The case for multiple gunman

[bigdog]

A parade on the west end of downtown Dallas suddenly came under sniper
fire from an unknown location. Experienced police officers on the scene
believed the shots were coming from multiple directions and that there was
a triangulation of gunfire. Sound familiar?

Of course I am not talking about the JFK assassination but the attack on
officers of the DPD and DART last night which claimed the lives of five of
them. All through the night and into the morning the narrative was that it
was a coordinated attack by multiple gunman. Now that narrative seems to
be in doubt. Police have only been able to confirm that there was one
gunman. Three other suspects are in custody but we don't know at this time
what if any their involvement might have been. It is far too early to make
informed judgements at this writing as to whether there was in fact more
than one gunman. If it does turn out that this was the act of a single
gunman, it will be a perfect example of how gun shots from a one location
could sound as if there are coming from another location. It would
illustrate how unreliable earwitness accounts can be in determining the
direction of gunfire.

I'm sure these questions will be answered fairly quickly and by the time
this message is posted, they may already be resolved.

[John McAdams]

The cops quickly put out a photo of a "person of interest."

https://twitter.com/ChrisJoseNBC5/status/751269794989547520

Turns out the fellow was carrying an AR-15 to make a statement about
his Second Amendment rights.

He had nothing to do with the assassination.

Think: Larry Florer.

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

[David Von Pein]

More irony (re: parade routes)....

https://app.box.com/s/qm437wm0hpawaktupphufrfquz6ugcbt

[mainframetech]

Not much similarity with the JFK case. There has been 52 years of time
passed since the JFK murder, but in Dallas only a day. Yet in both cases
it will become clear if there were multiple shooters or not reasonably
quickly.

In the JFK case, just counting the bullet strikes in Dealey Plaza will
tell any average person that there were multiple shooters. That's beyond
argument except by kooky LNs.

Chris

[John McAdams]

On 9 Jul 2016 11:01:11 -0400, David Von Pein <davev...@aol.com>
wrote:

>More irony (re: parade routes)....
>
>https://app.box.com/s/qm437wm0hpawaktupphufrfquz6ugcbt

Excellent.

The claim being that only a few people with "inside knowledge" knew
the parade route. Maybe, Savage opines, the Black Lives Matter people
led the cops into the kill zone.

He didn't use that term, but the concept is quite familiar to JFK
buffs.

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

[Anthony Marsh]

Excellent point. Some had asked about the guy falsely charged in Dealey
Plaza, but Florer was never charged. The crowd just ASSuMEd he was
somehow involved.


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


So how come YOU are allowed to post about the shooting in Dallas, but I
am not?
Is that what you call moderation?

[Anthony Marsh]

On 7/8/2016 4:56 PM, bigdog wrote:
> A parade on the west end of downtown Dallas suddenly came under sniper
> fire from an unknown location. Experienced police officers on the scene
> believed the shots were coming from multiple directions and that there was
> a triangulation of gunfire. Sound familiar?
>
> Of course I am not talking about the JFK assassination but the attack on
> officers of the DPD and DART last night which claimed the lives of five of

Yes, we know that. But just to trick everyone I used the subject line:
Assassination in Dallas.

I guess that's why my message was erased.

Your point is right on point. You can't tell right away where the shots
are coming from. That's why BBN invented the technology to automatically
detect gunfire and triangulate the source, down to a few feet. It could
save lives. But certain people here will say it is scientifically
impossible because then they'd have to accept BBN's acoustical analysis.
There's another parallel which no one dares talk about. Warnings from the
shooter. This guy said on Twitter that he was going to kill white cops and
no one did anything about it. Lee Harvey Oswald left a note for the FBI
that he was going to take his gun to Dealey Plaza and blow JFK's head off.
Lee Harvey Oswald told the Cubans in Mexico that he was going to kill JFK.
And no one did anything about it. In fact the FBI took him off their watch
list.

> them. All through the night and into the morning the narrative was that it
> was a coordinated attack by multiple gunman. Now that narrative seems to

I'm sorry, but I couldn't watch the whole thing. I fell asleep about 3
AM. Scarlet brought me up to date when I woke up around 10 AM.

> be in doubt. Police have only been able to confirm that there was one
> gunman. Three other suspects are in custody but we don't know at this time

Not only that, but they really think there was only one shooter.
All that talk about triangulation of gunfire was confusion about the
shooter moving around and using 2 guns. Just as the Texas Tower shooter did.

> what if any their involvement might have been. It is far too early to make
> informed judgements at this writing as to whether there was in fact more

Yeah, I think we need a WC to sort this out.
Lone gunman?

Single Bullet theory?

> than one gunman. If it does turn out that this was the act of a single
> gunman, it will be a perfect example of how gun shots from a one location
> could sound as if there are coming from another location. It would

Something like that. Not so perfect.

> illustrate how unreliable earwitness accounts can be in determining the
> direction of gunfire.
>

I would hope everyone knows that by now. Try telling that to our
resident kooks.

> I'm sure these questions will be answered fairly quickly and by the time
> this message is posted, they may already be resolved.
>

Hopefully today before the news at 11:00.

[bigdog]

It is now official. DPD are saying it was a lone gunman who opened fire on
the cops in Dallas last night. Despite witnesses believing gunfire was
coming from multiple directions it turns out it was just a lone sniper
firing from an elevated position. Just like in November of 1963.

[mainframetech]

On Friday, July 8, 2016 at 5:20:42 PM UTC-4, John McAdams wrote:

Further information was that the shooter said he hated white people and
white cops even more. He was upset that there had been the shootings
recently of black men by white cops around the country and he was
retaliating against that.

Chris

[David Von Pein]

Indeed. And I recorded that audio clip from KLIF-Radio in Dallas after
logging in to the live KLIF stream on their website (just as a lark and
out of curiosity to find out what the Dallas area radio stations were
saying about the police shootings the day after it happened)....and I
*immediately*, after recording just a few seconds of the live stream, was
able to record someone spouting off a ridiculous and wholly unsupportable
conspiracy theory about how somebody at Dallas City Hall possibly was part
of some plot regarding the parade route.

And, naturally, I quickly thought of the parallel to the JFK case, in
which some CTers are married to the absurd (and provably false) idea that
the evil hand of conspirators played a major part in setting up and
framing Lee Harvey Oswald by pre-arranging JFK's motorcade route through
Dallas, so that the President's car would drive slowly past the Book
Depository Building.

So the past mirrors the present--yet again.

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/motorcade-route.html

[David Von Pein]

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2016/07/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-1149.html

[bigdog]

On Saturday, July 9, 2016 at 11:01:13 AM UTC-4, David Von Pein wrote:
> More irony (re: parade routes)....
>
> https://app.box.com/s/qm437wm0hpawaktupphufrfquz6ugcbt

It's amazing to me the things people can dream up. Who is going to stage a
protest rally and not let the public know where it is going to be? If all
those marchers knew where to go it is a pretty good bet the shooter could
have figured it out as well.

[Bud]

Look, a CTer dismissing information out of hand because it speaks
against the narrative he has chosen to accept. I`m, shocked, I tell you,
shocked!

[bigdog]

On Saturday, July 9, 2016 at 11:02:33 AM UTC-4, mainframetech wrote:

The cops have already declared their initial belief in multiple shooter
was wrong and that the killings were carried out by a lone gunman. Of
course I have faith in you conspiracy hobbyists. You will take that
erroneous early report and declare it to be fact and invent a conspiracy
theory around it. Probably more than one will emerge.

> In the JFK case, just counting the bullet strikes in Dealey Plaza will
> tell any average person that there were multiple shooters. That's beyond
> argument except by kooky LNs.
>

I can't count things that exist only in your mind. We have proof positive
of two bullet strikes inside the limo. The likelihood is that there was
another strike outside the limo but we have no definitive information on
where it might have hit or where it ended up. But if you don't constrain
yourself to what the hard evidence indicates, you can invent any number of
shots. What are you up to at last count?

[Anthony Marsh]

On 7/9/2016 11:09 AM, John McAdams wrote:
> On 9 Jul 2016 11:01:11 -0400, David Von Pein <davev...@aol.com>
> wrote:
>
>> More irony (re: parade routes)....
>>
>> https://app.box.com/s/qm437wm0hpawaktupphufrfquz6ugcbt
>
> Excellent.
>
> The claim being that only a few people with "inside knowledge" knew
> the parade route. Maybe, Savage opines, the Black Lives Matter people
> led the cops into the kill zone.
>

In this age of the Internet I am sure that everyone knew the plans for the
protest. But in 1963 there was no Twitter, so the meme is that only those
in power knew the exact route through Dealey Plaza and could CHANGE it.
It's silly, but some people can't figure out that almost all parades
normally went through Dealey Plaza. JFK did not have to go through Dealey
Plaza to get to the Trade Mart. And he could have taken a helicopter
instead of a limo. But the raison d'etre for having the convertible
limousine was to be SEEN by the public. That was his mission for going to
Texas. Not just for lunch.

Fletcher Prouty is responsible for a lot of this nonsense. Maybe it was
revenge against certain people in intelligence. Maybe it was garden
variety paranoia, but he should have known better. But he didn't. I talked
to him in person and it's amazing how much he didn't know.

> He didn't use that term, but the concept is quite familiar to JFK
> buffs.
>

I don't know who this Savage punk is, but in fact the police were there to
PROTECT and SERVE the public, even the ones who call them racists and baby
killers. And that's exactly what they did, give their own lives to protect
the public.


It seems clear when listening that this Savage punk is just a rightwing
kook trying to stir up hatred. Not much of a job, but it's the only one he
could get.

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

[Anthony Marsh]

In both cases authorities automatically assumed it was a conspiracy with
triangulation of fire. In both cases acoustics could resolve the issue.
Imagine that after BBN used acoustics to prove where the shots came from,
Dallas decided to use their Boomerang to detect gunshots in an urban
environment. The Police sitting in an office would instantly know where
the gunman was and what types of weapons were being used.

In another 36 years they will update the system to automatically return
gunfire to the sniper.

[David Von Pein]

ANTHONY MARSH SAID:

All that talk about triangulation of gunfire was confusion about the
shooter moving around and using 2 guns. Just as the Texas Tower shooter
did.

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Yes, good point. I had thought the same thing with respect to the
potential "multiple shooters" angle. The gunman who killed the five
policemen was firing his weapons over a period of many *minutes*, not just
8.4 *seconds* as was the case with Lee Oswald in 1963.

So that gave the Dallas gunman on July 7, 2016, ample time to move around
and re-position himself to fire again from a different location, which
might very well have fooled some witnesses into thinking there was more
than one person doing the shooting.

And I, too, like Tony, also was thinking about the Texas Tower massacre in
this regard.*

* Oh my! Twice in one day I've been on the same wavelength as Anthony
Marsh? Should that make me smile? Or should it make me worry a little bit?
I'm not sure. ~grin~

[Anthony Marsh]

On 7/9/2016 11:01 AM, David Von Pein wrote:
> More irony (re: parade routes)....
>
> https://app.box.com/s/qm437wm0hpawaktupphufrfquz6ugcbt
>

And why the Hell are you listening to some rightwing kook?

[Anthony Marsh]

Well, that's about the right timing. But they are now just starting to
dig into his social media contacts.

http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-dallas-police-shooting-live-suspect-joined-facebook-groups-that-1468001887-htmlstory.html

Is there really such a thing as the New Black Panthers Party?

> coming from multiple directions it turns out it was just a lone sniper
> firing from an elevated position. Just like in November of 1963.
>

Did you see the video of him shooting from ground level?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H0mJ8K3p2RA

Do you accept the kook theory that Lee Harvey Oswald was shooting from
the doorway, not the sixth floor?

[mainframetech]

WRONG as usual! Simply counting the bullet strikes in Dealey Plaza and
you will find enough to show that there were more than one shooter.

Let's see, there was a bullet that hit the curb on Elm street to the
right of the limousine, seen by DPD officer 'Steve' Ellis. There was the
bullet that hit across the plaza near James Tague and a chip from the curb
hit his cheek and cut him. Then there was the bullet that struck above
the limo windshield on the chrome bar, and the bullet hole in the
windshield that came from outside the limo. Then there was the bullet
that struck JFK in the forehead/temple area, and one that hit him in the
upper back, and one that hit him in the throat, and one that hit Connally,
since the SBT was proven dead. That's eight bullets and there were more
than that.

The message is clear. There were more than one shooter, and I'll
challenge anyone to PROVE that ANY of the bullets fired from the MC rifle
hit or hurt anyone.

Chris

[mainframetech]

Of course, that realization has nothing to do with the JFK case where
many have thought most shots were fired in seconds so there wasn't time to
reposition and shoot again. It was enough trouble trying to shoot rapidly
with a sticky bolt on the MC rifle, and a misaligned scope.

Chris

[mainframetech]

For hard evidence you can check the chrome bar over the windshield and
note the solid bullet strike there. Then check out the bullet strike
witnessed by DPD Officer 'Steve' Ellis, THEN count the bullet that hit JFK
in the upper back, and the one that hit him in the throat, and the one
that hit him in the head. That's five, yet you will admit that there were
only 3 shells in the TSBD 'nest' for the MC rifle. Of course, there are
more bullet strikes, but I figure 5 is enough to make my point. And
please don't try your old theory that anything over 3 bullets was a
ricochet!

Chris

[mainframetech]

At this point there's a slight difference in the recent Dallas case and
the 52 year old JFK case. For o9ne thing, we've had plenty of time to
sort out the foolish wrong early comments and guesses. Now it's a simple
matter of investigating the ARRB files and getting many of the answers.

Chris

[Anthony Marsh]

Selection bias. If you count every mark in Dealey Plaza as a separate
bullet, you'd have 100 bullets. How many bullet strikes are you claiming
for the limo?
<crickets>

> Let's see, there was a bullet that hit the curb on Elm street to the
> right of the limousine, seen by DPD officer 'Steve' Ellis. There was the

He never said "curb." That is YOUR fiction.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 7/9/2016 10:51 PM, David Von Pein wrote:
> ANTHONY MARSH SAID:
>
> All that talk about triangulation of gunfire was confusion about the
> shooter moving around and using 2 guns. Just as the Texas Tower shooter
> did.
>
>
> DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
>
> Yes, good point. I had thought the same thing with respect to the
> potential "multiple shooters" angle. The gunman who killed the five
> policemen was firing his weapons over a period of many *minutes*, not just
> 8.4 *seconds* as was the case with Lee Oswald in 1963.
>
> So that gave the Dallas gunman on July 7, 2016, ample time to move around
> and re-position himself to fire again from a different location, which
> might very well have fooled some witnesses into thinking there was more
> than one person doing the shooting.
>
> And I, too, like Tony, also was thinking about the Texas Tower massacre in
> this regard.*
>

Thank you. And I like you too, even when I don't agree with you. I like
my bridge partners even when they make stupid bids.

> * Oh my! Twice in one day I've been on the same wavelength as Anthony
> Marsh? Should that make me smile? Or should it make me worry a little bit?
> I'm not sure. ~grin~
>

That's one of the 7 signs of the Apocalypse.

[Anthony Marsh]

Oh please. You don't give us any credit for creative thinking. We can
start with any facts you stipulate and then whip up an elaborate
conspiracy beyond them. Even a lone nut shooter can be a conspiracy.

>> In the JFK case, just counting the bullet strikes in Dealey Plaza will
>> tell any average person that there were multiple shooters. That's beyond
>> argument except by kooky LNs.
>>
>
> I can't count things that exist only in your mind. We have proof positive
> of two bullet strikes inside the limo. The likelihood is that there was

So you simply deny simple facts.
You don't even know that the back of the rearview mirror was smashed in.
Do you think ALL the damage to the limo was caused by only ONE bullet?
Of course not, but you won't dare answer my questions.
I once heard one WC defender kook try to explain all damage everywhere
with ONE MAGIC bullet.

> another strike outside the limo but we have no definitive information on
> where it might have hit or where it ended up. But if you don't constrain
> yourself to what the hard evidence indicates, you can invent any number of
> shots. What are you up to at last count?
>
>

The way you just invented some mysterious bullet which hit outside the
limo. Show me that bullet. Prove what it hit.
<crickets>

>

[Anthony Marsh]

On 7/9/2016 10:44 PM, bigdog wrote:
> On Saturday, July 9, 2016 at 11:01:13 AM UTC-4, David Von Pein wrote:
>> More irony (re: parade routes)....
>>
>> https://app.box.com/s/qm437wm0hpawaktupphufrfquz6ugcbt
>
> It's amazing to me the things people can dream up. Who is going to stage a
> protest rally and not let the public know where it is going to be? If all

That never happened. Ever hear of Twitter?
Maybe you're still stuck in 1963.

[Anthony Marsh]

Did you even bother to point out that in both cases some of the kookiest
conspiracy theories came from extreme rightwingers like the John Birch
Society?

[bigdog]

I guess imaginary bullet strikes prove imaginary shooters.

> Let's see, there was a bullet that hit the curb on Elm street to the
> right of the limousine, seen by DPD officer 'Steve' Ellis. There was the
> bullet that hit across the plaza near James Tague and a chip from the curb
> hit his cheek and cut him. Then there was the bullet that struck above
> the limo windshield on the chrome bar, and the bullet hole in the
> windshield that came from outside the limo. Then there was the bullet
> that struck JFK in the forehead/temple area, and one that hit him in the
> upper back, and one that hit him in the throat, and one that hit Connally,
> since the SBT was proven dead. That's eight bullets and there were more
> than that.
>

You got to eight by counting some of the shots more than once and
imagining a few more.

> The message is clear. There were more than one shooter, and I'll
> challenge anyone to PROVE that ANY of the bullets fired from the MC rifle
> hit or hurt anyone.
>

In Conspiracyland, anything is possible. In the real world there was one
gunman and three shots.

[bigdog]

Yet Oswald was able to do it.

[bigdog]

Conspiracy hobbyists have had 52 years to dream up alternatives to the
truth. Given thme time. They will do the same for this recent shooting.

[Anthony Marsh]

But can't we cover up this new case and claim we do it only to prevent
WWIII?

[Anthony Marsh]

No, he can't. They destroyed it. I went to the National Archives to
examine it and I was told that I would not be allowed to examine it.

> note the solid bullet strike there. Then check out the bullet strike
> witnessed by DPD Officer 'Steve' Ellis, THEN count the bullet that hit JFK

Where? Show me. How can we check it out if you won't tell us where it
is? How about the hole in the floor? Or the hole in the traffic light?
Or the hole in the sign? You're not trying hard enough, slacker!

