The Single-Bullet Theory

David Von Pein

unread,

Jan 18, 2018, 11:10:03 PM1/18/18

to

"The conspiracy-happy Mega-Kooks of this world will choose ANY silly
option to account for JFK's and John Connally's wounds, just so long as
they don't ever have to face the Occam's-like solution called the
"Single-Bullet Theory". The kooks would rather starve themselves to
skeletons and sleep on the benches in Dealey Plaza for the rest of their
days before admitting that the SBT is the correct shooting scenario." --
David Von Pein; December 7, 2007

~~~~~~~~~~~

"Isn't it rather remarkable that the person sitting in front of JFK also
had a bullet wound in his upper back? Plus the added facts of JFK having a
bullet hole in his throat and JFK having no bullets in his body.
Conspiracy theorists who hate the Single-Bullet Theory never seem bothered
in the least by those last observations I just mentioned. They'll simply
add yet another bullet to the mix to account for John Connally's back
wound. The SBT will never be defeated by conspiracists. And that's because
the SBT will always make more sense than any anti-SBT theory. The truth
usually does make the most sense, of course." -- David Von Pein; December
14, 2013

~~~~~~~~~~~

"You call it the theory; I call it the conclusion; it was a theory until
we found the facts; that's why I refer to it as the Single-Bullet
Conclusion." -- Arlen Specter; 1967

~~~~~~~~~~~

"To my knowledge, [nobody] has ever explained how moving the back wound up
to THE NECK supports the SBT. Nobody CAN support it, because moving the
entry to the neck would destroy the Warren Commission's SBT trajectory,
not strengthen it. .... I'll refer you to CE 903. Although [Arlen] Specter
didn't drill a hole in the stand-in's body and drive the rod through it,
had he done so, the entry would be in the upper back, not in the neck.
There's a string on the wall above his hand that shows an angle of about
18 degrees -- that's the approximate angle measured by a surveyor during
the re-enactment and the one the WC used for its SBT. If the rod is moved
up to the neck, the bullet will exit well above the exit wound under JFK's
Adam's apple. .... The claim that [Gerald] Ford's change "strengthens" the
WC's SBT is simply not true." -- Jean Davison; January 2, 2007

~~~~~~~~~~~

"The "single-bullet THEORY" is an obvious misnomer. Though in its
incipient stages it was but a theory, the indisputable evidence is that it
is now a proven FACT, a wholly supported conclusion. .... And no sensible
mind that is also informed can plausibly make the case that the bullet
that struck President Kennedy in the upper right part of his back did not
go on to hit Governor Connally." -- Vincent Bugliosi; Pages 489-490 of
"Reclaiming History"

http://Single-Bullet-Theory.blogspot.com

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2014/10/wesley-liebeler-vs-mark-lane-1967-debate.html

Anthony Marsh

unread,

Jan 19, 2018, 4:22:46 PM1/19/18

to

The Single-Bullet Theory is a LIE. Because they couldn't admit conspiracy.

>
> "The "single-bullet THEORY" is an obvious misnomer. Though in its
> incipient stages it was but a theory, the indisputable evidence is that it
> is now a proven FACT, a wholly supported conclusion. .... And no sensible
> mind that is also informed can plausibly make the case that the bullet
> that struck President Kennedy in the upper right part of his back did not
> go on to hit Governor Connally." -- Vincent Bugliosi; Pages 489-490 of
> "Reclaiming History"
>

LIE.
Also Poisoning the Well.
Humes said the bullet did not exit. He said it was an Ice Bullet.
How come you never make fun of him?

> http://Single-Bullet-Theory.blogspot.com
>
> http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2014/10/wesley-liebeler-vs-mark-lane-1967-debate.html
>

bigdog

unread,

Jan 19, 2018, 8:48:43 PM1/19/18

to

All outstanding arguments in favor of the SBF. If I had any doubts about
it, those were removed by your excellent web page which toggles between
frames and shows JFK's right hand still moving downward between 224-225
and then between 225-226 it begins moving upward, the exact same frame
that JBC's right arm started upward, both involuntary reactions to a
bullet which had struck several frames earlier.

BOZ

unread,

Jan 19, 2018, 8:49:28 PM1/19/18

to

Bugliosi should have checked your website. Bugliosi gives frame 210 as the
time of shot 2. He is wrong about that.

mainframetech

unread,

Jan 19, 2018, 9:03:58 PM1/19/18

to

On Thursday, January 18, 2018 at 11:10:03 PM UTC-5, David Von Pein wrote:

> "The conspiracy-happy Mega-Kooks of this world will choose ANY silly
> option to account for JFK's and John Connally's wounds, just so long as
> they don't ever have to face the Occam's-like solution called the
> "Single-Bullet Theory". The kooks would rather starve themselves to
> skeletons and sleep on the benches in Dealey Plaza for the rest of their
> days before admitting that the SBT is the correct shooting scenario." --
> David Von Pein; December 7, 2007
>

The conspiracy-denying mega-kooky LNs of this world will try anything
to explain the many bullet strikes in Dealey Plaza, including using a WC
lawyer's idea of the SBT. Of course, that's just a theory, not a fact,
and Occam's Razor is only a guideline, not a rule. The silly LNs of the
world don't care though, they have to explain away the problem of many
shots being made at JFK, so that the plotters could escape retribution
because a 'patsy' took the blame.

Well, add in the 2 (or more) bullets that hit JFK, then the one over
the windshield into the chrome bar, then the one that Officer 'Steve'
Ellis saw striking the curb to the right of the limo, and the one that
struck over by James Tague and caused a chip to cut his cheek, then count
the one that went through the windshield seen by 6 witnesses, and count
the 2 gouges seen in midfield by Wayne and Edna Hartman, who were told by
a cop that they were from bullets, then add in the one that really hit
Connally, and you have a more honest picture of what happened with bullet
strikes. The ridiculous story of a 'pristine' bullet that went through 2
men 7 times including 2 bone strikes and came out almost new is for the
suckers to believe.

> ~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> "Isn't it rather remarkable that the person sitting in front of JFK also
> had a bullet wound in his upper back? Plus the added facts of JFK having a
> bullet hole in his throat and JFK having no bullets in his body.

JFK had no bullets in his body because he was taken to a military
hospital where the doctors all had to follow orders. When the body got to
Bethesda, it went right into the morgue at 6:35pm and got clandestine work
done on it, to remove any bullets and to modify the wounds to look more
like there had been a shot from above and behind, when the kill shot was
from the front and struck in the right forehead/temple area, as seen in
the 'stare-of-death' autopsy photo.

> Conspiracy theorists who hate the Single-Bullet Theory never seem bothered
> in the least by those last observations I just mentioned. They'll simply
> add yet another bullet to the mix to account for John Connally's back
> wound. The SBT will never be defeated by conspiracists. And that's because
> the SBT will always make more sense than any anti-SBT theory. The truth
> usually does make the most sense, of course." -- David Von Pein; December
> 14, 2013
>

Among the real observations is the one by Dr. Carrico when he observed
the wound in the throat. He thought it looked like an entry wound, and
was later proved to be exactly that.

During the autopsy, there was a point where the organs had ben removed
and they could se clearly where the bullet in the upper back had gone.
It had entered the back and gone only about an inch or so. This was
clearly seen when they probed the back and the probe was seen from the
front through the chest cavity by James Jenkins as it rubbed on the pleura
(lung covering) but could go through because there was NOATH through.
That meant that the bullet did NOT go through to the neck wound, and that
wound had to be a separate wound from the front. Cites and links on
request backing that up.

That proved the silliness of the 'single bullet' theory and those that
believed in it.

> ~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> "You call it the theory; I call it the conclusion; it was a theory until
> we found the facts; that's why I refer to it as the Single-Bullet
> Conclusion." -- Arlen Specter; 1967
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> "To my knowledge, [nobody] has ever explained how moving the back wound up
> to THE NECK supports the SBT. Nobody CAN support it, because moving the
> entry to the neck would destroy the Warren Commission's SBT trajectory,
> not strengthen it. .... I'll refer you to CE 903. Although [Arlen] Specter
> didn't drill a hole in the stand-in's body and drive the rod through it,
> had he done so, the entry would be in the upper back, not in the neck.
> There's a string on the wall above his hand that shows an angle of about
> 18 degrees -- that's the approximate angle measured by a surveyor during
> the re-enactment and the one the WC used for its SBT. If the rod is moved
> up to the neck, the bullet will exit well above the exit wound under JFK's
> Adam's apple. .... The claim that [Gerald] Ford's change "strengthens" the
> WC's SBT is simply not true." -- Jean Davison; January 2, 2007
>

All baloney, since the proof that the SBT couldn't occur has been made.

> ~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> "The "single-bullet THEORY" is an obvious misnomer. Though in its
> incipient stages it was but a theory, the indisputable evidence is that it
> is now a proven FACT, a wholly supported conclusion. .... And no sensible
> mind that is also informed can plausibly make the case that the bullet
> that struck President Kennedy in the upper right part of his back did not
> go on to hit Governor Connally." -- Vincent Bugliosi; Pages 489-490 of
> "Reclaiming History"
>
> http://Single-Bullet-Theory.blogspot.com
>
> http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2014/10/wesley-liebeler-vs-mark-lane-1967-debate.html

All baloney, ended by an effort to get people to click on the DVP
website.

Chris

Allan G. Johnson

unread,

Jan 19, 2018, 9:26:45 PM1/19/18

to

On Thursday, January 18, 2018 at 11:10:03 PM UTC-5, David Von Pein wrote:

The true magic bullet, as VB pointed out, is the one that passed
through JFK's neck and DIDN'T go on to hit Connally, then where did it go?
No explanation from the conspiracy crowd.

Steve BH

unread,

Jan 20, 2018, 5:08:54 PM1/20/18

to

It's not that complicated.

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

JFK and Connally are hit between Z 223 and Z 224. That's it.

BOZ

unread,

Jan 20, 2018, 5:09:15 PM1/20/18

to

CE 399 was fired from Oswald's rifle. You know nothing about the JFK
assassination.

BOZ

unread,

Jan 20, 2018, 5:09:25 PM1/20/18

to

On Friday, January 19, 2018 at 5:22:46 PM UTC-4, Anthony Marsh wrote:

What did Thomas Canning say about the single bullet fact?

Steve BH

unread,

Jan 20, 2018, 6:29:35 PM1/20/18

to

Yes. You can still see the top of JFK's head if you look carefully until
215, and there is not so much as a flinch.

bigdog

unread,

Jan 20, 2018, 6:39:54 PM1/20/18

to

On Friday, January 19, 2018 at 9:03:58 PM UTC-5, mainframetech wrote:
> On Thursday, January 18, 2018 at 11:10:03 PM UTC-5, David Von Pein wrote:
> > "The conspiracy-happy Mega-Kooks of this world will choose ANY silly
> > option to account for JFK's and John Connally's wounds, just so long as
> > they don't ever have to face the Occam's-like solution called the
> > "Single-Bullet Theory". The kooks would rather starve themselves to
> > skeletons and sleep on the benches in Dealey Plaza for the rest of their
> > days before admitting that the SBT is the correct shooting scenario." --
> > David Von Pein; December 7, 2007
> >
>
>
>
>
> The conspiracy-denying mega-kooky LNs of this world will try anything
> to explain the many bullet strikes in Dealey Plaza, including using a WC
> lawyer's idea of the SBT. Of course, that's just a theory, not a fact,
> and Occam's Razor is only a guideline, not a rule. The silly LNs of the
> world don't care though, they have to explain away the problem of many
> shots being made at JFK, so that the plotters could escape retribution
> because a 'patsy' took the blame.
>

None of us need to explain away your fantasies.

> Well, add in the 2 (or more) bullets that hit JFK, then the one over
> the windshield into the chrome bar, then the one that Officer 'Steve'
> Ellis saw striking the curb to the right of the limo, and the one that
> struck over by James Tague and caused a chip to cut his cheek, then count
> the one that went through the windshield seen by 6 witnesses, and count
> the 2 gouges seen in midfield by Wayne and Edna Hartman, who were told by
> a cop that they were from bullets, then add in the one that really hit
> Connally, and you have a more honest picture of what happened with bullet
> strikes. The ridiculous story of a 'pristine' bullet that went through 2
> men 7 times including 2 bone strikes and came out almost new is for the
> suckers to believe.
>

You really should contact the Dallas traffic department about this. They
have two Xs marked on Elm St at the approximate locations JFK was struck.
You need to tell them they need to paint a lot more Xs to show where all
those bullet strikes were. Get back to us and let us know how you did.

