"Bullet still in Connally's leg" - Dr Robert Shaw

[TJC76]

Vince Palamara:

"For newcomers to the assassination, the official "Warren Commission"
found that a bullet hit JFK and it passed through him and struck
Connally. It was then "discovered" when it rolled off Connelly's cart,
according to the commission, after falling out of his leg wound. This
is that "magic bullet" that appears intact in pictures.

Obviously, if the bullet is still in C's leg after surgery, either the
governor's leg has a supply of missiles like a gumball machine, or
their "report" is garbage."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aQ8NJwq58Fg&sns=fb

[bigdog]

Whoever told you a bullet was still in Connally's leg pulled one over on
you. A fragment from CE399 remained in Connally's leg until the day he
died. The bullet worked it's way out and onto his guerney. This is pretty
basic stuff. Don't you think that if the WC had made an error that big
that they would have been called on it many year ago. Say within a few
days of their report being released.

[Jean Davison]

Did Mr. Palamara happen to mention that Dr. Shaw was not the
surgeon who operated on Connally's thigh? This is from the hospital
record:

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0278b.htm

Did Mr. Palamara happen to mention that Dr. Tom Shires, who DID
operate on Connally's thigh, said that a fragment was found, not a bullet?

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0280a.htm


Jean

[Anthony Marsh]

On 12/17/2011 10:47 AM, TJC76 wrote:
> Vince Palamara:
>
> "For newcomers to the assassination, the official "Warren Commission"
> found that a bullet hit JFK and it passed through him and struck
> Connally. It was then "discovered" when it rolled off Connelly's cart,
> according to the commission, after falling out of his leg wound. This
> is that "magic bullet" that appears intact in pictures.
>
> Obviously, if the bullet is still in C's leg after surgery, either the

> governor's leg has a supply of missiles like??? a gumball machine, or

> their "report" is garbage."
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aQ8NJwq58Fg&sns=fb
>

So, you think that Dr. Shaw was lying when he said the bullet was still in
Connally's leg and would be removed later?

Maybe there are still fragments in his body which were never removed.
We'll never be allowed to find out. Could be two pounds worth for all we
know. That's how a cover-up works.

[David Von Pein]

I'll bet CTers like Robert Harris hate Dr. Shaw's comments even more
than LNers do. Because Bob thinks the bullet fell onto the floor in
the operating room before Shaw ever started operating on Connally's
chest.

[Mitch Todd]

"TJC76" <col...@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
>Vince Palamara:
>
>"For newcomers to the assassination, the official "Warren Commission"
>found that a bullet hit JFK and it passed through him and struck
>Connally. It was then "discovered" when it rolled off Connelly's cart,
>according to the commission, after falling out of his leg wound. This
>is that "magic bullet" that appears intact in pictures.
>
>Obviously, if the bullet is still in C's leg after surgery, either the

>governor's leg has a supply of missiles like? a gumball machine, or

>their "report" is garbage."
>
>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aQ8NJwq58Fg&sns=fb

Shaw's press conference happened before any work was done
on the thigh. How would Shaw really know?

[Anthony Marsh]

On 12/17/2011 5:14 PM, Jean Davison wrote:
> On Dec 17, 9:47 am, TJC76<cole...@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
>> Vince Palamara:
>>
>> "For newcomers to the assassination, the official "Warren Commission"
>> found that a bullet hit JFK and it passed through him and struck
>> Connally. It was then "discovered" when it rolled off Connelly's cart,
>> according to the commission, after falling out of his leg wound. This
>> is that "magic bullet" that appears intact in pictures.
>>
>> Obviously, if the bullet is still in C's leg after surgery, either the

>> governor's leg has a supply of missiles like??? a gumball machine, or

>> their "report" is garbage."
>>
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aQ8NJwq58Fg&sns=fb
>
> Did Mr. Palamara happen to mention that Dr. Shaw was not the
> surgeon who operated on Connally's thigh? This is from the hospital
> record:
>

So what? Dr. Shaw was answering a question from the press about Connally's
condition. It was the press who said it was a bullet in Connally's leg.
Shaw did not see it.

> http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0278b.htm
>
> Did Mr. Palamara happen to mention that Dr. Tom Shires, who DID
> operate on Connally's thigh, said that a fragment was found, not a bullet?
>

But not removed and never was removed. Because it would tip the scales too
much to have also come from CE399. And there may be tons of fragments
still in Connally's body and people like you will block any exhumation to
find them.

> http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0280a.htm
>
>
> Jean
>
>
>
>
>
>

[Anthony Marsh]

On 12/17/2011 5:11 PM, bigdog wrote:
> On Dec 17, 10:47 am, TJC76<cole...@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
>> Vince Palamara:
>>
>> "For newcomers to the assassination, the official "Warren Commission"
>> found that a bullet hit JFK and it passed through him and struck
>> Connally. It was then "discovered" when it rolled off Connelly's cart,
>> according to the commission, after falling out of his leg wound. This
>> is that "magic bullet" that appears intact in pictures.
>>
>> Obviously, if the bullet is still in C's leg after surgery, either the

>> governor's leg has a supply of missiles like??? a gumball machine, or

>> their "report" is garbage."
>>
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aQ8NJwq58Fg&sns=fb
>
> Whoever told you a bullet was still in Connally's leg pulled one over on
> you. A fragment from CE399 remained in Connally's leg until the day he
> died. The bullet worked it's way out and onto his guerney. This is pretty
> basic stuff. Don't you think that if the WC had made an error that big
> that they would have been called on it many year ago. Say within a few
> days of their report being released.
>

Dr. Shaw made that mistake, not the WC. And the reporter started the
mistake with his question.

The WC made the mistake of believing Rowley's lie that the chrome
topping was already dented before the shooting and it took us 30 years
to prove that it was a lie.

I am still finding documents that prove that the WC lied.

[David Von Pein]

>>> "There may be tons of fragments still in Connally's body..." <<<

Not unless you want to pretend that all of Connally's post-operative X-
rays are phony.

In actuality, the distinct possibility exists that John B. Connally
went to his grave with a mere TWO tiny bullet fragments left in his
whole body (one in the thigh and one in his wrist).

The latter part about the wrist is slightly speculative, but comes
from a good source: the WC testimony of Dr. Charles F. Gregory.

DR. GREGORY -- "Before the operation, you will note a large fragment
of metal visible here, not visible in this one [X-ray]. You will also
note a small satellite fragment not visible here. A second piece of
metal visible preoperatively is still present postoperatively."

Now, it's possible that there could have been more than just the one
fragment left in JBC's wrist that Gregory discussed in his testimony
above, but the above testimony does exist and does suggest the
possibility that just one metal fragment was left inside Connally's
wrist after his wrist was operated on. And via Dr. Shaw's testimony,
there was NO metal at all left inside JBC's chest/thorax.

CTers love to talk about a large amount of bullet material being left
in Connally's body, but the testimony of Gregory and Shaw, plus the
post-operative X-rays of Connally certainly do not suggest that a
large number of bullet fragments were left inside Connally's body at
all. Quite to the contrary, in fact. The amount of lead left in his
body was extremely small. And, as mentioned, it could have been as few
as two tiny fragments.

[TJC76]

How could a bullet and a tiny bullet fragment be confused? Dr Shaw was
definite that the bullet was in Connally's leg. The fragment must have
been tiny to have come off bullet 399. I think it is far more liekly
that the actual bullet, parts of which were fragmented, was left in
Connally's leg and was later removed, and given to the FBI who
discarded it when it was realised it would cause a problem (and there
is testimony of such a bullet being removed and given to the FBI)

[bigdog]

On Dec 18, 8:19 am, TJC76 <cole...@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
> On Dec 18, 6:11 am, bigdog <jecorbett1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Dec 17, 10:47 am, TJC76 <cole...@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
>
> > > Vince Palamara:
>
> > > "For newcomers to the assassination, the official "Warren Commission"
> > > found that a bullet hit JFK and it passed through him and struck
> > > Connally. It was then "discovered" when it rolled off Connelly's cart,
> > > according to the commission, after falling out of his leg wound. This
> > > is that "magic bullet" that appears intact in pictures.
>
> > > Obviously, if the bullet is still in C's leg after surgery, either the
> > > governor's leg has a supply of missiles like a gumball machine, or
> > > their "report" is garbage."
>
> > >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aQ8NJwq58Fg&sns=fb
>
> > Whoever told you a bullet was still in Connally's leg pulled one over on
> > you. A fragment from CE399 remained in Connally's leg until the day he
> > died. The bullet worked it's way out and onto his guerney. This is pretty
> > basic stuff. Don't you think that if the WC had made an error that big
> > that they would have been called on it many year ago. Say within a few
> > days of their report being released.
>
> How could a bullet and a tiny bullet fragment be confused? Dr Shaw was
> definite that the bullet was in Connally's leg.

As others have pointed out, Dr. Shaw was not the doctor who treated the
leg wound. He was probably aware that Connally had been struck in the
thigh but unaware that the bullet had become dislodged and was no longer
in his leg. How could Dr. Shaw be definite about a wound he never treated.

> The fragment must have
> been tiny to have come off bullet 399. I think it is far more liekly
> that the actual bullet, parts of which were fragmented, was left in
> Connally's leg and was later removed, and given to the FBI who
> discarded it when it was realised it would cause a problem (and there
> is testimony of such a bullet being removed and given to the FBI)
>

Why would it be a problem for the FBI? Why would they care whether it was
one man or a conspiracy? Why would they not want to find out and report
the truth no matter what that was?

Maybe someday one of you CTs will offer a rational explaination for why
the FBI would go into cover up mode immediately after the assassination.
Do you think they were aware of the assassination ahead of time and
prepared to do their part to cover it up, or do you think they became
aware of a conspiracy afterward and immediately were persuaded to take
part in the cover up. Inquiring minds want to know.

[Bill Clarke]

In article <4eed...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...

I knew when this thread started that sooner or later someone would be
wanting to dig up ole John B. I should have known it would be you.

Bill Clarke

[Anthony Marsh]

No need to dig him up. With modern technology we can learn everything we
want to know without digging him up.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 12/18/2011 12:13 PM, bigdog wrote:
> On Dec 18, 8:19 am, TJC76<cole...@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
>> On Dec 18, 6:11 am, bigdog<jecorbett1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Dec 17, 10:47 am, TJC76<cole...@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
>>
>>>> Vince Palamara:
>>
>>>> "For newcomers to the assassination, the official "Warren Commission"
>>>> found that a bullet hit JFK and it passed through him and struck
>>>> Connally. It was then "discovered" when it rolled off Connelly's cart,
>>>> according to the commission, after falling out of his leg wound. This
>>>> is that "magic bullet" that appears intact in pictures.
>>
>>>> Obviously, if the bullet is still in C's leg after surgery, either the

>>>> governor's leg has a supply of missiles like??? a gumball machine, or

>>>> their "report" is garbage."
>>
>>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aQ8NJwq58Fg&sns=fb
>>
>>> Whoever told you a bullet was still in Connally's leg pulled one over on
>>> you. A fragment from CE399 remained in Connally's leg until the day he
>>> died. The bullet worked it's way out and onto his guerney. This is pretty
>>> basic stuff. Don't you think that if the WC had made an error that big
>>> that they would have been called on it many year ago. Say within a few
>>> days of their report being released.
>>
>> How could a bullet and a tiny bullet fragment be confused? Dr Shaw was
>> definite that the bullet was in Connally's leg.
>
> As others have pointed out, Dr. Shaw was not the doctor who treated the
> leg wound. He was probably aware that Connally had been struck in the
> thigh but unaware that the bullet had become dislodged and was no longer
> in his leg. How could Dr. Shaw be definite about a wound he never treated.
>

Doesn't matter. Shaw did not see the object. He misspoke because the
reporter misspoke. It was the reporter who said that there was a BULLET in
Connally's leg. Shaw was confirming that they had not yet done anything
about his leg.

>> The fragment must have
>> been tiny to have come off bullet 399. I think it is far more liekly
>> that the actual bullet, parts of which were fragmented, was left in
>> Connally's leg and was later removed, and given to the FBI who
>> discarded it when it was realised it would cause a problem (and there
>> is testimony of such a bullet being removed and given to the FBI)
>>
>
> Why would it be a problem for the FBI? Why would they care whether it was
> one man or a conspiracy? Why would they not want to find out and report
> the truth no matter what that was?

Why do you ignore his obvious error. He is talking about CE399 and then
saying it fragmented into parts. You know that is not true. There was
nothing missing from CE399 when it was found.
The only thing missing from CE399 is lead core from the base that the
FBI removed for testing and destroyed.
There is no physical mechanism to deposit a fragment from CE 399
anywhere, much less both in Connally's wrist and then also in his leg.

>
> Maybe someday one of you CTs will offer a rational explaination for why
> the FBI would go into cover up mode immediately after the assassination.

They always do. SOP.

> Do you think they were aware of the assassination ahead of time and
> prepared to do their part to cover it up, or do you think they became
> aware of a conspiracy afterward and immediately were persuaded to take
> part in the cover up. Inquiring minds want to know.
>

Immediately suspected a conspiracy and soon after confirmed it.
Why do you think Hoover had to personally threaten the DPD to take the
conspiracy language out when they charged Oswald?
And still as late as December 12 Hoover was saying they had proof of
conspiracy. At the same time his lab was issuing a report saying that it
was just a hoax.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 12/18/2011 8:19 AM, TJC76 wrote:
> On Dec 18, 6:11 am, bigdog<jecorbett1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Dec 17, 10:47 am, TJC76<cole...@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
>>
>>> Vince Palamara:
>>
>>> "For newcomers to the assassination, the official "Warren Commission"
>>> found that a bullet hit JFK and it passed through him and struck
>>> Connally. It was then "discovered" when it rolled off Connelly's cart,
>>> according to the commission, after falling out of his leg wound. This
>>> is that "magic bullet" that appears intact in pictures.
>>
>>> Obviously, if the bullet is still in C's leg after surgery, either the
>>> governor's leg has a supply of missiles like a gumball machine, or
>>> their "report" is garbage."
>>
>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aQ8NJwq58Fg&sns=fb
>>
>> Whoever told you a bullet was still in Connally's leg pulled one over on
>> you. A fragment from CE399 remained in Connally's leg until the day he
>> died. The bullet worked it's way out and onto his guerney. This is pretty
>> basic stuff. Don't you think that if the WC had made an error that big
>> that they would have been called on it many year ago. Say within a few
>> days of their report being released.
>
> How could a bullet and a tiny bullet fragment be confused? Dr Shaw was
> definite that the bullet was in Connally's leg. The fragment must have

Silly. How could A MISSLE be confused with TWO tiny fragments?
The error started with the reporter who asked Dr. Shaw if the bullet had
been removed from Connally's leg.

> been tiny to have come off bullet 399. I think it is far more liekly

It could not have.

> that the actual bullet, parts of which were fragmented, was left in

How can CE399 fragment into parts and then be admitted into evidence as
a whole bullet? You seem to be talking about a different bullet. Then it
could just as easily be a different fragment, maybe the missing lead
from the base of the bullet found in the front seat.

> Connally's leg and was later removed, and given to the FBI who
> discarded it when it was realised it would cause a problem (and there
> is testimony of such a bullet being removed and given to the FBI)
>

And what exactly would they realize?

[Anthony Marsh]

You don't know that for a fact. You wouldn't even know if they were
still withholding X-rays. You didn't know about the 5 missing autopsy
photographs which they eventually did find and develop. You won't even
call for the government to release those.
Define extremely small. You mean 4 grains?

[David Von Pein]

>>> "Why do you think Hoover had to personally threaten the DPD to take
the conspiracy language out when they charged Oswald?" <<<

Because there was no evidence to support such an outlandish statement.
That's why.

You don't actually believe that the removal of the "Communist Conspiracy"
language suggests an FBI cover-up, do you?

[TJC76]

>
> As others have pointed out, Dr. Shaw was not the doctor who treated the
> leg wound. He was probably aware that Connally had been struck in the
> thigh but unaware that the bullet had become dislodged and was no longer
> in his leg. How could Dr. Shaw be definite about a wound he never treated.
>

If it he didn't know for sure why act so damn sure? There was no doubt
whatsoever in what he said. Dr Shaw, as the person addressing the media, I
am sure would have made every enquiry/examination necessary to ensure he
was giving accurate information over the condition of Connally. He
wouldn't just "guess" or make it up as he went along. Seriously, if you
are a Lone Nut yo have to denigrate and bismirch the skill, experience and
reputation of pretty much every Dr and Nurse at Parkland Hospital.

