Stuck at the "micro level"

[David Emerling]

I have seen this video several times and find it amusing each time I watch
it. I'm sure many of you have seen it before. It's a short segment of
Josiah Thompson examining the "Umbrella Man".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iuoZWb9gqv0

He says something at the beginning that got me thinking why this debate
persists between those who believe that there was some kind of conspiracy
and those who do not.

A common theme in almost ALL conspiracy theories is a very convoluted and
improbable world of things NOT being as they appear. And, it's not just
one or two things. I could understand that. But, it's virtually EVERYTHING
associated with the case. The CTs have a problem with it ALL. They have
problems with the rifle being the murder weapon, they have a problem with
the bullet discovered at Parkland, they have a problem with the backyard
photos, they have a problem with Howard Brennan's identification of a 6th
floor gunman, they have a problem with the autopsy, they have a problem
with the fingerprints .. the fibers ... the ballistics. They won't even
accept the testimony of Oswald's own wife, the one person who probably
knew him best. You name it and they have a problem with it.

They don't trust the FBI, the DPD, the Secret Service, the CIA or the
government. In one way or another, they ALL were involved in the
assassination in some sinister way.

The problem is that they tend to hyper-focus on very narrow issues,
usually in isolation, that have a little wiggle room for interpretation.
Invariably, they choose the most unlikely interpretation to foster their
inexplicable need for there to be a conspiracy. They do this when
perfectly plausible, and far simpler, explanations are staring them in the
face. They'll go others naive for not seeing the dark underbelly of this
complex plot - seemingly oblivious that their conspiracy brethren have a
completely different interpretation of this plot.

They are stuck at the micro-level of research, as Josiah Thompson would
call it, and do not even realize it. If you put your face too close to an
object, you cannot tell what you're looking at. You have to step back and
look at the whole thing. CTs cannot ... will not ... do that.

Thompson (a CT!) says:

"If you put any event under a microscope, you will find a whole dimension
of completely weird, incredible things going on. It's as if there's the
macro-level of historical research; where things sort of obey natural laws
and the usual things happen and unusual things don't happen. And then
there's this other level where everything where everything is really
weird." (Josiah Thompson, 11/22/2011)

David Emerling
Memphis, TN

[mainframetech]

Unfortunately, there's nothing here to argue with because it doesn't
prove anything of use. While I think the odds that 'umbrella man' was
just a guy trying to avoid the sun with his umbrella, or even was raising
it to protest Neville Chamberlain's act before WW2, it doesn't help the
fact that backing off and taking the larger overview shows conspiracy and
gives political and personal reasons for it.

Chris

[stevemg...@yahoo.com]

Sure, you put any event under a microscope and minutely examine the
behavior of everyone involved, directly or indirectly, and you'll find odd
things and actions. If you're conspiracy inclined then all or most of this
strange behavior must not be an accident, it must be by design, on
purpose.

From Hofstadter: "For every error or act of incompetence one can
substitute an act of treason."

For example: The Watergate burglars were discovered after one of the
burglars put tape over one of the door locks in the office they broke
into. A security guard, making his rounds, found the tape and removed it.
But the burglar put the tape BACK ON the lock. The security guard noticed
that tape was back on the lock and called the police.

If you believe that Nixon was a "patsy", that he was set up to be thrown
out of office then you'll reason that that burglar (Jeb Magruder) put the
tape back on IN ORDER to be discovered, in an act to undermine Nixon.

No, he was incompetent, he screwed up. But to a conspiracy believer there
are no or few accidents in history.

[Anthony Marsh]

Don't be silly. Show me anyone else that day holding up an open umbrella
after it had stopped raining.

> it to protest Neville Chamberlain's act before WW2, it doesn't help the
> fact that backing off and taking the larger overview shows conspiracy and
> gives political and personal reasons for it.
>

It didn't help that the HSCA lied and Witt lied about the umbrella and
turned it into a farce.

This was when the second HSCA was trying to rubberstamp the WC and shoot
down all the conspiracy theories.

> Chris
>

[tims...@gmail.com]

It probably doesn't help if you don't know how to do basic things, like
find documents, yet this lack doesn't prevent you from making sweeping and
sonorous pronouncements of conspiracy at every turn.

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 Mark Lane lied!

[David Emerling]

On Tuesday, April 14, 2015 at 12:26:52 PM UTC-5, mainframetech wrote:

> Unfortunately, there's nothing here to argue with because it doesn't
> prove anything of use. While I think the odds that 'umbrella man' was
> just a guy trying to avoid the sun with his umbrella, or even was raising
> it to protest Neville Chamberlain's act before WW2, it doesn't help the
> fact that backing off and taking the larger overview shows conspiracy and
> gives political and personal reasons for it.

The point of my post is not to engage in a discussion about the "Umbrella
Man" and whether there was something sinister behind it. Not even kooks
subscribe to that anymore - although this theory got a lot of mileage at
one time.

Let the young Bill O'Reilly tell you all about it:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_amPcU5YoKI

My point is Josiah Thompson's quote where he emphasizes that seemingly
weird things often have the most innocent explanations. The affliction of
the conspiracy theorists is that contradictions, conflicts and "weird
things" (inevitable events in a crime of this scope), to them, always seem
to be an indicator of some sinister activity involving a conspiracy. That
is an unjustifiable leap they make time and time again.

David Emerling
Memphis, TN

[Bud]

On Monday, April 13, 2015 at 10:44:18 PM UTC-4, David Emerling wrote:

> I have seen this video several times and find it amusing each time I watch
> it. I'm sure many of you have seen it before. It's a short segment of
> Josiah Thompson examining the "Umbrella Man".
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iuoZWb9gqv0
>
> He says something at the beginning that got me thinking why this debate
> persists between those who believe that there was some kind of conspiracy
> and those who do not.
>
> A common theme in almost ALL conspiracy theories is a very convoluted and
> improbable world of things NOT being as they appear. And, it's not just
> one or two things. I could understand that. But, it's virtually EVERYTHING
> associated with the case. The CTs have a problem with it ALL. They have
> problems with the rifle being the murder weapon, they have a problem with
> the bullet discovered at Parkland, they have a problem with the backyard
> photos, they have a problem with Howard Brennan's identification of a 6th
> floor gunman, they have a problem with the autopsy, they have a problem
> with the fingerprints .. the fibers ... the ballistics.

Not only that but many see the hands of the conspiracy at work at every
location. The Paine`s garage, the 6th floor of the TSBD, the Tippit
shooting scene, where the jacket was found in Oak Cliff, the Texas
Theater, the boardinghouse, the grassy knoll, the entrance to the TSBD,
ect.

> They won't even
> accept the testimony of Oswald's own wife, the one person who probably
> knew him best.

And had the best insight into his inner workings. Is there any question
why they are desperate to dismiss the information she provided?

> You name it and they have a problem with it.
>
> They don't trust the FBI, the DPD, the Secret Service, the CIA or the
> government. In one way or another, they ALL were involved in the
> assassination in some sinister way.
>
> The problem is that they tend to hyper-focus on very narrow issues,
> usually in isolation, that have a little wiggle room for interpretation.

I remember making the observation years ago that if a CTer wanted to
examine a tree they`d look an inch away directly at the bark, an approach
that would only tell you about a tree in a very limited sense.

[Robert Harris]

David Emerling wrote:
> I have seen this video several times and find it amusing each time I watch
> it. I'm sure many of you have seen it before. It's a short segment of
> Josiah Thompson examining the "Umbrella Man".
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iuoZWb9gqv0
>
> He says something at the beginning that got me thinking why this debate
> persists between those who believe that there was some kind of conspiracy
> and those who do not.

Those "who believe" and those who do not, are totally, 100% irrelevant.

What matters are the facts and evidence associated with this crime.
Instead of these endless, tedious ad hominem attacks, why don't you try
something new and look at the data?

I wrote this article, primarily for nutters. It isn't very long, so it's
easy to read in it's entirety. It is also well illustrated with photos
and short animations.

http://jfkhistory.com/WebArticle/article.html

Perhaps, in your next article, you might consider replacing your
accusations and smears with an honest evaluation of this article. These
facts have nothing to do with Robert Harris. They are everyone's. If I had
never been born, you would still need to deal with them.

Or....

You can just run like hell and make up some kind of pathetically lame
excuse, like you always do:-)


Robert Harris

[stevemg...@yahoo.com]

On Monday, April 13, 2015 at 9:44:18 PM UTC-5, David Emerling wrote:

Bugliosi, Reclaiming History, on conspiracy thinking (page 978):

"[O]ne of the principal frailties in the thinking processes of the
[conspiracy] theorists is that they rarely ever carry their suspicions,
which are based on some discrepancy, anomaly or contradiction they find,
to their logical conclusion. If they did, they'd see the reductio ad
absurdum of their position."

And, nut graf: "But for them, if something looks suspicious, that's
enough. Instead of asking, "Where does this go"? - that is, where does the
discrepancy, contradiction or whatever, lead them? - they imediately give
their minds a breather and conclude that what they find is itself proof of
a conspiracy (or proof that Oswald is innocent). The discrepancy or
contradiction is the ENTIRE story."

Merely if it "looks suspicious". That's why they spend all of their time
studying photos or the film or transcripts of testimony. That is, to find
some contradiction or discrepancy or inconsistency. Once found that BY
ITSELF is sufficient to show evidence of the conspiracy.

Instead of going another step to find out why that "whatever" took place,
they end their quest. The "whatever" alone is sufficient.

Conspiracy making on the cheap.

[claviger]

On Monday, April 13, 2015 at 9:44:18 PM UTC-5, David Emerling wrote:

David,

Excellent observations. Very well said. CTs are mesmerized by minutia.

[David Emerling]

On Tuesday, April 14, 2015 at 9:47:13 PM UTC-5, Robert Harris wrote:

> Those "who believe" and those who do not, are totally, 100% irrelevant.

I didn't say that it was relevant. If I thought that, I would allow the
polls to tell me what to believe.

The POINT of my post was to offer an explanation why this debate continues
to rage on. It's not because there are hidden documents yet to be
discovered. It's not because there is anything of significance left
unresolved. Everything we need to figure out what happened is before us.
It always has been.

But, if you put your face too close to everything and try to find an
explanation for all inconsistencies with the false premise that there WAS
a conspiracy - I guess you can find one - no matter how unprovable and
improbable it may be. I don't think it's an accident that the conspiracy
community has not moved closer to a consensus as to what happened after
half-a-century of trying. Instead, new aspects of the conspiracy keep
popping up all the time; coincidentally, more of them seem to spawn around
anniversaries of the assassination.

David Emerling
Memphis, TN

[Anthony Marsh]

By YOU do you mean Emerling?

That's silly. He said nothing like that. If you meant me, that is a
stealth attack and you are just latching onto his message to attack me.
You didn't understand my theory. Nixon was planning to cut the CIA by 1/4.
Helms got wind of that and used his assets to get rid of Nixon. No animus.
No assassination this time. Just give Nixon enough rope to hang himself.

[bigdog]

On Tuesday, April 14, 2015 at 10:37:34 PM UTC-4, David Emerling wrote:
>
> My point is Josiah Thompson's quote where he emphasizes that seemingly
> weird things often have the most innocent explanations. The affliction of
> the conspiracy theorists is that contradictions, conflicts and "weird
> things" (inevitable events in a crime of this scope), to them, always seem
> to be an indicator of some sinister activity involving a conspiracy. That
> is an unjustifiable leap they make time and time again.
>

This speaks to something I have often said about the conspiracy hobbyists.
They try to make their case for conspiracy by raising questions. They
rarely take the next logical step to try to find the answer to those
questions. Experience has taught them that when they take that step, the
answer isn't the one they wanted, so they stop at the question.

[mainframetech]

Claviger,

Have you ever noticed how many posts you make where minutiae is mostly
what you've put out?

Chris

[mainframetech]

Unfortunately, you didn't pick out an item as an example so it could
argued. Although you may not have wanted anyone to argue with you.

I'll give you an example of carting something to its' conclusion using
REAL events:

At the autopsy, the prosectors found that the back wound bullet did NOT
go more than an inch or so into JFK. It stopped at the pleura, a tissue
that surrounds the lungs. Why it was so weak we don't know now, but that
was the case. The way we know that is that the Wound Ballistics Expert,
Pierre Finck, said after a search for the path and the bullet, "There's NO
EXIT" from the body of JFK. The bullet that made the back wound was
missing though.

As well, the X-ray Technician, Jerrol Custer, wanting to move the body
for a better position for an X-ray saw a bullet drop FROM THE BODY to the
table. So the bullet was found.

Now, I'll carry it out to its logical conclusion, as I've done many
times in the past. When the bullet was found, and the path was not found
and the head Forensic Pathologist said "There's NO EXIT" for the bullet,
he was right. Therefore the bullet could NOT got out the throat wound and
then strike Connally! And that means that the 'single bullet' theory is
dead. And that means that there was another shooter firing at the limo
and its occupants. And that means that it was a conspiracy!!!

Now I could follow it out further to other conclusions about
investigation and such, but I'm sure by now you get the idea that your
wishes have been met.

For my part, I always carry something out to the conclusion. I'm the
guy that keeps telling folks to "think it through'. And hearing you say
the same warms my heart that someone got on the bandwagon.

Chris

[mainframetech]

On Tuesday, April 14, 2015 at 10:37:34 PM UTC-4, David Emerling wrote:
> On Tuesday, April 14, 2015 at 12:26:52 PM UTC-5, mainframetech wrote:
>
> > Unfortunately, there's nothing here to argue with because it doesn't
> > prove anything of use. While I think the odds that 'umbrella man' was
> > just a guy trying to avoid the sun with his umbrella, or even was raising
> > it to protest Neville Chamberlain's act before WW2, it doesn't help the
> > fact that backing off and taking the larger overview shows conspiracy and
> > gives political and personal reasons for it.
>
> The point of my post is not to engage in a discussion about the "Umbrella
> Man" and whether there was something sinister behind it. Not even kooks
> subscribe to that anymore - although this theory got a lot of mileage at
> one time.
>

I agree, I have no interest in discussing 'umbrella man' either.

> Let the young Bill O'Reilly tell you all about it:
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_amPcU5YoKI
>

I also have little belief in what O'Reilly says, at least his opinions.
Anything else was straight reporting.

> My point is Josiah Thompson's quote where he emphasizes that seemingly
> weird things often have the most innocent explanations. The affliction of
> the conspiracy theorists is that contradictions, conflicts and "weird
> things" (inevitable events in a crime of this scope), to them, always seem
> to be an indicator of some sinister activity involving a conspiracy. That
> is an unjustifiable leap they make time and time again.
>
> David Emerling
> Memphis, TN

I appreciate your explaining your point that used Thompson. However, as
with 'Occam's Razor', it's a guideline, NOT a hard and fast rule.
Humans, even natives in the jungle, gravitate to conspiracies both large
and small where it will serve their needs (or wants). In politics, we
should be wary of the politicians and their intentions, as some of the
founders made clear. When taking an overview of this case, it's easy to
see that it was a conspiracy to get JFK out of the way for a few reasons.
When one goes through the details of the Reagan shooting, little of any
suspicious nature appears. Because there was nothing suspicious about a
'lone nut' trying to kill the president.

But in the JFK case, the many items of interest just overwhelm the
normal person. It takes a religious believer to hold to the tired old
WCR.

Chris

[mainframetech]

Odd that you would say that. I provide links to most of the things I
put out at least the first time. After that sometimes I provide them, BUT
when asked, I provide backup for almost everything I say. Most of what I
say comes form sworn testimony or statements on the record, and I'll be
glad to do the same for you, if you can think of an argument of mine that
you disagree with. Let me know, I'll be here.

Chris

[mainframetech]

Or it would be easier to say that LN kooks will see accidents or lies
everywhere.

Chris

[mainframetech]

don't be silly. I've yasken many discoveries to their logical end.
Like the proof I showed you that the back wound bullet didn't come out od
the throat wound and twear into Connally. I then explained that it meant
that the single bullet theory was dead, and then I explained to you that
it meant that there was at least a second shooter because there weren't
enough bullets in the TSBD to explain all the shots...:)

Chris

[mainframetech]

Interesting enough, I came across a new fact (certainly new to me) that
is important to the case to do with the autopsy. I was browsing some of
the ARRB files, and there it was! Bing even more solid proof that the SBT
was dead. It was a surprise, and it had to do wit hthe discovery that one
of the autopsy assistants came across the bullet that was supposed to have
come out of JFK's throat and hit Connally! And here it was having fallen
out of the back of JFK onto the table in front of an X-ray technician.
And further proof of the 'disappearing' of evidence, one of the prosectors
grabbed it and it was never seen again, even though bullets found during
the autopsy should have gone to the FBI custodian.

So two birds killed with one bullet. The SBT theory and the 'lone nut'
theory.

Chris

[Sandy McCroskey]

And that's one of the most outrageously funny, as well as most
pathetically ironic things, I have ever seen, here or anywhere else!

[Sandy McCroskey]

Yeah, like when he asks you for a remotely plausible position for a
shooter thru the windshield. *That* kind of "minutiae."

I can see how that would piss you off.

[Alex Foyle]

On Thursday, April 16, 2015 at 4:28:20 PM UTC+2, Sandy McCroskey wrote:
> On 4/15/15 5:27 PM, mainframetech wrote:

> > At the autopsy, the prosectors found that the back wound bullet did NOT
> > go more than an inch or so into JFK.

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz .... is that horse mush yet or what?

> > For my part, I always carry something out to the conclusion. I'm the
> > guy that keeps telling folks to "think it through'.
>
> And that's one of the most outrageously funny, as well as most
> pathetically ironic things, I have ever seen, here or anywhere else!

I agree and thanks for pointing it out, because since I don't read
mainframetechs posts anymore I would have missed this golden keeper.

[Anthony Marsh]

There are several POSSIBLE positions, but none of them are possible.
I'm still waiting for the hovering UFO theory to pop up.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 4/13/2015 10:44 PM, David Emerling wrote:
> I have seen this video several times and find it amusing each time I watch
> it. I'm sure many of you have seen it before. It's a short segment of
> Josiah Thompson examining the "Umbrella Man".
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iuoZWb9gqv0
>

There are a couple of problems with his explanation. First, he incorrectly
says that it can't be a political protest against Kennedy. But that is
exactly what it was intended to be. For Kennedy appeasing the Communists.
The allusion is to his father's support for Neville Chamberlain who
appeased Hitler. That's way too subtle for some people to understand. Just
like some morons here did not understand the political protests made
against Hillary Clinton. Some people use Street Theater to make political
protests.

Nor will they get it when Karl Rove hires 50 brunettes to show up at a
Clinton Rally wearing stained blue dresses.

One of the best I heard of was by Studs Terkel. When Nixon went to
Chinatown for a rally, he had them write a sign in Chinese which said,
"Ask him about the Hughes loan."

The second problem is that Tink says that Witt took the umbrella with him
to testify at the HSCA. But in fact that umbrella was a different
umbrella. So is it even possible to make a dart launcher out of an
umbrella? Maythbusters did it, but they were not available in 1963.

[Sandy McCroskey]

You're making as much sense as ever.

[David Emerling]

On Wednesday, April 15, 2015 at 4:30:01 PM UTC-5, mainframetech wrote:

> Or it would be easier to say that LN kooks will see accidents or lies
> everywhere.

LNs seldom attribute "lies" to testimony. In fact, I would say the reverse
is true. More commonly, when somebody testifies to something that
indicates Oswald's guilt, the CTs claim they are lying.

More often than not we (the LNs) conclude the person is simply mistaken -
a much more common phenomenon among witnesses than outright lies. An
example of that is Governor Connally's bedside interview shortly after the
assassination. He told the interviewer that, after the first shot, he
turned around and saw the president slump. One can easily see on the the
Zapruder film that that never happened. Later, Connally got the
opportunity to view the Zapruder film. He never repeated seeing the
president slump again. In fact, he told the WC that he never saw the
president at any time during the shooting. Lying? Mistaken? I don't think
he was thinking all that clearly just a few days after the assassination
and was simply filling in blanks with presumptions - not with any intent
of malice, however.

Yet, I *do* think much of what people have come up over time is a lie. For
instance, I think many of Jean Hill's and Roger Craig's stories evolved
over the years. I consider those outright lies. I don't conclude that
they're lying simply because their observations are not consistent with
Oswald acting alone - it's because their stories have all the earmarks of
a lie. Their stories are 1) not supported by the evidence 2) oftentimes
belated and 3) evolve with added and changing details with the passage of
time.

As far as "accidents" go - I think that Hanlon's Razor explains much of
this. Like Occam's Razor, there are many ways of saying it. One such
version is: Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained
by stupidity (or incompetence).

On the other hand, most CTs see an "accident" as the tip of the iceberg -
the iceberg being the assassination plot or the cover-up.

Example: While the presidential limousine was sitting outside Parkland,
after Kennedy and Connally had been rushed into the trauma rooms, one of
the Secret Service agents (I think, Sam Kinney) was wiping down and
cleaning up the backseat of the car.

The CTs scream, "Tampering with the crime scene!" ... "Removing evidence!"

Should this agent have done this? Probably not. Was he part of the
conspiracy to remove or alter evidence that might be valuable to the
investigators? I seriously doubt that was his intent.

My guess is that he was simply trying to remove the blood & gore from the
backseat since it seemed unseemly and disrespectful to allow it to remain
there - not knowing if they might be using the limo again that day. I
subscribe no malice of intent. It's just one of those things that were
done that probably should not have been done.

David Emerling
Memphis, TN

[mainframetech]

Well, you see the prosectors at the autopsy found out that the back
wound didn't go more than an inch or so! They used probes that stopped at
that point, and they poked their fingers into the wound and got the same
result. A person watching from inside the body cavity SAW the probe
striking against the pleura (tissue surrounding the lungs) and that it
couldn't go further. So the inch or so is verified by them. When Custer
(X-ray Technician) saw a bullet fall form the BACK when the body was
moved, that cinched it. The bullet didn't go in too far and quickly
worked itself out. Here's sworn testimony of James Sibert (FBI agent):

"But when they raised him up, then they
found this back wound. And that's when they
started probing with the rubber glove and the
finger, and - and also with the chrome probe.
And that's just before, of course, I made
this call, because they were at a loss to explain
what had happened to this bullet. They couldn't
find any bullet.
And they said, 'There's no exit." Finck,
in particular, said, "There's no exit." And they
said that you could feel it with the end of the
finger - I mean, the depth of this wound."
From: http://aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/arrb/medical_testimony/pdf/Sibert_9-11-97.pdf
Page 111

And then we have the sworn testimony of Jerrol Custer (Bethesda X-ray
Technician):

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

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

Page 53


Now you may want to take issue with the sworn testimony of those two
people, but I really wonder what sort of opposition you can offer to
it...:)

Chris

[Anthony Marsh]

The storm drain POSITION is possible, but a shot from there is not.

