The "90 percent" - A Hypothetical
Grizzlie Antagonist
about a conspiracy theorist who goes to heaven (?????) and is told by
God that Oswald acted alone. He walks away muttering that the
conspiracy is even bigger than he expected.
I question whether the percentage of people who "believe" in conspiracy
is really as high as 90 percent, at least in the United States, but
I'll accept that it's likely a super-numerical majority.
Now then, let me pose a hypothetical.
YOU have been to heaven and back. You've spoken with God. God has
told you that Oswald acted alone (or that he received no assistance
from anyone and that - Oswald was the only one to purposefully fire a
weapon - heh heh - or at least he was the only one to purposefully
fire).
Not only has God told you this, but He has armed you with perfect
knowledge. Every fact that you've ever believed in that suggested
conspiracy has either been explained away or corrected. You KNOW with
all of the certitude that there can possibly be that there was no
conspiracy in JFK's death (however the authorities might have handled
the incident after the fact), because, for the purpose of this
hypothetical, not only has God told you that there was none, but He has
given you the knowledge to explain away all of your previous
objections. All of them.
Don't get upset. Rememeber, this is just a hypothetical.
Now let's extend the hypothetical. Let's assume that God has charged
you to explain all this to the public at large. He has armed you with
the supernatural ability to instantly and effectively communicate ALL
that you know to every living human being on earth, regardless of their
language, intellect, powers of perception, education level, etc.
But let's further assume that the one thing that God didn't do was to
give you the power to CONTROL people's minds. You cannot MAKE or FORCE
them to believe what you now KNOW to be the truth. Changing their
minds is left solely to your powers of persuasion. But again, you DO
have the ability to communciate all that you know to them.
Now then - two questions.
Question One - Given all that, what portion of "the 90 percent" do you
expect to be able to convince of what you KNOW to be the truth?
Do you think that it would be an appreciable portion? A noticeable
portion?
Question Two - Leave the hypothetical world and return to the real one.
BUT - given your answer to Question One, how much persuasive
significance do you think that there is in the fact that "90 percent"
believe in conspiracy?
Anthony Marsh
> In one of these forums or perhaps elsewhere, someone once told a joke
> about a conspiracy theorist who goes to heaven (?????) and is told by
> God that Oswald acted alone. He walks away muttering that the
> conspiracy is even bigger than he expected.
>
> I question whether the percentage of people who "believe" in conspiracy
> is really as high as 90 percent, at least in the United States, but
> I'll accept that it's likely a super-numerical majority.
>
OK, so it's not really 90%. It's only 89%. Are you happy now? What
exactly do you gain by that 1% difference?
> Now then, let me pose a hypothetical.
>
> YOU have been to heaven and back. You've spoken with God. God has
> told you that Oswald acted alone (or that he received no assistance
> from anyone and that - Oswald was the only one to purposefully fire a
> weapon - heh heh - or at least he was the only one to purposefully
> fire).
>
Yeah sure. I can assure you that God would not tell you that Hickey
accidentally shot the President.
You can't even find 1% of 1% of the 1% who believe that Hickey shot the
President.
> Question Two - Leave the hypothetical world and return to the real one.
> BUT - given your answer to Question One, how much persuasive
> significance do you think that there is in the fact that "90 percent"
> believe in conspiracy?
>
>
The significance is that someone great once said that you can fool all
of the people some of the time, some of the people all of the time, but
you can't fool all of the people all of the time.
Robert Harris
Griz, there is a reason you are in this tiny, hardcore minority which
claims to actually believe that a single assassin carried out the
attack, alone.
And it has nothing to do with God.
I know you hate to hear about it, but there is *evidence* available
which settles the issue - once and for all.
And until you summon the will to deal with it, rather than evade it,
you are not going to be a very effective promoter for your side.
http://jfkhistory.com/k/answers.html
Robert Harris
On 25 Feb 2006 22:52:46 -0500, "Grizzlie Antagonist"
<lloydso...@yahoo.com> wrote:
The JFK History Page
http://jfkhistory.com/
David VP
Yes, there is -- "evidence" such as:
1.) Three bullet shells in the SN which positively came from the rifle
of Lee H. Oswald.
2.) A bullet in the hospital which just happened to also come from the
rifle of Lee H. Oswald.
3.) Two large bullet fragments (also from Oswald's rifle "to the
exclusion") located inside the very vehicle which was being occupied by
John F. Kennedy when he was killed by rifle fire.
4.) Fingerprints of Oswald's all over the Sniper's-Nest area, including
his prints on a paper bag THAT HAD NO LEGITIMATE AND LOGICAL REASON FOR
BEING THERE IN THE COURSE OF NORMAL DAY-TO-DAY DEPOSITORY OPERATIONS.
5.) Eyewitnesses who place Lee Oswald (or somehow who looked remarkably
similar to him) in the Sniper's Nest at the exact moment JFK was being
murdered via rifle fire (or just seconds prior to JFK's murder).
6.) Oswald's actions after leaving his workplace on 11/22/63 --- e.g.:
6a.) Oswald leaves work three minutes after the American President is
gunned down right in front of his place of employment (and lies about
why he did so, with his excuse of "I figured there would be no more
work today" being one that won't make the grade, even via CT standards
-- because of WHEN he actually left -- 12:33 PM; there is no way he
KNOWS he could just leave without gaining permission first from
Shelley/Truly).
6b.) Oswald rushes into his roominghouse and grabs a jacket and
revolver.
6c.) Oswald kills J.D. Tippit at 1:14 PM.
6d.) Oswald is seen acting and looking "funny" (suspiciously) by Johnny
C. Brewer just minutes after the Tippit slaying.
6e.) Oswald punches in the face and attempts to kill another of Dallas'
finest within the Texas Theater.
6f.) Oswald's comments made in the theater: "This is it!" and/or "It's
all over now!" ... Now, can some CTer come up with a good and
reasonable "He's Innocent Of Killing Anyone" explanation for Oswald
having said those two phrases -- or even just one of them -- just as
the cops approach him on 11/22? Good luck trying, because "It's all
over now!" has "consciousness of guilt" written all over it.
7.) Oswald's continual lies to the police and to the American people
VIA LIVE TELEVISION after his arrest .... e.g., "I didn't shoot anyone"
and "They've taken me in because of the fact I lived in the Soviet
Union; I'm just a patsy!", among gobs of other provable falsehoods
spouted by LHO.
8.) And let's not forget this trivial little item --- Oswald's
Mannlicher-Carcano rifle (proven to have been used to kill JFK without
a shred of a doubt) is found on the Depository's sixth floor at 1:22 PM
on November 22nd -- the very same rifle that just happened to turn up
missing in Ruth Paine's garage that very same day.
And what do CTers have in their "Physical Evidence Of A
Conspiracy/Multiple Shooters" basket? (Stuff like "guns", "bullets",
"shell casings", "clothing fibers", and/or "eyewitnesses who positively
identified a specific human being to the exclusion of all other humans
as being the killer of both JFK and Officer Tippit"? How much of that
kind of stuff is on the CT table to date?)
Answer: None. Not a scrap. And there never has been.
The above single-assassin "evidence" I mentioned means zilch to
hardline CTers I know.....but, in reality, that's of little
consequence. Because what CTers WANT to believe regarding this evidence
(with all of this evidence spelling out "Oswald is a murdering and
lying President-killing, cop-killing piece of filth") is meaningless --
and to tell the truth, it's always actually been of fairly minimum
consequence -- because, like it or not, THAT'S the physical evidence
CTers must deal with (and somehow squirm their way out of in order to
paint Oswald as an innocent "Patsy" on 11/22/1963 AD).
But, thankfully, there are people like Dale Myers, Larry Sturdivan, and
Vincent Bugliosi around who DO still put some value on the physical
evidence in the JFK and J.D. Tippit murder cases, instead of merely
screaming "It MUST all have been faked (somehow)", which is nonsense of
the first order, of course, when considering the totality and perfect
"LN/LHO Cohesiveness" of such a huge batch of would-be "faked" evidence
(in both the Kennedy and Tippit cases).