[TJC76]

On Dec 19, 6:29 am, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On 12/18/2011 2:04 PM, Bill Clarke wrote:
>
>
>
>
>

> > In article<4eed3...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...

I'm all for digging them up. JFK included. It is the ONLY way to
convince entreneched people there was a conspiracy.
Their spirits have long gone, and personally I believe the world is
owed historical truth.

[Anthony Marsh]

I am not sure what your question means. Are you stipulating to the forcing
of the removal of the Communist conspiracy language, but claiming that
forcing it was innocent?

Are you developing a straw man argument that we must think that the FBI
was really behind it? Or do you propose that the FBI was trying to cover
itself for not keeping track of Oswald?

[Anthony Marsh]

As I said before, we can examine the bodies without digging them up.
Some people will never accept conspiracy no matter what the evidence.
When I show people the autopsy photo with the bullet hole in his
forehead they say well maybe he was born that way.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 12/18/2011 10:25 PM, TJC76 wrote:
>
>>
>> As others have pointed out, Dr. Shaw was not the doctor who treated the
>> leg wound. He was probably aware that Connally had been struck in the
>> thigh but unaware that the bullet had become dislodged and was no longer
>> in his leg. How could Dr. Shaw be definite about a wound he never treated.
>>
>
> If it he didn't know for sure why act so damn sure? There was no doubt
> whatsoever in what he said. Dr Shaw, as the person addressing the media, I
> am sure would have made every enquiry/examination necessary to ensure he
> was giving accurate information over the condition of Connally. He

No, he had just come out of surgery.

> wouldn't just "guess" or make it up as he went along. Seriously, if you

He didn't guess. He knew. He misspoke. When he said bullet he meant
fragment.

> are a Lone Nut yo have to denigrate and bismirch the skill, experience and
> reputation of pretty much every Dr and Nurse at Parkland Hospital.
>

Why not? Are they Gods? How many of them said the throat wound was an
entrance? So does that mean you have to believe it was?

[Jean Davison]

There's no besmirching involved in saying he made a mistake.
What about the surgeon who actualy operated on the thigh and said there
was only a fragment?

Hospital report of 11/22/63:

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0280a.htm

Testimony:

"....the X-rays of the left leg showed only a very small 1 mm.
bullet fragment ...."

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/shires.htm

One of the two men has to be wrong.


Jean

[Bill Clarke]

In article <727fcaa2-82be-4d1a...@j10g2000vbe.googlegroups.com>,
TJC76 says...

>
>On Dec 19, 6:29=A0am, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On 12/18/2011 2:04 PM, Bill Clarke wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > In article<4eed3...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...
>>
>> >> On 12/17/2011 5:14 PM, Jean Davison wrote:

>> >>> On Dec 17, 9:47 am, TJC76<cole...@bigpond.net.au> =A0 wrote:
>> >>>> Vince Palamara:
>>

>> >>>> "For newcomers to the assassination, the official "Warren Commission=

>"
>> >>>> found that a bullet hit JFK and it passed through him and struck

>> >>>> Connally. It was then "discovered" when it rolled off Connelly's car=
>t,
>> >>>> according to the commission, after falling out of his leg wound. Thi=

>s
>> >>>> is that "magic bullet" that appears intact in pictures.
>>

>> >>>> Obviously, if the bullet is still in C's leg after surgery, either t=
>he
>> >>>> governor's leg has a supply of missiles like??? a gumball machine, o=

>r
>> >>>> their "report" is garbage."
>>

>> >>>>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3DaQ8NJwq58Fg&sns=3Dfb
>>
>> >>> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 Did Mr. Palamara happen to mention that Dr. S=
>haw was not the
>> >>> surgeon who operated on Connally's thigh? =A0This is from the hospita=
>l
>> >>> record:
>>
>> >> So what? Dr. Shaw was answering a question from the press about Connal=
>ly's
>> >> condition. It was the press who said it was a bullet in Connally's leg=

>.
>> >> Shaw did not see it.
>>

>> >>>http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0278b.h=
>tm
>>
>> >>> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Did Mr. Palamara happen to mention that Dr=

>. Tom Shires, who DID

>> >>> operate on Connally's thigh, said that a fragment was found, not a bu=
>llet?
>>
>> >> But not removed and never was removed. Because it would tip the scales=

> too
>> >> much to have also come from CE399. And there may be tons of fragments

>> >> still in Connally's body and people like you will block any exhumation=

> to
>> >> find them.
>>
>> > I knew when this thread started that sooner or later someone would be

>> > wanting to dig up ole John B. =A0I should have known it would be you.

>>
>> > Bill Clarke
>>
>> No need to dig him up. With modern technology we can learn everything we
>> want to know without digging him up.
>>
>
>I'm all for digging them up. JFK included. It is the ONLY way to
>convince entreneched people there was a conspiracy.
>Their spirits have long gone, and personally I believe the world is
>owed historical truth.
>

See, that is the problem with the world today. Everyone thinks they are
owed something.

Bill Clarke

[bigdog]

> owed historical truth.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

I'll make the same offer to you I did to Blubaugh. I'll buy the shovel
if you do the digging.

[bigdog]

On Dec 18, 10:25 pm, TJC76 <cole...@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
> > As others have pointed out, Dr. Shaw was not the doctor who treated the
> > leg wound. He was probably aware that Connally had been struck in the
> > thigh but unaware that the bullet had become dislodged and was no longer
> > in his leg. How could Dr. Shaw be definite about a wound he never treated.
>
> If it he didn't know for sure why act so damn sure?

He was asked a question that was based on a false pretence and he was
unaware that it was false. Why would you take his word for it rather
than the doctor who actually treated that wound? Why do CTs always go
to the worst source of information. Oh, yeah, because the best source
always takes them to a lone gunman.

> There was no doubt
> whatsoever in what he said. Dr Shaw, as the person addressing the media, I
> am sure would have made every enquiry/examination necessary to ensure he
> was giving accurate information over the condition of Connally.

Why would you be sure about that?

> He
> wouldn't just "guess" or make it up as he went along. Seriously, if you
> are a Lone Nut yo have to denigrate and bismirch the skill, experience and
> reputation of pretty much every Dr and Nurse at Parkland Hospital.

Being a "Lone Nut" only requires me to take the simplest, straight
forward explaination for every piece of physical evidence available.
It requires me to recognize that everything people say isn't 100%
accurate, something we can be absolutely certain is true. It requires
me to weigh every person's statement in light of the entire body of
evidence, accept those things which can be corroborated, reject things
which can be refuted, and come to no conclusion about the accuracy of
statements that can neither be corroborated nor refuted. On the other
hand, being a CT requires one to reach for the least likely
explaination for every piece of physical evidence available, accept or
reject witness statements on the basis of how it fits in with their
pet theory, and substitute their own amateurish analysis of technical
data for the opinions of qualified professionals. .

[Anthony Marsh]

How much does a 1 mm lead fragment weigh?
Even done any tests? Can you compare the size to other known WCC
fragments we have where we know the weight?

Maybe both men are right. There was a much bigger fragment which fell
out, leaving behind a 5 grain fragment.

[TJC76]

Well yes the throat was an entrance wound. And the back of JFK's head
was blown out as all early witnesses, including Clint Hill, said.

[bigdog]

On Dec 19, 9:19 am, TJC76 <cole...@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
>
> Well yes the throat was an entrance wound. And the back of JFK's head
> was blown out as all early witnesses, including Clint Hill, said.
>

Let me ask you a few questions I've asked of other proponents of the
throat entrance wound theory. So far, none has had any reasonable answers
and most have simply chose to dodge the questions altogether.

If the throat wound was an entrance, it means either the back wound was
also an entrance or the back wound was the exit for the throat wound.

If both were entrance wounds, there should have been two bullets in JFK's
body. There were none. The most popular explaination for the throat wound
is that CE399 caused that wound and worked it's way out during heart
massage, to be found later by Tomlinson. CE399 is a FMJ bullet capable of
penetrating 48 inches of pine board, yet we are supposed to accept that it
only penetrated a few inches into the soft tissue of JFK's back. As far
fetched as that is, it doesn't explain what happened to the bullet that
caused the throat wound. Are we supposed to believe that one just fell out
too, never to be found?

On the other hand, if you want to argue the back wound was the exit for
the throat wound, which defies forensic experts who have declared the back
wound to be an entrance, where could this shot have been fired from. Since
the back wound was higher than the throat wound, that would mean the
bullet passed through JFK's body on an upward trajectory. That would
require a bullet to be fired from inside the limo from a position in front
of JFK. Do you want to pin this one on Greer, Kellerman, John or Nellie
Connally? On the other hand, if you want to cling to the CT myth that the
back wound was lower than the throat wound, you need a shot fired from
above and slightly to the left of the limo. That eliminates the GK which
was front right. The only possible position I can see is the overpass. Is
that where you want to go.

I think I have offered every possible option for a throat-entrance
scenario. Which one do you believe? If I have overlooked a possibility,
please point out what I overlooked?

[TJC76]

The simplest explanation for practically ALL Parkland medical staff,
and Clint Hill, seeing a gaping wound in the rear of Kenendy's head
was because there was one. Pretty simply to me. Occam eat your heart
out.

[Anthony Marsh]

I was afraid you'd say that. So now you have to explain where that
bullet went. Do you really think that if there is an entrance wound on
one side of the head that there MUST be an exit wound on the other side
of the head?

[markusp]

On Dec 18, 11:13 am, bigdog <jecorbett1...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> How could Dr. Shaw be definite about a wound he never treated?

Okay, Bigdog. You must have known that this comment wouldn't get past me.
Humes did the same thing, and he even DID operate on JFK's body at the
autopsy. Disregard Shaw's speculation, but then Humes connection of JFK's
throat wound to his back wound was "presumably" right.

> > The fragment must have
> > been tiny to have come off bullet 399. I think it is far more liekly
> > that the actual bullet, parts of which were fragmented, was left in
> > Connally's leg and was later removed, and given to the FBI who
> > discarded it when it was realised it would cause a problem (and there
> > is testimony of such a bullet being removed and given to the FBI)
>
> Why would it be a problem for the FBI? Why would they care whether it was
> one man or a conspiracy?

These questions, of course, must be rhetorical. If Hoover was involved in
sanitizing the evidence sent back to the WC, after privately consulting
with Gerald Ford's personalized briefcase, yes, I do believe the FBI might
care just a little.

> Why would they not want to find out and report
> the truth no matter what that was?

I believe Hoover indeed at least have CYA-based records in place, in the
off-chance that his precious FBI ever be declared complicit. This is why
the initial determination of shot sequencing by Hoover was 3 shots, 3
hits, until that pesky James Tague wounding came up. Yet another prime
example of this is the Sibert & O'Neill reference to surgery of the head
area, specifically in the top of the head.

> Maybe someday one of you CTs will offer a rational explaination for why
> the FBI would go into cover up mode immediately after the assassination.

If Hoover knew about the murder ahead of time, then it's quite easy to
rationalize his CYA maneuvering. I believe they did exercise jurisdiction
when they had none by ordering all DPD investigation to cease, and turn
over all evidence by midnight on Friday night. Was that prudent for the
FBI to do so?

> Do you think they were aware of the assassination ahead of time

> prepared to do their part to cover it up, or do you think they became
> aware of a conspiracy afterward and immediately were persuaded to take
> part in the cover up. Inquiring minds want to know.

If Hoover was not aware ahead of time, surely he became educated when Dr.
Burkley handled the Harper Fragment, apparently returned it to the FBI
agent, and then wrote his own little CYA note saying he gave it back.
Unless you have a better reason for Burkley's attorney to claim that
Burkley possessed information that demonstrated conspiracy, it was at that
point that Burkley clammed up tightly. Could it be that this piece of
JFK's skull exhibited beveling that could indicate a second shooter?

Do you have any idea as to why Burkley would make such an outlandish
claim, through his lawyer? If your claims of Oswald acting alone are
correct, then obviously Burkley must have been grossly mistaken. Yes,
inquiring minds want to know.

~Mark

[Anthony Marsh]

On 12/19/2011 9:17 AM, bigdog wrote:
> On Dec 18, 10:25 pm, TJC76<cole...@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
>>> As others have pointed out, Dr. Shaw was not the doctor who treated the
>>> leg wound. He was probably aware that Connally had been struck in the
>>> thigh but unaware that the bullet had become dislodged and was no longer
>>> in his leg. How could Dr. Shaw be definite about a wound he never treated.
>>
>> If it he didn't know for sure why act so damn sure?
>
> He was asked a question that was based on a false pretence and he was
> unaware that it was false. Why would you take his word for it rather
> than the doctor who actually treated that wound? Why do CTs always go
> to the worst source of information. Oh, yeah, because the best source
> always takes them to a lone gunman.
>

But when I say exactly the same thing that you did and prove it by
actually uploading that interview so that everyone can HEAR the question
that was asked, you call me a kook and lump me in with all Cters.

>> There was no doubt
>> whatsoever in what he said. Dr Shaw, as the person addressing the media, I
>> am sure would have made every enquiry/examination necessary to ensure he
>> was giving accurate information over the condition of Connally.
>
> Why would you be sure about that?
>

No time by then for an enquiry. He had just come out of surgery.

>> He
>> wouldn't just "guess" or make it up as he went along. Seriously, if you
>> are a Lone Nut yo have to denigrate and bismirch the skill, experience and
>> reputation of pretty much every Dr and Nurse at Parkland Hospital.
>
> Being a "Lone Nut" only requires me to take the simplest, straight
> forward explaination for every piece of physical evidence available.

No, the most simplistic, the most naive.

> It requires me to recognize that everything people say isn't 100%
> accurate, something we can be absolutely certain is true. It requires

How come you never say that about the WC or about George Bush?

> me to weigh every person's statement in light of the entire body of
> evidence, accept those things which can be corroborated, reject things
> which can be refuted, and come to no conclusion about the accuracy of
> statements that can neither be corroborated nor refuted. On the other

But you never do. We can't even get you to read the damn WC report.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 12/19/2011 1:22 PM, bigdog wrote:
> On Dec 19, 9:19 am, TJC76<cole...@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
>>
>> Well yes the throat was an entrance wound. And the back of JFK's head
>> was blown out as all early witnesses, including Clint Hill, said.
>>
>
> Let me ask you a few questions I've asked of other proponents of the
> throat entrance wound theory. So far, none has had any reasonable answers
> and most have simply chose to dodge the questions altogether.
>
> If the throat wound was an entrance, it means either the back wound was
> also an entrance or the back wound was the exit for the throat wound.
>
> If both were entrance wounds, there should have been two bullets in JFK's
> body. There were none. The most popular explaination for the throat wound

That is not true. The bullets could fall out. That is the theory that
Humes had for the back wound.
They did not look everywhere in JFK's body for other bullets. Sometimes
a bullet can travel to extreme areas far away from the entrance.

> is that CE399 caused that wound and worked it's way out during heart
> massage, to be found later by Tomlinson. CE399 is a FMJ bullet capable of

You are assuming that CE399 hit Kennedy. Maybe it only hit Connally.

> penetrating 48 inches of pine board, yet we are supposed to accept that it
> only penetrated a few inches into the soft tissue of JFK's back. As far
> fetched as that is, it doesn't explain what happened to the bullet that
> caused the throat wound. Are we supposed to believe that one just fell out
> too, never to be found?
>

Remember that it was Humes who proposed the ice bullet solution.

> On the other hand, if you want to argue the back wound was the exit for
> the throat wound, which defies forensic experts who have declared the back
> wound to be an entrance, where could this shot have been fired from. Since
> the back wound was higher than the throat wound, that would mean the

The back wound was not higher than the throat wound. Even Rankin knew
that.

> bullet passed through JFK's body on an upward trajectory. That would
> require a bullet to be fired from inside the limo from a position in front
> of JFK. Do you want to pin this one on Greer, Kellerman, John or Nellie
> Connally? On the other hand, if you want to cling to the CT myth that the
> back wound was lower than the throat wound, you need a shot fired from
> above and slightly to the left of the limo. That eliminates the GK which
> was front right. The only possible position I can see is the overpass. Is
> that where you want to go.
>
> I think I have offered every possible option for a throat-entrance
> scenario. Which one do you believe? If I have overlooked a possibility,
> please point out what I overlooked?
>

All you have done is invent straw men to easily knock down.

