Well, by now you've seen much of the sworn testimony and documents
that I've put out as backup for what I believe. What is your specific
argument about any of it? I'll be happy to answer any reasonable
question.
>
> > Let's take the one that shows the BOH of JFK. Try and use the
> > instructions from Humes or Boswell to find the bullet holes in the BOH in
> > that one. I'll chuckle while you keep looking in vain, and I know the
> > photo is plenty clear enough to see a bullet hole if one was there. But
> > to make it worse, that photo had a drawing done of it by Ida Dox, who
> > copied it supposedly as exactly as possible. The laugh comes in when we
> > see that Ida has put in the bullet hole right where they told her to put
> > it, because it sure isn't in the photo that was copied! Here's the photo:
> >
> >
http://i318.photobucket.com/albums/mm433/JFKAUTOPSYPHOTOS/JFKcolor_boh_autopsy_photo.jpg
> >
>
> I have no idea what you are babling about, since what you linked to
> clearly shows the red spot near the Cowlick that was held by the various
> Panels that looked at it post-autopsy have said was the bullet entrance
> wound. Again even Wecht did did not disagree. But here is another view of
> it which I think shows the red spot a bit more vividly:
>
>
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-lLWqbNL8Zgo/UYraEfUOHfI/AAAAAAAAuis/RtjG5B8TugM/s1600/JFK_Autopsy_Photo_BOH.jpg
Interesting! You must not have done any research on that image. I
showed Humes' statement that the 'red spot' was NOTHING, and that he had
looked under the scalp and there was no matching hole in the skull. If
you need the text, let me know. And remember, Humes was there seeing the
scalp and not photos. I just spoke with John and he pointed me to the
location where the HSCA described the bullet hole in the BOH, and they
actually used the Dox DRAWING to show the location of the bullet ole.
THAT one shows a bullet hole where the 'red spot' used to be, so maybe
that's where you got the idea, from the panels. Here's another clue about
that photo...Thee is a list here of over 39 eyewitnesses to a 'large hole'
in the BOH of JFK, but it doesn't appear in the photo! Do you think
someone was playing around with the evidence?
>
>
> Now as to it differing than from the autopsist description I fully agree.
> Moreover, I agree that there is a mystery there that needs to be resolved.
> I have gone into this numerous times here, so you need only search: BT
> George and the Cowlick or EOP entry and I am quite sure you will quickly
> acertain my thouhts on that.
>
> I have no good explanation for where the red spot entrance wound appears
> to be on the BOH photo vs. where the significant *majority* of the other
> evidence places it. (E.g., the original and crystal clear versions in the
> NA of the Lateral X-ray and F10 photo were reviewed by Sturdivan/Zimmerman
> who both stated that these leave little or no doubt in thier minds that
> the entrance wound was much closer to the EOP as the original Autopsists
> described, than where it at least *appears* to be in the BOH photo---and I
> am not convinced of John Canal's attempts at resolution.) But I in *no*
> way believe the multiply reviewed/re-vetted autopsy evidence is faked or
> altered, nor that the body itself was altered.
See above.
I don't think the 'nest' was staged to frame Oswald. I believe he was
the 'patsy' from before the day of the killing. One scenario was that
Oswald wanted to get in with various groups and report to the FBI on what
they were doing. He got into this group and they had him bring in his MC
rifle and stack some boxes. He probably thought it was going to be some
tactic to scare politicians, like Connally. But whatever it was, he was
fooled up to the final moments when 2 men began shooting from the 6th
floor of the TSBD. One story has said that he was 'frozen' and just sat
there, which if it happened, would be when he realized this was all to
kill JFK, who he had said he "liked" and thought he was a "Great Leader".
After the shooting, the villains left and left Oswald there. He
figured out that he was the 'patsy', and he hightailed it out of there.
>
> I believe many of the photos and films of the
> > motorcade are mostly true also. I've seen proof that some of the Z-film
> > was altered, but that came from eyewitnesses to the original film who also
> > were CIA witnesses.
>
> ...IOW, I am dead *right* that in all *substance* that you think the
> photographic evidnce has been faked accordingly.
>
> >
> > So there is very little in that list of things that I considered fake.
> > The rifle was Oswald's and he worked at the TSBD. So a lot of what was
> > said was just plain made up, as LNs tend to do when they don't know what's
> > up.
> >
>
> I'll let the good lurkers/viewers out there decide just how much of what I
> said can be fairly called "made up".
>
> >
> > > (2) Numerous government officials high and low, federal, state, and city,
> > > military and civilian, all coordinated, and knowingly lied to cover up the
> > > murder of the POTUS.
> >
> >
> > WRONG again. How can you be so wrong so often?
>
> LOL! This Pot meet Kettle moment brought to you by Chris/Mainframetech!
>
> I think the DPD was
> > as honest or corrupt as any town's police dept. Not more or less.
>
> ...Well since they did a lot to help frame the Patsy by staging the crime
> scene and pursuing Oswald's guilt from a very early stage when he,
> himself, claimed they were using him as Patsy for having lived in the
> Soviet Union, when at stake was finding the "real) killer(s) of the POTUS,
> I'd say you must think most police departments are pretty corrupt Chris!
Nope. That varies with the attitudes of the higher ups.