My man Vince Bugliosi is going to have a field day tearing up the
conspiracists while convicting Oswald in "Final Verdict: The Simple
Truth In The Killing Of JFK". Vincent will spare no crazy CT or CTer in
his tome; nor should he. They deserve VB's wrath. And everyone else's
wrath, too, for that matter. Because to ignore all of the above "One
Assassin Named Oswald" evidence is about as silly as believing that
some dumbbell plotters tried to frame a lone Patsy by shooting up
Dealey Plaza from every conceivable angle.
Peter Fokes
in a vat of holy water after reading your post!!
:-)
PF
Bud
Robert Harris wrote:
> Griz, there is a reason you are in this tiny, hardcore minority which
> claims to actually believe that a single assassin carried out the
> attack, alone.
>
> And it has nothing to do with God.
>
> I know you hate to hear about it, but there is *evidence* available
> which settles the issue - once and for all.
All you need to do is convince yourself that people remember and
relate with precision minute details of events while under fire, at
which time a leprachaun will appear at your door, and take you to his
pot of gold.
Bud
Probably close to zero. The best you could hope to do is write a book
putting everything on the table. Might be that "knowing" everything
might make it easier to explain things, but this is a case where
everyone gets to choose their own reality. Not likely many people would
be willing to abandon the one of their choosing for another.
> Question Two - Leave the hypothetical world and return to the real one.
> BUT - given your answer to Question One, how much persuasive
> significance do you think that there is in the fact that "90 percent"
> believe in conspiracy?
Well, for starters the percentage of people who believe in
conspiracy has never been this high. I think the highest number I`ve
seen on a poll is 81%, although Ben likes to lie about the 90% figure,
and Tony Marsh likes to use an 89% figure he can`t support. And to keep
these things in perspective, the average American neither knows or
cares much about this case, it is historical trivia. Basically, they
have a vague feeling that something fishy went on, and that seems to be
a good enough explaination for them, so high poll figures don`t really
translate into interest. There have been other blows to the American
psyche, like the shuttle disasters and 9-11, this one is fading in
significance. It`s only in enclaves such as this that the hardcore true
believers still obsess about this event, I suspect it rarely comes up
as a topic of conversation amongst the general public any more.
Peter Makres
"David VP" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1140972957.4...@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
David,
Excellent post, as usual. Be sure and take a look at Dealey
Plaza in Google earth and enable Google Earth community, then zoom in on
the plaza and click on some of the information links. See how some CT'ers
use that as a forum to spout all this conspiracy STUFF that has NEVER been
proven, pointing out the so-called "more likely" sources of the shots, and
so on. A pitiful attempt to pass off and continue to spread this nonsense
on the the ignorant and/or the gullible. Very similar to Oliver Stone
trying to pollute the minds of the young and/or rewrite history.
Peter M.
David VP
change the physical evidence in the case -- which said in '63, says today,
and will forever say that Lee Oswald was guilty of killing two people on
11/22.
If 71 out of 75 amateur CT sleuths insisted that all of the physical
evidence was "planted" to implicate Patsy Oswald -- does that "95%"
majority mean it's undeniably true? (How many of those 71 people saw the
"evidence planting" taking place? Answer: 0%.)
A "95%" figure also didn't help the HSCA's 11th-hour acoustical findings.
That "95% or greater chance of conspiracy" has fizzled to a virtually nil
% due to later studies re. the acoustics. Anyone still clinging to that
absurd "95%" figure is doing so only because there's nothing else for that
CTer TO cling to re. their conspiratorial beliefs.
David VP
Thank you, Peter.
>> "Be sure and take a look at Dealey Plaza in Google earth and enable Google Earth community..."
I've tried numerous times to download Google Earth; and can never get
the darn thing to work. I download it, and then it just lays there
(similar to the TWO "dud" bullets that barely penetrated JFK on 11/22,
per CTers). And then the craziest thing of all happens -- my computer
just disappears after the Google Earth download attempt -- just like
the two dud missiles inside JFK's body!
Doggonedest thing I've ever encountered.
~wink~
Peter Makres
That's pretty strange...I would say maybe you have a RAM issue
but I wouldn't think that would account for your "my computer" to disappear.
Hope you can get the issue resolved as Google Earth is a pretty neat
program.
Just too bad there are those attempting to use it as a propaganda vehicle...
Peter M.
Peter Fokes
wrote:
Unfortunately, the same tactic is occurring on Wickipedia. I'm not
sure who adds the links but Reitzes and McAdams sure are well
represented.
PF
>
>
Brandon Alexander
<justplai...@toronto.hm> wrote:
>Ever thought of being a preacher? I almost felt like dunking my head
>in a vat of holy water after reading your post!!
>
>:-)
>
>PF
>
Achh! Don't do that. If you do you might be come a........
LONE NUTTER!
Perish the thought!
Amen.
Al.
.
Grizzlie Antagonist
> Grizzlie Antagonist wrote:
> > In one of these forums or perhaps elsewhere, someone once told a joke
> > about a conspiracy theorist who goes to heaven (?????) and is told by
> > God that Oswald acted alone. He walks away muttering that the
> > conspiracy is even bigger than he expected.
> >
> > I question whether the percentage of people who "believe" in conspiracy
> > is really as high as 90 percent, at least in the United States, but
> > I'll accept that it's likely a super-numerical majority.
> >
>
> OK, so it's not really 90%. It's only 89%. Are you happy now? What
> exactly do you gain by that 1% difference?
That's the point of this hypo, in case you haven't figured it out.
What do these numbers mean?
> > Now then, let me pose a hypothetical.
> >
> > YOU have been to heaven and back. You've spoken with God. God has
> > told you that Oswald acted alone (or that he received no assistance
> > from anyone and that - Oswald was the only one to purposefully fire a
> > weapon - heh heh - or at least he was the only one to purposefully
> > fire).
> >
>
> Yeah sure. I can assure you that God would not tell you that Hickey
> accidentally shot the President.
No, you're not in a position to assure me of anything like that. There
was a woman in Tyler, Texas recently who killed her sons because she
felt that God had told her to.
For you to try to assume me of what God would say is too much ambition
on your part. It would be too much ambition on my part, as well, to
try to sincerely do that, so I expressly phrased the question in the
form of a HYPOTHETICAL, which I take it has stumped you.
I'm sure that you can find more than that. Donahue made the lecture
circuit when he was alive and met with a favorable reception, and his
book resonates with many people who read it.
Now, answer the hypothetical if you can.
> > Question Two - Leave the hypothetical world and return to the real one.
> > BUT - given your answer to Question One, how much persuasive
> > significance do you think that there is in the fact that "90 percent"
> > believe in conspiracy?
> >
> >
>
> The significance is that someone great once said that you can fool all
> of the people some of the time, some of the people all of the time, but
> you can't fool all of the people all of the time.
Let's modify the hypothetical.
A lot of people living in the Arab world would be classified as "Holocaust
deniers."
You have been given the power to simultaneously communicate with all of
them at once. How many minds do you expect to change?
Brandon Alexander
<lloydso...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Interesting hypothetical, and entertaining; ridiculous, of course, but
somewhat riveting.
Only question two can really be considered, by me, at least. The
answer is it's not persuasive at all to me what the majority believes
either way. It depends on what the facts indicate.
For instance most people seem to believe OJ killed Ron and Nicole. The
evidence supports them. The majority can be correct no matter how
unwittingly so.
My problem is a lot of the majority, maybe most, made the belief not
based on the evidence, but on some kind of gut feeling. Same way with
Kennedy and most anything else.
Al.
.
Anthony Marsh
Baloney. I already quoted the 89% figure from previous messages. Learn
to search Google Groups.
> these things in perspective, the average American neither knows or
> cares much about this case, it is historical trivia. Basically, they
That has no bearing on polling. The intent of a poll is not to find
experts on the subject, but to get a feel for what the average person
thinks.
David VP
The "disappearing computer" reference was a joke, Peter.
I wasn't referring to the "My Computer" desktop icon.