[bigdog]

> out.- Hide quoted text -
>

You ignore the fact that the Z-film shows the blowout was on the right
side of JFK's skull while the rear of the wound remains intact. The
autopsy photos give us pretty much the same picture as the Z-film. How do
you reconcile that with the observations of these witnesses whom you place
so much faith in. Clint Hill saw the head wound just seconds after it
appeared in the Z-film.

[David Von Pein]

>>> "The simplest explanation for practically ALL Parkland medical staff,
and Clint Hill, seeing a gaping wound in the rear of Kenendy's head was
because there was one. Pretty simply to me. Occam eat your heart out." <<<

Not when you also factor in the autopsy photos and X-rays, plus the
autopsy report, plus the testimony of all three autopsy surgeons.

And all of those things I just mentioned (particularly the photos and
X-rays) are better evidence than any of the Parkland witnesses, regardless
of how many witnesses that might entail.

Occam--welcome back.

[TJC76]

On Dec 19, 12:37 pm, Bill Clarke <Bill_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> In article <727fcaa2-82be-4d1a-9209-e9e6898c8...@j10g2000vbe.googlegroups.com>,

> Bill Clarke- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

Well this is a silly statement. Of course we are all owed something -
justice for a start. Or should we not give two hoots when someone is
murdered? After all it costs taxpaper money to fund the legal and
penal systems. Does our society owe anything to the murder victim and
their family? Your statement suggests society does not.

When you make the decision to become President of the United States
you become public property. Who and why you were killed is a serious
matter for society, politics, democracy etc. Do you think liberty and
democracy just exists on it's own without serious work being done to
maintain it? If I was a murder victim, I would want my body exhumed to
find the truth of how I was killed and who was responsible.

It is funny that it is mostly the Lone Nuts who are against
exhumation.

[TJC76]

> if you do the digging.- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

ha ha ha ha... another Lone Nut against exhumation. No doubt if it was
announced the body was to be exhumed you guys would be running around
hysterical.

[TJC76]

On Dec 19, 12:33 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:

There should not have been any fragments anyway if you believe CE399
was the magic bullet (which it was NOT of course but all have to live
in la la land about it)

[bigdog]

On Dec 19, 6:31 pm, markusp <markina...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
I accidently hit SEND before completing my reply and will pick it up
here.

> If Hoover was not aware ahead of time, surely he became educated when Dr.
> Burkley handled the Harper Fragment, apparently returned it to the FBI
> agent, and then wrote his own little CYA note saying he gave it back.

Based on his taped conversations with LBJ, I wouldn't be too sure
Hoover knew much about anything. He seemed to be getting his
information second, third, and fourth hand and apparently was losing a
lot in the translation.

> Unless you have a better reason for Burkley's attorney to claim that
> Burkley possessed information that demonstrated conspiracy, it was at that
> point that Burkley clammed up tightly. Could it be that this piece of
> JFK's skull exhibited beveling that could indicate a second shooter?
>

More ifs. I have no idea what Burkley's attorney claims to know and
I'm not going to speculate about somebody else's speculations.
Speculation seems to be your forte. The Harper fragment was
photographed and was part of the medical record. It had no beveling
that was evidence of a second shooter. You're grasping at straws.

> Do you have any idea as to why Burkley would make such an outlandish
> claim, through his lawyer? If your claims of Oswald acting alone are
> correct, then obviously Burkley must have been grossly mistaken. Yes,
> inquiring minds want to know.
>

No, I have no idea what Burkley or his lawyer claimed to know. I find
"I know something you don't know" claims to be a poor substitute for
real evidence.

[Anthony Marsh]

> example of this is the Sibert& O'Neill reference to surgery of the head

> area, specifically in the top of the head.
>

It wasn't Tague which caused the SBT. It was Arlen Specter realizing
that there was a timing problem. They had originally agreed with the FBI
conclusion of three shots, three hits. They even pegged the shot to
Connally at Z-230. Then they looked at the reenactment and decided that
JFK could not be hit before Z-210 because the oak tree was in the way.
The doctors told them that Connally could not be hit after Z-240. That
left them only 30 frames for 2 shots. Their shooting tests told them
that was not enough time for one rifle to fire both shots.
The only possible solution was two rifles, but that would mean
conspiracy, which they were not allowed to consider. So Specter dreamed
up the SBT. The doctors had proposed their own SBT which would solve the
problem, but it was ignored.

>> Maybe someday one of you CTs will offer a rational explaination for why
>> the FBI would go into cover up mode immediately after the assassination.
>
> If Hoover knew about the murder ahead of time, then it's quite easy to

Maybe Hoover knew about the threat ahead of time, but did not know the
time and place.

> rationalize his CYA maneuvering. I believe they did exercise jurisdiction
> when they had none by ordering all DPD investigation to cease, and turn
> over all evidence by midnight on Friday night. Was that prudent for the
> FBI to do so?

It is routinely for local police departments to send evidence to the FBI
to be examined. Remember these guys couldn't even identify the Walker
bullet and that crime went unsolved.

>
>> Do you think they were aware of the assassination ahead of time
>> prepared to do their part to cover it up, or do you think they became
>> aware of a conspiracy afterward and immediately were persuaded to take
>> part in the cover up. Inquiring minds want to know.
>
> If Hoover was not aware ahead of time, surely he became educated when Dr.
> Burkley handled the Harper Fragment, apparently returned it to the FBI
> agent, and then wrote his own little CYA note saying he gave it back.
> Unless you have a better reason for Burkley's attorney to claim that
> Burkley possessed information that demonstrated conspiracy, it was at that
> point that Burkley clammed up tightly. Could it be that this piece of
> JFK's skull exhibited beveling that could indicate a second shooter?
>

I don't think the skull fragment alone could be used to prove conspiracy.

> Do you have any idea as to why Burkley would make such an outlandish
> claim, through his lawyer? If your claims of Oswald acting alone are
> correct, then obviously Burkley must have been grossly mistaken. Yes,
> inquiring minds want to know.
>

Maybe he saw wounds that no one else did. Maybe he thought that the
throat wound really was an entrance. He was not a forensic pathologist.

> ~Mark
>

[TJC76]

I should add that there is evidence if bullets being handed to FBI
agents at the hospital, never to be heard of again.

[TJC76]

On Dec 20, 2:22 am, bigdog <jecorbett1...@yahoo.com> wrote:

The throat and back wounds are two different wounds. JFK was hit in
the throat by some type of CIA weapon, and we know the CIA had a
variety of them at their disposal. The wound was described as
exceptionally small and very neat by those who saw it before the
trach. The back wound is far too low to have come out his throat, as
shown in autopsy photos and where the bullet holes are in his clothes.
Your side knows this by having to come up with ridiculous explanations
like bunched up jackets to excuse the big holes in your theory. There
is nothing in the autopsy that proves the two holes are linked: we
have evidence that the hole in his back had an ending, and the two
wounds were not tracked in the autopsy to prove they were made by the
same missile - you do realise this? There is evidence this part of the
autopsy was manipulated by a General so the would would not be
tracked.

Oswald was up on the sixth floor so the trajectory was steep
indicating a bullet striking JFK in the back would travel downwards
not upwards. The trajectory is way off, as Arlen Specter accidently
demonstrated with his funny ruler trick.

Anyhow there are many valid reasons why the SBT is invalid and I dont
know why you all cling to such a fraud.

[bigdog]

On Dec 19, 6:31 pm, markusp <markina...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> On Dec 18, 11:13 am, bigdog <jecorbett1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > How could Dr. Shaw be definite about a wound he never treated?
>
> Okay, Bigdog. You must have known that this comment wouldn't get past me.
> Humes did the same thing, and he even DID operate on JFK's body at the
> autopsy. Disregard Shaw's speculation, but then Humes connection of JFK's
> throat wound to his back wound was "presumably" right.
>

How did we go from Connally's leg wound to JFK's throat wound?

> > > The fragment must have
> > > been tiny to have come off bullet 399. I think it is far more liekly
> > > that the actual bullet, parts of which were fragmented, was left in
> > > Connally's leg and was later removed, and given to the FBI who
> > > discarded it when it was realised it would cause a problem (and there
> > > is testimony of such a bullet being removed and given to the FBI)
>
> > Why would it be a problem for the FBI? Why would they care whether it was
> > one man or a conspiracy?
>
> These questions, of course, must be rhetorical. If Hoover was involved in
> sanitizing the evidence sent back to the WC, after privately consulting
> with Gerald Ford's personalized briefcase, yes, I do believe the FBI might
> care just a little.
>

You're putting the cart before the horse. The discussions were about
alleged shennanigans by the FBI during the first few days of the
investigation, well before the WC was ever appointed. You've fast
forwarded to now involve Gerald Ford. Are you trying to claim that
Gerald Ford was in on the cover up from the beginning.

> > Why would they not want to find out and report
> > the truth no matter what that was?
>
> I believe Hoover indeed at least have CYA-based records in place, in the
> off-chance that his precious FBI ever be declared complicit. This is why
> the initial determination of shot sequencing by Hoover was 3 shots, 3
> hits, until that pesky James Tague wounding came up. Yet another prime
> example of this is the Sibert & O'Neill reference to surgery of the head
> area, specifically in the top of the head.
>

It wasn't Hoover who came up with the SBT. That was the WC
investigators, principally Arlen Specter. Tague's wound had little to
do with the SBT. It was a side issue. The SBT was arrived at through a
logical process. There was no need for it other than to determine the
truth of the shooting. The 3 shots, 3 hits scenario didn''t work
because the Z-film showed JFK and JBC being hit at the same time. The
injury to Tague had little to do with it because no one could be
certain which shot if any caused Tague's cheek wound. That remains and
open question to this day.

> > Maybe someday one of you CTs will offer a rational explaination for why
> > the FBI would go into cover up mode immediately after the assassination.
>
> If Hoover knew about the murder ahead of time, then it's quite easy to
> rationalize his CYA maneuvering. I believe they did exercise jurisdiction
> when they had none by ordering all DPD investigation to cease, and turn
> over all evidence by midnight on Friday night. Was that prudent for the
> FBI to do so?
>

All CT theories are based on a pile of ifs which is the same as saying
they are based on pile of crap. None are based on hard evidence. We
could go into a long discussion about federal vs. state powers which
would digress way beyond the scope of the JFK assassination. The FBI
had no power to order the DPD to turn over anything. The DPD would
have been within their rights to tell the FBI to go screw themselves.
Apparently whoever made the decision to capitulate to the FBI decided
that wasn't a battle worth fighting. They would probably have turned
to the FBI eventually anyway simply because the FBI was better
equipped to handle the forensic evidence.

[Anthony Marsh]

You are assuming a perfectly straight line path downward. So were the
doctors because they did not know something that we now know. The T-1
vertebra was hit by the bullet and fractured. So that alone tells you
the lowest that the bullet can enter. And it also suggests that maybe
the bullet was deflected upwards to exit the throat.

[Sandy McCroskey]

How do you figure he's "against exhumation"?
He said he'd buy the shovel.
I'm all for exhumation too, what the hell.
But I don't think *anything* will convince a CT, because there's already
way more than enough evidence, and there has been for nearly fifty years.
/sm

[Anthony Marsh]

On 12/20/2011 2:25 PM, bigdog wrote:
> On Dec 19, 6:31 pm, markusp<markina...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
> I accidently hit SEND before completing my reply and will pick it up
> here.
>
>> If Hoover was not aware ahead of time, surely he became educated when Dr.
>> Burkley handled the Harper Fragment, apparently returned it to the FBI
>> agent, and then wrote his own little CYA note saying he gave it back.
>
> Based on his taped conversations with LBJ, I wouldn't be too sure
> Hoover knew much about anything. He seemed to be getting his
> information second, third, and fourth hand and apparently was losing a
> lot in the translation.
>

Excuse me? Hoover had the evidence in his hands.

>> Unless you have a better reason for Burkley's attorney to claim that
>> Burkley possessed information that demonstrated conspiracy, it was at that
>> point that Burkley clammed up tightly. Could it be that this piece of
>> JFK's skull exhibited beveling that could indicate a second shooter?
>>
> More ifs. I have no idea what Burkley's attorney claims to know and
> I'm not going to speculate about somebody else's speculations.
> Speculation seems to be your forte. The Harper fragment was
> photographed and was part of the medical record. It had no beveling
> that was evidence of a second shooter. You're grasping at straws.
>

How does beveling prove a second shooter? They didn't even know where it
came from.

>> Do you have any idea as to why Burkley would make such an outlandish
>> claim, through his lawyer? If your claims of Oswald acting alone are
>> correct, then obviously Burkley must have been grossly mistaken. Yes,
>> inquiring minds want to know.
>>
> No, I have no idea what Burkley or his lawyer claimed to know. I find
> "I know something you don't know" claims to be a poor substitute for
> real evidence.
>

Funny, but when George Bush says it about weapons of mass destruction
you don't question it.

[Anthony Marsh]

I believe that CE399 could have been genuine, but not do whatever the WC
defenders want to claim it did. I suspect that there was absolutely no
lead missing from it when they found it. But there could be very small
amount missing if the lead core was slightly squeezed out and grazed a bone.

[bigdog]

Really. I don't recall saying that. I don't recall thinking that.

> No doubt if it was
> announced the body was to be exhumed you guys would be running around
> hysterical.

I would be laughing my ass off because it would mean that one more
time, the CTs would be told that JFK was shot from behind and one more
time they would claim cover up.

Keep digging.

[Anthony Marsh]

>> example of this is the Sibert& O'Neill reference to surgery of the head

>> area, specifically in the top of the head.
>>
> It wasn't Hoover who came up with the SBT. That was the WC
> investigators, principally Arlen Specter. Tague's wound had little to
> do with the SBT. It was a side issue. The SBT was arrived at through a
> logical process. There was no need for it other than to determine the
> truth of the shooting. The 3 shots, 3 hits scenario didn''t work
> because the Z-film showed JFK and JBC being hit at the same time. The

Close, but the Zapruder film did not show JFK and JBC being hit at the
same time. Specter thought JFK could not be hit before Z-210 and
Connally could not be hit after Z-240 so 30 frames was not enough time
for Oswald's rifle to fire two shots. (ignore the fact that Blakey and
scores of marksmen have been able to do it) So it would indicate
conspiracy, but the WC mandate was no conspiracy, so Specter had to
dream up the SBT.

> injury to Tague had little to do with it because no one could be
> certain which shot if any caused Tague's cheek wound. That remains and
> open question to this day.
>
>>> Maybe someday one of you CTs will offer a rational explaination for why
>>> the FBI would go into cover up mode immediately after the assassination.
>>
>> If Hoover knew about the murder ahead of time, then it's quite easy to
>> rationalize his CYA maneuvering. I believe they did exercise jurisdiction
>> when they had none by ordering all DPD investigation to cease, and turn
>> over all evidence by midnight on Friday night. Was that prudent for the
>> FBI to do so?
>>
> All CT theories are based on a pile of ifs which is the same as saying
> they are based on pile of crap. None are based on hard evidence. We
> could go into a long discussion about federal vs. state powers which
> would digress way beyond the scope of the JFK assassination. The FBI
> had no power to order the DPD to turn over anything. The DPD would
> have been within their rights to tell the FBI to go screw themselves.

Yeah, they did. And Hoover threatened them personally.

> Apparently whoever made the decision to capitulate to the FBI decided
> that wasn't a battle worth fighting. They would probably have turned

Could be Curry.

> to the FBI eventually anyway simply because the FBI was better
> equipped to handle the forensic evidence.
>

Local police departments routinely send evidence to the FBI to be
examined. I don't think most police departments had NAA labs back then.
Hell, the DPD couldn't even figure out that type of bullet was shot at
Walker.
Day couldn't even figure out that Terni is in Italy.
No one knew what the Roman numerals meant.

[markusp]

On Dec 20, 1:29 pm, bigdog <jecorbett1...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> > Okay, Bigdog. You must have known that this comment wouldn't get past me.
> > Humes did the same thing, and he even DID operate on JFK's body at the
> > autopsy. Disregard Shaw's speculation, but then Humes connection of JFK's
> > throat wound to his back wound was "presumably" right.
>
> How did we go from Connally's leg wound to JFK's throat wound?

You suggested that we disregard Shaw when he was only speculating on
Connally's leg wound and the remaining fragment(s) that were never
removed. This seemed prudent because Shaw was not the surgeon that
operated on his leg.