[bigdog]

On Wednesday, April 15, 2015 at 9:33:50 PM UTC-4, mainframetech wrote:
> On Wednesday, April 15, 2015 at 5:23:28 PM UTC-4, bigdog wrote:
> > On Tuesday, April 14, 2015 at 10:37:34 PM UTC-4, David Emerling wrote:
> > >
> > > My point is Josiah Thompson's quote where he emphasizes that seemingly
> > > weird things often have the most innocent explanations. The affliction of
> > > the conspiracy theorists is that contradictions, conflicts and "weird
> > > things" (inevitable events in a crime of this scope), to them, always seem
> > > to be an indicator of some sinister activity involving a conspiracy. That
> > > is an unjustifiable leap they make time and time again.
> > >
> >
> > This speaks to something I have often said about the conspiracy hobbyists.
> > They try to make their case for conspiracy by raising questions. They
> > rarely take the next logical step to try to find the answer to those
> > questions. Experience has taught them that when they take that step, the
> > answer isn't the one they wanted, so they stop at the question.
>
>
> don't be silly. I've yasken many discoveries to their logical end.
> Like the proof I showed you that the back wound bullet didn't come out od
> the throat wound and twear into Connally.

You've presented proof of nothing. What you have presented is a bunch of
nonsense spoon fed to you by a charlatan named Doug Horne.

> I then explained that it meant
> that the single bullet theory was dead,

Yeah, you screwed that up too.

> and then I explained to you that
> it meant that there was at least a second shooter because there weren't
> enough bullets in the TSBD to explain all the shots...:)

One silly conclusion usually leads to another.

[bigdog]

On Wednesday, April 15, 2015 at 9:35:53 PM UTC-4, mainframetech wrote:
> On Wednesday, April 15, 2015 at 3:51:22 PM UTC-4, David Emerling wrote:
> > On Tuesday, April 14, 2015 at 9:47:13 PM UTC-5, Robert Harris wrote:
> >
> > > Those "who believe" and those who do not, are totally, 100% irrelevant.
> >
> > I didn't say that it was relevant. If I thought that, I would allow the
> > polls to tell me what to believe.
> >
> > The POINT of my post was to offer an explanation why this debate continues
> > to rage on. It's not because there are hidden documents yet to be
> > discovered. It's not because there is anything of significance left
> > unresolved. Everything we need to figure out what happened is before us.
> > It always has been.
> >
> > But, if you put your face too close to everything and try to find an
> > explanation for all inconsistencies with the false premise that there WAS
> > a conspiracy - I guess you can find one - no matter how unprovable and
> > improbable it may be. I don't think it's an accident that the conspiracy
> > community has not moved closer to a consensus as to what happened after
> > half-a-century of trying. Instead, new aspects of the conspiracy keep
> > popping up all the time; coincidentally, more of them seem to spawn around
> > anniversaries of the assassination.
> >
> > David Emerling
> > Memphis, TN
>
>
> Interesting enough, I came across a new fact (certainly new to me)

i.e. a 20 year old factoid.

> that
> is important to the case to do with the autopsy. I was browsing some of
> the ARRB files, and there it was! Bing even more solid proof that the SBT
> was dead. It was a surprise, and it had to do wit hthe discovery that one
> of the autopsy assistants came across the bullet that was supposed to have
> come out of JFK's throat and hit Connally! And here it was having fallen
> out of the back of JFK onto the table in front of an X-ray technician.
> And further proof of the 'disappearing' of evidence, one of the prosectors
> grabbed it and it was never seen again, even though bullets found during
> the autopsy should have gone to the FBI custodian.
>
> So two birds killed with one bullet. The SBT theory and the 'lone nut'
> theory.

Custer claimed this bullet was an inch and a half long. Only very high
powered bullets are that big and those bullets don't penetrate a few
inches and then fall out. Couldn't happen. Not once. Not ever. Conclusion:
Custer is full of shit.

[mainframetech]

On Friday, April 17, 2015 at 2:51:19 PM UTC-4, David Emerling wrote:
> On Wednesday, April 15, 2015 at 4:30:01 PM UTC-5, mainframetech wrote:
>
> > Or it would be easier to say that LN kooks will see accidents or lies
> > everywhere.
>
> LNs seldom attribute "lies" to testimony. In fact, I would say the reverse
> is true. More commonly, when somebody testifies to something that
> indicates Oswald's guilt, the CTs claim they are lying.
>

I just today answered bd who called a person giving sworn testimony a
liar! I think it happens more than you think.

> More often than not we (the LNs) conclude the person is simply mistaken -
> a much more common phenomenon among witnesses than outright lies. An
> example of that is Governor Connally's bedside interview shortly after the
> assassination. He told the interviewer that, after the first shot, he
> turned around and saw the president slump. One can easily see on the the
> Zapruder film that that never happened. Later, Connally got the
> opportunity to view the Zapruder film. He never repeated seeing the
> president slump again. In fact, he told the WC that he never saw the
> president at any time during the shooting. Lying? Mistaken? I don't think
> he was thinking all that clearly just a few days after the assassination
> and was simply filling in blanks with presumptions - not with any intent
> of malice, however.
>

Unfortunately, I have to tell you that the Z-film was altered. I know
that is a buzzword and carries a stigma put on it by the LNs, but the
proof lies in both a witness and analyses.


The witness was Dino Brugione, CIA Film Analyst. He saw the original
film on Saturday, the day after the murder. The film was run over and
over to be sure which frames he and his team were to extract for briefing
boards for higher ups. When he later saw the current version of the film
that we're are familiar with, he was "shocked" at the alteration that had
been done to the film, especially at the point known as frame 313. His
statements are in an interview here:

https://vimeo.com/102327635

At this point a good question would be 'what was the CIA doing with the
film, when it had been completely developed in Dallas'? On the very next
day the Z-film was in the hands of Homer McMahon, another CIA Film
Analyst, to again extract briefing boards, but different ones than
Brugione team picked off. The two teams were NOT aware of each other.
In between a 'runner' gave away that the film had come from the "Hawkeye
Works" in Rochester, NY. The name was a CIA assigned name. That lab was
supposed to have the latest and best film equipment available.
Brugione's statements cover most of this information, if you decided to
watch the video above. There is also a statement to the ARRB from Homer
McMahon here to help prove the above statements from me:

http://www.manuscriptservice.com/NPIC-DougHorne/HomerMcMahonTranscript.pdf

> Yet, I *do* think much of what people have come up over time is a lie. For
> instance, I think many of Jean Hill's and Roger Craig's stories evolved
> over the years. I consider those outright lies. I don't conclude that
> they're lying simply because their observations are not consistent with
> Oswald acting alone - it's because their stories have all the earmarks of
> a lie. Their stories are 1) not supported by the evidence 2) oftentimes
> belated and 3) evolve with added and changing details with the passage of
> time.
>
> As far as "accidents" go - I think that Hanlon's Razor explains much of
> this. Like Occam's Razor, there are many ways of saying it. One such
> version is: Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained
> by stupidity (or incompetence).
>

Again, as with Occam's Razor, that is a guideline, not a rule.
Absolutes can do us in at times.

> On the other hand, most CTs see an "accident" as the tip of the iceberg -
> the iceberg being the assassination plot or the cover-up.
>
> Example: While the presidential limousine was sitting outside Parkland,
> after Kennedy and Connally had been rushed into the trauma rooms, one of
> the Secret Service agents (I think, Sam Kinney) was wiping down and
> cleaning up the backseat of the car.
>
> The CTs scream, "Tampering with the crime scene!" ... "Removing evidence!"
>
> Should this agent have done this? Probably not. Was he part of the
> conspiracy to remove or alter evidence that might be valuable to the
> investigators? I seriously doubt that was his intent.
>
> My guess is that he was simply trying to remove the blood & gore from the
> backseat since it seemed unseemly and disrespectful to allow it to remain
> there - not knowing if they might be using the limo again that day. I
> subscribe no malice of intent. It's just one of those things that were
> done that probably should not have been done.
>
> David Emerling
> Memphis, TN

I agree, though he should have thought before acting. The end result
is the same. Evidence was possibly damaged.

I'm not as sure that I would attribute an accident to the other case
where the SS almost came to a physical fight, where it is argued that guns
were deployed at Parkland exit when they were trying to grab the body of
JFK and remove it from the legal venue where it was supposed to be for the
Medical Examiner to do an autopsy. The M.E. (Earl Rose) argued with the
SS agents and told them they were breaking the law, and they took the body
anyway. See, these 'accidents' work out very well if there had been a
conspiracy, because the CTs say that the body had to be brought to a
military installation where they could control what happened through
orders to the military people doing any work on the body.

It's another part of the story, but the military pathologists (Humes
and Boswell) were given the body earlier than the autopsy was scheduled
for at 8:00pm. They got it at 6:35pm, (documented through the after
action report of Sgt. Roger Boyajian, who ran the detail for security for
the body and the morgue. These 2 pathologists were seen by 2 witnesses
going at the head with scalpels and bone saw. The witnesses were Ed Reed,
Navy X-ray Technician (sworn ARRB testimony), and Tom Robinson (mortician)
(ARRB statement). The condition of the head at Parkland was that there
was ONLY a 'large hole' at the BOH and no other damage, and that was noted
by Nurse Diana Bowron who washed the body and the head and wrapped it in a
sheet. I know from personal experience that if you handle a head that has
been broken up inside the scalp and it doesn't show, you know immediately
that the damage is there as soon as you put your hands on the head.

The descriptions of the head wound condition just after Parkland were
noted by over 40+ witnesses, and there is a list you can browse of those
names, their words, and a link to the context so you can check it out.
Here are a number of witnesses that described the state of the head at
Parkland:

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

Then there are a number of descriptions of the head wound after Humes
and Boswell got at the head during clandestine 'surgery' at Bethesda.
They had 42 minutes to find bullets and fragments (a priority told to the
X-ray technicians) before the SS and FBI agents and the Kennedy family
arrived.

http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/boh/beth/beth.htm

After Humes and Boswell began working on the head, Ed Reed was kicked
out of the morgue, but Tom Robinson who wasn't military was left to watch.
Robinson saw the clandestine surgery, and stayed on right through the real
autopsy at 8:00pm. At that time, the body had ben put back in the Bronze
Casket and then was taken out for the 8:00pm autopsy, where a number of
people noticed that extra 'surgery' had been done to the head. The FBI
report for the 2 agents that observed the autopsy said:

"Following the removal of the wrapping, it was ascertained that the
President's clothing had been removed and it was also apparent that a
tracheotomy had been performed, as well as surgery of the head area,
namely, in the top of the skull."

From: http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/md44/html/Image3.htm

The clandestine 'surgery' had been noticed! Humes made a few comments
to try to divorce himself from the guilt of doing the 'surgery', and the
autopsy went on as usual. He also pulled the brain out easily and
commented, as if he hadn't done it already earlier, that "it just fell out
in my hands". This was a plain lie. The brain cannot 'fall out into the
hands' of anyone until the brain stem is cut and the optic nerves are cut.
Both must be done first. So the clandestine surgery that Humes and
Boswell did was corroborated by Humes trying to cover up his involvement
in what he did BEFORE the autopsy.

NOTE: at Parkland the 'large hole' in the BOH of JFK was far too small
to let the brain come out. After the work done by Humes and Boswell, it
came out through the hole they expanded easily.

The above story is covered in the sworn ARRB testimony of Ed Reed, and
the statements made to the ARRB by Tom Robinson, as well as some of the
report of the 2 FBI agents that observed the autopsy. Their info is here
and was put together only a couple days after the murder:

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/md44/html/Image3.htm


The FBI agent (James Sibert and Frank O'Neill both gave separate sworn
testimony to the ARRB investigators at a later time, and it can be found
In the ARRB files.

If you have any doubts about anything above, let me know. I can fill in
with sworn testimony and official statements for anything you may wonder
about.


Sometimes it is hard to change one's minds with new information.

Chris

[mainframetech]

On Friday, April 17, 2015 at 9:18:05 PM UTC-4, bigdog wrote:
> On Wednesday, April 15, 2015 at 9:35:53 PM UTC-4, mainframetech wrote:
> > On Wednesday, April 15, 2015 at 3:51:22 PM UTC-4, David Emerling wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, April 14, 2015 at 9:47:13 PM UTC-5, Robert Harris wrote:
> > >
> > > > Those "who believe" and those who do not, are totally, 100% irrelevant.
> > >
> > > I didn't say that it was relevant. If I thought that, I would allow the
> > > polls to tell me what to believe.
> > >
> > > The POINT of my post was to offer an explanation why this debate continues
> > > to rage on. It's not because there are hidden documents yet to be
> > > discovered. It's not because there is anything of significance left
> > > unresolved. Everything we need to figure out what happened is before us.
> > > It always has been.
> > >
> > > But, if you put your face too close to everything and try to find an
> > > explanation for all inconsistencies with the false premise that there WAS
> > > a conspiracy - I guess you can find one - no matter how unprovable and
> > > improbable it may be. I don't think it's an accident that the conspiracy
> > > community has not moved closer to a consensus as to what happened after
> > > half-a-century of trying. Instead, new aspects of the conspiracy keep
> > > popping up all the time; coincidentally, more of them seem to spawn around
> > > anniversaries of the assassination.
> > >
> > > David Emerling
> > > Memphis, TN
> >
> >

> > Interesting enough, I came across a new fact (certainly new to me) that

> > is important to the case to do with the autopsy. I was browsing some of
> > the ARRB files, and there it was! Bing even more solid proof that the SBT
> > was dead. It was a surprise, and it had to do with the discovery that one
> > of the autopsy assistants came across the bullet that was supposed to have
> > come out of JFK's throat and hit Connally! And here it was having fallen
> > out of the back of JFK onto the table in front of an X-ray technician.
> > And further proof of the 'disappearing' of evidence, one of the prosectors
> > grabbed it and it was never seen again, even though bullets found during
> > the autopsy should have gone to the FBI custodian.
> >
> > So two birds killed with one bullet. The SBT theory and the 'lone nut'
> > theory.
>
> Custer claimed this bullet was an inch and a half long. Only very high
> powered bullets are that big and those bullets don't penetrate a few
> inches and then fall out. Couldn't happen. Not once. Not ever. Conclusion:
> Custer is full of shit.

No, actually, you're full of it, because you have made a few mistakes.
A high powered bullet might well get as far as the victim and penetrate
only an inch or so. But when the prosectors proved that the bullet never
got past the pleura (tissue surrounding the lungs), they also proved that
the bullet from the back wound couldn't have gone past the body of JFK.
Remember Finck's comment, "There's NO EXIT" for the bullet to lwave and
hit Connally.

As well, Custer I'm sure wasn't holding a ruler at the time the bullet
fell out from the back, and his estimate of size was just that. and
Estimate. We know many military bullets of the time (1963) were at least
1.25 inches, so any of them could fill the bill as the one that fell out.
One of the reasons that Finck grabbed the bullet and it was never seen
again.

Chris

[mainframetech]

On Friday, April 17, 2015 at 9:17:38 PM UTC-4, bigdog wrote:
> On Wednesday, April 15, 2015 at 9:33:50 PM UTC-4, mainframetech wrote:
> > On Wednesday, April 15, 2015 at 5:23:28 PM UTC-4, bigdog wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, April 14, 2015 at 10:37:34 PM UTC-4, David Emerling wrote:
> > > >
> > > > My point is Josiah Thompson's quote where he emphasizes that seemingly
> > > > weird things often have the most innocent explanations. The affliction of
> > > > the conspiracy theorists is that contradictions, conflicts and "weird
> > > > things" (inevitable events in a crime of this scope), to them, always seem
> > > > to be an indicator of some sinister activity involving a conspiracy. That
> > > > is an unjustifiable leap they make time and time again.
> > > >
> > >
> > > This speaks to something I have often said about the conspiracy hobbyists.
> > > They try to make their case for conspiracy by raising questions. They
> > > rarely take the next logical step to try to find the answer to those
> > > questions. Experience has taught them that when they take that step, the
> > > answer isn't the one they wanted, so they stop at the question.
> >
> >

> > don't be silly. I've taken many discoveries to their logical end.
> > Like the proof I showed you that the back wound bullet didn't come out of
> > the throat wound and right into Connally.

>
> You've presented proof of nothing. What you have presented is a bunch of
> nonsense spoon fed to you by a charlatan named Doug Horne.
>

::: sigh ::: Wrong again! Schooling follows: As you well know and have
had it explained to you over and over (and here you go again) I don't
listen to Doug Horne nor serve his purposes. I've checked out his
statements in the record and find most of them correct, and if I have
found that something is in the record, I bring it out. That seems to
really irritate you and so you follow me around trying to use insults and
bad logic and emotional arguments to try and cover up what I have to say.
It won't wash.

Now do you want to get back to trying to make a concise argument about
the back wound and the bullet that was found as it fell out of the back?
And once we accept that we can move on to extending it out to its logical
end, which is that the 'single bullet' theory is dead because the bullet
was found at the autopsy, and so could NOT have gone out the throat wound
and hit Connally. And to take that to its logical conclusion, that means
that there was another shooter, making the case one of conspiracy. I can
take it further, but the powers that be won't respond at this time unless
the whole nation gets up in arms about it. Still, the real story is
slowly coming out, mostly from the ARRB, of which Doug Horne was a major
factor.

> > I then explained that it meant
> > that the single bullet theory was dead,
>
> Yeah, you screwed that up too.
>

Nope, won't do. Can you get anything right? I have factual information
from the record backing me, all you have are theories of the WC lawyers.

> > and then I explained to you that
> > it meant that there was at least a second shooter because there weren't
> > enough bullets in the TSBD to explain all the shots...:)
>
> One silly conclusion usually leads to another.

Well now, you've gone wrong again! You were the one that was whining
and complaining that no CTs carried out their ideas to their logical end,
and so I've been doing that for you, so that you can see where these ideas
go...:)

Chris

[Alex Foyle]

On Friday, April 17, 2015 at 9:07:58 PM UTC+2, mainframetech wrote:

> Well, you see the prosectors at the autopsy found out that the back

Still Zzzzzzzzzzzzzz ... how many times has it been explained to you that
your (or Horne's) "prosectors" theory is completely impossible when you
look at the totality of testimonies of all involved at the autopsy? You
still harp on and it's really tiring.

So far we engaged once in a Roger Craig thread and you showed the same
lack of reasoning or weighing the actual evidence. Unless you open
yourself to a critical review of your cherished (mostly Horne infested)
beliefs I say farewell, Chris.

Btw do you also post at Duncan's www.jfkassassinationforum.com ...? If
yes, under which name? I post there occassionally under Alex Foyle.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 4/17/2015 9:17 PM, bigdog wrote:
> On Wednesday, April 15, 2015 at 9:33:50 PM UTC-4, mainframetech wrote:
>> On Wednesday, April 15, 2015 at 5:23:28 PM UTC-4, bigdog wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, April 14, 2015 at 10:37:34 PM UTC-4, David Emerling wrote:
>>>>
>>>> My point is Josiah Thompson's quote where he emphasizes that seemingly
>>>> weird things often have the most innocent explanations. The affliction of
>>>> the conspiracy theorists is that contradictions, conflicts and "weird
>>>> things" (inevitable events in a crime of this scope), to them, always seem
>>>> to be an indicator of some sinister activity involving a conspiracy. That
>>>> is an unjustifiable leap they make time and time again.
>>>>
>>>
>>> This speaks to something I have often said about the conspiracy hobbyists.
>>> They try to make their case for conspiracy by raising questions. They
>>> rarely take the next logical step to try to find the answer to those
>>> questions. Experience has taught them that when they take that step, the
>>> answer isn't the one they wanted, so they stop at the question.
>>
>>
>> don't be silly. I've yasken many discoveries to their logical end.
>> Like the proof I showed you that the back wound bullet didn't come out od
>> the throat wound and twear into Connally.
>
> You've presented proof of nothing. What you have presented is a bunch of
> nonsense spoon fed to you by a charlatan named Doug Horne.
>

Not just Doug Horne. Some is from his imagination too. And don't forget
David Lifton and James Fetzer.

[BT George]

Alex. Chris' endless arguments from minutiae and the parsing together of
desirable testimonies, while IGNORING the real-world grossly improbable to
downright impossible nature of much of what he believes, has led me to the
same stance. Debate with him is completely fruitless as discussing at
length from what could very well have have happened---if it only weren't
for that little impossible-in-the-real-world problem---is the height of
futility.

BT George

[mainframetech]

On Saturday, April 18, 2015 at 11:41:27 PM UTC-4, Alex Foyle wrote:
> On Friday, April 17, 2015 at 9:07:58 PM UTC+2, mainframetech wrote:
>
> > Well, you see the prosectors at the autopsy found out that the back
>
> Still Zzzzzzzzzzzzzz ... how many times has it been explained to you that
> your (or Horne's) "prosectors" theory is completely impossible when you
> look at the totality of testimonies of all involved at the autopsy? You
> still harp on and it's really tiring.
>

You have the intelligence and the ability to press a button and pass up
reading the wonderful words that I put out. I wouldn't put them out if bd
didn't raise the exact same points over and over. Why didn't you tell him
to stop repeating himself all the time?

> So far we engaged once in a Roger Craig thread and you showed the same
> lack of reasoning or weighing the actual evidence. Unless you open
> yourself to a critical review of your cherished (mostly Horne infested)
> beliefs I say farewell, Chris.
>

See ya. I can hold to my beliefs as tightly as the LN kooks do to their
theories from the WC lawyers.

> Btw do you also post at Duncan's www.jfkassassinationforum.com ...? If
> yes, under which name? I post there occassionally under Alex Foyle.

Nope, I usually stick with one forum until I leave it. Though I've been
thinking of branching out.

Chris

[bigdog]

Really? Tell us what kind of bullet could do that. Tell us the size. Tell
us it's muzzle velocity. Tell us the distance it was fired from. All of
those factors are relevant to penetrating power. Also relevant is the
composition of the bullet. A FMJ bullet is designed not to deform when
striking soft tissue which would give them maximum penetration. A solid
lead or hollow point bullet does mushroom upon impact which reduces
penetration but would make it impossible for it to fall out since it would
become larger than the diameter of the entry hole. There isn't a high
powered bullet made that penetrates only a few inches into soft tissue. If
it did, it wouldn't be high powered.

