The Conspiracy Myths Never Stop

[David Von Pein]

JEFFERSON MORLEY SAID:

By setting up a series of straw men, adopting a supercilious tone, and
ignoring new evidence, Dale Myers manages to unpleasantly restate the
official theory of a lone gunman in a way that makes it less convincing
than ever.

"Fifty-two long years, and still *nothing* to exonerate Oswald or uncover
the so-called 'true conspirators'." -- Dale K. Myers; November 22, 2015

Myers is correct on one point: there is no proof beyond a reasonable doubt
that any specific named individual conspired to kill President Kennedy.
This factual statement also applies to Lee Oswald.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

I keep hearing conspiracy theorists constantly talking about the "new
evidence" and all of the many ARRB documents that supposedly "prove" a
conspiracy in the JFK case.

James DiEugenio, for example, just loves to declare victory for the CTers
by claiming there are a number of "ARRB documents" that serve as the
bombshell proof that a conspiracy exists in the JFK assassination. But
whenever I ask Jim D. (or any other conspiracy theorist) to link to just
ONE specific document made available by the ARRB that proves a conspiracy,
all I get in return is dead silence or stuff like the junk linked below
(which doesn't "prove" a conspiracy at all)....

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/09/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-1038.html#What-Documents?

So, can somebody PLEASE provide a link to just ONE document released as a
result of the JFK Records Act of 1992 that allegedly "proves" that John F.
Kennedy was killed as a result of a conspiracy? I've yet to see such a
document produced by anyone.

And the reason I've never seen such a document is quite easy to explain --
it's because no such "bombshell" document(s) exists--and never did. It's
all a matter of flawed interpretation on the part of people who are
anxious to confirm their beliefs in a make-believe plot that only exists
in the minds of individuals who are desperately seeking a conspiracy in
the JFK murder case.


PAUL F. SAID:

David:

Show me a single document that proves that Oswald did it. You can't,
that's a silly argument.

There is not a scintilla of proof that Oswald shot Kennedy.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

"Not a scintilla", eh Paul? You surely must be joking.

The amount of evidence that indicates "Oswald did it" is staggering in
depth, scope, and diversity -- from the bullets, to the guns themselves
(Oswald's very own guns), to the bullet shells, to the witnesses, to
Oswald's lies that he told the police after his arrest, and also to
Oswald's very own actions, which practically convict him all by
themselves, including the scuffle in the Texas Theater, where Oswald tried
to kill another policeman.

Yeah, innocent patsies are always whipping out pistols in movie theaters
and threatening cops--and then making statements like this....

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/07/they-say-it-just-takes-second-to-die.html

....Right, Paul?

And I include the murder of Officer J.D. Tippit in my above remarks
concerning the evidence too, because the Tippit slaying is inexorably
linked to President Kennedy's death (IMO).


DAVID REGAN SAID:

For starters, how about evidence of a second bullet being recovered? FBI
Assistant Director Allan H. Belmont wrote a memo to his direct superior,
Clyde Tolson, stating "that Secret Service had one of the bullets that
struck President Kennedy and the other is lodged behind the President's
ear and we are arranging to get both of these."

http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=707

A notation in the memo indicates the time to be 9:18 PM, which is after
FBI agent Robert Frazier and Special Agent Elmer Todd claim to have
accepted custody of CE 399.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

David R.,

If that's the best you've got, then you've got very little. That document
about a bullet being lodged behind JFK's ear was written as a result of
the initial confusion in the hours that immediately followed the
President's death.

And some of those things that were first reported turned out to be
incorrect. So I see no reason to still adhere to bad information -- like
all of these inaccurate early stories:

>> A "Mauser" or an "Argentine" rifle being found in the Book Depository.

>> The false rumor about a Secret Service agent being killed in Dealey Plaza.

>> The erroneous version of the Tippit shooting which had Officer Tippit being killed inside the Texas Theater itself.

>> The rumors about Vice President Johnson either being shot or having a heart attack.

>> Dr. Robert Shaw's inaccurate statement made during his 11/22/63 press conference about the bullet that struck Governor Connally still being in the left leg of Mr. Connally.

>> The "bullet lodged behind JFK's ear" story.

>> Dr. Humes' remark about "surgery of the head area" (which was repeated in the Sibert/O'Neill FBI report).

>> The initial erroneous speculation entertained by the autopsy doctors that the bullet which entered JFK's upper back "did not exit" the body at all.

All of those things (among other false stories) were corrected at a later
time.

And even FBI agent James Sibert later abandoned a couple of theories that
some conspiracy theorists are still stubbornly clinging to even today --
i.e., the "surgery of the head" remark and the notion that ANY "whole
bullet" was recovered at President Kennedy's autopsy at Bethesda Naval
Hospital....

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/07/interview-with-james-sibert.html


STEVE STIRLEN SAID:

David,

You and I have e-mailed each other through your site, and I find you are
one of the more reasonable proponents of the government's version. I do
have a question that the other government folks won't answer. First, a
quote from Jeff Morley:

"The CIA retains a 123-page file on Harvey's assassination-related
activities that has never been seen by bloggers, reporters, scholars, or
Congress. When the CIA's secret Bill Harvey file is made public, Talbot's
claim will be clarified. It is pathetic and outrageous that such material
remains hidden, but that's reality."

David--how is anyone--you, I, or Dale Myers--able to determine what REALLY
happened when documents that STILL EXIST--forget the ones that were
destroyed or never even made in the first place--are not made available to
folks?

[...]

How can we know the FULL truth when the CIA continues to stonewall? Can
you PLEASE talk to the folks at Langley and ask them to release the 1100
pages that still are being held?

One more comment for you to consider:

"I now no longer believe anything the Agency told the [HSCA] committee any
further than I can obtain substantial corroboration for it from outside
the Agency for its veracity. We now know that the Agency withheld from the
Warren Commission the CIA-Mafia plots to kill Castro. Had the commission
known of the plots, it would have followed a different path in its
investigation. The Agency unilaterally deprived the commission of a chance
to obtain the full truth, which will now never be known. Significantly,
the Warren Commission's conclusion that the agencies of the government
co-operated with it is, in retrospect, not the truth. We also now know
that the Agency set up a process that could only have been designed to
frustrate the ability of the committee in 1976-79 to obtain any
information that might adversely affect the Agency. Many have told me that
the culture of the Agency is one of prevarication and dissimulation and
that you cannot trust it or its people. Period. End of story. I am now in
that camp."

-- Robert Blakey

I think his line of never knowing the full truth is quite telling.

Your thoughts?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Steve,

I think ALL Government documents pertaining to the assassination should
definitely be made public. No doubt about it. And nearly all of them have
been made public.

But I also know that whenever "new" documents are finally released after a
period of years under wraps, they always end up not meaning very much. And
none of them has ever "proven" a conspiracy took place in Dallas. (Do you
really think any of the documents released through the ARRB have "proven"
a conspiracy?)

We may never know with 100% certainty if Oswald had a helper to aid him in
November 1963. But from the things we do know about Lee Harvey Oswald,
it's highly unlikely (IMO) that anyone was conspiring with him in Dallas
on 11/22/63.

For one thing, if Oswald had a co-conspirator to help him that day -- then
where the heck was that co-conspirator when Oswald needed him most -- just
after the assassination?

Everything Oswald did on both November 21st and 22nd indicates to me that
LHO was working alone. There's nothing in his movements on those two days
to indicate-in any way-that he was part of a multi-person plot to kill the
President.

As for the CIA and its intense desire to keep some things hidden (even if
they only relate in a marginal way to the events in Dallas), Vincent
Bugliosi said this in his JFK book:

"The CIA had nothing to hide in thousands of previous documents the agency
initially refused to release voluntarily but ultimately did release under
court order. The CIA specializes in always acting guilty, even when it is
not, and always being, from a public relations standpoint, its own worst
enemy." -- V. Bugliosi


AN ANONYMOUS PERSON SAID:

There is indeed a "staggering" amount of evidence implicating Oswald as
one of the assassins - a staggeringly small amount.

If you discard the discrepancies in the paperwork, you could make a
plausible case that in March 1963 Oswald purchased the rifle that was
found on the sixth floor. That implicates Oswald in the assassination, but
doesn't put him on the sixth floor with the rifle eight months later. The
evidence of Wesley Frazier and his sister make it clear that it wasn't
Oswald who brought the rifle into the book depository.

To place Oswald at the scene of the crime, we have his fingerprints on two
cardboard boxes, and some eyewitness testimony. But the fingerprint
evidence doesn't implicate him either, because Oswald's job required him
to handle boxes of books on the sixth floor. And the eyewitness evidence
is vague and contradictory: the gunman was white and slender (like
Oswald), with light brown hair (like Oswald) or dark hair (unlike Oswald)
and a bald patch (unlike Oswald), and was wearing a light-colored
open-neck shirt (unlike Oswald) over a white T-shirt (like Oswald).

The main eyewitness against Oswald was Howard Brennan, who declined to
identify Oswald as the man he had seen, then changed his mind, then
changed his mind again. And of course Oswald was seen elsewhere in the
building at the same time as the gunman was seen on the sixth floor.

So much for the fingerprint and eyewitness evidence. What's left? Oswald
may have been less than truthful to the police, although we only have the
authorities' word for what he said. Guilty, your honor!

He behaved strangely after the assassination, by going to watch a film.
Guilty, your honor!

He may have shot Officer Tippit, although the evidence for that is as
shaky as the evidence that he shot JFK.

If Mr Von Pein is ever convicted of murder, I hope the evidence against
him is a lot stronger than the evidence he uses to convict Oswald.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

You know as well as I do that ALL of the physical evidence points in the
direction of Lee Harvey Oswald, so why pretend it doesn't?

E.G.,

The Carcano rifle, the Smith & Wesson revolver, the fingerprints and
palmprints, the 38-inch paper bag with his (Oswald's) prints on it, bullet
fragments from his rifle found right in the Presidential limousine itself,
and bullet shells from his guns littering TWO separate murder scenes.

(And that's not even counting Commission Exhibit No. 399.)

And yet I'm supposed to believe that the above wealth of physical
evidence, plus the "I Saw Oswald" eyewitnesses at or near the Tippit
murder site, plus Oswald's lies and guilty-like actions following the
assassination, somehow make Oswald look innocent of killing BOTH John
Kennedy and J.D. Tippit?

Puh-lease!

And listening to the CTers make their perpetual lame excuses as they try
to take the Tippit murder weapon out of Oswald's hands too (as they always
attempt to do when discussing the C2766 Mannlicher-Carcano rifle as well)
is the perfect example of "CTer Desperation" on full display.

For a barrel of "V510210 revolver" laughs (at the expense of desperate
conspiracy theorists), go here....

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/08/dvp-vs-dieugenio-part-42.html


WILLY WHITTEN SAID:

If you are really going to deny that the US Intelligence services lacked
the resources and the connections to pull off a staged coup d'etat in
Dallas, Texas, you have a impossible task in front of you to convince
anyone with any historical knowledge and common sense.

You may be able to convince the average simple minded TVZombie with your
tootie-fruity Pied Piper pan pipes lullaby, but you will not be successful
in a debate with informed researchers like those attending [Morley's]
blog.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Yeah, right, Willy. Whatever you say. ~eyeroll~

I guess you must think that Lee Oswald was merely a subservient puppet,
willing and eager to have his strings pulled by any number of CIA
operatives (including Michael and Ruth Paine). Right, Willy?

And just because ALL of the evidence (and a dozen eyewitnesses near or at
the site of J.D. Tippit's murder in Oak Cliff) points toward Lee Harvey
Oswald as a double-murderer, why should those trifling little facts get in
the way of believing (as most Internet CTers do) that Oswald was merely an
innocent "patsy"?

Right, Willy?

[Quote On:]

"Who can believe these people [Ruth and Michael Paine]? Both of them as
phony as three dollar bills." -- Jim DiEugenio

Rebutting DiEugenio's crap about the Paines:
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2013/04/dvp-vs-dieugenio-part-87.html


WILLY WHITTEN SAID:

Oswald was already in the Texas Theater at the time of Tippet's [sic]
murder.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

So you have no problem with Oswald being able to make it all the way to
the Texas Theater from his roominghouse (where we know he was at about
1:00 PM, per Earlene Roberts) in time to be inside the theater BEFORE
Tippit was even shot.

Most CTers moan about how Oswald couldn't possibly have made it from 1026
Beckley to 10th & Patton in time to shoot Tippit. And yet Willy has just
made Oswald an Olympic track star by getting LHO all the way from 1026
Beckley to the Texas Theater in even LESS time. Amazing.

But the "Texas Theater Oswald" was probably just an imposter, eh Willy?


WILLY WHITTEN SAID:

I've seen the map of the area. Taking a route from Beckley to the Texas
Theater, by going through the park and through the school yard, Oswald
could have made that distance in less than 15 minutes at a brisk walk.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

But I'll bet you don't think the same man (Oswald) had a prayer of making
it to 10th & Patton in just about the same length of time, and probably
less time -- i.e., "less than 15 minutes at a brisk walk". Right, Willy?

This reminds me of the (unintentional) hypocritical approach that Oliver
Stone and other conspiracy nuts have taken with respect to trying to prove
that a Carcano rifle like Oswald's couldn't possibly have been fired three
times in 5 or 6 seconds -- even though Stone filmed one of his actors
dry-firing a Carcano 3 times in 5.5 seconds -- and he even kept that scene
in the finished movie. Hilarious.


EVAN CERNE-IANNONE SAID:

Watching CNN special on JFK assassination. I forget how stupid some people
are.

Honestly, why do they think there was a conspiracy?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

It's probably mostly just a "follow the leader" mindset. Most people don't
know very much about the details of Oswald's guilt. They watch Oliver
Stone's fantasy film, or they read the latest crazy conspiracy book (like
David Talbot's new one about how Allen Dulles Did It), and they conclude
that those silly theories must be correct.

Too bad they don't read this instead....
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1939521238

David Von Pein
November 26-28, 2015

==================

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/11/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-1068.html

[Ace Kefford]

Keep up the good work, David. And I am sure it will get your name on the
CIA Wall of Honor next to Oswald's! Har.

[mainframetech]

On Saturday, November 28, 2015 at 8:05:18 PM UTC-5, David Von Pein wrote:

AH! You've set up an escape if someone provides a document. You will
decide it's "flawed interpretation" and get away that way. I'll provide
you wint a single document that proves that it was a conspiracy, but you
won't like it, and may be too lazy to check it out. Here is a photo known
as the 'stare-of-death' photo. If you ENLARGE it, and then look at the
hair hanging down on the right forehead of JFK, you will see a dark circle
just coming out of a 'notch' of hair. It is exactly as described by
Vincent DiMaio as being an entry wound with the slightly raised rim.
Since it's a bullet hole from in front, there had to be a conspirator
firing from the front, and there is a very nice bullet hole in the
windshield to back it up. You won't like that either, but there are at
least 6 witnesses to that. Let me know when you have decided that it's
"flawed interpretation"...:)

>
> PAUL F. SAID:
>
> David:
>
> Show me a single document that proves that Oswald did it. You can't,
> that's a silly argument.
>
> There is not a scintilla of proof that Oswald shot Kennedy.
>
>
> DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
>
> "Not a scintilla", eh Paul? You surely must be joking.
>
> The amount of evidence that indicates "Oswald did it" is staggering in
> depth, scope, and diversity -- from the bullets, to the guns themselves
> (Oswald's very own guns), to the bullet shells, to the witnesses, to
> Oswald's lies that he told the police after his arrest, and also to
> Oswald's very own actions, which practically convict him all by
> themselves, including the scuffle in the Texas Theater, where Oswald tried
> to kill another policeman.
>
> Yeah, innocent patsies are always whipping out pistols in movie theaters
> and threatening cops--and then making statements like this....
>
> http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/07/they-say-it-just-takes-second-to-die.html
>
> ....Right, Paul?
>
> And I include the murder of Officer J.D. Tippit in my above remarks
> concerning the evidence too, because the Tippit slaying is inexorably
> linked to President Kennedy's death (IMO).
>

The link isn't what you think. But the killer of Tippit is NOT the
killer of JFK. Those killers were driving away from Dealey Plaza at that
moment.

>
> DAVID REGAN SAID:
>
> For starters, how about evidence of a second bullet being recovered? FBI
> Assistant Director Allan H. Belmont wrote a memo to his direct superior,
> Clyde Tolson, stating "that Secret Service had one of the bullets that
> struck President Kennedy and the other is lodged behind the President's
> ear and we are arranging to get both of these."
>
> http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=707
>
> A notation in the memo indicates the time to be 9:18 PM, which is after
> FBI agent Robert Frazier and Special Agent Elmer Todd claim to have
> accepted custody of CE 399.
>

Prove that CE399 was ever near JFK. It was a test bullet that the FBI
custodian replaced from the MC rifle testing the next day after the
murder. They had up to 60 bullets fired into all sorts of materials.
Also, the original CE399 bullet was found on the WRONG gurney at Parkland
hospital. There is no way it can be connected to the murder of JFK. And
the SBT has been proven dead.

>
> DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
>
> David R.,
>
> If that's the best you've got, then you've got very little. That document
> about a bullet being lodged behind JFK's ear was written as a result of
> the initial confusion in the hours that immediately followed the
> President's death.
>
> And some of those things that were first reported turned out to be
> incorrect. So I see no reason to still adhere to bad information -- like
> all of these inaccurate early stories:
>
> >> A "Mauser" or an "Argentine" rifle being found in the Book Depository.
>
> >> The false rumor about a Secret Service agent being killed in Dealey Plaza.
>
> >> The erroneous version of the Tippit shooting which had Officer Tippit being killed inside the Texas Theater itself.
>
> >> The rumors about Vice President Johnson either being shot or having a heart attack.
>
> >> Dr. Robert Shaw's inaccurate statement made during his 11/22/63 press conference about the bullet that struck Governor Connally still being in the left leg of Mr. Connally.
>
> >> The "bullet lodged behind JFK's ear" story.

Nurse Phyllis Hall would argue with you. She says she saw that bullet.

>
> >> Dr. Humes' remark about "surgery of the head area" (which was repeated in the Sibert/O'Neill FBI report).
>
> >> The initial erroneous speculation entertained by the autopsy doctors that the bullet which entered JFK's upper back "did not exit" the body at all.
>
> All of those things (among other false stories) were corrected at a later
> time.
>

OH? And were you able to correct the prosectors mistakes in
determining that the back wound bullet never left the body of JFK? The
statements of Paul O'Connor and James Jenkins, both Bethesda Technologists
and part of the autopsy team, say the bullet was stopped at the pleura,
and the doctors all knew it. Which means that the Autopsy Report (AR) was
faked to satisfy orders from higher up. Reading the AR, you find many
erros and conflicts, so that it had to be faked up. There was a wound
that Humes left completely out of his 'wound list' in the AR. That's a
serious mistake.

> And even FBI agent James Sibert later abandoned a couple of theories that
> some conspiracy theorists are still stubbornly clinging to even today --
> i.e., the "surgery of the head" remark and the notion that ANY "whole
> bullet" was recovered at President Kennedy's autopsy at Bethesda Naval
> Hospital....
>
> http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/07/interview-with-james-sibert.html
>

I see. So you've completely ignored the sworn testimony of Jerrol
Custer, the Bethesda X-ray Technician. He said in his ARRB testimony:

"When I lifted the body up to take films of
the torso, and the lumbar spine, and the pelvis,
this is when a king-size fragment - I'd say -
estimate around three, four sonometers - fell from
the back. And this is when Dr. Finck come over
with a pair of forceps, picked it up, and took -
That's the last time I ever saw it.
Now, it was big enough -That's about,
I'd say, an inch and a half. My finger-my small
finger. First joints."

From: http://aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/arrb/medical_testimony/pdf/Custer_10-28-97.pdf

Page 53

Sonometer = centimeter, and 3-4 centimeters is long enough to be many
types of bullet.

[Anthony Marsh]

Excuse me? The hole in the forehead was not released by the ARRB. It is
not new evidence officially released by the government. It is still Top
Secret NODIS. It was leaked to the researchers by one SS agent. That is
what scares people like DVP and why he refuses to talk about it. Unless it
was officially cleaned up by the US government and officially released, it
doesn't exist to him.

The next day? Frazier was examining CE 399 the same day, before he even
had the rifle to test fire.

Which autopsy report? The first one that he burned? Or the second one
that he was ordered to rewrite?

>
>
>> And even FBI agent James Sibert later abandoned a couple of theories that
>> some conspiracy theorists are still stubbornly clinging to even today --
>> i.e., the "surgery of the head" remark and the notion that ANY "whole
>> bullet" was recovered at President Kennedy's autopsy at Bethesda Naval
>> Hospital....
>>
>> http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/07/interview-with-james-sibert.html
>>
>
>
> I see. So you've completely ignored the sworn testimony of Jerrol
> Custer, the Bethesda X-ray Technician. He said in his ARRB testimony:
>
> "When I lifted the body up to take films of
> the torso, and the lumbar spine, and the pelvis,
> this is when a king-size fragment - I'd say -
> estimate around three, four sonometers - fell from
> the back. And this is when Dr. Finck come over
> with a pair of forceps, picked it up, and took -
> That's the last time I ever saw it.
> Now, it was big enough -That's about,
> I'd say, an inch and a half. My finger-my small
> finger. First joints."
>
> From: http://aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/arrb/medical_testimony/pdf/Custer_10-28-97.pdf
>
> Page 53
>
> Sonometer = centimeter, and 3-4 centimeters is long enough to be many
> types of bullet.
>
>

You have that on a function key? The more times you repeat it the more
that makes it true. Try 1 million.

[David Von Pein]

There is no "hole in the forehead", Tony. You're just seeing things that
are simply not there. And you know it.

[mainframetech]

As usual DVP, you've tried to ignore evidence. You said there was no
"bombshell" evidence shown in the case, so I showed some and you did your
best to IGNORE it. I showed a photo of the bullet hole in the FRONT of
the forehead of JFK. You quickly ignored it so that you could pretend
that you had all the answers. But you have NO answer for that. And
please don't try denying something that you haven't tried to see when
given instructions. Look at the 'stare-of-death' photo (a copy is below)
and ENLARGE it and look at the hair hanging down on his right side of the
forehead, and look in as 'notch' of hair, and see the circular dark spot
there under the hair.

http://www.jfkmurdersolved.com/images/BE3_HI.jpg

I'll be monitoring for your reply.

Chris

[David Von Pein]

There is no bullet hole in the forehead. You, as well as Marsh, are just
seeing what you WANT to see. What you're seeing is merely JFK's hair. No
bullet hole.

[Anthony Marsh]

That proves my point. Forensic scientists can see it, but YOU can't.
Because you refuse to look.
Dr. Lawrence Angel called it an exit wound.
Explain to me how he could say that if there is no hole there.
Do you know of any bullets that can exit without leaving a hole?
Another Magic Bullet? Was that the bullet they used in the movie Dune?

[Bud]

On Saturday, December 5, 2015 at 9:45:01 PM UTC-5, mainframetech wrote:

Empty, meaningless conspiracy hobbyist claims are not bombshell
evidence.