I drew the parallel to Humes, because he was a doctor that DID have a
body in front of him, operated on it, then "presumably" connected two
wounds without that body in front of him. Now if Humes got that much
wrong, why should we agree to his presumptions, and not Shaw's? A
note: When I use the word "presumably", I'm satirizing the Autopsy
Report language directly, or mocking it, whichever term is least
offensive.

> > > > The fragment must have
> > > > been tiny to have come off bullet 399. I think it is far more liekly
> > > > that the actual bullet, parts of which were fragmented, was left in
> > > > Connally's leg and was later removed, and given to the FBI who
> > > > discarded it when it was realised it would cause a problem (and there
> > > > is testimony of such a bullet being removed and given to the FBI)
>
> > > Why would it be a problem for the FBI? Why would they care whether it was
> > > one man or a conspiracy?
>
> > These questions, of course, must be rhetorical. If Hoover was involved in
> > sanitizing the evidence sent back to the WC, after privately consulting
> > with Gerald Ford's personalized briefcase, yes, I do believe the FBI might
> > care just a little.

> You've fast
> forwarded to now involve Gerald Ford. Are you trying to claim that
> Gerald Ford was in on the cover up from the beginning.

Not a chance. If you were recruiting people for a conspiracy to kill
anybody, would you recruit Gerald Ford? No, I didn't think so, unless
you actually had a need for a stool pigeon. To be fair, though,
clearly we are all aware that Gerald Ford was spiriting information
out of WC meetings back to the FBI. If I'm incorrect about that,
please let me know. If discussion is happening surrounding the FBI and
the culpability of certain agents (and one director), then Ford's role
should surely be noteworthy, IMO.

> > > Why would they not want to find out and report
> > > the truth no matter what that was?
>
> > I believe Hoover indeed at least have CYA-based records in place, in the
> > off-chance that his precious FBI ever be declared complicit. This is why
> > the initial determination of shot sequencing by Hoover was 3 shots, 3
> > hits, until that pesky James Tague wounding came up. Yet another prime
> > example of this is the Sibert & O'Neill reference to surgery of the head
> > area, specifically in the top of the head.
>
> It wasn't Hoover who came up with the SBT. That was the WC
> investigators, principally Arlen Specter. Tague's wound had little to
> do with the SBT. It was a side issue.

Right. It was a side issue on the left side of Tague's face. It's
inextricably tied to the SBT due to the very real fact that if it was
a complete missile that struck the curb, spattering the concrete in
such a way as to nick Tague's face, LN's are reduced to mere fragments
of other known shots that must account for Tague's wounding. I suppose
you always revert to the first shot, a.k.a. the "missed" shot that did
it, but then we'll REALLY begin questioning Oswald's rifle skills.
Harold Weisberg was all over that situation, and frankly, the way the
FBI handled that scenario was certainly not their crowning
achievement.

> The SBT was arrived at through a
> logical process.

It must have been drawn up beyond the event horizon of a black hole,
because the physics surely don't apply very well in our universe.

> There was no need for it other than to determine the
> truth of the shooting.

Without the SBT, the default goes to conspiracy, and I'm certain you
understand that as well as I do. As far as I know, Oswald as a lone
assassin mandates the SBT, and without the SBT, the process of logic
necessitates conspiracy.

> The 3 shots, 3 hits scenario didn''t work
> because the Z-film showed JFK and JBC being hit at the same time.

Negative. The Z-film shows physical reactions at precise frames. It
does not necessarily demonstrate that they were hit at the same time,
unless you apply those annoying neuromuscular delays that are so
important for both JFK and JBC. Also, 3 shots/3 hits could work quite
well, if you accept a second shooter firing from a slightly lower,
rearward vantage point.

> The
> injury to Tague had little to do with it because no one could be
> certain which shot if any caused Tague's cheek wound. That remains and
> open question to this day.

I think we both visit this forum due to unanswered questions, or at
least answers that invoke common sense.

> > > Maybe someday one of you CTs will offer a rational explaination for why
> > > the FBI would go into cover up mode immediately after the assassination.
>
> > If Hoover knew about the murder ahead of time, then it's quite easy to
> > rationalize his CYA maneuvering. I believe they did exercise jurisdiction
> > when they had none by ordering all DPD investigation to cease, and turn
> > over all evidence by midnight on Friday night. Was that prudent for the
> > FBI to do so?
>
> All CT theories are based on a pile of ifs which is the same as saying
> they are based on pile of crap. None are based on hard evidence. We
> could go into a long discussion about federal vs. state powers which
> would digress way beyond the scope of the JFK assassination. The FBI
> had no power to order the DPD to turn over anything. The DPD would
> have been within their rights to tell the FBI to go screw themselves.
> Apparently whoever made the decision to capitulate to the FBI decided
> that wasn't a battle worth fighting. They would probably have turned
> to the FBI eventually anyway simply because the FBI was better
> equipped to handle the forensic evidence.

Respectfully, it doesn't require a long discussion. It's quite simple
to entertain the notion that if a very few key people in the FBI were
involved in the conspiracy, it stands to reason that they'd swoop in
and take over the investigation. Your final sentence ends with,
"...because the FBI was better equipped to handle the forensic
evidence."

Can you briefly list the forensic evidence that was handled correctly
by the FBI? I'd list the evidence that they mishandled, but I think
your list will much shorter.
~Mark

[bigdog]

On Dec 20, 2:23 pm, TJC76 <cole...@bigpond.net.au> wrote:

Jack Ruby gave us that, even if he skirted the legal avenues to do
that.

> Or should we not give two hoots when someone is
> murdered? After all it costs taxpaper money to fund the legal and
> penal systems. Does our society owe anything to the murder victim and
> their family? Your statement suggests society does not.
>

I give a hoot about JFK. I give a hoot about JDT. I don't give a shit
about LHO. He's received everything he deserved everytime a dog hiked
his leg at his tombstone.

> When you make the decision to become President of the United States
> you become public property. Who and why you were killed is a serious
> matter for society, politics, democracy etc.

So why do you guys trivialize it by treating it as a who-done-it game. To
you guys it is just a big game of Clue. To people who care, the answer is
LHO with the MC from the TSBD.

> Do you think liberty and
> democracy just exists on it's own without serious work being done to
> maintain it? If I was a murder victim, I would want my body exhumed to
> find the truth of how I was killed and who was responsible.
>

If I'm ever a murder victim, I don't think I will give a shit. It
won't help me any.

> It is funny that it is mostly the Lone Nuts who are against
> exhumation.

I don't give a shit whether you guys dig up JFK or not. He's not down
there. You won't accomplish anything. If you succeed in getting your
wishes, his remains will tell you the same thing every other investigation
has told you. That he was killed by a gunshot to the back of the head, and
you guys will continue to cry foul because it isn't the answer you want.

[bigdog]

On Dec 20, 2:27 pm, TJC76 <cole...@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
>
> I should add that there is evidence if bullets being handed to FBI
> agents at the hospital, never to be heard of again.
>

Sounds like you drank the Bob Harris Kool-Aid.

[bigdog]

On Dec 20, 2:27 pm, TJC76 <cole...@bigpond.net.au> wrote:

Well of course. If you're going to concoct a theory that depends on
magic bullets, you need magic guns to fire them.

> The wound was described as
> exceptionally small and very neat by those who saw it before the
> trach. The back wound is far too low to have come out his throat, as
> shown in autopsy photos and where the bullet holes are in his clothes.

All one has to do is look at the back wound and then look at the profile
shot of JFK on the autopsy table and compare where the back wound is in
relation to the creases at the base of his neck and then compare where the
tracheotomy is in relation to those same creases to see quite convincingly
that the back wound is higher. CTs have fooled themselves for years
because for some strange reason, they think that a man's collar is on a
horizontal plane and that the back of the collar is at the same height as
the front of the collar. All one has to do is observe any man from the
side and see that his shirt collar is going to be much higher in the back
than it is in the front. That means a bullet penetrating the shirt 5 3/4
inches below the top of the collar in the back and exiting through the
collar in the front is going to still be on a downward trajectory. That
holds true whether the shirt and/or jacket were bunched or not.

> Your side knows this by having to come up with ridiculous explanations
> like bunched up jackets to excuse the big holes in your theory.

No such thing is necessary to make the SBT work. The sensible approach is
not to look at the clothes, which do not give a fixed reference point and
look at the body which does.

> There
> is nothing in the autopsy that proves the two holes are linked:

The HSCA FPP disagrees. But you would rather rely on the opinions of
unqualified people because you need to.

> we
> have evidence that the hole in his back had an ending, and the two
> wounds were not tracked in the autopsy to prove they were made by the
> same missile - you do realise this? There is evidence this part of the
> autopsy was manipulated by a General so the would would not be
> tracked.
>

It is evidence that you are leaping to conclusions based on
assumptions.

> Oswald was up on the sixth floor so the trajectory was steep
> indicating a bullet striking JFK in the back would travel downwards
> not upwards. The trajectory is way off, as Arlen Specter accidently
> demonstrated with his funny ruler trick.
>

The bullet did travel downwards and Specter did not need a "funny ruler"
to demostrate anything. He could not put the ruler on the actual path
without skewering the agent who represented JFK. He had to position the
rule above the actual trajectory of the bullet. Why is that so hard to
accept? This is just one of many red herring arguments made against the
SBT because there are no valid objections to it.

> Anyhow there are many valid reasons why the SBT is invalid and I dont
> know why you all cling to such a fraud.

As I predicted with great confidence, you completely dodged the questions
I posed. You refused to commit to any alternative explaination for the
back and throat wounds because there aren't any. I offered you a choice of
several options and you refused to pick any of them or offer one of your
own. SOP for the SBT doubters. They continue to claim the SBT is bunk yet
they can't offer any plausible alternative. You failed just as every CT
before you to whom I have made the same challenge. If the SBT is invalid,
why is it none of you guys can come up with another way it COULD have
happened. I'm not even asking you to prove another way it happened. Just
give us another possibility. You can't because there isn't any. The SBT is
the only plausible answer.

[Anthony Marsh]

So you are saying that the top forensic pathologists in the world were
idiots and YOU know more than them just by guesswork?
The bullet entered low enough to fracture T-1. Talk to Baden.

>> Your side knows this by having to come up with ridiculous explanations
>> like bunched up jackets to excuse the big holes in your theory.
>
> No such thing is necessary to make the SBT work. The sensible approach is
> not to look at the clothes, which do not give a fixed reference point and
> look at the body which does.
>
>> There
>> is nothing in the autopsy that proves the two holes are linked:
>
> The HSCA FPP disagrees. But you would rather rely on the opinions of
> unqualified people because you need to.
>

The FPP created a diagram which shows that the back wound was exactly at
the same height as the throat wound. So you pick and choose what you
want to believe. In one breath you call them Gods and in the next breath
you call them idiots.

[Anthony Marsh]

So now at this late date you come up with a conspiracy theory that he
isn't even buried there? How many millions of people do you claim
covered this up? Where do you claim his body really is? As I said before
almost every WC defender has his own wacky conspiracy theory.

[Anthony Marsh]

That's what you guys said about the HSCA and then they accidentally
found conspiracy. That's what you guys said about the ARRB and then they
accidentally found the missing autopsy photos.
That stopped your laughing.

[bigdog]

On Dec 20, 9:30 pm, markusp <markina...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Dec 20, 1:29 pm, bigdog <jecorbett1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > Okay, Bigdog. You must have known that this comment wouldn't get past me.
> > > Humes did the same thing, and he even DID operate on JFK's body at the
> > > autopsy. Disregard Shaw's speculation, but then Humes connection of JFK's
> > > throat wound to his back wound was "presumably" right.
>
> > How did we go from Connally's leg wound to JFK's throat wound?
>
> You suggested that we disregard Shaw when he was only speculating on
> Connally's leg wound and the remaining fragment(s) that were never
> removed. This seemed prudent because Shaw was not the surgeon that
> operated on his leg.
>
> I drew the parallel to Humes, because he was a doctor that DID have a
> body in front of him, operated on it, then "presumably" connected two
> wounds without that body in front of him. Now if Humes got that much
> wrong, why should we agree to his presumptions, and not Shaw's?

We don't go with Humes's presumptions. We go with what he determined
after he had all the information available to him, including his call
to Dr. Perry. That is not a presumption, that is a conclusion. His
initial belief that the back wound was shallow and that the bullet had
come out of the body was a presumption because it was made in absence
of much needed information. He was unaware that there had been a
bullet hole in JFK's throat so when confronted with a bullet hole in
the back and no bullet in the body, the idea that he was dealing with
a shallow wound came to him. In retrospect, that is silly based on
what we know now, but probably wasn't as absurd at time.

I don't know what Ford was leaking to the FBI and I don't care. Leaks
are as common in Washington as prostitutes. Whatever Ford was passing
on to Hoover is irrelevant to the question of whether the FBI was in
cover up mode from the start because Ford was not involved from the
start. The issue of this thread is the bullet wound in Connally's
thigh and the disposition of the bullet. Allegations of malfeasance by
the FBI regarding that bullet requires us to believe they were in
cover up mode from the beginning.

> > > > Why would they not want to find out and report
> > > > the truth no matter what that was?
>
> > > I believe Hoover indeed at least have CYA-based records in place, in the
> > > off-chance that his precious FBI ever be declared complicit. This is why
> > > the initial determination of shot sequencing by Hoover was 3 shots, 3
> > > hits, until that pesky James Tague wounding came up. Yet another prime
> > > example of this is the Sibert & O'Neill reference to surgery of the head
> > > area, specifically in the top of the head.
>
> > It wasn't Hoover who came up with the SBT. That was the WC
> > investigators, principally Arlen Specter. Tague's wound had little to
> > do with the SBT. It was a side issue.
>
> Right. It was a side issue on the left side of Tague's face. It's
> inextricably tied to the SBT due to the very real fact that if it was
> a complete missile that struck the curb, spattering the concrete in
> such a way as to nick Tague's face, LN's are reduced to mere fragments
> of other known shots that must account for Tague's wounding.

If Tague had never been wounded or his wound had been unreported, it
would have had no affect on the SBT. It would be exactly as it is
because it is based on other known factors unrelated to Tague's wound.
The SBT doesn't give us more a fewer possible explainations for
Tague's wound. It could have been caused by a ricochet from the first
bullet or a fragment of that bullet. It could have been caused by a
fragment of the head shot. It could have been caused by something
unrelated to the assassination, such as a pebble thrown up by a
passing vehicle. We don't know. We'll never know. We don't need to
know. That makes it a side issue.

> I suppose
> you always revert to the first shot, a.k.a. the "missed" shot that did
> it, but then we'll REALLY begin questioning Oswald's rifle skills.
> Harold Weisberg was all over that situation, and frankly, the way the
> FBI handled that scenario was certainly not their crowning
> achievement.
>

The first shot was the most difficult. It was at an awkward angle at a
target moving across his line of fire and he had a limited time to aim
the shot between when the limo turned the corner and the target passed
under the tree. We don't know what Oswald's thought process was that
led him to take that difficult first shot, but maybe he calculated
that even a difficult shot increased his odds more than not taking the
shot at all. As Wayne Gretzky once observed, "You miss 100% of the
shots you don't take".

> > The SBT was arrived at through a
> > logical process.
>
> It must have been drawn up beyond the event horizon of a black hole,
> because the physics surely don't apply very well in our universe.
>

I know, you guys have been claiming that for decades but no one can
tell us why the SBT doesn't make sense or can present us with a
plausible alternative. Not if they stick to the facts and not the
myths. Can you do either. Please don't resort to the lame dodge that
this has been done in the past and there is no need to repeat it.
Neither of these things has ever been done.

> > There was no need for it other than to determine the
> > truth of the shooting.
>
> Without the SBT, the default goes to conspiracy, and I'm certain you
> understand that as well as I do.

Agreed.

> As far as I know, Oswald as a lone
> assassin mandates the SBT, and without the SBT, the process of logic
> necessitates conspiracy.
>

No argument there.

> > The 3 shots, 3 hits scenario didn''t work
> > because the Z-film showed JFK and JBC being hit at the same time.
>
> Negative. The Z-film shows physical reactions at precise frames. It
> does not necessarily demonstrate that they were hit at the same time,
> unless you apply those annoying neuromuscular delays that are so
> important for both JFK and JBC.

Now you are quibbling. Of course we don't actually see the bullet
striking the two men. We see both men beginning reflexive reactions at
exactly the same frame which came just two frames after visual
evidence of a bullet pushing out JBC's jacket. Is it your argument
that JFK and JBC were hit by different bullets at the same time. If
so, there are lots of questions for that argument that I'm sure you
will be unable to answer.