> But when the prosectors proved that the bullet never
> got past the pleura (tissue surrounding the lungs), they also proved that
> the bullet from the back wound couldn't have gone past the body of JFK.
> Remember Finck's comment, "There's NO EXIT" for the bullet to lwave and
> hit Connally.
>

Oft repeated nonsense ignored.

> As well, Custer I'm sure wasn't holding a ruler at the time the bullet
> fell out from the back, and his estimate of size was just that. and
> Estimate. We know many military bullets of the time (1963) were at least
> 1.25 inches, so any of them could fill the bill as the one that fell out.
> One of the reasons that Finck grabbed the bullet and it was never seen
> again.
>

Those military bullets aren't going to stop after a few inches. This is
just the sort of nonsense you are forced to propose to try to salvage you
silly theories.

[bigdog]

It isn't the record that is bullshit. It is what you and Horne conclude
from that information which is bullshit. And not very good bullshit
either.

> Now do you want to get back to trying to make a concise argument about
> the back wound and the bullet that was found as it fell out of the back?

Why would I waste time arguing about something that didn't happen. That
couldn't have happened.

> And once we accept that we can move on to extending it out to its logical
> end,

Your choo-choo train jumped the logic tracks many miles back.

> which is that the 'single bullet' theory is dead because the bullet
> was found at the autopsy, and so could NOT have gone out the throat wound
> and hit Connally. And to take that to its logical conclusion, that means
> that there was another shooter, making the case one of conspiracy. I can
> take it further, but the powers that be won't respond at this time unless
> the whole nation gets up in arms about it. Still, the real story is
> slowly coming out, mostly from the ARRB, of which Doug Horne was a major
> factor.
>

Start with a ridiculous premise and you are sure to arrive at a ridiculous
conclusion.

>
>
> > > I then explained that it meant
> > > that the single bullet theory was dead,
> >
> > Yeah, you screwed that up too.
> >
>
>
>
> Nope, won't do. Can you get anything right? I have factual information
> from the record backing me, all you have are theories of the WC lawyers.
>

Your theories are a concoction of bullshit, horseshit, and chickenshit.

>
>
> > > and then I explained to you that
> > > it meant that there was at least a second shooter because there weren't
> > > enough bullets in the TSBD to explain all the shots...:)
> >
> > One silly conclusion usually leads to another.
>
>
> Well now, you've gone wrong again! You were the one that was whining
> and complaining that no CTs carried out their ideas to their logical end,

To do that, you have to have a logical start.

> and so I've been doing that for you, so that you can see where these ideas
> go...:)
>

Out into the Conspiracyland wilderness where you are doomed to wander
aimlessly for the rest of your days.

[Anthony Marsh]

Nonsense. Physically impossible. Not even Mythbusters could do it.

[Robert Harris]

David,

Why did you snip the link to this brief article?

http://jfkhistory.com/WebArticle/article.html

I know you have excuses for why you have to evade a debate with me, but
why don't you post an article to show everyone how I went wrong? None of
your buds have been able to do that in 20 years.


Robert Harris

[Bud]

On Sunday, April 19, 2015 at 10:12:41 PM UTC-4, Robert Harris wrote:
> David,
>
> Why did you snip the link to this brief article?
>
> http://jfkhistory.com/WebArticle/article.html
>
> I know you have excuses for why you have to evade a debate with me, but
> why don't you post an article to show everyone how I went wrong? None of
> your buds have been able to do that in 20 years.

Keep telling yourself that, Harris.

[Alex Foyle]

On Monday, April 20, 2015 at 3:16:22 AM UTC+2, mainframetech wrote:

> Nope, I usually stick with one forum until I leave it. Though I've been
> thinking of branching out.

Maybe you should as there are several posters there who buy into your
Horne theories.

[mainframetech]

WRONG! That gimmick won't work either. The record states flatly that
(for example) "There's NO EXIT" from the body of JFK for the back wound
bullet. Not only did Pierre Finck say that but the other prosectors also
said it. Check the record. I've given the link many times for those with
the courage to check it. there was NO reinterpretation of what was said.
It was clear that they looked for a path for the bullet that seemed to
stop after an inch, and they couldn't find it. Even the phony Autopsy
Report (AR) says the bullet stopped at the pleura (which was no more than
inch in). And the bullet was found by Jerrol Custer.

> > Now do you want to get back to trying to make a concise argument about
> > the back wound and the bullet that was found as it fell out of the back?
>
> Why would I waste time arguing about something that didn't happen. That
> couldn't have happened.
>

Oh? Why couldn't that happen? The prosectors and Finck SAID it
happened. What now do you know that the experts don't know? Or are you
trying to escape from the situation?

> > And once we accept that we can move on to extending it out to its logical
> > end,
>
> Your choo-choo train jumped the logic tracks many miles back.
>

A wisecrack and then run like hell...yep. Typical escape pattern.

> > which is that the 'single bullet' theory is dead because the bullet
> > was found at the autopsy, and so could NOT have gone out the throat wound
> > and hit Connally. And to take that to its logical conclusion, that means
> > that there was another shooter, making the case one of conspiracy. I can
> > take it further, but the powers that be won't respond at this time unless
> > the whole nation gets up in arms about it. Still, the real story is
> > slowly coming out, mostly from the ARRB, of which Doug Horne was a major
> > factor.
> >
>
> Start with a ridiculous premise and you are sure to arrive at a ridiculous
> conclusion.
>

But of course, you will refuse to explain that and make a legitimate
argument. Only your usual wisecrack and run like hell. No premise was
used. Only facts from witnesses that made clear statements. None of this
'theory' junk form the WC lawyers, but real facts form witnesses that saw
it as it happened. No guesses. Tough for you to deal with, I see.

> >
> >
> > > > I then explained that it meant
> > > > that the single bullet theory was dead,
> > >
> > > Yeah, you screwed that up too.
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > Nope, won't do. Can you get anything right? I have factual information
> > from the record backing me, all you have are theories of the WC lawyers.
> >
>
> Your theories are a concoction of bullshit, horseshit, and chickenshit.
>

WRONG! As noted above, I have facts, YOU have the theories. And it
becomes more OBVIOUS by the minute that you can't deal with facts and
witnesses that actually saw something and don't need theories.

> >
> >
> > > > and then I explained to you that
> > > > it meant that there was at least a second shooter because there weren't
> > > > enough bullets in the TSBD to explain all the shots...:)
> > >
> > > One silly conclusion usually leads to another.
> >
> >
> > Well now, you've gone wrong again! You were the one that was whining
> > and complaining that no CTs carried out their ideas to their logical end,
>
> To do that, you have to have a logical start.
>
> > and so I've been doing that for you, so that you can see where these ideas
> > go...:)
> >
>
> Out into the Conspiracyland wilderness where you are doomed to wander
> aimlessly for the rest of your days.

Still pretending that the facts are not facts? You're the one in
Wonderland if you think to get away with that. I have the facts, you have
the theories. Argue with the people that came up with the statements that
I have to keep repeating at you.

Chris

[mainframetech]

Oh, give it up! Do you think you're Claviger now? Most any bullet can
have the same problem, depending on the powder or whether something was in
the way of the shot before it hit the back of JFK. For all I know, the
back brace that JFK wore slowed the bullet enough that it didn't penetrate
more than an inch. Your problem is not believing the Expert when you had
one. Finck was that expert, and he said "There's NO EXIT", not me. And
he (and the prosectors) looked for a path (couldn't find it), and looked
for the bullet (couldn't find it), and later Custer found it. So you
threw the Expert away as soon as he said something you didn't like.

> > But when the prosectors proved that the bullet never
> > got past the pleura (tissue surrounding the lungs), they also proved that
> > the bullet from the back wound couldn't have gone past the body of JFK.

> > Remember Finck's comment, "There's NO EXIT" for the bullet to leave and

> > hit Connally.
> >
>
> Oft repeated nonsense ignored.
>

Oft repeated ad hominem attack ignored, but the facts cannot be ignored
by you or me. The Expert said "There's NO EXIT" for the back wound bullet
from the body of JFK. When will you take the word of the Expert?

> > As well, Custer I'm sure wasn't holding a ruler at the time the bullet
> > fell out from the back, and his estimate of size was just that. and
> > Estimate. We know many military bullets of the time (1963) were at least
> > 1.25 inches, so any of them could fill the bill as the one that fell out.
> > One of the reasons that Finck grabbed the bullet and it was never seen
> > again.
> >
>
> Those military bullets aren't going to stop after a few inches. This is
> just the sort of nonsense you are forced to propose to try to salvage you
> silly theories.

Your comment is just the sort or nonsensical foolishness that comes of
someone not thinking of the situation and what the expert had to say.
And I'm NOT 'proposing' anything. I'm repeating flatly exactly what the
prosectors said. Your fear that others will find out that they said that
has to be pushed aside.

Chris

[mainframetech]

Yep. Futility when you have to deal with the actual text of witnesses
to events, rather than the WC theories that have ben disproven. Of course
you have a problem arguing with me. You fail completely to allow yourself
to listen to witnesses that knew what was happening around them, and
instead spend your time playing the WCR over and over to yourself.

And if repetition bothers you so much, then tell bd to stop repeating
his arguments so often over and over. The old adage comes to mind as
advice for bd from me...if you keep sayin' what you bin sayin', then
you'll keep gittin' what you bin gittin'.

As some others might see you, you have been unable to deal with new
information, and so have blamed the messenger, who brought you information
that you couldn't work into your world view.

Chris

[Anthony Marsh]

Not high power as he is imagining.
Low power. Small caliber.
.22 or .45 at 450 fps. From 200 yards away.

> those factors are relevant to penetrating power. Also relevant is the
> composition of the bullet. A FMJ bullet is designed not to deform when
> striking soft tissue which would give them maximum penetration. A solid
> lead or hollow point bullet does mushroom upon impact which reduces
> penetration but would make it impossible for it to fall out since it would
> become larger than the diameter of the entry hole. There isn't a high
> powered bullet made that penetrates only a few inches into soft tissue. If
> it did, it wouldn't be high powered.
>

We don't know what type of bullet he is imagining. Oswald's bullets have
great penetrating power. Mythbusters tested several different bullets to
see how far they would penetrate into water. Something like the M-1 did
the best. Surprisingly the very high power bullets broke up when they
hit the surface.

>> But when the prosectors proved that the bullet never
>> got past the pleura (tissue surrounding the lungs), they also proved that
>> the bullet from the back wound couldn't have gone past the body of JFK.
>> Remember Finck's comment, "There's NO EXIT" for the bullet to lwave and
>> hit Connally.
>>
>
> Oft repeated nonsense ignored.
>
>> As well, Custer I'm sure wasn't holding a ruler at the time the bullet
>> fell out from the back, and his estimate of size was just that. and
>> Estimate. We know many military bullets of the time (1963) were at least
>> 1.25 inches, so any of them could fill the bill as the one that fell out.
>> One of the reasons that Finck grabbed the bullet and it was never seen
>> again.
>>
>
> Those military bullets aren't going to stop after a few inches. This is
> just the sort of nonsense you are forced to propose to try to salvage you
> silly theories.
>

He didn't specify which bullet.
Oswald's bullets were 1.2 inches in length. And could penetrate 47
inches of Ponderosa Pine.

[bigdog]

You continue to ignore the basic physics. For a bullet to be so weak it
would penetrate only a couple inches into soft tissue it would have to
have an extremely low velocity. A bullet with that kind of velocity could
not hold it's trajectory for any appreciable distance. A bullet that would
have that much arc is not going to hit the target. Your silly theory just
does not compute no matter how many ridiculous explanations you try to
invent.

> For all I know, the
> back brace that JFK wore slowed the bullet enough that it didn't penetrate
> more than an inch.

Why don't you just propose he had on a real thick shirt. It would make as
much sense.

> Your problem is not believing the Expert when you had
> one. Finck was that expert, and he said "There's NO EXIT", not me. And
> he (and the prosectors) looked for a path (couldn't find it), and looked
> for the bullet (couldn't find it), and later Custer found it. So you
> threw the Expert away as soon as he said something you didn't like.
>

You continue to ignore what Finck signed his name to and testified to
under oath and rely on the 30 year old recollections of what somebody else
said he said. No wonder you can't figure out such a simple case of
murder.

>
>
>
> > > But when the prosectors proved that the bullet never
> > > got past the pleura (tissue surrounding the lungs), they also proved that
> > > the bullet from the back wound couldn't have gone past the body of JFK.
> > > Remember Finck's comment, "There's NO EXIT" for the bullet to leave and
> > > hit Connally.
> > >
> >
> > Oft repeated nonsense ignored.
> >
>
>
> Oft repeated ad hominem attack ignored, but the facts cannot be ignored
> by you or me. The Expert said "There's NO EXIT" for the back wound bullet
> from the body of JFK. When will you take the word of the Expert?
>
>
>
> > > As well, Custer I'm sure wasn't holding a ruler at the time the bullet
> > > fell out from the back, and his estimate of size was just that. and
> > > Estimate. We know many military bullets of the time (1963) were at least
> > > 1.25 inches, so any of them could fill the bill as the one that fell out.
> > > One of the reasons that Finck grabbed the bullet and it was never seen
> > > again.
> > >
> >
> > Those military bullets aren't going to stop after a few inches. This is
> > just the sort of nonsense you are forced to propose to try to salvage you
> > silly theories.
>
>
> Your comment is just the sort or nonsensical foolishness that comes of
> someone not thinking of the situation and what the expert had to say.
> And I'm NOT 'proposing' anything. I'm repeating flatly exactly what the
> prosectors said.

No you aren't. You are repeating what somebody thought they remembered
them saying 30 years later. Helluva a reliable way to try to figure things
out.

> Your fear that others will find out that they said that
> has to be pushed aside.
>

I'm sure anybody reading your foolishness gets as big a chuckle out of it
as I do.

[mainframetech]

sorry to correct you, but there are no "Horne theories". There are
actual events that were testified to or statements made in the record.
No theories, which were necessary only for the WC lawyers.

That's why I find it so ridiculous to hear people constantly pretending
that there are theories being presented rather than just bringing out
statements and testimony from real people about real events. I guess it's
fear that the long held beliefs will be squashed.

Chris

[BT George]

You're right about that. Believing in as many plotters and passive
mindless, and spineless participants as your beliefs *require* (whether
you are willing to admit it or not) definitely conflicts why *my* (real)
world-view.

BT George

[mainframetech]

::: sigh ::: WRONG again! Here you go knowing more than the Wound
Ballistics Experts. You're going to explain it all to us now. Your
ridiculous efforts to make physics suit your needs won't work, as usual.
You act like the bullet in question was aimed at the back, and so would
fall in transit, but what it if was aimed at the head, and dropped some
amount to hit the back? And you've forgotten completely something I
mentioned to you earlier, and that is : what about JFK's back brace? Was
part of it high enough to slow a bullet when it hit? Or did the bullet
hot something else that slowed it down near JFK? You just haven't
addressed these other possibilities.

Better if you just looked at it from the point of view that the bullet
had SOME way of slowing down before hitting the back, and that caused it
to be weak enough to only go through an inch or so of the back. THAT much
is known. You need to realize that what the prosectors said after their
long search for the bullet and a path was true. They knew what they were
doing, and they did NOT find a path or a bullet. They also proved to
themselves that "There was NO EXIT" from the body of JFK for that bullet.

If the bullet had gone through more than an inch or so of the back, it
would have penetrated the pleura and the right lung, which DID NOT happen.
The AR states clearly that the "pleura was INTACT". So the bullet didn't
leave the body of JFK, and couldn't because Jerrol Custer saw it fall form
the back of JFK when the body was moved for an X-ray.

> > For all I know, the
> > back brace that JFK wore slowed the bullet enough that it didn't penetrate
> > more than an inch.
>
> Why don't you just propose he had on a real thick shirt. It would make as
> much sense.
>

Why don't you address the problem you have and avoid the wisecracks? We
can get to your acceptance of the truth earlier with less effort.

> > Your problem is not believing the Expert when you had
> > one. Finck was that expert, and he said "There's NO EXIT", not me. And
> > he (and the prosectors) looked for a path (couldn't find it), and looked
> > for the bullet (couldn't find it), and later Custer found it. So you
> > threw the Expert away as soon as he said something you didn't like.
> >
>
> You continue to ignore what Finck signed his name to and testified to
> under oath and rely on the 30 year old recollections of what somebody else
> said he said. No wonder you can't figure out such a simple case of
> murder.
>

You continue to ignore what the prosectors learned DURING the autopsy,
when the body was in front of them and they weren't aware that their words
would be recorded for later by the FBI agents.

And (of course) you're WRONG about the 30 years mentioned above. THE
notes from the autopsy were written down a couple days after the autopsy
by both Sibert and O'Neill! Then 30 years later they simply had to add
any extra facts that occurred to them .

WRONG again! I am indeed repeating what was said by the people that
were there. Not some stupid theory by the WC lawyers. The memories were
clear and enhanced by the emotion and power of the event. You seem to
want to rely on people in the street that saw a rifle out a window for
seconds only. Yet now we have trained observers and you want to forget
their words...give it up!

> > Your fear that others will find out that they said that
> > has to be pushed aside.
> >
>
> I'm sure anybody reading your foolishness gets as big a chuckle out of it
> as I do.

Try making some intelligent comment, instead of juvenile wisecracks.

Chris

[Bud]

Try dropping the childish thinking and silly arguments.

[Anthony Marsh]

You're just not trying hard enough, You are SOOO damn lazy. Don't you
remember what stopped the bullet from killing Teddy Roosevelt? His folded
up speech.

Some kooks have proposed that JFK's back brace stopped the bullet. Because
they had never seen the back brace. When I showed it to them they shut up.

How did Jerry Ford's Kevlar undershirt work? Well enough to make Sarah
Jane Moore miss by taking the head shot.

[bigdog]

I didn't forget what you said about the back brace as much as I would like
to. You've made many ludicrous statements over the years but this is top
five material. Do you think JFK's back brace was made of Kevlar? It had no
bullet stopping power. It would no more slow a bullet than his shirt or
jacket. And of course the bullet entered his back just below the
shoulders. Who the hell wears a back brace that high up? To even suggest
something this silly reveals how desperate you are to salvage a ridiculous
theory. As I've pointed out numerous times, conspiracy hobbyists dream up
all sorts of nonsensical theories and when the flaws in them are pointed
out, they come up with something even more nonsensical.

> Better if you just looked at it from the point of view that the bullet
> had SOME way of slowing down before hitting the back,

IOW, you need it to slow down to make your silly theory work but you can't
come up with a plausible explanation for how it could have been traveling
so slow so you dream up this nonsense.

> and that caused it
> to be weak enough to only go through an inch or so of the back. THAT much
> is known.

That much is imagined and it doesn't make an ounce of sense. It is
ridiculous to think that bullet would penetrate only an inch or two into
JFK's back and then somehow fall out and anybody who has even an
elementary knowledge of ballistics knows that. You reveal your desperation
with this nonsense.

> You need to realize that what the prosectors said after their
> long search for the bullet and a path was true.

They said the bullet exited JFK's throat and you can't have that so you
invent a story that they were ordered to lie. More desperation.

> They knew what they were
> doing, and they did NOT find a path or a bullet. They also proved to
> themselves that "There was NO EXIT" from the body of JFK for that bullet.
>

Once Humes spoke to Perry, they knew where the exit was.

> If the bullet had gone through more than an inch or so of the back, it
> would have penetrated the pleura and the right lung, which DID NOT happen.
> The AR states clearly that the "pleura was INTACT". So the bullet didn't
> leave the body of JFK, and couldn't because Jerrol Custer saw it fall form
> the back of JFK when the body was moved for an X-ray.
>

This silliness has been gone over many times. There is simply no point in
discussing it any further.

>
>
> > > For all I know, the
> > > back brace that JFK wore slowed the bullet enough that it didn't penetrate
> > > more than an inch.
> >
> > Why don't you just propose he had on a real thick shirt. It would make as
> > much sense.
> >
>
>
> Why don't you address the problem you have and avoid the wisecracks? We
> can get to your acceptance of the truth earlier with less effort.
>

I don't have any problems. The problems are all yours trying to get your
turkey of a theory to fly. You are forced to invent progessively sillier
and sillier explanations to try to get it airborne. It's not working.

>
>
> > > Your problem is not believing the Expert when you had
> > > one. Finck was that expert, and he said "There's NO EXIT", not me. And
> > > he (and the prosectors) looked for a path (couldn't find it), and looked
> > > for the bullet (couldn't find it), and later Custer found it. So you
> > > threw the Expert away as soon as he said something you didn't like.
> > >
> >
> > You continue to ignore what Finck signed his name to and testified to
> > under oath and rely on the 30 year old recollections of what somebody else
> > said he said. No wonder you can't figure out such a simple case of
> > murder.
> >
>
>
> You continue to ignore what the prosectors learned DURING the autopsy,
> when the body was in front of them and they weren't aware that their words
> would be recorded for later by the FBI agents.
>
> And (of course) you're WRONG about the 30 years mentioned above. THE
> notes from the autopsy were written down a couple days after the autopsy
> by both Sibert and O'Neill! Then 30 years later they simply had to add
> any extra facts that occurred to them .
>

SOS. Same Old Silliness.

I rely on hard evidence and witnesses who can be corroborated by hard
evidence. I don't have to claim evidence was tampered with at every turn.
I believe in a simple straight forward explanation of that evidence which
leads us unmistakenly to Oswald as the shooter. You have to invent tall
talls of a massive cover up with virtually everyone involved in the
investigation falsifying evidence and committing perjury. The evidence
doesn't fit your beliefs so rather than change your beliefs you are forced
to dismiss the evidence. Helluva an approach.

>
>
> > > Your fear that others will find out that they said that
> > > has to be pushed aside.
> > >
> >
> > I'm sure anybody reading your foolishness gets as big a chuckle out of it
> > as I do.
>
>
> Try making some intelligent comment, instead of juvenile wisecracks.
>

Your claims deserve the wisecracks.

[bigdog]

On Wednesday, April 22, 2015 at 12:53:32 AM UTC-4, Anthony Marsh wrote:
>
> You're just not trying hard enough, You are SOOO damn lazy. Don't you
> remember what stopped the bullet from killing Teddy Roosevelt? His folded
> up speech.
>

Apples to oranges. That was a handgun at close range. And it didn't stop
the bullet. TR was wounded by it. A relatively slow missile was slowed
even further by the combined resistance of TR's clothing and the folded up
paper. We are discussing the possibility of a very weak bullet being able
to hit a target at some distance. It can't happen.

> Some kooks have proposed that JFK's back brace stopped the bullet. Because
> they had never seen the back brace. When I showed it to them they shut up.
>

Of course that couldn't happen. The back brace had no bullet stopping
properties and nobody wears a back brace as high as the bullet that
entered JFK's back.