> > ~~~~~~~~~~~
> >
> > "Isn't it rather remarkable that the person sitting in front of JFK also
> > had a bullet wound in his upper back? Plus the added facts of JFK having a
> > bullet hole in his throat and JFK having no bullets in his body.
>
>
>
> JFK had no bullets in his body because he was taken to a military
> hospital where the doctors all had to follow orders. When the body got to
> Bethesda, it went right into the morgue at 6:35pm and got clandestine work
> done on it, to remove any bullets and to modify the wounds to look more
> like there had been a shot from above and behind, when the kill shot was
> from the front and struck in the right forehead/temple area, as seen in
> the 'stare-of-death' autopsy photo.
>

A fine example of one of your fantasies.

>
>
> > Conspiracy theorists who hate the Single-Bullet Theory never seem bothered
> > in the least by those last observations I just mentioned. They'll simply
> > add yet another bullet to the mix to account for John Connally's back
> > wound. The SBT will never be defeated by conspiracists. And that's because
> > the SBT will always make more sense than any anti-SBT theory. The truth
> > usually does make the most sense, of course." -- David Von Pein; December
> > 14, 2013
> >
>
>
>
> Among the real observations is the one by Dr. Carrico when he observed
> the wound in the throat. He thought it looked like an entry wound, and
> was later proved to be exactly that.
>

Dr. Carrico was not a medical examiner. He was an ER doctor. His job was
to fix bullet holes, not determine if they were entrances or exits. He
thought it as a entrance because it was small and round. When a soft lead
or hollow point bullet enter a body they mushroom and if they exit they
will make a larger hole going out than coming in. An FMJ bullet is
designed not to deform when hitting soft tissue and therefore will make a
nice round when it exits. Just a guess but I would bet most of the gunshot
victims that came to the Parkland ER were not shot with FMJ bullets.

> During the autopsy, there was a point where the organs had ben removed
> and they could se clearly where the bullet in the upper back had gone.
> It had entered the back and gone only about an inch or so. This was
> clearly seen when they probed the back and the probe was seen from the
> front through the chest cavity by James Jenkins as it rubbed on the pleura
> (lung covering) but could go through because there was NOATH through.
> That meant that the bullet did NOT go through to the neck wound, and that
> wound had to be a separate wound from the front. Cites and links on
> request backing that up.

So says our resident medical examiner. If the organs were removed, why was
the pleura still in the body? I'm requesting a cite for that.

>
> That proved the silliness of the 'single bullet' theory and those that
> believed in it.
>

That's called proof by assertion. It doesn't work. Never has.

>
>
>
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~
> >
> > "You call it the theory; I call it the conclusion; it was a theory until
> > we found the facts; that's why I refer to it as the Single-Bullet
> > Conclusion." -- Arlen Specter; 1967
> >
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~
> >
> > "To my knowledge, [nobody] has ever explained how moving the back wound up
> > to THE NECK supports the SBT. Nobody CAN support it, because moving the
> > entry to the neck would destroy the Warren Commission's SBT trajectory,
> > not strengthen it. .... I'll refer you to CE 903. Although [Arlen] Specter
> > didn't drill a hole in the stand-in's body and drive the rod through it,
> > had he done so, the entry would be in the upper back, not in the neck.
> > There's a string on the wall above his hand that shows an angle of about
> > 18 degrees -- that's the approximate angle measured by a surveyor during
> > the re-enactment and the one the WC used for its SBT. If the rod is moved
> > up to the neck, the bullet will exit well above the exit wound under JFK's
> > Adam's apple. .... The claim that [Gerald] Ford's change "strengthens" the
> > WC's SBT is simply not true." -- Jean Davison; January 2, 2007
> >
>
>
>
>
> All baloney, since the proof that the SBT couldn't occur has been made.
>

Using your amazingly low bar for what constitutes proof.

>
>
>
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~
> >
> > "The "single-bullet THEORY" is an obvious misnomer. Though in its
> > incipient stages it was but a theory, the indisputable evidence is that it
> > is now a proven FACT, a wholly supported conclusion. .... And no sensible
> > mind that is also informed can plausibly make the case that the bullet
> > that struck President Kennedy in the upper right part of his back did not
> > go on to hit Governor Connally." -- Vincent Bugliosi; Pages 489-490 of
> > "Reclaiming History"
> >
> > http://Single-Bullet-Theory.blogspot.com
> >
> > http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2014/10/wesley-liebeler-vs-mark-lane-1967-debate.html
>
>
> All baloney, ended by an effort to get people to click on the DVP
> website.
>

A pathetic remark, even by your standards.

bigdog

unread,

Jan 20, 2018, 9:38:49 PM1/20/18

to

Forget what the autopsy report said. Forget what the review panels said.
Chris tells us that bullet never exited from JFK's neck and that should be
good enough reason to disregard all those medical examiners.

mainframetech

unread,

Jan 20, 2018, 9:58:07 PM1/20/18

to

On Friday, January 19, 2018 at 9:26:45 PM UTC-5, Allan G. Johnson wrote:

Shucks, I just saw your note. As a proud CT I can tell you that the
bullet that hit the upper back of JFK did NOT come out of the neck wound.
It was found by some of the autopsy team members to have been a 'short
shot' that penetrated only an inch or so, and was either removed by Humes
and Boswell during their clandestine work on the body, or it was pushed
out by heart massage at Parkland. There is also testimony by an X-ray
Technician that it fell out at Bethesda and was picked up and was never
seen again. All will be shown, cites and links.

Here's the sworn testimony of Jerrol Custer:

"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

Sonometer = centimeter, and 3-4 centimeters is long enough to be many
types of bullet.

And here's the statement of Paul O'Connor, Technologist and autopsy team member:
"O'Connor: We started out with a rigid probe and found that it only went
in so far. I'd say maybe an inch and a quarter. It didn't go any further
than that. So we used a malleable probe and bent it a little bit and found
out that the bullet entered the body, went through the intercostal
muscles—the muscles in between the ribs. The bullet went in
through the muscles, didn't touch any of the ribs, arched downwards, hit
the back of the pleural cavity, which encases the lungs, both front and
back. It bounced off that cavity and stopped. It actually went down and
stopped. Went through the ribs and stopped (photo 10). So we didn't know
the track of the bullet until we eviscerated the body later. That's what
happened at that time. We traced the bullet path down and found out it
didn't traverse the body. It did not go in one side and
come out the other side of the body.
Law: You can be reasonably sure of that?
O'Connor: Absolutely.
Law: It was just from the probe then?
O'Connor: Oh yes.
Law: And these doctors knew that?
O'Connor: Absolutely.
Law: While it happened?
O'Connor: Absolutely."

From: "In the Eyes of History" by William Matson Law, pages 40-41
online at: https://www.krusch.com/books/kennedy/In_The_Eye_Of_History.pdf

Further proof of the above statement comes from an interview of James
Jenkins, Technologist:

"Jim Jenkins recalled a very shallow back wound in JFK's upper posterior
thorax, that did not transit the body. He recalled Dr. Humes sticking his
finger in the wound, and seeing Dr. Humes' finger making an indentation in
the intact pleura as he viewed Humes' probing from the other side, where
the right lung would have been before its removal. The pleura was intact.
Jenkins also recalled seeing a bruise at the top of the middle lobe of the
right lung (but not at the top, or apex of the right lung). Jenkins also
recalled that the back wound was 10 centimeters lower than the tracheotomy
site in the anterior neck."

From: http://insidethearrb.livejournal.com/10811.html

So you see, there was no exit from the body of the bullet from the
upper back wound. So there was NO SBT.

Chris

Anthony Marsh

unread,

Jan 21, 2018, 2:13:56 PM1/21/18

to

Silly. Various authors have explained it.

It is not a factual statement that there is no explanation from the
conspiracy crowd. What you can say is that you don't LIKE the explanations
from the conspiracy crowd. I for one did not like Mark Furhman's
explanation, but you probably never even saw it since you never read any
books on the JFK assassination.

I have suggested that the bullet was deflected up and went OVER the chrome
topping.

I think there is some kook who claims that the bullet hit Connally's thigh
after it exited JFK's throat. I constantly argue against the kooks like
Humes who claim that the bullet did not even exit JFK's throat. One early
theory was that the bullet that hit the head exited the throat. Could that
bullet go on to hit Connally? Could it be CE 399? How did CE 399 get from
the limo to the hospital? Did Connally carry it in his pocket?

http://www.the-puzzle-palace.com/Globe11-23-63.jpg

Anthony Marsh

unread,

Jan 21, 2018, 2:18:16 PM1/21/18

to

On 1/19/2018 9:03 PM, mainframetech wrote:
> On Thursday, January 18, 2018 at 11:10:03 PM UTC-5, David Von Pein wrote:
>> "The conspiracy-happy Mega-Kooks of this world will choose ANY silly
>> option to account for JFK's and John Connally's wounds, just so long as
>> they don't ever have to face the Occam's-like solution called the
>> "Single-Bullet Theory". The kooks would rather starve themselves to
>> skeletons and sleep on the benches in Dealey Plaza for the rest of their
>> days before admitting that the SBT is the correct shooting scenario." --
>> David Von Pein; December 7, 2007
>>
>
>
>
>
> The conspiracy-denying mega-kooky LNs of this world will try anything
> to explain the many bullet strikes in Dealey Plaza, including using a WC
> lawyer's idea of the SBT. Of course, that's just a theory, not a fact,
> and Occam's Razor is only a guideline, not a rule. The silly LNs of the

Occam's Razor is for weak minds who can't do any real research.
Occam's Razor says that the Earth is Flat.

> world don't care though, they have to explain away the problem of many
> shots being made at JFK, so that the plotters could escape retribution
> because a 'patsy' took the blame.
>

No one wanted to start WWIII so they let it go.
Do YOU want to be the one who starts WWIII?

> Well, add in the 2 (or more) bullets that hit JFK, then the one over
> the windshield into the chrome bar, then the one that Officer 'Steve'

SHH! You're not supposed to admit the dent to the chrome topping. The WC
said it was not caused by a bullet that it was always like that. So if YOU
say it was hit by a bullet that makes you a conspiracy kook. So what is
YOUR theory about which bullet hit the chrome topping?

> Ellis saw striking the curb to the right of the limo, and the one that
> struck over by James Tague and caused a chip to cut his cheek, then count
> the one that went through the windshield seen by 6 witnesses, and count
> the 2 gouges seen in midfield by Wayne and Edna Hartman, who were told by
> a cop that they were from bullets, then add in the one that really hit
> Connally, and you have a more honest picture of what happened with bullet
> strikes. The ridiculous story of a 'pristine' bullet that went through 2
> men 7 times including 2 bone strikes and came out almost new is for the
> suckers to believe.
>
>> ~~~~~~~~~~~
>>
>> "Isn't it rather remarkable that the person sitting in front of JFK also
>> had a bullet wound in his upper back? Plus the added facts of JFK having a
>> bullet hole in his throat and JFK having no bullets in his body.
>

No, not at all. The rifle was so inaccurate that one shot could hit
Kennedy and the next miss Kennedy and hit Connally. Do you think
Connally was hit deliberately? Why? What motive?
And with a Carcano we would not expect to find bullets in the bodies.

>
>
> JFK had no bullets in his body because he was taken to a military
> hospital where the doctors all had to follow orders. When the body got to
> Bethesda, it went right into the morgue at 6:35pm and got clandestine work
> done on it, to remove any bullets and to modify the wounds to look more
> like there had been a shot from above and behind, when the kill shot was
> from the front and struck in the right forehead/temple area, as seen in
> the 'stare-of-death' autopsy photo.
>
>
>
>> Conspiracy theorists who hate the Single-Bullet Theory never seem bothered
>> in the least by those last observations I just mentioned. They'll simply
>> add yet another bullet to the mix to account for John Connally's back

No need to an extra bullet. You had to create an entire miss to create
the SBT. We could just have that miss hit Connally. As the FBI said:
Three Shots, Three Hits, no misses. And the WC agreed until Specter
dreamed up the SBT.

>> wound. The SBT will never be defeated by conspiracists. And that's because

Now you sound like Hitler.

>> the SBT will always make more sense than any anti-SBT theory. The truth
>> usually does make the most sense, of course." -- David Von Pein; December
>> 14, 2013
>>

How about a Modified Single Bullet Theory? Maybe just a little change
like take out Connally's wrist wound and/or thigh wound? Did you ever
see all the crazy diagrams to get a bullet to hit Connally's wrist and
thigh? Are you proud of Free Frank Warner?

