The Conspiracy Myths Continue

[David Von Pein]

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2013/06/the-conspiracy-myths-continue.html

[Anthony Marsh]

On 6/12/2013 6:24 PM, David Von Pein wrote:
>
> http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2013/06/the-conspiracy-myths-continue.html
>

How about starting a new thread called Myth of the Day where you shoot
down hundreds of myths one at a time. You could start with the aliens,
and then the Atlantians and then the Silurians. Show off your chops.

[David Von Pein]

TONY M. SAID:

How about starting a new thread called Myth of the Day where you shoot
down hundreds of myths one at a time.

DVP SAID:

Okay. Let's start with the "Motorcade Was Changed" myth....

http://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,8547.msg247735.html#msg247735

[Bud]

On Jun 12, 10:35 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On 6/12/2013 6:24 PM, David Von Pein wrote:
>
>
>

> >http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2013/06/the-conspiracy-myths-continu...

>
> How about starting a new thread called Myth of the Day where you shoot
> down hundreds of myths one at a time. You could start with the aliens,
> and then the Atlantians and then the Silurians. Show off your chops.

Debunking conspiracy hobbyist ideas isn`t as easy as shooting fish
in a barrel. It`s as easy as looking at a barrel.

[mainframetech]

We might have the 'lone nut' myth one day, and the 'single bullet' myth
another day. Both in honor of the WC and Allen Specter.

Chris

[Anthony Marsh]

Well, I'm waiting patiently. Begin. One per day. New thread.

[Bud]

On Jun 13, 1:40 pm, mainframetech <mainframet...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Wednesday, June 12, 2013 10:35:59 PM UTC-4, Anthony Marsh wrote:
> > On 6/12/2013 6:24 PM, David Von Pein wrote:
>

> > >http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2013/06/the-conspiracy-myths-continu...

>
> > How about starting a new thread called Myth of the Day where you shoot
>
> > down hundreds of myths one at a time. You could start with the aliens,
>
> > and then the Atlantians and then the Silurians. Show off your chops.
>
>    We might have the 'lone nut' myth one day,

If you can show someone conspiring with Oswald by all means do it.

> and the 'single bullet' myth
> another day.

Both victims were lined up one in front of the other from where the
shooter was seen shooting from.

[BT George]

Or we might have the demis of all of these:

And then there were multi-gunman Patsy Plots that somehow hoped to frame
LHO as a lone gunman, gunmen hiding in sewers, "deadly" umbrellas, a
virtual army of Oswald imposters roaming the countryside, limo drivers
turned assassin, signifcant alterations to JFK's body within the (perhaps)
5-15 minutes it was unguarded on the way to Bethesda from Parkland,
"synchronized" shots from the back and front to JFK's head, assassins
hiding in "artificial" trees etc., etc., etc. ...Do you really wanna keep
strolling down that path?

[mainframetech]

Don't forget the 'single bullet' myth and the 'lone nut' myth either.

[Anthony Marsh]

No, that is what the WC defenders call a lie by the conspiracy kooks.
The SBT requires that Connally be seated to JFK's left.

[Anthony Marsh]

As I said twice, DVP is a slacker and sloppy. All those need a debunking
and more. Every day devoted to a different myth. And don't forget the one
about Jackie wearing the pill box hat to conceal a derringer. Or JFK is
still alive. Or that JFK traveled back in time to shoot himself from the
grassy knoll (Red Dwarf).

[Bud]

Jackie was sitting to JFK`s left.

[Anthony Marsh]

You seem not to have followed the WC defender attacks on the conspiracy
believers. They claim that conspiracy believers falsely claim that
Connally was seated directly in front of Kennedy. They say that in fact
Connally was to the left of JFK not directly in front of Kennedy. What is
the purpose of you creating artificial controversies?

[BT George]

Because it's fun. Isn't that why you do it?

[curtjester1]

On Jun 14, 12:11 am, mainframetech <mainframet...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Thursday, June 13, 2013 10:32:45 AM UTC-4, David Von Pein wrote:
> > TONY M. SAID:
>
> > How about starting a new thread called Myth of the Day where you shoot
>
> > down hundreds of myths one at a time.
>
> > DVP SAID:
>
> > Okay. Let's start with the "Motorcade Was Changed" myth....
>

> >http://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,8547.msg247735.h...

>
>    Don't forget the 'single bullet' myth and the 'lone nut' myth either.

OR, the Oswald on the sixth floor myth, the Tippit killing at 1:15
myth, the no shots from the front myth, the films are ok myth, all the
correct rifle paperwork myth, there is only one person on the sixth
floor myth, the weapon fingerprints myth, the blood didn't go
backwards myth, the mauser was mistaken myth, and bullets all
accounted for myth. This is a 10 Myth Bundle. What are your offers?

CJ

[claviger]

BT,

>> What is the purpose of you creating artificial controversies?
>
> Because it's fun.  Isn't that why you do it?

Touché.

[tray...@gmail.com]

I wanted David to know the videos on his Vblog from The Onion are
hilarious, especially the stupid pos one (unknowingly, I've bought several
of those in my life while working with computer tech).

FWIW some of my private JFK enthusiasts are predicting to me that the more
the global public becomes wary of US Intel spying on its own citizens the
more people will let the JFK conspiracy theories go, especially if those
who author, verbalize or post topics or responses on the subject can
somehow be accused of being a link for anti-US terrorism.

For me, the choices are as simple as the 3 sides of a triangle:

A: Oswald did it

B: Oswald did it with some phantom helper(s) that escaped capture

C: Oswald had nothing to do with JFK's murder.

Apparently, A or B is OK with the government & the media as both are based
on government reports (A=WC) (B=HSCA)

Those that harbor in the shadows C have the most to lose in a duke out
with the feds.

[BT George]

Just thought that's what Bud would say & I thought I'd save him the
trouble.

[claviger]

trayn,

A: Oswald did it by himself to prove he was a badass Marxist

B: Oswald did it with some phantom helper(s) that escaped capture

C. Oswald thought he did it but realized he was not the only one
shooting

D. Oswald was part of a team of snipers but the only one who got
caught

E: Oswald had nothing to do with JFK's murder *

* Least likely solution.

[Bud]

On Jun 14, 3:54 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On 6/14/2013 11:27 AM, Bud wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 14, 12:35 am, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >> On 6/13/2013 7:58 PM, Bud wrote:
>
> >>> On Jun 13, 1:40 pm, mainframetech <mainframet...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>>> On Wednesday, June 12, 2013 10:35:59 PM UTC-4, Anthony Marsh wrote:
> >>>>> On 6/12/2013 6:24 PM, David Von Pein wrote:
>
> >>>>>>http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2013/06/the-conspiracy-myths-continu...
>
> >>>>> How about starting a new thread called Myth of the Day where you shoot
>
> >>>>> down hundreds of myths one at a time. You could start with the aliens,
>
> >>>>> and then the Atlantians and then the Silurians. Show off your chops.
>
> >>>>      We might have the 'lone nut' myth one day,
>
> >>>     If you can show someone conspiring with Oswald by all means do it.
>
> >>>> and the 'single bullet' myth
> >>>> another day.
>
> >>>     Both victims were lined up one in front of the other from where the
> >>> shooter was seen shooting from.
>
> >> No, that is what the WC defenders call a lie by the conspiracy kooks.
> >> The SBT requires that Connally be seated to JFK's left.
>
> >    Jackie was sitting to JFK`s left.
>
> You seem not to have followed the WC defender attacks on the conspiracy
> believers.

No, but I have seen a large number of accurate assessments of
conspiracy hobbyist positions.

> They claim that conspiracy believers falsely claim that
> Connally was seated directly in front of Kennedy.
> They say that in fact
> Connally was to the left of JFK not directly in front of Kennedy. What is
> the purpose of you creating artificial controversies?

What is the purpose of you creating an endless string of strawmen? I
said... "Both victims were lined up one in front of the other from
where the shooter was seen shooting from." Do you care to weigh in on
this idea?

[mainframetech]

Don't forget the myth of the competent autopsy too...:)

>
> CJ

[curtjester1]

F. *Oswald the Decoy

*Most likely, nobody ever thinks of.

CJ

[cmikes]

Don't forget the only reason that the HSCA came down on the conspiracy
side was the acoustic evidence. This was almost immediately debunked
after the publication of the report. The only reason it passed muster the
first time was because Gaeton Fonzi was a hardcore buff who believed that
the Mob committed the assassination and would grasp at any straw in order
to keep 'the Cause' alive.

[Anthony Marsh]

You were smart enough to not make the mistake of saying "directly." But
most WC defenders falsely assume that when conspiracy believers say, "Both

victims were lined up one in front of the other from where the shooter was

seen shooting from" that they mistakenly mean "directly" so the WC
defenders rush to say that Connally's body was to the left of JFK. That's
what the WC defenders say, not what I say.

[Bud]

You were smart enough not to address what I actually did say. But
not smart enough not to reply at all.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 6/15/2013 6:44 PM, cmikes wrote:
> On Friday, June 14, 2013 9:36:16 PM UTC-4, tray...@gmail.com wrote:
>> I wanted David to know the videos on his Vblog from The Onion are
>>
>> hilarious, especially the stupid pos one (unknowingly, I've bought several
>>
>> of those in my life while working with computer tech).
>>
>>
>>
>> FWIW some of my private JFK enthusiasts are predicting to me that the more
>>
>> the global public becomes wary of US Intel spying on its own citizens the
>>
>> more people will let the JFK conspiracy theories go, especially if those
>>
>> who author, verbalize or post topics or responses on the subject can
>>
>> somehow be accused of being a link for anti-US terrorism.
>>
>>
>>
>> For me, the choices are as simple as the 3 sides of a triangle:
>>
>>
>>
>> A: Oswald did it
>>
>>
>>
>> B: Oswald did it with some phantom helper(s) that escaped capture
>>
>>
>>
>> C: Oswald had nothing to do with JFK's murder.
>>
>>
>>
>> Apparently, A or B is OK with the government & the media as both are based
>>
>> on government reports (A=WC) (B=HSCA)
>>
>>
>>
>> Those that harbor in the shadows C have the most to lose in a duke out
>>
>> with the feds.
>
> Don't forget the only reason that the HSCA came down on the conspiracy

Almost true, but not absolutely true.

> side was the acoustic evidence. This was almost immediately debunked
> after the publication of the report. The only reason it passed muster the

Almost immediately? The Ramsey Panel report was not almost immediately
after. And almost immediately after the Ramsey Panel report I rebutted
their report.

> first time was because Gaeton Fonzi was a hardcore buff who believed that
> the Mob committed the assassination and would grasp at any straw in order
> to keep 'the Cause' alive.
>

Something like that. You know nothing about the HSCA. I do because I
helped to lobby to form the HSCA. The original HSCA was formed to find
conspiracy then the WC defenders in the House shut it down and the
second HSCA was formed to rubberstamp the WC. Blakey was shocked when
the scientists told him that there was a fourth shot on the tape and had
to scramble and blame the Mafia to protect his friends in the CIA.
Fonzi had no part in that decision.
Do you intend to always guess your way through life?

[John Fiorentino]

Anthony's assertions re: the HSCA have no basis in fact.


John F.



"Anthony Marsh" <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:51bd0ccc$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...

[Anthony Marsh]

I was alive at the time and actively involved in the formation of the
HSCA. You were not. You are guessing. I know.

[cmikes]

On Sunday, June 16, 2013 8:59:49 AM UTC-4, John Fiorentino wrote:
> Anthony's assertions re: the HSCA have no basis in fact.
>
>
>
>
>
> John F.
>
>

He is correct about one thing, surprisingly. I did get Fonzi and Blakely
confused. Blakely was the hardcore buff who would do whatever was
necessary to keep the conspiracy cause alive. Even if that meant
accepting obviously flawed evidence.

[Anthony Marsh]

No problem. You have to remember that there were two HSCA's. One in 1977
and the other in 1978.
Different people, different personalities.
Blakey was brought in as the CIA cover-up guy to rubberstamp the WC.

[SteveMG500]

How would you explain - if there is an explanation - Blakey's harsh
attacks on the CIA when he found out about Joannides? If he was a coverup
guy he sure seemed mighty teed off about that matter.

[BT George]

On Monday, June 17, 2013 4:03:18 PM UTC-5, Anthony Marsh wrote:

Give us a break Tony! Blakey was a pro-Mob conspiracy zealot who IGNORED
his own Committee's findings that indicated there was no credible evidence
of a conpiracy beyond whatever "unnamed" conspirator took a crack from the
GK that the HSCA panel concluded must have missed. Once the dictabelt
evidence began to fall apart, Blakey never agreed it had been debunked (or
at least if he did I know it was grudgingly accepted) and then proceeded
to keep right on down his "the mob did it" path.

Indeed, till the current time he retains a strong belief the Mob was
behind Oswald as this illustrates:

http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2012/nov/22/49-years-have-passed-kennedy-assassination-still/#axzz2WVpmD59c

Now what the heck Oswald would have had to do with the Mafia, or why, has
never been clear to me, as he doesn't seem like the kind of man that would
put his services up for sale. If, as most CT's contend, he practically
loved JFK, then you have to believe he either somehow sold out his
principles or else they had some other means of convincing him. But
again, why he would even come to their attention is beyond me as the
typical nexus between a committed political Marxist and organized crime is
nill.

[BT George]

Most likely THAT nobody SHOULD ever think of it.

>
> CJ

[cmikes]

If Blakey was brought in to the "conspiracy" (adding one more name to the
cast of thousands) in order to cover it up, why did he accept the acoustic
evidence in the first place? It was obviously flawed from the start,
judging from how short a time it took to debunk it. The much more likely
explanation, especially considering Blakey's book and statements, seems to
be that he was desperately searching for even the flimsiest of evidence to
indicate conspiracy and that was the best he could come up with, which is
kinda sad, considering how easy it was to debunk it.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 6/17/2013 8:44 PM, BT George wrote:
> On Monday, June 17, 2013 4:03:18 PM UTC-5, Anthony Marsh wrote:
>> On 6/16/2013 9:16 PM, cmikes wrote:
>>
>>> On Sunday, June 16, 2013 8:59:49 AM UTC-4, John Fiorentino wrote:
>>
>>>> Anthony's assertions re: the HSCA have no basis in fact.
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>> John F.
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>> He is correct about one thing, surprisingly. I did get Fonzi and Blakely
>>
>>> confused. Blakely was the hardcore buff who would do whatever was
>>
>>> necessary to keep the conspiracy cause alive. Even if that meant
>>
>>> accepting obviously flawed evidence.
>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> No problem. You have to remember that there were two HSCA's. One in 1977
>>
>> and the other in 1978.
>>
>> Different people, different personalities.
>>
>> Blakey was brought in as the CIA cover-up guy to rubberstamp the WC.
>
>
> Give us a break Tony! Blakey was a pro-Mob conspiracy zealot who IGNORED
> his own Committee's findings that indicated there was no credible evidence
> of a conpiracy beyond whatever "unnamed" conspirator took a crack from the

Until the acoustical evidence found the fourth shot, everyone, including
Blakey, was planning to endorse the WC conclusions. When Barger called
Blakey, there was real panic and it became known as Blakey's Problem. He
had to scramble to kludge together a Mafia conspiracy theory. The closest
he got was Lee's uncle.

> GK that the HSCA panel concluded must have missed. Once the dictabelt
> evidence began to fall apart, Blakey never agreed it had been debunked (or
> at least if he did I know it was grudgingly accepted) and then proceeded
> to keep right on down his "the mob did it" path.
>

Blakey picked the Mafia to protect the CIA.

> Indeed, till the current time he retains a strong belief the Mob was
> behind Oswald as this illustrates:
>
> http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2012/nov/22/49-years-have-passed-kennedy-assassination-still/#axzz2WVpmD59c
>
> Now what the heck Oswald would have had to do with the Mafia, or why, has
> never been clear to me, as he doesn't seem like the kind of man that would
> put his services up for sale. If, as most CT's contend, he practically
> loved JFK, then you have to believe he either somehow sold out his
> principles or else they had some other means of convincing him. But
> again, why he would even come to their attention is beyond me as the
> typical nexus between a committed political Marxist and organized crime is
> nill.
>

Something like that. If he is being framed then it doesn't matter what
he really thought.