[bigdog]

On Monday, April 20, 2015 at 9:04:13 PM UTC-4, mainframetech wrote:
> On Monday, April 20, 2015 at 3:25:44 PM UTC-4, Alex Foyle wrote:
> > On Monday, April 20, 2015 at 3:16:22 AM UTC+2, mainframetech wrote:
> >
> > > Nope, I usually stick with one forum until I leave it. Though I've been
> > > thinking of branching out.
> >
> > Maybe you should as there are several posters there who buy into your
> > Horne theories.
>
>
> sorry to correct you, but there are no "Horne theories".

I stand correct. Horne fables would be a more accurate term.

> There are
> actual events that were testified to or statements made in the record.
> No theories, which were necessary only for the WC lawyers.
>

And by reaching for the least reliable sources of information available,
ignoring the best, subtituting amateur opinions for that of professionals,
jettisoning common sense and applying the most tortured logic, Horne has
dreamed up a ludicrous tale that only the most gullible people would buy
into.

> That's why I find it so ridiculous to hear people constantly pretending
> that there are theories being presented rather than just bringing out
> statements and testimony from real people about real events. I guess it's
> fear that the long held beliefs will be squashed.
>

Your problem is you are incapable of recognizing bullshit for what it is.

[bigdog]

The bullet you are proposing would drop far more from the head to the
upper back. To illustrate that I presented a theoretical shot plugging in
numbers for the distance of the shot, the speed of the bullet and
calculating the amount of drop over that distance to show such a bullet
would drop as much as four feet. I challenged you to plug in your own
numbers for the distance of the shot and the speed of the bullet and
calculate the amount of drop. You were free to plug in any distance and
velocity you chose. You declined to even try because you know full well
there are no numbers you can plug in to make your theory work. You would
either have to place your shooter far closer than he could possibly have
been or make your bullet travel way too fast to have only made a shallow
entry into JFK's back.

> And you've forgotten completely something I
> mentioned to you earlier, and that is : what about JFK's back brace?

You mean the one he wore around his lower back. Yeah, that would have been
a big help if it was made of Kevlar and he was wearing it around his
shoulders instead.

> Was
> part of it high enough to slow a bullet when it hit?

No.

> Or did the bullet
> hot something else that slowed it down near JFK? You just haven't
> addressed these other possibilities.
>

Are you proposing Son of the Single Bullet Theory. Yeah, that's it. It
first went through one of the SS agents riding on the bumper. Oh wait.
There were no SS agents riding on the bumper.

> Better if you just looked at it from the point of view that the bullet
> had SOME way of slowing down before hitting the back,

Pure Freaking Magic comes to mind.

> and that caused it
> to be weak enough to only go through an inch or so of the back. THAT much
> is known.

That much is taken as an article of faith by silly people.

> You need to realize that what the prosectors said after their
> long search for the bullet and a path was true. They knew what they were
> doing, and they did NOT find a path or a bullet. They also proved to
> themselves that "There was NO EXIT" from the body of JFK for that bullet.
>

Time to zone out...

[mainframetech]

On Wednesday, April 22, 2015 at 5:47:48 PM UTC-4, bigdog wrote:
> On Monday, April 20, 2015 at 9:04:13 PM UTC-4, mainframetech wrote:
> > On Monday, April 20, 2015 at 3:25:44 PM UTC-4, Alex Foyle wrote:
> > > On Monday, April 20, 2015 at 3:16:22 AM UTC+2, mainframetech wrote:
> > >
> > > > Nope, I usually stick with one forum until I leave it. Though I've been
> > > > thinking of branching out.
> > >
> > > Maybe you should as there are several posters there who buy into your
> > > Horne theories.
> >
> >
> > sorry to correct you, but there are no "Horne theories".
>
> I stand correct. Horne fables would be a more accurate term.
>

Well, you need to stand corrected a bit longer. You pile one mistake
on another! Prove your statement . As usual, anyone that makes good
headway in pointing out the conspiracy must be attacked by the LN kooks as
soon as possible to try and cover up what they are saying. That's why you
follow me around trying to cover up what I being out of the records of the
case.

Horne was in a perfect position to hear and see the various facts of
the case directly from the mouth of the witnesses in the case. He has
brought out most of what he encountered and explained clearly. His 200
pages on proving that the Z-film was altered were excellent, but you can't
argue against them because you wouldn't dare get a copy of his 4th of 5
volumes. To correct you further, I've checked into many of the statements
of Horne and found them in the record, just as he said, and showing what
happened as well. You've done none of that, and it's doubtful you ever
will. You'd be laughed out of the halls of the LNs...:)

> > There are
> > actual events that were testified to or statements made in the record.
> > No theories, which were necessary only for the WC lawyers.
> >
>
> And by reaching for the least reliable sources of information available,
> ignoring the best, subtituting amateur opinions for that of professionals,
> jettisoning common sense and applying the most tortured logic, Horne has
> dreamed up a ludicrous tale that only the most gullible people would buy
> into.
>

You opinion about who was listened to, including the various experts,
when they were independent enough and knowledgeable enough, is ludicrous,
as usual. Where an expert had something to offer and had the knowledge to
speak, s/he was listened to. like Pierre Finck, when he said (after
searching for a bullet and a path for it) "There's NO EXIT" from the body
of JFK.

> > That's why I find it so ridiculous to hear people constantly pretending
> > that there are theories being presented rather than just bringing out
> > statements and testimony from real people about real events. I guess it's
> > fear that the long held beliefs will be squashed.
> >
>
> Your problem is you are incapable of recognizing bullshit for what it is.

I do, I do. Haven't I pointed out to you when you do it by saying WRONG?

Chris

[mainframetech]

Do you know whether the back brace had any wood or metal supports slid
into it, like battens in a sail? It's not important to prove that a
bullet was stopped an inch or so into the body of JFK, but it would help
to find out what caused the bullet to slow down. Something wrong with the
powder or something that got in the way of the bullet and slowed it down.
We already know that the bullet was stopped at the pleura because of the
prosectors conclusions, and the statement in the AR that the "pleura was
INTACT".

Chris

[mainframetech]

Surprised you didn't mention the brace before. Yes, it appeared to be
mostly material. Do you know whether it had any 'battens' in it? You
know, like wood or metal supports that are slid into the brace to lend
strength? Either way, the prosectors made their conclusion, and the X-ray
technician saw the bullet fall out of the back. Two different reasons
that separately prove the SBT is dead, and was never alive.

>
> > Better if you just looked at it from the point of view that the bullet
> > had SOME way of slowing down before hitting the back,
>
> IOW, you need it to slow down to make your silly theory work but you can't
> come up with a plausible explanation for how it could have been traveling
> so slow so you dream up this nonsense.
>

WRONG! I offer it as a possibility. We already know that the bullet
was going slower than normal for that type of bullet. We're only fiddling
with the reason why it was going slower. The fact that the pleura was
intact, as the prosectors saw, and as the Autopsy Report noted, means that
the bullet HAD to be going slower to stop where it did.

Normally a pleura, tough as they are, would not stop a bullet from a
high power rifle (if that's what fired the bullet). The bullet would tear
or puncture a hole through the pleura and the right lung underneath, but
that didn't happen, so the bullet stopped at the pleura, and so the bullet
must have been going slow enough to be stopped by the pleura. Would a
handgun fire a slower bullet? Yes, but slow enough? Or was something in
the way of the bullet that slowed it down?

> > and that caused it
> > to be weak enough to only go through an inch or so of the back. THAT much
> > is known.
>
> That much is imagined and it doesn't make an ounce of sense. It is
> ridiculous to think that bullet would penetrate only an inch or two into
> JFK's back and then somehow fall out and anybody who has even an
> elementary knowledge of ballistics knows that. You reveal your desperation
> with this nonsense.
>

WRONG and false! You know that the bullet was stopped at the pleura.
There is no 'theory' or imagination about it. The prosectors and the
Autopsy Report (AR) made it clear that the "pleura was INTACT". The
bullet HAD to stop there, or there would be a tear or puncture in the
pleura. You keep mistakenly thinking that the bullet was traveling at
full speed, fired by a high powered rifle, neither of which you know with
any certainty. The desperation is yours, I have the facts on my side.
You have only theories. You're unable to prove where the bullet came
from, and what fired it. You have only WC theories. You can't discredit
Jerrol Custer or the AR and the prosectors.

> > You need to realize that what the prosectors said after their
> > long search for the bullet and a path was true.
>
> They said the bullet exited JFK's throat and you can't have that so you
> invent a story that they were ordered to lie. More desperation.
>

Wrong! There is evidence that the bullet did NOT go past the pleura,
and the AR is that proof, along with the statements of the prosectors.
You have no proof for any other scenario, since the bullet was also seen
falling from the BACK! You have no intelligent opposition to Custer's
sighting of the bullet. The desperation is yours for those reasons.

> > They knew what they were
> > doing, and they did NOT find a path or a bullet. They also proved to
> > themselves that "There was NO EXIT" from the body of JFK for that bullet.
> >
>
> Once Humes spoke to Perry, they knew where the exit was.
>

Humes was proven to have spoken to Perry DURING the autopsy by 2
witnesses, at least (Nurse Audrey Bell, Dr. Ebersole (radiologist). And
Humes had been caught in lies before, so it wasn't new to him. They knew
all about the tracheotomy and the bullet wound in the throat then, and
Perry and Carrico both thought the throat wound was an entry.

> > If the bullet had gone through more than an inch or so of the back, it
> > would have penetrated the pleura and the right lung, which DID NOT happen.
> > The AR states clearly that the "pleura was INTACT". So the bullet didn't

> > leave the body of JFK, and couldn't because Jerrol Custer saw it fall from

> > the back of JFK when the body was moved for an X-ray.
> >
>
> This silliness has been gone over many times. There is simply no point in
> discussing it any further.
>

Then stop making silly comments, and I'll have no reason to remind you
of the facts, and your desperation to make the theories of the WC lawyers
come true!

> >
> >
> > > > For all I know, the
> > > > back brace that JFK wore slowed the bullet enough that it didn't penetrate
> > > > more than an inch.
> > >
> > > Why don't you just propose he had on a real thick shirt. It would make as
> > > much sense.
> > >
> >
> >
> > Why don't you address the problem you have and avoid the wisecracks? We
> > can get to your acceptance of the truth earlier with less effort.
> >
>
> I don't have any problems. The problems are all yours trying to get your
> turkey of a theory to fly. You are forced to invent progessively sillier
> and sillier explanations to try to get it airborne. It's not working.
>

WRONG! I'm not proposing some 'theory' like the WC lawyers. I'm
pointing out what actually happened, using facts from witnesses that were
there. Your inability to accept that has kept us here on this point for
days.

> >
> >
> > > > Your problem is not believing the Expert when you had
> > > > one. Finck was that expert, and he said "There's NO EXIT", not me. And
> > > > he (and the prosectors) looked for a path (couldn't find it), and looked
> > > > for the bullet (couldn't find it), and later Custer found it. So you
> > > > threw the Expert away as soon as he said something you didn't like.
> > > >
> > >
> > > You continue to ignore what Finck signed his name to and testified to
> > > under oath and rely on the 30 year old recollections of what somebody else
> > > said he said. No wonder you can't figure out such a simple case of
> > > murder.
> > >
> >
> >
> > You continue to ignore what the prosectors learned DURING the autopsy,
> > when the body was in front of them and they weren't aware that their words
> > would be recorded for later by the FBI agents.
> >
> > And (of course) you're WRONG about the 30 years mentioned above. THE
> > notes from the autopsy were written down a couple days after the autopsy
> > by both Sibert and O'Neill! Then 30 years later they simply had to add
> > any extra facts that occurred to them.
> >
> SOS. Same Old Silliness.

WRONG again! How can you say that with a straight face (I assume you
had a straight face on)? The notes are part of the record, and not even
from the ARRB, but from the time of the WCR. The report is available
online, and I'm sure you browsed it to see if you could pick at something
in it. Once again you make outrageous statements and have put out NO
backup for it. Go ahead try to prove your statement!

There is really no evidence that leads to Oswald as to being the
murderer. At best you might make him an accessory. With the constant and
continued repeating of his name in conjunction with murderer, you'll hope
to cement the 2 together.

> >
> >
> > > > Your fear that others will find out that they said that
> > > > has to be pushed aside.
> > > >
> > >
> > > I'm sure anybody reading your foolishness gets as big a chuckle out of it
> > > as I do.
> >
> >
> > Try making some intelligent comment, instead of juvenile wisecracks.
> >
>
> Your claims deserve the wisecracks.

I haven't made any "claims". I've made clear statements repeating much
of what was said by witnesses in the case, usually from the official
files. Something you can't do, since your claims have only some
'theories' of the WC lawyers to rely on.

Chris

[stevemg...@yahoo.com]

Did you ever seen this picture of JFK wearing the brace?

Here:
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-ARIq3jXA0yk/UmTh1Kqi4DI/AAAAAAAAB3M/5TiTmG_pyAo/s1600/JFK-back-brace.jpg

I assume that's him.

Apparently it was a sort of lower back brace, one that was almost like a
girdle.

[mainframetech]

Yep, there you go explaining the Wound Ballistics Experts job to us all!
When will you give it up? You just don't know that much, I know from what
I've seen. Your usual wrongness has blinded you to common sense and
logic. In this instance, it was only a suggestion as an example to you
that I said what if the aim was for the head, and the drop would hit the
back. I didn't do any calculations, and I'm not about to do any now.
Because you didn't think it through as I've tried to teach you.

The aim might have been messed up for some reason, and the shot be
fired higher, then it would come down at the back wound. It doesn't
matter what you try to do, there is a speed and direction that a bullet
can travel that will cause it to go into the back only the inch or so that
WE KNOW IT DID!

You can't defeat the science of Ballistics!

> > And you've forgotten completely something I
> > mentioned to you earlier, and that is : what about JFK's back brace?
>
> You mean the one he wore around his lower back. Yeah, that would have been
> a big help if it was made of Kevlar and he was wearing it around his
> shoulders instead.
>
> > Was
> > part of it high enough to slow a bullet when it hit?
>
> No.
>
> > Or did the bullet

> > hit something else that slowed it down near JFK? You just haven't

> > addressed these other possibilities.
> >
>
> Are you proposing Son of the Single Bullet Theory. Yeah, that's it. It
> first went through one of the SS agents riding on the bumper. Oh wait.
> There were no SS agents riding on the bumper.
>
> > Better if you just looked at it from the point of view that the bullet
> > had SOME way of slowing down before hitting the back,
>
> Pure Freaking Magic comes to mind.
>

Yeah, I would think that would be your contribution to the situation.
However, We KNOW that the bullet was slowed by something either in the
gun, such as powder or the diameter of the barrel, or between the gun and
the point where the bullet stopped against the pleura. We know where the
bullet stopped, that's in the record and the AR too. The pleura wasn't
torn or punctured, so the bullet stopped there where the bruises were.

> > and that caused it
> > to be weak enough to only go through an inch or so of the back. THAT much
> > is known.
>
> That much is taken as an article of faith by silly people.
>

WRONG! That's from the record. And the AR too! The bullet stopped at
the pleura, as per the AR and the prosectors. Only "silly people" doubt
it...:)

> > You need to realize that what the prosectors said after their
> > long search for the bullet and a path was true. They knew what they were
> > doing, and they did NOT find a path or a bullet. They also proved to
> > themselves that "There was NO EXIT" from the body of JFK for that bullet.
> >
>
> Time to zone out...

Yes, please get your sleep. We'll carry on in your absence. You're not
really needed..:)

Chris

[bigdog]

Anyone who proposes a theory that post mortem surgery could have been
performed on a body and that surgery not be instantly recognizeable by a
first year medical student doesn't need to be refuted. They've already
done that themselves. That's not just my view. That is your hero Cyril
Wecht's position as well.

>
>
> > > There are
> > > actual events that were testified to or statements made in the record.
> > > No theories, which were necessary only for the WC lawyers.
> > >
> >
> > And by reaching for the least reliable sources of information available,
> > ignoring the best, subtituting amateur opinions for that of professionals,
> > jettisoning common sense and applying the most tortured logic, Horne has
> > dreamed up a ludicrous tale that only the most gullible people would buy
> > into.
> >
>
>
> You opinion about who was listened to, including the various experts,
> when they were independent enough and knowledgeable enough, is ludicrous,
> as usual. Where an expert had something to offer and had the knowledge to
> speak, s/he was listened to. like Pierre Finck, when he said (after
> searching for a bullet and a path for it) "There's NO EXIT" from the body
> of JFK.
>

Back to the silliness. That's my cue to zone out...

[bigdog]

On Wednesday, April 22, 2015 at 9:55:44 PM UTC-4, mainframetech wrote:
> On Wednesday, April 22, 2015 at 5:46:32 PM UTC-4, bigdog wrote:
> > On Wednesday, April 22, 2015 at 12:53:32 AM UTC-4, Anthony Marsh wrote:
> > >
> > > You're just not trying hard enough, You are SOOO damn lazy. Don't you
> > > remember what stopped the bullet from killing Teddy Roosevelt? His folded
> > > up speech.
> > >
> >
> > Apples to oranges. That was a handgun at close range. And it didn't stop
> > the bullet. TR was wounded by it. A relatively slow missile was slowed
> > even further by the combined resistance of TR's clothing and the folded up
> > paper. We are discussing the possibility of a very weak bullet being able
> > to hit a target at some distance. It can't happen.
> >
> > > Some kooks have proposed that JFK's back brace stopped the bullet. Because
> > > they had never seen the back brace. When I showed it to them they shut up.
> > >
> >
> > Of course that couldn't happen. The back brace had no bullet stopping
> > properties and nobody wears a back brace as high as the bullet that
> > entered JFK's back.
>
>
> Do you know whether the back brace had any wood or metal supports slid
> into it, like battens in a sail?

You're grasping at straws. A sign of desperation.

> It's not important to prove that a
> bullet was stopped an inch or so into the body of JFK, but it would help
> to find out what caused the bullet to slow down.

Connally's torso and wrist had a lot to do with it.

> Something wrong with the
> powder or something that got in the way of the bullet and slowed it down.

That something being JFK AND JBC.

> We already know that the bullet was stopped at the pleura because of the
> prosectors conclusions, and the statement in the AR that the "pleura was
> INTACT".
>

There's a difference between knowing something and accepting something on
blind faith.

[Alex Foyle]

On Thursday, April 23, 2015 at 3:55:13 AM UTC+2, mainframetech wrote:

> Horne was in a perfect position to hear and see the various facts of
> the case directly from the mouth of the witnesses in the case. He has
> brought out most of what he encountered and explained clearly. His 200

> pages on proving that the Z-film was altered were excellent, ....

Excellent? It's complete bull, Chris, and Craig Lamson has shown this to
your fellow Horne disciple Royell Storing over at Duncan's forum various
times. See Craig's latest proof for Horne's ridiculous Z film alteration
nonsense:

http://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,12246.0.html

Anybody can join Duncan's forum and it would be wonderful to see you argue
your case for Horne's Z film alteration with photograpy experts like Craig
Lamson. Why not jump right into that thread and show Craig just where he's
got it wrong.

[bigdog]

It's a good idea for you to refuse to do any calculations because you
can't make this work. The science is against you. The arithmetic is
against you. Better for you to just hold onto your myths and ignore the
inflexibility of simple arithmetic.

> The aim might have been messed up for some reason, and the shot be
> fired higher, then it would come down at the back wound. It doesn't
> matter what you try to do, there is a speed and direction that a bullet
> can travel that will cause it to go into the back only the inch or so that
> WE KNOW IT DID!
>

You get more desperate the more you try to save your pet turkey. So you
are now proposing that the shooter aimed way too high and through an
amazing stroke of luck, he fired an extremely weak bullet that dropped so
much it hit JFK anyway.

> You can't defeat the science of Ballistics!
>

Nothing you believe is based on any science. If it was, you could point to
some expert in the field who agrees with your assessments.

>
>
>
> > > And you've forgotten completely something I
> > > mentioned to you earlier, and that is : what about JFK's back brace?
> >
> > You mean the one he wore around his lower back. Yeah, that would have been
> > a big help if it was made of Kevlar and he was wearing it around his
> > shoulders instead.
> >
> > > Was
> > > part of it high enough to slow a bullet when it hit?
> >
> > No.
> >
> > > Or did the bullet
> > > hit something else that slowed it down near JFK? You just haven't
> > > addressed these other possibilities.
> > >
> >
> > Are you proposing Son of the Single Bullet Theory. Yeah, that's it. It
> > first went through one of the SS agents riding on the bumper. Oh wait.
> > There were no SS agents riding on the bumper.
> >
> > > Better if you just looked at it from the point of view that the bullet
> > > had SOME way of slowing down before hitting the back,
> >
> > Pure Freaking Magic comes to mind.
> >
>
>
> Yeah, I would think that would be your contribution to the situation.
> However, We KNOW that the bullet was slowed by something either in the
> gun, such as powder or the diameter of the barrel,

That won't work. If it were slowed then, it never could have reached the
target. You need a bullet that traveled fast enough to stay on target
until it reached JFK's back then magically slowed as soon as it got there
so that it only penetrated an inch or two. Good luck threading that
needle.

> or between the gun and
> the point where the bullet stopped against the pleura. We know where the
> bullet stopped, that's in the record and the AR too. The pleura wasn't
> torn or punctured, so the bullet stopped there where the bruises were.
>

Or maybe your amateurish analysis of the medical evidence is just plain
wrong and the bullet didn't stop at the pleura but went by it close enough
to cause the bruise without perforating it and then exited JFK's throat.
It's a lot easier to make that work than all these other crazy ideas you
have floated to try to make your theory work.

>
>
> > > and that caused it
> > > to be weak enough to only go through an inch or so of the back. THAT much
> > > is known.
> >
> > That much is taken as an article of faith by silly people.
> >
>
>
> WRONG! That's from the record. And the AR too! The bullet stopped at
> the pleura, as per the AR and the prosectors. Only "silly people" doubt
> it...:)
>

No, the AR said the bullet bruised the pleura and then went on by to exit
the throat. You seem to think a bullet can't bruise tissue unless it
strikes it directly. That has led to your confusion.

>
>
> > > You need to realize that what the prosectors said after their
> > > long search for the bullet and a path was true. They knew what they were
> > > doing, and they did NOT find a path or a bullet. They also proved to
> > > themselves that "There was NO EXIT" from the body of JFK for that bullet.
> > >
> >
> > Time to zone out...
>
>
>
> Yes, please get your sleep. We'll carry on in your absence. You're not
> really needed..:)
>

That's true. You don't need my help to develop your ridiculous theories.