> You quickly ignored it so that you could pretend
> that you had all the answers. But you have NO answer for that. And
> please don't try denying something that you haven't tried to see when
> given instructions. Look at the 'stare-of-death' photo (a copy is below)
> and ENLARGE it and look at the hair hanging down on his right side of the
> forehead, and look in as 'notch' of hair, and see the circular dark spot
> there under the hair.

Yes, and there is a face on Mars.

[bigdog]

For some reason, Chris thinks that is not an acceptable response. I've
lost count of the number of times I've told him that and he keeps telling
me I am ignoring that photo because I don't see what he thinks he does.

[David Emerling]

On Thursday, December 3, 2015 at 12:00:06 AM UTC-6, mainframetech wrote:

> AH! You've set up an escape if someone provides a document. You will
> decide it's "flawed interpretation" and get away that way.

What I find amazing is the notion that there are documents out there that
PROVE a conspiracy. Apparently this team of conspirators and cover-up
artists were able to do all kinds of crazy things: post multiple gunmen in
Dealey Plaza and make all those bullets disappear ... steal the
president's body ... alter photos, film and x-rays ... even alter the
president's wounds ... coerce witnesses ... fabricate documents (rifle
order form) ... even steal the president's brain!

Yet, they apparently didn't have access to a paper shredder.

If they had the power to do all these other things, they certainly had the
power to make incriminating pieces of paper vanish.

Ridiculous.

David Emerling
Memphis, TN

[Anthony Marsh]

I'm not a forensic pathologist, so since YOU are can you explain to me in
layman's terms how a bullet can leave a hole in the skull without leaving
ANY hole in the overlying skin? I've heard of cases of a bullet bouncing
off a skull, but it still has to leave a hole in the skin. Your knee-jerk
WC defender replies highlight the primary difference between WC defenders
and conspiracy believers. You refuse to look at the evidence and want it
suppressed. You ridicule anyone who dares to actually look at the evidence
for themselves. You are perfectly willing to accept the official lies by
the government "experts" whether that be a bullet hole near the EOP or the
SBT. You never question authority. We used to be known as the WC critics.
That is how the CIA described us. But now you WC defenders refer to us all
as kooks. It's called Poisoning the Well.

As I pointed out at my lectures, 99% of the public can see the obvious.
But you WC defenders refuse to admit the obvious.

[Anthony Marsh]

He can't SEE anything when his head is in the sand. I told you about Ken
Rahn's student who said the dot was BELOW the line. When everyone else in
the class said it was ABOVE the line.

[mainframetech]

OK, You've told us what WE and you did NOT see, please now say what you
DID see, if not a bullet hole. There is a circular item there that
doesn't belong, and it's not hair. That kind of hair doesn't hang down in
circular spots. The item I'm interested in finding out about is somewhat
under the hair. so what do you think? And if it helps, it's on all the
'stare-of-death' photos.

Chris

[David Von Pein]

I wonder why FBI agents Jim Sibert and Francis O'Neill never saw the
"bullet hole in JFK's forehead" that Marsh and MainFrame love so much?

And no CTer on the planet believes that Sibert & O'Neill were part of a
"Shut Your Mouth" cover-up operation after the assassination. That's
because CTers just *love* that Sibert & O'Neill "surgery of the head area"
report.

I guess the plotters/assassins just got lucky when S&O somehow missed
seeing something so obvious--like that "bullet hole in the forehead" which
CTers think they see in a multi-generational, less-than-perfect
photograph.

Go figure.

And that goes for ANY other "non-plotter" who attended the autopsy at
Bethesda. How did the forehead bullet hole get overlooked by literally
EVERYBODY at the autopsy?

Good luck explaining that, Tony/Chris.

[mainframetech]

As usual, talk without proof. Documents weren't fake that I'm aware of,
so I'm not sure what you're talking about there. As to stealing the body
of JFK, that information is from sworn testimony of multiple witnesses, as
well as the modification of that body, again with sworn testimony of
witnesses. I know you will do the LN thing as soon as you hear 'witness'
you will swear up and down that they are either lying, or are mistaken,
since they prove your beliefs are from 52 years ago and are outmoded by
newer evidence from the ARRB.

As to altering film, and photos and X-rays, there has ben proof of that
already, but most LNs will try to ignore that so they can go laong
believing their tired, old WCR theories.

Chris

[mainframetech]

WRONG! As usual. I consider it a very acceptable answer, as I've told
YOU when you tried that answer. But Since he answered by telling me what
was NOT there, I assked what he DID see there, since there IS something
there, which was seen by many witnesses, which I've listed a number of
times before.

In your case, there is no way to correct what happens in your mind when
you look at the something that is there and that you can't seee. DVP may
have a more normal mind and eyesight. As usual you jumped into something
without thinking.

Chris

[Anthony Marsh]

Not the FBI. Remember the Hosty note? They had to tell him two times to
get rid of it. The first time he ripped it up and threw it in the trash.
Well, the cleaning lady was a Soviet agent and would patch it up. So they
had to tell him again to get rid of it so he flushed it down the toilet.

It's not as easy to destroy evidence as you think. Sometimes a stray copy
will survive multiple attempts at a cover up. LIke the Inspector General's
report on the Castro Assassination Plots. 12 copies were destroyed, but
they missed one.

[Anthony Marsh]

How can you see it when you don't even look?

[Bud]

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

[bigdog]

On Monday, December 7, 2015 at 11:54:23 AM UTC-5, mainframetech wrote:
>
> OK, You've told us what WE and you did NOT see, please now say what you
> DID see, if not a bullet hole. There is a circular item there that
> doesn't belong, and it's not hair. That kind of hair doesn't hang down in
> circular spots. The item I'm interested in finding out about is somewhat
> under the hair. so what do you think? And if it helps, it's on all the
> 'stare-of-death' photos.
>

The tuft of hair which you are claiming to be a circular item appears to
be about the diameter of a quarter. There isn't a bullet made with that
kind of diameter and if there was and one had hit JFK in the head where
you claim it did, there wouldn't be much left of the top half of his head.
It is simply a tuft a hair which vaguely suggests a partial circle but is
just that, a tuft of hair. You said yourself you had seen the photo many
times before you decided it was a bullet hole. That suggest you had to
convince yourself that you were looking at a bullet hole. If it was as
obvious as you claim it would have been apparent to you the first time you
looked at the photo.

[bigdog]

On Monday, December 7, 2015 at 3:22:24 PM UTC-5, mainframetech wrote:

>
> As to altering film, and photos and X-rays, there has ben proof of that
> already, but most LNs will try to ignore that so they can go laong
> believing their tired, old WCR theories.
>

They may be old but they have stood the test of time and will stand the
test of history. Oswald will go down in history as JFK's assassin as
surely as Booth has gone down as Lincoln's assassin and nothing you,
Marsh, Cinque, or anybody else is going to change that. Deal with it.

[Anthony Marsh]

You wouldn't know bombshell evidence it it hit you on the head.
But it might leave a hole on your forehead. But you can't see the hole
on JFK's forehead.

>> You quickly ignored it so that you could pretend
>> that you had all the answers. But you have NO answer for that. And
>> please don't try denying something that you haven't tried to see when
>> given instructions. Look at the 'stare-of-death' photo (a copy is below)
>> and ENLARGE it and look at the hair hanging down on his right side of the
>> forehead, and look in as 'notch' of hair, and see the circular dark spot
>> there under the hair.
>
> Yes, and there is a face on Mars.

Is that Matt Damon's face? (Go see our hometown boy in The Martian)

[mainframetech]

Welp, that's a whole lot of attemting to cover up the find. You sdee,
there were many witnesesses to the hole in the fiorehead, and they did it
a lot closer ot the time of the shooting. Here's a list of them:

Dennis David, Joe O'Donnell, Tom Robinson, Jerrol Custer (interview by
Walt Brown), James Jenkins, Pierre Finck (from James Jenkins interview),
Seth Kantor, Charles Crenshaw, also probably Father Oscar Huber, who gave
last rites. Said left instead of right eye, probably from looking down at
it from above it would appear on the left of his vision, but the patient's
right. And then you have Malcolm Kilduff who got an update on what had
happened and told the press that it was a bullet in the right forehead,
and he pointed right to the area:

http://www.orwelltoday.com/jfkbulletheadfrontkilduff.jpg

So you see DVP, your attempt to sidestep my last question didn't work
and I'm still asking that you tell me what you DID see, and never mind
what you did NOT see. Your previous answer of what you did NOT see is
plenty acceptable if that's what you think. But what about the answer to
the current question, since there were many witnesses to something in the
forehead. Will tyou become a bd and try to run away with not answering
the qwuestion? Or will you gather your smarts and give soem kind of
decent answer?

On another note, Sibert and O'Neill supplied far more important
information in reporting the conversations at the autopsy table.
Particularly the one where ALL of the prosectors said "There's NO EXIT"
for the back wound bullet. You can find that in sworn testimony in the
ARRB files of the interview with Sibert:

"And they said, 'There's no exit." Finck,
in particular, said, 'There's no exit." And they
said that you could feel it with the end of the
finger - I mean, the depth of this wound."

http://aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/arrb/medical_testimony/pdf/Sibert_9-11-97.pdf
page 111

Yep, they ALL agreed that there was no exit from the body for that
bullet. And then we hear from Paul O'Connor, Bethesda Technologist and
autopsy team member, who said in an interview with William Matson Law:


"So we used a malleable probe and bent it a little bit and found out that
the bullet entered the body, went through the intercostal muscles--the
muscles in between the ribs. The bullet went in through the muscles,
didn't touch any of the ribs, arched downwards, hit the back of the
pleural cavity, which encases the lungs, both front and back. It bounced
off that cavity and stopped. It actually went down and stopped."

Also:

"So we didn't know the track of the bullet until we eviscerated the body
later. That's what happened at that time. We traced the bullet path down
and found out it didn't traverse the body. It did not go in one side and
come out the other side of the body."

Law: You can be reasonably sure of that?
O'Connor: Absolutely.
Law: It was just from the probe then?
O'Connor: Oh yes.
Law: And these doctors knew that?
O'Connor: Absolutely.
Law: While it happened?
O'Connor: Absolutely. And another thing, we found out, while the autopsy
was proceeding, that he was shot from a high building, which meant the
bullet had to be traveling in a downward trajectory and we also realized
that this bullet--that hit him in the back--is what we called in the
military a "short shot," which means that the powder in the bullet was
defective so it didn't have the power to push the projectile--the
bullet--clear through the body. If it had been a full shot at the angle he
was shot, it would have come out through his heart and through his
sternum."

Pages 40-41 in "In the Eyes of History" by William Matson Law

Now let the wise guys find all their gimmicks for covering up the
facts, but the facts will come out. What you're hearing is what I've said
for a good while, and it may make some sick, given what it does to their
beloved WCR theories, but the truth will out. It also kills the SBT for
the foolish that think that was a viable theory.

Chris

[Mark Florio]

Well said. They've really gone down the rabbit hole on this one. I mean
would those involved in the "cover-up" in the autopsy room have allowed a
photo to be taken that showed a bullet hole that had to be a result of a
frontal shot, when they were trying to frame Oswald as the shooter from
behind? Mark

[David Emerling]

On Sunday, December 6, 2015 at 7:34:46 AM UTC-6, David Von Pein wrote:

> There is no bullet hole in the forehead. You, as well as Marsh, are just
> seeing what you WANT to see. What you're seeing is merely JFK's hair. No
> bullet hole.

Besides, bone beveling tells the story. According to the autopsy, all the
bone beveling was consistent with a projectile going from
back-to-front.

Of course, this is where they take the position that either 1) the wounds
were altered or 2) the doctors were criminals and lied about their medical
findings or 3) the doctors were collectively so incredibly incompetent
they interpreted the bone beveling backwards.

Kennedy was hit once in the head from a shot fired from behind. The
medical evidence is so conclusive on this matter that the HSCA, an
extremely conspiracy-leaning investigation, after concluding (improperly)
that a shot was fired from the area of the grassy knoll, also concluded
that this shot must have been a COMPLETE MISS. So compelling was the
medical evidence that Kennedy was ONLY hit from behind - there was simply
no escaping that conclusion.

David Emerling
Memphis, TN

[mainframetech]

On Monday, December 7, 2015 at 9:11:10 PM UTC-5, bigdog wrote:
> On Monday, December 7, 2015 at 3:22:24 PM UTC-5, mainframetech wrote:
>
> >

> > As to altering film, and photos and X-rays, there has been proof of that
> > already, but most LNs will try to ignore that so they can go along

> > believing their tired, old WCR theories.
> >
>
> They may be old but they have stood the test of time and will stand the
> test of history. Oswald will go down in history as JFK's assassin as
> surely as Booth has gone down as Lincoln's assassin and nothing you,
> Marsh, Cinque, or anybody else is going to change that. Deal with it.

WRONG! Actually, they have NOT stood the test of time. The WC has
been lambasted many times for the mess they approved and put out, and that
waas from the start. Because YOU think they're saints doesn't fool
anyone. And the conspiracies have popped up over th Lincoln killing. So
don't feel too secure in your beliefs...:)

Chris

[mainframetech]

bd, I wasn't talking to you. Nice of you to try and save DVP, but he
got himslrf into the silly poasition. And I continue to wait on him to
tell me what he DID see ,and not what he did NOT see, like you tried to
do.

You have made yet another mistake. You've said that I saw the mark
"many times" before deciding it was a bullet hole. That's false. I said
that I had seen the photo many times but sdidn't know there was a mark
there until there were so many witnesses to it that I fianlly ENLARGED the
photo and saw the bullet hole, which I did indeed think was a bullet hole
the first time I saw it.

Thank you for now admitting that you have now seen the anomaly that
I've been speaking about. You saw a "tuft of hair" the size of a quarter.
To help you out, Tom Robinson saw the mark we're speaking of, and it was a
hole with a diameter of about a quarter inch. .25 inches is about right
for a bullet hole for what I saw, even if you didn't. I also saw a
'fleshy rim' around the dark spot we're speaking of, and that fits the
description of a bullet entry wound given by Vincent DiMaio. You may not
think that, but I never expected you would see a bullet hole, only
something else that you could concoct that might sound a little close to
the sight itself.

Chris

[Anthony Marsh]

Do you even understand that History says that the Lincoln Assassination
was a Conspiracy? Or are you the head of the Mary Suratt Innocence
Project?

[Anthony Marsh]

On 12/7/2015 9:09 PM, bigdog wrote:
> On Monday, December 7, 2015 at 11:54:23 AM UTC-5, mainframetech wrote:
>>
>> OK, You've told us what WE and you did NOT see, please now say what you
>> DID see, if not a bullet hole. There is a circular item there that
>> doesn't belong, and it's not hair. That kind of hair doesn't hang down in
>> circular spots. The item I'm interested in finding out about is somewhat
>> under the hair. so what do you think? And if it helps, it's on all the
>> 'stare-of-death' photos.
>>
>
> The tuft of hair which you are claiming to be a circular item appears to
> be about the diameter of a quarter. There isn't a bullet made with that

You are suffering from a mild case of Pareidolia. There is not quarter
sized hole. Drinking some hot chocolate will clear that up.

> kind of diameter and if there was and one had hit JFK in the head where
> you claim it did, there wouldn't be much left of the top half of his head.

You don't know that for sure because you don't know what type of bullet it
was (or won't admit it). James Brady with hit in the forehead by a bullet
and it did not blow off the top half of his head. You know nothing about
ballistics so you make wild statements to bluff, like Donald Trump.

> It is simply a tuft a hair which vaguely suggests a partial circle but is
> just that, a tuft of hair. You said yourself you had seen the photo many
> times before you decided it was a bullet hole. That suggest you had to
> convince yourself that you were looking at a bullet hole. If it was as
> obvious as you claim it would have been apparent to you the first time you
> looked at the photo.
>

You can't even see the bullet hole in the same place on the skull.

[Anthony Marsh]

Ok, so to prove that you can think for yourself and not follow the crowd
you have to claim that the Earth is flat. You can't admit any fact.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 12/7/2015 3:17 PM, David Von Pein wrote:
> I wonder why FBI agents Jim Sibert and Francis O'Neill never saw the
> "bullet hole in JFK's forehead" that Marsh and MainFrame love so much?
>

They did. But they assumed the autopsy report would tell the truth.

> And no CTer on the planet believes that Sibert & O'Neill were part of a
> "Shut Your Mouth" cover-up operation after the assassination. That's
> because CTers just *love* that Sibert & O'Neill "surgery of the head area"
> report.
>

I explained that to Lifton. Humes was a moron.

> I guess the plotters/assassins just got lucky when S&O somehow missed
> seeing something so obvious--like that "bullet hole in the forehead" which
> CTers think they see in a multi-generational, less-than-perfect
> photograph.
>

You know where you can shove your multi-generational crap.
YOU have never seen the Fox set. I have.

> Go figure.
>
> And that goes for ANY other "non-plotter" who attended the autopsy at
> Bethesda. How did the forehead bullet hole get overlooked by literally
> EVERYBODY at the autopsy?
>

It didn't. But they assumed it was part of the exit wound.
Because that's what the Forensic Pathology literature incorrectly said
at the time.

[mainframetech]

Wrong again. You left out the possibility that the prosectors had
orders to find certain things and to NOT find others. The proof of that
is when Finck, the expert of the group, saw the bullet hole in the
forehead, he commented that it might be an entry wound, and then promptly
left it out of the Autopsy Report (AR) where there was a place to list
wounds. Will you try to say it was an error? It was one of many then,
and makes them incompetent for leaving out many facts that we here now
know through the ARRB files and the sworn testimony of witnesses that were
part of the autopsy team.

A note here is that there was NO effort to report on the beveling of
the hole in the skull from the bullet hole in the forehead, seen by many
witnesses. They didn't dare to do that one. It would admit it was there.

And another item. The wounds actually were altered, and it was done
with some witnesses watching, so there wasn't an opinion on it, but a
fact. Edward Reed, giving sworn testimony, and later Tom Robinson. That
was when Humes and Boswell modified the body and expanded the BOH wound
that was ONLY on the BOH, to become a wound on the side and partly the top
of the head. Again, witnessed.

You've sold yourself on a basket of review of the AR, and a few
comments from the prosectors, who were under orders. But not a single one
of those 'investigators' saw the bullet hole in the forehead, and they
only had photos to work from, and they had been limited down and many were
missing. But than, that's what you wanted them to find.

Chris

[mainframetech]

Interesting that you mention that. Were you aware that a number of
wirtnesses at the autopsy stated that there were a number of photos that
never appeared after being taken? Even Humes stated that a number of
photos that he KNEW were taken were missing.

And to help you with whether anyone in the autopsy team notived the
bullet hole, there were two very clear cases of that. Jamnes Jenkins,
Bethesda Technologist statee in an interview that he AND Pierre Finck has
seen the bullet hole in qwuestion, and Finck commented on it:

"Jenkins recalled the large posterior hole in JFK's head, but also
recalled a small (approximately 5 mm in diameter) hole in the right
temporal bone, just forward of and just above the right ear. He saw this
quite early in the autopsy, and recalls that Dr. Finck saw this and
commented on it. The circumference was gray, which suggested to Jenkins
the passage of a bullet. He said that even Dr. Finck speculated that a
bullet might have caused this hole."

From: http://insidethearrb.livejournal.com/10811.html

So we have one of the prosectors, the more expert one, having seen the
hole, and later does nothing whatsoever to see that it gets into the
Autopsy Report (AR) which should have contained ALL wounds to the body
being examined. And he signed off on that AR. So faced it. They were
covering up any frontal wounds, and that could only be because theuy had
oders rform higher up. They wouldn;'t take that kind of chance on their
own.

And a little side note. You took the word of bd and congratulated him
on his comments, without even knowing that most of his comment was false
where it applied to what I had believed or said. My correction was in
another version of his post. So your congratulating him on his erroneous
facts! Sort of points out that anything that an LN says, you'll
compliment. But then we're all biased here, aren't we?

Chris

[bigdog]

Conspiracy hobbyist attacks on the WCR are the equivalent of shooting a BB
gun at a tank. You can fire as many shots as you want but you aren't doing
any damage.

[bigdog]

Still pretending I have never answered that question. There is not point
to answering it for 239th time after you ignored the answer the first 238
times it was given.

> Thank you for now admitting that you have now seen the anomaly that
> I've been speaking about. You saw a "tuft of hair" the size of a quarter.
> To help you out, Tom Robinson saw the mark we're speaking of, and it was a
> hole with a diameter of about a quarter inch. .25 inches is about right
> for a bullet hole for what I saw, even if you didn't. I also saw a
> 'fleshy rim' around the dark spot we're speaking of, and that fits the
> description of a bullet entry wound given by Vincent DiMaio. You may not
> think that, but I never expected you would see a bullet hole, only
> something else that you could concoct that might sound a little close to
> the sight itself.

Why doesn't DiMaio agree with you that there is an entry wound in JFK's
forehead?

>
> Chris

[Anthony Marsh]

On 12/8/2015 4:57 PM, David Emerling wrote:
> On Sunday, December 6, 2015 at 7:34:46 AM UTC-6, David Von Pein wrote:
>
>> There is no bullet hole in the forehead. You, as well as Marsh, are just
>> seeing what you WANT to see. What you're seeing is merely JFK's hair. No
>> bullet hole.
>
> Besides, bone beveling tells the story. According to the autopsy, all the
> bone beveling was consistent with a projectile going from
> back-to-front.
>

Excuse me? Why do you remain ignorant after so many years when I told
you that you are wrong about that? There can be external beveling on an
entrance wound of the skull. Read the forensic pathology literature.

> Of course, this is where they take the position that either 1) the wounds
> were altered or 2) the doctors were criminals and lied about their medical
> findings or 3) the doctors were collectively so incredibly incompetent
> they interpreted the bone beveling backwards.
>

The Fallacy of false alternatives. You left out option 4) certain Nazis
always lie about what the evidence shows. Like JFK being thrust forward
by the impact of the bullet.

> Kennedy was hit once in the head from a shot fired from behind. The
> medical evidence is so conclusive on this matter that the HSCA, an
> extremely conspiracy-leaning investigation, after concluding (improperly)

Again you fail to pay attention. I've told you hundreds of times that
there were two HSCAs. The first was looking for conspiracy. The second was
determined to cover up the conspiracy. They found the acoustical evidence
by accident and turned them back to conspiracy.

> that a shot was fired from the area of the grassy knoll, also concluded
> that this shot must have been a COMPLETE MISS. So compelling was the

The HSCA said that for political reasons. The scientists said it hit.

> medical evidence that Kennedy was ONLY hit from behind - there was simply
> no escaping that conclusion.
>

There is no escaping your ignorance.