>
>
>
> Among the real observations is the one by Dr. Carrico when he observed
> the wound in the throat. He thought it looked like an entry wound, and
> was later proved to be exactly that.
>
> During the autopsy, there was a point where the organs had ben removed
> and they could se clearly where the bullet in the upper back had gone.
> It had entered the back and gone only about an inch or so. This was
> clearly seen when they probed the back and the probe was seen from the
> front through the chest cavity by James Jenkins as it rubbed on the pleura
> (lung covering) but could go through because there was NOATH through.
> That meant that the bullet did NOT go through to the neck wound, and that
> wound had to be a separate wound from the front. Cites and links on
> request backing that up.
>
> That proved the silliness of the 'single bullet' theory and those that
> believed in it.
>
>
>
>
>> ~~~~~~~~~~~
>>
>> "You call it the theory; I call it the conclusion; it was a theory until
>> we found the facts; that's why I refer to it as the Single-Bullet
>> Conclusion." -- Arlen Specter; 1967
>>

Delusional.

Anthony Marsh

unread,

Jan 21, 2018, 2:28:03 PM1/21/18

to

Bugliosi could never make up his mind. He saw that the WC had speculated
about JFK being shot at frame 210. So he thought maybe that put the SBT
at frame 210. There are as many Single Bullet Theories as there are WC
defenders out there.

For those who don't have his book I scanned in the diaragram from his
book:

http://www.the-puzzle-palace.com/Bugliosi-Z210.gif

I hate to be the one to defend a professional liar like Bugliosi, but it
is not fair to say "at frame 210."
He said SOMEWHERE within a split second of frame 210.
For a professional liar that could be anywhere from 200 to 220.

Anthony Marsh

unread,

Jan 21, 2018, 2:28:15 PM1/21/18

to

So it doesn't matter to you which frame it was. Pick any frame at random
and each is equally a proven fact. Frame 4, frame 400. All the same.

> frames and shows JFK's right hand still moving downward between 224-225
> and then between 225-226 it begins moving upward, the exact same frame
> that JBC's right arm started upward, both involuntary reactions to a
> bullet which had struck several frames earlier.
>

Can you see JFK's hand when he is behind the sign?

OHLeeRedux

unread,

Jan 21, 2018, 5:20:50 PM1/21/18

to

BOZ
- hide quoted text -

Anthony proves that with every post he excretes here.

Bud

unread,

Jan 21, 2018, 8:17:56 PM1/21/18

to

On Friday, January 19, 2018 at 9:03:58 PM UTC-5, mainframetech wrote:

> On Thursday, January 18, 2018 at 11:10:03 PM UTC-5, David Von Pein wrote:
> > "The conspiracy-happy Mega-Kooks of this world will choose ANY silly
> > option to account for JFK's and John Connally's wounds, just so long as
> > they don't ever have to face the Occam's-like solution called the
> > "Single-Bullet Theory". The kooks would rather starve themselves to
> > skeletons and sleep on the benches in Dealey Plaza for the rest of their
> > days before admitting that the SBT is the correct shooting scenario." --
> > David Von Pein; December 7, 2007
> >
>
>
>
>
> The conspiracy-denying mega-kooky LNs of this world will try anything
> to explain the many bullet strikes in Dealey Plaza, including using a WC
> lawyer's idea of the SBT. Of course, that's just a theory, not a fact,
> and Occam's Razor is only a guideline, not a rule.

Actually it is a problem solving tool used in critical thinking.

But a little known fact is that William of Ockham had a brother, Wilfred
of Ockham, also known as Wilfred the Stump. He advanced a principle known
as Wilfred`s Blunt Instrument, which stated that although simple
explanations were more likely, positing fantastic ones was more fun. He is
thought to be the father of all conspiracy hobbyist thinking.

mainframetech

unread,

Jan 21, 2018, 8:41:04 PM1/21/18

to

It's amazing what some stupid people will say as if they had knowledge
of something. Sadly, your OPINION is missing much facts that I've
provided for a long time and often to you. Pretending that I haven't is
the height of foolishness. I have given solid evidence and witness
statements proving that the upper back bullet never let the body of JFK,
and so never hit Connally, and so the SBT is disproved.

Chris

mainframetech

unread,

Jan 21, 2018, 8:43:21 PM1/21/18

to

On Saturday, January 20, 2018 at 6:39:54 PM UTC-5, bigdog wrote:
> On Friday, January 19, 2018 at 9:03:58 PM UTC-5, mainframetech wrote:
> > On Thursday, January 18, 2018 at 11:10:03 PM UTC-5, David Von Pein wrote:
> > > "The conspiracy-happy Mega-Kooks of this world will choose ANY silly
> > > option to account for JFK's and John Connally's wounds, just so long as
> > > they don't ever have to face the Occam's-like solution called the
> > > "Single-Bullet Theory". The kooks would rather starve themselves to
> > > skeletons and sleep on the benches in Dealey Plaza for the rest of their
> > > days before admitting that the SBT is the correct shooting scenario." --
> > > David Von Pein; December 7, 2007
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > The conspiracy-denying mega-kooky LNs of this world will try anything
> > to explain the many bullet strikes in Dealey Plaza, including using a WC
> > lawyer's idea of the SBT. Of course, that's just a theory, not a fact,
> > and Occam's Razor is only a guideline, not a rule. The silly LNs of the
> > world don't care though, they have to explain away the problem of many
> > shots being made at JFK, so that the plotters could escape retribution
> > because a 'patsy' took the blame.
> >
>
> None of us need to explain away your fantasies.
>

How strange a world you live in! I show fact and you see fantasy. Or
perhaps your vision is blocked by the WCR.

> > Well, add in the 2 (or more) bullets that hit JFK, then the one over
> > the windshield into the chrome bar, then the one that Officer 'Steve'
> > Ellis saw striking the curb to the right of the limo, and the one that
> > struck over by James Tague and caused a chip to cut his cheek, then count
> > the one that went through the windshield seen by 6 witnesses, and count
> > the 2 gouges seen in midfield by Wayne and Edna Hartman, who were told by
> > a cop that they were from bullets, then add in the one that really hit
> > Connally, and you have a more honest picture of what happened with bullet
> > strikes. The ridiculous story of a 'pristine' bullet that went through 2
> > men 7 times including 2 bone strikes and came out almost new is for the
> > suckers to believe.
> >
>
> You really should contact the Dallas traffic department about this. They
> have two Xs marked on Elm St at the approximate locations JFK was struck.
> You need to tell them they need to paint a lot more Xs to show where all
> those bullet strikes were. Get back to us and let us know how you did.
>

I wouldn't bother. They (like you) read the WCR and followed the
theories there.

> > > ~~~~~~~~~~~
> > >
> > > "Isn't it rather remarkable that the person sitting in front of JFK also
> > > had a bullet wound in his upper back? Plus the added facts of JFK having a
> > > bullet hole in his throat and JFK having no bullets in his body.
> >
> >
> >
> > JFK had no bullets in his body because he was taken to a military
> > hospital where the doctors all had to follow orders. When the body got to
> > Bethesda, it went right into the morgue at 6:35pm and got clandestine work
> > done on it, to remove any bullets and to modify the wounds to look more
> > like there had been a shot from above and behind, when the kill shot was
> > from the front and struck in the right forehead/temple area, as seen in
> > the 'stare-of-death' autopsy photo.
> >
>
> A fine example of one of your fantasies.
>

Sorry, the WCR got in your eyes again and blinded you! I show a fact
and you see fantasy. Sad.

> > > Conspiracy theorists who hate the Single-Bullet Theory never seem bothered
> > > in the least by those last observations I just mentioned. They'll simply
> > > add yet another bullet to the mix to account for John Connally's back
> > > wound. The SBT will never be defeated by conspiracists. And that's because
> > > the SBT will always make more sense than any anti-SBT theory. The truth
> > > usually does make the most sense, of course." -- David Von Pein; December
> > > 14, 2013
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > Among the real observations is the one by Dr. Carrico when he observed
> > the wound in the throat. He thought it looked like an entry wound, and
> > was later proved to be exactly that.
> >
>
> Dr. Carrico was not a medical examiner. He was an ER doctor. His job was
> to fix bullet holes, not determine if they were entrances or exits. He
> thought it as a entrance because it was small and round. When a soft lead
> or hollow point bullet enter a body they mushroom and if they exit they
> will make a larger hole going out than coming in. An FMJ bullet is
> designed not to deform when hitting soft tissue and therefore will make a
> nice round when it exits. Just a guess but I would bet most of the gunshot
> victims that came to the Parkland ER were not shot with FMJ bullets.
>

Ah, walked into it again! When will you learn? YOU are not anywhere
near qualified to decide who can tell anything about a bullet wound.
Carrico was a resident at Parkland, where they have up to 200 bullet
wounds come in every year. He would know what they look like. And BTW,
you think the bullet wound was from an FMJ bullet? How would you know?
There was no bullet in the body, and finding a bullet on someone else's
gurney doesn't mean anything. Since there were multiple shooters, there
could be many types of gun and bullet used. The skull X-ray shows a path
of tiny particles, which could most likely come from other than an FMJ
bullet.

But to help you out, the bullet that struck JFK in the forehead/temple
area made a neat little hole, but left a 'large hole' in the BOH when it
blew out that area. Probably not an FMJ bullet.

> > During the autopsy, there was a point where the organs had been removed
> > and they could see clearly where the bullet in the upper back had gone.

> > It had entered the back and gone only about an inch or so. This was
> > clearly seen when they probed the back and the probe was seen from the
> > front through the chest cavity by James Jenkins as it rubbed on the pleura

> > (lung covering) but could not go through because there was NO PATH through.

> > That meant that the bullet did NOT go through to the neck wound, and that
> > wound had to be a separate wound from the front. Cites and links on
> > request backing that up.
>
> So says our resident medical examiner. If the organs were removed, why was
> the pleura still in the body? I'm requesting a cite for that.
>

Use your head for a change. They did not note every slice of the
scalpel. But the only way they could see the bruises was to have removed
the lungs, meaning that they had to slice around the edge of the pleura to
remove the lungs. The reason I say that's what they did is because
Jenkins couldn't see what he stated unless that had been done. The back
covering of the pleura had to have stayed. So we know what was there and
what Jenkins saw. No need for cites, since the story from Paul O'Connor
tells it all. And I know you've heard that many times because I've told
it to you many times. And you're doing your usual repetition again.

> >
> > That proved the silliness of the 'single bullet' theory and those that
> > believed in it.
> >
> That's called proof by assertion. It doesn't work. Never has.

WRONG! That's called proof by facts witnessed.

> > >
> > > "You call it the theory; I call it the conclusion; it was a theory until
> > > we found the facts; that's why I refer to it as the Single-Bullet
> > > Conclusion." -- Arlen Specter; 1967
> > >
> > > ~~~~~~~~~~~
> > >
> > > "To my knowledge, [nobody] has ever explained how moving the back wound up
> > > to THE NECK supports the SBT. Nobody CAN support it, because moving the
> > > entry to the neck would destroy the Warren Commission's SBT trajectory,
> > > not strengthen it. .... I'll refer you to CE 903. Although [Arlen] Specter
> > > didn't drill a hole in the stand-in's body and drive the rod through it,
> > > had he done so, the entry would be in the upper back, not in the neck.
> > > There's a string on the wall above his hand that shows an angle of about
> > > 18 degrees -- that's the approximate angle measured by a surveyor during
> > > the re-enactment and the one the WC used for its SBT. If the rod is moved
> > > up to the neck, the bullet will exit well above the exit wound under JFK's
> > > Adam's apple. .... The claim that [Gerald] Ford's change "strengthens" the
> > > WC's SBT is simply not true." -- Jean Davison; January 2, 2007
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > All baloney, since the proof that the SBT couldn't occur has been made.
> >
>
> Using your amazingly low bar for what constitutes proof.
>

Using solid facts and witnesses.

> > > "The "single-bullet THEORY" is an obvious misnomer. Though in its
> > > incipient stages it was but a theory, the indisputable evidence is that it
> > > is now a proven FACT, a wholly supported conclusion. .... And no sensible
> > > mind that is also informed can plausibly make the case that the bullet
> > > that struck President Kennedy in the upper right part of his back did not
> > > go on to hit Governor Connally." -- Vincent Bugliosi; Pages 489-490 of
> > > "Reclaiming History"
> > >
> > > http://Single-Bullet-Theory.blogspot.com
> > >
> > > http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2014/10/wesley-liebeler-vs-mark-lane-1967-debate.html
> >
> >
> > All baloney, ended by an effort to get people to click on the DVP
> > website.
> >
>
> A pathetic remark, even by your standards.

unread,

Jan 22, 2018, 9:21:27 AM1/22/18

to

And forget that Humes said the bullet did not exit.
And forget that Humes said ICE BULLET.

Anthony Marsh

unread,

Jan 22, 2018, 6:04:26 PM1/22/18

to

Well, no one said he was hit in the HEAD at frame 210.
How could the HSCA theory of a SB hit at frame 190 work when we see no
reactions by anyone?