[Anthony Marsh]

Yes, I do and I am the only person who has uploaded pictures of it. I have
slapped down several kooks who brought it up before. You would have to
theorize an impossibly low to be any factor at all. The back wound
entrance was much higher than the back brace. Yes, it was thick cloth and
had metal stays. All of that was too low to be hit by the bullet.

>
>
>>
>>> Better if you just looked at it from the point of view that the bullet
>>> had SOME way of slowing down before hitting the back,
>>
>> IOW, you need it to slow down to make your silly theory work but you can't
>> come up with a plausible explanation for how it could have been traveling
>> so slow so you dream up this nonsense.
>>
>
>
> WRONG! I offer it as a possibility. We already know that the bullet

What as a possibility? Not the back brace. It was not a possibility. You
just make up crap from your imagination.

> was going slower than normal for that type of bullet. We're only fiddling

No, we don't. You won't even admit what type of bullet it was.

> with the reason why it was going slower. The fact that the pleura was
> intact, as the prosectors saw, and as the Autopsy Report noted, means that
> the bullet HAD to be going slower to stop where it did.
>

Nonsense.
The pleura can not stop ANY bullet.

> Normally a pleura, tough as they are, would not stop a bullet from a
> high power rifle (if that's what fired the bullet). The bullet would tear

There was no high power rifle in Dealey Plaza, unless you mean the cops.

> or puncture a hole through the pleura and the right lung underneath, but
> that didn't happen, so the bullet stopped at the pleura, and so the bullet

No, it did not.

> must have been going slow enough to be stopped by the pleura. Would a

Silly.

> handgun fire a slower bullet? Yes, but slow enough? Or was something in
> the way of the bullet that slowed it down?
>

You mean like a silencer?

>
>
>
>>> and that caused it
>>> to be weak enough to only go through an inch or so of the back. THAT much
>>> is known.
>>
>> That much is imagined and it doesn't make an ounce of sense. It is
>> ridiculous to think that bullet would penetrate only an inch or two into
>> JFK's back and then somehow fall out and anybody who has even an
>> elementary knowledge of ballistics knows that. You reveal your desperation
>> with this nonsense.
>>
>
>
> WRONG and false! You know that the bullet was stopped at the pleura.

No, that is not true.

> There is no 'theory' or imagination about it. The prosectors and the
> Autopsy Report (AR) made it clear that the "pleura was INTACT". The

So what? It just means that the bullet went OVER the pleura.

> bullet HAD to stop there, or there would be a tear or puncture in the
> pleura. You keep mistakenly thinking that the bullet was traveling at

No.

> full speed, fired by a high powered rifle, neither of which you know with

There was no high powered rifle in Dealey Plaza.

> any certainty. The desperation is yours, I have the facts on my side.

You have no facts. You don't even know basic anatomy.

> You have only theories. You're unable to prove where the bullet came
> from, and what fired it. You have only WC theories. You can't discredit
> Jerrol Custer or the AR and the prosectors.
>

YOU are the one coming up with wild theories, just to get attention.

>
>
>
>
>>> You need to realize that what the prosectors said after their
>>> long search for the bullet and a path was true.
>>
>> They said the bullet exited JFK's throat and you can't have that so you
>> invent a story that they were ordered to lie. More desperation.
>>
>
>
> Wrong! There is evidence that the bullet did NOT go past the pleura,
> and the AR is that proof, along with the statements of the prosectors.

Prosectors? You mean The Three Stooges?
"Hey Moe, I thought you were going to weigh the brain!"

> You have no proof for any other scenario, since the bullet was also seen
> falling from the BACK! You have no intelligent opposition to Custer's

Again another lie by a kook witness. You will believe any lie from any
witness.

You have no bullshit filter.

> sighting of the bullet. The desperation is yours for those reasons.
>
>
>
>
>>> They knew what they were
>>> doing, and they did NOT find a path or a bullet. They also proved to
>>> themselves that "There was NO EXIT" from the body of JFK for that bullet.
>>>
>>
>> Once Humes spoke to Perry, they knew where the exit was.
>>
>
>
> Humes was proven to have spoken to Perry DURING the autopsy by 2
> witnesses, at least (Nurse Audrey Bell, Dr. Ebersole (radiologist). And

Wrong.

> Humes had been caught in lies before, so it wasn't new to him. They knew
> all about the tracheotomy and the bullet wound in the throat then, and
> Perry and Carrico both thought the throat wound was an entry.
>
>
>
>
>>> If the bullet had gone through more than an inch or so of the back, it
>>> would have penetrated the pleura and the right lung, which DID NOT happen.
>>> The AR states clearly that the "pleura was INTACT". So the bullet didn't
>>> leave the body of JFK, and couldn't because Jerrol Custer saw it fall from
>>> the back of JFK when the body was moved for an X-ray.
>>>
>>
>> This silliness has been gone over many times. There is simply no point in
>> discussing it any further.
>>
>
>
> Then stop making silly comments, and I'll have no reason to remind you
> of the facts, and your desperation to make the theories of the WC lawyers
> come true!
>

We keep waiting for you to stop making up crap and you don't stop.

>
>
>>>
>>>
>>>>> For all I know, the
>>>>> back brace that JFK wore slowed the bullet enough that it didn't penetrate
>>>>> more than an inch.
>>>>
>>>> Why don't you just propose he had on a real thick shirt. It would make as
>>>> much sense.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Why don't you address the problem you have and avoid the wisecracks? We
>>> can get to your acceptance of the truth earlier with less effort.
>>>
>>
>> I don't have any problems. The problems are all yours trying to get your
>> turkey of a theory to fly. You are forced to invent progessively sillier
>> and sillier explanations to try to get it airborne. It's not working.
>>
>
>
> WRONG! I'm not proposing some 'theory' like the WC lawyers. I'm
> pointing out what actually happened, using facts from witnesses that were
> there. Your inability to accept that has kept us here on this point for
> days.
>

You weren't faced with WWIII.

That's all they need for conspiracy.

> continued repeating of his name in conjunction with murderer, you'll hope
> to cement the 2 together.
>
>
>
>>>
>>>
>>>>> Your fear that others will find out that they said that
>>>>> has to be pushed aside.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I'm sure anybody reading your foolishness gets as big a chuckle out of it
>>>> as I do.
>>>
>>>
>>> Try making some intelligent comment, instead of juvenile wisecracks.
>>>
>>
>> Your claims deserve the wisecracks.
>
>
>
> I haven't made any "claims". I've made clear statements repeating much
> of what was said by witnesses in the case, usually from the official
> files. Something you can't do, since your claims have only some
> 'theories' of the WC lawyers to rely on.
>

You come here only to say things that you know are not physically possible.

> Chris
>

[Anthony Marsh]

On 4/22/2015 9:55 PM, mainframetech wrote:
> On Wednesday, April 22, 2015 at 5:46:32 PM UTC-4, bigdog wrote:
>> On Wednesday, April 22, 2015 at 12:53:32 AM UTC-4, Anthony Marsh wrote:
>>>
>>> You're just not trying hard enough, You are SOOO damn lazy. Don't you
>>> remember what stopped the bullet from killing Teddy Roosevelt? His folded
>>> up speech.
>>>
>>
>> Apples to oranges. That was a handgun at close range. And it didn't stop
>> the bullet. TR was wounded by it. A relatively slow missile was slowed
>> even further by the combined resistance of TR's clothing and the folded up
>> paper. We are discussing the possibility of a very weak bullet being able
>> to hit a target at some distance. It can't happen.
>>
>>> Some kooks have proposed that JFK's back brace stopped the bullet. Because
>>> they had never seen the back brace. When I showed it to them they shut up.
>>>
>>
>> Of course that couldn't happen. The back brace had no bullet stopping
>> properties and nobody wears a back brace as high as the bullet that
>> entered JFK's back.
>
>
> Do you know whether the back brace had any wood or metal supports slid
> into it, like battens in a sail? It's not important to prove that a

You are asking the wrong person and you don't know how to look it up on
Google.

> bullet was stopped an inch or so into the body of JFK, but it would help
> to find out what caused the bullet to slow down. Something wrong with the
> powder or something that got in the way of the bullet and slowed it down.

No. Physically impossible.

> We already know that the bullet was stopped at the pleura because of the
> prosectors conclusions, and the statement in the AR that the "pleura was
> INTACT".
>

Silly.


> Chris
>

[mainframetech]

On Thursday, April 23, 2015 at 12:45:14 PM UTC-4, bigdog wrote:
> On Wednesday, April 22, 2015 at 9:55:44 PM UTC-4, mainframetech wrote:
> > On Wednesday, April 22, 2015 at 5:46:32 PM UTC-4, bigdog wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, April 22, 2015 at 12:53:32 AM UTC-4, Anthony Marsh wrote:
> > > >
> > > > You're just not trying hard enough, You are SOOO damn lazy. Don't you
> > > > remember what stopped the bullet from killing Teddy Roosevelt? His folded
> > > > up speech.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Apples to oranges. That was a handgun at close range. And it didn't stop
> > > the bullet. TR was wounded by it. A relatively slow missile was slowed
> > > even further by the combined resistance of TR's clothing and the folded up
> > > paper. We are discussing the possibility of a very weak bullet being able
> > > to hit a target at some distance. It can't happen.
> > >
> > > > Some kooks have proposed that JFK's back brace stopped the bullet. Because
> > > > they had never seen the back brace. When I showed it to them they shut up.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Of course that couldn't happen. The back brace had no bullet stopping
> > > properties and nobody wears a back brace as high as the bullet that
> > > entered JFK's back.
> >
> >
> > Do you know whether the back brace had any wood or metal supports slid
> > into it, like battens in a sail?
>
> You're grasping at straws. A sign of desperation.
>

Wrong! Apparently not, since you had no answer. But I saw a photo of
JFK with the back brace on and it was too low for the upper back wound, so
we can let that possibility go...:)

> > It's not important to prove that a
> > bullet was stopped an inch or so into the body of JFK, but it would help
> > to find out what caused the bullet to slow down.
>
> Connally's torso and wrist had a lot to do with it.
>

WRONG! The bullet never got that far based on what the prosectors had
to say and the information in the AR, which corroborated their findings
DURING the autopsy.

> > Something wrong with the
> > powder or something that got in the way of the bullet and slowed it down.
>
> That something being JFK AND JBC.
>

Nope, it hit JFK, but went in only an inch. Everything proves that.

> > We already know that the bullet was stopped at the pleura because of the
> > prosectors conclusions, and the statement in the AR that the "pleura was
> > INTACT".
> >
>
> There's a difference between knowing something and accepting something on
> blind faith.

Thank you! I KNOW that the information that was given in the AR and
from the prosectors DURING matched and tells the truth. The bullet never
went past an inch or so, and was stopped at the pleura. As well, the
bullet itself was seen to fall out of the back of JFK by the X-ray
technician, Jerrol Custer.

Chris

[mainframetech]

Thank you...:) You've just corroborated the 2 FBI agents that reported
on the autopsy, and said that 'surgery' had been performed on JFK's head
when they saw the body as the Bronze casket was opened...LOL! And to
correct your wrong comment, this wasn't any THEORY like the WC had to use,
it was an actual event seen by witnesses, and noticed later by witnesses
at the autopsy.

Here's what they said in the Sibert and O'Neill Report that they wrote
up a few days after the murder:

" Following the removal of the wrapping, it was ascertained that the
President's clothing had been removed and it was also apparent that a
tracheotomy had been performed, as well as surgery of the head area,
namely, in the top of the skull."

From: http://www.kenrahn.com/JFK/History/The_deed/Sibert-O'Neill.html

Note that they mentioned the tracheotomy, which was NOT the 'surgery' on
the head! And it was noticed by an FBI agent, close enough to a "first
year medical student" in medical knowledge, perhaps even less.

That surgery wasn't done at Parkland. The body was washed and the hair
cleaned and wrapped in a sheet by Nurse Diana Bowron, and she saw only the
wound at the BOH. She also handled the head, so she would know if there
was also any cracks in the skull under the scalp. She was the last person
at Parkland to see the body. The only event between Parkland and the
Bethesda autopsy at 8:00pm, was the clandestine surgery seen by two
witnesses and done by Humes and Boswell at 6:35pm BEFORE the autopsy.

> >
> >
> > > > There are
> > > > actual events that were testified to or statements made in the record.
> > > > No theories, which were necessary only for the WC lawyers.
> > > >
> > >
> > > And by reaching for the least reliable sources of information available,
> > > ignoring the best, subtituting amateur opinions for that of professionals,
> > > jettisoning common sense and applying the most tortured logic, Horne has
> > > dreamed up a ludicrous tale that only the most gullible people would buy
> > > into.
> > >
> >
> >
> > You opinion about who was listened to, including the various experts,
> > when they were independent enough and knowledgeable enough, is ludicrous,
> > as usual. Where an expert had something to offer and had the knowledge to
> > speak, s/he was listened to. like Pierre Finck, when he said (after
> > searching for a bullet and a path for it) "There's NO EXIT" from the body
> > of JFK.
> >
>
> Back to the silliness. That's my cue to zone out...

Please do. We can get along fine when your resting from a hard day
typing...:)

Chris

[mainframetech]

It looks too low to have slowed down the bullet that hit him in the
upper back. I mean the bullet that only went in an inch or so.

Chris

[Anthony Marsh]

What bullet? Describe it.

> upper back. To illustrate that I presented a theoretical shot plugging in
> numbers for the distance of the shot, the speed of the bullet and
> calculating the amount of drop over that distance to show such a bullet
> would drop as much as four feet. I challenged you to plug in your own
> numbers for the distance of the shot and the speed of the bullet and
> calculate the amount of drop. You were free to plug in any distance and

Stop being silly. He knows nothing about guns.

> velocity you chose. You declined to even try because you know full well
> there are no numbers you can plug in to make your theory work. You would

Anyone can make up whatever numbers they want. It doesn't matter.
The theory itself is intended to be nonsense.

> either have to place your shooter far closer than he could possibly have
> been or make your bullet travel way too fast to have only made a shallow
> entry into JFK's back.
>

You can't make a claim like that. I already showed you cases of a bullet
only going in a few inches. He could just change his claim and say it was
accidental. Shooting at the pigeons and missed.

>> And you've forgotten completely something I
>> mentioned to you earlier, and that is : what about JFK's back brace?
>
> You mean the one he wore around his lower back. Yeah, that would have been
> a big help if it was made of Kevlar and he was wearing it around his
> shoulders instead.
>

How about Ford's Kevlar T-shirt? How well did that work? And when was
Kevlar first used anyway? You don't really think the SS had the latest
technology, do you? What stopped the bullet that hit Teddy Roosevelt? His
Kevlar vest? (for you sci-fi fans that was not a real episode it is just
called an anachronism, not Sliders)

>> Was
>> part of it high enough to slow a bullet when it hit?
>
> No.
>
>> Or did the bullet
>> hot something else that slowed it down near JFK? You just haven't
>> addressed these other possibilities.
>>
>
> Are you proposing Son of the Single Bullet Theory. Yeah, that's it. It
> first went through one of the SS agents riding on the bumper. Oh wait.
> There were no SS agents riding on the bumper.
>

Jeez, you're not trying hard enough. It's the Reverse Single Bullet
Theory. It went through Connally first.

>> Better if you just looked at it from the point of view that the bullet
>> had SOME way of slowing down before hitting the back,
>
> Pure Freaking Magic comes to mind.
>

Penn and Teller do it every night. Ever see the guy who catches the
bullet with his teeth?

[Anthony Marsh]

On 4/22/2015 5:47 PM, bigdog wrote:
> On Monday, April 20, 2015 at 9:04:13 PM UTC-4, mainframetech wrote:
>> On Monday, April 20, 2015 at 3:25:44 PM UTC-4, Alex Foyle wrote:
>>> On Monday, April 20, 2015 at 3:16:22 AM UTC+2, mainframetech wrote:
>>>
>>>> Nope, I usually stick with one forum until I leave it. Though I've been
>>>> thinking of branching out.
>>>
>>> Maybe you should as there are several posters there who buy into your
>>> Horne theories.
>>
>>
>> sorry to correct you, but there are no "Horne theories".
>
> I stand correct. Horne fables would be a more accurate term.
>
>> There are
>> actual events that were testified to or statements made in the record.
>> No theories, which were necessary only for the WC lawyers.
>>
>
> And by reaching for the least reliable sources of information available,
> ignoring the best, subtituting amateur opinions for that of professionals,
> jettisoning common sense and applying the most tortured logic, Horne has
> dreamed up a ludicrous tale that only the most gullible people would buy
> into.
>

You have no standing to lecture anyone. Do your homework first.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 4/22/2015 5:46 PM, bigdog wrote:
> On Wednesday, April 22, 2015 at 12:53:32 AM UTC-4, Anthony Marsh wrote:
>>
>> You're just not trying hard enough, You are SOOO damn lazy. Don't you
>> remember what stopped the bullet from killing Teddy Roosevelt? His folded
>> up speech.
>>
>
> Apples to oranges. That was a handgun at close range. And it didn't stop
> the bullet. TR was wounded by it. A relatively slow missile was slowed
> even further by the combined resistance of TR's clothing and the folded up
> paper. We are discussing the possibility of a very weak bullet being able
> to hit a target at some distance. It can't happen.
>

Thanks for playing along. You just admitted that it was a slow handgun
bullet. You are playing into the hands of the kooks. If you actually ever
knew any facts you would have pointed out the eyeglass case. It was made
by E.B. Meyrwitz and was very thick. And you do not know enough about guns
to say what can not happen.

>> Some kooks have proposed that JFK's back brace stopped the bullet. Because
>> they had never seen the back brace. When I showed it to them they shut up.
>>
>
> Of course that couldn't happen. The back brace had no bullet stopping
> properties and nobody wears a back brace as high as the bullet that
> entered JFK's back.
>

Too late. You snooze, you lose. I've been slapping them silly for
years. All you get is sloppy seconds.

[Anthony Marsh]

Ridiculous. He won't even argue it HERE with me. And I'm the guy who
proved that the Zapruder film is authentic.

Craig Lamson is a Troll, not an expert.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 4/23/2015 12:45 PM, bigdog wrote:
> On Wednesday, April 22, 2015 at 9:55:44 PM UTC-4, mainframetech wrote:
>> On Wednesday, April 22, 2015 at 5:46:32 PM UTC-4, bigdog wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, April 22, 2015 at 12:53:32 AM UTC-4, Anthony Marsh wrote:
>>>>
>>>> You're just not trying hard enough, You are SOOO damn lazy. Don't you
>>>> remember what stopped the bullet from killing Teddy Roosevelt? His folded
>>>> up speech.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Apples to oranges. That was a handgun at close range. And it didn't stop
>>> the bullet. TR was wounded by it. A relatively slow missile was slowed
>>> even further by the combined resistance of TR's clothing and the folded up
>>> paper. We are discussing the possibility of a very weak bullet being able
>>> to hit a target at some distance. It can't happen.
>>>
>>>> Some kooks have proposed that JFK's back brace stopped the bullet. Because
>>>> they had never seen the back brace. When I showed it to them they shut up.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Of course that couldn't happen. The back brace had no bullet stopping
>>> properties and nobody wears a back brace as high as the bullet that
>>> entered JFK's back.
>>
>>
>> Do you know whether the back brace had any wood or metal supports slid
>> into it, like battens in a sail?
>
> You're grasping at straws. A sign of desperation.
>
>> It's not important to prove that a
>> bullet was stopped an inch or so into the body of JFK, but it would help
>> to find out what caused the bullet to slow down.
>

He's hypothesizing about BEFORE the bullet hit JFK in the back.
Try to stay ON TOPIC.

> Connally's torso and wrist had a lot to do with it.
>
>> Something wrong with the
>> powder or something that got in the way of the bullet and slowed it down.
>
> That something being JFK AND JBC.
>
>> We already know that the bullet was stopped at the pleura because of the
>> prosectors conclusions, and the statement in the AR that the "pleura was
>> INTACT".
>>
>
> There's a difference between knowing something and accepting something on
> blind faith.
>

And believing professional liars and idiot witnesses.

[mainframetech]

WRONG! Try using your head. It doesn't take a bunch of calculations
to figure it out, it takes logic and common sense, which you're not using
so far. It's simple to see that a bullet that can travel at a high speed
can also travel at a low speed, and there is a speed between the 2 that
will get it to the upper back and let it enter an inch or so, and there is
a direction to point the rifle (or handgun) that will supply the right
speed. There is NO figuring to be done because the hard evidence tells us
that the bullet stopped at the pleura. That being the probing with finger
and chrome probe, and the seeing the probing from the inside cavity where
the probe was rubbing on the pleura and not penetrating.

You can play your games all day and you can't fight the facts. The
bullet stopped at the pleura at the bruises mentioned in the AR, and the
pleura was left "INTACT" so that no bullet could pass.

> > The aim might have been messed up for some reason, and the shot be
> > fired higher, then it would come down at the back wound. It doesn't
> > matter what you try to do, there is a speed and direction that a bullet
> > can travel that will cause it to go into the back only the inch or so that
> > WE KNOW IT DID!
> >
>
> You get more desperate the more you try to save your pet turkey. So you
> are now proposing that the shooter aimed way too high and through an
> amazing stroke of luck, he fired an extremely weak bullet that dropped so
> much it hit JFK anyway.
>

WERONG as usual. You've left out dealing with the other possibilities
of weak powder or an obstacle in the barrel, like it was slightly smaller
than it should be, or some bit of metal was hanging down in the way and
scraped the bullet as it passed, changing its direction and speed. There
are many possibilities, but it matters not at all, since we KNOW that the
bullet was stopped at the pleura, as per the prosectors and the AR.

It's really the Twilight Zone listening to you ignore the hard facts
presented by the AR and the prosectors, and still trying to find a way out
of the truth.

> > You can't defeat the science of Ballistics!
> >
>
> Nothing you believe is based on any science. If it was, you could point to
> some expert in the field who agrees with your assessments.
>

WRONG! No one in any field is waiting on the sidelines to bolster up
any answer from either of us. And I doubt that many have had to even
consider what we're talking about. You need only logic to see the answer,
but you refuse to face the hard evidence that the bullet stopped at the
pleura, as per the prosectors and the AR.

No problem. As noted to you before, there are too many possibilities
to consider. A bullet can be slow enough to reach the destination and
then not be able to penetrate more than an inch. As noted before there is
a direction and a speed that will do exactly what it did. Calculate it if
you want, but it's a waste of time, since the answer is obvious.

It's strange to hear you say that if a bullet were slowed, it would
never reach the target. Yet if it were sped up, it would, and then
penetrate. Logic and common sense say that there is a middle ground, yet
you're blind to it.