> Also, 3 shots/3 hits could work quite
> well, if you accept a second shooter firing from a slightly lower,
> rearward vantage point.
>

No it doesn't. How do you explain how the bullet that exited JFK's
throat missed JBC and where do you suppose that bullet did go? How do
you explain the elongated wound on JBC's back if not by a tumbling
bullet? Why would a bullet tumble if it hadn't struck something else
first.

> > The
> > injury to Tague had little to do with it because no one could be
> > certain which shot if any caused Tague's cheek wound. That remains and
> > open question to this day.
>
> I think we both visit this forum due to unanswered questions, or at
> least answers that invoke common sense.
>

That is one answer I doubt we will ever get.

No, I can't do it briefly because it would be a very long list. It
would include every piece of evidence they handled.

> I'd list the evidence that they mishandled, but I think
> your list will much shorter.

We eagerly await your list.

[TJC76]

On Dec 20, 7:26 am, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:

> On 12/19/2011 9:19 AM, TJC76 wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Dec 19, 12:33 pm, Anthony Marsh<anthony.ma...@comcast.net>  wrote:
> >> On 12/18/2011 10:25 PM, TJC76 wrote:
>
> >>>> As others have pointed out, Dr. Shaw was not the doctor who treated the
> >>>> leg wound. He was probably aware that Connally had been struck in the
> >>>> thigh but unaware that the bullet had become dislodged and was no longer
> >>>> in his leg. How could Dr. Shaw be definite about a wound he never treated.
>
> >>> If it he didn't know for sure why act so damn sure? There was no doubt
> >>> whatsoever in what he said. Dr Shaw, as the person addressing the media, I
> >>> am sure would have made every enquiry/examination necessary to ensure he
> >>> was giving accurate information over the condition of Connally.  He
>
> >> No, he had just come out of surgery.
>
> >>> wouldn't just "guess" or make it up as he went along. Seriously, if you
>
> >> He didn't guess. He knew. He misspoke. When he said bullet he meant
> >> fragment.
>
> >>> are a Lone Nut yo have to denigrate and bismirch the skill, experience and
> >>> reputation of pretty much every Dr and Nurse at Parkland Hospital.
>
> >> Why not? Are they Gods? How many of them said the throat wound was an
> >> entrance? So does that mean you have to believe it was?
>

> > Well yes the throat was an entrance wound. And the back of JFK's head
> > was blown out as all early witnesses, including Clint Hill, said.
>

> I was afraid you'd say that. So now you have to explain where that
> bullet went. Do you really think that if there is an entrance wound on
> one side of the head that there MUST be an exit wound on the other side
> of the head?- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

Whatever hit the Presidents throat doesn't have to a bullet.
Apparently the throat wound was exceptionally small. It could have
been an ice bullet that contained a poison.

[markusp]

On Dec 21, 8:29 am, bigdog <jecorbett1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> We don't go with Humes's presumptions. We go with what he determined
> after he had all the information available to him, including his call
> to Dr. Perry. That is not a presumption, that is a conclusion.

I understand that point completely, although a conclusion still
doesn't equal a fact.

> His
> initial belief that the back wound was shallow and that the bullet had
> come out of the body was a presumption because it was made in absence
> of much needed information.

There was an absence of much-needed information during the autopsy?
Can you cite examples?

> He was unaware that there had been a
> bullet hole in JFK's throat

Ahhhh, so Jim Fetzer and Dr. Robert Livingston have completely fabricated
the claim by Livingston that flatly told Humes ahead of the autopsy to
watch for a frontal throat wound. I find that difficult to accept, and as
much distaste as you have for Dr. Fetzer, I'm inclined to believe him and
Livingston. This is one of the facets of the JFK murder that is simply
black or white --- there is no middle ground here. Either Livingston
completely lied, or Humes did. One of those two scenarious must be true,
and only one.

> so when confronted with a bullet hole in
> the back and no bullet in the body, the idea that he was dealing with
> a shallow wound came to him.

Usually, our first gut instincts are correct, and Humes was correct at
that point.

> In retrospect, that is silly based on
> what we know now, but probably wasn't as absurd at time.

That's called "rationalization", and it's one step away from causal
determinism.

> > please let me know. If discussion is happening surrounding the FBI and
> > the culpability of certain agents (and one director), then Ford's role
> > should surely be noteworthy, IMO.
>
> I don't know what Ford was leaking to the FBI and I don't care.

That conjures up an image of you sitting on the toilet, with the smell
of roses wafting through the air.

> Leaks
> are as common in Washington as prostitutes.

That much is certain, and those prostitutes have the words "honorable"
as a prefix ahead of their names!

> Whatever Ford was passing
> on to Hoover is irrelevant to the question of whether the FBI was in
> cover up mode from the start because Ford was not involved from the
> start.

And that makes it okay??? Do we get to speculate on the unimportance
of the information Ford was spiriting back to Hoover?

>The issue of this thread is the bullet wound in Connally's
> thigh and the disposition of the bullet.

Compartmentalization is a tried-and-true method of deflecting
attention. I'm proud of you, Bigdog!

> Allegations of malfeasance by
> the FBI regarding that bullet requires us to believe they were in
> cover up mode from the beginning.

Yep, sure does!

> If Tague had never been wounded or his wound had been unreported, it
> would have had no affect on the SBT.

Perhaps you're correct. Although something indeed struck the curb
there, and we have the pictures. Does the original image appear to you
to have been caused by a fragment of a missile, or a complete missile?

> It would be exactly as it is
> because it is based on other known factors unrelated to Tague's wound.

Agreed, with one of those other factors being, "holy shit, how in the
hell are we gonna make it look like Oswald did it by himself?"

> The SBT doesn't give us more (or) <I think this is what you meant> fewer possible explainations for
> Tague's wound.

Nor should it. That then requires an alternate explanation for his
wounding, and you only get 3 shots, and the SBT uses up one of them.

> It could have been caused by a ricochet from the first
> bullet or a fragment of that bullet.

That conjures up an image of you, sitting on the toilet, with monkeys
flying out of your butt (the smell of roses notwithstanding).

> It could have been caused by a
> fragment of the head shot. It could have been caused by something
> unrelated to the assassination, such as a pebble thrown up by a
> passing vehicle. We don't know. We'll never know. We don't need to
> know. That makes it a side issue.

Well, okay, let's call it a "Thorn in your side" issue.

> The first shot was the most difficult.

For which shooter?

> It was at an awkward angle at a
> target moving across his line of fire and he had a limited time to aim
> the shot between when the limo turned the corner and the target passed
> under the tree.

For Oswald, but not Eugene Brading.

> We don't know what Oswald's thought process was that
> led him to take that difficult first shot, but maybe he calculated
> that even a difficult shot increased his odds more than not taking the
> shot at all.

Hey, I'm with you all the way on that one. He was a "snotty little
bastard", and I've long ago resigned myself to his guilt, but not
alone.

> As Wayne Gretzky once observed, "You miss 100% of the
> shots you don't take".

I like that!

> > It must have been drawn up beyond the event horizon of a black hole,
> > because the physics surely don't apply very well in our universe.
>
> I know, you guys have been claiming that for decades but no one can
> tell us why the SBT doesn't make sense or can present us with a
> plausible alternative.

Contraire, Pierre! You simply choose to not accept plausible
alternatives. Conspiracy, with all of the circumstantial evidence
pointing to it seems perfectly logical to me.

> Not if they stick to the facts and not the
> myths. Can you do either.

I apologize if I've supported my speculations through innuendo. I do
believe in the fact that JFK sure looks to me like he's taking a
bullet to his upper back at precisely Z-230. His motion is clearly
visible evidence....of a shot at that point. It is your SBT that
delves into the netherworld of neuromuscular delays.

> Please don't resort to the lame dodge that
> this has been done in the past and there is no need to repeat it.
> Neither of these things has ever been done.

I admit wholeheartedly that other conspiracy theories are ridiculous,
and speculate wildly.

> > > The 3 shots, 3 hits scenario didn''t work
> > > because the Z-film showed JFK and JBC being hit at the same time.
>
> > Negative. The Z-film shows physical reactions at precise frames. It
> > does not necessarily demonstrate that they were hit at the same time,
> > unless you apply those annoying neuromuscular delays that are so
> > important for both JFK and JBC.
>
> Now you are quibbling.

Of course I'm quibbling. It's a euphemism for arguing!

> Of course we don't actually see the bullet
> striking the two men.

Your keyboard has a problem. It's been dropping the "s" at the end of
"bullet".

> We see both men beginning reflexive reactions at
> exactly the same frame which came just two frames after visual
> evidence of a bullet pushing out JBC's jacket. Is it your argument
> that JFK and JBC were hit by different bullets at the same time. I

Correction -- it's YOU that sees reflexive actions at the same time. I see
Connally exhibiting extreme duress at precisely Z-224, and I see JFK's
arms moving at that same precise frame. Then I see JFK's actions from
Z-230 to Z-234, inclusive. Please note the numeric difference.

> so, there are lots of questions for that argument that I'm sure you
> will be unable to answer.

How is that different from the questions that you, and the WC, were
unable to answer?

> > Also, 3 shots/3 hits could work quite
> > well, if you accept a second shooter firing from a slightly lower,
> > rearward vantage point.
>
> No it doesn't. How do you explain how the bullet that exited JFK's
> throat missed JBC and where do you suppose that bullet did go?

I explained it this way: The missile that caused JFK's throat wound was
lodged in his throat. It exited when someone dug it out when they
"cleared" the autopsy room for X-rays. But if your theory is correct, then
Dr. Perry was unnecessarily mutilating patients' throats whenever he
inserted a trach cuff.

> How do
> you explain the elongated wound on JBC's back if not by a tumbling
> bullet?

I cannot explain that, and if I try, you'll crucify me for
speculating!

> > I think we both visit this forum due to unanswered questions, or at
> > least answers that invoke common sense.
>
> That is one answer I doubt we will ever get.

Agreed, Bigdog, and just so you know, I appreciate the opportunities I
get to banter back and forth with you. You've got an excellent command
of the information, respectfully. Maybe my New Year's resolution
should be "to convince Bigdog that a conspiracy was afoot in the
murder of JFK."
~Mark

[Anthony Marsh]

Apparently? Based on what? Misquoting initial impressions? It was not
measured.
Did you watch Mythbusters test that idea?

[Anthony Marsh]

On 12/21/2011 9:29 AM, bigdog wrote:
> On Dec 20, 9:30 pm, markusp<markina...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Dec 20, 1:29 pm, bigdog<jecorbett1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> Okay, Bigdog. You must have known that this comment wouldn't get past me.
>>>> Humes did the same thing, and he even DID operate on JFK's body at the
>>>> autopsy. Disregard Shaw's speculation, but then Humes connection of JFK's
>>>> throat wound to his back wound was "presumably" right.
>>
>>> How did we go from Connally's leg wound to JFK's throat wound?
>>
>> You suggested that we disregard Shaw when he was only speculating on
>> Connally's leg wound and the remaining fragment(s) that were never
>> removed. This seemed prudent because Shaw was not the surgeon that
>> operated on his leg.
>>
>> I drew the parallel to Humes, because he was a doctor that DID have a
>> body in front of him, operated on it, then "presumably" connected two
>> wounds without that body in front of him. Now if Humes got that much
>> wrong, why should we agree to his presumptions, and not Shaw's?
>
> We don't go with Humes's presumptions. We go with what he determined
> after he had all the information available to him, including his call
> to Dr. Perry. That is not a presumption, that is a conclusion. His

It proves that Humes was an unreliable source.

> initial belief that the back wound was shallow and that the bullet had
> come out of the body was a presumption because it was made in absence
> of much needed information. He was unaware that there had been a

Not just that, but because he was forbidden by the military from
dissecting the wound to see where it went.

> bullet hole in JFK's throat so when confronted with a bullet hole in
> the back and no bullet in the body, the idea that he was dealing with
> a shallow wound came to him. In retrospect, that is silly based on
> what we know now, but probably wasn't as absurd at time.
>

More proof of his incompetence.

Yes, we know that you don't care. That's why you're here defending the
WC, the FBI, Ford, the CIA, anyone in authority.

> are as common in Washington as prostitutes. Whatever Ford was passing
> on to Hoover is irrelevant to the question of whether the FBI was in
> cover up mode from the start because Ford was not involved from the
> start. The issue of this thread is the bullet wound in Connally's
> thigh and the disposition of the bullet. Allegations of malfeasance by

What bullet? You have yet to prove there was a bullet in his thigh.
Maybe you mean FRAGMENT?

> the FBI regarding that bullet requires us to believe they were in
> cover up mode from the beginning.
>
>>>>> Why would they not want to find out and report
>>>>> the truth no matter what that was?
>>
>>>> I believe Hoover indeed at least have CYA-based records in place, in the
>>>> off-chance that his precious FBI ever be declared complicit. This is why
>>>> the initial determination of shot sequencing by Hoover was 3 shots, 3
>>>> hits, until that pesky James Tague wounding came up. Yet another prime

>>>> example of this is the Sibert& O'Neill reference to surgery of the head

>>>> area, specifically in the top of the head.
>>
>>> It wasn't Hoover who came up with the SBT. That was the WC
>>> investigators, principally Arlen Specter. Tague's wound had little to
>>> do with the SBT. It was a side issue.
>>
>> Right. It was a side issue on the left side of Tague's face. It's
>> inextricably tied to the SBT due to the very real fact that if it was
>> a complete missile that struck the curb, spattering the concrete in
>> such a way as to nick Tague's face, LN's are reduced to mere fragments
>> of other known shots that must account for Tague's wounding.
>
> If Tague had never been wounded or his wound had been unreported, it
> would have had no affect on the SBT. It would be exactly as it is
> because it is based on other known factors unrelated to Tague's wound.
> The SBT doesn't give us more a fewer possible explainations for
> Tague's wound. It could have been caused by a ricochet from the first
> bullet or a fragment of that bullet. It could have been caused by a
> fragment of the head shot. It could have been caused by something
> unrelated to the assassination, such as a pebble thrown up by a
> passing vehicle. We don't know. We'll never know. We don't need to
> know. That makes it a side issue.
>

Gee this is fun. You sound like a newbie conspiracy believer.
A pebble? Feeble.
The lead fragment penetrated a couple of inches. Pebble?

>> I suppose
>> you always revert to the first shot, a.k.a. the "missed" shot that did
>> it, but then we'll REALLY begin questioning Oswald's rifle skills.
>> Harold Weisberg was all over that situation, and frankly, the way the
>> FBI handled that scenario was certainly not their crowning
>> achievement.
>>
> The first shot was the most difficult. It was at an awkward angle at a
> target moving across his line of fire and he had a limited time to aim
> the shot between when the limo turned the corner and the target passed
> under the tree. We don't know what Oswald's thought process was that
> led him to take that difficult first shot, but maybe he calculated
> that even a difficult shot increased his odds more than not taking the
> shot at all. As Wayne Gretzky once observed, "You miss 100% of the
> shots you don't take".
>
>>> The SBT was arrived at through a
>>> logical process.
>>
>> It must have been drawn up beyond the event horizon of a black hole,
>> because the physics surely don't apply very well in our universe.
>>
> I know, you guys have been claiming that for decades but no one can
> tell us why the SBT doesn't make sense or can present us with a

We show you every day, but you deny simple facts.

> plausible alternative. Not if they stick to the facts and not the
> myths. Can you do either. Please don't resort to the lame dodge that
> this has been done in the past and there is no need to repeat it.
> Neither of these things has ever been done.
>

You have never explained what is wrong with the Humes SBT.

>>> There was no need for it other than to determine the
>>> truth of the shooting.
>>
>> Without the SBT, the default goes to conspiracy, and I'm certain you
>> understand that as well as I do.
>
> Agreed.
>

Even Specter admitted that, but the WC official position was that it was
not central to its conclusions.