David Von Pein

Jan 22, 2018, 9:16:58 PM1/22/18

to

WRONG! Try and get your intelligence into the debate. The pleura is
like a bag that the lungs are resting within. To free the lungs, you need
to cut along the edge of the lung, and it will cut the front part of the
pleura for removal. The back part will stay.

Chris

mainframetech

unread,

Jan 22, 2018, 9:17:37 PM1/22/18

to

LOL! You'll try anything to try and discredit the true story of the
autopsy! When a member of a team says 'we' it doesn't mean that everyone
altogether did some action. It means that the team accomplished some
action, through one or more people working together. Simple, and you
should know that.

Now, please supply cites and links for how you know that O'Connor did
not see the things he described. Please also list all the "very specific
tasks to perform" that O'Connor had to do.

Chris

Steve BH

unread,

Jan 23, 2018, 2:52:12 PM1/23/18

to

There are two sets of pleura, each very smooth and nearly transparent and
slippery Thin layer of water between). They slide against each other as
the lung expands. The one layer comes out with the lung, coating it. The
other coats the inside of thoracic cavity and stays with that.

Anthony Marsh

unread,

Jan 23, 2018, 6:30:51 PM1/23/18

to

Chess is too boring. I play contract bridge.

>

Amy Joyce

unread,

Jan 23, 2018, 6:35:46 PM1/23/18

to

There is no need to explain how the wounds occurred while not accepting
the SBT. It comes down to believing if the body had been illegally taken
out of state and an illegal autopsy was performed because of the Jackie
excuse; or if it was stolen and then manipulated in order to deceive
people. If the latter than obviously extreme lengths to cover up the truth
would have occurred.

If there weren't dozens of witnesses (mostly adult medical professionals)
that adamantly declared that the back of JFK's head had a large gaping
wound the size of a fist (appearing to be a blow out) which was
inconsistent with the autopsy report, then maybe I'd consider accepting
the autopsy findings. But the report was completely opposite. An autopsy
report and witnesses to one wouldn't be acceptable evidence in court under
those conditions, and for good reasons - suspicions of tampering.

The limo was was also illegally removed from evidence, taken out of state,
and unarguably manipulated. As a result the bullet hole in the windshield,
damage to chrome, and possible other evidence was forever gone and unable
to get examined properly and impartially. Any excuses for that are absurd.
All excuses offered for how the damage otherwise occurred are
unacceptable, especially when there are law abiding witnesses that saw
differently.

Then there is the WC "investigation" from which the SBT developed. Autopsy
pictures, notes, and possible video were kept from the public or impartial
view, and some were eventually discarded/lost/stolen.

Evidence against the SBT (such as the near pristine bullet, the partial
bullet left in the thigh of JBC, JBC's personal declaration that he was
struck by a different bullet, trajectory issues, witnesses to the entry
wound/throat shot, the multiple wounds it cause including bone damage, the
autopsy witnesses that refute it, and everything I've forgotten) is
expected to get ignored while the stolen and illegal evidence for the SBT
should be accepted - despite how ridiculous it sounds.

Only when the accused is dead and can't get a fair trial or when the U.S.
government is concerned. The latter is the only faction that would get
away what occurred.

Anthony Marsh

unread,

Jan 23, 2018, 6:39:45 PM1/23/18

to

On 1/22/2018 6:10 PM, David Von Pein wrote:
> IN 2008, PAT SPEER SAID:
>
> Guaranteed fact: Vincent Bugliosi will never debate me on this stuff....
>
> http://www.patspeer.com/chapter20%3Aconclusionsandconfusions%3A
>
> He's been challenged elsewhere and said he was too busy writing a new book
> to discuss the case any further. I call that cutting-and-running.
>
>
> DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
>
> I would call it not wanting to waste one's time on some conspiracy
> theorist's unsupportable anti-SBT theory.
>

How about a Modified Single Bullet Theory? You can still have one bullet
cause many wounds, but it isn't CE 399.

> Another "guaranteed fact":
>
> The conspiracy theorists will never ever come up with a scenario that
> comes anywhere close to matching the Single-Bullet Theory in every
> important category (if you can even get a CTer to spell out their theory
> on a bullet-by-bullet basis, that is, which rarely occurs, because when it

Well, we do try, but it's kinda hard to do when you guys keep destroying
the evidence. I might have gotten closer to figuring out how the chrome
topping was dented if I had been allowed to examine it. But that ain't
gonna happen so I have to guess. The WC didn't even try, the HSCA wasn't
interested, and YOU aren't brave enough. I alone found the photo that
proves that the chrome topping was undented before the shooting, but
still people deny it. I showed the photo which proves that the rearview
mirror was smashed in by a bullet or fragment, but still the cover-up
denies that it is damaged. I showed McAdams the autopsy photo which
shows a bullet hole in the forehead and he denied it, but then said it
was an exit wound. But he can't show me that exit wound on the scalp
overlying the skull. You aren't even brave enough to try.
Once these FACTS are accepted we need to try to fit them into the
shooting scenario. It is easy to invent a shooting scenario when you LIE
about all the evidence.

I'd like to know more about the extra fragment they found in Connally,
but they scratched out the crucial words on the document.
I hazard to say that you have never seen anyone else lay out the
complete list of shots as I did on my web site. But I still have some
unanswered questions and the government is still covering up the files.
Maybe if YOU could get the government to release ALL the files we might
have the answers we need to solve this case. But YOU won't.

> does, the conspiracist is laughed out of town, due to the absurdity of
> their miraculous bullet-disappearing conspiracy-slanted conjecture that

WE aren't the ones who came up with a shot that missed and magically
vanished into thin air. Look in the mirror.

> has multiple bullets behaving in ways that so closely mimicked
> Mannlicher-Carcano Bullet #CE399 that every official U.S. Government
> investigation was fooled into thinking these multiple bullets that riddled
> the victims full of holes could be reconciled into the SBT).
>

Any klutz can create a CE 399. Henry Hurt created one simply by shooting
a Carcano into a barrel of water. It's easy.

> But instead of accepting the obvious (i.e., the SBT) as a fact, CTers like
> Pat Speer will go to great lengths and write thousands upon thousands of
> words on Internet websites attempting to discredit a rock-solid fact (the
> SBT).
>

So when you can't prove something with facts all you do is say it's obvious.

> Go figure.
>
> http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2012/02/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-132.html
>

Steve BH

unread,

Jan 23, 2018, 9:21:51 PM1/23/18

to

Here is your head shot-- from behind or grassy knoll.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9RCX3RdVHqo

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_RX2phbWmgA

Steve BH

unread,

Jan 23, 2018, 9:25:20 PM1/23/18

to

None of them said back of the head. It was TOP of the head.

> the autopsy findings. But the report was completely opposite. An autopsy
> report and witnesses to one wouldn't be acceptable evidence in court under
> those conditions, and for good reasons - suspicions of tampering.
>

Wecht points out that the case would have been thrown out of a normal court.

> The limo was was also illegally removed from evidence, taken out of state,
> and unarguably manipulated. As a result the bullet hole in the windshield,

There was no bullet hole in the windshield. That is proven by the dent
on the back of the rearview mirror.

> damage to chrome, and possible other evidence was forever gone and unable
> to get examined properly and impartially. Any excuses for that are absurd.
> All excuses offered for how the damage otherwise occurred are
> unacceptable, especially when there are law abiding witnesses that saw
> differently.
>

Some of that destruction of evidence we have ways of working around.

> Then there is the WC "investigation" from which the SBT developed. Autopsy
> pictures, notes, and possible video were kept from the public or impartial
> view, and some were eventually discarded/lost/stolen.
>

And once we saw Fox 8 for ourselves we knew why.
Let me rephrase that. Once HONEST people saw Fox 8 we knew why.
The liars just keep lying.

> Evidence against the SBT (such as the near pristine bullet, the partial
> bullet left in the thigh of JBC, JBC's personal declaration that he was
> struck by a different bullet, trajectory issues, witnesses to the entry
> wound/throat shot, the multiple wounds it cause including bone damage, the
> autopsy witnesses that refute it, and everything I've forgotten) is
> expected to get ignored while the stolen and illegal evidence for the SBT
> should be accepted - despite how ridiculous it sounds.
>
> Only when the accused is dead and can't get a fair trial or when the U.S.
> government is concerned. The latter is the only faction that would get
> away what occurred.
>

Oswald would not have gotten a fair trail and he would have been easily
convicted. But the case would have been voided on appeal.

>
>
>

BOZ

unread,

Jan 25, 2018, 4:24:02 PM1/25/18

to

Graphene?

Steve BH

unread,

Jan 25, 2018, 4:48:35 PM1/25/18

to

Since we're at exactly the level of the top of the thoracic cavity, it
would certainly be possible to poke a probe DOWNWARD from the back hole
and hit pleura inside, and see that from the front. At the same time, had
they poked toward the trach wound in the neck, they'd have been lined up
on the wound track, and you would not have seen that.

If the bullet doesn't penetrate (and thus doesn't go through) there's no
good way to produce a fracture at T1 and a bruised lung top and bruised
tissue ABOVE the pleura, without pleural penetration. That's what you
expect of a shock wave-- of the sort you SEE when a supersonic bullet goes
though ballistic gel. Such a cavity opens, then collapses. It does damage
in human tissue BEYOND thin membranes, without breaking them. The original
autopsy team got this dead on.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M5X1qWACFf8

Steve BH

unread,

Jan 25, 2018, 4:50:03 PM1/25/18

unread,

Jan 26, 2018, 11:37:07 AM1/26/18

to

unread,

Jan 27, 2018, 10:57:48 AM1/27/18

to

The SBT can be countered or rejected without explaining how the wounds
occurred which is what I said. Besides, the autopsy was illegal which
made the report regarding the wounds untrustworthy.

>
> > If there weren't dozens of witnesses (mostly adult medical professionals)
> > that adamantly declared that the back of JFK's head had a large gaping
> > wound the size of a fist (appearing to be a blow out) which was
> > inconsistent with the autopsy report, then maybe I'd consider accepting
>
> None of them said back of the head. It was TOP of the head.

I beg to differ but that doesn't matter for the context of this discussion
anyway.

>
> > the autopsy findings. But the report was completely opposite. An autopsy
> > report and witnesses to one wouldn't be acceptable evidence in court under
> > those conditions, and for good reasons - suspicions of tampering.
> >
>
> Wecht points out that the case would have been thrown out of a normal court.

Do you agree with him or not? Because you later say, "Oswald would not
have gotten a fair trail and he would have been easily convicted". I
seriously doubt he'd of been easily convicted and don't think a jury would
have been fooled. Having a lawyer with an opportunity to present a
defense is much different than a one sided mockery of justice.

>
> > The limo was was also illegally removed from evidence, taken out of state,
> > and unarguably manipulated. As a result the bullet hole in the windshield,
>
> There was no bullet hole in the windshield. That is proven by the dent
> on the back of the rearview mirror.

People can argue about the bullet hole or lack of one in the windshield
and never get anywhere. The point is that there were witnesses to one and
testimony to reflect that, but the windshield wasn't available for
examination - ie the evidence was destroyed.

>
> > damage to chrome, and possible other evidence was forever gone and unable
> > to get examined properly and impartially. Any excuses for that are absurd.
> > All excuses offered for how the damage otherwise occurred are
> > unacceptable, especially when there are law abiding witnesses that saw
> > differently.
> >
>
> Some of that destruction of evidence we have ways of working around.

Agreed.

>
> > Then there is the WC "investigation" from which the SBT developed. Autopsy
> > pictures, notes, and possible video were kept from the public or impartial
> > view, and some were eventually discarded/lost/stolen.
> >
>
> And once we saw Fox 8 for ourselves we knew why.
> Let me rephrase that. Once HONEST people saw Fox 8 we knew why.
> The liars just keep lying.

Agreed.

bigdog

unread,

Jan 27, 2018, 11:54:34 AM1/27/18

to

And of course that is the witness you gravitate to, ignoring all others.

> The tip of the lung also cannot
> be hit when the bruise was almost 2 inches wide.

Now you put your expertise as a medical examiner on display. Bad idea.

The funny part is you believe O'Connor was actually participating in this part of the autopsy.

> So we see that the prosectors saw the PROOF with their own eyes, but lied
> when it came to the AR, so that they had to have had orders to do that.
> Humes would never have taken the authority to lie in the AR.
>

Either that or O'Connor was lying his ass off.

>
> And let's add the sworn testimony of Jerrol Custer, 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
>

Maybe you should have found a witness who knew the difference between a centimeter and a sonometer.

sonometer (səˈnɒmɪtə)
n
an instrument employed in acoustic analysis or investigation, consisting usually of one string stretched over a resonator of wood

>
> Sonometer = centimeter, and 3-4 centimeters is long enough to be many
> types of bullet.
>

A sonometer doesn't equal a centimeter.