I was merely trying to make a humorous segue to relate the topic to the
CTers' two disappearing bullets that magically vanished after going
into JFK's neck and back on 11/22.
I kind of figured the "~wink~" notation indicated my tongue-in-cheek
status re. that remark. Oh well....no matter.
Thanks.
DVP
Peter Makres
those two mysterious "dud" missiles went...along with the bullet
fired from the GN.
Peter M.
"David VP" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1141059760.0...@t39g2000cwt.googlegroups.com...
>>> "I would say maybe you have a RAM issue but I wouldn't think that would
>>> account for your "my computer" to disappear."
>
>
robert harris
"David VP" <davev...@aol.com> wrote:
ROFLMAO!!
Read it and weep, David:
http://jfkhistory.com/k/answers.html
>
> The above single-assassin "evidence"
Why do you call this "single assassin evidence", David?
You are describing evidence against one of the shooters, which was found
in the only building that the authories happened to search:-)
Can you provide a shred of evidence which isolates Oswald as the only
sniper??
> I mentioned means zilch to
> hardline CTers
I think you worry too much about the "opposition" and too little about
the case.
The final three shots were much too closely spaced to have all come from
the alleged murder weapon. The evidence which prove this is beyond all
reasonable doubt.
http://jfkhistory.com/k/answers.html
Robert Harris
--
Robert Harris
www.jfkhistory.com
Anthony Marsh
> Anthony Marsh wrote:
>> Grizzlie Antagonist wrote:
>>> In one of these forums or perhaps elsewhere, someone once told a joke
>>> about a conspiracy theorist who goes to heaven (?????) and is told by
>>> God that Oswald acted alone. He walks away muttering that the
>>> conspiracy is even bigger than he expected.
>>>
>>> I question whether the percentage of people who "believe" in conspiracy
>>> is really as high as 90 percent, at least in the United States, but
>>> I'll accept that it's likely a super-numerical majority.
>>>
>> OK, so it's not really 90%. It's only 89%. Are you happy now? What
>> exactly do you gain by that 1% difference?
>
>
>
> That's the point of this hypo, in case you haven't figured it out.
> What do these numbers mean?
>
>
Well, 89% means that there is a difference of only 1% to 90%. So, why do
you think it makes a great deal of difference that the poll said only
89% instead of 90%? What do you gain by that 1% difference?
>
>>> Now then, let me pose a hypothetical.
>>>
>>> YOU have been to heaven and back. You've spoken with God. God has
>>> told you that Oswald acted alone (or that he received no assistance
>>> from anyone and that - Oswald was the only one to purposefully fire a
>>> weapon - heh heh - or at least he was the only one to purposefully
>>> fire).
>>>
>> Yeah sure. I can assure you that God would not tell you that Hickey
>> accidentally shot the President.
>
>
>
> No, you're not in a position to assure me of anything like that. There
> was a woman in Tyler, Texas recently who killed her sons because she
> felt that God had told her to.
>
> For you to try to assume me of what God would say is too much ambition
> on your part. It would be too much ambition on my part, as well, to
> try to sincerely do that, so I expressly phrased the question in the
> form of a HYPOTHETICAL, which I take it has stumped you.
>
Well, I don't want to get too philosophical with you, but assuming God
created this particular universe, God also created the laws of the
universe. So God can not believe in anything which is physically
impossible. The Hickey shot is physically impossible. Therefore I know
that God would not claim that it happened.
Many people? Sure, maybe 5 or 6.
> Now, answer the hypothetical if you can.
>
>
>
>>> Question Two - Leave the hypothetical world and return to the real one.
>>> BUT - given your answer to Question One, how much persuasive
>>> significance do you think that there is in the fact that "90 percent"
>>> believe in conspiracy?
>>>
>>>
>> The significance is that someone great once said that you can fool all
>> of the people some of the time, some of the people all of the time, but
>> you can't fool all of the people all of the time.
>
>
> Let's modify the hypothetical.
>
> A lot of people living in the Arab world would be classified as "Holocaust
> deniers."
>
> You have been given the power to simultaneously communicate with all of
> them at once. How many minds do you expect to change?
>
Silly question designed to defame. Like have you stopped beating your
wife yet.
>
David VP
Well....yeah....that's correct. (I think a "Duh!" might prove useful
here.)
I suppose the police were supposed to start searching the Courthouse, the
Dal-Tex, and the Trade Mart too, even though there wasn't a single logical
reason to do so...right?
Nobody claimed to hear shots from any other locations other than the TSBD
or the Grassy Knoll area -- and both were searched....with the only
evidence of a gunman turning up in the Depository Building.
As my main mentor, Vince B., is wont to say in many cases -- "What were
the police supposed to do--PRETEND that evidence existed elsewhere other
than where they found it and start chasing unknown, unseen killers? That's
crazy talk!" (Paraphrasing from Vince's O.J. Simpson video series;
c.1999.)
>> "Can you provide a shred of evidence which isolates Oswald as the only
sniper??"
Must be a trick question. Gotta be. Because nobody could be serious in
asking such a lame Q.
But, I guess I'll have to bite....
EVERY "shred" of PHYSICAL EVIDENCE "isolates Oswald as the only sniper".
Every piece.
Now tell the masses, Robert -- What PHYSICAL EVIDENCE OF A CONSPIRACY
(e.g., bullets, shells, prints, fibers, guns) can you provide to show that
a conspiracy existed and to debunk the LN/LHO scenario.
To date, there's been zilch. I await that first piece of "CT PHYSICAL
EVIDENCE".
Robert Harris
>>> "You are describing evidence against one of the shooters, which was
>found in the only building that the authories [sic] happened to search."
>
>
>Well....yeah....that's correct. (I think a "Duh!" might prove useful
>here.)
Hehe, you said it, not me.
>
>I suppose the police were supposed to start searching the Courthouse, the
>Dal-Tex, and the Trade Mart too, even though there wasn't a single logical
>reason to do so...right?
Are you actually claiming there "wasn't a single reason" to search
other buildings in Dealey Plaza????
I hope that what you meant was that there was a multitude of reasons,
rather than a single one:-)
Why in the name of sanity, would you think that the police should not
seach all potential sniper locations in the area??
>
>Nobody claimed to hear shots from any other locations other than the TSBD
>or the Grassy Knoll area -- and both were searched....with the only
>evidence of a gunman turning up in the Depository Building.
Exactly why would you expect the police to trust the opinions of the
witnesses? Aren't they (and you) going to simply ignore the nearly 50
percent of the witnesses who described shots from the West end of DP??
BTW, relatively few people said they heard shots specifically from the
TSBD. They said they heard shots from the general area of the
depository and Daltex buildings.
And even if we trust the accuracy of the earwitnesses, they cannot
account for shots that were fired from silenced weapons.
>
>As my main mentor, Vince B., is wont to say in many cases -- "What were
>the police supposed to do--PRETEND that evidence existed elsewhere other
>than where they found it and start chasing unknown, unseen killers? That's
>crazy talk!" (Paraphrasing from Vince's O.J. Simpson video series;
>c.1999.)
The police had no way of knowing how many snipers were involved in the
attack or where they were stationed. Even after they felt they found
one of the shooters, they had no right to stop looking.
Have you ever read about the FBI's efforts to track down and prosecute
the co-conspirator in the Oklahoma City bombing?? They invested tens
of thousands of man hunters and finally nailed the guy a year later.
In the JFK case, Hoover was closing the doors literally, before the
copse was cold.
>
>
>>> "Can you provide a shred of evidence which isolates Oswald as the only
>sniper??"
>
>
>Must be a trick question. Gotta be. Because nobody could be serious in
>asking such a lame Q.
I'm sorry, but YOU were the one who claimed your evidence proved there
was only a single assassin.
If you can't support the claim you shouldnt make it.
>
>But, I guess I'll have to bite....
>
>EVERY "shred" of PHYSICAL EVIDENCE "isolates Oswald as the only sniper".
>Every piece.
No it does not.
Assuming it is all legitimate, and you have a way to prove that Oswald
fired the weapon, it only demonstrates that he was one of the
attackers.
How does that isolate him as the ONLY one??