[Anthony Marsh]

I said when he was brought in. He did not realize until later that the
CIA had been playing him.
He has written about this.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 6/17/2013 9:56 PM, cmikes wrote:
> On Monday, June 17, 2013 5:03:18 PM UTC-4, Anthony Marsh wrote:
>> On 6/16/2013 9:16 PM, cmikes wrote:
>>
>>> On Sunday, June 16, 2013 8:59:49 AM UTC-4, John Fiorentino wrote:
>>
>>>> Anthony's assertions re: the HSCA have no basis in fact.
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>> John F.
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>> He is correct about one thing, surprisingly. I did get Fonzi and Blakely
>>
>>> confused. Blakely was the hardcore buff who would do whatever was
>>
>>> necessary to keep the conspiracy cause alive. Even if that meant
>>
>>> accepting obviously flawed evidence.
>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> No problem. You have to remember that there were two HSCA's. One in 1977
>>
>> and the other in 1978.
>>
>> Different people, different personalities.
>>
>> Blakey was brought in as the CIA cover-up guy to rubberstamp the WC.
>
> If Blakey was brought in to the "conspiracy" (adding one more name to the
> cast of thousands) in order to cover it up, why did he accept the acoustic
> evidence in the first place? It was obviously flawed from the start,

He didn't want to believe it. He approved the studies because he was
sure they wouldn't find anything and that would shut up the kooks. He
couldn't hear any shots on the tape.

> judging from how short a time it took to debunk it. The much more likely

Exactly how short? Two years?

> explanation, especially considering Blakey's book and statements, seems to
> be that he was desperately searching for even the flimsiest of evidence to
> indicate conspiracy and that was the best he could come up with, which is
> kinda sad, considering how easy it was to debunk it.
>

Wrong. You weren't there. You don't know.

[mainframetech]

> >http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2012/nov/22/49-years-have-passed-kenn...

>
> > Now what the heck Oswald would have had to do with the Mafia, or why, has
> > never been clear to me, as he doesn't seem like the kind of man that would
> > put his services up for sale.  If, as most CT's contend, he practically
> > loved JFK, then you have to believe he either somehow sold out his
> > principles or else they had some other means of convincing him.  But
> > again, why he would even come to their attention is beyond me as the
> > typical nexus between a committed political Marxist and organized crime is
> > nill.
>
> Something like that. If he is being framed then it doesn't matter what
> he really thought.

Of course, we have talk of Oswald dealing with gun running with Jack
Ruby, and then Ruby going to Cuba to visit a higher up in the Mafia
who was in prison there.

Chris

[BT George]

On Monday, June 17, 2013 8:58:36 PM UTC-5, Anthony Marsh wrote:
> On 6/17/2013 8:44 PM, BT George wrote:
>
> > On Monday, June 17, 2013 4:03:18 PM UTC-5, Anthony Marsh wrote:
>
> >> On 6/16/2013 9:16 PM, cmikes wrote:
>
> >>
>
> >>> On Sunday, June 16, 2013 8:59:49 AM UTC-4, John Fiorentino wrote:
>
> >>
>
> >>>> Anthony's assertions re: the HSCA have no basis in fact.
>
> >>
>
> >>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>> John F.
>
> >>
>
> >>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>
>
> >>
>
> >>> He is correct about one thing, surprisingly. I did get Fonzi and Blakely
>
> >>
>
> >>> confused. Blakely was the hardcore buff who would do whatever was
>
> >>
>
> >>> necessary to keep the conspiracy cause alive. Even if that meant
>
> >>
>
> >>> accepting obviously flawed evidence.
>
> >>
>
> >>>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> No problem. You have to remember that there were two HSCA's. One in 1977
>
> >>
>
> >> and the other in 1978.
>
> >>
>
> >> Different people, different personalities.
>
> >>
>
> >> Blakey was brought in as the CIA cover-up guy to rubberstamp the WC.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Give us a break Tony! Blakey was a pro-Mob conspiracy zealot who IGNORED
>
> > his own Committee's findings that indicated there was no credible evidence
>
> > of a conpiracy beyond whatever "unnamed" conspirator took a crack from the
>
>
>
> Until the acoustical evidence found the fourth shot, everyone, including
>
> Blakey, was planning to endorse the WC conclusions. When Barger called
>
> Blakey, there was real panic and it became known as Blakey's Problem. He
>
> had to scramble to kludge together a Mafia conspiracy theory. The closest
>
> he got was Lee's uncle.
>
>

I would say he was "grudgingly" planning to endorse the WC findings.
Your assertion that he was trying to point to the Mafia to shield the CIA
is just your opinion which you cannot prove.

>
> > GK that the HSCA panel concluded must have missed. Once the dictabelt
>
> > evidence began to fall apart, Blakey never agreed it had been debunked (or
>
> > at least if he did I know it was grudgingly accepted) and then proceeded
>
> > to keep right on down his "the mob did it" path.
>
> >
>
>
>
> Blakey picked the Mafia to protect the CIA.
>
>
>

See above comments.

>
>
> > Indeed, till the current time he retains a strong belief the Mob was
>
> > behind Oswald as this illustrates:
>
> >
>
> > http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2012/nov/22/49-years-have-passed-kennedy-assassination-still/#axzz2WVpmD59c
>
> >
>
> > Now what the heck Oswald would have had to do with the Mafia, or why, has
>
> > never been clear to me, as he doesn't seem like the kind of man that would
>
> > put his services up for sale. If, as most CT's contend, he practically
>
> > loved JFK, then you have to believe he either somehow sold out his
>
> > principles or else they had some other means of convincing him. But
>
> > again, why he would even come to their attention is beyond me as the
>
> > typical nexus between a committed political Marxist and organized crime is
>
> > nill.
>
> >
>
>
>
> Something like that. If he is being framed then it doesn't matter what
>
> he really thought.

Well I don't believe he was ANYONE's Patsy because it is incoherent with
everything else we know about his personality. If anything LHO was a
stubborn, independant, lone wolf, who was genrally the manipulator, not a
manipulatee (if there is such a word).

However, if he were a Patsy or in cahoots, I can see him being somehow
manipulated/tricked into a CIA plot easier than one involving the Mafia.

[cmikes]

On Tuesday, June 18, 2013 12:05:41 AM UTC-4, Anthony Marsh wrote:
> On 6/17/2013 9:56 PM, cmikes wrote:
>
> > On Monday, June 17, 2013 5:03:18 PM UTC-4, Anthony Marsh wrote:
>
> >> On 6/16/2013 9:16 PM, cmikes wrote:
>
> >>
>
> >>> On Sunday, June 16, 2013 8:59:49 AM UTC-4, John Fiorentino wrote:
>
> >>
>
> >>>> Anthony's assertions re: the HSCA have no basis in fact.
>
> >>
>
> >>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>> John F.
>
> >>
>
> >>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>
>
> >>
>
> >>> He is correct about one thing, surprisingly. I did get Fonzi and Blakely
>
> >>
>
> >>> confused. Blakely was the hardcore buff who would do whatever was
>
> >>
>
> >>> necessary to keep the conspiracy cause alive. Even if that meant
>
> >>
>
> >>> accepting obviously flawed evidence.
>
> >>
>
> >>>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> No problem. You have to remember that there were two HSCA's. One in 1977
>
> >>
>
> >> and the other in 1978.
>
> >>
>
> >> Different people, different personalities.
>
> >>
>
> >> Blakey was brought in as the CIA cover-up guy to rubberstamp the WC.
>
> >
>
> > If Blakey was brought in to the "conspiracy" (adding one more name to the
>
> > cast of thousands) in order to cover it up, why did he accept the acoustic
>
> > evidence in the first place? It was obviously flawed from the start,
>
>
>
> He didn't want to believe it. He approved the studies because he was
>
> sure they wouldn't find anything and that would shut up the kooks. He
>
> couldn't hear any shots on the tape.
>
>
>
> > judging from how short a time it took to debunk it. The much more likely
>
>
>
> Exactly how short? Two years?
>

At least you're finally admitting it was debunked, whatever the time
frame. The last defender of the acoustic evidence finally admits reality.

>
>
> > explanation, especially considering Blakey's book and statements, seems to
>
> > be that he was desperately searching for even the flimsiest of evidence to
>
> > indicate conspiracy and that was the best he could come up with, which is
>
> > kinda sad, considering how easy it was to debunk it.
>
> >
>
>
>
> Wrong. You weren't there. You don't know.

I wasn't, but I can read just as well as you. All you have to do is read
Blakely's book to see how desperate he was to find any kind of conspiracy.
It's in English and everything.

[Anthony Marsh]

More false charges. I didn't admit anything. I said I rebutted the NAS
panel. But of course you aren't brave enough to read my rebuttal.

And you don't even know about Don Thomas. Because you know absolutely
nothing about the acoustical evidence.

>>
>>
>>> explanation, especially considering Blakey's book and statements, seems to
>>
>>> be that he was desperately searching for even the flimsiest of evidence to
>>
>>> indicate conspiracy and that was the best he could come up with, which is
>>
>>> kinda sad, considering how easy it was to debunk it.
>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Wrong. You weren't there. You don't know.
>
> I wasn't, but I can read just as well as you. All you have to do is read
> Blakely's book to see how desperate he was to find any kind of conspiracy.
> It's in English and everything.
>

There's more to research than just read propaganda.

[Anthony Marsh]

Incoherent? No, you are incoherent.
It is not inconsistent with his being a loner, unstable, and not a
joiner. He didn't join a FPCC chapter. He started his own phony chapter
and pretended it had other members.

> everything else we know about his personality. If anything LHO was a
> stubborn, independant, lone wolf, who was genrally the manipulator, not a
> manipulatee (if there is such a word).
>

You are very good at making up non-existent words.

And he was also paranoid. All his personality traits are pointed out by
the die hard WC defenders as reasons why he wasn't part of a conspiracy.
He could never join a conspiracy. But the conspiracy could use him as a
patsy, like Dreyfus. But I guess you've never heard of Drefyus because
you've never read any history books? Maybe you could learn to Google it.

> However, if he were a Patsy or in cahoots, I can see him being somehow
> manipulated/tricked into a CIA plot easier than one involving the Mafia.
>

Same difference.

[Anthony Marsh]

Talk is cheap. Do you understand what hearsay say is?

[BT George]

Yes. I often find my own behavior incoherent with sanity and good
judgment, when I inexplicably find myself choosing to responding to
another "brilliant" Marsh missive.

> It is not inconsistent with his being a loner, unstable, and not a
>
> joiner. He didn't join a FPCC chapter. He started his own phony chapter
>
> and pretended it had other members.
>
>
>
> > everything else we know about his personality. If anything LHO was a
>
> > stubborn, independant, lone wolf, who was genrally the manipulator, not a
>
> > manipulatee (if there is such a word).
>
> >
>
>
>
> You are very good at making up non-existent words.
>

True. But with your frequent reading comprehension problems, it's
difficult to see that making much of a difference.

>
> And he was also paranoid. All his personality traits are pointed out by
>
> the die hard WC defenders as reasons why he wasn't part of a conspiracy.
>
> He could never join a conspiracy. But the conspiracy could use him as a
>
> patsy, like Dreyfus. But I guess you've never heard of Drefyus because
>
> you've never read any history books? Maybe you could learn to Google it.
>
>

Gee. History was only my best subject throughout school and college, with
nothing less than an A. To this day I am still a military history buff.
It might "shock" you to know that I have heard of the Dreyfus Affair
before and even read some on it. However, since it's been a long time I
just took your advice and quickly Googled it to see what angle you might
be coming from.

OK. Dreyfus was "patsied" in France in the 19th/early 20th century.
What's your point? He was most probably scapegoated primarily because of
his Jewish and Alsatian heritage. My point dealt with the fact that LHO's
peronality and behavior made him a difficult person to manipulate to the
purposes of others and to dupe. To the contrary he was generally the one
who wanted to manipulate and dupe others to do what he wanted done.

> > However, if he were a Patsy or in cahoots, I can see him being somehow
>
> > manipulated/tricked into a CIA plot easier than one involving the Mafia.
>
> >
>
>
>
> Same difference.

Sure. The methods and approach of the Mob and CIA are virtually identical
in the mind of CT's. I guess that's why you've suddenly become such a
defender of Harris' postings, since all that REALLY matters to you is to
never believe that LHO and LHO alone did this crime. Anything at all may
be believed, however unlikely or contradictory, but "heaven forbid" NOT
that.

[Ace Kefford]

On Wednesday, June 12, 2013 6:24:10 PM UTC-4, David Von Pein wrote:
> http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2013/06/the-conspiracy-myths-continue.html

As I've said before, I can't believe you bother trying to convince them of
their errors and nothing that anyone could ever do or say would ever
persuade most of them to change from their "belief" in conspiracy, but
nonetheless I admire you for trying because there are that group of
conspiracy believers who are genuinely seeking the truth. Problem is,
most of that group other than a few newcomers already know and accept that
these tired circa 1964-66 "claims" are crap.

[cmikes]

I know it was debunked. Debating it after we already know that's it's not
a recording of any shots is entirely pointless. It's like debating the
Flat Earth theory after Eratosthenes. How is it in any way relevant?

>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>> explanation, especially considering Blakey's book and statements, seems to
>
> >>
>
> >>> be that he was desperately searching for even the flimsiest of evidence to
>
> >>
>
> >>> indicate conspiracy and that was the best he could come up with, which is
>
> >>
>
> >>> kinda sad, considering how easy it was to debunk it.
>
> >>
>
> >>>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> Wrong. You weren't there. You don't know.
>
> >
>
> > I wasn't, but I can read just as well as you. All you have to do is read
>
> > Blakely's book to see how desperate he was to find any kind of conspiracy.
>
> > It's in English and everything.
>
> >
>
>
>
> There's more to research than just read propaganda.

Exactly my point, thank you. Blakley's book is nothing but another buff
book grasping at straws trying to prove something that's just not there.
But supposedly he was a conspirator just pretending to be a hopeless buff,
right? Was there anyone on the WC or the HSCA that wasn't in on it?

[Anthony Marsh]

You can't be addressing this to me.
I have no idea was you are babbling about. I never accused Blakey of
being one the shooters. Do not understand the difference between a
conspiracy and a cover-up? LBJ ordered the cover-up because he thought
it was a conspiracy by Castro.
Blakey admits that he was hoodwinked by the CIA, as the Morley documents
prove.

[cmikes]

Being involved in the cover-up is being involved in the conspiracy. If a
person is deliberately covering up a conspiracy, they are legally and
morally part of the conspiracy. I never said Blakely was a shooter, but
if he was knowingly obstructing the investigation, he is just as guilty as
the three to fifteen assassins shooting at JFK, depending on which buff
theory you subscribe to. Even if done with the best of intentions, all
the thousands of people that would have had to been involved in the
cover-up are just as guilty as if they had pulled the trigger themselves.
This, to me, is another argument against a smaller conspiracy of several
hundred people recruiting a larger 'cast of thousands' conspiracy after
the the assassination. Every person recruited into conspiracy B would be
exposing themselves to legal conspiracy charges and government bureaucrats
are generally (but not always) smarter than that. And yet, according to
your theory, every person recruited into conspiracy B just went along with
it, not one person had a problem with covering up a conspiracy that killed
the president that most of them voted for.

[Anthony Marsh]

No, it isn't. Nixon was not one of the Watergate burglars. John Dean was
not part of the planning.

> person is deliberately covering up a conspiracy, they are legally and
> morally part of the conspiracy. I never said Blakely was a shooter, but
> if he was knowingly obstructing the investigation, he is just as guilty as

He was not obstruction the investigation.

> the three to fifteen assassins shooting at JFK, depending on which buff
> theory you subscribe to. Even if done with the best of intentions, all

You're not trying hard enough. You should claim thousands of shooters in
Dealey Plaza. When you start depending on Reducio ad Absurdum you can't
stop with 2 or 3.