> in the upper back, and the one that hit him in the throat, and the one
> that hit him in the head. That's five, yet you will admit that there were
> only 3 shells in the TSBD 'nest' for the MC rifle. Of course, there are
> more bullet strikes, but I figure 5 is enough to make my point. And
> please don't try your old theory that anything over 3 bullets was a
> ricochet!
>

Jeez, you're only up to 25 bullets now. SLACKER!!!!!!!!

> Chris
>

[mainframetech]

> > the 52 year old JFK case. For one thing, we've had plenty of time to

> > sort out the foolish wrong early comments and guesses. Now it's a simple
> > matter of investigating the ARRB files and getting many of the answers.
> >
>
> Conspiracy hobbyists have had 52 years to dream up alternatives to the
> truth. Given thme time. They will do the same for this recent shooting.

Indeed, time will tell.

Chris

[mainframetech]

WRONG! Actually, he wasn't. He as elsewhere when the shots rang out.
As you well know.

Chris

[mainframetech]

They're a lot different than imaginary opinions.

> > Let's see, there was a bullet that hit the curb on Elm street to the
> > right of the limousine, seen by DPD officer 'Steve' Ellis. There was the
> > bullet that hit across the plaza near James Tague and a chip from the curb
> > hit his cheek and cut him. Then there was the bullet that struck above
> > the limo windshield on the chrome bar, and the bullet hole in the
> > windshield that came from outside the limo. Then there was the bullet
> > that struck JFK in the forehead/temple area, and one that hit him in the
> > upper back, and one that hit him in the throat, and one that hit Connally,
> > since the SBT was proven dead. That's eight bullets and there were more
> > than that.
> >
>
> You got to eight by counting some of the shots more than once and
> imagining a few more.
>

They were all counted once. You've made a mistake again, as usual.



> > The message is clear. There was more than one shooter, and I'll

> > challenge anyone to PROVE that ANY of the bullets fired from the MC rifle
> > hit or hurt anyone.
> >
>
> In Conspiracyland, anything is possible. In the real world there was one
> gunman and three shots.

I knew you couldn't prove it. You lose again.

Chris

[Anthony Marsh]

You've only had 52 years to work on your Single Bullet Theory and you
still don't have one which works. Back to the drawing board.

[Anthony Marsh]

Not exactly.

>

[David Emerling]

On Tuesday, July 12, 2016 at 9:07:09 AM UTC-4, Anthony Marsh wrote:
> > For hard evidence you can check the chrome bar over the windshield and
>
> No, he can't. They destroyed it. I went to the National Archives to
> examine it and I was told that I would not be allowed to examine it.

Do you doubt such damage to the chrome frame exists? It has been
photographed. Unquestionably, it was damaged from something that hit it
from the INSIDE.

The same can be said about the cracked windshield.

The fact that you can't examine it doesn't mean it doesn't exist -
because, that's a claim many CTs make. No such damage existed! Or, they
claim it was a through-and-through hole in the windshield.

Now, I can already predict what you're going to say: "Did I ever say that
such damage did not exist?"

I guess your scientific expertise was going to discover something that
eluded everybody else. Pfft!

David Emerling
Memphis, TN

[bigdog]

I suppose you think you can prove bullets from a gun other than the
Carcano hit or hurt anyone. Of course we have no expectation you will be
able to meet the same standard of proof you demand from others.

[John Paul Jones]

On Friday, July 8, 2016 at 1:56:18 PM UTC-7, bigdog wrote:
> A parade on the west end of downtown Dallas suddenly came under sniper
> fire from an unknown location. Experienced police officers on the scene
> believed the shots were coming from multiple directions and that there was
> a triangulation of gunfire. Sound familiar?
>
> Of course I am not talking about the JFK assassination but the attack on
> officers of the DPD and DART last night which claimed the lives of five of
> them. All through the night and into the morning the narrative was that it
> was a coordinated attack by multiple gunman. Now that narrative seems to
> be in doubt. Police have only been able to confirm that there was one
> gunman. Three other suspects are in custody but we don't know at this time
> what if any their involvement might have been. It is far too early to make
> informed judgements at this writing as to whether there was in fact more
> than one gunman. If it does turn out that this was the act of a single
> gunman, it will be a perfect example of how gun shots from a one location
> could sound as if there are coming from another location. It would
> illustrate how unreliable earwitness accounts can be in determining the
> direction of gunfire.
>
> I'm sure these questions will be answered fairly quickly and by the time
> this message is posted, they may already be resolved.

Does the Patsy Pascall film prove a shooter from the knoll?

[mainframetech]

Actually, there are things that eluded just you about bullet strikes on
the limo. First, here's the photo proof of the strike over the
windshield:

http://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/userpics/10001/Chrome_trim_Trask.jpg

As well, the windshield was NOT cracked, it was a through and through
bullet hole from the outside, which was seen by at least 6 witnesses, one
of whom was a Ford manager in the glass section in Michigan.

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2012/06/douglas-p-horne/photographic-evidence-of-bullet-hole-in-jfk-limousine-windshield-hiding-in-plain-sight/

Chris

[Anthony Marsh]

On 7/13/2016 9:58 PM, David Emerling wrote:
> On Tuesday, July 12, 2016 at 9:07:09 AM UTC-4, Anthony Marsh wrote:
>>> For hard evidence you can check the chrome bar over the windshield and
>>
>> No, he can't. They destroyed it. I went to the National Archives to
>> examine it and I was told that I would not be allowed to examine it.
>
> Do you doubt such damage to the chrome frame exists? It has been
> photographed. Unquestionably, it was damaged from something that hit it
> from the INSIDE.
>

Duh! I said that already. YOU can't prove how it got dented.
The SS told the WC that it was ALWAYS dented even before 11/22/63.
Who found the photo showing that it was undented before Dealey Plaza?
YOU? You are a joke.
You believe official lies.

> The same can be said about the cracked windshield.
>

More can be said about the cracked windshield. Did you write the
article? No, I did.

> The fact that you can't examine it doesn't mean it doesn't exist -
> because, that's a claim many CTs make. No such damage existed! Or, they
> claim it was a through-and-through hole in the windshield.

Sure the alterationists can make up any crazy theory they want.
Real researchers know the windshield exists and what damage was done to
it. Not a hole. WC defenders can not explain HOW all the damage was done.

>
> Now, I can already predict what you're going to say: "Did I ever say that
> such damage did not exist?"
>

Why do you think you can attack me personally by bring up things that
the alterationists said? I am the guy who proved that the Zapruder film
is authentic. That pulls the rug out from under their crazy
alterationist theories so they hate me.
You can never debate honestly. I wish I could saddle YOU with Free Frank
Warner's crazy theories.
But I'm too honest to do that.

> I guess your scientific expertise was going to discover something that
> eluded everybody else. Pfft!
>

It did. I proved that the Zapruder film is authentic. You couldn't.

> David Emerling
> Memphis, TN
>

[mainframetech]

Well, of course! the Carcano bullets that were found were proved not to
have hit or hurt anyone, however, there was a bullet that struck JFK in
the forehead/temple area that blasted out the BOH, and one that hit him in
the upper back, and one that hit him in the throat from the front. The 2
bullets that struck from the front were almost surely not MC type bullets,
since that used old WW2 rifle with the worn and corroded barrel and the
sticky bolt and the misaligned scope wouldn't be chosen by a real shooter.

Chris

[Anthony Marsh]

Not true. There was only a crack on the windshield and no hole.

[Anthony Marsh]

I don't think so. I can't see a shooter there.

[bigdog]

On Thursday, July 14, 2016 at 8:39:51 PM UTC-4, mainframetech wrote:
> On Wednesday, July 13, 2016 at 9:58:01 PM UTC-4, David Emerling wrote:
> > On Tuesday, July 12, 2016 at 9:07:09 AM UTC-4, Anthony Marsh wrote:
> > > > For hard evidence you can check the chrome bar over the windshield and
> > >
> > > No, he can't. They destroyed it. I went to the National Archives to
> > > examine it and I was told that I would not be allowed to examine it.
> >
> > Do you doubt such damage to the chrome frame exists? It has been
> > photographed. Unquestionably, it was damaged from something that hit it
> > from the INSIDE.
> >
> > The same can be said about the cracked windshield.
> >
> > The fact that you can't examine it doesn't mean it doesn't exist -
> > because, that's a claim many CTs make. No such damage existed! Or, they
> > claim it was a through-and-through hole in the windshield.
> >
> > Now, I can already predict what you're going to say: "Did I ever say that
> > such damage did not exist?"
> >
> > I guess your scientific expertise was going to discover something that
> > eluded everybody else. Pfft!
> >
> > David Emerling
> > Memphis, TN
>
>
>
> Actually, there are things that eluded just you about bullet strikes on
> the limo. First, here's the photo proof of the strike over the
> windshield:
>
> http://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/userpics/10001/Chrome_trim_Trask.jpg
>

Yup. That was a dent caused by one of the large fragments exiting from
JFK's skull.

> As well, the windshield was NOT cracked, it was a through and through
> bullet hole from the outside, which was seen by at least 6 witnesses, one
> of whom was a Ford manager in the glass section in Michigan.
>
> https://www.lewrockwell.com/2012/06/douglas-p-horne/photographic-evidence-of-bullet-hole-in-jfk-limousine-windshield-hiding-in-plain-sight/
>

Since you're a Doug Horne disciple, it is understandable you wouldn't
apply any critical thinking to this article. I like how he claims there is
photographic proof of a "through and through bullet hole" but doesn't post
the photo. All he does is post links to Amazon pages selling books and
videos including his own. This indicates his purpose is to sell rather
than inform. If he really had photographic proof, why doesn't he post it?

[bigdog]

That's a lot of logical errors in one paragraph, even for you. How do you
know your frontal shooter would have had a corroded barrel and a
misaligned scope? Are you just assuming that his Carcano would have been
in the same condition as Oswald's. And of course, you missed the point of
the challenge. You have demanded that it be proven that the CE399 and the
recovered fragmented bullet actually hit someone. Applying the same
standard to your frontal shots, you would have to prove those bullets hit
someone as well. So what proof have you given that those bullets fired
from the front hit someone? Or is it your position that it is only
necessary to prove the real bullets hit someone and that we only need to
imagine the imaginary bullets hit someone?

[Anthony Marsh]

Nonsense. SHOW us the bullets that you claim hit or hurt anyone.
Or maybe you claim no one was hit or hurt.

> the forehead/temple area that blasted out the BOH, and one that hit him in
> the upper back, and one that hit him in the throat from the front. The 2
> bullets that struck from the front were almost surely not MC type bullets,
> since that used old WW2 rifle with the worn and corroded barrel and the
> sticky bolt and the misaligned scope wouldn't be chosen by a real shooter.
>

And who the Hell said real shooter? If you're going to frame Oswald it
helps to use his real rifle and his real bullets. It makes no sense to
frame Oswald by using a Mauser.

> Chris
>

[mainframetech]

Yep, you're right out of your mind with your obsession with the tired
old WCR. Tell us which hole in the skull of JFK did this mythical
fragment come through before hitting the chrome bar over the windshield so
hard it almost blasted a hole through the underlying steel roll bar?
There was only one wound facing the windshield, and that was the wound in
the forehead/temple area, and that was an entry wound. And to try to get
away with saying it was a 'fragment' too! And since there were upwards of
8 or more bullet strikes around Dealey plaza, were they all from 8
fragments from the skull of JFK?

These fantasies of yours have to stop so we can get back to normal
determinations in the JFK case. You're distracting everyone with your
nonsense.

> > As well, the windshield was NOT cracked, it was a through and through
> > bullet hole from the outside, which was seen by at least 6 witnesses, one
> > of whom was a Ford manager in the glass section in Michigan.
> >
> > https://www.lewrockwell.com/2012/06/douglas-p-horne/photographic-evidence-of-bullet-hole-in-jfk-limousine-windshield-hiding-in-plain-sight/
> >
>
> Since you're a Doug Horne disciple, it is understandable you wouldn't
> apply any critical thinking to this article. I like how he claims there is
> photographic proof of a "through and through bullet hole" but doesn't post
> the photo. All he does is post links to Amazon pages selling books and
> videos including his own. This indicates his purpose is to sell rather
> than inform. If he really had photographic proof, why doesn't he post it?

Perhaps he had copyright issues, you'd have to ask him. Or are you
afraid to? Anyone that was a true JFK hobbyist of the first water would
have a copy of the CD in question. You forgot to mention that he named
all 6 witnesses, one of whom was an SS agent. And you supplied NO proof
against the bullet through the windshield. Go on, take a shot...it came
from the outside of the limo...got an answer for that? maybe 'they all
lied'?

Chris

[David Emerling]

On Friday, July 15, 2016 at 12:57:45 PM UTC-5, Anthony Marsh wrote:

> > I guess your scientific expertise was going to discover something that
> > eluded everybody else. Pfft!
> >
>
> It did. I proved that the Zapruder film is authentic. You couldn't.

The context of my statement was in response to your statement about not
being allowed to examine the damage to the presidential limousine -
specifically, the damage to the chrome. Somehow, you turned this into a
Zapruder film issue.

It's not that I "couldn't" prove the Zapruder film was authentic - I never
tried because there are certain things that I believe a priori. I don't
waste time chasing my tail. This reminds me of the analogy I made some
time back in a post in this forum about how old computers tried
(unsuccessfully) to play an adequate game of chess. These computers did
brute force analysis, examining moves that a human, instinctively, would
know are ridiculous and waste of "processing time". These computers
checked EVERY move, no matter how silly, and ALL the possible responses to
THAT move ... and the responses to all THOSE moves. A HUGE waste of time!
Computers using the brute force method could only defeat average chess
players but could never defeat a grandmaster. Once computers started
playing quality chess when they limited their brute force approach with
"candidate moves" - i.e. logical moves. Now computers can routinely defeat
grandmasters where, before this programming modification was made, they
had difficulty beating much lower-rated players.

Thanks for verifying the authenticity of the Zapruder film for me, Tony!
You figured out what I already knew using common sense. I wonder what I
was doing while you were chasing your tail? You were working on the
ramifications of a wildly speculative Queen sacrifice with no apparent
positional compensation while I was contemplating pinning my opponent's
Knight with my Bishop. Good for you. Maybe, next, you can prove that we
actually DID put a man on the moon in 1969. I'm going to assume that we
did and move on with my life with that as my working assumption.

NOTE: This is where you make your trite cliche about how "When you assume
- you make as ass of u and me." Brilliant! Deep stuff.

David Emerling
Memphis, TN

[Anthony Marsh]

Fun to guess isn't it? WHich fragment? The nose or the base or the
missing fragment from the middle? How and when did the bullet break up
in the head and where did the other fragments go?
How come the WC couldn't figure that out?
How come the HSCA couldn't figure that out?
How come the SS said it was dented YEARS before the assassination?
Look at the Dox drawing. It shows an intact bullet exiting the head, not
4 or 5 fragments. How come YOU didn't write to them and tell them about
that mistake?

[mainframetech]

WRONG! It was clear that I made the point that no one intending to
shoot the POTUS would choose a MC rifle like Oswald's. Though it's the
tiniest possibility, common sense says no, and so do I. If a shooter
intended that, s/he would see to it that their rifle was in tiptop
condition, which the MC rifle of Oswald's was not.

> in the same condition as Oswald's. And of course, you missed the point of
> the challenge. You have demanded that it be proven that the CE399 and the
> recovered fragmented bullet actually hit someone. Applying the same
> standard to your frontal shots, you would have to prove those bullets hit
> someone as well. So what proof have you given that those bullets fired
> from the front hit someone? Or is it your position that it is only
> necessary to prove the real bullets hit someone and that we only need to
> imagine the imaginary bullets hit someone?

WRONG yet again! You're just not thinking once again. The 2 frontal
shots hit JFK, and that's proven. The throat wound was properly figured
out by the Parkland doctors when they saw it, and we had further proof
that the back wound bullet did NOT go through the throat wound, so that
there are 2 things that prove that the throat wound was an entry as they
said it was. As well, the bullet wound in the right forehead/temple area
of JFK explaining the 'large hole' in the right rear of the head is
clearly an entry wound based on descriptions from Vincent DiMaio.

Because those 2 bullets hit from the front, the MC rifle found in the
TSBD couldn't have made those 2 wounds. The upper back wound bullet was
not recovered when it was seen by Custer and picked up by Finck, so we
won't find out what type it was.

Try again until you've exhausted all your phony excuses, then admit you
lost again.

Chris

[bigdog]

I suppose you think that needs to be answered.

> There was only one wound facing the windshield, and that was the wound in
> the forehead/temple area, and that was an entry wound.

So says an untrained amateur. Amateur medical examiner. Amateur detective.

> And to try to get
> away with saying it was a 'fragment' too! And since there were upwards of
> 8 or more bullet strikes around Dealey plaza, were they all from 8
> fragments from the skull of JFK?
>

Since these shots exist in your mind, I can't answer that.

> These fantasies of yours have to stop so we can get back to normal
> determinations in the JFK case. You're distracting everyone with your
> nonsense.
>

What you are call my "fantasies" are supported by hard, physical evidence.
Yours, not so much.

>
>
> > > As well, the windshield was NOT cracked, it was a through and through
> > > bullet hole from the outside, which was seen by at least 6 witnesses, one
> > > of whom was a Ford manager in the glass section in Michigan.
> > >
> > > https://www.lewrockwell.com/2012/06/douglas-p-horne/photographic-evidence-of-bullet-hole-in-jfk-limousine-windshield-hiding-in-plain-sight/
> > >
> >
> > Since you're a Doug Horne disciple, it is understandable you wouldn't
> > apply any critical thinking to this article. I like how he claims there is
> > photographic proof of a "through and through bullet hole" but doesn't post
> > the photo. All he does is post links to Amazon pages selling books and
> > videos including his own. This indicates his purpose is to sell rather
> > than inform. If he really had photographic proof, why doesn't he post it?
>
>
> Perhaps he had copyright issues, you'd have to ask him.

Perhaps you are groping for an explanation.

> Or are you
> afraid to? Anyone that was a true JFK hobbyist of the first water would
> have a copy of the CD in question.

You must think everyone pisses his money away on nonsense like you do.

> You forgot to mention that he named
> all 6 witnesses, one of whom was an SS agent.

So he named 6 witnesses. Is that supposed to prove anything?

> And you supplied NO proof
> against the bullet through the windshield.

You are the one hypothesizing a bullet through the windshield. It's up to
you to prove it. You have never understood that. It's such an elementary
concept.

> Go on, take a shot...it came
> from the outside of the limo...got an answer for that? maybe 'they all
> lied'?
>

I don't need to prove something that didn't happen anymore than I need to
prove the Loch Ness Monster is a myth.