>
>Now tell the masses, Robert -- What PHYSICAL EVIDENCE OF A CONSPIRACY
>(e.g., bullets, shells, prints, fibers, guns) can you provide to show that
>a conspiracy existed and to debunk the LN/LHO scenario.
Why are you restricting the evidence types?
Why aren't you asking for evidence that would hold up in any court and
be totally acceptable to any judge and jury on the planet?
>
>To date, there's been zilch. I await that first piece of "CT PHYSICAL
>EVIDENCE".
Well, I will only accept umm.. uh...
Oh, I know! I will only accept DNA evidence!
Do you have any DNA evidence that proves Oswald shot JFK???
No?? Ha!
The guy must be innocent then, right?
Dave, instead of playing games like this, why don't we simply consider
the actual facts and deal with them?
You aren't going to like this, but this article will teach you more
about the shooting than you probably want to know:-)
http://jfkhistory.com/k/answers.html
Don't stop when you see all the witness statements. It is the
corroborations that will break your heart.
Robert Harris
Peter Makres
"Anthony Marsh" <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:xKWdnaC9TN_39pnZ...@comcast.com...
Hickey?
Cliff
> To date, there's been zilch. I await that first piece of "CT PHYSICAL
> EVIDENCE".
The bullet defects in JFK's clothes are too low to allow
any possibility of the Single Bullet Fallacy.
Gaeton Fonzi established this with Arlen Specter back in the
mid-60's (see THE LAST INVESTIGATION pgs 26-7).
The low back wound is substantially corroborated
by contemporaneous documents and witness statements.
http://www.jfklancer.com/docs.maps/back_diagram.gif
http://www.jfklancer.com/photos/Evidence/jfkjacket.GIF
http://www.jfklancer.com/photos/Evidence/jfkshirt.GIF
http://www.jfklancer.com/photos/Ford-Rankin/FBIreenact.GIF
http://www.jfklancer.com/docs.maps/autopdescript1.gif
http://www.jfklancer.com/pub/md/sibert1.gif
http://www.jfklancer.com/pub/md/sibert2.gif
http://www.jfklancer.com/pub/md/oneill2.gif
http://www.jfklancer.com/pub/md/oneill1.gif
The "Bunch Theory" that JFK's shirt and jacket
were elevated 2+" in tandem on Elm St. is debunked
by the photographic evidence.
The Dealey Plaza films and photos show the jacket
collar DROPPED on Houston St. right before the turn
onto Elm St.
JFK on Houston St:
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/altgens2.jpg
http://www.jfk-online.com/1nix.html
Nix film Version 1
JFK on Elm St:
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/bunched3.htm
http://www.jfk-online.com/Towner.mpg
http://www.sammcclung.com/Betzner.html
Betzner #3 shows the jacket collar in a normal
position at the base of JFK's neck at Z186.
It's physically impoosible for 2+" of JFK's jacket plus 2+"
of JFK's shirt to have "bunched up" entirely above the SBF
in-shoot at C7/T1 without pushing up on the jacket collar.
Dr. Chad Zimmerman's jacket experiments have
corroborated this obvious conclusion. In every recreation
by Dr. Zimmerman the jacket collar rides up over the top
of the shirt collar at the nape of the neck.
Dr. Zimmerman can only identify 1" of jacket elevation
in any of the Dealey Plaza photos, and the Single Bullet
Fallacy requires 2+".
The Single Bullet "Theory" thus stands debunked.
Cliff Varnell
David VP
You're shooting yourself in your pro-CT foot with such a silly argument.
(That is, if you want to accept as "correct" the earwitness testimony of
ANY of your "frontal shot" witnesses.)
Because WHY in the heck would only SOME of the non-TSBD shots be
"silenced", while others from the Knoll were perfectly audible (per CT
accounts)? Makes no sense whatever.
Just how stupid were these assassins, esp. in an "Oswald's Just A Patsy"
frame-up theory, which I assume, Robert, you advocate with open arms (most
CTers do anyway), correct?
In such an instance, the plotters go to the trouble of setting up poor Lee
way ahead of time (Fake Oswalds, Fake Backyard Photos, etc., blah-blah) --
and then on the big "Patsy Framing" day of 11/22 they decide to not only
shoot up DP from multiple directions while trying to frame their patsy who
is in the TSBD -- but they also (evidently) decide it's wise to "silence"
only SOME of the frontal shots, and leave the silencers (and smokeless
gunpowder) off of one gun (or more?) used by the Knoll shooters.
Smart huh?
Please tell the world why only SOME of the non-SN guns would be equipped
with silencers, while some weren't?
>> "Why are you restricting the evidence types?"
I restricted it in that argument because those are the things (e.g., guns,
bullets, shells) that SHOULD exist in some measure (even a tiny measure
would be nice) from articles other that Lee Oswald's weaponry if you are
right and multiple guns were used to shoot JFK on 11/22.
But, of course, the cover-uppers evidently did a PERFECT, all-encompassing
job of ridding the world of every gun, every fragment, and every bullet
that came from each and every non-Oswald weapon. An incredible feat,
indeed, esp. within the context of the popular theory that doesn't even
have these brain-dead assassins USING OSWALD'S RIFLE *AT ALL* on November
22nd! (Not THAT is Houdini-esque magic. C2766 ISN'T used...and yet THE
ONLY trace evidence in the Depository, the car, and the VICTIMS leads back
to that gun THAT WASN'T EVEN BEING FIRED!)
Those guys who pulled that off oughta get some kind of medal. A
"sleight-of-hand" trophy....something. Because it's an achievement worthy
of being celebrated.
Post-Script ---
I'm still waiting, btw, for that box to arrive in the mail (or via UPS)
marked: "First-Ever Piece Of Physical Evidence Proving Conspiracy In The
JFK Case".
Hasn't arrived yet. Should I give up hope of ever seeing it arrive?
David VP
accuracy and "lining up" of JFK's clothing to the hole in his back is
nonsense of the first order.
What you're doing is totally ignoring the "Best Evidence" for the back
wound -- i.e., the autopsy photo(s) and the autopsy report (plus the
testimony of the doctors who performed said autopsy).
They're all liars, right? Gotta be -- because if they're not (and if
the photos/X-rays are really genuine), then the SBT stands erect.
So, via the silly argument of "the clothing holes don't line up right",
you've trashed all the other verifiable evidence saying the SBT is the
ONLY possible correct answer. Silly.
Plus -- The "clothing" argument is lousy from the standpoint of the
other victim...Connally. The hole in the front of Connally's jacket
doesn't even come close to "lining up" with where everyone KNOWS the
bullet exited (the nipple area). Even CTers don't dispute this.
One bullet in chest...one hole in jacket = Bullet exited that 1 hole in
jacket...no matter WHERE on jacket said hole resides.
Rocket science here? No.
Why cannot the same reasoning be applied to JFK's shirt and coat
jacket?
Obviously, it can be applied here.
One hole in his back...one hole in his coat and shirt = The one bullet
passed through that shirt hole and his back....no matter WHERE exactly
on the clothing the hole resides.
Plus: Since this band of ever-efficient "plotters/assassins" were so
good at faking and manipulating evidence of all sorts to rid the world
of all notions of the evil conspiracy -- why, then, didn't they "see to
it" that the holes in the clothes lined up correctly to JFK's back
wound? Pretty careless of them.
Those plotters aren't going to get anywhere in life if they keep up
that kind of careless crap!
Cliff
> To say that the SBT "stands debunked" by simply relying on the assumed
> accuracy and "lining up" of JFK's clothing to the hole in his back is
> nonsense of the first order.
You asked for a piece of physical evidence.
Are you denying that the bullet defects in the shirt and jacket
constitute physical evidence?
>
> What you're doing is totally ignoring the "Best Evidence" for the back
> wound.
The clothing defects are direct physical evidence of the
low back wound.
Direct physical evidence is primary. The bullet defects in the
clothes are 4" below the collar -- too low to allow any possibility
of the SBT.
> -- i.e., the autopsy photo(s)
The Fox 5 autopsy photo is of such poor quality that the HSCA
disputed it's evidentiary value.