> the thousands of people that would have had to been involved in the
> cover-up are just as guilty as if they had pulled the trigger themselves.

Thousands of people were involved in covering up Operation Mongoose.
Only a handful of people were running it. People in the military or
intelligence just follow orders without realizing they are part of a
conspiracy.

> This, to me, is another argument against a smaller conspiracy of several
> hundred people recruiting a larger 'cast of thousands' conspiracy after

Again, learn how to use Reductio ad Absurdum. START with millions and
then expand it to everyone in the universe. The Castro plots involved
about a baker's dozen of conspirators. So you'll deny there was any
conspiracy to assassinate Castro, because the cast was so small.

> the the assassination. Every person recruited into conspiracy B would be
> exposing themselves to legal conspiracy charges and government bureaucrats

Very few people in government are ever charged and and convicted of
conspiracy.

> are generally (but not always) smarter than that. And yet, according to
> your theory, every person recruited into conspiracy B just went along with
> it, not one person had a problem with covering up a conspiracy that killed
> the president that most of them voted for.
>

You lack historical perspective. Maybe because you weren't alive at the
time. People who lived through the Cuban Missile Crisis remember how
close we came to WWIII. It was the fear of WWIII which caused LBJ to
order the cover-up. Not because he pulled a trigger.

[claviger]

mainframetech,

> Don't forget the myth of the competent autopsy too...:)

The autopsy was not what we wish it had been, but was adequate to prove
the President suffered two lethal through-and-through wounds. The
back-to-throat wound was a complete puncture by an intact projectile.
The projectile causing the head wound created a small entrance hole with a
fragment path connecting to a massive exit wound on top of the head. The
projectile failed to stay intact, fragmenting into a "lead snowstorm" of
approximately 40 tiny pieces and 3 significant fragments. This complete
disintegration had the effect of a shotgun blast causing a gaping wound in
the upper skull. The shape of the tiny fragments was not consistent with a
frangible bullet. No other major wounds were found on the body. There
were smaller puncture wounds discovered on the cheek caused by smaller
fragments from the first shot ricochet off the pavement. Another larger
fragment was embedded in the back of the skull, evidently from the same
source. No intact projectile showed up on X-rays of the head and torso.
The autopsy located a head wound consistent with the Zapruder film.
Three medical panels confirmed these findings by the pathology team.

[John Fiorentino]

Claviger says.......

"There were smaller puncture wounds discovered on the cheek caused by
smaller fragments from the first shot ricochet off the pavement."

I say..............

There is no evidence to support that idea, nor is it very likely.

John F.



"claviger" <histori...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:7de89dc6-63ff-4d83...@googlegroups.com...

[David Von Pein]

On Sunday, June 30, 2013 1:20:27 PM UTC-4, John Fiorentino wrote:
> Claviger says.......
>
>
>
> "There were smaller puncture wounds discovered on the cheek caused by
>
> smaller fragments from the first shot ricochet off the pavement."
>
>
>
> I say..............
>
>
>
> There is no evidence to support that idea, nor is it very likely.
>
>
>
> John F.
>

I totally agree, John F.

The notion that ONLY Kennedy (the intended murder victim) was peppered by fragments of bullet or concrete from the missed shot is incredible. And not a single shard or fragment peppered ANYONE else in the car. (Yeah, right.)

And Jim Bishop (who, I think, first endorsed such an unlikely theory in his 1968 book) has JFK's arm-raising at Z226 being the result of the MISSED shot, which is utter nonsense since we know the SBT bullet most certainly hit him right around that precise moment.

And I've always wondered how a missed shot which (by all witness accounts) struck the pavement to the REAR of JFK's car could have possibly resulted in fragments/concrete flying up and somehow hitting Kennedy (and ONLY him) in the FACE.

Those were some magical swerving fragments I guess. A silly theory from all angles, IMO.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 6/30/2013 1:35 AM, claviger wrote:
> mainframetech,
>
>> Don't forget the myth of the competent autopsy too...:)
>
> The autopsy was not what we wish it had been, but was adequate to prove
> the President suffered two lethal through-and-through wounds. The

So, I guess it doesn't matter to you where the bullets came from.
The moment JFK was wheeled into the ER everyone could see that he was
shot twice. So according to your logic there was no need for an autopsy.

> back-to-throat wound was a complete puncture by an intact projectile.
> The projectile causing the head wound created a small entrance hole with a
> fragment path connecting to a massive exit wound on top of the head. The
> projectile failed to stay intact, fragmenting into a "lead snowstorm" of
> approximately 40 tiny pieces and 3 significant fragments. This complete
> disintegration had the effect of a shotgun blast causing a gaping wound in
> the upper skull. The shape of the tiny fragments was not consistent with a
> frangible bullet. No other major wounds were found on the body. There
> were smaller puncture wounds discovered on the cheek caused by smaller

Fiction.

> fragments from the first shot ricochet off the pavement. Another larger
> fragment was embedded in the back of the skull, evidently from the same
> source. No intact projectile showed up on X-rays of the head and torso.
> The autopsy located a head wound consistent with the Zapruder film.
> Three medical panels confirmed these findings by the pathology team.
>

So you are saying that the HSCA was correct and the autopsy doctors were
incompetent.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 6/30/2013 1:20 PM, John Fiorentino wrote:
> Claviger says.......
>
> "There were smaller puncture wounds discovered on the cheek caused by
> smaller fragments from the first shot ricochet off the pavement."
>
> I say..............
>
> There is no evidence to support that idea, nor is it very likely.
>
> John F.
>
>
>
> "claviger" <histori...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:7de89dc6-63ff-4d83...@googlegroups.com...
> mainframetech,
>
>> Don't forget the myth of the competent autopsy too...:)
>
> The autopsy was not what we wish it had been, but was adequate to prove
> the President suffered two lethal through-and-through wounds. The

They proved that on the ER table. That is not legal proof.

[mainframetech]

On Sunday, June 30, 2013 1:35:02 AM UTC-4, claviger wrote:
> mainframetech,
>
>
>
> > Don't forget the myth of the competent autopsy too...:)
>

Yes indeed! That autopsy was indeed a myth. Nothing real about it. But from the ARRB we get some truth that helps us figure out what happened anyway.

Now let's add some information from sworn testimony from the files of the ARRB to correct some of the baloney above. First, the back-to-throat wound wasn't. They used a probe on the back wound and it went in no more than 2-4 inches. And James Jenkins saw the probe protruding against the pleura from the front meaning the bullet had not gone through to the throat. That leaves the throat wound as an entry wound, and therefore there was a frontal wound from a shooter in front of JFK.

There was a 'massive' exit wound at the BOH of JFK seen by over 40 people, which was matched by a tiny entry wound at the right temple/forehead in the hairline seen by Tom Robinson, the mortician. This 'path' would be caused by a frontal shot hitting the forehead and passing through to explode out the large hole in the BOH. Damage to the top of the skull was done by the prosectors watched by Robinson, while looking for fragments. They also used a saw to cut part of the top of the skull off to remove the brain. Originally there was NOT a large hole at the TOP of the head. They did this work with most people removed from the autopsy room before the 8:00pm autopsy. Check the medically trained personnel of Parkland and Bethesda hospitals:
http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/boh/parkland_boh/parkland_wound.htm

There is no way to know what caused the marks on the cheeks by simply looking at them.

Three medical panels said what they were supposed to, except for Cyril Wecht who was very unhappy with the autopsy. However, more current information from the ARRB makes much of the autopsy look childish and proves what really happened.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 6/30/2013 8:15 PM, mainframetech wrote:
> On Sunday, June 30, 2013 1:35:02 AM UTC-4, claviger wrote:
>> mainframetech,
>>
>>
>>
>>> Don't forget the myth of the competent autopsy too...:)
>>
> Yes indeed! That autopsy was indeed a myth. Nothing real about it. But from the ARRB we get some truth that helps us figure out what happened anyway.
>>
>>
>> The autopsy was not what we wish it had been, but was adequate to prove
>>
>> the President suffered two lethal through-and-through wounds. The
>>
>> back-to-throat wound was a complete puncture by an intact projectile.
>>
>> The projectile causing the head wound created a small entrance hole with a
>>
>> fragment path connecting to a massive exit wound on top of the head. The
>>
>> projectile failed to stay intact, fragmenting into a "lead snowstorm" of
>>
>> approximately 40 tiny pieces and 3 significant fragments. This complete
>>
>> disintegration had the effect of a shotgun blast causing a gaping wound in
>>
>> the upper skull. The shape of the tiny fragments was not consistent with a
>>
>> frangible bullet. No other major wounds were found on the body. There
>>
>> were smaller puncture wounds discovered on the cheek caused by smaller
>>
>> fragments from the first shot ricochet off the pavement. Another larger
>>
>> fragment was embedded in the back of the skull, evidently from the same
>>
>> source. No intact projectile showed up on X-rays of the head and torso.
>>
>> The autopsy located a head wound consistent with the Zapruder film.
>>
>> Three medical panels confirmed these findings by the pathology team.
>
> Now let's add some information from sworn testimony from the files of the ARRB to correct some of the baloney above. First, the back-to-throat wound wasn't. They used a probe on the back wound and it went in no more than 2-4 inches. And James Jenkins saw the probe protruding against the pleura from the front meaning the bullet had not gone through to the throat. That leaves the throat wound as an entry wound, and therefore there was a frontal wound from a shooter in front of JFK.
>

You keep spewing nonsense. You continue to refuse to back up your
claims. You find one kook who says something you like and you claim is
it absolutele proof.

> There was a 'massive' exit wound at the BOH of JFK seen by over 40 people, which was matched by a tiny entry wound at the right temple/forehead in the hairline seen by Tom Robinson, the mortician. This 'path' would be caused by a frontal shot hitting the forehead and passing through to explode out the large hole in the BOH. Damage to the top of the skull was done by the prosectors watched by Robinson, while looking for fragments. They also used a saw to cut part of the top of the skull off to remove the brain. Originally there was NOT a large hole at the TOP of the head. They did this work with most people removed from the autopsy room before the 8:00pm autopsy. Check the medically trained personnel of Parkland and Bethesda hospitals:
> http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/boh/parkland_boh/parkland_wound.htm
>

Show me the massive hole. You got nothing.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 6/30/2013 7:15 PM, David Von Pein wrote:
> On Sunday, June 30, 2013 1:20:27 PM UTC-4, John Fiorentino wrote:
>> Claviger says.......
>>
>>
>>
>> "There were smaller puncture wounds discovered on the cheek caused by
>>
>> smaller fragments from the first shot ricochet off the pavement."
>>
>>
>>
>> I say..............
>>
>>
>>
>> There is no evidence to support that idea, nor is it very likely.
>>
>>
>>
>> John F.
>>
>
> I totally agree, John F.
>
> The notion that ONLY Kennedy (the intended murder victim) was peppered by fragments of bullet or concrete from the missed shot is incredible. And not a single shard or fragment peppered ANYONE else in the car. (Yeah, right.)
>
> And Jim Bishop (who, I think, first endorsed such an unlikely theory in his 1968 book) has JFK's arm-raising at Z226 being the result of the MISSED shot, which is utter nonsense since we know the SBT bullet most certainly hit him right around that precise moment.
>

Right around? Not much of a theory when you can't even name the frame.
So he was hit somewhere on Elm. That's good enough for you.

> And I've always wondered how a missed shot which (by all witness accounts) struck the pavement to the REAR of JFK's car could have possibly resulted in fragments/concrete flying up and somehow hitting Kennedy (and ONLY him) in the FACE.
>

You can't explain your missed shot.

> Those were some magical swerving fragments I guess. A silly theory from all angles, IMO.
>

Just like your head shot. You can't explain the cracked windshield or
the dent of the chrome topping, or the smashed in back of the rearview
mirror or the damage to the curb near Tague.

[Bud]

On Monday, July 1, 2013 12:32:03 AM UTC-4, Anthony Marsh wrote:
> On 6/30/2013 7:15 PM, David Von Pein wrote:
>
> > On Sunday, June 30, 2013 1:20:27 PM UTC-4, John Fiorentino wrote:
>
> >> Claviger says.......
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> "There were smaller puncture wounds discovered on the cheek caused by
>
> >>
>
> >> smaller fragments from the first shot ricochet off the pavement."
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> I say..............
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> There is no evidence to support that idea, nor is it very likely.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> John F.
>
> >>
>
> >
>
> > I totally agree, John F.
>
> >
>
> > The notion that ONLY Kennedy (the intended murder victim) was peppered by fragments of bullet or concrete from the missed shot is incredible. And not a single shard or fragment peppered ANYONE else in the car. (Yeah, right.)
>
> >
>
> > And Jim Bishop (who, I think, first endorsed such an unlikely theory in his 1968 book) has JFK's arm-raising at Z226 being the result of the MISSED shot, which is utter nonsense since we know the SBT bullet most certainly hit him right around that precise moment.
>
> >
>
>
>
> Right around? Not much of a theory when you can't even name the frame.

You think Zapruder had a stop action camera that could capture a bullet in flight?

> So he was hit somewhere on Elm. That's good enough for you.

Not quite. He was shot somewhere along Elm by Oswald.

> > And I've always wondered how a missed shot which (by all witness accounts) struck the pavement to the REAR of JFK's car could have possibly resulted in fragments/concrete flying up and somehow hitting Kennedy (and ONLY him) in the FACE.
>
> >
>
>
>
> You can't explain your missed shot.

That the shot missed is the explanation of why it didn`t hit.

> > Those were some magical swerving fragments I guess. A silly theory from all angles, IMO.
>
> >
>
>
>
> Just like your head shot. You can't explain the cracked windshield or
>
> the dent of the chrome topping, or the smashed in back of the rearview
>
> mirror or the damage to the curb near Tague.

Are you complaining that Oswald wasn`t charged with damaging public property?

[mainframetech]

One would have thought you'd have the sense to be able to look up the
ARRB testimony of the named parties, but I guess that's beyond your
research level. I can understand the need to stay away from evidence that
proves your favored scenario a dud. But I'll also provide the backup, as
I have always promised to do if asked. The second of these 2 pages shows
the comments of the use of the probe by Humes on the back wound:

http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=329&relPageId=11
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=329&relPageId=13

The following is part of an interview with James Jenkins where he
describes the front of the body and the probe rubbing the pleura, showing
that the bullet didn't go through and stopped before the pleura
surrounding the lung.

http://www.assassinationresearch.com/v4n2/v4n2part3.pdf

>
>
> > There was a 'massive' exit wound at the BOH of JFK seen by over 40 people, which was matched by a tiny entry wound at the right temple/forehead in the hairline seen by Tom Robinson, the mortician. This 'path' would be caused by a frontal shot hitting the forehead and passing through to explode out the large hole in the BOH. Damage to the top of the skull was done by the prosectors watched by Robinson, while looking for fragments. They also used a saw to cut part of the top of the skull off to remove the brain. Originally there was NOT a large hole at the TOP of the head. They did this work with most people removed from the autopsy room before the 8:00pm autopsy. Check the medically trained personnel of Parkland and Bethesda hospitals:
>
> > http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/boh/parkland_boh/parkland_wound.htm
>
>
> Show me the massive hole. You got nothing.
>

Show me your IQ, since the one autopsy photo that would have shown the
large hole that over 40 people saw was blacked out on purpose, there is no
photo of the large hole, just people that were inches from the large hole
and have testified to the presence of it. You have been shown those
people and photos of them many times, and they have been named for you.

>
>
> > There is no way to know what caused the marks on the cheeks by simply looking at them.
>
>
> > Three medical panels said what they were supposed to, except for Cyril Wecht who was very unhappy with the autopsy. However, more current information from the ARRB makes much of the autopsy look childish and proves what really happened.

Chris

[David Von Pein]

ANTHONY MARSH SAID:

Just like your head shot. You can't explain the cracked windshield or the
dent of the chrome topping, or the smashed in back of the rearview mirror
or the damage to the curb near Tague.

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Tony Marsh has decided to switch to his "play dumb and pretend that this
stuff hasn't been examined by DVP and other LNers numerous times in the
past" mode. Why does Marsh play these silly little games?