> > or between the gun and
> > the point where the bullet stopped against the pleura. We know where the
> > bullet stopped, that's in the record and the AR too. The pleura wasn't
> > torn or punctured, so the bullet stopped there where the bruises were.
> >
>
> Or maybe your amateurish analysis of the medical evidence is just plain
> wrong and the bullet didn't stop at the pleura but went by it close enough
> to cause the bruise without perforating it and then exited JFK's throat.
> It's a lot easier to make that work than all these other crazy ideas you
> have floated to try to make your theory work.
>

Nope, the prosectors eliminated that possibility by saying in the AR
that there was 'no path found'. That means (in reality) that DURING the
autopsy when they realized that "There's NO EXIT" that there would not be
a path from the pleura to the throat wound, so don't bother trying to
invent one.

> > > > and that caused it
> > > > to be weak enough to only go through an inch or so of the back. THAT much
> > > > is known.
> > >
> > > That much is taken as an article of faith by silly people.
> > >
> >
> >
> > WRONG! That's from the record. And the AR too! The bullet stopped at
> > the pleura, as per the AR and the prosectors. Only "silly people" doubt
> > it...:)
> >
>
> No, the AR said the bullet bruised the pleura and then went on by to exit
> the throat. You seem to think a bullet can't bruise tissue unless it
> strikes it directly. That has led to your confusion.
>

WRONG! The pleura was struck and bruised, but so was the right lung,
and the bruise on the lung was almost 2 inches in diameter. That means
that the strike was at LEAST 1 inch into the right lung, and that is too
far in for any bullet to bypass either pleura or lung. You keep reminding
about high speed bullets, when one hits wouldn't it tear through the
pleura and lung or leave a puncture? It sure wouldn't stop to make a road
around them! The only possibility is that the bullet was traveling slowly
and couldn't penetrate the pleura, just as the AR says, and all the
prosectors signed off on.

> >
> >
> > > > You need to realize that what the prosectors said after their
> > > > long search for the bullet and a path was true. They knew what they were
> > > > doing, and they did NOT find a path or a bullet. They also proved to
> > > > themselves that "There was NO EXIT" from the body of JFK for that bullet.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Time to zone out...
> >
> >
> >
> > Yes, please get your sleep. We'll carry on in your absence. You're not
> > really needed..:)
> >
>
> That's true. You don't need my help to develop your ridiculous theories.

WRONG! No theories here. Only the facts.

Chris

[mainframetech]

I took a look at the quick little effort where you pointed. As
expected, it has 'attitude', and that's not very good for anyone trying to
prove their point. Since I'm not an expert at photography or Film, I saw
only a few mistakes made by the person trying to discredit Horne's effort,
and it didn't go anywhere near the depth that Horne too it.

The business about 'Bill Smith' lying is not particularly surprising.
These types playing their games will lie about anything to keep folks in
the dark. However, I see where he says:

"...it was a re-creation of the Zapruder film after its alteration at that
facility, intended to masquerade as an original out-of-camera, unslit (16
mm wide), "double 8" film".

This sounds odd to me, since the guy who's complaining about Horne
being wrong about the film being altered, has just said it had an
"alteration at that facility", which I took to mean at the "Hawkeye
Works".

Also if you check my words, you'll find that I said that the film was
developed in Dallas, just as the complainer said. I'm not sure that Horne
said it was developed at the "Hawkeye Works" though the "Bill Smith'
person might have said it. So Horne wouldn't be the liar, but the Bill
Smith would be. My impression was what I had said.

Since I've checked out most of Horne's story on the autopsy and the
casket switching, and found the record backs him up, it's suggestive that
he didn't lie or make any serious mistakes in the Z-film debacle.

A question I've asked before is why did the CIA have a copy of the
Z-film in the first place, and have to have 2 separate teams of Film
Specialists make briefing boards for higher ups on 2 different days with 2
obviously different films? One film was 8mm and the other was 16mm, so
they weren't the same film.

In any event, I'll have to print out the complaint and look through the
Horne book to check each comment and see if they are legitimate, since
some things don't seem right to me. I'll let you know what I find.

Chris

[bigdog]

I started to reply to this post of yours but after reading through your
comments it was clear you were so far off the rails there was simply no
point.

[bigdog]

Logic and common sense would tell you if you can't get the arithmetic to
work for you. You need a high speed bullet that will hold it's trajectory
to the target but once it reaches the target you need it to slow way down
so that it only penetrates an inch into soft tissue. No such bullet
exists. That's why you avoid doing any calculations the way Dracula avoids
the sunlight.

> It's simple to see that a bullet that can travel at a high speed
> can also travel at a low speed, and there is a speed between the 2 that
> will get it to the upper back and let it enter an inch or so,

But of course you won't do the arithmetic to show how that is possible. I
haven't even asked you to specify any particular bullet. I've simply asked
you to present a distance and a bullet velocity that will get your bullet
to the target but then only penetrate one inch. There are no numbers you
can plug into the equation to make it work even though you have the
latitude to make the distance what you want and the velocity what you
want.

> and there is
> a direction to point the rifle (or handgun) that will supply the right
> speed.

Yes there is if the shooter knows what the velocity of his bullet is and
adjusts either his aiming point or his gun sight accordingly. You have
proposed and under powered bullet which the shooter wouldn't know about
until after he fired it. Therefore there would be no reason to raise his
aiming point or adjust his sights to allow for an underpowered bullet.
Don't bother proposing that the shooter knew he had an underpowered bullet
because nobody with a brain in their head would try to kill somebody with
such a bullet.

> There is NO figuring to be done because the hard evidence tells us
> that the bullet stopped at the pleura.

So you don't think your hypothesis needs to be tested by subjecting it to
arithmetic calculations. There's a real scientific approach. Just accept
on faith that your hypothesis is correct. Why confuse yourself with facts?

> That being the probing with finger
> and chrome probe, and the seeing the probing from the inside cavity where
> the probe was rubbing on the pleura and not penetrating.
>

I guess you never read Finck's testimony where he pointed out that forcing
a probe can create a false channel.

> You can play your games all day and you can't fight the facts. The
> bullet stopped at the pleura at the bruises mentioned in the AR, and the
> pleura was left "INTACT" so that no bullet could pass.
>

Complete nonsense. Completely unsupportable as you continue to demonstrate
by refusing to apply simple arithmetic to your hypothesis.

>
>
> > > The aim might have been messed up for some reason, and the shot be
> > > fired higher, then it would come down at the back wound. It doesn't
> > > matter what you try to do, there is a speed and direction that a bullet
> > > can travel that will cause it to go into the back only the inch or so that
> > > WE KNOW IT DID!
> > >
> >
> > You get more desperate the more you try to save your pet turkey. So you
> > are now proposing that the shooter aimed way too high and through an
> > amazing stroke of luck, he fired an extremely weak bullet that dropped so
> > much it hit JFK anyway.
> >
>
>
> WERONG as usual. You've left out dealing with the other possibilities
> of weak powder or an obstacle in the barrel, like it was slightly smaller
> than it should be, or some bit of metal was hanging down in the way and
> scraped the bullet as it passed, changing its direction and speed.

If that had happened, the bullet wouldn't have hit the target. When the
bullet doesn't travel with the expected velocity, it will drop well below
the aiming point before it reaches the target.

> There
> are many possibilities, but it matters not at all, since we KNOW that the
> bullet was stopped at the pleura, as per the prosectors and the AR.
>

Continue to put blind faith in what Doug Horne spoon fed to you and dont'
every consider actually scrutinizing it by applying basic scientific
methods for testing out a hypothesis.

> It's really the Twilight Zone listening to you ignore the hard facts
> presented by the AR and the prosectors, and still trying to find a way out
> of the truth.
>

If they were facts, you could prove them. You've demonstrated that you
can't. You simply accept Horne's nonsense because you want to.

That's not what the AR says and you know it.

> That means (in reality) that DURING the
> autopsy when they realized that "There's NO EXIT" that there would not be
> a path from the pleura to the throat wound, so don't bother trying to
> invent one.
>

After gathering ALL the facts, they came to the conclusion that the bullet
had exited the throat. You can't change that no matter how hard you
try.

>
>
>
> > > > > and that caused it
> > > > > to be weak enough to only go through an inch or so of the back. THAT much
> > > > > is known.
> > > >
> > > > That much is taken as an article of faith by silly people.
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > WRONG! That's from the record. And the AR too! The bullet stopped at
> > > the pleura, as per the AR and the prosectors. Only "silly people" doubt
> > > it...:)
> > >
> >
> > No, the AR said the bullet bruised the pleura and then went on by to exit
> > the throat. You seem to think a bullet can't bruise tissue unless it
> > strikes it directly. That has led to your confusion.
> >
>
>
> WRONG! The pleura was struck and bruised, but so was the right lung,
> and the bruise on the lung was almost 2 inches in diameter. That means
> that the strike was at LEAST 1 inch into the right lung, and that is too
> far in for any bullet to bypass either pleura or lung.

How the hell did you come up with that?

> You keep reminding
> about high speed bullets, when one hits wouldn't it tear through the
> pleura and lung or leave a puncture?

Only if it struck it directly. If it passed right next to it, it would
only bruise it which is what happened.

> It sure wouldn't stop to make a road
> around them!

It didn't need to go around them. It just needed to continue on the path
which passed next to that tissue.

> The only possibility is that the bullet was traveling slowly
> and couldn't penetrate the pleura, just as the AR says, and all the
> prosectors signed off on.
>

That's the only possibilty you can think of. You haven't tried very hard
to think of others because you desperately want to believe that one.

>
>
>
> > >
> > >
> > > > > You need to realize that what the prosectors said after their
> > > > > long search for the bullet and a path was true. They knew what they were
> > > > > doing, and they did NOT find a path or a bullet. They also proved to
> > > > > themselves that "There was NO EXIT" from the body of JFK for that bullet.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Time to zone out...
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Yes, please get your sleep. We'll carry on in your absence. You're not
> > > really needed..:)
> > >
> >
> > That's true. You don't need my help to develop your ridiculous theories.
>
>
> WRONG! No theories here. Only the facts.
>

If they were facts, you could prove them by applying basic science and
arithmetic. You can't do that so instead you just parrot what Horne wrote.

[mainframetech]

Spoiler Alert!

If the trick needs a plate or similar between the shooter and the
person catching the bullet, then the bullet is of the type that powders
when it hits something, like the bullets in a shooting gallery. It will
break the plate, but go to powder at the same time. The 'catcher' just
pops a bullet out between their teeth that they had secreted in the mouth
earlier.

Chris

[Alex Foyle]

On Saturday, April 25, 2015 at 2:52:23 AM UTC+2, Anthony Marsh wrote:

> Ridiculous. He won't even argue it HERE with me.

Craig Lamson doesn't post here and you're being the one acting ridiculous
again. Anyone can search Duncan's forum for "Anthony Marsh + Craig Lamson"
and find the most entertaining arguments between Craig and you in which he
debunked you plainly each time. Since you are able to post at Duncan's
forum again, why don't you go over there and engage Craig where he
actually posts, I always enjoy his trashing your attempts to refute him.

> And I'm the guy who proved that the Zapruder film is authentic.

No, you're not, quit flattering yourself. You might be one of the guys who
did that, big deal.

> Craig Lamson is a Troll, not an expert.

Craig knows more about photography than you ever will. Go take a good look
in the mirror, Tony, and reflect on your silly comment. Anyone reading the
archived encounters between Craig and yourself at Duncan's forum can judge
for themselves who the real troll between you two actually is.

[Alex Foyle]

On Saturday, April 25, 2015 at 3:03:59 AM UTC+2, mainframetech wrote:
> On Thursday, April 23, 2015 at 7:25:01 PM UTC-4, Alex Foyle wrote:

> > http://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,12246.0.html
> >
> > Anybody can join Duncan's forum and it would be wonderful to see you argue
> > your case for Horne's Z film alteration with photograpy experts like Craig
> > Lamson. Why not jump right into that thread and show Craig just where he's
> > got it wrong.

> I took a look at the quick little effort where you pointed. As
> expected, it has 'attitude', and that's not very good for anyone trying to
> prove their point. Since I'm not an expert at photography or Film, I saw
> only a few mistakes made by the person trying to discredit Horne's effort,
> and it didn't go anywhere near the depth that Horne too it.

It only takes 1 or 2 minutes to register at Duncan's forum and off you go.
Politely point Craig to the few mistakes you saw and he will reply
professionally. Craig only acts with an attitude when he has to engage
with hopeless nonsense repeaters like Royell Storing, Herbert Blenner,
Anthony Marsh or Walt Cakebread, to name a few. If you ask reasonable
questions he will reply to you without attitude. Why don't you just try at
the thread I provided above or jump in this other active Brugioni thread:

http://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,12210.0.html

[Anthony Marsh]

On 4/25/2015 12:57 PM, Alex Foyle wrote:
> On Saturday, April 25, 2015 at 3:03:59 AM UTC+2, mainframetech wrote:
>> On Thursday, April 23, 2015 at 7:25:01 PM UTC-4, Alex Foyle wrote:
>
>>> http://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,12246.0.html
>>>
>>> Anybody can join Duncan's forum and it would be wonderful to see you argue
>>> your case for Horne's Z film alteration with photograpy experts like Craig
>>> Lamson. Why not jump right into that thread and show Craig just where he's
>>> got it wrong.
>
>> I took a look at the quick little effort where you pointed. As
>> expected, it has 'attitude', and that's not very good for anyone trying to
>> prove their point. Since I'm not an expert at photography or Film, I saw
>> only a few mistakes made by the person trying to discredit Horne's effort,
>> and it didn't go anywhere near the depth that Horne too it.
>
> It only takes 1 or 2 minutes to register at Duncan's forum and off you go.
> Politely point Craig to the few mistakes you saw and he will reply
> professionally. Craig only acts with an attitude when he has to engage
> with hopeless nonsense repeaters like Royell Storing, Herbert Blenner,
> Anthony Marsh or Walt Cakebread, to name a few. If you ask reasonable

Do you really think Cakebread is his real name? Have you ever met him in
person? That forum is full of Trolls using aliases.
Craig does not reply at all.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 4/25/2015 12:56 PM, Alex Foyle wrote:
> On Saturday, April 25, 2015 at 2:52:23 AM UTC+2, Anthony Marsh wrote:
>
>> Ridiculous. He won't even argue it HERE with me.
>
> Craig Lamson doesn't post here and you're being the one acting ridiculous
> again. Anyone can search Duncan's forum for "Anthony Marsh + Craig Lamson"
> and find the most entertaining arguments between Craig and you in which

Anyone can't. You have to register. Guests can not search for messages.

> debunked you plainly each time. Since you are able to post at Duncan's
> forum again, why don't you go over there and engage Craig where he

No, I was banned.

> actually posts, I always enjoy his trashing your attempts to refute him.
>

No need to refute him. He is a Troll.

>> And I'm the guy who proved that the Zapruder film is authentic.
>
> No, you're not, quit flattering yourself. You might be one of the guys who
> did that, big deal.
>

The first.
Big deal.

>> Craig Lamson is a Troll, not an expert.
>
> Craig knows more about photography than you ever will. Go take a good look

Nonsense. He is bluffing.

> in the mirror, Tony, and reflect on your silly comment. Anyone reading the
> archived encounters between Craig and yourself at Duncan's forum can judge
> for themselves who the real troll between you two actually is.
>

I was posting long before him.
I was researching long before any of you.

[Anthony Marsh]

It's a Magician. You know I am not allowed to tell you how the trick is
done. There is a Magician on TV who does show you how the trick is done.

> person catching the bullet, then the bullet is of the type that powders
> when it hits something, like the bullets in a shooting gallery. It will
> break the plate, but go to powder at the same time. The 'catcher' just
> pops a bullet out between their teeth that they had secreted in the mouth
> earlier.
>

SHH

> Chris
>
>

[Anthony Marsh]

Sounds interesting. So tell us Mr. Gun Expert, exactly how high a speed
does your bullet need to hold it's [sic] trajectory? 4,000 fps? Do you
remember that the Carcano had trouble holding its trajectory?

> to the target but once it reaches the target you need it to slow way down
> so that it only penetrates an inch into soft tissue. No such bullet
> exists. That's why you avoid doing any calculations the way Dracula avoids
> the sunlight.
>

Of course such a bullet exists. Just not under the Dealey Plaza
conditions.

>> It's simple to see that a bullet that can travel at a high speed
>> can also travel at a low speed, and there is a speed between the 2 that
>> will get it to the upper back and let it enter an inch or so,
>
> But of course you won't do the arithmetic to show how that is possible. I
> haven't even asked you to specify any particular bullet. I've simply asked
> you to present a distance and a bullet velocity that will get your bullet
> to the target but then only penetrate one inch. There are no numbers you
> can plug into the equation to make it work even though you have the
> latitude to make the distance what you want and the velocity what you
> want.
>

Any moron can guess at the numbers. Why don't you watch Mybusters to
find out what numbers they got?

>> and there is
>> a direction to point the rifle (or handgun) that will supply the right
>> speed.
>
> Yes there is if the shooter knows what the velocity of his bullet is and
> adjusts either his aiming point or his gun sight accordingly. You have
> proposed and under powered bullet which the shooter wouldn't know about
> until after he fired it. Therefore there would be no reason to raise his
> aiming point or adjust his sights to allow for an underpowered bullet.

Aim? What the Fract are you talking about?

> Don't bother proposing that the shooter knew he had an underpowered bullet
> because nobody with a brain in their head would try to kill somebody with
> such a bullet.
>

I like the silly theory about defective primers.
Guess what happened when they tested that? The rifle blew up and the
bullet never exited.

>
>> There is NO figuring to be done because the hard evidence tells us
>> that the bullet stopped at the pleura.
>
> So you don't think your hypothesis needs to be tested by subjecting it to
> arithmetic calculations. There's a real scientific approach. Just accept
> on faith that your hypothesis is correct. Why confuse yourself with facts?
>

Mythbusters already did it.

>> That being the probing with finger
>> and chrome probe, and the seeing the probing from the inside cavity where
>> the probe was rubbing on the pleura and not penetrating.
>>
>
> I guess you never read Finck's testimony where he pointed out that forcing
> a probe can create a false channel.
>

Do you understand that a vertebra can stop a .45?

[mainframetech]

WRONG! You keep assuming that there was a target and the aiming at that
target was perfect. There is no such guarantee. We KNOW that a bullet
got into JFK's back an inch or so, but we have no idea whether it was well
aimed, or was a mistake or what was behind it. We simply have to find a
reason for it to have stopped where we KNOW that it did. A weak bullet
(powder was faulty, old ammo) is one reason. There IS indeed a particular
speed that a bullet can be fired at, or slowed down to, that will cause it
to hit but not penetrate more than an inch. But that logic seems to
escape you.

> > It's simple to see that a bullet that can travel at a high speed
> > can also travel at a low speed, and there is a speed between the 2 that
> > will get it to the upper back and let it enter an inch or so,
>
> But of course you won't do the arithmetic to show how that is possible. I
> haven't even asked you to specify any particular bullet. I've simply asked
> you to present a distance and a bullet velocity that will get your bullet
> to the target but then only penetrate one inch. There are no numbers you
> can plug into the equation to make it work even though you have the
> latitude to make the distance what you want and the velocity what you
> want.
>

It would be foolish to inquire what kind of bullet it was, since the
bullet disappeared so quickly that there was no opportunity to figure out
its type. Saying it won't work proves nothing, since that's an opinion.
It's a bit more logical that there is a particular speed the bullet was
traveling at WHEN it hit the upper back, and penetrated an inch. There
are a few different possibilities, not that it matters in the long run
what slowed the bullet, but it's interesting to think of those
possibilities.

First, the bullet may have had a charge of powder that wasn't in good
shape.

Second, something in the gun that fired the bullet slowed it down
before it got on its way, like a bit of metal that was hanging out of the
barrel that the bullet scraped by against.

Third, the barrel was slightly smaller than necessary and slowed the
bullet down.

Fourth, something along the way caused the bullet to slow down by
hitting it or going through it.

Fifth, Something near JFK was hard enough to slow the bullet down
before it went into his back. A bit of the seat back or whatever.

For some practice with logic, there's a bunch of possibilities.
Choosing one won't get us the answer, but knock yourself out. Those are
examples for you in using logic. Some ideas are less possible than
others, but they are all possible.

> > and there is
> > a direction to point the rifle (or handgun) that will supply the right
> > speed.
>
> Yes there is if the shooter knows what the velocity of his bullet is and
> adjusts either his aiming point or his gun sight accordingly. You have
> proposed and under powered bullet which the shooter wouldn't know about
> until after he fired it. Therefore there would be no reason to raise his
> aiming point or adjust his sights to allow for an underpowered bullet.
> Don't bother proposing that the shooter knew he had an underpowered bullet
> because nobody with a brain in their head would try to kill somebody with
> such a bullet.
>

It is not required that the shooter have exact knowledge of the
ballistics involved. WE don't know if the bullet was even aimed or it was
an accidental firing of the gun.

>
> > There is NO figuring to be done because the hard evidence tells us
> > that the bullet stopped at the pleura.
>
> So you don't think your hypothesis needs to be tested by subjecting it to
> arithmetic calculations. There's a real scientific approach. Just accept
> on faith that your hypothesis is correct. Why confuse yourself with facts?
>

Recreations and such will usually succeed though they may be different
in some way from the real situation. They usually follow the designer's
interest. We would be unable to recreate such a test, since we don't know
what kind of bullet it was ,and we don't know anything about the gun or
the reason the bullet was slowed down before penetrating. You're barking
up the wrong tree again. Try and think it through!

> > That being the probing with finger
> > and chrome probe, and the seeing the probing from the inside cavity where
> > the probe was rubbing on the pleura and not penetrating.
> >
>
> I guess you never read Finck's testimony where he pointed out that forcing
> a probe can create a false channel.
>

Sadly, you didn't think before you spoke. AS you well know, Finck also
said "There's NO EXIT" from the body of JFK. Right while he was knowing
his own saying. And he signed off on the AR that said (basically) there's
no path for the bullet).

> > You can play your games all day and you can't fight the facts. The
> > bullet stopped at the pleura at the bruises mentioned in the AR, and the
> > pleura was left "INTACT" so that no bullet could pass.
> >
>
> Complete nonsense. Completely unsupportable as you continue to demonstrate
> by refusing to apply simple arithmetic to your hypothesis.
>

I know you would love to have me run around doing arithmetic for
nothing, but I'm not going to, because there is no information to go on
such as bullet type, gun type, what slowed the bullet down and where that
slowdown was, and what kind of slowdown it made. It's a fool's quest, and
you were foolish to even try it yourself.