> David Emerling
> Memphis, TN
>

[Anthony Marsh]

My God, man, you never pay attention, do you?
Why would they allow Zapruder to take a film which shows that a shot
came from the front? Because the CIA has a stable of professional
disinformation agents who will tell ANY lie to cover up.
Like Dan Rather who said he saw the President's head thrust forward by
the last shot on the Zapruder film. Like the CIA asset at LIFE who said
that JFK was shot in the throat from the front because he had turned to
look back at the TSBD. Or the CIA asset who said that John Paisley shot
himself twice in the back of the head, then put lead weights around his
arms and body and jumped off the boat and into the water, all while very
dead.

http://www.the-puzzle-palace.com/Langley29.gif

Now, to your point. There are unprofessional disinformation agents here
who will actually deny that there is ANY bullet hole on the forehead. They
claim that they can't see what everyone else can see. Just as I showed
with the Moorman photo or the dot above the line. There are always people
who deny the obvious. They're called WC defenders.

[mainframetech]

You answered the question, but you cleverly avoided saying what you
saw, and spent all your talk on what you did NOT see. Now since that long
period where you avoided answering, you finally came up with saying that
there was nothing to see there, and so you answered the question. Of
course, your answer was way off the reservation, since there were so many
witnesses that saw something there, you being the only one that did not
see anything. Now in the midst of your defense of DVP, you say there is a
curl of hair there, so you've come full circle.

> > Thank you for now admitting that you have now seen the anomaly that
> > I've been speaking about. You saw a "tuft of hair" the size of a quarter.
> > To help you out, Tom Robinson saw the mark we're speaking of, and it was a
> > hole with a diameter of about a quarter inch. .25 inches is about right
> > for a bullet hole for what I saw, even if you didn't. I also saw a
> > 'fleshy rim' around the dark spot we're speaking of, and that fits the
> > description of a bullet entry wound given by Vincent DiMaio. You may not
> > think that, but I never expected you would see a bullet hole, only
> > something else that you could concoct that might sound a little close to
> > the sight itself.
>
> Why doesn't DiMaio agree with you that there is an entry wound in JFK's
> forehead?
>

He hasn't been shown the bullet hole. If he had been shown, he would
no doubt say either it was a bullet hole, or looked close to it. But
we're both guessing. I'm using his description of an entry bullet wound,
as I noted. You're attempting to pretend that he said otherwise, while he
never saw the wound I'm speaking of and can't make a judgment.

Chris

[mainframetech]

WRONG! the WCR and its theories are like a flea being swatted on an
elephant's butt. Easily squashed and harmless.

Chris

[claviger]

Dr Finck did not promptly do anything. The autopsy took 4 hours and he
personally measured the entry wound on back of the skull. Robinson
closely examined a wound in the temple area and recognized it as an exit
wound.

> Will you try to say it was an error? It was one of many then,
> and makes them incompetent for leaving out many facts that we here now
> know through the ARRB files and the sworn testimony of witnesses that were
> part of the autopsy team.
> A note here is that there was NO effort to report on the beveling of
> the hole in the skull from the bullet hole in the forehead, seen by many
> witnesses. They didn't dare to do that one. It would admit it was there.

They all recognized it as an exit wound.

> And another item. The wounds actually were altered, and it was done
> with some witnesses watching, so there wasn't an opinion on it, but a
> fact. Edward Reed, giving sworn testimony, and later Tom Robinson. That
> was when Humes and Boswell modified the body and expanded the BOH wound
> that was ONLY on the BOH, to become a wound on the side and partly the top
> of the head. Again, witnessed.

As pointed out to you many times Robinson looked at the wound on the
temple and recognized for what it was, an exit wound caused by a fragment
of bullet or bone.

> You've sold yourself on a basket of review of the AR, and a few
> comments from the prosectors, who were under orders. But not a single one
> of those 'investigators' saw the bullet hole in the forehead, and they
> only had photos to work from, and they had been limited down and many were
> missing. But than, that's what you wanted them to find.
>
> Chris

If a bullet entered the temple where did it go? No fragments on the left
side of the inner skull. A bullet the size you think you see in a black &
white photo would have caused major damage across the skull. All the
major damage was in the opposite direction. Did this large bullet
backfire? If so, please explain how.

[stevemg...@yahoo.com]

Please everyone re-read this:

"Why would they allow Zapruder to take a film which shows that a shot came
from the front? Because the CIA has a stable of professional
disinformation agents who will tell ANY lie to cover up. Like Dan Rather
who said he saw the President's head thrust forward by the last shot on
the Zapruder film. Like the CIA asset at LIFE who said that JFK was shot
in the throat from the front because he had turned to look back at the
TSBD. Or the CIA asset who said that John Paisley shot himself twice in
the back of the head, then put lead weights around his arms and body and
jumped off the boat and into the water, all while very dead. "

This is the same Anthony Marsh who says it was a small conspiracy. Just a
handful of people. And if you challenge him he complains that you're
raising a straw man argument and taking his theory out of context.
Reduction ad absurdum.

But as he says above, the CIA was prepared with numerous disinformation
agents - a "stable" of them - ready and willing to cover up for the
assassination.

When he is asked how they pulled off the cover up, asked for details on
how it was done, the conspiracy grows and grows and grows.

[Anthony Marsh]

Because he refuses to look at the autopsy photos and he refuses to read
the HSCA report and he refuses to tell the truth.

>>
>> Chris
>
>

[Anthony Marsh]

Well, maybe you need an insurance shooter from the opposite direction.
I've heard stories from WWII that there were sharpshooters who could
shoot through the observation slot!

[Anthony Marsh]

On 12/9/2015 1:20 PM, mainframetech wrote:
> On Tuesday, December 8, 2015 at 4:57:04 PM UTC-5, David Emerling wrote:
>> On Sunday, December 6, 2015 at 7:34:46 AM UTC-6, David Von Pein wrote:
>>
>>> There is no bullet hole in the forehead. You, as well as Marsh, are just
>>> seeing what you WANT to see. What you're seeing is merely JFK's hair. No
>>> bullet hole.
>>
>> Besides, bone beveling tells the story. According to the autopsy, all the
>> bone beveling was consistent with a projectile going from
>> back-to-front.
>>
>> Of course, this is where they take the position that either 1) the wounds
>> were altered or 2) the doctors were criminals and lied about their medical
>> findings or 3) the doctors were collectively so incredibly incompetent
>> they interpreted the bone beveling backwards.
>>
>> Kennedy was hit once in the head from a shot fired from behind. The
>> medical evidence is so conclusive on this matter that the HSCA, an
>> extremely conspiracy-leaning investigation, after concluding (improperly)
>> that a shot was fired from the area of the grassy knoll, also concluded
>> that this shot must have been a COMPLETE MISS. So compelling was the
>> medical evidence that Kennedy was ONLY hit from behind - there was simply
>> no escaping that conclusion.
>>
>> David Emerling
>> Memphis, TN
>
>
> Wrong again. You left out the possibility that the prosectors had
> orders to find certain things and to NOT find others. The proof of that

They were ordered to NOT dissect the back wound.
They were ordered to NOT discuss the case.
They were ordered to NOT mention the adrenal gland.

> is when Finck, the expert of the group, saw the bullet hole in the
> forehead, he commented that it might be an entry wound, and then promptly
> left it out of the Autopsy Report (AR) where there was a place to list
> wounds. Will you try to say it was an error? It was one of many then,
> and makes them incompetent for leaving out many facts that we here now
> know through the ARRB files and the sworn testimony of witnesses that were
> part of the autopsy team.
>
> A note here is that there was NO effort to report on the beveling of
> the hole in the skull from the bullet hole in the forehead, seen by many
> witnesses. They didn't dare to do that one. It would admit it was there.
>

And the WC defenders say "What hole?"

[mainframetech]

We've been through this before. Robinson was not a Forensic Pathologist
or a Wound Ballistics expert. He wouldn't know which way the bullet came
from. Howver, while you're busy trying to dismiss Finck, who IS the
expert, he said that the bullet hole in the forehead might be an entry
wound. Because of my assumption that he had orders to the contrary, he
left it at that and never put the wound into the 'wound list' in the AR
where it was supposed to go. If you doubt that he had orders, then tell
me why he left out an obvious wound, as did Humes as well.

> > Will you try to say it was an error? It was one of many then,
> > and makes them incompetent for leaving out many facts that we here now
> > know through the ARRB files and the sworn testimony of witnesses that were
> > part of the autopsy team.
> > A note here is that there was NO effort to report on the beveling of
> > the hole in the skull from the bullet hole in the forehead, seen by many
> > witnesses. They didn't dare to do that one. It would admit it was there.
>
> They all recognized it as an exit wound.
>

Prove it then, or don't say stuff like that. There is NO place you can
find such a piece of information. One of the reasons is that it's bull.
They refused to notice the bullet hole in the forehead, and no one from
the panels later noticed it either, efve nthough there wer amny witnesses
to it.

> > And another item. The wounds actually were altered, and it was done
> > with some witnesses watching, so there wasn't an opinion on it, but a
> > fact. Edward Reed, giving sworn testimony, and later Tom Robinson. That
> > was when Humes and Boswell modified the body and expanded the BOH wound
> > that was ONLY on the BOH, to become a wound on the side and partly the top
> > of the head. Again, witnessed.
>
> As pointed out to you many times Robinson looked at the wound on the
> temple and recognized for what it was, an exit wound caused by a fragment
> of bullet or bone.
>

Robinson noticed no such thing. He wasn't qualified to notice anything
and get it right. He saw the wound, and that's it. All proof says it was
an entry, including Vincent DiMaio who described entry wounds in hsi book
"Gunshot Wounds".

> > You've sold yourself on a basket of review of the AR, and a few
> > comments from the prosectors, who were under orders. But not a single one
> > of those 'investigators' saw the bullet hole in the forehead, and they
> > only had photos to work from, and they had been limited down and many were

> > missing. But then, that's what you wanted them to find.

> >
> > Chris
>
> If a bullet entered the temple where did it go? No fragments on the left
> side of the inner skull. A bullet the size you think you see in a black &
> white photo would have caused major damage across the skull. All the
> major damage was in the opposite direction. Did this large bullet
> backfire? If so, please explain how.

The bullet entered on the RIGHT side of the skull, and there were indeed
a path of metal particles leading from the wound on backward. Here's the
X-ray Technician speaking of the path of particles or fragments:

"Q: When did that happen?
A: That was during - after the first set of skull films were taken. And the
AP cervical spine showed metal fragments. And one of the laterals also
showed a - bone fragments that had the cones effect.
If you've ever used a fragment bullet - when it goes in, it fragments.
And the further it goes in, the cone becomes bigger. So, you have a
small-
Let me borrow your pen. I know this is hard to put it on record.
Like your cone starts small. And it goes - As you come out, it expands.
Say, this being the front of the skull: the forehead, the orbits, the
nasion, which is the nose, the jaw -
come back, the occipital region.
From: http://aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/arrb/medical_testimony/pdf/Custer_10-28-97.pdf
page 100-101

He is describing the expansion of the fragments after the bullet struck
the skull. They expanded toward the rear of the skull where the blowout
then happened in the rear of the skull. Typicla gunshot where it goes in
small and comes out large.

Chris

[Sandy McCroskey]

Yeah, but, see, they were all very stupid intelligence agents, who
didn't know what they were doing.

By some miracle of conspiracist luck, only very, very stupid agents were
even involved in any aspect of the cover-up.

[mainframetech]

Ah, the usual error in thinking it took millions of conspirators to
carry off the murder of JFK. It didn't. As to details, you needed about
10 people at the beginning planning phase, and about 20 after the murder
was done. During the coverup all that was needed was a few people that
were in management positions that could affect many others to do what they
wanted for 'National Security' and they would not know the real plot.
Like maybe Hoover, who affected the whole FBI and had them all covering up
and supporting the 'lone nut' theory without being in on the planning.

Chris

[Anthony Marsh]

Neither did he put the throat wound on the 'wound list.'
He was so inexperienced that he though that is what a normal tracheotomy
always looks like.

And yet he thought that the cutdowns might be bullet wounds.

>
>>> Will you try to say it was an error? It was one of many then,
>>> and makes them incompetent for leaving out many facts that we here now
>>> know through the ARRB files and the sworn testimony of witnesses that were
>>> part of the autopsy team.
>>> A note here is that there was NO effort to report on the beveling of
>>> the hole in the skull from the bullet hole in the forehead, seen by many
>>> witnesses. They didn't dare to do that one. It would admit it was there.
>>
>> They all recognized it as an exit wound.
>>
>
>
> Prove it then, or don't say stuff like that. There is NO place you can
> find such a piece of information. One of the reasons is that it's bull.
> They refused to notice the bullet hole in the forehead, and no one from
> the panels later noticed it either, efve nthough there wer amny witnesses
> to it.
>

Maybe they were ordered not to look at the body!

[Anthony Marsh]

You're getting your rhetorical devices mixed up.
I was using PARODY.

>
> But as he says above, the CIA was prepared with numerous disinformation
> agents - a "stable" of them - ready and willing to cover up for the
> assassination.
>

Again, you can't understand the difference between a crime and the
cover-up. It takes only 5 men to commit the Watergate burglary, but the
entire government to cover it up.

> When he is asked how they pulled off the cover up, asked for details on
> how it was done, the conspiracy grows and grows and grows.
>
>

But your mind doesn't.

>
>
>
>

[Jason Burke]

Too bad it was lil' ol' LHO all by himself, eh, Chris?

But if your dreaming keeps you from going outside and possibly hurting
yourself... Well, then it's all worth it.

[Anthony Marsh]

You seem to forget that Finck got there late, after Humes had already
cut the head open and removed the brain.

> personally measured the entry wound on back of the skull. Robinson

Not exactly.
How can you accurately measure a hole near the EOP when you have the
ruler at the top of the head?

> closely examined a wound in the temple area and recognized it as an exit
> wound.
>

Maybe, but not the size of a quarter. The top of the skull had already
been removed to get to the brain. It was only the Egyptians who removed
the brain via the nose.

>> Will you try to say it was an error? It was one of many then,
>> and makes them incompetent for leaving out many facts that we here now
>> know through the ARRB files and the sworn testimony of witnesses that were
>> part of the autopsy team.
>> A note here is that there was NO effort to report on the beveling of
>> the hole in the skull from the bullet hole in the forehead, seen by many
>> witnesses. They didn't dare to do that one. It would admit it was there.
>
> They all recognized it as an exit wound.
>

Nonsense.

>> And another item. The wounds actually were altered, and it was done
>> with some witnesses watching, so there wasn't an opinion on it, but a
>> fact. Edward Reed, giving sworn testimony, and later Tom Robinson. That
>> was when Humes and Boswell modified the body and expanded the BOH wound
>> that was ONLY on the BOH, to become a wound on the side and partly the top
>> of the head. Again, witnessed.
>
> As pointed out to you many times Robinson looked at the wound on the
> temple and recognized for what it was, an exit wound caused by a fragment
> of bullet or bone.

Cute. Show me where your fragment ended up.

>
>> You've sold yourself on a basket of review of the AR, and a few
>> comments from the prosectors, who were under orders. But not a single one
>> of those 'investigators' saw the bullet hole in the forehead, and they
>> only had photos to work from, and they had been limited down and many were
>> missing. But than, that's what you wanted them to find.
>>
>> Chris
>
> If a bullet entered the temple where did it go? No fragments on the left

Fragmented into dozens of tiny fragments.

> side of the inner skull. A bullet the size you think you see in a black &
> white photo would have caused major damage across the skull. All the
> major damage was in the opposite direction. Did this large bullet
> backfire? If so, please explain how.
>

Are you a forensic pathologist or do you just play one here?

[Anthony Marsh]

Silly. How can he see anything when he refuses to look?

[bigdog]

On Thursday, December 10, 2015 at 10:28:50 PM UTC-5, stevemg...@yahoo.com wrote:

JFK conspiracy theories are like blowfish. When they need them to be small
they are small yet they can expand as need be and then become small again.

[mainframetech]

On Thursday, December 10, 2015 at 5:31:41 PM UTC-5, claviger wrote:

You stated that Finck did not do anything promptly, yet offered NO
proof of that statement. As usual, you're flying on opinion again. As
well, Robinson was NOT a Forensic Pathologist, nor a Wound Ballistics
expert like Finck, who had said that it may be an ENTRY WOUND in the
forehead.

> > Will you try to say it was an error? It was one of many then,
> > and makes them incompetent for leaving out many facts that we here now
> > know through the ARRB files and the sworn testimony of witnesses that were
> > part of the autopsy team.
> > A note here is that there was NO effort to report on the beveling of
> > the hole in the skull from the bullet hole in the forehead, seen by many
> > witnesses. They didn't dare to do that one. It would admit it was there.
>
> They all recognized it as an exit wound.
>

Procve to me that THEY ALL even knew that there WAS a forehead wound,
and that it was an EXIT wound! Please show text and links. Since none of
the autopsy team commented about it except Finck, and he said it was
probably an entry wound. I'm adding this request into the database I have
of all the answers you've avoided giving.

> > And another item. The wounds actually were altered, and it was done
> > with some witnesses watching, so there wasn't an opinion on it, but a
> > fact. Edward Reed, giving sworn testimony, and later Tom Robinson. That
> > was when Humes and Boswell modified the body and expanded the BOH wound
> > that was ONLY on the BOH, to become a wound on the side and partly the top
> > of the head. Again, witnessed.
>
> As pointed out to you many times Robinson looked at the wound on the
> temple and recognized for what it was, an exit wound caused by a fragment
> of bullet or bone.
>

Robinson wasn't qualified to make that decision next to Finck who said
it was probably an entry wound. Since Finck was far more qualified than a
mortician, his word goes.

> > You've sold yourself on a basket of review of the AR, and a few
> > comments from the prosectors, who were under orders. But not a single one
> > of those 'investigators' saw the bullet hole in the forehead, and they
> > only had photos to work from, and they had been limited down and many were
> > missing. But than, that's what you wanted them to find.
> >
> > Chris
>
> If a bullet entered the temple where did it go? No fragments on the left
> side of the inner skull. A bullet the size you think you see in a black &
> white photo would have caused major damage across the skull. All the
> major damage was in the opposite direction. Did this large bullet
> backfire? If so, please explain how.

The bullet hole was guessed to be about a quarter of an inch in diameter
by Robinson. That fits many bullet diameters. A .22 bullet is .22 inches
in diameter, and .25 isn't far from it. Regular assault weapons and
similar rifles have bullet diameters not too much bigger. Some are .223
for instance.


Now to answer your question about the remains of a bullet that hit the
skull of JFK, you mention major damage to the head, and for a change,
you're right!! A bullet came into the bullet hole in the right Forehead
and left a trail of small fragments on an X-ray leading from the bullet
hole to the rear of the head, where it blew out the BOH on the right rear!
Yes, it did a lot of damage, seen by over 40 witnesses.

Chris

[mainframetech]

Thanks for your care. However, I'm really more sad for you, since I
make my decisions based on evidence and sworn testimony, and you have only
the theories of the WCR.

Chris

[Anthony Marsh]

And Nixon broke into the Watergate all by himself? He couldn't even
figure out how to work the tape recorder.

> But if your dreaming keeps you from going outside and possibly hurting
> yourself... Well, then it's all worth it.
>
>

You need to get a new act.

[claviger]

We certainly have.

> Robinson was not a Forensic Pathologist or a Wound Ballistics expert.

Neither are you or anyone else on this Newsgroup.

> He wouldn't know which way the bullet came from.

In this case the wound was not round like an entrance wound and had a
flap. Two clues it was an exit wound by a fragment not a bullet.

> Howver, while you're busy trying to dismiss Finck, who IS the
> expert, he said that the bullet hole in the forehead might be an entry
> wound.

Maybe at first glance, but upon closer examination realized it was a exit
wound caused by a fragment.

> Because of my assumption that he had orders to the contrary, he
> left it at that and never put the wound into the 'wound list' in the AR
> where it was supposed to go. If you doubt that he had orders, then tell
> me why he left out an obvious wound, as did Humes as well.

They didn't leave it out, they realized it was an exit wound.

> > > Will you try to say it was an error? It was one of many then,
> > > and makes them incompetent for leaving out many facts that we here now
> > > know through the ARRB files and the sworn testimony of witnesses that were
> > > part of the autopsy team.
> > > A note here is that there was NO effort to report on the beveling of
> > > the hole in the skull from the bullet hole in the forehead, seen by many
> > > witnesses. They didn't dare to do that one. It would admit it was there.
> > They all recognized it as an exit wound.
> Prove it then, or don't say stuff like that. There is NO place you can
> find such a piece of information. One of the reasons is that it's bull.
> They refused to notice the bullet hole in the forehead, and no one from
> the panels later noticed it either, efve nthough there wer amny witnesses
> to it.

First answer this question: What was the source of this "entrance wound"?
Where did it come from? What type of weapon? It is important to know the
trajectory of this bullet to predict its path through the target. The
bullet would have been on a downward angle across the passengers in the
Limousine.

If the projectile punctured the temple and continued on trajectory it
would make exit close to the left ear. If it fragmented then many
fragments should have been found on the interior of the skull across the
left side of the head. This was not the case at all.

No witness on the GK saw anyone behind the wooden fence at the time of the
shooting. No witness on the GK heard a shot from that direction. The
only person confronted in the area was behind the pergola and he did not
have a rifle when approached by the police officer. He had no visible
weapon when stopped by this policeman.

Given the fact so many witnesses in close proximity to the fence saw no
person with a weapon and police who immediately ran to this area found no
one with any kind of weapon indicates no shot was fired from there.
Furthermore, witnesses standing close to the fence did not hear a shot
from that direction, and in fact heard shots from the opposite direction
toward the TSBD. This proves the so-called acoustic evidence is not from
any sounds on the GK.

Witnesses standing on the Triple Underpass raced down into the parking lot
and saw no person standing in the area or running from that area. No
weapon was found, just muddy footprints and cigarette butts, which could
have been from TSBD employees that wet morning.

There is simply no evidence for a shot from the GK. So your theory fails
from lack of any corroborating evidence whatsoever. Therefore, no
evidence to support an incoming bullet from the right side of the
Limousine. Robinson was right, it was an exit wound.

> > > And another item. The wounds actually were altered, and it was done
> > > with some witnesses watching, so there wasn't an opinion on it, but a
> > > fact. Edward Reed, giving sworn testimony, and later Tom Robinson. That
> > > was when Humes and Boswell modified the body and expanded the BOH wound
> > > that was ONLY on the BOH, to become a wound on the side and partly the top
> > > of the head. Again, witnessed.
> > As pointed out to you many times Robinson looked at the wound on the
> > temple and recognized for what it was, an exit wound caused by a fragment
> > of bullet or bone.
> Robinson noticed no such thing. He wasn't qualified to notice anything
> and get it right.

And you are qualified? How many bullet wounds to the head have you
examined?

> He saw the wound, and that's it. All proof says it was an entry, including
> Vincent DiMaio who described entry wounds in hsi book "Gunshot Wounds".

Your theory is preposterous. You have no idea about the trajectory and
people who were actually there prove you are wrong. It sounds like you
have a boring job and daydream a lot.

No evidence whatsoever for your daydream theory. SS Agents in the
following car had a front row seat and saw nothing like what you describe.
Your improvised theory fails completely.