In fact, every item Marsh mentioned above has been "explained" by me and
many other LNers over the years. (Except, of course, for the item that
Marsh has decided to invent from whole cloth above...this one: "the
smashed in back of the rearview mirror". That particular item only exists
in Tony Marsh's mind.)

[claviger]

On Sunday, June 30, 2013 12:20:27 PM UTC-5, John Fiorentino wrote:
> Claviger says.......
>
>
>
> "There were smaller puncture wounds discovered on the cheek caused by
>
> smaller fragments from the first shot ricochet off the pavement."
>
> I say..............
>
> There is no evidence to support that idea, nor is it very likely.
>
> John F.

“Puncture holes in his face wouldn't cause him to react?  Are you
saying don't take the word of the morticians who saw the body up close
and had to apply make-up to the face to cover up these wounds?  What
possible reason would they have to make up a story like this?”


“Dr. Mantik also entertains the theory that a fragment or fragments of
glass from the limo’s windshield could have caused additional wounds
to JFK’s face due to a shot from the front which passes through the
windshield. Mantik notes that “a path from the windshield to JFK’s
throat was entirely unobstructed.” He further notes that Tom Robinson,
from Gawler’s funeral home, described three tiny holes in JFK’s right
cheek, near the right eye. Robinson says that he recalled the wounds
because the fixative solution was leaking from them during the
embalming process.”


“MEETING REPORT
Document’s Author: Douglas Home/ARRB Date Created: 06/21/96
Meeting Logistics
Date: 06/2 l/96
Agecny Name: Witnesses/Consultants
Attendees: Tom Robinson, David Marwell, Jeremy Gunn, Tim Wray, and
Doug Home
Topic: Interview of Tom Robinson
Summary of the Meeting
At ARRB’s request, Mr. Robinson came to Washington this date for an
interview with selected staff
Observations regarding the autopsy of President Kennedy:
-he saw 2 or 3 small perforations or holes in the right cheek during
embalming, when formaldehyde seeped through these small wounds and
slight discoloration began to occur (and executed a drawing of three
slits, or holes, in the right cheek of the President on a photocopy of
a frontal photograph of the President);”


“213)-214) Joseph H. Gawler, Director , Gawler's Funeral Home, and
George Thomas, JFK's Valet:
a) 5/18/64, 6/1/64, 6/16/64, and 5/19/65 interviews with William
Manchester ("The Death of a President", numerous-see esp. pages
432-433 and 670)---"Joe Gawler and Joe Hagan, his chief assistant,
supervised the loading of the coffin in a hearse…The firm's young
cosmetician accompanied them to Bethesda. The two caskets, Oneals' and
Gawler's, lay side by side for a while in the morgue anteroom; then
Oneal's was removed for storage and the undertakers, Irishmen, and
George Thomas [Valet to the President; interviewed 5/7/64; see also 17
H 614] were admitted to the main room. The autopsy team had finished
its work…The cosmetician then went to work…From the eight suits and
four pairs of shoes George Thomas had brought Dave [Powers] chose a
blue-gray suit, black shoes, and…a blue tie…”

“The embalming team consisted of Joe Hagan (Operations Manager and
Supervisor), and the following three “hands on” working personnel: Tom
Robinson, John Van Hoesen (pronounced “Van Heusen”), and Edward
Stroble. [Ed Stroble is now deceased.]”

“186) Mortician Thomas Evan Robinson:
The face was perfect and undamaged except for a small laceration about
a half inch into the forehead, which I covered up…[the frontal bone]
was perfectly intact…The face was perfect…”

“There were also 3 small holes in his cheek which he also plugged in
order to prevent any leakage of the embalming fluid.;”

“188) Joseph E.Hagan, Chief Asst. to Joseph H. Gawler,
undertaker[Hagen]:
The face was undamaged except for a small laceration extending about a
half inch into the forehead towards the right eyebrow, which can be
seen in the right profile photograph;”

[Anthony Marsh]

I was the first person to post them online. I am more familiar with them
than you are and I know that you will misrepresent them.

> research level. I can understand the need to stay away from evidence that
> proves your favored scenario a dud. But I'll also provide the backup, as
> I have always promised to do if asked. The second of these 2 pages shows
> the comments of the use of the probe by Humes on the back wound:
>

I have asked and you refused to do so.

> http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=329&relPageId=11
> http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=329&relPageId=13
>
> The following is part of an interview with James Jenkins where he
> describes the front of the body and the probe rubbing the pleura, showing
> that the bullet didn't go through and stopped before the pleura
> surrounding the lung.
>
> http://www.assassinationresearch.com/v4n2/v4n2part3.pdf
>>
>>
>>> There was a 'massive' exit wound at the BOH of JFK seen by over 40 people, which was matched by a tiny entry wound at the right temple/forehead in the hairline seen by Tom Robinson, the mortician. This 'path' would be caused by a frontal shot hitting the forehead and passing through to explode out the large hole in the BOH. Damage to the top of the skull was done by the prosectors watched by Robinson, while looking for fragments. They also used a saw to cut part of the top of the skull off to remove the brain. Originally there was NOT a large hole at the TOP of the head. They did this work with most people removed from the autopsy room before the 8:00pm autopsy. Check the medically trained personnel of Parkland and Bethesda hospitals:
>>
>>> http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/boh/parkland_boh/parkland_wound.htm
>>
>>
>> Show me the massive hole. You got nothing.
>>
> Show me your IQ, since the one autopsy photo that would have shown the
> large hole that over 40 people saw was blacked out on purpose, there is no
> photo of the large hole, just people that were inches from the large hole
> and have testified to the presence of it. You have been shown those
> people and photos of them many times, and they have been named for you.
>

You have no proof of that. Only your over-active imagination. There are
many autopsy photos and none of them show a massive hole in the back of
the head.

And you have misrepresented witnesses to push your political agenda.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 7/1/2013 12:50 PM, mainframetech wrote:

Palamara' article is not proof.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 7/1/2013 12:45 PM, Bud wrote:
> On Monday, July 1, 2013 12:32:03 AM UTC-4, Anthony Marsh wrote:
>> On 6/30/2013 7:15 PM, David Von Pein wrote:
>>
>>> On Sunday, June 30, 2013 1:20:27 PM UTC-4, John Fiorentino wrote:
>>
>>>> Claviger says.......
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>> "There were smaller puncture wounds discovered on the cheek caused by
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>> smaller fragments from the first shot ricochet off the pavement."
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>> I say..............
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>> There is no evidence to support that idea, nor is it very likely.
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>> John F.
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>> I totally agree, John F.
>>
>>>
>>
>>> The notion that ONLY Kennedy (the intended murder victim) was peppered by fragments of bullet or concrete from the missed shot is incredible. And not a single shard or fragment peppered ANYONE else in the car. (Yeah, right.)
>>
>>>
>>
>>> And Jim Bishop (who, I think, first endorsed such an unlikely theory in his 1968 book) has JFK's arm-raising at Z226 being the result of the MISSED shot, which is utter nonsense since we know the SBT bullet most certainly hit him right around that precise moment.
>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Right around? Not much of a theory when you can't even name the frame.
>
> You think Zapruder had a stop action camera that could capture a bullet in flight?
>
>> So he was hit somewhere on Elm. That's good enough for you.
>
> Not quite. He was shot somewhere along Elm by Oswald.
>
>>> And I've always wondered how a missed shot which (by all witness accounts) struck the pavement to the REAR of JFK's car could have possibly resulted in fragments/concrete flying up and somehow hitting Kennedy (and ONLY him) in the FACE.
>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> You can't explain your missed shot.
>
> That the shot missed is the explanation of why it didn`t hit.
>

What did it hit? Or do you claim it never stopped and never hit anything
on this planet? How evasive can you be?

[claviger]

mainframetech,

> > > There was a 'massive' exit wound at the BOH of JFK seen by over 40 people, which was matched by a tiny entry wound at the right temple/forehead in the hairline seen by Tom Robinson, the mortician. This 'path' would be caused by a frontal shot hitting the forehead and passing through to explode out the large hole in the BOH. Damage to the top of the skull was done by the prosectors watched by Robinson, while looking for fragments. They also used a saw to cut part of the top of the skull off to remove the brain. Originally there was NOT a large hole at the TOP of the head. They did this work with most people removed from the autopsy room before the 8:00pm autopsy. Check the medically trained personnel of Parkland and Bethesda hospitals:

> > > http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/boh/parkland_boh/parkland_wound.htm

Do you have a source for the 40 people? Cite please. It is a myth that
everyone in ER saw a large hole in the back of the head. This notion has
already been thoroughly debunked. The Zapruder film alone totally debunks
the factoid that there was a large hole in the back of the head. You
should know this by now.

> large hole that over 40 people saw was blacked out on purpose, there is no
> photo of the large hole, just people that were inches from the large hole
> and have testified to the presence of it. You have been shown those
> people and photos of them many times, and they have been named for you.
>
> > > There is no way to know what caused the marks on the cheeks by simply looking at them.

The morticians had no idea what caused these wounds. The one responsible
for adding makeup also noticed grit on the face that looked like cement.

[claviger]

On Sunday, June 30, 2013 6:15:06 PM UTC-5, David Von Pein wrote:
> On Sunday, June 30, 2013 1:20:27 PM UTC-4, John Fiorentino wrote:
>
> > Claviger says.......
> > "There were smaller puncture wounds discovered on the cheek caused by
> > smaller fragments from the first shot ricochet off the pavement."
>
> > I say..............
>
> > There is no evidence to support that idea, nor is it very likely.
>
> > John F.
>
> I totally agree, John F.
>
> The notion that ONLY Kennedy (the intended murder victim) was peppered by
> fragments of bullet or concrete from the missed shot is incredible. And not a
> single shard or fragment peppered ANYONE else in the car. (Yeah, right.)
>
> And Jim Bishop (who, I think, first endorsed such an unlikely theory in his 1968

> book has JFK's arm-raising at Z226 being the result of the MISSED shot, which is

> utter nonsense since we know the SBT bullet most certainly hit him right around
> that precise moment.

Howard Donahue theorized the first shot took place at z189 while the
President was looking to the right waving to the crowd. We can see a
sudden change in the President's posture as he lifts his right hand to his
face at z205. You need a slow motion version of the Zapruder film to see
this.

> And I've always wondered how a missed shot which (by all witness accounts)
> struck the pavement to the REAR of JFK's car could have possibly resulted in
> fragments/concrete flying up and somehow hitting Kennedy (and ONLY him)
> in the FACE.

Mary Woodward and other witnesses said the President was facing the crowd
on the right at the sound of the first shot. That would make his right
profile exposed to any fragments of lead and pavement from a ricochet off
the street to the right rear of the Limousine. Other witnesses believe the
first shot hit the same area, while a couple of witness thought it was the
other side of the Limousine.

[Bud]

On Monday, July 1, 2013 7:01:28 PM UTC-4, Anthony Marsh wrote:
> On 7/1/2013 12:45 PM, Bud wrote:
>
> > On Monday, July 1, 2013 12:32:03 AM UTC-4, Anthony Marsh wrote:
>
> >> On 6/30/2013 7:15 PM, David Von Pein wrote:
>
> >>
>
> >>> On Sunday, June 30, 2013 1:20:27 PM UTC-4, John Fiorentino wrote:
>
> >>
>
> >>>> Claviger says.......
>
> >>
>
> >>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>> "There were smaller puncture wounds discovered on the cheek caused by
>
> >>
>
> >>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>> smaller fragments from the first shot ricochet off the pavement."
>
> >>
>
> >>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>> I say..............
>
> >>
>
> >>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>> There is no evidence to support that idea, nor is it very likely.
>
> >>
>
> >>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>> John F.
>
> >>
>
> >>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>
>
> >>
>
> >>> I totally agree, John F.
>
> >>
>
> >>>
>
> >>
>
> >>> The notion that ONLY Kennedy (the intended murder victim) was peppered by fragments of bullet or concrete from the missed shot is incredible. And not a single shard or fragment peppered ANYONE else in the car. (Yeah, right.)
>
> >>
>
> >>>
>
> >>
>
> >>> And Jim Bishop (who, I think, first endorsed such an unlikely theory in his 1968 book) has JFK's arm-raising at Z226 being the result of the MISSED shot, which is utter nonsense since we know the SBT bullet most certainly hit him right around that precise moment.
>
> >>
>
> >>>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> Right around? Not much of a theory when you can't even name the frame.
>
> >
>
> > You think Zapruder had a stop action camera that could capture a bullet in flight?
>
> >
>
> >> So he was hit somewhere on Elm. That's good enough for you.
>
> >
>
> > Not quite. He was shot somewhere along Elm by Oswald.
>
> >
>
> >>> And I've always wondered how a missed shot which (by all witness accounts) struck the pavement to the REAR of JFK's car could have possibly resulted in fragments/concrete flying up and somehow hitting Kennedy (and ONLY him) in the FACE.
>
> >>
>
> >>>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> You can't explain your missed shot.
>
> >
>
> > That the shot missed is the explanation of why it didn`t hit.
>
> >
>
>
>
> What did it hit?

Better yet, what did it miss? What was it fired at?

>Or do you claim it never stopped and never hit anything
>
> on this planet? How evasive can you be?

You called it a "missed shot". How do you know it didn`t hit exactly what it was aimed at?

[Anthony Marsh]

On 7/1/2013 7:37 PM, claviger wrote:
> On Sunday, June 30, 2013 6:15:06 PM UTC-5, David Von Pein wrote:
>> On Sunday, June 30, 2013 1:20:27 PM UTC-4, John Fiorentino wrote:
>>
>>> Claviger says.......
>>> "There were smaller puncture wounds discovered on the cheek caused by
>>> smaller fragments from the first shot ricochet off the pavement."
>>
>>> I say..............
>>
>>> There is no evidence to support that idea, nor is it very likely.
>>
>>> John F.
>>
>> I totally agree, John F.
>>
>> The notion that ONLY Kennedy (the intended murder victim) was peppered by
>> fragments of bullet or concrete from the missed shot is incredible. And not a
>> single shard or fragment peppered ANYONE else in the car. (Yeah, right.)
>>
>> And Jim Bishop (who, I think, first endorsed such an unlikely theory in his 1968
>> book has JFK's arm-raising at Z226 being the result of the MISSED shot, which is
>> utter nonsense since we know the SBT bullet most certainly hit him right around
>> that precise moment.
>
>
> Howard Donahue theorized the first shot took place at z189 while the
> President was looking to the right waving to the crowd. We can see a
> sudden change in the President's posture as he lifts his right hand to his
> face at z205. You need a slow motion version of the Zapruder film to see
> this.
>

Ridiculous. JFK was not hit before Z-210 when he disappears behind the
sign.

>> And I've always wondered how a missed shot which (by all witness accounts)
>> struck the pavement to the REAR of JFK's car could have possibly resulted in
>> fragments/concrete flying up and somehow hitting Kennedy (and ONLY him)
>> in the FACE.
>
> Mary Woodward and other witnesses said the President was facing the crowd
> on the right at the sound of the first shot. That would make his right
> profile exposed to any fragments of lead and pavement from a ricochet off
> the street to the right rear of the Limousine. Other witnesses believe the
> first shot hit the same area, while a couple of witness thought it was the
> other side of the Limousine.
>

The side of the limo would block any debris from hitting his face.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 7/1/2013 6:50 PM, claviger wrote:
> On Sunday, June 30, 2013 12:20:27 PM UTC-5, John Fiorentino wrote:
>> Claviger says.......
>>
>>
>>
>> "There were smaller puncture wounds discovered on the cheek caused by
>>
>> smaller fragments from the first shot ricochet off the pavement."
>>
>> I say..............
>>
>> There is no evidence to support that idea, nor is it very likely.
>>
>> John F.
>
>

> �Puncture holes in his face wouldn't cause him to react? Are you

> saying don't take the word of the morticians who saw the body up close
> and had to apply make-up to the face to cover up these wounds? What

> possible reason would they have to make up a story like this?�
>
>
> �Dr. Mantik also entertains the theory that a fragment or fragments of
> glass from the limo�s windshield could have caused additional wounds
> to JFK�s face due to a shot from the front which passes through the
> windshield. Mantik notes that �a path from the windshield to JFK�s
> throat was entirely unobstructed.� He further notes that Tom Robinson,
> from Gawler�s funeral home, described three tiny holes in JFK�s right

> cheek, near the right eye. Robinson says that he recalled the wounds
> because the fixative solution was leaking from them during the

> embalming process.�
>

Ludicrous. I think you are only quoting these things to make fun of them.