>From Vol 7 of the HSCA findings:
(quote on, emphasis added))
Among the JFK assassination materials in the National Archives
is a series of negatives and prints of photographs taken during
autopsy. The DEFICIENCIES of these photographs as scientific
documentation of a forensic autopsy have been described elsewhere.
Here it is sufficient to note that:
1. They are generally of rather poor photographic quality.
2. Some, particularly close-ups, were taken in such a manner that
it is nearly impossible to anatomically orient the direction of view.
3. In many, scalar references are entirely lacking,
or when present, were postitioned in such a manner to
make it DIFFICULT OR IMPOSSIBLE TO OBTAIN ACCURATE
MEASUREMENTS of critical features (such as the WOUND
IN THE UPPER BACK) from anatomical landmarks.
4. None of the photographs contain information identifying the victim;
such as his name, the autopsy case number, the date and place of the
examination.
(quote off)
> and the autopsy report
Actually, the original handwritten draft of the autopsy report,
written by Humes, describes the back wound thusly:
(quote on)
Situated on the upper rt. posterior thorax just above the upper
border of the scapula there is a 7x4mm oval wound.
(quote off)
http://www.jfklancer.com/docs.maps/back_diagram.gif
Just above the upper border of the scapula is T2,
and that doesn't work for the SBT either.
> (plus the
> testimony of the doctors who performed said autopsy).
Dr. John Ebersole attended the autopsy and told Dr. David Mantik
in a 1992 interview that the back wound was at T-4. (Harrison
Livingstone's KILLING THE TRUTH pg 721)
Nurse Diana Bowron washed JFK's body at Parkland, and she
told Livingstone the wound was "lower down on the back" than
shown in the autopsy photos (KTT pg 188.)
Autopsy photographer Floyd Reibe also claimed that the lower
marking on the autopsy photo showed the back wound (KTT pg 721).
Bethesda lab assisstant Jan Gail Rudnicki told Livingstone
that he saw "what appeared to be an entry wound several inches
down on the back." (HIGH TREASON 2, pg 206)
Bethesda x-ray tech Edward Reed reported seeing a back
wound "right between the scapula and the thoracic column."
(KTT pg 720)
James Curtis Jenkins, a lab tech who attended the autopsy,
placed the back wound below the throat wound with this
diagram for the HSCA:
http://jfklancer.com/pub/md/jenkins.gif
Chester H. Boyers was the chief Petty Officer in charge of the
Pathology Department at Bethesda in November 1963. This is
from Boyers signed affidavit:
(quote on)
Another wound was located near the right shoulder blade, more
specifically just under the scapula and next to it.
(quote off)
That's consistent with T3 or lower.
Secret Service Agent Glen Bennett reported, "I saw a shot hit the
Boss about four inches down from the right shoulder."
Secret Service Agent Clint Hill, who was at the autopsy, testified
before the Warren Commission:
(quote on)
Yes, sir; I saw an opening in the back, about 6 inches below the
neckline to the right-hand side of the spinal column.
(quote off)
Throw in the sworn testimonies of Sibert and O'Neill
and what Adm. Burkley wrote in the Death Certificate
(placing the back wound in the vicinity of T3), and that's
a dozen people who put the back wound in a location
consistent with T3.
Are they all liars, David?
> > But the single best piece of evidence is
>
> They're all liars, right?
Well? A dozen people saw the body in different positions
and described the wound in different ways all consistent with T3.
All liars?
> Gotta be -- because if they're not (and if
> the photos/X-rays are really genuine),
The x-rays don't show a back wound entrance, and the Fox 5
photo lacks evidentiary value for placement of the back wound.
You demanded a piece of physical evidence and I cited it,
plus all the corroborating evidence.
It's irrefutable.
> then the SBT stands erect.
All those people didn't lie. And the Dealey Plaza photos
show JFK's shirt collar at the back of the neck, the fact
that destroys "bunch theory."
The SBT is debunked by the lower back wound.
>
> So, via the silly argument of "the clothing holes don't line up right",
You demanded a piece of physical evidence now you say
physical evidence is silly.
Be careful what you ask for, sir.
> you've trashed all the other verifiable evidence saying the SBT is the
> ONLY possible correct answer.
There is no verifiable evidence for the SBT.
> Silly.
Factless scoffing.
>
> Plus -- The "clothing" argument is lousy from the standpoint of the
> other victim...Connally.
> The hole in the front of Connally's jacket
> doesn't even come close to "lining up" with where everyone KNOWS the
> bullet exited (the nipple area). Even CTers don't dispute this.
And even LNers don't dispute the fact that the hole in Connally's
shirt matches JBC's chest wound.
The jacket was bunched up but the shirt wasn't.
With JFK the shirt and the jacket defects align, so the
shirt and jacket had to move in tandem or rest in tandem.
The Nix film on Houston St. shows the jacket collar actually DROPPED
to its normal position at the base of JFK's neck, which it could not
do if there were 4+" of clothing piled up there.
>
> One bullet in chest...one hole in jacket = Bullet exited that 1 hole in
> jacket...no matter WHERE on jacket said hole resides.
There's also a hole in Connally's shirt that perfectly matched the
chest wound.
Why wouldn't JFK's shirt defect perfectly match his back wound?
>
> Rocket science here? No.
If the bullet defect in JBC's shirt matched *his* chest wound,
why wouldn't the bullet defect in JFK 's shirt match *his* back wound?
Especially when the jacket defect matches it.
Along with 4 contemporaneous documents:
1) the Death Certificate marked "verified"
2) the autopsy face sheet marked "verified"
3) the FBI autopsy report
4) Hume's initial autopsy report
Along with the sworn testimony of at least 5 federal agents:
1) FBI SA James Sibert
2) FBI SA Francis O'Neill
3) SS SA Glen Bennett
4) SS SA Clint Hill
5) SS SA Roy Kellerman
Along with the witness statements of medical personnel
who handled the body:
1) Parkland Nurse Diana Bowron
2) Autopsy Doctor John Ebersole
3) Autopsy witness Chester Boyers
4) Autopsy witness Floyd Reibe
5) Autopsy witness Jan Gail Rudnicki
6) Autopsy witness James Curtis Jenkins
7) Autopsy witness Edward Reed
>
> Why cannot the same reasoning be applied to JFK's shirt and coat
> jacket?
>
> Obviously, it can be applied here.
Obviously. The front of the jacket wasn't tucked in
and could easily move about.
But the shirts were tucked in.
The shirt defect in the Connally shirt matches
the location of the wound.
Same reasoning for JFK.
I never noticed this before, thanks for pointing it out,
David.
>
> One hole in his back...one hole in his coat and shirt = The one bullet
> passed through that shirt hole and his back....no matter WHERE exactly
> on the clothing the hole resides.
The shirt defects match their respective wounds.
That location of JFK's back wound is impeccably corroborated.
>
> Plus: Since this band of ever-efficient "plotters/assassins" were so
> good at faking and manipulating evidence of all sorts to rid the world
> of all notions of the evil conspiracy -- why, then, didn't they "see to
> it" that the holes in the clothes lined up correctly to JFK's back
> wound? Pretty careless of them.
No, the original idea WAS to present a case for conspiracy.
They wanted to pin the deed on Castro, and I think J Edgar
was mightily disappointed that didn't happen.
>
> Those plotters aren't going to get anywhere in life if they keep up
> that kind of careless crap!
Well, they didn't get into Havana, that's for sure
Cliff Varnell
aeffects
yourself -- not sure that's what you've been doing for a few months now!
David VP
jacket, not the front side (which, as you have rightly pointed out of
course, the front part of a coat would be flapping around more loosely
on the body).
Therefore, since the coat isn't going to be moving around like a coat
lapel on JFK's back, the coat hole lining up with the shirt is
understandable IMO.
And why is it not possible under these conditions for the shirt & coat
to "ride up" in tandem?
The bottom line is, of course, you've taken one aspect of the "whole"
of the SBT scenario (JFK's clothing holes on his back) and then chosen
to ignore all of the surrounding evidence that says the SBT is THE ONLY
WAY the shooting could have occurred.