And you believe a witness who tells a story about something happening that nobody else on the team saw nor the FBI agents nor the observers in the gallery.

> It really doesn't look like the bullet made it through the body. But
> here's the statement of James Sibert, FBI agent who observed the autopsy:
>
> "It was my impression that Finck and
> Humes agreed that there was no exit wound of the bullet through
> the back."
>

That was there initial impression based on the fact they didn't realize the tracheostomy incision had been performed over the exit wound. They only saw on bullet hole which would naturally lead them to think there was no exit. Further examination told them otherwise.

> From: https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/pdf/md155.pdf
>
>
> And further:
>
> "The retired FBI agents were especially scathing about the single bullet
> theory positing that one bullet caused seven non-fatal wounds in Kennedy
> and [Texas] Governor Connally and emerged largely undamaged on a hospital
> stretcher.
>
> They took notes on the autopsy as Dr. Humes examined Kennedy's body. Both
> said the autopsies concluded the bullet that hit Kennedy in his back had
> not transited his body."
>
> From: http://spartacus-educational.com/JFKoneillFX.htm
>

This is somebody else's spin on what the FBI agents had said.

Anthony Marsh

unread,

Jan 27, 2018, 5:20:24 PM1/27/18

to

> intercostal muscles???the muscles in between the ribs. The bullet went in through

> the muscles, didn't touch any of the ribs, arched downwards, hit the back of the
> pleural cavity, which encases the lungs, both front and back. It bounced off that
> cavity and stopped. It actually went down and stopped. Went through the ribs
> and stopped (photo 10). So we didn't know the track of the bullet until we eviscerated
> the body later. That's what happened at that time. We traced the bullet
> path down and found out it didn't traverse the body. It did not go in one side and
> come out the other side of the body.
> Law: You can be reasonably sure of that?
> O'Connor: Absolutely.
> Law: It was just from the probe then?
> O'Connor: Oh yes.
> Law: And these doctors knew that?
> O'Connor: Absolutely.
> Law: While it happened?
> O'Connor: Absolutely."
>
> From: "In the Eyes of History" by William Matson Law, pages 30-41
> online at: https://www.krusch.com/books/kennedy/In_The_Eye_Of_History.pdf
>
> So we see that the prosectors saw the PROOF with their own eyes, but lied
> when it came to the AR, so that they had to have had orders to do that.
> Humes would never have taken the authority to lie in the AR.
>
>
> And let's add the sworn testimony of Jerrol Custer, 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
>
> Sonometer = centimeter, and 3-4 centimeters is long enough to be many
> types of bullet.
>
> another interview of Custer:
>

> "Palamara: Were you aware of the allegations of???I don't know if it was Admiral
> or Captain David Osborne???about the bullet falling out of the body? During the

> autopsy? Did you see a whole bullet or a fragment fall out of President Kennedy?
> Custer: Well, I wouldn't call it a fragment, I'd say it was a pretty good sized

> bullet. Because it created such a fuss. They ran over with a set of forceps???and

> they grabbed it, picked it up and put it in a little basin of water.

> Law: Now is this the bullet???when you were doing the X-rays, and you had

> him on the table and moving him around, didn't you tell me at some point in an
> earlier conversation that a bullet fragment fell out of the president?
> Custer: This was the time that they found that.
> Law: Okay. And what happened? What was their demeanor? What happened
> when that bullet fragment fell out?
> Custer: I called one of the pathologists over and said, "Hey, we have a bullet
> here." Soon as they heard that, they came down off the raised platform and they
> ran over and they picked it up. Then Sibert and O'Neill also came over and said,

> "Well, we want that, that's???""
> Palamara: Yes, they wrote out a receipt for a missile so people think it's semantics???

> was it a fragment? So you're saying it wasn't a whole bullet? It was a sizable
> fragment of a bullet?

> Custer: It was about???see, you're getting in semantics here about the size. It

Yes, but you can still have the bullet exit without needing a SBT. The
FBI didn't need no damn stinkin SBT. 3 shots, 3 hits, no misses.

> From: http://spartacus-educational.com/JFKoneillFX.htm
>
> Chris
>

bigdog

unread,

Jan 27, 2018, 7:38:17 PM1/27/18

to

Is that so. In all of our conversations you never once indicated you were
aware that there was an inner and outer pleura. You always spoke of THE
pleura which indicates you too only thought there was one. You never once
specified inner or outer pleura.

> While you may have a point about us not putting forward medical
> conclusions, there are still simple physical items of info that anyone
> with common sense can comment on, and for my part, I will do so as the
> need arises. Normally though, I haven't had to, since the witnesses in
> the case are usually qualified and I copy their conclusions.
>

The witnesses you cite were not competent medical examiners. They were
assistants to competent medical examiners.

mainframetech

unread,

Jan 27, 2018, 9:44:55 PM1/27/18

to

You are the one making claims that the WCR, as stupid as it is, was the
true story! What could you expect when you do that? Some one will
correct you. Naturally we support our contentions with poof, which you
can't bear to listen to or believe, because you'll have lost years of
believing things and will have to start all over again. You can't spout
that nonsense and not expect to get corrected, and probably even laughed
at heartily!

Chris

Anthony Marsh

unread,

Jan 27, 2018, 9:50:10 PM1/27/18

to

The autopsy doesn't have to wrong just because it was illegal. We know it
was wrong because they were incompetent and lied and were under military
orders. Maybe the original autopsy was correct and said conspiracy.

>>
>>> If there weren't dozens of witnesses (mostly adult medical professionals)
>>> that adamantly declared that the back of JFK's head had a large gaping
>>> wound the size of a fist (appearing to be a blow out) which was
>>> inconsistent with the autopsy report, then maybe I'd consider accepting
>>
>> None of them said back of the head. It was TOP of the head.
>
> I beg to differ but that doesn't matter for the context of this discussion
> anyway.
>
>>
>>> the autopsy findings. But the report was completely opposite. An autopsy
>>> report and witnesses to one wouldn't be acceptable evidence in court under
>>> those conditions, and for good reasons - suspicions of tampering.
>>>
>>
>> Wecht points out that the case would have been thrown out of a normal court.
>
> Do you agree with him or not? Because you later say, "Oswald would not

Yes, I agree.
Dallas was not a normal court.

> have gotten a fair trail and he would have been easily convicted". I
> seriously doubt he'd of been easily convicted and don't think a jury would
> have been fooled. Having a lawyer with an opportunity to present a
> defense is much different than a one sided mockery of justice.
>

Ever hear of Roe versus Wade? It's that Wade.
He got like 25 convictions out of 26 cases.
He could have given her the death penalty.

>>
>>> The limo was was also illegally removed from evidence, taken out of state,
>>> and unarguably manipulated. As a result the bullet hole in the windshield,
>>
>> There was no bullet hole in the windshield. That is proven by the dent
>> on the back of the rearview mirror.
>
> People can argue about the bullet hole or lack of one in the windshield
> and never get anywhere. The point is that there were witnesses to one and

But I did get somewhere and showed evidence which most people had not
seen.

> testimony to reflect that, but the windshield wasn't available for
> examination - ie the evidence was destroyed.

False. The winshield WAA available and was examineed. That night.
And photographed that night. It's fun to believe in an all powereful
conspiracy, but not even they could have switched out the winshield
while Greer was driving the limo.

I know about the Safelite commercials, but the car has to be parked.

bigdog

unread,

Jan 27, 2018, 9:52:55 PM1/27/18

to

Conspiracy hobbyists often find themselves in the position of needing an
excuse to dismiss inconvenient evidence.

> >
> > > If there weren't dozens of witnesses (mostly adult medical professionals)
> > > that adamantly declared that the back of JFK's head had a large gaping
> > > wound the size of a fist (appearing to be a blow out) which was
> > > inconsistent with the autopsy report, then maybe I'd consider accepting
> >
> > None of them said back of the head. It was TOP of the head.
>
> I beg to differ but that doesn't matter for the context of this discussion
> anyway.
>
> >
> > > the autopsy findings. But the report was completely opposite. An autopsy
> > > report and witnesses to one wouldn't be acceptable evidence in court under
> > > those conditions, and for good reasons - suspicions of tampering.
> > >
> >
> > Wecht points out that the case would have been thrown out of a normal court.
>
> Do you agree with him or not? Because you later say, "Oswald would not
> have gotten a fair trail and he would have been easily convicted". I
> seriously doubt he'd of been easily convicted and don't think a jury would
> have been fooled. Having a lawyer with an opportunity to present a
> defense is much different than a one sided mockery of justice.
>

In 1964 when the trial would likely have been held, the Warren Court had not yet handed down many of their landmark rulings which placed stricter rules on the admissibility of evidence. Courts were much less likely to dismiss evidence on technicalities. I seriously doubt any court would have rejected the autopsy report. A medico-legal autopsy is in most cases required to establish cause of death. Without cause of death legally established, it becomes problematic to establish that a murder was committed. I can't see either the trial judge or an appeals court throwing out Oswald's conviction on such a technicality, but who knows.

> >
> > > The limo was was also illegally removed from evidence, taken out of state,
> > > and unarguably manipulated. As a result the bullet hole in the windshield,
> >
> > There was no bullet hole in the windshield. That is proven by the dent
> > on the back of the rearview mirror.
>
> People can argue about the bullet hole or lack of one in the windshield
> and never get anywhere. The point is that there were witnesses to one and
> testimony to reflect that, but the windshield wasn't available for
> examination - ie the evidence was destroyed.
>

The testimony of the Secret Service agent that examined the windshield and
saw that the defect did not extend to the outer surface of the windshield
would have been sufficient to establish no shot came through the
windshield. Besides, even if the there was a hole through the windshield,
at best that would indicate a second unknown shooter which would have done
nothing to exonerate Oswald. All the prosecution would have needed to do
would be to establish Oswald was a shooter. It wouldn't have even been
necessary to establish he fired the fatal shot. The fact he was firing at
all would have been enough to establish his guilt in the murder of the
President.

> >
> > > damage to chrome, and possible other evidence was forever gone and unable
> > > to get examined properly and impartially. Any excuses for that are absurd.
> > > All excuses offered for how the damage otherwise occurred are
> > > unacceptable, especially when there are law abiding witnesses that saw
> > > differently.
> > >
> >
> > Some of that destruction of evidence we have ways of working around.
>
> Agreed.
>
> >
> > > Then there is the WC "investigation" from which the SBT developed. Autopsy
> > > pictures, notes, and possible video were kept from the public or impartial
> > > view, and some were eventually discarded/lost/stolen.
> > >
> >
> > And once we saw Fox 8 for ourselves we knew why.
> > Let me rephrase that. Once HONEST people saw Fox 8 we knew why.
> > The liars just keep lying.
>
> Agreed.
>

There is nothing in the various leaked autopsy photos which invalidates
either the original autopsy report or the subsequent findings of the
various review panels.

> >
> > > Evidence against the SBT (such as the near pristine bullet, the partial
> > > bullet left in the thigh of JBC, JBC's personal declaration that he was
> > > struck by a different bullet, trajectory issues, witnesses to the entry
> > > wound/throat shot, the multiple wounds it cause including bone damage, the
> > > autopsy witnesses that refute it, and everything I've forgotten) is
> > > expected to get ignored while the stolen and illegal evidence for the SBT
> > > should be accepted - despite how ridiculous it sounds.
> > >
> > > Only when the accused is dead and can't get a fair trial or when the U.S.
> > > government is concerned. The latter is the only faction that would get
> > > away what occurred.
> > >
> >
> > Oswald would not have gotten a fair trail and he would have been easily
> > convicted. But the case would have been voided on appeal.
> >

Doubtful. Extremely doubtful.

Robert Harris

unread,

Jan 27, 2018, 9:55:31 PM1/27/18

to

On Saturday, January 20, 2018 at 5:09:15 PM UTC-5, BOZ wrote:
> On Friday, January 19, 2018 at 5:22:46 PM UTC-4, Anthony Marsh wrote:

> > The Single-Bullet Theory is a LIE. Because they couldn't admit conspiracy.

> >
> > >
> > > "The "single-bullet THEORY" is an obvious misnomer. Though in its
> > > incipient stages it was but a theory, the indisputable evidence is that it
> > > is now a proven FACT, a wholly supported conclusion. .... And no sensible
> > > mind that is also informed can plausibly make the case that the bullet
> > > that struck President Kennedy in the upper right part of his back did not
> > > go on to hit Governor Connally." -- Vincent Bugliosi; Pages 489-490 of
> > > "Reclaiming History"
> > >
> >

> > LIE.
> > Also Poisoning the Well.
> > Humes said the bullet did not exit. He said it was an Ice Bullet.
> > How come you never make fun of him?
> >
> > > http://Single-Bullet-Theory.blogspot.com
> > >
> > > http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2014/10/wesley-liebeler-vs-mark-lane-1967-debate.html
> > >
>
> CE 399 was fired from Oswald's rifle. You know nothing about the JFK
> assassination.