>
> �MEETING REPORT
> Document�s Author: Douglas Home/ARRB Date Created: 06/21/96

> Meeting Logistics
> Date: 06/2 l/96
> Agecny Name: Witnesses/Consultants
> Attendees: Tom Robinson, David Marwell, Jeremy Gunn, Tim Wray, and
> Doug Home
> Topic: Interview of Tom Robinson
> Summary of the Meeting

> At ARRB�s request, Mr. Robinson came to Washington this date for an

> interview with selected staff
> Observations regarding the autopsy of President Kennedy:
> -he saw 2 or 3 small perforations or holes in the right cheek during
> embalming, when formaldehyde seeped through these small wounds and
> slight discoloration began to occur (and executed a drawing of three
> slits, or holes, in the right cheek of the President on a photocopy of

> a frontal photograph of the President);�
>
>
> �213)-214) Joseph H. Gawler, Director , Gawler's Funeral Home, and

> George Thomas, JFK's Valet:
> a) 5/18/64, 6/1/64, 6/16/64, and 5/19/65 interviews with William
> Manchester ("The Death of a President", numerous-see esp. pages
> 432-433 and 670)---"Joe Gawler and Joe Hagan, his chief assistant,

> supervised the loading of the coffin in a hearse�The firm's young

> cosmetician accompanied them to Bethesda. The two caskets, Oneals' and
> Gawler's, lay side by side for a while in the morgue anteroom; then
> Oneal's was removed for storage and the undertakers, Irishmen, and
> George Thomas [Valet to the President; interviewed 5/7/64; see also 17
> H 614] were admitted to the main room. The autopsy team had finished

> its work�The cosmetician then went to work�From the eight suits and

> four pairs of shoes George Thomas had brought Dave [Powers] chose a

> blue-gray suit, black shoes, and�a blue tie��
>
> �The embalming team consisted of Joe Hagan (Operations Manager and
> Supervisor), and the following three �hands on� working personnel: Tom
> Robinson, John Van Hoesen (pronounced �Van Heusen�), and Edward
> Stroble. [Ed Stroble is now deceased.]�
>
> �186) Mortician Thomas Evan Robinson:

> The face was perfect and undamaged except for a small laceration about

> a half inch into the forehead, which I covered up�[the frontal bone]
> was perfectly intact�The face was perfect��
>
> �There were also 3 small holes in his cheek which he also plugged in
> order to prevent any leakage of the embalming fluid.;�
>
> �188) Joseph E.Hagan, Chief Asst. to Joseph H. Gawler,

> undertaker[Hagen]:
> The face was undamaged except for a small laceration extending about a
> half inch into the forehead towards the right eyebrow, which can be

> seen in the right profile photograph;�
>
>

[Anthony Marsh]

On 7/1/2013 6:49 PM, David Von Pein wrote:
> ANTHONY MARSH SAID:
>
> Just like your head shot. You can't explain the cracked windshield or the
> dent of the chrome topping, or the smashed in back of the rearview mirror
> or the damage to the curb near Tague.
>
>
> DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
>
> Tony Marsh has decided to switch to his "play dumb and pretend that this
> stuff hasn't been examined by DVP and other LNers numerous times in the
> past" mode. Why does Marsh play these silly little games?
>

The fact remains that you have never explained them and never will.

> In fact, every item Marsh mentioned above has been "explained" by me and
> many other LNers over the years. (Except, of course, for the item that
> Marsh has decided to invent from whole cloth above...this one: "the
> smashed in back of the rearview mirror". That particular item only exists
> in Tony Marsh's mind.)
>

Why kind of new tact is this? The fact remains that the back of the
rearview mirror was smashed in. You can't explain that. I can. If you want
to take this issue to court and have a judge decide the fact, fine with
me.

[claviger]

Anthony,

> The side of the limo would block any debris from hitting his face.

He was riding in a convertible without the bubble top. There was nothing
to protect him from the shoulders up.

[David Von Pein]

TONY MARSH SAID:

Why kind of new tact is this? The fact remains that the back of the
rearview mirror was smashed in.

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Who said it was? It sure as heck wasn't Robert Frazier. Give me a citation
for this alleged mirror damage. I've never heard anyone else make the
claim that the mirror was "smashed in".

[Anthony Marsh]

I SAID. I was the first person to notice it.
Several other people now agree. If you can't see the obvious damage it
is only because you are a WC defender pushing an agenda and can't
explain it.

[Anthony Marsh]

The side of the limousine would protect him from any debris flying up
from the street.

[Bud]

Can`t we just stick to the old method of rejecting what you say out of
hand?

[mainframetech]

Amazing that Tom Robinson can be quoted as proof of something, and his
other testimony ignored that mentioned clearly the large hole in the BOH of
JFK. As well Robinson drew pictures of the large hole

http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=350&relPageId=4

Robinson also witnessed the prosectors cutting open (with saw) the top
of the skull to remove the brain and to hunt for bullet fragments.

Chris

[mainframetech]

Look forward fella. I've put the proof here. You're whining about
nothing.

>
>
> > http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=329&relPageId=11
>
> > http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=329&relPageId=13
>
> >
>
> > The following is part of an interview with James Jenkins where he
>
> > describes the front of the body and the probe rubbing the pleura, showing
>
> > that the bullet didn't go through and stopped before the pleura
>
> > surrounding the lung.
>
> >
>
> > http://www.assassinationresearch.com/v4n2/v4n2part3.pdf
>

So now my statements have been backed up. If only you would do as much
for your wild statements.

> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>> There was a 'massive' exit wound at the BOH of JFK seen by over 40 people, which was matched by a tiny entry wound at the right temple/forehead in the hairline seen by Tom Robinson, the mortician. This 'path' would be caused by a frontal shot hitting the forehead and passing through to explode out the large hole in the BOH. Damage to the top of the skull was done by the prosectors watched by Robinson, while looking for fragments. They also used a saw to cut part of the top of the skull off to remove the brain. Originally there was NOT a large hole at the TOP of the head. They did this work with most people removed from the autopsy room before the 8:00pm autopsy. Check the medically trained personnel of Parkland and Bethesda hospitals:
>
> >>
>
> >>> http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/boh/parkland_boh/parkland_wound.htm
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> Show me the massive hole. You got nothing.
>
> >>
>
> > Show me your IQ, since the one autopsy photo that would have shown the
>
> > large hole that over 40 people saw was blacked out on purpose, there is no
>
> > photo of the large hole, just people that were inches from the large hole
>
> > and have testified to the presence of it. You have been shown those
>
> > people and photos of them many times, and they have been named for you.
>
> >
>
>
>
> You have no proof of that. Only your over-active imagination. There are
>
> many autopsy photos and none of them show a massive hole in the back of
>
> the head.

>

You just can't seem to understand that photos can be faked as much as
witnesses can lie. And photos are changed forever, while people might
come clean one day. Your hope that my information (which is backed up) is
wrong shows how much you have invested in wild scenarios to the exclusion
of evidence to the contrary.

>
>
> And you have misrepresented witnesses to push your political agenda.
>

Prove that insult or be quiet. Name the people I have misrepresented
and the political agenda I'm pushing, or are you just looking for more
attention?

[David Von Pein]

ANTHONY MARSH SAID:

The fact remains that the back of the rearview mirror was smashed in.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Who said it was? It sure as heck wasn't Robert Frazier. Give me a citation
for this alleged mirror damage. I've never heard anyone else make the
claim that the mirror was "smashed in".

ANTHONY MARSH SAID:

I SAID. I was the first person to notice it. Several other people now
agree. If you can't see the obvious damage it is only because you are a WC
defender pushing an agenda and can't explain it.

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Yeah. That's what I figured. YOU were the first person to "notice it".

The fact is, of course, that no damage to the rearview mirror exists. Nor
was any such mirror damage reported by Robert A. Frazier of the FBI.

Let me guess, Tony--you think Frazier is lying here (or he just wasn't
very observant, even though he went over the limo with a fine-toothed comb
searching for signs of bullet strikes):

MR. SPECTER -- "Did your examination of the President's limousine disclose
any other holes or markings which could have conceivably been caused by a
bullet striking the automobile or any part of the automobile?"

MR. FRAZIER -- "No, sir."

------------

Whatever it is that Marsh thinks is "smashed in" on the back of this
rearview mirror (via CE350) is nothing more than the design of the mirror
and its mounting bracket:

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-PaPcHRbfp-8/UdL56MLbWxI/AAAAAAAAvAg/EiNqKPVSX3c/s3000-h/ce350.jpg

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-eyObRpFqMPg/UdL56D88mmI/AAAAAAAAvAk/jIS2PHhQ83s/s3000-h/Limo-At-Love-Field-11-22-63.jpg

[claviger]

So where did the 3 puncture wounds come from? Did the GK sniper fire a
shotgun full of birdshot at the President? Maybe he wanted to take out
both the President and Governor in one blast. Not a very good insurance
shooter to put only 3 pellets on one of two passenger.

[mainframetech]

Silly. You don't seem to realize that the photos were specifically made
to NOT show the large hole in the BOH. However, Saundra Kay Spencer had
seen the special set of autopsy photos that were correct and not faked,
and she described the large hole in the BOH and drew it on a skull chart
here:

http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=679

Here's the same drawing done by Tom Robinson:
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=350&relPageId=4
And here's one done by FBI agent Sibert:
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=719

Here's a bunch of them from the Parkland and Bethesda personnel:
http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/boh/parkland_boh/parkland_wound.htm

>
>
> And you have misrepresented witnesses to push your political agenda.
>

More personal insults? Prove it or be quiet. Name the misrepresented
witnesses and the political agenda or you're blowing smoke as usual.

[mainframetech]

Dead silence.

[claviger]

mazinframetech,

> Amazing that Tom Robinson can be quoted as proof of something, and his
>
> other testimony ignored that mentioned clearly the large hole in the BOH of
>
> JFK. As well Robinson drew pictures of the large hole

Witnesses can get some things wrong and somethings right. One of the morticians said they didn't turn the body over. If true how could Robinson see a wound low on the back of the head? This interview happened on 9/26/96, over three decades after the assassination. Time can play tricks on the mind. As for puncture wounds on the face two morticians remember solution leaking from those wounds. One said they were like slits, more evidence of fragments from a ricochet. If the President had a cut near his right eyebrow and 3 deep cuts on the right cheek then the ricochet must have been on his right to spray the right side of his face.

> Robinson also witnessed the prosectors cutting open (with saw) the top
>
> of the skull to remove the brain and to hunt for bullet fragments.

I thought the gaping exit wound on top of the head was so large they didn't need to do that.

[claviger]

On Wednesday, July 3, 2013 4:38:33 PM UTC-5, claviger wrote:
> mazinframetech,
>
> > Amazing that Tom Robinson can be quoted as proof of something, and his
> > other testimony ignored that mentioned clearly the large hole in the BOH of
>
> > JFK. As well Robinson drew pictures of the large hole
>
> Witnesses can get some things wrong and somethings right. One of the
> morticians said they didn't turn the body over. If true how could Robinson
> see a wound low on the back of the head? This interview happened on
> 9/26/96, over three decades after the assassination. Time can play tricks
> on the mind. As for puncture wounds on the face two morticians remember
> solution leaking from those wounds. One said they were like slits, more
> evidence of fragments from a ricochet. If the President had a cut near his
> right eyebrow and 3 deep cuts on the right cheek then the ricochet must
> have been on his right to spray the right side of his face.

Correction: Robinson was interviewed 6/21/96 almost 33 years after seeing
the body.

We're dealing with a situation where several well placed witnesses are
contradicting each other, including parade, ER, and autopsy. We also have
film of the head wound, photos, and X-rays that prove some of those
witnesses are wrong. Experts verified the Zapruder film has not been
tampered with and this film evidence corroborates photos and X-rays from
the autopsy.

As we all know witnesses remember different things for various reasons.
The Newmans were the nearest general public witnesses to the Limousine and
in position to see up close the head wound, yet their testimony was not
very accurate. There can be no question the combination of movie film,
autopsy photos, and X-rays is solid evidence compared to contradictory
witnesses. So too are expert witnesses such as pathologists and medical
panels that reviewed X-rays, photos, and Zapruder film.

In this movie film it is obvious brain matter ejecta goes up and forward
proving the shot came from behind the head. There is no ejecta seen coming
from the back of the head. At the time of the shot the President was
leaning forward so if a shot exited the back of the skull we should see a
mass of brain matter covering the trunk of the limousine, but we don't see
anything like that. Only a burst of pink cloud from the top of the head
that spread upward and forward even though the Limousine was moving into
the wind.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 7/2/2013 9:27 PM, David Von Pein wrote:
> ANTHONY MARSH SAID:
>
> The fact remains that the back of the rearview mirror was smashed in.
>
>
> DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
>
> Who said it was? It sure as heck wasn't Robert Frazier. Give me a citation
> for this alleged mirror damage. I've never heard anyone else make the
> claim that the mirror was "smashed in".
>
>
> ANTHONY MARSH SAID:
>
> I SAID. I was the first person to notice it. Several other people now
> agree. If you can't see the obvious damage it is only because you are a WC
> defender pushing an agenda and can't explain it.
>
>
> DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
>
> Yeah. That's what I figured. YOU were the first person to "notice it".
>
> The fact is, of course, that no damage to the rearview mirror exists. Nor
> was any such mirror damage reported by Robert A. Frazier of the FBI.
>

Just because Frazier didn't notice it is not proof that it didn't exist.

> Let me guess, Tony--you think Frazier is lying here (or he just wasn't
> very observant, even though he went over the limo with a fine-toothed comb
> searching for signs of bullet strikes):
>

How can he be lying when he simply overlooks it?

> MR. SPECTER -- "Did your examination of the President's limousine disclose
> any other holes or markings which could have conceivably been caused by a
> bullet striking the automobile or any part of the automobile?"
>
> MR. FRAZIER -- "No, sir."
>
> ------------
>

So once again you pretend to rely on the WC.

> Whatever it is that Marsh thinks is "smashed in" on the back of this
> rearview mirror (via CE350) is nothing more than the design of the mirror
> and its mounting bracket:
>

Nonsense. It doesn't look that way in Altgens 6. But wouldn't know
because you don't have the negatives and have never made your own blow-ups.

> http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-PaPcHRbfp-8/UdL56MLbWxI/AAAAAAAAvAg/EiNqKPVSX3c/s3000-h/ce350.jpg
>
> http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-eyObRpFqMPg/UdL56D88mmI/AAAAAAAAvAk/jIS2PHhQ83s/s3000-h/Limo-At-Love-Field-11-22-63.jpg
>

[Anthony Marsh]

You haven't even seen all the autopsy photos.
The special set is after the autopsy. Not the condition at the time of
the shots.

[Anthony Marsh]

What puncture wounds? In someone's imagination. None are seen in the
autopsy photos.