[Jason Burke]

Chess is too hard for Tony. Start with tic-tac-toc. He *might* just get
that.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 7/16/2016 7:08 PM, David Emerling wrote:
> On Friday, July 15, 2016 at 12:57:45 PM UTC-5, Anthony Marsh wrote:
>
>>> I guess your scientific expertise was going to discover something that
>>> eluded everybody else. Pfft!
>>>
>>
>> It did. I proved that the Zapruder film is authentic. You couldn't.
>
> The context of my statement was in response to your statement about not
> being allowed to examine the damage to the presidential limousine -
> specifically, the damage to the chrome. Somehow, you turned this into a
> Zapruder film issue.
>

Not sure if you understand what an analogy is. It's kinda like telling
you something about baseball which is similar to politics.

> It's not that I "couldn't" prove the Zapruder film was authentic - I never
> tried because there are certain things that I believe a priori. I don't

That is not very scientific of you. People used to ASSuME that the Earth
is flat.

So why bother trying to prove that it is not.

> waste time chasing my tail. This reminds me of the analogy I made some
> time back in a post in this forum about how old computers tried
> (unsuccessfully) to play an adequate game of chess. These computers did
> brute force analysis, examining moves that a human, instinctively, would
> know are ridiculous and waste of "processing time". These computers
> checked EVERY move, no matter how silly, and ALL the possible responses to
> THAT move ... and the responses to all THOSE moves. A HUGE waste of time!
> Computers using the brute force method could only defeat average chess
> players but could never defeat a grandmaster. Once computers started
> playing quality chess when they limited their brute force approach with
> "candidate moves" - i.e. logical moves. Now computers can routinely defeat
> grandmasters where, before this programming modification was made, they
> had difficulty beating much lower-rated players.
>

If only you knew as much about computers as you don't Chess.

> Thanks for verifying the authenticity of the Zapruder film for me, Tony!
> You figured out what I already knew using common sense. I wonder what I

Not common sense. Bias.

> was doing while you were chasing your tail? You were working on the

You were down at the bar getting drunk.

> ramifications of a wildly speculative Queen sacrifice with no apparent
> positional compensation while I was contemplating pinning my opponent's
> Knight with my Bishop. Good for you. Maybe, next, you can prove that we
> actually DID put a man on the moon in 1969. I'm going to assume that we
> did and move on with my life with that as my working assumption.
>
> NOTE: This is where you make your trite cliche about how "When you assume
> - you make as ass of u and me." Brilliant! Deep stuff.
>

I didn't invent it. It's an homage to Benny Hill. I can't find his
reruns anywhere.

> David Emerling
> Memphis, TN
>

[Anthony Marsh]

Thast's stupid. The WC did not even try to explain the dent of the
chrome topping.

> fragment come through before hitting the chrome bar over the windshield so
> hard it almost blasted a hole through the underlying steel roll bar?

Some claim it came out the hole in the forehead, but you and I know that
is the ENTRANCE hole.

> There was only one wound facing the windshield, and that was the wound in
> the forehead/temple area, and that was an entry wound. And to try to get
> away with saying it was a 'fragment' too! And since there were upwards of
> 8 or more bullet strikes around Dealey plaza, were they all from 8
> fragments from the skull of JFK?

They can also make up fictious exit holes which disappeared with the
bone fragments that were blown out. That was the HSCA solution.

>
> These fantasies of yours have to stop so we can get back to normal
> determinations in the JFK case. You're distracting everyone with your
> nonsense.
>

That's his job here.

[mainframetech]

Ah! The truth finally comes out! You chose not to examine the Z-film
for alteration because you followed your OPINION! Which of course has no
status in logical thinking. This may be one of the reasons you've gone
off into the woods and missed all the evidence that's been thrown at you
these last months.

If you ever become less afraid to check out these things, listen to a
CIA Film Analyst that handled the Z-film and knows that it was altered:

https://vimeo.com/102327635

If you skip the narrator, you will hear the Analyst and his experience
with the true ORIGINAL Z-film, and the alteration he saw.

As well, you can review the following independent analyses:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AAtEdEaXBtQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XCigDMyHisE

And another option, which I seriously doubt you'll ever let yourself
get near is the 5 volume set of information from the ARRB by Douglas
Horne. The 4th volume is the one that spends hundreds of pages proving
that the Z-film was altered, but goes into the technology available at the
time and shows HOW it was done.

Chris

[bigdog]

Not surprising the point sailed right over your head. You argued that your
frontal shooter would not have chosen a Carcano with a worn and corroded
barrel, a misaligned scope, and a sticky bolt. Do you think all Carcano's
were in the same condition as Oswald's. Why couldn't they have used a
Carcano with a perfectly aligned scope and a well maintained barrel and
bolt? Of course since it is your imaginary shooter in front and there were
no bullets or shells recovered I guess you get to give him any type of
weapon you want.

>
> > in the same condition as Oswald's. And of course, you missed the point of
> > the challenge. You have demanded that it be proven that the CE399 and the
> > recovered fragmented bullet actually hit someone. Applying the same
> > standard to your frontal shots, you would have to prove those bullets hit
> > someone as well. So what proof have you given that those bullets fired
> > from the front hit someone? Or is it your position that it is only
> > necessary to prove the real bullets hit someone and that we only need to
> > imagine the imaginary bullets hit someone?
>
>
>
> WRONG yet again! You're just not thinking once again. The 2 frontal
> shots hit JFK, and that's proven.

Just how did you prove that? With your analysis of the medical evidence?
<chuckle>

> The throat wound was properly figured
> out by the Parkland doctors when they saw it, and we had further proof
> that the back wound bullet did NOT go through the throat wound, so that
> there are 2 things that prove that the throat wound was an entry as they
> said it was. As well, the bullet wound in the right forehead/temple area
> of JFK explaining the 'large hole' in the right rear of the head is
> clearly an entry wound based on descriptions from Vincent DiMaio.
>
> Because those 2 bullets hit from the front, the MC rifle found in the
> TSBD couldn't have made those 2 wounds. The upper back wound bullet was
> not recovered when it was seen by Custer and picked up by Finck, so we
> won't find out what type it was.

The short answer is that you don't have any bullets that you could prove
hit JFK from the front.

>
> Try again until you've exhausted all your phony excuses, then admit you
> lost again.
>

Why don't you stand on your head until I do.

[Anthony Marsh]

WC defenders can never answer questions. They always chicken out.

[Anthony Marsh]

Only to frame him. Think it through.

> tiniest possibility, common sense says no, and so do I. If a shooter

You have no common sense. Only imagination.

> intended that, s/he would see to it that their rifle was in tiptop
> condition, which the MC rifle of Oswald's was not.
>
>
>
>> in the same condition as Oswald's. And of course, you missed the point of
>> the challenge. You have demanded that it be proven that the CE399 and the
>> recovered fragmented bullet actually hit someone. Applying the same
>> standard to your frontal shots, you would have to prove those bullets hit
>> someone as well. So what proof have you given that those bullets fired
>> from the front hit someone? Or is it your position that it is only
>> necessary to prove the real bullets hit someone and that we only need to
>> imagine the imaginary bullets hit someone?
>
>
>
> WRONG yet again! You're just not thinking once again. The 2 frontal
> shots hit JFK, and that's proven. The throat wound was properly figured

No. The acoustical evidence only shows one shot from the front.

> out by the Parkland doctors when they saw it, and we had further proof
> that the back wound bullet did NOT go through the throat wound, so that
> there are 2 things that prove that the throat wound was an entry as they
> said it was. As well, the bullet wound in the right forehead/temple area
> of JFK explaining the 'large hole' in the right rear of the head is
> clearly an entry wound based on descriptions from Vincent DiMaio.
>

You keep spewing the same nonsense no matter how many times you've been
corrected.

> Because those 2 bullets hit from the front, the MC rifle found in the
> TSBD couldn't have made those 2 wounds. The upper back wound bullet was

If you try hard enough you could find a way. Like the LIFE magazine
saying that Oswald fired the throat shot when JFK turned his head to
look back.

[mainframetech]

and the insults without proof continue. Really, what brings you here?
We can guess, but I wanted to give you an opportunity to defend yourself.

Chris

[mainframetech]

No, I don't think you have an answer for it. Since there isn't a wound
that's pointing in the right direction, your theory has little chance of
being other than a fantasy of a WCR lover.

> > There was only one wound facing the windshield, and that was the wound in
> > the forehead/temple area, and that was an entry wound.
>
> So says an untrained amateur. Amateur medical examiner. Amateur detective.
>

Anyone can use the descriptions from Vincent DiMaio and compare them
with the wound in question. It's not a major problem. And the wound in
question fits his description of an entry bullet wound, that then caused
the blowout at the BOH at the right rear. Small entry, large exit.
Simple. No need for medical experts that don't have all the facts.

> > And to try to get
> > away with saying it was a 'fragment' too! And since there were upwards of
> > 8 or more bullet strikes around Dealey plaza, were they all from 8
> > fragments from the skull of JFK?
> >
> Since these shots exist in your mind, I can't answer that.
>

LOL! You couldn't answer it in any case. You're not an 'expert'.

> > These fantasies of yours have to stop so we can get back to normal
> > determinations in the JFK case. You're distracting everyone with your
> > nonsense.
> >
>
> What you are call my "fantasies" are supported by hard, physical evidence.
> Yours, not so much.
>
> >
> >
> > > > As well, the windshield was NOT cracked, it was a through and through
> > > > bullet hole from the outside, which was seen by at least 6 witnesses, one
> > > > of whom was a Ford manager in the glass section in Michigan.
> > > >
> > > > https://www.lewrockwell.com/2012/06/douglas-p-horne/photographic-evidence-of-bullet-hole-in-jfk-limousine-windshield-hiding-in-plain-sight/
> > > >
> > >
> > > Since you're a Doug Horne disciple, it is understandable you wouldn't
> > > apply any critical thinking to this article. I like how he claims there is
> > > photographic proof of a "through and through bullet hole" but doesn't post
> > > the photo. All he does is post links to Amazon pages selling books and
> > > videos including his own. This indicates his purpose is to sell rather
> > > than inform. If he really had photographic proof, why doesn't he post it?
> >
> >
> > Perhaps he had copyright issues, you'd have to ask him.
>
> Perhaps you are groping for an explanation.
>

Since I'm not Horne and have never spoken with him, you're right for a
change.

> > Or are you
> > afraid to? Anyone that was a true JFK hobbyist of the first water would
> > have a copy of the CD in question.
>
> You must think everyone pisses his money away on nonsense like you do.
>

Sorry, I don't buy everything that comes along that says JFK on it, or
anything that says WC on it either.

> > You forgot to mention that he named
> > all 6 witnesses, one of whom was an SS agent.
>
> So he named 6 witnesses. Is that supposed to prove anything?
>

It proves they weren't just anonymous people that would be hard to
track down, but real people that could be questioned. And one being an SS
agent makes him a bit more observant and hopefully honest. Another was a
doctor in training that did a lot of sport shooting.

> > And you supplied NO proof
> > against the bullet through the windshield.
>
> You are the one hypothesizing a bullet through the windshield. It's up to
> you to prove it. You have never understood that. It's such an elementary
> concept.
>

The problem is that I didn't hypothesize anything, I repeated witness
testimony which was repeated in the article I pointed to. The witnesses
also stated the facts, not guesses.

> > Go on, take a shot...it came
> > from the outside of the limo...got an answer for that? maybe 'they all
> > lied'?
> >
>
> I don't need to prove something that didn't happen anymore than I need to
> prove the Loch Ness Monster is a myth.

Well, if you say it didn't happen, when at least 6 people saw it, it's
obvious what it says about you. That you have just implied that 'they all
lied'! And you also have NO proof that the Loch Ness monster is a myth
either. With the sheer number of sightings of the beast, there's more
evidence of existence than not.

Chris

[bigdog]

Some people have better things to do with their time then go on snipe
hunts. Apparently you don't.

[Anthony Marsh]

I examined it and found that it is authentic.

> status in logical thinking. This may be one of the reasons you've gone
> off into the woods and missed all the evidence that's been thrown at you
> these last months.
>
> If you ever become less afraid to check out these things, listen to a
> CIA Film Analyst that handled the Z-film and knows that it was altered:
>
> https://vimeo.com/102327635
>
> If you skip the narrator, you will hear the Analyst and his experience
> with the true ORIGINAL Z-film, and the alteration he saw.
>

You don't even understand that there were several copies and prints of
the Zapruder film.

> As well, you can review the following independent analyses:
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AAtEdEaXBtQ
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XCigDMyHisE
>
> And another option, which I seriously doubt you'll ever let yourself
> get near is the 5 volume set of information from the ARRB by Douglas
> Horne. The 4th volume is the one that spends hundreds of pages proving
> that the Z-film was altered, but goes into the technology available at the
> time and shows HOW it was done.
>

Nonsense.

> Chris
>

[mainframetech]

WRONG! It looks like the point sailed right over your head! No one
would pick an MC rifle even in the best of conditions, since they were all
from the 2nd world war and were used.

> >
> > > in the same condition as Oswald's. And of course, you missed the point of
> > > the challenge. You have demanded that it be proven that the CE399 and the
> > > recovered fragmented bullet actually hit someone. Applying the same
> > > standard to your frontal shots, you would have to prove those bullets hit
> > > someone as well. So what proof have you given that those bullets fired
> > > from the front hit someone? Or is it your position that it is only
> > > necessary to prove the real bullets hit someone and that we only need to
> > > imagine the imaginary bullets hit someone?
> >
> >
> >
> > WRONG yet again! You're just not thinking once again. The 2 frontal
> > shots hit JFK, and that's proven.
>
> Just how did you prove that? With your analysis of the medical evidence?
> <chuckle>
>

With the analysis of the Parkland doctors, who had experience almost
daily with bullet wounds at the hospital. Also with the descriptions of
Vincent DiMaio, an expert in this field. But since it was also proven
that the back wound bullet never went through JFK to come out of the
throat wound, that wound has to be an entrance wound, and therefore it was
from a frontal shot.

> > The throat wound was properly figured
> > out by the Parkland doctors when they saw it, and we had further proof
> > that the back wound bullet did NOT go through the throat wound, so that
> > there are 2 things that prove that the throat wound was an entry as they
> > said it was. As well, the bullet wound in the right forehead/temple area
> > of JFK explaining the 'large hole' in the right rear of the head is
> > clearly an entry wound based on descriptions from Vincent DiMaio.
> >
> > Because those 2 bullets hit from the front, the MC rifle found in the
> > TSBD couldn't have made those 2 wounds. The upper back wound bullet was
> > not recovered when it was seen by Custer and picked up by Finck, so we
> > won't find out what type it was.
>
> The short answer is that you don't have any bullets that you could prove
> hit JFK from the front.
>

One doesn't need the bullets to prove that they entered the body from
the front. How could you possibly do this type of figuring since you
can't figure your way out of a paper bag? For the bullet wound in the
throat, it was in the front and it didn't come from behind, so logically
it had to come from the front! Simple. For the forehead/temple area
bullet wound, it's clear that it came from the front (as per descriptions
from Vincent DiMaio) and it also blew out the BOH at the right rear which
is classic small entry, large exit for most bullets that hit the human
body.

> >
> > Try again until you've exhausted all your phony excuses, then admit you
> > lost again.
> >
>
> Why don't you stand on your head until I do.

Awww, you decided not to admit the truth.

Chris

[Anthony Marsh]

I don't have the bullet, but we have the fragments.
It exploded.

[bigdog]

So you think an explosive wound in the skull points in a particular
direction.

>
>
> > > There was only one wound facing the windshield, and that was the wound in
> > > the forehead/temple area, and that was an entry wound.
> >
> > So says an untrained amateur. Amateur medical examiner. Amateur detective.
> >
>
>
> Anyone can use the descriptions from Vincent DiMaio and compare them
> with the wound in question.

If anyone could do it there would be no need for trained medical
examiners.

> It's not a major problem. And the wound in
> question fits his description of an entry bullet wound, that then caused
> the blowout at the BOH at the right rear. Small entry, large exit.
> Simple. No need for medical experts that don't have all the facts.
>

So says the amateur medical examiner. I'll stick with what the pros tell
us.

>
>
> > > And to try to get
> > > away with saying it was a 'fragment' too! And since there were upwards of
> > > 8 or more bullet strikes around Dealey plaza, were they all from 8
> > > fragments from the skull of JFK?
> > >
> > Since these shots exist in your mind, I can't answer that.
> >
>
>
> LOL! You couldn't answer it in any case. You're not an 'expert'.
>

Nor are you. The difference is I know it.

You don't have to buy the WC. It's free online. Both 888 page report and
the 26 volumes.

>
>
> > > You forgot to mention that he named
> > > all 6 witnesses, one of whom was an SS agent.
> >
> > So he named 6 witnesses. Is that supposed to prove anything?
> >
>
>
> It proves they weren't just anonymous people that would be hard to
> track down, but real people that could be questioned. And one being an SS
> agent makes him a bit more observant and hopefully honest. Another was a
> doctor in training that did a lot of sport shooting.
>

Boy, there's some impressive credentials. <chuckle>

>
>
> > > And you supplied NO proof
> > > against the bullet through the windshield.
> >
> > You are the one hypothesizing a bullet through the windshield. It's up to
> > you to prove it. You have never understood that. It's such an elementary
> > concept.
> >
>
>
> The problem is that I didn't hypothesize anything, I repeated witness
> testimony which was repeated in the article I pointed to. The witnesses
> also stated the facts, not guesses.
>

Your problem is you think everything a witness says is a fact. You have
this strange belief that witnesses are infallible.

>
>
> > > Go on, take a shot...it came
> > > from the outside of the limo...got an answer for that? maybe 'they all
> > > lied'?
> > >
> >
> > I don't need to prove something that didn't happen anymore than I need to
> > prove the Loch Ness Monster is a myth.
>
>
> Well, if you say it didn't happen, when at least 6 people saw it, it's
> obvious what it says about you. That you have just implied that 'they all
> lied'! And you also have NO proof that the Loch Ness monster is a myth
> either. With the sheer number of sightings of the beast, there's more
> evidence of existence than not.
>

There's about as much evidence of the Loch Ness Monster as their is of a
JFK assassination conspiracy. If I had to pick which one seems more
plausible, I'd go with Nessie. You probably believe the film of the guy in
the gorilla suit really is Bigfoot.

[bigdog]

A professional assassin probably wouldn't choose the Carcano. A lowly paid
unskilled laborer who couldn't afford anything better and who had to make
do with what he already had would go with that.