I'm afraid that has been proven to be untrue. Read this brief article and
educate yourself.

http://jfkhistory.com/bell/bellarticle/BellArticle.html

Robert Harris

Robert Harris

unread,

Jan 27, 2018, 10:06:23 PM1/27/18

to

It is hilarious, watching Tony post large, fat softballs, with zero
evidence and zero logic for the obvious purpose of making the LN theory
look good.

Strange, that you have claimed that the final shot was fired within less
than a half a second after 313, but you NEVER present that as an argument
against the LN theory.

Why is it that you don't present an argument which if true, would resolve
the conspiracy question?

If you want to prove me wrong, just post the evidence which convinced you
that the SBT was not possible. You CAN do that, can't you Tony:-)

Robert Harris

Anthony Marsh

unread,

Jan 28, 2018, 2:07:15 PM1/28/18

to

So you say there are never any conspiracies and cover ups?
You think Watergate was an accident? You think 9/11 was an accident?

mainframetech

unread,

Jan 28, 2018, 5:06:32 PM1/28/18

to

I do NOT ignore evidence, as you well know. But saying that is easy
when you're trying to cover up the truth. There was only one person that
I know of that said the upper lobe was bruised, and that was Humes in the
AR. But since he was proven to be lying and did not report what he
actually saw in the body, he isn't a good witness for this fact.

> > The tip of the lung also cannot
> > be hit when the bruise was almost 2 inches wide.
>
> Now you put your expertise as a medical examiner on display. Bad idea.
>

Don't be an ass! Everyone is familiar with bruises, since we've all
gotten them at some point in out life. And a bruise of 2 inches in
diameter says clearly that the strike of the bullet was not at the very
tip, which would leave almost no bruise at all. The bullet had to strike
down a bit from the edge of the lung\ to make that size of bruise.

Yep, if you're going to try to put forward that silly HSCA stuff
pretending he was asked to leave the autopsy, and he then came back later,
you're going to go down with that one. It wouldn't be the first time the
HSCA tried to cover up proofs. When they said that at the point in the
autopsy that he was asked to leave, there was NO reason given whatsoever,
and they chose the exact time when his testimony would have cooked the
whole phony thing right there. He was going to say that he saw that the
bullet had not gone through, and he would have killed the SBT, and they
couldn't have that. They wanted the determination that Oswald was guilty
to stand, and not give any changes to the 'known' situation.

>
> > So we see that the prosectors saw the PROOF with their own eyes, but lied
> > when it came to the AR, so that they had to have had orders to do that.
> > Humes would never have taken the authority to lie in the AR.
> >
> Either that or O'Connor was lying his ass off.

As usual, you forget that James Jenkins also corroborates a lot of what
O'Connor said. You can't use the standard LN whine that 'they all lied'.

> >
> > And let's add the sworn testimony of Jerrol Custer, 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
> >
> Maybe you should have found a witness who knew the difference between a centimeter and a sonometer.
>
> sonometer (səˈnɒmɪtə)
> n
> an instrument employed in acoustic analysis or investigation, consisting usually of one string stretched over a resonator of wood
> >
> > Sonometer = centimeter, and 3-4 centimeters is long enough to be many
> > types of bullet.
> >
> A sonometer doesn't equal a centimeter.
>

Don't be an ass. That was esxplained to you long ago, and not just
once. It is a French sound to say centimeter, they say 'son...' to
represent 'cen...'. Do you speak French, or know a little about it? If
not, here's a pronunciation for you. Try to listen for a change:

http://www.pronouncekiwi.com/1%20centimeter

Click on the first table entry that has '1 vote' and it will give you
the pronunciation of 'one centimeter'. Listen for he beginning sound of
'son...'. She will say 'Une sontimeter'. Geez! The trouble I have to go
through to wipe behind your ears!

WRONG! It seems that you have again forgotten something. All the
prosectors didn't dare to comment, because they had been ordered to lie
about what was the cause of death. Their testimony after the fact would
only carry the false story. There was one other person that knew about
the bullet falling out of the wound though. It was O'Connor. Here's the
text:

"As I said before, during the X-ray procedure after the photographs were
taken, X-ray technician Jerrol Custer was turning the body over and this
bullet or bullet fragment fell out on the table and was retrieved. I
didn't see that because I was out of the room when they were taking
X-rays."

From: "In the Eyes of History" by William Matson aw, page 62
Online at: https://www.krusch.com/books/kennedy/In_The_Eye_Of_History.pdf

It was clear that someone had told O'Connor about the bullet falling
out of the back that Custer saw. So it wasn't just in Custer's mind.

>
> > It really doesn't look like the bullet made it through the body. But
> > here's the statement of James Sibert, FBI agent who observed the autopsy:
> >
> > "It was my impression that Finck and
> > Humes agreed that there was no exit wound of the bullet through
> > the back."
> >
> That was there initial impression based on the fact they didn't realize the tracheostomy incision had been performed over the exit wound. They only saw on bullet hole which would naturally lead them to think there was no exit. Further examination told them otherwise.

Bullshit! You have NO CLUE at what point that was said. Was it near
the end of the autopsy? Could be. The story you just told was made up
completely from your imagination. You can't produce it from anywhere.

>
> > From: https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/pdf/md155.pdf
> >
> >
> > And further:
> >
> > "The retired FBI agents were especially scathing about the single bullet
> > theory positing that one bullet caused seven non-fatal wounds in Kennedy
> > and [Texas] Governor Connally and emerged largely undamaged on a hospital
> > stretcher.
> >
> > They took notes on the autopsy as Dr. Humes examined Kennedy's body. Both
> > said the autopsies concluded the bullet that hit Kennedy in his back had
> > not transited his body."
> >
> > From: http://spartacus-educational.com/JFKoneillFX.htm
> >
>
> This is somebody else's spin on what the FBI agents had said.

Seems like to you everyone is spinning info except you! And they all
say similar things.

Chris

BOZ

unread,

Jan 28, 2018, 5:37:49 PM1/28/18

to

Marsh, I am jealous of people who don't know you.

Jason Burke

unread,

Jan 28, 2018, 5:38:13 PM1/28/18

to

It is, hilarious watching, Harris make a, fool of himself every, time he
posts, something.

Hilarious but, totally expected.

And I, love the, smiley faces that, Harris uses. He doesn't, seem to
realize, that smiley faces should only, be used by, twelve year, olds.

bigdog

unread,

Jan 28, 2018, 7:49:49 PM1/28/18

to

How do you correct the correct answer?

> Naturally we support our contentions with poof, which you
> can't bear to listen to or believe, because you'll have lost years of
> believing things and will have to start all over again. You can't spout
> that nonsense and not expect to get corrected, and probably even laughed
> at heartily!
>

You mean the way the rest of us laugh when you claim the bullet that hit
JFK in the back only penetrated an inch. That is a real knee slapper.

bigdog

unread,

Jan 28, 2018, 7:50:14 PM1/28/18

to

Whether or not you believe CE399 is the bullet found on the gurney at
Parkland, there is no doubt it was fired by Oswald's rifle to the
exclusion of all other weapons in the world. So once again you are dead
wrong.

mainframetech

unread,

Jan 28, 2018, 8:25:42 PM1/28/18

to

That has been done multiple times but you must be too afraid to check
it out thoroughly. Go to the online book "In the Eyes of History" by
William Matson Law, and check pages 40-41 where Paul O'Connor describes
what they saw in the body after the organs were removed. It was clear
that the upper back wound bullet did NOT leave the body of JFK, and
therefore could not go on to hit Connally. The SBT was proven dead.
Humes saw the proof, but was ordered to write a different Autopsy Report
(AR) to make it look more like it was a shot from above and behind that
did the job.

Chris

mainframetech

unread,

Jan 28, 2018, 8:26:12 PM1/28/18

to

WRONG! Humes was not the person that mentioned an "ice bullet", it was
James Sibert, the FBI agent that observed the autopsy. When the
prosectors said there was "no exit" for the back wound bullet, he thought
of the "ice bullet". He says so in testimony.

mainframetech

unread,

Jan 28, 2018, 8:27:55 PM1/28/18

to

As do the LNs.

> > >
> > > > If there weren't dozens of witnesses (mostly adult medical professionals)
> > > > that adamantly declared that the back of JFK's head had a large gaping
> > > > wound the size of a fist (appearing to be a blow out) which was
> > > > inconsistent with the autopsy report, then maybe I'd consider accepting
> > >
> > > None of them said back of the head. It was TOP of the head.
> >
> > I beg to differ but that doesn't matter for the context of this discussion
> > anyway.
> >
> > >
> > > > the autopsy findings. But the report was completely opposite. An autopsy
> > > > report and witnesses to one wouldn't be acceptable evidence in court under
> > > > those conditions, and for good reasons - suspicions of tampering.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Wecht points out that the case would have been thrown out of a normal court.
> >
> > Do you agree with him or not? Because you later say, "Oswald would not
> > have gotten a fair trail and he would have been easily convicted". I
> > seriously doubt he'd of been easily convicted and don't think a jury would
> > have been fooled. Having a lawyer with an opportunity to present a
> > defense is much different than a one sided mockery of justice.
> >
> In 1964 when the trial would likely have been held, the Warren Court had not yet handed down many of their landmark rulings which placed stricter rules on the admissibility of evidence. Courts were much less likely to dismiss evidence on technicalities. I seriously doubt any court would have rejected the autopsy report. A medico-legal autopsy is in most cases required to establish cause of death. Without cause of death legally established, it becomes problematic to establish that a murder was committed. I can't see either the trial judge or an appeals court throwing out Oswald's conviction on such a technicality, but who knows.

Face it, YOU ARE NOT IN COURT! We are at the point of investigating
the murder, and not presenting a case in court. As we find the guilty
party, we will dig up evidence that will easily pass the needs of a court.
During investigation, many forms of input are useful.

> > >
> > > > The limo was was also illegally removed from evidence, taken out of state,
> > > > and unarguably manipulated. As a result the bullet hole in the windshield,
> > >
> > > There was no bullet hole in the windshield. That is proven by the dent
> > > on the back of the rearview mirror.
> >
> > People can argue about the bullet hole or lack of one in the windshield
> > and never get anywhere. The point is that there were witnesses to one and
> > testimony to reflect that, but the windshield wasn't available for
> > examination - ie the evidence was destroyed.
> >
>
> The testimony of the Secret Service agent that examined the windshield and
> saw that the defect did not extend to the outer surface of the windshield
> would have been sufficient to establish no shot came through the
> windshield.

WRONG! You wee suckered by the moves of the SS agents. They sent out
the limo to have the windshield replaced and other things replaced, like
the smelly seat covers, etc. That was proved by the garage log showing no
access to the limo on that same day it was in Michigan, and the witness in
Michigan that saw the limo there. When the limo returned, the SS agents
intentionally made another crack in the windshield instead of a bullet
hole, which was what the original windshield had, which was seen by 6
witnesses. That crack was then ordered replaced by a local glass shop,
who di the work the next day when the limo had returned. The first
replacement was destroyed in Michigan, but the second replacement was
saved to prove that there was only a crack in the windshield and not a
bullet hole, which would have proved that there was a second shooter from
the front.

> Besides, even if the there was a hole through the windshield,
> at best that would indicate a second unknown shooter which would have done
> nothing to exonerate Oswald. All the prosecution would have needed to do
> would be to establish Oswald was a shooter. It wouldn't have even been
> necessary to establish he fired the fatal shot. The fact he was firing at
> all would have been enough to establish his guilt in the murder of the
> President.
>

It could not be proved that Oswald was the person firing the MC rifle
from the 6th floor into the motorcade. You tried and failed. It was a
key point that there was a single shooter, and it would have made the many
cover ups look bad if it could be proved that it was a conspiracy, of 2 or
more shooters. That would have kept the case open and the search for a
conspirator could uncover the real plotters. ALL proofs of multiple
shooters HAD to be stopped.