[mainframetech]

On Wednesday, July 3, 2013 5:38:33 PM UTC-4, claviger wrote:
> mazinframetech,
>
>
>
> > Amazing that Tom Robinson can be quoted as proof of something, and his
>
> >
>
> > other testimony ignored that mentioned clearly the large hole in the BOH of
>
> >
>
> > JFK. As well Robinson drew pictures of the large hole
>
>
>
> Witnesses can get some things wrong and somethings right. One of the morticians said they didn't turn the body over. If true how could Robinson see a wound low on the back of the head? This interview happened on 9/26/96, over three decades after the assassination. Time can play tricks on the mind. As for puncture wounds on the face two morticians remember solution leaking from those wounds. One said they were like slits, more evidence of fragments from a ricochet. If the President had a cut near his right eyebrow and 3 deep cuts on the right cheek then the ricochet must have been on his right to spray the right side of his face.
>

So who is the decider of what part of a person's statements are right or
wrong? You? Do you think that a fellow that handled the body of the
president and prepared it for burial would forget or become confused about
things he witnessed and in many instances touched himself? If you read
his testimony he is clear about what he states, if he can't remember he
doesn't guess. Now the big kicker...Tom Robinson was NOT the only person
to see the large hole in the BOH of JFK. over 40 people saw it, many of
them medically trained personnel at both Parkland and Bethesda. Now if we
take those 40 (who corroborate each other) and match it to the number of
people that YOU can find that saw only a tiny bullet hole, how much of a
difference in numbers will we have? About 35?

To add to that, the morticians has to place a rubber patch over the hole
in the BOH because it was so large. I can't see then doing that without
turning the head far enough to see the BOH, and just the fact of placing
the patch would gave anyone a view of the BOH. During this experience
Robinson stated that the hole in the BOH was the size of a large orange.
Clint Hill saw it from directly over it when he climbed up on the limo,
and stated that it soon after the murder. No 30 years time for him. The
staff of Parkland hospital, all medically trained saw the large hole and
described it here:

http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/boh/parkland_boh/parkland_wound.htm

And that's only a short, partial list.

>
>
> > Robinson also witnessed the prosectors cutting open (with saw) the top
>
> >
>
> > of the skull to remove the brain and to hunt for bullet fragments.
>
>
>
> I thought the gaping exit wound on top of the head was so large they didn't need to do that.

I thought that too until I came across Robinson's comments, although I
NEVER thought of it as an exit wound, only the large hole at the BOH was
that. Which was matched nicely with the tiny wound Robinson saw in the
right forehead/temple area just in the hairline. A perfect entry point
for the bullet that blasted out the hole in the rear.

It is my belief that when they dismissed the assistants, they left
Robinson there, and he saw the autopsy before the 8:00pm 'official'
autopsy. If they removed the brain at that time it would explain the
surprise that Paul O'Connor felt when he looked in the skull to remove the
brain and almost nothing was there.

Chris

[mainframetech]

On Wednesday, July 3, 2013 8:29:23 PM UTC-4, claviger wrote:
> On Wednesday, July 3, 2013 4:38:33 PM UTC-5, claviger wrote:
>
> > mazinframetech,
>
> >
>
> > > Amazing that Tom Robinson can be quoted as proof of something, and his
>
> > > other testimony ignored that mentioned clearly the large hole in the BOH of
>
> >
>
> > > JFK. As well Robinson drew pictures of the large hole
>
> >
>
> > Witnesses can get some things wrong and somethings right. One of the
>
> > morticians said they didn't turn the body over. If true how could Robinson
>
> > see a wound low on the back of the head? This interview happened on
>
> > 9/26/96, over three decades after the assassination. Time can play tricks
>
> > on the mind. As for puncture wounds on the face two morticians remember
>
> > solution leaking from those wounds. One said they were like slits, more
>
> > evidence of fragments from a ricochet. If the President had a cut near his
>
> > right eyebrow and 3 deep cuts on the right cheek then the ricochet must
>
> > have been on his right to spray the right side of his face.
>
>
>
> Correction: Robinson was interviewed 6/21/96 almost 33 years after seeing
>
> the body.
>

Clint Hill the Secret Service agent saw the head wound from just inches
over it when he jumped onto the limo, and he has stated the size of the
hole was large. He saw it less than 33 years from the murder, he saw it
about a half minute later. Same for the Parkland trained medical staff.
We can't go on pretending that all these people didn't see a large hole in
the BOH. We're talking about a president with a major and traumatic wound
in the BOH that would freak out most uninitiated people. It was NOT an
easily forgotten or confused sight.

>
>
> We're dealing with a situation where several well placed witnesses are
>
> contradicting each other, including parade, ER, and autopsy. We also have
>
> film of the head wound, photos, and X-rays that prove some of those
>
> witnesses are wrong. Experts verified the Zapruder film has not been
>
> tampered with and this film evidence corroborates photos and X-rays from
>
> the autopsy.
>

Sorry, I'm not sure what you mean by "parade", but only a few of the
autopsy personnel (the prosectors) thought there was no large hole in the
BOH of JFK. Most of the onlookers were checked later and said they saw
the large hole. Sibert of the FBI drew a picture of the large hole from
the autopsy:

http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=719

There are plenty of witnesses that saw the large hole in the BOH back in
the time that the murder was committed.

>
> As we all know witnesses remember different things for various reasons.
>
> The Newmans were the nearest general public witnesses to the Limousine and
>
> in position to see up close the head wound, yet their testimony was not
>
> very accurate. There can be no question the combination of movie film,
>
> autopsy photos, and X-rays is solid evidence compared to contradictory
>
> witnesses. So too are expert witnesses such as pathologists and medical
>
> panels that reviewed X-rays, photos, and Zapruder film.
>

Of course there can be a question. Given that many reliable witnesses
saw the large hole from only inches away, we cannot throw them away and
say they were mistaken or crazy. At least 20 of the over 40 witnesses
that saw the large hole saw it in 1963. See the list above. If you have
relied on the picture of the BOH among the autopsy pictures that were let
out for us to see (and shut us up)then you've been had. If you think you
saw something in the Z-film, that's interesting, but it doesn't show the
BOH. The witnesses nearby saw (and later found) a piece of bone at the
point where JFK sustained the kill shot and it was sent on to Bethesda
later for the prosectors to deal with.

Many medically trained people at both hospitals saw that there was bone
missing from the BOH, which meant it was more than a little bullet hole.

http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/boh/parkland_boh/parkland_wound.htm

>
>
> In this movie film it is obvious brain matter ejecta goes up and forward
>
> proving the shot came from behind the head. There is no ejecta seen coming
>
> from the back of the head. At the time of the shot the President was
>
> leaning forward so if a shot exited the back of the skull we should see a
>
> mass of brain matter covering the trunk of the limousine, but we don't see
>
> anything like that. Only a burst of pink cloud from the top of the head
>
> that spread upward and forward even though the Limousine was moving into
>
> the wind.

So you haven't come across the testimony of the motorcycle cops that
were behind and to the left of JFK? One of them stated that he was
showered with brain matter and blood, Clint Hill coming from behind had a
similar experience. One Secret Service agent later said he had been
almost hit by a piece of bone, and he was in the following car full of SS
agents. The trunk lid of the limo was spread wide with gore and blood.
If you watch the Z-film you see the blood spray go up as well but the wind
takes it backward. However, I wouldn't pin your hopes to the Z-film,
given there may be some proof that it was faked at a few points:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Am4qdl9PTA


I just cannot understand a belief so ingrained that over 40 people that
saw something a certain way and described it similarly, and where only a
very few saw something different, for the ingrained belief to be fought
for and never given up.


Chris

[Anthony Marsh]

In other words refuse to look at the evidence.

[mainframetech]

On Thursday, July 4, 2013 1:52:30 PM UTC-4, Anthony Marsh wrote:
> On 7/2/2013 9:51 PM, mainframetech wrote:
>
> > On Monday, July 1, 2013 6:53:00 PM UTC-4, Anthony Marsh wrote:
>
> >> On 7/1/2013 12:50 PM, mainframetech wrote:
>
> >>
>
> >>> On Monday, July 1, 2013 12:24:16 AM UTC-4, Anthony Marsh wrote:
>
> >>
>
> >>>> On 6/30/2013 8:15 PM, mainframetech wrote:
>
> >>
>
> >>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>> On Sunday, June 30, 2013 1:35:02 AM UTC-4, claviger wrote:
>
> >>
>
> >>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>>> mainframetech,
>
> >>
>
> >>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>>>> Don't forget the myth of the competent autopsy too...:)
>
> >>
>
> >>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>> Yes indeed! That autopsy was indeed a myth. Nothing real about it. But from the ARRB we get some truth that helps us figure out what happened anyway.
>
> >>
>
> >>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>>> The autopsy was not what we wish it had been, but was adequate to prove
>
> >>
>
> >>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>>> the President suffered two lethal through-and-through wounds. The
>
> >>
>
> >>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>>> back-to-throat wound was a complete puncture by an intact projectile.
>
> >>
>
> >>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>>> The projectile causing the head wound created a small entrance hole with a
>
> >>
>
> >>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>>> fragment path connecting to a massive exit wound on top of the head. >
> >>

There was no exit wound on the top of the head. There were remains of the prosectors probing around for fragments and there were the results of the sawing that they did to get the brain out before the 'official' autopsy observed by Robinson.

>
> >>>>>> The projectile failed to stay intact, fragmenting into a "lead snowstorm" of
>

The "projectile failed to stay intact"? Don't you find something odd
about that sentence? If you are assuming the bullets for the MC rifle,
they were FMJ and shouldn't come apart all over the place. If the burst
of fragments was from some other type of bullet, then we have a conspiracy
and a second rifle being used. What's your choice?

> >>
>
> >>>>>> approximately 40 tiny pieces and 3 significant fragments. This complete
>
>
> >>>>>> disintegration had the effect of a shotgun blast causing a gaping wound in
>
> >>
>
> >>>>>> the upper skull. The shape of the tiny fragments was not consistent with a
>
> >>
>
> >>>>>> frangible bullet. No other major wounds were found on the body. There
>
>

However, other wounds WERE found on the body. The back entry and the
throat entry were not major? Hard to tell where your dividing line is.

> >>
>
>
> >>>>>> were smaller puncture wounds discovered on the cheek caused by smaller
>
>
> >>>>>> fragments from the first shot ricochet off the pavement. Another larger
>
> >>>>>> fragment was embedded in the back of the skull, evidently from the same
>
> >>>>>> source. No intact projectile showed up on X-rays of the head and torso.
>
> >>

Funny how you just know that a bullet ricocheted off the pavement, left
no gouge there, and hit only the president's cheek. Doubtful at best.

>
>
> >>>>>> The autopsy located a head wound consistent with the Zapruder film.
>
> >>

Since the frames around the head wound are probably faked, there's not
much comparing you can do there.

None of the autopsy photos are of the body AT THE TIME OF THE SHOTS!!
Think before you spew. All photos are after the shots.

[Anthony Marsh]

Hill did not say large hole. Only a couple of people said large hole.
You are misrepresenting witnesses to prop up your theory.

>>
>>
>> We're dealing with a situation where several well placed witnesses are
>>
>> contradicting each other, including parade, ER, and autopsy. We also have
>>
>> film of the head wound, photos, and X-rays that prove some of those
>>
>> witnesses are wrong. Experts verified the Zapruder film has not been
>>
>> tampered with and this film evidence corroborates photos and X-rays from
>>
>> the autopsy.
>>
> Sorry, I'm not sure what you mean by "parade", but only a few of the

BY "parade" he means motorcade.

> autopsy personnel (the prosectors) thought there was no large hole in the
> BOH of JFK. Most of the onlookers were checked later and said they saw
> the large hole. Sibert of the FBI drew a picture of the large hole from
> the autopsy:
>

No, they did not.

> http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=719
>
> There are plenty of witnesses that saw the large hole in the BOH back in
> the time that the murder was committed.
>

You can't name them and quote them saying large hole.

>>
>> As we all know witnesses remember different things for various reasons.
>>
>> The Newmans were the nearest general public witnesses to the Limousine and
>>
>> in position to see up close the head wound, yet their testimony was not
>>
>> very accurate. There can be no question the combination of movie film,
>>
>> autopsy photos, and X-rays is solid evidence compared to contradictory
>>
>> witnesses. So too are expert witnesses such as pathologists and medical
>>
>> panels that reviewed X-rays, photos, and Zapruder film.
>>
>
> Of course there can be a question. Given that many reliable witnesses
> saw the large hole from only inches away, we cannot throw them away and

Not true.

> say they were mistaken or crazy. At least 20 of the over 40 witnesses

Yes, we can. Because witnesses are often not reliable and always
misrepresented by you.

> that saw the large hole saw it in 1963. See the list above. If you have
> relied on the picture of the BOH among the autopsy pictures that were let
> out for us to see (and shut us up)then you've been had. If you think you
> saw something in the Z-film, that's interesting, but it doesn't show the
> BOH. The witnesses nearby saw (and later found) a piece of bone at the
> point where JFK sustained the kill shot and it was sent on to Bethesda
> later for the prosectors to deal with.
>

So when you lose the argument you have to claim that the evidence is fake.

> Many medically trained people at both hospitals saw that there was bone
> missing from the BOH, which meant it was more than a little bullet hole.
>
> http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/boh/parkland_boh/parkland_wound.htm
>
>
>>
>>
>> In this movie film it is obvious brain matter ejecta goes up and forward
>>
>> proving the shot came from behind the head. There is no ejecta seen coming
>>
>> from the back of the head. At the time of the shot the President was
>>
>> leaning forward so if a shot exited the back of the skull we should see a
>>
>> mass of brain matter covering the trunk of the limousine, but we don't see
>>
>> anything like that. Only a burst of pink cloud from the top of the head
>>
>> that spread upward and forward even though the Limousine was moving into
>>
>> the wind.
>
> So you haven't come across the testimony of the motorcycle cops that
> were behind and to the left of JFK? One of them stated that he was
> showered with brain matter and blood, Clint Hill coming from behind had a
> similar experience. One Secret Service agent later said he had been

And NONE of those said there was a large hole in the BOH, even though
they were only a few feet away.

[claviger]

> > mazinframetech,

> > Witnesses can get some things wrong and somethings right. One of the morticians said they didn't turn the body over. If true how could Robinson see a wound low on the back of the head? This interview happened on 9/26/96, over three decades after the assassination. Time can play tricks on the mind. As for puncture wounds on the face two morticians remember solution leaking from those wounds. One said they were like slits, more evidence of fragments from a ricochet. If the President had a cut near his right eyebrow and 3 deep cuts on the right cheek then the ricochet must have been on his right to spray the right side of his face.

> So who is the decider of what part of a person's statements are right or
> wrong? You?

Yes, and anyone with critical thinking ability. When several witnesses
give conflicting testimony some must be right and some must be wrong.
Their testimony must be compared to other available evidence to seek
corroboration.

> Do you think that a fellow that handled the body of the president and
> prepared it for burial would forget or become confused about things
> he witnessed and in many instances touched himself?

You wouldn't think so but obviously it happens. The film proves him wrong,
the photos prove him wrong, the X-rays prove him wrong, the pathologists
prove him wrong, the medical experts prove him wrong. Evidently his memory
was affected by three decades passing by before being interviewed.

> If you read his testimony he is clear about what he states,
> if he can't remember he doesn't guess.

Two other morticians on the team testified they did not turn the body
over. If true how could Robinson see the back of the head? If he could
plainly see the head wound then obviously it was on top of the head.

> Now the big kicker...Tom Robinson was NOT the only person
> to see the large hole in the BOH of JFK. over 40 people saw it,
> many of them medically trained personnel at both Parkland
> and Bethesda.

You keep saying 40 people. Where is this list you keep talking about? Yes
we all know the doctors and nurses in ER described the wound differently.
According to the Zapruder-film, X-rays, and photos some were right and
some were wrong. You choose to believe the ones who were wrong.

> Now if we take those 40 (who corroborate each other) and match
> it to the number of people that YOU can find that saw only a tiny
> bullet hole, how much of a difference in numbers will we have?
> About 35?

How can we know since you haven't provided the list of 40?