[claviger]

On Friday, December 11, 2015 at 11:14:24 AM UTC-6, mainframetech wrote:

Look at these color photos. No hole in the forehead where you think based
on a black & white photo.

http://www.celebritymorgue.com/jfk/jfk-autopsy.html

[Anthony Marsh]

Not all intelligence agents are stupid. My father had an IQ of 190.

>
> By some miracle of conspiracist luck, only very, very stupid agents were
> even involved in any aspect of the cover-up.
>

Didn't they call that the Peter Principle? Like Hoover.
The scum rises to the top.

[mainframetech]

A lot like the theories of the WCR.

Chris

[claviger]

On Saturday, December 12, 2015 at 1:28:07 PM UTC-6, mainframetech wrote:
> On Thursday, December 10, 2015 at 5:31:41 PM UTC-5, claviger wrote:
> > Dr Finck did not promptly do anything. The autopsy took 4 hours and he
> > personally measured the entry wound on back of the skull. Robinson
> > closely examined a wound in the temple area and recognized it as an exit
> > wound.
> You stated that Finck did not do anything promptly, yet offered NO
> proof of that statement.

Finck arrived at 8:30 PM and the autopsy was over at 12:00 Midnight, which
means he was involved in the autopsy for three and a half hours. That is
plenty of time to methodically locate, study, and analyze all wounds about
the face and head. Since he was an experienced pathologist on combat
injuries he would have seen a variety of head wounds caused by rifle
bullets.

This was the most important autopsy of his career, the President of the
United States and his Commander-in-Chief. Logic would dictate he took his
time and was assiduously careful and meticulous about examination of the
devastating head wound. It was obvious this large avulsive wound to the
right hemisphere of the brain was the result of a fragmenting bullet.
The entry wound was found on back of the skull. X-rays revealed no
complete bullet, only a trail of fragments connecting to the large wound
on top of the skull.

> As usual, you're flying on opinion again.

Opinion based on facts: X-rays, photos, and thorough examination by a
pathology team of doctors.
______________________________________________________________

Dr. FINCK. Dr. Humes called me at home asking that I come to National Naval
Medical Center.
Dr. PETTY. And for what purpose, as you understand it, did he ask you to be
present?
Dr. FINCK. I was at the time Chief of the Military Environmental Pathology
Division which included the Wound Ballistic Pathology Branch. I was also
Chief of the Wound Ballistic Pathology Branch and the Director of the
Armed Forces AFIP Institute of Pathology. General Bloomburg had given my
name to Dr. Humes telling him that if he needed consultation in the field
of missile wounds I was available. I was asked as the Chief of the Would
Ballistic Pathology Branch specifically to interpret the wounds.
______________________________________________________________

> As well, Robinson was NOT a Forensic Pathologist, nor a Wound Ballistics
> expert like Finck, who had said that it may be an ENTRY WOUND in the
> forehead.

No he was not a doctor. His job was to examine the face and repair damage
as much as possible for an open casket funeral. Robinson noticed a
puncture wound on the temple/forehead. He described it as an exit wound
and filled it with wax.

Interview notes - Tom Robinson 1/12/77
McLean, Virginia
by Jim Conzelman and Andy Purdy
______________________________________________________________

"Robinson recalls discussion during the autopsy of 'shrapnel' when the head
was worked on and when the thorax was worked on."

"Robinson said the doctors worked carefully and thoroughly."
______________________________________________________________

> > > Will you try to say it was an error? It was one of many then,
> > > and makes them incompetent for leaving out many facts that we here now
> > > know through the ARRB files and the sworn testimony of witnesses that were
> > > part of the autopsy team.
> > > A note here is that there was NO effort to report on the beveling of
> > > the hole in the skull from the bullet hole in the forehead, seen by many
> > > witnesses. They didn't dare to do that one. It would admit it was there.
> > They all recognized it as an exit wound.
> Procve to me that THEY ALL even knew that there WAS a forehead wound,
> and that it was an EXIT wound! Please show text and links. Since none of
> the autopsy team commented about it except Finck, and he said it was
> probably an entry wound. I'm adding this request into the database I have
> of all the answers you've avoided giving.

Wooooooo, a database just for me? I'm flattered! Many questions you ask
I've already answered. Maybe you should make a habit of checking your
database before asking redundant questions.
______________________________________________________________

Dr. FINCK. Looking back, the autopsy accomplished its purpose. I think Dr.
Humes made that point. He said the purpose of the autopsy was to establish
the number of wounds, the direction of the projectiles and establish a
cause of death and from that viewpoint it was complete.
______________________________________________________________

> > > And another item. The wounds actually were altered, and it was done
> > > with some witnesses watching, so there wasn't an opinion on it, but a
> > > fact. Edward Reed, giving sworn testimony, and later Tom Robinson. That
> > > was when Humes and Boswell modified the body and expanded the BOH wound
> > > that was ONLY on the BOH, to become a wound on the side and partly the top
> > > of the head. Again, witnessed.
> > As pointed out to you many times Robinson looked at the wound on the
> > temple and recognized for what it was, an exit wound caused by a fragment
> > of bullet or bone.
> Robinson wasn't qualified to make that decision next to Finck who said
> it was probably an entry wound. Since Finck was far more qualified than a
> mortician, his word goes.

Probably or possibly? Doesn't matter that much since Finck must have
examined it carefully when pointed out to him. Then he realized it was an
exit wound just as Robinson did. This defect was not listed on the
autopsy report as an entrance wound. By assuming the statement is true
this puncture wound was indeed pointed out to Finck, we can safely assume
he immediately looked at it and realized it was an exit wound caused by
one of many fragments that made exit from the front part of the head.

> > > You've sold yourself on a basket of review of the AR, and a few
> > > comments from the prosectors, who were under orders. But not a single one
> > > of those 'investigators' saw the bullet hole in the forehead, and they
> > > only had photos to work from, and they had been limited down and many were
> > > missing. But than, that's what you wanted them to find.
> > >
> > > Chris
> > If a bullet entered the temple where did it go? No fragments on the left
> > side of the inner skull. A bullet the size you think you see in a black &
> > white photo would have caused major damage across the skull. All the
> > major damage was in the opposite direction. Did this large bullet
> > backfire? If so, please explain how.
> The bullet hole was guessed to be about a quarter of an inch in diameter
> by Robinson. That fits many bullet diameters. A .22 bullet is .22 inches
> in diameter, and .25 isn't far from it. Regular assault weapons and
> similar rifles have bullet diameters not too much bigger. Some are .223
> for instance.

It looks larger than that on the black & white photo you keep referring
to. You never mention the color photo taken from the same angle. Why is
that?

> Now to answer your question about the remains of a bullet that hit the
> skull of JFK, you mention major damage to the head, and for a change,
> you're right!! A bullet came into the bullet hole in the right Forehead
> and left a trail of small fragments on an X-ray leading from the bullet
> hole to the rear of the head, where it blew out the BOH on the right rear!
> Yes, it did a lot of damage, seen by over 40 witnesses.
> Chris

There was no blowout on the back of the head. There were 10 witnesses
close behind the Presidential Limousine. None of them saw a blowout in
back of the head. Had there been such a blowout the size of Dr
McClelland's approved drawing there would have been an extensive amount of
blood and brain matter on the trunk, and the hood and windshield of the
followup car. No one in the security car mentions anything like that.

[mainframetech]

LOL! Most of the photos don't show the area of the bullet hole, though
the second photo has a patch strategically covering the bullet hole.
However, the LAST photo as you scroll down has the bullet hole and you can
even see it without enlarging it, if you look at the right place. But you
have to ENLARGE it to be sure, so why don't you? Many witneses have sen
the hole I speak of so there is something there, and trying to say
otherwise will only waste more time.

The best view of the bullet hole is to ENLARGE this photo below and look
at the right forehead between the hair hanging down. There is a circular
hole right there. Once you see it on that photo, you can then see it on
any of the 'stare-of-death' photos all over the internet. All the other
phtos careflly avoid that area, and when it ashowed on the one photo, I
believe that no one on the mnedical panels saw it. It's not that easy to
se without ENLARGING:

http://www.jfkmurdersolved.com/images/BE3_HI.jpg

Chris

[mainframetech]

So now you're an expert, after saying no one here is? You don't trump
Finck asnd his expertise.

> > Howver, while you're busy trying to dismiss Finck, who IS the
> > expert, he said that the bullet hole in the forehead might be an entry
> > wound.
>
> Maybe at first glance, but upon closer examination realized it was a exit
> wound caused by a fragment.
>

Oh? You know what he was thinking after 52 years intervene? Naah.
And who told you it was an "exit fragment"? Please supply text and links.

> > Because of my assumption that he had orders to the contrary, he
> > left it at that and never put the wound into the 'wound list' in the AR
> > where it was supposed to go. If you doubt that he had orders, then tell
> > me why he left out an obvious wound, as did Humes as well.
>
> They didn't leave it out, they realized it was an exit wound.
>

You haven't answered the question. ANY wound goes in the 'wound
list'. Not just entry wounds. So the question on the table is "tell me
why he left out an obvious wound, as did Humes as well"?

> > > > Will you try to say it was an error? It was one of many then,
> > > > and makes them incompetent for leaving out many facts that we here now
> > > > know through the ARRB files and the sworn testimony of witnesses that were
> > > > part of the autopsy team.
> > > > A note here is that there was NO effort to report on the beveling of
> > > > the hole in the skull from the bullet hole in the forehead, seen by many
> > > > witnesses. They didn't dare to do that one. It would admit it was there.
> > > They all recognized it as an exit wound.
> > Prove it then, or don't say stuff like that. There is NO place you can
> > find such a piece of information. One of the reasons is that it's bull.
> > They refused to notice the bullet hole in the forehead, and no one from

> > the panels later noticed it either, even though there were many witnesses

> > to it.
>
> First answer this question: What was the source of this "entrance wound"?
> Where did it come from? What type of weapon? It is important to know the
> trajectory of this bullet to predict its path through the target. The
> bullet would have been on a downward angle across the passengers in the
> Limousine.
>

Answer the question of your backup for tyour statement. Don't try to
distract. Show the text and links for your statement which was: "They all
recognized it as an exit wound.".

After you've answered my request for backup for your wild statement,
THEN I'll be happy to answer your quesdtion. Let's keep things in order.

> If the projectile punctured the temple and continued on trajectory it
> would make exit close to the left ear. If it fragmented then many
> fragments should have been found on the interior of the skull across the
> left side of the head. This was not the case at all.
>

I think you must be out of your mind. The things you say can only
serve to embarrass you. There is no way that the bullet hole in the
forehead came out at the "left ear". There was no exit wound there.
However, there was a perfectly large hole right at the right rear of the
head, seen by over 40 witnesses, including doctors and nurses, that would
be a perfect exit for a rifle bullet that entered the forehead. It was a
blowout from the pressure built up by the rifle bullet, which was NOT a
FMJ bullet, based on the fragments left in the skull.

> No witness on the GK saw anyone behind the wooden fence at the time of the
> shooting. No witness on the GK heard a shot from that direction. The
> only person confronted in the area was behind the pergola and he did not
> have a rifle when approached by the police officer. He had no visible
> weapon when stopped by this policeman.
>

Oh Lordee! Now you're making up stories as you go along. There were a
good number of witnesses that thought rifle shots came from the GK. One
person confronted does not mean there were not five others that should
have been confronted. But the shooters left immediately after firing at
the motorcade, and they took their weapons with them.

> Given the fact so many witnesses in close proximity to the fence saw no
> person with a weapon and police who immediately ran to this area found no
> one with any kind of weapon indicates no shot was fired from there.
> Furthermore, witnesses standing close to the fence did not hear a shot
> from that direction, and in fact heard shots from the opposite direction
> toward the TSBD. This proves the so-called acoustic evidence is not from
> any sounds on the GK.
>

Your logic is wrong as usual. People were looking at JFK and the
motorcade. When shots rang out, they keprt looking there ot see the
effect on JFK of the shots. By the time they looked up, the shooters had
gone from the fence, and were hopping into a car or going over the tracks.
And there was indeed a witness to the shooting from behind the fence, you
jsut don't like him becasue he nakes your theories look stupid. There may
well be other witnesses to the shooting from behind the fence from in
front of it, and they didn't want any involvement and stayed quiet as did
a few people in the area.

> Witnesses standing on the Triple Underpass raced down into the parking lot
> and saw no person standing in the area or running from that area. No
> weapon was found, just muddy footprints and cigarette butts, which could
> have been from TSBD employees that wet morning.
>

It was afternoon at the time. And all your talk of "racing down" is
your opinion of what they did. They may have been careful and took a
little time to get there for their safety. But they hadn't moved by the
time the last shot had been fired, so that meant there was time for the
shooters to leave without being seen.

> There is simply no evidence for a shot from the GK. So your theory fails
> from lack of any corroborating evidence whatsoever. Therefore, no
> evidence to support an incoming bullet from the right side of the
> Limousine. Robinson was right, it was an exit wound.
>

You have expressed your opinion on that, now try supplying some
evidence or even logic to back up that opinion. Otherwise your theory
fails of its own weight. And I did NOT tell you that the forehead bullet
came from the GK. The things you make up are too much, and they make me
wonder what is wrong with your thinking.

There was a clar bullet hole in the windshield seen by at least 6
witnesses, and that was lined up very well with the forehead bullet hole
and a drain on the LEFT side of Elm Street and further down past the
overpass a bit. That drain was later removed a few weeks later.

> > > > And another item. The wounds actually were altered, and it was done
> > > > with some witnesses watching, so there wasn't an opinion on it, but a
> > > > fact. Edward Reed, giving sworn testimony, and later Tom Robinson. That
> > > > was when Humes and Boswell modified the body and expanded the BOH wound
> > > > that was ONLY on the BOH, to become a wound on the side and partly the top
> > > > of the head. Again, witnessed.
> > > As pointed out to you many times Robinson looked at the wound on the
> > > temple and recognized for what it was, an exit wound caused by a fragment
> > > of bullet or bone.
> > Robinson noticed no such thing. He wasn't qualified to notice anything
> > and get it right.
>
> And you are qualified? How many bullet wounds to the head have you
> examined?
>

I use the information I got from Vincent DiMaio, who is a top Forensic
Pathologist and Wound Ballistics expert far in excess of you or I, or even
a mortician.

> > He saw the wound, and that's it. All proof says it was an entry, including

> > Vincent DiMaio who described entry wounds in his book "Gunshot Wounds".

>
> Your theory is preposterous. You have no idea about the trajectory and
> people who were actually there prove you are wrong. It sounds like you
> have a boring job and daydream a lot.
>

So as usual when you're having a hard time proving your theories, you
fall back on insults, the LNs style. Try and control yourself, otherwise
you're just wasting time.

Now, there was NO one whatsoever that disgreed with my information from
the evidence that even you can see if you chose to look at the photo of
it. Your fear keeps you from checking it out and looking at the bullet
hole in the forehead and seeing for yourself. But since no one bothered
to look at the wound I speak of, no one could possibly disagree with how
it was made.

However, since you're so hot to pretend you know all about 'trajectory',
take the drain I described, and the windshield bullet hole (on left side
in the middle from top and bottom of the glass), and the forehead of JFK
at the time of the last bullet strike, and you'll find that they line up
very nicely. Anyone interested in trajectories would think of it as
perfectly lined up. Let me know what you found as to the trajectory.

> > then happened in the rear of the skull. Typical gunshot where it goes in

> > small and comes out large.
> > Chris
>
> No evidence whatsoever for your daydream theory. SS Agents in the
> following car had a front row seat and saw nothing like what you describe.
> Your improvised theory fails completely.

The problem here is that you're working with theory, and I'm working
with evidence that anyone can see. The bullet hole in the forehead is a
fact, and can be seen by anyone who ENLARGES the photo and looks
carefully. The hole in the windshield was seen by at least 6 witnesses,
who said it was THROUGH the glass, not just striking it. The drain is the
only thing that is missing from evidence, and by using the windshield hole
and the forehead hole, anyone familiar with 'trajectory' can decide where
the drain was. Once you have 2 points, any other point is much easier to
find.

Here's the photo to ENLARGE and look on the right forehead and tell me
what you see. If you're not too afraid to look...:)

http://www.jfkmurdersolved.com/images/BE3_HI.jpg

Chris

[stevemg...@yahoo.com]

Nixon had nothing to do with the break-ins (plural).

How did that cover up of the break in go, Marsh? Big success right?
Everybody went along with the orders?

Covering up the Watergate crimes was the equivalent of organizing a two
car funeral compared to what covering up the assassination of the
president would entail.

Like, as you admitted, requiring stables of disinformation agents.

The only thing we have to show to prove there was no conspiracy is to
quote you conspiracists.

[bigdog]

Hardly. The conclusions of the WC remains solid without revisions. The
conclusions that reached in 1964 remain valid to this day.

[Anthony Marsh]

You mean the color one where the hole is covered up by the gauze square.
In the black and white Stare of Death that is tha black dot over the
right eye? Do you call it a blood clot?

[Anthony Marsh]

FYI, q bullet does not have to exit the other side of the head.
Show me the exit wound on James Brady's head.
A bullet can even ricochet off the inside of the skull and go back to
the other hemisphere.

> No witness on the GK saw anyone behind the wooden fence at the time of the
> shooting. No witness on the GK heard a shot from that direction. The

And no witness saw anyone in the sniper's nest at the time of the
shooting. Thank God we have the acoustical evidence to prove that 3
shots were fired from there.

> only person confronted in the area was behind the pergola and he did not
> have a rifle when approached by the police officer. He had no visible
> weapon when stopped by this policeman.
>

Who says the shooter has to be caught immediately. The guy who shot at
President Chen got away undetected.

> Given the fact so many witnesses in close proximity to the fence saw no

You have no facts. You are a WC defender. All you have are guesses.

> person with a weapon and police who immediately ran to this area found no
> one with any kind of weapon indicates no shot was fired from there.

Officer Baker immeditely ran into the TSBD and didn't find anyone with
any kind of weapon except for a Coke bottle.

> Furthermore, witnesses standing close to the fence did not hear a shot
> from that direction, and in fact heard shots from the opposite direction
> toward the TSBD. This proves the so-called acoustic evidence is not from
> any sounds on the GK.
>
> Witnesses standing on the Triple Underpass raced down into the parking lot
> and saw no person standing in the area or running from that area. No
> weapon was found, just muddy footprints and cigarette butts, which could
> have been from TSBD employees that wet morning.
>

Just keep making up lame excuses for any evidence you don't like.
I wish the conspiracy side could do that, but you would never let them
get away with it. But you think we should let you get away with crap.

> There is simply no evidence for a shot from the GK. So your theory fails
> from lack of any corroborating evidence whatsoever. Therefore, no
> evidence to support an incoming bullet from the right side of the
> Limousine. Robinson was right, it was an exit wound.
>

Yeah, and you have no evidence that you exist.

>>>> And another item. The wounds actually were altered, and it was done
>>>> with some witnesses watching, so there wasn't an opinion on it, but a
>>>> fact. Edward Reed, giving sworn testimony, and later Tom Robinson. That
>>>> was when Humes and Boswell modified the body and expanded the BOH wound
>>>> that was ONLY on the BOH, to become a wound on the side and partly the top
>>>> of the head. Again, witnessed.
>>> As pointed out to you many times Robinson looked at the wound on the
>>> temple and recognized for what it was, an exit wound caused by a fragment
>>> of bullet or bone.
>> Robinson noticed no such thing. He wasn't qualified to notice anything
>> and get it right.
>
> And you are qualified? How many bullet wounds to the head have you
> examined?
>
>> He saw the wound, and that's it. All proof says it was an entry, including
>> Vincent DiMaio who described entry wounds in hsi book "Gunshot Wounds".
>
> Your theory is preposterous. You have no idea about the trajectory and
> people who were actually there prove you are wrong. It sounds like you
> have a boring job and daydream a lot.
>

Who was it who was there and proved the trajectory?
Did anyone watching say there was a SBT?

Two Presidential aides were also in the SS car and said the head shot
came from the grassy knoll.

[Anthony Marsh]

Maybe you didn't know it, but Finck got there late.

[mainframetech]

Sorry to burst your little bubble, but there were people in the gallery
that kept pushing to get along with the autopsy, and many steps that
should have be ntaken were not because of it. They were rushed to get
done and were often told to stop with a procedure and get on to another.
It was not an environment for "assiduously careful and meticulous" work of
examination of any wound. However, Finck made note of the forehead wound
to Jenkins, and they both were aware of the wound, and yet it was not
recorded in the Autopsy Report.

> Dr. FINCK. Dr. Humes called me at home asking that I come to National Naval
> Medical Center.
> Dr. PETTY. And for what purpose, as you understand it, did he ask you to be
> present?
> Dr. FINCK. I was at the time Chief of the Military Environmental Pathology
> Division which included the Wound Ballistic Pathology Branch. I was also
> Chief of the Wound Ballistic Pathology Branch and the Director of the
> Armed Forces AFIP Institute of Pathology. General Bloomburg had given my
> name to Dr. Humes telling him that if he needed consultation in the field
> of missile wounds I was available. I was asked as the Chief of the Would
> Ballistic Pathology Branch specifically to interpret the wounds.
> ______________________________________________________________
>
> > As well, Robinson was NOT a Forensic Pathologist, nor a Wound Ballistics
> > expert like Finck, who had said that it may be an ENTRY WOUND in the
> > forehead.
>
> No he was not a doctor. His job was to examine the face and repair damage
> as much as possible for an open casket funeral. Robinson noticed a
> puncture wound on the temple/forehead. He described it as an exit wound
> and filled it with wax.
>

Yes, indeed it was a "puncture" wound from outside. and not an break
out from inside. So even the mortician recognized that there was a wound
on the forehead. Poor ol' bd can't believe it...:)

> Interview notes - Tom Robinson 1/12/77
> McLean, Virginia
> by Jim Conzelman and Andy Purdy
> ______________________________________________________________
>
> "Robinson recalls discussion during the autopsy of 'shrapnel' when the head
> was worked on and when the thorax was worked on."
>
> "Robinson said the doctors worked carefully and thoroughly."
> ______________________________________________________________
>

Yep, shrapnel, or fragments, as the X-ray Technician put it. And with
Oswald supposedly using FMJ ammunition, all those fragments shouldn't be
there. Yet another proof of conspiracy, 2 or more gunmen with 2 or more
guns.

> > > > Will you try to say it was an error? It was one of many then,
> > > > and makes them incompetent for leaving out many facts that we here now
> > > > know through the ARRB files and the sworn testimony of witnesses that were
> > > > part of the autopsy team.
> > > > A note here is that there was NO effort to report on the beveling of
> > > > the hole in the skull from the bullet hole in the forehead, seen by many
> > > > witnesses. They didn't dare to do that one. It would admit it was there.
> > > They all recognized it as an exit wound.

> > Prove to me that THEY ALL even knew that there WAS a forehead wound,

> > and that it was an EXIT wound! Please show text and links. Since none of
> > the autopsy team commented about it except Finck, and he said it was
> > probably an entry wound. I'm adding this request into the database I have
> > of all the answers you've avoided giving.
>
> Wooooooo, a database just for me? I'm flattered! Many questions you ask
> I've already answered. Maybe you should make a habit of checking your
> database before asking redundant questions.