> >
> >
> > > > The aim might have been messed up for some reason, and the shot be
> > > > fired higher, then it would come down at the back wound. It doesn't
> > > > matter what you try to do, there is a speed and direction that a bullet
> > > > can travel that will cause it to go into the back only the inch or so that
> > > > WE KNOW IT DID!
> > > >
> > >
> > > You get more desperate the more you try to save your pet turkey. So you
> > > are now proposing that the shooter aimed way too high and through an
> > > amazing stroke of luck, he fired an extremely weak bullet that dropped so
> > > much it hit JFK anyway.
> > >
> >
> >
> > WERONG as usual. You've left out dealing with the other possibilities
> > of weak powder or an obstacle in the barrel, like it was slightly smaller
> > than it should be, or some bit of metal was hanging down in the way and
> > scraped the bullet as it passed, changing its direction and speed.
>
> If that had happened, the bullet wouldn't have hit the target. When the
> bullet doesn't travel with the expected velocity, it will drop well below
> the aiming point before it reaches the target.
>

You have NO WAY of knowing whether a bullet would have hit a target
because you don't know where the gun was aimed, or even if it fired
accidentally. Think it through!

> > There
> > are many possibilities, but it matters not at all, since we KNOW that the
> > bullet was stopped at the pleura, as per the prosectors and the AR.
> >
>
> Continue to put blind faith in what Doug Horne spoon fed to you and dont'
> every consider actually scrutinizing it by applying basic scientific
> methods for testing out a hypothesis.
>

Doug Horne never told me anything, and he certainly never wrote anywhere
that the bullet was stopped at the pleura in the body of JFK. I don't
know if he even knows of the problem at this point, since I don't speak
with him, and never have in the past. Try and get that straight it your
mind.

And don't even bother pretending that you used any scientific method to
calculate anything about bullets for this case. You have no clue what
kind of bullet was involved, what kind of gun, what might have slowed the
bullet down, and you don't even know if the gun was fired intentionally or
by accident.

Have you any idea how silly you must look doing calculations with NO
data to go on, and then acting like that was the right thing to do!

> > It's really the Twilight Zone listening to you ignore the hard facts
> > presented by the AR and the prosectors, and still trying to find a way out
> > of the truth.
> >
>
> If they were facts, you could prove them. You've demonstrated that you
> can't. You simply accept Horne's nonsense because you want to.
>

WRONG yet again! I don't accept his writings without checking myself,
and my checking in the official record tells me his story is right on
target. However, I doubt he knows anything about this little discussion
about the bullet stopping at the pleura.

I said nothing of the sort. Don't pretend you didn't understand.
There is a speed where the bullet would reach the upper back and also not

penetrate more than an inch.



> >
> >
> >

> > > > or between the gun and
> > > > the point where the bullet stopped against the pleura. We know where the
> > > > bullet stopped, that's in the record and the AR too. The pleura wasn't
> > > > torn or punctured, so the bullet stopped there where the bruises were.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Or maybe your amateurish analysis of the medical evidence is just plain
> > > wrong and the bullet didn't stop at the pleura but went by it close enough
> > > to cause the bruise without perforating it and then exited JFK's throat.
> > > It's a lot easier to make that work than all these other crazy ideas you
> > > have floated to try to make your theory work.
> > >
> >
> >
> > Nope, the prosectors eliminated that possibility by saying in the AR
> > that there was 'no path found'.
>
> That's not what the AR says and you know it.
>

In essence, that's what it says in the AR. Here:

"The missile path through the fascia and musculature cannot be easily
proved". And after saying that, they then said nothing about the missile
path, meaning that they couldn't find it, or they would have said so and
dissected it in normal fashion.

> > That means (in reality) that DURING the
> > autopsy when they realized that "There's NO EXIT" that there would not be
> > a path from the pleura to the throat wound, so don't bother trying to
> > invent one.
> >
>
> After gathering ALL the facts, they came to the conclusion that the bullet
> had exited the throat. You can't change that no matter how hard you
> try.
>

I cannot change the words, but I also can't change the words in the AR
that said:

"Both the visceral and parietal pleura are
intact overlying these areas of trauma."

And because they all said that, and signed off on it, it means that the
bullet never got past the pleura. You have no idea what is involved in
trying to get the bullet past that pleura and right lung. It's impossible
without tearing or puncturing those tissues.

> > > > > > and that caused it
> > > > > > to be weak enough to only go through an inch or so of the back. THAT much
> > > > > > is known.
> > > > >
> > > > > That much is taken as an article of faith by silly people.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > WRONG! That's from the record. And the AR too! The bullet stopped at
> > > > the pleura, as per the AR and the prosectors. Only "silly people" doubt
> > > > it...:)
> > > >
> > >
> > > No, the AR said the bullet bruised the pleura and then went on by to exit
> > > the throat. You seem to think a bullet can't bruise tissue unless it
> > > strikes it directly. That has led to your confusion.
> > >
> >
> >
> > WRONG! The pleura was struck and bruised, but so was the right lung,
> > and the bruise on the lung was almost 2 inches in diameter. That means
> > that the strike was at LEAST 1 inch into the right lung, and that is too
> > far in for any bullet to bypass either pleura or lung.
>
> How the hell did you come up with that?
>

By being able to envision the tissues and how they lie, and basic
physics that we all know.

> > You keep reminding
> > about high speed bullets, when one hits wouldn't it tear through the
> > pleura and lung or leave a puncture?
>
> Only if it struck it directly. If it passed right next to it, it would
> only bruise it which is what happened.
>

I have big news for you. Go ask someone who has seen bullets tear into
bodies. You'll hear that there is NO tissue in the body that can
withstand a bullet speeding at it. If the bullet has NOT been slowed
down, it will hit the pleura and the right lung and not even know they
were there. They will puncture them like fluff and leave a hole in their
passing. Go watch them firing into ballistic gel and see what stops a
bullet, or even lets it 'slide' by. Nothing does.

> > It sure wouldn't stop to make a road
> > around them!
>
> It didn't need to go around them. It just needed to continue on the path
> which passed next to that tissue.
>

Nope, go check the AR again. There were bruises almost 2 inches wide on
the lung, and that didn't come for a bullet just nicking the tip of the
lung. It cam from the bullet hitting the lung straight on, and being
stopped by the pleura and lung together. You want the bullet to be going
full tilt, but it wasn't. If it were going at full speed, it would have
punctured the tissues.

> > The only possibility is that the bullet was traveling slowly
> > and couldn't penetrate the pleura, just as the AR says, and all the
> > prosectors signed off on.
> >
>
> That's the only possibilty you can think of. You haven't tried very hard
> to think of others because you desperately want to believe that one.
>

LOL~! I don't need desperation, since I have the AR and the prosectors
on my side along with the world of physics...:) I suggest you try
desperation though, it might help in your corner there.

> > > > > > You need to realize that what the prosectors said after their
> > > > > > long search for the bullet and a path was true. They knew what they were
> > > > > > doing, and they did NOT find a path or a bullet. They also proved to
> > > > > > themselves that "There was NO EXIT" from the body of JFK for that bullet.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Time to zone out...
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Yes, please get your sleep. We'll carry on in your absence. You're not
> > > > really needed..:)
> > > >
> > >
> > > That's true. You don't need my help to develop your ridiculous theories.
> >
> >
> > WRONG! No theories here. Only the facts.
> >
>
> If they were facts, you could prove them by applying basic science and
> arithmetic. You can't do that so instead you just parrot what Horne wrote.

WRONG again! I didn't get any of this stuff from Horne. This was
found by me and put out by me. I don't know if Horne is aware of it yet.
basic science says that it's foolish to make calculations when you have no
clue what kind of bullet you had , or what kind of rifle you had. Just
dumb to try calculating on the basis of knowing nothing.

Chris

[Bud]

Still can`t figure out that Oswald killed Kennedy. Not good, Tony, not
good at all.

[bigdog]

On Saturday, April 25, 2015 at 7:50:54 PM UTC-4, Anthony Marsh wrote:
> On 4/25/2015 11:33 AM, bigdog wrote:
> >
> > Logic and common sense would tell you if you can't get the arithmetic to
> > work for you. You need a high speed bullet that will hold it's trajectory
>
> Sounds interesting. So tell us Mr. Gun Expert, exactly how high a speed
> does your bullet need to hold it's [sic] trajectory? 4,000 fps? Do you
> remember that the Carcano had trouble holding its trajectory?
>

OK. This is the part where you try to pretend you are smarter than the
rest of us. It's really very simple. All bullets regardless of velocity
will be drawn back toward the earth the instant they leave the barrel. The
longer the bullet takes to reach the target, the more it will drop. That's
why the key figures are the velocity of the bullet and the distance of the
shot. Also coming into play is the deceleration rate of the bullet due to
the resistance of the air. That can vary slghtly depending on the
direction of the wind. So to make this as simple as I can for you, if the
distance of the shot is 200 feet and the average speed of the bullet over
that distance is 2000 fps, it will take the bullet 1/10th of a second to
reach the target. The bullet will drop below its initial vector for 1/10th
of a second. To fire a precise shot, the shooter would either have to
adjust his sights to allow for that amount of drop or if the weapon has
fixed sights he will have to adjust his aiming point to allow for the
drop.

> > to the target but once it reaches the target you need it to slow way down
> > so that it only penetrates an inch into soft tissue. No such bullet
> > exists. That's why you avoid doing any calculations the way Dracula avoids
> > the sunlight.
> >
>
> Of course such a bullet exists. Just not under the Dealey Plaza
> conditions.
>

But of course you can't tell us what kind of bullet that would be. That
would subject your statement to scrutiny which of course you want no part
of.

> >> It's simple to see that a bullet that can travel at a high speed
> >> can also travel at a low speed, and there is a speed between the 2 that
> >> will get it to the upper back and let it enter an inch or so,
> >
> > But of course you won't do the arithmetic to show how that is possible. I
> > haven't even asked you to specify any particular bullet. I've simply asked
> > you to present a distance and a bullet velocity that will get your bullet
> > to the target but then only penetrate one inch. There are no numbers you
> > can plug into the equation to make it work even though you have the
> > latitude to make the distance what you want and the velocity what you
> > want.
> >
>
> Any moron can guess at the numbers. Why don't you watch Mybusters to
> find out what numbers they got?
>

Because I wanted Chris to support his position by supplying his own
numbers. What difference does it make what numbers Mythbusters used.

> >> and there is
> >> a direction to point the rifle (or handgun) that will supply the right
> >> speed.
> >
> > Yes there is if the shooter knows what the velocity of his bullet is and
> > adjusts either his aiming point or his gun sight accordingly. You have
> > proposed and under powered bullet which the shooter wouldn't know about
> > until after he fired it. Therefore there would be no reason to raise his
> > aiming point or adjust his sights to allow for an underpowered bullet.
>
> Aim? What the Fract are you talking about?
>

OK. This is where you have nothing to contribute so you just become
obnoxious.

> > Don't bother proposing that the shooter knew he had an underpowered bullet
> > because nobody with a brain in their head would try to kill somebody with
> > such a bullet.
> >
>
> I like the silly theory about defective primers.
> Guess what happened when they tested that? The rifle blew up and the
> bullet never exited.
>

Another irrelevant example.

> >
> >> There is NO figuring to be done because the hard evidence tells us
> >> that the bullet stopped at the pleura.
> >
> > So you don't think your hypothesis needs to be tested by subjecting it to
> > arithmetic calculations. There's a real scientific approach. Just accept
> > on faith that your hypothesis is correct. Why confuse yourself with facts?
> >
>
> Mythbusters already did it.
>
> >> That being the probing with finger
> >> and chrome probe, and the seeing the probing from the inside cavity where
> >> the probe was rubbing on the pleura and not penetrating.
> >>
> >
> > I guess you never read Finck's testimony where he pointed out that forcing
> > a probe can create a false channel.
> >
>
> Do you understand that a vertebra can stop a .45?
>

What does that have to do with anything. JFK wasn't hit with a .45 and the
bullet didn't hit his spine.

[mainframetech]

It's a matter of simple logic that anyone can understand, that the post
says about the film that 'Smith' brought:

"...it was a re-creation of the Zapruder film after its alteration at that
facility, intended to masquerade as an original out-of-camera, unslit (16
mm wide), "double 8" film."

Yes, that's exactly what Horne said, though he spent much more time
going into the real detail.

So the film was altered, as the post says.

Horne can't be responsible for what the SS agent Bill Smith said.
That he lied a couple times to Homer McMahon, there is no doubt. But it
doesn't affect the key fact that the film was "altered" as the post in
question said. That was the point of all of Horne's efforts in his volume
4 of 5 on the ARRB. And my own comments here, which are the Z-film was
"altered" and folks shouldn't do measurements using it, because some
frames were taken out and the timing was affected.

As well, they did a check on the film and found what often happens with
spring wound films, that the film was running at different speeds at
different points because of the spring becoming less powerful as it
released.

Seems like that solves that. Unless you have some other thought Alex.

Chris

[Alex Foyle]

On Sunday, April 26, 2015 at 1:19:22 AM UTC+2, Anthony Marsh wrote:
> On 4/25/2015 12:56 PM, Alex Foyle wrote:

> > Anyone can search Duncan's forum for "Anthony Marsh + Craig Lamson"

> Anyone can't. You have to register. Guests can not search for messages.

Of course anyone can search that forum without registering, why deny the
obvious?

> > forum again, why don't you go over there and engage Craig where he
>
> No, I was banned.

Yes, for two weeks some time ago, but according to Duncan you're free to
post whenever you wish. You will say Duncan is a liar like you did before,
but why not try and post there?

> > Craig knows more about photography than you ever will.
>

> Nonsense. He is bluffing.

Not quite, as anyone reading his posts can see for themselves.

[Anthony Marsh]

No.

> trying to get the bullet past that pleura and right lung. It's impossible
> without tearing or puncturing those tissues.
>

A bullet can go over the pleura.

>
>
>>>>>>> and that caused it
>>>>>>> to be weak enough to only go through an inch or so of the back. THAT much
>>>>>>> is known.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That much is taken as an article of faith by silly people.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> WRONG! That's from the record. And the AR too! The bullet stopped at
>>>>> the pleura, as per the AR and the prosectors. Only "silly people" doubt
>>>>> it...:)
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> No, the AR said the bullet bruised the pleura and then went on by to exit
>>>> the throat. You seem to think a bullet can't bruise tissue unless it
>>>> strikes it directly. That has led to your confusion.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> WRONG! The pleura was struck and bruised, but so was the right lung,
>>> and the bruise on the lung was almost 2 inches in diameter. That means
>>> that the strike was at LEAST 1 inch into the right lung, and that is too
>>> far in for any bullet to bypass either pleura or lung.
>>
>> How the hell did you come up with that?
>>
>
>
> By being able to envision the tissues and how they lie, and basic
> physics that we all know.
>

All of which you know nothing about.

>
>
>>> You keep reminding
>>> about high speed bullets, when one hits wouldn't it tear through the
>>> pleura and lung or leave a puncture?
>>
>> Only if it struck it directly. If it passed right next to it, it would
>> only bruise it which is what happened.
>>
>
>
> I have big news for you. Go ask someone who has seen bullets tear into
> bodies. You'll hear that there is NO tissue in the body that can
> withstand a bullet speeding at it. If the bullet has NOT been slowed

Tissue? A vertebra can stop a bullet. The back of a throat can stop a
bullet. A lung can stop a bullet.

> down, it will hit the pleura and the right lung and not even know they
> were there. They will puncture them like fluff and leave a hole in their
> passing. Go watch them firing into ballistic gel and see what stops a
> bullet, or even lets it 'slide' by. Nothing does.
>

Bullets are stopped by ballistic gel all the time. Watch Mythbusters to
see their penetration tests.

>
>
>>> It sure wouldn't stop to make a road
>>> around them!
>>
>> It didn't need to go around them. It just needed to continue on the path
>> which passed next to that tissue.
>>
>
>
> Nope, go check the AR again. There were bruises almost 2 inches wide on
> the lung, and that didn't come for a bullet just nicking the tip of the
> lung. It cam from the bullet hitting the lung straight on, and being
> stopped by the pleura and lung together. You want the bullet to be going
> full tilt, but it wasn't. If it were going at full speed, it would have
> punctured the tissues.
>

Ever hear of the compression wave?

>
>
>>> The only possibility is that the bullet was traveling slowly
>>> and couldn't penetrate the pleura, just as the AR says, and all the
>>> prosectors signed off on.
>>>
>>
>> That's the only possibilty you can think of. You haven't tried very hard
>> to think of others because you desperately want to believe that one.
>>
>
>
> LOL~! I don't need desperation, since I have the AR and the prosectors
> on my side along with the world of physics...:) I suggest you try
> desperation though, it might help in your corner there.
>

No, you just make up crap.

>
>
>
>>>>>>> You need to realize that what the prosectors said after their
>>>>>>> long search for the bullet and a path was true. They knew what they were
>>>>>>> doing, and they did NOT find a path or a bullet. They also proved to
>>>>>>> themselves that "There was NO EXIT" from the body of JFK for that bullet.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Time to zone out...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, please get your sleep. We'll carry on in your absence. You're not
>>>>> really needed..:)
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> That's true. You don't need my help to develop your ridiculous theories.
>>>
>>>
>>> WRONG! No theories here. Only the facts.
>>>
>>
>> If they were facts, you could prove them by applying basic science and
>> arithmetic. You can't do that so instead you just parrot what Horne wrote.
>
>
> WRONG again! I didn't get any of this stuff from Horne. This was
> found by me and put out by me. I don't know if Horne is aware of it yet.

From kook Web sites.

[bigdog]

It would be a lot easier if you would just admit the bullet went
completely through JFK's upper torso and exited from his throat and stop
all this ridiculous nonsense. Your desperation to hang onto this
implausible theory that the bullet only penetrated an inch into JFK's back
has forced you to float numerous ludicrous explanations, each of which is
shot down like clay pigeons. There is a theoretical speed which would
result in the bullet penetrating only an inch into soft tissue but that
speed would be so ridiculously slow the bullet could never have reached
the target due to the gravitational drop. That is your dilemma. For the
bullet to have enough velocity to reach the target it would have to have
way to much force to be stopped by soft tissue within an inch. You need a
bullet that passed rapidly through the air to reach the target then
instantly slowed way down. No such bullet ever made could do that.

>
>
>
>
> > > It's simple to see that a bullet that can travel at a high speed
> > > can also travel at a low speed, and there is a speed between the 2 that
> > > will get it to the upper back and let it enter an inch or so,
> >
> > But of course you won't do the arithmetic to show how that is possible. I
> > haven't even asked you to specify any particular bullet. I've simply asked
> > you to present a distance and a bullet velocity that will get your bullet
> > to the target but then only penetrate one inch. There are no numbers you
> > can plug into the equation to make it work even though you have the
> > latitude to make the distance what you want and the velocity what you
> > want.
> >
>
>
> It would be foolish to inquire what kind of bullet it was, since the
> bullet disappeared so quickly that there was no opportunity to figure out
> its type.

You can have your choice of any bullet ever produced and you will never
come up with one that could have done what you claim.

> Saying it won't work proves nothing, since that's an opinion.

No that's a fact. A bullet that could only have penetrated an inch would
have to be way too slow to reach the target. It's basic arithmetic and
physics. The kind most of us learned before we got to high school.

> It's a bit more logical that there is a particular speed the bullet was
> traveling at WHEN it hit the upper back, and penetrated an inch.

So why can't you come up with a speed that would fit the parameters. One
slow enough to penetrate only an inch and still maintain its trajectory
enough to hit the target. This is a needle that can't be threaded. There
is no right answer available to you.

> There
> are a few different possibilities, not that it matters in the long run
> what slowed the bullet, but it's interesting to think of those
> possibilities.
>

Every possibility you have tried to float has been shot to pieces. Give it
up. You can't make it work.

> First, the bullet may have had a charge of powder that wasn't in good
> shape.
>

Yes, that is possible.

> Second, something in the gun that fired the bullet slowed it down
> before it got on its way, like a bit of metal that was hanging out of the
> barrel that the bullet scraped by against.
>

That is also possible.

> Third, the barrel was slightly smaller than necessary and slowed the
> bullet down.
>

Occasionally an underpowered bullet will stick in the barrel and if the
shooter doesn't realize it and tries to fire another round, he will have
turned his gun into a pipe bomb. But you don't have the bullet jamming in
the barrel. You have it coming out very slowly. That too is possible, but
your troubles are just beginning if that bullet exits at an extremely low
velocity.

> Fourth, something along the way caused the bullet to slow down by
> hitting it or going through it.
>

Such as?

> Fifth, Something near JFK was hard enough to slow the bullet down
> before it went into his back. A bit of the seat back or whatever.
>

You're grasphing at straws. There was no bullet hole in the seat back and
the entry wound was above the seatback. This is just the sort of
ridiculous explantion I was referring to when I told you it would be much
easier and less embarassing for you to simply admit the bullet went all
the way through JFK.

> For some practice with logic, there's a bunch of possibilities.

Then why can't you come up with one that works?

> Choosing one won't get us the answer, but knock yourself out.

I don't need to come up with an explanation. You do. It is your theory you
are trying to save. I have the bullet going through JFK. I don't have to
try to invent physically impossible explanations.

> Those are
> examples for you in using logic. Some ideas are less possible than
> others, but they are all possible.
>

Nothing you have suggested so far is possible. They all defy physical laws.

>
>
> > > and there is
> > > a direction to point the rifle (or handgun) that will supply the right
> > > speed.
> >
> > Yes there is if the shooter knows what the velocity of his bullet is and
> > adjusts either his aiming point or his gun sight accordingly. You have
> > proposed and under powered bullet which the shooter wouldn't know about
> > until after he fired it. Therefore there would be no reason to raise his
> > aiming point or adjust his sights to allow for an underpowered bullet.
> > Don't bother proposing that the shooter knew he had an underpowered bullet
> > because nobody with a brain in their head would try to kill somebody with
> > such a bullet.
> >
>
>
> It is not required that the shooter have exact knowledge of the
> ballistics involved. WE don't know if the bullet was even aimed or it was
> an accidental firing of the gun.
>

Oh, brother. Just when I didn't think you could get more desperate. You
are proposing that

A. The shooter didn't mean to fire the bullet.
B. The bullet he accidently fire was extremely weak.
C. The combination of an unaimed accdental firing and an extremely weak
bullet combined to miraculously hit JFK in the back. And to think you guys
have called CE399 a magic bullet.

Does this really make more sense to you than the bullet just went through
JFK? Really? REALLY???