Dr George Burkley, the President's personal physician, was the only
medical doctor to see the body in ER and at the autopsy. He verifies the
same wounds and concurred with the autopsy report. That means some doctors
in ER got it wrong and so did some morticians. Burkley's observations
confirm the Zapruder film, X-rays, photos, and autopsy report.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 7/4/2013 1:59 PM, mainframetech wrote:
> On Wednesday, July 3, 2013 5:38:33 PM UTC-4, claviger wrote:
>> mazinframetech,
>>
>>
>>
>>> Amazing that Tom Robinson can be quoted as proof of something, and his
>>
>>>
>>
>>> other testimony ignored that mentioned clearly the large hole in the BOH of
>>
>>>
>>
>>> JFK. As well Robinson drew pictures of the large hole
>>
>>
>>
>> Witnesses can get some things wrong and somethings right. One of the morticians said they didn't turn the body over. If true how could Robinson see a wound low on the back of the head? This interview happened on 9/26/96, over three decades after the assassination. Time can play tricks on the mind. As for puncture wounds on the face two morticians remember solution leaking from those wounds. One said they were like slits, more evidence of fragments from a ricochet. If the President had a cut near his right eyebrow and 3 deep cuts on the right cheek then the ricochet must have been on his right to spray the right side of his face.
>>
>
> So who is the decider of what part of a person's statements are right or
> wrong? You? Do you think that a fellow that handled the body of the

Certainly not you, when you don't even know the evidence.

> president and prepared it for burial would forget or become confused about
> things he witnessed and in many instances touched himself? If you read
> his testimony he is clear about what he states, if he can't remember he
> doesn't guess. Now the big kicker...Tom Robinson was NOT the only person
> to see the large hole in the BOH of JFK. over 40 people saw it, many of
> them medically trained personnel at both Parkland and Bethesda. Now if we
> take those 40 (who corroborate each other) and match it to the number of
> people that YOU can find that saw only a tiny bullet hole, how much of a
> difference in numbers will we have? About 35?
>
> To add to that, the morticians has to place a rubber patch over the hole
> in the BOH because it was so large. I can't see then doing that without
> turning the head far enough to see the BOH, and just the fact of placing
> the patch would gave anyone a view of the BOH. During this experience
> Robinson stated that the hole in the BOH was the size of a large orange.
> Clint Hill saw it from directly over it when he climbed up on the limo,
> and stated that it soon after the murder. No 30 years time for him. The
> staff of Parkland hospital, all medically trained saw the large hole and
> described it here:
>

All of that is long after the skull fell apart when they unwrapped it.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 7/5/2013 12:16 PM, claviger wrote:
>
>>> mazinframetech,
>
>>> Witnesses can get some things wrong and somethings right. One of the morticians said they didn't turn the body over. If true how could Robinson see a wound low on the back of the head? This interview happened on 9/26/96, over three decades after the assassination. Time can play tricks on the mind. As for puncture wounds on the face two morticians remember solution leaking from those wounds. One said they were like slits, more evidence of fragments from a ricochet. If the President had a cut near his right eyebrow and 3 deep cuts on the right cheek then the ricochet must have been on his right to spray the right side of his face.
>
>> So who is the decider of what part of a person's statements are right or
>> wrong? You?
>
> Yes, and anyone with critical thinking ability. When several witnesses
> give conflicting testimony some must be right and some must be wrong.
> Their testimony must be compared to other available evidence to seek
> corroboration.
>

Illogical. They could all be wrong. Or all be right, but about different
parts.

>> Do you think that a fellow that handled the body of the president and
>> prepared it for burial would forget or become confused about things
>> he witnessed and in many instances touched himself?
>

Yes.

> You wouldn't think so but obviously it happens. The film proves him wrong,
> the photos prove him wrong, the X-rays prove him wrong, the pathologists
> prove him wrong, the medical experts prove him wrong. Evidently his memory
> was affected by three decades passing by before being interviewed.
>
>> If you read his testimony he is clear about what he states,
>> if he can't remember he doesn't guess.
>
> Two other morticians on the team testified they did not turn the body
> over. If true how could Robinson see the back of the head? If he could

Maybe through the huge gaping hole in the top of the head.

> plainly see the head wound then obviously it was on top of the head.
>

Yeah, but it had been extended into the back of the head when they
removed the brain.

>> Now the big kicker...Tom Robinson was NOT the only person
>> to see the large hole in the BOH of JFK. over 40 people saw it,
>> many of them medically trained personnel at both Parkland
>> and Bethesda.
>
> You keep saying 40 people. Where is this list you keep talking about? Yes
> we all know the doctors and nurses in ER described the wound differently.
> According to the Zapruder-film, X-rays, and photos some were right and
> some were wrong. You choose to believe the ones who were wrong.
>

He keeps making up figures like that guy in The Manchurian Candidate.

>> Now if we take those 40 (who corroborate each other) and match
>> it to the number of people that YOU can find that saw only a tiny
>> bullet hole, how much of a difference in numbers will we have?
>> About 35?
>
> How can we know since you haven't provided the list of 40?
>
> Dr George Burkley, the President's personal physician, was the only
> medical doctor to see the body in ER and at the autopsy. He verifies the
> same wounds and concurred with the autopsy report. That means some doctors
> in ER got it wrong and so did some morticians. Burkley's observations
> confirm the Zapruder film, X-rays, photos, and autopsy report.
>
>

No, he doesn't.

[mainframetech]

Well here you go again making me correct your mistakes. Here's a
portion of Clint Hill's statement:

"As I lay over the top of the back seat I noticed a portion of the
President's head on the right rear side was missing and he was bleeding
profusely. Part of his brain was gone. I saw a part of his skull with hair
on it lying in the seat."

Not a tiny wound to be sure. If it was described as 'part of his brain
was gone' then the wound had to be large enough for Hill to see inside to
see that part of the brain was gone. Now let's listen to Hill's testimony
to the WC:

"Mr. SPECTER. Was there anything back there that you observed, that she might have been reaching for?

Mr. HILL. I thought I saw something come off the back, too, but I cannot
say that there was. I do know that the next day we found the portion of
the President's head.

Mr. SPECTER. Where did you find that portion of the President's head?

Mr. HILL. It was found in the street. It was turned in, I believe, by a
medical student or somebody in Dallas."

So Hill saw a portion of the president's head come off, which was found
later by someone. This was the plate of skull that had been returned to
the autopsy at Bethesda. Do you think that when an agent talks about a
'portion of the president's head', that he's talking about some little bit
of fluff? Or a sizable piece of skull matching all the statements of the
medical personnel at both Parkland and Bethesda? When over 40 people
corroborate each other as to the size of the hole in the BOH, there's no
room left for foolishness. It's factual.

>
>
> >> We're dealing with a situation where several well placed witnesses are
>
>
> >> contradicting each other, including parade, ER, and autopsy. We also have
>
> >>
>
> >> film of the head wound, photos, and X-rays that prove some of those
>
> >>
>
> >> witnesses are wrong. Experts verified the Zapruder film has not been
>
> >>
>
> >> tampered with and this film evidence corroborates photos and X-rays from
>
> >>
>
> >> the autopsy.
>

You may know that the photos and X-rays have been called into question
by experts too. In the case of the X-rays, here's some fodder to chew on:

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKmantik.htm

> >>
>
> > Sorry, I'm not sure what you mean by "parade", but only a few of the
>

> BY "parade" he means motorcade.
>
>
>
> > autopsy personnel (the prosectors) thought there was no large hole in the
>
> > BOH of JFK. Most of the onlookers were checked later and said they saw
>
> > the large hole. Sibert of the FBI drew a picture of the large hole from
>
> > the autopsy:
>
> >
>
>
>
> No, they did not.
>

Sorry, I don't understand. My statement was that the prosectors
believed there was NOT a large hole in the BOH of JFK, but if you think
differently, please be clear. Because that leaves almost MO ONE that
thinks there was a small hole in the BOH. If you're speaking of Sibert
and his drawing, well, it's right there at the link to view for
yourself.

>
> > http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=719
>
> >
>
> > There are plenty of witnesses that saw the large hole in the BOH back in
>
> > the time that the murder was committed.
>
>
> You can't name them and quote them saying large hole.

Ah, but I have. Where were you when I named them? To simplify for you,
I'll name The first bunch of witnesses by showing you (once again). And
if you think that you've made an impossible case by saying that they
didn't use the words 'LARGE HOLE', you've failed again. It isn't
necessary to say those words and still convey the intention of pointing
out a 'large hole' in the BOH. So give up the amateur attempts at
trickery. Here's the first bunch of medically trained people:

http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/boh/parkland_boh/parkland_wound.htm

Now here's a second bunch of medically trained witnesses pointing out
the location as well as the size:

http://img35.imageshack.us/img35/8187/witnessesrearexitwoundk.jpg

For this bunch you might have to size the group upwards to read the
comments from the people as to the size of the large hole.

>
> >> As we all know witnesses remember different things for various reasons.
>
> >>
>
> >> The Newmans were the nearest general public witnesses to the Limousine and
>
> >>

So you think Clint Hill wasn't close enough? The Newmans were not
medically trained people, and I've given you many medically trained people
who certainly are a cut above the general public in describing a wound.

>
> >> in position to see up close the head wound, yet their testimony was not
>
> >>
>
> >> very accurate. There can be no question the combination of movie film,
>
> >>
>
> >> autopsy photos, and X-rays is solid evidence compared to contradictory
>
> >>
>
> >> witnesses. So too are expert witnesses such as pathologists and medical
>
> >>
>
> >> panels that reviewed X-rays, photos, and Zapruder film.
>
> >>
>
> >
>
> > Of course there can be a question. Given that many reliable witnesses
>
> > saw the large hole from only inches away, we cannot throw them away and
>
>
>
> Not true.
>
> > say they were mistaken or crazy. At least 20 of the over 40 witnesses
>
>
>
> Yes, we can. Because witnesses are often not reliable and always
>
> misrepresented by you.
>

Here you go again being insulting. Who wants to listen to your insults?
I'm being a good guy in putting up with your terrible manners, even
correcting you constantly with your incessant mistakes.

> Therefore all the witnesses you have pointed out above were not reliable

Mope. Won't do. There are so many that they corroborate each other.
But worse than that, you are completely unable to put together a list of
even 5 people that will say there was only a small hole in the BOH, while
I can muster over 40, most of them medically trained.

>
> > that saw the large hole saw it in 1963. See the list above. If you have
>
> > relied on the picture of the BOH among the autopsy pictures that were let
>
> > out for us to see (and shut us up)then you've been had. If you think you
>
> > saw something in the Z-film, that's interesting, but it doesn't show the
>
> > BOH. The witnesses nearby saw (and later found) a piece of bone at the
>
> > point where JFK sustained the kill shot and it was sent on to Bethesda
>
> > later for the prosectors to deal with.
>
> >
>
>
>
> So when you lose the argument you have to claim that the evidence is fake.
>

I don't know what world you're living on, but I've won hands down. I
can provide over 40 witnesses that corroborate each other about a large
hole in the BOH, and you've been unable to provide even one that says
there was a 'small hole in the BOH. If you want to compete in the BIOH
sweepstakes, you'll just have to find people that think your weird
scenario makes sense. Probably as many as there are people that think
there was a small hole in the BOH...:)

> > Many medically trained people at both hospitals saw that there was bone
>
> > missing from the BOH, which meant it was more than a little bullet hole.
>
> >
>
> > http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/boh/parkland_boh/parkland_wound.htm
>
> >>
>
> >> In this movie film it is obvious brain matter ejecta goes up and forward
>

Only to the folks that believed it. When going against over 40 people
corroborating each other, they win hands down. The Hawkeye Works at
Rochester, NY had the film long enough to make it do anything they wanted,
and obviously they did.

>
> >> proving the shot came from behind the head. There is no ejecta seen coming
>
> >>
>
> >> from the back of the head. At the time of the shot the President was
>
> >>
>
> >> leaning forward so if a shot exited the back of the skull we should see a
>
> >>
>
> >> mass of brain matter covering the trunk of the limousine, but we don't see
>
> >>
>
> >> anything like that. Only a burst of pink cloud from the top of the head
>
> >>
>
> >> that spread upward and forward even though the Limousine was moving into
>
> >>
>
> >> the wind.
>

How foolish to think that. So the people that saw the 'ejecta' all over
the trunk lid and picked up the piece of skull that blew backwards (see
Clint Hill) to the ground, and the motorcycle cop that was behind and to
the left of the limo that was peppered with brain and blood were all
figments? Naah. You're making it up as you go along to protect your
weird little scenario after hugging it to you for so many years.

> >
>
> > So you haven't come across the testimony of the motorcycle cops that
>
> > were behind and to the left of JFK? One of them stated that he was
>
> > showered with brain matter and blood, Clint Hill coming from behind had a
>
> > similar experience. One Secret Service agent later said he had been
>
>
>
> And NONE of those said there was a large hole in the BOH, even though
>
> they were only a few feet away.
>

They didn't say anything about the hole in the BOH. But you still
haven't come up with even ONE person that said there was a small hole in
the BOH. I've got over 40 corroborated, medically trained people saying
'large hole'.

[Anthony Marsh]

Once again you fail. As I predicted you could not quote Hill saying "large
hole." That's what YOU say, not what Hill said. This is what you do every
day, misrepresent what witnesses said to push a political agenda.

> Not a tiny wound to be sure. If it was described as 'part of his brain
> was gone' then the wound had to be large enough for Hill to see inside to
> see that part of the brain was gone. Now let's listen to Hill's testimony
> to the WC:
>
> "Mr. SPECTER. Was there anything back there that you observed, that she might have been reaching for?
>
> Mr. HILL. I thought I saw something come off the back, too, but I cannot
> say that there was. I do know that the next day we found the portion of
> the President's head.
>
> Mr. SPECTER. Where did you find that portion of the President's head?
>
> Mr. HILL. It was found in the street. It was turned in, I believe, by a
> medical student or somebody in Dallas."
>
> So Hill saw a portion of the president's head come off, which was found
> later by someone. This was the plate of skull that had been returned to
> the autopsy at Bethesda. Do you think that when an agent talks about a
> 'portion of the president's head', that he's talking about some little bit
> of fluff? Or a sizable piece of skull matching all the statements of the
> medical personnel at both Parkland and Bethesda? When over 40 people
> corroborate each other as to the size of the hole in the BOH, there's no
> room left for foolishness. It's factual.
>

Wrong. You slept through the 70's. The HSCA proved that the Harper
fragment did not come from the back of the head.
You don't have 40 people.

>>
>>
>>>> We're dealing with a situation where several well placed witnesses are
>>
>>
>>>> contradicting each other, including parade, ER, and autopsy. We also have
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>> film of the head wound, photos, and X-rays that prove some of those
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>> witnesses are wrong. Experts verified the Zapruder film has not been
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>> tampered with and this film evidence corroborates photos and X-rays from
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>> the autopsy.
>>
> You may know that the photos and X-rays have been called into question
> by experts too. In the case of the X-rays, here's some fodder to chew on:
>
> http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKmantik.htm
>
>>>>
>>
>>> Sorry, I'm not sure what you mean by "parade", but only a few of the
>>
>
>> BY "parade" he means motorcade.
>>
>>
>>
>>> autopsy personnel (the prosectors) thought there was no large hole in the
>>
>>> BOH of JFK. Most of the onlookers were checked later and said they saw
>>
>>> the large hole. Sibert of the FBI drew a picture of the large hole from
>>
>>> the autopsy:
>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> No, they did not.
>>
> Sorry, I don't understand. My statement was that the prosectors
> believed there was NOT a large hole in the BOH of JFK, but if you think
> differently, please be clear. Because that leaves almost MO ONE that
> thinks there was a small hole in the BOH. If you're speaking of Sibert
> and his drawing, well, it's right there at the link to view for
> yourself.
>

Learn English. Plural pronouns.

>>
>>> http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=719
>>
>>>
>>
>>> There are plenty of witnesses that saw the large hole in the BOH back in
>>
>>> the time that the murder was committed.
>>
>>
>> You can't name them and quote them saying large hole.
>
> Ah, but I have. Where were you when I named them? To simplify for you,
> I'll name The first bunch of witnesses by showing you (once again). And
> if you think that you've made an impossible case by saying that they
> didn't use the words 'LARGE HOLE', you've failed again. It isn't
> necessary to say those words and still convey the intention of pointing
> out a 'large hole' in the BOH. So give up the amateur attempts at
> trickery. Here's the first bunch of medically trained people:
>

It is necessary when that's your claim.