>
> > >
> > > > in the same condition as Oswald's. And of course, you missed the point of
> > > > the challenge. You have demanded that it be proven that the CE399 and the
> > > > recovered fragmented bullet actually hit someone. Applying the same
> > > > standard to your frontal shots, you would have to prove those bullets hit
> > > > someone as well. So what proof have you given that those bullets fired
> > > > from the front hit someone? Or is it your position that it is only
> > > > necessary to prove the real bullets hit someone and that we only need to
> > > > imagine the imaginary bullets hit someone?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > WRONG yet again! You're just not thinking once again. The 2 frontal
> > > shots hit JFK, and that's proven.
> >
> > Just how did you prove that? With your analysis of the medical evidence?
> > <chuckle>
> >
>
>
> With the analysis of the Parkland doctors, who had experience almost
> daily with bullet wounds at the hospital. Also with the descriptions of
> Vincent DiMaio, an expert in this field. But since it was also proven
> that the back wound bullet never went through JFK to come out of the
> throat wound, that wound has to be an entrance wound, and therefore it was
> from a frontal shot.
>

I always love when you cite experts whose opinions are the polar opposite
of yours. DiMaio is an LN. He believes Oswald was the assassin and he
knows the medical evidence shows that. I don't know that he has published
anything on his own about the JFK assassination, but he did give the
following glowing endorsement of Larry Sturdivan's pro-LN book, The JFK
Myths; A Scientific Investigation of the Kennedy Assassination:

"This is an excellent book that I recommend without any hesitation. It is
the only book to address the firearms and ballistic aspects of the JFK
assassination in a logical, knowledgeable and scientific manner. It
dispels the myths and falsehoods that have either grown up or been
generated about the weapon, and the wounds. Anyone interested in the
Kennedy assassination must have a copy of this book."―Dr. Vincent
DiMaio

Now here's where you tell us DiMaio would have a different opinion if he
had seen your one photo. <chuckle>

>
> > > The throat wound was properly figured
> > > out by the Parkland doctors when they saw it, and we had further proof
> > > that the back wound bullet did NOT go through the throat wound, so that
> > > there are 2 things that prove that the throat wound was an entry as they
> > > said it was. As well, the bullet wound in the right forehead/temple area
> > > of JFK explaining the 'large hole' in the right rear of the head is
> > > clearly an entry wound based on descriptions from Vincent DiMaio.
> > >
> > > Because those 2 bullets hit from the front, the MC rifle found in the
> > > TSBD couldn't have made those 2 wounds. The upper back wound bullet was
> > > not recovered when it was seen by Custer and picked up by Finck, so we
> > > won't find out what type it was.
> >
> > The short answer is that you don't have any bullets that you could prove
> > hit JFK from the front.
> >
>
>
> One doesn't need the bullets to prove that they entered the body from
> the front.

Especially when you don't require any expert opinions to support that
silly position. You can just make up whatever sounds good to you.

> How could you possibly do this type of figuring since you
> can't figure your way out of a paper bag? For the bullet wound in the
> throat, it was in the front and it didn't come from behind, so logically
> it had to come from the front! Simple.

Got any knowledgeable people who share that opinion? Didn't think so.

> For the forehead/temple area
> bullet wound, it's clear that it came from the front (as per descriptions
> from Vincent DiMaio) and it also blew out the BOH at the right rear which
> is classic small entry, large exit for most bullets that hit the human
> body.
>

It's already been show DiMaio doesn't share your opinions. He has endorsed
Larry Sturdivan's work and that indicates the shots hit JFK from behind.
You'd think that if there were actually medical evidence of a frontal shot
you would be able to find one medical examiner who has reached that
conclusion. But you can't because there aren't any.

>
>
>
> > >
> > > Try again until you've exhausted all your phony excuses, then admit you
> > > lost again.
> > >
> >
> > Why don't you stand on your head until I do.
>
>
> Awww, you decided not to admit the truth.
>

I know what the truth is and I know you will continue to run from it for
as long as you are on this side of the grass.

[mainframetech]

Apparently you aren't interested in solving the case, since your 52
year old answer was told to you by the WCR. But the case has moved on
since then and you haven't. Still rooted in that tired old thing.

Chris

[Anthony Marsh]

Then why did everyone think it was a conspiracy? Does 91% of the public
believe in Nessie?

[mainframetech]

WRONG once again! I haven't said anything about an "explosive wound".
The evidence suggests that it was a normal rifle wound, possibly with a
lead bullet. Certainly not the MC rifle FMJ type bullets. The bullet
struck the forehead/temple area and passed through the right side of the
brain blowing out the BOH at the right rear point as per the Parkland
doctors and nurses.

> >
> >
> > > > There was only one wound facing the windshield, and that was the wound in
> > > > the forehead/temple area, and that was an entry wound.
> > >
> > > So says an untrained amateur. Amateur medical examiner. Amateur detective.
> > >
> >
> >
> > Anyone can use the descriptions from Vincent DiMaio and compare them
> > with the wound in question.
>
> If anyone could do it there would be no need for trained medical
> examiners.
>

In this particular instance, that's correct. It was a simple and
informative match.

> > It's not a major problem. And the wound in
> > question fits his description of an entry bullet wound, that then caused
> > the blowout at the BOH at the right rear. Small entry, large exit.
> > Simple. No need for medical experts that don't have all the facts.
> >
>
> So says the amateur medical examiner. I'll stick with what the pros tell
> us.
>

Sadly, the pros didn't have all the facts. They were manipulated as
were all the other fools that went with the phony theories in the AR and
WCR.

> >
> >
> > > > And to try to get
> > > > away with saying it was a 'fragment' too! And since there were upwards of
> > > > 8 or more bullet strikes around Dealey plaza, were they all from 8
> > > > fragments from the skull of JFK?
> > > >
> > > Since these shots exist in your mind, I can't answer that.
> > >
> >
> >
> > LOL! You couldn't answer it in any case. You're not an 'expert'.
> >
>
> Nor are you. The difference is I know it.
>

You're also lacking in any kind of objectivity or you've been taking
lessons from Harris! However when facts are missing, no one could make a
decent decision.

A sad situation. With no price on it, it's obvious that it has no
value.

> > > > You forgot to mention that he named
> > > > all 6 witnesses, one of whom was an SS agent.
> > >
> > > So he named 6 witnesses. Is that supposed to prove anything?
> > >
> >
> >
> > It proves they weren't just anonymous people that would be hard to
> > track down, but real people that could be questioned. And one being an SS
> > agent makes him a bit more observant and hopefully honest. Another was a
> > doctor in training that did a lot of sport shooting.
> >
>
> Boy, there's some impressive credentials. <chuckle>
>

There's nothing wrongs with their creds and you know it. They are a
group of normal people that happened to see some critical information.

> >
> >
> > > > And you supplied NO proof
> > > > against the bullet through the windshield.
> > >
> > > You are the one hypothesizing a bullet through the windshield. It's up to
> > > you to prove it. You have never understood that. It's such an elementary
> > > concept.
> > >
> >
> >
> > The problem is that I didn't hypothesize anything, I repeated witness
> > testimony which was repeated in the article I pointed to. The witnesses
> > also stated the facts, not guesses.
> >
>
> Your problem is you think everything a witness says is a fact. You have
> this strange belief that witnesses are infallible.
>

WRONG as usual! Witnesses often are telling the truth, but those that
are not may be ferreted out through various means. In the case in point
though, we also have 6 point corroboration.

> >
> >
> > > > Go on, take a shot...it came
> > > > from the outside of the limo...got an answer for that? maybe 'they all
> > > > lied'?
> > > >
> > >
> > > I don't need to prove something that didn't happen anymore than I need to
> > > prove the Loch Ness Monster is a myth.
> >
> >
> > Well, if you say it didn't happen, when at least 6 people saw it, it's
> > obvious what it says about you. That you have just implied that 'they all
> > lied'! And you also have NO proof that the Loch Ness monster is a myth
> > either. With the sheer number of sightings of the beast, there's more
> > evidence of existence than not.
> >
>
> There's about as much evidence of the Loch Ness Monster as their is of a
> JFK assassination conspiracy. If I had to pick which one seems more
> plausible, I'd go with Nessie. You probably believe the film of the guy in
> the gorilla suit really is Bigfoot.

I wouldn't know about gorillas. I know that we're dealing here with a
conspiracy, and an unusually strong effort to cover it up. But then when
you have the resources of the USA at your hand, you can get a lot done.

Chris

[John Reagor King]

In article <9bf20d4a-b464-4958...@googlegroups.com>,
John Paul Jones <jimmor...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Friday, July 8, 2016 at 1:56:18 PM UTC-7, bigdog wrote:
> > A parade on the west end of downtown Dallas suddenly came under sniper
> > fire from an unknown location. Experienced police officers on the scene
> > believed the shots were coming from multiple directions and that there was
> > a triangulation of gunfire. Sound familiar?
> >
> > Of course I am not talking about the JFK assassination but the attack on
> > officers of the DPD and DART last night which claimed the lives of five of
> > them. All through the night and into the morning the narrative was that it
> > was a coordinated attack by multiple gunman. Now that narrative seems to
> > be in doubt. Police have only been able to confirm that there was one
> > gunman. Three other suspects are in custody but we don't know at this time
> > what if any their involvement might have been. It is far too early to make
> > informed judgements at this writing as to whether there was in fact more
> > than one gunman. If it does turn out that this was the act of a single
> > gunman, it will be a perfect example of how gun shots from a one location
> > could sound as if there are coming from another location. It would
> > illustrate how unreliable earwitness accounts can be in determining the
> > direction of gunfire.
> >
> > I'm sure these questions will be answered fairly quickly and by the time
> > this message is posted, they may already be resolved.
>

> Does the Patsy Pascall film prove a shooter from the knoll?

No.

[Anthony Marsh]

Since you are too poor to own a TV down there, I'll post the link to the
documentary:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jbZHnORsz78

> "This is an excellent book that I recommend without any hesitation. It is
> the only book to address the firearms and ballistic aspects of the JFK
> assassination in a logical, knowledgeable and scientific manner. It
> dispels the myths and falsehoods that have either grown up or been
> generated about the weapon, and the wounds. Anyone interested in the
> Kennedy assassination must have a copy of this book."―Dr. Vincent
> DiMaio
>
> Now here's where you tell us DiMaio would have a different opinion if he
> had seen your one photo. <chuckle>
>

DiMaio would never have an independent opinion.
I won't show you his early work which accidentally confirmed the shot
from the front.

>>
>>>> The throat wound was properly figured
>>>> out by the Parkland doctors when they saw it, and we had further proof
>>>> that the back wound bullet did NOT go through the throat wound, so that
>>>> there are 2 things that prove that the throat wound was an entry as they
>>>> said it was. As well, the bullet wound in the right forehead/temple area
>>>> of JFK explaining the 'large hole' in the right rear of the head is
>>>> clearly an entry wound based on descriptions from Vincent DiMaio.
>>>>
>>>> Because those 2 bullets hit from the front, the MC rifle found in the
>>>> TSBD couldn't have made those 2 wounds. The upper back wound bullet was
>>>> not recovered when it was seen by Custer and picked up by Finck, so we
>>>> won't find out what type it was.
>>>
>>> The short answer is that you don't have any bullets that you could prove
>>> hit JFK from the front.
>>>
>>
>>
>> One doesn't need the bullets to prove that they entered the body from
>> the front.
>
> Especially when you don't require any expert opinions to support that
> silly position. You can just make up whatever sounds good to you.
>

We've given you the expert opinions, but you ignore them.

>> How could you possibly do this type of figuring since you
>> can't figure your way out of a paper bag? For the bullet wound in the
>> throat, it was in the front and it didn't come from behind, so logically
>> it had to come from the front! Simple.
>
> Got any knowledgeable people who share that opinion? Didn't think so.
>
>> For the forehead/temple area
>> bullet wound, it's clear that it came from the front (as per descriptions
>> from Vincent DiMaio) and it also blew out the BOH at the right rear which
>> is classic small entry, large exit for most bullets that hit the human
>> body.
>>
>
> It's already been show DiMaio doesn't share your opinions. He has endorsed
> Larry Sturdivan's work and that indicates the shots hit JFK from behind.
> You'd think that if there were actually medical evidence of a frontal shot
> you would be able to find one medical examiner who has reached that
> conclusion. But you can't because there aren't any.
>

Yeah, and the Sun also rises in the East. We've always known that DiMaio
is a WC defender.

[bigdog]

Of course not. That was done 12 hours after the crime.

> since your 52
> year old answer was told to you by the WCR. But the case has moved on
> since then and you haven't. Still rooted in that tired old thing.
>

Keep hunting that snipe. As if you are ever going to accomplish anything.

[bigdog]

You didn't have to. That's what happened. A bullet passed through JFK's
head nd the pressure cavity built up by the transiting bullet caused his
skull to exploded.

> The evidence suggests that it was a normal rifle wound, possibly with a
> lead bullet. Certainly not the MC rifle FMJ type bullets.

Pretending expertise where none exists again?

> The bullet
> struck the forehead/temple area and passed through the right side of the
> brain blowing out the BOH at the right rear point as per the Parkland
> doctors and nurses.
>

If only you could find a knowledgeable person who agrees with your
assessment.

>
>
> > >
> > >
> > > > > There was only one wound facing the windshield, and that was the wound in
> > > > > the forehead/temple area, and that was an entry wound.
> > > >
> > > > So says an untrained amateur. Amateur medical examiner. Amateur detective.
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Anyone can use the descriptions from Vincent DiMaio and compare them
> > > with the wound in question.
> >
> > If anyone could do it there would be no need for trained medical
> > examiners.
> >
>
>
> In this particular instance, that's correct. It was a simple and
> informative match.
>

It really is humorous that someone could actually believe that.

>
>
> > > It's not a major problem. And the wound in
> > > question fits his description of an entry bullet wound, that then caused
> > > the blowout at the BOH at the right rear. Small entry, large exit.
> > > Simple. No need for medical experts that don't have all the facts.
> > >
> >
> > So says the amateur medical examiner. I'll stick with what the pros tell
> > us.
> >
>
>
> Sadly, the pros didn't have all the facts. They were manipulated as
> were all the other fools that went with the phony theories in the AR and
> WCR.
>

That's your silly explanation for why their conclusions are the opposite
of yours. I'll go with theirs. So will all intelligent people.

>
>
> > >
> > >
> > > > > And to try to get
> > > > > away with saying it was a 'fragment' too! And since there were upwards of
> > > > > 8 or more bullet strikes around Dealey plaza, were they all from 8
> > > > > fragments from the skull of JFK?
> > > > >
> > > > Since these shots exist in your mind, I can't answer that.
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > LOL! You couldn't answer it in any case. You're not an 'expert'.
> > >
> >
> > Nor are you. The difference is I know it.
> >
>
>
> You're also lacking in any kind of objectivity or you've been taking
> lessons from Harris! However when facts are missing, no one could make a
> decent decision.
>

I've never pretended to be objective. Then time for objectivity ended in
September of 1964. That's when the incontrovertible truth of the JFK
assassination was presented and it stated that Oswald was the assassin and
there was no credible evidence anyone else was involved. Still isn't.

Says the guy who still hasn't read it. It's called willful ignorance.

>
>
> > > > > You forgot to mention that he named
> > > > > all 6 witnesses, one of whom was an SS agent.
> > > >
> > > > So he named 6 witnesses. Is that supposed to prove anything?
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > It proves they weren't just anonymous people that would be hard to
> > > track down, but real people that could be questioned. And one being an SS
> > > agent makes him a bit more observant and hopefully honest. Another was a
> > > doctor in training that did a lot of sport shooting.
> > >
> >
> > Boy, there's some impressive credentials. <chuckle>
> >
>
>
> There's nothing wrongs with their creds and you know it. They are a
> group of normal people that happened to see some critical information.
>

Yes, they are normal people and normal people don't remember things
perfectly.

>
>
> > >
> > >
> > > > > And you supplied NO proof
> > > > > against the bullet through the windshield.
> > > >
> > > > You are the one hypothesizing a bullet through the windshield. It's up to
> > > > you to prove it. You have never understood that. It's such an elementary
> > > > concept.
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > The problem is that I didn't hypothesize anything, I repeated witness
> > > testimony which was repeated in the article I pointed to. The witnesses
> > > also stated the facts, not guesses.
> > >
> >
> > Your problem is you think everything a witness says is a fact. You have
> > this strange belief that witnesses are infallible.
> >
>
>
>
> WRONG as usual! Witnesses often are telling the truth,

And just as often they are not. They are notoriously unreliable. Not
because they lie but because they don't remember things perfectly. They
tend to get some things right and some things wrong. They miss important
details and get things wrong. That's why anyone who accepts any witness'
statement as a fact without corroborating it, preferably with hard
evidence, is asking to be fooled.

> but those that
> are not may be ferreted out through various means. In the case in point
> though, we also have 6 point corroboration.
>
>
>
> > >
> > >
> > > > > Go on, take a shot...it came
> > > > > from the outside of the limo...got an answer for that? maybe 'they all
> > > > > lied'?
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > I don't need to prove something that didn't happen anymore than I need to
> > > > prove the Loch Ness Monster is a myth.
> > >
> > >
> > > Well, if you say it didn't happen, when at least 6 people saw it, it's
> > > obvious what it says about you. That you have just implied that 'they all
> > > lied'! And you also have NO proof that the Loch Ness monster is a myth
> > > either. With the sheer number of sightings of the beast, there's more
> > > evidence of existence than not.
> > >
> >
> > There's about as much evidence of the Loch Ness Monster as their is of a
> > JFK assassination conspiracy. If I had to pick which one seems more
> > plausible, I'd go with Nessie. You probably believe the film of the guy in
> > the gorilla suit really is Bigfoot.
>
>
> I wouldn't know about gorillas. I know that we're dealing here with a
> conspiracy, and an unusually strong effort to cover it up. But then when
> you have the resources of the USA at your hand, you can get a lot done.
>

Strong effort to cover it up? Most LNs don't give a shit any more. Most
CTs don't either. They've moved on. There's a few of us who are stilly
amused by the conspiracy hobbyists' attempts to rewrite history. We could
totally ignore you and your efforts still wouldn't amount to a hill of
beans, but then we'd have to find our laughs elsewhere.

[mainframetech]

And not repair the misaligned scope and the sticky bolt that limited
any rapid shooting? And where would he find ammo for that oddball rifle?
They certainly couldn't find anywhere he went.

I wouldn't know what DiMaio would say, but it doesn't matter. He
showed a photo and described it as a entry wound, and that photo matches
the bullet wound in the forehead/temple area of JFK. Why are you
repeating all this? You've lost that argument. Trying to recoup some of
your lost ego?