Plus -- I'm thinking it's quite possible that JFK's back brace might
have aided in keeping those two layers of clothing (shirt and coat
jacket) TOGETHER to some extent...more so than if he wasn't wearing the
back brace. I'll admit, of course, that that is just a wild guess (but
CTers do nothing BUT "guess" 24/7 re. many aspects of this case; so I
suppose an LNer can do it on occasion as well). But it seems within the
bounds of reason. I've never worn a brace like that on my back, and
don't know for sure how it might "bind" or affect the clothing of the
wearer of such an item. But it might have had some effect on the
clothing to a small, or not so small, degree.
But a discrepancy in the clothing holes pales in comparison to the
things that are "out of whack" re. the CT side of the SBT equation.
Things like:
Bullets disappearing....pictures that have to be faked but
weren't....three autopsy doctors who have to be falsifying official
documents....Three gunmen performing the impossible at-the-same-time
task of shooting JFK in such a way to even come remotely close to being
able to say (later) that these THREE shots all "line up" to a "Single
Bullet" possibility.
Even WITH clothing holes that cannot be completely reconciled to the
square inch to JFK's back (skin) wound, the SBT is far, far ahead of
ANY PRO-CT SUBSTITUTE FOR IT.
CTers, IMO, still haven't a leg to wobble on with respect to the SBT.
.... Because virtually everything "fits" re. the SBT for the LN side.
But CTers, in trying to debunk it, are attempting to do so, EVEN
THOUGH......
The CTers have......
1.) No bullets where there most certainly ought to be bullets found
(and THREE of them at that, discounting CE399 of course; because no
self-respecting CTer would dare think that that bullet was ACTUALLY
part of the "real" shooting).
2.) No damage inside JFK's back/neck where there certainly should be
some degree of damage if TWO whole bullets just stopped dead inside
him.
3.) No good, rooted-in-logic explanation for why Connally's back wound
was "oblong" (approx.) in shape if that wound had been caused by an
unimpeded bullet in flight.
4.) No real good explanation (at all) as to why on Earth those TWO
missiles just stopped inside Jack Kennedy's body. (Two "duds"? Or two
"misfires"? TWO?? Come now.)
5.) Not a single witness saying they saw an additional non-Oswald
shooter.
6.) No proof whatsoever that the Official Autopsy Report has been
"faked" or "phonied up" by the autopsy doctors (all three of whom
signed off on said document).
7.) No proof at all that the autopsy photos and X-rays have been
"faked" in some manner to "hide" the true wounds.
8.) No proof at all to show that the 19 different HSCA panel members
who authenticated the autopsy photos/X-rays all lied when they said
this in 1978:
"From the reports of the experts' analyses of the autopsy photographs
and X-rays, the evidence indicates that the autopsy photographs and
X-rays were taken of President Kennedy at the time of his autopsy and
that they had not been altered in any manner."
9.) And to repeat #1 just for amplification -- WHERE DID ALL THOSE
BULLETS GO? WHERE? Please inform the world. We'd like to know.
robert harris
"David VP" <davev...@aol.com> wrote:
> >> "And even if we trust the accuracy of the earwitnesses, they cannot
> >> account for shots that were fired from silenced weapons."
Why did you snip all of my questions, David?
>
>
> You're shooting yourself in your pro-CT foot with such a silly argument.
> (That is, if you want to accept as "correct" the earwitness testimony of
> ANY of your "frontal shot" witnesses.)
Which "frontal shot witnesses" are you talking about?
>
> Because WHY in the heck would only SOME of the non-TSBD shots be
> "silenced", while others from the Knoll were perfectly audible (per CT
> accounts)? Makes no sense whatever.
Umm... I realize this might seem pretty complicated David, but when you
have two or more snipers, you have two or more weapons involved - even
more if you consider that one sniper could be carrying multiple weapons.
>
> Just how stupid were these assassins, esp. in an "Oswald's Just A Patsy"
> frame-up theory, which I assume, Robert, you advocate with open arms (most
> CTers do anyway), correct?
No David, I have posted on countless occasions, that Oswald was almost
certainly, quite guilty.
Why don't you deal with the issues I present, rather than the ones you
make up for me:-)
>
> In such an instance, the plotters go to the trouble of setting up poor Lee
> way ahead of time (Fake Oswalds, Fake Backyard Photos, etc., blah-blah) --
> and then on the big "Patsy Framing" day of 11/22 they decide to not only
> shoot up DP from multiple directions while trying to frame their patsy who
> is in the TSBD -- but they also (evidently) decide it's wise to "silence"
> only SOME of the frontal shots, and leave the silencers (and smokeless
> gunpowder) off of one gun (or more?) used by the Knoll shooters.
>
> Smart huh?
Have you noticed how much easier it is to attack *your* conspiracy, than
mine:-)
>
> Please tell the world why only SOME of the non-SN guns would be equipped
> with silencers, while some weren't?
Supressed rifles would be preferable for the obvious reason that they
permit the shooter to remain unnoticed, but they are also detrimental to
accuracy, David. As JFK pulled further away, and was still alive, they
would try to hit him with an unmodified, high powered rifle - which is
exactly what they did.
BTW, the other problem with silencers is that even today, they create a
serious risk of instability. I posted an article some time ago, by a
firearms expert who stated that even the tiniest misalignment can cause
serious misfiring problems.
As we both should know, that is exactly what happened when the first
shot was fired and hit the pavement, missing JFK and the entire
limousine.
The second shot was much better, but was still more pretty awful,
striking far below the head, which had to have been the preferred target.
David, the MC rifle was extensively tested by the HSCA and others. The
shock wave generated by its passing bullet was measured at 130 decibels
within a 10 foot radius.
The muzzle blast which followed almost instantly, was twice that loud
but diminished with distance. So, to the ears of the limo passeners,
would have been slightly weaker than the shock wave, although it lasted
much longer.
The end result was that the people closest to the path of the bullet
would have been severely startled. That is exactly what we see,
following the known shot at Z312. Notice btw, that Roy Kellerman who
reacted within less than a third of a second to that shot, was facing
forward and so could only have been responding to an auditory stimulus.
(Be patient. I will be getting to the point, soon enough:-)
David, we know that those reactions were involuntary. I also cited in
this newsgroup, studies by clinical psychologists in which they
consistently provoked startle reactions in their test subjects using
sound levels of 92 decibels. That's not surprising David - that was more
than twice as loud as a typical, noisy vacuum cleaner.
But David, the shock wave alone, generated by a bullet fired from a
Mannlicher Carcano was nearly SIXTEEN TIMES louder than the shrinks used
in their studies.
The muzzle blasts varied a bit, depending on how far the limo was from
the gun, but it would have been at least several times louder, and
loudest during the earliest shots.
David, please examine the limo passengers, following the shots at around
Z160 and Z223.
Do you see anything even faintly resembling a startle reaction, among
the nonvictims? I am not talking about people looking around 30 frames
later. I mean startle reactions that are similar to the ones we seen
following Z-312, and within a third of a second.
Would you be surprised to learn David, that most people in DP that day,
said they only heard ONE noise prior to the shots at the very end of the
attack?
Would you also be surprised to learn that a much higher percentage of
law enforcement professionals corroborated that shooting pattern than
civilians, and that NOT ONE of the pros reported a Posner scenario with
the first shots closer than the final ones???
The first two shots were fired from supressed weapons, David. You can
take that to the bank. They simply could not have been fired from
unmodified high powered rifles.
BTW, that is also why Governor Connally never heard the shot that hit
him, despite retaining full consciousness hearing everything people
around him said, prior to him passing out.
I realize I am throwing a lot of data at you in a pretty short space,
David. To get a much better and more detailed understanding of what
happened, read this article.
http://jfkhistory.com/k/answers.html
Robert Harris
--
Robert Harris
www.jfkhistory.com
Cliff
> The JFK jacket hole in dispute here is a hole on the BACK side of his
> jacket, not the front side (which, as you have rightly pointed out of
> course, the front part of a coat would be flapping around more loosely
> on the body).