> http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/boh/parkland_boh/parkland_wound.htm
>
> Now here's a second bunch of medically trained witnesses pointing out
> the location as well as the size:
>
> http://img35.imageshack.us/img35/8187/witnessesrearexitwoundk.jpg
>
> For this bunch you might have to size the group upwards to read the
> comments from the people as to the size of the large hole.
>
>>
>>>> As we all know witnesses remember different things for various reasons.
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>> The Newmans were the nearest general public witnesses to the Limousine and
>>
>>>>
>
> So you think Clint Hill wasn't close enough? The Newmans were not
> medically trained people, and I've given you many medically trained people
> who certainly are a cut above the general public in describing a wound.
>

You're replying to someone else's comments.

>>
>>>> in position to see up close the head wound, yet their testimony was not
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>> very accurate. There can be no question the combination of movie film,
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>> autopsy photos, and X-rays is solid evidence compared to contradictory
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>> witnesses. So too are expert witnesses such as pathologists and medical
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>> panels that reviewed X-rays, photos, and Zapruder film.
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>> Of course there can be a question. Given that many reliable witnesses
>>
>>> saw the large hole from only inches away, we cannot throw them away and
>>
>>
>>
>> Not true.
>>
>>> say they were mistaken or crazy. At least 20 of the over 40 witnesses
>>
>>
>>
>> Yes, we can. Because witnesses are often not reliable and always
>>
>> misrepresented by you.
>>
>
> Here you go again being insulting. Who wants to listen to your insults?
> I'm being a good guy in putting up with your terrible manners, even
> correcting you constantly with your incessant mistakes.
>

So you think no one should be allowed to challenge your arguments?
Then don't post nonsense here.

>> Therefore all the witnesses you have pointed out above were not reliable
>
> Mope. Won't do. There are so many that they corroborate each other.

No, they don't.

> But worse than that, you are completely unable to put together a list of
> even 5 people that will say there was only a small hole in the BOH, while
> I can muster over 40, most of them medically trained.

I am not interested in that. Only your false statements about a large
hole in the BOH.

>
>>
>>> that saw the large hole saw it in 1963. See the list above. If you have
>>
>>> relied on the picture of the BOH among the autopsy pictures that were let
>>
>>> out for us to see (and shut us up)then you've been had. If you think you
>>
>>> saw something in the Z-film, that's interesting, but it doesn't show the
>>
>>> BOH. The witnesses nearby saw (and later found) a piece of bone at the
>>
>>> point where JFK sustained the kill shot and it was sent on to Bethesda
>>
>>> later for the prosectors to deal with.
>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> So when you lose the argument you have to claim that the evidence is fake.
>>
>
> I don't know what world you're living on, but I've won hands down. I
> can provide over 40 witnesses that corroborate each other about a large

You can't and you never did. You just failed with Hill.

> hole in the BOH, and you've been unable to provide even one that says
> there was a 'small hole in the BOH. If you want to compete in the BIOH

That is not my argument. Stop trying to put words in my mouth just
because you lost the argument.

> sweepstakes, you'll just have to find people that think your weird
> scenario makes sense. Probably as many as there are people that think
> there was a small hole in the BOH...:)
>
>
>>> Many medically trained people at both hospitals saw that there was bone
>>
>>> missing from the BOH, which meant it was more than a little bullet hole.
>>
>>>
>>
>>> http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/boh/parkland_boh/parkland_wound.htm
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>> In this movie film it is obvious brain matter ejecta goes up and forward
>>
> Only to the folks that believed it. When going against over 40 people
> corroborating each other, they win hands down. The Hawkeye Works at
> Rochester, NY had the film long enough to make it do anything they wanted,
> and obviously they did.
>

There you go again, getting confused and arguing with someone else.

>>
>>>> proving the shot came from behind the head. There is no ejecta seen coming
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>> from the back of the head. At the time of the shot the President was
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>> leaning forward so if a shot exited the back of the skull we should see a
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>> mass of brain matter covering the trunk of the limousine, but we don't see
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>> anything like that. Only a burst of pink cloud from the top of the head
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>> that spread upward and forward even though the Limousine was moving into
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>> the wind.
>>
>
> How foolish to think that. So the people that saw the 'ejecta' all over
> the trunk lid and picked up the piece of skull that blew backwards (see
> Clint Hill) to the ground, and the motorcycle cop that was behind and to
> the left of the limo that was peppered with brain and blood were all
> figments? Naah. You're making it up as you go along to protect your
> weird little scenario after hugging it to you for so many years.
>

You're arguing with phantoms again.

>>>
>>
>>> So you haven't come across the testimony of the motorcycle cops that
>>
>>> were behind and to the left of JFK? One of them stated that he was
>>
>>> showered with brain matter and blood, Clint Hill coming from behind had a
>>
>>> similar experience. One Secret Service agent later said he had been
>>
>>
>>
>> And NONE of those said there was a large hole in the BOH, even though
>>
>> they were only a few feet away.
>>
> They didn't say anything about the hole in the BOH. But you still
> haven't come up with even ONE person that said there was a small hole in
> the BOH. I've got over 40 corroborated, medically trained people saying
> 'large hole'.
>

I don't have to. I never made that argument.

[mainframetech]

On Friday, July 5, 2013 12:16:28 PM UTC-4, claviger wrote:
> > > mazinframetech,
>
>
>
> > > Witnesses can get some things wrong and somethings right. One of the morticians said they didn't turn the body over. If true how could Robinson see a wound low on the back of the head? This interview happened on 9/26/96, over three decades after the assassination. Time can play tricks on the mind. As for puncture wounds on the face two morticians remember solution leaking from those wounds. One said they were like slits, more evidence of fragments from a ricochet. If the President had a cut near his right eyebrow and 3 deep cuts on the right cheek then the ricochet must have been on his right to spray the right side of his face.
>

Then someone is lying. The morticians had to put a rubber patch on the BOH of JFK and Robinson stated that it was the size of an orange. So they HAD to turn the body at least half way over, which would be enough to see the hole, but having to put the patch on would end any controversy about it. I'd love to see the statement of the mortician that said they never turned the body over, if you can find it.

>
>
> > So who is the decider of what part of a person's statements are right or
>
> > wrong? You?
>
>
>
> Yes, and anyone with critical thinking ability. When several witnesses
>
> give conflicting testimony some must be right and some must be wrong.
>
> Their testimony must be compared to other available evidence to seek
>
> corroboration.
>

So you have 'critical thinking ability'...:) And no doubt you used that 'critical' stuff that you think you have to determine that all of the many medically trained people at Both Parkland and Bethesda were lying or mistaken when they said there was a large hole at the BIOH of JFK. Well, I think you're all alone on that one.

The witnesses corroborate each other, and were witnesses shortly after the crime, so you can't scoot away saying there were 33 years between the crime and the statements. You might try to pretend that the witnesses all said different things, and the words were indeed often different, BUT the meaning was of a large hole in the BOH of JFK, which is corroboration.

Even the drawings done by Sibert of the FBI, Saundra Kay Spencer of the secret set of autopsy photos, the drawings from Tom Robinson and others all corroborate each other and the number of years that passed therefore have no bearing on their recollections. As further support for memory over 30 years, remember we are talking about the POTUS, not some Dallas thug that was killed. Every part of the murder and ensuing functions were unique and much more memorable than normal daily routine that any of us might forget.

>
>
> > Do you think that a fellow that handled the body of the president and
>
> > prepared it for burial would forget or become confused about things
>
> > he witnessed and in many instances touched himself?
>
>
>
> You wouldn't think so but obviously it happens. The film proves him wrong,
>
> the photos prove him wrong, the X-rays prove him wrong, the pathologists
>
> prove him wrong, the medical experts prove him wrong. Evidently his memory
>
> was affected by three decades passing by before being interviewed.
>

Whoops! "The film proves him wrong"? But wait...what if the film was fiddled with? Just the one picture of the black area at the BOH? Are you able to admit the possibility that the autopsy photos that were supposedly snuck out to us were legitimate in the face of over 40 people corroborating each others statements to the contrary?

Now to the autopsy photos, use the following set:
http://www.jfklancer.com/photos/autopsy_slideshow/index.html

Now we also know that an expert with X-rays had clearly stated that the X-rays were faked, so that could well be the end of those.


Now let's look at the photo of the BOH. The first would be BE4, and I invite you to look at the area where the large hole should be. Notice a fuzziness there? Then look at BE5 and it becomes almost painfully obvious when you see the total blob of black painted over the picture at just the right spot.

Paul O'Connor was one of the assistants at Bethesda and after getting together with staff from Parkland, they were amazed to find out about the damage to the skull that occurred between Parkland and Bethesda. It wasn't satisfactorily determined who did it.
>
Now to the Z-film. There are those that say it was faked in parts of it, and there was such an opportunity when the film was at the 'HawkEye Works' in Rochester, NY. That was a secret CIA lab within Kodak that did special work for the CIA. They were perfectly capable of faking parts of the Z-film, and that alone and the opportunity to do the work, makes the Z-film suspect.

>
> > If you read his testimony he is clear about what he states,
>
> > if he can't remember he doesn't guess.
>
>
>
> Two other morticians on the team testified they did not turn the body
>
> over. If true how could Robinson see the back of the head? If he could
>
> plainly see the head wound then obviously it was on top of the head.
>

You'll have to prove that to me. It makes no sense that 2 out of 3 morticians said they didn't turn over the body, when they HAD to turn it over to patch the large hole in the BOH. I'd appreciate anything you have that says that as long as it's not a kook site. And even though the morticians HAD to turn over the body, Robinson watched most of the autopsy and could have seen the BOH that way.

>
>
> > Now the big kicker...Tom Robinson was NOT the only person
>
> > to see the large hole in the BOH of JFK. over 40 people saw it,
>
> > many of them medically trained personnel at both Parkland
>
> > and Bethesda.
>
>
>
> You keep saying 40 people. Where is this list you keep talking about? Yes
>
> we all know the doctors and nurses in ER described the wound differently.
>
> According to the Zapruder-film, X-rays, and photos some were right and
>
> some were wrong. You choose to believe the ones who were wrong.
>

Nope. Not so. You're trying to get away with saying that the people were saying different things, but while the words were different, the meanings were the same for the vast majority of those people.

I've shown a list of medically trained people from both Bethesda and Parkland that said there was a large hole in the BOH, and that alone comes out to eighteen medically trained personnel. Then there were a number of others at the autopsy, such as Tom Robinson:
http://img35.imageshack.us/img35/8187/witnessesrearexitwoundk.jpg
>
When the HSCA said that ALL the onlookers at the autopsy agreed that there was NO large hole in the BOH, it was found out by separate polling of those people that most of them agreed that there WAS a large hole in the BOH. That was another 20 out of 26 people. Then of course, we have to add Saundra Kay Spencer who developed and saw the special set of pictures from the autopsy that WASN'T faked, and she saw the large hole in the BOH and drew it for the ARRB. Then we have the drawing of Sibert of the FBI. The list goes on and on. But oddly enough I haven't seen ANY list of those that think they saw a small bullet hole in the BOH and not a large hole. Would you like to produce a list of such people?

>
> > Now if we take those 40 (who corroborate each other) and match
>
> > it to the number of people that YOU can find that saw only a tiny
>
> > bullet hole, how much of a difference in numbers will we have?
>
> > About 35?
>
>
>
> How can we know since you haven't provided the list of 40?
>

Is that supposed to be a clever way to avoid making a list of 'small hole people'? Don't stall, just produce your list. Mine is above.

>
>
> Dr George Burkley, the President's personal physician, was the only
>
> medical doctor to see the body in ER and at the autopsy. He verifies the
>
> same wounds and concurred with the autopsy report. That means some doctors
>
> in ER got it wrong and so did some morticians. Burkley's observations
>
> confirm the Zapruder film, X-rays, photos, and autopsy report.

Mope. That means that Burkley had orders to say what he said and help make it all look OK to the public. You see, most all the medical doctors and nurses in Parkland disagreed with Burkley, and they most all corroborate each other, leaving Burkley out in the cold and on his own. A number of people from Bethesda also disagree with Burkley too. So I wouldn't take his word for anything.

Chris

[Anthony Marsh]

Your message is a mess. Learn how to use the CARRIAGE RETURN. <CR><LF>.

[claviger]

mainframetech,

We've been over this before long before you joined the discussion and
during your time here as well. You can have a 100 witnesses saying there
was a hole in the back of the head. Any investigator and certainly any
CSI specialist would say let me look at the X-rays and autopsy photos.
They would be especially interested in the home movies taken of the event
as it happened. Once they studied all this scientific data they would say
all 100 witnesses were wrong.

The faking of the X-rays, photos, and Zapruder film is absolute BS. It is
a complete myth perpetrated by CTs that "everyone" in ER saw a hole in the
back of the skull. Not even 50% of the doctors said that. Supposedly one
doctor lifted the head momentarily to show a nurse. Even that story
sounds unlikely. Too many people saw the gaping head wound as the
President was in the anatomic position or possibly even the Trendelenburg
position on the operating table. If the wound was in the back of the head
where several drew a circle none could have seen it except Dr Clark
Kent.

Any person with common sense and normal eyesight can look at the autopsy
photos and tell the gaping avulsive wound is on top of the head. The
X-rays confirm the photos and so does the Zapruder film. What we learn
from this experience is a group of witnesses can have different
perceptions. That is nothing new and why there is an autopsy, in this
case with further confirmation from more than one panel of experts in the
field of forensic medicine.

[mainframetech]

An attempt to have the witnesses support YOUR point, while discrediting others. That's baloney. You want them to be handy in all cases...:)

>
> > >>
>
> >
>
> > >> The Newmans were the nearest general public witnesses to the Limousine and
>
>
> So you think Clint Hill wasn't close enough? The Newmans were not
>
> medically trained people, and I've given you many medically trained people
>
> who certainly are a cut above the general public in describing a wound.
>
>
> > >> in position to see up close the head wound, yet their testimony was not
>
>
> > >> very accurate. There can be no question the combination of movie film,
>
>
> > >> autopsy photos, and X-rays is solid evidence compared to contradictory
>
>
> > >> witnesses. So too are expert witnesses such as pathologists and medical
>
>
> > >> panels that reviewed X-rays, photos, and Zapruder film.
>
>
> > > Of course there can be a question. Given that many reliable witnesses

>
> > > saw the large hole from only inches away, we cannot throw them away and
>
>
> > Not true.
>

Yes, true.

> >
>
> > > say they were mistaken or crazy. At least 20 of the over 40 witnesses
>
>
> > Yes, we can. Because witnesses are often not reliable and always
>
> > misrepresented by you.
>

And yet you have been completely unable to prove that I have
misrepresented even one person's testimony. Prove your point or be quiet.

> >

>
> Here you go again being insulting. Who wants to listen to your insults?
>
> I'm being a good guy in putting up with your terrible manners, even
>
> correcting you constantly with your incessant mistakes.
>
>
>
> > Therefore all the witnesses you have pointed out above were not reliable
>

"Therefore"?

> Mope. Won't do. There are so many that they corroborate each other.
>
> But worse than that, you are completely unable to put together a list of
>
> even 5 people that will say there was only a small hole in the BOH, while
>
> I can muster over 40, most of them medically trained.
>
>
> > > that saw the large hole saw it in 1963. See the list above. If you have
>
> >
>
> > > relied on the picture of the BOH among the autopsy pictures that were let
>
> >
>
> > > out for us to see (and shut us up)then you've been had. If you think you
>
> >
>
> > > saw something in the Z-film, that's interesting, but it doesn't show the
>
> >
>
> > > BOH. The witnesses nearby saw (and later found) a piece of bone at the
>
> >
>
> > > point where JFK sustained the kill shot and it was sent on to Bethesda
>
> >
>
> > > later for the prosectors to deal with.
>
>
> > So when you lose the argument you have to claim that the evidence is fake.
>
> I don't know what world you're living on, but I've won hands down. I
>
> can provide over 40 witnesses that corroborate each other about a large
>
> hole in the BOH, and you've been unable to provide even one that says
>

> there was a 'small hole in the BOH. If you want to compete in the BOH