> >
> > > > The throat wound was properly figured
> > > > out by the Parkland doctors when they saw it, and we had further proof
> > > > that the back wound bullet did NOT go through the throat wound, so that
> > > > there are 2 things that prove that the throat wound was an entry as they
> > > > said it was. As well, the bullet wound in the right forehead/temple area
> > > > of JFK explaining the 'large hole' in the right rear of the head is
> > > > clearly an entry wound based on descriptions from Vincent DiMaio.
> > > >
> > > > Because those 2 bullets hit from the front, the MC rifle found in the
> > > > TSBD couldn't have made those 2 wounds. The upper back wound bullet was
> > > > not recovered when it was seen by Custer and picked up by Finck, so we
> > > > won't find out what type it was.
> > >
> > > The short answer is that you don't have any bullets that you could prove
> > > hit JFK from the front.
> > >
> >
> >
> > One doesn't need the bullets to prove that they entered the body from
> > the front.
>
> Especially when you don't require any expert opinions to support that
> silly position. You can just make up whatever sounds good to you.
>

There's nothing made up, which must really bug you. It's all from
evidence.

> > How could you possibly do this type of figuring since you
> > can't figure your way out of a paper bag? For the bullet wound in the
> > throat, it was in the front and it didn't come from behind, so logically
> > it had to come from the front! Simple.
>
> Got any knowledgeable people who share that opinion? Didn't think so.
>

I have encountered that opinion elsewhere, though I don't remember
where. And it's not important to me if someone else agrees with me.

> > For the forehead/temple area
> > bullet wound, it's clear that it came from the front (as per descriptions
> > from Vincent DiMaio) and it also blew out the BOH at the right rear which
> > is classic small entry, large exit for most bullets that hit the human
> > body.
> >
>
> It's already been show DiMaio doesn't share your opinions. He has endorsed
> Larry Sturdivan's work and that indicates the shots hit JFK from behind.
> You'd think that if there were actually medical evidence of a frontal shot
> you would be able to find one medical examiner who has reached that
> conclusion. But you can't because there aren't any.
>

I didn't express an opinion, I spoke of evidence, and I have not looked
for any agreement from DiMaio, since I only used his descriptive photo of
an entry wound, not his opinions. Now you're embarrassed once again for
not paying attention to the conversation. Ah well.

> >
> >
> >
> > > >
> > > > Try again until you've exhausted all your phony excuses, then admit you
> > > > lost again.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Why don't you stand on your head until I do.
> >
> >
> > Awww, you decided not to admit the truth.
> >
>
> I know what the truth is and I know you will continue to run from it for
> as long as you are on this side of the grass.

You must be having a hard time saying that stuff, since you know very
well I run from nothing, while I've caught you running away from many
points you couldn't answer.

Chris

[mainframetech]

The only thing that was done after the crime was the making of a 'patsy'
out of Oswald.

> > since your 52
> > year old answer was told to you by the WCR. But the case has moved on
> > since then and you haven't. Still rooted in that tired old thing.
> >
>
> Keep hunting that snipe. As if you are ever going to accomplish anything.

I have accomplished much, but you'd be completely unaware of it, since
I told it to you and proved it to you, and it went against your beloved
little WCR. So you didn't hear or see anything.

[bigdog]

Where did you get the idea there was rapid shooting.

> And where would he find ammo for that oddball rifle?
> They certainly couldn't find anywhere he went.
>

No, they couldn't prove where he got it. Not the same thing. Only an
illogical person would think it was.

Because you can't tell the difference you think they are the same.
<chuckle>

> Why are you
> repeating all this? You've lost that argument. Trying to recoup some of
> your lost ego?
>

You keep repeating nonsense. I keep repeating how nonsensical it is.
Apparently you are using the Harris approach of trying to make something
true by repeating over and over again. You think you can win an argument
by boring everyone to death.

>
>
> > >
> > > > > The throat wound was properly figured
> > > > > out by the Parkland doctors when they saw it, and we had further proof
> > > > > that the back wound bullet did NOT go through the throat wound, so that
> > > > > there are 2 things that prove that the throat wound was an entry as they
> > > > > said it was. As well, the bullet wound in the right forehead/temple area
> > > > > of JFK explaining the 'large hole' in the right rear of the head is
> > > > > clearly an entry wound based on descriptions from Vincent DiMaio.
> > > > >
> > > > > Because those 2 bullets hit from the front, the MC rifle found in the
> > > > > TSBD couldn't have made those 2 wounds. The upper back wound bullet was
> > > > > not recovered when it was seen by Custer and picked up by Finck, so we
> > > > > won't find out what type it was.
> > > >
> > > > The short answer is that you don't have any bullets that you could prove
> > > > hit JFK from the front.
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > One doesn't need the bullets to prove that they entered the body from
> > > the front.
> >
> > Especially when you don't require any expert opinions to support that
> > silly position. You can just make up whatever sounds good to you.
> >
>
>
> There's nothing made up, which must really bug you. It's all from
> evidence.

The physical evidence is all against you. The expert testimony is all
against you. That doesn't leave you much does it?

>
>
>
> > > How could you possibly do this type of figuring since you
> > > can't figure your way out of a paper bag? For the bullet wound in the
> > > throat, it was in the front and it didn't come from behind, so logically
> > > it had to come from the front! Simple.
> >
> > Got any knowledgeable people who share that opinion? Didn't think so.
> >
>
>
>
> I have encountered that opinion elsewhere, though I don't remember
> where.

How convenient.

> And it's not important to me if someone else agrees with me.
>

That's good because you aren't getting a lot of help.

>
>
> > > For the forehead/temple area
> > > bullet wound, it's clear that it came from the front (as per descriptions
> > > from Vincent DiMaio) and it also blew out the BOH at the right rear which
> > > is classic small entry, large exit for most bullets that hit the human
> > > body.
> > >
> >
> > It's already been show DiMaio doesn't share your opinions. He has endorsed
> > Larry Sturdivan's work and that indicates the shots hit JFK from behind.
> > You'd think that if there were actually medical evidence of a frontal shot
> > you would be able to find one medical examiner who has reached that
> > conclusion. But you can't because there aren't any.
> >
>
>
> I didn't express an opinion, I spoke of evidence, and I have not looked
> for any agreement from DiMaio, since I only used his descriptive photo of
> an entry wound, not his opinions. Now you're embarrassed once again for
> not paying attention to the conversation. Ah well.
>

You think that people who pay attention to you would agree with what you
are saying. Priceless.

>
>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Try again until you've exhausted all your phony excuses, then admit you
> > > > > lost again.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Why don't you stand on your head until I do.
> > >
> > >
> > > Awww, you decided not to admit the truth.
> > >
> >
> > I know what the truth is and I know you will continue to run from it for
> > as long as you are on this side of the grass.
>
>
>
> You must be having a hard time saying that stuff, since you know very
> well I run from nothing, while I've caught you running away from many
> points you couldn't answer.
>

Horseshit.

[bigdog]

That is very true.

> since
> I told it to you and proved it to you, and it went against your beloved
> little WCR. So you didn't hear or see anything.

You've told me a lot and proved none of it yet you expect me to believe
it. That would require a gigantic leap of faith and since my beliefs are
evidence based and not faith based, I believe none of your crap.

[Anthony Marsh]

1.66 seconds.

[Anthony Marsh]

I particularly liked how you got the HSCA and the ARRB and organized
over 20 conferences.

[mainframetech]

You forget how many things I've proven to you after hours of your
trying to go into every little nook and cranny trying to get away from the
truth. As to faith based, you have a huge faith that somehow the little
WCR will get you out of the weird beliefs you hold and somehow prove you
right. It won't.

Chris

[mainframetech]

Oh brother! You've missed another fact in the case? Many of the
posters talk about the rapid shooting done by the shooter from the TSBD
6th floor. Except that with the MC rifle with the misaligned scope and
the sticky bolt there wasn't much rapid shooting going on, or not with the
intent of hitting anything anyway.

> > And where would he find ammo for that oddball rifle?
> > They certainly couldn't find anywhere he went.
> >
>
> No, they couldn't prove where he got it. Not the same thing. Only an
> illogical person would think it was.
>

Well, if they checked with the CIA, they might have found they had a
bunch of that ammo, that was not sold in too many stores at that time.

WRONG! I try not to repeat things, but you keep forcing it to happen.
It's that urge of your to keep trying to win an argument even when you've
lost it. It's like a dying hope.

> >
> >
> > > >
> > > > > > The throat wound was properly figured
> > > > > > out by the Parkland doctors when they saw it, and we had further proof
> > > > > > that the back wound bullet did NOT go through the throat wound, so that
> > > > > > there are 2 things that prove that the throat wound was an entry as they
> > > > > > said it was. As well, the bullet wound in the right forehead/temple area
> > > > > > of JFK explaining the 'large hole' in the right rear of the head is
> > > > > > clearly an entry wound based on descriptions from Vincent DiMaio.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Because those 2 bullets hit from the front, the MC rifle found in the
> > > > > > TSBD couldn't have made those 2 wounds. The upper back wound bullet was
> > > > > > not recovered when it was seen by Custer and picked up by Finck, so we
> > > > > > won't find out what type it was.
> > > > >
> > > > > The short answer is that you don't have any bullets that you could prove
> > > > > hit JFK from the front.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > One doesn't need the bullets to prove that they entered the body from
> > > > the front.
> > >
> > > Especially when you don't require any expert opinions to support that
> > > silly position. You can just make up whatever sounds good to you.
> > >
> >
> >
> > There's nothing made up, which must really bug you. It's all from
> > evidence.
>
> The physical evidence is all against you. The expert testimony is all
> against you. That doesn't leave you much does it?
>

WRONG! Actually, the physical evidence on the body of JFK proves that
there were shooters from the front. You know it but can't admit it or you
would suffer the loss of the little bit of ego you've got left.

> >
> >
> >
> > > > How could you possibly do this type of figuring since you
> > > > can't figure your way out of a paper bag? For the bullet wound in the
> > > > throat, it was in the front and it didn't come from behind, so logically
> > > > it had to come from the front! Simple.
> > >
> > > Got any knowledgeable people who share that opinion? Didn't think so.
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > I have encountered that opinion elsewhere, though I don't remember

> > where. Try the doctors at Parkland.

>
> How convenient.
>
> > And it's not important to me if someone else agrees with me.
> >
>
> That's good because you aren't getting a lot of help.
>

I see you're still in the old mode of hoping that all your noisy
opinions will somehow carry the day and prove what you can't prove with
evidence.

> >
> >
> > > > For the forehead/temple area
> > > > bullet wound, it's clear that it came from the front (as per descriptions
> > > > from Vincent DiMaio) and it also blew out the BOH at the right rear which
> > > > is classic small entry, large exit for most bullets that hit the human
> > > > body.
> > > >
> > >
> > > It's already been show DiMaio doesn't share your opinions. He has endorsed
> > > Larry Sturdivan's work and that indicates the shots hit JFK from behind.
> > > You'd think that if there were actually medical evidence of a frontal shot
> > > you would be able to find one medical examiner who has reached that
> > > conclusion. But you can't because there aren't any.
> > >
> >
> >
> > I didn't express an opinion, I spoke of evidence, and I have not looked
> > for any agreement from DiMaio, since I only used his descriptive photo of
> > an entry wound, not his opinions. Now you're embarrassed once again for
> > not paying attention to the conversation. Ah well.
> >
>
> You think that people who pay attention to you would agree with what you
> are saying. Priceless.
>

WRONG! You're talking nonsense! I don't much care whether you pay
attention to me or not, but if you want to get anywhere in these
arguments, it would be wise to pay attention. Otherwise you'll just keep
losing.

> > > > > > Try again until you've exhausted all your phony excuses, then admit you
> > > > > > lost again.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Why don't you stand on your head until I do.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Awww, you decided not to admit the truth.
> > > >
> > >
> > > I know what the truth is and I know you will continue to run from it for
> > > as long as you are on this side of the grass.
> >
> >
> >
> > You must be having a hard time saying that stuff, since you know very
> > well I run from nothing, while I've caught you running away from many
> > points you couldn't answer.
> >
>
> Horseshit.

Nope, nope, that's the real deal. You often have run away from points
made to you.

Chris

[mainframetech]

Well! You finally got it right! A bullet hit in the right
forehead/temple area and passed through the brain building up pressure
until it got to the BOH and blew out the 'large hole' in the BOH in the
right rear. It wouldn't make any sense if the bullet had hit the BOH from
above and behind and then blew out the entry point! It wouldn't have had
time and room to build up the pressure.

>
> > The evidence suggests that it was a normal rifle wound, possibly with a
> > lead bullet. Certainly not the MC rifle FMJ type bullets.
>
> Pretending expertise where none exists again?
>

It's not hard to learn those simple things for me, do you think you
could learn it?

> > The bullet
> > struck the forehead/temple area and passed through the right side of the
> > brain blowing out the BOH at the right rear point as per the Parkland
> > doctors and nurses.
> >
>
> If only you could find a knowledgeable person who agrees with your
> assessment.
>

First you have to find one that saw all the evidence.

> > > > > > There was only one wound facing the windshield, and that was the wound in
> > > > > > the forehead/temple area, and that was an entry wound.
> > > > >
> > > > > So says an untrained amateur. Amateur medical examiner. Amateur detective.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Anyone can use the descriptions from Vincent DiMaio and compare them
> > > > with the wound in question.
> > >
> > > If anyone could do it there would be no need for trained medical
> > > examiners.
> > >
> >
> >
> > In this particular instance, that's correct. It was a simple and
> > informative match.
> >
>
> It really is humorous that someone could actually believe that.
>

Yes, LNs have trouble with the truth. They're not used to it.

> > > > It's not a major problem. And the wound in
> > > > question fits his description of an entry bullet wound, that then caused
> > > > the blowout at the BOH at the right rear. Small entry, large exit.
> > > > Simple. No need for medical experts that don't have all the facts.
> > > >
> > >
> > > So says the amateur medical examiner. I'll stick with what the pros tell
> > > us.
> > >
> >
> >
> > Sadly, the pros didn't have all the facts. They were manipulated as
> > were all the other fools that went with the phony theories in the AR and
> > WCR.
> >
>
> That's your silly explanation for why their conclusions are the opposite
> of yours. I'll go with theirs. So will all intelligent people.
>

So knowing that they didn't see the wound that many saw and
corroborated, and they didn't see the wound in the photo, and you're going
to go with that. LOL!

> > > > > > And to try to get
> > > > > > away with saying it was a 'fragment' too! And since there were upwards of
> > > > > > 8 or more bullet strikes around Dealey plaza, were they all from 8
> > > > > > fragments from the skull of JFK?
> > > > > >
> > > > > Since these shots exist in your mind, I can't answer that.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > LOL! You couldn't answer it in any case. You're not an 'expert'.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Nor are you. The difference is I know it.
> > >
> >
> >
> > You're also lacking in any kind of objectivity or you've been taking
> > lessons from Harris! However when facts are missing, no one could make a
> > decent decision.
> >
>
> I've never pretended to be objective. Then time for objectivity ended in
> September of 1964. That's when the incontrovertible truth of the JFK
> assassination was presented and it stated that Oswald was the assassin and
> there was no credible evidence anyone else was involved. Still isn't.
>

In this case there's no such thing as "incontrovertible truth" as long
as Oswald got the blame! And there was evidence that others were
involved, you just don't want to face it.

LOL! A lot like you failing to read the 5 volume set written by Douglas
Horne about his years with the ARRB, where many answers are located. A
place you avoid like the plague.

> > > > > > You forgot to mention that he named
> > > > > > all 6 witnesses, one of whom was an SS agent.
> > > > >
> > > > > So he named 6 witnesses. Is that supposed to prove anything?
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > It proves they weren't just anonymous people that would be hard to
> > > > track down, but real people that could be questioned. And one being an SS
> > > > agent makes him a bit more observant and hopefully honest. Another was a
> > > > doctor in training that did a lot of sport shooting.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Boy, there's some impressive credentials. <chuckle>
> > >
> >
> >
> > There's nothing wrongs with their creds and you know it. They are a
> > group of normal people that happened to see some critical information.
> >
>
> Yes, they are normal people and normal people don't remember things
> perfectly.
>

I've proved that memory is much better when the issue was an important
event and emotion is included with it.

> > > > > > And you supplied NO proof
> > > > > > against the bullet through the windshield.
> > > > >
> > > > > You are the one hypothesizing a bullet through the windshield. It's up to
> > > > > you to prove it. You have never understood that. It's such an elementary
> > > > > concept.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > The problem is that I didn't hypothesize anything, I repeated witness
> > > > testimony which was repeated in the article I pointed to. The witnesses
> > > > also stated the facts, not guesses.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Your problem is you think everything a witness says is a fact. You have
> > > this strange belief that witnesses are infallible.
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > WRONG as usual! Witnesses often are telling the truth,
>
> And just as often they are not. They are notoriously unreliable. Not
> because they lie but because they don't remember things perfectly. They
> tend to get some things right and some things wrong. They miss important
> details and get things wrong. That's why anyone who accepts any witness'
> statement as a fact without corroborating it, preferably with hard
> evidence, is asking to be fooled.
>

Ah. Any of those that say they witnessed 'flaps' on the head of JFK
among those people you're talking about? You know, the 'flaps' that
couldn't be seen by the nurses at Parkland that washed the head and body
of JFK. :)

> > but those that
> > are not may be ferreted out through various means. In the case in point
> > though, we also have 6 point corroboration.
> >
> >
> >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > > Go on, take a shot...it came
> > > > > > from the outside of the limo...got an answer for that? maybe 'they all
> > > > > > lied'?
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > I don't need to prove something that didn't happen anymore than I need to
> > > > > prove the Loch Ness Monster is a myth.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Well, if you say it didn't happen, when at least 6 people saw it, it's
> > > > obvious what it says about you. That you have just implied that 'they all
> > > > lied'! And you also have NO proof that the Loch Ness monster is a myth
> > > > either. With the sheer number of sightings of the beast, there's more
> > > > evidence of existence than not.
> > > >
> > >
> > > There's about as much evidence of the Loch Ness Monster as their is of a
> > > JFK assassination conspiracy. If I had to pick which one seems more
> > > plausible, I'd go with Nessie. You probably believe the film of the guy in
> > > the gorilla suit really is Bigfoot.
> >
> >
> > I wouldn't know about gorillas. I know that we're dealing here with a
> > conspiracy, and an unusually strong effort to cover it up. But then when
> > you have the resources of the USA at your hand, you can get a lot done.
> >

Now as to your comment above that you don't have to supply any proof
of the fact that the bullet that went through the windshield went all the
way through, YES, you DO have to prove that it didn't happen, since you
stated that it did not happen. I've supplied 6 witnesses that it did
happen, now you have to prove your statement.