>> As far as I know, Oswald as a lone
>> assassin mandates the SBT, and without the SBT, the process of logic
>> necessitates conspiracy.
>>
> No argument there.
>
>>> The 3 shots, 3 hits scenario didn''t work
>>> because the Z-film showed JFK and JBC being hit at the same time.
>>
>> Negative. The Z-film shows physical reactions at precise frames. It
>> does not necessarily demonstrate that they were hit at the same time,
>> unless you apply those annoying neuromuscular delays that are so
>> important for both JFK and JBC.
>
> Now you are quibbling. Of course we don't actually see the bullet
> striking the two men. We see both men beginning reflexive reactions at
> exactly the same frame which came just two frames after visual
> evidence of a bullet pushing out JBC's jacket. Is it your argument
> that JFK and JBC were hit by different bullets at the same time. If
> so, there are lots of questions for that argument that I'm sure you
> will be unable to answer.
>

Yes, we see that JFK had already been shot by Z-224 because his hands are
up in front of his throat. And Connally said that he saw himself hit at
about Z-230. Boy do you have a slow bullet to hit Kennedy at 224 then
Connally at 230.

>> Also, 3 shots/3 hits could work quite
>> well, if you accept a second shooter firing from a slightly lower,
>> rearward vantage point.
>>
> No it doesn't. How do you explain how the bullet that exited JFK's
> throat missed JBC and where do you suppose that bullet did go? How do

Furhman thinks it hit the chrome topping. Others thing it went over the
windshield.

> you explain the elongated wound on JBC's back if not by a tumbling
> bullet? Why would a bullet tumble if it hadn't struck something else
> first.
>

Because it was not elongated as much as you claim and it struck a curved
surface, the inside of his armpit. How do you explain your elongated head
wound if not by a tumbling bullet? FYI a bullet can tumble or keyhole all
on its own without striking something else first.

[Jean Davison]

On Dec 21, 1:49 pm, markusp <markina...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Dec 21, 8:29 am, bigdog <jecorbett1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > We don't go with Humes's presumptions. We go with what he determined
> > after he had all the information available to him, including his call
> > to Dr. Perry. That is not a presumption, that is a conclusion.
>
> I understand that point completely, although a conclusion still
> doesn't equal a fact.
>
> > His
> > initial belief that the back wound was shallow and that the bullet had
> > come out of the body was a presumption because it was made in absence
> > of much needed information.
>
> There was an absence of much-needed information during the autopsy?
> Can you cite examples?
>
> > He was unaware that there had been a
> > bullet hole in JFK's throat
>
> Ahhhh, so Jim Fetzer and Dr. Robert Livingston have completely fabricated
> the claim by Livingston that flatly told Humes ahead of the autopsy to
> watch for a frontal throat wound. I find that difficult to accept, and as
> much distaste as you have for Dr. Fetzer, I'm inclined to believe him and
> Livingston. This is one of the facets of the JFK murder that is simply
> black or white --- there is no middle ground here. Either Livingston
> completely lied, or Humes did. One of those two scenarious must be true,
> and only one.

Excuse me, but there is a third option -- Livingston had a
false memory.

http://www.skepdic.com/falsememory.html

[snip]
Jean

[Jason Burke]

Not quite sure about that.
Based on everything he's shown, I wouldn't be surprised if Mr. Harris
lost the Kool-Aid recipe.

[TJC76]

> > you guys will continue to cry foul because it isn't the answer you want.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

I am loathe to say this but it wouldn't surprise me, at all, if they
dug up Kennedy and found his body had been replaced with another
corpse. Wouldn't surprise me one bit.

[Bud]

> I am loathe to say this but it wouldn't surprise me, at all, if they
> dug up Kennedy and found his body had been replaced with another
> corpse. Wouldn't surprise me one bit.

You can`t put anything past the figments of your imagination.

[Sandy McCroskey]

It wouldn't surprise me if somebody *claimed* that's what happened, when
the findings were not what they expected. It wouldn't surprise me if a
book was written supporting this theory and many people bought it... and
raved about it in Amazon reviews. I don't think any proof will ever be
good enough for some people.

/sm

[Anthony Marsh]

Some kook had a theory that they used Tippit's body for the autopsy and
buried that as JFK's stand-in.

[Anthony Marsh]

I think Loftus calls it telescoping.
Combining events from different times into one event.

[Bill Clarke]

In article <4ef3...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...

Who did they put in Tippit's coffin?

Bill Clarke

[Mitch Todd]

"Bill Clarke" <Bill_...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> In article <4ef3...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...
>>On 12/22/2011 9:38 AM, TJC76 wrote:
>>> On Dec 21, 10:21 pm, Anthony Marsh<anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:

[....]

>>>>> wishes, his remains will tell you the same thing every other investigation
>>>>> has told you. That he was killed by a gunshot to the back of the head, and
>>>>>you guys will continue to cry foul because it isn't the answer you want.- Hide
>>>>>quoted text -
>>>>

>>> I am loathe to say this but it wouldn't surprise me, at all, if they
>>> dug up Kennedy and found his body had been replaced with another
>>> corpse. Wouldn't surprise me one bit.
>>
>>Some kook had a theory that they used Tippit's body for the autopsy and
>>buried that as JFK's stand-in.
>
> Who did they put in Tippit's coffin?

Jimmy Hoffa?

[TJC76]

On Dec 23, 12:52 pm, Bill Clarke <Bill_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> In article <4ef3c...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...

John Doe. Some homeless person of unknown identity. It wasn't an open
coffin at the funeral.
I don't know this is what happened, it just wouldn't surprise me if
some random was in there.

[TJC76]

> /sm- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

It would be pretty easy to work out, with DNA evidence, if it was JFK
or not. They didn't have DNA back in '63.

[bigdog]

On Dec 22, 11:52 pm, Bill Clarke <Bill_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> In article <4ef3c...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...

Oswald.

[Bill Clarke]

In article <7d2b7e6d-e82d-4ffa...@v13g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>,
bigdog says...

>
>On Dec 22, 11:52=A0pm, Bill Clarke <Bill_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>> In article <4ef3c...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >On 12/22/2011 9:38 AM, TJC76 wrote:

>> >> On Dec 21, 10:21 pm, Anthony Marsh<anthony.ma...@comcast.net> =A0wrote=

>:
>> >>> On 12/20/2011 11:05 PM, bigdog wrote:
>>

>> >>>> On Dec 20, 2:23 pm, TJC76<cole...@bigpond.net.au> =A0 =A0wrote:
>> >>>>> On Dec 19, 12:37 pm, Bill Clarke<Bill_mem...@newsguy.com> =A0 =A0wr=
>ote:
>>
>> >>>>>>In article<727fcaa2-82be-4d1a-9209-e9e6898c8...@j10g2000vbe.googleg=
>roups.com>,
>> >>>>>> TJC76 says...
>>
>> >>>>>>> On Dec 19, 6:29=3DA0am, Anthony Marsh<anthony.ma...@comcast.net> =
>=A0 =A0wrote:

>> >>>>>>>> On 12/18/2011 2:04 PM, Bill Clarke wrote:
>>
>> >>>>>>>>> In article<4eed3...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...
>>
>> >>>>>>>>>> On 12/17/2011 5:14 PM, Jean Davison wrote:

>> >>>>>>>>>>> On Dec 17, 9:47 am, TJC76<cole...@bigpond.net.au> =A0 =A0=3DA=
>0 wrote:
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Vince Palamara:
>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>"For newcomers to the assassination, the official "Warren Com=
>mission=3D
>> >>>>>>> "
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> found that a bullet hit JFK and it passed through him and st=
>ruck
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>Connally. It was then "discovered" when it rolled off Connell=
>y's car=3D
>> >>>>>>> t,
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>according to the commission, after falling out of his leg wou=
>nd. Thi=3D

>> >>>>>>> s
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> is that "magic bullet" that appears intact in pictures.
>>

>> >>>>>>>>>>>>Obviously, if the bullet is still in C's leg after surgery, e=
>ither t=3D
>> >>>>>>> he
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>governor's leg has a supply of missiles like??? a gumball mac=
>hine, o=3D

>> >>>>>>> r
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> their "report" is garbage."
>>

>> >>>>>>>>>>>>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3D3DaQ8NJwq58Fg&sns=3D3Dfb
>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>=3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 Did Mr. Palamara happen to=
> mention that Dr. S=3D
>> >>>>>>> haw was not the
>> >>>>>>>>>>>surgeon who operated on Connally's thigh? =3DA0This is from th=
>e hospita=3D
>> >>>>>>> l
>> >>>>>>>>>>> record:
>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>So what? Dr. Shaw was answering a question from the press about=
> Connal=3D
>> >>>>>>> ly's
>> >>>>>>>>>>condition. It was the press who said it was a bullet in Connall=
>y's leg=3D

>> >>>>>>> .
>> >>>>>>>>>> Shaw did not see it.
>>

>> >>>>>>>>>>>http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport=
>_0278b.h=3D
>> >>>>>>> tm
>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>=3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0Did Mr. Palamara happ=
>en to mention that Dr=3D

>> >>>>>>> . Tom Shires, who DID

>> >>>>>>>>>>>operate on Connally's thigh, said that a fragment was found, n=
>ot a bu=3D
>> >>>>>>> llet?
>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>But not removed and never was removed. Because it would tip the=
> scales=3D
>> >>>>>>> too
>> >>>>>>>>>> much to have also come from CE399. And there may be tons of fr=
>agments
>> >>>>>>>>>>still in Connally's body and people like you will block any exh=
>umation=3D
>> >>>>>>> to
>> >>>>>>>>>> find them.
>>
>> >>>>>>>>> I knew when this thread started that sooner or later someone wo=
>uld be
>> >>>>>>>>> wanting to dig up ole John B. =3DA0I should have known it would=
> be you.
>>
>> >>>>>>>>> Bill Clarke
>>
>> >>>>>>>>No need to dig him up. With modern technology we can learn everyt=

>hing we
>> >>>>>>>> want to know without digging him up.
>>
>> >>>>>>> I'm all for digging them up. JFK included. It is the ONLY way to
>> >>>>>>> convince entreneched people there was a conspiracy.

>> >>>>>>> Their spirits have long gone, and personally I believe the world =
>is
>> >>>>>>> owed historical truth.
>>
>> >>>>>> See, that is the problem with the world today. =A0Everyone thinks =

>they are
>> >>>>>> owed something.
>>
>> >>>>>> Bill Clarke- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> >>>>>> - Show quoted text -
>>

>> >>>>> Well this is a silly statement. Of course we are all owed something=

> -
>> >>>>> justice for a start.
>>
>> >>>> Jack Ruby gave us that, even if he skirted the legal avenues to do
>> >>>> that.
>>
>> >>>>> Or should we not give two hoots when someone is
>> >>>>> murdered? After all it costs taxpaper money to fund the legal and

>> >>>>> penal systems. Does our society owe anything to the murder victim a=

>nd
>> >>>>> their family? Your statement suggests society does not.
>>

>> >>>> I give a hoot about JFK. I give a hoot about JDT. I don't give a shi=
>t
>> >>>> about LHO. He's received everything he deserved everytime a dog hike=

>d
>> >>>> his leg at his tombstone.
>>
>> >>>>> When you make the decision to become President of the United States

>> >>>>> you become public property. Who and why you were killed is a seriou=

>s
>> >>>>> matter for society, politics, democracy etc.
>>

>> >>>> So why do you guys trivialize it by treating it as a who-done-it gam=
>e. To
>> >>>> you guys it is just a big game of Clue. To people who care, the answ=

>er is
>> >>>> LHO with the MC from the TSBD.
>>
>> >>>>> Do you think liberty and

>> >>>>> democracy just exists on it's own without serious work being done t=
>o
>> >>>>> maintain it? If I was a murder victim, I would want my body exhumed=

> to
>> >>>>> find the truth of how I was killed and who was responsible.
>>
>> >>>> If I'm ever a murder victim, I don't think I will give a shit. It
>> >>>> won't help me any.
>>
>> >>>>> It is funny that it is mostly the Lone Nuts who are against
>> >>>>> exhumation.
>>

>> >>>> I don't give a shit whether you guys dig up JFK or not. He's not dow=

>n
>> >>>> there. You won't accomplish anything. If you succeed in getting your
>>
>> >>> So now at this late date you come up with a conspiracy theory that he
>> >>> isn't even buried there? How many millions of people do you claim

>> >>> covered this up? Where do you claim his body really is? As I said bef=

>ore
>> >>> almost every WC defender has his own wacky conspiracy theory.
>>

>> >>>> wishes, his remains will tell you the same thing every other investi=
>gation
>> >>>> has told you. That he was killed by a gunshot to the back of the hea=
>d, and
>> >>>>you guys will continue to cry foul because it isn't the answer you wa=

>nt.- Hide
>> >>>>quoted text -
>>
>> >>> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> >>> - Show quoted text -
>>
>> >> I am loathe to say this but it wouldn't surprise me, at all, if they
>> >> dug up Kennedy and found his body had been replaced with another
>> >> corpse. Wouldn't surprise me one bit.
>>
>> >Some kook had a theory that they used Tippit's body for the autopsy and
>> >buried that as JFK's stand-in.
>>
>> Who did they put in Tippit's coffin?
>>
>> Bill Clarke- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
>Oswald.
>

Ah, the plot thickens!
Bill Clarke

[Bill Clarke]

In article <284443b4-d749-4088...@37g2000prc.googlegroups.com>,
TJC76 says...

>
>On Dec 23, 12:52=A0pm, Bill Clarke <Bill_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>> In article <4ef3c...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >On 12/22/2011 9:38 AM, TJC76 wrote:

>> >> On Dec 21, 10:21 pm, Anthony Marsh<anthony.ma...@comcast.net> =A0wrote=

>:
>> >>> On 12/20/2011 11:05 PM, bigdog wrote:
>>

>> >>>> On Dec 20, 2:23 pm, TJC76<cole...@bigpond.net.au> =A0 =A0wrote:
>> >>>>> On Dec 19, 12:37 pm, Bill Clarke<Bill_mem...@newsguy.com> =A0 =A0wr=
>ote:
>>
>> >>>>>>In article<727fcaa2-82be-4d1a-9209-e9e6898c8...@j10g2000vbe.googleg=

>roups.com>,
>> >>>>>> TJC76 says...
>>

>> >>>>>>> On Dec 19, 6:29=3DA0am, Anthony Marsh<anthony.ma...@comcast.net> =
>=A0 =A0wrote:

>> >>>>>>>> On 12/18/2011 2:04 PM, Bill Clarke wrote:
>>
>> >>>>>>>>> In article<4eed3...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...
>>
>> >>>>>>>>>> On 12/17/2011 5:14 PM, Jean Davison wrote:

>> >>>>>>>>>>> On Dec 17, 9:47 am, TJC76<cole...@bigpond.net.au> =A0 =A0=3DA=
>0 wrote:
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Vince Palamara:
>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>"For newcomers to the assassination, the official "Warren Com=
>mission=3D
>> >>>>>>> "
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> found that a bullet hit JFK and it passed through him and st=
>ruck
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>Connally. It was then "discovered" when it rolled off Connell=
>y's car=3D
>> >>>>>>> t,
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>according to the commission, after falling out of his leg wou=
>nd. Thi=3D

>> >>>>>>> s
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> is that "magic bullet" that appears intact in pictures.
>>

>> >>>>>>>>>>>>Obviously, if the bullet is still in C's leg after surgery, e=
>ither t=3D
>> >>>>>>> he
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>governor's leg has a supply of missiles like??? a gumball mac=
>hine, o=3D

>> >>>>>>> r
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> their "report" is garbage."
>>

>> >>>>>>>>>>>>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3D3DaQ8NJwq58Fg&sns=3D3Dfb
>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>=3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 Did Mr. Palamara happen to=
> mention that Dr. S=3D

>> >>>>>>> haw was not the

>> >>>>>>>>>>>surgeon who operated on Connally's thigh? =3DA0This is from th=
>e hospita=3D

>> >>>>>>> l
>> >>>>>>>>>>> record:
>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>So what? Dr. Shaw was answering a question from the press about=
> Connal=3D
>> >>>>>>> ly's
>> >>>>>>>>>>condition. It was the press who said it was a bullet in Connall=
>y's leg=3D

>> >>>>>>> .
>> >>>>>>>>>> Shaw did not see it.
>>

>> >>>>>>>>>>>http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport=
>_0278b.h=3D
>> >>>>>>> tm
>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>=3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0Did Mr. Palamara happ=
>en to mention that Dr=3D

>> >>>>>>> . Tom Shires, who DID

>> >>>>>>>>>>>operate on Connally's thigh, said that a fragment was found, n=
>ot a bu=3D
>> >>>>>>> llet?
>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>But not removed and never was removed. Because it would tip the=
> scales=3D
>> >>>>>>> too
>> >>>>>>>>>> much to have also come from CE399. And there may be tons of fr=
>agments
>> >>>>>>>>>>still in Connally's body and people like you will block any exh=
>umation=3D
>> >>>>>>> to
>> >>>>>>>>>> find them.
>>
>> >>>>>>>>> I knew when this thread started that sooner or later someone wo=
>uld be

>> >>>>>>>>> wanting to dig up ole John B. =3DA0I should have known it would=

> be you.
>>
>> >>>>>>>>> Bill Clarke
>>
>> >>>>>>>>No need to dig him up. With modern technology we can learn everyt=

>hing we
>> >>>>>>>> want to know without digging him up.
>>
>> >>>>>>> I'm all for digging them up. JFK included. It is the ONLY way to
>> >>>>>>> convince entreneched people there was a conspiracy.