> > >
> > > > damage to chrome, and possible other evidence was forever gone and unable
> > > > to get examined properly and impartially. Any excuses for that are absurd.
> > > > All excuses offered for how the damage otherwise occurred are
> > > > unacceptable, especially when there are law abiding witnesses that saw
> > > > differently.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Some of that destruction of evidence we have ways of working around.
> >
> > Agreed.
> >
> > >
> > > > Then there is the WC "investigation" from which the SBT developed. Autopsy
> > > > pictures, notes, and possible video were kept from the public or impartial
> > > > view, and some were eventually discarded/lost/stolen.
> > > >
> > >
> > > And once we saw Fox 8 for ourselves we knew why.
> > > Let me rephrase that. Once HONEST people saw Fox 8 we knew why.
> > > The liars just keep lying.
> >
> > Agreed.
> >
>
> There is nothing in the various leaked autopsy photos which invalidates
> either the original autopsy report or the subsequent findings of the
> various review panels.
>

Oh yes there is! There is a bullet hole in the forehead of JFK in the
'stare-of-death' photo that can be seen by anyone that ENLARGES the photo
and looks just under the hair hanging down. The autopsy photos have other
errors in them. Such as the one showing the BOH of JFK. That is
completely phony. By viewing the many drawings of the witnesses, we can
see that there was a large hole in the BOH, which was also seen by over 39
witnesses. It was a small entry wound, leading to a 'large hole' at the
BOH. Small entry, large exit.

mainframetech

unread,

Jan 28, 2018, 8:28:27 PM1/28/18

to

True (for a change).

> > While you may have a point about us not putting forward medical
> > conclusions, there are still simple physical items of info that anyone
> > with common sense can comment on, and for my part, I will do so as the
> > need arises. Normally though, I haven't had to, since the witnesses in
> > the case are usually qualified and I copy their conclusions.
> >
>
> The witnesses you cite were not competent medical examiners. They were
> assistants to competent medical examiners.

WRONG! As usual, you forget that I DID NOT quote them as experts, but
as people that witnessed certain things, which they then repeated for us.
You'll never learn.

Chris

Amy Joyce

unread,

Jan 28, 2018, 8:36:59 PM1/28/18

to

You call breaking the law multiple times in regards to evidence a mere
"technicality", but the only real technicality is that Oswald and the case
doesn't deserve the scrutiny and impartial evaluation that a defense or
trial would have ensured, simply because a suspect was dead. That is the
go-to excuse for a WC defender when arguments against the WC performance
are brought up. It's obvious that a defense trial couldn't occur, but
that doesn't mean that researchers or anyone evaluating the assassination
shouldn't scrutinize the case from a point of view different than the WC
(a bias approach under the order and direction of the LBJ; the very same
power behind the excuse to break laws - perform an illegal autopsy and
destroy other evidence). Had the autopsy report and witnesses thereof been
allowed into evidence, as you suggested, the circumstances regarding it
would have been exposed and become scrutinized just as it is now. As Marsh
and Mainframe etc.have argued, both witnesses and evidence from the
autopsy expose "incompetence", "lies", and fallacies.

For example, Mainframe provided a witness from the autopsy proving the SBT
is impossible. However you said, "O'Connor reveals himself to be a liar
when he said 'We started out with a rigid probe and found that it only
went in so far. I'd say maybe an inch and a quarter'. Is it not just a
technicality that O'Connor sad "we..." instead of "I witnessed...."?
That's actually more like nitpicking instead of a technicality and it's
certainly not a lie. O'Connor didn't say "I" and was certainly speaking
as part of the team or small group of people present and the tasks "they"
performed.

Again, as Marsh pointed out and MFtech exposes, the autopsy as evidence
proves it was a lie and untrustworthy anyway.

Anthony Marsh

unread,

Jan 29, 2018, 9:33:24 AM1/29/18

to

Silly spam. How many times have you posted that? 40,000?
You have this simplistic mind where you think that the more times you
repeat something the more it must be true.
I never said that CE 399 was shot on 11/22/63, but the ballistics
evidence proves that it was fired from Oswald's rifle. Why fire it from
someone else's rifle if you want to frame Oswald?
What you can do is claim that Frazier fired it from Oswald's rifle the
next day. But that's still Oswald's rifle.

>
> Robert Harris
>

Anthony Marsh

unread,

Jan 29, 2018, 7:34:41 PM1/29/18

to

You seem confused. Warren has nothing to do with this. Wade had the case.

>>>> The limo was was also illegally removed from evidence, taken out of state,
>>>> and unarguably manipulated. As a result the bullet hole in the windshield,
>>>
>>> There was no bullet hole in the windshield. That is proven by the dent
>>> on the back of the rearview mirror.
>>
>> People can argue about the bullet hole or lack of one in the windshield
>> and never get anywhere. The point is that there were witnesses to one and
>> testimony to reflect that, but the windshield wasn't available for
>> examination - ie the evidence was destroyed.
>>
>
> The testimony of the Secret Service agent that examined the windshield and
> saw that the defect did not extend to the outer surface of the windshield
> would have been sufficient to establish no shot came through the
> windshield. Besides, even if the there was a hole through the windshield,
> at best that would indicate a second unknown shooter which would have done
> nothing to exonerate Oswald. All the prosecution would have needed to do
> would be to establish Oswald was a shooter. It wouldn't have even been
> necessary to establish he fired the fatal shot. The fact he was firing at
> all would have been enough to establish his guilt in the murder of the
> President.
>

All good and fine except that the kooks claim it is not the real
windshield. But of course they can't explain how it was switched out
within minutes.

>>>
>>>> damage to chrome, and possible other evidence was forever gone and unable
>>>> to get examined properly and impartially. Any excuses for that are absurd.
>>>> All excuses offered for how the damage otherwise occurred are
>>>> unacceptable, especially when there are law abiding witnesses that saw
>>>> differently.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Some of that destruction of evidence we have ways of working around.
>>
>> Agreed.
>>
>>>
>>>> Then there is the WC "investigation" from which the SBT developed. Autopsy
>>>> pictures, notes, and possible video were kept from the public or impartial
>>>> view, and some were eventually discarded/lost/stolen.
>>>>
>>>
>>> And once we saw Fox 8 for ourselves we knew why.
>>> Let me rephrase that. Once HONEST people saw Fox 8 we knew why.
>>> The liars just keep lying.
>>
>> Agreed.
>>
>
> There is nothing in the various leaked autopsy photos which invalidates
> either the original autopsy report or the subsequent findings of the
> various review panels.
>

Are you legally blind?
They didn't say anything about the bullet hole in the forehead.
Maybe you think the first autopsy report told the truth so then it had
to be burned.

bigdog

unread,

Jan 29, 2018, 7:51:15 PM1/29/18

to

<chuckle>

Oh, wait. You were serious.

> But saying that is easy
> when you're trying to cover up the truth. There was only one person that
> I know of that said the upper lobe was bruised, and that was Humes in the
> AR.

The other two signed the report that said that indicating they concurred.
The review panels saw the photos and also concurred. You have said only
ONE witness said the middle lobe was bruised and he was far less qualified
than all of the above.

> But since he was proven to be lying and did not report what he
> actually saw in the body, he isn't a good witness for this fact.
>

You assume he lied because his conclusions don't fit with yours. He is
corroborated. Your witness is not. This is a fine example of you ignoring
inconvenient evidence.

On one side of the scale we have the three prosectors and everyone on all
the review panel saying the apex of the lung was bruised and on the other
side of the scale we have one technician who said it was the middle lobe.
And you think that one technician outweighs all of the others. A fine
example of what Bud observed years ago. Conspiracy hobbyists are really
bad at weighing evidence.

>
>
>
>
> > > The tip of the lung also cannot
> > > be hit when the bruise was almost 2 inches wide.
> >
> > Now you put your expertise as a medical examiner on display. Bad idea.
> >
>
>
>
> Don't be an ass! Everyone is familiar with bruises, since we've all
> gotten them at some point in out life. And a bruise of 2 inches in
> diameter says clearly that the strike of the bullet was not at the very
> tip, which would leave almost no bruise at all. The bullet had to strike
> down a bit from the edge of the lung\ to make that size of bruise.
>

Yes we've all had bruises. A bruise can and usually does extend beyond the
point of impact.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruise

"A contusion, commonly known as a bruise, is a type of hematoma of
tissue[1] in which capillaries and sometimes venules are damaged by
trauma, allowing blood to seep, hemorrhage, or extravasate into the
surrounding interstitial tissues. "

Notice it says the internal hemorrhaging extends into the SURROUNDING
tissue. That means the bruise is not limited to point of impact. Good luck
finding a doctor who agrees with your assessment.

Name one person who corroborates O'Connors claim that he took part in this
procedure.

> It wouldn't be the first time the
> HSCA tried to cover up proofs. When they said that at the point in the
> autopsy that he was asked to leave, there was NO reason given whatsoever,
> and they chose the exact time when his testimony would have cooked the
> whole phony thing right there. He was going to say that he saw that the
> bullet had not gone through, and he would have killed the SBT, and they
> couldn't have that. They wanted the determination that Oswald was guilty
> to stand, and not give any changes to the 'known' situation.
>

O'Connor cooks up stories that embellish his role in the autopsy. That's
the only thing he cooks.

>
>
>
> >
> > > So we see that the prosectors saw the PROOF with their own eyes, but lied
> > > when it came to the AR, so that they had to have had orders to do that.
> > > Humes would never have taken the authority to lie in the AR.
> > >
> > Either that or O'Connor was lying his ass off.
>
>
>
> As usual, you forget that James Jenkins also corroborates a lot of what
> O'Connor said. You can't use the standard LN whine that 'they all lied'.
>

Jenkins does not corroborate that O'Connor took part in this procedure.

>
>
>
> > >
> > > And let's add the sworn testimony of Jerrol Custer, 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
> > >
> > Maybe you should have found a witness who knew the difference between a centimeter and a sonometer.
> >
> > sonometer (səˈnɒmɪtə)
> > n
> > an instrument employed in acoustic analysis or investigation, consisting usually of one string stretched over a resonator of wood
> > >
> > > Sonometer = centimeter, and 3-4 centimeters is long enough to be many
> > > types of bullet.
> > >
> > A sonometer doesn't equal a centimeter.
> >
>
>
>
> Don't be an ass. That was esxplained to you long ago, and not just
> once. It is a French sound to say centimeter, they say 'son...' to
> represent 'cen...'. Do you speak French, or know a little about it? If
> not, here's a pronunciation for you. Try to listen for a change:
>

I thought everyone was speaking English.

> http://www.pronouncekiwi.com/1%20centimeter
>
> Click on the first table entry that has '1 vote' and it will give you
> the pronunciation of 'one centimeter'. Listen for he beginning sound of
> 'son...'. She will say 'Une sontimeter'. Geez! The trouble I have to go
> through to wipe behind your ears!
>

Oh, boy, are you getting desperate.

So you try to use one bullshit assertion to support another. Par for the
course.

> Their testimony after the fact would
> only carry the false story. There was one other person that knew about
> the bullet falling out of the wound though. It was O'Connor. Here's the
> text:
>
> "As I said before, during the X-ray procedure after the photographs were
> taken, X-ray technician Jerrol Custer was turning the body over and this
> bullet or bullet fragment fell out on the table and was retrieved. I
> didn't see that because I was out of the room when they were taking
> X-rays."
>

Did you bother to read this passage. "I WAS OUT OF THE ROOM"!!! "I DIDN'T
SEE THAT"!!! How can O'Connor corroborate something he never saw. He only
knew what Custer told him. Some corroboration.

> From: "In the Eyes of History" by William Matson aw, page 62
> Online at: https://www.krusch.com/books/kennedy/In_The_Eye_Of_History.pdf
>
> It was clear that someone had told O'Connor about the bullet falling
> out of the back that Custer saw. So it wasn't just in Custer's mind.
>

How do you know that someone wasn't Custer himself? You can't quote one
other witness who saw what Custer claims he saw.

>
>
>
> >
> > > It really doesn't look like the bullet made it through the body. But
> > > here's the statement of James Sibert, FBI agent who observed the autopsy:
> > >
> > > "It was my impression that Finck and
> > > Humes agreed that there was no exit wound of the bullet through
> > > the back."
> > >
> > That was there initial impression based on the fact they didn't realize the tracheostomy incision had been performed over the exit wound. They only saw on bullet hole which would naturally lead them to think there was no exit. Further examination told them otherwise.
>
>
>
>
> Bullshit! You have NO CLUE at what point that was said.

> Was it near
> the end of the autopsy? Could be. The story you just told was made up
> completely from your imagination. You can't produce it from anywhere.
>

Not according to Ebersole. He testified that by the time they got near the
end they had figured out the bullet had exited from the throat. The x-rays
were take before the body was ever opened up and the reason they ordered a
second set of x-rays is because they couldn't figure out why there
wouldn't be a bullet in the body.