> And
> > when the FBI came into the case early on, for the most part the local cops
> > deferred to them. There were a few people in various organizations that
> > were in the plot to murder JFK, but not whole organizations. Say about 20
> > on the front side and 30 on the back side. and that number hasn't changed
> > since my first look at the case. However, I believe that a number of
> > Mafia shooters were involved beyond those numbers, and a number of FBI
> > agents helped cover up many clues and statements to push the 'lone nut'
> > theory that was handed down by Hoover. But they were unaware of the plot.
> >
>
> In short, you have a *minumum* of 20 actors in "various organizations" not
> even counting Mafia hitmen. I guess you'll have to forgive me for
> thinking you have pretty wide-ranging plot with a lot of loose lips that
> could sink ships from a *very* early stage.
In 1963 there weren't too many Mafia shooters that would rat on their
bosses. And by now there have been a few people that have come out of
their shell and told their stories, but fear would keep most undercover.
BTW, the Mafia didn't really have hit men in the plot, those guys usually
walked up behind someone and shot them in the head, then the heart when
they fell. Not much long distance shooting.
> > > (3) Numerous recognized forensic, anthropological, photographic, and
> > > document examination experts either blundered in re-vetting the evidence
> > > in the years since the WC closed up shop, and/or also knowingly helped
> > > carried out the cover up.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > WRONG again! Where in the world do you get this stuff? NO EXPERTS
> > "knowingly helped" to cover up anything, other than the pathologists at
> > the autopsy, and they were ordered to tell a certain story in the Autopsy
> > Report. All the 'experts' that were later involved in looking over the
> > data they were allowed to see from the autopsy, were shown only what would
> > lead them to believe the cause of death as it had been stated by the
> > pathologists. They assumed from that info what the cause of death was.
> >
>
> So you deny willing involvement, but *not* where I said the part about
> "either blundered in..."
I believe there were 20 willing people at the front of the killing, and
30 at the back of the killing, and the 20 was part of the 30. No one else
was aware of the plot.
> And there is no two ways about it. All of the
> above were recognized as bona fide experts, and for them all to come away
> and not spot the fakery that you and others---cleaver amatuer sluths that
> you are---managed to figure out, involved a lot of "blundering" if I ever
> saw it pure and simple.
Not really. I'm finding out that the medical panels that were
elected to get into the data and make conclusions weren't shown the
complete sets of photos or X-rays. They were misled! The HSCA itself
actually showed the Dox Drawing of the BOH and used it to describe the BOH
wound! The real they didn't dare show because it had no bullet hole in
it!
> > > (4) Any witnesses whose testimony more closely matches the "official
> > > story" were either mistaken or lying too.
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > WRONG of course! Many statements were honest and could be believed.
> > The only places where you will find me disbelieving is where I can prove
> > someone was lying.
> >
>
> You need to read a bit more carfully. I didn't you thought they all were
> necessarily "lying" I said, "either *mistaken* or lying..." So since you
> do reject such "contra" witness statements and acknowledge you found some
> to be outright lying, tell me again where my statement is seriously in
> error?
Your statement was too broad. There were often honest statements and
only certain places where lying was done, like in the Autopsy Report (AR).
> > > *BUT* witnesses who give recollections that contradict that story (even if
> > > the recollections are put in writing 15-30 or more years after the fact)
> > > are to be believed as all costs!
> >
> >
> >
> > Nope, there is an overall view of the crime, and from that point of
> > view, one can see clearly that the crime was a conspiracy to murder.
> > With that in mind, many of the facts of the case begin to look very
> > different. In my view, the vast majority of eyewitness testimony is
> > corroborated and so is more to be believed whatever it's age.
> >
>
> So IOW, you approach the case and the witness statements having determined
> the "overall view of the crime" was "a conspiracy to commit murder" and it
> is at *that* point that one can see clearly see that "facts of the case
> begin to look very different." Excuse me, but I think that is the cart
> before the horse. The overall view of the crime should only be formed
> after weighing all the *facts* independent of a desired outcome.
>
Look at it like an amateur detective. You form various scenarios and
see if the evidence fits it. You also follow evidence and see where it
takes you without a scenario. You don't settle on a single scenario and
work that one only. You're constantly renewing your ideas, seeing if the
old scenarios still fit, and so forth.
> That means assigning relative weights to the available *evidence*. Find
> me any credibly modern case study of how crimes should be investigated and
> solved that places equal or greater weight upon witness statements (even
> early ones; still less those obtained years later) than on any available
> *hard* evidence that can be examined and vetted by trained experts, and
> maybe I'll say you are onto something. ...But until then you will have
> sail alone on the good ship "USS No Good Evidence or Rationale". :-)
So even though I have sworn testimony and documents and statements from
the witnesses, you think that I'm wasting my time? That only a few
scenarios fit ALL the data?
> > > ...Yepper. That's a "reasonable" and "fact based" approach if I ever saw
> > > one!
> >
> >
> >
> > So we've found that your narrative is phony from the word go, but I've
> > corrected much of it. and if you ever want to actually deal in facts of
> > the case, let me know.
Odd you would say that since that's the main thing I have dealt with.
I guess your afraid of proof, evidence, sworn testimony, and etc. You've
managed to ignore all of it.