>> >>>>>>> Their spirits have long gone, and personally I believe the world =
>is
>> >>>>>>> owed historical truth.
>>
>> >>>>>> See, that is the problem with the world today. =A0Everyone thinks =

>they are
>> >>>>>> owed something.
>>
>> >>>>>> Bill Clarke- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> >>>>>> - Show quoted text -
>>

>> >>>>> Well this is a silly statement. Of course we are all owed something=

> -
>> >>>>> justice for a start.
>>
>> >>>> Jack Ruby gave us that, even if he skirted the legal avenues to do
>> >>>> that.
>>
>> >>>>> Or should we not give two hoots when someone is
>> >>>>> murdered? After all it costs taxpaper money to fund the legal and

>> >>>>> penal systems. Does our society owe anything to the murder victim a=

>nd
>> >>>>> their family? Your statement suggests society does not.
>>

>> >>>> I give a hoot about JFK. I give a hoot about JDT. I don't give a shi=
>t
>> >>>> about LHO. He's received everything he deserved everytime a dog hike=

>d
>> >>>> his leg at his tombstone.
>>
>> >>>>> When you make the decision to become President of the United States

>> >>>>> you become public property. Who and why you were killed is a seriou=

>s
>> >>>>> matter for society, politics, democracy etc.
>>

>> >>>> So why do you guys trivialize it by treating it as a who-done-it gam=
>e. To
>> >>>> you guys it is just a big game of Clue. To people who care, the answ=

>er is
>> >>>> LHO with the MC from the TSBD.
>>
>> >>>>> Do you think liberty and

>> >>>>> democracy just exists on it's own without serious work being done t=
>o
>> >>>>> maintain it? If I was a murder victim, I would want my body exhumed=

> to
>> >>>>> find the truth of how I was killed and who was responsible.
>>
>> >>>> If I'm ever a murder victim, I don't think I will give a shit. It
>> >>>> won't help me any.
>>
>> >>>>> It is funny that it is mostly the Lone Nuts who are against
>> >>>>> exhumation.
>>

>> >>>> I don't give a shit whether you guys dig up JFK or not. He's not dow=

>n
>> >>>> there. You won't accomplish anything. If you succeed in getting your
>>
>> >>> So now at this late date you come up with a conspiracy theory that he
>> >>> isn't even buried there? How many millions of people do you claim

>> >>> covered this up? Where do you claim his body really is? As I said bef=

>ore
>> >>> almost every WC defender has his own wacky conspiracy theory.
>>

>> >>>> wishes, his remains will tell you the same thing every other investi=
>gation
>> >>>> has told you. That he was killed by a gunshot to the back of the hea=
>d, and
>> >>>>you guys will continue to cry foul because it isn't the answer you wa=

>nt.- Hide
>> >>>>quoted text -
>>
>> >>> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> >>> - Show quoted text -
>>
>> >> I am loathe to say this but it wouldn't surprise me, at all, if they
>> >> dug up Kennedy and found his body had been replaced with another
>> >> corpse. Wouldn't surprise me one bit.
>>
>> >Some kook had a theory that they used Tippit's body for the autopsy and
>> >buried that as JFK's stand-in.
>>
>> Who did they put in Tippit's coffin?
>>
>> Bill Clarke- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
>John Doe. Some homeless person of unknown identity. It wasn't an open
>coffin at the funeral.
>I don't know this is what happened, it just wouldn't surprise me if
>some random was in there.
>

Well it would surprise the hell out of me!

Bill Clarke

[Anthony Marsh]

Who didn't have DNA back in '63? All lifeforms have had DNA for billions
of years. Maybe DNA analysis was not used back in 1963, but that is no
excuse for not using it when it became available. New techniques have
allowed Egyptologists to match mummy Pharaoh relatives.

BBC NEWS
Twenty years of DNA evidence
By Sangita Myska
BBC News

Had it not been for one single discovery the high profile murders of
Damilola Taylor, Peter Falconio and the school girls Holly Wells and
Jessica Chapman would have remained unsolved.

Crucial to each case was DNA evidence.

Now a key forensic tool, used in crimes from car theft to burglary, sexual
assaults to murder, DNA profiling was first used in a criminal
investigation 20 years ago in Leicestershire.

In 1986, schoolgirl Dawn Ashworth, was brutally raped and murdered in the
village of Enderby.

Her death been preceded by that of Linda Mann in a neighbouring village
three years earlier.

A local youth, Richard Buckland, had made admissions about Dawn's
killing but with no corroborative evidence, the police couldn't prove he
was the murderer.

Genetic profiles

Desperate for help, they approached the geneticist Sir Alec Jeffreys.
Working out of Leicester University, he had recently taken the
scientific world by storm.

In the mid-80s Sir Alec had discovered that every person has a so-called
DNA "fingerprint" that's unique to them.

It was a chemical code held in every single cell of the human body.
Technology developed in his lab allowed him to produce genetic profiles
of individuals.

The police hoped this system would help prove their chief suspect Mr
Buckland guilty.

Surprise twist

Using semen left on the girls' bodies Sir Alec ran a test against blood
samples taken from Mr Buckland.

The tests delivered surprising results. They proved that both girls had
been killed by the same man - but that that man could not be Richard
Buckland.

"It was an incredible moment" says Sir Alec. "We couldn't believe what
we were seeing.

"As a man with a young family, living in the local area, I was as keen
as everyone else that our discovery should catch the killer. I knew the
technology couldn't be wrong. We'd tested and retested our findings."

In a surprise twist, Richard Buckland had just become the first person
to be exonerated using DNA profiling.

Screening programme

For the Leicestershire force - it was back to square one. The police
realised that to catch their killer they'd have to cast their net far wider.

They decided to undertake the world's first DNA screening programme.
Five thousand men gave blood and saliva samples. It was a test that was
to change forensic science forever.

Now retired, Ch Supt David Baker headed the murder inquiry at the time.

Having overcome his initial scepticism of profiling he realised that it
would be key to finding their killer.

It was he who single handedly persuaded the Home Office to employ the
Forensic Science Service to carry out the screening.

"It was a nerve-wracking time," he said. "But the community was behind
us. We knew that if the killer was among these men, he'd either turn up
or try to avoid us. It turned out, it was the latter."

'Science fiction'

Within a year, despite an attempt to evade screening Colin Pitchfork, a
local baker, was convicted of both murders and sentenced to life
imprisonment.

Faced with irrefutable DNA evidence that proved he was the killer, he
confessed.

Looking back, Sir Alec says he's astonished at what his discovery has
achieved.

"I think people forget that it's not just about proving guilt but about
proving innocence," he said.

"The fact is if someone had told me back then, that 20 years hence DNA
profiling would be the main forensic tool around the world, that Britain
would have a DNA database with nearly 4m profiles on it, that it would
be the way to prove paternity, I'd have said it was science fiction."
Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/uk_news/6031749.stm

Published: 2006/10/09 00:26:15 GMT

? BBC 2011


The DOJ still refuses to do any DNA tests on the blood drops on the
windshield. I think they are from Connally, not Kennedy.

[bigdog]

On Dec 21, 2:49 pm, markusp <markina...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Dec 21, 8:29 am, bigdog <jecorbett1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > We don't go with Humes's presumptions. We go with what he determined
> > after he had all the information available to him, including his call
> > to Dr. Perry. That is not a presumption, that is a conclusion.
>
> I understand that point completely, although a conclusion still
> doesn't equal a fact.
>
> > His
> > initial belief that the back wound was shallow and that the bullet had
> > come out of the body was a presumption because it was made in absence
> > of much needed information.
>
> There was an absence of much-needed information during the autopsy?
> Can you cite examples?
>
> > He was unaware that there had been a
> > bullet hole in JFK's throat
>
> Ahhhh, so Jim Fetzer and Dr. Robert Livingston have completely fabricated
> the claim by Livingston that flatly told Humes ahead of the autopsy to
> watch for a frontal throat wound. I find that difficult to accept, and as
> much distaste as you have for Dr. Fetzer, I'm inclined to believe him and
> Livingston. This is one of the facets of the JFK murder that is simply
> black or white --- there is no middle ground here. Either Livingston
> completely lied, or Humes did. One of those two scenarious must be true,
> and only one.
>

Dr. Livingston? One of the gang that authored Assassination Science. My
readings don't even mention him being one of the attending physicians at
Parkland. What role would he have and why would he be calling Humes. This
doesn't even pass the smell test.

> > so when confronted with a bullet hole in
> > the back and no bullet in the body, the idea that he was dealing with
> > a shallow wound came to him.
>
> Usually, our first gut instincts are correct, and Humes was correct at
> that point.
>

If that were true, I would have made a fortune in the stock market. Our
gut instincts are wrong at least as often as they are right. You whole
argument for entry wounds in both the back and the throat gets relegated
to the Silly Pile until you can explain where both bullets ended up. Still
waiting.

> > In retrospect, that is silly based on
> > what we know now, but probably wasn't as absurd at time.
>
> That's called "rationalization", and it's one step away from causal
> determinism.
>

Call it what you want, you are making a goofy argument that requires two
bullets to penetrate soft tissue only a few inches and just as magically
fall out of the wounds. Should we call your theory the Double Magic Bullet
Theory. You are insulting our intelligence with this nonsense.

> > > please let me know. If discussion is happening surrounding the FBI and
> > > the culpability of certain agents (and one director), then Ford's role
> > > should surely be noteworthy, IMO.
>
> > I don't know what Ford was leaking to the FBI and I don't care.
>
> That conjures up an image of you sitting on the toilet, with the smell
> of roses wafting through the air.
>
> > Leaks
> > are as common in Washington as prostitutes.
>
> That much is certain, and those prostitutes have the words "honorable"
> as a prefix ahead of their names!
>
> > Whatever Ford was passing
> > on to Hoover is irrelevant to the question of whether the FBI was in
> > cover up mode from the start because Ford was not involved from the
> > start.
>
> And that makes it okay??? Do we get to speculate on the unimportance
> of the information Ford was spiriting back to Hoover?
>

It makes it irrelevant to the claim that the FBI was in cover up mode
from the beginning.

> >The issue of this thread is the bullet wound in Connally's
> > thigh and the disposition of the bullet.
>
> Compartmentalization is a tried-and-true method of deflecting
> attention. I'm proud of you, Bigdog!
>

Spare me. The LNs are the ones who adhere to a theory based on the entire
body of evidence and it is the CTs who always resort to attacking the
evidence piecemeal while never presenting an alternative that fits all the
evidence.

> > Allegations of malfeasance by
> > the FBI regarding that bullet requires us to believe they were in
> > cover up mode from the beginning.
>
> Yep, sure does!
>
> > If Tague had never been wounded or his wound had been unreported, it
> > would have had no affect on the SBT.
>
> Perhaps you're correct. Although something indeed struck the curb
> there, and we have the pictures. Does the original image appear to you
> to have been caused by a fragment of a missile, or a complete missile?
>

I don't know what the difference would be so why would my answer
matter?

> > It would be exactly as it is
> > because it is based on other known factors unrelated to Tague's wound.
>
> Agreed, with one of those other factors being, "holy shit, how in the
> hell are we gonna make it look like Oswald did it by himself?"
>

By following the evidence and applying common sense.

> > The SBT doesn't give us more (or) <I think this is what you meant> fewer possible explainations for
> > Tague's wound.
>
> Nor should it. That then requires an alternate explanation for his
> wounding, and you only get 3 shots, and the SBT uses up one of them.
>

I think it is safe to say the single bullet did not cause Tague's wound. I
lean toward a ricochet of either the a whole bullet or a fragment from the
missed shot. I cannot logically rule out it was a fragment from the head
shot which passed over the windshield nor can I rule out a passing car
throwing up a pebble. I wouldn't bet the mortgage payment on any of the
above simply because it is something we can't know. We do know there are
multiple possibilities, none of which conflict with the lone gunman
theory.

> > It could have been caused by a ricochet from the first
> > bullet or a fragment of that bullet.
>
> That conjures up an image of you, sitting on the toilet, with monkeys
> flying out of your butt (the smell of roses notwithstanding).
>

Are you trying to sound ridiculous or does it just come naturally to you?
Are you going to deny cars and trucks occassionally will propel small
stones into the air, sometimes quite forcefully? It is just one of a
number of possible explainations for Tague's wound which can neither
logically be ruled in or ruled out.

> > It could have been caused by a
> > fragment of the head shot. It could have been caused by something
> > unrelated to the assassination, such as a pebble thrown up by a
> > passing vehicle. We don't know. We'll never know. We don't need to
> > know. That makes it a side issue.
>
> Well, okay, let's call it a "Thorn in your side" issue.
>

Why is a thorn in my side. It is something that doesn't need an
explaination. It is something that no one can answer no matter what
theory of the assassination is.

> > The first shot was the most difficult.
>
> For which shooter?
>

The only shooter.

> > It was at an awkward angle at a
> > target moving across his line of fire and he had a limited time to aim
> > the shot between when the limo turned the corner and the target passed
> > under the tree.
>
> For Oswald, but not Eugene Brading.
>

I guess if you are going to invent a shooter for which there is no
evidence of, you get to make the shot as hard or as easy for him as you
want. I'm stuck with Oswald because I limit myself to what the evidence
tells us. For him, it was a difficult first shot.

> > We don't know what Oswald's thought process was that
> > led him to take that difficult first shot, but maybe he calculated
> > that even a difficult shot increased his odds more than not taking the
> > shot at all.
>
> Hey, I'm with you all the way on that one. He was a "snotty little
> bastard", and I've long ago resigned myself to his guilt, but not
> alone.
>
> > As Wayne Gretzky once observed, "You miss 100% of the
> > shots you don't take".
>
> I like that!
>
> > > It must have been drawn up beyond the event horizon of a black hole,
> > > because the physics surely don't apply very well in our universe.
>
> > I know, you guys have been claiming that for decades but no one can
> > tell us why the SBT doesn't make sense or can present us with a
> > plausible alternative.
>
> Contraire, Pierre! You simply choose to not accept plausible
> alternatives. Conspiracy, with all of the circumstantial evidence
> pointing to it seems perfectly logical to me.
>

Why do I even bother, but here I go again, knowing what the outcome will
be. Give us your alternative to the SBT. Tell us how many shots were
fired, where they were fired from, the sequence they were fired in, which
wounds if any they caused, and where the bullets went afterward. You are
not required to prove it happened your way. Just present something that
fits the evidence. I know you will not be able to do so and I will fall
off my chair if you even try. I know this from having made this challenge
so many times in the past that I've lost count. It is many dozens I'm
sure. Few even attempted to present a viable alternative and none was able
to answer the questions I presented. The SBT does that. It is the only
theory every presented that answers those questions. It will remain the
only theory that answers those questions because it is a mortal lock you
won't be able to answer those questions.

> > Not if they stick to the facts and not the
> > myths. Can you do either.
>
> I apologize if I've supported my speculations through innuendo. I do
> believe in the fact that JFK sure looks to me like he's taking a
> bullet to his upper back at precisely Z-230.

You can't think of any other reason he would lean forward?

> His motion is clearly
> visible evidence....of a shot at that point.

It is evidence he leaned forward. It isn't evidence of the cause.

> It is your SBT that
> delves into the netherworld of neuromuscular delays.
>

Please tell me where I've ever argued for a neuromuscular delay. I've
argued for a neuromuscular reaction which IMMEDIATELTY followed the
headshot. I have argued that the reactions of both JFK and JBC to the
single bullet event were both immediate and simultaneous. You are simply
making things up when you say my theory requires neuromuscular delays.

> > Please don't resort to the lame dodge that
> > this has been done in the past and there is no need to repeat it.
> > Neither of these things has ever been done.
>
> I admit wholeheartedly that other conspiracy theories are ridiculous,
> and speculate wildly.
>

Yours included.