>
>
>
>
> >
> > > From: https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/pdf/md155.pdf
> > >
> > >
> > > And further:
> > >
> > > "The retired FBI agents were especially scathing about the single bullet
> > > theory positing that one bullet caused seven non-fatal wounds in Kennedy
> > > and [Texas] Governor Connally and emerged largely undamaged on a hospital
> > > stretcher.
> > >
> > > They took notes on the autopsy as Dr. Humes examined Kennedy's body. Both
> > > said the autopsies concluded the bullet that hit Kennedy in his back had
> > > not transited his body."
> > >
> > > From: http://spartacus-educational.com/JFKoneillFX.htm
> > >
> >
> > This is somebody else's spin on what the FBI agents had said.
>
>
>
> Seems like to you everyone is spinning info except you! And they all
> say similar things.
>

This says a lot about your approach. You want to find the guilty party and
then dig up the evidence. That's called putting the cart before the horse.

There is no need to dig up evidence. It is laid out on the table for you.
You don't like where it leads so you think you are going to find different
evidence. I hate to break the news to you, but if you aren't willing to
accept Oswald was the assassin, there is zero chance you are going to find
the guilty party before you cash your chips.

>
>
>
> > > >
> > > > > The limo was was also illegally removed from evidence, taken out of state,
> > > > > and unarguably manipulated. As a result the bullet hole in the windshield,
> > > >
> > > > There was no bullet hole in the windshield. That is proven by the dent
> > > > on the back of the rearview mirror.
> > >
> > > People can argue about the bullet hole or lack of one in the windshield
> > > and never get anywhere. The point is that there were witnesses to one and
> > > testimony to reflect that, but the windshield wasn't available for
> > > examination - ie the evidence was destroyed.
> > >
> >
> > The testimony of the Secret Service agent that examined the windshield and
> > saw that the defect did not extend to the outer surface of the windshield
> > would have been sufficient to establish no shot came through the
> > windshield.
>
>
>
>
> WRONG! You wee suckered by the moves of the SS agents.

Oh, I forgot. Everybody who had anything to do with the investigation was
in on the cover up. My bad.

> They sent out
> the limo to have the windshield replaced and other things replaced, like
> the smelly seat covers, etc. That was proved by the garage log showing no
> access to the limo on that same day it was in Michigan, and the witness in
> Michigan that saw the limo there.

The fact there is no entry in the garage log doesn't prove that it was in
Michigan. Do you really need me to explain why that is? There is one clown
who claimed to have seen the limo in Michigan. There is no corroboration
for his story and it makes no sense for numerous reasons which I have
explained to you before and which would be a waste of time to post for you
again.

> When the limo returned, the SS agents
> intentionally made another crack in the windshield instead of a bullet
> hole, which was what the original windshield had, which was seen by 6
> witnesses.

This is where you allow your imagination to run free.

> That crack was then ordered replaced by a local glass shop,
> who di the work the next day when the limo had returned. The first
> replacement was destroyed in Michigan, but the second replacement was
> saved to prove that there was only a crack in the windshield and not a
> bullet hole, which would have proved that there was a second shooter from
> the front.
>

Truly amazing the goofy stuff you will dream up to try to hold your silly
theories together.

>
>
> > Besides, even if the there was a hole through the windshield,
> > at best that would indicate a second unknown shooter which would have done
> > nothing to exonerate Oswald. All the prosecution would have needed to do
> > would be to establish Oswald was a shooter. It wouldn't have even been
> > necessary to establish he fired the fatal shot. The fact he was firing at
> > all would have been enough to establish his guilt in the murder of the
> > President.
> >
>
>
>
> It could not be proved that Oswald was the person firing the MC rifle
> from the 6th floor into the motorcade.

Not to your satisfaction. Fortunately, prosecutors aren't required to
reach that standard of proof. If they were, nobody would ever be convicted
of anything.

> You tried and failed. It was a
> key point that there was a single shooter, and it would have made the many
> cover ups look bad if it could be proved that it was a conspiracy, of 2 or
> more shooters. That would have kept the case open and the search for a
> conspirator could uncover the real plotters. ALL proofs of multiple
> shooters HAD to be stopped.
>

Even if the evidence indicated Oswald had accomplices and even if the
identity of those accomplices was never determined, the prosecution could
have convicted Oswald of murder simply by establishing he was part of the
plot. Since just about everything he did that day indicated he was guilty,
that would have been a pretty easy task.

>
>
>
> > > >
> > > > > damage to chrome, and possible other evidence was forever gone and unable
> > > > > to get examined properly and impartially. Any excuses for that are absurd.
> > > > > All excuses offered for how the damage otherwise occurred are
> > > > > unacceptable, especially when there are law abiding witnesses that saw
> > > > > differently.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Some of that destruction of evidence we have ways of working around.
> > >
> > > Agreed.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > Then there is the WC "investigation" from which the SBT developed. Autopsy
> > > > > pictures, notes, and possible video were kept from the public or impartial
> > > > > view, and some were eventually discarded/lost/stolen.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > And once we saw Fox 8 for ourselves we knew why.
> > > > Let me rephrase that. Once HONEST people saw Fox 8 we knew why.
> > > > The liars just keep lying.
> > >
> > > Agreed.
> > >
> >
> > There is nothing in the various leaked autopsy photos which invalidates
> > either the original autopsy report or the subsequent findings of the
> > various review panels.
> >
>
>
>
>
> Oh yes there is! There is a bullet hole in the forehead of JFK in the
> 'stare-of-death' photo that can be seen by anyone that ENLARGES the photo
> and looks just under the hair hanging down.

Been there. Done that. No bullet hole. If it is so obvious, why doesn't
everybody see it and accept it.

> The autopsy photos have other
> errors in them. Such as the one showing the BOH of JFK. That is
> completely phony. By viewing the many drawings of the witnesses, we can
> see that there was a large hole in the BOH, which was also seen by over 39
> witnesses. It was a small entry wound, leading to a 'large hole' at the
> BOH. Small entry, large exit.
>

So any picture that doesn't support your beliefs must be bogus. It
couldn't be your beliefs are bogus.

Spence

unread,

Jan 30, 2018, 10:12:41 AM1/30/18

to

On Sunday, January 21, 2018 at 8:17:56 PM UTC-5, Bud wrote:
> On Friday, January 19, 2018 at 9:03:58 PM UTC-5, mainframetech wrote:

> > On Thursday, January 18, 2018 at 11:10:03 PM UTC-5, David Von Pein wrote:
> > > "The conspiracy-happy Mega-Kooks of this world will choose ANY silly
> > > option to account for JFK's and John Connally's wounds, just so long as
> > > they don't ever have to face the Occam's-like solution called the
> > > "Single-Bullet Theory". The kooks would rather starve themselves to
> > > skeletons and sleep on the benches in Dealey Plaza for the rest of their
> > > days before admitting that the SBT is the correct shooting scenario." --
> > > David Von Pein; December 7, 2007
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >

> > The conspiracy-denying mega-kooky LNs of this world will try anything
> > to explain the many bullet strikes in Dealey Plaza, including using a WC
> > lawyer's idea of the SBT. Of course, that's just a theory, not a fact,
> > and Occam's Razor is only a guideline, not a rule.
>
> Actually it is a problem solving tool used in critical thinking.
>
> But a little known fact is that William of Ockham had a brother, Wilfred
> of Ockham, also known as Wilfred the Stump. He advanced a principle known
> as Wilfred`s Blunt Instrument, which stated that although simple
> explanations were more likely, positing fantastic ones was more fun. He is
> thought to be the father of all conspiracy hobbyist thinking.
>
>
> > The silly LNs of the
> > world don't care though, they have to explain away the problem of many
> > shots being made at JFK, so that the plotters could escape retribution
> > because a 'patsy' took the blame.
> >
> > Well, add in the 2 (or more) bullets that hit JFK, then the one over
> > the windshield into the chrome bar, then the one that Officer 'Steve'
> > Ellis saw striking the curb to the right of the limo, and the one that
> > struck over by James Tague and caused a chip to cut his cheek, then count
> > the one that went through the windshield seen by 6 witnesses, and count
> > the 2 gouges seen in midfield by Wayne and Edna Hartman, who were told by
> > a cop that they were from bullets, then add in the one that really hit
> > Connally, and you have a more honest picture of what happened with bullet
> > strikes. The ridiculous story of a 'pristine' bullet that went through 2
> > men 7 times including 2 bone strikes and came out almost new is for the
> > suckers to believe.

> >
> > > ~~~~~~~~~~~
> > >
> > > "Isn't it rather remarkable that the person sitting in front of JFK also
> > > had a bullet wound in his upper back? Plus the added facts of JFK having a
> > > bullet hole in his throat and JFK having no bullets in his body.
> >
> >
> >

> > JFK had no bullets in his body because he was taken to a military
> > hospital where the doctors all had to follow orders. When the body got to
> > Bethesda, it went right into the morgue at 6:35pm and got clandestine work
> > done on it, to remove any bullets and to modify the wounds to look more
> > like there had been a shot from above and behind, when the kill shot was
> > from the front and struck in the right forehead/temple area, as seen in
> > the 'stare-of-death' autopsy photo.

> >
> >
> >
> > > Conspiracy theorists who hate the Single-Bullet Theory never seem bothered
> > > in the least by those last observations I just mentioned. They'll simply
> > > add yet another bullet to the mix to account for John Connally's back
> > > wound. The SBT will never be defeated by conspiracists. And that's because
> > > the SBT will always make more sense than any anti-SBT theory. The truth
> > > usually does make the most sense, of course." -- David Von Pein; December
> > > 14, 2013
> > >
> >
> >
> >

> > Among the real observations is the one by Dr. Carrico when he observed
> > the wound in the throat. He thought it looked like an entry wound, and
> > was later proved to be exactly that.
> >
> > During the autopsy, there was a point where the organs had ben removed
> > and they could se clearly where the bullet in the upper back had gone.
> > It had entered the back and gone only about an inch or so. This was
> > clearly seen when they probed the back and the probe was seen from the
> > front through the chest cavity by James Jenkins as it rubbed on the pleura
> > (lung covering) but could go through because there was NOATH through.
> > That meant that the bullet did NOT go through to the neck wound, and that
> > wound had to be a separate wound from the front. Cites and links on
> > request backing that up.
> >
> > That proved the silliness of the 'single bullet' theory and those that
> > believed in it.

> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > ~~~~~~~~~~~
> > >
> > > "You call it the theory; I call it the conclusion; it was a theory until
> > > we found the facts; that's why I refer to it as the Single-Bullet
> > > Conclusion." -- Arlen Specter; 1967
> > >
> > > ~~~~~~~~~~~
> > >
> > > "To my knowledge, [nobody] has ever explained how moving the back wound up
> > > to THE NECK supports the SBT. Nobody CAN support it, because moving the
> > > entry to the neck would destroy the Warren Commission's SBT trajectory,
> > > not strengthen it. .... I'll refer you to CE 903. Although [Arlen] Specter
> > > didn't drill a hole in the stand-in's body and drive the rod through it,
> > > had he done so, the entry would be in the upper back, not in the neck.
> > > There's a string on the wall above his hand that shows an angle of about
> > > 18 degrees -- that's the approximate angle measured by a surveyor during
> > > the re-enactment and the one the WC used for its SBT. If the rod is moved
> > > up to the neck, the bullet will exit well above the exit wound under JFK's
> > > Adam's apple. .... The claim that [Gerald] Ford's change "strengthens" the
> > > WC's SBT is simply not true." -- Jean Davison; January 2, 2007
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >

> > All baloney, since the proof that the SBT couldn't occur has been made.

> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > ~~~~~~~~~~~
> > >
> > > "The "single-bullet THEORY" is an obvious misnomer. Though in its
> > > incipient stages it was but a theory, the indisputable evidence is that it
> > > is now a proven FACT, a wholly supported conclusion. .... And no sensible
> > > mind that is also informed can plausibly make the case that the bullet
> > > that struck President Kennedy in the upper right part of his back did not
> > > go on to hit Governor Connally." -- Vincent Bugliosi; Pages 489-490 of
> > > "Reclaiming History"
> > >
> > > http://Single-Bullet-Theory.blogspot.com
> > >
> > > http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2014/10/wesley-liebeler-vs-mark-lane-1967-debate.html
> >
> >

> > All baloney, ended by an effort to get people to click on the DVP
> > website.
> >
> > Chris

Now THAT's funny!

Steve BH

unread,

Jan 30, 2018, 7:19:38 PM1/30/18

to

Where is Frazier going to get Oswald’s rifle “the next
day”?

Frazier is involved in the mess because his sister is a Paine neighbor. He
works at the TSBD and his sister tells Ruth Paine and thus Oswald of the
job. Explain to me how the hell to “plant”
Frazier’s sister in Irvine next to Marina O and Ruth Paine?? Then
get Frazier work at the TSBD far earlier than Oswald?