>
> Strong effort to cover it up? Most LNs don't give a shit any more. Most
> CTs don't either. They've moved on. There's a few of us who are stilly
> amused by the conspiracy hobbyists' attempts to rewrite history. We could
> totally ignore you and your efforts still wouldn't amount to a hill of
> beans, but then we'd have to find our laughs elsewhere.

You won't take away my fun with you by running away, it would prove too
many of the comments I've made over the years about you. So somewhere in
this world there's this forum and a good number of others around the world
talking about it. My fun will continue.

Chris

[bigdog]

On Sunday, July 24, 2016 at 1:57:40 PM UTC-4, mainframetech wrote:
> On Friday, July 22, 2016 at 11:08:13 PM UTC-4, bigdog wrote:
> > On Friday, July 22, 2016 at 2:32:29 PM UTC-4, mainframetech wrote:
> > > On Thursday, July 21, 2016 at 3:23:35 PM UTC-4, bigdog wrote:
> > > > On Wednesday, July 20, 2016 at 5:20:03 PM UTC-4, mainframetech wrote:
> >
> > > > >
> > > > > Apparently you aren't interested in solving the case,
> > > >
> > > > Of course not. That was done 12 hours after the crime.
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > The only thing that was done after the crime was the making of a 'patsy'
> > > out of Oswald.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > > since your 52
> > > > > year old answer was told to you by the WCR. But the case has moved on
> > > > > since then and you haven't. Still rooted in that tired old thing.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Keep hunting that snipe. As if you are ever going to accomplish anything.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > I have accomplished much, but you'd be completely unaware of it,
> >
> > That is very true.
> >
> > > since
> > > I told it to you and proved it to you, and it went against your beloved
> > > little WCR. So you didn't hear or see anything.
> >
> > You've told me a lot and proved none of it yet you expect me to believe
> > it. That would require a gigantic leap of faith and since my beliefs are
> > evidence based and not faith based, I believe none of your crap.
>
>
>
> You forget how many things I've proven to you after hours of your
> trying to go into every little nook and cranny trying to get away from the
> truth.

How could I forget something that never happened?

> As to faith based, you have a huge faith that somehow the little
> WCR will get you out of the weird beliefs you hold and somehow prove you
> right. It won't.

The WCE doesn't prove my beliefs. I belief the WCR because it is the
truth. Ample proof was provided way back in September of 1964. You
wouldn't recognize real proof. It looks nothing like the faux proof you
offer on a daily basis.

[bigdog]

Few people would consider 3 shots in over 8 seconds to be rapid shooting.
I suppose if you compare it to the rate of fire for a muzzle loading
musket it might be considered rapid fire.

>
>
> > > And where would he find ammo for that oddball rifle?
> > > They certainly couldn't find anywhere he went.
> > >
> >
> > No, they couldn't prove where he got it. Not the same thing. Only an
> > illogical person would think it was.
> >
>
>
> Well, if they checked with the CIA, they might have found they had a
> bunch of that ammo, that was not sold in too many stores at that time.
>

It only needed to be sold in one.

I don't know how I would react to losing an argument to you because it has
never happened.

>
>
> > >
> > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > > The throat wound was properly figured
> > > > > > > out by the Parkland doctors when they saw it, and we had further proof
> > > > > > > that the back wound bullet did NOT go through the throat wound, so that
> > > > > > > there are 2 things that prove that the throat wound was an entry as they
> > > > > > > said it was. As well, the bullet wound in the right forehead/temple area
> > > > > > > of JFK explaining the 'large hole' in the right rear of the head is
> > > > > > > clearly an entry wound based on descriptions from Vincent DiMaio.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Because those 2 bullets hit from the front, the MC rifle found in the
> > > > > > > TSBD couldn't have made those 2 wounds. The upper back wound bullet was
> > > > > > > not recovered when it was seen by Custer and picked up by Finck, so we
> > > > > > > won't find out what type it was.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The short answer is that you don't have any bullets that you could prove
> > > > > > hit JFK from the front.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > One doesn't need the bullets to prove that they entered the body from
> > > > > the front.
> > > >
> > > > Especially when you don't require any expert opinions to support that
> > > > silly position. You can just make up whatever sounds good to you.
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > There's nothing made up, which must really bug you. It's all from
> > > evidence.
> >
> > The physical evidence is all against you. The expert testimony is all
> > against you. That doesn't leave you much does it?
> >
>
>
>
> WRONG! Actually, the physical evidence on the body of JFK proves that
> there were shooters from the front.

Funny how no knowledgeable person shares that opinion.

> You know it but can't admit it or you
> would suffer the loss of the little bit of ego you've got left.
>

Why would I admit something that no knowledgeable person has ever
concluded. That would be really, really stupid.

>
>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > > How could you possibly do this type of figuring since you
> > > > > can't figure your way out of a paper bag? For the bullet wound in the
> > > > > throat, it was in the front and it didn't come from behind, so logically
> > > > > it had to come from the front! Simple.
> > > >
> > > > Got any knowledgeable people who share that opinion? Didn't think so.
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > I have encountered that opinion elsewhere, though I don't remember
> > > where. Try the doctors at Parkland.
> >
> > How convenient.
> >
> > > And it's not important to me if someone else agrees with me.
> > >
> >
> > That's good because you aren't getting a lot of help.
> >
>
>
> I see you're still in the old mode of hoping that all your noisy
> opinions will somehow carry the day and prove what you can't prove with
> evidence.
>

This is one whale of an irony alert.

>
> > >
> > >
> > > > > For the forehead/temple area
> > > > > bullet wound, it's clear that it came from the front (as per descriptions
> > > > > from Vincent DiMaio) and it also blew out the BOH at the right rear which
> > > > > is classic small entry, large exit for most bullets that hit the human
> > > > > body.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > It's already been show DiMaio doesn't share your opinions. He has endorsed
> > > > Larry Sturdivan's work and that indicates the shots hit JFK from behind.
> > > > You'd think that if there were actually medical evidence of a frontal shot
> > > > you would be able to find one medical examiner who has reached that
> > > > conclusion. But you can't because there aren't any.
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > I didn't express an opinion, I spoke of evidence, and I have not looked
> > > for any agreement from DiMaio, since I only used his descriptive photo of
> > > an entry wound, not his opinions. Now you're embarrassed once again for
> > > not paying attention to the conversation. Ah well.
> > >
> >
> > You think that people who pay attention to you would agree with what you
> > are saying. Priceless.
> >
>
>
> WRONG! You're talking nonsense! I don't much care whether you pay
> attention to me or not, but if you want to get anywhere in these
> arguments, it would be wise to pay attention. Otherwise you'll just keep
> losing.
>

<chuckle>

>
>
> > > > > > > Try again until you've exhausted all your phony excuses, then admit you
> > > > > > > lost again.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Why don't you stand on your head until I do.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Awww, you decided not to admit the truth.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > I know what the truth is and I know you will continue to run from it for
> > > > as long as you are on this side of the grass.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > You must be having a hard time saying that stuff, since you know very
> > > well I run from nothing, while I've caught you running away from many
> > > points you couldn't answer.
> > >
> >
> > Horseshit.
>
>
> Nope, nope, that's the real deal. You often have run away from points
> made to you.
>

They would be like running away from an attack Chihuahua. Or maybe a Pit
Yorkie.

[bigdog]

Where did you see me write that? That would have been a really, really,
stupid thing to do.

> It wouldn't make any sense if the bullet had hit the BOH from
> above and behind and then blew out the entry point! It wouldn't have had
> time and room to build up the pressure.
>

Playing wound ballistics expert now?

>
>
> >
> > > The evidence suggests that it was a normal rifle wound, possibly with a
> > > lead bullet. Certainly not the MC rifle FMJ type bullets.
> >
> > Pretending expertise where none exists again?
> >
>
>
> It's not hard to learn those simple things for me, do you think you
> could learn it?
>

Of course it's hard. That's why years of training are required. You think
you can read a passage from a book and suddenly you think you are
knowledgeable in the area of forensic medicine. Your problem is you don't
know what you don't know. If a layman such as yourself could read a book
and then make valid judgements about the medical evidence, the expectation
would be that your conclusions would match those of the highly trained
people. Of course that isn't the case. Those people are all against why.
Why would anyone think you got it right and they ALL got it wrong?

>
>
> > > The bullet
> > > struck the forehead/temple area and passed through the right side of the
> > > brain blowing out the BOH at the right rear point as per the Parkland
> > > doctors and nurses.
> > >
> >
> > If only you could find a knowledgeable person who agrees with your
> > assessment.
> >
>
>
> First you have to find one that saw all the evidence.
>

I suppose you think you have. <chuckle>

>
>
> > > > > > > There was only one wound facing the windshield, and that was the wound in
> > > > > > > the forehead/temple area, and that was an entry wound.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > So says an untrained amateur. Amateur medical examiner. Amateur detective.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Anyone can use the descriptions from Vincent DiMaio and compare them
> > > > > with the wound in question.
> > > >
> > > > If anyone could do it there would be no need for trained medical
> > > > examiners.
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > In this particular instance, that's correct. It was a simple and
> > > informative match.
> > >
> >
> > It really is humorous that someone could actually believe that.
> >
>
>
> Yes, LNs have trouble with the truth. They're not used to it.

LNs know where to go to learn the truth. If isn't from conspiracy
hobbyists.

>
>
>
> > > > > It's not a major problem. And the wound in
> > > > > question fits his description of an entry bullet wound, that then caused
> > > > > the blowout at the BOH at the right rear. Small entry, large exit.
> > > > > Simple. No need for medical experts that don't have all the facts.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > So says the amateur medical examiner. I'll stick with what the pros tell
> > > > us.
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Sadly, the pros didn't have all the facts. They were manipulated as
> > > were all the other fools that went with the phony theories in the AR and
> > > WCR.
> > >
> >
> > That's your silly explanation for why their conclusions are the opposite

> > of yours. I'll go with theirs. So will all intelligent people. They almost always get things wrong. I'm actually being generous by saying almost.

> >
>
>
>
> So knowing that they didn't see the wound that many saw and
> corroborated, and they didn't see the wound in the photo, and you're going
> to go with that. LOL!
>

Why do you think they didn't see the wound in the photo?

>
>
> > > > > > > And to try to get
> > > > > > > away with saying it was a 'fragment' too! And since there were upwards of
> > > > > > > 8 or more bullet strikes around Dealey plaza, were they all from 8
> > > > > > > fragments from the skull of JFK?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > Since these shots exist in your mind, I can't answer that.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > LOL! You couldn't answer it in any case. You're not an 'expert'.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Nor are you. The difference is I know it.
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > You're also lacking in any kind of objectivity or you've been taking
> > > lessons from Harris! However when facts are missing, no one could make a
> > > decent decision.
> > >
> >
> > I've never pretended to be objective. Then time for objectivity ended in
> > September of 1964. That's when the incontrovertible truth of the JFK
> > assassination was presented and it stated that Oswald was the assassin and
> > there was no credible evidence anyone else was involved. Still isn't.
> >
>
>
>
> In this case there's no such thing as "incontrovertible truth" as long
> as Oswald got the blame! And there was evidence that others were
> involved, you just don't want to face it.
>

I can't face things that are non-existent.

Why would I waste time reading the rantings of someone who theorizes
something as ridiculous as JFK's body being snatched and clandestine
performed on it that wasn't noticeable. It doesn't get any sillier than
that. It was FUBAR when Lifton first proposed it and Horne didn't make in
any better.

>
>
> > > > > > > You forgot to mention that he named
> > > > > > > all 6 witnesses, one of whom was an SS agent.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > So he named 6 witnesses. Is that supposed to prove anything?
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > It proves they weren't just anonymous people that would be hard to
> > > > > track down, but real people that could be questioned. And one being an SS
> > > > > agent makes him a bit more observant and hopefully honest. Another was a
> > > > > doctor in training that did a lot of sport shooting.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Boy, there's some impressive credentials. <chuckle>
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > There's nothing wrongs with their creds and you know it. They are a
> > > group of normal people that happened to see some critical information.
> > >
> >
> > Yes, they are normal people and normal people don't remember things
> > perfectly.
> >
>
>
> I've proved that memory is much better when the issue was an important
> event and emotion is included with it.
>

Yes, I've seen you claim that many times. Your attempts to prove that
included cites to articles that said just the opposite but which you
apparently didn't bother to read.

>
>
> > > > > > > And you supplied NO proof
> > > > > > > against the bullet through the windshield.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > You are the one hypothesizing a bullet through the windshield. It's up to
> > > > > > you to prove it. You have never understood that. It's such an elementary
> > > > > > concept.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > The problem is that I didn't hypothesize anything, I repeated witness
> > > > > testimony which was repeated in the article I pointed to. The witnesses
> > > > > also stated the facts, not guesses.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Your problem is you think everything a witness says is a fact. You have
> > > > this strange belief that witnesses are infallible.
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > WRONG as usual! Witnesses often are telling the truth,
> >
> > And just as often they are not. They are notoriously unreliable. Not
> > because they lie but because they don't remember things perfectly. They
> > tend to get some things right and some things wrong. They miss important
> > details and get things wrong. That's why anyone who accepts any witness'
> > statement as a fact without corroborating it, preferably with hard
> > evidence, is asking to be fooled.
> >
>
>
>
> Ah. Any of those that say they witnessed 'flaps' on the head of JFK
> among those people you're talking about?

Those people are corroborated. We see flaps in the Z-film. We see flaps in
the autopsy photos.

> You know, the 'flaps' that
> couldn't be seen by the nurses at Parkland that washed the head and body
> of JFK. :)
>

Couldn't be seen because they had been closed. They would have been hard
to miss if they had been opened up as they are in this photo:

https://www.bing.com/images/search?q=jfk+autopsy+photos&view=detailv2&&id=63AA0F2F1BC5979BE72CA8CE0B012F1FF3202F0E&selectedIndex=3&ccid=IwnDoc1q&simid=607986728181171691&thid=OIP.M2309c3a1cd6aa553cd7c3ccc0782a825H0&ajaxhist=0

This might be the most bizarre paragraph you have ever written.

>
>
> >
> > Strong effort to cover it up? Most LNs don't give a shit any more. Most
> > CTs don't either. They've moved on. There's a few of us who are stilly
> > amused by the conspiracy hobbyists' attempts to rewrite history. We could
> > totally ignore you and your efforts still wouldn't amount to a hill of
> > beans, but then we'd have to find our laughs elsewhere.
>
>
> You won't take away my fun with you by running away, it would prove too
> many of the comments I've made over the years about you. So somewhere in
> this world there's this forum and a good number of others around the world
> talking about it. My fun will continue.
>

Right. I'm running from a Pit Yorkie. "yap-yap-yap-yap-yap".

[Anthony Marsh]

There was NO hole in the back of the head.
Haven't you seen the autopsy photos yet?
NO HOLE.
So your only way out now is to claim that ALL the evidence is fake.
How can you even believe there was actually an assassination if you
believe that all evidence is fake?

> above and behind and then blew out the entry point! It wouldn't have had
> time and room to build up the pressure.
>
>

Build up the pressure? WTF are you babbling about?
An explosive bullet does not need much time to explode and that's a lot
of pressure.
Have you ever seen an explosion? It doesn't take minutes to BUILD UP THE
PRESSURE.

>
>>
>>> The evidence suggests that it was a normal rifle wound, possibly with a
>>> lead bullet. Certainly not the MC rifle FMJ type bullets.
>>
>> Pretending expertise where none exists again?
>>
>
>
> It's not hard to learn those simple things for me, do you think you
> could learn it?
>
>
>
>>> The bullet
>>> struck the forehead/temple area and passed through the right side of the
>>> brain blowing out the BOH at the right rear point as per the Parkland
>>> doctors and nurses.
>>>
>>
>> If only you could find a knowledgeable person who agrees with your
>> assessment.
>>
>
>
> First you have to find one that saw all the evidence.
>

On this planet?

>
>
>>>>>>> There was only one wound facing the windshield, and that was the wound in
>>>>>>> the forehead/temple area, and that was an entry wound.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So says an untrained amateur. Amateur medical examiner. Amateur detective.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Anyone can use the descriptions from Vincent DiMaio and compare them
>>>>> with the wound in question.
>>>>
>>>> If anyone could do it there would be no need for trained medical
>>>> examiners.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> In this particular instance, that's correct. It was a simple and
>>> informative match.
>>>
>>
>> It really is humorous that someone could actually believe that.
>>
>
>
> Yes, LNs have trouble with the truth. They're not used to it.
>

It's too dangerous. What do you want to do, start WWIII?

A lot like you failing to read the 26 volumes of the WC and the internal
memos and the HSCA report and volumes.

>
>>>>>>> You forgot to mention that he named
>>>>>>> all 6 witnesses, one of whom was an SS agent.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So he named 6 witnesses. Is that supposed to prove anything?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> It proves they weren't just anonymous people that would be hard to
>>>>> track down, but real people that could be questioned. And one being an SS
>>>>> agent makes him a bit more observant and hopefully honest. Another was a
>>>>> doctor in training that did a lot of sport shooting.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Boy, there's some impressive credentials. <chuckle>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> There's nothing wrongs with their creds and you know it. They are a
>>> group of normal people that happened to see some critical information.
>>>
>>
>> Yes, they are normal people and normal people don't remember things
>> perfectly.
>>
>
>
> I've proved that memory is much better when the issue was an important
> event and emotion is included with it.
>

Nope.

>
>
>>>>>>> And you supplied NO proof
>>>>>>> against the bullet through the windshield.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You are the one hypothesizing a bullet through the windshield. It's up to
>>>>>> you to prove it. You have never understood that. It's such an elementary
>>>>>> concept.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The problem is that I didn't hypothesize anything, I repeated witness
>>>>> testimony which was repeated in the article I pointed to. The witnesses
>>>>> also stated the facts, not guesses.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Your problem is you think everything a witness says is a fact. You have
>>>> this strange belief that witnesses are infallible.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> WRONG as usual! Witnesses often are telling the truth,
>>
>> And just as often they are not. They are notoriously unreliable. Not
>> because they lie but because they don't remember things perfectly. They
>> tend to get some things right and some things wrong. They miss important
>> details and get things wrong. That's why anyone who accepts any witness'
>> statement as a fact without corroborating it, preferably with hard
>> evidence, is asking to be fooled.
>>
>
>
>
> Ah. Any of those that say they witnessed 'flaps' on the head of JFK
> among those people you're talking about? You know, the 'flaps' that
> couldn't be seen by the nurses at Parkland that washed the head and body
> of JFK. :)
>

The flaps that Jackie closed up?

Argumentum ad Ignorantiam. I already did. Altgens 7.
John Hunt showed that the crack lines are the same. Unless you claim
that they could duplicate them perfectly in a lab.