Correct. As is the hole in the shirt. So if JBC's shirt defect
matched JBC's chest wound, JFK's shirt defect surely matched
JFK's back wound, yes.
>
> Therefore, since the coat isn't going to be moving around like a coat
> lapel on JFK's back, the coat hole lining up with the shirt is
> understandable IMO.
Understandable. The movement of JFK's jacket in Dealey Plaza
was DOWN.
First the jacket collar dropped, as recorded in that great
clear copy of the Nix film shown on Unsolved History.
Then the back of the jacket dropped when JFK turned
to his right to wave at Z173-8.
The jacket wasn't elevated more than a fraction of an
inch at anytime in Dealey Plaza.
>
> And why is it not possible under these conditions for the shirt & coat
> to "ride up" in tandem?
I think it's best to stick with the Dealey Plaza photos.
Every film and photo taken on the south side of Elm St.
show JFK's jacket collar at a normal position at the base
of his neck.
David, how could 2+" of shirt fabric and 2+" of jacket fabric
pile up entirely above the C7/T1 SBT inshoot without
pushing up on the jacket collar?
It is flat out physically impossible.
Different solid objects cannot occupy the same physical
space at the same time.
>
> The bottom line is, of course, you've taken one aspect of the "whole"
> of the SBT scenario (JFK's clothing holes on his back) and then chosen
> to ignore all of the surrounding evidence that says the SBT is THE ONLY
> WAY the shooting could have occurred.
All your "surrounding evidence" is nothing more than assumptions
derived from circular logic.
>
> Plus -- I'm thinking it's quite possible that JFK's back brace might
> have aided in keeping those two layers of clothing (shirt and coat
> jacket) TOGETHER to some extent...more so than if he wasn't wearing the
> back brace.
Autopsy attendee James Sibert observed that the back brace
acted to keep the shirt in place. From his ARRB testimony:
(quote on)
Jeremy Gunn: So, now, based upon what you know from what you observed at
the autopsy, do you have any assessment on what happened on November 22nd
in Dealey Plaza?
James Sibert: Let me say this. And I've said this before. I won't go so
far as to say there was a conspiracy, but I have always had trouble
assimilating the single-bullet theory. Seeing where the back wound was,
an eyewitness there--12 inches from it, seeing them probe that. And from
what I understand, the bullet holes both in the shirt and coat match the
bullet wound in the back and with the first location that Humes gave us.
And, of course, they tried to say that if he raised his arm up--But if you
raise your arm up, you're not going to raise your shirt. It's pinned in
there with your belt. Plus the fact that the President wore a back brace,
I understand, that was pretty tight, too, which would help to hold down
the shirt. And so, I've always had trouble with the single bullet or
"magic" bullet theory.
(quote off)
As with JBC, the hole in JFK's shirt matched the wound in his back.
> I'll admit, of course, that that is just a wild guess (but
> CTers do nothing BUT "guess" 24/7 re. many aspects of this case; so I
> suppose an LNer can do it on occasion as well).
There are things we know for sure, and things we don't know for sure.
Two of the things we know for sure are that the hole in JFK's shirt is 4"
below the bottom of the collar and the hole in the jacket is 4 & 1/8"
below the bottom of the collar.
We know for sure that that's too low to allow any possibility of the SBT.
We know for sure that JFK's jacket collar rode in a normal position at the
base of his neck on Elm St.
We know for sure that different solid objects cannot occupy the same
physical space at the same time.
We know for sure that 4+" of clothing fabric didn't "bunch up" entirely
above C7/T1 at the base of JFK's neck because the jacket collar occupied
that physical space at the base of JFK's neck.
Thus, we know for sure that at least 4 shots were fired.
Follow the evidence to the conclusion, David, not the conclusion to the
evidence.
> But it seems within the bounds of reason.
To claim that the jacket collar and 4+" of bunched up clothing fabric
occupied the same physical space at the same time is way beyond the bounds
of reason.
> I've never worn a brace like that on my back, and
> don't know for sure how it might "bind" or affect the clothing of the
> wearer of such an item. But it might have had some effect on the
> clothing to a small, or not so small, degree.
>
> But a discrepancy in the clothing holes pales in comparison to the
> things that are "out of whack" re. the CT side of the SBT equation.
>
> Things like:
>
> Bullets disappearing....
Once one comes to terms with the high likelihood that CIA assets carried
out the execution, the possibility of exotic weaponry come into play.
The autopsists and the FBI agents who attended the autopsy seriously
discussed this type of exotic weaponry the night of the autopsy.
>From James Sibert's affidavit:
(quote on)
I recall the doctors looking for a bullet in the body in connection with
the back wound and becoming frustrated during their search. They probed
the wound with a finger and Dr. Finck probed it with a metal probe. They
concluded that the wound went in only so far and they couldn't find the
bullet. It was my impression that both Finck and Humes agreed that there
was no exit wound of the bullet through the back. The doctors also
discussed a possible deflection of the bullet in the body caused by
striking bone. Consideration was also given to a type of bullet which
fragments completely.
(quote off)
What kind of bullets "fragment completely"?
>From CIA SPECIAL WEAPONS AND EQUIPMENT by
H. Keith Melton, pg 22:
(quote on)
DART GUN
The dart gun is a single-shot pistol firing a .03-caliber, mass stabilized
projectile...made of iron particles and the tranquilizer M-99 formed
together with a blood/water soluble bonding agent... If left in the body,
the dart dissolves and becomes unidentifiable on X-ray.
An adjustable shoulder stock is available as an accessory (must be
obtained seperately) for operations requiring ranges up to 100 feet.
(quote off)
A much larger caliber would have been used on JFK in this scenario.
For what purpose?
To paralyze him.
And what does the Zapruder film show?
JFK paralyzed.
> pictures that have to be faked but weren't....
No photos have to be faked. The Fox 5 autopsy photo
wasn't of sufficient quality to hold evidentiary value as
to the location of the back wound.
> three autopsy doctors who have to be falsifying official documents
The contemporaneous official documents are consistent
with the lower back wound.
Military men acting under orders can very possibly make
false reports.
Happens all the time.
> ....Three gunmen performing the impossible at-the-same-time
> task of shooting JFK in such a way to even come remotely close to being
> able to say (later) that these THREE shots all "line up" to a "Single
> Bullet" possibility.
The shots DO NOT line up, even remotely.
>
> Even WITH clothing holes that cannot be completely reconciled to the
> square inch to JFK's back (skin) wound, the SBT is far, far ahead of
> ANY PRO-CT SUBSTITUTE FOR IT.
You can't cite any direct evidence of it -- only assumptions.
>
> CTers, IMO, still haven't a leg to wobble on with respect to the SBT.
> .... Because virtually everything "fits" re. the SBT for the LN side.
Nothing fits. Boswell is the only witness out there claiming
the back wound was in the neck -- another dozen or so put
the wound lower.
JFK's back wound was described as shallow at Bethesda
and the throat wound was described as an entrance wound
at Parkland.
All you have are the inventions of a Gallery of SBT Defenders:
Arlen Specter, Gerald Ford, Gerald Posner, John Lattimer,
Dale K. Myers, John Hunt and Chad Zimmerman.
None of these guys can defend their inventions.
>
> But CTers, in trying to debunk it, are attempting to do so, EVEN
> THOUGH......
>
> The CTers have......
>
> 1.) No bullets where there most certainly ought to be bullets found
> (and THREE of them at that, discounting CE399 of course; because no
> self-respecting CTer would dare think that that bullet was ACTUALLY
> part of the "real" shooting).
CE 399 cannot be linked to either of JFK's non-fatal wounds.
Your case is based purely on assumption.
>
> 2.) No damage inside JFK's back/neck where there certainly should be
> some degree of damage if TWO whole bullets just stopped dead inside
> him.
Not if he was struck with a blood soluble round designed to paralyze.
>
> 3.) No good, rooted-in-logic explanation for why Connally's back wound
> was "oblong" (approx.) in shape if that wound had been caused by an
> unimpeded bullet in flight.
