would be in trouble with him if
I advanced my argument that the head moves.
Call him Old Stiffhead. I've known a few.

> If so, I'm afraid Dr. Humes is here confusing the occipital condyles
> (articulations of skull with C1), with the near-by mastoid processes
> (attachment of muscles to skull-- easily felt as bumps behind each ear).
> Of course they both move, as the head turns. Both are fixed with regard to
> the skull, but not the rest of the body.
>

Oh, please stop. You're boring him with details. It was a common point
of reference for a common man to use.

> And both are at the base of the skull.
>
> I think he wanted the parietal eminence (the bumps that mark the widest
> diameter of the back of your head, above your ears)
>

Is this a sick joke? We are talking about Humes. They didn't even locat
the back swound until late in the sutopsy and din't know what to make of
it. Ice Bullet, really?
They were not allowed by the Army General to examine the back wound.

> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parietal_eminence
>
> That's about where the scalp hole is, and I think we see the lambdoidal
> suture area in the shot taken "looking down the path of the bullet" inside
> the skull.
>

Which scalp hole? Can you show me?

> But he screwed up and named the right protuberance on the outside skull as
> a "mastoid process," which is quite a ways downward of where the hole is,
> as the HCSA noted.
>

The mastoid process had nothing to do with the head wound. It was only a
handy landmark to measure where the back wound was.
And of course the body was in incompetent hands.

[David Von Pein]

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/04/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-918.html#Face-Sheet

[OHLeeRedux]

So, let's get this straight: We're supposed to NOT believe a doctor when
he talks about the human body, but we're supposed to believe you, the man
who has at one time or another claimed, among other ludicrous things, that
1) Clinton was never impeached, 2) Nixon was impeached, 3) The Vice
President can break a tie on the Supreme Court, and 4) Gerrymandering can
affect the Electoral College vote?

Not even a "nice try," Anthony. More like a desperate cry for attention.

[Jason Burke]

Seriously, Anthony Anthony? Repeating a quote is not really likely to
get someone sued.

Except in liberal-land, I suppose. You know, where reality doesn't
matter at all.

[Anthony Marsh]

I don't hold that against you. Just don't start talking about roundabouts.

> In any case, the man could not remember, and Specter didn't get his
> support for his magic bullet. So what? The idea that this bullet was
> planted is even more insane than that the guy couldn't remember which

Why? You don't think evidence is ever planted? You don't get out much,
do you? Ever hear of Alfred Dreyfus?

[Steve BH]

On Wednesday, January 17, 2018 at 3:48:04 PM UTC-8, Anthony Marsh wrote:

Yeah, he does not look good, here.

I suggest a nice hospital/doctor daytime TV "soap," in honor of Dr. Humes:
"As the Mastoid Moves"

[David Von Pein]

"Dr. Cyril Wecht has always maintained that measurements at an autopsy
should be taken from "the mid-point of the body" and "from the top of the
head".

OK, that sounds totally reasonable to me. But given those standards, it
would still elicit the same basic concerns that a measurement from the
"mastoid" would elicit. Why? Because the head is a movable part of the
body. Therefore, the "TOP of the head" can be moved. It's not really
"fixed", is it?

So the same concerns about the starting point for measurements can still
easily be debated even when utilizing Dr. Wecht's "from the top of the
head" recommendation. Unless, that is, the body is placed in a standard
position, such as the autopsy or "anatomical" position. And the last time
I checked, it's not possible for a dead body to STAND UP, and yet we still
hear about the "anatomical position" being described in relation to
autopsies on human bodies. (Go figure.)

And if the body is in the anatomical (autopsy) position, then a
measurement from the mastoid process is probably just as reliable and
accurate as measuring downward "from the top of the head".

[...]

The truth is, of course, that ANY "body landmark" is going to be FIXED
(i.e., immobile) during a post-mortem examination---because wounds are
being located from landmarks while the body is in the anatomic ("autopsy")
position---rigid and straight. And that's true for the mastoid process or
any other body landmark.

Do you, Martin [Hay], think that President Kennedy's mastoid process was
moving all over the place while it was being used as a measuring landmark
while JFK was lying flat on a table in an anatomic position? (And I have
no reason to believe that the autopsy doctors were so stupid that they
chose to measure distances on JFK's body while his body was in some
position OTHER than the standard "autopsy" position. If the doctors
started measuring distances while Kennedy's body was in some contorted or
"bent over" position, then those doctors would, of course, deserve all the
criticism I could blast them with. But I have no reason to believe they
were THAT idiotic. Do you, Martin?)

While most pathologists might very well have measured the wounds from
different body landmarks than those utilized by Dr. Humes in November
1963, it makes very little difference, because we DO have a SPECIFIC and
PRECISE measurement for the back wound as it relates to a known body
landmark on John F. Kennedy's body. You know it. I know it. The HSCA knew
it.