[Jason Burke]

>>>>> "This is an excellent book that I recommend without any hesitation.. It is

>>>>> the only book to address the firearms and ballistic aspects of the JFK
>>>>> assassination in a logical, knowledgeable and scientific manner. It
>>>>> dispels the myths and falsehoods that have either grown up or been
>>>>> generated about the weapon, and the wounds. Anyone interested in the

>>>>> Kennedy assassination must have a copy of this book."???Dr. Vincent

But, but. Chris uses The Force.
Of all his silliness, this takes the cake.

>> You know it but can't admit it or you
>> would suffer the loss of the little bit of ego you've got left.
>>
>
> Why would I admit something that no knowledgeable person has ever
> concluded. That would be really, really stupid.
>
>>
>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> How could you possibly do this type of figuring since you
>>>>>> can't figure your way out of a paper bag? For the bullet wound in the
>>>>>> throat, it was in the front and it didn't come from behind, so logically
>>>>>> it had to come from the front! Simple.
>>>>>
>>>>> Got any knowledgeable people who share that opinion? Didn't think so.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I have encountered that opinion elsewhere, though I don't remember
>>>> where. Try the doctors at Parkland.
>>>
>>> How convenient.
>>>
>>>> And it's not important to me if someone else agrees with me.
>>>>
>>>
>>> That's good because you aren't getting a lot of help.
>>>
>>
>>
>> I see you're still in the old mode of hoping that all your noisy
>> opinions will somehow carry the day and prove what you can't prove with
>> evidence.
>>
>
> This is one whale of an irony alert.
>

Harris / Cinque level.

>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> For the forehead/temple area
>>>>>> bullet wound, it's clear that it came from the front (as per descriptions
>>>>>> from Vincent DiMaio) and it also blew out the BOH at the right rear which
>>>>>> is classic small entry, large exit for most bullets that hit the human
>>>>>> body.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> It's already been show DiMaio doesn't share your opinions. He has endorsed
>>>>> Larry Sturdivan's work and that indicates the shots hit JFK from behind.
>>>>> You'd think that if there were actually medical evidence of a frontal shot
>>>>> you would be able to find one medical examiner who has reached that
>>>>> conclusion. But you can't because there aren't any.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I didn't express an opinion, I spoke of evidence, and I have not looked
>>>> for any agreement from DiMaio, since I only used his descriptive photo of
>>>> an entry wound, not his opinions. Now you're embarrassed once again for
>>>> not paying attention to the conversation. Ah well.
>>>>
>>>
>>> You think that people who pay attention to you would agree with what you
>>> are saying. Priceless.
>>>
>>
>>
>> WRONG! You're talking nonsense! I don't much care whether you pay
>> attention to me or not, but if you want to get anywhere in these
>> arguments, it would be wise to pay attention. Otherwise you'll just keep
>> losing.
>>

Didn't Monty Python do something like this with a Knight?

[Jason Burke]

But, according to Chris, He Knows Everything. Don't worry about that
evidence thang, it doesn't matter.

>>
>>
>>>
>>>> The evidence suggests that it was a normal rifle wound, possibly with a
>>>> lead bullet. Certainly not the MC rifle FMJ type bullets.
>>>
>>> Pretending expertise where none exists again?
>>>
>>
>>
>> It's not hard to learn those simple things for me, do you think you
>> could learn it?
>>
>
> Of course it's hard. That's why years of training are required. You think
> you can read a passage from a book and suddenly you think you are
> knowledgeable in the area of forensic medicine. Your problem is you don't
> know what you don't know. If a layman such as yourself could read a book
> and then make valid judgements about the medical evidence, the expectation
> would be that your conclusions would match those of the highly trained
> people. Of course that isn't the case. Those people are all against why.
> Why would anyone think you got it right and they ALL got it wrong?
>

Because he's Super Chris.

Horne?!? Seriously, Chris?

>
> Why would I waste time reading the rantings of someone who theorizes
> something as ridiculous as JFK's body being snatched and clandestine
> performed on it that wasn't noticeable. It doesn't get any sillier than
> that. It was FUBAR when Lifton first proposed it and Horne didn't make in
> any better.
>
>>
>>
>>>>>>>> You forgot to mention that he named
>>>>>>>> all 6 witnesses, one of whom was an SS agent.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So he named 6 witnesses. Is that supposed to prove anything?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It proves they weren't just anonymous people that would be hard to
>>>>>> track down, but real people that could be questioned. And one being an SS
>>>>>> agent makes him a bit more observant and hopefully honest. Another was a
>>>>>> doctor in training that did a lot of sport shooting.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Boy, there's some impressive credentials. <chuckle>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> There's nothing wrongs with their creds and you know it. They are a

>>>> group of normal people that happened to see some critical information..

Sadly, Ol' Chris *really* thinks he's doing something useful.

[John Reagor King]

In article <dc9373b1-d9f8-444f...@googlegroups.com>,

It certainly would have, and these people who propose a GK shooter on
JFK's right ignore the obvious: that if the shot had come from his right
the majority of the exit damage would have been on the *left* side of his
head.

And there were at least a few witnesses who saw JFK's head before he fell
over to his left in the limousine who corroborated that it was indeed the
*right* *side* of his head that was blasted out. Zapruder himself was
quite plain about this in his same-day television interview; one can see
him putting his hand on the right side of his head. Bill Newman, standing
even closer to the limo at the instant of the head shot was also quite
clear that it was the *right* *side* of JFK's head which appeared to blast
open. His wife, Gayle, specifically said in her same-day affidavit that
"I saw blood all over the side of his head." Not back. Not rear.
*Side*. And since she was on JRK's right, the only side of his head she
could see was the right side. Marilyn Sitzman specifically said that the
wounding she saw was on the right side of his head "between the eye and
the ear," which is precisely where we see those huge, gory flaps open up
in the film: all of it is forward of the ear.

All of that was quite obviously closed up by Jackie, who said to the WC in
the portion of her testimony that was originally deleted but released
publicly about a decade later that she was "trying to hold his hair on,
and his skull on."

> > You know, the 'flaps' that
> > couldn't be seen by the nurses at Parkland that washed the head and body
> > of JFK. :)
>
> Couldn't be seen because they had been closed.

Wait a minute, did I just see the previous poster claim the nurses at
Parkland washed JFK's *head*? Sure doesn't look like his *head* was
washed to me in the autopsy photos taken of him laying on the table before
they peeled back the hair and scalp to reveal the full extent of the
damage to the skull. I see all sorts of blood and nasty goo still in his
hair. "Washed" in this context couldn't have been more than dripping a
few drops of water on his head, at the most, and calling it "washing."
They washed his *body*, sure, but quite obviously they did not wash his
*head*. Both Diana Bowron and Margaret Henchcliffe simply said that they
"cleaned him up," without any specific mention of washing his head.

[mainframetech]

Well, talk about stupid, to say that "A bullet passed through JFK's
> > > head nd the pressure cavity built up" when the blast was right at the entrance of the bullet into the head is kinda stupid, don'tcha think? It hadn't done any 'passing through' to build up any pressure. It popped right away upon entry if you were to be believed! Really amazing the nonsense you'll try to get away with! To blow out the BOH the way it was done as per the drawings from Parkland, a bullet had actually 'pass through' the head first, not blowout the BOH by merely entering it. Get yourself together!

http://www.rkba.org/research/fackler/figure3.gif

The above example shows your error in that as the bullet enters from
the left it must travel 15 cm. (6 inches) to reach the point where the
pressure and the yawing of the bullet widens the wound area in the head,
which can then cause the blowout we see in the head of JFK. Try and stay
with proof, so that we don't have to go off into opinion again.

> > It wouldn't make any sense if the bullet had hit the BOH from
> > above and behind and then blew out the entry point! It wouldn't have had
> > time and room to build up the pressure.
> >
>
> Playing wound ballistics expert now?
>

I learn by reading and listening, tools you obviously don't use. This
case has given me an opportunity to learn much from various professions.
You should try it, then YOU can have proof of something.

> >
> >
> > >
> > > > The evidence suggests that it was a normal rifle wound, possibly with a
> > > > lead bullet. Certainly not the MC rifle FMJ type bullets.
> > >
> > > Pretending expertise where none exists again?
> > >
> >
> >
> > It's not hard to learn those simple things for me, do you think you
> > could learn it?
> >
>
> Of course it's hard. That's why years of training are required. You think
> you can read a passage from a book and suddenly you think you are
> knowledgeable in the area of forensic medicine. Your problem is you don't
> know what you don't know. If a layman such as yourself could read a book
> and then make valid judgements about the medical evidence, the expectation
> would be that your conclusions would match those of the highly trained
> people. Of course that isn't the case. Those people are all against why.
> Why would anyone think you got it right and they ALL got it wrong?
>

WRONG as usual! I don't pretend to be an expert as you have often
tried to do, and which I've pointed out. But many of the situations we
have encountered are easily understood by the physics we all learned
growing up. and I have no qualms in stating evidence when I see it, and
you're welcome to read about it anywhere you like and argue a point I've
made. And don't tell me you haven't done that in the past. The little
bit of knowledge you have of the professions we come across in this case
tells me that. And if you'll go back where you jumped in, you'll see that
I said it was NOT hard, which in your haste you thought I said it WAS
hard. Emabrrassing that jumping in, ain't it?

> >
> >
> > > > The bullet
> > > > struck the forehead/temple area and passed through the right side of the
> > > > brain blowing out the BOH at the right rear point as per the Parkland
> > > > doctors and nurses.
> > > >
> > >
> > > If only you could find a knowledgeable person who agrees with your
> > > assessment.
> > >
> >
> >
> > First you have to find one that saw all the evidence.
> >
>
> I suppose you think you have. <chuckle>
>

More than the panels of experts, who would have made a very different
decision as to the cause of death if they had seen the evidence that we
have.

> > > > > > > > There was only one wound facing the windshield, and that was the wound in
> > > > > > > > the forehead/temple area, and that was an entry wound.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > So says an untrained amateur. Amateur medical examiner. Amateur detective.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Anyone can use the descriptions from Vincent DiMaio and compare them
> > > > > > with the wound in question.
> > > > >
> > > > > If anyone could do it there would be no need for trained medical
> > > > > examiners.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > In this particular instance, that's correct. It was a simple and
> > > > informative match.
> > > >
> > >
> > > It really is humorous that someone could actually believe that.
> > >
> >
> >
> > Yes, LNs have trouble with the truth. They're not used to it.
>
> LNs know where to go to learn the truth. If isn't from conspiracy
> hobbyists.
>

ROFLMAO! The LNs get their information from the WCR!!! Talk about
wildly funny!

> > > > > > It's not a major problem. And the wound in
> > > > > > question fits his description of an entry bullet wound, that then caused
> > > > > > the blowout at the BOH at the right rear. Small entry, large exit.
> > > > > > Simple. No need for medical experts that don't have all the facts.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > So says the amateur medical examiner. I'll stick with what the pros tell
> > > > > us.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Sadly, the pros didn't have all the facts. They were manipulated as
> > > > were all the other fools that went with the phony theories in the AR and
> > > > WCR.
> > > >
> > >
> > > That's your silly explanation for why their conclusions are the opposite
> > > of yours. I'll go with theirs. So will all intelligent people. They almost always get things wrong. I'm actually being generous by saying almost.
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > So knowing that they didn't see the wound that many saw and
> > corroborated, and they didn't see the wound in the photo, and you're going
> > to go with that. LOL!
> >
>
> Why do you think they didn't see the wound in the photo?
>

Because if they saw what you just called a "wound in the photo", they
would have had a radically different cause of death to post.

> > > > > > > > And to try to get
> > > > > > > > away with saying it was a 'fragment' too! And since there were upwards of
> > > > > > > > 8 or more bullet strikes around Dealey plaza, were they all from 8
> > > > > > > > fragments from the skull of JFK?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Since these shots exist in your mind, I can't answer that.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > LOL! You couldn't answer it in any case. You're not an 'expert'.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Nor are you. The difference is I know it.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > You're also lacking in any kind of objectivity or you've been taking
> > > > lessons from Harris! However when facts are missing, no one could make a
> > > > decent decision.
> > > >
> > >
> > > I've never pretended to be objective. Then time for objectivity ended in
> > > September of 1964. That's when the incontrovertible truth of the JFK
> > > assassination was presented and it stated that Oswald was the assassin and
> > > there was no credible evidence anyone else was involved. Still isn't.
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > In this case there's no such thing as "incontrovertible truth" as long
> > as Oswald got the blame! And there was evidence that others were
> > involved, you just don't want to face it.
> >
>
> I can't face things that are non-existent.
>

So talk about being in denial! You can't even allow yourself to face
things that you can't handle, you disallow them to exist! That is a
terrible mental problem you should have looked at by a therapist.

The reasons you should read it are many. First, you would be far more
knowledgeable of the case, second, you would be able to argue more
correctly and make less errors like you so often do, third, you would
learn how certain things were accomplished, like the altering od the
Z-film, fourth, you would avoid having to devolve to insult someone so
often in place of having real arguments.

> > > > > > > > You forgot to mention that he named
> > > > > > > > all 6 witnesses, one of whom was an SS agent.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > So he named 6 witnesses. Is that supposed to prove anything?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > It proves they weren't just anonymous people that would be hard to
> > > > > > track down, but real people that could be questioned. And one being an SS
> > > > > > agent makes him a bit more observant and hopefully honest. Another was a
> > > > > > doctor in training that did a lot of sport shooting.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Boy, there's some impressive credentials. <chuckle>
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > There's nothing wrongs with their creds and you know it. They are a
> > > > group of normal people that happened to see some critical information.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Yes, they are normal people and normal people don't remember things
> > > perfectly.
> > >
> >
> >
> > I've proved that memory is much better when the issue was an important
> > event and emotion is included with it.
> >
>
> Yes, I've seen you claim that many times. Your attempts to prove that
> included cites to articles that said just the opposite but which you
> apparently didn't bother to read.
>

You were unable to understand the articles. The first time you tried
that excuse for not understanding them, I checked them carefully and found
it was only an excuse you used to avoid having to accept the arguments
given to you.

> > > > > > > > And you supplied NO proof
> > > > > > > > against the bullet through the windshield.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > You are the one hypothesizing a bullet through the windshield. It's up to
> > > > > > > you to prove it. You have never understood that. It's such an elementary
> > > > > > > concept.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The problem is that I didn't hypothesize anything, I repeated witness
> > > > > > testimony which was repeated in the article I pointed to. The witnesses
> > > > > > also stated the facts, not guesses.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Your problem is you think everything a witness says is a fact. You have
> > > > > this strange belief that witnesses are infallible.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > WRONG as usual! Witnesses often are telling the truth,
> > >
> > > And just as often they are not. They are notoriously unreliable. Not
> > > because they lie but because they don't remember things perfectly. They
> > > tend to get some things right and some things wrong. They miss important
> > > details and get things wrong. That's why anyone who accepts any witness'
> > > statement as a fact without corroborating it, preferably with hard
> > > evidence, is asking to be fooled.
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > Ah. Any of those that say they witnessed 'flaps' on the head of JFK
> > among those people you're talking about?
>
> Those people are corroborated. We see flaps in the Z-film. We see flaps in
> the autopsy photos.
>

Well, both those places could be faked. They're only photos after
all. Photos can be altered, which we KNOW was the case for some of the
autopsy photos. And I think your aversion to witness testimony is because
most witnesses in this case have said things that you can't take.

> > You know, the 'flaps' that
> > couldn't be seen by the nurses at Parkland that washed the head and body
> > of JFK. :)
> >
>
> Couldn't be seen because they had been closed. They would have been hard
> to miss if they had been opened up as they are in this photo:
>
> https://www.bing.com/images/search?q=jfk+autopsy+photos&view=detailv2&&id=63AA0F2F1BC5979BE72CA8CE0B012F1FF3202F0E&selectedIndex=3&ccid=IwnDoc1q&simid=607986728181171691&thid=OIP.M2309c3a1cd6aa553cd7c3ccc0782a825H0&ajaxhist=0
>

Oh my! You actually believe that photo? Talk about being a sucker!
All the damage with brains coming out of the head is on TOP of the head!!
Where's the extreme damage on the right side of the head that was
described by the prosectors in their testimony? Didn't you notice that
large hole was missing? It wasn't a dinky little thing, you know.

The only damage on the right side is a bone flap over the right ear.
The complete top of the head is taken up with a large hole with brains
oozing out! You've been had once again! Worse than the SBT fakery!

I notice your reply was simply more avoidance of the issue at hand
because you have no answer to the problem. You can't admit that a bullet
came into the limo from the front, and you can't say that 6 witnesses
didn't corroborate each other. You're stuck once again.

> > > Strong effort to cover it up? Most LNs don't give a shit any more. Most
> > > CTs don't either. They've moved on. There's a few of us who are stilly
> > > amused by the conspiracy hobbyists' attempts to rewrite history. We could
> > > totally ignore you and your efforts still wouldn't amount to a hill of
> > > beans, but then we'd have to find our laughs elsewhere.
> >
> >
> > You won't take away my fun with you by running away, it would prove too
> > many of the comments I've made over the years about you. So somewhere in
> > this world there's this forum and a good number of others around the world
> > talking about it. My fun will continue.
> >
>
> Right. I'm running from a Pit Yorkie. "yap-yap-yap-yap-yap".

A shame that such little effort can scare you away. Ah well.

Chris

[mainframetech]

I've heard much faster times quoted from your LN buddies. But with the
sticky bolt, it might have been hard for Loy Factor to pull even that much
speed.

> >
> >
> > > > And where would he find ammo for that oddball rifle?
> > > > They certainly couldn't find anywhere he went.
> > > >
> > >
> > > No, they couldn't prove where he got it. Not the same thing. Only an
> > > illogical person would think it was.
> > >
> >
> >
> > Well, if they checked with the CIA, they might have found they had a
> > bunch of that ammo, that was not sold in too many stores at that time.
> >
>
> It only needed to be sold in one.
>

Too bad Oswald didn't know where that one was...:)

> > It's that urge of yours to keep trying to win an argument even when you've

> > lost it. It's like a dying hope.
> >
>
> I don't know how I would react to losing an argument to you because it has
> never happened.
>

LOL!