Still waiting for the answer to the current question that you keep
dodging: Prove to me that THEY ALL even knew that there WAS a forehead

wound, and that it was an EXIT wound!

> ______________________________________________________________
>
> Dr. FINCK. Looking back, the autopsy accomplished its purpose. I think Dr.
> Humes made that point. He said the purpose of the autopsy was to establish
> the number of wounds, the direction of the projectiles and establish a
> cause of death and from that viewpoint it was complete.

Which is NOT what he told the X-ray Technicians at 6:35pm when the body
arrived at the morgue. He told them the job was to find bullets in the
body or any fragments. And the reason for that had to be to remove those
bullets so that a conspiracy couldn't be assumed from finding bulets from
other guns than the MC rifle of Oswald's. And the report wasn't complete,
since it left out the forehead wound seen by many witnesses.

_______________________________________________________
>
> > > > And another item. The wounds actually were altered, and it was done
> > > > with some witnesses watching, so there wasn't an opinion on it, but a
> > > > fact. Edward Reed, giving sworn testimony, and later Tom Robinson. That
> > > > was when Humes and Boswell modified the body and expanded the BOH wound
> > > > that was ONLY on the BOH, to become a wound on the side and partly the top
> > > > of the head. Again, witnessed.
> > > As pointed out to you many times Robinson looked at the wound on the
> > > temple and recognized for what it was, an exit wound caused by a fragment
> > > of bullet or bone.
> > Robinson wasn't qualified to make that decision next to Finck who said
> > it was probably an entry wound. Since Finck was far more qualified than a
> > mortician, his word goes.
>
> Probably or possibly? Doesn't matter that much since Finck must have
> examined it carefully when pointed out to him. Then he realized it was an
> exit wound just as Robinson did. This defect was not listed on the
> autopsy report as an entrance wound. By assuming the statement is true
> this puncture wound was indeed pointed out to Finck, we can safely assume
> he immediately looked at it and realized it was an exit wound caused by
> one of many fragments that made exit from the front part of the head.
>

The Autopsy Report (AR) left out the forehead wound completely, yet it
was sen by a prosector and one of the autopsy team, Jwnkins and Finck.
So don't be "safely assuming" anything. Prove that Finck recognized th
forehead wound as an EXIT wound. This question has ben pending for a
while now as you keep ducking it. Prove your point, since Finck thought
it might be an ENTRY wound.

> > > > You've sold yourself on a basket of review of the AR, and a few
> > > > comments from the prosectors, who were under orders. But not a single one
> > > > of those 'investigators' saw the bullet hole in the forehead, and they
> > > > only had photos to work from, and they had been limited down and many were
> > > > missing. But than, that's what you wanted them to find.
> > > >
> > > > Chris
> > > If a bullet entered the temple where did it go? No fragments on the left
> > > side of the inner skull. A bullet the size you think you see in a black &
> > > white photo would have caused major damage across the skull. All the
> > > major damage was in the opposite direction. Did this large bullet
> > > backfire? If so, please explain how.
> > The bullet hole was guessed to be about a quarter of an inch in diameter
> > by Robinson. That fits many bullet diameters. A .22 bullet is .22 inches
> > in diameter, and .25 isn't far from it. Regular assault weapons and
> > similar rifles have bullet diameters not too much bigger. Some are .223
> > for instance.
>
> It looks larger than that on the black & white photo you keep referring
> to. You never mention the color photo taken from the same angle. Why is
> that?
>

I haven't looked at the color photo, but I'll be happy to. Did you?
And now that you've seen the anomaly in the photo that I spoke of, what do
you think it is?

I just looked for a color photo of the 'stare-of-death' photo and
couldn't find one. If you see one, send me the link and I'll be happy to
look at it. There IS a photo that is color, but it's not a
'stare-of-dath' photo. It's this one:

http://www.jfklancer.com/pub/md/jfk03clr.JPG

In this photo, from a slightly different angle, you can see a patch of
material strategically placed over the bullet hole. No doubt to hide it.
That photo is not of use as evidence of the bullet hole.

> > Now to answer your question about the remains of a bullet that hit the
> > skull of JFK, you mention major damage to the head, and for a change,
> > you're right!! A bullet came into the bullet hole in the right Forehead
> > and left a trail of small fragments on an X-ray leading from the bullet
> > hole to the rear of the head, where it blew out the BOH on the right rear!
> > Yes, it did a lot of damage, seen by over 40 witnesses.
> > Chris
>
> There was no blowout on the back of the head. There were 10 witnesses
> close behind the Presidential Limousine. None of them saw a blowout in
> back of the head. Had there been such a blowout the size of Dr
> McClelland's approved drawing there would have been an extensive amount of
> blood and brain matter on the trunk, and the hood and windshield of the
> followup car. No one in the security car mentions anything like that.

There would not necessarily be material on the following car. However
there was material that showered back and to the left of JFK. That's seen
by listening to testimony of Bobby Hargis, who rode a motorcycle behind
and to the left of the limousine. So there had to be some on the trunk of
the limo. It was mentioned by Clint Hill. As to the following people not
seeing the dramatically large hole in the BOH of JFK, we have the
testimony of Clint Hill, who ran up onto the limo and loooked down into
the hole in the rear of the head. A much better vantage point than the
following car:

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

I repeat for the people that don't think that a 'large hole' was
present at the right rear of JFK's head: "right rear portion of his head
was missing". And he also used the description: "gaping wound in the
right rear portion of the head".

You can pretend to yourself that there was no 'large hole' in the BOH,
but Hill isn't the only one who was close enough to see the hole and
describe it. And he was looking right down at it from no more than 2 feet
away, not a following car. From what Hill saw there's can be no doubt
what the 'over 40' witnesses saw.

Chris

[claviger]

My what a big imagination you have! A patch? Where do you see this
patch?! What we see in the color photo are the same two spots near the
hairline we see in the black & white photo. In the color photo we can
clearly see they are spots of blood not holes in the forehead.

> However, the LAST photo as you scroll down has the bullet hole and you can
> even see it without enlarging it, if you look at the right place. But you
> have to ENLARGE it to be sure, so why don't you? Many witneses have sen
> the hole I speak of so there is something there, and trying to say
> otherwise will only waste more time.

Who are these many witnesses?

> The best view of the bullet hole is to ENLARGE this photo below and look
> at the right forehead between the hair hanging down. There is a circular
> hole right there. Once you see it on that photo, you can then see it on
> any of the 'stare-of-death' photos all over the internet. All the other
> phtos careflly avoid that area, and when it ashowed on the one photo, I
> believe that no one on the mnedical panels saw it. It's not that easy to
> se without ENLARGING:
> http://www.jfkmurdersolved.com/images/BE3_HI.jpg
> Chris

All this time you have made assumptions based on a black & white photo.
The color photo proves they are blood spots, not bullet holes. Had they
been bullet holes everyone would have noticed and it would be impossible
to hide or cover up.

[Anthony Marsh]

Yes, it was successful. It lasted long enough to get him reelected.
It served its purpose.

> Covering up the Watergate crimes was the equivalent of organizing a two
> car funeral compared to what covering up the assassination of the
> president would entail.
>

Nixon couldn't even organize a two car funeral.
Covering an assassination is easy.

> Like, as you admitted, requiring stables of disinformation agents.
>

I didn't say stables, plural. I said stable, singular. You always have
to cheat and misquote me.

[mainframetech]

As solid as cowflops left out in the sun. There ought to be a limit to
utterances of faith.

Chris

[claviger]

On Sunday, December 13, 2015 at 10:28:16 PM UTC-6, mainframetech wrote:
> On Saturday, December 12, 2015 at 8:26:24 PM UTC-5, claviger wrote:
>
> > In this case the wound was not round like an entrance wound and had a
> > flap. Two clues it was an exit wound by a fragment not a bullet.
> So now you're an expert, after saying no one here is? You don't trump
> Finck asnd his expertise.

Like you I'm not an expert on any of this, but unlike you I use
commonsense and pay attention to people who are experts.

> > > Howver, while you're busy trying to dismiss Finck, who IS the
> > > expert, he said that the bullet hole in the forehead might be an entry
> > > wound.
> > Maybe at first glance, but upon closer examination realized it was a exit
> > wound caused by a fragment.
> Oh? You know what he was thinking after 52 years intervene? Naah.

Yes, being an expert on combat wounds Finck would know the difference
between entrance and exit wounds. If someone at the autopsy pointed to a
wound and asked if it was an entrance wound Finck would take a close look
at it. That is the very reason he was requested to participate in this
autopsy. To a Corpsman it might look like an entrance wound but an
experienced pathologist would soon determine what type of wound it was.
Evidently Robinson also had enough experience to take one look and realize

it was an exit wound.

> And who told you it was an "exit fragment"? Please supply text and links.

Already have, Robinson. Check your save file on me.

> > > Because of my assumption that he had orders to the contrary, he
> > > left it at that and never put the wound into the 'wound list' in the AR
> > > where it was supposed to go. If you doubt that he had orders, then tell
> > > me why he left out an obvious wound, as did Humes as well.
> > They didn't leave it out, they realized it was an exit wound.
> You haven't answered the question. ANY wound goes in the 'wound
> list'. Not just entry wounds.

Really? So you are an expert on pathology protocol? How much experience
do you have?

> So the question on the table is "tell me why he left out an obvious wound, as > did Humes as well"?

The "obvious wound" you are referring to is a blood spot as proved by a
coor photo from the autopsy.

> > First answer this question: What was the source of this "entrance wound"?
> > Where did it come from? What type of weapon? It is important to know the
> > trajectory of this bullet to predict its path through the target. The
> > bullet would have been on a downward angle across the passengers in the
> > Limousine.
> Answer the question of your backup for tyour statement. Don't try to
> distract.

Interesting you think of trajectory analysis as a distraction. For you it
is because you have no idea how to analyze and connect to the wound in the
head. Actually it's fairly simple. The wooden fence is on an elevation
above Elm Street. Any shot from there would be on a downward trajectory.
If the projectile continues on trajectory into the temple or forehead it
would not exit the back of the skull. It would blow out the left ear or
spread fragments across the interior of the skull opposite the entrance
wound.

This is exactly what the bullet did that punctured the back of the skull
leaving a trail of fragments to the large avulsive wound in the right
parietal/temporal region. This bullet disintegrated, spreading fragments
forward and made exit from the top of the skull as we see in Z313. One of
those fragments punctured the temple area causing a flap of skin as it
pushed outward.

> Show the text and links for your statement which was: "They all recognized it > as an exit wound."

Since no one made notation of a small entrance wound in the temple they
obviously recognized it as an exit wound, just as Robinson did.

> After you've answered my request for backup for your wild statement,
> THEN I'll be happy to answer your quesdtion. Let's keep things in order.

My "wild statement" is rather mundane. It assumes the question was asked
and the pathology team responded and looked at it closely. When they did

they realized it was an exit wound.

> > If the projectile punctured the temple and continued on trajectory it
> > would make exit close to the left ear. If it fragmented then many
> > fragments should have been found on the interior of the skull across the
> > left side of the head. This was not the case at all.
> I think you must be out of your mind. The things you say can only
> serve to embarrass you. There is no way that the bullet hole in the
> forehead came out at the "left ear". There was no exit wound there.

Correct. Further corroboration the wound that has you so confused was an
exit wound.

> However, there was a perfectly large hole right at the right rear of the
> head, seen by over 40 witnesses, including doctors and nurses, that would
> be a perfect exit for a rifle bullet that entered the forehead.

A patently false statement.

> It was a blowout from the pressure built up by the rifle bullet, which was > NOT a FMJ bullet, based on the fragments left in the skull.

Two in a row. FMJ bullets can and do fragment when striking hard objects.
The 6.5mm Carcano normally breaks into a few larger fragments. The AR15
.223 and M16 5.56mm ammo produces even more fragmentation.

> > No witness on the GK saw anyone behind the wooden fence at the time of the
> > shooting. No witness on the GK heard a shot from that direction. The
> > only person confronted in the area was behind the pergola and he did not
> > have a rifle when approached by the police officer. He had no visible
> > weapon when stopped by this policeman.
> Oh Lordee! Now you're making up stories as you go along. There were a
> good number of witnesses that thought rifle shots came from the GK.

They were not standing on the GK.

> One person confronted does not mean there were not five others that should
> have been confronted.

Like who? The first policeman to arrive behind the pergola only saw two
guys. One guy had no weapon but did show ID, the other guy was a DCSD
deputy. Two DPD motorcycle officers checked everyone on the south side of
the fence. One ran up to the Triple Overpass and checked those witnesses
only to find out there was already a DPD officer stationed up there. Who
are the "five others"?

> But the shooters left immediately after firing at the motorcade, and they > took their weapons with the

Where were these shooters located and what kind of weapons did they have?
Which direction did they go?

> > Given the fact so many witnesses in close proximity to the fence saw no
> > person with a weapon and police who immediately ran to this area found no
> > one with any kind of weapon indicates no shot was fired from there.
> > Furthermore, witnesses standing close to the fence did not hear a shot
> > from that direction, and in fact heard shots from the opposite direction
> > toward the TSBD. This proves the so-called acoustic evidence is not from
> > any sounds on the GK.
> Your logic is wrong as usual. People were looking at JFK and the
> motorcade. When shots rang out, they keprt looking there ot see the
> effect on JFK of the shots. By the time they looked up, the shooters had
> gone from the fence, and were hopping into a car or going over the tracks.

Witnesses on top of the Triple Underpass could see down into most of the
parking area. They saw nobody running across the parking lot, so they ran
to the fence and found no one there.

> And there was indeed a witness to the shooting from behind the fence, you
> jsut don't like him becasue he nakes your theories look stupid.

Who would that be? Lee Bowers was in a tower office overlooking the
entire parking lot. He testified under oath he saw no people behind the
fence during the shooting.

> There may well be other witnesses to the shooting from behind the fence from > in front of it, and they didn't want any involvement and stayed quiet as did
> a few people in the area.

Then why didn't DPD Smith see them or S M Holland and his posse of RR
employees who poured into the parking lot ready to catch anyone they
thought suspicious? DPD Foster was on the RR trestle too, why did he not
see them? The only way for a car to leave the parking lot was the access
road in front of the TSBD, called Elm Street Extension. That road was
still crowded with people who had been watching the motorcade go by.

> > Witnesses standing on the Triple Underpass raced down into the parking lot
> > and saw no person standing in the area or running from that area. No
> > weapon was found, just muddy footprints and cigarette butts, which could
> > have been from TSBD employees that wet morning.
> It was afternoon at the time. And all your talk of "racing down" is
> your opinion of what they did. They may have been careful and took a
> little time to get there for their safety. But they hadn't moved by the
> time the last shot had been fired, so that meant there was time for the
> shooters to leave without being seen.

11/22/63 Affidavit: S M Holland

"I immediately ran around to where I could see behind the arcade and did
not see anyone running from there."

Warren Commission Testimony: S M Holland
Mr. STERN - Did you realize that these were shots then?
Mr. HOLLAND - Yes; I think I realized what was happening out there.
Mr. STERN - You did?
Mr. HOLLAND - When Governor Connally was knocked down in the seat.
Mr. STERN - What did you then do?
Mr. HOLLAND - Well. immediately after the shots was fired, I run around the
end of this overpass, behind the fence to see if I could see anyone up
there behind the fence.
Mr. STERN - That is the picket fence?
Mr. HOLLAND - That is the picket fence.
Mr. STERN - On the north side of Elm Street?
Mr. HOLLAND - Of course, this was this sea of cars in there and it was
just a big-it wasn't an inch in there that wasn't automobiles and I
couldn't see up in that corner. I ran on up to the corner of this fence
behind the building. By the time I got there there were 12 or 15 policemen
and plainclothesmen, and we looked for empty shells around there for quite
a while, and I left because I had to get back to the office. I didn't give
anyone my name. No one--didn't anyone ask for it, and it wasn't but an
hour or so until the deputy sheriff came down to the office and took me
back up to the courthouse.

http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/holland.htm

> > There is simply no evidence for a shot from the GK. So your theory fails
> > from lack of any corroborating evidence whatsoever. Therefore, no
> > evidence to support an incoming bullet from the right side of the
> > Limousine. Robinson was right, it was an exit wound.
> You have expressed your opinion on that, now try supplying some
> evidence or even logic to back up that opinion. Otherwise your theory
> fails of its own weight. And I did NOT tell you that the forehead bullet
> came from the GK. The things you make up are too much, and they make me
> wonder what is wrong with your thinking.

You did say there was a shot from behind the wooden fence on the Grassy
Knoll.

> There was a clar bullet hole in the windshield seen by at least 6
> witnesses, and that was lined up very well with the forehead bullet hole
> and a drain on the LEFT side of Elm Street and further down past the
> overpass a bit. That drain was later removed a few weeks later.

The defect on the windshield is controversial. Some say there was a hole
you could stick a pencil through, while others claim it was a crack caused
by a fragment from the head shot.

As for the shot from a manhole cover in front of the Limousine, why would
a carefully organized conspiracy to blame a patsy in the 6th floor window
allow a sniper to take a shot from in front of the motorcade or beside it
from the GK that would blow their cover and call attention to different
directions from the 6th floor of the TSBD???

> I use the information I got from Vincent DiMaio, who is a top Forensic
> Pathologist and Wound Ballistics expert far in excess of you or I, or even
> a mortician.

Yes he is a recognized expert in his field of study. What exactly are you
referring to?

BOOK REVIEW: "The JFK Myths"
A Scientific Investigation of
the Kennedy Assassination
Larry Sturdivan
Wound Ballistic Investigator

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/07/book-review-jfk-myths.html
The JFK Myths: A Scientific Investigation of the Kennedy Assassination
Paperback - September 15, 2005 by Larry Sturdivan (Author)

"This is an excellent book that I recommend without any hesitation. It is
the only book to address the firearms and ballistic aspects of the JFK
assassination in a logical, knowledgeable and scientific manner. It
dispels the myths and falsehoods that have either grown up or been
generated about the weapon, and the wounds. Anyone interested in the
Kennedy assassination must have a copy of this book." --Dr. Vincent
DiMaio, Nationally recognized JFK expert and Medical Examiner of Bexar
County, Texas

So DiMaio gives this book his stamp of approval.

> Now, there was NO one whatsoever that disgreed with my information from
> the evidence that even you can see if you chose to look at the photo of
> it. Your fear keeps you from checking it out and looking at the bullet
> hole in the forehead and seeing for yourself. But since no one bothered
> to look at the wound I speak of, no one could possibly disagree with how
> it was made.

A completely ridiculous statement. The autopsy lasted 4 hours. Finck was
there for 3 hours and 30 minutes. Obviously they carefully checked every
possible defect on the President that might be an entrance or exit wound.

If there was an obvious entrance wound on the face or head they would
surely notice and measure it. There were too many witnesses watching and
listening to ignore such an obvious wound.

> However, since you're so hot to pretend you know all about 'trajectory',
> take the drain I described, and the windshield bullet hole (on left side
> in the middle from top and bottom of the glass), and the forehead of JFK
> at the time of the last bullet strike, and you'll find that they line up
> very nicely. Anyone interested in trajectories would think of it as
> perfectly lined up. Let me know what you found as to the trajectory.

Why would this well planned ambush even consider a shot from a manhole
cover when they already have an insurance sniper behind the wooden fence
in case the shooter in the 6th floor window missed? How would they know
if a sniper inside the manhole could even see the President, since
Kellerman and Connally were sitting right in front of him?

If there was a sniper on the GK why did the bullet that struck the temple
take a 90º turn to the left inside his skull to blow out the gaping hole
claimed by Dr McClelland, instead of punching through the left ear as it
stayed on trajectory making exit from the head?

> > No evidence whatsoever for your daydream theory. SS Agents in the
> > following car had a front row seat and saw nothing like what you describe.
> > Your improvised theory fails completely.
> The problem here is that you're working with theory, and I'm working
> with evidence that anyone can see.

Is this a joke? If so, you have a great sense of humor.

> The bullet hole in the forehead is a fact, and can be seen by anyone who > ENLARGES the photo and looks carefully.

In which case they will see two black spots the same color and tone as the
hair. Red is dark as black in B&W photos. As we know from looking at the
color photo those are two blood spots.

> The hole in the windshield was seen by at least 6 witnesses, who said it
> was THROUGH the glass, not just striking it. The drain is the only thing
> that is missing from evidence, and by using the windshield hole and the
> forehead hole, anyone familiar with 'trajectory' can decide where the drain
> was. Once you have 2 points, any other point is much easier to find.
> Here's the photo to ENLARGE and look on the right forehead and tell me
> what you see. If you're not too afraid to look...:)

Not afraid to look at these gruesome photos but a comparison of the color
photo to the B&W photo proves they are blood spots, not bullet wounds.

> http://www.jfkmurdersolved.com/images/BE3_HI.jpg
>
> Chris

[claviger]

On Monday, December 14, 2015 at 9:19:12 PM UTC-6, mainframetech wrote:
> On Sunday, December 13, 2015 at 9:43:48 PM UTC-5, claviger wrote:

> Sorry to burst your little bubble, but there were people in the gallery
> that kept pushing to get along with the autopsy, and many steps that
> should have be ntaken were not because of it. They were rushed to get
> done and were often told to stop with a procedure and get on to another.
> It was not an environment for "assiduously careful and meticulous" work of
> examination of any wound. However, Finck made note of the forehead wound
> to Jenkins, and they both were aware of the wound, and yet it was not
> recorded in the Autopsy Report.

So sorry, the Kennedy family was in charge of this autopsy from start to
finish.

> > No he was not a doctor. His job was to examine the face and repair damage
> > as much as possible for an open casket funeral. Robinson noticed a
> > puncture wound on the temple/forehead. He described it as an exit wound
> > and filled it with wax.
> Yes, indeed it was a "puncture" wound from outside. and not an break
> out from inside. So even the mortician recognized that there was a wound
> on the forehead. Poor ol' bd can't believe it...:)

Robinson soon recognized it as an exit wound by a bone fragment or piece
of lead. He never changed his story about that.

> > Interview notes - Tom Robinson 1/12/77
> > McLean, Virginia
> > by Jim Conzelman and Andy Purdy
> > ______________________________________________________________
> >
> > "Robinson recalls discussion during the autopsy of 'shrapnel' when the head
> > was worked on and when the thorax was worked on."
> >
> > "Robinson said the doctors worked carefully and thoroughly."
> > ______________________________________________________________
> >
> Yep, shrapnel, or fragments, as the X-ray Technician put it. And with
> Oswald supposedly using FMJ ammunition, all those fragments shouldn't be
> there. Yet another proof of conspiracy, 2 or more gunmen with 2 or more
> guns.

Your finally on to something. A weapons expert in Maryland noticed the
same thing.

> Still waiting for the answer to the current question that you keep
> dodging: Prove to me that THEY ALL even knew that there WAS a forehead
> wound, and that it was an EXIT wound!