JFK's back wound was also oblong, 7mm x 4mm -- did it pass through
anything?
>
> 4.) No real good explanation (at all) as to why on Earth those TWO
> missiles just stopped inside Jack Kennedy's body. (Two "duds"? Or two
> "misfires"? TWO?? Come now.)
Nope. JFK was a former military man trained to duck under fire.
If struck with a non-fatal round he should have instinctively ducked
down, but instead he acted paralyzed.
A guy acting paralyzed is consistent with a guy being paralyzed.
>
> 5.) Not a single witness saying they saw an additional non-Oswald
> shooter.
What about all those folks storming the GK?
>
> 6.) No proof whatsoever that the Official Autopsy Report has been
> "faked" or "phonied up" by the autopsy doctors (all three of whom
> signed off on said document).
They moved the back wound.
>
> 7.) No proof at all that the autopsy photos and X-rays have been
> "faked" in some manner to "hide" the true wounds.
But the autopsy photos and x-rays offer no proof of the location of the
back wound one way or the other.
>
> 8.) No proof at all to show that the 19 different HSCA panel members
> who authenticated the autopsy photos/X-rays all lied when they said
> this in 1978:
>
> "From the reports of the experts' analyses of the autopsy photographs
> and X-rays, the evidence indicates that the autopsy photographs and
> X-rays were taken of President Kennedy at the time of his autopsy and
> that they had not been altered in any manner."
The also disputed the evidentiary value of these autopsy photos
for the purpose of locating the back wound.
>
> 9.) And to repeat #1 just for amplification -- WHERE DID ALL THOSE
> BULLETS GO? WHERE? Please inform the world. We'd like to know.
On the night of the autopsy serious consideration was given
to JFK having been hit with blood-soluble rounds.
The paralysis JFK exhibited in the Zapruder film is consistent
with that conclusion.
Cliff Varnell
David VP
I used it instead of a sleep aid!
A thousand words signifying....nada. Good job.
Let's just continue to ignore the fact that every piece of ballistics
evidence leads straight to one killer named Oswald, shall we? And,
instead, we'll fill these boards with grand "proof" like "auditory
stimulus", et al.
After all, "auditory stimulus" is MUCH, MUCH better evidence than
things like .... guns, bullets, shells, fingerprints, paper bags in the
SN, and clothing fibers (plus the LACK of said items to suggest any
other killers except Oswald in DP).
Thanks for the sleeping pill. I'm copying it to audio tape for use on
future sleepless nights.
Robert Harris
>Excellent post, Robert Harris!
Thanks David.
I love it when my adversaries have to snip my posts because they
cannot refute them.
>
>I used it instead of a sleep aid!
Oh, come on David. I think it's pretty apparent that you've been
asleep for quite awhile now:-)
>
>A thousand words signifying....nada. Good job.
If it was nada, you would have been able to answer my questions
instead of snipping them.
>
>Let's just continue to ignore the fact that every piece of ballistics
>evidence leads straight to one killer named Oswald, shall we?
Why?
I already told you, that Oswald was probably guilty as hell.
>And,
>instead, we'll fill these boards with grand "proof" like "auditory
>stimulus", et al.
Another good idea.
Fortunately for us, this issue of startle reactions is backed by many
years of solid and indisputible research, which is totally independant
of our little squabble in the JFK case.
David, we KNOW that involuntarly startle reactions will be provoked at
certain levels of noise.
I'm sure you are as excited as I am by that fact, because it gives us
an objective test which resolves when high powered rifle shots were
fired during the attack in DP.
Dr. Luis Alvarez's research is along those same lines, although he was
only looking for startle reactions by the camera operator. BTW, here
is one you are going to love, David!
Alvarez concluded that there was a loud noise, beginning within a
third of a second (about 6 frames) of Zapruder frame 285. He wrote in
his paper that this couldn't have been a gunshot though, because it
was much too close to the known shot at Z312. (1.5 seconds, prior) He
speculated that this might have been a siren going off, in spite of
the fact that no-one in DP (including the siren operators) recalled
any sirens until after the shooting was over.
David, that reaction began at the heavily blurred frames 290-291.
Would you like to see the ONLY place in the Zapruder film, where the
limo passengers reacted as they did following Z312, by ducking,
spinning around, etc???
Watch them, beginning at exactly the same frame where the reaction
Alvarez identified, began:-)
If you don't have a copy of the Zfilm handy, you can look at these,
http://jfkhistory.com/shot2.gif
http://jfkhistory.com/shot.gif
Kellerman's reaction is classic, and definitive. Watch closely and
adjust the brightness of your CRT if you need to. Do you see him raise
his hand to protect his ear, while simultaneously twisting his head to
the right?
http://jfkhistory.com/royducks.gif
David, those reactions by every nonvictim in the limo, began within
1/6th of a second of one another, and 19th of a second of the reaction
by Zapruder, which Alvarez identified.
Alvarez was indeed, correct. There was a loud noise at Zapruder frame
285. But that noise was no siren. Each of the witnesses whom we see
react, were very specific about the nature of the "noise" that
startled them. You can read their statements in this article:
http://jfkhistory.com/k/answers.html
>
>After all, "auditory stimulus" is MUCH, MUCH better evidence than
>things like .... guns, bullets, shells, fingerprints, paper bags in the
>SN, and clothing fibers (plus the LACK of said items to suggest any
>other killers except Oswald in DP).
David, this is not an either/or issue. There is no contradiction
between evidence for a sniper in the Depository and evidence that
other snipers were involved.
>
>Thanks for the sleeping pill. I'm copying it to audio tape for use on
>future sleepless nights.
This was a pretty serious crime, and IMO, one which deserves an
unbiased and objective study - something that is rather difficult for
many of us on both sides of the conspiracy question.
I think, that if I have accomplished nothing else, I have overcome a
major part of that hurdle. I have written many times in this
newsgroup, that one bullet did indeed, pass through both JFK and
Connally, at exactly the instant that Posner claimed it did. I am also
in complete agreement with Posner that the first shot missed and
struck the pavement near the limousine.
I have written that without a doubt, the shot at Z312 came from the
rear.
And I have written many times, that Oswald was guilty, and took part
in the attack that day.
I have also concluded that multiple assassins were involved in that
attack.
None of these conclusions were the product of my own desires or
prejudices. They are where the evidence and reason led me.
If I am wrong on the question of multiple assassins, then why don't
you drop the insults and prove it - honestly and objectively.
If you cannot do that, then you might want to reconsider some of your
beliefs.
jim....@fuse.net
of the media and in the second question you need to remember Lincoln's
observation; "You can fool some of the people all of the time and all
of the some of the time but you can't fool all of the people all of the
time." When there is as much controversy as there has been in the JFK
assassination for so long most people "know" something is wrong
although they can't quite put their finger on just what that something
is. It's an intuitive thing, they are smarter than they know how to be.
Regards, Jim
jim....@fuse.net
about the disappearing bullet evidence because the original stretcher
bullet with a "pointed tip" disappeared once the FBI took possession of
it from James Rowley, head of Secret Secret service in his office in
WDC on 11/22/63. And it hasn't been seen or heard of since. However,
the FBI's Lead Examiner of the JFK evidence has submitted the
FBI/Fazier-Q1-C1-CE399 bullet instead. And as for the bag "found" near
the "sniper's nest" you referred to, you do remember you can't get a 34
inch rifle part into a 24 or 25 inch bag, don't you? That's the size
the bag had to be for LHO to hold one end of the bag in his palm and
get the other end under his arm. And where did you say the "Magic
Bullet" came from? At this point it has magically vanished just as it
magically appeared. Especially after the very interesting Discovery
Channel's very scientific experiment with the Australian olympic
shooting team. You remember that one don't you David? That's where
the Australian assassination research team meticulously reconstructed
the assassination set up to try to prove the SBT was not just a theory?
And you saw where the bullet actually exited on the JFK dummy torso?
In JFK's chest nowhere near the wound site in the throat actually
PROVING that the SBT WAS NOT THE WAY the shooting happened. BTW don't
quit you day job to do humor. Regards, Jim