> > > > > > > > The throat wound was properly figured
> > > > > > > > out by the Parkland doctors when they saw it, and we had further proof
> > > > > > > > that the back wound bullet did NOT go through the throat wound, so that
> > > > > > > > there are 2 things that prove that the throat wound was an entry as they
> > > > > > > > said it was. As well, the bullet wound in the right forehead/temple area
> > > > > > > > of JFK explaining the 'large hole' in the right rear of the head is
> > > > > > > > clearly an entry wound based on descriptions from Vincent DiMaio.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Because those 2 bullets hit from the front, the MC rifle found in the
> > > > > > > > TSBD couldn't have made those 2 wounds. The upper back wound bullet was
> > > > > > > > not recovered when it was seen by Custer and picked up by Finck, so we
> > > > > > > > won't find out what type it was.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The short answer is that you don't have any bullets that you could prove
> > > > > > > hit JFK from the front.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > One doesn't need the bullets to prove that they entered the body from
> > > > > > the front.
> > > > >
> > > > > Especially when you don't require any expert opinions to support that
> > > > > silly position. You can just make up whatever sounds good to you.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > There's nothing made up, which must really bug you. It's all from
> > > > evidence.
> > >
> > > The physical evidence is all against you. The expert testimony is all
> > > against you. That doesn't leave you much does it?
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > WRONG! Actually, the physical evidence on the body of JFK proves that
> > there were shooters from the front.
>
> Funny how no knowledgeable person shares that opinion.
>

I can't help them when they hear that there were at least 2 frontal
wounds and they still think it all happened from the rear. The proofs
have been made openly. Of course, after all the insults and ad hominem
attacks it gets too hard to change gears when the evidence goes the other
way. Some folks just can't make the adjustment.

> > You know it but can't admit it or you
> > would suffer the loss of the little bit of ego you've got left.
> >
>
> Why would I admit something that no knowledgeable person has ever
> concluded. That would be really, really stupid.
>

With all the evidence out in the open, how could it be any other way?
If an intelligent person came by and explained it to you, you wouldn't
allow yourself to hear it. The mental problem is that bad concerning
habit and ego. But we're wasting time with all this opinion back and
forth. Get on with some proof of something or forget it.

> > > > > > How could you possibly do this type of figuring since you
> > > > > > can't figure your way out of a paper bag? For the bullet wound in the
> > > > > > throat, it was in the front and it didn't come from behind, so logically
> > > > > > it had to come from the front! Simple.
> > > > >
> > > > > Got any knowledgeable people who share that opinion? Didn't think so.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I have encountered that opinion elsewhere, though I don't remember
> > > > where. Try the doctors at Parkland.
> > >
> > > How convenient.
> > >
> > > > And it's not important to me if someone else agrees with me.
> > > >
> > >
> > > That's good because you aren't getting a lot of help.
> > >
> >
> >
> > I see you're still in the old mode of hoping that all your noisy
> > opinions will somehow carry the day and prove what you can't prove with
> > evidence.
> >
>
> This is one whale of an irony alert.
>

Thanks for warning us of your intentions in advance.

Yes, it's quite surprising that that is all it takes to scare you off.
But we're wasting time with opinion and avoiding proofs.


Chris

[mainframetech]

Sad. Your Alzheimer's is kicking in again.

> > As to faith based, you have a huge faith that somehow the little
> > WCR will get you out of the weird beliefs you hold and somehow prove you
> > right. It won't.
>
> The WCE doesn't prove my beliefs. I belief the WCR because it is the
> truth. Ample proof was provided way back in September of 1964. You
> wouldn't recognize real proof. It looks nothing like the faux proof you
> offer on a daily basis.

Sounds like your off on your opinions again. Let me know when you have
proof of something and not just wacky Theories!

Chris

[Anthony Marsh]

He's saying that what you said sounds like what he believes, so you are
supporting his kooky theory.

>> It wouldn't make any sense if the bullet had hit the BOH from
>> above and behind and then blew out the entry point! It wouldn't have had
>> time and room to build up the pressure.
>>
>
> Playing wound ballistics expert now?
>

Ballistics.

>>
>>
>>>
>>>> The evidence suggests that it was a normal rifle wound, possibly with a
>>>> lead bullet. Certainly not the MC rifle FMJ type bullets.
>>>
>>> Pretending expertise where none exists again?
>>>
>>
>>
>> It's not hard to learn those simple things for me, do you think you
>> could learn it?
>>
>
> Of course it's hard. That's why years of training are required. You think
> you can read a passage from a book and suddenly you think you are
> knowledgeable in the area of forensic medicine. Your problem is you don't
> know what you don't know. If a layman such as yourself could read a book

You wouldn't know forensics if you tripped over it.
You fell for the autopsy doctors lies. The Three Stooges.

> and then make valid judgements about the medical evidence, the expectation
> would be that your conclusions would match those of the highly trained
> people. Of course that isn't the case. Those people are all against why.
> Why would anyone think you got it right and they ALL got it wrong?
>
>>
>>
>>>> The bullet
>>>> struck the forehead/temple area and passed through the right side of the
>>>> brain blowing out the BOH at the right rear point as per the Parkland
>>>> doctors and nurses.
>>>>
>>>
>>> If only you could find a knowledgeable person who agrees with your
>>> assessment.
>>>
>>
>>
>> First you have to find one that saw all the evidence.
>>
>
> I suppose you think you have. <chuckle>
>

Yes, we have seen the Autopsy materials that your so-called experts were
not allowed to see.

>>
>>
>>>>>>>> There was only one wound facing the windshield, and that was the wound in
>>>>>>>> the forehead/temple area, and that was an entry wound.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So says an untrained amateur. Amateur medical examiner. Amateur detective.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Anyone can use the descriptions from Vincent DiMaio and compare them
>>>>>> with the wound in question.
>>>>>
>>>>> If anyone could do it there would be no need for trained medical
>>>>> examiners.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> In this particular instance, that's correct. It was a simple and
>>>> informative match.
>>>>
>>>
>>> It really is humorous that someone could actually believe that.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Yes, LNs have trouble with the truth. They're not used to it.
>
> LNs know where to go to learn the truth. If isn't from conspiracy
> hobbyists.
>

You had to come to ME for proof that the Zapruder film is authentic. You
kept losing the arguments to the Alterationists.

>>
>>
>>
>>>>>> It's not a major problem. And the wound in
>>>>>> question fits his description of an entry bullet wound, that then caused
>>>>>> the blowout at the BOH at the right rear. Small entry, large exit.
>>>>>> Simple. No need for medical experts that don't have all the facts.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> So says the amateur medical examiner. I'll stick with what the pros tell
>>>>> us.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Sadly, the pros didn't have all the facts. They were manipulated as
>>>> were all the other fools that went with the phony theories in the AR and
>>>> WCR.
>>>>
>>>
>>> That's your silly explanation for why their conclusions are the opposite
>>> of yours. I'll go with theirs. So will all intelligent people. They almost always get things wrong. I'm actually being generous by saying almost.
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> So knowing that they didn't see the wound that many saw and
>> corroborated, and they didn't see the wound in the photo, and you're going
>> to go with that. LOL!
>>
>
> Why do you think they didn't see the wound in the photo?
>

What wound in what photo?

>>
>>
>>>>>>>> And to try to get
>>>>>>>> away with saying it was a 'fragment' too! And since there were upwards of
>>>>>>>> 8 or more bullet strikes around Dealey plaza, were they all from 8
>>>>>>>> fragments from the skull of JFK?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Since these shots exist in your mind, I can't answer that.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> LOL! You couldn't answer it in any case. You're not an 'expert'.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Nor are you. The difference is I know it.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> You're also lacking in any kind of objectivity or you've been taking
>>>> lessons from Harris! However when facts are missing, no one could make a
>>>> decent decision.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I've never pretended to be objective. Then time for objectivity ended in
>>> September of 1964. That's when the incontrovertible truth of the JFK
>>> assassination was presented and it stated that Oswald was the assassin and
>>> there was no credible evidence anyone else was involved. Still isn't.
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> In this case there's no such thing as "incontrovertible truth" as long
>> as Oswald got the blame! And there was evidence that others were
>> involved, you just don't want to face it.
>>
>
> I can't face things that are non-existent.
>

You can't handle the truth.

No one said that. The claim is that it was noticeable and that's how we
know about it.

You get sillier than that every day.

> that. It was FUBAR when Lifton first proposed it and Horne didn't make in
> any better.
>

Yeah, but did you explain to him in person why he was wrong? No, slacker.
I did.

You'd just call him a Communist or a Jew or something.

Silly boy. He can just claim that all that evidence is fake.

Well, at least you get this week's prize for the most bizarre insult
invented. What you got against Yorkies?

[Anthony Marsh]

Sure, if you wanted to misdefine YOUR "over 8 seconds" as 2 minutes.
But unfortunately you can't do that. You are a WC defender so you are
stuck with all the WC baggage which includes 3 shots within 5.6 seconds.
Z-210 to Z-313.

Unless you want to come out of the closet and admit that the WC is wrong.

> I suppose if you compare it to the rate of fire for a muzzle loading
> musket it might be considered rapid fire.
>
>>
>>
>>>> And where would he find ammo for that oddball rifle?
>>>> They certainly couldn't find anywhere he went.
>>>>
>>>
>>> No, they couldn't prove where he got it. Not the same thing. Only an
>>> illogical person would think it was.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Well, if they checked with the CIA, they might have found they had a
>> bunch of that ammo, that was not sold in too many stores at that time.
>>
>
> It only needed to be sold in one.

Show me that store and prove that's where Oswald bought it.

>>>>> Kennedy assassination must have a copy of this book."???Dr. Vincent

What is it that you have against little dogs? Some fascination with Jack
Ruby's dogs? Come Back Little Sheba?

[Anthony Marsh]

How could you forget something that you never knew about?

>> As to faith based, you have a huge faith that somehow the little
>> WCR will get you out of the weird beliefs you hold and somehow prove you
>> right. It won't.
>
> The WCE doesn't prove my beliefs. I belief the WCR because it is the

I know that you sincerely believe in the WCR, but do you also sincerely
believe in the WCE or it that just a hoax?

> truth. Ample proof was provided way back in September of 1964. You
> wouldn't recognize real proof. It looks nothing like the faux proof you
> offer on a daily basis.
>

Ample proof was provided by the WC in April of 1964 that there were 3
shots and 3 hits.

[bigdog]

All the evidence we have was forged. All the real evidence was destroyed. Everyone knows that. That is why conspiracy hobbyists have no evidence on their side.

Tilting at windmills.

[bigdog]

I suppose we should give you points for actually citing a knowledgeable
source for a change but then you try to pretend you understand it and
screw it all up.

>
>
> > > It wouldn't make any sense if the bullet had hit the BOH from
> > > above and behind and then blew out the entry point! It wouldn't have had
> > > time and room to build up the pressure.
> > >
> >
> > Playing wound ballistics expert now?
> >
>
>
>
> I learn by reading and listening, tools you obviously don't use. This
> case has given me an opportunity to learn much from various professions.
> You should try it, then YOU can have proof of something.
>

To bad you didn't listen to the people who actually know what they are
talking about. They ALL said the bullet entered the BOH. But of course you
think you know better.

>
>
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > The evidence suggests that it was a normal rifle wound, possibly with a
> > > > > lead bullet. Certainly not the MC rifle FMJ type bullets.
> > > >
> > > > Pretending expertise where none exists again?
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > It's not hard to learn those simple things for me, do you think you
> > > could learn it?
> > >
> >
> > Of course it's hard. That's why years of training are required. You think
> > you can read a passage from a book and suddenly you think you are
> > knowledgeable in the area of forensic medicine. Your problem is you don't
> > know what you don't know. If a layman such as yourself could read a book
> > and then make valid judgements about the medical evidence, the expectation
> > would be that your conclusions would match those of the highly trained
> > people. Of course that isn't the case. Those people are all against why.
> > Why would anyone think you got it right and they ALL got it wrong?
> >
>
>
> WRONG as usual! I don't pretend to be an expert as you have often
> tried to do, and which I've pointed out.

No, you don't. You pretend you know MORE than the experts. That's even
funnier.

> But many of the situations we
> have encountered are easily understood by the physics we all learned
> growing up.

You've demonstrated no understanding of forensic medicine. If you really
knew what you were talking about, your conclusions would match those of
the people that do.

> and I have no qualms in stating evidence when I see it, and
> you're welcome to read about it anywhere you like and argue a point I've
> made. And don't tell me you haven't done that in the past. The little
> bit of knowledge you have of the professions we come across in this case
> tells me that. And if you'll go back where you jumped in, you'll see that
> I said it was NOT hard, which in your haste you thought I said it WAS
> hard. Emabrrassing that jumping in, ain't it?
>

I cite experts and trust their judgement, especially when they are
unanimous in their opinions. You cite experts and tell us they got it all
wrong.

>
>
> > >
> > >
> > > > > The bullet
> > > > > struck the forehead/temple area and passed through the right side of the
> > > > > brain blowing out the BOH at the right rear point as per the Parkland
> > > > > doctors and nurses.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > If only you could find a knowledgeable person who agrees with your
> > > > assessment.
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > First you have to find one that saw all the evidence.
> > >
> >
> > I suppose you think you have. <chuckle>
> >
>
>
> More than the panels of experts, who would have made a very different
> decision as to the cause of death if they had seen the evidence that we
> have.
>

This keeps getting funnier and funnier.

>
>
> > > > > > > > > There was only one wound facing the windshield, and that was the wound in
> > > > > > > > > the forehead/temple area, and that was an entry wound.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > So says an untrained amateur. Amateur medical examiner. Amateur detective.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Anyone can use the descriptions from Vincent DiMaio and compare them
> > > > > > > with the wound in question.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > If anyone could do it there would be no need for trained medical
> > > > > > examiners.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > In this particular instance, that's correct. It was a simple and
> > > > > informative match.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > It really is humorous that someone could actually believe that.
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Yes, LNs have trouble with the truth. They're not used to it.
> >
> > LNs know where to go to learn the truth. If isn't from conspiracy
> > hobbyists.
> >
>
>
> ROFLMAO! The LNs get their information from the WCR!!! Talk about
> wildly funny!
>

It has stood the test of time. Conspiracy novels by comparison have very
short shelf lives. Few people know who Doug Horne is and they get fewer
ever year.

>
>
> > > > > > > It's not a major problem. And the wound in
> > > > > > > question fits his description of an entry bullet wound, that then caused
> > > > > > > the blowout at the BOH at the right rear. Small entry, large exit.
> > > > > > > Simple. No need for medical experts that don't have all the facts.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > So says the amateur medical examiner. I'll stick with what the pros tell
> > > > > > us.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Sadly, the pros didn't have all the facts. They were manipulated as
> > > > > were all the other fools that went with the phony theories in the AR and
> > > > > WCR.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > That's your silly explanation for why their conclusions are the opposite
> > > > of yours. I'll go with theirs. So will all intelligent people. They almost always get things wrong. I'm actually being generous by saying almost.
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > So knowing that they didn't see the wound that many saw and
> > > corroborated, and they didn't see the wound in the photo, and you're going
> > > to go with that. LOL!
> > >
> >
> > Why do you think they didn't see the wound in the photo?
> >
>
>
> Because if they saw what you just called a "wound in the photo", they
> would have had a radically different cause of death to post.
>

Exactly as I thought. Because they reached a different conclusion than you
they must not have seen what you did. It couldn't be that they are just so
much more knowledgeable than you are about forensic medicine. <chuckle>

>
>
> > > > > > > > > And to try to get
> > > > > > > > > away with saying it was a 'fragment' too! And since there were upwards of
> > > > > > > > > 8 or more bullet strikes around Dealey plaza, were they all from 8
> > > > > > > > > fragments from the skull of JFK?
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Since these shots exist in your mind, I can't answer that.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > LOL! You couldn't answer it in any case. You're not an 'expert'.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Nor are you. The difference is I know it.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > You're also lacking in any kind of objectivity or you've been taking
> > > > > lessons from Harris! However when facts are missing, no one could make a
> > > > > decent decision.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > I've never pretended to be objective. Then time for objectivity ended in
> > > > September of 1964. That's when the incontrovertible truth of the JFK
> > > > assassination was presented and it stated that Oswald was the assassin and
> > > > there was no credible evidence anyone else was involved. Still isn't.
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > In this case there's no such thing as "incontrovertible truth" as long
> > > as Oswald got the blame! And there was evidence that others were
> > > involved, you just don't want to face it.
> > >
> >
> > I can't face things that are non-existent.
> >
>
>
> So talk about being in denial! You can't even allow yourself to face
> things that you can't handle, you disallow them to exist! That is a
> terrible mental problem you should have looked at by a therapist.

You're really sounding desperate.

I've never had much interest in mythology. Not the Greeks. Not the Romans.
Certainly not the conspiracy hobbyists.

John King was kind enough to remind me about the witnesses to the right of
the limo who saw what we see in the Z-film including Zapruder himself who
would have seen in his viewfinder exactly what his camera recorded. He
described a massive wound along the right side of JFK's head, just as we
see in the film. So did Bill and Gale Newman. What excuse are you going to
invent to dismiss their description of the head wound which matches the
film and the autopsy pictures.

>
>
> > > You know, the 'flaps' that
> > > couldn't be seen by the nurses at Parkland that washed the head and body
> > > of JFK. :)
> > >
> >
> > Couldn't be seen because they had been closed. They would have been hard
> > to miss if they had been opened up as they are in this photo:
> >
> > https://www.bing.com/images/search?q=jfk+autopsy+photos&view=detailv2&&id=63AA0F2F1BC5979BE72CA8CE0B012F1FF3202F0E&selectedIndex=3&ccid=IwnDoc1q&simid=607986728181171691&thid=OIP.M2309c3a1cd6aa553cd7c3ccc0782a825H0&ajaxhist=0
> >
>
>
> Oh my! You actually believe that photo?

Yes I do and I'm not at all surprised that you don't because it is one
more piece of evidence that conflicts with your silly beliefs that you are
forced to claim is fraudulent.

> Talk about being a sucker!
> All the damage with brains coming out of the head is on TOP of the head!!
> Where's the extreme damage on the right side of the head that was
> described by the prosectors in their testimony? Didn't you notice that
> large hole was missing? It wasn't a dinky little thing, you know.
>

The defect was along the upper right side of the head. Just as we see in
the Z-film. Just as was described by Zapruder and the Newmans. Just as was
described in the AR. But you'll invent reasons not to believe any of
that.

> The only damage on the right side is a bone flap over the right ear.
> The complete top of the head is taken up with a large hole with brains
> oozing out! You've been had once again! Worse than the SBT fakery!
>

That is the most prominent flap in some of the photos. The photo I posted
shows all the flaps opened up revealing the full extent of the massive
defect in the skull. But of course this photo shoots down your argument of
the blowout being limited to the BOH so you have no choice but to claim it
is bogus.

There is no problem.

> You can't admit that a bullet
> came into the limo from the front, and you can't say that 6 witnesses
> didn't corroborate each other. You're stuck once again.
>

There are photos of the damaged windshield and it was examined by the SS
who saw no through and through hole in it. It had be hit from the inside.
nothing went through the windshield.