Three pathologists spent about 4 hours with the body. The wound in
question was on the right side of the head. You claim it is obvious in
photos, therefore it was obvious to people who were actually there, like
Robinson.

______________________________________________________________
> >
> > Dr. FINCK. Looking back, the autopsy accomplished its purpose. I think Dr.
> > Humes made that point. He said the purpose of the autopsy was to establish
> > the number of wounds, the direction of the projectiles and establish a
> > cause of death and from that viewpoint it was complete.
> Which is NOT what he told the X-ray Technicians at 6:35pm when the body
> arrived at the morgue. He told them the job was to find bullets in the
> body or any fragments.

Yes.

> And the reason for that had to be to remove those bullets so that a > conspiracy couldn't be assumed from finding bulets from other guns than the > MC rifle of Oswald's.

Not a very good conspiracy. In fact a ridiculous self-defeating plan to
use multiple weapons without silencers to blame one dumass patsy on the
6th floor of a building.

> And the report wasn't complete, since it left out the forehead wound seen by > many witnesses.

How many witness? Who were they? Tell us again where did the forehead
wound come from.

> The Autopsy Report (AR) left out the forehead wound completely, yet it
> was sen by a prosector and one of the autopsy team, Jwnkins and Finck.
> So don't be "safely assuming" anything. Prove that Finck recognized th
> forehead wound as an EXIT wound. This question has ben pending for a
> while now as you keep ducking it. Prove your point, since Finck thought
> it might be an ENTRY wound.

You never proved Finck ever saw this wound. You are depending on hearsay
evidence. What if that source was telling a fib to get attention? I'm
willing to believe the Corpsman because of Robinson's observation. While
the Corpsman was obviously unfamiliar with head wounds Robinson
immediately recognized it as an exit wound.

> > It looks larger than that on the black & white photo you keep referring
> > to. You never mention the color photo taken from the same angle. Why is
> > that?
> I haven't looked at the color photo, but I'll be happy to. Did you?
> And now that you've seen the anomaly in the photo that I spoke of, what do
> you think it is?
> I just looked for a color photo of the 'stare-of-death' photo and
> couldn't find one. If you see one, send me the link and I'll be happy to
> look at it. There IS a photo that is color, but it's not a
> 'stare-of-dath' photo. It's this one:
>
> http://www.jfklancer.com/pub/md/jfk03clr.JPG
>
> In this photo, from a slightly different angle, you can see a patch of
> material strategically placed over the bullet hole. No doubt to hide it.
> That photo is not of use as evidence of the bullet hole.

Are you pretending to be obtuse or really that dense?

> > There was no blowout on the back of the head. There were 10 witnesses
> > close behind the Presidential Limousine. None of them saw a blowout in
> > back of the head. Had there been such a blowout the size of Dr
> > McClelland's approved drawing there would have been an extensive amount of
> > blood and brain matter on the trunk, and the hood and windshield of the
> > followup car. No one in the security car mentions anything like that.
> There would not necessarily be material on the following car.

The motorcade was driving into a strong westerly breeze, so yes there
would necessarily be material on the following car. The combination of
explosive wound and wind blowing toward the security car would definitely
cover the trunk, hood, and windshield.

> However
> there was material that showered back and to the left of JFK. That's seen
> by listening to testimony of Bobby Hargis, who rode a motorcycle behind
> and to the left of the limousine.

That's "seen" by "listening"?!

> So there had to be some on the trunk of the limo. It was mentioned by Clint > Hill. As to the following people not seeing the dramatically large hole in > the BOH of JFK, we have the testimony of Clint Hill, who ran up onto the limo > and loooked down into the hole in the rear of the head.

That is not what he said. He finally clarified exactly what he meant
years later due to misinterpretations like you just did.

> A much better vantage point than the following car:
> "Mr. SPECTER. What did you observe as to President Kennedy's condition on
> arrival at the hospital?
> Mr. HILL. The right rear portion of his head was missing. It was lying in
> the rear seat of the car. His brain was exposed. There was blood and bits
> of brain all over the entire rear portion of the car. Mrs. Kennedy was
> completely covered with blood. There was so much blood you could not tell
> if there had been any other wound or not, except for the one large gaping
> wound in the right rear portion of the head."
> I repeat for the people that don't think that a 'large hole' was
> present at the right rear of JFK's head: "right rear portion of his head
> was missing". And he also used the description: "gaping wound in the
> right rear portion of the head".
> You can pretend to yourself that there was no 'large hole' in the BOH,
> but Hill isn't the only one who was close enough to see the hole and
> describe it. And he was looking right down at it from no more than 2 feet
> away, not a following car. From what Hill saw there's can be no doubt
> what the 'over 40' witnesses saw.

Your "40 witnesses" BS was debunked. Clint Hill is on the record for
clarifying what he meant and his observation was the same as Jackie
Kennedy. You lose again.

[mainframetech]

So you're going to try to get away with making up wrong information so
that you don't have to face the truth. The photo in question (as I said)
is not good for showing the bullet hole because it has a 'patch' over the
hole. Now you try to say it's not a patch, it's a blood spot. Have you
any idea how foolish that sounds when someone looks at what you call
bloodspots? Look again and note that the WHITE spots have straight lines
on their periphery, not randomness. However, since the 'patches' were not
identified, I use quotes around 'patch'.

> > However, the LAST photo as you scroll down has the bullet hole and you can
> > even see it without enlarging it, if you look at the right place. But you

> > have to ENLARGE it to be sure, so why don't you? Many witnesses have seen

> > the hole I speak of so there is something there, and trying to say
> > otherwise will only waste more time.
>
> Who are these many witnesses?
>

AHA! Caught trying to change the subject. You've been asked a
question. Plaease answer it, then I can answer yours. You've been asked
to look at the bullet hole by the instructions above. And I believe
you've already done that and can't admit it because it will destroy all
your arguing for years up to now. Please let me know what you see, and
NOT what you don't see.

> > The best view of the bullet hole is to ENLARGE this photo below and look
> > at the right forehead between the hair hanging down. There is a circular
> > hole right there. Once you see it on that photo, you can then see it on
> > any of the 'stare-of-death' photos all over the internet. All the other

> > photos carefully avoid that area, and when it showed on the one photo, I

> > believe that no one on the mnedical panels saw it. It's not that easy to

> > see without ENLARGING:

> > http://www.jfkmurdersolved.com/images/BE3_HI.jpg
> > Chris
>
> All this time you have made assumptions based on a black & white photo.
> The color photo proves they are blood spots, not bullet holes. Had they
> been bullet holes everyone would have noticed and it would be impossible
> to hide or cover up.

THERE ARE NO BLOODSPOTS REPLACING A HOLE THERE ON THE 'PATCH' THAT I'VE
POINTED OUT. Stop trying to avoid the truth. And remember that the
bullet hole was seen on ONLY one photo, and that was the 'stare-of-death'
photo which you're trying desperately to avoid for fear of what is there.
The origianl question has to do with THAT photo, and not the one you keep
trying to change the subject to.

I'm beginnign to think thqat you've seen the 'stare-of-death' photo and
now were so shocked that you can't admit it.

Chris

[Anthony Marsh]

Can you see the bullet hole under the gauze square or can you see
through the gauze square?

>> However, the LAST photo as you scroll down has the bullet hole and you can
>> even see it without enlarging it, if you look at the right place. But you
>> have to ENLARGE it to be sure, so why don't you? Many witneses have sen
>> the hole I speak of so there is something there, and trying to say
>> otherwise will only waste more time.
>
> Who are these many witnesses?
>
>> The best view of the bullet hole is to ENLARGE this photo below and look
>> at the right forehead between the hair hanging down. There is a circular
>> hole right there. Once you see it on that photo, you can then see it on
>> any of the 'stare-of-death' photos all over the internet. All the other
>> phtos careflly avoid that area, and when it ashowed on the one photo, I
>> believe that no one on the mnedical panels saw it. It's not that easy to
>> se without ENLARGING:
>> http://www.jfkmurdersolved.com/images/BE3_HI.jpg
>> Chris
>
> All this time you have made assumptions based on a black & white photo.
> The color photo proves they are blood spots, not bullet holes. Had they
> been bullet holes everyone would have noticed and it would be impossible
> to hide or cover up.
>

Silly. No one noticed that the back of the rearview mirror is smashed in.

>

[Jason Burke]

Yo, Chris! Ya gonna stop your whining and so some real evidence any time
soon?

Well, besides "if you squint real hard and sorta hold the picture mostly
sideways it kinda looks maybe almost like a bullet hole there in the
forehead."

[bigdog]

Then what would you do?

[Anthony Marsh]

On 12/13/2015 9:43 PM, claviger wrote:
> On Saturday, December 12, 2015 at 1:28:07 PM UTC-6, mainframetech wrote:
>> On Thursday, December 10, 2015 at 5:31:41 PM UTC-5, claviger wrote:
>>> Dr Finck did not promptly do anything. The autopsy took 4 hours and he
>>> personally measured the entry wound on back of the skull. Robinson
>>> closely examined a wound in the temple area and recognized it as an exit
>>> wound.
>> You stated that Finck did not do anything promptly, yet offered NO
>> proof of that statement.
>
> Finck arrived at 8:30 PM and the autopsy was over at 12:00 Midnight, which
> means he was involved in the autopsy for three and a half hours. That is
> plenty of time to methodically locate, study, and analyze all wounds about
> the face and head. Since he was an experienced pathologist on combat

No, not when he was ordered not to by an Army general and threatened
with Court Martial. The Army tends to hang soldiers who don't obey orders.

> injuries he would have seen a variety of head wounds caused by rifle
> bullets.
>

Maybe, and maybe specifically by Carcanos when he was stationed in Italy.

> This was the most important autopsy of his career, the President of the
> United States and his Commander-in-Chief. Logic would dictate he took his
> time and was assiduously careful and meticulous about examination of the
> devastating head wound. It was obvious this large avulsive wound to the
> right hemisphere of the brain was the result of a fragmenting bullet.
> The entry wound was found on back of the skull. X-rays revealed no

Oh really? Show me this fictitious wound. Did you draw it in with a crayon?

> complete bullet, only a trail of fragments connecting to the large wound
> on top of the skull.
>
>> As usual, you're flying on opinion again.
>
> Opinion based on facts: X-rays, photos, and thorough examination by a
> pathology team of doctors.

The Three Stooges.
They were not allowed to see the photos.

> ______________________________________________________________
>
> Dr. FINCK. Dr. Humes called me at home asking that I come to National Naval
> Medical Center.
> Dr. PETTY. And for what purpose, as you understand it, did he ask you to be
> present?
> Dr. FINCK. I was at the time Chief of the Military Environmental Pathology
> Division which included the Wound Ballistic Pathology Branch. I was also
> Chief of the Wound Ballistic Pathology Branch and the Director of the
> Armed Forces AFIP Institute of Pathology. General Bloomburg had given my
> name to Dr. Humes telling him that if he needed consultation in the field
> of missile wounds I was available. I was asked as the Chief of the Would
> Ballistic Pathology Branch specifically to interpret the wounds.
> ______________________________________________________________
>
>> As well, Robinson was NOT a Forensic Pathologist, nor a Wound Ballistics
>> expert like Finck, who had said that it may be an ENTRY WOUND in the
>> forehead.
>
> No he was not a doctor. His job was to examine the face and repair damage
> as much as possible for an open casket funeral. Robinson noticed a
> puncture wound on the temple/forehead. He described it as an exit wound
> and filled it with wax.
>

So you admit that he literally covered up the wounds.

The Three Stooges. Couldn't even find the throat wound.

[mainframetech]

On Tuesday, December 15, 2015 at 4:59:52 PM UTC-5, claviger wrote:
> On Monday, December 14, 2015 at 9:19:12 PM UTC-6, mainframetech wrote:
> > On Sunday, December 13, 2015 at 9:43:48 PM UTC-5, claviger wrote:
>
> > Sorry to burst your little bubble, but there were people in the gallery
> > that kept pushing to get along with the autopsy, and many steps that
> > should have be ntaken were not because of it. They were rushed to get
> > done and were often told to stop with a procedure and get on to another.
> > It was not an environment for "assiduously careful and meticulous" work of
> > examination of any wound. However, Finck made note of the forehead wound
> > to Jenkins, and they both were aware of the wound, and yet it was not
> > recorded in the Autopsy Report.
>
> So sorry, the Kennedy family was in charge of this autopsy from start to
> finish.
>

They made a good excuse to avoid some of the procedures that were
supposed to be done, and there were people there working for the Kennedys,
but the Kennedys did NOT give orders to the prosectors, the admiral in the
gallery did, as per sworn testimony.

> > > No he was not a doctor. His job was to examine the face and repair damage
> > > as much as possible for an open casket funeral. Robinson noticed a
> > > puncture wound on the temple/forehead. He described it as an exit wound
> > > and filled it with wax.

> > Yes, indeed it was a "puncture" wound from outside. and not a break

> > out from inside. So even the mortician recognized that there was a wound
> > on the forehead. Poor ol' bd can't believe it...:)
>
> Robinson soon recognized it as an exit wound by a bone fragment or piece
> of lead. He never changed his story about that.
>

He wasn't competent to make any judgments on that next to Finck, who
has made a different choice of what he thought it might be.

>
> > > Interview notes - Tom Robinson 1/12/77
> > > McLean, Virginia
> > > by Jim Conzelman and Andy Purdy
> > > ______________________________________________________________
> > >
> > > "Robinson recalls discussion during the autopsy of 'shrapnel' when the head
> > > was worked on and when the thorax was worked on."
> > >
> > > "Robinson said the doctors worked carefully and thoroughly."
> > > ______________________________________________________________
> > >

Thank you for copying that here. Yes, Robinson doesn't seem to say
anything about the forehead wound being an exit wound. and make note that
Robinson is depending on what the prosectors were saying, not on his own
knowledge, which he didn't have.

> > Yep, shrapnel, or fragments, as the X-ray Technician put it. And with
> > Oswald supposedly using FMJ ammunition, all those fragments shouldn't be
> > there. Yet another proof of conspiracy, 2 or more gunmen with 2 or more
> > guns.
>
> Your finally on to something. A weapons expert in Maryland noticed the
> same thing.
>

I've been on to that for a couple years. It's not new info. But it's
nice to know some other people were not afraid to look through the ARRB
files.

> > Still waiting for the answer to the current question that you keep
> > dodging: Prove to me that THEY ALL even knew that there WAS a forehead
> > wound, and that it was an EXIT wound!
>
> Three pathologists spent about 4 hours with the body. The wound in
> question was on the right side of the head. You claim it is obvious in
> photos, therefore it was obvious to people who were actually there, like
> Robinson.
>

Oh geez! Your mind is a jumble of errors. For those hours there were a
group of men that had orders to see certain things and not others, and now
you want them to see the worst thing they could! Proof that a bullet came
in from the front!! We were lucky that we caught the conversation between
James Jenkins and Pierre Finck about the bullet hole!

> > > Dr. FINCK. Looking back, the autopsy accomplished its purpose. I think Dr.
> > > Humes made that point. He said the purpose of the autopsy was to establish
> > > the number of wounds, the direction of the projectiles and establish a
> > > cause of death and from that viewpoint it was complete.
> > Which is NOT what he told the X-ray Technicians at 6:35pm when the body
> > arrived at the morgue. He told them the job was to find bullets in the
> > body or any fragments.
>
> Yes.
>

Oh? You've finally been reading the ARRB files? That's where that
info lies. In the testimony of Edward Reed.



> > And the reason for that had to be to remove those bullets so that a > conspiracy couldn't be assumed from finding bullets from other guns than the > MC rifle of Oswald's.

>
> Not a very good conspiracy. In fact a ridiculous self-defeating plan to
> use multiple weapons without silencers to blame one dumass patsy on the
> 6th floor of a building.
>

Actually it worked. Look at the work you'll do to prove the WCR was
telling the truth, when it's old and tired already.

> > And the report wasn't complete, since it left out the forehead wound seen by many witnesses.
>
> How many witness? Who were they? Tell us again where did the forehead
> wound come from.
>

Why is it that your memory fails so easily? Are you OK? The wound in
the right forehead/temple area came from in front of the limousine based
on the trajectory from the wound to the windshield hole. simple for
someone familiar with trajectories.

> > The Autopsy Report (AR) left out the forehead wound completely, yet it

> > was seen by a prosector and two of the autopsy team, Jenkins and Finck.
> > So don't be "safely assuming" anything. Prove that Finck recognized the
> > forehead wound as an EXIT wound. This question has been pending for a

> > while now as you keep ducking it. Prove your point, since Finck thought
> > it might be an ENTRY wound.
>



> You never proved Finck ever saw this wound. You are depending on hearsay
> evidence. What if that source was telling a fib to get attention? I'm
> willing to believe the Corpsman because of Robinson's observation. While
> the Corpsman was obviously unfamiliar with head wounds Robinson
> immediately recognized it as an exit wound.
>

Just to show you how wrong you are in your thinking, the "corpsman" was
James Jenkins and he got a master's degree in pathology and biology and
wasworking toward a PhD.



We're not in court and hearsay evidence will be used by any detective
when in pursuit of the truth in a case. The person that was being
interviewed had been keeping out of the public eye for years before the
interview he was in. So your idea fails again.

> > > It looks larger than that on the black & white photo you keep referring
> > > to. You never mention the color photo taken from the same angle. Why is
> > > that?
> > I haven't looked at the color photo, but I'll be happy to. Did you?
> > And now that you've seen the anomaly in the photo that I spoke of, what do
> > you think it is?
> > I just looked for a color photo of the 'stare-of-death' photo and
> > couldn't find one. If you see one, send me the link and I'll be happy to
> > look at it. There IS a photo that is color, but it's not a

> > 'stare-of-death' photo. It's this one:

> >
> > http://www.jfklancer.com/pub/md/jfk03clr.JPG
> >
> > In this photo, from a slightly different angle, you can see a patch of
> > material strategically placed over the bullet hole. No doubt to hide it.
> > That photo is not of use as evidence of the bullet hole.
>
> Are you pretending to be obtuse or really that dense?
>

Actually, I was contemplating whether I would let you know how dense
you have shown yourself to be. Especially when you try to be insulting to
avoid a normal response because you don't have one. I repeat...the photo
you've mentioned is NOT the one I've pointed out to you that shows the 5mm
bullet hole in the right forehead/temple area. The photo you're talking
about has what I call a 'patch' of material over the bullet hole, no doubt
to hide it from view.

>
> > > There was no blowout on the back of the head. There were 10 witnesses
> > > close behind the Presidential Limousine. None of them saw a blowout in
> > > back of the head. Had there been such a blowout the size of Dr
> > > McClelland's approved drawing there would have been an extensive amount of
> > > blood and brain matter on the trunk, and the hood and windshield of the
> > > followup car. No one in the security car mentions anything like that.
> > There would not necessarily be material on the following car.
>
> The motorcade was driving into a strong westerly breeze, so yes there
> would necessarily be material on the following car. The combination of
> explosive wound and wind blowing toward the security car would definitely
> cover the trunk, hood, and windshield.
>
> > However
> > there was material that showered back and to the left of JFK. That's seen
> > by listening to testimony of Bobby Hargis, who rode a motorcycle behind
> > and to the left of the limousine.
>
> That's "seen" by "listening"?!
>

It's video and can be both seen and heard. Simple. Did you erase the
link? If so, here it is again:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q0Ta8PsYJfU



> > So there had to be some on the trunk of the limo. It was mentioned by Clint Hill. As to the following people not seeing the dramatically large hole in the BOH of JFK, we have the testimony of Clint Hill, who ran up onto the limo and looked down into the hole in the rear of the head.

>
> That is not what he said. He finally clarified exactly what he meant
> years later due to misinterpretations like you just did.
>

I'm not "misinterpreting" when I quote him word for word. If you think
that at some later point he said something different you're welcome to put
it here word for word and supply a link to it. I'll be glad to check it
out.

> > A much better vantage point than the following car:
> > "Mr. SPECTER. What did you observe as to President Kennedy's condition on
> > arrival at the hospital?
> > Mr. HILL. The right rear portion of his head was missing. It was lying in
> > the rear seat of the car. His brain was exposed. There was blood and bits
> > of brain all over the entire rear portion of the car. Mrs. Kennedy was
> > completely covered with blood. There was so much blood you could not tell
> > if there had been any other wound or not, except for the one large gaping
> > wound in the right rear portion of the head."
> > I repeat for the people that don't think that a 'large hole' was
> > present at the right rear of JFK's head: "right rear portion of his head
> > was missing". And he also used the description: "gaping wound in the
> > right rear portion of the head".
> > You can pretend to yourself that there was no 'large hole' in the BOH,
> > but Hill isn't the only one who was close enough to see the hole and
> > describe it. And he was looking right down at it from no more than 2 feet
> > away, not a following car. From what Hill saw there's can be no doubt
> > what the 'over 40' witnesses saw.
>
> Your "40 witnesses" BS was debunked. Clint Hill is on the record for
> clarifying what he meant and his observation was the same as Jackie
> Kennedy. You lose again.

The 40 witnesses, which are really 65, was NOT debunked. I went
through your pathetic effort to discredit SOME of the over 40, and proved
that almost all your efforts were baloney, which UI did in front of you.
You found one person that was duplicated, and I removed him, and have
since found a new number 40.

now try to answer the question of what did you see when you looked at
the photo with the bullet hole in it? Or is your fear too great?

Chris

[mainframetech]

On Tuesday, December 15, 2015 at 4:57:28 PM UTC-5, claviger wrote:
> On Sunday, December 13, 2015 at 10:28:16 PM UTC-6, mainframetech wrote:
> > On Saturday, December 12, 2015 at 8:26:24 PM UTC-5, claviger wrote:
> >
> > > In this case the wound was not round like an entrance wound and had a
> > > flap. Two clues it was an exit wound by a fragment not a bullet.
> > So now you're an expert, after saying no one here is? You don't trump
> > Finck asnd his expertise.
>
> Like you I'm not an expert on any of this, but unlike you I use
> commonsense and pay attention to people who are experts.
>

Then apply some of your common sense to your statement above where you
said: "the wound was not round like an entrance wound and had a flap."
To help you figure out the mistake you made, I'll tell you that the wound
in the right forehead/temple area WAS circular, and had NO flap.
However, there was a wound in the right temple over the right ear that
stuck out with a triangular flap of bone. I suspect you were talking
about that one and got confused. Here's a photo of that one:

http://www.celebritymorgue.com/jfk/kennedy-side.jpg

But that's the WRONG photo that you tried to use to change the subject
away from the right photo showing the bullet hole:

http://www.jfkmurdersolved.com/images/BE3_HI.jpg


I hope this straightens you out enough to answer the outstanding
question of what DID you see in the 'stare-of-death' photo after ENLARGING
it. Mind you, I'm asking what you saw, not what you did NOT see.