> > > > The 3 shots, 3 hits scenario didn''t work
> > > > because the Z-film showed JFK and JBC being hit at the same time.
>
> > > Negative. The Z-film shows physical reactions at precise frames. It
> > > does not necessarily demonstrate that they were hit at the same time,
> > > unless you apply those annoying neuromuscular delays that are so
> > > important for both JFK and JBC.
>
> > Now you are quibbling.
>
> Of course I'm quibbling. It's a euphemism for arguing!
>
> > Of course we don't actually see the bullet
> > striking the two men.
>
> Your keyboard has a problem. It's been dropping the "s" at the end of
> "bullet".
>
> > We see both men beginning reflexive reactions at
> > exactly the same frame which came just two frames after visual
> > evidence of a bullet pushing out JBC's jacket. Is it your argument
> > that JFK and JBC were hit by different bullets at the same time. I
>
> Correction -- it's YOU that sees reflexive actions at the same time. I see
> Connally exhibiting extreme duress at precisely Z-224, and I see JFK's
> arms moving at that same precise frame. Then I see JFK's actions from
> Z-230 to Z-234, inclusive. Please note the numeric difference.
>

You need to go to DVP's outstanding web page on the single bullet theory.
You will see through the enhanced close ups that JFK's right hand moved
DOWN between Z224 and Z225 and then moved UP at Z226, the same frame JBC's
right arm moves upward.

Here is the link:
http://www.single-bullet-theory.blogspot.com/

> > so, there are lots of questions for that argument that I'm sure you
> > will be unable to answer.
>
> How is that different from the questions that you, and the WC, were
> unable to answer?
>
> > > Also, 3 shots/3 hits could work quite
> > > well, if you accept a second shooter firing from a slightly lower,
> > > rearward vantage point.
>
> > No it doesn't. How do you explain how the bullet that exited JFK's
> > throat missed JBC and where do you suppose that bullet did go?
>
> I explained it this way: The missile that caused JFK's throat wound was
> lodged in his throat. It exited when someone dug it out when they
> "cleared" the autopsy room for X-rays. But if your theory is correct, then
> Dr. Perry was unnecessarily mutilating patients' throats whenever he
> inserted a trach cuff.
>

Oh, they dug it at at autopsy. Another one of your magic bullets that
apparently only penetrated a few inches into JFK's throat. Just what kind
of weapon would fire such a shallow penetrating bullet and why would a
team of assassins use such poor ammunition. But then they fire a shot into
JFK's skull that blew out his skull and a good deal of his brain.
Apparently these guys were on a budget and could only afford one good
bullet so they saved that one for the head shot.

So let me see if I understand it. First they shot JFK in the throat with a
real piss ant bullet that only lodged in his throat. Then fired a Carcano
6.5mm bullet (CE399)that penetrated just a few inches into JFK's back and
fell out when they did heart massage. Then firing the same caliber Carcano
bullet from the same gun that fired CE399, but apparently a much more
powerful one, they shot JFK in the back of his head, blowing out the upper
right half of his head. Do I have this right or is there something more
you would like to add?

> > How do
> > you explain the elongated wound on JBC's back if not by a tumbling
> > bullet?
>
> I cannot explain that, and if I try, you'll crucify me for
> speculating!
>

No, I'm asking you to speculate. I'm asking you to provide us with a
POSSIBILITY. I'm not asking you to prove another possibility.

> > > I think we both visit this forum due to unanswered questions, or at
> > > least answers that invoke common sense.
>
> > That is one answer I doubt we will ever get.
>
> Agreed, Bigdog, and just so you know, I appreciate the opportunities I
> get to banter back and forth with you. You've got an excellent command
> of the information, respectfully. Maybe my New Year's resolution
> should be "to convince Bigdog that a conspiracy was afoot in the
> murder of JFK."

You'd be better off making a resolution that you can keep.

[rlio...@gmail.com]

On Saturday, December 17, 2011 at 6:11:07 PM UTC-4, bigdog wrote:

> On Dec 17, 10:47 am, TJC76 <cole...@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
> > Vince Palamara:
> >
> > "For newcomers to the assassination, the official "Warren Commission"

> > found that a bullet hit JFK and it passed through him and struck

> > Connally. It was then "discovered" when it rolled off Connelly's cart,
> > according to the commission, after falling out of his leg wound. This

> > is that "magic bullet" that appears intact in pictures.
> >

> > Obviously, if the bullet is still in C's leg after surgery, either the
> > governor's leg has a supply of missiles like a gumball machine, or
> > their "report" is garbage."
> >
> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aQ8NJwq58Fg&sns=fb
>
> Whoever told you a bullet was still in Connally's leg pulled one over on
> you. A fragment from CE399 remained in Connally's leg until the day he
> died. The bullet worked it's way out and onto his guerney. This is pretty
> basic stuff. Don't you think that if the WC had made an error that big
> that they would have been called on it many year ago. Say within a few
> days of their report being released.

You can see Connally's surgeon say on camera to the press on Nov. 22 that
the bullet was still in the thigh. Check it out on youtube. So it couldn't
be the same one found on the stretcher, the bogus 'magic bullet'.

[John McAdams]

But Connally's leg was x-rayed, and the x-ray shows a fragment, and
not a bullet.

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

[Anthony Marsh]

Does anyone really think an ER doctor is smart enough about ballistics to
know the difference between a bullet and a fragment? We still have a
couple of moron WC defenders here who call the fragments from the limo
bullets. 2 bullets recovered.

And what about the Navy Corpsman at Bethesda who typed up a receipt for a
"missle" to identify the two tiny head fragments?

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

[Anthony Marsh]

Maybe you've never been in the real world, but just because someone says
something does not make it a fact.

BTW, there was no fragment found on the stretcher. And there are still
fragments in Connally's body. The cover-up continues.

[tom...@cox.net]

===========================================================================
==== pay attention john;

what remained was a fragment embedded in the femur bone ! ! !
===========================================================================
===== it was removed later surgically ! ! !

--
-------------------- http://NewsReader.Com/ --------------------
Usenet Newsgroup Service $9.95/Month 30GB

[Mark Florio]

bigdog, I wasn't on here in 2011, and so never saw this post before.
That's one hell of a devastating reply. Did markusp ever return from the
MASH unit you sent him to? Mark Florio.

[Jean Davison]

Connally had three different surgeons: Dr. Shaw operated on his
his chest first, then Dr. Gregory (wrist) and Dr. Shires (thigh). I
think that's Dr. Shaw speaking. He testified that he didn't examine the
other wounds, so he may've just made an assumption.

[Bud]

Holly cow! A whole bullet in Connally`s leg and you still can`t go
anywhere with your ideas? Obviously you are overmatched, should have taken
up fishing, fish aren`t very smart.

[tims...@gmail.com]

There are still a few moron CT defenders who think that the Walker bullet
doesn't look like the other recovered bullets that Oswald fired and that
it is *steel jacketed*!!

One prominent OIC member in particular...

Helpful Regards,

Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup(s) Commentator*

*...NOT ONE of the three experts was able to strike the head or the
neck of the target EVEN ONCE.* (Emphasis added).
Mark Lane, Rush to Judgment, page 129, footnoted as: XVII 261-262.

And yet here IS WC XVII 261-262, showing hits to the head...
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0144a.htm

X marks the spot where senior OIC member Mark Lane lied!

Stop the LIES! Oswald INSIDE!! Disband the OIC!!!

[mainframetech]

On Friday, April 10, 2015 at 8:44:25 AM UTC-4, rlio...@gmail.com wrote:

> On Saturday, December 17, 2011 at 6:11:07 PM UTC-4, bigdog wrote:
> > On Dec 17, 10:47 am, TJC76 <cole...@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
> > > Vince Palamara:
> > >
> > > "For newcomers to the assassination, the official "Warren Commission"
> > > found that a bullet hit JFK and it passed through him and struck
> > > Connally. It was then "discovered" when it rolled off Connelly's cart,
> > > according to the commission, after falling out of his leg wound. This
> > > is that "magic bullet" that appears intact in pictures.
> > >
> > > Obviously, if the bullet is still in C's leg after surgery, either the
> > > governor's leg has a supply of missiles like a gumball machine, or
> > > their "report" is garbage."
> > >
> > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aQ8NJwq58Fg&sns=fb
> >
> > Whoever told you a bullet was still in Connally's leg pulled one over on
> > you. A fragment from CE399 remained in Connally's leg until the day he
> > died. The bullet worked it's way out and onto his guerney. This is pretty
> > basic stuff. Don't you think that if the WC had made an error that big
> > that they would have been called on it many year ago. Say within a few
> > days of their report being released.
>

CE399 did NOT come from any wound on Connally. It came from the WRONG
gurney in the hall, as per a researcher. That gurney was used by a small
boy.

As well, one look and a comparison of CE399 to the bullet right next to
it, which was a test bullet, shows the origin of CE399:

https://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/images/5/5e/Photo_hsca_ex_294.jpg

The WC photo above shows CE399 to the far left, and right next to it is
a test bullet. they both have a slight bend in the middle, and they both
have a slight flattening in the middle, and they both are missing a bit of
material from the tail end. Some LN kooks have tried to say that the
CE399 bullet could hit 2 people 7 times, including 2 bone strikes and
still look as it does in this photo, but the far right bullet (CE856) was
fired at the wrist of a cadaver. For a bullet to do that and come out
looking like CE399, it's as rare as hen's teeth!

> You can see Connally's surgeon say on camera to the press on Nov. 22 that
> the bullet was still in the thigh. Check it out on youtube. So it couldn't
> be the same one found on the stretcher, the bogus 'magic bullet'.

Dr. Gregory's testimony says no bullet in the thigh, only a fragment:

"Dr. GREGORY - All right.

This I understand is Exhibit E, then and it is a single X-ray made on the
anterior posterial view of Mr. Connally's thigh. The only thing found is a
very small fleck of metal marked with an arrow here. It is that small, and
almost likely to be overlooked. This was not consonant with the kind of
wound on the medial aspect of his thigh."

Chris

[mainframetech]

bd as often is the case, was WRONG throughout that conversation. He
often uses misleading statements that are incorrect. Here's some
correction:

The back wound bullet struck and for some reason unknown did NOT
penetrate but an inch or so. It stopped at the pleura, a tissue
surrounding the lungs. The proof of that was that they probed the wound
with finger and then chrome probe and were unable to go in more than the
inch or so. As the probing was being carried out, they were also looking
into the body cavity from the inside and saw the probing hitting against
the pleura and there was no other path for the bullet to follow. Bot the
pleura and the lung were bruised proving the exact location that the
bullet reached before stopping. Since the Autopsy Report (AR) stated that
the "pleura was INTACT" there was no way that the bullet could have gone
any further than the pleura, or the pleura and the right lung would have
been punctured or torn, which they were not. So as Pierre Finck stated
"There's NO EXIT" for the back wound bullet. And Finck was a Wound
Ballistics Expert, specializing in these types of wounds.

While Humes offered that the bullet was missing because it might have
worked itself out of the wound at Parkland during heart massage, the
bullet was actually found by Jerrol Custer during the autopsy. Finck
grabbed it with forceps and Custer never saw the bullet again. Here's his
sworn testimony:

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

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

Page 53

(sonometers is an older form of centimeters. 4 sonometers = 1.6
inches)


So we have the back wound bullet conclusion that it never exited the
body of JFK, and the proof when it fell out of the back and was seen by
Custer during the autopsy. Why else would Finck hide and destroy the
bullet except by orders? But then much of what the prosectors later
reported were contrary to what they actually found, and that had to be due
to orders as to what they could and could not find.

Chris

[bigdog]

On Saturday, April 11, 2015 at 12:18:29 AM UTC-4, Mark Florio wrote:

I remember markusp as an occasional poster who tried to sound reasonable
but had the misfortune of trying to argue for an unreasonable theory. I
can't remember the last time he posted here or when he left. Obviously he
didn't respond again in this thread.

The challenge I made to him is the same one I have made dozens of times
before and since this exchange. No one has ever presented a viable
alternative and few even bother to try. I think they figured out it
couldn't be done when they tried to work it out in their own minds but
realized the insurmountable problems they had. Typically when faced with
this challenge most of them choose to check out instead. Marsh will resort
to one of his standard dodges. The few who do try to present viable
alternatives are easily blown out of the water.

One would think that after trying and failing to come up with a viable
alternative they would realize that is a strong indication of the validity
of the SBT. When I first began discussing this in online forums back in
early 1990s in the wake of Oliver Stone's movie, I was much less
knowledgeable than I am today. I was an LN at the time but hadn't embraced
the SBT. I thought it was possilbe to construct a scenario in which Oswald
hit JFK with his first and third shots and Connally with his second.
That's why I realize how daunting a task it is to come up with an SBT
alternative. What I came up with I am now embarassed to say is similar to
what Marsh still claims. That the first shot hit JFK in he back and
somehow deflected upward and over the windshield and went on to cause
Tague's injury. I don't remember how long it took me to figure out how
silly that was. The geometry was ridiculous. The timing was impossible.
Eventually common sense took over and I came to realize the SBT is the
only possible explanation for what happened. The fact that no one else has
been able to do what I attempted to do is a pretty good indication of
that.

[Anthony Marsh]

Then why do you guys believe the initial wrong reports?

[Anthony Marsh]

Not IN the Femur. Read the HSCA.
And SHOW me this fragment in the evidence. Got a CE number?
Or do you mean the fragment that's still in his body today?

[Anthony Marsh]

So when I attack him, you attack me? Just to be
helpful?

[mainframetech]

There are still a few moron LN kooks that think the police lied when
they reported that the bullet was STEEL jacketed. Here's their report:

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-9nC-kt8dxgg/UH85l_CwkiI/AAAAAAAAAJc/lHpnNZTQS_c/s1600/WALKER+BULLET+STEEL+JACKETED.jpg

Also the Dallas Morning News reported that a detective Ira Van Cleave
said the bullet was from a 30.06!

Chris

[mainframetech]

Here's the WC testimony of Dr. Gregory:

[mainframetech]

If you check Dr. Gregory's testimony, you'll see that he examined X-rays
concerning the thigh wound, and found that there was only a small fragment
left there.

Chris

[Bud]

Non sequitur.

I`m trying to lure you out of this morass, Tony, think fishing. Carp are dumber than your average conspiracy hobbyist by several IQ points, theres that level playing field you always wanted.

[mainframetech]

How sad! To go through life for all these years thinking that the SBT
was real, and never consider the origin or the proof from the ARRB files
that the SBT was foolish and is dead now.

Once the prosectors conclusions were let out to the public, the answer
was there. During the autopsy, they found the back wound, and searched
diligently for the bullet that struck in the back. The bullet was found
by Jerrol Custer, as he lifted the body to get a better X-ray shot, the
bullet fell out on the table. Pierre Finck grabbed it with forceps and
took it away. They probed th wound with fingers and with the chrome probe
and were only able ot go in an inch or so. By looking at the point from
inside the body cavity it was seen that the probe was striking the pleura
and couldn't go any further.

Since the bullet path was searched for, finally Pierre Finck, the Wound
Ballistics Expert, said "There's NO EXIT" from the body of JFK for that
bullet.

That all means that the SBT is dead. No bullet ever came out of any
throat wound. That wound was an entry. Connally was hit (as he had said)
by another bullet.

Chris

[Sandy McCroskey]

Moron LN kooks, oh my!

> that think the police lied

No, I think the LNs are saying the police report had an error. Happens.

> when
> they reported that the bullet was STEEL jacketed.

And we can be sure that it was, because...?

> Here's their report:
>
> http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-9nC-kt8dxgg/UH85l_CwkiI/AAAAAAAAAJc/lHpnNZTQS_c/s1600/WALKER+BULLET+STEEL+JACKETED.jpg
>
> Also the Dallas Morning News reported that a detective Ira Van Cleave
> said the bullet was from a 30.06!
>

Why do you seem like you just fell off the turnip truck? You have
claimed to be rather older than that.



> Chris
>

[Bud]

Not a ballistic report.

> http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-9nC-kt8dxgg/UH85l_CwkiI/AAAAAAAAAJc/lHpnNZTQS_c/s1600/WALKER+BULLET+STEEL+JACKETED.jpg
>
> Also the Dallas Morning News reported that a detective Ira Van Cleave
> said the bullet was from a 30.06!

They also reported that Tippit was killed at the Texas Theater.

> Chris