So, once again, a huge useless mountain is being made out of total
nothingness by a conspiracy theorist. And Martin Hay is dead wrong when he
said this:

"The autopsy doctors did not record the precise location of the back
wound. That is, was, and always will be a FACT no matter what David Von
Pein says."

The above statement is a blatant falsehood and always will be for as long
as Hay continues to spout such tommyrot. The precise location of JFK's
back wound was most certainly located and all sensible people know it."

-- DVP; March/April 2015

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/04/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-918.html

[Anthony Marsh]

On 1/18/2018 5:19 PM, OHLeeRedux wrote:
> On Wednesday, January 17, 2018 at 3:48:04 PM UTC-8, Anthony Marsh wrote:
>> On 1/16/2018 2:10 PM, David Von Pein wrote:
>>> ANTHONY MARSH SAID:
>>>
>>> But the mastoid moves.
>>>
>>>
>>> DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
>>>
>>> No, it doesn't. ....
>>>
>>
>> Yes, it does. It moves relative to the back. When you tilt your head.
>>
>>> QUESTION FROM THE ARRB -- "When you recorded it a being from the right
>>> mastoid process, was it your understanding that the right mastoid process
>>> was a fixed body landmark?"
>>>
>>> DR. JAMES J. HUMES -- "Oh, sure. It doesn't move around in most people.
>>> You're really in trouble if it does."
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> That is not nice. To show off how stupid Humes was and make fun of him.
>> Hope he's not still alive to sue you.
>
>
>
> So, let's get this straight: We're supposed to NOT believe a doctor when
> he talks about the human body, but we're supposed to believe you, the man

Exactly. Because I studies anatomy in college. WHy would anyone be stupid
enough to believe The Three Stooges? Did you really fall for his Ice
Bullet theory? I've seen in in a few Science Fiction movies, but I'm smart
enough to know that it doesn't work well in real life.

[Anthony Marsh]

So you just can't admit a simple fact, any fact. Because you are a WC
defender and must always attack conspiracy believers. Never admit that
ANYTHING I ever say is true or you are admitting conspiracy.

[Anthony Marsh]

Well, Trump tries to do it all the time. So you think Trump is a Liberal?

>

[Anthony Marsh]

On 1/18/2018 11:08 PM, David Von Pein wrote:
> "Dr. Cyril Wecht has always maintained that measurements at an autopsy
> should be taken from "the mid-point of the body" and "from the top of the
> head".
>

Maybe you should read more of what he actually said or talk to him
rather than quote him out of context as professional propaganda agents
usually do.

> OK, that sounds totally reasonable to me. But given those standards, it
> would still elicit the same basic concerns that a measurement from the
> "mastoid" would elicit. Why? Because the head is a movable part of the
> body. Therefore, the "TOP of the head" can be moved. It's not really
> "fixed", is it?
>

You are being intentionally silly.
No.

> So the same concerns about the starting point for measurements can still
> easily be debated even when utilizing Dr. Wecht's "from the top of the
> head" recommendation. Unless, that is, the body is placed in a standard
> position, such as the autopsy or "anatomical" position. And the last time
> I checked, it's not possible for a dead body to STAND UP, and yet we still
> hear about the "anatomical position" being described in relation to
> autopsies on human bodies. (Go figure.)
>

Sure, if you misrepresent what he said.

> And if the body is in the anatomical (autopsy) position, then a
> measurement from the mastoid process is probably just as reliable and
> accurate as measuring downward "from the top of the head".
>

No, silly. The autopsy was not done by competent forensic pathologists.
And we now have much better ways to determine EXACTLY where the bullet
hit and the HSCA used them. Can you dispute where the HSCA located the
entrance wound? No. Is your problem that you fear that it destroys YOUR
pet SBT? But remember that the HSCA had its own SBT. By Lying. So there
is still some hope for YOUR pet SBT.

> [...]
>
> The truth is, of course, that ANY "body landmark" is going to be FIXED
> (i.e., immobile) during a post-mortem examination---because wounds are
> being located from landmarks while the body is in the anatomic ("autopsy")
> position---rigid and straight. And that's true for the mastoid process or
> any other body landmark.
>

No, silly. They were moving the body. Sitting is up. Moving parts.

> Do you, Martin [Hay], think that President Kennedy's mastoid process was
> moving all over the place while it was being used as a measuring landmark

Moving all over the place? What is that called in classical logic? I've
forgotten my Latin. I know what we call it in English.

> while JFK was lying flat on a table in an anatomic position? (And I have

He wasn't always lying flat on a table.