>
> > > > However, while you're busy trying to dismiss Finck, who IS the

> > > > expert, he said that the bullet hole in the forehead might be an entry
> > > > wound.
> > > Maybe at first glance, but upon closer examination realized it was a exit
> > > wound caused by a fragment.
> > Oh? You know what he was thinking after 52 years intervene? Naah.
>
> Yes, being an expert on combat wounds Finck would know the difference
> between entrance and exit wounds. If someone at the autopsy pointed to a
> wound and asked if it was an entrance wound Finck would take a close look
> at it. That is the very reason he was requested to participate in this
> autopsy. To a Corpsman it might look like an entrance wound but an
> experienced pathologist would soon determine what type of wound it was.
> Evidently Robinson also had enough experience to take one look and realize
> it was an exit wound.
>

Prove that Finck KNEW that the wound in question was an EXIT wound.
Please supply text and links. I believe that that is one of your made up
factoids.

Remember, I've already shown you where Finck thought the wound may be
an ENTRY! Robinson had nowhere near enough experience to know a bullet
wound and whether it was an entrance or exit. He was a mortician used to
using make up and wax to make a corpse look like normal before death, and
most often funeral parlors like where he worked had natural causes deaths
to handle, not crime results like Finck would have had experience with.
And Finck thought the wound in question was probably an entry.

> > And who told you it was an "exit fragment"? Please supply text and links.
>
> Already have, Robinson. Check your save file on me.

Believe me,. I don't keep any "save file" on you. I forget what we
discussed right after I respond to your comments, and only remember when I
come back and you've said something. And I repeat...Finck, the greater
expert in these matters has said that he thought the 5mm wound in question
in the right temple/forehead was probably an ENTRY. Why do you keep
trying to push Robinson forward in place of Finck?

>
> > > > Because of my assumption that he had orders to the contrary, he
> > > > left it at that and never put the wound into the 'wound list' in the AR
> > > > where it was supposed to go. If you doubt that he had orders, then tell
> > > > me why he left out an obvious wound, as did Humes as well.
> > > They didn't leave it out, they realized it was an exit wound.
> > You haven't answered the question. ANY wound goes in the 'wound
> > list'. Not just entry wounds.
>
> Really? So you are an expert on pathology protocol? How much experience
> do you have?
>

I have the experience of looking up the information in a text on
autopsies. Here is what I had previously looked up:

"(vi) With all injuries, record the size, shape, pattern, location
(related to obvious anatomic landmarks), colour, course, direction and
structure involved. Attempt to distinguish injuries resulting from
therapeutic measures from those unrelated to medical treatment. In the
description of projectile wounds, note the presence or absence of soot,
gunpowder, or singeing. If gunshot residue is present, document it
photographically and save it for analysis. Attempt to determine whether
the gunshot wound is an entry or exit wound."

from: http://www.forensicpathologyonline.com/e-book/autopsy

Read the last sentence.

> > So the question on the table is "tell me why he left out an obvious wound, as did Humes as well"?
>
> The "obvious wound" you are referring to is a blood spot as proved by a
> coor photo from the autopsy.
>

WRONG! You've looked at the wrong photo and so made another error.
The request was to look at the photo supplied, which was the
'stare-of-death' photo, not the one you keep trying to replace it with.
Seems like you know exactly what you will see in the right photo and are
trying to do anything you can to avoid facing and admitting the truth.
Please answer the question that's on the table. What DID you see in the
supplied photo:

http://www.jfkmurdersolved.com/images/BE3_HI.jpg

> > > First answer this question: What was the source of this "entrance wound"?
> > > Where did it come from? What type of weapon? It is important to know the
> > > trajectory of this bullet to predict its path through the target. The
> > > bullet would have been on a downward angle across the passengers in the
> > > Limousine.

> > Answer the question of your backup for your statement. Don't try to
> > distract from answering the question.

.
>
> Interesting you think of trajectory analysis as a distraction. For you it
> is because you have no idea how to analyze and connect to the wound in the
> head. Actually it's fairly simple. The wooden fence is on an elevation
> above Elm Street. Any shot from there would be on a downward trajectory.
> If the projectile continues on trajectory into the temple or forehead it
> would not exit the back of the skull. It would blow out the left ear or
> spread fragments across the interior of the skull opposite the entrance
> wound.
>

STOP WITH THE WOODEN FENCE. I HAVE MENTIONED NO WOODEN FENCE IN MY
TRAJECTORY FOR THE FOREHEAD/TEMPLE BULLET HOLE. None whatsoever. And we
can't go forward until you answer the question asked of you. What do you
see in the supplied photo, and not what you didn't see:

http://www.jfkmurdersolved.com/images/BE3_HI.jpg

> This is exactly what the bullet did that punctured the back of the skull
> leaving a trail of fragments to the large avulsive wound in the right
> parietal/temporal region. This bullet disintegrated, spreading fragments
> forward and made exit from the top of the skull as we see in Z313. One of
> those fragments punctured the temple area causing a flap of skin as it
> pushed outward.
>

You're talking about the WRONG bullet wound. You're trying to mix up
the triangular flap of bone wound, with the 5mm (.197 inches) diameter
wound. Anything to avoid the REAL wound in question. What DID you see in
the photo supplied?

http://www.jfkmurdersolved.com/images/BE3_HI.jpg

> > Show the text and links for your statement which was: "They all recognized it > as an exit wound."
>
> Since no one made notation of a small entrance wound in the temple they
> obviously recognized it as an exit wound, just as Robinson did.
>

There is no such "obviously". Both James Jenkins and Pierre Finck
commented on the 5mm wound in the forehead/temple area, and I copied that
interview to you here. You're trying to doge the question pending.

> > After you've answered my request for backup for your wild statement,

> > THEN I'll be happy to answer your question. Let's keep things in order.

>
> My "wild statement" is rather mundane. It assumes the question was asked
> and the pathology team responded and looked at it closely. When they did
> they realized it was an exit wound.
>

There is ONLY one place where Both James Jenkins and Pierre Finck
commented on the bullet wound in the temple/forehead area. No one else
commented on it during the autopsy. Stop trying to insert the flap of
bone wound, which is different. You've been listening to bd it looks
like, and doing that will get you into embarrassment, as it has for him.

>
> > > If the projectile punctured the temple and continued on trajectory it
> > > would make exit close to the left ear. If it fragmented then many
> > > fragments should have been found on the interior of the skull across the
> > > left side of the head. This was not the case at all.
> > I think you must be out of your mind. The things you say can only
> > serve to embarrass you. There is no way that the bullet hole in the
> > forehead came out at the "left ear". There was no exit wound there.
>
> Correct. Further corroboration the wound that has you so confused was an
> exit wound.
>

FALSE. The wound in question was ONLY shown in the 'stare-of-death'
photo and nowhere else. You're talking about a different wound that was a
triangular flap of bone over the right ear. It's far too large to be the
bullet wound in question which is only 5mm in diameter. Please answer the
question that ha been asked of you and stop stalling.

> > However, there was a perfectly large hole right at the right rear of the
> > head, seen by over 40 witnesses, including doctors and nurses, that would
> > be a perfect exit for a rifle bullet that entered the forehead.
>
> A patently false statement.
>

Prove it. I think you're making things up again, which you have a way
of doing.

> > It was a blowout from the pressure built up by the rifle bullet, which was NOT a FMJ bullet, based on the fragments left in the skull.
>
> Two in a row. FMJ bullets can and do fragment when striking hard objects.
> The 6.5mm Carcano normally breaks into a few larger fragments. The AR15
> .223 and M16 5.56mm ammo produces even more fragmentation.
>

Not on this body. I point to CE399 for an example of a bullet that
supposedly went through 2 men 7 times including 2 bone strikes and came
out of it almost pristine. Hardly the least bit of material missing from
the tail end.

Please answer the question based on the supplied photo, and stop trying
to escape from it in fear.

>
> > > No witness on the GK saw anyone behind the wooden fence at the time of the
> > > shooting. No witness on the GK heard a shot from that direction. The
> > > only person confronted in the area was behind the pergola and he did not
> > > have a rifle when approached by the police officer. He had no visible
> > > weapon when stopped by this policeman.
> > Oh Lordee! Now you're making up stories as you go along. There were a
> > good number of witnesses that thought rifle shots came from the GK.
>
> They were not standing on the GK.
>

You're trying to avoid the pending question about the supplied photo.
Please try to get back to it. Don't be scared, it won't hurt.

> > One person confronted does not mean there were not five others that should
> > have been confronted.
>
> Like who? The first policeman to arrive behind the pergola only saw two
> guys. One guy had no weapon but did show ID, the other guy was a DCSD
> deputy. Two DPD motorcycle officers checked everyone on the south side of
> the fence. One ran up to the Triple Overpass and checked those witnesses
> only to find out there was already a DPD officer stationed up there. Who
> are the "five others"?
>

> > But the shooters left immediately after firing at the motorcade, and they > took their weapons with them

>
> Where were these shooters located and what kind of weapons did they have?
> Which direction did they go?
>

You know that info, it's been told to you. You're still trying to
avoid the question pending.

> > > Given the fact so many witnesses in close proximity to the fence saw no
> > > person with a weapon and police who immediately ran to this area found no
> > > one with any kind of weapon indicates no shot was fired from there.
> > > Furthermore, witnesses standing close to the fence did not hear a shot
> > > from that direction, and in fact heard shots from the opposite direction
> > > toward the TSBD. This proves the so-called acoustic evidence is not from
> > > any sounds on the GK.
> > Your logic is wrong as usual. People were looking at JFK and the
> > motorcade. When shots rang out, they keprt looking there ot see the
> > effect on JFK of the shots. By the time they looked up, the shooters had
> > gone from the fence, and were hopping into a car or going over the tracks.
>
> Witnesses on top of the Triple Underpass could see down into most of the
> parking area. They saw nobody running across the parking lot, so they ran
> to the fence and found no one there.
>

They were looking at the motorcade and the POTUS. And there were trees
blocking much of their view from the overpass. Please answer the pending
question.

> > And there was indeed a witness to the shooting from behind the fence, you

> > just don't like him because he makes your theories look stupid.

>
> Who would that be? Lee Bowers was in a tower office overlooking the
> entire parking lot. He testified under oath he saw no people behind the
> fence during the shooting.
>

here was more to the Bowers testimony that his friend Walter Rischel told
about. Please answer the pending question.

> > There may well be other witnesses to the shooting from behind the fence from in front of it, and they didn't want any involvement and stayed quiet as did
> > a few people in the area.
>
> Then why didn't DPD Smith see them or S M Holland and his posse of RR
> employees who poured into the parking lot ready to catch anyone they
> thought suspicious? DPD Foster was on the RR trestle too, why did he not
> see them? The only way for a car to leave the parking lot was the access
> road in front of the TSBD, called Elm Street Extension. That road was
> still crowded with people who had been watching the motorcade go by.
>

I'm not answering any more of your questions until you answer mine.
About the photo and the bullet hole.

> > > Witnesses standing on the Triple Underpass raced down into the parking lot
> > > and saw no person standing in the area or running from that area. No
> > > weapon was found, just muddy footprints and cigarette butts, which could
> > > have been from TSBD employees that wet morning.
> > It was afternoon at the time. And all your talk of "racing down" is
> > your opinion of what they did. They may have been careful and took a
> > little time to get there for their safety. But they hadn't moved by the
> > time the last shot had been fired, so that meant there was time for the
> > shooters to leave without being seen.
>
> 11/22/63 Affidavit: S M Holland
>
> "I immediately ran around to where I could see behind the arcade and did
> not see anyone running from there."
>

Please answer the pending question.

Yes, but not related to the bullet hole in the forehead/temple of JFK.
that 5mm bullet hole I'm still waiting on you to answer a pending
question.



> > There was a celar bullet hole in the windshield seen by at least 6

> > witnesses, and that was lined up very well with the forehead bullet hole
> > and a drain on the LEFT side of Elm Street and further down past the

> > overpass a bit. That drain was removed a few weeks later.

>
> The defect on the windshield is controversial. Some say there was a hole
> you could stick a pencil through, while others claim it was a crack caused
> by a fragment from the head shot.
>

It was NOT controversial. There wer 6 definite witnesses to the hole in
the windshield. Because some folks didn't see what they aw has no
bearing. The witnesses that saw the hole were right close to the
windshield and some of them even knew that the bullet that pierced it came
from forward of the limousine.

Please answer the pending question.

> As for the shot from a manhole cover in front of the Limousine, why would
> a carefully organized conspiracy to blame a patsy in the 6th floor window
> allow a sniper to take a shot from in front of the motorcade or beside it
> from the GK that would blow their cover and call attention to different
> directions from the 6th floor of the TSBD???
>

Think it through. They were going to take the body to a military
facility to do the autopsy, where they could order whatever they wanted
from the prosectors. Which is exactly what happened.


Please answer the pending question.

> > I use the information I got from Vincent DiMaio, who is a top Forensic
> > Pathologist and Wound Ballistics expert far in excess of you or I, or even
> > a mortician.
>
> Yes he is a recognized expert in his field of study. What exactly are you
> referring to?
>

I'm referring to the bullet hole in the 'stare-of-death' photo which
you were going to look at after ENLARGING it, and see the circular bullet
hole in amongst the hair on the right forehead/temple. Then you were
going to tell me what you saw, not what you did NOT see. This request is
pending and I'm still waiting on you because of your stalling.

> BOOK REVIEW: "The JFK Myths"
> A Scientific Investigation of
> the Kennedy Assassination
> Larry Sturdivan
> Wound Ballistic Investigator
>
> http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/07/book-review-jfk-myths.html
> The JFK Myths: A Scientific Investigation of the Kennedy Assassination
> Paperback - September 15, 2005 by Larry Sturdivan (Author)
>
> "This is an excellent book that I recommend without any hesitation. It is
> the only book to address the firearms and ballistic aspects of the JFK
> assassination in a logical, knowledgeable and scientific manner. It
> dispels the myths and falsehoods that have either grown up or been
> generated about the weapon, and the wounds. Anyone interested in the
> Kennedy assassination must have a copy of this book." --Dr. Vincent
> DiMaio, Nationally recognized JFK expert and Medical Examiner of Bexar
> County, Texas
>
> So DiMaio gives this book his stamp of approval.
>

Sorry to tell you that DiMaio was also someone that didn't see the
bullet hole or he would have had a different analysis. Please answer the
question and stop trying to escape from it with all this crap trying to
change the subject.



>

> > Now, there was NO one whatsoever that disgreed with my information from
> > the evidence that even you can see if you chose to look at the photo of
> > it. Your fear keeps you from checking it out and looking at the bullet
> > hole in the forehead and seeing for yourself. But since no one bothered
> > to look at the wound I speak of, no one could possibly disagree with how
> > it was made.
>
> A completely ridiculous statement. The autopsy lasted 4 hours. Finck was
> there for 3 hours and 30 minutes. Obviously they carefully checked every
> possible defect on the President that might be an entrance or exit wound.
>

You'r using "obviously" again without any proof of what you're guessing
at. Please answer the question. You're still throwing up subject changes
and excuses to avoid the truth. It must be very scary for you, knowing
what's there awaiting you.

> If there was an obvious entrance wound on the face or head they would
> surely notice and measure it. There were too many witnesses watching and
> listening to ignore such an obvious wound.
>

If that guess of yours (and it is a guess) were true, then you'd have
no trouble looking at the bullet hole at all because there would be
nothing to see, but you're fighting it with everything you've got to avoid
that viewing of that photo after ENLARGING it.

> > However, since you're so hot to pretend you know all about 'trajectory',
> > take the drain I described, and the windshield bullet hole (on left side
> > in the middle from top and bottom of the glass), and the forehead of JFK
> > at the time of the last bullet strike, and you'll find that they line up
> > very nicely. Anyone interested in trajectories would think of it as
> > perfectly lined up. Let me know what you found as to the trajectory.
>
> Why would this well planned ambush even consider a shot from a manhole
> cover when they already have an insurance sniper behind the wooden fence
> in case the shooter in the 6th floor window missed? How would they know
> if a sniper inside the manhole could even see the President, since
> Kellerman and Connally were sitting right in front of him?
>
> If there was a sniper on the GK why did the bullet that struck the temple
> take a 90º turn to the left inside his skull to blow out the gaping hole
> claimed by Dr McClelland, instead of punching through the left ear as it
> stayed on trajectory making exit from the head?
>

I'm not currently talking about the fence on the GK. I'm talking about
you looking at the photo with the instructions and it seems that fear has
overtaken you and you're fighting more and more to avoid looking at the
bullet hole. Go ahead and look, you might see something entirely
different than I and all the witnessses did.

> > > No evidence whatsoever for your daydream theory. SS Agents in the
> > > following car had a front row seat and saw nothing like what you describe.
> > > Your improvised theory fails completely.
> > The problem here is that you're working with theory, and I'm working
> > with evidence that anyone can see.
>
> Is this a joke? If so, you have a great sense of humor.
>

anyone can see the bullet hole except bd. I and a host of witnesses
have seen it, and you can too, or you can prove me wrong by seeing
something else than what I did, but you have avoided looking in deep fear
of what you'll see.

> > The bullet hole in the forehead is a fact, and can be seen by anyone who
> ENLARGES the photo and looks carefully.
>



> In which case they will see two black spots the same color and tone as the
> hair. Red is dark as black in B&W photos. As we know from looking at the
> color photo those are two blood spots.
>

You did NOT look at the photo, you looked at some other photo where the
bullet hole is covered up. But if you're right, then there's nothing to
see in the correct photo and you can safely look at it and see
nothing...right? So why do you avoid looking? :)

> > The hole in the windshield was seen by at least 6 witnesses, who said it
> > was THROUGH the glass, not just striking it. The drain is the only thing
> > that is missing from evidence, and by using the windshield hole and the
> > forehead hole, anyone familiar with 'trajectory' can decide where the drain
> > was. Once you have 2 points, any other point is much easier to find.
> > Here's the photo to ENLARGE and look on the right forehead and tell me
> > what you see. If you're not too afraid to look...:)
>
> Not afraid to look at these gruesome photos but a comparison of the color
> photo to the B&W photo proves they are blood spots, not bullet wounds.
>

So that's your excuse to avoid the fear of seeing the bullet hole, which
would kill many of your cherished notions. But if you're right, then
there's no reason not to look and then you can say to me that there was
nothing there like you thought form the wrong photo. But you won't do
that, because you know already what's there and are simply trying to avoid
admitting it. Here's the right photo:

Chris

[mainframetech]

Ah, good then. Yet another witness to add to the many who have already
seen the bullet hole and have corroborated each other. You're in good
company. too bad bd can't see it. He's the only outlier.

Chris

[mainframetech]

Naturally I could go back to stating the path the investigation had
taken after the ARRB files were put together. Since I would no longer
have to school you from your long history of mistakes.

Chris

[Anthony Marsh]

On 12/16/2015 11:55 AM, mainframetech wrote:
> On Tuesday, December 15, 2015 at 4:59:52 PM UTC-5, claviger wrote:
>> On Monday, December 14, 2015 at 9:19:12 PM UTC-6, mainframetech wrote:
>>> On Sunday, December 13, 2015 at 9:43:48 PM UTC-5, claviger wrote:
>>
>>> Sorry to burst your little bubble, but there were people in the gallery
>>> that kept pushing to get along with the autopsy, and many steps that
>>> should have be ntaken were not because of it. They were rushed to get
>>> done and were often told to stop with a procedure and get on to another.
>>> It was not an environment for "assiduously careful and meticulous" work of
>>> examination of any wound. However, Finck made note of the forehead wound
>>> to Jenkins, and they both were aware of the wound, and yet it was not
>>> recorded in the Autopsy Report.
>>
>> So sorry, the Kennedy family was in charge of this autopsy from start to
>> finish.
>>
>
>
> They made a good excuse to avoid some of the procedures that were
> supposed to be done, and there were people there working for the Kennedys,
> but the Kennedys did NOT give orders to the prosectors, the admiral in the
> gallery did, as per sworn testimony.
>

Army General.

There was no hole in the windshield. Only alterationists say that.

Why don't you puff it up to 100?
You think the truth is a popularity poll.

> through your pathetic effort to discredit SOME of the over 40, and proved
> that almost all your efforts were baloney, which UI did in front of you.
> You found one person that was duplicated, and I removed him, and have
> since found a new number 40.
>
> now try to answer the question of what did you see when you looked at
> the photo with the bullet hole in it? Or is your fear too great?
>

What photo? The one he's afraid to look at?

> Chris
>
>
>
>
>

[Anthony Marsh]

Release the evidence.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 12/15/2015 8:02 PM, Jason Burke wrote:
> On 12/15/2015 9:36 AM, mainframetech wrote:
>> On Monday, December 14, 2015 at 11:01:44 AM UTC-5, bigdog wrote:
>>> On Sunday, December 13, 2015 at 2:07:08 PM UTC-5, mainframetech wrote:
>>>> On Saturday, December 12, 2015 at 2:23:47 PM UTC-5, bigdog wrote:
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> JFK conspiracy theories are like blowfish. When they need them to
>>>>> be small
>>>>> they are small yet they can expand as need be and then become small
>>>>> again.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> A lot like the theories of the WCR.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Hardly. The conclusions of the WC remains solid without revisions. The
>>> conclusions that reached in 1964 remain valid to this day.
>>
>>
>>
>> As solid as cowflops left out in the sun. There ought to be a
>> limit to
>> utterances of faith.
>>
>> Chris
>>
>
> Yo, Chris! Ya gonna stop your whining and so some real evidence any time
> soon?
>

Not sure what you mean. Do you mean CREATE some real evidence? Dig up the
missing bullet? Find the destroyed documents? What type of evidence are
you talking about?

> Well, besides "if you squint real hard and sorta hold the picture mostly
> sideways it kinda looks maybe almost like a bullet hole there in the
> forehead."
>

So here's another WC defender who still refuses to LOOK at the evidence.

>

[Anthony Marsh]

You are forgetting the very early theory that the throat wound was
caused by a fragment from the head wound.

> ______________________________________________________________
>>>
>>> Dr. FINCK. Looking back, the autopsy accomplished its purpose. I think Dr.
>>> Humes made that point. He said the purpose of the autopsy was to establish
>>> the number of wounds, the direction of the projectiles and establish a
>>> cause of death and from that viewpoint it was complete.
>> Which is NOT what he told the X-ray Technicians at 6:35pm when the body
>> arrived at the morgue. He told them the job was to find bullets in the
>> body or any fragments.
>
> Yes.
>
>> And the reason for that had to be to remove those bullets so that a > conspiracy couldn't be assumed from finding bulets from other guns than the > MC rifle of Oswald's.
>
> Not a very good conspiracy. In fact a ridiculous self-defeating plan to
> use multiple weapons without silencers to blame one dumass patsy on the
> 6th floor of a building.
>
>> And the report wasn't complete, since it left out the forehead wound seen by > many witnesses.
>
> How many witness? Who were they? Tell us again where did the forehead
> wound come from.
>

The grassy knoll.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 12/15/2015 4:57 PM, claviger wrote:
> On Sunday, December 13, 2015 at 10:28:16 PM UTC-6, mainframetech wrote:
>> On Saturday, December 12, 2015 at 8:26:24 PM UTC-5, claviger wrote:
>>
>>> In this case the wound was not round like an entrance wound and had a
>>> flap. Two clues it was an exit wound by a fragment not a bullet.
>> So now you're an expert, after saying no one here is? You don't trump
>> Finck asnd his expertise.
>
> Like you I'm not an expert on any of this, but unlike you I use
> commonsense and pay attention to people who are experts.
>
>
>>>> Howver, while you're busy trying to dismiss Finck, who IS the
>>>> expert, he said that the bullet hole in the forehead might be an entry
>>>> wound.
>>> Maybe at first glance, but upon closer examination realized it was a exit
>>> wound caused by a fragment.
>> Oh? You know what he was thinking after 52 years intervene? Naah.
>
> Yes, being an expert on combat wounds Finck would know the difference
> between entrance and exit wounds. If someone at the autopsy pointed to a

Stupid. So expert that he called a blood clot an entrance wound. So expert
that he didn't notice the entrance wound in the throat. So expert that he
thought the cutdowns might be bullet wounds. Stop making excuses for The
Three Stooges.