>
> >
> > > There is NO figuring to be done because the hard evidence tells us
> > > that the bullet stopped at the pleura.
> >
> > So you don't think your hypothesis needs to be tested by subjecting it to
> > arithmetic calculations. There's a real scientific approach. Just accept
> > on faith that your hypothesis is correct. Why confuse yourself with facts?
> >
>
>
> Recreations and such will usually succeed though they may be different
> in some way from the real situation. They usually follow the designer's
> interest. We would be unable to recreate such a test, since we don't know
> what kind of bullet it was ,and we don't know anything about the gun or
> the reason the bullet was slowed down before penetrating. You're barking
> up the wrong tree again. Try and think it through!

Obviously you haven't.

>
>
>
>
>
> > > That being the probing with finger
> > > and chrome probe, and the seeing the probing from the inside cavity where
> > > the probe was rubbing on the pleura and not penetrating.
> > >
> >
> > I guess you never read Finck's testimony where he pointed out that forcing
> > a probe can create a false channel.
> >
>
>
> Sadly, you didn't think before you spoke. AS you well know, Finck also
> said "There's NO EXIT" from the body of JFK. Right while he was knowing
> his own saying. And he signed off on the AR that said (basically) there's
> no path for the bullet).
>

There is no record of Finck reaching such a conclusion. This is something
somebody thought they remembered him saying more than 30 years later and
it conflicts with what was said in the report he signed and what he
testified to in the Clay Shaw trial.

>
>
> > > You can play your games all day and you can't fight the facts. The
> > > bullet stopped at the pleura at the bruises mentioned in the AR, and the
> > > pleura was left "INTACT" so that no bullet could pass.
> > >
> >
> > Complete nonsense. Completely unsupportable as you continue to demonstrate
> > by refusing to apply simple arithmetic to your hypothesis.
> >
>
>
> I know you would love to have me run around doing arithmetic for
> nothing,

It's not for nothing. It is to prove the viability of your theory, but if
you can't do it, oh well.

> but I'm not going to, because there is no information to go on
> such as bullet type, gun type, what slowed the bullet down and where that
> slowdown was, and what kind of slowdown it made. It's a fool's quest, and
> you were foolish to even try it yourself.
>

You don't need to know the gun or the bullet type. You just need to show a
possible distance for the shot and velocity of the bullet that would
result in a bullet reaching the target but then only penetrating an inch.
If you can't come up with numbers that work, doesn't that tell you
something about the validity of your beliefs?

>
>
> > >
> > >
> > > > > The aim might have been messed up for some reason, and the shot be
> > > > > fired higher, then it would come down at the back wound. It doesn't
> > > > > matter what you try to do, there is a speed and direction that a bullet
> > > > > can travel that will cause it to go into the back only the inch or so that
> > > > > WE KNOW IT DID!
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > You get more desperate the more you try to save your pet turkey. So you
> > > > are now proposing that the shooter aimed way too high and through an
> > > > amazing stroke of luck, he fired an extremely weak bullet that dropped so
> > > > much it hit JFK anyway.
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > WERONG as usual. You've left out dealing with the other possibilities
> > > of weak powder or an obstacle in the barrel, like it was slightly smaller
> > > than it should be, or some bit of metal was hanging down in the way and
> > > scraped the bullet as it passed, changing its direction and speed.
> >
> > If that had happened, the bullet wouldn't have hit the target. When the
> > bullet doesn't travel with the expected velocity, it will drop well below
> > the aiming point before it reaches the target.
> >
>
>
> You have NO WAY of knowing whether a bullet would have hit a target
> because you don't know where the gun was aimed, or even if it fired
> accidentally. Think it through!
>

I have and you haven't. Or maybe you have and realize you are on a dead
end street but you won't turn the car around.

>
>
> > > There
> > > are many possibilities, but it matters not at all, since we KNOW that the
> > > bullet was stopped at the pleura, as per the prosectors and the AR.
> > >
> >
> > Continue to put blind faith in what Doug Horne spoon fed to you and dont'
> > every consider actually scrutinizing it by applying basic scientific
> > methods for testing out a hypothesis.
> >
>
>
> Doug Horne never told me anything, and he certainly never wrote anywhere
> that the bullet was stopped at the pleura in the body of JFK. I don't
> know if he even knows of the problem at this point, since I don't speak
> with him, and never have in the past. Try and get that straight it your
> mind.
>

OK. So you dreamed this up all by yourself. Still doesn't make any sense.

> And don't even bother pretending that you used any scientific method to
> calculate anything about bullets for this case.

I have pointed out that the relatively slow (800-900 fps) .38 special
which Ruby fired into Oswald's abdomen nearly went completely through him.
You have proposed a bullet that only penetrated an inch. Why isn't it a
fair question to ask you to tell us how slowly that bullet was traveling
when it entered JFK's back and how a bullet traveling that slowly could
have made it to the target. To make your theory viable, you need to come
up with a number which we both know you can't.

> You have no clue what
> kind of bullet was involved, what kind of gun, what might have slowed the
> bullet down, and you don't even know if the gun was fired intentionally or
> by accident.
>

You can't even come up with a possibility.

> Have you any idea how silly you must look doing calculations with NO
> data to go on, and then acting like that was the right thing to do!
>

The silliness is proposing a theory that won't fit any data.

>
>
>
> > > It's really the Twilight Zone listening to you ignore the hard facts
> > > presented by the AR and the prosectors, and still trying to find a way out
> > > of the truth.
> > >
> >
> > If they were facts, you could prove them. You've demonstrated that you
> > can't. You simply accept Horne's nonsense because you want to.
> >
>
>
> WRONG yet again! I don't accept his writings without checking myself,
> and my checking in the official record tells me his story is right on
> target. However, I doubt he knows anything about this little discussion
> about the bullet stopping at the pleura.
>

And it doesn't matter to you that you can't come up with numbers to make
it work.

Did you know you just responded to your own comment?

>
>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > > or between the gun and
> > > > > the point where the bullet stopped against the pleura. We know where the
> > > > > bullet stopped, that's in the record and the AR too. The pleura wasn't
> > > > > torn or punctured, so the bullet stopped there where the bruises were.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Or maybe your amateurish analysis of the medical evidence is just plain
> > > > wrong and the bullet didn't stop at the pleura but went by it close enough
> > > > to cause the bruise without perforating it and then exited JFK's throat.
> > > > It's a lot easier to make that work than all these other crazy ideas you
> > > > have floated to try to make your theory work.
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Nope, the prosectors eliminated that possibility by saying in the AR
> > > that there was 'no path found'.
> >
> > That's not what the AR says and you know it.
> >
>
>
> In essence, that's what it says in the AR. Here:
>
> "The missile path through the fascia and musculature cannot be easily
> proved". And after saying that, they then said nothing about the missile
> path, meaning that they couldn't find it, or they would have said so and
> dissected it in normal fashion.
>

Just because it wasn't easy doesn't mean it couldn't be done.

>
>
>
> > > That means (in reality) that DURING the
> > > autopsy when they realized that "There's NO EXIT" that there would not be
> > > a path from the pleura to the throat wound, so don't bother trying to
> > > invent one.
> > >
> >
> > After gathering ALL the facts, they came to the conclusion that the bullet
> > had exited the throat. You can't change that no matter how hard you
> > try.
> >
>
>
> I cannot change the words, but I also can't change the words in the AR
> that said:
>
> "Both the visceral and parietal pleura are
> intact overlying these areas of trauma."
>

BFD. They don't say the bullet stopped at the pleura. That is your
invention.

> And because they all said that, and signed off on it, it means that the
> bullet never got past the pleura. You have no idea what is involved in
> trying to get the bullet past that pleura and right lung. It's impossible
> without tearing or puncturing those tissues.
>

It's not rocket science. The bullet passed by the pleura, not through it.
DUH!!!

>
>
> > > > > > > and that caused it
> > > > > > > to be weak enough to only go through an inch or so of the back. THAT much
> > > > > > > is known.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > That much is taken as an article of faith by silly people.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > WRONG! That's from the record. And the AR too! The bullet stopped at
> > > > > the pleura, as per the AR and the prosectors. Only "silly people" doubt
> > > > > it...:)
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > No, the AR said the bullet bruised the pleura and then went on by to exit
> > > > the throat. You seem to think a bullet can't bruise tissue unless it
> > > > strikes it directly. That has led to your confusion.
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > WRONG! The pleura was struck and bruised, but so was the right lung,
> > > and the bruise on the lung was almost 2 inches in diameter. That means
> > > that the strike was at LEAST 1 inch into the right lung, and that is too
> > > far in for any bullet to bypass either pleura or lung.
> >
> > How the hell did you come up with that?
> >
>
>
> By being able to envision the tissues and how they lie, and basic
> physics that we all know.
>

Basic physics is not your friend as we have already established.

>
>
> > > You keep reminding
> > > about high speed bullets, when one hits wouldn't it tear through the
> > > pleura and lung or leave a puncture?
> >
> > Only if it struck it directly. If it passed right next to it, it would
> > only bruise it which is what happened.
> >
>
>
> I have big news for you. Go ask someone who has seen bullets tear into
> bodies. You'll hear that there is NO tissue in the body that can
> withstand a bullet speeding at it.

Yet you have the pleura stopping a bullet cold.

> If the bullet has NOT been slowed
> down, it will hit the pleura and the right lung and not even know they
> were there. They will puncture them like fluff and leave a hole in their
> passing. Go watch them firing into ballistic gel and see what stops a
> bullet, or even lets it 'slide' by. Nothing does.
>

That would happen if it hit the lung and pleura directly, not grazing
them. That is the logical explanation which for some reason you insist on
ignoring.

>
>
> > > It sure wouldn't stop to make a road
> > > around them!
> >
> > It didn't need to go around them. It just needed to continue on the path
> > which passed next to that tissue.
> >
>
>
> Nope, go check the AR again. There were bruises almost 2 inches wide on
> the lung, and that didn't come for a bullet just nicking the tip of the
> lung.

That establishes that the width of a bruise is much wider than the bullet
path bullet path unless you thing the bullet was 2 inches wide. You have
inadvertenly shown who the pleura could be bruised without the bullet
actually contacting it.

> It cam from the bullet hitting the lung straight on, and being
> stopped by the pleura and lung together. You want the bullet to be going
> full tilt, but it wasn't. If it were going at full speed, it would have
> punctured the tissues.
>

You keep ignoring the obvious explanation that bullet passed next to the
pleura, not into it. Is that really hard for you to comprehend.

>
>
> > > The only possibility is that the bullet was traveling slowly
> > > and couldn't penetrate the pleura, just as the AR says, and all the
> > > prosectors signed off on.
> > >
> >
> > That's the only possibilty you can think of. You haven't tried very hard
> > to think of others because you desperately want to believe that one.
> >
>
>
> LOL~! I don't need desperation, since I have the AR and the prosectors
> on my side along with the world of physics...:) I suggest you try
> desperation though, it might help in your corner there.
>

The prosectors are not your friends nor are any other medical examiners
who have reviewed the evidence. You are flying solo on this one.

>
>
>
> > > > > > > You need to realize that what the prosectors said after their
> > > > > > > long search for the bullet and a path was true. They knew what they were
> > > > > > > doing, and they did NOT find a path or a bullet. They also proved to
> > > > > > > themselves that "There was NO EXIT" from the body of JFK for that bullet.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Time to zone out...
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Yes, please get your sleep. We'll carry on in your absence. You're not
> > > > > really needed..:)
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > That's true. You don't need my help to develop your ridiculous theories.
> > >
> > >
> > > WRONG! No theories here. Only the facts.
> > >
> >
> > If they were facts, you could prove them by applying basic science and
> > arithmetic. You can't do that so instead you just parrot what Horne wrote.
>
>
> WRONG again! I didn't get any of this stuff from Horne. This was
> found by me and put out by me. I don't know if Horne is aware of it yet.
> basic science says that it's foolish to make calculations when you have no
> clue what kind of bullet you had , or what kind of rifle you had. Just
> dumb to try calculating on the basis of knowing nothing.
>

Perhaps I should apologize to Horne. I thought he fed this to you. Now you
are telling us you dreamed it up on your own.

[mainframetech]

As I've noted before, reading the statement in the other form doesn't

help. There is a clearly odd thing being said:

"...it was a re-creation of the Zapruder film after its alteration at that
facility, intended to masquerade as an original out-of-camera, unslit (16
mm wide), "double 8" film."

That's exactly what Horne was bringing out, so I don't know what the
problem is. Alex, do you have any idea what Lamson is talking about that
he would say that?

Chris

[mainframetech]

On Sunday, April 26, 2015 at 11:16:33 PM UTC-4, bigdog wrote:
> On Saturday, April 25, 2015 at 7:50:54 PM UTC-4, Anthony Marsh wrote:
> > On 4/25/2015 11:33 AM, bigdog wrote:
> > >
> > > Logic and common sense would tell you if you can't get the arithmetic to
> > > work for you. You need a high speed bullet that will hold it's trajectory
> >
> > Sounds interesting. So tell us Mr. Gun Expert, exactly how high a speed
> > does your bullet need to hold it's [sic] trajectory? 4,000 fps? Do you
> > remember that the Carcano had trouble holding its trajectory?
> >
>
> OK. This is the part where you try to pretend you are smarter than the
> rest of us. It's really very simple. All bullets regardless of velocity
> will be drawn back toward the earth the instant they leave the barrel. The
> longer the bullet takes to reach the target, the more it will drop. That's
> why the key figures are the velocity of the bullet and the distance of the
> shot. Also coming into play is the deceleration rate of the bullet due to
> the resistance of the air. That can vary slghtly depending on the
> direction of the wind. So to make this as simple as I can for you, if the
> distance of the shot is 200 feet and the average speed of the bullet over
> that distance is 2000 fps, it will take the bullet 1/10th of a second to
> reach the target. The bullet will drop below its initial vector for 1/10th
> of a second. To fire a precise shot, the shooter would either have to
> adjust his sights to allow for that amount of drop or if the weapon has
> fixed sights he will have to adjust his aiming point to allow for the
> drop.
>

It's about time that you admitted that there is a direction and a speed
that will get a bullet to the upper back without penetrating more than an
inch.

> > > to the target but once it reaches the target you need it to slow way down
> > > so that it only penetrates an inch into soft tissue. No such bullet
> > > exists. That's why you avoid doing any calculations the way Dracula avoids
> > > the sunlight.
> > >
> >
> > Of course such a bullet exists. Just not under the Dealey Plaza
> > conditions.
> >
>
> But of course you can't tell us what kind of bullet that would be. That
> would subject your statement to scrutiny which of course you want no part
> of.
>

The type of bullet that hit JFK in the upper back was unknown. As was
the type of rifle or handgun that fired it. That's why calculation is
just plain stupid.

> > >> It's simple to see that a bullet that can travel at a high speed
> > >> can also travel at a low speed, and there is a speed between the 2 that
> > >> will get it to the upper back and let it enter an inch or so,
> > >
> > > But of course you won't do the arithmetic to show how that is possible. I
> > > haven't even asked you to specify any particular bullet. I've simply asked
> > > you to present a distance and a bullet velocity that will get your bullet
> > > to the target but then only penetrate one inch. There are no numbers you
> > > can plug into the equation to make it work even though you have the
> > > latitude to make the distance what you want and the velocity what you
> > > want.
> > >
> >
> > Any moron can guess at the numbers. Why don't you watch Mybusters to
> > find out what numbers they got?
> >
>
> Because I wanted Chris to support his position by supplying his own
> numbers. What difference does it make what numbers Mythbusters used.
>

As I noted just above a few lines, without knowing the type of bullet or
the type of gun, you're wasting your time trying to calculate anything.
It's fool's gold, for fools only. Not to mention that the bullet was seen
falling out of the back of JFK at the autopsy by Jerrol Custer.
Mentioned in his sworn testimony.

Since the Finck statement has been mentioned, try to remember that
James Jenkins saw the probe from the inside body cavity as it rubbed
against the pleura, with NO exit anywhere. And the Autopsy Report (AR)
stated in no uncertain terms that the "pleura was INTACT", meaning that no
bullet went through it to come out some throat wound! Not to mention that
Jerrol Custer (X-ray Technician, saw the bullet fall out of the back of
JFK! 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 finger-my small
finger. First joints."

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

Page 53

Sonometers = centimeters, 3 centimeters = 1.18 inches.

Chris

[Anthony Marsh]

On 4/26/2015 11:44 PM, Alex Foyle wrote:
> On Sunday, April 26, 2015 at 1:19:22 AM UTC+2, Anthony Marsh wrote:
>> On 4/25/2015 12:56 PM, Alex Foyle wrote:
>
>>> Anyone can search Duncan's forum for "Anthony Marsh + Craig Lamson"
>
>> Anyone can't. You have to register. Guests can not search for messages.
>
> Of course anyone can search that forum without registering, why deny the
> obvious?
>
>>> forum again, why don't you go over there and engage Craig where he
>>
>> No, I was banned.
>
> Yes, for two weeks some time ago, but according to Duncan you're free to
> post whenever you wish. You will say Duncan is a liar like you did before,
> but why not try and post there?
>

Why don't you try joining the human race?

>>> Craig knows more about photography than you ever will.
>>
>> Nonsense. He is bluffing.
>
> Not quite, as anyone reading his posts can see for themselves.
>
>
>

As everyone could see. But you like professional liars.

[Anthony Marsh]

No one cares what Horne says. He is a Liftonite.

> So the film was altered, as the post says.
>

You are an alterationist. Don't even bother talking about ANY evidence
if you think it was all altered.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 4/26/2015 11:16 PM, bigdog wrote:
> On Saturday, April 25, 2015 at 7:50:54 PM UTC-4, Anthony Marsh wrote:
>> On 4/25/2015 11:33 AM, bigdog wrote:
>>>
>>> Logic and common sense would tell you if you can't get the arithmetic to
>>> work for you. You need a high speed bullet that will hold it's trajectory
>>
>> Sounds interesting. So tell us Mr. Gun Expert, exactly how high a speed
>> does your bullet need to hold it's [sic] trajectory? 4,000 fps? Do you
>> remember that the Carcano had trouble holding its trajectory?
>>
>
> OK. This is the part where you try to pretend you are smarter than the
> rest of us. It's really very simple. All bullets regardless of velocity

Maybe I am smarter than most. Certainly smarter than you.

> will be drawn back toward the earth the instant they leave the barrel. The
> longer the bullet takes to reach the target, the more it will drop. That's
> why the key figures are the velocity of the bullet and the distance of the
> shot. Also coming into play is the deceleration rate of the bullet due to
> the resistance of the air. That can vary slghtly depending on the

And you don't even know what ogive means. But you keep babbling on
about bullets.

> direction of the wind. So to make this as simple as I can for you, if the
> distance of the shot is 200 feet and the average speed of the bullet over
> that distance is 2000 fps, it will take the bullet 1/10th of a second to
> reach the target. The bullet will drop below its initial vector for 1/10th
> of a second. To fire a precise shot, the shooter would either have to
> adjust his sights to allow for that amount of drop or if the weapon has
> fixed sights he will have to adjust his aiming point to allow for the
> drop.
>

Adjust his sights? Are you drunk again? The scope could not be adjusted
and the iron sights were fixed. Oswald did not know That his rifle needed
adjusting. That is why he missed Walker at 120 feet.

>>> to the target but once it reaches the target you need it to slow way down
>>> so that it only penetrates an inch into soft tissue. No such bullet
>>> exists. That's why you avoid doing any calculations the way Dracula avoids
>>> the sunlight.
>>>
>>
>> Of course such a bullet exists. Just not under the Dealey Plaza
>> conditions.
>>
>
> But of course you can't tell us what kind of bullet that would be. That
> would subject your statement to scrutiny which of course you want no part
> of.

I already did. A modified WCC Carcano bullet.

>
>>>> It's simple to see that a bullet that can travel at a high speed
>>>> can also travel at a low speed, and there is a speed between the 2 that
>>>> will get it to the upper back and let it enter an inch or so,
>>>
>>> But of course you won't do the arithmetic to show how that is possible. I
>>> haven't even asked you to specify any particular bullet. I've simply asked
>>> you to present a distance and a bullet velocity that will get your bullet
>>> to the target but then only penetrate one inch. There are no numbers you
>>> can plug into the equation to make it work even though you have the
>>> latitude to make the distance what you want and the velocity what you
>>> want.
>>>
>>
>> Any moron can guess at the numbers. Why don't you watch Mybusters to
>> find out what numbers they got?
>>
>
> Because I wanted Chris to support his position by supplying his own
> numbers. What difference does it make what numbers Mythbusters used.
>

It's not a fair debating tactic to ask a kid like Chris for numbers.
I already gave you the exact muzzle velocity. Still working on the
wright of the bullet.

>>>> and there is
>>>> a direction to point the rifle (or handgun) that will supply the right
>>>> speed.
>>>
>>> Yes there is if the shooter knows what the velocity of his bullet is and
>>> adjusts either his aiming point or his gun sight accordingly. You have
>>> proposed and under powered bullet which the shooter wouldn't know about
>>> until after he fired it. Therefore there would be no reason to raise his
>>> aiming point or adjust his sights to allow for an underpowered bullet.
>>
>> Aim? What the Fract are you talking about?
>>
>
> OK. This is where you have nothing to contribute so you just become
> obnoxious.
>
>>> Don't bother proposing that the shooter knew he had an underpowered bullet
>>> because nobody with a brain in their head would try to kill somebody with
>>> such a bullet.
>>>
>>
>> I like the silly theory about defective primers.
>> Guess what happened when they tested that? The rifle blew up and the
>> bullet never exited.
>>
>
> Another irrelevant example.

It shows how silly the slow bullet theory is.

>
>>>
>>>> There is NO figuring to be done because the hard evidence tells us
>>>> that the bullet stopped at the pleura.
>>>
>>> So you don't think your hypothesis needs to be tested by subjecting it to
>>> arithmetic calculations. There's a real scientific approach. Just accept
>>> on faith that your hypothesis is correct. Why confuse yourself with facts?
>>>
>>
>> Mythbusters already did it.
>>
>>>> That being the probing with finger
>>>> and chrome probe, and the seeing the probing from the inside cavity where
>>>> the probe was rubbing on the pleura and not penetrating.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I guess you never read Finck's testimony where he pointed out that forcing
>>> a probe can create a false channel.
>>>
>>
>> Do you understand that a vertebra can stop a .45?
>>
>
> What does that have to do with anything. JFK wasn't hit with a .45 and the
> bullet didn't hit his spine.

The bullet did hit his spine, but that didn't stop it.
For his theory a bullet hitting the spine would not go into the pleura.

>
>