> no reason to believe that the autopsy doctors were so stupid that they
> chose to measure distances on JFK's body while his body was in some

The autopsy doctrs WERE sto Stupid. Ice Bullet? You fell for that?

> position OTHER than the standard "autopsy" position. If the doctors
> started measuring distances while Kennedy's body was in some contorted or
> "bent over" position, then those doctors would, of course, deserve all the
> criticism I could blast them with. But I have no reason to believe they
> were THAT idiotic. Do you, Martin?)
>

The HSCA objected that the wounds would be in slightly different
positions than the anatomically neutral position when you account for
how he sat in the seat.

> While most pathologists might very well have measured the wounds from
> different body landmarks than those utilized by Dr. Humes in November

Pathologists? Is that a joke? These were The Three Stooges.
Do qualified pathologists suggest the Ice Bullet Theory? Or miss seeing
the throat wound? Or miss seeing the bullet hole on the forehead as
McAdams does?

> 1963, it makes very little difference, because we DO have a SPECIFIC and
> PRECISE measurement for the back wound as it relates to a known body
> landmark on John F. Kennedy's body. You know it. I know it. The HSCA knew
> it.
>

And you are afraid that the correct measurement ruins YOUR pet SBT. It
certain ruined the WC's SBT, which brought down the whole WC.
All I had to do was mention Single Bullet Theory and everyone in the
hall would laugh.

> So, once again, a huge useless mountain is being made out of total
> nothingness by a conspiracy theorist. And Martin Hay is dead wrong when he
> said this:
>

Which theorist?

> "The autopsy doctors did not record the precise location of the back
> wound. That is, was, and always will be a FACT no matter what David Von
> Pein says."
>
> The above statement is a blatant falsehood and always will be for as long
> as Hay continues to spout such tommyrot. The precise location of JFK's
> back wound was most certainly located and all sensible people know it."
>

Hay has his own mistakes. His mistakes do not erase yours.


Maybe the autopsy doctors got lucky and located the back wound pretty
well, but not precisely. But that ruined the SBT so the WC had to lie.
The FBI didn't need no damn stinkin SBT.

[Jason Burke]

The bridge ladies will cure him.

[Steve Barber]

Since you sent the email to my gmail address, and you insist upon
claiming that you didn't send me the email, I replied to that email this
morning. It should be in your email box. Since I have the actual email
that came to me from you, I can and will post it on the Internet for
everyone to see if you don't knock this crap off, Marsh. You compared me
with the Nazi's for bawling you out in this thread. John rejected it, and
you suspected that it would be rejected, which I am quite certain is
exactly why you sent it to me. You can deny that I received an email from
you all you want, but just remember, I have the actual email that came
from your email account address.

[Jason Burke]

Aha! The ol' Cinque:

If A
Then Z

Without worrying about any of those nasty intervening letters.

>
>

[Steve BH]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PfSXkfV_mhA

Dale Myers shows the SBT works fine with entrace at T1 and exit of the
neck.

I fail to see the problem. JFK is hit at 223 (though you cannot see him).
However his hands are down low enough that even at 224 and 225 a bullet
has room to go by his right hand (the top one) and hit Connally. It is not
until 226 that JFK has raised his hands enough to block such a shot, and
that is in reaction to the shot at 223.

[Anthony Marsh]

Why did you bring up Cinque? I thought he was dead?

> If A
> Then Z
>

Is that what they taught you in logic class?

> Without worrying about any of those nasty intervening letters.
>

There may be lots of letters, but because they are nasty you are not
allowed to know about them.

>>
>>
>
>

[Anthony Marsh]

No ladies any more. They dropped out. Too far to travel, especially this
weather.

[Anthony Marsh]

He doesn't have the entrance at T-1 and he doesn't lean JFK over at all
the way the HSCA had to do. Which cartoon did you like the best?

> I fail to see the problem. JFK is hit at 223 (though you cannot see him).

You fail to see ANYTHING. Intentionally. Like an ostrich with his head
in the sand.

> However his hands are down low enough that even at 224 and 225 a bullet
> has room to go by his right hand (the top one) and hit Connally. It is not
> until 226 that JFK has raised his hands enough to block such a shot, and
> that is in reaction to the shot at 223.
>
>

Which cartoon? You can't see his hand down in the Zapruder film.

>
>
>
>

[Steve BH]

You can certainly see them in Z-225. And enough of a hand in Z-224 to know
it is the top hand, and is far enough down, to be... well... far enough
down.

[Anthony Marsh]

So you CLAIM that you can clearly see JFK's hands up in front of his
throat at frame 225? Then how does your SBT bullet get though his hands
without damaging them to hit Connally?

Maybe you have to move the HIT back a few frames to make his hands go
flying up? Maybe your SBT is at frame 220.