> wound and asked if it was an entrance wound Finck would take a close look
> at it. That is the very reason he was requested to participate in this

It is the very reason why they wanted a military man instead of a real
coroner.

> take a 90? turn to the left inside his skull to blow out the gaping hole

[claviger]

On Tuesday, December 15, 2015 at 5:00:24 PM UTC-8, Anthony Marsh wrote:
> On 12/14/2015 10:36 PM, claviger wrote:

> >>> http://www.celebritymorgue.com/jfk/jfk-autopsy.html
> >> LOL! Most of the photos don't show the area of the bullet hole, though
> >> the second photo has a patch strategically covering the bullet hole.
> > My what a big imagination you have! A patch? Where do you see this
> > patch?! What we see in the color photo are the same two spots near the
> > hairline we see in the black & white photo. In the color photo we can
> > clearly see they are spots of blood not holes in the forehead.
> Can you see the bullet hole under the gauze square or can you see
> through the gauze square?

No, I can't see any gauze patch. What purpose would there be for a gauze
patch during an autopsy? To call attention from the entire audience a
cover up is going on? CTs can't make your mind up if this is the most
brilliant cover-up in history or the dumbest cover-up in history.

> >> The best view of the bullet hole is to ENLARGE this photo below and look
> >> at the right forehead between the hair hanging down. There is a circular
> >> hole right there. Once you see it on that photo, you can then see it on
> >> any of the 'stare-of-death' photos all over the internet. All the other
> >> phtos careflly avoid that area, and when it ashowed on the one photo, I
> >> believe that no one on the mnedical panels saw it. It's not that easy to
> >> se without ENLARGING:
> >> http://www.jfkmurdersolved.com/images/BE3_HI.jpg
> >> Chris
> > All this time you have made assumptions based on a black & white photo.
> > The color photo proves they are blood spots, not bullet holes. Had they
> > been bullet holes everyone would have noticed and it would be impossible
> > to hide or cover up.
> Silly. No one noticed that the back of the rearview mirror is smashed in.

More info please.

[claviger]

On Wednesday, December 16, 2015 at 6:16:15 PM UTC-8, Anthony Marsh wrote:
> On 12/16/2015 11:55 AM, mainframetech wrote:
> > On Tuesday, December 15, 2015 at 4:59:52 PM UTC-5, claviger wrote:
> > > On Monday, December 14, 2015 at 9:19:12 PM UTC-6, mainframetech wrote:
> > > > On Sunday, December 13, 2015 at 9:43:48 PM UTC-5, claviger wrote:
> > > > Sorry to burst your little bubble, but there were people in the gallery
> > > > that kept pushing to get along with the autopsy, and many steps that
> > > > should have be ntaken were not because of it. They were rushed to get
> > > > done and were often told to stop with a procedure and get on to another.
> > > > It was not an environment for "assiduously careful and meticulous" work of
> > > > examination of any wound. However, Finck made note of the forehead wound
> > > > to Jenkins, and they both were aware of the wound, and yet it was not
> > > > recorded in the Autopsy Report.
> > > So sorry, the Kennedy family was in charge of this autopsy from start to
> > > finish.
> > They made a good excuse to avoid some of the procedures that were
> > supposed to be done, and there were people there working for the Kennedys,
> > but the Kennedys did NOT give orders to the prosectors, the admiral in the
> > gallery did, as per sworn testimony.
> Army General.

Oh no, not that darn UGOTAR again! Doesn't he hang out in beer joints with Bigfoot, Susquach, and Yeti? Aren't they all members of the Scary Monsters-R-Us Club? I think they belong to the same actors guild,
the Screamsters Union.

> > > > You can pretend to yourself that there was no 'large hole' in the BOH,
> > > > but Hill isn't the only one who was close enough to see the hole and
> > > > describe it. And he was looking right down at it from no more than 2 feet
> > > > away, not a following car. From what Hill saw there's can be no doubt
> > > > what the 'over 40' witnesses saw.
> > > Your "40 witnesses" BS was debunked. Clint Hill is on the record for
> > > clarifying what he meant and his observation was the same as Jackie
> > > Kennedy. You lose again.
> > The 40 witnesses, which are really 65, was NOT debunked. I went
> Why don't you puff it up to 100?
> You think the truth is a popularity poll.

IIRC, Doug Horne made a statement that all doctors in ER saw the big hole
in the back of head. All means 100%. That is a demonstrably false
statement. Not even a majority of doctors in TR1 said that. As for the
so-called list of "40 witnesses" check out this thread:

alt.assassination.jfk ›
52 Autopsy Photos
27 posts by 6 authors

[claviger]

You are going to be so disappointed when they do.

[claviger]

On Thursday, December 17, 2015 at 7:40:51 AM UTC-8, Anthony Marsh wrote:
> On 12/15/2015 4:59 PM, claviger wrote:
> >> Which is NOT what he told the X-ray Technicians at 6:35pm when the body
> >> arrived at the morgue. He told them the job was to find bullets in the
> >> body or any fragments.
> > Yes.

That is the purpose of an autopsy, find evidence to the cause of death.

> > > And the reason for that had to be to remove those bullets so that a conspiracy couldn't be assumed > > > from finding bulets from other guns than the MC rifle of Oswald's.
> > Not a very good conspiracy. In fact a ridiculous self-defeating plan to
> > use multiple weapons without silencers to blame one dumass patsy on the
> > 6th floor of a building.
> > > And the report wasn't complete, since it left out the forehead wound seen by many witnesses.
> > How many witness? Who were they? Tell us again where did the forehead
> > wound come from.
> The grassy knoll.

At least you give a precise location: on the north side of the wooden
fence 9' west of the corner. That would be a good location for anyone
dumb enough to take a shot from there. The chance of escape unseen would
be almost zero. No way to know, control, or avoid people walking up from
behind. Didn't this "insurance" sniper notice the cop and all the
witnesses on top of the Tripple Underpass? Didn't he see all the people
standing in front of the TSBD and along the north side of the street, and
witnesses across the street, and witnesses standing on the GK, and
witnesses practically in the line of fire on the steps? Didn't this
sniper notice Zapruder and Sitzman standing up high on the pedestle? Not
a very observant sniper and worst of all, the dumass missed.

[mainframetech]

On Thursday, December 17, 2015 at 8:50:35 PM UTC-5, claviger wrote:
> On Wednesday, December 16, 2015 at 6:16:15 PM UTC-8, Anthony Marsh wrote:
> > On 12/16/2015 11:55 AM, mainframetech wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, December 15, 2015 at 4:59:52 PM UTC-5, claviger wrote:
> > > > On Monday, December 14, 2015 at 9:19:12 PM UTC-6, mainframetech wrote:
> > > > > On Sunday, December 13, 2015 at 9:43:48 PM UTC-5, claviger wrote:
> > > > > Sorry to burst your little bubble, but there were people in the gallery
> > > > > that kept pushing to get along with the autopsy, and many steps that
> > > > > should have be ntaken were not because of it. They were rushed to get
> > > > > done and were often told to stop with a procedure and get on to another.
> > > > > It was not an environment for "assiduously careful and meticulous" work of
> > > > > examination of any wound. However, Finck made note of the forehead wound
> > > > > to Jenkins, and they both were aware of the wound, and yet it was not
> > > > > recorded in the Autopsy Report.
> > > > So sorry, the Kennedy family was in charge of this autopsy from start to
> > > > finish.
> > > They made a good excuse to avoid some of the procedures that were
> > > supposed to be done, and there were people there working for the Kennedys,
> > > but the Kennedys did NOT give orders to the prosectors, the admiral in the
> > > gallery did, as per sworn testimony.
> > Army General.
>
> Oh no, not that darn UGOTAR again! Doesn't he hang out in beer joints with Bigfoot, Susquach, and Yeti? Aren't they all members of the Scary Monsters-R-Us Club? I think they belong to the same actors guild,
> the Screamsters Union.
>

I see you have nothing intelligent to help you contend with my
statement. Let me know whaen you do.

> > > > > You can pretend to yourself that there was no 'large hole' in the BOH,
> > > > > but Hill isn't the only one who was close enough to see the hole and
> > > > > describe it. And he was looking right down at it from no more than 2 feet
> > > > > away, not a following car. From what Hill saw there's can be no doubt
> > > > > what the 'over 40' witnesses saw.
> > > > Your "40 witnesses" BS was debunked. Clint Hill is on the record for
> > > > clarifying what he meant and his observation was the same as Jackie
> > > > Kennedy. You lose again.

> > > The 40 witnesses, which are really 65, was NOT debunked. I went through your list and found that you made errors on all of them except one, which I then took out of the list.

> > You think the truth is a popularity poll.
>

Nope, I think that the large numebr of agreeing witnesses corroborates
the facts big time. It makes them hard to assail with baloney.

> IIRC, Doug Horne made a statement that all doctors in ER saw the big hole
> in the back of head. All means 100%. That is a demonstrably false
> statement. Not even a majority of doctors in TR1 said that. As for the
> so-called list of "40 witnesses" check out this thread:
>

Where your facts come from, I haven't a clue. Show the text of Horne's
statement, and then show the links to where it was said. Since you have a
tendency to make things up, you have to be checked out thoroughly. Then
prove your statement. Which I doubt you'll bother with. Proving things
is not your style.

Chris

[Anthony Marsh]

On 12/17/2015 8:50 PM, claviger wrote:
> On Wednesday, December 16, 2015 at 6:16:15 PM UTC-8, Anthony Marsh wrote:
>> On 12/16/2015 11:55 AM, mainframetech wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, December 15, 2015 at 4:59:52 PM UTC-5, claviger wrote:
>>>> On Monday, December 14, 2015 at 9:19:12 PM UTC-6, mainframetech wrote:
>>>>> On Sunday, December 13, 2015 at 9:43:48 PM UTC-5, claviger wrote:
>>>>> Sorry to burst your little bubble, but there were people in the gallery
>>>>> that kept pushing to get along with the autopsy, and many steps that
>>>>> should have be ntaken were not because of it. They were rushed to get
>>>>> done and were often told to stop with a procedure and get on to another.
>>>>> It was not an environment for "assiduously careful and meticulous" work of
>>>>> examination of any wound. However, Finck made note of the forehead wound
>>>>> to Jenkins, and they both were aware of the wound, and yet it was not
>>>>> recorded in the Autopsy Report.
>>>> So sorry, the Kennedy family was in charge of this autopsy from start to
>>>> finish.
>>> They made a good excuse to avoid some of the procedures that were
>>> supposed to be done, and there were people there working for the Kennedys,
>>> but the Kennedys did NOT give orders to the prosectors, the admiral in the
>>> gallery did, as per sworn testimony.
>> Army General.
>
> Oh no, not that darn UGOTAR again! Doesn't he hang out in beer joints with Bigfoot, Susquach, and Yeti? Aren't they all members of the Scary Monsters-R-Us Club? I think they belong to the same actors guild,
> the Screamsters Union.
>

I keep telling you guys that really wasn't Bigfoot. It was only McAadams.
He's scarily tall.

And anyway, aren't the guys you mentioned are not really monsters. Just
misunderstood. And they're actually cousins. And Bigfoot only wore size
10. (homage to Psyche, now rerunning old episodes for the holidays)

>>>>> You can pretend to yourself that there was no 'large hole' in the BOH,
>>>>> but Hill isn't the only one who was close enough to see the hole and
>>>>> describe it. And he was looking right down at it from no more than 2 feet
>>>>> away, not a following car. From what Hill saw there's can be no doubt
>>>>> what the 'over 40' witnesses saw.
>>>> Your "40 witnesses" BS was debunked. Clint Hill is on the record for
>>>> clarifying what he meant and his observation was the same as Jackie
>>>> Kennedy. You lose again.
>>> The 40 witnesses, which are really 65, was NOT debunked. I went
>> Why don't you puff it up to 100?
>> You think the truth is a popularity poll.
>
> IIRC, Doug Horne made a statement that all doctors in ER saw the big hole
> in the back of head. All means 100%. That is a demonstrably false
> statement. Not even a majority of doctors in TR1 said that. As for the
> so-called list of "40 witnesses" check out this thread:
>

> alt.assassination.jfk ???

[Anthony Marsh]

On 12/18/2015 9:55 PM, claviger wrote:
> On Thursday, December 17, 2015 at 7:40:51 AM UTC-8, Anthony Marsh wrote:
>> On 12/15/2015 4:59 PM, claviger wrote:
>>>> Which is NOT what he told the X-ray Technicians at 6:35pm when the body
>>>> arrived at the morgue. He told them the job was to find bullets in the
>>>> body or any fragments.
>>> Yes.
>
> That is the purpose of an autopsy, find evidence to the cause of death.

Duh! Even the spectators could see that he was shot in the head.
Why didn't they do toxicology to rule out poisoning?

>
>>>> And the reason for that had to be to remove those bullets so that a conspiracy couldn't be assumed > > > from finding bulets from other guns than the MC rifle of Oswald's.
>>> Not a very good conspiracy. In fact a ridiculous self-defeating plan to
>>> use multiple weapons without silencers to blame one dumass patsy on the
>>> 6th floor of a building.
>>>> And the report wasn't complete, since it left out the forehead wound seen by many witnesses.
>>> How many witness? Who were they? Tell us again where did the forehead
>>> wound come from.
>> The grassy knoll.
>
> At least you give a precise location: on the north side of the wooden

No, West leg.

> fence 9' west of the corner. That would be a good location for anyone
> dumb enough to take a shot from there. The chance of escape unseen would
> be almost zero. No way to know, control, or avoid people walking up from

Escape? Who needs escape when you have genuine SS identification?
Just blend in. The only person that Joe Smith saw within seconds of the
shooting was a SS agent who showed him his genuine SS ID and helped him
search the cars. What was the name of that genuine SS agent?

> behind. Didn't this "insurance" sniper notice the cop and all the
> witnesses on top of the Tripple Underpass? Didn't he see all the people
> standing in front of the TSBD and along the north side of the street, and
> witnesses across the street, and witnesses standing on the GK, and
> witnesses practically in the line of fire on the steps? Didn't this
> sniper notice Zapruder and Sitzman standing up high on the pedestle? Not
> a very observant sniper and worst of all, the dumass missed.
>

All of those people on the grassy knoll were in front of him and
watching the motorcade. Only one reporter knew to look at the fence
area. Before the shooting, who knew to look up at the snipers nest to
see a shooter?

[mainframetech]

On Friday, December 18, 2015 at 9:55:04 PM UTC-5, claviger wrote:
> On Thursday, December 17, 2015 at 7:40:51 AM UTC-8, Anthony Marsh wrote:
> > On 12/15/2015 4:59 PM, claviger wrote:
> > >> Which is NOT what he told the X-ray Technicians at 6:35pm when the body
> > >> arrived at the morgue. He told them the job was to find bullets in the
> > >> body or any fragments.
> > > Yes.
>
> That is the purpose of an autopsy, find evidence to the cause of death.
>

do your research.

> > > > And the reason for that had to be to remove those bullets so that a conspiracy couldn't be assumed > > > from finding bulets from other guns than the MC rifle of Oswald's.
> > > Not a very good conspiracy. In fact a ridiculous self-defeating plan to
> > > use multiple weapons without silencers to blame one dumass patsy on the
> > > 6th floor of a building.
> > > > And the report wasn't complete, since it left out the forehead wound seen by many witnesses.
> > > How many witness? Who were they? Tell us again where did the forehead
> > > wound come from.
> > The grassy knoll.
>

False. The 5mm forehead/temple wound did NOT come from the GK. The
angle wasn't right. It came through the bullet hole in the windshield
from a drain on the left side of Elm street just after the underpass. A
few weeks later that drain was filled imn and sealed up.

> At least you give a precise location: on the north side of the wooden
> fence 9' west of the corner. That would be a good location for anyone
> dumb enough to take a shot from there. The chance of escape unseen would
> be almost zero.

The chances of escape would be excellent, since everyone would be
watching the motorcade and then JFK as he had difficulties from being
shot, and with an SS agent climbing on the limousine. It would take
seconds to get into a waiting car and zoom off.

> No way to know, control, or avoid people walking up from
> behind.

and there was the phony SS agent that was keeping people out of the
area, so ther was no onlookers except Lee Bowers in the railroad tower.
And he was silenced.

> Didn't this "insurance" sniper notice the cop and all the
> witnesses on top of the Tripple Underpass? Didn't he see all the people
> standing in front of the TSBD and along the north side of the street, and
> witnesses across the street, and witnesses standing on the GK, and
> witnesses practically in the line of fire on the steps? Didn't this
> sniper notice Zapruder and Sitzman standing up high on the pedestle? Not
> a very observant sniper and worst of all, the dumass missed.

Of course, some folks don't realize that the people on the overpass
couldn't see that well through the trees lining the GK fence. And when
Sam Holland went to go to the fence area, he noted that it took 'quite a
little while' getting to the area where the shot came from by the fence:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=soqwKWDqRsg

Chris

[Anthony Marsh]

But I did. Stop ragging on Bigfoot, you speciesist!

>
>
>>>>>> You can pretend to yourself that there was no 'large hole' in the BOH,
>>>>>> but Hill isn't the only one who was close enough to see the hole and
>>>>>> describe it. And he was looking right down at it from no more than 2 feet
>>>>>> away, not a following car. From what Hill saw there's can be no doubt
>>>>>> what the 'over 40' witnesses saw.
>>>>> Your "40 witnesses" BS was debunked. Clint Hill is on the record for
>>>>> clarifying what he meant and his observation was the same as Jackie
>>>>> Kennedy. You lose again.
>>>> The 40 witnesses, which are really 65, was NOT debunked. I went through your list and found that you made errors on all of them except one, which I then took out of the list.
>
>
>
>>> You think the truth is a popularity poll.
>>
>
>
> Nope, I think that the large numebr of agreeing witnesses corroborates
> the facts big time. It makes them hard to assail with baloney.
>

You mean the handful that you cherrypick.

>
>
>> IIRC, Doug Horne made a statement that all doctors in ER saw the big hole
>> in the back of head. All means 100%. That is a demonstrably false
>> statement. Not even a majority of doctors in TR1 said that. As for the
>> so-called list of "40 witnesses" check out this thread:
>>
>
>
>
> Where your facts come from, I haven't a clue. Show the text of Horne's

Oh, you aren't familiar with what Doug Horne said?
Maybe he said it at a lecture, but you never attend the conferences.

[bigdog]

On Saturday, December 19, 2015 at 11:06:37 PM UTC-5, mainframetech wrote:
> On Friday, December 18, 2015 at 9:55:04 PM UTC-5, claviger wrote:
> > On Thursday, December 17, 2015 at 7:40:51 AM UTC-8, Anthony Marsh wrote:
> > > On 12/15/2015 4:59 PM, claviger wrote:
> > > >> Which is NOT what he told the X-ray Technicians at 6:35pm when the body
> > > >> arrived at the morgue. He told them the job was to find bullets in the
> > > >> body or any fragments.
> > > > Yes.
> >
> > That is the purpose of an autopsy, find evidence to the cause of death.
> >
>
>
> do your research.
>
>
>
> > > > > And the reason for that had to be to remove those bullets so that a conspiracy couldn't be assumed > > > from finding bulets from other guns than the MC rifle of Oswald's.
> > > > Not a very good conspiracy. In fact a ridiculous self-defeating plan to
> > > > use multiple weapons without silencers to blame one dumass patsy on the
> > > > 6th floor of a building.
> > > > > And the report wasn't complete, since it left out the forehead wound seen by many witnesses.
> > > > How many witness? Who were they? Tell us again where did the forehead
> > > > wound come from.
> > > The grassy knoll.
> >
>
>
> False. The 5mm forehead/temple wound did NOT come from the GK. The
> angle wasn't right. It came through the bullet hole in the windshield
> from a drain on the left side of Elm street just after the underpass. A
> few weeks later that drain was filled imn and sealed up.
>

I'd love to see the diagram showing that bullet path. It would have to be
the mother of all magic bullets.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 12/19/2015 11:06 PM, mainframetech wrote:
> On Friday, December 18, 2015 at 9:55:04 PM UTC-5, claviger wrote:
>> On Thursday, December 17, 2015 at 7:40:51 AM UTC-8, Anthony Marsh wrote:
>>> On 12/15/2015 4:59 PM, claviger wrote:
>>>>> Which is NOT what he told the X-ray Technicians at 6:35pm when the body
>>>>> arrived at the morgue. He told them the job was to find bullets in the
>>>>> body or any fragments.
>>>> Yes.
>>
>> That is the purpose of an autopsy, find evidence to the cause of death.
>>
>
>
> do your research.
>
>
>
>>>>> And the reason for that had to be to remove those bullets so that a conspiracy couldn't be assumed > > > from finding bulets from other guns than the MC rifle of Oswald's.
>>>> Not a very good conspiracy. In fact a ridiculous self-defeating plan to
>>>> use multiple weapons without silencers to blame one dumass patsy on the
>>>> 6th floor of a building.
>>>>> And the report wasn't complete, since it left out the forehead wound seen by many witnesses.
>>>> How many witness? Who were they? Tell us again where did the forehead
>>>> wound come from.
>>> The grassy knoll.
>>
>
>
> False. The 5mm forehead/temple wound did NOT come from the GK. The

There was no 5mm wound. Show me your 5mm bullets.

> angle wasn't right. It came through the bullet hole in the windshield
> from a drain on the left side of Elm street just after the underpass. A
> few weeks later that drain was filled imn and sealed up.
>

Impossible angle. Show me when and how the drain was filled in.
Is that a literal cover-up? How about the modifications done to Dealey
Plaza? Is that part of the cover-up?

>
>
>> At least you give a precise location: on the north side of the wooden
>> fence 9' west of the corner. That would be a good location for anyone
>> dumb enough to take a shot from there. The chance of escape unseen would
>> be almost zero.
>
>
>
> The chances of escape would be excellent, since everyone would be
> watching the motorcade and then JFK as he had difficulties from being
> shot, and with an SS agent climbing on the limousine. It would take
> seconds to get into a waiting car and zoom off.
>

You mean for yous storm drain shooter? Impossible angle.